Datasets:

BAAI

/

IndustryCorpus_politics

like 2

Follow

Beijing Academy of Artificial Intelligence 717

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/11048

Russia Conducts Record Military Exercises By Corey Flintoff Originally published on July 20, 2013 3:48 pm Transcript LINDA WERTHEIMER, HOST: Today, Russia is wrapping up its biggest military maneuver since the Soviet era, an exercise that's designed to test its military readiness on land, sea and in the air. NPR's Corey Flintoff reports that it may also be an effort to show Russia's Far Eastern neighbors that it is still a force to be reckoned with. COREY FLINTOFF, BYLINE: Russian President Vladimir Putin watched part of the war games this week at a firing range in southern Siberia. PRESIDENT VLADIMIR PUTIN: (Foreign language spoken) FLINTOFF: He said Russia's forces were tested in unfamiliar territory and that they showed a high degree of combat readiness. The territory was Russia's Far East and some analysts say the maneuvers were a message to neighbors, such as China, Japan and the United States. Igor Korotchenko is the editor-in-chief of National Defense magazine, and he watched the exercise as a guest of Russia's defense minister. IGOR KOROTCHENKO: (Foreign language spoken) FLINTOFF: He says the maneuvers are not meant to threaten anyone but to show that Russia wouldn't be an easy prey. Korotchenko points out that the exercise included forces that have nuclear capability as a deterrent to countries that outweigh Russia in terms of conventional forces. He's not naming names, but that label only applies to the United States and China. Russian military expert Alexander Goltz points out that the war games included chemical and biological warfare defense brigades. He says Russian defense officials fear that some countries in the region might resort to such weapons. ALEXANDER GOLTZ: It shows that Russia is seriously thinking about possibility of huge conflict on Korean peninsula. FLINTOFF: Officially, the roster of Russian forces in this exercise is impressive - 160,000 troops and more than 5,000 tanks and armored vehicles, 70 ships from Russia's Pacific fleet and 130 war planes, including strategic bombers. But Goltz says those numbers don't add up. There are far too many troops and too few personnel carriers, for instance. On the first day, he says, the official number was 1,000 tanks and other vehicles. GOLTZ: Next day, they suddenly understood that it means that we have one vehicle for 160 guys. FLINTOFF: He says defense officials later altered the numbers to make them seem more plausible but that they still conflict with publicly available information. The result, he says, that it's difficult to assess whether the maneuvers were as successful as defense officials claim. Still, he says, the exercises do amount to a big achievement for Russia's military, which has been struggling to become a modern force. It's an effort that Putin has committed to, promising more than $615 billion in new defense spending through the year 2020. Corey Flintoff, NPR News, Moscow. (SOUNDBITE OF MUSIC) WERTHEIMER: This is NPR News. Transcript provided by NPR, Copyright NPR.View the discussion thread. © 2016 KGOU

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/11051

Obama Returns To The Post-Sandy Campaign Trail By Frank James Nov 1, 2012 ShareTwitter Facebook Google+ Email President Obama campaigns Thursday in Green Bay, Wis. Tom Lynn Originally published on November 1, 2012 1:49 pm Just five days before Election Day, President Obama returned to the campaign trail after spending several days preoccupied with overseeing the federal response to the devastation in the Northeast in the wake of Superstorm Sandy. Obama began his campaign re-emergence Thursday with a rally in Green Bay, Wis., a state where his once-substantial lead in polls over Republican Mitt Romney has narrowed to only a few points in a majority of the polls. In a spirited speech that seemed to match the energy level he showed upon exiting Air Force One then jogging across the airport tarmac to the stage, Obama cited the storm and used the response of government officials to it as a metaphor for bipartisanship. He never cited New Jersey's Republican Gov. Chris Christie by name, but it was clear to anyone who has paid attention in recent days who Obama might have had specifically in mind. OBAMA: "Now, for the past few days all of us have been focused on one of the worst storms in our lifetimes. And we're awed and we're humbled by nature's destructive power. We mourn the loss of so many people. Our hearts go out to those who've lost their loved ones. We pledge to help those whose lives have been turned upside down. And I was out in New Jersey yesterday and saw the devastation, and you — you really get a sense of, you know, how difficult this is going to be for a lot, a lot of people. "But, you know, we've also been inspired these past few days because when disaster strikes, we see America at its best. All the petty differences that consume us in normal times all seem to melt away. There are no Democrats or Republicans during a storm; there are just fellow Americans — leaders of different parties working to fix what's broken, neighbors helping neighbors cope with tragedy, communities rallying to rebuild, a spirit that says, in the end, we're all in this together, and we rise or fall as one nation, as one people." Obama and Christie have been the talk of the political world as the New Jersey governor, one of Romney's best-known allies and a fierce and constant critic of the president until the storm this week, has lavished praise on Obama's handling of the disaster. Obama has returned the favor, complimenting Christie at every turn for being devoted to his state's citizens. In his argument for why he should be elected, Obama cast Romney as a change for the worst. OBAMA: "Now, in the closing weeks of this campaign, Gov. Romney has been using all his talents as a salesman to dress up these very same policies that failed our country so badly, the very same policies we've been cleaning up after for the past four years. And he is offering them up as change. He's — he's saying he's the candidate of change. "Well, let me tell you, Wisconsin, we know what change looks like. And what the governor's offering sure ain't change. Giving more power back to the biggest banks isn't change. Leaving millions without health insurance isn't change. ..." Obama also picked up the theme that he is a known quantity to voters, one who has generally done what he said he would do. His implication was that the same couldn't be said for Romney. OBAMA: "Now, here's the thing, Wisconsin. After four years as president, you know me by now. You may not agree with every decision I've made. You may be frustrated at the pace of change. But you know what I believe. You know where I stand. You know I'm willing to make tough decisions even when they're not politically convenient. And you know I'll fight for you and your families every single day as hard as I know how. You know that." The Wisconsin trip was part of a several-battleground-state swing by Obama that would include Colorado, Nevada and Ohio, states where most polls give him a narrow lead heading into the final weekend before the election. Romney, for his part, campaigned in Virginia on Thursday, a state Obama won in 2008. At a rally at a window factory in Richmond, Romney returned to criticizing Obama. He had withheld attacks earlier in the week as the nation focused on Sandy's devastation. The Boston Globe reported that Romney derided an Obama idea for a new Cabinet-level official devoted to the business sector: "I don't think adding a new chair in his Cabinet will help add millions of jobs on Main Street," Romney said. "We don't need the secretary of business to understand business," he added. "We need a president who understands business, and I do. And that's why I'll help be able to get this economy going again." Copyright 2012 National Public Radio. To see more, visit http://www.npr.org/. © 2016 KMUW

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/11052

Old Triumph Over Young In Federal Spending, And Sequester Makes It Worse By editor Mar 5, 2013 ShareTwitter Facebook Google+ Email View Slideshow Federal spending on seniors already far outpaces that devoted to children. Last year, overall spending on children dropped for the first time in 30 years. The sequester, which expressly protects programs for the elderly, will exacerbate that difference. Anne de Haas The Urban Institute The nonprofit group Next Generation took out this full-page ad in The Washington Post on Sunday, arguing that "America made a choice to help lift seniors out of poverty. We need to do the same for our kids." Courtesy: Next Generation Originally published on March 5, 2013 4:23 pm For years, federal programs for seniors and those that help kids have been on a collision course. Now, given the automatic spending cuts taking place under sequestration, the moment for real competition may have arrived. While Medicare and Social Security will come through the sequester mostly unscathed, a broad swath of programs targeted toward children — Head Start, education, nutrition assistance, child welfare — stand to lose hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars. "There's a conflict between parts of the budget that go to younger people and that part that goes to older people," says Neil Howe, a demographer and consultant. "Up to this point, young people are on the losing side." Groups that advocate for seniors say that this sort of "generational equity" argument is a misleading attempt to divide and conquer. "It reinforces this notion that to take care of children, you have to undermine their grandparents in some way," says Eric Kingson, a social work professor at Syracuse University and founding co-chairman of Social Security Works. "It serves to drive wedges between groups that are very naturally joined at the hip." But while it's true that cutting a dollar in Social Security won't send that dollar straight to the Head Start account, such programs are inevitably competing at a time of limited federal resources. "The sequester again shows that as a country we're not willing to make an investment in our kids," says Mark Shriver, vice president of Save the Children. Federal spending on seniors already far outpaces that devoted to children. Last year, overall spending on children dropped for the first time in 30 years. Given automatic increases baked into the entitlement programs, as well as increasing demands from an aging population, simple math dictates that spending for the elderly will grow only more generous under current law — and that threatens to crowd out spending on children, among other priorities. "New revenue will be eaten up by entitlements," says Bruce Lesley, president of First Focus, a children's advocacy group. "In the long run, unless things change, kids will get almost nothing." Not All Bad For Kids It's a little misleading, though, to look only at federal dollars. Washington may spend more on seniors, but that's partly because many programs that aid the young are primarily funded at the state and local level. "The federal government is in charge of the old people," says Dowell Myers, a demographer at the University of Southern California. "States do 90 percent of school funding." Even at the federal level, while many programs that benefit children directly or indirectly are under the ax, others have been sheltered from the sequester — notably, food stamps, the earned-income tax credit and Medicaid. "It could be much worse," says Julia Isaacs, a senior fellow at the Urban Institute. "The people who wrote the law exempted so many low-income programs, and children are, unfortunately, disproportionately low-income." Speaking With Many Voices Looking beyond the sequester, though, funding for kids' programs appears much more vulnerable than Social Security and Medicare. Increased funding for entitlements is essentially on autopilot, while those that benefit children depend on members of Congress digging into the federal wallet on an annual basis. Often, the kids lose out. While the very nature of entitlements means that they are universally available for seniors, millions of eligible kids are not able to take advantage of programs such as Head Start. Other programs, such as special education, are chronically underfunded. Spending on children is also more diffuse. While seniors are highly vocal about Social Security and Medicare, advocates for children have to try to protect a long list of different spending categories — education, foster care, health and much more. "The kid community is very segmented," says Lesley, the First Focus president. "There's no AARP, which says it has 50 million members, for kids." Boomers And 'Parasites' The idea that disparate funding on old and young could trigger generational warfare has sometimes seeped into the popular culture. Christopher Buckley's 2007 satirical novel, Boomsday, opens with a mob of young people rioting outside a Florida gated community "known to harbor early retiring boomers" to protest a Social Security payroll tax hike. Economics reporter Jim Tankersley, now with The Washington Post, argued in an essay last fall at National Journal that the baby boomer generation has sucked a disproportionate share of resources out of the country, calling his own father "a parasite." Such open resentment is comparatively rare, however. "Most of us live in families and communities; we don't live in isolation," says Donna Butts, executive director of Generations United, which promotes intergenerational initiatives. "Young people don't want Social Security to be eliminated for the older people in their lives, and the old people don't want to see schools cut for the younger members of their family." Picking Between Priorities Kingson, the Social Security advocate, notes that even programs that appear designed strictly to help the elderly, such as Alzheimer's research, will end up paying greater dividends for those who are currently young. "Old people have a stake in children's policies," he says. "You don't have to rob Peter Sr. to pay Peter Jr." But while it's true that today's young people will eventually grow old themselves, government budgets are about the present. And those who are now old are better protected than children and youth. Shriver, the Save the Children executive, says it's "fantastic" that federal entitlements have helped bring poverty rates down among seniors in recent decades. But he wishes similar action were taken to help kids. "Kids don't have any political juice — they don't have PACs, they don't have AARP, and poor kids, in particular, their families don't make campaign contributions," Shriver says. "That's why we as a country have invested [more] in seniors."Copyright 2013 NPR. To see more, visit http://www.npr.org/. © 2016 KMUW

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/11078

Obama observes 50th anniversary of Equal Pay Act Published on Friday, 14 June 2013 01:26 Written by JIM KUHNHENN June 13, 2013 By JIM KUHNHENN WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama says that 50 years after enactment of the Equal Pay Act, the nation still faces gender wage disparities that must be fixed. “This is the 21st century,” he declared. “It’s time to close that gap.” Obama raised the issue while observing the anniversary of the law signed by President John F. Kennedy in 1963. To an audience almost entirely of women at the White House, Obama drew attention to a recent Pew Poll that found women are the primary source of income for nearly 40 percent of households in the United States. “When more women are bringing home the bacon, they shouldn’t just be getting a little bit of bacon,” he said. He cited an often-mentioned statistic that women on average earn about 77 cents for every dollar earned by men. Though some dispute the size of the gap, few argue that there is no gender discrepancy in pay. “If they’re bringing home more of the income and that income is less than a fair share, that means that families have less to get by on, for child care or health care or gas or groceries,” Obama said. “It makes it harder for middle-class families to save and retire. It leaves small businesses with customers who have less money in their pockets, which is not good for the economy.” The event’s focus on women’s pay comes during a week when Obama is paying special attention to Democratic constituent groups. On Tuesday he will speak at the White House in support of an overhaul of immigration laws. He will be fundraising for the Democrats on Wednesday. On Thursday he will observe LGBT Pride Month with remarks at the White House.

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/11093

Analysis Published on February 29th, 2016 | by Farideh Farhi The Profound Meaning of Iran’s Elections Share this:Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)Click to share on Google+ (Opens in new window)Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)Click to print (Opens in new window)MoreClick to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window) by Farideh Farhi The countrywide official results of the parliamentary and Assembly of Experts elections are not yet finalized, and in any case a detailed analysis of the numbers requires more time. The Guardian has a good round-up of approximate results that measures the extent of the blow received by hardliners, particularly in the city of Tehran. But the results released so far, as well as the way the election was conducted, is sufficient for me to call what happened one of the most significant (and interesting) elections in Iran’s post-revolution history. Here are my initial takeaways. Unlike what some headlines in the Western press have described, this election was not a “win” for the reformists since they did not contest the election as reformists per se. They entered the election in an alliance consisting of reformists, centrists (described as Rouhani government supporters), and even some conservatives. This alliance explicitly introduced itself to the Iranian public as “the second step,” following the “first step” taken toward “moderation” in the 2013 election of President Hassan Rouhani. It also explicitly asked the electorate to vote for the complete lists of “Reformist and Government Supporters” (RSG), alternatively called the Hope List, as a way to remove from elected offices those who had publicly opposed the direction Rouhani had taken the country since his election. The voters responded, particularly in the capital city of Tehran (more on this later), which has the largest number of parliamentary seats (30). They voted out some of the loudest opponents of the nuclear agreement. This was possible since most, not all, of the loudest MPs against the agreement were from the city of Tehran. It was also made possible because Tehranis seem to have voted in larger numbers than in the past couple of elections. As such the election could be better described as a referendum on the direction of the country under President Rouhani and whether the part of the population that supports the new direction could register its weight in a meaningful way despite a highly engineered electoral process. A Polarized Campaign The other side also managed to create a candidate list for the whole country based on alliance of several different factions that call themselves “principlist.” This alliance included members of the Islamic Coalition Party as well as an array of other conservative groupings that range from right of center to extreme right such as the Steadfast Front. The criticism the organizers of the list faced was that the extreme right dominated their Tehran list and excluded some well-known conservative MPs who ended up producing their own competing list (which did not do well unless the names of the conservatives mentioned in their list also appeared on the RSG list). It also endangered some middle-of-the-road conservatives because of their association with the hardliners. But the key point is that the principlists also worked predominantly through an alliance process. Their abysmal showing in Tehran should not deflect from the fact that their countrywide list has gained at least 25 percent of the seats in the parliament (even if within that list the extreme right did not do well). In fact, for those interested in Iranian politics, it is about time to talk less about Iranians moving in one direction or another sheep-like in droves and begin paying more attention to the political multiplicity embedded in the provincial politics of a socioeconomically and culturally diverse country. The RSG list did very well in Tehran and some provinces like Yazd and not well at all in some provinces such as South Khorasan. It has apparently done well in some big provincial cities such as Isfahan while not doing well in the rest of those provinces and vice versa. In Mashhad, the capital of Razavi Khorasan, members of the principlist list swept all five seats (with at least one hardline opponent of the nuclear deal returning). Heavy vetting of reformist candidates and the lack of alternatives for the voters cannot be constituted as the sole explanation for this variation in results. Better organization, provincial networks, different issues, and so on must also be taken into account. Despite these mixed results, the polarization of the elections between the two major alliances clarified the stakes in the election in terms of the policy direction of the country. At the same time, the mixed results better reflect the diverse sentiments in Iran. And this is what makes this election significant and interesting. Despite heated rhetoric, one side accusing the other of being the tool of outside forces and the other accusing the other of being extremist, the over-the-top language functioned as an instrument of persuasion in the competition for votes and not an instrument of elimination of the opponent from the competition. Even unelected authorities that have the power to eliminate only warned about foreign infiltration and called on voters to not vote for those whose ranks were infiltrated by the enemy or were following its dictates. Some voters were persuaded; others weren’t. All in all, this heated and polarized rhetoric occurred within a calm environment, in the process confirming the elections as an established means for coalitions and alliances to compete against each other. This is an important step particularly after the contested 2009 elections and the heavily stacked 2012 parliamentary elections had thrown into question the integrity of the electoral process in Iran. To be sure, the 2013 election was the first step in re-establishing the integrity of elections within the frame of the Islamic Republic. But it was important to establish a trend. Linking of the Lists More than anything else, the two recent elections suggested that the time is over when one side thought it could get rid of the other side for good or even temporarily through force or a highly manipulated electoral process. Not that some sort of force majeure was not tried. The Guardian Council, dominated by clerics who themselves were candidates, unabashedly disqualified most opponents who could have won through their name recognition. But their opponents, instead of withdrawing or sulking, made the strategic decision to participate in an alliance that had proven successful in receiving 51 percent of the vote in the 2013 presidential election. And then they made the tactical decision to connect together, particularly in the city of Tehran, by repeatedly asking voters to support everyone on the so-called 30+16 lists (the first for the parliament and the second for the Assembly of Experts). This was tactically necessary because, in the case of RSG’s Tehran parliament list, only a few top names were known. The rest were unknown in terms of their names or points of view and had to be voted in blind based on who was on top of the list or who supported the list. The Assembly’s list also had unknown names, but problematically a few names were connected with dark parts of the Islamic Republic’s history (i.e. early post-revolutionary executions and the murder of intellectuals and dissidents). So voters had to be convinced that voting for the whole list, while unsavory, was worth the elimination of others deemed even nastier. By linking the two lists, the issue became not only booting out hardliners who opposed Rouhani’s direction for the country but those who have relied on unfair instruments to eliminate electoral opponents. The use of this tactic almost cost the chief vetter, Guardian Council secretary Ahmad Jannati, his seat in the Assembly of Experts (he ended up last out of the 16 seats available), and eliminated both Mohammad Yazdi, the current chair of the Assembly, and Mohammad-taqi Mesbah Yazdi, the presumed spiritual leader of the hardline view that insists on the need for the Islamic part of the Islamic Republic to dominate over the republic part. The linking of the two lists and the call to vote for the whole 30+16 lists was astute. But in order for it to work individuals with social standing had to enter the fray and make the case for both blind and distasteful voting. And many did, from university professors to well-known actors to famous athletes. Even political prisoners, including former presidential candidate and Green Movement leader Mir Hossein Mousavi and his spouse Zahra Rahnavard, let it be known that they would vote (a mobile polling station were taken to the Mousavi’s home where he is under house arrest). Mehdi Karroubi, the other presidential candidate under house arrest, also let it be known that he would vote, but for reasons that are not clear the mobile polling station did not reach his home until midnight. According to his spouse who reported on the interaction, he refused to vote that late, pointing to the illegality of voting after the deadline for poll closures had passed. This was a powerful if only symbolic gesture made by a man who has paid so dearly for his belief that extensive fraud occurred on election day in 2009 and then exposed the extent of violence that was unleashed on people as they protested against the results. I would be remiss if I did not mention one key politician—former president Mohammad Khatami—who continues to play an outsized role for that part of the Iranian electorate that is undecided about whether to vote or not. It is truly strange to claim a significant role for a man whose name cannot be mentioned and whose photo can’t be shown in the media (he is referred to in the press as merely the “head of the reform government”!). But thanks to social networks, his widely seen and talked about video did what former president Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani—who headed a list of 16 for the Assembly excluding Jannati, Yazdi, and Mesbah Yazdi— could not do by explicitly stating the stakes and emphatically asking people to vote for everyone on the 30+16 lists. Tehran Turnout Voters in north and central Tehran seem to have voted in higher numbers than in past few parliamentary elections. Although I am not yet convinced that voter turnout was higher throughout the country—preliminary results in fact suggest that it may have even been lower or the same in some provinces—the higher turnout in the city (not province) of Tehran is suggested by the higher number of votes received by top candidates. In addition, the sequence of the votes read in various poll stations also suggests that some parts of Tehran voted more than others. In fact, in the first set of data released, Gholamali Haddad Adel, a former speaker of the parliament on the principlist list, showed up seventh. But by the time votes in central and north Tehran began to be read he dropped to number 31 and never recovered. A similar dynamic was at play because the above three clerics, two of whom were eventually eliminated, began higher in the top 16 for the Assembly when votes from the smaller cities in Tehran province were read and gradually moved lower as more ballot boxes were read from more affluent parts of the city of Tehran. This voting pattern is significant because the strength of the Green Movement—the protest movement that morphed out of the 2009 contested elected and that suffered a severe crackdown—lied in north and central Tehran. So the decision on the part of this segment of the electorate to vote in good numbers, in support of the country’s direction since Rouhani’s election, could be seen as a statement that “we exist and we intend to have our say in our country’s future.” Iran’s leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei famously addressed this part of the population twice (the first time in the 2013 presidential election) by imploring them to come and vote even if they do not believe in either the Islamic Republic or him. The legitimacy of the Islamic Republic in the eyes of the world was at stake, he stated prior to this election, and that legitimacy is important in order for Iran’s “enemies” to give up their project of destabilizing Iran. This did not mean that he would support an electoral process that would allow candidates who criticized the Islamic Republic or him to run easily. It also did not mean that he would stop warning voters against voting for candidates who were either fifth columns or were duped by the foreign enemy. But by linking the lack of legitimacy to the potential destabilization of Iran, he was making an obvious point that Tehran voters understood well given the horrendous instability and violence that has gripped countries in the region (especially Syria). But that understanding came with an expectation that, if they participated, their vote would be counted judiciously on Election Day. The enhanced legitimacy of the Islamic Republic in front of the world through the electoral process would necessarily have to involve domestic confidence in the integrity of the poll on Election Day and the institutional willingness to allow that poll to reflect adequately the varied political sentiments that reside in the Iranian society. This was a point well made in this election and apparently heard. Share this:Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)Click to share on Google+ (Opens in new window)Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)Click to print (Opens in new window)MoreClick to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window) Follow LobeLog on Twitter and like us on Facebook Farideh Farhi is an Independent Scholar and Affiliate Graduate Faculty at the University of Hawai'i at Manoa. She has taught comparative politics at the University of Colorado, Boulder, University of Hawai'i, University of Tehran, and Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran. Her publications include States and Urban-Based Revolutions in Iran and Nicaragua (University of Illinois Press) and numerous articles and book chapters on compartative analyses of revolutions and Iranian politics. She has been a recipient of grants from the United States Institute of Peace and the Rockefeller Foundation and was most recently a Public Policy Scholar at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. She has also worked as a consultant for the World Bank and the International Crisis Group. No End to Syria’s Agony in Sight? → Bahrain: Anchors Aweigh? → America’s Outdated Special Relationship with Saudi Arabia → Did AIPAC Pocket Its Iran Deal Fundraising Revenue? → 2 Responses to The Profound Meaning of Iran’s Elections Show Comments → Mike schoenberg says: February 29, 2016 at 4:19 pm We can only help that Israel would follow suit Monty Ahwazi says: February 29, 2016 at 10:28 pm The election results are indicative of what I was hearing from the average people in every city through which we traveled late last year! Most people were yearning for a slow change in their government hoping to lessen the chances for the Pasdarans (arm forces) taking over the country politically since they were already in control of the economy. Michael LaSusa US Domestic Policy Subscribe to LobeLog Enter your email address to subscribe to our site and receive notifications of new posts by email. Email Address Popular Posts Bahrain: Anchors Aweigh? Trump Courts Adelson, Flip-Flops on Israel-Palestine America’s Outdated Special Relationship with Saudi Arabia Islam's Lesser Muslims: When "Khuda" became "Allah" The 9/11 Lawsuit Argument: Echoes of the Past The contents and comments are the personal views of the authors and do not represent the views of IPS news agency. Email Address © 2008-2016 LobeLog.com ContactAboutArchivesAuthorsComments Policy

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/11156

America's Choice 2012 commentsObama focuses State of the Union on income inequalityBy Charles Riley @CNNMoney January 24, 2012: 10:37 PM ET President Obama delivered his third, and possibly final, State of the Union address on Tuesday.NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- President Obama delivered a State of the Union address Tuesday that was deeply saturated with the message of income inequality, a populist idea that the White House hopes will resonate on the campaign trail.Calling it the "defining issue of our time," Obama made the case that Americans now face a choice between a country where a "shrinking number of people do really well" and a society where every individual gets a fair shot. Obama battles job crisis The U.S. lost 4.3 million jobs in President Obama's first 13 months in office. Track his progress since then. The address, which is Obama's third and possibly final State of the Union, was billed by White House aides a speech rich in substance -- and one that was in no way a campaign event.But for the past six months, the White House has quietly laid the groundwork for a campaign based around the issue of fairness in the economy and workforce. Late last year, Obama made a trip to Kansas, and made his first foray into the rhetoric of income inequality.The much ballyhooed speech was delivered in Osawatomie, the same town where Teddy Roosevelt made his case for "New Nationalism" -- a plan for broad social and economic reform -- more than 100 years ago. The emphasis in Kansas was on fairness -- a theme Obama returned to on Tuesday."A return to the American values of fair play and shared responsibility will help us protect our people and our economy," he said.How can America be more equitable? Raise taxes on the rich, Obama said.With an assist from the billionaire chairman of Berkshire Hathaway (BRKA, Fortune 500), Obama has embraced the idea that wealthy Americans should not be paying a lower effective tax rate than those in the middle or lower classes. It's called the Buffett Rule, and Obama touted the principle on Tuesday, pointedly inviting Buffett's secretary -- who famously pays a higher tax rate than her billionaire boss -- to the address, and seating her in the first lady's box. For the first time, the White House released a specific proposal that would satisfy the conditions of the rule.Anyone making over $1 million will be required to pay an effective tax rate of at least 30%. At the same time, deductions would be eliminated on Americans earning more than $1 million. In tandem, the proposals would mean a substantial tax hike for the wealthiest Americans.Obama said the American people would support the plan."You can call this class warfare all you want," Obama said. "But asking a billionaire to pay at least as much as his secretary in taxes? Most Americans would call that common sense." While the White House may have settled on a rhetorical theme for the coming election, the State of the Union address laid bare the lack of truly major policy proposals the campaign has sitting in reserve. Furniture maker lands coveted spot at State of the UnionDuring the previous election cycle, Obama was able to pair the promise of a new day in Washington with a push to reform health care, Wall Street and immigration policy, along with a cap-and-trade plan. Some of those game-changing proposals have been enacted, while others have fallen to congressional resistance. On Tuesday, the president was confined to arguing for far less ambitious proposals, such as an extension of the payroll tax holiday, a continuation of a stop-gap policy designed to support the recovering economy."There are plenty of ways to get this done," Obama said. "So let's agree right here, right now: No side issues. No drama. Pass the payroll tax cut without delay."The president did propose a few new task forces and working groups.The president said he was asking Attorney General Eric Holder to create a special unit made up of prosecutors and state attorneys general to "expand our investigations into the abusive lending and packaging of risky mortgages."0:00 / 1:39 A look at Obama's jobs recordObama also said a "Financial Crimes Unit" was in the works. The group will be charged with cracking down on "large-scale fraud" in an effort to protect the public's investments. And he proposed a "Trade Enforcement Unit" that will investigate unfair trade practices -- specifically in countries like China.On housing, the president touted the need for Congress to allow Americans to refinance their mortgages, something paid for by imposing a "small fee" on the largest financial institutions. So far, Obama's efforts to revive the housing market have largely failed.Has Obama's housing policy failed?His signature HAMP program, which was designed to lower troubled borrowers' mortgage rates to no more than 31% of their monthly income, ran into problems almost immediately. Many lenders lost documents, and many borrowers didn't qualify. Three years later, it has helped a scant 910,000 homeowners -- a far cry from the promised 4 million.Obama also proposed a series of initiatives that would help the manufacturing industry, including a reward for companies that move jobs back to America.For their part, Republicans were clearly agitated by the president's speech.As early as Sunday, House Speaker John Boehner said he was expecting a speech that would propose "more spending, higher taxes, more regulations," something he called "pathetic."Boehner went further Tuesday morning, telling reporters that running a campaign based on "politics of division and envy" would be "almost un-American."Those comments, unusually strong for a member of the congressional leadership, made plain the difficulty that the White House will face enacting any legislation of note this year, especially as the president starts to campaign in earnest.Still, members of Congress maintained a thin veneer of bipartisanship Tuesday, going so far as to pick "dates" from the across the aisle to sit with for the speech, a symbolic gesture that runs contrary to the group's reputation as one of the most divisive and least effective legislative groups in history.Obama confronted the body, saying it was responsible for "the greatest blow to confidence in our economy last year." That loss of confidence "came from a debate in Washington over whether the United States would pay its bills or not," Obama said. "Who benefited from that fiasco?"The president then called for a new day, however unlikely that may be."We need to end the notion that the two parties must be locked in a perpetual campaign of mutual destruction," he said. First Published: January 24, 2012: 9:50 PM ET Related ArticlesGOP candidates on job creation - Video Rich, Gingrich and crazy rich Romney campaign dodges tax question Buffett's secretary to attend State of the Union

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/11202

More Immigration bill faces another major hurdle in Senate posted by Chris Moody, Yahoo! News | The Ticket A major addition to the immigration bill that beefs up border security and effectively serves in part as a “redo” of the legislation will face a crucial procedural vote in the Senate on Monday afternoon. Written after a series of negotiations between Republican Sen. Bob Corker of Tennessee and Democratic Sen. John Hoeven of North Dakota, the amendment is intended to ease concerns of skeptical lawmakers who are calling for tougher border enforcement as part of the bill. The bill retains the language of the original one proposed by a bipartisan group of eight senators earlier this year, but adds 119 new pages, Corker says. While most of the language would remain the same, the Corker-Hoeven version strengthens security measures by nearly doubling the amount of security agents along the nation's borders. The bill would also mandate the construction of a fence stretching "no less than" 700 miles along the U.S. border with Mexico and provide funding for aerial surveillance of the area. The federal government will be required to meet a series of security benchmarks before immigrants living in the country illegally would be allowed to obtain permanent legal status. “The American people want a strong, comprehensive immigration reform plan, but we need to get it right,” Hoeven said in a statement last week. “That means first and foremost securing the southern border before we address other meaningful reforms to our immigration policy. They want to know that ten years from now, we won’t find ourselves in this same position, having to address the same problem.” The Senate will vote on whether to end debate on the amendment, which will allow it to move on to final passage within the next few weeks. Lawmakers rejected a similar (and less costly) amendment to the bill proposed by Texas Republican Sen. John Cornyn last week by tabling the measure, so supporters of the new amendment hope it will serve as a new vessel to entice more Republicans to sign on to the bill. The co-authors of the original immigration bill, including Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York and Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, have spoken optimistically about securing as many as 70 votes for the final bill in the Senate, the number they think the bill needs to show the effort has wide bipartisan support. The bill is likely to get the support from 60 members needed to overcome a filibuster, but getting 70 would put pressure on the House—a chamber with a higher concentration of conservative lawmakers—to act. “We’re very, very close to getting 70 votes," Graham said during a weekend interview on “Fox News Sunday.” The Senate is expected to hold the procedural vote on the Corker-Hoeven amendment at about 5:30 p.m. Monday.

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/11262

HomeCollectionNews and InfoPACE CommunityOrganisation Home › Collection › Theme pages › New-Guinea during World War II Dutch New Guinea becomes involved in World War II in 1942. On 7 December 1941, Japan attacks several targets simultaneously. The best known is the attack on Pearl Harbour (Hawai), in which the American fleet was severely damaged. The Japanese invasion of Australian and Dutch New Guinea lasts from November 1941 until April 1942. The take-over happens in record time because there are very few battalions of the Royal Dutch Army in the East Indies (KNIL) in New Guinea at the time. The Japanese advance from the north in the direction of Australia. The FAk Fak is taken over by the Japanese on 1 April 1942, Manakwari on 12 April and Hollandia on 20 April. After the occupation of New Guinea, Japan plans to go across to Australia but they do not get any further than Frederik Hendrik Island. The Japanese do not attach any importance to Merauke on the south east coast. This settlement is the only unoccupied territory for the duration of the war, and the Dutch flag continues to fly here. 1. War breaks out in South East Asia 2. Liberating New Guinea 3. Manokwari Army sinks ship 4. Mollucan girl joins guerrilla army 5. Turning point of the war in Asia 6. Invasion of Hollandia 7. The battle of Biak 8. Squadron in Merauke gets bored 9. Japanese commander fights from jungle 10. Links 11. Sources 1.War breaks out in South East Asia In July 1941 the Japanese government decides that South East Asia should become a part of the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. The main aim really is to take control of all the resources and commodities (such as oil and rubber) within the English and Dutch colonies. Japan attacks the American Fleet in Pearl Harbour on 7 December 1941. The war has now spread to South East Asia. The Dutch government in London declares war on Japan. All men of the Dutch East Indies, who are between sixteen and sixty years of age, are called to take up arms. The Japanese advance swiftly, totally invading the Dutch colony. The Dutch military capitulate on 8 March 1942. Secret military operations are organised in the Dutch East Indies from Australia by the military who went there when they had to surrender. They form small groups (Party groups) who return to the Dutch East Indies and New Guinea in order to gather strategic information about the Japanese. A total of ten such groups were dropped into New Guinea behind the Japanese lines in order to conduct espionage operations. 2.Liberating New Guinea After bombing the Australian harbour of Darwin in 1942, the Japanese move their headquarters to Buna on the north coast of what is now Papua New Guinea and the headquarters of the Allies is set up in Port Moresby on the other side. These towns are divided by the steep Owen Stanley mountain range. The two towns are connected by the Kokoda track across the mountains. Australian troops successfully defend Port Moresby along this trail, when the Japanese try to invade from the north coast. To get the advantage, the Australian carved out 4000 steps into the mountain side. The American army lands on New Guinea in January 1943 and starts a major attack. However, it takes up until 1944 before the Americans can advance along the northern coast of New Guinea from Hollandia to Biak and Manokwari and on to the North Moluccas (Morotai) from where they attack the Philippines in October 1944. In order to recapture New Guinea, the Allied Forces need to drive the Japanese off along 2000 km of fortified coast line. During this battle 13000 Japanese soldiers die and on the Australian and American side there are respectively 2100 and 2000 casualties. 3. Manokwair Army sinks ship On 12 April 1942, the japans arrive at Doré Baai in Manokwari, situated to the north of the Vogelkop area. There are only aboy 150 Dutch military stationed here with their leader Captain J.B.H Wileemsz Geeroms. The commanders realises that they are outnumbered and they decide to sink their only ship by putting it on fire, keeping it out of the hands of the enemy. After several bombing raids on Manakwari, it is captured and the Japanese set up a considerable army at this location. All the Europeans are taken off and interned on Ambon. However, some of the Dutch infantry(KNIL), 62 Dutch soldiers and 17 indigenous Papuans (Meja-Arfakkers), disappear into the jungle and for the remainder of the war they organise guerrilla warfare against the Japanese. On 1 April 1943 the Japanese invade the headquarters of the guerrilla fighters and their commander Willemsz Geerom is captured and executed in Manokwari at a later date. Sergeant Mauritz Christiaan Kokkelink takes over the leadership. On 18 April 1944 the guerrilla group, by then consisting of only 35 men, attacks the Japanese base in Manokwari. Just about every one present is killed. The American counter attack starts on 9 May 1944 and Manokwari is turned to rubble because of intensive bombardments. Only three houses actually remain standing. The Japanese are chased out and many escape into the jungle, where most of them are killed off by the Papuans. 4. Moluccan girl joins guerrilla group The Moluccan group in the jungle of the Vogelkop consists of four fighting units and is the only one that manages to keep going right up until liberation. They score a number of successes but also suffer defeat. Together with the help of local Papuans, the guerrilla fighters collect information about the enemy and they attack Japanese patrols. A fifteen year-old girl, Coosje Ayal joins the group together with her aunt and uncle. The men tell her : We’ll not treat you like a girl, but like a soldier. If you accept that, you can stay”. “ We kept tracking through the jungle with our gun and heavy packs. The last months were the worst; we ate snakes, crocodiles and turtles.” The guerrilla group keeps up the fight , they kill 30 or more Japanese and make contact with the Allied Forces in October 1944, when they are liberated. Of the original 62 men, only 14 survive. After being liberated, they embroider their names on the Dutch flag which Koosje carried with her and sent this to Queen Wilhelmina. It also has the following text on it: As you will know, the unit at Manokwari never surrendered! Apart from Willemsz Geerom’s Group, the other groups involved in action are: the resistance group by J.V.de Bruyn, the Austalian Crayfish party and Oaktree party and a group led by Jan van Echoud, who got information for the Americans and whose work was known as ‘Operation Bulldozer’. Not much is known about the history of these groups. 5. The turning point of the war The battle at Midway is the turning point of the war. Near this atoll in the Pacific , the Americans achieve a convincing victory from which the Japanese Marine will not recover. The secret weapon of the Americans come in the form of the Americans of Japanese origin : The Isei ( Americans born in Japan). The Nisei( Americans with Japanese parents) and the Kisei (born in the US but grown up in Japan). The Americans manage to crack the communication code of the Japanese Marine Force so that they have the advantage. The Japanese loose four aircraft carriers and many of their aircraft. The amphibian assault on Port Moresby is prevented because of the Battle of the Coral Sea in May 1942, even though it is tactically a defeat for the Americans. For the very first time a Japanese landing fails. This occurs at the mini battle at Milne Bay in August of 1942. At this same point in time, American as well as Japanese soldiers try to occupy Guandalcanal Island, which is one of the Solomon Islands. The horrific battle which lasts for the next six months, and which takes 40.000 lives, eventually leads to an American victory. After this, Japan is definitely on the defensive. The ongoing necessity to send reinforcements to Guadalcanal, weakens the Japanese effort elsewhere. In 1943, this leads to the recapture of strategic positions in Buna and Gona on New Guinea by Australian and American troops. 6. The invasion of Hollandia The Americans make their first landing within Dutch occupied territory, near Hollandia and at Tanamerah Bay to the west, in April 1944 (Operations Reckless and Persecution). Prior to this an American submarine destroyed Japanese ships, which were on their way from the Pullau island to Hollandia with the latest military arsenal on board. With this attack a whole Japanese regiment went down, along with numerous tanks, armoured vehicles and other equipment. From 21 to 27 April, the Americans carry out amphibious landings in order to take over Hollandia and landing strips at Sentani. These attacks went under the name of "Operation Reckless 'and 'Operation Persecution’ and were part of the ‘New Guinea Campaign’ Near Hollandia, where there is a big Japanese supply base, the Americans set up the Head Quarters of the Pacific region in record time. This is constructed on Mount Ifar, at the foot of the Cycloop Mountains. At this spot the five star general Douglas MacArthur comes up with his strategy for the land route across New Guinea as well as the island-hopping campaign for Admiral Chester Nimitz across the Pacific Ocean. During a big army round-up at Sentani, some 800 Japanese are killed. For many Papuans this period of time is their first encounter with military violence of the 20th century. The Japanese take over the northern entry to the Geelvink Bay in the island of Biak on 25 December 1943. The 222nd infantry detachment of the Japanese build three landing strips at Sorido, along the south coast of Biak in order to defend the island. From 27 May to 20 June 1944 the Americans fight against the Japanese who have entrenched themselves and are using delay tactics for the first time. The island is being occupied by 11.000 Japanese soldiers under the command of colonel Kuzume Naoyuki. He decided to let the Americans come ashore without resistance, after which he lures them into an ambush near the airport of Mokmer. This area is full of caves and bunkers, an ideal place to hide snipers with automatic rifles, artillery guns, batteries of mortars and light tanks. When the Americans land at Bosnek on East Biak and then move into the interior, they do not expect much resistance. But at Mokmer many lives and vital equipment are lost. The American Air Force needs to provide extra assistance with bombardments for weeks on end. In July the eventual balance is as follows: 6100 Japanese are dead and 459 of them have been captured against 474 deaths and 2400 wounded on the American side. 8. Squadron 120 in Merauke gets bored Even though Merauke is never occupied by the Japanese, it does also suffer from the war. in 1941 and 1943 the settlement on the south near the border with PNG is frequently bombarded by Japanese planes. Squadron 120 of the Dutch East Indies’ Air Force (a section of ML-KNIL) arrive in the Spring of 1944, replacing and Australian squadron. The fifty pilots of Squadron 120 are all Indo-Europeans who defected to Australia when the war started. They are used for reconnaissance and are supposed to bombard Japanese positions along the coast. Because the war is drawing to an end, there is not that much action anymore and boredom takes over. Whenever they shoot a pig, there is a big party. The pilots hardly have any contact with the local population because not many Papuans in this region speak Malay. In June 1945 the squadron leaves for Biak where it is deployed in ‘Mopping-up’ operations, making an end to the last of any Japanese resistance. The hope arises among the pilots that they will be able to liberate the Dutch East Indies, but at the Head Quarters of the Allied Forces this is not a consideration. During the deployment at Merauke and later on Biak, the squadron looses a total of 12 pilots. In August 1944 the commander Hatazo Adachi of the 18th Army division withdraws together with his battalion into the jungle after the landing of the American troops in Aitape and Hollandia between 22 and 27 April of that same year. Near Wewak on the north coast they become trapped and Adachi surrenders on 13 September 1945 to the Australian 6th Division. After a Court Martial has given him a life sentence, he commits suicide in Rabaul on 10 September 1947. The battle in the Gulf of Leyte in the Philippines is from 23 to 26 October 1944. The Japanese try to stop the Allied Invasion and destroy them but instead the Allied Marines totally defeat the numerically weaker Japanese Naval Army. This battle is often regarded as one of the biggest naval battles in history. Thus this was an important victory and along with the battle at Midway, it spelled the beginning of the end for the Japanese invasion. After the Japanese surrender, the eastern part of New Guinea is once again placed under Australian administration of which the northern part is under a VN Trust Agreement. In 1973 the whole of the eastern region, under the name Papua New Guinea, is given national autonomy, and subsequently on 16 September 1975, it becomes a completely independent nation. The western part of New Guinea remains under Dutch administration after Indonesia becomes an independent state in 1948. However, under pressure from the United States during the Cold War, it is handed over to Indonesia in 1962. Likewise a provision is made under the UN in the form of the Act of Free Choice which was to take place seven years later. This agreement should have led to independence as was the intention under the Dutch administration. However the Indonesians do not keep their side of the bargain and the western side of New Guinea is now divided into three provinces and is still under Indonesian rule. 10. Links: 11. Sources - Dirk Vlasblom, Papoea, een geschiedenis. 2004, Mets & Schilt – Amsterdam, ISBN 9053303995 - Robert Ross Smith, United States Army in World War II, The War in the Pacific. 1996, Center of Military History United States Army – Washington DC, ISBN 9997392965 - Gordon L. Rottman, World War II Pacific Island Guide. A Geo Militairy Study. 2002, Greenwood Publishing Group, ISBN 0313313954, 9780313313950 - John Keegan, Collins Atlas of the World War II (an update of the 1989 Times Atlas). 2006, HarperCollins Publishers - New York ISBN 0-00-721465-0 - Saburo Hayashi, Kogun: The Japanese Army in the Pacific War. 1959, Marine Corps. Association. ASIN B000ID3YRK - Steven Bullard, Japanese Army Operations in the South Pacific Area. New Britain and Papua Campaigns, 1942-1943, 2006, Australian War Memorial, ISBN 9780975190487 - Edward J. Drea, Adachi Hatazo: A Soldier of His Emperor. In the Service of the Emperor: Essays on the Imperial Japanese Army. 2003, Bison Books. ISBN-13: 978-0803266384. - Richard Fuller, Adachi Hatazo. Shōkan: Hirohito's Samurai. 1992, London: Arms and Armour Press. I-151-4 - Comment and advice: Hans van den Akker, conservator Museum Bronbeek © Papua Heritage Foundation info@papuaheritage.org

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/11296

Tag Archive: 2016 election Mass Incarceration and Bipartisan Unity: An Anarchist Perspective From The Agency/ By Kristina Khan As momentum builds behind the 2016 U.S. Presidential election, I begin to wonder how much time and energy will be pulled away from the revolutionary anti-racist work of the #BlackLivesMatter movement and funnel instead into the fervent campaigning of Democratic candidates. Within the horrific, seemingly endless loss of Black lives, there has erupted a new era of racial justice work, much of it surprisingly and wonderfully radical in nature. Entire communities are calling for localized conflict resolution, the dismantling of institutional white supremacy, and even the abolition of police and prisons. Democratic presidential nominees are very clearly aware of the power of the #BlackLivesMatter movement and are taking advantage of this momentum to build their platforms and gain votes. And as I correctly predict every election season, I dread that many people around me will fall for the illusion of a better future through the election of so-and-so only to be disappointed just months after inauguration day. In my current work as an anarchist in the small town of Champaign, Illinois, I organize with several other committed people against jail expansion – a local manifestation of institutional racism. As election season nears I am beginning to grow anxious about what direction our group will take. Just two days after Freddie Gray’s funeral, Hilary Clinton gave a speech in New York where she called for an end to mass incarceration. Clinton, a Democrat who once called for more prisons in the 1990s now joins the growing list of politicians and corporate thugs who are suddenly concerned with the U.S. prison population. Newt Gingrich, Rand Paul, Mark Holden (senior vice president and general counsel for Koch Industries), the American Civil Liberties Union, the Center for American Progress, President Obama and many others are all apparently very concerned with the prison industrial complex or at least that’s what they have been saying; and they’re all willing to come together in unity to fix the problem. If you look more closely, however, you will find that many of these “advocates” have supported, both politically and financially, policies and people who are directly responsible for the United States achieving the highest incarceration rate in the world. (more…) 2016 election, Bipartisan Unity, Build programs not jails, Champaign, Hillary Clinton, Illinois, Kristina Khan, mass incarceration, Obama, prison industrial complex

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/11309

FORA DILMA Dilma Rousseff’s demise in five charts Troubling times for Dilma. (Reuters/Ueslei Marcelino) Dilma Rousseff is officially out. Brazil’s troubled president had been fending off attacks for months, and since the middle of May, she has been suspended from her post. Today (Aug. 31), the Brazilian senate voted to impeach her by a vote of 61 to 20. After a heated trial that started last week, the senators found her guilty of violating budget rules to hide the size of the national deficit. Acting president Michel Temer, from a center-right opposing party, will finish the rest of her term, which will last until the end of 2018. Rousseff’s impeachment is the final stroke in the disastrous fall from grace of the Worker’s Party of Brazil, whose time in power started out with an era by unprecedented prosperity for many Brazilians and the country’s growing swagger in global politics. Dilma, as she is known to Brazilians, isn’t fully to blame for the various factors that led to her impeachment, which was more of a political affair than a judicial process. But she has been seen as an inept leader, and she held high-ranking posts at times when government was mired in corruption. Here’s a chronicle of Dilma’s demise, in five charts. 1. Commodity boom busted Rousseff didn’t cause the collapse in the prices of commodities, including oil, that had powered the Brazilian economy in previous years. But when Brazil’s economic outlook was still sunny, she and her predecessor (and mentor), Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, did little to prepare for a rainy day. 2. Economic nosedive During their tenure, the Brazilian economy had grown dependent on the commodity boom windfall, so it was hit hard (pdf, pg. 3) when that expansion ceased. 3. Fiscal troubles It didn’t help that the Brazilian government—particularly during Rousseff’s administration—developed a bad spending habit. That left Rousseff with the difficult task of taming a huge budget deficit while Brazil underwent its worst economic crisis in decades. She wasn’t very effective, struggling at every turn to get a divided congress to back her austerity measures. 4. Lost swagger The bad economy plus the political infighting put a dent in business confidence in Brazil. Foreign investment shrank, and Brazil’s credit ratings began their steady decline to junk status. One hopeful sign is the country’s rising industrial output and a recent rebound in business confidence, which could signal the beginning of a recovery. 5. Flagging support Brazilians are feeling less and less optimistic about their president. Her approval ratings have gone from stellar to dismal. Massive protests against her government filled the main avenues of Brazil’s largest cities. 6. Political decay A mammoth investigation led by federal prosecutors (Portuguese) into Brazil’s semi-public oil giant Petrobras revealed widespread corruption among Brazil’s political elites, further eroding confidence in government. Dozens of high-ranking politicians have been implicated during the Petrobras anti-corruption operation. To Rousseff’s credit, the probe unfolded largely unimpeded under her watch. But the alleged improprieties also happened under her watch, when she was the company’s chairwoman. More than the fallout from any alleged personal wrongdoing, which she denies, Rousseff was hurt by the free-for-all attitude in Brazilian politics that seemed to breed both corruption and fierce power struggles that undermined government effectiveness. Her impeachment proceedings, which were carried out by congress, reflect both. Many of the politicians who make up Brazil’s congress have been embroiled with the law themselves. In the senate, 60.5% of members face or have faced judicial proceedings for criminal offenses or administrative irregularities, such as faulty accounting, according to Brazilian non-profit Transparência. In the chamber of deputies, the percentage is 59.3%. Rousseff’s peers in Brazilian politics do not make up the kind of upstanding, impartial jury she might have hoped for.

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/11322

3 Extradition Cases That Help Explain U.S.-Russia Relations By editor Aug 7, 2013 ShareTwitter Facebook Google+ Email A Russian police officer watches a protester during a rally in front of the U.S. Embassy in Moscow in September 2004. Some 500 protesters demanded the extradition of Ilyas Akhmadov from the United States. Alexander Nemenov Originally published on August 7, 2013 4:30 pm Earlier today, diplomatic relations between the United States and Russia suffered a substantial blow, when President Obama pulled out a of planned bilateral meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin in September. As Mark reported, it is "the most dramatic effect so far on U.S.-Russian relations in the wake of Russia's decision to grant 'NSA leaker' Edward Snowden temporary asylum." But, if you look at history, the U.S. and Russia have been here before. It goes back to 1893, when the U.S. Senate approved a controversial treaty in which both countries promised to turn over "persons guilty of attempts on the life of a ruler." That extradition treaty is now long forgotten and the U.S. and Russia have no formal agreement. When the U.S. issued an extradition request for Snowden, Russia made that clear and also complained that the U.S. hasn't been friendly when Moscow has made requests. It's complicated, and the U.S. processes hundreds — and in the early 2000s, thousands — of refugee applications from Russians a year. It grants some, rejects others. We found three different high-profile cases in which Russia demanded an extradition that we think help explain the complexity of U.S.-Russia relations: Ilyas Akhmadov, Chechen Rebel Leader: In 2002, Akhmadov applied for asylum in the United States. As a 2005 Washington Post Magazine profile of him notes, the Chechen rebel leader had run out of places to hide, so he sought refuge in the U.S., where he had cultivated a network of allies, including high-ranking American officials. The Russians deemed him a terrorist "charged with organizing terrorist training camps and leading 2,000 armed insurgents ... in the 1999 Dagestani incursion." The Post continues: "In response to Akhmadov's asylum application, Russia demanded his immediate extradition in 2003. Suddenly an immigration case that likely would have been resolved with one or two hearings in Boston was being kicked up to Washington, where it would languish for two years. Fortunately for Akhmadov, another benefactor, Max Kampelman, a former chief arms negotiator for Ronald Reagan and a counselor to the State Department, arranged for the white-shoe legal firm of Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver and Jacobson to represent him free of charge. Douglas Baruch, a partner, landed the case. 'The evidence against [Akhmadov] was obviously fabricated, in a very slipshod and amateurish manner,' says Baruch. Leonard Shapiro, the immigration judge handling Akhmadov's hearing, apparently felt the same way, dismissing the charges for lack of evidence. (In an almost identical case in Britain, where Chechen envoy Akhmed Zakayev was accused by Russian authorities of 13 counts of murder and hostage-taking, a judge also dismissed the allegations. 'I am satisfied,' ruled British Judge Timothy Workman, 'that it is more likely than not that the motivation of the government of the Russian Federation was and is to exclude Mr. Zakayev from continuing to take part in the peace process and to discredit him as a moderate.') 'My concern,' Baruch recalls, 'was that the delay in the final decision was for political reasons, for the Bush administration not to offend the Russians.' " The Russians brought up Akhmadov's case in July. Karl Linnas, Alleged Nazi War Criminal: According to the book Russia and America: From Rivalry to Reconciliation, the Soviet Union asked the United States three times to extradite Karl Linnas. Linnas had been convicted in absentia of running a Nazi death camp. In 1982, the United States revoked his citizenship, claiming he had lied to enter the country. The issue with deporting him to Russia, however, was that some argued it would deny him of due process and open him up to "cruel and unusual" punishment. The case went all the way to the Supreme Court, which rejected an appeal, siding with a lower court that found the evidence against him was "overwhelming and largely uncontroverted." Russia and America explains Linnas was at the time only the second war criminal to be returned to Russia and the first to be sent back against his will. The extradition buoyed relations between the countries. The book quotes an account of the case by the official Russian news agency: "The decision of the U.S. authorities on the deportation of Karl Linnas demonstrates that they can be united in the just cause of bringing the war criminals to justice." Kirill Alekseev, Russian Defector: Back in 1947, Kirill Alekseev (as the media spelled Alexeyev's name back then) left his post as the Soviet trade representative in Mexico and fled to the United States. According to an AP report from Jan. 5, 1974, Alekseev blasted Russia, saying it was a "hell of dictatorship." Russia issued an extradition request for Alekseev saying he was wanted for "embezzlement, treachery, treason, provocation, slander and failing to go home when he was supposed to." In a New York Times report from Jan. 5, Alexeiev's (as the Times spells his name) lawyer denied the charges, saying they were "fantastic concoctions of the Soviet officials." By Jan. 22, 1947, the United States came to a decision. According to a New York Times article from the time, the U.S. State Department rejected Russia's request. "It is a well-established principle of international law that no right to extradition exists apart from treaty. No extradition treaty exists between the United States and the Soviet Union," the State Department said in a statement.Copyright 2013 NPR. To see more, visit http://www.npr.org/. View the discussion thread. © 2016 Rhode Island Public Radio

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/11397

GOPers Remove 'Labor' From House Committee Name Newscom / m42 ByRyan J. ReillyPublishedDecember 24, 2010, 7:05 PM EST Republicans have decided to excise the word "labor" from the name of the House committee handling education and, yes, labor issues.It's time to say so long to the Education and Labor Committee and hello to the Education and the Workforce Committee, the Wall Street Journal's Washington Wire reports. This isn't the first time the name has changed, but the Labor Committee has been named that since Democrats took over the House in 2006. Reports the WSJ: Republicans are planning the name change, and it isn't the first. For years, the committee was called Education and Labor. But when Newt Gingrich and the Republicans took over the House in 1994, they wanted to show that there was a new sheriff in town--and he was not a pro-labor sheriff. So they changed the name to the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities. Unfortunately, no one knew what that meant, nor could anyone remember the name. So it was soon changed to Education and the Workforce. "Education and the Workforce was the name selected by Republicans more than a decade ago to reflect the committee's broad jurisdiction over polices that affect American students, workers, and retirees," Alexa Marrero, a spokeswoman for committee Republicans, told the paper. Rep. John Kline (R-MN) is the incoming chair of the newly-renamed committee. Two other committees will see their names change as well: The Committee on Science and Technology will become the Committee on Science, Space and Technology; and the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct will become the Ethics Committee.

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/11450

Israel warns it cannot "stand idle" as Syria war spills over border Mon Mar 4, 2013 | 9:23pm GMT Israeli Ambassador to the United Nations Ron Prosor addresses the United Nations General Assembly during a meeting at U.N. Headquarters, in New York, November 29, 2012. REUTERS/Chip East By Michelle Nichols | UNITED NATIONS UNITED NATIONS Israel warned the U.N. Security Council on Monday that it could not be expected to "stand idle" as Syria's civil war spills over its border, while Russia accused armed groups of undermining security between the states by fighting in a demilitarized zone.Israeli U.N. Ambassador Ron Prosor wrote to the 15-member council to complain about shells from Syria landing in Israel."Israel cannot be expected to stand idle as the lives of its citizens are being put at risk by the Syrian government's reckless actions," Proser wrote. "Israel has shown maximum restraint thus far."Israel does not have a reputation for being idle. Israeli Defence Minister Ehud Barak said that an attack on a Syrian arms complex on January 30 showed Israel was serious about preventing the flow of heavy arms into Lebanon, appearing to acknowledge that the Jewish state carried out the strike.The United Nations says more than 70,000 people have been killed during a two-year revolt against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, which began as peaceful protests but turned violent when Assad's forces cracked down on the demonstrations. With nearly 1 million Syrian refugees flooding neighbouring Turkey, Jordan, Iraq and Lebanon as the conflict worsens, the United Nations has warned that the fighting has developed sectarian overtones and could engulf the region.Russia's U.N. Ambassador Vitaly Churkin, president of the Security Council for March, said the security situation between Syria and Israel was also being threatened by "a very new and dangerous phenomenon" of armed groups operating in a so-called area of separation in the Golan Heights between the countries. Israel captured the Golan Heights from Syria in a 1967 war. Syrian troops are not allowed in the area of separation under a 1973 ceasefire formalized in 1974. Israel and Syria are still technically at war. The area is patrolled by U.N. peacekeepers."It's something which potentially can undermine security between Syria and Israel," Churkin told reporters, adding that the U.N. peacekeeping force, known as UNDOF, was unable to cope with the situation."Unfortunately there is nothing in the UNDOF mandate that allows them or equips them to deal with that situation because they are unarmed observers," Churkin said. Croatia's government said on Thursday that it planned to pull out of UNDOF as a precautionary step following media reports that Croatian arms were being sent to Syrian rebels fighting Assad. Croatia has 98 troops in the 1,000-strong force.The U.N. peacekeeping department is attempting to find replacements for the Croatians but it will not be easy given the tension in the region, U.N. officials told Reuters on condition of anonymity.The U.N. Security Council has been deadlocked on Syria since 2011 over Russian and Chinese refusal to consider sanctions against Assad's government. They have vetoed three resolutions condemning Assad's crackdown on the opposition groups.(Reporting by Michelle Nichols; Editing by Xavier Briand)

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/11478

Issue Position: Economy By: Chris Dodd Location: Unknown Issue Position: Economy Senator Dodd believes that knowledge and innovation are the engines that drive America's economy. As a United States Senator for Connecticut, he has seen how a well-educated and well-trained workforce can foster economic growth and prosperity. In Washington, he has also advocated for fiscal discipline as a precondition for jobs and progress. He introduced one of the first "pay as you go" budget plans to restrain federal spending and tax plans that were not paid for up front. He was a supporter of President Clinton's historic 1993 and 1997 deficit reduction packages, which contributed to the creation of 22 million new jobs -- an unprecedented period of sustained economic growth. Senator Dodd supports investment in America's technology and aerospace industrial base. In 2003, he introduced the Aeronautics Research and Development Revitalization Act, authorizing the government to double the funding in aviation research and development over five years and to dramatically increase resources for the study of aeronautical science in our nation's schools. Together with Senator George Allen (R-VA) and Representative John Larson (D-CT), he has fought to enact important provisions of this act to coordinate new technological development and increase investment in aviation research. He is also a cosponsor of legislation to make permanent the tax credit for research and development expenditures. Senator Dodd has supported investments and targeted tax breaks to working families and to small businesses. He has introduced legislation to strengthen the Earned Income Tax Credit and Child Tax Credit and legislation to put the brakes on contract bundling to ensure that small businesses can compete for a fair share of government contracts. Senator Dodd has also been a strong supporter of full funding for the Small Business Administration's loan programs for small businesses. Source: http://dodd.senate.gov/index.php?q=node/2979

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/11520

Eyes On 2016, GOP Revisits The Rebranding By Don Gonyea Jan 25, 2014 ShareTwitter Facebook Google+ Email Mike Huckabee, left, sits with RNC Chairman Reince Priebus before Huckabee spoke at the Republican National Committee winter meeting in Washington on Thursday, Susan Walsh Originally published on January 25, 2014 11:14 am Republican Party leaders gathered in Washington this week for their annual winter meetings. They approved new rules for the 2016 presidential primaries designed to create a more orderly path to the GOP nomination — and, the party hopes, to the White House. But this week's meeting also provided an opportunity to see how far Republicans have come in an effort begun a year ago to reach out to new voters — especially young people, minorities and women. For Friday's luncheon speech, the party turned to one of its newest, high-profile stars: first-term Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina, a conservative African-American businessman who embodies what officials say is a party that can expand its base. Scott was very much on-message. "We are going to have to embrace people in a way that they deserve to be embraced," he said. "I will tell you, as we embrace people in a new and fantastic way, we will encourage them to find the potential within themselves to maximize their potential. And when we win people, elections will take care of themselves." Mixed Messages But over the course of the three-day RNC meetings, there were some mixed messages on reaching out to new voters. Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee spoke about ending divisiveness in the party, which some call a civil war between the Tea Party and establishment Republicans. But Huckabee also stirred controversy when he spoke about winning the votes of women. "If the Democrats want to insult the women of America by making them believe that they are helpless without Uncle Sugar coming in and providing for them a prescription each month for birth control, because they cannot control their libido or their reproductive system without the help of the government, then so be it, let us take that discussion all across America," Huckabee said. It didn't exactly fit with the Republican Party's rebranding effort, which began a year ago following the party's poor showing in the 2012 elections. RNC Chairman Reince Priebus reacted cautiously to Huckabee. "I don't know what he was talking about," Priebus said. "What I can tell you is that I think he was trying to make the comment that government can't be involved in every part of everyone's life." Leaving 2012 Behind Mostly, however, the GOP re-branding that was the talk of RNC meetings last year was in the background this year. Louisiana's Republican Party Chairman Roger Villere said progress is being made, though he denied that Republicans have a problem with women or minorities. "I think the perception and what some of the Democrats want us to look like is, we have a problem," Villere said. "We don't have a problem with minorities. Maybe we have a problem articulating our positions. I think we have to show minorities that we feel like they can do better being part of the Republican Party." Looking ahead to 2016, the party moved to ensure that the presidential primary season will be shorter, likely beginning that February and wrapping up as early as May. Priebus said the last primary cycle — which included a long season of many, many GOP debates — was damaging to the nominee and the party. "We don't want a six-month slice-and-dice festival in our party," he said. "It's not good for picking a president. It's not good for our party." There was also lots of chatter at this Republican gathering about one person they see as the likely Democratic nominee — Hillary Clinton, though she was sometimes referred to as "she who must not be named." The line got laughs.Copyright 2014 NPR. To see more, visit http://www.npr.org/. View the discussion thread. © 2016 WKU Public Radio

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/11543

While much of America is pretending to remember the "fallen heroes" of our various and nefarious imperial wars by burning hot dogs and fossil fuels, I suggest we remember why there are SO MANY "fallen heroes" to remember--mainly that our "democracy" has repeatedly produced "leaders" who start criminal wars for political and financial gain. Strangely, it has often been high-ranking officers involved in those wars who have been the ones to blow the whistle, albeit usually decades too late, on the criminal motives of the politicians. Like me, you're probably aware of the quotes from Generals Smedley Butler and Dwight Eisenhower. But until today, I'd never read anything from Gen. U.S. Grant. Chris Floyd has these excerpts from Grant's memoirs:For myself, I was bitterly opposed to the measure [the annexation of Texas], and to this day regard the war which resulted as one of the most unjust ever waged by a stronger against a weaker nation. It was an instance of a republic following the bad example of European monarchies, in not considering justice in their desire to acquire additional territory....Texas was originally a state belonging to the republic of Mexico.... An empire in territory, it had but a very sparse population, until settled by Americans who had received authority from Mexico to colonize. These colonists paid very little attention to the supreme government, and introduced slavery into the state almost from the start, though the constitution of Mexico did not, nor does it now, sanction that institution. Soon they set up an independent government of their own [and won independence after a war with Mexico]. Before long, however, these same people -- who with permission of Mexico had colonized Texas, and afterwards set up slavery there, and then seceded as soon as they felt strong enough to do so -- offered themselves and the State to the United States, and in 1845, their offer was accepted. The occupation, separation and annexation were, from the inception of the movement to its final consummation, a conspiracy to acquire territory out of which slave states might be formed for the American Union.Grant himself was a part of the troops sent to the "disputed" border region between the Nueces and Rio Grande rivers, much as our three carrier groups in the Persian Gulf are today:We were sent to provoke a fight, but it was essential that Mexico should commence it. It was very doubtful that Congress would declare war; but if Mexico should attack our troops, the Executive could announce, "Whereas, war exists by the acts of, etc." and prosecute the contest with vigor. Once initiated, there were but few public men who would have the courage to oppose it....The Mexican war was a political war, and the Administration conducting it desired to make party capital out of it.I, of course, believe that the current Iraq war was and continues to be a huge crime, and have criticized and protested against it since before it started. But anyone protesting it who claims that it was unprecedented--that the US had never before started a war of aggression--clearly knows nothing of the history of the Mexican war (or the Spanish-American war, or the Vietnam war).So, this Memorial Day, take a break from remembering their "sacrifice," and instead remember who sacrificed them and why. And ask yourself--why was Texas admitted to the Union...twice??? Jonathan Schwarz compares Hillary to Cheney and Sa... Olbermann on the Dumbocrats sellout From Tom Toles. From Mikhaela Reid. From Andy Singer. From Jeff Stahler. From David Horsey. Torture Gonzales in a Stress Position It's always the victims' fault A six Virginia Tech day

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/11618

Tax Me More: A Modest Proposal By Bruce Walker Huge numbers of these "rich" Americans are leftists, and yet these rich leftists try to reduce their tax burden as much as possible. If the best government policy towards wealth is to tax it heavily, then why don't leftists lead the way? Isn't this sort of leadership -- leadership by example -- the most effective?Mike Huckabee, when he was Governor of Arkansas nine years ago, created the "Tax Me More Fund," which allowed those leftists in the state who felt that tax rates should be higher to send a check to this fund, which would be used to help the general revenue crisis that Arkansas was facing at the time. Huckabee did not have the support of the Arkansas legislature. He did not even have the support of Republicans in the legislature. But he acted anyway. The "Tax Me More" policy gained political traction in other states like Kansas, Oregon, and Alaska, but not at the federal level. But listen to the rhetoric of leftists and see why a federal "Tax Me More" plan makes sense: (1) leftists, including many rich leftists, argue that the federal government cannot afford tax cuts; (2) the rich -- those with an income over $250,000 -- need to pay a greater share of the tax burden; (3) politically, Democrats cannot increase taxes over Republican opposition now; and (4) the left has urged us all in many areas of our lives to make sacrifices for the common good. How many leftists are there in America who posses incomes over $250,000 per year? Seven of the top-ten richest members of Congress are Democrats. These seven are very leftist Democrats, too. Moreover, many of these leftists in Congress have seen their fortunes grow while they were federal legislators in public "service." The Congress is full of millionaires. The Obama cabinet is, too. These leftists passionately argue that soaking the rich is good public policy...and they are "the rich." So why don't these leftists put their money where their mouths are? Why doesn't President Obama challenge them to pay more for the cost of the federal government voluntarily? Obama might be able to establish a "Tax Me More" fund by executive order, as Huckabee did, but would it not make more sense to seek a bipartisan consensus? Why not ask Congress to formalize the "Tax Me More" for the rich in the tax code? This could be done very simply. Change the tax forms so that every taxpayer would have to check one of two boxes: "(A) I pay enough in federal income taxes," or "(B) I ought to pay more in federal income taxes and I am paying an additional sum in the amount of $___________." Then make public the list of all taxpayers who check B, along with the size of their public-spirited donation to the commonweal. John F. Kerry's net worth increased by $20 million during our nation's economic crisis, while other Americans saw their life savings melt into nothing. Does Kerry feel that "the rich" pay too little? Then by all means, let him pay more! Let him lead by example! Let him chip in an extra $10 million or so to the United States Treasury, and then he can try to figure out how to survive with a net worth of a measly $170 million. If he isn't on the list of donors to the Tax Me More fund, we will know that he thinks his taxes are already high enough.The left shirks most public obligations. As all political pundits know, the overwhelming majority of the brave men and women who place their lives in harm's way for our sake are conservatives. (Recall how Gore tried to keep the votes of this natural constituency of conservatives thrown out in Florida, while he tried to allow the votes of his natural constituency, felons, counted?) No one is asking leftists to risk their lives or their limbs for their ideal of America. It is enough if they voluntarily pay, as "the rich," what they believe the other rich should pay. Would it work? Would leftist millionaires and billionaires leap with joy at the prospect of helping America more by helping that part of our nation which they cherish most, the federal government? Virginia enacted "Tax Me More" in 2002. How much have Virginians, knowing that they really paid too little in state taxes, contributed since then? A whopping $12,887.04, and in the Democrat tide year of 2006, guilty-hearted leftists in Virginia gave a breathtaking $19.36 to the state treasury. The Virginia Department of Revenue actually lists on its website those Virginians who felt that they needed to pay more to the Commonwealth and who acted on that sentiment. How many "General Fund Donors" are listed? Five. The truth is clear: everyone, including super-rich leftists who could not spend all their wealth if they tried to, sees the federal government as a giant septic tank that needs no more "contributions." Many leftists are as cheeky about this, as were the Clintons (who, recall, listed the donation of their used underwear as a charitable deduction). How to make this blazingly clear to ordinary Americans? Republicans should seek a "Tax Me More" provision in any bill to maintain the Bush tax cuts, and then listen to the left whine.Bruce Walker is the author of a new book: Poor Lenin's Almanac: Perverse Leftists Proverbs for Modern Life.

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/11646

By RAMESH PONNURU Bloomberg News This article was published August 1, 2014 at 2:12 a.m. "President Obama's new EPA rule is more proof that Washington isn't working for Kentucky." Alison Lundergan Grimes, the Democrats' great hope for beating Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell, is doing her best to keep voters from associating her too closely with the president. She's not the only one. Natalie Tennant, the Democratic Senate candidate in West Virginia, is running a pro-coal ad in which she shuts off the power to the White House. Democrats are distancing themselves from the president across the country, even in blue states. Colorado, a state Barack Obama won twice, has a Democratic governor and two Democratic senators. One of those senators, Mark Udall, is up for re-election this year. He decided not to attend a fundraiser with the president in his own state a few weeks ago. It was more important for Udall to stay in Washington to take part in the 71-26 confirmation vote for Obama's nominee to run the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Not coincidentally, about 54 percent of Coloradans disapprove of Obama's job performance. If they win, Grimes, Tennant and Udall will almost always vote with the Obama administration over the next two years, then spend four more largely voting in ways Obama would approve of. The parties are pretty unified these days ideologically. What's more, voters seem to know it. Most candidates who try to separate themselves from their party's leadership end up losing. (There are occasional exceptions: In 2010, Joe Manchin was able to separate himself from Obama in West Virginia by running an ad in which he took a shotgun to a copy of the cap-and-trade bill the administration was backing. But he was already a popular governor.) When there's a wave for one party or the other in an election, voters simply don't seem to do much discriminating among the candidates. Bob Ehrlich was a successful governor of Maryland in 2006 when he ran for re-election. But that was a terrible year for Republicans. He was a moderate and had healthy approval ratings. None of it saved him. He was brought down by the unpopularity of the Iraq war, even though as a governor he had nothing to do with it. Likewise, a lot of conservative Democrats who had voted against Obama's main priorities--including about half the House's Blue Dog coalition--got swept out in a huge Republican wave in the 2010 midterm elections. When a candidate tries to separate himself from his party's leadership, he's assuming that the party's core supporters will understand that he needs to do it, that the checks will keep arriving and the activists will keep knocking on doors. But there's always the risk of demoralization. In a poll released last weekend, Tennant was eight points behind in her race. If that keeps up, national Democrats will turn off the power to her campaign well before Election Day. ------------v------------ Ramesh Ponnuru is a senior editor for National Review. Editorial on 08/01/2014 Print Headline: Too late to run More Opinion and Letters* How to contain Ebola Undertold story in Mideast Should be driver's choice Too late to run Hostages of Lower Gaza A wounded bear And the war came Death by ... state More Opinion and Letters* stories > Comments on: Too late to run

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/11786

7 Ridiculously Overpaid Government Workers Dan Fastenberg, AOL Jobs Flickr/ottofocus13Most government jobs aren't glamorous. You don't usually get to jet around the world if you're working for, say, the Division of Zoning. But government jobs have at least been considered secure—and as offering great benefits. A report released earlier this year by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) revealed that the "majority of public employees"—regardless of education—earn more than those in the private sector. When you factor in benefits like health insurance and pensions, it comes to a 16 percent difference (via DailyFinance). The report marks the first of its kind for the CBO, but the comparable trend between the private and public sector wage differential has been growing since 2001. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average income in the private sector has grown $11,658 over that time to last year's total of $47,815. But for the public sector, the growth is more than double that, with the figure having risen $25,343 to last year's average salary of $75,296 for all government workers, according to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management. Of course, at the same time, many of the prized public sector benefits are being chipped away—and layoffs have been imposed by cash-strapped state governments, too. But still, while a large number of government workers are motivated primarily by serving the public, and might actually earn less than they could in the private sector, there are others—from plumbers to executives—who have wound up with surprisingly high-paying gigs. Some may have possibly used illegal means (and are awaiting trial). What do they all have in common? Their pay was footed by taxpayers, like you and me. See some government employees with ridiculous paychecks > » See some government employees with ridiculous paychecks > » Read the original article on AOL Jobs. Copyright 2012. Follow AOL Jobs on Twitter. More: AOL Jobs You won't believe how much a Newport Beach lifeguard makes.

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/11787

The US Will Recognize Same-Sex Marriages From Utah Pamela Engel Jan. 10, 2014, 12:38 PM The unions of hundreds of same-sex couples who rushed to get married while it was still legal in Utah will be recognized by the federal government, Attorney General Eric Holder announced Friday. Holder issued the following statement: Recently, an administrative step by the Court has cast doubt on same-sex marriages that have been performed in the state of Utah. And the governor has announced that the state will not recognize these marriages pending additional Court action. In the meantime, I am confirming today that, for purposes of federal law, these marriages will be recognized as lawful and considered eligible for all relevant federal benefits on the same terms as other same-sex marriages. These families should not be asked to endure uncertainty regarding their status as the litigation unfolds. In the days ahead, we will continue to coordinate across the federal government to ensure the timely provision of every federal benefit to which Utah couples and couples throughout the country are entitled – regardless of whether they are in same-sex or opposite-sex marriages. And we will continue to provide additional information as soon as it becomes available." A U.S. district court judge handed down a ruling in December saying the state's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, but earlier this week, the U.S. Supreme Court decided to temporarily stop gay marriages in the state. That order is keeping the state's ban on same-sex marriage alive until a federal appeals court can rule on the district court judge's decision. The unions of hundreds of same-sex couples who...

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/11805

Obama’s long list of broken promises January 15, 2010 | by President Barack Obama ends his first year in office with his to-do list still long and his unfulfilled campaign promises stacked high. From winding down the war in Iraq to limiting lobbyists, Obama has made some progress. But the president has faced political reality and accepted — sometimes grudgingly — compromises that leave him exposed to criticism. Promises that have proven difficult include pledges not to raise taxes, to curb earmarks and to shut down the Guantanamo Bay detention facility in Cuba by the end of his first year. “We are moving systematically to bring about change, but change is hard,” Obama told a town hall crowd in California. “Change doesn’t happen overnight.” That was in March. During his two-year campaign, Obama thrilled massive crowds with soaring speeches, often railing against an Iraq war that now is seldom mentioned. His presidential comments now are often sober updates on issues like terrorism and the economy, a top priority now that emerged as a major issue only in the campaign’s final weeks. Obama’s campaign ambition has been diluted with a pragmatism that has been the hallmark of Year One — without much of the progress he had hoped. A look at some of the promises: THE ECONOMY, TAXES AND DEFICITS Obama inherited an economy in severe distress that has since shown marked improvement. With the crisis developing so close to last year’s election, it wasn’t the focus of his earlier campaign promises. But Obama managed to craft his main anti-recession measure to address one of the top political commitments. He campaigned on a pledge to provide a $1,000 tax credit to 95 percent of all working families, and almost delivered. The $787 billion stimulus bill included an $800 tax credit for couples making up to $150,000, and a declining credit for those making up to $190,000. The Tax Policy Center estimates that 90 percent of taxpayers qualified for a tax cut under the stimulus package. In a Dover, N.H., campaign stop, Obama pledged that “no family making less than $250,000 will see their taxes increase — not your income taxes, not your payroll taxes, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.” True, unless you’re a smoker. Obama, himself an occasional smoker, signed into law a 159 percent increase in the tax on a pack of cigarettes. Other tobacco products were hit with similar or much steeper increases to help pay for a children’s health initiative, enabling him to keep another promise to make sure all kids have health insurance. Obama also promised to cut the federal budget deficit by more than half in his first term. That now appears unlikely, given the spending on the stimulus and the billions of dollars spent on bank and auto company bailouts. The 2009 federal budget deficit hit a record $1.42 trillion, and the red ink in the first two months of fiscal 2010 was nearly 6 percent higher than the same period in 2009. As a candidate, Obama touted his early opposition to the Iraq war and pledged to pull all U.S. combat troops out within 16 months. As president, he pushed that deadline back two months, to August 2010. Even then, he will leave 35,000 to 50,000 military personnel in Iraq through 2011 to train, equip and advise Iraqi security forces, and to help in counterterrorism missions. As a candidate, he vowed to prosecute the war against al-Qaida in Afghanistan, arguing that Iraq had distracted the U.S. from its anti-terror priorities. By the end of his first year, he had retooled the Afghan war strategy, replaced the U.S. commander there, doubled the number of U.S. troops in the country and ordered another 30,000 there by the middle of this year. He also promised to “end the use of torture without exception” in U.S. anti-terror campaigns and to close Guantanamo Bay, which he called “a recruiting tool for our enemies.” He signed an executive order outlawing torture, cruelty and degrading treatment of prisoners. A companion order closing the Guantanamo prison has proven more challenging. Congress refused to fund the transfer of any Guantanamo detainees to U.S. prisons, and foreign countries are reluctant to accept them. Obama did order the purchase of an Illinois prison to house up to 100 Guantanamo detainees. Still, Guantanamo cannot be closed until the disposition of more than 200 remaining detainees is resolved. A failed attempt at bombing a Detroit-bound airliner on Christmas has made that more difficult. Obama also campaigned to restore U.S. prestige abroad by engaging allies and adversaries alike, a direct swipe at George W. Bush, his predecessor. Now, he’s finding that rhetoric tough to live up to. He vowed to use “tough, direct diplomacy” to keep Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. Once in office, he offered dialogue to Tehran, made direct appeals to the Iranian people and included Iran in multinational discussions, while insisting that Iran not be permitted to develop nuclear weapons. The power centers in Tehran have largely shrugged, and Obama so far has been unable to unite a coalition of countries behind new economic sanctions intended to block Iran’s development of nuclear weapons. A solution for North Korea’s nuclear program also remains elusive. Its envoy to the United Nations said his nation is willing to conduct talks, but only if all sanctions against it are lifted. On his 2008 campaign Web site, Obama declared that “we must redouble our efforts to determine if the measures implemented since 9/11 are adequately addressing the threats our nation continues to face from airplane-based terrorism,” including screening all passengers against “a comprehensive terrorist watch list.” The verdict on that promise came last month, when an alleged terrorist known to authorities boarded an airliner bound for Detroit from overseas carrying explosives in his clothes. Disaster was averted when he botched an attempt to ignite the bomb. During his political run, Obama said he would increase the number of people covered by health insurance and pay for it by raising taxes on families making more than $250,000 a year and by taxing companies that do not offer coverage to employees. Although lawmakers have taken steps toward the broad outline Obama promised, it remains unfinished. The House and Senate have passed versions of the plan, but major differences remain. And Obama’s left flank is none too pleased with the compromises to this point, which have all but eliminated a government-run insurance option, something he called for in the campaign. Even the process has violated one campaign pledge. “We’ll have the negotiations televised on C-SPAN, so that people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents, and who are making arguments on behalf of the drug companies or the insurance companies,” Obama said. That hasn’t happened. Instead, Democrats in Congress and the White House have made multibillion-dollar deals with hospitals and pharmaceutical companies in private. C-SPAN asked to televise the negotiations between the House and Senate versions; the White House insists it hasn’t seen the request. On other domestic promises, from energy to education, Obama has been faced with a tight budget, a struggling economy and a deficit-conscious public that he will need to court if he seeks another term in 2012. Early on, he had to recant his pledge not to sign legislation that includes lawmakers’ pet projects. “When I’m president, I will go line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely,” Obama had said in September. But Congress controls spending, and Obama hasn’t been willing to veto bills approved by his Democratic allies on Capitol Hill. For example, he signed what he called an “imperfect” $410 billion spending bill that included 7,991 so-called “earmarks” totaling $5.5 billion. He had little choice. The measure, a holdover from the Bush presidency, was needed to keep government from shutting down. Obama also promised to require lawmakers seeking money for earmarks to justify their requests in writing 72 hours before they’re voted on in Congress. That hasn’t happened yet. Nor has his pledge to post legislation online for five days before acting; he broke that pledge with his first bill, a non-emergency measure giving workers more time to bring pay discrimination lawsuits. A promised ban on lobbyists serving in his administration hasn’t been absolute; a few former lobbyists were granted exemptions. White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs explained that by saying: “Even the toughest rules require reasonable exceptions.”

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/11829

U.S., Palestinian Relations: Honeymoon Over? - Inside Israel - CBN News - Christian News 24-7 - CBN.com U.S., Palestinian Relations: Honeymoon Over? By Tzippe Barrow CBN News Internet Producer - Jerusalem JERUSALEM, Israel - Since taking up residence in the Oval Office a little over two years ago, President Barack Obama has put extraordinary effort into currying favor in the Arab and Muslim world. In his June 2009 speech in Cairo, Obama called for a "new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world…based on mutual interest and mutual respect." But the president's efforts with the Palestinian Authority appear to be backfiring after its veto last week of a U.N. Security Council resolution condemning Israeli "settlements" as illegal. P.A. Prime Minister Salam Fayyad said he found the U.S. position "offensive." "The Americans have chosen to be alone in disrupting the internationally backed Palestinian efforts," Fayyad said. "We are not willing to compromise our national enterprise for a fistful of dollars, however big or small." Before Friday's U.N. session, Obama offered the P.A. a package of diplomatic incentives meant to pressure Israel and convince the P.A. not to solicit the U.N. Security Council vote. The P.A. rejected the incentives, choosing to press ahead with the petition, effectively forcing the U.S. to exercise its veto and triggering a flood of anti-American and anti-Israel backlash. Fourteen countries voted in favor of the resolution that labeled all Jewish towns and cities outside the 1949 armistice lines illegal. The U.S. vetoed the vote, choosing instead to call them "illegitimate." P.A. and Fatah officials responded by calling for a "day of rage" on Friday against the U.S. and Obama, where Palestinians could vent their anti-American sentiments. Fayyad also called on Hamas to throw down the gauntlet and join a P.A. unity government. Veto Creates Common Ground The veto had indeed created common ground between the two rival Palestinian factions Hamas and Fatah. Hamas spokesman Fawzi Barhoum called it "an oppressive decision that disgraces the rights of the Palestinian people and reveals the truth about U.S. support for all of the crimes the Zionist enemy [Israel] commits in its service." Meanwhile on Thursday, Hamas claimed responsibility, along with Islamic Jihad, for two long-range Grad Katyusha rockets that damaged homes and vehicles in a residential neighborhood in Beer Sheva and caused four people, including two children, to be treated for shock. But despite the reality on the ground, U.N. coordinator Robert Serry told reporters in New York on Thursday that the Quartet - U.S., E.U., U.N. and Russia - are pressing ahead with plans to bring a negotiated settlement between Israel and the Palestinians by Obama's target date of Sept. 2011. Serry said Quartet envoys would like to hold separate meetings with the two parties next week in Brussels to discuss "core issues," including permanent borders, security issues, so-called Palestinian refugees and the status of Jerusalem. "We want to hold the parties to their commitment to reach an agreement by September," Serry said, because "the two-state solution is not a solution that is going to be there forever." Should the rising anti-Obama sentiment bring about a Fatah-Hamas unity government, a negotiated settlement between Israel and the Palestinians would likely be postponed indefinitely. Related Stories: Palestinian Councils Call for U.S. Boycott U.S. Vetoes Resolution Condemning 'Settlements' Rockets from Gaza Strip Hit Beer Sheva Tzippe Barrow From her perch high atop the mountains surrounding Jerusalem, Tzippe Barrow helps provide a bird’s eye view of events unfolding in her country. She and her husband made aliyah (immigrated to Israel) several years ago. Barrow hopes that providing a biblical perspective of today’s events in Israel will help people in the nations to better understand the centrality of this state and the Jewish people to God’s unfolding plan of redemption for all mankind.

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/11833

Hillary Profita Clinton Would Keep Some Troops In Iraq U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) speaks during a news conference with other Democratic female senators on Capitol Hill June 21, 2006 in Washington, DC. The Skinny is Joel Roberts' take on the top news of the day and the best of the Internet.Sen. Hillary Clinton sheds new light on what she'd do about Iraq if she were elected president in a New York Times interview Thursday.The Democratic frontrunner has advocated "bringing the troops home," but she tells the newspaper she'd keep a reduced U.S. military force in Iraq to fight al Qaeda, discourage Iranian aggression, protect the Kurds and perhaps assist the Iraqi military. "I think we have remaining vital national security interests in Iraq" she said, which require the continued presence of American troops.Clinton wouldn't give precise figures on the size of the U.S. force she envisions remaining in Iraq, but she said it would not be involved in urban warfare in Baghdad or in trying to quell sectarian violence."It would be far fewer troops," she said. "We would not be doing patrols. We would not be kicking in doors. We would not be trying to insert ourselves in the middle between the various Shiite and Sunni factions. I do not think that is a smart or achievable mission for American forces."She also criticized President Bush's troop buildup in Iraq, but said, "We're doing it, and it's unlikely we can stop it."Clinton said she would vote for the Democratic resolution on Iraq now being debated in the Senate, which calls for the pullout of U.S. combat forces from Iraq by the end of March 2008. She noted that the resolution also calls for "a limited number" of troops to remain in Iraq after that date.Has McCain Lost His Maverick Touch?John McCain's invitation to match wits with him on his Web site on picking the NCAA tourney winners may be a first for a presidential candidate, but the Washington Post still wonders if the Arizona senator is losing the maverick spirit that invigorated his 2000 campaign.After nearly riding his "Straight Talk Express" to the White House seven years ago, the Post says McCain "has become the very picture of the highly managed presidential candidate he once scorned."And that, the paper says, is losing him support.McCain backers say he remains a maverick who has publicly challenged President Bush over U.S. torture policy, judges and campaign finance reform. But the Post points out that McCain has loaded his campaign staff with former Bush aides and has been one of the staunchest supporters of the president's Iraq policy.The GOP campaign landscape is also far different this time than in 2000, with both Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney taking up the mantle of Washington outsider. "Among Republican voters, Rudy has become the John McCain of 2008," said Rep. Peter T. King of New York, a former McCain supporter who's backing Giuliani now. "Being the guy who's tough, independent, an iconoclast – he is a newer version of John McCain."Following The Obama Trail… To IndonesiaNews organizations continue to roll up the frequent flier miles exploring Sen. Barack Obama's peripatetic childhood. The Los Angeles Times sent a reporter all the way to Indonesia to report on the four years Obama spent there as a boy and the impact living in a Muslim country had on him – and could have on his presidential aspirations.The Times says that Obama "crisscrossed the religious divide" in Indonesia. "At the local primary school, he prayed in thanks to a Catholic saint. In the neighborhood mosque, he bowed to Allah."Obama's campaign has emphasized his strong Christian beliefs and says he "has never been a practicing Muslim." A false report earlier this year that he attended a radical madrasa in Jakarta caused a brief stir before it was shot down. Still, the Times says that while an understanding of the Muslim world might seem an advantage for a White House hopeful, any "connection with Islam is untrod territory for presidential politics."A NOTE TO READERS: The Skinny is now available via e-mail for those of you umbilically attached to your blackberries and whatnot. Click here and follow the directions to register to receive it in your inbox each weekday morning. 5 things never to put on a credit card Of all purchases financed with credit cards, here are five to avoid 10 most affordable U.S. cities to retire Fancy living somewhere with low taxes, affordable real estate and a reasonable cost of living? Read on Popular on CBS News

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/11882

The Fiscal Cliff Approacheth In an effort to make this thread sticky-worthy, I am going to update this OP to keep casual glancers informed. This post is the official one-stop shopping of the key points/developments of the fiscal cliff negotiations. Far as I understand, the fiscal cliff: 1. Gets rid of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. 2. Gets rid of the Bush tax cuts for everybody else. 3. Slashes defense spending by something like $500 billion. 4. Slashes domestic programs like the NIH, Head Start, and medicine/drug care for the poor by $500 billion. The new idea is for Democrats to allow the cliff to hit, then immediately introduce a bill that would bring 2, 4, and some of 3 back. But not 1. Here is a chart detailing exactly what the fiscal cliff is going to do, financially: Spoiler! Quote: New CBO projection: if the fiscal cliff hits, we are in another recession, and lose two million jobs. http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...87L0JV20120822 The poor would be hurt by the fiscal cliff: Overall, if the tax breaks from the 2009 stimulus are allowed to expire—the EITC and Child Tax Credit expansions, along with American Opportunity Credit for college tuition—the poorest 20 percent of Americans would see their taxes go up by $209 on average, reducing their after-tax income by 1.9 percent, according to the Tax Policy Center. As would the middle class: According to estimates by the Tax Policy Center, more than half of all married couples will owe an additional tax of around $4,000 unless Congress acts. And more than a third of families with children will fall subject to the AMT, with parents of three or more children facing an extra tax of $4,700. Among married couples with at least two children and adjusted gross income between $75,000 and $100,000, the center estimates that 84 percent will face a significantly higher tax bill this year because of the AMT. There seems to be some consensus between the parties that substantial revenues want to be raised. Boehner and the GOP hopes that's through limiting tax deductions rather than tax raises. Obama's opening offer, essentially: Quote: Allow the Bush tax cuts on high earners to expire. $849 billion Limit itemized deductions to 28 percent, close some loopholes and deductions on high earners, eliminate tax breaks for oil and gas companies, eliminate the carried interest loophole, plus a few other items. $584 billion Create a special "Buffett Rule" tax rate for millionaires. $47 billion Restore the estate tax to 2009 levels. $143 billion Limit corporate income shifting to low-tax countries. $148 billion Other miscellaneous tax increases and reductions. About -$200 billion Total: $1.6 trillion Last edited by Direckshun; 11-14-2012 at 10:54 AM.. Bet you didn't know this was a part of the cliff: court budgets! Thousands of court employees could be laid off. It looks like a two week vacation Stewie Location: West of the Equator Find More Posts by Stewie Originally Posted by Stewie This is nonsense. Comrade Crapski Location: Sea of Green 23.4� Find More Posts by Comrade Crapski Two new developments: 1. Boehner has offered a millionaire's tax, rather than a more traditional top 2% tax increase. So the House GOP has finally begun its cave in on higher rates. 2. Boehner has also offered to extend the debt ceiling for a year, in what is clearly a promising start. The White House wants it out of Congress' hands, period. patteeu The 23rd Pillar House Republicans would be foolish to give up the debt ceiling lever for anything short of a complete cave by the President. Someone has to constrain his propensity to spend our kids into poverty. �The American people are tired of liars and people who pretend to be something they�re not.� - Hillary Clinton Find More Posts by patteeu A ‘fiscal cliff’ deal is near: Here are the details By Ezra Klein , Updated: December 17, 2012 All at once, a “fiscal cliff” deal seems to be coming together. Speaker John Boehner’s latest offer doesn’t go quite far enough for the White House to agree, but it goes far enough that many think they can see the agreement taking shape. Boehner offered to let tax rates rise for income over $1 million. The White House wanted to let tax rates rise for income over $250,000. The compromise will likely be somewhere in between. More revenue will come from limiting deductions, likely using some variant of the White House’s oft-proposed, oft-rejected idea for limiting itemized deductions to 28 percent. The total revenue raised by the two policies will likely be a bit north of $1 trillion. Congress will get instructions to use this new baseline to embark on tax reform next year. Importantly, if tax reform never happens, the revenue will already be locked in. On the spending side, the Democrats’ headline concession will be accepting chained-CPI, which is to say, accepting a cut to Social Security benefits. Beyond that, the negotiators will agree to targets for spending cuts. Expect the final number here, too, to be in the neighborhood of $1 trillion, but also expect it to lack many specifics. Whether the cuts come from Medicare or Medicaid, whether they include raising the Medicare age, and many of the other contentious issues in the talks will be left up to Congress. The deal will lift the spending sequester, but it will be backed up by, yes, another sequester-like policy. I’m told that the details on this next sequester haven’t been worked out yet, but the governing theory is that it should be more reasonable than the current sequester. That is to say, if the two parties can’t agree on something better, then this should be a policy they’re willing to live with. On stimulus, unemployment insurance will be extended, as will the refundable tax credits. Some amount of infrastructure spending is likely. Perversely, the payroll tax cut, one of the most stimulative policies in the fiscal cliff, will likely be allowed to lapse, which will deal a big blow to the economy. As for the debt ceiling, that will likely be lifted for a year, at least. In contrast to a week or so ago, when the White House was very intent on finishing the debt ceiling fight now, they’re sounding considerably less committed to securing a long-term increase in these negotiations. The argument winning converts, I’m told, is that since the White House won’t negotiate on the debt ceiling now and won’t negotiate on it later, there’s little reason to make it the sine qua non of a deal. As is always the case, the negotiations could fall apart, or the deal could change. But right now, the participants sound upbeat, surprised at how quickly the process has moved from evident disaster to near-agreement, and fairly comfortable with where they think they’ll end up. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...e-the-details/ new offer The details, via a source familiar with the negotiations, include: a movement on revenue demands to $1.2 trillion from an initial $1.6 trillion, a permanent extension of Bush-era tax rates for incomes less than $400,000 (Obama initially set the threshold at $250,000), $1.2 trillion in spending cuts, a "fast track process" for corporate and individual tax reform once the new Congress convenes, permanent extension of tax extenders and the alternative minimum tax, an extension of unemployment benefits set to expire at the end of the year, additional stimulus in the form of infrastructure spending and a two-year debt limit increase. The White House proposal would also allow the payroll tax cut to expire, and call for $130 billion in savings from Social Security benefits by adjusting the program's inflation index. The offer would include protections for the most vulnerable recipients, the person said. Counteroffers now from Boehner and Obama. This deal is getting done. It's hard to say when exactly it will get done, though. We could be going off the cliff, but we should have a deal by early February at the least. Welp, here's the cluster**** we all thought was coming. After failing to sell his compromises to his caucus, Boehner is now threatening to walk away from the table altogether. He's offered "Plan B," which is a millionaire tax with nothing else, and a promise to go to war over the debt ceiling again. Given how bizarre and counter productive it is to these talks, which were nearing towards a solution, the White House has now threatened to veto this idea. Useful chart. Boehner #1 looks the best. Obama's desire for extra spending seems to be the main impediment. Originally Posted by patteeu Not fan of Newt...but I did like his solution on this: Gingrich to GOP: Go home, let Democrats take the blame Newt Gingrich has a simple plan for the House to deal with the so-called �fiscal cliff� that has Washington politicians twisting in the wind: pass one bill with tax cuts, and one bill without, send them to the Senate then go home. �It is very painful watching the negotiation, it�s sort of an incremental surrender,� the former Republican House speaker and presidential contender said during a meeting Monday with Human Events reporters and editors. By delivering two versions to the Democratic-controlled Senate, the Republican-led House sends the message to voters they stood by taxpayers of all classes, Gingrich said. If Democrats and the White House decide to raise taxes and the economy tanks, that party will be to blame. The problem Washington now faces is that Congress and President Barack Obama have decided they don�t want to abide by certain automatic tax increases and spending cuts they have scheduled to take effect Jan. 1 through previous legislation. Forgot the link to that Gingrich solution post of mine. http://www.humanevents.com/2012/12/1...ake-the-blame/

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/11923

Home » Editorial » Beyond the Coast » Hamid Karzai…Afghanistan…And Others Hamid Karzai…Afghanistan…And Others Tarik Ayasun tayasun@taray.com One of the most difficult aspects of writing an opinion piece on world affairs a week before publication date in order to meet deadlines set by the newspaper is the speed which things can change around the world. What seems to be the most important thing on the morning of Saturday, Feb. 15, may be old news by the morning of Sunday, Feb. 16. Therefore, it is very important to pick a topic which is universal, dynamic and may not change much in a week’s time. Our country’s continuous adventures around the world with the very best of intentions — to bring freedom, democracy, women’s rights and best of all a feeling of self-respect and dignity to the oppressed peoples of the world and inevitably running into corrupt leaders and massive corruption — is one those stories that may not change anytime in the near future. We can probably pick any number of examples on a daily basis; yet because of the events of last week, we will examine Afghanistan and President Hamid Karzai. General Sisi We went into Afghanistan immediately following 9/11 with two main goals: to get rid of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda and to stabilize the country enough to make sure they can elect their own government and achieve stability. As of today, it seems like neither one of these goals will have been achieved when the last American military personnel along with their Coalition partners leave Afghanistan by the end of this year. Those of us who are interested in world affairs and their implications on our daily lives here in America were most interested in the events taking place in Afghanistan last week. At the center of all was the President of Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai, a complex, well-educated and strong-willed man who has to leave office after the presidential elections which will be held on April 5. The incumbent president will not be eligible to run due to term limits. The registration period for presidential nominations was open from September 16-Oct. 6, 2013. A total of 27 candidates were confirmed to be running for office. However, on Oct. 22, Afghanistan’s Independent Election Commission disqualified 16 of the candidates, leaving only 11 in the race. Opinion polls as of today show Abdullah Abdullah and Dr. Ashraf Ghani as the front-runners. Last week, after he unilaterally released 65 Taliban prisoners from jail before they were tried in court and were being held on charges of killing at least 32 Americans, Karzai drew the ire of many around the country and around the world. He was called “a despicable man,” a “crook,” a “common criminal” and was described as “mentally unstable” and “not fit for office.” Obviously, many of these were well-deserved descriptions of a man who was brought into power in Afghanistan by the U.S. and our Western Allies only a short 10 or so years ago and now seems to have turned on us in a publicly embarrassing way. Hamid Karzai speaking I thought it would be well worth the time to look into the life and works of this man, who is now considered by many to “have left this planet” and traveled to “another, unknown place!” President of Afghanistan Hamid Karzai was born on December 24, 1957, to a distinguished family in the small village of Karz, located on the edge of Kandahar City in southwest Afghanistan. He was educated in Afghanistan and at the Himachal Pradesh University in India, and is known to be well-versed in several languages, including his native Peshto, Persian, Hindi, French and English. He rose through the political ranks during the turbulent Soviet occupation. In 1980, when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan, Karzai traveled to Pakistan to work as a fundraiser supporting the anti-Soviet Mujahedeen fighters’ insurgency. During this time, the Mujahedeen were secretly supplied by the United States, and Hamid Karzai was said to be a contractor for the CIA. He emerged as a resistance leader under Taliban rule and worked to undermine the regime. He became president in 2004 after American-led forces had overthrown the Taliban in Afghanistan, and was reelected in what is considered to be a “fraudulent election” in 2009, when his only opponent withdrew from the run-off election. He is an ethnic Pashtun of the Popalzai tribe and has six brothers and one sister. His grandfather, Khair Mohammad Khan, served in the 1919 war for independence, and was deputy speaker of the Afghanistan Senate. Karzai’s father, Abdul Ahad Karzai, was a popular tribal elder and political figure who served as deputy speaker of the Afghan Parliament. For those who are not familiar with “tribes” and “tribal life,” it is important to emphasize that most countries in the Middle East as well as in Africa are made up of various tribes which preserve their unity and traditions throughout history all the way up to the present day. Tribal leaders are revered and obeyed. Intermarriages between tribes are not allowed, and members of the tribes usually speak local dialects to preserve their identities. Afghanistan is made of many tribes, and the Pashtun Popalzai tribe to which Hamid Karzai belongs has an estimated population of 500,000 members. As a consequence of the events of last week and the fact that Karzai still refuses to sign the “Security Agreement” with the United States, which was overwhelmingly approved by the Loya Jirga (grand assembly/grand council) of Afghanistan and supported by China, Russia, and the Central Asian countries, as well as Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (all of whom either face or fear militant Islam) with only disapprovals coming from the usual suspects Iran, Pakistan and the Taliban, many in the USA and around the world asked themselves the question, “What is Karzai up to?” After all, the US Government funneled nearly $100 billion in aid to Afghanistan through Karzai, not to mention the billions of dollars spent on our military effort to stabilize the country. How much of this money actually ended up in the hands of the people to better their lives and bring their society up to par with the rest of the world? How much of it never left Karzai’s pocket and his secret bank accounts in Turkey and the United Arab Emirates? Only Karzai and his fellow crooks may have the answer to those questions. Al Qaeda in Fallujah again As a politician who is not running for office in presidential elections in April, Karzai feels he has to find himself a leadership position after the Americans leave. He naturally worries that America will side with Pakistan to decide who rules Afghanistan after the withdrawal. He does not trust Pakistan and wants to make sure the Taliban do not overrun his country. He has been receiving mixed signals from Washington. He had an explosive private meeting last month with Susan Rice, a national security advisor, and most importantly, President Obama does not talk to him! All this worries Karzai, or at least, he seems like he is worried. Yes, we know he may be a “despicable crook,” but as someone once said, “He is our despicable crook.” And our “despicable crook” after releasing 65 Taliban fighters from jail during a speech at a conference in the capital city of Ankara, Turkey said, “Washington should respect Afghanistan’s judicial authority! Afghanistan is a sovereign country. If the Afghan judicial authorities decide to release prisoners, it is of no concern to the U.S. and should be of no concern to the U.S.! I hope that the United States will stop harassing Afghanistan’s procedures and judicial authority.” That is what we get for “no-strings-attached-do-your-very-best-and-make-everything-better-U.S.-aid” to yet another “leader of a tribal country!” Obviously, as an American, his words were hard to swallow for me. On the other hand, I thought that we must stop and take a serious look at our own policies of getting involved, with the best of intentions, in the affairs of tribal countries where Democracy is a four-letter word and the sun rotates around a flat world! World history is flush with stories of failed attempts by various world powers who tried to bring these countries into Western-style democracies or Eastern-style socialist regimes! As we think about the events surrounding Afghanistan and Iraq, we should never forget the ultimate sacrifices made by the more than 1,760 brave American men and women in uniform who went to Afghanistan and over 4,000 men and women who did the same in Iraq, as well as the billions of our hard earned dollars in Afghanistan. Most Iraqi war veterans who gave it their all must be sitting in front of their TV sets and watching in total disgust at Al Qaeda flags flying over the very cities they once liberated at great cost! At this point in time, I am sure the entire world knows that as soon as the last Coalition Force member (which includes around 10,000 Americans) leaves this most dangerous place on earth Afghanistan will fall into chaos. Taliban will be back in full force, maybe this time facing a different foreign force in the form of China, which invested millions of dollars of their money into copper mines, minerals and infrastructure in Afghanistan. Our “despicable crook” Hamid Karzai will be living happily ever after in his villa in Dubai with his family and enjoying all the dollars we so “willingly” and “foolishly” sent to him. I continue to ask myself the question “when will we ever learn?” We did not learn after spending billions of dollars in Palestine only to make the Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat a multi-millionaire with our hard earned dollars invested in his secret Swiss banks and other places where we can’t get to! As you are reading this article, we are probably making many more millionaires of dictators around the world, hoping they will turn their countries around, help their peoples advance and love us in the interim. The formula for them is simple: Ask Uncle Sam to come in and spend money and human treasure; prop their corrupt regime up; and then cut and run before the job is completed because the folks at home are getting restless, complaining about a protracted war with no victory in sight! But what about us? The ever-loving, ever-giving, good-natured, well-educated, well-fed and well-intentioned Americans? When will we learn to tell those who want us to assist them in turning their miserable countries into western-style democracies before we deploy the first military personnel or load the first pallet of dollars on board the next aircraft, “Yes, we will come and help you, but there will be a heavy price to pay at the end if you choose not to assist us, pocket millions of our dollars or treat us like a bunch oppressors because you have now established yourself as the next dictator! If you co-operate with us and turn your countries into civilized democracies, we will be your best friends; if you do not, we will be your worst enemies, and we will make damn sure that you will not live another day to enjoy the dollars you stole from us.” Mr. Karzai in Kabul, can you hear me now? Mr. Maliki in Baghdad, can you hear me now? General Sisi in Cairo, can you hear me now? Tarik Ayasun is President of the Marco Island Charter Middle School Board of Directors and has given many years of service of community service to various organizations. Tarik Ayasun?turk1949@comcast.net [email_link] Afghanistan Senate American candidates change country events family Hamid Karzai learn money Pakistan place President Obama Sunday Tarik Ayasun time Turkey United States US Government women 2014-02-21

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/11938

Find Your Lawmakers Holding Power Accountable Toggle navigation About Our Impact National Governing Board Newsletters and Annual Reports Financials and 990s Issues Money in Politics A Fair Economy Media & Democracy More Democracy Reforms In the States Take Action Action Center Donate Donate Now Join Common Cause Donate to State Chapter Common Cause Education Fund Home > Democracy Wire Gerrymander Gazette - April 2016 by Dan Vicuña on April 29, 2016 Welcome to the third edition of the Gerrymander Gazette, Common Cause’s newsletter on redistricting reform efforts around the country. If this was forwarded to you, feel free to sign up here to get the Gazette right in your very own inbox. Also, please check out the new map on the front page of Common Cause’s redistricting page (www.CommonCause.org/Redistricting) to see how every state draws their congressional and state legislative districts. Off we go… In Lieu of Tinder, Try Redistricting When politicians draw legislative lines, political advantage is usually first and foremost in their minds. However, sometimes other considerations take precedence. The New York Post reported that now-disgraced former New York State Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver used the 2012 redistricting process to eliminate a romantic rival and Assembly incumbent. Silver drew an Assembly district to include a city whose mayor was likely to be a strong primary challenger for said romantic rival. His plan worked. The incumbent decided not to run again and the mayor won the seat. I prefer flowers and a nice dinner out, but to each his own. That is the ugly/amusing side of New York redistricting. However, the results of congressional redistricting following the 2010 census tell a happier story. A citizen-led group sued following the legislature’s failure to agree on congressional boundaries. The Court, referencing maps drawn by Common Cause New York and civil rights groups, drew districts it specifically identified as coming from Common Cause New York’s proposal. This kept politicians out of the process, with great results. As we approach the 2016 congressional elections, the Cook Political Report found that New York has more toss-up districts than any other state in the U.S. and a higher percentage of them than 45 states. This will be the third congressional election to occur with this set of maps. When legislators aren’t able to lock in an incumbent protection scheme or implement a Machiavellian dating strategy, the benefits for voters can linger for the life of the plan. The Cost of Keeping Secrets in the Virginia General Assembly How much of the people’s money will Virginia legislators spend to keep redistricting behind closed doors? As it turns out, the answer so far is a lot. State senators are fighting to keep out of court emails they exchanged with third parties while redrawing General Assembly districts. OneVirginia2021 is challenging the maps in court on the grounds that they do not meet the Virginia Constitution’s compactness requirements. Senators have spent $180,000 in legal fees and been held in contempt of court as part of their strategy to keep email conversations secret. In a similar fight in Florida, over 538 pages of emails showed a determined (if occasionally ham-handed) effort by legislators and consultants to ignore state constitutional requirements. To Virginia legislators, spending $180,000 might be worth preventing a similar embarrassment, especially when it’s taxpayer dollars. It probably also helps that taxpayers may end up paying the $100 per day fine that is currently being leveled against each of them for their contempt of court. The Virginia Supreme Court has agreed to hear arguments in this government transparency fight as the larger case about the constitutionality of the districts continues in the City of Richmond Circuit Court. Long Time Coming: Wisconsin (sort of) gets a Redistricting Reform Hearing in the Legislature Earlier this month, the Wisconsin Assembly Committee on Campaigns and Elections finally held a hearing on redistricting reform. This comes nearly three years after the committee chair promised one would be held. See video of the hearing here. Although it cannot advance actual legislation because it took place when the legislature was not in session, occurred the Friday before Wisconsin’s presidential primary when reporters were kind of busy, and without public input — we’ll take it. It was the first time in five years that legislative leaders allowed a hearing on the topic. The coalition will keep up the pressure next session to move Senate and Assembly legislation to implement the Iowa model of nonpartisan redistricting. Nebraska Governor Vetoes Redistricting Reform Bill The Nebraska Unicameral Legislature passed a bill with a 29-15 bipartisan majority to create an independent citizens commission to draw Nebraska’s state legislative and congressional districts after each census. Gov. Pete Ricketts vetoed the bill and the bill’s sponsor decided not to attempt an override vote. Among his many incorrect analyses, Ricketts claimed that the legislature could not lawfully delegate its authority to draw districts. Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court spoke clearly and directly on this issue when it stated in Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission that the U.S. Constitution allows legislatures to be stripped entirely of the power to draw congressional districts. However, that was not even the most perplexing spin about the veto. The Nebraska Republican Party won that award by adding that the bill “creates the appearance that the officials elected to conduct the business of the state are unwilling to perform their duties.” Translation: we may see hordes of angry citizens taking to the streets and demanding that legislators take the initiative to rig districts for political advantage. Politics is full of surprises, but we won’t hold our collective breaths. Virginia Current and Former Members of Congress Use Partisan Gerrymandering to Defend Legislature from Racial Gerrymandering Claim The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Wittman v. Personhuballah, a case that will determine the fate of Virginia’s congressional maps. A lower court ruled that the Third Congressional District constituted an unlawful racial gerrymander because the legislature packed black voters into that district to limit their influence over surrounding districts. That court also tasked a special master to redraw the map after the Virginia General Assembly failed to do so. In a now familiar refrain, the attorney representing current and former Members of Congress seeking a restoration of the old districts said that legislators were merely trying to rig districts in favor of incumbents. No harm, no foul because, as he bragged, “every incumbent was re-elected.” Some members of the Court expressed skepticism about whether Members of Congress even have standing to challenge changes to their districts. The Court is likely to decide this case sometime before July. Florida Redistricting Litigation: Update #1485 In a previous edition of the Gerrymander Gazette, we noted that the end is near for redistricting litigation in Florida. That might not have been entirely accurate. Nonetheless, the end is closer (?). Two successful lawsuits brought by FairDistricts Now coalition plaintiffs Common Cause and the League of Women Voters of Florida resulted in a ruling on congressional districts and a settlement for state senate districts determining that both violated the Florida Constitution’s ban on partisan gerrymandering. Starting with this year’s elections, the courts agreed to redraw the maps using boundaries the plaintiffs proposed. The legislature exhausted its appeals in the congressional case and decided not to appeal the ruling about state senate districts. However, U.S. Rep. Corrine Brown, who represents the infamously gerrymandered 5th Congressional District, sued in federal court to keep the current congressional map just as it is. The federal district court panel that heard the case upheld the coalition maps and dismissed Brown’s challenge. This is where the Gazette’s prognosticating went badly. Brown announced that she will run in the new district but…wait for it…will also appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. Brown has until June 17 to file an appeal. Florida’s primary is August 30. USC Schwarzenegger Institute Research Shows Benefits of Independent Redistricting The University of Southern California’s Schwarzenegger Institute for State and Global Policy released two studies making the case that redistricting reform and open primaries “reduce political polarization in legislative bodies and prompt candidates to more actively engage voters across party lines.” Common Cause, Open Primaries, the California Chamber of Commerce, and the Bipartisan Policy Center joined former Gov. Schwarzenegger and the institute for the unveiling of the research and to report on reform efforts around the country. In one of the studies highlighting the California legislature, Professor Christian Grose found that there was a 34 percent reduction in ideological extremity in the State Assembly and 31 percent reduction in the State Senate after the implementation of independent redistricting and open primaries. In addition to giving the public a voice in their own representation, independent citizen-driven redistricting might also help legislators work together more effectively. Who Needs a General Election in Pennsylvania? In Pennsylvania, as in other states across the country, gerrymandering has made legislative elections so uncompetitive that this week’s primary was the only opportunity many voters will have to shape their representation in Harrisburg and Washington. Pennsylvania voters will see only one candidate on the ballot in many congressional and General Assembly districts in the November general election. These districts are so skewed in favor of one party over the other that the other major party does not even think fielding a candidate is worth the effort. A prime example of the precise geographic surgery the legislature had to perform to rig elections can be found in Cumberland County, which was sliced and diced in the last redistricting cycle. A former county commissioner there demonstrated the problem on Harrisburg’s ABC 27 News. He stood in a hardware store parking lot to point out houses in sight of each other whose residents are represented by a variety of General Assembly members who live nowhere near the communities they represent. This is undoubtedly one of the reasons that Cumberland County joined Pittsburgh by calling on the General Assembly to pass a bill creating an independent redistricting commission. Partisan Gerrymandering Measure Making Its Way through the Courts in Wisconsin In 2004, Justice Kennedy wrote a concurring opinion in Vieth v. Jubelirer, a constitutional challenge of Pennsylvania’s General Assembly and congressional districts. In the opinion, he kept the door open to challenging legislative maps on the grounds of unfair partisan gerrymandering but called for a judicially manageable standard for measuring a plan’s unfairness. Common Cause has been generating ideas through our Gerrymander Standard writing competition, but another approach might make its way to the Supreme Court’s docket soon enough. A lawsuit challenging Wisconsin’s badly gerrymandered Assembly districts is going to trial on May 24 in front of a federal three-judge district court panel after the panel denied the state’s motion to dismiss the claim. The plaintiffs are challenging the districts using a novel measure of partisan gerrymandering called the efficiency gap. The efficiency gap, devised by Nicholas Stephanopoulos and Eric McGhee, measures whether an electoral system treats political parties equally. New Hampshire Public Radio recently used the measure to determine that New Hampshire Senate districts are skewed heavily in favor of one party. Stephanopoulos explains the theory in more detail in The New Republic. The trial is expected to last four days. Equal Representation After Evenwel In Evenwel v. Abbott, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that the plaintiffs’ constitutional views deserved as much deference as, just to use a random example, a belief in unicorns and a geocentric universe. With very few exceptions, every state in the U.S. divides itself into state legislative districts using the census count of total population. The plaintiffs sought to forbid states from using total population and require them to use a count of only eligible voters. Why does this matter? A ruling in the plaintiffs’ favor would have rendered invisible in our democracy millions of our family, friends, and neighbors who are children under the age of 18, non-citizen immigrants, and other non-voters. It would have left communities with relatively high percentages of these individuals severely underrepresented in state legislatures. A community with a low percentage of non-voters would send more state representatives to state capitols, and thus have more political power, than a community of equal population but a high percentage of non-voters. Fortunately, the Court decided in an 8-0 vote that states can continue to use total population to ensure equal representation in legislatures. Unfortunately, the Court stopped short of mandating the use of total population. As Kathay Feng discusses in Huffington Post, this lawsuit’s funder and other opponents of voting rights aren’t going away. Don’t be surprised if we see efforts to test the Court’s ruling and implement a voters-only count in one or more states. In the meantime, you can send a message to your governor to stop that from happening. Taking Reform on the Road in California Following the successful experiment with a statewide independent citizens redistricting commission in California, there is a growing movement to reform how county and municipal districts are drawn. A bill making its way through the California legislature, sponsored by State Sen. Ricardo Lara, would create an independent commission that would draw districts for the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, which represents 10 million people. The Sacramento City Council is poised to do the same for its residents and a separate bill sponsored by State Sen. Ben Allen would allow every county and city in the state to create their own citizen redistricting commissions. The California Voting Rights Act allows residents to sue a county or city to change voting system from at-large to district-based if the at-large system prevents those residents from receiving fair representation in government. If residents succeed and obtain district-based representation, a bill sponsored by Assemblymember Luis Alejo would ensure that city officials could not then schedule elections at odd dates and times that would make it difficult for residents to obtain the benefit of that change. Commonsense Definition of “Resident” Prevails in Landmark Prison Gerrymandering Decision In the first-ever federal ruling of its kind, a court struck down legislative districts because they constituted an unlawful prison gerrymander. In a lawsuit brought by the ACLU of Florida and the Florida Justice Institute, federal District Court Judge Mark E. Walker ruled that the skewed population data used to draw Board of County Commissioners districts in Jefferson County, Florida resulted in a violation of the constitutional rights of county residents. The county announced that it will not appeal the decision. What is prison gerrymandering? Prison gerrymandering occurs when a jurisdiction counts incarcerated people as residents of the community in which the prison is located for redistricting purposes instead of at their last known address. This stretches the definition of “resident” beyond all recognition by counting people with no freedom of movement, business dealings, consumer activity, or any other discernible connection with the surrounding community. Let’s imagine a county board of supervisors with districts consisting of 1000 residents each. When prisoners are counted as residents of the communities in which the prison is located, a city with 1000 residents near a prison that has 1000 incarcerated people (we’ll call it Prisontown) will receive the same representation on the county board as a city with 2000 residents and no incarcerated people (Freetown). In this scenario, the 1000 genuine residents of Prisontown will be represented by two city council members while the 1000 genuine residents of Freetown will be represented by only one city council member, giving Freetown residents half as much political power in county government. That is the constitutional problem Judge Walker identified in Jefferson County and that could now be recognized around the country. According to the Prison Policy Initiative, Maryland and New York have passed legislation prohibiting prison gerrymandering immediately. Two more states, Delaware and California, have prohibited it starting with the 2020 census. Illinois Legislators Propose New Redistricting Bills As the Independent Map Amendment ballot initiative effort to bring independent redistricting to Illinois gains momentum, Illinois legislators proposed two bills to change how General Assembly districts are drawn. SJRCA 30, which passed the Senate, includes some provisions to require neutral criteria and public hearings but would leave control of the process in the hands of elected officials. A separate bill, HJRCA 58, is making its way through the House. The House bill sponsored by Rep. Jack Franks would prohibit partisan gerrymandering, establish neutral standards for drawing districts, and create an independent commission to draw General Assembly districts. Under the House proposal, half of the members would be appointed by the Chief Justice of the Illinois Supreme Court and the other half would be appointed by the highest-ranking Justice of a different political party. Common Cause stated that the Senate bill “falls far short of the democracy reform Illinois residents deserve” but that the House bill “provides a promising path forward for ending the unfair manipulation of legislative and representative districts in Illinois.” Duke POLIS Center Teams with Common Cause North Carolina to Demonstrate Independent Redistricting A federal court required the North Carolina General Assembly to redraw the state’s congressional map after determining that two districts constituted an unlawful racial gerrymander. The state responded by drawing a new set of maps so blatantly gerrymandered that they are now being challenged in court. In one example of the legislature’s lack of subtlety, the new map split North Carolina A & T State University, a historically black university with a long history of political activism, into two congressional districts. Common Cause North Carolina teamed with Duke University’s Center for Political Leadership, Innovation and Service to propose a different path forward and show North Carolinians how it might work. They have devised a simulation showing how an independent redistricting commission might draw legislative districts in the state. The project opened on April 21 with an orientation session. Ten retired judges will examine demographics and hear from the public about their communities before drawing congressional and General Assembly districts based on neutral criteria. The group expects to complete its work in June. Pushing For Action to End Gerrymandering in Ohio Ohio’s Constitutional Modernization Commission again punted on whether to recommend reform of the way in which the state’s congressional districts are drawn. The panel responsible for redistricting issues will next meet on May 12. Ohioans passed Issue 1, which built in strong protections against one-party dominance in the drawing of General Assembly districts, last November. A growing chorus of supporters have backed the extension of reforms to the congressional redistricting process, which, as Michael Li of the Brennan Center notes, is dominated by out-of-state political operatives. These supporters include former Govs. George Voinovich and Bob Taft, a member of the commission, and current Gov. John Kasich. Kasich again called for action in his State of the State address, stating that, “Ideas and merits should be what wins elections, not gerrymandering.” This newsletter has been produced by Common Cause and compiled by Dan Vicuna. For more information or to pass along news, contact Dan at dvicuna@commoncause.org. Sign up for the Gazette here. Office: California Common Cause, Common Cause Florida, Common Cause Illinois, Common Cause National, Common Cause Nebraska, Common Cause New York, Common Cause North Carolina, Common Cause Ohio, Common Cause Pennsylvania, Common Cause Virginia, Common Cause Wisconsin Issues: Voting and Elections Tags: Redistricting Litigation and Lobbying › Testimony › Democracy Wire › First Name: Last Name: * ZIP / Postal Code: If you respond and have not already registered, you will receive periodic updates and communications from Common Cause. Remembers your login information for your convenience. Use only on trusted, private computers. Gerrymander Gazette: Breaking News in Illinois and Maryland Common Cause PA Makes the Case for Fair and Transparent Redistricting to Legislative Committee Common Cause Joins Broad Coalition of Illinois Organizations in Brief Urging State Supreme Court to Restore Independent Map Amendment to November Ballot Tweets by @CommonCause Take Action The Supreme Court gutted a key provision of the Voting Rights Act. Tell Congress to fix the court’s bad decision! 805 15th Street, NW, Suite 800

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/11939

Israel: End Arbitrary Detention of Rights Activist Friday, December 4, 2009 - 11:27amHuman Rights WatchContact: Tel: +1-212-216-1832Email: hrwpress@hrw.orgIsrael: End Arbitrary Detention of Rights Activist Mohammed Othman Held without Charge for 72 DaysJERUSALEM - The Israeli military appeals court should end the administrative detention of Mohammed Othman, a West Bank rights activist, and order his release, Human Rights Watch said today. Israeli authorities have detained Othman without charge for more than two months on what appear to be politically motivated grounds. On the basis of secret evidence that Othman and his lawyers were not allowed to see, a military court confirmed a military order that consigned Othman to three months administrative detention without charging him with any crime. Othman has no criminal record and, to the knowledge of Human Rights Watch, has never advocated or participated in violence. His detention period, which may be renewed, ends on December 22. "The only reasonable conclusion is that Othman is being punished for his peaceful advocacy," said Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East director at Human Rights Watch. "The authorities interrogated him for months, then ordered him held some more, but they won't say why they are holding him and haven't accused him of any crime." Israeli authorities detained Othman, an activist with the "Stop the Wall" campaign, a nonviolent protest movement, on September 22, 2009, as he returned to the West Bank from a trip to Norway, where he spoke about the separation barrier that Israel has constructed in the occupied territory. The barrier was ostensibly built to protect against suicide bombers, but it is not being built along the 1967 border. Instead, 87 percent of the barrier's route lies inside the West Bank, unlawfully separating residents from their lands, restricting their movement, and effectively annexing occupied lands to unlawful Israeli settlements. On November 23, after Othman had been detained for 61 days "for the purpose of interrogation," Colonel Ron Weisel, an Israeli military commander of the West Bank, ordered him held for three months of administrative detention on the grounds that he was a threat to the "security of the area." The military court of administrative detainees, located in the Israeli military base of Ofer, near Ramallah in the West Bank, upheld the order on November 25 and counted the time that Othman had already been detained toward his detention. Othman's administrative detention order came one day after a military court ordered his release. Othman was originally detained under Israeli military orders authorizing "interrogative detention." According to his lawyers at Addameer, a Palestinian prisoners' rights organization, on November 22 the Military Court of Appeals ordered Othman's release on bail on the grounds that no progress had been made in his interrogation, no other evidence against him had been produced, and no charges had been laid against him. However, the court also remanded Othman to detention for 24 hours and allowed the military prosecutor to issue an administrative detention order during that time. Weisel issued Othman's administrative detention the next day. Israeli authorities have violated Othman's rights in detention. Mahmoud Hassan, a lawyer at Addameer who represents Othman, told Human Rights Watch that on November 2 Israeli authorities transferred Othman from the West Bank to a prison in Be'er Sheva, Israel, without informing his family or his lawyers, and barred his lawyers from seeing him for 15 days. "We learned about it only two days later from staff at the Ofer jail, where we tried to visit him," Hassan said. Othman was not allowed to attend two subsequent hearings on his case, Hassan said, during which time Othman was threatened with administrative detention. Israeli military orders authorize barring outside access to detainees "for the purposes of the interrogation." International standards governing the treatment of all persons detained require prompt notification of a detainee's family, both after the person is detained and after a transfer to another place of detention. In addition, all detainees have the right to be visited by legal counsel, and any restriction on that right can only be in "exceptional circumstances, set out in law." The administrative detention order saying that Othman "is a risk to the security of the area," cites military order 1591 from 2007. Under that order, the military commander of the West Bank may detain an individual for up to six months and renew the detention indefinitely. A military judge must review the commander's detention order, but the judge does so in a closed hearing, without witnesses, based on secret information that the detainee and his attorney cannot see. The defendant may appeal the military judge's decision to the military court of appeal for administrative detainees, which is also located in the Ofer military base. According to Jamal Juma'a, a coordinator for the "Stop the Wall" campaign, an Israeli soldier had detained Othman at a checkpoint during the summer and threatened him because of his advocacy against the wall. Juma'a said that before joining the "Stop the Wall" campaign, Othman worked with the Ecumenical Accompaniment Program in Palestine and Israel (EAPPI), a World Council of Churches program to accompany Palestinian non-violent activists. As of November 9, Israel held more than 322 Palestinians in administrative detention, 132 of them for more than a year, according to the Israeli human rights organization B'Tselem. According to the most recent available official statistics on the cases that actually go to trial in Israeli military courts, obtained by Yesh Din, another Israeli human rights organization, in 2006 Israeli military courts found defendants not guilty in only 23 (or 0.29 percent) of 9,123 trials. Although international human rights law permits some limited use of administrative detention in emergency situations, the authorities are required to follow basic rules for detention, including a fair hearing at which the detainee can challenge the reasons for his or her detention. As the occupying power in the West Bank, Israel is also bound by the rules governing occupation, which require it to use administrative detention only for imperative reasons of security. ###Human Rights Watch is one of the world's leading independent organizations dedicated to defending and protecting human rights. By focusing international attention where human rights are violated, we give voice to the oppressed and hold oppressors accountable for their crimes. Our rigorous, objective investigations and strategic, targeted advocacy build intense pressure for action and raise the cost of human rights abuse. For 30 years, Human Rights Watch has worked tenaciously to lay the legal and moral groundwork for deep-rooted change and has fought to bring greater justice and security to people around the Organization Links Human Rights WatchHuman Rights Watch (Press Center)Human Rights Watch (Action Center)Share This Article

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/11981

Obama in Cairo: something old, something new Save for later His speech to Muslims marks a “new beginning” based on tried-and-true values. By President Obama billed his Cairo speech to the Muslim world as a "new beginning." In some important ways, it did signal a fresh start. But there's also no getting around the "old" work that needs to be done or the abiding principles that must guide that work.Mr. Obama's speech had almost the feel of an inaugural address – historic sweep, lofty idealism, American vision, and a call to action, but aimed at an audience of more than a billion Muslims.His very biography lends a fresh credibility to ideas and policies that are actually not so fresh. It's hard to imagine any of his predecessors, for instance, quoting and referencing the Koran so extensively and being so enthusiastically applauded for it.Obama attempted to blow away the cobwebs of blame and finger-pointing that have collected on the Middle East peace process. "Privately, many Muslims recognize that Israel will not go away. Likewise, many Israelis recognize the need for a Palestinian state. It is time for us to act on what everyone knows to be true," he said. That includes the United States, which needs to reclaim its role as an honest broker, including applying pressure to Israel that it has been reluctant to use in the past.To an audience hungry for action and not just words, the president threw out several new initiatives to boost education, health, and the economy in Muslim nations. But his bigger moves are on the strategic level: a troop surge in Afghanistan, an aid surge in Pakistan, planned withdrawal of combat troops from Iraq, and a diplomatic overture to Iran.Those indeed mark a "new beginning," but much of his speech actually rested on longstanding US policy positions and values. On Iran: nuclear power is fine; nuclear weapons are not. On Israel and the Palestinians: Washington still stands behind a two-state solution. Neither did Obama shrink from using the "D" word (democracy), as some thought he might.Like his predecessor, Obama pointed to the need for reform in the Muslim world. Only religious tolerance, rule of law, equal opportunity for women, and respect for minorities will lead to lasting prosperity and peace. Governments, he said, must maintain power "through consent, not coercion." He added: "Elections alone do not make true democracy" (target audiences for that comment: Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran).Obama concluded his speech with the most ancient policy of all: "There's one rule that lies at the heart of every religion – that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us."It was a point that drew applause, which is perhaps the most encouraging sign because it is, at bottom, the only way to resolve the problems of the Middle East and to bridge the Western-Muslim divide. Obama's pivot to Asia? Middle East will still demand attention in 2013. Cuba visit: Why foreign speeches are a hallmark of Obama’s presidency For Obama, reality meets idealism in ties with Muslim world

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/11983

What happened while Obama was in Asia? (+video) Latest News President Obama's whirlwind Asia trip saw some surface compromise on disputed territorial issues, and the set up of a new Asian trade bloc. By Simon Roughneen, Correspondent US President Obama attends the East Asia Summit at the Peace Palace in Phnom Penh, Cambodia, Tuesday. Obama is in Cambodia on the final leg of his three-country tour of Southeast Asia. Troubled waters: disputes in the China Seas Heng Sinith/AP View Caption About video ads of PHNOM PENH, Cambodia — US President Obama heads back to Washington from Cambodia, after meeting leaders from southeast Asia, Australia, China, India, Japan, New Zealand, and South Korea, to discuss political and economic issues in a region now seen as the fulcrum of global economic growth.Territorial wrangles over the South China Sea, much of which is claimed by China as well as a number of other smaller countries, dominated the summit of Asian leaders. Territorial tensions between China and Japan were also closely watched at the summit. Obama's first foreign trip after his reelection saw some surface compromise on the issues, while a new trade bloc looks set to form without the participation of the US.With China's Wen Jiabao soon to step down as prime minister, the summit likely marked the last official meeting between Wen and Obama. And both world leaders sought to avoid a direct confrontation. “The US and China do not appear willing to risk superpower tension at this time over the resource-rich areas around the contested islets and shoals,” says Thitinan Pongsudhirak, head of the Institute of Security and International Studies in Bangkok. Test your knowledgeThink you know Asia? Take our geography quiz. Obama Meets Leaders of China, Japan "It is very important that as two of the largest economies in the world, that we work to establish clear rules of the road internationally for trade and investment, which can increase prosperity and global growth," said Obama after meeting China's Wen.Obama and China play nice?With a focus on economics, the US appeared to hold a noncommittal line on security issues during the talks, though it has spoken strongly on the South China Sea in the past, citing the need for dialogue while negotiating with Vietnam and the Philippines about supplying military hardware.Now, however, “President Obama’s message is there needs to be a reduction of the tensions,” US Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes said after Tuesday's meetings. “There is no reason to risk any potential escalation, particularly when you have two of the world’s largest economies – China and Japan – associated with some of those disputes.”China, too, sought to be diplomatic. “We do not want to bring the disputes to an occasion like this,” Wen told the summit, according to Chinese Deputy Foreign Minister Fu Ying, who briefed media on Tuesday evening.It seemed China’s apparent effort to have host Cambodia play bad cop, however, may have backfired: Phnom Penh was forced to backtrack on assertions that southeast Asian countries reached a “consensus” that they would not “internationalize” the South China Sea issue – seen as code for Chinese requests that nonclaimant powers such the US and Japan steer clear of the dispute. Closing the summit, Cambodia's usually voluble Prime Minister Hun Sen refused to take questions during a press conference, saying "I am exhausted after these three days."The playersThe Philippines, a US ally, said that there was no such agreement between member states of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), and backed by Vietnam and Singapore, forced the final ASEAN communique on the issue to erase a section claiming a consensus.There are seven claimants to parts of the oil-rich South China Sea and its islands: China, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Vietnam, and Taiwan.Both the US and Japan raised the South China Sea issue in their meetings with ASEAN.But, in an apparent softening of demands that ASEAN deal with China as a group on the issue, rather than see bilateral negotiations between China and claimant member-states, which is what China wants, the Philippines today proposed that “all claimants consider coming together to begin focusing on clarification of maritime claims.”When asked by the Monitor if President Benigno Aquino's proposal meant an end to ASEAN or US involvement in the dispute, Manila's Foreign Secretary Alberto del Rosario replied, “Not necessarily.”The Philippines and China faced-off earlier in 2012 at the Scarborough Shoal just off the Philippine coast. Both countries remain obdurate over the area, however, so overall, tensions remain.“Huangyan Island [Scarborough Shoal] is China’s territory,” Deputy Foreign Minister Fu quoted Wen as telling the summit. “China’s act of defending its sovereignty is necessary and legitimate.”Many others, however, see it as an overstep, and US allies seem to be hoping for a firmer line from Obama.“Obama just talking about the sea disputes and asserting US interest in the dispute was good. But from the accounts I’m reading, he was too evenhanded,” says Walter Lohman, Asia Studies Center director at the Heritage Foundation. “You don’t have to take sides on the details of territorial disputes to attribute blame for the current problems. It's not fair, or ultimately conducive to peace, to treat everyone equally, when the one common element to all the disputes is unreasonable Chinese claims and aggressiveness,” says Mr. Lohman.Obama's summit meetings came after visiting Thailand, a long-time US ally, as well as Myanmar, a former pariah now coming out of the cold but retaining close economic ties with China – a visit seen as both a reward for the military-dominated government's reforms as well as a step by the US in pushing back Chinese influence in the region.More regional blocs?In Thailand, Obama brought the government onboard the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a proposed free trade grouping taking in Australia, Brunei, Canada, Malaysia, Mexico, Peru, Singapore, and Vietnam, but one likely to be dominated by the US.The TPP does not include China, prompting speculation that the body is part of US plans to sidestep Beijing, even though the two countries are economically-interdependent in many ways.On Tuesday in Phnom Penh, ASEAN member-states as well as Australia, China, India, Japan, South Korea, and New Zealand said they would work to set up the world’s biggest free trade bloc by 2015, to be called the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP).Analysts say that the RCEP initiative may have stemmed from concerns about the leverage of the TPP. “As the US becomes more aggressive with TPP, ASEAN is afraid of being dominated by the superpower on the trade front,” says Professor Thitinan.However, some say both groups could still help promote trade relations across the region and possibly lead to a single regional trade entity in future. “There won’t be two blocs. There is too much overlap among the parties,” says Walter Lohman. Obama visit to Cambodia overshadowed by row over South China Sea South China Sea meeting ends in stalemate

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/12001

What the military did while Benghazi post burned Published: Saturday, July 12, 2014 11:36 p.m.�CDT • Updated: Saturday, July 12, 2014 11:57 p.m.�CDT WASHINGTON – One by one, behind closed doors, military officers explained what they did and didn’t do the night the U.S. diplomatic post in�Benghazi, Libya, burned. Together their 30 hours of testimony to congressional investigators gives the fullest account yet of the military’s response to the surprise attacks that killed the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans the night of Sept. 11, 2012, and early the next morning.Transcripts of the interviews, with some names and classified information blacked out, were released WednesdayThe nine officers, including retired Gen. Carter Ham, then the head of the military’s U.S. Africa Command, described making on-the-fly decisions with only sparse information about the crisis unfolding at a diplomatic post and the nearby CIA compound.None of them was in�Benghazi. The closest? Some were 600 miles away in Tripoli, the Libyan capital; others gave orders from command headquarters in Germany or Washington.They did not witness what went on in the White House or at the State Department. Ex-Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and others have testified about�Benghazi. More hearings are coming.The nine officers shed light on the nature of the attacks; speculation that the military was ordered to “stand down” from helping Americans; suggestions that the U.S. should have rushed jets or a special operations team to�Benghazi; and early misperceptions that the attack began as a protest over an anti-Islam video.Some lingering questions about the�Benghazi�attacks and what the officers told the House Armed Services Committee and the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee this year:DID MILITARY LEADERS INITIALLY BELIEVE THE TROUBLE RESULTED FROM A STREET PROTEST?Some heard that, some didn’t; nothing was clear about events on the ground at first.One of the earliest reports came from Ambassador Chris Stevens, who told his deputy in a phone call cut short: “We’re under attack.”“We started calling it an attack from inception,” said Army Lt. Col. S.E. Gibson, who was at the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli. “We never referred to it as anything else.”Another military official in Tripoli, whose name was withheld, said he wasn’t sure how to interpret that word – “attack” – at first.He had heard about protesters who scaled the walls of the U.S. Embassy in Cairo earlier that night. “It could be, you know, vandals are attacking,” he said.Retired Vice Adm. Charles “Joe” Leidig Jr., deputy commander of AFRICOM, said he was awoken in the night at his headquarters in Germany with word that “there had been protesters, and they had overrun the facility in Benghazi.” But Ham, who was alerted while visiting the Pentagon, said he heard no mention of protesters.So he’s sure he didn’t pass on anything like that when he informed Panetta and Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, of the attack. Dempsey and Panetta personally took word to President Barack Obama at the White House.Speaking for the Obama administration, then-U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice appeared on Sunday talk shows five days later and suggested the attacks were born from regional protests against an anti-Islamic video. The administration later recanted that position but never thoroughly articulated what they believe happened. Republicans say Obama soft-pedaled a terrorist attack to protect his re-election.Over the two days when the attacks were occurring, there was “very, very little discussion that I can recall about why did this happen.” Ham said. “There just wasn’t time for that, frankly.”WAS A FOUR-MAN TEAM HEADED FOR�BENGHAZI�ORDERED TO STAND DOWN?Technically, no, the team was not ordered, as some have asserted, to stand by as militants attacked Americans 600 miles away. But they were told not to go to�Benghazi�and instead to stay and protect personnel in Tripoli. In hindsight, the attacks were over by then, anyway.The special operations officer leading that team and the commander who gave him the order both told investigators that it was the right decision.The team, led by Gibson, was in Tripoli to help train Libyan special forces. When the�Benghazi�attack began, Gibson’s first duty was to protect the embassy in Tripoli amid fears that it also would be targeted. He helped evacuate the staff to a classified, more-secure location. Once he felt they were safe on the morning of Sept. 12, Gibson was ready to rush to�Benghazi�to help.One Libyan plane carrying a six-man U.S. security team already had taken off. Gibson wanted his group on the second chartered flight. He called the special operations command center for Africa to say they were heading to the airport.He was told, “Don’t go. Don’t get on that plane.”“Initially, I was angry,” he recalled. “Because a tactical commander doesn’t like to have those decisions taken away from him. But then once I digested it a little bit, then I realized, OK, maybe there was something going on. Maybe I’m needed here for something else.”Rear Adm. Brian Losey, who gave the order, said he needed Gibson’s team in Tripoli in case trouble started there. Although some Republican lawmakers have suggested the team might have helped repel attackers in Benghazi, their flight would have arrived after the final assault that killed two CIA contractors.Losey dismissed the notion that the foursome could have been much help in�Benghazi, where Americans already were moving to the airfield for evacuation with the aid of Libyan forces and the U.S. security team from the first plane. Losey noted that Gibson’s group consisted of a communications specialist, a medic and a weapons operator with his foot in a cast.“That’s not a security team,” Losey said. Sending them in “didn’t make a lot of sense.”Gibson said if his group had flown to�Benghazi, their flight would have crossed paths with the first plane as it returned bearing wounded Americans. Because they stayed, his medic was there to meet two seriously injured people at the Tripoli airport. The medic is credited with saving one’s life.RIGHT OR WRONG, WASN’T THAT AN ORDER TO “STAND DOWN”?Not according to Losey and Gibson.Civilians might say that Losey ordered Gibson to stand down from his race to the scene. But Losey and Gibson say in their military parlance, standing down means ceasing operations.“It was not a stand-down order,” Gibson said. “It was not, ‘Hey, time for everybody to go to bed.’ It was, you know, ‘Don’t go. Don’t get on that plane. Remain in place.’”“It was never an order to stand down,” Losey said. “It was an order to remain in place and continue to provide your security role in Tripoli.”DID CLINTON GIVE A “STAND DOWN” ORDER, AS SOME REPUBLICANS HAVE THEORIZED?“No,” said Losey.“I never received any orders from the secretary of state or heard of any orders from the secretary of state,” said Leidig, also based in Stuttgart, Germany.“No,” said Ham, who commanded the Africa operations. “And we would not receive direct communications from the secretary of state.”Ham said no one else ordered him to stand down, either, and no one tried to stop him from helping the Americans in�Benghazi�any way he could.“The conversation really was more along lines of, you know, ‘What do you need? What can we do?’” he said. “And every request for forces that I asked of the secretary of defense was approved.”WHAT DID THE MILITARY DO TO HELP?Following the first report of trouble about 9:40 p.m. local time on Sept. 11, officials began looking for military planes that could head to�Benghazi�for evacuations. None would be available for hours. An unmanned drone already in Libya was quickly sent to survey the situation at the diplomatic post. Nighttime darkness limited its usefulness.Two military members — both from Special Forces — were in the six-man team that flew from Tripoli to Benghazi�around midnight and aided with the defense and evacuation of the CIA base.An Air Force C-17 transport plane flew the�Benghazi�evacuees from Tripoli to Germany the night of Sept. 12, about 24 hours after the attacks began.A U.S. anti-terror team sent from Spain arrived in Tripoli after the evacuees had gone.Two military teams — one in Croatia and the other in the U.S. — prepared to go but, as the situation changed, weren’t brought to Libya. They would have arrived too late.Not until the morning of Sept. 12 was the 31st Fighter Wing in Aviano, Italy, ordered to get four F-16 jets and four pilots ready to respond if needed. The call to�Benghazi�never came.WHY DIDN’T THEY SCRAMBLE THE F-16 FIGHTERS?Military leaders decided early on that jets armed with 500-pound bombs were unsuited for the chaotic crisis in an urban area.“Ultimately, it was my decision that said no, not the right response in this circumstance,” Ham said.He didn’t have anyone on the ground to provide target information for airstrikes. He didn’t want to harm innocent people or risk inflaming more Libyans to join the attack. He believed some militants had missiles capable of downing a plane.“Had I made a different decision, had strike aircraft deployed, we don’t really know what the outcome would have been,” Ham said. “Maybe it would have been positive, but maybe it would have got shot down. Maybe it would have killed civilians.”Brig. Gen. Scott Zobrist, then the wing commander at Aviano, had similar worries. He said that, even if called right away, it would have taken 20 hours to get jets to�Benghazi�from the base in Italy normally used for training flights.Pilots would have to be recalled from their homes, bombs loaded onto planes, the 1,000-mile route planned. The jets would need refueling along the way, which meant coordinating with tanker planes stationed in England — something that typically takes days to plan.COULD THE MILITARY HAVE DONE MORE?Perhaps.In hindsight, Ham said, he should have reached out to his Libyan contacts and other U.S. officials to get Americans evacuated from�Benghazi�faster. That might have saved the two lives that were lost hours after the first attack at the diplomatic post. While the evacuation from�Benghazi�was being planned by the embassy and the CIA, Ham said, he switched his focus toward gearing up a possible hostage rescue mission, because the ambassador was still missing.Meanwhile, surviving U.S. personnel were gathered at the CIA base in�Benghazi. Ham said he believed they were relatively safe. He and other military leaders said they weren’t told that the CIA compound already had come under gunfire and rocket-propelled grenade attacks in the middle of the night.The U.S. security team that arrived at the�Benghazi�airport after midnight was detained by Libyan officials for several hours. That delayed the evacuation, Ham said, and “allowed sufficient time for the second attack to be organized and conducted.”During that attack, around 5 a.m., mortar fire killed two CIA security contractors on the roof and wounded other Americans.Less than an hour later, the evacuation of all American personnel from�Benghazi�began.___Associated Press writers Donna Cassata and Bradley Klapper contributed to this report.___Follow Connie Cass on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/ConnieCass Previous Page|1|2|3|4|5|Next Page

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/12016

'The decision will be based on, can I do it joyfully': Jeb Bush says he'll decide later this year if he wants to run for President in 2016Jeb Bush is the son of former President George H.W. Bush and brother to George W. BushThe former Florida Governor would be vying for the Republican nomination in the 2016 campaignHe said he will decide at a later date about whether to run 00:33 EST, 31 January 2014 Another Bush may be running for president.Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush left the door open to running when asked this week if he was considering a 2016 bid on the Republican ticket.‘The decision will be based on, can I do it joyfully, because I think we need to have candidates lift our spirits,’ he told local media gathered Wednesday during an appearance at a suburban Miami school, according to WFOR. Will he or won't he?: Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush was non-committal about whether or not he would run in 2016 during a school visit this week Jeb Bush is the son of 41st President George H.W. Bush and brother of 43rd President George W. Bush – family matriarch Barbara Bush said last year when asked about a potential run by son Jeb that ‘we've had enough Bushes.’Those remarks and a surge in popularity by New Jersey Republican Governor Chris Christie led many to believe Jeb Bush wasn’t eying a run at the Oval Office. But the last there months have changed things.Mr Christie’s popularity has begun to fall as he endures multiple scandals related to lane closures on the George Washington Bridge and tying Superstorm Sandy aid owed to Hoboken to the approval of real estate projects.With no clear frontrunner, Jeb Bush might have a clear path to at least the Republican nomination were he to run. 'Can I do it joyfully?': Jeb Bush says that unless he can uplift the spirits of the voters, he will not run ‘I’m going to think about it (running for president) later,’ said Jeb Bush. ‘I don’t wake up each day saying, ‘what am I going to do today to make this decision?‘I’m deferring the decision to the right time which is later this year and the decision will be based on, can I do it joyfully, because I think we need to have candidates lift our spirits,’ he continued. Americans change the channel as State Of The Union gets... 'The buck stops with me': Georgia Governor finally takes... ‘It’s a pretty pessimistic country right now; and, is it right for my family? So I don’t even want to think about that till it’s the right time and that’s later on,’ he added.Other potential candidates whose names have been floated round include Kentucky Senator Rand Paul and fellow Floridian Marco Rubio. 'I love her': The youngest Bush son said he loves mother Barbara Bush despite her saying she hopes he doesn't run for president Former first lady Barbara Bush said, despite her reservations, that ‘Jeb is the best qualified person to run.’When asked about his mother’s remarks about another presidential run by the family, Jeb Bush replied that ‘she is 89 years old and if you have elderly parents or grandparents, you know they speak their mind. ‘There is not much stopping between thinking and speaking,’ he continued. ‘I love her.’ Jeb Bush Still Undecided On 2016 Presidential Run - CBS Miami

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/12017

Bin Laden's 'right-hand man' set for life on British benefits after judges rule deportation would breach his human rightsBy JAMES SLACKLast updated at 08:40 10 April 2008One of the world's most dangerous terror suspects was last night preparing for a life on benefits in Britain after judges ruled that his deportation would breach human rights law. Abu Qatada, dubbed Osama Bin Laden's "truly dangerous" ambassador in Europe, could be released from jail within months following the Court of Appeal verdict.scroll down for more... Yesterday's decision has left Britain's anti-terror laws in tatters. It means the Jordanian father of five - who has been linked to a string of global terror conspiracies and is held in a high security prison under immigration powers - can expect to receive £1,000 a month in handouts. The taxpayer also faces a bill of tens of thousand of pounds to keep the hate-filled cleric under 24-hour surveillance by security services under a control order unless a last-ditch Home Office appeal is granted by the House of Lords. Even if it is, Qatada could appeal again, to the European Court of Human Rights. Yesterday the Court of Appeal said Qatada could stay because evidence used against him in any prosecution in his native Jordan may have been obtained by torture - a breach of the European Convention on Human Rights. At the same time, 12 Libyan fanatics were cleared to remain in Britain for the rest of their lives by a second human rights ruling. They include an asylum seeker considered a "real and direct threat" to security who had a map marked with the flightpath to Birmingham Airport. The rulings mean that - despite Tony Blair's promise in the immediate aftermath of the 7/7 attacks that the "rules of the game have changed" - not a single international terrorist has been forcibly removed from this country. Almost three years on, the only Islamic fanatics to depart are eight Algerians who went voluntarily. The Home Office had secured a Memorandum of Understanding with both Jordan and Libya, which said that returned terror suspects would not face torture. But judges - torpedoing the much-heralded strategy - said there was no guarantee that the Libyans would not suffer ill treatment or harm in the future. scroll down for more ... Grave doubts must now be cast on the remaining 11 deportation cases before the courts, many of which are understood to involve Algerians. A separate agreement with Algeria - which has an appalling human rights record - has yet to be tested, and could be struck down in the same way as that signed by Libya. Tory MP Patrick Mercer, who recently advised Gordon Brown on national security, said: "Yet again, terrorists are laughing at us and remaining in this country at the taxpayer's expense. "Abu Qatada, Bin Laden's twisted mouthpiece, stays with us inside this country. What a shambles." Shadow Home Secretary David Davis said: "This deals a major blow to the Government's assurances that Memorandums of Understanding are the answer in seeking to deport terror suspects."The Qatada ruling is particularly devastating for the Home Office, which has been trying to deport the former asylum seeker for three years. He was first detained in 2002, after spending ten months on the run immediately after September 11. Ministers had been confident he would be booted out after securing the Memorandum of Understanding with Jordan in August 2005. It gave assurances he would not be tortured or ill-treated. But, in a ruling which displays the true reach of human rights law, the Court of Appeal said that - while Qatada might not be harmed - witnesses who may be called to give evidence against him in any future trial held by the Jordanian authorities may have been tortured. The judges said this would be a breach of the right to a fair trial under the European Convention on Human Rights. Qatada remains in London's Belmarsh jail with other fanatics, including hook-handed cleric Abu Hamza. But if the Home Office loses an expected appeal to the House of Lords, Qatada will be set free. The Government has no immigration power to hold those it has no realistic prospect of deporting. Instead, officials would have to rely on placing Qatada - whose wife and children live in West London - under a control order, and hope he does not abscond. A string of international and homegrown terrorist suspects have gone on the run while under the shambolic orders. The Libyan ruling, handed down by the same three Court of Appeal judges, was equally devastating. It leaves the Memorandum of Under-standing with that country in tatters. The judges, headed by Master of the Rolls Sir Anthony Clarke, upheld an earlier ruling by the special immigration appeal court that two men known only as AS and DD could not be removed in case the agreement with Libya was breached at a later date. The men, who had been on bail, were immediately released from any court conditions. Deportation proceedings against a further ten Libyans were abandoned, after officials admitted they had no prospect of success. The Home Office responded by placing the men under what were described as "strict" control orders, but even the most restrictive conditions would allow the Libyans to roam the streets for ten hours each day. Last night, Qatada's solicitor poured scorn on the Government, and Tony Blair's deportation promise, which had been part of a 12-point terror plan drawn up in direct response to the loss of 52 innocent lives in the July 7 London attacks. Many of the measures have since collapsed. Gareth Peirce said: "It is of the greatest importance to us all that there are rules, that they cannot be changed and that they are in no way treated as a game. We welcome the court's decision." Home Office Minister Tony McNulty said: "The Government's top objective is to keep the public safe and I am disappointed that the courts have found that deportations to Libya can't go ahead for now. "I am pleased the courts dismissed all but one of Abu Qatada's reasons for appeal. We are seeking to overturn that point, and I believe we will be able to secure his deportation to Jordan and we will push for it as soon as possible. In the meantime, he remains behind bars." • KEY AL QAEDA FIGURE 'IS DEAD' An Al Qaeda planner linked to terror attacks in Britain and against British subjects around the world is said to have died near Pakistan's border with Afghanistan. U.S. officials said intelligence indicated that Obaidah Al Masri had died of natural causes - thought to be hepatitis - and not in a series of recent American airstrikes targeting his hideouts in Pakistan's tribal area of Waziristan. Intelligence officers said that Al Masri, a trained bomb-maker originally from Algeria, was at the "core of Al Qaeda". He is known to have been involved in the recruiting of British-born Pakistanis and other "foreigners" for operations in Europe. A U.S. official said: "Al Qaeda lost something when this man died. He was someone who had ties to operations outside of the South Asia region." A British official said : "He is not at the very top of Al Qaeda but has been part of the core circle for a long time." U.S. officials declined to discuss Al Masri's whereabouts when he died. Much of Al Qaeda's key leadership is believed to be holed up in remote areas of Pakistan near the Afghanistan border.

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/12031

U.S. House approves raising debt ceiling Filed under WASHINGTON — Ending three years of brinkmanship in which the threat of a devastating default on the nation’s debt was used to wring conservative concessions from President Barack Obama, the House on Tuesday voted to raise the government’s borrowing limit until March 2015 without any conditions.The 221-201 vote relied almost entirely on Democrats in the Republican-controlled House to carry the measure and represented the first debt ceiling increase since 2009 that was not attached to other legislation. Only 28 Republicans voted yes, and only two Democrats voted no.Simply by holding the vote, Speaker John Boehner of Ohio effectively ended a three-year tea party-inspired era of budget showdowns that had raised the threat of default and government shutdowns, rattled economic confidence and brought serious scrutiny from other nations questioning Washington’s ability to govern. In the process, Boehner also set off a series of reprisals from fellow Republican members of Congress and outside groups that showcased the party’s deep internal divisions.“He gave the president exactly what he wanted, which is exactly what the Republican Party said we did not want,” said U.S. Rep. Tim Huelskamp of Kansas, who last year tried unsuccessfully to rally enough support to derail Boehner’s re-election as speaker. “It’s going to really demoralize the base.”The vote was a victory for Obama, Democrats and those Senate Republicans who have argued that spending money for previously incurred obligations was essential for the financial standing of the federal government.“Tonight’s vote is a positive step in moving away from the political brinkmanship that’s a needless drag on our economy,” Jay Carney, the White House press secretary, said in a prepared statement.But outside Republican groups were critical of the speaker. Both the Club for Growth and Heritage Action for America had put out a “key vote” alert urging members to vote against the measure.“A clean debt ceiling is a complete capitulation on the speaker’s part and demonstrates that he has lost the ability to lead the House of Representatives, let alone his own party,” said Jenny Beth Martin, co-founder of the Tea Party Patriots. “It is time for him to go.”Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, commended the speaker and promised to pass the bill as soon as possible.But Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, said Tuesday in a prepared statement that he planned to object to any attempt to raise the debt ceiling with a minimum of 51 votes, instead of requiring 60 votes — meaning at least five Republicans would have to vote with the full Democratic caucus — to get to final passage.“If Republicans stand together, we can demand meaningful spending restraint to help pull our nation back from the fiscal and economic cliff,” Cruz said.‘Clean’ voteBoehner stunned House Republicans on Tuesday morning when he dropped a package that would have tied the debt ceiling increase to a repeal of cuts to military pensions that had been approved in December and announced he would put a “clean” debt ceiling increase up for a vote.Enough Republicans had balked at that package when it was presented Monday night to convince the speaker that he had no choice but to turn to the Democratic minority.For Boehner, it was a potentially momentous decision. Conservative activists including the Tea Party Patriots, FreedomWorks, L. Brent Bozell’s ForAmerica and commentators on the website RedState.com are circulating petitions to end Boehner’s speakership.And it was Boehner who raised such high expectations around the debt limit. In 2011, he established what has become known as the “Boehner Rule”: Any debt ceiling increase was supposed to be offset by an equivalent spending cut.“This is a lost opportunity,” the speaker said. “We could have sat down and worked together in a bipartisan manner to find cuts and reforms that are greater than increasing the debt limit. I am disappointed, to say the least.”The ramifications for Boehner are unclear. The speaker’s supporters commended him for shepherding through an increase in the government’s borrowing authority. They said Obama left leaders no choice once he refused to negotiate a deficit reduction deal attached to a debt ceiling increase.Split ranks in GOPThe 28 Republicans who supported the bill were cobbled together from Republican leadership, moderates and retiring members. Notably, not all of the top Republican leadership voted for the measure — Reps. Cathy McMorris Rodgers of Washington, the No. 4 House Republican, and Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, the party’s 2012 vice presidential nominee, both voted no.That left allies of the speaker fuming that political considerations had left Republicans with no policy cover to accompany the debt ceiling increase.Rep. Ted Yoho, a freshman Republican from Florida who voted in his first days in office to depose Boehner, was in a forgiving mood.“With that many people and that many personalities in there, it’s hard to bring them all together on a common cause,” he said.Most Republicans appeared content to move beyond the debt ceiling fight, focus on the 2014 campaign and hope for a stronger hand next year to force Obama back into budget negotiations.“Hopefully we can win the Senate and we can have a completely different conversation,” said Rep. James Lankford, an Oklahoma Republican running for the Senate.Jonathan Weismanand Ashley Parker,The New York Times View Comments

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/12134

consular defence culture & press court circuit corps news embassy events diplomatic list government info directory embassy team Heads up – Embassy 36 Peace dividends As Mozambique marks the 20th anniversary of its peace accord this year, Carlos dos Santos, the newly-arrived High Commissioner to London, can take personal satisfaction in the contribution he made. As Chef du Cabinet at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in 1991-92, he was involved in the final stages of the negotiations and was present at the signing of the Rome General Peace Accords in October 1992, which ended 15 years of bitter civil war. “We rejoiced, but we weren’t sure whether peace had come to stay,” he reflects. “And then the real work started to make the agreement stick!” Dos Santos was appointed Private Secretary to President Chissano (1992-96) where he was the point of contact between the various opposing parties as well as the UN in implementing the agreement, including thorny issues such as demobilization. It was a process he had witnessed as a young diplomat posted to Harare in 1984-1990 in the years that followed the Lancaster House Agreement which ended the Zimbabwean conflict. But what made Mozambique’s process more challenging was that it had almost no institutional capacity following years of Portuguese colonial rule and a long civil war. Yet 20 years later, Mozambique is regarded as a success story, which the High Commissioner attributes to a combination of factors. “The first is good leadership as well as the desire of the people to want peace. We also had the strong support of the international community.” Mozambique’s neighbourhood had also changed, he adds, especially in Zimbabwe and South Africa whose white minority governments – that had supported the Mozambican rebels – were no longer in power. After four years assisting the President, the High Commissioner was sent to the UN in New York in 1996. He was appointed Secretary-General of the first meeting of the States Parties to the Ottawa Convention to Ban Landmines and continues to take a professional and personal interest in eradicating landmines in Mozambique – in fact his wife was a programme officer in Mozambique’s National Demining Institute. Dos Santos also chaired the Preparatory Committee of the 2001 International Conference on Illicit Trade in Small Arms, a scourge which has fuelled conflicts not only in Mozambique but all over Africa. “We wanted to find proper controls and management of small arms and light weapons,” explains the High Commissioner. “We still have weapons caches hidden in bushes that were left by the guerrillas. We launched Operation Rachel in 1996 to encourage those who have illegal weapons to trade them in for spades and hoes.” Dos Santos returned to Mozambique in 2003 as Senior Adviser to President Chissano to find a country undergoing a remarkable transformation. “We experienced an immeasurable peace dividend. Over the past ten years, Mozambique has registered economic growth rates averaging seven to eight per cent per annum.” Admittedly the country was starting from a very low base, but he stresses that these levels of growth need to be sustained in order to wean Mozambique off its dependence on donor funding. “Almost half of our budget is supported by development partners,” says Dos Santos. Germany for instance, where he was posted as Ambassador in 2006, supports education, the HIV Aids Programme and the decentralisation of development as well as the growth of private enterprise in Mozambique and regional science and technology centres. Highlights of his posting included coordinating the first-ever state visit of a Mozambican head of state to Germany and arranging a week-long Mozambican cultural festival. Now in London, the High Commissioner wants to build on ties with the UK, which is one of Mozambique’s key development partners. But as important as aid is, the High Commissioner wants to concentrate on encouraging British businesses to trade with and invest in Mozambique’s economy. There is plenty of scope, he says, particularly in the burgeoning mining, agriculture, food processing and tourism industries as well as large infrastructure projects. Mozambique’s energy sector is undergoing rapid expansion with the discovery of large deposits of natural gas on its coastline, as well as renewable sources of energy such as hydropower, biomass, wind and solar energy. With Mozambique being one of the newer members of the Commonwealth, Dos Santos also wants to use his time in London to learn from the experiences of other members – such as Trinidad and Tobago, which has a long history and expertise in the energy sector. “There are still huge challenges facing us – we remain one of the least developed countries and there are issues such as corruption which we are trying to tackle. But like our country, our people are blessed with a lot of energy too!” smiles the High Commissioner, who hopes to share some of Mozambique’s infectious dance, music and culture with the British public. He is not short of energy either, having captained the African ambassadors’ football side for two years running in the annual match against the German Foreign Ministry on Africa Day. It’s a tradition he thinks could be imported to London. As a striker, no doubt High Commissioner Dos Santos will score many goals in London whether in the diplomatic or on the football field. HE Mr Carlos dos Santos “We experienced an immeasurable peace dividend. Over the past ten years, Mozambique has registered economic growth rates averaging seven to eight per cent per annum” © Embassy Magazine | Terms and conditions | Embassy is published by Character Publishing Ltd. Registered in England No.5295760

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/12195

TRENDING: A Measles Death, Vaccines, and the Media’s Failure to I... Nobel Laureate Ivar Giaever on Climate Change The Myth of the U.N. Creation of Israel Support Foreign Policy Journal Jeremy R. Hammond The Making of the Egyptian People’s Revolution By Deepak Tripathi | Feb 9, 2011 | Viewpoints | 0 | These are days of reckoning for Hosni Mubarak and those associated with the Egyptian regime in and outside the country. The outpouring of a million or more people in Cairo, Alexandria, Suez, and across the country repeats a familiar lesson. Once people living under a suppressive regime have broken the fear barrier, and the masses have realized their collective strength and resolved to end their long nightmare. We are witnessing a phenomenon that is irreversible. People have lived through atrocities and pain, economic and political hardships without any obvious recourse, distrust of their rulers, and pessimism about their future long enough. They have reflected on what they must endure if things remained unchanged, examined their own worth and concluded that the system cheats them in every way. Their rage has broken the threshold of tolerance. They have decided that the existence of permanent humiliation is not worthy of continuation. Then the point of inevitability of a people’s uprising has been reached. The inevitability of a revolution, once the dynamic has reached that point, is not in doubt. However, exact prophecy is trickier. Juan Cole warns against the temptation to compare Egypt’s popular uprising to Iran’s 1979 Islamic Revolution (Why Egypt 2011 is not Iran 1979, Informed Comment, February 2, 2011). A number of observers have made alarmist predictions that the Muslim Brotherhood (i.e. radical Islamists) would take over power if Egypt’s military-dominated regime is swept away by popular revolt. What a betrayal of eighty million people? The Muslim Brotherhood is neither a dominant entity in Egyptian polity nor is the movement in collaboration with the radical movements like the Islamic Jihad. There are secular, left-wing and right-wing parties, religious forces and labor activists in considerable numbers. Contrary to national elections and referendums to extend military-led rule under President Hosni Mubarak over three decades, the outcome of a free and fair election, if it were held, cannot be predetermined. However, with more than twenty parties, the scenario of a radical Islamist seizer of power looks unlikely. Anti-Americanism in Egypt, the heart the Arab world, is a different matter. Political machination by the ruling elites in and outside Egypt to keep the established character of regime in place will only serve to reinforce the anti-American feeling. Egypt’s uprising has both differences from, and parallels with, earlier civil revolts elsewhere. The local context of the events in Egypt is different. However, it is important to recognize what these events mean for the United States, Israel and their strategic designs in the Middle East. They mean something akin to what the Iranian Revolution meant back in 1978-79. In the early stages of the Iranian Revolution, a weak American president Jimmy Carter in a moment of fatal misjudgment, described Iran, under a brutal regime, as a “free country” and an “oasis of peace and stability.” As the current Egyptian uprising started two weeks ago, the U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton declared that the regime in Cairo was “stable.” That only days after Clinton was moved to acknowledge the region being battered by a “perfect storm” demonstrated a crisis in Washington’s understanding of the Middle East similar to the one three decades before. America’s misjudgment and confusion about how to deal with the crisis does not stop there. The way ahead is littered with political landmines. President Obama’s soaring rhetoric proved much stronger than his leadership in office. Today he looks like a weak president in the mold of Jimmy Carter. In July 2009, he embarked on his Middle East political journey in Cairo with a celebrated speech seeking “a new beginning” with Muslims based on mutual interests and mutual respect, justice and tolerance. That rhetorical promise faces a severe test. Obama seems clueless while American policy is hijacked by hawkish secretaries of state and defense, and uniformed military top brass openly meddling in Egypt’s affairs; and voices from the United States and Israel declare utter disrespect for the Egyptian people and the reasons for their uprising. Obama demands that a transition “must be quick, must be peaceful and must start now.” President Mubarak refuses to resign, promises to go in September 2011 at the end of his current term (thirty year in all), and offers instead committees to discuss reforms and bribes in the form of pay rises. On February 8, the biggest demonstrations take place since the protests began on January 25. The masses reject Mubarak’s “concessions.” Egypt’s emerging strongman Omar Suleiman, whose intelligence service for years tortured his own people and those the United States sent for “extraordinary rendition” during the “war on terror,” declares that Egypt is “not ready for democracy.” And Obama’s secretary of defense, Robert Gates, pays fulsome compliments to the Egyptian military for showing extraordinary restraint. No matter what comes out of Egypt’s tumultuous events, the U.S. Empire is collapsing. The Egyptian people have all but ensured the end of Hosni Mubarak’s rule and the prospects of a Mubarak dynasty. However, this is only a partial victory. The real victory will be democracy. As machinations in Israel, the United States and its European allies continue, that real victory is not certain – yet. Is it to happen soon? Or the people’s will to be thwarted – again? The point of inevitability in the Egyptian uprising has arrived. Attempts to cheat them this time will leave a legacy of anger and bitterness could have consequences far more serious and long term than the events in Iran in 1979. Rate: Tags: Egypt Deepak Tripathi Deepak Tripathi is a fellow of the Royal Historical Society and the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland. Free e-Book!Sign up to receive FPJ Weekly straight to your inbox plus get instant access to download The Israel-Palestine Conflict: A Collection of Essays by FPJ publisher and editor Jeremy R. Hammond. Yes, send me the e-book! Almost there! Just click the link in the email we've sent to confirm the address your e-book should be delivered to. Comments are encouraged, but please respect the rules. Click here for terms of use. Free e-Book!Sign up to receive FPJ Weekly straight to your inbox plus get the e-book The Israel-Palestine Conflict: A Collection of Essays! Follow FPJ Recent Posts America Deserves Better, But More Importantly, So Does the World Can Russia Learn from Brazil’s Fate? Ban Ki-moon’s Legacy in Palestine: Failure in Words and Deeds He Who Hesitates Is Lost—and Russia Hesitated Seven Reasons to Reject the Israel Arms Deal Hillary Emails Reveal True Motive for Libya Intervention Top Ten Myths about the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict Bush Convicted of War Crimes in Absentia The Myth of the U.N. Creation of Israel Russia Has No Partners in the West Designed by Elegant Themes | Powered by WordPress Free e-Book on the Palestine Conflict!Sign up to receive FPJ Weekly, a free weekly digest of all the latest from Foreign Policy Journal, and get the e-book The Israel-Palestine Conflict: A Collection of Essays by FPJ Editor Jeremy R. Hammond Almost there! Just click the link in the email we've just sent to confirm the address your e-book should be delivered to.

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/12308

Home » County Wants To Do More For Veterans County Wants To Do More For Veterans | By David Czurak | County looking at more funds for veterans County veterans office meets its mission County receives grant for veterans Cooley Law School Open House Market Research II: Business-to-Customer Market Research In an effort to further help local military veterans with any problems they may encounter, including physical and mental health issues, Kent County opened a new department this month to specifically take on that task. County commissioners established the Kent County Veterans’ Affairs Department with a unanimous vote in October and the agency made its official debut on New Year’s Day to become only the fifth department of its kind in the state. The VA replaces the county’s Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Relief Commission, which became a traditional stop for many veterans and their families after it opened more than a century ago in 1899. In making the switch, commissioners agreed that a new department would bring greater attention to the needs that veterans have. They also felt that a local VA would be in a better position to organize and administer the programs the county has for veterans and would lead to a better public accountability of the funding and activities it makes available to the 37,891 veterans living in the county. “We need a comprehensive approach to address the needs of veterans. We do a pretty good job already in Kent County. However, we recognize that there will be a growing need for services to veterans,” said Wayman Britt, assistant county administrator and point man for the department’s establishment. “We are taking a very proactive approach to this concept of better coordination to ensure that we minimize the disconnects the veterans that we’ve assessed having been going through. On many occasions they have been bounced around when they’ve come for various services, and we want to minimize the frustration level that at times occurs with veterans,” he said. Not only are the needs of veterans likely to grow and get more severe in the immediate future, the sheer number of veterans who may seek assistance could also get larger as the nation continues to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan. “We’re seeing more and more veterans returning with conditions that probably require substantial medical attention, as well as mental-health issues that we’re seeing coming back from the wars,” said Britt. “Fortunately, medical technology and the ability to deal with the trauma on the battlefield has improved and sustained the lives of veterans better than what previous wars had. So a lot of these people are coming back from the wars living. However, some are unfortunately experiencing very difficult, long-term medical issues that will require sustained support from wherever they can get it.” The county has located the Veterans’ Affairs Department at 215 Straight Ave. NW in Grand Rapids. It’s a location veterans should be familiar with because it’s in the same building that housed the Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Relief Commission. Not all the services the county offers veterans are available at the site, at least for the short term. The county’s goal, though, is to ultimately have every service under one roof, there or elsewhere, to save veterans from having to go from pillar to post for services. Britt said the new Veterans’ Affairs Committee, which commissioners will staff later this month, will evaluate the current location and advise the county on where the department should be and how it can achieve its goal of eventually becoming a one-stop stop. The county actively encourages local veterans to apply for a seat on the five-member committee. The department has one full-time employee now, the same as the relief commission, but that number could change. The money for the new department is in the budget, about $205,000, as the county transferred the funds that were set for the relief commission to veterans’ affairs. Britt said nine counties in Michigan levy a dedicated millage to pay for a soldiers’ relief fund, but Kent doesn’t. That millage can’t exceed more than a tenth of a mill. “Our economic condition is such that it requires us to do more with less. We have to find ways to streamline operations and to improve our ability to have an impact on the customers that we serve. That’s part of what we do here at Kent County,” he said. Public Act 192 of 1953 gives the county the right to establish the department, so no further action is needed from the state. None is required from the federal government. “We are simply acting on what is already in place,” said Britt. In relation to other Michigan counties, Kent finds itself roughly in the middle of the pack for the amount of money that it budgets per veteran each year, $2.64, and the amount of federal dollars it secures per veteran each year, $1,866. And those figures are without the county having a Veterans’ Affairs Department. Britt said once the new agency gets a full head of steam going those numbers should get better and, more importantly, the county will be able to serve veterans and their families better. “Not to take away from what our Soldier’s and Sailors’ Relief Office did. We have one person running that office and he did an admirable job. We simply want to do it better,” said Britt. “We’re just saying, we know there is going to be an increased need and we know there is going to be a need for better coordination. OK, what is the best model to do that?” HQ David Czurak David Czurak is a former Grand Rapids Business Journal staff reporter who most recently covered city and county government, real estate, construction, architecture and design and sports business. Recent Articles by David Czurak Bank sells copper restaurant Inside Track: World traveler is firmly planted in city’s neighborhoods Market momentum is expected to continue across the region

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/12384

Lindsey Graham: 'Don't Ask Don't Tell Is Not Going Anywhere' Sam Stein Senior Politics Editor, The Huffington Post WASHINGTON -- Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) predicted on Sunday that the military's Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy would not be repealed during the remaining weeks Congress is in session this calendar year. The South Carolina Republican, a proponent of the law banning openly gay service in the armed forces, said definitively that there was no support for repeal on the Republican side of the aisle. He called for an additional study to determine whether the military itself favored overturning the 17-year-old legislation. "This is a political promise made by Senator Obama when he was running for president," said Graham, during an appearance on Fox News Sunday. "There is no groundswell of opposition to Don't Ask, Don't Tell coming from our military. This is all politics. I don't believe there is anywhere near the votes to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell. On the Republican side, I think we will be united in the lame duck [session] and the study I would be looking for is asking military members: Should it be repealed, not how to implement it once you as a politician decide to repeal it. So I think in a lame duck setting Don't Ask, Don't Tell is not going anywhere." Graham is, by virtue of the fact that he has served in the military (as a JAG lawyer), widely considered a leading GOP spokesman on defense matters. With respect to DADT, however, it's unclear to what extent his concerns reflect those of his colleagues. While Graham's top ally in the chamber -- Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) -- has also moved the goalposts for DADT repeal, others have been more sympathetic to revising or overturning the law. That list includes Sens. Lisa Murkowksi (R-Alaska), Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) and even Jon Ensign (R-Nev.). More: Graham Mccain Dadt Graham Don't Ask Don't Tell Don't Ask Don't Tell Lindsey Graham

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/12385

Newt Gingrich Open Marriage: Tweeters Agree With Ex-Wife Newt Gingrich landed in hot water Thursday when his ex-wife Marianne Gingrich revealed on "Nightline" that Newt had once asked her for an open marriage during their 19-year partnership. She said that he wanted to remain married to her while continuing to cheat with his now-wife, Callista Gingrich. In the interview, set to air Thursday at 11:35pm EST, Marianne, who split from Newt in 1999, says she refused his request, adding: " That is not a marriage." Given the GOP hopeful's conservative stance on marriage -- in September he said that marriage is between a man and a woman and called gay marriage a "temporary aberration" -- we asked the Twitterverse if they agree with the candidate's ex-wife. Overwhelmingly, they said yes. Click through the slideshow below to see what Tweeters had to say. Newt Gingrich Marianne Gingrich Newt Gingrich Open Marriage Newt Gingrich Callista Gingrich Newt Gingrich 2012 Newt Gingrich

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/12453

MainAll NewsGlobal AgendaObama, Romney Clash on Middle East, Support Israel Obama, Romney Clash on Middle East, Support IsraelBoth President Barack Obama and Republican rival Mitt Romney,in fiery foreign policy debate, say they will support Israel if it is attacked Elad Benari, 23/10/12 04:30 Romney and Obama in third debateReuters “The 1980s are calling to ask for their foreign policy back,” was President Barack Obama’s first attack on his Republican rival, Mitt Romney, at Monday night’s third and final fiery presidential debate in Boca Raton, Florida. Obama vowed that Iran would not develop nuclear weapons so long as he is president and pledged full support to Israel, as he faced scathing criticism from Romney. Both candidates expressed their support for the Jewish State, but clashed over the extent of Obama's support for the United States' closest ally, a subject on whch Obama has been strongly criticized, especially by Israelis. “As long as I am president of the United States, Iran will not get a nuclear weapon,” he said. “Israel is a true friend. It is our greatest ally in the region. And if Israel is attacked, America will stand with Israel. I've made that clear throughout my presidency.” Obama denied a weekend report in The New York Times that the United States and Iran were prepared for one-on-one talks over the country’s nuclear program after the election. “Those are reports in the newspaper. They are not true," Obama said, adding that Iran was increasingly isolated due to international sanctions. Romney accused Obama of failing to stop progress in Tehran's nuclear program, saying that Obama was right in imposing tough sanctions on the Islamic Republic, but that they were not enough. “It is absolutely the right thing to do to have crippling sanctions. I'd have put them in place earlier, but it is good that we have them," Romney said. “Something I'd add today, I would tighten those sanctions.” He accused, “I see Iran four years closer to a bomb. I don't see our influence growing around the world; I see our influence receding. “When I'm president of the United States, we will stand with Israel. And if Israel is attacked, we 'have their back', not just diplomatically, not just culturally, but militarily. That's number one,” promised Romney. Romney accused Obama of going on an “apology tour” throughout the Middle East after he was elected, but leaving Israel out of that trip, a fact applauded by the Arab world. He attacked Obama's obsequiousnes towards the Muslim world. Obama fired back by saying, “When I went to Israel as a candidate, I didn't take donors, I didn't attend fundraisers, I went to Yad Vashem, the Holocaust museum there, to remind myself the -- the nature of evil and why our bond with Israel will be unbreakable. “And then I went down to the border towns of Sderot, which had experienced missiles raining down from Hamas,” he added. “And I saw families there who showed me where missiles had come down near their children's bedrooms, and I was reminded of -- of what that would mean if those were my kids, which is why, as president, we funded an Iron Dome program to stop those missiles. So that's how I've used my travels when I travel to Israel and when I travel to the region.” Romney, who emphasized his own close friendship with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, noted that “my relationship with the prime minister of Israel is such that we would not get a call saying our bombers are on the way or their fighters are on the way. This is the kind of thing that would have been discussed and thoroughly evaluated well before that kind of action.” It is well known that Obama does not like Netanyahu, would not meet with him on the Israeli PM's last trip to the United States and was overheard complaining about him when talking to former President Sarkozy of France. The debate, which focused on issues of foreign policy, had started with a discussion on the changes in the Middle East as a result of the Arab Spring, which has seen a shift to radical Islamism and continued violence. “With the Arab Spring came a great deal of hope that there would be a change towards more moderation and opportunity for greater participation on the part of women and — and public life and in economic life in the Middle East,” said Romney, alluding to Obama's interpretation of the events which did not prove itself as true. “But instead we’ve seen in nation after nation a number of disturbing events. Of course, we see in Syria 30,000 civilians having been killed by the military there. We see in Libya an attack apparently by — well, I think we know now by terrorists of some kind against — against our people there, four people dead. “And so what we’re seeing is a pretty dramatic reversal in the kind of hopes we had for that region,” he said. “Of course, the greatest threat of all is Iran, four years closer to a nuclear weapon. And — and we’re going to have to recognize that we have to do as the president has done. I congratulate him on taking out Osama bin Laden and going after the leadership in al-Qaeda. But we can’t kill our way out of this mess. We’re going to have to put in place a very comprehensive and robust strategy to help the world of Islam and other parts of the world reject this radical violent extremism which is — it’s really not on the run. It’s certainly not hiding. This is a group that is now involved in 10 or 12 countries, and it presents an enormous threat to our friends, to the world, to America long term, and we must have a comprehensive strategy to help reject this kind of extremism.” Obama responded by saying, “My first job as commander in chief is to keep the American people safe, and that’s what we’ve done over the last four years. We ended the war in Iraq, refocused our attention on those who actually killed us on 9/11. And as a consequence, al-Qaeda’s core leadership has been decimated. “In addition, we’re now able to transition out of Afghanistan in a responsible way, making sure that Afghans take responsibility for their own security, and that allows us also to rebuild alliances and make friends around the world to combat future threats,” he added. “Now, with respect to Libya, as I indicated in the last debate, when we received that phone call, I immediately made sure that, number one, we did everything we could to secure those Americans who were still in harm’s way; number two, that we would investigate exactly what happened; and number three, most importantly, that we would go after those who killed Americans, and we would bring them to justice, and that’s exactly what we’re going to do.” Obama told Romney that “I'm glad that you recognize that al-Qaeda's a threat because a few months ago when you were asked, what's the biggest geopolitical threat facing America, you said Russia -- not al-Qaeda, you said Russia. And the 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because, you know, the Cold War's been over for 20 years. “But, Governor, when it comes to our foreign policy, you seem to want to import the foreign policies of the 1980s, just like the social policies of the 1950s and the economic policies of the 1920s. You say that you're not interested in duplicating what happened in Iraq, but just a few weeks ago you said you think we should have more troops in Iraq right now,” Obama fired at his rival. “You've said that first we should not have a timeline in Afghanistan then you said we should,” he continued. “Now you say maybe or it depends, which means not only were you wrong but you were also confusing and sending mixed messages both to our troops and our allies. “So what -- what we need to do with respect to the Middle East is strong, steady leadership, not wrong and reckless leadership that is all over the map. And unfortunately, that's the kind of opinions that you've offered throughout this campaign, and it is not a recipe for American strength or keeping America safe over the long term,” said Obama. Romney retorted that he had certainly indicated Russia is “a geopolitical foe. And I said in the same paragraph, I said, and Iran is the greatest national security threat we face. Russia does continue to battle us in the UN time and time again. I have clear eyes on this. I'm not going to wear rose-colored glasses when it comes to Russia or Mr. Putin, and I'm certainly not going to say to him, I'll give you more flexibility after the election [Obama was overheard saying just that, ed.]. After the election he'll get more backbone.” Regarding Syria, and its continued bloody civil war, Obama said, “What we've done is organize the international community, saying Assad has to go. We've mobilized sanctions against that government. We have made sure that they are isolated. We have provided humanitarian assistance, and we are helping the opposition organize, and we're particularly interested in making sure that we're mobilizing the moderate forces inside of Syria. “But ultimately,” added Obama, who took an active role in Egypt and Libya, “Syrians are going to have to determine their own future. And so everything we're doing, we're doing in consultation with our partners in the region, including Israel, which obviously has a huge interest in seeing what happens in Syria, coordinating with Turkey and other countries in the region that have a great interest in this.” Romney pointed out that “Syria's an opportunity for us because Syria plays an important role in the Middle East, particularly right now. Syria is Iran's only ally in the Arab world. It's their route to the sea. It's the route for them to arm Hizbullah in Lebanon, which threatens, of course, our ally Israel. And so seeing Syria remove Assad is a very high priority for us. Number two, seeing a -- a replacement government being responsible people is critical for us. And finally, we don't want to have military involvement there. We don't want to get drawn into a military conflict.” Obama, who was asked by the host if he has any regrets about calling on former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, an American ally, to step down early during the revolution, now that Egypt is governed by the Muslim Brotherhood, responded, “No, I don't because I think that America has to stand with democracy. The notion that we would have tanks run over those young people who were in Tahrir Square, that is not the kind of American leadership that John F. Kennedy talked about 50 years ago. “But what I've also said is that now that you have a democratically elected government in Egypt, that they have to make sure that they take responsibility for protecting religious minorities -- and we have put significant pressure on them to make sure they're doing that -- to recognize the rights of women, which is critical throughout the region,” he added. “They have to abide by their treaty with Israel. That is a red line for us, because not only is Israel's security at stake, but our security is at stake if that unravels.” Romney, while agreeing that Mubarak was a dictator, added, “I wish that, looking back at the beginning of the president's term and even further back than that, that we'd have recognized that there was a growing energy and passion for freedom in that part of the world and that we would have worked more aggressively with our -- our friend and with other friends in the region to have them make the transition towards a more representative form of government such that it didn't explode in the way it did.” According to leading pundit Charles Krauthammer on Fox News, Romney won the debate, showing competence, presidential presence and knowledge, while Obama kept interrupting him and pettily attacking him. Tags:Barack Obama, Israel-US, Mitt Romney, US Elections 2012Related StoriesClinton: Peres spoke like a psalmObama urged to probe death of Palestinian-US teenObama under fire for Syria policyU.S. flags to be flown at half-staff for PeresObama blasts Congress for overriding vetoCongress rejects Obama's veto of 9/11 billConfirmed: Obama will attend Peres's funeral'Obama drove Israel and Arab states together'Obama, world leaders to attend Peres funeralObama: Todah rabah, Shimon

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/12454

Netanyahu under pressure regarding Israel's biblical heartland Friday, October 19, 2012 | Ryan Jones Israel Turning East in the Face of European Boycotts America: No Jews in Judea and Samaria Christian harvesters wrap up in Samaria Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu finds himself under increasing pressure both for and against adopting a recent study concluding that the Jews have a legal and historical right to resettle Judea and Samaria. Judea and Samaria are, of course, the biblical heartland of ancient Israel, a region central to the Jewish faith and heritage in this land. But it is also what the world calls the "West Bank" and what the Palestinian Arabs claim as their own independent state, which they insist must be Judenrein - free of Jews. The international community has for the most part sided with the Arab position,and been harshly critical of the several hundred thousand Jews who have made their homes in Judea and Samaria over the past 35 years. These Jewish "settlers" are often labeled an obstacle to peace for daring to rebuild the cities and villages of their forefathers. During the summer, Netanyahu commissioned a panel of jurists, including one who had been involved in formulating the so-called "Oslo Accords", to produce a study on the legality of Jewish settlement activity in Judea and Samaria. Drawing on "international, Jordanian, Israeli and even Ottoman laws" the Levy Committee concluded that "from the point of view of international law, the classical laws of 'occupation' as set out in the relevant international conventions cannot be considered applicable to the unique and sui generis historic and legal circumstances of Israel's presence in Judea and Samaria, over the course of decades." The Geneva Conventions define "military occupation" as the seizing of another nation's land, and the fact is that no nation legally controlled Judea and Samaria following the fall of the Ottoman Empire, which itself had ruled the area for over five centuries. Additionally, the Jews cannot be considered an outside force in Judea and Samaria, but rather the historic founders of the territory as a unified nation-state. Jewish archeological finds dating back millennia abound in the "West Bank." Right-wing Israeli lawmakers have been angered by Netanyahu's subsequent reluctance to adopt the Levy Committee's report. Voice of Israel Radio reported this week that with early elections looming, Netanyahu will now recommend that the government adopt part of the report. Netanyahu still will not throw his weight behind increased Jewish settlement in Judea and Samaria, but does support those parts of the Levy report that call for an end to discrimination against the "settlers" and for Israel to reject the world's description of the Jewish presence in these areas as "occupation." Israeli lawmaker Yisrael Katz (Likud) said Netanyahu is doing the right thing, and that his position will "deliver a clear message to residents of Judea and Samaria that they can live a normal life like everyone else in the country." Not everyone was pleased by the decision. Opposition leader Shaul Mofaz (Kadima) appealed to Israel's attorney general to stop Netanyahu from adopting the report, arguing that doing so would obligate the next government to adhere to its findings, which left-wing Israelis reject. Mofaz said that with elections just months away (January 22), now is not the time to be making such controversial policy decisions. Mofaz's Kadima Party was in power prior to Netanyahu's election victory less than four years ago, and was keen to surrender large swaths of Judea and Samaria to the Palestinians and to uproot the Jews living there.

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/12520

Regional View: Blunt, McCaskill should lead us away from 'fiscal cliff' An editorial by the Kirksville Daily Express, Macon Chronicle-Herald, Linn County Leader, Chillicothe Constitution-Tribune and Moberly Monitor-Index. "The political brinksmanship of recent months highlights what we see as America's governance and policymaking becoming less stable, less effective, and less predictable than what we previously believed."If those words aren't burned into our collective consciousness, they should be. If you've forgotten, they were part of a statement issued in August 2011, when Standard & Poor's reduced the United States' credit rating after our elected leaders walked to the edge of a cliff known as the debt limit.It was the first time in our nation's history we'd suffered such a worldwide slap in the face for legislative bickering . Our lawmakers knew the consequences of their inaction, stalled, stalled, and stalled some more until they acted, but much too late to prevent negative steps they'd already put in motion.Don't look now, but here we go again, this time walking toward a new edge known as the "fiscal cliff." This was designed as the consequence to spur action, a piece of the Budget Control Act so extreme that our lawmakers would have no choice but to act before it was implemented. But they didn't, and now the clock is into single digits and we're out of timeouts. Again.If our leaders don't reach a bipartisan debt-reduction deal by the end of the year, on Jan. 1 our country will being spending less on defense. The Bush tax cuts will expire. The payroll tax holiday will end. Extended unemployment benefits will stop. Physician reimbursements for Medicare will be cut.The expiring tax cuts means everyone will have less money. Since consumer spending accounts for nearly three-quarters of our country's economy activity, and we're still slowly recovering from a damaging recession, this does not seem like a positive solution.There are tough choices to be made, we do not dispute that. We need to make some painful budget cuts. Our entitlement programs must be reformed. And we need to increase government revenue (yes, we're talking about tax increases).We call on our senators, Republican Roy Blunt and Democrat Claire McCaskill, to lead the way toward the necessary bipartisan compromise. Missouri has always been a commonsense kind of state, and these negotiations require some no-nonsense solutions.It's time for the self-inflicted wounds to stop. Let's back away from the cliff, continue our economic recovery and get to the business of building a strong foundation for a prosperous future.

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/12581

Trinkle files for re-election A current City Council member in Lansing has filed for another term. Dave Trinkle Jr. has been one of the two representatives of Ward 1 since being appointed in 2000. In 2001, he ran and won a four-year term on the council. He was re-elected in 2005 and 2009. A lifelong resident of Lansing, Trinke said he had been going back and forth on whether to run for another term on the council. His constituents, he said, eventually convinced him. “Everybody was asking me to run,” he said. Trinkle represents the oldest part of the city, on the east of Kansas Highway 7 from Eisenhower Road to about East Mary Street, with the boundary line following neighborhood streets to the south southwest before stopping at 4-H Road. During his tenure on the council he has served on the parks and recreation advisory board and on the 2005 project team that oversaw the building of the city’s current multi-million-dollar wastewater treatment plant. The city also has a number of current, ongoing projects that Trinkle said he wants to be a part of. “We’ve got some things that I want to see through,” he said. According to City Clerk Amber McCullough, no other candidates had filed for Trinkle’s position as of Friday.

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/12631

XI takes China's helm with many tough challenges New Communist Party General Secretary Xi Jinping clap hands during a press event to introduce the newly-elected members of the Politburo Standing Committee at Beijing's Great Hall of the People Thursday Nov. 15, 2012. The seven-member Standing Committee, the inner circle of Chinese political power, was paraded in front of assembled media on the first day following the end of the 18th Communist Party Congress. (AP Photo/Vincent Yu) By CHARLES HUTZLER, Associated Press BEIJING (AP) � Long-anointed successor Xi Jinping assumes the leadership of China at a time when the ruling Communist Party is confronting slower economic growth, a public clamor to end corruption and demands for change that threaten its hold on power. The country�s political elite named Xi to the top party post on Thursday, and unexpectedly put him in charge of the military too, after a weeklong party congress and months of divisive bargaining. The appointments give him broad authority, but not the luxury of time. After decades of juggernaut growth, China sits on the cusp of global pre-eminence as the second largest economy and newest power, but it also has urgent domestic troubles that could frustrate its rise. Problems that have long festered � from the sputtering economy to friction with the U.S. and territorial spats with Japan and other neighbors � have worsened in recent months as the leadership focused on the power transfer. Impatience has grown among entrepreneurs, others in the new middle class and migrant workers � all wired by social media and conditioned by two decades of rising living standards to expect better government, if not democracy. All along, police have continued to harass and jail a lengthening list of political foes, dissidents, civil rights lawyers and labor activists. A 14-year-old Tibetan set himself on fire in western China on Thursday, in the latest of more than 70 self-immolations Tibetans have staged over the past 20 months in desperate protests against Chinese rule. In his first address to the nation, Xi, a 59-year-old son of a revolutionary hero, acknowledged the lengthy agenda for what should be the first of two five-year terms in office. He promised to deliver better social services while making sure China stands tall in the world and the party continues to rule. �Our responsibility now is to rally and lead the entire party and the people of all ethnic groups in China in taking over the historic baton and in making continued efforts to achieve the great renewal of the Chinese nation,� a confident Xi said in nationally televised remarks in the Great Hall of the People. He later said �we are not complacent, and we will never rest on our laurels� in confronting challenges � corruption chief among them. By his side stood the six other newly appointed members of the Politburo Standing Committee: Li Keqiang, the presumptive premier and chief economic official; Vice Premier Zhang Dejiang; Shanghai party secretary Yu Zhengsheng; propaganda chief Liu Yunshan; Tianjin party secretary Zhang Gaoli; and Vice Premier Wang Qishan, once the leadership�s top troubleshooter who will head the party�s internal watchdog panel. Xi gave no hint of new thinking to address the problems. The lack of specifics and the new leadership heavy with conservative technocrats deflated expectations for change in some quarters. �We should be expecting more of the same, not some fundamental break from the past,� said Dali Yang of the University of Chicago. Fundamental for the leadership is to maintain the party�s rule, he said. �They are not interested in introducing China�s Gorbachev� � the Soviet leader whose reforms hastened the end of the Soviet Union � Yang said. Many of the challenges Xi confronts are legacies of his predecessor, Hu Jintao. In addition to relinquishing his role as party chief, having reached the two-term maximum, Hu also stepped down from the party commission that oversees the military. The move is a break from the past in which exiting party leaders kept hold of the military portfolio for several years. During Hu�s 10 years in office, policies to open up China to trade and foreign investment begun by his predecessors gathered momentum, turning China into a manufacturing powerhouse and drawing tens of millions of rural migrants into cities. Easy credit fueled a building boom, the Beijing Olympics and the world�s longest high-speed rail network. At the same time, Hu relied on an ever-larger security apparatus to suppress protests, even as demonstrations continued to rise. �More and more citizens are beginning to awaken to their rights and they are constantly asking for political reform,� said rights activist Hu Jia, who has previously been jailed for campaigning for AIDS patients and orphans. �The Communist Party does not have legitimacy. It is a party of dictatorship that uses violence to obtain political power. What we need now is for this country�s people to have the right to choose who they are governed by.� Chief among the problems Xi and his team will have to tackle is the economy. Though Hu pledged more balanced development, inequality has risen and housing costs have soared. Over the past year, the economy has flagged, dragged down by anemic demand in Europe and the U.S. for Chinese products and an overhang from excessive lending for factories and infrastructure. With state banks preferring to lend to state-run companies or not at all, private entrepreneurs have had to turn to unofficial money-lenders. �The bank just asked me to wait,� said Deng Mingxin, who runs a zipper factory with 10 employees in Jiangsu province. �Maybe it�s because I didn�t offer enough `red envelopes�� � a reference to bribes. The World Bank warns that without quick action, growth that fell to a three-year low of 7.4 percent in the latest quarter may fall to 5 percent by 2015 � a low rate for generating the employment and funding the social programs Beijing holds as key to keeping a lid on unrest. Analysts and Beijing�s own advisers have said it needs to overhaul its strategy and nurture consumer spending and services to meet its pledge of doubling incomes by 2020. �China will need a very different economy in the next decade,� said Citigroup economist Minggao Shen. In foreign policy, the U.S. and other partners are looking for reassurance that China�s policy remains one of peaceful integration into the world community. Tensions have flared in recent months between China, Japan and the Philippines over contested islets in the East and South China Seas. Mistrust has also grown with the U.S. as it diverts more military and diplomatic resources to Asia in what Chinese leaders see as containment. Fresh in office, Xi can ill-afford to bow to foreigners, crossing a nationalistic public and a military that may still be uncertain about his leadership. �The leaders can�t look like they are being soft on the U.S. or foreign policy because they will lose power in terms of people,� said Robert Lawrence Kuhn, a business consultant and author of the book �How China�s Leaders Think.� Kuhn expects more tough rhetoric than action in the months ahead, but expects Xi�s leadership to develop a more nuanced foreign policy as it consolidates its authority at home. Of all the knotty long-term challenges, few threaten to derail China�s march to a more prosperous society more than its rapidly aging society. Baby boomers whose labor manned the factories and construction sites are starting to retire. Meanwhile fewer Chinese are entering the workforce after a generation of family planning limits and higher incomes led to smaller families. If left unchecked, the trend will further stress already pressed social security funds. Scrapping the rule that limits many families to one child would help in the long run, and is being urged by experts. But the leadership for years has delayed change, in part because it sees smaller families and fewer births as having helped raise incomes overall. �China has wasted some time and opportunities partly because its growth over the last 10 years was so spectacular,� said Wang Feng, director of the Brookings-Tsinghua Center for Public Policy and an expert on China�s demographics. �Now it no longer has that luxury.� ���Associated Press writers Didi Tang, Gillian Wong, Alexa Olesen, Joe McDonald and Louise Watt and researchers Flora Ji and Zhao Liang contributed to this report.

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/12735

Divide-and-conquer plan proving effective for Assad Residents of Syria's eastern town of Deir Ezzor walk past the debris of a building reportedly hit by a missile on September 26. The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said on September 14, that there was fighting between rebels and units of the jihadist Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS) in Albu Kamal, with five people killed. By Reese Erlich, GlobalPost DAMASCUS � Syria�s U.S.-backed rebels are steadily losing ground to extremist Islamist groups, dealing a serious blow to Washington�s hopes to overthrow the regime of Bashar al-Assad. The splintering of the Free Syrian Army is seen by many regional analysts as a sign of the increased sectarianism of the civil war. What began as an Arab Spring uprising against dictatorship has become a vehicle for extremists who attack all government supporters as infidels and apostates. For its part, the Assad regime rallies minority Shiites and Alawites by condemning Sunni rebels as takfiris, or �impure Muslims.� Assad�s idea, these analysts contend, was to play up the sectarian divide as a way to fracture and weaken his opposition. It appears Assad�s strategy may be working. The civil war has claimed more than 100,000 lives, forced 2 million refugees to flee and 3 million to be internally displaced. Assad supporters see him as a strong leader fighting against chaos and extremism. Extremist groups have been fighting U.S.-supported rebels for months. The first evidence came in July when the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) expelled the FSA from several northern cities, including Raqqa. The ISIS then imposed a severe interpretation of sharia law that includes imprisonment and torture of anyone who opposes the ISIS. Adding to the Islamist momentum, a new and increasingly powerful coalition of extremist militias, the Islamic Front, seized a warehouse last week controlled by the FSA. The storage facility inside Syria near the Turkish border was chock full of trucks, supplies and weapons. According to some reports, General Salim Idris, head of the FSA, fled to Turkey after his men gave up the warehouse without a fight, leading the Obama administration to announce it would suspend �non-lethal aid� to opposition groups. This debacle revealed the weakness of the pro-U.S. militias, according to Joshua Landis, director of the Center for Middle East Studies at the University of Oklahoma. �Idris is a stuffed shirt and has no troops,� said Landis in a phone interview. Fighting between pro-U.S. and ultra-conservative militias �is a viper�s nest. Everyone is scrambling for power.� Landis noted that the Islamic Front, along with two ultra-conservative groups affiliated with al-Qaida, now control swaths of northern and southern Syria. Those groups also control towns on the outskirts of Damascus, and regularly lob mortar shells into the capital. In recent weeks the government has taken back control over some of the Damascus suburbs, along with portions of the important cities of Homs and Aleppo. So overall, the civil war remains a stalemate. Government officials argue that they are protecting secular rule. Minister of Justice Najm al Ahmad, in an exclusive GlobalPost interview, said the rebel groups promote extremism and religious hatred. He said the Syrian Army�s progress so far comes from popular opposition to �these terrorist groups and their takfiri methodology. The people suffer from the terrorist actions.� Assad is an Alawite, a small sect of Muslims with roots in Shia Islam. Less than 15 percent of Syrian Muslims are Shia, while an estimated 74 percent are Sunni. Before the uprising began the rift between the sects had been limited to the religious sphere. Now both sides use the differences to rally their supporters. Yet after nearly three years of fighting, the government has failed to win the war. Analysts in Damascus say that can be traced, in part, to Assad�s economic policies. In the early 2000s, Assad�s government privatized some state-run industries and lowered tariffs on imported goods, following an economic model promoted by the International Monetary Fund and World Bank. Such policies increased poverty in the mainly Sunni, rural areas, according to Dr. Bassam Barakat, a pro-government political consultant. For Bakarat and other analysts the defining line in this conflict is not religious, but economic. �Textile and other factories were no longer subsidized by the government,� Bakarat said. �They allowed Turkish commodities to enter without taxes. The national industry was completely damaged.� Unemployment grew as factories shut down and farmers couldn�t compete with cheap imports. �The Syrian regime made a big mistake,� Barakat said. �We had an army of unemployed young people and new groups started to emerge.� Initially, Muslim youth flocked to the Muslim Brotherhood, a group that had been fighting the government since the 1970s. The old Brotherhood leadership had been jailed or forced into exile, and a new leadership arose. The Brotherhood established a headquarters in exile in Istanbul, Turkey. They repudiated some of their earlier ultra-religious views and proclaimed support for a parliamentary system that would include free elections and protection for minorities. But the Brotherhood and its affiliated militias didn�t agree with U.S. policy in the region. Like most Syrians, the Brotherhood leadership opposed the U.S. invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, and wanted Israel to return the Golan Heights, seized from Syria in 1967. During the first two years of the uprising, the Brotherhood dominated various civilian and military coalitions formed to oppose Assad, much to the chagrin of the Obama administration. �America didn�t want the Muslim Brotherhood to rule,� said Professor Landis. �It was too Islamist for the U.S., but in fact, it is the least Islamist. The U.S. wants a Chalabi,� referring to Ahmed Chalabi, an Iraqi opposition leader backed by the U.S. before the invasion, but who had little popular support. During the past year, extremist groups grew in influence. The Al Nusra Front and the ISIS both proclaim their affiliation with al-Qaida, although they remain operationally independent. The growth of extremist groups has posed a significant problem for civil society activists, those who advocate a secular parliamentary system for Syria and who played a prominent role in the early days of the uprising. In 2011 I interviewed several such non-violent protesters in Damascus. Mahmud has since moved to Dera in southern Syria, where he joined the FSA. The former secular journalist and playwright became a devout Muslim. Leen, his friend and fellow activist, admitted that Mahmud and many others have undergone a political transformation. �The FSA is conservative,� said Leen, �because it wants Islam to play an important role in a revolutionary government, but it�s not extremist. The ISIS, which is mostly foreign fighters, wants to impose a religious dictatorship on Syria.� Leen blames the rise in sectarianism on the Assad government, which promoted sectarian divisions from the very beginning of the uprising. �Assad rallied Alawites against Sunnis by calling them takfiris,� or impure Muslims, she said. Even during the opening weeks of the popular uprising, the government accused peaceful demonstrators of being al-Qaida extremists. Extremist rebels also fan religious conflict, she admitted, by lobbing rockets and mortars into civilian areas of Damascus. Many land in Christian neighborhoods near the Old City, leading many to suspect the rebels deliberately target Christians. Leen criticized such attacks as immoral and likely to alienate civilians from the rebel cause. But she admitted that many rebel supporters justify such attacks because of the army�s horrific shelling of rebel-held areas. �The government has laid siege to rebel towns, cutting off food, water and medicine,� she said. �What do you expect people to do?� Government supporters make similar justifications for army attacks on civilians in rebel areas. Alaa Ebrahim, a local TV reporter, argued that the Syrian Army tries to be selective in its attacks. But he said some government supporters think bombardments are justified because civilians provide a �nurturing environment� for the rebels. Ebrahim strongly disagreed with this view, but said some government supporters are convinced �if the civilians don�t leave rebel areas, they must support the rebels.� Ebrahim brings an interesting perspective to the issue of religious tensions in Syria. He pulled out an iPhone to display idyllic photos of family and friends in his home village near Syria�s Mediterranean coast. In happier times, they enjoyed the area�s beautiful waterfalls and picturesque mountains. He also described the good relations among the village�s diverse religious groups. Sunni Muslims, Christians and Alawites get along well, he said, despite the increase in religious tensions elsewhere in Syria. Ebrahim said Sunnis in his village support the government of Assad so they don�t come under suspicion. In the cities where rebels are fighting for control, however, entire Sunni neighborhoods are cordoned off with army checkpoints and become no-go zones at night. The army also lays siege to mostly Sunni, rebel-controlled towns, frequently preventing entry of food, medicine and other essentials. Ebrahim said the conflict in Syria remains political, not religious, pitting western-backed rebels against the Assad government. He noted that Syria has a long history of secularism, with friendships and marriages cutting across religious lines. However, sectarian conflict has seriously impacted the country because Christians, Shia Muslims and other minorities support the government. Many Sunnis do not. Assad draws particularly strong support from Alawites. �As an Alawite government employee, if you�re invited to dinner by a Sunni, you would be afraid of an ambush,� Ebrahim said. �You would refuse. Trust has broken down.� He initially felt some sympathy for the peaceful protestors demonstrating in the early months of the uprising. But he believes that religious extremists now dominate, leaving little room for civilian opposition. And then earlier this year he faced a personal tragedy. His mother, a Syrian Army officer, was assassinated by a rebel sniper, who killed her with a single shot at a distance of 1300 yards. An army investigation revealed the rebels had inside help. His mother�s assassination was just one more indication of a technically proficient enemy with intelligence capability even within the military. He said the conflict will continue as long as outside powers such as the U.S. and Saudi Arabia fund the rebels. Civilian opponents and rebels make the same argument regarding the government. �Assad would fall quickly if he didn�t receive support from Russia, Iran and Hezbollah,� said activist Leen. Both Leen and Ebrahim agreed that, whoever wins, Syria has changed forever. �We�ve lost this amazing country,� said Ebrahim, �and it�s never coming back.� GlobalPost special correspondent Reese Erlich�s reporting from Syria was supported in part by a travel grant from the Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting. Erlich�s book on the Syrian uprising will be published by Prometheus Books in the fall of 2014. �

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/12756

Kosovo Party Leader Smoke Bombs Parliament To Protest New Deal Alexandra Ma © Credit: Associated Press Here's one way to get your colleagues' attention when things don't go your way.In Kosovo's live-streamed parliamentary session on Thursday, Albin Kurti, leader of the radical, left-wing, nationalist Vetevendosje (Self-Determination) party, unleashed a smoke bomb to disrupt a debate when a decision with which he did not agree was announced. In the video, members of Parliament can also be seen blowing on whistles as Kurti kicks the gas canister around the room. While the Associated Press reported that the canister contained tear gas, Kosovo police did not immediately confirm the type of gas used, according to The Guardian.The Self-Determination party described the item simply as a"gas canister," the Guardian added. As the video shows, many MPs remained in the chamber as the smoke went off. The politicians were protesting against an EU-brokered deal in which Kosovo's government agreed to create Serb-majority municipalities in the country in an effort to improve ties with Serbia.Kosovo declared its independence from Serbia in 2008 after a violent separatist war that left some 10,000 people dead, but both countries have since attempted to normalize relations. In 2013, Serbia and Kosovo signed the Brussels Agreement, in which Serbia agreed to give back its last remaining land in Kosovo in exchange for starting negotiations on joining the European Union.The Self-Determination party, on the other hand, is strongly against any sort of foreign intervention in the country and saw the new deal as a means of influencing Serbia's influence in Kosovo."No one has the mandate, or the right, to bring Serbia back in Kosovo," the Self-Determination party wrote Oct. 8. "We will not allow this."Once the smoke and whistling subsided after Thursday's smoke bombing, the show went on. Kosovo National Assembly President Kadri Veseli continued the session and invited Self-Determination party members to discuss their grievances in Parliament."What is happening is not patriotism and it is not helping Kosovo," Veseli said.

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/12781

Kerry Urges Abbas to Find Right PM, as Fayyad Quits إقرأ هذا الخبر بالعربية by Naharnet Newsdesk 14 April 2013, 19:34 Top U.S. diplomat John Kerry regretted the resignation of Palestinian prime minister Salam Fayyad and urged Palestinians Sunday to find the right person to take on the tough job and work with the U.S. Fayyad quit after months of tensions with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, and only days after talks with Kerry who visited Israel and the Palestinian territories last week seeking to map out the contours of a new peace plan. "Would I prefer that he weren't leaving? Sure, because you have continuity," Kerry told reporters traveling with him on a 10-day overseas trip, describing Fayyad as a "good friend" who had "made a huge difference". But he said that: "In order to be a viable government, there's got to be more than one person that you can do business with. "So we will continue to work with this, and hope that president Abbas finds the right person to work with him in a transition and to work with us, and establish confidence." Washington however remained "totally committed" to seeking to revive the moribund peace process, and also to Kerry's new plans for an economic revival of the West Bank. The U.S. secretary of state, who was in Tokyo on the last stop of his trip, said he would be meeting with the special Middle East envoy for the quartet on his return home on Monday night. Kerry said he believed both "parties are very serious right now" about moving forward, adding "we are still on track in the strategy that I want to pursue", but stressed "there was still homework" to be done. SourceAgence France PresseMiddle EastGazaMahmoud Abbas

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/12793

Britain to outline tougher anti-militant measures September 02, 2014 SHARE : AFP LONDON - Prime Minister David Cameron was to outline tougher measures against militant suspects on Monday after Britain raised its security risk assessment to a level where an attack is thought “highly likely”.Cameron was to give a statement to the House of Commons after 3:30 pm (1430 GMT) on fresh steps against suspects when there is insufficient evidence to charge them with a crime.British media reported that the measures could include a “temporary bar” on Britons suspected of fighting in Syria and Iraq from returning home. Other steps could include making it easier to strip suspected would-be militants of their passports in Britain and giving more data on airline passengers to the intelligence services.Britain raised its terror threat risk level to “severe” on Friday due to fears over the situation in Iraq and Syria. Some 500 British militants are estimated to be fighting there. The move, which means an attack is considered “highly likely”, came after the killing of US journalist James Foley, apparently by a man with an English accent who belonged to the militant group Islamic State (IS), formerly known as ISIL.The threat level is now at the second highest out of five possible categories, its highest since July 2011.Cameron has warned that the advance of IS raises the prospect of “a terrorist state on the shores of the Mediterranean.” “What we’re facing in Iraq now with ISIL is a greater and deeper threat to our security than we have known before,” he said at a Downing Street press conference Friday.The centre-right Conservative prime minister was facing a struggle to persuade his coalition partners the Liberal Democrats to back his plans.Negotiations were reportedly still going on Monday morning, just hours before Cameron was due to deliver his statement.Civil liberties are a key part of the centre-left Liberal Democrats’ political philosophy and the party will be reluctant to back steps it sees as too draconian ahead of next year’s general election.In an indication of the unease felt by some, former Liberal Democrat leader Menzies Campbell, a member of Parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committe, said it could be illegal to stop British citizens returning home.“To render a citizen stateless is regarded as illegal in international law. To render them stateless temporarily, which seems to be the purpose of what’s been proposed, can also, I think, be described as illegal,” he told the BBC.Another former Liberal Democrat leader, Paddy Ashdown, who was also international high representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina, warned against a “knee-jerk reaction.”“It is always right for politicians who value liberty to resist attempts to increase arbitrary executive powers unless this is justified, not by magnifying fear, but by actual facts,” he wrote in Sunday’s Observer newspaper.Britain has grappled for years with how to deal with people suspected of terrorism where there is not enough evidence to prosecute or deport them.After the September 11, 2001 attacks in the US, Tony Blair’s government brought in a power permitting foreign terrorism suspects to be held in prison without charge or trial.This was ruled unlawful in 2005, prompting ministers to introduce control orders, which allowed a wide range of movement restrictions on people suspected of involvement in terrorism.Cameron’s government announced in 2011 that these would be scrapped and replaced with Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures (TPIMs), following criticism that control orders were too restrictive.TPIMs allow suspects who have been assessed by intelligence agencies to be tagged electronically, banned from certain places and prevented from travelling overseas.There are currently none in force, although two suspects subject to TPIMs, Ibrahim Magag and Mohammed Mohamed, absconded in 2012 and 2013 respectively.Somali-born Mohamed, suspected of connections to Al-Qaeda linked Shebab, went missing after changing into a burqa at a mosque in west London and slipping away. Tweet September 07, 2016 Afghan refugees leave over tougher measures on visits home December 13, 2015 Tougher measures demanded after bowler's Pakistan race blast August 24, 2014 Britain plans tougher laws to tackle UK militants Britain urges tougher Syria sanctions

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/12837

Kerry plans return to Mideast for Israeli-Palestinian talks | New Hampshire Contact us Kerry plans return to Mideast for Israeli-Palestinian talks By JONATHAN D. SALANTBloomberg News WASHINGTON — Secretary of State John Kerry is set to return to the Middle East on New Year's Day in his effort to bring Israeli and Palestinian leaders together and negotiate a peace agreement.Kerry will meet in Jerusalem with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and in Ramallah with Mahmoud Abbas, president of the Palestinian Authority, Jen Psaki, a State Department spokeswoman, said Saturday in a statement.The top U.S. diplomat is under pressure to demonstrate tangible progress now that he's passed the halfway point of the nine-month timetable he set for a resolution to core Israeli-Palestinian differences — over borders, security, the rights of refugees and the status of Jerusalem — that have confounded U.S.-led efforts at mediation for years."Right now, the effort is to reach a framework agreement that will guide the negotiations in the direction of a final deal that will end the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians," U.S. Ambassador to Israel Dan Shapiro said Sunday in an interview on Israel's Army Radio. While "the framework agreement could be more detailed, or less detailed," it has to let the two sides know where the talks are heading, he said.Shapiro tempered expectations for Kerry's trip this week, saying, "I don't know if there will be a breakthrough in this particular visit, but he may return here later in January."..It will be Kerry's 10th visit to the Middle East as he tries to end the conflict, and one symbolic sign of movement would be a face-to-face meeting between the Israeli and Palestinian leaders.So far, Kerry has shuttled between Netanyahu and Abbas, who haven't spoken in person since September 2010. Members of Kerry's team have conducted direct talks with negotiators for the two sides..."We are closer than we have been in years," Kerry said of the talks earlier this month, without offering details. The peace process broke down more than three years ago in a dispute over Israeli settlements in the West Bank and east Jerusalem.Talk of progress should be taken "with a grain of salt," Natan Sachs, a fellow at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution in Washington, said this month. "The mood among Israelis and Palestinians is overwhelmingly sober," he said. "More than sober, it's pessimistic."..Netanyahu said this month that the burden is on the Palestinians to show they're willing to satisfy Israel's core needs for security and recognition as the "nation-state of the Jewish people." A poll released this month by the West Bank- based Palestinian Center for Public Opinion found that a majority of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip expect the Kerry-led talks to fail.Further complicating Kerry's next visit, Israel is expected to announce that it will build additional settlements on territory that Abbas wants as a Palestinian state. At the same time, Israel is to release additional Palestinian prisoners...Two previous rounds of prisoner releases also were accompanied by announcements of new construction.The Israeli government's pursuit of new settlement construction is a surmountable obstacle for the Obama administration, according to U.S. analysts of the Middle East...Kerry "should keep his powder dry" in reacting to the settlements, Aaron David Miller, a vice president at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington, said.The linking of a settlement push with a prisoner release wasn't accidental, said David Schenker, a former Pentagon policy aide on Arab politics who is now at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy..."The timing of the announcement is an unfortunate, but predictable consequence of the ongoing balancing act of the Israeli government," Schenker said by e-mail. "Prisoner release — of Palestinians, many with blood on their hands — is extremely controversial and politically difficult for the government of Israel."..On July 29, when Kerry announced the accord to hold the talks, he said, "Our goal is to achieve a final-status agreement over the next nine months."Kerry won a commitment from both sides to stick with the negotiations at least that long, regardless of the difficulties that might arise, a State Department official, who asked not to be identified discussing closed-door deliberations, said at the time...

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/13037

Sign up for POLITICO Magazine's weekly email: The Friday Cover Do Democrats Need a Bubba Strategy? The party shouldn’t give up on NASCAR voters, says Dave “Mudcat” Saunders. By Mason Adams On a balmy summer afternoon, Dave “Mudcat” Saunders sits in the shade of his porch in Roanoke, Va., with a tall cup of iced tea, a highlighter and a copy of I Heard My Country Calling. That’s the new book by former U.S. Sen. Jim Webb, a Reagan Democrat whose 2006 upset over one-time GOP star George Allen in Virginia represents the last time Mudcat could claim victory for his “Bubba Strategy.” Since fallen into disuse, the Bubba Strategy might be the only proven way of getting rural-minded residents of very red states or regions to vote Democratic. It was first road-tested in the state in 2001, when in his landmark run for Virginia governor, Democrat Mark Warner sponsored a truck operated by southwest Virginia’s Wood Brothers Racing team in a NASCAR race, appeared with bluegrass musician Ralph Stanley and slathered the deeply working-class region in “Sportsmen for Warner” signs signaling his support by and for gun owners. Similar tactics were subsequently used by Blue Dog Democrats and other candidates who sought to win rural areas. Story Continued Below Little more than a decade later, the Bubba Strategy almost feels quaint. Shifting demographics have transformed Virginia into a blue-leaning swing state over the last two presidential election cycles. With fresh numbers of Democratic voters, candidates now believe they only need to get voters to turn out rather than persuade people in red districts. Hence freshman Sen. Tim Kaine, in his successful 2012 race, felt free to ignore Bubba; instead Kaine only had to run up huge margins in the urban crescent around Washington, D.C., without worrying as much about the parts west of Richmond. For similar reasons, President Obama paid even less heed to the rural parts of the state in 2012 than he did in the 2008 campaign. Saunders, nonetheless, insists that finding a way to identify with the “bubbas”—Southern slang for people of limited means and less education—is not only useful but essential to the Democratic Party’s future throughout the South and rural areas of the country. If the party wants to hold the Senate this year, let alone retake the House of Representatives any time soon, it must travel again down many a country road, at least philosophically, Saunders says. Dave "Mudcat" Saunders That’s especially true because the issue of income inequality is emerging as a fundamental Democratic talking point for both 2014 and 2016. Candidates need an effective way to communicate their empathy for the downtrodden without sounding condescending or disingenuous about it—as Hillary Clinton recently found when she made her much-mocked comment about being “dead broke” upon leaving the White House as first lady. “The greatest problem in America is the disintegration of the middle class,” Saunders says, and “unless you’re super-rich, you probably feel like you’re getting screwed. That feeling transcends geography.” The lines between urban and rural are blurring physically as well. “There’s too much emphasis paid on geography, on class,” Saunders says. “The pied piper of greed has moved everybody to the big cities. America’s become more concentrated. There are as many rednecks—or let me say it like this, rural-thinking people—on Route 1 in Alexandria as there are in all five coal-producing counties of Virginia.” If the growth of cities is fueled by new residents who bring their rural culture along with them, then the new conventional wisdom that these demographic trends favor Democrats doesn’t necessarily hold. In fact, the rise of the exurbs and the expansion of ever-larger metropolitan areas into the countryside have contributed to a blending of cultures, rendering voter patterns less predictable. It thus stands to reason that speaking the language of the new American underclass—which sometimes seems to include just about everyone but the super-rich—requires understanding and respecting rural culture. Even if Democratic candidates support policies that would benefit people facing hard times, they may not get their votes if they don’t make an authentic effort to identify with them. It is a tactic that Warner, a wealthy high-tech entrepreneur from northern Virginia, mastered in winning his Senate seat—and which has also made him a perennial mention for higher office. “Mark Warner was not from the culture,” says Saunders. “You don’t have to be from the culture. But Mark enjoyed the culture and he respected the culture. That’s the deal. You can’t be disingenuous about it.” Saunders once took Warner turkey hunting, and when they came out of the woods the media was waiting for them. “They asked me how Mark did, and I said, ‘Hell, he sounded like an elephant going through the woods.’ But he had a great time and immediately said he wanted to do that again.” Steve Jarding, Warner’s former campaign manager and Saunders’ old partner in politics, says that even if Warner didn’t know all that much about the favorite pursuits of bubbas, his interest showed that he respected them. “When the Republican critics said, ‘Warner doesn’t go to races, doesn’t listen to bluegrass, doesn’t hunt, our response was, ‘He doesn’t, but you do—and he wants to be governor of all the people, not just the Northern Virginians and military folks but all of Virginia,” says Jarding. “He wants to show you he respects it and he’s not going to dismiss it.” Having the right candidate matters, though. Unlike her folksy, Arkansas-bred husband, Hillary Clinton’s probably never going to convince anybody she’s a good ol’ boy, just as the French-speaking, windsurfing John Kerry didn’t in 2004. “It’s just too easy to say if you go out to the culture you’ll get them. Democrats have to understand the culture,” says Saunders. “They have to understand what people go through.” Though he’s been on the wrong end of election outcomes for the last eight years, Saunders still swaggers with the confidence of someone who knows the way forward—and who believes that he can be the party’s bubba whisperer in coming elections. Saunders cracks the same, nearly decade-old line about how he’s writing “The Half-Assed Christian’s Guide to Living,” and sets up his key points by drawling, “Let me tell you something…” He’s only a wee bit defensive when it comes to the fact that fewer Democrats are using his game plan these days. “The reason a rural or cultural strategy doesn’t work is because it’s not deployed,” he insists. Share on Facebook Mason Adams is a freelance journalist based in Floyd County, Virginia. His Twitter handle is @MasonAtoms. This story tagged under: Brian Schweitzer More from POLITICO Magazine What the FBI Files Reveal About Hillary Clinton’s Email Server By Garrett M. Graff ‘We’re the Only Plane in the Sky’ The TV Interview That Haunts Hillary Clinton By Michael Kruse More on Magazine POLITICO Magazine Links

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/13043

Ten years ago, on the eve of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, the assumptions many Americans held about the coming war, fed by rhetoric from the George W. Bush White House, turned out to be wildly inaccurate. Saddam Hussein, as we now know, did not possess weapons of mass destruction. The conflict would not end quickly. And the cost of the war — in lives and dollars — would far eclipse expectations. Today, a new set of beliefs defines many discussions about the war and its aftermath. Are they just as wrong?1. The troop surge succeeded. The surge of 26,000 troops into Baghdad in 2007 had two objectives: tamp down the bloody sectarian civil war and forge a political compromise among the three principal groups in Iraqi society — Shiite Arabs, Sunni Arabs and ethnic Kurds — that would set the country on a path to stability.The surge helped accomplish the first goal, but it was not the only reason for the reduced violence. A decision by Sunni tribal leaders to oppose al-Qaida fighters in Iraq also played a major role. So, too, did Iraqi behavior; as mixed Sunni-Shiite neighborhoods in Baghdad became more homogeneous and fortified, opportunities for sectarian violence decreased.When it came to political compromise, however, the surge was a flop. Majority Shiites did not want to give the Sunnis and Kurds a greater role in the government and security forces, and the hopes of striking a grand bargain in the waning days of the Bush administration fizzled. As a consequence, red-hot embers remain in the tinderbox that is Iraq. Disputes over land and oil could spark another Kurd-Arab civil war in the north. Sunnis in the central part of the country, who have been holding anti-government protests for the past three months, now openly talk of rebellion. Sunni leaders accuse the Shiite-dominated security forces of persecuting them in the name of combating terrorism and purging old members of Hussein's Baath Party.2. Iraq today is relatively peaceful. Levels of violence are far lower than they were in 2006, at the height of the civil war, when hundreds of people were being killed every week. But Iraq is far from stable. On Monday, a suicide bomber drove his explosives-laden car into a police station, killing five people; the same day, six more people were killed in various militant attacks in Baghdad. Three days earlier, 19 people died in a string of attacks targeting security personnel.For the Iraqis who have no ticket out, life is still defined by bloodshed and fear. "The war is not over," a friend in Baghdad wrote to me recently. "There is still killing and bombing. We are still scared."3. Iraq is a democracy. It is — on paper. It has held successive national elections; it has a parliament and a modestly functional court system. In practice, however, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is exercising authority and centralizing power in ways that remind many Iraqis of Hussein. His security agencies have rounded up numerous Sunni leaders in recent months, accusing them of supporting the insurgency. Sunni officials contend that Maliki is using terrorism as a pretext to neutralize political foes.Since he first won election in 2006, Maliki has moved to consolidate control over the country's security forces. He also has presided over the dismantling of the Sons of Iraq, the Sunni tribal militia that was instrumental in the fight against al-Qaida. The militia was supported by the U.S. military, which urged Maliki to integrate its members into the army and police force. Although he pledged to do so, only a fraction of Sunni militiamen have been given positions in the security services.4. Iraq is in Iran's pocket. Forget about all the blood and treasure the United States has poured into Iraq. Iran is Iraq's most strategically significant ally. Maliki owes his second term in large part to the pressure that Tehran exerted on rival Shiite political parties in Iraq, many of which received substantial financial support from the Iranian government. And there's plenty of evidence to indicate quid for the quo: Despite objections from Washington, Maliki's government has allowed Iranian cargo airplanes, allegedly filled with munitions, to fly to Syria through Iraqi airspace, enabling Tehran to prop up Syrian dictator Bashar Assad.But it would be wrong to assume that Maliki is permitting the flights only because of Iranian pressure. Even though Assad shares much of the Baathist ideology that Hussein espoused, he and his fellow Alawites are Shiites. It's more than kinship, however, that drives Maliki to favor the status quo in Syria. He and other leaders of Iraq's Shiite majority worry that if the Free Syrian Army overthrows Assad, the rebels will establish a radical Sunni government that will collaborate with Iraq's Sunni minority to topple the Baghdad government. "If the opposition is victorious, there will be a civil war in Lebanon, divisions in Jordan and a sectarian war in Iraq," Maliki warned in an interview with the Associated Press last month.Nor do Tehran's money and love guarantee that Iraqi Shiites will do its bidding. Consider Muqtada al-Sadr, whose Mahdi Army militia was the bete noire of U.S. troops throughout much of the war. He spent years living in Iran, burnishing his religious credentials and rebuilding his political movement. Since his return to Iraq, though, he has sought to fashion himself as more of an Iraqi nationalist, reaching out to Sunni and Kurdish political factions that are Maliki rivals. When Sunnis convened large protests late last year to demand that Maliki amend terrorism and de-Baathification laws, Sadr bucked Tehran's dictates by meeting with Sunni leaders and espousing political compromise.Iran is still bigger and more powerful. But Iraq's collaboration with Tehran is as often driven by its own interests as those of its neighbor.5. The Americans have all left. There are still about 220 U.S. military personnel in Iraq. They work for the Office of Security Cooperation-Iraq, which handles the sale of military equipment to the Iraqi army and coordinates training. Those personnel work in an annex of the U.S. Embassy in central Baghdad, the largest American diplomatic mission in the world. The massive complex, built on the grounds of the former Green Zone in the capital, houses hundreds of State Department officers, U.S. development specialists and representatives from other federal agencies. Legions of private security contractors guard the compound.Concerns that the fighting in Syria could spill over into Iraq recently prompted the CIA to increase its support to Iraqi counterterrorism forces, according to a report in The Wall Street Journal. Although the agency still intends to reduce its presence to about 300 personnel in Iraq, its station in Baghdad will remain one of the largest in the world.Your browser does not support the <code>iframe</code> HTML tag. Try viewing this in a modern browser like Chrome, Safari, Firefox or Internet Explorer 9 or later.

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/13062

Kosovo Making Strides, Foreign Minister Says July 6, 2009 | By Peter Hickman | pjhickman@hotmail.com Minister Hyseni's discusses building state institutions, the new Constitution, Constitutional Court, membership in international organizations, recognition by other nations, foreign policy and the Intl. Court of Justice at an NPC...Full Gallery captions in here Since declaring independence 16 months ago, Kosovo -- whose population is mostly ethnically Albanian -- has taken major steps to establish "democratic and accountable institutions in which all citizens are equal under the law," the country's minister of foreign affairs told a June 30 Newsmaker. Skender Hyseni, who is also a member of parliament, said his country is building its diplomatic service and by the end of the year will have 18 embassies and nine consular missions open and fully functioning. Hyseni said Kosovo has been recognized by 60 countries, including 22 EU member states, and three of the four bordering countries, Albania, Macedonia and Montenegro. Kosovo also has signed articles of agreement with the International Monetary Fund and World Bank, marking formal accession of the Balkan country to both organizations, he added. Hyseni, who studied at Bloomsburg State College in Pennsylvania, said Kosovo has also "unequivocally declared its unwavering desire to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the European family of democracies, which maintaining strong ties of special relationship" with the U.S. Also among his nation's key priorities, he said, is regional security and cooperation with neighboring countries, including Serbia, which he criticized frequently during the Newsmaker for its "intransigence" in negotiating Kosovo's political status, unwillingness to discuss issues of mutual concern and "lack of readiness to agree to anything whatsoever." Still, Hyseni said "We and all the countries of the region hope that, in due course, the Republic of Serbia will join in the efforts to establish an environment of cooperation and understanding in the region, including the normalizations of relations with the Republic of Kosovo."

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/13083

The pursuit of Edward Snowden By Norman Solomon 06/27/2013 Rarely has any American provoked such fury in Washington’s high places. So far, Edward Snowden has outsmarted the smartest guys in the echo chamber—and he has proceeded with the kind of moral clarity that U.S. officials seem to find unfathomable. Bipartisan condemnations of Snowden are escalating from Capitol Hill and the Obama administration. More of the National Security Agency’s massive surveillance program is now visible in the light of day—which is exactly what it can’t stand. The central issue is our dire shortage of democracy. How can we have real consent of the governed when the government is entrenched with extreme secrecy, surveillance and contempt for privacy? The same government that continues to expand its invasive dragnet of surveillance all over the United States and the rest of the world is now asserting its prerogative to drag Snowden back to the U.S. from anywhere on the planet. It’s not only about punishing him and discouraging other potential whistleblowers. Top U.S. officials are also determined to quite literally silence Snowden’s voice, as Bradley Manning’s voice has been nearly silenced behind prison walls. The sunshine of information, the beacon of principled risk-takers, the illumination of government actions that can’t stand the light of day: these correctives are anathema to U.S. authorities who insist that really informative whistleblowers belong in solitary confinement. A big problem for those authorities is that so many people crave the sunny beacons of illumination. Early this week more than 30,000 Americans took action, via rootsaction.org, sending a clear message to the White House. The subject line said, “Mr. President, hands off Edward Snowden,” and the email message read: “I urge you in the strongest terms to do nothing to interfere with the travels or political asylum process of Edward Snowden. The U.S. government must not engage in abduction or any other form of foul play against Mr. Snowden.” As the Obama White House weighs its options, the limits are practical and political. Surveillance and military capacities are inseparable, and they’re certainly huge, but constraints may cause major frustration. On CNN on Sunday, anchor Don Lemon cited the fabled Navy Seals and said such commandos ought to be able to capture Snowden, pronto. The state of surveillance and perpetual war are one and the same. The U.S. government’s rationale for pervasive snooping is the “war on terror,” the warfare state under whatever name. Too rarely mentioned is the combination of nonviolence and idealism that has been integral to the courageous whistleblowing by Edward Snowden and Bradley Manning. Right now, one is on a perilous journey across the globe in search of political asylum, while the other is locked up in a prison and confined to a military trial excluding the human dimensions of the case. At a time of Big Brother and endless war, Snowden and Manning have bravely insisted that a truly better world is possible. Meanwhile, top policymakers in Washington seem bent on running as much of the world as possible. Their pursuit of Edward Snowden has evolved into a frenzied rage. Those at the top of the U.S. government insist that Snowden and Manning have betrayed it. But that’s backward. Putting its money on vast secrecy and military violence instead of democracy, the government has betrayed Snowden and Manning—and the rest of us. Trying to put a stop to all that secrecy and violence, we have no assurance of success. But continuing to try is a prerequisite for realistic hope. A few months before the invasion of Iraq, looking out at Baghdad from an upper story of a hotel, I thought of something Albert Camus once wrote. “And henceforth, the only honorable course will be to stake everything on a formidable gamble: that words are more powerful than munitions.” Edward Snowden’s honorable course has led him to this historic moment. The U.S. government is eager to pay him back with retribution and solitary confinement. But many people in the United States and around the world are responding with love and solidarity. Norman Solomon, an Inverness Park resident, is co-founder of rootsaction.org and founding director of the Institute for Public Accuracy. His books include “War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death.” This article was reprinted with permission from his website. Sheriff's Calls MenuNewsFeaturesOpinionSheriff's CallsCalendarMultimediaClassifiedsAdvertiseSubscribeAboutContactShopping CartNorth CoasterFacebookTwitter Search this site Classifieds North Coaster © 2016 The Point Reyes Light - West Marin's Pulitzer Prize-Winning Weekly. All Rights Reserved.

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/13114

Interview: Disabled People Against the Cuts (DPAC) This month DPAC converged on Westminster to defend disabled people’s rights and freedoms. We spoke to activist Andy Greene in the run up to the event.4 September 2013 Who are DPAC?We’re a campaign of disabled people not for disabled people. We came to life outside the 2010 Tory party conference, and since then we’ve been the primary group gathering snapshots of what disabled people are facing and getting together those ready to resist and take direct action.On a daily basis hundreds of people contact us about getting involved or to tell us what they’re going through. Usually people associate disability with welfare but actually we’re talking to people about social care, transport, healthcare and more. The broad scope of the cuts means that people are really at a loss of what to do.What do you mean by ‘disabled’?The government says you’re disabled if you have a physical, sensory or mental impairment that affects your ability to do certain things. We say that if you self-recognise as a disabled person, or as a person with an impairment, then actually it’s society’s barriers that disable you. The more support systems that you have in place then the less disabling society becomes. Support services remove barriers and allow us to contribute and exist on the same level as everybody else.As these services are whittled the barriers become evident and have a central place in people’s lives. It’s not enough to say that people should try harder to be ‘less disabled’, we need to change people’s mindsets on that. The government’s focus is completely wrong at the moment, it’s focussing on people instead of the barriers. We still can’t find our place and we’re being moved further and further to the margins.Why direct action?We moved into taking direct action, mostly because we believe the traditional forms of resistance such as lobbying, petitioning and research are more common, but there had been no direct action for a long time until we came along. Traditionally disabled people have been at the centre of direct action movements, as far back as the late 19th century. We want to continue that tradition, so we’ve occupied government buildings, shut down city centres, and we went to the deputy prime minister’s home to hold a street party with UK Uncut. So we’re very much about taking the argument into the places and spaces where the government are. We need to join up across our networks to say 'we resist and the line in the sand is here'. DPAC recently supported the anti-fracking campaign in Balcombe (pictured above) and you often work with UK Uncut, for instance on the campaign to save legal aid, is that part of a deliberate tactic to cover different issues? Absolutely. Last year we received a lot of support from UK Uncut and this year we’ve branched out to work with the big disabled activist networks, such as the War On Welfare petition; the Mental Health Resistance Network, who recently won a court case against the workplace capability assessments that were discriminating against people with mental health conditions; and Black Triangle in Scotland. For our week of action this week we’ve reached out to these groups to make sure it’s not just about DPAC but about all disabled people. One of the biggest philosophies for the disabled movement this time around has been the willingness of environmentalists and anti-cuts activists to embrace the idea that if they do recognise the barriers and try to address them, then actually disabled people can make a powerful contribution to campaigns. It’s not just a nod to accessibility or a nod to inclusion, it’s about taking real steps to make sure that all those barriers are removed so disabled people can contribute on the same level as everyone else. It feels really different, because the last time the disabled movement reared its head in the 80s and early 90s it was very isolationist. Despite being politically active at the time against Thatcher and capitalism, disabled people were not really connecting with the broader movement. This time around the grass roots activist movements on the streets are so willing to embrace and support our actions that it’s made a huge difference in terms of what we can achieve together. Do you have any hope for the next election? This week we’re launching a manifesto which is directed at the Labour Party’s election campaign because we want them to repeal some decisions that have already been made. However, if we believe that reformist parliamentary opposition is the ‘be all and end all’ then we’re in for a very quick and hard landing. We need to create alternative spaces that are confrontational and about asserting our power. Direct action is not about being hidden away, believing that other people can speak on our behalf, or that it’s their role to change things. It’s our role to come out and be seen and heard and to say to everyone that, despite what you’ve been told, this is the reality on the ground for disabled people. We don’t get enough space in the media for that counter narrative. We don’t invite talking heads to our events, we turn the mic to people who show up and invite them to speak about their experience and what they want to happen. There are loads of places people can go to sign petitions etc. There are very few places disabled people can go to say ‘I challenge the government and I take this space’, then suddenly there’s no denying you and you have to be heard. Find out more about the national protest.On Twitter: #reclaimingourfutures Earlier this week DPAC blockaded the BBC Donate to build socialist mediaRight now, with the rise of Jeremy Corbyn, there is a real possibility of a resurgence of the left in Britain. With mainstream media showing clear bias against Corbyn, this new left movement urgently needs its own strong voices.Welcome to Liverpool - a heartland of the rebel causeThousands of activists will arrive in Liverpool this month for the Labour Party Conference and its fringe events. Jenny Nelson recommends places to visit and introduces the local political sceneHousing and land activists to join forcesIn the run up to a November event Robin Grey makes the case for urban and rural communities to work together to tackle land rights, ownership and usageThe Train Gate story is a product of desperationAlex Richardson-Price observes the pressing need for a character assassination, by any means necessary, of Jeremy Corbyn. No comments yet. Be the first Comments are now closed on this article. Red Pepper · 44-48 Shepherdess Walk, London N1 7JP · +44 (0)20 7324 5068 · office[at]redpepper.org.uk Advertise · Press · Donate For subscriptions enquiries please email subs@redpepper.org.uk

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/13148

Crossroads Upends New York's 21st District Primary Posted Jun 16, 2014 4:38 PM Colin Diersing @Colin Diersing Peterson's Greatest Challenge Yet, but GOP Still Looks to 2016 The Calm Before the Pre-Recess Storm Republicans Unite in Tossup New York House Race Crossroads is spending heavily in New York's 21st District primary against Matt Doheny, above. (CQ Roll Call File Photo) In New York’s sprawling 21st District, a recent influx of more than $1 million from outside groups has catapulted a 29-year-old first-time candidate ahead of the two-time nominee in the Republican primary for this coveted seat. American Crossroads alone has already made more than $750,000 in independent expenditures to boost former White House aide Elise Stefanik's bid — the group's only spending in a House primary so far in 2014. The June 24 Republican primary pits Stefanik against Matt Doheny, a deep-pocketed businessman and repeat candidate. Early on in the race, Doheny's familiarity with local voters and track record of self-funding his campaigns gave him an advantage. But two outside groups have flooded the district's airwaves in a way that sources say has thrown the momentum to Stefanik. The winner of the primary will face Democrat Aaron Woolf in the race to succeed retiring Rep. Bill Owens, D-N.Y. Last cycle, Owens won with one of the slimmest margins of any House race, and this cycle, the election is rated a Tossup by the Rothenberg Political Report/Roll Call. “People are just shocked that Karl Rove and Crossroads ... would come in and try to buy this election for a 29-year-old who just showed up,” Doheny said in a phone interview on June 13, before Crossroads had reserved another $250,000 worth of airtime in the district. The spending came as a surprise to many operatives in New York and D.C. What's more, Doheny has shown no signs of trying to match Crossroads' funding. He gave more than $3 million to his past two campaigns in 2010 and 2012, according to online fundraising reports. "If it weren’t for Crossroads, this would be a completely different race," said one Democratic operative with experience in the district. "Unless [Doheny] is able to match what Crossroads is doing on TV, [Stefanik] is the shoo-in.” Crossroads’ two ads released so far portray Doheny as too damaged from his previous bids to win in November, calling him a "perennial loser." There's also an image of Doheny's private islands in one of the spots running throughout the 21st District, which has one of the lowest mean household incomes in New York. Outside groups such as Crossroads cannot legally coordinate campaign activity and spending with Stefanik. She said all of her campaign materials have been "positive" in a June 10 phone interview. "Every piece of mail, every advertisement, every radio piece that my campaign has been responsible for has been positive and focused on the issues," Stefanik said. "I think I’m the only candidate that can win in a general." New York 2014, a super PAC that has not supported any other candidates ever, according to online records, has also spent more than $300,000 boosting Stefanik since mid-May. The extensive outside involvement has reshuffled the race in Stefanik’s favor, but that's not the only way national supporters have boosted her bid. A veteran of President George W. Bush's administration and Mitt Romney's presidential campaign, Stefanik has picked up endorsements from the former GOP presidential nominee and House Budget Chairman Paul D. Ryan. She's secured donations from former Bush spokesman Ari Fleischer and the GOP super-lawyer Benjamin Ginsberg. Reports also show Winning Women, a fundraising committee with ties to financier Paul Singer, hosted a joint event for Stefanik, resulting in $110,000 for her campaign. Stefanik boasts endorsement from most of the county party committees, many of which she secured before Doheny entered the race in February. Doheny has said he planned to sit out any more House bids until Owens retired — a fact that many Stefanik supporters tout. “She was gutsy enough to want to take on the incumbent in October," said Jim Ellis, the former chairman of the Franklin County Republican Party Committee and a Stefanik backer. Doheny, meanwhile, insists that relationships he has built over two previous bids for the seat will carry him through. The businessman’s 2010 and 2012 campaigns were plagued by personal scandals , but local Republican raved about Doheny's work ethic and self-funding abilities. The winner of next week's Republican primary will face Woolf, a documentary filmmaker and grocery store owner. Woolf stumbled during his campaign's rollout, snubbing local media by calling himself “more of a press release kind of guy.” But Democrats in the area say Woolf has recovered from early mistakes and is quietly building relationships with voters, while the two Republicans remain locked in an increasingly negative primary. Democrats also express optimism about a familiar scenario in the district: a third-party nominee peeling off Republican votes in the general election. In 2010, when fewer than 2,000 votes separated Doheny from Owens, many Republicans blamed Conservative Party nominee Doug Hoffman’s 10,507 votes for the GOP's loss. Both Doheny and Stefanik are currently slated to appear on the November ballot; the Conservative Party endorsed Stefanik and the Independence Party has backed Doheny. Woolf will be the nominee for the Democratic Party and the Working Families Party. Republicans hope Tuesday’s loser will find a way to get his or her name removed, but it's a difficult process. As New York election lawyer Jerry Goldfeder explained, “for someone to get off the ballot [in New York] is a very, very limited opportunity.” Short of death, he said, a candidate must be nominated for another office to be removed from the ballot. Doheny, a lawyer, could ask to be nominated for a judgeship and has hinted strongly that he would do so if he loses. For Stefanik, clearing the way for Doheny would be difficult if she loses the primary. Her clearest path would be to collect hundreds of signatures to run for state or local office by July 10, but it's unclear if this feasible in the short timeframe. New York Conservative Party Chairman Michael Long thinks the issue is simple. “Someone’s creating a scenario that is virtually nearly impossible. … There’s simply no way for her to get off the ballot,” said Long in a recent interview. Emily Cahn contributed to this report. Related stories: Race Ratings Map FreedomWorks Wants Labrador for Majority Leader Get breaking news alerts from Roll Call in your inbox or on your iPhone . n-y-21 super-pacs tossup

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/13149

Harman hits at Brown over sexism Harriet Harman was elected as the Labour Party's deputy leader in 2007, the same year Mr Brown became prime minister Harriet Harman has suggest that Gordon Brown sidelined her because she was a woman in a speech blasting sexism in Westminster. The shadow culture secretary will link the former prime minister's decision not to make her deputy prime minister to her gender and recount how she was relegated to a dinner for leaders' wives at a major summit. But the claims were immediately dismissed as "utter bilge" by Mr Brown's former spin doctor Damian McBride, who appeared to accuse the Labour chairwoman of being "useless". Ms Harman was elected as the party's deputy leader in 2007, the same year Mr Brown became prime minister. Ms Harman said "even getting to the top is no guarantee of equality". "Imagine my surprise when having won a hard-fought election to succeed John Prescott as deputy leader of the Labour Party, I discovered that I was not to succeed him as Deputy Prime Minister," she said. "If one of the men had won the deputy leadership would that have happened? Would they have put up with it? I doubt it. "And imagine the consternation in my office when we discovered that my involvement in the London G20 summit was inclusion at the No 10 dinner for the G20 leaders' wives. "We must remember Caroline Flint's denunciation of women being used as 'window dressing'." Ms Harman is renowned for campaigning on gender equality, work that has seen her labelled Harriet Harperson and harridan Harriet by some. She will tell how she was urged to fit in by being "clubbable" in the bars of Westminster but her refusal to toe the line led to a "nasty" response, including from her own colleagues, who briefed the papers when she had mastitis, a condition that causes a woman's breast tissue to become painful that is usually linked to breastfeeding. "Because I didn't conform, the punishment for being different was often nasty," she said. "When I came back after having my first baby I was reported to the Serjeant at Arms for breaking the rules by taking my baby through the division lobby under my jacket. "Of course I'd done no such thing - I was still fat from being pregnant. "What made it worse was that it was obviously my own side because it was our lobby. I told the whips I'd have to miss a vote because I was ill - with mastitis. And they put it in the papers." Ms Harman admitted that the Labour party must do more to find parliamentary candidates from diverse backgrounds, including more working class women. Women MPs are still defined by whether they have children or get married "in a way that would be unthinkable for a man", she added. "This can be painfully divisive amongst women MPs. In any interview, a young woman MP who doesn't have children is challenged to explain herself. Something that doesn't happen to a married man MP." Ms Harman said although progress has been made in parliament there is now a "passive resistance" where people in positions of power "do nothing". Political reporting remains "woefully male" and the "parliamentary press lobby is long overdue for change", she added. Mr McBride was quick to respond to the claims that Ms Harman had missed out because of her gender, insisting Mr Brown only judged his team on whether they were "useless or not". He insisted that former business minister Baroness Vadera had been given a "vital role" at the London G20 summit in 2009. "As every man and woman who ever worked for him could attest, Gordon judged people on only one thing: were they useless or not," he said on Twitter. "Shriti Vadera was given a crucial role to play at the G20 not cos of her position but cos she could make a crucial contribution, whereas someone like me had no contribution to make to the summit so I was put in charge of media for the spouses. I am a man. "It's utter bilge from Harriet, done to make her attack on Dave look non-partisan. And shameful timing given the work GB is doing in Nigeria. "That dinner was a gathering of Britain's leading women across all walks of life, of which I thought she'd count herself one." Mrs Harman hit back by telling Channel 4 News: "Damian McBride you will remember was sacked from his position in government for denigrating women and he is doing it again." 2 comments bmoc55 What a bitter, silly old woman. goldenbroomboy 7:19am Wed 9 Jul 14 Harpy is an overpromoted intellectual lightweight who is on her way down.

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/13201

DeFeo files for mayor, Brown for re-election for Smyrna Council The filing deadline for the Town of Smyrna Monday, April 29 election is still a few weeks away, but two current Smyrna Town Council members have already filed for two of the three open seats.At-Large Councilman Anthony DeFeo has filed for the open mayor seat, currently held by Pat Stombaugh. Stombaugh has previously said that she will not run for another term.Councilwoman Regina Brown has filed for re-election in District 1.No one has filed for the at-large seat, currently held by DeFeo.The filing deadline for this year's election is Monday, March 18 at 4:30 p.m.There are three seats open on Smyrna Town Council: Mayor, At-large-, and District 1.The mayor's seat is a two-year term from April 2013 to April 2015. Both the District 1 and At-Large seats are three-year terms from April 2013 to April 2016.Eligibility requirements for mayor and council are as follows:*21 years of age or older*Resident of the Town of Smyrna for at least one year prior to election*Qualified to vote at town election, which additionally requires a candidate to: be a U.S. citizen, never have been adjudged a mentally incompetent person by a court of competent jurisdiction, never have been disenfranchised pursuant to the Delaware constitution.*Candidates for a representative district council seat must have resided in the district for at least one year.Procedures for filing to run for office are as follows:*Complete the following forms (available at Town Hall or online): Candidate filing form (indicate the Term of Office Requested) and Certificate of Intention of School Boards and Offices Paying Under $1,000.Mail completed forms to: Town of Smyrna, P.O. Box 307, Smyrna, DE 19977.Absentee ballots information:Individuals qualified to vote in elections who are unable to appear in person to cast a ballot because of being in the public or military service of the United States, being unavoidably absent from the town on the day of the election, due to sickness or physical disability, or as otherwise permitted may file with the town a written affidavit requesting an absentee ballot no later than 12 noon on the day before the election. Affidavit forms are available at Town Hall or on the town website. Town Hall is located at 27 S. Market St. Plaza.For further information or forms, go to www.smyrna.delaware.gov/ or call 653-9231.

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/13233

Justice for Shrewsbury Pickets Campaign We fight for the recognition that, in order to defend collective justice, we must develop a collective strategy for overturning all collective injustice. Mike Abbott, 29/3/39 – 27/2/14 Posted on March 10, 2014 by steve Reply The Justice for Shrewsbury Pickets Campaign has lost its founder and most lion-hearted champion. Mike re-kindled the campaign from dormancy when he retired in 2006, just as he promised Des Warren he would, when Des was dying from drug-induced Parkinson’s disease in 2004. For the first 5 years, the high profile that the campaign rapidly achieved was entirely down to Mike, who travelled the length and breadth of the country to build support. The intention was to persuade the TUC to organise a public inquiry to learn from the experience and overturn the 1970s criminalisation of mobilising solidarity action. The campaign quickly became very popular, with a network of supporting organisations and individuals, all looking for a way to unite today’s campaigns against collective injustice with the unresolved issues from 1972 – casualisation, bogus self-employment, blacklisting of activists, poor H&S standards and inspection, and the behind-the-scenes ‘nod and a wink’ collaboration of employers, Tories, senior media, judiciary and police officials to prejudice public opinion against trade unionism. Wherever we went for support, it was forthcoming. The campaign would not be where it is now without the National Committee that Mike recruited. He constantly reminded activists of Des’s statement from the dock, just before he was sent down for 3 years for conspiracy:- “Nobody here must think they can walk away from this court and forget what has happened here. Villains or victims, we are all part of something much bigger than this trial. The working class movement cannot allow this verdict to go unchallenged. It is yet one more step along the road to fascism and I would remind you — the greatest heroes in Nazi Germany were those who challenged the law when it was used as a political weapon by government acting for a minority of greedy, evil men.” The National Committee organised a lobby of parliament, 2 Early Day Motions, fringe meetings at UCATT, TUC and Labour Party conferences; we lobbied traded union leaders and Brendan Barber; we produced a DVD with Platform Films which has been shown all over the country; we have spoken at numerous trades councils. We campaigned for both the hugely successful annual Shrewsbury Pickets marches, in Shrewsbury organised by Telford and Shropshire TUC. In the summer of 2010, out of nowhere, some members from the North West began to divide the campaign, insisting that the only campaigning they would do was to seek legal redress for the 24 convicted pickets. Legal redress was not on the campaign agenda until convicted picket Arthur Murray requested it, and since then nobody opposed it. Walking away from the National Committee will not overcome the criminalisation of mobilising solidarity action. Unlike Mike and others of his generation, today’s young activists have no experience of the mounting world-wide optimism and strength of the struggle for socialism in the 60s and early 70s. And they have no other trade union organisation which is trying to develop their understanding of how that optimism and strength arose and was subsequently undermined. It was undermined by the unprincipled manoeuvring of all manner of left-talking people and organisations, not just the official leaders of the Labour Party and the trade unions. These left-talkers blocked the mobilisation of solidarity action that could have prevented the criminalisation of trade unionism 40 years ago, just as the mobilisation of solidarity action brought down the Heath government and forced the release of the Pentonville dockers. Instead, the solidarity of the 1970s was broken down using the same unprincipled tactics that were used against the National Committee — dividing the different mobilisations against collective injustice instead of uniting them, by claiming they are not part of the struggle for socialism. Mike continued to be active, turning out and speaking up for every mobilisation against collective injustice, until he was put on palliative care at the beginning of February. He went on cheerfully talking and joking right to the end, with barely a moment’s self-pity, despite the excruciating side-effects of the 3 courses of chemotherapy he endured over 3 years, until the doctors could do no more. Mike’s determination, integrity and fortitude are beyond question, a blazing beacon to all who knew him, just like Des Warren’s. Des refused to allow himself to be called a hero, and Mike felt the same. Nevertheless, all those young activists who take up the struggle against collective injustice will honour people like them, and be inspired by the qualities of unyielding principle and self-sacrifice that they embodied. Justice for Shrewsbury Pickets Campaign 10 minute video, made by Platform Films Posted on February 2, 2016 by steve Reply Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a reply Commemorating Mike Abbott’s 40-year contribution to the struggle for trade union rights Posted on March 13, 2015 by steve Reply Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a reply Recent Posts Justice for Shrewsbury Pickets Campaign 10 minute video, made by Platform Films

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/13245

Large group grouses at sage grouse hearing Feb 13, 2013 | 6352 views | 2 | 25 | | Two initiatives may have a significant impact on land use in large portions of San Juan County. The proposed Greater Canyonlands National Monument (red) would increase protction of 1.4 million acres of public land, while proposed critical habitat for the Gunnison sage grouse (blue) would restrict use on 145,000 acres of mostly private land. More than 200 people crowded into the Monticello High School auditorium on February 7 for a public hearing on the proposed designation of endangered species status for the small population of Gunnision Sage Grouse in San Juan County.Representatives from the US Fish and Wildlife Service faced a mostly hostile but mostly respectful crowd. They were there to explain the rationale behind the proposed designation and how it may affect the area.Two rules are proposed: one would designate the bird as an endangered species and the other would designation large swaths of land as critical habitat.San Juan County Planner Nick Sandberg explained that challenging the designation as an endangered species may be difficult because it is part of the settlement of a lawsuit.Sandberg added that challenging the designation of critical habitat may be the best approach for local landowners. Sandberg said that the comment should not be emotional and should focus on specific and identifiable impacts on the land and on the threat to the livelihood of area residents. Pleading that the responses should be non-emotional may be very difficult in what has become a very emotional issue. The frustration that many local landowners feel over the ongoing public lands battles quickly turns into rage over this designation, because it impacts primarily private land.Approximately 95 percent of the critical habitat proposed for San Juan County is on private land. At roughly 140,000 acres, this represents an estimated 35 percent of the total private land in the entire county.The impact on private land is significant since more than 92 percent of the land in San Juan County is owned by the state or federal government, leaving just eight percent of the total land mass as private ground. A US Fish and Wildlife spokesperson told the crowd that a significant portion of the critical habitat under consideration has not had the sage grouse on it for many years.Many local residents fear that designating such a large swath of private ground will be devastating to the local economy and to the tax base.In addition to impacts on the agricultural communities, the development of oil and gas resources, wind power resources and other uses of private land could be threatened by the designations.Over the past ten years, local landowners and organizations, working with state and federal groups, have worked to protect the sage grouse and avoid a federal designation. The working groups have expended significant effort and money to stop the loss of the birds, to little effect.The group reports that they made progress for several years, but a series of factors, including Mother Nature, have combined to hinder the effort. Despite the best efforts of man, they state that Mother Nature has continued to decimate a bird that has proven to be ill equipped to survive in the modern world.The US Fish and Wildlife lists a host of factors that threaten the bird, but state that the principle threat is “habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation due primarily to residential, exurban, and commercial development and associated infrastructure such as roads and power lines.”The reality is that there has been little new activity in the area in recent years. Roads have not been improved or expanded, fences have not changed and agricultural efforts have been minimal.Local experts state that areas north and east of Monticello were once heavily farmed and grazed and the sage grouse were doing fine. At the current time, there is very little, if any, farming and ranching in the area and the number of sage grouse is diminishing.The Natural Resources Conservation Services, (NRCS) reports that a significant portion of the land proposed as protected habitat is currently in the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). In San Juan County, there are 34,800 acres of agriculture land in the CRP program, with approximately half of the total CRP acreage located in the critical habitat area.CRP, a federal program which encourages landowners to leave agriculture land fallow, also requires that the land be maintained for agricultural use at some level. Sagebrush and grass habitat is ideal for the sage grouse. The US Fish and Wildlife initially did not plan a meeting in Monticello. It was added later at the request of San Juan County.At a similar meeting in Dove Creek, CO in January, federal agents from Homeland Security, dressed in tactical gear and carrying weapons, were in attendance.San Juan County Sheriff Rick Eldredge reports that while the federal agents were in Monticello on February 7, they were not in attendance at the meeting.San Juan County Commission Phil Lyman conducted the meeting. In his opening remarks, Lyman said, “This is a volatile topic, I believe we all realize to some extent what is at stake. Anytime the federal government takes action which impacts private property rights, it is of serious concern.” Lyman plead that area residents submit written comments on the proposal, adding, “We need to flood their office with written comments.” Copyright 2016 San Juan Record - Classifieds, Events, Businesses in Monticello, San Juan County, Utah. All rights reserved. Bears Ears concert is Thursday in Blanding County recovers large portion of loss due to cybercrime Not a typical roast beef sandwich JoeThePimpernel | UN Agenda 21 by any other name is still UN Agenda 21.It's purpose is to incrementally eliminate private property and force all the peasants into high-rise containment facilities on the East and West Coasts.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GykzQWlXJs Reply Amanda84535 | I was unable to attend the meeting, but would like to submit written comments on the proposal. There seems to be a lot of rumors of potential impact, but in order to submit effective and knowledgeable comments, it would be nice to have some more specific information. Maybe the SJR could do an article on the potential impact that private land owners may be facing if the designation is passed. Specifically, the impact upon residential owners, farmers, ranchers, hunters and trappers. Thank you! Reply

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/13256

The economy votes Obama When the prodigiously named French historian Alexis-Charles-Henri Clérel de Tocqueville wrote his first volume of Democracy in America in 1835 he opined: "I know of no country, indeed, where the love of money has taken stronger hold on the affections of men, and where the profounder contempt is expressed for the theory of the permanent equality of property."Like many of de Tocqueville's observations, it was historically prescient. Democracy in America was and is all about money. If anything, it has only grown more so as America's economy has developed into the world's biggest.Yet the flip-side of this political-industrial complex is that, increasingly, money is all about democracy in America. We've all heard it said numerous times that this year's presidential election is the most important in history – an ambit claim that is difficult to believe considering the US has got no issue like slavery, World War II or the Soviet Union to consider – but it nevertheless matters greatly for the markets.To demonstrate, we will examine several key policy differences between the two candidates. Following this comparison we will provide a forecast for major sectors and asset classes. Huge cost, but maybe a silver lining TaxationObama's stated aim is to cancel Bush-era tax cuts for individuals earning more than $200,000 or couples earning more than $250,000, increasing top rates of tax to 36 per cent and 39.6 per cent from 33 per cent and 35 per cent respectively. Romney aims to cut income tax across-the-board by 20 per cent, and corporate tax from 35 per cent to 25 per cent.Romney also promises to extend Bush's 15 per cent dividend and capital gains tax rate for individuals earning more than $200,000 (these would be abolished for everyone else), plus eliminate alternative minimum and estate taxes. This would undoubtedly help investors, but would be at the expense of a reduction in expenditures, most likely related to health insurance, lest the deficit increase by another $3 trillion over 10 years, as estimated by non-partisan bodies.Obama plans to limit tax relief to lower-income households and raise taxes for the wealthy. He has proposed a "Buffett Rule" with a minimum 30 per cent tax rate for individuals earning more than $1 million annually. This will add costs to businesses and investors, but considering the size and current success of the US economy versus the rest of the world, it is unlikely that this would lead to a capital flight as it could in smaller countries.DeficitWithout releasing comprehensive plans to detail how a Republican administration would reduce America's federal budget deficit while reducing tax revenues, all we know is that Romney's deficit reduction plan amounts to little more than repealling the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, better known as Obamacare.The irony, of course, is that in addition to being modelled somewhat on a universal insurance scheme Romney signed into being for Massachusetts, Obamacare was designed in part to save Washington $210 billion between 2012 and 2021, in addition to giving more Americans access to better health services.Finance Romney and Obama have been largely in agreement over specific bail-out measures such as the auto industry rescue and the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). While Romney opposes the Dodd-Frank Act, which Obama signed into law in July 2010, it is unlikely that he will repeal this and risk plunging the financial sector into further uncertainty.Trade In addition to a fiscal deficit, the US, like Australia, has a long-running trade deficit, much of it to China, and this issue, conflated with manufacturing jobs, has become a key election issue. Obama's instinct has been protectionist, threatening to renegotiate agreements like NAFTA to demand high environmental and labour standards from Mexico and Canada, and veto any free trade agreements with Asian countries unless similar standards are met.Romney, who had wide interests in Asia during his time at private equity firm Bain Capital, appears to be more agnostic on this issue, but worryingly he has pledged to designate China a "currency manipulator" on or around his first day in office, which to us appears to be protectionism in a different form. But it is unlikely that China will go down in any ensuing currency war without a fight.Jobs On the subject of jobs, Romney's biggest campaign point has been to reduce unemployment through pro-business policies, which is arguably his biggest attraction to the electorate. With unemployment stubbornly high at about 7.8 per cent – due in part to structural factors such as technological obsolescence, which has little to do with the financial crisis – Romney's plan is to make it cheaper and easier than it already is to hire and fire American workers.Obama's plan, on the other hand, is of the top-down variety typical of Democrat politicians, with $450 billion proposed in infrastructure-focused spending.Social security, health and education Of pivotal importance to the demand picture is social welfare — the source of income for Romney's so-called "47 per cent" of Americans who don't work, or (apparently) don't want to work. Romney has planned to raise the retirement age to reduce social security spending, whereas Obama – while not ruling-out such a measure – has stated he plans to use higher payroll and high-income tax revenue to pay for pensions and related welfare programs.With regards to education, Romney actually comes out as the true reformer, proposing to link federal funds to investment in innovation, parental choice and results-based teaching. If charges that Romney is beholden to big business are true then Obama is undoubtedly beholden to big education unions. Like in Australia, American public education standards are in decline. While its universities are world-class (if you can afford to attend, that is), state-funded primary and secondary schools are falling behind in OECD rankings.ImmigrationBeyond the dynamism of its commercial sector, America's 200-year economic miracle has largely been a result of an open and welcoming immigration policy. Whereas Obama largely wishes to maintain the status quo – even allowing illegal immigrants to hold driver's licences, and avoid deportation if they pay a fine and undertake to learn English – Romney is taking a harder line, which may ease jobs pressure on citizens, but will ultimately harm the economy.Energy and the environment Obama's energy policy is very much couched in a greater greenhouse policy, which aims to cut emissions to 80 per cent below 1990 levels by 2050 using cap-and-trade permits. A comprehensive public transport and carbon sequestration investment program, in addition to a 30 per cent renewable energy pledge by 2020, round out these bold proposals.At the other end of the spectrum, Romney's plan can be summed up in two words: domestic oil. He is proposing further liberalisation to oil and shale gas drilling laws, a commitment to approve the Keystone XL pipeline to carry crude from Canada to the US Gulf and a cancelling of federal renewables funding. Climate change and alternatives do not seem to be a Republican consideration, but Romney's plan is nevertheless likely to lead to greater energy independence in the short-term.Foreign policy, security and defence Romney's energy objectives can be seen as central to his foreign policy objectives. With the Middle East taking up some 80 per cent of the recent foreign policy presidential debate – China was hardly mentioned – Romney clearly wishes to reduce America's economic dependence on energy from the region, even if Saudi Arabia forever remains the price-setter in oil's fungible market. Romney also wishes to take a firmer line on the enemies – real or perceived – of Israel. Likewise, Romney appears to be more hawkish on Iran than Obama, or at least in rhetoric.Obama's strategic "pivot" to Asia has meanwhile received little attention in either campaign, but this long-term geostrategic initiative is unlikely to be derailed under either presidency. Further, Romney is unlikely to rollback Obama's withdrawal from Afghanistan or seek any return of US troops to Iraq. In Pakistan, perhaps surprisingly, Romney is likely to be more accommodating, whereas to him it is Russia that is America's "number-one geopolitical foe". Romney has even called Vladimir Putin "a real threat to the stability and peace of the world".ForecastsThe election of Mitt Romney would be good news for oil companies, the education sector, defence contractors, Pakistani politicians and millionaires, but the election of Barack Obama would be better, in aggregate, for the US economy.Michael Feller is an investment strategist at Macro Investor. This is an excerpt from a special report on the possible effects of the US election on your portfolio. It is available as a part of a free 21-day trial at Macro Investor.

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/13337

Business Real Estate News Face to Face: A Conversation with Ben Graber Broward County Mayor discusses transit, housing and other issues affecting the county.Q. Transportation and affordable housing are two of the biggest issues facing Broward County and all of South Florida, and the two are related. What's being done in the area of land use to create better conditions for the development of both mass transit and affordable housing? A. What we're actually trying to do is increase density along the major corridors. Of course, we have to work with the municipalities to do so. And our vision is that if we take a major corridor like 441 or Commercial or Federal Highway, and as we start to redevelop it, we put in the greater height for more density, mixed use, and then perhaps either a bus or a light rail -- right now it's looking more like bus -- that this should become the model for the whole county. Those corridors such as 441 that go tri-county are areas we're prioritizing, and our focus has been to develop those areas. In addition to that, we're looking to create incentives to put affordable housing in place, and more rental apartments that are also affordable in cost. To do so we're looking at tax incentives, tax reductions, perhaps purchasing land where we can lease the land to a builder so that they can transfer that savings over to the tenant. Those kinds of issues, and that's the focus of where we're going.Q. Do you support the 1-cent sales tax increase for mass transit that's been proposed by a coalition of county business leaders?A. I think that we need a dedicated source of funding for transportation. The 1-cent sales tax is one way to get there. Whether I personally support it or not -- I can support it, but I don't think the public may be ready for it this year. So what I've asked is that a citizen initiative be taken to see if the public would vote, or support, a dedicated source of funding that is a 1-cent tax. It's a regressive tax, which means everyone pays the same rate. I just recently wrote an op-ed piece pushing progressive taxes for real estate, and I would rather see a progressive tax than a regressive tax to pay for transportation. The state Legislature recently talked about a rental car surcharge for the same thing. So at this point I would say I'm not ready to go out and support the 1-cent tax this year, but I'm not closed-minded to it. I'd like to first see how the citizens' initiative group works and see what kind of response we get back from the public.Q. What specific initiatives are under way in the area of affordable housing?A. Specifically, we're looking at a number of options for local government as a requirement for providing affordable housing. And when I say affordable housing, I mean affordable housing that is available. Not just that they contain affordable housing now. In other words, things that can turn over. So what we're looking at is a menu of options.We have our affordable housing committee, our attainable housing committee. … We hope to offer a menu of five or six things that each city can offer to meet an affordable housing quota, or requirement. We will see whether it will be required or voluntary. That discussion will be had by the County Commission. We will look at putting a fund together, where perhaps there'll be a mitigation fund for some cities that meet the affordable housing requirement, or for some reason cannot meet it, where they can actually put money into the bank and the county would match that money, which would be available for developing homes. … So these are the kinds of issues we're hoping to see soon.Q. You mentioned the committee a minute ago. You've established a committee system to match commissioners' areas of expertise to the issues that need to be addressed, and also to improve accountability. How's that system working so far?A. Very well, actually. In the beginning there was some skepticism, but the commissioners actually like them. The public likes it very much, and the response from the community has only been positive. Issues are moving forward quickly, they're being vetted, the commissioners are becoming better educated on these issues, the staff is able to move things through at a much faster pace, and all in all, we've had a very smooth-running commission since we instituted this plan. So I think it's going to be a system that will continue even beyond my mayorship.Q. What's happening with the long-awaited County Commission ethics policy, which the voters expressed a desire for, what, about three years ago?A. Yes.Q. Is the commission any closer to formulating an ethics policy?A. I actually created an ethics committee that will be, I think, providing us with a report … to vote on as a policy for the full commission. They have already passed through their committee a majority of the items they wish us to consider as policy, and I believe they have one more meeting before it comes to the full commission.Q. Regionalism is something that is frequently touted by business leaders, academics and some public officials as being the best way to meet South Florida's many interrelated challenges. Do you agree with that?A. South Florida is unique in that we're probably closer, the three counties down here -- when I say South Florida, southeast Florida -- these three counties are more similar to each other than they are to the rest of the state of Florida, in the diversity, in the needs, in the business, the commerce, and our proximity to the Caribbean. So we're really one area, and although we are broken into counties and we compete with each other, we will probably benefit greatly if we can work together rather than against each other.We made an attempt to work with Palm Beach County on the Scripps issue, for instance, to help bring Scripps to the south area. And that was actually a very positive thing we did. We didn't win the issue … but we did move forward on developing relationships. I worked on the Medicaid rewrite bill last year with [Miami-] Dade County. Unfortunately, Dade County at the last minute opted out of the program, but we worked together to help develop the program and make recommendations to the state.So in that and many other ways -- regional transportation issues, housing issues -- we do work together, and I think that needs to be encouraged.Q. There seem to be some signs that Miami-Dade County may not be as content with the regional relationship as the other two counties are. Is that true, and what do you think should be done about that?A. I think part of the reason is that they've started to view us more as a competitor. Many businesses are coming up to Broward. We appear to be competing with the airports, the seaports. And I don't believe it's an active competition. I believe it's just the market, and Broward is more conducive to certain types of business. But I believe that we need to foster a good relationship with Dade. We try very hard to work closely with their County Commission. Sometimes when I speak to county commissioners from Dade, they're a little negative about Broward County. I try to work with some of the legislators, and there's some contention there as well. Again, it's a competitive issue. So, how we overcome that, I think, will have to be through continued working and trying to work with them rather than isolate ourselves and become defensive. Q. Questions have been raised about the amount of money that's being spent on commissioners' aides. Do you think the staffing is excessive, and do you think there's a need for clear guidelines on staffing and pay levels for commissioners?A. I do. We have right now a system where we have a range of salaries and benefits, and we also have a program where we evaluate and give goals to our aides right now. That is in place. What is not in place is basic criteria for an aide. What an aide's qualifications should be. I can't speak for everyone, but for my office, my aides all have master's degrees, have had extensive experience either in government or education, or in business. And I've had two aides for the last five years -- this year I took on a third aide when I became mayor -- and so I believe that you have to pay an aide according to their qualifications. And I do believe you need that. Do we need more criteria? I would say we could probably use more criteria, yes.Q. Is it a legitimate criticism that the number of aides and the amount being spent on them has grown even though commissioners' constituencies have diminished by virtue of single-member districts? I don't think that's a good analysis, because even though we may have single-member districts, that doesn't mean we have less work. The population has grown. More people are utilizing our services. We find even with three aides we're very tight. Of course, as mayor, I have extra duties. Plus we have, most of the commissioners have now a satellite office to get closer to their constituency. We intervene a great deal on social services and economic benefits, and with hurricanes, that added more burden. And our aides work very hard, and they also, it's an executive position. They work overtime, without pay. They work weekends, evenings sometimes, without pay. They represent us in certain areas off-time. So it's not like a 40-hour week where they clock in from 9 to 5. They're available all the time. So I would say that, I feel, from my point of view, that what I pay my aides is appropriate for the amount of work they do. And I feel that the workload is actually increasing, not decreasing.Q. You were elected mayor by a vote of your colleagues on the County Commission. Do you think the current county government structure is working, or does Broward need an elected, strong county mayor?A. That's a good question. I've been studying this county commission government since I'm here for six years, and it's a unique government because it's a blend of an executive and a legislative position, and some people -- I believe yourself, actually -- have asked the question whether our government is constitutional. And I would have to say I don't know. It may not be, because we're not a unicameral legislative body, we don't have a chief executive, we hire a CEO. So it's a very good debate. It's very possible that our government is not constitutional, and functions more like a corporation than a government. So I think that's up to the charter review this time to look into, and actually I'm going to recommend -- we're getting ready to appoint our charter review people shortly, by June -- and I'm going to recommend they look at that question, because it's very possible that we may have to restructure this at least into a unicameral type of structure, which may require a stronger mayor.Q. Looking ahead, what is your vision for what Broward County should look like, or be like, 10 or 20 years from now?A. I would love to see the corridors become mixed-use, with four- or five-story apartments, with commercial on the lower level, with dedicated bus service, beautified streets, a good public transportation system. I'd like to see the downtown have a world trade center, a financial center, with international investment. I'd like to see our convention center hotel built, making our convention center world-class. And I'd like to see the continued success of our unemployment rate, which is 3.1 percent, one of the lowest in the nation, and continue to see more commerce come in.The one thing we need, however, is more affordable housing and transportation. Those are the two key areas. And in 10 or 20 years from now, if we can achieve that, which will be around the time of build-out, we would have a very, very wonderful place to live.It's wonderful now, but it would be even better.Interviewed by Senior Editorial Writer Timothy Dodson BackgroundBroward County Mayor Ben Graber, a native of Germany, is a naturalized U.S. citizen who was raised in New York City. A physician, he began his career in politics in 1988, when he was elected to the Florida House of Representatives, where he served four terms.As a legislator, he chaired several committees, including the Health Care Committee. In 1994, he was presented with the Legislator of the Year award by the Florida Association of Counties, the first such award given by the organization.Graber was first elected to the Broward County Commission in November 2000. He became mayor by virtue of a vote of his colleagues in November 2005.He continues to serve as a courtesy clinical associate professor in the obstetrics and gynecology department of the University of Florida and as a voluntary clinical associate professor in the University of Miami's OB-GYN department.

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/13362

Top Cuban diplomat pushes for better ties with U.S., Tampa Bay Jamal Thalji, Times Staff Writer JAMAL THALJITampa Bay TimesThursday, January 30, 2014 2:31pm U.S. Rep Kathy Castor and Cuba's top diplomat to the United States pushed for improved relations with the island nation and greater economic ties between Cuba and the Tampa Bay region on Thursday. How did Tampa Bay fare in U.S. News' list of top places to live? Cuban agency may include Tampa in planned visit to U.S. ports Tampa Bay among top tourism destinations in the country José Ramón Cabañas, the head of the Cuban Interests Section in Washington, D.C., made his first visit to the Tampa Bay area this week. "Any kind of commercial or economic relations with Cuba is a two-way relationship," he said. Cabañas was accompanied by Castor, the Tampa Democrat who has been a staunch critic of the U.S. embargo that bars trade with Cuba and restricts travel. "Now is an important time for the U.S. to be more engaged with Cuba," Castor said. "There are changes happening on the island and in the economy. They can own private property and own cars. They have small businesses, they're in auto repair or they have their own restaurants. "Now is the time for the U.S. to promote those changes, to encourage those changes." The congresswoman and the diplomat spoke to the Tampa Bay Times editorial board on Thursday morning, then attended a luncheon at the Greater Tampa Chamber of Commerce. Cabañas was also scheduled to meet with officials at Tampa International Airport and Port Tampa Bay and to tour both facilities on Thursday. He was also scheduled to tour Ybor City today. The U.S. has no formal diplomatic relations with Cuba, which is why the Cuban mission is housed in the Swiss embassy in Washington, D.C. Cabañas was asked about his nation's human rights record and its imprisonment of former U.S. subcontractor Alan Gross, who was arrested in 2009 on charges that he illegally provided banned satellite communications equipment to dissidents. A Cuban court sentenced Gross to 15 years in prison. "Generally, most Americans don't know what's going on in Cuba," Cabañas said. He also noted that the U.S. has formal relations with other nations accused of human rights abuses, such as China. In December, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said the two nations were discussing Gross' situation. Cabañas said Thursday that his government is willing to work with the U.S. but has been stymied by the lack of diplomatic relations. "We have a willingness to face that problem, to talk about it, to find a solution," Cabañas said. "But something has to happen from the other end. There has to be the political will to sit down and talk about it." Though there are no formal relations between the two nations, Cabañas said both sides have managed to work together on several fronts in recent years. Both have shared data on climate change and hurricanes, and both signed an agreement that spells out how to handle oil spills in the Caribbean. "In some cases we have accomplished something," Cabañas said. "Of course we have differences between the U.S. and our government in several instances. But we have to face what we have in front of us." And that, Cabañas said, is increased travel between the two nations. In 2013, thanks to new travel policies in Cuba, Cabañas said nearly 300,000 Cubans traveled around the world. In turn, he said up to 400,000 Cuban-Americans visit the island along with 95,000 other Americans through the people-to-people licenses that allow U.S. citizens to visit Cuba legally. It would be easier to travel between the two countries, Castor and Cabañas said, if the U.S. were to put more resources into its only Cuban mission and allow Cuba to expand its only mission here. Cabañas also praised Tampa International Airport as a gateway to Cuba. Flights between Tampa and Cuba were restored in 2011 after a 52-year hiatus. Since then, more than 100,000 people have used Tampa to get to Cuba, many of them local Cuban-Americans whose only other choice in the state used to be to fly through Miami International Airport. Tampa's reputation among those traveling to and from Cuba is much different from Miami's reputation, according to Cabañas. "We call the flights from Miami the Vatican flights," he said, "because God only knows when you'll arrive." Top Cuban diplomat pushes for better ties with U.S., Tampa Bay 01/30/14 [Last modified: Thursday, January 30, 2014 10:44pm]

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/13363

Sign up for DayStarter Today’s top headlines delivered to you daily. (View our Privacy Policy) adv15 By WES ALLISON, Times Staff Writer WES ALLISONTimes Staff WriterSaturday, March 14, 2009 4:30am On his first full day of work, President Obama faced a roomful of senior staff and Cabinet secretaries and outlined his expectations for open government: "For a long time now, there's been too much secrecy in this city. The old rules said that if there was a defensible argument for not disclosing something to the American people, then it should not be disclosed," Obama told about 100 staffers in an auditorium in the Old Executive Office Building, next to the White House. "That era is now over. Starting today, every agency and department should know that this administration stands on the side not of those who seek to withhold information but those who seek to make it known." The words have a familiar ring. Two years ago, the first executive order Charlie Crist signed as Florida's governor created the state Office of Open Government, and in his first news conference he said he planned to set a standard for the rest of the country on transparency in government. No politician comes into office promising secrecy, but administrations throughout history have closed ranks to prevent disclosures of embarrassing policies and decisions. The question for the Obama administration is this: Will it adhere to its principles of open government and transparency, as the president pledged, even when disclosure might be embarrassing? Meanwhile, Obama's ambitious agenda for improving citizens' access to government doings — and for allowing citizens to comment on them — has presented technological and legal challenges the new administration did not foresee, leaving uncertain how fully and how quickly the president can deliver on his pledges. Obama used his first days in office to issue two groundbreaking memorandums. One directed the Justice Department to issue new, consistent guidelines to agency heads for complying with the Freedom of Information Act. Willingness to comply with the FOIA varies by agency, and under the Bush administration it often took months, if not years, for requests to be honored. The second memo ordered the Office of Management and Budget to issue by late May the outline for an "Open Government Directive," which will require all federal agencies to implement the principles of transparency and citizen participation. The OMB also is using an in-house Internet tool, called MAX, to solicit ideas from federal employees nationwide. "Executive departments and agencies should harness new technologies to put information about their operations and decisions online and readily available to the public," Obama wrote in the order. "Executive departments and agencies should also solicit public feedback to identify information of greatest use to the public." Mechanically, however, that's proving more problematic than the president and his advisers expected. Consider this: According to a report by the Federal Web Managers Council, a group of Internet experts from across the federal bureaucracy, there are approximately 24,000 U.S. government Web sites, including many that "tout organizational achievements instead of effectively delivering basic information and services." And they are spread among hundreds of agencies and subagencies under 15 Cabinet-level departments, as well as dozens of independent executive branch agencies, many of which have their own policies for determining what to post and how to present information. In late December, as Obama's presidential transition team laid the groundwork for its new initiatives, the Federal Web Managers Council issued a report that detailed key barriers to more transparency, including a lack of consistency in what's allowed, no comprehensive strategy for using the Internet to communicate with citizens, and rules that limit federal employees' access to social-networking sites like YouTube and Facebook. Agency and department heads also worry about IT security, how using free Internet tools and software might violate restrictions on accepting "gifts" or run afoul of government procurement procedures, and rules against federal employees signing those ubiquitous Internet user agreements. "In many cases, the focus is more on what can't be done rather than what can be done," the report said. Ellen Miller, executive director and co-founder of the Sunlight Foundation, a nonpartisan advocate for government transparency, said her group is talking informally with the White House about ways to improve access to information. "I give them a lot of credit — and I'm always ready to be critical if we need to be critical — for trying to get stuff done, but I think it's a shock in terms of the legal impediments and the technological impediments," Miller said. "They're just learning now about all of those things, and they seem to be attacking them one by one. It's not moving as fast as they would want, and it's not moving as fast as we would want, but it is moving." Already, Obama has made exceptions to his promised openness. He promised to post all bills on www.WhiteHouse.gov before he signs them. But he has signed two measures, including the 1,071-page economic stimulus bill, without posting them. His administration has sided with Bush in a lawsuit seeking to investigate whether millions of White House e-mails were wrongly expunged during the Bush years. And his administration has been criticized for failing to provide details of a waiver allowing William J. Lynn, former lobbyist for defense contractor Raytheon, to become the deputy secretary of defense. Obama had pledged to ban former lobbyists from dealing with issues they recently lobbied on, unless they were granted a waiver with conditions that mitigate their potential conflict of interest. After complaints on Capitol Hill, OMB director Peter Orszag sent Congress a letter providing some of the conditions required of Lynn. Orszag also released the text of the waiver, which says simply that Lynn has been exempted from the lobbyist provision, but agrees to abide by other aspects of the administration's ethics pledge. Fred Wertheimer, a veteran Washington open-government advocate and president of Democracy 21, a nonpartisan watchdog group, has praised Obama's "genuine commitment" to transparency so far, but says the White House should be more forthcoming about exemptions to its personnel policies. "I don't know what the rationale is for not making public the waivers and explanations for why waivers are being given," he said. "That information should be available to the public unless there's some reason for not making it available, and I don't know of a reason." Wes Allison can be reached at allison@sptimes.com or (202) 463-0577. adv15 03/14/09 [Last modified: Saturday, March 14, 2009 4:30am] Copyright: For copyright information, please check with the distributor of this item, Times Staff Writer.

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/13408

The war did not make us safer The invasion of Iraq may only have succeeded in making the world a more dangerous place, writes Simon Tisdall.The massaging, mangling and magnification of intelligence on Iraq's elusive weapons of mass destruction, officially confirmed by this week's Butler report on the British Government's use of intelligence material in the run-up to the Iraq war, and by this month's United States Senate inquiry, has left the coalition of the willing's principal justification for last year's invasion of Iraq in tatters. But this is no mere matter of historical record. For these same embarrassing misconstructions by British and US spy agencies and their political masters may also jeopardise global efforts to prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction. Just as the war intensified rather than diminished the al-Qaeda terrorist menace, so an increased risk of WMD proliferation may also be a lasting legacy. In the eyes of many around the world, British Prime Minister Tony Blair and US President George Bush cried wolf over WMD in Iraq. They turned their backs on the international community by bypassing the United Nations and thumbing their noses at public opinion in defiance of the now established facts. Advertisement In doing so, did they in effect shatter not only the doughty reputations of their spooks but also the credibility and potential effectiveness of future Western counter-proliferation efforts? Speaking at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee this week, Bush said the spread of WMD was the "great danger" of our time. "This danger is increased when outlaw regimes build or acquire weapons of mass destruction and maintain ties to terrorist groups," he said. The President cited Libya's decision to hand over its WMD to the Oak Ridge scientists as an exemplary success for his hardline policies. An increased risk of WMD proliferation may also be a lasting legacy of the war in Iraq. But Iran and North Korea, to name two leading US "states of concern", may have drawn very different conclusions from the Iraq intervention. For influential Islamist factions in Iran, what happened to Saddam Hussein's regime is a powerful reason to acquire, rather than abandon, WMD. Disarmament talks with Iran and North Korea continue in desultory fashion. Both are waiting and hoping for a change of administration in the US in November. Of the two, North Korea may present the most serious threat, to its neighbours and to Western interests, led as it is by a clique of chancers. The Bush Administration has frequently provoked Pyongyang by word and deed. Yet if the US were to deem military action essential there, who would heed it? Tony Blair, for one, would not survive another pre-emptive war. Concerns about WMD proliferation extend to other states such as Syria and Saudi Arabia. While Britain has striven to maintain constructive ties since September 11, 2001, US relations with these two key Middle Eastern states have sharply deteriorated. In part that is because of Iraq; partly it is because of Washington's aggressive conduct of the "war on terror", partly because of unquestioning US support for Ariel Sharon's Israel. US leverage in Riyadh and Damascus, as elsewhere, has consequently diminished. Washington's perceived double standard in ignoring Arab demands for a nuclear-free Middle East - meaning, a nuclear-disarmed Israel - and its insouciant attitude to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and to the enforcement of existing chemical and biological weapons conventions also undermine the counter-proliferation cause. Similarly hypocritical are the Bush Administration's plans for new generations of nuclear weapons, such as bunker-busters and battlefield nukes; and its insistence on pressing ahead with the deployment of a destabilising, global ballistic missile defence. Entirely predictably, this has led Russia and perhaps China to increase their respective offensive ballistic missile capabilities. There are good reasons to believe that the global counter-proliferation struggle can be won. Present elements of the campaign include the Proliferation Security Initiative involving more than 60 countries, the G8 summit's global partnership, the European Union's 2003 security strategy, and the work of various UN bodies, including the International Atomic Energy Agency. But to succeed, these efforts must be globally co-operative and collective in nature. To the extent that the Iraq war was unilaterally launched on flawed WMD premises, the overall battle to halt the spread of such weapons has become proportionately harder. Thanks to Iraq and, principally, to US policy, the ultimate nightmare - that terrorist groups could obtain weapons of mass destruction - may have crept several shades closer. Simon Tisdall writes on international affairs for The Guardian, London, where this article first appeared. Plotting property is a matter of measurement. The great Iraqi arms conspiracy? It didn't exist Entangled in a St Kilda triangle Policy and politics on the instalment plan David Kemp: a Liberal for all seasons The lethal side of Russian corruption The evolving politics of terror Raising a glass to getting away with it Man seen arguing with woman before she died Flight scare under-investigated: Opposition Siblings traumatised by sight of sister in flames Iraqi justice minister escapes suicide attack Five arrested over fatal Indian school fire Rudd calls on Downer clarification Fiji's Emperor Mines still golden Enron emerges as shell of former self Seven bidders tune in for radio auction Doesn't get better than this Back on the right track Sprinter Grimes tests positive: report Aussies can't cut it at Troon Former world number one Rios retires Spot the train A blossoming life Home > Opinion > Article

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/13420

Stop Bullying Taiwan The Abortion Smokescreen From the Coop Those Harvard Books By Sophia Lai and Chieh-ting Yeh, S Tomorrow morning, Wen Jiabao, the premier of the People’s Republic of China (PRC), will speak at Harvard as part of his first official visit to the United States. When he spends time in the White House, one can be sure that Taiwan—officially, the Republic of China (ROC)—and the PRC’s efforts to maintain their stranglehold over its people, will be at the top of Wen’s agenda. The premier plans to once again reassert the PRC’s right to use military force as a means to bludgeon Taiwan’s aspirations of sovereignty. But no matter how much PRC and Wen would like to obscure the reality, the fact is that Taiwan is a self-governing, democratic nation with 23 million people who freely and directly elect their own president and representatives, and have recently increased their commitment to open government with a package of reforms that will allow binding popular referendums—a greater level of citizen empowerment than many states in the U.S. enjoy. However, although the Beijing-based PRC government has never actually ruled Taiwan, it falsely claims it as a “renegade province” of the “sacred motherland,” and intends to eventually “liberate” the island at any cost. Wen and his officials consistently tout the threat of war and suppress Taiwan’s international activities. The PRC’s tactics of intimidation and intentional manufacturing of fear are not only unwarranted, but could themselves constitute formal aggression of the regime against a democratic and sovereign nation. And while Taiwan itself renounced the possible use of force to resolve the issue of its autonomy as far back as 1990, the PRC has launched missiles several miles off the coast in a “military exercise” in 1996, just days before their first-ever direct Taiwanese presidential election. Just this past week, a Chinese military strategist claimed that he was “not concerned that foreign investment might drop, or that [China’s] development would be set back several years, its soldiers might die, its relations with third countries be affected or that people and property in the Asia-Pacific region would be damaged by a war.” With about 500 ballistic missiles currently stationed along the coast of China facing Taiwan, the PRC threatens not only the security of the country, but international stability in the region, with its belligerent assertions of military hubris.The PRC has also gone to great diplomatic lengths to stifle Taiwan’s entry into international organizations such as World Health Organization (WHO) and the United Nations (U.N.). Their recalcitrance over WHO-entry is particularly troubling since, during the SARS outbreak this May, it was the PRC that continually suppressed reports of cases and refused to cooperate with the WHO, while Taiwan coped with the outbreak alone. PRC representatives even blocked all aid from directly reaching Taiwan, at the same time that it was contesting Taiwan’s bid for observer status on the grounds that it already “takes care of the health of Taiwan compatriots.” The PRC not only suppresses the right of the people of Taiwan to take part in the international community, it further demonstrates the dishonesty and blatant disregard for human welfare on account of a political agenda. Given this clear record of unmitigated hostility, the U.S. needs to stand firm against further encroachments on Taiwan’s livelihood. The U.S. should continue its commitment to help Taiwan defend itself, as outlined in the Taiwan Relations Act of 1979. It must reject the fallacious position that Taiwan is part of the PRC and demand an end to the use of force. The aspiration of the people of Taiwan to decide their own fate must be upheld and respected. And unless President Bush impresses this reality on Premier Wen at their meeting today, the U.S. will remain hypocritical and morally unjustified in continually turning a blind eye to these severe abuses.When Premier Wen visits the U.S. this week, he should take notice of the clear message of dissent against the policies he represents—not only at Harvard, but also on campuses across the nation that have joined in the grassroots campaign to simultaneously voice principled opposition. The U.S. government and the public at large should also take notice of these voices, and reject the unjust, coercive and ultimately oppressive treatment of Taiwan by the People’s Republic of China. Chieh-Ting Yeh ’04 is a chemistry concentrator in Kirkland House. Sophia Lai ’04 is a social studies concentrator in Currier House. They are co-president and former board member of the Taiwanese Cultural Society, respectively.

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/13422

Weicker on Watergate After the Senate Watergate Committee hearings concluded on Aug 3, 1973, in Washington, with the reading of a statement by L. Patrick Gray III, former director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Senators and counsel held a session. From left are Sen. Sam J. Ervin Jr., D-N.C., committee chairman; Sam Dash, chief counsel; Sen. Lowell P. Weicker, Jr., R-Conn., Sen. Howard H. Baker Jr., R-Tenn., and Rufus Edmisten, deputy counsel. As the 40th anniversary of the resignation of President Richard M. Nixon nears, the last surviving member of the investigating committee recalls the conspiracy and how it changed American politics With the death this year of former Sen. Howard Baker of Tennessee, Connecticut's former Republican U.S. Sen. Lowell P. Weicker Jr., now 83, is the last surviving member of the Senate Select Committee that investigated the Watergate break-in and related conspiracies in 1973 and 1974. On Aug. 9, 1974, 40 years ago this week, President Richard M. Nixon resigned from office and lifted off in the presidential helicopter from the White House lawn. Nixon's departure came two years after what his press secretary had called a "third-rate burglary" of Democratic headquarters in the Watergate building in Washington. The four burglars eventually proved to be linked to the White House and to the Committee to Re-Elect the President. Weicker, a three-term senator who later served a term as governor of Connecticut, was a Senate freshman and one of three Republicans on the seven-man committee chaired by Sam J. Ervin Jr., a North Carolina Democrat. Millions of Americans watched the hearings live on television. Along with the committee's official report, Weicker submitted his own, naming more than 80 illegal, unethical and unconstitutional acts and suggesting a variety of reforms, some of which he still recommends. Recently, with many of Watergate's issues still echoing - relations between Congress and the executive branch, presidential exercise of power, internal spying, impeachment, war powers and campaign finance - Weicker spoke at his Old Lyme home with Lisa McGinley, The Day's deputy managing editor, about the lessons Watergate has for Americans today. Q: It's been 40 years since President Nixon resigned and 42 years since the Senate Select Committee got underway. You must have thought a lot about it over the years. A: To say I have been thinking about it for 42 years is probably not correct. I tried to forget it as fast as I could after it was over. And I mean that, because I felt really Watergate was a negative exercise. ... That really took a whole two years of nothing but Watergate, so very little positive was accomplished. But in retrospect I think you'd have to say we were doing something that had never been done before, I guess not since Andrew Johnson had been put up for impeachment and narrowly escaped by one vote, in that we brought a president of the United States into the spotlight as far as his conduct was concerned, as far as his upholding the Constitution was concerned. For me it was going full circle. Richard Nixon campaigned for me, as a congressman and two years later running for United States Senate. ... What people forget when they start discussing Watergate is that aside from some foreign policy mistakes, specifically in the area of the Cambodian bombing, etc., is Nixon was a pretty good president. He was a moderate Republican. He passed many good measures in terms of domestic policy ... So I start off over here, a Nixon fan and someone that liked his policies, and I end up full circle over here, obviously not having a great respect for the man. Q: Sen. Ervin, who chaired the committee, said Watergate was the country's greatest tragedy, not excepting the Civil War. Do you agree? A: I'd agree with that. He took every aspect of the Constitution of the United States and trashed it. This is by the highest elected officer in the land ... It's a huge, huge tragedy. We're sitting here in Old Lyme, Connecticut, a stone's throw away from Mystic and Groton. It brings up for me the memory of Pat Gray, who was a submarine commander, and who lived up here in eastern Connecticut. Gray was a decorated war hero. He commanded a submarine when, believe me, a submarine was dangerous, dangerous duty. ... He was a great man and a great hero. He was used and his life ruined by Richard Nixon ... when he appointed Patrick Gray as temporary head of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and used him in that role to suppress evidence of the Watergate scenario. The report that I issued enumerated the violations of the Constitution ... privacy, the sanctity of your home, the president making sure that the laws were not enforced. I can go down the whole list. Q: When you were chosen to be part of the committee, you were a freshman. Dozens of people were ahead of you in seniority. They didn't want it? A: I think that's fair to say. They didn't want it. I had been constructing campaign finance reform to present as legislation and so I was sort of into this business of ethics in government. Hugh Scott, who was the minority leader, thought the committee needed a young person, a moderate, and someone who understood the field ... I wanted to be a part of the committee and I made that known to Sen. Scott. Q: People watched days and weeks of the hearings on television, and their opinion of the president changed, much as yours did. A: What Watergate did was it really brought the workings of our government and its people, those who govern, into everybody's living room. When the hearings started, no American believed that a president could do wrong to the point of impeachment any more than he thought his congressman or his senator could do wrong. With Watergate that all ended. Everybody in elected office was open to scrutiny … maybe to an excess. People question everything now. Everything becomes 'thisgate' and 'thatgate,' and of course none of them really relate in the same way in terms of seriousness to what happened at the Watergate. The American people have forgotten the lessons of Watergate. On the other hand, they have a general unease with all forms of government. Q: Was there one turning point when everybody latched onto how much bigger this was? A: I can remember very well my own turning point. I had been pursuing a private interview with (White House Counsel) John Dean ... I think I asked several general questions about the president and Dean's relationship to him. They were all on the line of the investigation itself ... Dean turned to me ... and said, 'Aren't you afraid that the president has something on you?' I said, 'Nothing that I know of.' He said, 'Well, are you sure you didn't receive some illegal contributions from the president?' I said, 'Not that I know of.' So he continued with the interview and that was it. Now what happened had been that during the campaign, Nixon's people had reached out to various Republican candidates and offered them cash money for their campaigns. ... Under the law, it was only a violation if you put the cash in the senator's hands personally. As happenstance would have it - I don't pretend to be any purer than anybody else - I was campaigning in upstate Connecticut and (they) wanted to give the campaign contribution to me but ... couldn't travel to upstate Connecticut so ... gave it to my campaign manager. That ended any connection that would constitute wrongdoing on my part ... My involvement was pursued by a reporter for The Washington Times. ... I suggested any information he had ... be turned over to the special prosecutor. ... The special prosecutor later on established my innocence in the matter and that nothing illegal was done. But that meeting with John Dean made me realize these guys weren't kidding around. They had done things that were much graver than anything that had been reported or investigated up to that point. Q: There were bomb threats to the committee rooms. Were there any threats to your family? A: I do remember my father on this very point. It was when I interrogated (Nixon's chief of staff, H.R.) Haldeman about how he had set up protests in the South against Nixon. ... He actually reveled in the fact that the president had been threatened, heckled, etc. As Haldeman sat there ... you could see the look on his face, and it was a no kidding around look. After the hearing was over I got a call from my father. He said, 'Lowell, do those of you on the committee have any protection? Bodyguards, etc., whatever?' I said no. He said, 'Because I'll tell you one thing: I have never seen such hate in any man's eyes as I saw in Haldeman's glances toward you.' But I felt very strongly that the last thing we needed to do was immunize ourselves to what was occurring before us. This in essence was an exercise of a democracy that's free, free from all intimidation, and if all of a sudden you're running around with bodyguards, security and all the rest, it seems to me that's defeating one of the purposes of the investigation. ... But, yeah, there were lots. I received them daily in my office, real threats, but I never asked for any security and neither did any other member of the committee, as far as I know. Q: There was something called the Huston plan, which was supposed to explain all the ways to spy internally. Do you think it is one of the things Watergate hinted at (for the future)? A: I think the American people have totally forgotten the lessons of Watergate, and what went on ... Totally. That's the shame of it. I think it was somebody from Armed Services, testifying ... I said, 'Tell me something: Did they teach constitutional law as part of a military program?' The answer came back: 'No.' I don't think there's many a youngster out there in school right now who could tell anything about Watergate at all, when really it should hang out as a lesson for everyone in all its aspects. There wasn't much there that was left uncovered - all the dirty tricks and all the campaign finance irregularities, the attitudes of the executive, etc. It's all laid out for you. You don't have to experience another Watergate to catch what the lesson is. Today nobody's taking any lessons except those that lived through it, and who are getting a little in short supply. Q: Probably Nixon wasn't the first to do these kinds of things? A: Absolutely, he wasn't. Q: Did he take it to a higher level? A: No, I don't think so. Nobody questioned the president of the United States. You just didn't. Q: What was your reaction to President Ford's pardon of the president? A: Number one, if you asked me who my favorite president is in terms of in my lifetime, I wouldn't hesitate: Gerald Ford. I think he was a fine man. He sort of proves the point, also, it helps to go through the chairs, having been in the House, having been speaker, minority leader, vice president, albeit for a short time. Gerry Ford had enormous integrity, and he was a kind and a good man. I disagreed with his pardon and I was wrong. There is no question in my mind that that was a correct decision so we moved on to other things. You heard the expression at the time 'wallowing in Watergate,' and we were. Once it was over, it should have been over. Otherwise it'd have gone on and on and on. I think he did absolutely the right thing for the country, and he paid a huge price for it. He could have won the next election easily because he was a popular man. Q: You made campaign finance reform part of your very early career, and there was campaign finance reform in 1972 and 1974. With Supreme Court decisions and changes in the law, are we right back where we were? A: This is the toughest problem intellectually that I have ever had to deal with. I certainly accept the fact that money is free speech. I have no problem with that. But we also see how that creates a real problem in terms of excess when it comes to campaign money. I'm beginning to think the solution lies in the amount of time that is given to raising and spending money. Can you in other words shorten the time? If you can do that, I think you can control to some extent the problem of money. As an example: You give $2 million to my campaign within this shortened time period of several weeks. OK, I've got the $2 million. Well, if the American people see that $2 million has been given in a couple of weeks by one person, I think they will smell a rat. That's where the prohibition lies, in the perception. Yet your free speech is not being denied. You can give any amount you want, but it has to be within a certain time period, both before the election, during, after. Q: Part of the mess of Watergate was people who were not elected, including young people with a lot of brains and skills but not a lot of experience. We had a 'training system' for people, and you yourself went through it, and your colleagues in the Senate mostly had prior experience. Where do we look for models now if we want to show (public service) to young people as something to aspire to, not fall into easily? A: For starters, everybody ought to go vote. …When you have the percentages voting now that are just minimal for the highest offices in the land, that's sort of a bad example for anybody to follow. I've thought about this long and hard: How do you get people to vote? One drawback is the fact that we have our elections on Tuesday, which is in the middle of the work week. We ought to either have a national holiday or have it on Saturday … make it a day when the sole purpose of the day is to go vote and you don't have any other excuse. The idea of getting more numbers in voting is just critical to getting quality in the governmental business. When you do that, I suspect you are going to eliminate the fringe candidates who are in office right now because so few people are voting. Look, we both know that America, taken as a whole, is very much a centrist nation. There are many things that people would agree with the Republicans, many things people would agree with the Democrats.We don't get to see centrist-guided solutions. Everything is way off to the left, way off to the right. The only reason why those men and women can control the national agenda is because they got in, hardly anybody cared, hardly anybody voted. ... The death of my good friend Ted Kennedy is one of the reasons why Obama has run into a lot of problems … Obama was only four years a United States senator. He didn't know how Washington worked; Ted Kennedy did. If Kennedy had been at his side, would be at his side right now, this would have been a totally different presidency. ... I think it's a great thing that young people do get experience in government … more so than in the private sector. I worry about the fact that young people today form their opinions based on the attitudes of their elders, which is a cynicism when it comes to politics. The main lesson is: In the end we are all responsible for the government in Washington. ... If we involve ourselves, we're going to get good government … and if we don't, things like Watergate occur. And they could occur tomorrow. This couldn't have happened on a watch where the American people engaged. I hope we understand we're absolutely playing with fire here with these percentages on what can happen in the future. l.mcginley@theday.com H.R. Haldeman, a former Nixon top aide, testifies before the Senate Watergate Committee on July 31, 1973, in Washington. Former Sen. Lowell P. Weicker Jr. talks about the Watergate scandall in his Old Lyme home. Former Sen. Lowell P. Weicker Jr. talks about the Watergate scandal in his Old Lyme home. Weicker pauses during the interview about the Watergate scandal. Richard Nixon says goodbye on Aug. 9, 1974, with a salute to his staff members outside the White House as he boards a helicopter after resigning the presidency. Nixon was the first president in American history to resign the nation's highest office. His resignation came after approval of an impeachment article against him by the House Judiciary Committee for withholding evidence from Congress. President Richard M. Nixon in his least favorite task, answering questions from reporters at a White House news conference on March 6, 1974. From left, Sens. Lowell Weicker, Howard Baker and Edward Gurney, and minority counsel Fred Thompson talk at a Watergate committee hearing in Washington in June 1973. Watergate committee members, show on May 17, 1973, in Washington, from left: Sen. Lowell Weicker, R-Conn.; Sen. Edward Gurney, R-Fla.; Chief Minority Counsel Fred Thompson; Sen. Howard Baker, R-Tenn.; Sen. Sam Ervin, D-N.C., committee chairman; chief counsel Samuel Dash; Sen, Herman Talmadge, D-Ga.; Sen. Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii; and Sen. Joseph Montoya, D-N.M. In foreground is witness Robert Odle. Former Sen. Lowell P. Weicker Jr. talks about the Watergate scandal in his Old Lyme home. Visit www. theday.com for a video from the interview. Richard M. Nixon waves during his inauguration for his second term in 1973. Four years earlier, Nixon took the oath of office amid tight security and the first large inaugural protests. John D. Ehrlichman, a key figure in the Watergate scandal, is surrounded by reporters on Jan. 1, 1975, as he leaves the U.S. District Court after he was found guilty in the Watergate cover-up trial in Washington. Ehrlichman was convicted of conspiracy and perjury and served 18 months in prison. H.R. Haldeman, right, President Richard M. Nixon's chief of staff, walks with Nixon on Dec. 12, 1969, from the Executive Office Building to the White House. In a 1977 interview, former President Richard M. Nixon said he had not committed any impeachable offenses during the Watergate cover-up. August 9 marks the 40th anniversary of Richard Nixon's resignation. What is the enduring legacy of Watergate? Scrutiny is critical in all aspects of government. 26% The government represented the people more effectively in the 1970s than it does now. 16% The news media are not what they used to be. 26% We have to figure out a way to return to bipartisan politics. 13% Burglary methods are much more sophisticated today. 3% John Dean got it right when he said the lesson is 'Don't get caught.' 16% Number of votes: 1426 MOST READ

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/13447

2012 GOP Politics 2013 GOP Outrages Books and the Arts Bush Admin Crimes Bush Administration Lies Bush/GOP Outrages CA 2005 Election CA Politics Corruption and Graft Democratic Congress Democratic Outrages Democratic Strategy Domestic Issues Economy/Finance Foreign Policy/War GOP Hypocrisy/Lies Immigration/Border Law/Courts Letter From California Obama Disappointments Stupid Trolls The Democrats « Wilson lawsuit | | Vietnam & Iraq May Have Been Inevitable, Not Stupid » Friday :: Jul 14, 2006 Happy Bastille Day, America by pessimist Today, July 14, is celebrated around the world as the second day when the inate rights of man were proclaimed through the overthrow of tyrannical rule by despots (the first being our July 4th). The Storming of the Bastille [T]he people of Paris stormed the Bastille, a prison where people were jailed by arbitrary decision of the King (lettre de cachet). The Bastille was, in particular, known for holding political prisoners whose writings had displeased the royal government. Thus the Bastille was a symbol of the absolutism of the monarchy. The storming of the Bastille was more important as a rallying point and symbolic act of rebellion than a practical act of defiance [as] the storming of the Bastille, which housed only a handful of common prisoners, was actually done to raid the prison's supply of arms and ammunition against a false rumor that the king's troops were moving on Paris from Versailles. Shortly after the storming of the Bastille, on 26 August, the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen was proclaimed. Such a Declaration is now one of those 'quaint' documents from the past that need not be heeded by those modern despots who would usurp the power - and treasure - of a king. It isn't being heard in Baghdad, where the people are fleeing the incipient flashes of the coming civil war explosion ignited by the rash actions of ignorant oil tyrants. The unlucky ones are going to be caught up in it: All Iraqi homes are awash with guns for self-defence in these merciless times. Together they would shoot it out with the gunmen — one of a dozen unsung Alamos now being fought nightly on Iraq’s blacked-out streets. We phoned the US military trainer attached to Iraqi security forces in the area. He said there was nothing to be done... In fact the US military generally responds only to request for support from Iraqi security forces. But as many of those forces are at best turning a blind eye to the Shia death squads, and at worst colluding with them, calling the Americans is literally the last thing they do. There are many other Baghdads in the world - some of them right here in King George's United Corporate States of Amerika. I won't go into the ones you have heard about - Mogadishu, Darfur, etc. I'm just going to look at the new ones - ones which symbolically match that image of the storming of the Bastille and aren't getting the media coverage. In Sao Paulo, Brazil, gangs are destroying the city under orders from their incarcerated leaders. The organized crime group known as the First Command of the Capital -- which unleashed Sao Paulo's worst wave of violence two months ago -- is responsible for 106 attacks around the state during the past two nights, officials said. The renewed unrest has raised questions about the government's ability to control prisons, where incarcerated gang leaders use smuggled cell phones to tell subordinates on the outside to cause mayhem. Overnight, criminals fired submachine guns at a subway station and threw grenades at a police post and a gas station in the city. Nine banks were also sprayed with bullets. Facing criticism for having failed to prevent a second round of attacks, police insist they are working hard to restore order. "We aren't inert in the face of this situation," said state military police commander Col. Elizeu Eclair. This is a lie. A political lie. The obvious solution to the uprising was offered, but was rejected for political reasons - to accept would mean weaker popular support numbers for the coming election: President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, who is up for re-election in October, has offered to send federal troops to quell the violence. But the state's governor, Claudio Lembo, who hails from a rival political party, has declined the offer. Lembo's former boss is Geraldo Alckmin, who relinquished his post as governor in March to run for the presidency. Alckmin suffered in opinion polls after the May unrest. Why is there such unrest? Why is this criminal gang so powerful in a nation which is relatively prosperous? The recent violence in Sao Paulo has highlighted the deep social problems afflicting Brazil, a country with one of the widest gaps between rich and poor in the world. Sao Paulo state alone has 140,000 prisoners. Former federal security chief Col. Jose Vicente Da Silva said an average jail, designed to house 870 prisoners, already higher than the recommended capacity of 300-500 in most countries, had in fact about 1,200 inmates. Riots flare up almost weekly. Take heed, America - Sao Paulo is what our future looks like! Think I'm exaggerating? Look at San Bernardino, California - no, not the fires. They aren't affecting the city. Other crises afflict it: * Young boys murdered in broad daylight while playing basketball * Pools are closed in over-100 degree heat because the lifeguards fear gang violence * The people are marching in the streets to raise awareness of the numbers of those who oppose gangs in an effort to get other people to join anti-gang efforts. Paul Krugman illustrates our critical economic condition: Many observers, even if they acknowledge the growing concentration of income in the hands of the few, find it hard to believe that this concentration could be proceeding so rapidly as to deny most Americans any gains from economic growth. Yet newly available data [from 2004] show that that’s exactly what happened. Why talk about 2004, rather than more recent experience? Unfortunately, data on the distribution of income arrive with a substantial lag; the full story of what happened in 2004 has only just become available, and we won’t be able to tell the full story of what’s happening right now until the last year of the Bush administration. But it’s reasonably clear that what’s happening now is the same as what happened then: growth in the economy as a whole is mainly benefiting a small elite, while bypassing most families. Here’s what happened in 2004. The U.S. economy grew 4.2 percent, a very good number. Yet last August the Census Bureau reported that real median family income — the purchasing power of the typical family — actually fell. Meanwhile, poverty increased, as did the number of Americans without health insurance. So where did the growth go? The answer comes from the economists Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez, whose long-term estimates of income equality have become the gold standard for research on this topic, and who have recently updated their estimates to include 2004. They show that even if you exclude capital gains from a rising stock market, in 2004 the real income of the richest 1 percent of Americans surged by almost 12.5 percent. Meanwhile, the average real income of the bottom 99 percent of the population rose only 1.5 percent. In other words, a relative handful of people received most of the benefits of growth. And they are hanging on to it, not using it to invest in America as King George once bragged would be the result of giving huge tax breaks to the wealthy. Take minority teen employment. The fact that there are so few jobs for minority teen males is a prime reason why gangs are so large and violent. Teens generally are having a tough time finding work. During the summer of 2004, less than 42% of American teens found jobs (This number included white teens for all you bigots out there. It would be much worse if white kids had been excluded.), tying the summer of 2003 with the lowest teen employment rate over the time statistics have been gathered by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Three million teens were without work or not finding enough of it. The authors of the 2004 Northeastern University report claimed that of these, had it been the summer of 2000 instead of 2004, as many as 1.7 million of these un- and under-employed teens would have been working. What's especially frightening is this observation of the study: "The employment rates of teens during the past summerwere nearly identical for men and women..." In other words, age isn't the determining factor in deriving the reason for un- and under-employment. It is hitting every age group almost equally. One of the study's co-authors desribed the reasons as being more closely aligned with whether the family's major breadwinner had a middle-class income: The combination of race, household income, and geographic location of the teen’s residence had a very powerful influence on their employment rates,” said Ishwar Khatiwada co-author of the report. “Only 22 of every 100 Black teens living in a low income family in a central city were employed during the past summer versus 31 of every 100 Black teens living in a central city family with an income between $40,000 and $60,000 and 63 of every 100 White teens living in a family outside of a metropolitan area with an income of $100,000 or more. All the more reason why the loss of the American middle-class is such a tragedy. As Paul Krugman notes: [G]rowth didn’t just bypass the poor and the lower middle class, it bypassed the upper middle class too. Even people at the 95th percentile of the income distribution — that is, people richer than 19 out of 20 Americans — gained only modestly. The big increases went only to people who were already in the economic stratosphere. These are the very people who drink the kool-aid [from Krugman]: Bush supporter: “Why doesn’t President Bush get credit for a great economy? I blame liberal media bias.” Informed economist: “But it’s not a great economy for most Americans. Many families are actually losing ground, and only a very few affluent people are doing really well.” To a large extent, this dialogue of the deaf reflects Upton Sinclair’s principle:it’s difficult to get a man to understand somethingwhen his salary depends on his not understanding it. Such people - the ones who would pay more to provide private security services for their homes when paying less in taxes would accomplish the same thing - are also willfully deaf when it comes to hearing of the employment plight of the very teens they fear: CeaseFire Rockford [a violence prevention organization] originally applied for $50,000 in community assistance funding from the City of Rockford. Aldermen Linda McNeely (D-13) and Jeff Holt (D-11) had previously requested a $7,892 award be reduced again. CeaseFire was then slated to receive nearly $5,000, according to a community assistance program award summary. CeaseFire Rockford Violence Prevention Coordinator Ralph Hawthorne said the money would have been used to hire two outreach workers to deal with growing Hispanic gang activity in southeast Rockford. Those cuts were floatedto give Patriots’ Gateway Teen Reach more than $20,500and Let’s Talk It Out $18,000. Patriot's Gateway is an interesting organization. It smells very corporatist. This is the proscenium of their 'community center': Hiding behind this facade is, among many other things, a golf course. Based at this golf course - something that definitly appeals to young Hispanic residents of the Rockford 'hood - is an organization known as The First Tee, whose mission is "To impact the lives of young people by providing learning facilities and educational programs that promote character development and life-enhancing values through the game of golf." Do they think every Rockford Hispanic teen male aspires to be Tiger Woods? The First Tee of Rockford is located at the Patriots Gateway Community Center Corporation (PGCCC). The PGCCC includes a driving range, short game area, putting green and clubhouse. The overall plan calls for batting cages, making it a multi-purpose facility. The current facility houses classrooms, computer labs and a gymnasium. Such a facility might have attracted corporate scions Harris and Klebold, but I can't see it attracting Hispanics in Rockford, Illinois! But to allow futbol on those fairways would increase the amount of funding the strapped city council of Rockford would have to provide to repair the greens! Horrors! As for award co-winner Let's Talk It Out, they only provide an email address for more information, so I can't say much about them. But considering that they are favored over more hands-on (and less-beneficial to elite children) activities, they have to be considered suspect until proven innocent. After all, even more traditional organizations didn't get as much as Patriot's Gate and Let's Talk It Out did: The Boys and Girls Club wasn’t awarded the nearly $21,550 it requested to help finance expansion of their Project Learn and Club Tech programs. Thus, the plight of the young in America continues to decay. Georgia slipped from 39th place to 44th in the 2006 Kids Count Data Book, an annual report by the Baltimore-based Annie E. Casey Foundation. The study is based on 2003 and 2004 information, the latest available for a nationwide comparison. This year, New Hampshire scored the best on the annual report. Mississippi brought up the rear. Georgia has consistently scoredamong the 10 worst states in the nationduring the 17 years of the study. And that's why it's so necessary to stifle the non-corporo-fascist voter! But I digress. Poverty contributes to several of the major problems for children, the report said. Some 21 percent of Georgia children lived in poverty in 2004, up from 19 percent in 2003. In addition, 35 percent of Georgia children lived in households in which no parent had a full-time, year-round job in 2004, up 3 percentage points from the year 2000. If parents can't find full-time work, what chance do teens have? Thank you very much, Red State 'Family Values'! But the Red States aren't the only places where teens have it rough. This next article comes from Milwaukee - a city firmly entrenched in the corrosion of the Rust Belt: Jobs are elusive for teens who need them most by Tannette Johnson-Elie Jerrail Moore badly needs and wants to work this summer. While he wants to earn money for teenage indulgences like clothes and music, he also feels pressure to help his unemployed mother, who is rearing him and his seven siblings. He applied half-heartedly for jobs at retail chains and fast-food restaurants near his home, but didn't have any luck. Summer unemployment is a sad reality for Moore and other African-American teenagers in Milwaukee. "I feel like I'm wasting time when I could be working," says Moore, 17, a sophomore at the CITIES Project High School, an alternative school of Milwaukee Public Schools. That coveted summer job. For many kids, it represents their first foray into the working world. The skills gained and lessons learned can be building blocks to success in the business world and in life. Summer jobs are critical for low-income black kids from the central city not just because they bring in money, but because they also pull them from the streets, where hard work and earning an honest living are not exactly embraced. Some economists blame chronic black teen unemployment on discrimination, particularly in an entry-level job market in which employers hire more on the basis of word-of-mouth vs. an open-application process. Discrimination may well be a factor, but a closer look in Milwaukee reveals a tangled web of complex social issues, including lack of life skills and job preparedness, lack of basic reading and math skills and lack of access to transportation to get to places like shopping malls where teenagers often work. The most crippling hurdle to unemployment for black teens in Milwaukee: Lack of a valid driver's license. Only 26% of black men and women ages 18 to 24 in the city have driver's licenses, compared with 59% of white men and women of the same age, according to an analysis by the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Employment & Training Institute of data from the state Department of Transportation. "The driver's license is used as proxy for a good employee. As you get older and you don't have a driver's license, it raises a red flag for employers," says John Pawasarat, the Employment & Training Institute's director. "It becomes a screening device sort of like having a high school diploma." While teenagers must shoulder some of the blame for their predicament - I'm big on personal responsibility - this is a problem that requires a communitywide approach. There's a frustration and restlessnessthat young people in tough urban environments experiencein summer when they don't have work,particularly black males susceptible to the thug culture. The underground city economy is alive and well with help from unemployed young people looking for easy money and an economic way out, says Gerard Randall, president and CEO of the Private Industry Council. "Without work, you just go outside. When you can't get no jobs, you only got one thing to do - hustle on the street," says Karl Logan, 16, a ninth-grader at St. Charles Youth and Family Services, a program that transitions young offenders into the Milwaukee Public Schools system. How paying taxes in an amount less than what personal security services cost provides a greater benefit: This is why it's so vital to have the kind of job initiatives like those offered by the Private Industry Council of Milwaukee County and the mayor's office that give kids the guidance and support that they need to connect to jobs. This summer, some 700 young people in the city have gotten employment through the PIC. Moore just completed his orientation. In addition, 450 youth will be employed this summer as part of Mayor Barrett's program. Tramell Williams, 15, a sophomore at Bay View High School, is one of 40 Milwaukee teens employed through a newly launched conservation program. The program is designed to engage city high school students in work focused on environmental stewardship and conservation. It is sponsored by Johnson Controls Inc. in conjunction with the Student Conservation Association and the PIC. "A lot of black teenagers come from a harder part of the community. It's good to have experience that can help you in the future," says Williams, who makes $7.50 an hour. Would you rather pay this kid $7.50/hr to do community cleanup work in his community, or would you rather pay the cleanup, conviction, and incarceration costs when he and his friends come to trash yours? Is there not a more cost-effective way to deal with this looming danger? More Jobs for Young Black Men: What Will It Take? by Harry J. Holzer, Center for American Progress Low employment among young black men is very costly – to themselves, to their families and children, and to the nation as a whole. For instance, low employment among men is strongly associated with crime, and at the national level, crime and prisons cost the nation hundreds of billions of dollars each year. We now have two million people locked up on any given day in the U.S. – over two-thirds of whom are minority men. By some estimates, nearly 30 percent of all young black men have already been in prison at some point. When they leave prison, their job problems are generally worse than when they were first locked up. On top of their poor skills, low work experience and substance abuse histories, most employers are now reluctant to hire former offenders – especially black offenders. State laws prohibit them from holding many kinds of jobs or even drivers' licenses. And the young men themselves have very little interest in jobs that offer them nothing but low wages, few benefits or chances for promotion. Efforts to increase employment and prevent crime among young men must begin with school reforms to improve basic skills. In the high school years, we should link them to the job market through apprenticeships, internships, and the like. Their access to training in community colleges needs to be improved. And job training programs with proven records for out-of-school youth – such as the Job Corps and the Youth Service Corps – should be expanded. While these policies will cost some public (and private) resources, doing nothing costs far more. We were willing to invest billions in the employment of low-income women in the 1990s. It is time to do the same for low-income young men. While I've looked at two Midwestern cities - Rockford, Illinois and Milwaukee, Wisconsin - and one Southern State - Georgia - this is a national problem - as San Bernardino, California testifies. The entire nation is facing this crisis as our jobs leave the country for foreign nations where the wages are so much less. But nothing is being done. As the Northeastern University Report summarizes: [T]he extraordinary deterioration in the employment situation of the nation’s teens has not been addressed by the Bush administration, the U.S. Congress, or either national political party. It's such a pressing issue that even Neo-Confidence Man Extraordinaire - Paul Wolfowitz, head of the World Bank - said in a letter to G8 leaders: “We can work to lift millions from poverty, boost developing country income, improve global market access and reduce taxpayer and consumer costs for all – or allow the whole effort to collapse, with harm to everyone.” 'Everyone' is defined as those receiving US government farming subsidies, few of which are the much-vaunted family farmer. Wolfie continues: “The world’s poorest people, the 1.2 billion living on less than $1 a day, are counting on your good intentions being transformed into decisive action... with time running out, our collective efforts can make the difference.” Only to protect the already wealthy. Paul Krugman sees the possibilities - and the eventual 'realistic' outcome: Can anything be done to spread the benefits of a growing economy more widely? Of course. A good start would be to increase the minimum wage, which in real terms is at its lowest level in half a century. But don’t expect this administration or this Congressto do anything to limit the growing concentration of income. Sometimes I even feel sorry for these people and their apologists, who are prevented from acknowledging that inequality is a problem by both their political philosophy and their dependence on financial support from the wealthy. That leaves them no choice but to keep insisting that ordinary Americans — who have, in fact, been bypassed by economic growth — just don’t understand how well they’re doing. And that would include our wrong-wing friends on this blog. There used to be an automotive ad which said, "Pay me now - or pay me later!" Such a statement screams at the world's wealthy as they march blindly with faces averted, deaf to all but the the anthem of personal greed. But they should think about this for a moment - once they are settled within the walls of their domestic castles, who is going to protect them when the poor come to collect their due? Only then will they learn the lessons that the French Monarchy learned, and in the same manner - the hard way, when the walls come tum'blin' down.Copyrighted [©] source material contained in this article is presented under the provisions of Fair Use. This article contains copyrighted material, the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material available in my efforts to advance understanding of democracy, economic, environmental, human rights, political, scientific, and social justice issues, among others. I believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material in this article is distributed without profit for research and educational purposes. pessimist :: 1:20 PM :: Comments (15) :: TrackBack (0) :: Digg It!

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/13530

Optional Member Code Violating International Law in Gaza Thursday, 31 July 2014 10:31 By Phyllis Bennis, OtherWords | News Analysis font size Last week, Israel shelled a hospital in the central Gaza Strip, killing at least five and wounding at least 50 people. (Image: Screengrab via YouTube)As Israel’s assault on the Gaza Strip rages on, ceasefires come and go. Most last just long enough for Palestinians to dig out the dead from beneath their collapsed houses, get the injured to overcrowded and under-resourced hospitals, and seek enough food and water to last through the next round of airstrikes. “There is nothing left but stones,” Palestinian journalist Mohammed Omer quoted an old woman saying as she searched desperately through the rubble of what had been her home. Casualties are soaring. By late July, Israel had killed more than 1,200 Palestinians, at least 73 percent of them civilians including hundreds of children. Fifty-six Israelis, almost all of them soldiers, have died too. A July 28 poll shows 86.5 percent of Israelis oppose a ceasefire. Yet we continue to hear that Israelis want peace. It’s true that at least some of them do. An Israeli protest in Tel Aviv brought 5,000 people into the street. That’s good — though a far cry from the 400,000 who poured into the streets to protest Israel’s invasion of Lebanon back in 1982. And when a young Palestinian teenager was kidnapped and tortured to death — burned alive — in Jerusalem after the bodies of the three kidnapped young Israeli settlers were found, many Israelis tried to distance themselves from the horrific crime. “In our society, the society of Israel, there is no place for such murderers,” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu claimed. But in fact, there is a place for those who call for murder — at the highest political and military levels of Israeli society. Meet Ayelet Shaked, a member of the Knesset — Israel’s parliament. She belongs to Israel Home, a far-right party in Netanyahu’s governing coalition. She issued on Facebook what amounts to a call to commit genocide, by deliberately killing Palestinians, including women, children, and old people. “The entire Palestinian people is the enemy,” Shaked posted. “In wars, the enemy is usually an entire people, including its elderly and its women, its cities and its villages, its property and its infrastructure.” The Knesset member went on to say that the mothers of Palestinians killed should follow their dead sons to Hell: “They should go, as should the physical homes in which they raised the snakes. Otherwise, more little snakes will be raised there.” Her language reminds me of a chapter in our own history — the genocidal Indian Wars. U.S. military leaders had called on their troops to wipe out all the Native Americans and Col. John Chivington was asked on the eve of the Sand Creek Massacre about killing Cheyenne children. “Kill and scalp all, big and little, nits make lice,” he replied. Shaked’s comments also echo the words of an Israeli colonel who testified under oath at the wrongful death trial of Rachel Corrie, a young U.S. peace activist killed by an Israeli soldier driving an armored bulldozer in Gaza. “In a war zone there are no civilians,” said the military officer — who was responsible for training Israeli soldiers to serve in the occupied territories. There’s no question that Hamas’ primitive rockets violate international law. They can’t be accurately aimed at military targets. But that doesn’t justify Israel’s violation of its own obligations under international law as the occupying power in Gaza. Israel has the region’s strongest military, the only nuclear weapons arsenal in the Middle East, and the unconditional backing of the United States. Its assault on Gaza violates the Geneva Conventions. Israel is imposing collective punishment against all Gazans, attacking hospitals, and using disproportionate force. Israeli officials know full well that the best way to protect their citizens is to implement a real ceasefire — a breakthrough that would require opening Gaza’s borders. Some of them also know the best way to keep their citizens safe long term is by ending the occupation altogether. Problem is, not enough of them will admit it. U.S. taxpayers also have a stake in this conflict because Washington keeps sending Israel billions of our tax dollars and refuses to push Tel Aviv to stop violating international law. For real peace, both of those things must change. This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source. Phyllis Bennis Phyllis Bennis is a fellow of the Institute for Policy Studies and of the Transnational Institute in Amsterdam. Her books include Before & After: U.S. Foreign Policy and the War on Terrorism. Wells Fargo Doubles Down on Predatory Banking: Illegally Repossesses Cars of Military Members - BuzzFlash Pro-Fracking Law Ruled Unconstitutional by Pennsylvania Supreme Court - BuzzFlash Trump Foundation Lacks the Certification Required for Charities That Solicit Money - BuzzFlash Violating International Law in Gaza

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/13541

Iran’s execution of juvenile offenders draws concern of UN rights expertSpecial Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Iran Ahmed Shaheed. UN Photo/Amanda Voisard 14 March 2016 – An independent United Nations human rights expert today raised continuing serious concerns about the extremely high rate of executions, especially for juvenile offenders, and fundamental flaws in the administration of justice in Iran. Iran executed at least 966 prisoners in 2015, the highest such rate in 10 years, Ahmed Shaheed, United Nations Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in that country, said as he presented his latest report to the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva. “With at least 16 juvenile offenders reportedly hanged between 2014 [and] 2015, Iran remains one of a few countries still resorting to this practice despite a strict prohibition against it under international law,” Mr. Shaheed said, urging Iranian officials to “put aside efforts at piecemeal reform in this area and ensure, once and for all, that no boy or girl who commits a crime under the age of 18 is ever put to death.” Mr. Shaheed also highlighted fundamental flaws in the administration of criminal justice, ranging from laws that expressly violate Iran’s legal obligations to the failure of security, intelligence and judiciary officials to faithfully and properly implement provisions of Iranian law that comply with international law. While acknowledging positive steps towards real legal reform, he also noted reports that individuals accused of national security and drug crimes are often deprived of the most basic due process and fair trial rights, including proper access to lawyers, long periods of incommunicado detention, torture and ill-treatment and forced confessions used in court to secure convictions. “Despite recent changes to laws which grant greater procedural safeguards to those suspected of crimes, including the right to access a lawyer at all stages of criminal proceedings, these vital protections are not always implemented in practice,” he said. “There remains a considerable gap between protections afforded to the accused in Iranian law and the reality on the ground.” Mr. Shaheed’s report, which assesses developments since October 2015, also covers other areas of serious concern such as restrictions on the right to freedom of expression, freedom of association and the right to free and fair elections, women’s rights and concerns regarding the rights of religious and ethnic minorities. While acknowledging the Government’s efforts to engage with his mandate and cooperate with UN human rights bodies, he renewed his call on Iran to increase its engagement with the international community, including those UN human rights mechanisms, by admitting him for a country visit. Independent experts or special rapporteurs are appointed by the Human Rights Council to examine and report back on a country situation or a specific human rights theme. The positions are honorary and the experts are not UN staff, nor are they paid for their work. Following missile launch, Ban calls on Iran not to increase tensions through ‘hasty actions’ At UN, Gulf State Ministers stress importance of ‘good neighbourliness’ in Middle East At UN, Syrian Minister says 'well-known' countries to blame for spread of terrorism in region and beyond With international support, a ‘new Yemen’ will emerge from catastrophic war, President tells UN

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/13542

Email Web Admin Directors and Staff History Commentary and Analysis Highlight map With the election of 2003 that brought the Justice and Development Party to power, and a growing popular re-connection with traditional Islam and nationalism, Turkey embarked on a new era, both domestically and internationally. A former U.S. Ambassador to Turkey assesses the “tectonic shift” now taking place in this important American ally and its implications for Turkey's relations with the United States. —Ed.It is impossible to write about contemporary Turkey without provoking a reaction from someone. Still a young nation despite its rich history, Turkey has yet to write the full narrative of its place in history and its vision for the future. The disparate threads of belief and political destiny of today have yet to be woven into a blended pattern. With the momentous changes of the last five years, however, the next chapter of that saga has opened. It is impossible to predict the outcome, but what is clear is that another tectonic shift is occurring in Turkey.The last five years for Turkey-U.S relations have been a roller coaster ride. Internationally, in 2003 Turkey broke with the United States over Iraq, not permitting American forces to enter Iraq through Turkey. Turkey's Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and the defense minister both said later that the refusal was a mistake, but the decision angered many (and cheered other) Americans, deeply disturbed U.S.-Turkey military ties, unleashed a dramatic wave of anti-Americanism in Turkey, and eliminated Turkey as an arbiter of U.S. policy towards Kurdish northern Iraq.Often in these difficult years of troubled relations between Washington and Ankara, I would think of the song “Cold, Cold Heart” by Nora Jones from an old Hank Williams ballad. It seemed to sum up the state of U.S. and Turkish affairs:I've tried so hard, my dear, to show that you're my every dream. Yet you're afraid each thing I do is just some evil scheme. A memory from your lonesome past keeps us so far apart. Why can't I free your doubtful mind and melt your cold, cold heart?President GulNow, following the recent visit of Turkish President Abdullah Gul to Washington in early January 2008, perhaps we have a new and positive beginning in the relationship between the United States and Turkey. U.S. progress in Iraq, the tardy but welcome U.S. decision to cooperate in countering the PKK terrorists, and Turkey's also tardy but welcome commitment not to permanently damage ties with Washington have structured a different political setting. The situation today is hopeful also because both Turkey and the United States see their relationship more realistically, having to some extent exhausted themselves emotionally on the problems of the last five years. As described by Sedat Ergin, the editor of Turkey's Milliyet newspaper, there is nevertheless a genuine irony in seeing the man who, as prime minister, lost the vote in March 2003 to cooperate with the United States in Iraq, now become the man, as president, who has ushered in what may be a new beginning.Domestically, the AK (Justice and Development) Party, which is the current party in power, controls just short of two-thirds of the seats in the legislature. It first entered parliament in 2002, reconstituted from the ashes of the Islamic oriented Welfare Party of the late 1990's. In renewing itself the AK Party committed to broad political and economic reforms and to membership in the European Union, and it also de-emphasized religious values in favor of moral clean-government principles. Simultaneously, Turkey's traditional ruling parties were collapsing across the board, ossified by decades of incestuous politicking, corruption, favor-trading, and incompetence in the face of the demands of the Turkish people for economic prosperity. In its first term in office, the AK government succeeded in launching negotiations with the EU, moving the Cyprus issue from the center stage of its relations with Europe, and growing the economy between five and seven percent annually, a near miracle in Turkish economic history. During the same period, it took steps regionally that drew Ankara away from Washington.Future U.S.-Turkish RelationsIn looking forward, it seems clear that in international affairs Turkey and the United States will pursue somewhat different tracks even as they seek ways to cooperate more. Turkey will not follow the U.S. lead ever again the way it did. The days of shared experience from Korea or of Cold War solidarity are gone forever. Rather, Turkey will act with greater independence, focused no longer first on how the United States might react. We already see several examples, for better or worse. Turkey has structured new economic ties with Iran, carried out an exchange of state visits with Syria, welcomed the Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal to Turkey, de-emphasized its ties with Israel, and even hosted Sudanese President al-Bashir in January 2008. Ankara has pursued this diplomacy while continuing to press for European Union membership, playing a critical NATO role in Afghanistan (twice commanding NATO forces there), expanding its UN role (peacekeeping forces in Lebanon, and seeking a UNSC seat), broadening its economic penetration into Russia, and positioning itself as a key east-to-west energy conduit for Eurasia.AtaturkThis approach could reflect the emergence of a strategic shift in Turkey's international policy to give greater weight to a regional emphasis imbued with a greater sense of a yet undefined Turkish national spirit. When the Republic of Turkey emerged in 1923, it was both decidedly secular and Western oriented. In its understandable rush to modernize, the new country was less tolerant of the perceived “backwardness” both of religion and of focusing too much on the Muslim world. Bernard Lewis, in his landmark 1961 book, The Emergence of Modern Turkey, described this process very clearly.But Turks did not cease to be Muslims; the ordinary people continued to go to mosques, and Islamic traditions continued to attach to all the significant events of village life: birth, circumcision, marriage, and death. This deeper current of life in Turkey never disappeared; it just rolled along beneath the upper layers of the Kemalist revolutionary reforms. Over the years, as Turkey's political parties jockeyed for new support, they began to reach down to this Muslim undercurrent and use it to nourish the political life of the country. No one was more successful at tapping into this source of strength than Turgut Ozal, who adroitly used religious symbolism even as he dismantled the state-controlled economy and formed a strong alliance with the United States in the late 1980's and early 1990's. These traditional party leaders still, however, arose from or were sponsored by the post-revolutionary Turkish elite.When the AK Party began to appear, first in rough and unacceptable form, and later with greater sophistication, it had also connected directly into this vast reservoir of the Islamic faith and Muslim tradition in Turkey but in a very different way. The AK Party's new leaders were neither elite nor protégés of the elite. More importantly, they did not want to emulate the old elite. They wanted to inaugurate a new leadership. The shift for Turkey might be compared to the rise of Andrew Jackson in American history, the abrupt displacement from the revolutionary and post-revolutionary leadership of the country to an entirely new group. If true, then in Turkey this is the crossing of a political Rubicon with lasting consequences for the framing of Turkish democracy. Moreover, the AK Party arrived not simply because of the failure of its political opposition but with its own strong base. Long before it came to power, the AK Party had built a reputation of responding to the needs of ordinary Turks, in sharp contrast to the apparent fumbling of the traditional parties.These traditional sources of strength in Turkey, sources that pre-dated the Turkish Revolution and which remained dormant thereafter for decades before re-emerging into Turkish domestic life, may now become apparent as well on the international stage. Some say this approach is a new overlay of an “Ottoman” view of stability and economic viability from central Europe to central Asia and down through the Middle East. If this is so, there is no sense whatsoever that Turkey has any interest in being imperial, only in having an influence in every direction that over time appears reasonable and natural. In this manner, Turkey can cultivate ties with Europe, with Russia, with the Middle East, and with Israel in addition to the United States without abandoning any one for the sake of any other. Domestically, this allows the government to satisfy multiple constituencies, highlight Turkish nationalism in a benign form, and strengthen Ankara's role as mediator in the region, enhancing its room for maneuver.Turkey's Role in International AffairsOn specific issues, Iraq will remain a central factor in the development of future U.S.-Turkish relations and Turkey's role in the Middle East. One might recall that some of the traditional Turkish leaders in the past were actually supportive of Saddam Hussein. The AK Party now talks of working with Iraq on friendly terms, and President Gul emphasized that Turkey's present policy is aimed at helping all of Iraq.The twin questions of the PKK and Kirkuk, however, pose severe challenges for the United States and Turkey. There is no military solution to the PKK issue. The Americans know this, and the Turks know this at the leadership level. The February 2008 incursion by Turkey into northern Iraq does not change this logic. Turkish elite forces entering northern Iraq can certainly damage the PKK, but Turkey's shallow crossing and clear avoidance of populated areas both demonstrate its limited aims and the external restraints. Moreover, as the incursion began, Turkey invited Iraq's Kurdish president, Jalal Talabani, for his first official visit to Turkey, and Mr. Talabani accepted. If and when a date is set, a more regular dialogue might be possible, one with both symbolic value and practical possibilities. Ankara also knows intellectually it has to do much more to improve the economic and political conditions in southeast Turkey, but its factions are too divided still to articulate a long term coherent approach with sufficient resources and political will to make success a real possibility.Kirkuk is a city that is divided ethnically with strong Arab and Kurdish populations alongside a residual Turkomen community friendly with Turkey. Kirkuk's oil fields are a critical prize in the development of Iraq. Turkey will never be satisfied with the Kurds in northern Iraq in control of the development of those fields. President Gul has proposed that the UN play a more active role in addressing Kirkuk. That proposal may deserve close attention. Without a managed solution, there could be an incentive for the Turks to intervene in Iraqi affairs to protect their interests, and the United States has the capability to avoid that risk from becoming reality.With Israel and Palestine, Turkey has firmly thrown its influence into support for the peace process, though Ankara continues to sharply criticize Israel from time to time. Shimon Peres and Mahmoud Abbas addressed the Turkish parliament in June 2007. Israeli warplanes seem to have tracked the Turkish border carefully in September 2007 in striking at the alleged Syrian nuclear facility. Turkish peacekeeping troops are in Lebanon. There are limits to the Turkish role, however. The Turks are careful not to take up arms themselves against a Muslim state. There are no Turkish troops in combat in Afghanistan, for example. Turkey enjoys its role as a kind of mediator in the Middle East and is likely to continue to prefer its soft power influence.Iran will be a management task for Turkey. As President Gul said at a luncheon speech in January 2008 in answer to a question, the two countries have shared a common border since 1639. Gul believes that Turkey, as a working democracy with a Muslim population and a growing economy, will have more influence regionally than will Iran. Ankara opposes nuclear weapons for Iran, but will not take a hard line. It may act towards Iran more like Germany acted towards the Soviet Union in the Cold War: It will be firm on its principles, but never as tough as Washington, and always will keep the door open to advantageous economic development and political dialogue.Armenia will continue to have a high profile in U.S.-Turkey relations. A former Turkish diplomat of great reputation said last year in Washington that because of the push by the Armenia government for resolutions condemning Turkey, the issue of relations between the two countries would be locked down for years. Let's hope that is not the case. According to UNHCR statistics, at the end of 2006 there were still nearly 700,000 internally displaced persons in Azerbaijan, who have been there since the fighting of the late eighties and early nineties with no solution in sight for their plight. It also is possible to see a message from Ankara to Yerevan in the relations Turkey cultivates with Teheran, in addition to the ties fostered with Tbilisi and Baku, all Armenia's neighbors. Turkey and Armenia have been able to carry on private diplomacy in the past. It would be in the interests of both countries to rekindle their efforts.Turkish Internal Political DevelopmentsEven as Turkey refashions its international role, domestically a political storm is breaking. Turkey is preparing a new constitution, and it will provoke vigorous debate for years. Many people think the current document, crafted under the military's eye after the 1980 coup, gives priority to the state over individual rights. One government spokesman said the new constitution would be modeled on the constitution of Spain drafted after the Franco regime. A prominent Turkish professor recently said, “For the first time, civil society is engaged in the process of creating a constitution rather than taking on something imposed by the military." The outcome of the debate could alter the character of the country as nothing else has done since the days of Kemal Ataturk. Another observer, a clearly skeptical university official, warned that the new constitution will "shake the fundamental values of the republic."The fight will be between those who believe the new constitution will be the fulfillment of Turkey's democratic dream and those who fear it will destroy that dream. In early February 2008, Turkey's parliament passed two new changes to the constitution. First, the parliament voted 403-107 (with the AK Party and another party — the Nationalist Movement Party, or MHP — collaborating) in favor of a change stating that everyone has the right to equal treatment from state institutions. The parliament then backed by a nearly identical 403-108 vote a second amendment stating "no one can be deprived of [his or her] right to higher education." These two changes enable Turkish women now to wear headscarves to university, a practice banned since 1997. An Iranian spokesman praised the move, saying it showed that Islam was spreading in Turkey. The government insisted, however, that the moves underline the principles of freedom, of diversity, and of choice in Turkish civil life, and that this step gives credence to Turkey's drive to become an EU member. The most conservative of Islamic women's head coverings would still not be permitted, but, make no mistake, this is a tectonic shift in Turkey's political, educational, and social development.The government could have picked a more conciliatory route to constitutional change. There is broad sentiment in Turkey for modernizing the 1980 constitution, and there are indeed a number of issues to be addressed, some by measures short of constitutional change. One is the famous section 301, which punishes speech that “insults Turkishness” and which has provided right wing prosecutors with multiple opportunities to attack various Turkish literary and political figures. Another is the proposal to reopen the Greek Orthodox Halki theological seminary on Heybeliada Island. Various Turkish scholars and senior judicial leaders have asked that the government follow the least controversial route, amending individual provisions of the 1980 document and passing legislation wherever possible. Even the speaker of parliament, Koksal Toptan, has asked for caution, stating that “There is actually no need for changes to be made to the constitution to solve the [headscarf] problem.” However, by having the parliament focus immediately on this issue as a constitutional question the government has rolled the entire discussion of constitutional change onto the most charged single issue of the whole debate.Deep emotions are stirring, and no one truly knows what will happen. On the right, people whisper that the military is only waiting until the public becomes disenchanted with the AK Party, and then it will launch its fifth coup since Ataturk's death. In a move that may have inadvertently given credence to such ideas, on January 25 police arrested 33 people, including a retired brigadier general, from a shadowy ultra-nationalist group called Ergenekon and charged them with planning the assassination of major Kurdish political figures in Turkey plus Turkey's Nobel Literature Prize winner, Orhan Pamuk. (Ergenekon is the name attributed to the original homeland of the Turks in Central Asia.) A breakdown of public order in the '60's, '70's and '80s preceded those respective three coups by Turkey's armed forces. A recurrence of public violence and murders of controversial public figures could start a similar downward spiral again.The current political debate also occurs at a moment when there is no longer any effective political opposition to the AK Party. This is especially so since the MHP has joined ranks with the AK Party in parliament on key issues. The AK Party therefore is under less pressure in parliament to fully explain to the Turkish people what is going on and specifically to calm their fears about the arguments being tossed before them. Outside observers have stressed that the government can and should be doing more to allay the concerns of millions of Turks, especially Turkish women nurtured in the Ataturk traditions. The country would benefit from having the vigorous political debate occur where political debates should occur — in the parliament and not in the streets. But since the parties listed in opposition either lost support in the last election in July 2007 or have too little gravitas at this point to serve as a platform for genuine debate, that is unlikely to happen. The principal opposition party, which lost votes in the 2007 election, has since relied almost entirely on negative attacks and on arguments based on fear. Many in the public, while clearly concerned, have little faith in the intelligence of the opposition to craft an effective solution. Therefore, the genuine opposition in provoking debate on the constitutional issues for some time will come from institutions of the state, such as the army, the judiciary, and the educational structure. Because each of these key players also has its own interests to protect, there is a diminished capacity for a comprehensive and genuinely open political debate. In the face of political turmoil, the government thus far has been able to hold on to wide popular support in major part because of its effective management of the country's economy. In fact, the AK Party has indeed done a much better job of restoring economic growth for Turkey than did any of the traditional parties in power for the previous two decades. Economic success and the commitment to EU membership were the principal reasons that the children of the old elite voted for the AK Party in 2007. As long as the economy stays on a healthy growth path, the younger generation will stay with AK. There are issues, however. Turkey has a growing current account deficit as energy costs rise, and foreign direct investment currently only covers about two-thirds of that deficit. The credit crunch in the United States has not yet really impacted in Turkey, and the third quarter growth in Turkey's economy was only 1.5 percent, the lowest in six years. At Davos in 2008, Turkey's State Minister for the Economy, Mehmet Simsek, expressed his confidence that the Turkish economy would weather the shocks of the credit crunch from the U.S. sub-prime market tumble. On other occasions, Simsek has said that Turkey had one of the highest wage burdens among OECD countries. High taxes on labor, plus onerous welfare benefits, are a big obstacle to the creation of new jobs. Unemployment hovers at around 10 percent. If the AK Party is able to carry out reforms in social security and the labor sector, it will make a badly needed dent in that unemployment figure. The challenge ahead thus appears to be further reform of Turkey's own economic institutions, not on Turkey's ability to compete in the global economy or attract investment.Turkey and Islamic FundamentalismWhat is the force of fundamentalism in Turkey today? First, Islam in Turkey is not the same as it is further south in the Middle East. The Turks were always pragmatic Muslims; they never exhibited the kind of zealous religious behavior found in the Arab world. According to a survey in November of 2006 by the Turkish Economic and Social Studies Foundation (TESEV), one of the country's leading think tanks, fear that religion is becoming a more dominant sociopolitical force under the incumbent AK Party is not very realistic. Religion is indeed flourishing in Turkish society, but it is also undergoing a process of modernization and liberalization. In 2006 more people (45 to 36 percent) than in 1999 said they were “Muslim first.” But the number of people who supported political parties based on religion dropped from 41 percent to 25 percent in the same period, and demand for “a shariah (Islamic law)-based religious state” dropped dramatically from 21 percent to 9 percent. Some interpret this data as people sensing more freedom to express a religious identification but not interested in changing the secular nature of the state.It is obvious that many Turks worry actively about the growth of militant Islam. The headscarf, the pivot of Turkey's culture war, stands as the symbol of this perceived threat. More than 70 percent of those who define themselves as “left wing” or “secular” think that the number of women in headscarves is on the rise and that this creates a menace for Turkish secularism. However, the TESEV study reveals that the number of women wearing the headscarf has actually been decreasing. Can Paker, TESEV's president, remarking on this survey, has stated that “Turkey and its political secular system are doing fine. [The system] just needs more openness and freedom.”At that same time, when asked what kind of president Turkey should have, a great number of people answered that he should be “modern” and “Muslim.” This sounds like an obvious contradiction, but it may well express the belief among Turks that they have a right to their cultural and religious identity and at the same time want to be regarded and accepted in the world as a modern state with democratic institutions and practices.In the Middle East, the rise of radical Islam has been traced by many to the preceding failures of Arab governments to effectively implement Western-inspired economic reform or rally positive nationalism to protect Arab countries and promote prosperity. A front page article in the New York Times of February 17, 2008, for example, graphically recounts the life of an impoverished young Egyptian man locked out of marriage chances and a professional future who has turned increasingly to Islam. According to the article, the commitment to Islam is rising throughout the region because of this deep and chronic frustration among young men who cannot fashion a better future for themselves under existing circumstances. Turkey has not had this problem to date, as its democratic institutions and economic policies have provided its youth both arenas for political action and hope for a brighter future. If Turkey continues to register such progress, it will likely avoid the backlash of a religious revolt from its younger generation.The United States and Turkey: A Look AheadIn conclusion, focusing on what the United States might do to advance its own interests with Turkey and in the region, I offer the following in addition to the points already covered:1) Resolve to resolve Iraq together; no deal with Iraq is worth Turkey's long-term determined opposition that could lead to another round of U.S.-Turkey tensions. Let Turkey actually help in Iraq. Ankara offered in 2002-2003, but the offer drowned in the aftermath of the 2003 vote. 2) Help Turkey on the EU and be willing to explain again and again why a Europe with Turkey is better than a Europe without Turkey. Despite recent discouragement from France, Turkey also needs to help its friends in Europe and in the United States by continuing to keep up the pace of reforms. 3) Strongly support the new opening on Cyprus. Dimitris Christofias, the newly elected President of Cyprus, has set reconciliation with northern Cyprus as his priority goal and has requested the UN to arrange a meeting between him and Turkish Cypriot President Mehmet Ali Talat. An American role could be decisive. 4) Encourage greater expansion of civil rights in Turkey, very importantly the protections for free speech, including removing the famous section 301. Emphasize the need for full legal protection of individual rights, now inadequately referenced in the AKP articulation, although the government says these protections will be proposed in the new constitution. 5) Address regional energy and energy development issues as a strategic priority with Turkey. Turkey is the only major route from central Asia to Europe for energy supplies, and Moscow is in the midst of a charm campaign in Turkey. 6) Pay more attention to Black Sea regional development. The Black Sea now has NATO members on its south and west, a struggling Ukraine and resurgent Russia in the center, and Georgia under heavy Russian pressure in the east. Once central Europe is consolidated for the EU and NATO, the Black Sea region will become the next focus of competition for security and democratic development. Despite progress, the region is not yet at the tipping point for the West and for democracy.SummaryTo summarize, we appear to be at a new departure point for Turkey and for the United States. Five years after the vote of March 1, 2003, all of us could say it is about time. Both countries seem to see more clearly how much it would help both of them to find better ways to cooperate. The United States has acted very responsibly, even if belatedly, in offering Turkey visible, effective help on the PKK, and there may be a need for more. Turkey for its part understands more than it admitted in years past that a good relationship with the United States and the ability to attract American capital and business serves vital Turkish interests. Having burned themselves out on the issues of war and turmoil in the region since 1991, perhaps the United States and Turkey now can proceed in greater peace to address the challenges ahead.Prime Minister ErdoganBut the focus of attention now has moved from the international to the domestic scene. In Turkey, there are few calm moments. It took an Ataturk to bring the core of the old empire from the ashes of defeat and build a democratic state. In the succeeding decades, it was men with strong convictions and clear abilities, such as Turgut Ozal, who produced lasting effects on the country. Turks are now in the throes of having to decide if Tayip Erdogan is a successor to Ataturk and Ozal or has come to dismantle what they built. This is the existential question for Turkey, for all Turks, and for all who care about Turkey. In watching Turkey as it embarks on this new era, domestically and internationally, all of us, the Turks as participants and the rest of us as concerned observers, need to remind ourselves of the enormous achievements of Turkey in the twentieth century and its vast potential for positive contributions in the twenty-first. Ambassador W. Robert Pearson (ret.) currently heads the International Division of The SPECTRUM Group, a consulting firm in Alexandria, Virginia. He completed a 30-year career with the Department of State as Director General of the Foreign Service. He served as Ambassador to Turkey (2000-2003); Deputy Chief of Mission at the U.S. Embassy in Paris and the U.S. Mission to NATO in Brussels; Executive Secretary of the Department of State; Deputy Executive Secretary of the National Security Council; Chair of NATO's Political Committee; and Political Officer in China. He speaks French, Chinese, and Turkish and is a member of the California Bar. American Diplomacy Copyright © 2012 American Diplomacy Publishers Chapel Hill NC www.americandiplomacy.org

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/13575

Africa Political Flash Points Ahead for DRC July 02, 2016 1:11 PM William Clowes FILE - Democratic Republic of the Congo's President Joseph Kabila (C) greets supporters as he arrives at the airport in Lubumbashi, the capital of Katanga province in the Democratic Republic of Congo, June 13, 2016. KINSHASA — President Joseph Kabila is due to step down as head of state of the Democratic Republic of Congo in December but it is looking increasingly likely that this year's election will be delayed. Statements this week by the president and the lead opposition figure, now in exile, underscore the uncertainty of the central African nation's political future, and the potential flash points ahead. President Joseph Kabila’s Independence Day speech was pre-recorded, as usual — Kabila is a famously reluctant public speaker — but his words were anything but timid. The defiant head of state summoned the Congolese people to resist what he called “untimely and unlawful foreign interference.” He repeatedly praised his security services. His comments are seen as a direct response to targeted sanctions imposed by the U.S. government on one of Kabila’s most senior police chiefs on June 23. The U.S. government, as well as members of Congress, have accused the Kabila government of deliberately delaying elections that should take place in November and of cracking down on the opposition and civil society. Further sanctions may be forthcoming. This was supposed to be Kabila’s final Independence Day as president. The nation's constitution limits him to two terms in office. But it is looking unlikely the polls will be held this year. The electoral commission says it needs more than a year to prepare the voter rolls. And the Constitutional Court ruled in May that Kabila can stay in power until the election is held. In his speech, the president insisted voter registration will start imminently and that nothing can stop the election from happening. But in recent weeks, senior officials close to Kabila have spoken publicly of holding a constitutional referendum first. If the people of Congo want more Kabila, they ask, why should they be denied? Hans Hoebeke is a senior Congo analyst at the International Crisis Group. “The moment voter registration reaches its end, I am sure that this will become a concrete proposal," he said. "If they get away with prolonging the reign, if the people remain generally speaking quiet, then I think they are going to try it. I’m not saying they are going to succeed, but I think they are going to try it.” And there is recent precedent. The leaders of two of Congo’s neighbors, Congo-Brazzaville and Rwanda, have successfully removed term limits through referendums and won fresh terms in office in the past year. For more than a year, Kabila has invited the opposition to participate in a political dialogue. Edem Kodjo, a former Togolese prime minister, is facilitating the efforts on behalf of the African Union. Most influential opposition leaders remain publicly hostile to Kabila’s offer. They dismiss the dialogue as a trap and have begun to ask for U.S. involvement on the facilitation panel. But qualified support can be found. Juvenal Munubo is a parliamentarian from one of the largest opposition parties. He told VOA that a dialogue acceptable to all sides is the country’s last chance and must provide clear answers to two essential questions: On what date shall the presidential election take place and who shall lead the DRC once Kabila’s elected mandate expires December 20? For Munubo, if these questions can be answered, the main problems disappear and the election need not take place in 2016. More time could work in the opposition’s favor. At present, there is no obvious opposition presidential candidate and the separate coalitions are still trying to form a united front. Moise Katumbi points to the size of the fight on their hands. As yet the only politician to declare his intention to contest the presidential election, Katumbi left the Democratic Republic of Congo in May. He was the subject of two sets of legal charges, one of them over the alleged hiring of foreign mercenaries. In June, he was sentenced in absentia to three years in prison. Returning home to campaign is currently out of the question. Katumbi issued his own Independence Day statement. He said Kabila must leave power this year. Katumbi condemned the charges against him as a crude means of preventing his candidature. The government brushed it off, calling Katumbi's statement a “pathetic diatribe.” Congo Launches Vaccination Campaign Against Yellow Fever

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/13576

USA Republican Lawmakers Call on Obama to Halt Syrian Refugee Program Last Updated: November 17, 2015 1:35 AM Cindy Saine FILE - A Syrian refugee child sleeps on his father's arms while waiting to board a bus, after arriving on a dinghy from the Turkish coast to the northeastern Greek island of Lesbos, Oct. 4 , 2015. CAPITOL HILL — Returning to Capitol Hill Monday, many U.S. lawmakers said the political landscape has been altered by Friday’s terrorist attacks in Paris. "Paris changes everything,” said Republican House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Michael McCaul. McCaul sent a letter to President Barack Obama, asking him to halt the admission of Syrian refugees into the United States after one of the Paris attackers was found to have posed as a refugee. McCaul wrote: “In light of the terrorist attack in Paris, I call on you to temporarily suspend the admission of all additional Syrian refugees into the United States pending a full review of the Syrian Refugee resettlement program.” Watch related video report from VOA's MIchael Bowman: Admitting Syrian Refugees Fiercely Debated in US ​Other Republican lawmakers joined in criticism of Obama's refugee proposal. Republican Senator Jeff Sessions rejected Obama administration plans to welcome more Syrian refugees telling VOA: “It cannot be the solution to instability in the Middle East that everybody abandon their home and flee to Europe or the United States. This cannot be," he said. "The United States should help refugees, as are other nations. I think we should have a determined policy to create in Syria and nearby safe zones where these refugees, if they feel they have to flee, can stay. Many of them are not classic refugees. They seem to be more economic migrants than refugees. Many, many young males, not families.” Obama said the United States would betray its core values if it refuses to accept Syrian refugees, and said it is “shameful” to impose a religious test to only admit Christian refugees as some Republicans have advocated. Democratic House Ranking member Eliot Engel agreed, telling VOA that Syrian refugees should be properly vetted, but the U.S. should not “slam the door” on them. Engel likened the impact of the Paris attacks for France to the life-changing September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States. Engel told VOA that Islamic State terrorists are not true worshippers of any religion, but fascists. A number of Republican lawmakers called on new House Speaker Paul Ryan to make sure there is no funding for Syrian refugees in a spending bill that has to be passed by December 11. Republican Senator and presidential candidate Rand Paul is introducing legislation to halt visas for refugees. U.S. Capitol Police officers keep watch over the East Front of the Capitol as Congress prepares to return to work following the weekend terror attacks in Paris that killed 129 people, in Washington, Nov. 16, 2015. The Paris attacks and an Islamic State video threatening an attack on Washington, D.C. seemed to have put lawmakers on edge. U.S. Capitol Police said there is no specific information of a threat to the Capitol, but encouraged lawmakers and aides to be vigilant, saying it is always an appealing target for terrorists. Capitol police urged lawmakers to use tunnels to walk back and forth between their offices and the Capitol “out of an abundance of caution.” The House Foreign Affairs and Judiciary Committees plan to hold hearings this week to focus on the U.S. response to the Paris attacks. US Governors Balk at Syrian Refugee Plan in Wake of Paris Attacks US Republicans Call for Tough Response to Terrorism Focus on Passport in Paris Highlights Lack of Migrant Checks CIA Chief: US Has Not Underestimated IS

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/13594

Kent Bush: Republicans need a new strategy Republicans cannibalize their best candidates during the primary process. I wonder if the Republicans really want to win back the White House.The more polls show their popularity dropping due to the shutdown, the more intransigent the far-right wing of the party becomes. Instead of picking up seats in the midterm elections like they did in 2010, the GOP risks losing ground because voters are blaming them for the problems in Congress that led to some of the government shutting down.That might have to do with House Speaker John Boehner telling multiple media outlets that the Republicans had to shut down the government in a last ditch effort to stop Obamacare.In this country, the phrase last ditch effort actually comes from the southern soldiers in the Civil War who used trenches as part of their defense system against Union forces. They were ready to move from trench to trench as they were overrun by a stronger opponent until they had no ditch left to hide in. It seems like a parallel could be drawn here, but I digress.I can’t tell the future. But I can tell the past.Republicans are losing the White House because they cannibalize their best candidates during the primary process. The Democrats are far more forgiving of candidates in the primaries. They want a candidate from the left, but they don’t mind if he or she stands with one foot slightly off the party platform in order to appeal to the independent voters in a dozen swing states who decide every presidential election.The Republican idea of loyalty tests and the need to be radically conservative on every issue naturally makes that candidate less popular with voters who don’t identify as Republicans. If they wanted a candidate like that, they would identify as Republicans.That’s where Chris Christie comes in. He will be needing a new job when the next Presidential election comes around. He looks very solid in his re-election bid as New Jersey’s governor and would be very likely to turn that blue state bright red if he were the candidate in 2016.Something tells me he would have a much better shot than most in neighboring Pennsylvania – a swing state won twice by Obama – and even Virginia.Let’s face it. Oklahoma, Kansas, Texas and the rest of the rural red states aren’t going anywhere. I could run as a Republican in those states and would beat any Democrat without running a single ad.Christie is the best early candidate to actually bridge the gap from the hyper-conservative TEA Party and the moderate Democrats and Independents who don’t have their minds already made up.But can he even win a primary with the current climate in his party? He was eviscerated for working with Obama during the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy. He is quick to criticize ideas from both sides of the aisle and equally quick to work with leaders from another party.I never voted for a Democrat for President before Barack Obama. The Republican primary process has become such a farce that the candidates it spits out are unappealing and scarred so badly from the interparty skirmishes that they can’t appeal to anyone other than those who reside on the furthest feather on the right wing.Christie is losing weight and looks to be preparing for battle in a couple of years. But he shouldn’t have to ask Sara Palin to the Conservative Prom to win the nomination.Time will tell on which candidate the Republicans can and will produce. The Democrats think the race will be between Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden. I think a new voice will pass by both of them again like Obama in 2008. That storyline worked for the Democrats and if a strategy works, I stick with it.Unfortunately, the current leadership of the GOP seems compelled to stick with a strategy that has failed them twice.Kent Bush is the publisher of the Augusta Gazette, the El Dorado Times, and the Andover American newspapers. He can be contacted at: kbush@augustagazette.com

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/13605

Obama Meets With GOP Over Stimulus Plan By CBS/AP | Posted: Tue 4:03 PM, Jan 27, 2009 | Updated: Tue 4:22 PM, Jan 27, 2009 (CBS/ AP) President Obama met face-to-face Tuesday with congressional Republicans who have been chafing over parts of a $825 billion plan to pull the country out of recession, and he urged lawmakers to "keep politics to a minimum" and quickly approve the measure. "The statistics every day underscore the urgency of the economic situation. The American people expect action," the president said in brief remarks between private meetings with House and Senate Republicans at the Capitol. "I don't expect 100 percent agreement from my Republican colleagues, but I do hope that we can all put politics aside and do the American people's business right now." (Click here for full text and video of Mr. Obama's remarks) Following both meetings, Mr. Obama said he was "very grateful" to the Republican leaders for giving "me a chance to say my peace," reports CBS News producer John Nolen. "I think there were a number of suggestions that were being relayed to us and some cases I simply described or explained why we are taking this approach as opposed to that approach," Mr. Obama said. "I tried to remind people that even with the modifications that have been made in the House we still have 275 billion dollars worth of tax cuts and tried to remind them that when there was 300 billion at the beginning when we put our framework together there was a lot of praise from the Republican side, grousing from my side of the aisle, and it hasn't changed that much." Later, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters: "I think we will have Republican support for this bill." He didn't say how much but added: "We'll take what we can get" when the House votes. Gibbs didn't say whether Mr. Obama made any concessions to Republicans, only that the president listened to the GOP's concerns. The president made his first trip to Capitol Hill since his inauguration a week ago, aides said, to listen to concerns from Republicans who have been threatening to oppose the measure over what they call insufficient tax cuts and excessive spending. The House is to vote on the White House-backed measure Wednesday, and Senate committees began their own deliberations over it on Tuesday. Congressional leaders have pledged to have the bill on Obama's desk by mid-February. He is hoping for bipartisan support on his top priority of economic recovery even though his fellow Democrats have large majorities in both the House and Senate. The political maneuvering surrounding the stimulus legislation has become intense, only one week into his tenure. "There are some legitimate philosophical differences with parts of my plan that the Republicans have and I respect that," Mr. Obama said. Even so, he called the House meeting "very constructive" and Republican leaders seemed to agree, though none signaled they were ready to sign on to the measure the House is to vote on Wednesday. "I think we both share a sincere belief that we have to have a plan that works," House GOP leader John Boehner said. "The president is sincere in wanting to work with us, wanting to here our ideas and find some common ground." Added Rep. Eric Cantor, the No. 2 House Republican: "The most encouraging statement I think the president made today was the fact that he had no pride of authorship in this bill. We take that to mean that tomorrow's vote is only the first step in the process, only the beginning." Hours before the meeting, officials said, the two GOP leaders had sought at a closed-door meeting with Republicans to rally opposition to the White House-backed measure. Both men said the legislation contains too much wasteful spending that will not help the economy recover from its worst nosedive since the Great Depression, said the officials, who described the session on condition of anonymity, saying they were not authorized to disclose the discussions. That request for opposition came one day after Mr. Obama extended Republicans an olive branch, appealing to House Democrats to jettison an estimated $200 million ticketed for family planning services for low-income people. The White House-backed legislation includes roughly $550 billion in spending as well as $275 billion in tax cuts. Much of the spending would be for items such as health care, jobless benefits, food stamps and other programs that benefit victims of the recession. Fast FactsThe unemployment rate, now at a 16-year high of 7.2 percent, could hit 10 percent or higher later this year or early next year, under some analysts' projections.Mr. Obama described the package as "one leg in a multi-legged stool" that includes getting credit flowing again, regulating the financial industry, dealing with troubled bank assets and coordinating with other countries in the economic crisis that now spans the world. "I am absolutely confident that we can deal with these issues, but the key right now is to make sure that we keep politics to a minimum," he said. House Republicans have drafted an alternative measure. Except for an extension of unemployment benefits, it consists exclusively of tax cuts. Earlier Tuesday, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said in a televised interview that Mr. Obama was having problems with Democrats, whom he said favor spending over tax cuts as a remedy for the economic crisis. "We think the country needs a stimulus," McConnell said on NBC's "Today" show. But he also said that he believes most people do not believe recovery be accomplished through projects like "fixing up the Mall," a reference to funding to repair the National Mall in Washington. He said Republicans want a bill that devotes 40 percent of its total to tax cuts. The family planning funding was a particular target of Boehner and other Republicans, and Mr. Obama's intervention was timed for his meetings in the Capitol. The decision angered some House Democrats - Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. had defended the funding in a weekend television interview - and the White House sought to ease the concerns. "While he agrees that greater access to family planning is good policy, the president believes that the funding for it does not belong in the economic recovery and reinvestment plan," said press secretary Robert Gibbs. The Senate Appropriations Committee voted 21-9 Tuesday to support a $366 billion spending portion of the plan. Four Republicans voted with the majority - Thad Cochran of Mississippi, Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, Christopher Bond of Missouri and Susan Collins of Maine, though they went along only with strong reservations. The recession is killing jobs at an alarming pace, with tens of thousands of new layoffs announced Monday by some of the biggest names in American business - Pfizer, Caterpillar and Home Depot. Looking ahead, economists predicted a net loss of at least 2 million jobs - possibly more - this year even if Mr. Obama's $825 billion package is enacted. Last year, the economy lost a net 2.6 million jobs, the most since 1945, though the labor force has grown significantly since then. The job losses are now coming from every corner of the economy, reports CBS News correspondent Anthony Mason. "In the last year they were pretty concentrated in three places: construction, manufacturing and retail. Now we're seeing them almost everywhere," Standard & Poor's economist David Wyss told Mason. The unemployment rate, now at a 16-year high of 7.2 percent, could hit 10 percent or higher later this year or early next year, under some analysts' projections. © MMIX, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/13656

1 debate left; 2 alphas wage fight of their lives President Barack Obama and Republican presidential candidate and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney shake hands at the end of the second presidential debate at Hofstra University in Hempstead, N.Y., Tuesday. HEMPSTEAD, N.Y. -- Two alphas in the fight of their lives, President Barack Obama and Republican Mitt Romney sparred with passion and grit in a debate that previewed the closing arguments of a campaign that keeps circling back to bedrock questions about which candidate can do more to strengthen the fragile economy.Fresh off their latest encounter and with just three weeks left in the race, the candidates fan out in all directions Wednesday to pitch their tuned-up messages directly to voters on some of the campaign's most treasured turf: Romney in Virginia, Obama in Iowa. Vice President Joe Biden is westward bound for Colorado and Nevada; GOP running mate Paul Ryan returns to all-important Ohio.It was a re-energized Obama who showed up for Tuesday's debate at Hofstra University, lifting the spirits of Democrats who felt let down by the president's limp performance in the candidates' first encounter two weeks ago.But Romney knew what was coming and didn't give an inch, pressing his case even when the arguments deteriorated into did-not, did-too rejoinders that couldn't have done much to clarify the choice for undecided voters. Tuesday's debate was the third installment in what amounts to a four-week-long reality TV series for Campaign 2012. Romney was the clear victor in the series debut, Biden aggressively counterpunched in the next-up vice presidential debate, and the latest faceoff featured two competitors determined to give no quarter.It was a pushy, interruption-filled encounter filled with charges and countercharges that the other guy wasn't telling the truth. The two candidates were both verbally and physically at odds in the town hall-style format, at one point circling each other center stage like boxers in a prize fight."I thought it was a real moment," Biden told NBC's "Today" show in an interview that aired Wednesday morning. "When they were kind of circling each other, it was like, 'Hey, come on man, let's level with each other here.'"One of the debate's tensest moments was when Romney suggested Obama's administration may have misled Americans over what caused the attack at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, last month that killed four Americans. The issue is sure to continue to be debated next week, with the third and closing debate focused on foreign policy scheduled Monday at Lynn University in Boca Raton, Fla. "As the facts come out about the Benghazi attack we learn more troubling facts by the day," Ryan told "This Morning" on CBS. "So that's why need to get to the bottom of this to get answers so that we can prevent something like this from ever happening again."Romney, brimming with confidence, distilled the essence of his campaign message early in Tuesday's 90-minute debate and repeated it often."I know what it takes to get this economy going," he said over and over. And this: "We can do better." And this: "We don't have to settle for what we're going through."Obama, with both the benefit and the burden of a record to run on, had a more nuanced message."The commitments I've made, I've kept," he said. "And those that I haven't been able to keep, it's not for lack of trying and we're going to get it done in a second term." Obama also was relentless in dismissing the merits of Romney's policies and rejecting his characterizations of the president's record."Governor Romney doesn't have a five-point plan," the president argued. "He has a one-point plan. And that plan is to make sure that folks at the top play by a different set of rules." The candidates were in each other's faces - sometimes literally - before an audience of 82 uncommitted voters from New York. It's a state that's already a sure bet for Obama, but the voters there stood as proxy for millions of Americans across the nation still settling on a candidate."They spent a lot of time cutting down the other person," said 22-year-old Joe Blizzard, who watched with a crowd of 500 students at the University of Cincinnati. "As someone who is undecided, it was a little disappointing."Fellow student Karim Aladmi, 21, was more forgiving. "It goes without saying that the knives were out," he said. "I thought Obama had a strong performance, but Romney made him work for it. I was actually impressed by both sides."With just 20 days left until the election, polls show an extremely tight race nationally. While Republicans have made clear gains in recent days, the president leads in several polls of Wisconsin and Ohio. No Republican has won the White House without winning Ohio.In the sprint to Election Day, every aspect of the campaign seems to be taking on a fresh sense of urgency - the ads, the fundraising, the grass-roots mobilizing, the outreach to key voting blocs, particularly women.Both sides are pouring millions upon millions into TV ads in the battleground states, and independent groups are adding buckets more. The debate didn't break a lot of new ground, although Romney signaled a shift in his stance on immigration.The GOP nominee previously had said he would veto legislation to provide a path to legalization for young illegal immigrants brought to the United States as children. But Tuesday night, he said such young people "should have a pathway to become a permanent resident of the United States."As the debates unfold, early voting is already under way in many states, and the push to bank as many early ballots as possible is in overdrive.Democrats cheered when the Supreme Court on Tuesday cleared the way for Ohio voters to cast ballots on the three days before Election Day, rejecting a request by the state's Republican elections chief and attorney general to get involved in a rancorous battle over early voting. Obama's campaign and Ohio Democrats had sued state officials over changes in state law that took away the three days of voting for most people.All of the political maneuvering was little more than noise for more than 1.3 million Americans: They've already voted. Texas landowners take a rare stand against Big Oil Man indicted in shootings at July 4 event in W.Va.

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/13684

"Dithers" is the new Flip-Flop A recent Economist article that portrayed Prime Minister Paul Martin as "Mr. Dithers" has resonated across Canada. According to the Economist, Martin has strayed from his fiscally austere roots to embrace the kind of populism he hopes will resonate with Canadians. As finance minister, Mr Martin acquired a reputation as a tough and decisive deficit-cutter who transformed the public finances and oversaw the renaissance of the Canadian economy. But as prime minister, his faltering leadership has earned him the sobriquet of "Mr Dithers". ... Both before and since [last year's election], Mr Martin's main concern seems to have been to court popularity by parading a generous social conscience. Like "flip-flop", the Republican talking-points victory that caricatured Democratic Presidential contender John Kerry's complex dance between anti-war populism and centrist power-brokering, "Mr. Dithers" has broken free of of its origins and taken root among millions of people - many of whom haven't even heard of the original article, let alone read it. The epithet has rippled across Canada's media landscape and onto the tongues of Canadians everywhere. Now, like a skull-busting feedback whine, the term bombards us from everywhere. Whether this was intended or serendipitous, the Economist has scored a psychological coup, framing a complex issue in its own narrow terms. Ultimately, the Dithers tag has painted Martin as indecisive and wishy-washy. In fact, this characterization isn't fair. Martin has been consistently decisive; this becomes apparent once his political loyalties are made clear. Martin is trying to serve two masters: the interests of business and the values of citizens. On high-profile issues where citizens have taken a great interest, like missile defence, Martin serves the public, or in the Economist's words, "court[s] popularity by parading a generous social conscience." He knows that going against the majority on such a passionate issue would be a disaster for the Liberals come election time. On the other hand, as U.S. Ambassador Paul Cellucci explained, Canada's refusal to participate is "not a deal-breaker." On more complex issues, like the recent trilateral agreement with the United States and Mexico, Martin serves the interests of business. The "Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America" was a statement of intent among the three countries to further harmonize their trade and security policies under a "continental" - read American - umbrella. Canadian big business is delighted with the agreement. According to Canadian Council of Chief Executives (CCCE) President Tom D'Aquino: The comprehensive agenda laid out by the three leaders represents a quantum leap forward for the continent, one that will improve the safety and economic wellbeing of Canadians and of our neighbours in North America. The new partnership agreement moves the North American agenda forward in a multitude of concrete and practical ways that add up to an ambitious vision for the future of our continent. The "Partnership" endorses harmonization of external tarriffs across the three countries, a common security policy, a continental energy policy (meaning the United States will have even easier access to Canadian oil and gas), and a common policy for the movement of people - exactly what the CCCE wants. In fact, it makes a good summary of last year's CCCE discussion paper, "New Frontiers: Building a 21st Century Canada-United States Partnership in North America". In D'Aquino's gushing words, "I think there is no doubt, as Prime Minister Martin has recognized, that the ambitious agenda laid out in this agreement certainly represents big progress, for Canada and for everyone in North America." Is there any question which master Martin loves and which he despises? While they would prefer a Conservative government, Canada's big businesses continue to support the Liberals as the next best thing because in the end, the Liberals rarely let their populist leanings get in the way of policy. Martin's intention to provoke the opposition into a vote of non-confidence through his omnibus budget bill - if that is, in fact, his plan - is a big gamble. The Liberals seem to have lost the ability to set the terms of public discourse. This bodes poorly for the party; without public mindshare, they must fall back on the weak promise of moderation in the face of both New Democrats and Conservatives. The Liberals have all the advantages an incumbent could ask for: a long-running economic boom, strong finances, and opposition parties that either can't present a clear platform (the Conservatives) or can't get decent media coverage (the NDP). Thanks to a strong economy, the government is awash in money, running massive, multi-billion dollar surpluses year after year. It has cut taxes significantly, doled out flashy increases to programs and the provinces, and still had enough left over to reduce Canada's debt-to-GDP ratio. Thanks also to the economy, the Liberals have been able to get away, more or less, with having short-changed public services through the 1990s. Cities and towns are feeling the crunch today, struggling under downloaded expenditures, constrained in their ability to raise taxes or borrow. Slow starvation has made our public systems brittle, and only a strong economy has held at bay the stress that might otherwise blow open the fractures. Canadians have keen eyes for hypocrisy and are growing more aware of these underlying problems, but framing coups like the Economist's "Mr. Dithers" caricature might just push voters the other way - into the waiting arms of the Conservatives. And nothing would make Tom D'Aquino happier. Ryan McGreal Valid HTML 4.01 / Valid CSSThis page fully complies with the W3C standard for HTML 4.01 Transitional and uses Cascading Style Sheets (CSS).Why does this site look so bland?This site is designed to comply with current web standards - HTML 4.01 and Cascading Style Sheets (CSS) - which separate style from content. Because your browser does not support style sheets, they have been "hidden" so that you only see the content and basic formatting.Click here to read my short essay Why Upgrade?Click here to see what this site would look like with a standards-compliant browser. Get more out of the internet and upgrade to a standards-compliant browser - check out the Web Standards Project for links to Standards-Compliant browsersCopyright © 2000, 2002 by Ryan McGreal

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/13724

While Hugo Chavez expropriates housing projects his own remain abandoned As the Chavez administration takes over middle class apartment buildings in order to score points with the Venezuelan middle class, the truth is that it has failed to complete ots won projects, such as the picture above of a development in Vargas State, which sits abandoned, buildings already crumbing, despite the sign that hails “Welcome to anew project by the Bolivarian revolution” The problem is that this project is part of the Vargas Plan 2005, an ambitious development plan for Vargas State, the most pro-Chavez one in the Nation, which was suppose to build some 13,000 apartments for the residents of that State. Only 230 of them have been completed. This is the same Government that took over apartment complexes that were almost finished as a way of promoting its won image among the middle class. Sadly, they have been partially successful. Because there have indeed been abuses by the private construction sector, some induced by the ban of selling apartments indexed to inflation, but in the end the truth is the Government does even worse than the private sector. not only has the Government not completed these projects in Vargas, losing money and leaving them abandoned, but there are many others all over the place in the same condition. Because in the end the Government has become such a central part of all activities, that it is also failing at being a regulator. Thus, in the end it “intervenes”, “expropriates” and “takes over”, where it should be imposing penalties and regulating. But it is all a matter of style. “Intervening” sounds threatening and ominous, exactly the image wants to convey. At the same time it sound bold and powerful, exactly what the Government wants the middle class to think. But in the end, it is all a war of words. In six months, the building projects will remain abandoned, forgotten in the same foggy cloud where most bold Chavista projects lie. But perversely, many will keep a positive image of all these announcements. The image of a Government that cares for the people. A Government ready to step in and defend their rights. Unfortunately, their rights are being trampled once again when they are led to believe this has any meaning in their future. In the end, it is actually the opposite. The private sector is more efficient than the Government despite all of its problems. But now that it feels and is threatened, it will simply stop building and investing which goes precisely against the goals of all middle class Venezuelans to own their own home. The perverse thing is that it works in the end. These actions do give the Government popularity despite their overall negative effect. Proving once again, how populism can be successful even after a decade of failures. Posted in Uncategorized, Venezuela | 16 Comments » November 2010

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/13822

Radio Address to the Nation on Voluntarism My fellow Americans: As we begin this Memorial Day weekend, I'd like to take a moment to consider one of the wellsprings of our greatness as a nation: our willingness to serve each other. When the Frenchman Alexis de Tocqueville traveled across our country more than a century and a half ago, he was struck by the volunteer spirit that he encountered. ``The Americans,'' he wrote, ``make associations to found seminaries, to build inns, to construct churches, to diffuse books, to send missionaries to the ends of the Earth.'' In large part because of this concern for their fellow men that he saw in the American people, de Tocqueville concluded that America is great, because she is good. Today our nation remains great and good, and the spirit of private sector initiative has become a major part of American life. Indeed, just yesterday it was my honor to sign a proclamation requested by Congress that proclaims tomorrow, May 25th, Hands Across America Day. And my family and I plan to join in the line as it passes through the White House grounds. Hands Across America represents a nationwide effort to help the poor and homeless who live in our country. Tomorrow millions will join in that ancient gesture of good will and friendship, the linking of hands, in a demonstration of concern for the less fortunate. To all those participating: Good luck. I can wish you nothing finer than the satisfaction of knowing that you've given of yourselves to help others. In the past few years we've witnessed an unprecedented outpouring of charity and good will -- a reassertion of good, old-fashioned neighborliness now that our country has regained its self-confidence. The figures tell the story. Last year alone, individuals, corporations, bequests, and foundations gave nearly $80 billion to good causes. That amount marked an all-time high and came to over $6.5 billion more than the amount donated in 1984. And according to a recent study, some 89 million Americans perform volunteer work every year. I think we're entitled to feel pretty good about that. In a way, though, the individual stories are even more impressive than the figures. This past Thursday, Nancy hosted the first international Just Say No walk here at the White House. Just Say No is an organization teaching children around the world to say no to drugs. Indeed, this week was Just Say No to Drugs Week, and the White House rally involved 2,300 youngsters from Just Say No clubs throughout our nation's Capital. As you might expect, these clubs require school officials, teachers, and especially parents to give a great deal of time. Nancy told me everyone she spoke to at the White House rally was absolutely convinced that it's truly vital. Then there's an organization called HOPE -- for Help Other People Everywhere. Founded in Northfield, Minnesota, by Verona Devney, a legal secretary who decided to help the needy by sewing and donating clothes, today HOPE distributes clothes to some 5,000 families a year. In San Antonio, Texas, Nick Monreal founded Teach the Children, and this organization has raised tens of thousands of dollars to provide school supplies to thousands of children from economically disadvantaged families. And in Philadelphia, a group called Wheels has been providing transportation for the sick and handicapped to and from hospitals and doctors' offices since 1959. There is no charge and no reliance on government funds. One private sector initiative I find most moving is called Christmas in April. Founded by Bobby Trimble of Midland, Texas, Christmas in April organizes volunteers across the country to repair the homes of needy older and handicapped Americans. Right here in Washington, Christmas in April helped a woman named DeLois Ruffing. DeLois ran a home for the elderly that badly needed repairs. The ceiling was virtually falling down around her. With her permission, early one April day more than a dozen volunteers -- attorneys, journalists, housewives, even a judge -- arrived to do what was needed. Ten hours later, the plumbing and ceiling had been fixed, and the walls were gleaming. And today DeLois is a Christmas in April volunteer herself. As these and so many other organizations prove, the generosity and character of the American people that de Tocqueville observed more than 150 years ago remain a powerful and life-giving force. So, let us reflect this Memorial Day weekend upon the unselfish millions who are improving the quality of life for all Americans in so many wonderful ways. And as always, let us remember those who gave the greatest gift of all, the gift of their lives, so that we today might live in a nation of freedom. Until next week, thanks for listening, and God bless you. Note: The President spoke at 12:06 p.m. from the Oval Office at the White House.

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/13976

About MWUK What Is The Problem? 20 Bogus Arguments 10 Key Points on Immigration Population by Country of Birth Net Migration Statistics Balanced Migration 1. Immigration is a natural part of an open economy and society and at Migration Watch we welcome it. The problem is the current scale of immigration, which is simply unsustainable. 2. Opponents of tighter immigration control try and present the debate as being either ‘for’ or ‘against’ migration with a false policy choice of either allowing immigration or stopping it. This is obviously wrong. All countries have border controls and policies about who to admit and who to turn away. The relevant policy questions are around who and how many people are good for the UK. Since, immigration policy, just like any other policy area, should be managed in the best interests of the UK. 3. Concerns about the scale and impact of mass immigration can be dealt with while recognising that migrants come here for a very understandable reason, to try to better their lives. The Scale of Immigration 4. High levels of net migration to the UK are a relatively recent phenomenon. The UK has always experienced periods of immigration (see here) but never on the current scale. 5. In 1997 net migration (the number of people coming to the UK minus the number leaving) was just 47,000. In the years that followed it rose to well over 200,000 and peaked at 320,000 in 2005. Under the last Labour government (1997-2010) an extra 3.6 million foreign migrants arrived, while one million British citizens left (see here). 6. The coalition government elected in 2010 pledged to reduce net migration to the ‘tens of thousands’. However, despite some reduction in migration from outside the European Union, net migration overall has not fallen (see here). 7. Under the current Conservative government net migration net migration now stands at an estimated 323,000 for the year ending September 2015 (see here). Why is the current level of immigration a problem? 8. High net migration has resulted in rapid population growth. The UK population currently stands at around 65 million. The Office of National Statistics ‘high’ migration scenario projects that the UK population will now increase by around 500,000 a year - the equivalent to a new city the size of Liverpool every year. This is unsustainable. It would result in the population growing by nearly eight million over the next fifteen years bringing it to 73 million. The ONS state that around 75% of this increase will be down to future migrants and their children. The remaining population growth will come from the UK’s existing population, including births to immigrants already here. (see here). The population growth would not stop there. It would continue to soar towards 80 million in 25 years and keep going upwards. 9. The UK (and especially England) is already densely populated by international standards and has a chronic shortage of housing. 10. To cope with this population increase huge amounts will have to be spent on the expansion of school places, roads, rail, health and other infrastructure. This is at a time of budget deficit when public spending is being scaled back rather than increased. Little economic benefit for the existing population and harmful for the worse off 11. Increased migration will not generate the extra tax revenue needed to pay for such infrastructure expansion. The only major inquiry ever conducted in the UK into the economic impact of immigration was carried out by the Select Committee on Economic Affairs of the House of Lords in 2007/08. In April 2008 they reported that "The overall fiscal impact of immigration is likely to be small, though this masks significant variations across different immigrant groups." (See here) These findings have been endorsed by the OECD which found in its annual report that "estimates of the fiscal impact of immigration vary, although in most countries it tends to be small in terms of GDP and is around zero on average across OECD countries." (see here). 12. The UK economy is now in a period of economic growth that is forecast by the Office of Budget Responsibility to continue over the next few years. Mass immigration contributes a part of this growth, simply because more people make for a larger economy. It does not necessarily make for a better economy. The most recent OBR report assumed that current high levels of net migration would continue and that this additional inflow would add no more than a tenth of one per cent to GDP per head of the population. The House of Lords report previously referred to stated that "We have found no evidence for the argument, made by the government, business and many others, that net immigration - immigration minus emigration - generates significant economic benefits for the existing UK population." (see here). 13. The growing economy is creating more employment opportunities and the numbers of both UK born and migrants in employment are growing but the large pool of labour from abroad has been associated with continued low growth in earnings as employers have not had to offer higher wages (see here). Mass immigration is likely to be holding back wages for those in direct competition for work, which is often those who are already low paid – both British born and earlier migrants alike. Public Opinion 14. Public opinion is clear. A large majority (76%) of the public want to see immigration reduced (see here). That includes voters of all ethnicities (see here). This is not surprising, we all share similar concerns. Integration 15. The greater the number of new arrivals, the harder it is for everyone to become fully integrated in British society. Trevor Phillips, the former head of the Equalities and Human Rights Commission, warned back in 2005 that the UK was “sleep walking into segregation”. Reasonable levels of migration are key to achieving strengthened community relations. See our paper “What can be done” (see here) which explains how net migration can be bought down to lower levels. Updated August 2015 Bogus Arguments Migration Watch UK Blog Employment & Welfare Immigration System & Policy Immigration History Public Services & Infrastructure Summary Fact Sheet Intellectual copyright remains the property of Migration Watch UK - © Migration Watch UK. All rights reserved. We use cookies to help us improve the website.

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/14042

Alistair Darling: an ordinary hero He's ridden out the financial crisis, survived the TV debate and stood by the prime minister. And now, against all odds, Alistair Darling is Labour's biggest electoral asset Alistair Darling: 'There's a lot to be done . . . I'd like to see the job through.' Photograph: David Levene Aditya Chakrabortty End of term has come to 11 Downing Street. Outside are none of the usual array of ministerial cars and TV cameras (they have been dispatched on election duties). The chancellor's bodyguards catch some sun on the back garden patio, while trying to spot a kestrel nesting in a nearby drainpipe. Inside, the grand rooms of state are almost deserted, with the usual phalanx of special advisers and just-passing-throughs having shipped out. And the upstairs flat for Alistair Darling and his wife, Maggie, is looking a bit bare too. The government-owned art still hangs on the walls, but the books have largely gone – with only a couple of volumes about Guns N' Roses lying about in one bedroom, next to a Michael Jackson T-shirt (these belong not to Darling, as I momentarily hope, but to his son Calum). And in the kitchen sits the chancellor, clutching a mug of tea and gazing out on to the tourists milling about on Horse Guards Parade. This is a rare bit of respite for Darling – if, that is, meeting a man from the Guardian counts as respite – after three years of tumult. As anyone who has picked up a newspaper or switched on the news in the last three years probably knows, this is the chancellor dealt the worst hand in postwar history. He moved into No 11 in the summer of 2007 – just in time for the collapse of Northern Rock and then, a year later, the meltdown of the entire world banking system. As the most anonymous cabinet minister of the original 1997 lineup, Darling was an unlikely figure to sort this mess out; yet he has staved off a banking apocalypse, prevented a rerun of the Great Depression, and even held on to his job – despite the best efforts of Gordon Brown and Ed Balls. And he has done all of this with a low-key likability. To get an idea of what I mean, listen to him talk about the recent chancellor's debate on Channel 4. He was judged to have done a solid (what else?) job against his opposition rivals – but did he enjoy it? Um, maybe not. "I just sometimes wonder whether the viewers at home wouldn't get far more out of individuals being sat down and grilled for half an hour, an hour," he says. "If you've got three people, the interviewer's got to go [he waves his hands] from him to him to him . . . and it can too often become a ding-dong." Which is all fair enough – but it's not what you're meant to say. Asked about the same debate by this paper last weekend, Darling's Tory shadow George Osborne showed how it should be done, answering with statutory sunniness: "It enhanced politics." But then, sunny is not the Darling way: downbeat and modest is. 'He's become the biggest electoral asset we've got'This may account for his rising stock as a chancellor. By remaining calm in the face of a turbulent world economy and debilitating cabinet in-fighting, and by appearing a straightforward, unflashy sort, Darling has won the respect of the political commentators who wrote him off almost as soon as he took up the chancellor's job – and he has increased his standing in parliament and with voters. Jon Cruddas, a backbench Labour MP who sometimes disagrees with Darling on policy, is in no doubt about his personal appeal: "He's no show pony, but after the last couple of years, he's become the biggest electoral asset we've got." All around the chancellor, the kitchen is abuzz with activity – wife Maggie rustling up the teas and coffees, special adviser Catherine trying to stare her BlackBerry into submission, and Darling's daughter, Anna, perched on the windowseat, peeking at a mound of newspapers. By contrast, when Darling wants to show animation, he takes off his rimless spectacles. How does he rate the economic expertise of Osborne and Vince Cable, the Lib Dem Treasury spokesman? "Cable has a better understanding . . . Osborne's judgment is poor. I can't think of a single thing he has said, in the three years he's been shadowing me, on which he's been right. Normally you'd expect a shadow chancellor to get something right." Darling is less keen on personal discussion, although he does describe Cable as "rather pleasant to deal with". But what about Osborne, whom Labour has been describing to lobby journalists as the Tories' "achilles heel"? Bold statements like that aren't the Darling way, but he does volunteer this disapproving comment: "He moves in a different world to the one I do; I don't have much in common with him. My yacht's a very small one and [it's] moored off the coast of Scotland; his yacht's a rather bigger one." This, one presumes, is how applicants get blackballed from clubs. On policy, Darling is prepared to use heavier armoury. First, he has a general message: "This isn't a game. Had we done what the Tories suggested a year ago [and not pumped money into the economy], we'd have been in a recession and heading for worse. There would have been a million more people out of work." Then there are the specifics. The first week of the election campaign has been dominated by one issue: a rise in national insurance payments by both employers and workers scheduled to come in next year. Just over a week ago, Osborne announced that he would repeal £5.9bn of that rise. In the last few days, more than 60 company chief executives, along with a slew of business lobby groups, have expressed support for the Tories' plan, and described the NIC rises announced by Darling as a "tax on jobs". 'Businesses are benefiting by what we did. They can't have it all ways'What has been notable is the lack of any countervailing business support for Labour – despite the fact that economists at all the leading independent research institutes agree that the impact on jobs would be minimal. Where have Labour's corporate friends gone? "Say to any business, 'Would you like to pay less tax' – of course they would say yes," Darling responds. "But if you look at just about any company in the country, they are benefiting directly or indirectly by what we did. They can't have it all ways." Yet, not for the first time, he plainly disagrees with Gordon Brown and Peter Mandelson and their claims over the last few days that business leaders have been "deceived" by the Conservatives. For a start, Darling won't let the word deceived anywhere near his lips: "I've been careful in what I've said." But if Labour's response to the business criticism has been cack-handed, then that still leaves the mystery of why no one from the corporate world has come out in the government's defence – despite all that Darling has done in cutting taxes to boost the high street. "The majority of businesses will say [in private] we did the right thing by supporting the economy, but I'm grownup – I'm not expecting them to write lots of letters suggesting that." A chancellor from another, better era might have gone further, and argued that sharing the bill for bailing out the UK economy should be done as fairly as possible, rather than just by slashing spending on schools, universities and the rest of the public services. But when I offer Darling the chance to say exactly that, he is again less than enthusiastic. At this point, I am reminded of something a cabinet colleague of Darling's told me last year, as the umpteenth row over bankers' bonuses blew up. "I still don't understand why, even after the last couple of years, Alistair is so timid. When I hear him on the Today programme in the morning, sidestepping the issue of bonuses, I just want to shout at the radio." Yet if Darling is no radical, he relishes his hard-won reputation for competence. After repeated attempts by Brown and Balls, he is now unsackable as chancellor – and wants to stay at the job, however draining it is ("You're never off. You can't go away for the weekend"). If Labour is re-elected in May, he is emphatic about remaining chancellor. "I'd like to see the job through. It would be nice to get through to a situation where we've got growth and we can tackle the next problem." What would seeing it through mean? "There's a lot to be done, and I've always regarded the way in which you deal with these things as rather like painting the Forth Bridge. It's not a task you'd ever be able to say, 'Put down your paint brush, the job's done'." Which is about as emphatic as Darling gets. Chancellors' debate General election 2010: Labour steps up attack on Conservative savings plans Chancellor Alistair Darling warns of threat to economy by cutting spending during fragile recovery David Cameron: public sector chiefs will be forced to take pay cut Exclusive: Tory leader promises to link top earnings to those of lowest paid General election 2010 live blog: Friday 9 April Andrew Sparrow reports on the latest general election news and events, including David Cameron's interview on the Today programme Labour election campaign: behind the scenes with Gordon Brown Guardian photographer Martin Argles gets exclusive access to Labour's campaign David Cameron says to Guardian readers: drop your prejudices about the Tories and take a look at us Voters don't get David Cameron yet Julian Glover Conservatives face questions from City over tax plans Jeremy Paxman shunned by Gordon Brown and David Cameron

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/14045

Palestinian statehood goes to UN in key moment for peace process Mahmoud Abbas will postpone security council vote but has broken US hegemony over peace talks, diplomats say Palestinians fly a kite of their flag in Gaza to celebrate Mahmoud Abbas taking Palestinian statehood to the UN security council. Photograph: Majdi Fathi/Corbis Chris McGreal in New York and Harriet Sherwood in Jerusalem Last modified on Friday 23 September 2011 10.13 EDT Mahmoud Abbas submits his bid for recognition of Palestine as a state to the UN on Friday. The submission comes at the end of a week that has seen a dramatic diplomatic shift in the Palestinians' favour, even though the request, to the security council, is likely to fail. The Palestinian leader is expected to hand over a letter asking for Palestine to join the UN as a state shortly before he addresses the general assembly to plead the case for admission. The Israeli prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, is scheduled to speak shortly afterwards. He is likely to denounce the Palestinian move as destabilising and a threat to the peace process – even though that is largely dormant. A heavier than usual Israeli security presence will be deployed in the West Bank and East Jerusalem at the end of Friday prayers and around the time of Abbas's speech. Thousands of Palestinians are expected to gather before open-air screens in West Bank cities to watch their president's address, and the Israeli military is concerned that hardline settlers may try to provoke confrontations. "We have heightened the security alert to one level below the highest," Israeli police spokesman Micky Rosenfeld said. "Twenty-two thousand police officers have been mobilised, with emphasis on Judaea and Samaria [the West Bank] and East Jerusalem. We hope that any demonstrations will be peaceful." Expectation among Palestinians has risen over the past week as Abbas has stood firm in the face of strong US opposition to his bid for statehood. It is matched by fury in the West Bank at a speech by Barack Obama to the UN on Wednesday, which was seen by both Palestinians and Israelis as overtly sympathetic to the Jewish state. Abbas's determination to press ahead has prompted the most serious attempt to revive the peace process in years as Washington, London and Paris seek to avoid a showdown in the security council that could severely damage their standing in a rapidly changing Middle East. The US said it would veto statehood, while Britain and France were likely to abstain. The days of diplomatic wrangling – much behind the scenes but some on the open stage of the UN general assembly – have resulted in a compromise. Abbas will submit his application, but any vote will be put on hold to allow for fresh attempts to revive peace talks. While Abbas has climbed down from an immediate confrontation, some senior Palestinian officials and European diplomats believe he may have won a significant victory because the US grip on the oversight of the peace process – which has been decidedly in Israel's favour – has been weakened, and other countries now want to force the pace of peace negotiations. Washington's claim to dominate mediation has not only been damaged by its unwavering threat to veto a Palestinian state in the security council, setting up a confrontation that alarmed Britain and France, but also by Obama's speech, which offered no new initiatives. That has opened the way for Europe to press for a greater role. In a speech to the UN, the French president, Nicolas Sarkozy, questioned the US leadership, describing it as years of failure. Diana Buttu, a former Palestinian negotiator who has since been critical of Abbas's leadership, said his insistence on going to the security council had delivered a diplomatic victory of sorts. "Is this a coup for Abbas? Yes, absolutely," she said. "This is the first time since 1974 that Palestine has been able to capture international attention at the United Nations in this way. "He's managed to get people discussing whether Palestine should be recognised as a state, whether it should get its independence immediately, how we get there. It's been a brilliant move." A European diplomat said Abbas had changed the diplomatic equation, adding: "The ground has shifted. There's been no peace process to speak of for years. Obama has tried and failed to push Netanyahu in to taking negotiations seriously. There's a feeling that this crisis has created a moment to try a different way. "It's still negotiations. It's still up to the Israelis and Palestinians, who have to do the deal. But we are all aware that the Arab Spring is changing everything and, while the Americans are always going to play a major role, we may be moving towards a place where they are not the only ones in the game." Nevertheless, Abbas has been reminded of the blunt force of US power – power no other country is likely to be able to wield. The Palestinian leader privately retreated from his pledge to seek an immediate security council vote in part because he is no longer sure of winning the necessary majority, which would have given the Palestinians a moral victory even if, as threatened, the US used its veto. Palestinian sources say they believe Washington has bullied several security council members, including Portugal, into withdrawing their support for the Palestinian move by threatening to withhold support in financial institutions for its stricken economy, and Bosnia, over its opposition to Kosovo being admitted to the UN. Palestinian officials believe Nigeria is no longer certain to vote in their favour, while there are also questions about the position of Gabon and Colombia. One senior Palestinian official said the US was "playing a really nasty game". Abbas was also under pressure from European leaders keen to avoid abstaining in a security council vote on the issue. Abstention would be widely interpreted in the Arab world as implicit support for Israel, although the leaders recognise the need for Abbas to submit the statehood request in order to retain his political credibility at home. Britain urged the Palestinian leader to back away from a showdown, while Sarkozy met Abbas and pleaded with him to accept a delay in the vote in return for a promise that the French would work to revive peace talks. Sarkozy, in his UN speech, said the US leadership on the peace process had failed and pressed for greater involvement of European and Arab states in negotiations. "Let us stop believing that a single country or small group of countries can resolve so complex a problem," he said. "Too many crucial players have been sidelined. After so many failures, who still believes that the peace process can succeed without Europe? Who still believes that it can succeed without the involvement of the Arab states that have already chosen peace?" Sarkozy proposed negotiations that would adhere to a strict timetable intended to strike an agreement ending occupation and creating an independent Palestine within a year. The French president's position is in line with proposals put forward by Tony Blair as envoy of the Middle East Quartet of the UN, EU, US and Russia to allow Abbas to fulfil his pledge to go to the security council but defer a vote. Abbas could then claim a victory for the Palestinians by saying he has achieved his principal goal at the UN of breaking the stalemate around the peace process. Buttu said the challenge for Abbas now was to ensure that the momentum created this week continued in the Palestinians' favour. "I think the old negotiations process has completely run its tired course. You've got countries around the world recognising that you can't just have this process of endless negotiations with the so-called honest broker who's not so honest at all. This has put the final nail in the coffin of the United States being the honest broker," she said. "Now it's being seen for what it actually is, which is Israel's lawyer. The next step depends on what Abbas does. "Is he going to continue to pander to the Americans? Or is he really going to try to build up an international coalition that will deal with this in a very different way to how it's been dealt with in the past?" Sweden to recognise state of Palestine Move by minority centre-left government led by Stefan Löfven would make Sweden the first major European country to do so While the diplomats haggle, deadly tensions are mounting in the nascent Palestine The quest for Palestinian statehood at the UN has worsened a climate of fear on the ground in the West Bank Abbas defies US with formal call for Palestinian recognition by UN Palestinian leader appeals to conscience of world as Netanyahu rejects claim problem lies with Israel Mahmoud Abbas saluted in West Bank after Palestine statehood speech at UN Celebratory mood in Ramallah as thousands of Palestinians gather to hear their president's demand for state recognition Palestine: 'After 63 years' suffering – enough, enough,' says Abbas Palestinian man shot dead in clash with Israeli soldiers Israel to pay family compensation over killing of Palestinian girl

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/14046

Vladimir Putin sworn in as Russian president amid protests Dozens detained in Moscow as riot police break up protests against Putin taking oath to become president for third time Police in Moscow detain a man protesting against Putin's inauguration. The six-year term will keep Putin in power until 2018. Photograph: Maxim Shemetov/Reuters Monday 7 May 2012 05.47 EDT Last modified on Monday 7 May 2012 06.00 EDT Vladimir Putin has taken the oath of office for a third term as Russia's president, saying he considers "service to the fatherland and our nation to be the meaning of my life". Putin was president from 2000 to 2008 and then prime minister for the past four years. The new, six-year term will keep him in power until 2018 – with the option of running for a fourth term. Despite unprecedented security measures in the centre of Moscow, several thousand opposition activists tried to protest along the route Putin's motorcade took to the Kremlin and were met by helmeted riot police. Dozens of demonstrators have been detained. Putin's inauguration in a brief ceremony came a day after an opposition protest drew more than 20,000 people. This was smaller than the mass demonstrations in the months that preceded his March election but still a sign that the anger over his return to the Kremlin has not faded. Sunday's protest turned violent when demonstrators tried to march towards the Kremlin. Riot police beat back the crowds with batons and detained more than 400 people. The use of force after the winter's peaceful rallies indicate that Putin may take a harder line toward protesters now he is once again president. After taking the oath of office with his hand on a copy of Russia's constitution, Putin stated his commitment to democracy. "We want to live and we will live in a democratic country that will offer opportunities and freedom for everyone's life and labour," he said in a grand hall in the Kremlin before 3,000 invited guests. Putin praised Dmitry Medvedev, the ally he ushered into power when he faced a bar on a third straight term in 2008 and who is set to become prime minister in a job swap that has angered many Russians who are tired of the same leaders. "Today we have everything we need to move forward and create a dynamic and developing state: a stable economic and social basis, an active and responsible civil society," Putin said. "I see in this a great service on the part of Dmitry Anatolyevich Medvedev." Vladimir Putin inaugurated amid Russian discontent – video Vladimir Putin is sworn in for a six-year term as president of Russia in the Kremlin on Monday. Putin appeals for unity, and pledges to respect and protect the people Vladimir Putin's return to presidency preceded by violent protests in Moscow Anti-Putin protests in Moscow turn violent – in pictures

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/14047

Bibi Netanyahu Has Set a New Record for Chutzpah If you are not a Subscriber, Subscribe Now!Back to site Foreign Policy With his latest crass interference in US politics, he may have dug a deep hole for himself—and for America’s Israel lobby. By M.J. Rosenberg January 23, 2015 Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. (Reuters/Gali Tibbon) On Thursday, the Obama administration put out the word that neither President Obama, Vice President Joseph Biden nor Secretary of State John Kerry would meet with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu when he visits Washington in March. It is an unprecedented snub, provoked by Netanyahu’s far-from-unprecedented effort to thwart a key US policy in the Middle East: achievement of a nuclear deal with Iran. The story began just hours after Obama’s State of the Union speech. In outlining his foreign policy goals, Obama expressed the importance of reaching an agreement with Iran and said that he would oppose efforts by Congress to get in the way: There are no guarantees that negotiations will succeed…. But new sanctions passed by this Congress, at this moment in time, will all but guarantee that diplomacy fails…. That is why I will veto any new sanctions bill that threatens to undo this progress. The American people expect us to only go to war as a last resort, and I intend to stay true to that wisdom. This was not the first time that Obama had pledged to veto new Iran sanctions. But it was the first time he addressed that threat to a Congress in which both chambers are controlled by Republicans, a clear majority of whom oppose negotiations with Iran and who, combined with Democrats aligned with the Israel lobby, come close to constituting the two-thirds supermajority necessary to overturn a presidential veto. The veto threat was less directed at them than it was at those Democrats. Obama needs them to understand that he will not give them a pass on the issue merely because they are under pressure from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and the Israeli embassy. This was the same message he gave to senators earlier in January, before his State of the Union speech, when, according to The New York Times, he said that he understood the pressure from donors but that the senators should take a broader view. (The same Times report says that Senator Bob Menendez of New Jersey, leading Democratic sponsor of new sanctions, responded by telling Obama he took “personal offense” at the suggestion that his motives were anything but pure.) Less than twenty-four hours after Tuesday’s speech, the Republican Speaker of the House, John Boehner, issued a statement pledging to intensify the fight for new sanctions: “[Obama’s] exact message to us was: ‘Hold your fire.’ He expects us to stand idly by and do nothing while he cuts a bad deal with Iran. Two words: ‘Hell no!’” the House speaker said during his weekly press briefing on Wednesday. “We’re going to do no such thing.” Most Popular1Donald Trump Is Being Outplayed by Women—and He’s Losing His Mind Over It2Wisconsin Is Systematically Failing to Provide the Photo IDs Required to Vote in November3Can These Pornographers End ‘MILFs,’ ‘Teens,’ and ‘Thugs’?4Colin Kaepernick Has a Right to Hate Both Candidates5My Post-Debate Blues, or, How a Rude Egomaniac Has Effectively Channeled Working-Class Anger Instead, Boehner said he had invited Netanyahu to address Congress about “the grave threats radical Islam and Iran pose to our security and way of life.” In other words, Boehner would use Netanyahu to make the case for new sanctions, making it that much harder for Democrats to withstand pressure from the lobby and their donors. Netanyahu would be speaking in his capacity as a foreign leader, yes, but also in his capacity as the ultimate leader of the pro-Israel lobby. If that couldn’t achieve the two-thirds necessary to override a veto, nothing could. Initially, the White House responded somewhat tentatively, noting that the administration had not been informed of Netanyahu’s visit in advance. Nor had Israeli embassy officials mentioned Netanyahu’s upcoming visit to their administration counterparts, limiting their discussions to their Republican friends on Capitol Hill. In fact, it was worse than that. Haaretz quotes “a senior Israeli official with knowledge of the contacts”: [Israeli ambassador Ron] Dermer approached Boehner, McConnell and other senior Republican Party figures at Netanyahu’s behest and suggested the idea of the speech. “Dermer and Boehner cooked up this whole invitation to Congress,” the official said. Other Israeli observers said that, in addition to giving an assist to the Republicans, Netanyahu also thinks standing up to Obama will play well back home, aiding his effort to win another term as prime minister when the country goes to the polls just two weeks after his Washington tour. Few credit the lobby with being behind Netanyahu’s strategy. As one old Washington hand close to AIPAC told me, “This is not how AIPAC operates. They hate public confrontations almost as much as they hate confirming the idea that support for Israel these days is becoming a partisan Republican issue, which this whole Netanyahu/Boehner gang-up on Obama does. No, this is strictly Netanyahu and his aides like Ron Dermer, who are both ex-Americans and Republicans.” Not surprisingly, the administration’s anger intensified as the hours and days passed, and, perhaps directed by the president himself (who else would have the authority?), it began the effort to put Netanyahu in his place. The White House press secretary told reporters that Netanyahu had misbehaved, saying that “the typical protocol would suggest that the leader of a country would contact the leader of another country when he’s traveling there. That certainly is how President Obama’s trips are planned when we travel overseas.” The House Democratic leader, Nancy Pelosi, one of Israel’s strongest backers, said that the invitation to Netanyahu was “inappropriate” and that new congressional sanctions would “undermine” the US position. GET A DIGITAL SUBSCRIPTION FOR JUST $9.50! Subscribe Most significant of all, though, was the statement from former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who abandoned her customary caution on matters related to Israel to say that she stood with Obama and that new sanctions would be “a very serious strategic error…. Why would we want to be the catalyst for the collapse of negotiations before we really know whether there is something we can get out of them?” Clinton is, of course, the likely Democratic presidential nominee in 2016, meaning that she is sending a message that there is a good chance that Obama’s approach to Iran will continue after he leaves office. Netanyahu cannot just wait him out, unless he decides to just bank on the Republicans winning the White House, a bet that proved unsuccessful when Netanyahu all but formally endorsed Mitt Romney in 2012. Clinton’s statement is also significant because she has rarely broken with the lobby on anything. Her decision to do so, on the brink of a likely campaign for the presidency, indicates that she has seen the polls showing that the Democratic base is far less enamored of Israeli policies than it used to be, and certainly less than Republicans. Having lost the 2008 nomination largely because she was out of step with the party’s base on Middle East policy (the Iraq War), she seems to be taking care that it not happen again by being seen as marching in lockstep with Netanyahu. The ground may be shifting under Netanyahu’s feet, ironically because he himself has been digging at it. On Thursday night, Haaretz reported that the administration has finally had it with Netanyahu. “We thought we’ve seen everything,” a senior American official said. “But Bibi managed to surprise even us. There are things you simply don’t do. He spat in our face publicly and that’s no way to behave. Netanyahu ought to remember that President Obama has a year and a half left to his presidency, and that there will be a price.” It is unlikely that this response—the suggestion that there would be a price for Israeli actions—was what Netanyahu anticipated when he plotted with the Republicans to take down the American president in his own capital. And it is probably the last thing he needs as he prepares to face Israeli voters on March 17. But he has only himself to thank for it. In any case, a reappraisal of relations with the Israeli government is long overdue, for Israel’s sake as much as for ours. Facebook M.J. Rosenberg During a long career in Washington, M.J. Rosenberg worked as a Senate and House aide, at the State Department, at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, at Israel Policy Forum and at Media Matters For America. To submit a correction for our consideration, click here. The Russian Blitzkrieg on Aleppo Is a Direct Challenge to Washington By Patrick Lawrence Sep 29, 2016 The Russian Blitzkrieg on Aleppo Is a Direct Challenge to Washington By Patrick Lawrence Mar 09, 2016 Kiev Increasingly Resembles an American Colony By Stephen F. Cohen Jan 19, 2016 Iran Is Open For Business. What Does This Mean for the Global Economy? By Juan Cole “AN INDISPENSABLE VOICE IN OUR POLITICAL DIALOGUE.”

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/14050

Web, Lieberman and the Netroots If you are not a Subscriber, Subscribe Now!Back to site Internet and New Media As progressive bloggers seek the ouster of Joe Lieberman, they have recruited "Reagan Democrat" Jim Webb to challenge George Allen in Virginia. What does this say about netroots Democrats' emerging electoral strategy--if there is one? By Ari MelberTwitter July 25, 2006 As progressive bloggers focus on ousting Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman from office for his alleged disloyalty to Democrats, in Virginia, another candidate who embodied the Republican cause has infiltrated the Democratic Party. But ironically, the bloggers support this former Reagan official. Ad Policy Jim Webb, a Vietnam combat veteran who served as Secretary of the Navy under President Reagan, is not only the new darling of the national netroots in his challenge to Republican incumbent George Allen; he was recruited to run for office by Internet activists. Webb, an iconoclastic, progun, prochoice, antiwar, libertarian, economic populist from a rural military family, recently declared his membership in the Democratic Party. In a summer campaign season punctuated by talk of purges and ideological purity, online enthusiasm for Webb’s candidacy tells a different story about blog activism, raising fundamental questions about the netroots’ emerging electoral strategy. Do the drastically different receptions to Webb and Lieberman reveal that the netroots movement is incoherent–questioning a longtime Democrat’s party commitment while embracing a former Reagan official? Is it pragmatic–more accepting of red-state candidates who offer what conservative electorates want to hear? Is it fundamentally antiwar–fixated on showing Democratic candidates that the road to Washington leads through Baghdad? Or, like most voting blocs, is it simply selective–turning on Lieberman because of his particularly cloying support for Bush but still open to compelling mavericks like Webb? Understanding Webb enthusiasm starts with understanding his colorful life. After graduating from the US Naval Academy in 1968, he chose a commission in the Marine Corps and served in a rifle platoon in Vietnam, where he was highly decorated. Later he served as Secretary of the Navy, but he resigned in 1988 in protest over Congressionally mandated cuts in the force. The US military has shaped Webb’s worldview and anchored his career. Out of uniform, he was still close to combat, writing war novels and screenplays, working as the “first visiting writer” at the Naval Academy and covering the US Marines in Beirut for PBS, which earned him an Emmy Award. While Webb grew up a Democrat, the Vietnam era turned him into a Republican. Mackubin Thomas Owens, a Naval War College professor and Vietnam veteran who has known Webb for more than twenty years, told me that he, Webb and many other military folks became Republicans when the Democratic Party “turned on” veterans after Vietnam. Webb appears to agree with that analysis. In 2001 he complained that President Carter’s mass pardon of Americans charged with draft evasion was “insulting” to veterans and proved Carter was “manipulated by the army of antiwar McGovernites who had seized control of the Democratic Party.” Today Webb is the antiwar Democrat, trying to wrest centrists back from the Republican Party. Many believe he can do it. Owens warned his conservative friends in a National Review essay that Webb’s “sterling character” would appeal to Virginia Republicans. “Let us hope that Webb’s move from the Republican party to the Democrats does not adumbrate a major cultural shift,” he wrote in February. Most Popular1Donald Trump Is Being Outplayed by Women—and He’s Losing His Mind Over It2Wisconsin Is Systematically Failing to Provide the Photo IDs Required to Vote in November3Can These Pornographers End ‘MILFs,’ ‘Teens,’ and ‘Thugs’?4Colin Kaepernick Has a Right to Hate Both Candidates5My Post-Debate Blues, or, How a Rude Egomaniac Has Effectively Channeled Working-Class Anger Transforming the Race A major shift is exactly what Virginia’s top bloggers had in mind when they heard Webb was mulling the race. “Webb was potentially a transformative person for the Democratic Party,” said Lowell Feld, a former government employee and founder of RaisingKaine, one of the top political blogs in Virginia. After doing some research and meeting with Webb, Feld said he was convinced he had the right résumé, attitude and constellation of positions to win. Webb was a forceful opponent of the Iraq War before it began, presciently arguing in September 2002 that unless the United States wanted to “occupy Iraq for the next thirty years,” policymakers should recognize that no “absolutely vital national interest” was at stake to justify a “unilateral war” that could compromise the fight against international terrorism. Beyond foreign policy, Feld saw Webb as a “populist on economics and a social libertarian” with deep rural roots, enabling him to appeal to voters on the very themes Virginia Republicans exploit–“patriotism, national security and sociocultural” issues. But Webb was not convinced. So Feld, drawing on his volunteer work with the Draft Wesley Clark operation, created a “Draft James Webb” website in December to demonstrate the appetite for the potential candidate. Biography and viability ruled the site, which drew more than 1,000 petition signatures and $40,000 in pledges in a few months. Taking a cue from expertise in the local blogs, top national blogs like Daily Kos touted the new Democrat, and the online encouragement helped convince Webb–and many local political players–that he could win. After Webb entered the race, he shot up the list for total netroots donors through ActBlue.com (ranking fifth at this writing). The Webb campaign clearly appreciated Feld’s initiative and results–he was hired this month as netroots coordinator. Virginia Republicans counter that Webb’s relationship with the netroots is a liability. Allen Campaign spokesman Bill Bozin told me, “Liberal blogs like Daily Kos are in the same extreme category as MoveOn.org. They’re completely out of the American mainstream, and if Jim Webb wants to continue cozying up to the far left, our campaign welcomes it.” (The Allen campaign recently hired an e-campaign manager, Philip Guthrie, to lead its Internet outreach.) GET A DIGITAL SUBSCRIPTION FOR JUST $9.50! Subscribe Webb won last month’s primary against Harris Miller, a prominent Democratic lobbyist who had a head start, more money, rock-solid party credentials and endorsements from local officials and the Washington Post. Miller lobbed Lamont-like attacks about party loyalty to no avail, lecturing Webb in one debate, “When we were fighting in the trenches to defeat George Bush and George Allen in 2000, you weren’t just voting for them; you were endorsing them.” Virginia Democrats are betting that Webb’s Republican credentials are an asset in the general election. “Jim calls himself a Reagan Democrat,” explains his campaign spokesperson Kristian Denny Todd, “and for the very reasons that he has come home to the Democratic Party, he feels like there are hundreds of people in the same boat.” She argues that many Virginians are ready to bolt the GOP for its extremism on national security and taxes, if there is a centrist alternative. Webb’s supporters believe that unlike Lieberman, who is under siege for blindly following the GOP’s failed policies, principle compelled Webb to turn against Allen, the popular Republican incumbent and presidential aspirant. In a prepared statement last week, Denny Todd said Allen’s vote against homeland security funding “demonstrated his blind loyalty to George Bush” and made Virginians “less safe.” Litmus Tests? Webb and Lieberman are different in many ways, but it is their positions on the war that captivate people. Joe Eyer, the political director for Lieberman’s 2004 presidential campaign, says it “defies logic” for bloggers to tout a former Republican like Webb while savaging Lieberman’s Democratic credentials, and he believes the only explanation is the war. “[Bloggers say] they are bringing different perspectives to the table, but Webb proves there is a litmus test for their support,” he said. The punditocracy has also been castigated antiwar “litmus tests.” For example, the centrist Progressive Policy Institute’s Marshall Wittmann, a recovering Republican himself, recently derided top bloggers as “McGovernites with modems” who have “only one issue, the war.” Yet if netroots activists have a litmus test on the war, it is not rigorously applied. The netroots hold very favorable views of several incumbents and potential presidential candidates who either were for the war or still support it, according to a recent MyDD survey. Besides, antiwar candidates hold a view that is overwhelmingly supported not only on the left but across mainstream public opinion. A majority of Americans believe that it was a mistake to invade Iraq to find weapons of mass destruction and promote democracy and that the United States should end the occupation soon. That position may be politically potent, but popularity is not a litmus test. Many netroots activists emphasize that Webb’s special appeal is not because of any specific policy–even the war–but in the attitude and potential for victory he brings to the race. Waldo Jaquith, a 27-year-old Charlottesville techie who runs one of the oldest blogs in Virginia, says that primary voters were not trying to nominate their mirror image but a viable candidate who is still clearly more conservative than the base. “I recognize I’m farther left than the bulk of the voting public,” he told me. As the midterm elections unfold, bloggers have demonstrated they are much more inclined to take risks by testing unorthodox campaign strategies. The netroots tend to support rebels, first-timers, obscure insurgents and comeback kids more than the traditional party apparatus, and that is the bloggers’ competitive advantage. (They haven’t earned an audience by repeating DNC talking points, either.) One Democratic consultant, who has worked on several presidential campaigns, told me he thinks bloggers are “looking for causes to champion” that can rally their constituencies. “Those causes usually have more to do with opposition to the mainstream than with the individuals they choose to champion,” he argued, and now bloggers are trying to “demonstrate their clout” by unseating an incumbent or electing a candidate who might never have been selected by the party elders. The diverging paths of Jim Webb and Joe Lieberman suggest a netroots strategy that is driven as much by political pragmatism as ideological purity, where the Iraq War is critical but not paramount, and joining the party late is far more acceptable than leaving early. It also proves that if netroots Democrats care about one thing more than aggressive partisanship, it’s winning. Facebook Ari Melber Ari Melber is The Nation's Net movement correspondent, covering politics, law, public policy and new media, and a regular contributor to the magazine's blog. He received a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science from the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor and a J.D. from Cornell Law School, where he was an editor of the Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy. Contact Ari: on Facebook, on Twitter, and at amelber@hotmail.com. Melber is also an attorney, a columnist for Politico and a contributing editor at techPresident, a nonpartisan website covering technology’s impact on democracy. During the 2008 general election, he traveled with the Obama Campaign on special assignment for The Washington Independent. He previously served as a Legislative Aide in the US Senate and as a national staff member of the 2004 John Kerry Presidential Campaign. As a commentator on public affairs, Melber frequently speaks on national television and radio, including including appearances on NBC, CNBC, CNN, CNN Headline News, C-SPAN, MSNBC, Bloomberg News, FOX News, and NPR, on programs such as “The Today Show,” “American Morning,” “Washington Journal,” “Power Lunch,” "The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell," "The Joy Behar Show," “The Dylan Ratigan Show,” and “The Daily Rundown,” among others. Melber has also been a featured speaker at Harvard, Oxford, Yale, Columbia, NYU, The Center for American Progress and many other institutions. He has contributed chapters or essays to the books “America Now,” (St. Martins, 2009), “At Issue: Affirmative Action,” (Cengage, 2009), and “MoveOn’s 50 Ways to Love Your Country,” (Inner Ocean Publishing, 2004). His reporting has been cited by a wide range of news organizations, academic journals and nonfiction books, including the The Washington Post, The New York Times, ABC News, NBC News, CNN, FOX News, National Review Online, The New England Journal of Medicine and Boston University Law Review. He is a member of the American Constitution Society, he serves on the advisory board of the Roosevelt Institute and lives in Manhattan. Can These Pornographers End ‘MILFs,’ ‘Teens,’ and ‘Thugs’? By Natasha Lennard Yesterday 3:04 pm What Would Alexis de Tocqueville Have Made of the 2016 US Presidential Election? By Arthur Goldhammer Jul 26, 2006 Labor Pains of a Stillborn Foreign Policy By Robert Scheer Jul 21, 2006 Trump U. By Nicholas von Hoffman “AN INDISPENSABLE VOICE IN OUR POLITICAL DIALOGUE.”

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/14089

NEW YORK, Friday—On Sunday, February 22nd, Brotherhood Week begins, and it seems rather ironical that, just before this week is celebrated, some of the Southern Democrats refused to go to the Jefferson-Jackson Day dinner in Washington because the President has upheld the report of his Civil Rights Commission, on which both Northerners and Southerners were represented. I am willing to believe that some things must be done more slowly in certain places; but how people who have any concept of the world as a whole and the need for peace in that world can feel that a small area of one nation can govern the feelings of races towards each other, is beyond my understanding. By contrast, a group here in New York is making an interesting award at a luncheon on February 22nd. The presentation is to two ministers, Dr. Henry A. Atkinson, a Protestant, and Father George B. Ford, a Catholic, for their outstanding contribution to interfaith unity. The award is given by the Men's Club of Congregation B'Nai Jeshurun. Last year it was given to Charles Evans Hughes, Jr., who was chairman of the Mayor's Committee on Unity. In this case, it is barriers of religion which have been broken down to reach more nearly the ideal of brotherhood. In many ways, religious differences separate people as much as race barriers, so it is a great satisfaction to congratulate Dr. Atkinson and Father Ford on the honor which has come to them. Another effort at unity which deserves recognition is the work of the United States National Commission for UNESCO, which has just held its semiannual session in Washington. This group will be extremely useful in helping Europe and Asia to carry through whatever plans they make under the Marshall Plan, since UNESCO is helping with educational reconstruction and making studies on the role of the social sciences and the tensions conducive to war. These national committees are a great help in educating individual nations and it is to be hoped that, as the economic situation of various nations improves, the number of national committees such as this will spread, so that the work of UNESCO may become familiar to all the nations of the world. It is interesting to know that among the organizations carrying on educational work which has been approved, are such groups as our Junior Red Cross, the American Friends Service Committee, the General Federation of Women's Clubs, the Institute of International Education, the National Catholic Welfare Conference, and the National Education Association. E. R. (WORLD COPYRIGHT, 1948, BY UNITED FEATURE SYNDICATE, INC. REPRODUCTION IN WHOLE AND IN PART PROHIBITED.)

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/14136

The Sabry Guide Issandr Amrani Ursula Lindsey Ashraf Khalil Steve Negus Paul Mutter About/ColophonContactThe Sabry Guide Contributors/Issandr AmraniUrsula LindseyAshraf KhalilSteve NegusPaul Mutter Translation/ Iraq's elections Issandr El Amrani Here's a few notes on some recent stories that have come out about Iraq's elections following the recent confusion about whether they might take place in January as planned, later, not at all, or only in the half of the country that is not under the control of insurgents.Time reveals, probably for the first time but in a disappointingly short article, that it took a House democrat to scuttle a CIA plan to covertly provide funds to pro-US candidates in Iraq:U.S. officials tell TIME that the Bush team ran into trouble with another plan involving those elections — a secret "finding" written several months ago proposing a covert CIA operation to aid candidates favored by Washington. A source says the idea was to help such candidates — whose opponents might be receiving covert backing from other countries, like Iran — but not necessarily to go so far as to rig the elections. But lawmakers from both parties raised questions about the idea when it was sent to Capitol Hill. In particular, House minority leader Nancy Pelosi "came unglued" when she learned about what a source described as a plan for "the CIA to put an operation in place to affect the outcome of the elections." Pelosi had strong words with National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice in a phone call about the issue.Juan Cole has a good analysis of the situation, and I personally can't wait to see coverage of this in the Arab press. This kind of stuff confirms everything people in this part of the world believe already, and I only hope that armchair political scientists (or even the real ones) will stop pretending that this administration cares about democracy. The fact is, the same people who stridently called for war in the name of reforming the region now only want to go so far. The neo-cons aren't as ideologically committed to democracy as everyone things, which is kind of obvious if you believe the whole Leo Strauss legacy and their belief in enlightened elitism.I like the straight-forward by Condoleeza Rice's spokesman though:"I cannot in any way comment on classified matters, the existence or nonexistence of findings."All this being said, you can't deny that the money Iran is pumping into groups like SCIRI and into the elections is a problem. It might be something one could address through diplomacy, if that kind of thing was practiced anymore. Mind you it's not unusual in democracies for foreign countries to have influence over elections, it it?The cunning plan to counter this is to have an overt election financing scheme, which will be open to all parties:The Bush administration is exploring several steps aimed at containing Tehran's growing influence in Iraq, according to U.S. officials, who say a split between the Pentagon and the State Department has paralyzed the administration's ability to craft a long-term policy on Iran for three years.As one measure, the United States has earmarked $40 million to help Iraq's political parties mobilize -- and, subtly, to counter Iran's support for its allies in an emerging race to influence the outcome, U.S. officials said.With the election in Iraq four months away, the administration has grown increasingly alarmed about the resources Tehran is pouring into Iraq's already well-organized Shiite religious parties, which give them an edge over struggling moderate and nonsectarian parties, the officials said.Over the past year, Iran has provided tens of millions of dollars and other material support to a range of Iraqi parties, including the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, the Islamic Dawa Party and rebel cleric Moqtada Sadr's Mahdi Army, U.S. officials say. The U.S. funds will in theory be available to all Iraqi parties, although the U.S. goal is to bolster the prospects of secular groups -- on the premise that Iranian-backed parties are unlikely to turn to America for training or money, U.S. officials said.Of course no one's taken money from both the US and Iran before.Hold on a minute. There is a friend of Iran who's taken quite a lot of money from his friends in Washington. And he's back in the game: Ahmed Chalabi has been acquitted from the evidence against him, who were found by an Iraqi judge to be without merit:The judge, Zuhair al-Maliky, said in a telephone interview that he decided about a week and a half ago that "the evidence was not enough to bring the case to trial." If more evidence emerges, he said, the case will be reopened.The move appears to be a minor victory by Mr. Chalabi over the interim government led by Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, a longtime rival of Mr. Chalabi's. The government announced the counterfeiting charge against Mr. Chalabi in August, while he was on vacation at a summer home in Iran. At the time, it appeared to many that the charge was a move by Mr. Allawi to dissuade him from re-entering the country.But Mr. Chalabi did return to Iraq and proceeded to denounce the government, meeting with reporters to proclaim his innocence and vow to return to political life. He aligned himself with Shiite religious leaders here, recasting himself as a champion of Shiite rights.It was the latest twist in Mr. Chalabi's fortunes since he returned to Iraq in the spring of 2003 after decades in exile. Once favored by the Bush administration to be Iraq's first leader after Saddam Hussein's fall, he has spent the last few months fighting for his political future.Well he probably has his financing sorted out by now, as well as the advantage of not being seen as a US puppet like Allawi. Ahmed Chalabi may be one of the early twenty-first century's great political survivor, you have to hand it to him.Kevin Drum reminds us that there recently was an election in Iraq for four vice-chairmen of the Iraqi National Accord and that the candidates who were elected were, in order, a Shia fundamentalist, a communist, a member of interim prime minister Allawi's group, and a sunni fundamentalist. He asks if this is a taste of things to come. It's been little-reported and there are some good links to follow up, so read it.Even King Abdullah is getting lukewarm about elections (mind you, he's always felt that way about elections at home):“It seems impossible to me to organize indisputable elections in the chaos we see today," the king told French daily Le Figaro before meeting President Jacques Chirac in Paris."If the elections take place in the current disorder, the best-organized faction will be that of the extremists and the result will reflect that advantage."Trust the Tehran Times to be interested in the conference on the election planned in Egypt in mid-November. If things were going to happen as planned -- i.e. the elections held in January -- would there be a need for a conference? Why isn't the election-monitoring being planned right now with the OSCE or some other organization with election-monitoring experience? There might not be anything intrinsically wrong with postponing the election, but it would be nice that the planning is taking place with the help of organizations with a proven reputation at running elections.From my hotel room I just watched Thomas Melia, a Georgetown professor and "expert on democracy and governance" argue on BBC World that "commentators should be careful" and refer to the upcoming elections in Iraq as only "partially democratic." He's just returned from Baghdad where he conducted a survey on the issue, so I hope that what this means is explained further when it's published.I think I've said it before, but you really couldn't make this stuff up if you tried. Issandr El Amrani/ Iraq, US Issandr El Amrani is a Cairo-based writer and consultant. His reporting and commentary on the Middle East and North Africa has appeared in The Economist, London Review of Books, Financial Times, The National, The Guardian, Time and other publications. He also publishes one of the longest-running blog in the region, www.arabist.net. State Department blues The Arabist is published and edited by Issandr El Amrani, a writer and analyst based in Cairo, with contributions by friends. Baksheesh The Arabist is a labor of love. We don't make much from ads, so please contribute to keep us going. Blog FeedPodcasts entries feedDirect podcasts feed (M4A)Direct podcasts feed (MP3) Get Arabist via email Your email: We like The West in the Arab world, between ennui and ecstasy The Islamic State through the looking-glass about a year ago Morocco & its arts ENQUIRA LOCAL ROBOY

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/14153

YOU ARE HERE: LAT Home→Collections→Foreign RelationsN. Korea to allow nuclear inspectionA U.S. diplomat says that experts from three nations will begin visits to the Yongbyon facility next week.September 08, 2007|Maura Reynolds | Times Staff Writer SYDNEY, AUSTRALIA — North Korea will open its Yongbyon nuclear facility to U.S., Russian and Chinese nuclear experts next week as diplomatic efforts to shutter the North's nuclear program enter a new phase, U.S. diplomats announced Friday.The announcement by Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill, the chief U.S. negotiator on North Korea, capped a day of diplomacy that began with an awkward exchange between President Bush and South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun over relations between the two Koreas.Hill said the North Koreans, who shut down Yongbyon this year, suggested the site visits as part of the next stage of disabling the facility's reactors. The first visit is to take place from Tuesday until the following Saturday and is to include nuclear experts from the three other nuclear members of the six-party talks on the North Korean weapons program."Our plan is to get this done by Dec. 31. To do that, we need to have some nuclear experts get some eyes on, and we thought the sooner the better," Hill said.North Korea's nuclear advances, including its test last year of a nuclear device, have been the predominant obstacle in U.S.-North Korean relations. And when Bush linked the nuclear issue with prospects of a treaty officially ending the Korean War, Roh pressed him to clarify his position.Although hostilities ceased in 1953, a peace treaty has not been signed, and North Korea cites the fear of renewed conflict as a reason it has pursued nuclear weapons."It's up to [North Korean dictator] Kim Jong Il as to whether or not we're able to sign a peace treaty to end the Korean War," Bush said. "He's got to get rid of his weapons in a verifiable fashion. And we're making progress toward that goal. It's up to him."But Roh persisted. "If you could be a little bit clearer in your message. . . . ""I can't make it any more clear, Mr. President," Bush replied in a tone some perceived as testy. "We look forward to the day when we can end the Korean War. That will end -- will happen when Kim Jong Il verifiably gets rid of his weapons programs and his weapons."Afterward, aides suggested that there may have been a problem with the interpreter's translation and that Roh may not have understood what Bush said the first time.Others speculated that Roh may have been pushing for a more unequivocal statement.White House officials insisted that there was no sign of tension during the two leaders' private meeting. Incoming White House Press Secretary Dana Perino suggested that reporters were "trying to make a little bit too much of it.""The president made a clear statement of his support for ending the Korean War once and for all. And both leaders agreed on that," Perino said. "And there was no tension in the meeting. There was no tension after the meeting amongst staff or amongst the leaders."In other developments at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation gathering in Sydney, Bush invited members of the Assn. of Southeast Asian Nations, or ASEAN, to a summit in Texas in upcoming months. It would be to mark the 30th anniversary of U.S. ties with the group and would seek to compensate for Bush's cancellation of ceremonies originally scheduled this year for Singapore.Bush and Russian President Vladimir V. Putin also agreed that a U.S. military delegation would visit Russia's Gabala radar system in Azerbaijan this month.Putin has offered the United States access to Gabala if Washington gives up a plan to install missile-defense facilities in Eastern Europe. Bush has said he is willing to incorporate Gabala into his plans but has said he is not willing to halt the missile-defense plan.maura.reynolds@latimes.com MORE:Seizure Led to FloJo's DeathHis 104 scores make his caseRestaurant review: South Beverly GrillBrutal Murder by Teen-Age Girls Adds to Britons' ShockComaneci Confirms Suicide Attempt, Magazine SaysAdvertisement FROM THE ARCHIVESU.S. nuclear team returns to Seoul from North KoreaSeptember 16, 2007U.S. members of nuclear survey arriveSeptember 11, 2007MORE STORIES ABOUTForeign RelationsNorth KoreaNuclear Power PlantsCopyright 2016 Los Angeles TimesTerms of Service|Privacy Policy|Index by Date|Index by Keyword

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/14228

How that DRP is shaping up By Irene Jay Liu on January 29, 2009 at 6:46 PM Legislative leaders have said they’re planning to take action by next Thursday on a deficit reduction plan (DRP) to address the $1.7 billion deficit left in this year’s budget. For a state that doesn’t have a great track record for passing a budget on-time, let alone early, this seems to be a very ambitious goal. If they plan on letting a bill age so that it can be voted on by Thursday, a bill would need to be in by Monday. If not, then they’ll have to issue a “bill of necessity” to get it done by the end of the week. Both chambers are keeping a pretty tight lid on what the DRP will look like, but this is what we know so far, according to two Democratic legislators who have been briefed on the general strokes of the plan. Not surpisingly, the plan will pick off the low-hanging fruit – some of it simply a matter of moving numbers around from one fund to another – and save the hard stuff for the 2009-2010 budget. The plan will sweep/ raid pockets of money from all corners of the state budget, which the legislators say will get them around halfway to $1.7 billion. They’ll also draw from the additional $109 million from the Manhattan DA’s settlement with the British bank Lloyd’s TSB Bank. Beyond that, there’ll be the savings from transfers of member items funding, and some cuts, most likely to projects that were funded last year. This is consistent with portions of Paterson’s DRP proposal from December. What isn’t known, however, is the fate of Paterson’s proposed actions in the area of healthcare. In December, the governor proposed a savings of $429 million by making cuts or shifting costs through insurance assessments. It’s unlikely that much will happen, as the health care lobby is already suiting up for the big fight for the 2009-2010 budget, and it doesn’t make sense from a negotiating standpoint, to start the fight early, before the federal stimulus money is secured. Democrats may be pulling the DRP together, but they definitely aren’t keeping the Senate GOP in the loop – an interesting strategy, considering the 32-30 split in the Senate. “I hope that the Senate Democrats have 32 votes,” said a senior Senate GOP staffer, when asked about the lack of communication. “They’re going to need every one.” If the Senate GOP decides to sit this one out, as they did in November, Senate Democrats will need every vote to pass the bill, which isn’t guaranteed. Former Gang of Three member Ruben Diaz has said he’d oppose cuts to services in his community. But then again, he has said that he’s trying to be a good team player now for Senate Majority Leader Malcolm Smith. Irene Jay Liu Comments are closed.

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/14231

Should other Moreland co-chairs speak out? ‘That’s up to them,’ Cuomo says By Politics on the Hudson on July 30, 2014 at 1:28 PM Gov. Andrew Cuomo on Wednesday continued to face questions about his office’s role in a now-defunct investigation of public corruption. Cuomo was on Long Island announcing a post-Superstorm Sandy program to elevate houses in flood zones. Afterward, reporters peppered Cuomo with questions about the Moreland Commission, the anti-corruption panel he appointed last year and disbanded in March, and whether his office’s contact with the panel was appropriate. Specifically, Cuomo was asked whether he thinks two of the commission’s co-chairs should speak about publicly about their role. Neither Nassau County District Attorney Kathleen Rice or attorney Milton Williams have spoken out since The New York Times’ published a story last week that questioned whether the panel was improperly influenced by Cuomo’s office; a third co-chair, Onondaga County District Attorney William Fitzpatrick, issued a lengthy statement earlier this week that has served as the basis for Cuomo’s defense. “That’s up to them. I’m sure if they had a different opinion, you would have heard from them,” Cuomo said. “Because he was basically the spokesperson for the commission all through it. He was the senior co-chair.” Cuomo’s political foes have continued to hammer away at the governor and his changing position on the independence of the Moreland Commission, which he launched last year with a broad charge to investigate public corruption in New York. On the steps of the Capitol Tuesday, Republican gubernatorial candidate Rob Astorino—the Westchester County executive—questioned Cuomo’s role in the curtailing subpoenas to allies. (Astorino did this while holding a bottle a bleach. The Capitol needs “a little bleach and a little disinfectant,” he said.) But Cuomo stuck to his long-held strategy of ignoring Astorino, who is down considerably in public-opinion polls. “Yeah,” Cuomo said when asked about Astorino’s recent remarks. “That’s entertaining.” (AP photo/Gary Wiepert) The post Should other Moreland co-chairs speak out? ‘That’s up to them,’ Cuomo says appeared first on Politics on the Hudson. Politics on the Hudson Comments are closed.

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/14329

Iraq Vote: Al-Maliki Wins Big, But Secularists Encouraged Mark Kukis / Baghdad Thursday, Feb. 05, 2009 Ahmad Al-Rubaye / AFP / GettyBallots are sorted at a tally center in Baghdad on Feb. 5 Iraq's al-Maliki Faces Challenge Over Power GrabBehind al-Maliki's Tough Line Ayad Allawi answers with the practiced evasion of a seasoned politician when asked whether he'd like another shot at the job of Iraq's Prime Minister. "Definitely not in a sectarian regime," Allawi told TIME at the Baghdad headquarters of his political party, the Iraqi National Accord. "I respect religion. But religion needs to be de-politicized." Despite the gains made by Allawi's secular list in last weekend's provincial elections, the big winner at the polls was the Shi'ite-led alliance of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki — who remains the man to beat in the national election slated for next year. Allawi, a Shi'ite and former Baathist who was tapped by the U.S. occupation authority to be Iraq's first Prime Minister after the ouster of Saddam Hussein, has always billed himself as stridently secular. But when Iraqis were given the right to choose their leaders at the polls, Allawi lost out to the parties based on Shi'ite and Sunni identity. Since then, he and his party have been working to promote a more secular approach to Iraqi governance, and the preliminary returns released on Thursday for Iraq's provincial elections show they are making gains — at least relative to their marginalization in the two previous national elections. (See pictures of the return to normalcy on Iraq's streets.) Al-Maliki appears to have consolidated his power by trumping the Shi'ite rivals on whose support his government had long depended. Initial tallies show that candidates loyal to the Prime Minister won comfortably in 10 of the 14 participating provinces, including Baghdad. They failed to win, however, in the largely Shi'ite province of Karbala, in the mixed provinces of Diyala and Nineveh, and in largely Sunni Anbar, where unresolved allegations of election fraud among rival Sunni contenders have left the province fearing an outbreak of violence. Al-Maliki has used his tenure as Prime Minister to emerge as the preeminent political figure in Iraq, enjoying a groundswell of popularity following his government's largely successful efforts alongside U.S. forces to battle militias and insurgents throughout southern Iraq and Baghdad. Still, Allawi's party is pleased with its performance: Iraqi National Accord–backed candidates drew 13.9% of the votes to finish second in the northern Salahuddin province, while in Baghdad they won 8.6% of the initial returns — in fourth place, although with a share of the vote close to that of the lists that finished second and third. Iraq's provincial councils will elect regional governors and focus largely on local issues, but the election results were seen as an important bellwether of the national trend for next year's parliamentary election. And Allawi is hoping to grow his party's share of the vote. "We need to see a departure from sectarianism and the establishment of national institutions for this country, starting from the judiciary, and have, really, the rule of law prevail in Iraq," says Allawi, complaining of corruption and a Shi'ite sectarian bias in the al-Maliki government. But as much as Allawi may see signs of a renaissance in the results, which will be finalized in a couple of weeks, Prime Minister al-Maliki will feel he passed with flying colors in this first major test of his political prospects. — With reporting by Tariq Anmar / Baghdad

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/14357

WHEREAS, it has long been a national custom to commemorate November 11, the anniversary of the ending of World War I, by paying tribute to the heroes of that tragic struggle and by rededicating ourselves to the causes of peace; and WHEREAS, in the intervening years the United States has been involved in two other great military conflicts, which have added millions of veterans living and dead to the honor rolls of this Nation; and WHEREAS, the Congress passed a concurrent resolution on June 4, 1926, calling for the observance of November 11 with appropriate ceremonies, and later provided in an Act approved May 13, 1938, that the eleventh of November should be a legal holiday and should be known as Armistice Day; and WHEREAS, in order to expand the significance of that commemoration and in order that a grateful Nation might pay appropriate homage to the veterans of all its wars who have contributed so much to the preservation of this Nation, the Congress, by an Act approved June 1, 1954, changed the name of the holiday to Veterans Day. NOW, THEREFORE, I, J. CALEB BOGGS, Governor of the State of Delaware, do hereby call upon all of our citizens to observe Sunday, November 11, 1956, as On that day let us solemnly remember the sacrifices of all those who fought so valiantly, on the seas, in the air, and on foreign shores, to preserve our heritage of freedom, and let us reconsecrate ourselves to the task of promoting an enduring peace so that their efforts shall not have been in vain. In order to insure proper and widespread observance of this anniversary, the entire citizenry will wish to join hands in the common purpose of acknowledging the valiant service of living veterans under the theme, PEACE WITH HONOR. I am requesting all citizens of the State, all business enterprises, all veterans' organizations, state, city and county officials to assist that State Committee in every way possible toward celebrating November 11, 1956, in an appropriate manner. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I, J. Caleb Boggs, Governor of the State of Delaware, have hereunto set my hand and caused the Great Seal of the said State to be hereunto affixed at Dover this Twenty-fifth day of October in the year of Our Lord One thousand nine hundred and fifty-six and of the Independence of the United States of America, the one hundred and eighty-first. (GREAT SEAL) J. CALEB BOGGS, Governor JOHN N. McDOWELL, Secretary of State

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/14407

Search First Mosque for Women in Kabul"God Isn't Only There for Men"Over the past few decades, women in Islamic countries have rediscovered going to the mosque. These developments are now gradually being felt in Afghanistan. The first official mosque for women recently opened in Kabul. By Ratbil ShamelOver the past few decades, women in Islamic countries have become more self-assertive and have also rediscovered going to the mosque. These developments are now gradually being felt in Afghanistan. The first official mosque for women recently opened in Kabul. Ratbil Shamel reports For many Afghan women, attending the women's mosque is the first step towards emancipation ​​The imam calls the faithful to prayer and Muslims all over the world heed this call five times a day - even in Afghanistan. Just as in most other predominantly Islamic countries, the mosques of the Hindu Kush are almost exclusively attended by men. Things are now about to change – at the request of many women, especially those living in the capital Kabul. In addition, the State Ministry for Religious Affairs has given its expressed permission and support. God is not only there for men, argues the Afghan Women's Association. Women want to be more visible in public. The mosque as a house of God should no longer remain the exclusive domain of men. Following a request from the women's association, an existing mosque in the east of Kabul was renovated a few months ago and officially declared a "mosque for men and women." They weren't given the whole of the Imam Ali Mosque. Even so, the second floor of the building is now reserved for women. There is room for 150 persons. "The opening of the women's mosque has been a historic success for us. It is the first such mosque in the history of our country. And I am certain that we will witness the establishment of other such houses of God throughout the whole of Afghanistan," said Roh Afzah from the Ministry for Religious Affairs enthusiastically. Hardly any criticism raised Outside of Kabul, however, tradition still reigns. For the most part, traditional practices are respected more than state law – and, in effect, even more than religious prescripts. The majority simply ignore the fact that men and women have an equal right to pray in the mosque. Tradition restricts the role of women to the domestic sphere. Public space is set aside for men. What is possible in Kabul isn't necessarily applicable to other areas of Afghanistan. Nevertheless, many Afghan women's associations have been campaigning for the establishment of women's mosques outside of Kabul. They argue that in the long term, equal treatment in religious matters will also strengthen the role women play in society. This is why they are not only promoting the setting up of further women's mosques, but also for mullahs to preach there. "We want mullahs who will inform women on their religious rights!" demanded one woman from Kabul. So far, the Imam Ali Mosque is an experiment with as yet unforeseeable consequences. There has been no opposition to the "women's mosque" in Kabul. Surprisingly, conservative religious and fundamentalist circles have as yet remained reserved in their criticism. Despite this, opposition is expected. Discussion on issues of faith The supporters of women's mosques no longer want conservative groups stipulating how they should practice their faith. They also demand the right to have a say in religious matters. They aren't the only ones making such a demand. For months now, women Islamic scholars have been discussing matters of faith with their male counterparts on private Afghan television and have provided alternative interpretations to religious sources. The opening of the women's mosque is for many Afghan women a small step towards equal treatment – even when the number of women attending the Imam Ali Mosque remains comparatively quite small. One male frequenter of the mosque, however, hopes that this will gradually change. "Women are still being forced to do a lot of work at home. Many just can't find the time to attend the mosque. Yet, I think this will change. When women somehow manage to find more time, they too will come here more often." Ratbil Shamel © DEUTSCHE WELLE/DW-WORLD.DE/Qantara.de 2006 Translation from German: John Bergeron Amnesty Report Afghanistan Women's Rights only on Paper The situation of women in Afghanistan is still appalling, claims the latest report from Amnesty International. Equality, as envisioned in the Afghan constitution, is still decades away. But small advances have been made. Petra Tabeling reports The Afghan Magazine "Malalai" The Voice of Afghan Women Jamila Mujahed is editor of the only women's magazine in Afghanistan. For her work on the magazine "Malalai," which she founded to promote women's rights, she has been awarded the Johann Philipp Palm Prize. Petra Tabeling reports. The Voice of the Afghan Woman Gradually Breaking out of Isolation Since the Taliban regime was toppled in Afghanistan, women have been able to play a greater role in society again. A radio station for women recently hit the airwaves. Ratbil Shamel reports Share: Print: Print articlePermalink: http://en.qantara.de/node/989

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/14433

Benming Zhang ’16 announces bid for Williamsburg City Council Written by Amanda Williams | Benming Zhang '16 talked to Sam Glover '16 at his candidacy launch event held at Andrews Hall Sunday. AMANDA WILLIAMS / THE FLAT HAT Benming Zhang ’16, who announced his candidacy Sunday night for the upcoming Williamsburg City Council elections, has obtained 215 signatures from registered voters in the city as of Monday night out of the necessary 125 due by March 1. While Zhang would not be the first student to gain a spot on the council, he would be the first with experience in Williamsburg politics. With three seats open, Zhang is running against four others so far, including Associate Director of the Thomas Jefferson Program in Public Policy at the College of William and Mary and Williamsburg Planning Commission member Elaine McBeth. Zhang is expected to graduate in May with a degree in public policy. Originally from New York, he came to the College in 2012 and has lived off campus since March 2013. According to Zhang, his experience as both a resident and a student, as well as his prior work in Williamsburg politics, make him qualified to serve. “I was just a regular William and Mary student,” Foster said in an email.“I knocked on nearly every door in the City, listening to their concerns and asking for their vote.” Scott Foster ’10 J.D. ’14 was the first College of William and Mary student ever to be elected to the city council, and was elected by a landslide. Zhang’s campaign is following a similar playbook, with face-to-face interaction at its center. When Foster ran, he said he had a primarily student-run campaign and was not involved in Williamsburg politics before the election. He emerged as the front-runner in 2010 with nearly double the amount of votes as the next candidate. “I was just a regular William and Mary student,” Foster said in an email.“I knocked on nearly every door in the City, listening to their concerns and asking for their vote. Once people met me, even if they didn’t vote for me, they at least felt comfortable that I wasn’t here to support radical change.” “We should be able to guide policy direction with the city and kind of mold the city in a way that we want to see fit,” Zhang said. “Not every idea is going to be accepted but … in my opinion we’re not even trying to push for greater student input.” Unlike Foster, Zhang is not new to Williamsburg politics. He has served on the city’s Public Housing Advisory Committee since his freshman year and is eligible for reappointment in September 2016. He said he recognizes that having the label of student will make it difficult when reaching out to the Williamsburg community because of the reputation students have as loud partiers. He said the challenge is getting the Williamsburg population to take him seriously. Student input on city policies is his primary issue, according to Zhang. Similarly, Foster said improving communication between the city and the College was a focus in his campaign and something that has been a success since he was elected. For Zhang, that communication is still a goal. Zhang said he would be serving as a more official avenue for student ideas in local government. Skip Estes ’17, a recruiter for Zhang’s campaign, said that Zhang would help improve the relationship between students and the Williamsburg community. “Williamsburg has a lot of laws in the books that are kind of almost targeting students in a way,” Estes said. “By having a student like Benny on the city council, he can hopefully reevaluate the relationship that regular citizens of Williamsburg has with the students and instead of it being ‘us and them,’ it can be more cooperative.” Although not involved in the campaign, Sam Glover ’16, who attended Zhang’s official announcement for his candidacy, said he supports Zhang because of his continual support for, and investment in, local politics. The two worked together on The StudentImpact, a student run political action committee that has worked to integrate students into the local political community and encouraged voter registration. Zhang is also a student blogger for the College and worked as an editor at The Flat Hat early in his college career before being dismissed from his position. According to 2014 U.S. Census data, the City of Williamsburg had 14,691 residents, while the College currently boasts 8,437 total students. Assuming those numbers are still representative of the population, College students account for just over 57 percent of the city’s population. Although students could sway the vote, a problem candidates run into is that most students are not registered in Williamsburg, but instead register in their hometown. Zhang said that students need to realize that their vote can make a difference in Williamsburg because of the large student population. According to Foster’s campaign, 67 percent of his votes were from students at the College. The election is May 3, the second day of final exams for the spring semester. Amanda Williams Senior Staff Writer Amanda Williams '16 is an economics major from Denver, Colorado. She has previously been Chief Staff Writer, News Editor and Chief Copy Editor.

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/14449

HomeThe Road Ahead OpinionThe Road Ahead Nathan J. BrownApril 30, 2012 One year ago, I sat in the Nablus living room of the late Shaykh Hamid al-Bitawi, a leading religious figure in Hamas. We were joined by one of his sons, a man in his 20s. As an academic specializing in Islamist political movements, I was interested primarily in how (or if) Hamas was operating in the West Bank. But the conversation turned quite naturally toward al-Bitawi’s views on a settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The solution was simple, he genially explained, since an Islamic state in all of Palestine would naturally provide for the rights of all inhabitants. His combination of excessive politeness with an extremely pugnacious position prompted his (even more polite) son to pipe in: “What my father says is absolutely correct from a religious point of view. But from a political point of view, Hamas accepts a Palestinian state on the 1967 borders.” After he spoke, father and son looked at each other, smiled and nodded. I was used to hearing confusing signals and even contradictory positions from different Hamas figures. But what I found utterly baffling was that the two seemed to think they were agreeing with each other. Some months later, I recounted the story to another of Shaykh al-Bitawi’s sons. He laughed and said that all of the family’s conversations were like that. What are we to make of a movement that simultaneously prides itself on its fixed principles and on its practicality? For all its bloody-minded rejection of compromise on its core beliefs, those beliefs also contain considerable ambiguity. And in ironing out its differences, Hamas is not only involved in family discussions; it is enmeshed in hard politics, governance of Gaza and political violence. And these necessitate difficult choices. Does Larry Cohler-Esses’s interview with Mousa Abu Marzook (which appeared in the April 27 issue) help us understand how Hamas will make its choices in the future? There are some familiar elements in what Abu Marzook says, like the distancing from the movement’s charter (a document that activists rarely cite, even in internal propaganda, even as they decline to modify it). There are a surprising number of details on Hamas’s confusing signals about an Israeli-Palestinian accord — not all of them encouraging by any means to those who would hope to bring Hamas into negotiations of some sort. And there are unsurprising silences on matters of internal organization and finance. But two elements of the interview stand out for what they indicate about the future. First, Abu Marzook devoted an extraordinary amount of time to an interview with an American Jewish newspaper, apparently in the belief that he had something important to say to it. Second, he had never heard anyone claim that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a forgery. Taken together, these elements suggest that the integration of Hamas as a diplomatic and political actor is neither inevitable nor impossible — but also that if the movement ever decides to embark on such a path, it is likely to be a torturous and difficult one for all concerned. Nathan J. Brown is professor of political science and international affairs at George Washington University and the author of the recent “When Victory Is Not an Option: Islamist Movements in Arab Politics” (Cornell University Press). The views and opinions expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect those of the Forward. mousa abu marzook nathan brown

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/14505

With Election Over, Washington Moves On To 'Fiscal Cliff' By editor Originally published on November 12, 2012 1:36 am Transcript RENEE MONTAGNE, HOST: It's MORNING EDITION from NPR News. I'm Renee Montagne. With the election settled, Washington, Wall Street and much of the rest world, it seems, are focused on whether Congress and a reelected president can avoid the fiscal cliff. To tell us what's at stake, we turn now to David Wessel. He's the economics editor of The Wall Street Journal and author of "Red Ink," a new primer on the federal budget and the deficit. And, David, you know the noise about the fiscal cliff began the day of the election and it's getting louder and louder. It's not going to stop. Remind us though once more what the fiscal cliff is. DAVID WESSEL: Well, unless Congress and President Obama agree to something different, the law - a law that Congress passed and the president signed - requires that spending be cut of across the board, indiscriminately, in all sorts of deficit and domestic programs, and that income and payroll taxes go up for nearly everyone who pays them. Altogether, the government would withdraw from the economy about $450 billion in the current fiscal year. Now, that would mean turning off the lights and sending all of the government workers home or anything. But the Congressional Budget Office, which keeps track of these things, says that the spending cuts are so deep, the tax increases so sharp, that they'd probably push the U.S. back into recession in the beginning of 2013. MONTAGNE: So obviously going over the fiscal cliff is something the president and Congress would want to avoid, right? WESSEL: Yes, I mean nearly all the people in Congress, the leadership, and certainly the president, say they want to avoid going over the fiscal cliff. There are a few who seem to me to be posturing to strengthen their hand at the bargaining position - at the bargaining table by acting tough. The big gap at the moment is this, President Obama and his allies in Congress say we won the election; we campaigned on raising tax rates for people over $250,000 a year, and so that has to be part of any agreement. The president wants to extend the Bush tax cuts for everyone else, but let taxes go up for the top two percent. And Republicans like Mitch McConnell, the Republican leader in the Senate, and John Boehner, the Republican leader in the House, are saying, well, that's very nice but we're still here and we count, and we're still against raising those tax rates - especially, they often say, for small businesses. MONTAGNE: Well, everyone sounded very conciliatory, I mean, in the hours after the election results came in. Now it sounds like we're right back where we were before the election. WESSEL: No, I don't think we are there yet. Both President Obama and House Speaker John Boehner are being conciliatory. I think they want to be sure that everyone thinks of them as being the reasonable party, going into what's likely to be several weeks of negotiations. If the talks fail, if we go over the cliff, the president wants to say I did everything I could. And the Republicans in Congress want to say the same thing. Neither of them wants to make the concessions in public, though, before the talks actually start. But Republicans are - at least some of the important ones - do seem to be saying we understand that taxes are going to go up, and probably go up on rich people. But we'd like to do it by closing loopholes, getting rid of tax deductions and credits and exclusions, rather than actually raising the explicit tax rate. But basically we are in the warm-ups here. The game hasn't really begun. MONTAGNE: Alright, so then what happens next? WESSEL: Well, last year the president has these secret talks with John Boehner which failed to reduce the deficit compromise, and ended with a lot of finger-pointing and a lot of hard feelings from congressional leaders of both parties who hadn't been involved. So this year's drama involves all the same players, despite the election, and each player is trying to avoid making the exact same mistakes they made last year. Mr. Boehner, reportedly, is explaining the political realities to his caucus, reminding them, in case they hadn't noticed, that Barack Obama was reelected, Mitt Romney didn't win. And in contrast to last year's very hush-hush talks, Mr. Obama has gone public with what his basic headline is, as he did in his radio address over the weekend. PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: If we're serious about reducing the deficit we have the combine spending cuts with revenue. And that means asking the wealthiest Americans to pay a little more in taxes. WESSEL: So you're going to hear that, over and over again, from the president. This week, he's meeting with labor leaders and chief executives of big companies. He's holding a press conference on Wednesday. And he's invited the bipartisan congressional leadership to meet with him at the White House on Friday, before the president goes off for a few days in Thailand, Cambodia and Burma on a trip. Meanwhile, all the outside groups are stepping up their public pressure. Some on the left are agitating to avoid the grand bargain because they don't want cuts in benefits. Some on the right are agitating to avoid a grand bargain because they don't want increase in taxes. And others, including some big company CEOs are kind of beginning to shout to the Congress and the President, my gosh, we can't go over the cliff. This is the time to fix the deficit. They're going to be running ads and you're going to be hearing a lot from them, as well. MONTAGNE: David, can you tell us in a few seconds what the chances are of this actually working? WESSEL: Well, the betting on Wall Street is pretty simple. Sixty percent chance that they get a deal and don't go over the cliff, but don't fix the deficit. Twenty percent chance that they go over the cliff, and 20 percent chance for this big, big grand bargain that avoids the cliff and actually makes a dent in the deficit. MONTAGNE: David, pleasure talking to you again. WESSEL: You're welcome. MONTAGNE: David Wessel, economics editor of The Wall Street Journal. Transcript provided by NPR, Copyright National Public Radio.Related Program: Morning Edition on HPPRView the discussion thread. © 2016 HPPR

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/14516

Putin's approval rating falls to lowest since 2005 Thu Mar 24, 2011 | 7:30pm IST Russia's Prime Minister Vladimir Putin speaks on a news conference during his visit in Brdo March 22, 2011. REUTERS/Srdjan Zivulovic By Maria Tsvetkova | MOSCOW MOSCOW Prime Minister Vladimir Putin's approval rating fell in March to the lowest level since mid 2005 on perceptions of economic stagnation a year before Russia's presidential vote, the Levada-Center pollster said on Thursday. Putin remains Russia's most popular politician but his rating fell to 69 percent from 73 percent in February while President Dmitry Medvedev's rating fell to 66, the lowest since he took office in 2008, from 69 percent. The declines in approval are likely to perturb the Kremlin's political managers ahead of the March 2012 presidential election. Putin and Medvedev have said they will decide later this year on which of them will stand in the election. Levada-Center's deputy director, Alexei Grazhdankin, said the poll ratings were falling on perceptions that vast revenues from high oil prices were not reaching the population and that Russia's leadership lacked ambitious economic aims. "The state's revenue from high oil prices is growing, but this does not reach the population," Grazhdankin told Reuters. "Putin promised in his time to double GDP but now there are no aims at all. We have come out of the crisis but there is no feeling that life is improving," he said. Russia's economy returned to growth last year after the economic crisis tested public confidence in Putin's boasts that he brought economic stability to Russia. FALLING RATINGS Putin and Medvedev are by far the most popular politicians in Russia and their ratings remain high by Western European standards, but such sharp falls ahead of the elections may worry the Kremlin, given the unrest across in the Arab world. "It is the lowest level since mid-2005" for Putin, Grazhdankin said, adding that Putin's popularity fell in mid-2005 because of an initiative to cut social spending. "Medvedev's rating has never been so low." As president from 2000 to 2008, Putin crafted a tightly controlled political system which gives the authorities vast resources to influence public opinion, and the ruling party beat out its rivals in 12 regional votes this month. Neither Medvedev, 45, nor Putin, 58, have said whether they will run in the presidential election, though both men are honing their images, promising to increase wages and fight price rises. Polls show price rises are by far Russians' biggest worry, concerning nearly two-thirds of the population, though high oil prices and spending increases ahead of the election are complicating the attempts to fight inflation. The Levada poll showed on Thursday that 42 percent of Russians believed the country was going in the wrong direction, 40 percent believed it was going in the right direction and 18 percent could not say. It also showed the ruling party's rating fell in March. Levada, Russia's leading independent pollster, asked the opinions of 1,600 people in 45 different regions on March 18-22. The margin of error was no bigger than 3.4 percent. (Writing by Guy Faulconbridge and Alexei Anishchuk, editing by Steve Gutterman)

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/14529

Home zzz-Archive From the archives Fred Risser: Forever Fred Fred Risser: Forever Fred After four decades in the Legislature, has state Sen. Risser outlasted his usefulness? by Melanie Conklin April 7, 2011 This article originally appeared in Isthmus on Aug. 30, 1996. "Look kids, it's Sen. Fred Risser, himself, in person," exclaims one woman as she answers the door in her Westmoreland neighborhood, where Risser is campaigning door to door. "We know who you are," says a smiling elderly man at another door as Risser begins to introduce himself. "We've been voting for you for years." After 40 years in the state Legislature, Fred Risser is well-known in Madison. The state senator from Dist. 26 has hit most of these doors before -- many in recent years, because he's had a Democratic primary opponent in three of the last four election cycles. Now, in a race that has no Republican contender, he's facing challenger Stuart Levitan in the Sept. 10 primary election. Risser sees the primary contests as the mark of a healthy democracy and as a chance to talk about what he's accomplished. But Levitan, who has worked in city and county government for 18 years (including a three-term stint as county supervisor), says there's a reason that Risser has had so many challengers from within his own party: He isn't doing enough for urban areas, especially Madison. That's the same reason cited by Mayor Paul Soglin and a bevy of city and county officials who are backing Levitan. And many of Risser's constituents are taking notice. "I've always voted for you in the past," a woman in her mid-30s tells Risser when he knocks on her door. "But this time I'm waiting to hear and read more of the debate before I make up my mind." Such ambivalence must be distressing to Risser. Since it's a primary election without much else on the ballot, turnout will likely be low, and anything can happen. Still, given Risser's high name recognition and his legacy of respect, Levitan must provide voters with a compelling reason not to vote for Risser again. Realizing this, Levitan has recently been upping the ante in a series of joint appearances, hitting the theme that Risser hasn't been doing enough and is running out of new ideas necessary to lead Dist. 26 until the year 2001. "Seniority is not leadership," asserts Levitan. "Leadership is having a vision of what you need to do. Fred has a philosophy. It's a good philosophy, but a philosophy is not a program or an agenda. After 40 years in office the name Risser should be the second word out of your mouth after the name Bob La Follette. He should be a figure of towering influence. He's been in office since Dwight Eisenhower was president." Levitan's slogan for the race is: It's time to pass the torch. Risser's Democratic colleagues in the Senate, who reappointed him Senate president when they retook the majority in June, have all gone on record supporting his reelection. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Chvala says it's hard to make a case for dumping Risser when there's no big issue Levitan can point to where Risser has voted "wrong." "Fred Risser has been a great progressive senator," says Chvala. "If it's not broke, don't fix it. There's got to be a compelling reason to make a change." Is there? Or does Fred Risser deserve another four years? Born to run Growing up in Madison as the son of a district attorney who went on to the Legislature, Risser did many of the same things as a kid that he does today at age 69. In those days he and his dad, also named Fred Risser, would hit the church meetings, chicken dinners, fairs and raffles and stick up posters on trees. In fact, Risser's political lineage goes back four generations. His great-grandfather, after losing an arm in the Civil War, served in both the Assembly and Senate. His grandfather, Ernest Warner, the namesake of Warner Park, was a La Follette Republican, and his father was the last official elected from the Progressive Party before it disbanded in 1944. "Around the family supper table, we talked about politics and issues of the day," recalls Risser. "I don't ever remember talking about a TV or radio show. Some people are raised with a silver spoon in their mouths; I was raised with a political spoon in my mouth." Still, Risser has done a few things outside politics. Before joining his father's law practice, he served in the Navy, worked in a logging camp and was a carny with West Coast Shows, doing everything from running the duck wheel to guessing people's weight. He used to spend his free time hitchhiking around the country. In the *40s, Reader's Digest published an article he wrote about a hitchhiking adventure. After marrying a second time (his first wife died after 21 years together), Risser has moved back to his family's homestead near Indian Hills on the far west side. (It's on Risser Road, named after his grandfather.) He has three adopted children, all living nearby, and three grandchildren. His wife of 11 years, Nancy Risser, teaches Spanish at West High, where Fred Risser attended high school. Risser still loves traveling, especially if it involves bike trips or hiking. Nancy Risser tells a story of when they biked 33 miles together on the Elroy-Sparta trail on a hot July day. She, 14 years his junior, got there ready to collapse and have a leisurely lunch. After a few minutes he said, "Get back on your bike. We've got to turn around and go back now or your muscles will freeze up." That, she says, is "quintessential Fred." Given Risser's energy, it would be hard to make age an issue in this campaign, and Levitan, 43, isn't doing so. Going door-to-door, Risser sets a lively pace; nearly every day at lunch, he bikes around Lake Monona. "I've been blessed with good genes and tremendous health," says Risser. But at 69 why not enjoy some free time? Why keep running? "Some people say, 'Why don't you retire? After all, you could travel all the time.' But I love what I'm doing," says Risser, gesturing with enthusiasm. "I thrive on frustrations -- and the legislative process is full of them. It keeps the adrenaline going and keeps me young and active. In mental and physical years I'm younger than many of my colleagues." The record backs Risser's claim that he is still an active senator. In the last session, his name was first or second on 54 bills, compared to 35 for Sen. Joe Wineke and 25 for Chvala, according to the Senate's Bulletin of Proceedings. In the *93-94 session, his tally was 63. These numbers are similar to what Risser had in the late *60s and early *70s. "In the major debates of this last session on juvenile justice, welfare, guns and the death penalty, he's there," says Wineke. "Sometimes I'd even argue he talks too long. And he's always introducing amendments." Chvala agrees, labeling Risser "the Energizer Bunny." But Risser's greatest asset, say his backers, is that he's a solid progressive in a solidly progressive district. Recently, he was one of just five senators to vote against W-2 welfare reform, while many Democrats sided with Republicans to demolish the state's safety net. Currently, Risser says he's drafting bills to reverse such "terrible" Republican actions as dismantling the public intervenor's office, politicizing the Department of Natural Resources and imposing a 24-hour waiting period on abortions. His philosophy has earned him widespread support. Early on in the campaign he published a full-page newspaper ad listing 2,700 supporters. He had to take a few off the list that had died, but he's now up to 5,000 and may run another ad. What's more, with Risser, what you vote for is what you get. "I'm not running for governor or Congress," he says. "Some people are in the business for economic reasons. That's not my reason. Quite honestly I have had an active law practice in my career. I'm only in it to be a representative of this community." Risser is also a landlord, managing eight buildings himself. His six Madison properties, including his home, are worth more than $1 million. And his Statement of Economic Interests filed with the state Ethics Board lists 50 stocks, securities and bonds, 14 of them worth "more than $50,000." Despite his personal wealth, Risser says he remains true to his progressive roots: "I believe that those of us who are fortunate must be willing to help those who aren't. I may have been born with good genes and good health, but I have empathy for those who weren't. Like all the politicians in my family, I consider myself to have a strong social conscience. I'm in politics because I believe I have an obligation to help out." Freddy come lately? Stuart Levitan stresses that this is a race about vision, not political philosophy. In fact, he compliments Risser's voting record and says he would cast almost identical votes. But Levitan faults Risser for jumping on bandwagons that are already rolling, rather than leading the pack. For instance, Levitan has laid out a "new urban agenda" focusing on land use, housing and transportation policies that strengthen traditional neighborhoods and mass transit. He cites his experience as vice chair of the Madison Plan Commission, chair of the Madison Development Corporation and chair of the Starter Home Task Force. He sees the Senate seat as the culmination of his work on these urban issues. Past Risser brochures don't mention land use, and he didn't bring it up in his announcement. But Risser does mention land use in his current brochure, prompting Levitan to claim that he, not Risser, is setting the campaign agenda. Risser says he's championed related issues throughout his career. For example, he created the state van-pool program, urged the state to take over abandoned rail lines for bike trails, and authored a resolution to keep state office buildings downtown. "I think there's no one in the Senate that has paid more attention to land use than I have," says Risser, who will be overseeing a Legislative Council study to review the state land-use report authored by Revenue Secretary Mark Bugher. Risser says he didn't act sooner because the issue is just now heating up. And he's participated in such current efforts as the county's Vision 2020 planning effort. "I've put my dots on the maps just like everyone else," says Risser. "This is something that has just come into being in the last few years. Land use is just now ripe. I don't think I'm a Johnny-come-lately at all." Levitan also cites Risser's 1993 vote, sans any public hearings or debate, to move the statue of Ms. Forward inside. It didn't happen, but a later action to move it from its former perch on the Square to make way for a police memorial stirred citizen protests. Then Risser led a charge to have her recast and put in a new location outside, saying in a newsletter that he was outraged by the lack of public input. But the sharpest attacks on Risser are over the issue of what he has or hasn't done lately to help the city of Madison. Asserts veteran Ald. Sue Bauman, a Levitan supporter, "Fred has been unresponsive to the city." Bauman recalls a meeting she and another alderperson had with Risser in 1990 about the possibility of placing a bus hub on the Hill Farm State Office Building lot. "At the time, he was president of the Senate and on the Building Commission and he said he'd call and let me know what could be done," says Bauman. "He still hasn't gotten back to me." The bus hub plan has since been dropped, but Bauman sees the incident as typical Risser. "He gets involved at the last hour when things have gone awry," she says. "Where is he on being proactive or doing things to avoid situations? Why isn't he there from the get-go?" Another example cited by city officials is funding for Madison Metro in the last state transportation budget. Bauman says Risser waited until the last minute to help restore a funding cut that would have "decimated" the city's bus service -- and by then Metro had been forced to postpone plans for a new transfer point system until 1997. However, when Risser is asked about his greatest accomplishment last session, he cites the very same issue. "Because of my position in the Senate, I was able to get myself on the conference committee, and we argued that out," he says. "The end result was that I was able to have the committee add $900,000 to Madison Metro's budget. That's something I did and can take full credit for." But Levitan counters that Madison came out worse than other cities: "As a result, we're raising fares and cutting service. Not exactly a prescription for healthy mass transit." Mr. Madison Levitan says Risser has also been asleep at the switch while Madison's share of state funding has plummeted. He says that from 1983 to 1993, while Risser was Senate president, Madison's share fell by 45%. Risser responds that Madison gains from other programs like Payments for Municipal Services, something he instigated to reimburse the city for providing services to state buildings, which are tax-exempt. "We get $7 million a year because of a program that I initiated," says Risser. "Every session, the legislators try and cut back on that program because they know Madison gets the largest share of it." Levitan says that doesn't make up for other losses: "When you put it all together, cities around the state get an average of $700 [in state aide] on a per-capita basis. We barely get $200." Mayor Soglin likewise faults Risser on this score: "For about five years now, he's refused to take up an issue which is of vital concern to the city -- the shared-revenue formula. It is fundamentally flawed, and Fred Risser has made it clear that he has no intention of working to change it." In general, says Soglin, Risser's efforts on behalf of the city have diminished. "Fred Risser did marvelous things in the *70s with annexation policy by helping us to get rid of town islands," he says. "He doesn't do that any more." But Risser, calling himself Mr. Madison, says he's done plenty to help the city in recent years: "The Capitol renovations -- $65 million -- would never have happened if I hadn't pushed it. Monona Terrace would never have happened if it hadn't been for my budget amendment which found $15 million in the budget for the parking component. There was a drive to disperse state office buildings; I helped keep them in Madison. There is an anti-Madison bias in the Legislature because others are envious of Madison because we've got so much." Indeed, during the current campaign, Risser has repeatedly mentioned Madison's recent ranking as the most livable city in the U.S. "We're number one in Money magazine and I take a good deal of credit for making Madison number one," he says. "Did he really say that?" responds Soglin, incredulous. He says that if Risser deserves any credit, it must be for improving the weather: "I knew our climate had been hurting us in the rankings for years. Now I know who got that one fixed." Style, not substance Both Risser and Levitan are pro-choice, pro-environment and self-described progressives. For the most part, debates have been civil, with the second speaker often agreeing with the first. There are a few areas of disagreement. For example, Risser calls himself "the most outspoken opponent of gambling in the Legislature" and backs a constitutional amendment to ban gambling in all its forms, including compacts with the Indian nations. "I firmly believe that the social ills caused by gambling far outweigh any perceived tax gain," he says. Levitan feels there should be preventative programs to deal with gambling problems. But he wouldn't close Indian casinos because they have generated jobs for Native Americans. Sparks have also flown over the issue of campaign finance reform. Risser boasts that of the $33,267 he's raised this year, 93% came from in-district and 87% of his contributors gave $35 or less. Levitan, who has raised $20,042, calls sweeping campaign-finance reform his number-one legislative priority. He's called for a $100 cap on all contributions (including those from political action committees), incentives for voluntary spending caps, ending carry-over war chests, limiting out-of-district contributions to 35%, legalizing multiparty endorsements known as "fusion," and putting campaign records online. "Our electoral system is broken and must be fixed," says Levitan. "These are the immediate steps the state should take to end the disgrace of the current electoral and campaign finance system." Levitan asked Risser to agree to a $60,000 spending cap. Risser, in response, suggested that both candidates return every individual contribution over $100. Under this agreement, Risser would have only had to return $535, while Levitan would have had to return $5,610. Levitan retorted angrily during a debate that if PAC donations were included, Risser would need to return more than $5,000, including $1,000 each from the Realtors and the Professional Firefighters of Wisconsin. But if there's not much in the way of policy differences, the two candidates differ sharply in style. Campaigning at the doors, Levitan argues with people. It's his nature to debate and challenge, and he can alternately appear knowledgeable and confident, or self-centered and arrogant. When Risser goes to the doors, he doesn't argue. In fact, he doesn't even discuss issues. He plays a game keeping track of how many contacts he can make per hour. The point, he admits, is merely to be seen. Likewise, Risser has mastered the art of getting along in the Senate. "He's a real stabilizing influence in the caucus," says Chvala. "In legislative bodies, you have a lot of strong personalities; he's able to build consensus." A Capitol observer of the Democratic caucus, speaking on condition of anonymity, agrees. He describes Risser as smart and savvy, but says "he's not a huge power in the caucus." Nor is he one to burn the midnight oil or spend free time hanging out with other pols. "He prefers the parliamentary role to a huge insider power role." He guesses that's why Risser didn't run for majority leader or chair of Joint Finance -- something for which Levitan has criticized him. In fact, Levitan says he wouldn't have run if Risser had taken either of those posts. "What is at issue here is the length of service and the degree of accomplishment in that period," says Levitan. "This community is an active, passionate, intelligent community, and we expect more than a parliamentarian who votes right. I would bring a vision of what needs to be done, a focus, an understanding, a passion and an energy. I would get what needed to be done done, or I would make way for someone who could do a better job." But Risser believes he'll win handily on his reputation and accomplishments. "I'm an incumbent running on my record, and no one has attacked my record," he says. "This community knows me. I'm a Madison original, and in my position of leadership there's a lot more that I can do for Madison. I'm rarin' to go." by Melanie Conklin April 7, 2011

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/14547

View Photo Gallery2 photos0shares tweet now!0shares tweet now!WASHINGTON (AP) - In an earlier era, a move like the one engineered by House GOP leaders to pass a "no budget, no pay" measure probably would have been stopped in its tracks.But with Congress' approval ratings in the gutter, House lawmakers pushed aside questions about fairness and constitutionality and tacked the idea on to an unpopular, must-pass measure to increase the government's borrowing cap.The measure temporarily would withhold pay from any member of the House or Senate whose chamber doesn't pass a budget this year. The Senate is expected to approve it in the coming week, but only after leaders make clear they think "no budget, no pay" is rife with flaws and is not going to be repeated.The proposal is before the Senate because the House breezed past objections that the idea is unconstitutional because it could "vary" the pay of lawmakers in violation of the 27th Amendment to the Constitution. The House ignored concerns that the measure is unfair to members who are in the minority and are powerless to determine whether a budget passes or not.Nearly unmentioned was the prospect that withholding lawmakers' pay favors wealthy members over those of more modest means and could, in theory, attract more affluent candidates better able to withstand having some of their $174,000 salary withheld."The last thing we want to do is to say to people running for Congress, 'If you're not a millionaire, don't run because there's no guarantee you'll be paid,'" said Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y.For these reasons and more, the idea went nowhere in the last congressional session. But it was embraced about a week ago by House GOP leaders such as Speaker John Boehner of Ohio as they struggled to avoid a potential market-crippling default on government obligations.The proposal is a slap at the Democratic-controlled Senate, which hasn't passed a budget since 2009. Republicans advanced the measure as a one-year experiment rather than a permanent law.The logic behind "no budget, no pay" goes like this: Passing a budget is the core responsibility of Congress, so why should lawmakers get paid if they don't do their main job?"The hardworking people that I represent wouldn't be paid if they didn't show up and they didn't do their job," said Rep. Michael Fitzpatrick, R-Pa. "And this place should operate no differently."For Republicans, much of the appeal of the measure was that it was a rare opportunity to cram something down the Senate's throat. Two years of polarizing battles over issues big and small have left little good will between the GOP-run House and the Democratic-controlled Senate.In the Senate, traditionalists such as Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., opted to set aside their concerns and avoid the task of beating back such an irresistible message. Reid also welcomed the reprieve from a potential economy-rattling government debt crisis."The House Republicans had to add a gimmick or two to the bill, but I understand, we all understand," Reid told reporters. "The tea party plays a big part in what goes on in the House and they need a gimmick or two to get things done over there. But to spare the middle class another knock-down, drag-out fight we are going to ... get it out of here as quickly as we can."Reid's announcement came hours after the incoming chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., issued a statement saying the committee would produce a budget for the first time since 2009. The four years without one caused much frustration for Republicans and embarrassment for junior Democrats such as Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, a co-sponsor of "no budget, no pay."Democrats said "no budget, no pay" had nothing to do with the decision to move forward with a budget. Republicans weren't convinced. Murray's earlier statements on the chances of Democrats' moving ahead on a budget were noncommittal.With congressional control divided, members of both parties have reason to chafe at "no budget, no pay."For starters, the measure makes members of the minority party in House or Senate dependent on the majority to determine whether they get paid on time. Passing a congressional budget is typically a party-line exercise.Then, of course, the measure puts a far greater burden on the relatively few people in Congress of modest means. For some lawmakers, the $174,000 congressional salary is barely enough to get by on, especially if a spouse doesn't work and the family maintains a residence in the Washington area in addition to back home."I don't know that it's really fair to members that do not have significant means and have no control over whether a budget is brought to the floor or not," said Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, who noted she fits into that category. "Having said that, if this works it will have been shown to be a good technique."It also has the potential to give wealthier members an advantage during budget debates because it would make it easier them to refuse to go along with a budget they don't like or make greater demands during the course of budget debates in exchange for their vote.Then there's the question of constitutionality.The 27th Amendment to the Constitution states that no law "varying the compensation" of members of Congress can take effect until an election has passed.To deal with that problem, the measure doesn't deny pay. Rather, it withholds the salaries of members hit by "no budget, no pay," and would release the money on the last day of the congressional term in January of 2015.Some legal scholars say that approach is in sufficient."Receiving $1,000 today is obviously worth more than receiving that same dollar amount at some time in the future," said Harvard Law School professor Laurence Tribe. "It follows that 'varying' the timing of compensation is just another way of 'varying the compensation itself,' which is what the 27th Amendment expressly forbids."One of the ironies is that it's seems House Republicans driving "no budget, no pay" probably will struggle much more than Senate Democrats to pass it. Boehner is promising that, unlike two earlier GOP budgets, this one will come to balance by the end of the decade, which could force Republicans to cut Medicare much more deeply than they have sought to do in the past.Congressional budget resolutions are nonbinding measures that usually sound more important than they really are. Often they're not followed up with binding legislation. While the House has passed budget plans, it failed last year to address several important pieces of bipartisan legislation that passed the Senate."As I recall, we passed a farm bill last year ... and they never found time to vote on it," said Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt. "We passed the Violence Against Women Act; they never found time to vote on it. I think they maybe ought to demonstrate they're willing to vote before they tell us how to vote."component-story-more_media_horiz-v1-01TrendingOffbeat NewsPHOTO | Sergeant taking 'moment to bring it together' with boy goes viral Krispy Kreme launches new Reese’s peanut butter cup doughnut VIDEO | Heckling fan challenged by golf pro to putt it out FOLLOW US ON TWITTERQUICK LINKSNewsWeatherSportsKCBY INFORMATION

时政

2014-42/1379/en_head.json.gz/2751

Bob Simon - Nothing New Under the Sun (MYTHS AND FACTS) Eli E. Hertz 04/27/12) Source: http://www.mythsandfacts.org MYTHS AND FACTS Articles-Index-Top In January 25, 2009 he had this to say:"Palestinians ... when they want to travel from one town to another, they have to submit to humiliating delays at checkpoints and roadblocks. There are more than 600 of them on the West Bank."In April 22, 2012 he had this to say:"For all Palestinians, just leaving Bethlehem is a struggle. Getting to Jerusalem, only seven miles away, whether it´s to pray, go to a doctor, visit family members, or work, means going through this Israeli checkpoint. That can take hours but before Palestinians can get even this far, they need a permit from the Israelis which can take weeks or months to obtain and is frequently denied."So Who is Humiliating Whom?April 24, 2012 |Eli E. Hertz Revised, originally published 2004 & 2009 Bob, you say Palestinian Arabs feel humiliated and harassed when Israeli authorities search them and their belongings; when they are prevented from traveling freely because of checkpoints, roadblocks, closures and curfews. You say they feel "corralled." Bob, in Israel, every Israeli is searched numerous times during the course of a single day. Israelis are asked to open their bags and purses for inspection. In most cases, they are subjected to body searches with a metal detector every time they enter a bank or a post office, pick up a bottle of milk at the supermarket, enter a mall or train station, or visit a hospital or medical clinic. Young Israeli men and women are physically frisked in search of suicide belts before they enter crowded nightclubs.As a matter of routine, Israelis´ car trunks are searched every time they enter a well-trafficked parking lot. Daily, their cars pass through roadblocks that cause massive traffic jams when security forces are in hot pursuit of suicide bombers believed to have entered Israel.Israelis are searched not only when they go out for a cup of coffee or a slice of pizza, but also when they go to the movies or a concert, where the term "dressed to kill" has an entirely different meaning.These ordinary daily humiliations now extend to similar searches when Israelis go to weddings or Bar Mitzvahs. No one abroad talks about the humiliation Jews in Israel are subjected to, having to write at the bottom of wedding invitations and other life cycle events, "The site will be secured [by armed guards]" - to ensure relatives and friends will attend and share their joyous occasion.Bob, these ubiquitous security checks do not exist in Arab cities and towns in Israel (or, for that matter, in Judea and Samaria) because those places are not and never have been targets of Palestinian terrorism. In fact, the average Israeli is "humiliated and harassed" by being searched far more times a day than the average Palestinian. Not one human rights group, nor you, has so much as noted this massive intrusion into the rights of privacy and person imposed on Israelis. To date, no one protests the fact that, since the 1970s, Jewish schoolchildren in Israel are surrounded by perimeter fences, with armed guards at the schoolyard gates.Not one Arab village in Israel or the Territories has a perimeter fence around it. Guards are not required at Arab shops, cafes, restaurants, movie theaters, wedding halls or schools - either in Israel or in the Territories. Palestinians also do not need armed guards to accompany every school trip, youth movement hike or campout. They are not targets of terrorism.Countless Israelis in sensitive areas within the Green Line - not only in the Territories, but also in Jewish towns, villages and bedroom suburbs - are "ghettoized" behind high fences.Many Israeli motorists avoid major arteries that pass through Arab areas of Israel, while Arab citizens and Palestinians from the Territories continue to enter Jewish cities and go about their business without peril. Israelis are told, in effect, to disguise themselves when traveling abroad - not to speak Hebrew in public and not to wear garments that reveal their Jewish-Israeli origins. Even Israel ´s national airline - El Al - has been forced to remove its logo from the tails of its aircraft at certain airports, out of concern for the safety of its passengers. On the other hand, Arabs who frequent Jewish cities and towns in Israel wear their traditional Arab headgear without fear of being attacked or harassed.Bob, all of this begs the question: Who is Humiliating Whom?

时政

2014-42/1379/en_head.json.gz/2776

Home › About Us › Press Office › Speeches/Transcripts › 2011 › February FebruaryRemarks by Ambassador Demetrios Marantis at the University of Georgia Remarks by Ambassador Demetrios Marantis in Accra, Ghana Remarks by Ambassador Demetrios Marantis in Monrovia, Liberia Remarks by Ambassador Miriam Sapiro at the European Policy Centre Remarks by Ambassador Ron Kirk to the 30th Annual Maryland 5th Congressional District Black History Month Celebration Remarks by Ambassador Ron Kirk to the Austin Chamber of Commerce Remarks of Ambassador Miriam Sapiro at the Eleventh Annual Herzliya Conference Testimony of Ambassador Ron Kirk Before The House Ways and Means Committee Ambassador Ron Kirk Austin Chamber of CommerceFebruary 25, 2010Austin, Texas* As Prepared for Delivery *“Thank you, Tim. Good afternoon, everyone. It’s great to be back in Austin. Yesterday I met with your Mayor, Lee Leffingwell. Lee and I discussed a wide range of issues as he was putting the final touches on his State of the City address.“Our conversation brought back fond memories of my own mayoral days in Dallas. It also reinforced why I really enjoy my current job as U.S. Trade Representative – because the Obama Administration’s agenda to increase trade and double exports naturally complements your local leaders’ efforts to attract job-creating business investments to your communities.“As President Obama said in his State of the Union address, ‘The future is ours to win...but to get there, we can’t just stand still…to compete for the jobs and industries of our time…we need to out-innovate, out-educate, and out-build the rest of the world.’“Here in Austin you’re well on your way to winning the future with world-class universities, strong infrastructure, and an entrepreneurial spirit that encourages innovators to take big ideas and turn them into blockbuster products. As a result high-tech businesses both large and small continue to thrive and create jobs in your community. And increasingly those jobs depend on trade.“Texas companies like yours are tackling the challenges of global competition, and winning. Your international businesses contributed to Texas’ total $206 billion of goods exports last year, making it the number one exporting state in the country. These totals are especially impressive when you consider that behind every trade number is the story of at least one business whose employees’ jobs depend on trade.“For example, this morning I toured Formaspace Technical Furniture, which designs and manufactures custom technical furniture, accessories, and services. With about 50 employees right now, Formaspace has been ranked as one of Austin’s fastest growing small businesses on the Inc. 5000 list. In fact, they just moved into a bigger facility.“Formaspace CEO Jeff Turk estimates that 20 to 25 percent of their products right now are being exported overseas, with about half of that figure going to Asia-Pacific markets. And he told me that getting more access to foreign markets, especially in the Asia-Pacific, will have a big impact on their ability to continue growing steadily.“All around Austin – and here today – there are dozens of stories like this. That’s why at USTR we are moving forward with a number of initiatives to help businesses and workers realize the full potential of trade opportunities in Asia, Latin America, and around the world. Among these is the U.S.-Korea trade agreement, which will bring substantial benefits to the Austin area. Let me tell you how:“The Republic of Korea is our seventh largest trading partner and one of the most dynamic markets in the rapidly growing Asia-Pacific region. In fact, exports of U.S. manufactured goods to Korea were up 37 percent in 2010, which makes Korea the fastest growing market for U.S. manufactured goods among our top ten trading partners. The U.S.-Korea trade agreement will help increase trade and exports to Korea even more, boosting sales of some of your top local exports such as computer equipment, machinery, and beef, just to name a few.“In 2008, the Austin-Round Rock area exported $4.9 billion of computer and electronic products worldwide, making it Austin’s top export category by far. Now part of the story behind your huge exports of computer and electronic goods – besides the inherent quality of the innovation hub you have built here – might be that for years U.S. computer and electronic goods exports have benefited from something called the World Trade Organization Information Technology Agreement (ITA), which substantially allows duty-free trade in these categories. Without tariffs applied to your goods, many of you are able to compete more effectively in global markets, including Korea.“So, with respect to the U.S.-Korea trade agreement, some of you might say now: ‘Well, if you’ve already eliminated tariffs on computer and electronic products, what’s in it for me?’ That is a logical question and it brings up an important point. Because the U.S.-Korea trade agreement doesn’t just reduce or eliminate tariffs – it tackles and reduces non-tariff barriers to trade as well.“Non-tariff barriers can refer to any of the rules, regulations, customs, and other procedures that U.S. companies, farmers, ranchers, manufacturers, and service providers sometimes encounter in foreign markets. Often these non-tariff barriers can prove just as burdensome to trade, and affect international business just as much as tariffs, if not more.“The good news is we’ve addressed non-tariff barriers in the U.S.-Korea trade agreement. First, it contains strong enforcement provisions to ensure that American intellectual property rights are efficiently and effectively protected in Korea. These include strong protections for patents, trademarks, and copyrighted works and tough penalties for piracy and counterfeiting.“Furthermore, the agreement contains provisions to protect against Korea adopting new regulations that create unnecessary barriers to trade, and establishes an early warning system for potential trade barriers. Korean authorities will be required to publish proposed regulations and provide U.S. producers with both opportunities to comment and sufficient time to adjust before new rules take effect. Finally, under the agreement we will be engaging in an ongoing dialogue with Korea to ensure that their regulations accomplish their objectives in the least burdensome manner possible.“Together all of these provisions to reduce non-tariff barriers will help U.S. computer and electronic producers – including Austin high-tech manufacturers – compete even more effectively in the Korean market. And in fact, measures to address non-tariff barriers will help promote trade in goods and services across all sectors.“Now let’s consider machinery, the second-highest global export category for greater Austin. In 2008, this area exported $1.8 billion in non-electrical machinery, supporting thousands of jobs in communities around the 25th congressional district. Right now exported U.S. non-electrical machinery goods face a tariff of up to 13 percent in Korea. But upon entry into force the agreement would eliminate 85 percent of those tariffs within three years. When that happens Austin area small businesses that make things like pumps, tools, and valves will be able to compete more effectively in the Korean market. And there will be similar benefits in many categories of manufacturing because approximately 80 percent of the tariff reductions in the U.S.-Korea trade agreement cover non-agricultural goods.“Of course, we can’t talk about trade and exports in Texas without mentioning beef. And I want to be clear – the U.S.-Korea trade agreement is good for American cattle ranchers and U.S. workers throughout the beef and beef product supply chain.“Because Korean consumers are already hungry for U.S. beef and they want to buy more. Last year they bought over $500 million worth of U.S. beef and beef products, which is more than twice the 2009 total of $216 million. That’s an encouraging trend in demand as the global economy recovers; particularly in the face of the high current Korean tariff on U.S. beef of 40 percent.“If Korean consumers are buying half a billion dollars worth of U.S. beef now, just think about how much they might buy once the agreement goes into effect and Korea phases out its tariff by roughly 2.7 percent a year over 15 years. The tremendous growth potential of these tariff reductions is a big reason why industry groups like the American Meat Institute and the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association support the U.S.-Korea trade agreement. And there are similar benefits for nearly every product category in the agricultural sector including pork, poultry, fruits, nuts, and grains.“Finally, I would be remiss if I didn’t note the substantial benefits for American service providers in the U.S.-Korea trade agreement. We don’t have the same kind of detailed data on services as we do on goods, but let me give you two numbers to help illustrate my point. The first figure is 80 percent – that’s how many Americans are employed in the services sector in jobs ranging from contractors to cargo handlers. And the second figure is $560 billion – that’s the size of Korea’s services market. Put them together and you can start to see why the U.S.-Korea trade agreement will support more service jobs here in Texas and across the United States.“Right now the United States already enjoys a $10 billion services trade surplus with Korea. Moving forward the agreement will require Korea to match the level of openness provided by the United States in a host of sectors, ranging from energy and environmental services to financial services and distribution. And the agreement’s provisions to ease the flow of trade in services and products delivered over telecommunications networks offer particular benefits to Austin area providers of cutting edge communications services like social networking.“That’s just a quick snapshot of far-reaching benefits that the U.S.-Korea trade agreement offers to Austin area manufacturers, farmers, ranchers, and service providers. Furthermore, when we look beyond statistics, it is really stories of growing U.S. small businesses like Formaspace that help make the case.“To be sure, there is no doubt the agreement will help to increase U.S. exports to Korea. But just as importantly it will also strengthen the broad and deep trading partnership we have with Korea that is essential to mutually beneficial economic growth. Because as U.S. companies sell more goods and services in Korea, so too will Korean companies build up their businesses here in America. Closer trade ties will encourage cooperation in business and investment, supporting better jobs for U.S. workers who will win the future in places like Austin.“For example, most of you know the Korean company Samsung has been building semiconductors here in Austin since 1996. In fact, Samsung Austin Semiconductor (SAS) is the company's only semiconductor manufacturing plant located outside Korea.“Over 1,000 Austinites already work at the advanced manufacturing facility where Samsung’s state-of-the-art NAND Flash memory chips are made. And last year Samsung announced a $3.6 billion investment to expand its 12-inch semiconductor fabrication capacity. The company expects this project to create 600 additional jobs that pay an average of $70,000.”But that’s not just good news for future Samsung employees. The Greater Austin Chamber of Commerce estimates that Samsung’s presence in Austin accounts for more than $1.4 billion each year in local economic activity. And they estimate businesses that support the Samsung facility sustain 6,500 additional jobs in the area.“These businesses include firms like Fabworx Solutions, Inc., a small company that designed a robot to reduce the amount of scratching that occurs in semiconductor production. Based originally in New Hampshire, Fabworx moved its corporate and manufacturing operations to Austin a few years ago. Because as Samsung ramps up capacity to meet global demand for its semiconductors, Fabworx hopes to see steady business growth as well. These two companies – one large and one small – are both preparing for the future with an eye toward increasing exports.“The stories of Samsung, Fabworx, Formashape, and many others like them are motivating us to move forward quickly. After all, Korea is also moving toward trade agreements with its other trading partners like the EU, China, and Australia, whose exports compete against American goods and services in many sectors.“In fact, the EU-Korea trade agreement is scheduled to take effect on July 1 of this year. The moment that agreement goes into effect, tariffs on thousands of European exports will be reduced or eliminated, potentially putting American producers at a competitive disadvantage if tariffs on U.S. products remain in place. We don’t want that to happen, so we’re working hard to win approval from Congress this spring.“We are also working with Congress as we pursue trade opportunities in the dynamic markets of the Asia-Pacific through the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). The TPP is our ambitious effort to craft a high-standard, broad-based regional trade agreement as a 21st century model for the future of American trade. Current TPP participants include the United States, Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Chile, Malaysia, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, and Vietnam. Last week we concluded the fifth round of negotiations in Santiago, Chile where we discussed a range of issues including new technologies, emerging business sectors, and the needs of small businesses alongside labor and environmental concerns.“Also this year the United States will host the 21 economies of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum for the first time since 1993. With them, we intend to take practical and concrete steps to make it cheaper, easier, and faster for our firms to trade in a greener regional economy. That’s good news for you again, because in 2008 Austin area producers exported $6.1 billion of goods to Asia-Pacific countries, making them the top export destination by far.“We are also pursuing opportunities in Latin America. The President recently directed me to immediately intensify engagement with Colombia and Panama with the objective of addressing the outstanding issues as soon as possible this year and bringing those agreements to Congress for consideration immediately thereafter.“And at the World Trade Organization (WTO) we are focusing on the Doha Round of multilateral trade talks with the goal of achieving a truly market-opening result that will deliver new trade flows. We also support efforts to bring Russia into the WTO, and we plan to work with Congress this year to pass legislation granting Russia Permanent Normal Trade Relations status.“In the next few months we’ll continue to advance trade policies that will help American innovators and job creators like you win the future. And of course we hope you will support these efforts as well. Together we can lead the way forward by building a broad coalition for trade that increases U.S. exports and supports job creation in America. Thank you.” Office of the United States Trade Representative • http://www.ustr.gov/ • accessed on: Thu, 23 Oct 2014 02:13:55 -0400

时政

2014-42/1379/en_head.json.gz/2819

Washington Monthly, September/October 2010 Unnatural Selection How a politically rigged economic system has been sold to Americans as a force of nature.By Ed Kilgore Winner-Take-All Politics: How Washington Made the Rich Richer�And Turned Its Back on the Middle Class by Jacob S. Hacker and Paul Pierson Simon & Schuster, 368 pp. n their very influential 2006 book, Off Center, political scientists Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson conducted a persuasive analysis of the dynamics by which conservative theorists and practitioners pulled the Republican Party and then the terms of national debate to the right. Now the duo is back, with a complex analysis of how the U.S. economic system has also moved “off center” toward an extreme concentration of wealth, and how progressive efforts to reverse that trend have run aground against a variety of institutional and political obstacles. Framed as a “detective story” about how the economy has arrived at the current juncture, Winner-Take-All Politics: How Washington Made the Rich Richer—And Turned Its Back on the Middle Class begins by elucidating trends in the distribution of total income over the last thirty years, in absolute terms and as compared to other wealthy countries, and focusing on the truly rich: the top 1 percent of Americans. This section also forcefully argues that income distribution is not some sort of “natural” phenomenon that government sometimes counteracts (at the cost, we are usually told, of inefficiency), but the product of government policies themselves: There are no pre-political markets. Markets are inevitably shaped and channeled by political forces, dependent on the rules that are set up and enforced by those who control the coercive power of the state. The laissez-faire vision of the economy held up in the Supreme Court’s 1905 decision in Lochner v. New York [a case that gave its name to an era in which the Supreme Court abrogated a slew of Progressive Era workplace reforms] was a political choice, one with distinct, sometimes brutal consequences, and one that required a great deal of government intervention to emerge and survive. Hacker and Pierson apply the same principle to the belief, common among Democrats and Republicans alike, that contemporary income inequality is the result of a globalized economy in which education and skills levels are the great dividers. While acknowledging that these assets matter, they stress that the vast majority of Americans who have been losing ground to the super-rich for decades include many well-educated people, and in many respects it is government policies that both promote inequality and fail to counteract it. The authors explore those policies and the political dynamics in the second part of the book, beginning with the Carter administration and three big fights in Congress (at a time when Democrats controlled both houses of Congress and the White House). What they found was a new level of organization and militancy by the business community in synch with a Republican Party that was rapidly growing more conservative. Two big Democratic initiatives, labor law reform and a new consumer advocacy agency, were defeated; a third, tax reform, turned into a reduction in business and investment taxes. These unexpected conservative policy victories turned out to be dress rehearsals for the big tax and budget battles in Congress that followed the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980. The growing power nexus of conservative and business interests kicked into high gear, and the fight against the Clinton health care initiative was another great leap forward for the organized right, with the big payoff ultimately being the deregulation of the financial industry in the late 1990s, and then the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003. It’s in the last third of their book that Hacker and Pierson begin to assess the complicity of Democrats in what they call a “thirty-year war” over the direction of the U.S. economy. While they do score the Donkey Party for some important sins other than fecklessness—most notably support for financial deregulation—their account does not devolve into the standard “populist” account of “betrayal” by the corporate whores of the DLC or the Clinton and Obama administrations. Indeed, they express considerable sympathy that Democrats are outgunned financially and institutionally in Congress. Interestingly, they choose not some DLC type or Blue Dog for the poster child of Democratic complicity in financial deregulation and the subsequent meltdown, but Chuck Schumer, who is an impeccably partisan progressive Democrat on most issues but thinks of Wall Street as a New York constituency group. On this as on many subjects, the authors stress the contrast between the GOP’s ever-increasing ideological unity and the Democrats’ difficulty in reining in election-fearing red-and-purple-state members of Congress along with “Republicans for a Day” (not only the New Yorkers fighting for Wall Street, but the Californians defending tech-industry stock options), who have parochial reasons for voting to defend privilege. Hacker and Pierson also note how the relatively modest “renewal” efforts of Obama and congressional Democrats have spurred a fierce reaction that has moved the GOP even further to the right and created powerful momentum for economic policies redolent of the pre–New Deal era. Reagan’s party was more conservative than Nixon’s; Gingrich’s, more conservative than Reagan’s; George W. Bush’s, more conservative than Gingrich’s. The transformation of the GOP, along with its manifest failures as a governing party, finally caught up with it in the 2006 and 2008 elections. Yet, strikingly, this has only made the party more conservative. Neither electoral rebuke nor the economic catastrophe fueled by financial deregulation nor the Democrats’ passage of health-care reform has done anything to shake the party’s commitment to the restoration of the Gilded Age. On the one hand, GOP leaders appealed openly to bankers for financial support by touting their opposition to financial reform. On the other hand, conservative organizations and leading GOP strategists crafted “populist” commercials and sound bites for voters that described the Democrats’ reform legislation as just another bailout that put taxpayers on the hook for corporate irresponsibility. It’s the political equivalent of having one’s cake and eating it too. The authors’ prescription for restoring “balance” to the political system and thus to the U.S. economy is reasonable sounding, but hard to envision occurring in the immediate future: Reversing the stark trend toward economic hyperconcentration at the top will take more than concerted and sustained government action to improve the economic and political standing of the middle class. Political reform geared at diminishing the advantages of the privileged will also be essential. The aims should be threefold: to reduce the capacity of entrenched elites to block needed reform; to facilitate broader participation by those whose voices are drowned out; and to encourage the development of groups that can provide a continuing, organized capacity to mobilize middle-class voters and monitor government and politics on their behalf. That means, above all, breaking the power of the Senate filibuster; restoring the labor movement’s economic and political power; and creating mass political movements equivalent to the Obama campaign’s organization that can be deployed between elections. These are all laudable, important goals—but with the possible exception of filibuster reform, they probably can’t be achieved in time to help Democrats in 2010 or 2012. f I had one criticism of this very valuable book, it would be that the authors never quite come to grips with the persistent voter ambivalence about public-sector activism that invariably undermines progressive politics and governance. The Republican resurgence that thwarted the Carter administration and fed the Reagan Revolution was not just the result of more effective mobilization of business interests; it was also facilitated by an acute sense of national decline as stagflation struck the economy and the Iranian revolutionary regime thumbed its nose at Uncle Sam. The Gingrich revolution rose because government seemed helpless to rescue the economy or control the federal budget, and crashed because voters decided that they really did value government to perform services the GOP wanted to abandon. The Bush tax cuts, an action so momentous that the authors say “[a] senator’s vote on this bill says more about his or her commitment to the middle class than one hundred votes on the minimum wage,” were enacted for reasons other than corporate lobbying. Faced with the unlikely prospect of budget surpluses, Democrats led with their trump card, arguing that they should be used to protect Social Security. Bush’s counter was, “The American people have been overcharged, and on their behalf, I am here to ask for a refund.” This worked because many middle-class Americans in swing states with vulnerable Democratic senators didn’t trust government to do anything positive with their money. TARP and the economic stimulus package, whatever their macroeconomic merits, have produced a similar reaction. The “thirty-year war” over economic policy has been conducted against a background of post—New Deal declining faith in government to get things right, and all the laudable steps Hacker and Pierson prescribe will only work if that faith is restored. It’s terrible but true that many middle-class Americans would rather let the rich get richer than trust government with a nickel more in tax revenues than they deem essential. Ending “winner-take-all politics” will require an end to “everyone loses” perceptions of activist government. If you are interested in purchasing this book, we have included a link for your convenience. - - Advertisers - - buy from Amazon andsupport the Monthly Ed Kilgore is managing editor of the Democratic Strategist and a senior fellow at the Progressive Policy Institute. He is also a special correspondent for the New Republic. subscribe | donate | mission statement | masthead | contact us | send letters to the editor This site and all contents within are Copyright © 1969-2011 Washington Monthly Editorial offices: 1200 18th Street NW, Suite 330, Washington, DC 20036

时政