Datasets:

BAAI

/

IndustryCorpus_politics

like 2

Follow

Beijing Academy of Artificial Intelligence 689

2014-52/4410/en_head.json.gz/2561

Iran protests: live A week after the disputed poll, Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei led Friday prayers today in an attempt to quell continuing anger at the re-election of president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Follow live updates Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei giving his Friday prayer sermon at Tehran University. Photograph: Reuters TV/Reuters 7.30am: Khamenei is preparing to make his first public appearance since endorsing Ahmadinejad's election. He is due to lead Friday prayers at Tehran University, where his words will be closely scrutinised. It is unclear what Khameini will say, if anything, about Mousavi and the demonstrations. At least one candidate who ran against Ahmadinejad, reformist Mahdi Karroubi, has said he will attend the service.It was not known if Mousavi or Ahmadinejad would be there, although the president normally attends Friday prayers when Khamenei leads them.There are reports that people are being bussed in to Tehran to show support for the regime. A protester has emailed to say that whatever Khamemei says the protests will continue. He wrote: Saturday will be the biggest march to date probably, despite whatever announcement is made at Friday prayers.I think something which those living outside Iran need to realize is that people here are not protesting because of a disapproval of the election outcome per say. Almost every individual has had a bad experience at some point with a Basij , a member of the security forces or a government official.Whether it be a teenage party which they were attending being raided, harassed on the streets because of their clothes, visited by corrupt officials at work, or mistreated in a government office.People are simply fed up, this is about far more than just the elections.As there are so many restrictions on journalists in Iran it is difficult to get information, so if you are in Iran and have news, please email me at matthew.weaver@guardian.co.uk or post updates or interesting links in the comments section below.And if you have taken any pictures of the latest events in Iran, or know anyone who has, please send them to pictures@guardian.co.uk. Please provide as much information as you can about your pictures including what they show, and when and where they were taken. Thanks.8am: Here's a new video claiming to show yesterday's rally. It started as a silent protest to mark the death of protesters killed in unrest earlier this week, but it became rowdy later judging by this footage. 8.10am: Khamenei has told Mousavi to stand beside him at Friday prayers, according to the Times.The demand was made at a meeting this week with representatives of all three candidates who claim that the poll was rigged, and it puts Mr Mousavi on the spot.We'll soon find out what happens, prayers are due to start within the next hour. In the meantime here's some video footage of Mousavi's brief appearance at yesterday's rally. There are more pictures of the rally on Mousavi's website.8.30am: Some Mousavi supporters are calling for a boycott of Friday prayers, on Twitter. "Mousavi & Karoubi ask supporters NOT to attend Friday prayers," reads one tweet.8.40am: Google may not have bowed to pressure to change its logo to support the protests, but it has rushed through Persian, or Farsi to its translation service.The New York Times reports: "The company said it hoped the service, which it rushed because of the turmoil in Iran, would be used by people inside and outside of that country to communicate and stay abreast of events."Facebook has also launched a Farsi translation service, according to my colleague Jemima Kiss.Earlier this week Twitter delayed an upgrade to its network because of the vital role it is playing in the unrest, after a request from the US state department.9am: Here's an account sent by email from a protester who was beaten up earlier this week:It was 4pm at Vanak Square in Tehran, and people were protesting against the election results. The riot police were standing in front of us. Suddenly the police started to run towards us, with their black helmets and batons they were so scary. Some people escaped and some others ran towards them and threw stones.As we were running down Vali Asr Avenue, a young man fell on the ground. I saw that, as he was there a soldier reached him and started beating him in the back with the baton. He shouted and cried for help. I ran towards the soldier and punched him in the face. The young man managed to escape. As I tried to escape two other soldiers were behind me. They cornered me. I didn't have any way of escaping. They started beating me like hell, and the one that I'd punched also came in. The three of them hit me at least 50 times. One of them grabbed me and tried to push me on the ground. The punched one tried to beat me in the face and I had to protect it with my left hand. As people saw this, they threw stones at them. Fortunately a big one hit one of them in back, and I managed to push him and run like hell.I didn't even dare to go to hospital because they might easily catch you there. I've been taking painkillers just to able to sleep.9.15am: Al-Jazeera is showing live pictures of Khamenei at the start of Friday prayers. It quotes him calling for peace."I advise you to follow Allah and follow the pious way," he says according to the translation. "Apply the fear of God," he adds.He goes on to cite verses from the Qu'ran about enemies surrounding Mecca. "Psychologically Muslims need a quiet and tranquil heart," al-Jazeera's translator quotes Khamenei as saying."When we gain stress and worries it will be difficult to find our way. When we are quiet it is easier to find solutions. This is the blessing of Allah. Believers need to find calm and strength."He goes on to talk of the benefit of supplication. "Since the beginning of the revolution 30 years have passed. Events have happened that could eliminate the system and the regime," Khamenei said."Try to forget about politics and remember spirituality. This is the way to gain freedom. From the beginning the revolution was based on the strength of your faith."We have to go back to spirituality. It will lead the revolution to success in this materialistic world. It will make a strong pillar of the Islamic system and protect it from the troubles outside."Most of our youth are spiritual even if you don't see that in their faces. "Oh God give us a calm and peaceful heart."About the issue of elections, the main issue of the country. There are three issues. One will be for the political leaders, our president, activists, western counties and leaders of the media. The elections of the 12 June was proof of participation of the people. It was a show of their love for their regime. We can't find other countries with such a level of democracy. "We have not had such participation (85%) since the revolution. The young generation especially showed their worry and their political obligations. There are differences between the people, some prefer different candidates. This is natural. This election was a big celebration of the revolution. That many people showing love and loyalty. This election was a religious democratic event. It showed dictatorial countries that this is a religious democratic country. "The election showed that people with belief, hopes and joys are living in this country. Our enemies are using it. If the young did not feel free they would not have participated in the election. This trust is the biggest asset of the Islamic republic. "There were claims of fraud before the election. Don't listen to those allegations."The competition for the election was very clear. Enemies and dirty Zionists tried to show the election as a contest between the regime and against it. That is not true, all four candidates support the regime." [He lists the government positions of the opposition candidates]. All of the candidates are part of this system and regime. Zionists and the bad British radio said it was a challenge to the regime."The issue is inside the system. The dispute is not against the revolution. The dispute was among candidates and there was a positive and negative effect. People were able to judge, they felt part of the system. All views were available to the people."The result was clear. They selected candidates they wanted. These disputes and conversations among candidates went to the streets and houses of the people. This gives strength to the system. This should not be misunderstood. The people should be ready to answer critics."Rumours spread that were not true, and gave a bad image to the previous government. Calling the president a liar is that good? This is against the truth. The 30 years of the revolution was turning black."Khamenei talks about the rumours about Hashemi Rafsanjani. He praises Rafsanjani as "close" to the revolution. "The youth should know that... He was at the service of the revolution. I do have some difference with him, but people should not imagine something else between him and the president."We don't claim there is no corruption in our regime. But this is one of the most healthy systems in the world. Zionists claims of corruption are not right. "My dear people, June 12 was a historic event. Our enemies want to cast doubt on it and portray it as defeat for the regime. The presidential campaign has finished. All of the four candidates are among the Islamic system. The people have trust in the revolution and the republic. The Islamic republic is not cheating against others. There is no cheating inside the election system - it is well controlled. There may been mistakes but 11 million [votes] is not possible."The guardian council has said that if people have doubts they should prove them. I will not follow false allegations. In all elections some are winners and some are losers. Correct legal procedures should be followed to ensure trust in the process."The candidates should be careful about what they say and do" [Mousavi doesn't seem to be there]. "Some diplomats from the west are showing their real face and that they are enemies. The worst are the British."The street is the place of living and trading. Why are you taking to the streets? We have had the election. Street demonstrations are a target for terrorist plots. Who would be responsible if something happened?10.30am: Khamenei appears to threaten the protesters. "Rioting after the election is not a good way. It questions the election. If they continue [the consequences] will be their responsibility.""If they continue they will be receiving other consequences, behind the scenes. I'm asking my friends and brothers to follow the laws. Let God give us blessing to follow those ways." The western media were "shocked" by the level of participation in the election, he claimed. He also cont

时政

2014-52/4410/en_head.json.gz/2592

George Will: What plagues Obama is not isolationism IN JANUARY 1938, Rep. Louis Ludlow, an Indiana Democrat, proposed a constitutional amendment strongly supported by the public: "Except in the event of an invasion of the United States or its territorial possessions and attack upon its citizens residing therein, the authority of Congress to declare war shall not become effective until confirmed by a majority of all votes cast thereon in a nationwide referendum." Although narrowly defeated, 209-188, it might have passed without President Franklin Roosevelt's last-minute opposition.During Barack Obama's, shall we say, sinuous progress toward a Syria policy, he has suggested, without using the word, that isolationism is among his afflictions. During his news conference-cum-soliloquy in Russia, he said:"These kinds of interventions ... are always unpopular because they seem distant and removed. ... I'm not drawing an analogy to World War II other than to say when London was getting bombed it was profoundly unpopular both in Congress and around the country to help the British."He wisely disavowed (while insinuating) this analogy, lest Americans wonder which is more implausible, casting Bashar al-Assad as Hitler or himself as Roosevelt. But the term "isolationism" is being bandied as an epithet, not to serve as an argument for U.S. military interventions but as a substitute for an argument. To understand the debate that roiled America before World War II is to understand why today's reservations about interventionism are not a recrudescence of isolationism.In "Those Angry Days," her new history of the intense nationwide controversy about whether America should enter World War II, Lynne Olson concludes that "by December 1941, the American people had been thoroughly educated about the pros and cons of their country's entry into the conflict and were far less opposed to the idea of going to war than conventional wisdom has it." Events, especially the fall of France, were most educational. Before this, however, isolationism was broadly embraced as a rational response for an America situated between two broad oceans."Of the hell broth that is brewing in Europe," wrote Ernest Hemingway in 1935, "we have no need to drink." America's military - what little there was: the Army's size was 17th in the world, behind Portugal's - largely agreed. The Neutrality Acts banned U.S. arms sales to countries at war and denied Roosevelt the power to apply the prohibition only against aggressor nations.FDR's enormous domestic policy blunder - his attempt to pack the Supreme Court, for which he was resoundingly rebuked in the 1938 midterm elections - made him extremely tentative about attempting to lead public opinion regarding U.S. involvement in Europe. Others were not bashful.Yale University incubated the America First organization. An undergraduate, Kingman Brewster, later Yale's president and U.S. ambassador to Britain, was a founder. Other Yale student-members included future Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart, future President Gerald Ford, and Sargent Shriver, future head of the Peace Corps under his brother-in-law President John Kennedy, who as a Harvard undergraduate sent $100 to America First.Olson writes that many anti-war organizations with "Mothers" in their titles swarmed over Capitol Hill: "Dressed in black, many with veils covering their faces, the women made life miserable for members of Congress who were not avowedly isolationist. They stalked their targets, screamed and spat at them, and held vigils outside their offices, keening and wailing." When an interventionist congressman said he refused "to sit by a traitor," the offended isolationist knocked him down with what the House doorkeeper called the best punch thrown in the chamber in 50 years.In October 1940, conscription began - for 12 months. By August 1941, training camps were chalked with the acronym OHIO - "Over the Hill in October."Four months before Pearl Harbor, the House extended conscription for a year. The 203-202 vote was secured only by Speaker Sam Rayburn's parliamentary trickery.Olson says that in 1940, when the interventionist Wendell Willkie, the Republicans' presidential nominee, campaigned, isolationists pelted him with "everything from rotten eggs, fruits, vegetables, rocks, and light bulbs to an office chair and wastebasket," and "The New York Times ran a daily box score of the number of items thrown and those that found their target." Montana's Burton Wheeler, a senator since 1923, compared Lend-Lease for Britain with FDR's program for plowing under crops to raise prices. He said Lend-Lease "will plow under every fourth American boy."It is preposterous to equate today's mild debates about foreign policy with the furies unleashed by, and against, real isolationism. Yet again, ignorance of history causes us to disparage the present..George Will is a columnist for Newsweek in Washington, D.C., and a commentator for ABC News.

时政

2014-52/4410/en_head.json.gz/2629

» Follow The World Desk On: » This Story:Read +| Comments U.S., Russian negotiators 'at the finish line' on new START nuclear pact By Mary Beth Sheridan MOSCOW -- U.S. and Russian negotiators are "at the finish line" in negotiating a major agreement to cut the number of nuclear warheads each side has deployed against the other, with just one or two issues left to resolve, officials said Thursday. This StoryStrategic arms pact near 'finish line'Clinton's agenda for Russia trip reflects improving but fragile ties Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and the Russian foreign minister said after talks here that they awaited word soon from negotiators in Geneva who have been working 18-hour days to wrap up the agreement. The Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) is a top priority of President Obama, who initially had pledged to finish it by last year. Obama spoke by phone with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev last weekend to iron out remaining obstacles, giving new momentum to the talks, officials said. But the optimism over the arms control talks contrasted with a fresh sign that Russia is not necessarily going to fall in line with U.S. priorities in other areas -- such as Iran's nuclear program. Prime Minister Vladimir Putin announced Thursday that Russia would fire up the reactor it is building at an Iranian nuclear power plant at midyear. Asked about the move, Clinton told reporters it was "premature," because "we want to send an unequivocal message to the Iranians" that they have to desist from developing a nuclear bomb. "If it [Iran] reassures the world [about its program], or if its behavior has changed because of international sanctions," then the country can go ahead with nuclear power plants, she told a news conference. Iran insists that its nuclear program is peaceful. Russia agreed to build Iran's first nuclear power plant near Bushehr 15 years ago, but the construction schedule has constantly slipped. Many analysts think Russia is using the delays as leverage. Putin's announcement actually appeared to mark a further setback in the plant's completion date, which had been set for the spring. But the timing of the announcement was awkward for Clinton and appeared to be a jab at her efforts to put together a tough international line on Iran. State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said the U.S. government did not oppose the Russian nuclear project, which would be open to international inspectors and require Iran to return the spent fuel so it could not be turned into weapons material. The concern, Crowley said, was the "potential for a mixed message." The Bushehr plant did not come up in Clinton's discussions with Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, Crowley said. Clinton's two-day trip is built around a meeting of the Quartet of Middle East peace mediators -- the European Union and the United Nations, in addition to Russia and the United States. But she will discuss bilateral issues as well as Iran in her meetings with Lavrov and Medvedev. A Friday visit with Putin was added to her schedule at the last minute at the request of the prime minister, who had previously indicated he would be out of town, U.S. officials said. The new START pact would replace a 1991 treaty that expired in December. Obama and Medvedev agreed last year that it would reduce deployed "strategic" or long-range warheads from the current ceiling of 2,200 to somewhere between 1,500 and 1,675. It also will trim the number of bombers and missiles that launch the nuclear weapons. "We have every reason to believe we are now at the finish line," Lavrov told a news conference Thursday. Crowley said the negotiations on START were "down to one or two items" still to be resolved. "We're very, very close," he said. He declined to identify the final obstacles, but officials familiar with the talks said one of them involved the data that the Russians send their U.S. counterparts from their long-range missile tests. The Russians have balked at continuing to send such data. But U.S. negotiators believe they can't give much ground on such verification procedures, since the Senate has indicated that it won't approve a treaty without them. More in World A Woman's World Multimedia reports on the struggle for equality around the globe. Connect Online Share and comment on Post world news on Facebook and Twitter. Green: Science. Policy. Living. Full coverage of energy and environment news. © 2010 The Washington Post Company • Strategic arms pact near 'finish line'• Clinton's agenda for Russia trip reflects improving but fragile ties

时政

2014-52/4410/en_head.json.gz/2671

House Passes ‘No Budget No Pay,’ Extends Debt Limit By John Parkinson@jparkABCSunlen Miller@sunlenmiller Jan 23, 2013 2:12pm WASHINGTON — The House of Representatives voted today to approve a three-month extension of the debt limit in a bill that concurrently pressures lawmakers to adopt a budget or have their pay withheld. The vote passed by a count of 285-144. Thirty-three Republicans opposed the measure, while 86 Democrats voted to approve it, sending the legislation to the Senate where it is also expected to pass, according to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. “I’m pleased that Speaker Boehner’s House colleagues have decided to change course and pass a bill that defuses yet another fight over the debt ceiling,” Reid, D-Nev., said. “In substance, it’s a clean debt limit increase.” The bill, known as the No Budget No Pay Act of 2013, directs both chambers of Congress to adopt a budget resolution for fiscal year 2014 by April 15, 2013. If either body fails to pass a budget, members of that body would have their paychecks put into an escrow account starting on April 16 until that body adopts a budget. Any pay that is withheld would eventually be released at the end of the current Congress even if a budget doesn’t ever pass. Democrats also pledged today to pass a budget in the Senate this year. The Senate has not passed a budget resolution since April 29, 2009. “This bill simply says ‘Congress, do your job.’ When I grew up in Wisconsin, if you had a job and you did the work, then you got paid. If you didn’t do the work, you didn’t get paid. It’s that simple,” Paul Ryan, R-Wis., said during debate on the bill leading into the vote. “We have a law. It’s called the Budget Act. It requires that Congress passes a budget by April 15. All we’re saying is, ‘Congress, follow the law. Do your work. Budget.’ The measure also temporarily suspends the statutory debt limit through May 18, granting the Treasury Department the additional borrowing authority to meet obligations that require payment over the next three months. Without congressional action, the Treasury Department has warned that its borrowing authority would run out by mid-February. “There should be no long-term increase in the debt limit until there’s a long-term plan to deal with the fiscal crisis that faces our country,” Boehner, R-Ohio, said during a floor speech prior to the vote. “Every hardworking taxpayer in America knows that they have to do a budget. Every hardworking taxpayer understands that you can’t continue to spend money that you don’t have.” House Democrats generally opposed the bill, calling it a “political gimmick” for “prolonging economic uncertainty.” “If it’s a good idea to maintain the obligations of the U.S. government between now and May 19, it sure is a good idea to make sure that we meet the obligations of the United States Government beyond that,” Rep. Chris Van Hollen, the top Democrat on the Budget committee, said during debate. “This is a political effort simply to increase their negotiating strategy – leveraged three months from now – at the expense of jobs and the economy and the American people.” In recent years conservatives have opposed any increase to the debt limit without corresponding spending cuts, but Republicans hope to gain leverage with a three-month increase by syncing up the next slate of major fiscal deadlines facing Congress to provide lawmakers with more time to work out a so-called ‘Big Deal’ on deficit reduction. “The reason for this extension is so that we can have the debate that we need to have,” Ryan said. “It’s been a one-sided debate. The House of Representatives has passed budgets. The other body, the Senate, hasn’t passed a budget for almost four years. We owe our constituents more than that. We owe them solutions and when both parties put their solutions on the table, than we can have a good, clear debate about how to solve the problem.” “The problem is not going away no matter how much we can wish it away,” Ryan, the former Republican vice presidential nominee, added. “This isn’t a Republican or a Democratic thing. This is a math thing, and the math is vicious, and it’s hurting our country, and it’s hurting the next generation, and it’s hurting our economy.” Casting the House vote as a victory since it abandoned prior demands for spending cuts in exchange for an increase, Reid said that the Senate will move quickly to pass the bill and send it to the president, perhaps as early as this week. “This proposal gives us something we can work with here in the Senate,” Reid, D-Nev., touted at a Capitol news conference today. “In the short term…it removes the threat of default. For the long term it sets a helpful precedent that’s going to make raising the debt ceiling easier from now on.” Reid also called the “no budget, no pay” provision a gimmick to lure in the House’s most conservative members who may not have gone with the plan otherwise. “I understand and we all understand the tea party plays a big part in what goes in the House, and they need a gimmick or two to get things done over there, but to spare the middle class another knock-down, drag-out fight, we’re going to proceed to work on this legislation and get it out of there as quickly as we can,” he said. This morning Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., announced that the Senate will return to regular order and move a budget resolution through the Budget committee and to the Senate floor, a move celebrated by Republicans as marking the first time the Senate will adopt a budget in nearly four years. SHOWS: Nightline This Week World News You might also like Top Stories on ABC NewsSam: Coming out Was Right Thing to DoSabres Rally to Beat Islanders 4-3 in SOConnauton Helps Lead Blue Jackets Over Bruins 6-2Arizona Police Officer, Suspect Killed in ShootoutBrowns Suspend Receiver Josh Gordon, Manziel LateSubscribe RSS

时政

2014-52/4410/en_head.json.gz/2699

Capitol Words a project of the Sunlight Foundation Compare Congressional Words and/or Phrases Pick a word or phrase All states Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Tribute To The 172Nd Stryker Brigade Combat Team Volume 152 , Number 134 Pages Pages E2125 Legislative Body Extensions of Remarks Thu, Dec. 7, 2006 Rep. Don Young Mr. Speaker, I rise today I rise to acknowledge the significant contributions and sacrifices of the 172nd Stryker Brigade Combat Team ``Arctic Wolves,'' based out of Ft. Wainwright, Alaska. I would like to congratulate this elite fighting force of men and women who performed with distinction during an unprecedented 16-month deployment in Iraq. Few units in the history of the Army have developed such a diverse ability to effectively fight in extreme combat situations. The 172nd formed, lived and trained in the harsh Alaska arctic conditions. Alaskan winters have as many as 21 hours of darkness a day and an average daily temperature of 15 degrees. During the initial Iraq deployment in July/August of 2005, these soldiers faced dry, desert conditions in heat topping 120 degrees, quite different from their original training conditions. The ability to adapt and continue to fight insurgents in any environment is one of the many exceptional traits of these Arctic and now, ``Desert Wolves.'' During their tour of duty, the Stryker Brigade had an outstanding combat record and an exceptional reputation for their relationship with the Iraqi citizens. During their service, 5 soldiers were Silver Star Receipts, along with the entire 172nd receiving the Valorous Unit Award. The sacrifices made by these soldiers over the last 16 months were tremendous; 26 soldiers lost their lives and another 381 soldiers were wounded, while in Iraq. The commitment of these soldiers to their Nation is admirable. This brigade, despite their extended tour, had the highest reenlistment rate in the Army with over 33 percent of assigned personnel signing up for the second life cycle. Along with the contributions our Alaskan service members make on a regular basis to the security of this Nation we cannot forget the difficulties their families face during these deployments. Close to 5,000 Alaskan family members of the 172nd had been without their loved ones for 16 months and waited to be back in their arms of their husbands, wives, sons and daughters. While soldiers were overseas, these families in the Fairbanks community pulled together with resounding resolve. Not only am I proud to represent the Artic Wolves, but I am also proud to represent the great military families of Ft. Wainwright who patiently waited for their brave soldiers to return. Over the last 4 months, the 172nd has received increased publicity because of their extended deployment, and the families and soldiers were asked to perform duties few are capable of handling. However, I am proud to say that our Arctic Wolves acted with the utmost level of professionalism and heroism on the ground, from the unit commanders to the most junior enlisted ranks. The 172nd Stryker Brigade Combat Team has made a significant contribution to the proud United States Army military history and I am proud to represent these great American Warriors. On behalf of the state of Alaska, I extend my thanks and appreciation for their exceptional service to this nation. Welcome home, Arctic Wolves. Similar entries Submitted Resolutions Honoring The 56Th Brigade Combat Team Of The Pennsylvania Army National Guard Honoring The 5Th Stryker Brigade Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, And Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010 Recognizing The U.S. Army’S 3Rd Arrowhead Brigade-2Nd Infantry Division Suggested Pages job-killing I would have voted Recent popular words murthy, saldana, vivek, deyo, bough coloretti, s-k, nahasda, samoa, hualapai, airfare, frenzel, malala, ebola, marijuana, helios, penelope, telford, keystone, xl, pipeline, gavi Sunlight Foundation Founded in 2006, the Sunlight Foundation is a nonpartisan nonprofit that advocates for open government globally and uses technology to make government more accountable to all. Visit SunlightFoundation.com to learn more. Like this project and want to discover and support others like it? Join the Sunlight Foundation's open government community to learn more

时政

2014-52/4410/en_head.json.gz/2837

Italy MPs back migrant crackdown Thousands of migrants sail to Italy from North Africa every year Italian MPs have backed a plan to fine illegal immigrants up to 10,000 euros ($13,000), as the government continues to tighten immigration controls.The lower house overwhelmingly backed the bill, which also proposes jailing those who rent houses to illegal immigrants for up to three years. The bill still needs to be approved in the Senate before it can become law. Italy has just introduced a policy of returning boatloads of migrants to Libya before they can claim asylum. The move has attracted criticism, with the UN's refugee agency and the Vatican both saying the move was a breach of international law. Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi sparked further controversy when he defended the decision by saying he did not want to see a "multi-ethnic" Italy. "The left's idea is of a multi-ethnic Italy. That's not our idea, ours is to welcome only those who meet the conditions for political asylum," he told a news conference at the weekend. Public backingThe government says it faces an unmanageable flood of immigrants, many arriving on outlying islands which do not have the means to cope. More than 36,000 migrants landed on the shores of Italy last year - an increase of about 75% on the year before. The BBC's Duncan Kennedy, in Rome, says many Italians believe their country is being left on its own by the European Union to deal with the problem of immigration. And many are now ready to support stricter measures to control the flow of people into their country, our correspondent adds. Mr Berlusconi's centre-right coalition ensured the bill's speedy passage through lower house by turning it into a vote of confidence in the government. While 316 MPs backed the bill, 258 voted against. It will now go to the Senate. Vigilante groupsRocco Buttiglione, a centre-right MP, said the law would bring "slavery" to Italy by creating a class of workers without any rights. He warned that rather than turning to police when they need to, migrants would turn to the Mafia or vigilante justice. Other measures in the government's security and crime legislation include a register of homeless people, citizens' vigilante patrols, and up to three years in prison for anyone who insults the police. Critics say the right-wing government is targeting especially immigrants and Roma (Gypsies). But Manuela del Lago of the anti-immigrant Northern League party, which spearheaded the legislation, said Italy was embarking on the right path. "We don't understand why we have to keep them all here and in other countries they don't take anyone," she said. Milan train segregation idea row Italy turns rescued migrants back Italian migration policy draws fire 07 Mar 09 | Europe Italian government (in Italian) UNHCR Italy

时政

2014-52/4410/en_head.json.gz/2856

How to reach us Subscribe To The Paper Our Town West Side Spirit Our Town Downtown Chelsea Clinton News Decision '09: General Election Published Oct 29, 2009 at 6:01 am (Updated Nov 11, 2014) This November, two citywide offices are up for grabs, and several local incumbents are facing Republican challengers at the polls. To give voters a better idea of the men and women vying for their support, we asked each of the candidates to fill out a brief questionnaire explaining their positions and goals in 300 words or less. Responses have been edited for style and clarity. Manhattan Borough PresidentIncumbent: Scott Stringer, Democrat Educational background: I graduated from New York City public schools, including John F. Kennedy High School and John Jay College of Criminal Justice. Qualifications for office: As a lifelong Manhattanite, I am devoted to public service. I served for 13 years in the State Assembly, where I authored legislation to protect victims of domestic violence, led the successful fight to end "empty-seat voting" in Albany and voted against every attempt to weaken rent regulations. As Borough President, I have revitalized Manhattan's community boards, built coalitions among diverse stakeholders, used the land-use process to tackle issues ranging from affordable housing to school overcrowding, and worked to make Manhattan healthier, greener, safer and more affordable. Three goals I'd most want to accomplish during my next term: 1) Manhattan's public schools will top my agenda. Continued progress on public education is essential for the future of our children and our economic vitality. Although English and mathematics test scores have improved, many challenges remain. My work on school overcrowding created new schools and started reforming the city's planning process for school construction to prepare for the likely addition of a million residents in the next two decades. 2) I will bolster Manhattan's economic security by working to create jobs, support small business and diversify our economy beyond Wall Street. 3) I will strive to make New York the greenest and healthiest city in the United States by fighting to reduce diabetes and asthma and expanding my "Go Green" programs that add farmers markets, plant street trees and give people healthier food choices. Why my challenger is the wrong person for this job: I believe the office of borough president plays an indispensable role in giving neighborhoods a voice in development and solving Manhattan's problems. My challenger, who seems like a very nice fellow, does not. Challenger: David Casavis, Republican Educational background: B.A., SUNY Buffalo, history/education (teacher's certificate); M.B.A., PACE University; M.S. in real estate valuation and analysis, New York University. Qualifications for office: There is almost nothing left to the office of borough president except for urban land issues. I have worked on, and extensively written about, these issues for more than 20 years. These included an impact study on New York City if the city won the 2008 Olympic bid, and a projection of where the new central business district of Berlin would form after the fall of the Berlin Wall, when East and West Berlin came together as one city. I have been involved with the ULURP land-use review procedure and assembled the Society of Industrial Office Realtors' annual report. I will continue to work on such land-use issues long after my opponent moves on to his next appointive position. I hope to utilize my vast expanse of technical expertise in the field to represent Manhattan. Three goals I'd most want to accomplish during my first term: There is only one issue in any borough president's race: whether to keep a vestigial organ or to remove it. Like the human appendix, it is benign until it becomes infected?and then it must be removed. Twenty years after the U.S. Supreme Court found that the Board of Estimate proffered unconstitutional representation to different boroughs, the president of the Board of Estimate is still on the ballot. I promise that, when elected, I will make it my sole impetus to eradicate the office of the borough president, beginning with my own seat in Manhattan. The incumbent's biggest failing: I am running against an office, not an individual. Yet I am moved by the many rank-and-file Democrats who labor diligently for their party and their beliefs only to be scorned by one of the elected officials they labored so hard for.City ComptrollerJohn Liu, Democrat Educational background: I am a proud product of New York City public schools, beginning with kindergarten at P.S. 20 and going all the way through to the Bronx High School of Science. I went on to earn a degree in mathematical physics at SUNY-Binghamton. Qualifications for office: I am

时政

2014-52/4410/en_head.json.gz/2915

Aaron Woolf, Bill Owens chat up business owners in Potsdam PUBLISHED: THURSDAY, APRIL 24, 2014 AT 7:25 PM POTSDAM — Democratic congressional candidate Aaron G. Woolf is being taught more about the district he hopes to represent by the man he hopes to replace, an experience he describes as a kind of apprenticeship.Rep. William L. Owens, D-Plattsburgh, did a regionwide tour of factories and small businesses with Mr. Woolf Thursday, and began the tour with his official endorsement.“I’m going around the district because I want people to know me,” Mr. Woolf said.Mr. Owens said the two will continue to campaign together in the months to come. Mr. Owens will retire from Congress after this year.He said his successor will learn how to help businesses at home as well as in Congress.“A lot of that is not related to what you can do in Washington, but to what you can do in the district,” he said.The two started their tour at Potsdam’s Agway, 14 Pine St., where they spoke to owner Daryl T. Kolanko about the various challenges his business faces.Mr. Kolanko and Mr. Woolf spoke about how the shrinking number of small farms over the last few decades has dramatically changed the way Agway does business. Mr. Owens offered Mr. Kolanko some advice about how to ship products back and forth from Canada more easily.Mr. Kolanko, a registered Republican, said he will need to learn more about Mr. Woolf and the other congressional candidates before making his decision, but he appreciated the gesture of visiting his store.“I don’t have an answer yet,” Mr. Kolanko said when asked whether he plans to support Mr. Woolf in November. “I don’t know about him. It was gracious of him to come by.”He said the best thing a congressman could do to help his business is simply to improve the regional economy, creating more jobs and more paying customers.From Agway, Mr. Owens and Mr. Woolf headed to Northern Music and Video, 29 Market St.Mr. Woolf spoke with owner Christopher J. Smutz about the competition retail outlets face from online stores.He emphasized his own small-business experience. Mr. Woolf owns an organic food store in Brooklyn.Mr. Smutz said he does not yet know whom he will vote for, but said Mr. Woolf is taking a step in the right direction by meeting with area businesses.“I think it’s a great precedent that they’re out and about,” he said.The best way a congressman can help local businesses, he said, is by “focusing on exactly what these guys are focusing on right now.”He also said he would be in favor of an incentive to buy local, as well as a north country highway to bring more equipment and customers to the area.Mr. Woolf said he wants to see the north country focus on coordinating road, rail, and water traffic to help boost the economy and wants to improve the transportation system here.“If it moves, it improves, and I’m a big advocate of infrastructure in all forms,” he said.Before running for Congress, Mr. Woolf was best-known as a documentary filmmaker. His most popular documentary, “King Corn,” examined the industrial farm industry and questioned the wisdom of government subsidies to large farms.When asked his opinion on the farm bill Mr. Woolf equivocated, saying he supports a bill that would support large farmers and small farmers alike. He did not answer questions about what such a bill would look like or who should receive government subsidies.Mr. Owens played a major role in crafting the most recent farm bill and said supporting U.S. farmers is a matter of national security, preventing the United States from having to import large quantities of food from abroad.Mr. Owens and Mr. Woolf agreed that jobs and the economy are the region’s top priority, and will continue to be a focal point of Mr. Woolf’s campaign.“Clearly, jobs and the economy have to be where people are focused,” Mr. Owens said.After leaving Northern Music and Video, the tour continued across the street to Sergi’s Italian Restaurant, 10 Market St.Later, the two traveled to Malone to tour Alice Hyde Medical Center.

时政

2014-52/4410/en_head.json.gz/2922

Baby Boomers Remain Skeptical Of The Establishment By Don Gonyea The baby boomers were born in the two decades after World War II and known for their anti-establishment liberalism in the 1960s. But their beginnings have not made them a predictable Democratic voting block. In 2008, boomers narrowly backed Barack Obama, but they swung over to Republicans in 2010. It should come as no surprise that the baby boom generation is a bit hard to pin down in its politics. After all, it represents 37 percent of the voting age population, bigger than any other age group. And the boomer birth years of 1946 through 1964 cover a lot of time — historic milestones included a moon landing, Vietnam, Watergate and the arms race. In Portland, Maine, which happens to be the U.S. city with the highest concentration of baby boomers, former construction worker Peter Duffy, now 57, recalled that his first presidential election was 1972, when he voted for South Dakota Democratic Sen. George McGovern against Republican candidate Richard Nixon. Though Duffy says he is still a Democrat, he says he thinks government "should be run by businessmen and not politicians." Duffy says he has voted for Democrats and Republicans over the years. He backed President Obama in 2008 but this time he is considering the Republicans — especially Mitt Romney. "I'm still looking into everything, and Romney is a businessman, good businessman," Duffy says. "He's made a lot of money for Massachusetts, but you know, I'm still looking." Carroll Doherty of the Pew Research Center says many baby boomers voted for McGovern in 1972. Baby boomers were McGovern's strongest voting block in a landslide loss that year. "They've moved quite a distance since then," Doherty says. "And just over the past decade an increasing percentage of boomers say that they identify themselves as conservatives and they're taking more conservative views on the role of government." But ask a baby boomer who the best president of his lifetime has been and the top two answers are Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton. Baby boomers' biggest worry is the economy. Savings and investments have taken a hit, along with the value of their homes. Two-thirds say they expect to delay retirement for financial reasons. And they feel the squeeze between the cost of kids in college and the needs of aging parents. "The whole college education cost is a whole other topic," says Anne Romano, a 60-year-old in Portland. "I mean, along with health care, that's a really hot topic for me." Romano also cares for her elderly mother as well. "I will watch what she does," Romano says. "She doesn't have a lot of money; she has to be very careful and if she needs money I would chip in." Romano says she voted for President Obama and thinks he deserves a second term, even though she is frustrated by the state of the economy. The Pew study shows that older boomers, like Romano, tend to vote more Democratic and younger boomers more Republican. As a group, more than half of all baby boomers today say government should be smaller, and there's a clear trend in that direction. But Doherty adds that it's still not clear. "They favor the Republicans on some key issues," Doherty says. "You know, notably things like the deficit, but they favor the Democrats on Social Security so they're kind of conflicted at this point at a year ahead of the election." As a result, the baby boomers remain very much a swing segment of the electorate. But there has been one constant for the members of this iconic generation, going back to the time of Watergate and Vietnam. They expressed a deep lack of trust in government back then — and that lack of trust persists today.Copyright 2011 National Public Radio. To see more, visit http://www.npr.org/. © 2014 WUKY. All rights reserved.

时政

2014-52/4410/en_head.json.gz/3018

Massacre Pushes Syria Closer to Civil War - World - CBN News - Christian News 24-7 - CBN.com Massacre Pushes Syria Closer to Civil War By John Waage CBN News Sr. Editor The killing of innocent children in Syria is forcing world leaders to take a hard line against the regime of President Bashar Assad. The governments of the U.S., France, Britain, Germany, Spain, Italy, Australia and Canada have expelled Syrian diplomats in the wake of a brutal massacre last Friday. More than one hundred people were murdered in the community of Houla near the city of Homs. The United Nations claims 49 children and 34 women were included among the dead. Click play to watch John Waage's report followed by analysis from CBN News Sr. International Correspondent Gary Lane, who's done extensive reports in Syria. Western leaders are pointing to Assad's government as the culprit in the killings. U.N. observers arrived in Houla over the weekend, where residents dug a mass grave for the victims. The observers are trying to hold together a failing U.N.-sponsored cease-fire between the Syrian army and opposition forces in the country. "We have got an agreement from the government, both from in Damascus and locally, to stop any attacks from the government side," Martin Griffith of the U.N. Observer Force explained. "So, we want to make sure that is understood locally by the government checkpoint, and then we want to make sure that the other side understands that there is a stand-down, a truce, and that they also won't attack," he said. The Syrian government says the real account of the massacre is buried under what it called a "tsunami of lies." But leaders in Europe and the United States are outraged by the latest killings, and they're putting responsibility on the Assad regime. "There is not the slightest doubt that there was deliberate government shelling against a civilian neighborhood in these three villages outside Homs," said Sir Mark Lyall Grant from the U.K. Permanent Representative Office to the U.N. Meanwhile, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., criticized the Obama administration in an interview with Fox News, citing its lack of leadership in dealing with the Syrian atrocities and Assad in the 15 months since the uprising against him began. "Here we have over a year, and we're now talking about possibly vetting some people," McCain said. "Nearly 10,000 people have died. This is a brutal regime of incredible proportions." The White House and heads of European governments have been slow to push for Assad's ouster because they didn't want to antagonize Russia, which supports Assad with weapons and financial resources. But after the latest massacre, even the Russians are on the verge of admitting that the situation in Syria is out of control. Netanyahu Condemns Syrian Massacre Syria's Friends, Not Brutality, Keeping Assad in Power Twin Bombings in Damascus Wreak Havoc Syrian Troops' Shelling Gives way to Uneasy Quiet No Sign of Compliance in Syria John Waage John Waage has covered politics and analyzed elections for CBN News since 1980, including primaries, conventions, and general elections. He also analyzes the convulsive politics of the Middle East.

时政

2014-52/4410/en_head.json.gz/3033

Analysts: U.S. will be a factor for years as Iraq remains turbulent By Joe Sterling, CNN An Iraqi soldier monitors traffic in central Baghdad on Tuesday, the official end of the U.S. combat mission in Iraq. STORY HIGHLIGHTSPolitical stability is important for Iraq, analysts agreeThere are similarities between Iraq and South KoreaU.S. troops could stay beyond end of 2011 (CNN) -- The simmering warfare and political instability in Iraq are probably far from over, and U.S. military involvement there could very well last years beyond the end of 2011 -- when all U.S. troops are scheduled to depart the war-torn nation, analysts who study Iraq say. Think-tank analysts who've written about what's next in Iraq after the U.S. combat mission formally ends Tuesday say economic and infrastructure conditions need to be improved. And, they envision a persistent American presence in an Iraq that remains unstable -- despite many improvements in the country's security forces and political culture. While U.S. and Iraqi officials point out that violence there has dropped, the attacks, like the wave of coordinated strikes across Iraq last week, will continue, they say. Video: U.S. combat role comes to an end Gallery: Newsmakers from the Iraq War Gallery: Life in Iraq Video: Iraqis' views on U.S. drawdown U.S. Armed Forces Activities "The Iraq War is not over and it is not 'won,' " wrote Anthony Cordesman, who holds the Arleigh A. Burke Chair in Strategy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "Iraq still faces a serious insurgency, and deep ethnic and sectarian tensions." Analysts say a unified government is key to stability in Iraq and the failure of lawmakers to form a new government after the March 7 national elections could exacerbate violence. Manal Omar, director of Iraq programs of the U.S. Institute of Peace, said the "primary fear" people have with the U.S. combat mission ending is that "political parties will resort to violence to force alliances in power sharing" and "the Iraqi citizens will pay the price." U.S. and Iraqi officials point out that troops could remain past the end of 2011 if the Iraqi government requests a new deployment and both countries agree. Michael O'Hanlon, a Brookings Institution senior fellow who spearheads the organization's Iraq Index, says a full removal of Americans troops by the end of next year would be a tall order. He said "too many sectarian wounds" are "unhealed" and there are "unresolved" disputes -- like the territorial fight between Arabs, Kurds, and Turkomens around Kirkuk. "Pulling all of our remaining troops out of Iraq by the end of 2011, as presently required under a U.S.-Iraqi understanding negotiated by President (George W.) Bush and Prime Minister (Nuri al-) Maliki in late 2008, seems too risky," O'Hanlon wrote in an article in The National Interest. "Our calming presence is useful, as Iraqis themselves agreed in a recent poll by a considerable margin, and there is no military or strategic need to rush for the exits." O'Hanlon also said that any "renegotiation" of the December 31, 2011 date " requires a new Iraqi government -- and there is no sign of one emerging." Noah Feldman, an adjunct senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and a former senior adviser to the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq, wrote a column for the Wall Journal that said "Iraq faces a raft of difficulties if it is to become an effective, self-governing nation, and all of them point to the need for a continuing U.S. role in security and beyond." He noted that the U.S. troop surge blocked setbacks, such as civil war, and that only the United States "can offer a credible guarantee" that the government "is not about to collapse." "This is the reason that many observers, including Ryan Crocker, former U.S. ambassador to Iraq, expect Iraq's elected leaders to ask for troops past the planned pull-out target," Feldman wrote. He said Iraq's politicians have the most to lose from the pullout. "The cost to Iraqi politicians of asking the former occupier to stick around is likely to be offset by the tremendous gains in public confidence associated with a prolonged American commitment -- especially if they ask early in their own election cycle," Feldman said. Feldman said the situation in Iraq is similar to South Korea, where the United States left troops after the 1953 armistice for stability and security. There are nearly 30,000 U.S. troops in South Korea almost 60 years after the end of the Korean War, he said. He said the United States was in South Korea when it "was governed by a succession of military dictators" and into the 1980s as South Korea "blossomed into a free and functioning democracy." "In the coming year, the Iraqi government (once it is formed) is likely to ask the U.S. to keep some significant number of troops in the country after the pullout date of summer 2011. If so, President Obama may well agree, because it is just about the only way to avoid a resurgence of civil war and continue Iraq's tenuous progress toward consolidating democracy," Feldman said. Iraq is known for its oil wealth and the U.S. Department of Energy projects oil production will expand into 2035. But Cordesman said that despite the oil industry, Iraq's "economy is one of the poorest in the world in terms of real per capita income." "It is the second year of a budget crisis that has force it to devote most state funds to paying salaries and maintaining employment at the cost of both development and creating effective security forces," Cordesman said. The 30 years or so of conflict in Iraq has taken its toll, Cordesman said, and "it will be years before Iraq can overcome" their effect. "Moreover, the bulk of a massive international aid effort has either been wasted or consumed in dealing with the insurgency, and aid is phasing down to critically low levels at a time Iraq lacks both the funds and capability to replace aid or even take transfer of many aid projects." Rachel Schneller, a U.S. Foreign Service officer who is now a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, in an essay for Chatham House, cautions any United States withdrawal from Iraq must be responsible and added that "getting the country electrified" would be a key stride. "Nothing would stabilize Iraq more than reliable electricity, which would allow business growth and employment of those who might otherwise join militias to support their families," she wrote. Cordesman said Iraq in the future can be an asset in the region. It can help limit Iran's influence, divide Iran and Syria, give Turkey a "key alternative to economic involvement with Iran, and "play a key role in securing the entire Gulf." "The fact remains, however, that Iraq is a truly vital national security interest of the United States, and of all its friends and allies," he said. Part of complete coverage onIraqiReport: Share your story If you or a loved one have previously served or are currently serving in Iraq, please share your story. Tell us how the war has affected your life Past: Timeline The start of the war, Saddam Hussein's capture, Falluja and more -- check out key events of the Iraq warPresent: Where are they now? Jessica Lynch, Donald Rumsfeld, Ayad Allawi. Look back at past newsmakers and where they are todayFuture: What's next Analysts envision a persistent American presence in an Iraq that remains unstablePhotos: Inside Iraq See images of the country today, more than seven years after the start of the warHome and Away See the stories behind the coalition casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan NewsPulse

时政

2014-52/4410/en_head.json.gz/3040

WHAT OTHERS SAY: How reasonable voices are obliterated by extremists in politics Sunday, November 27, 2011 | 6:36 p.m. CST Perhaps tired of Republican presidential politics getting all the laughs, a pair of Democratic pollsters last week repeated a suggestion that President Barack Obama should drop his bid for re-election in favor of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Pollsters Patrick Caddell, who worked for President Jimmy Carter, and Doug Schoen, who worked for the centrist version of President Bill Clinton who emerged in 1996, argued that the only way for Mr. Obama to win in 2012 would be for him to wage a campaign so negative that it "would make it almost impossible for him to govern, not only during the campaign, but throughout a second term." Instead, they argued Monday on the op-ed page of The Wall Street Journal, Democrats should turn to Ms. Clinton, "the only leader capable of uniting the country around a bipartisan economic and foreign policy." Right. Hillary Clinton. Not a divisive figure at all. By the time next year's Thanksgiving turkey is carved, America will know its next president. Barring tragedy, it won't be Ms. Clinton. Alas, Mr. Caddell and Mr. Schoen, both now far removed from the limelight, will have to stay there. That they should feel compelled to reprise an argument they made a year ago in The Washington Post speaks to the sad Democratic tradition of forming its firing squads in a circle. This is a party that seems congenitally unable to be content. Yes, Mr. Obama's poll numbers are down. But his Republican challenger has yet to emerge, much less go through the crucible of an election campaign. And whoever emerges will have to persuade the American people that they should rehire the contracting firm that four years ago burned their house to the ground. It used to be the Republicans who forever looked backward. Now it is the Democrats who idealize their past presidents (or first ladies) and present incumbents with unrealistic expectations. The progressive journalist Jonathan Chait, formerly of The New Republic, makes that point in the Nov. 20 edition of New York magazine in the article "When did liberals become so unreasonable?" "For almost all of the past 60 years, liberals have been in a near-constant emotional state of despair, punctuated only by brief moments of euphoria and occasional rage," Mr. Chait writes. "When they're not in charge, things are so bleak they threaten to move to Canada; it's almost more excruciating when they do win elections, and their presidents fail in essentially the same ways: He is too accommodating, too timid, too unwilling or unable to inspire the populace." Conservatives, he suggests, "are at least as absolutist as liberals in the ideological demands they make upon their leaders," but "are far less likely to turn against their president altogether. They assail the compromise but continue to praise the man." Mr. Chait's article is paired with a similar cri-de-coeur by David Frum, a former speechwriter ("axis of evil") for President George W. Bush. Mr. Frum's complaint is that there's no place for moderation in his party. "Rather than workable solutions, my party is offering low taxes for the currently rich and high spending for the currently old, to be followed by who-knows-what and who-the-hell-cares," Mr. Frum laments. "This isn't conservatism; it's a going-out-of-business sale for the baby-boom generation." Unless reasonable voices on the right and left are heard, this is going to be a very long year. Copyright St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Reprinted with permission.

时政

2014-52/4410/en_head.json.gz/3155

The prime minister will decide Israel News | Haaretz The prime minister will decide Unparalleled power that has been given to the PM gives him the opportunity to be a a path breaker who cuts the Gordian knot of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in one fell swoop. Reuven Pedatzur | Sep. 1, 2010 | 12:53 AM Benjamin Netanyahu, Barack Obama and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas before a meeting in New York in 2009. Photo by AP The government has no policies, and its ministers have no idea what the prime minister will tell his Palestinian dialogue partners in Washington. The phrase "the policy of the Israeli government" is a fiction. The only policy is that of the prime minister. It is Benjamin Netanyahu alone who will, in far-away Washington, decide the future of the country. His ministers will, like the rest of us, find out the details only after he presents his political doctrine to Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and other PA officials. It appears that the power concentrated in the hands of Israel's prime minister has no corollary anywhere else in the democratic world. The media debate on the future of the coalition creates the impression that Netanyahu is a weak premier, subject to pressure from the right and the left; in practice, however, he enjoys full decision-making autonomy on issues of genuine strategic importance. What was on the cabinet's agenda just before Netanyahu headed to Washington yesterday? Integrating mothers into the workforce and appointing a consul in Boston. The members of the cabinet did not even try to find out the contours of the map Netanyahu was taking with him to Washington or those of the agreement he wants to reach. In the same spirit, the prime minister decided on Monday to cancel a planned meeting of the forum of seven, in which the senior ministers were supposed to discuss his trip to Washington. There's no point in holding the meeting, he said, as it would in any case just be for show. Thus, it has come to pass that the country's senior ministers, who are supposedly influencing policy, or are at least be involved in shaping it, are left guessing about Netanyahu's intentions. Industry, Trade and Labor Minister Benjamin Ben-Eliezer is hoping Netanyahu plans to reach a deal involving some concessions on Israel's part. He "believes," as he puts it, he know what Netanyahu thinks. Vice Prime Minister Silvan Shalom says the prime minister must update the ministers on the peace process in a formal meeting. Neither Ben-Eliezer nor Shalom nor any of their colleagues around the cabinet table has the slightest clue as to how Israel's borders will look if Netanyahu gets his way. The problem is not just that the cabinet members have no idea what the prime minister is planning, but that they willingly accept this state of affairs. And when, in an effort to exert some influence on Netanyahu before he left the country, Minority Affairs Minister Avishay Braverman demanded a clear statement from Labor describing its position on peace talks, Ben-Eliezer said: "This isn't the right time to threaten Netanyahu with quitting the coalition. Now is the time we should be standing behind him, during negotiations." Standing behind the prime minister is important and fitting, but only on condition that those doing the supporting know what exactly it is that they're supporting. Netanyahu didn't come up with this flawed process. His predecessors also enjoyed the power that comes with the autonomy their ministers granted them. Some took advantage of this to make critical decisions on their own and brought them to the cabinet for approval afterward. That's what happened when Ehud Barak decided to withdraw from Lebanon and when Ariel Sharon decided to pull out of the Gaza Strip. In both cases, the cabinet was notified about the new policy after it was formulated and brought to the ministers for approval. There's no doubt this a serious flaw in Israel's policy-making process on issues that affect our future. All the same, the unparalleled power that has been given to the prime minister gives him the opportunity to be a reformist, a path breaker who cuts the Gordian knot of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in one fell swoop. Stop being shocked by anti-Arab singer Amir Benayoun By Rogel Alpher Netanyahu's 'view from here' By Nehemia Shtrasler A racist can't be chief rabbi? In Israel? By B. Michael Don't save Netanyahu, topple him By Sefi Rachlevsky

时政

2014-52/4410/en_head.json.gz/3212

The last two and a half years at the Kenya Mission to the United Nations have been exceptionally exciting and highly rewarding. The nature of the work at the Kenya Mission to the United Nations is not only highly varied and fast moving but exceptionally Sadly most of what we do is not known nor truly understood back home in Kenya or even among the Kenyan diaspora. The nature of the work, it's complexity and it's variety makes it difficult to communicate it to Kenyans and is therefore usually understood mostly by the cognoscenti of multilateral affairs. Sadly our media, both print and electronic, have yet to evolve the extensive skills needed to process the variety of information and outcomes from UN debates and conferences for public communication and consumption. Nonetheless, the nature of the work that we deal with, whether it has to do with international security, public health, education, economic development, human rights, women's and children's affairs, the law of the sea or the environment etc, is of seminal importance not only to Kenya or Africa but also to the entire world. Multilateralism is fascinating. The challenge of dealing with 193 nations, multiple interlocutors, a cluster of international organizations and institutions, can be exceptionally challenging but also enormously satisfying. It takes exceptional skills and dedication to fully leverage the opportunities for a country like Kenya that exists in a place like the United Nations. The Kenya Mission to the United Nations, despite its small size and limited staff cohort, has proven itself time and again to be up to the task and to have the skills and the dedication to fully engage in the interest of the Kenyan Republic and it's people. Having said this it does remain a real challenge for the mission to continue to play its full role mostly owing to limited human and financial resources. Over the past twenty-four to thirty-two months the Kenya Mission to the United Nations has engaged in the following critical and internationally important areas of action. A leading role for Africa in the build up to and the participation in the Rio+20 Conference on Sustainable Development. The outcomes of which will have intergenerational implications for global development in the economic social and environmental sphere. The reform of UNEP and UN habitat including the transformation of the governing council of UNEP into the United Nations Environmental Assembly, a truly historic achievement. The international negotiations on the Arms Trade Treaty that was completed and brought up for signature, Kenya was a Co-author. A leading role in UN children’s fund (UNICEF) as the Vice President of the UNICEF Board, a leading role in South South Corporation as the President. A leading role as President of the International Conference on People Living with Disabilities. A key role as Member of the Working Group of Assembly of State Party to the International Criminal Court and it's related work. A leading African country in the United Nations Security Council Reform Process as a Member of the Committee of 10 Countries charged with UNSC reform responsibilities and successfully negotiated and appointed to take up the leadership and Presidency of United Nations Forest Fund. The Mission has also led negotiations on a number of important resolutions including resolutions on the International Conference on Population and Development, ICPD and resolutions on humanitarian affairs. Played a leadership role in negotiating the United Nations Peacekeeping Budget for two years in a row as well as being Africa's Representative on the Senior Advisory Group Strategic Committee dealing with Peacekeeping Reform. The Mission has also been given important responsibilities, where the Ambassador has been elected as the Vice President of the General Assembly and most recently as the Co-chair of the Open Working Group on Sustainable Development of the General Assembly, the most important follow up action on the platform of the Rio+20 Conference. These are just some of the important and internationally highly regarded actions and leadership positions that the Mission has taken on and that I as Ambassador have provided leadership in. I am proud of my country's ability to provide us with the wherewithal and the trust to take on these internationally important responsibilities. I am equally proud of the team that I have, small as it is, and its ability to respond to the challenges and the global responsibilities that have been placed on it by our success and the recognition of our peers. Ambassador Macharia Kamau Ambassador/Permanent Representative, Kenya Mission to the United Nations – New York Previous Assignment Ambassador Plenipotentiary and Extraordinary and Permanent Representative to United Nations Office Nairobi. Triple Accreditation Kenya Permanent Mission to United Nations Office Nairobi Kenya Permanent Mission to United Nations Environment Programme Kenya Permanent Mission to United Nations HABITAT In addition to his diplomatic assignments, Ambassador Macharia Kamau was International Consultant to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the United Nations AIDS. He has vast experience at the United Nations where he served for over twenty five years mostly in senior management positions at the UNDP, UNICEF and UNTAG. During this period, he was deployed in various countries in Eastern and Southern Africa as well as the Caribbean. VOL 1/ ISSUE 1/ 2013 To be a leader in pursuit of Kenya’s interests within the multilateral framework of the United Nations. To project, promote and protect the interests and values of the Kenyan people through effective diplomatic engagement. Word From the Deputy Permanent Representative

时政

2014-41/1934/en_head.json.gz/15235

Israel-News Today Iran�s ex-president calls for talks with U.S. (WASHINGTON TIMES) By Abraham Rabinovich JERUSALEM, ISRAEL 04/06/12) Source: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/apr/5/iran-ex-president-calls-for-talks-with-us/ WASHINGTON TIMES Articles-Index-Top JERUSALEM � A former president of Iran is calling on the Islamic republic to negotiate with the United States to avoid �an adventurous policy� involving Iranian-backed anti-Israel proxies in Lebanon and the Gaza Strip.Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani also says Iran has no intention to produce an atomic bomb. �We sincerely believe that there is no need for nuclear weapons in the region,� he said in an interview published in the Iranian International Studies Journal.Widely regarded as a moderate in Iranian politics, Mr. Rafsanjani was president from 1989 to 1997. He resigned last year from the Council of Experts that advises the supreme leader amid disagreements with the hard-line government of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.In his interview, which was translated by the Middle East Media Research Institute, Mr. Rafsanjani said he tried in vain to persuade Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, who founded Iran�s theocratic regime in 1979, to negotiate with Washington.�I wrote him a letter by hand and gave it to him myself because I didn�t want anyone else to read it. I wrote that refraining from talks or ties with America could not go on forever. America is one of the stronger powers in the world,� he said.Mr. Rafsanjani said he noted in his letter that Tehran was talking with other countries such as China and the Soviet Union. �Negotiating doesn�t mean that we are capitulating to them,� he said.In a response to the interview, Hossein Shariatmadari, editor of the pro-government newspaper Kayhan, said Khomeini opposed dialogue with the U.S. �because Iran�s primary conflict has been and remains with America.�Iran�s semi-official Fars News Agency, which is close to the elite Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, said that Mr. Rafsanjani�s call for a dialogue with Washington contradicts senior officials who have said that talks with the U.S. would produce no results.The Iranian militia also noted that his call comes amid U.S. and Western sanctions against the regime�s nuclear program and heightened anti-American sentiments in the Middle East.Mr. Rafsanjani said Iran�s national interests demand good relations with the U.S., which would help prevent �an adventurous policy� involving the Iranian-backed militant groups Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon.Mr. Rafsanjani had been considered Khomeini�s principal aide and held a series of top posts over the years.However, his public criticism of current Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khameni and his support of the opposition during the last presidential election have put him at odds with the regime.Pro-government newspapers expressed doubt that his remarks will influence the regime regarding upcoming negotiations with the West. (� 2012 The Washington Times, LLC. 04/06/12)

时政

2014-41/1934/en_head.json.gz/15638

244 Hodgson to Department of External Affairs Cablegram UN722 NEW YORK, 4 August 1947, 10.17 p.m.MOST IMMEDIATE SECRET Security 425. Your 425. [1] 1. I approached both the President of the Security Council and the Assistant Secretary-General and urged that United Nations official should be flown to Java to observe action taken to comply with the Resolution and to keep the Council informed. However, neither El Khouri nor Kerno was prepared to take such action without the express authority of the Council. 2. The President indicated, however, that when the Council met he would announce the replies received from the Netherlands and Indonesian Governments [2] and would give me opportunity to make a statement. This question was not on today's agenda and I had to speak on its adoption. Belgium immediately said there should be no discussion of the question unless representative were present. The President said his statement was confined to information and he hoped mine would be also. However, we shall continue to press the question and it is clear that the Council is still seized with the matter and any member can raise it at any time. 3. I gave the Council the facts given by Ballard on delay by Netherlands authorities in Batavia in transmitting communication containing the Council Resolution. [3] I then suggested that in order to keep the Council informed, to assist with the settlement and to ensure that decision of the Council was given effect to, the President should be authorized to consult with the Secretary- General with a view to despatch of a high United Nations official to the spot. 4. President noted suggestion and said he would discuss it with Acting Secretary-General. 5. It is probable that the Indonesian question will be on the agenda again for Wednesday when the various replies from the two parties will be before the Council. It is understood that Romulo will ask to participate in order to make a proposal that the Council should appoint a board of three to five arbitrators. We shall take the opportunity of elaborating more fully the proposals we advanced this afternoon. 2 See Documents 240 and 245. 3 See Document 233. [AA:A1838/274, 854/10/4, ii]

时政

2014-41/1934/en_head.json.gz/15738

FLANK DOCUMENT AGREEMENT TO THE CFE TREATY (Senate - May 14, 1997) [Page: S4473] Mr. LOTT...I am glad I was able to come to the floor, Madam President, and listen to this exchange. I always enjoy learning from the exchanges involving the senior Senators, like the Senators from West Virginia and North Carolina and Delaware. I wish all Members had been here for the last hour and heard this debate. I do want to take just a few minutes, as we get to the close of debate, to speak on the Chemical Forces in Europe flank agreement or resolution of ratification because I think it is very important. I wish we did have more time to talk about all of its ramifications, but I know the chairman and the ranking member have gone over the importance of this treaty earlier today. Madam President, we have an important treaty before us today modifying the 1990 Conventional Armed Forces in Europe Agreement [CFE]. The Flank Document adjusts the CFE boundaries to reflect the collapse of the Soviet Empire, adds reporting requirements, and increases inspection provisions. Negotiations to modify the CFE Treaty began in 1995, because Russia threatened to violate the flank limits in the original treaty. The precedent of modifying a treaty to accommodate violations by a major signatory concerned many of us. We have also been concerned about how Russia intends to use the Flank Agreement to pressure countries on its borders--former Republics of the Soviet Union. Our concerns were dramatically heightened by the classified side agreement the administration reached to further accommodate Russian demands. This side agreement is available for all Senators to review in room S-407 of the Capitol. The concerns about the CFE Flank Agreement are shared by a number of states which have been subjected to Russian intimidation, pressure and subversion. States with Russian troops on their soil without their consent--Moldova, Ukraine, and Georgia--have rightly expressed concern that the Flank Agreement must not undermine their sovereign right to demand withdrawal of those Russian forces. A fourth country, Azerbaijan, has been subject to Russian-sponsored coups and assassination attempts. They have been reluctant to approve the Flank Agreement without adequate assurances. The resolution of ratification before the Senate today addresses these concerns. The resolution includes a number of binding conditions which make clear to all CFE parties that no additional rights for Russian military deployments outside Russian borders are granted. The resolution ensures that United States diplomacy will not be engaged on the side of Russia but on the side of the victims of Russian policies. In addition, the 16 members of NATO issued a statement last week affirming that no additional rights are granted to Russia by the Flank Agreement. This statement was a direct result of the concerns expressed by other CFE parties and by the Senate. The resolution directly addresses the administration's side agreement in condition 3 which limits United States diplomatic activities to ensuring the rights of the smaller countries on Russia's borders. This resolution ensures the United States will not tacitly support Russian policies that have undermined the independence of Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova, and Azerbaijan. Finally, the resolution requires detailed compliance reports and lays out a road map for dealing with noncompliance in the future. The resolution of ratification also addresses important issues of Senate prerogatives. It clarifies that the Byrd-Biden condition, added to the INF Treaty in 1988, does not allow the administration to avoid Senate advice and consent on treaty modifications or amendments. The resolution addresses the issue of multilateralizing the 1972 ABM Treaty in condition 9. The administration has raised objections to this provision as they have to many previous efforts to assert Senate prerogatives on this point. This should be an institutional position--not a partisan issue. For more than 3 years, Congress has been on the record expressing serious misgivings about the administration plan to alter the ABM Treaty by adding new signatories. Section 232 of the 1994 defense authorization bill states the issue clearly: `The United States shall not be bound by any international agreement entered into by the President that would substantively modify the ABM Treaty unless the agreement is entered pursuant to the treaty making power of the President under the Constitution.' Efforts to address the multi- lateralization issue since then have resulted in filibusters and veto threats. It should not surprise anyone that the Senate selected this resolution of ratification to address the issue--just as Senators Byrd and Biden selected the resolution of ratification for the INF Treaty to address an ABM Treaty issue 9 years ago. Many of my colleagues are familiar with the issue of ABM multi- lateralization. Despite the often arcane legal arguments, the issue is not complicated. The Senate gave its advice and consent to the 1972 ABM Treaty as a bilateral agreement between the United States and the Soviet Union. The administration has proposed adding as many as four new signatories to the treaty and has negotiated limited treaty rights for those new signatories. The administration's proposal would define Russia's national territory to include these countries for purposes of the ABM Treaty. The administration's proposal would essentially define military equipment of these countries as belonging to Russia for purposes of the ABM Treaty. The administration's proposal would add new countries to the ABM Treaty but not grant them rights allowed the original signatories. This would mean that countries would have the power to block future U.S. amendments to the ABM Treaty--even though the new signatories would not have the same rights and obligations as the United States. The administration's proposed multilateralization would only address some of the military equipment covered under the original ABM Treaty--leaving a radar in Latvia, for example, outside the scope of the new treaty. Under the administration's proposal, the vast majority of states independent which succeeded the Soviet Union would be free to develop and deploy unlimited missile defenses--a dramatic change from the situation in 1972 when the deployment of missile defenses on these territories was strictly limited by the ABM Treaty. In part and in total, these are clearly substantive modifications which require--under U.S. law--Senate advice and consent. Multilateralization would alter the object and purpose of the ABM Treaty as approved by the Senate in 1972. Multilateralization, therefore, must be subject to the advice and consent of the Senate. The administration argues that it has the sole power to determine questions of succession. But that is not true. The Congressional Research Service opinion, quoted widely in this debate, recognizes that `International law regarding successor States and their treaty obligations * * * remains unsettled.' It also notes that `international law does not provide certain guidance on the question of whether the republics formed on the territory of the former U.S.S.R. have succeeded to the rights and obligations of the ABM Treaty' and that `a multi- lateralization agreement could include matters that would alter the substance of the ABM Treaty and require Senate advice and consent.' It is my understanding that this opinion was prepared a year ago by a lawyer who has not even seen the text of the proposed agreement. The administration's position does not recognize the arms control precedents followed in the last decade. Arms control treaties are different from treaties on fisheries, taxes, or cultural affairs. START I was concluded with the Soviet Union but entered into force only after the Senate gave its advice and consent to the Lisbon Protocol apportioning the nuclear forces of the former Soviet Union among successor States. The Bush administration did not argue that Ukrainian SS-19 missiles were the property of Russia. Yet, the Clinton administration is essentially arguing that Ukrainian phased-array radars are Russian under the proposed ABM multilateralization agreement. The question of successor state obligations under the CFE Treaty was explicitly recognized by the Senate when we gave our advice and consent to that treaty. During our consideration, a condition was included in the resolution of ratification which specified procedures for the accession of new States Parties to the CFE Treaty. On the issue of ABM multilateralization, Congress has specifically legislated on our right to review the agreement. To my knowledge, that has not happened on any other succession issue. Clearly, ABM multilateralization is very different from routine succession questions which have been decided by the executive branch alone. Madam President, I agree with the administration on one important point. This is a constitutional issue. The White House has taken one position until today, and now the Senate has definitively taken another. Last January, I asked President Clinton to agree to submit three treaties for our consideration. the President has agreed to submit the ABM Demarcation agreement and the CFE Flank Agreement, which is before the Senate today. After he refused to submit ABM multilateralization, I said publicly that I would continue to press for the Senate prerogatives--because the Constitution, the precedents and the law are on our side. We do not prejudge the outcome of our consideration of ABM multilateralization. All we require is that the administration submit the agreement to the Senate. Yes, that requires building a consensus that may not exist today but such a consensus is necessary for a truly bipartisan national security policy. That is the issue before the Senate today. Late last week, the administration recognized the Senate's desire to review ABM multilateralization. They proposed replacing the certification in condition 9 with nonbinding `sense of the Senate' language. In exchange, Secretary Albright offered to send a letter assuring us that we could address multilateralization in an indirect way--as part of a reference in the ABM demarcation agreement. But this offer was logically inconsistent. It asked the Senate to simply express our view about a right to provide advice and consent to multilateralization--and then accept a letter that explicitly denied that right. Adding new parties to the ABM Treaty is a fundamentally different issue from the proposed demarcation limits on theater defense systems. The administration's offer would allow multilateralization regardless of Senate action on the demarcation agreement. Our position is simple: We want to review multilateralization through the `front door' on its own merits--not through the `back door' as a reference in a substantively different agreement. When the administration agreed to submit the CFE Flank Agreement for our advice and consent, we were asked to act by the entry into force deadline of May 15. We will act today even though the treaty was not submitted to the Senate until April 7--3 months after my request. We will act today even though we have a very full agenda--including comp time/flex time, IDEA, partial birth abortion and the budget resolution. We will fulfill our constitutional duty, we will address our concerns about policy toward Russia, and we will address the important issue of Senate prerogatives. I urge my colleagues to support the entire resolution of ratification reported by the Foreign Relations Committee--including condition 9 on ABM multilateralization. Madam President, I want to thank many Senators who have worked very hard and for quite some time on this treaty and on the ABM condition. I particularly would like to thank Chairman Helms, Senator Biden, Senator Gordon Smith, and their staffs for all the work they did to get this resolution before the Senate today. Also, I would like to thank Senators who helped in insisting on Senate prerogatives--Senator Warner and Senator McCain, Senator Smith, Senator Kyl, Senator Shelby, Senator Lugar, and Senator Hagel. A number of Senators on the committee and some not on the committee have been very much involved in this process. I commend them all. Senators have had concerns about how and why this agreement was negotiated, and we had concerns about a side deal the administration made with the Russians concerning the allocation of equipment under the treaty. The Senate has addressed these concerns decisively in this resolution of ratification. The resolution places strict limits on the administration's flank policy. It ensures that we will be on the side of the victims of Russian intimidation and that the United States will stand up for the independence of States on Russia's borders. Most important, this resolution addresses a critical issue of Senate prerogative, our right to review the proposed modifications to the 1972 ABM Treaty. It was a decade ago that another ABM Treaty issue was brought in this body. That debate over interpretations of the ABM Treaty was finally resolved in the resolution of ratification for the INF Treaty in 1988. Today, we are resolving the debate over multilateralization of the ABM Treaty in this resolution of ratification. For more than 3 years now Congress and the executive branch have discussed back and forth the appropriate Senate rule in reviewing the administration's plan to add new countries to the ABM Treaty. Condition 9 requires the President to submit any multilateralization agreement to the Senate for our advice and consent. It does not force action here. It just says we should have that opportunity. We should be able to exercise that prerogative to review these changes. It ensures we will have a full opportunity to look at the merits of multilateralization in the future. I believe the Constitution and legal precedence are in our favor. Today, the Senate will act on the Conventional Forces in the Europe [CFE] Flank Agreement in time to meet the May 15 deadline. In spite of the limited time we had to consider the agreement and the very full schedule that we have had on the floor, we are meeting that deadline. I did have the opportunity to discuss this issue with our very distinguished Secretary of State yesterday, and we discussed the importance of this CFE Flank Agreement. Also, we talked about how we could properly and appropriately address our concerns about multilaterilization. I suspect that she probably had something to do with the decision to go forward with it in this form, and I thank her for that, and the members of the committee for allowing it to go forward in this form.

时政

2014-41/1934/en_head.json.gz/15849

Jewish Peace News (JPN) is an information service that circulates news clippings, analyses, editorial commentary, and action alerts concerning the Israel / Palestine conflict. We work to promote a just resolution to the conflict; we believe that the cause of both peace and justice will be served when Israel ends the occupation, withdrawing completely from the Palestinian territories and finding a solution to the Palestinian refugee crisis within the framework of international law. Rami Elhanan: "I am Bassam Aramin" and more In these pieces below, two bereaved fathers reflect on their losses. Rami Elhanan is the father of Elik Elhanan, an activist with Combatants for Peace, and Smadar Elhanan, a young woman killed in a suicide bombing in Jerusalem ten years ago. Rami is active with the Bereaved Families Forum which, like Combatants for Peace, is made up of Israelis and Palestinians together working for an end to the bloodshed. In Rami’s essay, just published, he talks about the trip he made last week to Warsaw, a trip that Bassam Aramin, whose daughter Abir was killed last year by Israeli troops, was prevented from making.Rami’s essay highlights the presence and absence of Palestinian partners, and specifically of one partner, Bassam. Bassam and his family are so present - present in shared bereavement, friendship, and struggle to transform their communities and end the violence. And yet Bassam and his family and Palestinians in general are so absent: absent from the international forums to which they’re invited to speak but are denied the necessary visas that would allow them to attend, and thus absent in their own voices, and absent as victims and survivors and partners for justice and peace. This absence is especially stark in the official speech of the Israeli government, for whom Palestinians are present almost only as terrorists or, at least, as responsible for their own suffering and deaths. Indeed, in keeping with that discourse, the Israeli army suggested that Abir Aramin, who died from a bullet in the back of her skull, was responsible for her own death.Rami, Bassam and the other members of their groups are guiding lights for work for justice and against the ongoing oppression, violence and suffering. They bestow upon any of us great gifts: their dedication and insight, which suggest immense emotional and psychic labor they must do to live with their heartbreak and take up the public mantle of struggle for peace. And their work with the Bereaved Families Forum (http://www.theparentscircle.com/), and Combatants for Peace (http://combatantsforpeace.org/) is a reminder of the great power people can generate when coming together to organize for change.Included in this post are:1) Rami Elhanan’s essay about his trip to Warsaw last week, published by Search for Common Ground (www.commongroundnews.org)2) Bassam Aramin’s op-ed about Abir’s death, from February 2007, published originally in The Forward and reprinted by Search for Common Ground.3) An email from The Rebuilding Alliance (http://www.rebuildingalliance.org/) with two pieces of good news: the U.S. State Department’s 2007 Country Report for Israel and the Occupied Territories includes a paragraph about Abir’s death; and Abir’s Garden, playground built by Combatants for Peace in memory of Abir, opened last month in Anata, Abir’s hometown.4) On March 10th, Terry Gross interviewed Bassam Aramin and Zohar Shapira (also of Combatants for Peace) on the radio program “Fresh Air.” Here is the link: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88036198Sarah Anne Minkin********I am Bassam AraminRami Elhananhttp://www.commongroundnews.org/article.php?id=22853&lan=en&sid=0&sp=0&isNew=1JERUSALEM—Last Thursday evening, my family was invited to dinner at the home of Bassam Aramin, in Anata.Anata is a twenty minute ride from Motza, twenty light years away from Jerusalem.We ate a mountain of maqloube with almonds and yogurt. Bassam told us about his meeting with the actor Shlomo Wizcinski who is slated to play Bassam in a new play. And my wife gave his wife, Salwa, a gift: a silver pendant with the name of her daughter Abir, may she rest in peace, made by a Jerusalem silversmith.We laughed. It was fun. It was emotional.And then, on the television screen, we saw the images of the attack on the Jerusalem Merkaz Harav school.And again a cold hand seizes your heart, and again the blood freezes in your veins, again that sword twists inside you, knowing again there will be no rest until that blood is avenged. On the side of the screen, a news ticker of stark updates from Gaza: eight dead in one hour.And beside the television, Salwa is bitter with tears for the mothers of the dead.It was hard. Truly hard."Alright," said Bassam when we parted. "At least we'll see each other in Warsaw on Sunday…"The two of use were invited by Warsaw television and HBO for the premier of a new documentary about the Israeli-Palestinian bereaved families organization, Parents Circle-Families Forum. I was glad. I knew that together we would be able to pass on a message of hope to people who, for the most part, had not the faintest idea about the conflict. I knew that by virtue of our shared grief people would listen to us—and perhaps even talk about peace.I was naïve. I completely forgot that the average Palestinian couldn't just get up one morning, like most free men, and travel to wherever he pleases. Despite a barrage of telephone calls, scores of angry emails, pleas and shouting, Bassam stayed at home without a visa.And thus I find myself Monday evening at the Polish National Theater in Warsaw, alone, in front of a curious Polish audience, two ambassadors, Israeli and Palestinian, and an empty chair—Bassam's chair.The film begins. Deathly silence. Heartbreaking stories of unbearable human anguish, without political demands, without attempts to quantify suffering. Stories of bereavement and futile attempts to give even a little meaning to the incredible, needless loss each family experienced. An unsure outreaching of a hand to the other side, a hug, reconciliation, and the shade of a smile, a bud of hope. Men and women, faces lined with suffering, in extreme close-up, telling and telling. A sigh can be heard from the audience in the dark hall, and perhaps tears falling—the atmosphere is heavy and onerous.As the screening ends, the Israeli ambassador fidgets in his seat, his body language communicating impatience and blatant aggression. "Count to ten!" shouts an Israeli from the audience, but it's already too late.He stands and takes the single microphone, and everyone, including the Palestinian ambassador, sits admonished like disobedient children, listening to the words of His Lordship. And he explains, his Honor, that he had had misgivings and hesitancies about appearing at the evening's event after what happened in Jerusalem on Thursday, but out of respect for the bereaved families he had decided to come. And he went on to say that Israel would be resolute in its fight against terror, without compromise. And that there is no comparing the pain of someone who was hurt by terror with that of someone who was hurt as a result of others acting in self-defense…that Israeli children don't go blow themselves up in the market in Gaza, and…And then someone from the audience yells at him that Israel sends tanks and fighter planes to Gaza, that the Israeli occupation is also a form of terrorism. Immediately the same ugly argument restarts, with His Excellency affirming that everyone has a right to their opinion—meanwhile his press agent has no idea where to bury himself from embarrassment, in front of his astonished Polish hosts. We too, myself and my son, cast our eyes downwards in shame at this strange behavior, this bombastic performance of our representative in Warsaw.That same morning, across from the remains of the Warsaw ghetto wall, I had asked myself how I, as a Jew, as an Israeli and as a human, could express my feelings about Bassam's loss. Then, I was not able to come to any conclusion. And now, in a split-second decision, I said to those assembled at the screening, "I—am Bassam Aramin! I represent here the missing character of this brave and noble combatant for peace."I told them that the fact that Palestinians are missing from nearly every international forum that speaks about the conflict is a source of embarrassment. I said that this absent bereaved father, this ex-prisoner who chose the path of reconciliation and peace, is a powerful voice against the glaring injustice that continues to assert that there is no one to talk with, that there is nothing to talk about, and that we should give up talking.At that point, the ambassador assembled his bodyguards and left in a suitably royal huff. The head Rabbi acknowledged that "there is no pain like your pain," and the panel nodded in agreement out of Polish politeness.We went together to be photographed, and afterwards to drink and then to eat, and while present physically, my soul and in my heart were in Anata. I could not for an instant stop thinking about Bassam and Salwa Aramin. I though to myself that only Bassam, with his nobility and his endless smiles, could have made the ambassador embarrassed and lower his glare in shame; only he could have helped him understand that the attacks in Gaza preceded the ones in Jerusalem, that Sderot preceded Gaza, that the Occupation preceded Jenin, and ad infinitum—an endless cycle of senseless violence…But Bassam was not there with me. I left Warsaw with a bowed head, wounded, shamed and hurting.And that is all there is. It is up to us to move forward… or not.###* Rami Elhanan is the father of Smadar Elhanan, who was killed in a suicide bombing in Jerusalem in September, 1997. He lectures daily for the Israeli-Palestinian bereaved families organization Parents Circle-Families Forum. This article, translated from Hebrew by Miriam Asnes, is distributed by the Common Ground News Service (CGNews) and can be accessed at www.commongroundnews.org.********A plea for peace from a bereaved Palestinian fatherby Bassam Aramin14 February 2007http://www.commongroundnews.org/article.php?id=20386&lan=en&sid=0&sp=0&isNew=1ANATA, West Bank – I fought with my daughter on the day she was shot.On her way out the door to school, Abir announced, in that way children have of doing, that she would be playing with a friend that afternoon rather than coming straight home to study for an exam scheduled for the next day. She was 10 years old, smart, dedicated to her schoolwork and still a little girl.She wanted to play. I told her to not even think about it.If I could tell her anything now, it would be: Go. Do whatever you want. Play.Because now, she never will. She will never laugh again, never hear her friends calling her name, never feel the love of her family wrapped around her at night like a warm blanket.Abir, the third of my six children, was shot in the head as she left school January 16, caught in an altercation between Israel Border Guard troops and older kids who may or may not have been throwing rocks. She died two days later.I know what the Israeli army has said about the incident, and I know what Abir's older sister Arin saw with her own two eyes: Abir was running away from the troops when she suddenly stopped and fell, and blood splattered onto the ground. An independent autopsy confirms the most likely cause of death: a rubber bullet, through the back of Abir's head. I have that bullet in my house, because poor Arin, watching her sister get shot, picked up the bullet and brought it home. I was not surprised when the Israeli army tried to blame Abir for her own death. First we were told that she was among the rock throwers; then we were told that "something" blew up in her hands - though her hands remained miraculously in tact - before she could toss it at the Border Guard jeep.I was not surprised, but the anguish that such fabrications cause my wife and me is hard to express. Our baby was killed - must her name and innocence be desecrated, as well?It would be easy, so easy, to hate. To seek revenge, find my own rifle, and kill three or four soldiers, in my daughter's name. That's the way Israelis and Palestinians have run things for a long time. Every dead child - and everyone is someone's child - is another reason to keep killing.I know. I used to be part of the cycle. I once spent seven years in an Israeli jail for helping to plan an armed attack against Israeli soldiers. At the time, I was disappointed that none of the soldiers was hurt.But as I served out my sentence, I talked with many of my guards. I learned about the Jewish people's history. I learned about the Holocaust.And eventually I came to understand: On both sides, we have been made instruments of war. On both sides, there is pain, and grieving and endless loss.And the only way to make it stop is to stop it ourselves.Many people came to support and comfort us as Abir lay dying, her small face chalk white, her eyes forever closed. Among those who never left my side were a number of men I have recently come to love as brothers, men who know my past, and who share it. Men who, like me, were trained to hate and to kill, but who now also believe that we must find a way to live with our former enemies.Israeli men. Every one of them, a former combat soldier.These men and I are members of Combatants for Peace. Each of us, 300 Palestinians and Israelis, was once on the front lines of the conflict. We shot, bombed, tortured and killed. We believed it was the only way to serve our people.Now we know this not to be true. We know that to serve our people, we must fight not each other but the hatred between us. We must find a way to share this land each people holds in the depths of its soul, to build two states side by side. Only then will the mourning end.I will not rest until the soldier responsible for my daughter's death is put on trial and made to face what he has done. I will see to it that the world does not forget my daughter, my lovely Abir.But I will not seek vengeance. No, I will continue the work I have undertaken with my Israeli brothers. I will fight with all I have within me to see that Abir's name, Abir's blood, becomes the bridge that finally closes the gap between us, the bridge that allows Israelis and Palestinians to finally, inshallah, live in peace.If I could tell my daughter anything, I would make her that promise. And I would tell her that I love her very, very much.###* Bassam Aramin lives in Anata, just outside of Jerusalem. This article is distributed by the Common Ground News Service (CGNews) and can be accessed at www.commongroundnews.org.Source: Forward, 9 February 2007, www.forward.com********Dear Friend of the Rebuilding Alliance,This morning, attorney Shamai Leibowitz wrote, "Our efforts to get Abir Aramin's death reported in the State Department's 2007 Country Report for Israel and the Occupied Territories were successful. The report, released yesterday, includes the following paragraph. While not being critical (they never are), the mentioning of the witnesses and the pathologist report implies that there is a cover-up by the authorities."On January 19, 10-year-old Abir Aramin died from a wound to the back of the head inflicted as she was leaving school during clashes between Israeli Border Police and Palestinians. The Jerusalem District Prosecutor closed the investigation July 31 for lack of evidence. On September 25, the Israeli NGO Yesh Din appealed, alleging that according to 14 witnesses and independent Israeli pathologist Dr. Chen Kugel, she was shot with a rubber-coated bullet while running away. At year's end the Prosecutor's Office had not taken further action. http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2007/100597.htmThe Aramin family's visit in January to the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor at the U.S. State Department in Washington proved to be key to inclusion of their case in the U.S. State Department's Country Report on Human Rights Practices. We are now in the process of translating the Yesh Din appeal into English and creating a web-based timeline of what happened as a resource for you to present to your elected representatives. We plan to have this available in May, when Bassam Aramin and Combatants for Peace return to the U.S. for a speaking tour and to receive the Courage of Conscience Award from the Peace Abbey (they were nominated by September 11th Families for Peaceful Tomorrows).Why pay attention to this case? The Aramin Family and the whole of Combatants for Peace believe it is vitally important to bring this case to justice, to set precedent so soldiers will stop shooting children, and to demonstrate that justice will prevail over violence. According to B'Tselem, not one of the 884 cases of Palestinian children killed by Israeli soldiers has ever been prosecuted.Here's how you can help::1. First, please take a moment now to send the Aramin family words of encouragement and hope. When the Israeli State Attorney rejected their appeal on the day after Combatants for Peace held the memorial ceremony for Abir at her school (and the opening of playground part of the Abir's Garden project in her memory), the family felt like she was "being killed all over again." E-mail them a picture of beauty, note of condolence, a photo of yourself if you want, or even a short video. Their e-mail address is FortheAraminFamily @ RebuildingAlliance.org2. Please make a donation, large or small, to help pay for film-interviews with the eyewitnesses, the independent pathologist, and the legal team. We'll use the interviews to create a web-based chronology that shows what really happened to Abir. In this time of such danger, grief, and loss, our good work is all but overshadowed by it all. May you draw solace and strength from Zohar Shapira's words, on February 9th, at the opening of the playground named for Abir. Zohar is Combatants for Peace coordinator for the Abir's Garden Project. He wrote that in addition to the 120 adults (mostly former fighters) who attended, there were "dozens of children that were all the time playing and laughing around. The joy [the playground] brought those children was much over my expectations." Now we hear it is crowded with children and parents past dark, the first playground in Anata.Sincerely,Donna Baranski-WalkerExecutive Director of the Rebuilding Alliance................................................................--------Jewish Peace News editors:Joel BeininRacheli GaiRela MazaliSarah Anne MinkinJudith NormanLincoln ShlenskyAlistair Welchman-------Jewish Peace News blog: http://jewishpeacenews.blogspot.com-------Jewish Peace News sends its news clippings only to subscribers. To subscribe, unsubscribe, or manage your subscription, go to www.jewishpeacenews.net Sarah Anne Minkin Klein: "Laboratory for a Fortressed World" The following article by Naomi Klein, author of The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism (2007), is from the July edition of The Nation, but it has been updated to reflect some of the more recent events in Gaza. Klein's article remains compelling because she argued then, at the height of the 2003-07 economic boom, that the military industrial complex was driving Israel's tremendous economic growth (for the past five years, Israel has had the largest GDP growth of any Western country). Since last summer, the Tel Aviv stock market has essentially mirrored the recent woes of the US economy, but this is a predictable pattern, given that the US is Israel's biggest trading partner.Klein's "theory" (as she calls it) about the source of Israel's tremendous economic growth in the past five years is overly reductive, but there is more than a kernel of truth in her argument. She claims that, contrary to the pronouncements of globalization cheerleaders like the NY Times columnist Thomas Friedman, Israel's economic success cannot be attributed simply to its encouragement of high tech entrepreneurship and basic science. Its success must be understood, rather, as a product of its ability to use the occupation of Gaza and the West Bank as a laboratory for defense industry innovation -- and as a convenient showroom for potential buyers. After 9/11, when "Homeland Security" became an industry unto itself, Israel prospered because its military infrastructure was geared to implementing technological solutions to political and "security" problems. Israel has thus been a major innovator in fields like avionics (aviation communications and navigation) and aerospace technology, high tech surveillance, anti-ballistic weaponry, remote control warfare, physical segregation technology, and so on. Klein's article suggests that the effectiveness of such technologies can be tested at will on the "home-front" -- that is, against Palestinians, who lack anything like a serious deterrent force.Where Klein's theory falls short is that she doesn't adequately account for the fact that many, if not most, young Israeli computer scientists and engineers gain their training in the military, and then go on to start the kind of technology companies that have proliferated wildly in Israel and whose products are much sought after abroad. The entire Israeli hi-tech sector, and not just military technology per se, is thus an outgrowth of Israel's hypermilitarization. The Israeli economy's tech sector grew by 20% in 2006 alone, and Israel is now the foreign country with the second most US stock exchange-listed companies. Klein's point that Israel's military-derived technologies are an economic growth-driver because they can be tested in situ is correct, but it is insufficient for describing the magnitude of the military's tremendous penetration of the country's economy. Palestinians under occupation can indeed be seen as human "guinea pigs" and not just military targets, as Klein claims, but the society's militarization is far more profound than even she suggests.A recent book worth reading on this subject is Le Monde editor Sylvain Cypel's Walled: Israeli Society at an Impasse (2007), which probes the roots and consequences of the "cult of force" that grips the nation.One group resisting the further militarization of Israel is New Profile. You can read about its political platform and work here.Naomi Klein will be the keynote speaker this weekend (March 28-30, 2008) at the kickoff event of a new Canadian organization that aims to become an alternative to the Canadian Jewish Congress. The Alliance of Concerned Jewish Canadians (ACJC) says in a press release that it will organize as a network of anti-occupation groups dedicated to building real peace and justice in the Middle East. Jewish Voice for Peace and Brit Tzedek v'Shalom are among the international organizations attending the event in Toronto. You can read more about the new organization here.--Lincoln Shlensky-----------------------Laboratory for a Fortressed WorldBy Naomi KleinArticle available online at: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070702/klein[from the July 2, 2007 issue of The Nation]Editor's Note: This article has been updated with additional detail on recent developments in Gaza.Gaza in the hands of Hamas, with masked militants sitting in the president's chair; the West Bank on the edge; Israeli army camps hastily assembled in the Golan Heights; a spy satellite over Iran and Syria; war with Hezbollah a hair trigger away; a scandal-plagued political class facing a total loss of public faith.At a glance, things aren't going well for Israel. But here's a puzzle: Why, in the midst of such chaos and carnage, is the Israeli economy booming like it's 1999, with a roaring stock market and growth rates nearing China's?Thomas Friedman recently offered his theory in the New York Times. Israel "nurtures and rewards individual imagination," and so its people are constantly spawning ingenious high-tech start-ups--no matter what messes their politicians are making. After perusing class projects by students in engineering and computer science at Ben Gurion University, Friedman made one of his famous fake-sense pronouncements: Israel "had discovered oil." This oil, apparently, is located in the minds of Israel's "young innovators and venture capitalists," who are too busy making megadeals with Google to be held back by politics.Here's another theory: Israel's economy isn't booming despite the political chaos that devours the headlines but because of it. This phase of development dates back to the mid-'90s, when Israel was in the vanguard of the information revolution--the most tech-dependent economy in the world. After the dot-com bubble burst in 2000, Israel's economy was devastated, facing its worst year since 1953. Then came 9/11, and suddenly new profit vistas opened up for any company that claimed it could spot terrorists in crowds, seal borders from attack and extract confessions from closed-mouthed prisoners.Within three years, large parts of Israel's tech economy had been radically repurposed. Put in Friedmanesque terms: Israel went from inventing the networking tools of the "flat world" to selling fences to an apartheid planet. Many of the country's most successful entrepreneurs are using Israel's status as a fortressed state, surrounded by furious enemies, as a kind of twenty-four-hour-a-day showroom--a living example of how to enjoy relative safety amid constant war. And the reason Israel is now enjoying supergrowth is that those companies are busily exporting that model to the world.Discussions of Israel's military trade usually focus on the flow of weapons into the country--US-made Caterpillar bulldozers used to destroy homes in the West Bank and British companies supplying parts for F-16s. Overlooked is Israel's huge and expanding export business. Israel now sends $1.2 billion in "defense" products to the United States--up dramatically from $270 million in 1999. In 2006 Israel exported $3.4 billion in defense products--well over a billion more than it received in US military aid. That makes Israel the fourth-largest arms dealer in the world, overtaking Britain.Much of this growth has been in the so-called "homeland security" sector. Before 9/11 homeland security barely existed as an industry. By the end of this year, Israeli exports in the sector will reach $1.2 billion--an increase of 20 percent. The key products and services are high-tech fences, unmanned drones, biometric IDs, video and audio surveillance gear, air passenger profiling and prisoner interrogation systems--precisely the tools and technologies Israel has used to lock in the occupied territories.And that is why the chaos in Gaza and the rest of the region doesn't threaten the bottom line in Tel Aviv, and may actually boost it. Israel has learned to turn endless war into a brand asset, pitching its uprooting, occupation and containment of the Palestinian people as a half-century head start in the "global war on terror."It's no coincidence that the class projects at Ben Gurion that so impressed Friedman have names like "Innovative Covariance Matrix for Point Target Detection in Hyperspectral Images" and "Algorithms for Obstacle Detection and Avoidance." Thirty homeland security companies were launched in Israel in the past six months alone, thanks in large part to lavish government subsidies that have transformed the Israeli army and the country's universities into incubators for security and weapons start-ups (something to keep in mind in the debates about the academic boycott).Next week, the most established of these companies will travel to Europe for the Paris Air Show, the arms industry's equivalent of Fashion Week. One of the Israeli companies exhibiting is Suspect Detection Systems (SDS), which will be showcasing its Cogito1002, a white, sci-fi-looking security kiosk that asks air travelers to answer a series of computer-generated questions, tailored to their country of origin, while they hold their hand on a "biofeedback" sensor. The device reads the body's reactions to the questions, and certain responses flag the passenger as "suspect."Like hundreds of other Israeli security start-ups, SDS boasts that it was founded by veterans of Israel's secret police and that its products were road-tested on Palestinians. Not only has the company tried out the biofeedback terminals at a West Bank checkpoint; it claims the "concept is supported and enhanced by knowledge acquired and assimilated from the analysis of thousands of case studies related to suicide bombers in Israel."Another star of the Paris Air Show will be Israeli defense giant Elbit, which plans to showcase its Hermes 450 and 900 unmanned air vehicles. As recently as May, according to press reports, Israel used the drones on bombing missions in Gaza. Once tested in the territories, they are exported abroad: The Hermes has already been used at the Arizona-Mexico border; Cogito1002 terminals are being auditioned at an unnamed US airport; and Elbit, one of the companies behind Israel's "security barrier," has partnered with Boeing to construct the Department of Homeland Security's $2.5 billion "virtual" border fence around the United States.Since Israel began its policy of sealing off the occupied territories with checkpoints and walls, human rights activists have often compared Gaza and the West Bank to open-air prisons. But in researching the explosion of Israel's homeland security sector, a topic I explore in greater detail in a forthcoming book (The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism), it strikes me that they are something else too: laboratories where the terrifying tools of our security states are being field-tested. Palestinians--whether living in the West Bank or what the Israeli politicians are already calling "Hamasistan"--are no longer just targets. They are guinea pigs.So in a way Friedman is right: Israel has struck oil. But the oil isn't the imagination of its techie entrepreneurs. The oil is the war on terror, the state of constant fear that creates a bottomless global demand for devices that watch, listen, contain and target "suspects." And fear, it turns out, is the ultimate renewable resource. Lincoln Z. Shlensky It is important to look at how a nation can generate wide-spread popular support for vicious public policy decisions. In Israel, like in the US, schools are often on the front line of efforts to mold and indoctrinate young people into accepting and affirming the belligerent agenda of the military establishment. The following news item reports a demonstration aimed at resisting this agenda. It took place today in response to a public relations initiative in which 8000 IDF officers entered Israeli high schools, and it aimed to call attention to the way in which the IDF brainwashes schoolchildren. The demonstration was initiated by New Profile, an organization that opposes the militarization of Israeli society. (Members include JPN’s Rela Mazali and Racheli Gai.)The demonstration, accurately enough, involved people dressing up as IDF officers and washing a large model of a brain. This is playful but at the same time incredibly subversive: it goes to the heart of the occupation. Schoolchildren are indoctrinated into a system of military values and interests, and this translates directly into a mindset that supports and enables belligerent policies towards the Palestinians. The mindset privileges men over women, Jews over Palestinians, and military force over political negotiation. As the old saying goes, when you are holding a hammer, everything looks like a nail. For more information about New Profile, see: www.newprofile.orgFor video footage of the washing (in Hebrew, but with some priceless images) see: http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3523799,00.html.Judith NormanAbe SeligThe Jerusalem Post, Mar. 24, 2008 http://www.jpost.com [Posted on Occupation Magazine -- http://www.kibush.co.il/]Activists decry IDF presence in schoolsIn a move to protest the IDF’s plan to send thousands of officers into the country’s schools on Wednesday, New Profile - a movement opposed to what they see as ‘brainwashing’ by the army - plans to set up a demonstration in which members dressed as IDF officers will wash a large model of a human brain.The organizers of the planned protest hope to draw attention to the IDF`s nationwide campaign for students and voice their opposition to the `militarization of Israeli society.` The demonstration will take place opposite Tel Aviv`s Cinematheque and next to the city`s Ironi Alef High School, which has one of the highest draft-dodging rates in the country.`I think the fact that military officers have free access to schools exploits the status of soldiers and the status of schools,` said Lotahn Raz, a New Profile activist and organizer of Wednesday`s demonstration, which he called a `street performance.``We want to reach out to students across the country and tell them that they have an opportunity to think differently. We also want to reach out to the larger Israeli public and tell them that the army should not play a part in our schools,` he added.Raz, who did not serve in the army for `ideological` reasons, told The Jerusalem Post that the issue was not about enlistment, but about the army putting pressure on students to enlist.`The army is something that they need to think about,` he said. `It shouldn`t be an automatic decision. But the army coming in and exploiting their position of power is brainwashing.``The army is a hierarchical organization,` Raz continued. `It doesn`t have respect for life, and they have no regard for the equality of women. It encourages following orders instead of individual thinking.`Lt.-Col. Ronen Ofer, one of the officers in charge of the program, said on the Knesset Channel Monday that `we`re not coming to change the educational program or replace teachers. We want to talk to young people for a short amount of time about why the military is important and about certain values that have helped us succeed in the past.`The show`s host asked Ofer if the program had encountered any negative reactions, as `the spirit of the country isn`t what it was 30 years ago.``We`ve tried the program out at three different schools already,` Ofer answered, `and the kids were very welcoming and received us well.`But Raz told the Post that the values to which Ofer referred were not the the kind that should be expressed in schools.`They`ve brought us constant conflict with our neighbors,` he said. `The military`s presence in schools is reminiscent of countries we`d rather not like to think of ourselves as. If there is a change in the attitude of young people and Israeli society in general about the military, maybe that`s what needs to be heard.` Judith Norman On the return of Palestinian refugees and the present and future Israel The letter below, written by Tomer Gardi, touches on some of the core topics of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, on prevailing attitudes to it in mainstream Israel and on chances and hopes for a true solution.Brief, simply worded and direct, the letter broaches the "cockfight" typical of most exchanges in Israel about the origins and solutions of the conflict, precluding civil and real dialogue between Israelis of different opinions.It outlines a view of the current state of Israeli society as not democratic but, rather, "a democracy only for Jews", militarized, brutalized and exploitative and oppressive of both Jews and Palestinians. The letter construes this condition as directly related to Israel's measures towards maximizing Jewish numbers and minimizing the number of Palestinians, making the country "a barricaded fortification, a huge, suffocating stockade, a prison we have constructed around us."The letter concludes with Gardi's stand on the return of Palestinian refugees and his vision of a possible post-conflict state and society.Tomer Gardi, who authored the letter, is an active member of the Israeli non-profit "Zochrot" (or "Remembering"), "a group of Israeli citizens working to raise awareness of the Nakba, the Palestinian catastrophe of 1948" (quoted from the Zochrot website at: http://www.nakbainhebrew.org/index.php?lang=english). Gardi is also editor of a Hebrew literary periodical Sedek [literally meaning "a crack"] focusing on topics that relate to the Nakba and its active erasure and aftermath within Israeli culture and society (the first edition is available on-line at: http://www.nakbainhebrew.org/images/sedek_small.pdf; the second is available through the website of Pardes publishers – see below). Sedek is published jointly by three organizations: "Parrhesia", a group of artists working to develop "a civil communications language: respectful, humanist, in dialogue; an alternative to the language of force used by the market and the regime" (http://www.parrhesia.org; Hebrew-to-English translationmine, RM), the independent publishing house, Pardes (http://www.pardes.co.il) and Zochrot.His letter is an answer to a position piece posted on the internet version of the Hebrew paper Ma'ariv, in which publicist Ben-Dror Yemini expressed his strongly negative view of Zochrot and its activities. (Yemini's piece [in Hebrew] can be accessed [via link] from the URL of Gardi's Hebrew letter, provided below.)While none of the above organizations are household names in Israel, a discussion – or even a cockfight – raising the possibility of Palestinian return would not have been published in Ma'ariv till just a few years ago. As Gardi rightly points out, "people are being eliminated here daily … [and t]owns [are] being bombed on both sides of the border." Nevertheless, the visible existence of this debate in the public sphere in Israel, along with the terms and concepts it introduces is, in and of itself, a change.Rela Mazali---------------------------------Racheli Gai added:For readers who would like to learn more about the ongoing joint Israeli-Palestinian study and formulation of questions regarding refugee return:A Badil/Zochrot US Speaking Tour is taking place from March 27 - April 7, 2008.It's titled:"Acknowledging the past; Imagining the future: Palestinians and Israelis on 1948 and the right of Return".The speakers will be Mohammad Jaradat from Badil and Eitan Bronstein from Zochrot.About BADIL (taken off their website) : Badil Resource Center for Palestinian Residency and Refugee Rights takes a rights-based approach to the Palestinians refugee issue through research, advocacy and support of community participation in the search for durable solutions.BADIL ('badeel') is an Arabic word that means 'alternative'. Badil's alternative approach to the question of Palestinians refugees and displaced persons is based on international law, relevant UN resolutions, and the participation of refugees themselves.To find out more, go to www.badil.orgThe tour will visit Providence RI, Boston, Chicago, Portland OR, Seattle, New York City, and Lancaster and Phildelphia PA.Full tour information can be found at http://www.afsc.org/israel-palestine/badilzochrottourorganizers.html---------------------------------http://www.nakbainhebrew.org/index.php?id=666Ma'ariv NRGMarch 19, 2008Translated by Charles KamenDear Ben Dror Yemini,I read your posting yesterday on the NRG site about Zochrot. I read, and thought to myself, “Forget it.” Why make the effort to respond? The differences between us seem so great, and I’d have to write so much even to get within hearing distance, so that even now, while I’m sitting and writing, I say to myself again, “Forget it; why even bother. Get on with your life.”I’m strongly tempted to drop the whole thing. But there’s something else tempting me, my fingers itching on the keyboard, to join the cockfight. Perhaps because of the tremendous distance I’d have to travel to reach you, it’s easier and more tempting to get within shouting distance, rather than close enough for an actual conversation. I’m tempted. You yelled, “Enemy!” I’ll yell back, “Fascist!” You yelled, “Warped!” I’ll respond, “Racist!” You yelled, “Hamasnik!” I’ll cry, “Settleroist!” And we’ll go on like that until both of us are dead, hopefully in the fullness of our years, two bitter, hoarse foes.It’s difficult to resist a temptation, and doubly difficult to resist two. But I’ll try anyway, try to get close enough to talk, by writing these words. Although I’m a member of the group you’re attacking, I’m also writing as an ordinary person. I don’t have the strength to formulate a document that all the members of the organization will discuss, reword, agree to and sign. Its activists, including me, hold many different views.You accused Zochrot of acting to eliminate the Jewish state. A fairly common accusation. In my view, though – if you really want to know – a state isn’t something to be eliminated. A state is only a tool, a civil instrument that groups of people need in order to organize their communal life. I don’t see any essential difference between a state and a municipality, a local council or a regional council. I think it’s absurd to talk about eliminating the state. A state can be changed, and its citizens should engage in a political discussion about the nature of social arrangements in the territory where they live. A state can’t be eliminated because it isn’t a living entity. A state is institutions and government offices. What can be eliminated, killed, destroyed is not the state, but people. And people are being eliminated here daily in any case.I don’t think Israel is a democratic state. Although its legislation includes some liberal democratic elements – my freedom to write this, for example – there’s a big difference between a regime that contains democratic elements, and a democracy. This May, the political entity known as the state of Israel will celebrate sixty years since its establishment. Subtract the forty-one years (1967-2008) that Israel has ruled over Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza who have no rights, and another seventeen years (1949-1966) during which the Jewish majority imposed military rule over the Palestinian minority inside the borders of Israel, and you’re left with two years out of sixty that Arabs were not subjected to Israeli military rule. It’s hard for me to call that “democracy.” Israel is, in essence, a democracy only for Jews.Zochrot actually does hope to threaten this regime, openly. Not by surreptitious spying, or by trickery, but publicly, for all to see. We want to threaten this regime and change it fundamentally, not only for reasons of justice and morality – reasons always denigrated as being no more than the fantasies of idealistic dreamers. The continuing Israeli project, whose essence is to push as many Arabs as possible out of as much territory as possible, is a disaster not only for the Palestinians who are being pushed out, but also for us who are doing the pushing. I’m really amazed by how upset you are at the fact that citizens want to bring about a fundamental change in Israel’s current social and political order. Look outside, read the papers – what’s so wonderful here that it’s worth preserving? A country of oligarchs and of people collecting bottles in the streets? Towns being bombed on both sides of the border? Unemployment, poverty, violence, aggressiveness?You characterize Zochrot’s aim as “transferring power to the enemy.” That isn’t my aim. My political vision is that the people who live in the territory to which the laws of the state apply, between the Jordan and the Mediterranean, should have the right to rule and participate in its government. Why shouldn’t Jews live in Beit El and Beit Shemesh, Kiryat Shmona and Kiryat Arba, Dugit and Deganya, or Arabs live in Hebron and Haifa, Ramallah and Jaffa, call their towns Haif’a and Yaf’a – what’s the big deal? Israel is already a Jewish-Arab state. Why not make it a Jewish-Arab democracy?Zochrot does support the return of the Palestinian refugees – not only supports, but acts to make it a reality. Here, too, not only for reasons of morality and justice which are easy to mock, and to ignore as fantasies. The stubborn efforts to prevent the refugees’ return has turned the country into a barricaded fortification, a huge, suffocating stockade, a prison we have constructed around us. I support the right of Palestinian refugees to live wherever they choose between the Jordan and the Mediterranean, because I prefer living in an open rather than a closed society, willingly heterogeneous, whose resources are invested in education, culture and welfare rather than in airplanes and fences, a society that doesn’t reek of gun oil.It isn’t possible in a short text on the internet to give much detail about the vision of this kind of society, especially since much is still unknown. It has to be developed and expanded into a comprehensive and convincing political paradigm, in opposition to the one that assumes that maintaining a Jewish majority is the necessary condition for living here. What kind of economy will this society have? What will be the relation between religion and the state? How will the Palestinian refugees be absorbed? What arrangements will there be for compensation? How will the country’s resources be reallocated, not only between Arabs and Jews, but also among the classes? What relations will exist among social groups? What about those strange groups of people who are neither Jews nor Arabs – they exist in the world as well as here – Philippine migrants, Ukrainians, Chinese, Romanians, Sudanese, a growing number of migrants who aren’t Jewish but nevertheless entered by virtue of the Law ofReturn? How will cities be planned, water resources allocated? What arrangements can be made to insure the security of citizens of the new state during the transition from occupation to civilian democracy? What can we learn from the experience of other countries, like South Africa, Albania, Namibia, Bosnia, Cambodia, Ruwanda? This coming June, Zochrot will hold a conference to begin discussing these questions. You’re invited, Ben Dror Yemini, along with all the other readers.................................................................--------Jewish Peace News editors:Joel BeininRacheli GaiRela MazaliSarah Anne MinkinJudith NormanLincoln ShlenskyAlistair Welchman-------Jewish Peace News sends its news clippings only to subscribers. To subscribe, unsubscribe, or manage your subscription, go to www.jewishpeacenews.net Rela Mazali JPN Editors Alistair Welchman Joel Beinin Rebecca Vilkomerson Racheli Gai Ofer Neiman Click here to join the JPN mailing list On the return of Palestinian refugees and the pres... 2002-2007 Archive (March 2007-February 2008 not yet available)

时政

2014-41/1934/en_head.json.gz/15888

California Rep. Ellen Tauscher accepts State Department post, setting off political scramble to replace her Now that Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-Alamo) has accepted a position in Hillary Rodham Clinton's State Department, the race is on to fill her seat from California's 10th Congressional District, just east of the Bay Area but more middle-of-the-road than neighboring districts.. Early money is on state Sen. Mark DeSaulnier, who said he is ready to rumble as soon as Tauscher is confirmed by the Senate to be undersecretary of State for arms control and international security. “If the seat opens up, I am going to run,” he told the newspaper The Hill. “My hesitation is out of respect for Ellen. When she’s comfortable with it, then I’ll officially do it.” DeSaulnier is close to Rep. George Miller (D-Martinez), an ally of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) who can help in the fundraising department (both are seen above at a rally where Tauscher urged a repeal of the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy). And DeSaulnier can tap into the local grass-roots operation that supported Barack Obama. But Republicans are hungry to challenge him. Although the seat has gone Democratic since Tauscher defeated Republican Rep. Bill Baker in 1992, Republicans see an opportunity in the special-election campaign -- probably to be held in September -- to send a message in Washington and Sacramento about the perils of raising taxes. As Human Events noted this morning, DeSaulnier has been at the forefront of efforts to raise taxes on Californians to deal with the state's budget crisis. Obama did carry the district last fall by a 2-to-1 margin last November, but Republicans note that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger won by 16 points in his 2006 reelection bid, and special elections usually draw a small electorate, favoring strong local candidates. Former San Francisco 49ers tight end Brent Jones has been mentioned as a possible candidate. But political handicappers are putting serious money on Contra Costa County Sheriff Warren Rupf (who has considerable name recognition as a four-time countywide elected official) and attorney Tom Del Beccaro, vice chairman of the state GOP, who regularly appears in ads for the Republican cause and is considered one of the party's best communicators. Tauscher meanwhile put out a statement warning that confirmation is not a sure thing, although as far as we know she has no "skeleton-in-the-closet" tax problems.The confirmation process for senior posts in government is fraught with uncertainty and can take weeks, if not months. My staff and I will continue to work on the issues and challenges facing the 10th District and our nation, including growing the economy, making health care more affordable, developing a green energy policy, repairing our infrastructure, easing congestion and improving the quality of life for families. We will do that with the same level of energy and commitment as when I was first elected in 1996.-- Johanna Neuman Register here now for automatic alerts via Twitter on each new Ticket item. Photo: Joanna Jhanda / Bay Area News Group

时政

2014-41/1934/en_head.json.gz/16176

Senator John Hoeven Republican of North Dakota Mailing address: G11 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington DC 20510 and online contact form ND Office Phone: 701-250-4618 Links to Campaign Contribution Data for John Hoeven: Sen. Hoeven's campaign committee activity Detailed list of campaign contributions to Senator Hoeven Additional resources for Congressional and North Dakota politics:North Dakota political directoryFifty states' Political NewsThat's My CongressUnconventional SourcesNorth Dakota campaign shirtsSweatshop-Free Political T-ShirtsElection 2012 Bumper StickersCongressional Campaign Buttons These Liberal and Conservative Ratings for the U.S. Senate are frequently updated as new bills are introduced, new roll call votes are held, and members of the Senate cosponsor existing bills. Our most recent update: December 31, 2012. Republican Senator John Hoeven of North DakotaSen. Hoeven's Liberal Action Score: 0The Liberal Action Score is calculated by compiling a series of measured liberal actions (both roll call voting and bill cosponsorship) in the 112th Congress and comparing John Hoeven's behavior against a liberal standard: Respect for constitutional protections of American civil liberty A score of 0 means that Senator Hoeven has participated in 0% of our slate of liberal actions in the 112th Congress. Representative Hoeven has failed to take any of the slate of liberal actions we have identified for the 112th Congress. Unfinished Business:Liberal Bills Senator Hoeven has failed to support through cosponsorship: S. 186 As the text of S. 186 points out, "October 7, 2011, will mark the 10-year anniversary of the start of Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan." This war has cost more than a third of a trillion dollars and has spilled the blood of more than a thousand Americans and uncounted civilians of Afghanistan. Ten years into the war, the Taliban is just as strong, Afghanistan is just as fractured, and there is no clear way out. S. 186 declares simply, "It is the policy of the United States to begin the phased redeployment of United States combat forces from Afghanistan not later than July 1, 2011." S. 186 would have the President submit his plan for phased withdrawal from Afghanistan during the same year. Senator Hoeven has failed to cosponsor S. 186. After you read the text of S. 186, call Sen Hoeven's office at 701-250-4618 and ask him to support it by adding his cosponsorship. If passed, the Respect for Marriage Act (S. 598) would repeal DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act. Enacted in the 1990s, DOMA removed the presumption (based in the "Full Faith and Credit" clause of the Constitution) that same-sex marriages carried out in one state would be recognized in other states or by the federal government. S. 598 would restore cross-state and federal recognition, recognition that different-sex marriages continue to enjoy. Senator Hoeven has failed to cosponsor S. 598. After you read the text of S. 598, call Sen Hoeven's office at 701-250-4618 and ask him to support it by adding his cosponsorship. To a person only following expressions of popular culture, it might seem that the United States has moved beyond discrimination against gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transexuals. But in the workaday world, it's still legal for people to be fired from their jobs for no other reason than than their choice of whom to love. And a dirty not-so-secret secret of labor unions has been their historical practice of excluding gay and lesbian workers from full participation and leadership. The Employment Non-Discrimination Act (or ENDA) would make workplace discrimination in hiring and promotions illegal, and would also prohibit discriminatory behavior against gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender members of American labor unions. If passed, ENDA would bring the law into the 21st Century along with the majority of Americans who have realized what matters at work is what you do, not who you love. Senator Hoeven has failed to cosponsor S. 811. After you read the text of S. 811, call Sen Hoeven's office at 701-250-4618 and ask him to support it by adding his cosponsorship. "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States. Nor shall any State deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." These are the American standards of nondiscrimination, chiseled into our legal bedrock in the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution. S. 821, the Uniting American Families Act, is a bill to bring America into closer compliance with the 14th Amendment by ending government discrimination according to the status of permanent couples. According to law, same-sex couples in permanent relationships cannot marry; only different-sex couples can. The creates two classes of couple in the United States. They are separate. Are they equal? Not currently. Under current immigration law, married immigrant spouses of citizens and permanent residents have a preferred route toward gaining permanent resident status themselves. Unmarried partners of citizens and permanent residents have this avenue closed to them. That is unequal treatment under law for immigrants under American jurisdiction, and it is an unequal abridgment of legal privilege for the citizens whose permanent partners wish to join them. The Uniting American Families Act would end this status discrimination by amending various the immigration laws that discriminate against same-sex couples when one member of a couple is a citizen or permanent resident and the other is seeking citizenship or residency status. Senator Hoeven has failed to cosponsor S. 821. After you read the text of S. 821, call Sen Hoeven's office at 701-250-4618 and ask him to support it by adding his cosponsorship. The Cluster Munitions Civilian Protection Act, as proposed in the 112th Congress, forbids the United States government from spending money to use, sell or transfer cluster bombs unless the following requirements are met: In 2010 there were 22,000 mercenaries hired by the USA in Iraq and Afghanistan; in 2011 the number of hired mercenaries climbed to more than 28,000. By March 2011, there were more private military contractors paid by the U.S. in Iraq than there were U.S. soldiers. In remarks at an event introducing the bill, Representative Jan Schakowsky explained why this is a problem: "Military officers in the field have said contractors operate like cowboys, using unnecessary and excessive force uncharacteristic of enlisted soldiers. In 2007, guards working for a firm then known as Blackwater were accused of killing 17 Iraqis, damaging the U.S. mission in Iraq and hurting our reputation around the world. Later that year, a contractor employed by DynCorp International allegedly shot and killed an unarmed taxi driver." Military contractors have often acted with disregard for human dignity and when they break the law have frequently used loopholes to escape accountability. The result is inexcusable, violence in the name of the United States with no calls for justice. S. 1428 would finally bring this physical, psychological and political disaster to an end, stopping the use of mercenaries for traditional military security and combat roles. Senator Hoeven has failed to cosponsor S. 1428. After you read the text of S. 1428, call Sen Hoeven's office at 701-250-4618 and ask him to support it by adding his cosponsorship. S. 219, a bill introduced by Senator Jon Tester, would require senators to file campaign finance reports electronically with the Federal Election Commission, not on paper with the Senate. This may not sound like an important distinction, but the practical effect of the current system is to delay the processing of campaign contribution reports -- often until after an election is over -- and to make the discovery of unsavory campaign expenditures by reporters and citizens more difficult. Tester's bill, the continuation of

时政

2014-41/1934/en_head.json.gz/16290

9/11 Report The U.S. government was ill-prepared to detect mistakes by al-Qaida plotters and stop the worst terror attacks in American history, the Sept. 11 commission said Wednesday in a final report that recommends sweeping overhaul of the nation's intelligence services to disrupt future attacks. Bush thanked them for a "really good job" and said the panel makes "very solid, sound recommendations about how to move forward." "I assured them that where the government needs to act we will," Bush said.Ummm--how about resigning?Less than four months before the presidential election, the commission's work already has ignited partisan debate over whether Bush took sufficient steps to deal with terrorism in the first year of his administration. Republicans have argued that Bush had just eight months to deal with the terror threat while Clinton's administration had eight years.Have they argued that Clinton tried to deal with it, with some success, in those eight years, while the Bushies used their eight months to ignore the issue, cut the funding, and when the threat got really serious go on vacation?Richard Clarke, former counterterrorism czar in the Clinton and Bush administrations and now an ABC consultant, said on the network's "Good Morning America" the commission avoided controversy. "To get unanimity they didn't talk about a number of things, like what effect is the war in Iraq having on our battle against terrorism. Did the president pay any attention to terrorism during the first nine months of his administration? The controversial things, the controversial criticisms of the Clinton administration as well as the Bush administration just aren't there." "What they didn't do is say that the country is actually not safer now than it was then because of the rise in terrorism after our invasion in Iraq." posted by Bob @ 11:56 AM << Home

时政

2014-41/1934/en_head.json.gz/16346

Gov. Haley Budget vetoes $94 million from state budget By JEFFREY COLLINS AP Photo/Jeffrey Collins South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley vetoed about $94 million from the state budget on Monday, but she retained money for a preschool program. COLUMBIA — South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley vetoed about $94 million from the state budget on Monday, but she retained money for a preschool program supported by her likely rival in next year's governor's race. Haley chose on Tuesday to keep $26 million to expand full-day 4-year-old kindergarten in the $6.7 billion spending plan. Haley said she backs the goal of getting children in high poverty areas ready for school and is willing to see if this approach works. “I'm not going to say that my way is the only right way to do it,” Haley said. The program was backed by state Sen. Vincent Sheheen from Camden, who plans to run against Haley in a rematch of the 2010 governor's race. Fellow Democrats made it the biggest issue as they tried to influence Haley's decisions during the six days she had to consider her vetoes. The money extends state-paid, full-day 4-year-old kindergarten to 17 poor school districts and increases access for needy children in 53 districts statewide. “With this funding, South Carolina has taken a tremendous step toward providing at-risk children with a high-quality public education,” Senate Minority Leader Nikki Setzler said in a statement. Haley issued a total of 81 vetoes on Tuesday, the same number she issued last year. The House meets on Wednesday and the Senate meets on Thursday to consider the vetoes. Last year, lawmakers overturned 48 of Haley's vetoes. Haley said once again her goals with vetoes was targeting the use of money the state is getting one time for expenses that will continue into the future, as well as earmarks that were not requested by agencies. She knocked out $100,000 for repairs to the Barnwell County courthouse, $450,000 for three museums and $1 million for a visitor's center in Orangeburg. The governor also vetoed $3 million requested by Lt. Gov. Glenn McConnell to pay for vouchers so caregivers can hire someone to stay with elderly relatives for a day in case of family emergencies or other conflicts. Haley said this year's budget has no recurring money for Medicaid, so chances are the program might not be funded next year. Other vetoes included more than $2 million to health programs designed to combat various disorders like HIV prevention, colon cancer prevention and the organ donor registry. Haley said the diseases tug at everyone's heartstrings. “How do we decide to distribute funds to fight colon cancer but not breast cancer? How do we choose these ailments and nonprofits over all others?” Haley wrote in her veto message. Haley rejected $5 million to increase payments for nursing homes, saying the General Assembly shouldn't decide whether payments for medical needs should be increased and the money hasn't been allocated for the next budget. The governor also went after predictable targets such as the South Carolina Arts Commission, which she has taken on for the past three years. Before she vetoed the agency's entire budget. This time she vetoed $417,000 in operating money for the commission while keeping more than $1 million in grant funding, saying the agency could tap that grant money to survive. But Arts Commission Executive Director Ken May said he can't spend money the Legislature allocated for one thing on another. “We're tired of being targeted,” said May, who was rallying supporters of the arts to call lawmakers again. The agency has survived vetoes the last two years thanks to the Legislature. Haley also went after a second traditional target, the Sea Grant Consortium, vetoing almost $90,000 for the director's salary. On Monday, Haley went ahead and signed a bill guaranteeing that she and the Legislature accomplish one of her goals this year to put more money toward South Carolina bridges and roads. The governor backed lawmakers' plans to use a combination of new revenue, reallocated sales taxes on vehicles and borrowing to raise up to $1 billion for the Department of Transportation over the next 10 years. Haley also praised lawmakers for adding $20 million to the budget to improve computer security after a hacker stole more than 6 million Social Security numbers and bank account information from South Carolina taxpayers and businesses. The money will also pay for free credit monitoring of more than 1.4 million people who signed up for the service. The total proposed budget for 2013-14 is $22.8 billion, when adding in $7.6 billion in federal money and $8.4 billion in “other funds,” which includes agency fees, fines and grants. The fiscal year starts July 1. Follow Jeffrey Collins on Twitter at http://twitter.com/JSCollinsAP

时政

2014-41/1934/en_head.json.gz/16382

ONLINE EDITION FRIDAY FEBRUARY 2, 2007 Why She's Voting for Johnson on Feb. 6 As you may be aware, we have a very important special election coming up on Feb. 6. This is an exciting opportunity. Port Washington's own Craig Johnson (D), our local Nassau County Legislator, will be running for the New York Senate Seat recently vacated by Michael Balboni who left to join Eliot Spitzer's (D) team in Albany. I'm writing today to ask for your help in supporting Craig. Craig is not only a dear friend of mine, but more importantly, he is a tremendously talented and dedicated public servant. As a Nassau County legislator, Craig has been a leader in the ongoing effort to restore fiscal stability to Nassau County. Working with County Executive Tom Suozzi, Craig has brought Nassau County back from the brink of bankruptcy and has passed three consecutive no-tax increase budgets. Craig has been our independent voice for common-sense reform and conservative budgeting. He supports dozens of community groups and has made preserving our parks, open spaces and environment a top priority. Craig was instrumental in getting Christopher Morley Park to host the Oasis summer camp program again this past summer. As many of you are aware, he was also instrumental in bringing Food Allergy Guidelines to all Nassau County Schools to help keep Nassau County's children safe. Why should we elect Craig to the Senate? Craig's record shows that he will lower our taxes; he will fight for more affordable healthcare; he is committed to protecting the environment; he cares about the rights of women and children; he is an advocate for medical research, and he will bring integrity back to Albany! The Special Election is Feb. 6-- less than two weeks away!! His opponent, Republican Maureen O'Connell, is campaigning hard, and will put up a strong fight. With only weeks to go it is up to those of us who believe Craig Johnson can do wonderful things for Nassau County and New York, to get the word out -- or more accurately, to get out the vote! Thus, I am asking you to do something that will benefit you, your family and your community. If you would not ordinarily make it to the polls for a special election like this, please do it anyway Please make a note in your calendar now to go to your regular general election polling place on Tuesday, Feb. 6 anytime between 6 a.m. and 9 p.m. and vote for Craig Johnson. For more information on Craig, please visit www.craigjohnsonforsenate.com Jill R. Mindlin An Official Newspaper of the Port Washington News|

时政

2014-41/1934/en_head.json.gz/16662

Deputy Director, Europe and Asia - International Foundation for Electoral Systems (IFES) Testimony :: Gavin WeiseDeputy Director, Europe and Asia - International Foundation for Electoral Systems (IFES) Elections in Ukraine Gavin Weise, Deputy Regional Director, Europe & Asia International Foundation for Electoral Systems (IFES) Testimony before the U.S. Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe (Helsinki Commission) on Ukraine’s Upcoming Elections: A Pivotal Moment May 17, 2012 Copyright © 2012 International Foundation for Electoral Systems. All rights reserved. Permission Statement: No part of this work may be reproduced in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or by any information storage and retrieval system without the written permission of IFES. Requests for permission should include the following information: • A description of the material for which permission to copy is desired. • The purpose for which the copied material will be used and the manner in which it will be used. • Your name, title, company or organization name, telephone number, fax number, email address, and mailing address. IFES 1850 K Street, NW Fifth Floor Washington, D.C. 20006 U.S.A. Email: editor@ifes.org Fax: 202.350.6701 Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen, members and staff of the Helsinki Commission. My name is Gavin Weise, I am the Deputy Director for Europe & Asia at the International Foundation for Electoral Systems, also known as IFES. IFES is a global leader in democracy promotion. We advance good governance and democratic rights by providing technical assistance to election officials, empowering the under-represented to participate in the political process and applying field-based research. Since 1987, IFES has worked in 135 countries, from developing to mature democracies. IFES has been active in Ukraine over the past two decades. IFES has provided support to nascent electoral institutions following Ukraine’s independence; offered legislative assistance to fundamental laws; gauged citizens’ sentiment and attitudes through annual public opinion research; and worked with a diverse range of civil society groups and experts to improve the quality and transparency of elections in the country. Currently we are actively promoting debate and analyses of electoral laws and other election issues among civil society experts; building the capacity of civic organizations to play a meaningful role in electoral and political processes and reform; supporting the Central Election Commission in its efforts to prepare for the 2012 elections; and will embark on longer-term institutional reforms. Before moving to my remarks, I want to first pause and sincerely thank the Helsinki Commission for inviting IFES to speak today, but more so for simply holding this event. Over the past two years, really since Ukraine’s last presidential election in 2010, organizations such as IFES, and those of my colleagues here today, have followed events closely in the country with an eye toward this October’s parliamentary elections. While Ukraine had a record of relatively competitive, considerably free and fair, and competently run elections for several years up through the 2010 presidential election, the local elections in the fall of that year gave us all cause for serious concern. The conduct of those elections, subsequent deterioration of rights and freedoms as documented by a number of organizations, the much-publicized and seemingly selective political persecution of former government and current opposition figures, and recent developments with regards to the upcoming October election, have only heightened those concerns. Since I am joined by my colleagues of the two political party institutes, I will focus my remarks on IFES’ core competencies, namely the legal framework and administration of elections. In doing so, I will touch upon a number of persisting or new weaknesses in the electoral legislation, draw your attention to some recent developments in preparation for October’s elections, and finally and perhaps most importantly, highlight what additional issues may surface in the coming months based on IFES’ experience, observations and work in the country. First of all, in regards to the current electoral legislation and the context under which it has come about, I would begin with the 2010 local elections, which were widely regarded as the most problematic elections in the recent history of Ukraine. For an account of the 2010 local elections and some of the issues encountered, you may refer to the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine’s own statement of November 3, 2010. This preliminary statement cited concerns over insufficient training of election officials, ballot lottery, commission membership and complicated registration procedures, among others. It also stressed weaknesses in the recently passed local election law which changed the rules of the game late in the process and, in the opinion of most experts, to the detriment of the opposition parties and several prominent independent candidates. In that statement the embassy also indicated a willingness to provide assistance to future electoral reforms in Ukraine. On the heels of these elections, President Yanukovich announced his intent to embark on comprehensive electoral reform. Reform is of course a natural, ongoing process when a government, legislature or interest group seeks to improve and amend an institution or practice. Our own country shows no shortage of controversial topics that many would like to change in one way or another: campaign finance, redistricting and the electoral college, just to name a few. And while this commitment to legal reform was welcome in Ukraine, many stakeholders were surprised, and indeed dismayed, by the government’s choice to begin with the parliamentary election law, a law that was regarded by many as being the least flawed of Ukraine’s four primary election laws. A reluctance of many stakeholders within the opposition, civil society and international organizations to participate in the government’s working group on election reform was increased by the fact that the government made many key decisions, including a change in the electoral system, even before the working group’s first meeting. Out of this process a new draft parliamentary election law was put forward. IFES, together with assessments of the Council of Europe’s Venice Commission and OSCE/ODIHR, has drawn attention to both positive and negative provisions in the law through its formal assessment of the law, and subsequent analysis. This analysis is available on our website and copies are also available here today. Of note, the final version of the law prepared by the parliament’s temporary special committee was not broadly discussed with experts and adopted in the first and final reading during one day with a number of changes from the drafts analyzed by international organizations. IFES later prepared its comments on the final law after its adoption which it circulated widely among stakeholders and the diplomatic community. And it is of course this law which will regulate these elections in October. Now, I would like to make a general comment regarding the electoral system, itself. Since the beginning of the reform process, the government of Ukraine let it be known that the electoral system would be a parallel electoral system, whereby half the deputies would be elected through proportional representation according to a nationwide vote, and half would be elected in winner-take-all electoral constituencies (not unlike our elections for the House of Representatives). Inherently there is nothing wrong or right in such a system. However, I would like to draw your attention to the last time such a system was in place, exactly 10 years ago, during Ukraine’s 2002 parliamentary elections. Those elections were held at a time of a government waning in popularity; yet eventually produced somewhat surprising results to the benefit of the pro-government political force, to the point of it successfully retaining significant control of the legislature. More specifically, in 2002, Nasha Ukraina received 23.57 percent of the popular vote in the nationwide constituency, and won 25 percent of the seats in the legislature, while pro-governmental pro-Kuchma “Zayedu” received 11.77 percent of the vote in the nationwide constituency, yet won 22.4 percent of the seats. How did this happen? The pro-Kuchma “Zayedu” bloc did extraordinarily well in single-member districts. Academics have since shown how in districts where the lion’s share of the popular vote was clearly for one political party, the single member candidate vote in the same territory was rather oddly, not. A commonly held assertion among experts and academics was that in some cases use and control of administrative resource in certain territorial regions helped ensure a victory for pro-governmental candidates where the pro-governmental party did not enjoy a plurality of support. What is important to note, is that today in Ukraine, we have a similar scenario unfolding: a parallel electoral system is now firmly in place. A number of polls, including IFES’ own from two weeks ago, shows the leading party in Ukraine, the governing Party of Regions, is in decline with support from only about 20 percent of the electorate. Meanwhile, the major oppositional parties cumulative support totals are polling now higher than the Party of Regions. So in a sense, we have a similar “mix” heading into the 2012 polls as we had in 2002; a governing force waning in popular support, about to compete in an election where half of the seats will be determined in single-member districts. In addition, the government holds considerable power at the local territorial level, clearly helped by the outcomes of those controversial local elections two years ago. Of course, we are not in 2002 but 2012 and can conclude nothing at this time. However, the parallel is striking and must not be dismissed. A more technical issue we are now confronted with concerns the boundaries of those new single member-electoral districts. Just how many districts each administrative region of Ukraine would have was determined on April 28, 2012, and the borders of the districts were released made widely public on May 5. It is difficult to assess the Central Election Commission’s performance in creating the boundaries for these constituencies because the law included only three sub-articles to regulate this process. Efforts to develop a supplementary law on territorial organization of elections seem to have evaporated. Although there had been an earlier legislative intent, and indeed its creation was referenced in the early draft of the law, it simply did not happen. On a positive note, the Central Election Commission seems to have adhered to the 12 percent limit on the variation of voting population as prescribed by law, meaning the districts are to be relatively equal in population and thus the votes of citizens relatively equal. The Central Election Commission has allocated these districts to Ukraine’s regions proportionally to the number of voters registered there. We understand that attempts were recently made to challenge the new boundaries through the court system, but that the cases were dismissed on the ground that the plaintiff’s allegations, even if proven to be true, would not amount to a contravention of the law. In other words, it is proving difficult to challenge the legality of an act, when said act has little in the way to regulate it. As IFES cautioned in several of its reports, leaving the law vague and devoid of several basic international norms of districting has yielded little in the way of predictability for contestants or guidance for election commissioners, potentially leaving the commission open to criticism as a consequence. Here we should also point out that between the initial draft of the new law and the final version, one of the only provisions in the draft law related to districts – that districts must be contiguous – was inexplicably removed. As the districts have now been unveiled, we not surprised to see that there are districts which are noncontiguous. Unless the desire is to keep, in the same election district, a community of interest, such as an ethnic minority, or an established territorial unit (e.g. city, township, etc.) together, that, too, happens to be non-contiguous, by international standards there is no justifiable reason for doing this. In addition, there were no public or expert consultations, or certainly no expert input known to the public. How the districts were drawn in terms of political intentions, if they were indeed drawn for these reasons, will require some degree of political insight. A number of local groups have begun this analysis. Indeed, there is no doubt this expertise exists in Ukraine, and such information will certainly come to light. IFES, together with civil society partners, is itself working on a comprehensive technical analysis of the new districts which it hopes to release in the next week. Another set of issues to watch relates to the formation of district and polling station election commissions, which are essentially the chief electoral bodies for their respective areas. This will take place by August 24, and September 26, respectively. Election commissioners in Ukraine, at each level of election administration, are chosen purely on a partisan basis. In other words: all commissioners are nominated by a political entity. Because of the number of registered parties in Ukraine, and the numbers expected to compete for these elections, places on these commissions will be at a premium. Political factions already in the current parliament are guaranteed one place on each commission. With regards to the composition of the remainder of the commissions, there are a number of concerns. Instead of drawing lots from the entities competing in a district for the remainder of seats on the commission, on April 19 the Central Election Commission adopted a procedure whereby a single lottery will determine the ranking of political parties, which will then be used to fill each of the 225 district commissions around the country. This practice is contrary to an earlier IFES recommendation, as we believed separate lotteries for each district race should have been held. Each contestant to each electoral contest should have equal chance to gain the open positions on the presiding electoral commission. Should a party unfortunately draw near the bottom of the list in the lottery, they may lose any chance of getting even one of the 225 district commissions anywhere in the country. Drawing near the top gives them a high probability of membership or increased membership in every commission. Also, the timeframe for submission of the candidates for membership in the commissions is very tight – three days. If there are any mistakes in the submission, the nominating party or candidate is informed and must file a corrected submission the very next day or an application is rejected. However, the manner in which parties and candidates are informed of such decisions is not clearly defined by the law. If a political entity misses the slim deadline because they did not learn until later that there was an issue with their submission, this is potentially an unfair practice. Should it be systemic, it could result in significant underrepresentation of certain parties and candidates on the commissions. In terms of electoral administration, I should start by saying the Central Election Commission of Ukraine has an unenviable task. Training up to half a million election commissioners in a matter of a few weeks would be a difficult charge for any country. While organizations like IFES are willing partners of the election commission and will contribute some technical advice in planning, design and execution of training programs, overall, the burden of responsibility falls on the commission, itself.. The Central Election Commission will also face a significant challenge in educating voters on changed voting procedures. Again, IFES and other members of the international community can be of assistance here, but ultimate responsibility will rest with the election commission. Another challenge is that the commission will be overburdened with tasks in the upcoming months – it has to register candidates in each of the 225 single-member districts and the national party lists for the national district, accredit thousands of local and international nonpartisan observers, and thousands more candidates, party proxies and observers. Recently the election commission responded to this challenge through draft amendments to the parliamentary law, seeking to transfer some of its obligations to the district election commissions. However, experts do not believe this will prove successful. Understandably, there is resistance to further amending the legal framework so soon before an election. Beyond mere logistical challenges, we must remember that in Ukraine election commissions are de facto not independent from political influence as they are formed by the political entities whose interests they represent on the commission. Such a concern has been raised by international organizations that observed previous elections, such as the OSCE/ODIHR. This issue is of crucial importance as commissions in Ukraine have a legal function to adjudicate certain types of election challenges and disputes; essentially deciding for or against a political entity’s interests is arguably better served with a certain degree of neutrality. Finally, I would point to a few additional issues to be cognizant of in the upcoming campaign and election. First, is the possibility that voters will be able to use the option in Ukraine of voting in their current temporary location to strategically change their polling place. This was a potential problem that IFES highlighted in its analysis of the draft law and should be closely monitored. In this regard it is worth noting that the system of voting in place, of temporary stay, bears a similarity to the absentee ballot system that was a major source of fraud during the 2004 Presidential elections. Second, concerns the commonly recognized phenomenon that all major political entities receive financial and other support from Ukraine’s wealthiest benefactors – a factor in perpetuating the corruption that is one of the hallmarks of political life in Ukraine. However, the legal framework does little to regulate or bring transparency to such relationships. The new parliamentary election law requires only the most basic level of disclosure and leaves ample room for campaign costs to be hidden as third party expenditures or services in-kind. Furthermore, discrepancies between the election law and the law on political parties make it easy for candidates to conceal both the sources of their funding and the full extent of their spending by funnelling it through political parties. Third, Election Day, itself, may well be complicated by unwieldy procedures that ought to be clarified by the Central Election Commission in advance of the election; and of course, the ever present possibilities of abuse of state resources, vote buying schemes and other illegal practices that can thrive with impunity under a weak system of law enforcement. Let me conclude by stating what the international community, including the United States, could do to support consolidation of democracy in Ukraine through a transparent, competitive and credible election this October. First, do not take your eye off ball now. It is understandable that organizations such as IFES, NDI, IRI and others who are deeply invested in electoral and political reform perhaps put greater priority on these developments in countries like Ukraine, and for a longer period of time. But now we are less than six months from Election Day. Over the next few months important developments will take place that will surely tell us just how transparent, credible and evenly contested these elections might be. Today’s testimony has given you only highlights of some concerns; many others will be seen in the upcoming weeks and months, and I urge you all to stay focused on these concerns. To this end, it is of course vital for the U.S. and the larger international community to support nonpartisan observation efforts. We must pay close attention to and respond to electoral administration needs and help non-partisan human rights organizations, NGOs and media outlets have meaningful access to needed resources – especially through statements from entities such as your own, that continue to show that the U.S. is supportive of a democratic, free and fair election in Ukraine. Second, I urge you to not take your eye off the ball later. Ukraine fatigue in the West has correlated positively with the government’s recidivism with respect to human rights, obvious aggressions towards political rivals and efforts to solidify the hold on power. For our part, IFES has and will continue to advocate for improved democratic electoral legislation and practices, and compliance with international standards and best practices, but with an understanding of nuances and particularities of the country. We hope that the U.S. will continue to value and advocate for the continued role of international organizations like IFES, the Venice Commission and others to their Ukrainian counterparts. Despite issues or concerns raised today, I would say that we certainly do not know what the outcome of these elections will be. But however the conduct – and whatever the outcome – it will be necessary to continue to engage Ukraine. Performance in the elections will determine in large part just how that engagement may take shape. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today and I am happy to answer any questions you may have.

时政

2014-41/1934/en_head.json.gz/17254

NATO’s relations with Austria NATO-Austria relations are conducted through the Partnership for Peace framework, which Austria joined in 1995. NATO and Austria actively cooperate in peace support operations, and have developed practical cooperation in a range of areas. NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen and the President of Austria, Heinz Fischer (June 2011) NATO highly values its relations with Austria. The Allies view Austria as an effective partner and contributor to international security, which shares key values such as the promotion of international security, democracy and human rights. Austria selects areas of practical cooperation with NATO that match joint objectives. An important area of cooperation is the country’s support for NATO-led operations. Austria has worked alongside the Allies in security and peacekeeping operations in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and currently has personnel deployed in Afghanistan and Kosovo. Framework for cooperation NATO and Austria detail areas of cooperation and timelines in Austria’s Individual Partnership Programme (IPP) which is jointly agreed for a two-year period. Key areas include security and peacekeeping cooperation, humanitarian and disaster relief, and search and rescue operations. The IPP is soon to be replaced by an Individual Partnership and Cooperation Programme (IPCP) in accordance with NATO’s new partnership policy. Austria runs the Centre for Operations Preparation, a Partnership Training and Education Centre. It also leads the Balkans Regional Working Group in the framework of the PfP Consortium of Defense Academies and Security Studies Institutes (a voluntary association which works “in the spirit of PfP”, funded by Austria, Germany, Switzerland and the United States). Key areas of cooperation Security cooperation In 1996, Austrian forces joined those of NATO Allies in securing the peace negotiated in the Dayton agreement for Bosnia and Herzegovina. The country contributed a battalion to the NATO-led peacekeeping forces there until 2001. Austria is currently contributing a mechanized company and support units to the NATO-led peacekeeping force in Kosovo (KFOR), amounting to over 400 troops. Austria took command of KFOR’s Multinational Task Force South (MNTF-S) in early 2008. Austrian forces joined the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan in 2002, providing expertise and logistical support. Throughout 2005, Austria deployed troops to work alongside the German-led Provincial Reconstruction Team (PRT) in Kunduz province to provide security for the Afghan parliamentary elections. Austria has made a number of units available for potential PfP operations. In each case, deployment must be authorized by the Austrian Council of Ministers and approved by the Main Committee of the Austrian Parliament. Defence and security sector reform Participating in peacekeeping and peace support operations alongside NATO Allies has reinforced Austria’s own process of military transformation. The PfP Planning and Review Process (PARP) influences and reinforces Austrian planning activities. Through PARP, Austria has declared an increasing number of forces and capabilities as potentially available for NATO-led operations. Austria’s ability to take part in peace support operations is further enhanced by its participation in the Operational Capabilities Concept (OCC) process. The Allies and other partners also benefit from Austrian expertise. The country is contributing to NATO’s programme of support for security-sector reform activities, with a special emphasis on the Balkan region.Austria has contributed to Trust Fund projects in other Partner countries. Along with individual Allies and Partners, Austria has made contributions to voluntary trust funds to support, for example, the destruction of mines and/or munitions in Albania, Kazakhstan, Montenegro, Serbia and Ukraine. Civil emergency planning Civil emergency planning is a major area of cooperation. The aim is for Austria to be able to cooperate with NATO Allies in providing mutual support in dealing with the consequences of major accidents or disasters in the Euro-Atlantic area. This could include dealing with the consequences of incidents involving chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear agents, as well as humanitarian disaster relief operations. Science and environment Under the NATO Science for Peace and Security (SPS) Programme, scientists from Austria have participated in numerous advanced research workshops and seminars on a range of topics. Since 2005, Austrian personnel have participated in over 20 activities. Topics have included preparedness against bio-terrorism, strengthening influenza pandemic preparedness and emerging biological threats. In every partner country an embassy of one of the NATO member states serves as a contact point and operates as a channel for disseminating information about the role and policies of the Alliance. The current NATO Contact Point Embassy in Austria is the embassy of Croatia. Evolution in milestones 1995 Austria signs the Partnership for Peace Framework Document. Austria joins the PfP Planning and Review Process (PARP) Austria deploys peacekeepers to the NATO-led peacekeeping force in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Austria opens a diplomatic mission at NATO Headquarters. 1999 Austrian forces participate in the NATO-led peacekeeping force in Kosovo, KFOR. H.E. Dr Thomas Klestil, the President of Austria, meets NATO Secretary General Lord Robertson at NATO HQ on 3 July to exchange views on key issues in international security. Austrian forces join the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan. 2004 During a visit to Vienna on 18 November, NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer praised Austria for its contribution to NATO’s missions and Partnership for Peace programme. Austria has increased the units declared for NATO/PfP missions. In the future they will consist of a framework brigade. Austria takes command of KFOR’s Multinational Task Force South (MNTF-S). NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen visits Vienna on 30 June 2011 and met President Heinz Fischer, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Vice-Chancellor Michael Spindelegger and Minister of Defence Norbert Darabos. They discussed the partnership between NATO and Austria, the situation in the western Balkans and the NATO-led operations in Libya and Afghanistan. Rasmussen expressed strong appreciation for Austria’s substantial contribution to the NATO-led mission in Kosovo and for its constructive role in the western Balkans and its firm commitment to the region. NATO praises Austrian commitment to broad security agenda 30 Jun. 2011 ''Wounds of war'' – experts assess the impact of military combat19 Apr. 2011 NATO science workshop assesses environmental impact on military operations11 May. 2010 De Hoop Scheffer visits Austria 18 Nov. 2004 President of Austria visits NATO 03 Jul. 2002 The Partnership for Peace programme The Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council (EAPC) Statement by Franz Cede, Head of the Mission of the Republic of Austria to NATO at the meeting of the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council at the level of Defence Ministers 08 Jun. 2006 Speech by the NATO Secretary General at the Diplomatic Academy in Vienna, Austria03 Nov. 2005 Speech by Günther Platter, Minister of Defence of the Federal Republic of Austria at the meeting of the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council in Defence Ministers Session 09 Jun. 2005 more PDF Library SPS Country Flyers - Science for Peace and Security (SPS)

时政

2014-41/1934/en_head.json.gz/17505

Home > How to fix county government? How to fix county government? January 23, 2013 — The frayed relationship between Sullivan County Manager David Fanslau and the majority of county legislators has been on display in public in recent weeks, as press conferences and news reports made clear that a majority of legislators are working to terminate his employment. Swept along with the dissatisfaction of some legislators with their manager has also come a proposal from Legislator Jonathan Rouis to switch to a different form of county management. We at The River Reporter wonder if changing the form of county government from a legislature that appoints a county manager to one having an elected county executive is really necessary, or if the current unhappiness in the government center is just a matter of personalities and power. If the latter, we recommend that when the heat of the moment subsides, cooler consideration should be given before institutionalizing a new political office in the courthouse. It’s not surprising that the legislature sees the need for change. In the past 25 years, all county governments in New York State (NYS) have faced increasingly complex operations, and there’s been a strong trend toward counties exploring different ways of doing things. This includes both investigating new management alternatives and other changes in operations. During these economically challenging times, counties with fewer and fewer resources are still being pressured to deliver the same (or even increased) services. Currently 31 NYS counties have a manager or an administrator form of government. Seventeen have elected county executives, with Montgomery County set to become the 18th in 2014. In nine counties, the chairman of the county legislative body serves as administrator. The ideal county manager is a highly-trained, experienced professional administrator who serves at the pleasure of elected leaders. All the power is concentrated in the elected council. When the manager and elected officials work in partnership and where legislative leadership is strong, a well-functioning county government can result. Legislative-administrative problems often develop when the flow of information is inadequate. Whether this is the case in Sullivan County, depends on whether one perceives the flow of information from Fanslau to the legislature as sufficient. Some legislators allege that Fanslau has failed to provide them requested information promptly and completely, something that is part of a manager’s job. At least one legislator says this not the case; he charges some of his colleagues are trying to micromanage county government. From the outside, it’s hard to tell if these are problems of personality, or a power struggle, or a result of the structure of our local government. Yet the tensions are clear. There is, however, no guarantee that tensions like these would go away with a county executive form of government. A county executive is a different animal altogether from a county manager. He or she is elected by the voters and has significantly more autonomy than a county manager. He or she is also expected to be a leader in policy. Generally, a county executive has veto power over legislative acts (although the legislature can override it with a supermajority vote). Professional administrative experience is not required as it is for a county manager. Because the executive is elected, partisan politics enters the equation when this new, politically dominated branch of local government is established. A county legislature cannot fire a county executive; if they do not like the situation, they have to live with it. It seems clear that just exchanging a county manager for a county executive is not automatically a cure for tensions between an administrator and the legislature. Whatever the structure of government, Sullivan County government faces many challenges ahead—getting government’s fiscal house in order, building a vibrant local economy, preserving the precious resources of clean water, air and the natural beauty we all love. Whether either form of government would be better able to achieve these goals may well be worth discussion. [For some useful charts of the two different forms of county government, see page 47 of the New York State Department of State’s Local Government Handbook, available online at www.dos.ny.gov/lg/publications/Local_Government_Handbook.pdf.] Source URL: http://www.riverreporter.com/editorial/4302/2013/01/23/how-fix-county-government Links:[1] http://riverreporter.disqus.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.riverreporter.com%2Feditorial%2F4302%2F2013%2F01%2F23%2Fhow-fix-county-government

时政

2014-41/1934/en_head.json.gz/17859

/ Political Science / Modern Political Theory Peter Lassman ISBN: 978-0-7456-1618-6 August 2011, Polity The problem of value pluralism permeates modern political philosophy. Its presence can be felt even when it is not explicitly the central topic under investigation. Political thinkers such as Max Weber, Isaiah Berlin and Stuart Hampshire derive pessimistic, sometimes tragic, conclusions from their reflections upon pluralism. On the other hand, there is a more optimistic view represented by John Rawls and Jürgen Habermas that sees value pluralism as a problem that is easier to live with. This book presents the first accessible overview for both post- and undergraduate students of the way in which this problem has been understood and responded to by modern political thinkers. Acknowledgements1. Pluralism 2. Pluralism and Pessimism3. Reconciliation and Public Reason4. Pluralism : Reconciliation and Disagreement Peter Lassman is a Lecturer in Political Science and International Studies at the University of Birmingham. "A well-written book that engages readers with its dense arguments and discussions."Political Studies Review"Written in an engaging and accessible style, Peter Lassman's thoughtful and informed discussion of value pluralism does much to shed light on one of the most complex and practically pressing issues in political theory. The book will be invaluable for students, but specialists should also find it of considerable interest."John Horton, Keele University "Peter Lassman has taken a major step forward in our understanding of contemporary political theory. He seeks in this book to call pluralism into question, not to condemn it, but to understand to what we are committing ourselves when we endorse pluralism. The results are important for all of us: he shows that consequent to the phenomenon of value pluralism as political theorists we are necessarily both spectator and participant in the politics of our times. One of the most insightful books about the practice of political theory that I have read."Tracy B. Strong, University of California San Diego "With patience and care, Peter Lassman surveys the major arguments about pluralism and value pluralism in modern political theory. He is a sure-footed guide to the political dimensions of the work of Isaiah Berlin, Stuart Hampshire, John Rawls and Jürgen Habermas, but also adds his own voice, inspired by Max Weber, to these important debates."Duncan Kelly, University of Cambridge "Peter Lassman's book is an excellent guide to an increasingly important debate. It introduces several different thinkers' approaches to pluralism and draws out the crucial implications that those appraches have for broader theoretical debates. It is a work that will inform and inspire students of political theory for a very long time to come."Marc Stears, University of Oxford Postmodernity and its Discontents by Zygmunt Bauman Citizenship and National Identity by David l. Miller Forms of Power by Gianfranco Poggi International Ethics: A Critical Introduction by Richard Shapcott The Resources of Critique by Alex Callinicos by Amitai Etzioni State Power by Bob Jessop

时政

2014-41/1934/en_head.json.gz/17977

Maybe I was wrong after all By Roy Hattersley June 2, 2003 I spent a great deal of the 1980s helping to prevent the Labour party from endorsing the briefly fashionable demand for proportional representation. When, as a holding operation against the near irresistible forces of "electoral reform", we appointed a "commission" to examine alternative voting systems, I persuaded Raymond (now Lord) Plant to chair it in the knowledge that he was fully in favour of "first past the post". Unfortunately he turned out to be so open-minded that, by the end of the inquiry, he had convinced himself of the need for change. But I stood firm. Now I have taken the advice that Oliver Cromwell gave to the assembly of the Free Church of Scotland and begun to consider the possibility that I might have been wrong. As yet I am not wholly convinced that I was in error. But I can now construct a crucial argument in proportional representation's support. It has nothing to do with "fair voting" or enhanced democracy. A House of Commons that numerically replicates the general election strengths of the major parties is no more likely to reflect the will of the people than a parliament in which the government has an overall working majority. Indeed, complete proportionality would result in such confusion that the government it produced would reflect nothing except the need to cobble together a coalition. But a system that allowed one or two new parties to flourish might produce what I hope is still possible in this country - a genuine social democratic government. I assume that Tony Blair believes that too. That is why, on the subject of electoral reform, he and I have moved in opposite directions. No doubt purists - always present in depressingly high numbers among Guardian readers - will complain that my motives are intended purely to achieve an ideological aim. Guilty as charged. But constitutions are always written or changed with a political end in view. The founding fathers of the United States got together before that fateful day in Philadelphia to sort out an arrangement that would properly reflect their prejudices. After the war the allied powers were less interested in giving every German vote "equal weight" than in making sure that one party never again ruled the Reichstag. More recent the Liberal party - for all its conspicuous piety - pressed for PR because it thought that it would increase its number of MPs. My modest aim is a touch of socialism. Proportional representation - in all Britain as in Scotland - would result in both the growth of fringe parties and the creation of new ones. I would not join any of them. I have always said that I will remain a member of the Labour party until I die. And since my loyalty has survived six years of "the project", I have no reason to doubt my tenacity. The attraction of a new voting system is the effect that new parties would have on Blair and his successors. A House of Commons elected on a modest system of proportional representation would include Green MPs and members from something which (for the sake of argument) I will call the Socialist party. The new party of the left which I have in mind would not be Arthur Scargill's neanderthal awkward squad or Tommy Sheridan's strange combination of Marxism, Trotskyism and Scottish sentimentality. It would represent unrealistic, rather than extreme, democratic socialism and advocate the sort of policies that Blair explicitly supported in his 1983 election manifesto. It would almost certainly (wrongly, in my view) be antagonistic to the European Union. But under PR, it would win a dozen seats. That election result would be unlikely to make the new parties contenders for coalition partnership. But its candidates would win 2,000 to 3,000 votes in most constituencies. For we know that "first past the post" - which offers minor parties neither power nor influence - is the main reason that so many votes are concentrated on the "big three". Suddenly the Greens and the Socialists would become a force - particularly to the minds of Labour MPs in marginal constituencies. It is easy enough to imagine the cries of pain that will come from those ideologically footloose Blarites who eight years ago decided it is best to abandon extremism in favour of frenzied moderation. For they would know that if the government continued to build hospitals that meet the needs of speculators rather than the patients and persisted in allowing private companies to mismanage education, the Socialist party candidates would take enough of their votes to risk them losing their seats. And winning is New Labour's guiding principle. So they would beg the leadership to steal some of the Socialist party's clothes as it has stolen the Tories'. I want a system that puts a political premium on moving a moderate distance to the left. Proportional representation - not transferable votes, but real proportional representation - might just have that effect. The Center for Voting and Democracy 6930 Carroll Ave, Suite 610, Takoma Park MD 20912 (301) 270-4616 info@fairvote.org

时政

2014-52/4410/en_head.json.gz/3327

Topics Wars and Interventions War in Afghanistan (2001-present) War in Afghanistan (2001-present) Obama signs order expanding U.S. combat role in Afghanistan President Barack Obama has signed a secret order authorizing a broader military mission in Afghanistan in 2015 than originally planned, the New York Times reported on Saturday. The decision ensures a direct role for American troops in fighting in Afghanistan for at least another year, it said, adding Obama's decision was made during a White House meeting with national security advisers in recent weeks. In May, Obama said the American military would have no combat role in Afghanistan next year. Missions for the remaining 9,800 troops would be limited to training Afghan forces and to hunting the "remnants of al Qaeda", he said. Obama's new order lets... Robert Bales September 11, 2001 Attacks

时政

2014-52/4410/en_head.json.gz/3386

Opinion Moving on from here Nobody is suggesting that last week�s presidential election was unfair or won by dishonest means. Yet, judging by the excessive hand-wringing and finger-pointing by so many who voted for Mitt Romney, it�s clear that many conservative Republicans simply cannot reconcile themselves to the prospect of four more years of a president they despise, Barack Obama.Romney himself has won no points for dignity in the election�s aftermath. He has acted as if the presidency was wrongfully denied to him and that those who voted for Obama did so because they are �takers� rather than �makers.� Thus he reminded everyone of his infamous remarks � which he later said he regretted � labeling 47 percent of the voters as beyond his reach because they were too dependent upon government largesse to ever vote for a conservative.Democrats may be tempted to gloat at all the right-wing agony that is so readily visible, but in the long run they also need to recognize that the United States is best governed when there are two respectable � and mutually respectful � political parties. A vibrant two-party system gets much of the credit for our nation�s enduring political stability.The immediate danger is that too many Republicans appear unwilling to honorably fulfill their obligation to act as �loyal opposition.� In the House of Representatives, where the GOP reigns supreme, too many members see their first priority to be blocking any initiatives that Obama supports simply to deny him any success.They take their inspiration not just from the tea party types but also from the minority leader in the Senate, Mitch McConnell, who four years ago declared that his party�s top priority should be to deny Obama a second term; in the wake of last week�s election, he basically reiterated this view.And thus the outcome of the pending �fiscal cliff� negotiations that began in earnest at the White House yesterday remains uncertain. House Speaker John Boehner last week declared � it sounded almost like a sneer � that he and his colleagues were willing to negotiate but wanted President Obama to show some leadership. Boehner also seemed to suggest that to him presidential leadership would be demonstrated by Obama accepting his party�s demands that there be no tax increases of any kind. It�s almost as if Boehner and his colleagues hadn�t noticed the election results.But of course they had, and many prominent Republicans have reluctantly concluded that their party finally needs to accept the fact that the United States is changing, something patently obvious to others but that seemed to catch most of them by surprise.Even Newt Gingrich, an icon of the far-right wing of the Republican Party, has belatedly heard the call of reason: �I was wrong last week, as was virtually every major Republican analyst,� he conceded. �And so, you have to stop and say to yourself, �If I was that far off, what do I need to learn to better understand America?��He and his colleagues might begin by examining President Obama�s winning message. For example, judging by the election outcome, it seems safe to conclude that a majority of the American people don�t want their political leaders telling them that Roe v. Wade should be repealed, that abortion should always be illegal and that same-sex marriages should be prohibited by law. The conservatives could also rethink their doctrinaire opposition to raising taxes, especially on the wealthy. President Obama made it clear this is a priority of his, and, as the Republicans so grudgingly acknowledge, he did, after all, win the election.

时政

2014-52/4410/en_head.json.gz/3434

Please show some class, Mr. Romney We supposedly are a nation of gracious losers.After every hard-fought contest - even pro hockey games in which hulking skaters have spent the previous couple of hours slamming opponents into the boards and trying to knock their teeth out - second-place finishers typically shake hands and congratulate the victors.Evidently, though, Mitt Romney and his vanquished GOP minions - Fox News commentators, talk-radio troglodytes and other disenfranchised banner-wavers for the far right - subscribe to the sour grapes school of politics. They continue to talk trash about President Obama as if the election were tomorrow instead of more than two weeks ago, and just can't choke down the fact that the majority of voters don't agree with them.It's like the scene in the 1941 classic "Citizen Kane," when fictional gubernatorial candidate Charles Foster Kane, as played by Orson Welles, holds up a prematurely printed newspaper with the headline he hoped would run, "Kane Elected," and then selects the alternative version, "Fraud at Polls."A photograph supposedly snapped of Mr. Romney the other day pumping gas for his SUV at a Shell station in La Jolla, Calif., shows him in uncharacteristically rumpled attire and with an expression suggesting he has been infected by an acute case of post-election stress disorder.The authenticity of the picture, now circulating widely on the Internet, hasn't been verified. In fact, aside from a brief concession speech in the early morning hours of Nov. 7 we've seen or heard little from the former Massachusetts governor.Mr. Romney's only other comments after the election, made via a telephone conference call to wealthy campaign donors that was later leaked to the media, blamed his loss on "gifts" President Obama gave to African-Americans, Hispanics, women and young voters.He was quoted as saying, "With regards to the young people, for instance, a forgiveness of college loan interest was a big gift. Free contraceptives were very big with young, college-aged women. And then, finally, Obamacare also made a difference for them, because as you know, anybody now 26 years of age and younger was now going to be part of their parents' plan, and that was a big gift to young people. They turned out in large numbers, a larger share in this election even than in 2008."Meanwhile, distraught voters in a number of red states, including Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, South Carolina, Tennessee and Texas, are circulating petitions calling for secession from the union.Even though the United States just re-elected its first African-American president, it's as if we're getting ready to fight the Civil War again.This nation already faces far too many immediate challenges - solving the debt crisis to avoid plunging off the fiscal cliff; trying to broker a cease-fire between Israelis and Palestinians; the ongoing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq - to remain so sharply divided.It's time for Mr. Romney and his followers to show some leadership and some class.Extend a hand, if not in friendship, at least in acknowledgement that we are all Americans, and we can either stand as one or all fall together.

时政

2014-52/4410/en_head.json.gz/3477

Kuster's partisanship: Just own it, Annie Annie Kuster, New Hampshire's 2nd District representative in Congress, talks a great deal about the need for bipartisanship. And in case you missed that, she is happy to remind you."From my first days in office, I have consistently called on both parties to work together..." she said in a statement on Wednesday. No doubt, she has done that. In her election night victory speech last November, she said, "we're ready to put politics aside and do what's right for the middle class and small businesses" and that voters "are looking for leaders who can bring people together to get things done."When a politician proclaims that she is one to "put politics aside," you can bet that politics is likely to follow.Last week, Kuster voted against Rep. Paul Ryan's proposed budget. This was no surprise. Ryan was Mitt Romney's vice presidential nominee. Though his proposal did balance the budget, it did not raise taxes to get there. Instead it took such necessary steps as restructuring entitlement programs to make them, and the U.S. government, solvent.Kuster, naturally, said Ryan's budget "would end Medicare as we know it, undermine critical investments in the middle class, and threaten our economic recovery." That's just the kind of boilerplate partisan rhetoric she lobbed at Charlie Bass during last year's campaign. During the campaign, Kuster accused Bass of being a partisan Republican rather than the moderate he said he was. According to Opencongress.org, Bass voted with Republicans 83 percent of the time. The site shows that Kuster has voted with Democrats 86 percent of the time. Interesting!So far, Kuster is demonstrably, if slightly, more partisan than Charlie Bass was. If that's what the voters of the 2nd District want, fine. But judging by how often and how loudly Kuster claims to "put politics aside," it is clear that she knows they don't want that at all.

时政

2014-52/4410/en_head.json.gz/3619

Front for Democracy in Burundi Front pour la Démocratie au Burundi Léonce Ngendakumana National Assembly Politics of Burundi The Front for Democracy in Burundi (French: Front pour la Démocratie au Burundi, FRODEBU) is a Hutu progressive political party in Burundi. It was formed by followers of Melchior Ndadaye from the disbanded Burundi Workers' Party in 1986. FRODEBU was legalized as a political party in 1992.[1] In 1993, FRODEBU won power in Burundi. The election of the Hutu government triggered violence between Hutu and Tutsi militias, and the President was assassinated. In retaliation, FRODEBU killed 25 000 Tutsi. Tutsi responded with an outbreak of violence against Hutus and killed civilians in retaliation. The violence was on a smaller scale then the mass genocide occurring in Rwanda where Hutu were massacring Tutsi. In the legislative 2005 parliamentary election, the party won 21.7% of the vote and 30 out of 118 seats,[2] becoming the main opposition party.[3] FRODEBU suspended its participation in the National Assembly on 21 February 2008 to protest efforts by the

时政

2014-52/4410/en_head.json.gz/3648

[Check Against Delivery] José Manuel Durão Barroso President of the European Commission Remarks by President Barroso following the meeting between the European Commission and the Ukrainian Government Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. First of all, let me thank the Prime Minister for coming here to Brussels. I would like to thank you for taking the time, in the difficult circumstances facing your country, to come with your government to meet the European Commission here in Brussels. Ukraine can count on the European Union, now and in the future. And indeed, our meeting was a very successful one. It was an unprecedented one - it is the first time the European Commission is meeting with another government outside of the European Union that has an association agreement with us. And I think we can say there was a great convergence and the spirit was really friendly and constructive. The situation we are seeing in Ukraine is, of course, of the greatest concern. First of all, for the Ukrainian people, but I believe it is also the greatest challenge to Europe's security since the fall of the Iron Curtain and the fall of the Berlin Wall. It is therefore critically important that we stop the spiral of political and security escalation which we have seen over recent weeks. We need to build on the diplomatic efforts agreed in the Geneva statement and continued by the OSCE. The so called referendum held in Ukraine's Eastern regions is illegitimate and illegal. We will not recognise its outcome. The rights of national minorities and all persons need to be respected and uphold, but in the framework of a united and unitarian Ukrainian state. I have made clear to Prime Minister Yatseniuk that we support all efforts made by the Ukrainian government to promote a broad based and inclusive national dialogue with all regions, in particular on the issue of constitutional reform. The Ukrainian system of government, the election of the next President of Ukraine and agreements with third countries are decisions for the Ukrainian people to freely decide, without external interference. The doctrine of limited sovereignty should belong to history books. And history belongs to those that embrace the future, not to those who try to hijack it. From the very beginning our policy regarding the crisis in Ukraine had a very important central objective: to support a viable, sovereign state of the Republic of Ukraine; to support a democratic, stable, united and prosperous country. This is our first goal looking to the response to the crisis. Our joint meeting today was therefore part of our continued support to this stable, sovereign, democratic and peaceful Ukraine. We are acting like never before to deliver short, medium and long term support measures worth €11 billion – measures that I have presented to you here in early March. Today, we have gone through this package and our joint European Agenda for Reform in detail and identified ways to support the political, economic and financial stability of Ukraine. Specifically: • The new “State Building Contract” programme I just signed with the Prime Minister, worth €355 million, plus €10 million to support civil society, will help the government of Ukraine to address short-term economic stabilisation needs and implement governance reforms in order to promote inclusive socio-economic development. This “State Building Contract” includes concrete steps towards building transparency and fighting against corruption, and will help to increase the government’s ability to respond to citizens’ demands and needs. • Another major deliverable of today's meeting was the conclusion of the Memorandum of Assistance to Ukraine that is necessary to give effect to the €1 billion Macro Financial Assistance loan programme. The EU will soon disburse the first package of €600 million of a total amount of €1.6 billion of Macro Financial Assistance. These two specific actions come on top of a wide range of European Commission's assistance to Ukraine in other areas, such as: • The elimination of customs duties on goods originating from Ukraine – worth nearly €500 million per year in tariff reductions. • The signature of the Memorandum of Understanding enabling gas flows from Slovakia to Ukraine which was an important first step to diversify Ukraine’s sources of gas supply. I was present in the signature of this memorandum in Bratislava recently. And the European Commission, as you know, is holding trilateral energy talks with Ukraine and Russia aimed at safeguarding the security of supply and transit of gas to and through Ukraine. • Another point is the work conducted by the Commission, endorsed yesterday by the Foreign Affairs Council, to give effect to our policy of non-recognition of Crimea's annexation by Russia. And we are working together on many other areas: • People-to people contacts, where I am pleased to welcome the recent legislative steps for implementation by Ukraine of the Visa Liberalisation Action Plan. I have given Prime Minister Yatseniuk my assurances of support in his efforts to move forward the visa liberalisation process as quickly as possible. • Aviation, where we expect to sign the EU-Ukraine Common Aviation Area Agreement on 5 June, at the occasion of the next Transport Council. • Research, where I welcome the intention of Ukraine to be an associated participant in the "Horizon 2020" research programme. Today, ladies and gentlemen, our focus has been on the support we can give to Ukraine. Let me add a word on the actions of Russia. Our message to Russia is to engage, to implement its part of the Geneva statement, to repeal the mandate of the Federation Council to use force on Ukrainian soil and to act as a responsible stakeholder of our community of nations. Together with the Prime Minister, before the executive-to-executive meeting, we have also analysed the situation there. My opinion is that it is still not too late if Russia wants to work constructively. I believe it is in the interest of everybody in Europe, including Russia, to cease this kind of actions and that we can turn back this page and that we can in fact come to a real de-escalation of this conflict. Turning back now to the significance of today's meeting. After the signing in March of the political chapters of our Association Agreement, today's meeting shows the EU and Ukraine are jointly committed to work together towards Ukraine's political association and economic integration with the EU. In our meeting with the government we saw how important this association is for the Ukrainian authorities and we are doing everything in our competence to speed up the implementation of the agreements already signed and also to conclude the agreements that are on the table. Closer association between the EU and Ukraine was something we proposed, not imposed, to Ukraine and its people. And we remain committed to conclude the signature procedure of the remaining chapters of the Association Agreement as soon as possible after the Presidential elections on 25 May. We received clear assurances from the Ukrainian side that it is exactly the goal of the Ukrainian authorities. As I have said in the past this agreement was never an agreement against someone, but for something: for democracy, prosperity and well-being of all the Ukrainian people. And we continue to stand by these goals. The meeting today was a clear demonstration of our political will. And I really want to thank you very much, Prime Minister, not only for your personal engagement, but also for the very important contribution that your ministers gave to what I consider a very successful and constructive meeting. Thank you. Side Bar

时政

2014-52/4410/en_head.json.gz/3704

Nationwide strike gathers steam across country The one-day national shutdown called by the opposition parties today to protest the central government&#39;s decision to introduce foreign direct investment (FDI) in retail sector, hike prices of diesel and domestic gas continued to attract support from various parties across the political spectrum. Speaking to mediapersons, leader of Communist Party of India (Marxist), Mohammad Salim said that apart from Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, majority of the parliamentary leaders are opposing the policy of the government. In New Delhi, SP general secretary, Ram Gopal Yadav said that they would protest all day today and also in the future.

时政

2014-52/4410/en_head.json.gz/3754

What the International Response to the Civil Rights Movement Tells Us About Ferguson More Ferguson Coverage Ferguson Protesters Try to Block Use of Tear Gas See Congressional Staffers Stage a Powerful Walkout Over Grand Jury Decisions Prominent Ferguson Protester Charged With Assault How ‘Hands Up, Don’t Shoot’ Could Start a Real Revolution Attorney General Eric Holder Plans ‘Institute of Justice’ to Address Protest Concerns Ferguson Was the Spark — Eric Garner Is the Fire Michael Brown’s Stepfather Says Emotions ‘Got the Best of Me’ Charles Barkley Stands By Calling Ferguson Rioters ‘Scumbags’ Michael Brown’s Stepfather Under Investigation for Outburst SCROLL TO SEE MORE Meet Captain Ron Johnson, Star of the Ferguson Crisis Charlotte Alter @charlottealter Capt. Ronald Johnson of the Missouri State Highway Patrol, who was appointed by the governor to take control of security operations in the city of Ferguson, walks among demonstrators gathered along West Florissant Avenue on August 14, 2014 in Ferguson, Missouri. Scott Olson—Getty Images Former colleagues say he's the man for the job, and his mother agrees Correction appended Aug. 16 4:26 p.m. ET MoreVice President Biden, Gov. Cuomo and Mayor de Blasio Honor Life of Fallen Officer4 Puppies Stolen on Christmas Day After Owners Have No Cash to Give Burglars2014's Most Awesome (and Awful) Space Pictures NBC NewsSuspect Fatally Shoots Arizona Cop, Kills Self NBC NewsHere's Why Gas Prices Are Dropping So Low NBC NewsYears before he arrived in Ferguson, Mo. to defuse the violence following the killing of unarmed black teen Michael Brown, Missouri State Highway Patrol Captain Ronald S. Johnson ran over a mailbox with his car. Popular Among Subscribers Interstellar, Where No Movie Has Gone Before The Last Men of SteelReview: Interstellar’s Wonder of Worlds BeyondHe was sixteen and had only just gotten his driver’s license, his mother Annie Johnson says, and he was rushing home to meet his midnight curfew. “He came into the house and woke us up, and he said ‘Mom, Dad, I got something to tell you,'” she said. “‘I was driving, and I knocked this man’s mailbox over. But I got out and I left a note in the guy’s mailbox. It said ‘I am sorry I knocked over your mailbox, but I will be back in the morning to fix it.'” The note also included his name, his father’s name, his address and phone number. When Johnson and his dad arrived the next day to fix the mailbox, the homeowner was so impressed that he helped them put it back together, and refused any money for the damages. That’s why Annie Johnson, 72, isn’t surprised that her son has been able to help reduce the tension in Ferguson, at least at first. “Ron wants peace,” she said. “And he’s for right. He’s always been, from a child up.” Ronald S. Johnson, 51, was born in St. Louis to a father who worked in campus security for St. Louis University, and a mother who worked as a chemical receiving clerk. His mother says he wanted to be a police officer almost as soon as he learned to read. He joined the Highway Patrol in 1987, shortly after graduating from college, and was quickly promoted through the ranks before becoming a Captain in 2002. He lives in Florissant, Mo., near Ferguson, with his wife and two children, both in their 20s. Violence mounted in the days following Michael Brown’s killing on Aug 9th, as police in riot gear arrested journalists and fired rubber bullets into crowds of protestors. Police had said that Brown was reaching for the officer’s gun, but at least one eyewitness disputed that account, fueling further mistrust of law enforcement as they tried to manage the situation. Ferguson Police Chief Tom Jackson revealed Friday that the officer who shot Brown was named Darren Wilson, who was responding to a sick call in the area. After Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon pulled St. Louis County Police out of Ferguson and replaced them with Missouri State Highway Patrol on Thursday, led by Captain Johnson, the tensions seems to have cooled. Captain Johnson’s mother isn’t the only one who thinks he’s got the right attitude. Former colleagues had only good things to say about man who made headlines by marching with Ferguson protestors Thursday night. St. Louis Police Chief Sam Dotson knows Captain Johnson from working with him whenever the Highway Patrol sends support to St. Louis for a large event, like an all-star game or a presidential motorcade. “He’s a quiet guy, but he is professional,” Chief Dotson says. “When he speaks, people listen. When he acts, people respond to it.” “I thought he was the perfect pick [for Ferguson,]” he says. “He’s familiar with the area, he comes from the area, and he connects with the community.” The unrest in Ferguson has led to a national discussion about how young men of color are treated by the criminal justice system. And while it’s not yet clear how Captain Johnson will manage the civil discontent around the killing with the ongoing investigation into Brown’s death, his presence seems to have soothed tensions. “I think he’s a calming influence on people,” said former Missouri State Highway Patrol Superintendent Colonel Roger Stottlemyer, who promoted Johnson to Captain in 2002. “I think he knows the people there, he knows what their concerns are, he can relate to them having come from that community.” Although he didn’t have exact numbers, Stottlemyer said that at the time Johnson was rising in the ranks, there were fewer than 100 officers of color in a force of 1,200 officers. “He was a star, and it was obvious from the beginning.” Stottlemyer said he promoted Johnson to Captain partly because he was impressed with his leadership style. “I observed when he was a corporal and a sergeant, the way he handled his men and the way he handled issues that comes up,” he said. “He communicates well with his people. He was an officer that you didn’t have complaints about.” While his former colleagues seem happy with Johnson’s role in Ferguson, his mother is a little more conflicted. “I’m very proud of him, but I have my concerns,” she said. “I don’t want anything to happen to him because he’s doing that. I don’t want him to get hurt.” Correction: This piece originally misstated Johnson’s age. He is 51. Your browser, Internet Explorer 8 or below, is out of date. It has known security flaws and may not display all features of this and other websites. Learn how to update your browser Europe, Middle East and Africa Edition South Pacific Edition

时政

2014-52/4410/en_head.json.gz/3763

VFW to remain open By AMANDA PURCELL The Ogdensburg Veterans of Foreign Wars Post 2936 announced Thursday it will remain open under new leadership and a new facility. The post’s new commander, Scott A. Compo, has taken the reins of the post following its shut down last October.“I have been associated with the VFW since I was a child,” Mr. Compo said. “My father was a past commander and my mother was a past president of the women’s auxiliary. Then I became a member myself. It’s very near to my heart and I couldn’t see losing the post or the charter and having all that hard work go to waste.” The post was shut down after Commander Larry Latimer, unable to pay the post’s bills, turned over the building’s keys to the state VFW. The post’s charter was in jeopardy unless remaining members elected 10 and appoint two new officers. “I decided then and there that I would take over as the post commander,” Mr. Compo said. “We got a bunch of guys and filled the officer positions.”Meanwhile, the post has been a subject of a state investigation over the sale of its bell jar tickets. The investigation is currently ongoing, Gaming Commission spokesperson Lee Park said. “The investigation is in the final stages—basically done,” Mr. Compo said. “There are some final negotiations to be had, but we know what we owe. We have a plan on paying what we owe.” The post owes upwards of $50,000 to the state, vendors and past due utility payments, Mr. Compo said. Located at 525 Caroline St., the building’s electricity and gas was turned off and its plumbing was drained in February. “In our current building we were looking at a $700 to $1,000 monthly in electricity bills in the wintertime and a $700-a-month gas bill,” he said. Mr. Compo said a lack of membership and interest is the cause of the post’s inability to pay its bills. “Back when we bought the building in the 50s, the VFW post had over 700 members,” he said. “That was back when World War I and II kicked off, and interest in clubs of this kind were big. Right now, the interest in the VFW isn’t very big to today’s veterans. Today we have about 180 members. We’re hoping to change that. But we have to get back on our feet first.”Post members voted to sell the building on May 17 in favor of purchasing a smaller facility. “We can’t afford to keep the building, unfortunately,” Mr. Compo said. “We couldn’t afford to stay in that building for years. We’ve done our best to stay there, but we’re looking to get out of that big building to something smaller that we can maintain.”A buyer has expressed interest in purchasing the building, Mr. Compo said. The post is waiting for approval from the state VFW before it can go through with the sale. “Once we get permission to sell, our next step is to keep everything we need to start a new post,” he said. “And everything else, we’ll hold an auction for to try to raise extra funds for our new building. Money from the sale of the old building will help pay off our debts.”Mr. Compo said the post does not yet have any leads on a new building. “We’re still working on that,” Mr. Compo said. “We haven’t found a place yet. This whole deal is still in the works. The post will still operate a post canteen. “We’ll have less overhead and less building to heat, less maintenance,” Mr. Compo said. The post continues to hold regular meetings once-a-month. “The ladies and men’s auxiliaries are still together,” Mr. Compo said. “We have a lot of support through the auxiliaries and we’re hoping to make a go of it in the future. Everything depends on the state approval of that sale. But I spoke with the district commander today and he said everything is looking good.”Mr. Compo said the post has ceased asking for donations until it receives approval from state VFW officials. “We know we received a lot of donations and help from the public, and we appreciate everyone’s help,” Mr. Compo said. “The VFW is not going anywhere and we’re not closing down. We’re simply just relocating. We will have a club in the future, where that is remains to be determined, but we will have a club. We want everyone to know we’re still here, and we’re not gone.”

时政

2014-52/4410/en_head.json.gz/3822

For a better experience on your device, try our mobile site. We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. We also use cookies to ensure we show you advertising that is relevant to you. If you continue without changing your settings, we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies on the BBC website. However, if you would like to, you can change your cookie settings at any time. Continue Find out more ]]> Accessibility links Skip to content Skip to local navigation Accessibility Help BBC navigation News Sport Weather Earth Future Shop TV Radio More… Search term: UK Politics UKIP: The story of the UK Independence Party's rise By Alex Hunt Politics editor, BBC News website Nigel Farage was in jubilant mood as his party took its second Westminster seat Farage: UKIP has election 'momentum' UKIP looks to Westminster after win Eurosceptic 'earthquake' rocks EU With its second elected MP at Westminster in as many months, the UK Independence Party has cemented its place as the new force in British politics. But its achievements are no overnight success. The UK Independence Party has, as its name implies, one key policy - to leave the European Union. It is a simple, understandable message, which has led to the party gaining bigger and bigger support in European elections, culminating in it topping the vote in May this year. But it is also a message which meant people often dismissed it as a single-issue party, unlikely to transfer its success to Westminster politics. It has spent considerable effort on broadening its appeal, spelling out how leaving the EU is the answer to a whole range of issues, notably controlling immigration, while also outlining plans to cut taxes for middle earners, speaking up for grammar schools and opposing gay marriage. And the message from leader Nigel Farage - if any party has been associated with one man it is UKIP and Farage - seems to have struck a chord with disenchanted voters from the "big three". Nigel Farage enjoys an everyman image It became clear in the 2013 Eastleigh by-election that UKIP, rather than Westminster's official Labour opposition, seemed to have become the party of choice for the anti-government vote and the anti-politics vote. It has since proved capable of causing upsets in local elections in Tory and Lib Dem heartlands in the South of England and, as the South Shields and Heywood and Middleton by-elections demonstrated, Labour strongholds in the North. Its crowning moment came in October, when the party won its first Westminster seat, after the Conservative MP for Clacton, Douglas Carswell, defected to Mr Farage's team. UKIP's share of the vote in Westminster by-elections: November 2014: 42.1% October 2014: Clacton 59.75% October 2014: Heywood and Middleton 38.7% June 2014: Newark 25.9% Feb 2014: Wythenshawe and Sale East 18% May 2013: South Shields 24.2% Feb 2013: Eastleigh 27.8% Nov 2012: Rotherham 21.7% Nov 2012: Middlesbrough 11.8% Nov 2012: Croydon North 5.7% Nov 2012: Manchester Central 4.5% Nov 2012: Corby 14.3% Nov 2012: Cardiff South and Penarth 6.1% Mar 2012: Bradford West 3.3% Dec 2011: Feltham and Heston 5.5% July 2011: Inverclyde 1% May 2011: Leicester South 2.9% March 2011: Barnsley Central 12.2% Jan 2011: Oldham East and Saddleworth 5.8% UKIP has realised the hard way that it is not enough just to pitch up at a by-election with a loud hailer and some media-friendly stunts, it requires months, even years, of groundwork in the local area. The party's campaigning effort has become far more professional and well-funded in the past three years as a result. It is learning the highly specialised discipline, once the domain of the Lib Dems, of winning elections. But UKIP is no overnight success or, as it can sometimes seem from the ubiquity of Mr Farage on the airwaves, a one-man party. It has had more twists and turns - and splits and schisms - in its 20-year history than many a soap opera, with an equally colourful cast of characters. Nigel Farage, pictured at a party event in 1997 How UKIP became a political force Small parties have a habit of disintegrating into internal warfare or being wiped out by the vagaries of the electoral system and political fashion - British politics has seen a few come and go over the years. But UKIP managed to keep its show on the road and defy the predictions of those who were ready to write the party off as, in the often-quoted words of David Cameron, "fruitcakes and loonies". The party was founded on 3 September 1993 at the London School of Economics by members of the Anti-Federalist League, which had been founded by Dr Alan Sked in November 1991 with the aim of running candidates opposed to the Maastricht Treaty in the 1992 general election. UKIP's growing vote share in national elections: 1999 European elections 7% 2001 General election 1.5% (saved deposit in one seat) 2004 European elections 16% 2005 General election 2.3% (saved deposit in 38 seats) 2009 European elections 16.5% 2010 General election 3.2% (saved deposit in 100 seats) Candidates must get 5% of votes cast to save their deposit UKIP's early days were overshadowed by the higher-profile and well-financed Referendum Party, led by Sir James Goldsmith, which was wound up soon after the 1997 election. The new party's initial successes were all in the proportional representation elections for the European Parliament - winning its first three seats in 1999 with 7% of the vote. From 1997: Nigel Farage says UKIP's time has come It built on that in 2004, winning 12 seats and pushing the Lib Dems into fourth place. The 2009 poll saw its total grow to 13 seats, pushing Labour into third place with 16% of the vote. And in 2014's European election the party lived up to its confident promise to top the vote, getting 27.5% of all those cast. General elections, however, with their first-past-the-post voting systems, have been a different story and the party has failed to make the breakthrough it has been hoping for. In 2001 it saved its deposit (that is, got at least 5% of votes) in just one seat. In 2005 it saved its deposit in 38 seats but lost its deposits in 451 others - costing about £225,500. Even its then leader, former Conservative MP Roger Knapman, could only poll 7% of the votes in Totnes, Devon. Recognition factor In 2010 it was led into the general election by Lord Pearson of Rannoch but again lost out, with just 3% of the vote across the UK, although there were signs of progress as it saved its deposit in 100 seats. The party had hoped to make headlines after Mr Farage stood down as leader so he could take on Speaker John Bercow in Buckingham at the 2010 election - he did make the headlines but it turned out they were about a plane crash that almost cost Mr Farage his life, rather than election success. Robert Kilroy Silk was the public face of UKIP in 2004, before forming his own party A UKIP billboard from the European elections in 2009 He recovered from his injuries and returned to head the party later in the year, in the latest instalment of the colourful story of UKIP's leadership. Original leader and UKIP founder Alan Sked quit before the 1999 European elections, after arguing the party should refuse seats in the "gravy train" of the Strasbourg Parliament. Shortly after that, the national executive lost a no-confidence vote and leader Michael Holmes resigned, although he remained an MEP. Mr Knapman took over the role of leader in 2002, but in 2004, a new pretender to the crown - former Labour MP and chat show host Robert Kilroy-Silk - arrived in a flurry of media publicity to shake things up once again. Before long he was openly jockeying for the leadership and was the media face of the party for the 2004 European election success - but when Mr Knapman refused to stand aside for him, Mr Kilroy-Silk quit and formed his own short-lived rival party. Some thought that without Mr Kilroy-Silk's recognition factor the party might struggle. Farage returns In 2006, the lower-key Mr Knapman retired, to be replaced by Nigel Farage, an eye-catching media performer who pledged to make UKIP a "truly representative party", ending its image as a single-issue pressure group. He spearheaded its success at the 2009 European elections and raised UKIP's profile, but surprised his own party conference in September that year by standing down as leader. Mr Farage says UKIP is not just a threat to the Conservatives, but is "parking our tanks on the Labour Party's lawn". Mr Farage said he would instead run for a seat in the Commons - specifically the seat of Commons Speaker John Bercow, which, by convention, other major parties do not fight. Mr Farage said it was "very important that UKIP gets a voice in Westminster". Eton-educated Lord Pearson was Mr Farage's choice to replace him - but the peer never seemed at home in the job - for instance, admitting at the 2010 general election manifesto launch that he was not quite across the party's policy detail. Mr Farage continued to be the highest-profile UKIP member - making headlines, and a viral video success, after telling the in-coming president of the European Council, Herman van Rompuy, that he had "the charisma of a damp rag". Following the 2010 election, when the party failed again to turn European into UK political success, Lord Pearson announced in August 2010 that he was stepping down, saying he did not enjoy party politics. Five hopefuls entered the race to succeed him, with Mr Farage triumphing. 'I'm a bit odd' From that point onwards the party has seen its poll ratings rise, overtaking the Lib Dems and staying above them in most polls, and putting in increasingly stronger showings in by-elections. David Cameron's historic pledge to hold and an in/out referendum on UK membership of the EU if the Conservatives won the next election was interpreted by some as an attempt to halt the rise of UKIP, which senior Tories feared could prevent them from winning an overall majority in 2015. UKIP membership figures: 2002: 9,000 2003: 16,000 If that was Mr Cameron's plan, it does not appear to have worked. Mr Farage criticised the decision to delay the vote by five years, and claimed the prime minister's promise showed "we have changed the political agenda in this country" calling it "our proudest achievement to date". Asked what he would do if the British people voted to remain in the EU, Mr Farage joked that he would have to get a "proper job". But the party's success in local elections suggests it might have a future, even without the European issue, as a libertarian, right wing alternative to a centrist Conservative Party. UKIP appears to have struck a chord with many voters on the issue of immigration, which was the focus of its European election campaign this year and an issue frequently raised by people saying they were going to vote for them ahead of the Rochester and Strood by-election. It has rejected claims that it is simply "against" foreigners, arguing that it is in favour of a sensible "managed" migration policy, something Mr Farage argues is not possible while Britain remains in the EU. However, the party found itself in hot water over the issue a few days before its Rochester win, when is candidate, Mark Reckless, suggested EU migrants would only be allowed to stay in the UK for a fixed period if the UK left the European Union. Those remarks were clarified later by UKIP, to reject the idea EU citizens faced deportation, and Mr Reckless later said he had been misquoted. The party says leaving the EU is the only way to be able to control who moves the UK from Europe and says it would boost the UK's border force to crack down on illegal immigration. They would also change the law so that those without identifying documents can be sent back to the country they travelled from. Although it is widely said to have gained support as a result of its tough talk on immigration - something pointed out by Nottingham University professor Matthew Goodwin in a book charting UKIP's rise - it has also been a key part of Nigel Farage's strategy to distance the party from the far right - its constitution bans former BNP members from joining. Matthew Goodwin says UKIP's message has changed from one just about the EU to one with immigration and anti-Westminster establishment at its heart Mr Farage's maverick style - his fondness for a pint of beer, disarming frankness and ability to laugh at himself - has given him a similar kind of appeal to voters as Boris Johnson, who has described the UKIP man as "a rather engaging geezer". But higher prominence has brought greater scrutiny, and earlier this month Mr Farage was forced to clarify his position on the NHS after a video of him appeared in which he suggested a publicly funded health service be replaced by a private insurance model. Despite his background being, on paper, identical to many a politician, the message from focus groups and voters is that he is "different", not one of "them" at Westminster. UKIP will hope to avoid the fate of the SDP in 1980s, which won by-elections, and soared in polls but in the end failed to translate that into a large chunk of Westminster seats He told BBC Radio 4's Today in 2013 that he was "odd" but only in the sense that it was "odd" to be a politician "not doing this for a career... I'm here as a campaigner. I want to free this country from the European Union and then I want us to have a much smaller level of state interference in our lives in this country". For much of its life UKIP has been seen as attracting Tories unhappy with the party, especially the Conservatives' move towards the centre under David Cameron and the current coalition government. Mr Farage says there are now "three social democratic parties". There have also been more recent signs of gains from Labour, with UKIP seeming to get support from the same sort of anti-Westminster, anti-politics vote as Alex Salmond's Yes campaign in the recent Scottish referendum. In that Today interview Nigel Farage said UKIP did not have any MPs because "the first-past-the-post system is brutal to a party like us". That may have been so at past general elections - but winning in Clacton and now Rochester and Strood shows it is no longer just in European elections that UKIP is a force to be reckoned with. 26 MAY 2014, UK POLITICS 26 MAY 2014, EUROPE More UK Politics stories RSS Rural firms 'catching up on towns' Faster broadband and improved transport could help productivity grow faster in the English countryside than towns, the environment secretary says. 'Blocked drug proposals' revealed UKIP chair regrets National Front past

时政

2014-52/4410/en_head.json.gz/4237

Hey, Rush Limbaugh: 'Starting an Abortion Industry' Won't Win You Female Voters Yoko Ono, Sean Lennon Put Anti-Fracking Message on New York Billboard Obama and the Road Ahead: The Rolling Stone Interview In an Oval Office conversation with a leading historian, the president discusses what he would do with a second term – and his opponent's embrace of 'the most extreme positions in the Republican Party' Alex Wong/Getty President Barack Obama. By Douglas Brinkley | We arrived at the Oval Office for our 45-minute interview with President Obama on the morning of October 11th. After our conversation ended, the president would board Air Force One for Florida, where he was slated to hold a rally at the University of Miami before watching Vice President Joe Biden debate Rep. Paul Ryan. But now, before the tape recorders were turned on, the president and I chatted for a minute about "The Bronco Buster," the Frederic Remington sculpture next to his desk that once belonged to Theodore Roosevelt. Then, as the small talk began to eat up too much time, Obama took charge. "All right," he said briskly. "Let's fire up." Photos: President Barack Obama Barack Obama can no longer preach the bright 2008 certitudes of "Hope and Change." He has a record to defend this time around. And, considering the lousy hand he was dealt by George W. Bush and an obstructionist Congress, his record of achievement, from universal health care to equal pay for women, is astonishingly solid. His excessive caution is a survival trait; at a time when the ripple and fury provoked by one off-key quip can derail a campaign for days, self-editing is the price a virtuoso must pay to go the distance in the age of YouTube. Viewed through the lens of history, Obama represents a new type of 21st-century politician: the Progressive Firewall. Obama, simply put, is the curator-in-chief of the New Deal, the Fair Deal, the New Frontier and the Great Society. When he talks about continued subsidies for Big Bird or contraceptives for Sandra Fluke, he is the inheritor of the Progressive movement's agenda, the last line of defense that prevents America's hard-won social contract from being defunded into oblivion. President Barack Obama on the cover of Rolling Stone. (Photo: Mark Seliger) Ever since Theodore Roosevelt used executive orders to save the Grand Canyon from the zinc-copper lobbies and declared that unsanitary factories were grotesque perversions propagated by Big Money interests, the federal government has aimed to improve the daily lives of average Americans. Woodrow Wilson followed up T.R.'s acts by creating the Federal Reserve and the Federal Trade Commission and re-establishing a federal income tax. Then, before the stock market crash in 1929, the GOP Big Three of Harding-Coolidge-Hoover made "business" the business of America, once more allowing profiteers to flourish at the expense of the vulnerable. Enter Franklin Roosevelt, a polio victim confined to a wheelchair and leg braces. His alphabet soup of New Deal programs – the CCC and TVA and WPA – brought hope to the financially distraught, making them believe that the government was on their side. Determined to end the Great Depression, Roosevelt was a magnificent experimenter. Credit him with Social Security, legislation to protect workers, labor's right to collective bargaining, Wall Street regulation, rural electrification projects, farm-price supports, unemployment compensation and federally guaranteed bank deposits. The America we know and love today sprung directly from the New Deal. For the next three decades, the vast majority of voters benefited from Roosevelt's revolution. And every president from FDR to Jimmy Carter, regardless of political affiliation, grabbed America by the scruff of the neck and did huge, imaginative things with tax revenues. Think Truman (the Marshall Plan), Eisenhower (the Interstate Highway System), Kennedy (the space program), Johnson (Medicaid and Medicare), Nixon (the EPA) and Carter (the departments of Energy and Education). Whether it was Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy going after the Mob or LBJ laying the groundwork for PBS, citizens took comfort in the knowledge that the executive branch was a caring iron fist with watchdog instincts that got things done. It was the election of Ronald Reagan that started the Grand Reversal. Reagan had voted four times for FDR, but by 1980 he saw the federal government – with the notable exception of our armed forces – as a bloated, black-hatted villain straight out of one of his B movies. His revolution – and make no mistake that it was one – aimed to undo everything from Medicare to Roe v. Wade. Ever since Reagan, both the New Deal and the Great Society have been under continuous siege by the American right. Bill Clinton survived two terms only by co-opting traditional GOP issues like welfare reform and balanced budgets. Unlike Clinton, Obama must hold tighter to the Progressive movement's reins. There are no more moderate Republicans left in Congress to do business with; today's GOP conservatives want to roll back, not reform. Having brought Obamacare this far, the president must find a way to close the deal in his second term. Paul Nitze, the foreign-policy guru of the Truman administration, once told me that the problem with historians like myself is that we're always hunting for a cache of documents to analyze. What our ilk tends to forget, he chided, is that inaction is also policy. Under this criterion, Obama must also be judged by the things he won't allow to happen on his watch: Wall Street thieving, Bush-style fiscal irresponsibility, a new war in the Middle East, the reversal of Roe v. Wade, the dismantling of Medicare into a voucher program – the list is long. The offense-driven, Yes-We-Can candidate of 2008 has become the No-You-Won't defensive champion of 2012. Obama has less a grand plan to get America working than a NO TRESPASSING sign to prevent 100 years of progressive accomplishments from being swept away, courtesy of Team Romney, in a Katrina-like deluge of anti-regulatory measures. No wonder the right has such a gleam of hatred for Obama – he is the roadblock to their revolution. The conservative movement, however, has a crippling problem: If they can't beat Obama with a 7.8 percent unemployment rate, then how can they hope to derail Hillary Clinton in 2016 when presumably that number will be substantially lower? If Obama wins re-election, his domestic agenda will be anchored around a guarantee to all Americans that civil rights, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, affordable health care, public education, clean air and water, and a woman's right to choose will be protected, no matter how poorly the economy performs. Obama has grappled with two of the last puzzle pieces of the Progressive agenda – health care and gay rights – with success. If he is re-elected in November and makes his health care program permanent, it will take root in the history books as a seminal achievement. If he loses, Romney and Ryan will crush his initiatives without remorse. The main goal of Obama's second term, besides driving down unemployment, will likely be the conversion to clean energy. While Obama doesn't wear an Inconvenient Truth T-shirt, he nevertheless understands that environmentalism makes for good business in the 21st century. The high seas and savage winds of fossil-fuel abuse are upon us. Obama has made clear that addressing climate change is the issue of most long-term consequence facing not only America but human civilization itself. "I will not walk away from the promise of clean energy," he declared in his State of the Union address this year. "I will not cede the wind or solar or battery industry to China or Germany because we refuse to make the same commitment here. We have subsidized oil companies for a century. That's long enough." When Obama was prepping in Nevada for his first debate with Mitt Romney, he took a break to tour the Hoover Dam. Critics scoffed at the trip, but a second-term Obama presidency seems poised to build a clean-energy grid in the same infrastructure-driven vein as the New Deal's dams and road projects. Why not take advantage of proximity to learn about how thousands of workers were paid to build the towering dam, which continues to protect the Southwest from flood damage and irrigate thousands of acres of farmland, all while providing low-cost power to California, Arizona and Nevada? Every so often I see CNN flash the Electoral College map on my TV screen, and some wizard pollster describes a convoluted formula, a running of the tables, in which Romney becomes president without winning Ohio. He probably can't. Shortly after Obama was elected, he provided U.S. auto manufacturers with $62 billion in emergency aid. The federal government, in essence, became the principal stockholder of General Motors (it still holds 500 million shares). Romney not only disagreed with Obama's decision but wrote perhaps the dumbest op-ed in American campaign history, titled "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt." Theodore Roosevelt came to the rescue of San Francisco after the Great Earthquake of 1906 and George W. Bush helped rebuild New York City in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, but Romney wanted to pull the plug on the Rust Belt as it struggled to jump-start its troubled economy. Thanks to the Obama bailout, which saved the auto industry, unemployment in Ohio stands at 7.2 percent, well below the national average. They should erect statues of Obama in Toledo and Akron. Name a boulevard after him in Dayton and Elyria. Without the bailout money, GM and Chrysler likely would have gone bankrupt, and many Ohio towns would have become Hoovervilles. Over the summer, I brought my wife and kids to an Obama rally in the Ohio town of Maumee, not far from where I grew up. The president delivered a speech about how bailing out GM and Chrysler saved thousands of jobs in Ohio. When he started working the rope line, two young African-American girls began squealing with joy. Playing the good Samaritan, I escorted them to the front of the line so they would be sure to meet the president. The younger girl asked Obama to sign her T-shirt with a Sharpie. "How old are you?" he asked. "Eleven." He gladly obliged. The older girl had the same request. Obama, however, eyed her with warm parental disapproval. "How old are you?" he asked. "Fourteen," she replied. The same age as Malia Obama. "Oh, no," the president said with a broad smile, crouching down to make eye contact. "You're too old to have someone writing on your clothes. Do you understand? That's a nice shirt you have. Take care of it. I'll give you a fist-bump instead." It was a wonderful moment to witness. This wasn't a president who merely kissed babies for votes. Even though the commotion all around him was louder than a Sousa band, Obama was able to differentiate the ages of the two girls, and then offer the older one a lesson about being a young woman and having self­respect. I was reminded of this incident when our interview with the president ended. As we left the Oval Office, executive editor Eric Bates told Obama that he had asked his six-year-old if there was anything she wanted him to say to the president. After a thoughtful pause, she said, "Tell him: You can do it." Obama grinned. "That's the only advice I need," he said. "I do very well, by the way, in that demographic. Ages six to 12? I'm a killer." "Thought about lowering the voting age?" Bates joked. "You know, kids have good instincts," Obama offered. "They look at the other guy and say, 'Well, that's a bullshitter, I can tell.'" Let's start with how the campaign has been going. Ever since the first debate, Romney has abruptly shifted his position on a whole host of issues, from his tax plan to financial regulation. He made a strong sales pitch for what I think are really wrongheaded plans. But the facts haven't changed. The fundamentals haven't changed. The essence of this race is, "Do we have an economy that is building on all the work we've done over the last four years – an economy where we're focused on growing a strong, vibrant middle class, where we're focused on creating a strong manufacturing base here in the United States, where we are continuing to cut our imports of foreign oil, not only by developing homegrown oil and gas, but also by making sure that we are developing and taking leadership in clean energy? Are we going to continue to make investments in education that ensure that every kid in America has a shot at success if they're willing to work hard? Are we going to reduce our deficit in a way that's balanced and allows us to continue to make the investments that help us to grow?" That's what I'm putting forward. What Governor Romney's putting forward is a return to the very same policies that got us into this mess in the first place: tax cuts skewed toward the wealthy and rollbacks of regulations that we fought very hard against lobbyists and special interests to put in place, to make sure that we don't have taxpayer­funded bailouts, to make sure that insurance companies aren't taking advantage of folks who need health care, to make sure that we have a strong consumer advocate in place to protect people from unscrupulous lenders. So what I'm absolutely sure about is that we've got the better argument. And Governor Romney understands that. It's the reason why, after a year and a half of campaigning on plans that very clearly were going to involve $5 trillion worth of tax cuts, he's trying to fog up the issues, because he knows that the American people aren't buying what he's selling. Many observers have commented on how Romney has misrepresented or even changed his positions in this last leg of the campaign – that he's been like a chameleon on plaid. Do you feel that he has lied to the American people? What I think happened is that we won the battle of ideas during the course of the last year. His argument for a $5 trillion tax cut skewed toward the wealthy – which would necessarily involve either blowing up the deficit or increasing taxes on middle-class families – is not a recipe for growth. It won't create jobs, it won't reduce the deficit, and the American people understand that. So two weeks ago, or three weeks ago, they had to figure out, "Is there some way that we can fuzz up what we've been proposing?" In the first debate, he made as good a presentation as he could on what is a fundamentally flawed economic theory. What we're going to be focused on is making certain that he has to answer for those theories – ones that will not be good for the middle class and won't grow the economy long term. But understand, there's no doubt that what he has campaigned on for the last year is what he believes, because we've seen it before. We saw it when he was the governor of Massachusetts: His efforts to balance the budget involved raising taxes and fees on middle-class families, even as wealthy families were getting tax breaks, gutting investments in education and forcing costs down to local school districts and local communities. We saw it in how he answered a question on 60 Minutes as recently as two weeks ago, when he said he thought it was fair for someone like him, who's making $20 million a year, to pay a lower tax rate than a teacher or bus driver making $50,000 a year. His basic theory is that if folks at the top are doing well and are unencumbered, that prosperity will rain down on everybody else, because they'll make better decisions about allocating capital. I've got a different theory. I believe that when middle-class families are doing well – they've got money in their pockets, they're getting decent wages, they've got some health care security – then we all do better. Because those are customers who are buying goods and services, so businesses do better. It goes back to what Henry Ford understood when he decided to pay higher wages to his workers: that meant those workers on the assembly line making those Model T's could end up buying those cars. That's how we grew a middle class. So more than anything, our task over the next four weeks is just to lay bare just what these economic choices are. The American people are going to understand which choice is better for them and what is going to be better for the country as a whole. Where were you when you first saw Romney's speech in Boca Raton about the 47 percent? What was your first reaction? We were out campaigning. I don't remember which state we were in – probably Ohio. [Laughs] Since we've been there so often, the odds are, it was probably Ohio. It took a while before we actually saw the full transcript of what he said. I think it was pretty surprising. It's an indication of a story that Republicans have been telling themselves for a while, at least a sizable portion – that somehow, half the country consider themselves victims and want to be dependent on government. Obviously, he was wrong on the facts, since the overwhelming majority of that 47 percent are either folks that are working every day and paying all kinds of taxes but just don't earn enough money to pay income tax; or are senior citizens who worked all their lives and did everything right so they could count on some sense of security as they got older; or they are veterans who have sacrificed for our country, or soldiers who are sacrificing as we speak on behalf of our country. But that sense that folks who have contributed to this country but are at the lower ends of the income scale are somehow looking for government to do something for them, or feel some sense of entitlement, is just fundamentally wrong. It doesn't jive with what I see as I travel across the country every day. Are there people who, both at the top and the bottom, aren't pulling their weight and are looking for a special deal? Sure. But as was pointed out when this controversy erupted, there are a whole bunch of millionaires who aren't paying any income tax, as well as people at the lower end of the income spectrum who may be taking advantage of the safety net that we've put in place. We should hold everybody accountable who's not doing their fair share. That's what the American people believe: They don't like bailouts, they don't like handouts, but they do understand that we have to have a government that ensures that if somebody is working hard and carrying out their responsibilities, that they can succeed and that they can give the prospects of a better life to their kids and their grandkids. What has surprised you the most about the Republican campaign this year? What was interesting was the degree to which Governor Romney was willing to embrace the most extreme positions in the Republican Party: on immigration, on environmental issues, on women's issues and on the economy. Frankly, I think that's telling when you start thinking about the presidency. If you can't say no to certain elements of your party, if you don't have sets of principles that you're willing to fight for, even if they're not politically convenient, then you're gonna have a tough time in this office. It was only at a point where it was determined that the American people had soundly rejected those views that you started seeing him try to fuzz up those positions. But they remain his positions. He continues to believe, when it comes to immigration, that the Arizona law is a model for the nation, and that self-deportation is the answer. When it comes to women's health issues, he continues to believe that Roe v. Wade should be overturned. He would be supportive of a constitutional amendment overturning a woman's right to choose, would eliminate funding for Planned Parenthood, is supportive of legislation that would allow employers to make determinations as to whether women could get contraception through their insurance companies. Four weeks out from an election, you can't hide from positions that ultimately are out of sync with how the majority of Americans think. I guarantee if you talk to not just Democratic women, but a whole bunch of Republican and Independent women, they will tell you they're very capable of making their own health care decisions. If you have a chance to meet these Dream Act kids, some of whom were brought here when they were two or three or five, and are American in every sense, except for their papers – love this country, have pledged allegiance to this flag, want to contribute – then you would reject the idea that somehow they should be deported to some country where they've never been. But those are Governor Romney's positions, and we gotta make sure that the American people understand those positions. Do you have any fear that Roe v. Wade could be overturned if the Republicans win the presidency and appoint another Supreme Court justice? I don't think there's any doubt. Governor Romney has made clear that's his position. His running mate has made this one of the central principles of his public life. Typically, a president is going to have one or two Supreme Court nominees during the course of his presidency, and we know that the current Supreme Court has at least four members who would overturn Roe v. Wade. All it takes is one more for that to happen. How do you feel about Justice Roberts' ruling on the Affordable Care Act? Were you surprised? I wasn't surprised. I was always confident that the Affordable Care Act, a.k.a. Obamacare, was constitutional. It was interesting to see them, or Justice Roberts in particular, take the approach that this was constitutional under the taxing power. The truth is that if you look at the precedents dating back to the 1930s, this was clearly constitutional under the Commerce Clause. I think Justice Roberts made a decision that allowed him to preserve the law but allowed him to keep in reserve the desire, maybe, to scale back Congress' power under the Commerce Clause in future cases. What made you so certain that the law was constitutional? It's hard to dispute that health care is a national issue of massive importance. It takes up 17 or 18 percent of our entire economy; it touches on everybody's lives; it is a massive burden on businesses, on our federal budget and on families. It's practiced across state lines. So the notion that Congress could not take a comprehensive approach to that problem the way we have makes no sense. I am very proud of the steps we've taken already: making sure that insurance companies can't impose lifetime limits that could leave families high and dry if somebody gets a severe illness. Parents being able to keep their kids on their own plans until they're 26 years old. The rebates that are already going out to customers because we've said to insurance companies that you've got to spend the dollars you collect in premiums on actually providing care, not just on overhead and CEO salaries. The $600 a year that seniors are saving on their prescription drugs. The tax breaks we're providing small businesses in order to provide health insurance for their families. The cost-control measures that are trying to develop better ways of providing care. All those things are already happening. By 2014, people who have pre-existing conditions or individuals who are paying 18 or 20 percent more for health insurance than somebody on a big group plan – they're going to have a chance to get affordable care, and we'll provide tax credits to the folks who need it. So this is a model that we know can work. It's working in Massachusetts right now – you have 98 percent of adults and 99.5 percent of kids in Massachusetts with health insurance. For the greatest nation on Earth not to make sure that people aren't going bankrupt when they get sick – that was a blot on our society. And for us to take this step forward is something that is really going to make a big difference for millions of families for decades to come. It also gives us our best opportunity to start really going after the waste and inefficiencies of the system, so that we can start cutting back on the health care inflation that is driving our deficit and hurting families and businesses every single day. You said, "a.k.a. Obamacare." Do you mind if historians call the achievement Obamacare? I'll be very proud. Because I'm confident that I'm going to win this election, and that we're going to implement it over the next four years. Just like Medicare and Social Security, as time goes on, as people see what it does, as it gets refined and improved, people will say, "This was the last piece to our basic social compact" – providing people with some core security from the financial burdens of an illness or bad luck. You sometimes use the term "fair shake." FDR had the New Deal, Lyndon Johnson had the Great Society. Is the Fair Shake something you'd be comfortable with to describe your legacy? I'd be comfortable with that, and hearing it from a historian, it sounds pretty good to me. But look, the key thing I've tried to communicate, and I will continue to try to communicate to the American people, is that when you talk about economic fairness, it's not just an issue of fairness – it's also an issue of growth. It's how the economy succeeds. Republicans, and certainly Mitt Romney, often tries to frame this as "Obama's a redistributionist, whereas we want to grow the pie instead of taking from Peter to pay Paul." But look at our history: When we've been successful, it's because everybody is in on the action. Everybody feels a sense of ownership, because everybody is benefitting from rising productivity, everybody is benefitting from a growing economy. When prosperity is broad-based, it is stable, it is steady, it is robust. But when you have just a few people at the very top benefitting from what we do together as an economy, then growth gets constrained. On one end, you've got a lot of money in the hands of a very few people who are speculating and engaging in a lot of financial transactions that can get our economy in trouble. We saw that in 2007 and 2008. On the other end, you've got middle-income people and low-income people who are overextended, taking on too much debt, and that can create problems. You don't have enough customers to buy the products and services that are being produced, so businesses then pull back and you get into a negative cycle. When the opposite is the case, you get into a virtuous cycle, and that's what we're constantly trying to push. The success we've had, although we've got a long way to go, is based on making sure that everybody feels they've got a stake in the system. Look at what happened in the auto industry: You've got management and workers coming together, everybody making some sacrifices. Suddenly, what was an industry on the brink of collapse is now resurgent. GM's on top again, Chrysler is making profits like it hasn't made before, all the supplier chains that employ people all across the Midwest are benefitting. And that model, I think, is one that the American people instinctively get. The auto bailout helped rescue states like Ohio from economic disaster. What, in turn, have you learned from the people of Ohio during your many visits to the state? They just want to work hard, but they want to make sure that hard work is rewarded. When you go into these auto plants, you get folks who not only have been working at the plant for 15 years, their dad worked at the plant, sometimes their grandfather worked at the plant. It's not just a paycheck for them – they really take great pride in making great products, making a great car. One plant we went to, a bunch of workers had just won the lottery, and they were still showing up to work every single day. One of them had bought his wife one of the cars he had made, for her birthday, and he had bought flags for his entire town, because he was proud of his country and there was no place he'd rather be. That's what you see in Ohio, that's what you see across the country. People want to work hard, they want to feel like they're contributing, they want to feel like they're helping to build the country. All they want is just a chance. Have you ever read Ayn Rand? Sure. What do you think Paul Ryan's obsession with her work would mean if he were vice president? Well, you'd have to ask Paul Ryan what that means to him. Ayn Rand is one of those things that a lot of us, when we were 17 or 18 and feeling misunderstood, we'd pick up. Then, as we get older, we realize that a world in which we're only thinking about ourselves and not thinking about anybody else, in which we're considering the entire project of developing ourselves as more important than our relationships to other people and making sure that everybody else has opportunity – that that's a pretty narrow vision. It's not one that, I think, describes what's best in America. Unfortunately, it does seem as if sometimes that vision of a "you're on your own" society has consumed a big chunk of the Republican Party. Of course, that's not the Republican tradition. I made this point in the first debate. You look at Abraham Lincoln: He very much believed in self-sufficiency and self-reliance. He embodied it – that you work hard and you make it, that your efforts should take you as far as your dreams can take you. But he also understood that there's some things we do better together. That we make investments in our infrastructure and railroads and canals and land-grant colleges and the National Academy of Sciences, because that provides us all with an opportunity to fulfill our potential, and we'll all be better off as a consequence. He also had a sense of deep, profound empathy, a sense of the intrinsic worth of every individual, which led him to his opposition to slavery and ultimately to signing the Emancipation Proclamation. That view of life – as one in which we're all connected, as opposed to all isolated and looking out only for ourselves – that's a view that has made America great and allowed us to stitch together a sense of national identity out of all these different immigrant groups who have come here in waves throughout our history. If Americans re-elect you, what will be different in your second term? What is your plan to avoid four more years of gridlock? It's important for people to understand how much we've gotten done, because sometimes folks obsess with gridlock and the ugliness of the process here in Washington. We passed health care – something that presidents have tried to do for 100 years, and we will implement it. We passed the toughest Wall Street reform since the 1930s, and we will implement it and continue to strengthen it. We have put in place a Consumer Finance Protection Agency that's going to be an ongoing advocate for every American out there who is involved in a financial transaction, saving people billions of dollars. We have expanded access to college through the Pell Grant program and by keeping student loans low. The list of things that we've accomplished, even once the Republicans took over, is significant. Now, there are some things that are undone. We are going to have to get a handle on our deficit and debt, but we need to do it in a balanced way that doesn't simply stick it to middle-class families. I'm confident we can get that accomplished, in part, because the Bush tax cuts lapse at the end of this year, and we'll have a showdown about how we're going to fund the government that we need to grow in a sensible way, in a balanced way. Immigration reform I believe we'll get done, because the Republican Party will start recognizing that alienating the fastest­growing segments of our society is probably not good politics for them – not to mention the fact that immigration reform is the right thing to do. On energy and climate change, we will continue to develop oil and natural-gas resources, but we'll build off the work we've done, doubling fuel-efficiency standards on cars and doubling the investment we've made in clean energy. There's a huge opportunity for us to focus on energy efficiency in our buildings, in our schools and in our residences. If we can make our economy as energy efficient as Japan, say, we would be cutting our greenhouse emissions by 20 percent and saving consumers billions of dollars every single year. And by the way, we can put a whole bunch of construction workers back to work in the process. Internationally, having ended the war in Iraq, I am now committed to ending the war in Afghanistan by 2014. Doing that in a responsible way will have a huge impact, because we're also going to be able to take the money we've saved on war to do some nation-building here at home. We're going to have a full agenda in the second four years, but people shouldn't underestimate how much we can get done. Obviously, I'd love to see a shift in Congress where we are electing people who are less interested in the next election and obstruction and are more interested in getting stuff done. And that's true whether it's Republicans or Democrats. I just want to make sure that there are people who have some sense of service toward their constituencies. Forget for a moment about obstruction by Wall Street lobbyists and Republicans in Congress. If you could single-handedly enact one piece of regulation on the financial industry, what would it be? The story of Dodd-Frank is not yet complete, because the rules are still being developed. Dodd-Frank provided a platform to make sure that we end some of the most egregious practices and prevent another taxpayer-funded bailout. We've significantly increased capital requirements and essentially created a wind-down mechanism for institutions that make bad bets, so the whole system isn't held hostage to them going under. We have to make sure that the rules issued around the Volcker Rule are actually enforced. So there's a lot of good work that will be done around Dodd-Frank. I've looked at some of Rolling Stone's articles that say, "This didn't go far enough, we didn't institute Glass-Steagall" and so forth, and I pushed my economic team very hard on some of those questions. But there is not evidence that having Glass-Steagall in place would somehow change the dynamic. Lehman Brothers wasn't a commercial bank, it was an investment bank. AIG wasn't an FDIC-insured bank, it was an insurance institution. So the problem in today's financial sector can't be solved simply by reimposing models that were created­ in the 1930s. I will tell you, the single biggest thing that I would like to see is changing incentives on Wall Street and how people get compensated. That ultimately requires not just congressional legislation but a change in corporate governance. You still have a situation where people making bets can get a huge upside, and their downsides are limited. So it tilts the whole system in favor of very risky behavior. I think a legitimate concern, even after Dodd-Frank, is, "Have we completely changed those incentives?" When investment banks, for example, were partnerships, as opposed to corporations, all those partners understood that if there was some tail risk out there – some unanticipated event that might result in the whole firm blowing up – that they were going to lose all their money, they were going to lose all their assets. They weren't protected. These days, you've got guys who are making five years of risky bets, but it's making them $100 million every year. By the time the chicken comes home to roost, they're still way ahead of the game. So I think it's something that needs to be discussed. But that's not something that can entirely be legislated – that's something that also has to involve shareholders and boards of directors being better stewards of their institutions. Bill Clinton – how important is he as a surrogate for you? What's your friendship with him like these days? Our relationship is terrific. He did a masterful job, obviously, at the convention. He has been a tireless surrogate on our behalf. I'm talking to him regularly, and he's given me good advice. Not only is he a great politician, but he's also somebody who has a lot of credibility with the public when it comes to how the economy works. Because the last time we had healthy, broad-based growth was when he was president, and people remember that. So he can say things that people immediately grab on to. And one of the things he said during the convention that I thought was very helpful was to put this whole economic crisis in context. The biggest challenge we've always had is that unlike FDR – who came into office when the economy had already bottomed out, so people understood that everything done subsequent to his election was making things better – I came in just as we were sliding. Because of the actions we took, we averted a Great Depression – but in the process, we also muddied up the political narrative, because it allowed somebody like Romney to somehow blame my policies for the mess that the previous administration created. Bill Clinton can point that out in ways that are really helpful and really powerful. Halloween's coming up. If you could have Mitt Romney dress in a costume, what should he be for Halloween? I don't know about this Halloween. Next Halloween I hope he'll be an ex-presidential candidate. This story is from the November 8th, 2012 issue of Rolling Stone. From The Archives Issue 1169: November 8, 2012 A Brief History of Presidential Profanity Obama's 2013 Presidential Inauguration President Obama Riffs on Rock Stars The Best Political Memes of the 2012 Presidential Election Bruce Springsteen and Bill Clinton Rally for Obama Rockers Rally to Obama in Campaign's Final Days

时政

2014-52/4410/en_head.json.gz/4241

Opinion | Commentary Tell it to the camera Amanda Curtis, a 34-year-old high school math teacher, is now the Democrats� U.S. Senate candidate in Montana. Finally, a strategy for bringing down the average age of a senator, which is around 62.Plus, a math teacher would come in handy. �Elect somebody who knows how to count� would be an awesome campaign ad. If Curtis had the money to pay for any ads, which currently does not seem all that likely.�I told my husband: �Kevin, I�m really sorry I got us into this,�� she recalled in a phone interview. �And he said: �Why do you have to be so blanking awesome?� He�s very supportive.�I believe I speak for all Americans when I say that we are totally in favor of Kevin Curtis as a senatorial spouse.It�s doubtful that we�ll be seeing any Curtis in Washington anytime soon. But in a week of so much dreadful news from every corner of the world, let�s take an opportunity to sing a happy chorus to this season�s super-long-shot candidates. Really, where would we be without them? Staring at a ballot full of pre-elected public officials, that�s where.Montana Democrats have been going through what you might call a rough patch. First, Sen. Max Baucus announced that he was not going to run again for his seat. Baucus gave out the news early so he could concentrate on �serving Montana.�Then President Barack Obama offered him an ambassadorship to China and Baucus flat-out quit.John Walsh, the Democratic lieutenant governor, was appointed to take his place. Then The New York Times� Jonathan Martin reported that Walsh had plagiarized a lot of his final paper as a master�s candidate at the Army War College. The senator of six months announced that he was not going to run for a full term against the wealthy congressman Republicans had nominated, because he wanted to devote all his time to his �fight for Montana.�None of the well-known Democratic names in the state were interested in taking Walsh�s place. Or the somewhat-known names.�I was scraping and glazing and puttying my storm windows,� said Curtis, who was chosen last weekend by a party convention. �And the phone rang. It was a reporter saying: �John Walsh dropped out and they can�t find any other politician to run.� The storm windows are still leaning against my house.�Montana has only sent one woman to Congress: Jeannette Rankin, a suffragist and pacifist who was elected in 1916. She was sworn in the same day that Woodrow Wilson asked Congress to declare war on Germany. Rankin voted �no� and was decried by a Helena newspaper as �a dupe of the Kaiser, a member of the Hun army in the United States and a crying schoolgirl.� That was pretty much that. Rankin ran again more than two decades later and was elected just before the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, giving her the opportunity to cast the only vote against entering World War II. �Montana is 100 percent against you,� her brother wired encouragingly. That was the end of her congressional career. But she held up the torch, and in 1968, at 87, went back to Washington to lead 5,000 demonstrators in a women�s march against the war in Vietnam.Always happy to have a chance to mention Jeannette Rankin, who teaches us that fighting for a losing cause most definitely does not make you a losing person.Amanda Curtis grew up in a family rocked by divorce, alcoholism, financial struggles and violence. She fought her way through college and into a teaching career. Her experience with students, she said, taught her that what she thought was a uniquely terrible childhood was actually not all that unusual in Montana. She began to get involved in community groups, and, in 2012, she was elected to the state House of Representatives.Once in the office, Curtis began posting videos at the end of every day in the Legislature in which she stood in her office or kitchen, sometimes looking perky, sometimes looking exhausted, and talked into the camera. (�Day 73 and wait until you hear this ��) Her mission was part educational, with heavy emphasis on the workings of the Business and Labor Committee.On the other hand, it was partly pure venting. �It was so hard to � not to walk across the floor and punch him,� she said, in a rant that Montana Republicans have already included in a mashup of video highlights. Their collection does not note that Curtis was talking about a debate over gay rights in which another lawmaker insinuated that homosexuals lacked moral character.Imagine what it would be like if our senators all came home every night and posted their real thoughts. When they were too tired to self-censor. Maybe we should make that a requirement.Gail Collins is a columnist for The New York Times.

时政

2014-52/4410/en_head.json.gz/4283

Colombian leader offers temporary troop pullout AP , BOGOTA Thu, Dec 15, 2005 - Page 7 The government said on Tuesday it would temporarily pull its armed forces out of a town and surrounding area in southwestern Colombia if rebels agree to sit down for talks aimed at exchanging jailed guerrillas for hostages, including three US citizens.A commission made up of officials from France, Switzerland and Spain suggested the troop withdrawal in a proposal sent to the government and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), earlier on Tuesday, President Alvaro Uribe told a news conference."We accept it because we want to understand the anguish, the pain, the suffering of so many Colom-bians who have family members who have been kidnapped," Uribe said.The region that would be cleared of Colombia's armed forces -- some 180km2 -- is more than four times smaller than what FARC has demanded to be demilitarized as a condition for the talks.Nonetheless, it is a concession by the government from its earlier stance. Both sides have said they support a prisoner exchange, but they so far have not agreed on conditions for talks that would iron out the details.There was no immediate response from FARC, a 12,000-strong force that for more than four decades has been fighting the Colombian government for social revolution, but is also heavily involved in drug trafficking and kidnapping for ransom.The commission was formed late last month in an attempt to bring the two sides together after three years of virtual stalemate on the issue. While the commission's identity had been kept a secret, Uribe on Tuesday revealed that it was made up of officials from the three European nations.FARC wants to exchange 59 hostages -- including politicians, military personnel and three US Defense Department contractors -- for imprisoned guerrillas. The government has not said how many jailed rebels it would set free.As well as no military in the area around Pradera, 270km southwest of Bogota, the European commission has called for the area to be free of FARC rebels, except for the negotiators, Peace Commissioner Luis Carlos Restrepo said.He said the area would be demilitarized seven days prior to the talks and seven days after, but said the negotiators themselves would decide how long the talks would last.France has long been pursuing secretive, unsuccessful efforts to secure the release of kidnapped Colombian-French politician Ingrid Betancourt, who was snatched by FARC while campaigning for presidential elections in 2002.The captured US contractors -- Tom Howes, Marc Gonsalves and Keith Stansell -- have been held since February 2003, when their small plane crashed in a rebel stronghold in southern Colombia while on an anti-drug mission.Meanwhile, a Colombian court said on Tuesday that a top FARC commander was convicted in absentia for co-masterminding the 1999 kidnapping and killing of three US activists.FARC military chief Jorge Briceno was sentenced to 39 years in prison for aggravated homicide, kidnapping for extortion and reb-ellion, a statement released by the Penal Court of Arauca said. http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2005/12/15/2003284528

时政

2014-52/4410/en_head.json.gz/4304

House to vote tonight on 'cliff' House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio arrives on Capitol Hill in Washington today as legislation to negate a fiscal cliff of across-the-board tax increases and sweeping spending cuts moves to the GOP-dominated House following a bipartisan, middle-of-the-night approval in the Senate. Boehner is expected to encounter opposition from conservatives within his own party. Jacquelyn Martin/AP Photo Published January 01. 2013 4:00AMUpdated January 01. 2013 8:52PM By DAVID ESPO and ALAN FRAM Washington — Maneuvered into a political corner, House Republicans abandoned demands for changes in emergency legislation to prevent widespread tax increases and painful across-the-board spending cuts and cleared the way for a final, climactic New Year's night vote.The decision capped a day of intense political calculations for conservatives who control the House. They had to weigh their desire to cut spending against the fear that the Senate would refuse to consider any changes they made in the "fiscal cliff" bill, sending it into limbo and saddling Republicans with the blame for a whopping middle class tax increase.Adding to the GOP discomfort, one Senate Democratic leadership aide said Majority Leader Harry Reid would "absolutely not take up the bill" if the House changed it. The aide spoke on condition of anonymity, citing a requirement to keep internal deliberations private.The legislation cleared the Senate hours earlier on a lopsided pre-dawn vote of 89-8. Administration officials met at the White House to monitor its progress."I do not support the bill. We are looking, though, for the best path forward," House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., declared after one meeting of the party's rank-and-file.Despite Cantor's remarks, Speaker John Boehner took no public position on the bill as he sought to negotiate a conclusion to the final crisis of a two-year term full of them.It wasn't the first time that the tea party-infused House Republican majority has rebelled against the party establishment since the GOP took control of the chamber 24 months ago. But with the two-year term set to end Thursday at noon, it was likely the last. And as was true in earlier cases of a threatened default and government shutdown, the brinkmanship came on a matter of economic urgency, leaving the party open to a public backlash if tax increases do take effect on tens of millions.After intensive deliberations — a pair of rank-and-file meetings sandwiched around a leadership session, the GOP high command had not yet settled on a course of action by early evening.Instead, they canvassed Republicans to see if they wanted simply to vote on the Senate measure, or whether they wanted first to try and add spending cuts totaling about $300 billion over a decade. The cuts had passed the House twice earlier in the year but are opposed by most if not all Senate Democrats."We've gone as far as we can go," said Rep. Jack Kingston, R-Ga. "I think people are ready to bring this to a conclusion, and know we have a whole year ahead of us" for additional fights over spending.The economic as well as political stakes were considerable.Economists have warned that without action by Congress, the tax increases and spending cuts that technically took effect with the turn of the new year at midnight could send the economy into recession.Even with enactment of the legislation, taxes are on the rise for millions.A 2 percentage point temporary cut in the payroll tax, originally enacted two years ago to stimulate the economy, expired with the end of 2012. Neither Obama nor Republicans have made a significant effort to extend it.The Senate-passed bill was designed to prevent that while providing for tax increases at upper incomes, as Obama campaigned for in his successful bid for a second term.It would also prevent an expiration of extended unemployment benefits for an estimated two million jobless, block a 27 percent cut in fees for doctors who treat Medicare patients, stop a $900 pay increase for lawmakers from taking effect in March and head off a threatened spike in milk prices.At the same time, it would stop $24 billion in spending cuts set to take effect over the next two months, although only about half of that total would be offset with spending reductions elsewhere in the budget.The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office said the measure would add nearly $4 trillion over a decade to federal deficits, a calculation that assumed taxes would otherwise have risen on taxpayers at all income levels. There was little or no evident concern among Republicans on that point, presumably because of their belief that tax cuts pay for themselves by expanding economic growth and do not cause deficits to rise.The relative paucity of spending cuts was a sticking point with many House Republicans. Among other items, the extension of unemployment benefits costs $30 billion, and is not offset by savings elsewhere."I personally hate it," said Rep. John Campbell of California. "The speaker the day after the election said we would give on taxes and we have. But we wanted spending cuts. This bill has spending increases. Are you kidding me? So we get tax increases and spending increases? Come on."Others said unhappiness over spending outweighed fears that the financial markets will plunge on Wednesday if the fiscal cliff hasn't been averted."There's a concern about the markets, but there's a bigger concern, which is getting this right, which is something we haven't been very good at over the past two years," said Rep. Steve LaTourette of Ohio.House Democrats met privately with Biden for their review of the measure, and the party's leader, Rep. Nancy Pelosi of California, said afterward that Boehner should permit a vote."That is what we expect. That is what the American people deserve," she said.For all the struggle involved in the legislation, even its passage would merely clear the way for another round of controversy almost as soon as the new Congress convenes.With the Treasury expected to need an expansion in borrowing authority by early spring, and funding authority for most government programs set to expire in late March, Republicans have made it clear they intend to use those events as leverage with the administration to win savings from Medicare and other government benefit programs.McConnell said as much moments before the 2 a.m. Tuesday vote in the Senate — two hours after the advertised "cliff" deadline."We've taken care of the revenue side of this debate. Now it's time to get serious about reducing Washington's out-of-control spending," he said. "That's a debate the American people want. It's the debate we'll have next. And it's a debate Republicans are ready for."The 89-8 vote in the Senate was unexpectedly lopsided.Despite grumbling from liberals that Obama had given way too much in the bargaining, only three Democrats opposed the measure.Among the Republican supporters were Sen. Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, an ardent opponent of tax increases, as well as Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, elected to his seat two years ago with tea party support.It marked the first time in two decades that Republicans willingly supported higher taxes, in this case on incomes over $400,000 for individuals and $450,000 for couples. Taxes also would rise on estates greater than $5 million in size, and on capital gains and dividend income made by the wealthy. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., center, walks beside a reporter Monday in the U.S. Capitol in Washington. T.J. Kirkpatrick/The New York Times Vice President Joe Biden gives two thumbs up Monday following a Senate Democratic caucus meeting about the fiscal cliff on Capitol Hill in Washington. The White House and Senate Republicans reached a deal late Monday to stop across-the-board tax increases and spending cuts scheduled to take effect beginning today. Alex Brandon/AP Photo

时政

2014-52/4410/en_head.json.gz/4313

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

时政

2014-52/4410/en_head.json.gz/4325

Ballot Box Blues Tom Engelhardt | November 2, 2010 This piece originally appeared at TomDispatch [1]. By the time you read this, I’ll already have voted—the single most reflexive political act of my life—in the single most dispiriting election I can remember. As I haven’t missed a midterm or presidential election since my first vote in 1968, that says something. Or maybe by the time you’ve gotten to this, the results of the 2010 midterm elections will be in. In either case, I’ll try to explain just why you don’t really need those results to know which way the wind is gusting. First, though, a little electoral history of me. Certainly, my version of election politics started long before I could vote. I remember collecting campaign buttons in the 1950s and also—for the 1956 presidential campaign in which Dwight Eisenhower (and his vice president, Richard Nixon) faced off against Democratic Party candidate Adlai Stevenson—singing this ditty: Whistle while you work, Nixon is a jerk, Eisenhower has no power, Stevenson will work! Even in the world of kids, even then, politics could be gloves-off stuff. Little good my singing did, though: Stevenson was trounced, thus beginning my political education. My father and mother were dyed-in-the-wool Depression Democrats, and my mother was a political caricaturist for the then-liberal (now Murdoch-owned) tabloid, the New York Post. I still remember the fierce drawings she penned for that paper’s front page of red-baiting Senator Joe McCarthy. She also came away from those years filled with political fears, reflected in her admonition to me throughout the 1960s: “It’s the whale that spouts that gets caught.” Still, I was sold on the American system. It was a sign of the times that I simply couldn’t wait to vote. The first election rally I ever attended, in 1962, was for John F. Kennedy, already president. I remember his face, a postage-stamp-sized blur of pink, glimpsed through a sea of heads and shoulders. Even today, I can feel a remnant of the excitement and hope of that moment. In those years before our government had become “the bureaucracy” in young minds, I was imbued with a powerful sense of civic duty that, I suspect, was commonplace. I daydreamed relentlessly about becoming an American diplomat and so representing my country to the world. The first presidential campaign I followed with a passion, though, was in 1964, after Kennedy’s assassination. In memory, I feel as if I voted in it, though I couldn’t have since the voting age was then 21, and I was only 20. Nonetheless, I all but put my X beside the “peace candidate” of that moment, Lyndon B. Johnson, who had, in such an untimely manner, inherited the Oval Office and a war in Vietnam. What other vote was there, since he was running against a Republican extremist and warmonger, an Arizona senator named Barry Goldwater? Not long after his inauguration, however, Johnson launched Operation Rolling Thunder [2], the bombing of North Vietnam. It had been planned before the election, but was kept suitably under wraps while Goldwater was being portrayed as a man intent on getting American boys killed in Asia and maybe nuking the planet [3] as well. Four years later, with half a million US troops in South Vietnam and the war reaching conflagration status, I was “mad as hell and not going to take this any more”—and that was years before Paddy Chayefsky penned those words for the film Network. I was at least as mad as any present-day Tea Partier and one heck of a lot younger. By 1968, I had been betrayed by my not-quite-vote for Johnson and learned my lesson—they were all warmongers—and so, deeply involved in antiwar activities, I rejected both Vice President Hubert Humphrey, who had barely peeped about the war, and his opponent Richard Nixon (that “jerk” of my 1956 ditty) who was promising “peace with honor,” but as I understood quite well, preparing to blast any Vietnamese, Cambodian, or Laotian within reach. I voted instead, with some pride, for Black Panther Eldridge Cleaver. (Okay, I didn’t say this was going to be pretty, did I?) Nor was it exactly thrilling in 1972 when “tricky Dick,” running for reelection, swamped Senator George McGovern, who actually wanted to bring American troops home and end the war, just before the Watergate scandal fully broke. And don’t forget the 1980 election in which Jimmy Carter was hung out to dry by the Iran hostage crisis [4]. As I remember it, I voted late and Democratic that Tuesday in November, came home, made a bowl of popcorn, and sat down in front of the TV just in time to watch Carter concede to Ronald Reagan. Don’t think I didn’t find that dispiriting. And none of this could, of course, compare to campaign 2000 with its “elected by the Supreme Court” tag or election night 2004, when early exit polls seemed to indicate that Senator John Kerry, himself an admittedly dispiriting figure, might be headed for the White House. My wife and I threw a party that night which started in the highest of spirits, only to end, after a long, dismal night, in the reelection of George W. Bush. On the morning of November 3rd, I swore I had “the election hangover of a lifetime [5],” as I contemplated the way American voters had re-upped for “the rashest presidency in our history (short perhaps of that of Jefferson Davis).” “They have,” I added, “signed on to a disastrous crime of a war in Iraq, and a losing war at that which will only get worse; they have signed on to whatever dangerous schemes these schemers can come up with. They have signed on to their own impoverishment. This is the political version of the volunteer Army. Now, they have to live with it. Unfortunately, so do we.” Hermetic Systems and Mad Elephants Six years later, we are indeed poorer in all the obvious ways, and some not so obvious ones as well. How, then, could the 2010 midterms be the most dispi

时政

2014-52/4410/en_head.json.gz/4330

Surprise, surprise: dictators are also bigots Last updated at 12:01AM, January 20 2014 Vladimir Putin – like leaders of other undemocratic regimes – courts approval by bashing gays and other minorities The Principles of the Olympic Movement speak of the joy of effort, social responsibility and fundamental ethical principles. Its Principle Six says that any form of discrimination “on grounds of race, religion, politics, gender or otherwise” is incompatible with membership. So if you see the snowboarder Belle Brockhoff, the Australian men’s bobsled team and some two dozen other Olympians sporting red hoodies with a 6, it is a protest against Russia’s stance on homosexuality. It follows the rainbow flag that got Pavel Lebedev arrested at the torch relay and Stephen Fry’s more extreme demand that Russia be stripped of the Putin: ‘I know some people who are gay. We’re on friendly terms’ Russian President defends anti-gay propaganda law, adding that he would be happy to meet Sir Elton John or Sir... Last updated at January 20 2014

时政

2014-52/4410/en_head.json.gz/4364

18 Dec 2013 South Sudan's political crisis urgently needs to be dealt with through political dialogue: Ban "I am deeply concerned about the current situation in South Sudan," UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon told reporters at UN headquarters on Wednesday. He said he has spoken to President Salva Kiir on Tuesday and impressed on him the need to resume dialogue with the political opposition. The Secretary-General said he welcomes the reports on Wednesday that President Salva Kiir is willing to enter into such talks. At the same time, his Special Representative, Hilde Johnson, remains in constant contact with the Government and others with influence on these issues. “This is a political crisis, and urgently needs to be dealt with through political dialogue. There is a risk of this violence spreading to other States, and we have already seen some signs of this. It is essential to protect the human rights of all those who are detained. Mandated human rights monitors must have full access to visit the detainees. Security forces must operate in full compliance with international humanitarian law.” Secretary-General Ban called on the Government to cooperate fully with the UN Mission in South Sudan (UNMISS) as it fulfils its protection mandate, including in the provision of basic relief to civilians in need and in conducting human rights investigations into allegations of human rights abuses in recent days. Donn Bobb, United Nations. Duration: 1’19″ Filed under Today's News. UN Radio Daily News Programme Updated at 1800 GMT, Monday to Friday Loading the player ...

时政

2014-52/4410/en_head.json.gz/4563

Last-minute fiscal cliff talks in Senate Senators negotiate over fiscal cliff; Obama warns against "self-inflicted wound" to economy By David Espo and Jim Kuhnhenn, Associated Press President Barack Obama speaks to reporters in the Brady Press Briefing Room at the White House in Washington after meeting with Congressional leaders regarding the fiscal cliff, Friday, Dec. 28, 2012. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak) WASHINGTON (AP) -- Senate leaders groped for a last-minute compromise Saturday to avoid middle-class tax increases and possibly prevent deep spending cuts at the dawn of the new year as President Barack Obama warned that failure could mean a "self-inflicted wound to the economy." Obama chastised lawmakers in his weekly radio and Internet address for waiting until the last minute to try and avoid a "fiscal cliff," yet said there was still time for an agreement. "We cannot let Washington politics get in the way of America's progress," he said as the hurry-up negotiations unfolded. For all the recent expressions of urgency, bargaining took place by phone, email and paper in a Capitol nearly empty except for tourists. Alone among top lawmakers, Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell spent the day in his office. In the Republicans' weekly address, Sen. Roy Blunt of Missouri cited a readiness to compromise. "Divided government is a good time to solve hard problems — and in the next few days, leaders in Washington have an important responsibility to work together and do just that," he said. Even so, there was no guarantee of success, and a dispute over the federal tax on large estates emerged as yet another key sticking point alongside personal income tax rates. In a blunt challenge to Republicans, Obama said that barring a bipartisan agreement, he expected both houses to vote on his own proposal to block tax increases on all but the wealthy and simultaneously preserve expiring unemployment benefits. Political calculations mattered as much as deep-seated differences over the issues, as divided government struggled with its first big challenge since the November elections. Speaker John Boehner remained at arms-length, juggling a desire to avoid the fiscal cliff with his goal of winning another term as speaker when a new Congress convenes next Thursday. Any compromise legislation is certain to include higher tax rates on the wealthy, and the House GOP rank and file rejected the idea when he presented it to them as part of a final attempt to strike a more sweeping agreement with Obama. Lawmakers have until the new Congress convenes to pass any compromise, and even the calendar mattered. Democrats said they had been told House Republicans might reject a deal until after Jan. 1, to avoid a vote to raise taxes before they had technically gone up and then vote to cut taxes after they had risen. Nor was any taxpayer likely to feel any adverse impact if legislation is signed and passed into law in the first two or three days of 2013 instead of the final hours of 2012. Gone was the talk of a grand bargain of spending cuts and additional tax revenue in which the two parties would agree to slash deficits by trillions of dollars over a decade. Now negotiators had a more cramped goal of preventing additional damage to the economy in the form of higher taxes across the board — with some families facing increases measured in the thousands of dollars — as well as cuts aimed at the Pentagon and hundreds of domestic programs. Republicans said they were willing to bow to Obama's call for higher taxes on the wealthy as part of a deal to prevent them from rising on those less well-off. Democrats said Obama was sticking to his campaign call for tax increases above $250,000 in annual income, even though he said in recent negotiations he said he could accept $400,000. There was no evidence of agreement even at the higher level. There were indications from Republicans that estate taxes might hold more significance for them than the possibility of higher rates on income. One senior Republican, Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona, said late Friday he was "totally dead set" against Obama's estate tax proposal, and as if to reinforce the point, Blunt mentioned the issue before any other in his broadcast remarks. "Small businesses and farm families don't know how to deal with the unfair death tax_a tax that the president and congressional leaders have threatened to expand to include even more family farms and even more small businesses," he said. Several officials said Republicans want to leave the tax at 35 percent after exempting the first $5 million in estate value. Officials said the White House wants a 45 percent tax after a $3.5 million exemption. Without any action by Congress, it would climb to a 55 percent tax after a $1 million exemption on Jan. 1. Democrats stressed their unwillingness to make concessions on both income taxes and the estate tax, and said they hoped Republicans would choose which mattered more to them. Officials said any compromise was likely to ease the impact of the alternative minimum tax, originally designed to make sure that millionaires did not escape taxation. If left unchanged, it could hit an estimated 28 million households for the first time in 2013, with an average increase of more than $3,000. Taxes on dividends and capital gains are also involved in the talks, as well as a series of breaks for businesses and others due to expire at the first of the year. Obama and congressional Democrats are insisting on an extension of long-term unemployment benefits that are expiring for about 2 million jobless individuals. Leaders in both parties also hope to prevent a 27 percent fee cut from taking effect on Jan. 1 for doctors who treat Medicare patients. There was also discussion of a short-term extension of expiring farm programs, in part to prevent a spike in milk prices at the first of the year. It wasn't clear if that was a parallel effort to the cliff talks or had become wrapped into them. Across-the-board spending cuts that comprise part of the cliff were a different matter. Republicans say Boehner will insist that they will begin to take effect unless negotiators agreed to offset them with specified savings elsewhere. That would set the stage for the next round of brinkmanship — a struggle over Republican calls for savings from Medicare, Medicaid and other federal benefit programs. The Treasury's ability to borrow is expected to expire in late winter or early spring, and without an increase in the $16.4 trillion limit, the government would face its first-ever default. Republicans have said they will use administration requests for an extension as leverage to win cuts in spending. Ironically, it was just such a maneuver more than a year ago that set the stage for the current crisis talks over the fiscal cliff. Politics & GovernmentBudget, Tax & EconomyPresident Barack ObamaRepublicans

时政

2014-52/4410/en_head.json.gz/4612

Thoughts From The Publisher’s Desk Posted on 07/12/2012 by Steven Green - Author Silly Hall in Ocean City continued its downward spiral into complete dysfunction this week, as paranoia and conspiracy theories surfaced over the reason for the recent election date change. The most significant aspect of this week’s meeting, and there were many to choose from, was the challenge posed to City Solicitor Guy Ayres, who had his integrity questioned regarding former City Manager Dennis Dare’s possible City Council candidacy. Based on the line of questioning, Council President Jim Hall made it clear he thinks Ayres advised someone the election date needed to be changed for Dare to run for council because he is a current employee, despite having been removed from office 10 months ago. He even accused Ayres of purposely withholding contents of a conversation he had with Dare’s attorney. Jim Hall, a council member since 1987, said, “You were contacted by the lawyer representing the candidate and had a conversation, and suggested to him that the candidate not run unless the date of the election was changed because he was still a city employee.” Ayres empathically denied that charge, saying, “There was never a discussion of the election date, never. … There was no discussion about changing the election date and I never offered him an opinion one way or the other if Dennis filed for election would violate either one of those provisions. That was the end of it.” Mayor Rick Meehan was not in the room during some of this discussion and came back to council chambers when the 4-3 vote was taken to authorize a charter change for the requisite organizational meeting, held traditionally the Thursday after the election. After learning later what had transpired, Meehan, who has been on the council since 1985 and mayor since 2006, was surprised to hear Ayres was questioned in that matter and “absolutely” believed Ayres was telling the truth. “I know Guy knows what his position is and who he represents and he represents the Mayor and Council. He would never go outside of those lines and if he tells you that’s what transpired that’s what transpired. He is very deliberate in how he answers something, and I do not believe he would ever cross that line. Guy has given opinions that I don’t like. I question it and questioned him, but he says simply, ‘that’s the opinion’. He’s a rock and knows the boundaries,” Meehan said. “I think this is another example of council people pointing fingers. It’s very unfortunate and a continuation of what’s been going on for the last 18 months.” For what it’s worth, I choose to believe Ayres when he says there was no funny business involved and no talk of a date change being required to allow for Dare to run. By his very position of giving counsel on legal matters to the city, Ayres is involved in local politics, but I believe he wants to stay as far out of the situation as possible and would not go beyond the scope of his responsibilities. I think he has earned the right to be trusted at his word and deserves an apology. If Dare does file, one thing is clear — the council majority is going to come after him and explain in detail why they gave him the ultimatum to retire or be fired. In a private off-the-record exchange, Joe Hall said the decision the majority made to not air the specific grievances against Dare during the dismissal process would be voided if he files for council. He said he would then thoroughly outline what led to his removal. During the council meeting, Jim Hall went further, saying that Dare was “let go” for as many as 10 specific reasons. “I have never really brought up the entire reason why Dennis was dismissed or why we asked for his resignation. I didn’t want to have to do that, although I am prepared to do it,” he said. “I think to have a candidate come back, it is certainly his prerogative to run for council, but I think it is disruptive and I think there are reasons he was let go … and as we run for council, it will be made very clear as to why he was let go and I think it would be a shame to bring him back here in any capacity once he was let go.” Whenever or even if this all comes out, I don’t expect it to be a huge revelation. Clearly, the council majority felt Dare, as well as his administrators most likely, was not being forthcoming enough, opposed many of the majority’s stated initiatives and was insubordinate on some level. The council majority wanted to break up the Dare-Meehan administration and go in a “new direction”. Other than specifics to demonstrate why that needed to be done, I don’t foresee any sort of bombshell. Time will tell if I am wrong. The problem all along was the process and the manner in which it was handled. It was not an organized coup. There was no plan in place beyond perhaps having Public Works Director Hal Adkins ascend to the city manager’s office. When Adkins said no thanks, an expensive mess ensued, and it took nine months for the new city manager to be sworn in. How much the situation cost the city is a debatable point among many. It will soon be in black and white, as The Dispatch filed a Freedom of Information Act request Monday, seeking all the expenses the city incurred as a result of Dare’s removal. I expect this will prove this move has cost taxpayers a tremendous amount of money, contradicting the conservative, cost-saving mantra being extolled by those blowing the winds of change. Certain costs are easy to tabulate, such as the fact Dare received $101,152 in salary for not working after his removal in September through March and is currently receiving $6,665 per month through Oct. 31 as part of his severance accord. He will not be officially retired until Halloween, nearly 14 months after his excusal. That’s a total of $147,812 in wages alone that could have been avoided if the situation was handled differently, but that’s just the beginning. I’m predicting it has cost the city an easy $220,000 when you include the search firm expenses, background checks on city manager candidates, travel expenses for candidate interviews, relocation expenses for City Manager David Recor and attorney and accountant fees to negotiate Dare’s exit. And that’s not to mention the fact the general employees would have most likely not have sought to organize if Dare was not removed. That’s up for legitimate debate but the money this move cost the city is not. It’s interesting to me that a phone call from Dare’s attorney to Ayres stirred up all this controversy and conspiracy theories in the first place. Suspect phone calls have been in the news a lot of late. Remember it was just a few months ago when Joe Hall stirred up a controversy by calling one of the two leading city manager candidates while he was employed in Fort Pierce, Fla. That candidate was David Recor, who began his new job in Ocean City last month and by all accounts has acclimated well to his new digs. That phone call was brought up this week indirectly when Councilman Brent Ashley called out Councilman Doug Cymek for being inconsistent. Cymek had said back in April Joe Hall’s call to Recor fouled the integrity of the process. Ashley maintained Dare’s attorney’s call to Ayres muddied the election date situation, but he did not feel Joe Hall’s call to Recor was significant in tainting the city manager search process. When challenged, Cymek did not agree with Ashley’s point and maintained he would not be changing his vote. Cymek said Dare had nothing to do with his mind being changed, referring instead to strong citizen support for the election change. Ashley agreed with colleague Councilwoman Margaret Pillas the election date change would be best decided by a referendum, but the vote had already been taken to change the charter to reflect the date change last week and the vote was 4-3 to move the customary organizational meeting to the Thursday after the election in November. This article was written by Steven Green, Publisher/ Editor. Bookmark the permalink.Posted inBetween The Lines One comment on “Thoughts From The Publisher’s Desk” Mel McSweeney on 07/13/2012 at 9:40 am said: Love the term “Silly Hall” – it is soooo appropriate. . .

时政

2014-52/4410/en_head.json.gz/4628

Maine Voters Can’t Agree on Economy-Busting School Funding Plans Maine Voters Can’t Agree on Economy-Busting School Funding Plans December 1, 2003 Diane Bast Diane Carol Bast is The Heartland Institute's executive editor and finance manager. As executive... Maine voters went to the polls on November 4 for a Referendum Election that presented six questions addressing everything from horse racing and casinos to bond issues for higher education and highways. Top among the ballot measures was Question 1--actually three competing questions--addressing education funding. None of the three questions attracted support from a majority of voters, meaning the top vote-getter will go before voters again in 2004. Question 1A, a citizen’s initiative placed on the ballot by the Maine Municipal Association (MMA), attracted 38 percent of the vote--more than the 35 percent received by 1B, a competing plan submitted by the governor and legislature, and the 27 percent received by 1C, a “none of the above” option. The MMA initiative would require the state to “immediately” fund 55 percent of the government’s total spending on K-12 education, as well as 100 percent of all prior year “unreimbursed special education expenditures.” Economic Impact Tested Two weeks before the Maine vote, the Maine Public Policy Institute (MPPI), a nonpartisan research organization headquartered in Bangor, released an analysis of the likely impact of Question 1A and 1B on the Pine Tree State’s economy. The report, Truth and Consequences: The Impact of Tax Reform on Jobs and Investments, was written for MPPI by economists with the Boston-based Beacon Hill Institute (BHI) at Suffolk University, including David G. Tuerck, Ph.D., president of Beacon Hill. The report was issued jointly by MPPI and Beacon Hill. Its projections were developed by employing the Maine State Tax Analysis Modeling Program (STAMP), a comprehensive model of the Maine economy designed to capture the principal effects of tax changes on that economy. “The Maine Municipal Association’s (

时政

2014-52/4410/en_head.json.gz/4656

The folly of the Defense Intelligence Agency’s spy-hiring spree Wasn’t the U.S. defense budget supposed to be in for some belt-tightening by now? Whereas President Barack Obama’s predecessor, George W. Bush, waged war the old-fashioned way, with troops and tanks, Obama has been busy outsourcing the dirty work of protecting and furthering America’s interests to CIA drones, private contractors, local mobs with ties to terrorists, and even the French. It was looking as if the Department of Defense could pack up, because the administration didn’t leave it with much to do. But this week, members of that department awoke to find that Obama’s Good Ideas Fairy had left spy kits under their pillows! Out with the combat fatigues and rifles, in with tuxedos and martinis! Officials have told the Washington Post that the Defense Department’s intelligence branch, the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), will add another 1,100 intelligence case officers overseas, which would triple the number of such officers over a five-year period. To have so many official case officers on the payroll makes no fiscal or practical sense. Here’s how espionage works: Intelligence is collected not by an official agency G-man but rather by some civilian G-tool recruited to do the agency’s dirty work (at great risk to himself). A single case officer easily can manage several G-tools. More case officers does not necessarily mean significantly more G-tools collecting more information, because there isn’t a country anywhere that has a bottomless candidate pool for the role of treasonous, life-risking moron. Quality is more important than quantity anyway. Moreover, U.S. officials say that the biggest challenge is finding adequate covers for all these new overseas officers, because they can’t all fit inside the local embassies alongside the CIA. You don’t say! You mean someone working for Defense intelligence — whose job is to collect highly specific military information — won’t be able to pass himself off overseas as a run-of-the-mill businessman or professor and start digging around on-site for a precise number of nukes in North Korea’s arsenal, for example? It’s hard enough for a CIA officer who doesn’t deal in military intricacies to obtain covert intelligence, let alone a DIA officer with non-official cover and therefore zero diplomatic immunity in the event that his cover is blown. So why don’t other countries have a problem finding credible covers for their intelligence employees? Because they don’t collect information this way — no one does. And it’s hard to believe that America will. The U.S. already has assets who are not agency employees operating inside the places where intelligence and information is needed. Why is it, for example, that every Chinese or Russian student at a university overseas can feed information to their country’s intelligence service without being an actual agency employee? You don’t need any special knowledge or training to simply pass off intelligence. Nor is there any evidence that the inflation of the spook ranks will mean a decrease in the use of private contractors for black ops or other purposes. In fact, the opposite is true. In July, the DIA awarded a five-year contract worth up to $5.6 billion to multiple firms for worldwide intelligence work. Here’s why this whole thing reeks of cover-for-action, or pretexting: The collection of information isn’t a problem in the intelligence community, although the inability to understand collected information and act on it often has been. Political subversion, however, which can constitute up to 90 percent of intelligence activity (as with the KGB during the Soviet era), requires ever-increasing manpower and oversight. Governments don’t just overthrow themselves, as we’ve seen most recently in Syria. Often, behind every local group trying to oust an administration or a despot lurks an intelligence agency or tools thereof. Why is it, for example, that former Major General Paul E. Vallely of the U.S. Army has openly lobbied Western interests on behalf of Iran’s Marxist-Islamist Mujahadeen-e-Khalq (MEK)? Still considered a terrorist organization by Canada, the MEK was bombed by U.S and coalition forces in 2003 because of its support of Saddam Hussein, but it has been lobbied off the terrorist list in America and Europe. Why so many discreet visits to the MEK’s enclave in Paris if it isn’t seen as a useful tool in Iranian regime change? We can’t have a retired major general doing all the work, can we? It appears that the cavalry may be coming — ready to shake and stir. (Rachel Marsden is a columnist, political strategist and former Fox News host based in Paris. She appears frequently on TV and in publications in the U.S. and abroad. Her website can be found at http://www.rachelmarsden.com.) More articles by Rachel Marsden Getting Dirty Getting bin Laden During George W. Bush’s presidency, it was a matter of liberal faith that the use of enhanced interrogation techniques on Progs — “Mitt Romney Is the Worst Human Ever, Ever, Ever” Wow, I thought George W. Bush was the worst man ever to walk the earth. Now, according to the Leftists, How Obama Bureaucrats Fueled Western Wildfires COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. — The smell of singed air here is inescapable. Less than 50 miles west of my neighborhood,

时政

2014-52/4410/en_head.json.gz/4667

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

时政

2014-52/4410/en_head.json.gz/4698

Rep. Pitts Supports Energy Security, Clean Environment Through American Energy Act Date: June 12, 2009 Location: Washington, DC Congressman Joe Pitts (PA-16) has signed on as a cosponsor of the American Energy Act. The legislation, introduced by Republican Leader John Boehner (OH-08), will clean up the environment, lower energy costs, and create more American jobs. Included in the bill is a provision from legislation first introduced by Rep. Pitts that would place oil refineries on closed down military bases, as well as a provision from Rep. Pitts that would fast track the approval process for new nuclear reactors on sites where reactors already exist. Congressman Pitts' statement follows: "This legislation will strengthen America's energy security and increase clean renewable energy at the same time. It stands in stark opposition to the national energy tax moving through Congress in the form of a cap and trade plan. We need to embrace an all-of-the-above energy strategy that takes advantage of our nation's vast energy resources to increase our energy security while capitalizing on America's ingenuity to develop the next generation of clean, renewable and alternative energy sources." The American Energy Act establishes a renewable energy trust fund that would increase environmentally-safe energy production far off our shores and in remote areas of the West, and use revenues generated through this production to support innovation in renewable and alternative energy sources, like wind and solar technologies. The legislation also establishes a national goal of licensing 100 new nuclear reactors over the next twenty years by streamlining a burdensome regulatory process and ensuring the recycling and safe storage of spent nuclear fuel. Source: http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/pa16_pitts/americanenergyact.shtml

时政

2014-52/4410/en_head.json.gz/4710

Assault Weapons Ban Is Gun Debate's First Casualty Share Tweet E-mail Comments Print By Greg Henderson Originally published on Tue March 19, 2013 4:48 pm Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., has been told that her assault weapons ban will not be included in the Democratic gun bill to be introduced on the Senate floor in the coming weeks. Evan Vucci The prospects of an assault weapons ban emerging as part of any post-Newtown gun control law looks highly unlikely after Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid opted not to include it in a Democratic proposal to be offered on the Senate floor in coming weeks. "My understanding is it will not be [part of the base bill]" to be introduced on the Senate floor, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said after meeting with Reid on Monday, according to Politico. "The leader has decided not to do it." Feinstein's bill, which would ban more than 150 specific assault-style weapons, passed the Senate Judiciary Committee last week on 10-8 party-line vote. It can still be offered as an amendment to the measure that will reach the Senate floor. But that could be an even tougher road to passage. Feinstein authored the 1994 assault weapons ban, which expired 10 years later when Congress failed to reauthorize it. Her bill is among several measures introduced in the new Congress in response to the Dec. 14 shooting deaths of 20 children and six educators at an elementary school in Newtown, Conn. Reid, a Democrat from Nevada, has been reluctant to back gun control measures in the past. Politico reports: "Reid's decision highlights the tightrope walked by the majority leader in governing the gun control issue. Trapped between the White House and rank-and-file Democrats who support broad gun control legislation following the shootings last December in Newtown, Conn., Reid must also be mindful of red-state Democrats up for reelection in 2014 who favor gun rights." Copyright 2013 NPR. To see more, visit http://www.npr.org/. View the discussion thread.

时政

2014-52/4410/en_head.json.gz/4777

Pittsburgh mayor quits re-election bid PITTSBURGH — Pittsburgh Mayor Luke Ravenstahl says he is abandoning his bid to seek re-election, but he will remain in office. Ravenstahl made the announcement at 11 a.m. today after speculation fueled by an aide’s comments earlier this week that the mayor would soon call a news conference to discuss “some issues.” He said the criticism of him regarding a federal investigation of city police business played a part in his decision. But he said he has not done anything wrong regarding the police department.The probe is believed to center on a fund the police bureau kept for fees that bars and other businesses paid the city for using its off-duty police officers as security guard.City Councilman Bill Peduto and Controller Michael Lamb have announced plans to challenge Ravenstahl in the May primary.Ravenstahl became the city’s youngest-ever mayor at age 26. He took office in 2006 because he was City Council president when Mayor Bob O’Connor died, and won a special election in 2007 to finish that term.He was re-elected to a full four-year term in 2009.

时政

2014-52/4410/en_head.json.gz/4799

Palestinian indifference to Palestinian suffering Tuesday, January 8, 2013 Tags: Editorial Comments Like a string of three shining pearls held up against the sun, three discrete reports last week from Palestinian sources cast new revelations, if not actual new light, on the way their leaders treat their own people and truth. • Each for different reasons, Hamas and the Palestinian Authority (PA) have spurned requests from the United Nations to take in some of the Palestinians fleeing for their lives from Syria. Ismail Haniyeh, the Hamas leader of Gaza, justified his refusal on ideology: he wants his suffering brethren to resettle in Israel. The PA explained its shrug of the indifferent shoulder on the basis of funds: it cannot afford to receive them. • Yasser Arafat’s widow, Suha, told Dubai TV that her husband had indeed planned the second intifadah all along. The Palestine Liberation Organization leader would not agree to the pleas and entreaties of U.S. president Bill Clinton and Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak to finally, peacefully, end the conflict. As Suha disclosed, her much venerated husband viewed negotiation and compromise as “betray[ing] the Palestinian cause.” • The Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics published figures stating that by the year 2020, there will be more Arabs than Jews in Israel, the West Bank and Gaza. The Palestinian figures may or may not be accurate. But they are the proverbial red herring: the only figures that count are the number of Jews in the State of Israel. Israel has already separated from Gaza. The majority of Israelis wish to separate from the West Bank, too. They know it is the moral and pragmatically correct solution for truly ensuring the safety, security and Jewish majority of the Jewish state. But they seek a means of doing so that very distinctly does not follow the Gaza withdrawal precedent. That means separation, that is, a two-state solution, must be negotiated. However, the PA refuses to negotiate. Over the past four years, the PA has demanded the right to dictate the terms under which negotiations must begin. And it has cleverly manipulated world opinion into providing diplomatic cover for its own refusal to sit at the table with Israel. Thus it is especially disingenuous and exceptionally cloying to read former PA official Hanan Ashrawi say: “If the situation [the demographic trends according to the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics] carries on this way, at the end we’ll be a majority, but we’re giving the Israelis a chance to understand the Palestinians could have their own democratic country that would neighbour Israel.” Her statement is entirely hollow. It is aimed at a fawning foreign media and diplomatic corps. It is her very own PA of Mahmoud Abbas (and Arafat before him) that has refused from the first to give birth through peaceful means of a democratic country. Indeed it even refuses today to provide safe harbour for the wretched Palestinians trying to flee Syria. Palestinian leaders continue to ill serve their people.

时政

2014-52/4410/en_head.json.gz/4800

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

时政

2014-52/4410/en_head.json.gz/4808

Make that 28: Croatia becomes newest EU member From Oliver Joy and Deanna Hackney, CNN updated 1:19 PM EDT, Mon July 1, 2013 "Welcome to our union," EU president says Croatia is facing several challenges "The EU will not be a panacea for Croatia's economy," an analyst says (CNN) -- Croatia formally became the newest member of the European Union on Monday, marking an end to a 10-year campaign for a Balkan state that emerged from the ruins of a bloody civil war. The celebrations began as the clock struck midnight Sunday. Fireworks lit the sky in the capital Zagreb, a choir sang "Ode to Joy" and thousands clinked champagne glasses and erupted in cheers. "Welcome to your union, welcome to our union," EU President Herman Van Rompuy told the crowd. The nation of 4.4 million people is the 28th member of the EU, and the second Balkan country that rose out of the ashes of Yugoslavia to join the union. Slovenia became a member in 2004. Croatia set to join European Union Croatia welcomes EU membership Croatia's road to EU membership "Whatever anyone is saying about us, you should know we are a country of rational people who are realistic about themselves and their country, and the role of their country in Europe and the world," Prime Minister Zoran Milanovic told the crowd. Croatia looks to oil and gas fields in Adriatic Sea Many challenges With a low credit rating of junk and a political class stained by accusations of endemic corruption, Croatia's challenges are unlikely to disappear overnight. It is three years into a debt crisis that is plaguing countries across southern Europe. One of the challenges facing Croatia is its growth prospects. The financial crash of 2008 brought about a harsh double-dip recession that left the country's economy lingering in the doldrums. Last year, unemployment peaked at 17.3% which is behind only Greece and Spain, according to Eurostat - the European Commission's data archive. "The EU will not be a panacea for Croatia's economy," Will Bartlett, a senior research fellow at the London School of Economics, told CNN in January. Fighting corruption Croatia is also in the midst of cleaning up a political class that is rife with corruption. Since the country's inception in the early 1990s, it has struggled to choke off profiteering from those in positions of power. Transparency International - an organization tackling corruption -- ranked Croatia below Rwanda, Jordan and Cuba in its Corruption Perceptions Index for 2012. But the country still came in above Italy - Europe's third largest economy. "The country's evolution has been very slow since 1990," said Zorislav Petrovic, head of Transparency Internernational in Croatia. But the current government - led by Milanovic - is taking steps to clean up the country's act under close supervision from the European Union. In November, the country's former Prime Minister, Ivo Sanader, was jailed for 10 years after being found guilty of taking pay-offs from foreign companies. Sanader - who was premier from 2004 to 2009 - had fled the country but was arrested in Austria. Kristof Bender, deputy chairman of the policy institute, European Stability Initiative, says Croatia's progress to the "doorstep of the European Union" is quite remarkable. "We mustn't forget how bad it was in the 1990s," Bender said. "The darkest moments of war, occupation, mass killings, ethnic cleansing, and autocratic leadership and crony capitalism were all there." European Union, Turkey avoid rupture in relations

时政

2014-52/4410/en_head.json.gz/4826

Hon. Benjamin L. Cardin, Chairman Hon. Alcee L. Hastings, Co-Chairman ENERGY SECURITY AND THE FUTURE OF THE OSCE MEDITERRANEAN DIMENSION HEADLINE OSCE PARLIAMENTARY ASSEMBLY FALL MEETINGS IN ATHENS By Commission Staff Senator Benjamin L. Cardin (D-MD), the Chairman of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe (U.S. Helsinki Commission) and Vice-President of the Organization for Security and Cooperation Parliamentary Assembly (OSCE PA) led a delegation of four Members of the U.S. Congress to the OSCE PA Fall Meetings in Athens, Greece October 9-12, 2009. Commission Co-Chairman, Representative Alcee L. Hastings (D-FL), a past president of the OSCE PA and current Special Representative on Mediterranean Affairs, co-chaired the delegation, which also included Commissioner Representative Mike McIntyre (D-NC) and Senator George Voinovich (R-OH). More than 200 parliamentarians from 49 countries throughout the OSCE region attended the meetings, which were convened under the theme of “Energy Security and Environment,” and featured a two-session Mediterranean Forum. Sessions focused on regional cooperation in Energy Security; Climate and Environmental Policy – the Road to Copenhagen; and Optimal Utilization of Natural Resources for Human Security. The Mediterranean Forum session themes were Prospects and Challenges of the OSCE Mediterranean Dimension, and Trade and Economic Cooperation in the Mediterranean. Representatives from Algeria, Egypt, Israel, and Jordan participated in the meetings. Focus on Energy Security and the Road to Copenhagen Over the two days of the conference, the parliamentarians exchanged information and ideas on energy security and climate change. For Europe in particular, the issue of the day is security of supply, particularly of natural gas with winter approaching and the specter of another commercial conflict between Ukraine and Russia looming. Russia has accused Ukraine of theft of natural gas and Ukraine has accused Russia of unfairly raising prices, and the stakes are getting higher as Ukraine gears up for elections January 17, 2010. A representative from the Russian natural gas company, Gazprom, presented his company’s perspective, attempted to assuage concerns, and convince parliamentarians that Russia is a reliable energy supplier. The parliamentarians also discussed the “human dimension” of energy security and climate issues, noting the humanitarian consequences of water shortages, environmental disasters, and food shortages that could come with a warming climate. It was noted that the OS

时政

2014-52/4410/en_head.json.gz/4856

Marketplace Africa Can Ghana's economy prosper against the odds? By George B.N. Ayittey, Special to CNN A hearse carries the body of late Ghanaian president John Atta Mills to the parliament in Accra on Wednesday. Ghana, whose president John Atta Mills died in July, is holding elections in December The smooth transfer of power after his death attests to the strength of Ghana's democracy Yet, serious obstacles lie ahead for Ghana's economic prosperity Uncertainty about elections, coupled with bloated bureaucracy and overspending, are the biggest hurdles Editor's note: George B.N. Ayittey, Ph.D., is a native of Ghana, president of the Free Africa Foundation based in Washington, DC and the author of Defeating Dictators, Palgrave/MacMillan, 2011. Accra, Ghana (CNN) -- The sudden death of Ghana's president, John Atta Mills, on July 24 did not come as a rude surprise. Most Ghanaians already knew his health was failing; he was losing his eyesight and voice. For the seven months that I was in Ghana (Dec 2011-July 2012), he rarely made a public appearance -- and despite official assertions to the contrary, most people did not believe he had the will nor the capacity to campaign for re-election in this year's elections in December. Thousands of mourners pay respects to their late leader What was remarkable, however, was that within hours of his death, the Vice-President, John Mahama, had been sworn in as the new president. The smoothness of the transition was exactly how Atta Mills would have wanted it. He was a man of peace and ardent believer in the rule of law. Ghana in mourning after president dies The smooth transfer of power not only attested to the strength and stability of Ghana's democracy but also stood in sharp contrast to the rocky and chaotic transitions that followed the deaths of presidents Felix Houphouet-Boigny of Ivory Coast in 1993; Musa Yar'Ardua of Nigeria in 2010 and Bingu wa Mutharika of Malawi in 2012. Ghana's president dies Obama hailed Ghana as 'model for democracy' Also standing in sharp contrast to the smooth political transition process is the performance of Ghana's economy. After a stellar performance the past few years, the economy has hit some road bumps. At a time when Europe has been in deep crisis, Ghana's economy galloped at a dizzying 14.5% rate of growth in 2011. In the fourth quarter, the rate was an astonishing 16%. The country achieved a single digit inflation rate of 8.6% and the lowest fiscal deficit to GDP ratio of 4.8% in decades, according to figures from the Minister of Finance. Moreover, Ghana attracted $7 billion in foreign investment -- the highest amount recorded in its history. This economic boom has been sparked by recent discovery and production of oil. However, prospects for 2012 have dimmed. The projected growth rate has been scaled back to 10%, although still impressive. An IMF team which visited the country in June described the economy as "sick" -- perhaps, an unintended allusion to the condition of the president. The external value of the local currency, the cedi, has dropped precipitously from 1.4 cedis to the dollar in January 2.2 cedis to the dollar in July -- a drop of 57% in terms of the local currency. That drop has made imports more expensive and pushed the rate of inflation up above 10%. There is widespread grumbling about the rising cost of living. Former Ghana president: Fight poverty with wealth creation, not charity It may seem skeptics, who questioned the sustainability of Ghana's economic success, are being proven right. They point to Ghana's neighbor, Ivory Coast, which was once declared an "economic miracle" back in the late 1990s but then convulsed into civil war and economic ruination in 2005 and 2010. They ask further: Hasn't oil been a curse to such countries as Angola, Cameroon and Nigeria, among others? Is Ghana not destined to follow the same path? To some extent, the skeptics have a point but that is not the whole picture. To be sure, Ivory Coast was declared an "economic miracle" in the late 1980s and in 1994, the World Bank declared Ghana to be an economic success story. However, received wisdom and accumulated evidence suggest that doing well economically is not enough. Intellectual freedom (freedom of expression, of the media, etc.) and political reform (establishment of democratic pluralism) are also needed to sustain economic prosperity. Countries that resist them eventually implode, unraveling all the economic gains made. This was what happened in Ivory Coast in 2005 and also in Yugoslavia (1995), Indonesia (1998), Madagascar (2001), Tunisia (2011) and Egypt (2011). In other words, democracy is not necessary to engineer an economic success story but vital to sustain it. In Ghana's case, incomplete political liberalization and fitful intellectual reform clipped its economic success in the 1990s. However, things are much different today. The intellectual environment is much freer now. There are more than 100 private radio stations and over 20 privately-owned newspapers in Ghana. There is a vibrant and vigilant media that sparks intense intellectual debates. Call-in radio programs hold the feet of politicians to the fire and expose their shenanigans. Now and then, the country's Supreme Court rules against the government. Freedom of information bill is wending its way through Parliament, although it has been dragging its feet. Media's role in Ghanaian politics Politically, democracy is also being entrenched. Since 2000, there have been two successful transfers of power without violence or bloodshed. And the smooth transfer of power after the president passed away is another feather in the Ghana's democracy cap. All these bode well for the sustainability of the current economic prosperity. But still, some serious hurdles lie ahead for Ghana's economic prosperity. First, the non-oil sector of the economy is performing poorly. Agriculture, which employs over 60% of the population, grew marginally at 2.8% in 2011. With food production per capita declining, the country has to rely on food imports to feed itself. The performance of the manufacturing sector has also been weak. It is hard to find a manufactured good with the label, "Made in Ghana." As Ghanaians often lament, "We don't produce anything; we import everything from tooth-picks to toilet paper." As a result, imports are surging dangerously out of control. Ghana farmers lose out in gold mining boom The situation is eerily reminiscent of Nigeria in the 1980s when the country neglected its agriculture and manufacturing base and splurged on luxury imports. Army chiefs parked Maseratis and even Lamborghinis outside plush government villas, while their children attended expensive schools in Britain. One even had his Rolls Royce flown from Britain to Nigeria. Nigeria, which used to export food in the 1960s, now spends over $120 billion [latest figure I found] on food imports while 61% of Nigerians now live in poverty. There are other bumps as well on Ghana's road to economic prosperity. The bloated size of the government suffocates the economy. In 1997, there were 88 cabinet and regional ministers plus their deputy ministers in a country with a population of 25 million. By 2004, the number had reached 92 but now down to 84. [The U.S., with a population of 300 million, has 40 secretaries and assistant secretaries.] Too many ministries means overlapping jurisdiction and functions and a bloated bureaucracy. Indeed, the Vice President, John Mahama, has been complaining persistently about "excessive bureaucracy and red-tapeism in the public sector" in the state-owned Daily Graphic. The public sector is riddled with overspending, wasteful practices and financial irregularities and profligacy. The situation has become so dire that the government consumes all it collects in revenue, leaving it with little or no savings to finance investments. For example, in 2011, total revenue stood at GH¢12 billion (or $7.5 billion) but general government expenditures added up to GH¢13 billion, leaving the government with negative savings. Can Africa break its 'resource curse'? However, the biggest hurdle when I was in the country was the high level of anxiety, tension and uncertainty about the December poll. In times of uncertainty, investors hold on to their wallets and the rich park their wealth outside the country. Capital flight and surging imports have evidently contributed to the sharp drop in the external value of the local currency. I left Ghana for the U.S. on July 21 and President Atta Mills passed away on July 24. Most likely, political tension in the country will abate somewhat as Ghanaians put away their differences to mourn their departed president. However, the uncertainty will resurface after the burial. While the new president, John Mahama, is respected and level-headed, he is unlikely to accomplish much before December. One wag has urged Ghanaians to vote for a "Non-John" in December. Since 1981, Ghana has had the following presidents: Jerry John Rawlings, John Kufuor, John Atta Mills, and now John Mahama. "Enough JOHNS. Haba! This is the worst form of name tribalism. Time for a revolution," the wag exclaims. Well, Ghanaians will decide in December. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of George B.N. Ayittey. Part of complete coverage on Marketplace Africa African sushi shakes up Japan Fish from the tiny mountain kingdom of Lesotho are served in top Tokyo sushi spots. Thrill-seekers head to Victoria Falls The world-famous waterfall is inspiring a local tourism boom as an increasing number of people is visiting Zimbabwe. Island paradise seeks beach-goers November 11, 2014 -- Updated 1007 GMT (1807 HKT) Seychelles needed more than pristine beaches and choral reefs to boost its once troubled tourism industry. Inside Africa's most creative city October 22, 2014 -- Updated 1026 GMT (1826 HKT) Abandoned workshops and empty warehouses are getting a new lease of life in Cape Town. From sheep skin to chic gloves Inside a glove factory on the outskirts of Addis Ababa, busy laborers turn patches of leather into these fashionable garments. Mogadishu gets first cash machine The Somali capital now has its first-ever ATM bank machine -- and it dispenses U.S. dollars. Inside 'world's fastest growing port' October 9, 2014 -- Updated 0911 GMT (1711 HKT) Waves lap at the ships as they pull into the Port of Ngqura, but no swell is stopping the local economy booming. Why bananas aren't just for eating... October 3, 2014 -- Updated 1524 GMT (2324 HKT) In Uganda, a group of landmine victims are using banana fiber to create rope, profit and community. Debit cards just got more personal What does it mean to be Nigerian? That's the question on the lips of many in Nigeria as new national identity cards are being rolled out. Africa's oil and gas: Boom or hype? Six of the top 10 global oil and gas discoveries last year were made in Africa -- but can these finds transform the continent? No cash, no cards - just a smartphone A South African app allows buyers to pay for goods using their phone, without having to worry about carrying cash or credit cards. Africa's super telescopes African astronomers want world-class observatories to inspire young scientists and build a tech economy. Zambia's answer to the iPad A Zambian computer tablet -- known as the ZEduPad -- is trying to open up the country's information highway. 5 African wines making a splash South Africa may be the dominant force in Africa's wine economy, but other countries are making inroads in the industry. Africa's mega projects October 10, 2013 -- Updated 0927 GMT (1727 HKT) A lack of infrastructure has hindered Africa's development, but a series of megaprojects could change that. See more Marketplace Africa Each week Marketplace Africa covers the continent's macro trends and interviews a major player from the region's business community.

时政

2014-52/4410/en_head.json.gz/4955

Opinion Illinois: The way not to fix a budget By Christian Schneider Oct. 21, 2011 Very rarely do we get to see exactly what our lives would look like had we made different choices. Would I be rich if I had studied more in college? Would I be happier if I had just asked Mary Beth out in high school? Was my attempt at bringing monocles back in style a wise choice? Fortunately, Wisconsin has the rare opportunity to see exactly what its life would be like had it not implemented the public employee benefit changes urged by Gov. Scott Walker last February. For a glimpse at the catastrophe Wisconsin avoided, its citizens simply need to look to their neighbors to the south. Before his re-election in 2010, Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn, faced with a monumental budget deficit, cut a deal with the state's public employee unions that promised zero layoffs in exchange for modest economic concessions. The union quickly endorsed Quinn's re-election effort, and he sailed to victory in November. It was a naked political maneuver and one that Quinn soon regretted. After passing a massive new tax increase, the state still didn't have enough money to operate. So Quinn proposed laying off 1,900 state workers and closing a handful of state institutions - a plan that was recently rejected by a state arbitrator, who ruled that Quinn was bound by the terms of his deal with the unions. To make things worse, Illinois' public pension system is in shambles, as state government hasn't put away nearly enough money to pay its employees' benefits. Currently, Illinois is last in the nation in funding its retirement system, setting aside only 38.3 cents for every dollar in pension benefits it promises its retirees. (Many experts recommend states set aside 80% of their retirement costs, at a minimum.) The state has $126.4 billion in pension liabilities and assets half that amount. (Despite Wisconsin's budget problems, its pension system is fully funded.) These runaway pension benefits have consequences for Illinois taxpayers. According to the Illinois Policy Institute, an average Chicago household in 2020 will have to pay $3,369 per year for local and state government-worker pension payouts - up 119% from the current $1,539. Pension costs in the next Illinois budget will total $4.2 billion, swallowing up nearly two-thirds of Quinn's recent prodigious tax increase. Things have gotten so bad that Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, in order to ameliorate a budget shortfall of up to $700 million next year, began proposing new rules to change the way overtime is granted for the city's public workers. Emanuel has also taken on the city's teachers unions, proposing a plan that would allow teachers bonus pay only if they accepted a longer school day. Of course, many of these problems will evaporate from Wisconsin, now that Walker's reforms are beginning to take shape. School districts are saving money without having to lay off staff merely by changing health care providers, which they couldn't do before. According to Stateline.org, Wisconsin is one of only 17 states that hasn't seen a loss in state and local employees between July 2008 and August 2011. It is a little odd that Wisconsin Democrats have chosen to head up the effort to recall Walker; if anything, Illinois has shown that the battle isn't between Republicans and Democrats - it is between unions and elected officials trying to manage their budgets. Walker was merely trying to corral out-of-control public-sector benefits in the same way governors of both parties are trying to do. In fact, federal employees can't collectively bargain for pay and benefits, and President Barack Obama hasn't lifted a finger to change that. For years, Greece has been the example used by political pundits to demonstrate the economic calamity brought on by generous government employment systems. Yet with the emergence of Illinois, those pundits can make their point here on American soil. Even the Greeks are saying "I'm glad we don't live in Joliet." Christian Schneider is a senior fellow at the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute.

时政

2014-52/4410/en_head.json.gz/5050

Business groups set for battle as minimum wage hearings get under way By November 19, 2012 at 12:54 PM New Jersey's business groups are boosting their efforts to stop a bill that would increase the state minimum wage to $8.50 an hour and link annual adjustments to the Consumer Price Index. While Senate President Stephen M. Sweeney (D-West Deptford) had proposed to accomplish those goals through a constitutional amendment — which would evade the looming veto pen of Gov. Chris Christie, but face even more intense opposition from the state's business associations — he recently agreed to support the Assembly-approved measure that will be considered in the Senate Budget and Appropriations Committee today.Kathleen A. Davis, executive vice president and chief operating officer of the Chamber of Commerce Southern New Jersey, said the legislative provision to automatically increase the minimum wage every year according to inflation is "still very troublesome to us," though she said "having the opportunity to have our thoughts and concerns weighed is certainly a better way to go than a 'yes or no' question going to voters to make this issue part of our constitution.""This is a very complex and far-reaching issue, so I think that going through the legislative process provides more opportunities for input from the business community in terms of what this increase will mean to them, especially to small businesses," Davis said.Davis said a January 2012 survey of the chamber's members found the top reason why businesses oppose the measure is the impact it would have on consumer prices, as any increase in labor costs would get passed on to customers and make a company's products and services less competitive.Some business groups have noted that the shore's tourism industry was hit hard by Hurricane Sandy, and argue the minimum wage increase would amount do a double blow, but Samia Bahsoun, a steering committee member at the small business group Main Street Alliance, made the opposite point, saying the extra income in low-wage workers' pockets would translate into new spending and help the economy."So the ripple effect of just this additional dollar… would tremendously impact small biz, and we know that we all need it here on the Jersey Shore," she said.According to the New Jersey Time to Care Coalition, which supports the bill sponsored by Assembly Speaker Sheila Y. Oliver (D-East Orange) and other Assembly members, if the minimum wage had kept pace with inflation since 1968, it would currently be more than $10 an hour, compared to the $7.25 an hour rate it is today.Oliver said lawmakers are capable of helping businesses and low-wage workers at the same time."We are going to be there for those business owners," she said. "We are going to be promulgating a variety of initiatives to help support them, and I do not believe that in order to support businesses that have been ravaged by Sandy it means that we cannot elevate the minimum wage for low income workers in this state."Oliver challenged her fellow legislators to pass the bill, noting that the state has in recent years provided numerous incentives to businesses and arguing "it is time to turn attention to the people that make business prosperous, and it is the people that work within those businesses."To voice its concerns to the Legislature, the chamber has joined a coalition of 11 state business groups led by the New Jersey Business & Industry Association to testify against the bill at today's Senate committee hearing.In her prepared testimony, Stefanie Riehl, NJBIA assistant vice president, said the coalition is especially concerned about the proposed minimum wage increase after witnessing Hurricane Sandy's impact on businesses, and hearing that "many of our employers are still focusing on making payroll and how they can make their workers whole following the losses they've incurred.""Thousands of employers have a long and difficult task in rebuilding their businesses and getting people back to work. Just getting back to where they were is going to be hard enough," Riehl said in a statement Friday. "Lawmakers shouldn't raise the bar even higher."Contributing: Jared Kaltwasser

时政

2014-52/4410/en_head.json.gz/5109

Alliance of American Jews to Demonstrate Against Israeli Draft NEW YORK, June 5, 2013 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Over a hundred thousand religious Jews from a broad alliance of communities will join this Sunday, June 9, 2013 at 4:00 p.m. in front of 26 Federal Plaza in NYC to protest against the recent decision by the Israeli government to force Orthodox Jews to serve in its army. The demonstration was called together by leading rabbis and rosh yeshivas (heads of religious schools) in New York and New Jersey. "Religious Jews are forbidden to serve in the Israeli army, and there are many good reasons for that," said Yirmiyahu Cohen, a spokesman for True Torah Jews. "First of all, our great rabbis ruled that it is forbidden to assist the State of Israel in any way, including fighting in its wars. Secondly, the Israeli army is known to be an environment of immorality and negligence of Jewish law, in utter contrast to the high standards of modesty and observance with which the ultra-Orthodox meticulously raise their children. Third, boys studying in religious schools would be forced to abandon their studies in their prime years. "The secular founders of the state knew that for the ultra-Orthodox, army service was unthinkable, and an agreement was reached 65 years ago under which all young men studying in religious schools would be exempt. Although this was far from ideal, since it effectively made it impossible for an Orthodox man to leave school and support his family, our brethren have managed to survive until now. But now, the Israelis wish to renege on their agreement and give all the Orthodox the choice of the army or prison. This is nothing less than anti-religious persecution, and we will stand by our brethren in the Holy Land until their full rights are restored," Cohen concluded. SOURCE True Torah Jews My News More by this Source True Torah Jews Media Availability View all news by True Torah Jews See more news releases in Religion Advocacy Group Opinion Domestic Policy Foreign Policy & International Affairs 2014

时政

2014-52/4410/en_head.json.gz/5134

Barbour, Huckabee Weighing Presidential Paths Steve Peoples Roll Call Staff March 7, 2011, Midnight File Photo They are men moving in different directions. Literally. Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour are among the top-tier Republican presidential prospects, but the past two weeks offered a sharp contrast in their levels of readiness, messaging and even physical health. Each separately faced off against the Washington, D.C., press corps over that time, and even before they uttered a word, it was clear who was more physically prepared for a run at the White House. Reporters couldn’t help but notice that Barbour had trimmed down, while Huckabee appeared to be expanding. After a meeting with about two dozen journalists last week arranged by the Christian Science Monitor, Huckabee was asked how much weight he needs to lose to run for president, and he sheepishly replied, “About 30 pounds.” A week later, Barbour was asked about his apparent fitness while chatting with a gaggle of reporters after a speech at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. “I have lost a little weight and I certainly needed to. And hopefully I can lose some more,” Barbour said quite seriously. (Huckabee famously dropped 100 pounds in an anti-obesity campaign as governor.) The Republican primary, of course, will not be decided by a scale. But physical appearance has played a significant role in presidential politics since John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon met in the first televised debate more than five decades ago. The weight issue is just one sign that suggests Barbour is on the verge of jumping into the presidential contest, while Huckabee, who insists he is seriously considering a bid, is content to enjoy his well-paid role as a television personality and author, at least for now. On paper there is little doubt that Huckabee has a significant advantage. He was the first choice of 25 percent of likely GOP primary voters in a recent NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, thanks in part to his close finish and Iowa caucuses victory in 2008. Only former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney was in Huckabee’s ballpark, earning 21 percent. Barbour barely made the list with less than 1 percent. Eye on the Dough While Huckabee, an ordained Southern Baptist minister, has demonstrated an ability to capture the hearts of cultural conservatives, Barbour could be better positioned to tap into their wallets. He is known as a prolific fundraiser from his days leading the Republican National Committee and Republican Governors Association. Barbour also has been more active in building an organization of grass-roots activists in the key early states, while Huckabee appears to be largely focused on his book tour and paid role with Fox News.

时政

2014-52/4410/en_head.json.gz/5181

Murphy: No reason for lawmakers to fear NRA U.S. Sen. Chris Murphy said Monday the National Rifle Association isn't as powerful as it used to be and Congress shouldn't fear going forward with a vote in favor of gun control.Murphy said numerous polls demonstrate that NRA leaders are out of step with NRA members and Americans.There will "probably be more (reports) to continue to make the case to lawmakers that they don't need to listen to members of the NRA, they need to listen to the American public and what gun owners really believe, not what the NRA tells Congress people believe," Murphy said Monday during a conference call.Murphy said there are a lot of Democratic and Republican legislators "who want to do the right thing when it comes to passing gun legislation.""They know the atmosphere changed after Sandy Hook and yet still are left with the political impact question of going up against the NRA," he said.Some memebrs of the Connecticut congressional delegation are optimistic about implementing universal background checks and limits to high-capacity magazines. Whether any gun control legislation will pass through a Republican-controlled House is questionable. A representative of the Coalition of Connecticut Sportsmen said Monday that Connecticut sportsmen don't think it's likely and that gun control should be done at the state level.Recently, NRA leadership has changed its stance on background checks.In 1999, the executive vice president of the NRA, Wayne LaPierre, testified before the House Judiciary Committee and said, "We think it is reasonable to provide mandatory, instant criminal background checks for every sale at every gun show. No loopholes anywhere for anyone."But last month when asked by Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., whether he still supported mandatory background checks in all instances at gun shows, LaPierre said, "We do not, because the fact is, the law right now is a failure the way it's working."He said those who try to purchase a gun and are denied are generally not prosecuted."They are walking the streets," he said.However, there have been more than 100 million National Instant Criminal Background checks in the last decade, leading to more than 700,000 denials, according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation's website. The system is designed to prevent criminals and other ineligible people from purchasing firearms.Robert Crook, an NRA member who is the executive director of the Coalition of Connecticut Sportsmen, said instant background checks are normally done at gun shows in Connecticut. They take two minutes to two days, are processed by the state police and check multiple databases, he said."No gun is sold here at a gun show in Connecticut without instant gun (background) check approval, so we are tight," Crook said.But there is room for additional tightening in Connecticut, Crook said, which he admits the NRA would be opposed to.During a "casual sale" or a sale between two individuals, an instant background check is voluntary."One of our proposals is to make that mandatory," he said.Crook said he would be in favor of universal instant background checks. However, he would question any additional background checks that might be more time-intensive, he said.Crook said he is focused on what Connecticut needs and is not bound by what the NRA says.Seventy-four percent of NRA members support criminal background checks for anyone purchasing a gun, according to a 2012 survey by Mayors Against Illegal Guns. Just last month, the Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health reported that 84 percent of gun owners supported universal background checks for all gun sales."After dozens of mass shooting the NRA (leadership) has moved to the fringe," Murphy said.He said he thinks it is because of the increasing contributions from manufacturers.Since 2005, 74 percent of the funds contributed to the NRA were from "corporate partners" such as members from the firearms industry, according to a 2011 report titled Blood Money by the Violence Policy Center.Crook said there was nothing wrong with the gun manufacturing industry donating to the NRA. Any national organization is funded partially by the industry they represent, he said.Although Crook and his organization disagree with the NRA when it comes to instant background checks for "casual sales," overall "they do a bang-up job in Washington," he said.The job of the NRA leadership in Washington is to protect the Second Amendment nationwide, he said. From there it should be up to every state to determine what gun control laws it wants and doesn't want, he said.On the federal level, Crook said he didn't think universal background checks, high-capacity magazine limits or an assault weapons ban would be passed."The assault weapons ban here in Connecticut, it has accomplished nothing, it has failed on the federal level. … Why pass another one?" he said.The ban is not relative to crime, it keeps assault weapons out of the hands of law-abiding citizens and in the hands of criminals, he said.Murphy said he was optimistic about universal background checks and limits on high-capacity magazines."If we pass a bill in the Senate … it will be difficult for those in the House to sit on their hands," Murphy said.There is real political danger if they don't vote, he said.For example, in the 2012 election cycle, of 16 U.S. Senate races in 2012, the NRA lost 13, according to one of Murphy's reports."You were better off to be against NRA than with it," Murphy said about the 2012 Senate races.President Barack Obama has also listed concrete recommendations and there is no mystery to what he supports, Murphy said. In Obama's State of the Union speech, he said Newtown community members deserved a "vote" on gun control. "Commonsense reform" including background checks, preventing anyone from buying guns for resale to criminals and limits to high-capacity magazines are some of the proposals on the table, Obama said."The president and vice president aren't backing down," Murphy said.Vice President Joe Biden is scheduled to be at Western Connecticut State University in Danbury on Thursday to discuss the federal efforts to reduce gun violence.j.somers@theday.com Murphy talks economy, Social Security, but New London crowd dwells on gun control Gun-check support builds

时政

2014-52/4410/en_head.json.gz/5182

Published May 15. 2013 4:00AMUpdated May 15. 2013 6:17PM Hartford - House Speaker Brendan Sharkey and members of the Municipal Opportunities Regional Efficiencies Commission want to lower the vehicle property tax rate beginning next year."The local motor vehicle property tax is the most regressive tax on the books, so we would like to put in place a plan beginning next year that will start to ratchet down mill rates on cars," Sharkey, D-Hamden, said in an email.After Gov. Dannel P. Malloy proposed phasing out the vehicle property tax starting July 1 of this year, municipal leaders protested, saying they would lose $633 million in annual revenue. In response, the Finance, Bonding and Revenue Committee pushed the vehicle property tax issue back to 2018 in a bill that passed out of committee last month.However, the MORE Commission, which was re-established this year by Sharkey and is tasked with saving taxpayers money and creating municipal efficiencies, has continued working on the car tax and related municipal tax issues.Starting July 1, 2014, no municipality would be able to raise its tax rate for motor vehicles above 80 mills, according to a proposal from the commission's Municipal Tax Authority working group. For the following fiscal year, starting July 1, 2015, no municipality would be able to raise the rate above 72 mills. As of now, motor vehicle property tax rates range from 10.2 mills in Salisbury to 74.29 mills in Hartford.The tax rate would be reduced gradually until it declines to zero in 2023, according to the proposal. Towns that are already at the rate on the scale for a specific year would not have to modify until the following year. For example, Groton's tax rate, 20.22 mills, would not have to decrease until July 1, 2021, because the tax rate would not be pushed below 20.22 mills until then, according to the proposal.To make up for the loss in revenue to municipalities, the proposal calls for the state to set up a Municipal Reimbursement and Revenue Account. Fees collected from the registration of antique, rare and special-interest motor vehicles would be deposited into this account.Currently, the registration fee for antique or Early American vehicles is $80 every two years, according to the Department of Motor Vehicles website. In fiscal year 2012, $2.3 million was collected from registrations of Early American vehicles, said Ernie Bertothy, spokesman for the DMV. Another $63,638 was collected from a one-time $7 fee for purchasing the Early American license plate, he said.Owners of such vehicles benefit because now, a vehicle registered as an antique can't be assessed at more than $500 for tax purposes, said working group chairman and state Rep. Jeffrey Berger, D-Waterbury. This would change as of Oct. 1, 2015, when antique vehicles could be assessed at values up to $2,500, according to the proposal.The state currently has 51,094 registered Early American vehicles, Bertothy said. Under the proposal, the definition of an Early American vehicle - currently, one that is at least 20 years old - would change on Oct. 1, 2015, to reduce the number of vehicles eligible for this tax break. After that date, the vehicle would need to be at least 30 years old. This would reduce the number of qualifying vehicles to about 40,000, Berger said.Once the overall motor vehicle property tax rate reaches zero, Berger said, the plan would be to eliminate the supplement to municipalities from the antique car registration fee or to come up with a new supplement."The governor created the discussion and the speaker was supportive of the idea, but wants to look at a way where revenue could be distributed back and slowly weaned off over time," Berger said.Stonington tax collector Gisela Harma, who participated in the working group, said the leaders originally considered having the same tax rate across the state, but dropped that idea.She said she is unsure whether elminating the vehicle tax would ever happen. She said she recognized that lowering the vehicle property tax means replacing the tax with something else.We will have to "replace revenue with some other form of taxation," Harma said. But the commission wants time to look at how to do that, she said.j.somers@theday.com City, town leaders fight for car tax Seeking new ways to help towns, cities State lawmakers urged to scrap car tax proposal Local leaders speak out against Malloy budget

时政

2014-52/4410/en_head.json.gz/5185

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

时政

2014-52/4410/en_head.json.gz/5255

A 'Nation' of people is recognised as a sovereign nation by its Constitutional name and/or its Head of State. Therefore Australia as yet is not a sovereign Nation in that sense for its Head of State is other than an 'Australian'. The GM is officially merely a representative of that Head of State.Many countries in the former British Commonwealth, on gaining their independence renamed themselves Republics, it seems without the so much of soul searching that Australia is going through now. The historic and emotional association with the British Crown is, it seems neatly solved by the Queen of Britain retaining her position as head of the "Nations" of Commonwealth. A win-win situation if ever there was.Canada is equally neatly treading its path to a sovereign nationhood by changing its flag. This seems to be the correct first step for Australia to take to prepare its people to consider themselves as sovereign nation without the Union Jack.

时政

2014-52/4410/en_head.json.gz/5266

sam stein stephanie schriock terry o'neill ambien maxperks obama land stonewall jackson president joe biden. we're all part of this. they were shouting we're in this together and we're going to act together and we're going to try to open dialogue with those who would be our enemies abroad. we're not looking for another war this time and under this president we're looking for a way to avoid one. because these wars as we've all learned the hard way are a lot easier to start than to finish. let's start with this astounding presidential embrace of the ongoing american revolution from lexington and concord to seneca falls, selma, and stonewall. sam stein covers politics for "the huffington post," and stephanie schriock is president of emily's list. let's start with the message of inclusion and community in the president's address yesterday. many have noticed his preference for three iconic places with historic significance in the fight for american rights. let me run through them. first, seneca falls, new york, where in 1848 elizabeth cady stanton and others led a historic convention dedicated to women's rights which later led to a women's right to vote, of course. selma, alab Search Results 0 to 1 of about 2 (some duplicates have been removed)

时政

2014-52/4410/en_head.json.gz/5289

Secretary Clinton Meets With New Zealand Foreign Minister McCully Posted by DipNote Bloggers May 18, 2011 Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton met today with New Zealand Foreign Minister Murray McCully at the Department of State in Washington, DC. The Secretary and Foreign Minister discussed recent developments in Afghanistan and the Middle East, cooperation in the Asia Pacific region, and the response to the Christchurch earthquake. Secretary Clinton said: "It's a real pleasure for me to welcome Foreign Minister McCully to the State Department and to return, in some small measure, the wonderful hospitality that I and my team enjoyed when we visited New Zealand late last year. And I know that President Obama is looking forward to welcoming Prime Minister Key to the Oval Office later this summer. "Today our two nations are united by shared history, common values, and strong bonds of mutual interest and respect. We've made remarkable progress in a short period of time in strengthening our relationship, one that I think it's fair to say was frozen for about 25 years and we've moved beyond the old challenges and are looking to work together on the many issues that unite us. So I always look forward to meeting with Murray to go over where we are and where we are headed together. "There are so many important areas where we are cooperating. We're both deeply committed to building a more peaceful and prosperous future for the Asia Pacific. We covered a wide range of matters today in the spirit of cooperation and of the Wellington Declaration that we signed. And I just glanced over there, and I think we are signing it there. "We reviewed where we are in Afghanistan. New Zealand has done an exemplary job in leading the Provincial Reconstruction Team in Bamiyan and has also contributed so much elsewhere in Afghanistan. And we greatly appreciate the service and sacrifice of our Kiwi friends. This is going to be especially important since Bamiyan will be one of the first provinces to undergo transition. And we're going to look to New Zealand to give us a lot of insight as to how that is proceeding. "We discussed developments in the Middle East. The courage of people in Egypt, Tunisia and elsewhere to stand up for their universal rights has inspired Americans and Kiwis alike. And we're working together to support these emerging democracies. And I welcome New Zealand's decision to contribute to the International Federation of the Red Cross to respond to the humanitarian needs of the Libyan people. "We looked ahead to the East Asia summit where President Obama will participate for the first time, and the United States will send our largest, most senior delegation ever to the Pacific Island Forum in New Zealand later this year. We talked about developments in Fiji, and both New Zealand and the United States agree that the military junta must take steps to return Fiji to democracy. And we agree on the importance of pursuing negotiations on the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which will provide a free trade agreement for nine countries across the region, including both of ours. We're making steady progress on this. We hope to be able to have the negotiations complete by the time we all meet in Hawaii for APEC toward the end of this year. "So on these and so many other fronts, from curbing climate change to combating nuclear proliferation, we are really joined in common goals and their pursuit. We feel a deep kinship and a very strong friendship. "And that is why we responded in solidarity when New Zealand faced the devastation of the Christchurch earthquake this last February. I saw firsthand the beauty of Christchurch when I was there in November during my visit, and it was heartbreaking to see the pictures of destruction. We also had a team there led by Assistant Secretary Kurt Campbell and distinguished Americans who were in the middle of a meeting to really deepen and broaden our cooperation with our friends. The United States sent a search and rescue team. They worked side by side. I think there is a photo up there with their Kiwi counterparts in very difficult conditions. And the American public has responded very generously. "The American Friends of Christchurch, some of whom are here today, organized a relief effort to assist with earthquake recovery. We have representatives from the United States business community, the foreign policy community, as well as many private citizens. This is chaired by Dr. Peter Watson and Senator Evan Bayh, along with Assistant Secretary Campbell and our ambassador to New Zealand, David Huebner. We have many people across our country who love New Zealand, who have personal experience with your country, Minister, and want to stand side by side in solidarity with you as you do what is necessary to recover that beautiful city and make sure that the people there know that they are not alone. So thank you very much for being here and being such a wonderful colleague in our work together." You can read the Secretary's full remarks with the Foreign Minister here. South Korea May 18, 2011 Palgye in South Korea writes Americans living in Korea and continued to meet to try to maintain, for some reason, difficult. st i. | United States May 18, 2011 S.K. in the U.S.A. writes: Valuable information and excellent design you got here! I would like to thank you for sharing your thoughts into the stuff you post!! Thumbs up! Previous: Secretary Clinton Meets With EU High Representative Ashton »« Next: Senior Officials Gather in Montana for APEC Meetings . Top stories delivered to your inbox. East Asia and Pacific South and Central Asia Domestic Global View more stories in this area » New Zealand 28 Afghanistan 135 APEC 12 Latest Stories Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review Writing for the U.S. Department of State DipNote blog, DipNote Bloggers highlight U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton's remarks… more 3 A New Moment of Promise Writing for the U.S. Department of State DipNote blog, Shanique Streete, an intern serving at the U.S. Embassy in Accra,… more 2 Pacific Partnership: Acts of Kindness Make the Mission Writing for the U.S. Department of State DipNote blog, Tom Weinz reflects on the impact of Pacific Partnership 2009 medical… more 2

时政

2014-52/4410/en_head.json.gz/5455

See show times » September 23rd, 2012 09:41 AM ET Clinton: Election will be 'action forcing event' for WashingtonPosted byCNN's Josh Levs (CNN) – Former President Bill Clinton believes the presidential election will end a "logjam" in Washington, and usher in years of productivity. In an interview broadcast Sunday on CNN's "Fareed Zakaria GPS," Clinton said there's a need for "an action forcing event." – Follow the Ticker on Twitter: @PoliticalTicker – Check out the CNN Electoral Map and Calculator and game out your own strategy for November. During his presidency, it came in the form of government shutdowns, after which "we began to work together and we had five good years working together," he said. "We really haven't had an action forcing event like that. I believe the election will be that event. I expect the president to win. And I think if he does, after this happens, then you will see the logjam begin to break." "I think it will strengthen the hand of, for example, Speaker (John) Boehner, who would make an agreement if the most right-wing of his caucus would let him. I think they will have to think about the consequences of not doing that. I think the same thing will happen in the Senate. I think you will see the gravitational forces of American politics pushing us toward an agreement on the budget and a number of other things." While he expects Obama to win, Clinton cautioned that getting some of the president's key support constituencies to the polls could be a challenge. In 2008, Obama "won an enormous victory among people under 30. But they are disproportionately likely now to be unemployed or stuck in part-time jobs, to be frustrated. I think for all kinds of reasons, they're unlikely to vote in large numbers for Governor Romney, but will they vote?" The former president also took aim at controversial measures impacting advanced voting. He called reduction of the advanced voting schedule in Florida "an arrow aimed straight at the heart of the African-American churches, who pull up the church buses on the Sunday before the election and take elderly people who have no cars or people who are disabled to the polls so they can vote." He also cited efforts to change early voting procedures in Ohio. Officials in both states have denied partisan motives for the changes. Clinton also weighed in on Obama's handling of Iran, amid call from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for the United States to draw a clear "red line" for Iran's nuclear program. "I think the president's desire to keep his public options open is the correct course at this time. I think that when you say something in public, whatever it is, one of two things happens when the people call you on what you said. You've either got to do something about it and deal with, perhaps, unintended negative consequences, or you don't and people think you're weaker. Better to have them wonder what you're going to do and communicate privately in more explicit terms." ALSO SEE: Clinton: '47 percent' comments put 'heavier burden' on Romney in debates Watch Fareed Zakaria GPS Sundays at 10am and 1pm ET. For the latest from Fareed Zakaria GPS click here. Filed under: 2012 • Bill Clinton • TV-Fareed Zakaria GPS I see no enthusiasm from the average democrat on voting for Obama again. Lots of people will just stay home. That is Romney's advantage September 23, 2012 12:09 pm at 12:09 pm | Johnny While I generally agree with President Clinton...I think Republucans will be even less cooperative in a second Obama term. September 23, 2012 12:13 pm at 12:13 pm | Are you kidding me? I certainly hope it is. We saw action and progress when the dems were in full control of the ship. They had a lot accomplished in comparison to the 2010 congress. As a republican I want our elected officials to work in food faith – not cryin to fox news when they do not get their way. I want to see a broom to take out the obstructionists. September 23, 2012 12:14 pm at 12:14 pm | CBR Saw interview with Mr. Clinton on CBS this morning. He is not afraid to speak out and to seek out folks form both sides of the aisle. His role as a former president does give him access to many more people. Like Jimmy Carter before him he is using his status as an ex-president to get things done. September 23, 2012 12:18 pm at 12:18 pm | Melissa Mickey, because anyone with a brain doesn't care that he slept with some woman in the oval office. He isn't a felon, he lied about sleeping with someone. Get over yourself. When Clinton left office, this country was in the black and paying off its bills. There was a massive economic expansion, and the lowest unemployment in 30 years. Bush successfully reversed that in less than a year. You need to learn from history, not ignore it just because it doesn't fit your ideals. September 23, 2012 12:21 pm at 12:21 pm | Philip Bill understands politics and the BIG picture. I hope he takes sn active policy position in the next administration. September 23, 2012 12:22 pm at 12:22 pm | stranger in an increasingly strange land If the 47%ers are chattering, as Ann Romney says, it must be annoying for the more worthy people. All that noise coming from the workers hovels might disturb "Those Who Must Be Obeyed" while they are about their more worthy persuits, like sending jobs overseas or closing factories and throwing more folks into the 47%. The gilded people can't even get away from the noise. Without 47%ers, there would be no one to cook, clean, maintain the gardens, polish the Mercedesand Rolls, provide massages or raise the children. Thank good ness there are private schools so the progeny of the worthier classes are shown that they are, indeed, much better than the lower classes by birthright September 23, 2012 12:34 pm at 12:34 pm | JohnRJohnson Mickey –– Getting impeached doesn't make you a felon. The impeachment of Bill Clinton was a travesty and circus of hypocrisy. At the same time Republicans in Congress were going after Clinton's dalliance with Ms. Lewinsky, Henry Hyde and Newt Gingrich were both having full-blown affairs. Clinton should NEVER have been asked about his private affairs under oath, and he should have refused to answer Ken Starr's questions about them. Instead, he chose to play word-games and he paid for that. In any case, I would like you to name one president (other than Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford and George H. W. Bush) who didn't have affairs of some kind. Clinton did plenty for Arkansas while governor, including lifting its educational system out of the 19th century. September 23, 2012 12:38 pm at 12:38 pm | RudyG Bill; I'm starting to believe the ONLY reason you are stumping so hard for this man who you don't even like or agree with on most issues is that it will be much easier for Hillary to run for president after an Obama 2nd term than after a Romney 1st term!! September 23, 2012 12:40 pm at 12:40 pm | DL If Republicans aren't defeated across the board we will have four years of gridlock and nothing. These people won't work with anybody so there just isn't any point in them being there, period. If Republicans win, they will attempt their tax breaks for the rich, gut the schools and social programs including medicare and ss, and are proposing 10 trillion in spending for military. That's 15 trillion Mitts adding to the debt before he even starts, so all these GOP'ers whining about spending, are following the Bush doctrine again, spending and refusing to pay the bill..it won't work folks. September 23, 2012 12:40 pm at 12:40 pm | Jello I agree with the statements that there will be gridlock again if they don't vote out the non-action contenders. Enough of the Norquist loyalty - and do what is best for the people. Otherwise, people really need to vote their reps out.... September 23, 2012 12:49 pm at 12:49 pm | Gimmeabreak! That "action forcing event" will be the Romney-Ryan election. There's just no way that anyone in that voting booth, who stops to think back for just 30 seconds, will possibly re-elect Obama. His magic is gone, the reality of his failure looms. Romney may not be "cool," but most of us don't care one iota about that - most of us are pretty sure Romney will ensure what we need most - JOBS and SPENDING CUTS. Other than that, we all can do very nicely without seeing a publicity-seeking narcissist invade our TV screen every night, the way Obama has! Geeze, I'm sick of seeing his "cool" lyin' mug! September 23, 2012 12:56 pm at 12:56 pm | Carlin123 90 million Americans DON'T VOTE. what does that say about our choice for president? September 23, 2012 12:57 pm at 12:57 pm | Ed1 The logjam was created by your parties overspending and no leadership. The people that were elected in 2010 was elected to stop all this out of control spending and failed polices remember your party had control of both houses for the first two years and all the could do was ram bill after bill down our throats the the majority of the voters didn't want and throw good money after bad. You seem to have left that part out I wonder why. Nothing but acting like Obama and playing the blame game for your President who still doesn't have a clue along with a lot of stupid people out there. September 23, 2012 12:57 pm at 12:57 pm | Dan Yea! Obama's done a great job(right). Clintons' so two faced he can see front and back at the same time. Talk about not caring about the country! September 23, 2012 01:02 pm at 1:02 pm | DC Observer This is political nonsense and double talk - The action forcing event is the election of a President that moves the country to a balanced budget amendment which would force the US government to only soend what they have - and to restrict the country's debt to a percentage of GDP - the only candidate with this plan is Mitt Romney. Obama is clever and speaks eloquently and convincingly to the naieve and ill informaed, but Obama's plan is simply for wealth redistribution in a socialisting government -– this is what he has constantly proposed and advocated –cleverly hiding it and cloaking it in words like "fair share" "ba;anced approach" and so forth. Obama is not creating jobs or growing the country, he is merely trying to take from the wealthy and redistribute to the needy - this cannot work and will not work. The solutions is very simple - live within your means and grow jobs. Obama has failed miseraBLY ON THAT FRONT Everyone in DC knows that Bill Clinton still believes Obama is a complete fake and "fairy tale. But, Bill wants Obama to win so that Hillary can run in 2016 and would not have to run against a Republican incumbent. That the only reasson Bill has been so vocal and public during this campaign - you do not see any other President out there do you? The reason – Ex presidents do not do this sort of thing September 23, 2012 01:06 pm at 1:06 pm | Indy With nothing to loose Obama will not take any more crap from Republicans that want to keep the economy hostage and things will get done in a second term September 23, 2012 01:09 pm at 1:09 pm | Jules The Republicans need to be defeated across the board so they move back away from the far right so we see some decent candidates come out of that group. The only GOP candidate I could have thought about voting for was John Huntsman and then I would have had to hear a lot more from him. The rest, including Romney, the weakest group of candidates ever. September 23, 2012 01:11 pm at 1:11 pm | Anonymous Melissa, you're narrow minded. The expansion wasn't all to Clinton's credit, but he did do a great job with the surplus funds given to him with an expanding economy. The main fall of the economy was due to banking and investment regulations enacted during the Clinton presidency, and the recession was predicted at that time. The second major contributor to the recession was Democrats Frank and Dodd's "everyone should own a home" policy. Most people forget the economy was contracting when Bush took office, because he mentioned it once and then went on to do his job and didn't blame Clinton for 3 1/2 years. The economy goes in cycles and always will. During the Bush presidency we were attacked and no one could have responded better than he did at the time. Going into Iraq is another matter, not a wise decision. Bush was perfect in what he did and neither is Obama. But work with and understand the facts before assuming you know and understand a complex matter. September 23, 2012 01:12 pm at 1:12 pm | NameGuest Obama's spending plan does not work. What part about going bankrupt don't you understand? As for gutting the schools, dems have already done that. Did u know only 15 percent of Chicago 4th graders are proficient in reading? If we continue to let government take over basic services we will never get out of the hole and get sucked into a vortex of mediocrity and weakness. Clinton is totally trying to position for hillary but will take the whole country down in their quest for power. September 23, 2012 01:12 pm at 1:12 pm | Puddin I believe Hillary Clinton has a mind of her own. She has said she will be out of politics after one term as Secretary of State, and I take her at her word. It is a "woman's privilege to change her mind," and I believe if she does that and does run in 2016, it will be her decsion and not her hustand's. The word is (even from Republicans) that she has done a great job as Secty. of State and is well-respected by both parties. My thinking is, after she gets a good rest for awhile, she will be working with women in poorer countries to help them make a living for themselves. I wish her the best in whatever she decides. September 23, 2012 01:12 pm at 1:12 pm | Namemetron More lies from the DNC. Can't trust them. September 23, 2012 01:16 pm at 1:16 pm | Larry of Massachusetts The only way for this country to get back on track is for the election of a President that moves the country to a balanced budget amendment which would force the US government to only spend what they have – and to restrict the country's debt to a percentage of GDP – the only candidate with this plan is Mitt Romney. Obama is clever and speaks eloquently and convincingly to the naive and ill informed, but Obama's plan is simply for wealth redistribution in a socialistic government -– this is what he has constantly proposed and advocated –cleverly hiding it and cloaking it in words like "fair share" or "balanced approach" or “the wealth paying their fair share” and so forth. Obama is not creating jobs or growing the country, he is merely trying to take from the wealthy and redistribute to the needy – this cannot work and will not work because the country is not growing with new jobs and higher GDP. Obama’s plan will put the nation into a terrible Depression that would last for decades and ruin the lives of countless millions and leave our children in debt and living as paupers. The solutions are very simple – the government must live within its means and the nation must grow jobs. Obama has failed miserably on both these fronts. September 23, 2012 01:16 pm at 1:16 pm | Kr55 Republican's said their only goal in the last couple years was to deny Obama a 2nd term. If he gets the 2nd term, they no longer can have that goal and will actually have to do real work again. If Romney wins, I see, at the least constant filibustering in the senate by the dems because the Republicans will have get the precedent that obstructionism is a good strategy to get the guy you want into the white house. September 23, 2012 01:23 pm at 1:23 pm | « Previous

时政

2014-52/4410/en_head.json.gz/5477

Taliban says they know where bin Laden is hiding LAURA KINGAssociated Press Published Monday, October 01, 2001 ISLAMABAD, Pakistan -- Under threat of U.S. military strikes, Afghanistan's hard-line Taliban rulers said explicitly for the first time Sunday that Osama bin Laden is still in the country and they know where his hide-out is. But the president of Pakistan, which has been appealing to the Taliban to resolve the crisis with the United States, said hopes were "very dim" that the Taliban would surrender bin Laden. Taliban supreme leader Mullah Mohammed Omar took a hard stance in a radio address Sunday, telling Afghans not to fear U.S. strikes, because "Americans don't have the courage to come here." Meanwhile, fierce fighting was reported in the jagged mountains of northern Afghanistan. Rebel guerrillas said they had seized a district from Taliban troops, while the Taliban said at least a dozen opposition soldiers were killed and several hurt in a blast at a base north of Kabul. In the Afghan capital, the trial of eight foreign aid workers charged with preaching Christianity resumed for the first time since the Sept. 11 terror attacks in the United States. The top judge in the trial, Noor Mohammed Saqib, told the workers -- who include two Americans -- the threat of U.S. military action would not affect their case. Since the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the Taliban have given varying accounts of their dealings with bin Laden, the United States' top suspect in the attacks. U.S. officials say bin Laden, who has been sheltered in Afghanistan since 1996, presides over a terrorist network known as al-Qaida, or "the base." Initially, the Afghan rulers said they didn't know where to find bin Laden. Then, last week, they said they had been able to deliver a message to him, a week-old request from the country's top clerics that he leave Afghanistan voluntarily. On Sunday, the Afghan ambassador in neighboring Pakistan said bin Laden was hidden away for his own protection at a site inside Afghanistan known only to top Taliban security officials. "He's in Afghanistan. He is under our control," the envoy, Abdul Salam Zaeef, told a journalists in Islamabad. "He's in a place which cannot be located by anyone." Zaeef said the Taliban, who have rejected a series of appeals to hand over bin Laden and avert a military confrontation, were willing to talk. "We are thinking of negotiation," he said, adding that if direct evidence against bin Laden were produced, "it might change things." That met with a crisp rebuff from Washington. "The president has said we're not negotiating," White House chief of staff Andrew Card said on Fox News Sunday. Card said the Taliban had worked closely with bin Laden and "clearly it is not right." "They cannot be a party to these terrorist acts and if they are going to continue to be a party to the terrorist acts, they should not be in power," Card said. Omar, the Taliban leader, denied any role in the terrorist attacks and blamed them on unspecified U.S. policies in an interview with Taliban-run Kabul Radio. He repeatedly warned the United States to "think and think again" about attacking Afghanistan. Pakistan's president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, told CNN that hopes that the Taliban will hand over bin Laden and accede to other U.S. demands are "very dim." Pakistani contacts have not succeeded "in moderating their views on the surrender of Osama bin Laden," he told CNN. Pakistan has lent its backing to the United States in the confrontation over bin Laden, but outbursts of anti-American sentiment have the government worried. At a rally near the volatile border city of Peshawar on Monday, a prominent Pakistani cleric told hundreds of followers to kill any American they can find if Afghanistan comes under attack. The threat of military confrontation has hung over the case of the eight foreign aid workers -- two Americans, two Australians, and four Germans. Relatives of the workers followed the resumption of the trial Sunday from Pakistan. Deborah Oddy, the mother of one of the Americans, said her daughter, Heather Mercer, had written a letter Sept. 25 asking that any U.S. retaliation wait until the workers had been freed. "All eight of us want to live," she wrote. The Taliban also sent a special team to the northeastern city of Jalalabad to investigate a British journalist arrested Friday after sneaking into Afghanistan. The Afghan Islamic Press said the team wanted to determine if Yvonne Ridley, 43, a reporter for the Sunday Express of London, was a spy. The Taliban, meanwhile, were cracking down on any of their own citizens thought to sympathize with the enemy. Taliban authorities, in a statement distributed by the Afghan Islamic Press, said six men were arrested for distributing pamphlets supporting the United States and Afghanistan's exiled king -- a crime that could be punishable by death. Top clerics from three provinces also issued an edict Sunday saying any Afghan believed to sympathize with the United States or the former king should be heavily fined and have their house burned down. The United Nations this weekend began delivering its first shipments of food and other emergency humanitarian supplies since the Sept. 11 attacks. A convoy of trucks carrying more than 200 tons of wheat left Pakistan for Kabul on Sunday. Other supplies headed Saturday for opposition-controlled territory. In the latest fighting in Afghanistan's north, the rebel alliance claimed it had captured the Taliban-controlled Qadis district in the northeast. Alliance spokesman Mohammed Habil, reached by telephone, claimed 30 Taliban soldiers and their commander were captured, and another 120 Taliban troops had defected to the rebels. Taliban radio, in turn, said at least 12 rebel soldiers died and several were wounded in an explosion at a military base in Baghram, 36 miles north of Kabul. Neither side had any immediate comment on the other's claims. ISLAMABAD AFGHANISTAN AMBASSADOR PERSON COMMUNICATION AND MEETINGS OSAMA BIN LADEN JUDGE KABUL AL-QAEDA TERRORIST NETWORK JALALABAD AFGHAN ISLAMIC PRESS WHITE HOUSE LEADER TALIBAN HEATHER MERCER ABDUL SALAM ZAEEF MOHAMMED OMAR YVONNE RIDLEY PERVEZ MUSHARRAF LONDON Desktop Minimum Recommended Screen Resolution is 1024x768

时政

2014-52/4410/en_head.json.gz/5520

Home > Press Room > Press Releases and Statements > 2008 > AILA Applauds a Glimmer of Common Legislative Sense AILA Applauds a Glimmer of Common Legislative Sense Cite as "AILA InfoNet Doc. No. 08050160 (posted May. 1, 2008)" FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: George Tzamaras WASHINGTON D.C. - The American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) applauds Representatives Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) and James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) for introducing bipartisan bill H.R. 5882, to "recapture" employment-based and family-based green cards that Congress authorized in the past, but went unused before the end of the fiscal year, because of government processing delays. "Chairwoman Lofgren and Congressman Sensenbrenner are exhibiting common sense and sensible legislative leadership during difficult times by recognizing the enormous strain that green card backlogs have placed on U.S. families, businesses and the economy," said AILA President Kathleen Campbell Walker. "Recapturing unused, already authorized green card numbers wasted due to bureaucratic processing delays is a very simple temporary measure that Congress should be able to enact this year." As background, Congress set a 140,000 annual quota on employment-based green cards back in 1990. This number includes not only the sponsored worker, but also any immediate family members who accompany that person to the U.S. This allocation method means that U.S. employers are restricted to sponsoring only about 50,000-60,000 green cards for actual workers per year. In past years, only 226,000 family-based visas have been available ? far too few to ensure that family members can reunite with their relatives in a timely way. On top of these unrealistic quotas for family-based and employment-based visas, government processing delays have resulted in green cards going unused in a given year, as the law currently does not provide for any "carry forward" system to preserve the unused green card numbers. This legislation, if passed, would restore unused employment-based green card numbers for use by U.S. employers to retain highly educated workers and restore unused family visas to allow families to reunite with their relatives more quickly. Backlogs in our current green card system are well documented, with some foreign-born professionals now facing a wait of five to 10 years to receive a permanent resident visa, while some family members are forced to wait decades to reunite with their relatives. "The visa recapture proposal introduced by Lofgren and Sensenbrenner is a critical stop-gap measure that will provide real, albeit limited, relief," said Walker. "But our immigration system remains in a terminal condition and needs more than just a cosmetic repair job. Our immigration laws should be allowed to be responsive to the demands of our economy and our national interest in promoting family unity," said Walker. "Without deeper reforms, our immigration laws will continue to impede U.S. employers competing globally for the world's best talent, as more and more extremely valuable professionals from around the world take their education and abilities to competitors abroad, as well as creating unconscionable delays to legal family-based immigration." ### The American Immigration Lawyers Association is the national association of immigration lawyers established to promote justice, advocate for fair and reasonable immigration law and policy, advance the quality of immigration and nationality law and practice, and enhance the professional development of its members. For more information call George Tzamaras at 202-507-7649 or Annie Wilson at 202-507-7653

时政

2014-52/4410/en_head.json.gz/5574

North Korean Officials Tour Google As Part Of Capitalism Field Trip wikimedia commons Twelve North Korean officials are spending the week in California to study capitalism and the free market. On Friday the officials toured the Mountain View headquarters of Google, according to Chosun Ilbo. A South Korean Foreign Ministry official said, "It appears that U.S. officials may have arranged the visit to Google in order to show the North Koreans the level of U.S. technology and influence. Though it's unlikely that North Korea will open up to the outside world immediately, it could help shift the mindset of the regime over the long term." Meanwhile back in North Korea, most people don't have access to the Internet and those who do don't have access to Google. Hey Kim Jong-il, check out photos of Google's amazing Pittsburgh office > But you won't find Google in North Korea.

时政

2014-52/4410/en_head.json.gz/5601

Biden meets leaders ahead of G-20 summitStory Highlights Vice President Joe Biden meets leaders ahead of G-20 conference Two conference in Chile involves Latin American and European leaders President Bill Clinton started the conference in 1999Next Article in World » SANTIAGO, Chile (CNN) -- Five days before world leaders meet in England for the G-20 Summit, Vice President Joe Biden is attending a two-day conference in Chile that includes seven Latin American and European heads of state. Joe Biden is in Chile talking to Latin American and European leaders ahead of the G-20 meeting. The leaders attending the Progressive Governance Conference in the seaside resort city of Vina del Mar are Presidents Michelle Bachelet of Chile, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva of Brazil, Christina Fernandez de Kirchner of Argentina and Tabare Vasquez of Uruguay as well as Prime Ministers Gordon Brown of Britain, Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero of Spain and Jens Stoltenberg of Norway. The conference is billed as "a vital opportunity for the center left's leading international figures to put forward a future vision for progressive politics, as an era defined by the neoliberal faith in laissez faire irrefutably comes to an end." Bachelet, Brown, Lula da Silva and Stoltenberg will address the gathering Friday night to speak about charting a progressive path in response to the global economic crisis. On Saturday, Biden and the seven heads of state will explore the financial crisis and environmental issues in a round table discussion, the Mercopress news agency reported. After the conference, Biden will travel to Costa Rica for meetings with President Oscar Arias and other Central American leaders. He is scheduled to return to Washington on Monday. President Bill Clinton started the conference in 1999. This year's gathering was organized by the Policy Network, an international think tank based in London, and the Chilean Instituto Igualdad. Separate from the conference, Clinton will meet Friday afternoon with Peruvian President Alan Garcia in Lima to sign an agreement between Peru's Health Ministry and the William J. Clinton Foundation, which is working on HIV/AIDS, climate change and other matters, the Andina news agency reported. E-mail to a friend Share this on:

时政

2014-52/4410/en_head.json.gz/5616

Egypt’s president warns against dangers to economy by 09:31 PM, Saturday, December 29 2012 | 839 views | 0 | 4 | | CAIRO (AP) — Egypt’s Islamist president used his first address before the newly convened upper house of parliament on Saturday to warn against any unrest that could harm the country’s battered economy, as he renewed calls for the opposition to join in a national dialogue.In the nationally televised speech, Mohammed Morsi said the nation’s entire efforts should be focused on “production, work, seriousness and effort” now that a new constitution came into effect this week. He blamed protests and violence the past month for causing further damage to an economy already deteriorating from the turmoil since the fall of autocrat Hosni Mubarak early last year.In an alarm bell over the economy, the central bank announced soon after Morsi’s speech that foreign currency reserves — which have been bleeding away for nearly two years — are at a “critical” level, the minimum needed to cover foreign debt payments and buy strategic imports.Morsi’s strongly worded address to lawmakers appeared aimed at sending a message to the mainly liberal and secular opposition not to engage in any new protests, depicting unrest as a threat to the priority of rebuilding.All sides must “realize the needs of the moment” and work only through “mature democracy while avoiding violence,” Morsi told the 270-member upper house, or Shura Council. “We condemn and reject all forms of violence by individuals, groups, institutions and even from the nation and its government. This is completely rejected.”He appeared to chide the opposition for not working with him. “We all know the interests of the nation,” he said. “Would any of us be happy if the nation goes bankrupt? I don’t doubt anyone’s intentions. But can anyone here be happy if the nation is exposed to economic weakness?”The mainly liberal and secular opposition accuses Morsi of concentrating all power on the Muslim Brotherhood, from which he hails, and other Islamists and steamrolling any alternative voices. The main opposition groups have refused to join a national dialogue convened by Morsi, saying past talks have brought no compromise. They also stayed out of the president’s appointments last week of a few opposition figures to the overwhelmingly Islamist Shura Council, calling the move tokenism.The bitterness between the two sides was inflamed by the crisis of the past month leading up to the referendum that passed the new constitution. Mass street rallies were held by both the opposition trying to stop the charter and by Morsi’s Islamist supporters determined to push it to victory. Clashes that erupted left 10 dead. The charter was approved by 64 percent, but with a low turnout of around 33 percent. Civil society groups and the opposition also point to incidents of fraud in the vote they say have not been properly investigated.Opponents fear the new charter will consecrate the Islamists’ power. The document allows for a stronger implementation of Islamic law, or Shariah, than in the past and has provisions that could limit civil rights and freedoms of minorities. Morsi has depicted his national dialogue as a chance for all factions to have a voice in planning the next steps and drawing up key legislation to put before the upper house, including a law organizing parliamentary elections. So far, mainly Islamists and only a few small opposition parties are participating.Liberal former lawmaker Amr Hamzawi said the president’s speech offered no new insights and failed to acknowledge significant opposition to the Islamist-drafted constitution. Hamzawi was among those who walked out in protest of the Islamists’ handling of the draft process earlier this year. “We need binding mechanisms to amend the flawed constitution, guarantee that the legislative role of the upper house of parliament will be temporary and to ensure fair elections,” he said. “We will not enter into fraud elections each and every time.”Morsi’s address aimed to set the tone as the Shura Council begins work on a slate of new laws. The upper house normally has few powers but it will now serve as the law-making body until a new lower house is chosen in national elections expected within a few months. Two thirds of the Shura Council members were elected in voting last winter, but few Egyptians bothered to vote, and Islamist allies of Morsi swept the chamber.The ultraconservative Salafi al-Nour Party, the second strongest party after the Brotherhood’s political wing, suffered a blow this week when its founder and chief Emad Abdel-Ghafour resigned to start a new party, Al-Watan. He took with him around 150 members, including many who were elected to office. The fracturing of the party may bolster the Brotherhood in the coming elections. In his speech, Morsi repeatedly said it was time to return to “production” and “work.” But he did not give details on an overall economic program, including crucial questions like how the government will tackle a crippling budget deficit or carry out expected tax hikes or reductions of subsidies.The impending austerity measures are major concerns in a country where some 40 percent of the 85 million population live near or below the poverty line of surviving on $2 a day. Morsi’s government has requested a $4.8 billion loan from the International Monetary Fund to bridge the budget deficit, but talks are on hold after the government reversed plans for tax hikes this month. Instead, Morsi denounced those who he said were spreading panic about Egypt’s economy, saying the country will “not go bankrupt.” He underlined that banks were healthy, after a rush to buy dollars the past week over fears of devaluation of the Egyptian pound. “Those who talk about bankruptcy, they are the ones who are bankrupt. Egypt will never be bankrupt and will not kneel, God willing,” he said to a round of applause.He directly blamed the past month’s violence for Standard & Poor’s downgrading this week of Egypt’s long-term credit rating one level this week to B-, six steps below investment grade.Morsi presented the country’s foreign currency reserves, currently at $15 billion, as up slightly from last year, though he acknowledged they were still down dramatically from around $36 billion in 2010.After last year’s anti-Mubarak uprising, foreign investment and tourism — one of the country’s biggest money makers — dried up. With fewer dollars coming in, the central bank has been spending reserves furiously to prop up the currency and pay for key imports. The slight uptick in reserves from last year is mainly due to hundreds of millions of dollars provided by the Gulf nation of Qatar.In its statement Saturday, the central bank announced the introduction of a new auction system for banks buying and selling U.S. dollars, urging citizens to “ration usage” of foreign currency in favor of the Egyptian pound. Amr Adly, who heads the Social and Economic Justice Unit at the Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights, said Morsi’s speech failed to outline a real economic recovery plan.“We need to know the reality of the economic situation and have an idea of the measures that will be taken to address this situation,” Adly said. “We are not bankrupt yet because we can still service the debt, but we are on the verge of bankruptcy.” High fire danger in Oklahoma, Arkansas Rush to judgment: Is law optional? Bill Clinton touts impact of his library Sony cancels 'The Interview' Dec. 25 release

时政

2014-52/4410/en_head.json.gz/5778

Kenya and The United Nations Kenya became a Member of the United Nations after attaining independence in December 1963. It was a giant step in the exercise of independence and sovereignty in the arena of the community of nations. The role of Kenya Mission to the United Nations is to effectively represent Kenya at the diplomatic apex of interactions in the global community of nations. The multilateral character of the Kenya Mission in New York poses very unique diplomatic challenges. All States in the world with their diverse ideological, cultural, political and strategic characteristics intermingle in the halls of negotiations, in the corridors and in receptions. It is a setting which tests diplomatic skills to the limit. Kenya mission to the United Nations has and continue to discharge her obligations at the United Nations with an efficiency which has earned her great admiration. The country has not only adhered to and upheld the principles enshrined in the Charter of the organization but has also contributed tremendously in the furtherance of shared goals. The passage of time since 1945 has witnessed many transformations globally. The political, economic, social, military and strategic spheres have seen tremendous changes. As a result, the United Nations has had to adjust to face the emerging challenges. Organs, Agencies and Programmes of the United Nations take on an ever-expanding agenda shaped by fresh and changing challenges in a most complex situation. Kenya has a special place within the United Nations as it is the only developing country hosting two United Nations programmes. As the United Nations evolves, especially with the end of the Cold War and the bi-polar nature of politics and strategic alliances, other forces have come to the fore. Globalization and WTO rounds of negotiations, United Nations Special Sessions and Global Summits have enmeshed States, regions and groups in a most complex web of negotiations which focus on the work of the United Nations and its Subsidiary organs, Agencies and Programmes. There are also six (6) Standing Committees of the United Nations charged with issues of Security and Disarmament; Economic and Finance; Social and Humanitarian; Decolonization and special political; Budgetary and administrative Legal Matters. The background negotiations which later transform themselves into formal negotiations, resolutions and programmes of action are as a result of negotiations undertaken by all these committees. The Kenya Mission ensures that the interests of Kenya as enshrined in the national goals and the country’s foreign policy are protected and furthered in all these negotiations. the Kenya Mission works very closely with the government ministries and departments on positions regarding key issues and policy matters. From time to time, the Ministers and the Head of State address the United Nations either in Special Sessions or during the General Assembly. At all other times, the Ambassador/Permanent Representative is in-charge of all activities giving guidance to the staff as they undertake their duties and responsibilities. The placing of Kenya in important Committees is another prerogative. Over the years, Kenya has been very proud to join the privileged group of States in the Security Council as a temporary member periodically. Kenya has been a member of committees and commissions including statistics, population and development, programme coordination, ECOSOC and many others at different times. While in 1963, African countries championed the cause of decolonization and the abolition of apartheid, the 21st century has witnessed a emergence of new challenges. The Millennium Summit in 2000 identified special needs of Africa, which the African Union through the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD), has put in proper perspective. Through the African Union, NEPAD and other continental frameworks, Africa has demonstrated its readiness to embrace democracy, prosperity and contribute to the ideals of the United Nations. The Kenya Mission to the United Nations is at the center of efforts in the realization of this dream through national, sub regional and regional arrangements. Kenya is committed to the noble course of the United Nations. The country is fully engaged in follow-up, discussions and implementation of the outcome of major United Nations conferences and summits, including internationally agreed development goals including Millennium Development goals. Kenya’s Voice at the United Nations - 50 Years Mission Staff Kenya Mission to the United Nations New York Third Committee Work Service Charter Uzalendo Golf Tournament for the Kenyan Diaspora Previous Ambassadors/Permanent Representatives Views: 146,315 views

时政

2014-52/4410/en_head.json.gz/5795

Candidates cite LANL's significance at forum -A A +A By Carol A. Clark Wednesday, March 5, 2008 at 10:00 pm The hot topic at Wednesday evening’s candidates’ forum sponsored by the Democratic Party of Los Alamos County, was the current and future importance of Los Alamos National Laboratory.County Democratic Party Chair Stephen Fettig called this year's congressional race one of the most important in a long time.The public packed Fuller Lodge for the two-and-a-half hour event.DPLA board member Cathy Chapman drew names determining order of appearance, starting with congressional candidate Harry Montoya.Congressional candidates:Harry MontoyaMontoya’s wife, Doris, stood in for him. Richard Cooper read statements from those candidates unable to attend the forum. Montoya, in his prepared statement said he was in Washington, D.C., doing county and New Mexico family business.The Santa Fe County Commissioner vows to ensure Los Alamos National Laboratory “will always have a mission that keeps families working.” Montoya intends to follow in Rep. Tom Udall's footsteps, he said. Udall is running for U.S. Senate. Montoya holds a master’s degree from New Mexico State University. He advocates ending the Iraq War. “We should begin to withdraw troops over the next few months and have most of them out by the end of the year,” he said.

时政

2014-52/4410/en_head.json.gz/5882

Union agrees to back off Walmart protests Published Jan 31, 2013 at 3:47 pm (Updated Jan 31, 2013 at 3:47 pm) Labor groups say they will end most of their picketing of Wal-Mart stores as part of a settlement with the National Labor Relations Board. The agreement, announced by Wal-Mart, comes after the discounter filed a complaint in late November with the National Labor Relations Board against the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union. It said that demonstrations organized by union-backed OUR Walmart that culminated on the day after Thanksgiving threatened to disrupt its business and intimidate customers and other store workers. OUR Walmart is made up of former and current Wal-Mart workers. Meanwhile, OUR Walmart filed its own charge with the labor board. It cited attempts by Wal-Mart to deter workers from participating in what the group called legally protected walkouts. At issue were what constitutes picketing and whether the activity was aimed at gaining recognition for the union. Union officials have argued that the walk-outs and demonstrations are to protest what it believes are Wal-Mart’s retaliation tactics against workers who publicly speak out about working conditions and wages. The tactics allegedly include scheduling changes and reduction in workers’ hours. OUR Walmart had argued that because the planned walkouts are in protest of what it believes are unfair labor practices, workers are legally protected under federal labor law. Wal-Mart faced a worker walk-out last October ahead of its annual investor meeting that expanded to more than a dozen states and involved about 90 workers. Those efforts intensified on the day after Thanksgiving, one of the busiest shopping days of the year, known as “Black Friday.” The agreement, announced Thursday, will stop picketing and “confrontational conduct” at Wal-Mart facilities for at least 60 days. In a letter to the National Labor Relations Board from the UFCW that was supplied by Wal-Mart, the labor group said that it has no intent in “forcing or requiring employees of Wal-Mart to accept or select UFCW or OUR Walmart as the representatives of its employees.” “We appreciate the thorough efforts of the NLRB in its investigation,” Wal-Mart said in a statement. “Many of the union’s demonstrations and pickets used before Black Friday were illegal.” The UFCW couldn’t be reached immediately for a comment. UFCW organizers have been working to unionize Wal-Mart workers and have campaigned for the company to pay its employees more and offer better benefits.

时政

2014-52/4410/en_head.json.gz/5913

The Pardoning President By Paul Bacon Often characterized as a bumbling figurehead, Gerald Ford was nonetheless instrumental in healing the most bitterly divided America since the Civil War. Because of his squeaky-clean reputation in Washington, Ford was initially tapped by Richard Nixon to take over for Vice President Spiro Agnew, who faced prosecution for accepting bribes. Soon after, Nixon himself was tripped up by evidence of his involvement in the Watergate scandal and resigned from the presidency. Fearing Nixon's looming criminal trial would prolong the nation's suffering, Ford quickly pardoned the former president. A firestorm of criticism followed, to which Ford responded that Nixon's profound humiliation was punishment enough. And, since Nixon had extended conscription during the ultimately fruitless Vietnam War, Ford appeased his opponents by granting amnesty to draft dodgers and deserters. While Ford's conciliatory style offered a welcome reprieve from the previous administration, his inability to handle a severe economic recession proved his popular undoing. He would never be elected in his own right, but in his two-and-half-year term, he had accomplished what seemed impossible at the time: restoring public confidence in national leaders. He remains a respected elder in U.S. politics, and former First Lady Betty Ford continues in her own healing mission through her support of a renowned clinic.

时政

2014-52/4410/en_head.json.gz/6016

New redistricting challenge targets Senate seats stevebousquet Wednesday, September 5, 2012 1:56pm The League of Women Voters of Florida and two other groups filed a lawsuit Wednesday that accuses the Legislature of protecting incumbents in the redrawing of Senate seats, in violation of the fair districts amendments to the state Constitution. The groups filed the lawsuit in circuit court in Tallahassee. It focuses largely on changes that affected Tampa Bay, suburban Orlando and the city of Daytona Beach, and claims three Tampa Bay Senate seats (Districts 17, 19 and 22) were gerrymandered to help Republicans. In other districts, the lawsuit alleges, Republicans packed as many Democrats together as possible. Sen. Don Gaetz, D-Niceville, chairmaan of the Senate Reapportionment Committee and the incoming Senate president, dismissed the lawsuit, saying: "(This) filing is nothing more than summer re-runs of the same complaints that were rejected by the Florida Supreme Court." The Senate was forced to redraw the map of Senate districts after the first map was rejected by the court. The lawsuit accuses legislators of making revisions in secrecy: "There was no genuine opportunity for input into (or even review of) the final map by the public or even by all legislators." The other groups joining in the lawsuit are Common Cause and the National Council of La Raza. They accused the Legislature of dividing the city of Daytona Beach into two Senate districts to dilute the power of the city's African-American voters and to protect Republican Rep. Dorothy Hukill, R-Port Orange, who is running for the newly-drawn District 8 Senate seat. The lawsuit charges that District 22, a Pinellas and Hillsborough seat won last month by Republican Jeff Brandes of St. Petersburg, could have been drawn more compactly and contained in Pinellas County, but that Senate Republicans included part of Tampa "with the intent to maintain its party's dominance of the area's Senate seats and protect incumbents." The suit says the Senate redrew two districts in southwest Florida so that Republicans Denise Grimsley of Sebring and Bill Galvano of Bradenton would not have to run against each other in the same district. The suit also accuses the Senate of deliberately crafting two Orlando-area Senate seats to prevent two Republican incumbents, Andy Gardiner and David Simmons, from being forced to run against each other. The lawsuit also alleges that the Senate drew some districts "to help and thus intentionally favor Senator (Jack) Latvala in his quest to become Senate president by helping candidates who were pledged to vote for him." The map was approved by the Florida Supreme Court, following a limited review. "We believe a full review of the Senate map will reveal that Senate districts were drawn in complete disregard of the new criteria," said Miami lawyer Gerald Greenberg, the lead attorney for the plaintiffs. "Rather than comply with the Constitution, the Legislature simply continued its same old practice of drawing lines to help incumbents or advance the interests of a political party." Named as defendants are Secretary of State Ken Detzner, Senate President Mike Hariodopolos and House Speaker Dean Cannon. The lawsuit is not expected to have any immediate effect on the Nov. 6 general election, for which voters will soon be returning absentee ballots. The groups filing the complaint hope to persuade the courts to force lawmakers to redraw the districts for future elections. [Last modified: Wednesday, September 5, 2012 5:45pm]

时政

2014-52/4410/en_head.json.gz/6079

Gov.-elect Hassan: We must be prepared to make tough budget decisions By PAULA TRACYNew Hampshire Union Leader USNH leaders seek restored funding for higher education CONCORD - Gov.-elect Maggie Hassan told lawmakers Monday the state must continue to make tough fiscal decisions and be creative as it builds the upcoming, two-year budget.In her first appearance in Concord as the governor-elect, the Democrat said the agencies have submitted requests for "more than our economy and taxpayers can afford."She said she felt the six-month process would work to develop a "fiscally responsible state budget without income or sales tax." Many department heads are asking for increases and for the next few days, department heads will come to the State House legislative office building to make their requests known for fiscal years 2014 and 2015.Total fund requests for the next biennium are up 19 percent, including money from federal and all other sources. Spending requests for state tax-funded portions of the budget are up 26 percent.The University System of New Hampshire alone is seeking an additional $100 million for the two years when their current adjusted budget is $54 million. It took a significant budget hit in the current biennium.Hassan said some cuts were the wrong choice, including that one and also laying off state auditors."We will not be able to reverse course all at once," she said. "We must be prepared to continue to make tough, fiscally responsible decisions to ensure that we can invest in our priorities, including protecting the health and safety of our citizens and building an innovative economy that will ensure long-term growth," she said.The Department of Administrative Services lost 55 positions or 15 percent of its staff in the last budget cycle, said Commissioner Linda Hodgdon."We continue to struggle with inadequate levels of staff to accomplish good cost-saving ideas." she said. "We are living with the pennywise and pound-foolish adage, spending more money in the end and burning out our people."She noted that a majority of state employees are nearing retirement in the next 10 years, something that would be considered a crisis in the private sector.John Barthelmes, commissioner of the Department of Safety, was among the first to present his budget. He said some communities are reducing public safety budgets and that has shifted the burden to State Police.The commissioner is seeking a 3 percent increase from the adjusted, authorized budget covering 1,120 full-time employees. He would like to add a total of 31 new troopers.To Hassan's remarks that the state needs to find innovative cost-savings ideas, Barthlemes said police now turn off their cruisers rather than let them idle for traffic details and have switched to six-cylinder engines and synthetic oil to improve cruiser mileage. He said while the Department of Motor Vehicles has "come out of the dark ages" with computers and has made customer service its centerpiece, that could be threatened, as ideas for further efficiencies are running out.Hassan said she has chosen former Health and Human Services deputy commissioner and former state Sen. Kathy Sgambati, D-Tilton, to head up the budget effort, and she said a coalition will be chosen to work on the budget before one is presented to the Legislature.Gov. John Lynch, who chose not to run for reelection, was thanked by Hassan for steps he has taken during difficult fiscal times.Lynch said New Hampshire currently enjoys a surplus but must repay the federal government $18 million in the next biennium from overpayment of hospital costs, and the economy remains volatile.While the state has a relatively strong position when compared to other states, with lower unemployment and higher quality of life ratings, he said it cannot rest on that."The budget next year is going to be a challenge," Lynch said.Hassan did not indicate what budget targets she is looking for but said she will soon send them to department heads.The targets will be conservative, she said, representing the fact that the state faces a number of potential challenges, including the possibility of the federal fiscal cliff.The governor-elect also made clear that she would advance her reform plan to improve the state budget process, including creating a bipartisan Consensus Revenue Estimating Panel. Senate Finance Chairman Chuck Morse, R-Salem, who serves on the committee listening to the requests, said it is important that commissioners and department leaders do their part to identify efficiencies.In 2011, the Legislature passed a bill which requires all state agencies and departments to submit alternative budgets, reduced by 10 percent from the prior year's funding, to the Department of Administrative Service by Nov. 15."These alternative budgets will give Gov.-elect Hassan, and those of us in the Legislature, an idea of where those who know their departments best believe we can find savings in a difficult budget process," said Morse.

时政

2014-52/4410/en_head.json.gz/6150

Capital News Today Varney & Company bobby scott crump trayvon victoria defrancesco soto calller dylan matthews freddie gethelp gramm lunesta Politics Nation a difference 12 days make. i'm introducing john mccain to john mccain. >>> and elizabeth warren does it again. who is she grilling on fairness today? >>> and the gop war against chris christie just got worse. oh, i'm sure this will end well. stay with us. ♪ i've been coloring liz's hair for years. but lately she's been coming in with less gray than usual. what's she up to? the new root touch-up by nice'n easy has the most shade choices, designed to match even salon color in just 10 minutes. with the new root touch-up, all they see is you. otherworldly things. but there are some things i've never seen before. this ge jet engine can understand 5,000 data samples per second. which is good for business. because planes use less fuel, spend less time on the ground and more time in the air. suddenly, faraway places don't seem so...far away. ♪ to prove to you that aleve is the better choice for him, he's agreed to give it up. that's today? [ male announcer ] we'll be with him all day as he goes back to taking tylenol. i was okay, but after lunch my knee started to hurt again. and now i've got to × Varney Company for you. listen, tom coburn, john mccain, a number of g.o.p. officials are saying down size d.c., the federal government did grow under this white house. and so the cocoon of washington, d.c. continues. they feel they have a claim on taxpayer money to continue to grow the government. and d.c. spends while the rest of the country gets a hangover. stuart: it is not like we're going to actually cut spending. we're not. we're going to spend more, just a little bit less more. charles: we're not going to cut spending. just the rate of the increase in spending. the idea that you would have a leader that would lead through enthusiasm, optimism, and occasionally say we have to go through rough patches, maybe it doesn't sell in this country, maybe it doesn't sell around the world, i'm looking around the world you have a new leader in south korea you know who is promising all kinds of things they can't afford. berlusconi in italy, maybe people don't want to hear that occasionally things get tough particularly when the government is 16 point something trillion already in the hole. that's × the gramm who is running for reelection in 2014. they note that senator gramm, senator john mccain will meet with the president today to talk about immigration reform. the front page of the new york times, republicans signing a brief in support of gay marriage. 75 people have signed an amicus brief, a friend-of-the-court brief, before the supreme court takes up a california ballot initiative at baring same-sex marriage. -- there are republicans who have signed this would not previously talked about the issue, mega wittman, who supported proposition 8 originally, congresswoman lee some of florida, richard hanna of new york, stephen hadley -- back to your phone calls, sam in west point, new york, he works for the department of defense. what is your take on sequester? caller: well, there is waste in the federal government, but there is also waste in the private sector. you cannot quantify it. we have already had cut. we have had about 5-10% cuts. mostly for people who have not -- have been hired. we had contract employees, and they are now on their way out. we have not had cut since the clinton × Feb 26, 2013 10:00am EST the defense budget. last week at a constituents' meeting, senator john mccain said that these sequester cuts could significantly undermine military programs. quote, we're facing a situation where our national security is at risk. senator mccain said, adding that furloughs could affect as many as 49,000 military and defense jobs in arizona. well, i tell you in georgia what's going to happen is that 37,000 civilian department of defense employees will be furloughed, reducing gross pay by $190 million and army base funding would be cut by $233 million. and funding for air force operations would be cut by $5 million. this is in the state of georgia. this is for this fiscal year, this current fiscal year. can you imagine that much money coming out of the economy and not having an impact on the overall economy? it certainly will. let's take all of those who travel. you go to the airport. you rely on the air traffic controllers to make sure that the planes are situated and flying safely so that nobody is going to bump into each other up there in the sky. you're dependent on your t.s.a. personnel to × lindsey graham and john mccain are saying that this is really crazy stuff, you know that there are people in the senate in the house that get it and want to avoid it. anybody on the defense side. everybody knows we have got to trim our sails but at least we should allow a secretary to make those decisions as opposed to this crazy across-the-board. >> governor, talking about the budget issue, your state is facing a budget deficit. you had to raise taxes in your state to sort of meets that budget deficit. what is the way forward for governors in this country who are facing similar scenarios and in other states that is not tenable. is this some kind of a mix of spending cuts and tax increases? >> i was the first democrat elected governor in 24 years, the first to serve in 20 years. the outgoing governor handed me a deficit on the same services budget larger on a per capita basis than any state in a nation representing 17% of revenue so there was no way out of it and quite frankly there was no way to tax your way out of it. we had to re-stacker relationship with their state employees and we d Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6 (some duplicates have been removed)

时政

2014-52/4410/en_head.json.gz/6155

Dec 23rd (Sun) Dec 22nd (Sat) bill cunningham billy cunningham joe trippi toomey mr. walters amy kellogg andy sullivan ben nighthorse campbell bobby kennedy daniel inoue politically? would you put her where i put her on foreign policy to the right of obama? rana? >> i would. >> and safer politically for an election in a general election given the fact people normally want to switch parties every eight years. you don't want to run as a xerox of obama. your thoughts. >> i do think she's to the right on foreign policy. i think what's going to be really interesting is seeing where she is economically. she's been very savvy about using economic statecraft to advance foreign policy goals for the u.s. it will be interesting to see what she brings to the economic debate because i think that's still going to be a debate in the next election. jobs. how to grow, how to get the country back on track. it will be really interesting to see where it comes off. >> i have you as a feminist, everybody is a feminist right now. it's a good position to be in politically. do you think she will have an unusually high draw among women voters? and that's maybe a dumb question, but could she get up to 65% or 70% of the women voters as opposed to 55%. >> that would be a high number × The O Reilly Factor and the biggest trade deal in the last generation. the pivot to asia and other foreign policy. >> laura: going to do all this by eg executive decision becaue last time i checkle he still had a republican house. >> stop the extraordinary fiscal cliff negotiations and go back to regular order and pass a real budget and provide an alternative. >> laura: the democrats also might take that advice to pass a budget. >> stop the games and go back to committee process and let paul ryan do his job and have the big debate. >> let's go to you brad on this. i say this to my republican friends. though are all upset he will do executive fiat and rule making. elections have consequences the old cliche quicks in and it is clear that the president s aggressive and he will use every means at his dice posal and if republicans don't like it he will say make me stop or take me to court and the problem is in court we have very unpredictable judges and justices as we saw with the john roberts ruling on obama care and that relief often times is not going to be there or the damage will already have been done by the tim × committee, john has played a major role in every foreign policy debate in years. he understands we have to harness all elements of american power and ensure they are working together. diplomatic developments, economic and political and military and intelligence as well as the power of our values which inspires so many people around the world. as john as said, we're an exceptional nation not because we say we are but because we do exceptional things. i would say one of the things we have seen is when john helped lead the way along with folks likes john mccain to restore our -- to vietnam. it sent a powerful message to congress. over the years john has earned the respect and confidence of leaders around the world. he is not going to need a lot of on-the-job training. he has arned the respect and trust of his colleagues, democrats and republicans. i think it's fair to say that few individuals know as many presidents, prime ministers or grasp our foreign policies as firmly as john kerry and this makes him a perfect choice guide american diplomacy in the years ahead. >> "washington journal" × ? are there other volatile hotspots around the globe? >> in terms of foreign policy, we have to get our economy going. that's the number-one thing we need for the united states of america. got to deal successfully with china as they grow. got to deal with the terrorists, and we've got to manage the circumstances in the middle east. so people in washington and the foreign affairs business are going to be very, very busy. iran, syria, israel, the palestinians, a new constitution in egypt, and all around the periphery of the middle east there are still terrorist elements. and there's a problem in north africa with terrorists. >> and i was also going to add to the conversation north korea. >> that's right. >> you heard the news today, they say they have a missile that could potentially reach the united states. of course it could be weaponized. what's your reaction to that? >> well, we've known this was coming for a long time and we have a missile defense program, a rudimentary program, but it's been in place, put it in place several years ago, and it's designed specifically to handle this. actually × is that look i served in the congress. these negotiations happen on budgets, on taxes, on even foreign policy issues the last days when the presidential hopefuls he sure is really on. when the gun is pointing to the head of a lot of members of congress. bipartisan, republican and democrats. it is moving in the right direction. we have three, four days to go. i wouldn't be surprised ifing something doesn't happen until the very last day. but i think it will. i sense that. >> sean: let me governor just very gently disagree with you. i know you probably think this is maybe a good deal whatever they are talking about and they are talking. i spoke to somebody who was in the meeting today and the president is exactly where he was on day one and that is businesses, small business, over $250,000 they pay more. that would fund government for 8 and a half days. that is all that is going to be. to me when a president borrows 46 cents of every dollar and we are $16 trillion in debt tell me where we are wronging. i don't think we are dealing with the real problem. i don't think this solves anything. i thi × Dec 24, 2012 5:00pm EST the biggest foreign policy events for 2012. and the biggest political stories of 2012 with a political analyst on williams. every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern. >> the taping system was top secret. it seems the only people that knew for certain where my father, his secretary, and the secret service agents that installed it. and other presidential recording systems were revealed. the concept of secret taping can seem problematic, but it is beyond doubt that it is a unique and invaluable historical resource. on the states, history unfolds in real time in the most dramatic possible way. with your the confrontations of the civil-rights movement and the life or death situations we made a during the cuban missile crisis. >> the discussion of the recordings of the late president in the oval office. >> michele obama and to white house chefs recently held a demonstration of holiday crafts with children in the state dining room. >> will also have different ornaments made by artists in chicago. and all of the other ornaments on the tree here have been from previous years. them in areuse different format. the × with the united states government and that is, i'll support you are foreign policy initiatives in the region by and large if you stay out of my internal affairs. i think that's where he is right now. it appears like the united states government is doing just that. heather: take this beyond the borders of egypt to the area of the middle east, what does this mean for the rest of the ream on? >> well, it is pretty significant. egypt is the a very influential country. even though it is one of the poorest countries in the region, it is a powerful arab country. it has a powerful military for sure and has significant intellectual and cultural influence on the region. so what goes on in egypt truly matters. listen, the contours of this revolutionary change taking place in the middle east, certainly the catalyst for it was democratic and social reform and economic opportunity but the radicals, the muslim brotherhood, are easy seeing the opportunity to advantage themselves geopolitically in the region. that is the danger here. that this continues to move in that direction in other parts of the region. Search Results 0 to 11 of about 12 (some duplicates have been removed)

时政

2014-52/4410/en_head.json.gz/6174

Travel Diary: Secretary Clinton Delivers Remarks at Strategic and Economic Dialogue Opening Session Posted by DipNote Bloggers May 24, 2010 Secretaries Clinton and Geithner Walk to the Opening Session of the China-U.S. Strategic and Economic Dialogue Secretary Clinton Shakes Hands with Chinese Vice Premier Wang Qishan Greetings Before the Start of the Opening Ceremony of the China-U.S. Strategic and Economic Dialogue China-U.S. Strategic and Economic Dialogue in Beijing May 2010 Hu Jintao Delivers Remarks at the U.S.-China Strategic Economic Dialogue Secretary Clinton Delivers Remarks at the Opening Session of the Second Round of the U.S.-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue A Close-up of Secretary Clinton Delivering Remarks Secretary Geithner Speaks at the Second Round of the China-U.S. Strategic and Economic Dialogue Interactive Travel Map|Text the Secretary|Trip Page On May 24-25, 2010, Secretary Clinton and Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner join their respective Chinese Co-Chairs, State Councilor Dai Bingguo and Vice Premier Wang Qishan, for the second joint meeting of the U.S.-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue. During the opening session of the dialogue, which was held at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing, Secretary Clinton said: "I first visited China in 1995, and I have been privileged to return since then. Every trip to China offers fresh insights and images of the dynamism of this country and its people, the pace of change, and the possibilities for the future. Back in 1995, trade between our two nations was measured in the tens of billions of dollars. Today it is counted in the hundreds of billions. Few people back then had cell phones, and almost no one had access to the Internet. Today China has the world's largest mobile phone network, and more Internet users than any other country on earth. "In 1995, both our countries signed on to the Beijing platform for action to advance equality and opportunity for women. And while there is still much to do in both of our countries, I know that Chinese women have made real progress in education, health care, and employment. Hundreds of millions of men, women, and children have been lifted out of poverty. And China has flourished in so many ways. Freer trade and open markets have created jobs in both our countries, and given Chinese consumers access to new goods and to higher standards of living. "The United States welcomes China's progress and its accomplishments. And by establishing patterns of cooperation, rather than competition between our two countries, we see the opportunity, as we have just heard from Vice-Premier Wang, for win-win solutions, rather than zero-sum rivalries, for we know that few global problems can be solved by the United States or China acting alone. And few can be solved without the United States and China working together. "With this in mind, I would like to read a few lines of a letter from President Obama that I will be personally handing to President Hu Jintao. President Obama wrote: 'Our relationship with China is guided by the recognition that we live in an inter-connected world. One country's success need not come at the expense of another. Our progress can be shared. Indeed, the United States welcomes China as a strong, prosperous, and successful member of the community of nations.' "Over the past 16 months, we have worked together to lay the foundation for that positive, cooperative, and comprehensive relationship that President Obama and President Hu have committed our nations to pursuing. We launched the strategic and economic dialogue last year in Washington, as the premier convening mechanism in our relationship. And this year we have assembled an even broader and deeper team, here in China, to address our growing agenda. We have built avenues of cooperation and identified areas of mutual interest. "Our job, moving forward, is to translate that common interest into common action and, in turn, to translate that action into results that improve the lives of our people, and contribute to global progress. Over the long term, these results are how our relationship will be measured. We are conscious that meaningful progress against great global challenges is the work of years, not days. We know that this gathering, in and of itself, is a foundation for ongoing cooperation that has to take place every day at every level of our government. And so, we will blend urgency and persistence in pursuit of shared goals. We have already begun to see progress on some of the key areas of common concern that we laid out in our first dialogue last year. But there is much work to be done. "First, on international security challenges, the United States and China have consulted closely on the challenge posed by Iran's nuclear program. The prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran concerns us all. And to address that threat, together we have pursued a dual-track approach of engagement and pressure, aimed at encouraging Iran's leaders to change course. The draft resolution agreed to by all of our P-5+1 partners and circulated at the Security Council sends a clear message to the Iranian leadership: Live up to your obligation, or face growing isolation and consequences. As we continue to cooperate in New York, the burden is on Iran to demonstrate through its actions that it will uphold its responsibility. "North Korea is also a matter of urgent concern. Last year we worked together to pass and enforce a strong UN Security Council resolution in the wake of North Korea's nuclear test. And today we face another serious challenge, provoked by the sinking of the South Korean ship. So we must work together, again, to address this challenge and advance our shared objectives for peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula. We asked North Korea to stop its provocative behavior, halt its policy of threats and belligerence towards its neighbors, and take irreversible steps to fulfill its denuclearization commitments, and comply with international law. "Now, beyond these two pressing challenges there are other shared security concerns that I look forward to discussing, including the fight against violent extremism in Afghanistan and Pakistan, counter-piracy efforts, and deeper military-to-military cooperation. "Second, on climate and energy, we have built on the memorandum of understanding signed at the last round of the dialogues, collaborating on new, clean energy research, including a center. We have committed ourselves to an electrical vehicle initiative, and a renewable energy partnership, and more. At Copenhagen, for the first time, all major economies, including both the United States and China, made national commitments to curb carbon emissions and transparently report on their mitigation efforts. Now we must work to implement the Copenhagen accord with balanced commitments that are reflected in the ongoing negotiation. "And on behalf of Secretary Steven Chu, I extend his regrets. He was unable to be with us, because he had to stay and work very urgently on the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. "Third, on education, health, and development, tomorrow I will meet with State Councilor Liu to launch a new dialogue on educational and cultural exchanges that will deepen understanding and cooperation between our people. I am very pleased that Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius has joined us this year to expand cooperation on infectious diseases and other international health challenges. Our ambassador for global women's issues, Melanne Verveer, is also here because we recognize that the roles and rights of women are central to many of the issues we face, including devising a global strategy for development that is both sustainable and effective. "The Obama Administration has worked to advance a long-term investment-driven approach to development. And Administrator Raj Shah is leading our efforts. We have elevated development as a core pillar of our foreign policy, and we seek to coordinate with China and other donors to meet country-led needs and to comply with internationally-agreed standards. "Finally, we have worked together and seen progress on promoting global economic recovery and growth. Secretary Geithner, Secretary Locke, Ambassador Kirk, Chairman Bernanke, and the rest of our economic team will be talking in greater depth about how we can develop a more balanced global economy that will produce prosperity that reaches further and deeper for both the Chinese and American people. "Now, our discussions in these few days are unlikely to solve the shared challenges we face. But they can and should provide a framework for delivering real results to our people. We will not agree on every issue. But we will discuss them openly, as between friends and partners. And that includes America's commitment to universal human rights and dignity, and so much else that is on both Chinese and American minds. "There is a Chinese proverb that speaks of treading different paths that lead to the same destination. Our two nations have unique histories. China is home to an ancient civilization, as I saw in the Chinese Pavilion when I visited, with the scroll that has been made to come alive, showing life in this city 1,000 years ago. America is a young nation. But we know that our future, both our challenges and our opportunities, will be shared. We have traveled different paths, but that shared future is our common destination and responsibility. And, ultimately, that is what this dialogue is about." Read the transcript of the Secretary's remarks with President Hu Jintao, Vice-Premier Wang Qishan, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and State Councilor Dai. Flavius | Virginia, USA May 24, 2010 Flavius in Virginia writes: Hillary! Knock 'em dead in that green jacket! Seriously, she looks great in these pictures. District Of Columbia, USA May 24, 2010 Anna in Washington, DC writes: @ Flavius in VA -- I agree. The Secretary looks great in these pictures! I couldn't help but think what a tough day she has ahead of her. China is the key to the situation with North Korea, and that is why today's discussions are so important. I am praying for the Secretary and the South Korean people, and that the situation with North Korea can be resolved peacefully. Previous: Lending a Hand to Tajikistan Flood Victims »« Next: U.S. Establishes Partnerships With Women in Science and Engineering in the Middle East . Top stories delivered to your inbox. East Asia and Pacific View more stories in this area » Arusha Summit Marks New Level of Regional Cooperation Against Wildlife Trafficking The Case for Studying Abroad China, America, and Our Warming Planet Latest Stories

时政

2014-52/4410/en_head.json.gz/6190

By all means, free Gaza – from Hamas Friday, November 23, 2012 Tags: Columnists Comments For years, faux human rights activists have run campaigns based on the theme of “Free Gaza” – marketing the slogan that Israel’s blockade is responsible for the suffering of millions of Palestinians. They have organized highly publicized “humanitarian aid” flotillas (carrying almost no aid); held violent protests at universities (York University is on the hit list again), and justified boycotts, divestment and sanctions around the false images of “collective punishment” and Palestinian victimization. In the latest “Free Gaza” violence, these individuals and groups share major responsibility in producing and marketing this tragedy. With this political backing, the Hamas leadership was confident (overly confident, it turned out) that it could escalate attacks on Israelis and count on international campaigns to quickly stop the counterattack. This strategy worked for them in the previous round (December 2008 to January 2009), as it did for Hezbollah in 2006. With a stream of “flotillas” and accompanying publicity, including fringe Canadian groups, Hamas thought it was safe. One of the most active groups involved in the “Free Gaza” industry is an Israel-based NGO known as Gisha, which subtitles itself the “Legal Center for Freedom of Movement.” Gisha has waged a media campaign to promote what it portrays as Israel’s policy of starving the population of Gaza and preventing Gazans from travelling and importing goods unencumbered. Gisha and its many allies have erased all traces of Hamas, including its brutality against its own people and its acquisition of thousands of rockets, which Hamas has hidden in schools, mosques and homes. Anyone who is actually concerned about the welfare of the people of Gaza and does not belong to the church of “it’s all Israel’s fault” would have focused the generous resources provided by foreign donors (including the New Israel Fund and anonymous European government officials) on liberating Gaza’s citizens and Israelis from Hamas. But instead, they’ve constructed a fictitious Gaza based on the total disconnect (overlooked by journalists committed to the Palestinian victimization promoted by NGOs) between the image of deprivation and the huge sums spent on rockets and missiles to attack Israel. According to the IDF, in the past decade, more than 13,000 rockets and mortars – an average of three per day – have been launched against Israel. Some 800 were fired in just five days beginning Nov. 14. The missile industry – the biggest in Gaza – consumes huge resources and tens of millions of dollars, pounds, euros and dinars. How many school lunches, prenatal and infant care medical checks and other social welfare measures could this money have been used to buy, if only the Hamas overlords of Gaza were so inclined? Similarly, according to media reports, Gaza has “15,000 Qassam fighters who are responsible for most of the rocket blitzes.” While some societies encourage their best and brightest to go to universities, become scientists, build businesses and create jobs, in Gaza, the best jobs are making and shooting rockets to kill Israeli civilians. All of this is erased in the distorted universe of the NGO human rights network and their funder-enablers, such as the New Israeli Fund (NIF) and hidden European government officials. In their absurd, patronizing and morally inverted version of reality, all responsibility and blame lies with Israel. Another radical fringe group with a major bank account is “Breaking the Silence” (BTS), which has received $523,342 from the NIF from 2006 through 2011, with additional funds from Europe. BTS plays a central role in the dissemination of false “war crimes” accusations against Israel, including in the notorious Goldstone report of 2009. Now, BTS is seeking to repeat this process by drawing comparisons between the fictitious “crimes” of four years ago, and the current Israeli operation in Gaza. As in the case of Gisha and many others, there is no mention of Palestinian war crimes (such as every rocket attack) and the intimidation through which Hamas controls Gaza. On these issues, the silence is deafening. There are many more examples selling more or less the same defective product. In contrast, a real and moral “Free Gaza” movement would close the missile industry and help Israelis and Palestinians in liberating themselves from the tyranny of Hamas.

时政

2014-52/4410/en_head.json.gz/6286

Home > No Good Options in Syrian Civil War No Good Options in Syrian Civil War With the Syrian civil war intensifying, the United States faces a conundrum about what to do. There are no good options. The situation is fraught with uncertainties. Bashar al-Assad surely should go, but who will fill the power vacuum is the worrisome question, particularly amid stark indications that Islamic extremists, including allies of Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood, are exerting significant influence. We can be fairly certain that these Syrian rebels will not be a friendly force on the Israeli border, and the 40-year relative quiet that has existed there under two Assad regimes is much in doubt. One of Israel’s greatest concerns is that Assad’s arsenal of chemical weapons will fall in the hands of his Hezbollah allies or other terror groups. That is in part why Israel has taken a lead in calling attention to growing evidence that chemical substances have been used already in the two-year bloody conflict, which has reportedly claimed the lives of some 70,000 people. President Barack Obama clearly erred in declaring last year that the use of chemical weapons by Assad would cross a “red line.” On Tuesday, he told a White House news conference that there is evidence those weapons were used, but “we don’t know how they were used, when they were used, who used them.” The fear, of course, is that an empty threat lobbed at Damascus will be read in Tehran as indication that the Obama administration is not serious about its stated policies. But even Israeli officials are making clear there is a difference. Yuval Steinitz, Israel’s minister of strategic and intelligence affairs, said that his government saw no comparison between U.S. policy toward Syria and its declared intention to stop Iran from gaining nuclear weapons. “We never asked, nor did we encourage, the United States to take military action in Syria,” Steinitz was reported as saying at a New York conference sponsored by The Jerusalem Post. “And we are not making any comparison or linkage with Iran, which is a completely different matter.” Iran and Syria are not comparable situations and, for now, despite the tragic humanitarian crisis gripping Syria, there is no justification for military involvement. The American public clearly has no stomach for it either. A CBS News/New York Times poll released on Tuesday found that 62 percent of those surveyed said we do not have a responsibility to intervene in Syria; 24 percent said we do. More importantly, without any sense of who would succeed Assad, it is far from clear what such intervention would accomplish. Humanitarian aid should continue but that is as far as the United States should go for now. Source URL: http://jewishexponent.com/no-good-options-in-syrian-civil-war

时政

2014-52/4410/en_head.json.gz/6300

To Understand Putin's Policy, Dissect The Kremlin's Inner Circles Share Tweet E-mail Print By Corey Flintoff Originally published on Thu July 31, 2014 6:07 pm Copyright 2014 NPR. To see more, visit http://www.npr.org/. Transcript AUDIE CORNISH, HOST: Yesterday, the U.S. and the European Union announced new economic sanctions against Russia because of its involvement in Ukraine. And today, E.U. made its sanctions more specific - published a list of Russian banks and other institutions that it's targeting. The goal is to put pressure on Russian president Vladimir Putin by putting economic pressure on his closest allies. But so far, Russian officials have shrugged off the impact. Some critics say, that's because Putin's inner circle is dominated by men for whom power is more important than money. Here's NPR's Corey Flintoff in Moscow. COREY FLINTOFF, BYLINE: One feature of Vladimir Putin fourteen-year rule of Russia is that decision-making power has been concentrated among a very small circle of his trusted advisors. NIKOLAY PETROV: Putin's political elite looks like the board of a large corporation - Russia, Incorporated, with Mr. Putin being CEO and chair of the board. But there are pretty influential shareholders. FLINTOFF: That's Nikolay Petrov, an analyst and professor at Moscow's Higher School of Economics. He says, Putin has been able to consolidate power by balancing the competing interests of his shareholders. On the one side were the so-called siloviki, or men of power - those who, like Putin himself, came from the Soviet spy services, police or the military. On the other side were people with legal or economics backgrounds. SAMUEL CHARAP: What's happened over the last two to three years is that the others, besides siloviki and the highest echelons of power, have been weakened significantly, particularly the economists. FLINTOFF: Samuel Charap of the Institute for Strategic Studies in Washington says, the hardliners always called the shots about Ukraine because the Russian leadership saw it as a question of national security. Nikolay Petrov says, those decision-makers are men who are willing to accept a certain amount of economic pain in order to keep their monopoly on power. PETROV: They are wealthy enough, but they do think about the opportunity to keep being the most powerful guys in the country which can do whatever it wants without being restricted from outside. FLINTOFF: Samuel Charap says, Putin's closest advisers are people for whom the pain of sanctions is less important than dealing with a perceived national security threat. That means that Putin can't allow the pro-Russian seperatists in eastern Ukraine to be crushed militarily by Ukrainian forces. CHARAP: At the moment, it's politically unacceptable. It would be seen as a humiliating defeat and not something that, I think, the Russian dealership would willingly allow. FLINTOFF: Charap says that Putin can only withdraw support from the separatists if there's a political settlement that can be seen as protecting Russia's interests. Petrov says, tough sanctions may have the opposite effect on the Kremlin decision-makers. PETROV: The mentality of these guys and of Mr. Putin, especially, is not necessarily rational. Mr. Putin will be eager to demonstrate that his behavior is absolutely not influenced by the sanctions, and he can escalate the situation in eastern Ukraine. FLINTOFF: According to NATO, Putin already has the means at hand to escalate if he and his advisers want to, in the form of 15,000 Russian troops near the Ukrainian border. Corey Flintoff, NPR News, Moscow. Transcript provided by NPR, Copyright NPR.

时政

2014-52/4410/en_head.json.gz/6311

Home | Library | Ron Paul on BlowbackRon Paul on Blowback May 17, 2007Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr.Tags War and Foreign PolicyPolitical TheoryPlenty of reasonable people can disagree about foreign policy. What's really strange is when one reasonable position is completely and forcibly excluded from the public debate.Such was the case after 9-11. Every close observer of the events of those days knows full well that these crimes were acts of revenge for US policy in the Muslim world. The CIA and the 911 Commission said as much, the terrorists themselves proclaimed it, and Osama underscored the point by naming three issues in particular: US troops in Saudi Arabia, US sanctions against Iraq, and US funding of Israeli expansionism.So far as I know, Ron Paul is the only prominent public figure in the six years since who has given an honest telling of this truth. The explosive exchange occurred during the Republican Presidential debate in South Carolina.Ron was asked if he really wants the troops to come home, and whether that is really a Republican position."Well," he said, "I think the party has lost its way, because the conservative wing of the Republican Party always advocated a noninterventionist foreign policy. Senator Robert Taft didn't even want to be in NATO. George Bush won the election in the year 2000 campaigning on a humble foreign policy –no nation-building, no policing of the world. Republicans were elected to end the Korean War. The Republicans were elected to end the Vietnam War. There's a strong tradition of being anti-war in the Republican party. It is the constitutional position. It is the advice of the Founders to follow a non-interventionist foreign policy, stay out of entangling alliances, be friends with countries, negotiate and talk with them and trade with them."He was then asked if 9-11 changed anything. He responded that US foreign policy was a "major contributing factor. Have you ever read the reasons they attacked us? They attacked us because we've been over there; we've been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We've been in the Middle East –I think Reagan was right. We don't understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics. So right now we're building an embassy in Iraq that's bigger than the Vatican. We're building 14 permanent bases. What would we say here if China was doing this in our country or in the Gulf of Mexico? We would be objecting. We need to look at what we do from the perspective of what would happen if somebody else did it to us. "And then out of the blue, he was asked whether we invited the attacks."I'm suggesting that we listen to the people who attacked us and the reason they did it, and they are delighted that we're over there because Osama bin Laden has said, 'I am glad you're over on our sand because we can target you so much easier.' They have already now since that time –have killed 3,400 of our men, and I don't think it was necessary."Then the very archetype of the State Enforcer popped up to shout him down."That's really an extraordinary statement," said Rudy Giuliani. "That's an extraordinary statement, as someone who lived through the attack of September 11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. I don't think I've heard that before, and I've heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11th."Now, this is interesting because it is obvious that Ron never said that we invited the attacks. This was a lie. He said the US foreign policy was a "contributing factor" in why they attacked us, a fact which only a fool or a liar could deny. Guiliani then went on to say that he has never "heard that before" –a statement that testifies to the extent of the blackout on this question.Ron Paul was invited to respond, and concluded as follows:"I believe very sincerely that the CIA is correct when they teach and talk about blowback. When we went into Iran in 1953 and installed the shah, yes, there was blowback. A reaction to that was the taking of our hostages and that persists. And if we ignore that, we ignore that at our own risk. If we think that we can do what we want around the world and not incite hatred, then we have a problem. They don't come here to attack us because we're rich and we're free. They come and they attack us because we're over there. I mean, what would we think if we were –if other foreign countries were doing that to us?"Wow, he broke the great taboo in American political life! Why this should be a taboo at all is unclear, but there it is. But now that it is finally out in the open, this shocking theory that the terrorists were not merely freedom-hating madmen but perhaps had some actual motive for their crime, let's think a bit more about it.It is a normal part of human experience that if you occupy, meddle, bully, and coerce, people who are affected by it all are going to get angry. You don't have to be Muslim to get the point. The problem is that most of the American people simply have no idea what has been happening in the last ten years. Most Americans think that America the country is much like their own neighborhood: peaceful, happy, hard working, law abiding. So when you tell people that the US is actually something completely

时政

2014-52/4410/en_head.json.gz/6363

The big city budget dilemma July 28, 2010 By BRIAN HAWKINS sdneditor@bellsouth.net One major dilemma is facing Starkville officials as they prepare the municipal government budget for the 2010-2011 fiscal year: Do they try to move forward with projects identified in their strategic plan or tow the line in keeping expenses down? That’s something the full Board of Aldermen will have to weigh when it convenes for a budget work session in the coming weeks. Members of the city’s Budget Committee — Ward 2 Alderwoman Sandra Sistrunk, Ward 3 Alderman Eric Parker, Ward 6 Alderman Roy A. Perkins and Mayor Parker Wiseman — met early Tuesday afternoon to discuss needs identified by city department heads and how they might fit into the city’s revenue picture for the upcoming fiscal year, which begins Oct. 1. A decision on a date for the budget work session will be on the agenda for the next meeting of the full Board of Aldermen at 5:30 p.m. this Tuesday at City Hall. Sistrunk, who serves as Budget Committee chair, said Tuesday that the projected city budget for the next fiscal year will see expenses on a level comparable to that of the 2007-2008 fiscal year. Current figures project the city’s general fund budget at $15,285,713, which is $36,070 higher than the 2007-2008 budget. “I was reading on the National League of Cities website and learned that municipalities trail the effect of the general economy by a couple of years. That means that 2011 and 2012 may be tough years financially for us, though the national economy may be improving,” said Sistrunk. With that in mind, the city’s department heads have been asked to project their 2010-2011 budgets “based on what they have now,” and any additional expenses will have to be appropriated based on available funding, Sistrunk said. But several items will weigh into the budgeting process, including a list of specific department needs, some departmental reorganization as proposed during the strategic planning process and city employee pay equity. Those will have to be considered, as well as the maintenance of an ending fund balance within the budget to allow city officials a financial cushion in case of emergencies. “To be a city without an ending fund balance is to be a family without a savings account,” Sistrunk said. Wiseman said he would like to see serious discussion by the Budget Committee and full Board of Aldermen on increasing city employee salaries to a level where they are comparable to employees in other municipalities similar in size to Starkville. Wiseman said he has Personnel Director Randy Boyd researching “how far behind the average of our peer group municipalities as far as compensation for our employees.” “Randy has indicated that it is in the ball park of 10 percent,” Wiseman said. Bringing the salaries of the city’s work force up to the average of peer municipalities would require about $750,000, but he sees “no way to build an additional three quarters of a million dollars into the budget,” Wiseman said. City officials are proposing a 1.75 percent pay increase to offset a mandatory increase in employee contributions to the Public Employees Retirement System (PERS). Employee pay is a morale issue and “goes in line with the goal of improving customer service” for city residents, Wiseman said. In its strategic planning sessions, the Board of Aldermen has also identified needs to realign and expand some city departments. This includes hiring an assistant city planner to examine long-range planning issues and hiring an additional building inspector in the current Building, Codes and Planning Department, creating a full Information Technology Department (which would require hiring an additional employee) and reorganizing the Sanitation Department into an Environmental Services Department to handle increasing demand for environment-friendly services like recycling in addition to garbage collection. Projected costs for all three initiatives would cost a combined $300,000 in new expenses. Other needs include outfitting and staffing the new Fire Station No. 5, including refurbishing an existing fire engine. Purchasing equipment, refurbishing the fire engine and staffing for the new fire station will cost a combined $280,000. Options for infusing additional money into the general fund that were discussed Tuesday included increases in ad valorem taxes (which would generate around $365,000), increases in ad valorem tax revenue due to reassessment of all properties in the city, using the city’s 10 percent share of the 2 percent hotel/restaurant tax to help fund the city’s parks system instead of transferring money directly from the general fund, projecting an increase in sales tax revenue, reducing contributions to outside agencies other than those that are obligated. Sistrunk noted that city officials were limited to no more than a 10 percent increase in ad valorem taxes by statute, which amounts to less than 2 mills of revenue. For those who own homes valued at $100,000, it would mean an additional $5 a year if age 65 or above or an less than $20 year if under 65. For those with a $250,000 home, it would mean an additional $36 a year if age 65 or over or an additional $48 a year if under age 65, Sistrunk said. “We’re not talking about a draconian increase in city taxes,” Sistrunk said, noting that tax bills had already increased due to the municipal school district and OCH Regional Medical Center bond issues and a tax hike by county supervisors last year. Perkins, who remained quiet for much of Tuesday’s Budget Committee meeting, said he did not favor any type of ad valorem tax increase and wanted to see continued efforts to reduce spending. Perkins said he did not favor any reorganization in city departments that would see spending increase. Perkins offered three suggestions for infusing money into the city’s general fund: • Reducing contributions to outside agencies, including the Mississippi Horse Park. “We have been funding these agencies and the Horse Park for a long time, and every year, it continues to grow. While we appreciate the contributions they have made to the community, we have to watch out for the money that belongs to the taxpayers.” • Selling the old Starkville Electric Department building to generate a one-time infusion of revenue. Some Budget Committee members favored holding off until the question of whether city leaders will move forward with a new municipal complex is answered. Parker noted that the old SED building could be refurbished to allow for some new office space. • Petitioning the state Legislature to reallocate the revenues from the 2 percent hotel/restaurant tax to allow the municipal government to receive a larger share. Currently, 40 percent goes to the Parks and Recreation Department, 20 percent goes to Mississippi State University, 15 percent goes to the Starkville Convention and Visitors Bureau, 15 percent goes to the Oktibbeha County Economic Development Authority and 10 percent goes to the city. Wiseman expressed concern over trying to factor a reallocation of the 2 percent funds into the budget process, especially since it would take months for a proposal to work its way through the Legislature and such a proposal may not be successful. “I don’t think it’s advisable to go that route,” Wiseman said. ESPN GameDay a hit at MSU Supervisors to continue TIF discussion Monday MDAH board lauds local efforts to preserve history Mullen wants support for MSU's scrimmage Bulldogs are ready for walk in Memphis

时政

2014-52/4410/en_head.json.gz/6479

Obama sworn in for 4 more years in office President Barack Obama arrives for his ceremonial swearing-in at the U.S. Capitol during the 57th Presidential Inauguration in Washington, Monday, Jan. 21, 2013. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais) JULIE PACEAP White House Correspondent on January 20, 2013 - 12:51 PM WASHINGTON (AP) — Stepping into his second term, President Barack Obama took the oath of office Sunday in an intimate swearing-in ceremony at the White House, the leader of a nation no longer in the throes of the recession he inherited four years ago but still deeply divided.The president, surrounded by family in the ornate White House Blue Room, was administered the brief oath of office by Chief Justice John Roberts. With Obama’s hand resting on a Bible used for years by Michelle Obama’s family, the president vowed “to support and defend the Constitution of the United States,” echoing the same words spoken by the 43 men who held the office before him.About a dozen family members were on hand to witness Obama’s swearing in, including the first lady, daughters Malia and Sasha, the president’s sister Maya Soetoro-Ng and her family. Mrs. Obama’s mother Marian Robinson, and the first lady’s brother, Craig Robinson and his family. A few reporters also were in the room.The president will repeat the swearing in ritual again Monday on the west front of the Capitol, before a jubilant crowd of up to 800,000 people.Sunday’s smaller ceremony was a function of the calendar and the Constitution, which says presidents automatically begin their new terms at noon on Jan. 20. Because that date fell this year on a Sunday — a day on which inaugural ceremonies historically are not held — organizers scheduled a second, public swearing-in for Monday.The mood in the nation’s capital was more subdued during this year’s inaugural festivities than it was four years ago, when Obama swept into office on a wave of national optimism, becoming the first black man to hold the nation’s highest office. Since then, he has endured fiscal fights with Congress and a bruising re-election campaign — and has the gray hair and lower approval ratings to show for it.Ahead of his swearing in Sunday, Obama, along with Vice President Joe Biden, solemnly honored the nation’s fallen soldiers during a wreath-laying ceremony at Arlington National Cemetery. On a crisp, sun-splashed morning, Obama and Biden placed a large wreath adorned with red, white and blue ribbon, in front of Arlington’s Tomb of the Unknowns. Placing their hands over their hearts, the two leaders stood motionless as a bugler played “Taps.”From Arlington, Obama joined his family at a church service celebrating Martin Luther King Jr. The president’s public swearing-in on Monday coincides with the national holiday marking the fallen civil rights leader’s birthday, and Obama has invoked King’s memory throughout the lead-up to the inauguration.The Rev. Jonathan V. Newton, an assistant pastor at Metropolitan African Methodist Episcopal Church, prayed for God to prepare Obama for battle, “because sometimes enemies insist on doing it the hard way.”Biden took the oath of office earlier in the morning, surrounded by family and friends for a brief ceremony at the Naval Observatory, his official residence in northwest Washington. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, appointed by Obama as the first Hispanic to serve on the Supreme Court, administered the oath of office to Biden, who placed his hand on a Bible his family has used since 1893.Among the 120 guests on hand to witness the vice president’s second swearing-in were Attorney General Eric Holder, departing Interior Secretary Ken Salazar and several Democratic lawmakers.A crowd of up to 800,000 people is expected to gather on the National Mall to witness Obama’s second swearing-in, which will take place on the Capitol’s red, white and blue bunting-draped west front. Roberts, who famously flubbed the oath of office that Obama took in 2009, will administer the oath on Monday.Once the celebrations are over, Obama will plunge into a second-term agenda still dominated by the economy, which slowly churned out of recession during his first four years in office. The president will also try to cement his legacy with sweeping domestic changes, pledging to achieve both an immigration overhaul and stricter gun laws despite opposition from a divided Congress.But for one weekend at least, Washington was putting politics aside. Obama called the nation’s inaugural traditions “a symbol of how our democracy works and how we peacefully transfer power.”“But it should also be an affirmation that we’re all in this together,” he said Saturday, as he opened a weekend of inaugural activities at a Washington elementary school.Obama and Biden were to address supporters Sunday evening at an inaugural reception.The president planned to save his most expansive remarks for Monday’s inaugural address to the crowd gathered on the Mall and millions more watching across the country and the world. Obama started working on the speech in early December and was still tinkering with it into the weekend, aides said.Local officials were busy touching up Washington for all the hundreds of thousands of guests arriving for Monday’s swearing-in. Work crews were trimming overgrown grass and trash from walkways along city underpasses, erecting first aid tents and setting up traffic detours. Swarms of tourists easily roamed city streets Sunday ahead of the pedestrian gridlock sure to come with Monday’s full inaugural program.The president’s address will set the stage for the policy objectives he seeks to achieve in his second term, including speeding up the economic recovery, passing comprehensive immigration and gun control measures and ending the war in Afghanistan. Aides said Obama would save the specifics of those agenda items for his Feb. 12 State of the Union address.The president launched a weekend of inaugural activities Saturday by heading up a National Day of Service. Along with his family, Obama helped hundreds of volunteers spruce up a Washington area elementary school.Obama wore rubber gloves, picked up a paint brush and helped volunteers stain a bookshelf.Obama added the service event to the inaugural schedule in 2009 and is hoping it becomes a tradition followed for future presidents.Mrs. Obama, speaking to volunteers Sunday, espoused the importance of giving back in the midst of the weekend of pomp, circumstance and celebration.“The reason why we’re here, why we’re standing here, why we’re able to celebrate this weekend is because a lot of people worked hard and supported us, and we’ve got a job to do and this is a symbol of the kind of work that we need to be doing the next four years,” Michelle Obama said at Burrville Elementary.___Associated Press writers Darlene Superville, Josh Lederman, Matthew Daly and Nancy Benac contributed to this report.___Follow Julie Pace at http://twitter.com/jpaceDC

时政

2014-52/4410/en_head.json.gz/6504

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

时政

2014-52/4410/en_head.json.gz/6513

Human rights disagreements cloud opening of U.S.-China dialogue By Jill Dougherty, CNN Foreign Affairs Correspondent China following U.S. debt crisisSTORY HIGHLIGHTSRemarks by Clinton, Biden reflect tougher administration line on human rightsHowever, both urge more cooperation with ChinaChinese counselor says China has made "enormous progress" including "on human rights"Remarks came at the opening of the third U.S./China Strategic and Economic Dialogue Washington (CNN) -- While urging more cooperation with China, senior U.S. officials Monday repeatedly stressed differences over human rights, reflecting a harder line from the Obama administration on a major disagreement between the two economic powers. In opening remarks at the third U.S./China Strategic and Economic Dialogue in Washington, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said, "We worry about the impact on our domestic politics and on the politics and stability in China and the region. We see reports of people, including public interest lawyers, writers, artists and others who are detained or disappeared." Vice President Joe Biden also addressed the opening, noting that "We have vigorous disagreements over human rights," adding, "I recognize that some in China see our advocacy in human rights as an intrusion and, Lord only knows, what else. But President Obama and I believe strongly, as does the secretary, that protecting fundamental rights and freedom such as those enshrined in China's international commitments as well as in China's own constitution is the best way to promote long-term stability and prosperity." Chinese State Counselor Dai Bingguo, however, countered, noting the "enormous progress" China has made, "including on human rights." Clinton called for continued economic cooperation with China, saying "fears and misperceptions linger on both sides of the Pacific." "I will be very open about that," Clinton said. "Some in our country see China's progress as a threat to the United States; some in China worry that America seeks to constrain China's growth. We reject both of those views. We both have much more to gain from cooperation than from conflict. The fact is that a thriving United States is good for China and a thriving China is good for America." U.S., China talks focus on economy On military issues, Clinton said that to work together both countries must be able to "understand each other's intentions and interests," adding "we must demystify long-term plans and aspirations." For the first time, Clinton said, senior military officials from both sides are participating in the Dialogue to discuss how to reduce what Clinton called the "dangerous risks of misunderstanding and miscalculations." Clinton also praised U.S.-China cooperation on sanctions on Iran over its nuclear program and on North Korea. "We continue to urge North Korea to take concrete actions to improve relations with South Korea and to refrain from further provocations... And we want to see North Korea take irreversible steps to fulfill its international obligations towards denuclearization."

时政

2014-52/4410/en_head.json.gz/6621

House passes Ryan budget with big cuts Associated Press April 10, 2014 FILE - House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., goes before the House Rules Committee for final work on his budget to fund the government in fiscal year 2015, at the Capitol in Washington, in this April 7, 2014 file photo. The plan being considered Thursday April 10, 2014 is a nonbinding framework aimed more at engaging GOP voters than rival Democrats. The budget plan from Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., revives a now-familiar list of spending cuts to promise balance, including $2.1 trillion over 10 years in health care subsidies and coverage under the Affordable Care Act; $732 billion in cuts to Medicaid and other health care programs; and almost $1 trillion in cuts to other benefit programs like food stamps, Pell Grants and farm subsidies. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File) WASHINGTON — The House on Wednesday passed a GOP budget blueprint that promises a balanced federal ledger in 10 years by making sweeping cuts across the federal budget and eliminating health care coverage under the Affordable Care Act.� The 219-205 vote on the nonbinding framework takes a mostly symbolic swipe at the government's chronic deficits. Follow-up legislation to actually implement the cuts isn't in the cards. Twelve Republicans opposed the measure, and not a single Democrat supported it.� The plan by Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., would cut more than $5 trillion over the coming decade to reach balance by 2024. The sharpest cuts would come to health care programs for the poor and uninsured, food stamps, and array of domestic programs, including Pell Grants, education, and community development grants.� The follow-up legislation is likely to be limited to a round of annual spending bills that will adhere to a bipartisan budget pact enacted in December.� But the Ryan plan paints a picture of what Republicans will try to do if they claim the Senate this fall and the White House in 2016. Its cuts to entrenched benefit programs like Medicare and Medicaid, however, would be difficult to pass even if Republicans gain control of both the House and Senate in this fall's elections.� Democrats are seizing on the debate to cast Republicans as cruelly cutting programs that keep people out of poverty and help sustain the middle class.� “It's totally out of touch with the priorities and values of the country,” said Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md. “This is a clear road map of what Republicans in Congress would do if they had the power to do it.” Republicans say the tough cuts they promise would strengthen the economy because less government borrowing would boost savings and investment. And they say it's simply unfair to saddle future generations with mountains of debt.� “The sooner we tackle these fiscal problems, the better off everybody is going to be, the faster the economy grows, and the more we can guarantee that the next generation inherits a debt-free future,” said Ryan.� Republicans opposing the bill were mostly tea party adherents such as Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky, as well as several members of the Georgia delegation who are competing in a Senate primary. A handful of more moderate members from the Northeast, including Reps. Chris Gibson of New York and Frank LoBiondo of New Jersey, also opposed it.� At issue is the arcane congressional budget process, which employs a nonbinding measure known as a budget resolution to set forth goals for future taxes, spending and deficits. But follow-up legislation is usually limited to one-year appropriations bills rather than more difficult measures to deal with the government's long-term fiscal challenges, which are fueled by spiraling health care costs and the retirement of the baby boom generation.� Ryan's plan revives a now-familiar list of spending cuts to promise balance, including $2.1 trillion over 10 years in health care subsidies and coverage under the Affordable Care Act; $732 billion in cuts to Medicaid and other health care programs; and almost $1 trillion in cuts to other benefit programs like food stamps, Pell Grants and farm subsidies.� Even though it would repeal the Affordable Care Act's benefits, Ryan's plan would preserve its tax increases and cuts to providers, including cuts to private insurers under the Medicare Advantage program. Republicans have attacked Democrats over the Medicare cuts used to finance the new health care law.� The measure also promises deep, probably unrealistic cuts to domestic programs like education, health research and grants to local governments that are funded each year through annual appropriations bills.� As in the past, Ryan has steered clear of cuts to Social Security, and he promises steady increases for veterans and restoration of looming defense cuts. But he faces a more challenging task to promise to balance the budget by decade's end than he did last year because the Congressional Budget Office projects lagging revenues.� Steep cuts to Medicaid, which Ryan proposes to turn into a block grant program managed by the states, could drive millions of people from the program, including seniors in nursing homes and children from low-income households.� Ryan's plan also reprises a failed strategy from last year to cut domestic agency operating budgets and shift the money to the Pentagon after 2015. When Republicans tried that last year, the House was unable to pass the follow-up spending bills implementing the cuts.� Earlier versions of Ryan's plan have passed the House three times since the GOP won control of the chamber following the 2010 midterm elections. Like the others, this year's plan would require people who enroll in Medicare in 2024 to be given a subsidy — called “premium support” by Republicans, derided as a voucher system by Democrats — with which they would purchase health insurance on the open market.� Republicans say the system is required to prevent the budget from spiraling out of control as more baby boomers retire and the present system collapses. They also say the redesigned Medicare program would offer seniors more choices and curb costs. Critics, however, say the Medicare subsidies won't keep up with inflation and will require sharply higher out-of-pocket costs for future seniors. 'Beneficial reuse' of coal ash could contaminate drinking water statewide Janesville School District unveils teacher compensation proposal Death notices for Dec. 27, 2014 Delavan woman accused of stealing more than $50,000 from employer Gregory Eugene Reuter, Lansing, MI/Janesville, WI (1971-2014) Right sizing: Rock County supervisor wants to look at county board structure Most read

时政

2014-52/4410/en_head.json.gz/6646

Russia's Economy Headed For Even More Trouble Report: North Korean Internet, 3G Mobile Network Shut Down For Hours North Korea Says Obama Was Behind Release Of 'The Interview' Official: Wanted Al-Shabab Leader Surrenders In Somalia Another Twist In Airline Nuts Scandal Michael Sam Opens Up About Coming Out, NFL Go to Sports Ohio Legislature Will Renew Attempt To Repair Lake Erie Fight Looming Over New England Fishing Territory It's A 2014 Icicle Listicle Go to Green More in Green Green Holiday Honey Maid, Hanky Codes, Warwick Rowers And More In Our Gay Videos Of 2014 A Gay Dad's Open Letter To Two Fathers Who Gave Up Their Christmas For Homeless LGBT Youth Meet The Incredible Woman That Is Fighting To Create LGBT Acceptance In The Mormon Church 29 Of The Queerest Christmas Songs Go to Gay Voices More in Gay Voices Don't Ask, Don't Tell Voice to Voice Poll Position HuffPost Hill Howard Fineman's Political Read NSA Fesses Up To Improper Surveillance Of U.S. Citizens Police Unions 'Standing Down' After Controversial Comments In Wake Of NYPD Shooting Bernie Sanders: I'll Decide On Presidential Run By March Here Are 10 Of The Best Political Quotes Of 2014 HUFFPOLLSTER: With Economy Improving, President Obama Gets A Holiday Ratings Boost New York City Sends $30 Million A Year To School With History Of Giving Kids Electric Shocks Here's The Part Of Alan Gross' Story That Obama Hasn't Been Talking About Government Shutdown 2011: Federal Workers Brace For Effect | By ERIC TUCKER and SARAH EDDINGTON Posted: 04/08/2011 11:47 am EDT Updated: 06/08/2011 5:12 am EDT Share LITTLE ROCK, Ark. — A weather forecaster says he may have to live off the money he's been setting aside for a Caribbean vacation. A worker in Washington hopes to polish his resume so he can retire from public service and work in the private sector. An accountant wonders if she can put off her mortgage for a month.Federal workers like them across the U.S. will be out of work and without a paycheck if the looming government shutdown isn't averted. Some say they will make the best of it, using the spare time to get a few things done. Others are far more fearful of how they'll provide for their families.The partial shutdown, which could start at midnight Friday, leaves workers with many questions – some serious, others more mundane: How long, if at all, will they be away from their jobs? Who will be deemed "essential" and be told to come to work? Should I cancel the kids' daycare? Will I still be able to afford that pre-planned vacation? About 800,000 federal government workers would be affected by a shutdown. Congress would have to decide if furloughed employees could recoup back pay if they have to stay home.The ripple effects stretch far beyond the Washington metro area, where many federal employees work and live, to places like Chicago, where more than 100 people facing no paychecks protested outside a federal building with signs, "Don't Punish the Public" and "Banks got bailed out, we got sold out."National parks would close, and the IRS would not process paper tax returns. But the nation's federal prisons would remain open and air traffic controllers would report to work, as would federal inspectors who enforce safety rules and other workers deemed essential.In Arkansas, National Weather Service meteorologist Dan Koch said he worries about how a shutdown could affect his family, including his two children. He said he'd still report to work for business as usual – but he wouldn't get a paycheck until the shutdown ended. He's putting more into savings to prepare, he said."I was actually saving up for a Caribbean cruise, but that money may actually be used to live on. It's certainly more important to make sure we can get the bills paid and provide for our family," he said.Others saw opportunity.John Haines, 64, has worked for the federal government more than 35 years. His duties as deputy director of the office of community renewal at the Department of Housing and Urban Development keep him busy all day long – leaving him little time to prepare for his transition to a new job in the private sector. He said he's been meaning to update his resume for some time."I guarantee you if I'm not coming to work Monday morning that I'll have more energy to do the kind of work that I should have done already" to prepare for the future, he said.Haines wasn't even sure if he could count on a three-day weekend. He was headed to a seminar this weekend in North Carolina and planned to visit a son there who serves in the National Guard, but he didn't want to miss work Monday if his office was open."So I'm not doing any planning beyond the immediate future," he said.In Salt Lake City, home to about 12,300 federal employees, Leslie Steffs was applying for new hospital positions. The 55-year-old single mother, an administrative assistant assigned to the downtown Wallace F. Bennett Federal Building, said she was concerned about making mortgage payments."Some people say we'll just have to tough it out, but I have a family to support. This is no joke," Steffs said.That was echoed by Justin Castro, a park service worker at the Oklahoma City Bombing National Memorial."Not having a check means not paying rent and not paying bills that need to be paid," he said.A sheriff on the eastern end of Rocky Mountain National Park in Colorado is encouraging people to visit. Larimer County Sheriff Justin Smith said he'll provide emergency services and law enforcement to visitors in the park area within his county in the event of a shutdown.He said merchants in nearby Estes Park would be hurt by a lack of visitors and shouldn't be pawns in the budget showdown.However, Patrick O'Driscoll, a spokesman at the National Park Service's regional office in suburban Denver, said Smith's department has no jurisdiction and the park will be closed if there's a shutdown.Limitations would not just affect the states. Aaron Tarver, a spokesman at the U.S. Embassy in Seoul, South Korea, said U.S. citizens will still have consular services if needed, but passports would be limited to emergencies. In the Philippines, the U.S. Embassy in Manila would only provide limited and emergency services if a shutdown happened, spokeswoman Rebecca Thompson said.In Chicago, one of the demonstrators was Julie Sidlo, an Environmental Protection Agency accountant who endured the last government shutdown in the 1990s. This time, she doesn't know how her job would be affected but is preparing for the worst, she said."I've sent an email to my mortgage company asking if I can delay payment for the next month, and gotten no response. I don't know if I can file for unemployment," Sidlo said, adding that she's set money aside for several weeks. "I've decided not to make any purchases I don't need to. I don't go to restaurants."The government continued lurching toward a shutdown even as Congress continued negotiations to avert it and leaders expressed hope they could get a deal done. House Republicans advanced a stopgap measure Thursday that would keep the government running for another week, cut $12 billion in domestic spending and fund the Pentagon for the rest of the year. But President Barack Obama threatened to veto the bill even before it passed, and Senate Democrats showed no willingness to allow a vote on it. Both sides failed to reach agreement in middle-of-the-night talks.Haines, who joined HUD in 1979 and before that worked for the Department of Transportation, said attrition at his workplace had pushed him to more rigorous hours. Though retirement-eligible, he's now considering private sector jobs in economic development and said the threat of a shutdown laid bare what he said was a depressing change in the way the public values government workers."The advantage of being a federal employee is, supposedly, job stability. You sacrifice your total pay for whatever the job satisfaction and a high degree of job security," Haines said. "That's the tradeoff, supposedly – and, supposedly, good benefits."On Thursday, though, he wasn't so sure of that.___Tucker reported from Washington. Associated Press writers Don Babwin in Chicago, Chi-Chi Zhang in Salt Lake City, Kelly Olsen in Seoul, South Korea and Hrvoje Hranjski in Manila, Philippines, contributed to this report. Federal Government Shutdown Government Shutdown 2011 Federal Government Shutdown 2011 Part of HPMG News

时政

2014-52/4410/en_head.json.gz/6808

To: Your Email: Your Name: Subject: November 15, 2012 12:00 AM The Need to Explain Republicans must be able to thoroughly discredit liberal lies. By Thomas Sowell Archive Victory night, November 6, 1984 (The Reagan Library) Thomas Sowell The most successful Republican presidential candidate of the past half century — Ronald Reagan, who was elected and reelected with landslide victories — bore little resemblance to the moderate candidates that Republican conventional wisdom depicts as the key to victory, even though most of these moderate candidates have in fact gone down to defeat.One of the biggest differences between Reagan and these latter-day losers was that Reagan paid great attention to explaining his policies and values. He was called “the great communicator,” but much more than a gift for words was involved. The issues that defined Reagan’s vision were things he had thought about, written about, and debated for years before he reached the White House.Reagan was like a veteran quarterback who comes up to the line of scrimmage, takes a glance at how the other team is deployed against him, and knows automatically what he needs to do. There is not enough time to figure it out from scratch, while waiting for the ball to be snapped. You have to have figured out such things long before the game began, and now just need to execute. Very few Republican candidates for any office today show any sign of such in-depth preparation on issues. Mitt Romney, for example, inadvertently showed his lack of preparation when he indicated that he was in favor of indexing the minimum-wage rate, so that it would rise automatically with inflation.That sounds fine. But the cold fact is that minimum-wage laws create massive unemployment among black teenagers. Conversely, one of the lowest rates of unemployment among black teenagers occurred in the 1940s, when inflation virtually repealed the minimum-wage law passed in 1938, since even unskilled labor was paid more in inflated dollars than the minimum-wage law required.Even during the recession year of 1949, black teenage unemployment was a fraction of what it would be in the most prosperous years after that, after the minimum-wage rate was raised repeatedly to keep pace with inflation. One of the few benefits of inflation is that it can in effect repeal minimum-wage laws, which politicians can do directly only by risking their reelection.Conservative opposition to minimum-wage laws is just one of the ways that conservative principles often work out to benefit those with lower incomes, more so than liberal principles that sound so much better as political rhetoric.It seems unlikely that Governor Romney had time to learn about such things during this year’s busy election campaign. He was like a rookie quarterback with just a few seconds to try to figure out the opposing team’s complex formations before the ball is snapped.One of the secrets of Barack Obama’s success is his ability to say things that will sound both plausible and inspiring to uninformed people, even when they sound ridiculous to people who know the facts. Apparently he believes the former outnumber the latter, and the election results suggest that he may be right.Since most of the media will never expose Obama’s fallacies and falsehoods, it is all the more important for Republicans to do so themselves. Nor is it necessary for every Republican candidate for every office to become an expert on every controversial issue.Just as particular issues are farmed out to different committees in Congress, so Republicans can set up committees of outside experts to inform them on particular issues.For example, a committee on income and poverty could be headed by an expert like Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation. This is a subject on which demonstrable falsehoods have become the norm, and one on which devastating refutations in plain English are readily available from a number of sources.A committee on the counterproductive effects of liberal policies such as minimum-wage laws on minorities could be headed by someone like economist Walter Williams. Here too, there are many writings in plain English that could expose the huge harm done to minorities by liberal policies that claim to be helping them.It is not necessary to explode every single lie put out by liberal Democrats. All that is necessary is to thoroughly discredit a few of their key claims, exposing them as liars.What is even more necessary is for Republicans themselves to understand the urgent need to do so, for their own sake and — more important– for the country’s sake.— Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. © 2012 Creators Syndicate, Inc.

时政

2014-52/4410/en_head.json.gz/6870

Lowcountry to Washington: You better listen up File/AP × From Facebook We received more than 100 responses to our Facebook question, “As the shutdown lingers, what message do you want to send to your federal lawmakers?Pro-shutdown/anti-Obamacare“Paraphrasing: Proposed Article 28: Congress nor the government shall pass any law that applies to the People and not include themselves.” D. Russell, 50, Yemassee, retired“Don't bend the knee House. Don't give in. Not even a little. Obamacare was designed to fail, so they could institute single payer.” Stephen McDaniel, 35, Ridgeville, mechanic at Boeing“The message still remains the same stop depending on the government. The founding father did not intend to TAKE CARE of the people and everyone has to live within their means.” Lesa Robinson, 45, nurse“Do whatever it takes to stop the madness. No more frivolous spending, if you expect we the people to abide by the laws, make them apply to yourselves as well.” Candice Barnhart 43, Moncks Corner, Construction Management“Remember that 'little' historical document called the US Constitution? What do y'all say we actually get back to upholding and defending it as you swore to do when you took office. To those few such as Ted Cruz, Tim Scott, Mark Sanford and a handful of others that already do, keep up the great work. I hope we send you some more next election to help out!” Teri McCall, 44, homemaker, Summerville“To the GOP leadership: DON'T CAVE!” Jimmy Ryan, 38, Isle of PalmsAnti-shutdown/pro-Obamacare“I am an ABA therapist who works with children that have been diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder. When the country elected President Obama for a second term, we elected reformed healthcare. Holding the government hostage because a select few representatives do not agree with the Affordable Care Act is unacceptable. The system that is in place now is broken and our country needs to try something different, even if we are unsure of what exactly will happen. I also strongly feel that if government employees are not getting paid, Congress should get paid either. I will remember their actions the next time I am in the voting booth.” Sara LeMay, 23, Goose Creek“Obama was elected. Get over it! The ACA was passed by Congress, signed by the President and upheld by the Supreme Court!! Get over it!!” Marsha Hass, 67, retired“Grow up... Stop acting like spoiled children who just want to win. At the cost of America.” Becky Campbell, 59, pet groomer“You are there to represent the people, not to further your own political ambitions or work on your banking accounts. The ACA has been voted on by the people, by the previous Congress, and approved by the Supreme Court. You can work to improve it over the next few years, but you cannot undo it.” Bonnie Grossman, 69, retired“Please do NOT allow a small element of the GOP in the House to hold our great country hostage any longer. This is not ruling by majority, as it should be. Bring a 'clean budget' to a vote, Mr. Boehner, and allow us to pay the bills which we currently have incurred. The ACA is the law and has been for almost four years now.” Melissa Warner, 60, retired“As a retired federal employee I would like to congratulate the Republican Party for voting themselves out of office. All incumbents must go!” Patrick Gaines, 45, retired in Valencia Spain, from Mount Pleasant“All u did was lay off 800k hard working people. Obamacare is still happening! You didnt accomplish anything except hurting the american people.” Karen Ward Linker, 44, small business owner, Isle of Palms We asked you: As the shutdown lingers, what message do you want to send to your federal lawmakers? Here's what you said: “They need to end this. My grandma gets a government check every month and she depends on that to pay rent and take care of herself. This hurts her and it affects a lot of low-income people.” Marcus Middle, 24, Georgetown, student “There are people who have been waiting for Obamacare who have chronic health problems, who really need this to kick in. It may work, it may not, but we have to take a chance on something. We can't just shut down the government. We have to keep moving forward. No step forward is a step backwards.” Shawna Hardin, 29, West Ashley, health and wellness consultant “I already see the impact. We are taking our children on a field trip that is all about science (to Bull Island), and one class was able to go ... and the other class wasn't. We have all these children who are waiting to take part in this great experience that was given as a grant. It's a great way to reinforce the things they learn in class, and now they're not able to go. I really don't see that as being fair to them for lawmakers to prove a point.” Stacey Shoecraft, 48, teacher, Mount Pleasant “I hope they get together to get it right. Compromise. And put these other folks back to work so they can pay their bills.” Jeryl Canty, 49, skilled worker, North Charleston “Get moving. Get negotiating, and put people back to work. There's a trickle-down effect. People don't get paychecks and then businesses suffer. It's not just federal employees being affected. ... This an avoidable disaster. Quit playing games with our economy. The country is thought of as a safe haven now, but that could change. ... This sends a horrible message.” Elaine Worzala, 52, Mount Pleasant, director of the College of Charleston School of Business' Carter Real Estate Center “There's a time when governing requires compromise. And I would like to see folks sit down at the table to compromise. Right now, no one party is in control. Democrats have control of the Senate and Republicans have control of the House. So people will have to give up something and compromise.” Gibbs Knotts, 41, Mount Pleasant, political science professor at the College of Charleston “My message to lawmakers would be that if it requires a government shutdown (only about 15 percent of the government is affected) to get to fiscal responsibility, to stop borrowing money and to produce a balanced budget, then keep the government closed. Republicans have to stop capitulating to the bullies in the Senate and White House.” Nancy Corbin, 68, retired DoD civilian employee, rural Berkeley County “If I could, I would like to remind lawmakers of their sworn duty to SERVE the people. After the incident at the Capitol and White House, lawmakers should be ashamed to continue to furlough the very people who protect them and keep them out of harm's way. When our founding fathers wrote the Constitution, they did so with the intent to 'guard against faction.' Well, factionalism has now taken over our government. Our country was founded on the necessity of compromise, and when we fail to do so our entire nation suffers.” Melissa Watson, 36, teacher, Goose Creek “I would tell them to do their job.” Matt Eldridge, 45, of Charleston, owner of The Rutledge Avenue Inn “I'm sure it affects a lot of people and their jobs and their income and supporting their families. I know there's a lot of people that aren't working right now, and I don't know like what the furlough means — if they are going to get paid later or if they're just not going to get paid. I don't know what that means, but I'm sure it does affect them and I know it would affect me.” Kim Hoffman, 34, of Moncks Corner, surgical assistant at Shelbourne & Associates “It is a disgrace. They do not have our interests at heart. Run the government like you should run your household. Please hold yourself to the same standards. They should be on the same benefits plan for you as the rest of the country. If there is no money, then the program (Obamacare) does not get funded. If we cannot pay for it, then it does not get done.” Dawson Cherry, 49, a practice manager at S.C. Sports Medicine and Orthopaedic Center in North Charleston and a Mount Pleasant resident “I would like to ask our federal lawmakers to work together to rectify the main issue facing our country and that is the federal deficit. I would like the Senate to create and pass a realistic budget as required by law, which should be based upon the revenue of the government, not how much the government can borrow. Then this should be approved and passed by Congress, so we all can move on. Also, I would like all federal lawmakers to be required to go online and purchase an insurance plan being offered by the 'Affordable Health Care Act.' ” Joe Calandra, 56, a physician who lives in Mount Pleasant “You're not focusing on the important things in the country. You're focusing on yourselves. You're not doing what's right.” Courtney Odom, 22, Summerville, retail “Stop crying. Stop crying. Stop crying. I work every day. I work two jobs. Health care is expensive. People who aren't healthy enough to work need it. People like myself who are healthy enough to work, I need it for myself and my family.” Shawn Simmons, 33, Summerville, custodial supervisor “Huge numbers of hardworking people will be hurt tremendously by the Washington politics. ... They didn't get the job done and now people who are marginalized and barely able to survive are hurt the most.” The Rev. Donnie Woods, 59, executive presbyter, Charleston Atlantic Presbytery, West Ashley “While each party is blaming the other, both parties are accountable. It's irresponsible to allow a shutdown of the government in any case. It sends the wrong message domestically as well as internationally.” Teresa Campagna, 42, medical language specialist, Mount Pleasant resident “Members of both sides of Congress as well as the president are to blame for the shutdown. It's not like this was only a possibility in the last few days, weeks or months. ... It is more than a possibility we will see a first-ever federal default which would cripple not only the American economy but that of the world as well.” Joe Campagna, principal productions engineer, 43 Mount Pleasant resident “Get your act together and get it done! You can't print what I really want to say to them.” Jacki Middleton, 51, financial case manager at Charleston Area Senior Citizens, Charleston “Why wait until the last minute every time? They had a year to do this. And the Republicans are just so stubborn. They hate Obama.” Michael Larnish, 75, retired, Charleston “Do your job. The whole country is watching. My wife is a programmer and has a lot of government clients and she doesn't have a lot of work because they aren't allowed to spend any money.” Norman Adelsflugel, 46, James Island, film mechanic “It's shameful. We owe it to our military to pay them on time. People vacationing and visiting national parks aren't able to get in because they won't compromise and work together. They need to negotiate and compromise.” Karen Paxton, 56, Kiawah Island, homemaker “Washington is completely dysfunctional, and 'we the people' are paying the price. Can you imagine if everyone who worked for Apple was suddenly told tomorrow, 'Come in for a few hours and then you are on indefinite furlough.' Who operates this way? Tell the lawmakers to open the government back up immediately and then deal with their issues.” Jon Goldfarb, 45, Charleston and owner of orderonsite.com “With all due respect, this is not what we sent you there to do. Please turn your attention to ways you can really serve your constituents, such as correcting the major problems flowing from the Biggert-Waters flood insurance changes.” Pat O'Neil, 65, member of Sullivan's Island Town Council and professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at MUSC; director, MUSC Weight Management Center “Congress' unwillingness and inability to compromise demonstrates that they (Republicans and Democrats) are more concerned with their political ideology than doing what is best and right for the people of our country. We are suppose to be the most powerful and strongest country in the world. What kind of message are we sending to the rest of the world when our elected leaders cannot make decisions to take care of our own country?” Thomasena Stokes-Marshall, 70, Mount Pleasant Mayor Pro Tem “Over 8.9 million moms and kids under 5 will not have milk to drink or food to eat because of the shutdown (covering the Women's, Infants and Children food nutrition program). Tea party Republicans are playing politics with children's lives — and celebrating. Pathetic.” Richard Hricik, chairman, Charleston County Democratic Party “It is clear that the federal government is not equipped to enroll citizens in the health insurance exchanges. I would like to see an agreement from the House and Senate to delay implementation of the Affordable Care Act for at least another year to iron out all of the glitches. It is also clear to me that the administration is trying to inflict pain on the people by furloughing more people than necessary and closing public access to self-sustaining parks and monuments. It was disgraceful to see our World War II veterans blocked from entering the monument erected in their honor.” John Steinberger, chairman, Charleston County Republican Party

时政

2014-52/4410/en_head.json.gz/6916

Trial outcome angers Egypt activists By MAGGIE MICHAEL ~ The Associated Press CAIRO -- In a verdict that disappointed pro-democracy activists, two policemen who beat a man to death were convicted Wednesday of the lesser charge of manslaughter and given a relatively light sentence in a case that helped spark Egypt's uprising. Relatives of defendants Mahmoud Salah and Awad Ismail Suleiman were still outraged by the sentence of seven years in prison each for the two officers. They smashed benches in the courtroom in the northern port of Alexandria and attacked the slain man's uncle and lawyers despite the presence of other police and military troops. Pro-democracy activists expressed disappointment not only with the verdict but also with the fact that it was closed to the public, which they saw as signs that the revolution that ousted longtime leader Hosni Mubarak in February was having little effect on getting rid of deep-seated corruption in Egypt. The slain man, Khaled Said, was widely seen as Egypt's version of Mohammed Bouazizi -- the fruit seller whose self-immolation sparked the Tunisian revolution and the chain of Arab Spring uprisings in the region. Last year's killing of the 28-year-old Said was a wake-up call for many Egyptians who complained about unchecked excessive force by police. Pictures of Said's bloodied face, broken jaw and bruised body were widely circulated and became a rallying point for activists campaigning against widespread intimidation and killings by police in the Mubarak era. A Facebook page created in Said's memory was used to put out a call for the Jan. 25 protests that grew into the 18-day uprising that toppled Mubarak. Said's uncle, Ali Kassem, said the lesser conviction and light sentence came as a shock and "revived their sadness over the death of Khaled." Kassem said that he, lawyers and other family members were "besieged" in the courtroom, and instead of getting protection from the military police, one threatened to put one of Said's lawyers in the defendant's cage. "Imagine the panic, the agony and the misery when you hear this verdict and then come under attack like this," he said. Mahmoud el-Bakry, one of Said's lawyers, added: "The families of the policemen were about to kill me. I was dead for sure." "This case was like taking the pulse of the revolution, but the verdict tells us that the revolution has been aborted," Kassem said. "This is a signal on which direction the revolution is heading." While lawyers are moving to ask the prosecutor general to appeal the verdict, Egyptian activists took to Twitter to condemn the outcome, with some saying it was yet another setback for the pro-democracy movement and a bad omen for upcoming parliamentary elections. On June 6, 2010, two plainclothes policemen dragged Said out of an Internet cafe in the northern port of Alexandria and beat him to death by smashing his head by marble stairs, according to witnesses. Police and pro-government media outlets tried to portray him as a drug dealer who died after choking on a packet of drugs he swallowed as policemen approached. The claim met with derision after photos of his badly beaten body and bloodied face were circulated widely. More than a year later, an independent forensic committee found that the packet was forced into his mouth after his death. It was only after a public outcry that prosecutors charged the two officers with illegal arrest and harsh treatment, although not with murder. In June 2011, the court ordered an independent review of the forensic evidence used in the defense of the two policemen. At that time, Said's family and rights advocates were hopeful that more serious charges could be added to the indictment. Said's sister, Zahra, considered the forensic review as a "new turn" in the case, adding that she believed there is evidence that "this is not a case of torture but a crime of premeditated murder." The judge then imposed a media ban -- a move that worried activists who noted that even under Mubarak, sensitive court cases were open to press coverage. Many pro-democracy activists in Egypt are disappointed that demands they made during the uprising have not been met. Many believe the series of setbacks began when protesters left Tahrir Square, assured that the ruling military council, which took power after Mubarak, would steer the country toward democracy. Activists say the council has moved too slowly and sometimes was reluctant to carry out much-needed reforms. After vowing to transfer power quickly to a civilian elected government and president, the council stretched the transition period to at least two years, with no clear outline or vision. That has left many opposition forces in a dilemma between preparing for elections or pressuring the council to speed up reforms. Trying up to 12,000 civilians in front of military tribunals known for harsh and swift verdicts added to the frustration toward the military council. The military council has accused youth groups of having "a foreign agenda" and conspiring to drive a wedge between the army and the people. In the past nine months, the council has tried to end street protests either by waging a media campaign against activists for "distorting public life" and harming the economy or by violently disrupting gatherings and putting its critics in jail.

时政

2014-52/4410/en_head.json.gz/6949

Brick by brick, we’re tearing down the big state The Prime Minister says he will not rest until people have been put in control of their choices and chances in life. There is more to do if we are to realise our vision of truly open public services, believes the Prime Minister Photo: Getty Images By David Cameron 8:11PM BST 28 Mar 2012 Last year, in these pages, I set out my vision for improving the quality of our public services. It’s simple. I want us to end once and for all the closed state monopoly where central government decides what you get, and how you get it. In its place, I want truly open public services, where people can choose the hospitals and schools they go to, with the right information at their fingertips to make that choice; where different providers, from the private and voluntary sectors, can come in and offer new services that people c

时政

2014-52/4410/en_head.json.gz/6953

Obama better choice in critical election As he prepares to face the voters' verdict, President Barack Obama can rightly take credit for leading an economic recovery from the most serious economic collapse since the Great Depression. The $831 billion stimulus bill approved soon after the president took office, the middle-class tax cuts, and the auto industry bailout contributed to that turn-around. While not as robust as anyone would have liked, the recovery has to be measured against the reality that the recession preceding it was the worst in 70 years and that the United States cannot divorce itself from a struggling global economy or the major structural changes buffeting it.Obtaining a policy victory sought by Democratic presidents since Harry Truman, President Obama, working with a Democratic Congress, achieved approval of the Affordable Care Act - Obamacare - which if fully implemented will mean near-universal health care coverage for Americans, using the private insurance industry to provide it.His Republican challenger, Mitt Romney, proposes repealing the health law, but offers no alternative to provide insurance coverage to the 40 million Americans who are always one health crisis away from financial ruin. President Obama oversaw the winding down of the Iraq War and pursued a military strategy that sets the stage for the reduction of U.S. forces to a support role in Afghanistan by 2014. His military policies have decimated the leadership of the al-Qaida terrorist network and removed its general, Osama bin Laden. The president has made mistakes, certainly. The stimulus was arguably too small and rolled out too slow. President Obama should have used his political popularity at the time to push for more. And while Republican opposition to working with the president, and giving him any policy victories, is primarily responsible for stagnation in Washington, the president shares some blame for not working harder to form relationships with Republican legislative leaders.On balance, however, his presidency has been a successful one considering that President Obama confronted the most difficult economic circumstances of any president since Franklin D. Roosevelt.Most troubling has been the exponential growth of the deficit. In some ways this was unavoidable. Tax revenues plunged during the Great Recession. Stimulus spending was necessary to get the country moving again. But since the "grand bargain" talks with House Speaker John Boehner collapsed the summer of 2011, and with it talk of a combination of tax increases and long-term cuts in entitlements to shave $4 trillion from the deficit over 10 years, neither party has talked with seriousness about solutions to address the ticking deficit time bomb.One of the president's biggest mistakes was walking away from the 2010 recommendations of his National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, also known as the Simpson-Bowles commission, which provided clear-eyed suggestions for reducing the deficit with a combination of tax increases and spending cuts. The president should have codified its broad outlines into specific legislative initiatives, and called the bluff of Republicans, forcing them to get serious about deficit reduction or place their no-tax-increase pledges above the welfare of the country. Romney alternativeRather than real solutions to either the economic malaise or deficit spending, the president's Republican opponent offers fallacies. The former Massachusetts governor and venture capitalist vows to cut income tax rates 20 percent, while eliminating the estate tax and the alternative minimum tax. The non-partisan Tax Policy Center calculates this would reduce tax revenues by $4.8 trillion over 10 years, expanding the deficit. Mr. Romney contends he will offset lost revenues by eliminating deductions - though he won't say which - but the center calculates zeroing out all itemized deductions would only generate around $2 trillion over a decade. The very premise of Mr. Romney's plan, that high federal taxes are to blame for slow economic growth, is without foundation. The government collected in taxes 15.4 percent of gross domestic product last year, a historically low number, compared to 20.6 percent of GDP in 2000 when the economy was strong. Then came the Bush tax cuts, the wars, and a government expansion, all without new revenues to pay for them.In a word, Mr. Romney's tax-cut plan is a fraud. But this should not be surprising from a candidate who has shown a willingness to say anything, and change his stance on any number of policies, to win an election. Most strikingly he seeks to kill a national health care plan, modeled after the plan he signed into law in Massachusetts, for no other reason than political expediency.As insincere is the Republican candidate's claim he can provide massive tax reductions and then cut his way to fiscal responsibility. Current tax revenues are enough to pay for Medicare and Medicaid, the military, Social Security and the interest on the debt. The nation is effectively borrowing to pay for all other government services. So unless Mr. Romney proposes eliminating all of it, more tax revenues will be necessary.The better choicePresident Obama's policies offer the better chance for progress. He would end the Bush tax cuts for couples making $250,000 or more, or single individuals making over $200,000. While the president has oversold the impact this would have on reducing deficit spending, it is a better option than Mr. Romney's plan to leave this money in the pockets of the wealthiest and give them yet another tax cut.The president deserves high marks for his Race to the Top education initiative that has led to needed education reforms in states across the country. That effort must continue. America has lost its global lead in education and restoring it will be vital to job creation in the 21st century.In a second-term the president, free from concerns about re-election and no longer facing a Republican Party intent on stopping his return to office, would be in a better position to make the politically difficult compromises necessary for genuine deficit reduction. Given the option between a candidate who vacillates and pushes unrealistic policies and an incumbent who fulfilled his major commitments and has governed with a steady hand, the choice is clear. The Day endorses President Barack Obama for re-election.

时政

2014-52/4410/en_head.json.gz/6959

Malloy election-year spending plan calls for tax refund Published January 30. 2014 12:00PMUpdated January 30. 2014 8:45PM Derby - The state's surplus would be used for a sales and gas tax refund under an election-year plan announced today by Gov. Dannel P. Malloy, one day after a Republican who narrowly lost to him called for a sales tax cut.The Democrat's proposal for the estimated $505 million surplus includes $155 million in targeted gas and sales tax refunds, including for those who receive Social Security income and don't file. That works out to $55 to individuals earning less than $200,000 and $110 to joint filers earning less than $400,000.Malloy, whose proposal is subject to approval by lawmakers, called for boosting the rainy day fund by $250 million and putting $100 million toward the state's pension fund. That would bring the balance of the rainy day fund, which had been completed depleted three years ago, to more than $520 million, Malloy said."Connecticut has faced more than its share of challenges over the last few years," Malloy said at a news conference in Derby. "Now that things are beginning to improve, it's critical that everyone shares in the recovery. The plan I'm laying out today takes the responsible path. It puts money in the rainy day fund so that we can be prepared the next time we face financial challenges. It puts additional money into our pension fund so we can pay down our long term debt. And it provides a modest refund for residents who have faced more than their fair share of obstacles."Malloy also announced that he will introduce legislation in the coming session that would mandate that any surplus in future years be used to bolster the rainy day fund, pay down long-term debt and provide tax relief."The budget proposal we are introducing creates a sustainable budget framework that will enable the state to achieve balanced budgets in the coming years and put our state on a path towards strong financial footing," Malloy said. "We are creating a solid foundation that supports necessary services while allowing for potential further reductions in taxes in the coming years."Senate Minority Leader John McKinney, a Fairfield Republican running for governor, said Republicans have long supported tax relief, paying down the debt and shoring up the rainy day fund. "Governor Malloy passed the largest middle-class tax hike in state history, including a sales tax rate increase from 6.0 percent to 6.35 percent, the elimination of countless sales tax exemptions, an increase in state gas taxes, an income tax hike, and a $200 property tax credit reduction," McKinney said. "In the face of those deep and permanent tax hikes, this one-time election year rebate simply does not cut it."Connecticut faces a $2 billion deficit in the next two fiscal years, McKinney said. "It is irresponsible for the governor to continue talking about this year's so-called "surplus' as if those deficits do not exist," he said.Republican Tom Foley called for a sales tax cut Wednesday as he announced he's running again for governor after losing to Malloy in 2010. Malloy has not said yet whether he'll seek a second term.Foley said he would keep discretionary spending flat for two years to cut the sales tax by half a percent. Foley slammed Malloy for a large tax increase, saying it put a brake on the economy.Waterbury Mayor Neil O'Leary, delivering the Democrats' response, said Foley's announcement was filled with promises and lacked specifics. O'Leary said the tax increase was needed to close a $3.5 billion deficit that Malloy inherited. Republican legislators offer alternative budget proposals Finance, Revenue and Bonding Committee passes budget bill

时政