Datasets:

BAAI

/

IndustryCorpus_politics

like 2

Follow

Beijing Academy of Artificial Intelligence 891

2014-52/4413/en_head.json.gz/3157

Saki Knafo saki.knafo@huffingtonpost.com David Gilbert-Pederson, 47-Percenter: "We're Helping Keep Our Communities Vibrant" Posted: 09/19/2012 4:34 pm EDT Updated: 09/21/2012 11:26 am EDT Share David Gilbert-Pederson, a 47-percenter, was the youngest delegate at the Democratic National Convention four years ago. Four years ago, then-17-year-old David Gilbert-Pederson made headlines as the youngest delegate at the Democratic National Convention. Time Magazine published a picture of him in an Obama shirt and a backwards baseball cap, and a Minnesota blog went with a photo of him standing in a sideways half-hug with the Democratic candidate, a huge grin plastered to his boyish face.Like so many of the other young people who helped President Barack Obama win his first term as president, Gilbert-Pederson isn't quite the fan that he once was, and he took exception to Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney's recent assertion that 47 percent of the country is going to vote for Obama "no matter what." Although Gilbert-Pederson makes a salary small enough to qualify him as part of the 47 percent of Americans who don't pay income taxes, he didn't plan on voting for Obama until just a few weeks ago. Romney's performance at the Republican National Convention convinced him that a Romney presidency would be bad news for the country, and specifically for his family.Gilbert-Pederson, now a 21-year-old activist, has a cousin who suffers from cerebral palsy. While watching Romney at the convention, he began to harbor doubts that Romney would keep Medicare afloat. In recent years, Gilbert-Pederson had considered voting for a third-party candidate, but he ultimately decided not to take any chances. Gilbert-Pederson earns 800 dollars a month working for a community organization in Minnesota that helps underwater homeowners negotiate with mortgage lenders. Although Romney suggested that Americans who make that kind of money generally don't work very hard, Gilbert-Pederson says he works between eight and 10 hours a day. Yesterday, he put in 11 hours, he said.At some point, he'd like to make more money, Gilbert-Pederson said. But for now, his current pay is enough to cover rent and basic needs. Gilbert-Pederson's employer is Occupy Our Homes MN, which grew out of the local Occupy movement. The group is largely driven by volunteers and homeowners who are fighting foreclosure, though it offers a small stipend to a handful of full-time organizers. So far, Occupy Our Homes MN says it has helped around six people stay in their homes, and some of those efforts have garnered widespread attention. Gilbert-Pederson is helping the group develop a database to keep better track of its supporters.Gilbert-Pederson noted that he doesn't depend on government help. He gets healthcare through his parents, a librarian and an educator, and he doesn't receive food stamps, unemployment, or any other safety-net benefits. "Whereas some of Romney's big-business contributors have received government money from federal bailouts, and they've received tax breaks, some of the people who don't pay income taxes are doing things to enhance our communities," Gilbert-Pederson said. "We're helping keep our communities vibrant." We Are the 47 Percent Who Are the 47 Percent Occupy Our Homes Republican Convention Barack Obama We Are the 47 Percent Romney Video David Gilbert Pederson The 47 Percent Occupy Homes Mn

时政

2014-52/4413/en_head.json.gz/3158

Davos Notes: My Panels, Your Suggestions As I posted earlier, I'm going to be doing a lot of listening, observing, and blogging while at the World Economic Forum confab in Davos. But I'll also be doing some talking, taking part in a number of panel discussions. And I'd love to have your input on what points you think are important for me to raise, as well as any questions you'd like me to ask my fellow panelists.The first panel I'm on will be discussing the key events that shaped the U.S. economic and political scenes in 2006, and looking ahead at America's prospects for the coming year. We'll also attempt to forecast how what happens in our country will impact the rest of the world. My fellow panelists include New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine, David Gergen, Nicholas Kristof, and Jay Nordlinger, managing editor of National Review. Paul Laudicina, Chairman of the Board of management consultant firm A.T. Kearney, will moderate.Next up, a look at "The Singles Economy". This panel will be analyzing the growing economic impact of well-educated, single professionals in their 20s and 30s -- particularly young single women. Panelists Brad Anderson (CEO of Best Buy), Prof. Esther Duflo (MIT), Kim Mi-Hyung (Kumho Asiana Group, S. Korea), Katherine Marshall (World Bank), psychologist Dagmar O'Connor, and moderator Peter Sullivan (Editor-in-Chief, Independent Newspapers, South Africa) will thrash out whether businesses are successfully tapping into this emerging demographic, and explore how the "womanization" of society will impact the consumption of goods and services. I'll also be part of a panel on "Living in a Connected World" that includes John Chambers (Cisco), Phillip Alvelda (MoviTV), Rodrigo Baggio (Brazil's Committee for Democracy in Information), Tarek Kamel (Egypt's Minister of Communication and Information Technology), Paul Sagan (Akamai), David Kirkpatrick (Fortune Magazine), and Sir Stelios Haji-laonnou (easyGroup) (I lived in England for 11 years and never met a knighted Greek. Can't wait.). This diverse group will examine how people, companies, and governments can prepare themselves for the connected future. We'll focus on the way advancements in technology will impact consumer behavior, and on the kinds of security and privacy concerns that will be raised by our increased connectivity. As part of the discussion, we'll also try to imagine what a day in the life of a human being will be like in 2015. Follow Arianna Huffington on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ariannahuff On Becoming Fearless...in Love, Work, and Life by Arianna Huffington Third World America: How Our Politicians Are Abandoning the Middle Class and Betraying the American Dream by Arianna Huffington Suggested For You

时政

2014-52/4413/en_head.json.gz/3300

Another View -- Dan Itse: Who will defend the NH Constitution if we do not? DAN ITSE The authors of the Union Leader's April 16 editorial ("Gun rights") and Chuck Douglas' April 19 op-ed ("In NH, the attack of the constitutional illiterates") would have done well to read the article on the Honor Your Oath Rally printed in the April 14 Sunday News. That article was factual, it was based upon attending the rally and listening to the speakers. It included actual quotations; imagine that. The Union Leader editorial and Chuck Douglas' column criticizing the rally were not based upon actual knowledge, but what the writers wanted the readers to believe. They were asking the reader to believe things that simply aren't true.The readers were led to believe that this was a Second Amendment rally; it was not. It was a rally calling the legislators to honor their oath of office. As a speaker, I did not mention the Second Amendment once. The readers were led to believe that the Constitution of Virginia is somehow relevant to our laws. However, we do not live in Virginia; this is New Hampshire. The laws of this state are restrained or empowered only by the constitution of this state and the Constitution for the United States.The readers were led to believe that Jack Kimball and Rep. John Hikel somehow rely upon Part 1, Article 38 of the constitution of the State of New Hampshire to justify the lawsuit and the petitions. That simply isn't true. Douglas called Article 38 precatory, implying that it holds no actual power, but is only advisory. Article 38 was originally the last Article in our Bill of Rights, the capstone, to tie it all together. It puts the people firmly in charge of enforcing the Constitution upon those in government. The first two phrases could be considered precatory, though I would suggest hortatory (another arcane word meaning an exhortation): "A frequent recurrence to the fundamental principles of the Constitution, and a constant adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, industry, frugality, and all the social virtues, are indispensably necessary to preserve the blessings of liberty and good government; the people ought, therefore, to have a particular regard to all those principles in the choice of their officers and Representatives." The people are called to know their constitution and to use it as the measure of whom they send to work for them in government. The last phrase is anything but advisory: "And they (the people) have a right to require of their lawgivers and magistrates, an exact and constant observance of them (those principles), in the formation and execution of the laws necessary for the good administration of government." This phrase means the people have the right to require the legislators, governor and bureaucrats, and judges to strictly obey the constitution.The right to submit petitions is codified in Part 1, Article 32, which gives the people (individually or collectively) the right to petition the Legislature when the government injures them. Are the petitioners aggrieved by the passage of an unconstitutional law? The justification to enter the law suit is provided by federal statutes on conspiracy and racketeering.The editorial and column take the position that because the law was considered constitutional when it was adopted in 1977, it must be constitutional now, making it a mere policy decision. As we stated at the rally, this ignores two substantive and relevant changes that have occurred in the interim. In 1982, the people adopted Part 1, Article 2-a of the New Hampshire Constitution, which strengthens and makes explicit the people's right to defend their life, liberty and property with arms. In 2005, the Supreme Court of the United State, in Castle Rock v. Gonzalas, recognized that the police have no duty to protect any person against an assault. Specifically, absent a statute requiring that person be protected, and the funding to carry that statute into practice the police could not be required to protect a person from assault. Part 1, Article 3 states that the Legislature is required to recognize that the failure to provide a protection promised in order to secure a surrender of a right makes the surrender void. Therefore, the Legislature must also recognize that a proposal to require a surrender of rights based upon a protection that cannot be provided for any reasonable cost, must be unconstitutional. This is especially true when the right to be surrendered is explicitly recognized. Knowing that the police can never protect every person from assault all the time, the Legislature has no power to require any person to surrender their right of self-defense. While giving rhetorical lip service to "stand your ground," this paper's editorial and column writers undermine the very rights that justify it.Dan Itse is a Republican state representative from Fremont.

时政

2014-52/4413/en_head.json.gz/3322

State Rep. White gets primary challenger by Mike Jones Staff writer mjones@observer-reporter.com Published Sep 6, 2013 at 10:26 pm (Updated Sep 6, 2013 at 10:26 pm) Paul Walsh A Burgettstown attorney says he’s challenging state Rep. Jesse White in next year’s Democratic primary because he thinks the four-term incumbent has lost credibility with constituents in his district. Paul Walsh, 49, announced on Thursday that he plans to seek the Democratic nomination for the newly redrawn 46th Legislative District that draws a triangle between Smith Township, Canton Township and Bridgeville. “My primary focus is to restore leadership to the district,” Walsh said. “Mr. White, through his conduct, has failed to be the type of leader we need both in the district and in Harrisburg.” Walsh said he decided to run for office in May when it was revealed that White was posting anonymous online comments on various websites under numerous pseudonyms. In some cases, he attacked constituents or impersonated them. “He essentially has taken sides and has been critical of his own constituents who don’t have the same opinion as his,” Walsh said. “I want everyone to understand clearly that I am willing to sit down and listen to everyone involved in this process.” White, D-Cecil, countered that he has apologized for his actions and hoped they would consider his track record. “I’ve been focused on doing my job and not allowing myself to get distracted,” White said of the controversy. “There are so many things that are going on that are so important that I’ve been throwing myself into that work. The response and support from my constituents has been overwhelming. I may stumble along the way, but I think they understand what I’m doing and why I’m doing it.” This is not the first time the two have faced each other in the Democratic primary. White and Walsh ran against each other for an open seat in 2006 when then-state Rep. Vic Lescovitz retired. White defeated Walsh 53 to 47 percent, winning the primary by 437 votes before beating Republican candidate Paul Snatchko in the general election. “I’ve obviously run against Paul (Walsh) before and came out victorious,” White said “I think I can do it again.” One of the biggest differences in policy appears to surround the Marcellus Shale natural gas drilling industry. White has clashed with drilling supporters in the past while Walsh said he supports “shale gas developed responsibly” in the state. However, the new district includes Robinson, Mt. Pleasant, Cecil and South Fayette townships, all of which are challenging the state’s controversial Act 13 natural gas drilling law. Walsh said he understands those concerns and wants to have a serious discussion with those communities and their residents. “I recognize their concerns and agree there are definitely quality of life issues,” Walsh said. “I would want to be active working with those leaders to make sure those quality of life issues are completely addressed. I think that it’s appropriate for those folks to be concerned about noise and use of roads and environmental safety concerns.” Meanwhile, White sees the new district as an advantage as he’s reached out to community leaders and already represents part of South Fayette in Allegheny County. “I will live smack dab in the middle of my new district,” White said. “I think that will definitely help me.” Walsh has lived in Burgettstown for the past 17 years and has worked as a solicitor representing various school districts, municipalities and sewer authorities during that time. He also has a private law office in Slovan and works as a probation violations hearing officer for Allegheny County Criminal Court. White, who has served as a state representative since 2007, lives in Cecil Township and has a law office there. Group protests outside Rep. White’s district office White linked to online comments ripping Democratic colleagues, Marcellus Shale industry White apologizes for anonymous comments

时政

2014-52/4413/en_head.json.gz/3394

Amnesty International Annual Report 2012 - Albania Publisher Amnesty International, Amnesty International Annual Report 2012 - Albania, 24 May 2012, available at: http://www.refworld.org/docid/4fbe395550.html [accessed 28 December 2014] DisclaimerThis is not a UNHCR publication. UNHCR is not responsible for, nor does it necessarily endorse, its content. Any views expressed are solely those of the author or publisher and do not necessarily reflect those of UNHCR, the United Nations or its Member States. Head of state: Bamir TopiHead of government: Sali BerishaDeath penalty: abolitionist for all crimesPopulation: 3.2 millionLife expectancy: 76.9 yearsUnder-5 mortality: 15.3 per 1,000Adult literacy: 95.9 per cent Domestic violence remained widespread and the trafficking of women for forced prostitution continued. Four demonstrators died following clashes with police. There were allegations of ill-treatment by police. Detention conditions were often poor. Homeless people with "orphan status" were denied their right under domestic law to priority with housing. Background Hostility between the government and opposition was exacerbated following violent clashes in January between police and demonstrators protesting over alleged electoral fraud and government corruption. Local government elections held in May led to further mutual accusations between the government and opposition, and disputes over vote counting, in particular in Tirana. The political stalemate had somewhat abated by the end of the year, and discussion of electoral reform was initiated. In October, the European Commission again concluded that Albania had not fulfilled the criteria for candidate status for EU membership. Police and security forces On 21 January, violent clashes broke out between police and demonstrators during anti-government demonstrations in Tirana organized by the opposition Socialist Party. Shots were fired, killing three demonstrators. A fourth died later. Arrest warrants were issued the following day for six Republican Guards (responsible for the security of public buildings) in connection with the deaths. Investigations were hampered by a lack of co-operation by the police and senior Republican Guard officers, and delays in the collection of ballistic evidence. By the end of the year, 11 Republican Guards were under investigation in connection with the deaths. More than 140 police officers and demonstrators were injured overall. Police beat dispersing demonstrators and several journalists. At least 112 demonstrators were arrested and some 30 were subsequently convicted of setting fire to vehicles, assaulting police, and breaching the security perimeter of the Prime Minister's offices. Prime Minister Sali Berisha characterized the demonstrations as an attempted coup by the Socialist Party and accused the Prosecutor General of supporting it. Torture and other ill-treatment Commissioners of the Ombudsperson's Office visited Tirana police stations and detention centres following the January demonstrations. They stated that detained demonstrators, two of whom bore marks of physical ill-treatment, alleged being ill-treated during arrest, and that psychological pressure had been used to make them sign self-incriminating statements. Nine complaints of police ill-treatment were reportedly filed. In February, the Internal Control Service of the State Police undertook to investigate complaints, but by the end of the year no perpetrators had been brought to justice. The Ombudsperson wrote to the Prosecutor General raising the case of Reis Haxhiraj, who was allegedly severely ill-treated during his arrest in March. The Ombudsperson stated that although his injuries were clearly visible, and he had complained of ill-treatment when brought before a judge to be remanded in custody, neither the police, prosecutor, judge or hospital staff had reported his ill-treatment or initiated an investigation. His requests to contact the Ombudsperson's Office were ignored. The Prosecutor General subsequently instructed prosecutors and officers of the judicial police to collect evidence on the ill-treatment of detainees, in order to bring those responsible to justice, and an investigation was started into the alleged ill-treatment of Reis Haxhiraj. Enforced disappearances In December Ilir Kumbaro failed to appear at an extradition hearing before a court in London, UK. Albania had sought his extradition from the UK to face charges of torture and abduction in connection with the enforced disappearance in 1995 of Remzi Hoxha, an ethnic Albanian from Macedonia, and the torture of two other men. The judge revoked his bail and issued a warrant for his arrest, but at the end of the year his whereabouts remained unknown. Trial proceedings continued in Tirana against Ilir Kumbaro in his absence, and two other former officers of the Albanian National Intelligence Service, Arben Sefgjini and Avni Koldashi. Prison conditions Inmates at Lezhë and Fushë-Krujë prisons went on hunger-strike in protest against poor conditions. The Ombudsperson criticized sanitation in some prisons and remand centres, citing squalid toilets, rodents, damp cells, and the unhygienic preparation and distribution of food. The Ombudsperson also noted the poor quality of construction of recently built detention centres in Durrës, Kavaja and Korça. Remand centres and the Women's Prison in Tirana were overcrowded, and prison medical services, especially for detainees with mental illnesses, were inadequate. Violence in the family Domestic violence remained widespread. Shelters for women survivors were insufficient to meet demand. Reported incidents increased to 1,683 in the first nine months of the year, 260 more than for the same period in 2010. Eighty-two per cent (1,377) of the victims were women. Most incidents, including those involving violence against children, went unreported. Domestic violence was not a specific criminal offence and, except in the gravest cases, prosecution had to be instigated by the victim. Legislation providing free legal aid for people requesting protection orders was not implemented, and despite training programmes, health workers reportedly often failed to provide certificated records of injuries. In most cases, proceedings were stopped, either because the petitioner withdrew, often due to social pressure and economic dependence on the perpetrator, or due to lack of written evidence. Perpetrators who broke the terms of protection orders were liable to fines or up to two years' imprisonment, but courts rarely imposed custodial sentences. In September, Servete Karoshi was killed by her husband, who had repeatedly ignored protection orders. She had reported his continued violence but was given no effective protection. In March, legislation was adopted to provide basic economic assistance of US$30 per month for victims for the duration of their protection order, and also for victims of human trafficking. Trafficking in human beings Trafficking continued, mainly of young women and girls for forced prostitution, but also children for forced begging and labour. Statistics released for 2010 showed that 12 people had been convicted of human trafficking. The US State Department Trafficking in Persons Report noted that Albania had taken concrete steps to improve anti-trafficking strategy, but stated that "widespread corruption, particularly within the judiciary, continued to hamper overall anti-trafficking law enforcement and victim protection efforts". In February, the government adopted a national action plan against human trafficking. Housing rights – Roma In February, some 40 Romani families fled from the site they inhabited near Tirana railway station after being attacked. In July, two men were acquitted of inciting racial hatred but sentenced to four months' imprisonment for arson. The authorities offered the Romani families a temporary site with tents on the outskirts of Tirana, but many rejected this on the grounds of health and safety and the distance from their workplaces. The families who did move to the site were still there at the end of the year, although the authorities had promised that two disused military buildings would be renovated for their use. Housing rights – orphans Under Albanian law, registered orphans up to the age of 30 who are homeless are to be prioritized when social housing is allocated. However, the law was very rarely implemented and many continued to live in dilapidated disused school dormitories or struggled to pay for low-grade private rented accommodation. In June, Mjaftoni Xhymertaj, aged 22, and her small child were forcibly evicted by police, apparently without prior written notice or right of appeal, from her shared room in a Tirana school dormitory. She was not offered alternative accommodation. Mjaftoni Xhymertaj was raised in an orphanage, was unemployed, with poor health and in great poverty. She was subsequently permitted to return, but had no security of tenure. The conditions were severely inadequate for a young family. Copyright notice: © Copyright Amnesty International Search Refworld by keyword and / or country All countries Prison or detention conditions Security forces Unaccompanied / Separated children

时政

2014-52/4413/en_head.json.gz/3457

Stuff like that has been happening a lot. McConnell is so afraid of his party’s right-wing that he’s largely given up trying to cut deals with Democrats. On immigration and gun control, the two biggest legislative issues of 2012, he stood aside and let others do the haggling. As protection against his party’s base, he’s taken to boasting about his friendship with his newly elected Kentucky colleague, and Tea Party favorite, Rand Paul, a man who until recently McConnell clearly loathed. It’s no better in the House. John Boehner, whom Nancy Pelosi recently dubbed “the weakest speaker in history,” last year tried, and failed, to get House Republicans to back a grand budget compromise with the Obama administration. Then he went to Plan B, which he hatched himself, and they rejected that too. Finally, on January 2 of this year, when he voted for a more modest deal to avert the “fiscal cliff,” he not only failed to bring along most of his caucus. He couldn’t even convince his deputy, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor. Not that Cantor’s authority is much greater. Since Mitt Romney’s defeat, Cantor has been going around saying the GOP must offer concrete solutions to the problems ordinary families face. But in January, when Cantor pushed a relief bill for communities devastated by Hurricane Sandy, most House Republicans voted no. And in April, when he tried to buttress one of the most popular parts of Obamacare, which makes it easier for people with preexisting health conditions to get coverage, conservative revolt prevented him from even bringing the measure up for a vote. It’s the same with the Republican National Committee. In March, the party issued a report declaring, “We must embrace and champion comprehensive immigration reform.” Yet most congressional Republicans remain adamantly opposed. Not only don’t these rank-and-file GOP pols fear dissing party leaders, they positively relish it. As Jim VandeHei and Mike Allen recently noted in Politico, “most young conservatives [in Congress] … get more mileage from snubbing their leaders” than supporting them. On Sunday, Ted Cruz called Obama's principles 'profoundly dangerous.'Why have Republican leaders become so weak? Partly, it’s the result of not holding the presidency. In the American system, unlike parliamentary ones, opposition parties lack centralized leadership, and thus tend to be fractious. Still, McConnell and Boehner enjoyed a far tighter grip on their rank and file in Obama’s first two years in office, when Republicans stood virtually unanimous against Obama’s fiscal stimulus and health-care overhaul. What’s changed is the ascendance of the Tea Party. In April, a group of William and Mary political scientists did the most comprehensive survey of Tea Party supporters yet. They found that Tea Partiers have become the foot soldiers of the GOP. Between 2010 and 2013, 73 percent of the movement’s backers were Republicans who attended a political meeting or rally. Those foot soldiers are far more conservative than other Republicans. Indeed, when asked whether they support government regulation of the environment and the existence of the Department of Education, non–Tea Party Republicans were closer to Democrats than to their own party’s activist wing. Tea Partiers are well aware of this ideological divide. They see the ideological gulf between themselves and the Republican Party as roughly equivalent to the ideological gulf between the Republican Party and the Democrats. That’s a big part of the reason that activists in the Tea Party group Freedom Works are more than twice as likely to rate the GOP “poor” or “well below average” as “outstanding” or “well above average.”For GOP leaders, this is a massive problem. As Ezra Klein has pointed out, Democrats, independents, and even Republicans say the GOP’s refusal to compromise is its biggest flaw. But the party’s largest faction dislikes compromise. In the William and Mary study, 80 percent of Tea Partiers agreed with the statement “when we feel strongly about political issues, we should not be willing to compromise.” Last year’s RNC report warned that the GOP is “los[ing] the ability to be persuasive with, or welcoming to, those who do not agree with us on every issue.” But Tea Party supporters don’t care. Three-quarters of them told the William and Mary researchers that they’d rather back a Republican candidate they agree with on the issues but trails far behind the likely Democratic nominee than a candidate they agree with less who has a better chance to win. This makes McConnell's and Boehner’s job virtually impossible. To get anything done, they need to compromise with Democrats. To improve their party’s image, they need to compromise with Democrats. But most Republican members of Congress are more responsive to Tea Party activists—who could defeat them in a primary—than to voters as a whole. And those Tea Party activists oppose compromise, even if doing so hurts the GOP, because they’re not all that invested in the fortunes of the GOP. If there’s a precedent for this, it’s what happened to Democrats between 1968 and 1972, when the party was taken over by anti-war, civil-rights, and women’s-rights activists. The liberal activists of the late 1960s cared a lot about their causes, and much less about the Democratic Party, which they associated with Lyndon Johnson’s war in Vietnam. Today’s Tea Party activists care a lot about their causes, and much less about the Republican Party, which they associate with the big spending of George W. Bush. I’m not making a moral comparison. To my mind, the activists who entered the Democratic Party in the late 1960s were heroes. Politically, however, they posed the same dilemma the Tea Party is posing for the GOP today. When your party’s base doesn’t care about the fate of your party, you have a problem. It’s a problem that’s tormenting Mitch McConnell and John Boehner every single day.

时政

2014-52/4413/en_head.json.gz/3458

Given 2nd term, Obama now facing new urgent task President Barack Obama, first lady Michelle Obama and their daughters Sasha and Malia, walk from Marine One to board Air Force One at Chicago O'Hare International Airport, Wednesday, Nov. 7, 2012, in Chicago, the day after the presidential election. Obama defeated Republican challenger former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. Carolyn Kaster/AP Photo WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama faces a new urgent task now that he has a second term, working with a status-quo Congress to address an impending financial crisis that economists say could send the country back into recession."You made your voice heard," Obama said in his acceptance speech, signaling that he believes the bulk of the country is behind his policies. It's a sticking point for House Republicans, sure to balk at that.The same voters who gave Obama four more years in office also elected a divided Congress, sticking with the dynamic that has made it so hard for the president to advance his agenda. Democrats retained control of the Senate; Republicans kept their House majority.House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, spoke of a dual mandate. "If there is a mandate, it is a mandate for both parties to find common ground and take steps together to help our economy grow and create jobs," he said.Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky had a more harsh assessment."The voters have not endorsed the failures or excesses of the president's first term," McConnell said. "They have simply given him more time to finish the job they asked him to do together" with a balanced Congress.Obama's more narrow victory was nothing like the jubilant celebration in 2008, when his hope-and-change election as the nation's first black president captivated the world. This time, Obama ground it out with a stay-the-course pitch that essentially boiled down to a plea for more time to make things right and a hope that Congress will be more accommodating than in the past.The most pressing challenges immediately ahead for the 44th president are all too familiar: an economy still baby-stepping its way toward full health; 23 million people out of work or in search of better jobs; civil war in Syria; a menacing standoff over Iran's nuclear program.Sharp differences with Republicans in Congress on taxes, spending, deficit reduction, immigration and more await. While Republicans control the House, Democrats have at least 53 votes in the Senate and Republicans 45. One newly elected independent isn't saying which party he'll side with, and North Dakota's race not yet called.Votes also were being counted Wednesday in the Montana and Washington gubernatorial races.Obama's list of promises to keep includes many holdovers he was unable to deliver on in his first term, such as rolling back tax cuts for upper-income people, overhauling immigration policy and reducing federal deficits. Six in 10 voters said in exit polls that taxes should be increased, and nearly half of voters said taxes should be increased on incomes over $250,000, as Obama has called for."It's very clear from the exit polling that a majority of Americans recognize that we need to share responsibility for reducing the deficit," Maryland Rep. Chris Van Hollen, the top Democrat on the House Budget Committee, told CNN. "That means asking higher-income earners to contribute more to reducing the deficit."But Sara Taylor Fagen, who served as political director in President George W. Bush's second term, warned the current White House to pay heed to the closely divided electorate, a lesson her party learned after 2004. With more than 90 percent of precincts reporting, the popular vote went 50 percent for Obama to 48.4 percent for Romney,"It'll be interesting if the Obama team misinterprets the size of their victory," Fagen said. "I think if you look back at history, we pushed Social Security and the Congress wasn't ready for that and wasn't going to do it. And had President Bush gone after immigration, we may be sitting in a very different position as a party."Obama predicted in the waning days of the campaign that his victory would motivate Republicans to make a deal on immigration policy next year to make up for having "so alienated the fastest-growing demographic group in the country, the Latino community."Former Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour agreed that a lesson of 2012 is for his Republican Party to change the party's approach on immigration."Republicans say, 'We don't want to reward people for breaking the law,'" Barbour told CBS. "The way we need to look at it is, how are we going to grow the American economy and where does our immigration policy fit into that?"Even before Obama gets to his second inaugural on Jan. 20, he must deal with the threatened "fiscal cliff." A combination of automatic tax increases and steep across-the-board spending cuts are set to take effect in January if Washington doesn't quickly reach a budget deal. Experts have warned that the economy could tip back into recession without an agreement.Newly elected Democrats signaled they want compromise to avoid the fiscal cliff.Sen.-elect Tim Kaine, a former Virginia governor who defeated Republican George Allen, said on NBC's "Today" show that voters sent a message they want "cooperative government." But he also says the election results show that the public doesn't want "all the levers in one party's hands" on Capitol Hill.From Massachusetts, Elizabeth Warren said on "CBS This Morning" that those who voted for her opponent, Republican Sen. Scott Brown, expressed a desire for lawmakers to work together. She says: "I heard that loud and clear."Obama repeated his campaign slogan of moving "forward" repeatedly in a victory speech early Wednesday in his hometown of Chicago."We will disagree, sometimes fiercely, about how to get there," he said. "As it has for more than two centuries, progress will come in fits and starts. It's not always a straight line. It's not always a smooth path. By itself, the recognition that we have common hopes and dreams won't end all the gridlock, or solve all our problems, or substitute for the painstaking work of building consensus, and making the difficult compromises needed to move this country forward. But that common bond is where we must begin."Former Obama adviser Anita Dunn told "CBS This Morning" that the president made it clear in his acceptance speech that he will be reaching out, and she warned GOP House leaders, representing Ohio, Virginia and Wisconsin, to keep in mind that their voters also wanted to keep Obama."Clearly there's a lot of momentum and a lot of incentive for people to work together to really find answers to the challenges," she said.The vanquished Republican, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, tried to set a more conciliatory tone on the way off the stage."At a time like this, we can't risk partisan bickering," Romney said after a campaign filled with it. "Our leaders have to reach across the aisle to do the people's work."Obama won at least 303 electoral votes to 206 for Romney, with 270 needed for victory, and had a near-sweep of the nine most hotly contested states.Obama's re-election means his signature health care overhaul will endure, as will the Wall Street overhaul enacted after the economic meltdown. The drawdown of troops in Afghanistan will continue apace. With an aging roster of justices, the president probably will have at least one more nomination to the Supreme Court.A second term is sure to produce turnover in his Cabinet. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has made it clear he wants to leave at the end of Obama's first term but is expected to remain in the post until a successor is confirmed. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, Obama's rival for the presidency four years ago, is ready to leave. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta isn't expected to stay on.Some Americans were hopeful for progress in Obama's second term."He may not have done a great job in my mind but I kinda trust him," Jerry Shul said Wednesday morning in New York's Times Square. "And I feel like he's gonna keep trying and I feel like when people keep trying in you favor things work out. I have faith in him, I have faith he will get with the Republicans and get something done."Elsewhere on the ballot, voters in Maine and Maryland became the first to approve same-sex marriage by popular vote while Washington state and Colorado legalized recreational use of marijuana.Obama claimed at least seven of the nine swing states, most notably Ohio, seen as the big prize. He also prevailed in Iowa, New Hampshire, Colorado, Nevada, Virginia and Wisconsin. Romney got North Carolina.Florida was too close to call Wednesday morning. The unofficial count had Obama with a 46,000-vote lead, but Florida historically has left as many as 5 percent of its votes uncounted until after Election Day.Overall, Obama won 25 states and the District of Columbia. Romney won 24 states.It was a more measured victory than four years ago, when Obama claimed 365 electoral votes to Arizona Sen. John McCain's 173, and won 53 percent of the popular vote.Preliminary figures indicate fewer people participated this time. Associated Press figures showed that about 118 million people had voted in the White House race, but that number will rise as more votes are counted. In 2008, 131 million people voted, according to the Federal Election Commission. President Barack Obama waves as he walks on stage with first lady Michelle Obama and daughters Malia and Sasha at his election night party Wednesday, Nov. 7, 2012, in Chicago. President Obama defeated Republican challenger former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. Chris Carlson/AP Photo Supporters watch election results at President Barack Obama's election night event at the McCormick Place Lakeside Center in Chicago, on Election Day, Nov. 6, 2012. President Barack Obama hugs a volunteer during a visit to a campaign office in Chicago, on Election Day, Nov. 6, 2012. Doug Mills/The New York Times Republican candidate Mitt Romney, left photo, with campaign workers during a visit to a voter call center in Green Tree, Pa., Tuesday, Nov. 6, 2012. President Obama hugs a volunteer during a visit to a campaign office in Chicago on election day Tuesday. Charles Dharapak/AP Photo and Doug Mills/The New York Times Voters cast their ballots at Bishop School in Norwich Tuesday evening, Nov. 6, 2012. Obama supporters cheer at the election night event for President Barack Obama at the McCormick PLace Lakeside Center in Chicago, on Election Day, Nov. 6, 2012. According to network projections, President Obama has been elected to a second term. President Barack Obama hugs Vice President Joe Biden at his election night party Wednesday, Nov. 7, 2012, in Chicago. President Obama defeated Republican challenger former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. America votes

时政

2014-52/4413/en_head.json.gz/3466

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

2014-52/4413/en_head.json.gz/3468

Clinton effectively used 'smart power' History will ultimately be the judge, but in the perspective of the present it appears exiting Secretary of State Hillary Clinton deserves a place alongside the leading secretary of states in recent history - such as Henry Kissinger and James Baker. The incoming secretary, Sen. John Kerry, has a tough act to follow.That she took the job at all is a testament to her love of country and desire to make a difference. In 2008 Ms. Clinton lost a tough primary fight. She had entered that election as the heavy favorite to take the Democratic nomination, only to see a freshman senator from Illinois achieve the most improbable of victories. The nation would go on to elect not its first woman as president, but its first African-American.When then President-elect Barack Obama reached out to his primary opponent to become his secretary of state, there were risks for both.It could not have been easy for Ms. Clinton to accept a position in which she would be taking orders from the man who had just defeated her. And after a couple of years of campaigning for the presidency, no one could have begrudged Ms. Clinton a break. Instead she accepted arguably the most demanding job in the Cabinet.As for President Obama, he was adding to his team a member of one of the most powerful political families in U.S. history. The prospects of this young, relatively inexperienced president being upstaged were real. Some in the new president's inner circle warned of letting a rival into the tent.It turned out to be perhaps the president's best appointment. Ms. Clinton maintained a mutually respectful relationship with President Obama and deftly formed vital coalitions with top officials in the Congress, military and intelligence communities. Ms. Clinton recognized a changing world - with new emerging powers and shifting spheres of influence - called for changed diplomacy, replacing the muscular and sometimes stumbling foreign policy of the former administration with an approach the secretary called "smart power." She defined it in a July 2012 commentary:"It is no longer enough to be strong. Great powers also have to be savvy and persuasive. The test of our leadership going forward will be our ability to mobilize disparate people and nations to work together to solve common problems and advance shared values and aspirations. To do that, we need to expand our foreign policy toolbox, integrate every asset and partner, and fundamentally change the way we do business."In pursuit of this approach the secretary visited 112 countries, traveling about 1 million miles. Under her leadership the State Department appropriately shifted more attention to Asia, placed greater importance on the role of women globally, skillfully used diplomacy and new communication technology to stay on the right side of the "Arab spring" revolutions, and repaired alliances.Critics ridiculed letting European countries take the military lead in helping the people of Libya overthrow a dictator, but the strategy proved effective. The ability of the United States to generate unprecedented international sanctions to pressure Iran not to go nuclear was impressive, if not yet successful.Ms. Clinton's biggest failure is easily identifiable - the attack on the consulate in Benghazi, Libya, that ended in the killing of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans. The failure of repeated security concerns coming from the consulate to push their way through the bureaucracy and reach the secretary's desk revealed serious, systemic problems.To her credit, Ms. Clinton took full responsibility. She initiated an outside review of the State Department's handling of the matter, leading to numerous recommendations that Ms. Clinton has ordered implemented.Speculation has turned to Ms. Clinton's potential run for president in 2016. Polls show she is popular with the American people. Her experiences - First Lady, senator, secretary of state - are unique, but trying to predict the nature of the next presidential election a little more than a week after an inauguration is foolhardy. For now, suffice it to say the nation owes Hillary Clinton a debt of gratitude for a job well done.

时政

2014-52/4413/en_head.json.gz/3492

Governments should embrace transparency If you’ve ever wondered how your city or town council spends your hard-earned tax dollars, there’s a powerful tool that’s available at your fingertips. Using this tool, you could quickly and easily see which vendors your city or town does business with, along with amounts they’re being paid, what they’re providing and other important details. Residents of at least a dozen South Carolina counties, and an even higher number of municipalities in the state, already benefit from this service. Put a legislator on nonprofit board if you want state money In 2011, S.C. Sen. Hugh Leatherman was among a group of state and local officials, including Gov. Nikki Haley, who attended the 49th International Paris Air Show. The $3,544 bill for the Florence County Republican’s trip, according to his state income-disclosure form, was covered by the North Eastern Strategic Alliance (NESA), a regional economic-development organization serving a nine-county area in the state’s northeast corner, including Florence County. Renaissance for Olde Presbyterian Church Editor’s note: Every month, the Lancaster County Society for Historical Preservation will bring progress updates and interesting stories about the restoration of the Olde Presbyterian Church, now Lancaster’s Cultural Arts Center. Our introduction takes a look through the eyes of Lindsay Pettus, Society Board chair and well-known local historian. Are we prepared for terrorist event? Like their fellow Americans across the country, South Carolinians were horrified at the recent Boston Marathon bombings, which killed three people and injured dozens of others. Here at home, our heartfelt prayers went out to the victims and their families as a difficult question hangs over our state. It’s a question none of us wants to imagine, but we must: What if it happened here? Bill: Business as usual or is it real reform? Several weeks ago we joined with other South Carolina groups to expose an effort by House leaders to sabotage ethics reform and evade disclosure and independent scrutiny. House leaders’ plan to decriminalize ethics violations and force citizen activists to become lobbyists was outrageous, and a diverse coalition of citizen groups jointly and publicly denounced it. S.C. and digital learning: The good, bad and ugly Anyone who has followed our columns knows that I am a huge believer in the power of technology to transform education and enable “leapfrog” progress for our children. And unless you have been living under a rock, don’t read newspapers, watch TV or think about what’s happening in the world, one thing is abundantly clear to all – technology is as vital to education in the 21st century as books and chalk boards were in the 19th and 20th centuries. Nullification is needed now more than ever before This column is in response to Phil Noble’s column, “Nullification – are these guys nuts?” in the April 5 issue of The Lancaster News. Null and void, annulment, cancellation, repeal, eradication and do away with are some of the words and terms that explain what nullification means. Nowhere can I find that the word nullification means “nuts.” But what kind of nuts are you thinking of? Do you mean tree nuts like walnuts? Or the slang symbolism metaphor describing a person who is handicapped with a mental condition? Thank law officers for their sacrifices This week, you will hear a great deal about National Police Week, and what it means to us in the law enforcement field and the families of the officers who serve in this capacity. National Police Week was created in 1962 when President John F. Kennedy proclaimed May 15 as Peace Officers Memorial Day, and the week within which it falls as Police Week. Many of the events and activities associated with National Police Week are held in Washington, D.C., where homage is paid to those officers who have lost their lives in the line of duty. Keep alcohol away from young people Cinco de Mayo. High school graduation parties. Fourth of July cookouts. College football tailgating. What do all of these have in common? All are terrific opportunities to gather together with friends and family. Unfortunately, these activities can also present an increased risk of alcohol-related problems such as underage drinking or driving under the influence. Not here you say? Nothing can be further from the truth. Almost half, 47 percent, of high-school age students report having used alcohol at least once in their lifetime and 20 percent have used in the past 30 days. South Carolina must address its road issues What is the most pressing issue facing South Carolina? Is it attempting to nullify Obamacare? Is it the question of whether to expand Medicaid coverage? Is it putting up legal barricades to block possible federal curbs on gun rights? While my email inbox would seem to indicate so, I believe our No. 1 concern is addressing the dire condition of the state’s roads and bridges.

时政

2014-52/4413/en_head.json.gz/3521

Jonah Goldberg: On Russia, Obama is stuck in the past BY JONAH GOLDBERG Things are moving far too fast in Kiev, Moscow and Crimea to write about events there. But the past isn't going anywhere. Though you wouldn't know that from the way the Obama administration talks about it.Throughout this crisis — indeed, throughout all of Barack Obama's presidency — the White House has been eager to insist that our long, unpleasant history with the Russians is behind us.Obviously, every administration wants a fresh start with long-time rivals. That's why there have been four "resets" with the Russians since 1991, including George W. Bush's famous soul-searching gaze into Vladimir Putin's eyes and Hillary Clinton's comic effort to give the Russians a "reset" button (that actually said "overcharge" on it).Fresh starts are fine. But when Obama came into office, his administration implicitly blamed our poor relationship with Russia on Bush, as if Russia's misdeeds were provoked by America.In 2012, Obama mocked Mitt Romney for his claim that the Russians are our "No. 1 geopolitical foe," and scoffed: "The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back."That scorn looks embarrassing enough given recent events. But the truth is Obama's hostility to Romney's policies had little to do with them being outdated. Obama didn't like America's Cold War policies during the Cold War.In 1983, then-Columbia University student Obama penned a lengthy article for the school magazine placing the blame for U.S.-Soviet tensions largely on America's "war mentality" and the "twisted logic" of the Cold War. President Reagan's defense buildup, according to Obama, contributed to the "silent spread of militarism" and reflected our "distorted national priorities" rather than what should be our goal: a "nuclear free world."Of course, it's unfair to put too much weight on anyone's youthful writings. Except there's precious little evidence his views have changed over the years.In his first term, President Obama's biggest priority with Russia was to get the two countries on the path to that "nuclear free world." One of his — and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's — first actions in office was to betray our commitments to Poland and the Czech Republic on missile defense.Indeed, across a wide range of areas, it has been Obama who has been, in the words of The Washington Post's Jackson Diehl, in a 1980s-soaked "foreign policy time warp."Three weeks ago, in response to tensions in Ukraine, the President explained that "our approach ... is not to see (events in Ukraine) as some Cold War chessboard in which we're in competition with Russia." This is a horrible way to talk about the Cold War because it starts from the premise that it was all just a game conducted between two morally equivalent competitors.Similar comments about "Cold War rivalries" and the like are commonplace of late, particularly during the Sochi Olympics, when NBC commentators were desperate to portray the entire Soviet chapter as nothing more than a "pivotal experiment."My old boss, William F. Buckley, responding to claims that the U.S. and the Soviets were morally equivalent, said that if one man pushes an old lady into an oncoming bus and another man pushes an old lady out of the way of a bus, we should not denounce them both as the sorts of men who push old ladies around.While America surely made mistakes during the near half-century "twilight struggle," the simple fact is that there was a right side and a wrong side to that conflict, and we were on the right side of it. The Soviet Union murdered millions of its own people, stifled freedom in nearly every form, enslaved whole nations and actively tried to undermine democracy all around the world, including in the U.S.President Putin, a former KGB agent, has said that the collapse of the evil empire was "the greatest geopolitical catastrophe" of the 20th century. That alone should have been a clue to this White House that misspelled reset buttons weren't going to cut it. But they were too stuck in the past to see it.Jonah Goldberg is the author of "The Tyranny of Clichés." You can write to him by email at goldbergcolumn@gmail.com, or via Twitter @JonahNRO.

时政

2014-52/4413/en_head.json.gz/3600

Oberlander faces loss of citizenship over Nazi ties Friday, December 28, 2012 Tags: Canada Comments Federal Court of Canada coat of arms The federal government is again moving to strip Waterloo resident Helmut Oberlander of his Canadian citizenship over his wartime involvement with a Nazi death squad. It was revealed this week that the government filed an order-in-council with the Federal Court in Toronto in September, which opened the door for the deportation of Oberlander, an ethnic German who was born in what is today Ukraine. CTV Kitchener reported Oberlander has requested a judicial review of the citizenship revocation. The 88-year-old retired real estate developer has been involved in legal battles over his wartime activities since 1995. Oberlander was an interpreter with Einsatzkommando 10a (EK 10a), a Nazi killing squad that was part of a larger unit that roamed Nazi-occupied territories and murdered tens of thousands of Jews and other innocent victims. Whether he was drafted into the unit or not, he was part of it for at least 1-1/2 years, knew of its activities and served its purpose, Federal Court Judge Michael Phelan stated in a 2008 judgment. That decision led to removal of his citizenship by order-in-council (in effect, the federal cabinet), but Oberlander appealed. In 2009, the Federal Court of Appeal ruled the cabinet must revisit its previous decision that stripped Oberlander of his citizenship and consider whether he was forced to join the unit under duress. Oberlander said he was conscripted into the unit and that he never took part in any murders. The Globe and Mail reported that prior to the latest order-in-council, Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism Minister Jason Kenney presented a brief to cabinet colleagues saying, Oberlander “served the members and the purposes of this killing squad with knowledge of the atrocities it carried out.” The minister’s report argued that Oberlander never deserted the German armed forces even though he had chances to do so. “Mr. Oberlander has not demonstrated that he meets any of the three conditions to satisfy the defence of duress,” the report states. Jewish groups applauded the cabinet decision. “As a human rights advocacy organization grounded in the lessons of the Holocaust, we are so pleased to see the Canadian government taking steps to deport one of the few remaining Nazis in Canada. There is no statute of limitations for those who participated in genocide,” stated Avi Benlolo, president and CEO of Friends of the Simon Wiesenthal Center (FSWC). Oberlander has been listed by the Simon Wiesenthal Center as one of the top 10 most wanted Nazi war crimes suspects worldwide. In addition to Oberlander, FSWC has also pressed for the deportation of Vladimir Katriuk, a beekeeper in Quebec who was a member of a battalion responsible for a massacre in the village of Khatyn, in what is now Belarus. Shimon Fogel, chief executive officer of the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA), said, “We think it speaks to a fundamental issue of justice… Bringing this front and centre again maybe has the pedagogic value of reminding Canadians of this terrible and singular horror.”

时政

2014-52/4413/en_head.json.gz/3894

McLellan takes mayoral race, Benavides and Smith head for runoff election May 11, 2013 By Thomas Jenkins citydesk@bigspringherald.com Larry McLellen, left, talks with District 5 contenders Clint Collins and J.D. Smith while waiting for election results Saturday night at the Howard County Courthouse. McLellan won the mayoral seat, while Smith and overall vote-getter Raul Benavides will square off in a runoff. Big Spring businessman Larry McLellan delivered a convincing victory in Saturday night's election for the mayoral seat on the city council, edging out challenger Roger Rodman with more than 65 percent of the city-wide vote. McLellan led Rodman 698 ballots to 282 ballots — a whopping 70.15 percent to 28.52 percent — following the release of early voting totals just after the polls closed at 7 p.m. Rodman would close the gap only marginally by the end of the night, however, with McLellan taking the final victory with 66.63 percent (1,074 ballots) to Rodman's 31.33 percent (505 ballots). “I was really pleased with the turnout and the numbers. I feel like the citizens of Big Spring have sent a message that they really want to see results in this city,” McLellan said. “I feel like they want to see things taken care of. I don't think this election was just about the tax rate, I think it was about progress, which is what the people of Big Spring want to see. As always, I'm in favor of getting our tax rate as low as is affordable for our citizens, but I also want to provide the services our citizens are entitled to and that will be my goal. “Our first goal will be to look at the city staff we have. We can't run the city without a well-qualified staff and we're currently 28-plus employees short. The first order of business should be to get this staff back to normal. We have to get some folks who can drive these trash trucks and look for innovative ways to do that. Maybe we can piece together some retirees who can help drive a truck or do some mowing. I'm excited about the results. It sends a message out that Big Spring is ready to move forward and do some progressive things.” Rodman said he and the other candidates vying for Big Spring seats spent plenty of time together in the weeks leading up to the election, and regardless of who won the races, Big Spring will be better off for it. “We've all been with each other and visited with each other, sharing ideas for the betterment of the people of Big Spring, Rodman said. “That's the important thing. I congratulate Larry. He ran a clean race and a good race and won, fair and square. And I'll be here next time.” In the race for the District 5 seat on the Big Spring City Council, Raul Benavides took top honors with 44.21 percent (187 ballots) of the vote, while opponents J.D. Smith won 33.81 percent (143 ballots) and Clint Collins took 21.99 percent (93 ballots). Early voting in the race showed a similar outcome, as Benavides led with 123 ballots (45.10 percent), with Smith nabbing 100 votes (37.76 percent) and Collins coming in a distant third place with 46 ballots (17.13 percent). Benavides' victory will be short-lived, however, as his inability to take 50 percent or more of the vote will pit him against Smithy in a runoff election in the coming months. “We had three great candidates. I was always impressed with the candidates who ran and I'm glad we had them running for the seat. It didn't end up exactly like I wanted it to, but that's elections for you,” Benavides said with a laugh. “I'm ready to move forward and we should know soon when the runoff election will be. “I plant to continue with the same strategy I've used up to today, just to meet people, talk to people and put myself out there for the public and answer their questions. I was telling folks earlier I really don't think there's a street in District 5 that I didn't walk during the campaign. I made sure I talked to people or left a brochure at their door. I feel like I got out there and I worked hard and that's what put me ahead in this race.” Benavides said the main concerns voters have expressed to him are very serious challenges for the city of Big Spring, especially in the coming years. “The voters I spoke with were concerned about water, infrastructure and trash pickup. Those were the three main topics on their minds,” he said. “Trash services have been spotty, at best, and that has been very challenging for the city. The drivers are being snagged by the oil industry and we're going through the same pains Midland-Odessa has gone through. Those were their main concerns and, as city leaders, we have to address them.” Smith said he and his supporters are ready to once again hit the streets and meet with the voters of District 5 in preparation for the runoff. “It's really important to get in front of people, shaking their hands and getting that eye-to-eye contact,” Smith said. “From here, I'm going to have to make sure I put the time in and go back and approach the voters from that stand point. We're going to have to revitalize the troops — our supporters and volunteers who have helped us throughout the campaign — and we're going to have to keep plugging away at this. We can't give up.” Smith said voters in the district have expressed a number of concerns while he has been out campaigning, with the anticipated impact of the Cline shale oil play at the top of the list. “Everybody has major reservations about this oil play and the growth it will bring,” Smith said. “Some don't fully understand it. So, if I can get the message out — what I feel is coming and what I've seen in other big shale plays — I should be able to get a lot of support.” It was a night for incumbent candidates in the city of Forsan, as Fred Holguin, Ramon Holguin and Mary Gressett took the three at-large seats on the Forsan City Council. Fred Holguin was the top vote-getter, bringing in 36.63 (74 ballots) percent of the vote, with Ramon Holguin receiving 27.72 percent (56 ballots) and fellow incumbent Gressett receiving 23.76 percent (48 ballots). Challenger Rick Ebert received 8.42 percent (17 ballots) of the vote, while last-place candidate Tracy Carey took only 3.47 percent (seven ballots). Contact Staff Writer Thomas Jenkins at 263-7331 ext. 232 or by e-mail at citydesk@bigspringherald.com

时政

2014-52/4413/en_head.json.gz/3940

Abbas calls for teens return JTA, Wednesday, June 18, 2014 Tags: Israel Mahmoud Abbas Tzipi Livni Comments PA President Mahmoud Abbas JERUSALEM —Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas made a public call for the return of the three kidnapped Israeli teens. “The missing settlers in the West Bank are human beings like us, and we must look for them and return them to their families,” Abbas said while meeting in Saudi Arabia with foreign ministers of Muslim states. “We are making an effort to locate the youths.” Abbas noted that one of the kidnapped teens is also an American citizen. “Whether Israeli or American, he is a human being,” he said. He asserted that the kidnappers are “seeking to destroy us,” referring to the Palestinian Authority. He also accused Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of “exploiting” the kidnapping, using it as an excuse to launch a major military operation in the West Bank and round up Palestinian leaders. Abbas’ office on Monday issued a statement through the official Wafa Palestinian news agency condemning the kidnapping and the escalation of operations by the Israeli military. Israeli Justice Minister and chief peace negotiator Tzipi Livni in a Facebook post after Abbas’ declaration said his statement is “important, correct and reflects the reality that Hamas is a terrorist organization.” She called on Israel and the moderate Palestinian world to fight Hamas together, “giving us the chance to go back to negotiations and to the idea of two states.”

时政

2014-52/4413/en_head.json.gz/4117

Monday, November 14, 2011 Occupy the world-a movement in progress Written by Bob Froehlich Beginning with the revolutionary waive of demonstrations and protests in the Middle East, dubbed the Arab Spring, (click here to see an interactive timeline of the Arab Spring Protests from the Guardian On-line) and Anti-austerity Protests world wide, "Occupy" Movements are popping up all over the globe like mushrooms after a rain. In the U.S. the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) Movement officially began on September 17, 2011 in New York City's Zuccotti Park in the Wall Street financial district. According to the Vancouver Courier on-line, OWS began in part from: “ ...the work of the Vancouver-based Adbusters Media Foundation, an anti-consumerist group best known for its award-winning, advertisement-free magazine, Adbusters.” Reflecting the frustration by an ever increasing disparity in the distribution of wealth and handling of the recent global financial crisis, the magazine urged readers to take to the streets to demand change. In the Vancouver Courier article, Adbusters senior editor Micah White was quoted as saying, “We basically floated the idea in mid July into our [email list] and it was spontaneously taken up by all the people of the world. It just kind of snowballed from there. We came up with the idea but independent activists just made it their own. They set up an organizing website, starting holding weekly meetings and these are the people who are now pulling it off. They made it their own and ran with it.” News about these movements is exploding while memes like " We are the 99%" are being created and spreading as the basic core issues of drastic inequity in wealth, unemployment and declining standards of living resonate with citizens of all countries and members of all communities. Watching this develop is like watching in timelapse the exponential growth of a tropical garden and serves as a sociological laboratory as the various movements develop and spread. One of the criticisms of the OWS movement in the mainstream media is that it has no leaders, no demands and no program for changing things (see N.Y. Times-sunday Review, Nov. 12, 2011). For example, in a CNN.com article, Ehab Zahriyeh states, "The Occupy movement has clear frustrations with corporate greed, unregulated banks and the housing crisis. Protesters are disappointed in President Obama and his administration for bailing out the banks and not the people. They have dozens of other grievances and continue to debate strategy and priority. But these demands do not call for clear solutions. Unlike Egypt, where removing a decades-long presidency was a major success, in the United States, there aren't any high-profile figures to remove that will satisfy the protesters, not even temporarily." However, others suggest that this is not the case and while the movement is in it's early gestation stage there are clear articulations of the movement's grievances, demands and proposals for change - See the links below. Grievances and Demands: New York City General Assembly, Currently occupying Zuccotti Park-Declaration Leadership: What is Occupy Wall Street? The history of leaderless movements Occupy Wall Street over? Not so fast, marchers say Cooperation and Proposals: Occupy Movement's Other Accomplishment: Spurring Cooperation Among Progressives The99PercentDeclaration Occupy Boston Takes Stand Against Predatory Lending and Illegal Foreclosures News About: The Occupied Wall Street Journal is only one of many un-official newspapers of Occupy Wall Street Occupy Wall Street.org Occupy together.org Local Coverage of Occupied Movements: Local Community Member, Lauren Oliver traveled with veteran radio reporter Maia Chong to various Occupy movements. Use the player below to hear a report from the Occupy San Francisco site on Nov. 12, 2011: KMUD Community Journalist, Kerry Reynolds, visited Occupy Wall Street (OWS) during the final days of the nearly 2-month encampment of Zuccotti Park (AKA Liberty Square) and she produced this report, which includes the concept of "Working Groups" within the OWS Movement. The encampment was evicted on November 15th, 2011. Use the player below to hear or download the report. November 17th, 2011, was a 'Day of Action' on Wall Street, when occupiers and thousands of supporters took to the streets in NYC's financial district and all around Manhattan to mark two-months since the start of the Liberty Square Occupation. Over 250 were arrested. Use the player below to hear or download the report by KMUD Community Journalist, Kerry Reynolds. As the movement develops, experiments with "Horizontal Decision Making", "Direct Democracy", and work around techniques like the "Human Microphone" offer new ideas to audiences and participants world-wide. Consensus (Direct Democracy @ Occupy Wall Street) Read 2431 times Last modified on Tuesday, May 01, 2012 Tweet Published in Politics and Community « Amendment banning drilling off California's North Coast introduced Tug of War for water-Delta Region Members of Congress submit public comment » back to top KMUD News on Facebook

时政

2014-52/4413/en_head.json.gz/4216

Assembly Democrats unveil post-Sandy jobs package One week after leading a bipartisan delegation to tour Hurricane Sandy's devastation on the Jersey Shore, the assembly speaker today unveiled a package of job-creation bills she hopes will receive a bipartisan reception. Sheila Y. Oliver (D-East Orange) said the Legislature and Gov. Chris Christie need to deal with the state’s high unemployment rate in order to ensure that the Sandy recovery coincides with a more substantial economic recovery.“Nothing is going to get us there more quickly than if we get more New Jerseyans back to work,” Oliver said.The package contains a number of bills that already have been passed and vetoed by Christie, though Oliver said the majority are new bills.“We are today throwing out a hand of bipartisan participation and cooperation to the administration to sit down with the general Assembly and let us revisit many of those bills that we know will lead to growing and expanding and creating jobs in the state,” she said.Even with the talk of bipartisanship, the Democrats didn’t shy away from laying blame for what they see as a too-slow economic recovery in the state.Assembly Majority Leader Lou Greenwald (D-Voorhees) said the state’s unemployment rate remains near 10 percent, and said many of the private-sector jobs created during Christie’s tenure have been low-paying jobs.“No amount of press conferences or talking points is going to obscure the fact that in the last three years, New Jersey’s economy continues to get worse,” he said.The package includes legislation to support high-paying manufacturing jobs and collaboration between business and higher education. Other bills encourage hiring of veterans and the long-term unemployed. The package also contains tax credits for investment in biotechnology, and a revamped version of the Back to Work NJ program, a plan previously vetoed by Christie and based on a jobs program in Georgia.Assembly Budget Chair Vincent Prieto (D-Secaucus) said he plans to have hearings on the bills Dec. 11 in order to allow floor votes Dec. 17.Oliver said the total cost of the package is about $20 million. Greenwald noted that price tag is far less than the $183 million income tax plan proposed by Christie, which Greenwald charged would have “overwhelmingly rewarded the wealthiest 1 percent in the state.”Greenwald said the Democratic plan is wiser investment, because businesses would first have to commit to jobs and growth before the state would have to spend money.Asked if the timing of the package was related to the Assembly’s vote Monday to raise the state’s minimum wage, a move opposed by business groups, Oliver said the Assembly has already done much to support businesses and said her jobs package would also be helpful to businesses.“This is not designed to deflect away or cushion the aggressiveness around wanting to raise the minimum wage,” she said. “This is just another component of what is necessary to get New Jersey’s economy working.” Share This Story On:

时政

2014-52/4413/en_head.json.gz/4354

Murphy blasts NRA in first floor speech as senator By KELSEY DENTINGER Special to The Day Connecticut's freshman U.S. Sen. Chris Murphy gave an impassioned speech from the floor of the Senate Wednesday, calling for support of gun control legislation in the wake of the Dec. 14 Sandy Hook Elementary School tragedy.In his first speech on the Senate floor, Murphy stressed, "The worst reality is this: If we don't do something, right now, it's going to happen again."Murphy illustrated the vast public support of gun control reform, producing statistics such as "87 percent of Americans think we should have universal background checks. … Two-thirds of Americans think we should restrict these high-capacity ammunition clips. … 76 percent of Americans believe that we should crack down on people who buy guns legally and go out and sell them in the community illegally."He accused some in Congress of being out of step with the American public because "members of Congress have been listening to the wrong people," singling out the NRA for not advocating for its members and gun owners but rather, advocating for the gun industry that largely funds the NRA.Murphy also spoke about how Congress has failed to hold a proper forum about rights, a focal point of the gun reform debate. Citing "rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," he added, "Liberty has got to also be about the right to be free from indiscriminate violence."Listing his policy points, Murphy stated that guns should be available to people of sound mind without criminal records, that a "small number of guns are just too dangerous for retail sale," and that certain ammunition "too easily enables mass-slaughter."Many Senate Republicans have pledged to filibuster the gun control bill, but U.S. Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., said he believed the filibuster threat would not come to pass. Blumenthal attributed his confidence to the lobbying efforts of Newtown families: "The families of Newtown have been profoundly and dramatically effective in impacting my colleagues in their direct face-to-face conversations, they've given a voice and face to gun violence that is moving and powerful beyond words. They've helped to turn the tide on ending the filibuster threat, which is the procedural obstacle to go forward."Blumenthal told The Day that he is optimistic about the bill itself but also asserted that he is listening to his constituency."There are some details that need review, but I believe it will meet with positive reaction, and I am listening," he said. "I will be making my decisions, as I have in the past, by listening to law enforcement groups, Newtown families, and other victims as well as public safety advocates."Blumenthal praised Wednesday's announcement that a bipartisan compromise on gun reform may have been struck, saying, "It seems to be a positive step in the right direction, and I am very encouraged by this bipartisan compromise."He also applauded the leadership and bipartisanship of Connecticut's recent gun reform legislation."I am very proud and grateful that Connecticut is helping to lead the nation, in this specific provisions of this measure, which is now the strongest in the nation, but also in its bipartisan compromise, which I think we need here in Washington," Blumenthal said. "We need Republican votes in Washington and we have a real opportunity to achieve it."

时政

2014-52/4413/en_head.json.gz/4372

New London Mayor Finizio will not seek second term New London Mayor Daryl Justin Finizio speaks Tuesday at City Hall. Carlos Diaz/The Day New London — In a move that surprised many, Democratic Mayor Daryl Justin Finizio announced Tuesday night that he will not seek a second term and instead will focus on stabilizing municipal finances in his final 21 months in office."Too much of the debate in our city has been focused on me instead of our real financial problems," Finizio said in his annual budget address. "We cannot face the challenges before us if for the next two years this political paradigm exists. The city must be put first."The mayor had already spoken in support of a bonding package proposed by the city's finance director that he said would close out 20 years of bad management of capital accounts, double the city's fund balance, and resolve its cash flow problems."I cannot simultaneously lead the city out of this situation, do what is necessary, and continue to speak uncomfortable financial truths, if every proposal from my administration is perceived as a political maneuver designed to get me re-elected," he said. "It is for that reason that I have decided I will not be a candidate for re-election next year, but will instead dedicate myself fully to the task at hand."Wade A. Hyslop, City Council president and a Finizio supporter, said he learned the news in a meeting with the mayor about 5 minutes before the budget address began."I am heartbroken by it, only because I have been supportive of him, and I believe that he has honestly represented the city," Hyslop said. "I also believe that there are people who do not want to see the city go forward. They want to see the city fail, and they're going to be happy about this. I don't see how anyone can be happy about anyone who is willing to take their own personal feelings out of the running. … He is willing to sacrifice his own political career to see the city move forward. I'm dissatisfied with him doing it, but I see why he is doing it."In an interview prior to his address to the council, Finizio said he believes his decision not to run again puts him in a stronger position to make the city solvent and that he has every intention of stabilizing municipal finances by the time he vacates office in December 2015."The debate has become focused around me, not the issues," said Finizio, who in 2011 became the city's first elected mayor in 90 years. "The tone of every discussion now is where (people) stand with me versus the real issues."While Finizio acknowledged that harsh and constant criticism has taken a toll, he said it is not the reason he's not seeking a second term."My partner and I knew when we started this together in 2010 that it would be a sacrifice, and it has been, but the decision is not related to that alone," Finizio said.He has come to realize, he said, that the good of the city has to take precedence over mayoral politics, and his sole focus will be on straightening out city finances and moving along other projects, such as construction of the National Coast Guard Museum.City finances will be his top priority, he said."Not only are we out of money, but we are out of time. There is no other magic trick to be played," said Finizio, saying that for the two previous decades, city leaders held the line on taxes and depleted the city's fund balance, leaving New London in financial peril."We've got a cash flow problem and a potential state takeover," he said, adding that anyone who doubts that should study past city audits.The 36-year-old mayor, who earns $86,000 annually, was elected in a landslide in November 2011 after running a "boots on the ground" campaign that led the city newcomer from virtual political obscurity to a household name. Finizio topped a field of six candidates, including two longtime native sons, Republican Rob Pero and Democratic write-in candidate Michael Buscetto.Finizio said he intentionally made himself a "strong" elected mayor, because he believes that was the intent of the 2010 charter change that eliminated a city manager and instead provided for an elected mayor to run New London for a four-year term."The office needed to be established as a strong office," he said. "There needs to be a point person, someone to blame and to be held accountable. And you only get one chance to establish that right of authority."Despite controversies that have swirled about him and his administration, Finizio said he has no regrets about his tenure and has every intention of continuing to be a strong leader.He said he believes he could have won if he ran again. While he acknowledged that he had filed paperwork for the purpose of fundraising for re-election, he said he always thought he would likely only be a single-term mayor. The decision not to seek another term, he said, was not all that difficult to make."No one enjoys a high-stress job for life," he said, adding that being mayor is a 24/7 job and except for trips to Washington, D.C., for work, he hasn't left the city overnight in two years."No vacations," he said.Finizio said he's not sure what he will do for work when his term ends, but he will continue to live in New London."I was born in Westerly, but that's my parents' home. New London is my home now," he said.He also said he's made every effort to let his critics have their say and not respond to their personal jabs, commenting back only on policy issues."Responding only feeds that kind of negativity," he said.Finizio wouldn't speculate on who he thinks will try to replace him, and one likely opponent, Councilor Michael Passero, was not at Tuesday's meeting.Other councilors said they were surprised."At first we thought it was an April Fool's joke," said Councilor Anthony Nolan. "I just hope if it is what he is really going to do, that his decision is not based on the naysayers; that it is based on him having planned for whatever he is going to do next. If he decides to leave, I can only wish him luck."Republican Councilor Martin T. Olsen said, "I think this only changes the political calculus in the city, and how that plays out, only time will tell."a.baldelli@theday.comStaff writer Colin A. Young contributed to this story. Finizio's surprise move New London's budget starts to draw attention following mayor's announcement Proposed New London budget includes 7.24% hike New London mayor to present State of the City address tonight More bad fiscal news for New London New London running out of cash

时政

2014-52/4413/en_head.json.gz/4404

DRED nominee faces opposition for Northern Pass stance Littleton chamber says 'No' to Northern Pass CONCORD - Gov. Maggie Hassan's nominee to head the Department of Resources and Economic Development will come under fire for his position on the Northern Pass hydroelectric project when his nomination comes before the Executive Council at a public hearing Thursday.The nomination of Jeffrey Rose, director of public affairs at BAE Electronic Systems in Nashua, to become commissioner of DRED is being opposed by Responsible Energy Action, a citizen group opposed to the Northern Pass.In testimony filed with the council, the group claims that Rose has "consistently and publicly stated his strong, unequivocal support for the Northern Pass.""Northern Pass will come before DRED for critical 'make or break' approvals," according to the written testimony. "We believe Mr. Rose's bias and pre-judgment in favor of Northern Pass clearly put him in a conflicted position and render him unsuitable to serve as DRED commissioner."Rose responded by expressing his appreciation for the scenic beauty of the North Country and pledging neutrality."One of the most important roles of the DRED commissioner is protecting New Hampshire's beautiful natural resources. As an avid outdoorsman myself, I have spent much time exploring the mountains and terrain of the North Country," he said. "If I'm afforded the opportunity to serve as DRED commissioner, one of my primary responsibilities would be to impartially evaluate any project to ensure we protect the natural resources that drive our economy, including our scenic landscape. I would bring no-preconceived notions on the project to my role as DRED commissioner." The central issue for Rose's opponents appears to be his role on the Greater Nashua Chamber of Commerce, which has come out in favor of the project. Rose is currently listed as a board member on the chamber website.Nashua Chamber President and CEO Chris Williams explained that the information is out of date and inaccurate. The chamber is redesigning its website, he said, and "some of our pages from the past have been activated as current." He said Rose's position on the board ended in March 2010, while the chamber's statement in support of Northern Pass was issued in December 2012."Jeff's term as a member of our board of directors had already expired long before our chamber took up discussions relative to support of the Northern Pass project," Williams said. "Those who wish to connect the Nashua Chamber's position on the Northern Pass project to Jeff Rose are simply barking up the wrong tree and are in the wrong forest altogether."In their testimony, the Northern Pass opponents acknowledge that Rose may not be officially on the board, but say he is still associated with its position."Only a few weeks ago, Rose promoted the high transmission line power initiative during a Nashua chamber breakfast for legislators," they wrote. "Mr. Rose cannot undo the reality or the public perception of his prior unambiguous support for Northern Pass."The Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests, one of the most active groups in opposition to the Northern Pass, will take no position on Rose's nomination, according to Jack Savage, society spokesman."We do not ordinarily engage in advocating for or against gubernatorial nominations," he said. "Rather, we try to clearly identify the larger issues of performance associated with a position in state government that deals with natural resources. DRED is responsible for 200,000 acres of public lands, and a number of large conservation easements on privately owned land. "We believe that a nominee to the position of DRED commissioner should have a demonstrated command of and commitment to the stewardship of these vital assets. SPNHF believes that the Executive Council should only vote to approve a nominee to this position who demonstrates such a command and commitment."dsolomon@unionleader.com

时政

2014-52/4413/en_head.json.gz/4422

Vote decides fate of school district unions Frank Schultz JANESVILLE—Teachers, aides, lunch ladies, custodians and other school district employees are voting this month to determine the future of their unions. Some school employee unions around the state have recertified previously, but this is a first for many, including about 760 teachers in the Janesville School District. The 2011 law known as Act 10, which stripped public-employee unions of much of their collective bargaining privileges, also requires annual recertification elections. The elections are important because they could determine whether the unions can continue bargaining contracts with the school district. If a union fails to get enough votes, it would be decertified, and it could no longer bargain for wages on behalf of its members, said Peter Davis, chief legal counsel for the Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission. Case in point: The Delavan-Darien School District support staff failed to certify in 2011. The Delavan-Darien teachers had a successful vote that year, but the support staff no longer bargains as a group for wages, a district spokesman said. The Kenosha teachers union actually decided not to recertify this year, but it negotiated a contract with the Kenosha School Board, which apparently was willing to recognize the union even if the state did not. The Kenosha situation was unique. It happened after a Dane County Court found Act 10 unconstitutional, ruling the certification elections should not go forward. And it happened before the state Supreme Court overturned that ruling, allowing the elections to proceed. The Supreme Court has yet to rule on the constitutionality question. Meanwhile, an organization called Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty has filed suit, challenging the legality of the Kenosha teachers contract, Davis said. Each union had to decide by Aug. 30 whether to certify or not. Two Janesville unions decided not to seek certification, said Jeff Middleton of Council 40 of the Association of Federal, State, County and Municipal Employees, or AFSCME. One of those unions represents Janesville secretaries, clerks and aides. The other represents custodial, food service and maintenance workers. All together, that's about 500 workers. Middleton said the unions have a good relationship with the Janesville School Board and administration and believe they can discuss wages informally without going through the Act 10-required bargaining process. Middleton noted the district has invited the unions to “meet-and-confer” sessions about working conditions and benefits—which can no longer be part of union contracts under Act 10. “They're still talking to us even though we're not certified, but we're also not bargaining. We're just talking,” Middleton said. It's even conceivable that a school board could award workers a wage increase that is better than they could have gotten under Act 10, Middleton said. Act 10 limits wage increases to the rate of inflation, but there's no law that would keep a school board from giving employees bigger raises, Middleton said. Meanwhile, AFSCME is a party to the Act 10 challenge that the state Supreme Court will decide, and Middleton believes key parts of the law should be found unconstitutional. If a union fails to win recertification, it could continue to lobby on behalf of its members or try to get favorable school board members elected, Davis said. Act 10 requires a 51 percent margin to recertify, but that's 51 percent of all union members, not a percentage of those who vote. Those who don't vote are counted as no's. Case in point: Delavan-Darien support staff members, who voted 28-3 in 2011 to certify their union, but the union had 71 members, so they failed to get a majority. “It's probably the most unfair election you could possibly have because if you don't vote, the state votes for you,” said Michael Walsh, a union staff representative for teachers unions in the Clinton, Beloit Turner, Janesville, Milton and Whitewater school districts. “It's part of Gov. Walker's plan to try and make it as difficult for unions as much as he can,” Walsh said. If elections for public offices had the same rule, no one would ever be elected, Walsh said. Voting, which is done with a phone call to an 800 number, began Nov. 27. The last chance to vote is noon Dec. 19. Davis said the employment relations commission hopes to have preliminary results on its website later that day.� Walsh complained the elections started the day after Thanksgiving, when workers were not at work and so couldn't be notified of the election. The employer is required to post or distribute a notice of election, Walsh said, but that couldn't be done until staff returned to work Nov. 30. “It's one unfair thing after another,” Walsh said. Members of unions who work for municipal governments have similar elections next spring. Janesville School District unveils teacher compensation proposal Parker girls win holiday tournament in Wisconsin Dells Gregory Eugene Reuter, Lansing, MI/Janesville, WI (1971-2014) State trooper dragged by fleeing car on Interstate 94 Death notices for Dec. 27, 2014 Couple accused of extensive damage at town of Beloit park Most read

时政

2014-52/4413/en_head.json.gz/4427

Canton Mayor Reflects On 2014 Ogdensburg Bridge and Port Authority pledges to meet contracting goals By CHRISTOPHER ROBBINS PUBLISHED: TUESDAY, JANUARY 1, 2013 AT 4:30 AM After expressing concerns that state contracting standards were too stringent, the Ogdensburg Bridge and Port Authority is affirming their intent to meet a threshold for the hiring of minority- and woman-owned businesses.“We are working toward MWBE compliance and it is a priority for the Authority,” said Samuel J. LaMacchia, authority chairman.Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo set a goal that 20 percent of all public contracts would go to minority- or woman-owned business enterprises, or MWBEs. Under previous rules, the OBPA self-imposed a 10 percent goal for MWBE contracts.At their Dec. 13 meeting, authority officials complained that the goals would be difficult to live up to because of a dearth of local MWBEs. The OBPA’s deputy executive director, Frederick S. Morrill, is also responsible for their efforts to meet the goal.“We urge North Country Minority or Women-owned Businesses to become New York State MWBE certified”, he said in a press release.The state Division of Minority and Women’s Business Development certifies MWBEs. They are defined as “an on-going independent business owned, operated and controlled by minority group members and/or women.” Per the state’s rules, the businesses must have existed for at least a year and 51 percent of control must be in the hands of women or minorities.Alan R. Culbreath, an analyst for the Division of Minority and Women Business Development, defended the policy’s intent, arguing that companies owned by minorities and women are already receiving a higher percentage of public business.“If you go back three years, you will see a drastic difference between what was done prior to 2010 and what has happened since,” he said.“The disparity in the numbers themselves are great. You have agencies that were doing a participation rate at 2 and 3 percent that are now at 17 and 18 percent, and that alone is an improvement, which means the potential was there.”In a 2006 report, the Division found only 3 percent of all State procurement contracts were awarded to businesses owned by women or minorities. Under a less stringent set of policies adopted by previous administrations, that number increased to nearly 10 percent in 2010The governor’s goal has been extended to state and regional economic development grants, requiring public authorities and other recipients to try to award at least 20 percent of their contracts to minority- and woman-owned businesses.“The only caveat is that if you absolutely cannot meet those standards, you have to request a waiver through the Executive Chamber,” Mr. Culbreath said.It appears, then that the standard is more of a soft target. Mr. Culbreath said agencies that fail to meet the 20 percent mark will be judged on the sincerity of their effort.“If we find you did not put forth a good-faith effort, the penalty can be that your funding will be given to another agency,” he said. “To date, no one has been penalized, but they will be evaluated at the end of this fiscal year in March 2013.”The north country’s lack of diversity won’t let recipients off the hook, he said.“It is known that some areas of the state are having difficulty meeting the 20 percent, but you can go outside of your region to meet your goals,” Mr. Culbreath said.“That will be something authorities will be judged by also, whether they reach out to those MWBEs in other regions. That may entail an increased cost factor.”That means the OBPA may have to pay more to hire contractors from outside of the north country.“The response is that the governor is focused on the 20 percent, the response is to hit that number by any means necessary — even if it means you are neglecting your own community, which is absurd,” said Mr. Culbreath.“Personally, I would go with trying to take care of home first.”

时政

2014-52/4413/en_head.json.gz/4487

Search Main menuHomeStoriesRegionsSocials Secondary menuSubscribeAboutState.gov You are hereIssues » Educational and Cultural Affairs Secretary Kerry: Peace Corps "The Best Use of Citizenship" Posted by Jason Lucke June 14, 2013 Secretary Kerry Administers Oath to New Peace Corps Volunteers in Guatemala Secretary Kerry Speaks With New Peace Corps Volunteers in Guatemala Secretary Kerry Shakes Hands With New Peace Corps Volunteers in Guatemala Secretary of State John Kerry took a break from meetings last week at the Organization of American States General Assembly in Antigua, Guatemala, to swear in the first group of Peace Corps volunteers of his tenure. During an intimate gathering before he addressed the staff of Embassy Guatemala City, the Secretary chatted with the incoming class of Guatemala Response volunteers. One, Andrew Gall, was from Nashua, New Hampshire, just across the border from the Secretary’s homestate of Massachusetts. The others were Carolyn Hartz Barrett of North Carolina, Jason Lucke of Kentucky, Deborah Reid of Texas, and Michael Wilcox of Ohio. The group individually took the chance to share personal experiences from home with Secretary Kerry. In turn, he hailed the importance and impact of Peace Corps volunteers in the field, saying they are the true face of the United States of America overseas. “As a child of the 1960s, I’m a huge, huge fan of the Peace Corps,” the Secretary said. “ And so many of my friends along the way have been Peace Corps volunteers.” He cited his good friend Chris Dodd, who was a volunteer in the Dominican Republic before becoming a U.S. Senator. He also named former Senator Harris Wofford of Pennsylvania, who was instrumental in the formation of the Peace Corps. The Secretary termed their service “the best use of citizenship” before he began to administer the oath to the new group of volunteers. It wasn’t without a moment of drama. When Secretary Kerry concluded by saying, “…and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties in the Peace Corps, so help me, God,” some volunteers struggled to remember the exact words of that lengthy passage. As laughter erupted, the Secretary broke the passage into shorter phrases. “I will well and faithfully discharge my duties,” he said, before adding, “in the Peace Corps,” and concluding, “so help me, God.” The group followed along amid their laughs. The Peace Corps Response program recruits professionals with significant technical expertise for short-term, high-impact assignments. The small group in the Secretary’s inaugural swearing-in reflected the growing diversity of volunteers. Each of the five has already completed two years of Peace Corps service in other Latin American countries. They arrived fluent in Spanish with the specific skills requested by the country of Guatemala, so they will be able to provide immediate assistance. This is the first group of Response Volunteers to collaborate in the USAID and Peace Corps partnership to support food security in Guatemala, which started in September 2012. This partnership supports the U.S. government’s Feed the Future initiative, which aims to assist millions of vulnerable women, children, and family members – mostly small-scale farmers – to escape hunger and poverty. Feed the Future also impacts significant numbers of children with highly effective nutrition interventions that prevent stunting and child mortality. This first cohort of Response volunteers will support Save the Children and AGEXPORT; both implementing partners of the Feed the Future Initiative. They will facilitate capacity building in monitoring and evaluation, nutrition, and agricultural production. They will also provide technical assistance and trainings as well as the development of manuals and implementation plans. All will live and work in rural communities of the Western Guatemalan Highlands, among the people they serve. The Peace Corps has a long history in Guatemala, starting in 1963 and with continued presence throughout the country’s long and brutal civil war. More than 4,800 volunteers have served to date. The currently active projects are aligned with the national priorities of the Ministries of Health and Education in contribution to the Pacto Hambre Cero (Zero Hunger Pact). Volunteers support ministry systems through support in capacity building and behavior change communication in the areas of food security, maternal and child health, healthy schools, and youth in development. About the Author: Jason Lucke serves as a Monitoring and Evaluation Peace Corps Response Volunteer at AGEXPORT in El Quiche, Guatemala. Previous: A Message to American International Exchange Host Families: Thank You »« Next: Celebrating Flag Day Around the World . Top stories delivered to your inbox. Western Hemisphere View more stories in this area » 'State in 60 Seconds' Video -- Sports Diplomacy 250 Million Children in the World Cannot Read and USAID Is Doing Something About It Going for Gold: Advancing International Disability Rights Story Tags Education and Culture 326 Guatemala 20 Travel Diary 93 Latest Stories Happy Thanksgiving: Special Thanks to Americans Serving Overseas As we gather with friends and family to celebrate the holidays, our thoughts turn to those serving overseas. In her… more 0 India Terror Attacks: Information Hotline U.S. citizens concerned about the wellbeing of friends and family in India may call the following number for information: 1-888-407-4747 more 5 U.S. Citizens: Thailand Travel Alert The U.S. Department of State's Bureau of Consular Affairs has issued a Travel Alert for Americans in Thailand or who… more 2

时政

2014-52/4413/en_head.json.gz/4539

Britain summons Iran's diplomat over Khamenei's commentsStory Highlights Britain's Foreign Office summons Iran's charge d'affaires over leader's comments Spokesman says diplomat was told comments "unacceptable, not based on fact" Ayatollah Khamenei attacked UK over "treacherous" behavior Iran's supreme leader rejects claims of ballot rigging in presidential vote Next Article in World » Read VIDEO PHOTOSMAPEXPLAINER LONDON, England (CNN) -- Britain's Foreign Office summoned a senior Iranian diplomat over comments made Friday by Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, a Foreign Office spokesman said. Gordon Brown has urged Iran to respect its people's basic human rights.more photos » Charge d'Affaires Safar Ali Eslamian Koupei was told by a senior official that "Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei's comments about Britain were unacceptable and not based on fact," the spokesman said. The Foreign Office had originally summoned the Iranian Ambassador to Britain, Rasoul Movahedian, but he was not in the UK. Khamenei addressed a crowd at Tehran University in a sermon during Friday prayers. He passionately defended the outcome of last week's presidential election, but he also criticized the United States, Britain and Israel for manipulating and undermining the process. "Their enmity toward the Islamic establishment -- they are showing this," Khamenei said. "The most treacherous is the government of Britain." Watch Khamenei dismiss claims of fraud » The crowd then chanted, "Down with the UK Death to the UK." Don't Miss Iran's supreme leader rejects vote fraud claims Complete coverage of Iran fallout Moussavi addresses silent throngs Analysis: Iran's leaders divided Cries in the dark: 'God is great' British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, speaking after a meeting Friday afternoon in Brussels, Belgium, did not respond directly to Khamenei's remarks but instead urged Iran to respect its people's basic rights. See where protests have taken place » "What we want is to have a good relationship with Iran in the future, but that depends on Iran being able to show to the world that its elections have been conducted fairly and that there is no unfair suppression of rights and of individuals in that country," Brown told a news conference. Read about Iran's power structure » "I believe it's right for us to speak out for human rights, to speak out against repression, to speak out in condemnation of violence, to speak out where a free media is prevented from doing its job, and we will continue to do it," he said. "But we are not the only country who is speaking out. The whole of the world is speaking out." Brown said the international community was not trying to dictate the outcome of the vote -- just urge Iran to demonstrate it was fair. "We want Iran to be part of the international community and not to be isolated," he said. All About Ayatollah Ali Khamenei • Iran • Mahmoud Ahmadinejad • Mir Hossein Moussavi • University of Tehran • Tehran • Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini

时政

2014-52/4413/en_head.json.gz/4621

PolitiCalOn politics in the Golden State PolitiCal Home Funders of new pro-Fiorina group are hard to trace [Updated] Today in Los Angeles, a group called The Latino Partnership for Conservative Principles announced what they say will be a $1-million campaign for Republican U.S. Senate candidate Carly Fiorina. But finding out where the money comes from -- if and when it actually does come -- is virtually impossible. By passing major political donations through nonprofit groups, conservative and liberal groups alike skirt the spirit of campaign finance disclosure laws and make tracing the true source of political money increasingly difficult.A new Supreme Court ruling has made it easier for independent groups to participate in federal elections, as long as they don't coordinate with the candidates themselves. The Latino Partnership is just the latest of these groups to materialize. It is a newly created offshoot of American Principles in Action, a 501(c)(4) organization that serves as the nonprofit political arm of a group called the American Principles Project. The sources of the organization's money are not disclosed to the public. The American Principles Project's website says it is a nonprofit organization dedicated to promoting conservative candidates and values. [Updated 6:33 p.m.] None of the three organizations has filed financial records with the Internal Revenue Service -- nor are they required to. Because of the ways the laws are written, the amount of money spent by the group will not likely be known until after the election, and the sources of the funding are never required to be disclosed publicly.The Latino Partnership's board of directors includes anti-tax advocate Grover Norquist and telenovela star Karyme Lozano. Lozano has been active in the fight against abortion. But she also has some fans in the gay community. Lozano was named queen of the San Francisco Gay Pride Parade in 2008. The group on whose board she serves -- like Carly Fiorina -- is opposed to same-sex marriage.Alfonso Aguiar, executive director of the Latino Partnership, said they are hoping to spend up to $1 million on Spanish and English-language radio and Internet ads urging California Latinos to "vote their values.""In this race for the Senate, we have a candidate who shares our values in Carly Fiorina," Aguiar said. "She is pro-life. She believes in traditional marriage. Basic values of the Latino community. "The strategic mistake Democrats are making is to assume that Latinos are so gullible that every Republican candidate is anti-Hispanic," Aguiar said.The group, which does not have a long history in politics, has some familiar players behind the scenes. Among them is conservative Princeton professor Robert George. Aguiar said the group's money comes from "conservative donors and large individual donations," but he did not provide any names of donors to either the Latino Partnership or American Principles in Action.-- Anthony York

时政

2014-52/4413/en_head.json.gz/4626

Abby Rapoport Meet Rick Perry's Most Likely Replacement Abby Rapoport July 9, 2013 Greg Abbott is the odds-on favorite to be Texas’s next governor. Progressives won’t like him any better. PinItInstapaperPocketEmailPrint AP Images/LM Otero When Rick Perry's staff advertised a press conference on Monday to unveil his "exciting future plans," they didn't say just who the plans would excite. Would it be Perry’s Texas supporters, thrilled to hear he was running for re-election in 2014? Would it be the political pundits and national supporters, pleased to discover Perry would make another bid for president? As it turned out, the people most excited weren’t Perry’s people at all. After the longest-serving Texas governor announced he would not seek re-election—while avoiding the question of whether he might take another whack at the presidency in 2016—it was Republican Attorney General Greg Abbott whose supporters were celebrating. Abbott may not have formally announced that he’s running for governor, but his new Austin campaign offices and his whopping $18 million war chest do a lot of talking for him. Until Monday, speculation was rampant about what would happen if Perry—who lost much of his intimidating aura after a disastrous presidential bid—decided to risk another run. It wasn’t clear if Abbott would face off against Perry, but if he did, Texas politicos couldn’t help but wonder which of the two conservative white Republicans would prevail. Now Abbott has a much easier path to the governor's office. He's got over 120,000 Facebook fans, a growing staff of campaign workers, and a resume that seems tailor-made for Perry's core constituency of extreme conservatives. Rick Perry’s reign in Texas may be coming to an end, but an Abbott governorship would continue the era of hardline conservative policies. In some ways, the current attorney general might move the state more to the right. Perry, after all, mostly catered to the whims of business, pushing for slush funds like the Texas Enterprise Fund that he could use to offer companies incentives for relocating to Texas. Crony capitalism was the norm. While Perry’s politics have morphed repeatedly, often bending to benefit donors and special interests Abbott is perceived to have more of a guiding political philosophy—which likely means more conservative policies, more of the time. Abbott is a compelling figure for conservatives. Like Ted Cruz, he’s an articulate lawyer who can give a thoughtful defense of Tea Party policies. A former state Supreme Court justice, he’s got a long record of conservative positions on everything from abortion rights to tort reform. Most importantly, he’s got a great sense of political timing. Abbott has built a reputation among movement conservatives both in Texas and across the country. He's done so by suing the Obama administration more than two dozen times, almost always on red-meat issues that appeal to the both the Texas GOP base and the national conservative groups that write big checks. "I go into the office, I sue the federal government and I go home," Abbott said, characterizing his job to the Associated Press this year. Among legal scholars, he's most famous for winning a 2005 Supreme Court case that allowed the state to display the Ten Commandments in front of the state Capitol, but since then he’s become a frequent face on Fox News for his opposition to Obama policies. Most recently, when the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion gutting a key provision in the Voting Rights Act that required certain states (including Texas) to get election law changes pre-cleared by the feds, Abbott waited just two hours before announcing the state would begin implementing a voter ID law and redistricting maps that the D.C. District Court found to be discriminatory. Abbott's announcement helped confirm concerns from progressives that Republicans would use the Supreme Court decision to put suppressive voting measures in place. It also helped garner him media attention. That was only the most recent of Abbott's attention-getting moves. In addition to defending the state’s most controversial laws, like banning funding for Planned Parenthood, Abbott has also gone on the offensive. During the 2012 election, he threatened to arrest international elections observers if they came to Texas polling places. He’s launched six different suits against the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) authority in state matters. In a radio interview with NPR-affiliate KUT, Abbott justified one of his biggest EPA fights over the agency’s regulation of greenhouse gases in the state, by explaining "It's almost the height of insanity of bureaucracy to have the EPA regulating something that is emitted by all living things." (As The Texas Observer's Forrest Wilder wrote in response, "Don’t worry about that leaking sewage plant. It’s just all-natural feces!") Abbott's politics are just as conservative as Perry's, but his style is notably different. While he's just as Texas-born and bred, Abbott's a lot less twangier and a lot more serious than Perry. Instead of hyperbolic statement served up with a good deal of charm, Abbot is known for caution. For instance, as a profile in the Texas Tribune noted, Perry made huge waves at the National Right to Life conference when he said that Wendy Davis, the state senator who killed an abortion ban, should "learn from her own example" as a woman raised by a single mother. By contrast, Abbott, who spoke later, didn't even mention Davis. Abbott's personal story is also quite different from Perry's. Where the current governor focuses on his humble roots in rural West Texas, Abbott grew up in the suburbs of Dallas, a popular track star who served as copy editor of the yearbook. But his life was far from easy. His father died when he was 16, and then, in a freak accident when he was 26, a tree fell on Abbott while he was jogging, leaving him paralyzed from the waist down. While Abbott is the top contender for governor, the path isn't totally clear. Though he has a much lower profile, Tom Pauken, the former chair of the state GOP and chair of the Texas Workforce Commission, had already announced his intention to run. Pauken is no moderate either—one of his primary issues is getting rid of the school funding mechanism that sends some funds from wealthy school districts to poor ones—but he has always styled himself as an outsider. Less than half an hour after Rick Perry announced he would not seek re-election as governor, Pauken released a statement that claimed Abbott "represents an Austin that has grown stale with insiders inheriting promotions whose primary allegiance is to those who write the big checks." The critique seemed more relevant to Perry’s tenure than Abbott’s. (Perry, after all gave his big announcement at a Catepillar dealership owned by one of his biggest contributors—while bragging about making special interests “uncomfortable.”) Nonetheless, Pauken’s remarks revealed a willingness to get negative that could make the race rockier for Abbott. Even so, Pauken is seen as a long shot, trailing both in money and political power. So what, Democrats and Republicans alike will ask, about Wendy Davis? Since the state senator’s high-profile filibuster of the abortion ban, Democrats have begun clamoring for the Fort Worth Democrat to jump in the race. While it's hard to see any path to a statewide Democratic victory in 2014, a recent poll showed Davis faring better against Abbott than Perry, although Abbott still led her 48-40 in a possible matchup. While the odds are that Abbott will dominate the race, he's still not a sure thing. For one thing, he still hasn't even announced. If memory serves, in 2011, the presumed frontrunner waited until the last minute to announce his bid for president. His name was Rick Perry. Oops. Can Obama's Organizing Army Take Texas? The Ball's in Your Court Citizen Bopp Oops, Will Perry Do It Again? Wendy Davis's Catch-22 You need to be logged in to comment.(If there's one thing we know about comment trolls, it's that they're lazy) Abby Rapoport is a freelance journalist, and former staff writer at The American Prospect. She was previously a political reporter for the Texas Observer. Follow @ rarapoport Articles By Abby Rapoport RSS feed of articles by Abby Rapoport Advertisement

时政

2014-52/4413/en_head.json.gz/4646

Ukrainian More Last Updated: Wednesday, 12 April 2006, 16:27 GMT 17:27 UK Italy in limbo over vote counting By Christian Fraser BBC News, Rome Police are inspecting ballot boxes found in the street in Rome Italy is in a state of political limbo. The Italian Interior Ministry has declared the centre-left leader Romano Prodi the winner of this election, with a thin majority in both houses of parliament. But so far, Silvio Berlusconi has refused to concede. On Tuesday, the outgoing prime minister called for a recount, insisting there were many "murky aspects" to the vote. "There is a majority of just 25,204 votes in the lower house," said Mr Berlusconi. "And many disputed ballot papers. Only when the necessary legal double-checking is completed, shall we concede. "For the time being, no-one can say they have won." Vote boxes There are 43,000 disputed ballot papers for the lower house that election officials discounted. And there may also be the votes found on Wednesday in five boxes dumped in a street in Rome. All of them will be reviewed this week with a final decision taken by magistrates. That should be completed by late Thursday and the overall national tally adjusted accordingly. I have absolutely no fear of a reversal of the situation. It's a completely tranquil victory Romano Prodi It is unlikely that all the disputed ballots will be included in the official count and even if they were there is no indication there would be enough to reverse the result. There have also been question marks about the foreign vote for the upper house, the Senate. The votes from abroad were crucial in securing Mr Prodi a majority of two seats in the upper chamber. An electoral office attached to the Court of Appeals in Rome will review those disputed votes from abroad and again magistrates will make the final decision. The constitution says it is up to the new parliament to finally verify the election result. Parliament meets for the first time on 28 April. When they do meet Mr Prodi will need a vote of confidence in his government from both houses. He can count on a comfortable majority in the lower house of parliament; the winning coalition gets 55% of the seats, regardless of the margin of its victory. But in the Senate, the majority is less certain. Mr Prodi has 158 seats, Mr Berlusconi 156, and there is one independent who has yet to decide which way he would vote. Suspicion There are also seven life senators who now play a key role. It is unlikely, however, that they would oppose the formation of Mr Prodi's new government since most of them are from the centre left. Adding to all this uncertainty is the likelihood that Mr Prodi will not be asked to form his new government until mid-May, after parliament chooses a successor to the 85-year-old President Carlo Azeglio Ciampi. His mandate expires next month. Despite all this confusion, Mr Prodi says he is not worried his victory will be reversed. "I have absolutely no fear of a reversal of the situation. It's a completely tranquil victory," he said "I don't know what Berlusconi is talking about. He was in control of everything in this election. He was in charge of the interior ministry, and the authorities who checked for irregularities. "I don't know why he's putting any suspicion on himself." Mr Prodi has been holding talks over the past few days and he says he will soon have made his choices for his new Cabinet. ITALIAN ELECTIONS Italy resoundingly rejects reform Senate approves Prodi team Political chess Prodi's diverse coalition tests his leadership skills Berlusconi: Out but not down Italy looks for brave new future Italy in limbo over vote count New tack abroad Genoa's tough choice Italian voters' views Q&A: Italian poll aftermath Profile: Silvio Berlusconi Profile: Romano Prodi Italy country profile What next for Italian politics? Voters' reaction to disputed poll

时政

2014-52/4413/en_head.json.gz/4723

6287.0 - Labour Force Characteristics of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians, Estimates from the Labour Force Survey, 2011 Quality Declaration Latest ISSUE Released at 11:30 AM (CANBERRA TIME) 26/07/2012 SummaryDownloadsExplanatory Notes Contents Notes About this Release Expanded Contents Concepts, Sources and Methods >> Reliability of Estimates When reading the following sections on Participation, Employment and Unemployment, or using the detailed data presented in the Tables (available in Downloads), it is important to consider the relative strengths and weaknesses of the LFS as a data source for Indigenous labour force information. It is also important to remember that all LFS estimates are subject to sampling errors. This is particularly relevant to these Indigenous estimates because of the small size of the Indigenous population and the small number of Indigenous persons in the LFS sample. These estimates are also subject to non-sampling errors due to particular collection difficulties in remote areas, in addition to imperfections in reporting, recording or processing of data that can occur in any survey or census. It is also important to note that the population benchmarks used for compiling Indigenous labour force estimates are not predictions or forecasts, but are projections of 2006 Census data reflecting the growth in population which would occur if certain assumptions about future levels of fertility, mortality, migration and unexplained growth were to prevail over the projection period. Previous PageNext Page This page last updated 25 July 2012

时政

2014-52/4413/en_head.json.gz/4741

Italy's lower house debates austerity plan Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi is expected to resign after the Italian chamber of deputies adopts reform measures. Last Modified: 12 Nov 2011 16:27 Berlusconi has said he will resign after the austerity package's adoption, and not stand in new elections [Reuters] The Italian chamber of deputies, or lower house, is meeting in a special session to ratify an austerity package which, if adopted, could trigger the resignation of Silvio Berlusconi, the Italian prime minister. The Italian senate has already passed the measures by an overwhelming majority, which are designed to avoid a bailout of the eurozone's third largest economy. The upper house of parliament voted 156-12 on Friday to pass the country's budget bill, which included the reform measures. The law is due to be approved by the lower house on Saturday. Berlusconi has said he will step down once the austerity measures are adopted. However, he is expected to hold one last cabinet meeting, before officially handing in his resignation to the president. There are mounting indications that economist Mario Monti will then be chosen to head a transitional government to push through even more difficult reforms. Greek-style crisis Italy is facing a Greek-style economic crisis that many fear would threaten the existence of the entire eurozone and cause a global recession. Paving the way for Monti's appointment, Giorgio Napolitano, Italy's president, made him a senator-for-life on Wednesday, in a surprise move that raised his already high profile and instantly made him a legislator. Mario Monti's potential role as Italy's leader That would mean Napolitano may accept Berlusconi's resignation as early as Saturday night, and formally mandate Monti to try to form a new government soon afterwards. Napolitano has urged parliament to act fast, and some analysts say a new government, made up mostly of technocrats, could be in place as early as Sunday night before markets open on Monday. Napolitano moved quickly to calm markets on Wednesday after Italy's borrowing costs reached levels that could close its access to market funding, a development which would threaten the future of the eurozone. He gave assurances that Berlusconi would honour his pledge to step down after parliament approved reforms geared to placate markets, and he would waste no time in either appointing a new government or calling new elections. Austerity plan At first, Berlusconi had insisted that early elections were the only option. But he has since softened his stand and is said by sources to be open to a new government. Monti has been pushed by markets for weeks as the most suitable figure to lead a national unity government to urgently push through further austerity measures. On Saturday morning, Monti met with the new head of the European Central Bank, Mario Draghi, and leaders of thecentre-left opposition before holding a working lunch with Berlusconi. Italian citizens are bracing themselves as spending cuts appear increasingly inevitable [Al Jazeera] Napolitano met Monti on Thursday night, and, in a sign of the urgency of the situation, spoke by telephone with Barack Obama, the US president. In one successful move that calmed markets somewhat, Italy managed to sell $6.8bn of one-year bonds on Thursday, but had to pay a steep 6.087 per cent interest rate, the highest in 14 years. It was not clear how much of Berlusconi's ruling PDL party, which has undergone many defections and splits in the past few days, would support the new government, expected to include respected experts as well as a few politicians. It will be supported by most centrists and the biggest opposition force, the Democratic Party. Berlusconi's chief coalition partner, the Northern League, has said it would not back Monti. Monti, who is currently head of Milan's prestigious Bocconi university, is considered a tough negotiator with a record of taking on powerful corporate interests as European Competition Commissioner. Al Jazeera and agencies Silvio Berlusconi Giorgio Napolitano Mario Monti Italian senate

时政

2014-52/4413/en_head.json.gz/4742

Leading Iraqi Shia party rebrands The Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution wants a more Iraqi image. Last Modified: 12 May 2007 12:44 GMT Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, centre, remains the leader of the party [Reuters] Iraq's largest Shia party has pledged its allegiance to the country's most senior cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, distancing itself from Iran where it was formed. The Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) also changed its name to the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council (SIIC), dropping the word Revolution on Saturday. Party officials said they had introduced significant policy changes. They said the changes were aimed at giving the party more of an Iraqi flavour and to reflect the changing situation in the country since the US-led invasion overthrew Saddam Hussein, then president, in 2003. They said the party had been close to al-Sistani for some time, but a two-day conference on Baghdad that ended on Friday had formalised relations with the influential cleric. Rida Jawad al-Takki, a senior group member, read out the party's decisions to reporters. "We cherish the great role played by the religious establishment headed by Grand Ayatollah Sayed Ali al-Sistani ... in preserving the unity of Iraq and the blood of Iraqis and in helping them building a political system based on the constitution and law," he said. He also said the party pledged to follow the guidance of the Shia establishment. Spiritual leadership Al-Sistani, a reclusive figure who lives in the Najaf, is the spiritual leader of Iraq's majority Shia. He rarely makes public statements but his utterances are closely monitored by his followers. Officials said the party, which was formed in Iran in the 1980s to oppose Saddam, had previously taken its guidance from the religious establishment of Welayat al Faqih, led by the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in Iran. Islamic experts say the authority of the Faqih, who "surpasses all others in knowledge" of Islamic law and justice, is not limited to his home country, but extends to all Shia Muslims who pledge obedience and believe in the Faqih. The Faqih has the final word on matters related to Islam from political, social and religious issues. Al-Hakim Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, leader of SIIC, is a powerful religious leader who has good relations with the US. A key player in post-Saddam Iraqi politics, SIIC holds around a quarter of the seats in parliament occupied by the ruling Shia Alliance of Nuri al-Maliki, the prime minister. Iraq and Iran fought a bitter war for eight years in the 1980s. Relations have improved since the fall of Saddam, although Iraqi leaders have to walk a delicate line between the United States and Iran, which are at loggerheads over Tehran's nuclear programme and the violence in Iraq. Ali al-Sistani Saddam Iraqi Iraqi Shia party Islamic Iraqi Council Morocco's young entrepreneurs face barriers Yemen's language institute shut over unrest A muted Christmas in Gaza 'Hear the Palestinian narrative' in Bethlehem

时政

2014-52/4413/en_head.json.gz/4936

Kim Il Sung Character » Kim Il Sung was the founder and first president of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. The Kim Il Sung wiki last edited by Hailinel on 03/10/13 03:30PM OverviewKim Il-Sung was the founder of the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea", better known as North Korea in the western world. Born on April 15th, 1912, he died on July 8th, 1994. He founded the Democratic People's Republic in 1948 as both leader of nation's Communist Party and army. Even today, Kim Il-Sung is the president of North Korea, having been named the "Eternal President of the Republic". His birth-date is a holiday in North Korea.Kim Il-Sung's life has received little documentation outside of official news sources within North Korea, which frequently contradict external sources. After his death, his son, Kim Jong-Il ruled the Democratic People's Republic until he too died in 2011. Kim Il-Sung's youngest grandson, Kim Jong-Un, is the current leader of the nation.In Video GamesKim Il-Sung has appeared in a number of games over the years; predominantly in games set during World War II and the Korean War. Hearts of Iron III Hearts of Iron II: Doomsday Hearts of Iron II Rise of Nations: Thrones & Patriots Rise of Nations Hearts of Iron Kim Il Sung Historical Figures in Fictional Settings Korean People's Army Top Rated Lists for Kim Il Sung Faces of Evil KyleWilms xMP44x Agentgrady abdo

时政

2014-52/4413/en_head.json.gz/4947

Corbett budget draws criticism from local lawmakers By John Guerrierojohn.guerriero@timesnews.com February 6, 2013 12:01 AM Gov. Tom Corbett addresses a joint session of the Pennsylvania House and Senate on Tuesday, Feb. 5, 2013, in Harrisburg, Pa. during the presentation of the state budget. Corbett said overhauling Pennsylvania's pension systems for state workers and school employees is the single most important thing lawmakers can do. (AP Photo/Matt Rourke)AP February 6, 2013 12:01 AM Gov. Tom Corbett released a budget that drew criticism from the two newest Democratic lawmakers from Erie County and a wait-and-see approach from the newest Republican legislator. That was just some of the reaction Tuesday from the Erie region and around the state for a fiscal year 2013-14 budget that calls for $28.4 billion in spending, an increase of nearly 3 percent. But it does not increase the personal income or sales tax. "I'm disappointed in some elements of the budget, no question about it," said state Sen. Sean Wiley, of Millcreek, D-49th Dist. Wiley said the budget would increase the state's investment in basic education funding by $90 million, or 1.7 percent, and also create a $1 billion grant over four years for public schools. But Wiley said that education shouldn't be "held hostage" to pension reform for state and school employees, or Corbett's renewed call to privatize the state's wine and spirit stores. Corbett proposed to put the $1 billion into K-12 education from that privatization. Corbett has also cautioned that he might have to cut aid for important programs, such as public schools, unless his plan to change public pensions is adopted. Corbett wants a new mandatory defined-contribution plan for new employees, reductions in future benefits for current employees and reduced annuity payments to employees who withdraw their contributions. The savings of $175 million in the fiscal year starting July 1 would be used to reduce taxpayers' contributions to the two major pension systems. But tying education to those two reforms, Wiley said, is a "slippery slope and an irresponsible way to fund one of our core responsibilities as a government." Wiley said that a step toward pension reform, adopted by the Legislature in 2010, should be given more time "to take shape." Wiley also questioned the dollar amount of Corbett's proposed fiscal-year funding to build and repair roads, fix bridges and get mass transit on better financial footing. The $1.8 billion is half of the amount recommended by the governor's own blue-ribbon panel, $3.5 billion, Wiley said. However, Corbett proposes to generate more than $5 billion over five years by phasing in an increase on the wholesale tax that gas stations pay on gasoline. The governor also wants to lower the liquid fuels tax that is paid at the pump by 2 cents per gallon, from 12 cents to a dime. Wiley also argued that the budget commits scant dollars to job creation. But Corbett called the spending plan a job-focused budget that positions the state well for continued employment growth by reducing business tax burdens and building a trained and skilled workforce, among other measures. State Rep. Ryan Bizzarro, of Millcreek, D-3rd Dist., said in a statement that the governor's refusal in the budget to support Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act was "a slap in the face to the half a million Pennsylvanians needing health care." Corbett didn't totally close the door on it, saying in his address: "Washington is asking us to expand Medicaid as part of the Affordable Care Act without any clear guidance or reasonable assurances ... Washington must provide a clear answer about what this expansion would cost the taxpayers of this state." Corbett also said, "At this time, without serious reforms, it would be financially unsustainable for the taxpayers, and I cannot recommend a dramatic Medicaid expansion." Bizzarro also questioned selling the state store system for what he called short-term funding for education. State Rep. Greg Lucas, of Edinboro, R-5th Dist., said the big-ticket items of liquor store privatization, pension reform and transportation funding deserve careful consideration. Wiley, Bizzarro and Lucas heard a governor's budget address for the first time as lawmakers. They were all elected Nov. 6. "I believe the governor's proposal represents a good starting point from which to craft a final budget agreement," Lucas said in a statement. Terry Madonna, political-science professor at Franklin & Marshall College in Lancaster, said the governor's budget "will largely be assessed by his success" on the priorities of tackling pension debt, privatizing the liquor system and funding transportation. Corbett's budget comes at an important time for a governor who is seeking re-election in 2014, but who faces low approval ratings. Madonna said the budget address served as an informal start of Corbett's re-election campaign. "It's the only time when the governor commands the attention of the entire state," he said. JOHN GUERRIERO can be reached at 870-1690 or by e-mail. Follow him at twitter.com/ETNguerriero. Read the Campaign '13 blog at GoErie.com/blogs/campaign and post comments.

时政

2014-52/4413/en_head.json.gz/4998

Timeline: U.N. resolutions on Palestine http://www.jewishjournal.com/world/article/timeline_u.n._resolutions_on_palestine Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon at the U.N. headquarters in New York on Nov. 28. Photo by Chip East/Reuters Here are summaries of some of the main United Nations resolutions on Palestine as the General Assembly votes on Thursday on lifting the Palestinian status within the world body from "entity" to "non-member state." Resolution 181 - 1947 - Known largely in the region as the so-called "Partition Plan," this resolution provided for the establishment of an Arab State and a Jewish State in former British Mandatory Palestine. Resolution 194 - 1948 - Following the 1948 war over the founding of Israel, this resolution called for permitting a return of refugees willing to live at peace with their neighbours, for the demilitarisation and internationalisation of Jerusalem and for protection and free access for holy places. Resolution 242 - 1967 - The Security Council, after much negotiation, adopted a resolution laying down principles for peace and the withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories captured in a war that year. The resolution also called for "achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem." Resolution 3236 - 1974 - The General Assembly reaffirmed the rights of the Palestinian people, including self-determination without external interference, the right to national independence and sovereignty, and the right to return to their homes and property. Resolution 465 - 1980 - The resolution condemned Israeli policy of "settling parts of its population and new immigrants" in occupied territory, including the West Bank, Gaza Strip and Golan Heights. It called such settlements a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the protection of civilians in time of war. Resolution 681 - 1990 - Adopted after deadly riots occurred in Jerusalem's old city, this resolution condemned an Israeli decision to deport Palestinians, a measure Israel said was necessary for security reasons. Resolution 1397 - 2002 - This Security Council resolution formally affirmed a vision for resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, "where two states, Israel and Palestine, live side by side within secure and recognised borders." It also voiced "grave concern" for the violence of an uprising that erupted after failed peace talks in 2000. Resolution 66/17 - 2012 - This General Assembly resolution reaffirmed the illegality of Israeli settlements in occupied territory Palestinians seek for a state, including East Jerusalem. It also reiterated the right of Palestinians to establish their own independent state. Reporting by David Cutler, London Editorial Reference Unit

时政

2014-52/4413/en_head.json.gz/5081

Green-Card Holders and Legal Immigration to the United States By Gregory Auclair and Jeanne Batalova Alabama Settlement Marks Near End of a Chapter in State Immigration Enforcement Activism Building New Skills: Immigration and Workforce Development in Canada By Karen Myers and Natalie Conte Naturalization Trends in the United States As Immigration Reform Stalls in Congress, Activists Take a Page from the Civil-Rights Movement Pages« first‹ previous…789101112131415…next ›last » Policies to Curb Unauthorized Employment Executive Action on Immigration: Six Ways to Make the System Work Better By Donald M. Kerwin, Doris Meissner, and Margie McHugh The Evolution of Border Controls as a Mechanism to Prevent Illegal Immigration By Rey Koslowski Delegation and Divergence: 287(g) State and Local Immigration Enforcement By Randy Capps, Marc R. Rosenblum, Muzaffar Chishti, and Cristina Rodríguez Reports By Harry J. Holzer Pages« first‹ previous…789101112131415…next ›last » Mexico: The New Migration Narrative Fundamental demographic, economic, and educational changes have set Mexico on a new path, significantly altering its migration-related priorities and concerns vis-a-vis the United States and Central America. This article examines new migration trends, Mexico's role as a country of transit and increasingly of destination, the 2011 migration law, remittances, government policies on the Mexican diaspora, and more. Immigration in the United States: New Economic, Social, Political Landscapes with Legislative Reform on the Horizon Immigration has contributed to many of the economic, social, and political processes that are foundational to the United States as a nation since the first newcomers arrived over 400 years ago. After brushes with immigration reform that began in 2001 and continued in 2006 and 2007, the United States seems to be on the threshold of overhauling the legal immigration system in the most substantive way since 1965. This article provides a comprehensive overview of major legislation and events affecting U.S. immigration throughout history, legal and illegal immigration flows, postrecession immigration trends, and more. Health Outcomes of Mexican Immigrant Women in the United States This article provides a comparative analysis of health outcomes of Mexican immigrant women in the United States, assessing the results against what is known as the immigrant paradox—the idea that these women enjoy a better state of health overall than might be expected, given their socioeconomic status and very limited health insurance coverage. Guatemalan Migration in Times of Civil War and Post-War Challenges During recent decades, large-scale international migration has been an external escape valve for Guatemala, a response to the country's multiple internal problems. This article examines Guatemalan migration, primarily to the United States, into the post-war era; U.S. government immigration policies affecting Guatemalans; the impacts of migration within Guatemala; and Guatemala/Mexico migration dynamics. Online Journal Central American Immigrants in the United States Since 1990, the number of Central American immigrants in the United States has nearly tripled. This immigrant population grew faster than any other region-of-origin population from Latin America between 2000 and 2010. This article focuses on a wide range of characteristics of Central American immigrants residing in the United States, including the population's size, geographic distribution, admission categories, and demographic and socioeconomic characteristics. Video, Audio July 16, 2010 Potential Reforms to the U.S. Refugee Resettlement Program This discussion is an overview of a report undertaken by a team at the Columbia University School of International Public Affairs which examines the U.S. refugee resettlement Program and offers a strong set of recommendations and observations about the program. Video June 24, 2010 7th Annual Immigration Law and Policy Conference The conference, co-sponsored by Georgetown Law, Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc., and the Migration Policy Institute, focused immigration and refugee law and policy. Video, Audio June 7, 2010 Immigrants: Contributors to the Economy or Competitors for American Jobs? Briefing and discussion of the release of the latest paper by MPI's Labor Markets Initiative: The Impact of Immigrants in Recession and Economic Expansion. Pages« first‹ previous…67891011121314next ›last » Video, Audio January 13, 2011 Does Low-Skilled Immigration Hurt the U.S. Economy? Assessing the Evidence In a report by MPI's Labor Markets Initiative, noted economist and Georgetown University Public Policy Institute Professor Harry J. Holzer examines the economic reasoning and research on these questions and looks at the policy options that shape the impact of less-skilled immigration on the economy. The discussion is on what policy reform would best serve native-born American workers, consumers, and employers, as well as the overall U.S. economy. Video, Audio October 14, 2010 U.S. Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Alan Bersin Discusses His Vision for CBP Commissioner Bersin details his agenda for his agency and discusses illegal immigration, border enforcement, the impact to the economy on migration flows, the future of the Secure Border Initiative, drug trafficking, and other topics in this wide-ranging conversation with MPI Senior Fellow Doris Meissner and the audience. Video, Audio September 20, 2010 Still an Hourglass?: Immigrant Workers in Middle-Skilled Jobs This important MPI report challenges the conventional wisdom about the immigrant workforce, using a sophisticated new method of analysis that permits deeper examination of how workers – immigrant and native-born – fare by economic sector, the skill level of their jobs, and educational attainment. Pages« first‹ previous…67891011121314next ›last » This final report from the Regional Migration Study Group outlines the powerful demographic, economic, and social forces reshaping Mexico and Central America and changing longstanding migration dynamics with the United States. It offers a forward-looking, pragmatic agenda for the region, focusing on new collaborative approaches on migration and human-capital development to strengthen regional competitiveness. Credential Recognition in the United States for Foreign Professionals Focusing on the health care and engineering sectors, this report examines the formal and informal barriers to professional practice that foreign-trained professionals encounter when they migrate to the United States. Changing Dynamics: Immigration, Mexico, and the United States This discussion with Mexico's new Ambassador to the United States focused on changing dynamics in Mexico, and their implications for both Mexico and the U.S. This fact sheet compares key components of immigration reform outlined in the 2013 Senate immigration bill against provisions included in bills considered by the Senate in 2006 and 2007: border security, detention, and enforcement; worksite enforcement; visa reforms; earned legalization of unauthorized immigrants; strengthening the U.S. economy and workforce; and integration of new Americans. Mexican Migration to the United States: Underlying Economic Factors and Possible Scenarios for Future Flows This report examines migration flows from Mexico to the U.S. since the 1990s and highlights key economic factors linked to migration trends. These findings are analyzed to forecast Mexican migration flows. The Migration Policy Institute has completed an analysis of the major provisions in the 2013 framework, comparing them to provisions of the legislation the Senate considered in 2006 and 2007. Video, Audio Investing Wisely in the Future: How the U.S. Immigration System Can Better Meet U.S. Labor Market Needs With the prospects for immigration reform greater than they have been in more than a decade and the U.S. economy slowly shrugging off the effects of the recession, the United States may be on the cusp of historic changes that make the immigration system a more effective tool for innovation, economic growth and the competitiveness of its firms—large and small. Video The Fundamentals of Immigration Reform MPI's President, Demetrios G. Papademetriou, and the Editor-in-Chief of The American Prospect, Kit Rachlis, engage in a lively Google Hangout discussion about the policies and politics that have created the United States' antiquated, inflexible immigration system and how to create a modern-day, flexible immigration system suited for the competitiveness of the 21st century. Pages« first‹ previous…789101112131415…next ›last »

时政

2014-52/4413/en_head.json.gz/5324

Home » News » Politics » State House Dome Garry Rayno's State House Dome: House again to mull turning back clock on young laws The House this week will take up two more attempts to undo what lawmakers did over the past two years.Last week, about 300 people attended a public hearing on House Bill 135, which would repeal the stand-your-ground legislation approved last year over then-Gov. John Lynch's veto. Most of the 300 people at the five-hour House Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee hearing were there to oppose the repeal.The House Ways and Means Committee will hold a public hearing Thursday on House Bill 370, which would repeal the education tax credit program lawmakers passed last year over Lynch's veto. House leaders are expecting a crowd, so the hearing will be held in Representatives Hall, beginning at 12:30 p.m.The program had been praised as a way to ensure all children would receive the best education possible and decried as a back-door voucher plan that would take money away from public schools as private and religious schools cherry picked the best, and thus least expensive, students to educate.Under the program, students can receive up to a $2,500 scholarship to attend private or parochial schools. Homeschooled students can receive up to a $750 scholarship. School districts losing students because of the scholarships also lose an average $4,100 per student in state education aid. As of Friday, 10 companies seeking the tax credit have committed $116,620 in scholarship money to the program, which has a $4 million limit this fiscal year. One nonprofit - Network for Educational Opportunities - has registered to offer the scholarships, but the Department of Revenue Administration has not been notified of any having been awarded, according to John Lighthall, speaking for the department.The education tax credit program is also under a legal cloud because the American Civil Liberties Union and others sued the state to block its implementation, claiming taxpayer dollars would be sent to religious institutions.The prime sponsor of HB 370, House Education Committee Chairman Mary Gile, D-Concord, said she testified against the tax credit program when it was before the House last year, noting it never came before the Education Committee."I'm not convinced New Hampshire can afford this, first and foremost," she said. "My primary concern about education in New Hampshire is to support public education, and this program would divert business profits taxes and business enterprise taxes that go to the general fund and used to support public education."Noting the program was sold as providing poor children with an opportunity for a first-class education, she said she did not know how far a $2,500 scholarship would go to accomplish that with the high cost of private school tuition."If we are going to promote choice in education - and many of our schools are transforming themselves - we can offer choice within the public school system," Gile said. "That is the direction we should be moving in."Senate Majority Leader Jeb Bradley, R-Wolfeboro, is one of the sponsors of Senate Bill 372, which established the program last year. "I would hope the critics would take a couple of steps back, take a couple of deep breaths and give it a few years to see if it could work," Bradley said. "Let's take a wait-and-see approach. We may need to do some tweaking."Like the repeal of the stand-your-ground law, the repeal of the education tax credit/scholarship program is expected to pass the House, where Democrats hold about a 40-vote majority.Similarly, the tax credit program is a lot more iffy in the Senate, where the partisan divide is 13 Republicans and 11 Democrats.The fate of the repeal will come down to the votes of two senators: Bob Odell, R-Lempster, and Nancy Stiles, R-Hampton. Both voted to support Lynch's veto last year, and they voted against the bill when the Senate passed it on a 17-7 vote.If their opposition continues, then the repeal is likely to make its way to Gov. Maggie Hassan's desk. Hassan said during the gubernatorial campaign she supports doing away with the program because it diverts money from the public school system.The voucher issue is one aspect, the other is money. Without the tax credit/scholarship program, the state would have additional revenues available. That would delight budget writers, who face an extremely difficult task making the budget balance.- - - - - - - STILL WORKING: Rep. William O'Brien, R-Mont Vernon, is the prime sponsor of House Bill 271, which would prevent the state from expanding the Medicaid program under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.The expansion would allow anyone below 138 percent of the federal poverty level to be eligible for the state and federal health care program for the poor and disabled.House speaker at the time, O'Brien worked tirelessly last summer and fall to ensure the state did not expand Medicaid.He contends it would cost the state too much. A public hearing on O'Brien's bill will be held Feb. 5 at 10 a.m. in Representatives Hall.On the opposite side, Rep. Cindy Rosenwald, D-Nashua, and others are sponsoring a bill that would require the state to expand the Medicaid program under the ACA.That bill has not been published, so no public hearing has been scheduled.- - - - - - -STARTING UP: The House and Senate will meet in session this week for the first time since the governor's inauguration.The House will meet Wednesday at 1:30 p.m. to act on 25 bills, while the Senate will meet Thursday at 10 a.m. to act on nine bills.The Senate has three key bills: one to increase the research and development business tax credit from $1 million to $10 million and make it permanent; one to extend the hold-harmless provision for state aid for school districts; and one to change in the local tax cap law.The House has nothing as weighty on its calendar, but does have the bill that would give families control over a deceased person's social media and electronic communications sites. The Judiciary Committee voted, 13-7, to kill the bill.- - - - - - - - --WARNING SHOT: Although there are few bills this year that would restrict gun rights, Second Amendment advocates are planning a rally at the State House from noon to 2 p.m. Thursday.In a news release announcing the rally, the organizers said: "It is time for 'We The People' to wake up and realize that we are about to lose everything! The current attack on our Second Amendment rights by the Obama administration is a precursor to total gun confiscation."Jerry DeLemus, organizer of the Rochester 912 Project, and Jack Kimball, chairman of the Granite State Patriots and former state GOP chairman, are sponsoring the "Line-in-the-Granite, 2nd Amendment Rally.""This is a 'Valley Forge' event, and we will rally regardless of weather," the sponsors said.grayno@unionleader.com Garry Rayno's State house Dome: O'Brien loyalists remain as Jasper sets to workREADER COMMENTS: 3 Garry Rayno's State House Dome: Battle for speaker leaves hard feelings - 7 Garry Rayno's State House Dome: Familiar faces ready for Organization Day - 2 Garry Rayno's State House Dome: Get ready for some undoing in Concord - 1 Garry Rayno's State House Dome: One big decision remains in Concord - 0 Garry Rayno's State House Dome: Wind blows a new direction in Concord - 5 Garry Rayno's State House Dome: Morse expected to face no opposition at GOP caucus to lead state senate - 0 Garry Rayno's State House Dome: On Tuesday, expect more than 50 percent turnout - 0 Garry Rayno's State House Dome: Last, desperate push coming before Nov. 4 - 0 Garry Rayno's State House Dome: Crunch time and the dollars are flying in NH races - 0 Circut Court Judge refuses to recuse himself from hearings State House Dome � Events Check NH365 for related Granite State events Follow us:

时政

2014-52/4413/en_head.json.gz/5540

Loading stream... It's All Politics The GOP Now Likes Community Organizing (If It Wins Elections) Share Tweet E-mail Comments Print By Frank James Originally published on Thu July 17, 2014 7:56 am Republican officials Rob Collins, Phil Cox and Matt Walter all seemed pleased at a briefing for journalists about the GOP's midterm election prospects, as did former first lady Mamie Eisenhower. GOP officials Liesl Hickey, Rob Collins, Phil Cox and Matt Walter grew serious when a reporter asked about the Tea Party's role in the midterm elections. Both parties are sounding confident right now about their midterm election prospects, but only one can be right. As it stands now, Republicans clearly have more reason for optimism. On their side, Republicans have history and a current political environment in which the Republican base looks to be more excited about the coming election than Democrats. Meanwhile, voters are consistently telling pollsters that they're dissatisfied with the nation's direction, which usually portends bad news for the party holding the White House. At a briefing for journalists Wednesday, the GOP also contended that it has raised its technology game to the juggernaut level of President Obama's 2008 and 2012 campaigns, in terms of identifying which voters need more persuasion to get to the polls. We'll know in November if that's the case. Something we can say now with assurance, however, is that "community organizing" no longer seems to be a dirty term in the Republican Party, as when Sarah Palin used it disdainfully to describe one of Obama's early, post-college jobs. Mike Shields, chief of staff for the Republican National Committee, used the term positively to describe the kind of grass-roots work that party officials say they've been doing for months to make certain they can turn out their voters in November. Asked whether Republicans were "emulating" the Obama campaign, Shields said no, they're trying to surpass it. He used the metaphor of the space race. "I always say, the Democrats put up Sputnik, we can put a man on the moon," Shields said. A Democratic National Committee spokesman dismissed the GOP briefing as an example of how Republicans still don't get it. "The Republican Party's problem has never been the number of press releases or staff — their problem continues to be their message, their candidates and their policies," the DNC's Michael Czin said in a statement. He added: "Tactical tweaks — and trying to reverse engineer what Democrats have done for more than a decade — won't change the fact that a stunning 73 percent of Americans disapprove of the job Republicans in Congress are doing." In any event, few professional political observers at this point question that the climate looks more robust by the day for Republicans to not only hold but expand their numbers on the federal and state level, and perhaps to take control of the Senate. "The Democrats have a historical problem; they have a geographic problem," said Rob Collins, executive director of the National Republican Senatorial Committee. Historically, the party holding the White House loses an average of 6.6 Senate seats during midterm elections in a president's second term, going back to the 1950s, Collins said. Republicans only need six seats to gain the Senate majority and control of Congress. The geographic problem has remained the same throughout the current election cycle: Mitt Romney won in six states with contested seats whose Senate Democratic incumbents are either retiring or considered very vulnerable — Alaska, Arkansas, North Carolina, Louisiana, West Virginia and Montana. By contrast, Republicans up for re-election (14) are running in states where Romney won all but one (Maine). But what's mainly buoying Republican hopes is Obama's weak approval ratings. The president's approval ratings are barely above 40 percent in a number of polls and even lower in states Republicans are focused on winning. Voters are telling pollsters they're still concerned about the economy and the crises in immigration, Veterans Affairs and the Mideast. These issues leave the impression of presidential ineffectiveness in many minds, so Obama's approval ratings are unlikely to significantly improve. "When the president gets a cold nationally, he gets pneumonia in states that we care about," Collins said. That comment suggested how much Republicans had to smile about as they scanned the political landscape. One of the few times the smiles left their faces was when a reporter asked about the role the Tea Party would play in the midterm elections. "Some of the louder voices, it does not inure to their bottom lines to get along with us, so they choose not to," Collins said, voicing the criticism by the party's establishment that some Tea Party opposition has been driven more by fundraising considerations than by principle. "But where we can work together, we will." Shields of the RNC spun the Tea Party's presence as positive and contributing to a useful internal dialogue for the party after the 2012 elections. "What's come out of the other end is a very motivated base," he said. "I daresay the Democrats wish they had a Tea Party in their party to help them be motivated and turn out."Copyright 2014 NPR. To see more, visit http://www.npr.org/. View the discussion thread.

时政

2014-52/4413/en_head.json.gz/5555

Search Sea Change of Japan? Matthew Yglesias September 3, 2009 Thanks to a landslide victory for Japan's opposition party, the United States' relationship with its Asian ally just became rather unpredictable. PinItInstapaperPocketEmailPrint On Sunday, Japanese citizens went to the polls and did something that would be banal in any other long-running democracy. Weary of recession, they voted in droves against the party in power and delivered a massive victory to the opposition. This happens all the time. Except, that is, in Japan where it's never really happened. For over 50 years, the Liberal Democratic Party has enjoyed a political monopoly, excepting a brief run in 1993-1994 when an unstable opposition coalition held power for about a year before the LDP cracked its ranks. This time, it's different. The opposition Democratic Party has a huge post-election majority in the lower house of the Diet and already enjoyed control of the less-powerful upper house. Now, they look set to have a real chance at shaking things up in Japan. In turn, America's Asia-watchers are left wondering whether the election results will shake things up in the U.S.-Japanese relationship, too. The alliance between the United States and Japan rarely occupies Americans' minds. That, however, says less about the relationship's importance than its placidity. Since World War II, Japanese foreign policy has been guided by a blend of pacifistic impulses and subservience to U.S. policy-making. Consequently, Japan is in some ways our most important ally. It's the second-largest economy in the world (though set to slip behind China soon). It tends to foot a very large proportion of the bill for multilateral endeavors, like United Nations peacekeeping and the first Gulf War, without asking for much control in exchange. And not only does it play host to American military bases, it pays us for the privilege. The situation doesn't seem tenable over the long run: World War II ended long ago, and the Asian security landscape is bound to change with China rapidly industrializing. Earlier this decade, Japanese security policy did edge in a somewhat more assertive direction. In particular, then-Prime Minister Junchiro Koizumi approved the first deployment of Japan's so-called Self-Defense Forces outside of Japanese soil during the United States' war with Iraq. Sending a token force to Samawa was, however, largely of a piece with Japan's tradition of acting as an adjunct to American power -- a break from precedent that only served to underscore the larger one. In opposition, the Democrats indicated that they wanted bigger change. On the campaign trail, party leader Yukio Hatoyama criticized the LDP for slavishly following the American lead, spoke of reducing the number of U.S. troops on Japanese soil, and suggested that Japan might decline to refuel U.S. ships in the Indian Ocean. The use of such promises as a campaign tactic suggested an overall desire to chart a more independent course for Japan. The trouble is that in a country where the opposition has never won, nobody really understands how to tell the difference between serious policy proposals and campaign-season pandering. The American bases in Japan tend to be unpopular with the people who live near them, but the basing arrangements are part of a larger strategic relationship that is popular. Knocking the bases without knocking the alliance overall has an air of cheap talk about it. That said, Hatoyama did publish a serious-seeming pre-election op-ed that opened with a complaint that "Japan has been continually buffeted by the winds of market fundamentalism in the U.S.-led movement that is more usually called globalization." The article said that "of course, the Japan-U.S. security pact will continue to be the cornerstone of Japanese diplomatic policy," but that caveat came surrounded by statements about "the creation of an East Asian community," suggestions that "the era of U.S. unilateralism must come to an end," and calls for Japan to "maintain its political and economic independence and protect its national interest when caught between the United States, which is fighting to retain its position as the world's dominant power, and China." All this suggests that the new regime really may try to chart a much more independent course. Doing so would be risky but potentially quite valuable. Japan and its environs are one of the high points of America's drive for global military supremacy. Even those of us inclined to be skeptical have to be impressed by the way the U.S.-Japanese alliance has helped prevent the emergence of a potentially destructive arms race between Japan, China, and South Korea. Much as nobody is quite sure of what to make of Hatoyama's campaign rhetoric, an untested new Japanese leadership throwing off the American yoke would likely make other Asian leaders nervous. The worry would be that a Japan without firm ties to the United States would need to increase its own defense capabilities considerably. That, in turn, could spur China to further intensify its own defense buildup. And in principle, it could open up a whole new front for nuclear proliferation. Bigger Chinese defense expenditures would also have negative consequences for India and Pakistan and make existing proliferation problems worse. What Hatoyama actually called for, however, was rather different. Instead of a re-armed Japan, he wrote of "regional integration and collective security" along the lines of the European Union as the best ways to achieve "the principles of pacifism and multilateral cooperation advocated by the Japanese Constitution." This would be a difficult trick to pull off, but the outcome would be excellent. American worries about what the East Asian security environment would look like absent a hegemonic U.S. position are not unfounded. At the same time, the status quo simply isn't viable over the long run. China is growing rapidly; Japan is a major country; smaller players like Korea and Taiwan have developed; and the region is simply too far away for it to make sense for us to be the main military player forever. Eventually, the region will have to go down either the path of security integration or competition. Traditionally, the United States has opposed any alteration of the status quo in the region fearing that change will end up in the latter arms-race scenario. Back in June, for example, Assistant Secretary of State for East Asia Kurt Campbell slapped down Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's regional integration ideas. But with a new Japanese prime minister seemingly singing from the Rudd book, it may be time for us to abandon this point of view. Japan and Australia are, after all, our best friends in the region, and we ought to encourage them if they're both prepared to take the leap to build the better security architecture of tomorrow. If we don't, the risk is that the status quo will simply unravel in some less palatable way a few years down the road. PinItInstapaperPocketEmailPrint Is Iran's Election America's Problem? You need to be logged in to comment.(If there's one thing we know about comment trolls, it's that they're lazy) Matthew Yglesias is a senior editor at the Center for American Progress Action Fund, a former Prospect staff writer, and the author of Heads in the Sand: How the Republicans Screw Up Foreign Policy and Foreign Policy Screws Up the Democrats. Follow @mattyglesias Articles By Matthew Yglesias RSS feed of articles by Matthew Yglesias Advertisement

时政

2014-52/4413/en_head.json.gz/5595

St. Cloud Times Op-Ed: Pet Projects Bog Down ‘Stimulus' By: Michele Bachmann Date: Feb. 8, 2009 Location: Unknown Pet Projects Bog Down ‘Stimulus' In January 1981, just days after his inauguration as the 40th President, Ronald Reagan made the following observation about Washington: "We've lived beyond our means and then financed our extravagance on the backs of the American people." Twenty-eight years and four presidents later, Washington hasn't learned its lesson. Congress and the White House are forcing through a borrow-and-spend bill that will cost the American taxpayers, their children and their grandchildren more than $1 trillion. This on the heels of more than $1 trillion in bailouts. It would appear the only thing that's changed since Reagan's words is the magnitude of the extravagance the taxpayers are being asked to finance. The package before Congress is touted as a stimulus bill — a package to create new jobs and get our economy moving again. But a closer look reveals that the bill's investments will largely follow the beginnings of economic recovery, not stimulate it. Even a not-so-close look reveals a bill that got caught up in the ways of Washington, loaded with every lobbyist's pet project — at the expense of programs and ideas that really could get the economy moving. Take investments in transportation and infrastructure, which could make a real difference to our economy. Projects like widening Interstate 94 or building the Stillwater Bridge could be a big boon to our economy and make a significant improvement in the quality of life for Minnesotans. The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials reported last year that there are more than 3,000 highway projects nationwide that could be ready for construction within 60 to 90 days. And, those are just highway projects. While America has watched the unemployment rate creep up, those employed in construction and construction-related jobs have watched it spike higher and more quickly. While it seems axiomatic that investing in transportation and infrastructure would provide new job opportunities for many unemployed construction workers, the truth is the benefit is broader than that. The U.S. Department of Transportation reported last year that every $1 billion in federal highway investment, when combined with the required state matching funds, supports 34,779 American jobs. Of that, only about 12,000 are actual construction jobs. The rest are in supplier industries or related economic sectors. Regrettably, the so-called "stimulus" package that was passed by the House last week — without my vote — paid only lip service to transportation and infrastructure investments. The $819-billion package included $30 billion — or 3.6 percent of the funding — for highway and bridge construction. But it included hundreds of billions of dollars for projects that do much less to stimulate job creation or economic growth. In fact, much was spent to things that you could reasonably say have no stimulative impact at all. What will $600 million for new federal government cars or $400 million for climate change research do to help you and your family? What will $50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts — a 30 percent funding increase for the agency — do to help the economy? I supported a motion on the floor that would have shaved $103.69 billion from the so-called stimulus package — eliminating funding for 32 new programs and reducing funding for others — and tripled the money for shovel-ready transportation and infrastructure projects. Unfortunately, a majority of my House colleagues — under pressure from the Speaker of the House — rejected this motion. Similarly, a majority of my House colleagues — again, under pressure from House leadership — rejected an alternative package that would have stimulated the economy by putting money back into the hands of small businesses and families across the nation. Among other things, this alternative, which I did support would have: Reduced the lowest individual tax rates from 15 percent to 10 percent and from 10 percent to 5 percent. In the 6th District, 272,306 filers would benefit from the reduction in the 10 percent bracket alone and 228,926 filers would also benefit from the other rate reduction. Allowed small businesses to take a tax deduction equal to 20 percent of their income. Nearly half a million Minnesota small businesses — each employing 500 or fewer employees — would benefit from this. And provided a home-buyers credit of $7,500 for those who can make a minimum down-payment of 5 percent. Few things bring more glee to the Washington lobbyist crowd than a bill that's stamped: "Crisis — Urgent Action Needed Now." This so-called "stimulus" package got so bogged down in their pet projects that the real stimulus got shoved aside. Source: http://bachmann.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=110479

时政

2014-52/4413/en_head.json.gz/5973

Home > Tainted hands across the water Tainted hands across the water [1] The values we share with America are those of rapacious power and wealth, writes John Pilger by John Pilger [2] Published 13 December, 2007 - 12:00 When Gordon Brown spoke recently about his government's devotion to the United States, "founded on the values we share", he was echoing his Foreign Office minister Kim Howells, who was preparing to welcome the Saudi dictator to Britain with effusions of "shared values". The meaning was the same in both cases. The values shared are those of rapacious power and wealth, with democracy and human rights irrelevant, as the bloodbath in Iraq and the suffering of the Palestinians attest, to name only two examples. The "values we share" are celebrated by an organisation that has just held its annual conference. This is the British-American Project for the Successor Generation (BAP), set up in 1985 with money from a Philadelphia trust with a long history of supporting right-wing causes. Although the BAP does not publicly acknowledge this origin, the source of its inspiration was a call by President Reagan in 1983 for "successor generations" on both sides of the Atlantic to "work together in the future on defence and security matters". He made numerous references to "shared values". Attending this ceremony in the White House Situation Room were the ideologues Rupert Murdoch and the late James Goldsmith. As Reagan made clear, the need for the BAP arose from Washington's anxiety about the growing opposition in Britain to nuclear weapons, especially the stationing of cruise missiles in Europe. "A special concern," he said, "will be the successor generations, as these younger people are the ones who will have to work together in the future on defence and security issues." A new, preferably young elite - journalists, academics, economists, "civil society" and liberal community leaders of one sort or another - would offset the growing "anti-Americanism". The aims of this latter-day network, according to David Willetts, the former director of studies at the right-wing Centre for Policy Studies, now a member of the Tory shadow cabinet, are simply to "help reinforce Anglo-American links, especially if some members already do or will occupy positions of influence". A former British ambassador to Washington, Sir John Kerr, was more direct. In a speech to BAP members, he said the organisation's "powerful combination of eminent Fellows and close Atlantic links threatened to put the embassy out of a job". An American BAP organiser describes the BAP network as committed to "grooming leaders" while promoting "the leading global role that [the US and Britain] continue to play". The B

时政

2014-52/4413/en_head.json.gz/6007

2005 By Week LEAD STORY Welcome to THE JOURNAL EDITORIAL REPORT. President Bush's nomination of John Roberts to the Supreme Court has received generally good reviews, but Senate Democrats are demanding the release of papers that Judge Roberts wrote during his years as Deputy Solicitor General under the first President Bush. They say this will help them decide what positions Roberts is likely to take as a Supreme Court Justice. Many of them also hope the papers will provide ammunition to oppose the Roberts nomination. The Bush Administration has released some of the Roberts papers from his earlier government service, but it argues that releasing the Solicitor General papers would make government lawyers wary of giving candid advice, for fear their private recommendations would not stay private. The Administration cites executive privilege and attorney-client privilege. It is not the first time a White House and a Congress have clashed over this. There is no Supreme Court case establishing to what extent, if any, a government lawyer has any attorney-client privilege. Congress on the other hand traditionally does not recognize attorney-client privileges for government lawyers. So just how far will the Senate go to get documents? History may be a guide. William Rehnquist had no judicial experience when he was nominated to the Supreme Court in 1971. So the Senate asked for documents from Rehnquist�s time as the Justice Department�s chief lawyer. But the Nixon White House refused to provide them�and the Senate confirmed him anyway. 15 years later when then Associate Justice Rehnquist was nominated to be Chief Justice the Senate asked for internal memoranda he wrote while he was a Supreme Court Clerk. This time the Reagan White House supplied them. In 1987, when Judge Robert Bork was nominated to the Supreme Court, it was his Watergate Era work as Solicitor General that most interested senators. The government supplied some of the requested documents establishing what some claim was precedent. Nonetheless, Bork ultimately failed to win Senate approval for reasons unrelated to the documents. It was the nomination of Miguel Estrada by President Bush to the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington in 2001 that drew the most recent line in the sand. Estrada, like Rehnquist, had no judicial experience. Democratic members of the Senate asked to see some of his memos written while he was a government lawyer in the solicitor general's office. The White House refused citing confidentiality. In sort, privilege. Estrada quit his confirmation fight after it dragged on for more than two years over other issues and the case for or against privilege was never resolved. Joining me to discuss all this are Bret Stephens, a member of the editorial board, Kim Strassel, a senior writer for the editorial pages, and John Fund, who writes for Opinion Journal.com and is closely following how the Senate handles the Roberts nomination. John, the White House turned over more than 70,000 documents this week related to Roberts' work in the Reagan Administration, was this a smart move? JOHN FUND: Paul, all of those documents came from his years working for Reagan and what happened is the White House says its hands were tied because the Clinton Administration had waived executive privilege on those documents. Now they're saying we're not going to give you any more from the Bush years when he was deputy solicitor general. The problem is they've undermined their own case. When you give 70,000 documents I don't think you can make a clear philosophical distinction between the Reagan papers and the Bush papers. PAUL GIGOT: Why shouldn't the Senate have the right to see these documents? I mean we are learning some things about John Roberts, Bret. BRET STEPHENS: Well, the biggest reason is that John Roberts had an obligation when he was deputy solicitor general under the first President Bush to give the solicitor general and the president candid advice. Now if our government is going to function efficiently, if the executive is going to function efficiently lawyers working for the president have to know that they can give candid advice and that this material isn't going to appear 15 years later on the desk of Senator Chuck Schumer of New York. If you allow that, if you allow Congress to see those documents what it's going to do is it's going to send a message to every other lawyer saying be careful about what you say even in closed hall because it's going to come back to bite you and presidents will not get the best advice they can get. PAUL GIGOT: Let's be clear about what the solicitor general does. This is the office in the Justice Department that argues cases before the Supreme Court and is supposed to think about things which are constitutional matters, constitutional questions. So it's not just political tactical maneuvering. And you presumable, Democratic administration, Republican administration, wants advice on what is the right constitutional argument, right John? JOHN FUND: And the media coverage of the 70,000 pages has already been very much distorted. Remember he was arguing in the case of busing. He said the Congress had the right to strip the courts of the power to bus school children. Then he said it would be bad legal policy. But all of the reporting has said Roberts supported courts being stripped of their powers. He didn't say that. He said it would be legal -- he didn't say it would be prudent. KIM STRASSEL: But also, you're further discouraging people from going to work for the president in the first place. It's not just a question of getting bad advice from the people who are there. But if you're a young lawyer and you have ambitions to one day serve on a court somewhere you're not going to want to go put yourself in a position for a job where one day all the things you say can be dragged out and used against you. PAUL GIGOT: What about this White House distinction between the Solicitor General's office they're withholding documents from, but they provided them from when Roberts worked in the White House Counsel's office which is of course the heard and soul of the executive branch. Did they undermine their argument as John claimed? BRET STEPHENS: Yeah, I think that's exactly right. It's a very difficult distinction to make. After all, you have a lawyer who's working for the executive branch of government, whether he's doing so in one arm or another is a bit irrelevant, and this has created a tremendous opening for the Democrats to say okay, the White House isn't providing us with documents, they're stonewalling and they're going to drag out the nomination. JOHN FUND: But having said that there is a silver lining for the White House. A lot of people would have said that Roberts was a complete stealth nominee if none of these documents had come out. Now we have a pretty good sense of his judicial philosophy circa 1985, we have a pretty good sense of how his mind works. Frankly it's all out on the table and there's nothing remarkable here. The average American looking at John Roberts' arguments would say a lot of that makes sense and the rest of it is in the mainstream. PAUL GIGOT: Is this a partisan argument this attorney-client privilege, executive privilege argument or have Democratic presidents tried to invoke it as well. JOHN FUND: That's all Bill Clinton's second term was about. BRET STEPHENS: That's absolutely right. Solicitor generals going back to the Kennedy Administration would tell you that it's important to have this kind of attorney-client privilege apply in executive discussions. JOHN FUND: Seven solicitors general serving administrations from Kennedy through Clinton all wrote when Miguel Estrada was going to have these documents demanded of him this would be a fundamental undermining of the president's ability to get sound advice. Seven solicitors general. PAUL GIGOT: Of course Roberts was nominated for the same court as Estrada, the Appellate Bench of the D.C. Circuit and while they asked Estrada for his documents they didn't ask for Roberts' documents at the time. But now they're saying because it's a higher court that they do have the right to look at those. KIM STRASSEL: Let's remember how much is actually out there. Two years ago he was nominated for the D.C. Circuit, he gave 14 hours of testimony for the Senate. He provided more than 100 pages worth of written answers to questions that had been given to him by the Senate Judiciary. We've got 75,000 pages of documents, we've got 300 cases he worked on while he was on the D.C. Circuit. Anyone who suggests, I mean this is more than enough information, as John said, to judge whether or not he's qualified to do this job and to get a sense of his judicial philosophy. The fact that people are still asking for things is simply because they're looking for some smoking gun. PAUL GIGOT: What do the documents tell us substantively about what Roberts thinks about judicial issues that we didn't know? BRET STEPHENS: There are no great surprises about the way he thinks. What comes across is a very clever lawyer, smart, very funny. One issue that I think is particularly relevant is how the courts would handle War on Terror issues. In 1984 there was a motion to try to impeach, this is a bit ridiculous, but to try to impeach Ronald Reagan for the invasion of Grenada and we have, I have here, the brief that Roberts wrote in response to it. And what he said, which was key, is he said the president also has an inherent authority in the international area to defend American lives and interests and as commander in chief to use military force in doing so. This has been recognized at least since the time President Jefferson sent the Marines to the shores of Tripoli. I think that tells us something about his jurisprudence of the War on Terror. PAUL GIGOT: John, any other issues that are likely to emerge from these memos that will complicate his nomination? JOHN FUND: Well, the civil rights community is up in arms over some members he wrote on the Voters Rights Act which requires a dozen southern western states to pre-clear, to ask permission from the federal government if they make any change to their voting rules. And he made a very reasoned argument that you don't want to bog down the Justice Department with every single little complaint that the Justice Department process should be fast-tracked, but still give full review. And they're going to say this shows he's an enemy of civil rights. KIM STRASSEL: I think the bigger point here is that we're not learning anything that we didn't know before. In President Bush's campaign, he told people what kind of nominee he wanted for the Court, who he admired on the Court and he has come out and basically put that sort of nominee forward. We know this is someone that's going to have a great respect for the literal reading of the Constitution, be deferential to executive power, has a lot of respect for state rights. None of this is actually a surprise. BRET STEPHENS: I think the Republicans are making a mistake by trying to run a stealth nominee. We should have a discussion about this. The president did win the election and he shouldn't be ashamed to nominate a conservative strict constructionist to the Court. PAUL GIGOT: John, quickly, a week after the Roberts nomination are his chances better or worse after this last week? JOHN FUND: More complicated but the same -- pretty good. PAUL GIGOT: Okay. Alright, thanks John. © 2005 Educational Broadcasting Corporation. All rights reserved. Last broadcast 12/02/05.

时政

2014-41/1934/en_head.json.gz/22588

HomeUS NewsWorld NewsEditorialLife and ScienceMy Account Iran, the U.S. and the Strait of Hormuz Crisis Published on Wednesday, 18 January 2012 06:38 Written by George Friedman View Comments ShareTweetThe United States reportedly sent a letter to Iran via multiple intermediaries last week warning Tehran that any attempt to close the Strait of Hormuz constituted a red line for Washington. The same week, a chemist associated with Iran's nuclear program was killed in Tehran. In Ankara, Iranian parliamentary speaker Ali Larijani met with Turkish officials and has been floating hints of flexibility in negotiations over Iran's nuclear program. This week, a routine rotation of U.S. aircraft carriers is taking place in the Middle East, with the potential for three carrier strike groups to be on station in the U.S. Fifth Fleet's area of operations and a fourth carrier strike group based in Japan about a week's transit from the region. Next week, Gen. Michael Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, will travel to Israel to meet with senior Israeli officials. And Iran is scheduling another set of war games in the Persian Gulf for February that will focus on the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps' irregular tactics for closing the Strait of Hormuz. While tensions are escalating in the Persian Gulf, the financial crisis in Europe has continued, with downgrades in France's credit rating the latest blow. Meanwhile, China continued its struggle to maintain exports in the face of economic weakness among its major customers while inflation continued to increase the cost of Chinese exports. Fundamental changes in how Europe and China work and their long-term consequences represent the major systemic shifts in the international system. In the more immediate future, however, the U.S.-Iranian dynamic has the most serious potential consequences for the world. The U.S.-Iranian Dynamic The increasing tensions in the region are not unexpected. As we have argued for some time, the U.S. invasion of Iraq and the subsequent decision to withdraw created a massive power vacuum in Iraq that Iran needed -- and was able -- to fill. Iran and Iraq fought a brutal war in the 1980s that caused about 1 million Iranian casualties, and Iran's fundamental national interest is assuring that no Iraqi regime able to threaten Iranian national security re-emerges. The U.S. invasion and withdrawal from Iraq provided Iran an opportunity to secure its western frontier, one it could not pass on. If Iran does come to have a dominant influence in Iraq -- and I don't mean Iran turning Iraq into a satellite -- several things follow. Most important, the status of the Arabian Peninsula is subject to change. On paper, Iran has the most substantial conventional military force of any nation in the Persian Gulf. Absent outside players, power on paper is not insignificant. While technologically sophisticated, the military strength of the Arabian Peninsula nations on paper is much smaller, and they lack the Iranian military's ideologically committed manpower. But Iran's direct military power is more the backdrop than the main engine of Iranian power. It is the strength of Tehran's covert capabilities and influence that makes Iran significant. Iran's covert intelligence capability is quite good. It has spent decades building political alliances by a range of means, and not only by nefarious methods. The Iranians have worked among the Shia, but not exclusively so; they have built a network of influence among a range of classes and religious and ethnic groups. And they have systematically built alliances and relationships with significant figures to counter overt U.S. power. With U.S. military power departing Iraq, Iran's relationships become all the more valuable. The withdrawal of U.S. forces has had a profound psychological impact on the political elites of the Persian Gulf. Since the decline of British power after World War II, the United States has been the guarantor of the Arabian Peninsula's elites and therefore of the flow of oil from the region. The foundation of that guarantee has been military power, as seen in the response to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990. The United States still has substantial military power in the Persian Gulf, and its air and naval forces could likely cope with any overt provocation by Iran. But that's not how the Iranians operate. For all their rhetoric, they are cautious in their policies. This does not mean they are passive. It simply means that they avoid high-risk moves. They will rely on their covert capabilities and relationships. Those relationships now exist in an environment in which many reasonable Arab leaders see a shift in the balance of power, with the United States growing weaker and less predictable in the region and Iran becoming stronger. This provides fertile soil for Iranian allies to pressure regional regimes into accommodations with Iran. The Syrian Angle Events in Syria compound this situation. The purported imminent collapse of Syrian President Bashar al Assad's regime in Syria has proved less imminent than many in the West imagined. At the same time, the isolation of the al Assad regime by the West -- and more important, by other Arab countries -- has created a situation where the regime is more dependent than ever on Iran. Should the al Assad regime -- or the Syrian regime without al Assad -- survive, Iran would therefore enjoy tremendous influence with Syria, as well as with Hezbollah in Lebanon. The current course in Iraq coupled with the survival of an Alawite regime in Syria would create an Iranian sphere of influence stretching from western Afghanistan to the Mediterranean. This would represent a fundamental shift in the regional balance of power and probably would redefine Iranian relations with the Arabian Peninsula. This is obviously in Iran's interest. It is not in the interests of the United States, however. The United States has sought to head this off via a twofold response. Clandestinely, it has engaged in an active campaign of sabotage and assassination targeting Iran's nuclear efforts. Publicly, it has created a sanctions regime against Iran, most recently targeting Iran's oil exports. However, the latter effort faces many challenges. Japan, the No. 2 buyer of Iranian crude, has pledged its support but has not outlined concrete plans to reduce its purchases. The Chinese and Indians -- Iran's No. 1 and 3 buyers of crude, respectively -- will continue to buy from Iran despite increased U.S. pressure. In spite of U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner's visit last week, the Chinese are not prepared to impose sanctions, and the Russians are not likely to enforce sanctions even if they agreed to them. Turkey is unwilling to create a confrontation with Iran and is trying to remain a vital trade conduit for the Iranians regardless of sanctions. At the same time, while the Europeans seem prepared to participate in harder-hitting sanctions on Iranian oil, they already have delayed action on these sanctions and certainly are in no position politically or otherwise to participate in military action. The European economic crisis is at root a political crisis, so even if the Europeans could add significant military weight, which they generally lack, concerted action of any sort is unlikely. Neither, for that matter, does the United States have the ability to do much militarily. Invading Iran is out of the question. The mountainous geography of Iran, a nation of about 70 million people, makes direct occupation impossible given available American forces. Air operations against Iran are an option, but they could not be confined to nuclear facilities. Iran still doesn't have nuclear weapons, and while nuclear weapons would compound the strategic problem, the problem would still exist without them. The center of gravity of Iran's power is the relative strength of its conventional forces in the region. Absent those, Iran would be less capable of wielding covert power, as the psychological matrix would shift. An air campaign against Iran's conventional forces would play to American military strengths, but it has two problems. First, it would be an extended campaign, one lasting months. Iran's capabilities are large and dispersed, and as seen in Desert Storm and Kosovo against weaker opponents, such operations take a long time and are not guaranteed to be effective. Second, the Iranians have counters. One, of course, is the Strait of Hormuz. The second is the use of its special operations forces and allies in and out of the region to conduct terrorist attacks. An extended air campaign coupled with terrorist attacks could increase distrust of American power rather than increase it among U.S. allies, to say nothing of the question of whether Washington could sustain political support in a coalition or within the United States itself. The Covert Option The United States and Israel both have covert options as well. They have networks of influence in the region and highly capable covert forces, which they have said publicly that they would use to limit Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons without resorting to overt force. We assume, though we lack evidence, that the assassination of the Iranian chemist associated with the country's nuclear program last week was either a U.S. or Israeli operation or some combination of the two. Not only did it eliminate a scientist, it also bred insecurity and morale problems among those working on the program. It also signaled the region that the United States and Israel have options inside Iran. The U.S. desire to support an Iranian anti-government movement generally has failed. Tehran showed in 2009 that it could suppress demonstrations, and it was obvious that the demonstrators did not have the widespread support needed to overcome such repression. Though the United States has sought to support internal dissidents in Iran since 1979, it has not succeeded in producing a meaningful threat to the clerical regime. Therefore, covert operations are being aimed directly at the nuclear program with the hope that successes there might ripple through other, more immediately significant sectors. As we have long argued, the Iranians already have a "nuclear option," namely, the prospect of blockading the Strait of Hormuz, through which roughly 35 percent of seaborne crude and 20 percent of the world's traded oil passes daily. Doing so would hurt them, too, of course. But failing to deter an air or covert campaign, they might choose to close off the strait. Temporarily disrupting the flow of oil, even intermittently, could rapidly create a global economic crisis given the fragility of the world economy. The United States does not want to see that. Washington will be extremely cautious in its actions unless it can act with a high degree of assurance that it can prevent such a disruption, something difficult to guarantee. It also will restrain Israel, which might have the ability to strike at a few nuclear facilities but lacks the force to completely eliminate the program much less target Iran's conventional capability and manage the consequences of that strike in the Strait of Hormuz. Only the United States could do all that, and given the possible consequences, it will be loathe to attempt it. The United States continues, therefore, with sanctions and covert actions while Iran continues building its covert power in Iraq and in the region. Each will try to convince the region that its power will be supreme in a year. The region is skeptical of both, but will have to live with one of the two, or with an ongoing test of wills -- an unnerving prospect. Each side is seeking to magnify its power for psychological effect without crossing a red line that prompts the other to take extreme measures. Iran signals its willingness to attempt to close Hormuz and its development of nuclear weapons, but it doesn't cross the line to actually closing the strait or detonating a nuclear device. The United States pressures Iran and moves forces around, but it doesn't cross the red line of commencing military actions. Thus, each avoids triggering unacceptable actions by the other. The problem for the United States is that the status quo ultimately works against it. If al Assad survives and if the situation in Iraq proceeds as it has been proceeding, then Iran is creating a reality that will define the region. The United States does not have a broad and effective coalition, and certainly not one that would rally in the event of war. It has only Israel, and Israel is as uneasy with direct military action as the United States is. It does not want to see a failed attack and it does not want to see more instability in the Arab world. For all its rhetoric, Israel has a weak hand to play. The only virtue of the American hand is that it is stronger -- but only relatively speaking. For the United States, preventing the expansion of an Iranian sphere of influence is a primary concern. Iraq is going to be a difficult arena to stop Iran's expansion. Syria therefore is key at present. Al Assad appears weak, and his replacement by a Sunni government would limit -- but not destroy -- any Iranian sphere of influence. It would be a reversal for Iran, and the United States badly needs to apply one. But the problem is that the United States cannot be seen as the direct agent of regime change in Syria, and al Assad is not as weak as has been claimed. Even so, Syria is where the United States can work to block Iran without crossing Iran's red lines. The normal outcome of a situation like this one, in which neither Iran nor the United States can afford to cross the other's red lines since the consequences would be too great for each, would be some sort of negotiation toward a longer-term accommodation. Ideology aside -- and the United States negotiating with the "Axis of Evil" or Iran with the "Great Satan" would be tough sells to their respective domestic audiences -- the problem with this is that it is difficult to see what each has to offer the other. What Iran wants -- a dominant position in the region and a redefinition of how oil revenues are allocated and distributed -- would make the United States dependent on Iran. What the United States wants -- an Iran that does not build a sphere of influence but instead remains within its borders -- would cost Iran a historic opportunity to assert its longstanding claims. We find ourselves in a situation in which neither side wants to force the other into extreme steps and neither side is in a position to enter into broader accommodations. And that's what makes the situation dangerous. When fundamental issues are at stake, each side is in a position to profoundly harm the other if pressed, and neither side is in a position to negotiate a broad settlement, a long game of chess ensues. And in that game of chess, the possibilities of miscalculation, of a bluff that the other side mistakes for an action, are very real. Europe and China are redefining the way the world works. But kingdoms run on oil, as someone once said, and a lot of oil comes through Hormuz. Iran may or may not be able to close the strait, and that reshapes Europe and China. The New Year thus begins where we expected: at the Strait of Hormuz SOURCE: StratforFrom Around the Web

时政

2014-41/1934/en_head.json.gz/22936

> Editorial Pages » Follow The Post On: Save Obama - by running against him By Michael Lerner People who used to say, "Give President Obama more time" when the president was criticized for capitulating to the right, or who argued that Obama must have a plan to turn things around, are now largely depressed and angry. To many liberals and progressives, the president's unwillingness to veto any measure that includes continued tax relief for billionaires is the last straw, building on a record of spinelessness that includes his escalation of the war in Afghanistan, abandonment of a public option for health-care reform, refusal to prosecute those who tortured in Iraq or lied us into that war, and unwillingness to tax carbon emissions. With his base deeply disillusioned, many progressives are starting to believe that Obama has little chance of winning reelection unless he enthusiastically embraces a populist agenda and worldview - soon. Yet there is little chance that will happen without a massive public revolt by his constituency that goes beyond rallies, snide remarks from television personalities or indignant op-eds. Those of us who worry that a full-scale Republican return to power in 2012 would be a disaster not just for those hurting from the Republican-policy-inspired economic meltdown but also for the environment, social justice and world peace believe it is critical to get Obama to become the candidate whom most Americans believed they elected in 2008. Despite the outcome of last month's election, it is unlikely that the level of his base's alienation will register with the president until late in the 2012 election cycle - far too late for society today and our future beyond that. But there is a real way to save the Obama presidency: by challenging him in the 2012 presidential primaries with a candidate who would unambiguously commit to a well-defined progressive agenda and contrast it with the Obama administration's policies. Such a candidacy would be pooh-poohed by the media, but if it gathered enough popular support - as is likely given the level of alienation among many who were the backbone of Obama's 2008 success - this campaign would pressure Obama toward much more progressive positions and make him a more viable 2012 candidate. Far from weakening his chances for reelection, this kind of progressive primary challenge could save Obama if he moves in the desired direction. And if he holds firm to his current track, he's a goner anyway. The basic platform for such a candidate is clear: Unequivocally call for an immediate end to the presence of U.S. troops, advisers and private U.S.-based security firms in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan, and replace the "war on terror" with a Global Marshall Plan that roots homeland security in a strategy of generosity and concern for the well-being of everyone on the planet. Domestically, call for a massive jobs program; a freeze on mortgage foreclosures; a national bank that would offer interest-free loans to those seeking to create or expand small businesses; immediate implementation of the parts of the Obama health-care plan that would benefit ordinary citizens and build support for a health plan for all citizens; dramatically lower prices for drugs that treat critical diseases such as AIDS and cancer; a strong tax on carbon emissions; and immediate prosecution of those government employees involved in torture or coverups to justify the invasion of Iraq. This candidate should push for the media to provide free and equal time to all major candidates for national office as well as for constitutional amendments requiring only public financing in elections and, separately, for corporations to prove every five years to a jury of ordinary citizens that they have a satisfactory history of environmental responsibility (as is sought by the Environmental and Social Responsibility Amendment, or ESRA, advocated by the Network of Spiritual Progressives). This policy platform must be matched with a willingness to talk clearly about the spiritual and ethical need for a new bottom line - one of love, kindness and generosity. We need a progressive push for a new New Deal, which in the 21st century could be the Caring Society: "Caring for Each Other and the Earth." Public officials who would make excellent candidates should they run on this platform include Sens. Russ Feingold, Bernie Sanders, Barbara Mikulski or Al Franken; or Reps. Joe Sestak, Maxine Waters, Raul Grijalva, Alan Grayson, Barbara Lee, Dennis Kucinich, Lois Capps, Jim Moran or Lynn Woolsey. Others include Jim McGovern, Marcy Kaptur, Jim McDermott or John Conyers. We should also consider popular figures outside of government. How about Robert F. Kennedy Jr.? Why not Rachel Maddow, Bill Moyers, Susan Sarandon or the Rev. James Forbes? All suggestions need to be part of this critical conversation. What's clear is that we need such a candidate, and the finances to back her or him, very soon. Michael Lerner, a rabbi, is editor of the magazine Tikkun and chairs the interfaith Network of Spiritual Progressives. His e-mail address is RabbiLerner@Tikkun.org.

时政

2014-41/1935/en_head.json.gz/6

hide U.S. sanctions threat hangs over Iran talks in Geneva Thursday, November 07, 2013 6:35 p.m. EST Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Robert Menendez (D-NJ) speaks to the media after the Senate passed the immigration bill on Capit By Patricia Zengerle WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A threat by the U.S. Congress to slap tough new sanctions on Iran hung over negotiations on Tehran's nuclear program on Thursday, even as diplomats at talks in Geneva voiced optimism an agreement was close. A package of tighter sanctions on Iran has been making its way through Congress but was held up after President Barack Obama's administration asked for a delay to let the delicate diplomatic talks over Tehran's nuclear program unfold. But Congress tends to take a harder line on Iran than the administration. Many lawmakers, including several of Obama's fellow Democrats, believe that tough sanctions brought Tehran to the negotiating table and insist that more are needed to discourage it from developing a nuclear bomb. Iran says its nuclear program is for civilian purposes. "I think Iran has in its power to decide whether or not it faces any more sanctions or whether or not it gets any relief from existing sanctions," Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Robert Menendez told Reuters. Menendez and several other lawmakers said they were open to easing sanctions, but only if Tehran made significant, verifiable concessions like suspending uranium enrichment and allowing more invasive inspections. Otherwise, Menendez said he felt the sanctions should go ahead. "I just don't understand a negotiating posture that suggests that we should stop pursuing a course of action that at least brought Iran to the table while they continue to enrich," he said. Sanctions imposed last year by Washington and the European Union have combined to slash Iran's oil exports by roughly 1 million barrels a day, depriving Tehran of billions of dollars of income and driving up inflation and unemployment. Diplomats said the talks in Geneva between Iran and six world powers appeared on Thursday to be edging toward a preliminary deal on its nuclear activity, citing progress in talks capitalizing on a diplomatic opening from Tehran, although negotiations were "tough." WHAT WILL BANKING COMMITTEE DO? The U.S. Senate Banking Committee, which has jurisdiction over the sanctions, has not decided whether to move ahead, the panel's chairman said. "I don't know the outcome of negotiations now under way in Geneva, and I plan to wait to hear any results of those talks from our negotiators before making a final decision," Democratic Senator Tim Johnson, the panel's chairman, said in a statement on Thursday. The current round of talks in Geneva ends on Friday. Johnson told Reuters earlier in the day that he had decided to go ahead with the mark-up - or consideration - of the bill, a step toward bringing it to the full Senate for a vote after consulting with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Johnson said the date of the mark-up, during which senators present amendments to the legislation and vote whether to send it to the full Senate, had not been determined. The Republican-led House of Representatives passed its version of a stiffer sanctions bill in July. But the Senate, where Democrats control a majority of the seats, put off moving ahead with its bill after the administration asked for more time to pursue the talks. The House bill among other things seeks to slash Iran's oil exports to nearly zero. The Senate bill has been widely expected to be less stringent. The timing issue became more complicated after a handful of senators, including Republican Mark Kirk, a banking panel member, said they might go ahead with a sanctions package even if the banking committee held off. Kirk and a few other Republicans said they were considering introducing a stiffer package of Iran sanctions as an amendment to a defense authorization bill that is expected to be debated in the Senate during the week of November 18. Menendez, who is also a member of the Banking Committee, said he thought debating the stand-alone sanctions bill was a better course of action. "It will be more thought out and more reasoned and balanced," he said. (Additional reporting by Timothy Gardner; Editing by Alistair Bell and Peter Cooney)

时政

2014-41/1935/en_head.json.gz/34

Home. > Press Room Press ResourcesHeadshotsInnovative Analysis THE WAY DEMOCRACY WILL BE / July 9th 2008 Students use Instant Runoff Voting at U.S. UniversitiesStudent elections on campuses and new adoptions showcase IRV's popularityContact: Rob Richie, Executive Director of FairVote, rr@fairvote.org (301) 270-4616 Instant runoff voting (IRV) has been gaining momentum among universities as the preferred mechanism for student elections. Already used by more than half of the nation's top thirty universities for student government elections on campus (based on rankings by U.S. News and World Report), the voting system has been adopted by students for their elections in more than forty colleges and universities nationwide.The Spring 2008 student election season brought another successful round of IRV, including first-time use at the University of Iowa, with its highest turnout student election ever. Other recent adoptions of IRV include the University of California at San Diego, UCLA, Santa Fe Community College (FL) and North Carolina State. Overall, FairVote estimates at least 30,600 students* voted in IRV elections for student government in the past year. FairVote has assembled a collection of colleges and universities using IRV, along with information on election results, bylaws language and “best practices” for administering IRV elections at:http://www.fairvote.org/irv/?page=57Rob Richie, executive director of FairVote, applauded students’ openness to innovation and improving elections: “The last decade has opened many Americans’ eyes to the need to upgrade our elections. Electing majority winners in a single round of voting is a great example. The fact that so many students have taken this step points to our expectation that it will become the norm many our top elections.”IRV allows better voter choice and wider voter participation by accommodating multiple candidates in single seat races and assuring that a "spoiler effect" will not result in undemocratic outcomes. IRV encourages voters to vote for their favorite candidate without worrying about helping elect their least favorite candidate, and it ensures that a candidate favored by the majority of voters will not be defeated by a less-favored candidate due to vote-splitting. The voters simply rank candidates according to their preferences, rather than selecting only one choice. If no candidate receives a majority of first choices, the candidate with the fewest number of votes is eliminated and successive runoffs are simulated according to the voter’s preferences until one of them receives a majority among votes for remaining candidates.Implementing IRV and other innovative voting methods like the choice voting method of proportional representation, as used in several colleges, can boost student participation in their elections. Among several examples, California State University Chico has shown impressive gains in voter turnout since the voting system adoption. Voter turnout at CSU Chico increased by more than 2,000 students from 2,601 pre-IRV to 4,717 in recent post-IRV elections. According to Brad Howard of Hendrix College, “We were bogged down with four different runoffs (divided by our Spring Break). It was burdensome on the candidates and annoyed the student body. With a campus of 1,000 students, we were lucky to get 300 students out to vote. One of my first initiatives as a new Senator was to change our voting processes in hopes of increasing voter turnout and eliminating student apathy with elections"”. FairVote is a non-profit, non-partisan organization that studies the impact of electoral rules and systems on turnout, representation and electoral competition. To view more on instant runoff voting, visit http://www.instantrunoff.com and www.fairvote.org/irv or call (301) 270-4616. *Considering elections in nine Colleges for which we have detailed results.www.fairvote.org

时政

2014-41/1935/en_head.json.gz/66

O'Malley testing the 2016 waters in New Hampshire Erin McPike | 11/18/2013, 5:51 a.m. Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley talks about the Missouri Senate race with Candy Crowley on 'State of the Union.' continued — The 50-year-old governor got his start in politics when he worked on former Colorado Sen. Gary Hart's first presidential bid in 1984. By 28, he was elected to the city council, where he served for eight years during the Nineties, and followed that act by running Baltimore as mayor for two terms. His second term as governor ends in 2016; presidential speculation has followed O'Malley since he took office in 2007. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton already enjoys the backing of a growing group of Democratic senators and governors who are holding out hope that she will run. While Clinton has only indicated she will consider a presidential bid over the next two years, O'Malley has been clearer and more vocal about his preparation for a likely candidacy in 2016. And Saturday in New Hampshire, the second state to cast judgment in the 2016 primaries, O'Malley held a series of separate meetings with state political, labor and legislative leaders. He was last in the state in October of 2012 when campaigning for President Barack Obama and the new governor, Maggie Hassan. O'Malley has already laid some groundwork to court Hassan's endorsement, because last year, while he was chairman of the Democratic Governors Association, the organization spent more money ($8 million) on her campaign than it had on any other race in its history. O'Malley preparing 'ground work' for potential 2016 run Gov. Martin O'Malley on 2016, Christie Shirley M. Watts appointed to Court of Appeals Return to stalag O’Malley? Juneteenth officially recognized in Maryland Featured Videos

时政

2014-41/1935/en_head.json.gz/69

Previous story:« Raye, Michaud targeting small business with campaign stops Next story:Prop. 8 backers urge US Supreme Court to rule on California’s gay marriage ban » Disagreement heats up between lawmakers over definition of ‘veteran’ By Robert Long, BDN Staff Posted Sept. 05, 2012, at 8:12 p.m. Last modified Sept. 06, 2012, at 10:28 a.m. Poll Question Take Our Poll Maine LegislaturePaul Gilbert AUGUSTA, Maine — An ongoing feud over whether a Vietnam War-era National Guard member is qualified to serve on a state board has raised the question of who is a veteran. Earlier this week, Rep. Paul Gilbert, D-Jay, questioned whether National Guard service during the early 1970s makes someone a military veteran. Gov. Paul LePage, Republican lawmakers and members of Maine veterans organizations quickly expressed outrage that Gilbert raised the issue. During a Labor, Commerce, Research and Economic Development Committee confirmation hearing Tuesday on Christopher Pierce’s nomination to serve on the Finance Authority of Maine’s board, Gilbert said that service in the National Guard during the early 1970s “was not considered qualification for veteran’s status.” “I think your credentials are great, but to fill a seat to be occupied by a veteran — that’s questionable,” said Gilbert, who along with two other Democrats voted against Pierce’s nomination. The committee voted 7-3 to endorse it, and the full Senate will take up the matter Thursday. For the purpose of eligibility for preferential employment status, federal labor law defines a veteran as “an individual who — (A) served on active duty in the armed forces during a war, in a campaign or expedition for which a campaign badge has been authorized, or during the period beginning April 28, 1952, and ending July 1, 1955; (B) served on active duty as defined by section 101 (21) of title 38 at any time in the armed forces for a period of more than 180 consecutive days any part of which occurred after January 31, 1955, and before October 15, 1976, not including service under section 12103 (d) of title 10 pursuant to an enlistment in the Army National Guard or the Air National Guard or as a Reserve for service in the Army Reserve, Navy Reserve, Air Force Reserve, Marine Corps Reserve, or Coast Guard Reserve; (C) served on active duty as defined by section 101 (21) of title 38 in the armed forces during the period beginning on August 2, 1990, and ending on January 2, 1992; or (D) served on active duty as defined by section 101 (21) of title 38 at any time in the armed forces for a period of more than 180 consecutive days any part of which occurred during the period beginning on September 11, 2001, and ending on the date prescribed by Presidential proclamation or by law as the last date of Operation Iraqi Freedom.” By that definition, Pierce, a Cumberland resident, would not qualify for status as a veteran. However, state law related to membership on the 15-member FAME boardsimply requires that two of the at-large members be veterans. A 1997 statute defines “veteran” as “any person who has served in the U.S. Armed Forces and was not dishonorably discharged,” but does not link service on the board in any way to the federal law. Gilbert’s reservations about whether Pierce should be considered a veteran enraged LePage, who fired off an angry release Tuesday afternoon in which he described Gilbert’s statements as “outrageous” and “out of line.” Four Republican state representatives — Ken Fredette of Newport, Dennis Keschl of Belgrade, Jarrod Crockett of Bethel and Doug Damon of Bangor — blasted Gilbert for his “shocking remarks regarding National Guard veterans” in a release issued Wednesday afternoon. The release lists extensive military service for all four legislators. “A National Guardsman is certainly no less of a veteran than any other soldier, sailor or airman,” Keschl said in the release.“”Rep. Gilbert’s remarks are incredibly insensitive, and he owes all those who have served in the National Guard an apology.” Gilbert stood his ground. “While I respect Christopher Pierce and his service to the National Guard, I strongly believe this position should be filled by someone who meets the VA’s own criteria for being a veteran,” he said in a release from the House Democratic Office. “I’m a proud veteran who served in Panama and at the Army War College. … I’d be happy to match my record of service with the governor any day.” Members of the Veterans of Foreign Wars and American Legion disagreed with Gilbert’s interpretation of what constitutes a veteran. “I worked with them side by side,” said Caribou resident Peter Miesburger of the VFW. “They picked up the workload and carried on. It was an issue during the late 1960s or early 1970s, but it’s not now. My attitude was always ‘Put them in fatigues, they’re just another airman.’” American Legion member William “Chick” Ciciotte of Topsham, a Vietnam-era veteran, has organized recognition ceremonies for more than 500 Maine veterans. He said those ceremonies make no distinction between active-duty military and National Guard service. “When they put the uniform on, they are subject to call and put their lives on the line,” Ciciotte told the Bangor Daily News. An earlier version of this article incorrectly stated that the law related to the Finance Authority of Maine did not define the term veteran. Veteran is defined as “any person who has served in the U.S. Armed Forces and was not dishonorably discharged.” Similar Articles9.10.2012No purpose to political tug-of-war about the definition of ‘veteran’7.10.2012LePage chooses Maine National Guard officer as next Adjutant General12.3.2008Hampden graduate to help in inauguration2.14.2013Bill would make earlier sale of alcohol legal in Maine10.27.2011Family of World War II tank driver arranges surprise visit More in Politics

时政

2014-41/1935/en_head.json.gz/134

from Afghan Journal: America expanding its undeclared war in Pakistan? Sanjeev Miglani drone | Faisal Shahzad | Times Square | washington post | Waziristan (The car packed with explosives at Times Square) U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has warned Pakistan of 'severe consequences" if a future attack on the U.S. homeland is traced back to Pakistani militant groups. It's the kind of language that harks back to the Bush administration when they threatened to "bomb Pakistan to the Stone Age" if it didn't cooperate in the war against al Qaeda and the Afghan Taliban following the Sept. 11 attacks. Pakistan fell in line, turning on militant groups, some of whom with close ties to the security establishment. In the wake of the failed attempt to bomb New York by a suspected Pakistani American who might have been trained by Pakistan militant groups, the United States seems to have turned up the heat again on Islamabad. After a year of doling out carrots and trying to build a security relationship mindful of Pakistani sensitivities, the Obama administration has warned its strategic partner that the U.S. mood could sour if it indeed was proved that the suspected Times Square would-be bomber Faisal Shahzad was tied to Pakistani insurgent groups, the Washington Post said.Continue Reading...

时政

2014-41/1935/en_head.json.gz/135

A New Day Rises for Guinea Posted by Patricia Moller June 26, 2010 Polling Station Prepares for Voters in Conakry About the Author: Patricia N. Moller serves as the U.S. Ambassador to the Republic of Guinea. As the June 27 presidential election approaches, there is a sense of excitement and expectation in the air in Guinea and the feeling is infectious. Unlike past elections when irregularities and a heavily tilted playing field caused widespread cynicism and despair, now there seems to be a strong belief that this election can be different and that the people of Guinea have the will -- and the electoral voice -- to make it so. I recently spoke to a group of political party members participating in a “Campaigning 101” election seminar at our Embassy. Some of these participants had been imprisoned for their political beliefs. Others had been victims of a violent crackdown at a gathering of thousands of opposition members last September, where over a hundred demonstrators were killed, a thousand more were injured, and scores of women were raped in broad daylight by the security forces of the former dictator Captain Moussa Dadis Camara. Now these same people were planning and supporting campaigns for the highest office in the land. They were drawing strength from their struggle and seemed determined to build a new tomorrow from the experience of their shared tragedy. One woman sat in the front of the room, her bright pink traditional boubou dress proclaiming her irrepressible spirit. This woman was a victim of those terrible events last September. But now she stood strong and resolute. What struck me most about this courageous woman was that she refused to be defeated by the violence she had suffered; she would work to make this election reflect her own hopes for the future. She saw this democratic process as the antidote to the ills of her country, and it inspired me as it did those around her. Nor was she alone. There were others in the room who had similar stories. My message to them was simple. This is your opportunity to shape your future and secure your place among the peaceful, prosperous, and politically stable countries of the world. Whether you or the candidate you support are victorious or not, a free, fair, and peaceful election leading to democratic governance makes each of you a winner. You all win because democracy is about a process, not a person. Embracing this message about process and democracy, the participants in our seminar worked across party lines, developing an action plan which affirms respect for election results and endorses non-violent campaigning. They even pledged to organize and host candidate debates. An atmosphere of hope is unfolding in Guinea because the people themselves, who have suffered injustice for so long, are determined to bid for a better future. New Mexico, USA June 28, 2010 Eric in New Mexico writes: Dear Ambassador Moller, First election since 1958...That's got to put pressure on folks to get it right and transparent in the results. I don't know how you feel about being a midwife to the birth of a democracy, but being witness to history has to be pretty special when you are part of it. I wish folks all the best in realizing their hopes and aspirations. Previous: What Are Ways To Increase Civil Society Connections Between the U.S. and Russia? »« Next: Leaders Gather in Canada for G-8, G-20 . 'Noisy About Malaria' in Mozambique Observing a Constitutional Referendum in Zimbabwe Aid to Internally Displaced Persons in the Democratic Republic of the Congo Latest Stories

时政

2014-41/1935/en_head.json.gz/170

مؤسسة كارنيغي للسلام الدولي Sada in English صدى اصوات التغييرالعربي Analysis on Arab Reform Search Sada Use this menu to filter your search results. Check boxes below to return search results related to any combination of issue and regional interest. Select topics that interest you (check all that apply) Economic Reform Islamist Politics Opposition Politics Select countries that interest you (check all that apply) Stay Connected to Sada Sada is published in English and Arabic and available as articles are published or in a weekly digest. Enter name and address (All fields are required) Select Delivery English, as published English, weekly digest Arabic, as published Arabic, weekly digest Beyond Sada Sada - Analysis What the Brotherhood Lost July 12, 2012 Atef al-Saadawy عربي Those congratulating the Muslim Brotherhood for Mohamed Morsi’s victory in the Egyptian presidential elections have failed to take note: the organization has sustained substantial losses, and a comparison of voting trends in the parliamentary and presidential elections reveals a sharp decline in the Brotherhood’s popularity in the five months between. While the Freedom and Justice Party (FJP) received 10.5 million votes (33 percent of the total) in the legislative elections, Morsi received almost half of that in the first round of the presidential election: 5.7 million votes (or roughly 25 percent of the votes cast), beating the runner-up Ahmed Shafiq by a mere 259,000 votes. As for the run-off round, Morsi squeaked by in a narrow victory—with only 882,000 votes over his rival, despite much of the MB’s competition from both the parliamentary elections and the first round of the presidential elections endorsing him in the run-off out of fear that a Shafiq victory would spell the end of the revolution. Of additional note: there were almost 843,000 nullified votes—nearly equal to the difference between the two presidential contenders. This overview at the national level raises a number of questions about the “disappearance” of almost half of the Brotherhood’s voting bloc. More significantly, however, examination of the voting figures in each province reveals a significant drop even in the Brotherhood’s traditional strongholds. Morsi came in second or third place in a number of provinces in the Delta known traditionally as Islamist-friendly–areas which the organization had swept in the parliamentary elections: Sharqiya, Gharbiya, Dakahliya, Qaliobiya, Menoufiya, Alexandria, and Ismailia. In Alexandria, Morsi came in third place in the first round—barely getting half as many votes as the leftist Hamdeen Sabahi (571,700 versus 299,400), even though the FJP won 10 of the province’s 24 seats in parliament amid fierce competition from the Salafis. Morsi also came in second place in his own home province of Sharqiyya, garnering only 32 percent of the vote, while the Brotherhood previously won 18 of the 30 available seats in parliament. In Beheira, the home of the Brotherhood’s founder Hassan Al-Banna, the Brotherhood won a respectable 12 out of 30 seats; Morsi won only 29 percent of the vote. In Gharbiya, where the organization landed 13 out of 30 seats, the new president’s support plunged to 17 percent in the first round of elections. Shafiq continued to make headway on the Brotherhood’s home turf in the runoffs. In Gharbiya, for example, he took 63 percent of the vote for Morsi’s 37 percent. In the eastern Delta province of Sharqiya, Morsi was also upset by 54 percent to 46 percent, and in neighboring Qaliobiya, Morsi took only 42 percent versus a 58 percent for Shafiq—and again, after the Freedom and Justice Party dominated parliamentary election performance in the area, taking 10 of 17 seats. In Dakahliya, where the FJP won 47 percent of the available seats, Shafiq defeated Morsi by a margin of 56 percent to his opponent’s 44 percent. And in Hosni Mubarak’s home province of Menoufiya, Shafiq won a blowout victory with 71.5 percent of the vote. Port Said was also a major Shafiq victory at 54.2 percent. These figures show that the Brotherhood has started to lose some of its sway in its traditional strongholds among the voter-rich provinces of the Delta and Lower Egypt. Even in the densely populated capital province of Cairo, Morsi has also struggled, with a losing 44 percent to Shafiq’s 56—after finishing only third in the first round with a mere 17 percent of the vote. In Upper Egypt, however, where changes take longer, the Brotherhood has retained its influence by a narrow margin, and has been helped by the tribal-dominated political culture. The MB carried the provinces of Fayoum, Asyut, Minya, Sohag, Beni Sweif, Qena, and Aswan in both rounds of the presidential election. This contrast in the results is undoubtedly linked to the performance of the Freedom and Justice Party in its few months in parliament; parliament has been the first and only testing ground for the Brotherhood’s political performance. The organization is running up against high expectations, and its attempts to grab all executive and legislative power within reach, including the presidency (after it had said it wouldn’t run a candidate) has led to backlash. Its biggest blunder lay in its persistent efforts to control the makeup of the constitutive assembly tasked with writing the constitution, which pushed excluded political actors to mobilize against it. Such maneuverings likely brought to mind the exclusionary practices of the now-defunct National Democratic Pary (NDP) and resurrected fears of an authoritarian one-party system of the majority that was no less a dictatorship than Mubarak’s. While Morsi certainly has more limited popularity than the disqualified Khairat el-Shater, explaining the decline with such factors is flawed. After all, Morsi was not an independent candidate, but a nominee representing a party with broad support and a reliable bloc of voters—ones that historically endorse the Brotherhood and its principles, regardless of the nominee. In the first round, a vote for Morsi was a vote for the Brotherhood. Even the organization’s former Supreme Guide Mohamed Mehdi Akef publicly acknowledged that the drop from the 10.5 million votes in the People’s Assembly elections to 5.7 million in the first round of the presidential elections indicated that the party lost a significant number of rank-and-file supporters. In a May 27 interview with Al-Arabiyya, Akef even attributed this in part to the Brotherhood’s missteps in parliament. The results of the presidential election also indicate that Egyptians long for civil leadership. Despite Shafiq’s participation in the Mubarak regime, many Egyptians saw him as a protector of a civil state—and voted in kind. This preference was also reflected in the surprisingly strong first round showing of Hamdeen Sabahi, who came in third place, and not far behind the two frontrunners. Despite his campaign’s limited financial resources, Sabahi managed to take almost 21 percent of the vote from urban centers like Cairo, Giza, and Alexandria. Additionally, we cannot ignore that voter turnout in the presidential elections was under 50 percent; meaning that the 5.7 million votes for Morsi in the first round represented a mere 11 percent of the total electorate. As Morsi assumes the challenges of the presidency and attempts to redress the everyday issues of the Egyptians that elected him, the Brotherhood’s popularity is likely to decline further. The FJP may have won the day, but its rise to the presidency will only lead to that much more public scrutiny in its hard-won—and all too easily lost—limelight. Atef al-Saadawy is the managing editor of The Democracy Review Quarterly, a publication of the Al-Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies in Cairo. * This article was translated from Arabic. Presidential election results source Parliamentary election results source Post your comments (2500 character limit. No links or markup permitted. Comments are moderated and may not appear immediately. Screen names appear with your comment.) Follow the conversation Sign up to receive e-mail updates when comments are posted to this article. (Nevermind this field if you have CSS turned off)(Nevermind this field if you have CSS turned off) Characters Used Date Posted | Recommended David very nice article, can i have the email of the writer Recommend Post your comments (2500 character limit. Comments are moderated and may not appear immediately. Screen names appear with your comment.) Comments that include profanity, personal attacks, or other inappropriate material will be removed. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, steps will be taken to block users who violate any of the posting standards, terms of use, privacy policies, or any other policies governing this site. You are fully responsible for the content that you post. #request.siteWordsProperties.get("ClosePanel","Close Panel")# Source: http://carnegieendowment.org/sada/2012/07/12/what-brotherhood-lost/coug Twitter @sadajournal The New Arab Wars The Egyptian State and the Religious Sphere Photo Essay: Worshiping the Egyptian State The Military Economy and the Future of the Private Sector in Egypt Backdrop to an Intervention: Sources of Egyptian-Libyan Border Tension The Sisi Government’s Attempts to Win Over Egypt’s Civil Servants The Arab Region at Tipping Point Egypt, Counterterrorism, and the Politics of Alienation Egypt’s Judiciary, Coopted How Egypt Prolonged the Gaza War Related Carnegie Analysis Syria’s al-Qaeda Wing Searches for a Strategy Five Hidden Risks of U.S. Action Against the Islamic State Obama’s Strategic Gambles in Syria and Iraq Syria’s Ahrar al-Sham Leadership Wiped Out in Bombing The Fight for Raqqa Arab Tribes Split Between Kurds And Jihadists The Struggle for Religious Authority in Syria The Syrian Islamic Council A New Leader for Syria's Muslim Brotherhood? Al-Qaeda Is Dead, Long Live Al-Qaeda Subscribe to Sada: Follow Sada The views expressed in Sada are those of the authors alone, and in no way reflect those of Sada or the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. © Carnegie Endowment for International Peace Carnegie Middle East Center Emir Bechir Street, Lazarieh Tower Bldg. No. 2026 1210, 5th flr. Downtown Beirut P.O.Box 11-1061 Riad El Solh Lebanon P: +961 1 99 12 91 F: +961 1 99 15 91

时政

2014-41/1935/en_head.json.gz/224

CHAIRMAN SMITH RESPONDS TO BRITISH GOVERNMENT RELEASE OF FINUCANE REPORT Washington—In response to the release today of Sir Desmond de Silva’s report on his review of papers relating to the 1989 murder in Northern Ireland of human rights attorney Patrick Finucane, Rep. Chris Smith (NJ-04), Chairman of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe (U.S. Helsinki Commission), released the following statement: The release of this report in no way fulfills the British government’s promise, which it freely undertook in the 2001 Weston Park Agreement, to conduct a public inquiry regarding collusion in the Finucane murder if so recommended by former Canadian Supreme Court Justice Peter Cory. Justice Cory formally recommended such an inquiry in 2004. Since that time the British government has delayed. It has changed its law on public inquiries, so as to give it political control over what in 2001 was a judicial process. It has insulted the Finucane family by calling to London, for a meeting with Prime Minister Cameron, the widow of the man in whose death it admits shocking collusion, only to tell her it will not fulfill its promise. To his credit, the Prime Minister has apologized. But to acknowledge such a serious official crime, yet to say that there will not be an independent judicial investigation nor will those ultimately responsible for this crime be punished, is a grotesque injustice. The British government is a respected friend and ally, yet Sir Desmond de Silva’s document review is in no sense the equivalent of, or substitute for, the public inquiry that was promised in 2001. A public judicial inquiry is owed to the Finucane family and to the people of Northern Ireland. It is a solemn promise, and remains critical to the peace process in Northern Ireland. Time is important in bringing closure to all, and the net effect of the review of papers has been a year’s further delay. Once again I urge Prime Minister Cameron to call a public inquiry now as a demonstration of his personal commitment to justice. Rep. Smith has chaired 13 congressional hearings on the Northern Ireland justice and peace process, many of them focusing on issues of police reform and government collusion in the crimes of paramilitary organizations. Four of Rep. Smith’s bills and resolutions have been passed addressing the British government’s role in the murder of Pat Finucane, most recently H. Con. Res. 20 (110th Congress).

时政

2014-41/1935/en_head.json.gz/225

CSCE :: Statement :: More Democratic Setbacks in Ukraine Washington, Thursday, March 8, 2012 MORE DEMOCRATIC SETBACKS IN UKRAINE Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, last week, former Ukrainian Interior Minister Yuriy Lutsenko was sentenced to four years imprisonment in yet another politically motivated trial. This comes after the imprisonment--also the result of an unfair trial on specious charges--of his ally, former Prime Minister Yuliya Tymoshenko, who continues to languish in prison in ill health. The sentencing of Mr. Lutsenko is a further confirmation that the regime of President Viktor Yanukovych is not taking its OSCE human rights and democracy obligations seriously. The imprisonment of opposition leaders Tymoshenko and Lutsenko prohibits their participation in October's parliamentary elections, raising serious questions about whether Ukraine will meet OSCE election standards. This could be especially troubling given Ukraine's assumption of the OSCE Chairmanship in January, 2013, two months after these elections. As Chairman of the Helsinki Commission, it is also of concern to me and my colleagues, who have long advocated an independent, democratic, and free Ukraine. Mr. Lutsenko's conviction is disconcerting in that it starkly illustrates the deterioration of human rights, democracy and the rule of law under the presidency of Viktor Yanukovych, who has pressed the pause button on Ukraine's once-promising advance towards democracy--and increasingly it seems he is switching to the reverse button. Instead, what we now see is something increasingly reminiscent of the kind of authoritarianism that exists in Russia, Belarus and elsewhere in the post-Soviet space. Ukraine's democratic backsliding is harming relations with the EU and the United States, and both have repeatedly made clear that for relations to improve, respect for human rights and the democratic process must improve. Most importantly, this now two-year deterioration negatively affects the Ukrainian people, who, following the Orange Revolution, had tasted the fruits of freedom, and are now increasingly experiencing the burden of its undoing. It is time for President Yanukovych to show respect for the dignity of his own people by putting an end to political prosecutions and other reprisals against those who oppose him and allow their full participation in political life. In order to find credibility with both the Ukrainian people and the international community, he must end restrictions on freedom of speech and association and reverse the debilitating corruption and judicial subservience to the executive which has so eroded the rule of law. Mr. Speaker, the time has come for the Ukrainian authorities to stop their slide to authoritarianism and resulting isolation which will only harm Ukrainians who for so long--and at such great cost--have struggled for freedom, dignity and justice. Countries

时政

2014-52/4413/en_head.json.gz/6134

Obama: America's possibilities are limitless President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden react during the inaugural parade on Pennsylvania Avenue near the White House, Monday, Jan. 21, 2013, in Washington. Thousands marched during the 57th Presidential Inauguration parade after the ceremonial swearing-in of President Barack Obama. Gerald Herbert/AP Photo By Peter Baker New York Times News Service Washington - Barack Hussein Obama ceremonially opened his second term Monday with an assertive inaugural address that offered a robust articulation of modern liberalism in America, arguing that "preserving our individual freedoms ultimately requires collective action."On a day that echoed with refrains from the civil rights era and tributes to the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., Obama dispensed with the post-partisan appeals of four years ago to lay out a forceful vision of advancing gay rights, showing more tolerance toward illegal immigrants, preserving the social welfare safety net and acting to stop climate change.At times he used his speech, delivered from the West Front of the Capitol, to reprise arguments from the fall campaign, rebutting the notion expressed by conservative opponents that America risks becoming "a nation of takers" and extolling the value of proactive government in society. Instead of declaring the end of "petty grievance," as he did taking the oath as the 44th president in 2009, he challenged Republicans to step back from their staunch opposition to his agenda."Progress does not compel us to settle centuries-old debates about the role of government for all time - but it does require us to act in our time," he said in the 18-minute address. "For now decisions are upon us, and we cannot afford delay. We cannot mistake absolutism for principle or substitute spectacle for politics or treat name-calling as reasoned debate. We must act."Obama used Abraham Lincoln's Bible, as he did four years ago, but this time added King's Bible as well to mark the holiday honoring the civil rights leader. He became the first president to mention the word "gay" in an inaugural address as he equated the drive for same-sex marriage to the quest for racial and gender equality.The festivities at the Capitol came a day after Obama officially took the oath in a quiet ceremony with his family at the White House on the date set by the Constitution. With Inauguration Day falling on a Sunday, the swearing-in was then repeated for an energized mass audience a day later, accompanied by the pomp and parade that typically surrounds the quadrennial tradition.Hundreds of thousands of people gathered on a brisk but bright day, a huge crowd by any measure, although far less than the record turnout four years ago. If the day felt restrained compared with the historic mood the last time, it reflected a more restrained moment in the life of the country. The hopes and expectations that loomed so large with Obama's taking the office in 2009, even amid economic crisis, have long since faded into a starker sense of the limits of his presidency.Now 51 and noticeably grayer, Obama appeared alternately upbeat and reflective. When he re-entered the Capitol at the conclusion of the ceremony, he suddenly stopped his entourage to turn back toward the cheering crowds gathered on the National Mall."I want to take a look one more time," he said. "I'm not going to see this again."If the president was wistful, he was firm in his message. He largely eschewed foreign policy except to recommend engagement over war, instead focusing on addressing poverty and injustice at home. He did little to adopt the language of the opposition, as he has done at moments in the past, and instead directly confronted conservative philosophy."The commitments we make to each other - through Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security - these things do not sap our initiative; they strengthen us," he said. "They do not make us a nation of takers; they free us to take the risks that make this country great."The phrase "nation of takers" was a direct rebuke to Republicans like Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, last year's vice presidential nominee, and several opposition lawmakers took umbrage at the president's tone."I would have liked to see a little more on outreach and working together," said Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the Republican who lost to Obama four years ago. "There was not, as I've seen in other inaugural speeches, 'I want to work with my colleagues."'Rep. Pete Sessions of Texas, a member of the Republican leadership, said that from the opening prayer to the closing benediction, "It was apparent our country's in chaos and what our great president has brought us is upheaval." He added, "We're now managing America's demise, not America's great future."Obama struck a more conciliatory note during an unscripted toast during lunch with congressional leaders in Statuary Hall after the ceremony."Regardless of our political persuasions and perspectives, I know that all of us serve because we believe that we can make America for future generations," he said.For the nation's 57th presidential inauguration, a broad section of downtown Washington was off limits to vehicles and some bridges across the Potomac River were closed to regular traffic, as military Humvees were stationed at strategic locations around the city.Joining the president through the long day were the first lady, Michelle Obama, and their daughters, Malia, 14, and Sasha, 11. The young girls were playful. Malia at one point sneaked up behind her father and cried out, "Boo!" Sasha used a smartphone to take a picture of her parents kissing in the reviewing stand, then made them do it again. Both girls bounced with the martial music at the Capitol.Obama's day began with a service at St. John's Church, across Lafayette Square from the White House, where the Rev. Andy Stanley told him to "leverage that power for the benefit of other people in the room." At the Capitol, Myrlie Evers-Williams, the civil rights leader, delivered the invocation and the Brooklyn Tabernacle Choir performed the "Battle Hymn of the Republic."Obama was more specific in discussing policy than presidents typically are in an Inaugural Address. Particularly noticeable was his recommitment to fighting climate change. "We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations," he said.He made no direct mention of terrorism, the issue that has so consumed the nation for the past decade, but offered a more inward-looking approach to foreign policy, saying that "enduring security and lasting peace do not require perpetual war." He also talked of overhauling immigration rules so "bright young students and engineers are enlisted in our workforce, rather than expelled from our country."For a president who opposed same-sex marriage as recently as nine months ago, the speech was a clear call for gay rights, as he noted the journey "through Seneca Falls and Selma and Stonewall," symbolically linking seminal moments in the struggles for equal rights for women, blacks and gays and lesbians."Our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law - for if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well," he said.The expanse between the Capitol and the Washington Monument was filled with supporters, many of them blacks attending only the second inauguration of a black president. As large TV screens flickered in and out and the audio often warbled, the ceremony was difficult to follow for many braving the Washington chill.The speech was followed by song, poem and benediction from Kelly Clarkson, Richard Blanco, the Rev. Luis Leon and Beyonce. The president and first lady got out of their motorcade twice to walk stretches along Pennsylvania Avenue. Biden and Jill Biden did as well, and the vice president greeted bystanders with gusto.The two families then settled into the specially built bulletproof reviewing stand to watch the parade. Obama, who often uses Nicorette to tame an old smoking habit, was spotted chewing as the bands marched past.By evening, the Obamas were heading out to celebrate, planning to attend two official inaugural balls, down from the 10 four years ago, before returning home for the next phase of their sojourn in the White House. President Barack Obama and first lady Michelle Obama walk the inaugural parade route walk down Pennsylvania Avenue en route to the White House, Monday, Jan. 21, 2013, in Washington. Thousands marched during the 57th Presidential Inauguration parade after the ceremonial swearing-in of President Barack Obama. Gerald Herbert/AP Photo Crowds congregate in The National Mall for the ceremonial swearing-in for President Barack Obama at the U.S. Capitol during the 57th Presidential Inauguration in Washington, Monday, Jan. 21, 2013. Associated Press President Barack Obama smiles as he arrives at St. John's Church in Washington, Monday, Jan. 21, 2013, for a church service during the 57th Presidential Inauguration. AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin President Barack Obama receives the oath of office from Chief Justice John Roberts at the ceremonial swearing-in at the U.S. Capitol during the 57th Presidential Inauguration in Washington, Monday, Jan. 21, 2013. First Lady Michelle Obama holds the bible as daughters Malia and Sasha watch. President Barack Obama salutes as he leaves with his family following the ceremonial swearing-in at the U.S. Capitol during the 57th Presidential Inauguration in Washington Monday, Jan. 21, 2013. Susan Walsh/AP Photo Vice President Joe Biden, left and President Barack Obama wait for their ceremonial swearing-in at the U.S. Capitol during the 57th Presidential Inauguration in Washington, Monday, Jan. 21, 2013. President Barack Obama and first lady Michelle Obama share a dance during the Commander-In-Chief Inaugural ball at the Washington Convention Center during the 57th Presidential Inauguration Monday, Jan. 21, 2013, in Washington. Evan Vucci/AP Photo Nod to Newtown in inaugural address resonates with those attending from Connecticut Shall we dance? 'We, the people' 'Our journey is not complete'

时政

2014-52/4413/en_head.json.gz/6135

Courtney eyes surplus equipment during Afghanistan trip From left, Congressmen Bill Flores, R-Texas, Rob Wittman, R-Va., and Joe Courtney, D-2nd District, tour a depot in Afghanistan Saturday where the U.S. Army is sorting and packaging equipment in preparation for the drawdown of U.S. forces in the country. Courtesy Department of Defense In Afghanistan this weekend, Congressman Joe Courtney said he saw billions of dollars of equipment already packed and ready to be shipped home.Inside a Kabul storage depot, Courtney said, there was a massive parking area lined with Stryker vehicles, Humvees and mine-resistant, ambush-protected vehicles.An incredible variety of equipment has accumulated in Afghanistan over the course of the 12-year war, Courtney, D-2nd District, said. And, he added, the stockpile includes equipment the military no longer needs - equipment that financially strapped state and local governments, National Guard units and police departments would love to have.The military isn't going to part with its expensive combat vehicles, he said, but many other things could become available, from firetrucks and air conditioners to communications equipment, engine parts and tents.As part of a three-day trip to Afghanistan with four other representatives on the House Armed Services Committee and a member of the House Budget Committee, Courtney toured the depot where equipment is sent as forward operating bases close or transfer to the Afghan forces. Courtney has now been to Afghanistan four times since being elected to the House in 2006.After the war in Iraq ended, officials in state and local governments could ask the Pentagon to send them supplies the military didn't need anymore. But, Courtney said, there wasn't a system in place for these officials to find out what was available.The House Armed Services Committee will begin working on its version of the defense authorization act next month. Courtney said language could be added to the bill to set up a better system for distributing equipment, so Connecticut and other states can benefit from the surplus. He said he envisions a searchable website, similar to the current site that lists available federal grants."It's not like you can pull up the classified ads section and see what the Pentagon has," he said. "That's where we should focus, in terms of helping state and local governments and the National Guard get the best information about what's coming back. They're doing incredibly painstaking work going through the depot, boxing stuff up and making meticulous records. The question is, what is going to happen to all of that?"The depot, Courtney said, was "powerful evidence" that control of Afghanistan is shifting to the Afghans.Courtney and the delegation also visited Bagram Airfield and met with a group that works to counter improvised explosive devises. The methods developed overseas were used to ensure the area near the Boston Marathon finish line was clear after two bombs detonated there, Courtney said."The folks there felt extremely connected to the efforts of the police in Boston," he said.The group traveled to Kandahar, which has been a hotbed of insurgent activity in Afghanistan. Kandahar is significantly calmer since the surge of U.S. troops there, and the transfer of responsibility is almost complete, Courtney said.Some of the soldiers, however, did say they were concerned about the recent attacks on U.S. forces by members of the Afghan forces, he added. Army Capt. Andrew Michael Pedersen-Keel of Madison was killed in March by a member of the Afghan National Police, according to the governor's office.Courtney said the best protection for U.S. forces may be the change in their role, from partners in the field to now trainers, since they will be less exposed. President Barack Obama has said that most troops would be home from Afghanistan by the end of 2014.Before leaving the region, Courtney visited Navy and Coast Guard units in Bahrain. The leaders in the U.S. 5th Fleet in Bahrain are grappling with the cancellation of an aircraft carrier deployment to the region because of the automatic budget cuts, known as sequestration, but they spoke highly of the submarine force's role in countering the buildup of the Iranian submarine fleet and the Coast Guard's efforts to patrol the Gulf, Courtney said.j.mcdermott@theday.com

时政

2014-52/4413/en_head.json.gz/6183

Charles Krauthammer; Why we give foreign aid Sequestration is not the best time to be doling out foreign aid, surely the most unpopular item in the federal budget. Especially when the recipient is President Mohamed Morsi of Egypt.Morsi is intent on getting the release of Omar Abdel-Rahman (the Blind Sheik), serving a life sentence for masterminding the 1993 World Trade Center attack that killed six and wounded more than a thousand. Morsi's Muslim Brotherhood is openly anti-Christian, anti-Semitic and otherwise prolifically intolerant. Just three years ago, Morsi called on Egyptians to nurse their children and grandchildren on hatred for Jews, whom he has called "the descendants of apes and pigs."Not exactly Albert Schweitzer. Or even Anwar Sadat. Which left a bad taste when Secretary of State John Kerry, traveling to Cairo, handed Morsi a cool $250 million. (A tenth of which would cover about 25 years of White House tours, no longer affordable under sequestration. Says the administration.)Nonetheless, we should not cut off aid to Egypt. It's not that we must blindly support unfriendly regimes. It is perfectly reasonable to cut off aid to governments that are intrinsically hostile and beyond our influence. Subsidizing enemies is merely stupid.But Egypt is not an enemy, certainly not yet. It may no longer be our strongest Arab ally, but it is still in play. The Brotherhood aims to establish an Islamist dictatorship. Yet it remains a considerable distance from having done so.Precisely why we should remain engaged. And engagement means using our economic leverage.Morsi has significant opposition. Six weeks ago, powerful anti-Brotherhood demonstrations broke out in major cities and have continued sporadically ever since. The presidential election that Morsi won was decided quite narrowly - three points, despite the Brotherhood's advantage of superior organization and a history of social service.Moreover, having forever been in opposition, on election day the Islamists escaped any blame for the state of the country. Now in power, they begin to bear responsibility for Egypt's miserable conditions - a collapsing economy, rising crime, social instability. Their aura is already dissipating.There is nothing inevitable about Brotherhood rule. The problem is that the secular democratic parties are fractured, disorganized and lacking in leadership. And are repressed by the increasingly authoritarian Morsi.His partisans have attacked demonstrators in Cairo. His security forces killed more than 40 in Port Said. He's been harassing journalists, suppressing freedom of speech, infiltrating the military and trying to subjugate the courts. He's already rammed through an Islamist constitution. He is now trying to tilt, even rig, parliamentary elections to the point that the opposition called for a boycott and an administrative court has just declared a suspension of the vote.Any foreign aid we give Egypt should be contingent upon a reversal of this repression and a granting of space to secular, democratic, pro-Western elements.That's where Kerry committed his mistake. Not in trying to use dollar diplomacy to leverage Egyptian behavior, but by exercising that leverage almost exclusively for economic, rather than political, reform.Kerry's major objective was getting Morsi to apply for a $4.8 billion loan from the International Monetary Fund. Considering that some of this $4.8 billion ultimately comes from us, there's a certain comic circularity to this demand. What kind of concession is it when a foreign government is coerced into . taking yet more of our money?We have no particular stake in Egypt's economy. Our stake is in its politics. Yes, we would like to see a strong economy. But in a country ruled by the Muslim Brotherhood?Our interest is in a non-Islamist, nonrepressive, nonsectarian Egypt, ruled as democratically as possible. Why should we want a vibrant economy that maintains the Brotherhood in power? Our concern is Egypt's policies, foreign and domestic.If we're going to give foreign aid, it should be for political concessions - on unfettered speech, on an opposition free of repression, on alterations to the Islamist constitution, on open and fair elections.We give foreign aid for two reasons: (a) to support allies who share our values and our interests, and (b) to extract from less-than-friendly regimes concessions that either bring their policies more in line with ours or strengthen competing actors more favorably inclined toward American objectives.That's the point of foreign aid. It's particularly important in countries like Egypt whose fate is in the balance. But it will only work if we remain clear-eyed about why we give all that money in the first place.Charles Krauthammer is a columnist with The Washington Post.

时政

2014-52/4413/en_head.json.gz/6258

Search Main menuHomeStoriesRegionsSocials Secondary menuSubscribeAboutState.gov You are hereIssues » Arms Control and International Security A Look Back at U.S. Engagement in the Western Hemisphere Posted by Arturo A. Valenzuela January 2, 2010 President Obama Arrives at Fifth Summit of the Americas About the Author: Arturo A. Valenzuela serves as Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs. The arrival of the Obama administration in 2009 meant a new era of engagement with our partners in the Western Hemisphere. I will use this blog post as a chance to look back on several formative events of the past year that have helped define our commitment to the region. • President Barack Obama's Inaugural Address, January 20, 2009: Like audiences throughout the world, millions of citizens in the Western Hemisphere tuned in to hear President Obama's inaugural address. President Obama communicated the United States' willingness to lead, taking the first step forward in establishing our foreign policy posture: "[A]nd so, to all the other peoples and governments who are watching today, from the grandest capitals to the small village where my father was born, know that America is a friend of each nation, and every man, woman and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity. And we are ready to lead once more.” Read more. • President Obama's travel to the region: In a nod to the broad scope of our relationship with Mexico, the President kept with longstanding tradition and met with Mexican President Felipe Calderon in December 2008 while he was still President-elect. Following inauguration, President Obama's first official foreign visit was to Ottawa on February 19, where he met with Prime Minister Stephen Harper and other Canadian government officials. President Obama participated in the 5th Summit of the Americas (see below) in April 2009 where he had the chance to meet all the democratically elected leaders of the Western Hemisphere. • Secretary Clinton's travel to the region: Secretary Clinton's first visit to the region was to Mexico City and Monterrey, Mexico on March 25 and 26, 2009. The Secretary emphasized the breadth and depth of the U.S. relationship with Mexico, and publicly recognized our “shared responsibility” with the Mexican government, Colombia, and partners in Central America and the Caribbean to combat organized crime and illicit trafficking. The Secretary has logged an incredible number of miles in the Western Hemisphere since taking office, making four trips to the region and visiting seven countries since February 2009. • Reaching out to the Cuban people: The State Department remains concerned about human rights conditions in Cuba. On April 13, 2009, President Obama announced a series of changes in U.S. policy to reach out to the Cuban people in support of their desire to freely determine their country's future. The State Department is working to support the President's vision to help bridge the gap among divided Cuban families and promote the free flow of information and humanitarian items to the Cuban people. We are also engaging the Cuban government when it advances U.S. national interests and contributes to the safety and welfare of our citizens. For example, we re-established migration talks and launched discussions on the reestablishment of direct mail service between our two countries. Read more. • Renewed partnership with Haiti: On April 14, 2009, Secretary Clinton took part in a Haiti Donors Conference hosted by the Inter-American Development Bank. Renewing the U.S. commitment to Haiti, Secretary Clinton announced that the State Department and USAID would undertake a review of our Haiti policy -- critically evaluating our existing programs and policies, assessing the alignment of our programming with conditions and priorities established by the Haitian government, and designing a diplomatic and development approach that seizes on the current set of opportunities both in Haiti and across the international public and private sectors to catalyze economic growth and ensure long-term stability. • 5th Summit of the Americas, Trinidad & Tobago, April 2009: Leaders from throughout the Americas came together to address challenging issues including the global financial crisis, citizen safety and financial inclusion. President Obama said: “I pledge to you that we seek an equal partnership. There is no senior partner and junior partner in our relations; there is simply engagement based on mutual respect and common interests and shared values. So I'm here to launch a new chapter of engagement that will be sustained throughout my administration….” Read more about the Summit. • General Assembly of the Organization of American States (OAS), San Pedro Sula, Honduras, June 2009: On June 3, 2009, OAS members removed an historical impediment to Cuba's participation in the OAS by establishing a process of engagement with Cuba based on the core practices, principles, and purposes of the OAS and the Inter-American system. OAS members bridged an historic divide in the Americas, while reaffirming our commitment to democracy and the fundamental human rights of our peoples. Read more. • Achieving prosperity for all our citizens: Secretary Clinton engaged with Pathways to Prosperity partner nations during the May 2009 meeting in El Salvador to discuss how we can collectively achieve shared prosperity in the hemisphere, integrating our commitment to democracy and open markets with an equal commitment to social inclusion. During her remarks, the Secretary stated: “The President and I are also committed to re-launching Pathways to Prosperity, and expanding its work to spread the benefits of economic recovery, growth, and open markets to the most vulnerable and marginalized citizens of our region.” In September 2009, this commitment was demonstrated when Secretary Clinton launched the Inter-American Social Protection Network (IASPN) at an OAS event in New York. The IASPN is a forum for countries of the Western Hemisphere to share best practices on how to lift our citizens out of poverty through programs such as conditional cash transfers. Later in October 2009, we hosted the Pathways to Prosperity Women Entrepreneurs Conference in which participants created a network to promote access to markets, finance and training for women throughout the region to stimulate economic growth. • Citizen safety: Our engagement with the Western Hemisphere is critical to advancing our national interests, including the safety of our citizens. Through various programs"including the Merida Initiative, our collaboration with Mexico and Canada in the North American Leaders' Summit, and the Caribbean Basin Security Initiative, we are working to build and strengthen partnerships to better address a range of security-related issues, from transnational criminal cartels, to preparedness for the H1N1 influenza. • Commitment to 21st Century Statecraft: Secretary Clinton hosted the first digital town hall of her tenure on April 17, 2009 in the Dominican Republic on the eve of her travel to the Summit of the Americas. We organized senior delegations of technologists to visit Ciudad Juarez and Mexico City to explore how technology could better help Mexican citizens engage against narco-violence. We also hosted the third Alliance of Youth Movements (AYM) Summit in Mexico City in October 2009. Secretary Clinton delivered a video message to AYM participants. • Coup in Honduras, June 2009: The region's approach to Honduras represents a critical example of how our hemisphere can come together in support of the collective defense of democracy. The response to this crisis by the international community, the OAS and the United States show that the region is ready to stand up and prevent backsliding wherever democratic rights and practices are challenged. This was an historic advance, and we continue to support President-elect Lobo's call for the full implementation of the Tegucigalpa San Jose Accord. 2009 has been an exciting year in terms of our relationships -- both bilaterally and multilaterally -- with the nations of the Western Hemisphere. In some cases these are preliminary steps and critical work remains to be done. While I highlight above some of the milestones that shape our relationship with the Hemisphere, the picture is incomplete without recognizing the myriad people-to-people interactions our Embassy and Consulate officials have each day. From supporting English-language courses for Afro-Colombians, to working with indigenous populations in Mexico, to running baseball clinics in Venezuela, to helping provide HIV-AIDS testing in Haiti, State Department officials throughout the Hemisphere are constantly showing that the United States stands ready to partner with nations in the region that share our ideals of better democratic governance, rule of law, and respect for human and civil rights. Next week, I will continue the conversation on the challenges we will meet moving ahead, how we will develop our partnerships, and our plans to pursue active diplomacy in support of social and economic inclusion, enhanced citizen safety, and support for democratic rights and good governance. I invite your feedback in this space on these objectives. Until then: Happy New Year! Feliz año nuevo! Feliz ano novo! Bonne annee!Stay tuned @WHAAsstSecty. Brian C. | Pennsylvania, USA January 2, 2010 Ari C. in Pennsylvania writes: Dear State Department Colleagues et al, Happy New Year 2010 everyone. The increased engagement in the Western Hemisphere is really a very good thing for 2009-2010+. Talking more with our friends and not so friendly global partners enhances peace, directly. Keep up the good work and G-d Bless ya'll, Dr. Ari Cole (R-PA) Team Cole for 2016 Susan C. | Florida, USA January 4, 2010 Susan C. in Florida writes: I read this posting with great interest. I am glad that President Obama, and Secretary Clinton, have spent this past year keeping President Obama's inaugural pledge "to lead once more". I am especially hopeful that we will continue to reach out to Cuba and the Cuban people. Our approach over the last fifty years has accomplished very little. We need to change our approach and our attitudes toward Cuba. We deal with, and trade with, many nations that do not honor human rights. Certainly China, Vietnam, Saudi Arabia, and, yes, Russia, all come to mind. Why not deal with Cuba in the same "open-minded" way? It would benefit all involved...the Cuban people here, and in Cuba. Why not give it a try? South Korea January 7, 2010 Palgye in South Korea writes: courage. Michelle Wing Kwan demonstration games Saw well. By the way, not to be courage and the sample thing not to talk is inconvenient highly. Short time the photograph which when has a time will take and will have a conversation. If the goal was the photograph and talk, I had a surplus and Michelle Wing Kwan and i got accompanied by one day i had but the chance which will inform degree Korea and the company and, There is not a courage and neither the name calls once well cannot. When will see again? Is a superior player but from the person whom does more inconvenience remains the contribution which is special more in everybody. When is possible and the maximum many Americans and tries to contact wants. Online R. | United States January 6, 2010 O.T.R. in U.S.A. writes: Participated in the drafting of the Inter-American Democratic Charter, signed in Lima on September 11, 2001. At the U.S.-hosted OAS General Assembly we worked actively with our hemispheric partners on the Declaration of Florida, which calls for a strengthened role for the OAS Secretary General to propose timely application of the Charter and other initiatives to enhance democratic governance in the hemisphere. Francisco P. | District Of Columbia, USA January 7, 2010 Francisco P. in Washington, DC writes: The Inter-American Social Protection Network promises to be a powerful tool to advance the integrated approach to human rights, democracy and development, as outlined by Secretary Clinton in her recent Georgetown speech. At the OAS, the Department of Social Development and Employment coordinates the IASPN, and we invite you to check our web page for upcoming activities and events regarding this hemispheric initiative: http://www.sedi.oas.org/ddse/english/default.asp Saludos, Francisco Pilotti Evans A. | California, USA January 7, 2010 Evans A. in California writes: I am particularly pleased with the engaged interest this present administration is showing in the Cuba government, i will be most pleased if it is realized.I am really curious especially when the interest is conditioned on the premise of their government advancing U.S. national interests and contributes to the safety and welfare of U.S citizens.It will be great if one could know what does interest are. I really think the Cuba people needs our assistance in different ways and we should not deny them any help. Chance H. | District Of Columbia, USA January 11, 2010 Chance H. in Washington, DC writes: It's been a terrible start for Obama in the Americas. DeMint and the extreme right-wingers have been running the show and Team Obama thinks things are going great. The old team at State never missed an opportunity to alienate people and grow our list of enemies in Latin America. We can only hope the new team is less interested in petty name calling. We are in a deep hole. It does not appear that our diplomatic corps is capable of the critical reflection required to improve U.S. standing in the Hemisphere. Arrogance seems so deeply ingrained in our foreign policy establishment, it would be hard to imagine that Obama's pledge of partnership will ever come about. We'll see if they mend fences with Ecuador and build a regional alliance to deal with the Colombia refugee crisis. We'll see if they can rebuild tattered relations with Bolivia on the basis of something more than coca eradication. The IASPN is a perfect platform to partner with governments that are investing to cut reduce poverty. We'll see how far we go to assist in this area. We'll see if we end the embargo in Cuba and begin to approach that country with a little more pragmatism and humility. Obviously, we'd all like to see the Cuban government open up and improve it human rights record, but it hardly seems that threatening the governments existence brings us closer to that goal. There are plenty of opportunities, but our dip corps has shown little interest in being real partners. U.S. diplomacy stumbles in Latin America http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-fg-obama-latin3-2010jan0... EMILY January 21, 2010 Emily writes: Previous: A New Year for Sudan »« Next: U.S. State Department Honors State Alumni Member of the Month . Top stories delivered to your inbox. Related Stories Celebrating World Press Freedom Today and Every Day Defusing Gang Problems in Belize President Obama Reaffirms the U.S.-Mexico Relationship Latest Stories President Obama Meets With Secretary Clinton Writing for the U.S. Department of State DipNote blog, DipNote Bloggers highlight President Barack Obama's meeting with U.S. Secretary of… more 18 A New Era of Engagement Today, Secretary Clinton delivered a sweeping policy speech at the Council on Foreign Relations. Today, at the Council on Foreign… more 1 American Harmonies in Chihuahua Writing for the U.S. Department of State DipNote blog, Silvio Gonzalez provides a behind the scenes look at the musical… more 1

时政

2014-52/4413/en_head.json.gz/6397

Salisbury Wants To Discuss Redistricting With ACLU Posted on 04/12/2012 by Staff Writer SALISBURY — In light of concerns raised over the election redistricting proposals last week by the Maryland branch of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the Salisbury City Council intends to meet with the organization’s representatives to go through a “more formalized process,” according to Council President Terry Cohen. The council hopes to iron out any issues with redistricting plans that could drag the matter through a lengthy court process, though officials warn that redistricting will end up in front of a judge no matter how polished it is. “There is legislation pending,” city attorney Mark Tilghman reminded the council. Last week the ACLU sent a letter to the city critiquing the three redistricting plans being offered by Mayor Jim Ireton and offering three of their own proposals as alternatives. “They don’t really endorse any of the mayor’s proposals,” said Tilghman. There were a variety of reasons for the ACLU’s pushback against Ireton’s drafts. “Essentially, [the ACLU] doesn’t support any at-large districts,” noted Cohen. One of Ireton’s plans does call for a seven-member council, with five district seats and two at-large seats open for anyone in the city, which the ACLU opposes as traditionally unfair to minorities. Other problems the organization took with Ireton’s proposals included the fact that they left elections staggered, as they currently are, so the whole council would not come up for re-election at one time. Additionally, there were complaints about how three of the council incumbents would be bunched into the same district under some of Ireton’s plans, forcing them to run against each other for the same seat. “You don’t want to use an ‘administrative scheme’ to break [incumbency] up,” noted Cohen. On the heels of the letter, Councilwoman Shanie Shields was all for setting up an official meeting with ACLU representatives to gather their input and insight on redistricting. “That would be a step that I would take,” she said. “I was hoping the council would do that first.” Councilmember Deborah Campbell reminded Shields that the council has already held a number of public work sessions and hearings where members of the ACLU could have chimed in and discussed redistricting, but chose not to. “This is the time for that kind of input and dialogue to take place,” she said. Cohen agreed that community interest in the issue seemed tepid at best. “During the public forums, we didn’t exactly get our doors beaten down,” she said. However, Councilwoman Laura Mitchell argued that there was a difference between opening the floor to the public and actually reaching out to the ACLU as an organization. “I think it is incumbent upon us to invite them to a meeting,” she said. As far as cooperation goes, Mitchell felt that the council has made gestures but not yet fully committed. “We’ve said it but we’re not walking the walk,” she said. After deliberating in closed session, the council agreed unanimously to extend a formal invitation to the ACLU asking them to weigh in on re-districting. The council also decided that, no matter which proposal is eventually adopted, the city would like to eliminate staggered elections so that all council seats are up for re-election at the same time.

时政

2014-52/4413/en_head.json.gz/6519

White House: Israel has right to defend itself By JIM KUHNHENNAssociated Press ABOARD AIR FORCE ONE � The White House on Saturday defended Israel�s right to defend itself against attack and decide how to respond to rocket fire from the Gaza Strip, blaming the ruling Islamic militant Hamas group for starting the conflict. Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu are in agreement that a de-escalation of the violence is preferred, provided that Hamas stops sending rocket into Israel, deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes told reporters during the president�s flight on Air Force One to Asia. Israel launched the offensive on Wednesday by assassinating Hamas� military commander, but Rhodes said the U.S. believes �the precipitating factor for the conflict was the rocket fire coming out of Gaza. We believe Israel has a right to defend itself, and they�ll make their own decisions about the tactics they use in that regard.� He added, �These rockets have been fired into Israeli civilian areas and territory for some time now. So Israelis have endured far too much of a threat from these rockets for far too long, and that is what led the Israelis to take the action that they did in Gaza.� The Israeli government has called up thousands of reservists and massed troops, tanks and other armored vehicles along the border with Gaza, signaling a ground invasion could be imminent. Obama has spoken with President Mohammed Morsi of Egypt and Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey about the situation. �They have the ability to play a constructive role in engaging Hamas and encouraging a process of de-escalation,� Rhodes said. Israel on Saturday hit Gaza with nearly 200 airstrikes, expanding an aerial assault to include the prime minister�s headquarters, a police compound and a vast network of smuggling tunnels. �We wouldn�t comment on specific targeting choices by the Israelis other than to say that we of course always underscore the importance of avoiding civilian casualties,� Rhodes said. �But the Israelis again will make judgments about their military operations.� Forty-two Palestinians, including 13 civilians, and three Israelis have been killed in this past week�s fighting.

时政

2014-52/4413/en_head.json.gz/6550

SAMPLE PLAY AUDIO SAMPLE http%3A%2F%2Fsamples.audible.com%2Fbk%2Ftant%2F002908%2Fbk_tant_002908_sample.mp3+flashcontent1JG66MQEM4GKS5Y4D2QE0 The Secretary: A Journey with Hillary Clinton from Beirut to the Heart of American Power Written by: Kim Ghattas Narrated by: Kate Reading 3.70 (43 ratings) In November 2008, Hillary Clinton agreed to work for her former rival. As President Barack Obama's secretary of state, she set out to repair America's image around the world - and her own. For the following four years, BBC foreign correspondent Kim Ghattas had unparalleled access to Clinton and her entourage, and she weaves a fast-paced, gripping account of life on the road with Clinton in The Secretary. In November 2008, Hillary Clinton agreed to work for her former rival. As President Barack Obama's secretary of state, she set out to repair America's image around the world - and her own. For the following four years, BBC foreign correspondent Kim Ghattas had unparalleled access to Clinton and her entourage, and she weaves a fast-paced, gripping account of life on the road with Clinton in The Secretary. With the perspective of one who is both an insider and an outsider, Ghattas draws on extensive interviews with Clinton, administration officials, and players in Washington as well as overseas, to paint an intimate and candid portrait of one of the most powerful global politicians. Filled with fresh insights, The Secretary provides a captivating analysis of Clinton's brand of diplomacy and the Obama administration's efforts to redefine American power in the twenty-first century. Populated with a cast of real-life characters, The Secretary tells the story of Clinton's transformation from popular but polarizing politician to America's envoy to the world in compelling detail and with all the tension of high stakes diplomacy. From her evolving relationship with President Obama to the drama of WikiLeaks and the turmoil of the Arab Spring, we see Clinton cheerfully boarding her plane at three in the morning after no sleep, reading the riot act to the Chinese, and going through her diplomatic checklist before signing on to war in Libya-all the while trying to restore American leadership in a rapidly changing world. Viewed through Ghattas's vantage point as a half-Dutch, half-Lebanese citizen who grew up in the crossfire of the Lebanese civil war, The Secretary is also the author's own journey as she seeks to answer the questions that haunted her childhood. How powerful is America really? And, if it is in decline, who or what will replace it and what will it mean for America and the world? ©2013 Kim Ghattas (P)2013 Tantor The Way of Kings (Unabridged) The Beautiful American (Unabridged) Words of Radiance So hooked by audio that I have to read books aloud. *If my reviews help, please let me know. "Never got to the heart..." ...unless the author is using this as a metaphor, saying that Hillary Clinton has such a heart...I don't know; I'm confused.A more fitting title may have been THE BBC CORRESPONDENT: flights with Hillary Clinton. The title, as is, seems misleading, adding to my confusion--and I'm blaming the author. With her childhood recollections of growing up in war torn Lebanon (and her subsequent disappointment in America) sandwiched between information we already know regarding Clinton's political trips, and banal info about the condition of the plane, the food, the bad schedules, Clinton's cheerful group sits, her toe nail polish choices...Ghattas didn't seem to have a clear flight plan, so to speak. I wasn't expecting to hear so much about Ghattas and her views on America's decline in power and popularity, and so little about Clinton's views on the heart of American Power. (That decline aspect would have been an interesting book providing the premise was well supported and not just Ghattas' opinion.)I'd like to have heard about Clinton's milestones during her time as the Secretary of State; what were her initial goals and what she felt she accomplished; what did she see as the biggest deterrents to achieving the priorities she had; her experience with No. Korea, and her opinions of where the current situation there is going; and I'd like to have had an *inside look" at her assessment of Obama; how she developed a relationship with her opponent; her plans for the future...I could come up with a whole legal pad list of things I'd like to have learned from this book--and not one of them would have been the color of Clinton's toenails, (something I'd expect to be left to Barbara Walters as additional ammunition to besmirch the office of the Secretary of State). There was nothing of substance (new), especially when held up to a current portrait of America, or even the possible America of the future. Anything of political importance, we've read already; anything that may have been an *insider-only look* at Clinton... can be summed up in the first 6 letters of the word Secretary (still). I still haven't figured out exactly the intention of this book . It was at times interesting, Ghattas perspective was fresh, and it was a harmless 2 1/2 star listen. (And I'd love to read a review on this by Hillary Clinton.) Santa Cruz, CA, United States I am an avid eclectic reader. "Informative & enlightening book" If you are looking for a scholarly biography of Hillary Clinton this in not the book. This is a story of a BBC foreign correspondent who was attached to the State Department (U.S.). She has an office in the press section at the Harry Truman building in Washington and flies every where with Clinton on the Secretary's plane. Kim Ghattas was born in Lebanon (half Lebanese/Dutch) during the civil war and the occupation by Syria. She grew up wondering why the U.S. didn't help them. Kim provides a thoughtful commentary of the varied trips, with insight brought from her own life while growing up in Lebanon during the civil war. I found it interesting to have behind the scene look at what the travelling group of reporters face during trips such as, unexpected changes in itinerary, running out of food, no place to sleep, sudden changes in weather etc. It is also interesting that Clinton and her staff faced many of the same problems. It was apparent that Ghattas admired Clinton but that did not stop her from covering mistakes made by Clinton. Ghattas makes it clear from the beginning with an interview with Clinton what the goal of her term as Secretary of State was. To rebuild American relationships with all countries and improve the image of America. She set off on trips to visit heads of states but unlike other Secretaries she went out to meet the people of the country and held town hall meeting with students, and women. She answered all questions and "listened" to what the had to say. I really liked her response to complaints by the Pakistan student who complained America was controlling them by giving them money. She told him they did not have to take the money. That set them back a bit and they had no response to that. In the book she faced many challenges such as China, Israel/Palestine and Netanyahu; sinking of South Korean naval corvette Cheonan by North Korea, Wiki-leaks (that causes enormous work by Clinton and her staff detailed in the book) Arab Spring (Tunis, Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Bahrain, and Syria), Japanese Fukushima reactor melt down. In her interviews with Clinton Ghattas said Clinton was implementing "Smart diplomacy" and this had not been tried before. The book shows the dedication and hard work of the thousands of people in our diplomatic corp around the world. It also demonstrated from an inside view how hard the staff around Clinton work so she could have all the latest information and taking care of every minute of every day of her work life. The key item in the book is that the view point is from an outsider looking in at America, she provides comments and insight into the feelings and view points of the people Clinton visited that an American would not have. Makes it interesting indeed. The test of all her work with China came to ahead with the blind lawyer seeking asylum in the U.S. Clinton handled it quietly and expertly so relationship with China was not effected and human rights applied. Kate Reading did a good job narrating the book Regardless of your personal or political opinion of Hillary Clinton, the Obama administration or America's current military involvement this book is worth reading on several levels. . "Too Long and Too detailed" Would you try another book from Kim Ghattas and/or Kate Reading? Not in the near future The insights into starting out in such a demanding position. What did you like about the performance? What did you dislike? Did not like the drone of the narrator. Liked some of the intimate details about being in Hillaryland. Do you think The Secretary needs a follow-up book? Why or why not? "What a fascinating perspective" I've always admired Hillary Clinton and was interested in hearing about her role as Secretary of State. The story was told from the perspective of the Lebanese-born journalist, Kim Ghattas. Because of Ms. Ghattas' background, the story was even more interesting. The detailed narrations of world events over the last few years was memorable -- and the insights into Hillary's role in these events makes my respect for her soar. The author yearned for more than 20 years to understand the role of the United States in the Lebanon/Syrian war. Yet, she glosses over the final chapter in Hillary's role as Secretary of State: Libya. The families of those who were killed in Libya and the rest of us caring Americans will agonize for the rest of our lives over actions that could have been taken to prevent their deaths. Had Ms. Ghattas spoken honestly about this unfortunate episode, I would have given her a 5++ for the book. More Less Geraldine Royal Oak, MI, United States "Enlightening and Powerful" Would you recommend this audiobook to a friend? If so, why? This is such an important book, as it skillfully interweaves the author's autobiographical account of middle east events, a detailed history of the region and its players, as well as educating us about the complex interconnections between middle eastern countries and their relationships with the U.S. Gives us a true appreciation of Hillary Clinton, her superior job as Secretary of State, and her importance in world history. What was the most compelling aspect of this narrative? After hearing the "bonus" interview of the author at the end of the narration, realized how similar the narrator's voice was to the author's. Enjoyed this added dimension to the narration. Also liked the change in character and voices throughout the book. Which character – as performed by Kate Reading – was your favorite? The author herself, as well as Hillary's voice (which was sometimes humorous!). "A nuanced insider / outsider perspective" I found this audiobook fascinating: It reinforced for me that not only are politics local, they're personal as well. It's not possible to successfully negotiate with another party (whether it be an individual or a country's ambassador) without truly listening to the other party and sincerely responding to their concerns... Kim Ghattas's book indicates Hillary Clinton understood this need as Secretary of State. Ghattas provides a unique insider / outsider perspective as a BBC correspondent who grew up in Lebanon and became part of the press contingent accompanying Secretary of State Hillary Clinton around the globe. Ghattas contrasted her perspective as a child growing up in war-torn Lebanon against insights she gained by speaking "on background" with Clinton and other U.S. officials, and how she began to realize that foreign policy frequently engendered difficult decisions not lightly made nor easily executed. Clinton is an interesting public figure but Ghattas's insider / outsider perspective makes this book even more interesting and nuanced. Kate Reading's narration was enjoyable and she easily transitioned from the author's perspective to voicing Hillary's broad midwestern accent. I enjoyed this audiobook and recommend it to anyone interested in learning more about U.S. foreign policy during Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State. Bulldogscm Burlington, Vermont, United States Did you ever get the feeling that the world was a tuxedo and you were a pair of brown shoes? "Was Looking for Something Different" I truly wanted to like this book. Kate Reading did a great job performing the text but the text itself was fairly poor. I felt that this book focused more on Ghattas than about Clinton.I was looking for something more about Clinton's focus on policy and her relationship(s) within the State Department, the White House and across the world. Instead, I felt that the book was more about Ghettas and her experiences and Clinton was more of a backdrop and convenient cover to promote herself by using her close proximity to Clinton as a BBC Reporter. Towards the end of the audiobook, I was really looking for it to end. If Ghattas focused more on the actual foreign policy and on Clinton herself then I would have enjoyed this audiobook much more. Annette Leck asleck "Worst book I have listened to" This book wasn’t for you, but who do you think might enjoy it more? No oneAuthor has no talent. She was a minor player on Hillary's team. Was not privy to any real meetings. Why did she think she could tell a story about what she did not know about. What could Kim Ghattas have done to make this a more enjoyable book for you? Not write it What reaction did this book spark in you? Anger, sadness, disappointment? Disappointment Any additional comments? Kour book club chose it, so I read it.other wise I would have turned the audio off and called it you win some you lose some

时政

2014-52/4413/en_head.json.gz/6602

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

2014-52/4413/en_head.json.gz/6614

Egypt's new president: U.S.-educated Islamist updated 9:40 PM EDT, Sun June 24, 2012 Thousands in Cairo's Tahrir Square erupt in cheers as Mohamed Morsi is named president Educated in the United States, Morsi has long been a behind-the-scenes party figure He has argued for barring women from the presidency and called Israeli leaders "vampires" Morsi leads the Freedom and Justice Party, political wing of Muslim Brotherhood Editor's note: Read more about Egypt's historic presidential election at CNNArabic.com. (CNN) -- The first leader in Egypt's history to win a democratic election is a study in contrasts: a strict Islamist educated in southern California, who vowed to stand for women's rights yet argued for banning them from the presidency. Mohamed Morsi, 60, was declared president Sunday after he took 52% of the vote to 48% for former Hosni Mubarak official Ahmed Shafik. During the historic campaign for president, Morsi said he would support democracy, women's rights and peaceful relations with Israel if he won. But has also argued called Israeli leaders "vampires" and "killers." One analyst describes him as an "icon" of those seeking an "extreme agenda." Morsi's biggest challenges Mohamed Morsi elected Egypt's president Who is Egypt's Mohamed Morsi? 'Morsi win would be huge for Brotherhood' Egyptians protest ahead of poll result He was arrested several times under President Hosni Mubarak's regime for protesting "repressive measures and oppressive practices," as well as "rigged elections," his party said during the campaign. At one point, he spent seven months in jail. Thousands of people gathered in stifling hot temperatures in Cairo's Tahrir Square erupted in cheers following the announcement that he had won. Are you there? Share your images. Morsi leads the Freedom and Justice Party, the political wing of the Muslim Brotherhood. Egypt's oldest and best-organized political movement, the Brotherhood won the largest share of seats in parliamentary elections earlier this year. But Egypt's highest court dissolved the legislature on June 14. Morsi focused his campaign on appealing to the broadest possible audience. But he "represents the older, more conservative wing of the Brotherhood and openly endorses a strict Islamic vision," Isobel Coleman of the Council on Foreign Relations wrote in a column for CNN.com. A slogan associated with his campaign, "Islam is the solution," sparked concerns that Morsi could introduce a fundamentalist Islamic theocracy. He told CNN during the campaign that he had no such plans. His party seeks "an executive branch that represents the people's true will and implements their public interests," Morsi told CNN's Christiane Amanpour. Photos: Political turmoil in Egypt "There is no such thing called an Islamic democracy. There is democracy only. ... The people are the source of authority," he said. Asked about the role of women, he vowed that "women's rights are equal to men." And asked whether he would maintain Egypt's 1979 accord with Israel, Morsi answered, "Yes, of course I will. I will respect it provided the other side keep it up and respect it." Morsi was not originally his party's pick for the country's top post. He was called on to step in after the first choice was disqualified. Khairat al-Shater was among three candidates who were told they did not meet candidacy requirements. The Muslim Brotherhood had originally pledged not to seek the presidency, but the group reversed its decision as the election approached. Morsi has served as a central behind-the-scenes player for much of the past decade, Eric Trager of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy wrote in a column for The New Republic. He was the Brotherhood's primary point man for state security -- "the repressive domestic security apparatus through which the Mubarak regime monitored and infiltrated opposition groups," Trager writes. "Indeed, Brotherhood leaders trusted Morsi because they viewed him as ideologically rigid, and therefore unlikely to concede too much to the regime during negotiations." Morsi was also "an icon of the extremists in the Muslim Brotherhood," pushing for an "extreme agenda," Trager wrote. Morsi's official biography on the Freedom and Justice Party website describes him as "one of the most prominent political leadership figures of the Brotherhood, the organization that led the struggle against the ousted repressive regime in its last decade." He led the Brotherhood's parliamentary bloc from 2000 to 2005 in addition to serving as president of the Department of Materials Science, Faculty of Engineering at Zagazig University. Morsi was arrested several times "due to his constantly firm stance against the repressive measures and oppressive practices of the overthrown regime," the party said. "After the 2005 elections were rigged, Dr. Mohamed Morsi led demonstrations in support for judges demanding independence, refusing referral of some judges to the Competence Commission to punish them for their outspoken views against blatant elections fraud." The following May, he was among 500 members of the Brotherhood arrested, the party said. Morsi spent seven months behind bars. "He was arrested, yet again, on the morning of the 'Friday of Anger' on January 28, 2011, during the revolution of January 25 along with a large number of Brotherhood leaders across Egypt. ... When several prisons were destroyed during the revolution, and many prisoners escaped, Dr. Morsi refused to leave his prison cell. Instead, he contacted satellite TV channels and news agencies demanding the judicial authorities visit the prison and check the legal position of jailed Muslim Brotherhood leaders, to clarify if there were indeed any legal reasons for their arrest," the party website says. Morsi declared Egypt's new president Part of complete coverage on Egypt decides Morsi promises Egypt democracy The Muslim Brotherhood's Mohamed Morsi is Egypt's first Islamist head of state. What direction will he steer the country? Brotherhood candidate triumphs CNN's Christiane Amanpour and Ben Wedeman comment on the significance of the Egyptian presidential election. What is the Muslim Brotherhood? The Muslim Brotherhood is a religious and political group founded on the belief that Islam is not simply a religion, but a way of life. Visit CNN Arabic for the latest news on developments in the Egyptian presidential elections, in Arabic. Ahmed Shafik backers disgusted updated 12:34 PM EDT, Sun June 24, 2012 CNN's Dan Rivers speaks to a disappointed supporter of defeated Egyptian presidential candidate Ahmed Shafik. Protests continue in Arab world Already 2012 has seen a continuation of the violence experienced the previous year as protests swept the Arab world. Street fighter vies for change updated 7:33 PM EDT, Thu June 7, 2012 CNN's Ben Wedeman reports on a disillusioned, diminutive street fighter in the Egyptian revolution. Poor feel 'forgotten' by revolutionaries The revolution forced equality but no system is in place to support it, researcher says. Does Egypt need education revolution? updated 11:35 AM EDT, Wed June 6, 2012 In 2011 young Egyptians marched for charge. Now the nation's new leaders must tackle the nation's education.

时政

2014-52/4413/en_head.json.gz/6697

Atheist Pushes His Im-morality and Ir-religion ILLINOIS FAMILY INSTITUTE ^ | Daniel T. Zanoza Posted on 08/24/2010 4:30:45 AM PDT by Daniel T. Zanoza In a recent meeting of the Marion City Council, local resident Ken Kessler proposed erecting a display of the Ten Commandments that would stand in a public square. There have been two meetings so far where the issue has been discussed, but no decision has yet been made. According to Mayor Robert L. Butler, the Ten Commandments monument will again be on the agenda during the next meeting of the Marion City Council on Wednesday, August 25th, 2010. It didn't take long for self-avowed atheist Rob Sherman to rush downstate to Marion and threaten the city with a lawsuit if the monument of the Ten Commandments is approved. Sherman, who lives in northern Illinois, considers himself an authority on constitutional law regarding the intent of the Founding Fathers when it comes to the expression of religious liberty in the public square. Sherman, who drives an over-sized RV which could pass as an eighteen wheeler, rolled into Marion and lectured the town fathers about the constitutionality of the proposed Ten Commandments monument. It must be noted that Ken Kessler is not looking for government money to pay for the religious display which has the backing of a vast majority of Marion's citizenry. But this fact doesn't matter to Sherman whose RV has a depiction of a penny on its side featuring his image and the humanistic, if not blasphemous words "In Rob We Trust". Sherman has made a name for himself by perpetuating the misinterpretation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Unfortunately, he has often been successful in his attempts to scrub references to America's Judeo-Christian heritage from any public venue. And as you may remember, the Illinois General Assembly passed a bill which was signed into law that would provide a "moment of silence" that would be observed by public school students at the beginning of each school day. Sherman used his daughter -- who was attending a public high school at the time -- to challenge the "moment of silence" law which many people, including teachers, believed was a good idea. The "moment of silence" had nothing to do with prayer -- unless a student wanted to use that time to pray. Sherman claimed this moment would take away from his daughter's access to the thirty seconds of education she would miss if students observed a moment of silent reflection. Sherman found a liberal activist judge who agreed with him and the issue ended up in the courts. Sherman has also been actively pushing his atheistic morality in another southern Illinois town. The defender of state-sanctioned atheism found another target in his visit downstate. Sherman filed a federal lawsuit against a group named "Friends of the Cross" who erected an 11 story high cross on private property. Sherman alleges the group's use of a $20,000 state grant to pay for the Christian symbol was unconstitutional and wants the group to reimburse the state. The cross is located on private land in the Shawnee National Forest, near Alto Pass and Carbondale, in southwestern Illinois. Individuals like Sherman bully small towns with the threat of lawsuits many of these communities cannot afford to fight. They are assisted by liberal activist judges and have had considerable success as these jurists hand down legal rulings which are not consistent with the views of America's constitutional framers. From Sherman's own website -- and in his own words -- he uses bullying tactics when he writes the Mayor of Marion can expect "... the prospect of a long, expensive and losing legal battle if he tries it." In 1958, a Supreme Court Justice demonstrated prophetic insight in giving his dissenting opinion concerning the case Baer v. Kolmorgen. He warned that the Court must be careful in its usage of the term "separation of church and state" because the public would believe those words appeared within the body of the Constitution. In the future, there might be some who would falsely attribute the phrase to the document itself. This judge truly had a vision of what was to come. Today, far too many Americans believe that the phrase "separation of church and state" was indeed written somewhere in the U.S. Constitution. The truth is the phrase appears in no formal document penned by the Founding Fathers. But it has been used by liberal judicial activists and the judiciary to attack publicly funded monuments and other displays which represent America's Judeo-Christian history. Sherman himself cannot explain why the words "In God We Trust" appear on U.S. currency. He and his atheist brethren cannot explain why every session of Congress starts with a prayer. Sherman cannot explain why, before every session, the U.S. Supreme Court itself prays to God for guidance. But perhaps Sherman can explain, but he prefers not to, in order to advance his own agenda. Many of the absurd rulings handed down by American courts during the last 40 years have resulted from the misinterpretation of the Establishment Clause. Something called the "right to privacy" has trumped natural law and, subsequently, religious liberty in America. The Roe v. Wade decision which legalized abortion in 1973 was based on the specious argument of the "right to privacy". Laws which a vast majority of Americans agree with have been struck down, due to the fact the private desires or wishes of one individual hold sway over the majority despite the fact the United States is a democratic republic. But many have used the courts to circumvent the rights of the people. The words "of the people, by the people and for the people" have fell victim to the corruption of the word "tolerance" in our society. The Mayor and City Council of Marion have yet to decide whether the monument featuring the Ten Commandments will stand in Tower Square. Whether or not Sherman will be successful in his lawsuit against "Friends of the Cross" will be decided by the courts. However, we can all pray Americans and people of faith will find the wherewithal to fend off the continuing attacks regarding the expression of religious liberty in our society. It must be noted Marion's Mayor and City Council say if someone of another faith desires to put up a display in Tower Square, they will be permitted to do so, if the proposed Ten Commandments monument is approved. TOPICS: Government; History; Religion; Society KEYWORDS: atheism; establishmentclause; firstamendment; tencommandments by Daniel T. Zanoza To: Daniel T. Zanoza It would be good to establish a fund of private donations that would have the sole purpose of letting governments under this sort of threat from an atheist to take them to court over such a matter. The atheists have had their way many times simply because the jurisdiction involved didn’t have, or see a way to raise, the funds necessary to stand and fight. The battles are being lost by default for the lack of resources to engage the enemy. I know there’s a lot of “the devil’s in the details” but something has to be done. Count me in for what support I can provide if anyone decides to do this! by jwparkerjr There is going to be a time when this shinola from one atheist elitist has to be stopped. In another time people would have told this anti-standard bearer to go pound sand. by sirchtruth (Freedom is not free) To: sirchtruth Since he doesn’t live in the town where it would be erected. He is not harmed by it. Thus he has NO STANDING.

时政

2014-52/4413/en_head.json.gz/6753

The charm of the Iranian threat Iran is not the isolated country the U.S. wanted it to be when it imposed sanctions on it. It enjoys close ties with most of the countries of the world, and the ayatollah's regime is not made up of suicide bombers. It is a regime that is not happy with the existence of Israel and would like to see it disappear, but not at the price of its own disappearance. Zvi Bar'el | Dec. 1, 2004 | 12:00 AM An ancient Israeli tradition says that when discussions about the budget approach, the IDF calls up into reserves the Ayatollah Ali Khomeini, the spiritual leader of Iran. But Israel does not have an exclusive monopoly over the "Iranian element." The Iranian threat casts a magical charm over everyone who deals with it. For Israel, it has opened American pockets; for America, it justifies nearly everything that the U.S. does in the Middle East; for Europe, Iran provides a strategic role; and it gives Russia the status of an American competitor. Yet those who should be most "pleased" about the Iranian threat are not out dancing in celebration. No less, and perhaps more than Israel and the United States, Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf states, as well as Iraq and Egypt, are hoping for the success of the diplomatic move that would at least freeze the Iranian uranium enrichment efforts. That's because the last thing those Arab states want is another war by the West against an Islamic state in which they will be "forced" to defend the honor of a Shi'ite state. The Israeli (and American) bemusement with the military option against Iran has quite naturally rendered irrelevant the diplomatic option. However, to the dismay of the trigger-happy types, the diplomatic option, meanwhile, has frozen the continuation of uranium enrichment. Their working assumption, of course, is that Iran will lie and continue developing a nuclear option in secret. But one can even assume further that Iran will indeed develop a nuclear bomb and in another three to five years will have a bomb. That should be the working assumption. The military option must recognize that the Iranian nuclear industry is not at all like the Iraqi industry of 1981. It is dispersed over dozens of sites, including University of Tehran, a nuclear center near Mashad, Nantaz, the reactor at Bashar, and elsewhere. And there are some facilities that are assessed only as nuclear facilities. Attacking those sites would mean war against Iran and all 70 million of its citizens. Of course, it is possible to claim that the cost is worthwhile, but it is also possible to examine whether Iran is really an insane state ready to destroy itself on the condition that Israel is destroyed with it. Iran is not Iraq of 2003. It is a state where most of the population is not happy with its economic circumstances, but not necessarily opposed to the governmental regime. Reformists are no less nationalistic than the conservatives, and the ayatollahs are not just whippers of women. It is a regime hungry for legitimacy, both domestically and externally. And can anyone say which country is crazier: Iran or Pakistan, which has nuclear weapons, India, which threatens Pakistan with the use of its nuclear weapons - and is now conducting talks with it - or maybe North Korea, with whom the United States is ready to negotiate? It is also possible to ask, before Israel or the U.S. uses the ultimate weapon against Iran, why it is impossible to pressure China to cancel its $100 billion gas deal with Iran; to force Turkey to cut off diplomatic ties with Iran or at least not buy natural gas from it; to tell India to avoid reaching an agreement with Iran for a $3.5-billion oil pipeline that will go through Pakistan; and maybe even to tell Russia not only to stop building the reactor at Bashar, but also to cease its civilian investments as a punishment. And interestingly, all those countries are also friends of Israel and buy high technology from it. Even more interesting is that Iran has not minded for years doing business with friends of Israel. It even is begging for the renewal of diplomatic relations with Egypt, relations that Iran cut off in the wake of the Camp David accords. 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

2014-52/4413/en_head.json.gz/6807

Mobilize now against Iran and save the world By Natan Sharansky http://www.jewishjournal.com/opinion/article/mobilize_now_against_iran_and_save_the_world_20070223 Just over three years ago, at the first-ever global forum on anti-Semitism organized by the State of Israel, the essential task was to define the beast -- the new anti-Semitism. Since then, as the fourth such global gathering meets this week, efforts to incorporate the "three-D" distinction between legitimate criticism of Israel and the new anti-Semitism -- demonization, double standards and delegitimization -- have become part of international documents and discourse. These and other accomplishments, as important as they are, have been dwarfed by the quantum leap anti-Semitism itself has taken. It has leapfrogged from isolated attacks against Jews to incitement to genocide -- the actual elimination of the Jewish state. This shift has come in the form of a pincer movement. On one side, we have the Iranian regime, which is denying the Holocaust and calling for Israel to be "wiped off the map," while racing to develop the physical means of doing so. On the other side, we have what is, in effect, international silence in response, coupled with a growing willingness to discuss Israel's existence as a mistake, an anachronism or a provocation. We must recognize the fact that though sympathy for Iran's expressed goal of Israel's destruction is hardly mainstream, the idea of a world without Israel is more acceptable in polite company, the media and academia today than Hitler's expressed goal of a Europe without Jews was in 1939. Given this situation, it should be clear that we are beyond the stage of definitions. The Jewish world now must mobilize at a level no less than during the struggles to establish the State of Israel and to free Soviet Jewry. It is this latter struggle that presents the most potent model for action today. Though both sides of the genocidal pincer are in quite advanced stages of development, the Jewish world remains mired in premobilization debates reminiscent of the early stages of the Soviet Jewry struggle in the 1960s. This may be hard to recall in light of the subsequent success, but back then a debate raged among Jews over whether a campaign to free Soviet Jewry was "too parochial," and whether being out front risked making it too much of a "Jewish issue." Before these internal debates were resolved, the Soviet Jewry effort could not be regarded as a movement capable of attracting allies and moving governments. Nor were such debates easily, or ever fully, put to rest. As late as 1987, when the by then-mature and powerful movement organized the largest-ever Soviet Jewry rally on Washington's mall to coincide with Mikhail Gorbachev's visit, some Jewish leaders wondered if the community could be mobilized, and if such a rally would be counterproductive. They warned that only a few thousand souls would brave the winter weather, and that the Jewish community would be considered "warmongers" who were spoiling the recent warming of U.S.-Soviet relations. In actuality, over 250,000 people came to a rally that was pivotal in opening the floodgates, not just to 10,000 or 20,000 Jews, which seemed like a dream at the time, but to a million Jews who came to Israel over the following decade. Since it has been a while, a reminder is in order of what full mobilization looks like. First, as Shlomo Avineri has recently proposed, Iranian officials should get the Soviet treatment. Just as no Soviet official, including sport and cultural delegations, could travel without being accosted by protests and hostile questions, so it should be with anyone representing the Iranian regime. As in the Soviet case, such protests will not change Iranian behavior, but they are critical to creating a climate that will influence the policies of Western governments. Second, an inventory of the governments and companies that provide Iran with refined oil, huge trade deals and even military and nuclear assistance should be taken, and public pressure be put on them to end their complicity with a regime that is racing to genocide. Third, the pension funds of U.S. states should be divested from all companies that trade with or invest in Iran. This divestment campaign must be pursued without apologies or hesitation. Fourth, every country that is party to the Genocide Convention should be called upon to fulfill its obligation under that treaty and seek an indictment of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on the charge of incitement to genocide, which is a "punishable offense" under Article III of that treaty. Fifth, human rights groups, such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, which are heavily nourished by Jewish values, passion and funding, must stop squeezing both sides of the genocidal pincer. These groups must be challenged, on the one hand, to press for enforcement of the Genocide Treaty, to stand up for human rights in Iran, and to oppose and expose Iranian support for terrorism. On the other hand, they must stop perverting the sacred cause of human rights into a cudgel in Iran's hands against Israel. This happened just months ago when, during the Lebanon War, such groups all but ignored Hezbollah's terrorism from behind human shields and called Israel's self-defense a "war crime." Just as the two sides of the pincer themselves are connected, so too must be the efforts to combat them. All the above steps concern the Iranian side of the pincer. But combating the other side, the denial of Israel's right to exist, is no less critical -- and more difficult, since at times they necessitate confronting not a rogue regime, but our own cherished institutions. On this front: First, universities that provide chairs for professors who campaign against Israel's right to exist should be boycotted. In a number of countries, denying the Holocaust is a criminal act. In the current context, denying Israel's right to exist lays the groundwork for a second holocaust even more directly than does denying history. Therefore, the promulgation of such an ideology should be fought even by societies that justifiably revere freedom of speech. This may seem a hopelessly difficult task, but it is not. After 9/11, one woman, a student, took on Harvard University, which was ready to accept a $10 million "gift" from a Saudi sheikh. Harvard backed down, showing that moral clarity, unapologetically and passionately expressed, can change seemingly unassailable ideas. We must stand for a basic principle: If denying the Holocaust can land a professor in jail, denying Israel should not land him tenure. Second, support for Israel must be demonstrated. Two decades after the massive Soviet Jewry rally of 1987, we need to return to the mall on Israel's Independence Day in May with two messages: Support Israel and Stop Iran. It is late, but not too late, to overcome those fears of being "too parochial" that the Soviet Jewry movement succeeded in dispelling more than 30 years ago. The fight to support Israel and stop Iran now is, if anything, less "parochial" than the Soviet Jewry movement was then. Then, the Jewish world took on a global superpower, the Soviet Union, and confronted the reigning American foreign policy paradigm -- detente -- with a very different one: linkage of trade to human rights. Then, we successfully argued that the freedom to emigrate was not just a Jewish concern, but a universal one, and we were more right than we knew. The Jackson-Vanik amendment and the Helsinki accords were critical factors in triggering the internal collapse of the Soviet empire. This collapse not only freed millions of Jews, but all the peoples behind the Iron Curtain, and ended a half-century-old superpower stalemate that threatened the entire planet. Now the world stands at a no less fateful watershed. The world's most dangerous rogue regime is on the verge of obtaining the ultimate weapons of terror. Already, Iran's confidence that it will not be stopped has led to one war, last summer's war in Lebanon started by Hezbollah. Already, Iran is fueling conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon and Gaza -- and all this before the regime enjoys its own full, declared nuclear umbrella. The moment before mobilization is always a lonely one, in which it seems that the obstacles to making a cause universal are insurmountable. Yet, as in the case of the Soviet Jewry movement, we are not alone. We are surrounded by potential allies who may not themselves know they are ready to join us until we create a movement for them to join. Our leadership will give others the opportunity to act. If the Jewish world does not lead the way, who will? It is as true now as it was then; if we build it, they will come. A decade after the wave of democracy that came with the fall of the Soviet Union, an Iranian-led wave of terror is rising that will not stop until it is stopped. Ultimately, we overcame our fear of parochialism to stand up for Soviet Jewry, and left the world a much better place for it. Now we must do the same to prevent a second holocaust, and in the process save the world. This article was reprinted from The Jerusalem Post. JewishJournal.com is produced by TRIBE Media Corp., a non-profit media company whose mission is to inform, connect and enlighten community

时政

2014-52/4413/en_head.json.gz/6811

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

2014-52/4413/en_head.json.gz/6946

People's World It's your world U.S. News > CPUSA’s 30th National Convention examines challenges facing the nation CPUSA’s 30th National Convention examines challenges facing the nation John Wojcik tags: activism, solidarity, low wage workers, labor, justice, Communists CHICAGO - Civil rights activists during the 1960's, Vietnam War opponents busy during the 1970's, anti-nuke demonstrators from the 1980's, opponents of the first war in Iraq in the 1990's and fast food workers of today were among those sitting side by side for three days at the 30th National Convention of the CPUSA here June 13-15. What they were all doing, however, is what the delegates said was the most important thing: Turning the attention of the party to the movements it sees as critical to changing U.S. politics, economics and popular thinking. "We are looking ahead," said the party's outgoing chairman Sam Webb during his keynote speech, "but not so far ahead that we miss the challenge of this fall's elections. And of course, our attention will turn to the many-sided building of a 21st century party. Such a party, which we are building, should be modern, mature, militant and mass - or in my word a 4M party." John Bachtell, the party's newly-elected national chair, said there is a "huge upsurge going on and this presents a challenge and great opportunity for our party. We want to be a major part of shaping and building this upsurge. Every day we see another protest - immigrants, Walmart workers, fast food workers, the fight for a higher minimum wage, Moral Mondays, resistance to voter suppression, the fight against mass incarceration, the Keystone XL Pipeline, the fight for women's reproductive health, students struggling over debt, the AFL-CIO opening itself up to all kinds of allied movements, the election of anti-corporate mayors in New York and Newark - the list goes on." Bachtell was, prior to his election, chair of the Illinois District of the CPUSA. He has a long history as a party, labor and community

时政

2014-52/4413/en_head.json.gz/7011

This Just In Vermont’s first woman in Washington: Coming soon? By Joy LiuSpecial to the Times Argus | December 15,2013 For Vermont, the Washington delegation remains an old boys� club. While nearly a century has passed since women first gained the right to vote, the Green Mountain State has yet to send its first female to Capitol Hill � one of just four states never to have elected a woman to the U.S. Senate or House of Representatives.Like the other three states yet to break through this glass ceiling � Delaware, Iowa, and Mississippi � Vermont has a small congressional delegation where incumbents tend to stay for a long time, and open seats are a rarity. Vermont stands in contrast to neighboring New Hampshire, where the entire four-member congressional delegation is female in the wake of the 2012 election, and Maine, where half of the four-person delegation is made up of women. But, overall, only 18 percent of today�s Congress is comprised of women � 20 in the 100-member Senate and 78 in the 435-member House. The reasons range from the current realities of campaign fundraising to personal-life priorities and the difficulties of accomplishing change within the legislative process, according to those who closely observe the process of women running for office.�We�ve seen women (who have) been detoured in terms of the dirtiness of politics, currently the ineffectiveness of politics,� said Kelly Dittmar of Rutgers University�s Center for American Women and Politics in New Brunswick, New Jersey. �If you look at Washington today, you might not see that as a place to get things done. So why would women be motivated?�Vermont can boast of having elected Madeleine Kunin, who in 1984 became only the fourth woman in U.S. history to be elected governor in her own right (as opposed to succeeding her husband). But if Kunin, who left the governorship in 1990, eventually made it to Washington � as the No. 2 official in the Education Department during the Clinton administration � she never sought election to Congress.�The timing was just not right,� she said. �There wasn�t any (vacancy) � it wasn�t right politically.�No vacancy means having to challenge an incumbent. More often than not, it remains an uphill battle to dislodge an incumbent: According to a study by the Washington-based Center for Responsive Politics, the reelection rate of incumbent members of Congress has been running at more than 75 percent since 1982.During the past four decades, Senate seats have come open only twice in the Green Mountain State � in 1988, as Kunin was seeking a third term as governor and Republican Robert Stafford was retiring, and in 2006, when Republican-turned-Independent James Jeffords called it quits. In both instances, the state�s lone U.S. House member � Jeffords and Independent Bernard Sanders, respectively � were elected to move up and fill the vacant Senate slot.Today, while all three men in the Vermont delegation are older than 65, none has shown any public sign of contemplating retirement. The state�s two senators, Democrat Patrick Leahy and Sanders, have more aggregate seniority than the senators from the other 49 states. Leahy, first elected in 1974, is now the longest-serving member of the Senate. Sanders, first elected to the House in 1990 before moving to the Senate 16 years later, has now spent nearly a quarter of a century on Capitol Hill. Kunin believes that when it comes to running against an incumbent, gender is no longer a question, given that it�s difficult for any newcomer to raise a �tremendous amount of money� to win against a long-time serving member. But others suggest that fundraising remains an obstacle for women contemplating office, whether challenging an incumbent or seeking an open seat.�When we survey women legislators who are potential candidates, they always say that fundraising is a barrier,� said Dittmar of the Center for American Women and Politics. �It�s something that they don�t like to do, and they see as a barrier to office.�According to Dittmar, surveys suggest that although men and women raise about the same amount of money in comparable races, fundraising may take more effort for women. In closing the fundraising gap between male and female candidates, help from outside infrastructure is �invaluable�, she noted.Several political-action committees � such as EMILY�s List, which backs Democratic female candidates who support abortion rights � have been created to help funnel money to women running for office. Other groups aim to provide women with training in the nuts and bolts of running a campaign.In Vermont, Kunin heads a group, Emerge Vermont, which provides intensive training to Democratic women about how to run a successful campaign, in the hope that this will ultimately provide them with a springboard to higher office. Emerge Vermont is part of the national organization that started in California and now operates in 14 states. Vermont would seem to have a head start in this regard, as it already ranks ahead of many other states when it comes to electing women to state and local office. With Gov. Peter Shumlin�s recent appointment of Democrat Marjorie Ryerson of Randolph Village to an open seat in the Vermont House, women now are a majority in the Democratic Party of that chamber. Vermont now ranks first nationwide in terms of the percentage of women in the Legislature. At present, 41.1 percent of the Vermont Senate and House are comprised of women, according to statistics compiled by the Center for American Women and Politics. (Colorado�s legislature is a close second with 41.0 percent; neighboring New Hampshire ranks fifth nationally, with 33.5 percent.)But in congressional elections, personal factors often come into play for women: It�s often harder for women to make the decision to run, as they are more �relationally embedded� than men, Dittmar said.Women often do not see politics as �either an option or the best route for them� in the way men do, she said. Women, most being primary caregivers, consider running for office in Washington a factor that could bring unwanted changes to their families and children.But what some see as a benefit of having the increasing numbers of women elected to higher office came into focus during the partial shutdown of the federal government in early October.Sen. Susan Collins, a moderate Republican from Maine, put forth a plan to end the shutdown, and called upon members from the two major parties to come together and �legislate responsibly and in good faith.� The next day, Sens. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., and Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, joined Collins� effort. Soon, Collins was leading a bipartisan group of 14 senators, nearly half of them women, in drafting a spending plan.A few hours before the final vote on Oct. 16, three of the women senators involved physically moved across the Senate aisle, sat next to each, and chatted and laughed. It was a scene one almost never sees in C-SPAN broadcasts of the Senate proceedings, particularly in an era of unrelenting partisanship. �The fact (is) that having less testosterone really makes you less combative and more willing to work across the aisle and want to get the job done,� Kunin said. �Women don�t enjoy confrontation as some men do.�Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., was also in the group of 14 senators. He later told Time magazine that he was �proud� of the women�s effort in ending the shutdown. �Imagine what they could do if there were 50 of them,� McCain said. As McCain pictured a more effective Congress formed by more women, Dittmar said women�s decisions to run for office are often guided by whether they feel they can be effective.While men�s motivations for running are largely associated with a desire for being in power, women make this decision differently, Dittmar said: They run to make policy changes.�If we continue to see that among the women who run and win, as more women get in, it could be helpful to the environment in Washington,� she explained.As �the time has come� and little bias remains about having women in federal legislative positions, Kunin, now 80, is confident there will �absolutely� be a woman representing Vermont on Capitol Hill in the near future. �We will, I expect in five years, see a woman in Congress,� Kunin said. �There are many talented women serving in the (state) Legislature and some serving in the (state) administration. Many are potential candidates for higher office.�

时政

2014-52/4413/en_head.json.gz/7061

Some councilors wary of proposed tax deal with Worcester company By Nick Kotsopoulos TELEGRAM & GAZETTE STAFF nicholas.kotsopoulos@telegram.com WORCESTER — A proposed tax-relief deal for a business in the Worcester Airport Industrial Park has hit a snag because of concerns about the number of new jobs that would result from it. The City Council Commerce and Development Committee Tuesday night tabled for one week City Manager Michael V. O'Brien's recommendation to give Tricab Inc. a 10-year tax-increment financing deal that would help the company finance its planned $19.4 million expansion. While Tricab officials said the expansion would create 15 new jobs, committee members raised questions about whether that number was commensurate with the amount of tax relief the company would receive under the so-called TIF agreement. Under the proposal, Tricab would receive an average tax exemption of 60 percent on the new property taxes generated by the expansion over 10 years. Over the term of the deal, the company would save an estimated $1.9 million in property taxes. That savings could then be redirected by the company into financing its expansion. Councilor-at-Large Frederick C. Rushton, committee chairman, called the proposed TIF “an aggressive plan,” but he had reservations about it because of the number of new jobs that would be created. “A lot of tax revenue would be forgiven for not a huge amount of jobs in return,” Mr. Rushton said. “At first blush, 15 jobs with a nice TIF attached to it does not make much initial sense. And this isn't just about 15 jobs, either. It's about growing past those 15 jobs and what is this company's growth potential in Worcester.” Tricab is a maker of cables; it has an 86,856-square-foot industrial building at 15 Coppage Drive, which also serves as company headquarters. The company wants to expand the operation with a 75,000-square-foot compounding facility adjacent to the existing building. Company officials said the expansion would allow Tricab to manufacture wire and cable coatings and create 15 new jobs — four professional and 11 skilled positions — in addition to retaining the 50 employees who work there. The estimated project cost is $19.4 million, which includes $10 million for the new building and $9.4 million in new equipment. Councilor-at-Large Joseph C. O'Brien and District 3 Councilor George J. Russell also expressed concerns about the TIF as it has been proposed. Mr. Russell questioned if Tricab would relocate if the council ended up denying the TIF deal. “Worcester has a lot to offer; we have a great workforce,” he said. “My concern is about the amount of jobs coming out of this. I don't know if I feel comfortable with it.” Mr. O'Brien, meanwhile, said the council needs to strike a balance between the need for tax revenue and keeping the city attractive for businesses. “We need to make sure what's best and makes the most sense for the community,” he said. Paul Morano Jr., the city's business assistance director, said even with the TIF, the city would receive an estimated total of $2.1 million in tax revenues from the company during the 10 years of the tax deal. After the TIF runs its course, he said, the city would receive an estimated $460,000 in property taxes annually from Tricab. The committee intends to continue its hearing before Tuesday's council meeting.

时政

2014-52/4413/en_head.json.gz/7072

Obama has altered the gun discussion A week ago we wrote in expectation of what gun reforms President Obama would propose after receiving the task force report from Vice President Biden. To his credit, the president did not disappoint. In the wake of the massacre at the Newtown Elementary School, where a mentally ill gunman used a semiautomatic assault rifle outfitted with a large capacity bullet magazine to murder 20 children and six educators, President Obama has successfully altered the discussion about firearms.This in and of itself was no easy achievement. Elected leaders have long seen as politically too dangerous proposing federal policies that would control the distribution of guns in this country and ban military-style weapons capable of rapid killing. The powerful gun advocacy group, the National Rifle Association, pads the campaign coffers of many a politician. Republicans who would dare consider any restrictions on access to guns invite primary challenges, while Democrats in rural districts well know that Republican opponents stand ready to exploit any hint of softness on Second Amendment issues. And if any politician should forget their vulnerability, the NRA will be happy to remind them. But having won a second term, and sensing that public disgust and outrage over what happened here in Connecticut has changed the political dynamics, President Obama uncharacteristically eschewed caution and moved quickly to push gun reform.The president will almost certainly not obtain all the objectives he outlined last Wednesday, at least not in the short term. The NRA is too powerful and the gun culture so ingrained in American traditions that major change will not come quickly. But some reform can happen and, over the longer haul, perhaps significant reform.Congressional approval of President Obama's proposal to expand and improve background checks before an individual can obtain a firearm appears obtainable. Surveys show a majority of the public supporting thorough and universal background checks to try to prevent unstable individuals and former criminals from getting access to weapons. The NRA, after all, often refers to protecting the right of "law-abiding citizens" to own guns.Yet the NRA has in the past stood in the way of closing massive loopholes in the current background check policies. About 40 percent of gun sales, done by private sellers and often at gun shows, now require no background checks. Anyone seeking to purchase a gun should have to undergo a meticulous background check using comprehensive federal and state databases and improved access to mental health records.Congress may also be ready to approve a ban on the possession or transfer of armor-piercing bullets. Why should anyone but soldiers in combat possess those?Consensus may be obtainable, as well, on the president's proposal to more aggressively crackdown on and severely punish those who use their successful background checks to obtain and transfer weapons. Finally, we can see no reason Senate Republicans can justify continuing to block confirmation of a director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Until 2006 the president had the authority to install a director, but under pressure from the NRA, Congress changed the law to require Senate approval. And because of NRA distrust of the ATF, the Senate has approved no nominee since, with five acting directors since that time. The ATF, critical to enforcing gun regulations, is in need of a permanent leader.As sensible as they are, President Obama's call to renew and tighten the ban on semiautomatic assault weapons that expired in 2004, and his request to prohibit the sale of magazines that allow the firing of more than 10 bullets without reloading, are unlikely to win approval, or even get to a vote.But if that is the outcome, so be it. At least now we have a debate. And the next time such a weapon outfitted with a 30- or 100-round magazine is used to mow down innocents, and we all know it will happen, the demand for change will grow louder. Next Article Loading comment count...

时政

2014-52/4414/en_head.json.gz/272

Sen. Scott: Obama administration 'not committed' to MOX U.S. Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C., has re-emphasized his approval of the MOX project and questioned President Barack Obama administration's commitment to the facility. He elaborated on the issue during Tuesday's hearing on the 2013 Nuclear Waste Administration Act in the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee by outlining the importance of the country keeping its agreement with Russia by disposing of 34 metric tons of weapons-grade plutonium. “The lack of commitment by the Obama administration is also true of the MOX facility at SRS,” Scott said. “This administration has abandoned its commitment to the people of South Carolina. Not only will it cost the taxpayers more money, but hundreds of South Carolinians could lose their jobs.” In addition to MOX, Scott feels the Obama administration, as well as the Department of Energy, are failing to comply with other existing laws and agreements, including Yucca Mountain. The senator cited last year's 326-81 House vote to dedicate $25 million to restart the review of the construction at Yucca Mountain. Even with the legislation in place, the senator feels that DOE is not adhering to it. “My concern with this legislation is less about the content and more about why Congress is allowing DOE to break the law as we know it to be,” Scott continued. “The law is very clear; our nation's spent nuclear fuel and defense waste should be disposed at Yucca.” In response to the senator's concerns, Department of Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz reflected on the nation's commitment to Russia. Moniz feels that commitment is not the issue, but rather adequate funding. “We are committed to disposing of the 34 metric tons of weapons-grade plutonium,” Moniz stated. “But the cost escalations of the project just called for a re-examination of where we stand.” The senator will follow up his meeting with the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee by working with the Department of Energy, and other interest groups. His hope is to see the MOX facility completed. “Sen. Scott will work closely with DOE as well as his colleagues from South Carolina and Georgia and fight to ensure that MOX funding is maintained at levels that were previously prescribed,” said Greg Blair, the senator's press secretary. A clip of the senator's comments can be found on YouTube, under the title, Sen. Tim Scott Questions DOE Secretary Moniz about Spent Nuclear Fuel. Tim Scott named to 50 Most Beautiful Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C., was recently featured on the The Hill's 50 Most Beautiful People list. Scott made history as the first African-American senator of South Carolina since Reconstruction. His full profile can be found at www.thehill.com.

时政

2014-52/4414/en_head.json.gz/649

Christie touts N.J.'s strong spirit post-Sandy; defends economic record in State of State speech Democrats criticize speech as high on rhetoric, short on details Gov. Chris Christie delivers his State of the State speech in Trenton. (Aaron Houston, NJBIZ) Gov. Chris Christie declared that the "spirit of New Jersey has never been stronger" in a State of the State address that focused mostly on the recovery from Hurricane Sandy. The governor praised the bipartisan cooperation in Trenton in the wake of Sandy and called on Congressional leaders in Washington to adopt the same spirit and pass a federal aid package for Sandy's victims."One thing I hope everyone in America now clearly understands – New Jersey, both Republicans and Democrats, will never stand silent when our citizens are being short changed," said Christie noting that its now been 72 days since the storm, nearly seven times the amount of time it took to get an aid package for victims of Hurricane Katrina.Christie also used the speech to defend his economic record. He said unemployment is on its way down and 2011 was the best year for private-sector job growth in 11 years. He said income tax receipts were exceeding the budgetary expectations prior to Sandy, though overall revenue was far below Christie's projections before Sandy, and was hurt even more by the storm.The governor said the state has added 75,000 private-sector jobs since he took office, while cutting 20,000 jobs. He said a property tax cap on municipalities resulted last year in the lowest average increase in more than two decades."We've held the line on taxes," he said. "We also have held the line on spending. And we have made New Jersey a more attractive place in which to grow a business, to grow jobs and to raise a family."The governor did not mention income taxes after last year proposing an across-the-board income tax cut. That plan was stalled when Democrats called the governor's revenue projections over-optimistic.After the speech, Sen. Pres. Stephen Sweeney (D-West Deptford) criticized the governor, saying the economy was in poor shape before Sandy, not because of Sandy. He said Christie's speech was high on rhetoric but contained little detail."Obviously he wants to erase the blackboard," Sweeney said. "He wants to erase it because it's bad. He's got a three-year history and it's not good."Assembly Speaker Sheila Y. Oliver (D-East Orange) called on the governor to approve the jobs package she and her fellow Democrats approved last month."New Jersey's economy was in turmoil before the storm and remains so with a 9.6 unemployment rate and economic growth that ranked 47th in the nation," Oliver said in a press release. "That's why Assembly Democrats passed numerous job creation bills in December and look forward to them finally getting the governor's attention and support."Senate Minority Leader Tom Kean Jr. (D-Westfield) said it would be wrong to draw conclusions from the omission of specific tax cut proposals. He said the governor has made clear he won't support tax increases, and that he generally would like to cut income taxes."But that's a specific that's best left for the budget address that's coming in a couple weeks where you actually put the parts of the New Jersey budget together," he said.Kean said the state is still waiting on second quarter revenue figures, so he said there's not yet enough information to offer specific proposals."This is a context to say Sandy was real, it impacted all of us," Kean said. "We are resilient and we are stronger going forward." Before the speech, business groups were looking for specifics from the governor on how he will lead both the recovery from Hurricane Sandy and the wider economic recovery. It had been widely expected that Sandy would be the dominant theme of the speech.Phil Kirschner, president of the New Jersey Business and Industry Association, said a focus on Sandy was important because the recovery is so closely tied to the state's economy."We feel very strongly that you cannot have a full recovery in New Jersey unless the tourism and hospitality industry in this state is up to par," he said. "And time is of the essence."Marilou Halvorsen, president of the New Jersey Restaurant Association, said many of her members are still at the starting gate when it comes to the recovery. She'll be listening for word of targeted tax relief and other legislation to help Sandy-impacted businesses both in the short and medium terms.Before the speech, Halvorsen said she's also hoping for a plan to encourage tourists to return."Unfortunately, New Jersey has been the focus of a lot of negative publicity," she said. "And I think there's a misconception that our shores and beaches are devastated. So (we'd welcome) anything they can do to promote New Jersey as a tourist destination."John Galandak, president of the Commerce and Industry Association of New Jersey, said earlier he was interested to see Christie's vision for how the recovery will unfold."Lots of people have lots of good ideas about not just restoring the shore but going a step further and preventing a future catastrophe," he said. "It's really just a question about priorities and what gets fixed first."Dean J. Paranicas, president and CEO of the HealthCare Institute of New Jersey, a life sciences industry trade group, said before the speech he was interested in how the governor plans to continue his efforts at improving the business climate."We certainly understand that the governor's immediate and most pressing priority is going to be recovery from Superstorm Sandy, but we also hope to hear from the governor regarding initiatives to continue to improve business climate in New Jersey," he said.Galandak said before the speech he would also be listening for tax relief, but he said much of that will depend on state revenues, which currently are lagging behind expectations. He said he expects more specifics on taxes next month when Christie gives his budget address, since by then more will be known about federal aid and about Sandy's longer-term impact on state income.Regardless of the revenue picture, Galandak said there are opportunities to improve the business climate by cutting red tape. He said he's been pleased thus far with how swiftly the commission's recommendations have been implemented."Every time the Red Tape Review Commission has come up with something that's needed a legislative fix, it's happened very quickly and had bipartisan support."Kirschner said he's hearing positive things from Washington regarding the Sandy relief package, so he expects it will come through despite an unexpected delay when the House of Representatives failed to vote on the matter last week.Kirschner said he's been impressed by the bipartisanship displayed by the state's Congressional delegation post-Sandy and by Sandy-related bipartisanship at the Statehouse. However, Kirschner said that spirit may not hold as the fall election draws near, when the governor and all 120 legislative seats are up for grabs.While the Sandy recovery is likely to remain a source of bipartisan agreement, he said before the speech, "I don't anticipate the same level of bipartisanship on other issues."

时政

2014-52/4414/en_head.json.gz/1723

President cautiously 'optimistic' that country will avoid fiscal crisis New York Times News Service Washington - President Barack Obama pronounced himself cautiously "optimistic" Friday evening and said that progress had been made in make-or-break talks on the fiscal crisis, while Senate leaders worked furiously toward a bill to avert the worst of the economic punch from landing Jan. 1.But after a one-hour meeting with congressional leaders at the White House, Obama warned that if the two sides don't agree on a bill, he will urge the Democrat-controlled Senate to put forward a measure anyway, in essence daring Republicans in the House and Senate to block a floor vote on tax cuts."I believe such proposals could pass both houses with a bipartisan majority as long as both leaders will allow it to come to a vote," Obama said. "If members want to vote no, they can."Senators broke from a long huddle on the Senate floor with Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, to say progress had been made. McConnell, White House aides and Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, were set to continue talks today aiming for a breakthrough as soon as Sunday."We're working with the White House, and hopefully we'll come up with something we can recommend to our respective caucuses," McConnell told reporters.Reid also said there had been some progress but he warned that in assembling a measure that can win support from both parties, "what we come up with (will) be imperfect."For all the cautious optimism, the president also expressed exasperation that four days before a looming deadline, which lawmakers have known about for a year and a half, the two sides are still far apart."This is deja vu all over again," he said. "America wonders why it is that in this time, you can't get stuff done in an organized timetable. The American people are not going to have any patience for a politically self-inflicted wound to our economy."Obama took steps to keep the pressure on throughout the weekend, scheduling an appearance on Sunday's "Meet the Press" on NBC.After meeting for just over an hour at the White House, the four congressional leaders - House Speaker John A. Boehner, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, the House Democratic leader, McConnell and Reid - emerged, one by one into the chilly dusk. They avoided reporters and camera operators who were waiting and took swiftly to SUVs to exit the White House grounds.

时政

2014-52/4414/en_head.json.gz/1724

Region's lawmakers say they're ready to examine gun laws, take action Rep. Betsy Ritter, D-Waterford, speaks with Rep. Ed Moukawsher, D-Groton, Wednesday, opening day of the 2013 Connecticut General Asssembly session at the state capitol in Hartford. Published January 10. 2013 4:00AMUpdated January 10. 2013 1:51PM Hartford - Southeastern Connecticut lawmakers on Wednesday echoed aspects of Gov. Dannel P. Malloy's State of the State address, which urged the General Assembly to "take real steps to make our kids and communities safer."The opening of the 2013 state legislative session came 36 hours after an armed standoff ended in Norwich, two days after the New London City Council considered a gun buyback program, and less than a month after 26 people were shot dead inside Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown.Veteran and freshmen lawmakers from the region agreed action on gun control and mental health care access would be high priorities this session and that something would be done. Several agreed that banning high-capacity magazines and revisiting an assault weapons ban are the most obvious short-term answers."The fact that the governor led with this issue is critical," Rep. Diana Urban, D-North Stonington, said. "This is Connecticut, this happened in Connecticut, and that's something we need to address, and it needs to be addressed on a national stage, too."Freshman Rep. Timothy Bowles, D-Preston, said after the governor's address that he respects the right to own firearms and, though not a hunter himself, allows others to use his farm as a hunting ground. "Responsible ownership" is key, he said."There has to be a comprehensive review of current law," Bowles said, which includes ammunition capacity in automatic weapons. "I'm open to a full discussion on gun control."Rep. Edward Moukawsher, D-Groton, said there's "no question we'll do something about guns," but he was unsure what specific actions would be taken. He said he understands the desire for people to own weapons, but added, "I don't know that there's any good use for large capacity magazines. I don't see what the rationale is."Moukawsher said gun control, generally a partisan issue, would bring the parties together in the "spirit of Newtown.""There's a heartfelt sense that bipartisanship, cooperation and understanding needs to be emphasized, and I think it will be," he said. "People are going to have differences of opinion, but I think that was a sincere expression of what everyone in the House would like to do, ideally."Freshman Rep. Emmett Riley, D-Norwich, said better background checks and limits on ammunition access should be the first steps. He said Monday night's standoff in Norwich, which left a police officer shot and the suspect dead, brought home the need for change."It was a difficult situation, and when you have things like that you need to start corralling things in and making things safer," he said.Sen. Cathy Osten, D-Sprague, said she will focus on mental health issues this legislative session. She said she worked on such issues before her election, including inadequate access to mental health care. One piece of legislation Osten said she plans to introduce would provide paid time off for first responders and emergency personnel who work at a horrific scene like the one in Newtown, "so they can get whole again."Among other needed action, Urban said, is funding for "panic buttons" in schools that would contact emergency personnel. She said she'll also reintroduce a bill from last year that would ban the possession of replica firearms on and near school grounds.Urban thinks lawmakers will "take a pretty big look at semiautomatic weapons" regulations, ban large capacity magazines, close loopholes at gun shows and improve background checks on gun buyers. Editor's note: This corrects an earlier version of this paragraph."We're trying to make it safer for everybody as we examine this," Urban said. "We need to make people safer at the margin, which means where we can influence it."We're not trying to take away your right to own a gun, but we're trying to say, much as we say when you drive a car, wear a seat belt, have an air bag. When you ride a bicycle, you have to have a bicycle helmet. So what we're saying with our gun legislation is, 'How can we make everybody safer?' not taking away your right to own a gun."s.goldstein@theday.com Malloy's good and bad speech

时政

2014-52/4414/en_head.json.gz/2082

Election ends many hopes for future By the Marietta Daily journalMarietta, Ga. Marietta (Ga.) Daily Journal on post-election GOP: The election victory by President Barack Obama over Republican challenger Mitt Romney ends hopes for now of putting the country back on a more moderate course after four years spent veering hard left. And it leaves Republicans and conservatives here and elsewhere facing tough choices. Kennesaw State University political science professor Kerwin Swint put it well in the Nov. 7 Marietta Daily Journal, noting that Obama�s win means �that a majority of Americans are comfortable with sluggish economic growth, high unemployment and higher taxes. It also means that most Americans are not particularly concerned with the money spent in the stimulus program, the auto bailouts and ObamaCare. This election means that a majority do not hold Obama responsible for the tough times we are experiencing as a country. Evidently, most are not ready to give up on him.� As syndicated Atlanta radio talk host Neil Boortz noted, we�re about to find out what Jimmy Carter�s second term would have been like. Obama in his acceptance speech promised to reach out and try to end the stalemate �behavior that would be uncharacteristic for him, to say the least. And indeed, the first sign of an olive branch came not from the White House but from House Speaker John Boehner, who said that Republicans would accept �new revenue,� i.e., additional taxes, to help keep the country from going over the fiscal cliff. But you can expect much bloodshed during the dispute over how much new revenue and from whose pockets it should come. Meanwhile, the internal debate has already begun among Republicans over whether the party should become even more conservative and make its agenda even more pointed, or whether it should rethink various positions in order to broaden its base and attract additional voters, especially younger ones turned off by many of its hard-line positions on social issues and illegal immigration. Tacking further to right risks ghettoizing the Republican Party to an even greater extent as a party that appeals mainly to older white rural/suburban voters. ... Yet today�s Republican Party is not the same as the Republican Party of 2000 or 1980 or 1952. It always has changed with the times, albeit sometimes with reluctance, and now must do so again.

时政

2014-52/4414/en_head.json.gz/2329

by Shmuel Rosner June 30, 2013 | 3:58 am Protesters opposing Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi wave Egyptian flags and shout slogans against him, Tahrir square in Cairo, June 30, 2013. The US Headline: Kerry squeezes in more talks at end of Mideast mission To Read: Max Boot and Michael Doran argue that this is the time for the US to be as dirty as necessary and to engage in some old-fashioned political warfare in the Middle East- Clearly, the president needs options between military intervention and complete nonintervention -- ways to influence developments in the Middle East without deploying Reaper drones or sending U.S. ground forces. To give Obama the tools he needs, the U.S. government should reinvigorate its capacity to wage "political warfare," defined in 1948 by George Kennan, then the State Department's director of policy planning, as "the employment of all the means at a nation's command, short of war, to achieve its national objectives." Such measures, Kennan noted, were "both overt and covert" and ranged from "political alliances, economic measures (as ERP -- the Marshall Plan), and 'white' propaganda to such covert operations as clandestine support of 'friendly' foreign elements, 'black' psychological warfare and even encouragement of underground resistance in hostile states." Quote: “We support peaceful protests and peaceful methods of bringing about change in Egypt. Every party needs to denounce violence. We’d like to see the opposition and President Morsi engaged in a more productive dialogue about how to move the country forward. We do not take sides in terms of who should be elected by the Egyptian people, but we do takes sides in observing a process of democracy and rule of law”, President Obama's remarks on the Egyptian protests. Number: 71, the percent increase in the use of wiretaps in Federal criminal investigations in 2012. Israel Headline: PM tells cabinet after meeting Kerry that any accord with PA will be brought to referendum To Read: Mazal Mualem reports about Netanyahu's absurd recent political defeat in his own party- The big question that must be asked is why Netanyahu allowed the right-wing hard-liners to steal his party? Why didn’t he fight for his party? This week, the situation reached its peak. Netanyahu was forced to withdraw his candidacy for central committee chair because he understood that Danon would beat him in a knockout. This is, after all, practically inconceivable: a prime minister at the beginning of his third term, gives up without a battle to a Knesset member he himself had appointed deputy defense minister. Netanyahu’s position in the Likud is so fragile that he was not able to insert even one representative on his behalf in the central committee. Quote: “[the approval of the units] makes clear to the American administration and the European Union that Israel will not tolerate interference in its internal affairs”, Jerusalem city council member Elisha Peleg sending a message to the American administration and to the EU, ahead of the Jerusalem municipality's decision to build 930 housing units in Har Homa, a neighborhood behind the Green line. Number: 3, the number of years African migrants can be detained without trial in Israel. The Middle East Headline: Thousands gather for rival rallies in Egypt To Read: An interesting piece of reporting on the Turkey protests in light of the country's history, written by Istanbul based Claire Berlinski- Here’s what you need to know, bare-bones: The supposedly secular Turkish Republic founded by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk almost a century ago was an authoritarian state, although not a totalitarian one. And yes, Jeanne Kirkpatrick was right, there is a difference. I went behind the Iron Curtain when the Wall was still standing. The USSR was indeed—immediately, visibly, on first sight—an evil empire. The Turkish Republic wasn’t remotely like that; there has never been all-encompassing government enslavement of the citizenry here, nor is there now, and I pray there never will be. But since its emergence after World War I, Turkey has always had weak institutions—and a state that’s strong as an ox. Over the decades, the authoritarianism has come in different flavors. Once they served it state-worship style, and from time-to-time military style; now they serve it piety style. But it’s still the same thing. They just changed the wrapping paper. Quote: "They failed to assign sufficient importance to the rights of people. They do not comprehend the realities of our society and instead believe that to keep the system going they can do whatever is necessary, while the basic rule of maintaining the system is to have the trust of society", Ali Mottahari, a conservative Iranian parliament member, commenting on the crisis facing Iran's political conservatives. Number: 250, the patient load in hospitals in Jordan has jumped 250 percent in the past five months. The Jewish World Headline: Jewish college student stabbed to death in Egypt protests To Read: The New Republic's Marc Tracy writes about the role of the Israel-Palestine issue in New York's Mayoral race- The New York City mayoral contest is unique in terms of Israel politics: There is probably no combination of political job and political issue in the country in which the gap is so wide between how much the political issue matters to the election and how little it matters to the job. The city is about 13 percent Jewish (whatta town!), with a large and growing segment of that population conservative, Russian, and/or Haredi Jews, the last of whom tend to vote in blocs, making them an enticing political prize. At the same time, except for the odd joint Cornell-Technion campus on Roosevelt Island, the mayor has no impact on U.S. policy toward Israel, what with him being the mayor and all. So there is unusually little cost to saying outrageously right-wing things about Israel, especially if you are a Democrat: it may win you votes; when push comes to shove—when you are facing a Republican in the general—it probably will not lose you many votes; you don’t have to follow through in any meaningful way; and, should you choose to run for higher office, you can just say that you were wrong before and have since seen the light. Quote: “We asked the prime minister if he was committed to the plan and he was loud and clear in saying: ‘absolutely,’” Rick Jacobs, President of the Union for Reform Judaism, about his meeting with PM Netanyahu about Sharansky's Western Wall plan. Number: 3, the number of kids who were injured by lightning in Jewish camp yesterday.

时政

2014-52/4414/en_head.json.gz/2406

Stay Central America & the Caribbean The countries of Central America's Northern Triangle (El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras) have seen a significant number of their citizens migrate to the United States. Immigrants from the Caribbean represent half of all Black immigrants in the United States. As such, the ties between these countries and their diasporas have taken on new importance, as has the integration of these immigrants in their country of settlement. Research here explores the demographics, migration flows, human-capital development, interconnected policy realities, and outcomes for immigrants from Central America and the Caribbean. (For research specific to Mexico, see North America.) AllReportsPolicy BriefsBooksMultimedia & More >> Preparing for the High-Level Dialogue on International Migration and Development By Graeme Hugo Pages« first‹ previous123456789…next ›last » By Ralph Espach and Daniel Haering By Steven Dudley Reports By Francisco Alba and Manuel Ángel Castillo Reports By Hugo Beteta Pages« first‹ previous12345next ›last » Circular Migration and Development: Trends, Policy Routes, and Ways Forward Closing the Distance: How Governments Strengthen Ties with Their Diasporas Guatemalan Migration in Times of Civil War and Post-War Challenges During recent decades, large-scale international migration has been an external escape valve for Guatemala, a response to the country's multiple internal problems. This article examines Guatemalan migration, primarily to the United States, into the post-war era; U.S. government immigration policies affecting Guatemalans; the impacts of migration within Guatemala; and Guatemala/Mexico migration dynamics. Online Journal Top 10 of 2012 - Issue #10: As Migration of Unaccompanied Minors Endures, and in Some Cases Rises, Governments Seek to Respond Arrivals of unaccompanied minors to the United States surged during 2012, straining the child custody system. While the flows of unaccompanied child migrants to Europe remained stable, the European Union continues to grapple with policies regarding the treatment of this uniquely vulnerable population. Top 10 of 2011 - Issue #10: Caught between Two Migration Realities, Mexico Passes New Immigration Legislation Migration to and through Mexico has been a critical policy issue for the Mexican government since the 1980s, as large numbers of Central Americans have flowed in through the country's porous southern border, first in flight during times of civil war and humanitarian crises and later in pursuit of greater economic opportunity in the United States. Video, Audio December 14, 2012 Young Children of Black Immigrants in America: Changing Flows, Changing Faces The event discussion, which touched on the intersection of race and immigration, focused on the demographics of Black immigrants (both African and Caribbean) in the United States and their children, their educational success, and the implications of the recently released volume’s findings for research and public policy. Video, Audio March 18, 2011 Lessons from the 2007 Legal Arizona Workers Act Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) research fellows Magnus Lofstrom and Sarah Bohn, and UC Berkeley professor of public policy Steven Raphael are issuing a new report that examines whether LAWA achieved its primary aims: reducing the unauthorized population, deterring their employment opportunities and improving employment outcomes of competing authorized workers. Their analysis also investigates whether Arizona’s legislation induced a shift away from formal employment. Video November 30, 2010 Diasporas: New Partners in Global Development Policy Over the past year, MPI has partnered with the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation to examine how diasporas contribute to – or detract from - development efforts in their countries of origin. MPI and USAID have published an edited volume of the research. Please join us for the release of the book where speakers will discuss new thinking on the role of diaspora engagement in U.S. foreign and development policy. This edited volume showcases approaches toward border management in Europe, Central America, and North America, and reflects on the challenges that countries in these regions face in managing their borders. The book brings together perspectives from both sides of the Atlantic on what border security means in practice, the challenges that continue to evade policymakers, and what policies have been the most (and least) successful in achieving “secure” borders. As hundreds of migrants were drowning in the Mediterranean, the United Nations General Assembly was hours from gathering for only the second time in its history to address international migration. The juxtaposition threw a question into sharp relief: does the world body have any impact on the world’s migrants? Policy Briefs This policy brief, which concludes a nine-brief series examining what is known about the linkages between migration and development, suggests that the policy framework on migration and development remains relatively weak, and few development agencies have made it a priority to promote the positive impact of international migration. The Chair of the Global Forum on Migration and Development, along with the Special Advisor to the UN Special Representative for International Migration discuss what is expected from The UN High-Level Dialogue on Migration and Development in October 2013 and what impact it may have on the Global Forum on Migration and Development. Circular migration has typically been viewed with skepticism by migrant-rights advocates and wary publics alike. But many experts and policymakers in the migration field — and some in development — have come to recognize that well-managed circulation that is respectful of migrants' human and labor rights can bring benefits to countries of origin and destination, as well as to migrants themselves. For countries of origin, circular migration can relieve labor surpluses; for destination countries, it can provide the flexibility to quickly overcome skills shortages while adapting to long-term labor market shifts. For migrants, circular migration offers the opportunity to earn higher wages and gain international experience. Private recruitment agencies orchestrate much of the migration process, from predeparture to return. They provide information, assistance, and even financial support to migrants; facilitate transit to and from the destination; and in some cases employ migrants directly. While recruitment agencies protect migrants, sometimes removing them from abusive workplaces or even organizing repatriation, migrants’ dependence on them for so many services also creates many opportunities for exploitation and abuse. This brief assesses the forms of regulation that are being proposed and enacted to oversee recruitment agencies and identifies several areas for further improvement. Diasporas can play an important role in the economic development of their countries of origin or ancestry. Beyond their well-known role as senders of remittances, diasporas also can promote trade and foreign direct investment, create businesses, spur entrepreneurship, and transfer new knowledge and skills. Policymakers increasingly recognize that an engaged diaspora can be an asset — or even a counterweight to the emigration of skilled and talented migrants. Skilled migration is often thought to have overwhelmingly negative effects on countries of migrant origin. Yet recent research and policy experience challenge this assumption and offer a more nuanced picture, as this brief explains. Countries of origin and destination can in fact benefit from skilled migration when it is correctly structured, and efforts to restrict skilled nationals’ ability to leave their countries of origin may have unintended costs, in addition to being ethically problematic. Demetrios G. Papademetriou Randy Capps Marc R. Rosenblum Victoria Rietig Multimedia see all > The Global Boom in Investor Immigration: What Are the Lessons For Policymakers?

时政

2014-52/4414/en_head.json.gz/2423

Immigration Reform Can Spur Economic Growth By September 10, 2012 at 12:19 PM A new Rutgers Regional Report, "Employment Recession and Recovery in the 50 States: An Update," authored by Professor Joseph J. Seneca at Rutgers University's Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy and Will Irving, research associate, ranks the 50 states by the percentage of the Great Recession's private-sector job losses that have been recovered as of June 2012. The authors observe that, "The impacts of the recession continue to be profound and affect many dimensions of American life. This is not surprising given that the basic labor-market facts are compelling and remain deeply sobering. The nation lost 8,833,000 private-sector jobs during a 26-month period….As of June 2012, nearly two-and-a-half years later, the nation had recovered just under half (49.3 percent, or 4,372,000 private-sector jobs) of these losses." They concluded, "Only a relatively few states, led mostly by those with significant energy-production and related activities, have regained all of the private-sector job losses that were incurred…. Even this, however, would still not address the additional job needs implicit from what expected expansion of the labor force at normal labor force participation rates…would entail. Thus, increasing the rate of job growth remains a deeply compelling national priority." It is in this context that an aspect of emigration reform is taking place: There is currently a proposal before Congress to increase the number of visas to foreign-born graduates of American universities seeking opportunities in the United States in the fields of science, technology, engineering and math (STEM). This proposal would have a positive and long-lasting impact on our nation's economy. Studies have demonstrated that for every foreign graduate with an advanced degree from a U.S. university who stays in this country and works in a STEM field, the economy generates on average 2.62 jobs for American workers as a consequence of the investments in research, development and industry made possible by the availability of these technical workers. Growing up in Camden, New Jersey, and later serving as a City Councilman there, I experienced how the process of disinvestment can lead communities to despair. Years later, when I taught Urban Economics at Eastern University in St. Davids, Pennsylvania, I became intrigued by the factors that drive business investment decisions. I was fortunate that I was able to spend time observing and implementing economic development strategies, first as one of Mayor Ed Rendell's volunteer business ambassadors for Philadelphia, then as New Jersey's Secretary of Commerce, and subsequently with a global commercial real estate firm representing companies making location decisions. During this time, I have visited many jurisdictions that are economic centers of excellence and many that aspire to be. A lesson I learned in all of my work is that technology and the life sciences are multifaceted, influential and fluid industry clusters capable of transforming economic regions as diverse as Research Triangle Park, Singapore, Israel, Silicon Valley, Boston's Route 128 Corridor, and New York State's Capital Region, to name a few. Today's world measures progress by the technological advancement achieved by regions and countries. Technology makes life simpler and helps us achieve a better lifestyle. It also drives the political and economic stability of a nation or region. And it cannot happen without knowledge workers. Projections indicate that manytechnical positions in the U.S. cannot be filled without immigration reform. By 2018 there will be a deficit of more than 230,000 advanced degree workers in STEM-related fields that cannot be filled even if every new American STEM graduate finds employment. An increase in visas for foreign-born graduates of American universities in STEM fields would help bring new economic activity and employment growth to the United States.

时政

2014-52/4414/en_head.json.gz/2867

ACLJ & Jay Sekulow On The Loss Of Mitt Romney “This election is over, but our principles endure.“- Gov. Mitt Romney, conceding 2012 presidential election In the wake of the reelection of President Barack Obama, many conservatives are understandably discouraged. It is natural to feel momentarily defeated when a setback occurs. However, conservatives must remember that we fight for specific principles not because they are politically expedient, but because we believe those principles provide people with the greatest opportunity for success. Our love for these principles stems from a belief in those principles, not from political convenience. At the same time, the fact that we stand on unchanging principles must not mean that we grow complacent in finding fresh and innovative ways to ensure that those principles improve the lives of those in need. I have heard two common (and opposing) views on how conservatives should move forward. I believe that both are partially correct, but that both are incomplete. The first view is that our conservative principles are sound, and therefore we must simply reiterate them with more strength and conviction. The other view is that our principles are outdated and rigid, and that we must leave them in favor of principles that are more current and easier to articulate. These two views confuse principles with ideas. Principles are held not because of political motivation, but because they are morally sound. Ideas are the ways in which we give life to those principles. Conservatives believe in the principle of a strong rule of law. We believe in the principle of individual liberty and limited government with constitutional restraints. We believe in the principle of a strong national security. We believe in the principle of religious freedom. We believe in the principle that every life is sacred. We believe in the principle that the family is the backbone of a strong society. We believe in the principle that America must be a safe haven in the world. We believe in the principle of living within our means, both individually and as a society. And we believe in the principle of a Biblical mandate to care for fatherless and those living in poverty. We believe in these principles because we know that they afford people from all walks of life with an opportunity to pursue happiness and achieve the American dream. As such, these principles do not change. They endure. And we as conservatives must continue the good fight of advancing them. However, standing on unchanging principles does not mean continually recycling the same ideas. Too often, we as conservatives forget that while principles do not change, our methods of reaching those in need with these principles must be open to change. This certainly includes delivering a more articulate and charismatic message. But it goes far beyond just the delivery of the message. It must extend to the development of new and fresh policy ideas that reach real people in real need. Doubling down on the same ideas and the same message will not advance our unchanging principles. In fact, it will undermine them. There are a myriad of issues for which we must develop fresh ideas. One of the most controversial will be immigration. We are all immigrants, removed from that act of immigration by at most a few generations. The Left has successfully defined us as anti-immigrant, which of course we are not. But the fault of that label sticking is our own. We must stand on our principles. They don’t change. But we must also develop fresh ideas in order for those principles to reach real people. That is the only way to ensure that our principles endure, and that they improve the lives of a citizenry who embraces them. At the ACLJ, the work we do every day is dedicated to these principles. Our mission is to defend and advance these principles in all three branches of government, regardless of the political landscape. It does not change based on who is in the Oval Office, what party controls the Legislative Branch, or who appointed the Judge hearing our case. That mission is unchanged today. We invite you to be a part of our mission at ACLJ.org. Jay Sekulow: founded the: ACLJ. A Gift That Will Keep On Giving Each year during the period of conspicuous consumption known as Christmas shopping, I try to think of a gift that Yellen: Where No Man Has Gone Before Although Fed Chairwoman Janet Yellen said nothing new in her carefully manicured semi-annual testimony to Congress last week, her performance The Justice Department’s identity problem Is there, or should there ever be, a point when a state is no longer penalized for its discriminatory past?

时政

2014-52/4414/en_head.json.gz/2917

Tête-à-Tête: Elizabeth Steeby On Protesting In New Orleans Sat February 18, 2012 Payroll Tax Cut Brings Other Benefits Share Tweet E-mail Comments Print By Tamara Keith Listen Listening... Transcript SCOTT SIMON, HOST: This is WEEKEND EDITION from NPR News. I'm Scott Simon. A popular payroll tax break will be extended through the end of the year. Lawmakers on Capitol Hill yesterday managed to hurriedly enact the deal. It was a final act before a 10-day recess. Now, the agreement was cut with large bipartisan coalitions in both the House and the Senate without any 11th hour drama this time. Long-term unemployment benefits and a fix to forestall cuts in Medicare payments were also extended. And somewhat miraculously Congress got it done 12 days before those measures were set to expire. That's quite a story and NPR's David Welna has it. DAVID WELNA, BYLINE: Congress made short work of the hastily forged deal. First, the House passed it by a wide margin, despite 90 Republicans who broke ranks with their leaders and voted no. Then it went over to the Senate. That's where Max Baucus, the Montana Democrat who chairs the finance committee and who helped finesse the deal, asked his colleagues to consider some numbers before voting on extending the payroll tax cut. SENATOR MAX BAUCUS: One hundred sixty million - that's the number of Americans who are helped by this bill. Next number is 1,000. What's that? That's $1,000 each of those Americans are going to be benefited by the passage of this bill. WELNA: And 60 - that's the number of senators who voted for the deal. And that meant it was going to President Obama's desk for his signature. During a visit yesterday to a Boeing plant in Everett, Washington, Mr. Obama gave his audience credit for getting the payroll tax cut extended. PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: Because you reminded people what it means to have 40 bucks taken out of your paycheck every week, it got done. This is a big deal. And I want to thank members of Congress for listening to the voices of the American people. It is amazing what happens when Congress focuses on doing the right thing instead of just playing politics. This was a good example, and Congress should take pride in it. WELNA: House Republican leaders greased the skids for a deal this week by dropping their demand that the $100 billion cost of extending the payroll tax cut be paid for. Congressman Tom Reid, a New York Republican, says Democrats forced that GOP concession. REPRESENTATIVE TOM REID: It's clear that we're not going to agree to paying for the $100-plus billion we needed and we ended up with this. WELNA: In the Senate, Republicans opposed the deal by a margin of more than two-to-one. So did one Independent and five Democrats, including Virginia's Mark Warner, who accused his colleagues of being like Wimpy from the Popeye cartoons. SENATOR MARK WARNER: Now, Wimpy's theory was - remember every cartoon - I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today. WELNA: Or in the case of the payroll tax cut, perhaps when the economy gets better. David Welna, NPR News, the Capitol. Transcript provided by NPR, Copyright National Public Radio.

时政

2014-52/4414/en_head.json.gz/3033

Obama to visit Israel JTA, Wednesday, February 6, 2013 Tags: International Comments President Barack Obama WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama will make his first visit to Israel as president in the spring, a White House official said. Jay Carney, the White House spokesman, told reporters about the trip in a briefing Tuesday. Carney said Obama discussed the planned trip during a recent phone call with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Obama also will meet with Palestinian leaders and visit Jordan, he said during the daily briefing with reporters. Obama visited as a candidate in 2008, but Republicans during the last election chided him for not visiting as president, noting that he had visited a number of Muslim nations. Obama's new secretary of state, John Kerry, plans to visit Israel in March. Netanyahu suggested in September that spring would be his deadline to decide whether to strike Iran to keep it from obtaining a nuclear weapon. The Obama administration is leading Western efforts to bring Iran into negotiations to make its nuclear plans more transparent. Iran denies planning a weapon, although Western intelligence agencies have accumulated much evidence that such a weapon is in the development stages. Kerry said during his confirmation hearings that one of his priorities would be reviving moribund Palestinian-Israeli peace talks, and suggested that whatever Israeli government emerged after the Jan. 22 elections would be more amenable to such talks than its predecessor. Netanyahu, who led the last government, is currently in talks to set up a new one, and has indicated he would prefer a centrist coalition likelier to engage in peace talks than his last government.

时政

2014-52/4414/en_head.json.gz/3534

Congress Honors Slave Labor That Built Capitol By Sunlen Miller@sunlenmillerFollow on Twitter Feb 28, 2012 7:03pm The U.S. Capitol today added a physical acknowledgment of the role slave labor played in the construction of the building. Leaders from both parties and both houses of Congress unveiled a commemorative marker in the Capitol Visitors Center to pay tribute to those who put the building up. The marker features a single block of sandstone, once part of the Capitol’s East Front portico, placed in reverse position so that the original chisel marks, done by those who built the building, are clearly visible. The construction of the Capitol relied heavily on slave labor. Slaves performed the backbreaking work of quarrying the stones found in the Capitol’s floors, walls and columns like the one that today turned into a commemorative piece. “Through the unveiling of this marker today, we finally permit countless and nameless souls to rest,” Rep. John Lewis said at the ceremony this afternoon, “We honor the work, the dedication, the artistry, the imagination, and the contribution of men and women in chains who help us, even at this hour, to sanctify the U.S. Capitol as our ‘Temple of Liberty.’” “The history of the capitol, like the history of our nation should be complete,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said, “because we have always aspired to something better that work may never be complete. But as long as we remain true to our purpose as a nation, liberty and dedicated to the provocation that all men are created equal, we will continue as it must.” Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said that the marker is a memorial to the “tragedy and sin” of slavery. “For too long, the sacrifice of men and women who built this temple of democracy were overlooked; their toil forgotten; their story ignored or denied, and their voices silenced in the pages of history,” Pelosi said. “Yet today, we join together to strive to right this wrong of our past, to honor the sacrifice of these laborers, to lay down a marker of gratitude and respect for those who built the walls of the Capitol.” The bicameral, bipartisan leadership collectively pulled a rope to unveil the large new marker. “These laborers went unrecognized for generations,” Speaker of the House John Boehner, R-Ohio, said, “and all those honored by this marker have done our Capitol and our country a great service.” SHOWS: World News blog comments powered by Disqus About The NoteThroughout the day, ABC News' political team contributes to The Note with the very latest news and analysis from the nation's capital and the 2012 campaign trail. More from ABC News Politics Excerpt: ‘The Keeper’ by Tim Howard

时政

2014-52/4414/en_head.json.gz/3671

Home > Schwartz Aims to Be Third Jewish Governor Schwartz Aims to Be Third Jewish Governor U.S. Rep. Allyson Schwartz’s official announcement this week that she is running for governor puts her in the running to become Pennsylvania’s first female Jewish chief executive. The Democrat from Montgomery County, currently the state’s only Jewish member of Congress, will try to unseat Republican Gov. Tom Corbett in November 2014. If successful, she would become the third Jew to occupy the governor’s mansion in Harrisburg, after Milton Shapp, who served from 1971 to 1979, and Ed Rendell, who was in office from 2002 to 2010. But before she takes on Corbett, the five-term congresswoman will have to get through what is sure to be a crowded primary that will likely include State Treasurer Rob McCord of Montgomery County, who identifies as a secular Jew. Schwartz is a longtime member of Germantown Jewish Centre. Her mother, Renee Young, left Vienna in 1938 as a teenager and came to Philadelphia on her own. Schwartz’s announcement will only intensify the campaign to fill her congressional seat. State Rep. Daylin Leach, a Jewish lawmaker, publicly announced last week that he intended to run and former City Controller Jonathan Saidel, also Jewish, has also filed the papers needed to run. State Rep. Brendan Boyle, who is not Jewish but spoke at the Yom Hashoah ceremony this week on Benjamin Franklin Parkway and has sponsored a law to mandate Holocaust education in the state, also announced his candidacy. And according to news reports, former U.S. Rep. Marjorie Margolies-Mezvinsky — mother-in-law to former first daughter Chelsea Clinton — is mulling over a run for her old seat. Source URL: http://jewishexponent.com/schwartz-aims-to-be-third-jewish-governor

时政

2014-52/4414/en_head.json.gz/3678

In Gingrich, Romney May Be Facing Toughest Foe Yet Share Tweet E-mail Print By Frank James Republican voters may have saved the best for last in terms of the latest obstacle they've placed between Mitt Romney and what was supposed to have been his inevitable march to the 2012 Republican presidential nomination — Newt Gingrich. Essentially written off after his campaign seemingly imploded last summer and because of the manifest personal baggage he brings to a presidential campaign, Gingrich stuck around long enough to have his moment, to catch fire after Herman Cain flamed out. With Cain, Texas Gov. Rick Perry and Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota — each of whom briefly challenged Romney for frontrunner status — many Republican voters clearly had difficulty, for one reason or another, seeing those candidates standing toe-to-toe with President Obama in a presidential debate. But Gingrich doesn't have that problem. He is one of the glibbest politicians of the age, who rattles off full sentences, even paragraphs effortlessly even if some content might be immediately suspect. While he can often cause the brains of his listeners to fade, overwhelming them with the sheer torrent of words he can emit, his apparently doesn't. He's also already had the experience of facing off against a Democratic president, Bill Clinton, during the 1990s, with mixed results certainly as House speaker but it's still an important part of his resume. And Romney can make no similar claim. So the most immediate problem Gingrich confronts Romney with is that, at the very least, few question his ability to not just show up but probably even score points in debates against Obama. Romney no longer looks like the one on the Republican stage of candidates with the most realistic chance to do that. But there's a bigger problem. Gingrich is also justified in making the claim that, since the 1980s, he has been an important contributor to the conservative movement, with his ideas not only influencing his party's direction in Congress but also, arguably, Ronald Reagan's 1980 campaign and later presidency. Indeed, at the same time that Gingrich was at the zenith of conservative power in 1996 as speaker, Romney was moving to the left in Massachusetts in an unsuccessful attempt to unseat Sen. Ted Kennedy, the liberal legend. Romney initial attempt to stomp out the Gingrich boom is to brand the former speaker as a Washington lifer, a soft jab he made Tuesday night during an interview with Brett Baier on Fox News: ROMNEY: "Speaker Gingrich is a good man. He and I have very different backgrounds. He spent his last 30 or 40 years in Washington. I spent my career in the private sector. I think that's what the country needs right now." Romney suggested that Obama being a "life-long politician" it would be best if Republicans nominated someone who wasn't, like himself, the implication being Gingrich can't make the same claim. Of course, having made millions of dollars in the "strategic advice" business, Gingrich has shown himself to be quite the entrepreneur as well who can claim his own private-sector success. Romney is ultimately is likely going to have to come up with a far tougher negative message against Gingrich than the argument that he's a Washington lifer. Gingrich has been called far worse and survived politically. Thrived, even. A new Insider Advantage/Majority Opinion Research poll out of Florida that was done for NewsMax shows Gingrich with a 24 percentage point lead over Romney in that critical state, 41.4 percent versus 17.4 percent. Meanwhile, polls are showing Gingrich leading in the other early primary states of Iowa and South Carolina. Romney still has significant advantages over Gingrich, such as money, organization and much of the GOP establishment aligning itself with him. And he'll need all of that. Because he's probably not going to be able to outargue Gingrich. And he probably won't be able to out Reagan Gingrich, either.Copyright 2011 National Public Radio. To see more, visit http://www.npr.org/. KENW

时政

2014-52/4414/en_head.json.gz/3735

Search A Too Late Solution? Matthew Yglesias October 28, 2009 J Street's first conference may have been a success, but prospects are still bleak for the two-state solution the organization wants. PinItInstapaperPocketEmailPrint Founded 18 months ago to provide a "pro-Israel, pro-peace" perspective on the conflict in the Middle East, advocacy organization J Street hosted its first annual conference this week in Washington, D.C. From a growth perspective, the event was a smashing success. Over 1,500 people attended; the Obama administration took the outfit seriously enough to dispatch National Security Adviser Jim Jones to give a speech, and despite considerable pressure from the Jewish right to freeze out the group, 148 members of Congress agreed to join the host committee, with about half a dozen members participating personally. J Street has its share of critics among the Jewish establishment, but it has survived and even thrived, attracting extensive media coverage and giving the large number of left-wing Jewish political activists and writers a banner under which to gather. In all, the conference was a successful debut event for a group that’s achieved a great deal under difficult circumstances and in a very short time. Which leads to the awkward point that prospects are bleak for the comprehensive peace two-state solution that J Street supports. I don’t like to reduce politics to biography, but I suspect one factor in making me a J Street Jew is that, as for many American Jews, my peak period of Zionist indoctrination came during the Hebrew school years around my bar mitzvah -- roughly corresponding with Yitzhak Rabin’s term in office as Israel's Prime Minister. During the Rabin years, nobody could question that Israel’s leaders were willing to take political risks on their nation's behalf (though some could and, of course, did question the adequacy of the concessions Israel was prepared to make for peace). Indeed, Rabin literally sacrificed his life for the peace process. His successor, Shimon Peres, went on to lose the next election to Benjamin Netanyahu, who ran on a platform of opposition to the Oslo Accords. But Netanyahu's first stint in office was after my time. During the heyday of my Hebrew school and synagogue attendance, Rabin and Labor were in power. Their coalition also included Shas, an ultra-orthodox party that was more skeptical of the peace process, and Meretz, a leftist party that was even more sympathetic to the Arabs than Labor. For a Reform congregation in Greenwich Village, it was simple and unproblematic to be both pro-Israel and pro-peace. With that coalition in power, the ideological pairing seemed natural and obvious. The Rabin/Peres era would have been a good time for a political organization like J Street. Instead, the United States was left with the vast political clout of the right-leaning American Israel Public Affairs Committee and a small cluster of fairly ineffectual and largely depoliticized left-wing organizations. If Bill Clinton had more political running room in which to operate, perhaps U.S. policy would have been different and maybe a final agreement on the conflict could have been made before things started to fall apart. Perhaps. Again, one can imagine that J Street could have played a vital role at the end of the Clinton administration, when Ehud Barak seemed both interested in an ambitious final settlement but reluctant to make certain painful concessions in order to get it. Today, though, the Israeli political situation is very different. Both Labor and Meretz are shattered shells of their former selves. The right-wing Likud Party has split into two factions, and the more moderate arm, now known as Kadima, is out of power. The rump Likud, led once again by Netanyahu, is governing in alliance with Yisrael Beitenu, essentially a European-style far-right party for whom Arab Israelis serve as the demonized other. Combine that with Hamas' rise and the general deterioration of the Palestinian political situation, and the region needs much more than a gentle nudge to seal the deal on peace. That much seems generally recognized. So the Obama administration wisely decided to set more limited short-term goals. On the one hand, the administration is pressing for some kind of Palestinian political resolution in order to create a unit with which Israel can negotiate. And on the other hand, it is asking for a freeze of Israeli settlement activity. Such a freeze would serve a triple purpose. First, a freeze could potentially cultivate Arab good will. Second, it would buy time for the two-state solution by reducing the extent to which Arab land gets carved up and populated by Israelis. Third, a settlement freeze would demonstrate, politically, that Israel can take on its most radical citizens and that the United States is able to deliver Israeli concessions. The strategy was a good if controversial one, and the Obama administration took a lot of heat for it. J Street, meanwhile, played its intended role of giving the administration political cover, issuing policy statements in support of Obama’s position and gathering signatures to demonstrate Jewish support for Obama’s approach. But despite Obama’s courageous stand, Netanyahu said no to these requests. And politically, he’s getting away with it. Israeli opinion interpreted the standoff more as an example of Obama being bad for Israel than of Netanyahu being bad for the U.S.-Israel alliance. And just to underscore the point that his government has no interest in pursuing a "pro peace" vision of Zionism, Netanyahu had his ambassador to the United States, Michael Oren, deliberately snub the J Street conference and diss the group publicly. Israeli intransigence is hardly the only barrier to peace at this point. But the critical thing a pro-Israel, pro-peace lobby in the United States needs is a viable Israeli peace camp as a partner. No such partner is to be found in the current government. And as Gershom Gorenberg observed last week there’s not even a robust Israeli left in opposition. Optimistically, this situation can change over time. But one of the premises of the J Street point of view is precisely that time is running out on the two-state solution. Time, in other words, is both needed and possibly not at hand. So what should have been a happy and successful occasion for a new important group was, to me, more a reminder of what might have been had the work been done earlier, in more promising, more optimistic times. PinItInstapaperPocketEmailPrint Is Iran's Election America's Problem? You need to be logged in to comment.(If there's one thing we know about comment trolls, it's that they're lazy) Matthew Yglesias is a senior editor at the Center for American Progress Action Fund, a former Prospect staff writer, and the author of Heads in the Sand: How the Republicans Screw Up Foreign Policy and Foreign Policy Screws Up the Democrats. Follow @mattyglesias Articles By Matthew Yglesias RSS feed of articles by Matthew Yglesias Advertisement

时政

2014-52/4414/en_head.json.gz/3740

Obama Admin Knew Within Hours That Benghazi Attack Was Terrorism I know many are talking about the bombshell of Obama’s speech in 2007, which I really don’t see as that big of a deal: we knew back then that Obama hadn’t divorced himself from Jeremiah Wright, that he was (and still is) a race hustler, and that he attempts to divide people. I find this a bigger bombshell than a 5 year old video (Reuters) Within hours of last month’s attacks on U.S. diplomatic facilities in Benghazi, Libya, President Barack Obama’s administration received about a dozen intelligence reports suggesting militants connected to al Qaeda were involved, three government sources said. Despite these reports, in public statements and private meetings, top U.S. officials spent nearly two weeks highlighting intelligence suggesting that the attacks were spontaneous protests against an anti-Muslim film, while playing down the involvement of organized militant groups. It was not until last Friday that Director of National Intelligence James Clapper’s office issued an unusual public statement, which described how the picture that intelligence agencies presented to U.S. policymakers had “evolved” into an acknowledgement that the attacks were “deliberate and organized” and “carried out by extremists.” So, within hours the Obama administration had reports that it wasn’t a video, it was a preplanned attack resulting in the death of our ambassador and 3 others. And what did Obama do? He went on a fundraising trip to Vegas. Then some more trips over the days following as his administration pushed the notion that it was all a spontaneous response (with RPGs and heavy weapons) to a stupid video that none had seen. The stream of intelligence flowing into Washington within hours of the Benghazi attacks contained data from communications intercepts and U.S. informants, which were then fashioned into polished initial assessments for policymakers. Officials familiar with them said they contained evidence that members of a militant faction, Ansar al-Sharia, as well as al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, or AQIM, were involved in the assaults. The officials did not allege the attacks were a reaction to the anti-Muslim film, but they acknowledged it was possible that the attackers sought to use an outbreak of violence in Cairo over the film, which insulted the Prophet Mohammad, as a pretext for attacks. The big question is why did the Obama admin. decide to go with the “it was a film” talking point instead of terrorism? Essentially a cover up. There are many theories, but the only one that truly makes sense is that by labeling the attack as a growing out of the protest allowed Obama to continue campaigning at will since September 11 and then hoping that enough of the real information would stay off the media radar till the elections. Obama even blamed the attack on the Mohammed video during his United Nations speech, before blowing off world leaders to go on The View. In other words, the Administration purely lied to the American public. And they have no intention of being honest with the American Public. The FBI still hasn’t accessed the scene of the attack. The Washington Post has. And Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is stating that they’ll have a report on this attack….(via Allahpundit) Clinton asked Issa to withhold any final conclusions about the Benghazi attack until the review board finishes its work and reports to Congress, which could come as early as November or as late as early next year. She pledged to work with Issa’s committee and asked him to submit any requests for information or witnesses at hearings to the State Department’s Office of Legislative Affairs. So, after the election. Foot dragging, stonewalling, and coverup. Allah also posts this video about the sorry state of the security at the Behngazi site Watch the latest video at video.foxnews.com The big question is will the media do their job and investigate? It used to be that the media were sharks, and something like this would be a pool of blood in the water. Washington Post: Government Powers Should Never Be Used For Partisan Purposes Let’s jump way back in time to the beginning of the week. Some guy said this at a commencement ceremony. Gallup Results Present Problems For Both Agendas Gallup has released some interesting poll findings showing that both sides of the aisle have their work cut out for “Children Of The Future”: Another Unhinged Leftist Video Taking Advantage Of Kids It’s all about blaming Mom and Dad. And Republicans. Conservatives. The last 4 years of the Romney presidency….huh? He hasn’t

时政

2014-52/4414/en_head.json.gz/3774

McConnell Urges Senate Consideration of Defense Authorization, Debate on Detainees By: Mitch McConnell Date: Oct. 5, 2011 Location: Washington, DC U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell made the following statement Wednesday regarding the need to debate the Defense Authorization Act in the Senate: "On another matter, it has come to my attention that the Majority Leader has written to the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Armed Services Committee asking them to modify the committee reported National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2012 before he will allow the Senate to consider that bill. "The White House has made clear that it objects to certain provisions dealing with the detention of unlawful enemy combatants and captured members of Al Qaeda and associate groups. As the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee explained to the Senate, the Committee voted in favor of the provisions overwhelmingly. "My request to the Majority Leader would be to move to the National Defense Authorization Act at the soonest possible moment to allow the Senate to debate and amend the bill. If there are members on the other side who support the White House effort to bring unlawful enemy combatants into the United States for purposes of detention and civilian trial, the Senate can debate that matter during consideration of the bill. I know that many members on my side would very much appreciate a debate on the importance of keeping detainees currently held at Guantanamo from returning to the battlefield, especially in places like Yemen. "Once the Senate completes consideration of the Defense Authorization Act it could then move to consideration of the Defense Appropriations bill, another measure that I assume would be subject to debate and amendment." Source: http://mcconnell.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=62775053-e952-4d07-a667-0519fcaf68fd&ContentType_id=c19bc7a5-2bb9-4a73-b2ab-3c1b5191a72b&Group_id=0fd6ddca-6a05-4b26-8710-a0b7b59a8f1f

时政

2014-52/4414/en_head.json.gz/3775

Any Decision to Use Military Force Against the Assad Regime Should Be About Protecting Our National Security Interests, Sending a Message of Deterrence to Iran, and Telling the World That the Use of Chemical Weapons Will Be Answered By Force, Says Ros-Leh By: Ileana Ros-Lehtinen Date: Sept. 4, 2013 Location: Washington, DC U.S. Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), Chairman of the Subcommittee on the Middle East and North Africa, made the following statement during a full committee hearing on the Administration's proposed use of military force in Syria. Statement by Ros-Lehtinen: "Thank you, Secretaries Kerry and Hagel, and General Dempsey, for being here today. We've been aware of Assad's chemical weapon stockpile for years, yet we failed to hold him accountable. The United Nations has been completely useless at effecting any change in Syria, thanks in no small part to Russia and China's persistent stonewalling at the Security Council. And Congress has certainly had our fair share of missed opportunities to affect the course of events in Syria. Last Congress the House passed the Iran, North Korea, Syria Nonproliferation Reform and Modernization Act overwhelmingly with a vote of 418 and only 2 against -- yet the Senate failed to take any action on it. Had the United States been taking a more proactive role in Syria by instituting strict sanctions against Assad's regime, it may have changed his calculations on the use of chemical weapons. In order to justify action now against his regime, and risk further escalating the conflict, the President must clearly identify what our national security interests are. What are our objectives in limited and targeted air strikes? What does degradation look like, and what will we do if the initial action does not yield the intended results? One Senate version of the resolution has a limitation on ground troops. This sounds like it leaves open the possibility of boots on the ground for something other than combat operations -- like special operations. Is this intentional? Will you confirm that under no circumstance will we place boots on the ground in Syria? We all know we're in a tough fiscal environment. Even a limited engagement, if it ends up being only limited, could potentially cost taxpayers billions. With members of the Arab League so eager for U.S. participation, have they offered to offset any of the costs associated with the action? Also, Iran and North Korea are carefully watching our next move. If we say that the use of chemical weapons is unacceptable, yet we fail to act, this will embolden Iran's pursuit of nuclear breakout capabilities. A refusal to act in Syria, after the President has set such a clear red line, will be seen as a green light by the Iranian regime who will see that we don't have the will to back up our words." Source: http://ros-lehtinen.house.gov/press-release/any-decision-use-military-force-against-assad-regime-should-be-about-protecting-our

时政

2014-52/4414/en_head.json.gz/3812

Profile: Robert Mugabe In power for 33 years, Zimbabwe's President Robert Mugabe is determined to win re-election. Gift Phiri Last Modified: 30 Jul 2013 20:34 Mugabe has been accused of plundering the economy while his wife grabs headlines for her lavish lifestyle [Reuters] Robert Mugabe, who is seeking an eighth five-year term as Zimbabwe's leader in the July 31 election, is one of the most divisive, vocal and controversial leaders in southern Africa. He was born on February 21, 1924, near Kutama, northeast of Salisbury (now Harare, the capital of Zimbabwe), in what was then Rhodesia. The former school teacher, with seven university degrees, first came to prominence after waging a bloody guerrilla war against the white colonial rulers who jailed him for 10 years over a "subversive speech" he made in 1964. Soon after his release from jail in 1974, he caused a seismic shift in the then Rhodesian politics, riding a wave of popular outrage against the racist colonial rulers. Then married to Ghanaian Sally Hayfron, who died of a kidney disease in 1992, he crossed the border to neighbouring Mozambique to launch a protracted guerrilla war for independence. He returned to Rhodesia in 1979 and became prime minister in 1980 of the newly independent country renamed Zimbabwe.Opposition crackdown In the early years of his rule, he was praised for expanding social services, including building schools and hospitals. He was concurrently spearheading a brutal crackdown on his political opposition led by now deceased nationalist Joshua Nkomo that claimed more than 20,000 lives, according to the Catholic Commission for Justice and Peace. Tens of thousands of people were killed during the so-called "Gukurahundi", a suppression campaign waged by the North Korean-trained 5th Brigade in the predominantly Ndebele regions of Zimbabwe. Most of the victims were supporters of Nkomo, Mugabe's fierce political opponent. Nkomo was the founding father of the nationalist struggle for independence in Zimbabwe, and the "Gukurahundi" crackdown only ended with the signing of the Unity Accord in 1987 between ZANU-PF and PF-ZAPU. Mugabe assumed the presidency in 1987, with the prime minister role being abolished. Since then, he has won a series of controversial elections that critics claim he rigged, including one in 2008 which he lost to now Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai, sparking political violence that human rights groups say claimed over 200 lives. The violence prompted the 15-member Southern Africa Development Community (SADC) to form a fractious unity government that has been plagued by policy discord. On a nationwide campaign trail that has attracted tens of thousands, Mugabe argues that he needs re-election in the July 31 vote for his socialist revolution to empower his people to take root. His supporters say he speaks for the poor; his critics say he has become increasingly authoritarian.Cancer rumours Last year, secrets-spilling website WikiLeaks released US embassy cables detailing briefings with top members of Mugabe's ZANU-PF party claiming he is suffering from cancer, a claim his spin-doctors have persistently rejected, insisting instead that his myriad trips to Singapore, where he is rumoured to be undergoing chemotherapy, were in fact for an eye problem. Just last month before he hit the campaign trail, he announced he needed further medical help for cataracts in Singapore. Critics say he has failed to groom a successor and that the old Zimbabwean order is falling apart. He stands accused of presiding over a corrupt system, vandalising the economy and squandering the country's vast mineral wealth on his re-election drive. His former secretary-turned-wife, Grace Marufu, has grabbed international headlines for her lavish shopping sprees. Mugabe has vowed at one rally after another to press ahead with his "revolutionary" social policies, including a drive to transfer ownership of white-owned commercial farms to landless blacks. He constantly rails against foreign firms, threatening to seize their shareholding for redistribution to black Zimbabweans, and keeps reminding Zimbabweans of its colonial conquest. Robert Gabriel Mugabe Grace Marufu Sally Hayfron Morgan Tsvangirai Harare Catholic Commission for Justice and Peace US embassy PF party

时政

2014-52/4414/en_head.json.gz/4167

The Nameless, Faceless 1,027 Palestinian Prisoners and One Named Israeli Soldier By Trent Gilliss On the surface, it seems like the Palestinians and Hamas won a major victory in today’s exchange of prisoners. Gilad Shalit, one Israeli soldier, in exchange for more than a thousand Palestinians. The numbers are theirs to claim. How could Palestinians not be declared the victors? With all this media coverage, I really only know one name. The general public truly only knows one name. One face. One set of parents. One human story of drama and pain and sacrifice. I know Gilad Shalit. He’s my son and my brother and my friend. He’s the child I would sit out in the rain and the blazing sun to protect and bring home. I ache for his family and his country. He’s human, he’s real, he’s flesh and blood. With the Palestinian prisoners, I don’t know the name of one person. We don’t know the name of one person. No headlines in the papers or blogs exclusively devoted to the single surname of a Palestinian prisoner returned to her family. I know only numbers and politics and negotiators. I don’t know the woman above. We don’t know her. The story of a daughter and a sister and a mother and a wife. We don’t identify with her because she has remained faceless, nameless, lost. How long has she spent inside an Israeli prison? How long has her family begged their government to make a deal for an exchange? She goes unnoticed and unnamed by all of us. Even the description of the photojournalist doesn’t identify her but names one man: “A Palestinian prisoner hugs relatives after arriving in Mukata following her release on October 18, 2011 in Ramallah, West Bank. Israeli Defense Forces soldier Gilad Shalit was freed after being held captive for five years in Gaza by Hamas militants, in a deal which saw Israel releasing more than 1,000 Palestinian prisoners.”

时政

2014-52/4414/en_head.json.gz/4264

This Just In Former U.S. Sen. James Jeffords dies at age 80 Updated at 1:10 p.m. The Associated Press | August 18,2014 Former Vermont U.S. Sen. James Jeffords, who in 2001 tipped control of the Senate when he quit the Republican Party to become an independent, died Monday. He was 80. Jeffords died in Washington, said Diane Derby, a former aide to Jeffords. He had been in declining health, she said. Jeffords had announced in 2005 that he would not seek a fourth term, citing his and his wife's health problems."I have had an enormously satisfying career, one that I would not have traded for any other," Jeffords said when he retired. "In no other job do you have both the freedom and obligation to solve problems and help people on a daily basis."Vermont's sole congressman, independent Bernie Sanders, was elected to Jeffords' Senate seat in 2006.Jeffords children, Laura Jeffords and Leonard Jeffords, released a statement Monday:"While we are saddened by our father's passing, we take comfort in the knowledge that he lived a full life, from the hills of Vermont to the halls of Congress. We will miss his kindness, his good humor, and his generosity of spirit."U.S. Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., said Monday that Jeffords was a partner and friend who worked for Vermont. "He was a Vermonter through and through, drawn to political life to make a difference for our state and nation," Leahy said. "Part of his legacy will also stand as an enduring chapter of the Senate's history."Jeffords served more than 30 years in Washington. He won election to the House in 1974 as a Republican. The post-Watergate year was a strong one for Democrats nationally, but Jeffords was running as Vermont was just beginning its shift from a century of solid Republicanism to its current status as among the most liberal states.The Rutland native, a graduate of Yale and Harvard Law School, already had won statewide office as attorney general and was from a well-known Vermont Republican family. His father, Olin Jeffords, had been chief justice of the state Supreme Court.When he first moved to Washington he lived in his office and a travel trailer as a way to save money. "He was a very frugal guy, both with his own resources and the resources of the people," said Karen Meyer, a former Jeffords aide."He wasn't a fancy dresser, he wasn't a fancy speaker. He didn't ever have a fancy car. He just was a person who appreciated the things he had and didn't want for more," she said.Jeffords had a black belt in taekwondo and until his departure from the Republican Party was a member of the Singing Senators, with GOP Sens. Trent Lott, John Ashcroft, and Larry Craig.During his time in Washington, Jeffords stood out as a moderate to liberal Republican during a time when the party was moving to the right. He was a strong backer of legislation supporting education, the environment, job training and help for people with disabilities.He was the only Republican in the House to vote against President Ronald Reagan's tax cuts in 1981. After election to the Senate in 1988, replacing another moderate Republican, Robert Stafford, Jeffords opposed the first President Bush's appointment of Clarence Thomas to the U.S. Supreme Court.A decade later, when Republicans had gained control of both the White House and both houses of Congress, Jeffords, upset with President George W. Bush's opposition to the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, decided that was the last straw. In May of 2001, he declared he would leave the Republicans and caucus with the Democrats.Republicans were apoplectic, particularly since Jeffords' switch cost them control of the closely divided Senate. GOP Leader Trent Lott of Mississippi dubbed Jeffords' action a "coup of one," and described it as "the impetuous decision of one man to undermine our democracy."At the heart of Jeffords' decision was a belief that Republicans in general and President Bush in particular had become too conservative and that he could not remain in a party that favored tax breaks for the wealthy over full funding of education programs for the disabled.He complained at the time that the Republicans in control of both the White House and Congress "were set out on an agenda that did not fit into what the average American wanted to see."The Democrats' control of the Senate was brief. Republicans took it back 18 months later, and added to their gains the 2004 elections. But Democrats regained Senate control in 2006.Jeffords became a hero to Democrats, attracting huge crowds as he traveled the country helping to bring in millions in 2002 and 2004 for Democratic candidates. But he resisted calls that he drop the independent label and become a Democrat himself, saying he could not go against several generations of family history."For more than 30 years, Jim has fought to do the right thing, standing against extremism," former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, who later served as chairman of the Democratic National Committee, said when Jeffords announced his retirement. "His work ethic, patriotism and commitment to serving the people of Vermont have made him a model to all of us who know him and have had the honor to work with him."Jeffords was said to be eager to run for re-election in 2006 to show Republicans that Vermont would elect him as an independent, and he had won the endorsements of state Democratic leaders. The state GOP chairman called him a "turncoat" in a fundraising letter.Eventually, though, the health problems he faced and those of his wife prompted him to retire. Jeffords' family and staff had questioned whether the then-70-year-old senator was physically and mentally up to a statewide campaign. He had stumbled in a radio interview and was confused about some of his votes.His wife, Liz, died in 2007 after battling cancer.He later lived in a retirement home in the Washington area and stayed out of the limelight.

时政

2014-52/4414/en_head.json.gz/4335

Mother and daughter Roberta and Michele Combs are pillars of the Religious Right. Roberta, president and CEO of the Christian Coalition America, got her start in Republican politics working with celebrated strategist Lee Atwater. Michele, who was named Young Republican of the Year in 1989 and worked as a planner for events such as George W. Bush’s inauguration, is the coalition’s communications director. With their white-blond bouffant hair, penchant for fuchsia lipstick, soft South Carolina accents, and sterling conservative bona fides, the Combses are familiar presences in the ruby-red heart of the GOP establishment. That’s why it’s so surprising to many that they are tackling climate change. But both women see global warming, and clean air and environmental protection more broadly, as issues that tie into their core conservative mission of protecting family values. “This is an important issue for the Republican Party,” Roberta Combs says. “At one point in time, this was a Republican issue, but Democrats took it over.”

时政

2014-52/4414/en_head.json.gz/4337

Courtney eyes surplus equipment during Afghanistan trip From left, Congressmen Bill Flores, R-Texas, Rob Wittman, R-Va., and Joe Courtney, D-2nd District, tour a depot in Afghanistan Saturday where the U.S. Army is sorting and packaging equipment in preparation for the drawdown of U.S. forces in the country. Courtesy Department of Defense In Afghanistan this weekend, Congressman Joe Courtney said he saw billions of dollars of equipment already packed and ready to be shipped home.Inside a Kabul storage depot, Courtney said, there was a massive parking area lined with Stryker vehicles, Humvees and mine-resistant, ambush-protected vehicles.An incredible variety of equipment has accumulated in Afghanistan over the course of the 12-year war, Courtney, D-2nd District, said. And, he added, the stockpile includes equipment the military no longer needs - equipment that financially strapped state and local governments, National Guard units and police departments would love to have.The military isn't going to part with its expensive combat vehicles, he said, but many other things could become available, from firetrucks and air conditioners to communications equipment, engine parts and tents.As part of a three-day trip to Afghanistan with four other representatives on the House Armed Services Committee and a member of the House Budget Committee, Courtney toured the depot where equipment is sent as forward operating bases close or transfer to the Afghan forces. Courtney has now been to Afghanistan four times since being elected to the House in 2006.After the war in Iraq ended, officials in state and local governments could ask the Pentagon to send them supplies the military didn't need anymore. But, Courtney said, there wasn't a system in place for these officials to find out what was available.The House Armed Services Committee will begin working on its version of the defense authorization act next month. Courtney said language could be added to the bill to set up a better system for distributing equipment, so Connecticut and other states can benefit from the surplus. He said he envisions a searchable website, similar to the current site that lists available federal grants."It's not like you can pull up the classified ads section and see what the Pentagon has," he said. "That's where we should focus, in terms of helping state and local governments and the National Guard get the best information about what's coming back. They're doing incredibly painstaking work going through the depot, boxing stuff up and making meticulous records. The question is, what is going to happen to all of that?"The depot, Courtney said, was "powerful evidence" that control of Afghanistan is shifting to the Afghans.Courtney and the delegation also visited Bagram Airfield and met with a group that works to counter improvised explosive devises. The methods developed overseas were used to ensure the area near the Boston Marathon finish line was clear after two bombs detonated there, Courtney said."The folks there felt extremely connected to the efforts of the police in Boston," he said.The group traveled to Kandahar, which has been a hotbed of insurgent activity in Afghanistan. Kandahar is significantly calmer since the surge of U.S. troops there, and the transfer of responsibility is almost complete, Courtney said.Some of the soldiers, however, did say they were concerned about the recent attacks on U.S. forces by members of the Afghan forces, he added. Army Capt. Andrew Michael Pedersen-Keel of Madison was killed in March by a member of the Afghan National Police, according to the governor's office.Courtney said the best protection for U.S. forces may be the change in their role, from partners in the field to now trainers, since they will be less exposed. President Barack Obama has said that most troops would be home from Afghanistan by the end of 2014.Before leaving the region, Courtney visited Navy and Coast Guard units in Bahrain. The leaders in the U.S. 5th Fleet in Bahrain are grappling with the cancellation of an aircraft carrier deployment to the region because of the automatic budget cuts, known as sequestration, but they spoke highly of the submarine force's role in countering the buildup of the Iranian submarine fleet and the Coast Guard's efforts to patrol the Gulf, Courtney said.j.mcdermott@theday.com

时政

2014-52/4414/en_head.json.gz/4338

Government is back in business House Speaker John Boehner walks to the House floor for a vote after the Senate voted to end the government shutdown and raise the debt limit on Wednesday. Doug Mills/New York Times Published October 16. 2013 11:00AMUpdated October 17. 2013 6:20PM By LORI MONTGOMERYand ROSALIND S. HELDERMANThe Washington Post Washington — After shutting down the U.S. government for 16 days and driving the nation toward the brink of default, a chastened Congress voted late Wednesday to reopen federal agencies, call hundreds of thousands of civil servants back to work and raise the $16.7 trillion debt limit.An agreement struck by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., ended a stalemate created last month, when hard-line conservatives pushed GOP leaders to use the threat of shutdown to block a landmark expansion of federally funded health coverage.That campaign succeeded mainly in undermining popular support for the Republican Party, however. By late Wednesday, dozens of anxious GOP lawmakers were ready to give President Barack Obama almost exactly what he requested months ago: a bill to fund the government and increase the Treasury Department’s borrowing power with no strings attached.“We’ve been locked in a fight over here, trying to bring government down to size, trying to do our best to stop Obamacare,” House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, told a Cincinnati radio station. “We fought the good fight. We just didn’t win.”The Senate overwhelmingly ratified the deal Wednesday evening, 81 to 18, with more than half of Senate Republicans voting yes.A few hours later, the House followed suit, approving the measure 285 to 144. Eighty-seven Republicans joined a united Democratic caucus in approving the measure, allowing Congress to meet a critical Treasury Department deadline with one day to spare.Obama said he would immediately sign the measure, reopening parks and monuments across the nation, restoring government services and putting furloughed federal employees back on the job, many of them in the Washington region.“Employees should expect to return to work in the morning,” Sylvia Mathews Burwell, director of the Office of Management and Budget, said in a statement.The measure also would guarantee those workers back pay for time spent at home, aid flood-wracked Colorado and provide extra cash for fighting wildfires out West. And it would grant the District of Columbia government, which relies on Congress to approve its budget, authority to manage its own affairs through the 2014 fiscal year.Enforcement of the debt limit would be suspended until Feb. 7, setting up another confrontation over the national debt sometime in March, independent analysts estimated. Meanwhile, federal agencies would be funded through Jan. 15, when they might shut down again unless lawmakers resolve a continuing dispute over deep automatic spending cuts known as the sequester.Senate Budget Committee Chairman Patty Murray, D-Wash., was to have breakfast this morning with her House counterpart, Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., to start a new round of talks aimed at averting another crisis. Obama repeated his vow to work with Republicans to rein in a national debt that remains at historically high levels.“With the shutdown behind us and budget committees forming, we now have an opportunity to focus on a sensible budget that is responsible, that is fair, and that helps hardworking people all across this country,” Obama said at the White House.Few held out hope that the talks would yield an ambitious plan to overhaul the tax code or restructure federal health and retirement programs, the biggest drivers of future borrowing. But there were signs that Republicans may be more inclined to compromise and less inclined to follow what Rep. Aaron Schock, R-Ill., called “the fringe elements” of the GOP.“The reality is there’s a much larger population within our caucus that recognizes reality for what it is,” said Schock, who represents the iconic middle-America town of Peoria. “At the end of the day, whatever we pass will have to be a bipartisan bill. The sooner that our conference recognizes that we’re going to have to negotiate with the other side, the more we can get done.”The fight over the health care law — formally known as the Affordable Care Act and called “Obamacare” by critics and others — originated on the Senate side of the Capitol, with Sens. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and Mike Lee, R-Utah, as well as former South Carolina senator Jim DeMint, a Republican who now heads the conservative Heritage Foundation. Cruz and Lee voted against Wednesday’s agreement, as did GOP presidential hopefuls Sens. Marco Rubio of Florida and Rand Paul of Kentucky.However, Boehner and the Republican-controlled House waged the fiercer battle, passing bill after bill to defund, delay and otherwise undercut the Affordable Care Act, only to watch those bills die in the Democratic-controlled Senate.Cruz rejected the idea that Republicans had won nothing during the six-week fight. While the measure contained just one small adjustment to the health care law — strengthening safeguards against fraud among recipients of federal health insurance subsidies — Cruz said the debate succeeded in calling attention to the harm the law is causing consumers, employers and the U.S. economy.“We saw the House of Representatives take a courageous stand, listening to the American people,” Cruz said. “Had Senate Republicans united and supported House Republicans, the outcome of this, I believe, would have been very, very different.”Still, the price the House paid for waging what many Republicans saw as an unwinnable fight was ultimately devastating. Boehner had counseled against shutting down the government as recently as late August, fearing a backlash among voters that quickly materialized in public opinion polls.Yanked to the right, Boehner tried repeatedly to satisfy Cruz and his allies. He made a last-ditch effort Tuesday to rally his troops around a measure that would have eked out two minor health care victories: repeal of a tax on medical devices that helps finance the Affordable Care Act and elimination of employer-provided health insurance subsidies for lawmakers, their aides and administration officials. The subsidies, long available to all federal workers, have been derided by conservative commentators as a “special exemption” now that lawmakers are required to get insurance through the new health care exchanges.It wasn’t enough. Conservative lawmakers demanded more concessions. More moderate Republicans complained that the plan would never pass the Senate.On Tuesday night, with House Republicans bitterly divided and Boehner himself badly weakened, the effort collapsed. And by Wednesday, Boehner and McConnell had no choice but to seal a deal with Reid, or run the risk of inviting a U.S. government default on its debt.In the House, the vote was eerily similar to the last fiscal showdown with Democrats. During the brief debate, not a single member of the GOP leadership team spoke in favor the bill. That left House Appropriations Chairman Hal Rogers, R-Ky., alone among senior Republicans to publicly champion the bill, just as Ways and Means Chairman Dave Camp, R-Mich., had been during the so-called fiscal cliff vote on New Year’s Day.It ended with a bizarre moment, when a House stenographer ran to a microphone and began shouting religious messages. She was quickly dragged from the chamber.In the Senate, McConnell, a wily tactician unaccustomed to surrender, tried to salvage some sense of accomplishment. As he and Reid announced the deal midday Wednesday on the Senate floor, McConnell noted that the measure would maintain current spending levels, “protecting the government spending reductions that both parties agreed to under the Budget Control Act” of 2011.“That’s been a top priority for me and my colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle,” McConnell said.But Democrats quickly said they would seek to roll back those cuts before the next round of sequester reductions goes into effect on Jan. 15. Meanwhile, many Republicans lamented that the misguided attack on the health care law had cost the party a shot at forcing Democrats to consider a serious debt-reduction plan.“This package is a joke compared to what we could have gotten if we had a more reasonable approach,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. “For the party, this is a moment of self-evaluation. We are going to assess how we got here. If we continue down this path, we are really going to hurt the Republican Party long term.”Democrats, for their part, quietly recorded a partisan victory. But after a shutdown and debt-limit fight estimated to have sucked as much as $20 billion out of the U.S. economy, there was no celebration.“I’m tired,” Reid said after the Senate voted Wednesday night. “Concluding this crisis is historic. But let’s be honest: This was pain inflicted on the nation for no good reason.“We cannot — we cannot, cannot make the same mistakes again.” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., speaks with reporters Wednesday. With him is Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., and Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. J. Scott Applewhite/AP Photo Religious leaders pray outside the Capitol at sunrise Wednesday, the 16th day of the government shutdown in Washington. Doug Mills/The New York Times Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, speaks to reporters waiting outside a closed-door meeting of Senate Republicans as news emerged that leaders reached a last-minute agreement to avert a threatened Treasury default and reopen the government after a partial, 16-day shutdown, at the Capitol in Washington, Wednesday, Oct. 16, 2013. Cruz said he would not try to block the agreement. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., shown center, summons GOP senators to a closed-door meeting at the Capitol in Washington, Wednesday, Oct. 16, 2013. Sen. McConnell and his Democratic counterpart, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., are optimistic about forging an eleventh-hour bipartisan deal preventing a possible federal default and ending the partial government shutdown. Murphy: Shutdown agreement is no reason to celebrate Government shutdown ends

时政

2014-52/4414/en_head.json.gz/4341

The big issue Series: The big issue Immigration: don't mock people's fears, our welfare state is in danger We in Britain may take free healthcare and education for granted, but others, who have to pay for these things, do not The Observer, Saturday 16 March 2013 Andrew Rawnsley makes fun of people's fears that Bulgarians and Romanians, like the Poles before them, will stampede into Britain ("There's a fresh way on immigration – and it has the public's support", Comment).But east Europeans, like most of the world's population, do not enjoy a free and modern health service, welfare benefits or an education system that, through the use of English, gives access to global employment opportunities. We may take these benefits of British citizenship for granted, but the rest of the world doesn't; t

时政

2014-52/4414/en_head.json.gz/4387

State Rep. Tyler August to seek re-election Tyler August City council member challenges incumbent for 32nd Assembly District seat Kupsik to run for 32nd District state Assembly seat Steve Nass, R-Whitewater, to run for state Senate 11th District seat LAKE GENEVA—State Rep. Tyler August, R-Lake Geneva, has announced he is seeking a third term in the Wisconsin State Assembly. August announced his intentions Monday to the 32nd Assembly District, which includes Kenosha, Racine and parts of Walworth County. August's campaign will focus on his achievements since he was first elected in November of 2010, according to a news release. August claims his successes include balancing the state budget and cutting taxes three times in his last term. “I've been encouraged by the progress we've made by reforming the way business is done in Madison,” August said in a press release. “Working with Governor Walker, I believe we've put Wisconsin back on the right track by balancing the budget, cutting taxes, and improving the economic climate.” August is Assembly Speaker Pro Tempore. He was elected to the position in September 2013. August is a seventh generation resident of Walworth County, according to the release. Declarations of candidacy are due to the GAB at 5 p.m. Monday, June 2. The general election is Tuesday, Nov. 4. Janesville School District unveils teacher compensation proposal Parker girls win holiday tournament in Wisconsin Dells Gregory Eugene Reuter, Lansing, MI/Janesville, WI (1971-2014) State trooper dragged by fleeing car on Interstate 94 Death notices for Dec. 27, 2014 Henschler, Heisz lead Bluebirds to victory Most read

时政

2014-52/4414/en_head.json.gz/4423

> Political Radar Stephanopoulos: McCain Needs a Plan By Nitya Oct 10, 2008 8:54am ABC News George Stephanopoulos Reports: With just a few weeks left in the cycle, Republican presidential candidate John McCain’s biggest problem has almost nothing to do with him and everything to do with the economy. The campaign dialogue can’t break through the tremendous noise and pain brought on by financial woes that so many Americans have been feeling. McCain has to figure out a way to tie into anger over the economy and convince voters he’s got the better plan to solve the financial crisis — it’s his only real hope for victory. McCain’s latest ad goes about as far as you can go in an ad — it’s the second in two days that hits Democratic candidate Barack Obama for lying about his connection to 1960s radical Bill Ayers, though it wasn’t a line of attack McCain chose to use against Obama during this week’s debate. Obama will spend the next five days in Ohio at a critical point in his presidential campaign: if he locks in the lead in Ohio, he’s that much closer to locking up the race. No single state is more important to Obama’s prospects than Ohio is and no Republican has ever won the White House without winning Ohio. Right now, Obama has a small but solid lead of a few points in the state and while he’s outspent Republican candidate John McCain there by about $500,000 a week, he hasn’t spent much time on the ground. By going there, hitting the ground and saturating the state with campaign efforts for the next five days, Obama’s looking to lock in the lead. Later today, the McCain campaign will also be dealing the release of a potentially damaging report by the legislative panel investigating whether Gov. Sarah Palin abused power by trying to get the state commission fired — the investigation shows that Palin and her husband were far more involved in the incident that they have previously said. McCain’s camp tried to get ahead of the report last night by releasing their own report saying Palin broke no law. Email blog comments powered by Disqus About Political Radar(Archived Content of the 2008 Presidential Election)Categories George Stephanopoulos

时政

2014-52/4414/en_head.json.gz/4574

You are hereOpinionColumns The Story Behind the Story of Nazi War Criminals and U.S. Involvement December 9, 2010 By: Menachem Z. Rosensaft Posted In ColumnsComment0TweetPrint Follow @jewishexponent The recent revelation that U.S. government officials gave aid and comfort to some Nazi war criminals and collaborators for several decades is as shocking as Claude Rains' discovery in "Casablanca" that gambling was going on in Rick's Cafe. It has long been known, for example, that Klaus Barbie -- who headed the Gestapo in Lyon, France, from 1942 until 1944, and who ordered the deportation of Jewish orphans to Auschwitz -- subsequently became an agent of the U.S. Army Counter Intelligence Corps. Now we learn from "The Office of Special Investigations: Striving for Accountability in the Aftermath of the Holocaust," a 607-page report prepared by the U.S. Justice Department, that one of Adolf Eichmann's close associates, SS Captain Otto von Bolschwing, who "helped devise programs to persecute and terrorize Germany's Jewish population," ended up on the CIA payroll and was enabled by that agency to immigrate to the United States in 1954. Other Nazis similarly received special protection. The report, which The New York Times has made available in unredacted form, provides a comprehensive account -- warts and all -- of the Justice Department's OSI, which has been charged since 1979 with the task of "detecting, investigating, and, where appropriate, taking legal action to deport, denaturalize, or prosecute any individual who was admitted into or became a naturalized citizen of the United States and who had assisted the Nazis by persecuting any person because of race, religion, national origin, or political opinion." Over the years, OSI has brought an impressive number of Nazi war criminals to justice, including Treblinka guard Feodor Fedorenko; Karl Linnas, who ran a concentration camp in Estonia; NASA engineer Arthur Rudolf, who had knowingly used slave laborers in the production of V-2 rockets for Hitler's war machine; and, most recently, John Demjanjuk, who may not have been Ivan the Terrible of Treblinka, but who most certainly was Ivan the Very, Very Bad of the Sobibor death camp. Earlier this year, OSI was merged with the Domestic Security Section to form the Justice Department's Human Rights and Special Prosecutions Section. (In the interest of full disclosure, Eli Rosenbaum -- who headed OSI since 1995 and now heads the reconstituted unit -- is a friend of mine.) What the report does not do is place OSI's work in its proper historical perspective. Sixty-five years after the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, and almost 50 years since the beginning of the Eichmann Trial, we take the bringing of war criminals to justice for granted. In fact, the very concept of placing Nazis and their collaborators on trial for atrocities they committed or facilitated was highly controversial during the two decades that followed the end of World War II. In September 1945, my mother was one of the witnesses for the prosecution at the first trial of Nazi war criminals, a British military tribunal at Lüneburg, Germany, in which top officials of the Bergen-Belsen concentration camp sat in the dock. On her second day on the witness stand, one of the court-appointed defense attorneys suggested, according to a news report, that my mother's statement that she had seen one of the defendants kick and beat inmates was "pure fabrication." In another news item the same day, Gen. George Patton, head of the U.S. military government of Bavaria, is quoted as saying that "this Nazi thing is just like a Democratic and Republican election fight." Patton was far from alone in wanting to minimize Nazi guilt. The prevailing sentiment among anti-Communist Americans at the outset of the Cold War was to let bygones be bygones and to recruit the Germans as allies against Stalin. With only a handful of exceptions, death sentences imposed on Nazis that were still pending in 1949 were commuted, and those serving prison sentences were let out in droves. It is in this atmosphere that Nazis were, in the words of the Justice Department report, "knowingly granted entry" to the United States. By the time OSI came onto the scene almost 30 years later, it was very late in the day. The most noteworthy aspect of this historical drama, therefore, is not that Nazi war criminals were able to find a "safe haven" here, but that so many of them were successfully exposed and rooted out. Menachem Z. Rosensaft is adjunct professor of law at Cornell Law School, and vice president of the American Gathering of Jewish Holocaust Survivors and Their Descendants.

时政

2014-52/4414/en_head.json.gz/4578

Wed January 16, 2013 Saying No To The Inauguration Share Tweet E-mail Comments Print By Linton Weeks Originally published on Wed January 16, 2013 1:22 pm A U.S. Capitol Police officer secures the area surrounding the west front of the Capitol in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 5 as preparations are under way for President Obama's second inauguration. Jewel Samad As supporters of President Obama prepare for his toned-down but glammed-up second inauguration over the long weekend of Jan. 19-21, the president's detractors are making other plans. Across the country, disenchanted Americans are engaging in forms of protest — some public, some private — to signal their displeasure with November's election outcome. How do they NOT love Obama? Let us count the ways. In varying degrees, Obama's critics do NOT want the president imposing tighter gun-control laws. They do NOT believe he is a U.S. citizen. They do NOT have faith in his health care plan. Or his fiscal policies. Or his international strategy. Or his Cabinet nominations. They say he is arrogant and unqualified, and he should be impeached, and the list goes on. "I will definitely NOT be celebrating Obama's inauguration," says Yvonne Welz, who lives in Phoenix and is publisher of The Horse's Hoof magazine. "Our American way of life appears to be in danger right now. We are headed full-force toward greater debt, more government control and less individual freedom." She says, "Every time I think common sense will prevail, something even crazier happens. I am just holding my breath, hoping we can all survive the next four years." Welz is not alone in her criticism of Obama's first term. But she says she keeps her distaste to herself on Inauguration Day. She will not be gathering with others in Phoenix for some sort of anti-inauguration event. "I think that's the big problem for conservative people like me," Welz says. "We're too 'normal' for stuff like that. We don't tend to do extreme things." ++ Meanwhile, a handful of pro-gun groups — including Revolution PAC and the Second Amendment Foundation — are organizing Gun Appreciation Day to compete head-on with Obama's inauguration Obama is calling Jan. 19 "A Day of Service." For many gun lovers, however, it might as well be called "A Day of Service Revolvers." Lawrence A. Hunter, chairman of the pro-guns Revolution PAC, is an organizer of Gun Appreciation Day. The website encourages Americans: "On 01.19.13 go to your local gun store, gun range or gun show with your Constitution, American flags and your 'Hands off my Guns' sign to send a loud and clear message to Congress and President Obama." It is no coincidence that Gun Appreciation Day falls during Obama's inauguration festivities, Hunter says. He and other gun advocates plan "to use the heightened public focus on Washington, D.C., during the week to draw attention to the event." After all, says Hunter — a White House policy adviser under Ronald Reagan — the inauguration "is a pivot point, and certainly we all understand that the minute Obama takes the oath of office, he will be off and running in a second term, and he, better than anyone else, recognizes the fact that a second-term president very soon becomes a lame duck. So, if he wants to accomplish something big and controversial, it has to happen quickly." The daylong event is sponsored by more than 90 organizations, including the Second Amendment Firearms Emporium in Brunswick, Ga.; Trigger Happy Guns and Ammo of Belpre, Ohio, and Ole Boy Outdoors shooting range in Bakersfield, Calif. ++ Take a look around the country, and you will find other dissenters planning to protest. Various sites, such as the Tea Party Tribune and Free Republic, are promoting a "Massive Anti-Obama Rally on Obama's Inauguration Day." The notion, according to the announcement, is to have scads of anti-Obama activists gather on the National Mall on the morning of the public swearing-in. There are anti-Obama Facebook pages. And anti-Obama websites maintained by outspoken detractors that hope to stop the inauguration or set into motion the wheels of impeachment. And then there are folks like Cathy Bilsky, owner of the Crystals, Miracles & Joy shop in Honokaa, Hawaii. Bilsky does not think Obama should have signed the National Defense Authorization Act, which allows the government to keep suspected terrorists in custody indefinitely. "Indefinite detention is not the sign of a good president," Bilsky says, "but a man who wants to be a king." She is not a believer in Obamacare, "which is making me buy health care insurance that will not cover my alternative methods." On Monday, she hopes to meet up with some other anti-inauguration people in Hilo. But if that doesn't work out, she says she will definitely post a sign in the front window of her shop that says: "The only hope we have is to pray for some enlightenment to descend around Obama."Copyright 2013 National Public Radio. To see more, visit http://www.npr.org/. View the discussion thread.

时政

2014-52/4414/en_head.json.gz/4579

Thu May 23, 2013 'We Will Never Give In To Terror,' Britain's Cameron Vows Share Tweet E-mail Comments Print By Mark Memmott Originally published on Thu May 23, 2013 10:38 am The victim: Drummer Lee Rigby. U.K. Ministry of Defense Flowers have been left near the site in south London where a British soldier was hacked to death Wednesday. Carl Court AFP/Getty Images (Most recent update: 1:30 p.m. ET.) One day after a British soldier was hacked to death on a busy southeast London street by two men who were heard claiming that they wanted to avenge the deaths of Muslims killed during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Prime Minister David Cameron declared Thursday that "we will never give in to terror or terrorism in any of its forms." Reuters adds that Cameron also said, "this country will be absolutely resolute in its stand against violent extremism and terror." We're also learning more about the horrific incident near an army barracks in Woolwich and the heroism of some witnesses. It began, authorities say, when the attackers apparently used a car to run down the soldier. Witnesses say the two men then got out of the vehicle and began stabbing and cutting the victim. When they finished the attack, the men then stayed nearby and started telling bystanders that they were avenging the deaths of Muslims killed by British soldiers. The Telegraph interviewed Ingrid Loyau-Kennett, a 48-year-old Cub Scout leader and mother-of-two who "put her own life on the line by trying to persuade the soldier's murderers to hand over their weapons." She tells the Telegraph that she was in a bus that passed by the scene and got off because she thought the soldier had been injured in a car accident and might need her help. "And then when I went up, there was this black guy with a revolver and a kitchen knife," Loyau-Kennett told the newspaper. The man, she says, "had what looked like butcher's tools and he had a little axe, to cut the bones, and two large knives and he said 'move off the body.' " According to Loyau-Kennett, she told the man that, "right now it is only you versus many people, you are going to lose, what would you like to do?" She says he responded that he would like to stay and fight. When armed police arrived — 15 to 20 minutes after the attack — they ended up shooting and wounding the two men. The Telegraph writes that "Mrs. Loyau-Kennett was not the only woman to show extraordinary courage. Others shielded the soldier's body as the killers stood over them. MPs praised the 'extraordinary bravery' of the women." As we reported Wednesday, there's a considerable amount of video evidence from the scene because the attackers willingly spoke to people who were on the street. On Morning Edition, NPR's Philip Reeves told host Renee Montagne that as police investigate the attack, they're anxious to find out if there's "an organization behind these two guys." Judging from the way the men waited at the scene, Phil added, it appears they didn't care "if they were caught or if they died." Also Thursday morning, the BBC is reporting that "there were two separate attacks on mosques [overnight] — in Gillingham and Essex. Two men are under arrest." Update at 1:30 p.m. ET. Two More Arrests: A 29-year-old man and a 29-year-old woman were arrested Thursday "on suspicion of conspiracy to murder" in connection to the soldier's killing, Scotland Yard announced just a few minutes ago on its Twitter page. So four people, including the two men arrested at the scene on Wednesday, are now in custody. In addition, writes The Guardian, police say they have searched six residences in or around London today. Update at 12:15 p.m. ET. Soldier Identified. According to a statement from Britain's Ministry of Defense, the murdered soldier was a 25-year-old drummer with the 2nd Battalion The Royal Regiment of Fusiliers: "Drummer Lee Rigby or 'Riggers' to his friends was born in July 1987 in Crumpsall, Manchester. He joined the Army in 2006 and on successful completion of his infantry training course at Infantry Training Centre Catterick was selected to be a member of the Corps of Drums and posted to 2nd Battalion The Royal Regiment of Fusiliers (also known as the 'Second Fusiliers' or '2 RRF'). "His first posting was as a machine gunner in Cyprus where the battalion was serving as the resident infantry battalion in Dhekelia. Having performed a plethora of tasks while in Cyprus, he returned to the U.K. in the early part of 2008 to Hounslow, West London. Here, Drummer Rigby stood proudly outside the Royal Palaces as part of the Battalion's public duties commitment. He was an integral member of the Corps of Drums throughout the Battalion's time on public duties, the highlight of which was being a part of the Household Division's Beating the Retreat — a real honour for a line infantry Corps of Drums. "In April 2009, Drummer Rigby deployed on Operations for the first time to Helmand province, Afghanistan, where he served as a member of the Fire Support Group in Patrol Base Woqab. On returning to the U.K. he completed a second tour of public duties and then moved with the Battalion to Celle, Germany, to be held at a state of high readiness for contingency operations as part of the Small Scale Contingency Battle Group. "In 2011, Drummer Rigby took up a Recruiting post in London where he also assisted with duties at Regimental Headquarters in the Tower of London. "An extremely popular and witty soldier, Drummer Rigby was a larger than life personality within the Corps of Drums and was well known, liked and respected across the Second Fusiliers. He was a passionate and life-long Manchester United fan. "A loving father to his son Jack, aged 2 years, he will be sorely missed by all who knew him. The Regiment's thoughts and prayers are with his family during this extremely difficult time. 'Once a Fusilier, always a Fusilier.' " Copyright 2013 NPR. To see more, visit http://www.npr.org/. View the discussion thread.

时政

2014-52/4414/en_head.json.gz/4603

A Vote for Permanent Poverty A Vote for Permanent Poverty May 29, 2013 Marita Noon Marita Noon is the executive director for Energy Makes America Great Inc. and the... Late last month, the elected officials of a small, rural New Mexico county became the first in the nation to vote for permanent poverty. Mora County’s unemployment is double that of most of the country and nearly 500% greater than that of some other parts of the state where oil and gas development is taking place, and 23.8% of Mora County’s residents live in poverty. With that in mind, you’d think that the Mora County Commissioners would welcome the jobs that are boosting the economy in the southeastern part of the state. Instead, they voted, 2-1—in a session that may violate the Open Meetings Act as the notice did not contain the date, time, and place of the meeting—to pass an ordinance that permanently bans oil and gas drilling. Defending his vote, Chairman John Olivas, an employee of New Mexico Wilderness Alliance with no political experience, explained: “We need to create other jobs. First, sustainable agriculture; second, business development; and third, eco-tourism to keep people on the land." Frank Trambley, the Mora County GOP chairman, disagrees: “In our economic climate, we simply cannot afford to needlessly throw the possibility for jobs down the drain.” Currently, Mora County has no oil and gas activity—and now it looks like it never will (though the outcome of potential lawsuits could change that). But there is reason to believe that the potential for development and jobs is there. Shell Oil has 100,000 acres leased for development—not to mention private interest—in Mora County, and there are more than 120 leases on state lands within the county. In adjacent Colfax County, there are 950 natural gas wells. There the Commissioners don’t seem too troubled by the activity. The Colfax Country Commissioners are looking at drafting an ordinance that would “allow oil and gas drilling to continue while setting standards and regulations to give county officials control over aspects of the industry’s work that affect landowners and other citizens.” But this story is bigger than the sparsely populated—less than 5000 and declining—northeastern New Mexico County. Following the passage of their “ban” ordinance, the two “yes” vote commissioners sent a letter to all the county commissioners in the state: “We’re sending you this letter to urge you to consider adopting a similar law. In Mora, we decided that ‘fracking,’ along with other forms of oil and gas drilling are not compatible with Mora farming, forestry, and our quality of life.” Apparently unemployment and poverty are “compatible” with the Mora “quality of life.” How did Mora come to believe that it might become the little county that could “force” change aimed at “restoring democratic control of our communities”? They had the help of an out-of-state environmental group: the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund (CELDF)—which helped draft Mora’s “Community Water Rights and Local Self-Government Ordinance.” Thomas Linzey, executive director of CELDF explained: “This is the fight that people have been too chicken to pick over the last 10 years.” The CELDF press release on the ban states: “Mora is joining a growing people’s movement for community and nature’s rights” and brags about CELDF’s involvement in other communities across the country. The Mora Commissioners’ letter—on County letterhead—encourages all other New Mexico Commissioners to join them and invites participation in a gathering “hosted by a new group, the New Mexico Coalition for Community Rights (

时政

2014-52/4414/en_head.json.gz/4647

Bush polishing proposal for provisional Palestinian state BARRY SCHWEIDAPAP Diplomatic Writer Published Tuesday, June 18, 2002 WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush on Monday put the finishing touches on a proposal for a provisional Palestinian state covering parts of the West Bank. He intends to set out a sequence of steps that would require democratic reform within the Palestinian leadership in order to achieve statehood, said a senior U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity. As Bush moved toward an announcement, expected soon, the State Department chided Israel for planning to extend an electronic fence the length of the West Bank as a shield against suicide bombers. "To the extent that it is an attempt to establish a border, we would have to say that that really has to be done through direct talks" with Palestinian officials, spokesman Richard Boucher said. "We do remind the Israelis that offering hope to Palestinians, offering them a decent life, an end to the barriers, is an important part of achieving security and peace," Boucher said. The president's wife, Laura, chimed in with criticism of Israel's move. "I don't think that a fence will be some long-lasting sign of peace," she said. "Right now, there's a huge barrier of hate and distrust between all the parties in the Middle East," Mrs. Bush said on American Urban Radio Networks. "I hope they can start to at least tear that barrier down." However, Ephraim Sneh, Israel's transportation minister and a retired general, said the fence would serve a defensive purpose. "The purpose is to make the penetration of suicide bombers to Israel impossible," he said at the National Press Club. Suicide bombers now cross easily into Israeli towns and villages, he said. "It's about to put an end to it," he said. The White House sought to distance itself from Israel's decision to construct fences and take other measures to separate itself from Palestinians as a safeguard against terror attack. "Israel has a right to defend itself," said White House spokesman Scott McClellan. "But all parties have to be aware of the consequences of their actions." Bush's deliberations, after a weekend at his ranch in Crawford, Texas, follow a series of meetings with Arab and Israeli leaders. On Friday, Yasser Arafat's emissaries submitted an unofficial proposal for more formal statehood -- and for withdrawal of Israel from all of the West Bank, Gaza and part of Jerusalem. Given to Secretary of State Colin Powell on Friday by Nabil Shaath, a senior Arafat adviser, it appears unlikely to upset Bush's more limited proposal that is expected to set no deadline for an interim state but would freeze construction of Jewish homes in the territories. Some of the president's advisers have suggested he set a timeline or a series of developments that would advance the right to a state Bush declared in early April. Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has declared statehood premature, but Bush's proposal received approval in advance from Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres. Evidently, Bush will not mention Jerusalem's future in his speech, thereby possibly skirting the most sensitive issue to Jews and Muslims. On Monday, Bush again suspended building of a U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem. When he campaigned for president, he said he would move the embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, thereby acknowledging Israel's claim that the city is its capital. Progress toward a state larger than one on just part of the West Bank is likely to be dependent on democratic reform in the Palestinian Authority, which Bush has demanded. Because statehood would be provisional, some Arab leaders have expressed skepticism about the idea, insisting that normal statehood should be forthcoming promptly. Arafat's proposal soft-pedals the explosive Palestinian refugee issues. The Palestinian leader has insisted on a "right of return," which could relocate hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees in Israel and undercut Israel's Jewish character. The revised proposal calls for a solution based on a U.N. resolution that says Palestinian refugees wishing to return to their homes should be able to do so. A specific "right of return" was not demanded, Palestinian sources said. Former President Clinton's drive for a settlement between Israel and the Palestinians foundered primarily on the refugee issue, with Arafat refusing to withdraw the demand. Meanwhile, Bush's national security assistant, Condoleezza Rice, told the San Jose Mercury News the Palestinian Authority "is corrupt and cavorts with terror." The Authority "is not the basis for a Palestinian state moving forward," Rice said. Arafat responded heatedly Monday, saying Rice has no right to dictate to Palestinians how their state should look. PRIME MINISTER TEL AVIV CONDOLEEZZA RICE TRANSPORTATION MINISTER AND A RETIRED GENERAL TEXAS NABIL SHAATH OFFICIAL ARIEL SHARON PERSON COMMUNICATION AND MEETINGS COLIN POWELL SAN JOSE MERCURY NEWS YASSER ARAFAT DEPARTMENT OF STATE UNITED STATES BUSH NATIONAL SECURITY ASSISTANT MIDDLE EAST SECRETARY OF STATE THE SAN JOSE MERCURY NEWS AMERICAN URBAN RADIO NETWORKS Desktop Minimum Recommended Screen Resolution is 1024x768

时政

2014-52/4414/en_head.json.gz/4648

Congressional negotiators near pact on $20 billion anti-terrorism package WASHINGTON (AP) -- Senate and House negotiators neared a deal Monday on a $20 billion anti-terrorism package heeding President Bush's demands for spending restraint but devoting more than he wanted to domestic security and rebuilding from the Sept. 11 attacks. Aides were hoping to shake hands on the outlines of an agreement that leading lawmakers could approve on Tuesday. Doing so would clear the major remaining hurdle to Congress finishing its must-pass spending legislation and adjourning for the year, which leaders hope to do by week's end. The emerging package's $20 billion price tag would be a win for Bush, who repeatedly has threatened to veto anything more expensive. He has said the measure provides enough money for now for the war in Afghanistan and the battle against terrorism, and that he will seek more early next year if necessary. Thanks to White House pressure, Democrats lost efforts in recent weeks to push packages through the House and Senate that were worth at least $15 billion more. Yet the mix of spending the bargainers were discussing -- described by officials familiar with the talks who spoke on condition of anonymity -- was tilted more toward Democrats. It would cut the $7.3 billion for the military that Bush wanted to roughly $3.5 billion to $4 billion, the officials said. The Democratic-controlled Senate provided $2 billion for defense. In addition, a bit less than $8.5 billion would be set aside for domestic security programs, and about the same amount would be provided for the New York and Washington areas, where jets smashed into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Western Pennsylvania, where a fourth jetliner crashed, would get a small portion of those rebuilding funds. The exact defense figure would depend on whether money for the National Guard and rebuilding of the Pentagon were counted as spending for the military, and how much was provided for those efforts, the officials said. PENNSYLVANIA WORLD TRADE CENTER CONGRESS POLITICS SENATE BUSH WASHINGTON PENTAGON AFGHANISTAN PRESIDENT WHITE HOUSE NEW YORK USD NATIONAL GUARD Desktop Minimum Recommended Screen Resolution is 1024x768

时政