Monday, December 14, 2009
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
13
http://www1.voanews.com/english/news/usa/Obama-Balances-Political-Coalitions-on-Range-of-Issues-78732122.html
you should click on the link above and look at the guy stasnding behind Obama in the picture, just saying.
you should click on the link above and look at the guy stasnding behind Obama in the picture, just saying.
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Monday, October 19, 2009
current event 6
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsMaps/idUSTRE59I55S20091019
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Afghan President Hamid Karzai will announce on Tuesday how he plans to proceed in the Afghan elections, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said, adding she was encouraged by the direction of events.
Clinton said she did not wish to preempt Karzai's announcement but her comments suggested she expected the Afghan president to accept a run-off in the August 20 election, which has been marred by allegations of widespread fraud.
"He is going to announce his intentions. I am going to let him do that but I am encouraged at the direction that the situation is moving," Clinton told reporters.
"I am very hopeful that we will see a resolution in line with the constitutional order in the next several days."
International observers called for an election run-off in Afghanistan after a U.N.-backed fraud watchdog on Monday invalidated tens of thousands of votes for Karzai.
The disputed election has fanned tensions between Karzai and Western governments whose troops are fighting a resurgent Taliban in Afghanistan.
The protracted voting process has complicated U.S. President Barack Obama's deliberations on whether to send thousands more troops to turn the tide in the eight-year war.
Clinton said she believed it was possible to hold a second round of voting before winter sets in. If the election is not concluded by winter, this would extend the political uncertainty in Afghanistan.
(Editing by John O'Callaghan)
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Afghan President Hamid Karzai will announce on Tuesday how he plans to proceed in the Afghan elections, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said, adding she was encouraged by the direction of events.
Clinton said she did not wish to preempt Karzai's announcement but her comments suggested she expected the Afghan president to accept a run-off in the August 20 election, which has been marred by allegations of widespread fraud.
"He is going to announce his intentions. I am going to let him do that but I am encouraged at the direction that the situation is moving," Clinton told reporters.
"I am very hopeful that we will see a resolution in line with the constitutional order in the next several days."
International observers called for an election run-off in Afghanistan after a U.N.-backed fraud watchdog on Monday invalidated tens of thousands of votes for Karzai.
The disputed election has fanned tensions between Karzai and Western governments whose troops are fighting a resurgent Taliban in Afghanistan.
The protracted voting process has complicated U.S. President Barack Obama's deliberations on whether to send thousands more troops to turn the tide in the eight-year war.
Clinton said she believed it was possible to hold a second round of voting before winter sets in. If the election is not concluded by winter, this would extend the political uncertainty in Afghanistan.
(Editing by John O'Callaghan)
current event 5
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/19/the-economics-club/
The Economics Club
Did a female economist just win a Nobel?
It depends on how you define “economist.” Elinor Ostrom, the first woman to win the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Science, describes herself as a political economist. She is a political scientist by training and by official department of employment.
Some economists got huffy about this. Not that it is the first time the economics prize committee has ignored traditional disciplinary boundaries.
But Professor Ostrom’s work covers territory unfamiliar to many economists — the way groups devise institutional rules for themselves. As Steven Levitt pointed out on the Freakonomics blog, “economists want this to be an economists’ prize.”
One thread of discussion at econjobrumors.com, a blog frequented by graduate students seeking jobs in economics, referred to Professor Ostrom disrespectfully as a girl. On the other hand, some women in the profession e-mailed me their concerns that the choice of winners implied that none of our official number merited the prize.
What strikes me is the way Professor Ostrom — an outsider in terms of both disciplinary background and gender — helps us understand the importance of group dynamics, including in the economic profession.
Professor Ostrom’s research on collective efforts to protect common resources by developing rules of access applies to academic disciplines. In this case, the common property is collective reputation — the disciplinary “brand.”
The American Economics Association (like lobstermen’s associations in Maine) sets rules that constrain individual behavior. Its governance shapes participation in the meetings and publication in the journals that influence professional success. The association’s most salutary goal is to maximize research quality, and with good reason: poor quality research spills over on the reputation of the discipline, like a form of pollution.
But the very forms of collective action that help protect the commons can create opportunities for aggrandizement — efforts by in-group members to protect themselves from competition and to reinforce their own priorities (including their own definitions of quality). Successful associations must remain open, flexible and democratic enough to sustain their legitimacy.
The history of debates over gender inequality in the economics discipline provides a fascinating example of institutional evolution.
In 1971, an informal women’s caucus within the American Economics Association actively strategized to overcome opposition to the establishment of the Committee on the Status of Women in the Economics Profession. This group began to move actively to challenge discrimination against women and monitor their participation in the discipline — an effort that continues today.
Professor Ostrom has long taken part in a similar group within the American Political Science Association.
While such efforts met considerable resistance at the time, they are widely regarded today as an important achievement. In 1998, the Nobel laureate and free market advocate Milton Friedman praised the committee’s role in reducing discrimination — before going on to suggest that the pendulum had swung too far in the opposite direction, placing men at a disadvantage.
By that year, another dissident group had emerged: the International Association for Feminist Economics, which publishes the journal Feminist Economics. Its members, myself included, aim to widen the research agenda of the economics discipline by challenging what Barbara Bergmann described as the “attitude still prevalent in the economics profession that there are no aspects of our gender system that are in any way regrettable, that need to be addressed by economic and social policy and that do not result from women’s own incapacities and choices.”
While Professor Ostrom has not (to my knowledge) written about this particular challenge, she has certainly contributed to its study. By revealing the potentially positive impact of collective efforts to improve social institutions, she encourages thoughtful participation in them.
She shows us that economics is a territory whose boundaries can be
The Economics Club
Did a female economist just win a Nobel?
It depends on how you define “economist.” Elinor Ostrom, the first woman to win the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Science, describes herself as a political economist. She is a political scientist by training and by official department of employment.
Some economists got huffy about this. Not that it is the first time the economics prize committee has ignored traditional disciplinary boundaries.
But Professor Ostrom’s work covers territory unfamiliar to many economists — the way groups devise institutional rules for themselves. As Steven Levitt pointed out on the Freakonomics blog, “economists want this to be an economists’ prize.”
One thread of discussion at econjobrumors.com, a blog frequented by graduate students seeking jobs in economics, referred to Professor Ostrom disrespectfully as a girl. On the other hand, some women in the profession e-mailed me their concerns that the choice of winners implied that none of our official number merited the prize.
What strikes me is the way Professor Ostrom — an outsider in terms of both disciplinary background and gender — helps us understand the importance of group dynamics, including in the economic profession.
Professor Ostrom’s research on collective efforts to protect common resources by developing rules of access applies to academic disciplines. In this case, the common property is collective reputation — the disciplinary “brand.”
The American Economics Association (like lobstermen’s associations in Maine) sets rules that constrain individual behavior. Its governance shapes participation in the meetings and publication in the journals that influence professional success. The association’s most salutary goal is to maximize research quality, and with good reason: poor quality research spills over on the reputation of the discipline, like a form of pollution.
But the very forms of collective action that help protect the commons can create opportunities for aggrandizement — efforts by in-group members to protect themselves from competition and to reinforce their own priorities (including their own definitions of quality). Successful associations must remain open, flexible and democratic enough to sustain their legitimacy.
The history of debates over gender inequality in the economics discipline provides a fascinating example of institutional evolution.
In 1971, an informal women’s caucus within the American Economics Association actively strategized to overcome opposition to the establishment of the Committee on the Status of Women in the Economics Profession. This group began to move actively to challenge discrimination against women and monitor their participation in the discipline — an effort that continues today.
Professor Ostrom has long taken part in a similar group within the American Political Science Association.
While such efforts met considerable resistance at the time, they are widely regarded today as an important achievement. In 1998, the Nobel laureate and free market advocate Milton Friedman praised the committee’s role in reducing discrimination — before going on to suggest that the pendulum had swung too far in the opposite direction, placing men at a disadvantage.
By that year, another dissident group had emerged: the International Association for Feminist Economics, which publishes the journal Feminist Economics. Its members, myself included, aim to widen the research agenda of the economics discipline by challenging what Barbara Bergmann described as the “attitude still prevalent in the economics profession that there are no aspects of our gender system that are in any way regrettable, that need to be addressed by economic and social policy and that do not result from women’s own incapacities and choices.”
While Professor Ostrom has not (to my knowledge) written about this particular challenge, she has certainly contributed to its study. By revealing the potentially positive impact of collective efforts to improve social institutions, she encourages thoughtful participation in them.
She shows us that economics is a territory whose boundaries can be
current event 5
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/19/the-economics-club/
The Economics Club
Did a female economist just win a Nobel?
It depends on how you define “economist.” Elinor Ostrom, the first woman to win the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Science, describes herself as a political economist. She is a political scientist by training and by official department of employment.
Some economists got huffy about this. Not that it is the first time the economics prize committee has ignored traditional disciplinary boundaries.
But Professor Ostrom’s work covers territory unfamiliar to many economists — the way groups devise institutional rules for themselves. As Steven Levitt pointed out on the Freakonomics blog, “economists want this to be an economists’ prize.”
One thread of discussion at econjobrumors.com, a blog frequented by graduate students seeking jobs in economics, referred to Professor Ostrom disrespectfully as a girl. On the other hand, some women in the profession e-mailed me their concerns that the choice of winners implied that none of our official number merited the prize.
What strikes me is the way Professor Ostrom — an outsider in terms of both disciplinary background and gender — helps us understand the importance of group dynamics, including in the economic profession.
Professor Ostrom’s research on collective efforts to protect common resources by developing rules of access applies to academic disciplines. In this case, the common property is collective reputation — the disciplinary “brand.”
The American Economics Association (like lobstermen’s associations in Maine) sets rules that constrain individual behavior. Its governance shapes participation in the meetings and publication in the journals that influence professional success. The association’s most salutary goal is to maximize research quality, and with good reason: poor quality research spills over on the reputation of the discipline, like a form of pollution.
But the very forms of collective action that help protect the commons can create opportunities for aggrandizement — efforts by in-group members to protect themselves from competition and to reinforce their own priorities (including their own definitions of quality). Successful associations must remain open, flexible and democratic enough to sustain their legitimacy.
The history of debates over gender inequality in the economics discipline provides a fascinating example of institutional evolution.
In 1971, an informal women’s caucus within the American Economics Association actively strategized to overcome opposition to the establishment of the Committee on the Status of Women in the Economics Profession. This group began to move actively to challenge discrimination against women and monitor their participation in the discipline — an effort that continues today.
Professor Ostrom has long taken part in a similar group within the American Political Science Association.
While such efforts met considerable resistance at the time, they are widely regarded today as an important achievement. In 1998, the Nobel laureate and free market advocate Milton Friedman praised the committee’s role in reducing discrimination — before going on to suggest that the pendulum had swung too far in the opposite direction, placing men at a disadvantage.
By that year, another dissident group had emerged: the International Association for Feminist Economics, which publishes the journal Feminist Economics. Its members, myself included, aim to widen the research agenda of the economics discipline by challenging what Barbara Bergmann described as the “attitude still prevalent in the economics profession that there are no aspects of our gender system that are in any way regrettable, that need to be addressed by economic and social policy and that do not result from women’s own incapacities and choices.”
While Professor Ostrom has not (to my knowledge) written about this particular challenge, she has certainly contributed to its study. By revealing the potentially positive impact of collective efforts to improve social institutions, she encourages thoughtful participation in them.
She shows us that economics is a territory whose boundaries can be
The Economics Club
Did a female economist just win a Nobel?
It depends on how you define “economist.” Elinor Ostrom, the first woman to win the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Science, describes herself as a political economist. She is a political scientist by training and by official department of employment.
Some economists got huffy about this. Not that it is the first time the economics prize committee has ignored traditional disciplinary boundaries.
But Professor Ostrom’s work covers territory unfamiliar to many economists — the way groups devise institutional rules for themselves. As Steven Levitt pointed out on the Freakonomics blog, “economists want this to be an economists’ prize.”
One thread of discussion at econjobrumors.com, a blog frequented by graduate students seeking jobs in economics, referred to Professor Ostrom disrespectfully as a girl. On the other hand, some women in the profession e-mailed me their concerns that the choice of winners implied that none of our official number merited the prize.
What strikes me is the way Professor Ostrom — an outsider in terms of both disciplinary background and gender — helps us understand the importance of group dynamics, including in the economic profession.
Professor Ostrom’s research on collective efforts to protect common resources by developing rules of access applies to academic disciplines. In this case, the common property is collective reputation — the disciplinary “brand.”
The American Economics Association (like lobstermen’s associations in Maine) sets rules that constrain individual behavior. Its governance shapes participation in the meetings and publication in the journals that influence professional success. The association’s most salutary goal is to maximize research quality, and with good reason: poor quality research spills over on the reputation of the discipline, like a form of pollution.
But the very forms of collective action that help protect the commons can create opportunities for aggrandizement — efforts by in-group members to protect themselves from competition and to reinforce their own priorities (including their own definitions of quality). Successful associations must remain open, flexible and democratic enough to sustain their legitimacy.
The history of debates over gender inequality in the economics discipline provides a fascinating example of institutional evolution.
In 1971, an informal women’s caucus within the American Economics Association actively strategized to overcome opposition to the establishment of the Committee on the Status of Women in the Economics Profession. This group began to move actively to challenge discrimination against women and monitor their participation in the discipline — an effort that continues today.
Professor Ostrom has long taken part in a similar group within the American Political Science Association.
While such efforts met considerable resistance at the time, they are widely regarded today as an important achievement. In 1998, the Nobel laureate and free market advocate Milton Friedman praised the committee’s role in reducing discrimination — before going on to suggest that the pendulum had swung too far in the opposite direction, placing men at a disadvantage.
By that year, another dissident group had emerged: the International Association for Feminist Economics, which publishes the journal Feminist Economics. Its members, myself included, aim to widen the research agenda of the economics discipline by challenging what Barbara Bergmann described as the “attitude still prevalent in the economics profession that there are no aspects of our gender system that are in any way regrettable, that need to be addressed by economic and social policy and that do not result from women’s own incapacities and choices.”
While Professor Ostrom has not (to my knowledge) written about this particular challenge, she has certainly contributed to its study. By revealing the potentially positive impact of collective efforts to improve social institutions, she encourages thoughtful participation in them.
She shows us that economics is a territory whose boundaries can be
current event 4
http://blogs.wsj.com/capitaljournal/2009/10/19/political-wisdom-are-young-votes-checking-out-on-obama/
A quick tour around politics on the Web this Monday morning…
E.J. Dionne Jr., writing for the Washington Post and New Repulbic, lays out an issue that has been quietly worrying Democratic strategists for weeks: “Will the young and hopeful abandon the political playing field to older voters who are angry?” The question of whether young voters so important to Democrats last year now are complacent or turned-off is “the quiet crisis confronting President Obama and the Democrats. Left unattended, it could become a formidable obstacle for them in next year’s midterm elections.
Moreover, the sour mood that has gripped the nation’s politics could only further turn off the young. This means that the decision of Republican congressional leaders to put up a solid front of opposition to Obama could be highly functional for a party that would rather see younger, more progressive voters ignore Election Day.” Dionne further notes: “More than is often appreciated, the electoral revolution that brought Democrats to power was fueled by a younger generation with a distinctive philosophical outlook. Put starkly: If only Americans 45 and over had cast ballots in 2008, Barack Obama would not be president.”
Walter Shapiro of Politics Daily looks at one of the two hot races of the moment—the New Jersey governor’s race—and thinks Gov. Jon Corzine and his fellow Democrats may be pulling a rabbit out of a hat. “On Monday Joe Biden will appear with Corzine at a noontime rally in Edison and Barack Obama will swoop in to embrace the governor Wednesday afternoon in Hackensack. With billboards and posters featuring the president and the slogan “Keep It Going,” Corzine has been unabashed about trumpeting the Obama connection in a state which the Democrats carried by 600,000 votes last year.” The White House attention is easy to understand: “With Democrat Creigh Deeds falling increasingly behind in the open-seat Virginia governor’s race, Corzine has become the Obama team’s best hope for post-election bragging rights. (Governor’s races in odd-numbered years have shown little predictive power for future elections, but a double Democratic wipeout in New Jersey and Virginia would inevitably create a high-decibel ‘Obama in trouble’ chorus). In short, the better Corzine is doing, the more eager the White House is to lend its full prestige to guarantee victory.” And, Shapiro says, it may be working: “Corzine (whose unfavorable ratings have been over 50 percent in every Quinnipiac University poll since July) has fought his way back to even footing the old-fashioned way – by making (GOP opponent Chris Christie) almost as unpopular as he is.”
Meantime, Larry Thornberry of the American Spectator looks at figure who will be important to Republicans in next year’s mid-term elections, Gov. Charlie Crist of Florida. And he doesn’t like the sight: “Charlie Crist is trying to dress himself in the borrowed robes of a conservative. Even Macbeth, another ambitious guy, knew when the robes weren’t his. It’s a transparent scam. But will Florida Republican primary voters buy it? They’ve given Crist a pass on a lot of things over his career. But he’s asking them to buy some pretty outlandish things now.” And Thornberry actually thinks Florida conservatives aren’t buying it: Marco Rubio of Miami is “doing extremely well” raising money and exciting conservatives: “On top of his financial success, Rubio, a skilled and articulate campaigner who runs on conservative issues, continues to clean Crist’s clock in straw votes being taken by Republican groups, mostly county executive committees, across the state. In the latest, last week, members of the Palm Beach County Republican Executive Committee went for Rubio over Crist by a margin of 90-17. In 11 straw votes so far — eight county executive committees, two Republican women’s clubs, and the Florida Federation of College Republicans — Rubio is 11-0 and has bested Crist by a total of 495 to 58.”
A quick tour around politics on the Web this Monday morning…
E.J. Dionne Jr., writing for the Washington Post and New Repulbic, lays out an issue that has been quietly worrying Democratic strategists for weeks: “Will the young and hopeful abandon the political playing field to older voters who are angry?” The question of whether young voters so important to Democrats last year now are complacent or turned-off is “the quiet crisis confronting President Obama and the Democrats. Left unattended, it could become a formidable obstacle for them in next year’s midterm elections.
Moreover, the sour mood that has gripped the nation’s politics could only further turn off the young. This means that the decision of Republican congressional leaders to put up a solid front of opposition to Obama could be highly functional for a party that would rather see younger, more progressive voters ignore Election Day.” Dionne further notes: “More than is often appreciated, the electoral revolution that brought Democrats to power was fueled by a younger generation with a distinctive philosophical outlook. Put starkly: If only Americans 45 and over had cast ballots in 2008, Barack Obama would not be president.”
Walter Shapiro of Politics Daily looks at one of the two hot races of the moment—the New Jersey governor’s race—and thinks Gov. Jon Corzine and his fellow Democrats may be pulling a rabbit out of a hat. “On Monday Joe Biden will appear with Corzine at a noontime rally in Edison and Barack Obama will swoop in to embrace the governor Wednesday afternoon in Hackensack. With billboards and posters featuring the president and the slogan “Keep It Going,” Corzine has been unabashed about trumpeting the Obama connection in a state which the Democrats carried by 600,000 votes last year.” The White House attention is easy to understand: “With Democrat Creigh Deeds falling increasingly behind in the open-seat Virginia governor’s race, Corzine has become the Obama team’s best hope for post-election bragging rights. (Governor’s races in odd-numbered years have shown little predictive power for future elections, but a double Democratic wipeout in New Jersey and Virginia would inevitably create a high-decibel ‘Obama in trouble’ chorus). In short, the better Corzine is doing, the more eager the White House is to lend its full prestige to guarantee victory.” And, Shapiro says, it may be working: “Corzine (whose unfavorable ratings have been over 50 percent in every Quinnipiac University poll since July) has fought his way back to even footing the old-fashioned way – by making (GOP opponent Chris Christie) almost as unpopular as he is.”
Meantime, Larry Thornberry of the American Spectator looks at figure who will be important to Republicans in next year’s mid-term elections, Gov. Charlie Crist of Florida. And he doesn’t like the sight: “Charlie Crist is trying to dress himself in the borrowed robes of a conservative. Even Macbeth, another ambitious guy, knew when the robes weren’t his. It’s a transparent scam. But will Florida Republican primary voters buy it? They’ve given Crist a pass on a lot of things over his career. But he’s asking them to buy some pretty outlandish things now.” And Thornberry actually thinks Florida conservatives aren’t buying it: Marco Rubio of Miami is “doing extremely well” raising money and exciting conservatives: “On top of his financial success, Rubio, a skilled and articulate campaigner who runs on conservative issues, continues to clean Crist’s clock in straw votes being taken by Republican groups, mostly county executive committees, across the state. In the latest, last week, members of the Palm Beach County Republican Executive Committee went for Rubio over Crist by a margin of 90-17. In 11 straw votes so far — eight county executive committees, two Republican women’s clubs, and the Florida Federation of College Republicans — Rubio is 11-0 and has bested Crist by a total of 495 to 58.”
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
current event 3
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-obama-olympics29-2009sep29,0,965899.story?track=rss
Reporting from Washington - Putting his political prestige on the line, President Obama has decided to fly to Denmark this week to appeal to the International Olympic Committee to choose Chicago, his adopted hometown, as host of the 2016 Games.The White House announced Monday that Obama would arrive in Copenhagen on Friday, just before Chicago makes its formal presentation to Olympics officials who are also considering Tokyo, Madrid and Rio de Janeiro. A decision is expected later that day, within hours of Obama's appearance.No previous U.S. president has made such a trip on behalf of a city vying to host the Olympics.The visit is a gamble for Obama. He will be leaving Washington with thorny foreign and domestic issues unresolved, and risks looking diminished if Chicago's bid falls short.The converse is also true: a Chicago victory would be a feel-good moment for both a nation and a president wrestling with crises in Iran and Afghanistan and partisan wrangling at home.As his proposed healthcare overhaul struggled to gain traction in Congress, Obama had talked about skipping the trip and relying instead on First Lady Michelle Obama as Chicago's A-list advocate. "I would make the case in Copenhagen personally if I weren't so firmly committed to making real the promise of quality, affordable healthcare for every American," the president said on Sept. 16.But White House aides said that Obama always wanted to make the trip and that he now thought he could dash to Denmark without being diverted from a crowded agenda."I believe he felt strongly and personally that he should go and make the case of the United States, and that's what he's going to do," White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said Monday.The announcement is a clear boost for Chicago, where the first family still owns a home within walking distance of the proposed Olympic stadium. Mayor Richard M. Daley is also sending a team of celebrities -- including talk show host Oprah Winfrey and former Olympians -- in support of the bid.By simply attending the meeting, Obama gives the impression of federal support for the Games, even though the U.S. will not guarantee losses if they occur.Other foreign leaders have made similar last-minute personal appeals on behalf of their countries in recent years. Tony Blair, British prime minister at the time, was credited with helping London win the 2012 Summer Games, and Russian leader Vladimir Putin helped seal the 2014 Winter Games for Sochi.Obama plans to be in Denmark only four or five hours, just long enough to see Chicago's presentation, participate in the subsequent question-and-answer session and mingle briefly with Olympic committee members. He will leave before the vote, which now may be building in Chicago's favor."The impact of his presence in the Chicago delegation is not multiplied by double -- this impact can be multiplied by 25," said IOC member Ottavio Cinquanta of Italy.Marc Ganis, a Chicago-based sports consultant, said: "Chicago has a very substantial proposal, but Obama was the missing ingredient. He provides the charisma, the personal touch and effectively gives them a B12 shot of charisma, which is needed when one compares Chicago's bid to Rio's."A recent IOC site report gave the highest marks to Rio, and sentiment had appeared to be moving toward the city because South America has never hosted an Olympics. But some political operatives said that given the stakes, the White House must be confident that Chicago stands a strong chance."The risk is that the Olympics committee does the unthinkable and says, 'Sorry, Charlie,' " said Phil Singer, a Democratic political strategist based in Washington. "But the White House wouldn't be sending him if it wasn't feeling good about his prospects."No political operation worth its salt would allow its principal to go if it didn't feel fairly bullish about his chances for success."The White House dismissed suggestions that it has any inside information.Asked whether the White House had been led to believe a presidential visit might boost Chicago's chances, Gibbs said: "Well, I certainly hope that an appearance wouldn't hurt it. But we have gotten no intelligence on that."At a fraught moment in both domestic and foreign affairs, some political strategists and GOP lawmakers said the timing is poor."With all the pressing issues we're facing right now, I think hopping off to Copenhagen is problematic," said Mark McKinnon, a Republican media consultant who worked for President George W. Bush. "People elected Obama to be president -- not the head of the Illinois Chamber of Commerce."No shortage of work faces Obama.Healthcare legislation is moving through committees, though a bipartisan agreement is proving elusive.The U.S. and its allies are confronting intelligence reports that Iran is covertly building an underground facility capable of producing nuclear weapons. The U.S. is expected to demand that Iran cooperate more fully with inspectors at a meeting on Thursday in Geneva.The White House also is reevaluating its strategy in Afghanistan, where the top U.S. commander, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, has warned in a confidential memo that without an infusion of forces, the war will be lost.In an interview, Sen. Christopher S. Bond (R-Mo.) said Obama was neglecting warnings from McChrystal, while heaping too much time on Chicago's Olympics bid and frivolous appearances."I find it baffling that he has time to go to be on Copenhagen, to be on the [David] Letterman show and almost every other channel except the Food Network and Fox, but he doesn't have time to talk to Gen. McChrystal," Bond said.An Obama spokesman said the president had indeed consulted McChrystal. Also, Obama has gotten a weekly written report from McChrystal and plans to speak to the general this week as part of the broad Afghanistan review that is underway."What does Sen. Bond have against the Olympics coming to America?" asked spokesman Tommy Vietor.peter.nicholas@latimes.com
Reporting from Washington - Putting his political prestige on the line, President Obama has decided to fly to Denmark this week to appeal to the International Olympic Committee to choose Chicago, his adopted hometown, as host of the 2016 Games.The White House announced Monday that Obama would arrive in Copenhagen on Friday, just before Chicago makes its formal presentation to Olympics officials who are also considering Tokyo, Madrid and Rio de Janeiro. A decision is expected later that day, within hours of Obama's appearance.No previous U.S. president has made such a trip on behalf of a city vying to host the Olympics.The visit is a gamble for Obama. He will be leaving Washington with thorny foreign and domestic issues unresolved, and risks looking diminished if Chicago's bid falls short.The converse is also true: a Chicago victory would be a feel-good moment for both a nation and a president wrestling with crises in Iran and Afghanistan and partisan wrangling at home.As his proposed healthcare overhaul struggled to gain traction in Congress, Obama had talked about skipping the trip and relying instead on First Lady Michelle Obama as Chicago's A-list advocate. "I would make the case in Copenhagen personally if I weren't so firmly committed to making real the promise of quality, affordable healthcare for every American," the president said on Sept. 16.But White House aides said that Obama always wanted to make the trip and that he now thought he could dash to Denmark without being diverted from a crowded agenda."I believe he felt strongly and personally that he should go and make the case of the United States, and that's what he's going to do," White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said Monday.The announcement is a clear boost for Chicago, where the first family still owns a home within walking distance of the proposed Olympic stadium. Mayor Richard M. Daley is also sending a team of celebrities -- including talk show host Oprah Winfrey and former Olympians -- in support of the bid.By simply attending the meeting, Obama gives the impression of federal support for the Games, even though the U.S. will not guarantee losses if they occur.Other foreign leaders have made similar last-minute personal appeals on behalf of their countries in recent years. Tony Blair, British prime minister at the time, was credited with helping London win the 2012 Summer Games, and Russian leader Vladimir Putin helped seal the 2014 Winter Games for Sochi.Obama plans to be in Denmark only four or five hours, just long enough to see Chicago's presentation, participate in the subsequent question-and-answer session and mingle briefly with Olympic committee members. He will leave before the vote, which now may be building in Chicago's favor."The impact of his presence in the Chicago delegation is not multiplied by double -- this impact can be multiplied by 25," said IOC member Ottavio Cinquanta of Italy.Marc Ganis, a Chicago-based sports consultant, said: "Chicago has a very substantial proposal, but Obama was the missing ingredient. He provides the charisma, the personal touch and effectively gives them a B12 shot of charisma, which is needed when one compares Chicago's bid to Rio's."A recent IOC site report gave the highest marks to Rio, and sentiment had appeared to be moving toward the city because South America has never hosted an Olympics. But some political operatives said that given the stakes, the White House must be confident that Chicago stands a strong chance."The risk is that the Olympics committee does the unthinkable and says, 'Sorry, Charlie,' " said Phil Singer, a Democratic political strategist based in Washington. "But the White House wouldn't be sending him if it wasn't feeling good about his prospects."No political operation worth its salt would allow its principal to go if it didn't feel fairly bullish about his chances for success."The White House dismissed suggestions that it has any inside information.Asked whether the White House had been led to believe a presidential visit might boost Chicago's chances, Gibbs said: "Well, I certainly hope that an appearance wouldn't hurt it. But we have gotten no intelligence on that."At a fraught moment in both domestic and foreign affairs, some political strategists and GOP lawmakers said the timing is poor."With all the pressing issues we're facing right now, I think hopping off to Copenhagen is problematic," said Mark McKinnon, a Republican media consultant who worked for President George W. Bush. "People elected Obama to be president -- not the head of the Illinois Chamber of Commerce."No shortage of work faces Obama.Healthcare legislation is moving through committees, though a bipartisan agreement is proving elusive.The U.S. and its allies are confronting intelligence reports that Iran is covertly building an underground facility capable of producing nuclear weapons. The U.S. is expected to demand that Iran cooperate more fully with inspectors at a meeting on Thursday in Geneva.The White House also is reevaluating its strategy in Afghanistan, where the top U.S. commander, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, has warned in a confidential memo that without an infusion of forces, the war will be lost.In an interview, Sen. Christopher S. Bond (R-Mo.) said Obama was neglecting warnings from McChrystal, while heaping too much time on Chicago's Olympics bid and frivolous appearances."I find it baffling that he has time to go to be on Copenhagen, to be on the [David] Letterman show and almost every other channel except the Food Network and Fox, but he doesn't have time to talk to Gen. McChrystal," Bond said.An Obama spokesman said the president had indeed consulted McChrystal. Also, Obama has gotten a weekly written report from McChrystal and plans to speak to the general this week as part of the broad Afghanistan review that is underway."What does Sen. Bond have against the Olympics coming to America?" asked spokesman Tommy Vietor.peter.nicholas@latimes.com
Thursday, September 10, 2009
current event 2
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8249822.stm
US rejects Iran nuclear proposals
Iran's Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki, right, submitted the proposals
The US says it is unhappy with the package of proposals submitted by Iran on Wednesday aimed at breaking the deadlock over its nuclear ambitions.
Philip Crowley of the US State Department told the BBC the measures do not address the status of Iran's nuclear programme.
The US wants Iran to suspend its uranium enrichment programme which its says could be used for nuclear weapons.
Iran says its nuclear programme is for civilian use.
Non-proliferation
"Our concern is that the response itself did not really address what is the core issue of the international community and the core concern, which is Iran's nuclear ambitions," Mr Crowley told the BBC's World Today programme.
Earlier, Mojtaba Samareh, a close aide to the Iranian President, told the Washington Post newspaper his country would not give up its nuclear programme but was willing to work with the international community to eliminate nuclear weapons.
Based on a brief review of the Iranian papers my impression is there is something there to use
Sergei LavrovRussian Foreign Minister
Mr Crowley said Iran had to prove it was ready to live up to commitments it had made.
"One of the questions going forward will be to test the Iranian interest in actual engagement, either with the United States or the international community and obviously a core concern is in fact its nuclear programme," he said.
Iran hopes the proposals - to be reviewed by the five permanent UN Security Council members and Germany on Friday - will head off new international sanctions.
Russian reaction
Russia has given a more positive response than the US to Iran's latest proposals.
Iran insists its rocket building programme is for satellites
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said they contained something to work with.
"Based on a brief review of the Iranian papers my impression is there is something there to use," Mr Lavrov said in Moscow.
"The most important thing is (that) Iran is ready for a comprehensive discussion of the situation, what positive role it can play in Iraq, Afghanistan and the region."
The BBC's Bridget Kendall, in Moscow, said his comments left little doubt that Russian and Western approaches to Iran continue to diverge.
Finding common ground for a united response to the latest Iranian proposals may prove tricky, she adds.
US warning
US President Barack Obama warned Tehran earlier this year that Washington wanted to see a positive response to its friendlier overtures by the end of September.
If not, Mr Obama said the US was prepared to press for new sanctions against Iran.
But Mr Lavrov added that he did not think the UN Security Council would support oil sanctions against Iran.
"Some of the sanctions under discussion, including oil and oil products, are not a mechanism to force Iran to co-operate, they are a step to a full-blown blockade and I do not think they would be supported at the UN Security Council," he said.
Details of Iran's latest proposals have not been revealed.
On Wednesday, the US envoy to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Glyn Davies, said Iran could already have enough low-enriched uranium to produce a bomb, if it was further enriched.
US rejects Iran nuclear proposals
Iran's Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki, right, submitted the proposals
The US says it is unhappy with the package of proposals submitted by Iran on Wednesday aimed at breaking the deadlock over its nuclear ambitions.
Philip Crowley of the US State Department told the BBC the measures do not address the status of Iran's nuclear programme.
The US wants Iran to suspend its uranium enrichment programme which its says could be used for nuclear weapons.
Iran says its nuclear programme is for civilian use.
Non-proliferation
"Our concern is that the response itself did not really address what is the core issue of the international community and the core concern, which is Iran's nuclear ambitions," Mr Crowley told the BBC's World Today programme.
Earlier, Mojtaba Samareh, a close aide to the Iranian President, told the Washington Post newspaper his country would not give up its nuclear programme but was willing to work with the international community to eliminate nuclear weapons.
Based on a brief review of the Iranian papers my impression is there is something there to use
Sergei LavrovRussian Foreign Minister
Mr Crowley said Iran had to prove it was ready to live up to commitments it had made.
"One of the questions going forward will be to test the Iranian interest in actual engagement, either with the United States or the international community and obviously a core concern is in fact its nuclear programme," he said.
Iran hopes the proposals - to be reviewed by the five permanent UN Security Council members and Germany on Friday - will head off new international sanctions.
Russian reaction
Russia has given a more positive response than the US to Iran's latest proposals.
Iran insists its rocket building programme is for satellites
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said they contained something to work with.
"Based on a brief review of the Iranian papers my impression is there is something there to use," Mr Lavrov said in Moscow.
"The most important thing is (that) Iran is ready for a comprehensive discussion of the situation, what positive role it can play in Iraq, Afghanistan and the region."
The BBC's Bridget Kendall, in Moscow, said his comments left little doubt that Russian and Western approaches to Iran continue to diverge.
Finding common ground for a united response to the latest Iranian proposals may prove tricky, she adds.
US warning
US President Barack Obama warned Tehran earlier this year that Washington wanted to see a positive response to its friendlier overtures by the end of September.
If not, Mr Obama said the US was prepared to press for new sanctions against Iran.
But Mr Lavrov added that he did not think the UN Security Council would support oil sanctions against Iran.
"Some of the sanctions under discussion, including oil and oil products, are not a mechanism to force Iran to co-operate, they are a step to a full-blown blockade and I do not think they would be supported at the UN Security Council," he said.
Details of Iran's latest proposals have not been revealed.
On Wednesday, the US envoy to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Glyn Davies, said Iran could already have enough low-enriched uranium to produce a bomb, if it was further enriched.
Thursday, September 3, 2009
1st current event
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2009/09/backtoschool_sp.html
Here's the latest exhibit on how polarized the country is and how much distrust exists of President Obama.
He plans what seems like a simple speech to students around the country on Tuesday to encourage them to do well in school.
But some Republicans are objecting to the back-to-school message, asserting that Obama wants to indoctrinate students.
Florida GOP Chairman Jim Greer said in a statement that he is "absolutely appalled that taxpayer dollars are being used to spread President Obama's socialist ideology" and "liberal propaganda."
Wednesday, after the White House announced the speech, the Department of Education followed up with a letter to school principals and a lesson plan.
Critics pointed to the part of the lesson plan that originally recommended having students "write letters to themselves about what they can do to help the president."
The White House revised the plans Wednesday to say students could "write letters to themselves about how they can achieve their short-term and long-term education goals," the Associated Press reports.
"That was inartfully worded, and we corrected it," White House deputy policy director Heather Higginbottom told the AP.
The White House plans to release a copy of Obama's remarks on Monday, in plenty of time for parents to decide whether they want their kids to hear the speech.
But the AP says that districts across the country have already been inundated with phone calls from parents and that districts in states including Texas, Illinois, Minnesota, Missouri, Virginia, Wisconsin have decided not to show the speech to students. Others are still thinking it over or are letting parents have their kids opt out.
Here's the latest exhibit on how polarized the country is and how much distrust exists of President Obama.
He plans what seems like a simple speech to students around the country on Tuesday to encourage them to do well in school.
But some Republicans are objecting to the back-to-school message, asserting that Obama wants to indoctrinate students.
Florida GOP Chairman Jim Greer said in a statement that he is "absolutely appalled that taxpayer dollars are being used to spread President Obama's socialist ideology" and "liberal propaganda."
Wednesday, after the White House announced the speech, the Department of Education followed up with a letter to school principals and a lesson plan.
Critics pointed to the part of the lesson plan that originally recommended having students "write letters to themselves about what they can do to help the president."
The White House revised the plans Wednesday to say students could "write letters to themselves about how they can achieve their short-term and long-term education goals," the Associated Press reports.
"That was inartfully worded, and we corrected it," White House deputy policy director Heather Higginbottom told the AP.
The White House plans to release a copy of Obama's remarks on Monday, in plenty of time for parents to decide whether they want their kids to hear the speech.
But the AP says that districts across the country have already been inundated with phone calls from parents and that districts in states including Texas, Illinois, Minnesota, Missouri, Virginia, Wisconsin have decided not to show the speech to students. Others are still thinking it over or are letting parents have their kids opt out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)