Democrats Abroad New Zealand
12.31.2006
We Can't Ignore Iraq's Refugees (WashingtonPost.com)
By Edward M. Kennedy
Saturday, December 30, 2006; Page A21
With the nation still at war in Iraq, each of us is deeply grateful to the brave men and women in our armed forces who celebrated the holidays this year with half their hearts at home and half in Iraq. But this year especially it is essential that we also reflect on another human cost of the war -- the hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi men, women and children who have fled their homes and often their country to escape the violence of a nation increasingly at war with itself.
The refugees are witnesses to the cruelty that stains our age, and they cannot be overlooked. America bears heavy responsibility for their plight. We have a clear obligation to stop ignoring it and help chart a sensible course to ease the refugee crisis. Time is not on our side. We must act quickly and effectively.
Today, within Iraq, 1.6 million people have already fled or been expelled from their homes. An additional 1.8 million, fleeing sectarian violence, kidnappings, extortion, death threats and carnage, have sought refuge in neighboring countries. At least 700,000 are in Jordan, 600,000 in Syria, 100,000 in Egypt, 54,000 in Iran and 20,000 in Lebanon. Typically they are not living in refugee camps but have relocated in urban areas, where they must draw on their own meager resources to pay for food and shelter, and must depend on the good graces of the host governments.
The neighboring countries, in turn, are under enormous financial stress from the rapidly increasing needs of the refugees. In Jordan, they now make up more than 10 percent of the population -- the equivalent of 30 million people flooding America's shores. These countries are increasingly unable to meet the refugees' basic needs.
Borders are being closed to more and more of these men, women and children, with the result that many who are most in need or in danger are trapped in the Iraqi caldron of violence. As it continues to boil, the humanitarian crisis will only worsen.
(More ... Washington Post > Columns)
Saturday, December 30, 2006; Page A21
With the nation still at war in Iraq, each of us is deeply grateful to the brave men and women in our armed forces who celebrated the holidays this year with half their hearts at home and half in Iraq. But this year especially it is essential that we also reflect on another human cost of the war -- the hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi men, women and children who have fled their homes and often their country to escape the violence of a nation increasingly at war with itself.
The refugees are witnesses to the cruelty that stains our age, and they cannot be overlooked. America bears heavy responsibility for their plight. We have a clear obligation to stop ignoring it and help chart a sensible course to ease the refugee crisis. Time is not on our side. We must act quickly and effectively.
Today, within Iraq, 1.6 million people have already fled or been expelled from their homes. An additional 1.8 million, fleeing sectarian violence, kidnappings, extortion, death threats and carnage, have sought refuge in neighboring countries. At least 700,000 are in Jordan, 600,000 in Syria, 100,000 in Egypt, 54,000 in Iran and 20,000 in Lebanon. Typically they are not living in refugee camps but have relocated in urban areas, where they must draw on their own meager resources to pay for food and shelter, and must depend on the good graces of the host governments.
The neighboring countries, in turn, are under enormous financial stress from the rapidly increasing needs of the refugees. In Jordan, they now make up more than 10 percent of the population -- the equivalent of 30 million people flooding America's shores. These countries are increasingly unable to meet the refugees' basic needs.
Borders are being closed to more and more of these men, women and children, with the result that many who are most in need or in danger are trapped in the Iraqi caldron of violence. As it continues to boil, the humanitarian crisis will only worsen.
(More ... Washington Post > Columns)
Labels: Iraq, Kennedy, Opinion, Washington Post
¶ 12:27 0 comments
12.29.2006
AP Poll: Bush Top Villain and Hero (Guardian.co.uk)
Thursday December 28, 2006 6:46 PM
By The Associated Press
Demographics and details from the AP-AOL News poll on public attitudes about who were the biggest heroes and villains of the past year. The poll was conducted by Ipsos, an international polling firm.
OVERALL: In a testament to how divided Americans are about their president and how strongly held those opinions are, George W. Bush earns two titles in the latest AP-AOL News poll: villain of the year and hero of the year. The poll asked adults to name a famous person to be named the biggest villain of the year, and allowed respondents to pick any name. 25 percent of adults picked George W. Bush as the biggest villain of the year. The poll also asked a similar question asking respondents to name a famous person as the biggest hero of the year, and Bush received the largest number of mentions, at 13 percent of all respondents.
VILLAIN OF YEAR: Bush was the choice of 43 percent of Democrats for villain of the year, higher than the 27 percent of Republicans who chose Bush as their hero. Bush was far ahead of any other figure in the race for villain of the year. The runners-up were Osama bin Laden, who earned just 8 percent of mentions, Saddam Hussein, at 6 percent, and the president of Iran with 5 percent of mentions. North Korean leader Kim Jong Il rounded out the top five with just 2 percent of all mentions.
HERO OF YEAR: In the race for hero of the year, Bush won by a smaller margin, with the troops in Iraq coming in second place with 6 percent of mentions. Oprah Winfrey, Barack Obama and Jesus Christ rounded out the top five with 3 percent of mentions each. Older adults were more likely to name Bush as hero than younger adults. Those 35 and older, 16 percent, were twice as likely as those under 35, 7 percent, to name Bush as hero. Fully a quarter of white evangelical Christians named Bush as hero, more than all Protestants, 18 percent, and Catholics, 12 percent.
(More ... Guardian Unlimited > Breaking News > U.S.) ¶ 14:02 0 comments
By The Associated Press
Demographics and details from the AP-AOL News poll on public attitudes about who were the biggest heroes and villains of the past year. The poll was conducted by Ipsos, an international polling firm.
OVERALL: In a testament to how divided Americans are about their president and how strongly held those opinions are, George W. Bush earns two titles in the latest AP-AOL News poll: villain of the year and hero of the year. The poll asked adults to name a famous person to be named the biggest villain of the year, and allowed respondents to pick any name. 25 percent of adults picked George W. Bush as the biggest villain of the year. The poll also asked a similar question asking respondents to name a famous person as the biggest hero of the year, and Bush received the largest number of mentions, at 13 percent of all respondents.
VILLAIN OF YEAR: Bush was the choice of 43 percent of Democrats for villain of the year, higher than the 27 percent of Republicans who chose Bush as their hero. Bush was far ahead of any other figure in the race for villain of the year. The runners-up were Osama bin Laden, who earned just 8 percent of mentions, Saddam Hussein, at 6 percent, and the president of Iran with 5 percent of mentions. North Korean leader Kim Jong Il rounded out the top five with just 2 percent of all mentions.
HERO OF YEAR: In the race for hero of the year, Bush won by a smaller margin, with the troops in Iraq coming in second place with 6 percent of mentions. Oprah Winfrey, Barack Obama and Jesus Christ rounded out the top five with 3 percent of mentions each. Older adults were more likely to name Bush as hero than younger adults. Those 35 and older, 16 percent, were twice as likely as those under 35, 7 percent, to name Bush as hero. Fully a quarter of white evangelical Christians named Bush as hero, more than all Protestants, 18 percent, and Catholics, 12 percent.
(More ... Guardian Unlimited > Breaking News > U.S.) ¶ 14:02 0 comments
Ford Disagreed With Bush About Invading Iraq (WashingtonPost.com)
By Bob Woodward
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, December 28, 2006; Page A01
Former president Gerald R. Ford said in an embargoed interview in July 2004 that the Iraq war was not justified. "I don't think I would have gone to war," he said a little more than a year after President Bush launched the invasion advocated and carried out by prominent veterans of Ford's own administration.
In a four-hour conversation at his house in Beaver Creek, Colo., Ford "very strongly" disagreed with the current president's justifications for invading Iraq and said he would have pushed alternatives, such as sanctions, much more vigorously. In the tape-recorded interview, Ford was critical not only of Bush but also of Vice President Cheney -- Ford's White House chief of staff -- and then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, who served as Ford's chief of staff and then his Pentagon chief.
"Rumsfeld and Cheney and the president made a big mistake in justifying going into the war in Iraq. They put the emphasis on weapons of mass destruction," Ford said. "And now, I've never publicly said I thought they made a mistake, but I felt very strongly it was an error in how they should justify what they were going to do."
In a conversation that veered between the current realities of a war in the Middle East and the old complexities of the war in Vietnam whose bitter end he presided over as president, Ford took issue with the notion of the United States entering a conflict in service of the idea of spreading democracy.
"Well, I can understand the theory of wanting to free people," Ford said, referring to Bush's assertion that the United States has a "duty to free people." But the former president said he was skeptical "whether you can detach that from the obligation number one, of what's in our national interest." He added: "And I just don't think we should go hellfire damnation around the globe freeing people, unless it is directly related to our own national security."
(More ... Washington Post > Politics > Special Reports)
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, December 28, 2006; Page A01
Former president Gerald R. Ford said in an embargoed interview in July 2004 that the Iraq war was not justified. "I don't think I would have gone to war," he said a little more than a year after President Bush launched the invasion advocated and carried out by prominent veterans of Ford's own administration.
In a four-hour conversation at his house in Beaver Creek, Colo., Ford "very strongly" disagreed with the current president's justifications for invading Iraq and said he would have pushed alternatives, such as sanctions, much more vigorously. In the tape-recorded interview, Ford was critical not only of Bush but also of Vice President Cheney -- Ford's White House chief of staff -- and then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, who served as Ford's chief of staff and then his Pentagon chief.
"Rumsfeld and Cheney and the president made a big mistake in justifying going into the war in Iraq. They put the emphasis on weapons of mass destruction," Ford said. "And now, I've never publicly said I thought they made a mistake, but I felt very strongly it was an error in how they should justify what they were going to do."
In a conversation that veered between the current realities of a war in the Middle East and the old complexities of the war in Vietnam whose bitter end he presided over as president, Ford took issue with the notion of the United States entering a conflict in service of the idea of spreading democracy.
"Well, I can understand the theory of wanting to free people," Ford said, referring to Bush's assertion that the United States has a "duty to free people." But the former president said he was skeptical "whether you can detach that from the obligation number one, of what's in our national interest." He added: "And I just don't think we should go hellfire damnation around the globe freeing people, unless it is directly related to our own national security."
(More ... Washington Post > Politics > Special Reports)
Labels: Iraq, Washington Post
¶ 13:35 0 comments
Edwards Launches 2008 Campaign (NYTimes.com)
By ADAM NOSSITER and DAVID STOUT
Published: December 28, 2006
NEW ORLEANS, Dec. 28 -- Former Senator John Edwards chose a devastated neighborhood in this flood-stricken city today to formally begin his quest for the presidency, declaring that his campaign would emphasize the “two Americas” theme he embraced two years ago.
“New Orleans in so many ways shows the two Americas that I’ve talked about,” Mr. Edwards said, standing between two ruined houses. “It’s great to try to see a problem, but it’s more important to actually take action and do something about it, and that’s why I’m in New Orleans.”
Mr. Edwards, who on Wednesday donned work gloves and cheerfully joined volunteers in a much-photographed clean-up of a woman’s yard, said it was important “to show what’s possible when we as Americans, instead of staying home and complaining, actually take action and take responsibility.”
During the 2004 campaign, when he was the vice-presidential candidate on the Democratic ticket, Mr. Edwards spoke often of the “two Americas” -- one comfortable and privileged, the other struggling to feed body and soul and despairing of ever passing on something better to their children.
The “formal” announcement of his candidacy today was, by design, anything but formal. Mr. Edwards wore work boots, blue jeans and a thick blue shirt against the chill. His announcement contrasted sharply with more traditional launchings of White House bids, which have often been made in the United States Capitol.
(More ... New York Times > U.S. > Politics)
Published: December 28, 2006
NEW ORLEANS, Dec. 28 -- Former Senator John Edwards chose a devastated neighborhood in this flood-stricken city today to formally begin his quest for the presidency, declaring that his campaign would emphasize the “two Americas” theme he embraced two years ago.
“New Orleans in so many ways shows the two Americas that I’ve talked about,” Mr. Edwards said, standing between two ruined houses. “It’s great to try to see a problem, but it’s more important to actually take action and do something about it, and that’s why I’m in New Orleans.”
Mr. Edwards, who on Wednesday donned work gloves and cheerfully joined volunteers in a much-photographed clean-up of a woman’s yard, said it was important “to show what’s possible when we as Americans, instead of staying home and complaining, actually take action and take responsibility.”
During the 2004 campaign, when he was the vice-presidential candidate on the Democratic ticket, Mr. Edwards spoke often of the “two Americas” -- one comfortable and privileged, the other struggling to feed body and soul and despairing of ever passing on something better to their children.
The “formal” announcement of his candidacy today was, by design, anything but formal. Mr. Edwards wore work boots, blue jeans and a thick blue shirt against the chill. His announcement contrasted sharply with more traditional launchings of White House bids, which have often been made in the United States Capitol.
(More ... New York Times > U.S. > Politics)
Labels: 2008 election, Edwards, New York Times
¶ 13:31 0 comments
12.28.2006
Helping the Poor, the British Way (NYTimes.com)
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: December 25, 2006
It’s the season for charitable giving. And far too many Americans, particularly children, need that charity.
Scenes of a devastated New Orleans reminded us that many of our fellow citizens remain poor, four decades after L.B.J. declared war on poverty. But I’m not sure whether people understand how little progress we’ve made. In 1969, fewer than one in every seven American children lived below the poverty line. Last year, although the country was far wealthier, more than one in every six American children were poor.
And there’s no excuse for our lack of progress. Just look at what the British government has accomplished over the last decade.
Although Tony Blair has been President Bush’s obedient manservant when it comes to Iraq, Mr. Blair’s domestic policies are nothing like Mr. Bush’s. Where Mr. Bush has sought to privatize the social safety net, Mr. Blair’s Labor government has defended and strengthened it. Where Mr. Bush and his allies accuse anyone who mentions income distribution of “class warfare,” the Blair government has made a major effort to reverse the surge in inequality and poverty that took place during the Thatcher years.
And Britain’s poverty rate, if measured American-style — that is, in terms of a fixed poverty line, not a moving target that rises as the nation grows richer — has been cut in half since Labor came to power in 1997.
Britain’s war on poverty has been led by Gordon Brown, the chancellor of the exchequer and Mr. Blair’s heir apparent. There’s nothing exotic about his policies, many of which are inspired by American models. But in Britain, these policies are carried out with much more determination.
(More ... New York Times > Opinion)
Published: December 25, 2006
It’s the season for charitable giving. And far too many Americans, particularly children, need that charity.
Scenes of a devastated New Orleans reminded us that many of our fellow citizens remain poor, four decades after L.B.J. declared war on poverty. But I’m not sure whether people understand how little progress we’ve made. In 1969, fewer than one in every seven American children lived below the poverty line. Last year, although the country was far wealthier, more than one in every six American children were poor.
And there’s no excuse for our lack of progress. Just look at what the British government has accomplished over the last decade.
Although Tony Blair has been President Bush’s obedient manservant when it comes to Iraq, Mr. Blair’s domestic policies are nothing like Mr. Bush’s. Where Mr. Bush has sought to privatize the social safety net, Mr. Blair’s Labor government has defended and strengthened it. Where Mr. Bush and his allies accuse anyone who mentions income distribution of “class warfare,” the Blair government has made a major effort to reverse the surge in inequality and poverty that took place during the Thatcher years.
And Britain’s poverty rate, if measured American-style — that is, in terms of a fixed poverty line, not a moving target that rises as the nation grows richer — has been cut in half since Labor came to power in 1997.
Britain’s war on poverty has been led by Gordon Brown, the chancellor of the exchequer and Mr. Blair’s heir apparent. There’s nothing exotic about his policies, many of which are inspired by American models. But in Britain, these policies are carried out with much more determination.
(More ... New York Times > Opinion)
Labels: economy, Krugman, New York Times, Opinion
¶ 10:50 0 comments
WIll the Dam Break in 2007? (Guardian.co.uk)
The world survived 2006 without a major economic catastrophe but the year produced warning signs for the future of the global economy.
Joseph Stiglitz
December 27, 2006 12:30 PM
The world survived 2006 without a major economic catastrophe, despite sky-high oil prices and a Middle East spiralling out of control. But the year produced abundant lessons for the global economy, as well as warning signs concerning its future performance.
Unsurprisingly, 2006 brought another resounding rejection of fundamentalist neo-liberal policies, this time by voters in Nicaragua and Ecuador. Meanwhile, in neighbouring Venezuela, Hugo Chávez won an overwhelming electoral: at least he had brought some education and healthcare to the poor barrios, which previously had received little of the benefits of the country's enormous oil wealth.
Perhaps most importantly for the world, voters in the United States gave a vote of no confidence to President George W Bush, who will now be held in check by a Democratic Congress.
When Bush assumed the presidency in 2001, many hoped that he would govern competently from the centre. More pessimistic critics consoled themselves by questioning how much harm a president can do in a few years. We now know the answer: a great deal.
Never has America's standing in the world's eyes been lower. Basic values that Americans regard as central to their identity have been subverted. The unthinkable has occurred: an American president defending the use of torture, using technicalities in interpreting the Geneva Conventions and ignoring the Convention on Torture, which forbids it under any circumstances. Likewise, whereas Bush was hailed as the first "MBA president," corruption and incompetence have reigned under his administration, from the botched response to Hurricane Katrina to its conduct of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
In fact, we should be careful not to read too much into the 2006 vote: Americans do not like being on the losing side of any war. It was this failure, and the quagmire into which America had once again so confidently stepped, that led voters to reject Bush. But the Middle East chaos wrought by the Bush years also represents a central risk to the global economy. Since the Iraq war began in the 2003, oil output from the Middle East, the world's lowest-cost producer, has not grown as expected to meet rising world demand. Although most forecasts suggest that oil prices will remain at or slightly below their current level, this is largely due to a perceived moderation of growth in demand, led by a slowing US economy.
(More ... Guardian Unlimited > Comment is free ...)
Joseph Stiglitz
December 27, 2006 12:30 PM
The world survived 2006 without a major economic catastrophe, despite sky-high oil prices and a Middle East spiralling out of control. But the year produced abundant lessons for the global economy, as well as warning signs concerning its future performance.
Unsurprisingly, 2006 brought another resounding rejection of fundamentalist neo-liberal policies, this time by voters in Nicaragua and Ecuador. Meanwhile, in neighbouring Venezuela, Hugo Chávez won an overwhelming electoral: at least he had brought some education and healthcare to the poor barrios, which previously had received little of the benefits of the country's enormous oil wealth.
Perhaps most importantly for the world, voters in the United States gave a vote of no confidence to President George W Bush, who will now be held in check by a Democratic Congress.
When Bush assumed the presidency in 2001, many hoped that he would govern competently from the centre. More pessimistic critics consoled themselves by questioning how much harm a president can do in a few years. We now know the answer: a great deal.
Never has America's standing in the world's eyes been lower. Basic values that Americans regard as central to their identity have been subverted. The unthinkable has occurred: an American president defending the use of torture, using technicalities in interpreting the Geneva Conventions and ignoring the Convention on Torture, which forbids it under any circumstances. Likewise, whereas Bush was hailed as the first "MBA president," corruption and incompetence have reigned under his administration, from the botched response to Hurricane Katrina to its conduct of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
In fact, we should be careful not to read too much into the 2006 vote: Americans do not like being on the losing side of any war. It was this failure, and the quagmire into which America had once again so confidently stepped, that led voters to reject Bush. But the Middle East chaos wrought by the Bush years also represents a central risk to the global economy. Since the Iraq war began in the 2003, oil output from the Middle East, the world's lowest-cost producer, has not grown as expected to meet rising world demand. Although most forecasts suggest that oil prices will remain at or slightly below their current level, this is largely due to a perceived moderation of growth in demand, led by a slowing US economy.
(More ... Guardian Unlimited > Comment is free ...)
Labels: economy, Guardian, Opinion, Stiglitz
¶ 10:24 0 comments
12.26.2006
Can John Edwards Sell His Populism at Regency Hotel? (NYObserver.com)
Leading By 20 in Iowa, Ex-Senator Schmoozes, Oozes Across Room From Hillary.
By Jason Horowitz
John Edwards put down his fork and pointed at Hillary Clinton.
He had been asked to explain his low profile just two years after being the Democratic nominee for Vice President.
“There are other candidates—Senator Clinton, Senator Obama—who are interesting for people,” said Mr. Edwards, waving his right hand towards a sunlit table across the dining room of the Regency Hotel, where Mrs. Clinton was holding court. “And it’s not surprising to me that they would get a lot of attention.”
While the party is dazzled by the trajectory of its two brilliant stars, Mr. Edwards—last seen on the national stage in 2004 as the vigorous and youthful running mate to the long-faced, awkward John Kerry—has virtually disappeared.
The former Senator for North Carolina is nevertheless expected to announce his Presidential candidacy in New Orleans’ ravaged Lower Ninth Ward sometime after Christmas. The setting is a meaningful one. Mr. Edwards is positioning himself as the Southern populist who can rally the party’s liberal base for his crusade against poverty, his advocacy for stronger unions, and his public expression of remorse for voting to authorize the Iraq war.
Over the last two years, he has chipped away at a perceived weakness in foreign policy by bouncing around the world like a piece of lost luggage. And his frequent visits to his fund-raising network of lawyers and businessmen in New York have complemented regular pilgrimages to the primary states.
“Sometimes I do feel like someone needs to shake the national press and remind them we do not have a national primary—never have,” said Mr. Edwards.
He added, “The only thing that matters is: How are you doing in Iowa and New Hampshire?”
That’s the Edwards scenario in a nutshell: win in Iowa, and national attention will follow.
If the early polls are even remotely accurate, it’s not an implausible calculation.
(More ... New York Observer > Politics)
By Jason Horowitz
John Edwards put down his fork and pointed at Hillary Clinton.
He had been asked to explain his low profile just two years after being the Democratic nominee for Vice President.
“There are other candidates—Senator Clinton, Senator Obama—who are interesting for people,” said Mr. Edwards, waving his right hand towards a sunlit table across the dining room of the Regency Hotel, where Mrs. Clinton was holding court. “And it’s not surprising to me that they would get a lot of attention.”
While the party is dazzled by the trajectory of its two brilliant stars, Mr. Edwards—last seen on the national stage in 2004 as the vigorous and youthful running mate to the long-faced, awkward John Kerry—has virtually disappeared.
The former Senator for North Carolina is nevertheless expected to announce his Presidential candidacy in New Orleans’ ravaged Lower Ninth Ward sometime after Christmas. The setting is a meaningful one. Mr. Edwards is positioning himself as the Southern populist who can rally the party’s liberal base for his crusade against poverty, his advocacy for stronger unions, and his public expression of remorse for voting to authorize the Iraq war.
Over the last two years, he has chipped away at a perceived weakness in foreign policy by bouncing around the world like a piece of lost luggage. And his frequent visits to his fund-raising network of lawyers and businessmen in New York have complemented regular pilgrimages to the primary states.
“Sometimes I do feel like someone needs to shake the national press and remind them we do not have a national primary—never have,” said Mr. Edwards.
He added, “The only thing that matters is: How are you doing in Iowa and New Hampshire?”
That’s the Edwards scenario in a nutshell: win in Iowa, and national attention will follow.
If the early polls are even remotely accurate, it’s not an implausible calculation.
(More ... New York Observer > Politics)
Labels: 2008 election, Edwards, New York Observer
¶ 13:53 0 comments
12.24.2006
Dems Eyeing $2 Raise for Minimum Earners (CNN.com)
POSTED: 6:09 p.m. EST, December 22, 2006
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Imagine what it would be like to work without a pay raise for nearly 10 years.
That's been the plight of some workers who for almost the past decade have been earning the federal minimum wage. Their last pay increase -- to $5.15 an hour -- came in 1997.
There could be some relief in sight.
When the Democrat-controlled 110th Congress convenes in early January, a top priority is boosting the federal minimum wage to $7.25 an hour. The increase is likely to be phased in, perhaps over 26 months.
Alice Laguerre is among the millions of workers now earning less than $7.25 an hour.
She makes $6.55 an hour driving cars headed for the auction blocks in Orlando, Florida, and says a boost in the federal minimum wage would help her build a nest egg for emergencies.
"I would be able to save more," says Laguerre, a part-time worker. "I've always been thrifty with money. When I was young, I'd take a nickel and stretch it five ways."
That can be tough these days, acknowledges Laguerre, 53, after paying the monthly rent and utilities on her two-bedroom apartment and after recently buying a car -- a blue 1994 Buick Century.
(More ... CNN > Politics)
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Imagine what it would be like to work without a pay raise for nearly 10 years.
That's been the plight of some workers who for almost the past decade have been earning the federal minimum wage. Their last pay increase -- to $5.15 an hour -- came in 1997.
There could be some relief in sight.
When the Democrat-controlled 110th Congress convenes in early January, a top priority is boosting the federal minimum wage to $7.25 an hour. The increase is likely to be phased in, perhaps over 26 months.
Alice Laguerre is among the millions of workers now earning less than $7.25 an hour.
She makes $6.55 an hour driving cars headed for the auction blocks in Orlando, Florida, and says a boost in the federal minimum wage would help her build a nest egg for emergencies.
"I would be able to save more," says Laguerre, a part-time worker. "I've always been thrifty with money. When I was young, I'd take a nickel and stretch it five ways."
That can be tough these days, acknowledges Laguerre, 53, after paying the monthly rent and utilities on her two-bedroom apartment and after recently buying a car -- a blue 1994 Buick Century.
(More ... CNN > Politics)
Labels: CNN, Minimum Wage
¶ 12:18 0 comments
American Idol (NYTimes.com)
By GARY HART
Published: December 24, 2006
In a more perfect world, a graduate program complete with a doctoral thesis might be required of all those seeking the presidency. In certain ways, “The Audacity of Hope” qualifies as Senator Barack Obama’s thesis submission. While exhibiting his leadership attributes, life experiences and personal qualities, largely in anecdotal form, this book also displays reasonably wide and thoughtful, if occasionally predictable, responses to domestic controversies and underscores that in his brief time as the junior senator from Illinois, he has been exposed to conflicts in the Middle East, the former Soviet Union and elsewhere.
The self-portrait is appealing. It presents a man of relative youth yet maturity, a wise observer of the human condition, a figure who possesses perseverance and writing skills that have flashes of grandeur. Obama also demonstrates a wry sense of humor. His life has given him many reasons to be wry.
The senator is a global man for the age of globalization, and his story is now familiar. A Kansas mother, a Kenyan father, an Indonesian stepfather, and years growing up in the disparate places of Hawaii and Indonesia marked him for distinction the moment he walked through the doors of the United States Senate, and provided him with a unique prism through which to view the glory and the folly of American politics.
(More ... New York Times > Sunday Book Review > Best Sellers)
Published: December 24, 2006
In a more perfect world, a graduate program complete with a doctoral thesis might be required of all those seeking the presidency. In certain ways, “The Audacity of Hope” qualifies as Senator Barack Obama’s thesis submission. While exhibiting his leadership attributes, life experiences and personal qualities, largely in anecdotal form, this book also displays reasonably wide and thoughtful, if occasionally predictable, responses to domestic controversies and underscores that in his brief time as the junior senator from Illinois, he has been exposed to conflicts in the Middle East, the former Soviet Union and elsewhere.
The self-portrait is appealing. It presents a man of relative youth yet maturity, a wise observer of the human condition, a figure who possesses perseverance and writing skills that have flashes of grandeur. Obama also demonstrates a wry sense of humor. His life has given him many reasons to be wry.
The senator is a global man for the age of globalization, and his story is now familiar. A Kansas mother, a Kenyan father, an Indonesian stepfather, and years growing up in the disparate places of Hawaii and Indonesia marked him for distinction the moment he walked through the doors of the United States Senate, and provided him with a unique prism through which to view the glory and the folly of American politics.
(More ... New York Times > Sunday Book Review > Best Sellers)
Labels: 2008 election, New York Times, Obama
¶ 12:03 0 comments
Testing the Waters, Obama Tests His Own Limits (NYTimes.com)
By JEFF ZELENY
Published: December 24, 2006
WASHINGTON, Dec. 22 — On a winter afternoon two years ago, Senator Barack Obama took his oath of office and strolled across the Capitol grounds hand-in-hand with his wife and two daughters. At the time, a question from his 6-year-old sounded precocious. Now, it seems prescient.
“Are you going to try to be president?” Malia Obama asked her father, giggling as a television camera captured the moment. “Shouldn’t you be the vice president first?”
Her innocent musings go straight to a threshold issue Mr. Obama faces as he edges closer to entering the presidential race: his limited experience in national politics.
But they only hint at a complex matrix of questions swirling around his prospective candidacy: Is he simply a first-term liberal Democrat long on charisma who is enjoying a brief moment of fame? Is he, as some of his more enthusiastic fans seem to feel, the post-partisan, post-racial, post-baby boom embodiment of a new brand of politics? Does he have the drive and discipline to survive a wide-open presidential campaign?
Put more bluntly: Is he for real?
(More ... New York Times > Politics)
Published: December 24, 2006
WASHINGTON, Dec. 22 — On a winter afternoon two years ago, Senator Barack Obama took his oath of office and strolled across the Capitol grounds hand-in-hand with his wife and two daughters. At the time, a question from his 6-year-old sounded precocious. Now, it seems prescient.
“Are you going to try to be president?” Malia Obama asked her father, giggling as a television camera captured the moment. “Shouldn’t you be the vice president first?”
Her innocent musings go straight to a threshold issue Mr. Obama faces as he edges closer to entering the presidential race: his limited experience in national politics.
But they only hint at a complex matrix of questions swirling around his prospective candidacy: Is he simply a first-term liberal Democrat long on charisma who is enjoying a brief moment of fame? Is he, as some of his more enthusiastic fans seem to feel, the post-partisan, post-racial, post-baby boom embodiment of a new brand of politics? Does he have the drive and discipline to survive a wide-open presidential campaign?
Put more bluntly: Is he for real?
(More ... New York Times > Politics)
Labels: 2008 election, New York Times, Obama
¶ 12:00 0 comments
12.23.2006
The President is Unequivocally Undecided (TheAustralian.News.com.au)
Thursday, December 21, 2006
Geoff Elliott
A RETIRED Congressman runs through the studio audience to the stage. Crowd cheers. Cue titles for tonight’s episode of: “Let’s Find an Iraq Strategy!”
"Come on down, Ma’am,” the smiling host says. “Your chance for a new car, if you can just pick the right strategy from the four in front of you: withdraw immediately; stay the course; add more troops; invade Iran.”
The Iraq War as a game show? It may sound absurd, offensive even, but then you’re not living in Washington. Here the daily public ruminations from the President and his administration are trivialising what are life and death decisions in Baghdad.
It’s become a staple of political narrative here in the last few weeks, particularly since the bipartisan Iraq Study Group released its report and the President himself admitted he was looking to change course.
But rather than go private, call on a few trusted ex-military types to present a top secret battle plan. President George W. Bush is on the screen every other day to not rule this in, not rule that out. Thinking of increasing troop levels, President Bush was asked in his last press conference of the year yesterday. “I haven’t made up my mind yet,” says Bush.
The Decider, as he called himself earlier this year, is decidedly undecided. It makes one almost yearn for the unilateralist of yore.
(More ... The Australian > Blogs > Washington Correspondent)
Geoff Elliott
A RETIRED Congressman runs through the studio audience to the stage. Crowd cheers. Cue titles for tonight’s episode of: “Let’s Find an Iraq Strategy!”
"Come on down, Ma’am,” the smiling host says. “Your chance for a new car, if you can just pick the right strategy from the four in front of you: withdraw immediately; stay the course; add more troops; invade Iran.”
The Iraq War as a game show? It may sound absurd, offensive even, but then you’re not living in Washington. Here the daily public ruminations from the President and his administration are trivialising what are life and death decisions in Baghdad.
It’s become a staple of political narrative here in the last few weeks, particularly since the bipartisan Iraq Study Group released its report and the President himself admitted he was looking to change course.
But rather than go private, call on a few trusted ex-military types to present a top secret battle plan. President George W. Bush is on the screen every other day to not rule this in, not rule that out. Thinking of increasing troop levels, President Bush was asked in his last press conference of the year yesterday. “I haven’t made up my mind yet,” says Bush.
The Decider, as he called himself earlier this year, is decidedly undecided. It makes one almost yearn for the unilateralist of yore.
(More ... The Australian > Blogs > Washington Correspondent)
Labels: Bush, Iraq, Opinion, The Australian
¶ 16:13 0 comments
Democrats and the Deficit (NYTimes.com)
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: December 22, 2006
Now that the Democrats have regained some power, they have to decide what to do. One of the biggest questions is whether the party should return to Rubinomics — the doctrine, associated with former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, that placed a very high priority on reducing the budget deficit.
The answer, I believe, is no. Mr. Rubin was one of the ablest Treasury secretaries in American history. But it’s now clear that while Rubinomics made sense in terms of pure economics, it failed to take account of the ugly realities of contemporary American politics.
And the lesson of the last six years is that the Democrats shouldn’t spend political capital trying to bring the deficit down. They should refrain from actions that make the deficit worse. But given a choice between cutting the deficit and spending more on good things like health care reform, they should choose the spending.
In a saner political environment, the economic logic behind Rubinomics would have been compelling. Basic fiscal principles tell us that the government should run budget deficits only when it faces unusually high expenses, mainly during wartime. In other periods it should try to run a surplus, paying down its debt.
Since the 1990s were an era of peace, prosperity and favorable demographics (the baby boomers were still in the work force, not collecting Social Security and Medicare), it should have been a good time to put the federal budget in the black. And under Mr. Rubin, the huge deficits of the Reagan-Bush years were transformed into an impressive surplus.
But the realities of American politics ensured that it was all for naught. The second President Bush quickly squandered the surplus on tax cuts that heavily favored the wealthy, then plunged the budget deep into deficit by cutting taxes on dividends and capital gains even as he took the country into a disastrous war. And you can even argue that Mr. Rubin’s surplus was a bad thing, because it greased the rails for Mr. Bush’s irresponsibility.
(More ... New York Times > Opinion)
Published: December 22, 2006
Now that the Democrats have regained some power, they have to decide what to do. One of the biggest questions is whether the party should return to Rubinomics — the doctrine, associated with former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, that placed a very high priority on reducing the budget deficit.
The answer, I believe, is no. Mr. Rubin was one of the ablest Treasury secretaries in American history. But it’s now clear that while Rubinomics made sense in terms of pure economics, it failed to take account of the ugly realities of contemporary American politics.
And the lesson of the last six years is that the Democrats shouldn’t spend political capital trying to bring the deficit down. They should refrain from actions that make the deficit worse. But given a choice between cutting the deficit and spending more on good things like health care reform, they should choose the spending.
In a saner political environment, the economic logic behind Rubinomics would have been compelling. Basic fiscal principles tell us that the government should run budget deficits only when it faces unusually high expenses, mainly during wartime. In other periods it should try to run a surplus, paying down its debt.
Since the 1990s were an era of peace, prosperity and favorable demographics (the baby boomers were still in the work force, not collecting Social Security and Medicare), it should have been a good time to put the federal budget in the black. And under Mr. Rubin, the huge deficits of the Reagan-Bush years were transformed into an impressive surplus.
But the realities of American politics ensured that it was all for naught. The second President Bush quickly squandered the surplus on tax cuts that heavily favored the wealthy, then plunged the budget deep into deficit by cutting taxes on dividends and capital gains even as he took the country into a disastrous war. And you can even argue that Mr. Rubin’s surplus was a bad thing, because it greased the rails for Mr. Bush’s irresponsibility.
(More ... New York Times > Opinion)
Labels: Deficit, Krugman, New York Times, Opinion
¶ 09:06 0 comments
12.22.2006
Labour Pains Over Clinton, Obama Helping Edwards (Chron.com)
Dec. 21, 2006, 10:02PM
By ROBERT D. NOVAK
While Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama soak up news media attention, John Edwards has pushed for organized labor's support. No decisions have yet been made, but the former senator from North Carolina and 2004 vice presidential nominee is the front-runner for winning over the big, dynamic unions who left the AFL-CIO 18 months ago.
Edwards is a leading prospect for backing from Andrew Stern's Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and James P. Hoffa's International Brotherhood of Teamsters, the unions that led the breakaway forming the Change to Win Federation.
Stern and Hoffa are wary of early decisions, and there are things about the Edwards operation their unions do not like. But their interest in him reflects largely unspoken discontent in Democratic ranks over choice limited to Clinton and Obama.
Withdrawal from presidential consideration of former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner and Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana prompted the analysis that Clinton and Obama consume all political oxygen, leaving nothing for another candidate. But many labor leaders question Clinton's electability and worry about Obama's inexperience. While Warner and Bayh would have been positioned to frontrunner Clinton's right, Edwards is on her left. That is no liability in seeking support from Change to Win unions.
(More ... Houston Chronicle > News > Viewpoints, Outlook)
By ROBERT D. NOVAK
While Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama soak up news media attention, John Edwards has pushed for organized labor's support. No decisions have yet been made, but the former senator from North Carolina and 2004 vice presidential nominee is the front-runner for winning over the big, dynamic unions who left the AFL-CIO 18 months ago.
Edwards is a leading prospect for backing from Andrew Stern's Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and James P. Hoffa's International Brotherhood of Teamsters, the unions that led the breakaway forming the Change to Win Federation.
Stern and Hoffa are wary of early decisions, and there are things about the Edwards operation their unions do not like. But their interest in him reflects largely unspoken discontent in Democratic ranks over choice limited to Clinton and Obama.
Withdrawal from presidential consideration of former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner and Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana prompted the analysis that Clinton and Obama consume all political oxygen, leaving nothing for another candidate. But many labor leaders question Clinton's electability and worry about Obama's inexperience. While Warner and Bayh would have been positioned to frontrunner Clinton's right, Edwards is on her left. That is no liability in seeking support from Change to Win unions.
(More ... Houston Chronicle > News > Viewpoints, Outlook)
Labels: 2008 election, Edwards, Houston Chronicle, Opinion
¶ 20:24 0 comments
Obama: The Anti-Bush (LATimes.com)
Candidates in 2008 will trumpet their differences with the president, but no one is more different than Barack Obama.
By Michael Tomasky, MICHAEL TOMASKY is editor at large of the American Prospect.
December 21, 2006
SHOULD HE or shouldn't he? Everyone, it seems, has an opinion about whether 2008 is the right time for Barack Obama to throw his Bears cap (famously donned during that "Monday Night Football" set piece) into the ring. Even in the unscientific realm of political punditry, rarely have assertions so plainly unprovable been delivered with such unyielding certitude.
He's too young; no, quite the contrary, he'll be too old if he waits. He needs more Senate experience, some legislation to his name; nonsense — years of service in the Senate are a negative, not a positive (just ask John Kerry). He doesn't stand for anything; pshaw — he stands for a great deal simply by being who he is.
All these claims have to do with Obama himself. But there is another factor, one that argues for an Obama candidacy that has nothing to do with Obama and everything to do with George W. Bush. I call it the Attraction of the Opposite.
The most reliable guide to presidential winners over the last quarter of a century is not ideology or charisma or any of the other established factors. It is instead what we might call character typology. That is, after four (or especially eight) years of one type of person, American voters tend to turn their affections toward someone who is that person's opposite — someone whose personality and affect provide a direct contrast to the fellow who's leaving office, who has something the other guy lacked.
(More ... Los Angeles Times > Opinion)
By Michael Tomasky, MICHAEL TOMASKY is editor at large of the American Prospect.
December 21, 2006
SHOULD HE or shouldn't he? Everyone, it seems, has an opinion about whether 2008 is the right time for Barack Obama to throw his Bears cap (famously donned during that "Monday Night Football" set piece) into the ring. Even in the unscientific realm of political punditry, rarely have assertions so plainly unprovable been delivered with such unyielding certitude.
He's too young; no, quite the contrary, he'll be too old if he waits. He needs more Senate experience, some legislation to his name; nonsense — years of service in the Senate are a negative, not a positive (just ask John Kerry). He doesn't stand for anything; pshaw — he stands for a great deal simply by being who he is.
All these claims have to do with Obama himself. But there is another factor, one that argues for an Obama candidacy that has nothing to do with Obama and everything to do with George W. Bush. I call it the Attraction of the Opposite.
The most reliable guide to presidential winners over the last quarter of a century is not ideology or charisma or any of the other established factors. It is instead what we might call character typology. That is, after four (or especially eight) years of one type of person, American voters tend to turn their affections toward someone who is that person's opposite — someone whose personality and affect provide a direct contrast to the fellow who's leaving office, who has something the other guy lacked.
(More ... Los Angeles Times > Opinion)
Labels: 2008 election, LATimes, Obama, Opinion
¶ 20:18 0 comments
Bush Developing Illegal Bioterror Weapons For Offensive Use (Scoop.co.nz)
Wednesday, 20 December 2006, 4:22 pm
Opinion: Sherwood Ross
In violation of the U.S. Code and international law, the Bush administration is spending more money (in inflation-adjusted dollars) to develop illegal, offensive germ warfare than the $2-billion spent in World War II on the Manhattan Project to make the atomic bomb.
So says Francis Boyle, the professor of international law who drafted the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989 enacted by Congress. He states the Pentagon “is now gearing up to fight and ‘win’ biological warfare” pursuant to two Bush national strategy directives adopted “without public knowledge and review” in 2002.
The Pentagon’s Chemical and Biological Defense Program was revised in 2003 to implement those directives, endorsing “first-use” strike of chemical and biological weapons(CBW) in war, says Boyle, who teaches at the University of Illinois, Champaign.
Terming the action “the proverbial smoking gun,” Boyle said the mission of the controversial CBW program “ has been altered to permit development of offensive capability in chemical and biological weapons!” (Original italics)
The same directives, Boyle charges in his book “Biowarfare and Terrorism”(Clarity Press), “unconstitutionally usurp and nullify the right and the power of the United States Congress to declare war in gross and blatant violation of Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11 of the United States Constitution.”
For fiscal years 2001-04, the Federal government funded $14.5-billion “for ostensibly ‘civilian’ biowarfare-related work alone,” a “truly staggering” sum, Boyle wrote.
Another $5.6-billion was voted for “the deceptively-named ‘Project BioShield,’” under which Homeland Security is stockpiling vaccines and drugs to fight anthrax, smallpox and other bioterror agents, Boyle wrote. Protection of the civilian population is, he said, “one of the fundamental requirements for effectively waging biowarfare.”
(More ... Scoop > Top Scoops > Article)
Opinion: Sherwood Ross
In violation of the U.S. Code and international law, the Bush administration is spending more money (in inflation-adjusted dollars) to develop illegal, offensive germ warfare than the $2-billion spent in World War II on the Manhattan Project to make the atomic bomb.
So says Francis Boyle, the professor of international law who drafted the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989 enacted by Congress. He states the Pentagon “is now gearing up to fight and ‘win’ biological warfare” pursuant to two Bush national strategy directives adopted “without public knowledge and review” in 2002.
The Pentagon’s Chemical and Biological Defense Program was revised in 2003 to implement those directives, endorsing “first-use” strike of chemical and biological weapons(CBW) in war, says Boyle, who teaches at the University of Illinois, Champaign.
Terming the action “the proverbial smoking gun,” Boyle said the mission of the controversial CBW program “ has been altered to permit development of offensive capability in chemical and biological weapons!” (Original italics)
The same directives, Boyle charges in his book “Biowarfare and Terrorism”(Clarity Press), “unconstitutionally usurp and nullify the right and the power of the United States Congress to declare war in gross and blatant violation of Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11 of the United States Constitution.”
For fiscal years 2001-04, the Federal government funded $14.5-billion “for ostensibly ‘civilian’ biowarfare-related work alone,” a “truly staggering” sum, Boyle wrote.
Another $5.6-billion was voted for “the deceptively-named ‘Project BioShield,’” under which Homeland Security is stockpiling vaccines and drugs to fight anthrax, smallpox and other bioterror agents, Boyle wrote. Protection of the civilian population is, he said, “one of the fundamental requirements for effectively waging biowarfare.”
(More ... Scoop > Top Scoops > Article)
Labels: Bush, CBRN, GWOT, Scoop
¶ 19:41 0 comments
12.21.2006
Doomsday Countdown for Bush (NZHerald.co.nz)
Thursday December 21, 2006
KANSAS CITY - Some of the T-shirts bear only the date: 01.20.09. The others spell it out: Bush's Last Day.
But both, along with "Bush's Last Day" caps, mugs, bumper stickers, buttons and other collectibles are selling well this Christmas.
One of the most popular items is a clock that counts down the minutes - and yes, seconds - left in President George W. Bush's final term in office.
"We're close to selling a million pieces of assorted stuff," said Elliott Nachwalter, 56, of Arlington, Vermont, who started the business 18 months ago from the back of his fishing store.
(More ... New Zealand Herald > World News) ¶ 09:53 0 comments
KANSAS CITY - Some of the T-shirts bear only the date: 01.20.09. The others spell it out: Bush's Last Day.
But both, along with "Bush's Last Day" caps, mugs, bumper stickers, buttons and other collectibles are selling well this Christmas.
One of the most popular items is a clock that counts down the minutes - and yes, seconds - left in President George W. Bush's final term in office.
"We're close to selling a million pieces of assorted stuff," said Elliott Nachwalter, 56, of Arlington, Vermont, who started the business 18 months ago from the back of his fishing store.
(More ... New Zealand Herald > World News) ¶ 09:53 0 comments
12.20.2006
Garrick Tremain: Peace Meal (Stuff.co.nz)
(See Garrick Tremain on stuff.co.nz)
(See Garrick Tremain on stuff.co.nz)
Labels: Bush, editorial cartoons, Iraq, Stuff
¶ 20:14 0 comments
12.18.2006
Reid: Sen. Johnson 'Going to Be Just Fine' (CNN.com)
POSTED: 7:30 p.m. EST, December 17, 2006
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Sen. Tim Johnson has shown significant improvement after brain surgery and doctors say "everything is going to be just fine," Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid said Sunday.
Yet when asked whether the 59-year-old South Dakota Democrat was conscious, Reid said in a television interview: "I'm not a doctor. I have heard and talked to his family. You should talk to them. It's not appropriate to talk to me about that."
Reid, who has visited Johnson frequently after the surgery Wednesday following a brain hemorrhage, said "he's doing very well. ... His improvement has been significant."
Johnson has responded to voices, opened his eyes and moved his limbs, a spokeswoman for senator Johnson's office said.
Surgeons at the George Washington University Hospital have said Johnson was experiencing post-surgery swelling in his brain, but they said that was normal. (What happened in Johnson's brain? Video)
"Doctors tell us everything is going to be just fine," Reid said.
(More ... CNN > Politics)
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Sen. Tim Johnson has shown significant improvement after brain surgery and doctors say "everything is going to be just fine," Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid said Sunday.
Yet when asked whether the 59-year-old South Dakota Democrat was conscious, Reid said in a television interview: "I'm not a doctor. I have heard and talked to his family. You should talk to them. It's not appropriate to talk to me about that."
Reid, who has visited Johnson frequently after the surgery Wednesday following a brain hemorrhage, said "he's doing very well. ... His improvement has been significant."
Johnson has responded to voices, opened his eyes and moved his limbs, a spokeswoman for senator Johnson's office said.
Surgeons at the George Washington University Hospital have said Johnson was experiencing post-surgery swelling in his brain, but they said that was normal. (What happened in Johnson's brain? Video)
"Doctors tell us everything is going to be just fine," Reid said.
(More ... CNN > Politics)
Labels: 2006 election, CNN, Senate
¶ 22:52 0 comments
Democrat John Edwards Planning for '08 Presidential Run (CNN.com)
POSTED: 2:23 p.m. EST, December 16, 2006
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Former Democratic vice presidential nominee John Edwards intends to seek his party's nomination for the 2008 presidential race, two Democratic officials said Saturday.
Edwards, who represented North Carolina in the U.S. Senate for six years, plans to make the campaign announcement late this month from the New Orleans neighborhood hit hardest by last year's Hurricane Katrina.
The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they did not want to pre-empt Edwards' announcement.
As Edwards enters the crowded field, the Lower Ninth Ward neighborhood in New Orleans provides a stark backdrop to highlight his signature issue -- economic inequality.
Edwards also plans to travel from New Orleans through the four early presidential nominating states -- Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina.
Among Democrats, Sens. Hillary Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois are drawing the most attention almost two years before the actual vote.
(More ... CNN > Politics)
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Former Democratic vice presidential nominee John Edwards intends to seek his party's nomination for the 2008 presidential race, two Democratic officials said Saturday.
Edwards, who represented North Carolina in the U.S. Senate for six years, plans to make the campaign announcement late this month from the New Orleans neighborhood hit hardest by last year's Hurricane Katrina.
The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they did not want to pre-empt Edwards' announcement.
As Edwards enters the crowded field, the Lower Ninth Ward neighborhood in New Orleans provides a stark backdrop to highlight his signature issue -- economic inequality.
Edwards also plans to travel from New Orleans through the four early presidential nominating states -- Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina.
Among Democrats, Sens. Hillary Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois are drawing the most attention almost two years before the actual vote.
(More ... CNN > Politics)
Labels: 2008 election, CNN, Edwards
¶ 22:48 0 comments
Indiana Democrat Bayh Won't Seek Nomination (WashingtonPost.com)
By Chris Cillizza
washingtonpost.com Staff Writer
Sunday, December 17, 2006; Page A04
Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.) will not run for president in 2008, a stunning reversal that comes just 13 days after he opened an exploratory committee to consider the race.
"Due to circumstances beyond our control, the odds were longer than I felt I could responsibly pursue," Bayh said in a statement yesterday. "It wasn't an easy decision, but it was the right one for my family, my friends and my state."
Even as Bayh was announcing that he was getting out of the race, former vice presidential nominee John Edwards was preparing for a second bid for the White House.
(More ... Washington Post > Politics)
washingtonpost.com Staff Writer
Sunday, December 17, 2006; Page A04
Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.) will not run for president in 2008, a stunning reversal that comes just 13 days after he opened an exploratory committee to consider the race.
"Due to circumstances beyond our control, the odds were longer than I felt I could responsibly pursue," Bayh said in a statement yesterday. "It wasn't an easy decision, but it was the right one for my family, my friends and my state."
Even as Bayh was announcing that he was getting out of the race, former vice presidential nominee John Edwards was preparing for a second bid for the White House.
(More ... Washington Post > Politics)
Labels: 2008 election, Bayh, Washington Post
¶ 22:47 0 comments
12.13.2006
Army, Marine Corps To Ask for More Troops (WashingtonPost.com)
By Ann Scott Tyson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, December 13, 2006; Page A01
The Army and Marine Corps are planning to ask incoming Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Congress to approve permanent increases in personnel, as senior officials in both services assert that the nation's global military strategy has outstripped their resources.
In addition, the Army will press hard for "full access" to the 346,000-strong Army National Guard and the 196,000-strong Army Reserves by asking Gates to take the politically sensitive step of easing the Pentagon restrictions on the frequency and duration of involuntary call-ups for reservists, according to two senior Army officials.
The push for more ground troops comes as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have sharply decreased the readiness of Army and Marine Corps units rotating back to the United States, compromising the ability of U.S. ground forces to respond to other potential conflicts around the world.
"The Army has configured itself to sustain the effort in Iraq and, to a lesser degree, in Afghanistan. Beyond that, you've got some problems," said one of the senior Army officials. "Right now, the strategy exceeds the capability of the Army and Marines." This official and others interviewed for this report spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to talk publicly about the matter.
(More ... Washinton Post > World > Middle East > Iraq)
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, December 13, 2006; Page A01
The Army and Marine Corps are planning to ask incoming Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Congress to approve permanent increases in personnel, as senior officials in both services assert that the nation's global military strategy has outstripped their resources.
In addition, the Army will press hard for "full access" to the 346,000-strong Army National Guard and the 196,000-strong Army Reserves by asking Gates to take the politically sensitive step of easing the Pentagon restrictions on the frequency and duration of involuntary call-ups for reservists, according to two senior Army officials.
The push for more ground troops comes as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have sharply decreased the readiness of Army and Marine Corps units rotating back to the United States, compromising the ability of U.S. ground forces to respond to other potential conflicts around the world.
"The Army has configured itself to sustain the effort in Iraq and, to a lesser degree, in Afghanistan. Beyond that, you've got some problems," said one of the senior Army officials. "Right now, the strategy exceeds the capability of the Army and Marines." This official and others interviewed for this report spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to talk publicly about the matter.
(More ... Washinton Post > World > Middle East > Iraq)
Labels: Iraq, Washington Post
¶ 22:48 0 comments
Americans Say U.S. Is Losing War (WashingtonPost.com)
Public, Politicians Split on Iraq Panel's Ideas
By Peter Baker and Jon Cohen
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, December 13, 2006; Page A01
Most Americans think the United States is losing the war in Iraq and support a bipartisan commission's key proposals to change course, according to a poll released yesterday. But the Iraq Study Group's report has become a political orphan in Washington with little backing from either party.
Nearly eight in 10 Americans favor changing the U.S. mission in Iraq from direct combat to training Iraqi troops, the Washington Post-ABC News survey found. Sizeable majorities agree with the goal of pulling out nearly all U.S. combat forces by early 2008, engaging in direct talks with Iran and Syria and reducing U.S. financial support if Iraq fails to make enough progress.
Yet neither President Bush nor Democratic leaders who will take over Congress in three weeks have embraced the panel's report since it was released last week. Bush set it aside in favor of his own review, but, faced with conflicting advice within the administration, the White House said yesterday that plans to announce a new Iraq strategy by Christmas would be delayed until January. Democrats remain undecided and kept their distance while trying to pressure Bush.
"I don't think I've ever seen politicians walk away from something faster," said Gordon Adams, who was a White House defense budget official under President Bill Clinton.
(More ... Washington Post > Politics)
By Peter Baker and Jon Cohen
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, December 13, 2006; Page A01
Most Americans think the United States is losing the war in Iraq and support a bipartisan commission's key proposals to change course, according to a poll released yesterday. But the Iraq Study Group's report has become a political orphan in Washington with little backing from either party.
Nearly eight in 10 Americans favor changing the U.S. mission in Iraq from direct combat to training Iraqi troops, the Washington Post-ABC News survey found. Sizeable majorities agree with the goal of pulling out nearly all U.S. combat forces by early 2008, engaging in direct talks with Iran and Syria and reducing U.S. financial support if Iraq fails to make enough progress.
Yet neither President Bush nor Democratic leaders who will take over Congress in three weeks have embraced the panel's report since it was released last week. Bush set it aside in favor of his own review, but, faced with conflicting advice within the administration, the White House said yesterday that plans to announce a new Iraq strategy by Christmas would be delayed until January. Democrats remain undecided and kept their distance while trying to pressure Bush.
"I don't think I've ever seen politicians walk away from something faster," said Gordon Adams, who was a White House defense budget official under President Bill Clinton.
(More ... Washington Post > Politics)
Labels: Ìtaq, poll, Washington Post
¶ 22:44 0 comments
Poll: Most Americans See Lingering Racism -- In Others (CNN.com)
POSTED: 8:43 p.m. EST, December 12, 2006
(CNN) -- Most Americans, white and black, see racism as a lingering problem in the United States, and many say they know people who are racist, according to a new poll.
But few Americans of either race -- about one out of eight -- consider themselves racist.
And experts say racism has evolved from the days of Jim Crow to the point that people may not even recognize it in themselves. (Watch how many blacks are still afraid to stop in a Texas town Video)
A poll conducted last week by Opinion Research Corp. for CNN indicates that whites and blacks disagree on how serious a problem racial bias is in the United States.
Almost half of black respondents -- 49 percent -- said racism is a "very serious" problem, while 18 percent of whites shared that view. Forty-eight percent of whites and 35 percent of blacks chose the description "somewhat serious." (See the poll results)
Asked if they know someone they consider racist, 43 percent of whites and 48 percent of blacks said yes.
But just 13 percent of whites and 12 percent of blacks consider themselves racially biased.
(More ... CNN > U.S.) ¶ 22:34 0 comments
(CNN) -- Most Americans, white and black, see racism as a lingering problem in the United States, and many say they know people who are racist, according to a new poll.
But few Americans of either race -- about one out of eight -- consider themselves racist.
And experts say racism has evolved from the days of Jim Crow to the point that people may not even recognize it in themselves. (Watch how many blacks are still afraid to stop in a Texas town Video)
A poll conducted last week by Opinion Research Corp. for CNN indicates that whites and blacks disagree on how serious a problem racial bias is in the United States.
Almost half of black respondents -- 49 percent -- said racism is a "very serious" problem, while 18 percent of whites shared that view. Forty-eight percent of whites and 35 percent of blacks chose the description "somewhat serious." (See the poll results)
Asked if they know someone they consider racist, 43 percent of whites and 48 percent of blacks said yes.
But just 13 percent of whites and 12 percent of blacks consider themselves racially biased.
(More ... CNN > U.S.) ¶ 22:34 0 comments
12.11.2006
What I've Learned (WashingtonPost.com)
By Kofi A. Annan
Monday, December 11, 2006; Page A19
Nearly 50 years ago, when I arrived in Minnesota as a student fresh from Africa, I had much to learn -- starting with the fact that there is nothing wimpish about wearing earmuffs when it is 15 degrees below zero. All my life since has been a learning experience. Now I want to pass on five lessons I have learned during 10 years as secretary general of the United Nations that I believe the community of nations needs to learn as it confronts the challenges of the 21st century.
First, in today's world we are all responsible for each other's security. Against such threats as nuclear proliferation, climate change, global pandemics or terrorists operating from safe havens in failed states, no nation can make itself secure by seeking supremacy over all others. Only by working to make each other secure can we hope to achieve lasting security for ourselves. This responsibility includes our shared responsibility to protect people from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. That was accepted by all nations at last year's U.N. summit. But when we look at the murder, rape and starvation still being inflicted on the people of Darfur, we realize that such doctrines remain pure rhetoric unless those with the power to intervene effectively -- by exerting political, economic or, in the last resort, military muscle -- are prepared to take the lead. It also includes a responsibility to future generations to preserve resources that belong to them as well as to us. Every day that we do nothing, or too little, to prevent climate change imposes higher costs on our children.
Second, we are also responsible for each other's welfare. Without a measure of solidarity, no society can be truly stable. It is not realistic to think that some people can go on deriving great benefits from globalization while billions of others are left in, or thrown into, abject poverty. We have to give all our fellow human beings at least a chance to share in our prosperity.
Third, both security and prosperity depend on respect for human rights and the rule of law. Throughout history human life has been enriched by diversity, and different communities have learned from each other. But if our communities are to live in peace we must stress also what unites us: our common humanity and the need for our human dignity and rights to be protected by law.
(More ... Washington Post > Columns)
Monday, December 11, 2006; Page A19
Nearly 50 years ago, when I arrived in Minnesota as a student fresh from Africa, I had much to learn -- starting with the fact that there is nothing wimpish about wearing earmuffs when it is 15 degrees below zero. All my life since has been a learning experience. Now I want to pass on five lessons I have learned during 10 years as secretary general of the United Nations that I believe the community of nations needs to learn as it confronts the challenges of the 21st century.
First, in today's world we are all responsible for each other's security. Against such threats as nuclear proliferation, climate change, global pandemics or terrorists operating from safe havens in failed states, no nation can make itself secure by seeking supremacy over all others. Only by working to make each other secure can we hope to achieve lasting security for ourselves. This responsibility includes our shared responsibility to protect people from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. That was accepted by all nations at last year's U.N. summit. But when we look at the murder, rape and starvation still being inflicted on the people of Darfur, we realize that such doctrines remain pure rhetoric unless those with the power to intervene effectively -- by exerting political, economic or, in the last resort, military muscle -- are prepared to take the lead. It also includes a responsibility to future generations to preserve resources that belong to them as well as to us. Every day that we do nothing, or too little, to prevent climate change imposes higher costs on our children.
Second, we are also responsible for each other's welfare. Without a measure of solidarity, no society can be truly stable. It is not realistic to think that some people can go on deriving great benefits from globalization while billions of others are left in, or thrown into, abject poverty. We have to give all our fellow human beings at least a chance to share in our prosperity.
Third, both security and prosperity depend on respect for human rights and the rule of law. Throughout history human life has been enriched by diversity, and different communities have learned from each other. But if our communities are to live in peace we must stress also what unites us: our common humanity and the need for our human dignity and rights to be protected by law.
(More ... Washington Post > Columns)
Labels: Annan, UN, Washington Post
¶ 22:07 0 comments
Annan to blast U.S. in farewell (USAToday.com)
Posted 12/10/2006 10:44 PM ET
By Barbara Slavin, USA TODAY
In a farewell speech on U.S. soil today, retiring United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan plans to deliver a tough critique of President Bush's policies. He will accuse the administration of trying to secure the United States from terrorism in part by dominating other nations through force, committing what he termed human rights abuses and taking military action without broad international support.
Though Annan has long been a critic of the war in Iraq and other Bush foreign policies, the planned speech is among his toughest and is unusual for a U.N. secretary-general concluding his tenure.
Annan's remarks, provided to USA TODAY by his office, list principles for international relations, among them "respect for human rights and the rule of law."
These ideas can be advanced only "if America remains true to its principles, including in the struggle against terrorism," the speech says. "When it appears to abandon its own ideals and objectives, its friends abroad are naturally troubled and confused."
In the 61-year history of the U.N., no secretary-general has ended his tenure by criticizing U.S. policies so sharply, said Stanley Meisler, a historian of the United Nations and author of a new biography of Annan.
Ric Grennell, spokesman for the U.S. mission to the U.N., said he would not discuss the remarks prior to their delivery. John Bolton, outgoing U.S. ambassador to the U.N., also declined to comment.
In his speech, Annan refers to the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. When "military force is used, the world at large will consider it legitimate only when convinced that it is being used for the right purpose … in accordance with broadly accepted norms."
The speech continues that "governments must be accountable for their actions in the international arena, as well as in the domestic one."
The speech, to be delivered at the presidential library of the late Harry Truman in Independence, Mo., contrasts Truman's support for the United Nations with the Bush administration's unilateral actions.
(More ... USA Today > World) ¶ 20:29 0 comments
By Barbara Slavin, USA TODAY
In a farewell speech on U.S. soil today, retiring United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan plans to deliver a tough critique of President Bush's policies. He will accuse the administration of trying to secure the United States from terrorism in part by dominating other nations through force, committing what he termed human rights abuses and taking military action without broad international support.
Though Annan has long been a critic of the war in Iraq and other Bush foreign policies, the planned speech is among his toughest and is unusual for a U.N. secretary-general concluding his tenure.
Annan's remarks, provided to USA TODAY by his office, list principles for international relations, among them "respect for human rights and the rule of law."
These ideas can be advanced only "if America remains true to its principles, including in the struggle against terrorism," the speech says. "When it appears to abandon its own ideals and objectives, its friends abroad are naturally troubled and confused."
In the 61-year history of the U.N., no secretary-general has ended his tenure by criticizing U.S. policies so sharply, said Stanley Meisler, a historian of the United Nations and author of a new biography of Annan.
Ric Grennell, spokesman for the U.S. mission to the U.N., said he would not discuss the remarks prior to their delivery. John Bolton, outgoing U.S. ambassador to the U.N., also declined to comment.
In his speech, Annan refers to the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. When "military force is used, the world at large will consider it legitimate only when convinced that it is being used for the right purpose … in accordance with broadly accepted norms."
The speech continues that "governments must be accountable for their actions in the international arena, as well as in the domestic one."
The speech, to be delivered at the presidential library of the late Harry Truman in Independence, Mo., contrasts Truman's support for the United Nations with the Bush administration's unilateral actions.
(More ... USA Today > World) ¶ 20:29 0 comments
Outsourcer in Chief (NYTimes.com)
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: December 11, 2006
According to U.S. News & World Report, President Bush has told aides that he won’t respond in detail to the Iraq Study Group’s report because he doesn’t want to “outsource” the role of commander in chief.
That’s pretty ironic. You see, outsourcing of the government’s responsibilities — not to panels of supposed wise men, but to private companies with the right connections — has been one of the hallmarks of his administration. And privatization through outsourcing is one reason the administration has failed on so many fronts.
For example, an article in Saturday’s New York Times describes how the Coast Guard has run a $17 billion modernization program: “Instead of managing the project itself, the Coast Guard hired Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman, two of the nation’s largest military contractors, to plan, supervise and deliver the new vessels and helicopters.”
The result? Expensive ships that aren’t seaworthy. The Coast Guard ignored “repeated warnings from its own engineers that the boats and ships were poorly designed and perhaps unsafe,” while “the contractors failed to fulfill their obligation to make sure the government got the best price, frequently steering work to their subsidiaries or business partners instead of competitors.”
In Afghanistan, the job of training a new police force was outsourced to DynCorp International, a private contractor, under very loose supervision: when conducting a recent review, auditors couldn’t even find a copy of DynCorp’s contract to see what it called for. And $1.1 billion later, Afghanistan still doesn’t have an effective police training program.
In July 2004, Government Executive magazine published an article titled “Outsourcing Iraq,” documenting how the U.S. occupation authorities had transferred responsibility for reconstruction to private contractors, with hardly any oversight. “The only plan,” it said, “appears to have been to let the private sector manage nation-building, mostly on their own.” We all know how that turned out.
On the home front, the Bush administration outsourced many responsibilities of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. For example, the job of evacuating people from disaster areas was given to a trucking logistics firm, Landstar Express America. When Hurricane Katrina struck, Landstar didn’t even know where to get buses. According to Carey Limousine, which was eventually hired, Landstar “found us on the Web site.”
It’s now clear that there’s a fundamental error in the antigovernment ideology embraced by today’s conservative movement. Conservatives look at the virtues of market competition and leap to the conclusion that private ownership, in itself, is some kind of magic elixir. But there’s no reason to assume that a private company hired to perform a public service will do better than people employed directly by the government.
In fact, the private company will almost surely do a worse job if its political connections insulate it from accountability — which has, of course, consistently been the case under Mr. Bush. The inspectors’ report on Afghanistan’s police conspicuously avoided assessing DynCorp’s performance; even as government auditors found fault with Landstar, the company received a plaque from the Department of Transportation honoring its hurricane relief efforts.
(More ... New York Times > OpEd > Krugman)
Published: December 11, 2006
According to U.S. News & World Report, President Bush has told aides that he won’t respond in detail to the Iraq Study Group’s report because he doesn’t want to “outsource” the role of commander in chief.
That’s pretty ironic. You see, outsourcing of the government’s responsibilities — not to panels of supposed wise men, but to private companies with the right connections — has been one of the hallmarks of his administration. And privatization through outsourcing is one reason the administration has failed on so many fronts.
For example, an article in Saturday’s New York Times describes how the Coast Guard has run a $17 billion modernization program: “Instead of managing the project itself, the Coast Guard hired Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman, two of the nation’s largest military contractors, to plan, supervise and deliver the new vessels and helicopters.”
The result? Expensive ships that aren’t seaworthy. The Coast Guard ignored “repeated warnings from its own engineers that the boats and ships were poorly designed and perhaps unsafe,” while “the contractors failed to fulfill their obligation to make sure the government got the best price, frequently steering work to their subsidiaries or business partners instead of competitors.”
In Afghanistan, the job of training a new police force was outsourced to DynCorp International, a private contractor, under very loose supervision: when conducting a recent review, auditors couldn’t even find a copy of DynCorp’s contract to see what it called for. And $1.1 billion later, Afghanistan still doesn’t have an effective police training program.
In July 2004, Government Executive magazine published an article titled “Outsourcing Iraq,” documenting how the U.S. occupation authorities had transferred responsibility for reconstruction to private contractors, with hardly any oversight. “The only plan,” it said, “appears to have been to let the private sector manage nation-building, mostly on their own.” We all know how that turned out.
On the home front, the Bush administration outsourced many responsibilities of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. For example, the job of evacuating people from disaster areas was given to a trucking logistics firm, Landstar Express America. When Hurricane Katrina struck, Landstar didn’t even know where to get buses. According to Carey Limousine, which was eventually hired, Landstar “found us on the Web site.”
It’s now clear that there’s a fundamental error in the antigovernment ideology embraced by today’s conservative movement. Conservatives look at the virtues of market competition and leap to the conclusion that private ownership, in itself, is some kind of magic elixir. But there’s no reason to assume that a private company hired to perform a public service will do better than people employed directly by the government.
In fact, the private company will almost surely do a worse job if its political connections insulate it from accountability — which has, of course, consistently been the case under Mr. Bush. The inspectors’ report on Afghanistan’s police conspicuously avoided assessing DynCorp’s performance; even as government auditors found fault with Landstar, the company received a plaque from the Department of Transportation honoring its hurricane relief efforts.
(More ... New York Times > OpEd > Krugman)
Labels: Krugman, New York Times, Opinion
¶ 19:40 0 comments
Obama, Visiting New Hampshire, Offers Flavor of a Campaign That Might Be (NYTimes.com)
By ADAM NAGOURNEY
Published: December 11, 2006
MANCHESTER, N.H., Dec. 10 — Senator Barack Obama came to New Hampshire for the first time in his life on Sunday, selling a message of hope while proclaiming himself wary of the wave of hype that surrounded his visit.
His visit gave Democrats in two sold-out halls a chance to inspect the man who has emerged as their party’s strongest alternative to Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton as a presidential contender.
“It is flattering to get a lot of attention, although I must say it is baffling,” Mr. Obama said here late Sunday afternoon.
“I think to some degree I’ve become a shorthand or symbol or stand-in for a spirit that the last election in New Hampshire represented,” he said, referring to the losses of two incumbent congressmen here in November. “It’s a spirit that says we are looking for something different — we want something new.”
What New Hampshire saw was a first-term senator from Illinois who offered a strong condemnation of the way politics have been conducted in Washington and who positioned himself as someone who could strongly appeal to the more liberal Democrats who tend to dominate primaries. In two speeches and a news conference, Mr. Obama called for universal health care — the issue with which Mrs. Clinton, the New York Democrat, was once closely identified — a battle on global warming and a timed redeployment of troops from Iraq.
But most of all, Mr. Obama — tieless and grinning broadly as he encountered the kind of reception typically afforded a movie star — talked about what he decried as a toxically partisan atmosphere in Washington, clearly signaling a central theme of a presidential campaign by this newcomer to the national political stage.
(More ... New York Times > U.S. > Politics)
Published: December 11, 2006
MANCHESTER, N.H., Dec. 10 — Senator Barack Obama came to New Hampshire for the first time in his life on Sunday, selling a message of hope while proclaiming himself wary of the wave of hype that surrounded his visit.
His visit gave Democrats in two sold-out halls a chance to inspect the man who has emerged as their party’s strongest alternative to Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton as a presidential contender.
“It is flattering to get a lot of attention, although I must say it is baffling,” Mr. Obama said here late Sunday afternoon.
“I think to some degree I’ve become a shorthand or symbol or stand-in for a spirit that the last election in New Hampshire represented,” he said, referring to the losses of two incumbent congressmen here in November. “It’s a spirit that says we are looking for something different — we want something new.”
What New Hampshire saw was a first-term senator from Illinois who offered a strong condemnation of the way politics have been conducted in Washington and who positioned himself as someone who could strongly appeal to the more liberal Democrats who tend to dominate primaries. In two speeches and a news conference, Mr. Obama called for universal health care — the issue with which Mrs. Clinton, the New York Democrat, was once closely identified — a battle on global warming and a timed redeployment of troops from Iraq.
But most of all, Mr. Obama — tieless and grinning broadly as he encountered the kind of reception typically afforded a movie star — talked about what he decried as a toxically partisan atmosphere in Washington, clearly signaling a central theme of a presidential campaign by this newcomer to the national political stage.
(More ... New York Times > U.S. > Politics)
Labels: 2008 election, New York Times, Obama
¶ 19:33 0 comments
12.10.2006
Climate Change is Killing the Oceans' Microscopic 'Lungs' (Independent.co.uk)
Published on Thursday, December 7, 2006 by the Independent / UK
by Steve Connor
Global warming has begun to change the way microscopic plant life in the oceans absorbs carbon dioxide from the atmosphere - a trend that could lead to a dramatic increase in the heating power of the greenhouse effect.
Satellite data gathered over the past 10 years has shown for the first time that the growth of marine phytoplankton - the basis of the entire ocean food chain - is being adversely affected by rising sea temperatures.
Scientists have found that as the oceans become warmer, they are less able to support the phytoplankton that have been an important influence on moderating climate change.
The fear is that as sea temperatures continue to rise as a result of global warming, the loss of phytoplankton will lead to a positive-feedback cycle, where increases in carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere leads to warmer oceans, and warmer oceans lead to increasing carbon dioxide concentrations.
A team of American scientists used a Nasa satellite to study global concentrations of phytoplankton over the past two decades to see how ocean productivity - as measured by the density of chlorophyll, the pigment of photosynthesis - changes with sea temperatures.
The result was a clear link between warmer oceans and decreases in ocean productivity, said Michael Behrenfeld, professor of botany at Oregon State University and lead author of the study published in the journal Nature.
(More ... Independent > News > Environment)
by Steve Connor
Global warming has begun to change the way microscopic plant life in the oceans absorbs carbon dioxide from the atmosphere - a trend that could lead to a dramatic increase in the heating power of the greenhouse effect.
Satellite data gathered over the past 10 years has shown for the first time that the growth of marine phytoplankton - the basis of the entire ocean food chain - is being adversely affected by rising sea temperatures.
Scientists have found that as the oceans become warmer, they are less able to support the phytoplankton that have been an important influence on moderating climate change.
The fear is that as sea temperatures continue to rise as a result of global warming, the loss of phytoplankton will lead to a positive-feedback cycle, where increases in carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere leads to warmer oceans, and warmer oceans lead to increasing carbon dioxide concentrations.
A team of American scientists used a Nasa satellite to study global concentrations of phytoplankton over the past two decades to see how ocean productivity - as measured by the density of chlorophyll, the pigment of photosynthesis - changes with sea temperatures.
The result was a clear link between warmer oceans and decreases in ocean productivity, said Michael Behrenfeld, professor of botany at Oregon State University and lead author of the study published in the journal Nature.
(More ... Independent > News > Environment)
Labels: Climate Change, Independent
¶ 14:49 0 comments
12.09.2006
Obama Makes First Stop In NH (NYTimes.com)
Published: December 8, 2006
Filed at 6:30 p.m. ET
CONCORD, N.H. (AP) -- First there was Clinton time. Now there's Obama time.
Democratic Sen. Barack Obama, who is weighing a White House bid, said Friday his own political clock kept him from traveling to New Hampshire, the critical first primary state.
The freshman Illinois senator makes his first foray to the state on Sunday for a sold-out event celebrating Democratic wins in last month's elections.
''The whole prospect of a presidential race for me is not something I've engineered. I was on a different internal clock,'' Obama said in a telephone interview. ''It's only been in the last couple of months that the amount of interest in a potential candidacy reached the point where I had to consider seriously.''
Obama won raves for his speech at the Democratic National Convention in 2004, the year he won his Senate seat. He has enjoyed a wave of publicity and drawn huge crowds in promoting his best-selling book, ''The Audacity of Hope.'' He'll sign copies on Sunday before speaking at the party event.
Democrats have plenty to celebrate. Gov. John Lynch won re-election by a record margin, and the party took control of both houses of the legislature, the two U.S. House seats and the Executive Council, which reviews contracts and nominations.
Obama's aides expect him to disclose his intentions about a presidential run within weeks.
During his presidency, Bill Clinton had a penchant for running late for events, prompting jokes about Clinton time.
Should he decide to run, Obama said he looks forward to the rigorous questions for which New Hampshire voters are known.
(More ... New York Times > U.S. > Politics)
Filed at 6:30 p.m. ET
CONCORD, N.H. (AP) -- First there was Clinton time. Now there's Obama time.
Democratic Sen. Barack Obama, who is weighing a White House bid, said Friday his own political clock kept him from traveling to New Hampshire, the critical first primary state.
The freshman Illinois senator makes his first foray to the state on Sunday for a sold-out event celebrating Democratic wins in last month's elections.
''The whole prospect of a presidential race for me is not something I've engineered. I was on a different internal clock,'' Obama said in a telephone interview. ''It's only been in the last couple of months that the amount of interest in a potential candidacy reached the point where I had to consider seriously.''
Obama won raves for his speech at the Democratic National Convention in 2004, the year he won his Senate seat. He has enjoyed a wave of publicity and drawn huge crowds in promoting his best-selling book, ''The Audacity of Hope.'' He'll sign copies on Sunday before speaking at the party event.
Democrats have plenty to celebrate. Gov. John Lynch won re-election by a record margin, and the party took control of both houses of the legislature, the two U.S. House seats and the Executive Council, which reviews contracts and nominations.
Obama's aides expect him to disclose his intentions about a presidential run within weeks.
During his presidency, Bill Clinton had a penchant for running late for events, prompting jokes about Clinton time.
Should he decide to run, Obama said he looks forward to the rigorous questions for which New Hampshire voters are known.
(More ... New York Times > U.S. > Politics)
Labels: 2008 election, New York Times, Obama
¶ 12:49 0 comments
12.08.2006
NZ 'Trip Better Than Therapy' for Stressed Americans (NZHerald.co.nz)
Friday December 8, 2006
Stressed out Americans would be better spending their money on a holiday to New Zealand than resorting to therapy to make them feel better, according to a study
Air New Zealand today released what it called a "ground-breaking study" it had commissioned from former Nasa scientists.
The study measured the psychological and physiological effects of taking a holiday in New Zealand.
The airline said the study revealed new insights into what would attract "well-heeled" Americans to take a break down-under.
Air New Zealand group general manager international airline Ed Sims said the study showed a New Zealand holiday was better value than a session with the therapist.
"We believe we've found a rich seam of potential customers looking to escape the rat race.
"Americans spend an estimated US$8.5 billion ($12.5 billion) annually on self-improvement and anti-stress treatments including personal coaching, weight loss and stress management - and that's a market expected to grow to more than US$11 billion by 2008.
"Our pioneering study suggests that money spent on this compulsive search for well-being could be better invested in holiday time in New Zealand."
(More ... New Zealand Herald > National News)
Stressed out Americans would be better spending their money on a holiday to New Zealand than resorting to therapy to make them feel better, according to a study
Air New Zealand today released what it called a "ground-breaking study" it had commissioned from former Nasa scientists.
The study measured the psychological and physiological effects of taking a holiday in New Zealand.
The airline said the study revealed new insights into what would attract "well-heeled" Americans to take a break down-under.
Air New Zealand group general manager international airline Ed Sims said the study showed a New Zealand holiday was better value than a session with the therapist.
"We believe we've found a rich seam of potential customers looking to escape the rat race.
"Americans spend an estimated US$8.5 billion ($12.5 billion) annually on self-improvement and anti-stress treatments including personal coaching, weight loss and stress management - and that's a market expected to grow to more than US$11 billion by 2008.
"Our pioneering study suggests that money spent on this compulsive search for well-being could be better invested in holiday time in New Zealand."
(More ... New Zealand Herald > National News)
Labels: New Zealand Herald
¶ 14:06 0 comments
Richest 2% Hold Half the World's Assets (FT.com)
By Chris Giles, Economics Editor in London
Published: December 5 2006 13:13 | Last updated: December 5 2006 13:13
Personal wealth is distributed so unevenly across the world that the richest two per cent of adults own more than 50 per cent of the world’s assets while the poorest half hold only 1 per cent of wealth.
A survey released on Tuesday shows that middle-income countries with high growth rates still have a long way to go before they have a hope of catching up with the levels of prosperity of the richest.
Adults with more than $2,200 of assets were in the top half of the global wealth league table, while those with more than $61,000 were in the top 10 per cent, according to the data from the World Institute fpr Development Economics Research of the United Nations University (UNU-Wider).
To belong to the top 1 per cent of the world’s wealthiest adults you would need more than $500,000, something that 37m adults have achieved.
So much of the world’s wealth is concentrated in few hands that if all the world’s wealth was distributed evenly, each person would have $20,500 of assets to use.
Almost 90 per cent of the world’s wealth is held in North America, Europe and high-income Asian and Pacific countries, such as Japan and Australia.
While North America has 6 per cent of the world’s adult population, it accounts for 34 per cent of household wealth.
(More ... Financial Times > World > International Economy)
Published: December 5 2006 13:13 | Last updated: December 5 2006 13:13
Personal wealth is distributed so unevenly across the world that the richest two per cent of adults own more than 50 per cent of the world’s assets while the poorest half hold only 1 per cent of wealth.
A survey released on Tuesday shows that middle-income countries with high growth rates still have a long way to go before they have a hope of catching up with the levels of prosperity of the richest.
Adults with more than $2,200 of assets were in the top half of the global wealth league table, while those with more than $61,000 were in the top 10 per cent, according to the data from the World Institute fpr Development Economics Research of the United Nations University (UNU-Wider).
To belong to the top 1 per cent of the world’s wealthiest adults you would need more than $500,000, something that 37m adults have achieved.
So much of the world’s wealth is concentrated in few hands that if all the world’s wealth was distributed evenly, each person would have $20,500 of assets to use.
Almost 90 per cent of the world’s wealth is held in North America, Europe and high-income Asian and Pacific countries, such as Japan and Australia.
While North America has 6 per cent of the world’s adult population, it accounts for 34 per cent of household wealth.
(More ... Financial Times > World > International Economy)
Labels: economy, Financial Times
¶ 07:55 0 comments
12.06.2006
Democrat claims Christian souls (NZHerald.co.nz)
Wednesday December 6, 2006
By Andrew Gumbel
LAKE FOREST- If Barack Obama ends up running for the White House, expect to see this footage run over and over on a television screen near you: the charismatic black Democratic senator from Illinois talking the language of God and receiving a standing ovation from a packed crowd at one of the country's most prominent conservative evangelical mega-churches.
Obama entered the political equivalent of the lion's den - the sprawling campus of Saddleback Church in the most conservative far reaches of suburban Orange County in southern California.
Many evangelicals were appalled that he should be invited to address their own, given his liberal attitude to hot-button issues such as abortion and gay rights.
One fundamentalist leader said he represented "the antithesis of biblical ethics and morality".
A coalition of "pro-life" groups said they could never work with someone who advocated "the murder of babies in the womb".
And yet Obama not only survived the experience. He made perhaps the most powerful case to date that Democrats can talk to evangelicals, that Jesus is not a Republican, and that no voters are so ideologically distant that they cannot be wooed and won over.
"This is my house, too. This is God's house," he said.
"We've all got a stake in each other. I am my brother's keeper."
(More ... New Zealand Herald > World News)
By Andrew Gumbel
LAKE FOREST- If Barack Obama ends up running for the White House, expect to see this footage run over and over on a television screen near you: the charismatic black Democratic senator from Illinois talking the language of God and receiving a standing ovation from a packed crowd at one of the country's most prominent conservative evangelical mega-churches.
Obama entered the political equivalent of the lion's den - the sprawling campus of Saddleback Church in the most conservative far reaches of suburban Orange County in southern California.
Many evangelicals were appalled that he should be invited to address their own, given his liberal attitude to hot-button issues such as abortion and gay rights.
One fundamentalist leader said he represented "the antithesis of biblical ethics and morality".
A coalition of "pro-life" groups said they could never work with someone who advocated "the murder of babies in the womb".
And yet Obama not only survived the experience. He made perhaps the most powerful case to date that Democrats can talk to evangelicals, that Jesus is not a Republican, and that no voters are so ideologically distant that they cannot be wooed and won over.
"This is my house, too. This is God's house," he said.
"We've all got a stake in each other. I am my brother's keeper."
(More ... New Zealand Herald > World News)
Labels: 2008 election, New Zealand Herald, Obama
¶ 12:18 0 comments
12.04.2006
Political Memo: Early 'Maybe' From ObamaJolts '08 Field (NYTimes.com)
By ADAM NAGOURNEY
Published: December 4, 2006
WASHINGTON, Dec. 3 — Senator Barack Obama’s announcement that he might run for president is altering the early dynamics of the 2008 Democratic nominating contest. The move has created complications for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton as she steps up her own preparations and is posing a threat to lesser-known Democrats trying to position themselves as alternatives to Mrs. Clinton, Democrats said Sunday.
The declaration six weeks ago by Mr. Obama, an Illinois Democrat, has set off a surge of interest in Democratic circles, which party officials expect will only be fueled in the coming week as Mr. Obama prepares for a day of campaignlike events in New Hampshire next Sunday.
At the least, Mr. Obama’s very high-profile explorations have contributed to a quickening of the pace across the 2008 Democratic field. On Sunday, Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana said that he would create a presidential exploratory committee this week. And Gov. Tom Vilsack of Iowa went so far as to announce his candidacy two years before Election Day, in what his aides said was a calculated strategy to grab a moment of attention before Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton blot out the sun.
Mrs. Clinton has been meeting in recent days with New York Democrats — including a two-hour brunch on Sunday at the Manhattan apartment of Gov.-elect Eliot Spitzer — to telegraph her own likely entry into the race, though her aides said the get-together had been planned before Mr. Obama discussed his possible run publicly.
But more than simply picking up the pace, Democrats increasingly believe that Mr. Obama has the potential of upending the dynamics of the 2008 contest more than any other Democrat who might run — short, perhaps, of Al Gore, the former vice president, whom some Democrats are pressing to run.
(More ... New York Times > Washington > Political Memo)
Published: December 4, 2006
WASHINGTON, Dec. 3 — Senator Barack Obama’s announcement that he might run for president is altering the early dynamics of the 2008 Democratic nominating contest. The move has created complications for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton as she steps up her own preparations and is posing a threat to lesser-known Democrats trying to position themselves as alternatives to Mrs. Clinton, Democrats said Sunday.
The declaration six weeks ago by Mr. Obama, an Illinois Democrat, has set off a surge of interest in Democratic circles, which party officials expect will only be fueled in the coming week as Mr. Obama prepares for a day of campaignlike events in New Hampshire next Sunday.
At the least, Mr. Obama’s very high-profile explorations have contributed to a quickening of the pace across the 2008 Democratic field. On Sunday, Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana said that he would create a presidential exploratory committee this week. And Gov. Tom Vilsack of Iowa went so far as to announce his candidacy two years before Election Day, in what his aides said was a calculated strategy to grab a moment of attention before Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton blot out the sun.
Mrs. Clinton has been meeting in recent days with New York Democrats — including a two-hour brunch on Sunday at the Manhattan apartment of Gov.-elect Eliot Spitzer — to telegraph her own likely entry into the race, though her aides said the get-together had been planned before Mr. Obama discussed his possible run publicly.
But more than simply picking up the pace, Democrats increasingly believe that Mr. Obama has the potential of upending the dynamics of the 2008 contest more than any other Democrat who might run — short, perhaps, of Al Gore, the former vice president, whom some Democrats are pressing to run.
(More ... New York Times > Washington > Political Memo)
Labels: 2008 election, New York Times, Obama
¶ 22:14 0 comments
12.02.2006
Republican "Brand" Needs Repair, Governors Told (Reuters.com)
Fri Dec 1, 2006 5:17pm ET29
By Jane Sutton
MIAMI (Reuters) - The Republican "brand" has been tarnished by corruption and poor performance and governors from the party who have presidential ambitions must return to its traditions of tight spending and smaller government.
So concluded Republican governors and their advisers gathered in Miami for a conference that ended on Friday.
The "Grand Old Party" lost control of both houses of Congress and six governorships in the November election. Republican President George W. Bush has seen his job approval rating drop 3 more points to 31 percent since then, according to a Harris Poll.
Outgoing Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman, who helped steer Bush's 2004 re-election, blamed the electoral drubbing partly on discontent with the Iraq war and on some candidates' scandals and ethics problems.
But pollsters said voters told them the election was more about competence than war, scandal or any shift in ideology.
They said voters now viewed Democrats as more likely to rein in government spending, cut taxes for the middle class and trim the budget deficit -- things Republicans promised when they took control of Congress in 1994.
(More ... Reuters > News > Politics)
By Jane Sutton
MIAMI (Reuters) - The Republican "brand" has been tarnished by corruption and poor performance and governors from the party who have presidential ambitions must return to its traditions of tight spending and smaller government.
So concluded Republican governors and their advisers gathered in Miami for a conference that ended on Friday.
The "Grand Old Party" lost control of both houses of Congress and six governorships in the November election. Republican President George W. Bush has seen his job approval rating drop 3 more points to 31 percent since then, according to a Harris Poll.
Outgoing Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman, who helped steer Bush's 2004 re-election, blamed the electoral drubbing partly on discontent with the Iraq war and on some candidates' scandals and ethics problems.
But pollsters said voters told them the election was more about competence than war, scandal or any shift in ideology.
They said voters now viewed Democrats as more likely to rein in government spending, cut taxes for the middle class and trim the budget deficit -- things Republicans promised when they took control of Congress in 1994.
(More ... Reuters > News > Politics)
Labels: 2006 election, GOP, poll, Reuters
¶ 18:21 0 comments
