Advertise on more than 70 progressive blogs! |
beat tk's Journal
If you do, and if you still don't know when stimulus spending began, then the news failed to do its job.
Most of the news stories we read about the government base their information on what the government reports.
Nothing wrong with having journalists filter information--makes it easier and faster to read--but it won't make that information more truthful.
The nature and amount of information released by the federal government--and please remember that most of the 2 million civilians employed in the executive branch of the federal government are not political appointments or political representatives--is much more valuable for the type of answer you are looking for. Federal agencies are required by the stimulus bill to report weekly on how the funds are getting used. Because Obama made transparency and oversight a high priority, we have great resources through the internet to access this information.
will go nicely with my morning coffee.
Thanks buddy!
couldn't have been any stupider.
thanks for posting,
In general, I agree that we should be able to think beyond our outrage and discuss the merit of things, particularly when it comes to rights of criminals.
The idea that including sexual orientation and gender as hat crimes would prevent hate criminals from revealing their motivations or that it would motivate them to commit hate crimes more secretly or whatever.... well, it's outrageous that she didn't see the need to defend that claim.
Obama did say that the first thing he'd do as President to protect access to abortion would be to sign FOCA, and that has not been the case. So, in that way he did break a promise.
However, he didn't promise that the first thing he'd do in the absolute sense would be to sign FOCA, as anti-choice groups claimed during the campaign.
Obama has accomplished a lot to protect reproductive rights, starting with the easy stuff instead of starting with the hard stuff.
He restored access to affordable contraception, lifted the global gag rule, installed Sebelius at HHS, rescinded the midnight rule, got OTC access to emergency contraception, and created a White house council on women and girls.
So I do agree that he broke the promise to make FOCA the first thing he does to protect access to safe abortion, but I don't think that demonstrates his lack of will on the issue.
Just that he has decided to start with the least controversial actions where he has more concensus.
Obama's legislative priority for this year is healthcare.
He and his team have demonstrated that beyond doubt.
So I would say,
1. Getting concensus for healthcare this year will be a challenge.
2. Getting a pro-choice Supreme Court Justice approved will be a challenge.
After these two things are done then more controversial legislation will probably become priorities, like,some version of FOCA. It could very well go through Congress and reach Obama's desk next year, but if Boxer and Nadler introduce it before then, I doubt it will make it out of committee.
I thought that was the chairmanship he was most likely to get, but now... the bargaining begins. He and Harkin are kinda buddies, so I thought maybe they had something worked out. Here's the story though: http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-200904... "Specter, R-Pa., who chaired the Senate Judiciary Committee before Republicans lost control of Congress in 2007, will retain his seniority when he migrates from the Republican Party to the Democratic Party. His nearly three decades in the Senate will catapult him above other Democrats on several committees. But although that means he now has the seniority to chair the Senate Appropriations subcommittee that oversees the departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, he apparently won't assume the subcommittee gavel.
Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, who currently chairs the panel, said Tuesday that he has no plan to relinquish control. And he says he has the backing of party leadership.
I talked to , and he assured me that nothing's changed and I will continue to maintain my chairmanship," Harkin said.
Earlier in the day, Reid said that Specter "knows that no one will be dumped off of a full committee or a subcommittee, unless it's done on some voluntary basis," but noted that Democratic senators would have an opportunity to choose a new chair for the Appropriations panel if they maintain their majority in 2011.
But Harkin said he later received assurances from Reid that Specter's party change "would not jeopardize my position whatsoever," even in a new Congress.
When asked about the issue Tuesday, Specter said "we haven't worked that out yet." At today's press conference, Specter made it clear he expects to get a chair position due to his seniority, even before the 2010 election. The press conference was really interesting... lots of good questions. Specter mentioned that he outranks Harkin when asked about what subcommittee he might chair. Here's the link to Specter's statement and press conference http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library/inde... Here's a link to an article Specter wrote for the Harvard Journal on Legislation on labor reform and card check: http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/j... Here's an article from Think Progress today on Specter's position on labor reform: http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/04/... / "....So even if Specter is still opposed cloture for EFCA in its current form (and who knows what political constraints he may find himself free of now), he has admitted that the system for forming a union is broken. Furthermore, he may find it very difficult to run in union-heavy Pennsylvania as a Democrat without supporting some sort of labor reform. Does this mean that there is an EFCA compromise in the works?" I think Specter wants to lead on labor reform, but now that Harkin has stated he won't cede the chair.... what will happen. Oooh the drama. edited to add more of the WSJ article since it's behind a subscription thingy.
I do hope his and his fellow whiny peers are inoculated against introspection by their ironic indignation.
Because this whine certainly isn't wooing any voters.
No link yet, but this is not a good sign for his re-election in June, lol. As you probably know, the US boycotted the conference, and it looks like many attendees conspired to make an even more dramatic statement against this particular, completely predictable, language. I will add a link as soon as I get one! Edit: This is the brief BBC NEWS story: Diplomats have walked out of a speech by the Iranian president at a UN anti-racism conference after he described Israel as a "racist government".
Two protesters, wearing coloured wigs, briefly disrupted the beginning of the speech by Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad but he continued speaking.
Shortly afterwards a stream of Western delegates walked out when he attacked the creation of the state of Israel.
Some of those who stayed clapped as Mr Ahmadinejad continued his speech. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8008572.... All I could find so far.
I didn't see any posts on Holder's interview with Couric that aired yesterday. Here's the transcript: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/04/08/... The first three pages are mostly boring answers that merely rephrase the question. She wears him down by page 4 !! I encourage reading the fourth page in full. For those who were wondering (as was I).... Couric asks about the State Secrets hot potato. here's the exchange: During a recent case in San Francisco involving five people who were part of the Bush administration's extraordinary rendition program, the Obama administration, as you know, used the same argument. Which came as a surprise, frankly, to the judge. Meanwhile, the head of the ACLU said, quote, "Candidate Obama ran on a platform that would reform the abuse of state secrets. But his Justice Department has disappointedly reneged on that important civil liberties issue.' Why?
Holder: Well, the - the premise is wrong. I have ordered a review of the state secrets doctrine. All the cases in which - we have invoked that doctrine. I think there are a total of maybe 20 or so, just to make sure that it was properly invoked. And to see, in those cases, where it was properly invoked, if there's a way we can be more surgical, whether there is a way in which we can share more information. A report is in the process of being prepared. I'll expect I'll have it in the not too distant future. And my hope is to be able to share the results of that report with the American people. So they'll understand exactly - why we've had to use the state secret - state secrets doctrine in certain cases. And why we - decided not to use it in - in certain other cases.
Couric: .... (D)o you believe the state secrets doctrine was abused by the Bush administration?
Holder: .... On the basis of the two, three cases that we've had to review so far - I think that the invocation of the doctrine was correct. We - we reversed - are in the process of looking at one case. But I think we're likely to reverse it. On the Civil Rights Division: Couric: How do you think this department became so politicized during the Bush administration? How did that happen and why?
Holder: I'm not sure. I think that people lost sight of the fact that the department of justice is a special place. It's different from all of the other departments in the executive branch. Although the attorney general is a part of the president's team, you're really separate and apart. You have a special responsibility as the nation's chief law enforcement officer. There has to be a distance that you keep - between this department and the White House. And I think people lost sight of that. Isn't it great? Now with this new interview, we can continue our erudite discussion of the Justice Department through the weekend at least. (edit-formatting)
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?ed... On the conservative side, Ahmadinejad so far stands on his own. But many conservatives also oppose his economic policies, as well as his management style. Conservative voices have repeatedly argued that their support for Ahmadinejad will cost them votes and will only reinforce the economic crisis. Conservative disenchantment with Ahmadinejad is also apparent in the current Majlis, which is predominantly conservative. The Majlis has rejected the government's economic bills, and has repeatedly impeached or challenged Ahmadinejad's Cabinet ministers.
Iran's main diplomatic challenge in the near future will center on the developments of its nuclear program as well as its relations with the United States. Since the president has no authority over these issues, any disagreement between the Ayatollah Khamenei and the next president will place the president in a difficult position, without his having any real power.
It's possible that he thinks a reformist President would be more productive for Iran in negotiations with Obama. First--here's a detailed interpretation of Khamanei's response to Obama's Nouruz message last month. : http://icga.blogspot.com/2009/03/on-khamen... The speech was quite long, first dealing with domestic affairs and focusing mostly on the need to curb the consumption of resources. But it gets interesting around minute 40 when he explains why his public support for President Ahmadinejad should not be construed as support for him as a candidate in the next presidential election. This is of course a big issue for Iran’s domestic politics and the fact that the leader himself had to address it was significant since Ahmadinejad supporters are working very hard to give the impression that he is his candidate. You may remember Obama's message, http://www.whitehouse.gov/nowruz / Bush also issued New Years greetings. From 2008: http://american-iranian.org/publications/a... Many people consider Obama's message a significant departure from Bush's nowruz greetings for two reasons. He referred to the government as the "Republic of Iran" instead of as a "regime" suggesting that Obama considers the government to be legitimate. Secondly, Obama does not use wedge language to criticize the government in front of the Iranian people. Bush and Kerry more recently used language that differentiated between the people and the government. This language is seen as an attempt to encourage dissent. ( http://anthonyzeitouni.com/modules/news/ar... for more discussion on this) Now, why might Khamenei not publicly support Ahmadinejad in the June election? Here's an interesting (and optimistic perhaps, but I am an optimist) editorial from the Guardian yesterday http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/20... Until now, the supreme leader has offered unprecedented support to Ahmadinejad. However, new events on the ground may mean that for the next elections, matters may not be entirely in Khamenei's hands. The election of Barack Obama and his offer of unconditional talks with Iran have created new challenges for the supreme leader. With such a popular president at the helm in Washington, shunning America could be a costly mistake.
Khamenei realises that during the expected negotiations, Obama would prefer a reformist resident of the presidential office in Louis Pasteur Street in Tehran. This is why he is waiting to negotiate with Iran after the Iranian presidential elections. He does not want to improve Ahmadinejad's chances.
Although the supreme leader is under no obligation to compromise with Obama, shunning the US president would be damaging, both diplomatically and economically. Realising that the re-election of Ahmadinejad may be interpreted as a rebuff in Washington, it is very possible that Khamenei may decide that Ahmadinejad's removal may serve his interests far more than keeping him as president. What will Obama do. What would you do? In his campaign, Obama repeated many times that his negotiations with Iran may not be done through Ahmadinejad. So Obama has made it clear that he doesn't consider Ahmadinejad the most useful player in negotiations. Khamenei is really smart. The response to Obama's Nouruz message show that. The reformist candidate Mousavi sounded a few degrees more sane than Ahmadinejad in a recent press conference. ( http://www.democraticunderground.com/discu... ) But should Obama try to influence the June presidential election, or should he save his major overture for later? The state department is supposed to have a major review of Iran completed in May. I think we'll see something between then and the June 12th election addressed to the Muslim world, not Iranians particularly. Here is a discussion on this from March 11th: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washingt... / The Obama administration is leaning toward making a major diplomatic overture to Iran before the country's presidential elections in June. This initiative could come in the form of a letter from President Obama to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, according to two senior European diplomats who have met in recent weeks with key State Department officials crafting a new US policy toward Iran In the mean time, UN diplomats are meeting in London today to discuss how to move forward with Iran on the nuclear issue, which should make an interesting backdrop to tomorrow's official Iranian "nuclear technology day," during which Ahmadinejad will make provocative statements about the progress of their nuclear energy program. edit--left off a link
In his address to the people of Prague, Obama laid out energy and national security policies that could generate a windfall of diplomatic currency for his nascent administration. I don't know why it's not getting more attention  Joe Cirincione was pretty jazzed up on Rachel Maddow's program last night. That's about all I've seen. Well, as you may have read, Khazakhstan offered to be a depository for the proposed nuclear fuel bank. Signs are there that Obama is not opposed to this. And he is planning a tour of the region. He would be the first US President to visit Kazakhstan. http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNew... Well, Ahmadinejad met with the Kazakh President the day after Obama's speech, and without missing a beat (perhaps feeling the pressure from the upcoming election), he backed the proposal for a fuel bank in the country. The two countries are strong trading partners. http://www.neurope.eu/articles/92876.php Here are a couple articles on the meeting: AP article: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/articl... Radio Free Europe article: http://www.rferl.org/content/Iranian_Leade... Here's a quote from the Iranian-funded newssource PressTV: http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=90690... Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says he supports the US-proposed idea of setting up an international nuclear fuel repository.
In a visit to Kazakhstan, President Ahmadinejad welcomed a proposal put forward by Kazakh President Nursultan Nazarbayev to host a global nuclear fuel bank.
"If a nuclear fuel bank is created for the nuclear power industry, Kazakhstan could consider the possibility of placing it on our territory, as a country that signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty and voluntarily gave up nuclear weapons," President Nazarbayev said.
The global repository would allow countries to use its reserves to fuel their nuclear plants without having to build up their own enrichment facilities.
The idea was initially introduced by the United States which later in 2007 allocated $50 million for the plan. In other words, we now apparently live in a world where Iran and the US are allowed to agree on stuff! We even passed a NOTE to Iran! Like Maddow said last Tuesday, the warming of US-Iran relations is like Radiohead singing a happy song, lol http://themusic.fm/2009.03.31/maddow-liken... All I can say is, if there was ever a fortunate moment for Russia, Iran, post-Soviet countries and the US to cease threatening each other, now would be that time.... because the situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan ain't gonna get better on its own. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Editori... "With the Pakistani army under siege and confined to the provincial capital, Peshawar, along the Afghanistan border, the Taliban have repeatedly struck at convoys carrying supplies for NATO and American forces in Afghanistan. The US and its NATO allies are now hurriedly finalising or have already concluded agreements with Russia, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and even Iran for alternate sources and routes for supplies. Moves are underway to deal with a situation, wherein Pakistan abdicates state authority and fails to guarantee transit facilities to Afghanistan. "
Iran's presidential election is in June. I wonder what effect Obama is having on that election? AP article of Moussavi gives his first press conference as a candidate, and comments on Obama's desire to engage with Iran: "We will definitely negotiate with them. Why not?" Mousavi said. "Peace with any country would benefit our interests."Mir Hossein Mousavi: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mir-Hossein_M...
How long do you think it will take for the media to consider this policy shift to be a real story?
Probably a year.
I love how Obama keeps pushing Republicans into the naysayer corner.
The party of "No we can't" says (Josh Bolton and others) that Obama's nuclear arms strategy is a silly, dangerous dream.
Obama's counter-position is that accepting a role for nuclear weapons in our world is tantamount to accepting that they'll be used.
Obama keeps on being bold and leader-like.
Republicans keep on doubting and foot-dragging.
I keep on wavering between mild amusement and righteous delight.
I guess the act of learning requires admitting that you didn't know something, which isn't cool, or something.
That it's cool to be in control of your destiny... a beautiful message for her to promote.
I also had a feeling she'd be around kids today as soon as I saw her outfit... she likes to wear fun unpretentious outfits when she's hangin with the young folks.
"...the largest CPP recipients extended roughly $245 billion in new loans to consumers and businesses in both December 2008 and January 2009, according to the Treasury's new loan survey."
|
Latest Threads
The ten most recent threads posted on
the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums. Greatest Threads
The ten most recommended threads posted
on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums in the
last 24 hours. Visitor Tools
Use the tools below to keep track of updates to this Journal.
|
