Home » Archives by category » News » Politics (Page 2053)
Touch My Junk: Body Scans and Pat Downs For Everyone

To paraphrase the government’s reaction to the backlash against new airport screening measures, “we hear you. Tough it up.” Related Entries November 19, 2010 Lame Duck November 19, 2010 Pentagon Calls 2014 Afghanistan Withdrawal ‘Aspirational’

Continue reading …
Soccer Star Boots the Banks

Even while the economy stutters and protests continue to go unanswered, it’s somewhat hilarious that we may turn to 1990s soccer sensation Eric Cantona for help. But nonetheless a Cantona interview has become a YouTube sensation, launching a political movement based on non-participation within capitalism. Cantona, who still is the quintessential rebel of European soccer, advised protesters to take their money out of the banks in order for the system to collapse: “We don’t pick up weapons to kill people to start the revolution. The revolution is really easy to do these days. What’s the system? The system is built on the power of the banks. So it must be destroyed through the banks.” Watch the YouTube video of the interview (complete with a cheesy, faux-epic soundtrack) here . —JCL The Guardian: As students and public sector workers across Europe prepare for a winter of protests, they have been offered advice from the archetypal football rebel Eric Cantona. Cantona was once a famous exponent of direct action against adversaries on and off the pitch. In 1995 he was given a nine-month ban after launching a karate kick at a Crystal Palace fan who shouted racist abuse at the former Manchester United star after he was sent off. But while sympathising with the predicament of the protesters in France, the now retired Cantona is urging a more sophisticated approach to dissent. The 44-year-old former footballer recommended a run on the cash reserves of the world’s banks during a newspaper interview that was also filmed. The interview has become a YouTube hit and has spawned a new political movement. Read more Related Entries November 19, 2010 Lame Duck November 19, 2010 Pentagon Calls 2014 Afghanistan Withdrawal ‘Aspirational’

Continue reading …

Despite the fact that we’re being urged by the Europeans and the Russians to ratify the the START treaty, Republicans have decided that it’s a good idea to play politics rather than to allow President Obama look like he’s been successful at doing anything. This is a sad and sorry example of the type of obstruction we’re going to get to look forward to for the next two years with Republicans gaining back control of the House and making gains in the Senate. When even Dick Lugar has finally had enough of this nonsense and is speaking out about it there might be some hope to see something done during the lame duck session on this. Europeans, Russia Urge US Senate to Ratify START Treaty : Europeans urged early ratification of a new nuclear defense treaty between the United States and Russia during a NATO summit in Lisbon amid announcements that Moscow would begin working with NATO on missile defense. After receiving strong support from NATO partners for the START treaty, along with endorsement from top military figures and former administration officials, President Barack Obama told reporters in Lisbon there was no good reason why the U.S. Senate should not now ratify the treaty. “And my hope is we will do so. There’s no other reason not to do it other than the fact that Washington has become a very partisan place and this is a classic area where we have to rise above partisanship,” he said. Republican senators have been reluctant to endorse the deal, with a key Republican lawmaker saying they needed more time. But a number of European countries, along with Russia, say it is critical the treaty is ratified in a timely manner. NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen warned that European security was at stake. President Obama called out the Republicans for their obstruction to the START treaty during this week’s Weekly Address . WASHINGTON – In this week’s address, President Obama called ratifying New START this year “fundamental” to America’s national security. Failure to ratify the treaty this year not only would mean losing our nuclear inspectors in Russia, but also it would undermine the international coalition pressuring Iran, put to risk the transit routes used to equip our troops in Afghanistan, and undo decades of American leadership and bipartisanship on nuclear security. After six months, 18 hearings, and nearly one thousand questions answered and with the support of several Republicans including Colin Powell, George Schultz, Jim Baker, and Henry Kissinger, it is time for the Senate to act. Today, I’d like to speak with you about an issue that is fundamental to America’s national security: the need for the Senate to approve the New START Treaty this year. This Treaty is rooted in a practice that dates back to Ronald Reagan. The idea is simple – as the two nations with over 90 percent of the world’s nuclear weapons, the United States and Russia have a responsibility to work together to reduce our arsenals. And to ensure that our national security is protected, the United States has an interest in tracking Russia’s nuclear arsenal through a verification effort that puts U.S. inspectors on the ground. As President Reagan said when he signed a nuclear arms treaty with the Soviet Union in 1987, “Trust, but verify.” That is precisely what the New START Treaty does. After nearly a full year of negotiations, we completed an agreement earlier this year that cuts by a third the number of long-range nuclear weapons and delivery vehicles that the United States and Russia can deploy, while ensuring that America retains a strong nuclear deterrent, and can put inspectors back on the ground in Russia. The Treaty also helped us reset our relations with Russia, which led to concrete benefits. For instance, Russia has been indispensable to our efforts to enforce strong sanctions on Iran, to secure loose nuclear material from terrorists, and to equip our troops in Afghanistan. All of this will be put to risk if the Senate does not pass the New START Treaty. Without ratification this year, the United States will have no inspectors on the ground, and no ability to verify Russian nuclear activities. So those who would block this treaty are breaking President Reagan’s rule – they want to trust, but not verify. Without ratification, we put at risk the coalition that we have built to put pressure on Iran, and the transit route through Russia that we use to equip our troops in Afghanistan. And without ratification, we risk undoing decades of American leadership on nuclear security, and decades of bipartisanship on this issue. Our security and our position in the world are at stake. Indeed, since the Reagan years, every President has pursued a negotiated, verified, arms reduction treaty. And every time that these treaties have been reviewed by the Senate, they have passed with over 85 votes. Bipartisan support for New START could not be stronger. It has been endorsed by Republicans from the Reagan Administration and both Bush Administrations – including Colin Powell, George Shultz, Jim Baker, and Henry Kissinger. And it was approved by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee by a strong bipartisan vote of 14-4. Over the last several months, several questions have been asked about New START, and we have answered every single one. Some have asked whether it will limit our missile defense – it will not. Some, including Senator Jon Kyl, have asked that we modernize our nuclear infrastructure for the 21st century – we are doing so, and plan to invest at least $85 billion in that effort over the next ten years – a significant increase from the Bush Administration. Finally, some make no argument against the Treaty – they just ask for more time. But remember this: it has already been 11 months since we’ve had inspectors in Russia, and every day that goes by without ratification is a day that we lose confidence in our understanding of Russia’s nuclear weapons. If the Senate doesn’t act this year – after six months, 18 hearings, and nearly a thousand questions answered – it would have to start over from scratch in January. The choice is clear: a failure to ratify New START would be a dangerous gamble with America’s national security, setting back our understanding of Russia’s nuclear weapons, as well as our leadership in the world. That is not what the American people sent us to Washington to do. There is enough gridlock, enough bickering. If there is one issue that should unite us – as Republicans and Democrats – it should be our national security. Some things are bigger than politics. As Republican Dick Lugar said the other day, “Every Senator has an obligation in the national security interest to take a stand, to do his or her duty.” Senator Lugar is right. And if the Senate passes this treaty, it will not be an achievement for Democrats or Republicans – it will be a win for America. Thanks.

Continue reading …
Latinos Face ‘Looming Crisis’ for Alzheimer’s

Here’s a startling statistic for you: Latino Americans get Alzheimer’s disease on average at rates almost seven years earlier than white Americans, a phenomenon the Alzheimer’s Association calls a “looming crisis” and that many attribute to economic concerns and access to health care. —JCL The LA Times: Arturo Reyes sat quietly as his family talked about traveling to Mexico over the holidays. Suddenly, he broke into the conversation. “We cannot do it; we are illegal,” his daughter Angelica Reyes-Servin remembers him saying. “If we leave, we may never get back again.” The room fell silent. Reyes and his family, who crossed the border from Mexico to Arizona more than three decades ago, have been U.S. citizens for more than 20 years. Read more Related Entries November 18, 2010 Look Who’s the Decider Now November 18, 2010 Recessions Are Not Good for Your Mind

Continue reading …
Hey US Chamber Of Commerce!  You Just Spent Untold Billions Undermining Democracy And The Obama Administration

What are you gonna do now? enlarge Looks like they’re ready to par-tay! And the guest of honor? Wait for it….President Barack Obama. That’s right, the man and the office they’ve tried to undermine with tons of undisclosed donations to Republican races . After months of all-out political war with the nation’s most powerful business lobby, President Obama appears to be on the verge of launching a dramatic peace offering to the president and CEO of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Tom Donohue. Two sources familiar with the negotiations tell me that Obama was giving serious consideration to going into the lion’s den and delivering a speech at a Dec. 2 jobs summit hosted by Donohue, whose organization just spent tens of millions of dollars trying to bring the President’s agenda to a screeching halt by helping to elect more pro-business lawmakers in the midterm election. “It was my impression they were looking very favorably on the invite,” a senior Chamber official told me about the White House, and a senior administration official did not quibble with that account when I checked with the White House on Friday. I’m told that for logistical reasons, unrelated to Obama, the Chamber of Commerce had to cancel the December jobs summit. But the group is now planning a similar January event and wants Obama to be the headliner. Nothing like getting rewarded for stealing democracy away from American citizens.

Continue reading …
Afghan MPs Get the Boot

September’s Afghan election was riddled with corruption, with as much as 25 percent of the votes cast believed to be bogus. Since then the rubber has hit the electoral road as the country’s election watchdog has disqualified 19 candidates for alleged fraud, seven of them current members of parliament. The BBC: Afghanistan’s election watchdog has disqualified 19 candidates who stood in the September poll for alleged fraud. Seven of them are current members of the 249-seat parliament. The disqualifications were announced after the UN-backed Election Complaints Commission found most of their votes were fraudulent. Read more Related Entries November 18, 2010 Look Who’s the Decider Now November 18, 2010 Recessions Are Not Good for Your Mind

Continue reading …
Israeli Soldiers Avoid Jail in Human Shield Case

The two Israeli soldiers who infamously used a 9-year-old Palestinian boy as a human shield during Israel’s 2009 war on Gaza have successfully avoided jail time, getting off with demotions and three-month suspended sentences. —JCL The Guardian: Two Israeli soldiers who used a nine-year-old Palestinian boy as a human shield were today given suspended sentences and demoted after being convicted of “inappropriate conduct”. The unnamed soldiers, from the Givati Brigade, ordered Majeh Rabah, from the Tel al-Hawa neighbourhood in Gaza City, to check bags for explosives in January 2009, towards the end of Israel’s three-week offensive. The Israel Defence Force handbook forbids the use of human shields, known as “neighbour procedure” . The pair, who completed their compulsory military service 18 months ago, were convicted last month after a closed military trial that became a cause célèbre among soldiers who claim they are being victimised following international criticism over Israel’s actions during the war. Read more Related Entries November 18, 2010 Look Who’s the Decider Now November 18, 2010 Recessions Are Not Good for Your Mind

Continue reading …
From Dirty Politics to the Dalai Lama: Bob Ney on Beneficial Meditation

Photo: mrpattersonsir The Jack Abramoff scandal became the symbol of everything our government shouldn’t be. It represented the corruption of Washington and the lobbying players that had gotten a handle on those that we had elected to embody our values. Congressman Bob Ney pleaded guilty to conspiring to defraud the government and making false statements in the scandal and was sentenced to jail time. Thirty months later, fresh out of prison, his perspective had changed… Read the full story on TreeHugger

Continue reading …
David Brooks Compares Raising Social Security Retirement Age to Having Wisdom Tooth Removed

Click here to view this media Ah yes, nothing like some good old inside the beltway Villager wisdom from the likes of the PBS Newshour’s Mark Shields and David Brooks . Mark Shields thinks that the Democrats should commit political suicide by making cuts to Social Security because the public will buy into his nonsense that if they do it, it will be less painful than anything the Republicans might do later. And David Brooks thinks that despite the polls out there saying that Americans do not want entitlements cut, the “reasonable” people will see the wisdom of taking their medicine and accepting our politicians wanting to balance the budget off of the backs of the elderly, the middle class and the poor rather than ask the rich to pay their fair share in taxes. Then Brooks goes on to compare raising the retirement age to him having a wisdom tooth removed. Yeah, that’s just the same thing. I would like for David Brooks to spend a few years in the shoes of any Americans who work physically demanding jobs for their whole lives and then come back and make that same statement. It’s easy for someone like him who is an over paid to carry water for Republican policies day in and day out sitting behind a keyboard to think that working until you’re almost seventy before you can draw retirement benefits is some reasonable solution to keeping Social Security fully solvent past 2037 . For the rest of us that might actually have to work for a living in sometimes harsh conditions, it’s snake oil . Transcript below the fold. DAVID BROOKS: Right, and I spent the week talking to members. You know, we have had all these deficit commissions which have come out. And so I said, is there any reality to this in Congress? And so I have spoken to a whole bunch of members in the last week. And the short answer is, no, there is no political reality. The Republicans really will not accept any deal that includes… JUDY WOODRUFF: In any of these reports? DAVID BROOKS: No — that includes any tax increases. The Democrats really are not that serious about cutting the entitlements. Nobody wants to revisit health care. And so the basic — my basic conclusion so far is we have got a lot of nice reports, and a lot of them are great, but they are not going anywhere. JUDY WOODRUFF: And speaking of all this, Mark, there was a poll that came out, I guess an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, that showed, for all the public message and these midterm elections that they want government spending to be cut, when you raise, specifically, Medicare, Social Security and doing something with taxes, they say, no, no, we don’t like that. MARK SHIELDS: It’s the old line about everybody wants to go to heaven, but nobody wants to die. I mean, that’s what — everyone is for general economizing, Judy, but for specific expenditures. And that’s why I don’t — I think David’s reporting is quite accurate on the subject, but it’s going to require a president taking this and making it the central issue of his administration, whether it is this president, the next president, because it — that is the only way, you make it visible, that all — everybody is in. Everybody is in for a nickel and for a dollar, and it’s going to cost you and it’s going to cost us, but it is going to be better for everybody else. And I think the argument I would make if I were urging Barack Obama to take up this cause is, look, Social Security and Medicare are going to be cut. Who do you want making those cuts? Do you want Republicans, who have consistently opposed these programs, or do you want somebody and an administration that believes in them and that believes that the people and Social Security and Medicare have to be protected? And I think that’s the case for Democrats. DAVID BROOKS: I think that’s the way to read the polls. And the polls are against what you said, but that doesn’t mean people aren’t open to reason. And I had a wisdom tooth taken out today. And you had asked me, do I support or oppose getting a wisdom tooth taken out? (LAUGHTER) DAVID BROOKS: Well, I oppose it. JUDY WOODRUFF: Philosophically. DAVID BROOKS: Philosophically. MARK SHIELDS: Yes. DAVID BROOKS: But I did it, because I had to do it. And so you could say, do you support Social Security being — retirement raised? No, I oppose it. But, if you explain to people — and people basically understand this — we have got to do it, that doesn’t mean they won’t do what they oppose, but it does take this kind of leadership. And it also takes, not only the president. It takes business. It takes people in society supporting that. And so far, that business support from business leaders, civic leaders, it isn’t there. And the president can’t leap out without those people.

Continue reading …

That’s an interesting game of chicken these ambitious Republicans are playing. They’ve decided they’ll simply ignore what Americans are so clearly saying , and act as if they’ve said the opposite. Voters may suffer from period political amnesia, but I’m pretty sure they’ll remember who hacked away at what’s left of our social safety net, since so many of them are depending on it now: This week on CNN, host Wolf Blitzer confronted Rep. Aaron Schock (R-IL) with a recent poll that found Americans don’t want to extend the Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans and wondered why Schock — who has made both extending all the tax cuts and listening to the American people a priority — isn’t exactly listening to what they want. But Schock simply ignored the poll, saying, “The American people reject” letting the tax cuts expire for the wealthy. Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) got caught playing a similar game yesterday, also on CNN with Blitzer. Pence — who has also made listening to the American people a priority — argued that in order to reduce the deficit, the government should cut spending on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. But when Blitzer told Pence that a recent poll showed that Americans don’t want cuts to those programs, the Indiana congressman pulled a Schock: PENCE: Well, I don’t know if they’re saying don’t touch it . I think they’re saying for people who are on Medicare and Social Security or depending on Medicaid today, let’s keep the promises we’ve made to seniors. To his credit, Pence did say that cuts in defense spending should be on the table as well, but he also argued that Social Security should be revamped for those under 40 years old — an age that conveniently leaves Pence out of any potential changes to the popular social program Indeed, as Blitzer noted, according to a new CNN poll, while Americans do want to reduce the deficit, employing significant cuts in social programs to do it is very unpopular: For most of the government programs tested in the poll, including Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, college loans, and aid to farmers and unemployed workers, Americans say that avoiding significant spending cuts is more important than reducing the deficit.

Continue reading …