Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise

Rappel du premier message :

U.S. clamps down on banking transactions; terror group finds new funding

By Robert Windrem and Garrett Haake
NBC News
updated 7:56 a.m. ET Nov. 14, 2008
Seven years after the Sept. 11 attacks, U.S. intelligence officials believe they've won many small victories against al-Qaida's ability to finance its operations, but they remain unable to put a concrete dollar figure on their impact.

That's because they have no reliable estimate of al-Qaida's overall budget, according to current and former U.S. counterterrorism officials, which means the only measures of the organization's economic health are sporadic, anecdotal and fragmentary.

"When you see a cell complaining that it hasn't received its monthly or biannual stipend and it's unable to pay the salaries of the people in the cell, unable to make the support payments to the families of terrorists living or dead, that's a tremendous indicator we have pressured the financial channel," said Adam Szubin, the director of the U.S. Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control and the man in charge of tracking terrorist finance.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27644191

March 5th, 2009 12:21 PM Eastern
A Dangerous Game of Chicken: The President vs. the Market


By Mark Joseph
Producer/Author/Editor, Bullypulpit.com

My stockbroker finally convinced me to get out of the market. I was hanging on to the old adage that what goes down must eventually come up. I still agree with that, but I think it could be a decade or more before recovery happens. Why? Because, stock novice that I am, it seems to me that Obama and the markets are playing a game of chicken.

How low must our passive-aggressive money men and women drive the market before our president gets the message?

In our passive-aggressive culture, few in finance seem to want to be straight with our new president like CNBC host Jim Cramer was the other day. Instead of telling him to his face that he is offering the wrong medicine to the patient, the markets have decided to send a passive-aggressive message to the President by pounding him day after day with a plunging stock market, hoping that he’ll get the message and change course.

The only question now is how low will the markets have go before Obama gets the message they are trying to send him? 5,000? 4,000? 3,500? My bet is the latter. At some point a rational person would think that the president would realize what’s going on and concede that this is not the time to increase the tax burden on anybody–rich or poor. How low must our passive-aggressive money men and women drive the market before our president gets the message?

Mark Joseph is a producer, author and the editor of Bullypulpit.com.

Vous vous souvenez sans doute du Rev. Wright le pere spirituel de NNP, celui qui lors d'un sermon hurlait entre autres: Que D.ieu damne les Etats Unis; celui qui a marie NNP et Michele Obama, etc...; celui qui fut tenu a l'ecart des que les Americains ont vu et reagi a certaines parties des sermons en question; celui que NNP a desavoue, au point de se desinscrire de l'Eglise dont il etait membre depuis 20 ans, eglise que Wright avait fait passer d'une petite communaute a un enorme centre religieux, Jeremiah Wright, donc, ne semble pas particulierment content de NNP.

"il est comme n'importe quel autre president, dit Wright, C'est un politicien et il doit faire ce que les politicians font"

Rev. Wright Cautions: Obama "Ain't Jesus"

President's longtime minister, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, says his former congregant is just like any other president and that he "ain't gonna improve your child's reading score."

...

le terroriste des annees de la guerre du Vietnam, ami sans l'etre tout en l'etant de NNP.

Bonjour Sylvette !

Très édifiant !

Oui...

Lors de la campagne electorale, il nous a ete dit que la gauche n'existait pas aux Etats Unis ou si peu et que celui qui allait devenir NNP n'etait en aucun cas un socialiste; en faire mention faisait meme rire tant cela etait stupide...

Ca y est vous etes en pleine forme!

===

Si un tendre est un socialiste (ai-je bien compris?) , qu'est-ce qu'un doux?

... nous sommes d'accord c'est un Democrate socialiste.

=====
et la?

Authors Warn That Many Textbooks Distort Religion

Saturday, March 07, 2009
By Lauren Green

Jesus was a Palestinian? That's what one public school textbook says.

Although Jesus lived in a region known in his time as Palestine, the use of the term "Palestinian," with its modern connotations, is among the hundreds of textbook flaws cited in a recent five-year study of educational anti-Semitism detailed in the book "The Trouble with Textbooks: Distorting History and Religion."

Authors Gary Tobin and Dennis Ybarra of the Institute for Jewish and Community Research found some 500 imperfections and distortions concerning religion in 28 of the most widely used social studies and history textbooks in the United States.

Ybarra, a research associate at the institute, called the above example "shocking."

A "true or false" question on the origins of Christianity asserted that "Christianity was started by a young Palestinian named Jesus." The teacher's edition says this is "true."

But even though Jesus is the founder of Christianity, the question ignores the fact that he was Jewish. And Ybarra said, "The Christian scriptures say that he preached in Judea and Galilee, not Palestine," a term that was used at the time as a less specific description of the broader region between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River.Ybarra says part of the problem is that publishers employ or contract with writers who are not experts in the subject, or they may use out-of-date information. Or they may bow to special interest groups.

"They're under pressure from all kinds of minority groups, religious groups, and they try to satisfy everyone and that results in content that is dumbed down to the lowest common denominator," he said. "And so, in that process, things can be missed. Errors can survive."

Ybarra also claims that the textbooks tend not to treat Christianity, Judaism and Islam equally.

"Islam has a privileged position," he said. "It's not critiqued or criticized or qualified, whereas Judaism and Christianity are."

One example is in the glossary of "World History: Continuity and Change." It calls the Ten Commandments "moral laws Moses claimed to have received from the Hebrew God," while the entry for the Koran contains no such qualifier in saying it is the "Holy Book of Islam containing revelations received by Muhammad from God."

But First Amendment scholar Dr. Charles Haynes, who has written extensively on the subject of public schools and religion, says he thinks sometimes the criticisms go a little too far.

"There's no conspiracy in the textbook industry to favor one religion over another. ... I think the group that bangs the pot the loudest gets the most attention," he said.

"Having said all that, I think the textbooks are working at trying to treat everybody the same way," he added. "They made mistakes. They've got to work on it."

Experts agree, though, that part of the problem rests in the fact that there are so few textbook publishers.

Seventy-five percent of public school books are published by just three companies: Houghton Mifflin, McGraw-Hill and Pearson Education. None responded to requests for comment for this story.

"It's a big problem right now that we have so few choices in our textbooks," Haynes said. "This is an industry. ... It's a marketplace. They're trying to sell their textbooks."

But Ybarra said it goes deeper than pure economics. He thinks the school books are being used as tools for propaganda, particularly to perpetuate negative attitudes towards Christianity, Israel and pro-Palestinian views concerning the Middle East.

"We fear that this is creating a generation of biased school children," he said. "Some of our projects in the higher education realm with some of these same subject matters, we find that students do show up at universities with these prejudices."

Ybarra maintains that, ultimately, parents and communities need to get involved and demand accountability from school boards, publishers and scholars on what goes into the materials being used to teach fresh, young minds.

Rasmussen

Obama Approcal Index History

Date
.............................................Approval Index Strongly Approve Strongly Disapprove Total Approve Total Disapprove

03/07/2009	8	39%	31%	56%	43%
03/06/2009	15	42%	27%	58%	40%
03/05/2009	14	41%	27%	59%	40%
03/04/2009	16	42%	26%	60%	38%
03/03/2009	13	40%	27%	60%	39%
03/02/2009	10	39%	29%	58%	41%
03/01/2009	8	38%	30%	58%	40%

...

01/21/2009

28

44%

16%

65%

30%

[/center]

Les sondages sont une chose (et je partage votre mefiance, toute impartialite gardee, bien entendu ), mais Rasmussen en est une autre, Zed . Comme deja explique a plusieurs reprises, les predictions des resultats des elections de cet organisme ont ete les plus prets des resultats reels finaux depuis au moins les 3 dernieres presidentielles.
Alors, en Rasmussen, je crois!

Bonne Nuit!

Obama Distances Himself From Holder's Nation of Cowards' Speech

The first U.S. black president gently departed from the tone of the comments by the country's first black attorney general.



AP

Saturday, March 07, 2009

President Obama says he would not have used the same language that Eric Holder did last month when the attorney general declared that the United States is a nation of cowards on matters of race.

"We've made enormous progress and we shouldn't lose sight of that," Obama told The New York Times in an interview posted on the newspaper's Web site Saturday.

The president said he understood Holder to be saying the country often is uncomfortable talking about race until there's a racial flare-up or conflict and that the nation probably could be more constructive in facing up to slavery and discrimination.

The first U.S. black president gently departed from the tone of the comments by the country's first black attorney general.

The president said he is not someone who believes that constantly talking about race can solve racial tensions. To address that problem, it will mean fixing the economy, putting people to work, making sure that people have health care and ensuring that children are learning, Obama said.

"I think if we do that, then we'll probably have more fruitful conversations," Obama said in the interview Friday aboard Air Force One.

In a speech to Justice Department employees marking Black History Month, Holder said that while the country has proudly thought of itself as an ethnic melting pot, "in things racial we have always been and I believe continue to be, in too many ways, essentially a nation of cowards."

Toujours Rasmussen: (March 07, 2009)

National Tracking: Taxes	Yes	No
Tax Increases Hurt Economy?	49%	26%
Tax Cuts Help Economy?	57%	17%
Pay More than Fair Share of Taxes?	56%	23%
See article, crosstabs, or trends www.rasmussenreports.com

et pourtant:

Perceptions of Obama Results Links

Obama Approval Index	+8	A, C, T
Strongly Approve	39%	A, C, T
Strongly Disapprove	31%	A, C, T
Taxes Will Go Down	18%	A, C, T
Gov't Spending Will Go Up	67%	A, C, T
Obama on Economy - Ex/Good	52%	A, C, T
Obama on Nat'l Sec - Ex/Good	55%	A, C, T
Leadership - Ex/Good	56%	A, C, T
Views Society as Fair	48%	A, C, T
Politically Liberal	71%	A, C, T
Iraq Priority - Troops Home	60%	A, C, T
Troops Home - End of 1st Term	68%	A, C, T
Obama on Energy - Ex/Good	48%	A, C, T
Supreme Ct Choices Too Liberal	38%	A, C, T
More Ethical Than Most Politicians	43%	A, C, T
Ethics - Ex/Good	56%	A, C, T
Select above: A = Article, C = Crosstabs, T = Trends

Quand on sait ce que NNP est en train de faire passer au Congres on a du mal a comprendre!

Sylvette a écrit:

Oui...

Lors de la campagne electorale, il nous a ete dit que la gauche n'existait pas aux Etats Unis ou si peu et que celui qui allait devenir NNP n'etait en aucun cas un socialiste; en faire mention faisait meme rire tant cela etait stupide...

Il y a une toute petite frange de gauche aux US. S'evertuer a vouloir dire que les democrates sont de gauche, c'est effectivement assez risible pour qui connait ou a vecu dans des pays ou il ya encore des vrais partis de gauche ou presque . Tiens en France par exemple
Vouloir assimiler cette gauche de Ayers (Hayder c'est en Autriche et il etait d'extreme droite....) et les democrates c'est comme si on assimilait les conservateurs a Timothy Mc Veigh !
Mais bon chacun fait comme il veut hein ?

Les sondages sont une chose (et je partage votre mefiance, toute impartialite gardee, bien entendu ), mais Rasmussen en est une autre, Zed . Comme deja explique a plusieurs reprises, les predictions des resultats des elections de cet organisme ont ete les plus prets des resultats reels finaux depuis au moins les 3 dernieres presidentielles.
Alors, en Rasmussen, je crois!

Considerant que Scott Rasmussen a ete paye par le RNC et le camp de campagne de Bush en 2004 en tant que consultant, repsectivement 95.000$ et 45.500$ on peut effectivement croire en leur impartialite totale Leur "serieux" doit lui aussi etre considere avec quelques bemols.


Is pollster Scott Rasmussen a right-wing hack with an agenda?
February 8, 2009, 4:16PM

Have you noticed that in almost every opinion poll Rasmussen finds reason to make Freepers happy? (Freepers=blog readers who frequent right-wing website Freerepublic.com.).

In Gallup, for example, support for the stimulus is steady as it can be since January 11th, even before Obama took over:
This poll stands in sharp contrast with one conducted by Rasmussen less than a week ago, allegedly finding that "37% favor the legislation, 43% are opposed, and 20% are not sure."

But the discrepancy is present not only in the stimulus issue. I have seen it in many other issues as well. I don't know if this is due to the fact that Rasmussen is a partisan Republican hack who once worked for t he right-wing Worldnetdaily.com as a columnist.

Do you remember how Bush's approval by Rasmussen's count was usually around 38-40% while it stood in the low 30's in other polls?

Well, now Obama's approval is 59% there, compared to 65% in Gallup.

Coincidence?
You might say that he uses different wording or methodology, but how is it possible that this different approach ALWAYS gives an edge to the Republican party?

When it comes to election prediction, Rasmussen is accurate, apparently because he cannot distort poll numbers in this case because electoral results can be used as a measuring stick to determine whether or not he was right or wrong.

But in regard to opinion polls, there is no way to ultimately verify the accuracy of a poll. We cannot know for sure, for example, whether Gallup is right, or Rasmussen is right in telling us that support for the stimulus has crumbled as of late.

Rasmussen also tells us today that "Forty-eight percent (48%) of U.S. voters say that, generally speaking, increased government spending is bad for the economy.

Thirty-five percent (35%) believe more government spending will help the economy, and seven percent (7%) say it's likely to have no impact, according to the latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey."

But unless a referendum is conducted on the issue, we will never know whether Rasmussen was right, made this up, or utilized misleading wording in its questioning.

et :Scott Rasmussen’s Conservative-Friendly Question-Wording



Politico says that Barack Obama’s foreclosure-mitigation plan is in political trouble because we’re “a nation of Santellis”. The basis for the piece is a Rasmussen poll
which asks “Some people say that having the government subsidize
mortgage payments for financially troubled homeowners puts the
government in the position of rewarding bad behavior. Is the government
rewarding bad behavior when it provides subsidies to those who are most
at risk of losing their homes?” The results are 55 yes and 32 no.

Bad news for Barack Obama. But at the same time, when The Washington Post asked if people support Obama’s plan over 60 percent said yes. And The New York Timesa similar result. The difference is striking: got

The difference, obviously, is question-wording. Josh Marshall remarks parenthetically:
<blockquote>On the question of the quality of Rasmussen polls in general, I’ve been watching them closely now through at least two cycles. The toplines tend to be a bit toward the Republican side of the spectrum, compared to the average of other polls. But if you factor that in they’re pretty reliable. And the frequency that Rasmussen is able to turn them around — because they’re based on robocalls — gives them added value in terms of teasing out trends. But the qualitative questions, in terms of their phrasing and so forth, are frequently skewed to give answers friendly toward GOP or conservative
viewpoints. All of which is to say that his numbers are valuable. But they need to be read with that bias in mind. On the separate question of whether robocalls are as ‘good’ as traditional live question polls, I think they’ve held up quite well over the last two cycles. I see little evidence that SurveyUSA’s poll haven’t stood up as well as those done by live phone callers.</blockquote>
To really understand this dynamic, you need to read my friend Dave Weigel’s story on Rasmussen for The Washington Independent. Dave doesn’t editorialize in his reporting, but if you read between the lines I think a pretty clear picture emerges. Rasmussen is a pretty good pollster whose results are within the range of accuracy one wants from a pollster. But polling is a crowded business. And Rasmussen doesn’t also have a daily newspaper or a television network to tout his results. His business, however, requires attention. So how does he get that attention? Well in part he gets it with issue polling that, while basically methodologically sound, has question-wording that’s designed to lead to conservative-friendly results. Then the results come out and conservatives tout the results as vindicating their position. It’s free PR for Rasmussen, it’s a morale booster and message-driver for the right. And because the basic horserace polling is accurate enough, these kind of shenanigans don’t get Rasmussen dismissed as a surveyor.
And I don’t really think he should be dismissed. But I think we need to understand his “issue” polling as more like message testing than like normal public opinion research. What we’re learning from his result isn’t that there’s a “nation of Santellis” out there outraged about Obama’s plan. We’re learning that support for the plan isn’t so rock-solid as to be immune to leading questions or negative characterizations.

Comme quoi.....personne n'est parfait !

Les faits, pas la propagande: la liste des societes de sondage selon l'exactitude de leurs predictions par rapport aux resultats finaux des elections. Comme examen de fin de campagne pour les sondeurs on ne peut guere faire mieux et Rasmussen est ENCORE en tete (avec Pew)

1. Rasmussen (11/1-3)**
1. Pew (10/29-11/1)**
2. YouGov/Polimetrix (10/18-11/1)
3. Harris Interactive (10/20-27)
4. GWU (Lake/Tarrance) (11/2-3)*
5. Diageo/Hotline (10/31-11/2)*
5. ARG (10/25-27)*
6. CNN (10/30-11/1)
6. Ipsos/McClatchy (10/30-11/1)
7. DailyKos.com (D)/Research 2000 (11/1-3)
8. AP/Yahoo/KN (10/17-27)
9. Democracy Corps (D) (10/30-11/2)
10. FOX (11/1-2)
11. Economist/YouGov (10/25-27)
12. IBD/TIPP (11/1-3)
13. NBC/WSJ (11/1-2)
14. ABC/Post (10/30-11/2)
15. Marist College (11/3)
16. CBS (10/31-11/2)
17. Gallup (10/31-11/2)
18. Reuters/ C-SPAN/ Zogby (10/31-11/3)
19. CBS/Times (10/25-29)
20. Newsweek (10/22-23)

--------

Les commentaires:

How Accurate Were The Pollsters?

Posted Nov 07, 2008 at 8:34 AM by Maurice Berger

How close did polling organizations come in predicting the outcome of Election 2008? A few were right on the money. A few, such as CBS News/NY Times, Zogby, and Newsweek--each showing Obama with a double digit lead--were way off. Dr. Costas Panagopoulos, Ph.D, of Fordham University's Department of Political Science, undertook a detailed analysis of the results of the top polling organizations. His findings indicate that not all surveys were good at analyzing and reporting the relative strength of the candidates. Professor Panagopoulos writes: "I analyze poll estimates from 23 polling organizations. Four of these polls appear to have overestimated McCain support (indicated with a * below), while most polls (17) overestimated Obama strength. Pre-election projections for two organizations’ final polls—Rasmussen and Pew—were perfectly in agreement with the actual election result (**)." (The list follows below.) One problem with this analysis, though, is that it was completed before final results were in. According to the Associated Press, Obama's final number has inched upward slightly, to nearly 53%, bringing the final total to 52.7% to 46.0%. In this case two other pollsters actually tied for first place: Ipsos/McClathcy and CNN/Opinion Research (both tied at 6th place in the Panagopoulos analysis). The more important conclusion from the Fordham survey, however, is not its top numbers but the idea that most pollsters overestimated the Democrat's support. In the past five cycles, this skewing towards blue has tended to be the case. Why? Perhaps because voters who "refuse" to be interviewed fall into demographic categories that favor Republicans--older, male, white, and rural. In this cycle, one other factor may also be at play: Democrats were FAR more enthusiastic than Republicans and thus were less equivocal, tended to have decided early, and were more willing to share their views with pollsters. Given the tendency of the least accurate pollsters to overestimate Obama support, the so-called "Bradley Effect" may have been operative as well.

For Dr. Panagopoulos's analysis click here.

======

Ayers, Hayder, shmayders (dirait-on peut-etre a New York), mais bon Vous accepterez bien mes excuses, l'erreur etant humaine: j'ai meme lu ici quelqu'un qui confondait les couleurs representatrices des partis Republicain et Democrate, parant joyeusement le GOP du bleu. Fallait-il avoir la tete en l'air la aussi... mais bon, cette meme personne etant pleine de bipartisme expliquant que si tous les Republicains etait comme son hote la veille, donc pas aussi c... on pourrait tellement mieux s'entendre )

Au sujet du bipartisme, des resultats aussi de chez Rasmussen:

Sauf erreur, les Republicains n'en feraient pas preuve a 22% et les Democrates a 26% (je n'ai pas retrouve la page)

------
Comme quoi.....personne n'est parfait !

Ca c'est tres bien de votre part d'en avoir pris conscience.

MARCH 7, 2009

Yes, We Did Plan for Mumbai-Style Attacks in the U.S.

Why the latest assault on Bush antiterror strategy could make us less safe.
By JOHN YOO

Suppose al Qaeda branched out from crashing airliners into American cities. Using small arms, explosives, or biological, chemical or nuclear weapons they could seize control of apartment buildings, stadiums, ships, trains or buses. As in the November 2008 Mumbai attacks, texting and mobile email would make it easy to coordinate simultaneous assaults in a single city.


After 9/11, we had a responsibility to consider all possible threats.

In the weeks after the Sept. 11, 2001, strikes on New York City and Washington, D.C., these were hypotheticals no more. They became real scenarios for which responsible civilian and military leaders had to plan. The possibility of such attacks raised difficult, fundamental questions of constitutional law, because they might require domestic military operations against an enemy for the first time since the Civil War. Could our armed forces monitor traffic in a city where terrorists were preparing to strike, search for cells using surveillance technology, or use force against a hijacked vessel or building?

In these extraordinary circumstances, while our military put al Qaeda on the run, it was the duty of the government to plan for worst-case scenarios -- even if, thankfully, those circumstances never materialized. This was not reckless. It was prudent and responsible. While government officials worked tirelessly to prevent the next attack, lawyers, of which I was one, provided advice on unprecedented questions under the most severe time pressures.

Judging from the media coverage of Justice Department memos from those days -- released this week by the Obama administration -- this careful contingency planning amounted to a secret plot to overthrow the Constitution and strip Americans of their rights. As the New York Times has it, Bush lawyers "rush into sweeping away this country's most cherished rights." "Irresponsible," harrumphed former Clinton administration Justice Department officials.

According to these critics, the overthrow of constitutional government in the United States began with a 37-page memo, confidentially issued on Oct. 23, 2001, which concluded that the September 11 attacks triggered the government's war powers and allowed the president to use force to counter force. Alexander Hamilton saw things differently than critics of the Bush administration. He wrote in Federalist 74: "The direction of war implies the direction of the common strength, and the power of directing and employing the common strength forms a usual and essential part in the definition of the executive authority."

Congress agreed with Hamilton. Restrictions on deploying the military for domestic law enforcement (originally passed to end Reconstruction in the South) did not apply to self-defense of the nation. Congress blessed military action on Sept. 18, 2001, when it authorized President Bush "to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons" connected to the September 11 attacks, "in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States." Passed as the sound of Air Force combat air patrols flew over the Capitol, Congress must have understood that its words included stopping domestic attacks, since the hijacked airliners of 9/11 took off and crashed on American soil.

The government faced another fundamental question, which we addressed in our memo. Does the Fourth Amendment's requirement of a search warrant based on probable cause regulate the use of the military against terrorists on our soil. In portraying our answer, the media has quoted a single out-of-context sentence from our analysis: "First Amendment speech and press rights may also be subordinated to the overriding need to wage war successfully."

This line deliberately misrepresents the memo. The sentence only summarized a 1931 holding of the Supreme Court in the case of Near v. Minnesota concerning press freedom: "When a nation is at war many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight and no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right." The Court continued: "No one would question but that a government might prevent actual obstruction to its recruiting service or the publication of the sailing dates of transports or the number and location of troops."

Our memo had nothing to do with the First Amendment. It only referred to the case to show that constitutional rights apply differently during the exigencies of warfare than during peacetime. The 1931 case bolstered a point that the Supreme Court recognized in 2000 in Indianapolis v. Edmond, striking down random traffic stops to search for illegal drugs. "The Fourth Amendment would almost certainly permit an appropriately tailored roadblock set up to thwart an imminent terrorist attack," the Court wrote. Courts have understood that law-enforcement standards could not govern military operations against wartime enemies. They have rejected, to take one example, claims that the Constitution required compensation for the destruction of oil facilities before the invading Japanese in World War II.

Imposing Fourth Amendment standards on military action would have made the Civil War unwinnable -- combat occurred wholly on U.S. territory and enemy soldiers were American citizens. The military does not have the time to obtain warrants before soldiers fire upon enemy targets and personnel; the battlefield does not provide the luxury to collect evidence needed to meet probable cause standards in civilian courts. Even if the Fourth Amendment applied, we believed that courts would judge military action under a standard of "reasonableness" -- as they might review a police officer who fires in self-defense -- rather than demand a warrant to use military force to stop a terror attack.
In releasing these memos, the Obama administration may be attempting to appease its antiwar base -- which won't bother to read the memos in full -- or trying to look good for the chattering classes.

But if the administration chooses to seriously pursue those officials who were charged with preparing for the unthinkable, today's intelligence and military officials will no doubt hesitate to fully prepare for those contingencies in the future. President Obama has said he wants to "look forward" rather than "backwards." If so, he should not restore risk aversion as the guiding principle of our counterterrorism strategy.

Mr. Yoo is a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley, and a visiting professor at Chapman Law School. He was an official in the Justice Department from 2001-03 and is a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.*

==========

*Osant exprimer une telle opinion, il doit se sentir un peu seul , Mr. Yoo, dans cette.... grande universite.

Government Struggling to Keep Up With Job Losses, Analysts Say

Analysts warn that actions taken so far to stabilize the economy haven't been enough.

FOXNews.com
Sunday, March 08, 2009

The nation's rapid job losses could be piling up too quickly for the government to keep up, the Washington Post reported.

With the unemployment rate jumping to 8.1 percent last month, the government is facing increasing pressure to take action.

But analysts warn that actions taken so far to stabilize the economy haven't been enough.
The stimulus package was designed to "save or create" 3.5 million jobs, but the nation has already passed that with 4.4 million jobs having been lost.

"It's premature to say we need another stimulus, but the economy is performing much worse than when [the law] was signed, and the odds are increasing that we'll need a bigger policy response," Mark Zandi of Moody's Economy.com told the Post. "What we've learned is policy has been a step behind this whole downturn. It's important to get a step ahead."

And others say the government hasn't yet grappled with the scope of the problem.

"I think what it shows is neither the government nor many economists have a grasp yet of how bad the economy really is right now," Bernard Baumohl, chief global economist at the Economic Outlook Group, told the Post. "We can't get our arms around what's going on."

On Friday, the Labor Department reported the nation's unemployment rate had bolted to 8.1 percent in February, the highest since late 1983, as cost-cutting employers slashed 651,000 jobs amid a deepening recession.

The net loss of 651,000 jobs came after even deeper payroll reductions in the prior two months, according to revised figures released Friday. The economy lost 681,000 jobs in December and another 655,000 in January.

The president wouldn't say in an interview posted on The New York Times' Web site Saturday whether the economy will be growing again by year's end. He said that timing depends on several factors. Notable among them was his call for other countries to take actions to shore up their financial markets and coordinate those actions with the U.S.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

===========

Je croyais que l'economie etait le "truc" des Democrates?

Apres le negativisme de NNP des premieres semaines de sa presidence concernant la crise "dont il avait herite", ils nous a demande de reinvestir dans le "stock market" et maintenant il nous explique que les choses ne sont pas si terribles et meme ... que les Americains semble reagir de facon excessive.

(si l'on considere que son Procureur General nous a accuse de peuple trouillard en matiere de race, je suppose que ca pourrait etre pire.)

and Where is the Outrage?

Bon allez, vous n'allez pas y couper, imaginez que Bush 43 se soit comporte ainsi!

¥_zed_¥ a écrit:

Très chère et voluptueuse Shansaa {journée de la femme oblige }

Avez vous le prénom du Rasmussen dont vous nous entretener, c'est que mon ignorance est sans borne

Bon on va instituer la journee de la femme une fois par semaine

Encore que je trouve qu'instituer une journee pour la femme est encore le reflet d'un vieux relent de superiorite. Si nous etions considerees comme des egales, nous n'aurions pas besoin d'une journee par annee pour que l'on se souvienne de nous, non ?
Mais elle a son utilite dans la mesure ou elle pourrait rappeler a certains et certaines que dans un tas de pays, la femme est encore opprimee, mutilee, mariee de force, enfermee pour un bout de cheville denude ou executee parce qu'elle a ete violee.

Sinon plus terre a terre, le prenom de Monsieur Rasmussen est Scott et son papa c'est Bill, implique dans des scandales de fraude et de corruption a Naples en Floride ou j'habitais au debut des annees 2000.

Citation :

Mais elle a son utilite dans la mesure ou elle pourrait rappeler a certains et certaines que dans un tas de pays, la femme est encore opprimee, mutilee, mariee de force, enfermee pour un bout de cheville denude ou executee parce qu'elle a ete violee.

Qu'il est fort l'homme, qu'il est justicié. Sans lui la femme aurait des droits mais une immense solitude.


Ou est donc l'équité?

Dans la perpétuation de soi, la femme est l'égale de l'homme, mais, dans l'association pour subsister, elle travaille avec un net désavantage. Le handicap de la maternité forcée ne peut être compensé que par les moeurs éclairées d'une civilisation en progrès et par l'acquisition croissante, chez l'homme, du sens de l'équité.