.gif) Les Cohortes Célestes ont le devoir et le regret de vous informer que Libres Propos est entré en sommeil. Ce forum convivial et sympathique reste uniquement accessible en lecture seule. Prenez plaisir à le consulter.
Merci de votre compréhension. |
|
| | Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise |  |
|
+10Shansaa jam Ungern Laogorus EddieCochran OmbreBlanche Le chanoine quantat Zed Biloulou 14 participants | |
| Auteur | Message |
|---|
Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 8/11/2008, 13:47 | |
| Rappel du premier message :Browse Newspapers by country
http://newsdirectory.com/
Africa
Asia
Europe
North America
Canada
United States
Oceania
South America
Resources
Breaking News
Business Newspapers
College Newspapers
Media Industry Associations
Metropolitan Daily Press
Searchable Archives
Coffee Break
Television
Broadcast TV Stations
Network News
TV Networks
Additional Research
City Governments
County Governments
Travel Planner
College Locator Browse Magazines by subject
Arts and Entertainment
Automotive
Business
Computer
Culture and Society
Current Issues
Health
Home
Industry Trade Publications
Pets and Animals
Religion
Science
Sports
Travel
. . . more subjects
Magazines by Region
Africa
Asia
Europe
North America
Oceania
South America
More |
| | | |
| Auteur | Message |
|---|
Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 16/3/2010, 20:02 | |
| March 16, 2010 The Euro's Fiscal Policy Will Give Pause to Reserve-Currency AllocatorsBy Ian Bremmer and Jon LevyThe Greek crisis is making clear a reality long ignored or glossed over: Eurozone fiscal policy is messy and opaque. This is not a short-term phenomenon, nor can any concerted action change this fact. Global central banks, sovereign wealth firms and other major entities are going to revise their currency-allocation strategies based on this new recognition. This process is just beginning, but it suggests a roadblock to the euro taking up a greater share of reserve-currency allocations.
- Spoiler:
At first glance, there is a strong case for the euro to emerge as an increasingly important part of the global reserve-currency mix. It is very liquid; is accepted in highly competitive, globalized economies; and has international convertibility. Eurozone monetary policy, hewing to a strict price stability mandate may be more predictable than in any other regime. European powers have few contentious political relationships in the world. In a non-polar, anti-hegemonic world, all of these factors can be seen by global reserve-currency allocators as attractive arguments for holding an increased share of euros relative to dollars.
Throughout the Greek crisis -- which is by no means over -- much attention has focused on a European solution, the idea that somehow Germany, France or the EU institutions could bring clarity and predictability to Greek budget politics. This vain expectation should signal the death knell of an era in which the euro was falsely considered to be analogous to the dollar, or a souped-up version of the old deutschmark, the pound, the yen or the Swiss franc.
In all of the above currency regimes, fiscal policy was the product of domestic decision-making. This is not the case in the eurozone because there is no such thing as a single domestic policy.
In the eurozone, fiscal policy decisions are made by 16 different governments. They are supposed to be guided by benchmarks governing the levels of government debt and deficits -- with limits set at 60 percent and 3 percent of GDP, respectively. When governments breach these limits, the European commission can launch an "Excessive Deficit Procedure," intended to force countries to correct violations. This procedure can lead to legal, administrative and financial punishments.
However, there is ample evident that the threat of punishment has little dissuasive weight: Greece has never complied with debt rules; only three countries are currently not under excessive deficit procedures, and two of those are effectively city-states; in 2005, the German and French governments, unwilling to meet deficit limits, simply forced through revisions to the rules of the game.
This policy structure means that to figure out what the eurozone's governments will tax and what they will spend is a complex, constantly evolving process.
The very notion of a reserve currency is conservative; it suggests a maximal interest in capital preservation, contingency planning and crisis management. A bias toward predictability and clarity naturally follows.
At any given time, exchange rates may reflect a set of assumptions about fiscal policy. However, it is the structural nature of eurozone fiscal policy, rather than any current trends, that present the most significant challenge to the idea of the euro as a reserve currency.
European policymakers cannot alter this reality. Trying to create consolidated eurozone fiscal policy is politically toxic -- particularly as it would be seen as a backdoor means to transfer wealth from countries with lower debt levels to those with higher levels.
Even if these political hurdles could be overcome, opacity and uncertainty would still prevail. In areas in which there is a great deal of centralized policy power -- such as trade policy -- national and other interest groups shape policy to a high degree. This creates a separate, but no less challenging, source of uncertainty. Thus, from a reserve allocation perspective, new fiscal policy mechanisms will do little to bring greater clarity. Just as with the Greek budget crisis, there is simply no European solution. The problem with the euro is a fundamentally European problem.
If there is to be any policy response to the Greek mess, it will probably be the establishment of a eurozone sovereign lender of last-resort facility -- a eurozone version of the IMF.
However, any new facility is unlikely to deal with yet another highly problematic issue in the EU: the lack of a formal mechanism to deal with a potential cross-border banking crisis that is too large to be managed by a single country. This is yet another potential surprise hiding in plain sight in the eurozone -- and yet another risk that will give any prudent central banker pause when thinking about ramping up relative euro exposure.
checkTextResizerCookie('article_body');
Ian Bremmer is president of Eurasia Group, a political-risk consultancy. Jon Levy is the Europe analyst for Eurasia Group. They can be reached via e-mail at research@eurasiagroup.net.
|
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 2028 - 16/3/2010, 20:47 | |
| Le compte n'est pas encore bon, mais nul ne peut dire ce qui se passers ces prochains jours (Nancy  semble etre prete a toute eventualite comme vu dans le message 2025). Selon The Hill 212 pour - 219 contre; selon Fox News 211 pour - 220 contre. En ce qui concerne les Americains: 43% pour 53% contre (selon Rasmussen) O'Reilly - Video |
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 2029 - 17/3/2010, 08:26 | |
| Oups... C'est un fait que l'administration Obama qui nous a repete l'importance de la patience semble en avoir bien peu a l'egard d'Israel. Mais bon, qui aime bien chatie bien, n'est-ce-pas?  Dems rebuke Obama administration for Israel criticismBy Eric Zimmermann - 03/16/10 12:19 PM ET A growing number of congressional Democrats are criticizing the Obama administration for reacting so strongly to Israel decision to announce new settlements while Joe Biden was visiting the country.- Spoiler:
White House officials have called the announcement "insulting," and senior adviser David Axelrod said this weekend that it was "calculated" to undermine peace talks.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton apparently took Prime Minister Netenyahu to task for the timing of the announcement, which forced Biden to issue a statement condeming the decision just as he was between meetings with top Israeli officials.
But a number of Democrats think the White House has gone too far.
"The appropriate response was a shake of the head – not a temper tantrum," Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.), a member of the House Jewish Caucus, said in a statement today, "Israel is a sovereign nation and an ally, not a punching bag. Enough already.”
Rep. Steve Israel (D-N.Y.) criticized the White House for making their response so public.
"The Administration, to the extent that it has disagreements with Israel on policy matters, should find way to do so in private and do what they can to defuse this situation," he said in a statement.
Rep. Shelley Berkley (D-Nev.) criticized the administration for an "irresponsibly overreaction."
Rep. Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.) said the response had been "disproportionate" and added that "we all have to take a step back."
And Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) said that while the timing of Israel's announcment was "regrettable, it must not cloud the most critical foreign policy issue facing both counties — Irans nuclear threat."
|
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 2030 - 17/3/2010, 13:04 | |
| Tiens, "on" me disait justement ca ce matin!  Health care reform in Washington meets the Chicago WayJohn Kass
Reform effort finds its fall guys in Congress
- Spoiler:
Not even three or four pipes full of Hopium could have convinced me that the Congress of the United States would ever start looking like the Chicago City Council.
But now, with the Chicago Way White House twisting arms for its federal health care legislation, Democrats in Congress and Chicago aldermen are beginning to share a remarkable resemblance.
They're starting to look like fall guys.
"The Congress? They're acting like aldermen. Like fall guys. And we know all about fall guys in the city of Chicago," said Jim Laski, a former Chicago alderman and former federal inmate who is now a WGN radio talk show host.
Laski was an alderman for years, representing the 23rd Ward on the Southwest Side. We met centuries ago, when he was a political aide and I was a new reporter.
I felt bad for his family when Laski, who'd climbed to the job of city clerk, was convicted on corruption charges. But he made the choice to take the money. He admitted taking $48,000 from a family friend.
He did his time without complaint. He apologized to his family and constituents. And he learned that in federal custody, one of the most valuable commodities is a pouch of tuna.
"It's the protein. The weightlifters like it," Laski said. "They call it a ‘can' of tuna. As in, ‘You want this, or that, it'll cost two cans.' But it's really a vacuum-packed pouch of tuna. Why do they call it a can? Don't ask me."
Unlike others who talk about politics, he's actually done it. And as we stood outside the Tribune Tower on Tuesday after he'd done a show, we didn't discuss the merits of the president's plan. We were talking about the tactics.
"These congressmen are starting to understand what it's like in Chicago, with the Chicago guys running the White House. They (the Democrats) have to know they're the fall guys," Laski said. "Otherwise, why would they so desperate to keep their fingerprints off the health care thing?"
Things are looking more Chicago in Washington all the time.
In Chicago, the mayor gets what he wants, and the mayor's friends get what they want. And the aldermen? They get the ridicule and the blame.
If the president gets what he desires — a health care victory — then Congress will pay for it in the midterm elections in November, and they know it.
The proof is in that latest congressional trick announced on Tuesday, a ploy so weaselly that it could have been hatched by Chicago politicians.
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland is now talking about allowing his members to pass the president's health care package — whatever's in it exactly, no one really knows — without a direct up-or-down vote on the current bill.
"It's consistent with the rules," Hoyer was quoted as saying on Tuesday. "It's consistent with former practice."
Consistent with the rules? Perhaps, but it sure isn't what President Barack Obama promised when he was talking like a reformer.
Democrats in the Congress want to appease the president and his crew, but they don't want the federal health vote tied to their necks for the November midterm elections. Their constituents don't want it and they've said so, loudly.
So Democrats in Congress desire a rhetorical out. With the Hoyer plan, they can say they support the health care package and then tell their constituents they didn't vote for it, exactly.
Their only trouble is that now, the entire country is watching.
"They've got to do something," Laski said. "The president wants the vote now. He doesn't want the Congress going back home, talking to their constituents. Their knees are already wobbling. If you've been in a legislative body, you can see what's going on. They want to get it done."
But what is it exactly that they want to get done? No one seems to know exactly, except that it will cost a trillion dollars we don't have, and force an increase in taxes and fees in years to come. There's talk that Congress will fix the bill, but only after it becomes law. And if you believe they'll revisit it, then just fill yourself another pipe of Hopium.
"This whole health care thing is Chicago," Laski said.
Except, that in Chicago, the mayor's guy doesn't meet you naked in the shower to twist your arm. It's just not done.
"But in Chicago, you're an alderman and the mayor's guy comes in your office, drops a legislative package on your desk, and then says, ‘You vote ‘yes' on this tomorrow, OK?'
"You haven't read it, you really don't know who's going to make a score, there are no real details, but you're expected to vote for it.
"The same thing with health care in Washington. Who knows what's really in it? Nobody. But the president's guys tell the congressmen, ‘You vote on this or else.' It's called arm-twisting but it's really arm-breaking. That's the Chicago Way."
Obviously, this isn't exactly what the president promised while campaigning, promising to transcend the broken politics of the past.
This is the broken politics of the past.
So get those Hopium pipes ready. It might look like Washington. But after a few puffs, it'll start looking more Chicago every day.
.... and.... BREATH IN - BREATH OUT! mais ou est donc passe Shansaa?  |
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 2031 - 17/3/2010, 13:19 | |
| Israel-bashing Hill is loyal - to a faultLast Updated: 3:44 AM, March 17, 2010Posted: 3:14 AM, March 17, 2010Michael GoodwinA favorite guessing game for the last year concerned Hillary Rodham Clinton. Is she a true Obama loyalist, or is she a double agent, pretending to be a team player while plotting a 2012 challenge? - Spoiler:
Game over. Given the zeal with which she picked up a flame-thrower in the administration's war with Israel, her allegiance is no longer in doubt.
By enthusiastically holding Israel to the same double standard that its enemies always do, she made her bones as a member of the Obama Family.
Worse, she told the world about it. Boasted about it, actually. As gang initiations go, it was a trophy moment.
So much for the "friend of Israel" pose she struck while seeking Jewish votes and money in her campaigns for the Senate and the White House.
In one sense, Clinton's dressing down of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was a return to her pre-Senate days. In 1999, as first lady, she stayed silent, then played kissy-face with Suha Arafat at a West Bank event where the terror leader's wife accused Israel of gassing Palestinian women and children.
Running for the Senate and then representing New York, Clinton worked hard to overcome that mistake. She reassured voters that she understood the United States cannot simultaneously be an honest broker in the Mideast and Israel's most reliable friend and ally. One must choose, and she chose, conveniently, to stand with the Jewish state against its hostile neighbors.
The neighbors are still hostile, but now so is Clinton. Her 43-minute tirade against Netanyahu -- a private call that her office promptly disclosed to the media -- was directed by the president himself. He apparently did not believe that Vice President Joe Biden's harsh condemnation of a plan to build 1,600 apartments in East Jerusalem was sufficient, and so ordered his secretary of state into action.
In this case, obedience was not a virtue. The president was wrong, and she has magnified his mistake, turning an Israeli blunder into a full-scale crisis. The proof of the error is the strut of the usual suspects who always find Israel a useful scapegoat for all that's wrong in the world.
There is a déjà vu feeling about the Obama White House, too. Once again, it has displayed a bad habit of abusing America's friends while trying to mollify our adversaries. It's tough love, without the love.
It was indeed stupid of Israel to embarrass Biden, who went to Jerusalem to deliver important and welcome news. His declaration that "the United States is determined to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, period" aimed to remove growing doubts about US policy, doubts that might still lead to an Israeli military strike.
Clinton and Obama created those doubts by suggesting we were preparing to live with a nuclear-armed Iran.
Meanwhile, they kept pressing Israel to make concessions to the Palestinians, arguing that a peace deal would remove the issue from the jihad agenda and make it easier for Arab nations and Europe to get tougher on Iran.
The linkage makes no sense and has never sat well with Israelis, most of whom know that even so-called moderate Palestinians are not ready to accept Israel's right to exist. Now Washington has proved that Israelis are not suffering national paranoia.
The phone call to Netanyahu and Clinton's demands yesterday that he prove he is committed to peace confirm Israel's worst fears. As commentators there are noting, Obama and Clinton don't go ballistic and claim "insult" when Syria spurns US efforts and openly courts Iran, or when Palestinians celebrate as "martyrs" terrorists who kill Israeli civilians.
Of course, Israelis are familiar with the sting of a double standard. The only shock is that it's coming from the president and secretary of state.
|
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 2032 - 17/3/2010, 13:33 | |
| Monsieur Martin,lui, n'est pas du meme avis! U.S. was right to chastise Israel By Roland S. Martin, Special to CNN Editor's note: Roland S. Martin, a CNN political analyst, is a nationally syndicated columnist and author of "Listening to the Spirit Within: 50 Perspectives on Faith," and the new book, "The First: President Barack Obama's Road to the White House." He is a commentator for TV One Cable Network and host of a one-hour Sunday morning news show. (CNN) -- If you listen to supporters of Israel, they essentially act as if Americans criticizing the Jewish nation is akin to committing treason against the United States.- Spoiler:
Sorry, folks. Israel, no matter how close an ally of America, should not expect the United States to act as if everything it does is fine.
The decision by the Israeli government to announce the building of 1,600 homes in the disputed area of East Jerusalem while Vice President Joe Biden was in the country to move forward the Israeli-Palestinian peace process was a slap to the United States.
Israeli officials admitted it was a mistake in making the announcement during Biden's visit, but they made clear they are moving forward with the settlements.
The fallout from the announcement was swift and decisive. It drew a harsh rebuke from Biden. Later, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton chewed out Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
America's response was obviously received positively by the Palestinians, who regard East Jerusalem as the future capital in a Palestinian state. And other Arab nations had to be smiling with the United States' rebuke of Israel, its closest ally.
Naturally, pro-Israel groups, such as the powerful American Israel Public Affairs Committee, rose to the defense of the country, saying:
"The administration should make a conscious effort to move away from public demands and unilateral deadlines directed at Israel, with whom the United States shares basic, fundamental and strategic interests.
"The escalated rhetoric of recent days only serves as a distraction from the substantive work that needs to be done with regard to the urgent issue of Iran's rapid pursuit of nuclear weapons and the pursuit of peace between Israel and all her Arab neighbors.
"We strongly urge the administration to work closely and privately with our partner Israel, in a manner befitting strategic allies, to address any issues between the two governments."
Look at that key phrase: "closely and privately."
That was echoed by Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, on the floor of the Senate. He questioned why the U.S. should publicly disparage Israel and called on Obama administration officials to "lower the dialogue" and "talk quietly among friends" to work on our common goals.
Then you have House Minority Whip Eric Cantor, R-Virginia, calling the Obama response "irresponsible."
"While it condemns Israel, the administration continues to ignore a host of Palestinian provocations that undermine prospects for peace in the region," he said in a statement.
This is the tit-for-tat nonsense that has blocked a true peace agreement between the Israelis and Palestinians.
Supporters of Israel always want the U.S. to ignore their wrongdoing and focus on the Palestinians. And the supporters of the Palestinians are quick to deflect criticism when they do something dumb and demand that the U.S. decry Israeli actions. We see it in Israel and here in the U.S.
This is utter nonsense.
In order for the United States to be seen as an honest broker for peace, we can't be seen as favoring one nation over the other. Our moral authority to lead is based on our credibility with both sides.
Even though Arab nations know that Israel is our closest ally, they know that we have a history of giving them a fair shake. That's the only way President Carter was able to broker a peace agreement between Egypt and Israel in 1978, leading Anwar Sadat, president of Egypt, and Menachem Begin, prime minister of Israel, to share the Nobel Peace Prize.
In 1993, President Clinton hosted the signing of the Oslo Accords, for which Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat and Israeli leaders Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres shared the Nobel Peace Prize in 1994.
The distrust about Middle East policy was at the heart of some American Jews being leery of supporting then-Sen. Barack Obama for president. We heard and read reports of some Israel supporters questioning whether he would be more sympathetic to Arab concerns -- and whether he is or used to be a Muslim.
So when you see reports quoting Israel's U.S. Ambassador Michael Oren saying relations between the two longtime partners at its worst in 35 years, expect to see additional pieces on whether mistrust between Obama and Israel is at the heart of the issue.
At the end of the day, America has spent years and years trying to broker peace between the Israelis and Palestinians. Generations in both countries have grown up weary of constant friction, battles and death. It's time both sides do all they can to set aside their differences and co-exist peacefully.
And the only way to get there is if America speaks forcefully when one or both sides do something that will endanger a peace accord. In this case, Israel's actions aren't helpful. And we were right to call them on it.
The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Roland Martin
Dernière édition par Sylvette le 17/3/2010, 13:57, édité 1 fois |
| | | | Zed
 Nombre de messages : 16907
Age : 59
Localisation : Longueuil, Québec, Canada, Amérique du nord, planète Terre, du système solaire Galarneau de la voie lactée
Date d'inscription : 13/11/2008
| | Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 17/3/2010, 13:40 | |
| - Sylvette a écrit:
- Israel-bashing Hill is loyal - to a fault
Last Updated: 3:44 AM, March 17, 2010
Posted: 3:14 AM, March 17, 2010
Michael Goodwin
A favorite guessing game for the last year concerned Hillary Rodham Clinton. Is she a true Obama loyalist, or is she a double agent, pretending to be a team player while plotting a 2012 challenge?
- Spoiler:
Game over. Given the zeal with which she picked up a flame-thrower in the administration's war with Israel, her allegiance is no longer in doubt.
By enthusiastically holding Israel to the same double standard that its enemies always do, she made her bones as a member of the Obama Family.
Worse, she told the world about it. Boasted about it, actually. As gang initiations go, it was a trophy moment.
So much for the "friend of Israel" pose she struck while seeking Jewish votes and money in her campaigns for the Senate and the White House.
In one sense, Clinton's dressing down of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was a return to her pre-Senate days. In 1999, as first lady, she stayed silent, then played kissy-face with Suha Arafat at a West Bank event where the terror leader's wife accused Israel of gassing Palestinian women and children.
Running for the Senate and then representing New York, Clinton worked hard to overcome that mistake. She reassured voters that she understood the United States cannot simultaneously be an honest broker in the Mideast and Israel's most reliable friend and ally. One must choose, and she chose, conveniently, to stand with the Jewish state against its hostile neighbors.
The neighbors are still hostile, but now so is Clinton. Her 43-minute tirade against Netanyahu -- a private call that her office promptly disclosed to the media -- was directed by the president himself. He apparently did not believe that Vice President Joe Biden's harsh condemnation of a plan to build 1,600 apartments in East Jerusalem was sufficient, and so ordered his secretary of state into action.
In this case, obedience was not a virtue. The president was wrong, and she has magnified his mistake, turning an Israeli blunder into a full-scale crisis. The proof of the error is the strut of the usual suspects who always find Israel a useful scapegoat for all that's wrong in the world.
There is a déjà vu feeling about the Obama White House, too. Once again, it has displayed a bad habit of abusing America's friends while trying to mollify our adversaries. It's tough love, without the love.
It was indeed stupid of Israel to embarrass Biden, who went to Jerusalem to deliver important and welcome news. His declaration that "the United States is determined to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, period" aimed to remove growing doubts about US policy, doubts that might still lead to an Israeli military strike.
Clinton and Obama created those doubts by suggesting we were preparing to live with a nuclear-armed Iran.
Meanwhile, they kept pressing Israel to make concessions to the Palestinians, arguing that a peace deal would remove the issue from the jihad agenda and make it easier for Arab nations and Europe to get tougher on Iran.
The linkage makes no sense and has never sat well with Israelis, most of whom know that even so-called moderate Palestinians are not ready to accept Israel's right to exist. Now Washington has proved that Israelis are not suffering national paranoia.
The phone call to Netanyahu and Clinton's demands yesterday that he prove he is committed to peace confirm Israel's worst fears. As commentators there are noting, Obama and Clinton don't go ballistic and claim "insult" when Syria spurns US efforts and openly courts Iran, or when Palestinians celebrate as "martyrs" terrorists who kill Israeli civilians.
Of course, Israelis are familiar with the sting of a double standard. The only shock is that it's coming from the president and secretary of state.
Ce qui se passe entre Israël et les États-Unis, c'est juste un éphéméride, un courant passagé. Leurs liens, que je considères des plus important, pour lutter contre la criminalité mondiale (L'Islam) est des plus importante, et préservée par une force encore plus grande.  | |
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 17/3/2010, 14:04 | |
| Oui, Zed, c'est seulement un mauvais passage entre les deux pays, il y en a deja eu, il y en aura certainement encore. Je pense que ce temporaire durera tant que le POTUS sera a la Maison Blanche et que Nathanyahu sera premier ministre. A ce sujet, cet article est interessant: What Obama is Actually Trying to Do in IsraelMar 16 2010, 11:07 AM ET There is much speculation that this kerfluffle over 1,600 theoretical apartments on the wrong side of the green line in Jerusalem will lead to a rupture in American-Israeli relations, but analysts who suggest this are missing the point of President Obama's maneuverings. I've been on the phone with many of the usual suspects (White House and otherwise), and I think it's fair to say that Obama is not trying to destroy America's relations with Israel; he's trying to organize Tzipi Livni's campaign for prime minister, or at least for her inclusion in a broad-based centrist government. I'm not actually suggesting that the White House is directly meddling in internal Israeli politics, but it's clear to everyone -- at the White House, at the State Department, at Goldblog -- that no progress will be made on any front if Avigdor Lieberman's far-right party, Yisrael Beiteinu, and Eli Yishai's fundamentalist Shas Party, remain in Netanyahu's surpassingly fragile coalition.
- Spoiler:
So what is the goal? The goal is force a rupture in the governing coalition that will make it necessary for Netanyahu to take into his government Livni's centrist Kadima Party (he has already tried to do this, but too much on his terms) and form a broad, 68-seat majority in Knesset that does not have to rely on gangsters, messianists and medievalists for votes. It's up to Livni, of course, to recognize that it is in Israel's best interests to join a government with Netanyahu and Barak, and I, for one, hope she puts the interests of Israel ahead of her own ambitions.
Obama knows that this sort of stable, centrist coalition is the key to success. He would rather, I understand, not have to deal with Netanyahu at all -- people near the President say that, for one thing, Obama doesn't think that Netanyahu is very bright, and there is no chemistry at all between the two men -- but he'd rather have a Netanyahu who is being pressured from his left than a Netanyahu who is being pressured from the right.
|
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 2035 - 17/3/2010, 14:35 | |
| WOW! States’ Rights Is Rallying Cry of Resistance for Lawmakers By KIRK JOHNSON Published: March 16, 2010 Whether it’s a correctly called a movement, a backlash or political theater, state declarations of their rights — or in some cases denunciations of federal authority, amounting to the same thing — are on a roll. - Spoiler:
 Al Hartmann/Salt Lake TribuneIn Utah, a bill by Representative Carl Wimmer, a Republican, would require the state to sign off on any federal health reform. Gov. Mike Rounds of South Dakota, a Republican, signed a bill into law on Friday declaring that the federal regulation of firearms is invalid if a weapon is made and used in South Dakota.On Thursday, Wyoming’s governor, Dave Freudenthal, a Democrat, signed a similar bill for that state. The same day, Oklahoma’s House of Representatives approved a resolution that Oklahomans should be able to vote on a state constitutional amendment allowing them to opt out of the federal health care overhaul. In Utah, lawmakers embraced states’ rights with a vengeance in the final days of the legislative session last week. One measure said Congress and the federal government could not carry out health care reform, not in Utah anyway, without approval of the Legislature. Another bill declared state authority to take federal lands under the eminent domain process. A resolution asserted the “inviolable sovereignty of the State of Utah under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution.” Some legal scholars say the new states’ rights drive has more smoke than fire, but for lawmakers, just taking a stand can be important enough. “Who is the sovereign, the state or the federal government?” said State Representative Chris N. Herrod, a Republican from Provo, Utah, and leader of the 30-member Patrick Henry Caucus, which formed last year and led the assault on federal legal barricades in the session that ended Thursday. Alabama, Tennessee and Washington are considering bills or constitutional amendments that would assert local police powers to be supreme over the federal authority, according to the Tenth Amendment Center, a research and advocacy group based in Los Angeles. And Utah, again not to be outdone, passed a bill last week that says federal law enforcement authority, even on federal lands, can be limited by the state. “There’s a tsunami of interest in states’ rights and resistance to an overbearing federal government; that’s what all these measures indicate,” said Gary Marbut, the president of the Montana Shooting Sports Association, which led the drive last year for one of the first “firearms freedoms,” laws like the ones signed last week in South Dakota and Wyoming. In most cases, conservative anxiety over federal authority is fueling the impulse, with the Tea Party movement or its members in the backdrop or forefront. Mr. Herrod in Utah said that he had spoken at Tea Party rallies, for example, but that his efforts, and those of the Patrick Henry Caucus, were not directly connected to the Tea Partiers. And in some cases, according to the Tenth Amendment Center, the politics of states’ rights are veering left. Rhode Island, Vermont and Wisconsin, for example — none of them known as conservative bastions — are considering bills that would authorize, or require, governors to recall or take control of National Guard troops, asserting that federal calls to active duty have exceeded federal authority. “Everything we’ve tried to keep the federal government confined to rational limits has been a failure, an utter, unrelenting failure — so why not try something else?” said Thomas E. Woods Jr., a senior fellow at the Ludwig von Mises Institute, a nonprofit group in Auburn, Ala., that researches what it calls “the scholarship of liberty.” Mr. Woods, who has a Ph.D. in history, and has written widely on states’ rights and nullification — the argument that says states can sometimes trump or disregard federal law — said he was not sure where the dots between states’ rights and politics connected. But he and others say that whatever it is, something politically powerful is brewing under the statehouse domes. Other scholars say the state efforts, if pursued in the courts, would face formidable roadblocks. Article 6 of the Constitution says federal authority outranks state authority, and on that bedrock of federalist principle rests centuries of back and forth that states have mostly lost, notably the desegregation of schools in the 1950s and ’60s.“Article 6 says that that federal law is supreme and that if there’s a conflict, federal law prevails,” said Prof. Ruthann Robson, who teaches constitutional law at the City University of New York School of Law. “It’s pretty difficult to imagine a way in which a state could prevail on many of these.” And while some efforts do seem headed for a direct conflict with federal laws or the Constitution, others are premised on the idea that federal courts have misinterpreted the Constitution in the federal government’s favor. A lawsuit filed last year by the Montana Shooting Sports Association after the state’s “firearms freedom” law took effect, for example, does not say that the federal government has no authority to regulate guns, but that courts have misconstrued interstate commerce regulations. National monuments and medical marijuana, of all things, play a role as well. Mr. Herrod in Utah said that after an internal memorandum from the United States Department of the Interior was made public last month, discussing sites around the country potentially suitable for federal protection as national monuments — including two sites in Utah — support for all kinds of statements against federal authority gained steam. And at the Tenth Amendment Center, the group’s founder, Michael Boldin, said he thought states that had bucked federal authority over the last decade by legalizing medical marijuana, even as federal law held all marijuana use and possession to be illegal, had set the template in some ways for the effort now. And those states, Mr. Boldin said, were essentially validated in their efforts last fall when the Justice Department said it would no longer make medical marijuana a priority in the states were it was legal. Nullification, he said, was shown to work. Whether the political impulse of states’ rights and nullification will become a direct political fault line in the national elections this fall is uncertain, said Mr. Woods of the von Mises institute. But in Utah, at least, a key indicator is coming much sooner. The party caucuses to determine, among other things, whether candidates will face primary elections, are to be held next Tuesday, and Mr. Herrod said the states rights’ crowd would attend and push for change. “Those politicians who don’t understand that things are different are in big trouble because a few people showing up to caucus can have a big influence,” Mr. Herrod said. A spokeswoman for Gov. Gary R. Herbert, a Republican — who signed a firearms law like South Dakota’s last month declaring exemption from federal regulation for guns made and used within the state — said Mr. Herbert was still studying the new batch of bills passed this week and had not yet made decisions about signing them.
|
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 2036 - 17/3/2010, 14:42 | |
| Apres le fameux, Miss Me Yet?? Le Real Hope and Change de Ronald Reagan.
Dernière édition par Sylvette le 17/3/2010, 14:52, édité 1 fois |
| | | | Biloulou
Nombre de messages : 54566
Localisation : Jardins suspendus sur la Woluwe - Belgique
Date d'inscription : 27/10/2008
| | Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 17/3/2010, 14:51 | |
| En Espagne aussi, il me semble avoir vu de grands panneaux avec la silhoutte de Lawrence... mais je peux me tromper, bien sûr.  | |
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 17/3/2010, 14:54 | |
|  ========== Biloulou, n'etant pas certaine si je pouvais ou non poster la photo ici, j'ai prefere faire un lien. |
| | | | Biloulou
Nombre de messages : 54566
Localisation : Jardins suspendus sur la Woluwe - Belgique
Date d'inscription : 27/10/2008
| | Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 17/3/2010, 14:59 | |
| Ah ?! Pour des questions de droits d'auteur ?  | |
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 17/3/2010, 15:02 | |
| Hier sous une photo il y avait un bouton sur lequel cliquer si on voulait l'acheter, alors je n'etais pas certaine.
(je ne l'ai pas postee non plus). |
| | | | Biloulou
Nombre de messages : 54566
Localisation : Jardins suspendus sur la Woluwe - Belgique
Date d'inscription : 27/10/2008
| | Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 17/3/2010, 15:07 | |
| C'était peut-être Chanoine qui les vendait pour financer sa maison ?  | |
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 17/3/2010, 15:38 | |
| aaahhh c'est bien possible. D'ailleurs, en y repensant, essayer de nous faire croire ainsi qu'il etait pret a abandonner la grande demeure pour passer a la tente, non, non, impossible... il y tient a sa maison. |
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 2043 - 17/3/2010, 15:46 | |
| Evidemment tout peu changer mais c'est interessant de voir le Tea Party se positionner dans l'esprit des Americains. Il peut etre la meilleure comme la pire des choses pour le GOP. Three-Way Ballot: Democrats 34%, GOP 27%, Tea Party 21%Monday, March 15, 2010Both Republican and Tea Party candidates have gained a little ground in a potential three-way congressional contest, but Democrats remain on top. - Spoiler:
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of likely voters finds the Democratic candidate earning 34% support, while the Republican gets 27% of the vote with the Tea Party hopeful in third at 21%. Nineteen percent (19%) of voters are undecided.
In December, the Tea Party candidate came in second with 23% of the vote, while the Republican finished in third with 18%. The Democratic candidate attracted 36% of the vote in that contest. By early February, however, the GOP candidate came in second with 25% of the vote, while the Tea Party candidate picked up just 17%. The Democrat again had 36%, and 23% were undecided.
Many speculate that Tea Party candidates will take votes away from Republicans, so Rasmussen Reports decided to try to measure that impact.
When voters are asked how they would vote if only the Democratic candidate or the Republican had a chance to win the election, the majority of Tea Party voters switch to the GOP column. Given that scenario, the Republican candidate gets 41% of the vote to the Democrat’s 38%. Nine percent (9%) still vote for the Tea Party candidate, but just 12% remain undecided.
Similarly, if only the Democrat or the Tea Party candidate has a chance to win, Republican support shifts primarily to the Tea Party. In that case, the Democratic and Tea Party candidates tie with 36% of the vote each. Sixteen percent (16%) still vote Republican, but again 12% are undecided.
(Want a free daily e-mail update? If it's in the news, it's in our polls). Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on Twitter or Facebook.
Republicans have led Democrats for months in Rasmussen Reports’ weekly two-way Generic Congressional Ballot. This past week, 44% said they would vote for their district’s Republican congressional candidate, while 37% would opt for his or her Democratic opponent.
Sixteen percent (16%) of all voters now consider themselves part of the Tea Party movement. Sixty-seven percent (67%) do not, but another 17% are not sure.
Thirty percent (30%) of Republicans say they’re part of the Tea Party movement, but just five percent (5%) of Democrats and 14% of voters not affiliated with either major party agree.
In the December and February surveys, 41% of voters had a favorable opinion of the Tea Party movement. But in the most recent survey, 28% viewed the movement unfavorably, up six points from December, and 31% were undecided.
Fifty-one percent (51%) of Americans had a favorable view of the so-called “tea party” protests just after they were held on Tax Day, April 15, last year. It was those events around the country that gelled into the Tea Party movement, a protest largely against what are viewed as the big government policies of both major political parties.
Voter unhappiness with Congress has reached the highest level ever recorded by Rasmussen Reports, with 71% now saying the legislature is doing a poor job. Sixty-three percent (63%) say it would be better for the country if most incumbents in Congress were defeated this November. Just 27% of voters say their representative in Congress is the best possible person for the job.
Much of the voter unhappiness is directed at the national health care plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats. Even as Congress nears a possible vote on the plan, most voters still oppose it the way they have for months.
Rasmussen Reports has polled on 2010 Senate races in Oklahoma, Nevada, Colorado, Arkansas, Pennsylvania, California, Indiana, Wisconsin, Washington,Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Missouri, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota,Ohio, Oregon, Connecticut, Illinois and Iowa. Most show a difficult political environment for Democrats.
|
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 17/3/2010, 16:06 | |
| Comment peut-on prendre des gens comme ca serieusement! Il dit: Non au premier vote, il dit Non, vraiment Non! Non, Non, je ne peux pas. Ah, on va tous les deux dans AirForce 1 dans mon district de l'Ohio tout ca aux frais de la princesse? on peut peut-etre s'arranger alors. Bon alors, c'est Oui, hein, Si, si, tout compte fait le plan "va assez loin"! Incroyable! Bon je mets tout de meme sa photo au monsieur, il merite! Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) -- who voted against health care reform last year -- said he was 'looking forward to hearing' what the president had to say. Photo: AP =========== Kucinich Says He'll Vote for Health Care BillFOXNews.com Developing: Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, announced Wednesday that he would vote for the Senate health care bill, becoming the most prominent House Democrat to reverse his opposition.With Kucinich's switch, Democrats now have 212 votes in favor of the bill, four shy of the 216-threshold needed for passage."This is not the bill I wanted to support even as I continued efforts into the last minute to try and modify the bill," he said at a news conference. "However, after careful discussions with President Obama, Speaker Pelosi, my wife Elizabeth and close friends, I've decided to cast a vote in favor of the legislation."Kucinich voted against the House bill in November and has opposed the Senate bill because it doesn't include a government-run insurance plan.But Kucinich has been under enormous pressure in recent weeks to lend his support to the bill, especially from Obama, who visited the Kucinich's district on Monday.Democratic leaders want the House to pass the Senate-approved version of the bill before moving on to a package of changes. That package, which is already under consideration, would be taken up in the Senate as a "reconciliation" bill, meaning the Senate would be able to approve it with just 51 votes -- Democrats turned to the legislative tactic after Republican Scott Brown won the Massachusetts Senate election in January, breaking the party's 60-vote filibuster-proof majority.
Dernière édition par Sylvette le 18/3/2010, 00:40, édité 1 fois |
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 2045 - 18/3/2010, 00:33 | |
| !!!Health Care ReformAP Idaho Gov. C.L. "Butch" Otter is the first state chief executive to sign a measure requiring his attorney general to sue the federal government if Congress passes health care reform.- Spoiler:
Idaho Gov. C.L. "Butch" Otter is the first state chief executive to sign a measure requiring his attorney general to sue the federal government if Congress passes health care reform.
Legal experts say the measure, signed Wednesday, will likely be struck down. But Idaho's new law reflects growing frustration with President Obama's health-care proposal.
Legislation similar to Idaho's is pending in as many as 37 other states nationwide.
Democrats in the nation's capital are hoping to pass health care reform by this weekend.
The American Legislative Exchange Council created the model legislation for Idaho and other states. The Washington, D.C.-based, nonprofit says Idaho is the first to sign a version into law.
|
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 2046 - 18/3/2010, 13:06 | |
| Dose of Truth for Obama  By Michael Graham
Thursday, March 18, 2010 -
Forget “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.” All Mrs. Martin had to do was stay in her seat, and she landed another blow against Obamacare.- Spoiler:
Mrs. Martin, aka Ingrid, is an unemployed health care professional from Ohio. A friend took her along to see President Barack Obama’s “Health Care Hallelujah” speech in Strongsville Monday, where she wound up in the front row, listening in disbelief.
“I crossed my hand and bit my lips a couple of time, and when he made his Medicare claim I said ‘no, no, no,’ ” she told me yesterday.
While she kept her reactions more in line with Justice Sam Alito’s, the president must have noticed. As he shook hands after the speech, he asked her, “Are you OK?”
“ ‘Yes, sir, I’m fine,’ I told him. ‘I just don’t support your bill,’ ” she said. “And at that point, security and everyone stopped.”
And so it came to pass that, for two minutes, Obama and an informed citizen who doesn’t support his plan shared some straight talk. Well, Martin talked straight, anyway.
“He asked me what I would do, and I said the problem is that he’s doing insurance reform, but the problem is really the cost of medical care itself. I said we should fix things that are driving costs up, like defensive medicine and the need for tort reform,” she said. “He told me the bill handled all that, and I said ‘Well, I don’t believe it.’ ”
Ingrid Martin, of Brunswick, Ohio, called out the president of the United States. And at his own pep rally, to boot. “Oh my gosh, I’m calling the president a liar,” she said afterward.
The conversation went along politely and the president promised to send Martin some information to answer her questions. What didn’t happen is the president explaining how cutting $500 billion out of Medicare while adding more people to the rolls is going to “make its finances more secure.”
Obama didn’t answer the question because he can’t. Even Congressional Budget Office director Douglas Elmendorf agrees with Martin, saying “to pay future Medicare benefits and financing new spending outside of Medicare with the same $500 billion in ‘savings’ would essentially double-count . . . and thus overstate the improvement in the government’s fiscal position.”
This is where Obamacare is. Everyone knows it won’t work. As liberal Sen. Dick Durbin just admitted, “Anyone who would stand before you and say well, if you pass health care reform next year’s health care premiums are going down, I don’t think is telling the truth.”
And that “anyone” would be the president.
Voters across America - and particularly here in Massachusetts - are focused on the question of policy. Will this 2,400-page “deem and pass” Washington monstrosity get me a better doctor or better medicine at a better price? We’ve figured out the answer is no, which is why the latest WSJ/NBC poll has opposition to Obamacare at 48 percent, a new high. Only 36 percent of Americans support it.
But Democrats aren’t even talking policy anymore. They’re all about the politics. They’ve got to pass a bill - any bill - to save this inept poseur of a president from himself.
That’s the worst part of Ingrid Martin’s encounter with Obama. It showed the facts don’t matter. The trillion-dollar debt doesn’t matter.
And none of those Democrats in Congress understands the consequences of this bill as well as one unemployed woman in Ohio.
Michael Graham hosts a talk show on WTKK 96.9. He is the author of the recently published “That’s No Angry Mob - That’s My Mom.”
Dernière édition par Sylvette le 18/3/2010, 13:10, édité 1 fois |
| | | | Le chanoine
Nombre de messages : 106
Date d'inscription : 15/03/2010
| | | | | Invité
Invité
| | | | | Le chanoine
Nombre de messages : 106
Date d'inscription : 15/03/2010
| | | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 18/3/2010, 14:16 | |
| La longueur, je ne peux pas me prononcer, mais il l'a tres fin, LE NEZ! |
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 2051 - 18/3/2010, 20:25 | |
| Fox News Poll: 55% Oppose Health Care ReformBy Dana Blanton- FOXNews.com As Americans wait for Congress to act on health care, a Fox News poll released Thursday finds 55 percent oppose the reforms being considered, while 35 percent favor them.- Spoiler:
 Vous avez vu les vilains extremistes dont l'administration Obama et la gauche en general nous parlent?
|
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 2052 - 19/3/2010, 12:39 | |
| Now for the slaughterOn the road to Demon Pass, our leader encounters a Baier.
By PEGGY NOONAN
Excuse me, but it is embarrassing—really, embarrassing to our country—that the president of the United States has again put off a state visit to Australia and Indonesia because he's having trouble passing a piece of domestic legislation he's been promising for a year will be passed next week. What an air of chaos this signals to the world. And to do this to Australia of all countries, a nation that has always had America's back and been America's friend. - Spoiler:
How bush league, how undisciplined, how kid's stuff.You could see the startled looks on the faces of reporters as Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, who had the grace to look embarrassed, made the announcement on Thursday afternoon. The president "regrets the delay"—the trip is rescheduled for June—but "passage of the health insurance reform is of paramount importance." Indonesia must be glad to know it's not.  Fox News Channel  Fox News Channel
|
| | | | Contenu sponsorisé
| | Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise | |
| |
| | | | | | Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise | |
|
Sujets similaires | |
|
| | Permission de ce forum: | Vous ne pouvez pas répondre aux sujets dans ce forum
| |
| |
| |
|
