Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise

Rappel du premier message :

Bonjour Biloulou

Il me semblait que cette nouvelle plairait!

Rasmussen

La difference que 6 mois peuvent faire mais bon, il en reste encore 39, c'est loin! :


National Survey of 1,000 Likely Voters
July 18-19, 2009
2012 Presidential Race

Mitt Romney (R)	45%
Barack Obama (D)	45%
Some Other Candidate	7%
Not Sure	3%

2012 Presidential Race

Barack Obama (D)	48%
Sarah Palin (R)	42%
Some Other Candidate	7%
Not Sure	3%

Obama Defends August Deadline for Health Bill

President declines to take a surtax off the table in the escalating debate over how to pay for a new health care system, while the Republican Party chairman assailed it as an "excessive push."


AP

Tuesday, July 21, 2009


WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama is defending his relentless campaign for a health care bill before Congress's August recess, saying "the default in Washington is inaction and inertia." The Republican Party chairman assailed it as an "excessive push."

The fault lines in the debate emerging as Topic A in the capital remained intact Tuesday as Obama defended the deadline, saying the American people want the overhaul done quickly, and GOP Chairman Michael Steele demanded: "Take your time!"

At the same time, Obama remained noncommital on a surtax to pay for the overhaul, which some experts have said could cost over $1 trillion in the next several years to reconstitute and incorporate some 46 million uninsured into the system.

The president noted in an interview on NBC's "Today" show that "the House has put forward a surtax." And he repeated his feeling that wealthier Americans, "such as myself," should pitch in and help reinvent the system to spread coverage to those now without it.

Obama has said that people making over $250,000 a year should have to pay more, and he defended his insistence on getting a bill from lawmakers before they leave next month on their summer recess. Asked why he felt so strongly about the timeline, he replied, "because if you don't set a deadline in this town, nothing happens."

"And the deadline isn't being set by me," he said. "It's being set by the American people."

.....

Sure!

Barney n'a toujours rien compris:


Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank wants to dish Troubled Asset Relief Program dividends to foreclosure prevention and affordable housing. Photo: John Shinkle

Apres tout, il est encore en charge alors, pourquoi s'en ferait-il?

=========

Parties haggle over TARP fund returns

By VICTORIA MCGRANE | 7/21/09 4:21 AM EDT

Lawmakers still fighting over last year’s Wall Street bailout have a problem they didn’t expect to deal with so soon: what to do with the billions already being returned to the Treasury by financial institutions.

Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) wants to dish Troubled Asset Relief Program dividends to foreclosure prevention and affordable housing. Republicans want the bailout paybacks to pay down the national debt.

The return on the TARP “investment” — $6 billion of it — comes as lawmakers prepare to hear tough testimony Tuesday from the program’s inspector general, whose report rips the Treasury for lack of transparency on how they’ve spent the money.

In addition to the $6 billion in TARP dividend payments, Treasury has received another $200 million in interest. That’s on top of the $70 billion in principal banks have repaid. The dividend payments amount to a 12.4 percent return on the taxpayers’ investment, said James Chessen, chief economist for the American Bankers Association.

“All those are real dollars flowing back to government and providing a significant return in a time when there are no double-digit returns to any investor,” Chessen said.

And as the money flows back to the Treasury, the partisan knives have come out.

Frank is trying to turn TARP into a “slush fund for other pet projects,” said Rep. Scott Garrett (R-N.J.), who sits on the Financial Services Committee. Frank says he just wants a “TARP for Main Street.”

-----

Ca, c'etait l'argent d'aide aux institutions financieres de Pres. Bush 43 qui revient avec interet. Alors evidemment, en bons socialistes jetons le dans un trou noir!

Il en etait question ce matin. Le vote avait de grandes chances d'etre pour l'achat, ne souhaitant pas paraitre ne pas le soutenir, les Democrates ont change d'avis depuis hier. De plus, NP avait menace d'utiliser son Veto, ca ne sera pas necessaire.

Senate Strips Controversial F-22 Money From Defense Bill

The Senate on Tuesday voted to strip $1.75 billion on seven additional F-22 jets that President Obama said was unnecessary and would doom a $680 bill authorizing defense spending plans for the coming fiscal year.

FOXNews.com
Tuesday, July 21, 2009

WASHINGTON -- The Senate on Tuesday voted to strip $1.75 billion on seven additional F-22 jets that President Obama said was unnecessary and would doom a $680 bill authorizing defense spending plans for the coming fiscal year.

The 58-40 vote prevents Obama from carrying out a threat to use the first veto of his presidency if senators had kept the designation in the defense bill.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates has said that the Pentagon has enough of the $140 million jets to meet operational needs. But for many lawmakers, the F-22 means thousands of jobs for their state or district, and resistance to ending the program has been fierce.

The F-22 amendment stripping the funding only needed a simple majority to pass, or 51 votes, meaning no horse-trading for votes was necessary to reach the more difficult threshold of 60 votes often used for controversial legislation.

Lawmakers from states that would benefit from manufacturing the jets wanted the money pumped into the aerospace and defense industries. Defense Secretary Robert Gates had countered that the money would be better spent on ensuring that the military has the tools it needs to fight the unconventional wars taking place in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"What I have not heard is substantive reason for adding more aircraft in terms of our strategic needs," Gates said Monday while reiterating his opposition to the purchase.

...

ce n'est pas une blague:

The Senate health bill gives the Health and Human Services secretary the authority to develop ?standards of measuring gender? — as opposed to using the traditional “male” and “female” categories — in a database of all who apply or participate in government-run or government-supported health care plans.

La biologie nous réserve tant de surprises... électorales !

========

Plus fort!

U.S. Debating Payoffs to Afghan Poppy Growers

Obama administration is considering whether to pay off Afghan farmers to stop them from growing heroin poppies on contract for the Taliban, senior officials told the Associated Press.
AP

Tuesday, July 21, 2009

WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration is considering whether to pay off Afghan farmers to stop them from growing heroin poppies on contract for the Taliban, senior officials said Tuesday.

Paying farmers not to plant poppy would essentially supplant U.S. cash for the fees paid up front by the Taliban to its contract farmers. The idea seems to follow logically from the administration's policy of protecting Afghan civilians and eroding support for the insurgency, but skeptics say it won't work because farmers would take the money and plant poppies anyway.

You Think?

Obama's Czars: What Are They and How Much Power Do They Wield?

Merriam Webster online defines a 'czar' as "the ruler of Russia until the 1917 revolution." But it's the dictionary's alternate definition, "one having great power or authority", that has ruffled many a feather lately.

While the term 'czar' is unofficial, the prevalence of such executive posts in President Obama's administration has gotten noticed.

The administration has nearly three dozen czars. While some of those jobs are actually mandated by congress, others are entirely new creations of Mr. Obama.

Although analysts note it's not likely all of the czars get face time with the commander-in-chief-- only ten actually report directly to the president-- they say the executive branch does have the feeling of top-heaviness.

"When you start adding in of course all the cabinet secretaries, you add in all these different czars, you add in chiefs of staff, you add in communication directors, press secretaries and so forth, I think the number probably is getting closer to a hundred," says management expert and Leadership Professor at The George Washington University, James Bailey.

It's not just the size of the czar fleet that has irked members of congress, it's the concern over being taken out of equation.

Maine Senator Susan Collins lamented the potential demise of the president's promise of transparency, "By creating these czars that are insulated from accountability, whose work is not transparent, he's moving in exactly opposite direction."

Others see their concerns through a political sphere; when a majority party has more platforms with which to wield its authority, the concerns of the minority are relegated, they say.

But even some in the country's majority party find fault. Democratic Senator Robert Byrd expressed his frustration over the czar issue in a letter to President Obama, writing,

The term czar, by the way, is one rarely uttered by Mr. Obama or his aides, unless they are trying to correct its use. White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs has been known to alter the terminology, "If there's a marketing czar, I've failed to get his or her memo."

However it started, the term czar seems to have stuck; at least, inside the Washington beltway.

What exactly does a czar do, though? Bailey describes the job this way, "A czar supposedly would have accountability for something. That is, they are charged with delivering something specific."

Presidential scholar Kathryn Dunn Tenpas says, "I think most of their power derives from their relationship with the president. And that's largely because czars are really sort of a creation of presidents and their personal predilections and their desire to sort of show that they care about an issue."

In some instances, czars bypass Senate confirmation.

Georgia Congressman Jack Kingston spells out the dangers he sees in this equation, "It's almost like the president is building a parallel government, one that's in the constitution and then one that is outside of the constitution and the authority of congress."Additionally, some say the responsibilities the president gave his czars might have been duties filled by cabinet secretaries in past administrations. One way to be a successful czar, experts note, is to have accountability, a specific mission, and a set amount of time in which to accomplish it.

Former auto czar Steve Rattner, otherwise known as the top advisor on the auto industry's bailout, got GM and Chrysler in and out of bankruptcy in record time.Some of the more established czar positions are the drug czar, the science czar and the domestic violence czar. More recently, Mr. Obama added an auto czar to the mix and even an urban affairs czar, much to the chagrin of rural community advocates

Perhaps its just a semantics issue that gets some people so riled up. The czar term seems to carry with it a negative connotation in Washington. Ironically, the man at the center of the czar battle himself was caught using the term, if somewhat reluctantly.

In announcing the presence at a recent event of Office of National Drug Control Policy Director R. Gil Kerlikowske, President Obama hesitated, "...as well as our new director of our office of-- I always forget the full name of this thing. I call it the Drug Czar." * So, perhaps it's just easier to say certain titles. Presidential scholar Martha Joynt Kumar tells us about "the case of an official who's called the border czar, now border czar, that has 10 letters, but he really is 'assistant secretary for international affairs and special representative for border affairs.' that's 81 letters."

* Aaaah si Bush avait dit ca, tra la la! Aaaah si Bush avait dit ca...

==========

NP n'est pas le premier a avoir ses Tsars, l'idee remonterait a FDR a moins que ce ne soit Pres. Reagan (Drug Czar) tout le monde ne semble pas etre d'accord a ce sujet. Pres. Bush en avait plusieurs egalement et la gauche ne manquait d'ailleurs pas de le faire remarquer, expliquant qu'a chaque petit probleme, il nommait un nouveau tsar les personnes en charge n'etaient-elles donc pas suffisante?

La, c'est peut-etre le nombre et le fait que beaucoup ne passent pas devant le Senat qui commencent a gener.

JULY 22, 2009

Swiss Banks Freeze Out U.S. Clients

BY KATHARINA BART

ZURICH -- In a sign that UBS AG's high-profile spat with the Internal Revenue Service is chipping away at Switzerland's private banking industry, some Swiss banks are cutting off or curbing business with American clients for fear of crossing U.S. authorities. A number are no longer accepting deposits from U.S.-based customers, or allowing them to open accounts.
Spurring the shift is UBS's standoff with the IRS, which wants access to 52,000 client accounts in a move aimed at rooting out possible tax fraud and, in the process, potentially breaching Swiss bank-secrecy laws. Some analysts say they expect UBS to pay ...

Suite de 1185

Obama Regulatory Czar's Confirmation Held Up by Hunting Rights Proponent

Cass Sunstein's views on litigating on behalf of animals has raised concerns for Sen. John Cornyn, who placed a hold on the nominee until he gets a chance to hear his views one-on-one.

By Kelley Beaucar Vlahos
FOXNews.com
Tuesday, July 21, 2009


WASHINGTON -- President Obama's nominee for "regulatory czar" has hit a new snag in his Senate confirmation process -- a "hold" by Texas Sen. John Cornyn, who's says he's not convinced that Harvard professor Cass Sunstein won't push a radical animal rights agenda, including new restrictions on agriculture and even hunting.

Senators are permitted "holds" to prevent a vote on a nominee from coming to the floor. They are often secretive and for very specific reasons.

"Sen. Cornyn finds numerous aspects of Mr. Sunstein's record troubling, specifically the fact that he wants to establish legal 'rights' for livestock, wildlife and pets, which would enable animals to file lawsuits in American courts," the Republican's spokesman, Kevin McLaughlin, said in a statement to FOXNews.com.*

Cornyn's hold on Sunstein comes just as Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., last week lifted his own hold on the nominee, whom Obama tapped in April to become the administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the Office of Budget and Management.

Chambliss said he was dropping his hold because Sunstein had convinced him that he "would not take any steps to promote litigation on behalf of animals," and that he believes the "Second Amendment creates an individual right to possess guns for purposes of both hunting and self defense."

Both statements were included in a letter Sunstein sent to Chambliss on July 14.

...

One of Sunstein's top jobs would be to review and provide guidance for draft federal regulations at different federal agencies. It is a wide-ranging and largely unrestrained position in the executive branch.

That's a large part of the reason Sunstein's positions on animal rights have become worrisome to his critics. Despite his assurances to the contrary, Sunstein has spoken stridently in favor of allowing people the right to bring suit on behalf of animals in animal cruelty cases and to restrict what he calls the more horrific practices associated with industrial breeding and processing of animals for food.

...


* Finies les courses d'escargots!

L'Iran essayerait de developper une arme nucleaire et personne ne le savait?



US 'ready to boost Gulf defence'

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says the US is prepared to bolster Gulf allies' defences if Iran develops nuclear arms.

j'en parlais l'autre jour (Biloulou , vous me suivez? - j'espere en plus que vous n'etes pas le seul - quelle vaine, je fais! ): Bon, donc, ca y est les Americains commencent a comprendre ce que le programme d'assurance federale propose par les Democrates et soutenu par NP (qui, il doit l'avouer n'est pas tres au courant de tous les paragraphes, mais bon...) contient reellement.

Evidemment, les anti-avortements ne sont pas contents.

Attendez que les + de 65 ans realisent que leur assurance medicale va etre donnee a quelqu'un d'autre

(Medicare sera selon ce plan, la responsabilite des etats - c'est pas beau ca? comme ca NP peut dire que tout le monde sera couvert, sauf que, sauf que les etats qui n'auront pas les fonds ne pourront pas "offrir" de securite aux malades du troisieme et du quatrieme age)

et que meme s'ils peuvent se permettre de continuer a payer les primes d'une assurance privee - qui sera tout-de-meme doublee au minimum (ben oui, la pluspart des assures passant sur l'assurance federale, ceux qui restent auront a combler le trou), les compagnies d'assurance seront sur le bord de la faillit,

entre autres....

Abortion roils already tense health debate

A coalition of anti-abortion groups is set to open a new front against Democrats’ efforts to restructure American health care, claiming the plans open a back door to publicly financed abortions.

The groups, which are launching a broad campaign on the issue this week, claim that existing health care proposals constitute a stealth “abortion mandate” that will spend taxpayer money on abortions and require insurance companies to cover abortions — allegations that health care reform supporters call misleading.

“President Obama keeps on talking about common ground, and there is really, really common ground on funding issues,” said Charmaine Yoest, president of Americans United for Life, the group organizing the planned three-week campaign on the issue. “Almost no one wants to fund abortion, regardless of their position on abortion as a whole.”

Yoest’s group plans to release a letter to Barack Obama on Thursday in which it cites, according to its reading of proposed legislation, “our belief that the bills are intended to include abortion.”

The noisy, contentious health care debate — which has grown pointedly acrimonious in recent days — has proceeded largely without reference to abortion. But the decision of these high-profile conservative groups to launch the new campaign under the rubric “Stop the Abortion Mandate” may change that and provide a new obstacle to the reform legislation.

...

updated 8 minutes ago

Historic eclipse plunges Asia into darkness

The longest solar eclipse of the century cast a wide shadow for several minutes over Asia and the Pacific Ocean Wednesday, luring throngs of people outside to watch the celestial spectacle. Day turned into night. Temperatures turned cooler in cities and villages teeming with amateur stargazers. full story

Ou comme l'a dit Larry King, ..... l'Asie et meme l'Inde...

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

07/22/2009	-6	29%	35%	51%	47%
07/21/2009	-5	29%	34%	51%	47%
07/20/2009	-7	30%	37%	50%	49%

aussi:

Saturday, July 18, 2009

Sixty-one percent (61%) of voters nationwide say that cost is the biggest health care problem facing the nation today.* The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 21% believe the lack of universal health insurance coverage is a bigger problem.

Only 10% believe the quality of care is the top concern, and two percent (2%) point to the inconvenience factor of dealing with the current medical system.

Given a choice between health care reform and a tax hike or no health care reform and no tax hike, 47% would prefer to avoid the tax hike and do without reform. Forty-one percent (41%) take the opposite view.

* Or avec le programme des Democrates et soutenu a fond par NP (meme si certains paragraphes ne lui sont pas familiers., le cout sera bien plus eleve encore

(During the call, a blogger from Maine said he kept running into an Investors Business Daily article that claimed Section 102 of the House health legislation would outlaw private insurance. He asked: “Is this true? Will people be able to keep their insurance and will insurers be able to write new policies even though H.R. 3200 is passed?” President Obama replied: “You know, I have to say that I am not familiar with the provision you are talking about.” (quote begins at 17:10))

Aaaah! si Bush etc.. etc..

Enfin bon, il n'y a quand meme que ceux qui sont contre le projet de loi qui osent y faire reference..

Pour Tous et pour Eddie en particulier (sans le commander)

Obama Just Made Us More Vulnerable... Again

In Word War I Eddie Rickenbacker downed 26 enemy planes. In Word War II Richard Bong notched 40 while Francis Gabreski killed 34 across World War II and Korea. In contrast, when Cesar Rodriguez retired from the Air Force two years ago, his three-air-to-air kills (two over Iraq in 1991 and one over Kosovo) were the most of any American fighter pilot on active duty. The steep decline in these numbers is no accident. They are the residue of a purposeful strategy to avoid war through unquestioned strength. As Ronald Reagan told the Republican National Convention in Dallas in 1984: “There are some who’ve forgotten why we have a military.

"There are some who’ve forgotten why we have a military. It’s not to promote war; it’s to be prepared for peace.”

Yesterday the Obama administration significantly undercut our strength by killing production of the Air Force’s best fighter: the F-22. For Obama, the victory was purely symbolic. While he sends our nation spiraling into trillions of new debt, his $1.75 billion in savings by cutting the F-22 amounts to a third of one percent of the overall 2010 defense budget. So if killing the F-22 was not about savings, what was the motivation? The New York Times reports: “Senate aides said that some Democrats who otherwise might have voted for more planes sided with the President out of concern that a loss could have hurt him in the fight for health care reform.” *

So at what cost to our national security did Obama trade political momentum for his domestic initiatives? Russia is expanding its fighter forces more than at any other time since the end of the Cold War. The Russians plan to field 300 Su-Fullback strike aircraft by 2022 and an additional 300 Sukhoi Pak fifth-generation fighters. Meanwhile, China has ordered an estimated 76 Su-30MKK Flanker-Gs and can produce an additional 250 under license, including at least 100 “knock-down kits” to be assembled in China. If China modernizes its 171 Su-27SK/UBs to the Su-27SKM standard and assembles another 105 Su-27SKMs under license, it will have roughly 626 multi-role fighters available for air superiority missions. This would place China in the same league as the U.S., which has 522 F-15A/B/C/Ds, 217 F-15Es, and a planned end strength of 186 F-22s.

* Article poste hier a ce sujet.

Aujourd'hui, Le New York Times, voyait la situation ainsi:

...

WASHINGTON — Six months into his administration, President Obama is at a pivotal moment. He has pushed through a $787 billion economic stimulus package, bailed out Wall Street and, on Tuesday, managed to beat the defense industry in the Senate, which voted to kill a high-profile fighter jet program.

...

Apparemment, il est devenu interdit de douter egalement, a moins de se voir qualifie de dingue!

Lorsqu'il s'agit de Matthews, on a le droit de se demander qui est le plus fou. (C'est lui qui a des frissons qui lui montent le long de la jambe quand NP cause!!!)

'Hardball' on President Obama's birthplace
By ALEX ISENSTADT | 7/21/09 8:40 PM EDT


The on-again, off-again debate over whether Barack Obama was born in the United States is, well, on again.


Just a few days after an angry protester, waving a birth certificate, confronted Rep. Mike Castle (R-Del.) over Obama’s origins, California Rep. John Campbell took to MSNBC’s "Hardball" to promote his bill requiring presidential candidates to submit copies of their birth certificates.

But it didn’t take long for the interview to turn to questions about whether Campbell believed Obama himself was American-born.


“What is going on that so many Americans doubt the obvious*, that Barack Obama is a citizen, to the point that you felt it necessary to co-sponsor this crazy proposal?” host Chris Matthews asked Campbell.

Campbell didn’t respond directly, saying that his proposal was “only looking forward.”

“It`s 2012 and beyond,” he said.


That wasn’t enough for Matthews, who pressed on — and accused Campbell of trying to appease “the nutcases” while holding up a copy of Obama’s birth certificate.

But Campbell only gave another non-answer, saying, “Don`t you think anybody that who runs for president should — wouldn`t you want to know that, that they meet those requirements before they run? What`s wrong with that?”


Determined, Matthews responded: “Do you have any doubts, Congressman, about the authentic native birth in this country of our president? Do you have any doubts?”

Campbell: “Chris, my — it doesn`t matter whether I have doubts or not.”


Matthews: “Do you have any doubts?”

Campbell: “It doesn`t matter at all.”


After Matthews accused Campbell’s bill of “feeding the wacko wing of your party,” the Californian budged — if only slightly.


Asked if he thought Obama was “a legitimate native-born American or not,” Campbell responded: “As far as I know, yes, OK?”

* en quoi est-ce evident? Lou Dobbs de CNN a-t-il tellement tort en disant, ou est le probleme? il montre son acte de naissance et c'est fini, ca eviterait tout ce tumulte.

At big moment, President Obama goes small
By BEN SMITH | 7/23/09 12:00 AM EDT


President Barack Obama came alive about 50 minutes into Wednesday night’s news conference – when somebody finally changed the subject.

The president’s remarks on his chosen subject, health care, were cautious and choreographed, hemmed in on one side by the calculations of his professional wordsmiths, on the other by the delicacy of negotiations with two houses of Congress.

He never detailed his own plan, or named a single victim of America’s broken system, and he spoke largely in the abstractions of blue pills, red pills, and legislative processes. It’s not easy to turn delivery system reform into a rallying cry for change, but at times, it was as if Obama wasn’t even trying.

His dryness was all the more striking by contrast with the press conference’s conclusion, when he suddenly re-engaged with a question that he’s spent much of his life mulling, race, in the form of the arrest of a black Harvard professor.

The appearance was striking by its absence of a move that’s long characterized Obama’s political career: When in trouble, go big. Faced with a crisis of confidence or with a political furor, he’s repeatedly shown an ability to rise above the storm, and to broaden the playing field, as when he turned a flap over his pastor into a meditation on race in America.

Now, facing his hardest test as President, Obama chose to go small.

In the bulk of the news conference, the president marched through a series of parries and recalibrations in his effort to steer a change in America’s health insurance system to passage this year. His goals were transparent, and defensive: He sought to reframe his plans as a matter of improving the lives of most Americans, not just rescuing the uninsured, and to remind voters that he’s trying to avert a health care crisis, not to provoke one.

And after a campaign that culminated with his call for “a new spirit of sacrifice,” Obama was at pains to claim that the only sacrifices would be unneeded tests and procedures.

Under his plan Americans are “going to have to give up paying for things that don’t make them healthier – and speaking as an American I think that’s the kind of change you want,” Obama said.

Though the press conference will not stand as a model of inspiration, it proceeded largely on the president’s terms. The press cooperatively devoted all but two questions to the White House’s chosen topic, health care, and Obama repeatedly tried to focus the country’s attention on the urgency of the need for health care legislation this year.

“The stars are aligned and we need to take advantage of that,” Obama said.

And the stars seemed similarly to have aligned for a classic Obama tour de force Wednesday night, with an issue poised at its tipping point and ready to be pushed past it.

Despite worrying signs -- a slowing timetable, dipping poll numbers, and a growing sense of uncertainty – Obama stepped to the podium as his allies seemed to be retaking the initiative in the battle for a large-scale change to the way America pays for health care. His administration reached a tentative agreement Tuesday with conservative Democrats to create a commission with enhanced powers to rein in Medicare spending. And the White House political arm had found a groove in attacks on Republicans for boastful, macho talk about “breaking” the president and “killing” his bill – rather than helping American families stay healthy. (“You haven't seen me out there blaming the Republicans,” Obama said, despite his party’s full-throated attempts to do just that.)

But instead of shaking the rafters, he spent most of his hour just checking rhetorical boxes, with language so poll-tested and focus-grouped, it was bleached of life.


“Health care reform,” for instance, became “health insurance reform” – a formula that steers away from unsettling suggestions that the government will disrupt Americans’ relations with beloved family doctors, rather than equalizing relations with hated insurance companies.

The plan’s central goal, Obama stressed, was not making health care universal, as is often heard on Capitol Hill – it’s making it universally better.

“I realize that with all the charges and criticisms being thrown around in Washington, many Americans may be wondering, ‘What's in this for me? How does my family stand to benefit from health insurance reform?’” Obama said in his prepared remarks. He explained that his plan will offer “more security and more stability,” leaving existing coverage in place, but allow individuals to switch jobs and companies to find affordable insurance for workers.

...

Ils seront obliges de passer a l'assurance federale!

MOMS IN GROUP THERAPY

A psychiatrist was conducting a group therapy session with four young
mothers and their small children. "You all have obsessions," he observed.
To the first mother, Mary, he said, "You are obsessed with eating.You've even named your daughter Candy."
He turned to the second Mom, Ann: "Your obsession is with money.
Again, it manifests itself in your child's name, Penny."
He turned to the third Mom, Joyce: "Your obsession is alcohol. This too shows itself in your child's name, Brandy."
At this point, the fourth mother, Kathy, quietly got up, took her
little boy by the hand, and whispered, "Come on, Dick, this guy has no
idea what he's talking about. Let's pick up Peter and Willy from
school and go get dinner.

Well put!!!

McConnell: Obama 'tampering'


After a week where Democrats accused Republicans of playing politics with the health-care debate, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell fired back today, suggesting that President Obama was trying to influence the independent Congressional Budget Office.

In a Wednesday news conference, McConnell took aim at Obama for inviting CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf to the White House for a meeting earlier this week.

“It strikes me as somewhat akin to the owner of the team asking the umpires to come up to the owner's box. I mean, if the CBO is to have credibility, they're the umpire. They're not players in this game,” McConnell told reporters.

“And I don't think we ought to be tampering with an organization that is arguably controlled by the majority here in Congress but, nevertheless, tries to function as an independent arbiter, an estimator of the cost of what we do,” McConnell added.

McConnell lobbed the charge just hours before President Obama was set to deliver a primetime news conference to hawk his health care plan.

Elmendorf has been something of a thorn in the side of the White House in its push for health care reform. Last week, he unveiled budget estimates showing the health care reform plan in Congress costing more than the projections put forward by Democrats.

And in June, the CBO estimated that a bill being put together by the Senate HELP committee would add $1 trillion to the federal deficit.

... l'a-t-il reellement bien compris, lui-meme, en dehors des articles qui ne lui sont pas familiers, bien sur?

Il serait temps que les Tours Eiffel de Las Vegas, ToKyo, Orlando soit egalement descendues avec pertes et fracas!

In a Mermaid Statue, Danes Find Something Rotten in State of Michigan

Small Town's Ode to Ethnic Culture Draws Call From 'the Art Police' Over Licensing
By TIMOTHY AEPPEL

GREENVILLE, Mich. -- This town's statue of Hans Christian Andersen's "Little Mermaid" is a symbol of its proud Danish heritage. Now some are saying she doesn't have permission to be in the country.
Nobody disputes the sculpture -- installed in 1994 as part of Greenville's annual Danish Festival -- was inspired by the famous one in Copenhagen.
Agence France-Presse/Getty Images

The original in Copenhagen's harbor draws about 1.5 million visitors a year.



The problem is that this ode to the old country allegedly infringes the copyright of Danish artist Edvard Eriksen. In May, just as preparations for this year's Danish-themed festivities were getting under way, the town got a letter from the Artists Rights Society -- a New York-based organization that enforces copyrights on behalf of artists, including Andy Warhol and Picasso. The letter said that the statue is an "unauthorized reproduction" and had to come down. If not, the town would have to pay a licensing fee.
...