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.
Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 6/7/2009, 08:44
Rappel du premier message :
Bonjour Biloulou
Il me semblait que cette nouvelle plairait!
Auteur
Message
Invité Invité
Sujet: 1874 - 25/1/2010, 14:41
At Least 11 Killed in Series of Baghdad Hotel Blasts
Monday, January 25, 2010
BAGHDAD — DEVELOPING: Iraqi police say three blasts have struck near three hotels in downtown Baghdad, killing at least 11 people.
Spoiler:
The officials say the blasts wounded at least 20 people.
The first blast struck at about 3:40 p.m. near the Sheraton Hotel along Abu Nawas Street, just across the Tigris River from the Green Zone.
The officials say two others struck near the Babylon Hotel and al-Hamra Hotel, which is popular with Western journalists.
The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the media.
This is a developing story. Refresh page for updates.
OmbreBlanche
Nombre de messages : 11154 Age : 51 Localisation : Nord Franche-Comté (25) Date d'inscription : 16/11/2008
Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 25/1/2010, 14:48
Citation :
Obama to announce aid for middle class.
Previewing key elements of his State of the Union address, President Barack Obama is announcing on Monday a series of initiatives aimed at calming some of the economic fears of struggling middle class families.
The proposals to be unveiled by Obama and Vice President Joe Biden at the White House, and which the president will push in his Wednesday night speech, include a doubling of the child care tax credit for families earning under $85,000; an increase in federal funding for child care programs of $1.6 billion; capping student loan payments to 10 percent of income above "a basic living allowance;" expanding tax credits to match retirement savings; and increasing aid for families taking care of elderly relatives. The plan would also require all employers to provide the option of a workplace-based retirement savings plan.
read more here
Invité Invité
Sujet: 1876 - Un nouveau bol d'air frais! 25/1/2010, 16:00
Breath in - Breath out!
Faites ce qu'on vous dit pas ce que nous ferons. Qui a oublie les attaques incessantes contre Bush 43 au sujet de Haliburton et les promesses electorales du POTUS d'agir differemment?
Obama Administration Steers Lucrative No-Bid Contract for Afghan Work to Dem Donor
By James Rosen
- FOXNews.com
The Obama administration this month awarded a $25 million federal contract for work in Afghanistan to a company owned by a prominent Democratic campaign contributor without entertaining competitive bids, Fox News has learned.
Spoiler:
Despite President Obama's long history of criticizing the Bush administration for "sweetheart deals" with favored contractors, the Obama administration this month awarded a $25 million federal contract for work in Afghanistan to a company owned by a Democratic campaign contributor without entertaining competitive bids, Fox News has learned.
The contract, awarded on Jan. 4 to Checchi & Company Consulting, Inc., a Washington-based firm owned by economist and Democratic donor Vincent V. Checchi, will pay the firm $24,673,427 to provide "rule of law stabilization services" in war-torn Afghanistan.
A synopsis of the contract published on the USAID Web site says Checchi & Company will "train the next generation of legal professionals" throughout the Afghan provinces and thereby "develop the capacity of Afghanistan's justice system to be accessible, reliable, and fair."
The legality of the arrangement as a "sole source," or no-bid, contract was made possible by virtue of a waiver signed by the USAID administrator. "They cancelled the open bid on this when they came to power earlier this year," a source familiar with the federal contracting process told Fox News.
"That's kind of weird," said another source, who has worked on "rule of law" issues in both Afghanistan and Iraq, about the no-bid contract to Checchi & Company. "There's lots of companies and non-governmental organizations that do this sort of work."
Contacted by Fox News, Checchi confirmed that his company had indeed received the nearly $25 million contract but declined to say why it had been awarded on a no-bid basis, referring a reporter to USAID.
Asked if he or his firm had been aware that the contract was awarded without competitive bids, Checchi replied: "After it was awarded to us, sure. Before, we had no idea."
He declined to answer further questions, however, and again referred Fox News to USAID, saying: "I don't want to speak for the U.S. government."
Asked about the contract, USAID Acting Press Director Harry Edwards at first suggested his office would be too "busy" to comment on it. "I'll tell it to the people in Haiti," Edwards snapped when a Fox News reporter indicated the story would soon be made public. The USAID press office did not respond further.
Rep. Darryl Issa, R-Calif., the ranking Republican on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said Fox News' reporting on the no-bid contract in this case "disturbed" him.
Issa has written to USAID Administrator Rajiv Shah requesting that the agency "produce all documents related to the Checchi contract" on or before Feb. 5. Citing the waiver that enabled USAID to award the contract on a no-bid basis, Issa noted that the exemption was intended to speed up the provision of services in a crisis environment.
Yet "on its face," wrote Issa to Shah, "the consulting contract awarded to Checchi to support the Afghan justice system does not appear to be so urgent or attendant to an immediate need so as to justify such a waiver."
Corporate rivals of Checchi were reluctant to speak on the record about the no-bid contract awarded to his firm because they feared possible retribution by the Obama administration in the awarding of future contracts.
"We don't want to be blackballed," said the managing partner of a consulting firm that has won similar contracts. "You've got to be careful. We're dealing here with people and offices that we depend on for our business."
Still, the rival executive confirmed that open bidding on USAID's lucrative Afghanistan "rule of law" contract was abruptly revoked by the agency earlier this year.
"It's a mystery to us," the managing partner said. "We were going to bid on it. The solicitation (for bids) got pulled back, and we do not know why. We may never know why. These are things that we, as companies doing business with the government, have to put up with."
As a candidate for president in 2008, then-Sen. Obama frequently derided the Bush administration for the awarding of federal contracts without competitive bidding.
"I will finally end the abuse of no-bid contracts once and for all," the senator told a Grand Rapids audience on Oct. 2. "The days of sweetheart deals for Halliburton will be over when I'm in the White House."
Those remarks echoed an earlier occasion, during a candidates' debate in Austin, Texas on Feb. 21, when Mr. Obama vowed to upgrade the government's online databases listing federal contracts.
"If (the American people) see a bridge to nowhere being built, they know where it's going and who sponsored it," he said to audience laughter, "and if they see a no-bid contract going to Halliburton, they can check that out too."
Less than two months after he was sworn into office, President Obama signed a memorandum that he claimed would "dramatically reform the way we do business on contracts across the entire government."
Flanked by aides and lawmakers at the Dwight D. Eisenhower Executive Office Building on March 4, Obama vowed to "end unnecessary no-bid and cost-plus contracts," adding: "In some cases, contracts are awarded without competition….And that's completely unacceptable."
The March 4 memorandum directed the Office of Management and Budget to "maximize the use of full and open competition" in the awarding of federal contracts.
Federal campaign records show Checchi has been a frequent contributor to liberal and Democratic causes and candidates in recent years, including to Obama's presidential campaign.
The records show Checchi has given at least $6,600 to Obama dating back to March 2007. The contractor has also made donations to various arms of the Democratic National Committee, to liberal activist groups like MoveOn.org and ActBlue, and to other party politicians like Sen. John F. Kerry, former presidential candidate John Edwards and former Connecticut Senate candidate Ned Lamont.
Sources confirmed to Fox News that Checchi & Company is but one of a number of private firms capable of performing the work in Afghanistan for which USAID retained it.
For example, DPK Consulting, based in San Francisco and with offices in Washington, D.C. and elsewhere, states on its website that it has contracted with USAID and other federal agencies on more than 600 projects involving "governance and institutional development" across five continents.
Among DPK's most recent projects are the establishment of a new public prosecutor's office in Jenin, in the troubled West Bank area of the Palestinian Authority, and the improvement of court facilities in the Kyrgyz Republic in Central Asia. Similarly, BlueLaw International, based in Virginia, was awarded a $100 million contract by the State Department in April 2008 to strengthen the "rule of law" in Iraq.
Although Obama suggested in his remarks on March 4 that he hoped particularly to address problems associated with defense contracting, an Associated Press analysis last July found that the Defense Department frequently awards no-bid contracts under the aegis of the $787 billion stimulus program, and often at higher expense to U.S. taxpayers.
According to The AP, more than $242 million in federal contracts, or roughly a quarter of the Pentagon's contract stimulus spending, was awarded through no-bid contracts. And while procurement officers say competitive bidding can actually cost the taxpayers more -- because it involves delays and can thereby subject pricing for services and equipment to inflation --the AP analysis found that defense-related stimulus contracts awarded after competitive bidding saved the Pentagon $34 million, compared with $4.4 million when no bidding was involved.
Figures kept by OMB Watch, a non-profit research and advocacy group that tracks federal spending, show that no-bid contracts have been common under administrations controlled by both parties.
During fiscal years 2000 and 2001, for example, when Bill Clinton was president, as much as $139.2 billion in federal contracts was awarded without competitive bidding. The OMB Watch figures show that the practice appears to have accelerated sharply during the Bush administration, but the figures are not adjusted for inflation.
Click here to read the contract award.
Click here to read Rep. Issa's letter to USAID.
Invité Invité
Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 26/1/2010, 09:35
On comprend mieux pourquoi le POTUS etait particulierement fache au sujet de la defaite Democrate aux elections du MA. en plus du desastre politique qu'elle a cause et continue de causer, "Il" ne saura jamais si elle aurait pu etre evitee...
On apprend en effet maintenant que Coakley avait demande un soutien financier au parti Democrate et a la Maison Blanche pour pouvoir effectuer des sondages, ce qui lui fut refuse. "elle n'en avait pas besoin (l'election etait dans la poche) quelle arrogance tant de la part de la candidate que de son parti.
et d'autres petites choses que vous ne lirez nulle part ailleurs.
Political Grapvine: 1/25
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 26/1/2010, 09:53
Sylvette a écrit:
On comprend mieux pourquoi le POTUS etait particulierement fache au sujet de la defaite Democrate aux elections du MA. en plus du desastre politique qu'elle a cause et continue de causer, "Il" ne saura jamais si elle aurait pu etre evitee...
On apprend en effet maintenant que Coakley avait demande un soutien financier au parti Democrate et a la Maison Blanche pour pouvoir effectuer des sondages, ce qui lui fut refuse. "elle n'en avait pas besoin (l'election etait dans la poche) quelle arrogance tant de la part de la candidate que de son parti.
et d'autres petites choses que vous ne lirez nulle part ailleurs.
Political Grapvine: 1/25
Mais, mais, je ne veux pas lire ailleurs, je veux vous lire
Invité Invité
Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 26/1/2010, 10:02
roooo petit demagogue, va!
Mon vote demeurera secret!!!
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 26/1/2010, 11:26
Sylvette a écrit:
roooo petit demagogue, va!
Mon vote demeurera secret!!!
Quoi! Vous croyez que j'ai une avancée politique vous concernant
Sachez que vous connaissez mal celui que vous allez élire
Dernière édition par ¥_zed_¥ le 26/1/2010, 11:30, édité 1 fois
Invité Invité
Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 26/1/2010, 12:01
Bon alors normalement je vais serieusement penser a vous, a moins, evidemment, qu'un autre candidat parle apres vous. (comme vous le savez, malheureusement, avec moi, c'est toujours le dernier qui a raison de mon bulletin de vote... )
Invité Invité
Sujet: 1882 - 26/1/2010, 21:49
Il ne sait plus quoi faire pour etre aime a nouveau et meme ca, ca ne marche pas.
Le POTUS se croit toujours en campagne, il n'a pas encore realise qu'il lui fallait gouverner maintenant pour TOUS les Americains pas seulement pour ceux qui l'ont soutenu.
Updated January 26, 2010
Senate Rejects Obama-Backed Task Force on Reducing Deficit AP
The Senate has rejected a plan backed by President Obama to create a bipartisan task force to tackle the deficit this year.
Spoiler:
The special deficit panel would have attempted to produce a plan combining tax cuts and spending curbs that would have been voted on after the midterm elections. But the plan garnered just 53 votes in the 100-member Senate, not enough because 60 votes were required. Anti-tax Republicans joined with Democrats wary of being railroaded into cutting Social Security and Medicare to reject the idea. *
Obama endorsed the idea after being pressed by moderate Democrats. The proposal was an amendment to a $1.9 trillion hike in the government's ability to borrow to finance its operations.
* je ne sais pas ce que les vieux lui ont fait mais il leur en veut!
"Pourquoi se faire operer quand une pillule peut arreter la souffrance!!!!" "Une pillule bleue, une pillule rouge..."
AHHHH si Bush avait dit ca, etc etc etc..
Invité Invité
Sujet: 1883 - 26/1/2010, 21:59
January 24, 2010
Obama Uses Teleprompters During Speech At Elementary School
Video
White House: This morning the President and Secretary of Education Arne Duncan paid a visit to Graham Road Elementary School in Falls Church, Virginia. President Obama was addressing pool reporters.
Invité Invité
Sujet: 1884 - 26/1/2010, 22:16
Au sujet du 1876 (page precedente) et des contrats remis sans appel d'offres a des supporters du POTUS, voila ce qu'il disait pendant sa campagne de l'administration Bush et de Halliburton
Flashback: Obama Promised To End "Abuse Of No-Bid Contracts" On Campaign Trail
VIDEO
From a campaign rally in Grand Rapids, MI on October 2, 2008: "I will finally end the abuse of no-bid contracts once and for all. The days of sweetheart deals for Halliburton and the like will be over when I'm in the White House."
Breath in - Breath out
L'absence de Shansaa me pese.
Dernière édition par Sylvette le 26/1/2010, 22:23, édité 2 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 26/1/2010, 22:17
Sylvette a écrit:
"Pourquoi se faire operer quand une pillule peut arreter la souffrance!!!!" "Une pillule bleue, une pillule rouge..." AHHHH si Bush avait dit ca, etc etc etc..
Ah mais... à moi ça m'intéresse beaucoup, car j'envisage de me faire opérer au pied droit au mois de mars, si je prends une pilule et j'évite l'opération, je préfère, évidemment !
EddieCochran Admin
Nombre de messages : 12768 Age : 64 Localisation : Countat da Nissa Date d'inscription : 03/11/2008
Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 26/1/2010, 22:36
886 -
Citation :
L'absence de Shansaa me pese.
Comme la confidence tourne autour d'une question d'argent vous pouviez sans problème écrire : " L'absence de Shansaa me pèze. " Ça l'engage à rendre la monnaie de la pièce.
Invité Invité
Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 26/1/2010, 22:50
=====
En verite ca ne vous concerne pas, Biloulou, vous auriez encore le droit de vous faire operer, sous le systeme Obama (quoi que vous pourriez peut-etre considerer sauter a cloche-pied pour faire faire des economies, hein! tout de meme!!!)
c'est pour les personnes agees qu'il faut cesser les depenses qui ne servent a rien! (et toc!) la dame vient de lui expliquer que sa mere a vecu 5 annees de plus grace a son operation, mais bon...
On n'a meme pas le sentiment qu'il realise l'enormite de ce qu'il dit!
Invité Invité
Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 26/1/2010, 22:57
La reponse complete:
Lorsqu'il arrivera en fin de vie, il aura tous les soins necessaires, lui, et evidemment payes avec nos deniers.
Invité Invité
Sujet: 1889 - 26/1/2010, 23:25
La gauche s'echauffe!
Ed Schultz curses Robert Gibbs: 'Full of Sh*t'
By ANDY BARR | 1/25/10 1:29 PM EST
MSNBC host Ed Schultz is tearing into Robert Gibbs and the rest of President Barack Obama’s team, telling the White House press secretary that he is “full of sh—.”
Spoiler:
Speaking at the progressive Blue State Bash event at the Minneapolis Convention Center on Saturday, Schultz relayed a combative exchange he had off the air with Gibbs, who last appeared on his program “The Ed Show” on Thursday.
“I know it’s being recorded, but I wasn’t told it was off the record,” Schultz said in a video posted on theuptake.org. “Mr. Gibbs and I had quite the conversation off the air the other night. I’m gonna tell ya, I told him he was full of sh—.”
“I did,” Schultz continued. “And then he gave me the Dick Cheney f-bomb the same way Sen. Leahy got it on the Senate floor. I told Robert Gibbs, I said: ‘And I’m sorry you’re swearing at me, but I’m just trying to help you out. I’m telling you you’re losing your base. Do you understand you’re losing your base?’”
Schultz set a fiery tone in the nearly 20-minute speech that eviscerated the Democratic Party for not listening to its progressive wing.
“We have to get these people who have infiltrated the Democratic progressive movement and get them the hell out,” Schultz boomed. “We are still in an ideological fight for this country.”
The liberal talk show host — who was asked by North Dakota Democrats to run for the Senate seat vacated by Sen. Byron Dorgan’s retirement — implored the audience to hold the Obama administration’s feet to the fire.
“We have to make sure President Obama gets the message: We’re with you, but you have to be with us,” he said. “If we don’t speak up and tell the White House they’re wrong right now, who will do it?”
Schultz also said that despite turning down an opportunity to run for the Senate, he would have used the same aggressive tone on the campaign trail.
“I want all of you to know that I am not running for the United States Senate,” he said. “But I also want you to know that if I did, I’d kick their ass.”
The White House didn’t respond to a request for comment.
Invité Invité
Sujet: 1890 - 26/1/2010, 23:49
WASHINGTON, Jan. 25, 2010
Congress Went to Denmark, You Got the Bill By Sharyl Attkisson
Exclusive: CBS News' Sharyl Attkisson Follows the Money from Copenhagen to the U.S. Taxpayer
(CBS) Thanks to recently filed Congressional expense reports there's new light shed on the Copenhagen Climate Summit in Denmark and how much it cost taxpayers.
Spoiler:
CBS News Investigative correspondent Sharyl Attkisson reports official filings and our own investigation show at least 106 people from the House and Senate attended - spouses, a doctor, a protocol expert and even a photographer.
For 15 Democratic and 6 Republican Congressmen, food and rooms for two nights cost $4,406 tax dollars each. That's $2,200 a day - more than most Americans spend on their monthly mortgage payment.
CBS News asked members of Congress and staff about whether they're mindful that it's public tax dollars they're spending. Many said they had never even seen the bills or the expense reports. Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., is a key climate change player. He went to Copenhagen last year.
Last week, we asked him about the $2,200-a-day bill for room and food.
"I can't believe that," Rep. Waxman said. "I can't believe it, but I don't know."
But his name is in black and white in the expense reports. The group expense report was filed by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. She wouldn't talk about it when our producer tried to ask.
Pelosi's office did offer an explanation for the high room charges. Those who stayed just two nights were charged a six-night minimum at the five-star Marriott. One staffer said, they strongly objected to no avail. You may ask how they'll negotiate a climate treaty, if they can't get a better deal on hotel rooms.
Total hotel, meeting rooms and "a couple" of $1,000-a-night hospitality suites topped $400,000.
Flights weren't cheap, either. Fifty-nine House and Senate staff flew commercial during the Copenhagen rush. They paid government rates -- $5-10,000 each -- totaling $408,064. Add three military jets -- $168,351 just for flight time -- and the bill tops $1.1 million dollars -- not including all the Obama administration officials who attended: well over 60.
In fairness, many attendees told us they did a lot of hard work, and the laid groundwork for a future global treaty.
"It was cold… I was there because I thought it was important for me to be there," Rep. Waxman said. "I didn't look at it as a pleasure trip."
But considering the size of the deficit, and the fact that that no global deal would be reached -- critics question the super-sized U.S. delegation -- more than 165 -- leaving the impression there's dollars to burn. In this case, more than a million.
etc...
Invité Invité
Sujet: 1891 - 27/1/2010, 00:00
Obama’s Credibility Gap By BOB HERBERT Published: January 25, 2010
Who is Barack Obama?
Bob Herbert
Americans are still looking for the answer, and if they don’t get it soon — or if they don’t like the answer — the president’s current political problems will look like a walk in the park.
Spoiler:
Mr. Obama may be personally very appealing, but he has positioned himself all over the political map: the anti-Iraq war candidate who escalated the war in Afghanistan; the opponent of health insurance mandates who made a mandate to buy insurance the centerpiece of his plan; the president who stocked his administration with Wall Street insiders and went to the mat for the banks and big corporations, but who is now trying to present himself as a born-again populist.
Mr. Obama is in danger of being perceived as someone whose rhetoric, however skillful, cannot always be trusted. He is creating a credibility gap for himself, and if it widens much more he won’t be able to close it.
Mr. Obama’s campaign mantra was “change” and most of his supporters took that to mean that he would change the way business was done in Washington and that he would reverse the disastrous economic policies that favored mega-corporations and the very wealthy at the expense of the middle class and the poor.
“Tonight, more Americans are out of work, and more are working harder for less,” said Mr. Obama in his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention in August 2008. “More of you have lost your homes and even more are watching your home values plummet. More of you have cars you can’t afford to drive, credit card bills you can’t afford to pay, and tuition that’s beyond your reach.”
Voters watching the straight-arrow candidate delivering that speech, in the midst of the worst economic crisis since the Depression, would not logically have thought that an obsessive focus on health insurance would trump job creation as the top domestic priority of an Obama administration.
But that’s what happened. Moreover, questions were raised about Mr. Obama’s candor when he spoke about health care. In his acceptance speech, for example, candidate Obama took a verbal shot at John McCain, sharply criticizing him for offering “a health care plan that would actually tax people’s benefits.”
Now Mr. Obama favors a plan that would tax at least some people’s benefits. Mr. Obama also repeatedly said that policyholders who were pleased with their plans and happy with their doctors would be able to keep both under his reform proposals.
Well, that wasn’t necessarily so, as the president eventually acknowledged. There would undoubtedly be changes in some people’s coverage as a result of “reform,” and some of those changes would be substantial. At a forum sponsored by ABC News last summer, Mr. Obama backed off of his frequent promise that no changes would occur, saying only that “if you are happy with your plan, and if you are happy with your doctor, we don’t want you to have to change.”
These less-than-candid instances are emblematic of much bigger problems. Mr. Obama promised during the campaign that he would be a different kind of president, one who would preside over a more open, more high-minded administration that would be far more in touch with the economic needs of ordinary working Americans. But no sooner was he elected than he put together an economic team that would protect, above all, the interests of Wall Street, the pharmaceutical industry, the health insurance companies, and so on.
How can you look out for the interests of working people with Tim Geithner whispering in one ear and Larry Summers in the other?
Now with his poll numbers down and the Democrats’ filibuster-proof margin in the Senate about to vanish, Mr. Obama is trying again to position himself as a champion of the middle class. Suddenly, with the public appalled at the scandalous way the health care legislation was put together, and with Democrats facing a possible debacle in the fall, Mr. Obama is back in campaign mode. Every other utterance is about “fighting” for the middle class, “fighting” for jobs, “fighting” against the big bad banks.
The president who has been aloof and remote and a pushover for the health insurance and pharmaceutical industries, who has been locked in the troubling embrace of the Geithners and Summers and Ben Bernankes of the world, all of a sudden is a man of the people. But even as he is promising to fight for jobs, a very expensive proposition, he’s proposing a spending freeze that can only hurt job-creating efforts.
Mr. Obama will deliver his State of the Union address Wednesday night. The word is that he will offer some small bore assistance to the middle class. But more important than the content of this speech will be whether the president really means what he says. Americans want to know what he stands for, where his line in the sand is, what he’ll really fight for, and where he wants to lead this nation.
Qu'esperent-ils? Le passer quand nous serons occupes a autre chose?
Reid: 'No Rush' On Health Care Jeff Muskus
With Congressional Democrats pivoting to focus on job growth and deficit reduction, there's "no rush" to get health care done as long as it happens sometime this year, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said Tuesday.
Spoiler:
"We're not on health care now. We've talked a lot about it in the past," Reid told reporters following the weekly Senate Democratic caucus lunch. "There are a number of options being discussed.
Anything that we talk about, we have to look at the procedural aspects of that. And I've had a number of meetings with the Speaker, spoken to the White House on several occasions. I'm meeting with the Speaker later tonight in a bicameral meeting -- we'll talk about that. My leadership will go to that with me, we're going to find out how to proceed. But there is no rush. This is a Congress. What we have done lasts for two years. We've just finished our first year."
Falling back on the image of the Senate as a more deliberative body than the House, Reid said delays are the nature of a bicameral legislature, designed by America's founding fathers "to build competition between the chambers." Few members of the Second Continental Congress reflexively used the threat of a filibuster, however.
Earlier Tuesday, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) told reporters that the Senate is a "broken system." Asked to respond, Reid again took the long view.
"I have great affection for Steny, but you can go back over the two and [one] third centuries we've been a country, and House leaders have been saying this about the Senate from the very beginning," Reid said. "I could put in a few comments about how I feel about the House."
et ils ont, pardon, avaient la majorite absolue partout!!!
Vive le CHANGEment!
Invité Invité
Sujet: 1893 - 27/1/2010, 00:41
JANUARY 25, 2010, 11:22 P.M. ET
Bill Clinton's Revenge
The former president casts a shadow over the State of the Union.
He's baaaaack.
When the president enters the House chamber tomorrow night to deliver his maiden State of the Union address, members of Congress, the press, and the public will see Barack Obama at the podium. But they will have Bill Clinton on their minds.
Spoiler:
Specifically they will be thinking of 1995, when a humbled Mr. Clinton addressed a newly Republican Congress after his own health-care proposals went down in flames. Though President Obama's party still holds the majority in both houses, it is a scared majority that has been unnerved by the unpopularity of the president's signature policy issue (health care) and terrified by the loss to Republicans of what they all, with David Gergen, regarded as the "Kennedy seat." So whatever Mr. Obama says tomorrow night, his words will inevitably be compared with the speech Mr. Clinton used to rescue his own presidency.
You see it in the return of words such as "pivot" and "triangulate," all evocative of a Clinton-like shift, in the pre-State of the Union commentary. Even those urging Mr. Obama to come out swinging rather than compromise are forced into a Clinton comparison. Thus the headline over Democratic strategist Robert Shrum's story in the magazine The Week last Friday: "Is this Clinton's Third Term?"
Associated Press
Even for the comeback kid, this is quite a turnaround. Almost two years ago to the day, Bill Clinton was a pariah in polite Democratic society—blamed for his wife's loss in the South Carolina primary, where he had compared Mr. Obama to Jesse Jackson. That followed a similar storm in the New Hampshire primary, where he also created a stir by characterizing Mr. Obama's antiwar credentials as "the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen."
A few days after the South Carolina loss, Sen. Edward Kennedy and his niece Caroline administered what appeared to be the coup de grace by endorsing Mr. Obama. Mr. Clinton must have found it galling to watch Mr. Obama claim the Kennedy inheritance he believed was rightfully his. But Mr. Kennedy didn't stop there, sniping at the Clintons with such lines as "with Barack Obama, we will turn the page on the old politics of misrepresentation and distortion."
Others piled on. It wasn't just that people preferred Mr. Obama to Hillary. The sense was that the Democrats were finally free to purge their party of the Clintons forever. Maureen Dowd captured the mood when she suggested Democrats take their cue from a Dr. Seuss rhyme: "The time has come. The time is now. Just go. I don't care how. You can go by foot. You can go by cow. Will you please go now!"
Yet for all his undeniable weaknesses, Mr. Clinton does seem to understand something that eludes Mr. Obama: In a center-right nation, a liberal doesn't want to get too far ahead of the voters. At times (and HillaryCare was one) Mr. Clinton got himself too far out in front—but when he had, he'd generally been careful to respond by scurrying back to the center and appropriating his opponents' most appealing messages.
That's exactly what he did in 1995, deploying humor and humility with equal effect in his State of the Union. "I know we bit off more than we can chew," he told Congress.
The following year he declared "the era of big government is over." He also reached out to Republicans on policy, embracing everything from welfare reform to the Defense of Marriage Act.
In the process, he learned one thing: In a nation where roughly 20% describe themselves as liberal, 40% as conservative, and 40% as moderate, there's not a high price for shutting out the left. As for history, Mr. Clinton went on to become the only Democrat since FDR to win and serve two full terms as president.
There's no sign that Mr. Obama buys any of this. His team argues, apparently oblivious to the inherent condescension, that no intelligent American could possibly oppose his health-care agenda on substance.
It's all just a big misunderstanding, says the White House. We just need to explain it better—like recasting a second stimulus as a "jobs bill," selling health-care reform as "deficit reduction," and throwing in a lot of speech references to the "middle class."
For his part, Mr. Obama is clear. He says he'd rather be a one-termer than give up on his agenda.
But this State of the Union, with the president's approval ratings sinking, Democrats have to be asking themselves: Do Mr. Obama's chances of getting his agenda through really go up if the congressmen and senators listening to his words come to the conclusion he's a short-timer?
Invité Invité
Sujet: 1894 - 27/1/2010, 00:54
How Obama Can Win Friends and Influence People
Mr. President, what we have here is [i]not a failure to communicate.
January 25, 2010 - by Ruben Navarrette Jr.
After Republican Scott Brown’s impressive and hugely significant victory in the Massachusetts Senate race, I wrote that the one saving grace for Democrats was Republicans. Not all of them drive trucks, and those who reside in Washington tend to be just as clueless, arrogant, and separated from reality as their Democratic counterparts.
Spoiler:
But after President Obama’s post-election interview with ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos, it’s time for me to complete the thought. If those clueless and arrogant Republicans who are separated from reality have a saving grace, it’s Obama.
It wasn’t just the obvious head-scratchers. Does the president really believe that “the same thing that swept Scott Brown into office swept me into office,” in reference to voter anger and frustration? With so many Americans so clearly saying that they want this administration to slow down its agenda, did he really head off in the other direction and say, “I wish we had gotten it done faster”? And does the country’s chief executive really think that it’s not in his job description to “navigate” how Congress goes about tackling one public policy issue or another, when that is exactly what presidents do?
What was really troubling about the interview was where it became even clearer that Obama just doesn’t get it.
Like when he tried to explain his first-year failures by blaming the culture in Washington, a place where “you have to repeat yourself a lot because unfortunately it doesn’t penetrate.”
Mr. President, what we have here is not a failure to communicate. Most of the time, you come through loud and clear. Lawmakers just don’t like what you’re saying and their constituents back home like it even less.
Or when he said that his major deficiency was that he hadn’t been better at “breaking through the noise and speaking directly to the American people in a way that during the campaign you could do.”
What? As president, you can speak directly to the American people any time you want to. But you already know that because, since being sworn in, you’ve held so many televised town halls, press conferences, and major addresses to the nation that, at times, you’ve seemed ubiquitous. You’re on everything but American Idol.
And, finally, there was the moment in the interview when Obama observed: “You know, we have a political culture that has built up over time that has gotten more and more polarized.” He said that he had hoped “that the urgency of the moment would allow us to join together and make common cause.” Then he blamed the impasse on “a strategic decision that was made on the side of the opposition.”
Mr. President, that’s not exactly how you make friends and influence people. If you want to blame the polarization in Washington for not getting more done or not getting your message out, then it might be a good idea to avoid saying and doing things that only serve to make the air more polarized.
The one thing Obama got right was when he told Stephanopoulos that he didn’t believe the president or members of Congress can “simply say we’re going to stand pat and avoid big problems because they’re just too hard politically.”
Absolutely. We send men and women to Washington to represent us, to show leadership, and to tackle hard issues that might earn them a one-way ticket home. We don’t send them to sit on committees, to gorge on perks, and to feel important.
All the more reason that, when you have a seismic event like the recent Massachusetts election, people in both parties should be able to learn the proper lessons from it. In this case, it’s hugely significant that more than 20 percent of Scott Brown’s votes came from Democrats who voted for Obama. There might be a little buyer’s remorse there, or a concern on the part of many that the person they thought they were voting for isn’t the same person now leading the country. Or it may be that, as political strategist Dick Morris put it, the people of Massachusetts were sending a message about the importance of checks and balances. They might still support many parts of Obama’s agenda, but the idea of one-party rule (even when it’s their party) scares the daylights out of them — and with good reason.
Whatever the lessons from the Massachusetts Senate race, and there are probably several to be drawn, they won’t do the White House any good unless the man at the top starts being honest with himself — and the rest of us — about what he is doing wrong and commits himself to doing better. Moving to the center and reaching out to key Republicans would be a good start.
A Buddhist proverb dictates, “When the student is ready, the teacher will appear.” Granted, it was only one interview. But from the sound of it, President Obama isn’t ready.
Pachauri: the real story behind the Glaciergate scandal
Dr Pachauri has rapidly distanced himself from the IPCC's baseless claim about vanishing glaciers. But the scientist who made the claim now works for Pachauri, writes Christopher Booker
By Christopher Booker Published: 5:44PM GMT 23 Jan 2010
Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Photo: STEFAN WERMUTH/REUTERS
I can report a further dramatic twist to what has inevitably been dubbed "Glaciergate" – the international row surrounding the revelation that the latest report on global warming by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) contained a wildly alarmist, unfounded claim about the melting of Himalayan glaciers. Last week, the IPCC, led by its increasingly controversial chairman, Dr Rajendra Pachauri, was forced to issue an unprecedented admission: the statement in its 2007 report that Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035 had no scientific basis, and its inclusion in the report reflected a "poor application" of IPCC procedures.
Spoiler:
What has now come to light, however, is that the scientist from whom this claim originated, Dr Syed Hasnain, has for the past two years been working as a senior employee of The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI), the Delhi-based company of which Dr Pachauri is director-general.
Furthermore, the claim – now disowned by Dr Pachauri as chairman of the IPCC – has helped TERI to win a substantial share of a $500,000 grant from one of America's leading charities, along with a share in a three million euro research study funded by the EU.
At the same time, Dr Pachauri has personally been drawn into a major row with the Indian government, previously among his leading supporters, after he described as "voodoo science" an official report by the country's leading glaciologist, Dr Vijay Raina, which dismissed Dr Hasnain's claims as baseless. Now that the IPCC has disowned the prediction made by his employee, Dr Pachauri has been castigated by India's environment minister, Jairam Ramesh, and called on by Dr Raina to apologise for his "voodoo science" charge. At a stormy Delhi press conference on Thursday, Dr Pachauri was asked whether he intended to resign as chairman of the IPCC – on whose behalf he collected a Nobel Peace Prize two years ago, alongside Al Gore – but he refused to answer questions on this fast-escalating row.
To understand why the future of Himalayan glaciers should arouse such peculiar passion, one must recall why they have long been a central icon in global warming campaigners' propaganda.
Everything that polar bears have been to the West, the ice of the Himalayas has been – and more – to the East. This is because, as Mr Gore emphasised in his Oscar-winning film An Inconvenient Truth, the vast Himalayan ice sheet feeds seven of the world's major river systems, thus helping to provide water to 40 per cent of the world's population.
The IPCC's shock prediction in its 2007 report that the likelihood of the glaciers "disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high" thus had huge impact in India and other Asian countries, and it is precisely this statement that the IPCC has now been forced to disown.
Since this first came to light, many journalists have tried to track down how such an embarrassing error came to be included in the IPCC report, which is still widely touted as the most authoritative single document on global warming. The only researcher who has dug out the full story, however, is my colleague Dr Richard North, who on successive days last week featured prominently on India's leading English-language TV news channel discussing the issue with the two scientists at the heart of the row, Dr Hasnain and Dr Raina.
Until now it has been generally reported that the IPCC based its offending paragraph on an interview Dr Hasnain gave to the New Scientist in June 1999. This was a time when global warming researchers were busy making ever more extravagant claims in the run-up to the IPCC's 2001 report. It was in that year that Dr Michael Mann in America launched on the world his famous "hockey stick" graph, purporting to show that temperatures had risen faster in the late 20th century than ever before in the Earth's history. The graph was made the centrepiece of the IPCC's 2001 report, though it has since been comprehensively discredited.
In fact Dr Hasnain had first made his own controversial claim two months earlier, in a much longer interview with an Indian environmental magazine, Down to Earth, in April 1999. It was the wording of this interview which the IPCC was to quote almost exactly in its 2007 report.
Clearly the IPCC was aware that to cite a little Indian magazine as the reference for such a startling prediction would hardly seem sound scientific practice. But it discovered that Dr Hasnain's slightly later interview with New Scientist had been quoted in a 2005 report by the environmental campaigning group WWF. So it was this, rather oddly, which the IPCC cited as its authority – even though the words it quoted were taken directly from the earlier interview.
But even before the 2007 report was published, it now emerges, the offending claim was challenged, not least by a leading Austrian glaciologist, Dr Georg Kaser, a lead author on the 2007 report. He described Dr Hasnain's prediction of glaciers disappearing by 2035 as "so wrong that it is not even worth dismissing".
The year after the IPCC report was published, however, Dr Hasnain was recruited by Dr Pachauri to head a new glaciology unit at TERI. In a matter of months, TERI was given a share in a $500,000 dollar study of melting Himalayan glaciers funded by a US charity, the Carnegie Corporation. It is clear from Carnegie's database that a key part in winning this contract was played by Dr Hasnain's claim that most glaciers in the region "will vanish within 40 years as a result of global warming".
In May 2009 TERI was also given a share in a three million euro project funded by the EU. Citing the WWF's 2005 report, the EU set up its "High Noon" project to study the impact of melting Himalayan glaciers. It was particularly keen to foster alarm over the Himalayas as a means to win Indian support for action on climate change at last year's Copenhagen conference.
Last November, however, Dr Raina, the country's most senior glaciologist, published a report for the Indian government showing that the rate of retreat of Himalayan glaciers had not increased in the past 50 years and that the IPCC's predictions were recklessly alarmist. This provoked the furious reaction from Dr Pachauri that tarred Dr Raina's report as "arrogant" and "voodoo science".
Only weeks later came the devastating revelation that the IPCC's own prediction had no scientific foundation.
Dr Pachauri's first response to these revelations was to claim that he had "absolutely no responsibility" for the blunder, that it was "the work of independent authors – they're responsible".
But the IPCC's error was so blatant that last week Pachauri and other senior officials had to put out their remarkable statement, admitting that it had been due to a serious system failure.
Even more damaging now, however, will be the revelation that the source of that offending prediction was the man whom Dr Pachauri himself has been employing for two years as the head of his glaciology unit at TERI – and that TERI has won a share in two major research contracts based on a scare over the melting of Himalayan glaciers prominently promoted by the IPCC, using words drawn directly from Dr Hasnain.
This is by no means the first time that the procedures used by the IPCC to compile its 2007 report – the most alarmist so far – have been subjected to trenchant questioning. But no one, it seems, is more embarrassed by "Glaciergate" than Dr Pachauri himself, whose expanding worldwide business connections since he became chairman of the IPCC have recently been the subject of articles in these pages by Dr North and myself.
In view of the IPCC's statement last week, the very evident anger of the Indian government at his dismissal of its expert's report and now the revelation of the part played in this fiasco by a senior member of his own TERI staff, it appears that what we may soon be looking at here is not just "Glaciergate" but "Pachaurigate".
Invité Invité
Sujet: 1896 - Colere chez les elus Democrates 27/1/2010, 09:06
Anger all around for Dem leaders By GLENN THRUSH & JOHN BRESNAHAN | 1/27/10 1:27 AM EST
The anger is most palpable in the House, where Nancy Pelosi and her allies believe President Obama's reluctance to stake his political capital on health care reform in mid-2009 contributed to the near collapse of negotiations now.
President Barack Obama, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will be all smiles as the president arrives at the Capitol for his State of the Union speech Wednesday night, but the happy faces can’t hide relationships that are fraying and fraught.
Spoiler:
The anger is most palpable in the House, where Pelosi and her allies believe Obama’s reluctance to stake his political capital on health care reform in mid-2009 contributed to the near collapse of negotiations now.
But sources say there’s also bad blood between Reid and White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, and relations between Democrats in the House and Democrats in the Senate are hovering between thinly veiled disdain and outright hostility.
In a display of contempt unfathomable in the feel-good days after Obama’s Inauguration, freshman Rep. Dina Titus (D-Nev.) stood up at a meeting with Pelosi last week to declare: “Reid is done; he’s going to lose” in November, according to three people who were in the room.
Titus denied Tuesday evening that she had singled out Reid, but she acknowledged that she said Democrats would be “f—-ed” if they failed to heed the lessons of Massachusetts, where Republican Scott Brown won Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat last week.
House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.), a Pelosi ally, took his shots at the Senate on Fox radio Tuesday, describing the Senate as the “House of Lords” and accusing senators of failing to “understand that those of us that go out there every two years stay in touch with the American people.”
On Tuesday, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) told reporters the legislative process in the Senate is “broken” — prompting Reid to later quip: “I could give you a few comments on how I feel about the House.”
Pelosi and her allies blame the collapsing health reform negotiations, in part, on Obama’s reluctance to sacrifice political capital to seal a final deal in mid-2009. House Democrats also resent that Emanuel and other White House officials forced them to take tough votes on cap and trade and health reform while allowing Reid and Senate Democrats months of fruitless frittering on the details.
“She’s mad at them, but she knows it’s time to move on,” said one Pelosi friend, speaking on condition of anonymity because he wasn’t cleared to speak on her behalf.
In recent days, Pelosi and her team have struck a new, tougher tone with the White House, resisting pressure to quickly accept the Senate’s health bill, even with assurances that it would later be altered. House Democratic leaders were equally unimpressed by Obama’s vow to review his political operation and enlist 2008 campaign manager David Plouffe to help them stave off disaster in the midterm elections.
“I think it’s a careful dance because, obviously, she wants to stay constructive, at least as far as health care,” said a Democratic insider close to the House leaders. “For them to come around and, all of a sudden, order an ‘audit’ of the White House political operation, including the party committees, is laughable. At least they’re starting in the right place because the White House political operation is a disaster. Everybody, including the White House, is acknowledging that.”
Democrats say they’ve been completely focused on the danger of a populist backlash for months.
One retiring Democrat — Rep. Marion Berry of Arkansas — told his local paper that Obama dismissed his concerns in a private meeting by saying the party would avoid a 1994-type debacle because of Obama’s personal popularity.
“The president himself, when that was brought up in one group, said, ‘Well, the big difference here and in ’94 was you’ve got me,’” Berry told the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. “We’re going to see how much difference that makes now.”
Emanuel, several Senate and House aides said, hasn’t been shy about assigning blame, either. He’s been especially critical of moderate senators, including Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.), for wasting months negotiating with Republican senators, such as his friend Chuck Grassley of Iowa.
While shouldering some of the blame for the Massachusetts debacle, Emanuel has reportedly criticized Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Chairman Robert Menendez of New Jersey — and, on occasion, even Reid himself.
Reid and his staff were infuriated when they got word Emanuel was apparently telling associates the majority leader did too little to force Baucus to accelerate his work, according to two people familiar with the situation.
A White House official said that account “couldn’t be further from the truth,” adding that the Emanuel-Reid relationship “couldn’t be closer.”
For their part, Pelosi and Reid remain on good terms personally, aides to both said.
And if there’s any consolation for Obama, Pelosi and Reid, it’s that the bonfire of their expectations seems to illuminate the general path ahead: Dispense with health care as quickly as possible to focus on job creation and deficit reduction.
“They understand that tearing each other down is going to tear the whole party down,” said a senior House Democratic aide.
Biloulou
Nombre de messages : 54566 Localisation : Jardins suspendus sur la Woluwe - Belgique Date d'inscription : 27/10/2008
Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 27/1/2010, 09:08
Vous l'aimez, hein ?
Invité Invité
Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 27/1/2010, 09:11
Rrrohhh ca s'voit tant que ca.
Mais bon, il n'est pas QUE question d'elle dans cet article, loin de la! Pas de jaloux!
Invité Invité
Sujet: 1899 - 27/1/2010, 20:03
Updated January 27, 2010
At Apple Event, Jobs Confirms iPad
By Jeremy A. Kaplan
- FOXNews.com
Apple has unveiled its tablet-like computer --officially called the iPad -- at a Wednesday event in California. How do the rumors compare to the reality?
Spoiler:
Apple's newest gizmo is a multipurpose multimedia device allowing users to watch films, play computer games and surf the Web while on the move. Many analysts also think it could also reshape the way that we read books, newspapers and watch TV.
We have live coverage of the event at the Yerba Buena center in California, where the doors have just opened to the assembled press. Follow us on Twitter and here on FoxNews.com. Stay tuned!
SLIDESHOW: Live from the Apple Tablet Event
WHAT WILL IT DO?
Video: Since iTunes already sells television shows and movies, playing those shows on the iPad's portable screen is a no-brainer. The experience looks super smooth, and apple clams the device will have a 10-hour battery life. But will there be a video subscription service?
Gaming: Apple isconcentrating heavily on the gaming market, a space the company has never broken into effectively. Current ads for the iPod Touch emphasize the device's utility in the gaming market. And gaming will be a big component of the iPad.
Apple invited game developer GameLoft on stage to show off a new first-person shooter called Nova, that the company reportedly built in under two weeks. Apps from the current iTunes store will play on the iPad too, including a few games that Steve showed off during the event, such as Snowcross -- a snowmobiling game. A new SDK will allow developers to take advantage of the device's multi-touch capabilities. These games will doubtless take advantage of the built in accelerometer and networking technologies.
E-Books: The New York Times worked with Apple to develop a new version of the newspaper's iPhone application offering video and optimized for a large-screen tablet device. The company spokesman gushed, "we think we've captured the essence of reading the newspaper. A superior experience in a native application."
The layout appears like a standard newspaper, with tons of added interactivity. There are drop-down contextual menus. There's support for multi-touch functionality. You can change the number of columns, watch videos and slideshows and more.
It's expected that the e-books will be made available on iTunes, just as the company now sells e-books for use on its iPhone and iTouch devices. That means Apple will become a player in the online book industry, where Amazon is already a major player.
Content Creation: Many journalists, focusing on the bright splashes of color in the invitation Apple sent out to journalists, are speculating that Apple's new device will focus on content creation. But what that could be is anyone's guess.
WHAT WILL IT LOOK LIKE?
In design, the tablet looks like an oversized iPhone or iPod Touch, although that analogy implies similar functionality. Apple clearly has more planned for the new tablet.
It comes with a virtual keyboard for interface, and seems to lack the stylus, Bluetooth-based earpiece, can opener, and other accessories that were rumored to be coming. See for yourself in our gallery of images, live from the Apple Tablet event
WHICH CARRIER WILL SUPPORT IT?
The device will come with a 3G Internet connection — meaning that users will be able to connect to the web wherever they are. But which carriers? Apple is in talks with both AT&T and Verizon to support the tablet, according to sources within the companies: One version of the device will run on CDMA networks such as Verizon's, and one will operate on GSM networks like that owned by AT&T.
It also has an 802.11n chip that supports the latest wireless Internet connection.
WHAT WILL IT COST?
There's little question that the device will be expensive. Analysts expect it to come in under $1,000 range, yet it will probably cost more than the iPods and iPhones Apple currently sells. The top of the line iPhone, a 32GB 3GS, sells for $299 with a two-year AT&T contract, and $699 without one. Don't expect the tablet to be any cheaper.
According to the Wall Street Journal, Toni Sacconaghi of Bernstein Research predicts the device likely will sell for at least $750. He said that "meaningful subsidization" through carriers is unlikely, given the challenges such a device might pose for their networks.
And a subsidy deal with a wireless carrier could push that price even lower.
"An unlimited data offering is possible, but would be much more expensive (perhaps $60+ per month), limiting the addressable market of the iSlate [a speculated name for the device]," he wrote in a Jan. 11 report. "Moreover, an unlimited-data plan might still have questionable economics for carriers if subsidies were meaningful."
ANYTHING ELSE I SHOULD KNOW?
The event will likely focus on three projects: The tablet device, iPhone 4, and a new round of iLife 2010 software. While we won't see new iPhone hardware just yet, we will see the next-generation software.
The iLife suite includes content generation software such as GarageBand --which lets you learn to play piano and guitar -- and iMovie -- which helps you to create your own movies.
There's also talk of iTunes moving to a Web-based version, parked at www.itunes.com.
We'll have live coverage of the event, scheduled for 1PM EST on Jan. 27, on Twitter and on FoxNews.com. Stay tuned!
.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.
AHHHH si Bush avait dit ca, etc etc etc.. 
January 25, 2010 - by Ruben Navarrette Jr. 
if they failed to heed the lessons of Massachusetts, where Republican Scott Brown won Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat last week. 
