.gif) Les Cohortes Célestes ont le devoir et le regret de vous informer que Libres Propos est entré en sommeil. Ce forum convivial et sympathique reste uniquement accessible en lecture seule. Prenez plaisir à le consulter.
Merci de votre compréhension. |
|
| | Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise |  |
|
+6Charly Shansaa Alice jam EddieCochran Biloulou 10 participants | |
| Auteur | Message |
|---|
Invité
Invité
| | 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: 1899 - 27/1/2010, 20:03 | |
| Updated January 27, 2010At Apple Event, Jobs Confirms iPadBy 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 EventWHAT 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 eventWHICH 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!
|
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 1900 - State of the Union 28/1/2010, 07:58 | |
| January 27, 2010 Transcript of Obama's First States of the UnionBy President Barack ObamaU.S. House of Representatives
Joint Session of Congress
Washington D.C.Obama: Madame Speaker, Vice President Biden, members of Congress, distinguished guests, and fellow Americans:- Spoiler:
Our Constitution declares that from time to time, the president shall give to Congress information about the state of our union. For 220 years, our leaders have fulfilled this duty. They have done so during periods of prosperity and tranquility. And they have done so in the midst of war and depression; at moments of great strife and great struggle.
It's tempting to look back on these moments and assume that our progress was inevitable -- that America was always destined to succeed. But when the Union was turned back at Bull Run and the Allies first landed at Omaha Beach, victory was very much in doubt. When the market crashed on Black Tuesday and civil rights marchers were beaten on Bloody Sunday, the future was anything but certain. These were times that tested the courage of our convictions, and the strength of our union. And despite all our divisions and disagreements; our hesitations and our fears; America prevailed because we chose to move forward as one nation, as one people.
Again, we are tested. And again, we must answer history's call.
One year ago, I took office amid two wars, an economy rocked by severe recession, a financial system on the verge of collapse, and a government deeply in debt. Experts from across the political spectrum warned that if we did not act, we might face a second depression. So we acted -- immediately and aggressively. And one year later, the worst of the storm has passed.
But the devastation remains. One in 10 Americans still cannot find work. Many businesses have shuttered. Home values have declined. Small towns and rural communities have been hit especially hard. For those who had already known poverty, life has become that much harder.
This recession has also compounded the burdens that America's families have been dealing with for decades -- the burden of working harder and longer for less; of being unable to save enough to retire or help kids with college.
So I know the anxieties that are out there right now. They're not new. These struggles are the reason I ran for president. These struggles are what I've witnessed for years in places like Elkhart, Indiana, and Galesburg, Illinois. I hear about them in the letters that I read each night. The toughest to read are those written by children -- asking why they have to move from their home, or when their mom or dad will be able to go back to work.
For these Americans and so many others, change has not come fast enough. Some are frustrated; some are angry. They don't understand why it seems like bad behavior on Wall Street is rewarded but hard work on Main Street isn't; or why Washington has been unable or unwilling to solve any of our problems. They are tired of the partisanship and the shouting and the pettiness. They know we can't afford it. Not now.
So we face big and difficult challenges. And what the American people hope -- what they deserve -- is for all of us, Democrats and Republicans, to work through our differences; to overcome the numbing weight of our politics. For while the people who sent us here have different backgrounds, different stories and different beliefs, the anxieties they face are the same. The aspirations they hold are shared. A job that pays the bills. A chance to get ahead. Most of all, the ability to give their children a better life.
You know what else they share? They share a stubborn resilience in the face of adversity. After one of the most difficult years in our history, they remain busy building cars and teaching kids; starting businesses and going back to school. They're coaching little league and helping their neighbors. As one woman wrote me, "We are strained but hopeful, struggling but encouraged."
It is because of this spirit -- this great decency and great strength -- that I have never been more hopeful about America's future than I am tonight. Despite our hardships, our union is strong. We do not give up. We do not quit. We do not allow fear or division to break our spirit. In this new decade, it's time the American people get a government that matches their decency; that embodies their strength.
And tonight, I'd like to talk about how together, we can deliver on that promise.
It begins with our economy.
Our most urgent task upon taking office was to shore up the same banks that helped cause this crisis. It was not easy to do. And if there's one thing that has unified Democrats and Republicans, it's that we all hated the bank bailout. I hated it. You hated it. It was about as popular as a root canal.
But when I ran for president, I promised I wouldn't just do what was popular -- I would do what was necessary. And if we had allowed the meltdown of the financial system, unemployment might be double what it is today. More businesses would certainly have closed. More homes would have surely been lost.
So I supported the last administration's efforts to create the financial rescue program. And when we took the program over, we made it more transparent and accountable. As a result, the markets are now stabilized, and we have recovered most of the money we spent on the banks. Most, but not all.
To recover the rest, I have proposed a fee on the biggest banks. I know Wall Street isn't keen on this idea, but if these firms can afford to hand out big bonuses again, they can afford a modest fee to pay back the taxpayers who rescued them in their time of need.
As we stabilized the financial system, we also took steps to get our economy growing again, save as many jobs as possible, and help Americans who had become unemployed.
That's why we extended or increased unemployment benefits for more than 18 million Americans; made health insurance 65 percent cheaper for families who get their coverage through COBRA; and passed 25 different tax cuts.
Let me repeat: We cut taxes. We cut taxes for 95 percent of working families. We cut taxes for small businesses. We cut taxes for first-time homebuyers. We cut taxes for parents trying to care for their children. We cut taxes for 8 million Americans paying for college.
I thought I'd get some applause on that one.
As a result, millions of Americans had more to spend on gas, and food, and other necessities, all of which helped businesses keep more workers. And we haven't raised income taxes by a single dime on a single person. Not a single dime.
Because of the steps we took, there are about 2 million Americans working right now who would otherwise be unemployed. Two-hundred-thousand work in construction and clean energy. Three-hundred-thousand are teachers and other education workers. Tens of thousands are cops, firefighters, correctional officers, and first responders. And we are on track to add another one and a half million jobs to this total by the end of the year.
The plan that has made all of this possible, from the tax cuts to the jobs, is the Recovery Act. That's right -- the Recovery Act, also known as the Stimulus Bill. Economists on the left and the right say that this bill has helped save jobs and avert disaster. But you don't have to take their word for it.
Talk to the small business in Phoenix that will triple its workforce because of the Recovery Act.
Talk to the window manufacturer in Philadelphia who said he used to be skeptical about the Recovery Act, until he had to add two more work shifts just because of the business it created.
Talk to the single teacher raising two kids who was told by her principal in the last week of school that because of the Recovery Act, she wouldn't be laid off after all.
There are stories like this all across America. And after two years of recession, the economy is growing again. Retirement funds have started to gain back some of their value. Businesses are beginning to invest again, and slowly some are starting to hire again.
But I realize that for every success story, there are other stories, of men and women who wake up with the anguish of not knowing where their next paycheck will come from; who send out resumes week after week and hear nothing in response. That is why jobs must be our number one focus in 2010, and that is why I am calling for a new jobs bill tonight.
Now, the true engine of job creation in this country will always be America's businesses. But government can create the conditions necessary for businesses to expand and hire more workers.
We should start where most new jobs do -- in small businesses, companies that begin when an entrepreneur takes a chance on a dream, or a worker decides it's time she became her own boss.
Through sheer grit and determination, these companies have weathered the recession and are ready to grow. But when you talk to small business owners in places like Allentown, Pennsylvania, or Elyria, Ohio, you find out that even though banks on Wall Street are lending again, they are mostly lending to bigger companies. But financing remains difficult for small business owners across the country, even those that are making a profit.
So tonight, I'm proposing that we take $30 billion of the money Wall Street banks have repaid and use it to help community banks give small businesses the credit they need to stay afloat. I am also proposing a new small business tax credit -- one that will go to over one million small businesses who hire new workers or raise wages. While we're at it, let's also eliminate all capital gains taxes on small business investment; and provide a tax incentive for all businesses, large and small, to invest in new plants and equipment.
Next, we can put Americans to work today building the infrastructure of tomorrow. From the first railroads to the interstate highway system, our nation has always been built to compete. There's no reason Europe or China should have the fastest trains, or the new factories that manufacture clean energy products.
Tomorrow, I'll visit Tampa, Florida, where workers will soon break ground on a new high-speed railroad funded by the Recovery Act. There are projects like that all across this country that will create jobs and help our nation move goods, services, and information. We should put more Americans to work building clean energy facilities, and give rebates to Americans who make their homes more energy efficient, which supports clean energy jobs. And to encourage these and other businesses to stay within our borders, it's time to finally slash the tax breaks for companies that ship our jobs overseas and give those tax breaks to companies that create jobs in the United States of America.
The House has passed a jobs bill that includes some of these steps. As the first order of business this year, I urge the Senate to do the same and I know they will. People are out of work. They are hurting. They need our help. And I want a jobs bill on my desk without delay.
But the truth is, these steps won't make up for the 7 million jobs we've lost over the last two years. The only way to move to full employment is to lay a new foundation for long-term economic growth, and finally address the problems that America's families have confronted for years.
We cannot afford another so-called economic "expansion" like the one from last decade -- what some call the "lost decade" -- where jobs grew more slowly than during any prior expansion; where the income of the average American household declined while the cost of health care and tuition reached record highs; where prosperity was built on a housing bubble and financial speculation.
From the day I took office, I have been told that addressing our larger challenges is too ambitious -- that such efforts would be too contentious, that our political system is too gridlocked, and that we should just put things on hold for awhile.
For those who make these claims, I have one simple question:
How long should we wait? How long should America put its future on hold?
You see, Washington has been telling us to wait for decades, even as the problems have grown worse. Meanwhile, China's not waiting to revamp its economy. Germany's not waiting. India's not waiting. These nations aren't standing still. These nations aren't playing for second place. They're putting more emphasis on math and science. They're rebuilding their infrastructure. They are making serious investments in clean energy because they want those jobs.
Well I do not accept second place for the United States of America. As hard as it may be, as uncomfortable and contentious as the debates may become, it's time to get serious about fixing the problems that are hampering our growth.
One place to start is serious financial reform. Look, I am not interested in punishing banks, I'm interested in protecting our economy. A strong, healthy financial market makes it possible for businesses to access credit and create new jobs. It channels the savings of families into investments that raise incomes. But that can only happen if we guard against the same recklessness that nearly brought down our entire economy.
We need to make sure consumers and middle-class families have the information they need to make financial decisions. We can't allow financial institutions, including those that take your deposits, to take risks that threaten the whole economy.
The House has already passed financial reform with many of these changes. And the lobbyists are already trying to kill it. Well, we cannot let them win this fight. And if the bill that ends up on my desk does not meet the test of real reform, I will send it back until we get it right. We've got to get it right.
Next, we need to encourage American innovation. Last year, we made the largest investment in basic research funding in history -- an investment that could lead to the world's cheapest solar cells or treatment that kills cancer cells but leaves healthy ones untouched. And no area is more ripe for such innovation than energy. You can see the results of last year's investment in clean energy -- in the North Carolina company that will create 1200 jobs nationwide helping to make advanced batteries; or in the California business that will put 1,000 people to work making solar panels.
But to create more of these clean energy jobs, we need more production, more efficiency, more incentives. That means building a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country. It means making tough decisions about opening new offshore areas for oil and gas development. It means continued investment in advanced biofuels and clean coal technologies. And yes, it means passing a comprehensive energy and climate bill with incentives that will finally make clean energy the profitable kind of energy in America.
I am grateful to the House for passing such a bill last year. This year, I am eager to help advance the bipartisan effort in the Senate. I know there have been questions about whether we can afford such changes in a tough economy; and I know that there are those who disagree with the overwhelming scientific evidence on climate change. But even if you doubt the evidence, providing incentives for energy efficiency and clean energy are the right thing to do for our future -- because the nation that leads the clean energy economy will be the nation that leads the global economy. And America must be that nation.
Third, we need to export more of our goods. Because the more products we make and sell to other countries, the more jobs we support right here in America. So tonight, we set a new goal: We will double our exports over the next five years, an increase that will support 2 million jobs in America.
To help meet this goal, we're launching a National Export Initiative that will help farmers and small businesses increase their exports, and reform export controls consistent with national security.
We have to seek new markets aggressively, just as our competitors are. If America sits on the sidelines while other nations sign trade deals, we will lose the chance to create jobs on our shores.
But realizing those benefits also means enforcing those agreements so our trading partners play by the rules. And that's why we will continue to shape a Doha trade agreement that opens global markets, and why we will strengthen our trade relations in Asia and with key partners like South Korea, Panama, and Colombia.
Fourth, we need to invest in the skills and education of our people.
This year, we have broken through the stalemate between left and right by launching a national competition to improve our schools. The idea here is simple: instead of rewarding failure, we only reward success. Instead of funding the status quo, we only invest in reform -- reform that raises student achievement, inspires students to excel in math and science, and turns around failing schools that steal the future of too many young Americans, from rural communities to inner-cities.
In the 21st century, one of the best anti-poverty programs is a world-class education. In this country, the success of our children cannot depend more on where they live than their potential.
When we renew the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, we will work with Congress to expand these reforms to all 50 states. Still, in this economy, a high school diploma no longer guarantees a good job. I urge the Senate to follow the House and pass a bill that will revitalize our community colleges, which are a career pathway to the children of so many working families. To make college more affordable, this bill will finally end the unwarranted taxpayer-subsidies that go to banks for student loans. Instead, let's take that money and give families a $10,000 tax credit for four years of college and increase Pell Grants. And let's tell another 1 million students that when they graduate, they will be required to pay only 10 percent of their income on student loans, and all of their debt will be forgiven after 20 years -- and forgiven after 10 years if they choose a career in public service. Because in the United States of America, no one should go broke because they chose to go to college. And it's time for colleges and universities to get serious about cutting their own costs -- because they too have a responsibility to help solve this problem.
Now, the price of college tuition is just one of the burdens facing the middle-class. That's why last year I asked Vice President Biden to chair a task force on middle-class families. That's why we're nearly doubling the child care tax credit, and making it easier to save for retirement by giving every worker access to a retirement account and expanding the tax credit for those who start a nest egg. That's why we're working to lift the value of a family's single largest investment -- their home. The steps we took last year to shore up the housing market have allowed millions of Americans to take out new loans and save an average of $1,500 on mortgage payments. This year, we will step up re-financing so that homeowners can move into more affordable mortgages. And it is precisely to relieve the burden on middle-class families that we still need health insurance reform.
Now let's clear a few things up -- I did not choose to tackle this issue to get some legislative victory under my belt. And by now it should be fairly obvious that I didn't take on health care because it was good politics.
I took on health care because of the stories I've heard from Americans with pre-existing conditions whose lives depend on getting coverage; patients who've been denied coverage; and families -- even those with insurance -- who are just one illness away from financial ruin.
After nearly a century of trying, we are closer than ever to bringing more security to the lives of so many Americans. The approach we've taken would protect every American from the worst practices of the insurance industry. It would give small businesses and uninsured Americans a chance to choose an affordable health care plan in a competitive market. It would require every insurance plan to cover preventive care. And by the way, I want to acknowledge our first lady, Michelle Obama, who this year is creating a national movement to tackle the epidemic of childhood obesity and make kids healthier.
Our approach would preserve the right of Americans who have insurance to keep their doctor and their plan. It would reduce costs and premiums for millions of families and businesses. And according to the Congressional Budget Office -- the independent organization that both parties have cited as the official scorekeeper for Congress -- our approach would bring down the deficit by as much as $1 trillion over the next two decades.
Still, this is a complex issue, and the longer it was debated, the more skeptical people became. I take my share of the blame for not explaining it more clearly to the American people. And I know that with all the lobbying and horse-trading, this process left most Americans wondering "what's in it for me?"
But I also know this problem is not going away. By the time I'm finished speaking tonight, more Americans will have lost their health insurance. Millions will lose it this year. Our deficit will grow.
Premiums will go up. Patients will be denied the care they need. Small business owners will continue to drop coverage altogether. I will not walk away from these Americans, and neither should the people in this chamber.
As temperatures cool, I want everyone to take another look at the plan we've proposed. There's a reason why many doctors, nurses and health care experts who know our system best consider this approach a vast improvement over the status quo. But if anyone from either party has a better approach that will bring down premiums, bring down the deficit, cover the uninsured, strengthen Medicare for seniors and stop insurance company abuses, let me know. Here's what I ask of Congress, though: Do not walk away from reform. Not now. Not when we are so close. Let us find a way to come together and finish the job for the American people.
Now, even as health care reform would reduce our deficit, it's not enough to dig us out of a massive fiscal hole in which we find ourselves. It's a challenge that makes all others that much harder to solve, and one that's been subject to a lot of political posturing.
So let me start the discussion of government spending by setting the record straight. At the beginning of the last decade, America had a budget surplus of over $200 billion. By the time I took office, we had a one year deficit of over $1 trillion and projected deficits of $8 trillion over the next decade. Most of this was the result of not paying for two wars, two tax cuts, and an expensive prescription drug program. On top of that, the effects of the recession put a $3 trillion hole in our budget. That was before I walked in the door.Now if we had taken office in ordinary times, I would have liked nothing more than to start bringing down the deficit. But we took office amid a crisis, and our efforts to prevent a second Depression have added another $1 trillion to our national debt.
I am absolutely convinced that was the right thing to do. But families across the country are tightening their belts and making tough decisions. The federal government should do the same. So tonight, I'm proposing specific steps to pay for the $1 trillion that it took to rescue the economy last year.
Starting in 2011, we are prepared to freeze government spending for three years. Spending related to our national security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will not be affected. But all other discretionary government programs will. Like any cash-strapped family, we will work within a budget to invest in what we need and sacrifice what we don't. And if I have to enforce this discipline by veto, I will.
We will continue to go through the budget line by line to eliminate programs that we can't afford and don't work. We've already identified $20 billion in savings for next year. To help working families, we will extend our middle-class tax cuts. But at a time of record deficits, we will not continue tax cuts for oil companies, investment fund managers, and those making over $250,000 a year. We just can't afford it.
Now, even after paying for what we spent on my watch, we will still face the massive deficit we had when I took office. More importantly, the cost of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will continue to skyrocket. That's why I've called for a bipartisan, Fiscal Commission, modeled on a proposal by Republican Judd Gregg and Democrat Kent Conrad. This can't be one of those Washington gimmicks that lets us pretend we solved a problem. The Commission will have to provide a specific set of solutions by a certain deadline. Yesterday, the Senate blocked a bill that would have created this commission. So I will issue an executive order that will allow us to go forward, because I refuse to pass this problem on to another generation of Americans. And when the vote comes tomorrow, the Senate should restore the pay-as-you-go law that was a big reason why we had record surpluses in the 1990s.
I know that some in my own party will argue that we cannot address the deficit or freeze government spending when so many are still hurting. I agree, which is why this freeze will not take effect until next year, when the economy is stronger. But understand - if we do not take meaningful steps to rein in our debt, it could damage our markets, increase the cost of borrowing, and jeopardize our recovery - all of which could have an even worse effect on our job growth and family incomes.
From some on the right, I expect we'll hear a different argument - that if we just make fewer investments in our people, extend tax cuts for wealthier Americans, eliminate more regulations, and maintain the status quo on health care, our deficits will go away. The problem is, that's what we did for eight years. That's what helped lead us into this crisis. It's what helped lead to these deficits. And we cannot do it again.
Rather than fight the same tired battles that have dominated Washington for decades, it's time to try something new. Let's invest in our people without leaving them a mountain of debt. Let's meet our responsibility to the citizens who sent us here. Let's try common sense.
To do that, we have to recognize that we face more than a deficit of dollars right now. We face a deficit of trust - deep and corrosive doubts about how Washington works that have been growing for years. To close that credibility gap we must take action on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue to end the outsized influence of lobbyists; to do our work openly; and to give our people the government they deserve.
That's what I came to Washington to do. That's why - for the first time in history - my Administration posts our White House visitors online. And that's why we've excluded lobbyists from policy-making jobs or seats on federal boards and commissions.
But we can't stop there. It's time to require lobbyists to disclose each contact they make on behalf of a client with my Administration or Congress. And it's time to put strict limits on the contributions that lobbyists give to candidates for federal office. Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests - including foreign corporations - to spend without limit in our elections. Well I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people, and that's why I'm urging Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to right this wrong.
I'm also calling on Congress to continue down the path of earmark reform. You have trimmed some of this spending and embraced some meaningful change. But restoring the public trust demands more. For example, some members of Congress post some earmark requests online.
Tonight, I'm calling on Congress to publish all earmark requests on a single website before there's a vote so that the American people can see how their money is being spent.
Of course, none of these reforms will even happen if we don't also reform how we work with one another.
Now, I am not naïve. I never thought the mere fact of my election would usher in peace, harmony, and some post-partisan era. I knew that both parties have fed divisions that are deeply entrenched. And on some issues, there are simply philosophical differences that will always cause us to part ways. These disagreements, about the role of government in our lives, about our national priorities and our national security, have been taking place for over two hundred years. They are the very essence of our democracy.
But what frustrates the American people is a Washington where every day is Election Day. We cannot wage a perpetual campaign where the only goal is to see who can get the most embarrassing headlines about their opponent - a belief that if you lose, I win. Neither party should delay or obstruct every single bill just because they can. The confirmation of well-qualified public servants should not be held hostage to the pet projects or grudges of a few individual Senators.
Washington may think that saying anything about the other side, no matter how false, is just part of the game. But it is precisely such politics that has stopped either party from helping the American people. Worse yet, it is sowing further division among our citizens and further distrust in our government.
So no, I will not give up on changing the tone of our politics. I know it's an election year. And after last week, it is clear that campaign fever has come even earlier than usual. But we still need to govern. To Democrats, I would remind you that we still have the largest majority in decades, and the people expect us to solve some problems, not run for the hills. And if the Republican leadership is going to insist that sixty votes in the Senate are required to do any business at all in this town, then the responsibility to govern is now yours as well. Just saying no to everything may be good short-term politics, but it's not leadership. We were sent here to serve our citizens, not our ambitions. So let's show the American people that we can do it together. This week, I'll be addressing a meeting of the House Republicans. And I would like to begin monthly meetings with both the Democratic and Republican leadership. I know you can't wait.
Throughout our history, no issue has united this country more than our security. Sadly, some of the unity we felt after 9/11 has dissipated. We can argue all we want about who's to blame for this, but I am not interested in re-litigating the past. I know that all of us love this country. All of us are committed to its defense. So let's put aside the schoolyard taunts about who is tough. Let's reject the false choice between protecting our people and upholding our values. Let's leave behind the fear and division, and do what it takes to defend our nation and forge a more hopeful future - for America and the world.
That is the work we began last year. Since the day I took office, we have renewed our focus on the terrorists who threaten our nation. We have made substantial investments in our homeland security and disrupted plots that threatened to take American lives. We are filling unacceptable gaps revealed by the failed Christmas attack, with better airline security, and swifter action on our intelligence. We have prohibited torture and strengthened partnerships from the Pacific to South Asia to the Arabian Peninsula. And in the last year, hundreds of Al Qaeda's fighters and affiliates, including many senior leaders, have been captured or killed - far more than in 2008.
In Afghanistan, we are increasing our troops and training Afghan Security Forces so they can begin to take the lead in July of 2011, and our troops can begin to come home. We will reward good governance, reduce corruption, and support the rights of all Afghans - men and women alike. We are joined by allies and partners who have increased their own commitment, and who will come together tomorrow in London to reaffirm our common purpose. There will be difficult days ahead. But I am confident we will succeed.
As we take the fight to al Qaeda, we are responsibly leaving Iraq to its people. As a candidate, I promised that I would end this war, and that is what I am doing as President. We will have all of our combat troops out of Iraq by the end of this August. We will support the Iraqi government as they hold elections, and continue to partner with the Iraqi people to promote regional peace and prosperity. But make no mistake: this war is ending, and all of our troops are coming home.
Tonight, all of our men and women in uniform -- in Iraq, Afghanistan, and around the world - must know that they have our respect, our gratitude, and our full support. And just as they must have the resources they need in war, we all have a responsibility to support them when they come home. That is why we made the largest increase in investments for veterans in decades. That is why we are building a 21st century VA. And that is why Michelle has joined with Jill Biden to forge a national commitment to support military families.
Even as we prosecute two wars, we are also confronting perhaps the greatest danger to the American people - the threat of nuclear weapons. I have embraced the vision of John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan through a strategy that reverses the spread of these weapons, and seeks a world without them. To reduce our stockpiles and launchers, while ensuring our deterrent, the United States and Russia are completing negotiations on the farthest-reaching arms control treaty in nearly two decades. And at April's Nuclear Security Summit, we will bring forty-four nations together behind a clear goal: securing all vulnerable nuclear materials around the world in four years, so that they never fall into the hands of terrorists.
These diplomatic efforts have also strengthened our hand in dealing with those nations that insist on violating international agreements in pursuit of these weapons. That is why North Korea now faces increased isolation, and stronger sanctions - sanctions that are being vigorously enforced. That is why the international community is more united, and the Islamic Republic of Iran is more isolated. And as Iran's leaders continue to ignore their obligations, there should be no doubt: they, too, will face growing consequences.
That is the leadership that we are providing - engagement that advances the common security and prosperity of all people. We are working through the G-20 to sustain a lasting global recovery. We are working with Muslim communities around the world to promote science, education and innovation. We have gone from a bystander to a leader in the fight against climate change. We are helping developing countries to feed themselves, and continuing the fight against HIV/AIDS. And we are launching a new initiative that will give us the capacity to respond faster and more effectively to bio-terrorism or an infectious disease - a plan that will counter threats at home, and strengthen public health abroad.
As we have for over sixty years, America takes these actions because our destiny is connected to those beyond our shores. But we also do it because it is right. That is why, as we meet here tonight, over 10,000 Americans are working with many nations to help the people of Haiti recover and rebuild. That is why we stand with the girl who yearns to go to school in Afghanistan; we support the human rights of the women marching through the streets of Iran; and we advocate for the young man denied a job by corruption in Guinea. For America must always stand on the side of freedom and human dignity.
Abroad, America's greatest source of strength has always been our ideals. The same is true at home. We find unity in our incredible diversity, drawing on the promise enshrined in our Constitution: the notion that we are all created equal, that no matter who you are or what you look like, if you abide by the law you should be protected by it; that if you adhere to our common values you should be treated no different than anyone else.
We must continually renew this promise. My Administration has a Civil Rights Division that is once again prosecuting civil rights violations and employment discrimination. We finally strengthened our laws to protect against crimes driven by hate. This year, I will work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are. We are going to crack down on violations of equal pay laws - so that women get equal pay for an equal day's work. And we should continue the work of fixing our broken immigration system - to secure our borders, enforce our laws, and ensure that everyone who plays by the rules can contribute to our economy and enrich our nations.
In the end, it is our ideals, our values, that built America - values that allowed us to forge a nation made up of immigrants from every corner of the globe; values that drive our citizens still. Every day, Americans meet their responsibilities to their families and their employers. Time and again, they lend a hand to their neighbors and give back to their country. They take pride in their labor, and are generous in spirit. These aren't Republican values or Democratic values they're living by; business values or labor values. They are American values.
Unfortunately, too many of our citizens have lost faith that our biggest institutions - our corporations, our media, and yes, our government - still reflect these same values. Each of these institutions are full of honorable men and women doing important work that helps our country prosper. But each time a CEO rewards himself for failure, or a banker puts the rest of us at risk for his own selfish gain, people's doubts grow. Each time lobbyists game the system or politicians tear each other down instead of lifting this country up, we lose faith. The more that TV pundits reduce serious debates into silly arguments, and big issues into sound bites, our citizens turn away.
No wonder there's so much cynicism out there.
No wonder there's so much disappointment.
I campaigned on the promise of change - change we can believe in, the slogan went. And right now, I know there are many Americans who aren't sure if they still believe we can change - or at least, that I can deliver it.
But remember this - I never suggested that change would be easy, or that I can do it alone. Democracy in a nation of three hundred million people can be noisy and messy and complicated.
And when you try to do big things and make big changes, it stirs passions and controversy. That's just how it is.
Those of us in public office can respond to this reality by playing it safe and avoid telling hard truths. We can do what's necessary to keep our poll numbers high, and get through the next election instead of doing what's best for the next generation.
But I also know this: if people had made that decision fifty years ago or one hundred years ago or two hundred years ago, we wouldn't be here tonight. The only reason we are is because generations of Americans were unafraid to do what was hard; to do what was needed even when success was uncertain; to do what it took to keep the dream of this nation alive for their children and grandchildren.
Our administration has had some political setbacks this year, and some of them were deserved.
But I wake up every day knowing that they are nothing compared to the setbacks that families all across this country have faced this year. And what keeps me going - what keeps me fighting - is that despite all these setbacks, that spirit of determination and optimism - that fundamental decency that has always been at the core of the American people - lives on.
It lives on in the struggling small business owner who wrote to me of his company, "None of us," he said, "...are willing to consider, even slightly, that we might fail."
It lives on in the woman who said that even though she and her neighbors have felt the pain of recession, "We are strong. We are resilient. We are American."
It lives on in the 8-year old boy in Louisiana, who just sent me his allowance and asked if I would give it to the people of Haiti. And it lives on in all the Americans who've dropped everything to go some place they've never been and pull people they've never known from rubble, prompting chants of "U.S.A.! U.S.A.! U.S.A!" when another life was saved.
The spirit that has sustained this nation for more than two centuries lives on in you, its people.
We have finished a difficult year. We have come through a difficult decade. But a new year has come. A new decade stretches before us. We don't quit. I don't quit. Let's seize this moment - to start anew, to carry the dream forward, and to strengthen our union once more.
Thank you. God Bless You. And God Bless the United States of America.
checkTextResizerCookie('article_body');
|
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 1901 - Reponse du GOP 28/1/2010, 08:08 | |
| January 27, 2010 The Republican Response to Obama's State of the Union By Gov. Bob McDonnellGood evening. I'm Bob McDonnell. Eleven days ago I was honored to be sworn in as the 71st governor of Virginia.I'm standing in the historic House Chamber of Virginia's Capitol, a building designed by Virginia's second governor, Thomas Jefferson.- Spoiler:
It's not easy to follow the President of the United States. And my twin 18-year old boys have added to the pressure, by giving me exactly ten minutes to finish before they leave to go watch SportsCenter.
I'm joined by fellow Virginians to share a Republican perspective on how to best address the challenges facing our nation today.
We were encouraged to hear President Obama speak this evening about the need to create jobs.
All Americans should have the opportunity to find and keep meaningful work, and the dignity that comes with it.
Many of us here, and many of you watching, have family or friends who have lost their jobs.
1 in 10 American workers is unemployed. That is unacceptable.
Here in Virginia we have faced our highest unemployment rate in more than 25 years, and bringing new jobs and more opportunities to our citizens is the top priority of my administration.
Good government policy should spur economic growth, and strengthen the private sector's ability to create new jobs.
We must enact policies that promote entrepreneurship and innovation, so America can better compete with the world.
What government should not do is pile on more taxation, regulation, and litigation that kill jobs and hurt the middle class.
It was Thomas Jefferson who called for A wise and frugal Government which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry ....and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned... He was right.
Today, the federal government is simply trying to do too much.
Last year, we were told that massive new federal spending would create more jobs 'immediately' and hold unemployment below 8%.
In the past year, over three million Americans have lost their jobs, yet the Democratic Congress continues deficit spending, adding to the bureaucracy, and increasing the national debt on our children and grandchildren.
The amount of this debt is on pace to double in five years, and triple in ten. The federal debt is already over $100,000 per household.
This is simply unsustainable. The President's partial freeze on discretionary spending is a laudable step, but a small one.
The circumstances of our time demand that we reconsider and restore the proper, limited role of government at every level.
Without reform, the excessive growth of government threatens our very liberty and prosperity.
In recent months, the American people have made clear that they want government leaders to listen and act on the issues most important to them.
We want results, not rhetoric. We want cooperation, not partisanship.
There is much common ground.
All Americans agree, we need a health care system that is affordable, accessible, and high quality.
But most Americans do not want to turn over the best medical care system in the world to the federal government.
Republicans in Congress have offered legislation to reform healthcare, without shifting Medicaid costs to the states, without cutting Medicare, and without raising your taxes.
We will do that by implementing common sense reforms, like letting families and businesses buy health insurance policies across state lines, and ending frivolous lawsuits against doctors and hospitals that drive up the cost of your healthcare.
And our solutions aren't thousand-page bills that no one has fully read, after being crafted behind closed doors with special interests.
In fact, many of our proposals are available online at solutions.gop.gov, and we welcome your ideas on Facebook and Twitter.
All Americans agree, this nation must become more energy independent and secure.
We are blessed here in America with vast natural resources, and we must use them all.
Advances in technology can unleash more natural gas, nuclear, wind, coal, and alternative energy to lower your utility bills.
Here in Virginia, we have the opportunity to be the first state on the East Coast to explore for and produce oil and natural gas offshore.
But this Administration's policies are delaying offshore production, hindering nuclear energy expansion, and seeking to impose job-killing cap and trade energy taxes.
Now is the time to adopt innovative energy policies that create jobs and lower energy prices.
All Americans agree, that a young person needs a world-class education to compete in the global economy. As a kid my dad told me, Son, to get a good job, you need a good education. That's even more true today.
The President and I agree on expanding the number of high-quality charter schools, and rewarding teachers for excellent performance. More school choices for parents and students mean more accountability and greater achievement.
A child's educational opportunity should be determined by her intellect and work ethic, not by her zip code.
All Americans agree, we must maintain a strong national defense. The courage and success of our Armed Forces is allowing us to draw down troop levels in Iraq as that government is increasingly able to step up. My oldest daughter, Jeanine, was an Army platoon leader in Iraq, so I'm personally grateful for the service and the sacrifice of all of our men and women in uniform, and a grateful nation thanks them.
We applaud President Obama's decision to deploy 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan. We agree that victory there is a national security imperative. But we have serious concerns over recent steps the Administration has taken regarding suspected terrorists.
Americans were shocked on Christmas Day to learn of the attempted bombing of a flight to Detroit. This foreign terror suspect was given the same legal rights as a U.S. citizen, and immediately stopped providing critical intelligence.
As Senator-elect Scott Brown says, we should be spending taxpayer dollars to defeat terrorists, not to protect them.
Here at home government must help foster a society in which all our people can use their God-given talents in liberty to pursue the American Dream. Republicans know that government cannot guarantee individual outcomes, but we strongly believe that it must guarantee equality of opportunity for all.
That opportunity exists best in a democracy which promotes free enterprise, economic growth, strong families, and individual achievement.
Many Americans are concerned about this Administration's efforts to exert greater control over car companies, banks, energy and health care.
Over-regulating employers won't create more employment; overtaxing investors won't foster more investment.
Top-down one-size fits all decision making should not replace the personal choices of free people in a free market, nor undermine the proper role of state and local governments in our system of federalism. As our Founders clearly stated, and we Governors understand, government closest to the people governs best.
And no government program can replace the actions of caring Americans freely choosing to help one another. The scriptures say To whom much is given, much will be required. As the most generous and prosperous nation on Earth, it is heartwarming to see Americans giving much time and money to the people of Haiti. Thank you for your ongoing compassion.
Some people are afraid that America is no longer the great land of promise that she has always been. They should not be.
America will always blaze the trail of opportunity and prosperity.
America must always be a land where liberty and property are valued and respected, and innocent human life is protected.
Government should have this clear goal: Where opportunity is absent, we must create it. Where opportunity is limited, we must expand it. Where opportunity is unequal, we must make it open to everyone.
Our Founders pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor to create this nation.
Now, we should pledge as Democrats, Republicans and Independents--Americans all---to work together to leave this nation a better place than we found it.
God Bless you, and God Bless our great nation.
|
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 1902 - les revendications d'Obama et la realite des choses 28/1/2010, 08:15 | |
| Updated January 27, 2010Fact Check: How the State of Union Compares With RealityAP A look at some of Obama's claims in the State of the Union and how they compare with the facts- Spoiler:
WASHINGTON -- President Obama, who once considered government spending freezes a hatchet job, told Americans on Wednesday it's now part of his solution to the exploding deficit. He didn't explain what had changed.
His State of the Union speech skipped over a variety of complex realities in laying out a "common-sense" call to action.
A look at some of his claims and how they compare with the facts:
OBAMA: "Starting in 2011, we are prepared to freeze government spending for three years. Spending related to our national security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will not be affected. But all other discretionary government programs will. Like any cash-strapped family, we will work within a budget to invest in what we need and sacrifice what we don't."
THE FACTS: The anticipated savings from this proposal would amount to less than one percent of the deficit -- and that's if the president can persuade Congress to go along.
Obama is a convert to the cause of broad spending freezes. In the presidential campaign, he criticized Republican opponent John McCain for suggesting one. "The problem with a spending freeze is you're using a hatchet where you need a scalpel," he said a month before the election. Now, Obama wants domestic spending held steady in most areas where the government can control year to year costs. The proposal is similar to McCain's.
------
OBAMA: "I've called for a bipartisan fiscal commission, modeled on a proposal by Republican Judd Gregg and Democrat Kent Conrad. This can't be one of those Washington gimmicks that lets us pretend we solved a problem. The commission will have to provide a specific set of solutions by a certain deadline. Yesterday, the Senate blocked a bill that would have created this commission. So I will issue an executive order that will allow us to go forward, because I refuse to pass this problem on to another generation of Americans."
THE FACTS: Any commission that Obama creates would be a weak substitute for what he really wanted -- a commission created by Congress that could force lawmakers to consider unpopular remedies to reduce the debt, including curbing politically sensitive entitlements like Social Security and Medicare. That idea crashed in the Senate this week, defeated by equal numbers of Democrats and Republicans. Any commission set up by Obama alone would lack authority to force its recommendations before Congress, and would stand almost no chance of success.
------
OBAMA: Discussing his health care initiative, he said: "Our approach would preserve the right of Americans who have insurance to keep their doctor and their plan."
THE FACTS: The Democratic legislation now hanging in limbo on Capitol Hill aims to keep people with employer-sponsored coverage -- the majority of Americans under age 65 -- in the plans they already have. But Obama can't guarantee g point of contention for the president. In December, the administration reported that recipients of direct assistance from the government created or saved about 650,000 jobs. The number was based on self-reporting by recipients and some of the calculations were shown to be in error.
The Congressional Budget Office has been much more guarded than Obama in characterizing the success of the stimulus plan. In November, it reported that the stimulus increased the number of people employed by between 600,000 and 1.6 million "compared with what those values would have been otherwise." It said the ranges "reflect the uncertainty of such estimates." And it added: "It is impossible to determine how many of the reported jobs would have existed in the absence of the stimulus package."
------
OBAMA: He called for action by the White House and Congress "to do our work openly, and to give our people the government they deserve."
THE FACTS: Obama skipped past a broken promise from his campaign -- to have the negotiations for health care legislation broadcast on C-SPAN "so that people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents, and who are making arguments on behalf of the drug companies or the insurance companies." Instead, Democrats in the White House and Congress have conducted the usual private negotiations, making multibillion-dollar deals with hospitals, pharmaceutical companies and other stakeholders behind closed doors. Nor has Obama lived up consistently to his pledge to ensure that legislation is posted online for five days before it's acted upon.
------
OBAMA: "We will continue to go through the budget line by line to eliminate programs that we can't afford and don't work. We've already identified $20 billion in savings for next year."
THE FACTS: Identifying savings is far from achieving them. If the past is any guide, little will result from this exercise because Congress routinely rejects the White House's suggested spending cuts.
------
OBAMA: "The United States and Russia are completing negotiations on the farthest-reaching arms control treaty in nearly two decades."
THE FACTS: Despite insisting early last year that they would complete the negotiations in time to avoid expiration of the 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty in early December, the U.S. and Russia failed to do so. And while officials say they think a deal on a new treaty is within reach, there has been no breakthrough. A new round of talks is set to start Monday. One important sticking point: disagreement over including missile defense issues in a new accord. If completed, the new deal may arguably be the farthest-reaching arms control treaty since the original 1991 agreement. An interim deal reached in 2002 did not include its own rules on verifying nuclear reductions.
------
OBAMA: Drawing on classified information, he claimed more success than his predecessor at killing terrorists: "And in the last year, hundreds of al-Qaida's fighters and affiliates, including many senior leaders, have been captured or killed -- far more than in 2008."
THE FACTS: It is an impossible claim to verify. Neither the Bush nor the Obama administration has published enemy body counts, particularly those targeted by armed drones in the Pakistan-Afghan border region. The pace of drone attacks has increased dramatically in the last 18 months, according to congressional officials briefed on the secret program.
|
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 1903 - "Pas vrai" sur les levres de Justice Alito 28/1/2010, 08:48 | |
| WOW! January 27, 2010 Justice Alito Mouths "Not True" To ObamaVIDEO Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito shakes his head and says "not true" to President Obama. |
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 1904 - 28/1/2010, 09:07 | |
| Pas d'accord avec O'Reilly cette fois-ci: le pays ne "s'eloigne pas du liberalisme (ideologie de la gauche americaine), il n'en a jamais ete proche. Tous ceux qui ont lu dans l'election du POTUS un desir de la part des Americains de passer au socialisme se sont largement plantes. (c'est ce que j'ai dit pendant toute la campagne electorale et c'est ce qui est prouve maintenant). Mais bon, je suis d'accord avec le reste.  O'Reilly |
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 1905 - Une analyse du discours 28/1/2010, 09:37 | |
| Reality check: President Obama gropes for a strategyBy JOHN F. HARRIS | 1/28/10 2:22 AM EST President Barack Obama Wednesday night tacked to the right with appeals for tax cuts for small business and new investments in off-shore oil drilling and nuclear power. He tacked to the left with renewed vows to let gays serve in the military and to get U.S. troops out of Iraq. - Spoiler:
He sounded at times like a Bill Clinton-style centrist, at others like a bank-bashing populist. He taunted Republicans, and also presented himself as a lonely tribune of cooperation and bipartisan civility in Washington.
In a favorable light, his State of the Union speech may have revealed the mind of a leader who has never cared much about traditional ideological categories and is determined to create his own results-oriented composite of ideas from across the spectrum.
Less charitably, the address could be interpreted as the work of a president who is desperately improvising by touching every political erogenous zone he and his advisers can think of.
Under either judgment, however, it was inescapable that his 69-minute speech—for all the rush of words and policy ideas—was a document of downsized ambitions for a downsized moment in his presidency.
It was presented to the Congress and a national audience with all of Obama’s usual fluency and brio. There were flashes of wit, as when he noted ruefully that “by now, it should be fairly obvious that I didn't take on health care because it was good politics.”
And there were flashes of defiance, with Obama delivering what the White House clearly intended to be the headline quote: “We don’t quit; I don’t quit.”
But there was no mistaking throughout this box-checking, loosely bundled speech how different the political context in the winter of 2010 is from the winter of 2009.
Obama came into office promising to shatter expectations of what was possible in Washington. The talk then was of a presidential “big bang”—health care, global warming, and financial reform legislation all in one year—and chief of staff Rahm Emanuel boasted that his motto was to “never let a serious crisis go to waste.”
With the big-bang strategy officially a failure, Obama’s speech revealed in real-time a president groping for a new and more effective one. The speech was woven with frequent acknowledgements that the laws of political gravity applied to him after all.
The first and most pressing legislative goal he identified was a comparatively small jobs bill that has passed the House but is languishing in the Senate and a Bill Clinton-style menu of tax incentives for business.
Health care, the consuming issue of 2009 and the one on which Obama aides insisted they should be judged, did not show up until more than halfway through.
Even then, it was on a notably defensive note. He acknowledged of his signature domestic proposal that “the longer it was debated, the more skeptical people became,” adding that, “I take my share of the blame for not explaining it more clearly to the American people.” Despite a year of presidential speeches and legislative maneuvering, he said, many people are asking themselves, “What’s in it for me?”
Legislators should pass what he called good policy even if it is bad politics, he asserted. But Obama offered no clarity at all on exactly when or how this would happen following the stalemate caused by the Republican capture of Ted Kennedy’s former Senate seat in Massachusetts.
His tepid rallying cry: “As temperatures cool, I want everyone to take another look at the plan we've proposed.”
That line fit the theme of the night. This president was in a political jam when the evening started.
And it was hard to see how he was in any less of a jam when the evening ended.
In many ways his tone was befitting the speech’s substance. There were only a few of the rhetorical acrobatics and lyrical flights that mark Obama’s most cultivated speeches. Instead, the language was more straightforward, more informal, more accessible—the words of a realist rather than a romantic.
But if the speech reflected his cramped circumstances, it probably did nothing to alter those circumstances.
The president and his aides have been awash in advice for the past few weeks, and it was if they decided to serve up a buffet of all of it.
For those who thought he needed to take a step to the right and show more outreach to Republicans, there were calls for the parties to transcend “pettiness” and “work through our differences.” He bragged about how he had cut taxes for most families and talked up a spending freeze.
For those who thought he needed to show he was listening to the liberals who were most excited about the original promise of his presidency, there was his vow to act on his campaign promise of ending discrimination against gays in the military. He promised that he would move ahead with energy legislation—which includes the politically volatile “cap and trade” provisions to limit carbon emissions—though he did not try to rebut the widespread analysis that there is virtually no chance these will pass the Senate this year.
For those who thought he needed to stand up to special interest and tell big bankers where to get off, he did just that. He promoted a proposed new fee on banks and crowed, “I know Wall Street isn't keen on this idea, but if these firms can afford to hand out big bonuses again, they can afford a modest fee to pay back the taxpayers who rescued them in their time of need.”
For those who thought Obama needed to be more modest and contrite, he delivered just that -- saying he “deserved” some of his “political setbacks.” Same for those who thought he should be less detached and project a more human connection to the lives of real people. There were references to the letters from average Americans he reads nightly and to the struggles of Allentown, Pa., and Elyria, Ohio, and Galesburg, Ill.
It was overwhelmingly a domestic policy address. Although the president was absorbed for months in 2009 with his review of policy in Afghanistan, where 100,000 U.S. troops now serve, the war there was dealt with in two paragraphs.
Iraq also came at the end, with a reference that was brief but resounding about his long-term goal: “But make no mistake: This war is ending, and all of our troops are coming home.”
A speech with parts to satisfy so many different constituencies and perspectives could not fully satisfy very many people. This was reflected in the early reaction.
Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Wash.) criticized the president for continuing to express willingness to work with Republicans, arguing that Obama should have been more forceful about calling the Republicans out for obstruction.
"The fact is, we have an opposition determined to bring him down," McDermott said. "I don't know when he's going to get the message. ...They're not going to help him at all. Watch. I've been doing this a long time."
On the other hand, Rep. Joe Wilson—the South Carolina Republican who gained notoriety last year by shouting “you lie” during an earlier Obama speech to Congress—was staying positive.
“On the issue of national security, I was pleased that the president reiterated the value of sending 30,000 more reinforcements to Afghanistan," Wilson said. "I very much respect the president’s decision to listen to our commanders on the ground ...”
Another conservative was much less complimentary. On POLITICO’s Arena feature, the Heritage Foundation’s Rory Cooper complained that the speech “seemed to have dozens of authors as it contradicted itself and his policies often and emphatically.
“He said he didn't want to re-litigate the past, when the primary focus of the address was exactly that,” Cooper said. “He said he didn't want to penalize bankers, right after he gloriously announced his punitive tax on bankers who have paid back the U.S. Treasury in full with interest. He said he wanted to control spending, and then rattled off a laundry list of liberal investments.”
Also on the Arena, Obama got an assist from Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), the 2004 Democratic nominee, who said his work with Republican Lindsey Graham (S.C.) and independent Joe Lieberman (Conn.) shows that progress on energy legislation is realistic this year.
“The inside-the-Beltway conventional wisdom that this issue has stalled is dead wrong,” Kerry said.
Obama knows his challenge is to get other Democrats to share Kerry’s optimism, not just on energy legislation but on the larger promise of the administration. “To Democrats, I would remind you that we still have the largest majority in decades, and the people expect us to solve problems, not run for the hills,” Obama said. *
... et le povre n'a toujours rien compris.
|
| | | | 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
| | | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 1907 - Les Democrates de la Maison des Representants s'attaquent aux Democrates du Senat! 28/1/2010, 14:21 | |
| House cheers SOTU Senate bashingBy MANU RAJU | 1/28/10 6:52 AM Rep. Anthony Weiner: “As you know, the Republicans are the opposition but the Senate is the enemy."- Spoiler:
President Barack Obama received thunderous applause from Democrats when he took aim at the big banks, George W. Bush’s administration and Republicans in Congress.
But perhaps nothing gave House Democrats more satisfaction than when the president used his State of the Union speech to jab the Senate – where dozens and dozens of bills have stalled, a dynamic that has helped fuel voter frustration towards Washington and House Democratic anger towards their colleagues in the upper chamber.
“As you know, the Republicans are the opposition but the Senate is the enemy,” Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) said. “The Senate, I think, was properly chided.”
Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), a member of the Democratic leadership, said that Obama challenged senators – particularly Republicans – “to take their governing and responsibility seriously.”
"He sort of took us to the principal's office, didn't he?" Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) said.
When Obama highlighted that the House passed a jobs bill last year, House Democrats leapt to their feet. And in the next breath, when he implored the Senate to do the same, House Democrats roared. Later in the speech, Obama received a similar reaction when he said he was “grateful” that the House passed a climate bill but was “eager to help advance the bipartisan effort in the Senate.”
While House Democrats gave Obama a standing ovation for calling on the Senate to follow their lead and pass a bill to make colleges more accessible, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) and Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) were seen heckling senators sitting in the row in front of them.
“They were saying, ‘Come on, Senate, Come on, Senate,’” said Sen. Roland Burris (D-Ill.), who was one of the senators heckled, along with Sens. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) and Max Baucus (D-Mont.). “We got these crazy rules over here –it’s crazy.”
Indeed, the Senate operates on the principle of unanimous consent, meaning that any one senator can essentially paralyze legislative business by raising an objection to speed consideration of debate over a bill or amendment. In order to overcome endless debate, or a filibuster, the Senate needs 60 members to agree to cut off debate, and that time-consuming process can take several days, often forcing leaders to withdraw the measure to free up precious floor time.
Referencing the old saw that the Senate was designed to be like a cooling saucer, Weiner said the Senate is “not a cooling saucer for our democracy – they’re a meat locker at this point.”
Tensions between the two chambers are nothing new, and senators often say that House members ignore the fact that the two chambers are governed by different rules, particularly the fact that House leadership has more ability to enforce strict party discipline through the powerful Rules Committee, which dictates floor debate.
But Democrats in the Senate mostly blamed the GOP for holding up their progress, even as they acknowledged that Obama was simply stating the truth in his criticisms of the upper chamber.
“The big part of the problem is the hurdles and the repeated filibusters by the Republicans, which are unprecedented in history,” said Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.).
“He’s right – they’ve passed the cap-and-trade bill, and we didn’t,” said Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), referring to Obama. “They passed the jobs bill and we haven’t. He’s just pointing out the facts of life.”
And Obama also appears to be taking a new line towards Congress. In his first year in office, the new president took a fairly hands-off approach, laying out a broad vision on legislation and allowing Congress to write the details on big bills like the economic stimulus package and health care legislation. Doing so often intensified tensions between the two chambers, and created the perception that Congress was ignoring the will of the president.
But some sensed on Wednesday night a more aggressive approach by Obama to both houses – and particularly his former colleagues in the Senate.
“Look, the president needs to get tough on Congress,” said Democratic Sen. Evan Bayh, a former governor of Indiana. “It’s a dynamic relationship; you have to be tough on the legislative body and try to urge them in the right direction, at the same time you need their help to get things done.”
And Obama took a hard line against individual senators who have held up his judicial and executive branch nominations. In perhaps his most partisan attack of the night, he put the burden on Senate Republican leadership to shoulder part of the agenda now that they’ll have 41 votes, the minimum to sustain a filibuster, with the addition of Scott Brown from Massachusetts, who won the late Sen. Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat last week.
“And if the Republican leadership is going to insist that 60 votes in the Senate are required to do any business at all in this town, then the responsibility to govern is now yours as well,” Obama in his speech before the joint session of Congress. “Just saying no to everything may be good short-term politics, but it’s not leadership.”
After the speech, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) quickly scurried past the throngs of reporters camped outside the House chamber.
But some Senate Republicans paused to register their discontent with those comments.
“I think it was kind of a partisan shot,” said Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), No. 4 in GOP leadership. “I think it was kind of designed for the part of his public relations campaign against the Republicans in the Senate, but it was a pretty partisan aspect of the speech.”
Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), head of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, noted that for much of last year 60 senators sat in the Senate Democratic Caucus, giving them enough support to muscle through legislation if they had remained united.
“Depending on what the subject is, depending on the president’s approach, we’re more than happy to meet him half way, but not if he’s going to continue to press a radical agenda which most of the American people disagree with,” Cornyn added.
But Senate Democrats say that the growing use of the filibuster has made the upper chamber unworkable.
“We’re the only country in the world – I believe only democracy – that has a supermajority requirement to do anything – almost everything,” said Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio).
Democratic leaders say they have no intention of trying to change the filibuster rules, which would require two-thirds majority of the Senate to do.
And that’s what makes Democrats like Rep. Peter DeFazio, a liberal from Oregon, angry.
“Democrats or Republicans – they’re indistinguishable when it comes to their indefensible extra-constitutional rules,” DeFazio said. “There’s nothing in the Constitution that says they need a supermajority in the Senate. That’s for their own convenience and empowerment.”
He added that he liked how Obama called out his former chamber, although “he didn’t go anywhere as far as he should have – or I would go.”
Meredith Shiner contributed to this report.
|
| | | | Biloulou
Nombre de messages : 54566
Localisation : Jardins suspendus sur la Woluwe - Belgique
Date d'inscription : 27/10/2008
| | Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 28/1/2010, 14:30 | |
| Râââ.... décidément je perdrais mon latin avec l'anglais des États-Unis !  C'est quoi "SOTU" ?  | |
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 1909 - Obama et la realite 28/1/2010, 14:42 | |
| State of the Union: Obama's reality problem President Obama’s primary problem is not rhetorical -- though, about an hour into the State of the Union address, I gave up hoping that it might eventually build toward something remotely interesting. (For much of the speech Obama sounded like a commerce secretary at a professional conference on a particularly uninspired day.) Obama’s problem is not primarily political -- though he seems in complete denial about the political dangers he faces. (He amazingly blamed his health-care failure on “not explaining it more clearly.”) Obama’s problem is not a vice president behind his right shoulder who can’t stop his distracting, sycophantic nodding -- though it was certainly annoying.- Spoiler:
Obama has a reality problem.The Congressional Budget Office estimated this week that unemployment will average more than 10 percent for the first half of this year, before declining at a slower pace than in past recoveries. On this economic path, Obama’s presidency will fail. Many Democrats in the House chamber tonight will lose their jobs. And the nation will enter a Carter-like period of stagnation and self-doubt.Every element of the president’s speech tonight should be considered in this light.* Health Care. On this issue, elected Democrats are desperate for leadership. They want to avoid total defeat on last year’s highest legislative priority, while pivoting swiftly to the economy. Obama gave no indication of how this feat will be accomplished. Instead, he called attention to his own virtue, foresight and tenacity in pursuing the issue. His approach was entirely self-centered.Democrats in tough races can only conclude that the president is indifferent to their political needs. On health care, it is every Democrat for himself.* The Deficit. The president’s trial balloon of a limited, discretionary spending freeze has quickly deflated. Conservatives dismiss it as pathetic symbolism. Liberals attack it as Hooverism. And the policy conflicts with Obama’s campaign criticism of spending freezes. It is a policy disaster.A spending commission might be a good idea, if it had fast-track authority that forced Congress to vote on a package of serious cuts. But, as the president noted, the Senate defeated a similar measure earlier this week, and his executive order is weak version of this concept.* Middle Class Relief. These are the type of proposals that work for politicians in normal economic times. In bad economic times, the middle class (and others) do not want symbolism and sympathy. They want economic growth and jobs.* Economic Growth and Jobs. Tonight the president had one main task: to make a credible case that his policies will help reduce unemployment. For the most part, he failed. His proposal to cut the capital gains tax for small business investment seems positive. His other ideas -- taking money from some bankers and giving it to other bankers and a temporary hiring tax credit -- are a caricature of job-creation policy. For the most part, Obama defended a continuation and expansion of the stimulus package, which promises to bring prosperity on high-speed trains. Compare Obama's speech to John Kennedy’s State of the Union in 1963, which called for permanent tax cuts that would allow America to move toward full employment. Some Democratic presidents have actually understood how the economy works.After a series of political humiliations, Obama called on Republicans to change their course. Facing a general revolt against Washington, he proudly took credit for posting the names of White House visitors online. Promising to change the tone in Washington, he managed to be petty, backward looking, defiant and self-justifying.Barack Obama has lost his promise. He has lost his momentum. He has lost his touch. He has lost his filibuster-proof Senate majority. He has lost his first year in office. Tonight, he lost his grip on reality.var entrycat = 'Gerson' By Michael Gerson | January 27, 2010; 11:13 PM ET
Dernière édition par Sylvette le 28/1/2010, 14:48, édité 1 fois |
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 28/1/2010, 14:47 | |
| Biloulou, ces expressions sont totalement ridicules mais je trouve que POTUS va tres bien a Obama SOTU = State Of the Union SOTUS - Senate Of The United States SCOTUS - Supreme Court Of ... FLOTUS = First Lady of ...  |
| | | | Biloulou
Nombre de messages : 54566
Localisation : Jardins suspendus sur la Woluwe - Belgique
Date d'inscription : 27/10/2008
| | Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 28/1/2010, 15:02 | |
| Merci Sylvette ! Pour POTUS, ça, j'avais retenu et je n'oublierai pas de sitôt ! | |
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 28/1/2010, 15:07 | |
| |
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 28/1/2010, 23:00 | |
| Biloulou, demain matin, je n'aurai sans doute pas le temps, et je vous assure que ce n'est pas une "fixette", c'est elle, elle n'arrete pas... alors... des nouvelles de Nancy  : elle va bien finir par y arriver. Ben dans un sens, elle a bien raison, qu'elle continue comme ca et les elections de 2010 et de 2012 devraient etre interessantes... Updated January 28, 2010Pelosi Pushes $300 Billion 'Fix' to Senate Health Care BillFOXNews.com House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is pushing a $300 billion "fix" to the Senate health care bill, saying that her chamber could approve the Senate's package if those changes are made first. - Spoiler:
Senior Democratic aides told Fox News that Pelosi has offered up the new package of changes to Senate Democratic leaders, with the hope that they will be able to pass it using a controversial procedural maneuver known as "reconciliation." The maneuver would allow Democrats to pass the measure with just 51 votes, without having to first overcome the normal 60-vote threshold.
Some Democrats are keen on using that process, since the election last week of Republican Scott Brown to the U.S. Senate from Massachusetts broke the Democrats' 60-vote supermajority.
However, some Democratic moderates -- notably Arkansas Sen. Blanche Lincoln and Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh -- have balked at using the controversial tactic to ram through health care reform measures.
Pelosi announced last week that she did not have the votes in the House to pass the Senate health care reform bill as is. But Pelosi is now floating the possibility that if the Senate, and House, approve the package of adjustments first, the House can then take up the original Senate bill.
The plan suggests the House speaker is taking up President Obama's call to push health care reform through to the finish despite opposition and political concerns. Any move to drive through a "fix" to the Senate bill using reconciliation is sure to draw fierce protest from Republicans, who want the president and Congress to take a fresh approach to the health care bill. Senate Democratic moderates also say they're unsure about the future of health care reform.
Pelosi offered few details about the reconciliation scenario on Thursday, but affirmed her commitment to passing some version of health care reform. She said lawmakers "must take whatever time it takes to do it."
She said the adjustments to the Senate bill would not be "minor tweaks," but said ultimately Congress will pass a bill.
A Pelosi aide later said that the total cost of the package of changes could go down.
Obama pledged to press ahead with health care reform in his State of the Union address Wednesday night. He said he would not "walk away" from the issue and urged Congress to stand with him.
"Do not walk away from reform. Not now. Not when we are so close," Obama said.
The president urged Congress to take "another look" at the plan on the table, but at the same time offered to hear out new ideas from both parties.
Fox News' Trish Turner contributed to this report.
|
| | | | EddieCochran
Admin
Nombre de messages : 12768
Age : 64
Localisation : Countat da Nissa
Date d'inscription : 03/11/2008
| | Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 29/1/2010, 02:14 | |
| 914 - Sylvette - p.92 Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise Jeu 28 Jan 2010 à 14:47
- Citation :
- SOTU = State Of the Union
SOTUS - Senate Of The United States
SCOTUS - Supreme Court Of ...
FLOTUS = First Lady of ...
Et COCUS ? | |
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 1915 - 29/1/2010, 06:38 | |
|  CHANGEment d'avis? Updated January 28, 2010White House Consideres Moving 9/11 Trial Out of New York CityBy Major Garrett- FOXNews.com Senior administration officials confirm alternate trial locations are being sought because Congress is almost sure to deny President Obama the funds necessary to proceed with its original plan- Spoiler:
Bowing to intense and deepening bipartisan opposition to conducting the criminal trials for the 9/11 hijackers in the heart of New York City, the Obama White House has begun discussing alternate locations with the Justice Department, senior administration officials told Fox News.
The White House denied a New York Daily News report that it ordered the Department of Justice to find a new location for the trials, which are sure to attract massive publicity and require intense security preparations wherever they are held.
However, senior administration officials confirm alternate trial locations are being sought because Congress is almost sure to deny President Obama the funds necessary to conduct the trials, as originally planned, in the federal courthouse mere blocks away from the Twin Towers, the epicenter of the 9/11 attacks that took the lives of nearly 3,000 civilians.
"The discussions are under way in case the option of holding the trials in New York City is foreclosed upon at either the state or the federal level," an Obama administration official said.
Up to now, the Obama administration has stood by Attorney General Eric Holder's decision to move the suspects, including self-professed 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, from the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to New York to be tried in federal court rather than before a military commission, as many Republicans have demanded.
The White House is not backing down from its stance that a civilian trial is appropriate and worthy venue for seeking to bring the alleged conspirators to justice.
"President Obama is still committed to trying Mohammed and four other terrorist detainees in federal court," spokesman Bill Burton told the Daily News on Thursday. "He agrees with the attorney general's opinion that ... (the detainees) can be litigated successfully and securely in the United States of America, just like others have."
The news that officials are considering a new venue comes as New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who initially was open to the idea of holding the trials in the city, says he'd be "very happy" if the White House reconsidered. Security has been an issue, as well as cost, estimated at $200 million a year.
The discussions on alternate trial locations suggest the New York City trial plan is all but dead.
Congressional and Democratic sources tell Fox News that White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel has told lawmakers the administration will stand down if the House and Senate, as appears likely, deny funds for 9/11 trials in the Big Apple.
Rep. Peter King of New York, ranking Republican on the Homeland Security Committee, has introduced legislation to block funds for a 9/11 trial in New York City.
House Minority Leader John Boehner said Wednesday the Obama administration doesn't have the votes to proceed.
"There is not going to be a trial in New York, I guarantee it. There is no appetite for the trials in Congress," Boehner said.
More than half a dozen senators have forged a bipartisan coalition against funding 9/11 trials there.
No timetable has been set for resolving the impasse. Military charges against Mohammed and his co-defendants have been dropped. Criminal charges are pending resolution of a final trial site.
|
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 1916 - 29/1/2010, 06:53 | |
| Updated January 29, 2010Health Bill "on Life Support" after Obama ApealAPObama urged lawmakers in the State of the Union address not to abandon the effort on what was once his top domestic priority. But his enthusiastic words left lawmakers little better off than before.Jan. 28: Rep. Steven LaTourette, R-Ohio, uses a poster for illustration as he speaks on the floor of the House. etc... |
| | | | Biloulou
Nombre de messages : 54566
Localisation : Jardins suspendus sur la Woluwe - Belgique
Date d'inscription : 27/10/2008
| | Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 29/1/2010, 07:50 | |
| - Sylvette a écrit:
- Biloulou, demain matin, je n'aurai sans doute pas le temps, et je vous assure que ce n'est pas une "fixette", c'est elle, elle n'arrete pas...
Je sais, Sylvette, je sais... d'ailleurs elle ne rate aucune occasion d'attirer votre attention, on voit bien le signe de la main qu'elle vous fait sur la photo... | |
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 1918 - 10/2/2010, 22:33 | |
| Cheney's Revenge The Obama Administration is vindicating Bush antiterror policy. Dick Cheney is not the most popular of politicians, but when he offered a harsh assessment of the Obama Administration's approach to terrorism last May, his criticism stung—so much that the President gave a speech the same day that was widely seen as a direct response. Though neither man would admit it, eight months later political and security realities are forcing Mr. Obama's antiterror policies ever-closer to the former Vice President's.- Spoiler:
In fact, the President's changes in antiterror policy have never been as dramatic as he or his critics have advertised. His supporters on the left have repeatedly howled when the Justice Department quietly went to court and offered the same legal arguments the Bush Administration made, among them that the President has the power to detain enemy combatants indefinitely without charge. He has also ramped up drone strikes against al Qaeda and Taliban operatives in Pakistan. However, the Administration has tried to break from its predecessors on several big antiterror issues, and it is on those that it is suffering the humiliation of having to walk back from its own righteous declarations. This is Dick Cheney's revenge. Begin with Mr. Obama's executive order, two days after his inauguration, to shut the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay within one year. The President issued this command before undertaking a study to determine how or even whether his goal was feasible. In his May speech, Mr. Obama declared, "The record is clear: Rather than keep us safer, the prison at Guantanamo has weakened American national security." Mr. Obama's deadline has come and gone, and Guantanamo remains open. In part this is the result of political opposition from Americans—including many Congressional Democrats—who understandably do not want terrorists in their backyards. Another problem is that European allies, while pressing for Guantanamo's closure, have been reluctant to accept more than a handful of detainees who are deemed suitable for release. The upshot is that Congress may never appropriate the money to close Gitmo, and Mr. Obama never mentioned the prison in his State of the Union address. The Administration similarly has been backing away from its intention, announced in November, to try 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other enemy combatants in civilian court a few blocks from Ground Zero. New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who at first endorsed the trials, has since reversed himself and urged the Administration to "do the right thing" and move the trials somewhere else, preferably to a military base. The same day, New York's Senator Chuck Schumer asked officials to find another venue. Within hours, Mr. Obama ordered the Justice Department to do just that, and Mr. Schumer has since said any trial shouldn't be held anywhere in New York state. Meanwhile, bipartisan support is growing in Congress to block money from being spent on any civilian trial for KSM, anywhere. The Administration seems to have thought no more deeply about the potential legal pitfalls of civilian trials than about the security and logistical problems. Mr. Obama himself responded to criticism by suggesting that what he had in mind was a series of show trials, in which the verdict and punishment were foreordained. When NBC's Chuck Todd asked him in November to respond to those who took offense at granting KSM the full constitutional protections due a civilian defendant, the President replied: "I don't think it will be offensive at all when he's convicted and when the death penalty is applied to him." Mr. Obama later claimed he meant "if," not "when," but he undercut his own pretense of showcasing the fairness of American justice. There is a real possibility, too, that convictions would be overturned on technicalities. KSM and other prospective defendants were subjected to interrogation techniques that, while justifiable in irregular war, would be forbidden in an ordinary criminal investigation. When Senator Herb Kohl, a Wisconsin Democrat, asked Attorney General Eric Holder what the Administration would do if a conviction were thrown out, Mr. Holder said: "Failure is not an option." A judge may not feel the same way, and the Administration is derelict if it is as unprepared for the contingency as Mr. Holder indicated. In the event of an acquittal or an overturned conviction, it would be entirely legitimate under the laws of war to continue holding KSM and the others as enemy combatants. But this would defeat the moral rationale of a trial and require the Administration to explain why it was continuing to detain men whose guilt it had failed to establish in court. A third policy under increasing criticism is the Administration's approach to interrogation. In August, Mr. Holder announced that he had appointed a special prosecutor to investigate—or rather re-investigate—allegations of abuse by CIA interrogators. At the same time, Mr. Obama declared that responsibility for interrogating detainees would shift from the CIA to a new, FBI-led High Value Detainee Interrogation Group, which would employ only tactics that are "noncoercive" or approved by the Army Field manual. Then came the attempted Christmas bombing and the revelation that the new interrogation group is not fully operational and won't be for months. Not that it would have had a chance to question Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab. On Mr. Holder's order, investigators immediately classified him as a criminal defendant. After interrogating him for just 50 minutes, they advised him of his right to remain silent, which he promptly exercised. Fifty minutes was plenty of time, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs assured "Fox News Sunday" viewers last month: "Abdulmutallab was interrogated, and valuable intelligence was gotten as a result of that interrogation." Mr. Holder told Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell in a letter last week that Abdulmutallab "more recently . . . has provided additional intelligence to the FBI"—which is encouraging if true, but makes Mr. Gibbs's earlier assurance look empty. Meanwhile, one of Scott Brown's most potent campaign themes in Massachusetts was his line that "Some people believe our Constitution exists to grant rights to terrorists who want to harm us. I disagree." Mr. Brown even endorsed waterboarding.***As long as George W. Bush and Dick Cheney were responsible for keeping Americans safe, Democrats could pander to the U.S. and European left's anti-antiterror views at little political cost. But now that they are responsible, American voters are able to see what the left really has in mind, and they are saying loud and clear that they prefer the Cheney method. Mr. Holder has nonetheless begun a campaign to defend his decisions on Abdulmutallab and KSM, telling the New Yorker last week that "I don't apologize for what I've done" and that trying KSM in a civilian court will be "the defining event of my time as Attorney General." Given that he still can't find a venue and that even Democrats are having second thoughts about the spectacle, Mr. Holder may well be right that the trial will define his tenure. Before this debate is over, he may have to explain why he's decided that the best place to try KSM really is a military tribunal—in Guantanamo.
|
| | | | jam
Nombre de messages : 1404
Age : 69
Localisation : saint-nectaire land
Date d'inscription : 02/11/2008
| | Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 11/2/2010, 20:26 | |
| c'est parce que guantanamo viole toutes les lois internationales (de genève en particulier) mais aussi toutes les lois des usa qu'il fallait le fermer
la seule loi américaine qui puisse être invoquée a été votée en 2006 par le congrès (toute en étant critiquée par toutes les associations de droits de l'homme connues, y compris bon nombre d'entre elles défendues par des citoyens américains)
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Commissions_Act_%282006%29
votée en 2006 alors que les types ont été arrêtés en 2002, elle est par dessus le marché rétroactive, ce qui ajoute un peu à son aspect bizarre
cette loi permet d'arrêter n'importe quel individu dans le monde, juste sur preuve d'un "on dit", de lui ôter tous ses droits, de le torturer et de l'exécuter... tout ça sans aucun recours (d'avocat?) et même sans que personne ne sache que l'individu en question a été arrêté (prisonniers fantômes)
je veux bien croire que la fermeture de guantanamo (qui est territoire américain de fait puisque occupé et dirigé par l'état américain et des citoyens américains) présente un problème "technique" à obama
ne serait-ce que pour éviter que des choses se sachent ou que des têtes importantes tombent
parce que obama n'a pas été élu pour régler des comptes avec l'administration précédente
d'ailleurs on ne l'entend pas dénoncer ses prédécesseurs pour quoique ce soit
je le trouve d'ailleurs un peu "trop digne" à cet égard,
mais c'est son style,
à mon avis, il veut montrer sa volonté d'aller de l'avant mais ça ne pourra pas toujours marcher comme système
un moment il va falloir scier les branches pourries
il a déjà commencer les menaces avec les banquiers
attendons la suite | |
| | | | EddieCochran
Admin
Nombre de messages : 12768
Age : 64
Localisation : Countat da Nissa
Date d'inscription : 03/11/2008
| | Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 12/2/2010, 02:07 | |
| 920 - - Citation :
- votée en 2006 alors que les types ont été arrêtés en 2002, elle est par dessus le marché rétroactive, ce qui ajoute un peu à son aspect bizarre
Cher Jam, Vous faites bien de le rappeler et de nous proposer le lien vers la page qui détaille cette loi de 2006. Mais vous faites abstraction d'un dispositif juridique parfaitement légal dans le droit public étatsunien qui sont les actes de la Présidence. Ainsi les bases juridiques qui légalisent l'ouverture et l'existence de ce camp de rétention de Guantanamo ont été pris par le précédent locataire du Bureau ovale. La rétroactivité de la loi qui vous interpelle n'est qu'apparente, le Congrès n'a fait que légiférer sur le fondement d'un instrument juridique préexistant. La rétroactivité n'existe pas. Cependant on peut s'interroger sur la légitimité - une notion de droit fondamentale en common law - du statut indéfini des détenus. J'apporte cette précision en soulignant que je reste profondément choqué par cette monstruosité que constitue Gitmo. Une chimère inadmissible de la part d'une Nation fondée sur la Liberté. | |
| | | | 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 12/2/2010, 06:16 | |
| - EddieCochran a écrit:
- 920 -
- Citation :
- votée en 2006 alors que les types ont été arrêtés en 2002, elle est par dessus le marché rétroactive, ce qui ajoute un peu à son aspect bizarre
Cher Jam,
Vous faites bien de le rappeler et de nous proposer le lien vers la page qui détaille cette loi de 2006.
Mais vous faites abstraction d'un dispositif juridique parfaitement légal dans le droit public étatsunien qui sont les actes de la Présidence. Ainsi les bases juridiques qui légalisent l'ouverture et l'existence de ce camp de rétention de Guantanamo ont été pris par le précédent locataire du Bureau ovale.
La rétroactivité de la loi qui vous interpelle n'est qu'apparente, le Congrès n'a fait que légiférer sur le fondement d'un instrument juridique préexistant. La rétroactivité n'existe pas.
Cependant on peut s'interroger sur la légitimité - une notion de droit fondamentale en common law - du statut indéfini des détenus.
J'apporte cette précision en soulignant que je reste profondément choqué par cette monstruosité que constitue Gitmo. Une chimère inadmissible de la part d'une Nation fondée sur la Liberté. Oui sûrement une chimère, mais combien, l'islam des islamistes en est une?
La vie ne se fait pas sans victimes, je ne vois pas pourquoi la justice ferait meilleure?
Il est triste que des innocents payents pour les autres, mais c'est justement le lot de l'islamisme. | |
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 1922 - 16/2/2010, 00:58 | |
| Updated February 15, 2010Global Warming in Last 15 Years Insignificant, U.K.'s Top Climate Scientist AdmitsThe embattled ex-head of the research center at the heart of the Climate-gate scandal dropped a bombshell over the weekend, admitting in an interview with the BBC that there has been no global warming over the past 15 years.- Spoiler:
Phil Jones, former head of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, made a number of eye-popping statements to the BBC's climate reporter on Sunday. Data from CRU, where Jones was the chief scientist, is key evidence behind the claim that the growth of cities (which are warmer than countryside) isn't a factor in global warming and was cited by the U.N.'s climate science body to bolster statements about rapid global warming in recent decades.
Jones's latest statements seemed to contradict the CRU's data.
In response to the question, "do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically significant global warming?", Jones said yes, adding that the average increase of 0.12C per year over that time period "is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods."
Jones is nevertheless 100% confident that the climate has warmed, he stated, admitting that the Climate-gate scandal has undermined public confidence in science. The scandal has worn down Jones as well: Since the e-mails emerged -- and were subsequently posted online at www.EastAngliaEmails.com -- Jones has stepped down from his position, been forced to admit that he “misjudged” the handling of requests for information, and even acknowledged contemplating suicide.
Jones also allowed for the possibility that the world as a whole was warmer in medieval times than it is today -- a concession that may also undermine theories that global warming is caused by man.
In addition, Jones admitted that an overall lack of organization, and his poor record keeping and office-tidying skills, had contributed to his reluctance to share data with critics, which he regretted.
"To say when you're the record keeper for the globe's temperature that you're not a good record keeper, well, that's going to come back to haunt you for a long, long time," Pat Michaels.of the Cato Institute, a public-policy think tank, told Fox News.
For more information, see the full interview at BBC News.
Aie aie aie aie aie aie aie!
|
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 1923 - 17/2/2010, 08:07 | |
| Tiens, il en etait justement question ici il y a quelques semaines. February 17, 2010 Education: Too Important for a Government MonopolyBy John StosselThe government-school establishment has said the same thing for decades: Education is too important to leave to the competitive market. If we really want to help our kids, we must focus more resources on the government schools.- Spoiler:
But despite this mantra, the focus is on something other than the kids. When The Washington Post asked George Parker, head of the Washington, D.C., teachers union, about the voucher program there, he said: "Parents are voting with their feet. ... As kids continue leaving the system, we will lose teachers. Our very survival depends on having kids in D.C. schools so we'll have teachers to represent."
Since 1980, government spending on education, adjusted for inflation, has nearly doubled. But test scores have been flat for decades.
Today we spend a stunning $11,000 a year per student -- more than $200,000 per classroom. It's not working. So when will we permit competition and choice, which works great with everything else? I'll explore those questions on my Fox Business program tomorrow night at 8 and 11 p.m. Eastern time (and again Friday at 10 p.m.).
The people who test students internationally told us that two factors predict a country's educational success: Do the schools have the autonomy to experiment, and do parents have a choice?
Parents care about their kids and want them to learn and succeed -- even poor parents. Thousands line up hoping to get their kids into one of the few hundred lottery-assigned slots at Harlem Success Academy, a highly ranked charter school in New York City. Kids and parents cry when they lose.
Yet the establishment is against choice. The union demonstrated outside Harlem Success the first day of school. And President Obama killed Washington, D.C.'s voucher program.
This is typical of elitists, who believe that parents, especially poor ones, can't make good choices about their kids' education.
Is that so? Ask James Tooley about that. Tooley is a professor of education policy who spends most of every year in some of the poorest parts of Africa, India and China. For 10 years, he's studied how poor kids do in "free" government schools and -- hold on -- private schools. That's right. In the worst slums, private for-profit schools educate kids better than the government's schools do.
Tooley finds as many as six private schools in small villages. "The majority of (poor) schoolchildren are in private school, and these schools outperform government schools at a fraction of the teacher cost," he says.
Why do parents with meager resources pass up "free" government schools and sacrifice to send their children to private schools? Because, as one parent told the BBC, the private owner will do something that's virtually impossible in America's government schools: replace teachers who do not teach.
As in America, the elitist establishment in those countries scoffs at the private schools and the parents who choose them. A woman who runs government schools in Nigeria calls such parents "ignoramuses."
But that can't be true. Tooley tested kids in both kinds of schools, and the private-school students score better.
To give the establishment its best shot, consider Head Start, which politicians view as sacred. The $166 billion program is 45 years old, so it's had time to prove itself. But guess what: The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services recently found no difference in first-grade test results between kids who went through Head Start and similar kids who didn't. President Obama has repeatedly promised to "eliminate programs that don't work," but he wants to give Head Start a billion more dollars. The White House wouldn't explain this contradiction to me.
Andrew Coulson, head of the Cato Institute's Center for Educational Reform, said, "If Head Start (worked), we would expect now, after 45 years of this program, for graduation rates to have gone up; we would expect the gap between the kids of high school dropouts and the kids of college graduates to have shrunk; we would expect students to be learning more. None of that is true."
|
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 1924 - 17/2/2010, 08:23 | |
| America's European DreamJoel Kotkin, 02.16.10, 12:00 AM EST Pundits unwisely want the U.S. to emulate the Old Continent.  The evolving Greek fiscal tragedy represents more than an isolated case of a particularly poorly run government. It reflects a deeper and potentially irreversible malaise that threatens the entire European continent.- Spoiler:
The issues at the heart of the Greek crisis--huge public debt, slow population growth, expansive welfare system and weakening economic fundamentals--extend to a wider range of European countries--most notably in weaker fringe nations like Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece and Spain (the so-called PIIGS). These problems also pervade many E.U. countries still outside the Eurozone in both the Baltics and the Balkans.
But things are also dicey in some of the core European powers, notably Great Britain, which has soaring debt, high unemployment and very slow growth. Even solvent economies like France, the Netherlands and the continental superpower , Germany, have fallen short of expectations and are expected to experience meager growth for the rest of the year.
Europe's poor performance undermines the widespread view held by left-leaning American pundits, policy wonks and academics about Europe's supposedly superior model. This Euro-philia has a long history, going back at least to the Tories during the Revolution. In better times America usually moves beyond European norms instead of retreating to its cultural mother.
When the U.S. hits a rough spot, however, there's a ready chorus urging us to emulate the old continent. During the psychological meltdown that accompanied the Vietnam War, some pundits looked longingly at the relatively peaceful and increasingly affluent Europe as a role model. "There is much to be said for being a Denmark or Sweden, even a Great Britain, France or Italy," Andrew Hacker said in 1971.
In the 1980s, as the country struggled to recover its historic competitiveness, numerous pundits suggested adopting European models, notably French and German, to restore our economic standing--a notion widely echoed by Euro-nationalists such as former French President Francois Mitterand's eminence grise, Jacques Attali.
Two decades later, with the U.S. reeling from the Great Recession, there's been a rebirth of euro-mania. Author Parag Khanna, for his part, envisions a "shrunken" America that is lucky to eke out a meager existence between a "triumphant China" and a "retooled Europe." And Jeremy Rifkin, in his The European Dream, promotes the continent as a morally preferable model--more egalitarian, open and environmentally sensitive--a sentiment recently echoed in my old New America colleague Steven Hill's Europe's Promise: Why the European Way Is the Best Hope in an Insecure Age.
Yet over the past four decades Europe's core economies--the E.U. 15--have lagged behind the U.S. in terms of both gross domestic product and job growth. Overall, the E.U. 15's share of the global GDP has declined to 26% from 35% while the U.S. has held on to its share, now roughly equal to that of its European counterparts. The big winners, of course, have been in East and South Asia.
Some of this has to do with the difficulties of maintaining an elaborate welfare state. In a productive, efficient and still largely homogeneous country such as the Netherlands or Sweden, an expansive system of social insurance and a vast public sector remains an affordable luxury.
In contrast, countries like Portugal, Greece and to some extent Spain have tried to create a Scandinavian-style welfare state based on Banana Republic economies. In addition, over-reliance on tourism and real estate speculation has proved no more viable there than in places like Las Vegas or Phoenix.
Europe's problems may prove even more profound in the long term. For example, Europe has some of the lowest birthrates in the world. Among 228 countries ranked in terms of birthrate, Europe accounts for 20 of the bottom 28. These include relatively prosperous Germany (No. 226) and Sweden as well as a range of the shaky fringe including Greece, Bosnia, Hungary, Latvia, Italy, Portugal and Spain.
The shrinking population problem is complicated by the fact that the one growing source of new Europeans consists of Muslim immigrants who generally have not integrated well into continental society. Many European countries--Denmark, the Netherlands and Switzerland, for example--are taking steps to shut their doors, something that may promote harmony and security but could exacerbate the long-term demographic decline.
With their state-driven economies pledged largely to support a growing population of aging boomers, it's hard to see what new sources of growth will propel the continent in the coming decades. Overall, according to the European Central Bank, the Eurozone's growth potential is now roughly half that of the United States.
Meager economic growth may also be affecting on one of Europe's greatest achievements: its relative egalitarianism. The trend toward greater inequality, earlier evident in the U.S., has now spread to Europe, including such famously "egalitarian" countries as Finland, Norway and Germany, which was the only E.U. country to see wages fall between 2000 and 2008.
In Berlin, Germany's largest city, unemployment has remained far higher than the national average, with rates at around 15%. One quarter of the workforce earns less than 900 euros a month. In Berlin, 36% of children are poor, many of them the children of immigrants. "Red Berlin," with its egalitarian ethos, notes one left-wing activist, has emerged as "the capital of poverty and the working poor in Germany." [i]
As in the U.S., the burden of recession has fallen most heavily on younger people. An OECD analysis found that older European workers enjoyed the best gains during the past 30 years, while children and young people fared worse. For E.U. workers under 25 the unemployment rate is well over 20%, slightly higher than that of the U.S.but a remarkable statistic given the far less rapid expansion of the European workforce.
The situation is particularly dire in Europe's exposed southern tier. Young people who rioted in Athens in 2008 suffer unemployment rates in excess of 25%. By the end of 2009 unemployment for those under 25 stood at 44% in Spain and 31% in Ireland. Even in Sweden the youth unemployment rate has reached 27%.
If the pattern of the last decade holds, many of Europe's most talented young people will end up in the U.S., particularly once the recession comes to an end. By 2004 some 400,000 European Union science and technology graduates were residing in the U.S. Barely one in seven, according to a recent European Commission poll, intends to return. "The U.S. is a sponge that's happy to soak up talent from across the globe," observes one Irish scientist.
Of course, there is still much we can learn from Europe. Besides a sometimes enviable lifestyle, Europeans offer some intriguing health care models and have led the way in efficient fuel economy standards. But overall, profound differences in demographics and cultural traditions suggest that America cannot easily follow European approach to social organization and planning.
Indeed as the U.S. and Europe confront the challenge of the rising Asian powers, their approaches likely will have to diverge. To maintain its economy and pay its debts, America will have to focus on creating jobs and opportunities for a growing population. Europeans will struggle with declining workforces, radically skewed demographics and an increasingly burdensome welfare state.
In the 21st century we will witness not so much a clash of civilizations, but a more subtle parting of the ways. Americans need to choose a path that makes sense for us, not one drawn from an aging society whose future seems unlikely to match its past achievements.
Joel Kotkin is a distinguished presidential fellow in urban futures at Chapman University. He is also an adjunct fellow at the Legatum Institute in London and serves as executive editor of newgeography.com. He writes the weekly New Geographer column for Forbes. His next book, The Next Hundred Million: America in 2050, will be published by Penguin in February.
|
| | | | Contenu sponsorisé
| | Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise | |
| |
| | | | | | Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise | |
|
Sujets similaires | |
|
| | Permission de ce forum: | Vous ne pouvez pas répondre aux sujets dans ce forum
| |
| |
| |
|
