Harper Walks Political Tightrope
The prime minister faces a difficult political task. He has spent his entire campaign driving home the point that Canadian economic fundamentals are strong, and Conservatives know tinkering with functioning engines is dangerous. He has been steadfastly against the concept of bailouts to corporations or commercial banks, a point he reinforced again during the debates. And he has contrasted this stay-the-course approach to his opponents’ plans, labeling them as risky and panic-stricken. Until last week, this technique had worked, rewarding him with an upward trajectory in the polls. But now the economy is tanking. The TSX is hitting record lows and the global financial system is crashing as well. The passage of the massive US bailout plan hasn’t reversed the Dow’s downward spiral, and central banks across the globe are now acknowledging more needs to be done. Canada’s big five banks are solidly predicting a recession. As Canadians watch nations throw out lifelines to their sinking economies, Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s message that economic tinkering is unnecessary isn’t getting the traction it once did, and he now finds himself slipping in the polls.
So it is that yesterday Harper began the politically dangerous task of changing his party’s tone on government’s involvement in the economy, while still maintaining his position that bailouts are unnecessary and his opponents’ plans are risky. Deficits were suddenly on the table, and the Conservatives suggested they had “secondary” plans in place to help the economy, without specifying what those plans were. Harper bent and twisted and even paraphrased John Donne (”Look, we’re not an island”) in an effort to describe his willingness to help the economy without appearing to go back on his word. Therein lies Harper’s difficult task — convincing the electorate that any newfound plans he will unveil during the release of his party’s platform today is not an indication he has reversed his position. Difficult, not only due to the political risk inherent in changing a policy position with seven days left in the campaign, but because parts of government beyond his control are already proceeding with intervention measures. The Bank of Canada — arm’s length from the federal government — doubled to $20 billion last Friday the liquidity it has made available to struggling Canadian banks through money it obtained from the US Federal Reserve. Central banks around the world now seem to be planning a coordinated global move, and, given the Bank’s arm’s-length operation and Bank Governor Mark Carney’s dire words last week, there exists the very real possibility the BoC will partake. Harper needs to take credit for the Bank’s moves so that it doesn’t appear to be outside of the Tory’s economic strategy, but cannot admit anything the Bank has done amounts to significant economic intervention. A tightrope walk, indeed.
October 07, 2008
What's HAPPENING in the Canadian election: Mediascout
September 01, 2008
ACTIVISM: Contribute to help the Gulf region, Hurricane Gustav victims
CNN Student News One-Sheet: Hurricanes
(CNN Student News) -- Use this explainer to help your students understand hurricanes, a topic relevant to current news.
Introduction: Hurricanes are the most powerful weather systems on Earth, though they are known by different names in different regions. In the Western Pacific, for example, you will hear hurricanes referred to as "cyclones." Hurricane season in the Atlantic, the time when hurricanes are most apt to form, runs from June 1 until November 30.
Formation: Most hurricanes that eventually make it to the southern United States get their start as tropical waves off the west coast of Africa. The warm waters there give rise to clusters of thunderstorms that move over miles of warm ocean currents. As the winds in these storms move in colliding directions, they form a circulation over an area of low pressure. The condensation of water vapor "feeds" the storm, which continues to grow in strength as long as it is over warm water or warm, moist air.
Stages of development: These vertical systems that develop over the ocean are categorized by their wind speeds. Once its winds reach a maximum of 38 miles per hour (mph), a system is labeled a tropical disturbance or tropical depression. In any given hurricane season, only about 10 percent of these depressions make it to the next stage, tropical storm. When its winds reach 39 mph, the system becomes a tropical storm and is given a name.
Tropical storms are capable of property damage and flooding. In June 2001, Tropical Storm Allison hit the city of Houston, Texas, dropping 37 inches of rain in five days.
If a tropical storm's winds reach or exceed 74 mph, the system officially becomes a hurricane. The hurricane is a well-organized storm with a well-defined eye, capable of mild to extensive damage.
Intensity: Hurricanes are categorized primarily by their wind speeds. Storm surge and minimum surface pressure are also contributing factors. Meteorologists use the Saffir-Simpson Scale, a 1 to 5 rating system, to estimate the potential damage of a hurricane, with a Category 5 being the strongest and deadliest storm.
Who's at risk? The Eastern United States is most vulnerable to hurricanes, along the coast from Maine to Texas. Of the 10 tropical storms on average that develop in the North Atlantic each year, two are likely to have an impact on the U.S. Hawaii is also at risk from tropical storms that develop in the Pacific Ocean. If you live in an area that is at risk, you should have a plan in place if evacuation becomes necessary, and you should know your evacuation routes. Hurricanes are serious, dangerous storms, but there's usually enough advance warning to take action to protect yourself, your family, and your property.
(Sources: CNN.com and FEMA)
Hurricanes and Political Conventions Don’t Mix
Thursday, August 28, 2008
By Susan Jones, Senior Editor
NOAA satellite image of Gustav.
Fox News reported Thursday morning that conversations are under way about the convention schedule behind closed doors. The question is whether Bush and Cheney will speak on Monday, if the hurricane comes ashore around then.
Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, a rising star in the Republican Party, may not be able to attend the convention. He already has declared a state of emergency in Louisiana. According to the Associated Press, officials may evacuate New Orleans as Gustav nears.
With memories of Hurricane Katrina -- and criticism of the local, state and federal response -- still fresh three years later, it’s presumed that Republicans would be unwilling to party in Minnesota when another hurricane roars ashore.
The third anniversary of Katrina is tomorrow (Aug. 29).
And tropical storm Hanna is following on Gustav’s heels, although it’s too soon to say where it might go.
June 23, 2008
On Barak Obama - too funny not to post
The Two Obamas
God, Republicans are saps. They think that they're running against some academic liberal who wouldn't wear flag pins on his lapel, whose wife isn't proud of America and who went to some liberationist church where the pastor damned his own country. They think they're running against some naïve university-town dreamer, the second coming of Adlai Stevenson.
This guy is the whole Chicago package: an idealistic, lakefront liberal fronting a sharp-elbowed machine operator. He's the only politician of our lifetime who is underestimated because he's too intelligent. He speaks so calmly and polysyllabically that people fail to appreciate the Machiavellian ambition inside.
But he's been giving us an education, for anybody who cares to pay attention. Just try to imagine Mister Rogers playing the agent Ari in "Entourage" and it all falls into place.
Back when he was in the Illinois State Senate, Dr. Barack could have taken positions on politically uncomfortable issues. But Fast Eddie Obama voted "present" nearly 130 times. From time to time, he threw his voting power under the truck.
Dr. Barack said he could no more disown the Rev. Jeremiah Wright than disown his own grandmother. Then the political costs of Rev. Wright escalated and Fast Eddie Obama threw Wright under the truck.
Dr. Barack could have been a workhorse senator. But primary candidates don't do tough votes, so Fast Eddie Obama threw the workhorse duties under the truck.
Dr. Barack could have changed the way presidential campaigning works. John McCain offered to have a series of extended town-hall meetings around the country. But favored candidates don't go in for unscripted free-range conversations. Fast Eddie Obama threw the new-politics mantra under the truck.
And then on Thursday, Fast Eddie Obama had his finest hour. Barack Obama has worked on political reform more than any other issue. He aspires to be to political reform what Bono is to fighting disease in Africa. He's spent much of his career talking about how much he believes in public financing. In January 2007, he told Larry King that the public-financing system works. In February 2007, he challenged Republicans to limit their spending and vowed to do so along with them if he were the nominee. In February 2008, he said he would aggressively pursue spending limits. He answered a Midwest Democracy Network questionnaire by reminding everyone that he has been a longtime advocate of the public-financing system.
But Thursday, at the first breath of political inconvenience, Fast Eddie Obama threw public financing under the truck. In so doing, he probably dealt a death-blow to the cause of campaign-finance reform. And the only thing that changed between Thursday and when he lauded the system is that Obama's got more money now.
And Fast Eddie Obama didn't just sell out the primary cause of his life. He did it with style. He did it with a video so risibly insincere that somewhere down in the shadow world, Lee Atwater is gaping and applauding. Obama blamed the (so far marginal) Republican 527s. He claimed that private donations are really public financing. He made a cut-throat political calculation seem like Mother Teresa's final steps to sainthood.
The media and the activists won't care (they were only interested in campaign-finance reform only when the Republicans had more money). Meanwhile, Obama's money is forever. He's got an army of small donors and a phalanx of big money bundlers, including, according to The Washington Post, Kenneth Griffin of the Citadel Investment Group; Kirk Wager, a Florida trial lawyer; James Crown, a director of General Dynamics; and Neil Bluhm, a hotel, office and casino developer.
I have to admit, I'm ambivalent watching all this. On the one hand, Obama did sell out the primary cause of his professional life, all for a tiny political advantage. If he'll sell that out, what won't he sell out? On the other hand, global affairs ain't beanbag. If we're going to have a president who is going to go toe to toe with the likes of Vladimir Putin, maybe it is better that he should have a ruthlessly opportunist Fast Eddie Obama lurking inside.
All I know for sure is that this guy is no liberal goo-goo. Republicans keep calling him naïve. But naïve is the last word I'd use to describe Barack Obama. He's the most effectively political creature we've seen in decades. Even Bill Clinton wasn't smart enough to succeed in politics by pretending to renounce politics.
May 28, 2008
HUFF POST: on the lies of Sarah Palin
Chris Kelly
Governor Palin Has What It Takes To Be The Next Dick Cheney
Sarah Palin keeps showing up on short lists of John McCain vice presidents. She doesn't have a weird thing growing on the side of her head, so she brings that to the ticket as balance. She also has a few other obvious things going for her:
She's the Governor of Alaska.
(A state that's 22 years younger than John McCain. Shows he can adjust to new things.)
She's a lady.
(Take that, Hillary. Or Obama, for slighting Hillary.)
She's what they call Nice Looking for a Politician.
(Don't look at me like that. I didn't say it. For one thing, Nice Looking for a Politician is what they say about anyone prettier than Haley Barbour. For another, I think Sarah Palin looks like an anchorwoman on a newscast no one wants to watch. And even if she didn't, I'm not shallow like that. I vote for the candidate with the most flag pins.)
Over the weekend, the Anchorage Daily News discovered a whole new reason Governor Palin is the perfect person to be the next Dick Cheney:
She can look you in eye and tell you black is white.
Especially when there's oil involved.
Back in January, the secretary of the interior was considering whether or not polar bears should be on the endangered species list. There were strong feelings on both sides of the issue. Childish romantics, who think there should be more bio-diversity on Earth than cows and us, wanted them listed. Grown-ups (and oil company lobbyists) argued that the answers are never that simple. But what about the scientists? Governor Palin wrote an op-ed for the New York Times that said:
"I strongly believe that adding them [polar bears that is, not scientists] to the list is the wrong move at this time. My decision is based on a comprehensive review by state wildlife officials of scientific information from a broad range of climate, ice and polar bear experts."
The polar bears weren't drowning. They were hanging themselves in their cells.
So that was that. Scientists said so.
Except they didn't.
The Feds -- who eventually did add the bears to the list -- based their decision on models that showed all of Alaska's polar bears dead by 2050. The ice they hunt and mate on is melting and they'll fall in the water and drown.
There were too many "ifs" to this theory for Governor Palin. (Does ice really melt when it gets warm? Is ice really water? It doesn't look like water.) She had to have her own people check it out. So she sent the Feds' reports to three marine biologists, including Robert Small, head of the marine mammals program for the Alaska Department of Fish and Game.
Small wrote back:
"Overall, we believe that the methods and analytical approaches used to examine the currently available information supports the primary conclusions and inferences stated in these 9 reports."
In other words, the Feds are right. The email is dated October 9, 2007. Palin's op ed, where she says they said the Feds were wrong, was published January 5th, 2008.
But was Palin lying? Not technically. Look at what she wrote again. She only says her decision is "based on a comprehensive review of wildlife experts." She doesn't say it's based on agreeing with anything they said. That's you, jumping to conclusions.
It's like later, in the same op ed, where she repeats talk radio's favorite polar bear fact:
"Polar bears are more numerous now than they were 40 years ago."
The implication is that their habitat is stable and climate change is something Al Gore made up because he's lonely. But it's only an implication. Why else would their population increase? I mean, we also stopped hunting them in 1973, and that's... let's see... 08 minus 73... carry the 5... round up... about 40 years ago. Not shooting them -- that might be part of the explanation. But I'm sure there's more.
All I know is, there are lots of polar bears and no scientific reason at all to believe they can't live happily, underwater, eating clean coal. Let's get drilling!
It's almost like Republicans say ridiculous twisted half-truths, and the New York Times publishes them as facts.
Makes you wonder if they'd lie about a war.
(OK, sure, it's an old photo--Miss Wasilla 1984--but, still...)
Gov. Palin loves to say that drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge will affect "a small footprint... about 2,000 acres, which is smaller than the size of LAX." This is an adorable sound bite, but when I go to LAX, I take a road. Presumably, to get the trucks to the drills, they'd also need to build those, too.
May 21, 2008
MUST HEAR: The men behind Obama: interview with Webster Tarpley
The men behind Obama: interview with Webster Tarpley
Especially in politics it is of the utmost importance to try to look behind the facade: who makes up the team of the presidential candidate? The future president of the United States of America is for a large part dependent on and being fed by his team of advisors and future cabinet members. Webster Tarpley wrote a book on the men and women behind presidential hopeful Barack Obama. He argues that there is more to Obama than his charismatic appearance and that some of his advisors pose a danger to the US and the world in case Obama might be elected to become the next US president. Whether Tarpleys view is correct for now is a matter of opinion and remains to be seen, but for the public debate it is relevant to take note of his facts and arguments. Therefor DeepJournal interviewed Webster Tarpley on the topic of his recently published book Obama, The Postmodern Coup,The Making of a Manchurian Candidate.
{This is one of the awesome podcasts you will ever hear, as it is full of truth. He gets into the Greening of America, The final showdown with Moscow and much else !!)
May 07, 2008
Obama Reconciles CBC Membership with Tribal Sovereignty Support
by First Americans Advocate
| May 2, 2008 at 04:57 pm |
http://www.nowpublic.com
Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) was asked to reconcile his membership in the Congressional Black Caucus with his support for the sovereignty of tribal nations. Fellow Congressional Black Caucus members are asking congress to approve provisions to the Native American Housing Assistance and Self Determination Act that would deny funding to the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma until they extend membership to a group known as the Freedmen. (Read the bill sponsored by Diane Watson (D-CA) here: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin
In a March 13, 2008 Letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, members of the Congressional Black Caucus stated that "members of the CBC will not support, and will actively oppose passage of NAHASDA" unless the bill contains a "provision that would prevent the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma from receiving any benefits or funding" until they "recognize all Cherokee Freedmen and their descendents as tribal citizens." The letter contained the signatures of 35 CBC members, but not the signature of White House hopeful Senator Barack Obama.
Concerned that congress could "interfere with tribal matters," the Native American community expressed concern that an Obama Presidency could potentially support CBC efforts to "undermine the rights of tribal governments to determine their own membership."
Asked to reconcile his support for tribal sovereignty with his CBC membership, Obama's campaign issued the following statement:
Barack Obama has reiterated his support for tribal sovereignty. Senator Obama said, "Tribal sovereignty must mean that the place to resolve intertribal disputes is the tribe itself. Our nation has learned with tragic results that federal intervention in internal matters of Indian tribes is rarely productive - failed policies such as Allotment and Termination grew out of efforts to second-guess Native communities. That is not a legacy we want to continue."
With respect to the Cherokee Freedman issue, Senator Obama said that while he is opposed to unwarranted tribal disenrollment, congressional interference was not warranted at this point. "Discrimination anywhere is intolerable, but the Cherokee are dealing with this issue in both tribal and federal courts. As it stands, the rights of the Cherokee Freedmen are not being abrogated because there is an injunction in place that ensures the Freedman's rights to programs during the pendency of the litigation. I do not support efforts to undermine these legal processes and impose a congressional solution. Tribes have a right to be self governing and we need to respect that, even if we disagree, which I do in this case. We must have restraint in asserting federal power in such circumstances."
Obama also reiterated his support for fulfilling the treaty obligations to tribes. "The Cherokee Freedmen issue highlights the larger issue of the unfulfilled treaty promises made by the federal government to tribes. It is these promises that Barack is most concerned with as the future president. Barack understands that the federal government owes a legal and moral obligation to tribes to provide health care, education and other essential services to tribes. This is not a handout, but compensation for millions of acres of land relinquished by tribes."
Regarding outreach to the Native American community, Senator Obama's campaign includes a Native American Community Outreach Coordinator and a 30-member Tribal Steering Committee. A comparison of the Clinton, McCain and Obama websites indicates a clear difference between Obama's online efforts and those of his two opponents. Clinton and McCain websites have no specific links or information for Native American peoples or issues, while Senator Obama's campaign has a main page link directly to his website for "First Americans" (www.tribes.barackobama.com).
In his statement on congressional action on tribal matters, Presidential Candidate Obama acknowledged the position of both the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma and the Cherokee Freedmen, as well as the chasm that exists between them. He will likely lose the support of those on either extreme end of the controversy. By not offering his support to the controversial H.R. 2824 legislation promoted by the CBC, Senator Obama will undoubtedly be met with unrest by those that side with the Cherokee Freedmen. However, his indication of empathy of the Freedmen's plight will also be unwelcome to those on the other side of the Freedmen/Cherokee Nation debate. With an issue this polarizing, completely pleasing everyone without alienating anyone else just doesn't seem to be a viable option. But Obama doesn't shy away from at least trying.
--First Americans Advocate is Hannah Flanagan, an independent journalist and a member of the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma who lives in Southern California.
http://digg.com/2008_us
May 03, 2008
The Clinton-McCain-proposed gas tax holiday panned by economists
Clinton Advisor, Mickey Kantor Caught on Tape Calling Indiana Voters 'Worthless White N*ggers'
Related
Mickey Kantor - Wikipedia
Mickey Kantor: "Indiana? Those people are sh*t ...."
Added: May 01, 2008
Clinton staffers react to the news that they will win Indiana in 1992.
Hillary watch!! she want s$2 bn in '09 pork
Clinton: $2b in '09 pork
Posted: 04/28/08 08:08 PM [ET]
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) has requested nearly $2.3 billion in federal earmarks for 2009, almost three times the largest amount received by a single senator this year.
The Democratic presidential candidate’s staggering request comes at a time when Congress remains engaged in a heated debate over spending federal dollars on parochial projects.
LinkHere
Excerpt from The Hill report
The money is needed for homeland security, emergency response and health projects throughout New York, according to documents provided by her office.That's right, Hills! We want to pay money and starve so that you NWO agenda can be pursued. Yeah, right!! Nothing like paying for depopulation, the police state .. for the benefit of your Bilderberger friends!!
Posted May 27, 2008 | 12:24 PM (EST)