The Haqqani militant network is a "veritable arm" of Pakistan's powerful ISI intelligence service, which supported the group as it launched a startling attack last week on the U.S. Embassy in Kabul, the top U.S. military officer said on Thursday.
Admiral Mike Mullen , who steps down this month as chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, made his accusation before a U.S. Senate panel, underscoring the fragility of the strained U.S.-Pakistan alliance.
Mullen, CIA director David Petraeus and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton all have met with their Pakistani counterparts in recent days to demand Islamabad take action against the Haqqani network.
"The Haqqani network ... acts as a veritable arm of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence Agency," Mullen told the Senate panel.
Social Justice: Current Affairs, Business, Politics, and all the reasons in the world to Thrive on Creative Discontent!
Thursday, September 22, 2011
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
Republicans go Rogue!!!
The U.S. House of Representatives unexpectedly defeated a bill that would fund the federal government past September 30 on Wednesday as dozens of Republicans broke with their party to push for deeper spending cuts.
The unexpected outcome was an embarrassment for House Republican leaders who have at times struggled to rein in a conservative wing that remains closely allied with the anti-spending Tea Party movement.
"This is a democracy. This is the sausage factory," said Appropriations Committee Chairman Hal Rogers, who sponsored the bill.
The vote could further rattle consumers and investors who have been unnerved by the high-stakes budget battle that has played out in Washington this year. Congress pushed the government to the brink of a shutdown in April and the edge of default in August.
Republican leaders said they would figure out a way to pass the spending bill and avoid disrupting everything from national parks to scientific research.
The unexpected outcome was an embarrassment for House Republican leaders who have at times struggled to rein in a conservative wing that remains closely allied with the anti-spending Tea Party movement.
"This is a democracy. This is the sausage factory," said Appropriations Committee Chairman Hal Rogers, who sponsored the bill.
The vote could further rattle consumers and investors who have been unnerved by the high-stakes budget battle that has played out in Washington this year. Congress pushed the government to the brink of a shutdown in April and the edge of default in August.
Republican leaders said they would figure out a way to pass the spending bill and avoid disrupting everything from national parks to scientific research.
Should Politicians Vote Party Line or “Think” and Vote Reasonably…
Some of us want to pay taxes, allow gay marriages, preserve the separation of church/mosque/synagogue/temple & state, avoid costly wars and figure out a way off of oil. No matter how much others might not want these things there will always be fiscal conservatives who are social liberals.
Mr. Brown has told friends he was unprepared for the extent, in his view, to which Republicans have not made sufficient efforts to accommodate him on critical issues, like putting on the ballot measures to extend taxes to avoid budget cuts.
In one case, Mr. Brown told a friend, he said he felt like “we weren’t even on the same playing field” in negotiating face to face with a Republican lawmaker who would not accept his assertion that most money in the California education budget did not go to administrative costs. Mr. Brown said he finally just stood up and left the meeting.
Again and again, he said, he has found that approaches that once worked — inviting Republicans to dinner rather than attacking them, offering measured concessions on issues like pension cutbacks and spending, trying to rally public support for what he described as balanced proposals — were no longer effective.
“He is aghast,” said Jodie Evans, a longtime associate who had recently had dinner with Mr. Brown in Oakland. “He reports on some of the conversations, like he couldn’t believe the narrowness or lack of comprehending by public officials.
At 73, Mr. Brown is certainly indefatigable and remains exceedingly optimistic, as was clear during a cheerful 45-minute interview in his office last week. He said he would propose another budget next year that again offered the Legislature a choice between raising taxes or imposing more cuts, in the belief that at some point, voter backlash to reductions would push some Republicans to act on taxes.
“I mean, how much less school do you want?” he said.
Even though Democrats outnumber Republicans in the Legislature, state law requires a two-thirds vote on tax bills.
“The Republicans are far less engaged and independent than they were 30 years ago,” Mr. Brown said. “The Republicans then were very independent. Everything was not a party-line vote.”
We did get a balanced budget on time. We didn’t get the tax extensions but we got massive cuts that won praise on Wall Street.”
Mr. Brown has told friends he was unprepared for the extent, in his view, to which Republicans have not made sufficient efforts to accommodate him on critical issues, like putting on the ballot measures to extend taxes to avoid budget cuts.
In one case, Mr. Brown told a friend, he said he felt like “we weren’t even on the same playing field” in negotiating face to face with a Republican lawmaker who would not accept his assertion that most money in the California education budget did not go to administrative costs. Mr. Brown said he finally just stood up and left the meeting.
Again and again, he said, he has found that approaches that once worked — inviting Republicans to dinner rather than attacking them, offering measured concessions on issues like pension cutbacks and spending, trying to rally public support for what he described as balanced proposals — were no longer effective.
“He is aghast,” said Jodie Evans, a longtime associate who had recently had dinner with Mr. Brown in Oakland. “He reports on some of the conversations, like he couldn’t believe the narrowness or lack of comprehending by public officials.
At 73, Mr. Brown is certainly indefatigable and remains exceedingly optimistic, as was clear during a cheerful 45-minute interview in his office last week. He said he would propose another budget next year that again offered the Legislature a choice between raising taxes or imposing more cuts, in the belief that at some point, voter backlash to reductions would push some Republicans to act on taxes.
“I mean, how much less school do you want?” he said.
Even though Democrats outnumber Republicans in the Legislature, state law requires a two-thirds vote on tax bills.
“The Republicans are far less engaged and independent than they were 30 years ago,” Mr. Brown said. “The Republicans then were very independent. Everything was not a party-line vote.”
We did get a balanced budget on time. We didn’t get the tax extensions but we got massive cuts that won praise on Wall Street.”
Saudi Prince raped Spanish Woman
A Spanish judge has reopened an abandoned sexual assault case against a Saudi prince who is one of the world’s richest men, reviving accusations that he raped a 20-year-old model on a luxury yacht in the Spanish Mediterranean in August 2008.
The prince, Alwaleed bin Talal bin Abdulaziz al-Saud, a nephew of King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, is the largest individual stakeholder in Citigroup and, among his other major holdings, is the second largest investor in the News Corporation. Forbes valued his fortune this year at $19.4 billion, making him the 26th richest man in the world and the single richest in the Arab world.
The prince, Alwaleed bin Talal bin Abdulaziz al-Saud, a nephew of King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, is the largest individual stakeholder in Citigroup and, among his other major holdings, is the second largest investor in the News Corporation. Forbes valued his fortune this year at $19.4 billion, making him the 26th richest man in the world and the single richest in the Arab world.
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
Environment = who cares!!! It's not like our children breath the air, drink the water or want to see blue skies & sunsets....
The House of Representatives in the current Congress is the most anti-environment House in the history of Congress. So far this year, the House has voted 125 times to undermine the protection of the environment.
The House has not completed debate of H.R. 2584, the FY 2012 Interior and Environment Appropriations bill, which some have called “the worst assault on clean air and water in history.” This legislation contains 39 new anti-environment riders and slashes funding for the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Interior. This analysis includes the votes on H.R. 2584 taken on or before July 28th, 2011.
The anti-environment votes taken by the House include 20 votes to block actions to address climate change. These include votes to deny that climate change is occurring; to block EPA from regulating carbon emissions from power plants and oil refineries; to block EPA from regulating carbon emissions from motor vehicles, which also reduces oil imports; and even to eliminate requirements that large sources disclose the level of their carbon emissions.
The anti-environment votes include 31 votes to block actions to prevent air and water pollution. These include votes to block EPA from regulating mercury and other hazardous air pollutants emitted from cement plants; to relax emission requirements for offshore oil and gas activities; to stop EPA from establishing new water quality standards or enforcing existing ones; and to prevent EPA from protecting streams from the effects of mountaintop-removal mining.
The anti-environment votes include 33 votes to undermine protection for public lands and coastal areas. These include votes to slash funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund; to require oil and gas leasing off of the East and West Coasts; and to waive requirements for environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for offshore oil and gas activities.
And the anti-environment votes include 22 votes to defund or repeal clean energy initiatives. These include votes to overturn new, industry-supported energy efficiency standards for light bulbs; to cut funding for renewable energy projects; and to defund research into promising clean energy technologies.
Multiple federal agencies and statutes have been targeted by the anti-environment votes. Among federal agencies, the most common targets have been the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Energy, and the Department of Interior: 50 votes targeted the Environmental Protection Agency; 24 votes targeted the Department of Energy; and 25 votes targeted the Department of the Interior.
Among federal statutes, the most common targets have been the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and NEPA: 28 votes rolled back or defunded the Clean Air Act; 16 votes rolled back or defunded the Clean Water Act; and 11 votes limited the application of NEPA.
The anti-environment votes were highly partisan. Of the 125 anti-environment votes, 104 were roll-call votes. On average, 96% of Republicans voted for the anti-environment position. In contrast, 84% of Democrats voted for the pro-environment position.
The House has not completed debate of H.R. 2584, the FY 2012 Interior and Environment Appropriations bill, which some have called “the worst assault on clean air and water in history.” This legislation contains 39 new anti-environment riders and slashes funding for the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Interior. This analysis includes the votes on H.R. 2584 taken on or before July 28th, 2011.
The anti-environment votes taken by the House include 20 votes to block actions to address climate change. These include votes to deny that climate change is occurring; to block EPA from regulating carbon emissions from power plants and oil refineries; to block EPA from regulating carbon emissions from motor vehicles, which also reduces oil imports; and even to eliminate requirements that large sources disclose the level of their carbon emissions.
The anti-environment votes include 31 votes to block actions to prevent air and water pollution. These include votes to block EPA from regulating mercury and other hazardous air pollutants emitted from cement plants; to relax emission requirements for offshore oil and gas activities; to stop EPA from establishing new water quality standards or enforcing existing ones; and to prevent EPA from protecting streams from the effects of mountaintop-removal mining.
The anti-environment votes include 33 votes to undermine protection for public lands and coastal areas. These include votes to slash funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund; to require oil and gas leasing off of the East and West Coasts; and to waive requirements for environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for offshore oil and gas activities.
And the anti-environment votes include 22 votes to defund or repeal clean energy initiatives. These include votes to overturn new, industry-supported energy efficiency standards for light bulbs; to cut funding for renewable energy projects; and to defund research into promising clean energy technologies.
Multiple federal agencies and statutes have been targeted by the anti-environment votes. Among federal agencies, the most common targets have been the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Energy, and the Department of Interior: 50 votes targeted the Environmental Protection Agency; 24 votes targeted the Department of Energy; and 25 votes targeted the Department of the Interior.
Among federal statutes, the most common targets have been the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and NEPA: 28 votes rolled back or defunded the Clean Air Act; 16 votes rolled back or defunded the Clean Water Act; and 11 votes limited the application of NEPA.
The anti-environment votes were highly partisan. Of the 125 anti-environment votes, 104 were roll-call votes. On average, 96% of Republicans voted for the anti-environment position. In contrast, 84% of Democrats voted for the pro-environment position.
Monday, September 19, 2011
Canada welcomes unemployed Americans (oh ya you get free medical too)
A Canadian official has suggested that unemployed Americans could move north to help fill tens of thousands of new jobs in Canada’s expanding oil sands; and one of the hemisphere’s hottest new oil pursuits is actually in the United States, at a shale formation in North Dakota’s prairie that is producing 400,000 barrels of oil a day and is part of a broader shift that could ease American dependence on Middle Eastern oil.
See what $100 oil can't buy you... ie if you live in the West
Saudi Arabia will spend $43 billion on its poorer citizens and religious institutions. Kuwaitis are getting free food for a year. Civil servants in Algeria received a 34 percent pay rise. Desert cities in the United Arab Emirates may soon enjoy uninterrupted electricity.
Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries members are poised to earn an unprecedented $1 trillion this year, according to the U.S. Energy Department, as the group’s benchmark oil measure exceeded $100 a barrel for the longest period ever.
Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries members are poised to earn an unprecedented $1 trillion this year, according to the U.S. Energy Department, as the group’s benchmark oil measure exceeded $100 a barrel for the longest period ever.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)