In Englishhhh...
3 participants
Page 4 sur 4
Page 4 sur 4 • 
1, 2, 3, 4
Re: In Englishhhh...
Sylvette1 Jeu 20 Jan - 17:03
C'est bien un peu normal puisque la gauche est intellectuelle, la droite ne peut etre que l'oppose...
==========
Ce n'est pas cette pauvre Sarah Palin qui aurait pu claironner ca en toute impunite!!
Palinoia, the Destroyer
What's behind the left's deranged hatred.
By JAMES TARANTO
Why does their hatred of her burn so hot?
Ask them, and they'll most likely tell you: Because she's a moron. But that is obviously false. To be sure, her skills at extemporaneous speaking leave much to be desired. But that can be said of a good many politicians on both sides of the aisle, including George W. Bush, John Kerry and, yes, Barack Obama. And don't get us started on the man who defeated her for the vice presidency.
Associated Press
She drives them crazy.
==========
Ce n'est pas cette pauvre Sarah Palin qui aurait pu claironner ca en toute impunite!!
Palinoia, the Destroyer
What's behind the left's deranged hatred.
By JAMES TARANTO
Why does their hatred of her burn so hot?
Ask them, and they'll most likely tell you: Because she's a moron. But that is obviously false. To be sure, her skills at extemporaneous speaking leave much to be desired. But that can be said of a good many politicians on both sides of the aisle, including George W. Bush, John Kerry and, yes, Barack Obama. And don't get us started on the man who defeated her for the vice presidency.
Associated Press
She drives them crazy.
- Spoiler:
Whether or not she is presidential timber--and we are inclined to think that she is not--there is no denying that she is a highly accomplished person. She is also a highly accomplished woman, what in an earlier age would have been called a feminist pioneer: the first female governor of the malest state in the country, the first woman on the presidential ticket of the party on the male side of the "gender gap." Having left politics, whether temporarily or permanently, she has established herself as one of the most consequential voices in the political media.
They say she is uneducated. What they mean is that her education is not elite--not Harvard or Yale, or even Michigan or UCLA. They resent her because, in their view, she has risen above her station.
In this respect we identify fully with Palin, for we have been on the receiving end of similar disdain. Our education, like Sarah Palin's, consisted of too many years at inferior state universities, although unlike her, we never even got around to graduating. The other day Paul Reidlinger took a shot at us for featuring one of his restaurant reviews under our "Wannabe Pundits" heading last month: "I was even denounced by noted high school graduate James Taranto." (For the record, our high school diploma is a GED.)
"Denounced" is far too strong a word; "mocked" is more like it. Reidlinger writes for San Francisco Bay Guardian, whatever that is. He doesn't say, but we surmise that he possesses advanced degrees from Stanford or the University of California, both very fine institutions. He observes that "it is a writer's job to afflict the comfortable and complacent." That would be an insufferably pretentious way to describe our job as a political columnist for an elite newspaper. What is a restaurant critic going to "afflict the comfortable" with? Food poisoning?
Professional jealousy and intellectual snobbery, however, only scratch the surface of the left's bizarre attitude toward Palin. They explain the intensity of the disdain, but not the outright hatred--not why some people whose grasp of reality is sufficient to function in society made the insane inference that she was to blame for a madman's attempt to murder Rep. Gabrielle Giffords.
This unhinged hatred of Palin comes mostly from women. That is an awkward observation for us to offer, because a man risks sounding sexist or unchivalrous when he makes unflattering generalizations about women. Therefore, we are going to hide behind the skirts of our friend Jessica Faller, a New Yorker in her 30s of generally liberal politics. Over the weekend, she wrote us this analysis of Palin-hatred, which she has generously given us permission to quote:
<BLOCKQUOTE class=insettipUnit done3="27" done2="27" done1="27">I am starting out with a guess that this stems from her abrupt appearance on the national scene during the McCain-Obama race. She appeared out of nowhere and landed squarely in a position of extreme attention and media power. Her sex appeal might not have been as much of an issue had she been a known entity with a tremendous, watertight political résumé. </BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=insettipUnit done3="27" done2="27" done1="27">Even lacking that, her sex appeal might not have been such an issue if her demeanor on the campaign trail had been more, well, conservative. But here is this comely woman, in a curvy red suit, giving "shout-outs" during the debate with Joe Biden, giving controversial interviews without apology, basically driving in there, parking the car, and walking in like she owned the place. </BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=insettipUnit done3="27" done2="27" done1="27">I'm not saying it's a bad thing. But she couldn't have pulled it off if she were a gray mouse in a pantsuit, and because the devil in the red dress wasn't orating like a professor, it roused an unquenchable forest fire of rage and loathing in the breasts of many women, perhaps of the toiling gray mouse variety, who projected onto her their own career resentments and personal frustrations. </BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=insettipUnit done3="27" done2="27" done1="27">I am amazed at how people still abhor her. I personally do not. I don't feel she would be a good choice to run this country, but she does not deserve the horrific treatment she gets. I can tell you, being privy to the endless, incendiary rants this past week about her, coming from hordes of liberal women--age demo 25 to 45--they rip her to pieces, they blame her for everything, and the jealousy/resentment factor is so clear and primal. I've never seen anything like it.</BLOCKQUOTE>
We'd say this goes beyond mere jealousy. For many liberal women, Palin threatens their sexual identity, which is bound up with their politics in a way that it is not for any other group (possibly excepting gays, though that is unrelated to today's topic).
An important strand of contemporary liberalism is feminism. As a label, "feminist" is passé; outside the academic fever swamps, you will find few women below Social Security age who embrace it.
That is because what used to be called feminism--the proposition that women deserve equality before the law and protection from discrimination--is almost universally accepted today. Politically speaking, a woman is the equal of a man. No woman in public life better symbolizes this than Sarah Palin--especially not Hillary Clinton, the left's favorite icon. No one can deny Mrs. Clinton's accomplishments, but neither can one escape crediting them in substantial part to her role as the wife of a powerful man.
But there is more to feminism than political and legal equality. Men and women are intrinsically unequal in ways that are ultimately beyond the power of government to remediate. That is because nature is unfair. Sexual reproduction is far more demanding, both physically and temporally, for women than for men. Men simply do not face the sort of children-or-career conundrums that vex women in an era of workplace equality.
Except for the small minority of women with no interest in having children, this is an inescapable problem, one that cannot be obviated by political means. Aspects of it can, however, be ameliorated by technology--most notably contraception, which at least gives women considerable control over the timing of reproduction.
As a political matter, contraception is essentially uncontroversial today, which is to say that any suggestion that adult women be legally prevented from using birth control is outside the realm of serious debate. The same cannot be said of abortion, and that is at the root of Palinoia.
To the extent that "feminism" remains controversial, it is because of the position it takes on abortion: not just that a woman should have the "right to choose," but that this is a matter over which reasonable people cannot disagree--that to favor any limitations on the right to abortion, or even to acknowledge that abortion is morally problematic, is to deny the basic dignity of women.
To a woman who has internalized this point of view, Sarah Palin's opposition to abortion rights is a personal affront, and a deep one. It doesn't help that Palin lives by her beliefs. To the contrary, it intensifies the offense.
It used to be a trope for liberal interviewers to try to unmask hypocrisy by asking antiabortion politicians--male ones, of course--what they would do if their single teen daughters got pregnant. It's a rude question, but Palin, whose 17-year-old daughter's pregnancy coincided with Mom's introduction to the nation, answered it in real life.
Recently we were at a party where a woman in her 60s, a self-described feminist, called Palin a "moron" for having encouraged her daughter to carry her child to term and "to marry the sperm donor." Even apart from the gross language, this was a completely irrational thing to say. First, that Palin's values are different in no way reflects on her intelligence.
More important, why is Bristol Palin's decision to carry her child to term any of this lady's business? Those who claim to be champions of privacy and choice need to do some serious soul-searching if they have so much trouble tolerating the private choices of others.
What about male Palin-hatred? It seems to us that it is of decidedly secondary importance. Liberal men put down Palin as a cheap way to score points with the women in their lives, or they use her as an outlet for more-general misogynistic impulses that would otherwise be socially unacceptable to express.
Liberal women are the active, driving force behind hatred of Sarah Palin, while liberal men's behavior is passive and manipulative. In this respect, feminism has succeeded in reversing the traditional sexual stereotypes. If this is the result, you have to wonder why anyone would have bothered.
Sylvette1- Messages : 104
Date d'inscription : 01/01/2011
Re: In Englishhhh...
Sylvette1 Ven 21 Jan - 8:48
===================================================================================
Kidnappee a l'hopital ou ses parents inquiets l'avait amenee, bebe, pour une grosse fievre et elevee par une toxicomane, une jeune de 23 ans recherche ses parents et les retrouve!
Woman kidnapped as baby: Finding family 'a dream'
Published January 19, 2011
| Associated Press
Carlina White today. Inset: White as an infant in 1987.
NEW YORK – A woman who was kidnapped as an infant 23 years ago says finding her real mother "felt like a dream."
Kidnappee a l'hopital ou ses parents inquiets l'avait amenee, bebe, pour une grosse fievre et elevee par une toxicomane, une jeune de 23 ans recherche ses parents et les retrouve!
Woman kidnapped as baby: Finding family 'a dream'
Published January 19, 2011
| Associated Press
Carlina White today. Inset: White as an infant in 1987.
NEW YORK – A woman who was kidnapped as an infant 23 years ago says finding her real mother "felt like a dream."
- Spoiler:
"I'm so happy. At the same time, it's a funny feeling because everything's brand new. It's like being born again," said the woman, who was named Carlina White by her parents but was raised in Connecticut under the name Nejdra Nance.
The 19-day-old baby Carlina was kidnapped in 1987 after her worried parents took her to Harlem Hospital with a fever.
No suspect was ever arrested.
Carlina's distraught parents, Joy White and Carl Tyson, feared they would never see their daughter again.
Carlina, or Nejdra, was raised by an abusive drug addict, she told the New York Post. She said she had long suspected that she wasn't the woman's real daughter.
When she got pregnant herself at 16, she asked her putative mother for a birth certificate so she could get prenatal care. Her mother could not provide one.
She gave birth to a daughter who is now 6, and when she recently moved on her own to Atlanta, Ga., she decided to seek out her birth parents.
The Center for Missing and Exploited Children helped her connect the dots. Then the center contacted Joy White
"We may have found your daughter," Joy White said the caller told her.
DNA tests confirmed that Nejdra was in fact Carlina.
Mother and daughter were reunited on Saturday; they were in a Manhattan hotel on Thursday. The Post interviewed them at the hotel on Wednesday.
"I'm sitting here and I'm in a daze, thinking, 'Is this for real?' I missed the last 23 years of her life. I have to take it all in, for now just take it day by day," Joy White told the newspaper.
Carlina White said, "I just never gave up on finding my real mother. I just kept on pushing."
Sylvette1- Messages : 104
Date d'inscription : 01/01/2011
Re: In Englishhhh...
Sylvette1 Ven 21 Jan - 9:08
Obama remembers JFK
"Because of his vision, I can stand here tonight as president of the United States."
Bon, depuis qu'il nous le rappelle, on le sait. Je plaisante..
Il remonte dans les sondages, alors a moins de quelque chose d'extraordinaire et s'il continue a jouer au centre, il sera reelu!
(comme de Gaulle, il a compris ses electeurs...) Apres 2012, l'ideologie reprendra-t-elle le dessus, le futur nous le dira.
"Because of his vision, I can stand here tonight as president of the United States."
Bon, depuis qu'il nous le rappelle, on le sait. Je plaisante.. Il remonte dans les sondages, alors a moins de quelque chose d'extraordinaire et s'il continue a jouer au centre, il sera reelu!
(comme de Gaulle, il a compris ses electeurs...) Apres 2012, l'ideologie reprendra-t-elle le dessus, le futur nous le dira.
Sylvette1- Messages : 104
Date d'inscription : 01/01/2011
Re: In Englishhhh...
charly Ven 21 Jan - 9:38
Sylvette1 a écrit:Obama remembers JFK
"Because of his vision, I can stand here tonight as president of the United States."
Il remonte dans les sondages, alors a moins de quelque chose d'extraordinaire et s'il continue a jouer au centre, il sera reelu!
(comme de Gaulle, il a compris ses electeurs...) Apres 2012, l'ideologie reprendra-t-elle le dessus, le futur nous le dira.
Et c'est même un bon point pour lui de travailler avec "l'opposition" ou tout au
moins sous leur contrôle.
charly- Messages : 799
Date d'inscription : 26/09/2010
Age : 77
Localisation : Province de Liège
Re: In Englishhhh...
Sylvette1 Ven 21 Jan - 10:13
===================================================================================
oui, Charly, et il le fera (ce qu'il avait promis il y a 2 ans et n'a jamais accepte de faire (Sa facon de voir la cooperation etant que tout le monde devait etre accord avec lui). Il a bien du se rendre a l'evidence, avec les resultats de novembre, que la grande majorite des Americains ne lpartageaient pas son ideologie alors, je pense que comme Clinton va jouer le jeu. Ce qu'il fera apres...
oui, Charly, et il le fera (ce qu'il avait promis il y a 2 ans et n'a jamais accepte de faire (Sa facon de voir la cooperation etant que tout le monde devait etre accord avec lui). Il a bien du se rendre a l'evidence, avec les resultats de novembre, que la grande majorite des Americains ne lpartageaient pas son ideologie alors, je pense que comme Clinton va jouer le jeu. Ce qu'il fera apres...
Dernière édition par Sylvette1 le Ven 21 Jan - 10:44, édité 1 fois
Sylvette1- Messages : 104
Date d'inscription : 01/01/2011
Re: In Englishhhh...
Sylvette1 Ven 21 Jan - 10:39
===================================================================================
Obamacare va etre un gros enjeu a moins que le dossier ne soit revu par la Cour Supreme avant les elections. S'il continue a le defendre ou a opposer son veto a toutes modifications, ca sera un probleme pour lui.
Charly:
A part un groupe tres minime, les Americains ne le deteste pas et si Obamacare etait solutionne, ils tourneraient la page (a moins evidemment qu'il ne relance son idee d'offrir la nationalite americaine a tous les immigrants illegaux) . Le probleme est qu'il en a fait le joyau de son heritage politique. Souvenez-vous "HISTORIQUE!" (comme son election d'ailleurs)
Or et c'est minimise par la gauche, les Representants viennent d'abroger la nouvelle loi, et ont ete elus en novembre pour le faire, ca ne redore pas le blason...
Au Senat, le President, le Democrate Reid, refuse meme, pour le moment, de faire voter la proposition de la Maison des Representants... Si finalment vote il y a, la majorite Democrate (qui elle en a pris un coup dans l'aile en novembre) ne permettra pas d'obtenir les 2/3 dela premiere fois.
Alors, ou bien, Obama va reellement montrer qu'il "a compris les electeurs" et accepter au moins des modifications a la loi (perdant ainsi ce qui a ete primordial pendant les premiers 16 mois de sa presidence au prix d'e son attention a une relance de l'economie et d'une attaque sur le chomage) ou bien il va continuer a defendre ce dont la majorite des Americains ne veulent pas. Pas une bonne idee..
Obamacare va etre un gros enjeu a moins que le dossier ne soit revu par la Cour Supreme avant les elections. S'il continue a le defendre ou a opposer son veto a toutes modifications, ca sera un probleme pour lui.
Charly:
A part un groupe tres minime, les Americains ne le deteste pas et si Obamacare etait solutionne, ils tourneraient la page (a moins evidemment qu'il ne relance son idee d'offrir la nationalite americaine a tous les immigrants illegaux)
. Le probleme est qu'il en a fait le joyau de son heritage politique. Souvenez-vous "HISTORIQUE!" (comme son election d'ailleurs)Or et c'est minimise par la gauche, les Representants viennent d'abroger la nouvelle loi, et ont ete elus en novembre pour le faire, ca ne redore pas le blason...
Au Senat, le President, le Democrate Reid, refuse meme, pour le moment, de faire voter la proposition de la Maison des Representants... Si finalment vote il y a, la majorite Democrate (qui elle en a pris un coup dans l'aile en novembre) ne permettra pas d'obtenir les 2/3 dela premiere fois.
Alors, ou bien, Obama va reellement montrer qu'il "a compris les electeurs" et accepter au moins des modifications a la loi (perdant ainsi ce qui a ete primordial pendant les premiers 16 mois de sa presidence au prix d'e son attention a une relance de l'economie et d'une attaque sur le chomage) ou bien il va continuer a defendre ce dont la majorite des Americains ne veulent pas. Pas une bonne idee..
Sylvette1- Messages : 104
Date d'inscription : 01/01/2011
Re: In Englishhhh...
Sylvette1 Ven 21 Jan - 13:52
===================================================================================
Everything starts with repeal
y Charles Krauthammer
Friday, January 21, 2011
Suppose someone - say, the president of United States - proposed the following: We are drowning in debt. More than $14 trillion right now. I've got a great idea for deficit reduction. It will yield a savings of $230 billion over the next 10 years: We increase spending by $540 billion while we increase taxes by $770 billion
Everything starts with repeal
y Charles Krauthammer
Friday, January 21, 2011
Suppose someone - say, the president of United States - proposed the following: We are drowning in debt. More than $14 trillion right now. I've got a great idea for deficit reduction. It will yield a savings of $230 billion over the next 10 years: We increase spending by $540 billion while we increase taxes by $770 billion
- Spoiler:
He'd be laughed out of town. And yet, this is precisely what the Democrats are claiming as a virtue of Obamacare. During the debate over Republican attempts to repeal it, one of the Democrats' major talking points has been that Obamacare reduces the deficit - and therefore repeal raises it - by $230 billion. Why, the Congressional Budget Office says exactly that.
Very true. And very convincing. Until you realize where that number comes from. Explains CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf in his "preliminary analysis of H.R. 2" (the Republican health-care repeal): "CBO anticipates that enacting H.R. 2 would probably yield, for the 2012-2021 period, a reduction in revenues in the neighborhood of $770 billion and a reduction in outlays in the vicinity of $540 billion."
As National Affairs editor Yuval Levin pointed out when mining this remarkable nugget, this is a hell of a way to do deficit reduction: a radical increase in spending, topped by an even more radical increase in taxes.
Of course, the very numbers that yield this $230 billion "deficit reduction" are phony to begin with. The CBO is required to accept every assumption, promise (of future spending cuts, for example) and chronological gimmick that Congress gives it. All the CBO then does is perform the calculation and spit out the result.
In fact, the whole Obamacare bill was gamed to produce a favorable CBO number. Most glaringly, the entitlement it creates - government-subsidized health insurance for 32 million Americans - doesn't kick in until 2014. That was deliberately designed so any projection for this decade would cover only six years of expenditures - while that same 10-year projection would capture 10 years of revenue. With 10 years of money inflow vs. six years of outflow, the result is a positive - i.e., deficit-reducing - number. Surprise.
If you think that's audacious, consider this: Obamacare does not create just one new entitlement (health insurance for everyone); it actually creates a second - long-term care insurance. With an aging population, and with long-term care becoming extraordinarily expensive, this promises to be the biggest budget buster in the history of the welfare state.
And yet, in the CBO calculation, this new entitlement to long-term care reduces the deficit over the next 10 years. By $70 billion, no less. How is this possible? By collecting premiums now, and paying out no benefits for the first 10 years. Presto: a (temporary) surplus. As former CBO director Douglas Holtz-Eakin and scholars Joseph Antos and James Capretta note, "Only in Washington could the creation of a reckless entitlement program be used as 'offset' to grease the way for another entitlement." I would note additionally that only in Washington could such a neat little swindle be titled the "CLASS Act" (for the Community Living Assistance Services and Supports Act).
That a health-care reform law of such enormous size and consequence, revolutionizing one-sixth of the U.S. economy, could be sold on such flimflammery is astonishing, even by Washington standards. What should Republicans do?
Make the case. Explain the phony numbers, boring as the exercise may be. Better still, hold hearings and let the CBO director, whose integrity is beyond reproach, explain the numbers himself.
To be sure, the effect on the deficit is not the only criterion by which to judge Obamacare. But the tossing around of such clearly misleading bumper-sticker numbers calls into question the trustworthiness of other happy claims about Obamacare. Such as the repeated promise that everyone who likes his current health insurance will be able to keep it. Sure, but only if your employer continues to offer it. In fact, millions of workers will find themselves adrift because their employers will have every incentive to dump them onto the public rolls.
This does not absolve the Republicans from producing a health-care replacement. They will and should be judged by how well their alternative addresses the needs of the uninsured and the anxieties of the currently insured. But amending an insanely complicated, contradictory, incoherent and arbitrary 2,000-page bill that will generate tens of thousands of pages of regulations is a complete non-starter. Everything begins with repeal.
Sylvette1- Messages : 104
Date d'inscription : 01/01/2011
Idaho Set to Nullify Obama's Health Care Law
Sylvette1 Ven 21 Jan - 17:01
===================================================================================
Dans l'Idaho, ils n'y vont pas de main morte, eux au moins! Ils invalident Obamacare! Six autres etats se demandent s'ils ne vont pas faire la meme chose! (dont le Texas! )
et avec tout ca, Reid empecherait de mettre le vote sur l'abrogation de cette loi a l'ordre du jour?
Idaho Set to Nullify Obama's Health Care Law
Published January 20, 2011
| Associated Press
BOISE, Idaho -- After leading the nation last year in passing a law to sue the federal government over the health care overhaul, Idaho's Republican-dominated Legislature now plans to use an obscure 18th century doctrine to declare President Barack Obama's signature bill null and void.
Dans l'Idaho, ils n'y vont pas de main morte, eux au moins! Ils invalident Obamacare! Six autres etats se demandent s'ils ne vont pas faire la meme chose! (dont le Texas! )et avec tout ca, Reid empecherait de mettre le vote sur l'abrogation de cette loi a l'ordre du jour?
Idaho Set to Nullify Obama's Health Care Law
Published January 20, 2011
| Associated Press
BOISE, Idaho -- After leading the nation last year in passing a law to sue the federal government over the health care overhaul, Idaho's Republican-dominated Legislature now plans to use an obscure 18th century doctrine to declare President Barack Obama's signature bill null and void.
- Spoiler:
Lawmakers in six other states -- Maine, Montana, Oregon, Nebraska, Texas and Wyoming -- are also mulling "nullification" bills, which contend states, not the U.S. Supreme Court, are the ultimate arbiter of when Congress and the president run amok.
It's a concept that's won favor among many tea party adherents who believe Washington, D.C., is out of control.
Though a 1958 U.S. Supreme Court decision reaffirmed that federal laws "shall be the supreme law of the land," Gov. C.L. "Butch" Otter is promoting the idea, too. In his January 10 State of the State speech, he told Idaho residents "we are actively exploring all our options -- including nullification."
Sen. Monty Pearce, an Idaho GOP lawmaker who plans to introduce a nullification bill early next week, wanted to be the first one to give Otter a recently published book on the subject, "Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century
"I took that copy and tried to give it to the governor," he said, pointing to a copy on his desk. "He already had a copy."
Sick of just passing largely symbolic resolutions decrying federal encroachment on states' rights, proponents like Pearce say their bills will ratchet up the pressure on the feds: This isn't just some piece of paper to wave about; if it passes -- and there's plenty in Idaho to suggest it will -- this would become the law of the state, Pearce says.
It's been tried before, a long time ago.
Back in 1799, Thomas Jefferson wrote in his "Kentucky Resolution," a response to federal laws passed amid an undeclared naval war against France, that "nullification, by those sovereignties, of all unauthorized acts... is the rightful remedy."
Three decades later, South Carolina Sen. John Calhoun pushed nullification of federal tariffs that many in the South deemed discriminatory toward agricultural slave states. President Andrew Jackson readied the military, before a compromise defused the situation.
In 1854, Wisconsin also sought to nullify the federal Fugitive Slave Act that forced non-slave states to return escapees.
And more recently, Arkansas defied the federal government's order to desegregate public schools after the landmark 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision.
In a unanimous 1958 ruling rejecting Arkansas' position, the High Court wrote that states were bound by the Constitution's Article VI mandating U.S. laws, when vetted by justices, "shall be the supreme law of the land."
After passing its "Health Care Freedom Act" last year, Idaho is already among 27 states now suing the federal government over the constitutionality of what health-care overhaul foes deride as "Obamacare."
Supreme Court justices haven't yet weighed in on questions like whether residents can be compelled to buy health insurance.
But Thomas E. Woods, Jr., author of the 2010 book "Nullification" that Otter and Pearce have in their Idaho Capitol offices, argues states have the final say on the gravest issues, like when the government forces citizens to spend their hard-earned money.
If the U.S. president, Congress, and the Supreme Court get it wrong, Woods said, then Jefferson had it right back in 1799 when he wrote that states, as creators of the federal government, "being sovereign and independent, have the unquestionable right to judge of its infraction."
"What do we do when we don't get proper relief in the court?" Woods told The Associated Press from his home in Auburn, Ala. "We can't just throw up our hands and say, 'We tried.' The creators had to have some way of not having that system destroyed."
For Idaho's Pearce, Obama and the Democratic-led Congress are destroying the American system.
"There are now 27 states that are in on the lawsuit against Obamacare," Pearce said. "What if those 27 states do the same thing we do with nullification? It's a killer."
Sylvette1- Messages : 104
Date d'inscription : 01/01/2011
Three Democratic Senators Encourage Repeal of Health Care Reporting Requirement
Sylvette1 Ven 21 Jan - 17:20
===================================================================================
Le debut de la fin?
Three Democratic Senators Encourage Repeal of Health Care Reporting Requirement
Published January 20, 2011
| FoxNews.com
WASHINGTON -- Three Senate Democrats say they'd be supportive of House-passed legislation that repeals the requirement for businesses to comply with a burdensome reporting provision in the new health care law.
J'aime assez ce que Ted Poe R - Humble, dit d'Obamacare:
"If you like the efficiency of the post office, the competence of FEMA and the compassion of the IRS, you will love the nationalized health care bill."
"Si vous aimez l'efficacite des bureaux de poste, la competence de FEMA (Agence Federale des situations d'Urgence) et la compassion de l'IRS (le fisc), vous allez adorer la loi sur l'assurance maladie."
Le debut de la fin?
Three Democratic Senators Encourage Repeal of Health Care Reporting Requirement
Published January 20, 2011
| FoxNews.com
WASHINGTON -- Three Senate Democrats say they'd be supportive of House-passed legislation that repeals the requirement for businesses to comply with a burdensome reporting provision in the new health care law.
- Spoiler:
Sens. Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Maria Cantwell of Washington and Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota wrote House Speaker John Boehner Thursday, telling him the Senate would move quickly if the House passed a bill to repeal the provision that requires nearly 40 million U.S. businesses to file tax forms for every vendor that sells them more than $600 in goods.
The 1099 provision, as it's called, is scheduled to start in 2012 and is expected to raise $19 billion over the next decade in order to fund the $1 trillion, 10-year health care law that is the signature achievement of the Obama administration.
The repeal of the 1099 reporting rule is not a big stretch in the repeal movement initiated by Republicans, who voted in the House Wednesday to scrap the whole law. Even the White House wants to scrap what has been widely criticized as a paperwork nightmare, and the Treasury Department has already taken action to limit its scope.
But the 1099 rule repeal is a first step in reversing any aspect of the law since Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has vowed to prevent a full repeal vote in the Senate. And if it ever did make it out of that chamber, the White House has signaled it would veto any attempt to overturn President Obama's signature legislative accomplishment.
Jan. 19: House Speaker John Boehner, flanked by GOP representatives, speaks about the health care law repeal vote.
Still, Sen Jim DeMint, R-S.C., intends to introduce a bill next week that his spokesman says is "identical" to House-passed legislation that repeals the new health care law. DeMint spokesman Wesley Denton told Fox News that the DeMint repeal effort will have "a number of cosponsors."
Late Wednesday, Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., promised a vote to repeal in the chamber.
"The Democratic leadership in the Senate doesn't want to vote on this bill. But I assure you, we will," McConnell said in taped YouTube remarks e-mailed to the press.
Asked how a repeal vote could happen, given that Democrats control the Senate, McConnell spokesman Don Stewart told Fox News: "We have ways."
Stewart said many Democrats think arguing against repeal is a good political issue for them.
"So surely they'll want to bring it up, right?" Stewart asked.
One way for Republicans to bring a repeal bill to the Senate floor would be to try to offer it as an amendment to another piece of legislation. Another would be to call it up on its own, prompting Democrats to have to object on the record.
But it would be a rare find to have a Senate Democrat join a Republican-sponsored repeal in the Democratic-majority chamber.
Majority Republicans in the House stood unified for the 245-189 vote Wednesday to turn back the package that supporters say is vital to extending insurance coverage to 30 million uninsured Americans. Opponents call the law a stinker that will break the bank while limiting access to doctors and treatment.
The vote attracted only three Democrats to join Republicans to pass the repeal measure: Reps. Dan Boren of Oklahoma, Mike McIntyre of North Carolina and Mike Ross of Arkansas. All are moderates who voted against all forms of the health care bill in 2009 and 2010.
Ten Democrats who voted against the health care bill did not vote to repeal.
Click here to see how your representative voted.
On Thursday, the House voted 253-175 on a measure directing four committees -- Ways and Means, Energy and Commerce, Education and Workforce, and Judiciary -- to work out draft alternatives that reflect the GOP's philosophy.
Republicans say there's no timeline for their "replace" legislation, but they could start advancing specific proposals by the summer.
Rep. Dave Camp, R-Mich., chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, said Wednesday he will hold a hearing to discuss the impact of the legislation on employers.
"This hearing provides us the opportunity to directly hear from employers about the higher taxes and new mandates that are in this law. This will also serve as a basis for how this Committee, and Congress, can best respond to the concerns of employers and workers and refocus its energy to develop common sense solutions that prioritize affordability, job creation, and economic growth," Camp said in a statement.
Whatever Republicans do, Democrats say they're confident the public will prefer the plan already in place, which would require all Americans to carry insurance, possibly through state-based insurance pools; offer tax credits to make insurance affordable; and close the Medicare doughnut hole. It would also eliminate Medicare Advantage and require employers to cover their workers.
"This (repeal) bill will not become law," said Rep. Sander Levin of Michigan, ranking Democrat on the Ways and Means Committee. "We on this side are on the offense on this issue. We are an American truth squad. (Repeal) will not prevail."
Fox News' Trish Turner and Chad Pergram and The Associated Press contributed to this report.
J'aime assez ce que Ted Poe R - Humble, dit d'Obamacare:
"If you like the efficiency of the post office, the competence of FEMA and the compassion of the IRS, you will love the nationalized health care bill."
"Si vous aimez l'efficacite des bureaux de poste, la competence de FEMA (Agence Federale des situations d'Urgence) et la compassion de l'IRS (le fisc), vous allez adorer la loi sur l'assurance maladie."
Sylvette1- Messages : 104
Date d'inscription : 01/01/2011
The State Against Blacks
Sylvette1 Dim 23 Jan - 5:14
===================================================================================
The State Against Blacks 'The welfare state has done to black Americans what slavery couldn't do. . . . And that is to destroy the black family.'
By JASON L. RILEY
Devon, Pa.
'Sometimes I sarcastically, perhaps cynically, say that I'm glad that I received virtually all of my education before it became fashionable for white people to like black people," writes Walter Williams in his new autobiography, "Up from the Projects." "By that I mean that I encountered back then a more honest assessment of my strengths and weaknesses. Professors didn't hesitate to criticize me—sometimes to the point of saying, 'That's nonsense.'"
The State Against Blacks 'The welfare state has done to black Americans what slavery couldn't do. . . . And that is to destroy the black family.'
By JASON L. RILEY
Devon, Pa.
'Sometimes I sarcastically, perhaps cynically, say that I'm glad that I received virtually all of my education before it became fashionable for white people to like black people," writes Walter Williams in his new autobiography, "Up from the Projects." "By that I mean that I encountered back then a more honest assessment of my strengths and weaknesses. Professors didn't hesitate to criticize me—sometimes to the point of saying, 'That's nonsense.'"
- Spoiler:
Mr. Williams, an economist at George Mason University, is contrasting being black and poor in the 1940s and '50s with today's experience. It's a theme that permeates his short, bracing volume of reminiscence, and it's where we began our conversation on a recent morning at his home in suburban Philadelphia.
"We lived in the Richard Allen housing projects" in Philadelphia, says Mr. Williams. "My father deserted us when I was three and my sister was two. But we were the only kids who didn't have a mother and father in the house. These were poor black people and a few whites living in a housing project, and it was unusual not to have a mother and father in the house. Today, in the same projects, it would be rare to have a mother and father in the house."
Even in the antebellum era, when slaves often weren't permitted to wed, most black children lived with a biological mother and father. During Reconstruction and up until the 1940s, 75% to 85% of black children lived in two-parent families. Today, more than 70% of black children are born to single women. "The welfare state has done to black Americans what slavery couldn't do, what Jim Crow couldn't do, what the harshest racism couldn't do," Mr. Williams says. "And that is to destroy the black family."
Zina Saunders
Government programs and regulations are favorite butts of the professor, who is best known today for his weekly column—started in 1977 and now appearing in more than 140 newspapers—and for his stints guest-hosting Rush Limbaugh's popular radio program. Libertarianism is currently in vogue, thanks to the election of a statist president and the subsequent rise of the tea party movement. But Walter Williams was a libertarian before it was cool. And like other prominent right-of-center blacks—Clarence Thomas, Thomas Sowell, Shelby Steele—his intellectual odyssey began on the political left.
"I was more than anything a radical," says Mr. Williams. "I was more sympathetic to Malcolm X than Martin Luther King because Malcolm X was more of a radical who was willing to confront discrimination in ways that I thought it should be confronted, including perhaps the use of violence.
"But I really just wanted to be left alone. I thought some laws, like minimum-wage laws, helped poor people and poor black people and protected workers from exploitation. I thought they were a good thing until I was pressed by professors to look at the evidence."
During his junior year at California State College in Los Angeles, Mr. Williams switched his major from sociology to economics after reading W.E.B. Du Bois's "Black Reconstruction in America," a Marxist take on the South's transformation after the Civil War that will never be confused with "The Wealth of Nations." Even so, the book taught him that "black people cannot make great progress until they understand the economic system, until they know something about economics."
He earned his doctorate in 1972 from UCLA, which had one of the top economics departments in the country, and he says he "probably became a libertarian through exposure to tough-mined professors"—James Buchanan, Armen Alchian, Milton Friedman—"who encouraged me to think with my brain instead of my heart. I learned that you have to evaluate the effects of public policy as opposed to intentions."
Mr. Williams distinguished himself in the mid-1970s through his research on the effects of the Davis-Bacon Act of 1931—which got the government involved in setting wage levels—and on the impact of minimum-wage law on youth and minority unemployment. He concluded that minimum wages caused high rates of teenage unemployment, particularly among minority teenagers. His research also showed that Davis-Bacon, which requires high prevailing (read: union) wages on federally financed or assisted construction projects, was the product of lawmakers with explicitly racist motivations.
One of Congress's goals at the time was to stop black laborers from displacing whites by working for less money. Missouri Rep. John Cochran said that he had "received numerous complaints in recent months about Southern contractors employing low-paid colored mechanics." And Alabama Rep. Clayton Allgood fretted about contractors with "cheap colored labor . . . of the sort that is in competition with white labor throughout the country."
Today just 17% of construction workers are unionized, but Democratic politicians, in deference to the AFL-CIO, have kept Davis-Bacon in place to protect them. Because most black construction workers aren't union members, however, the law has the effect of freezing them out of jobs. It also serves to significantly increase the costs of government projects, since there are fewer contractors to bid on them than there would be without Davis-Bacon.
Analysis of this issue launched Mr. Williams's career as a public intellectual, and in 1982 he published his first book, "The State Against Blacks," arguing that laws regulating economic activity are far larger impediments to black progress than racial bigotry and discrimination. Nearly 30 years later, he stands by that premise.
"Racial discrimination is not the problem of black people that it used to be" in his youth, says Mr. Williams. "Today I doubt you could find any significant problem that blacks face that is caused by racial discrimination. The 70% illegitimacy rate is a devastating problem, but it doesn't have a damn thing to do with racism. The fact that in some areas black people are huddled in their homes at night, sometimes serving meals on the floor so they don't get hit by a stray bullet—that's not because the Klan is riding through the neighborhood."
Over the decades, Mr. Williams's writings have sought to highlight "the moral superiority of individual liberty and free markets," as he puts it. "I try to write so that economics is understandable to the ordinary person without an economics background." His motivation? "I think it's important for people to understand the ideas of scarcity and decision-making in everyday life so that they won't be ripped off by politicians," he says. "Politicians exploit economic illiteracy."
Which is why, he adds, the tea party movement is a positive development in our politics and long overdue. "For the first time in my lifetime—and I'm approaching 75 years old—you hear Americans debating about the U.S. Constitution," he says. "You hear them saying 'This is unconstitutional' or 'We need limits on government'—things that I haven't heard before. I've been arguing them for years, but now there's widespread acceptance of the idea that we need to limit the government."
Still, he's concerned about how far the country has strayed from the type of limited government envisioned by the Founding Fathers. "In 1794, Congress appropriated $15,000 to help some French refugees," he says. In objection, "James Madison stood on the House floor and said he could not take to lay his finger on that article in the Constitution that allows Congress to take the money of its constituents for the purposes of benevolence. Well, if you look at the federal budget today, two-thirds to three-quarters of it is for the purposes of benevolence."
Mr. Williams says that "if there is anything good to be said about the Democratic White House and the [previous] Congress and their brazen attempt to take over the economy and control our lives, it's that the tea party movement has come out of it. But we have gone so far from the basic constitutional principles that made us a great country that it's a question of whether we can get back."
The place to start, says Mr. Williams by way of advice to the new Republican House, is on the spending side of the federal ledger. "We need a constitutional amendment that limits the amount of money the government can spend," he says. "Let's say 18% of GDP to start. The benefit of a spending limitation amendment is that you're going to force Congress to trade off against the various spending constituencies. Somebody says, 'I want you to spend $10 billion on this,' and the congressman can respond, 'My hands are tied, so you have to show me where I can cut $10 billion first.'"
Mr. Williams says he hopes that the tea party has staying power, but "liberty and limited government is the unusual state of human affairs. The normal state throughout mankind's history is for him to be subject to arbitrary abuse and control by government."
He adds: "A historian writing 100 or 200 years from now might well say, 'You know, there was this little historical curiosity that existed for maybe 200 years, where people were free from arbitrary abuse and control by government and where there was a large measure of respect for private property rights. But then it went back to the normal state of affairs.'"
Hoping to end our conversation on a sunnier note, I pose a final question about race. "A Man of Letters," Thomas Sowell's fabulous book of correspondence, includes a letter the Stanford economist sent in 2006 to Mr. Williams, whom he's known for four decades. "[B]ack in the early years," writes Mr. Sowell, "you and I were pretty pessimistic as to whether what we were writing would make an impact—especially since the two of us seemed to be the only ones saying what we were saying. Today at least we know that there are lots of other blacks writing and saying similar things . . . and many of them are sufficiently younger that we know there will be good people carrying on the fight after we are gone."Asked if he shares his friend's optimism, Mr. Williams responds that he does. "You find more and more black people—not enough in my opinion but more and more—questioning the status quo," he says. "When I fill in for Rush, I get emails from blacks who say they agree with what I'm saying.
And there are a lot of white people questioning ideas on race, too. There's less white guilt out there. It's progress."
Mr. Riley is a member of The Journal's editorial board.
Sylvette1- Messages : 104
Date d'inscription : 01/01/2011
Re: In Englishhhh...
Sylvette1 Mar 25 Jan - 7:13
Le programme vert arrete pour le moment. Sous nos yeux ebahis... la formidable transformation d'un president.
La campagne 2012 est vraiment lancee.
Obama Climate Adviser to Step Down
AP
The president's climate and energy adviser Carol Browner is stepping down, officials say, underscoring that there will be no major White House push on climate change, given that such efforts have little chance of succeeding on Capitol Hill.WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama's top adviser on energy and climate matters is stepping down, two White House officials confirmed Monday. The departure of Carol Browner underscores any prospects for a major White House push on climate change, given that such efforts have little chance of succeeding on Capitol Hill.
La campagne 2012 est vraiment lancee.
Obama Climate Adviser to Step Down
APThe president's climate and energy adviser Carol Browner is stepping down, officials say, underscoring that there will be no major White House push on climate change, given that such efforts have little chance of succeeding on Capitol Hill.
- Spoiler:
Browner, a former Environmental Protection Agency administrator under President Bill Clinton, will be leaving the White House just as Republicans in Congress prepare to take on the Obama administration over global warming and the administration's response to the massive Gulf oil spill.
Browner successfully helped negotiate a deal with automakers boosting federal fuel economy standards and requiring the first-ever greenhouse gas emissions standards for vehicles. She also pushed for billions of dollars for renewable energy in the economic stimulus bill.
But the administration fell short on it key domestic priority of passing a comprehensive energy and climate bill to place a firm limit on the pollution blamed for global warming. Just after the November elections, which gave Republicans a majority of seats in the House, Obama admitted the legislation was dead.
One White House official said Monday that Browner was "confident that the mission of her office will remain critical to the president." The official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said Browner was "pleased" with the clean energy commitment Obama would lay out in his State of the Union address Tuesday and in his budget request.
Scott Segal, an energy lobbyist with Bracewell & Giuliani, said Browner's exit could "be a part of a legitimate effort to pay careful attention to addressing some of the real regulatory obstacles in the way of job creation."
Besides regulations to curb global warming, industry groups -- and Republicans on Capitol Hill -- are questioning a host of EPA rules targeting other air pollutants as job killers that will increase the costs of doing business.
And recently Browner's office had come under scrutiny for politicizing the response to the massive Gulf oil spill. The commission set up by Obama to investigate the disaster said Browner misconstrued on national television the findings of a federal scientific report by saying most of the oil was gone. The White House later said she misspoke.
Browner's office also has been criticized by the presidential panel for editing an Interior Department document in a manner that implied scientists supported the administration's decision to place a moratorium on deep water drilling. The commission found no evidence that the change made was intentional, and Interior Secretary Ken Salazar later apologized for the misunderstanding.
Browner's resignation comes amid a series of high-profile staff changes in Obama's White House.
The president has brought in a new chief of staff, Bill Daley, and is zeroing in on the choice of a new press secretary to replace the departing Robert Gibbs. Senior adviser David Axelrod is leaving the White House to focus on Obama's re-election, and both of Obama's deputy chiefs of staff are also leaving.
Staff members who are considering a change have been told to make their moves now or plan to stay for the remaining two years of Obama's term to ensure continuity.
Sylvette1- Messages : 104
Date d'inscription : 01/01/2011
Re: In Englishhhh...
Sylvette1 Mar 25 Jan - 10:23
===================================================================================
Un rechauffement climatique? Vraiment?
Five Reasons the Planet May Not Be Its Hottest Ever
Published January 24, 2011
| FoxNews.comThe predicted temperature changes (darker red indicating greater change) due to global warming, based on data that scientists, policymakers and the public are now questioning.
Un rechauffement climatique? Vraiment?
Five Reasons the Planet May Not Be Its Hottest Ever
Published January 24, 2011
| FoxNews.comThe predicted temperature changes (darker red indicating greater change) due to global warming, based on data that scientists, policymakers and the public are now questioning.
- Spoiler:
Global warming is in full swing, say some of the world's climatologists. Or is it?
On Thursday the U.N.'s weather agency announced that 2010 was a milestone, the warmest year on record, in a three-way tie with 2005 and 1998. "The 2010 data confirm the Earth's significant long-term warming trend," said Michel Jarraud, the World Meteorological Organization's top official. He added that the ten warmest years after records began in 1854 have all occurred since 1998.
But how reliable is the data? Here are five good reasons some scientists are skeptical of these claims.
1. Where does the data come from? Average temperatures globally last year were 0.95 degrees Fahrenheit (0.53 Celsius) higher than the 1961-90 mean that is used for comparison purposes, according to the WMO -- a statement based on three climate data sets from U.K. and U.S. weather agencies. They gather readings from land-based weather and climate stations, ships and buoys, and satellites -- and they've come under dramatic scrutiny in recent years.
The land data is being challenged extensively by Anthony Watt on his SurfaceStations.org website. Watts recently graded 61% of the stations used to measure temperature with a D -- for being located less than 10 meters from an artificial heating source. Many climate skeptics also take issue with NASA and NOAA, the U.S. agencies that gather U.S. climate data, but also manipulate and "normalize" it.
Satellite data is arguably the most accurate way to measure temperature. Roy Spencer, a climatologist and former NASA scientist, takes issue with the way that data is normalized and adjusted, instead presenting raw, unadjusted data on his website. The WMO does not use this data.
Watts pointed FoxNews.com to a new, peer-reviewed paper that looks at the reliability of the land-based sensor network, concluding that "it is presently impossible to quantify the warming trend in global climate."
2. There's less ice is in the oceans. Or more. Or something. The WMO report notes that Arctic sea-ice cover in December 2010 was the lowest on record, with an average monthly extent of 12 million square kilometers, 1.35 million square kilometers below the 1979-2000 average for December. The agency called it the third-lowest minimum ice extent recorded in September.
In fact, the overall sea-ice record shows virtually no change throughout the past 30 years, argued Lord Monckton, a British politician, journalist, and noted skeptic of global warming. He points out that "the quite rapid loss of Arctic sea ice since the satellites were watching has been matched by a near-equally rapid gain of Antarctic sea ice."
When the summer Arctic sea ice reached its lowest point in the 30-year record in mid-September 2007, just three weeks later the Antarctic sea extent reached a 30-year record high, Monckton said.
3. El Niño has been playing havoc with temperatures. Over the ten years from 2001 to 2010, global temperatures have averaged 0.46°C (0.83°F) above the 1961-1990 average, the report points out, calling these measurements "the highest ever recorded for a 10-year period since the beginning of instrumental climate records." The WMO notes that warming has been especially strong in Africa, parts of Asia, and parts of the Arctic.
Of course temperatures are up, said Joe Bastardi, a meteorologist with Accuweather: It's El Niño, stupid.
"El Niños cause spikes up. La Niñas drop it down," Bastardi told FoxNews.com. "Why have we gone up overall in the past 30 years? Because we've been in a warm cycle in the Pacific," he said. "But the tropical Pacific has cooled dramatically, and it's like turning down your thermostat -- it takes a while, but the house will cool."
Japan's Meteorological Agency agrees with Bastardi's conclusion, stating recently that "it can be presumed that the high temperatures in recent years have been influenced by natural climate fluctuations with the periods ranging from several years to several decades," as well as by greenhouse gases including CO2.
"This year’s warming can also be attributable to an El Niño event which lasted from summer 2009 to spring 2010," the agency said.
4. Besides, it's getting chilly. 2010 may have been a warm year, but 2011 has been off to a very cold start -- and may be among the coldest in decades.
"December 2010 was the second-coldest December in the entire history dating back to 1659," noted Steve McIntyre, a climate scientist and the editor of climate blog Climate Audit. He bases his claim on data from the longest continuous record in the world, kept by The Met Office, the U.K.'s official weather agency.
It's an odd fact, one Bastardi thinks is telling. He said that the transition from the El Niño warming period into the La Niña cooling period will herald a crash of global temperatures, normalizing world heat levels -- especially when analyzed via Spencer's satellite data charts.
"If we look at the last 30 years, then the coming 30 years will cool back to where we were in the late 70s," he said. "Look at it this way. Suppose you didn't have a scale until 3 weeks ago. Every day for the last 3 weeks you weigh yourself and you are 175 or so. One morning you are 175.1 How much weight have you gained?"
You're the heaviest you have ever been, right? "If you weren't weighing yourself before, or were using a different scale, can you really say this is the heaviest ever?" he asked.
5. Forecasts are often wrong. Predicting the weather -- especially a decade or more in advance -- is unbelievably challenging. In 2000, a scientist with the Met Office's Climatic Research Unit declared that within ten years, snowfall would be "a very rare and exciting event."
And in 1970 at the first Earth Day event, one researcher predicted that the planet would be 11 degrees colder by the year 2000.
FoxNews.com recently compiled eight of the most egregiously mistaken predictions, and asked the predictors to reflect on what really happened.
Sylvette1- Messages : 104
Date d'inscription : 01/01/2011
Re: In Englishhhh...
charly Mar 25 Jan - 10:31
On en revient à dire que ce "réchauffement" est d'origine naturelle.
La terre,au long de son évolution a subit des refroidissements,des réchauffements,
des montées d'eau des océans,des descentes,.
La terre est un gros yoyo
La terre,au long de son évolution a subit des refroidissements,des réchauffements,
des montées d'eau des océans,des descentes,.
La terre est un gros yoyo
charly- Messages : 799
Date d'inscription : 26/09/2010
Age : 77
Localisation : Province de Liège
Sylvette1- Messages : 104
Date d'inscription : 01/01/2011
Page 4 sur 4 • 1, 2, 3, 4
Page 4 sur 4
Permission de ce forum:
Vous ne pouvez pas répondre aux sujets dans ce forum|
|
|