Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (92595)	12/28/2004 1:54:37 PM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793781

EPA speculation The Commons By grewell on Federal Programs grist.org In Grist's speculation on the next EPA head, Chairman of the CEQ Jim Connaughton's name is mentioned. I think Connaughton would make a great head of EPA, but I have my doubts that the Administration will pick him. I think Bush is happy to have Connaughton where he has him, bringing the top conservative thinking on environmental issues into the Administration's policy advocacy. Having Connaughton free to speak on various issues and to help formulate the policies may be an asset that the Administration doesn't wish to lose to the bureaucratic nightmare that is the EPA. The two dozen staff members of CEQ are a lot easier to manage and more flexible in switching policy direction than the thousands of bureaucrats housed by the EPA. That is why I look for Bush to appoint another bureaucratic manager like he did with Leavitt and Whitman. This reasoning is also why I have suggested Marc Racicot might get the job. But I won't be complaining if Grist is right and I am wrong. Meanwhile, members of the New Jersey delegation are calling for Bush to appoint an environmental advocate to head the EPA. Environmental advocate is pretty ambiguous language that will allow them to criticize whoever is appointed.

To: LindyBill who wrote (92595)	12/28/2004 2:16:42 PM
From: Triffin	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793781

Tsunami Links page .. users.tpg.com.au Triff ..

To: LindyBill who wrote (92595)	12/28/2004 4:49:06 PM
From: KLP	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793781

UN Official Backs Down: Rich Nations Not 'Stingy' reuters.myway.com Dec 28, 2:05 PM (ET) By Irwin Arieff UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - The international response to a catastrophic tsunami in Asia has been quick and generous, a senior U.N. official said on Tuesday, playing down his earlier comments that wealthy nations were stingy. U.N. Emergency Relief Coordinator Jan Egeland rowed back from statements he made on Monday after an annoyed Secretary of State Colin Powell said Washington was "the greatest contributor to international relief efforts in the world." "The United States is not stingy," Powell told CNN's "American Morning" program. Egeland, a Norwegian, pleaded at a Monday news conference for individuals and governments around the world to respond generously to the humanitarian disaster created by the tsunami that struck a broad swath of southern Asia on Sunday. Asked about the response of rich nations to such crises, he said: "It is beyond me why are we so stingy, really." "If actually the foreign assistance of many countries now is 0.1 or 0.2 percent of their gross national income, I think that is stingy really. I don't think that is very generous," he said. The United Nations urged rich nations a quarter of a century ago to give away 0.7 percent of their gross domestic product every year in the form of development aid. To date, however, just a handful of European nations, most of them in Scandinavia, actually meet that goal. The United States, the world's largest economy, contributes about 0.13 a year of its GDP to development aid. But that figure excludes aid to Iraq and Afghanistan as well as food aid, where the United States is the world's largest donor. "We are busting our butts to help and comments like that don't reflect what we are doing," said a State Department official, speaking on condition of anonymity. Egeland told reporters on Tuesday: "I've been misinterpreted when I yesterday said that I believed that rich countries in general can be more generous." "It has nothing to do with any particular country or the response to this emergency. We are in early days and the response has so far been overwhelmingly positive," he said. "The international assistance that has come and been pledged from the United States, from Europe and from countries in the region has also been very generous," Egeland added. Countries have contributed or pledged tens of millions of dollars in the first few days after the disaster. The United States provided an initial $15 million mostly channeled through the International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent, plus logistical support for aid efforts. On Tuesday, the U.S. Agency for International Development added $20 million for the earthquake relief, a White House spokesman said.