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 : Sioux Nation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: stockman_scott who wrote (105602)	4/27/2007 6:46:27 AM
From: Wharf Rat	Respond to of 361804

Wolfowitz deputy under fire over climate By Krishna Guha in Washington Published: April 24 2007 22:29 \| Last updated: April 25 2007 00:01 One of Paul Wolfowitz’s two handpicked deputies, Juan José Daboub, tried to water down references to climate change in one of the World Bank’s main environmental strategy papers, the bank’s chief scientist has told the Financial Times. Mr Daboub, a conservative former finance minister from El Salvador was brought into the bank by Mr Wolfowitz. He is already under fire for allegedly trying to remove references to family planning in the bank’s Madagascar country assistance strategy and reduce its prominence in its new health sector strategy. The new claim will add to disarray at the highest ranks of the bank, which is in turmoil over revelations that Mr Wolfowitz personally arranged a large pay rise for his girlfriend as part of a secondment deal. Graeme Wheeler, Mr Wolfowitz’s other deputy, told the bank president to resign at a management meeting last week. Daboub statement World Bank managing director responds to inquiries by the FT Robert Watson, the chief scientist, said Mr Daboub tried to dilute references to climate change in the Clean Energy Investment Framework, a key strategy paper presented to the bank’s shareholder governments at its annual meeting in Singapore last September. “He tried to water it down. He tried to take out references to climate change,” Mr Watson said. Two other officials confirmed this account. The chief scientist said Mr Daboub, who oversees the sustainable development division, tried to remove some references to climate change completely and, in other cases, replace them with the phrases “climate risk” and “climate variability”, which convey greater uncertainty over the human impact on climate. Mr Watson said: “My inference was that the words ‘climate change’ to him implied human-induced climate change and he still thought it was a theory and was not proved yet.” He said that went completely against bank policy. “We have always felt that climate change is a very serious environmental issue and very serious development issue,” he said. Mr Watson, is one of the world’s leading climate change scientists, having been a top official at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (Nasa), an adviser to former President Bill Clinton, and the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change from 1997 to 2002. Mr Watson said he and other managers in his division “pushed back” and insisted on some references to climate change in the paper. He said Mr Daboub conceded sufficiently to make the strategy paper credible. “There was clearly less reference to climate change than there would have been, but it did not matter,” Mr Watson said. The chief scientist said the attempt to dilute references to climate change “came from Daboub’s office and from Daboub himself”. He said he believed Mr Wolfowitz knew nothing about it. Mr Daboub told the Financial Times that the bank’s staff “deserve recognition for their work, which includes trying to meet the concerns of a diverse range of stakeholders”. “I personally believe that climate change is a serious issue and I am pleased that the bank is playing an active role in addressing it.” The allegation follows Mr Daboub’s response to reports – supported by staff testimony – that he had also tried to dilute references to family planning in bank documents. Mr Daboub has written to other managers insisting these claims are untrue, stating: “I am here to carry out the bank’s policies, not my own.” “Regarding the Madagascar CAS [country assistance strategy], none of the editorial changes that were made at my direction changed, or intended to change, the Bank Group’s programme in the area of family planning,” he wrote. However, on April 19, directors representing European shareholder governments sent a memorandum to Joy Phumaphi, the newly arrived vice-president for human development, saying that they had “major concerns” about the health strategy submitted to them after editing by Mr Daboub’s office. The document “makes virtually no reference to sexual and reproductive health on a strategic level”, the directors said. “This is surprising, considering that the bank has committed almost $2bn (€1.5bn, £1bn) to sexual and reproductive health over the past 10 years.” Ms Phumaphi apparently took these concerns seriously and has submitted a new draft with more extensive references to family planning to the board. This version was considered by the board on Tuesday but serious divisions over language remained between the US and several European countries. Separately, Mr Wolfowitz on Tuesday wrote to World Bank staff reiterating his commitment to make “major changes in the way my office and senior management team work”, in an attempt to counter calls for his resignation. Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2007 ft.com

To: stockman_scott who wrote (105602)	4/27/2007 11:42:40 AM
From: SiouxPal	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 361804

Breaking Down The First Debate Mike Lux 04.27.2007 Unless I was on a candidate's staff, I have rarely watched presidential primary debates in the past because -- let's face it -- they are usually pretty lame: six or seven folks who generally agree with each other on 95% of the issues but are desperately trying to sound different than everybody else, or to have some really clever quote so that they make the next 24 hours' cable news highlights clip. But this year's race -- the most interesting of my lifetime by a ways -- has such drama, I found myself compelled to watch: would Hillary shed her caution and show the progressive colors I saw in her when I worked in the Clinton White House? Would Barack begin to show he has substance as well as flash? Would John Edwards populism pack enough of a punch to break through? Would one of the second-tier candidates stand out enough to begin to establish themselves as the clear leader of the non-famous group of candidates? I couldn't wait to find out. My reaction? The biggest surprises to me were two of the "second tier" candidates. I have been thinking for a while that Bill Richardson has the most potential to emerge as the strongest challenger to the three frontrunners -- he has a good money base in the Hispanic community, he has the best resume of anyone, and he has a lot of charm and is usually a good speaker. But he surprised me tonight because I thought he was awful in this debate. He looked confused when listening to the questions, his gestures were distracting, and his answers were awkward and distinctly uncompelling. On the other hand, Biden impressed the hell out of me. His campaign got off to a terrible start with the Barack-being-clean riff, and has gotten off to a weak fundraising start. But in this debate, I thought he was the star: relaxed, self-assured, funny at times, but always with thoughtful answers. Of the top three (at least in terms of polls and money) candidates, I thought all three were solid, but Obama did himself the most good. The substance and depth of his answers went a long way toward answering questions about whether he has the ability to hold his own in these debates. That's my first reaction, at least, written in the 10 minutes after the debate was over. Let me know what you think, I'd be fascinated to know. huffingtonpost.com