SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : The Obama - Clinton Disaster -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (21127)10/16/2009 2:31:35 PM
From: JakeStraw1 Recommendation  Respond to of 103300
 
>>What has Obama done exactly?

Good question... So far it appears he's all show and is just another politician catering to special interests, lobbyists, etc...



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (21127)10/16/2009 2:38:10 PM
From: JakeStraw6 Recommendations  Respond to of 103300
 



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (21127)10/16/2009 3:31:07 PM
From: longnshort  Respond to of 103300
 
in other words he hasn't done a thing



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (21127)10/16/2009 11:43:14 PM
From: PROLIFE1 Recommendation  Respond to of 103300
 
LOL!!!!
Hey, Phillips...I denounce russia's nukes.... I offer to sit down on Abracadabrabrad....and I am going for a double swiss mocha later.....when should I expect my oscar??

(I say oscar, because your dearleader Obama is a PRETENDER...and you eat it up.)



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (21127)10/17/2009 11:52:46 AM
From: TideGlider  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 103300
 
What Happened to Global Warming?
A Commentary By Debra J. Saunders
Tuesday, October 13, 2009 Email to a Friend ShareThis.Advertisement
"What happened to global warming?" read the headline -- on BBC News on Oct. 9, no less. Consider it a cataclysmic event: Mainstream news organizations have begun reporting on scientific research that suggests that global warming may not be caused by man and may not be as dire and eminent as alarmists suggest.

Indeed, as the BBC's climate correspondent Paul Hudson reported, the warmest year recorded globally "was not in 2008 or 2007, but 1998." It's true, he continued, "For the last 11 years, we have not observed any increase in global temperatures."

At a London conference later this month, Hudson reported, solar scientist Piers Corbyn will present evidence that solar-charged particles have a big impact on global temperatures.

Western Washington University geologist Don J. Easterbrook presented research last year that suggests that the Pacific decadal oscillation (PDO) caused warmer temperatures in the 1980s and 1990s. With Pacific sea surface temperatures cooling, Easterbrook expects 30 years of global cooling.

EPA analyst Alan Carlin -- an MIT-trained economist with a degree in physics -- referred to "solar variability" and Easterbrook's work in a document that warned that politics had prompted the EPA and other countries to pay "too little attention to the science of global warming" as partisans ignored the lack of global warming over the last 10 years. At first, the EPA buried the paper, then it permitted Carlin to post it on his personal Web site.

In May, Fortune reported on the testimony of University of Alabama-Huntsville Earth System Science Center Director John Christy's before the House Ways and Means Committee. Christy is a 2001 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report signatory who believes human effects have a warming influence, but rejects the disaster scenarios.

As Christy told the committee, climate models rely on land temperature data that are distorted and exaggerated by surface development -- that is, asphalt and buildings. In a nice bit of research, Christy, who is also the Alabama state climatologist, debunked the temperature-increase predictions made by NASA scientist James Hansen in 1988. "The real atmosphere," Christy testified, "has many ways to respond to the changes that the extra CO2 is forcing upon it."

Add Christy, Easterbrook and Corbyn to the long list of scientists who see climate as a complex issue rather than an opportunity to sermonize and lecture the general public.

Over the years, global warming alarmists have sought to stifle debate by arguing that there was no debate. They bullied dissenters and ex-communicated non-believers from their panels. In the name of science, disciples made it a virtue to not recognize the existence of scientists such as MIT's Richard Lindzen and Colorado State University's William Gray.

For a long time, that approach worked. But after 11 years without record temperatures that had the seas spilling over the Statue of Liberty's toes, they are going to have to change tactics.

They're going to have to rely on real data, not failed models, scare stories and the Big Lie that everyone who counts agrees with them.

COPYRIGHT 2009 CREATORS.COM



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (21127)10/18/2009 2:49:23 AM
From: Neeka3 Recommendations  Respond to of 103300
 
You must have missed this article Kenneth.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Terror rendition to continue

The highly controversial anti-terror practice of rendition will continue under Barack Obama, it has emerged.

Despite ordering the closure of Guantanamo and an end to harsh interrogation techniques, the new president has failed to call an end to secret abductions and questioning.

In his first few days in office, Mr Obama was lauded for rejecting policies of the George W Bush era, but it has emerged the CIA still has the authority to carry out renditions in which suspects are picked up and often sent to a third country for questioning.

The practice caused outrage at the EU, after it was revealed the CIA had used secret prisons in Romania and Poland and airports such as Prestwick in Scotland to conduct up to 1,200 rendition flights. The European Parliament called renditions "an illegal instrument used by the United States".

According to a detailed reading of the executive orders signed by Mr Obama on Jan 22, renditions have not been outlawed, with the new administration deciding it needs to retain some devices in Mr Bush's anti-terror arsenal amid continued threats to US national security.

"Obviously you need to preserve some tools – you still have to go after the bad guys," an administration official told the Los Angeles Times.

"The legal advisers working on this looked at rendition. It is controversial in some circles and kicked up a big storm in Europe. But if done within certain parameters, it is an acceptable practice."

Section 2 (g) of the order, appears to allow the US authorities to continue detaining and interrogating terror suspects as long as it does not hold them for long periods. It reads: "The terms "detention facilities" and "detention facility" in section 4(a) of this order do not refer to facilities used only to hold people on a short-term, transitory basis."

The revelation will cause anger in Europe, where several cases of abuse or mistaken identity were revealed during the Bush administration.

Khaled Masri, a German citizen, was arrested in Macedonia in 2003 and taken to Afghanistan for five months before the CIA realised it had made a mistake. The Italians sought to prosecute CIA operatives who had arrested Abu Omar, an Egyptian cleric, and flew him to Egypt where he claimed he was tortured.

Though rendition was widely deployed after the September 11 attacks, the programme began under Bill Clinton, the last Democratic president, in the early 1990s. It is credited with bringing to justice Ramzi Yousef, who was picked up in Pakistan, brought to the US and convicted for plotting the 1993 bombings at the World Trade Centre in New York.

Rendition could well become the second issue to strain relations between the new president and his European allies, in addition to an argument over "Buy American" clauses in Mr Obama's $820 billion plan to revive the economy.

European embassies have already urged senators who will debate the bill this week to remove stipulations that any infrastructure projects funded in the package use only American steel, iron and concrete. Leaders of major corporations and business groups have come out strongly against the provisions.

In the senate protectionism is not the most pressing issue however. Mr Obama faces a real battle to have his bill approved because Republicans see it as spending bill designed to please Democratic constituencies rather than create jobs.

Jon Kyl, the Republican's second-ranking Senate member, said yesterday that the party would flex its muscles by stalling the package, by talking the bill off the agenda with a filibuster.

The president meanwhile kept up his attempt to charm the opposition into accepting his plan, which could determine the fate of not just the economy but his presidency. He invited 15 congressmen from both major parties to watch last night's Superbowl game, the climax of the American football season, at the White House.








telegraph.co.uk



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (21127)10/18/2009 2:52:41 AM
From: Neeka2 Recommendations  Respond to of 103300
 
And this?

I know how upset you libs were about supposed ties to corporations when President Bush was in office, so this must really concern you.

H/T LB on PfP

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Exclusive: How Dems set stage for corporate-backed health care campaign
By: Ben Smith and Kenneth P. Vogel
POLITICO
October 16, 2009 05:04 AM EST

At a meeting last April with corporate lobbyists, aides to President Barack Obama and Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) helped set in motion a multimillion-dollar advertising campaign, primarily financed by industry groups, that has played a key role in bolstering public support for health care reform.

The role Baucus's chief of staff, Jon Selib, and deputy White House chief of staff Jim Messina played in launching the groups was part of a successful effort by Democrats to enlist traditional enemies of health care reform to their side. No quid pro quo was involved, they insist, as do the lobbyists themselves.

The result has been a somewhat unlikely alliance between an administration that came into power criticizing George W. Bush for his closeness to Big Business and groups such as the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America and the American Medical Association.

The previously undisclosed meeting April 15 at the offices of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee led to the creation of two groups — Americans for Stable Quality Care and a now-defunct predecessor group called Healthy Economy Now — that have spent tens of millions of dollars on TV advertising supporting health reform efforts.

In the most recent ad sponsored by Americans for Stable Quality Care, Obama speaks directly into the camera for 60 seconds, extolling the virtues of health care reform, while text at the bottom of the screen encourages viewers to visit the websites of the White House and the Finance Committee, which this week approved a 10-year, $829 billion health overhaul.

Both coalitions operate independently of the administration and Senate Democrats, and spokesmen for both the White House and Baucus said that no pressure — implicit or otherwise — to join the pro-health-care reform groups was applied to industry representatives at the meeting.

After arriving late, Messina delivered a presentation to what was one of many such "outreach" meetings he has attended, and he left before the other participants began talking strategy. Selib, who had convened the gathering, "didn't ask anyone for money," said a Baucus aide.

Indeed, attendees describe a more subtle dynamic: The Democratic officials made no overt demands. Rather, they brought together the players and laid the groundwork for the creation of the coalition, and that was followed by more direct solicitations from an outside Democratic consultant, Nick Baldick, retained by Healthy Economy Now, asking attendees at the meeting to join the coalition and contribute to its ad campaigns.

One ethics expert, however, said the meeting still raises issues. No matter how careful Messina and Selib were to avoid conversation about Healthy Economy Now, their mere presence at what proved to be the coalition's creation raises questions, said Bill Allison, a senior fellow at the Sunlight Foundation, a nonpartisan, nonprofit group that advocates for greater transparency and ethics in government.

"There's no problem with sitting down at the table and talking," said Allison. "But if they are signaling that they would really like these groups to support health care reform and trying to tell the groups how they'll benefit from the plan, they're laying a 'quid' on the table, and — even if they don't discuss dollar amounts or advertising strategies — they're suggesting what the 'quo' is, which is the groups' support for the plan."

The White House and committee officials said the meeting and the months of talks that followed it — between officials putting together the health care proposals and the stakeholders who would be affected by them — prove a willingness by the Obama administration and Baucus to engage groups traditionally considered adversaries of health care reform.

Ken Johnson, a senior vice president at PhRMA, called the April meeting "one of the key points where there was a coming together and a discussion of ideas and shared goals."

Johnson said PhRMA, which ultimately provided the lion's share of the $24 million to the two coalitions, "could have walked away at any time."

Days after the meeting, Healthy Economy Now's website address was registered, and meeting attendees began receiving unsolicited calls asking for cash for the coalition from Baldick, whose firm — Hilltop Public Solutions — had been hired to run Healthy Economy Now.

In addition to PhRMA and the American Medical Association, the strange-bedfellows coalition included AARP, the American Cancer Society, the Business Roundtable, the advocacy group Families USA and the Service Employees International Union, as well as trade groups for biotech and medical device firms.

Other attendees opted out. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and America's Health Insurance Plans refused to participate in a group backing a plan that they would ultimately oppose — and the insurance group this week emerged as the most aggressive opponent to the bill Baucus shepherded through his committee.

Many participants in the meeting had a great deal at stake in health care legislation. At the time Healthy Economy Now launched the first of its ads May 12, PhRMA was negotiating with Baucus and the White House a complex deal in which drug makers would contribute $80 billion to lower costs in exchange for avoiding downward pressure on drug prices.

The Associated Press later revealed that PhRMA had agreed to spend a whopping $150 million pushing the health overhaul — a sum that included its contributions to Healthy Economy Now and Americans for Stable Quality Care.

Some participants said they felt distinct pressure to sign on to the coalitions. "What were we supposed to say? No?" asked a participant who represented a group that joined the coalition but who did not want to be identified discussing the meeting for fear of jeopardizing the group's position in ongoing talks.

But others said the meeting only formalized what had already functioned as an informal alliance.

"This is a natural outgrowth of groups that have worked together previously on health reform issues," said Richard Deem, the senior vice president for advocacy at the American Medical Association.

The groups' backers "had a record of pooling their resources long before the coalition," said Rebecca Kirszner Katz, a former spokeswoman for the now-defunct group. She added that "a core group of these stakeholders approached Hilltop and others about formalizing a coalition."

"The idea that this group of stakeholders — who deal with the problems in health care every day — needed to be told that it was important to communicate about health care, or how to do it, is absurd," she said.

Allison said that it is not only the April meeting that troubles him but also the whole approach Baucus and the White House have taken in attempting to negotiate with potential adversaries.

"What you've had was the Senate and the White House sitting down and cutting deals with special interests," he said. "I don't think that's quite what the American people signed up for when the Obama campaign said that they were going to limit the influence of special interests in this White House."

Criticism — from the left and the right — of the PhRMA deal and the coalitions became more pointed after it was revealed in August that the coalitions were paying two firms with close ties to the White House to cut ads: AKPD Message and Media, which was founded by White House senior adviser David Axelrod, still owes him $2 million and employs one of his sons — and GMMB.

Liberals contended drug companies were being let off the hook. And congressional Republicans distributed talking points asserting the PhRMA deal raised "serious questions as to whether the drug lobby is helping to bankroll a multimillion-dollar severance package for one of the president's senior advisers."

The coalition spawned from the April meeting has evolved since its formation. AARP, a member of Healthy Economy Now, did not join Americans for Stable Quality Care, which welcomed a range of smaller medical groups left out of Healthy Economy Now. The SEIU — dissenting from the implicit endorsement of Baucus's more conservative legislation in the group's most recent ad — recently left the group.

But participants say the coalition will continue its large-scale efforts on behalf of the legislation.

"In the not-too-distant future, you'll see a new set of ads" from Americans for Stable Quality Care, said Ron Pollack, executive director of Families USA, a coalition member that also belonged to Healthy Economy Now.
Exclusive: How Dems set stage for corporate-backed health care campaign - Politico.com Print View (17 October 2009)
dyn.politico.com



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (21127)5/5/2011 8:17:00 PM
From: tonto1 Recommendation  Respond to of 103300
 
Hmmm...