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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (596131)	12/23/2010 10:01:08 AM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1583869

Obama’s Allies Make Peace with Indefinite Detention John on December 22, 2010 at 7:35 pm Can you image this sort of comment from the American Prospect during the Bush years? "Yesterday, the Obama administration indicated to reporters that long-awaited action codifying the Bush-era policy of indefinite detention for suspected terrorists would be put in place through executive order." So how bad is this? It’s both very bad and an improvement over the status quo–and a significant improvement from the detention review policies the Bush administration put in place. After a rundown of fairly timid griping about the policy, Serwer spins out some positives: The Obama administration proposal differs from the Bush administration detention review process in that it would be more adversarial — detainees would be represented by a lawyer, and the boards would be made up of more than just military officials. The process would be, as the New York Times‘ Charlie Savage describes it, basically a kind of “parole board” for suspected terrorists… The administration could argue that by doing this by executive order, it’s avoiding more constraints on detainee rights that would likely be the result of going through a Republican Congress. An executive order also means indefinite detention isn’t a “permanent” fixture of American law. So Obama gets points for letting lawyers agitate for the release of these detainees once a year and for avoiding any permanent resolution of the problem by law. I’m thinking these would have been portrayed as icing on a turd a few years ago. But now the Center for American Progress is saying nice things about what a big improvement this is. I’ll believe they genuinely care about indefinite detention when I see the full page President Betray-Us ad from MoveOn.org. Liberals don't care about the issue. They only care about siding with terrorists against Republicans. Politics first, national security last. verumserum.com

To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (596131)	12/23/2010 10:09:44 AM
From: Brumar89	Respond to of 1583869

"The Obama administration is sticking with a George W. Bush-era decision to deny polar bears endangered species status" It’s official: Polar bear not an endangered species Posted on December 23, 2010 by Anthony Watts Ursus maritimus - Image via Wikipedia The word comes from the Obama Administration, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, no less, and some enironmentalists heads are exploding right about now. This pretty well slams the door on the polar bears threatened by global warming meme. Now we know why there was a flurry of questionable press releases this past week like these: Polar bears no longer on ‘thin ice’: researchers say polar bears could face brighter future: “a combination of greenhouse gas mitigation and control of adverse human activities in the Arctic can lead to a more promising future for polar bear populations and their sea ice habitat“ Polar bears: On thin ice? Extinction can be averted, scientists say Cutting greenhouse gases now is the key Polar bears still on thin ice, but cutting greenhouse gases now can avert extinction From Politico: The Obama administration is sticking with a George W. Bush-era decision to deny polar bears endangered species status. In a court filing Wednesday, the Fish and Wildlife Service defended the previous administration’s decision to give the polar bear the less-protective “threatened” species designation, a move that will frustrate environmentalists who hoped for stronger protections under the Endangered Species Act. FWS Director Rowan Gould said the 2008 “threatened” listing was made “following careful analysis of the best scientific information, as required by the ESA.” At the time, the service determined the bears weren’t danger of extinction, so did not warrant the “endangered” status. The bears were listed as “threatened” because they face serious threats from projected decline in its sea ice habitat due to global warming would result in them likely being in danger of extinction in the foreseeable future. FWS is “confident it was and is the appropriate status,” Gould said. Read more: politico.com