Tuesday, 29 December 2009
BBC News
US President Barack Obama has said it is clear a systemic failure occurred over the attempted plot to blow up a Detroit-bound plane on Christmas Day.
Mr Obama said he considered the failures in intelligence and security systems to be "totally unacceptable".
The US needed to learn from the incident and act quickly to fix flaws in the system, he said.
A Nigerian man accused of attempting to blow up the plane as it came in to land was restrained by passengers.
The 23-year-old allegedly tried detonate explosives in his underwear.
There were nearly 300 people aboard the plane.
In a blunt statement, Mr Obama said he had asked for initial findings from two reviews into the incident to be presented to him on Thursday, with more comprehensive reports following within weeks.
He said that weeks ago information had been passed to the US intelligence community about the suspect weeks ago but had not been effectively distributed.
"We need to learn from this episode and act quickly to fix flaws in the system," Mr Obama said.
The remarks were the president's second public statement on the incident in two days.
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
Thursday, December 24, 2009
Sunday, December 13, 2009
Justice trumps politics: ACORN's federal funding restored
Justice trumps politics: ACORN's federal funding restored. A U.S. District court has ruled Congress' decision to cut off ACORN's funding was unconstitutional, giving a much needed victory to the much maligned group.U.S. District Judge Nina Gershon issued a preliminary injunction against the government, saying it's in the public's interest for the organization to continue receiving federal funding.“The question here is only whether the Constitution allows Congress to declare that a single, named organization is barred from all federal funding in the absence of a trial,” Gershon wrote in her opinion. “Because it does not, and because the plaintiffs have shown the likelihood of irreparable harm in the absence of an injunction, I grant the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction.”ACORN claimed in its lawsuit that Congress' decision to cut off its funding was unconstitutional because it punitively targeted an individual organization.ACORN was set up by right wing activists intent on smearing the organization. Last September activists released amateur videos showing ACORN employees apparently offering advice on how to set up an illegal prostitution ring. Following, there was a rush to judgment on the part of both Congress and the media.There is now doubt to whether the heavily edited videos can stand up to impartial scrutiny. The unedited videos have never been made public. A comparison of the publicly available transcripts to the released videos confirms that large portions of the original video have been omitted from the released versions. Justice for ACORN is a welcome development. ACORN is a great American organization. ACORN advocates for low and moderate income families by working on neighborhood safety, voter registration, health care, affordable housing, and other social issues. - examiner.com
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Thanks for troops; we want Afghans, U.S. brass say
By Yara Bayoumy
KANDAHAR, Afghanistan, Dec 3 (Reuters) - Brigadier General Larry Nicholson is glad President Barack Obama is sending 30,000 extra troops to Afghanistan, but what he needs now is not more Americans, it's more Afghans."I got 10,000 Marines. I have 2,000 Afghans," the commander of U.S. Marines in southern Afghanistan told Reuters."I get asked all the time, 'How many Afghans do you want?' I want one to one. Every time one of our squads is going out, I want an Afghan squad with it."Obama's commander in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal, says his main effort will now be on training Afghan security forces to a level that will allow U.S. troops to begin leaving in 18 months.McChrystal wants to more than double the size of the Afghan forces to 400,000 soldiers and police, a mission he says will take at least four years.It can be a herculean task to train Afghans while in combat, said Lieutenant-Colonel Frank Jenior of the 82nd airborne division."The biggest hurdle is trying to develop them while they're in a fight everyday. The way our army trains back in the States, no one is shooting at us, so we can focus on training and developing our units," he said."Here we've got to try do that while they're being shot at by the Taliban everyday."So far, the Afghan government's goal is to increase the army from 95,000 to 134,000 by October 2010. The 93,000-strong police force, which lags far behind the army in training, will also expand although targets have not been set beyond this year.With little money of its own, Afghanistan relies on Western donors not only to train its troops, but also to pay them.Last month, Afghanistan announced a pay rise of nearly 40 percent for police and military recruits to try and lure more members into the force and keep them from quitting or deserting. New recruits will now earn $165 a month, considered a decent wage in a country where the per capita monthly GDP is just $25."ANAEMIC"The Afghan troops and police are trained by a force of about 7,000 American troops on a base near Kabul, which was combined with a new NATO training mission last month.McChrystal says some of the new U.S. troops will add to those classroom trainers, but most will be deployed in the field embedded alongside Afghan forces.Embedding troops with Afghans is a tactic U.S. forces have so far been able to implement only partially, because Afghan forces were too small and too few Afghans were sent to combat zones.Colonel Vic Braden, Senior Mentor for 205th Afghan National Army Corps, said keeping Afghan force numbers up was difficult, especially in the violent south of the country, because so many troops leave because of low pay, corruption or fear of danger."It's going to take a concerted effort of the coalition and the Afghan government. The Afghan government has to emphasise it, there has to be appropriate pay and as President Obama talked about, there has to be a government with reduced corruption." "Corruption is widespread. The problem is that it makes the army anaemic. Retention rate is a problem, a continual problem in the southern area where there's most of the activity." (Editing by David Fox)((yara.bayoumy@reuters.com; Kabul newsroom; Reuters Messaging: yara.bayoumy.reuters.com@reuters.net)) (For more Reuters coverage of Afghanistan and Pakistan, see: here) ((If you have a query or comment about this story, send an email to news.feedback.asia@thomsonreuters.com))
KANDAHAR, Afghanistan, Dec 3 (Reuters) - Brigadier General Larry Nicholson is glad President Barack Obama is sending 30,000 extra troops to Afghanistan, but what he needs now is not more Americans, it's more Afghans."I got 10,000 Marines. I have 2,000 Afghans," the commander of U.S. Marines in southern Afghanistan told Reuters."I get asked all the time, 'How many Afghans do you want?' I want one to one. Every time one of our squads is going out, I want an Afghan squad with it."Obama's commander in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal, says his main effort will now be on training Afghan security forces to a level that will allow U.S. troops to begin leaving in 18 months.McChrystal wants to more than double the size of the Afghan forces to 400,000 soldiers and police, a mission he says will take at least four years.It can be a herculean task to train Afghans while in combat, said Lieutenant-Colonel Frank Jenior of the 82nd airborne division."The biggest hurdle is trying to develop them while they're in a fight everyday. The way our army trains back in the States, no one is shooting at us, so we can focus on training and developing our units," he said."Here we've got to try do that while they're being shot at by the Taliban everyday."So far, the Afghan government's goal is to increase the army from 95,000 to 134,000 by October 2010. The 93,000-strong police force, which lags far behind the army in training, will also expand although targets have not been set beyond this year.With little money of its own, Afghanistan relies on Western donors not only to train its troops, but also to pay them.Last month, Afghanistan announced a pay rise of nearly 40 percent for police and military recruits to try and lure more members into the force and keep them from quitting or deserting. New recruits will now earn $165 a month, considered a decent wage in a country where the per capita monthly GDP is just $25."ANAEMIC"The Afghan troops and police are trained by a force of about 7,000 American troops on a base near Kabul, which was combined with a new NATO training mission last month.McChrystal says some of the new U.S. troops will add to those classroom trainers, but most will be deployed in the field embedded alongside Afghan forces.Embedding troops with Afghans is a tactic U.S. forces have so far been able to implement only partially, because Afghan forces were too small and too few Afghans were sent to combat zones.Colonel Vic Braden, Senior Mentor for 205th Afghan National Army Corps, said keeping Afghan force numbers up was difficult, especially in the violent south of the country, because so many troops leave because of low pay, corruption or fear of danger."It's going to take a concerted effort of the coalition and the Afghan government. The Afghan government has to emphasise it, there has to be appropriate pay and as President Obama talked about, there has to be a government with reduced corruption." "Corruption is widespread. The problem is that it makes the army anaemic. Retention rate is a problem, a continual problem in the southern area where there's most of the activity." (Editing by David Fox)((yara.bayoumy@reuters.com; Kabul newsroom; Reuters Messaging: yara.bayoumy.reuters.com@reuters.net)) (For more Reuters coverage of Afghanistan and Pakistan, see: here) ((If you have a query or comment about this story, send an email to news.feedback.asia@thomsonreuters.com))
Monday, November 30, 2009
Woods Withdraws From Tournament
By LARRY DORMAN
Published: November 30, 2009
Tiger Woods announced his withdrawal from this week’s Chevron World Challenge, the tournament he has hosted since its move to the Sherwood Country Club in Thousand Oaks, Calif., in 2000. In a statement on his Web site on Monday, Woods, 33, cited injuries from Friday’s one-car accident in front of his home near Orlando, Fla., as the cause for the withdrawal.
“I am extremely disappointed that I will not be at my tournament this week,” Woods said in the statement. “I am certain it will be an outstanding event and I’m very sorry that I can’t be there.”
Woods crashed his 2009 Cadillac Escalade into a fire hydrant and a neighbor’s tree early Friday as he was pulling out of his driveway in the gated community of Isleworth, an Orlando suburb where many high-profile athletes live. He sustained cuts to his upper and lower lips and was left unconscious for some time, according to an incident report. He was taken by ambulance to a hospital, where he was treated and released in good condition.
Woods, whose Tiger Woods Foundation is the main charitable beneficiary of the Chevron tournament — which he has won four times — did not play in last December’s event while recuperating from knee surgery. He did spend the week mingling with sponsors at Sherwood in his role as the host.
Woods’s Web site said he would play no other events this year. In the four years before missing this season’s Buick Invitational at Torrey Pines Golf Course, Woods started his United States schedule there, winning four straight at the La Jolla, Calif., municipal course. The 2010 event, named the Century Club of San Diego Invitational since the loss of Buick as a PGA Tour sponsor, will be played from Jan. 28 to Jan. 31.
“We support Tiger’s decision and are confident the strong field and excellent course will provide an exciting week of competition at the Chevron World Challenge,” said Greg McLaughlin, the president and chief executive of the Tiger Woods Foundation.
Published: November 30, 2009
Tiger Woods announced his withdrawal from this week’s Chevron World Challenge, the tournament he has hosted since its move to the Sherwood Country Club in Thousand Oaks, Calif., in 2000. In a statement on his Web site on Monday, Woods, 33, cited injuries from Friday’s one-car accident in front of his home near Orlando, Fla., as the cause for the withdrawal.
“I am extremely disappointed that I will not be at my tournament this week,” Woods said in the statement. “I am certain it will be an outstanding event and I’m very sorry that I can’t be there.”
Woods crashed his 2009 Cadillac Escalade into a fire hydrant and a neighbor’s tree early Friday as he was pulling out of his driveway in the gated community of Isleworth, an Orlando suburb where many high-profile athletes live. He sustained cuts to his upper and lower lips and was left unconscious for some time, according to an incident report. He was taken by ambulance to a hospital, where he was treated and released in good condition.
Woods, whose Tiger Woods Foundation is the main charitable beneficiary of the Chevron tournament — which he has won four times — did not play in last December’s event while recuperating from knee surgery. He did spend the week mingling with sponsors at Sherwood in his role as the host.
Woods’s Web site said he would play no other events this year. In the four years before missing this season’s Buick Invitational at Torrey Pines Golf Course, Woods started his United States schedule there, winning four straight at the La Jolla, Calif., municipal course. The 2010 event, named the Century Club of San Diego Invitational since the loss of Buick as a PGA Tour sponsor, will be played from Jan. 28 to Jan. 31.
“We support Tiger’s decision and are confident the strong field and excellent course will provide an exciting week of competition at the Chevron World Challenge,” said Greg McLaughlin, the president and chief executive of the Tiger Woods Foundation.
Friday, November 27, 2009
Tiger Woods Said to Be in Good Condition After Car Crash
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: November 27, 2009
Tiger Woods was injured early Friday when he lost control of his SUV outside his Florida mansion, and a local police chief said Woods' wife used a golf club to smash out the back window to help get him out.
The world's No. 1 golfer was treated and released from a hospital in good condition, his spokesman said. The Florida Highway Patrol said Woods' vehicle hit a fire hydrant and a tree in his neighbor's yard after he pulled out of his driveway at 2:25 a.m.
Windermere police chief Daniel Saylor told The Associated Press that officers found the 33-year-old PGA star laying in the street with his wife, Elin, hovering over him.
She told officers she was in the house when she heard the accident and ''came out and broke the back window with a golf club,'' he said. ''She supposedly got him out and laid him on the ground. He was in and out of consciousness when my guys got there.''
He said Woods had lacerations to his upper and lower lips, and blood in his mouth; officers treated Woods for about 10 minutes until an ambulance arrived.
The Florida Highway Patrol said Woods was alone in his 2009 Cadillac when he pulled out of his driveway from his mansion at Isleworth, a gated waterfront community just outside Orlando.
The patrol reported Woods' injuries as serious, although Woods spokesman Glenn Greenspan issued a statement that Woods was treated and released.
The patrol said alcohol was not involved, although the accident remains under investigation and charges could be filed.
Left unanswered was where Woods was going at that hour. Greenspan and agent Mark Steinberg said there would be no comment beyond the short statement of the accident posted on Woods' Web site.
Saylor said his responding officers did not hear anything about an alleged argument between Woods and his wife.
''Right now we believe this is a traffic crash. We don't believe it is domestic issue,'' patrol spokesman Sgt. Kim Montes said.
Woods, coming off a two-week trip to China and Australia earlier this month, is host of the Chevron World Challenge in Thousand Oaks, Calif., which starts Thursday. He is scheduled to have his press conference Tuesday afternoon at Sherwood Country Club. Steinberg said he did not know if Woods planned to play next week.
The Florida Highway Patrol said tapes of the 911 call won't be released until they can be reviewed, probably Monday at the earliest.
The accident report was not released until nearly 12 hours after Woods was injured. Montes said the accident did not meet the criteria of a serious crash, and the FHP only put out a press release because of inquiries from local media.
Montes said the patrol reports injuries as serious if they require more than minor medical attention. Air bags in the SUV did not deploy.
Two troopers tried to talk to Woods on Friday evening, but his wife said he was sleeping and they agreed to come back Saturday, Montes said.
She said charges could be filed if there was a clear traffic violation, although troopers still do not know what caused Woods' SUV to hit the hydrant and the tree.
Woods rarely faces such private scrutiny, even as perhaps the most famous active athlete in the world.
He usually makes news only because of what he can do with a golf club. Few other athletes have managed to keep their private lives so guarded, or have a circle of friends so airtight when it comes to life off the course.
His wife was awarded a $183,250 settlement and an apology from an Irish magazine that published a fake nude photo of her, and Woods received a $1.6 million settlement in a lawsuit against the builder of his yacht -- named Privacy -- for using his name and photos of the boat as promotional material.
Woods is approaching $100 million in career earnings on the PGA Tour, and Forbes magazine reported that combined with endorsements, appearance fees and golf course design, he has become the first athlete to top $1 billion.
Woods' $2.4 million home is part of an exclusive subdivision near Orlando, a community set on an Arnold Palmer-designed golf course and a chain of small lakes. The neighborhood, which is fortified with high brick walls and has its own security force, is home to CEOs and other sports stars such as the NBA's Shaquille O'Neal.
Woods, who has won 82 times around the world and 14 majors, attended the Stanford-Cal football game last Saturday, where he tossed the coin at the start of the game and was inducted into Stanford's sports Hall of Fame at halftime.
He won six times this year after missing eight months recovering from reconstructive surgery on his left knee. Even though he failed to win a major, Woods said he considered this a successful year because he did not know how his knee would respond.
------
Doug Ferguson reported from Jacksonville, Fla. Associated Press writers Tamara Lush and Lisa Orkin Emmanuel in Miami contributed to this report.
Published: November 27, 2009
Tiger Woods was injured early Friday when he lost control of his SUV outside his Florida mansion, and a local police chief said Woods' wife used a golf club to smash out the back window to help get him out.
The world's No. 1 golfer was treated and released from a hospital in good condition, his spokesman said. The Florida Highway Patrol said Woods' vehicle hit a fire hydrant and a tree in his neighbor's yard after he pulled out of his driveway at 2:25 a.m.
Windermere police chief Daniel Saylor told The Associated Press that officers found the 33-year-old PGA star laying in the street with his wife, Elin, hovering over him.
She told officers she was in the house when she heard the accident and ''came out and broke the back window with a golf club,'' he said. ''She supposedly got him out and laid him on the ground. He was in and out of consciousness when my guys got there.''
He said Woods had lacerations to his upper and lower lips, and blood in his mouth; officers treated Woods for about 10 minutes until an ambulance arrived.
The Florida Highway Patrol said Woods was alone in his 2009 Cadillac when he pulled out of his driveway from his mansion at Isleworth, a gated waterfront community just outside Orlando.
The patrol reported Woods' injuries as serious, although Woods spokesman Glenn Greenspan issued a statement that Woods was treated and released.
The patrol said alcohol was not involved, although the accident remains under investigation and charges could be filed.
Left unanswered was where Woods was going at that hour. Greenspan and agent Mark Steinberg said there would be no comment beyond the short statement of the accident posted on Woods' Web site.
Saylor said his responding officers did not hear anything about an alleged argument between Woods and his wife.
''Right now we believe this is a traffic crash. We don't believe it is domestic issue,'' patrol spokesman Sgt. Kim Montes said.
Woods, coming off a two-week trip to China and Australia earlier this month, is host of the Chevron World Challenge in Thousand Oaks, Calif., which starts Thursday. He is scheduled to have his press conference Tuesday afternoon at Sherwood Country Club. Steinberg said he did not know if Woods planned to play next week.
The Florida Highway Patrol said tapes of the 911 call won't be released until they can be reviewed, probably Monday at the earliest.
The accident report was not released until nearly 12 hours after Woods was injured. Montes said the accident did not meet the criteria of a serious crash, and the FHP only put out a press release because of inquiries from local media.
Montes said the patrol reports injuries as serious if they require more than minor medical attention. Air bags in the SUV did not deploy.
Two troopers tried to talk to Woods on Friday evening, but his wife said he was sleeping and they agreed to come back Saturday, Montes said.
She said charges could be filed if there was a clear traffic violation, although troopers still do not know what caused Woods' SUV to hit the hydrant and the tree.
Woods rarely faces such private scrutiny, even as perhaps the most famous active athlete in the world.
He usually makes news only because of what he can do with a golf club. Few other athletes have managed to keep their private lives so guarded, or have a circle of friends so airtight when it comes to life off the course.
His wife was awarded a $183,250 settlement and an apology from an Irish magazine that published a fake nude photo of her, and Woods received a $1.6 million settlement in a lawsuit against the builder of his yacht -- named Privacy -- for using his name and photos of the boat as promotional material.
Woods is approaching $100 million in career earnings on the PGA Tour, and Forbes magazine reported that combined with endorsements, appearance fees and golf course design, he has become the first athlete to top $1 billion.
Woods' $2.4 million home is part of an exclusive subdivision near Orlando, a community set on an Arnold Palmer-designed golf course and a chain of small lakes. The neighborhood, which is fortified with high brick walls and has its own security force, is home to CEOs and other sports stars such as the NBA's Shaquille O'Neal.
Woods, who has won 82 times around the world and 14 majors, attended the Stanford-Cal football game last Saturday, where he tossed the coin at the start of the game and was inducted into Stanford's sports Hall of Fame at halftime.
He won six times this year after missing eight months recovering from reconstructive surgery on his left knee. Even though he failed to win a major, Woods said he considered this a successful year because he did not know how his knee would respond.
------
Doug Ferguson reported from Jacksonville, Fla. Associated Press writers Tamara Lush and Lisa Orkin Emmanuel in Miami contributed to this report.
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Thanksgiving to Americans
Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 1:38 PM
subject
Thanksgiving
David --Tomorrow, Thanksgiving Day, Americans across the country will sit down together, count our blessings, and give thanks for our families and our loved ones.American families reflect the diversity of this great nation. No two are exactly alike, but there is a common thread they each share.Our families are bound together through times of joy and times of grief. They shape us, support us, instill the values that guide us as individuals, and make possible all that we achieve. So tomorrow, I'll be giving thanks for my family -- for all the wisdom, support, and love they have brought into my life.But tomorrow is also a day to remember those who cannot sit down to break bread with those they love. The soldier overseas holding down a lonely post and missing his kids. The sailor who left her home to serve a higher calling. The folks who must spend tomorrow apart from their families to work a second job, so they can keep food on the table or send a child to school. We are grateful beyond words for the service and hard work of so many Americans who make our country great through their sacrifice. And this year, we know that far too many face a daily struggle that puts the comfort and security we all deserve painfully out of reach.So when we gather tomorrow, let us also use the occasion to renew our commitment to building a more peaceful and prosperous future that every American family can enjoy. It seems like a lifetime ago that a crowd met on a frigid February morning in Springfield, Illinois to set out on an improbable course to change our nation.In the years since, Michelle and I have been blessed with the support and friendship of the millions of Americans who have come together to form this ongoing movement for change. You have been there through victories and setbacks. You have given of yourselves beyond measure. You have enabled all that we have accomplished -- and you have had the courage to dream yet bigger dreams for what we can still achieve.So in this season of thanks giving, I want to take a moment to express my gratitude to you, and my anticipation of the brighter future we are creating together.With warmest wishes for a happy holiday season from my family to yours,President Barack Obama
subject
Thanksgiving
David --Tomorrow, Thanksgiving Day, Americans across the country will sit down together, count our blessings, and give thanks for our families and our loved ones.American families reflect the diversity of this great nation. No two are exactly alike, but there is a common thread they each share.Our families are bound together through times of joy and times of grief. They shape us, support us, instill the values that guide us as individuals, and make possible all that we achieve. So tomorrow, I'll be giving thanks for my family -- for all the wisdom, support, and love they have brought into my life.But tomorrow is also a day to remember those who cannot sit down to break bread with those they love. The soldier overseas holding down a lonely post and missing his kids. The sailor who left her home to serve a higher calling. The folks who must spend tomorrow apart from their families to work a second job, so they can keep food on the table or send a child to school. We are grateful beyond words for the service and hard work of so many Americans who make our country great through their sacrifice. And this year, we know that far too many face a daily struggle that puts the comfort and security we all deserve painfully out of reach.So when we gather tomorrow, let us also use the occasion to renew our commitment to building a more peaceful and prosperous future that every American family can enjoy. It seems like a lifetime ago that a crowd met on a frigid February morning in Springfield, Illinois to set out on an improbable course to change our nation.In the years since, Michelle and I have been blessed with the support and friendship of the millions of Americans who have come together to form this ongoing movement for change. You have been there through victories and setbacks. You have given of yourselves beyond measure. You have enabled all that we have accomplished -- and you have had the courage to dream yet bigger dreams for what we can still achieve.So in this season of thanks giving, I want to take a moment to express my gratitude to you, and my anticipation of the brighter future we are creating together.With warmest wishes for a happy holiday season from my family to yours,President Barack Obama
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Chicago police sergeant charged with stealing about $600,000 from union fund
By Annie Sweeney Tribune Reporter
November 22, 2009
The head of the Chicago police sergeants' union was charged with looting union dues to pay for steak dinners, gambling trips to Las Vegas and a second residence in the city's Sauganash neighborhood.Sgt. John Pallohusky, a 21-year veteran assigned to the detective division, was arrested at his Northwest Side home early Friday on felony theft and money-laundering charges for allegedly embezzling about $600,000 over the last several years."This case makes this a very difficult day for all of us in law enforcement," said State's Attorney Anita Alvarez.Pallohusky, 53, is accused of writing checks from the Chicago Police Sergeants' Association to himself and depositing them into his personal accounts. He is also accused of using association credit cards for personal use.The union funds were built by the $25 each member pays per pay period, according to the complaint. Some $765,000 in dues is collected each year from the 1,200 members of the union."We will do everything possible to recover these funds," said Police Superintendent Jody Weis, who noted that the investigation continues.Union officials said they were cooperating with the investigation and that the organization is "fiscally sound." Edward Maloney, the union's general counsel, said the board of directors will run the union's day-to-day operations.Attorney Robert Kuzas, who is representing Pallohusky, denied wrongdoing. "I don't believe he misappropriated one penny of the union's money," he said.The Police Department's Internal Affairs Division opened an investigation after Chase Bank noticed in August that Pallohusky had deposited tens of thousands of dollars into a personal account from a union credit card account, authorities said. Prosecutors moved to seize Pallohusky's two homes. asweeney@tribune.com
November 22, 2009
The head of the Chicago police sergeants' union was charged with looting union dues to pay for steak dinners, gambling trips to Las Vegas and a second residence in the city's Sauganash neighborhood.Sgt. John Pallohusky, a 21-year veteran assigned to the detective division, was arrested at his Northwest Side home early Friday on felony theft and money-laundering charges for allegedly embezzling about $600,000 over the last several years."This case makes this a very difficult day for all of us in law enforcement," said State's Attorney Anita Alvarez.Pallohusky, 53, is accused of writing checks from the Chicago Police Sergeants' Association to himself and depositing them into his personal accounts. He is also accused of using association credit cards for personal use.The union funds were built by the $25 each member pays per pay period, according to the complaint. Some $765,000 in dues is collected each year from the 1,200 members of the union."We will do everything possible to recover these funds," said Police Superintendent Jody Weis, who noted that the investigation continues.Union officials said they were cooperating with the investigation and that the organization is "fiscally sound." Edward Maloney, the union's general counsel, said the board of directors will run the union's day-to-day operations.Attorney Robert Kuzas, who is representing Pallohusky, denied wrongdoing. "I don't believe he misappropriated one penny of the union's money," he said.The Police Department's Internal Affairs Division opened an investigation after Chase Bank noticed in August that Pallohusky had deposited tens of thousands of dollars into a personal account from a union credit card account, authorities said. Prosecutors moved to seize Pallohusky's two homes. asweeney@tribune.com
Sunday, November 15, 2009
9/11 trial to showcase U.S. justice: Senator
Sun Nov 15, 2009 12:29pm EST
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Trying the accused architect of the September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States in New York criminal court will showcase the U.S. judicial system and will not degenerate into a circus as some critics predict, a senior Democratic senator said on Sunday.
"What we're saying to the world is the U.S. acts out of strength not out of fear," Senator Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, told CBS's "Face the Nation."
"We have a judicial system that is the envy of the world. Let's show the world that we can use that system just as we used it with (Oklahoma City bomber) Timothy McVeigh," Leahy added.
The 1995 bombing of the Oklahoma City federal building killed 168 people. McVeigh was convicted and executed.
"If somebody murders Americans ... they ought to be prosecuted in America and hopefully convicted in America," Leahy said, rejecting arguments that they be tried in special military tribunals first set up by the Bush administration.
Many U.S. Republicans have sharply criticized the Obama administration's decision, announced on Friday, to try accused September 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four others in New York in a court near the site of the World Trade Center.
The announcement marked a key step toward meeting President Barack Obama' s goal of closing by January the military prison for terrorism suspects at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The Bush administration had set up special military commissions at the Guantanamo base to conduct trials, denying defendants many of the rights afforded under the U.S. legal system.
Republican U.S. Representative Pete Hoekstra said the decision to hold the trial in New York was "ideology run wild."
"The folks that are going to tried and their lawyers are going to try to extend this as long as they can," possibly as long as three or four years, he said on "Face the Nation."
"They're going to do everything they can to disrupt it and make it a circus and do everything they can to push their ideology," Hoekstra said.
Hoekstra said Attorney General Eric Holder had made a "bad decision" to give the accused "all of the extraordinary protections that you and I have as American citizens" in a criminal trial.
Leahy, a former prosecutor, said the trial would not be allowed to degenerate into a public circus. "I have a lot of faith in our judges," he said. "They know how to run a trial."
Mohammed could be convicted even without evidence obtained under torture such as the practice of simulated drowning known as "waterboarding," which could be ruled inadmissible in a civil trial, Leahy said.
"I have no question that they have enough evidence that was obtained outside of this waterboarding," Leahy said.
(Reporting by Todd Eastham; Editing by Will Dunham)
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Trying the accused architect of the September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States in New York criminal court will showcase the U.S. judicial system and will not degenerate into a circus as some critics predict, a senior Democratic senator said on Sunday.
"What we're saying to the world is the U.S. acts out of strength not out of fear," Senator Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, told CBS's "Face the Nation."
"We have a judicial system that is the envy of the world. Let's show the world that we can use that system just as we used it with (Oklahoma City bomber) Timothy McVeigh," Leahy added.
The 1995 bombing of the Oklahoma City federal building killed 168 people. McVeigh was convicted and executed.
"If somebody murders Americans ... they ought to be prosecuted in America and hopefully convicted in America," Leahy said, rejecting arguments that they be tried in special military tribunals first set up by the Bush administration.
Many U.S. Republicans have sharply criticized the Obama administration's decision, announced on Friday, to try accused September 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four others in New York in a court near the site of the World Trade Center.
The announcement marked a key step toward meeting President Barack Obama' s goal of closing by January the military prison for terrorism suspects at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The Bush administration had set up special military commissions at the Guantanamo base to conduct trials, denying defendants many of the rights afforded under the U.S. legal system.
Republican U.S. Representative Pete Hoekstra said the decision to hold the trial in New York was "ideology run wild."
"The folks that are going to tried and their lawyers are going to try to extend this as long as they can," possibly as long as three or four years, he said on "Face the Nation."
"They're going to do everything they can to disrupt it and make it a circus and do everything they can to push their ideology," Hoekstra said.
Hoekstra said Attorney General Eric Holder had made a "bad decision" to give the accused "all of the extraordinary protections that you and I have as American citizens" in a criminal trial.
Leahy, a former prosecutor, said the trial would not be allowed to degenerate into a public circus. "I have a lot of faith in our judges," he said. "They know how to run a trial."
Mohammed could be convicted even without evidence obtained under torture such as the practice of simulated drowning known as "waterboarding," which could be ruled inadmissible in a civil trial, Leahy said.
"I have no question that they have enough evidence that was obtained outside of this waterboarding," Leahy said.
(Reporting by Todd Eastham; Editing by Will Dunham)
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
D.C. sniper executed in Virginia
By Kevin Johnson USA TODAY
JARRATT, Va. — John Muhammad was executed Tuesday seven years after carrying out sniper attacks that terrorized the nation's capital for weeks and left 10 people dead.
Muhammad, 48, died in five minutes at 9:11 p.m. from a lethal injection at the Greensville Correctional Center. He said nothing as relatives of his victims looked on behind mirrored glass.
One of those in attendance was Milton Perry, a co-worker of bus driver Conrad Johnson, 35, who was shot in the chest at a bus stop in Maryland.
"I'm here because Conrad was the real deal," he said.
MORE: Pending execution reopens wounds victims
A Gulf War veteran and Muslim convert, Muhammad never revealed why he stalked and shot people getting gas or shopping at stores.
His accomplice, Lee Malvo, 24, said Muhammad hoped to extort $10 million from the government to set up a camp where children would be trained as terrorists.
The death penalty was ruled out for Malvo, who was 17 at the time of the murders and committed some of them, after the U.S. Supreme Court decided in 2005 that juvenile offenders cannot be executed.
For three weeks in October 2002, Muhammad and Malvo created panic in Washington and its suburbs.
Many fretted that the shootings were an al-Qaeda plot, coming as they did so close to the one-year anniversary of the Sept. 11 terror attacks. People avoided going outside and avoided self-serve gas stations.
Police got a break when they found Malvo's fingerprint at one of the shooting scenes and learned he was with Muhammad, and that Muhammad owned a blue Chevrolet Caprice. A truck driver spotted the car Oct. 22 at a highway rest stop in Maryland and police arrested the sleeping killers inside.
The car had been modified so someone could shoot from inside the trunk.
Muhammad and Malvo were convicted of six Maryland murders, for which they received life terms. In Virginia, a jury in 2003 sentenced Muhammad to death for the murder of Dean Harold Meyers, 53, killed while pumping gas at a Sunoco station in Manassas.
Defense lawyers argued that Muhammad was not mentally competent to stand trial. Courts disagreed.
Muhammad, divorced with five children, spent his final hours meeting with members of his family. He ate a last meal of chicken with red sauce.
His lawyer, Jon Sheldon, said that in the hours before his death Muhammad remained "obsessed in his belief that the government was conspiring against him because of his race."
-http://davidsradiotv2000.blogspot.com
JARRATT, Va. — John Muhammad was executed Tuesday seven years after carrying out sniper attacks that terrorized the nation's capital for weeks and left 10 people dead.
Muhammad, 48, died in five minutes at 9:11 p.m. from a lethal injection at the Greensville Correctional Center. He said nothing as relatives of his victims looked on behind mirrored glass.
One of those in attendance was Milton Perry, a co-worker of bus driver Conrad Johnson, 35, who was shot in the chest at a bus stop in Maryland.
"I'm here because Conrad was the real deal," he said.
MORE: Pending execution reopens wounds victims
A Gulf War veteran and Muslim convert, Muhammad never revealed why he stalked and shot people getting gas or shopping at stores.
His accomplice, Lee Malvo, 24, said Muhammad hoped to extort $10 million from the government to set up a camp where children would be trained as terrorists.
The death penalty was ruled out for Malvo, who was 17 at the time of the murders and committed some of them, after the U.S. Supreme Court decided in 2005 that juvenile offenders cannot be executed.
For three weeks in October 2002, Muhammad and Malvo created panic in Washington and its suburbs.
Many fretted that the shootings were an al-Qaeda plot, coming as they did so close to the one-year anniversary of the Sept. 11 terror attacks. People avoided going outside and avoided self-serve gas stations.
Police got a break when they found Malvo's fingerprint at one of the shooting scenes and learned he was with Muhammad, and that Muhammad owned a blue Chevrolet Caprice. A truck driver spotted the car Oct. 22 at a highway rest stop in Maryland and police arrested the sleeping killers inside.
The car had been modified so someone could shoot from inside the trunk.
Muhammad and Malvo were convicted of six Maryland murders, for which they received life terms. In Virginia, a jury in 2003 sentenced Muhammad to death for the murder of Dean Harold Meyers, 53, killed while pumping gas at a Sunoco station in Manassas.
Defense lawyers argued that Muhammad was not mentally competent to stand trial. Courts disagreed.
Muhammad, divorced with five children, spent his final hours meeting with members of his family. He ate a last meal of chicken with red sauce.
His lawyer, Jon Sheldon, said that in the hours before his death Muhammad remained "obsessed in his belief that the government was conspiring against him because of his race."
-http://davidsradiotv2000.blogspot.com
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Keep Your Kidneys Healthy
If you are at risk for kidney disease, the most important steps you can take to keep your kidneys healthy are:
Get your blood and urine checked for kidney disease.
Manage your diabetes, high blood pressure, and heart disease.
If tests show kidney disease, there are blood pressure medicines called ACE inhibitors and ARBs that you can take to protect your kidneys. These medicines can help your kidneys even if you don’t have high blood pressure. Learn more about treating kidney disease
Tips for People with Diabetes
Get your blood and urine checked for kidney disease
For type 2 diabetes, get tested every year
For type 1 diabetes, get tested every year starting five years after you were diagnosed with diabetes
Keep your blood pressure below 130/80 mmHg
Aim for your blood glucose targets as often as you can.
When you wake up and before meals: 70 to 130
Two hours after starting to eat a meal: Under 180
Keep your cholesterol levels in the target range
Take your medicines as prescribed
Eat healthy and cut back on salt
Be physically active
For more information on managing diabetes, visit the National Diabetes Education Program.
Tips for People with High Blood Pressure or Heart Disease
Get your blood and urine checked for kidney disease
Keep your blood pressure below 130/80 mmHg
Maintain your ideal weight
Eat healthy
Choose fruits, vegetables, grains, and low-fat dairy foods
Limit your daily sodium intake to 2,300 milligrams (mg) or lower
Be physically active
Limit your alcohol and caffeine intake
Take all medicines as prescribed – there are blood pressure medicines called ACE inhibitors and ARBs that also protect your kidneys
Aim for your blood glucose targets as often as you can if you have diabetes
See your health care provider as directed
-From http://www.nkdep/nih.gov/patients/healthy
Get your blood and urine checked for kidney disease.
Manage your diabetes, high blood pressure, and heart disease.
If tests show kidney disease, there are blood pressure medicines called ACE inhibitors and ARBs that you can take to protect your kidneys. These medicines can help your kidneys even if you don’t have high blood pressure. Learn more about treating kidney disease
Tips for People with Diabetes
Get your blood and urine checked for kidney disease
For type 2 diabetes, get tested every year
For type 1 diabetes, get tested every year starting five years after you were diagnosed with diabetes
Keep your blood pressure below 130/80 mmHg
Aim for your blood glucose targets as often as you can.
When you wake up and before meals: 70 to 130
Two hours after starting to eat a meal: Under 180
Keep your cholesterol levels in the target range
Take your medicines as prescribed
Eat healthy and cut back on salt
Be physically active
For more information on managing diabetes, visit the National Diabetes Education Program.
Tips for People with High Blood Pressure or Heart Disease
Get your blood and urine checked for kidney disease
Keep your blood pressure below 130/80 mmHg
Maintain your ideal weight
Eat healthy
Choose fruits, vegetables, grains, and low-fat dairy foods
Limit your daily sodium intake to 2,300 milligrams (mg) or lower
Be physically active
Limit your alcohol and caffeine intake
Take all medicines as prescribed – there are blood pressure medicines called ACE inhibitors and ARBs that also protect your kidneys
Aim for your blood glucose targets as often as you can if you have diabetes
See your health care provider as directed
-From http://www.nkdep/nih.gov/patients/healthy
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Cable breaks from San Francisco bridge
October 28, 2009
By Nick Valencia, CNN
(CNN) -- A piece of steel and cable fell from the San Francisco Bay Bridge onto the roadway Tuesday, causing an apparently minor two-car accident but backing up traffic for miles, the California Highway Patrol said.
The Bay Bridge is one of the main arteries into and out of San Francisco.
No one was injured in the accident, which happened at 5:32 p.m. PT (8:32 p.m. ET), but the driver of one car "appeared to be shaken up," CHP Officer Peter Van Eckhardt said.
"It appears to be an area where temporary repair was done over Labor Day weekend," Van Eckhardt said. "It was unexpected to say the very least."
The incident closed down three lanes on the five-lane bridge, backing up traffic into the Oakland area.
Aerials from CNN affiliate KGO showed a black sedan with its hood flipped up onto the windshield and a rental truck stalled on one of the lanes.
The scene of Tuesday's accident is near the area of another traffic-stopping accident on October 15, when a truck flipped over and blocked several lanes of the bridge.
By Nick Valencia, CNN
(CNN) -- A piece of steel and cable fell from the San Francisco Bay Bridge onto the roadway Tuesday, causing an apparently minor two-car accident but backing up traffic for miles, the California Highway Patrol said.
The Bay Bridge is one of the main arteries into and out of San Francisco.
No one was injured in the accident, which happened at 5:32 p.m. PT (8:32 p.m. ET), but the driver of one car "appeared to be shaken up," CHP Officer Peter Van Eckhardt said.
"It appears to be an area where temporary repair was done over Labor Day weekend," Van Eckhardt said. "It was unexpected to say the very least."
The incident closed down three lanes on the five-lane bridge, backing up traffic into the Oakland area.
Aerials from CNN affiliate KGO showed a black sedan with its hood flipped up onto the windshield and a rental truck stalled on one of the lanes.
The scene of Tuesday's accident is near the area of another traffic-stopping accident on October 15, when a truck flipped over and blocked several lanes of the bridge.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Special $250 payment for elderly could get a boost
By STEPHEN OHLEMACHER (AP) – 30 minutes ago
WASHINGTON — The announcement that Social Security recipients won't get a cost-of-living increase next year could boost President Barack Obama's plan to send seniors another round of $250 payments before the congressional elections.
Democratic leaders in Congress have signed onto the plan, greatly improving its chances, even as some budget hawks say the payments are unwarranted and could add to the federal budget deficit. Republican leaders said they, too, favor the payments but don't want to increase the deficit to pay for them.
More than 50 million Social Security recipients will see no increase in their monthly payments next year because consumer prices have been falling, the government said Thursday. It will be the first year without an increase since automatic adjustments were adopted in 1975.
By law, cost-of-living adjustments are pegged to inflation, which is negative this year because of lower energy costs. Social Security payments, however, do not go down even when prices drop.
The White House said the stimulus payments would cost $13 billion, though a congressional estimate put the cost at $14 billion. Obama didn't say how the payments should be financed, leaving that up to Congress. The president is open to borrowing the money, increasing the federal deficit, just as Congress did with the first round of stimulus payments.
Many seniors groups applauded Obama's plan to provide the $250 payments to about 57 million senior citizens, veterans, retired railroad workers and people with disabilities, saying the recession has reduced home values and diminished retirement funds. Recipients would be limited to one payment, even if they qualified in more than one category.
"Without relief, millions of older Americans will be unable to afford skyrocketing health care and prescription drug costs, as well as other basic necessities," said Tom Nelson, chief operating officer for AARP.
The payments would match the ones issued to seniors earlier this year as part of the government's economic recovery package. They would be equal to about a 2 percent increase for the average Social Security recipient.
Social Security has been the backbone of the nation's safety net for older Americans since it was enacted in the 1930s. Together with Medicare, the government health insurance program for the elderly, it helps keep millions of seniors out of poverty.
The poverty rate for U.S. residents 65 and older is below the rates for other age groups and has been for much of the past two decades. In 2008, the rate for seniors was 9.7 percent, according to the Census Bureau. That same year it was 11.7 percent for 18-to-64-year-olds and 19 percent for minors.
The average monthly Social Security payment for all recipients is $1,094.
Some Social Security experts say recipients shouldn't get a raise or an extra payment next year because their purchasing power has already increased with falling consumer prices.
They note that Social Security payments increased by 5.8 percent this year, the biggest rise since 1982, largely because of a spike in energy prices in 2008.
Over the past 12 months, gasoline prices have fallen 29.7 percent, and overall energy costs have decreased 21.6 percent, the Labor Department said Thursday. Consumer prices in general have declined 2.1 percent since the third quarter of 2008. The cost-of-living adjustment for Social Security, or COLA, is based on the change in consumer prices from the third quarter of one year to the next.
"The real purchasing power of their benefits is actually higher today than it was last year," said Andrew Biggs, a former deputy commissioner at the Social Security Administration and now a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.
"Nevertheless, there will be a big political price to pay if no COLA is granted," Biggs said.
Obama's proposal has picked up support from key members of Congress, including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio said he wanted to use unspent funds from last year's stimulus legislation to offset the cost.
Advocates for seniors argue that they deserve a raise because they spend a disproportionate amount of their incomes on health care costs, which rise faster than other consumer prices.
"Any senior living in the real world knows that the cost of living has gone up over the last year," said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y.
Obama's plan also picked up an endorsement from Social Security Commissioner Michael J. Astrue, who was appointed to a six-year term by former President George W. Bush.
The lack of a monthly increase in payments triggers several provisions in the law. Among them, the amount of wages subject to Social Security payroll taxes will remain unchanged. The first $106,800 of a worker's earned income is currently subject to the tax.
Also, Medicare Part B premiums for the vast majority of Social Security recipients will remain frozen at 2009 levels. However, premiums for the Medicare prescription drug program, known as Part D, will increase.
-http://davidsradiotv2000.blogspot.com
WASHINGTON — The announcement that Social Security recipients won't get a cost-of-living increase next year could boost President Barack Obama's plan to send seniors another round of $250 payments before the congressional elections.
Democratic leaders in Congress have signed onto the plan, greatly improving its chances, even as some budget hawks say the payments are unwarranted and could add to the federal budget deficit. Republican leaders said they, too, favor the payments but don't want to increase the deficit to pay for them.
More than 50 million Social Security recipients will see no increase in their monthly payments next year because consumer prices have been falling, the government said Thursday. It will be the first year without an increase since automatic adjustments were adopted in 1975.
By law, cost-of-living adjustments are pegged to inflation, which is negative this year because of lower energy costs. Social Security payments, however, do not go down even when prices drop.
The White House said the stimulus payments would cost $13 billion, though a congressional estimate put the cost at $14 billion. Obama didn't say how the payments should be financed, leaving that up to Congress. The president is open to borrowing the money, increasing the federal deficit, just as Congress did with the first round of stimulus payments.
Many seniors groups applauded Obama's plan to provide the $250 payments to about 57 million senior citizens, veterans, retired railroad workers and people with disabilities, saying the recession has reduced home values and diminished retirement funds. Recipients would be limited to one payment, even if they qualified in more than one category.
"Without relief, millions of older Americans will be unable to afford skyrocketing health care and prescription drug costs, as well as other basic necessities," said Tom Nelson, chief operating officer for AARP.
The payments would match the ones issued to seniors earlier this year as part of the government's economic recovery package. They would be equal to about a 2 percent increase for the average Social Security recipient.
Social Security has been the backbone of the nation's safety net for older Americans since it was enacted in the 1930s. Together with Medicare, the government health insurance program for the elderly, it helps keep millions of seniors out of poverty.
The poverty rate for U.S. residents 65 and older is below the rates for other age groups and has been for much of the past two decades. In 2008, the rate for seniors was 9.7 percent, according to the Census Bureau. That same year it was 11.7 percent for 18-to-64-year-olds and 19 percent for minors.
The average monthly Social Security payment for all recipients is $1,094.
Some Social Security experts say recipients shouldn't get a raise or an extra payment next year because their purchasing power has already increased with falling consumer prices.
They note that Social Security payments increased by 5.8 percent this year, the biggest rise since 1982, largely because of a spike in energy prices in 2008.
Over the past 12 months, gasoline prices have fallen 29.7 percent, and overall energy costs have decreased 21.6 percent, the Labor Department said Thursday. Consumer prices in general have declined 2.1 percent since the third quarter of 2008. The cost-of-living adjustment for Social Security, or COLA, is based on the change in consumer prices from the third quarter of one year to the next.
"The real purchasing power of their benefits is actually higher today than it was last year," said Andrew Biggs, a former deputy commissioner at the Social Security Administration and now a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.
"Nevertheless, there will be a big political price to pay if no COLA is granted," Biggs said.
Obama's proposal has picked up support from key members of Congress, including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio said he wanted to use unspent funds from last year's stimulus legislation to offset the cost.
Advocates for seniors argue that they deserve a raise because they spend a disproportionate amount of their incomes on health care costs, which rise faster than other consumer prices.
"Any senior living in the real world knows that the cost of living has gone up over the last year," said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y.
Obama's plan also picked up an endorsement from Social Security Commissioner Michael J. Astrue, who was appointed to a six-year term by former President George W. Bush.
The lack of a monthly increase in payments triggers several provisions in the law. Among them, the amount of wages subject to Social Security payroll taxes will remain unchanged. The first $106,800 of a worker's earned income is currently subject to the tax.
Also, Medicare Part B premiums for the vast majority of Social Security recipients will remain frozen at 2009 levels. However, premiums for the Medicare prescription drug program, known as Part D, will increase.
-http://davidsradiotv2000.blogspot.com
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
GOP's Snowe will vote for Democratic health bill
By ERICA WERNER (AP) – 25 minutes ago
WASHINGTON — Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe broke with her party Tuesday and said she will vote for a Democratic health care bill, handing President Barack Obama a much-sought boost in his quest to expand access to medical coverage to all Americans.
Approval of the legislation by the Senate Finance Committee was a foregone conclusion going into Tuesday's vote, since Democrats outnumber Republicans 13-10 on the panel. But Snowe's decision gave the vote a significance that transcends partisan divisions. For months, congressional Republicans have been virtually unanimous in denouncing the Democratic bills as an unwarranted expansion of government influence.
The Maine senator kept virtually all of Washington guessing about how she would vote until she announced it late in the Senate Finance Committee debate Tuesday. She told her colleagues she has misgivings about the bill, but "when history calls, history calls."
Democrats, aware that Snowe could be the only Republican in Congress to vote for their health care overhaul, have spent months addressing her concerns about making health care affordable and how to pay for it.
"Ours is a balanced plan that can pass the Senate," declared Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont. Health care legislation is expected to be on the Senate floor the week after next, said a spokesman for Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, who must combine the Finance version with a more liberal proposal from the health committee.
The expected approval by Baucus' committee would push a remake of the U.S. health care system closer to reality than it has been in decades. Four other congressional committees finished their work before August and for months all eyes have been on the Finance panel, the one whose moderate makeup most closely resembles the Senate as a whole.
The committee's centrist legislation is also seen as the best building block for a compromise plan that could find favor on the Senate floor. But nearly unanimous opposition from Republicans means a tough battle lies ahead.
Baucus' 10-year, $829-billion plan would, for the first time, require most Americans to purchase insurance and it also aims to hold down spiraling medical costs over the long term. Questions persist about whether it would truly provide access to affordable coverage, particularly for self employed people with solid middle class incomes.
Much work would lie ahead before a bill could arrive on Obama's desk, but action by the Finance Committee would mark a significant advance, capping numerous delays as Baucus held marathon negotiating sessions — ultimately unsuccessful — aimed at producing a bipartisan bill.
The Finance Committee's top Republican, Chuck Grassley of Iowa, gave voice to the GOP's concerns about the bill, saying it was "moving on a slippery slope to more and more government control of health care."
"There's a lot in this bill that's just a consensus that needs to be done, but there are other provisions of this bill that raise a lot of questions," Grassley said, contending the legislation would mean higher costs for Americans.
One of the biggest unanswered questions is whether the legislation would slow punishing increases in the nation's health care costs, particularly for the majority who now have coverage through employers. The insurance industry insists it would shift new costs onto those who have coverage.
Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Elmendorf, under questioning by Republican senators, acknowledged that the bill's total impact on the nation's health care costs is still unknown. The CBO has been able to establish that the legislation would reduce federal government deficits, but Elmendorf said his staff has not had time to evaluate its effects on privately insured people. Government programs pay about half the nation's annual $2.5 trillion health care tab.
Once the Finance Committee has acted, the dealmaking can begin in earnest with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., working with White House staff, Baucus and others to blend the Finance bill with a more liberal version passed by the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee.
Baucus' bill includes consumer protections such as limits on copays and deductibles and relies on federal subsidies to help lower-income families purchase coverage. Insurance companies would have to take all comers, and people could shop for insurance within new state marketplaces called exchanges.
Medicaid would be expanded, and though employers wouldn't be required to cover their workers, they'd have to pay a penalty for each employee who sought insurance with government subsidies. The bill is paid for by cuts to Medicare providers and new taxes on insurance companies and others.
Unlike the other health care bills in Congress, Baucus' would not allow the government to sell insurance in competition with private companies, a divisive element sought by liberals.
Last-minute changes made subsidies more generous and softened the penalties for those who don't comply with a proposed new mandate for everyone to buy insurance. The latter change drew the ire of the health insurance industry, which said that without a strong and enforceable requirement, not enough people would get insured and premiums would jump for everyone else.
A major question mark for Reid's negotiations is whether he will include some version of a so-called public plan in the merged bill. Across the Capitol, House Democratic leaders are working to finalize their bill, which does contain a public plan, and floor action is expected in both chambers in coming weeks. If passed, the legislation would then go to a conference committee to reconcile differences.
Associated Press writer Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar contributed to this report
WASHINGTON — Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe broke with her party Tuesday and said she will vote for a Democratic health care bill, handing President Barack Obama a much-sought boost in his quest to expand access to medical coverage to all Americans.
Approval of the legislation by the Senate Finance Committee was a foregone conclusion going into Tuesday's vote, since Democrats outnumber Republicans 13-10 on the panel. But Snowe's decision gave the vote a significance that transcends partisan divisions. For months, congressional Republicans have been virtually unanimous in denouncing the Democratic bills as an unwarranted expansion of government influence.
The Maine senator kept virtually all of Washington guessing about how she would vote until she announced it late in the Senate Finance Committee debate Tuesday. She told her colleagues she has misgivings about the bill, but "when history calls, history calls."
Democrats, aware that Snowe could be the only Republican in Congress to vote for their health care overhaul, have spent months addressing her concerns about making health care affordable and how to pay for it.
"Ours is a balanced plan that can pass the Senate," declared Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont. Health care legislation is expected to be on the Senate floor the week after next, said a spokesman for Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, who must combine the Finance version with a more liberal proposal from the health committee.
The expected approval by Baucus' committee would push a remake of the U.S. health care system closer to reality than it has been in decades. Four other congressional committees finished their work before August and for months all eyes have been on the Finance panel, the one whose moderate makeup most closely resembles the Senate as a whole.
The committee's centrist legislation is also seen as the best building block for a compromise plan that could find favor on the Senate floor. But nearly unanimous opposition from Republicans means a tough battle lies ahead.
Baucus' 10-year, $829-billion plan would, for the first time, require most Americans to purchase insurance and it also aims to hold down spiraling medical costs over the long term. Questions persist about whether it would truly provide access to affordable coverage, particularly for self employed people with solid middle class incomes.
Much work would lie ahead before a bill could arrive on Obama's desk, but action by the Finance Committee would mark a significant advance, capping numerous delays as Baucus held marathon negotiating sessions — ultimately unsuccessful — aimed at producing a bipartisan bill.
The Finance Committee's top Republican, Chuck Grassley of Iowa, gave voice to the GOP's concerns about the bill, saying it was "moving on a slippery slope to more and more government control of health care."
"There's a lot in this bill that's just a consensus that needs to be done, but there are other provisions of this bill that raise a lot of questions," Grassley said, contending the legislation would mean higher costs for Americans.
One of the biggest unanswered questions is whether the legislation would slow punishing increases in the nation's health care costs, particularly for the majority who now have coverage through employers. The insurance industry insists it would shift new costs onto those who have coverage.
Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Elmendorf, under questioning by Republican senators, acknowledged that the bill's total impact on the nation's health care costs is still unknown. The CBO has been able to establish that the legislation would reduce federal government deficits, but Elmendorf said his staff has not had time to evaluate its effects on privately insured people. Government programs pay about half the nation's annual $2.5 trillion health care tab.
Once the Finance Committee has acted, the dealmaking can begin in earnest with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., working with White House staff, Baucus and others to blend the Finance bill with a more liberal version passed by the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee.
Baucus' bill includes consumer protections such as limits on copays and deductibles and relies on federal subsidies to help lower-income families purchase coverage. Insurance companies would have to take all comers, and people could shop for insurance within new state marketplaces called exchanges.
Medicaid would be expanded, and though employers wouldn't be required to cover their workers, they'd have to pay a penalty for each employee who sought insurance with government subsidies. The bill is paid for by cuts to Medicare providers and new taxes on insurance companies and others.
Unlike the other health care bills in Congress, Baucus' would not allow the government to sell insurance in competition with private companies, a divisive element sought by liberals.
Last-minute changes made subsidies more generous and softened the penalties for those who don't comply with a proposed new mandate for everyone to buy insurance. The latter change drew the ire of the health insurance industry, which said that without a strong and enforceable requirement, not enough people would get insured and premiums would jump for everyone else.
A major question mark for Reid's negotiations is whether he will include some version of a so-called public plan in the merged bill. Across the Capitol, House Democratic leaders are working to finalize their bill, which does contain a public plan, and floor action is expected in both chambers in coming weeks. If passed, the legislation would then go to a conference committee to reconcile differences.
Associated Press writer Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar contributed to this report
Friday, October 9, 2009
Obama wins Nobel Peace Prize to mixed reviews
Fri Oct 9, 2009 10:00am EDT
By Wojciech Moskwa and Matt Spetalnick
OSLO/WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize on Friday for offering the world hope and striving for nuclear disarmament in a surprise award that drew both warm praise and sharp criticism.
The bestowal of one of the world's top accolades on a president less than nine months in office, who has yet to score a major foreign policy success, was greeted with gasps of astonishment from journalists at the announcement in Oslo.
The Norwegian Nobel Committee praised Obama for "his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.
Critics -- some in parts of the Arab and Muslim world -- called the committee decision premature.
Obama's press secretary woke him with the news before dawn and the president felt "humbled" by the award, a senior administration official said.
When told in an email from Reuters that many people around the world were stunned by the announcement, Obama's senior adviser, David Axelrod, responded: "As are we."
The first African-American to hold his country's highest office, Obama, 48, has called for disarmament and worked to restart stalled Middle East peace moves since taking office in January.
"Very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future," the committee said in a citation.
Despite problems at home that include high unemployment, the U.S. president is still widely seen around the world as an inspirational figure.
Obama laid out his vision on eliminating nuclear arms in a speech in Prague in April. But he was not the first American president to set that goal, and acknowledged it might not be reached in his lifetime.
Obama was to make a statement in the White House Rose Garden at 10:30 a.m. EDT (1430 GMT). The president, struggling at home with high unemployment and resistance in Congress to his healthcare reform plans, is likely to go to Oslo to receive the prize, Axelrod told the MSNBC TV channel.
While the award won praise from such statesmen as Nelson Mandela and Mikhail Gorbachev, both Nobel laureates, it was also attacked in some quarters as hasty and undeserved.
Afghanistan's Taliban mocked the award, saying Obama should get a Nobel prize for violence instead.
Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid said it was absurd to give a peace award to a man who had sent 21,000 extra troops to Afghanistan to escalate a war.
"The Nobel prize for peace? Obama should have won the 'Nobel Prize for escalating violence and killing civilians'," he told Reuters by telephone from an undisclosed location. Continued...
-http://davidsradiotv2000.blogspot.com
By Wojciech Moskwa and Matt Spetalnick
OSLO/WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize on Friday for offering the world hope and striving for nuclear disarmament in a surprise award that drew both warm praise and sharp criticism.
The bestowal of one of the world's top accolades on a president less than nine months in office, who has yet to score a major foreign policy success, was greeted with gasps of astonishment from journalists at the announcement in Oslo.
The Norwegian Nobel Committee praised Obama for "his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.
Critics -- some in parts of the Arab and Muslim world -- called the committee decision premature.
Obama's press secretary woke him with the news before dawn and the president felt "humbled" by the award, a senior administration official said.
When told in an email from Reuters that many people around the world were stunned by the announcement, Obama's senior adviser, David Axelrod, responded: "As are we."
The first African-American to hold his country's highest office, Obama, 48, has called for disarmament and worked to restart stalled Middle East peace moves since taking office in January.
"Very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future," the committee said in a citation.
Despite problems at home that include high unemployment, the U.S. president is still widely seen around the world as an inspirational figure.
Obama laid out his vision on eliminating nuclear arms in a speech in Prague in April. But he was not the first American president to set that goal, and acknowledged it might not be reached in his lifetime.
Obama was to make a statement in the White House Rose Garden at 10:30 a.m. EDT (1430 GMT). The president, struggling at home with high unemployment and resistance in Congress to his healthcare reform plans, is likely to go to Oslo to receive the prize, Axelrod told the MSNBC TV channel.
While the award won praise from such statesmen as Nelson Mandela and Mikhail Gorbachev, both Nobel laureates, it was also attacked in some quarters as hasty and undeserved.
Afghanistan's Taliban mocked the award, saying Obama should get a Nobel prize for violence instead.
Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid said it was absurd to give a peace award to a man who had sent 21,000 extra troops to Afghanistan to escalate a war.
"The Nobel prize for peace? Obama should have won the 'Nobel Prize for escalating violence and killing civilians'," he told Reuters by telephone from an undisclosed location. Continued...
-http://davidsradiotv2000.blogspot.com
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Homeland Security to Hire Cyberexperts
OCTOBER 1, 2009, 6:03 P.M. ET
WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration has given a green light to the Department of Homeland Security to hire as many as 1,000 new cyberexperts over the next three years, the first major personnel move to fulfill its vow to bolster security of the nation's computer networks.
The announcement follows a wave of cyberattacks on federal agencies, including a July assault that knocked government Web sites off the Internet and earlier intrusions into the country's electrical grid.
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, who made the announcement Thursday, said the hiring plan reflects the Obama administration's commitment to improving cybersecurity. The move gives DHS officials far greater flexibility to hire whom they want, outside of more stringent federal guidelines. And it will also allow more latitude in pay.
As a result, Ms. Napolitano told an audience of cyber industry professionals, the new rules "will allow us to be competitive with you all'' in luring quality applicants.
Much of the funding already has been budgeted, but DHS also is working with Congress for more money. Officials refused to say how much money the program would represent.
The hiring push also underscores the administration's ongoing struggle to better organize and manage the country's vulnerable digital defense. President Barack Obama vowed in February to tackle cyberissues, but he still hasn't named a cybercoordinator, a job that experts say will be difficult to fill.
Ms. Napolitano said the department doesn't anticipate filling all 1,000 positions, which will include cyberanalysts, developers and engineers who can detect, investigate and deter cyberattacks.
The secretary's announcement marked the start of National Cybersecurity Awareness Month, which reflects the White House goal to draw more public attention to the need for everyday computer users to exercise more diligence in protecting their online security.
In other comments, Deputy Defense Secretary William Lynn said the Pentagon expects to make decisions in the coming weeks on whether to relax restrictions on the use of external computer flash drives and social media Web sites by members of the military and department employees.
The Pentagon banned the use of flash drives last November because of a virus threat officials detected on Defense Department networks.
--WSJ.com
WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration has given a green light to the Department of Homeland Security to hire as many as 1,000 new cyberexperts over the next three years, the first major personnel move to fulfill its vow to bolster security of the nation's computer networks.
The announcement follows a wave of cyberattacks on federal agencies, including a July assault that knocked government Web sites off the Internet and earlier intrusions into the country's electrical grid.
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, who made the announcement Thursday, said the hiring plan reflects the Obama administration's commitment to improving cybersecurity. The move gives DHS officials far greater flexibility to hire whom they want, outside of more stringent federal guidelines. And it will also allow more latitude in pay.
As a result, Ms. Napolitano told an audience of cyber industry professionals, the new rules "will allow us to be competitive with you all'' in luring quality applicants.
Much of the funding already has been budgeted, but DHS also is working with Congress for more money. Officials refused to say how much money the program would represent.
The hiring push also underscores the administration's ongoing struggle to better organize and manage the country's vulnerable digital defense. President Barack Obama vowed in February to tackle cyberissues, but he still hasn't named a cybercoordinator, a job that experts say will be difficult to fill.
Ms. Napolitano said the department doesn't anticipate filling all 1,000 positions, which will include cyberanalysts, developers and engineers who can detect, investigate and deter cyberattacks.
The secretary's announcement marked the start of National Cybersecurity Awareness Month, which reflects the White House goal to draw more public attention to the need for everyday computer users to exercise more diligence in protecting their online security.
In other comments, Deputy Defense Secretary William Lynn said the Pentagon expects to make decisions in the coming weeks on whether to relax restrictions on the use of external computer flash drives and social media Web sites by members of the military and department employees.
The Pentagon banned the use of flash drives last November because of a virus threat officials detected on Defense Department networks.
--WSJ.com
Saturday, September 26, 2009
U.S. to Demand Access to Newly Exposed Nuclear Facility in Iran
By Glenn Kessler Washington Post Staff Writer Saturday, September 26, 2009; 6:46 PM
At talks scheduled for Thursday in Geneva with Iran, the United States and five other major powers will demand immediate and unfettered access to the newly exposed nuclear facility in Iran, including people and documents involved in its construction, and insist that Tehran abide by international rules to reveal such projects before construction begins, administration officials said Saturday.
Diplomats will also insist that Iran undertake confidence-building measures, including answering questions about suspected efforts to develop nuclear weapons and accepting a timetable for serious negotiations. Officials said there is no stated deadline, but there will be the implied threat that if Iran fails to respond seriously by year's end, the United States and its partners will begin to push for crippling sanctions that could target Iran's economic and financial links to the world.
In the wake of the discovery of the facility near the holy city of Qom, "it is now a choice for Iran, and the choice became starker," said a senior administration official, speaking on the condition of anonymity. As an inducement for cooperation, the United States and other powers have offered economic and diplomatic incentives if Iran reins in its nuclear ambitions.
Iranian officials insisted Saturday that they notified the International Atomic Energy Agency about the facility in a timely fashion and that IAEA inspectors are welcome to visit it, though they did not say when, or whether they will be able to set up monitoring equipment. Ali Akbar Salehi, the head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization, denounced the reaction from the United States and other Western powers. "Their embarrassing reaction and their unbalanced response has shocked us," he told state television.
In his weekly radio address, President Obama emphasized the importance of the showdown at Geneva's historic Hotel-de-Ville, which will also include diplomats from Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China -- and will mark the first diplomatic encounter between Iran and the Obama administration.
"This is a serious challenge to the global nonproliferation regime and continues a disturbing pattern of Iranian evasion," he said. "That is why international negotiations with Iran scheduled for October 1st now take on added urgency."
"We are hopeful that, in preparing for the meeting on October 1st, Iran comes and shares with all of us what they are willing to do, and gives us a timetable on which they are willing to proceed," Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton told reporters Saturday after meeting with Arab foreign ministers on the sidelines of the U.N. General Assembly.
At talks scheduled for Thursday in Geneva with Iran, the United States and five other major powers will demand immediate and unfettered access to the newly exposed nuclear facility in Iran, including people and documents involved in its construction, and insist that Tehran abide by international rules to reveal such projects before construction begins, administration officials said Saturday.
Diplomats will also insist that Iran undertake confidence-building measures, including answering questions about suspected efforts to develop nuclear weapons and accepting a timetable for serious negotiations. Officials said there is no stated deadline, but there will be the implied threat that if Iran fails to respond seriously by year's end, the United States and its partners will begin to push for crippling sanctions that could target Iran's economic and financial links to the world.
In the wake of the discovery of the facility near the holy city of Qom, "it is now a choice for Iran, and the choice became starker," said a senior administration official, speaking on the condition of anonymity. As an inducement for cooperation, the United States and other powers have offered economic and diplomatic incentives if Iran reins in its nuclear ambitions.
Iranian officials insisted Saturday that they notified the International Atomic Energy Agency about the facility in a timely fashion and that IAEA inspectors are welcome to visit it, though they did not say when, or whether they will be able to set up monitoring equipment. Ali Akbar Salehi, the head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization, denounced the reaction from the United States and other Western powers. "Their embarrassing reaction and their unbalanced response has shocked us," he told state television.
In his weekly radio address, President Obama emphasized the importance of the showdown at Geneva's historic Hotel-de-Ville, which will also include diplomats from Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China -- and will mark the first diplomatic encounter between Iran and the Obama administration.
"This is a serious challenge to the global nonproliferation regime and continues a disturbing pattern of Iranian evasion," he said. "That is why international negotiations with Iran scheduled for October 1st now take on added urgency."
"We are hopeful that, in preparing for the meeting on October 1st, Iran comes and shares with all of us what they are willing to do, and gives us a timetable on which they are willing to proceed," Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton told reporters Saturday after meeting with Arab foreign ministers on the sidelines of the U.N. General Assembly.
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Why Obama dropped European missile defense shield
By Howard LaFranchi Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
from the September 17, 2009 edition
Administration cites technological advances and a shifting threat from Iran. But many in Eastern Europe worry the US is simply appeasing Russia.
Washington - President Obama's decision to abandon a planned missile defense system in Eastern Europe reflects a cost-benefit analysis by an administration that was skeptical of the program from the start, concluding the system posed more hurdles – both diplomatically and in implementation – than it resolved.
In a Thursday morning announcement at the White House, Mr. Obama said a careful review of the proposed system, which would have placed fixed missile interceptors and radar stations in Poland and the Czech Republic, resulted in a unanimous recommendation from the secretary of Defense and other top military advisers to scrap the plan.
In its place, Obama said a new system would be implemented – one taking into account both recent technology advancements but also assessments showing that the potential threat from Iran has shifted. Those assessments conclude that Tehran has refocused its ballistic efforts on short- and medium-range missiles instead of on long-range missiles that could have threatened more distant allies and US forces.
The decision reflects not only the administration's policy review but also consultations with European allies since Obama took office.
An ongoing discussion among NATO allies on how the objectives of such a system could be achieved at a lower cost was stepped up under the Obama team, a senior European diplomat in Washington says.
"There were long discussions about how it could be done less expensively and more efficiently," he says. "I think this decision reflects that."
The decision has potentially far-reaching diplomatic impact.
Much of the snap reaction to Obama's announcement interpreted it as reflective of the administration's desire to pursue less confrontational and more productive relations with Russia on issues ranging from stopping Iran's nuclear program to disarmament.
Some observers caution that it would be a mistake to view the decision primarily as a bow to Russia.
"This is not really a concession [to Russia]," the senior European official says. It's "really [the result of] a technical assessment of the pros and cons of such a system."
But others worry that the decision could pose problems for the US, especially in Eastern Europe, if it is not fully explained to all partners.
"There are a couple of key risks in this: One, the idea that America is unpredictable, that what one administration signs on to is easily abandoned by another," says Janusz Bugajski, director of the New European Democracies Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. "The other is that this is seen as appeasing Russia, and that leads to fears that America is willing to sacrifice [other partners] to further its desire for cooperation with Russia."
The core motivation of countries like Poland and the Czech Republic in considering the missile defense program was never a fear of Iran, says Mr. Bugajski, but rather cementing a US commitment to their own defense, especially in the context of a resurgent and aggressive Russia.
"All those questions were always more important than missile defense itself," he says.
Supporters of the system envisioned under the Bush administration were swift to criticize Obama's decision. In an interview with Reuters, John Bolton, a Bush administration diplomat, called the decision "a near catastrophe for American relations with Eastern European countries and many in NATO."
But Bugajski says the Obama administration can act to reassure its allies by sending an envoy to Eastern Europe to explain the decision and to reaffirm the American commitment to the region's security. Vice President Joe Biden, who was closely involved in the missile defense review and who is known and respected in Eastern Europe for his understanding of Russia, would be the right emissary, Bugajski says.
Still, he notes, Obama picked perhaps the worst day possible to make this announcement.
"The timing couldn't have been worse, since Sept. 17 is the anniversary of the Soviet invasion" of Eastern Poland in 1939, he says. "It brings up all kinds of memories and sensitivities about invasion, partition, and abandonment."
---http://davidsradiotv2000.blogspot.com
from the September 17, 2009 edition
Administration cites technological advances and a shifting threat from Iran. But many in Eastern Europe worry the US is simply appeasing Russia.
Washington - President Obama's decision to abandon a planned missile defense system in Eastern Europe reflects a cost-benefit analysis by an administration that was skeptical of the program from the start, concluding the system posed more hurdles – both diplomatically and in implementation – than it resolved.
In a Thursday morning announcement at the White House, Mr. Obama said a careful review of the proposed system, which would have placed fixed missile interceptors and radar stations in Poland and the Czech Republic, resulted in a unanimous recommendation from the secretary of Defense and other top military advisers to scrap the plan.
In its place, Obama said a new system would be implemented – one taking into account both recent technology advancements but also assessments showing that the potential threat from Iran has shifted. Those assessments conclude that Tehran has refocused its ballistic efforts on short- and medium-range missiles instead of on long-range missiles that could have threatened more distant allies and US forces.
The decision reflects not only the administration's policy review but also consultations with European allies since Obama took office.
An ongoing discussion among NATO allies on how the objectives of such a system could be achieved at a lower cost was stepped up under the Obama team, a senior European diplomat in Washington says.
"There were long discussions about how it could be done less expensively and more efficiently," he says. "I think this decision reflects that."
The decision has potentially far-reaching diplomatic impact.
Much of the snap reaction to Obama's announcement interpreted it as reflective of the administration's desire to pursue less confrontational and more productive relations with Russia on issues ranging from stopping Iran's nuclear program to disarmament.
Some observers caution that it would be a mistake to view the decision primarily as a bow to Russia.
"This is not really a concession [to Russia]," the senior European official says. It's "really [the result of] a technical assessment of the pros and cons of such a system."
But others worry that the decision could pose problems for the US, especially in Eastern Europe, if it is not fully explained to all partners.
"There are a couple of key risks in this: One, the idea that America is unpredictable, that what one administration signs on to is easily abandoned by another," says Janusz Bugajski, director of the New European Democracies Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. "The other is that this is seen as appeasing Russia, and that leads to fears that America is willing to sacrifice [other partners] to further its desire for cooperation with Russia."
The core motivation of countries like Poland and the Czech Republic in considering the missile defense program was never a fear of Iran, says Mr. Bugajski, but rather cementing a US commitment to their own defense, especially in the context of a resurgent and aggressive Russia.
"All those questions were always more important than missile defense itself," he says.
Supporters of the system envisioned under the Bush administration were swift to criticize Obama's decision. In an interview with Reuters, John Bolton, a Bush administration diplomat, called the decision "a near catastrophe for American relations with Eastern European countries and many in NATO."
But Bugajski says the Obama administration can act to reassure its allies by sending an envoy to Eastern Europe to explain the decision and to reaffirm the American commitment to the region's security. Vice President Joe Biden, who was closely involved in the missile defense review and who is known and respected in Eastern Europe for his understanding of Russia, would be the right emissary, Bugajski says.
Still, he notes, Obama picked perhaps the worst day possible to make this announcement.
"The timing couldn't have been worse, since Sept. 17 is the anniversary of the Soviet invasion" of Eastern Poland in 1939, he says. "It brings up all kinds of memories and sensitivities about invasion, partition, and abandonment."
---http://davidsradiotv2000.blogspot.com
Sunday, September 13, 2009
Serena Williams' exit from U.S. Open semifinal match is nothing to cheer about
Filip Bondy
Sunday, September 13th 2009, 4:00 AM
So we are all supposed to rejoice today because Kim Clijsters, nice person and new mother, defeated Serena Williams, dilettante and tantrum thrower. It happened Saturday night at Ashe Stadium, 6-4, 7-5, in a circus finish to a semifinal that really didn't represent closure at all.
Really, it was all just very sad, lamentable. First there was the absurd foot-fault call by an overzealous lineswoman on an extremely critical point in that last game, on Williams' second serve at 15-30. Replays indicated it wasn't a foot fault at all. Then Williams was storming around, getting nailed with a second warning and losing match point, for threatening the lineswoman over the call.
It wasn't pretty, for sure. In a profane tirade, Williams threatened to shove a ball down the throat of the lineswoman. The lineswoman then relayed that unpleasantry to the chair umpire, Louise Engzell, and to tournament referee Brian Earley, who told Serena she was done for the night.
Such a shame, for a ton of reasons. The moment cheated Clijsters of a clean victory, one she had otherwise earned over more than an hour and a half of baseline battling. It was no fluke. Clijsters beat Serena soundly at her own, powerful groundstroke game. She knocked off her second Williams sister in a week, fed off the pace again and always made Serena hit one more shot, then one more shot after that.
Serena hates to lose, and fought to the last drizzle out there. She threw her racket after the first set, which earned her the first code violation. But lose she did. As resolute and powerful as she is, there remains something lacking in Serena's game: variety of shotmaking. Against a quick-footed automaton like Clijsters, it would help to throw a slice or a volley into the mix.
That wasn't going to happen, and so Serena Williams will not tie Billie Jean King quite yet at 12 major titles.
"She could have kept her cool," said her mother, Oracene.
Instead what we get is this prime-time final tonight between Clijsters of Belgium and Caroline Wozniacki of Denmark, which will be watched by only the biggest tennis fans and is precisely what the USTA deserves for its absurd scheduling this whole week.
Here's the trouble with rooting against Serena, which was not an uncommon occurrence Saturday night at the National Tennis Center: You end up with two women in the final who must be explained to the American public, at the biggest U.S. tournament.
And you get Serena being treated as a villain by commentators like Dick Enberg, who on CBS said, "That's not what champions do."- from nydailynews
-http://davidsradiotv2000.blogspot.com
Sunday, September 13th 2009, 4:00 AM
So we are all supposed to rejoice today because Kim Clijsters, nice person and new mother, defeated Serena Williams, dilettante and tantrum thrower. It happened Saturday night at Ashe Stadium, 6-4, 7-5, in a circus finish to a semifinal that really didn't represent closure at all.
Really, it was all just very sad, lamentable. First there was the absurd foot-fault call by an overzealous lineswoman on an extremely critical point in that last game, on Williams' second serve at 15-30. Replays indicated it wasn't a foot fault at all. Then Williams was storming around, getting nailed with a second warning and losing match point, for threatening the lineswoman over the call.
It wasn't pretty, for sure. In a profane tirade, Williams threatened to shove a ball down the throat of the lineswoman. The lineswoman then relayed that unpleasantry to the chair umpire, Louise Engzell, and to tournament referee Brian Earley, who told Serena she was done for the night.
Such a shame, for a ton of reasons. The moment cheated Clijsters of a clean victory, one she had otherwise earned over more than an hour and a half of baseline battling. It was no fluke. Clijsters beat Serena soundly at her own, powerful groundstroke game. She knocked off her second Williams sister in a week, fed off the pace again and always made Serena hit one more shot, then one more shot after that.
Serena hates to lose, and fought to the last drizzle out there. She threw her racket after the first set, which earned her the first code violation. But lose she did. As resolute and powerful as she is, there remains something lacking in Serena's game: variety of shotmaking. Against a quick-footed automaton like Clijsters, it would help to throw a slice or a volley into the mix.
That wasn't going to happen, and so Serena Williams will not tie Billie Jean King quite yet at 12 major titles.
"She could have kept her cool," said her mother, Oracene.
Instead what we get is this prime-time final tonight between Clijsters of Belgium and Caroline Wozniacki of Denmark, which will be watched by only the biggest tennis fans and is precisely what the USTA deserves for its absurd scheduling this whole week.
Here's the trouble with rooting against Serena, which was not an uncommon occurrence Saturday night at the National Tennis Center: You end up with two women in the final who must be explained to the American public, at the biggest U.S. tournament.
And you get Serena being treated as a villain by commentators like Dick Enberg, who on CBS said, "That's not what champions do."- from nydailynews
-http://davidsradiotv2000.blogspot.com
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Vaccines could halve sickle-cell deaths in Africa
Wed Sep 9, 2009 7:21pm
By Kate Kelland
LONDON (Reuters) - Vaccination against bacterial infections using vaccines readily available in developed countries could save the lives of thousands of children with sickle-cell anemia in Africa, researchers said on Thursday.
Tom Williams, an expert in tropical diseases from the Kenya Medical Research Institute (KEMRI), said 90 percent of children born with sickle-cell anemia in Africa die before they are diagnosed and can get treatment, and half of those lives could be saved if sufferers were protected from bacterial infections.
"The problem here in Africa is that there is hardly anyone doing any screening," Williams said. "So, as a result, most of the children in Africa who are born with sickle-cell anemia are dead before they are even diagnosed."
Experts estimate that sickle-cell anemia kills more children in Africa than HIV, Williams said, but while HIV commands vast attention from the international community sickle-cell anemia is "virtually invisible."
In a study conducted in rural Kenya and published in the Lancet medical journal, Williams and colleagues at the KEMRI/Wellcome Trust program in Kilifi screened almost 40,000 admissions to hospital and identified 2,000 cases of bacterial infection.
While in the general population fewer than three in 1,000 children were found to have sickle cell anemia, this figure increased more than 20-fold -- to more than 60 per 1,000 -- for children admitted to hospital with bacterial infections.
Sickle-cell anemia affects millions of people worldwide, but more than 80 percent of cases are in Africa, where around 200,000 children are born with the disease every year.
It is a genetic disease in which red blood cells deform into a sickle shape and cluster, blocking blood flow and causing pain, vulnerability to infections and organ damage.
The findings confirm that, just as in richer nations, African children with sickle-cell anemia are at huge risk of bacterial infections because the disease hampers blood flow and causes episodes of acute anemia, Williams said.
The most common causes of bacterial infection among children with sickle-cell were Streptococcus pneumoniae (41 percent of cases) and Haemophilus influenzae type b (12 percent of cases).
Vaccines against both -- a pneumococcal vaccine and another called Hib -- are given routinely in the United States and Europe, but have been slow getting to Africa because funds have largely been focused on other priorities.
Dan Thomas of the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization (GAVI) in Geneva, said his group provides the Hib vaccine, which is made by a range of drug companies, to 35 African nations as part of a 5-in-1 shot.
GAVI has also introduced a pneumococcal vaccine made by Wyeth, a U.S. drug company which is being bought by Pfizer, to Rwanda and Gambia, and is "working on rolling an improved pneumococcal vaccine out across Africa in the next few years," he said.---http://davidsradiotv2000.blogspot.com
By Kate Kelland
LONDON (Reuters) - Vaccination against bacterial infections using vaccines readily available in developed countries could save the lives of thousands of children with sickle-cell anemia in Africa, researchers said on Thursday.
Tom Williams, an expert in tropical diseases from the Kenya Medical Research Institute (KEMRI), said 90 percent of children born with sickle-cell anemia in Africa die before they are diagnosed and can get treatment, and half of those lives could be saved if sufferers were protected from bacterial infections.
"The problem here in Africa is that there is hardly anyone doing any screening," Williams said. "So, as a result, most of the children in Africa who are born with sickle-cell anemia are dead before they are even diagnosed."
Experts estimate that sickle-cell anemia kills more children in Africa than HIV, Williams said, but while HIV commands vast attention from the international community sickle-cell anemia is "virtually invisible."
In a study conducted in rural Kenya and published in the Lancet medical journal, Williams and colleagues at the KEMRI/Wellcome Trust program in Kilifi screened almost 40,000 admissions to hospital and identified 2,000 cases of bacterial infection.
While in the general population fewer than three in 1,000 children were found to have sickle cell anemia, this figure increased more than 20-fold -- to more than 60 per 1,000 -- for children admitted to hospital with bacterial infections.
Sickle-cell anemia affects millions of people worldwide, but more than 80 percent of cases are in Africa, where around 200,000 children are born with the disease every year.
It is a genetic disease in which red blood cells deform into a sickle shape and cluster, blocking blood flow and causing pain, vulnerability to infections and organ damage.
The findings confirm that, just as in richer nations, African children with sickle-cell anemia are at huge risk of bacterial infections because the disease hampers blood flow and causes episodes of acute anemia, Williams said.
The most common causes of bacterial infection among children with sickle-cell were Streptococcus pneumoniae (41 percent of cases) and Haemophilus influenzae type b (12 percent of cases).
Vaccines against both -- a pneumococcal vaccine and another called Hib -- are given routinely in the United States and Europe, but have been slow getting to Africa because funds have largely been focused on other priorities.
Dan Thomas of the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization (GAVI) in Geneva, said his group provides the Hib vaccine, which is made by a range of drug companies, to 35 African nations as part of a 5-in-1 shot.
GAVI has also introduced a pneumococcal vaccine made by Wyeth, a U.S. drug company which is being bought by Pfizer, to Rwanda and Gambia, and is "working on rolling an improved pneumococcal vaccine out across Africa in the next few years," he said.---http://davidsradiotv2000.blogspot.com
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Barack Obama's battle to save US health care reform
Democrats are mounting a last-ditch attempt to broker a bipartisan deal to reform America's health care system as Barack Obama prepares to address Congress.
By Toby Harnden in Washington Published: 8:32PM BST 08 Sep 2009
The speech to Congress is seen as so important that it could make or break his presidency.
With Mr Obama's poll numbers slipping and public support for his health care overhaul eroding almost by the day, Senator Max Baucus, a fellow Democrat, drew up a compromise plan designed to appeal to centrists across the political divide.
Republicans have vigirously opposed a mooted extra tax burden on highers earners to pay for medical insurance for the poor. Under the new plan, non-profit co-operatives would be set up to compete with private health insurance companies.
This would replace the idea of introducing a so-called "public option" of government-run insurance, which is favoured by liberals.
The Baucus plan would cost about $900 billion (£550 billion) over 10 years - $100 billion less that the $1 trillion price tag on a previous House of Representatives proposal.
This would partly be achieved by raising $180 billion from taxing insurance companies that offer the most expensive packages.
All insurance companies would be charged an additional fee according to their market share. This is intended to help pay for the reform and exact a price from insurers, who stand to gain 46 million new customers - those who are currently uninsured.
Mr Baucus said that the plan was not a final one and that he hoped a deal might be reached before Mr Obama speaks to a joint session of Congress on Wednesday.
Mr Obama is following in the footsteps of President Bill Clinton, who addressed Congress in 1993 with a plea for health care reform to be passed. Although public support for his plan increased, he was ultimately unsuccessful.
Acutely aware of the mistakes Mr Clinton made, Mr Obama decided to let Congress draft legislation rather than drawing up a White House bill, as Mr Clinton did. But that has led to a sense of drift with voters not sure exactly what Mr Obama supports.
Mr Obama's aides have indicated that the "public option" idea will be dropped after it became clear it was too politically contentious among the public, Republicans and conservative Democrats.
Mr Baucus's Senate Finance Committee has so far been unable to agree on legislation and he is attempting to woo three Republican senators who might be convinced.
If a deal is not reached, the Senate Finance Committee could be bypassed.
Senator Chuck Grassley, one of the Republicans being courted, told CNN that the Obama administration had been "all over the ballpark" on the health issue before Congress's summer recess and that he still wanted to find a bipartisan consensus.
Asked about the prospects of the Baucus plan being agreed, he replied: "We won't know until we meet. The good and the bad of the president speaking this week is we've had to speed up the work of our group to have something better ... and that's bad because we probably should have taken a little more time."
He added that he was concerned that any fee charged to insurance companies would end up getting passed on to other customers but was in favour of non-profit health care co-operatives.
By Toby Harnden in Washington Published: 8:32PM BST 08 Sep 2009
The speech to Congress is seen as so important that it could make or break his presidency.
With Mr Obama's poll numbers slipping and public support for his health care overhaul eroding almost by the day, Senator Max Baucus, a fellow Democrat, drew up a compromise plan designed to appeal to centrists across the political divide.
Republicans have vigirously opposed a mooted extra tax burden on highers earners to pay for medical insurance for the poor. Under the new plan, non-profit co-operatives would be set up to compete with private health insurance companies.
This would replace the idea of introducing a so-called "public option" of government-run insurance, which is favoured by liberals.
The Baucus plan would cost about $900 billion (£550 billion) over 10 years - $100 billion less that the $1 trillion price tag on a previous House of Representatives proposal.
This would partly be achieved by raising $180 billion from taxing insurance companies that offer the most expensive packages.
All insurance companies would be charged an additional fee according to their market share. This is intended to help pay for the reform and exact a price from insurers, who stand to gain 46 million new customers - those who are currently uninsured.
Mr Baucus said that the plan was not a final one and that he hoped a deal might be reached before Mr Obama speaks to a joint session of Congress on Wednesday.
Mr Obama is following in the footsteps of President Bill Clinton, who addressed Congress in 1993 with a plea for health care reform to be passed. Although public support for his plan increased, he was ultimately unsuccessful.
Acutely aware of the mistakes Mr Clinton made, Mr Obama decided to let Congress draft legislation rather than drawing up a White House bill, as Mr Clinton did. But that has led to a sense of drift with voters not sure exactly what Mr Obama supports.
Mr Obama's aides have indicated that the "public option" idea will be dropped after it became clear it was too politically contentious among the public, Republicans and conservative Democrats.
Mr Baucus's Senate Finance Committee has so far been unable to agree on legislation and he is attempting to woo three Republican senators who might be convinced.
If a deal is not reached, the Senate Finance Committee could be bypassed.
Senator Chuck Grassley, one of the Republicans being courted, told CNN that the Obama administration had been "all over the ballpark" on the health issue before Congress's summer recess and that he still wanted to find a bipartisan consensus.
Asked about the prospects of the Baucus plan being agreed, he replied: "We won't know until we meet. The good and the bad of the president speaking this week is we've had to speed up the work of our group to have something better ... and that's bad because we probably should have taken a little more time."
He added that he was concerned that any fee charged to insurance companies would end up getting passed on to other customers but was in favour of non-profit health care co-operatives.
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
Obama hosts dinner for Islamic holy month
By ANN SANNER (AP) – 9 hours ago
WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama on Tuesday praised American Muslims for enriching the nation's culture at a dinner to celebrate the Islamic holy month of Ramadan.
"The contribution of Muslims to the United States are too long to catalog because Muslims are so interwoven into the fabric of our communities and our country," Obama said at the iftar, the dinner that breaks the holiday's daily fast.
The president joined Cabinet secretaries, members of the diplomatic corps and lawmakers to pay tribute to what he called "a great religion and its commitment to justice and progress."
Attendees included Congress' two Muslim members — Reps. Keith Ellison, D-Minn., and Andre Carson, D-Ind., as well as ambassadors from Islamic nations and Israel's ambassador to the United States, Michael Oren.
Obama shared the story of Bilqis Abdul-Qaadir, another invited guest, who broke a state record for most career points as a Massachusetts high school student.
"As an honor student, as an athlete on her way to Memphis, Bilqis is an inspiration not simply to Muslim girls — she's an inspiration to all of us," he said.
Obama also noted the contributions of Muhammad Ali, who was not in attendance, though the president borrowed a quote from famous boxer, explaining religion.
"A few years ago," Obama said, "he explained this view — and this is part of why he's The Greatest — saying, 'Rivers, ponds, lakes and streams — they all have different names, but they all contain water. Just as religions do — they all contain truths.'"
Ramadan, a monthlong period of prayer, reflection and sunrise-to-sunset fasts, began Aug. 22 in most of the Islamic world. It is believed that God began revealing the Quran to Muhammad during Ramadan, and the faithful are supposed to spend the month in religious reflection, prayer and remembrance of the poor.
White House dinners marking the holy month are nothing new. Former President George W. Bush held iftars during his eight years in office.
Obama has made a special effort since taking office to repair U.S. relations with the world's Muslims, including visits to Turkey and Cairo. In a June speech at the Egyptian capital, as well as in one to another important Muslim audience, in Turkey, Obama said: "America is not — and never will be — at war with Islam."
Obama also released a video message to Muslims before the start to Ramadan. In the video, he said Ramadan's rituals are a reminder of the principles Muslims and Christians have in common, including advancing justice, progress, tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.
-http://davidsradiotv2000.blogspot.com
WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama on Tuesday praised American Muslims for enriching the nation's culture at a dinner to celebrate the Islamic holy month of Ramadan.
"The contribution of Muslims to the United States are too long to catalog because Muslims are so interwoven into the fabric of our communities and our country," Obama said at the iftar, the dinner that breaks the holiday's daily fast.
The president joined Cabinet secretaries, members of the diplomatic corps and lawmakers to pay tribute to what he called "a great religion and its commitment to justice and progress."
Attendees included Congress' two Muslim members — Reps. Keith Ellison, D-Minn., and Andre Carson, D-Ind., as well as ambassadors from Islamic nations and Israel's ambassador to the United States, Michael Oren.
Obama shared the story of Bilqis Abdul-Qaadir, another invited guest, who broke a state record for most career points as a Massachusetts high school student.
"As an honor student, as an athlete on her way to Memphis, Bilqis is an inspiration not simply to Muslim girls — she's an inspiration to all of us," he said.
Obama also noted the contributions of Muhammad Ali, who was not in attendance, though the president borrowed a quote from famous boxer, explaining religion.
"A few years ago," Obama said, "he explained this view — and this is part of why he's The Greatest — saying, 'Rivers, ponds, lakes and streams — they all have different names, but they all contain water. Just as religions do — they all contain truths.'"
Ramadan, a monthlong period of prayer, reflection and sunrise-to-sunset fasts, began Aug. 22 in most of the Islamic world. It is believed that God began revealing the Quran to Muhammad during Ramadan, and the faithful are supposed to spend the month in religious reflection, prayer and remembrance of the poor.
White House dinners marking the holy month are nothing new. Former President George W. Bush held iftars during his eight years in office.
Obama has made a special effort since taking office to repair U.S. relations with the world's Muslims, including visits to Turkey and Cairo. In a June speech at the Egyptian capital, as well as in one to another important Muslim audience, in Turkey, Obama said: "America is not — and never will be — at war with Islam."
Obama also released a video message to Muslims before the start to Ramadan. In the video, he said Ramadan's rituals are a reminder of the principles Muslims and Christians have in common, including advancing justice, progress, tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.
-http://davidsradiotv2000.blogspot.com
Saturday, August 22, 2009
Muslims Begin Observing Holy Month of Ramadan
By VOA News 22 August 2009
Most Muslims around the world have begun observing Islam's holy month of Ramadan, a period of fasting and spiritual reflection.Ramadan began Saturday throughout most of the Middle East and Asia, although Libya, Turkey and some Lebanese Shi'ites began fasting a day earlier.During the month of Ramadan, Muslims traditionally fast from sunrise to sunset. In Jerusalem's Old City, Palestinians shopped for Ramadan and prayed at the Mosque of Al-Aksa, the third-holiest site in Islam. In Iraq, Sunnis and Shi'ites began Ramadan at the same time for the first time since the fall of former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, who was ousted in the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. On Friday, U.S. President Barack Obama marked the start of Ramadan by extending best wishes to Muslims.Islam follows a lunar calendar, so the start of the holiday is determined by the appearance of the new moon. Religious leaders say no moon was sighted Thursday, so Friday was designated the last day of the month preceding Ramadan.During Ramadan, Muslims are expected to abstain from eating, drinking, smoking and sexual relations from dawn until sunset.The ninth month of the Islamic calendar, Ramadan marks the time more than 1,400 years ago when Muslims believe the words of Islam's holy book, the Koran, were revealed to the Prophet Mohammed.Ramadan will continue through September, concluding with a celebration, Eid al-Fitr.---http://davidsradiotv2000.blogspot.com
Most Muslims around the world have begun observing Islam's holy month of Ramadan, a period of fasting and spiritual reflection.Ramadan began Saturday throughout most of the Middle East and Asia, although Libya, Turkey and some Lebanese Shi'ites began fasting a day earlier.During the month of Ramadan, Muslims traditionally fast from sunrise to sunset. In Jerusalem's Old City, Palestinians shopped for Ramadan and prayed at the Mosque of Al-Aksa, the third-holiest site in Islam. In Iraq, Sunnis and Shi'ites began Ramadan at the same time for the first time since the fall of former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, who was ousted in the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. On Friday, U.S. President Barack Obama marked the start of Ramadan by extending best wishes to Muslims.Islam follows a lunar calendar, so the start of the holiday is determined by the appearance of the new moon. Religious leaders say no moon was sighted Thursday, so Friday was designated the last day of the month preceding Ramadan.During Ramadan, Muslims are expected to abstain from eating, drinking, smoking and sexual relations from dawn until sunset.The ninth month of the Islamic calendar, Ramadan marks the time more than 1,400 years ago when Muslims believe the words of Islam's holy book, the Koran, were revealed to the Prophet Mohammed.Ramadan will continue through September, concluding with a celebration, Eid al-Fitr.---http://davidsradiotv2000.blogspot.com
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Older Drivers and Medication
August 11, 2009, 3:47 pm
By Tanya Mohn
A new study has found that most older drivers were unaware of the potentially dangerous impact of medications on driving performance.
According to the report, released on Tuesday by the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, a nonprofit research and educational organization, 78 percent of respondents used one or more medications, yet just more than one in four were aware of the possible dangers of driving while on medications.
“That’s really scary,” said Peter Kissinger, president and chief executive of the AAA Foundation. “The risks are real.” Large numbers of older adults are on medication, and many of those medications have potential side effects, yet health care professionals “are not effectively communicating known risks,” he said.
The study, based on interviews with 630 drivers aged 56 to 93, was conducted by researchers at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. Only 18 percent of those surveyed said they had received warning about potentially driver impairing medications, such as ACE inhibitors, sedatives and beta blockers.
The study also found that as people aged, awareness decreased, despite the fact that the number of prescription medicines increased.
The problem is likely to worsen, Mr. Kissinger said, as the population of aging drivers is growing rapidly and the number of older adults using multiple medications has increased.
Previous research had established the link between the uses of certain classes of medications, alone and in combination, and increased crash risk. But the prevalence of crashes caused by older people taking these medicines — both prescription and over the counter — has not been accurately determined.
“The true incidence of driving under the influence of potentially impairing medications is not known,” said Loren Staplin, the managing partner of TransAnalytics, a consulting firm specializing in transportation safety research and development. “We just don’t have enough data or enough good data.” Part of the reason is that comprehensive testing for drugs in drivers’ systems after a crash is not routinely done, except for cases involving alcohol.
Early next year the AAA Foundation planned to release Roadwise Rx, a free Web-based resource intended to help raise awareness about driving risks related to the use of medications. The program will allow older drivers to enter individual medications or combinations of medications, and through a search function, gain access to information — based on age, gender and weight — from a database.
The goal is to inform older drivers about how medicines interact with food or other medications, as well as to provide warnings, to better understand ”when it may not be appropriate” to drive, said Dr. Staplin, whose company designed Roadwise Rx.
--http://davidsradiotv2000.blogspot.com
By Tanya Mohn
A new study has found that most older drivers were unaware of the potentially dangerous impact of medications on driving performance.
According to the report, released on Tuesday by the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, a nonprofit research and educational organization, 78 percent of respondents used one or more medications, yet just more than one in four were aware of the possible dangers of driving while on medications.
“That’s really scary,” said Peter Kissinger, president and chief executive of the AAA Foundation. “The risks are real.” Large numbers of older adults are on medication, and many of those medications have potential side effects, yet health care professionals “are not effectively communicating known risks,” he said.
The study, based on interviews with 630 drivers aged 56 to 93, was conducted by researchers at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. Only 18 percent of those surveyed said they had received warning about potentially driver impairing medications, such as ACE inhibitors, sedatives and beta blockers.
The study also found that as people aged, awareness decreased, despite the fact that the number of prescription medicines increased.
The problem is likely to worsen, Mr. Kissinger said, as the population of aging drivers is growing rapidly and the number of older adults using multiple medications has increased.
Previous research had established the link between the uses of certain classes of medications, alone and in combination, and increased crash risk. But the prevalence of crashes caused by older people taking these medicines — both prescription and over the counter — has not been accurately determined.
“The true incidence of driving under the influence of potentially impairing medications is not known,” said Loren Staplin, the managing partner of TransAnalytics, a consulting firm specializing in transportation safety research and development. “We just don’t have enough data or enough good data.” Part of the reason is that comprehensive testing for drugs in drivers’ systems after a crash is not routinely done, except for cases involving alcohol.
Early next year the AAA Foundation planned to release Roadwise Rx, a free Web-based resource intended to help raise awareness about driving risks related to the use of medications. The program will allow older drivers to enter individual medications or combinations of medications, and through a search function, gain access to information — based on age, gender and weight — from a database.
The goal is to inform older drivers about how medicines interact with food or other medications, as well as to provide warnings, to better understand ”when it may not be appropriate” to drive, said Dr. Staplin, whose company designed Roadwise Rx.
--http://davidsradiotv2000.blogspot.com
Friday, August 7, 2009
Sotomayor's swearing in to court set for Saturday
By JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVIS (AP) – 2 hours ago
WASHINGTON — When Sonia Sotomayor is sworn in Saturday to the Supreme Court, she'll be able to claim two firsts: first Hispanic justice and first high court member to have her oath-taking made available to TV cameras.
Sotomayor, who won a groundbreaking Senate confirmation vote Thursday over intense conservative opposition, will be sworn in twice by Chief Justice John Roberts.
She will repeat one oath as prescribed by the Constitution in a private ceremony at the high court. It will be open only to members of Sotomayor's family. Then, Roberts will administer a second oath, taken by judges, with the new justice's family and friends, and reporters present.
Court spokeswoman Kathy Arberg said the ceremony apparently will be the first one open to television cameras in the court's history.
Sotomayor is the first Democratic nominee in 15 years. She becomes the nation's 111th justice — and just the third woman in the court's history. She'll appear next week at the White House with President Barack Obama, who chose her in May to replace retiring Justice David Souter.
"With this historic vote, the Senate has affirmed that Justice Sotomayor has the intellect, the temperament, the history, the integrity and the independence of mind to ably serve on our nation's highest court," Obama said following Thursday's 68-31 confirmation vote.
Senate Democrats backed her unanimously but most Republicans lined up in a show of opposition both for her and for the president's standards for a justice.
The 55-year-old daughter of Puerto Rican parents was raised in a South Bronx housing project and educated in the Ivy League before rising to the highest legal echelons, spending the past 17 years as a federal judge.
Republicans argued that she'd bring personal bias and a liberal agenda to the bench. But Democrats praised Sotomayor as an extraordinarily qualified mainstream moderate and touted her elevation to the court as a milestone in the nation's journey toward greater equality and a reaffirmation of the American dream.
Souter, while named by a Republican president, has sided with the court's liberal wing, so Sotomayor is not expected to alter the court's ideological split in succeeding him.
Still, her nomination sparked an intense fight between Republicans and Democrats, which highlighted profound philosophical disagreements that will shape future fights over the court's makeup as Obama looks to another likely vacancy — perhaps more than one — while he's in the White House.
In the final Senate tally, nine Republicans joined majority Democrats and the Senate's two independents to support Sotomayor's confirmation. They included the Senate's few GOP moderates and its lone Hispanic Republican, retiring Sen. Mel Martinez of Florida, as well as conservative Sens. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, the party's third-ranking leader.
GOP critics decried Obama's call for "empathy" in a justice, painting Sotomayor as the embodiment of an inappropriate standard that would let a judge bring her personal whims and prejudices to the bench. They criticized rulings in which they said Sotomayor showed disregard for gun rights, property rights and job discrimination claims by white employees. And they repeatedly cited comments she had made about the role that a judge's background and perspective can play, especially a 2001 speech in which she said she hoped a "wise Latina" judge would usually make better decisions than a white man.
The National Rifle Association, which hadn't weighed in on Supreme Court nominations past, strongly opposed her and threatened to downgrade its ratings of any senator who voted to confirm Sotomayor. The warning may have influenced some Republicans who were initially considered possible supporters but later announced their opposition, citing gun rights as a key reason.
--http://davidsradiotv2000.blogspot.com
WASHINGTON — When Sonia Sotomayor is sworn in Saturday to the Supreme Court, she'll be able to claim two firsts: first Hispanic justice and first high court member to have her oath-taking made available to TV cameras.
Sotomayor, who won a groundbreaking Senate confirmation vote Thursday over intense conservative opposition, will be sworn in twice by Chief Justice John Roberts.
She will repeat one oath as prescribed by the Constitution in a private ceremony at the high court. It will be open only to members of Sotomayor's family. Then, Roberts will administer a second oath, taken by judges, with the new justice's family and friends, and reporters present.
Court spokeswoman Kathy Arberg said the ceremony apparently will be the first one open to television cameras in the court's history.
Sotomayor is the first Democratic nominee in 15 years. She becomes the nation's 111th justice — and just the third woman in the court's history. She'll appear next week at the White House with President Barack Obama, who chose her in May to replace retiring Justice David Souter.
"With this historic vote, the Senate has affirmed that Justice Sotomayor has the intellect, the temperament, the history, the integrity and the independence of mind to ably serve on our nation's highest court," Obama said following Thursday's 68-31 confirmation vote.
Senate Democrats backed her unanimously but most Republicans lined up in a show of opposition both for her and for the president's standards for a justice.
The 55-year-old daughter of Puerto Rican parents was raised in a South Bronx housing project and educated in the Ivy League before rising to the highest legal echelons, spending the past 17 years as a federal judge.
Republicans argued that she'd bring personal bias and a liberal agenda to the bench. But Democrats praised Sotomayor as an extraordinarily qualified mainstream moderate and touted her elevation to the court as a milestone in the nation's journey toward greater equality and a reaffirmation of the American dream.
Souter, while named by a Republican president, has sided with the court's liberal wing, so Sotomayor is not expected to alter the court's ideological split in succeeding him.
Still, her nomination sparked an intense fight between Republicans and Democrats, which highlighted profound philosophical disagreements that will shape future fights over the court's makeup as Obama looks to another likely vacancy — perhaps more than one — while he's in the White House.
In the final Senate tally, nine Republicans joined majority Democrats and the Senate's two independents to support Sotomayor's confirmation. They included the Senate's few GOP moderates and its lone Hispanic Republican, retiring Sen. Mel Martinez of Florida, as well as conservative Sens. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, the party's third-ranking leader.
GOP critics decried Obama's call for "empathy" in a justice, painting Sotomayor as the embodiment of an inappropriate standard that would let a judge bring her personal whims and prejudices to the bench. They criticized rulings in which they said Sotomayor showed disregard for gun rights, property rights and job discrimination claims by white employees. And they repeatedly cited comments she had made about the role that a judge's background and perspective can play, especially a 2001 speech in which she said she hoped a "wise Latina" judge would usually make better decisions than a white man.
The National Rifle Association, which hadn't weighed in on Supreme Court nominations past, strongly opposed her and threatened to downgrade its ratings of any senator who voted to confirm Sotomayor. The warning may have influenced some Republicans who were initially considered possible supporters but later announced their opposition, citing gun rights as a key reason.
--http://davidsradiotv2000.blogspot.com
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
U.S. advisers say pregnant women first for H1N1 jab
Wed Jul 29, 2009 3:27pm EDT
ATLANTA (Reuters) - Expert U.S. advisers accepted recommendations on Wednesday to put pregnant women at the front of the line for vaccines against the new H1N1 pandemic influenza virus, with relatives and caregivers for infants second.
The Advisory Panel on Immunization Practices nearly unanimously accepted advice from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to first protect pregnant women, infants and healthcare workers against the virus.
Healthcare workers and children at risk of serious complications should follow -- and then healthy young adults aged 19 to 24, the panel said.
Members of the panel said young adults should be a priority because they are more likely to become infected, and because they may spread the virus through society.
(Reporting by Maggie Fox, editing by Gerald E. McCormick)
---http://davidsradiotv2000.blogspot.com
ATLANTA (Reuters) - Expert U.S. advisers accepted recommendations on Wednesday to put pregnant women at the front of the line for vaccines against the new H1N1 pandemic influenza virus, with relatives and caregivers for infants second.
The Advisory Panel on Immunization Practices nearly unanimously accepted advice from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to first protect pregnant women, infants and healthcare workers against the virus.
Healthcare workers and children at risk of serious complications should follow -- and then healthy young adults aged 19 to 24, the panel said.
Members of the panel said young adults should be a priority because they are more likely to become infected, and because they may spread the virus through society.
(Reporting by Maggie Fox, editing by Gerald E. McCormick)
---http://davidsradiotv2000.blogspot.com
Saturday, July 25, 2009
Waiters left out of latest minimum wage rise
Fri Jul 24, 2009 12:13pm EDT
NEW YORK (Reuters) - U.S. service sector employees who receive tips have been excluded from the latest hike in the federal minimum wage that kicked in on Friday, leaving the public to cover the cost of their healthcare, according to economists and advocates.
The federal minimum wage on Friday rose to $7.25 from $6.55. But only seven states guarantee tipped workers the minimum wage, according to a report by the National Employment Law Project, a New York-based advocacy group for low-income workers.
The minimum wage for so-called "tipped" workers has been frozen at $2.13 an hour since 1991, the report found.
Waitresses and waiters, who comprise the majority of tip-receiving workers, have nearly three times the poverty rate of the nation's workforce, it said.
Wait staff are twice as likely to go without health insurance, partly because few employers help them pay for a health plan.
James Parrott, the chief economist of the New York-based Fiscal Policy Institute, said the public often pays for some of these low-income employees' healthcare.
"Low-wage workers without health insurance can cost taxpayers $3,000-$6,000 a year if covered by Medicaid, or, if they receive uncompensated care, they cost employers or individuals who have private health insurance an average of $2,500 per uninsured person receiving compensated care," he said by e-mail.
The Fiscal Policy Institute, a nonpartisan think tank, in a report estimated that at the new federal rate, a full-time worker would earn $15,080 a year.
"Research has shown that workers benefiting from minimum wage increases in New York are disproportionately women, and minimum wage earners on average contribute most of their family's earnings," the institute's Michele Mattingly said in the report.
"Contrary to stereotype, large numbers of affected workers -- often the majority -- are adults aged 20 and older," she said
Covering healthcare could prove difficult for many recession-stricken U.S. states that are slicing spending on Medicaid, the federal-state health plan for the poor, disabled and elderly, which consumes about 22 percent of an average state's budget.
With U.S. Senate leaders delaying action on President Barack Obama' s health plan until autumn, 18 states have already cut spending on public health programs.
(Reporting by Joan Gralla, and Lambert in Washington; editing by Mohammad Zargham)
--http://davidsradiotv2000.blogspot.com
NEW YORK (Reuters) - U.S. service sector employees who receive tips have been excluded from the latest hike in the federal minimum wage that kicked in on Friday, leaving the public to cover the cost of their healthcare, according to economists and advocates.
The federal minimum wage on Friday rose to $7.25 from $6.55. But only seven states guarantee tipped workers the minimum wage, according to a report by the National Employment Law Project, a New York-based advocacy group for low-income workers.
The minimum wage for so-called "tipped" workers has been frozen at $2.13 an hour since 1991, the report found.
Waitresses and waiters, who comprise the majority of tip-receiving workers, have nearly three times the poverty rate of the nation's workforce, it said.
Wait staff are twice as likely to go without health insurance, partly because few employers help them pay for a health plan.
James Parrott, the chief economist of the New York-based Fiscal Policy Institute, said the public often pays for some of these low-income employees' healthcare.
"Low-wage workers without health insurance can cost taxpayers $3,000-$6,000 a year if covered by Medicaid, or, if they receive uncompensated care, they cost employers or individuals who have private health insurance an average of $2,500 per uninsured person receiving compensated care," he said by e-mail.
The Fiscal Policy Institute, a nonpartisan think tank, in a report estimated that at the new federal rate, a full-time worker would earn $15,080 a year.
"Research has shown that workers benefiting from minimum wage increases in New York are disproportionately women, and minimum wage earners on average contribute most of their family's earnings," the institute's Michele Mattingly said in the report.
"Contrary to stereotype, large numbers of affected workers -- often the majority -- are adults aged 20 and older," she said
Covering healthcare could prove difficult for many recession-stricken U.S. states that are slicing spending on Medicaid, the federal-state health plan for the poor, disabled and elderly, which consumes about 22 percent of an average state's budget.
With U.S. Senate leaders delaying action on President Barack Obama' s health plan until autumn, 18 states have already cut spending on public health programs.
(Reporting by Joan Gralla, and Lambert in Washington; editing by Mohammad Zargham)
--http://davidsradiotv2000.blogspot.com
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Judge Rules Against Applebee’s Lease in Harlem Building
By Jennifer 8. Lee
National Black Theater The National Black Theater and its founder, Barbara Ann Teer, now deceased, won a ruling that prevented Applebee’s from moving into its building.
A franchise of the Applebee’s restaurant chain will not be allowed to move into the Harlem building owned in part by the National Black Theater, a State Supreme Court justice ruled on Wednesday afternoon in a case that was marked by the passing of the main plaintiff, Barbara Ann Teer.
In a tangled real estate dispute, Ms. Teer sued last year to prevent Applebee’s from taking on a lease in the building she owned with Nubian Partners on Fifth Avenue between 125th and 126th Streets.
Nubian Partners signed a lease in April 2008 with Apple-Metro, an Applebee’s franchisee, but Ms. Teer argued that the Applebee’s was not consistent with the cultural integrity and mission of the theater group. It was a condition she included in the contract when she entered into the real estate partnership with Nubian in 2002 after she was confronted with foreclosure.
Ms. Teer, who bought the property in the 1960s, sold 49 percent of the property to Nubian Partners, which operates several retail outlets in the building. The building has a monthly mortgage payment of $44,975, with a $5.2 million balloon payment due in 2012. In honor of Ms. Teer’s work, West 126th Street was dedicated as National Black Theater Way.
Justice Walter B. Tolub ruled that Applebee’s lease violated the contract between the parent company of the National Black Theater and Nubian Partners.
Raymond Hannigan, a lawyer at Herrick, Feinstein who represented the National Black Theater in the lawsuit, said, “I think Barbara Ann Teer would be pleased to see this decision and see that this landmark location remained dedicated to African-American arts.”
---http://davidsradiotv2000.blogspot.com/------times N.Y./Region
National Black Theater The National Black Theater and its founder, Barbara Ann Teer, now deceased, won a ruling that prevented Applebee’s from moving into its building.
A franchise of the Applebee’s restaurant chain will not be allowed to move into the Harlem building owned in part by the National Black Theater, a State Supreme Court justice ruled on Wednesday afternoon in a case that was marked by the passing of the main plaintiff, Barbara Ann Teer.
In a tangled real estate dispute, Ms. Teer sued last year to prevent Applebee’s from taking on a lease in the building she owned with Nubian Partners on Fifth Avenue between 125th and 126th Streets.
Nubian Partners signed a lease in April 2008 with Apple-Metro, an Applebee’s franchisee, but Ms. Teer argued that the Applebee’s was not consistent with the cultural integrity and mission of the theater group. It was a condition she included in the contract when she entered into the real estate partnership with Nubian in 2002 after she was confronted with foreclosure.
Ms. Teer, who bought the property in the 1960s, sold 49 percent of the property to Nubian Partners, which operates several retail outlets in the building. The building has a monthly mortgage payment of $44,975, with a $5.2 million balloon payment due in 2012. In honor of Ms. Teer’s work, West 126th Street was dedicated as National Black Theater Way.
Justice Walter B. Tolub ruled that Applebee’s lease violated the contract between the parent company of the National Black Theater and Nubian Partners.
Raymond Hannigan, a lawyer at Herrick, Feinstein who represented the National Black Theater in the lawsuit, said, “I think Barbara Ann Teer would be pleased to see this decision and see that this landmark location remained dedicated to African-American arts.”
---http://davidsradiotv2000.blogspot.com/------times N.Y./Region
Monday, July 20, 2009
GOP Liars on Health Costs
Peter Dreier
Peter Dreier is E.P. Clapp Distinguished Professor of Politics at Occidental College
Posted: July 20, 2009 09:00 PM
Democrats' government-run plan will make health care more costly than ever," Ohio Representative John Boehner, the House Republican leader, told the Wall Street Journal last Friday. Two days later, on "Meet the Press," Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky), the Senate minority leader, said, "Pretty soon the doctors and the hospitals will all be working for the government."
Let's be clear. The Republicans are liars and hypocrites when it comes to controlling costs as part of health care reform. That's because they are in the pockets of the drug companies, the insurance lobby, the for-profit hospitals, and the American Medical Association. As a result, the GOP leaders in Congress have resisted efforts by the Democrats to limit what the drug and insurance corporations can charge.
President Obama and the Democratic leaders in Congress have twin goals of expanding insurance coverage and reducing per-capita costs. They do not want to "socialize" health care, as the Republicans and their lunatic allies in the right-wing echo chamber (Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, etc) keep repeating.
In fact, under the Democrats' plan, doctors and other providers, hospitals, drug companies, and medical suppliers will remain private, as they are now. But it would add a "public option" - through which the federal government would provide the insurance for those who don't get it from employers or can't afford private premiums - similar to the current Medicare program for seniors.
The Republicans have been warning that the "public option" plan will be too costly, yet another example of wasteful "big government." But it is the Republicans who are working overtime to kill the Democrats' plans to keep a lid on medical costs.
As a highly-placed Congressional staffperson recently told me, the health industry lobbyists and their friends in Congress "will not allow us to tie the payment rates to providers to Medicare rates. That's where all the savings happen. Even more so if you mandate that all providers have to participate [in the public option plan] if they want to participate in Medicare."
Unfortunately, the drug, insurance, and hospitals' lobby groups have also rented a few centrist Democrats in the Senate -- including Max Baucus (Montana), Dianne Feinstein (Calif.), Kent Conrad (N.D.), Blanche Lincoln (Arkansas), Mary Landrieu (La.) and Kay Hagan (N.C.) -- who share their corporate benefactors' opposition to cost controls. Health care reformers are mounting a grassroots campaign to push these centrists off the fence.
For the most part, the mainstream media have missed this story, failing to report how the health care lobby and conservative Republicans are the key political forces that oppose lean, efficient government. For example, in his article on the health care battle in Monday's New York Times, reporter John Harwood wrote that Democratic leaders in Congress "have lavished more attention on expanding coverage to the more than 45 million Americans now uninsured than on controlling medical costs." Cost control has gotten relatively short shrift so far," Harwood noted, in part because "Democrats bend naturally toward larger rather than smaller government services." Harwood makes it seem that the Democrats are Johnnys-Come-Lately to the cost-control issue, reacting to Republicans' crusade for streamlining health care costs.
We've been here before. In 2003 the drug companies and their trade associations deployed nearly 700 lobbyists to stamp out a proposal to permit the federal government to negotiate the cost of drugs for Medicare recipients. Instead, the Bush administration and the GOP-controlled Congress added a drug benefit to Medicare, but prohibited Medicare officials from negotiating prices with drug manufacturers. It also guaranteed that private insurance companies, not Medicare, administer the drug benefit program. This dramatically increased Medicare costs for taxpayers. Seniors, meanwhile, wound up paying much more in out-of-pocket expenses for prescription drugs.
The U.S. now spends about twice per capita on health care (about $8,000), and a much higher proportion of our GDP (17%), than Canada and many European nations. Despite this, we still have many people who lack insurance, the highest infant mortality rate and the shortest life expectancy. For many Americans who have health insurance, the cost of premiums, and the cost for medicines and services not covered under their insurance plans, is untenable. Medical expenses is the biggest cause of bankruptcy. Administrative costs consume about three to six times that of Western European nations and Canada.
The high cost of U.S. health care is due in large measure to the outrageous greed and costly inefficiencies of the insurance and drug industries. It is the insurance industry that requires so much paperwork that its bloated administrative costs push up the cost of premiums, compared with the much lower administrative costs of Medicare, the government-run insurance program for seniors. Likewise, the drug companies don't want a public option, which would expose how they inflate the cost of medicine that contributes to our expensive and inefficient health system. Drug prices in the US are much higher than in Canada and other countries that regulate costs.
There are many ways to control health care costs, including putting more focus on preventive care, improving Americans' diet and exercise regimen, and improving how we deal with chronic diseases. But no plan to reduce costs will work without reigning in the huge profits and inefficiencies of the drug companies, insurance companies, and hospitals. To move further in that direction, President Obama has proposed legislation to give the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) full discretion over Medicare reimbursement policy. MedPAC is comprised of medical and economic experts who advise Congress on Medicare reimbursements.
To thwart any meaningful cost controls, the insurance and drug lobbies are flooding Congress with campaign contributions. During the 2008 election cycle, the insurance industry contributed $36.4 million to candidates for Congress, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Drug companies donated $12 million. Health professions added $73.1 million to campaign coffers and hospitals and nursing homes threw in another $18 million.
This American version of legalized bribery has escalated as the health reform battle heats up. The Washington Post recently reported that private insurance corporations, drug companies, hospitals, and their lobbyists spent more than $126 million on lobbying in the first quarter of this year - equal to about $1.4 million a day. These health industry lobby groups also hired more than 350 former government staff members and retired members of Congress to lobby for them, including two former chiefs of staff for Sen. Max Baucus, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, who is a key player in writing the health reform bill.
Most employers, workers, and consumers have a stake in America joining the rest of the economically affluent nations in having decent, affordable health insurance for all, one that limits costs and profiteering. Together, they add up to a much bigger political force that the lobby groups for drug companies, insurance corporations, for-profit hospitals, and the AMA.
It would be useful if the media went beyond the rhetoric over cost controls and looked at what the health industry lobbyists and their allies in Congress are actually doing in shaping the legislation. When it comes to controlling health costs, all the Republicans - and a handful of centrist Democrats -- talk the talk, but they don't walk the walk.
Peter Dreier is professor of politics, and director of the Urban & Environmental Policy Program, at Occidental College.
Sunday, July 19, 2009
CIT Is Near Deal for $3 Billion Loan to Avert Bankruptcy
By MICHAEL J. de la MERCED
Published: July 19, 2009
The CIT Group, one of the nation’s leading lenders to small and midsize businesses across the country, was close to a deal Sunday afternoon with some of its major bondholders to help it avert a bankruptcy filing through a $3 billion emergency loan, according to people briefed on the matter.
The company spent the last week appealing unsuccessfully to Washington regulators for more financial help while scrambling to try to raise as much as $3 billion from investors. Still, ratings agencies slashed its debt and its stock was in a virtual free fall. If CIT does not reach a deal by Monday morning, it plans to file for Chapter 11 protection as soon as Monday afternoon, people briefed on the situation said.
Under the terms of the proposal, CIT would receive $3 billion from some of its main bondholders. The money is meant to give the company several weeks to set up an exchange of bondholders’ debt for equity, alleviating some of the pressure from billions of dollars in obligations.
CIT’s board is scheduled to discuss the proposal at a meeting Sunday evening.
The plan was formed after days of round-the-clock negotiations between CIT, its financial and legal advisers and a group of large bondholders over recent days. Jeffrey Peek, CIT’s chief executive and the architect of the 101-year-old company’s aggressive yet ill-timed push into subprime mortgages and student loans, was actively involved in the financing talks, according to people briefed on the matter.
It is unclear whether the long-sought-after lifeline will be enough to give CIT room to make crucial changes to its business at a time when it is unable to get financing from the capital markets.
The scope and breadth of the fallout of a CIT collapse also remain unclear. Hundreds of thousands of businesses across the country depend on the firm to provide financing for their businesses.
CIT has relied on money that it borrows in the capital markets to make loans to its customers. Once the credit markets froze over, the company was in peril.
It is also uncertain how much — if any — of the $2.33 billion in taxpayer money that CIT received late last year will be recouped.
If the plan does not succeed, CIT, with $75 billion in assets, could be the biggest failure of a financial institution since the collapse of Lehman Brothers last fall. Since then, federal regulators have been pumping billions of dollars into numerous banks across the country to prop them up and create some stability in the nation’s financial system.
Last December, when the markets were in turmoil, the Bush administration rushed through CIT’s application to become a bank holding company and gave it $2.33 billion through the Troubled Asset Relief Program.
This time, however, when CIT asked regulators for another round of financial help, it found itself the flashpoint in a wide-ranging debate in Washington and on Wall Street over whether CIT had, in fact, a viable business model. Some officials contended that it did not represent enough risk to the broad financial system to warrant relief especially as the markets appear to now be on firmer footing.
A third front of the debate was whether, after throwing large sums of money to some of the nation’s largest banks, the Obama administration was doing enough to brace up institutions that lend money to smaller businesses. Many of those same banks, including JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, Citigroup and Bank of America, reported either record or substantially improved results last week.
In the end, the government opted not to provide CIT access to a program through the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation that has allowed Goldman Sachs and other banks to issue their debt cheaply with the backing of the agency.
But Sheila C. Bair, the chairwoman of the F.D.I.C., does not view the program as a bailout solution for banks and financial institutions, according to a government official briefed on the situation.
When that door closed last week, CIT executives still held out hope that they would receive approval from regulators to transfer some assets to a Utah-based bank that CIT controls that has about $3 billion in deposits.
Published: July 19, 2009
The CIT Group, one of the nation’s leading lenders to small and midsize businesses across the country, was close to a deal Sunday afternoon with some of its major bondholders to help it avert a bankruptcy filing through a $3 billion emergency loan, according to people briefed on the matter.
The company spent the last week appealing unsuccessfully to Washington regulators for more financial help while scrambling to try to raise as much as $3 billion from investors. Still, ratings agencies slashed its debt and its stock was in a virtual free fall. If CIT does not reach a deal by Monday morning, it plans to file for Chapter 11 protection as soon as Monday afternoon, people briefed on the situation said.
Under the terms of the proposal, CIT would receive $3 billion from some of its main bondholders. The money is meant to give the company several weeks to set up an exchange of bondholders’ debt for equity, alleviating some of the pressure from billions of dollars in obligations.
CIT’s board is scheduled to discuss the proposal at a meeting Sunday evening.
The plan was formed after days of round-the-clock negotiations between CIT, its financial and legal advisers and a group of large bondholders over recent days. Jeffrey Peek, CIT’s chief executive and the architect of the 101-year-old company’s aggressive yet ill-timed push into subprime mortgages and student loans, was actively involved in the financing talks, according to people briefed on the matter.
It is unclear whether the long-sought-after lifeline will be enough to give CIT room to make crucial changes to its business at a time when it is unable to get financing from the capital markets.
The scope and breadth of the fallout of a CIT collapse also remain unclear. Hundreds of thousands of businesses across the country depend on the firm to provide financing for their businesses.
CIT has relied on money that it borrows in the capital markets to make loans to its customers. Once the credit markets froze over, the company was in peril.
It is also uncertain how much — if any — of the $2.33 billion in taxpayer money that CIT received late last year will be recouped.
If the plan does not succeed, CIT, with $75 billion in assets, could be the biggest failure of a financial institution since the collapse of Lehman Brothers last fall. Since then, federal regulators have been pumping billions of dollars into numerous banks across the country to prop them up and create some stability in the nation’s financial system.
Last December, when the markets were in turmoil, the Bush administration rushed through CIT’s application to become a bank holding company and gave it $2.33 billion through the Troubled Asset Relief Program.
This time, however, when CIT asked regulators for another round of financial help, it found itself the flashpoint in a wide-ranging debate in Washington and on Wall Street over whether CIT had, in fact, a viable business model. Some officials contended that it did not represent enough risk to the broad financial system to warrant relief especially as the markets appear to now be on firmer footing.
A third front of the debate was whether, after throwing large sums of money to some of the nation’s largest banks, the Obama administration was doing enough to brace up institutions that lend money to smaller businesses. Many of those same banks, including JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, Citigroup and Bank of America, reported either record or substantially improved results last week.
In the end, the government opted not to provide CIT access to a program through the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation that has allowed Goldman Sachs and other banks to issue their debt cheaply with the backing of the agency.
But Sheila C. Bair, the chairwoman of the F.D.I.C., does not view the program as a bailout solution for banks and financial institutions, according to a government official briefed on the situation.
When that door closed last week, CIT executives still held out hope that they would receive approval from regulators to transfer some assets to a Utah-based bank that CIT controls that has about $3 billion in deposits.
Monday, July 13, 2009
Obama Names Alabama Doctor Regina Benjamin as Surgeon General
By Jonathan D. Salant and Kate Andersen
July 13 (Bloomberg) -- Regina Benjamin, a specialist in rural health care who founded a clinic to serve the poor along Alabama’s Gulf Coast, was named by President Barack Obama as his choice for U.S. surgeon general.
Obama, making the announcement today at the White House, called her an “outstanding candidate to be America’s leading spokesperson on issues of public health.”
Benjamin has focused on health-care delivery in areas that are underserved by medical facilities, according to a biography on the Web site of the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthurFoundation, which awarded her a $500,000 fellowship grant in 2008.
She is the founder and chief executive officer of the Bayou La Batre Rural Health Clinic, according to the MacArthur Foundation. The clinic and the town of Bayou La Batre, Alabama, were ravaged by both Hurricanes Georges in 1998 and Katrina in 2005. Benjamin worked in emergency rooms and nursing homes to earn extra money to keep the clinic running.
“She has been proven as a leader for this community,” said Stan Wright, Bayou La Batre’s mayor and a board member at Benjamin’s clinic. “She’s been proven through the toughest economic times and through disasters like Hurricane Katrina. I think this is the best choice that President Obama could ever have made.”
Mud-Caked Truck
Benjamin has made a mission of treating Bayou La Batre’s poor and immigrant communities, traveling in a mud-caked Toyota pickup truck to visit her stranded patients after Hurricane Katrina, Wright said in a telephone interview. When her neighbors in the town couldn’t pay, Benjamin has taken bags of oysters or a pound of crabmeat, Wright said.
“Doctor Benjamin never cared about money,” he said. “She made sure you got the best care and money was not the object.”
Benjamin will make a priority of ensuring “nobody will be turned away,” Wright said. “She’ll come up with some health- care policy to include every human being.”
Douglas Henley, chief executive officer of the American Academy of Family Physicians, said he expects Benjamin will take a wide view of her duties as surgeon general.
“She would call attention to disparities in health care, and to the need for health reform to focus on extending coverage to all Americans,” Henley said in a telephone interview. “I would expect this to be her broad focus, rather than past surgeons general who have called attention to a single issue like smoking or obesity.”
Benjamin grew up in Daphne, Alabama, according to the University of Alabama at Birmingham, where she received her medical degree in 1984. She was the first woman and first black to serve as president of the state’s medical association. She also was the first black woman elected to serve on the board of trustees of the American Medical Association.
Last year she was named by U.S. News and World Report as among America’s best leaders.
The position of surgeon general was created in 1870 to serve as the supervising surgeon for the U.S. hospital system and later as the administrator for the federal public-health system. The surgeon general’s role has evolved into that of a leading educator about public-health issues.
Sanjay Gupta, the television journalist and physician, was Obama’s original pick for surgeon general. Gupta withdrew from consideration in March, saying he wanted devote time to his family and his practice as a neurosurgeon while maintaining his broadcast career on CNN.
To contact the reporter on this story: Jonathan D. Salant in Washington at jsalant@bloomberg.net; Kate Andersen in Washington at kandersen7@bloomberg.net Last Updated: July 13, 2009 12:01 EDT
July 13 (Bloomberg) -- Regina Benjamin, a specialist in rural health care who founded a clinic to serve the poor along Alabama’s Gulf Coast, was named by President Barack Obama as his choice for U.S. surgeon general.
Obama, making the announcement today at the White House, called her an “outstanding candidate to be America’s leading spokesperson on issues of public health.”
Benjamin has focused on health-care delivery in areas that are underserved by medical facilities, according to a biography on the Web site of the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthurFoundation, which awarded her a $500,000 fellowship grant in 2008.
She is the founder and chief executive officer of the Bayou La Batre Rural Health Clinic, according to the MacArthur Foundation. The clinic and the town of Bayou La Batre, Alabama, were ravaged by both Hurricanes Georges in 1998 and Katrina in 2005. Benjamin worked in emergency rooms and nursing homes to earn extra money to keep the clinic running.
“She has been proven as a leader for this community,” said Stan Wright, Bayou La Batre’s mayor and a board member at Benjamin’s clinic. “She’s been proven through the toughest economic times and through disasters like Hurricane Katrina. I think this is the best choice that President Obama could ever have made.”
Mud-Caked Truck
Benjamin has made a mission of treating Bayou La Batre’s poor and immigrant communities, traveling in a mud-caked Toyota pickup truck to visit her stranded patients after Hurricane Katrina, Wright said in a telephone interview. When her neighbors in the town couldn’t pay, Benjamin has taken bags of oysters or a pound of crabmeat, Wright said.
“Doctor Benjamin never cared about money,” he said. “She made sure you got the best care and money was not the object.”
Benjamin will make a priority of ensuring “nobody will be turned away,” Wright said. “She’ll come up with some health- care policy to include every human being.”
Douglas Henley, chief executive officer of the American Academy of Family Physicians, said he expects Benjamin will take a wide view of her duties as surgeon general.
“She would call attention to disparities in health care, and to the need for health reform to focus on extending coverage to all Americans,” Henley said in a telephone interview. “I would expect this to be her broad focus, rather than past surgeons general who have called attention to a single issue like smoking or obesity.”
Benjamin grew up in Daphne, Alabama, according to the University of Alabama at Birmingham, where she received her medical degree in 1984. She was the first woman and first black to serve as president of the state’s medical association. She also was the first black woman elected to serve on the board of trustees of the American Medical Association.
Last year she was named by U.S. News and World Report as among America’s best leaders.
The position of surgeon general was created in 1870 to serve as the supervising surgeon for the U.S. hospital system and later as the administrator for the federal public-health system. The surgeon general’s role has evolved into that of a leading educator about public-health issues.
Sanjay Gupta, the television journalist and physician, was Obama’s original pick for surgeon general. Gupta withdrew from consideration in March, saying he wanted devote time to his family and his practice as a neurosurgeon while maintaining his broadcast career on CNN.
To contact the reporter on this story: Jonathan D. Salant in Washington at jsalant@bloomberg.net; Kate Andersen in Washington at kandersen7@bloomberg.net Last Updated: July 13, 2009 12:01 EDT
Friday, July 10, 2009
Obama Arrives in Ghana
By VOA News 10 July 2000
U.S. President Barack Obama has arrived in Ghana, on his first trip to sub-Saharan Africa as president.
The U.S. president arrived in the West African country late Friday, following a three-day summit in Italy of the Group of Eight nations.
Mr. Obama says he chose Ghana as his first destination in the region because of what he considers to be its strong democratic system.
Excitement over the visit has been mounting in the Ghanaian capital, Accra. Many Ghanaians took to the streets Friday to celebrate and there was a parade featuring a mock figure of the first African-American U.S. president.
Huge billboards also can be seen across the city, featuring the images of Ghanaian President John Atta Mills and Mr. Obama with the caption "Partnership for Change" and the phrase "Akwaaba," which means "Welcome home" in the local Akan language.
Mr. Obama's father was from Kenya. President Mills says many people in Ghana and neighboring countries want to see President Obama because they regard him as a hero.
While in Ghana, Mr. Obama is scheduled to meet with President Mills on Saturday as well as former Ghanaian leaders John Kufuor and Jerry Rawlings.
President Mills took office in January after a narrow election victory that saw the ruling party concede defeat peacefully.
In an interview with VOA, the Ghanaian leader said he believes President Obama wants to highlight Ghana's peaceful transition of power and democratic credentials as an example for Africa.
President Obama also will address Ghana's parliament and tour a former slave trading center, Cape Coast Castle, where African slaves were shipped across the Atlantic for almost 300 years. He is due to return to Washington at the end of the visit.
Ghanaian authorities say 10,000 police officers are providing security for the visit.
By----http://davidsradiotv2000.blogspot.com
U.S. President Barack Obama has arrived in Ghana, on his first trip to sub-Saharan Africa as president.
The U.S. president arrived in the West African country late Friday, following a three-day summit in Italy of the Group of Eight nations.
Mr. Obama says he chose Ghana as his first destination in the region because of what he considers to be its strong democratic system.
Excitement over the visit has been mounting in the Ghanaian capital, Accra. Many Ghanaians took to the streets Friday to celebrate and there was a parade featuring a mock figure of the first African-American U.S. president.
Huge billboards also can be seen across the city, featuring the images of Ghanaian President John Atta Mills and Mr. Obama with the caption "Partnership for Change" and the phrase "Akwaaba," which means "Welcome home" in the local Akan language.
Mr. Obama's father was from Kenya. President Mills says many people in Ghana and neighboring countries want to see President Obama because they regard him as a hero.
While in Ghana, Mr. Obama is scheduled to meet with President Mills on Saturday as well as former Ghanaian leaders John Kufuor and Jerry Rawlings.
President Mills took office in January after a narrow election victory that saw the ruling party concede defeat peacefully.
In an interview with VOA, the Ghanaian leader said he believes President Obama wants to highlight Ghana's peaceful transition of power and democratic credentials as an example for Africa.
President Obama also will address Ghana's parliament and tour a former slave trading center, Cape Coast Castle, where African slaves were shipped across the Atlantic for almost 300 years. He is due to return to Washington at the end of the visit.
Ghanaian authorities say 10,000 police officers are providing security for the visit.
By----http://davidsradiotv2000.blogspot.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)