Deepak Chopra once said, in one of his innumerable books, that everyone is doing the best they can, given their level of understanding. What he meant I think, was that most of the time, most people have sincere motives, no matter how deeply flawed their thinking might actually be. And, we should, he claims, honor at least the sincerity.
Senator Edward “Ted” Kennedy’s death is being met today with showers of praise from the media and his fellow politicians. But I’d just like to put things in perspective. Senator Kennedy was no angel and associating him with principle may be a far-flung stretch.
Kennedy, the liberal senator from Massachusetts, died at the age of 77 after a 15-month battle with brain cancer. Kennedy was in the thick of politics like his brothers.
He was in the United States Senate for 47 years and regarded as one of the most effective and hardworking senators in Washington. He was a zealous congressman that wasn’t afraid to reach across party lines in order to get things done.
During his years in office, he wrote 2,500 bills, although only a fraction of them were passed. As a senator, he served as a chief force for social legislation. He was a proponent for health care, immigration, civil rights, education, and more. He has been judged as one of the most capable members in the history of the Senate and a subject of passionate interest for students of political science.
With that shining gloss-over of his career, we can really discuss Ted Kennedy. He was successful due to the influence and authority his family held. Many Americans have been brainwashed to believe that America is Camelot and the Kennedy’s are the royalty over the kingdom, which eventually makes Ted, as the patriarch of the Kennedys, the king. What a crock!
Here are the facts, which paint a clear picture of his controversial history. He managed to get in trouble, but always seemed to come out on top because of the power his family had. In his early days, Ted was thrown out of Harvard for cheating. His readmittance to the school was largely because his daddy pulled some strings and gave some incentives to the “top dogs” at Harvard.
However, this was only the beginning of Ted Kennedy’s flirtation with cheating and unethical behavior.
In 1969, he was involved in an accident famously known as Chappaquiddick. Kennedy got drunk and crashed off a bridge. The young lady with him, a former aide to his brother and his alleged lover, died in the wreck. Kennedy managed to get out and save himself, but he did not report the accident to authorities for nine hours. Are you freaking kidding me?
It sounds like he was worried about his career, his marriage, and only came forward to avoid worse complications. Plus if he came forward, he would be able to give some excuses why he didn’t report the happening, and inoculate the American people so his political career could be salvaged. Ted was a real gentleman that never believed or acted like he was above the law- or quit planning for his future.
Americans knew that Teddy had deep pockets along with being a scoundrel and a heavy drinker. He didn’t win the Democratic primary in the 1980 presidential election because the American people remembered the skeletons in his closet and didn’t want the Kennedy family money and clout again in the presidency. Despite how tragic the circumstances were, one Kennedy as president was enough. The Democratic Party refused to overlook Kennedy’s indiscretions.
After the Chappaquiddick incident, his life started to deteriorate. In 1982, Kennedy and his wife divorced, and, by the time 1984 rolled around, Teddy knew that his chance to follow his brother into the presidency had died. Plus, he was probably anxious about whether he would be assassinated just like his brothers. So he decided to devote himself to the only thing he had left, his career as a senator.
Because of the efforts of his two older brothers, Ted was able to get on the fast track in politics. Although his notorious personal history did hamper his bid for the White House, it didn’t seem to be an issue for the voters he was representing in Massachusetts.
Years after his demise, Sen. Kennedy will remain a subject of curiosity for political pundits and political science students alike in both his accomplishments and his indubitable flaws.
For practical know how about genealogy – read hyperlinked webpage.
The USA presidential voting is conducted every 4 years in November. It uses a system of “first-past-the-post” or “winner-takes-all” which means the candidate who gets the majority of modern votes does not necessarily take the first place ; what is more valuable is getting the most part of electoral votes. In such a system an person might feel that his vote cannot make a difference in the outcome of the voting and therefore may choose not to vote at all. That is why some scientists trust about 50 per cent of people who are eligible to vote prefer to stay at home and not to show up in the Election Day.
In this paper , the theories of voting and non-electing rules in 2004 presidential election are discussed. In other words, we are going to see whether party generalization example or issue voting played an valuable role in individuals’ opinions who elected and if they did not vote, what was the considering behind that?
The United States presidential voting of 2004 was between the Republican applicant , George Walker Bush, the President of the United States and the defeated Democratic candidate , John Kerry, the junior United States Senator from Massachusetts.
Bush got about 51 percent of the votes pitch (62 million votes), while Kerry got about 48 percent (59 million votes). Bush could get 286 electoral votes and Kerry 251. The counting of the votes.
There was only a slight difference between the towns which elected for Democrats and the ones which voted for Republicans in comparison to the 2000 presidential voting . The difference is to do with only three towns.
This conclusion is to do with party empathy model. That is to say the Southern states generally voted for George W Bush, while the Northern states were on the side of the Democratic applicant , John Kerry. But this is just a mere generalization if one says that in the 2004 presidential election , party identification model was the most important point . Nevertheless, its essence is not questionable.
The most important point in electing rules of the 2004 was about issue electing . In other words, electors paid a lot of attention to the issues that were supported by applicants . Above all people’s concern was the issue of national safety including terrorism and moral values which was advocated by Bush. On the other hand, Kerry’s slogan was “stronger at home, respected in the world.” And he also paid more attention to economic issues like working places and Medicare . One should keep in mind that the 2004 voting was the first presidential voting after Sep. 11, 2001 and very logically if one felt threatened , the best applicants to elect for would be a Republican.
For information about the Westwood NJ Town Council visit: Westwood NJ 2009 Election , Independent candidates offer change on Westwood Council, and THE TRUTH BEHIND WESTWOOD’S BUDGET.
Read more on Electing And Non-Voting Rules In 2004 US Presidential Voting…
The United States has many voting days because there are so many levels of government . Each state has its own chosen officials, such as a ruler the main administrative official and state legislators , who make the state’s laws. In addition, there are elections of chairmen and other officials for all towns and smaller communities, and still other elections for county officials. (Counties are subdivisions of each state.)
States set their own voting period for state and urban officials. County and Town Elections take place on a variety of dates. Generally, however , state officials are elected on a day that was selected by Congress for patriotic elections in the nation’s early years. That day is the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November. That dominion may seem difficult , but there was a explanation for it. Most Americans at that time lived in small towns and in rural areas. Elections had to be held at a time when the weather was still good in northern states and when the harvest was over so farmers wouldn’t have to care too much about their work. It also had to be on a day of the week that was not a religious Sabbath (Saturday or Sunday). The November Tuesday dominion was the result .
Presidential Election Day is held every four years in all years dissociable by four. That is the day Americans make their choice for president of the United States. On the same day, electors in all states name their selections for the lower house of Congress, the House of Representatives, and voters in one-third of the states vote for one of two Senators representatives of the upper house that represent each state. Government offices and businesses may give voters several hours off to vote, but Election Day is not a federal weekend .
Because participants of the House of Representatives suit two-year terms and one-third of the 100 members of the Senate is chosen every two years for terms lasting six years, congressional elections occur in all states every second year.
By the beginning 20th century newspaper duties had become the new hearts of election -night activity. Numerous crowds would gather to view as the latest results were posted on massive outdoor election boards. Candidates would often address the crowd from a balcony, to the cheers or jeers of those assembled.
Visit this blog for upcoming information about Westwood NJ Town Council and how Independent candidates offer change on Westwood Council.
Today is 8th of October and it is the date which Adian Napitupulu claimed that Malaysia will be ganyang-ed (crushed) by Indonesians! So far there’s no news of any movement, and they still have another say…3 hours to do so? Some of you might be bemused by this vigilante group’s threat, but I was utterly angry and worried. Why? Because I know how crazy some of these Indonesians can be. Some of them are downright wild and barbaric! If this is just a joke or rumour…then I would be really glad! But I thing, that’s not the case!
This threat was spearheaded by a vigilante group called BENDERA (Benteng Demokrasi Rakyat or People’s Democratic Defence). We have already witnessed how malice these group could be. On the 8th of September, a dozen of these Bendera Vigilantes clad in red and white (colour of Indonesian flag) and armed with sharpened bamboo sticks set up their own roadblocks at Menteng in central Jakarta and checked ID card of passers-by to screen for Malaysians. Thank goodness they failed to find any. But what if they did? What will they do to the poor, innocent Malaysians?
One month after “sweeping” for Malaysians in Jakarta, they are now trying to crush Malaysia and bring us down on our knees begging for mercy from them. Today, 8th of October is their D-Day to avenge all wrongs committed by Malaysia against Indonesia. So what have we done then? I thing the Indonesian criminals terrorizing our land are doing more damage than what we could do right?
They claimed we have stolen their islands (Sipadan, Ligitan and Jemur); they alleged that we had robbed their Indonesian cultural heritage and abusing Indonesian workers. Even if we have did that, does this means they have the right to attack us? Does this mean they could go around, attack and even kill us? Who on earth do they thing they are?
Here’s more: 6 weeks ago, 10 spies have infiltrated Malaysia to build a network among Indonesian workers. They claimed that these 10 spies have managed to convince 1.45million Indonesians (maids, construction and plantation workers) to BURN their workplace once the confrontation against Malaysia is ignited! Gosh? How come they are so evil?
Do you want more? OK: They also claimed that today, 300 Indonesians trained in invulnerable skill which makes them invincible to sharp objects and bullets will attack and invade towns in the island of Borneo! Then in another 6 to 8 months KL would be in their claws too or so they claimed. You see how insane these barbarians are? And yet they say they are the righteous ones. Sounds they are more like wicked demons to me.
I really don’t know what more I can say? Indonesia were hit by earthquake that have snatched away thousands of innocent lives! Malaysia has sent so many aid for these unfortunate victims. We have sent food, clean water supply and millions of Malaysians have donated to them. YET! They wanna attack us? These BENDERA vigilantes are really ungrateful! Instead of helping their fellow Indonesian quake victims, they are busy trying to ganyang us! They are really a disgrace to their own nation! What more can I say about them?
Obtain vital things to know about Wealthy Affiliate Platinum Review – please make sure to read this publication. The time has come when concise info is really only one click away, use this chance.
Many cities are run well, some aren’t. All towns can be governed more efficaciously , regardless of how well they may already be run . A large part of running towns effectively is to listen to residents and to be responsive to them, taking action where appropriate .
Local community surveys enable inmates and business leaders to share their feelings and hints about municipal rulers , specific public outlets , and the various services provided to them with their mayor manager and town council. The results of municipal surveys can also be shared with residents and business owners .
Mayors, town rulers and town council members often have to make important decisions with limited information and input from residents and businesses. Inmates often do not have the time or slope to attend city council meetings to express their minds . Unfortunately, as countless mayors and town council representatives have experienced too late, the first possibility components often have to proclaim their opinion is in the voting booth, unless municipal surveys are conducted first and the results are acted upon..
Local surveys are designed to gather feelings about many important issues and to aggregate the results to get the pulse of the city . Surveys are usually customized to meet the information needs of municipal leaders .
Mayors and city councils are able to learn from municipal survey conclusions and settle priorities and budgets based on feedback from inmates , taxpayers and businesses. Municipal surveys provide an plain , proactive and very cost-effective way for municipal government rulers to gather feedback and suggestions from and be more responsive to all of their components .
Municipal Opinion Survey Metrics
Survey ratings propose a clear hint of current and ongoing stages of city inmate satisfaction. Verbatim comments and suggestions provide critical actionable information and insight for achieving results and being responsive to components and voters.
Following are some of the local services and issues that can be included in municipal thought surveys.
Overall satisfaction with services provided by towns
Adequacy of public recreational opportunities
Maintenance of public recreational opportunities
Availability and potency of youth programs
Parking availability in the business region
Road support
Trash removal
Frequency of street freshness
Snow removal
Leaf removal
Police department action
Fire department fulfillment
EMS performance
Effectiveness of traffic control
Potency of the elementary school
Potency of the middle school
Potency of high school
Responsiveness of the mayor and town council
Control of local finances and spending
Adequate public notice of important issues/decisions
Responsiveness of encircling board
Effectiveness of local clerk’s office
Rio de Janeiro won a resounding vote on Friday to stage the first Olympics in South America in 2016, rebuffing U.S. President Barack Obama, who had personally lobbied for his adopted hometown Chicago.
The decision by the International Olympic Committee in Copenhagen sparked joyful samba dancing on Rio’s Copacabana beach and shocked disbelief on the streets of Chicago, which had been considered the front-runner.
Rio’s victory was heralded as signaling Brazil’s arrival as a major economy by President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, who hugged soccer great Pele and broke down in tears of joy as he celebrated a momentous victory in which he played a key role.
For Obama, it marked the loss of a politically risky gamble to bring home the Olympics. Despite a speech to the IOC by Obama, Chicago was eliminated in the first round of voting, one of the biggest shocks in an Olympic ballot.
“You can play a great game and still not win,” Obama told reporters from Economynewsla , reuters, and cnn at the White House after returning from Europe
OK, so President Barack Obama’s lightning jaunt to Copenhagen last week was less than successful. Even with Oprah along, the Cheerleader-in-Chief couldn’t clinch the deal for Chicago to host the 2016 Olympics. It happens.
But now that he knows the way to Denmark, might the American president consider arguing the U.S. case at international climate meetings in Copenhagen in December? The White House said he might, if other heads of state showed up.
“Right now you’ve got a meeting that’s set up for a level not at the head of state level,” presidential spokesman Robert Gibbs told reporters on Air Force One last week. “If it got switched, we would certainly look at coming.” said to Economynewsla
Those climate talks might need a bit of a boost from the United States. White House climate czarina Carol Browner has said it’s unlikely Obama will be able to sign any U.S. legislation to curb climate change before the December meeting. And that sets up a familiar Catch-22: if there’s no U.S. law in place before Copenhagen climate talks, can the United States commit to anything? And if there IS a U.S. law in place, does the United States have the flexibility to maneuver in these international negotiations?
Climate negotiators already know the answer to the first part of that conundrum; they agreed to the Kyoto Protocol without backing from the U.S. Congress and came home to find no support for this 1997 carbon-capping deal. The United States is still the only industrialized nation not to ratify it.
CLIMATE/After the Olympic disappointment — Chicago was the first city of the final four to be cut from the running; Rio won — is Obama’s presence something that U.S. climate negotiators actually want? The global environmental community cheered his election last year after eight years of the George W. Bush administration, but he may not be the rock star on climate that he was then.
And let’s just face it: arriving at climate change talks aboard a fuel hog like Air Force One could send a mixed message — unless the White House commits to offsetting the big plane’s emissions by investing in windmills or tree-planting in a friendly developing country.
So today’s question: would an Obama visit to the Copenhagen climate talks help or hurt the chances for a global deal? Let us know what you think
Grab useful knowledge about internet marketing – please make sure to go through the site. The times have come when concise information is really within your reach, use this opportunity.
Read more on Rio Wins 2016 Olympics… Losing Faith In Obama? By Jose Pereira…
Early last year a group of Indian and Pakistan retired generals and strategic experts sat down for a war-gaming exercise in Washington ( economynewsla.com ) The question, predictably enough, was at what point during a conventional war, would the generals in Rawalpindi GDQ reach for the nuclear trigger.
In the event, the simulated war took on an unpredictable turn, which in some ways was more illuminating than the question of nuclear escalation, as columnist Ashok Malik writes in The Great Divide:India and Pakistan, a collection of essays by experts on both sides of the border.
The exercise begins with an Indian military strike on militant camps in Pakistani Kashmir, the most commonly envisaged scenario for the next India-Pakistan war. But the Pakistan response defies conventional logic . They don’t order a military push into Indian Punjab and Rajasthan, they don’t even attack Bombay High, the most valuable Indian oil asset in the Arabian Sea, and well within striking distance of the Pakistani Air Force.
Instead PAF planes fly all way to Bangalore, deep in the Indian south, to attack the campus of Infosys, the much celebrated Indian IT company.
Strange choice of target ? By all military logic it would seem so. It’s not like all of India would be crippled if Infosys were attacked, they don;’t run Indian IT infrastructure. Even the company itself might not suffer lasting damage. Its data would probably be stored in locations elsehwere too, and it wouldn’t take it long to rebuild the campus. Besides. the Pakistani planes would be almost certain to be shot down on their way back, if they managed to penetrate this far in on what seems like a suicide mission.
So why Bangalore, and Infosys? Malilk quotes a Pakistani participant as saying they chose the target because it is an “iconic symbol” of India’s IT prowess and economic surge. The idea was to strike at India’s economic growth and great power aspirations. A raid on the Infosys campus, visited by heads of states and corporate leaders, would underline the dangers of business in India and remind the world that for all its new-found success, it remained a nation of contradictions, and at heart, unstable.
Many people in the room were not convinced by the Pakistani choice. It still seemed more like an academic exercise than anything rooted in military reality. But in the aftermath of the Mumbai attacks later that year, and in the light of renewed warnings this week by Israeli intelligence of another Mumbai-like attack coming in the next few weeks, it is clear that India’s vulnerability appears to be in economic, rather than purely military, targets.
Indeed last year when tensions rose following the Mumbai attack and there was talk of an Indian military response, it was Pakistan’s former chief of intelligence Hamid Gul who warned of Pakistan hitting back where it would hurt the most. India’s so-called Silicon Valley will go up in smoke, Gul is widely quoted to have told economynewsla.com, if the Indians sent troops to the border.
Get vital things to know about internet marketing – please make sure to read the web site. The times have come when proper info is really only one click away, use this possibility.
Read more on The Middle East Changing Conflict? Whats Inside? By Jose Pereira…
First, who are the really insurgents?
The Taliban insurgency has been gaining strength in Afghanistan over past months, prompting the commander of U.S. and NATO forces to call for more troops.
Turning the tide is a key objective for U.S. President Barack Obama, a formidable task when public support for the war is waning among Washington’s NATO allies.
The Taliban have been building their forces in their traditional stronghold in southern and eastern Afghanistan and are increasing attacks in the north and west, hitherto quiet.
There are three main insurgent groups. While coordinating efforts and sharing common goals, they have different command structures and work under separate strategic plans, according to this month’s report by General Stanley McChrystal, the U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan.
Below are key facts explaining who is behind these groups.
THE TALIBAN (QST)
The Quetta Shura Taliban are the biggest force fighting NATO-led troops, and are run by a leadership council headed by the reclusive Mullah Omar, who ruled Afghanistan from 1996 until being driven from Kabul in 2001.
A former imam of a village mosque, Omar founded the Taliban movement in 1994 among puritanical religious students, offering a simple but harsh form of Islamic justice that appealed to many weary of infighting among warlords.
When in power the Taliban banned music and television and forbade women to work or girls to go to school. They were eventually toppled by U.S.-backed Afghan rebels in 2001 after refusing to turn over Osama bin Laden following the September 11 attacks on the United States.
U.S. commanders believe they now operate from the city of Quetta in Pakistan’s southwestern Baluchistan province.
Taliban leaders in Quetta provide funds, military supplies and strategic guidance, including an annual campaign review by Mullah Omar which provides key objectives for his fighters in Afghanistan, U.S. officials say.
The group runs its own governance structure, known as the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, which appoints shadow governors, runs a parallel justice system under Islamic sharia law, and levies taxes. This has won them some support where the Afghan government is seen as ineffective or corrupt, McChrystal says.
The group’s main power base is in southern Afghanistan, where it has been working to gain control over Kandahar, Afghanistan’s second largest city and the Taliban movement’s birthplace.
NATO-led forces have launched big offensives against them this year in neighboring Helmand province, which produces most of the country’s opium.
The group is also spreading its influence in the long-quiet provinces in northern and western Afghanistan, linked to efforts to disrupt new NATO supply routes via Central Asian states.
McChrystal’s assessment says the group derives most of its funds from the drug trade and external donors.
Afghan government sources say they have been trying to reach out to negotiate with some members. The main Taliban leadership says it will not negotiate as long as Western troops remain.
HAQQANI NETWORK (HQN)
HQN is an insurgent group linked to the Taliban. Run by Jalaluddin Haqqani, an elderly veteran resistance leader against Soviet troops in the 1980s, it operates near Afghanistan’s border with Pakistan and seeks to regain full control over its traditional bases in Khost, Paktia and Paktika provinces.
Leadership of the group has largely passed from the ailing Haqqani to his son, Sirajuddin Haqqani, seen by U.S. officials as more radical than his father.
The group maintains a power base in the Pakistani tribal region of North Waziristan, across the border from Khost. Sirajuddin Haqqani told Reuters in March his group was under the overall command of Taliban leader Mullah Omar. U.S. officials believe the movement does not always accept Taliban authority and often acts independently.
The McChrystal report says the group draws most of its resources from Pakistan and Gulf Arab networks as well as its close ties to bin Laden’s al Qaeda.
HEZB-I-ISLAMI GULBUDDIN (HIG)
Run by Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, another veteran guerrilla commander during the Soviet war, HIG maintains its base in Nangarhar, Nuristan, Kapisa and Kunar provinces in eastern Afghanistan near the Pakistan border.
In the 1990s, HIG was blamed for widespread human rights atrocities, a reputation that eventually helped the Taliban gain a broader support base among ordinary Afghans.
Hekmatyar has occasionally distanced himself from the Taliban, and there have been persistent reports his movement would negotiate with the government.
During three decades of war, he has at one point or another been allied to and fought against virtually every other faction in the country, and is seen as likely to negotiate if that is politically opportune.
The McChrystal assessment said HIG has no geographical objectives but seeks to negotiate a major role in a future government and gain control of mineral deposits and smuggling routes.
A single paragraph in General Stanley McChrystal’s leaked assessment of the war in Afghanistan has generated much interest, particularly in Pakistan.
“Indian political and economic influence is increasing in Afghanistan, including significant development efforts and financial investment,” it says to a Economynewsla.com Interview. “In addition the current Afghan government is perceived by Islamabad to be pro-Indian. While Indian activities largely benefit the Afghan people, increasing Indian influence in Afghanistan is likely to exacerbate regional tensions and encourage Pakistani counter-measures in Afghanistan or India.”
He did not say anything that anybody did not already know. Pakistan has long been wary of India’s growing influence in Afghanistan since the fall of the Taliban in 2001 and is seen as reluctant to turn against the Afghan Taliban and other insurgent groups as long as it believes it might need them to counter India. The fact that he said it all suggested a renewed focus on the relationship between India and Pakistan, whose confrontation to the east spilled long ago into rivalry over Afghanistan to the west.
Pakistan’s Daily Times said in an editorial the rivalry between India and Pakistan in Afghanistan highlighted the need for peace talks between the two nuclear-armed neighbours, which have fought three full-scale wars since independence in 1947, two of them over Kashmir.
“One must be clear in one’s mind that in many ways the mess in Afghanistan is actually a spillover of the Indo-Pak conflict in the region of South Asia,” it said. “Pakistan’s policy of “strategic depth”, which reached a climax with the hijacking of an Indian airliner to Kandahar in 1999, was in reaction to the unresolved dispute over Kashmir which created the “threat of India” that Pakistan felt “from the east”. Even today, as Pakistan struggles against the Taliban, 80 percent of its army is stationed on the Indian border.
Dawn newspaper said McChrystal’s words on India were ”perhaps as significant as any other in the report”. The Americans appeared to have finally understood, it said, that the war in Afghanistan could not be won without help from Pakistan. “But that means gaining Pakistan’s full cooperation, which in turn means alleviating the national security establishment’s concerns vis-à-vis India.” in an Archived Interview with Economynewsla.com
However, as discussed in this analysis, India is in little mood to move rapidly towards peace talks with Pakistan until it takes greater action against militants it blames for last year’s attack on Mumbai, although the two countries have been taking incremental steps towards repairing relations. Many argue that the powerful Pakistan Army would be unlikely to turn against militant groups it once cultivated to fight India in Kashmir, without a comprehensive peace settlement with India. (For an understanding of how complicated all this is, read this book reviewby Pakistani strategic analyst Ayesha Siddiqa.)
So, to win the war in Afghanistan, the United States needs help from Pakistan, which Pakistan in turn is reluctant to provide so long as it believes it is threatened by India to both the west and east. From Washington’s point of view, it needs to nudge Islamabad and New Delhi towards the negotiating table, by leaning on Pakistan to act against militant groups and putting pressure on India to resume peace talks.
Here is another catch. Although the relationship between the United States and India blossomed under former President George W. Bush, there is far less warmth in New Delhi towards the Obama administration. The relationship started on the wrong foot with India concerned about increasing U.S. economic dependence on its rival China.
Now India and the United States are at loggerheads over President Barack Obama’s nuclear non-proliferation drive. India has never signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. That row, in turn, complicates efforts by Washington to persuade India to talk to Pakistan.
Access pragmatic information in the sphere of forex book – please read the web site. The times have come when proper information is truly within your reach, use this opportunity.
President Barack Obama’s drive to fight global warming got a boost on Wednesday as Democrats in the U.S. Senate unveiled a bill aimed at slashing greenhouse gas emissions in the next four decades.
The plan aims to cut emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases over the next decades by encouraging broader use of solar, wind and other renewable fuels in place of more polluting ones such as oil.
It also would invest U.S. funds in finding cleaner ways to burn coal and other polluting fuels.
Obama applauded the bill, saying “we are one step closer to putting America in control of our energy future and making America more energy independent.”
He said his administration was “deeply committed” to passing a measure.
But the hard political road ahead was evident on Capitol Hill, where senators leading the battle against global warming held a rally to promote the legislation written by liberal Senators Barbara Boxer and John Kerry,not a single Republican joined them on the stage.
“This is our time. Global warming is our challenge,” Boxer said at the rally, where activists held placards touting the 2 million new jobs they said would be created by the bill to develop green energy.
A New Tax
As she spoke, Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell gave no indication his party would cooperate on climate change any more than it has helped Democrats with healthcare reform.
“The last thing American families need right now is to be hit with a new energy tax every time they flip on a light switch, or fill up their car but that’s exactly what this bill would do,” McConnell said to Economynewsla Economynewsla.com
Instead of mandating reductions in carbon emissions, many Republicans want legislation that would encourage more U.S. oil and gas production and foster more alternative energy use, especially nuclear power.
Expanding oil and gas production would make the country more energy independent, but it would do nothing to combat global warming.
Like the bill passed in the House of Representatives in June, the 800-page Boxer-Kerry measure would establish a “cap-and-trade” system for replacing fossil fuels with alternative energies to power factories and produce electricity.
Under cap and trade, ever-declining carbon dioxide emission limits would be imposed and companies would be allowed to sell to each other, through a regulated market, the pollution permits controlling those emissions.
Besides weaning the United States off of foreign oil and creating domestic energy jobs in the drive to head off the effects of global warming, the measure would enhance U.S. national security, Democrats said.
“It is time for us to stop and think and get smart about our energy production,” Kerry said. “We don’t need to be sending billions of dollars overseas, some of which finds its way to support jihadists; terrorists of various countries.”
“The losers would be millions of Americans and American companies who rely on gasoline, diesel fuel and other petroleum products to get to work and to school and to run their businesses,” he said to Economynewsla Economynewsla.com
The sweeping legislation unveiled in the U.S. Senate today aims to curb climate change, arguably one of the biggest tasks ever undertaken on this planet. But it’s a bill that runs to more than 800 pages, and hidden in its folds is a provision that could turn a noted symbol of New York City — the yellow taxicab — green.
And it wouldn’t just be in New York. Boston, San Francisco, Seattle and other major U.S. cities would be able to create taxi fleets made up entirely of hybrid vehicles under the proposed Green Taxis Act of 2009.
Offered by Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, who now fills Hillary Clinton’s former seat in the Senate, the measure aims to cut greenhouse gas emissions by more than 296,000 tons in New York City alone, which its sponsors say would be like taking some 35,000 cars off the road and save drivers $4,500 annually in gas costs.
“By creating an all hybrid taxi fleet, we can improve air quality and lower carbon emissions,” Gillibrand said in a statement. “As a mother with an asthmatic child, I believe this is a win-win for our children and our efforts to combat climate change.”
That has to be a good thing, and it’s not exactly unheard of. A quick search for “green taxi” turns up nearly 70,000 hits. But will New Yorkers say “Fuhgeddaboutit”? Will the Taxi and Limousine Commission oppose it? WIll preservationists balk at changing what has become a durable talisman of life in the Big Apple? Or will New York residents (and other residents of other cities where this law could apply) embrace their inner environmentalists?
Obtain vital things to know about internet marketing – please study the webpage. The times have come when proper information is really within one click, use this opportunity.
Read more on The Climate Debate Heats Up, Can Us Afford The Bill? By Jose Pereira…
