US Politics Mega-thread - Page 992

On April 15 2014 03:04 WhiteDog wrote:
By the way, Piketty will pronounce a speech on inequalities at the city university of New York wednesday, followed by a discussion from Stiglitz, Krugman and Steven Durlauf.
You can watch it live here : http://www.cuny.tv/capital-in-the-21st-century

NEW YORK -- The Guardian and The Washington Post won the Pulitzer Prize for Public Service on Monday for their coverage of the National Security Agency, reporting which followed last year's bombshell disclosures from former contractor Edward Snowden.

The Pulitzer board's decision to honor NSA coverage, and specifically to single out the reporting as a public service, makes a strong statement about the importance of the worldwide surveillance revelations, especially given that Snowden has been charged under the Espionage Act for leaking the classified documents.

On Friday, four journalists at the forefront of the NSA reporting -- Glenn Greenwald, Laura Poitras, Barton Gellman and Ewan MacAskill -- were honored with the prestigious Polk Award for their coverage.

But the Pulitzer board did not distinguish between individual journalists, instead awarding its public service prize to the news organizations responsible for the initial reports on how the NSA had secretly collected millions of Americans' phone records and Internet data.

Deficit Forecasts Shaved, But Likely Won't Shrink For Much Longer

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said Monday that it expects the federal deficit will be about $22 billion less this fiscal year than previously thought, and about $9 billion less than had been anticipated next year.

"But if current laws do not change," CBO warned, "the period of shrinking deficits will soon come to an end. Between 2015 and 2024, annual budget shortfalls are projected to rise substantially — from a low of $469 billion in 2015 to about $1 trillion from 2022 through 2024 — mainly because of the aging population, rising health care costs, an expansion of federal subsidies for health insurance, and growing interest payments on federal debt."

On April 15 2014 00:55 Danglars wrote:
I'm sorry if I can't pare it down to something concise. It's their body of work, particularly from working group 2, with attention to the size, scope, and basis for their predictions that leads me to my conclusions about alarmism.

Discussions have gone nowhere in the past, period. You either believe it with religious devotion or don't. It would be an exercise in futility to detail my top-3 or top-5 ridiculous IPCC reports, models & model reliance, and green activist bent compared to an interest in scientific discovery. It might get a one-sentence response but not change anyone's minds (even in the narrow focus of getting some in this thread to understand the other side and destroy their own stereotypes conceived for convenience).

WASHINGTON -- The League of Conservation Voters and the Natural Resources Defense Council Action Fund announced Monday that they are joining forces on a multimillion-dollar electoral effort.

The goal of the initiative, which they're calling LeadingGreen, is to drive $5 million in direct campaign contributions to pro-environment candidates in 2014.

The League of Conservation Voters has traditionally pointed donors to individual candidates that it is supporting through its GiveGreen program. LeadingGreen would expand on that program with the support of the NRDC Action Fund.

The league has already raised nearly $3 million for 16 Senate and House candidates in this year's election, according to the group's website. The biggest recipient of those funds so far is Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), who has brought in just over $260,000 through GiveGreen. Overall, GiveGreen raised $2 million for candidates in 2012 and $1 million in 2010.

On April 14 2014 22:53 WhiteDog wrote:

I think there is a valid point behind scepticism toward anything, even "scientific" results. Our world has become so complicated, even belief in progress feels wrong, while thirty years ago scientists and innovations were still regarded as the solution to get humanity out of its misery. Now scientists are figure of power, and their language is the language who legitimate domination and suffering - think about "economists" for exemple - and offer "no alternatives".

The problem is, your need a certain lack of hearth not to be completly shaken at the idea of global warming.

On April 15 2014 05:19 Mohdoo wrote:


I hope I'm not alone in still not being able to see where you disagree. Is it the idea that temperature will increase or the idea that temperature increase matters?

On April 15 2014 00:58 Yurie wrote:


What conclusions? Which basis and which scopes?

Wall Street Journal columnist Bret Stephens revisited one of his favorite themes on Monday, arguing once again that what Republicans really need is another defeat in a national election.

According to Stephens, a Rand Paul presidential nomination in 2016 ought to do the trick. The columnist offered an endorsement of the Kentucky Senator that oozed with sarcasm.

No, what we need as the Republican nominee in 2016 is a man of more glaring disqualifications. Someone so nakedly unacceptable to the overwhelming majority of sane Americans that only the GOP could think of nominating him.
This man is Rand Paul, the junior senator from a state with eight electoral votes. The man who, as of this writing, has three years worth of experience in elected office. Barack Obama had more political experience when he ran for president. That's worked out well.

Stephens took aim at Paul's former staffer Jack Hunter, whose troubling past includes a defense of Abraham Lincoln assassin John Wilkes Booth. The Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist also mocked Paul's suggestion in 2009 that Dick Cheney wanted a war in Iraq to deliver profits to Halliburton.

If Mr. Paul wants to accuse the former vice president of engineering a war in Iraq so he could shovel some profits over to his past employer, he should come out and say so explicitly. Ideally at the next Heritage Action powwow. Let's not mince words. This man wants to be the Republican nominee for president.
And so he should be. Because maybe what the GOP needs is another humbling landslide defeat. When moderation on a subject like immigration is ideologically disqualifying, but bark-at-the-moon lunacy about Halliburton is not, then the party has worse problems than merely its choice of nominee.

This isn't new territory for Stephens. Anticipating President Obama's eventual re-election, Stephens wrote in early-2012 that "Republicans deserve to lose."

On April 16 2014 02:49 Adila wrote:
Republicans could do a lot worse than Rand Paul. They could nominate Ted Cruz and make Donald Trump's head explode from the Birther mania.

On April 16 2014 02:49 Adila wrote:
Republicans could do a lot worse than Rand Paul. They could nominate Ted Cruz and make Donald Trump's head explode from the Birther mania.

Louisiana legislators last week advanced a bill to make the Bible the official state book, according to the Advocate.

The bill passed in the Municipal, Parochial and Cultural Affairs Committee in an 8-5 vote, and the full state house will vote on the measure later this week, according to KTAL.

State Rep. Thomas Carmody (R), who sponsored the bill, told the Advocate that the bill was "appropriate" for Louisiana because of the state's religious ties.

However, state Rep. Wesley Bishop (D) said he felt the bill was a bad idea, warning that it could lead to litigation.

"You cannot separate Christianity from the Bible," he said. "If you adopt the Bible as the official state book, you also adopt Christianity as the state religion."

Carmody defended the bill, noting that the Louisiana could have more than one state book, just as it has multiple official jellies.

"This is not about establishing an official religion," he told the Times-Picayune.

Some lawmakers took issue with Carmody's decision to make the official book the King James Bible, rather than all versions of the text.

"Why not put all versions of the Bible? If there’s one, what are we saying about the rest of the people?" Rep. Robert Billiot (D) told the Advocate.

Rep. Ebony Woodruff (D) proposed an amendment to include "all books of faith," but the proposal, which Carmody opposed, failed in committee, according to the Times-Picayune.

On April 16 2014 03:15 Danglars wrote:
Blah blah blah ... woah Louisiana has multiple state jellies? That's amazing!

WASHINGTON -- A pair of senators have introduced legislation that would prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from using its authority to preemptively block or to revoke permits for mine waste disposal. The move has roiled those in Alaska who want EPA to use this authority to block a massive copper and gold mine that could put a major salmon fishery at risk.

The bill, from Sens. David Vitter (R-La.) and Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), would limit the time period in which the EPA can deny permits. It would preclude the agency from invoking its authority under Section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act to protect certain areas before a company has formally applied for a permit, and would also prevent the agency from revoking a permit once it has been issued.

The senators have named the bill the Regulatory Fairness Act of 2014. In announcing the bill last month, Manchin argued that the EPA "has been waging a destructive war against energy production." Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and James Risch (R-Idaho) have also signed on as co-sponsors.

Section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act allows the EPA to prohibit or restrict the dumping of dredge or fill material into waterways if the agency finds that doing so will have an "unacceptable adverse impact" on resources.

There have been several recent cases where the EPA has used this authority to block or revoke mining permits. The first was the EPA's decision in 2011 to withdraw a permit for the Spruce No. 1 coal mine in West Virginia. In issuing its decision, the EPA's assistant administrator for water said that the mine "would use destructive and unsustainable mining practices that jeopardize the health of Appalachian communities and clean water on which they depend." Mine owner Mingo Logan Coal Co. sued over the EPA's decision, and just last month the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the company's challenge.