Watch Giuliani: Brown is Ca.'s past, Whitman its future

Giuliani: Brown is Ca.'s past, Whitman its future
AP – California Republican gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman, left, with former New York City mayor and


LOS ANGELES – Locked in a fight for centrist voters, Meg Whitman turned to fellow Republican moderate Rudy Giuliani on Sunday to help make her case that she will heal California's economy and transform Sacramento by slashing government spending and lowering taxes.
Giuliani, the former New York City mayor and 2008 Republican presidential candidate, told cheering Whitman supporters in a Los Angeles hotel that electing Democrat Jerry Brown would be a step backward in a state with a double-digit unemployment and a financial crisis in state government. He depicted Brown as a vestige of failed Democratic policies who hadn't earned a return trip.
"You want to go back to those eight years?" Giuliani asked the invited audience, referring to Brown's years as governor from 1975 to 1983. He praised Whitman's business credentials — she's a former chief executive at eBay — and called her "the right person at the right time for the kinds of challenges that California faces."
The value of endorsements is often questioned, but Whitman is hoping that Giuliani's celebrity and his record in New York — he is known for his leadership after the World Trade Center attacks and helping steer the city out of the recession of the early 1990s — will resonate with California voters.
"Rudy Giuliani is very popular in California, because he turned around New York City. And the question I get every day on the campaign trail is, 'Can California be fixed?'" Whitman said.
Questioned by a reporter about a recorded voicemail message in which an unidentified Brown aide refers to her as a "whore" because of her attempt to curry favor with a law enforcement union, Whitman said she considers the word a slur but didn't call for Brown to personally apologize.
Later, she said she wanted the campaign to concentrate on issues voters care about. "They want to know what I am going to do about jobs," she said.
Giuliani took a beating in the 2008 presidential race, but he was an early leader in the California primary. He remains is a fixture on the Republican campaign circuit, and he is making stops this week on behalf of candidates in several Western states.
Recent polls show Whitman and Brown in a tight race. The outcome of statewide races are often determined by independents, and Whitman is at a disadvantage because Republicans account for only about one in three voters in California.
coppied by http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101011/ap_on_el_gu/us_california_governor_whitman;_ylt=AlKreez1MUGA3.fzHxtiXhis0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTFlN3VuajIzBHBvcwM4MgRzZWMDYWNjb3JkaW9uX3BvbGl0aWNzBHNsawNnaXVsaWFuaWJyb3c-

We are see watches Sudan says it is committed to independence vote

Sudan says it is committed to independence vote


KHARTOUM, Sudan (AP) - Sudan's foreign minister assured the U.N. Security Council Saturday that the government is committed to holding a referendum on southern independence on time - a vote that is widely expected to split the country in two.

Addressing Security Council members wrapping up a fact-finding trip to Sudan and Uganda, Ali Karti said the government's sole condition was no outside interference in the referendum.

"We are fully committed to holding the referendum on time," Karti told the visiting members of the Council, the U.N.'s most powerful arm. "We want it on time, but it must be arranged properly. ... We do not want any interference in the referendum, this is the only condition."

The referendum is required by a 2005 peace agreement that ended the 21-year civil war between Sudan's predominantly Arab and Muslim north and rebels in the largely Christian-animist south.

Preparations for the Jan. 9 vote have proceeded haltingly amid political and logistical obstacles, and the southerners have accused the northerners of stalling, warning of violence if the referendum is delayed.

Underlining the tensions surrounding the vote, clashes erupted between southern pro-secession demonstrators and pro-unity northerners staging a rally in Khartoum.

Some 70 southerners were arrested, and at least five people were wounded, according to the witnesses.

Police armed with sticks quickly dispersed the protesters, some of whom were toting posters reading, "No No Unity."

The vote on secession is open to all southerners whether they live in the north or the south, but determining who is eligible to vote and citizenship after the referendum have fueled tensions.

North Sudan officials are wary of losing the oil-rich south, while southerners say the Islamist-controlled government in Khartoum is not living up to its commitments of sharing wealth and respecting freedom of expression and religion.
coppied by http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2010/10/10/apworld/20101010074301&sec=apworld

Climate aid reaches $30 bln goal, but is it new?

Climate aid reaches $30 bln goal, but is it new?
OSLO (Reuters) - Aid promises from rich nations to help poor countries slow global warming are reaching the $30 billion goal agreed in Copenhagen but analysts say much of that is old funding dressed up as new pledges.

A boy touches an ice sculpture of a polar bear as it melts to reveal a bronze skeleton in Copenhagen December 8, 2009. Aid promises from rich nations to help poor countries slow global warming are reaching the $30 billion goal agreed in Copenhagen but analysts say much of that is old funding dressed up as new pledges. (REUTERS/Bob Strong/Files)
Officially, the promises total $29.8 billion, Reuters calculations show, apparently meeting a pledge of "new and additional" funds "approaching $30 billion" for 2010-12 made at the U.N. summit in Copenhagen in December.

But austerity policies to combat government debt problems and a re-labelling of past promises will undermine real funding that is vital to unlock a new U.N. climate deal by showing that the developed world is serious about taking a leadership role, analysts say.

"I'm afraid the pledges of Copenhagen will not be realised," said Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. "It would be a little political miracle if it happened. I'm fairly pessimistic."

He said that Germany, the biggest European Union economy, was unlikely to fulfil its promises even though it had fewer economic problems than most EU nations, struggling to plug huge budget deficits.

Climate aid is widely seen as a key to build trust between rich and poor in the run-up to the 2010 U.N. meeting of environment ministers, in Cancun, Mexico, from Nov. 29-Dec. 10.

The cash was meant as a "fast start" for action to slow floods, droughts, heat waves and rising seas. Donors say projects are starting, from Nepal to Mali.

Many poor nations say "new and additional" means cash above an unmet 1970 U.N. target for rich nations to give 0.7 percent of their gross national product in aid -- OECD figures show that aid totalled $120 billion, or 0.31 percent of developed countries' combined GNP, in 2009.

Developed nations have varying definitions of what counts.

RENAMING AID

"It's hard to know what's really new and additional," said Clifford Polycarp of the Washington-based World Resources Institute, which tracks pledges by all nations. Some funds were "restated or renamed commitments already made."

Japan's pledge of fast start funds is by far the highest -- $15 billion -- but much of the money stems from a "Cool Earth Partnership" agreed several years ago to run from 2008-12.

Among other big pledges, the EU plans $9.6 billion for 2010-12 and U.S. President Barack Obama plans $3.2 billion for 2010-11. But some money was committed before Copenhagen to climate funds, for instance managed by the World Bank.
coppied by http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2010/8/27/worldupdates/2010-08-26T202359Z_01_NOOTR_RTRMDNC_0_-510913-1&sec=Worldupdates

Watch To ban mosque is to subvert Constitution

Enjoy To ban mosque is to subvert Constitution

Editor's note: Roland S. Martin, a CNN political analyst, is a syndicated columnist and author of "Listening to the Spirit Within: 50 Perspectives on Faith," and the new book, "The First: President Barack Obama's Road to the White House." He is a commentator for TV One Cable Network and host of a Sunday morning news show.
(CNN) -- "My faith in the Constitution is whole; it is complete; it is total. And I am not going to sit here and be an idle spectator to the diminution, the subversion, the destruction, of the Constitution."
Those eloquent words were spoken on July 25, 1974, by an outstanding woman and fellow Texan, Rep. Barbara Jordan, when she was a member of the House Judiciary Committee investigating the impeachment of President Richard Nixon.
And as I have listened and watched the stunning debate over the potential location of an Islamic community center and mosque two blocks away from where the World Trade Center towers were destroyed on September 11, 2001, Jordan's precise words keep coming to mind.
In the aftermath of the tragic 9/11 attacks, the refrain from many Americans was that it was critical for the United States to prevent the terrorists, al Qaeda, from taking away what we wrested from the British between 1775 and 1783 -- our independence and democracy.
Yet in our zeal to fight terrorism worldwide, we have chipped away at our precious rights, willing to surrender hard-fought civil liberties under the guise of protecting ourselves from terrorists at home and abroad. Today, we are a nation embroiled in a local zoning dispute over a plan for a 13-story Islamic cultural center that will house a mosque, theater and other amenities.
It has been inaccurately described as the "ground zero mosque," a ridiculous term considering it will be two blocks away from the site of the fallen World Trade Center towers.
What has been fascinating and demoralizing to watch is the clear and unmistakable religious bigotry that has taken over this conversation. Critics of the project contend that they are not trying to trample on our precious constitutional right of religious freedom by opposing the project. They contend that it is simply in bad taste to build it so close to ground zero, and that Americans are far too emotional about the issue.
Others words really come to mind. Irrational. Hysterical. Intolerant. Hypocritical.
Over the last several years, we have seen American troops shedding blood on the battlefields in Iraq and Afghanistan, fighting for American liberty and values. We hold ourselves up with self-righteousness as the paragon of democracy and freedom, yet we are quick to stifle the freedom of others we simply don't agree with.
A lot of the hateful rhetoric spewing out of talk radio, on blogs and on mainstream TV stems from a deep-seated mistrust, hatred and dislike of anyone practicing Islam.
In our politically correct way, we say we respect Muslims who aren't intent on launching a jihad, but the venom in the words of many reveals that isn't true. In a debate on CNN, James Carville talked about his Muslim friends being sickened by this attitude, only to see Bill Bennett then ask if those friends had publicly repudiated the Muslims involved in 9/11 and terrorism.
Is that what we've come to? We want to demand to see IDs of Hispanic-looking folks who might be here illegally, but we also want American Muslims to prove their patriotism by denouncing any and every crazed and deranged Muslim in the world who seeks to do us harm. Never mind that we have Muslims fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan; prove yourselves to be worthy Americans who are on "our side."
The pain and heartache that was created on 9/11 was unbearable for many. The nation was traumatized, shocked and paralyzed by the brazen acts caused by the bastards who swore allegiance, not to peace, but to a murderous man named Osama bin Laden and a loose-knit terror network named al Qaeda.
Coppied by http://edition.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/08/20/martin.mosque.constitution/index.html?hpt=C2#fbid=BRhT0Nxv594&wom=false

We know this South African Weakest Link host Fiona Coyne found dead

South African Weakest Link host Fiona Coyne found dead

Fiona Coyne's sharp wit made her perfect for the role
TV presenter Fiona Coyne, who hosts the South African version of quiz show The Weakest Link, has been found dead at her home, police have confirmed.

Captain Stephen Knap, of Cape Town police, said Coyne's housekeeper found the star's body at her home in Fish Hoek on Wednesday.

He refused to confirm reports that the 45-year-old had killed herself.

"We've opened up an inquest and the course of death will be determined from that," he said.

Coyne is also a playwright and actress, and wrote the book Who Moved My Ladder? The Working Woman's Guide to Success.

She beat 500 hopefuls to the job and flew to London to train with British Weakest Link presenter Anne Robinson in 2003.
coppied by http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-11035601

The president is vowing not to privatize Social Security

The president is vowing not to privatize Social Security, but to resolve its enormous cash flow problems permanently, he risks angering liberals who believe a solution can wait. Keith Hennessey on his options.

A Democratic split is coming on Social Security.
On one side is the president, who said Tuesday in Ohio, “I have been adamant in saying that Social Security should not be privatized and it will not be privatized as long as I am president…The population is getting older, which means we’ve got more retirees per worker than we used to. We’re going to have to make some modest adjustments in order to strengthen it… And what we’ve done is we’ve created a fiscal commission of Democrats and Republicans to come up with what would be the best combination to stabilize Social Security not just for this generation, but the next generation. I’m absolutely convinced it can be done.”
On the other side we have Paul Krugman, who wrote in The New York Times earlier this week, “The program is under attack, with some Democrats as well as nearly all Republicans joining the assault. Rumor has it that President Obama’s deficit commission may call for deep benefit cuts, in particular a sharp rise in the retirement age.”
If doing so is the only feasible legislative path to addressing this critical policy problem, will the president be willing to lead?
Krugman continues, “Social Security’s attackers claim that they’re concerned about the program’s financial future… Instead, it’s all about ideology and posturing… To a large extent they rely on bad-faith accounting. But [conservatives] receive crucial support from Washington insiders, for whom a declared willingness to cut Social Security has long served as a badge of fiscal seriousness, never mind the arithmetic.”
While Krugman names Obama fiscal commission co-chairman Alan Simpson, he also is targeting Democrats such as fiscal commission chairman Erskine Bowles and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer.
Let’s look at how a Social Security deal might come together, first in the president’s commission and then on Capitol Hill.
A few conservatives who say that personal accounts alone can fix Social Security will oppose any deal that includes changes to benefit spending promises or tax increases, so they’re on the outside no matter what. That group is small but could cause a little trouble by (incorrectly) promising gullible and nervous conservative members of Congress that a free lunch solution is theoretically possible.
For most Republicans, three things are important: permanently solving Social Security’s cash flow problem, not raising taxes, and allowing younger workers to voluntarily redirect some of their current payroll taxes into personal accounts. Republicans know these “carve-out” accounts are anathema to most Democrats and impossible with a Democratic president. To pick up enough Republican support to be viable, a deal must therefore significantly, if not permanently, address Social Security’s long-term cash flow problem and must not raise taxes. If a proposed deal includes tax increases, I think all but a few Republicans will walk away. To get a deal, Republicans might split evenly on carve-out accounts, but they won’t split on tax increases. The president gets a win by blocking “privatization” (carve-out personal accounts), while Republicans get a win by not raising taxes. The reduction in, if not elimination of, Social Security’s long-term financing problem would be a bipartisan win for which both sides would claim credit.
If I’m right about Republicans on personal accounts and taxes, Democrats will split. Many Democrats would naturally oppose a deal that only slows spending growth and does not raise taxes, even if that deal excludes the carve-out personal accounts they oppose.
Coppied by http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-08-19/obamas-social-security-challenge-anger-democrats-on-reform/?cid=bs:archive1