Showing posts with label Chance. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Chance. Show all posts

Tuesday, January 14, 2014

Secret Deals With Our Enemies: Just Give Peace A Chance

At Alternate Viewpoint, the privacy of our visitors is of extreme importance to us (See this article to learn more about Privacy Policies.). This privacy policy document outlines the types of personal information is received and collected by Alternate Viewpoint and how it is used.


Log Files


Like many other Web sites, Alternate Viewpoint makes use of log files. The information inside the log files includes internet protocol (IP) addresses, type of browser, Internet Service Provider (ISP), date/time stamp, referring/exit pages, and number of clicks to analyze trends, administer the site, track user"s movement around the site, and gather demographic information. IP addresses, and other such information are not linked to any information that is personally identifiable.


Cookies and Web Beacons


Alternate Viewpoint does use cookies to store information about visitors preferences, record user-specific information on which pages the user access or visit, customize Web page content based on visitors browser type or other information that the visitor sends via their browser.


DoubleClick DART Cookie


  • Google, as a third party vendor, uses cookies to serve ads on Alternate Viewpoint.

  • Google"s use of the DART cookie enables it to serve ads to users based on their visit to Alternate Viewpoint and other sites on the Internet.

  • Users may opt out of the use of the DART cookie by visiting the Google ad and content network privacy policy at the following URL - http://www.google.com/privacy_ads.html.

These third-party ad servers or ad networks use technology to the advertisements and links that appear on Alternate Viewpoint send directly to your browsers. They automatically receive your IP address when this occurs. Other technologies ( such as cookies, JavaScript, or Web Beacons ) may also be used by the third-party ad networks to measure the effectiveness of their advertisements and / or to personalize the advertising content that you see.


Alternate Viewpoint has no access to or control over these cookies that are used by third-party advertisers.


You should consult the respective privacy policies of these third-party ad servers for more detailed information on their practices as well as for instructions about how to opt-out of certain practices. Alternate Viewpoint"s privacy policy does not apply to, and we cannot control the activities of, such other advertisers or web sites.


If you wish to disable cookies, you may do so through your individual browser options. More detailed information about cookie management with specific web browsers can be found at the browser"s respective websites.



Secret Deals With Our Enemies: Just Give Peace A Chance

Saturday, September 7, 2013

Prime Minister Abbott: the master of opposition gets his chance | Shaun Carney


Vindication is his, but there is still the small matter of actually doing the job now that he has secured it


Not so long ago, Tony Abbott looked washed up. In 2007, while other ministers wanted to replace John Howard as the captain of the Coalition’s sinking ship, Abbott stood resolutely by his political hero all the way to a humiliating election defeat.


Abbott had been in a funk as the Liberals’ fortunes soured. He publicly questioned the ethics of a dying man, Bernie Banton, and during the election campaign he turned up embarrassingly late to a televised debate.


In the days after that defeat, Abbott sought to succeed Howard as Liberal leader, citing what he called his people skills as one of his strengths. This ended badly too: when he realised his party room numbers were derisory, he withdrew his candidacy and went off to write a book as a way of salving his political pain.


The political caravan, it seemed, had taken off without Abbott. But no: now he is our prime minister.


The man to whom the ironic appellation “people skills” was attached during those lean times joins Sir Robert Menzies, Malcolm Fraser and Howard as the only Liberal leaders to have vanquished a Labor government.


Vindication is his, but there is still the small matter of actually doing the job now that he has secured it. Abbott as an opposition leader was frenzied, intense, relentless, functionally incapable of pulling back and changing either his tone or his rhetoric.


From the first moment Abbott took on the leadership in December 2009, he sought power through aggression and the creation of an ever-heightening sense of crisis in the polity and the economy. His twin objectives were to instigate the overthrow, either through parliamentary or electoral means, of a Labor government that he had from the start viewed as illegitimate, the product of nothing more than a reflexive “It’s Time” sentiment among voters in 2007 that the Howard government had had long enough.


“Campaign in poetry and govern in prose” the saying goes. Abbott all the way through campaigned in spray can graffiti.


But it worked. Abbott, a journalist early in his adult life, made an astute judgement about the changing nature of the Australian electorate. He understood, and continues to understand, that increasing numbers of voters feel no fidelity to any party, do not care about politics, do not pay attention to the news and that their only interest in policy is how it might affect them. The key word in that last element is “might”.


Having lived without the economic hardships that come from a recession for more than 20 years, the metrics by which Australians judge that they are, as the political cliché has it, “doing it tough” – that is, feeling cost of living pressures – have shifted dramatically. Ever-greater swathes of the electorate are convinced that they are economically deprived, even though inflation is under control, the economy continues to grow and unemployment is close to modern historical norms.


Many contemporary voters, untethered from any political convictions of their own, are highly suggestible and Abbott’s campaigns on Labor’s carbon pricing and economic management exploited this to the hilt.


Now that they are in charge, Abbott and his likely treasurer Joe Hockey will have to transform their political approach instantaneously. The hysterics of the past few years will no longer be of use to them.


In the final week of the campaign, they worked assiduously to recast their economic program. Having spent their time in opposition asserting that the nation’s finances were in a critical state and that there was a budget emergency, they finished up subscribing pretty much to the budget settings of Labor’s outgoing treasurer Chris Bowen.


Depending on one’s point of view, this demonstrates either a breathtaking capacity for cynicism or a masterful deployment of political agility.


In any event, it points to a pragmatism that has regularly been at the heart of Abbott’s political modus operandi and which is likely to drive him as prime minister. Abbott is a conservative in the conventional sense. That is, he opposes change with a genuine conviction – until change becomes irresistible. And then he embraces that new order.


Tony Abbott maintains close links with the last Liberal to hold the prime ministership, John Howard. AAP/Alan Porritt
As Howard’s health minister, he sought to fashion the Coalition as “the best friend Medicare has ever had“, conveniently ignoring the fact that the Whitlam and Hawke governments had to shed much political blood to implement the policy after years of political opposition from the Liberals. Even so, when he saw how it worked, Abbott embraced it.


A related process has been at play under his leadership, as he has adopted some of Labor’s best policy ideas, with adjustments. His government will see through four of the six years of the Gonski school funding. It will implement a National Broadband Network, but a weaker, cheaper version. It will continue on with the National Disability Insurance Scheme, but wants to drop Labor’s name for it, DisabilityCare.


A key policy on which the Abbott government will not yield is a market pricing mechanism for carbon emissions. The reason for this is mostly to do with the internal politics of the broader Liberal movement and only a little to do with ideology.


Abbott himself is ambivalent on the theory of man-made climate change. He came to the leadership in late 2009 on a pledge of killing an emissions trading scheme because he judged that the climate change question was splitting both the Liberal Party and its supporter base.


Hence he will oversee Direct Action, an inefficient, costly policy that aspires to cut emissions and placates his backers who believe climate change is real. And at the same time, by killing the carbon tax he will appease the large proportion of Liberals who think climate change is hokum. It could be said to be a classical Liberal political solution.


Will there be any great policy initiatives under prime minister Abbott? Workplace relations is the standout issue. Abbott argued unsuccessfully against WorkChoices inside the Howard cabinet and he has done what he can to stave off the powerful forces inside his party and the business community to revive the key elements of that policy regime – at least until he took office.


But the pressures are immense to once and for all crush Australia’s already weakened union movement, a vital political resource for the ALP. In this term, there will be plenty of softening up of the electorate: inquiries into union corruption and productivity bottlenecks. Expect to hear a lot about how much unions are holding back the Australian economy in the next three years and how much has to be done to put them back in their box.


With the demise of the Rudd government, the historical comparisons with the Whitlam era become stronger: only two terms of office, plenty of political dysfunction, some powerful policies but also a degree of chaos. It is up to Abbott to ensure that the second act of the Whitlam drama is not repeated.


With Labor harassed into destruction, the Coalition government that replaces it is unclear on what exactly it wants to do in power beyond keeping its hand on the tiller, having returned the nation to its rightful place – the conservative bosom.





theguardian.com © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds









Comment is free | theguardian.com

Prime Minister Abbott: the master of opposition gets his chance | Shaun Carney

Monday, August 26, 2013

Youth see march anniversary as chance to lead







Civil rights leader Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., speaks at a rally to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the 1963 March on Washington on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial on Saturday, Aug. 24, 2013, in Washington. Lewis marched in the from line with the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. on Aug. 24, 2013, the day King gave his famous “I Have a Dream” speech. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)





Civil rights leader Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., speaks at a rally to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the 1963 March on Washington on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial on Saturday, Aug. 24, 2013, in Washington. Lewis marched in the from line with the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. on Aug. 24, 2013, the day King gave his famous “I Have a Dream” speech. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)





Peja West, 6, waves a pair of American flags above her head while dancing at the foot of the steps on the north side of the Capitol. West, from Spencer, came to the rally with her grandmother, mother and her baby sister. A diverse crowd of about 300 people rallied on the north side of the State Capitol Saturday Aug. 24, 2013, to commemorate the upcoming 50th anniversary of the 1963 Civil Rights March on Washington. Most of the crowd marched more than a mile from Stiles Park, walking up Lincoln Blvd., to the statehouse. Many in the crowd carried signs or banners, and some wore shirts bearing images of slain civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr., who delivered his impassioned oratory to a crowd of nearly 250,000 on the Washington Mall on Aug. 28, 1963. At the time, it was the largest demonstration ever seen in the nation’s capital. King’s remarks to the crowd, now known as the “I Have A Dream” speech, brought a national focus to the civil rights struggle in America and is credited with being a large influence to secure enough votes in Congress for the passage of the Civil Rights Act the following year. (AP Photo/The Oklahoman, Jim Beckel)





Dejuan Monroe, 7, waves an American flag in the air while a speaker addresses the crowd. Dejuan and his older brother Darian, 9, moved to the front of the crowd and found a good view of the rally on the north steps of the Capitol. A diverse crowd of about 300 people rallied on the north side of the State Capitol Saturday Aug. 24, 2013, to commemorate the upcoming 50th anniversary of the 1963 Civil Rights March on Washington. Most of the crowd marched more than a mile from Stiles Park, walking up Lincoln Blvd., to the statehouse. Many in the crowd carried signs or banners, and some wore shirts bearing images of slain civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr., who delivered his impassioned oratory to a crowd of nearly 250,000 on the Washington Mall on Aug. 28, 1963. At the time, it was the largest demonstration ever seen in the nation’s capital. King’s remarks to the crowd, now known as the “I Have A Dream” speech, brought a national focus to the civil rights struggle in America and is credited with being a large influence to secure enough votes in Congress for the passage of the Civil Rights Act the following year. (AP Photo / Jim Beckel, The Oklahoman)













Buy AP Photo Reprints







WASHINGTON (AP) — Mary-Pat Hector of Atlanta was operating much like a 1960s civil rights activist as she laid plans for the 50th anniversary of the March on Washington. She was constantly on the phone as she confirmed event details, tweaked the draft of the speech she gave at Saturday’s rally at the Lincoln Memorial and prepared for a presentation.


Mary-Pat is 15 years old.


Just as the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. led the Montgomery Bus Boycott at age 26, and Rep. John Lewis helped to lead freedom rides at 23, young Americans like Mary-Pat are not letting age get in the way as they seek more than a contributing role in the push for social reform.


Young people are eager to influence this year’s March on Washington, says Jessica Brown, national coordinator for the Black Youth Vote coalition, which organized several youth events around Saturday’s march to the Lincoln Memorial.


“Of course you have the seasoned people who are there, and they are always rightfully going to have their position,” Brown said. “But you’re starting to see the pickup of the youth saying, ‘This is our time, this is our moment, this is the opportunity we have to show the world and the nation, that we’re here and we’re ready to work and organize to get things done.’”


In 1963, those “seasoned people” were A. Philip Randolph and Bayard Rustin, who birthed the idea of a Washington march to appeal for jobs and justice, and ultimately attracted 250,000 people. Today, the Rev. Al Sharpton and Martin Luther King III, who were 8 and 5 years old, respectively, in 1963, are the veterans who brought thousands to the Lincoln Memorial on Saturday. The King Center also has organized a ceremony on Wednesday, the actual march anniversary, when President Barack Obama will speak.


Friday night, students and young adults gathered at Howard University in Washington for a mass meeting and rally ahead of Saturday’s march — activity patterned after the student rallies that were held before major demonstrations during the civil rights movement.


Anthony Miller, president of the Howard University Student Association, said students recognize the historical significance, and some are using this moment to express their continuing anger over the shooting death of black Florida teen Trayvon Martin.


“They want to be able to do something positive and something that will uplift this situation and really bring it to light,” Miller says. Students want “to effect a positive change and push this country in the right direction,” he said, “And I think this is an excellent opportunity.”


Janaye Ingram, who runs the Washington office of Sharpton’s National Action Network, spent hours on the phone recruiting students. “This is their moment to make a change. It’s reminiscent of what happened in the ’60s, when the movement was led by them,” she said.


Students and other young people made significant contributions to the civil rights movement. In 1957 a group of black students, later called the Little Rock Nine, helped integrate all-white Central High School in Arkansas. The Freedom Riders challenged segregation by riding buses through the South in integrated pairs. There were numerous others who held sit-ins at restaurant counters, skipped school to participate in marches and were attacked by police dogs and water cannons during public demonstrations.


“When you have been sitting on a lunch counter stool and someone walk up and spit on you or pour hot water or hot coffee on you and you say you’re committed to non-violence, you have to grow up,” Lewis said Sunday on ABC’s “This Week.” ”To go on the Freedom Rides in 1961, the same year that President Barack Obama was born? And to be beaten. You had to grow up. So by the time of the March on Washington, I was 23, but I was an older person.”


Saturday’s march included several youth speakers — the youngest, Asean Johnson of Chicago, just 9 years old.


Lewis, who was chairman of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee and the youngest of the “Big Six” leaders from the 1963 march, represented the movement’s already battle-tested young foot soldiers. His elders asked him to tone down the more fiery passages of his speech after seeing a draft; Lewis told MSNBC that he agreed to make the changes, not wanting to disappoint King and the other leaders.


Now 73 and a Democratic congressman from Georgia, Lewis was under no pressure to mince his words Saturday. He reminded the crowd of the vicious beating he endured in the 1965 voting rights march in Selma, Ala., and encouraged today’s youth to resist efforts to erode his generation’s hard-fought victories.


“Back in 1963, we hadn’t heard of the Internet. We didn’t have a cellular telephone, iPad, iPod,” Lewis said. “But we used what we had to bring about a nonviolent revolution. I say to all of the young people: You must get out there and push and pull and make America what it should be for all of us.”


Unlike the narrow focus on jobs and freedom in 1963, this year’s march seeks to address an array of issues. Sharpton expanded the march’s original goals, combatting high black and youth unemployment, to include a call for action after the Supreme Court invalidated parts of the Voting Rights Act, and to protest “stand your ground” laws and stop-and-frisk police tactics.


“We’re looking at the issue that went on in Florida, we’re looking at what’s going on with the Voting Rights Act, so youth are really upset, and they’re deciding maybe this is a good point to collectively come together, continuously build on our network, and take it back to our community to continue working,” Brown says.


Sasha Costanza-Chock, an assistant professor of civic media at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, says young people’s willingness to simultaneously address “multiple dynamics of oppression” shows how youth activism has matured.


“You have a lot more young people now talking about … the ways that different structures of race, class, gender and sexuality cannot be fought only one at a time. They have to be looked at together and struggled for together,” Costanza-Chock said.


Today’s young activists are equipped with a tool that older generations didn’t have: social media. It empowers them to rally large numbers of people to a cause in a very short span of time. Using these methods are Florida’s “Dream Defenders,” the student group that held a sit-in outside of Gov. Rick Scott’s office for 31 days, demanding a special session to repeal the “stand your ground” law.


The group traveled to Washington for the march anniversary, and encouraged supporters to follow their journey on USTREAM, an online live video service.


“It’s been easier than ever to mobilize people, to hold people accountable, and to get attention for whatever issue you care about. So I think it’s just changed the game,” said Ryane Ridenour from Generational Alliance, an umbrella group of 22 youth organizations.


Mary-Pat, who serves as national youth director for Sharpton’s organization, said working on multiple issues and leveraging social media in this way “can be overwhelming,” but she understands that this is the nature of working on intertwined causes.


Ultimately, she wants this march to serve as a moment in which history will say her generation showed “we just don’t march and make a lot of noise, but we actually make an impact.”


Associated Press




Politics Headlines



Youth see march anniversary as chance to lead

Saturday, August 17, 2013

India PM rules out chance of return to 1991 crisis: report


Friday, August 9, 2013

Woods, Lefty botch a chance to go low at PGA








Adam Scott, of Australia, right, reacts after missing a birdie putt, as Justin Rose, of England, looks on at the 13th hole during the first round of the PGA Championship golf tournament at Oak Hill Country Club, Thursday, Aug. 8, 2013, in Pittsford, N.Y. (AP Photo/Patrick Semansky)





Adam Scott, of Australia, right, reacts after missing a birdie putt, as Justin Rose, of England, looks on at the 13th hole during the first round of the PGA Championship golf tournament at Oak Hill Country Club, Thursday, Aug. 8, 2013, in Pittsford, N.Y. (AP Photo/Patrick Semansky)





Phil Mickelson hits from the fairway on the ninth hole during the first round of the PGA Championship golf tournament at Oak Hill Country Club, Thursday, Aug. 8, 2013, in Pittsford, N.Y. (AP Photo/Patrick Semansky)





Tiger Woods watches his drive on the 11th hole during the first round of the PGA Championship golf tournament at Oak Hill Country Club, Thursday, Aug. 8, 2013, in Pittsford, N.Y. (AP Photo/The Buffalo News, Derek Gee)





Zach Johnson, right, walks down the 18th fairway during the first round of the PGA Championship golf tournament at Oak Hill Country Club, Thursday, Aug. 8, 2013, in Pittsford, N.Y. (AP Photo/Charlie Riedel)





Lee Westwood, of England, hits from the fairway on the 18th hole during the first round of the PGA Championship golf tournament at Oak Hill Country Club, Thursday, Aug. 8, 2013, in Pittsford, N.Y. (AP Photo/Charlie Riedel)













Buy AP Photo Reprints







(AP) — Oak Hill may never be this vulnerable again.


Adam Scott and Jim Furyk sure took advantage of the rain-soaked course, which looked more like a regular tour stop than a test of major proportions.


So did a bunch of other players who signed for 60s on Day 1 of the PGA Championship.


But not Tiger Woods.


Looking very much like a player who will soon be 0 for 18 in the majors since his 2008 triumph at the U.S. Open, Woods failed to capitalize on a setup that was very much there for the taking.


He closed with a double-bogey to finish with a 1-over 71 and go into Friday’s second round with a staggering 49 players standing between him and the top spot on the leaderboard.


“The round, realistically, could’ve been under par easily,” said Woods, who came in with five victories this season, including a seven-shot runaway last week at the Bridgestone.


With overnight showers and humid conditions keeping the course soft, birdies fell into the cup at an alarming rate. Scott ripped off five in a row on the way to a 65. Furyk had a bogey-free round going until a stumble at the final hole left him with a 65, as well. Lee Westwood and unheralded Canadian David Hearn were one shot back, and a total of 35 players broke par.


That compares to only 10 rounds in the 60s when the PGA Championship was at Oak Hill a decade ago.


Graeme McDowell, who shot 70, expects it to be much more challenging by the weekend.


“The golf course can easily be protected with pins,” he said. “They can soon tuck these pins away and make this a difficult test.”


While Woods came in as the overwhelming favorite, Scott increasingly looks like a player who will add more major titles to the one he finally got in a Masters playoff back in April.


Just three weeks ago, he had the Sunday lead on the back nine at Muirfield before fading. In the last major of the year, there were times he looked unstoppable.


“Just got on a bit of a roll and hit a few shots close,” Scott said. “I didn’t have too much putting to do. You’ve got to take advantage when it happens, because it doesn’t happen too much in the majors. Nothing to complain about in 65.”


He had already surged into a tie with Furyk when storms moved through the Rochester area, forcing a 71-minute delay. After the weather cleared, Scott added a sixth birdie on the par-4 14th to reach 6 under. He was on pace to tie the major championship record at Oak Hill until a three-putt bogey on the 16th. But he closed on a high after an errant drive, rolling in a 15-footer to save par.


Furyk, who won his lone major at the U.S. Open in 2003 at Olympia Fields, has gone nearly three years since his last win at the Tour Championship to capture the FedEx Cup and win PGA Tour player of the year.


Still fresh are the four close calls from a year ago, including the U.S. Open.


He was as steady as Scott, rarely putting himself in trouble until the end of the round. Furyk missed the fairway to the right and had to pitch out because of thick rough and trees blocking his way to the green. That led to his only bogey, but still his lowest first-round score in 19 appearances at the PGA Championship.


“Usually disappointed with ending the day on a bogey,” Furyk said. “But you know, 65, PGA, is not so bad.”


Still seeking his first major at age 40, Westwood posted his best score ever in the PGA and seemed to have no hangover from losing a 54-hole lead in the British Open last month.


“These guys are good. There are a lot of good players playing in the tournament,” Westwood said. “Somebody is going to hit it straight, and somebody is going to shoot a good score.”


Even Rory McIlroy got in on the act. The defending champion, at the end of a major season that has been a major disappointment, came out firing with three birdies on the opening four holes and made the turn in 32 until back-to-back bogeys. He wound up with a 69.


A resurgent Paul Casey was in the group at 67, while U.S. Open champion Justin Rose, British Open runner-up Henrik Stenson and the ageless Miguel Angel Jimenez were among 11 players at 68.


British Open champion Phil Mickelson wound up with the same score as Woods, only they arrived at 71 on vastly different roads. Woods had only two birdies. Mickelson shot 71 despite two double bogeys.


On the par-5 fourth hole, Lefty hooked his tee shot out of bounds and nearly lost the next tee shot in the same place. “Awful,” he surmised. On the closing hole, Mickelson looked as if he were back at Winged Foot — wild left off the tees, a reckless attempt to get through the trees, and another double bogey.


He headed straight to the practice range, even summoning coach Butch Harmon down from the television booth.


“You need to get off to a good start that first round so you’re not playing catch-up all the time,” Mickelson said. “Now I’ve got to come out (Friday) and get a little more aggressive and try to shoot something in the mid to low 60s to get back in it for the weekend.”


___


Follow Paul Newberry on Twitter at www.twitter.com/pnewberry1963


Associated Press




Top Headlines



Woods, Lefty botch a chance to go low at PGA

Sunday, June 30, 2013

Gettysburg: Where America Got Its Chance to Start Over


GETTYSBURG – When General Robert E. Lee formed his battle lines on Seminary Ridge, he assembled the largest Confederate army to appear on any battlefield of the Civil War.


Never before had Lee commanded so many men. And never again would he come within reach of such numbers to follow his orders as those men lined up for nearly a mile on that fateful field.


It was July 3, 1863. The United States was 13 years shy of its 100th birthday and was, perhaps, within hours of witnessing its demise as a result of its own bitter divisions.


Lee’s strategy, as he marched his army out of Chancellorsville, Va., in June, was to head north and seize Pennsylvania’s capital, Harrisburg, in order to win the war – not one battle or campaign, but the entire war – on Northern soil.


Backed by troops in high spirits, he set off for Pennsylvania to convince the North, through a decisive strike, that the Confederates could and would prevail.


He would go to his grave carrying the burden that he failed to fully explain his plan to his subordinates. That, in giving early orders on Day One of the three-day battle, he told his generals to take the high ground of Cemetery Hill “if practicable” – and, by using such an indefinite phrase, he failed to convey his intent to end the war on his terms, on that battlefield.


That was why his subordinates never behaved as if they were engaged in a high-risk strategy to win the war.


The attack started from Seminary Ridge with the men of Major Generals George Pickett and Isaac Trimble and Brigadier General J. Johnston Pettigrew slowly marching eastward. Almost immediately, Union artillery from Cemetery Hill to Little Round Top opened fire on the near-mile-long advancing line.


Despite the bloodied gaps ripped through their ranks by Union artillery shells and canister and by Union infantry rifles, the Confederates kept advancing. They attacked relentlessly – and Union soldiers fought back with equal ferocity.


So horrific was the Union artillery fire that it stripped the foliage from trees on Seminary Ridge, as if a tornado had passed through.


Lee’s men advanced toward the center of the Union line until bunching in a confused mass, nearly 30 men deep. Pickett ordered his division to link with Pettigrew’s to the northeast, but that immediately exposed his right flank to Union artillery on Little Round Top and Cemetery Ridge.


At the same time, Pettigrew’s brigades fell under intense fire on their exposed left flank.


Outnumbered, cut off from reinforcement, those Confederates who were not captured or killed left a carpet of dead on the field and retreated back to Seminary Ridge.


Of the more than 13,000 men who charged with Pickett across the field, more than half lay dead between the two ridges. Thousands more limped or crawled, wounded and dejected, back to the Confederate lines.


Pickett lost nearly 3,000 of his division’s men, including all of his commanding generals, two brigadier generals and six colonels. Perhaps he also lost his appetite for the glory of war. As Pickett returned to the Confederate lines, General Lee ordered him to prepare his division against a possible Union counterattack.


“General Lee, I have no division now,” was all that the shattered Pickett could reply.


Lee already knew that, of course. He had watched Pickett’s Charge from Seminary Ridge, saw his troops’ determined advance across the open field under murderous fire, their ranks steadily falling, the smoke and confusion as they began to shrink from the battle.


In the three days of fighting in and around Gettysburg, losses for both armies exceeded more than 50,000 souls – the bloodiest fighting ever on American soil.


The war would go on for two more years. The country would heal eventually, but not until many generations had passed.


At the time, news accounts were conflicted over who won the Battle of Gettysburg.


But the small farming town in Adams County, Pennsylvania, became the turning point of what remains, 150 years later, America’s worst nightmare – and it became America’s chance to start over, to get right what our nation stands for.



Salena Zito is a Pittsburgh Tribune-Review editorial page columnist. E-mail her at szito@tribweb.com



RealClearPolitics – Articles



Gettysburg: Where America Got Its Chance to Start Over

Friday, June 28, 2013

Rep. Van Hollen: 50-50 Chance House Will Pass Immigration Reform


Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) discusses the prospects for immigration reform in the House, saying that if the House won’t take up Senate bill, it should move quickly to pass its own bill and move to conference.




RealClearPolitics Video Log



Rep. Van Hollen: 50-50 Chance House Will Pass Immigration Reform

Rep. Van Hollen: 50-50 Chance House Will Pass Immigration Reform


Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) discusses the prospects for immigration reform in the House, saying that if the House won’t take up Senate bill, it should move quickly to pass its own bill and move to conference.




RealClearPolitics Video Log



Rep. Van Hollen: 50-50 Chance House Will Pass Immigration Reform

Thursday, June 13, 2013

Iran liberals ask: Snub election or take chance?








Supporters of the Iranian presidential candidate Hasan Rowhani, former Iranian nuclear negotiator, chant slogans, as they hold a banner containing pictures of Rowhani, center, former Presidents Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, right, and Mohammad Khatami, during a street campaign, in Tehran, Iran,Wednesday, June 12, 2013. The presidential election will be held on June 14. (AP Photo/Ebrahim Noroozi)





Supporters of the Iranian presidential candidate Hasan Rowhani, former Iranian nuclear negotiator, chant slogans, as they hold a banner containing pictures of Rowhani, center, former Presidents Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, right, and Mohammad Khatami, during a street campaign, in Tehran, Iran,Wednesday, June 12, 2013. The presidential election will be held on June 14. (AP Photo/Ebrahim Noroozi)





Female supporters of the Iranian presidential candidate Saeed Jalili, a nuclear negotiator, attend a campaign rally, two days prior to the election, in Tehran, Iran, Wednesday, June 12, 2013. (AP Photo/Vahid Salemi)













Buy AP Photo Reprints







(AP) — In the end, Iran’s presidential election may be defined by who doesn’t vote.


Arguments over whether to boycott Friday’s ballot still boiled over at coffee shops, kitchen tables and on social media among many liberal-leaning Iranians on the eve of the voting. The choice — once easy for many who turned their back in anger after years of crackdowns — has been suddenly complicated by an unexpected chance to perhaps wage a bit of payback against Iran’s rulers.


The rising fortunes of the lone relative moderate left in the race, former nuclear negotiator Hasan Rowhani, has brought something of a zig-or-zag dilemma for many Iranians who faced down security forces four years ago: Stay away from the polls in a silent protest or jump back into the mix in a system they claim has been disgraced by vote rigging.


Which way the scales tip could set the direction of the election and the fate for Rowhani, a cleric who is many degrees of mildness removed from being an opposition leader. But he is still the only fallback option for moderates in an election that once seemed preordained for a pro-establishment loyalist.


“There is a lot of interesting psychology going on. What is right? Which way to go?” said Salman Shaikh, director of The Brookings Doha Center in Qatar. “This is what it means to be a reformist in Iran these days.”


It’s also partly a political stock-taking that ties together nearly all the significant themes of the election: the powers of the ruling clerics to limit the choices, the anger over years of pressures to muzzle dissent and the unwavering claims that the last election was stolen in favor of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who cannot run for a third consecutive term.


Iran’s presidency is a big prize, but not a crown jewel. The president does not set major policies or have the powers to make important social or political openings. That rests with the ruling theocracy and its protectors, led by the immensely powerful Revolutionary Guard


But for liberal-leaning Iranians, upsetting the leadership’s apparent plans by electing Rowhani could open more room for reformist voices and mark a rare bit of table-turning after years of punishing reprisals for the 2009 protests, the worst domestic unrest in Iran since the 1979 Islamic Revolution.


“Rowhani raises a lot of interesting questions,” said Scott Lucas, an Iranian affairs expert at Britain’s Birmingham University. “Among them, of course, is whether he gets Iranians who have rejected the system to then validate the system by voting again.”


And there are many other factors at play.


Many Iranians say they are putting ideology aside and want someone who can stabilize the sanctions-battered economy — one of the roles that does fall within the presidential portfolio. This could boost candidates such as Tehran Mayor Mohammad Bagher Qalibaf, who is seen as a fiscal steady hand.


Also, the rest of the candidates approved to run by election overseers — from more than 680 hopefuls — are stacked heavily with pro-establishment figures such a hardliner Saeed Jalili, the current nuclear negotiator. Among those blocked from the ballot was former President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, who is one of the patriarchs of the Islamic Revolution.


The vetting appeared aimed at bringing in a pliant and predictable president after disruptive internal feuds with Ahmadinejad, who upended Iran’s political order by trying to challenge the authority of Khamenei. The desire for calm is also fueled by the critical months ahead, which could see the resumption of nuclear talks with the U.S. and other world powers.


But the presumed plans have met an obstacle in the form of Rowhani, who is a close ally of Rafsanjani and is now backed by other reformist leaders who had previously seemed resigned to defeat. In the span 24 hours earlier this week, Rowhani received a major bump when a moderate rival withdrew to consolidate the support. Endorsements from artists, activists and others poured in.


At the final rallies, Rowhani’s supporters waved his campaign’s signature color purple — a clear nod to the now-crushed Green Movement and its leader, Mir Hossein Mousavi, who has been under house arrest for more than two years. On Wednesday, the last day of campaigning, thousands of supporters welcomed Rowhani in the northeastern city of Mashhad yelling: “Long live reforms.”


Some Rowhani backers also have used the campaign events to chant for the release of Mousavi and other political prisoners, including former parliament speaker Mahdi Karroubi, leading to some arrests and scuffles with police.


Rowhani is far from a radical outsider, though. He led the influential Supreme National Security Council and was given the highly sensitive nuclear envoy role in 2003, a year after Iran’s 20-year-old atomic program was revealed.


But he is believed to favor a less confrontational approach with the West and would give a forum for now-sidelined officials such as Rafsanjani and former President Mohammad Khatami, whose reformist terms from 1997-2005 opened unprecedented social and political freedoms. Many are now a memory after clampdowns in the wake of massive protests claiming ballot fraud denied Mousavi victory in the 2009 election.


There are no credible voter polls in Iran, and supporters of each candidate claim their camp is leading. Yet Rowhani seems to be tapping into growing energy and could force a two-way runoff next week with one of the presumed front-runners: Jalili and Qalibaf, a former Revolutionary Guard commander.


Any significant boycott would likely hurt Rowhani the most. And a change of heart to vote by many liberal-leaning Iranians could push Rowhani toward the top.


The worries appeared reflected Thursday in reported comments by Rafsanjani opposing the boycott.


“I urge them to vote,” he was quoted as saying by several pro-reform newspapers.


Rowhani’s backers, meanwhile, have adopted a motto of “one for 100″ — meaning every reformist should try to encourage 100 people to the polls.


It’s not hard, though, to find Iranians promising to snub the election. On some Tehran streets, about every third person planned to stay away.


“Why should I vote?” asked Masoud Abdoli, a 39-year old paramedic. “They have kept opposition leaders under house arrest. They barred Rafsanjani.”


Samaneh Gholinejad , a psychology student, said she abandoned politics after the 2009 chaos. “Honesty left the country then,” she said.


On social media sites, Iranians have sparred round-the-clock over the boycott.


Supporters often quote Albert Einstein’s definition of “insanity” to describe the futility of voting after the allegations of fraud in 2009: “Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” Responses on the other side note that great discoveries would never have occurred if people gave up.


While there are no current signs of street protests resuming, security forces are on high alert. The Revolutionary Guard’s volunteer paramilitary force, the Basij, is present in virtually every neighborhood. Authorities have steadily boosted controls on the Internet, attempting recently to close off proxy servers used to bypass Iranian firewalls.


Last month, the U.S. eased restrictions on export of communications equipment to Iranian civilians in an attempt to counter the cyber-crackdowns. There is no evidence, however, of any major U.S. shipments opening new channels for Iranian Internet activists.


In California, meanwhile, Google said it stopped a series of attempts to hack the accounts of tens of thousands of Iranian users with a technique known as phishing.


“The timing and targeting of the campaigns suggest that the attacks are politically motivated,” said Eric Grosse, Google’s vice president for security engineering, wrote on the company’s blog Wednesday. He gave no other details.


Iranians traditionally have shown high interest in voting. The average reported turnout in the past 10 presidential election is more than 67 percent, with officials saying there was 85 percent participation in 2009. There are no independent election observers allowed to verify the numbers, but no major allegations of vote rigging emerged until 2009.


Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has repeatedly called for a high turnout as a reply to Western governments that have strongly questioned the openness of Iran’s elections — including the process of vetting candidates.


But Khamenei went further in his appeals Wednesday, when he equated voting — no matter for whom — as a patriotic act.


“It is possible that some do not want to support the Islamic Republic while seeking to support their own country. They should vote too,” said Khamenei.


A prominent political Twitter activist, who goes by the handle Koroush, showed the inner conflicts of many Iranians. He posted a message Thursday saying he will stay home but prays he will regret it.


“I will not vote,” he wrote. “But I hope I will be regretful if others vote and Rowhani wins.”


___


Murphy reported from Dubai, United Arab Emirates.


Associated Press




Top Headlines



Iran liberals ask: Snub election or take chance?

Sunday, February 24, 2013

GOLDMAN: There"s Almost A 50% Chance Of A Negative Outcome In Italy Tomorrow

silvio berlusconi

Joseph Weisenthal, Business Insider

Reminder: The first exit polls from the Italian election will hit some time around 9 AM ET, before US markets officially open.

The hope for World markets/the EU/Italian elites is that the center-left parties get enough votes to form a stable majority.

The fear is that there will be a big surge for the conservative (Berlusconi) and populist (Beppe Grillo) movements, making a government untenable, and thus risking a backsliding of Italy’s reforms, causing borrowing costs to jump, and thus reigniting the European crisis. Italy is Europe’s largest debt market, and the third largest in the world.

According to Goldman, it could go either way:

On what is seen as the most likely result – a centre-left coalition government – the 10-yr yield spread to Germany could narrow by 50-75bp from current levels. But an outcome deemed almost as probable – a ‘hung parliament’ – could lead to market volatility while an agreement among parliamentary groups is sought. From a strategy standpoint, we reiterate our constructive stance on the direction of EMU spreads, but maintain a preference for Spain over Italy.

If the parliament is hung, says Goldman:

An outcome seen as almost as probable, however, is one of no clear majority resulting from the vote. In case of a relatively strong showing by either Mr. Berlusconi or Mr. Grillo’s movement, the coalitions headed by Mr. Bersani and Mr. Monti would not get enough seats to control the Upper House and form a government.  In such scenario we foresee two alternatives:     

  • ‘Government of National Unity’: Facing the prospect of political instability and subject to international political and market pressures, President Napolitano could encourage the formation of a government of national unity on the basis of a specific and pre-agreed agenda, which would include a new electoral law. This solution would probably attract the support of moderate actors across the political spectrum and, possibly, of Mr Grillo. The resulting transitional government could be headed again by Mr. Monti, but would be highly unstable and with a short term mandate (between 1-2-years). 

Markets would be very nervous until an agreement is hammered out. Consequently, we would expect a sharp increase in volatility during this period, with spreads widening in a two-way flows market. As it becomes clearer that a new government would be formed, BTPs could stabilize around current levels – i.e., wider than implied by macro factors especially at longer maturities.

  •  Fresh General Elections Are Called: This is generally deemed as a much more remote outcome because it appears fruitless to call for new elections under the current electoral law. The decision rests with President Napolitano, who has the power to dissolve one or both Houses. 

From a markets perspective, this outcome would magnify volatility, and BTPs would come under considerable pressure. Bond spreads as wide as those seen in November 2011 (550bp over Germany in the 10-yr area) are not unreasonable as a working hypothesis. Under this scenario a caretaker government could ask the Eurogroup and the ECB for help under the OMT framework.

Goldman also leaves the door open to a possible victory outright by Silvio Berlusconi, which would potentially be very unwelcome news.

One note so far: Turnout is down from the last election in 2008.

This is a bit of a surprise, and it could be ominous for the cause of stability. It could mean that the mainstream center-left parties (which seem to inspire very little passion in anyone) are seeing their supporters stay home, while the protest parties (especially Beppe Grillo’s 5-star movement) are surging. That’s just one possibility. The weather is also bad in a lot of the country. Some older voters might just be sitting it out.

We’ll know more in a few hours.


Politics


GOLDMAN: There"s Almost A 50% Chance Of A Negative Outcome In Italy Tomorrow

Friday, February 15, 2013

Despite The Hype, The Republican "Sequester Replacement" Plan Never Had Any Chance Of Becoming Law

Paul Ryan Mitt Romney

Getty

As the sequester deadline looms over Congress, House Republicans have been talking up the fact that they have “taken action” to avert the across-the-board budget cuts, pointing to two bills they passed in the House last year. 

Republican leaders have used those two bills as evidence that President Barack Obama and Democrats have not made an effort to avoid the sequester. But in reality, the  plan put forward by Senate Democrats Thursday probably has a better (albeit still slight) chance of becoming law than the Republican plan ever did. 

That’s because, as the Washington Post’s Greg Sargent puts it, the Republican plan included 100 percent of what they wanted and 0 percent of what the other side wanted; the legislation merely replaced the $ 55 billion in scheduled defense cuts with additional cuts to domestic programs.

The bill, called the “Sequester Replacement Act,” was first introduced by House Budget Chair Paul Ryan early last summer, and House Republicans reintroduced a slightly modified version during the “Plan B” debacle during the fiscal cliff negotiations in December. 

The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the GOP bill would result in $ 217.7 billion of deficit reduction over 10 years. But the cuts would have been wildly unpopular — which is why the legislation was never taken up in the Senate and threatened with veto by the White House.

The Washington Post‘s Brad Plumer broke down some of the cuts it would have enacted:

  • Shrinking the federal SNAP (food stamp) program
  • Ending the child tax credit for non-U.S. citizens
  • Canceling the Home Affordable Modification Program
  • Eliminating the $ 11.4 billion public-health fund in the Affordable Care Act
  • Trimming the Social Services Block Grant program (which funds, among other things, Meals on Wheels for seniors.)

The bill also would have defunded some of the financial regulatory reforms passed in 2010. It would have slashed funding to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and halted the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation’s power to bail out financial firms.

In short, there’s a reason the bill barely passed both times it was brought to a vote. Although the legislation expired with the end of the 112th Congress in January, Republican House Speaker John Boehner signaled Thursday that he wouldn’t bring the bill up again for a vote. 


Politics


Despite The Hype, The Republican "Sequester Replacement" Plan Never Had Any Chance Of Becoming Law