BAGHDAD -- A concerted wave of attacks struck Baghdad and other cities across the country on Sunday as Iraqis voted to elect a new parliament and possibly a new prime minister. Explosions reverberated across the capital moments before the polls opened and continued through the morning haze for the first hours of voting. At least 38 people were killed and dozens more wounded in Baghdad alone by the time polls officially closed there, the Interior Ministry reported. Insurgents in Iraq had vowed to disrupt the election, and the attacks appeared timed to frighten voters away from polling sites. If that were the intent, it did not succeed entirely. By late morning the attacks -- dozens of mortars, rockets and bombs -- had tapered off, and Iraqis lined up to vote, many of them expressing anger and determination. "Everyone went," Maliq Bedawi, 45, who works at Baghdad International Airport, said as he waved his purple-stained finger. He stood outside the rubble of an apartment building that was struck and destroyed by what the police said was a Katyusha rocket. "They were defiant about what happened. Even people who didn't want to vote before, they went after this rocket." Iraqis, he went on, "are not afraid of bombs anymore."
BAGHDAD -- A concerted wave of attacks struck Baghdad and other cities across the country on Sunday as Iraqis voted to elect a new parliament and possibly a new prime minister. Explosions reverberated across the capital moments before the polls opened and continued through the morning haze for the first hours of voting.
At least 38 people were killed and dozens more wounded in Baghdad alone by the time polls officially closed there, the Interior Ministry reported.
Insurgents in Iraq had vowed to disrupt the election, and the attacks appeared timed to frighten voters away from polling sites. If that were the intent, it did not succeed entirely.
By late morning the attacks -- dozens of mortars, rockets and bombs -- had tapered off, and Iraqis lined up to vote, many of them expressing anger and determination.
"Everyone went," Maliq Bedawi, 45, who works at Baghdad International Airport, said as he waved his purple-stained finger. He stood outside the rubble of an apartment building that was struck and destroyed by what the police said was a Katyusha rocket. "They were defiant about what happened. Even people who didn't want to vote before, they went after this rocket."
Iraqis, he went on, "are not afraid of bombs anymore."
Voting in Iraq began early Sunday, and turnout appeared to be heavy. The BBC analysis is that Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's State of Law coalition will do well enough at the polls to again form the government, partnering with other religious Shiite parties. According to the Iraqi constitution, the party or coalition list with the largest number of seats, even if it is not a majority, will be given the first opportunity to form a government.Al-Maliki, however, may well have to pay a price for remaining prime minister, if he can manage to do so, since that outcome would certainly require that he make a post-election coalition with the Shiite religious parties of the National Iraqi Alliance. The latter include the Sadr Movement and the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq. Muqtada al-Sadr, leader of the Sadr movement, said Saturday on the Iran-based al-Alam satellite channel that he would only support a prime ministerial candidate who agreed to accelerate the departure of the US from Iraq. Based on its performance in last year's provincial elections, the Sadr Movement could well get half of the seats gained by the National Iraqi Alliance; if Sadrists did that well, they could be essential to putting together the 51 percent al-Maliki (or any other prime minister) would need to govern. Scroll down to see a translation of Sadr's remarks, which are the first entry for Sunday below.
The federal government has awarded more than $107 billion in contract payments, grants and other benefits over the past decade to foreign and multinational American companies while they were doing business in Iran, despite Washington's efforts to discourage investment there, records show. That includes nearly $15 billion paid to companies that defied American sanctions law by making large investments that helped Iran develop its vast oil and gas reserves. For years, the United States has been pressing other nations to join its efforts to squeeze the Iranian economy, in hopes of reining in Tehran's nuclear ambitions. Now, with the nuclear standoff hardening and Iran rebuffing American diplomatic outreach, the Obama administration is trying to win a tough new round of United Nations sanctions. But a New York Times analysis of federal records, company reports and other documents shows that both the Obama and Bush administrations have sent mixed messages to the corporate world when it comes to doing business in Iran, rewarding companies whose commercial interests conflict with American security goals.
The federal government has awarded more than $107 billion in contract payments, grants and other benefits over the past decade to foreign and multinational American companies while they were doing business in Iran, despite Washington's efforts to discourage investment there, records show.
That includes nearly $15 billion paid to companies that defied American sanctions law by making large investments that helped Iran develop its vast oil and gas reserves.
For years, the United States has been pressing other nations to join its efforts to squeeze the Iranian economy, in hopes of reining in Tehran's nuclear ambitions. Now, with the nuclear standoff hardening and Iran rebuffing American diplomatic outreach, the Obama administration is trying to win a tough new round of United Nations sanctions.
But a New York Times analysis of federal records, company reports and other documents shows that both the Obama and Bush administrations have sent mixed messages to the corporate world when it comes to doing business in Iran, rewarding companies whose commercial interests conflict with American security goals.
JOS, Nigeria (Reuters) - Clashes between Islamic pastoralists and Christian villagers killed more than 100 people near the central Nigerian city of Jos Sunday, where sectarian violence left hundreds dead in January, witnesses said. The latest unrest in volatile central Nigeria comes at a difficult time, with acting President Goodluck Jonathan trying to assert his authority and the oil producing country's ailing leader Umaru Yar'Adua too sick to govern. Villagers in Dogo Nahawa, just south of Jos, said Hausa-Fulani pastoralists from the surrounding hills attacked at about 3 a.m. (9 p.m. EST), shooting into the air before slashing those who came out of their homes with machetes. "The shooting was just meant to bring people from their houses and then when people came out they started cutting them with machetes," said Dogo Nahawa resident Peter Jang, women crying behind him. A Reuters witness who visited the village counted around 100 bodies piled in the open air. Pam Dantong, medical director of Plateau State Hospital in Jos, showed reporters 18 corpses that had been brought from the village, some of them charred.
JOS, Nigeria (Reuters) - Clashes between Islamic pastoralists and Christian villagers killed more than 100 people near the central Nigerian city of Jos Sunday, where sectarian violence left hundreds dead in January, witnesses said.
The latest unrest in volatile central Nigeria comes at a difficult time, with acting President Goodluck Jonathan trying to assert his authority and the oil producing country's ailing leader Umaru Yar'Adua too sick to govern.
Villagers in Dogo Nahawa, just south of Jos, said Hausa-Fulani pastoralists from the surrounding hills attacked at about 3 a.m. (9 p.m. EST), shooting into the air before slashing those who came out of their homes with machetes.
"The shooting was just meant to bring people from their houses and then when people came out they started cutting them with machetes," said Dogo Nahawa resident Peter Jang, women crying behind him.
A Reuters witness who visited the village counted around 100 bodies piled in the open air. Pam Dantong, medical director of Plateau State Hospital in Jos, showed reporters 18 corpses that had been brought from the village, some of them charred.
Clashes between Islamic pastoralists and Christian villagers killed more than 100 people near the central Nigerian city of Jos Sunday, where sectarian violence left hundreds dead in January, witnesses said.
Oil rich Nigeria is doomed
Why?
I don't see a single word on why Nigeria would be particularly "doomed".
I can't recall seeing much news/propaganda about Sudan becoming prey for Al Quaeda either. Do we read the same things? If you'd written Somalia, then perhaps I could agree.
Does Sudan sponsor terrorism? Despite increasing cooperation by Sudan, the U.S. State Department continues to formally designate it as a "state sponsor of terrorism." The State Department first labeled Sudan a sponsor of terrorism on August 12, 1993. Since then, the United States has accused Sudan of harbouring members of al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the Abu Nidal Organization, Jamaat al-Islamiyya, and Egyptian Islamic Jihad, each classified as a terrorist organization.
Despite increasing cooperation by Sudan, the U.S. State Department continues to formally designate it as a "state sponsor of terrorism." The State Department first labeled Sudan a sponsor of terrorism on August 12, 1993. Since then, the United States has accused Sudan of harbouring members of al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the Abu Nidal Organization, Jamaat al-Islamiyya, and Egyptian Islamic Jihad, each classified as a terrorist organization.
With an estimated 140 million people, Nigeria is Africa's most populous country. It is also the world's eighth largest exporter of petroleum, pumping billions of dollars worth of fuel into the global market. Yet most Nigerians live in grinding poverty, whether in the oil-rich Niger Delta or the bustling slums of Lagos, where people build makeshift shelters on stilts above fetid malarial swamps.
KABUL, Afghanistan -- Hours before boarding a flight out of Kabul, Norwegian diplomat Kai Eide delivered a final warning Saturday as he wrapped up his two-year tenure as the top United Nations diplomat in Afghanistan. "This year can become a year when negative trends are reversed, but it will require a tremendous effort and mobilization of political energy," Eide told a small women's conference. "So far, I do not see that mobilization of political energy . . . . If this does not happen, then I believe the negative trends ."In his final weeks, Eide stepped up his push for political talks with the Taliban as the best way to end the eight-year-old war, and in his final press conference, he expressed concern that President Barack Obama's decision to send 30,000-35,000 additional U.S. troops to Afghanistan is coming without a concurrent political surge. "I believe that the focus is too much on the military side and too little on the civilian side," Eide said. "And that our strategy has unfortunately been too much military-driven with a political agenda as an appendix to military strategy, instead of a political strategy being the basis for the military operations."The State Department inspector general warned Friday that the Obama administration's political efforts in Afghanistan are hampered by a shortage of qualified personnel, a lack of housing and other problems that could disrupt its timetable for turning over full control of the country to the Afghan government.
KABUL, Afghanistan -- Hours before boarding a flight out of Kabul, Norwegian diplomat Kai Eide delivered a final warning Saturday as he wrapped up his two-year tenure as the top United Nations diplomat in Afghanistan.
"This year can become a year when negative trends are reversed, but it will require a tremendous effort and mobilization of political energy," Eide told a small women's conference. "So far, I do not see that mobilization of political energy . . . . If this does not happen, then I believe the negative trends ."
In his final weeks, Eide stepped up his push for political talks with the Taliban as the best way to end the eight-year-old war, and in his final press conference, he expressed concern that President Barack Obama's decision to send 30,000-35,000 additional U.S. troops to Afghanistan is coming without a concurrent political surge.
"I believe that the focus is too much on the military side and too little on the civilian side," Eide said. "And that our strategy has unfortunately been too much military-driven with a political agenda as an appendix to military strategy, instead of a political strategy being the basis for the military operations."
The State Department inspector general warned Friday that the Obama administration's political efforts in Afghanistan are hampered by a shortage of qualified personnel, a lack of housing and other problems that could disrupt its timetable for turning over full control of the country to the Afghan government.
I have been following the health-care debate for much longer than I thought it would be possible, watching more C-Span than I had ever desired or thought possible. And, sometimes, I cannot help but wonder (cue Carrie Bradshaw voice-over here): What exactly are the House and the Senate fighting over? Why won't the House just pass the Senate bill and get this health-care reform effort done this week? Even after issuing a strong directive earlier today, Obama does not expect action until the end of the month. But the two bills have a broadly similar structure and the same goal: extend health insurance to more Americans. What is the holdup?Two words: actuarial value.
I have been following the health-care debate for much longer than I thought it would be possible, watching more C-Span than I had ever desired or thought possible. And, sometimes, I cannot help but wonder (cue Carrie Bradshaw voice-over here): What exactly are the House and the Senate fighting over? Why won't the House just pass the Senate bill and get this health-care reform effort done this week? Even after issuing a strong directive earlier today, Obama does not expect action until the end of the month. But the two bills have a broadly similar structure and the same goal: extend health insurance to more Americans. What is the holdup?
Two words: actuarial value.
In nonwonk terms, actuarial value is what percent of health-care costs an average subscriber can expect to be on the hook for. An insurance plan with a 70 percent actuarial value, for example, can expect their insurance to pick up 70 percent of the tab and cover 30 percent themselves. Short story: lower actuarial value, higher cost for the policyholder. And over on the Senate bill, the actuarial values of plans that low-income Americans would likely enroll in are consistently lower than those of the House. The midlevel health insurance in the Senate bill, the silver plan, has an actuarial value of 70 percent. The comparable House-side plan--the enhanced plan--has an actuarial value of 85 percent. And for all other tiers of plans--bronze through platinum on the Senate side; basic through premium plus in House language--the Senate bill would require consistently lower actuarial values. (If you want to get into the weeds how actuarial values effect different levels of low-income families, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has done an excellent job with two helpful reports here and here).
To show how ridiculous this can be, using the same benefit guide (link above) for a family with a $10,000 deductible plan, the out-of-pocket maximum looks like it is $7,000, but it is actually $17,000 for In-Network services ($7,000 plus $10,000 deductible), plus $25,000 for Out-of-Network ($15,000 plus $10,000 deductible). In addition to this $42,000, the family must pay monthly premiums, all Out-of-Network costs in excess of the allowable charges, and any services that are not a benefit of the plan (no maternity benefits for a young family!). Read more...
Read more...
It's a pretty funny scenario, if you are a literate pirate. Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.
The Post described Gruber in 2007 as "possibly the party's most influential health-care expert and a voice of realism in its internal debates." How can a "voice of realism" claim that this is "a tax that's not a tax," one that affects "generous" plans? That statement was published only nineteen days after a paper in the influential journal Health Affairs (summarized here) disproved it. Using actual benefits data, the authors showed the tax would not target "generous" plans. Instead it would unfairly affect plans whose enrollees were older, worked in the wrong industry, or lived in an area where treatment costs are high. A leading actuary came to a similar conclusion.
...and Hacker.
Hacker's article for Slate bore the condescending title, "Better medicine: Fixing the left's health care prescription." The problem in need of "fixing," according to Hacker, was "the left's" support for single-payer. Hacker urged "the left" to support instead his proposal to "give employers the option of providing ... coverage to their workers through a new public program modeled after Medicare" or through the insurance industry, a proposal that would, by 2009, be called "the public option" for short.
I think a 6-part series qualifies for stalking, do you? Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.
The Lemba people of Zimbabwe and South Africa may look like their compatriots, but they follow a very different set of customs and traditions They do not eat pork, they practise male circumcision, they ritually slaughter their animals, some of their men wear skull caps and they put the Star of David on their gravestones. Their oral traditions claim that their ancestors were Jews who fled the Holy Land about 2,500 years ago. It may sound like another myth of a lost tribe of Israel, but British scientists have carried out DNA tests which have confirmed their Semitic origin.
They do not eat pork, they practise male circumcision, they ritually slaughter their animals, some of their men wear skull caps and they put the Star of David on their gravestones.
Their oral traditions claim that their ancestors were Jews who fled the Holy Land about 2,500 years ago.
It may sound like another myth of a lost tribe of Israel, but British scientists have carried out DNA tests which have confirmed their Semitic origin.
It is named after King David of ancient Israel; and its earliest known communal usage began in the Middle Ages, alongside the more ancient symbol of the menorah.
