|
Nobel Prize To Obama Explained |
 |
|
Saturday, 10 October 2009 11:21 |
|
OSLO (AP) -- The announcement drew gasps of surprise and cries of too much, too soon. Yet President Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize on Friday because the judges found his promise of disarmament and diplomacy too good to ignore.
The five-member Norwegian Nobel Committee - four of whom spoke to The Associated Press, said awarding Obama the peace prize could be seen as an early vote of confidence intended to build global support for the policies of his young administration.
They lauded the change in global mood wrought by Obama's calls for peace and cooperation, and praised his pledges to reduce the world stock of nuclear arms, ease U.S. conflicts with Muslim nations and strengthen its role in combating climate change.
"Some people say - and I understand it - 'Isn't it premature? Too early?' Well, I'd say then that it could be too late to respond three years from now," Thorbjoern Jagland, chairman of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, told the AP. "It is now that we have the opportunity to respond - all of us."
Jagland said the committee whittled down a record pool of 205 nominations and had "several candidates until the last minute," but it became more obvious that "we couldn't get around these deep changes that are taking place" under Obama.
Obama said he was surprised and deeply humbled by the honor, and planned to travel to Oslo in December to accept the prize.
"Let me be clear: I do not view it as a recognition of my own accomplishments, but rather as an affirmation of American leadership on behalf of aspirations held by people in all nations," he said at the White House. "To be honest, I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who've been honored by this prize."
Obama will donate the $1.4 million cash award that comes with the prize to charity. |
|
|
New Poll: 65% Favor Public Option |
|
|
Saturday, 26 September 2009 09:00 |
|
A newly released CBS News/New York Times poll reveals that 65% of Americans are in favor of a "public option" in health care. This despite constant baseless attacks and fear mongering by industry lobbyists and their GOP allies. So just what is it that some Democratic senators are so afraid of?
|
|
Health Care Industry Has Pumped Millions Into Area Congressional Campaigns |
|
|
Sunday, 20 September 2009 13:36 |
|
McConnell: $3.2 million since '89, more than any other area congressman or senator
Guthrie: $148K since last year, has "open door" policy
Yarmuth: $296 K since '06, none from insurance or pharma PACs
From the Courier-Journal:
WASHINGTON — Over the past two decades, the health care industry has given more than $10 million to the campaigns of area lawmakers in Congress.
Every lawmaker representing Kentucky and Southern Indiana received contributions from health insurance companies, hospitals, pharmaceutical manufacturers, nursing homes and health professionals, according to an analysis of donations between 1989 and 2008 by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics in Washington.
But in the current debate over health care, different segments of the industry disagree on whether overhauling the health care system is a good idea or how it should be accomplished.
And that lack of unanimity, some lawmakers insist, makes it impossible to draw conclusions about industry campaign contributions and their influence, if any, on members of Congress.
Moreover, every Kentucky and Indiana lawmaker who commented for this story said there is no connection between donations and how they vote on health care issues. Most said their positions are shaped entirely by their views and by their constituents.
“When people support me, it means they support my candidacy, it does not necessarily mean that I adopt their positions,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said in a statement.
McConnell received nearly $3.2 million from health care interests between 1989 and 2008, the largest amount for any area congressman or senator.
Read the entire article here. |
|
|
Obama Wins Stricter Stance on Nuclear Weapons |
|
|
Saturday, 26 September 2009 09:39 |
|
From the Christian Science Monitor:
United Nations, N.Y. - With Iran and North Korea on everyone's mind, the United Nations Security Council has unanimously approved an American-sponsored resolution aimed at reinvigorating nonproliferation and disarmament efforts.
In an extraordinary session led by President Obama Thursday – the first time an American president has chaired a meeting of the world's premier security body – the 15-member council acted to strengthen the global nuclear nonproliferation regime and to secure the spread of "loose" nuclear materials.
Mr. Obama said the resolution reinforces "the goal of a world without nuclear weapons," yet one where safe and affordable civilian nuclear energy is shared by all countries.
No violators of the world's nuclear development regulations are mentioned by name in the resolution, but leaders said the threats posed by developments in Iran and North Korea provide a backdrop for why stronger international regulation is necessary.
Citing previous council actions on Iran and North Korea, Obama said Thursday's resolution "reaffirms the Security Council has both the authority and the responsibility to ... respond as necessary" when violators threaten international peace and security. "We must demonstrate that international law is not an empty promise, and that treaties will be enforced."
French President Nicholas Sarkozy went further – and with less diplomatic rhetoric – in condemning Iran and North Korea, noting that Iran continues its nuclear development in violation of international law "even as its leaders propose to erase a member of the United Nations from the map." That comment was a reference to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's repeated threats to annihilate Israel.
Read the entire article here.
|
|
45,000 U.S. Deaths Every Year Due To Lack Of Insurance: Harvard Study |
|
|
Friday, 18 September 2009 13:06 |
|
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Nearly 45,000 people die in the United States each year -- one every 12 minutes -- in large part because they lack health insurance and can not get good care, Harvard Medical School researchers found in an analysis released on Thursday.
"We're losing more Americans every day because of inaction ... than drunk driving and homicide combined," Dr. David Himmelstein, a co-author of the study and an associate professor of medicine at Harvard, said in an interview with Reuters.
Overall, researchers said American adults age 64 and younger who lack health insurance have a 40 percent higher risk of death than those who have coverage...
A similar study in 1993 found those without insurance had a 25 percent greater risk of death, according to the Harvard group. The Institute of Medicine later used that data in its 2002 estimate showing about 18,000 people a year died because they lacked coverage.
Part of the increased risk now is due to the growing ranks of the uninsured. Roughly 46.3 million people in the United States lacked coverage in 2008, the U.S. Census Bureau reported last week, up from 45.7 million in 2007.
Another factor is that there are fewer places for the uninsured to get good care. Public hospitals and clinics are shuttering or scaling back across the country in cities like New Orleans, Detroit and others.
Read the entire article here. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Page 8 of 38 |
Paid for by the Shelby County Democratic Party, PO Box 1266, Shelbyville, KY 40065.
|
|
Kentucky Blogs
Other Links
|
