The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Ukraine, I'm sorry but you are clearly in Russia sphere of influence/control and the majority of the pop in Crimea voted to return (even if there were voting irregularities, I think the majority vote would have been the same).

You lost Crimea, let it go. Play to retain the independence of the rest of the country.
.

LMAO..."voting irregularities?"

I can't deal with you sometimes.

Did you stop and read the poll questions??

Originally Posted by http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26598832

On the ballot paper, voters were asked whether they would like Crimea to rejoin Russia.

A second question asked whether Crimea should return to its status under the 1992 constitution, which would give the region much greater autonomy.

There was no option for those who wanted the constitutional situation to remain unchanged.

Not saying Crimea/Ukraine isn't in Russia's sphere of influence, but to try to pretend that the vote wasn't a farce is just stupid.

Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

[Edward64]

See below.

Demographics of Crimea - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

According to 2001 Ukrainian Census, the population of Crimea was 2,033,700.[3] The ethnic makeup comprised the following self-reported groups: Russians: 58.32%; Ukrainians: 24.32%; Crimean Tatars: 12.1%; Belarusians: 1.44%; Tatars: 0.54%; Armenians: 0.43%; Jews: 0.22%, Greeks: 0.15% and others.[4]

http://www.economist.com/blogs/easte...a-votes-secede

Neither Ukraine, nor the rest of the world, recognise this referendum as legitimate. Under the Ukrainian constitution it could only be called by the Rada, the parliament. Had it done so there is a strong chance most people in Crimea would still favour a secession from Ukraine. The post-referendum jubilation in Crimea among those who want to rejoin Russia was genuine. People cheered Russia’s military presence in Crimea as a liberation rather than occupation. This was largely the result of the rabid anti-Ukrainian propaganda which portrayed the government in Kiev which came to power after the revolutionary protests last month as a bunch of crazed fascists hell-bent on exterminating the Russian-speaking population of Crimea. But it was also the result of the neglect which Ukrainians displayed towards Crimea over the years, leaving it to its own devices and failing to integrate it deeper into Ukraine.

[DaddyTorgo]

FiveThirtyEight | Many Signs Pointed to Crimea Independence Vote — But Polls Didn’t

Originally Posted by article

Forty-one percent of Crimeans in the latest KIIS poll, conducted from Feb. 8-18, said Ukraine and Russia should merge into one state. That percentage has ebbed and flowed in recent years, in part because of the small sample size of any one of Ukraine’s 24 oblasts (provinces) in a national poll. Based on recent years, 41 percent could be an overestimate — just one-third of Crimeans wanted Ukraine to join Russia last year, and fewer than 1 in 4 did in 2012.

I'll see your economist article and raise you an actual poll with actual numbers from this actual year.

Originally Posted by article

Most crucially, the referendum worded the question differently than Paniotto and most other pollsters would have — at least if they were seeking honest responses. Crimeans chose between two options, and neither was the status quo: One was to join Russia, and the other was to return to the constitution of 1992, which leaves it to Crimea’s legislature to decide whether to leave Ukraine. That body’s members already had indicated they wanted to do so before the vote, and declared Crimea’ independence from Ukraine after the vote. (Each ballot also led with the reunification option, which studies have shown can inflate vote totals.)

I'll ask you again: Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

It's also hilarious that you bolded that one sentence and not the one like two after it that briefly alludes to the propaganda+intimidation that blanketed Crimea since this whole thing came to a head.

[EagleFan]

There was no option for those who wanted the constitutional situation to remain unchanged.

Wouldn't that be answering NO to both questions?

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

Wouldn't that be answering NO to both questions?

Nyet.

Originally Posted by https://news.yahoo.com/no-room-nyet-ukraines-crimea-vote-join-russia-174318015.html

According to a format of the ballot paper, published on the parliament's website, the first question will ask: "Are you in favor of the reunification of Crimea with Russia as a part of the Russian Federation?"

The second asks: "Are you in favor of restoring the 1992 Constitution and the status of Crimea as a part of Ukraine?"

At first glance, the second option seems to offer the prospects of the peninsula remaining within Ukraine.

But the 1992 national blueprint - which was adopted soon after the collapse of the Soviet Union and then quickly abolished by the young post-Soviet Ukrainian state - is far from doing that.

This foresees giving Crimea all the qualities of an independent entity within Ukraine - but with the broad right to determine its own path and choose relations with whom it wants - including Russia.

With the pro-Russian assembly already saying it wants to return Crimea to Russia, this second option only offers a slightly longer route to shifting the peninsula back under Russian control, analysts say.

The option of asking people if they wish to stick with the status quo - in which Crimea enjoys autonomy but remains part of Ukraine - is not on offer.

Any mark in one of the boxes is regarded as a "Da" vote. Ballot papers will be regarded as spoiled if a voter fills in both boxes or indeed does not fill in either.

Those who stay away will also not influence the outcome, since the result will simply be based on the option preferred by a majority of those voting.

[Edward64]

Let me make sure I understand your point of view so we can have a proper discussion.

I think you are saying either

(1) Crimea vote was unfair and if a fair election was held, Crimea would vote to remain in Ukraine vs joining Russia

(2) Crimea vote was unfair and if a fair election was held, Crimea would probably have voted to join Russia regardless

I am saying (2).

[Edward64]

For everyone of your FiveThirtyEight I would counter with a GlobalResearch and their argument.

What the Western Media Won’t Tell You: Crimean Tatars and Ukrainians Also Voted to Join Russia | Global Research

[Dutch]

Crimea: Timeline and Legality of Referendum

Interesting timeline that says the Ukrainian government shadily moved away from EU agreements to a "free" loan from Russia to pay off it's national debts. Garnering a lot of protest from the EU and the USA.

Ukrainian People protested (% of people that were against this is unclear).

Ukrainian President flees to Russia. (Apparently it's was pretty sizeable)

Ukraine Congress takes over.

Ukraine President says he's in charge and authorizes Russia to occupy Crimea.

Now Putin says he has no more designs on Ukraine, except for the care of "ethnic Russians".

[Edward64]

Not sure how real the unrest is in eastern Ukraine.

On sanctions, talking heads said may not be effective as China will do business with Russia.

Top commander held after base stormed, Ukraine's interim president says | Fox News

On Sunday, the Russian Defense Ministry said the Russian flag was now flying over 189 military facilities in Crimea. It didn't specify whether any Ukrainian military operations there remained under Ukrainian control.

In Donetsk, one of the major cities in eastern Ukraine, about 5,000 people demonstrated in favor of holding a referendum on secession and absorption into Russia similar to Crimea's.

Eastern Ukraine is the country's industrial heartland and was Yanukovych's support base. Donetsk authorities on Friday formed a working group to hold a referendum, but no date for it has been set.

Russia has deployed thousands of troops in its regions near the Ukrainian border and concerns are high that it could use unrest in the east as a pretext for crossing the border.

[Solecismic]

So, there's a revolution and the opposition party takes over your elected government, and you're surprised that those who supported the deposed president no longer want to play ball?

I'm certainly no Obama fan, and his saber-rattling over this issue seems ill-thought out, but East Ukraine/Crimea belongs with West Ukraine about as much as Shias belong with Sunnis. This is far more than a red-state/blue-state conflict.

We need to stop taking sides and romanticizing these revolutions. Anyone want to make the argument today that Egypt is better off than it was five years ago?

[ISiddiqui]

Well Egypt is better off than it was a year ago . And in that calculation, 5 years is way too short of a comparison - the question is what gave Egypt a chance at a better future, the current situation or the military status quo? I'd go with the current situation.

However, Egypt isn't Ukraine - the deposed government was democratically elected after all (and fairly too - all the international observers said it was on the up and up).

[Edward64]

Reminds me of Rumsfeld's "old Europe" comment. The next series of exchanges should be entertaining.

Obama says military force will not be used to dislodge Russia from Crimea - The Washington Post

Concluding a summit here on nuclear security, Obama warned that broader Russian military intervention in neighboring countries would trigger further economic sanctions that would disrupt the global economy but hit Russia the hardest. He pointedly called Russia a “regional power” acting out of political isolation and economic uncertainty.
:
He is also scheduled to give what advisers call the “signal speech” of his European trip on the challenges facing what is known as the transatlantic partnership, among them Russian military ambitions that he described as a secondary concern to the United States.

“Russia is a regional power that is threatening some of its immediate neighbors — not out of strength but out of weakness,” Obama said in response to a reporter’s question about whether his 2012 election opponent, Mitt Romney, was right to characterize Russia as America’s biggest geopolitical foe.

“I continue to be much more concerned when it comes to our security with the prospect of a nuclear weapon going off in Manhattan,” Obama said.

Although the Obama administration has long viewed Russia as a regional power, Obama’s words amid the current crisis are likely to anger Putin, who has often bristled at the perceived lack of respect for Russia since the collapse of the Soviet Union.

[DaddyTorgo]

Haha - nicely done Obama.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Reminds me of Rumsfeld's "old Europe" comment. The next series of exchanges should be entertaining.

Except Rumsfeld was dissing people we actually needed as allies, at a time when other diplomatic channels were trying to court them.

[JPhillips]

Wow. Mitch Mconnnell released an ad that briefly shows a clip of a basketball team in blue and white celebrating a championship.

Problem is, the team was Duke.

That's a pretty big unforced error for a candidate battling out of touch charges in a basketball mad state.

[mckerney]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Wow. Mitch Mconnnell released an ad that briefly shows a clip of a basketball team in blue and white celebrating a championship.

Problem is, the team was Duke.

That's a pretty big unforced error for a candidate battling out of touch charges in a basketball mad state.

He then doubled down by replacing the ad with footage of Kentucky that contained a current player, causing UK to send a cease and desist due to a player appearing in an advertisement violating NCAA eligibility rules.

[mckerney]

McConnell should have just released this ad to appeal to basketball fans.

[Edward64]

Don't think its a resounding successful enrollment but I'll take this result vs what it could've been after the first month.

Obamacare tops 6 million signups - Mar. 27, 2014

More than 6 million people have signed up for Obamacare, as a crush of people raced to get health insurance before the March 31 deadline.

President Obama announced the milestone Thursday in a call with enrollment counselors and outreach volunteers, who are undertaking an intense marketing drive in the final days of open enrollment. There were more than 1.5 million visits to HealthCare.gov and more than 430,000 calls to the call centers on Wednesday.

Those who've started the application by next Monday but are unable to finish because of technical issues will receive more time to complete the process, officials have said.

Reaching 6 million is a symbolic victory for the Obama administration following the botched launch in October.

It is short of the initial goal of 7 million, which was based on a projection by the Congressional Budget Office and adopted by the administration. But it shows considerable gains from the first month when just 106,000 people had signed up.

Last month, the CBO revised its projection down to 6 million because of the rocky initial rollout.

But just how many people fully enroll in the program this year remains to be seen. The latest figures reflect those picking plans, not paying their premiums. Only those who pay their first month's premium are considered enrolled, while those who don't pay have their policy selections canceled.

Insurers have said that the share of people sending in payments is in the 80% range.

Also, the total number of enrollees nationwide is not that important a number, experts have said. What's more critical is whether enrollment meets each insurer's expectations since that's what will determine premiums for next year. Insurers are looking at both how many people pick their policies and how many claims they file.

Many experts are watching the share of young adults picking plans since they are considered healthier and less costly than older enrollees. Some 25% of those signing up are between ages 18 to 34, as of the end of February, the latest figures available. The White House and independent experts had forecast about 40% would be young adults

[Edward64]

Nice little bio on Putin.

I remember Gorbachev, the wall coming down, Yeltsin, the coup attempt. It was messy. I do think Russia needed a strong leader then but wish Putin turned out nicer.

BBC News - Vladimir Putin: The rebuilding of ‘Soviet’ Russia

The world was stunned when Russia invaded Crimea, but should it have been? Author and journalist Oliver Bullough says President Vladimir Putin never kept secret his intention to restore Russian power - what's less clear, he says, is how long the country's rise can continue.

On 16 August 1999, the members of Russia's parliament - the State Duma - met to approve the candidacy of a prime minister. They heard the candidate's speech, they asked him a few questions, and they dutifully confirmed him in the position.

This was President Boris Yeltsin's fifth premier in 16 months, and one confused party leader got the name wrong. He said he would support the candidacy of Stepashin - the surname of the recently sacked prime minister - rather than that of his little-known successor, before making an embarrassing correction.

[JPhillips]

I hate hearing how the big GOP donors are apparently starting to coalesce around Jeb Bush. Can the country really do no better than Clinton vs. Bush? 24 years out of 32 with either a Bush or a Clinton as president? Why don't we just declare a monarchy and get it over with?

[NobodyHere]

You'd think the country would've learned it's lesson after the first two Bushes.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I hate hearing how the big GOP donors are apparently starting to coalesce around Jeb Bush. Can the country really do no better than Clinton vs. Bush? 24 years out of 32 with either a Bush or a Clinton as president? Why don't we just declare a monarchy and get it over with?

Yeah it's funny these politcial dynasties are things we laugh about when they happen in other countries. On a similar note I was over at my parents house and they were talking about how Putin is ex-KGB... I guess the implication meaning the Russians are run by their spy agencies and are "crazy". Somehow GHW Bush is just different because he's one of us.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

You'd think the country would've learned it's lesson after the first two Bushes.

To be fair, the first Bush was actually pretty good. He actually raised revenues (taxes!) to help keep the debt in check, built a true world coalition to fight Saddam, basically started the ISS, reauthorized the Clean Air Act, signed the ADA and signed START 1. And I liked his "thousand points of light" program and he was pretty pragmatic about guns. Of course, he wasn't perfect. He appointed Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court (what a fucking disaster), waffled on Somalia, pardoned the Iran-Contra conspirators and had the misfortune of being both uncharismatic and having an economic downturn. But overall Bush 1 is one of the better Presidents of the last 50 years.

Bush II, on the other hand, was a frigging disaster.

[albionmoonlight]

Bush I is easily the most underrated president of my lifetime.

[Edward64]

Wouldn't be surprised if there is some 'aggressive' counting but good progress nevertheless.

Obamacare On Track To Hit 7 Million Sign-Ups On Deadline Day: Sources

WASHINGTON (AP) — Beating expectations, President Barack Obama's health care overhaul was on track to sign up more than 7 million Americans for health insurance on deadline day Monday, government officials told The Associated Press.

The 7 million target, thought to be out of reach by most experts, was in sight on a day that saw surging consumer interest as well as vexing computer glitches that slowed sign-ups on the HealthCare.gov website.

Two government officials confirmed the milestone, speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter ahead of an official announcement.

[Blackadar]

Obamacare has led to health coverage for millions more people - latimes.com

According to the LA Times, 9.5 million Americans are now insured due to the ACA - either through exchanges, private companies or Medicare. That can't be seen as anything less than a pretty massive success. I wonder how many more millions would be signed up if some of the Republican-controlled states actually didn't actively try to hinder it (ex. North Carolina, whose "exchanges" are purposely an unmitigated disaster).

[DaddyTorgo]

Some 69 percent of the cuts in House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s new budget would come from programs that serve people of limited means, our forthcoming report finds. These disproportionate cuts—which likely account for at least $3.3 trillion of the budget’s $4.8 trillion in non-defense cuts over the next decade—contrast sharply with the budget’s rhetoric about helping the poor and promoting opportunity.

Off the Charts Blog | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities | Ryan Budget Gets 69 Percent of Its Cuts from Low-Income Programs

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

Obamacare has led to health coverage for millions more people - latimes.com

According to the LA Times, 9.5 million Americans are now insured due to the ACA - either through exchanges, private companies or Medicare. That can't be seen as anything less than a pretty massive success. I wonder how many more millions would be signed up if some of the Republican-controlled states actually didn't actively try to hinder it (ex. North Carolina, whose "exchanges" are purposely an unmitigated disaster).

This is a rather simplistic response. It sounds good, but it still has brought big challenges and situations that still hamper the "success." I think it'll be 2 or 3 years before we see how the law impacts things. What kind of premium hikes will we see? Change in insurance coverage? Who will pay for it? Will employers shift even more (or drop it all together) burden on to their employees? What about the overall increase in Medicare/Medicaid spending? Overall health care spending? How will the middle class be pinched? Most importantly, will Americans actually live healthier? A lot of unanswered questions, and as I said, still a few years off, I think. As noted in the article:

"Long-term stability could be undermined if newly insured people do not pay their bills or if they drop coverage in coming months because they are unhappy about the high deductibles or narrow doctor and hospital networks some plans offer.

Some people have had to pay higher premiums to replace old plans that did not comply with the law's consumer standards.

More ominously, some insurance industry officials are warning they may raise rates substantially next year. Major rate hikes could push out healthy consumers, undermining the law's marketplaces and recharging political opposition."

[JPhillips]

The millions of people that now have access to healthcare are already better.

[chadritt]

As someone who was unable to get even mediocre health insurance for almost 5 years, hooray for a badly timed misdiagnosis, I dont think its a coincidence that I was suddenly able to after obamacare was announced. Thankfully I now have a union thats currently providing for me but I can rest easier knowing that I have an option once my COBRA runs out if I lose that. Even after getting my diagnosis fixed I still have an awful family history that would scare companies into exorbitant rates otherwise.

[flere-imsaho]

These disproportionate cuts....contrast sharply with the budget’s rhetoric about helping the poor and promoting opportunity.

No, no, no - people have Paul Ryan all wrong. All these programs which help the most needy of Americans do nothing more than stand in the way of those Americans pulling themselves up by the bootstraps and succeeding, said no one who ever had to depend on these programs ever.

Originally Posted by Galaxy

This is a rather simplistic response. It sounds good, but it still has brought big challenges and situations that still hamper the "success."

Such as?

I think it'll be 2 or 3 years before we see how the law impacts things.

I think it was 2010, when the Pre-Existing Condition interim insurance plan went into effect, offering coverage for people who could never get non-employer group / non-Medicaid coverage.

Or it could have also been 2010, when adult dependents up to 26 could be covered under their parents' insurance (a change both citizens and insurance companies loved by the way).

Or also 2010, when the law required that plans cover preventative care.

Or this year, when pre-existing conditions were no longer allowed to be used to deny coverage or hike up premiums.

But your definition of success might be different. I accept that.

What kind of premium hikes will we see?

Whatever the market will bear. But now that the plans are commodities (in the sense that they're all defined the same with the same coverage levels - though other differences do exist, of course), plans that want to hike their rates run the risk of being undercut and losing membership. I guarantee you the actuaries have already thought of this, and actuaries tend to have a lot of power in health insurance companies.

Will employers shift even more (or drop it all together) burden on to their employees?

Fine with me. The more we decouple health insurance from employment the better off we are as a country.

What about the overall increase in Medicare/Medicaid spending? Overall health care spending? How will the middle class be pinched?

Call me when we get serious about cutting defense and security spending, and we'll talk.

Most importantly, will Americans actually live healthier?

An issue regardless of ACA.

A lot of unanswered questions, and as I said, still a few years off, I think. As noted in the article:

"Long-term stability could be undermined if newly insured people do not pay their bills or if they drop coverage in coming months because they are unhappy about the high deductibles or narrow doctor and hospital networks some plans offer.

Yeah, right. People who now have insurance, who used to fear any medical issue whatsoever because it could bankrupt them, due to their not having insurance, are going to drop coverage because of deductibles or networks? Is this author of this article serious?

"Yeah, I'm dropping my coverage because I had to pay $500 when I broke my leg and had to go to the ER. I'd rather not have insurance and have to pay the full $26,000. Thanks Obama!"

Some people have had to pay higher premiums to replace old plans that did not comply with the law's consumer standards.

We've been over this. In this thread. The number of people who had to do this is vanishingly small, and most of them got a reprieve anyway.

More ominously, some insurance industry officials are warning they may raise rates substantially next year. Major rate hikes could push out healthy consumers, undermining the law's marketplaces and recharging political opposition."

Newsflash: "insurance industry officials" say this every year. Now, it's a different reason each year, and this year's reason happens to be ACA, but still....

Originally Posted by JPhillips

The millions of people that now have access to healthcare are already better.

This is the bottom line. Almost 10 million people have coverage who didn't. That's 10 million people who no longer have to live in fear of getting injured or sick and how it will ruin them financially (or kill them should they decide not to seek care due to cost).

[Edward64]

Good luck to you and wish you the best in electing the right President.

BBC News - Afghans set to vote in historic presidential election

Millions of Afghans are set to vote for a new president in what will be the nation's first ever transfer of power through the ballot box.
:
:
The biggest military operation since the fall of the Taliban in 2001 has been rolled out for Saturday's election, says the BBC's David Loyn in Kabul.

Traffic was prevented from entering the Afghan capital from midday on Friday, with police checkpoints erected at every junction.

All 400,000 of the country's police and soldiers have been deployed to provide security for voters attending the polling stations, officials said.

International observers are increasingly optimistic that both the tight security and a number of new guarantees against fraud will make this a fairer election than Afghanistan has seen before, our correspondent says.

Afghans have been barred from sending text messages until Saturday evening to prevent the service from being used for last-minute campaigning.

But there are still concerns about ballot stuffing and ghost polling stations as well as the fact that the number of election cards in circulation appears to be vastly more than the number of registered voters.

There are eight candidates for president, but three are considered frontrunners - former foreign ministers Abdullah Abdullah and Zalmai Rassoul, and former finance minister Ashraf Ghani Ahmadzai.

Dr Abdullah has fought a polished campaign, Dr Ghani has strong support among the new urban youth vote and Dr Rassoul is believed to favoured by Hamid Karzai, our correspondent says.

However, no candidate is expected to secure more than the 50% of the vote needed to be the outright winner, which means there is likely to be a second round run-off on 28 May.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

"Long-term stability could be undermined if newly insured people do not pay their bills or if they drop coverage in coming months because they are unhappy about the high deductibles or narrow doctor and hospital networks some plans offer.

I saw something in one article I read earlier that 85% of people have already paid their premiums for the first month or something. (I don't recall the actual number and time measurement to be honest).

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

I saw something in one article I read earlier that 85% of people have already paid their premiums for the first month or something. (I don't recall the actual number and time measurement to be honest).

If we could get somebody in the White House to run these queries, we could stop speculating.

SELECT count(users), registered FROM national_health_care_database WHERE registered='yes';

SELECT count(users), paid FROM national_health_care_database WHERE paid='yes';

SELECT count(users), prev_uninsured FROM national_health_care_database WHERE prev_uninsured='yes';

[sterlingice]

Does healthcare.gov keep track of who pays? I thought it was just basically a matchmaker: here are your options, buy from one of these guys.

SI

[Dutch]

It certainly could keep track or insist that providers report numbers, but I'm guessing since nobody can do anything beyond speculate that it doesn't. We won't really know anything until next year's tax season (when we have to show proof with our tax returns).

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Mike D

It certainly could keep track or insist that providers report numbers, but I'm guessing since nobody can do anything beyond speculate that it doesn't. We won't really know anything until next year's tax season (when we have to show proof with our tax returns).

Wrong. I told you I read something with approximately those statistics. It wasn't a speculation of "85% vs. 0%" it was me approximating so that someone else didn't go out and find the article and see that it said "84%" and give me shit for that.

Do you really want me to waste my time going out and finding it?

Looks like it applies just to CA enrollees, but that's a significant % of the overall, so it's likely fairly representative.

http://www.mercurynews.com/health/ci...es-increase-by

At a news conference, Peter Lee, executive director of the Covered California exchange, told reporters that of the half-million individuals who had started their applications in the last week of March, at least 20,000 had finished their applications by Tuesday.

Health plans on the exchange, he said, have reported that 85 percent of enrollees have paid their first month's premium.

[Edward64]

I guess its pretty good all things considered.

Kabul (CNN) -- Heavy turnout for the Afghan presidential election has prompted an extension of voting on Saturday by an hour, an election official said.

Wide participation in the national polling was observed halfway through the election day despite insurgent security threats, Mohammad Yousuf Nooristani, chief of Afghanistan's Independent Election Commission, told a news conference in Kabul. Polls will now close at 5 p.m. local (8:30 a.m. ET).
:
:
The reportedly strong turnout comes despite threats from the Taliban to disrupt the vote and punish all involved in the first democratic transfer of presidential power in the country's turbulent history.

Its militants have carried out multiple attacks in recent days, including on the country's election commission.

Insurgent attacks on polling centers Saturday left at least one person dead in Badghis province and four others wounded in Kunduz province, Nooristani said.

In addition, 211 out of 6,423 polling sites could not be opened due to insecurity in the country, he announced. Reports of violence and people fleeing from polling stations popped up on social media.
:
:
Voter enthusiasm

But Afghans' enthusiasm about the election may see them defy the Islamist militants' threats.

Recent polling by the Free and Fair Election Foundation of Afghanistan found that 75% of Afghans said they want to vote.

Some election workers, whose colleagues were killed, have said it will not stop them from performing their duties.

Campaigning has stirred excitement with substantive televised debates between the leading candidates, something unthinkable more than a decade ago under Taliban rule, when television was banned entirely..

Karzai called our bluff and I won't be surprised if we stay.

The election violence highlights the need for security in the fragile nation, and the choice of a new President may have an effect on security cooperation with the United States and the rest of NATO.

Karzai, who has often taken a contrarian approach to Washington, has refused to sign a U.S.-Afghanistan bilateral security agreement.

But the two leading candidates in Saturday's election have said they would, and the third has said that he is in favor of signing the agreement.

Without it, Washington has threatened with the possibility of withdrawing U.S. troops by the end of the year.

The NATO-led International Security Assistance Force has roughly 51,000 troops from 48 different countries in Afghanistan. The majority -- about 33,500 -- are from the United States.

Despite the string of attacks leading up to the election, violence in Afghanistan is at a two-year low, NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen has said.

[Edward64]

Its strange how Palestinian-Israeli issue isn't the front and center anymore as other issues in Syria, Kiev, Egypt etc are more pressing.

Doesn't look as if anything is going to happen in the Obama presidency. Abbas seems to have the West Bank under control and wondering what Hamas is up to in Gaza ... assume the Egyptian re-revolt has helped.

Log In - The New York Times

RABAT, Morocco — With Israel and the Palestinians falling into a familiar cycle of tit-for-tat retribution, and a peace agreement more elusive than ever, Secretary of State John Kerry conceded on Friday that this week had been a “reality check” for the peace process.

But more than anything, it may be a reality check for Mr. Kerry himself. After eight months of diplomacy, more than a dozen trips to the region and endless late-night negotiating sessions with both sides, Mr. Kerry was forced to acknowledge that he may have hit a wall too high even for someone with his seemingly endless optimism and energy.

As he wrapped up perhaps the most grueling trip in his 14 months as secretary of state, Mr. Kerry told reporters he was flying home to Washington to meet with President Obama to reassess the peace negotiations and whether there was a path forward.

“There are limits to the amount of time and effort that the United States can spend, if the parties themselves are unwilling to take constructive steps in order to be able to move forward,” Mr. Kerry said during a visit to Morocco that had been postponed from last fall, when he rushed to Geneva to try to close a nuclear deal with Iran.

[JPhillips]

Hooray freedom.

William Duckworth, an associate professor of data science and analytics at Creighton University, found that American consumers would save millions, if not billions of dollars, from a smartphone “kill switch,” thanks in large part to reduced insurance premiums.

According to Duckworth, U.S. consumers spend roughly $580 million replacing stolen phones each year, but that’s just a small fraction compared to what those consumers pay for insurance on those handsets: $4.8 billion each year.

A kill switch, which would also destroy the business of reselling stolen smartphones, would save consumers most of the $580 million they spend each year on replacing their stolen phones. But Duckworth estimates consumers could save a further $2 billion if they could switch to cheaper insurance plans that didn’t cover theft.

Though Duckworth’s report should help the case for a kill switch, lawmakers will still face some pushback from the CTIA, the lobbying group that represents the telecom industry—which has two executives from companies that sell insurance to smartphone owners on its board of directors.

The CTIA has a different idea on how to handle smartphone theft. Instead of shutting down stolen phones individually, the CTIA has offered up a database that can block stolen phones from being reactivated by the phone’s new owner. Unfortunately, the database has a few weaknesses, including the fact that it only works with a handful of countries; in other words, if you steal a phone and travel to the right country, the CTIA can’t block those stolen phones from getting reactivated.

[Edward64]

Just another data point.

Uninsured Rate Falls To Lowest Since 2008: Gallup

WASHINGTON (AP) — A major new survey finds that a growing percentage of Americans gained health insurance as the initial sign-up season for President Barack Obama's health care law drew to a close last month.

Released Monday, the Gallup-Healthways Well-Being Index measured the share of adults without health insurance. That shrank from 17.1 percent at the end of last year to 15.6 percent for the first three months of 2014.

The decline of 1.5 percentage points would translate roughly to more than 3.5 million people gaining coverage. The trend accelerated as the March 31 enrollment deadline loomed.

"The Affordable Care Act, commonly referred to as 'Obamacare,' appears to be accomplishing its goal of increasing the percentage of Americans with health insurance," said Gallup's analysis of the findings.

The survey is important because it combines the quick turnaround of media polls with extensive outreach usually seen in government research. Gallup interviewed more than 43,500 adults, or more than 40 times the number in a typical national media poll.

Coming a week after the close of the health care law's first enrollment season, Gallup's numbers suggest a more modest impact on coverage than statistics cited by the Obama administration.

The administration says 7.1 million have signed up for subsidized private plans through new insurance markets, while 3 million previously uninsured people gained coverage through the law's Medicaid expansion. Millions more remain potentially eligible for marketplace coverage under various extensions the administration has issued.

However, those numbers are not comparable with Gallup's.

The White House figure of 7.1 million insurance exchange sign-ups includes insured people who switched their previous coverage, as well as people who have not paid their first month's premium, and who would therefore still be uninsured.

Also, Gallup is counting just adults, while the administration figures include children as well.

It may take much of the rest of the year to get a true bottom line of the health care law's impact on coverage.

[JPhillips]

Everything I read today is depressing.

On March 28-31, 2014, we asked a national sample of 2,066 Americans (fielded via Survey Sampling International Inc. (SSI), what action they wanted the U.S. to take in Ukraine, but with a twist: In addition to measuring standard demographic characteristics and general foreign policy attitudes, we also asked our survey respondents to locate Ukraine on a map as part of a larger, ongoing project to study foreign policy knowledge. We wanted to see where Americans think Ukraine is and to learn if this knowledge (or lack thereof) is related to their foreign policy views. We found that only one out of six Americans can find Ukraine on a map, and that this lack of knowledge is related to preferences: The farther their guesses were from Ukraine’s actual location, the more they wanted the U.S. to intervene with military force.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Everything I read today is depressing.

A question on the 1 in 6... I am aware the Ukraine is in Eastern Europe and a former part of the USSR. Not sure on a blank map if I would know what is Belarus, Ukraine, Lithania, etc... Are we talking that sort of mix-up or they think Ukraine is France or in South America?)

(Of course I also don't favor military intervention )

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by panerd

A question on the 1 in 6... I am aware the Ukraine is in Eastern Europe and a former part of the USSR. Not sure on a blank map if I would know what is Belarus, Ukraine, Lithania, etc... Are we talking that sort of mix-up or they think Ukraine is France or in South America?)

(Of course I also don't favor military intervention )

It's directly East of Poland. You might get it confused with Belarus (which is right above it), but if you stop and think "well it has to have Black Sea access in order to have Crimea) then you'd make the deduction that it's the southernmost (and larger) of the two.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Just another data point.

Originally Posted by article

Released Monday, the Gallup-Healthways Well-Being Index measured the share of adults without health insurance. That shrank from 17.1 percent at the end of last year to 15.6 percent for the first three months of 2014.

The decline of 1.5 percentage points would translate roughly to more than 3.5 million people gaining coverage. The trend accelerated as the March 31 enrollment deadline loomed.

Coming a week after the close of the health care law's first enrollment season, Gallup's numbers suggest a more modest impact on coverage than statistics cited by the Obama administration.

The administration says 7.1 million have signed up for subsidized private plans through new insurance markets, while 3 million previously uninsured people gained coverage through the law's Medicaid expansion. Millions more remain potentially eligible for marketplace coverage under various extensions the administration has issued.

However, those numbers are not comparable with Gallup's.

Um, I'm almost certain that the reason for the discrepancy is that the Obama administration is counting enrollments from the beginning of open enrollment for the exchanges (10/1/2013) through 3/31/2014.

Am I misinterpreting the article, or is that just a big error they made?

Which would be surprising as HuffPo is usually slanted leftwards.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by panerd

A question on the 1 in 6... I am aware the Ukraine is in Eastern Europe and a former part of the USSR. Not sure on a blank map if I would know what is Belarus, Ukraine, Lithania, etc... Are we talking that sort of mix-up or they think Ukraine is France or in South America?)

(Of course I also don't favor military intervention )

agreed.
I could easily place Lithuania/Latvia and Estonia but I might have confused it for Belarus.

[sabotai]

Just play Victoria 2 a few times and you'll be an expert on placing countries and cultures around the world.

[tarcone]

Shoot, play Risk.

[ISiddiqui]

Exactly. I mean, I've heard Ukraine is very weak in that game

[rowech]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Exactly. I mean, I've heard Ukraine is very weak in that game

Ukraine not weak! How about I smash your board to pieces?!