I'm not sure what press reports media analyst Howard Kurtz observed since Thursday's announcement that Moammar Gaddafi had been killed in Libya, but they certainly can't be what most people in this country have seen. On CNN's “Reliable Sources” Sunday, Kurtz actually asked his guests why the press aren't giving President Obama more credit (video follows with transcript and commentary): HOWARD KURTZ, HOST: Remember when President Obama was getting pounded in the press for dragging his feet on Libya? Eight months later, we got this news. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) REPORTER: Three sources, all rebel sources, are saying that Gadhafi has, in fact, been killed. (END VIDEO CLIP) KURTZ: Did most journalists give credit to the president when it paid off? I must have missed that. “Remember when President Obama was getting pounded in the press for dragging his feet on Libya?” No, I don't. Quite the contrary, back in March, Kurtz himself scolded the media for drumbeating war again and not asking skeptical questions about this mission: KURTZ ON MARCH 20, 2011: One major question about the assault on Libya, what happened to the media's skepticism? U.S. warplanes hitting targets in Libya for a second day today. And I have to say this at the outset — the media get excited by war, the journalistic adrenaline starts pumping as we talk about warships and warplanes and cruise missiles, and we put up the maps and we have the retired generals on. And sometimes something is lost in that initial excitement. It reminds me of eight years ago this very weekend, when Shock and Awe was rained down upon Baghdad and the media utterly failed to ask skeptical questions. So, I looked at my “New York Times” this morning, went through all the sections, I looked at my “Washington Post” this morning and looked through all the sections. Didn't see any skeptical articles, columns, editorials about this no-fly position. Two fine newspapers, don't see the skeptical questions. What if there's a long-term stalemate here? What is this goes on and on? What if there are American casualties? Do you stop this operation with Gadhafi still in power?
Continue reading …Each week Ross Rubin contributes Switched On , a column about consumer technology. At AsiaD this week, Google’s Andy Rubin noted that there were at least six million Android tablets in use. That number included only those running Google services. One could question whether the briskly selling Nook Color — which is not open to Android apps at large — is relevant to that tally, at least from a developer perspective. It will certainly be the case, though, that the Kindle Fire — also expected to be a hot seller — will be an important addition to the number moving forward. Still, Rubin conceded, it was a tally far behind that of the 30 million cumulative units of the iPad, which broke open the modern-day tablet category, extended its lead with the iPad 2, and will likely see another revision this coming spring. When Apple introduced its tablet device, it set a precedent for third-party developers by rewriting core applications to take advantage of the iPad’s larger display with “HD” versions. And while there are still far fewer native iPad apps than iPhone apps, Apple is far ahead in the race for native tablet software. But not everyone wants to join that race. Continue reading Switched On: Android’s tablet traversal Switched On: Android’s tablet traversal originally appeared on Engadget on Sun, 23 Oct 2011 16:37:00 EDT. Please see our terms for use of feeds . Permalink
Continue reading …Mass Profit Sites Review Mass Profit Sites Mass Profit Sites – review SocialMediaGuyD says: Mass Profit Sites Guarantees a Whooping $463.34 per Day by using just 5 … http://t.co/Z6mIWnMk
Continue reading …Well, that’s more like it. This year’s Mr. October has emerged from the World Series. The first two games of the World Series, between the St. Louis Cardinals and Texas Rangers, were pitching duels, a surprise given the offensive prowess of both teams. But the Series saw its first offensive explosion in Saturday night’s Game
Continue reading …Eddie Vedder – Don’t Cry No Tears. Bridge School Benefit 2011 (First Attempt) Bridge school Dave Matthews, Tim Reynolds & Neil Young – Oh, Susanna. Bridge School Benefit Concert 2011 CammyS12342 says: http://t.co/LyyHMGdk the Live recording of Mumford & Sons at the Bridge School Benefit Concert! They come on at 4:32:03
Continue reading …(CNN) – Vice President Joe Biden said he was not making a political or ideological point when he suggested earlier in the week that rapes and other crimes would increase if Republicans block a measure aimed at preserving police jobs. “They either are going to figure out how to help those cities the way we
Continue reading …View supports Justice for Jane campaign that wants prosecutors to be allowed to appeal against judges’ decision to grant bail The director of public prosecutions has said he would welcome a right to appeal against crown court judges’ decisions to grant bail. Keir Starmer last week met the parents of nurse Jane Clough, who was stabbed to death by her ex-partner, to discuss their campaign to amend bail laws. Ambulance technician Jonathan Vass murdered the 26-year-old mother-of-one in the car park of Blackpool Victoria hospital while he was on bail charged with raping her. He was jailed for a minimum of 30 years last October. Her parents, John and Penny Clough, of Barrowford, Lancashire, launched the Justice for Jane campaign which backs an amendment to the legal aid, sentencing and punishment of offenders bill to allow prosecutors to appeal against a judge’s decision to grant bail. In a statement , Starmer said: “I met Mr and Mrs Clough and we discussed a number of issues. One of which is the current government proposal to provide the prosecution with the opportunity to appeal against the decision of a crown court judge to grant bail. From my perspective having given the matter careful consideration, I have come to the view that we would welcome the introduction of such a power for the prosecution.” Clough kept a diary detailing her abuse and fears of what Vass might do, Preston crown court was told during his trial. She and her family had been “rocked and devastated” when he was bailed, leaving her extremely concerned for her safety. She left home to live with her parents and recorded in the diary that she was worried “Johnny was going to do something stupid”. Starmer added: “We would not anticipate such a right of appeal being used very often; however, where it was felt that a judge had got a decision on bail wrong, and the interests of victims and the wider public demanded that such a decision be challenged, then this would be regarded as a useful and appropriate option for the prosecution to have available to it. Former victims commissioner Louise Casey, who attended the meeting, said: “As commissioner I have often had cause to challenge and criticise what can be an opaque and process-driven criminal justice system but I am enormously heartened that the director of public prosecutions has shown he has both a keen regard for the human suffering behind the cases he prosecutes and has his door open to those who propose sensible changes to the system.” Nick Herbert, the justice minister, told the Commons last month that the government was considering changing the law on bail. In June this year the Cloughs’ MP, Andrew Stephenson, introduced a bill calling for the prosecution to have a right to appeal against bail. However, the amendment has a greater chance of becoming law as it is part of a government bill, said Clough. Legal aid Judiciary UK criminal justice Prisons and probation guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …View supports Justice for Jane campaign that wants prosecutors to be allowed to appeal against judges’ decision to grant bail The director of public prosecutions has said he would welcome a right to appeal against crown court judges’ decisions to grant bail. Keir Starmer last week met the parents of nurse Jane Clough, who was stabbed to death by her ex-partner, to discuss their campaign to amend bail laws. Ambulance technician Jonathan Vass murdered the 26-year-old mother-of-one in the car park of Blackpool Victoria hospital while he was on bail charged with raping her. He was jailed for a minimum of 30 years last October. Her parents, John and Penny Clough, of Barrowford, Lancashire, launched the Justice for Jane campaign which backs an amendment to the legal aid, sentencing and punishment of offenders bill to allow prosecutors to appeal against a judge’s decision to grant bail. In a statement , Starmer said: “I met Mr and Mrs Clough and we discussed a number of issues. One of which is the current government proposal to provide the prosecution with the opportunity to appeal against the decision of a crown court judge to grant bail. From my perspective having given the matter careful consideration, I have come to the view that we would welcome the introduction of such a power for the prosecution.” Clough kept a diary detailing her abuse and fears of what Vass might do, Preston crown court was told during his trial. She and her family had been “rocked and devastated” when he was bailed, leaving her extremely concerned for her safety. She left home to live with her parents and recorded in the diary that she was worried “Johnny was going to do something stupid”. Starmer added: “We would not anticipate such a right of appeal being used very often; however, where it was felt that a judge had got a decision on bail wrong, and the interests of victims and the wider public demanded that such a decision be challenged, then this would be regarded as a useful and appropriate option for the prosecution to have available to it. Former victims commissioner Louise Casey, who attended the meeting, said: “As commissioner I have often had cause to challenge and criticise what can be an opaque and process-driven criminal justice system but I am enormously heartened that the director of public prosecutions has shown he has both a keen regard for the human suffering behind the cases he prosecutes and has his door open to those who propose sensible changes to the system.” Nick Herbert, the justice minister, told the Commons last month that the government was considering changing the law on bail. In June this year the Cloughs’ MP, Andrew Stephenson, introduced a bill calling for the prosecution to have a right to appeal against bail. However, the amendment has a greater chance of becoming law as it is part of a government bill, said Clough. Legal aid Judiciary UK criminal justice Prisons and probation guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Afghan president accused of hypocrisy and ingratitude over remarks made soon after Hillary Clinton’s visit to the region The US reacted with dismay on Sunday after the Afghan president, Hamid Karzai, said that he would side with Pakistan in the event of any war with America. Karzai’s remarks will be greeted with outrage by an American public already thinking him ungrateful for US military and financial support. In an interview on Geo Television, Pakistan’s largest satellite network, hours after a visit to the region by the US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, Karzai said: “If there is war between Pakistan and America, we will stand by Pakistan.” He put his hand on his heart and described Pakistan as a “brother” country. The remark, which went further than other Karzai outbursts critical of the US, was viewed negatively not only in the US but in Afghanistan where opponents accused him of hypocrisy given Kabul’s difficult relationship with Pakistan. The US embassy in Kabul, responding to reporters’ questions, said it was up to the Afghan government to explain Karzai’s remarks. An embassy spokesman, Gavin Sundwall, tried to play down the row. He told the Associated Press: “This is not about war with each other. This is about a joint approach to a threat to all three of our countries: insurgents and terrorists who attack Afghans, Pakistanis and Americans.” A western diplomat, speaking anonymously, described Karzai’s comments as unfortunate. “The phraseology could have been better,” the diplomat said. Karzai’s words were being interpreted as an attempt to mollify Pakistan ahead of a US-Afghanistan military strategic agreement to be completed within the next few months. “[Karzai's remarks are] essentially reassurance to Pakistan that the US strategic relationship will not be used to threaten Pakistan,” the diplomat said. The statement was widely interpreted as a rhetorical flourish rather than as a significant offer of defence co-operation. Despite tension between Pakistan and the US, open warfare is a remote possibility. Clinton on Sunday said there were no plans to put US troops into Pakistan but acknowledged differences with the country over securing an Afghan peace deal. “We have to have a very firm commitment to an Afghan-led reconciliation peace process,” Clinton told CNN, adding that Pakistan was not yet fully aboard. “We’re about 90% to 95% in agreement between the US and Pakistan about the means of our moving toward what are commonly shared goals, and we have a work plan and a real commitment to making sure we are as effective as possible together.” Clinton’s comments follow her warning to Pakistan that the US would act unilaterally if Islamabad failed to crack down on the Taliban-linked Haqqani network inside its North Waziristan sanctuary. Karzai, who is scrambling to ensure his political future before the US military drawdown in 2014, needs Pakistani help to bring the Taliban to peace talks. In the event of a conflict, his army, which is dependent on US money and training, would be in no position to back Pakistan. Nevertheless, the interview with Geo was at stark variance with the tone during the visit to the region by Clinton and David Petraeus, the CIA director. Clinton had flown to Islamabad and, in a four-hour meeting with Pakistan’s top generals, called on the military to bring the Haqqanis to the negotiating table, destroy the group’s leadership, or pave the way for the US to do so. Karzai’s interview with Geo was aired barely 24 hours after Clinton left. He said Afghanistan owed Pakistan a great debt for sheltering millions of refugees over the past three decades, and stressed that his foreign policy would not be dictated by any outside power. “Anybody that attacks Pakistan, Afghanistan will stand with Pakistan,” he said. “Afghanistan will never betray their brother.” Karzai has wildly swung away from, and then closer to, Pakistan over the past 18 months as efforts to draw the Taliban into peace talks have gained momentum. First he welcomed the Pakistani military chief, General Ashfaq Kayani, and the ISI spy chief, General Shuja Pasha, to talks in Kabul but then, this month, flew to New Delhi to sign a “strategic partnership” with India that strengthened trade and security ties between the two countries but infuriated Pakistan, where the movewas seen as a fresh sign of Afghan perfidy. Karzai is trying to strike a balance, reaching a peace deal but also managing criticism from non-Pashtun groups and their political representatives, who accuse him of getting too close to Pakistan. Hamid Karzai Afghanistan Pakistan Taliban Hillary Clinton US foreign policy United States Ewen MacAskill Declan Walsh guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Afghan president accused of hypocrisy and ingratitude over remarks made soon after Hillary Clinton’s visit to the region The US reacted with dismay on Sunday after the Afghan president, Hamid Karzai, said that he would side with Pakistan in the event of any war with America. Karzai’s remarks will be greeted with outrage by an American public already thinking him ungrateful for US military and financial support. In an interview on Geo Television, Pakistan’s largest satellite network, hours after a visit to the region by the US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, Karzai said: “If there is war between Pakistan and America, we will stand by Pakistan.” He put his hand on his heart and described Pakistan as a “brother” country. The remark, which went further than other Karzai outbursts critical of the US, was viewed negatively not only in the US but in Afghanistan where opponents accused him of hypocrisy given Kabul’s difficult relationship with Pakistan. The US embassy in Kabul, responding to reporters’ questions, said it was up to the Afghan government to explain Karzai’s remarks. An embassy spokesman, Gavin Sundwall, tried to play down the row. He told the Associated Press: “This is not about war with each other. This is about a joint approach to a threat to all three of our countries: insurgents and terrorists who attack Afghans, Pakistanis and Americans.” A western diplomat, speaking anonymously, described Karzai’s comments as unfortunate. “The phraseology could have been better,” the diplomat said. Karzai’s words were being interpreted as an attempt to mollify Pakistan ahead of a US-Afghanistan military strategic agreement to be completed within the next few months. “[Karzai's remarks are] essentially reassurance to Pakistan that the US strategic relationship will not be used to threaten Pakistan,” the diplomat said. The statement was widely interpreted as a rhetorical flourish rather than as a significant offer of defence co-operation. Despite tension between Pakistan and the US, open warfare is a remote possibility. Clinton on Sunday said there were no plans to put US troops into Pakistan but acknowledged differences with the country over securing an Afghan peace deal. “We have to have a very firm commitment to an Afghan-led reconciliation peace process,” Clinton told CNN, adding that Pakistan was not yet fully aboard. “We’re about 90% to 95% in agreement between the US and Pakistan about the means of our moving toward what are commonly shared goals, and we have a work plan and a real commitment to making sure we are as effective as possible together.” Clinton’s comments follow her warning to Pakistan that the US would act unilaterally if Islamabad failed to crack down on the Taliban-linked Haqqani network inside its North Waziristan sanctuary. Karzai, who is scrambling to ensure his political future before the US military drawdown in 2014, needs Pakistani help to bring the Taliban to peace talks. In the event of a conflict, his army, which is dependent on US money and training, would be in no position to back Pakistan. Nevertheless, the interview with Geo was at stark variance with the tone during the visit to the region by Clinton and David Petraeus, the CIA director. Clinton had flown to Islamabad and, in a four-hour meeting with Pakistan’s top generals, called on the military to bring the Haqqanis to the negotiating table, destroy the group’s leadership, or pave the way for the US to do so. Karzai’s interview with Geo was aired barely 24 hours after Clinton left. He said Afghanistan owed Pakistan a great debt for sheltering millions of refugees over the past three decades, and stressed that his foreign policy would not be dictated by any outside power. “Anybody that attacks Pakistan, Afghanistan will stand with Pakistan,” he said. “Afghanistan will never betray their brother.” Karzai has wildly swung away from, and then closer to, Pakistan over the past 18 months as efforts to draw the Taliban into peace talks have gained momentum. First he welcomed the Pakistani military chief, General Ashfaq Kayani, and the ISI spy chief, General Shuja Pasha, to talks in Kabul but then, this month, flew to New Delhi to sign a “strategic partnership” with India that strengthened trade and security ties between the two countries but infuriated Pakistan, where the movewas seen as a fresh sign of Afghan perfidy. Karzai is trying to strike a balance, reaching a peace deal but also managing criticism from non-Pashtun groups and their political representatives, who accuse him of getting too close to Pakistan. Hamid Karzai Afghanistan Pakistan Taliban Hillary Clinton US foreign policy United States Ewen MacAskill Declan Walsh guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …