We follow the announcements at the social network’s annual developer conference in the wake of a series of changes to Facebook’s design 10.16am: He has! Respect. Eisenberg is on stage now. “I wanna start with the issue of authentic identity I am Mark Zuckerberg…” 10.14am: If I was Mark Zuckerberg, I’d kick this off by sending Jesse Eisenberg on-stage to pretend to be me. This is probably just one of the many reasons I’m not Mark Zuckerberg. The keynote is about to start though: here we go! 10.12am: So, last-minute predictions from me. Music, obviously. Possibly TV, film and some interesting stuff around newspapers too. Facebook’s iPad app will surely be unveiled today. Wild card? While idly browsing the f8 attendees list on Facebook the other day, I spotted a chap called Tom Reyburn, who is apparently a senior partnerships manager at Apple. Now, he may just be the guy who deals with Facebook as an app partner, but what about a late deal to bake Facebook into iOS 5? Just a thought. Meanwhile, the last fortnight has been conspicuous for the lack of rumours about a Facebook Phone. But perhaps we’ll see some other mobile announcements. 10.06am: We’re running a little late to start: lots of people are still gladhanding down the front. A source who just met Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg backstage was impressed by his aura. “Cold hands, though.” That’s because he’s icy calm! Or perhaps he just needs a warmer hoodie. 9.59am: It will be interesting to see what Zuckerberg has to say about this week’s redesign of the Facebook news feed, which is currently provoking its fair share of debate on the social network itself, as well as on Twitter. People always complain about Facebook changes, at least for a couple of days, but this time seems to be causing a bigger rumpus than usual. Two pieces of evidence. One: a crew from ABC were vox-popping the queue to get into f8 this morning asking about the complaints. Two: my mum has well and truly got the hump with it. A scientific focus group of one, obviously. 9.57am: Colleague Josh Halliday has the last-minute gossip: “We’ve heard that five major music services will announce new apps on Facebook in the next hours. Early speculation suggests that these are Spotify, Deezer, Rdio MOG and one other. The other could be Vevo, the music video website which is also thought to be unveiling a new app. We’ve also heard that changes are in store for Facebook profiles. One of these changes is thought to involved a “timeline”, presumably where we can map life’s many indiscretions.” 9.54am: The fact that music is a big part of the keynote announcements today is already well known, but if you need more proof, serial entrepreneur Sean Parker is hosting “A celebration of music” later today, with “conversations with luminaries in the music industry” including Spotify CEO Daniel Ek. 9.49am: While we’re waiting for Zuckerberg to take the stage, it’s been interesting to see how NFC has a high-profile place at the f8 party. Every attendee has a “Presence Card”, which you can tap at different points to take and tag photos of yourself, stroll onto a dancefloor with someone else while your connections are projected on a big screen, or add songs that you’ve Liked on Facebook to the f8 playlist. I can only apologise for this… 9.47am: Facebook’s f8 conference is mainly about its developers, but like Apple’s WWDC show, the main keynote speech is aimed at a far wider audience. CEO Mark Zuckerberg will be taking the stage soon to outline new features and services on the social network, with media and entertainment a key focus. Zuckerberg has been open in the past about the company’s ambitions to bring similar social disruption to music, TV, film and other media to what it has done for games. Today’s announcements will show us how Facebook plans to do that. The music plans have been well leaked, with Spotify and rival services expected to be more tightly integrated into Facebook so people can discover music through a feed of what their friends are listening to. The fact that Facebook’s significant news feed redesign was announced earlier this week hints that there may be more big news in the keynote, though. Stand by. Facebook Apps Mark Zuckerberg Spotify Smartphones Tablet computers Social networking Digital media Live video Stuart Dredge guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Greg Clark departs from confrontational tone of previous Tory statements, agreeing to address criticisms of reform plans The planning minister, Greg Clark, has pledged to make changes to the government’s proposals to radically overhaul England’s planning system, after running into opposition from campaign groups . Clark highlighted specific criticisms, including an outcry over the apparent ending of the policy of building on brownfield sites before undeveloped countryside, and said he would address these in the government’s response to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) consultation . “If people responding to the consultation think that various aspects should be more clearly expressed then we are very happy to do so,” he said. Clark’s conciliatory tone, in a speech at a British Property Foundation event in the City of London, contrasted starkly with previous ministerial statements. Clark had called people who opposed all development “nihilistically selfish” and said the National Trust had “misled” its members, while the chancellor, George Osborne, and the communities and local government secretary, Eric Pickles, had stated: “Planning reform is key to our economic recovery. No one should underestimate our determination to win this battle .” “What Clark said today suggests we are now in proper consultation mode,” said Dame Fiona Reynolds, director general of the National Trust. “Some of what was said earlier by Osborne, Pickles and Clark did not feel like a consultation. We can now move forward in a positive spirit.” Friends of the Earth’s planning campaigner, Naomi Luhde-Thompson, said: “We’re pleased Clark recognises that parts of his planning proposals aren’t very clear. It’s what we’ve been telling him since they were published.” The change in tone followed an intervention by the prime minister. David Cameron wrote to the National Trust on Wednesday, stating: “I have always believed that our beautiful British landscape is a national treasure. We should cherish and protect it for everyone’s benefit.” Clark’s speech addressed concerns that the NPPF – which states the default answer to development deemed sustainable is yes – will be imposed on the many communities that did not have local plans in place. “We will make clear in our response to the consultation what the transitional arrangements are,” he said. On prioritising the use of brownfield land, he said the NPPF used a different phrase: “land of least environmental value”. “If people think there is some desire not to prioritise the re-use of derelict land then that is something that I think the consultation will very clearly address.” Critics, who charge that the NPPF is heavily skewed in favour of economic development over social or environmental concerns, have demanded a clear definition of the term “sustainable development”. Clark said: “People have suggested that it could be clearer there so we will respond to that.” In contrast to previous statements by ministers that the current planning system was expensive, wasteful and a brake on growth, Clark said: “I think we have too little planning in this country, rather than too much.” He added: “The intention of presumption [in favour of development] is not to create any kind of loophole; it is not to create a regime that is very much more permissive. Quite the reverse.” However, Adam Marshall, a director at the British Chambers of Commerce, urged Clark to push ahead with reforming the “sclerotic” planning system. “The government has to stay the course and deliver. If these plans do not go ahead there will be a collateral damage effect on small and medium businesses,” he said. Marshall called the NPPF proposals “modest” and “incremental”: Clark had called them “fundamental”. John Slaughter, a director of the Home Builders Federation, said: “I am concerned by the list [of changes] put forward by the National Trust, as I think if you put all those in you will end up with something more restrictive than now.” Countryside and green campaigners say early drafts of the NPPF, with which they were happy, were changed by the Treasury to emphasise economic growth. “Sensible suggestions were left out in case they put any constraint on development,” said Richard Hebditch, from Campaign for Better Transport. Clark said: “If you go from 1,000 pages to a distillation of 50 pages or so, it may be that not everything is expressed clearly, but that does not indicate malign intent.” Liz Peace, chief executive of the British Property Federation agreed. She said: “They have done an amazing job of condensation but it is not perfect and some of the nuances are not right. The phrase ‘the default answer to development proposals is yes’ is not statesmanlike. It is more like a newspaper headline.” Clark declined to express regret at the aggressive language that had characterised the planning row to date. “I think it is right to robustly correct misapprehensions,” he said. “I think we are now having a constructive dialogue.” Planning policy Conservation Construction industry Damian Carrington guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Letter from family of murdered teenager to PM says new law might have prevented them suing News International The family of Milly Dowler, the murdered teenager whose mobile phone was hacked by the News of the World, has written to the prime minister urging him to abandon legal reforms that will prevent victims suing for compensation. The direct appeal to David Cameron comes two months after they met in Downing Street at the height of the phone-hacking scandal and includes the plea: “We are sure you do not want to go down in history as the prime minister who took rights away from ordinary people.” The letter, released to the Guardian , highlights mounting political anxiety over the effect of the government’s legal aid, sentencing and punishment of offenders bill (Laspo) which is going through its committee stage in the Commons. Earlier this week, the Liberal Democrat conference in Birmingham passed a motion condemning the coalition government’s plans to deprive those challenging welfare benefit decisions of access to legal aid. As well as containing proposals for slicing £350m a year out of the legal aid budget and withdrawing support for even medical negligence cases, the Ministry of Justice’s bill will ban “no win, no fee” agreements – also known as conditional fee agreements (CFAs) – in their present form. Claimants’ ability to recover expensive insurance premiums and their own lawyers’ success fees from losing defendants will be abolished. Instead the costs will have to be paid out of any final award for damages. Opponents of the change, such as the Sound Off for Justice campaign , warn that it will render the cost of seeking redress through the courts no longer financially viable and restrict access to justice. The Dowler family’s intervention in the debate is highly embarrassing for No 10 and the MoJ. In July, the Guardian revealed that the News of the World hacked into the mobile phone of Milly Dowler, who disappeared at the age of 13 on her way home in Walton-on-Thames, Surrey, on 21 March 2002. Messages were deleted, giving her parents false hopes that she might still be alive. This week it was revealed that News International, publishers of News of the World, had offered £3m in compensation and payments to charities. The Dowlers’ letter to Cameron declares: “We could not have [reached a settlement] without a ‘no win, no fee’ agreement … We understand that the new law will affect thousands of people who want to sue News International and other newspapers. “We had understood that you were on the side of the people not the press. Please do not change the law so that the ability to sue papers is lost … “We are sure that you do not want to go down in history as the prime minister who took rights away from ordinary people so that large companies could print whatever they like and break the law without [anyone] being able to challenge them.” A copy of the letter has also been sent to the deputy prime minister, Nick Clegg. A co-ordinated statement from Sound Off for Justice, which is supported by the solicitors’ body, The Law Society , says the government’s legal reforms will “cut access to justice for millions of middle income families and individuals in the UK”. “The only winners from the government’s changes in legislation will be insurance companies that will pay less or not at all for genuine accidents, health operators that avoid paying for their clinical negligence and big business,” it says. “The losers will be normal families and people like the Dowlers and other victims of ‘wrongdoing’ by organisations or individuals that are wealthier. The changes will create a legal arms war with the richest winning.” Des Hudson, chief executive of the Law Society, said: “[The Dowlers] have succeeded in making it clear to the prime minister and his deputy that it is ordinary families with terrible life challenges that will be impacted the most. “They are the losers. As a society we need to protect them and their access to justice. The government must stop and listen today.” Mark Lewis, the solicitor who represented the Dowler family, said: “This is all about access to justice. Individuals, be they poor or rich, do not have the financial might to stand up to the super rich, and powerful corporations. Without CFAs ordinary people cannot afford to challenge what is said about them and what is done to them. It is not just that money talks but that it can stop you and me from answering back. “Democracy requires that we all have a voice. The proposed changes will remove that from most of us.” Lewis, who has represented clients on a no fee basis, offered to represent the Dowler family even if there was no conditional fee agreement. Asked about any payment as part of the settlement, he declined to comment. Labour’s justice spokesman, Andy Slaughter, tabled an amendment to the Laspo bill, citing the Dowlers’ case, in an attempt to reverse reforms of “no win, no fee” agreements. The amendment was not accepted. Slaughter pointed out that both Robert Murat, who was “grossly defamed” after the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, and Christopher Jefferies, who was “monstered” by the press after being arrested by police in the Joanna Yeates murder investigation, had relied on CFAs to seek legal redress. Ken Clarke, the justice secretary, has said that he is determined to combat what he terms the “compensation culture” and says the changes will force potential litigants to consider costs when launching claims. The changes to CFAs were originally recommended in a review conducted by Lord Justice Jackson, which, however, stressed the importance of preserving legal aid. Earlier this month, he said: “The cutbacks in legal aid are contrary to the recommendations in my report … The legal aid system plays a crucial role in promoting access to justice at proportionate costs in key areas.” The plans to cut £350m from the legal aid budget – removing support in areas such as divorce, child custody, employment, immigration, housing, debt, benefit and education – have also been widely opposed by human rights and welfare charities. The charity Action against Medical Accidents this week launched a judicial review of the government’s decision to take clinical negligence out of the scope of legal aid. The organisation’s chief executive, Peter Walsh, said: “Scrapping legal aid for clinical negligence is completely irrational whatever way you look at it, as well as grossly unfair. Ken Clarke’s department might save a little money, but the cost will simply be heaped on the NHS.” The Labour party has also criticised Jonathan Djanogly, the justice minister steering the reforms through the Commons, because of his personal investments in insurance companies which, it is alleged, will benefit from the reforms . Labour has written to the cabinet secretary, Sir Gus O’Donnell, demanding an investigation into any potential conflict of interest. The minister has said that his investments are declared as a matter of public record and have been put into a blind trust. A Downing Street spokesman said: “The government is absolutely committed to ensuring that people can access the justice system regardless of their financial situation, which is why we are committed to maintaining ‘no win, no fee’ arrangements. “There are many deserving cases brought before the courts. But we have to stop the abuse of the system by others pursing excessive, costly and unnecessary cases. Under the current arrangements, innocent defendants can face enormous costs, which can discourage them from fighting cases. This simply isn’t fair. “So in order to ensure that the no win, no fee cases continue to provide fair access to justice for all, we have to make changes. “By balancing the costs more fairly between the claimant and defendant, these changes will ensure that claimants will still be able to bring deserving claims, and receive damages where they are due, and most importantly they will make the no win, no fee system sustainable for the future.” Labour’s Sadiq Khan, the shadow justice secretary, said: “People like the Dowler family who have been terribly wronged will have far less chance of getting justice if the government’s proposals go ahead. “Without legal aid or a lawyer able to act on a no win, no fee basis they will go unheard or be forced to bring their case without representation. These misguided proposals could prevent future criminal acts being brought to justice. This government must rethink them now. “The government should heed the warnings from the Dowlers to ensure that all victims have access to proper representation in court and no one is denied access to justice.” Milly Dowler Legal aid Phone hacking News International News of the World UK criminal justice David Cameron Nick Clegg Crime Owen Bowcott guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Grim day of trading begins with warnings on US economy and worsens with alarming news of slowdown in Europe and China Around £64bn was wiped off the value of the UK’s biggest companies as renewed fears over the world economy sent shares sliding around the globe . During a nervy and dramatic day’s trading in London, the FTSE 100 index tumbled 246 points, or 4.67%, to close at 5041. This is the blue-chip index’s worst daily fall in percentage terms since March 2009, and its biggest points fall since November 2008 in the aftermath of the collapse of Lehman Brothers. Markets across Europe shared the gloom, with the German Dax losing 4.9% and France’s Cac falling by 5.2%. Wall Street was also bathed in red, with the Dow Jones down 400 points, or 3.7%, by midday US time. The rout began at the start of trading, triggered by a warning from the US Federal Reserve that there were “significant downside risks” to the American economy. Financial markets continued to be hit by bad economic news throughout Thursday, including disappointing manufacturing data from China and alarming evidence that Europe’s private sector was shrinking, dragging the region back towards recession. Giles Watts, head of equities at City Index, said the selloff was driven by “the sheer weight of evidence pointing towards a sharp slowdown in global activity”, making a new recession more likely. “All of the negative news has just culminated into a scenario whereby investors are asking themselves whether they really should be putting their money in risky stocks or defensive safe havens. Today’s markets show the answer has firmly been the latter of those two options,” he said. An appeal from Christine Lagarde, head of the IMF, for world leaders to unite did not restore confidence in the City. Every stock fell on the FTSE 100, with mining companies such as Vedanta, Antofagasta and Kazakhmys all suffering double-digit declines. Bank shares were also in retreat across Europe, amid calls for financial firms to bolster their balance sheets with fresh capital to cope with impending losses from the eurozone debt crisis. “Last night’s gloomy outlook from the Fed saw market sentiment take a battering right from the open, while disappointing PMI figures from China have done little to lighten the mood, particularly in the resource sector,” said Ben Critchley of IG Index. Louise Cooper, markets analyst at BGC Partners, said traders were deeply fearful about the prospects for the world economy. “The future is so uncertain – the world could look significantly different in a month’s time. Greece could have defaulted, we could be in the middle of a banking crisis, a bank could have even gone bust,” Cooper said. Baudouin Prot, the head of BNP Paribas, went on a media offensive on Thursday to deny reports that his bank would be seeking a lifeline from Qatar . Financial crisis European debt crisis FTSE Dow Jones European banks Banking Graeme Wearden guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Media Matters released a new study that tracked the amount of economists that participated on the three major cable news outlets, CNN, MSNBC and Fox during the debt-ceiling debate. You would figure the balance would be roughly two to one against economists who would be able to explain the debt-ceiling debate because cable news has become so tabloid-like, but if you thought that, you’d be way off. A Media Matters analysis of evening cable news programs reveals that just 4.1 percent of guests who discussed the debt-ceiling debate were actual economists. This lack of credible economic experts helped create a media environment in which political and media figures could spread misinformation. On August 2, President Obama signed the Budget Control Act, a controversial compromise bill that raised the nation’s debt ceiling in order to avoid default while also cutting government spending by hundreds of billions of dollars over the next decade. Many economists criticized the deal, saying that budget cuts would only weaken the economy and further drive up unemployment. But their voices were largely absent from CNN’s, Fox News’, and MSNBC’s coverage of the debt-ceiling negotiations. Of the 1,258 guest appearances during segments that discussed the issue in the month leading up to the debt deal, only 52 — or 4.1 percent — were made by economists. I have no problem with activists and pundits being given air time for their opinions, but these shows market themselves as “news” and should have a responsibility to inform the public on very important topics. Economic policy is very difficult for many Americans to understand on a basic level even though the debt-ceiling travesty was by far one of the easiest concepts to grasp. The definition of “economist” used in this study is broad — it includes any guest with an advanced degree in economics or who has served as an economics professor at the college or university level. It also includes guests who have worked as government economists (such as Ben Stein, who formerly “worked as an economist at The Department of Commerce”). These results are similar to a February 2009 Media Matters report showing that only 6 percent of guest appearances discussing the stimulus bill on cable news programs and network Sunday shows were made by economists. At the time, the lack of economic expertise on television helped lead to massive amounts of conservative misinformation , including the widely repeated falsehood that government spending wouldn’t stimulate economic growth and employment. So even using the broadest of definitions to define what an economist is, cable news failed to provide a modicum of interest in having qualified people to discuss complex legislation.
Continue reading …New York Unions Launch Offensive Against Corporations Cheating Workers
September 22, 2011 No CommentOn Tuesday, the Metallic Lathers Union Local 46 and the Mason Tenders District Council, Laborers Union of North America announced a racketeering lawsuit targeting developers in New York City for engaging in a conspiracy to deny $7 million in wages and benefits to union workers. The targets of the lawsuit include Lalezarian Developers, JMH Development and HRH Construction are accused of numerous charges: from 2007 through 2011 NYC builders Lalezarian Developers and JMH Development conspired with unionized construction manager HRH Construction to knowingly violate the company’s collective bargaining agreements and illegally perform millions of dollars of construction work under the guise of a phony non-union alter-ego firm named Leviathan Construction Management. … As a result of this conspiracy, the developers along with HRH’s principals, cheated workers out of more than seven million in wages and benefits that should have been paid to union members and their funds under HRH’s collective bargaining agreements. If found guilty under federal racketeering law, these developers will be forced to pay triple damages which could total more than $21 million. This lawsuit may be just the tip of the iceberg: According to Robert Ledwith, Business Manager of Local 46, “Today NYC unions are sending a strong message to the real estate industry that we are stepping up our efforts to monitor and prosecute illegal behavior that harms working people.” Ledwith added, “We think that this case is merely the tip of the iceberg. We know this kind of illegal activity is widespread throughout our industry.” Other observers agree with Ledwith that there are likely many more examples of this type of criminal activity and that there will likely be more attempts by unions to fight back on behalf of workers and for what is right. Pursuit of this type of legal route could also have further effects, such as reducing the amount of money that flows from corrupt developers to politicians, potentially helping level the electoral and lobbying playing fields.
Continue reading …English Defence League filling vacuum left by mainstream politics, says report
September 22, 2011 No Comment
Voter ‘disenfranchisement’ by out-of-touch politicians and fall of grassroots activism helping extremism grow, thinktank warns Mainstream political parties must tackle far-right groups through doorstep hearts and minds campaigns that tackle anti-Muslim sentiments at local level, according to two reports on challenging extremists. The rise of “career politicians” – and the fall of grassroots activists – has left a vacuum across Europe for populist anti-establishment organisations, warns Right Response , from international thinktank Chatham House . These now tap into the feeling of voters that they have been “disenfranchised” by out-of-touch politicians. Muslims are increasingly the focus of anti-immigration and anti-minority group activity, says the report, and that means growing public hostility to settled Muslim communities. EDL: Britain’s New Far Right Social Movement, in which Northampton University’s radicalism and new media research group details the rise of the English Defence League, says that the government’s Prevent strategy should no longer be seen as offering alternatives to those who might be tempted into terrorism by al-Qaida and like-minded groups, but should tackle rightwing extremism too. Matthew Goodwin, the author of Right Response, said mainstream parties had become increasingly professional and managerial, concentrating on political marketing techniques and relying on computer-generated canvas returns, tightly-scripted phone banks, focus groups and opinion polls, rather than on face-to-face contact, except at election time. Extreme parties often had more innovative websites too. “Politics is about winning the hearts and minds of voters, not seeking to win arguments on intellectual grounds,” said Goodwin, an associate fellow of Chatham House and lecturer in politics and international relations at Nottingham University. “To do this, mainstream parties should be part of the community, have an active and visible presence, and forge stronger links to local groups and forums. In practical terms, this means standing full slates of candidates at the local level, engaging with voters face-to-face and redirecting some resources to revitalising grassroots campaigns.” The rise of extreme parties was not only linked to anxiety over threats to jobs, social housing and the welfare state posed by immigrants, said Goodwin. Mainstream parties needed to challenge more forcefully claims national cultures were under attack and that meant going beyond making an economic case for immigration and arguing instead for cultural diversity. Politicians also needed to be more honest. “Existing responses … typically focus on plans to reduce the number of immigrants, or curtail overall levels of immigration. Yet at the same time, international treaties have greatly reduced the capacity of governments to deliver demonstrable outcomes in this policy area.” The result was “a disconnect” which could further fuel public dissatisfaction. The EDL report highlights the group’s use of central websites, carrying its “official” line, and sites and blogs targeted on local “single” issues such as “no more mosques”. This combined with the strategy of “march and grow” has given the EDL a sustained culture of grassroots activism, the report says. “Given its licence to violent extremism, tackling the EDL, and other ‘new far right’ groups, needs to become a core focus of the Prevent strategy,” says the report. “Generally speaking the nation’s wider economic success impacts on the fortunes of far-right movements. Yet this needs to be understood in relation to specific localities, not merely nationally. Without resolving underlying economic and social tensions within areas identified with EDL and ‘new far-right’ support, it is likely the movement will continue to find fertile conditions in more deprived pockets across the country … to combat this, a more relevant and empowering politics is crucial to tackling support for extreme nationalisms.” Michael Ellis, the Conservative MP for Northampton North, in a foreword to the report, said he had “every confidence” the coalition government’s planned revamp of the Labour-devised Prevent would help combat “the rise of the ‘new far-right’ and the potential for ‘lone wolf’ terrorism. “One must only look at the terrible atrocity this summer in Norway at the hands of a murderous terrorist – in the name of a crazed war against Islam – to see the relevancy and currency of this report.” The far right English Defence League Islam Global terrorism UK security and terrorism Terrorism policy Anders Behring Breivik Thinktanks Communities James Meikle guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …A group of labor unions and progressive groups launched a program to invest pension assets of working families in projects designed to improve energy efficient infrastructure, create jobs, develop new industries and reduce global warming. The program would invest $10 billion in these projects. Partners in the program include President Bill Clinton, the AFL-CIO, the American Federation of Teachers, SEIU, AFSCME, NEA, the Firefighters, CalPERS, CalSTERS, and others. The plan was announced this week at the meeting of the Clinton Global Initiative. Some of the specific projects that are being invested in include: The AFL-CIO Housing Investment Trust has funded a $134 million energy efficiency and asbestos removal project for Penn South Mutual Cooperative in New York City. The trust also has developed a pipeline for $79 million in further investment in energy efficient and retrofit projects. The trust’s board also passed a resolution to work with Fannie Mae to invest in Fannie Mae’s Green Refinance Plus mortgage-backed securities. The AFL-CIO, with the assistance of CGI, has issued a request for proposals for a $3 million energy efficiency retrofit of its headquarters. The AFL-CIO, the Building and Construction Trades Department (BCTD) and investment funds affiliated with the union movement continue to work on financing energy efficiency retrofits for commercial, industrial and public buildings, including in particular public housing. Promising conversations are under way with new state-sponsored entities seeking to sponsor such retrofits in Oregon and in Colorado. Joint labor-management apprenticeship programs in the U.S. construction industry added some 8,000 new registered apprenticeships since CGI Chicago. These same joint labor-management apprenticeship and training programs have enabled about 40,000 construction workers in the clean energy workforce to complete their certification training and obtain certifications in specialty fields.
Continue reading …No Obama Treatment for Them: MRC Study Finds Morning TV Hits GOP Candidates With Hostile Liberal Agenda
September 22, 2011 No Comment
For most Americans, the 2012 presidential campaign will be experienced on television, and voters will evaluate the candidates based on their performances at televised debates, daily news coverage, and in long-form interviews. Even with all of the changes in the media landscape over past several years, the most-watched regular forums for candidate interviews are the broadcast network morning news programs — NBC’s Today , ABC’s Good Morning America , and CBS’s The Early Show , with a combined weekday audience of more than 13 million as of the second quarter of 2011. But how fairly are those broadcasts treating the candidates, and how well are the network morning show hosts serving Republican primary voters who must decide which candidate will oppose President Obama next fall? To find out, the MRC’s Geoffrey Dickens and I analyzed all 53 weekday morning show interviews with either potential or declared Republican candidates from January 1 through September 15, and compared the results with our study of the same programs’ treatment of the Democratic candidates during the same time period from four years ago. As might be expected, most of the more than 400 questions posed to the Republican candidates this year had to do with early campaign strategy and tactics and basic biographical details. But our analysts counted 98 “ideological questions” — policy-based questions that incorporated either a liberal or conservative premise.
Continue reading …
The president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is to address the UN general assembly amid declining fortunes at home 3.37pm: Welcome to live coverage of Mahmound Ahmadinejad’s address to the UN general assembly, which is expected to begin at 4pm BST. Unlike last year, when he sought to grab international headlines, Ahmadinejad is likely to play to a domestic audience this year in an attempt to demonstrate his power and quash suggestions that a once powerful figure has already become a lame-duck president two years before his term ends in 2013. Last week, in the latest episode of his confrontation with the conservatives close to the supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, he failed to fulfil his pledge to release the US hikers immediately and take them to New York before his visit, and thus gain the credit himself for their freedom. Instead, he was embarrassed by the judiciary, which contradicted his remarks and insisted that they and not the president were in charge of the fate of Shane Bauer and Josh Fattal, who were held in Iran as spies. But Ahmadinejad’s dilemma back in Iran is far more complex than the controversies over the release of the two Americans. After publicly challenging Khamenei over a cabinet appointment in April, Ahmadinejad abruptly lost his position as the protege to the Ayatollah, who holds the ultimate power in Iran. Since then, he has increasingly become isolated with only a handful of serious supporters on his side, losing the support of the elite revolutionary guards and the majority of his hitherto backers both in the parliament and the establishment. Supporters of Khamenei are worried about the influence of Ahmadinejad and his team in Iran’s politics and have accused them with everything from revolutionary deviancy to financial corruption and even sorcery. Ahmadinejad’s troubles were highlighted again on Thursday when it emerged that speculation is rife among Iranian MPs that there will be a move to bring back the position of prime minister instead of the current system of presidency. If this turns out to be the case, this would constitute an attempt by MPs to take power, as any prime minister would be appointed by them, unlike a president, who is elected by the people. Speaking at the general assembly will give Ahmadinejad a great opportunity, more than anything else, to fight back against his opponents. During his stay in New York, the president – who is bombarded by interview requests from the US media – has a great opportunity to garner publicity and distract attention from his political mismanagement in Iran, especially his appalling record of violating human rights. Ironically, Ahmadinejad this time is not receiving the attention he needs in his home country, with even some semi-official media giving scant coverage to his visit to the UN. To obtain that publicity, Ahmadineajd is likely to talk about a controversial subject which would help him to once again become the centre of attention. He may decide to talk about Palestinian statehood and president Obama’s support for the Israelis, or perhaps the US and Britain’s apparent lack of interest in the uprisings in Bahrain and Yemen. All eyes are once again on Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Iran Middle East Arab and Middle East unrest United States Israel Nuclear weapons Haroon Siddique Saeed Kamali Dehghan guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …