Witnesses say at least 12 people killed and dozens wounded after security forces fire on protesters massed in Sana’a Medical officials say troops have opened fire on anti-government protesters in the Yemeni capital, Sana’a, killing at least 12 and wounding dozens. Witnesses say more than 100,000 protesters massed on Sunday around the state television building and government offices. They say security forces opened fire, along with snipers shooting down from nearby rooftops. Mohammed al-Abahi, a doctor at a field clinic, said at least 12 protesters were killed and as many as 200 wounded. He said many of the dead and wounded had bullet wounds to the face, chest and head. It was the first significant attack in weeks on Yemenis in the capital. The protesters have been demonstrating daily for more than seven months, demanding the removal of President Ali Abdullah Saleh, who is still recovering in Saudi Arabia from an assassination attempt in June. Yemen Arab and Middle East unrest Protest Middle East guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Earthquake of magnitude 6.9 hits north-eastern India and Nepal, damaging buildings and killing at least nine people A strong earthquake has shaken northeastern India and Nepal, killing at least nine people and damaging buildings. The quake, with a preliminary magnitude of 6.9, was felt across northeast India. It triggered at least two aftershocks of magnitude 6.1 and 5.3, Indian seismology official RS Dattatreyan said. He warned that more aftershocks were possible. At least four people in India’s Sikkim state were killed and an unspecified number of people were injured, state police chief Jasbir Singh told Associated Press. Nepal’s government said five people died and dozens were hurt there. The full extent of the damage was not immediately known because the region is sparsely populated, with many living in remote areas that were cut off by mudslides triggered by the quake, Singh said. TV stations reported collapsed buildings and cracked pavements in Sikkim’s state capital of Gangtok, 42 miles southeast of the quake’s epicentre. The Indo-Tibetan border police said two of its buildings had collapsed in Gangtok. Rescuers were searching for anyone pinned under fallen buildings in the city, which has a population of 50,000, Singh said. “We have sounded a high alert. Police are on the streets in Gangtok and other major towns,” he said. Electricity and some phone services were interrupted in the area. Power lines snapped in the West Bengal cities of Darjeeling and Kalimpong, which “are now in total darkness”, state chief minister Mamata Banerjee said. The Indian prime minister, Manmohan Singh, offered to send troops to help, and summoned the National Disaster Management Authority for an emergency meeting. The air force sent five planes to help with rescue efforts. In neighbouring Nepal and Bangladesh, the quake sent residents rushing out of their homes, offices and shopping centers. In Nepal’s capital, Kathmandu, members of parliament who were debating the national budget ran out of the assembly hall into a parking area. They returned 15 minutes later and resumed their session. The quake was felt as far away as the Indian capital, with New Delhi residents rushing out of shaking buildings. Nepal India guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …enlarge Credit: Robert Ariail Not that it’s a huge surprise, but the NYTimes poll shows Obama losing support among key groups: The poll, which was conducted after Mr. Obama’s economic address to Congress last week, contains considerable warning signs for the president. The poll found a 12-point jump since late June, to 43 percent, in the number of Americans who say the economy is getting worse. And for the first time since taking office, his disapproval rating has reached 50 percent in the Times and CBS News polls. “I don’t disapprove of Barack Obama as a person, but as a president he has disappointed me greatly,” said Ann Sheets, 69, a Democrat from Chattanooga, Tenn., speaking in a follow-up interview. Ms. Sheets added, “I’m realistic enough to know how difficult it is and I am not against compromise, but I voted for a backbone. You have to draw some lines in the sand, and I don’t think he has done that.” The poll found a 43 percent approval rating for Mr. Obama. It is significantly higher than Jimmy Carter, who had an approval rating of 31 percent at a similar time in his presidency, according to the Times and CBS News poll, which showed Ronald Reagan with an approval of 46 percent and the elder George Bush at 70 percent. The president’s support has fallen to its lowest levels across parts of the diverse coalition of voters who elected him, from women to suburbanites to college graduates. And a persistent effort over the past year to reclaim his appeal to independent voters has shown few signs of bearing fruit, with 59 percent of this critical electoral group voicing their disapproval. While Mr. Obama has not yet succeeded in winning over independent voters, who comprise the most influential piece of the electorate, neither have Republicans. The field is largely unknown to independents, and few have a favorable opinion of any of the candidates. The poll was taken as Republicans hopefuls are drawing sharp distinctions with one another in a series of nationally televised debates . A fight over Social Security has emerged as one of the early yet defining differences between Mr. Perry, who has called the program a “monstrous lie,” and Mr. Romney, who has called for maintaining the current system with some changes to shore up its long-term financial condition. The poll found that nearly three-quarters of Republicans said they thought Social Security and Medicare were worth their costs. Imagine that. There are some pretty big clues there, Mr. President. I really hate your policy choices and what they’ve done to our economy, but at least I can understand the logic of pandering to independent voters — if you think that’s your only chance to win. But now you’re not only losing them, you’re losing big chunks of the base, as well. It doesn’t make sense. Will you stop now with the Blue Dog routine? Will you admit what a bad idea it was to not only try to deal away Social Security and Medicare, but to hand Republicans that weapon to use against Democrats? What the hell were you thinking, trying to undermine the crown jewels of the Democratic party? Why did you wait until now to try to do something about jobs? President Obama, wake up. Please. The country needs you to stop playing it safe.
Continue reading …Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) doesn't think the President's new “Buffett Rule” to create a higher tax rate for millionaires makes sense. Speaking on Sunday's “Meet the Press,” McConnell said, “With regard to his tax rate, if [Warren Buffett's] feeling guilty about it, I think he should send in a check” (video follows with transcript and commentary): DAVID GREGORY, HOST: What’s unfair though about making richer Americans pay the same tax rates as middle income Americans? SENATOR MITCH MCCONNELL (R-KENTUCKY): Well, look, you know, if Warren Buffett would like to give up some of his benefits, we’d be happy to talk about it. I mean, I think that means testing benefits is one of the ways that we’re going to have to solve at least the Social Security and Medicare problems long-term for the next generations. With regard to his tax rate, if he’s feeling guilty about it, I think he should send in a check.
Continue reading …Click here to view this media While discussing the recent GOP debate cosponsored by CNN and the AstroTurf “tea party” on Fox’s so-called watchdog program, Fox News Watch, host Jon Scott asks former Iraq war propagandist and panel member Judith Miller if she thought there was anything “odd” about the two joining forces to host that debate. Coming from someone now working for Fox “News” and the right-wing rag Newsmax, the answer wasn’t terribly surprising. SCOTT: Judy, was pairing CNN with the tea party a little bit odd? MILLER: Well I think that was CNN’s effort to show that is is “fair and balanced”. And why not? You know, we can pretend that the mainstream media are completely fair and balanced. They are not. Everybody knows that most Democrats… most liberals… most people in the mainstream media are liberal Democrats. That comes out poll after poll. So why not try something like this? I think it made for a very interesting mix. What Miller failed to point out is that the “tea party” is primarily a media creation from her current employer Fox, and CNN, who have both been heavily promoting the so-called “movement” ever since Rick Santelli gave his preplanned rant back in 2009 that John wrote about here . Miller’s comments reminded me of the post Karoli wrote the week the debate aired — The Most Trusted Name in News: TeaNN : For a very long time, I have been ranting about how CNN is trying to keep the tea party viable and present them as something other than what they are. From their hiring of Dana Loesch and Erick Erickson to their shameless promotion of the very corporate, AstroTurf Tea Party Express bus tours , CNN has been on the job. All that positioning as the best tea party network in television should reflect in the ratings their little tea party debate receives tonight. After all, this group is less popular than just about anyone else in the country, even among their own members! TeaNN. The network with less news, more bluster. Brought to you by the Tea Party Express, FreedomWorks, and corporate interests everywhere. And finally as to Miller’s assertion that our media is somehow “liberal”, I’d just say go read Will Bunch’s article here — Journalism’s confession: Playing Twister…to the right .
Continue reading …Fareed Zakaria's desire to give power to all countries except the one he currently resides – the United States! – is nothing less than appalling. On the CNN program bearing his name Sunday, Zakaria actually said, “It might be necessary to make clear that Christine Lagarde would be the last non-Chinese head of the [International Monetary Fund]” (video follows with transcript and commentary): FAREED ZAKARIA: The European crisis that you've been reading about in the paper is worth watching carefully. In fact, it has now morphed into something much bigger than a European crisis – it could batter the entire global economy, which is pretty fragile anyway. You've read a lot about Greece, but the problem in Europe is Italy. Greece is a nano-state; it makes up about 2% of the European Union's gross domestic product. Italy, on the other hand, is one of the seven largest economies in the world. Its debts are greater than those of Spain, Portugal, Ireland and Greece combined. It has long been governed in an almost cartoonishly bad manner. Italy is too big to fail but might also be too big to bail. Even Germany might not be able to credibly bail it out along with all the other troubled countries. So what can be done? I don't think the leading proposals will work – creating Eurobonds or giving Brussels broader power to tax. They're simply not going to happen. Governments oppose it and people oppose it. And anyway, creating a tighter European Union will take ten years. Markets needs reassurance now. So I have a proposal: We need a big bazooka. Facing a similar crisis in 2008, then-Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson talked about the need for a sum of money large enough to scare markets into submission. A bazooka. But the problem is this: All of the EU combined doesn't have one big enough. So who has the kind of money Italy needs? Take a guess? They have $3 trillion in foreign exchange reserves. Yup, China. In fact, today, 10 trillion dollars of foreign exchange reserves are sitting around across the globe. That is the only pile of money large enough from which a bazooka could be fashioned. The International Monetary Fund could go to the leading holders of such reserves – China, but also Japan, Brazil and Saudi Arabia – and ask for a $750 billion line of credit. The IMF would then extend that credit to the troubled EU economies, but insist on closely monitoring economic reforms, granting funds only as restructuring occurs. That credit line would more than cover the borrowing costs of both Italy and Spain for two years. The IMF terms would ensure that the two nations remained under pressure to reform and set up conditions for growth. Now, the Chinese would have to devote at least half the funds. What's in it for them? A new global role. This could be the spur to giving China a much larger say at the IMF. In fact, it might be necessary to make clear that Christine Lagarde would be the last non-Chinese head of the organization. In a world awash in debt, power shifts to creditors. After World War I, European nations were battered by debts, and Germany was battered by reparation payments. The only country that could provide credit was the United States. For America, providing desperately needed cash to Europe was its entry into the councils of power, a process that ultimately brought a powerful new player inside the global tent. Today's crisis is China's opportunity to become a “responsible stakeholder” in the global system. If this doesn't happen, hold on to your seat because we're in for a rough ride. In principle, I don't have an argument with Zakaria's general idea here. In fact, it's not a bad one. But in exchange for China's investment into this fund, it gets to run the IMF forever? That's an absolutely absurd amount of economic power to be granted to one nation. Maybe far more importantly, Zakaria completely ignored a significantly more urgent matter for America's economic future: China allowing its yuan to float. At the present time, China's currency is pegged to the U.S. dollar in a fashion that keeps it very low relative to ours. This assures that its products are cheaper than ours across the globe. America will only be able to compete with China if the yuan's value is determined by the foreign exchange markets. Until that point, China will continue to be able to dominate global trade. Without a resolution of this issue, any additional economic power granted China – like giving it the authority to run the IMF forever! – would further diminish America's role in the world as well as our future income potential furthering inhibiting our ability to balance our budget and deal with the over $100 trillion of unfunded liabilities associated with Medicare and Social Security. Does Zakaria care about this, or is his love for all countries other than his own far more important than the best interest of the nation he's decided to raise his family in?
Continue reading …• Hit F5 or use the autorefresh tool for the latest updates • Send yours thoughts to alan.gardner.casual@guardian.co.uk • Follow today’s games with our live scores centre 3.36pm: Did anyone see that coming ? Other than Gary Neville, of course. 3.30pm: So, Fernando Torres starts for Chelsea, even though there is no Nemanja Vidic for him to terrorise. I suspect that he and Sturridge will not both play as out-and-out strikers, with one dropping off a la Wayne Rooney for United. For the home side, Darren Fletcher makes his first league start of the season to form an industrious centre-midfield partnership with the rejuvenated Anderson. For stardust, we’ll have to look to the flanks, with Nani and Ashley included in Sir Alex Ferguson’s side and the exciting Juan Mata starting for Chelsea. The teams are in , and it’s good news for Manchester United Nando: Man Utd (4-4-2): De Gea; Smalling, Jones, Evans, Evra; Nani, Fletcher, Anderson, Young; Rooney, Hernandez. Subs: Lindegaard, Berbatov, Giggs, Park, Carrick, Fabio Da Silva, Valencia. Chelsea (4-4-2): Cech; Bosingwa, Ivanovic, Terry, Cole; Lampard, Ramires, Meireles, Mata; Sturridge, Torres. Subs: Turnbull, Luiz, Romeu, Mikel, Malouda, Lukaku, Anelka. Today’s designated scapegoat: Phil Dowd (Staffordshire) Preamble: Hello and welcome to the glacé cherry on today’s Super Sundae offering, the first meeting of the season between the Premier League’s two biggest beasts, Manchester United and Chelsea. Manchester City may have aspirations to break up the cartel but since Chelsea brusquely shouldered Arsenal aside at the start of the 2004-05 season, these two have won 15 of the 21 major domestic trophies on offer in this country – not to mention contested the only all-English European Cup final. United, the reigning champions, have scorched their way to the top of the table after four games but Chelsea are lurking in their shadow, just two points behind after a low-key start to life under André Villas Boas. And as with objects in the rear-view mirror, Chelsea may loom larger in United’s mind than an objective analysis would dictate. Ostensibly still a work in progress, as Villas-Boas attempts to coax Chelsea’s old guard to stop doddering around and pass the ball a bit quicker, maybe even consider running , the Blues arrive at Old Trafford with a better Premier League record at United’s home than any other team. The season before last, Chelsea effectively sealed the title with a 2-1 victory there – though in 2010-11, United won four out of five encounters between the sides (including the Charity Shield). It surely won’t be that simple again. Added to the usual mix of my-team-is-better-than-yours mewling are enough subplots for a Dickens novel. How will Villas-Boas’s mixture of natty ties and touchline squat thrusts fare when pitched against the wiliest cat in town, Sir Alex Ferguson? Can Chelsea reinvent themselves whilst maintaining the girder-like constitution that has long seen them overtake Arsenal as London’s No1 challenger to the Manchester hegemony? Will Fernando Torres ever get his mojo back ? And can anyone stop Wayne Rooney? Let’s find out. Premier League 2011-12 Manchester United Chelsea Premier League Alan Gardner guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Every time I suggested something like this, fellow progressives told me it was right-wing, anti-government populism. I didn’t agree then, and so I think Sherrod Brown’s idea is a good one: Washington (CNN) — Should members of Congress cut their salaries or raise the age at which they can draw a congressional pension when many Americans are making personal sacrifices during the country’s prolonged economic crisis? Sen. Sherrod Brown thinks so. In April, the Ohio Democrat introduced the Shared Retirement Sacrifice Act of 2011, which would require lawmakers to wait until the age of 66 to collect their pensions. Currently, lawmakers can retire as early as 50 with a full pension depending on how long they served. “The reason I introduced my bill … on this shared sacrifice in terms of retirement age is I hear lots of members of Congress, especially, particularly conservative members of Congress, say we should raise the retirement age for Social Security,” Brown said on CNN’s “American Morning.” Brown points to the fact that a member of Congress who gets elected at 35 and retires at 55 can draw a pretty good pension then while other Americans can’t draw Social Security benefits until they reach 66. “So, my thought there was that members of Congress should not be able to get their pension, no matter how many years of service they had; they should get no pension until any earlier than a Social Security beneficiary should get theirs,” he said. In 2009, there were 455 retired members of Congress drawing a federal pension based fully or in part on their congressional service in 2009, according to a Congressional Research Service report released in January. Of that number, 275 were in office before 1984 and did not pay into Social Security nor can they collect benefits. They received an average yearly pension of $69,012 in 2009. Amendments to the Social Security Act in 1983 required members of Congress to pay into Social Security after January 1, 1984. The other 180 retired members are covered by both the old and new pension plans and collected an annual pension of $40,140 in 2009. Under both systems, members of Congress are eligible for a pension at age 62 if they have completed at least five years of service, according to the Congressional Research Service report. Members are eligible for a pension at 50 if they have 20 years under their belt, or at any age after completing 25 years of service, the report added. Brown said it’s important that lawmakers “sort of align as much as possible their lives with the people who we represent, so we understand things better and, you know, we still make more money than most people, of course.”
Continue reading …Speaking at Lib Dem conference on behalf of Hacked Off campaign, Grant criticises Met police’s attempt to force Guardian journalists to reveal their sources Hugh Grant has accused the Metropolitan police of behaving in a “worrying and deeply mysterious” way after Scotland Yard invoked the Official Secrets Act to demand journalists reveal their sources. In an appearance at the Liberal Democrat conference, the actor warned that police were turning on the “goodies” after Scotland Yard applied for an order under the 1989 act to require the Guardian to identify its sources on phone hacking. Grant, who is speaking at all three party conferences on behalf of the Hacked Off campaign, said: “It is a very worrying and upsetting development. A lot of us victims and campaigners had come to the view that the new police inquiry – [Operation] Weeting under Sue Akers – were good cops. “It was a new investigation. They were embarrassed by the behaviour of their predecessors and colleagues. So for them to suddenly turn on their fellow goodies in this battle is a worrying and deeply mysterious.” The actor met Nick Clegg in Birmingham at lunchtime on Sunday as he began a tour of the three party conferences to ensure that politicians continue to show “balls” on hacking after the establishment of the Leveson enquiry. “Ultimately it is going to be politicians who get the job done, who get the thing fixed,” Grant said. “So I am here with Hacked Off to have a look at the politicians in all three parties and see which of those politicians who appear to have grown balls in July actually still have them and get something done.” “The judgment is yet to be made. They had no choice back in July. The revelations were so shocking to the whole country that they had to talk a good game. Whether or not they will now play a good game really remains to be seen. That is one of the reasons we are going to these conferences – to put pressure on them to make sure they do as they said they’d do.” Grant was critical of the House of Commons culture select committee for its cross-examination of Rupert and James Murdoch. “I am just slightly disappointed in them. I thought their cross-examination was disappointing,” he said. “I am still waiting for their report. Where the hell is that report? What is going on?” Evan Harris, the former Lib Dem MP who speaks for Hacked Off, intervened to tell Grant that the report had been delayed because the committee was demanding the return of James Murdoch. Grant said of his criticisms: “Maybe that is unfair.” The actor launched a scathing attack on the tabloids as he called on quality journalists to get out of the “fucking bath” and disassociate themselves from the tabloids. Challenged by the BBC’s John Pienaar on how he likes to promote his films in the tabloids, Grant said: “That is a great myth propagated by the tabloid industry – the privacy invaders – that people like me need or want or thrive on publicity. It is actually not true. “My business is entirely making films. With good films people go and see them. With bad films they don’t. The fame comes from whether the films are any good or not.” Grant illustrated his point by criticising the model Jordan. “You can be a Big Brother star or Jordan and have an immense amount of publicity – way more than me – and be front to back of Closer. But it won’t get you a big film fee. The two things are totally unrelated. It always slightly saddens me when I see people buying this propaganda because it is simply not true. “It is true there may be the Jordans of this world, the Big Brother contestants, who enjoy their moment in the sunlight. But for the vast majority of people who go into music, acting, film-making – publicity is not what you making your living off. You make your living of being either being good or bad at what you do. “It is a form of conceit, it is a form of arrogance on the part of the tabloids to assume it is they who make or break these people. They are almost entirely irrelevant to it. Anyone who is written about in the parish magazine for the jumble sale where their bottle stall gets a gets a good review feels chuffed. But it doesn’t mean to say it is important for their career.” Grant, who famously posed as a journalist from Horse and Hounds in the film Notting Hill to interview Julia Roberts, said that granting an interview does not give the media a right to pursue a celebrity. “The papers don’t give people privacy for free. It is done as a sort of barter when it is done. If I give an interview to a magazine they get something out of it, I get something out of it. But the deal is over. If I have sold you a pint of milk for 50p you can’t come to me forever after saying you once sold milk, I can help myself to your milk for free. It is patently absurd.” There was a lighter moment when Pienaar asked Grant how he would play David Cameron. “I only ever play one part. Don’t be ridiculous.” Metropolitan police Hugh Grant Liberal Democrat conference 2011 Phone hacking Liberal Democrats Newspapers Police Nicholas Watt guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …When author Ron Suskind was writing books harshly critical of the Bush White House, he was invited to many major-media salons to discuss how dysfunctional the Bushies were. Now Suskind has turned that around on Team Obama. Will the media coverage be different? The Washington Post reports that Suskind finds the Obama White House was not a good place for women, and had major discord on the economic team. The Obama people interviewed for the book are now denouncing the final product: Anita Dunn, a former communications director, is quoted as saying that “looking back, this place would be in court for a hostile workplace. . . . Because it actually fit all of the classic legal requirements for a genuinely hostile workplace for women.” Dunn said Friday that she told Suskind “point-blank” that the White House “was not a hostile environment.” Christina Romer, former chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, is quoted as saying, after being excluded by top economic adviser Lawrence H. Summers at a meeting, “I felt like a piece of meat.” On Friday, Romer said, “I can’t imagine that I ever said this.” The book says Romer shared her thoughts with Harvard professor Elizabeth Warren, then a candidate to lead the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. “Why is it always the women?” Romer asked. “Why are we the only ones with the balls around here?” “I was told before I went to Washington that there has always been a lot of testosterone in the West Wing,” Romer said Friday. “What was different in the Obama administration is that there were so many women in important positions and, when problems arose, the president worked hard to fix them. I felt respected, included and useful to the team.” The Post added: The book portrays discord within the economic team, with Summers, then director of the National Economic Council, attempting to shut out the views of Romer and then-budget director Peter Orszag. According to the book, Summers sought to derail Obama’s push on several policies, including a financial transactions tax. At one point, Orszag delivered a private report to the president, at his request, about what might happen if the government did not act to rein in the long-term federal budget deficit. Summers was outraged that Orszag would communicate with the president without going through the National Economic Council. “What you’ve done is immoral!” Summers shouted. Orszag told Suskind, according to the book: “Larry just didn’t think the president knew what he was deciding.” Meeting over dinner at the Bombay Club one night, Summers told Orszag that “we’re really home alone,” according to the book. “I mean it,” Summers said. “We’re home alone. There’s no adult in charge. Clinton would never have made these mistakes.” Suskind asked Summers about the comment. “What I’m happy to say is, the problems were immense, they came from a number of very different sources, they were all coming at once, and there were not very many of us,” Summers replied. In an e-mail Friday to The Post, Summers, who left the administration last year, said, “The hearsay attributed to me is a combination of fiction, distortion, and words taken out of context. I can’t speak to what others have told Mr. Suskind, but I have always believed that the president has led this country with determined, steady and practical leadership.”
Continue reading …