Gay people still live in fear in many countries around the world – prejudice, torture and execution are common. Can two new legal and diplomatic campaigns change attitudes? Last Thursday, three men were hanged in Iran for the crime of lavat , sexual intercourse between two men. The case is considered extreme even by Iranian standards, because while the death penalty is in place for homosexuality, it is usually enforced only when there is a
Continue reading …Visit msnbc.com for breaking news , world news , and news about the economy This “little girl” gaffe ended up as fodder for the Rewrite of Lawrence O’Donnell’s Last Word Monday night. Basically a journalist did some gumshoe reporting on Governor Nikki Haley’s French vacation : Gov. Nikki Haley’s weeklong trip to Europe in June in search of “jobs, jobs, jobs” cost South Carolinians more than $127,000. But the governor and her entourage of more than two dozen returned without any finished deals to bring new employers to the Palmetto State. Haley, who captured the governor’s office preaching fiscal restraint, spent the cash so she, her husband and the rest of the state’s contingent could stay in five-star hotels; sip cocktails at the Paris Ritz; dine on what an invitation touted as “delicious French cuisine” at a swanky rooftop restaurant; and rub elbows with the U.S. Ambassador to France at his official residence near the French presidential palace. Instead of asking for a correction (which is what’s done when a newspaper gets something wrong ), Haley went after the reporter on Laura Ingraham’s radio show: HALEY: God bless that little girl at the “Post and Courier.” Her job is to try and create conflict. My job is to create jobs. In the end, I`m going to have jobs to show for it. Yeah, the jobs created in France. Oui! What Lawrence didn’t cover is how horribly sexist and dismissive this is. This is perhaps the most deplorable thing you can say about a professional woman who challenges you. I’m immune to being called a dude, drag queen or tranny. When I say something funny, I’m often called a lesbian – a compliment to lesbians, for sure. The c-word, the b-word, and the w-word. Calling me ugly, fat, old, stupid, bimbo, ditzy, over-Botoxed etc. etc. etc. I don’t even notice anymore. I write under my real name. I have a column that runs in over 85 newspapers and all over the Internets. If I didn’t want to be personally insulted by technology empowered strangers, I’d go live in a cabin and tap out my manifesto on a word processor. But the phrase “little girl,” (I’ve gotten, “silly little girl” twice in my professional career) its like no other. It’s hard to think of anything more condescending than calling someone a feckless female child. Yes, Republicans like to cry “feminist” when its suits them, but Haley sure loves the language of the “get back in the kitchen” crowd. The great thing about her using the phrase is now her vacation is national news. Good going, Haley. It’s a proud moment for “little girls” everywhere. Full transcript of the clip above after the jump. O`DONNELL: Time for tonight`s Rewrite. Nikki Haley, the Republican governor of South Carolina and a rising star in the Republican party, is in trouble. She did something inappropriate to a little girl and she got caught doing it. Now she says she regrets it, but still hasn`t been able to bring herself to apologize either publicly or to the little girl. Little girl`s name is Renee Dudley and she is 25 years old. What Haley did that Haley now calls inappropriate is call Renee Dudley a little girl. Because Haley didn`t like the article Renee Dudley wrote for Charleston, South Carolina`s “Daily Post and Courier,” under the headline, “European Vacation or Legitimate Business?” In the fully researched, meticulously reported piece, Renee Dudley revealed that Nikki Haley and her entourage spent at least — at least 127,000 dollars on a trip to Europe in June, in search of, quote, “jobs, jobs, jobs.” The first place Nikki Haley decided to go to look for jobs for South Carolinians was, of course, Paris, a place that every Republican knows is full of people who want to set up businesses in South Carolina. Perhaps the “let`s go looking for jobs in Paris” strategy explains why Nikki Haley`s state has a higher unemployment rate than the national average, almost two full percentage points above the national average. Renee Dudley`s reporting details how Nikki Haley chose to stay in five-star hotels and run up a bar bill at the Paris Ritz, provoking the South Carolina Democratic party chairman, Dick Harputlian (ph), to be quoted in Renee Dudley`s article as saying, Nikki Haley was, quote, “channeling Marie Antoinette.” On Laura Ingraham`s radio show, Nikki Haley said this when asked about Renee Dudley`s article. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) GOV. NIKKI HALEY (R), SOUTH CAROLINA: God bless that little girl at the “Post and Courier.” Her job is to try and create conflict. My job is to create jobs. In the end, I`m going to have jobs to show for it. (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: Calling the reporter a little girl and thinking she was done with it did not sit well with South Carolinians. And so Nikki Haley had to put out a damage control statement that stopped short of an apology. “The story painted a grossly inaccurate picture and was unprofessionally done. But my `little girl` comment was inappropriate and I regret that. Everyone can have a bad day. I`ll forgive her bad story if she`ll forgive my poor choice of words.” Nikki Haley has yet to contest a single fact reported by Renee Dudley, not one word, not one sentence. She has not disputed anything in Renee Dudley`s original reporting. Now I, for one, am not horrified by Haley`s average daily hotel bill on the European trip, or any of the expenses listed in Renee Dudley`s report, which, as I said, remains uncontested for accuracy. I actually think foreign travel by American government officials is a good thing. I especially think Republicans need to learn more, a lot more about France, a country they normally use as a punch line of their empty headed, jingoistic jokes about the world we live in. And I`m an admitted socialist in a country where people like Nikki Haley are simply socialism condemners, who constantly make socialistic choices and actually support socialistic programs. Government intervening in the marketplace is not a capitalist idea. Government inserting itself into the marketplace in a heavy-handed way, either through begging or special tax deals, trying to influence business decisions — private business decisions, to suit the government`s current mood is a purely — purely socialistic idea. There is, at least, one Republican in South Carolina who understands this. South Carolina Republican State Senator Tom Davis said this in Renee Dudley`s article: “if you get the fundamental things right, solid education and health care, capital will come to the state.” Davis said “those are the functions of government, not creating jobs. It`s a socialist state when the government`s core function is to create jobs.” Well, at least he`s half right. He`s calling health care one of the functions of government, which is, of course, a purely socialistic idea about the functions of government. He doesn`t seem to realize that. But he`s right to say that making job creation government`s core function is a socialist idea. It is one of the socialistic ideas that I`m happy to support if done modestly, with the recognition that the real burden of job creation will always belong to the private sector. If you want to see how horrible government is at making job creation a core function, get yourself into Cuba before the country opens itself to at least Chinese-style capitalism. It would be too much for me to expect a Republican rising star to admit her and her party`s hypocrisy about socialism. And I guess it`s too much for me to expect a 39-year-old professional woman who happens to be a governor to apologize to a 25-year-old professional woman for calling her a “little girl” on a radio show hosted by a 47-year-old professional woman.
Continue reading …From TPM : Former White House financial reform adviser Elizabeth Warren will officially launch her campaign for U.S. Senate from Massachusetts on Wednesday, challenging incumbent Republican Sen. Scott Brown. “The pressures on middle class families are worse than ever, but it is the big corporations that get their way in Washington,” Warren said in a statement. “I want to change that. I will work my heart out to earn the trust of the people of Massachusetts.” Warren has been exploring a run in recent weeks, and has been on a listening tour of the state. And if you have a couple of bucks to spare you can go to our Blue America page for Warren .
Continue reading …I was the general manager of Sire Records when k.d. lang released her platinum smash album, Ingénue in 1992. I worked on the amazing video for “Constant Craving,” which I wanted to use in this post. But Warner Bros Records, a company long since pillaged by Mitt Romney’s Bain Capital and sold off for spare parts to the Russian Mafia, doesn’t allow embedding for the clip on YouTube. So… below, the song that inspired the Rolling Stones’ “Anybody Seen My Baby” 5 years later– yes, k.d. gets writing credit on it– is the live Grammy Awards performance. In fact, the song won the Grammy for Best Female Pop Vocal Performance. Aside for my love for k.d. and for her music, why am I bringing this up now? Glad you asked. k.d. is also one of Ed Potosnak’s favorite all-time artists and, as you probably know, Blue America has endorsed Ed for the New Jersey congressional seat currently held by anti-health care reactionary Leonard Lance. See that platinum award disc up top? k.d. gave that to me after her album sold a million copies. This week she agreed to personally autograph it, not to me, but to whomever wins our Ed Potosnak contest. She’s playing at the Mayo Performing Arts Center in Morristown, NJ on September 22. So… we’ll pick a lucky random winner on September 20 and Ed will personally take the plaque backstage so k.d. can sign it to the winner. So, the obvious question: how do you enter? That’s easy: just donate to Ed’s campaign here — any amount; after all, we’re not Republicans– and one winner will be chosen at random to get this very special Thank You from Blue America. We did a similar kind of contest for a signed Green Day guitar and raised over $5,000 although the winner just gave $10. Make sure you contribute between now and September 20th, either on the linked ActBlue page or by check to Blue America PAC, PO Box 27201, Los Angeles, CA 90027. But, apart from wanting a memento of k.d.’s incredible career, why donate to Ed’s campaign? We’ve written about him many times before but you can get to know more about him from this guest post he wrote in July. Ed’s a science teacher and yesterday he told me that “our future is in today’s classrooms. All across our nation great disparities exist between the educational experiences of some students and others. Not only is it not fair, these inequities hurt our future. Republicans have shown their disregard for our future time again by slashing aid to schools, teacher bashing, and cutting support for our colleges. For America to remain economically competitive in the global economy, Congress needs educators like myself to make sure every child is treated fairly and has access to a high quality education.” Equality of all kinds is a hallmark of Ed’s campaign. He also said that “our nation’s diversity is one of our greatest strengths and in Congress I will work every day to ensure every American is treated equally. It is not acceptable to allow discriminatory policies to be on the books. As an openly gay man, I have experienced institutional discrimination and am committed to making sure it ends for all our communities.” Again, you can contribute to a stalwart and dedicated New Jersey progressive, Ed Potosnak, here at the Blue America page , and we’ll enter you in the running for the k.d. lang RIAA platinum award for Ingénue . While you think about it, see if you can resist this:
Continue reading …To me this ‘raise my taxes!” nonsense coming from wealthy hypocrites is exactly like this Global Warming nonsense coming from wealthy hypocrites. How’s this for a compromise: when you start living like the planet’s in peril only then will I stop laughing in your lying hypocritical face every time you open your lying hypocritical mouth. To have gazillionaires wring their lying hypocritical hands over the plight of Mother Earth from air conditioned mansions as they ply their trade in an entertainment industry that guzzles more energy than Halliburton and Walmart combined, epitomizes a lack of self-awareness so pathetic it should qualify you as being mentally ill. No one is stopping Matt Damon or Alec Baldwin or any one of these “tax the rich” Leftists from paying more in taxes. The only thing stopping them is their own “do as I say not as I do” hypocrisy. They refuse to lead by example and my guess is that their hypocrisy goes even deeper than this. Anyone want to bet dollars to donuts you’ll see — wait for it, wait for it — WRITE-OFFS on Matt Damon’s tax returns? I didn’t think so. Legendary game show host Chuck Woolery is all over this with a helpful PSA that should be titled: “The More Lying Hypocritical Celebrities Know.” Over to you, Chuck: This entire debate is really an indictment of a sycophant entertainment media that refuses to challenge statements like this from “geniuses” like Matt Damon. Maybe if some of these celebs knew they were going to be challenged they would work a little harder at back-filling their arguments. As things stand now, people like Matt Damon not only come off as hypocritical, they come off as stupid. Don’t get me wrong, Matt Damon coming off as hypocritical and stupid is okay with me, but you would think that those on his side would want to do something about it. Cross-posted from Big Hollywood.
Continue reading …With its idealised portrayals of aristocracy and social order, ITV’s period drama has become a global phenomenon. As the second season begins, we go behind the scenes to meet its cast and creators In the library at Highclere Castle, the Downton Abbey crew is shooting a scene. Everything is silent, concentrated, intense; then, a pause. “Oh look,” says the cameraman, “there is Lord Carnarvon’s labrador.” We look. There is a labrador, sitting in the garden, in the middle of the shot. So we stop. The first shot in the pre-show credits is actually a labrador’s backside, but I can’t tell if it belongs to this one. He’s the wrong way round. “That dog,” says someone else, “is very well lit.” Downton Abbey was the surprise hit of last autumn – 12 million viewers, on ITV1, bang after The X-Factor. It is the home of the Earl of Grantham, his American heiress wife and his three feuding daughters (King Lear, plus Coronation Street). It is 1912 (Titanic. They lose two relatives.) There is a scary mother-in-law (Maggie Smith, impersonating herself), a middle-class male cousin (due to inherit, boo!) and his scary mother, who predictably hates the other scary mother. The family are soppy High Tories; in Downton Abbey, the class system exists for the benefit of those at the bottom. For instance, the middle-class cousin, Matthew, has to be told off very sternly by Lord Grantham, played by Hugh Bonneville, for not letting his valet dress him. This was, apparently, the equivalent of chopping his balls off. Matthew duly reforms: “Those cufflinks, Molesley. Good choice!” In Downton Abbey, blind cooks are sent to hospital to see again and alcoholic butlers are forgiven, if they chew the scenery enough. Only the evil comedy duo – O’Brien the maid and Thomas the gay footman – disrupt the puddle of happiness. It is a very sanitised portrait of the English aristocracy and it is written by Julian Fellowes, who used to play Earl Kilwillie in Monarch of the Glen, but is now Britain’s chronicler of class, author of the movie Gosford Park and the novel Snobs. It’s amazingly funny. One scene has the countess miscarrying after evil O’Brien leaves soap on the floor; three minutes later, in the strange time-squashed way of mini-series, she is over it. Another scene has the disabled valet/hero Bates, played by Brendan Coyle, kicked to the floor in front of a duke. “All right, Bates?” says Lord Grantham, barely casting a backward glance. “Fine, m’Lud,” says Bates, facedown in gravel. I loved it all. I go to Highclere Castle, home of the 8th Earl of Carnarvon, one day in May to watch shooting of the second series. The set is open to hacks, because it was a worldwide hit, sold to 100 countries, including Sweden and Latvia, so they have nothing to fear. It is a very happy set, because it is a hit. Actors in hairnets eat biscuits; sheep graze out of shot. It is, I suspect, like Dynasty in 1985 – the mini-series centre of the world. Only certain tabloids are banned, in case they print spoilers. (The Daily Mail was so excited it did a massive novelisation, wondering what would happen next.) A photographer was found in the bushes on the first day of filming, in full camouflage. The house is a marvellous, rather neat Gothic castle by Charles Barry, sitting in Capability Brown’s fake hills. The cast rest in a collection of trailers by the house and eat in a pair of red London buses. The centre of operations is a creepy great hall, two storeys high, where all the heads of department, and a man from Australian television – “it’s going to be huge in Australia!” – stare at a tiny screen. Filming is slow, even though the labrador has moved. I sit on the lawn, with Alastair Bruce, the historical adviser. He is very courteous and skittish. I ask him about the infamous Mr Pamuk episode when Lady Mary, the eldest daughter, shagged a visiting Turkish diplomat, who promptly died, and she had to drag his corpse back to his bedroom. Is that likely? “If you go to most parts of the East End of London,” Bruce says, “I doubt life is as busy as it is on EastEnders. It’s a drama. It carried us through another episode. I am a Bruce,” he adds heavily. “I am descended from Robert the Bruce. I have only just got over Braveheart.” There is a noise. It is Fiona, Countess of Carnarvon, a tall blonde woman in a well-ironed shirt. “What are those people doing there?” she shouts very loudly at a group of strangers, who have fallen in among the sheep. The strangers move away. The sheep do not. I stare at Hugh Bonneville. He is in the field too, but shouting at a telephone. He is refusing interviews. I speak to evil footman Thomas, played by Rob James-Collier. The cast, he says, are overwhelmed with tweets. Dan Stevens, middle-class Matthew, got a fan tweet from Jackie Collins. And famous fans turn up. Alan Titchmarsh was here this morning. “I missed him,” says James-Collier. “I wanted to ask him about my lawn but he’s gone.” Lady Carnarvon returns. The trespassers are gone, no shotgun required. The cast call her Lady Carnarvon, which is a bit weird, considering they are here for three months. The Carnarvons are friends with the Felloweses; Julian Fellowes wrote Downton Abbey for this house, she says, after he attended a party there. Her voice is smooth and soaring. “What I find interesting,” she says, “is that it has fascinated, whether it is the taxi driver or the [lord in the] House of Lords. It has cut across a huge segment of English society. Maybe that is because it involves a huge segment of English society.” It is true. Downton Abbey doesn’t have an audience profile; everyone watches it. Her favourite character, she says, “is the house”. She laughs. “You have to live with it and learn it and you grow to love it and as you grow to love it you grow to know it better and as you grow to know it you love it more.” Lady Carnarvon said that without breathing. And if it were a person, who would it be? She laughs again. “My husband.” Next I go to Ealing Studios, where the servants’ quarters and some bedrooms are shot. This seems more relaxed, because there are no aristocrats or labradors. I see the famous kitchen – tiny in a soundstage – the study of Carson the butler and the sitting room of Mrs Hughes the housekeeper. A fake bedroom with a fake view; someone has drawn a heart in the dust. They are shooting a scene in the kitchen, between the non-evil footman William, informally known as cannon-fodder boy, who is in love with the simple but godly kitchen maid Daisy, and Mrs Hughes. Cannon-fodder boy: “I just want a word with Daisy.” Mrs Hughes: “There’ll be plenty of time later.” And that’s it. I talk to Jim Carter, who plays Carson the butler. He has a Mount Rushmore face and deep voice; he is a wonderful actor who stole many scenes in Shakespeare in Love. His job in Downton Abbey is to redefine the human limits of sycophancy and self-sacrifice, and to hover a lot. “Most modern TV,” he says, “is 15 guys in grey suits, saying ‘I’m on it, guv’ and very few women.” He thinks the enormous female cast is one of the reasons for the show’s success. And what did he think when he first saw the script? “Work,” he says. Outside we bump into Brendan Coyle/Mr Bates. Coyle is up for a Bafta on the following Sunday for best supporting actor and he is in massive shades. I think he is wearing a bandana, but I might have dreamt it. His aftershave is a wall. He falls on Carter. “Bafta aren’t sending a car for me,” he says. “Darling,” mutters Carter. Coyle is getting love letters from all over the world. “I have been trying to be a heartthrob for 30 years,” he says. “Then I hit middle age and get a limp.” And it’s done. William Golding was right. On screen, no one knows anything. Day two at Highclere and Fellowes has agreed to see me. He is often portrayed as stuffed with self-love but I think not. His novel Snobs, which is a pretty polemic about how important it is to have a title, screamed class anxiety. He is here with his wife, Emma, a tall woman with scarves knitted through her hair, who is lady-in-waiting to Princess Michael of Kent. She is the closest surviving relative of Earl Kitchener but, because she is a woman, cannot inherit the title. You can argue that Downton Abbey, with its disinherited eldest daughter sub-plot, is partly a howl of pain. I ask her why she thinks the series did so well. I get a brilliant non-answer, delivered very fast: “I don’t know the answer. I think it’s a fantastic thing but I just don’t know the answer. It’s a really interesting question but I simply don’t know. Do you know?” I watch Bonneville, still refusing interviews, striding around dressed as a soldier, while holding a mobile telephone. He is too polite to ignore me though, so every time I pass him he says hello. And so to Lord Carnarvon. I have seen his bedroom actually, because it is part of the Highclere tour. I stood at the doorway, behind a rope, gawping at Lady Carnarvon’s turquoise boots. A woman stuck her head over my shoulder and said, “Yuk – the carpets!” That is, for me, why Downton Abbey works. It’s our ancient national sport – peering at the toffs, with longing and disgust. The house, when Downton Abbey is not shooting, is full of pictures of the Carnarvons, laughing. The earl is short and stocky with a beefy, well-fed face. We sit on his chairs, on his lawn, in the middle of his view. He doesn’t speak exactly. He booms, but he booms fast, so interviewing him is a bit like standing in front of a giant speaker. “I love” – it comes out as LOVE – “Downton Abbey,” he booms. “The story of the earl in particular, Lord Grantham, chimes with my view of long-term stewardship. Julian has portrayed him as the kind boss but he has long-term sense of vision and continuity of the place. Some of the ideas that worry the fictional character are the same for me and his family.” It is true that the Carnarvons need ITV1′s money. They have a fake dead body in the basement, part of the Tutankhamun exhibition, in honour of his ancestor the 5th earl, who found the tomb with Howard Carter. It is open to paying guests. “It has touched a nerve,” he says, “I hate to say it,” but he says it anyway, “of order and structure that people seem to associate with, on whatever level they are looking at, whether it is the people working in the kitchen or the footman, the butler the chauffeur.” I am not sure that is true, but he starts laughing, probably because he is an earl. I don’t blame him. If I were an earl, I’d laugh constantly. At lunch, we go and sit in a bus. One of the actors has a birthday, and a cake is brought for her; she eats it carefully in full Edwardian dress. Fellowes comes over and stares at the cake. “Darling, no actress’s career will survive that,” he says. “How old are you?” She mutters an answer. “Knock a few years off,” he counsels, walks away. Later, I meet him. “The Guardian,” says the PR and I get a theatrical sigh – class war. Are the Granthams based on a particular family? No, he says, but some of the stories are real. The Mr Pamuk story, for instance, is true, told to him by the owner of a “great house”, who read about it in a dead aunt’s diary. Can he tell me who? He gives a giant squeak. “Neow!” But, he adds, “I remember thinking, ‘I bet that ends up in a screenplay,’ and the screenplay” – an actor’s pause – “was Downton!” Predictably, our conversation turns into a veiled argument about class. He’s a Tory peer now, of Cameron’s creation, but his title isn’t hereditary: “We are all lifers,” he says. I admit it is my fault; I started it even though my rage at the portrayal of the Granthams as saintly victims is a huge part of my pleasure. “Now,” he says, “being aristocratic is, if anything, a disadvantage in the workplace. The most employable person is probably a well-educated middle-middle-middle class man or woman. It’s better than being Viscount Someone. I don’t think being a viscount is much of a help.” I disagree. And why is his earl so saintly, an Edwaaardian – that is how Fellowes pronounces it – Jesus Christ? “I feel the bad earl is such a cliche,” he says, “I didn’t want to go there. All aristocrats are selfish and mean – it seems to be so tired.” He stares. “I am sure there have been selfish and mean aristocrats just as there have been selfish and mean shoemakers, but I think the idea that what you are in life determines whether you are a nice person or honest is as meaningless as saying whether you can hold a tune.” Fellowes’ obsession with class seethes through every scene in Downton Abbey. He is a life peer now, of Cameron’s creation, but his ardour is unslaked – Downton Abbey, I am sure, will go a third series, and maybe beyond. But when he tells me about his new coat of arms, and the animals he has stuck on it, I relent slightly, because finally, I understand why he wrote the servants so well. “It has a tortoise,” he says, “because I was the little fat one who got there in the end.” So Fellowes is an outsider too. Of course he is. Downton Abbey Television Period drama Tanya Gold guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Large government capital spending projects to be accelerated in move seen as attempt to stimulate stalled economy Nick Clegg will announce plans on Wednesday to “accelerate” government capital spending projects, conceding the government must now perform a “gear shift” to ensure state spending and infrastructure play their part in Britain’s economic recovery. The announcement marks a new level of concern in government over a series of gloomy economic figures, with four downgrades in expected growth since the coalition came to power. Last week, Chancellor George Osborne was forced to insist the government would stick unwaveringly to its austerity plans, despite admitting that the long-term damage caused to the economy by the credit crunch was forcing him to revise down already weak estimates for growth. In a speech at the London School of Economics, Clegg will say that chief secretary to the Treasury, Danny Alexander, will take charge of the execution of already announced capital programmes, which if delivered on time can boost growth by “stimulating demand and raising productivity”. Whitehall is now pushing on a series of fronts to stimulate the economy, with Clegg’s speech reflecting some of the ideas being pushed in the “growth review”. While it is not the “plan B” government’s critics have called for – there is no new money being announced nor any spending being brought forward from later financial years – the push for Whitehall departments to spend money allocated to them acknowledges that government spending will be critical to any economic recovery. Clegg will say: “Since we came into government, ministers have been expected to make savings. Now they’re under the same pressure to spend the money they’ve got. Our critics say that all this government is capable of is cuts. That, beyond lowering a few business taxes, reducing a bit of red tape, there is little else we are willing or able to do. That is absolutely wrong. We can do more.” Alexander has been appointed to “handpick” 40 of the biggest infrastructure projects “important to growth” that will be given “special priority status”. The spending reflects money already committed by the chancellor in his comprehensive spending review and Treasury sources said there was no question of bringing forward funds from future years to invest in the economy earlier. Clegg has been working on the drive with Transport Secretary Philip Hammond with the statement signed off by the cabinet yesterday. Included in the 40 projects are the roll out of high-speed broadband; the efficiency of the national grid; major rail improvements, such as Crossrail and Great Western electrification, and projects to reduce road congestion which are targeting pinch points, including those on the M1 and the M25. Not all infrastructure projects will be expedited – mainly those investments that “transform growth potential”. Alexander will, in Clegg’s words, “shake the Whitehall tree”. Echoing a criticism of civil servants first made by the prime minister, Clegg will say Whitehall can sometimes act as a “block” to planned projects which could inject money into the economy – but instead, through inertia and caution, can end up being withheld as the project is delayed. Clegg will say: “A key blockage is actually within government: Whitehall. Identifying projects and funnelling cash to them can take time – I understand that. These are big investments, and you have to get the detail right. “But failure to deliver major infrastructure projects on time and on budget is a perennial problem in the UK. The extension of the Jubilee line – delayed by over a year, costing an extra £1.4bn. Wembley Stadium – meant to open in 2003; didn’t open until 2007. Improvements to the West Coast Mainline – should have cost £2bn and been completed in 2005. Didn’t finish until 2008, and cost four times that much. The list goes on and on. Whitehall has a huge role to play in breaking this cycle. And it must – the country need jobs, and time is no longer on our side.” Government sources insisted this was not “reprofiling”, which involves spending brought forward from later years in the period covered by the comprehensive spending review. Instead they said it was a question of making sure that Whitehall departments did not operate cautiously with the money they had been allocated to spend in any given year, and as a result, underspend. The source said that in the current worrying economic climate, it could end up mattering greatly if a government project was begun in November of one year or February of the following year and that this was the level of detail they wanted to look at. Clegg will say: “[We will be] making sure no one is stockpiling capital that can be put to good use today. This week, Danny has made that crystal clear to cabinet ministers and top civil servants, leaving them in no doubt of their responsibilities. And secretaries of state will report back to him on their progress throughout the autumn.” One official did strike a note of caution, saying one consideration for the government as it expedites its capital programmes was that not all ended up being rolled out at the same time meaning little stimulating activity later in the period. In the transport select committee Hammond defended other parts of planned British infrastructure, saying that the planned new high speed rail line with potentially high fares would not be significantly higher than other rail fares since the trains were already a “rich man’s toy”. Nick Clegg Danny Alexander Crossrail Transport Rail transport George Osborne Liberal-Conservative coalition Transport policy Allegra Stratton guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Click here to view this media For the tenth anniversary of 9/11, I had started writing a piece entitled “What Should Have Been.” The morning of the attacks my friend called my phone and woke me up and yelled at me to turn on the television immediately. I tuned in to see the attacks on the Twin Towers and then in disbelief I watched those marvelous towers crumble. My brain couldn’t process the images that it was capturing. Being from New York, I was in shock for weeks afterward because I knew some people who had died or first responders who had suffered from the toxicity of the wreckage. Anyway the point of my post was that even I, who was appalled that George Bush was handed the presidency by the Supreme Court felt a great nationalistic connection to the country and even the president himself. I was rooting for him to be a great leader after the tragedy, regardless of politics. Obviously he squandered that chance and so with help from the Villagers, we invaded a country that didn’t attack us and everything else turned to crap for America. The right-wing media and the belt way media joined hands and used the horror of 9/11 as a hammer to bash anyone who disagreed with the Bush administration or their policies. We were called traitors and terrorist sympathizers. You remember. Paul Krugman’s piece was on point. What happened after 9/11 — and I think even people on the right know this, whether they admit it or not — was deeply shameful. The atrocity should have been a unifying event, but instead it became a wedge issue. Fake heroes like Bernie Kerik, Rudy Giuliani, and, yes, George W. Bush raced to cash in on the horror. And then the attack was used to justify an unrelated war the neocons wanted to fight, for all the wrong reasons. A lot of other people behaved badly. How many of our professional pundits — people who should have understood very well what was happening — took the easy way out, turning a blind eye to the corruption and lending their support to the hijacking of the atrocity? When I saw his piece I knew the hissy fit was coming. Digby writes an awesome piece that yet again describes one of the strongest tactics conservative operatives use against the left. It’s called Ritual Defamation. This controversy is utter nonsense. Even this breathless report admits that Krugman didn’t say anything that was actually wrong, only that politics are “inappropriate” on 9/11 — a rule that I don’t recall signing on for and neither did the rest of the country. I have no trouble with Geller or Krugman or anyone else expressing political thoughts on 9/11. Indeed, considering how repressive Islamic fundamentalism is, it may be the greatest tribute we can pay to the dead. 9/11 was a horrible day, but it wasn’t an act of God. It was the ultimate violent political act — terrorism. The last thing we need is to memorialize it as a sacred day above politics. I wrote a piece a while ago called “The art of the hissy fit” about this manipulative right wing pearl clutching and I’ll re-run it here because it’s clear that some people on our side are completely clueless about how this works: Please read her entire piece . Bill O’Reilly was having an aneurysm over Krugman’s column, as was Fox News. The Fox news chyron was saying that even Donald Rumsfeld cancelled his subscription to the NY Times over Krugman. Gasp! What balderdash. Americans despise Rumsfeld almost as much as they despise Dick Cheney. Unfortunately there are lefty idiots like Dick Harpootlian, Chairman of the Democratic Party in South Carolina, who immediately beg for forgiveness from the attacks of right-wing ritual defamatio n. These elitist lefties love to give aid and comfort to the right-wing noise machine. And there are too many to count It’s pathetic. HARPOOTLIAN: I think that — that what they said is wrong. I think their perspective on this is — is — is almost bitter. And — and — and we’ve got to understand that our President, Barack Obama, is the guy that took Osama bin Laden out of the picture by having him shot and killed. Now, I would say that’s a pretty aggressive — a pretty finite and pragmatic move on his part. This is war. And in war some bad things happen. (CROSSTALK) O’REILLY: But — but look, the prevailing wisdom though on the far- left — not the left, and there is a distinction and I’m glad you made it, Mr. Harpootlian — the prevailing wisdom on the far-left and this embraced by elements at the “New York Times”/NBC News all day long is that we are a terrorist nation. That we should be ashamed of our conduct and that’s what I’m trying to get at here. Leslie is not condemning it, you are. All right, now Leslie, are you further left than Mr. Harpootlian. Is that — is that why you are not condemning it? MARSHALL: No. Bill, I think you know I’m more of one of the moderate leftists. I don’t have that many people — (CROSSTALK) O’REILLY: But then why is Mr. Harpootlian condemning it and you are not? MARSHALL: Because I don’t condemn a person’s right in the United States to be angry at their nation because that changes the dynamic of American compared to the world — (CROSSTALK) O’REILLY: You don’t have to condemn the person. You condemn — you condemn their words. I didn’t condemn these people. I said what they are doing is misguided, all right. And it’s dangerous. (CROSSTALK) MARSHALL: I — I — but I don’t — I don’t agree. I don’t agree because — (CROSSTALK) O’REILLY: You don’t agree that what they’re doing is misguided? (CROSSTALK) MARSHALL: I don’t agree 100 percent — I don’t agree with 100 percent of their opinion and yes some of what they said is misguided. I do think, Bill, that many of us became finer human beings toward each other as Americans and as people after 9/11 but that’s not — even though it’s the minority of people, there are a small group of people which you did say are dangerous. That that is not the case for. There is further and more discrimination of prejudice not only against Muslims but people of color. (CROSSTALK) O’REILLY: No Leslie it may — (CROSSTALK) MARSHALL: — and foreigners. we have more division among politics in our country and that, to me, is not healthy. And I think that that was addressed. O’REILLY: All right Leslie, I mean, I think you are in the ozone on this one. Mr. Harpootlian, there is going to be an issue for the Democratic Party because the loudest voices, the loudest voices are the Krugmans, the Joy Behars, the Bill Mahers, the Michael Moores, these are the loudest voices and you get tarred with that brush. HARPOOTLIAN: Bill, you’re wrong with that. Again, I just attended this meeting in Chicago for two days with every member of the Democratic National Committee and big Democrats. There wasn’t any Michael Moore there, there wasn’t any Paul Krugman there. The voice of the Democratic Party is far more moderate than you give it credit for. And to pull people like Krugman out and say he is a Democrat or he’s a — somebody associated with Barack Obama or his parties is absolutely wrong. I am a former prosecutor. I put people in the electric chair. I have a gun. I believe in capital punishment. I believe in this war on terror. And I’m a Democrat. O’REILLY: All right. You know, but your voice has got to be louder then to at least compete with the others. HARPOOTLIAN: I’m — I’m loud. O’REILLY: All right. Well, that’s why we have you on. All right, thanks very much. A Mother Jones writer attacked Krugman as does Harpootlian. As Digby says: No wonder president Obama doesn’t want to stick his neck out. With liberal church ladies ready to call for the smelling salts at the drop of a hat, he’d be a fool to do it. No, there is no obligation to call out Paul Krugman because the right wing blogosphere is acting, as usual, like a bunch of hypocritical phonies and staging a grand hissy fit to destroy one of the only strong national voices for the left over something they don’t really give a damn about. This is, after all, the same group that refused to pay for health care for first responders so you’ll have to forgive me for failing to be properly respectful of their very delicate sensibilities over this issue. Harpootlian is not only attacking Krugman, but also waving his gun around like a good little NRA puppet and embracing Rick Perry’s passion at being an executioner. And you wonder why we lose elections.
Continue reading …Labour leader urges talks to prevent confrontation while public sector unions gear up for a long-running battle Ed Miliband survived a smattering of boos and heckles as he told the TUC that Britain cannot afford a round of union strikes over public sector pensions, and admitted he was not going to restore all the coalition’s spending cuts. Referring to the strikes in June, he said: “While negotiations were going on, I do believe it was a mistake for strikes to happen. I continue to believe that. But what we need now is meaningful negotiation to prevent further confrontation over the autumn.” The speech was important to set the tone, as he seeks to seal a deal with unions affiliated to Labour over the next few days about the role of unions inside the party, including at party conference. Senior figures claim that after recent talks between union leaders, Miliband and Peter Hain, the shadow Welsh secretary, an agreement is possible. The proposals are due to be hammered out at a meeting of the Labour national executive committee next Wednesday. More public sector unions could ratchet up the pressure on government by announcing plans to hold ballots on strikes that will run from November, in what could be a running battle over pensions. “Without a shadow of a doubt. We are planning for it to be a long dispute,” said Len McCluskey, the general secretary of Unite. Some are eyeing 29 November as a possible strike date – when the chancellor, George Osborne, delivers his autumn statement. But a line-up of leaders will take their turn at the podium on Wednesday to back a motion calling on the TUC to give “full support” to industrial action against pension cuts, including “action planned for this autumn”. After hearing Miliband’s speech, Dave Prentis, the general secretary of Unison, the largest public sector union, said the largest single industrial ballot of modern times appeared inevitable, involving more than a million members. Miliband decided to risk serious barracking by telling the TUC he could not support the strikes, even though industrial action was sometimes a necessary last resort. He repeatedly urged them to make unions relevant by increasing their appeal and membership. He told them: “There are cuts that the Tories will impose that we will not be able to reverse when we return to government. And getting the deficit down means rooting out waste too. We all recognise that not every penny that the last government spent was spent wisely.” But he insisted he was not delivering the unions a simple familiar Blairite “modernise or die” message. “I’m not just going to talk about how people need to change to suit our economy. I’m also going to talk about how we change our economy to suit the needs of people.” He drew applause when he called for there to be more workers on company remuneration committees, condemned the closure of the train manufacturer Bombardier, and called for a living wage for young people. But during a question-and-answer session after his speech, Miliband drew shouts of disagreement when he defended academy schools and after he praised the report into public sector pensions by Lord Hutton, the former Labour peer. To loud applause Janice Godrich, the president of the Public and Commercial Services Union, challenged him to “stand up on the side of hundreds and thousands of workers whose pensions are under attack”. Mary Bousted, general secretary of the Association of Teachers and Lecturers, said she had been “proud” to join a strike in June by tens of thousands of teachers and civil servants, and told Miliband that the government was not prepared to negotiate a deal over its planned pension reforms. Miliband replied: “Of course the right to industrial action will be necessary, as a last resort. “But in truth, strikes are always the consequence of failure. Failure on all sides. Failure we cannot afford as a nation. Instead your real role is as partners in the new economy.” Union leaders were split over the speech. Paul Kenny, of the GMB, said: “I have to give him credit for his courage in coming here and speaking frankly to us. What comes across is that he is not ashamed of the trade union links to the Labour party.” TUC Trade unions Ed Miliband Unite Pensions Patrick Wintour Hélène Mulholland Dan Milmo guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Emails sent to justices’ clerks after August riots raise questions about judicial independence and the use of blanket guidance Magistrates were urged to abandon sentencing guidelines when dealing with rioters last month because “nothing like this was envisaged”, according to court documents released to the Guardian. The text of two controversial emails circulated to justices’ clerks immediately after August’s disturbances raises questions about judicial independence and the use of blanket guidance irrespective of individual cases. One human rights group described the emails as “disturbing”. The messages appear to betray a sense of confusion – verging on chaos – behind the scenes as hundreds of suspects arrested for looting and violence were processed in late night emergency sittings. The documents, written by a senior justices’ clerk in the London regional office of Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS), were released by the Ministry of Justice following a freedom of information request from the Guardian. They were sent out on successive days at the end of the week in which rioting had started in Tottenham, north London, following a police shooting, before degenerating into widespread looting as it spread across the capital and other cities. The emails were sent to justices’ clerks, who sit alongside magistrates providing guidance on the law and sentencing recommendations. The first, addressed “Dear all”, began: “I should be grateful if you would ensure that the following advice is cascaded to every member of your legal team as soon as possible. “The sentencing guidelines cannot sensibly be used to determine the sentence in cases arising from the recent disturbances/looting. When the guidelines were written nothing like this was envisaged.” Most of those arrested for looting had been charged with “commercial burglary”, it noted. “The general advice from the higher judiciary is that we will not be criticised if we return these … If in doubt, commit to the crown court.” Some of the words in the first email were missing. The second message read: “Apologies for the fact that the email … sent yesterday is confusing and frankly incoherent. The intention was that you should advise magistrates to commit to the crown court cases of commercial burglary, or handling … or violent disorder arising from the recent disturbances. “There is a general acceptance that what occurred earlier this week is not covered by the sentencing guidelines and it will be very much the exception that such cases are sentenced in the magistrates courts …Hopefully before too much longer we may get some guideline cases.” Commenting on the emails, Sally Ireland, the director of policy at the civil liberties group Justice, said: “Justices clerks can give directions to assistant justices’ clerks under the Courts Act; however, the content of the email is disturbing. The application or disapplication of sentencing guidelines should be a matter decided on a case by case basis.” She also questioned the term “higher judiciary”, saying: “In what way did they give this general advice? The higher judiciary does not have a role in allocation/sentencing by magistrates, except in the case of appeals and guideline judgments.” Paul Mendelle QC, a former chairman of the Criminal Bar Association, said: “The idea that established Court of Appeal authorities can be set aside or ignored by the secret advice from an anonymous civil servant strikes me as undemocratic at best and unconstitutional at worst. “Blanket advice to magistrates to deal with all cases in one particular way – commit to crown court – regardless of the facts of the individual cases might be seen as an unlawful fetter on their discretion.” At the time the emails triggered alarm on at least one bench, prompting questions about magistrates’ independence. The week after the riots, Novello Noades, the chair of Camberwell Green magistrates court, in south London, claimed the court had been given a government “directive” that anyone involved in the rioting should be given a custodial sentence. She later retracted her statement and said she was mortified to have used the term “directive”. It has been generally accepted in courts in the legal and judicial world that participation in violent riots and looting should be deemed an aggravating factor, leading to harsher sentences than for theft committed as shop-lifting. Some sentences handed down immediately after the riots in August were criticised as being off the judicial scale. The former director of public prosecutions Lord Macdonald warned courts risked being swept up in a”collective loss of proportion”. One person got six months for stealing £3.50 worth of water. Two youths were jailed for four years each for inciting riots on Facebook that never took place. Some sentences have since been overturned. Unusually, the Ministry of Justice provided an accompanying explanation with the emails, rebutting any suggestion that magistrates had been inappropriately influenced by government officials or that the independence of the judiciary had been compromised. “HMCTS is not involved in any guidance justices’ clerks choose to give to magistrates, as this guidance is given whilst acting in a quasi-judicial capacity,” it said. “It did not contain any direction by HMCTS or the Ministry of Justice on how anyone should be sentenced. Nor were there correspondence or conversations with the justices’ clerks on any guidance prior to its issue.” The statement continued: “We believe there is a strong public interest in ensuring there is confidence in the independence of the judiciary and we do not want this to be undermined by a perception the government has inappropriately issued any directions as to the types of sentences which should be handed down.” According to the latest MoJ figures, Some 1,715 riot-related suspects have so far appeared before magistrates courts, two-thirds in London. UK riots Judiciary Owen Bowcott guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …