Home » Archives by category » News » Politics (Page 365)
NPR Bemoans That Few Think Obamacare Will Benefit Them

On Tuesday's Morning Edition, NPR's Julie Rovner promoted the supposed benefits of ObamaCare, and played up a recent poll which found that ” about a third of those without health insurance think the law will help them , and that's because only about half know that it includes key provisions that will make insurance more available and affordable .” The sole source for the correspondent's report was an August 2011 tracking poll conducted by the liberal Kaiser Family Foundation. Rovner played three sound bites from Drew Altman, who works for the foundation, and none from opponents of ObamaCare. In his first clip, Altman highlighted how a majority of people surveyed for the poll agree that “it [ObamaCare] really does help the uninsured. Thirty-two million uninsured people will get coverage .” After noting that according to the poll, “only about half know that it includes key provisions that will make insurance more available and affordable,” the NPR journalist played a second sound bite from Altman, who attributed the low numbers to the opponents of the liberal legislation, and added that it could also be explained by the fact that the law hasn't fully gone into effect yet: ROVNER: One conclusion, he [Altman] says, is that the law's supporters have let opponents define the law on their terms . ALTMAN: That's why it became, in the minds of many, a government takeover . ROVNER: But Altman thinks there's something else. The uninsured, like everyone else outside of Washington, have so far experienced the health law as little more than a political debate. One detail from the poll that both Rovner and Altman omitted during the segment is how more people are opposed to ObamaCare (44%) than support it (39%), and that “six in ten Democrats have a favorable view of the law ( the lowest support among Democrats since the law's passage ).” The NPR correspondent has consistently given biased coverage on health care issues. In March 2011, Rovner played up the “benefits” of ObamaCare . The following month, she slanted towards proponents of federal funding of contraceptives. Just over a month ago, the journalist spun the debate over a propose mandate for private insurance companies to cover birth control as being between “women's health groups” and “conservatives.” The full transcript of Julie Rovner's report from Tuesday's Morning Edition: STEVE INSKEEP: And now let's look at a new study of the government's health overhaul. NPR's Julie Rovner reports that many of the people most likely to be helped by it don't know it. JULIE ROVNER: When it comes to last year's huge health law, there's not much that people agree on, but there is one thing, says Drew Altman of the Kaiser Family Foundation. DREW ALTMAN, KAISER FAMILY FOUNDATION: And that's that it really does help the uninsured. Thirty-two million uninsured people will get coverage. ROVNER: But the latest monthly tracking poll by Altman's foundation finds that only about a third of those without health insurance think the law will help them, and that's because only about half know that it includes key provisions that will make insurance more available and affordable- things like new tax credits and a huge expansion of the Medicaid program for able-bodied adults. One conclusion, he says, is that the law's supporters have let opponents define the law on their terms. ALTMAN: That's why it became, in the minds of many, a government takeover. ROVNER: But Altman thinks there's something else. The uninsured, like everyone else outside of Washington, have so far experienced the health law as little more than a political debate. ALTMAN: And what it means is this will be real for people when it's real, which is mostly in 2014. ROVNER: Because that's when most of the new benefits for those without insurance take effect. Until then, the law is just so many words on paper, and so much political hot air. Julie Rovner, NPR News, Washington.

Continue reading …
Lawrence Wilkerson Promises to Testify if Someone Will ‘Pinochet’ Cheney

Click here to view this media The former chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell pledged Tuesday to testify against former Vice President Dick Cheney if he is ever tried for war crimes. Col. Lawrence Wilkerson told Democracy Now ‘s Amy Goodman that he would participate in a trial even if it meant personal repercussions. “I, unfortunately — and I’ve admitted to this a number of times, publicly and privately — was the person who put together Colin Powell’s presentation at the United Nations Security Council on 5 February, 2003,” Wilkerson said. “It was probably the biggest mistake of my life. I regret it to this day. I regret not having resigned over it.” In an interview that aired on NBC Monday, Cheney told Jamie Gangel that unlike President George W. Bush, he did not have a “sickening feeling” when they discovered there were no weapons of mass destruction after the invasion of Iraq. “I think we did the right thing,” Cheney said. Joining Wilkerson and Goodman to discuss Cheney’s new book “In My Time,” Salon’s Glenn Greenwald said that it was disturbing to see the former vice president treated simply as an “elder statesman.” “The evidence is overwhelming… that Dick Cheney is not just a political figure with controversial views, but is an actual criminal, that he was centrally involved in a whole variety not just of war crimes in Iraq, but of domestic crimes, as well, including the authorization of warrantless eavesdropping on American citizens in violation of FISA, which says that you go to jail for five years for each offense, as well as the authorization and implementation of a worldwide torture regime that, according to General Barry McCaffrey, resulted in the murder — his word — of dozens of detainees, far beyond just the three or four cases of waterboarding that media figures typically ask Cheney about,” Greenwald explained. “And as a result, Dick Cheney goes around the country profiting off of this, you know, sleazy, sensationalistic, self-serving book, basically profiting from his crimes, and at the same time normalizing the idea that these kind of policies, though maybe in the view of some wrongheaded, are perfectly legitimate political choices to make. And I think that’s the really damaging legacy from all of this.” “Colonel Wilkerson, do you think the Bush administration officials should be held accountable in the way that Glenn Greenwald is talking about?” Goodman asked. “I certainly do,” Wilkerson replied. “And I’d be willing to testify, and I’d be willing to take any punishment I’m due. And I have to say, I agree with almost everything [Greenwald] just said. And I think that explains the aggressiveness, to a large extent, of the Cheney attack and of the words like ‘exploding heads all over Washington.’ This is a book written out of fear, fear that one day someone will ‘Pinochet’ Dick Cheney.” Wilkerson was referring to former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet, who was arrested in London in 1998 after being indicted for crimes against humanity. It was the first time the principle of universal jurisdiction had been applied to a former foreign head of state.

Continue reading …
Lawrence Wilkerson Promises to Testify if Someone Will ‘Pinochet’ Cheney

Click here to view this media The former chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell pledged Tuesday to testify against former Vice President Dick Cheney if he is ever tried for war crimes. Col. Lawrence Wilkerson told Democracy Now ‘s Amy Goodman that he would participate in a trial even if it meant personal repercussions. “I, unfortunately — and I’ve admitted to this a number of times, publicly and privately — was the person who put together Colin Powell’s presentation at the United Nations Security Council on 5 February, 2003,” Wilkerson said. “It was probably the biggest mistake of my life. I regret it to this day. I regret not having resigned over it.” In an interview that aired on NBC Monday, Cheney told Jamie Gangel that unlike President George W. Bush, he did not have a “sickening feeling” when they discovered there were no weapons of mass destruction after the invasion of Iraq. “I think we did the right thing,” Cheney said. Joining Wilkerson and Goodman to discuss Cheney’s new book “In My Time,” Salon’s Glenn Greenwald said that it was disturbing to see the former vice president treated simply as an “elder statesman.” “The evidence is overwhelming… that Dick Cheney is not just a political figure with controversial views, but is an actual criminal, that he was centrally involved in a whole variety not just of war crimes in Iraq, but of domestic crimes, as well, including the authorization of warrantless eavesdropping on American citizens in violation of FISA, which says that you go to jail for five years for each offense, as well as the authorization and implementation of a worldwide torture regime that, according to General Barry McCaffrey, resulted in the murder — his word — of dozens of detainees, far beyond just the three or four cases of waterboarding that media figures typically ask Cheney about,” Greenwald explained. “And as a result, Dick Cheney goes around the country profiting off of this, you know, sleazy, sensationalistic, self-serving book, basically profiting from his crimes, and at the same time normalizing the idea that these kind of policies, though maybe in the view of some wrongheaded, are perfectly legitimate political choices to make. And I think that’s the really damaging legacy from all of this.” “Colonel Wilkerson, do you think the Bush administration officials should be held accountable in the way that Glenn Greenwald is talking about?” Goodman asked. “I certainly do,” Wilkerson replied. “And I’d be willing to testify, and I’d be willing to take any punishment I’m due. And I have to say, I agree with almost everything [Greenwald] just said. And I think that explains the aggressiveness, to a large extent, of the Cheney attack and of the words like ‘exploding heads all over Washington.’ This is a book written out of fear, fear that one day someone will ‘Pinochet’ Dick Cheney.” Wilkerson was referring to former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet, who was arrested in London in 1998 after being indicted for crimes against humanity. It was the first time the principle of universal jurisdiction had been applied to a former foreign head of state.

Continue reading …
The Post-it wars – in pictures

Check out the window designs created by French office workers from the contents of the stationery cupboard

Continue reading …

Instead of union contracts, Wisconsin teachers now have to abide by local handbooks suggested by Gov. Scott Walker. What does refusing to allow workers to help a sick colleague or longer skirts have to do with saving money? And just listen to the nasty wingnuts in the audience at the New Berlin school board meeting. Via the Blue Cheddar blog: The “tools” Walker has handed to local governments are supposedly meant to help cut costs. However the changes to the New Berlin school workplace approved August 29 don’t look like mere cost-savings to me. New Berlin Education Association President Diane Lazewski agrees in MJS: “I would be surprised to see any other handbook as punitive as ours,” I should note that all details aren’t available until 9/8 and changes occur 10/1 according to a document from the blog Teachers Against Walker Update: This  51 page Draft of School District of New Berlin Employee Handbook – Parts A and B states that it goes into effect 9/1/11 A few of the changes: – A ‘sick bank’ which allows teachers to donate sickleave to seriously ill colleagues will be eliminated. –No set pay for overtime; only stipends –Elementary teachers work an added 205 hours without added pay. –Secondary teachers work an added 95 hours without added pay. and there are odd restrictions such as –Dress Code: Skirts below knee, no sweatshirts, no jeans, no large logos, no open shirts, etc. and –The loss of all microwaves, refrigerators, and coffeemakers. I called a young teacher, E., from Racine just before the meeting. E. said New Berlin’s handbook is the worst of a new crop of handbooks he’s seen. Handbooks now serve in lieu of contracts for public school employees where contracts have expired. E. says: “This turns back the clock. It keeps teachers on call until 5PM for I.E.P meetings (Individualized Education Programs). This is eating into the time of people. Making them do more work for less money”. More details are  HERE . E. pointed out that clearly not all school boards are heavy-handed.  The Shorewood School Board has opted for a collaborative approach to its handbook. I gathered through tweets the meeting attracted 500-600 people, with incoming drivers having to park very far away. At the very beginning of the meeting, the board met privately for a time , sending complaints of undemocratic process and even illegal meeting practices through social media [claims I have not checked into.] I got conflicting reports on the composition of the crowd. A MJS reporter tweeted that there was a 50% pro-handbook and 50% anti-handbook audience. A mass of anti-teacher residents booed and catcalled the teachers and their allies while they gave public testimony. And I’ve now seen three reports via social media that candy pacifiers were used to taunt teachers – supposedly an idea of the Queen of mean radio ranters, Vicki McKenna.* According to WEAC, at least 3 other right wing tak radio personalities called for citizens to oppose teachers: Belling, Wagner & Charlie Sykes.

Continue reading …
Breaking News: ATF Director Reassigned in Wake of ‘Fast & Furious’

“Acting ATF Director Kenneth Melson has been reassigned to a lesser post in the Justice Department and the U.S. attorney for Arizona was also pushed out Tuesday as fallout from Operation Fast and Furious reached new heights,” Fox News's William LaJeunesse reported earlier today. “U.S. Attorney for the District of Minnesota B. Todd Jones will replace Melson,” LaJeunesse added. For the fully story, click here .

Continue reading …

From the opera ” Mackris v. O’Reilly ” Now we know why Fox has been Gawker bashing : Apparently, it’s not easy being married to Bill O’Reilly. Some time over the last year or so, O’Reilly’s wife of fifteen years, Maureen, purchased a house in her name and registered to vote at that address , which would indicate at least a physical, if not legal, separation. Not a particularly newsworthy item, considering that 50 percent of marriages in the US end in divorce. Maureen O’Reilly evidently has started dating again. And it’s that fact that has made BillO go all Murdoch-ian on his estranged wife and her new beau. Turns out, Maureen has been seeing a local Nassau County law enforcement officer. So what’s a cuckolded pinhead to do? When confronted with a potentially disloyal spouse, O’Reilly reacted by— not unlike his boss Roger Ailes —treating his local police department like a private security force and trying to damage one cop’s career for the sin of crossing Bill O’Reilly.[..] (Nassau County PD Commanding Officer Inspector Neil) Delargy ordered (Internal Affairs Investigator Richard) Harasym to meet with two private detectives working on behalf of Bill O’Reilly. They had information about an NCPD officer they believed to be carrying on with O’Reilly’s wife. Delargy told Harasym to launch an investigation into the man and to tell him to end the relationship.[..] According to our source, Delargy offered Harasym no justification for investigating the detective—who is unmarried—aside from the alleged infidelity. “The order was to investigate this detective not for any misdeeds,” the source said, “but to see if they could get anything on him. Delargy also told him to tell the detective to back off.” Delargy told Harasym that the investigation was highly sensitive for two reasons, the source said: 1) It was ordered directly by then-police commissioner Lawrence Mulvey, and 2) O’Reilly was at the time considering making a major donation to the Nassau County Police Department Foundation, a private not-for-profit foundation Mulvey helped found in 2009 to raise money for construction of a planned $48 million police training facility at Nassau Community College. Well, ain’t that a loofah in your eye? I don’t know when this relationship between Maureen O’Reilly and the police officer in question began; it may have been while the O’Reillys were still living together. But it may have started after she moved out too. Nevertheless, calling in favors with the upper brass to harass an officer for simply having the audacity of going out with O’Reilly’s estranged wife? Downright ridiculous. Hypocritical too, I might add. Does the name Mackris sound familiar? Andrea Mackris received a rather large SEVEN figure settlement in her suit after BillO sexually harassed her and fantasized a threesome with a Mediterranean food staple . In 2004. Long before Maureen O’Reilly moved out. Richard Harasym refused to comply with the request to harass the boyfriend/police officer and found himself transferred out of Internal Affairs within three months. I’m sure the timing was coincidental for the 24 year veteran. Perhaps Harasym may want to share this handy guideline for dealing with a BillO minion . It assumes a camera will be pointed in your face, but I think there’s still some strategic points that will prove to be helpful. 1) When Watters and crew jump out of a bush or from behind a parked car and surprise you, don’t be shocked. Instead just smile and say, “You must be Jesse Watters from the O’Reilly factor, so nice to see you…” This will momentarily knock him off guard because he’s expecting you to cower from the sight of his microphone and cameras. That’s nonsense. The microphone and cameras are your friends—remember that. Repeat. The microphone and cameras are ” your friends ” 2) Look directly into the camera and say, “Hi, Bill, how are you? I’m so glad you tracked me down at my super market (or gas station, bank, local mall, parking garage or front door.) when I’m trying to unwind. 3) Now comes the critical time. When he asks you his misleading or false question about a bogus issue that Bill O’Reilly has trumped up to his Fox news audience, say: “I’ll be happy to answer your questions, Jesse, but can I ask you something first? Are you embarrassed to be working for a man who got sued for sexual harassment by Andrea Mackris and lost millions of dollars? Jesse will look puzzled at first, so repeat this phrase. Aren’t you embarrassed to be working for a man who got sued for sexual harassment by Andrea Mackris and lost millions of dollars? Don’t you have any decency? Aren’t you ashamed by that?” 4) Watters will try to avoid the question by saying “I’m here to ask the questions,” after he gets over the shock of your initial response to him. Remember, the camera is your friend. They can — and will — edit out anything they want, so he may hang in there for some time to try and get some usable footage. Stay strong. Ask him over and over again the Mackris question until he responds. He may stop rolling the camera, but you can’t trust him, because they may try to make it look like they aren’t recording. That’s dangerous territory, so here’s a basic rule: Once Jesse Watters jumps into your space, everything is being recorded. Period. He may stop and look around and say, “I get it. You’re trying to play with me.” Just smile and say that you’re only trying to understand Bill O’Reilly. Remember, the tape is always rolling. 5) If Jesse says he doesn’t know anything about it and tries to ask you a question again, please tell him to go to this website and see for himself. There are over 20 pages available for him to get familiar with Bill’s loofah fetish . Please memorize this URL ( http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1013043mackris1.html ). After a few repetitions, you’ll know this like the back of your hand. It’s really easy to do. The only downside may be that you might hear the website address playing inside your head for a while; kind of like when a song gets stuck there. Don’t try and force it out; silently let the web address finish to completion and then just think about something else. It will soon disappear from your thoughts. But if you try to force it away, it will not leave. 6) As a follow-up, ask him if he knows how much money Andrea Mackris was awarded to settle the suit out of court. If he doesn’t know, say that you’ve seen reports that estimate the sum at around $6 million. Ask him if he thinks that is a lot of money. 7) Ask Jesse Watters if he owns a condo in New York City. Then tell him that Andrea Mackris bought a new condo as soon as she settled the case. Ask him if that’s cool. Ask him if he’s jealous and wishes Bill O’Reilly made sexual advances to him so he could sue and buy himself a condo in NYC. Tell him that you’d like to buy one across from Central Park; you just love the view. 8) If he continues trying to get you to answer his questions, then pivot off Mackris and say, “OK, let me ask you this one: ” Did you feel bad that Bill O’Reilly blamed a 14-year-old boy named Shawn Hornbeck for getting himself kidnapped and held in captivity as a sex slave for four years by the deviate Michael Devlin? ” Use this link for reference. Ask Jesse if he believes in the Stockholm Syndrome. If he doesn’t know what that is—tell him : The Stockholm incident compelled journalists and social scientists to research whether the emotional bonding between captors and captives was a “freak” incident or a common occurrence in oppressive situations. They discovered that it’s such a common phenomenon that it deserves a name. Thus the label, Stockholm Syndrome, was born. It has happened to concentration camp prisoners, cult members, civilians in Chinese Communist prisons, pimp-procured prostitutes, incest victims, physically and/or emotionally abused children, battered women, prisoners of war, victims of hijackings, and of course, hostages. Virtually anyone can get Stockholm Syndrome if the following conditions are met: Perceived threat to survival and the belief that one’s captor is willing to act on that threat; The captive’s perception of small kindnesses from the captor within a context of terror; Isolation from perspectives other than those of the captor; Perceived inability to escape. Tell him that Bill O’Reilly doesn’t believe in the Stockholm syndrome. Ask him if he’d like to be kidnapped by a pedophile to test its legitimacy. If he says no, then tell him that you think Shawn Hornbeck probably didn’t want to test that theory either, but he had no choice. Doesn’t he feel bad that Shawn Hornbeck was kidnapped and molested for four years? If he says yes, then say, “Will Bill O’Reilly apologize to Shawn on air?” If he says he doesn’t know, then ask him if he knew that Bill O’Reilly was cancelled from being the main speaker at the Missing Kids dinner in Florida because of his appalling commentary . 9) You’ll see Jesse Watters’ face turn red by this time, but he may feel that you’re out of ammo and will still try to get you to say something or do something, even if it’s out of context, so he can bring it back to his boss. Be strong, you’re almost done. If he tries again to ask you about whatever nonsensical Factor outrage of the day, just remember: the camera is your friend. If you get nervous, just repeat your name and where you work. Then ask him if he was as shocked as O’Reilly was that African Americans didn’t say: “Mother f&^ker, I want more ice tea at Sylvia’s restaurant in Harlem?” He may recoil from this or agree with O’Reilly that he too was surprised nobody got shot while they ate the dinner in Harlem. 10) Ask Jesse how he likes Michelle Obama. If he balks and tries to ask you HIS question, just smile and ask if he will join Bill O’Reilly in the lynching party of Michelle Obama ? In a discussion of recent comments made by Michelle Obama, Bill O’Reilly took a call from a listener who stated that, according to “a friend who had knowledge of her,” Obama ” ‘is a very angry,’ her word was ‘militant woman.’ ” O’Reilly later stated: ” I don’t want to go on a lynching party against Michelle Obama unless there’s evidence, hard facts, that say this is how the woman really feels. If that’s how she really feels — that America is a bad country or a flawed nation, whatever — then that’s legit. We’ll track it down.” Ask Jesse if he prefers to wear white hoods at his lynching parties. He may have several colors to choose from. 11) Jesse probably will either give up or try valiantly one last time. There’s a wealth of subjects to pull from at a moment’s notice for any sandbagging producer. Here’s a few: a) How do you feel about Dick Morris being a lead political analyst after he was exposed paying for hookers that sucked his toes? Do you like your toes sucked, too? b) How does it feel to know that Fox News analyst, Oliver North sold weapons to Iran to fund another war? Even though he was acquitted on a technicality, the fact that he sold weapons to Iran cannot be disputed. Isn’t he a traitor to America? c) Isn’t it creepy to know that Newt Gingrich divorced his very sick wife while she was dying in the hospital? What kind of character does that show? Can Fox News really trust his opinions on such important matters as the Iraq war and health care? d) Do you think OJ was guilty? Didn’t Mark Fuhrman blow the OJ Simpson case? Isn’t it weird that he’s now an expert analyst for Fox News? That should do it. He’ll be long gone before you can ask him about Rick Santorum’s “man-on-dog” deal…So, there you go. A handy step-by-step guide to ward off the mosquito-like Bill O’Reilly camera crews and producers. After a few minutes of study, you’ll be able to deal with anything that comes your way. And always remember, the camera is your friend!

Continue reading …
ExxonMobil clinches Arctic oil deal with Rosneft

Under the deal, Exxon and Rosneft will invest $3.2bn (£1.9bn) in developing the Arctic Kara Sea Exxon, the world’s largest company, and Rosneft signed a deal to develop oil and gas reserves in the Russian Arctic, opening up one of the last unconquered drilling frontiers. The deal, signed in the presence of Russian prime minister Vladimir Putin, dashes any hopes that BP had of reviving its own deal with Rosneft that was blocked in May by its billionaire partners in an existing Russian venture. Exxon boss Rex Tillerson and Russia’s top energy official deputy prime minister Igor Sechin were with Putin at the signing ceremony in the Black Sea resort of Sochi. Calling the deal a “truly strategic partnership” and hailing Exxon’s experience in exploiting Arctic reserves in Canada, Putin said: “New horizons are opening up. One of the world’s leading companies, ExxonMobil, is starting to work on Russia’s strategic shelf and deepwater continental shelf,” Putin said. Under the deal, Exxon and Rosneft will invest $3.2bn (£1.9bn) in developing East Prinovozemelsky Blocks 1, 2, and 3 in the Arctic Kara Sea and the Tuapse licensing block in the Black Sea. Those regions “are among the most promising and least explored offshore areas globally, with high potential for liquids and gas,” Exxon said in a statement. Rosneft, meanwhile, will be offered an equity interest in a number of Exxon exploration projects in North America, including deep-water Gulf of Mexico and tight oil fields in Texas, as well as in other countries. “The fact that after the BP-Rosneft deal collapsed a new partner was found so quickly is a very positive signal,” said Denis Borisov, energy analyst at Bank of Moscow. The deal would help Rosneft share the risks of developing the Arctic, which could run into the hundreds of billions of dollars, and contrasts with the BP-Rosneft deal in that it does not include a share swap. “If this is essentially the BP deal it is exposure to a pretty significant resource base. There’s a lot of risk that’s involved in it,” said Jason Gammel, energy analyst at MacQuarie Research. “Rosneft had been pretty clear that they were still looking to get a deal done up there,” Gammel added. “It’s a pretty big win for them if they were able to gain access up there, clearly dependent on what type of terms they got.” Exxon Mobil Oil BP Oil and gas companies Vladimir Putin Russia Europe Arctic Oil Energy Fossil fuels Dominic Rushe Tom Parfitt guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …
ExxonMobil clinches Arctic oil deal with Rosneft

Under the deal, Exxon and Rosneft will invest $3.2bn (£1.9bn) in developing the Arctic Kara Sea Exxon, the world’s largest company, and Rosneft signed a deal to develop oil and gas reserves in the Russian Arctic, opening up one of the last unconquered drilling frontiers. The deal, signed in the presence of Russian prime minister Vladimir Putin, dashes any hopes that BP had of reviving its own deal with Rosneft that was blocked in May by its billionaire partners in an existing Russian venture. Exxon boss Rex Tillerson and Russia’s top energy official deputy prime minister Igor Sechin were with Putin at the signing ceremony in the Black Sea resort of Sochi. Calling the deal a “truly strategic partnership” and hailing Exxon’s experience in exploiting Arctic reserves in Canada, Putin said: “New horizons are opening up. One of the world’s leading companies, ExxonMobil, is starting to work on Russia’s strategic shelf and deepwater continental shelf,” Putin said. Under the deal, Exxon and Rosneft will invest $3.2bn (£1.9bn) in developing East Prinovozemelsky Blocks 1, 2, and 3 in the Arctic Kara Sea and the Tuapse licensing block in the Black Sea. Those regions “are among the most promising and least explored offshore areas globally, with high potential for liquids and gas,” Exxon said in a statement. Rosneft, meanwhile, will be offered an equity interest in a number of Exxon exploration projects in North America, including deep-water Gulf of Mexico and tight oil fields in Texas, as well as in other countries. “The fact that after the BP-Rosneft deal collapsed a new partner was found so quickly is a very positive signal,” said Denis Borisov, energy analyst at Bank of Moscow. The deal would help Rosneft share the risks of developing the Arctic, which could run into the hundreds of billions of dollars, and contrasts with the BP-Rosneft deal in that it does not include a share swap. “If this is essentially the BP deal it is exposure to a pretty significant resource base. There’s a lot of risk that’s involved in it,” said Jason Gammel, energy analyst at MacQuarie Research. “Rosneft had been pretty clear that they were still looking to get a deal done up there,” Gammel added. “It’s a pretty big win for them if they were able to gain access up there, clearly dependent on what type of terms they got.” Exxon Mobil Oil BP Oil and gas companies Vladimir Putin Russia Europe Arctic Oil Energy Fossil fuels Dominic Rushe Tom Parfitt guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …
US caught up in legal battle over Guatemalan child

Guatemalan judge rules six-year-old girl should be returned to birth mother, but Missouri couple insist adoption was legal The US government is caught up in an emotional legal battle over a six-year-old girl said to have been kidnapped from Guatemala in 2006 and later adopted by an American couple. A Guatemalan court has ordered that Anyelí Liseth Hernández Rodríguez should be returned to the country, after a lengthy fight by the woman who claims to be her birth mother. A judge ruled that if she were not returned within two months Interpol would be asked to intervene. But the American couple, Timothy and Jennifer Monahan, of Kansas City, Missouri, said that, in 2008, they had legally adopted the girl, now known as Karen Abigal Monahan. In an interview with the Guardian, the Guatemalan woman, Loyda Rodríguez Morales, 26, said she did not feel anger towards the American family. “I don’t know if they knew she was stolen. All I would like to say to them is that they return my little girl,” she said. Morales said that in 2006 she had been returning from a supermarket with her three children, two sons and a daughter. “I went into the building with my kids behind me. I went into my flat and then straight away I realised my little girl wasn’t there,” she said. “We looked everywhere but there was no sign of her. People who had seen what happened told us that a woman took her and went off in a taxi that was waiting.” She said she and her husband, a construction worker, went to the police, put up posters round the neighbourhood and visited orphanages, but without success. With the help of the human rights group Survivors Foundation, Morales found her daughter on the files of an adoption agency, listed as being in an orphanage in March 2009. But it was too late: according to court records, Anyelí had left the country in December the previous year. Morales said: “All I want is to be with my daughter again. It has been almost five years and that is what I want. It has been very hard, like very hard blows to the heart.” She rejected some people’s suggestions that her daughter would be “better off” in the US. “I can give my children a good life with the affection and love that they need. We live off what my husband earns and are OK. I will do all I can to see they have a good life.” The Monahans have issued a statement through a Washington-based public relations firm, Peter Mirijanian Public Affairs, which indicated that they would not give the child up without a fight. It said they would continue to seek the safety and best interests of “their legally adopted child”, adding: “They remain committed to protecting their daughter from additional trauma as they pursue the truth of her past through appropriate legal channels.” The couple taped a message to their door asking reporters to respect their privacy at a “difficult and confusing time”. The case has provoked strong opinions within Guatemala and the US, with sympathies split, some saying that any “kidnapped child” should be returned, and others thinking that the child, after a period of four years and knowing little of life other than that in the US, would be harmed by being wrenched from her adoptive family. The situation poses a dilemma for the US government, caught between its international legal obligations to comply with the Guatemalan court order and its concern for the American couple and child, who is now a US citizen. Morales is reported have taken a DNA test, which established her as the biological mother, but the US could ask for that to be repeated and also challenge other aspects of the case, in court in Guatemala. The US government is likely to ask the child herself if she wants to return to Guatemala; it would be reluctant to force a US citizen to leave. Agencies dealing with adoption cases, such as the US-based National Council for Adoption, said they could not recall an incident where the government faced such an order from a foreign court. Chuck Johnson, president of the National Council for Adoption, expressed sympathy for the biological mother, the adoptive parents and Anyelí. “This is a no-win situation,” he said. A US justice department spokeswoman, Alisa Finelli, refused to comment of whether steps were being taken to send the child back to Guatemala. “The department declines to comment,” said Finelli. Guatemala United States Adoption Children Jo Tuckman Ewen MacAskill guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …