Hardball guest host Ron Reagan Jr. On Wednesday assailed Rick Santroum as a ” lonely, homophobic voice shrieking in the wilderness. ” The liberal MSNBC anchor attacked the Republican presidential candidate for his opposition to gay rights, wondering if Santorum wanted to return to the days husbands could beat their wives. Reagan mocked Santorum for defending “traditional” marriage, scolding, “Marriage has, in various times and places throughout history, been treated as a property arrangement with husbands, in effect, owning their wives as they would cattle. Is that the tradition Santorum seeks to revive?” The son of former President Ronald Reagan continued, “In late 19th century America, men were entitled to beat their wives, as long as they used a stick with a circumference no larger than their thumb, the so-called rule of thumb. Does Santorum harbor a yen for corporal punishment?” A transcript of Reagan's closing commentary can be found below: 08/24/11 5:58 RON REAGAN JR.: Let me finish tonight with Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum. Santorum is lately taken to comparing marriage equality to a choice of paper products. According to his whimsical logic, gay people mustn't be allowed the same opportunity to wed that straight couples enjoy, because, well, a paper towel is not a napkin. If only Santorum was a lonely, homophobic voice shrieking in the wilderness. But all the other Republican candidates, whether they choose Bounty or Brawny, have likewise signed on to defend the inappropriately-named Defense of Marriage Act, a law designed to solely disenfranchise gay couples. Even leaving aside the fact that some of us have been known on occasion to employ a paper towel as a napkin, it is an odd, nonsensical comparison. Santorum's larger point seems to reflect his discomfort with so-called traditional marriage being redefined. But what tradition does he have in mind? Marriage has, in various times and places throughout history, been treated as a property arrangement with husbands, in effect, owning their wives as they would cattle. Is that the tradition Santorum seeks to revive? In late 19th century America, men were entitled to beat their wives, as long as they used a stick with a circumference no larger than their thumb, the so-called rule of thumb. Does Santorum harbor a yen for corporal punishment? Of course, Santorum and many of his anti-gay colleagues can do a lot better than paper towels. They're found of claiming that if gay people would be allowed to wed, we would have to allow polygamy, incest and bestiality. This is so absurd some people find it difficult to argue against. If you find yourself similarly flummoxed, just point out this very simple distinction. Laws against polygamy are non-exclusionary. Whether you are gay or straight, black or white, Christian or Muslim, you can't be married to more than one person at a time. Preventing gay people from exercising the same rights creates a separate, unequal class of people. It is exclusionary. That is the only meaningful distinction you need to keep in mind with- when arguing with people like Santorum. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It is impossible to believe that marriage to the person of one's mutual choosing doesn't fall into one or more of those categories. Santorum and his friends might want to consider the meaning of the word unalienable.
Continue reading …
Swaths of NHS could be shut down by Christmas as failure of government talks on pensions now ‘almost inevitable’ Unions representing staff at every level of the health service are meeting tomorrow to plan the first NHS-wide strike, in anticipation that current negotiations with the government over public sector pensions will fail by the autumn. Doctors, nurses, midwives, hospital administrators and cleaners will discuss plans to shut down swaths of the NHS in industrial action which could take place by Christmas if negotiations fail. One official representing 460,000 NHS staff in the talks said the prospect of failure felt “almost inevitable” and claimed ministers had refused to budge on the most fundamental issues – increasing members’ contributions and delaying the retirement age. Unison, whose 1.4 million members include 460,000 NHS workers, is hosting the meeting in London which will also be attended by the British Medical Association, Royal College of Nursing and British Dental Association as well as other major unions representing health workers including the GMB and Unite. The written agenda includes discussion of “possible future industrial action” including the nature of potential strikes, legal issues and the provision of emergency cover. Unison said it was “hoping for the best but planning for the worst” in relation to the outcome of pension talks with the government. Christina McAnea, the union’s national secretary for health said: “There has never been full-scale industrial action in the health service. This is the first time all the groups have come together to talk about it. Industrial action in the NHS could be massive. “We want to have things in place early, to make sure we can cover everything and ensure we minimise problems for patients. But it almost feels this is inevitable.” The first week in November is being mooted for strike action by some of the civil service and teaching unions that walked out in June, but it is unlikely an NHS strike would take place at the same time. None of the health unions have balloted members for strike action and are unlikely to do so before government talks conclude at the end of October – unless the negotiations collapse before then. Pension talks have been ongoing throughout the summer on a sector-by-sector basis, with some making more progress than others. Unions will be told each sector’s pension settlement either at or after a joint meeting with ministers on 8 September. Brian Strutton, the GMB’s national secretary for public services said he believed only talks on the local government pension scheme currently had any chance of success. The local government scheme is fully funded, meaning contributions from the employer and employee go into an investment fund with £140bn of assets currently covering all payments. If contributions rise too sharply the lowest paid could opt out and cause the fund to collapse. Ministers have already signalled they will be sympathetic to the sector. The health, civil service and education schemes are unfunded. However, Strutton was optimistic ministers may be persuaded that some recent government financial gains could count towards the pensions savings target. Unite is also holding a summit with key officials and shop stewards . It said the government would have to change its approach if there was to be any breakthrough. “The problem with all the talks is that they don’t really resemble genuine negotiations because for a long time the government has been completely inflexible in its approach,” said Gail Cartmail, assistant general secretary of Unite which represents around 250,000 public sector workers. Cartmail added that ballot preparations are ongoing. Teachers’ unions are particularly worried that members will be squeezed from all sides if a special deal is made for local government and the lowest paid public sector workers are protected from the highest increases in pension contributions, as ministers have already promised. Mary Bousted, general secretary of the Association of Teachers and Lecturers which walked out earlier this yearfor the first time said: “The talks are in good faith but it’s difficult to see where room for negotiation is. Teachers are caught between a rock and a hard place and get the worst deal of all.” A Department of Health spokeswoman said even after reform the NHS pension would remain one of the best and that the lowest paid workers would be protected. “The status quo is not sustainable with people living much longer, substantially increasing the cost to the taxpayer,” she said. “Constructive talks on pensions are still ongoing. It would be very wrong to make assumptions about their outcome.” Public sector pensions NHS Pensions Trade unions Liberal-Conservative coalition Polly Curtis Dan Milmo guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Insurgent attack on British Council workers thwarted by special forces, but New Zealand SAS commando dies during rescue A turf war between Kabul’s police and SAS-trained Afghan commandos caused a potentially life-threatening delay to the operation to rescue two British Council workers penned in by suicide bombers, according to the rescue team. The standoff last Friday between the city’s police and the Crisis Response Unit (CRU), which lasted for more than four hours, gave the attackers time not just to overwhelm the fortress-like compound, but also to launch a terrifying assault on the reinforced door of the cramped safe room where the two employees of the British Council had taken refuge. According to Ghulam Daoud, leader of the commando team, the insurgents used several hand grenades in their unsuccessful attempts to blast open the door, located in a narrow area under a flight of stairs, where the two teachers had taken refugee with a security guard from the private British company G4S. “They were very well informed, they knew exactly where the strong points were and where the safe room was,” said General Sayed Abdul Ghafar, director of Afghan special forces. The two women, one British and the other South African, have not yet been named although diplomatic sources said one of them had only arrived in Afghanistan 48 hours earlier to work on the British Council’s educational and cultural programmes. They were rushed to the tiny safe room, in a building in the centre of the compound, at 5.40am under covering fire from private guards on the roof of the compound after a vehicle packed with explosives ripped through the front gate. It destroyed the double-layered “airlock” of concrete walls, metal gates and other defensive measures. A second group of terrorists, armed with bombs and guns, stormed into the compound, overwhelming the guard force of Gurkhas and Afghans employed by G4S, the giant British security company. In total 12 people, excluding the attackers, died during six hours of fierce fighting. One of the fatalities included Douglas Grant, 41, a New Zealand SAS commando who was part of the rescue team . Photographs of the devastated compound in the relatively upmarket neighbourhood of western Kabul show that the safe room had just enough space for a mattress, some cushions and bits of equipment. While the two teachers and guard were trapped inside, waiting for rescue, they were able to talk to embassy officials by mobile phone. They also had time to pin Union flags to their chests, to identify themselves clearly when the Afghan commandos arrived. But that took far longer than anyone would have hoped because of an argument over jurisdiction between different arms of the Afghan security forces. Ghafar, the special forces chief, got to the scene within 20 minutes but his team was sent away by Kabul’s police chief, General Mohammad Ayub Salangi. “We finally called back at 9.45 but in all that time the stupid policemen did not do anything,” said Ghafar. One international official said Salangi had handled the situation like an “idiot”. However, the police chief insisted that he was simply “following procedures” and claimed not to have ordered the CRU away. New Zealand SAS team At 10am, more than four hours after the attack began, the CRU team of 20 commandos, joined by five soldiers of the New Zealand SAS who rushed to the scene from their base on the other side of the city, began their assault on the compound. But their initial attempt to drive through the blasted, wrecked main gate in an armoured Humvee was repulsed by an hail of bullets that even broke the vehicle’s armoured windows. One CRU commando died there. The rescuers’ work was made even more difficult by the British Council’s own elaborate defences – including bulletproof glass on all the windows – giving insurgents strong fighting positions to hold back the rescue party. “The enemy had time to occupy all the bulletproof checkpoints [inside the compound] that we could not attack,” said Daoud, leading the CRU unit. The frontal assault strategy was abandoned. Meanwhile, the New Zealand SAS team turned their attention to the back of the compound, blowing a hole in a rear wall, and allowing the CRU commandos to storm in from a neighbouring building. Daoud confirmed that, while the CRU is a highly regarded special forces team, it does not yet have engineers trained to break through walls. When they finally got into the compound the telltale smell of “cooked kebab” showed suicide bombers had already exploded themselves, he said. New Zealand and Afghan snipers occupying positions in overlooking buildings were able to provide some cover to their colleagues from insurgents firing from their heavily defended positions on the upper floor of the guesthouse where British Council staff were hiding. But that was not enough to save Corporal Grant, a New Zealand SAS member who was shot and mortally wounded as he ran along the edge of the compound. The Afghan commandos also revealed that the three non-Afghans were removed from the building long before all the insurgents inside had been killed. There remained at least one suicide bomber still fighting upstairs, and a fire was spreading in the building, so the rescue party decided not to wait. Sniper teams were ordered to train all their fire on the area where the insurgent was still holed up, allowing three other British Council workers to move to a nearby gym, which had been made from a metal sea container. The New Zealand commandos blew up another section of wall and they escaped. The fire in the building also forced a Gurkha, who had been on the roof since the start of the siege, down from his position in the roof. But even though the foreigners were safe, the fighting still raged for control of the building with troops occasionally so close to attackers that they could punch them, said Ghafar. At one point an attacker, after being shot, managed to detonate his vest, injuring but not killing five CRU commandos. Despite the heat, fighting for several hours in the summer sun, none of the commandos was subsequently able to eat or drink because it is the fasting month of Ramadan. At the end of the operation the team went to a nearby carwash and hosed themselves down with water. Afghanistan New Zealand G4S Taliban Military Jon Boone guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …First, read John’s post from earlier today on why raising the retirement age for Social Security is the worst idea ever. He’s exactly right, it is. But it’s not just a terrible idea for Social Security recipients; it’s a terrible idea for business. Especially small business. What many don’t know is this: When tweaks are made to Social Security, they ripple through the entire benefits universe, including private pension plans, union pension plans, 401k plans, and related deferred compensation benefits. When the Social Security retirement age was raised in the ’80s, it required every employer and union plan to be redesigned and amended at considerable expense. Worse yet, it required that benefits earned by employees through the old retirement age be retained, with benefits earned after the new retirement age kicked in to be added on as a new “layer,” which actually increases costs for many employees. This principle plays in the current debate too, whether it’s 401k plans or Defined Benefit plans (such as they are). All earned benefits in defined benefit plans must be equivalent at the new retirement date, but many of them have been calculated using interest rates far higher than the ones in effect now — around 8 percent. Recalculation would have to be done at a lower interest rate, resulting in higher monthly benefits payable at a later age. 401k plan investments would have to be adjusted for a longer time horizon, exposing participants to even higher risks. All of these small changes play out as expensive modifications. The only people who benefit are lawyers and third party administrators, who have to carry out the changes. By the way, this is also true of the chained CPI modifications to benefits, only it has a smaller effect on rank and file employees’ pensions and a larger effect on highly-paid employees’ pensions. It ripples through to contribution limits on 401k and Profit Sharing plans, Defined Benefit limits, CPI adjustments to SEP/IRA limits and other benefit-related limits, both private and public. Social Security does need to be changed. The disability portion of the fund will run out in approximately 6 years. The Old Age part will be about 70 percent funded in 2037. That’s not a disaster, but I would much rather see some wise changes now than crisis planning in 10 years. The issue can’t be framed around all or nothing. Instead, it should be around how best to change it in a way that will benefit current and future beneficiaries. Experts agree on the following: Benefits need to be adjusted. The current wage base is inadequate because it causes the burden of the cost of Social Security to fall on those least able to afford it. It should be raised to the level that was intended: 90 percent of average payroll, which would mean a payroll tax on approximately $230,000 instead of $106,000 as it is today. Trust fund solvency must rely on a revenue increase. It cannot be mended by benefit cuts alone. Privatizing any portion of Social Security will drive the deficit sky-high. These are just a few of the reasons extending the retirement age would be a disaster from the viewpoint of private retirement plans. There are more, like the fact that in these economic times, people over the age of 50 have a difficult time being hired when there are younger, less expensive workers available. They’re already stretching everything they have, and will likely exhaust any 401k benefits before they reach current retirement ages. What will we do with a generation full of destitute people? Republicans would have them tossed out of their homes onto the street where they can sneer at them for being welfare leeches. But if they cannot be hired, cannot work, and have inadequate savings to bridge the gap through retirement, that’s exactly what will happen. One solution to dealing with the shortfall? Repealing the high-end Bush tax cuts and earmarking the revenue for Social Security . Of course, we don’t have a Congress with the courage to do that right now, so other ways may come into play. Some are better than others. None are perfect . But raising the retirement age doesn’t solve anything for government and business alike.
Continue reading …
Universities minister raised worries about baccalaureate results at Hampshire college David Willetts, the universities minister, has lobbied the vice-chancellors of three universities on behalf of candidates who failed to do well enough to secure a place, the Guardian has learned. In two cases the candidates were constituents of the minister, who is MP for Havant in Hampshire. In a third, the candidate did not live in the constituency but attended a local sixth-form college. The minister’s personal intervention comes amid an unprecedented squeeze on university places, due to a record demand and a cap on government-funded degree courses at English universities. In one case Willetts wrote to the vice-chancellor of Exeter University about a candidate who achieved 26 points in the international baccalaureate (IB) diploma, the equivalent of A-level grades BCC. In a highly competitive year, the university’s typical offer spans AAA-ABB at A-level, 36-32 points in the IB. The letter was passed to the admissions office, which did not offer the candidate a place. It has prompted dismay at the university, where some regarded it as an attempt to interfere in the fairness and transparency of the admissions process. Willetts told the Guardian he had approached three universities after being contacted by constituents over the IB results of his local sixth-form college. “My local college, Havant College, started the IB for some students two years ago. It’s the first set of IB results. Constituents have been to see me at my surgery – it looks as if students in the first year of IB at Havant College have underperformed on expectations.” He said he had been approached by “something over a dozen” parents and had written three times, at their request. “I have stated explicitly that I am writing as a constituency MP, not as universities minister. I don’t think my being universities minister should stop me doing the usual things that a constituency MP could do. I was writing on constituency notepaper, on behalf of my constituents.” Willetts said he had written to express concern at “serious underperformance, way below performance at GCSE and what was predicted for them”. The letter went on to ask how it might be possible for the university to “consider these exceptional circumstances”. Asked whether particularly assertive constituents were receiving favourable treatment, Willetts said: “I think MPs should act on behalf of constituents. That some people haven’t approached their MP shouldn’t stop you.” The ministerial code of conduct allows ministers to represent “the views of their constituents”, provided they make clear they are acting as a local MP rather than in their government capacity. The approach was made as a constituency MP rather than a government minister, but raises questions about infringing the principle that universities are independent of government. In his first keynote speech as minister last May, Willetts said: “I believe that the strength of our universities derives in large part from their autonomy. That autonomy is the envy of other nations.” Sir Steve Smith, vice-chancellor of Exeter university, said he was regularly lobbied by MPs and treated the letter in the same fashion. He said: “I get a lot of letters as a vice-chancellor on behalf of constituents. He asked: ‘Do you realise there was an issue with some people taking the IB?’ He didn’t ask us to do anything, just to be aware of it. Frankly, we didn’t do anything. The candidate wasn’t offered a place, as far as I know.” The other two universities involved have not been identified. The government has been encouraging schools and colleges to take up the IB. Michael Gove, the education secretary, admires its breadth of study. The qualification consists of six academic subjects, an extended essay and an element of community work, music or team sport. The six subjects span English, maths, science, languages, humanities and art, so students are not forced to choose between arts and sciences at 16. Higher education Schools GCSEs David Willetts Jeevan Vasagar guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
In the wake of the UK riots, the former prime minister has emerged as someone we should listen to I truly hate to have to admit it. But one person we need to be paying some limited attention to, in the wake of the riots, is Tony Blair. In an article in the Observer last Sunday, he nailed, in a few sentences, the current extremity of a deep, ongoing social problem that has been underplayed in our society for many years now. “The big cause is the group of young, alienated, disaffected youth who are outside the social mainstream and who live in a culture at odds with any canons of proper behaviour,” Blair wrote. “And here’s where I don’t agree with much of the commentary. In my experience, they are an absolutely specific problem that requires deeply specific solutions. “The left says they’re victims of social deprivation, the right says they need to take personal responsibility for their actions; both just miss the point. A conventional social programme won’t help them; neither – on their own – will tougher penalties.” Bang on, unfortunately. Arguments about equality, arguments about citizenship – these are crucial debates for the socially included to have, and for the warring left and right to reach some compromise over. But the socially excluded, by definition, aren’t part of the debate, however keen some people are to see overt political motives in their actions. They have become the nihilistic victims of Britain’s failure to resolve these ongoing political fights. Social deprivation fosters lack of personal responsibility, which in turn deepens social deprivation. At this late stage, these people are caught in a vicious circle that has long since been self-perpetuating. If well-paid jobs for unskilled workers, decent social housing and so on were magicked into place tomorrow, and God knows they are needed, many people are too screwed up to respond appropriately. So direct, remedial and specific action is needed, in addition, to repair individual psyches, one by one. That’s what Blair is right about. Read John Heale’s 2008 book One Blood: Inside Britain’s New Street Gangs. It’s all in there. Of course, it’s a shame that Blair did not have quite this firm grasp on harsh reality back in 1997. Then, he and his government had the time and the money to fix matters, before the detachment of the underclass became so entrenched. Despite much hand-wringing and much action, sometimes of the wrong kind, sometimes of the right kind, but too shallow and patronising, Labour blew it. What’s needed now is a 25-year programme attracting sincere, long-term commitment from all political parties, and from the electorate as well. It will take a generation, at least, to turn this malaise around. It is important, however, to bear in mind where Labour went wrong. In short, they made sentimental assumptions, based largely on their own ideas about what worked for them and their own children. Even the 2012 London Olympics is part of that limited vision. Shore up the degree-toting, property-owing democracy, in a clean, sleek service economy, they reckoned, and the rest would fall into place. It didn’t. Meritocracy was just a fancy way of saying “rat race”. The key word, for Blair, was “aspiration”. The assumption was that given the opportunity to do bourgeois stuff – visit galleries and museums, take the children to the park, read bedtime stories as a matter of routine, sit attentively in bright classrooms with reasonably well-paid teachers – absolutely everyone would simply jump at it, and all would be splendid. Take care of the able and the rest will take care of themselves. That was the perverse logic of Blairite social ideas. The belief that “middle-class values” were virally transferable may now have been ditched by Blair, its former poster-boy. But it remains widespread. Take the outcry over last year’s government threat to remove £13m of funding from the charity Booktrust, which exists to ensure that “every child has access to the gift of a book”. I’m not saying that the idea isn’t lovely. It is. But for the vast majority of children – thank goodness – it’s simply a nice treat, of absolutely zero significance to the course of their lives. The number for whom this sort of gift really makes a difference is tiny, if it exists at all. Basically, if there is no culture of reading in your home, then one free book is a drop in a force-nine ocean of adverse influences. Anyway, teachers are the people best placed to provide books to children whose parents won’t, because children in this situation need people to talk to about their reading as well. That’s the very least of the outside adult support that they need. Likewise, the endless twaddle that the commentariat trundles out about libraries. Again, the focus is on the working-class child who is just waiting to be borne off on a shining chariot marked: “In reading lies knowledge. In knowledge lies wisdom.” Often, this admirable and idealised prodigy turns out to have been based on the writer himself. I loved going to the library as a child too, and I’m grateful to my mother for taking me. But I’d be wary of lionising anything just because it was a helpful addition to a stable, loving, working-class upbringing, 40 years ago. There’s something self-regarding about these misty-eyed arguments. They conjure legions of passionately literate children, all heroically fighting against the circumstances of their birth, poor but “deserving”. Typically, children accept their home environment, however brutal, drug-infested, neglectful or abusive, as “normal”. That’s why Blair quite quickly, when he was prime minister, concluded that the socially excluded were “hard to reach”. I’m by no means arguing that such schemes are worthless. Libraries are wonderful. Free museum entry is great. The increased public access to art that occurred during the New Labour government was a terrific thing. There is no reason why a sophisticated and developed society should not have a sense of ownership of the culture it has nurtured through centuries. A cohesive society absolutely should have. But this society is not cohesive, and these are all amenities that almost entirely benefit the socially included . The emphasis on their great power to transform blighted lives, rather than simply enrich already healthy ones, is wildly overstated. Kind as the book-access lark is, it presumes that small children have powerful independent agency, when they don’t. That’s the crucial point: piecemeal intervention, from school, from health and social agencies, from Booktrust, does not work on these children. They need to be prioritised, focused on. Where is the money to come from? I’m not a “deficit denier”, although I admit the position looks marvellously liberating. I don’t want to keep borrowing more and more money from the markets, year after year, simply because it is difficult to reform something that you are dependent on. I think the socially included could start by admitting we had a good run under Labour. BBC4, Radio 6, massive arts subsidy, family allowance for the comfortable, the dream of a return to free higher education for all – these are not current priorities. The dead-eyed children who pillage for kicks, given half a chance – they are. Young people UK riots Deborah Orr guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
London mayor offering football club financial assistance to revamp their stadium and help regenerate riot-hit area Boris Johnson is on the verge of offering Tottenham Hotspur FC millions of pounds in assistance to remain in their north London home and help regenerate the area after the recent riots. But the north London club has also won permission in the high court for a judicial review of the decision to award the Olympic stadium in Stratford to a joint bid from Newham council and West Ham United. A full hearing will take place on 18 October after Mr Justice Collins overturned an earlier ruling and agreed Spurs had an “arguable case” on claims that the east London council fell foul of EU state aid rules in loaning £40m to West Ham to complete conversion work on the stadium. The news came hours after City Hall sources confirmed that an agreement was close on a package of measures to make White Hart Lane in Haringey, where the Spurs ground is located, a cornerstone of plans to regenerate the riot-hit area and subsidise the redevelopment. But they stressed the offer was not contingent on Spurs dropping the legal action, despite speculation to the contrary. A spokesman for the London mayor said: “We have had constructive negotiations with Tottenham Hotspur and Haringey council. We are hopeful a deal can be reached on building a new stadium on the current site so the mayor can accomplish his long-term ambition to regenerate a much wider area in this neglected and impoverished part of London.” Johnson’s plan faces the prospect of protests about handing public money to a Premier League club. It is understood that the package includes a contribution of about £8.5m towards the regeneration of the “public realm” around the stadium, a sum that could increase as plans are advanced. It will come from a £50m fund put together by Johnson in the wake of the riots to regenerate affected areas, including £20m from central government to be invested specifically in Tottenham and Croydon. Haringey council is believed to have substantially relaxed planning restrictions in a bid to get the scheme off the ground. Spurs had originally prepared plans for the £450m redevelopment of the stadium as their first option but, in the face of delays and escalating costs, turned to Stratford. When the Olympic Park Legacy Company ruled that West Ham’s bid, which proposed to retain the athletics track, should be chosen over the Spurs proposal, they criticised the process and launched the legal action. Lawyers acting for Spurs were given permission by the judge to apply to make the recent controversy over an OPLC employee, who was also paid by West Ham during the bidding process, a factor in their case. Independent investigations by both parties found that OPLC director of corporate affairs Dionne Knight, who was paid £25,000 by West Ham for consultancy work unbeknown to her employers, had no effect on the bidding process. The high court decision strengthens Spurs’ negotiating hand with the mayor and reduces West Ham’s chances of being able to move into the stadium in time, for the 2014-15 season. It could also be hugely embarrassing for the OPLC and the government, with major implications for the legacy from the Olympics, if they are ultimately forced to re-tender for the stadium. “We are delighted that Mr Justice Collins upheld all grounds relating to the Olympic Park Legacy Company’s decision-making process when recommending a preferred bidder,” said OPLC chair Margaret Ford. “We are disappointed that permission for a judicial review has been granted on some limited points but we are confident in our case.” Tottenham Hotspur Boris Johnson London UK riots Owen Gibson guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
enlarge Credit: Newsweek Obama’s Book List Most of my book reading since I became a blogger back in 2004 has been of the non-fiction variety, not only because I love the subject, but it helps me with my work here on C&L . I think studying history is essential in politics and in researching my own book with David Neiwert , I discovered works that I would never probably have read like The Gang of Five , written by current Fox News contributor Nina Easton of all people. I bring this up because The LA Times has picked up on some Obama family book purchases while The Daily Beast posted the list of books our reader in chief has read since the last campaign. I love Pelecanos and have read Alter, Kearns, McCullough, Le Carre and Cannon on his list. As you might imagine, Obama’s Book Club will lead to some over the top form of conservative outrage—kinda like this. Fictional Outrage But speaking of Obama’s reading habits, apparently some wingnuts are very, very unhappy because he’s not seriously boning up on important issues while he’s on vacation and reading all the wrong books. Alyssa Rosenberg writes : Tevi Troy’s insistence that the president’s reading list “constitute the oddest assortment of presidential reading material ever disclosed” because “the near-absence of nonfiction sends the wrong message for any president, because it sets him up for the charge that he is out of touch with reality,” merits singling out for how uniquely grasping and bizarre it is, and how simultaneously snobbish and anti-intellectual. Aside from “sending the wrong message about reality” he’s reading a novel that might give some people the wrong idea about his stance on Israel and one about claustrophobia that can only lead to the conclusion that he’s “trapped in the White House.” Seriously. Rosenberg makes all the right points about this nonsense but I think her conclusion absolutely nails it: Finally, it’s pretty depressing that Troy can look at a reading list that includes novels about the victims of horrible crimes, the parents of war victims, and people who give their lives to healing others, all experiences that the President hasn’t had directly but that have implications for his job, and see only Troy’s own paranoia about Obama’s mindset. People need to read fiction precisely as a tool to expand their moral imaginations, certainly a quality I think most of us would hope for in presidents, or columnists. That’s exactly right. I find myself reading so much non-fiction these days that I forget sometimes that reading good fiction is the way I get out of my head and into the head of someone else (which, believe me, is a vacation in itself.) It’s one of the ways we expand our empathy toward other people. I used to argue with a religious pal over the idea that the Bible should be taught in school. She felt it was the only way that children could get a moral education. My argument was that they could get the same moral education by reading great plays and novels. It’s all there. And anyway, who the hell are these people telling the President what he can and cannot read? Clearly the only thing they don’t consider their business is how much money wealthy people are cheating from the government. Talk about busy bodies… I just finished George R.R. Martin’s A Dance With Dragons and loved it. The Game of Thrones series has gotten me back into reading fiction again. I’m sure AM hate radio and Fox News will be all over Obama’s book list so link up conservative criticism that you find in the comments along with some good books recommendations.
Continue reading …
enlarge Credit: Newsweek Obama’s Book List Most of my book reading since I became a blogger back in 2004 has been of the non-fiction variety, not only because I love the subject, but it helps me with my work here on C&L . I think studying history is essential in politics and in researching my own book with David Neiwert , I discovered works that I would never probably have read like The Gang of Five , written by current Fox News contributor Nina Easton of all people. I bring this up because The LA Times has picked up on some Obama family book purchases while The Daily Beast posted the list of books our reader in chief has read since the last campaign. I love Pelecanos and have read Alter, Kearns, McCullough, Le Carre and Cannon on his list. As you might imagine, Obama’s Book Club will lead to some over the top form of conservative outrage—kinda like this. Fictional Outrage But speaking of Obama’s reading habits, apparently some wingnuts are very, very unhappy because he’s not seriously boning up on important issues while he’s on vacation and reading all the wrong books. Alyssa Rosenberg writes : Tevi Troy’s insistence that the president’s reading list “constitute the oddest assortment of presidential reading material ever disclosed” because “the near-absence of nonfiction sends the wrong message for any president, because it sets him up for the charge that he is out of touch with reality,” merits singling out for how uniquely grasping and bizarre it is, and how simultaneously snobbish and anti-intellectual. Aside from “sending the wrong message about reality” he’s reading a novel that might give some people the wrong idea about his stance on Israel and one about claustrophobia that can only lead to the conclusion that he’s “trapped in the White House.” Seriously. Rosenberg makes all the right points about this nonsense but I think her conclusion absolutely nails it: Finally, it’s pretty depressing that Troy can look at a reading list that includes novels about the victims of horrible crimes, the parents of war victims, and people who give their lives to healing others, all experiences that the President hasn’t had directly but that have implications for his job, and see only Troy’s own paranoia about Obama’s mindset. People need to read fiction precisely as a tool to expand their moral imaginations, certainly a quality I think most of us would hope for in presidents, or columnists. That’s exactly right. I find myself reading so much non-fiction these days that I forget sometimes that reading good fiction is the way I get out of my head and into the head of someone else (which, believe me, is a vacation in itself.) It’s one of the ways we expand our empathy toward other people. I used to argue with a religious pal over the idea that the Bible should be taught in school. She felt it was the only way that children could get a moral education. My argument was that they could get the same moral education by reading great plays and novels. It’s all there. And anyway, who the hell are these people telling the President what he can and cannot read? Clearly the only thing they don’t consider their business is how much money wealthy people are cheating from the government. Talk about busy bodies… I just finished George R.R. Martin’s A Dance With Dragons and loved it. The Game of Thrones series has gotten me back into reading fiction again. I’m sure AM hate radio and Fox News will be all over Obama’s book list so link up conservative criticism that you find in the comments along with some good books recommendations.
Continue reading …
Substitute hosting on HLN's The Joy Behar Show, on Tuesday, CNN's Don Lemon prodded Jay Bakker, the son of televangelist Jim Bakker, to accuse Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann of exploiting fears of Christians as he claimed that the GOP presidential hopefuls were: “playing to a group of people who deal a lot with fear and using fear to control folks.” The dismissive Bakker then asserted: “I feel like they've kind of hijacked Christianity,” and added that he thinks the Perrys and Bachmanns were advancing “fairy tales” that global warming doesn't exist and claimed they wanted to “ignore” science. Lemon initially invited on Bakker to analyze the discussion he had with his previous guest, Randy Roberts Potts about what it was like to grow up gay in the “shadow” of his grandfather televangelist Oral Roberts. However it wasn't long before Lemon switched topics to the 2012 GOP primary race, as seen in this exchange from the August 23 show:
Continue reading …