Lawyers for firm contracted to NI said it deleted emails on nine occasions since May 2010: there was ‘nothing abnormal’ Senior MPs want to question further one of News International’s technology suppliers, after the firm responsible for overseeing its day-to-day emails revealed that hundreds of thousands of them had been deleted on a total of nine occasions from the newspaper publisher’s server since May last year. Lawyers acting for HCL, the firm contracted to oversee News International’s email system, told the home affairs select committee that it was aware of “nothing which appeared abnormal, untoward or inconsistent with its contractual role” – but went onto to advise MPs to direct further questions to News International. The law firm, Stuart Benson, acting for HCL, said: “It is entirely for News International, the police and your committee as to whether there was any other agenda or subtext when issues of deletion arose and that is a matter on which my client cannot comment and something you will no doubt wish to explore direct with News International.” Keith Vaz, chair of the committee, said he was most surprised by the deletions and added that the MPs would be seeking further details from HCL, the firm contracted to oversee the News International’s ‘live emails’, typically those less than 15 days old. Meanwhile, Labour MP Chris Bryant, an active campaigner against phone hacking, said: “All these dubious deletions prove yet again how much better it would have been if the Metropolitan Police secured the whole system back in 2006. “It certainly looks as if, in the words of one Metropolitan Police officer to the Commons culture select committee, that News International were deliberately thwarting their investigation.” HCL said it had been aware of discussions around at minimum nine separate episodes of email deletions – part of the internal company archive which the Met are using to examine the extent of phone hacking at the News of the World. HCL’s lawyers also noted that a second unnamed supplier had been responsible for emails more than a couple of weeks old, and at times HCL had co-operated with this vendor in deleting material. HCL identified three sets of email deletions in April 2010, including a deletion of a public folder of a live email system that “was owned by a user who no longer needed the emails”. A further 200,000 emails “stuck in an outbox” were deleted in May 2010 to restore email functionality. In September 2010 a further pruning of historic emails occurred to help stabilise the email archival system, which had been having “frequent outages” since November 2009. In January 2011, HCL was asked about its ability to “truncate” a particular database in the email archival systems. HCL “answered in the negative and suggested assistance from the third party vendor”. In February 2011, emails were deleted in an older version of the software. Finally, in July 2011 HCL deleted emails from the live system as “relocation errors” had occurred when the systems were moved. News International sources indicated that the email deletions were part of sensible housekeeping of an email system that had been unstable, and at one point had gone down for three days. The company says it has a good working relationship with police investigating the hacking crisis, although last month it emerged that Scotland Yard investigators were unhappy about the scale of the deletions . Separately, a firm of solicitors drawn into the News International phone-hacking scandal is expected to reply shortly to the home affairs select committee as to how it came to write a key letter to the newspaper group that was then used by the company to contend that phone hacking had not been widespread at News of the World. The firm, Harbottle and Lewis, is consulting the Metropolitan police before deciding how to reply to requests from the select committee to spell out how it came to write a letter taken to mean that only one reporter was aware of phone hacking at the paper. The New York Times reported at the weekend that the letter sent by Harbottle and Lewis to the culture, media and sport select committee was redrafted more than once. The firm had been hired to review the email of the tabloid’s royal reporter, Clive Goodman, who had pleaded guilty to hacking the mobile phone messages of royal household staff members. The letter said “no reasonable evidence” had been found that senior editors knew about the reporter’s “illegal actions”. A News International spokesman said: “NI keeps back-ups of its core systems and, in close co-operation with the Operation Weeting team, has been working to restore these back-ups.” Phone hacking News of the World News International Newspapers & magazines National newspapers Newspapers Patrick Wintour Dan Sabbagh guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Embattled Congress party further weakened as upper house forced to shut on opening day of new parliamentary session Long-awaited laws in India to fight corruption, protect farmers from unscrupulous developers and boost economic growth look less likely to be passed after tumultuous scenes in the national parliament on Monday. Within minutes of the start of a new parliamentary term, opposition politicians forced a shutdown of the upper house, an indication that the bitter partisan politics of recent months are set to continue. The lower house was adjourned after the death of a member of parliament during the recess. The prime minister, Manmohan Singh, and other senior figures in the ruling coalition government, which is led by the Congress party, had appealed for calm and co-operation. Singh, 78, said he hoped the five-week session would be “constructive and productive”. However the opposition has smelled blood in recent months, with an already fragile government weakened by a series of corruption scandals, runaway inflation and the recent terrorist blasts in the commercial capital, Mumbai. “The government is on the back foot,” said Sushma Swaraj, a senior politician with the rightwing Bharatiya Janata party (BJP). Vinod Mehta, editor of the news magazine Outlook India, said the coming weeks would see “a lively parliamentary ding-dong”. “The opposition has a great deal of ammunition. Every day there is more trouble for the government. But it still has a comfortable majority and so will limp on,” Mehta said. Parliamentary work has ground to a virtual standstill this year amid acrimonious battles over graft and other issues. Many of the 32 laws to be debated in the coming term are deeply controversial, including allowing foreign investment in supermarkets, cutting subsidies and restructuring loss-making state-run utilities. One crucial measure tackles land rights, the source of often violent protests. Congress party strategists see other proposed laws – such as proposals to share mining royalties with local communities and to expand a scheme to give cheap food grains to the poor – as critical to their chances of consolidating traditional support among hundreds of millions of rural voters before national polls in 2014. Also the subject of bitter argument is a proposed anti-graft bill that would establish a new watchdog independent of the government. Campaigners cite polls apparently showing that the government’s version of the bill is seen by most voters as watered down. In recent days, a senior Indian economic advisory panel has warned of slowing growth and cut the annual growth forecast to 8.2% from 9%. India Jason Burke guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
A deal on raising the US debt limit has been struck – but will it hold up in Congress? Follow the negotiations and votes live 3.43pm: Boehner now speaking, flanked by Eric Cantor and his posse. Talking up the deal, Boehner says: “It gives us the best shot, in the 20 years I’ve been here, to build support for a balanced budget amendment.” Hmm, that’s not exactly shouting from the rooftops. “The House will vote on a measure today that although not perfect will begin to change the culture of Congress,” says Cantor. “I’ve said the bill is not perfect, and it’s not.” The big win, according to Cantor, is that there are no tax hikes in the deal. Now Jeb Hensarling, the number four in the GOP House leadership, is talking up the balanced budget amendment as well. 3.37pm: Still waiting on John Boehner to appear at his press conference. There are reports that he has told ABC News anchor Diane Sawyer that he has the votes to pass the deal. Nate Silver is now forecasting a comfortable margin of victory, 258-173, in the House. 3.30pm: A gropup of protesters have been expelled from the gallery of the House chamber by the Capitol police, with chants about raising taxes. 3.25pm: “This bill is a baby that only a mother could love,” says Peter Welch, a Democratic representative, on cable news. What’s that old JFK quote? “Victory has a thousand fathers; defeat is an orphan.” 3.20pm: House vote on debt ceiling could be nail-biter, according to USA Today : As groups on the political left and right urge “no” votes on the proposal, meetings are being held to get the rank-and-file of both parties behind the deal reached Sunday night between President Obama and congressional leaders. Asked if Boehner has the votes yet, freshman GOP Rep Tom Reed of New York said: “We’ll know over the next two to three hours.” 3.15pm: It’s a nervous time in the House of Representatives right now, says MSNBC’s Chuck Todd : Lots of nervousness about this House vote right now; A tad bit of finger-pointing between two sides about who needs to fill in gaps for 216 On Fox News, commentators are getting nervous about the automatic triggers that cut spending – especially from military spending – if there’s no agreement by the “super committeee” on savings. 3.08pm: Obama for America has distributed this video from the president to its supporters. In it, Obama talks about the “cloud of uncertainty” over the economy as a result of the debt ceiling limit. 3pm: Should we all relax? Uber-blogger Nate Silver now reckons the deal will pass the House by 227-204, with a caveat : Bottom line: if Pelosi whips votes for bill, almost 100% certain to pass. If she leaves Dems to own devices, maybe a 60/40 favorite. Or Pelosi could whip votes against, in which case passage is unlikely. She has a LOT of power. But not clear what her endgame is. Meaning if Nancy Pelosi aggresively lobbys Democrats against the deal, it might fail. 2.50pm: Two of the hardline Tea Party favourites in the House, Republican representatives Jason Chaffetz of Utah and Jeff Duncan of South Carolina, tell ABC News they are voting no: Chaffetz told us that he “can’t support it,” while Duncan said his “analysis of the plan is something I can’t support.” Significantly, Chaffetz says he thinks the bill will pass the House. 2.40pm: Republican presidential front-runner Mitt Romney weighs in and he’s against the deal: While I appreciate the extraordinarily difficult situation President Obama’s lack of leadership has placed Republican Members of Congress in, I personally cannot support this deal. You want a Republican weather-vane, there it is. 2.37pm: Nancy Pelosi, Democratic minority leader in the House, asked if there are enough votes to pass the deal: “You’ll have to ask the Speaker. He has the majority.” Ouch. 2.25pm: Here’s a bad sign: House Speaker John Boehner was going to hold a press conference sometime after 1pm. It got delayed and delayed, and now it’s supposed to happen at 3.30pm. Why the delay? Maybe Boehner realised he was going to miss his sunbed tanning session. More likely, he hasn’t got the votes and needs the time to do some Republican arm-twisting. 2.15pm: The best short analysis of the debt deal cuts themsleves that I’ve seen has come from Josh Barro at the Manhattan Institute: The deal includes a lot of spending cuts, but it’s important to understand how backloaded these cuts are. The headline figure is $2.5 trillion in cuts over ten years, but less than 1 percent of those cuts will come in FY 2012. The near-term fiscal changes are so small that they will matter very little for the economy. The long term changes will be subject to revision by future Congresses and will hopefully come when the economy is healthier—and the parts that do go into effect will probably not be that different from whatever fiscal adjustment we were going to have to enact sooner or later. There are two parts of the spending cuts in this package that really do matter. One is the cuts that will apply in Fiscal Year 2012. There probably won’t be very big; there will be $22 billion in spending cuts compared to the baseline for 2012, or about 0.15 percent of GDP. (That’s out of the $1 trillion in cuts that will be agreed upfront.) A “Super Committee” will be charged with finding a further $1.5 trillion in deficit reduction, and we can expect that the cuts it recommends will again be backloaded. (Indeed, if the Super Committee deadlocks, we will go to an automatic “trigger” process which involves no cuts at all until FY 2013). Discretionary spending cuts that come out of the Super Committee process will again be subject to the whims of future Congresses. Any changes to mandatory spending that come out of the Super Committee are more likely to be sticky — that’s the second part of the cuts that matters — but I’ll believe we’re getting meaningful entitlement reform when I see it. Barro concludes: “So, liberals who are upset that this deal is destimulative, or who expect it to tank the economy, are off base.” 1.54pm: Yikes: Nate Silver has just tweeted : My latest extrapolation from @thehill ‘s whip count: R’s approve 153-87, D’s against 59-132, bill FAILS 212-219. Blimey. Excuse me while I call my stockbroker. And if anyone from the accounts department is reading this, I’d like to be paid in Swiss francs from now on. 1.42pm: Nate Silver of the New York Times’s FiveThirtyEight blog is trying to talk Paul Krugman down from the ledge: If Democrats read the fine print on the debt deal struck by President Obama and Congressional leaders, they’ll find that it’s a little better than it appears at first glance. That’s not to say that the deal is a good one for them. It concedes a lot to Republicans, and Democrats may be wondering why any of this was necessary in the first place. But the good news, relatively speaking, has to do with the timing and structure of the spending cuts contained in the deal. First, the timing: the cuts are heavily back-loaded, so the deal is unlikely to have much direct effect on the economy in 2012. That’s what I said last night. 1.31pm: Dean Baker, a Guardian contributor and a director of the Centre for Economic and Policy Research , has a strong attack on the debt deal from the left: At a time when growth has slowed to a near halt and unemployment rate is again rising, it is tragic that the nation’s political leadership has spent the last few months crafting a deal that is likely to slow growth further and take away supports from the people who have been hit hardest by the downturn. 1.26pm: Guess which Republicans are opposing the deal? Bill Kristol of the Weekly Standard and David Frum, the former Bush speechwriter. According to TP Carney , the Republican uberhawks like Frum and Kristol (neocons, if you will) really don’t like the proposed cuts on military spending: Assuming this debt deal becomes law and its super-committee is formed, defense cuts could create serious divisions on the right. The Tea Party generally rates budget cuts above the need for military spending, so its easy to see why there might be tension between the two camps. 1.20pm: The Hill is running updated whip counts [warning: contains toxic levels of politics geekery] on the vote in the House and Senate: The debt-limit deal announced on Sunday night is expected to attract more than 60 votes in the Senate, but its outlook in the House is much more cloudy. Speaker John Boehner will need Democratic votes to clear the bill through the lower chamber. How many remains unclear. It doesn’t really matter since there will be enough Democratic votes in play to pass the deal, unless the House Republicans have a full-blown civil war. Which would be entertaining but unlikely. 1.10pm: There’s a House rules committee meeting going on now that will decide the timeline for the vote on the deal. There’s a suggestion that the House will vote at 6pm this evening, and that the Senate will have to vote tomorrow, unless Harry Reid can get unanimous consent to hold the vote tonight. All it takes is one senator to say no and we wait another day. (I’m looking at you, Rand Paul.) 1pm: Here’s the current state of US politics: influential liberal bastion MoveOn.org is against the debt deal. Also: influential conservative bastion the Club for Growth is against it. Both are advising “no” votes. In conclusion: Um. 12.44pm: With DeMint saying he won’t try and block the deal in the Senate, satirical radio personality Rush Limbaugh appears to be on the same page. On his radio show today, it’s reported that Limbaugh announced: I don’t know the budget battle has been won. I’m undecided about it. Rush Limbaugh doesn’t have an opinion on something. In other news, September will be composed entirely of Sundays. 12.38pm: Here we go: the godfather of the Tea Party, Republican Senator Jim DeMint, says : “I’m not going to filibuster.” That’s significant. Jim DeMint is a hugely significant figure on the US right/Tea Party faction, far more than the likes of Sarah Palin. If DeMint is not trying to block the deal, then it’ll pass the Senate, and it means that enough of the Republican head-bangers in the House will also vote for it. So, it’s a done deal. 12.32pm: White House press secretary Jay Carney has held a briefing for the media, and was mainly concerned with defending the deal. He says its not true that the White House or Democrats got “nothing” from the deal. Carney says the White House “fully expects” that new tax revenue can be added to the deficit reduction plan drawn up by the “super committee” created as part of the debt limit deal. Let’s wait and see who the Republicans appoint on their side of the committee. Rand Paul? Jim DeMint? 12.24pm: Is there a Democratic revolt in the House? Maybe. Reuters reports that Democratic minority leader Nancy Pelosi says she’s undecided on voting for debt limit bill, saying she’s concerned about lack of new revenues. Pelosi runs a tight ship: if she’s “undecided” that gives carte blanche to Dems in the House to vote against it. Interesting. 12.12pm: Paul Krugman joins hands (sort of) with his opponents in the Tea Party and says he would vote to blow up the US Treasury . In a blogpost entitled “If I were in the House”, Krugman writes: “Sure, it’s risky. But the whole situation is immensely risky, thanks to the extremism and bloody-mindedness of the right.” Here’s the guts of his post – read the rest of it here : I guess I have to be explicit at this point: yes, I would vote no. What about the catastrophe that would result? Several thoughts. First, what I keep hearing from people who should know is that Treasury won’t actually run out of cash tomorrow, that it still has a few more days. Second, the people who claim that terrible things would immediately happen in the markets also claimed that there would be a big relief rally once a deal was struck. Not so much: the Dow is down 121 right now. Third, the idea that a temporary disruption would permanently damage faith in US institutions now seems moot; if you haven’t already lost faith in US institutions, you’re not paying attention. As a political columnist, Paul Krugman makes a great trade economist. 12.05pm: How much will the current debt deal actually save? According to the Congressional Budget Office, it will cut deficits by $2.1tn over 10 years. Of that, the CBO says $917bn in deficit reduction comes from caps on discretionary spending, with $1.2tn more from either the “super committee” savings or the automatic spending reductions – the triggers – that come into effect if the super committee fails. All the wonky details in PDF format here . Preamble: So there’s a deal on raising the US debt ceiling . The deal, struck between the White House, Democratic and Republican leadership in Congress, will now have to be passed through the House of Representatives and the Senate before the deadline of 2 August after which the US Treasury predicts that the $14.3tn limit on government borrowing will be hit. As deals go, this is one in which neither party seems happy with the outcome . In both the Democratic and Republican party their are wings that remain deeply unhappy with the result – and all eyes are now on them as the deal moves from smoke-filled rooms to the chambers of Congress. Will the Republican right – the Tea Party-inspired, the fiscal hardliners, the swivel-eyed – continue to fight against the deal and demand more? Will the Democratic party’s left say enough is enough and revolt when it comes time to vote. Meanwhile, the details of the detail remain frighteningly vague – beyond the comprehension of members of Congress, let alone voters. The headline figures – themselves disputed – of budget savings between $2tn and $3tn involve a complex series of assumptions over a decade, and include the results of an as-yet unborn “super committee” to identify cuts. Debate is now starting in the House of Representatives – so follow all the action right here. US economy Obama administration Republicans John Boehner US Congress US politics US economic growth and recession United States Economics Richard Adams guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Mitt Romney Trying to Win Tea Party Support by Denouncing Debt Ceiling Deal
August 1, 2011 No Comment
Click here to view this media Mitt Romney has been very quiet on the debt ceiling farce even though he’s running for the GOP presidential nomination and many have asked him for comment. Some might say he’s not leading on the issue. Some might say he’s been trying to protect himself from the tea party faction of the GOP since many Conservatives don’t trust him at all, but he finally was forced to weigh in on the issue…since it’s been the #1 news story of the last few weeks. Here’s what he had to finally say. Republican presidential primary front-runner Mitt Romney rejected the debt ceiling deal reached over the weekend, saying it will lead to tax increases and cuts in military spending. “As president, my plan would have produced a budget that was cut, capped and balanced — not one that opens the door to higher taxes and puts defense cuts on the table,” Romney said in a statement. “President Obama’s leadership failure has pushed the economy to the brink at the eleventh hour and 59th minute. While I appreciate the extraordinarily difficult situation President Obama’s lack of leadership has placed Republican Members of Congress in, I personally cannot support this deal,” Romney said. Romney’s statement came after critics — including fellow Republican presidential candidate Jon Huntsman — assailed the former Massachusetts governor for not weighing in sooner on the debt negotiations. Romney advisers said they were taking a cautious approach to avoid commenting before the contours of a deal became clear. Romney could have spoken out a long time ago and staked a position on it instead of hiding behind a wall of silence all this time. Michele Bachmann, Mrs. “Pray away the Gay” wasn’t afraid be attacked by the GOP gurus like BIll O and Krauthammer to say that she wanted the US to default on its commitments and would never vote to raise the debt ceiling. Even Herman Cain commented on it – even though he flopped around like Mitt usually does. In reality, Romney would never go for the Cut, Cap and Balance lunacy either, but it costs him nothing since that will be defeated and he doesn’t have to vote for it. Here’s a video from C&L’s most excellent archives back in Dec, 2007 from Meet The Pres s when Timmeh put together a mash up of many of Mitt’s flip flops. This is going to be a tough hurdle for him to overcome in the Republican primary although his competition shouldn’t be too difficult to defeat if we were dealing with normal people. MTP transcript: RUSSERT: Let me talk to you about your campaign. This is how it has been described in numerous cartoons, editorials, news articles: “A Changed Man. Many candidates change. Romney seems to have given himself a makeover. Which has prompted more than a few people to ask: Who is this guy?” Some of your opponents passed out these flip-floppers, that Romney flips and flops on the various issues. And it’s become a real issue for you in Iowa. The Des Moines Register asked Republicans who aren’t supporting you what’s the major factor for not supporting Romney? And look at this: Shifting his position on issues like abortion, 51 percent of Republicans say that’s why they haven’t embraced your candidacy. I want to take abortion first. I participated in your debate in 2002 when you ran for governor of Massachusetts. I asked you about that issue, and this was your response. Let’s watch. (Videotape) ROMNEY: My position has been the same throughout my political career, and it goes back to the days of 1970. There was a woman who was running for political office, U.S. Senate. She took a very bold and courageous stand in 1970, and that was in a conservative state. That was that a woman should have the right to make her own choice as to whether or not to have an abortion. Her name was Lenore Romney, she was my mom. I will preserve and protect a woman’s right to choose and am devoted and dedicated to honoring my word in that regard. (End videotape) RUSSERT: “Devoted and dedicated” to honoring your word. When you ran for the Senate against Ted Kennedy, you were asked the same question. This was your response. (Videotape) ROMNEY: Many, many years ago I had a dear close family relative that was very close to me who passed away from an illegal abortion. It is since that time my mother and my family have been committed to the belief that we can believe as we want, but we will not force our beliefs on others on that matter. Offscreen Voice: Thank you, Mr… ROMNEY: And you will not see me wavering on that. (End videotape) RUSSERT: You–will not see you wavering on that issue. You now have said you support the 2004 Republican Party platform, which says this: “We say the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We” suggest “a human life amendment to the Constitution.” Such amendment would ban abortions all across the country. Why such a dramatic and profound change after pledging never to waiver on a woman’s right to choose?
Continue reading …Mitt Romney Trying to Win Tea Party Support by Denouncing Debt Ceiling Deal
August 1, 2011 No Comment
Click here to view this media Mitt Romney has been very quiet on the debt ceiling farce even though he’s running for the GOP presidential nomination and many have asked him for comment. Some might say he’s not leading on the issue. Some might say he’s been trying to protect himself from the tea party faction of the GOP since many Conservatives don’t trust him at all, but he finally was forced to weigh in on the issue…since it’s been the #1 news story of the last few weeks. Here’s what he had to finally say. Republican presidential primary front-runner Mitt Romney rejected the debt ceiling deal reached over the weekend, saying it will lead to tax increases and cuts in military spending. “As president, my plan would have produced a budget that was cut, capped and balanced — not one that opens the door to higher taxes and puts defense cuts on the table,” Romney said in a statement. “President Obama’s leadership failure has pushed the economy to the brink at the eleventh hour and 59th minute. While I appreciate the extraordinarily difficult situation President Obama’s lack of leadership has placed Republican Members of Congress in, I personally cannot support this deal,” Romney said. Romney’s statement came after critics — including fellow Republican presidential candidate Jon Huntsman — assailed the former Massachusetts governor for not weighing in sooner on the debt negotiations. Romney advisers said they were taking a cautious approach to avoid commenting before the contours of a deal became clear. Romney could have spoken out a long time ago and staked a position on it instead of hiding behind a wall of silence all this time. Michele Bachmann, Mrs. “Pray away the Gay” wasn’t afraid be attacked by the GOP gurus like BIll O and Krauthammer to say that she wanted the US to default on its commitments and would never vote to raise the debt ceiling. Even Herman Cain commented on it – even though he flopped around like Mitt usually does. In reality, Romney would never go for the Cut, Cap and Balance lunacy either, but it costs him nothing since that will be defeated and he doesn’t have to vote for it. Here’s a video from C&L’s most excellent archives back in Dec, 2007 from Meet The Pres s when Timmeh put together a mash up of many of Mitt’s flip flops. This is going to be a tough hurdle for him to overcome in the Republican primary although his competition shouldn’t be too difficult to defeat if we were dealing with normal people. MTP transcript: RUSSERT: Let me talk to you about your campaign. This is how it has been described in numerous cartoons, editorials, news articles: “A Changed Man. Many candidates change. Romney seems to have given himself a makeover. Which has prompted more than a few people to ask: Who is this guy?” Some of your opponents passed out these flip-floppers, that Romney flips and flops on the various issues. And it’s become a real issue for you in Iowa. The Des Moines Register asked Republicans who aren’t supporting you what’s the major factor for not supporting Romney? And look at this: Shifting his position on issues like abortion, 51 percent of Republicans say that’s why they haven’t embraced your candidacy. I want to take abortion first. I participated in your debate in 2002 when you ran for governor of Massachusetts. I asked you about that issue, and this was your response. Let’s watch. (Videotape) ROMNEY: My position has been the same throughout my political career, and it goes back to the days of 1970. There was a woman who was running for political office, U.S. Senate. She took a very bold and courageous stand in 1970, and that was in a conservative state. That was that a woman should have the right to make her own choice as to whether or not to have an abortion. Her name was Lenore Romney, she was my mom. I will preserve and protect a woman’s right to choose and am devoted and dedicated to honoring my word in that regard. (End videotape) RUSSERT: “Devoted and dedicated” to honoring your word. When you ran for the Senate against Ted Kennedy, you were asked the same question. This was your response. (Videotape) ROMNEY: Many, many years ago I had a dear close family relative that was very close to me who passed away from an illegal abortion. It is since that time my mother and my family have been committed to the belief that we can believe as we want, but we will not force our beliefs on others on that matter. Offscreen Voice: Thank you, Mr… ROMNEY: And you will not see me wavering on that. (End videotape) RUSSERT: You–will not see you wavering on that issue. You now have said you support the 2004 Republican Party platform, which says this: “We say the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We” suggest “a human life amendment to the Constitution.” Such amendment would ban abortions all across the country. Why such a dramatic and profound change after pledging never to waiver on a woman’s right to choose?
Continue reading …
Amy’s father meets Keith Vaz, who says home affairs select committee will look again at the funding of drug treatments The father of Amy Winehouse, who plans to set up a residential drug rehabilitation centre in memory of his daughter, won the backing of MPs for his campaign to highlight gaps in addiction treatment services in Britain. After meeting Keith Vaz, chairman of the Commons home affairs committee, Mitch Winehouse said he wanted to do something for those problem drug users who could not afford private treatment. “I want to involve myself in things that would have been important to Amy,” said Winehouse after a 45-minute meeting with Vaz at the Commons. “That is why we are going to be setting up the Amy Winehouse Foundation. This isn’t only important to me, this is important to our whole country. “There’s hundreds of thousands of young people in situations today that could be avoided, and these are our future policemen, doctors and lawyers and solicitors, that we could help. We need to be able to help our children.” Vaz said afterwards that he was sure the home affairs committee would look again at the funding of drug treatment services. Winehouse highlighted the closure of the only NHS residential rehabilitation centre for young people at Middlegate in Nettleton, Lincolnshire, last year. “When he [Winehouse] gave evidence to our inquiry into drugs two years ago, he was very clear that drug treatment in the UK was hard to access and long waits were common, and we have already expressed our concern at reports that residential rehabilitation is not readily available,” said Vaz. “This new initiative enables us to revisit this issue, and I am certainly keen to hear from all those who have had difficulty in obtaining treatment. As we said in our report, prevention is better than cure. Any initiative for rehabilitation must go hand in hand with sending out the message of prevention.” Winehouse also met James Brokenshire, a junior Home Office minister, to discuss the issue, along with Sarah Graham, a former cocaine user and addiction expert. Graham acknowledged that most treatment services were provided within the community, but argued that there were cases – such as when young people were being abused at home – where help was not available. She said: “As a rich country, we should be able to afford a rehabilitation centre for young people, and we don’t think charities should pay for it totally.” Winehouse and Graham were accompanied by the singer’s former managers, Raye Cosbert and Trenton Harrison-Lewis. But the claim that there were two-year waiting lists for drug treatment services in Britain was disputed by Paul Hayes, chief executive of the National Treatment Agency for substance abuse. “The popular image of a spell in a luxury rehab, beloved of celebrities and the tabloids, is not representative of the mainstream treatment and recovery services provided in this country by both the NHS and the voluntary sector,” he said. “These services are widely available, and for some years now official statistics have confirmed that more than nine out of 10 patients wait less than three weeks for treatment in England.” He said while more flexibility was needed to ensure people with drug problems were helped in the most clinically appropriate way, there was clear trend towards fewer young people needing treatment. Amy Winehouse, 27, was found dead in her north London flat on 23 July. Her family is waiting for the results of toxicology tests to establish the cause of death. She won three Grammy awards for her song, Rehab, which described her refusal to enter a drug rehabilitation clinic. Drugs policy Drugs Amy Winehouse Alan Travis guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Ali Velshi Calls Out Alex Castellanos for Comparing the US to Greece and Claiming We’re Broke
August 1, 2011 No Comment
Click here to view this media Republican operative and (unfortunately for the rest of us) regular CNN contributor, Alex Castellanos tried repeating the standard Republican lie that the United States is somehow “just like Greece” and that we’re going broke. Thankfully, Your Money host, Ali Velshi was there to call him out for it. If he’d treat his regular guest, Stephen Moore this way when he has him on during his weekend show, I might almost be willing to forgive him for subjecting us to that Wall Street Journa l hack week after week in the first place — almost. Naturally host, Don Lemon had to break things up when Velshi was just getting started making his points. Heaven forbid we can’t be uncivil to one of their regular propagandists when they get called out for the lies in their talking points. Transcript via CNN . LEMON: Yes, and Donna — and Wolf is going to jump in here, but just real quickly, I have to say, you know, Alex, you heard what Donna had to say, yet in the final hours, the House speaker was concerned about defense spending. And we didn’t hear some of the points that Donna just brought up. CASTELLANOS: Well, I don’t think there’s a great danger of civility breaking out in Washington any time soon… (LAUGHTER) CASTELLANOS: … despite Senators McCain and Durbin’s effort. But no, you know, something good has happened in all of this, and that is that we are talking not only about a serious issue like spending and the debt and are we going to spend ourselves along the path of Greece, but we’re also talking about jobs and taxes, as I think these senators were just talking about. I take exception a little bit to something Ali said, that we’re not talking about jobs. That’s all this debate has been about. No one’s going to invest and create jobs in a country that’s spending itself into insolvency. So the first thing you have to do is get some fiscal discipline. You know, if, Don, say some nice news network like CNN were going to hire you but you knew they were going bankrupt, it might affect your decision. VELSHI: Alex! Alex! Alex! CASTELLANOS: Spending and jobs and taxes… VELSHI: We’re not… CASTELLANOS: … we’re now seeing a preview… VELSHI: Alex! CASTELLANOS: … of the next… VELSHI: Alex! BLITZER: Go ahead, Ali. VELSHI: Alex… BRAZILE: There you go. Cut in. VELSHI: … what are you talking about? We’re going bankrupt? CASTELLANOS: Yes. VELSHI: What are you — come on! What are you talking about, Alex? We’re not going bankrupt. America’s never gone bankrupt. Greece can’t issue bonds. America can. There was no question — we have a AAA credit rating, Alex! We weren’t close to bankrupt. CASTELLANOS: Right. VELSHI: This was an invention of fiscal conservatives. CASTELLANOS: Absolutely true. VELSHI: Jobs is the issue, Alex! CASTELLANOS: And Greece — and as you know, Ali, Greece had this decision 10 years ago, and they chose to keep on going along the same path. You know, everybody keeps saying, Gosh, we’ve raised the debt ceiling automatically here 60 times. There’s no problem. That’s the problem. We keep going up to the bar like it’s routine. We’re now having a debate that says we cannot continue spending more money than we take in… VELSHI: Alex… CASTELLANOS: … and we have to do something about it. (CROSSTALK) LEMON: Ali and Alex, both hang on. Do you agree, Alex, that what Ali said, that this was an invention? This was an invention to get to this point by connecting the debt ceiling to the… BRAZILE: Yes, this is manufactured. LEMON: … deficit? CASTELLANOS: No, no, no, no. VELSHI: We all agree on one thing… CASTELLANOS: Economic stability… (CROSSTALK) LEMON: Let him answer, Ali, and then… (CROSSTALK) BRAZILE: No, Alex, this was manufactured. LEMON: Go ahead, Alex. CASTELLANOS: Ali — Ali, here’s something we can agree on. This is money. VELSHI: Yes. CASTELLANOS: The federal government can’t spend any of this that it doesn’t first take from someone else. We’re now spending — what, we’re $14 trillion in the hole. The Democrats say the way to grow this economy is to keep doing that, keep stimulating the economy by… BRAZILE: That’s not what Democrats are saying, Alex. CASTELLANOS: … taking this money and sending it to Washington… (CROSSTALK) BRAZILE: That’s not what we’re saying. CASTELLANOS: We’re going to send it to Washington and then it’s going to send it back to us. LEMON: OK, Ali, go ahead. (CROSSTALK) CASTELLANOS: The way to grow this economy is to leave it in our pockets. VELSHI: I think — we’re fully on the same side about the fact that jobs — everybody has to have a job. Everybody doesn’t have to have a house and everybody doesn’t have to have a 401(k), but everybody has to have a job. I am not sure, Alex — I would love for you to connect for me how this creates a job in America. You know, when we talk about companies staying on this sidelines, conservatives have been saying the reason companies don’t hire is because there’s uncertainty about taxes, there’s uncertainty about health care. So now — now I’m hearing that it was uncertainty about the debt ceiling. Companies will just use any excuse… CASTELLANOS: No, no, no! (CROSSTALK) LEMON: I want to bring Donna in.
Continue reading …
Click here to view this media The federal Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) was expected Monday to announce new guidelines that would require health insurance companies to cover women’s health care services, including birth control and and breast exams, without a co-pays or deductibles. The new rules, made possible by President Obama’s Affordable Care act, would begin Aug. 1, 2012. “We know that half of women, according to studies, forego or delay preventive care because they can’t afford it and under the affordable care act that all changes,” White House advisor Stephanie Cutter told ABC News. Services covered will include well-woman exams, screening for gestational diabetes, breastfeeding support, domestic violence screenings, and all FDA-approved birth control methods — including emergency contraception like the morning-after pill. In July, an Institute of Medicine report recommended making contraceptives free to all women. That report came under immediate fire from conservatives like Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly. “Many women who get pregnant are blasted out of their minds when they have sex, and they’re not going to use birth control anyway,” O’Reilly said last month .
Continue reading …Dick Durbin: Democrats Never Passed a Budget Due to Republican Obstruction
August 1, 2011 No Comment
Click here to view this media As unhappy as I am about how this whole debt ceiling hostage taking is going and wondering what we’re in for after we get more details on what’s being agreed to right now, I was glad to see someone finally push back at this Republican talking point I hear them repeat day after day, week after week — Democrats never passed a budget and so that makes the horrid Ryan budget passed by the House somehow “responsible.” Sen. Dick Durbin finally shot that one down on Fox News Sunday this morning and explained why they never got anything passed — 60 votes — or in other words, Republican filibusters and obstruction. BAIER: Senator Kyl, when you hear the president say this no way to run the government, you know, that we’ll likely also face another standoff at the end of September when the continuing resolution runs out and government funding — you know, we’re up against another government shutdown. You know, former White House chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, once famously said, “Never waste a crisis.” Do Republicans now risk become the — becoming the party that’s always pushing up to the cliff, always using that cliff to try to extract concessions? I mean, do you fear the American people will have crisis fatigue, if they don’t already, and that it will hurt your party? KYL: You mentioned the possibility of a continuing resolution. Why would Congress have to pass a continuing resolution? Because the Senate Democrats now, for the third year in a row, will not have passed a budget. That’s their job. The House Republicans have passed a budget. Senate Democrats said no to that budget. So I think it’s very unfair to suggest that Republicans are responsible. We don’t have the votes in the U.S. Senate. But where they do have the votes, in the House of Representatives, they’ve done their job. BAIER: Senator Durbin, why haven’t the Senate Democrats passed a budget? DURBIN: It’s called 60 votes. And what it boils down to is this: we have 53 Democratic senators. (CROSSTALK) DURBIN: Well, but I can tell you, when we get through all the procedural tangles that we face in getting through this budget resolution, it is not just a matter of finding some agreement, but getting it executed on the floor. The point I want to make is this: this, as I understand it, the negotiation that we’re talking about, will include some budget targets for at least the next fiscal year. So we won’t revisit this kind of crisis politics when it comes to our spending bills for next year. BAIER: But do you think this kind of deficit reduction that is happening this week, whatever this deal ends up being, would have happened without linking it to the debt ceiling increase? DURBIN: Well, I understand the brinkmanship that’s necessary to sometimes bring this matter forward. But let me say, the president did create a deficit commission. I sat on it, a bipartisan commission, and voted for it. And I had at least two, maybe three Republican senators who joined me in that vote. BAIER: But it didn’t make the needed vote to bring it to the — DURBIN: That’s exactly right. We tried to follow up, the Gang of Six. Again, a bipartisan effort. There has been a commitment from the president, as well as many in the Senate — I just speak for the Senate — to move forward in a responsible bipartisan way to deal with the deficit. BAIER: But actually doing it, Senator, actually seeing the cuts, there are many people who believe that if it wasn’t linked to this debt ceiling vote, that it really wouldn’t be happening. DURBIN: Well, I can tell you that if we have to risk our economy, a very weak economy, with so many people unemployed and businesses facing higher interest rates, which is bound to happen now because of this brinkmanship that we’re engaged in here, that is not a good way to run this nation or the economy. And if that is the strategy coming from the House Republicans, it is not good for our long-term economic growth.
Continue reading …
Look out MSNBC. The market for “vicious, inaccurate, and inexcusable” cable news just got more crowded in New York. The New York Times reported August 1 that Al Jazeera English will begin appearing in New York for the first time, “subletting air space from a channel owner.” This marks a victory in AJE’s campaign to gain widespread access to the U.S. cable market. It’s also a victory for the network’s liberal media supporters, including several at the New York Times. “Al Jazeera English was lauded by the United States government and even by a few competitors for its broadcasts from Egypt and other Middle Eastern countries earlier this year,” the Times noted. Yes, and it was called “balanced and thorough.” But as the Culture and Media Institute has reported , the praise was overblown and stemmed more from a decidedly non-journalistic admiration for the network’s activism than the quality of AJE’s reporting. In fact, AJE willfully ignored the horrible sexual attack on CBS’ Lara Logan in Cairo’s Tahrir Square on Feb. 11. Nor did it report on the murder of a Jewish family (including toddler and infant) in an Israeli settlement the next month. AJE did report on related events that occurred later, portraying Palestinians as victims of the Israeli thirst for vengeance. But it’s par for the course for a network that threw a birthday party for a child-murdering terrorist, whose Iraq War coverage was called “vicious, inaccurate, and inexcusable” by the U.S. Secretary of Defense, and who’s website after the killing of Osama bin Laden ran a long list of editorials suggesting the moral equivalence of the terrorist and his killers. Al Jazeera English is little better than an anti-Western propaganda outlet. It says a lot about the debasement of our own “journalists” that they can call it “balanced and thorough.”
Continue reading …