Explosion kills head of provincial religious council and two others, local officials say A suicide bomber has killed three people at a Kandahar mosque during a memorial service for Ahmed Wali Karzai, the Afghan president’s brother who was assassinated last week. Zalmai Ayoubi, a spokesman for the Kandahar governor’s office, confirmed three people were killed and 15 were wounded in the attack. However, witnesses said five people had died and more than 25 were injured. “The suicide attacker entered the mosque. One of the people who died was Maulawi Ekmattulah, the head of the local ulema shura (the provincial religious council),” Ayoubi said. The identity of the others killed has not yet been confirmed. Haji Padshah who had been paying his last respects to Karzai at the service, said: “I was on the other side of the mosque when I heard the bang. It deafened me. I could not hear anything but I saw everyone running around.” Speaking from the hospital where he had been rushed he said he saw five dead bodies and more than 25 injured survivors. Ahmed Wali Karzai was shot by his personal bodyguard on Tuesday and was buried at the family gravesite in the village of Karz. The funeral was attended by the Afghan president, Hamid Karzai, politicians, dignitaries and thousands of other mourners. Islamic custom dictates the deceased must be buried within 24 hours of death. Thursday’s memorial service was planned to allow those travelling from further afield who would not arrive in time for the burial to pay their respects. The police have launched an investigation into the killing of Karzai as it is unclear why a trusted aide would murder him. The Taliban claimed responsibility for the assassination but a personal conflict has not been ruled out. Hamid Karzai was not at today’s memorial service, having already returned to Kabul. The burial of of AWK , as he was known, passed without incident amid tight security provided by the Afghan national security forces. However, Helmand’s governor, Gulab Mangal, was targeted by a remotely detonated roadside bomb in Maiwand district of Kandahar as he travelled to the funeral. No one has claimed responsibility for the attack. Taliban spokesperson Qari Yosuf Ahmadi said he did not have any information about the attack. Afghanistan Hamid Karzai guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Explosion kills head of provincial religious council and two others, local officials say A suicide bomber has killed three people at a Kandahar mosque during a memorial service for Ahmed Wali Karzai, the Afghan president’s brother who was assassinated last week. Zalmai Ayoubi, a spokesman for the Kandahar governor’s office, confirmed three people were killed and 15 were wounded in the attack. However, witnesses said five people had died and more than 25 were injured. “The suicide attacker entered the mosque. One of the people who died was Maulawi Ekmattulah, the head of the local ulema shura (the provincial religious council),” Ayoubi said. The identity of the others killed has not yet been confirmed. Haji Padshah who had been paying his last respects to Karzai at the service, said: “I was on the other side of the mosque when I heard the bang. It deafened me. I could not hear anything but I saw everyone running around.” Speaking from the hospital where he had been rushed he said he saw five dead bodies and more than 25 injured survivors. Ahmed Wali Karzai was shot by his personal bodyguard on Tuesday and was buried at the family gravesite in the village of Karz. The funeral was attended by the Afghan president, Hamid Karzai, politicians, dignitaries and thousands of other mourners. Islamic custom dictates the deceased must be buried within 24 hours of death. Thursday’s memorial service was planned to allow those travelling from further afield who would not arrive in time for the burial to pay their respects. The police have launched an investigation into the killing of Karzai as it is unclear why a trusted aide would murder him. The Taliban claimed responsibility for the assassination but a personal conflict has not been ruled out. Hamid Karzai was not at today’s memorial service, having already returned to Kabul. The burial of of AWK , as he was known, passed without incident amid tight security provided by the Afghan national security forces. However, Helmand’s governor, Gulab Mangal, was targeted by a remotely detonated roadside bomb in Maiwand district of Kandahar as he travelled to the funeral. No one has claimed responsibility for the attack. Taliban spokesperson Qari Yosuf Ahmadi said he did not have any information about the attack. Afghanistan Hamid Karzai guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
City experts warned that the lack of progress in Washington in recent days over the debt ceiling was fanning fears that the world’s biggest economy might default on some of its debt America’s debt crisis reached a critical stage on Thursday as lawmakers remained deadlocked over whether raise the US debt ceiling, and Moody’s threatened to downgrade the country’s credit rating. The dollar lost ground against most major currencies after Moody’s and Chinese ratings agency Dagong both put the US on negative watch. Reports, later denied, that President Obama had walked out of debt negotiations with top Republicans added to the drama. World stock markets suffered another bout of heavy losses when trading began on Thursday, with the FTSE 100 falling 57 points within the opening minutes to 5879. City experts warned that the lack of progress in Washington in recent days was fanning fears that the world’s biggest economy might default on some of its debts. Michael Hewson of CMC Markets called the threat of a Moody’s downgrade a “cruise missile across the bows of US politicians”. “One thing is certain it won’t take long for Fitch and S&P to follow suit if the politicians don’t come to their senses,” Hewson added. Moody’s said on Wednesday night that there was a greater risk that the US government would not agree to increase its debt ceiling above the legal limit of $14.3 trillion (£8.86tn), hit in May . Dagong swiftly followed suit, saying slow economic growth and rising debts meant the federal government’s ability to repay its debts was deteriorating. Despite mounting concern in the financial markets, America’s political leaders remain some distance apart over the issue of the debt ceiling. Little progress appeared to be made on Wednesday. Republican House majority leader Eric Cantor claimed that Obama had shoved back the table and walked out of White House talks, after Cantor refused to discuss the president’s proposal to raise taxes on wealthier Americans. “The president told me, ‘Eric, don’t call my bluff. I’m going to take this to the American people,’” Cantor said after the meeting. Democrats, though, disputed whether Obama had quit the meeting prematurely. “Left abruptly is perfectly fair,” one official told the LA Times . “But the meeting was over — in no sense did he walk out on it.” Officials have warned that, as things stand, America will run out of money to pay its bills on 2 August. Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke said on Wednesday that without agreement, the US would continue to service its debts and stop benefits like Social Security payments instead. Republicans are demanding hefty spending cuts, worth around $2.4tn over the next ten years, in return for voting to raise the debt ceiling. Obama is pushing for a $4tn deficit reduction plan over the same period, with a hefty slice of increased tax revenue. Europe’s own debt crisis will be under the spotlight on Thursday as Italy holds an auction of government debt. A sale earlier this week saw the country pay its highest interest rate since the collapse of Lehman Brothers. Plans for a new austerity package, which the Italian parliament will start to approve on Thursday, may bring some calm. US economy Economics Global economy Obama administration United States Ratings agencies Graeme Wearden guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Houses still being built on floodplains despite higher risk of flooding, says Committee on Climate Change Local authorities are continuing to allow tens of thousands of houses to be built on floodplains, despite a growing risk of flooding as climate change takes hold, according to a new report from the government’s climate adviser. The report, from a sub-unit of the Committee on Climate Change , also found a marked increase in the risk of drought across the country. At present, only 8% of key water “resource zones” – catchment areas for water – are in danger of a shortfall in supplies, even in a severe drought. Within 15 years, that number is likely to be about 45% if nothing is done, meaning millions of people could be affected. Lord Krebs, chair of the adaptation sub-committee, called on the government to begin taking action urgently, in order to head off much greater problems with drought and flooding. These could include tougher building regulations so that all houses were equipped with water-saving devices, including water meters, and those at risk of flood with preventive measures, ranging from sealed airbricks to raised floors and flood-resistant paint. He said: “By taking steps to manage this vulnerability, local communities, businesses and households can save money today and reduce the costs of climate change in the future.” At present, the UK is coping with these problems, but the committee warned that in key areas of infrastructure, such as water supply and flood protection, the country was “near its limits… and could be pushed over the edge by climate change”. Government cuts earlier this year reduced the number of flood defence projects by a thousand. Krebs said he was surprised at how many houses are still built on floodplains around the UK – around 12,000 to 16,000 every year in England alone. He said one of the key reasons could be aesthetic: houses built on high ground, where they are less at risk of flood, are more visible than those set in a valley, where they are at much greater flood risk. If people object to houses being visible in their view, that could put local authorities off attempting to build on more suitable ground. “My assumption is that local authorities are making trade-offs between floodplain building and considerations of natural beauty,” he said. David Symons, director at environmental consultancy WSP Environment & Energy, said planning policy should be changed drastically. He said: “Current planning policies provide too much wriggle room for local authorities. Although local authorities do have to consider and consult on flood risk, they have the power to ignore these findings completely and grant planning permission to new developments regardless of the risks. ” This was exacerbated by the government’s new assumption in favour of development, and because the government changed the way it funds flood mitigation – it now encourages match funding from the private sector for flood protection investments. “This means that development in the floodplain could be more likely if a developer is willing to pay the premium as part of obtaining planning permission,” said Symons. This could mean developers simply pay an upfront cost, leaving the householders to cope with the after-effects. Other infrastructure at risk from the effects of climate change includes roads and railways, the electricity grid, and communications networks. The committee’s report called for the companies involved to investigate further how they could cope with the possible effects. Krebs also urged people to take low-cost measures to help keep their houses cool in hot summers – these could be as simple as curtains. Flooding Climate change Committee on Climate Change Green politics Local government Fiona Harvey guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Socialist Senator: Obama’s Wrong – Social Security Checks Will Go Out If Debt Ceiling Isn’t Raised
July 13, 2011 No Comment
America's only admittedly socialist member of Congress said Wednesday that he disagreed with President Obama's comments concerning Social Security checks possibly not going out on August 3rd if the debt ceiling isn't raised. When Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said he felt checks to seniors and disabled vets would be issued no matter what, the host of MSNBC's “The Ed Show” responded, “So you would take issue with the President on that statement, that he may have been fear-mongering in essence?” (video follows with transcript and commentary): ED SCHULTZ, HOST: And Senator, what was your response to the President when he told a, an anchor in an interview he couldn’t guarantee that the checks would be there on April 3rd [sic], that he couldn’t guarantee that the Social Security checks would, would hit people’s bank accounts if we don’t take action? What’s your response to that? True or false? SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS (I-VERMONT): Well, there are differences of opinion about that. There are some who would argue, and I tend to agree, that given the fact that Social Security has a $2.6 trillion surplus, then you can figure out a way you must make sure that seniors and disabled vets get their checks. SCHULTZ: So you would take issue with the President on that statement, that he may have been fear-mongering in essence? SANDERS: What he is saying is, look, there’s not enough money here to pay our debts. That’s true. I think, in fact, we can pay Social Security. Interesting when possibly the most liberal member of Congress goes on national television contradicting a Democrat president. That'll teach Schultz never to ask a question he doesn't know the answer to. Of course, on this rare occasion, Sanders was correct. The Bipartisan Policy Center published some very compelling numbers about this matter that jive nicely with what NewsBusters has been sharing for over a week. As reported by the Weekly Standard Friday: The BPC study found that the United States is likely to hit the debt limit sometime between August 2 and August 9. “It’s a 44 percent overnight cut in federal spending” if Congress hits the debt limit, [Jay Powell of the Bipartisan Policy Center]said. The BPC study projects there will be $172 billion in federal revenues in August and $307 billion in authorized expenditures. That means there's enough money to pay for, say, interest on the debt ($29 billion), Social Security ($49.2 billion), Medicare and Medicaid ($50 billion), active duty troop pay ($2.9 billion), veterans affairs programs ($2.9 billion). That leaves about $39 billion to fund other things. As such, whether or not the President specifically said Social Security checks are in jeopardy if the debt ceiling isn't raised, the mere suggestion is indeed fear-mongering, and the American people deserve a more factual representation of what would happen in a few weeks if Congress doesn't reach an agreement on this issue. As it's become crystal clear that's not going to come from the White House or their media minions, it sure was surprising to see a grain of truth on MSNBC, especially coming from Sanders.
Continue reading …Socialist Senator: Obama Was Wrong – Social Security Checks Will Go Out If Debt Ceiling Isn’t Raised
July 13, 2011 No Comment
America's only admittedly socialist member of Congress said Wednesday that he disagreed with President Obama's comments concerning Social Security checks possibly not going out on August 3rd if the debt ceiling isn't raised. When Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said he felt checks to seniors and disabled vets would be cut no matter what, the host of MSNBC's “The Ed Show” responded, “So you would take issue with the President on that statement, that he may have been fear-mongering in essence?” (video follows with transcript and commentary): ED SCHULTZ, HOST: And Senator, what was your response to the President when he told a, an anchor in an interview he couldn’t guarantee that the checks would be there on April 3rd, that he couldn’t guarantee that the Social Security checks would, would hit people’s bank accounts if we don’t take action. What’s your response to that? True or false? SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS (I-VERMONT): Well, there are differences of opinion about that. There are some who would argue, and I tend to agree, that given the fact that Social Security has a $2.6 trillion surplus, then you can figure out a way you must make sure that seniors and disabled vets get their checks. SCHULTZ: So you would take issue with the President on that statement, that he may have been fear-mongering in essence? SANDERS: What he is saying is, look, there’s not enough money here to pay our debts. That’s true. I think, in fact, we can pay Social Security. Interesting when possibly the most liberal member of Congress goes on national television contradicting a Democrat president. That'll teach Schultz never to ask a question he doesn't know the answer to. Of course, on this rare occasion, Sanders was correct. The Bipartisan Policy Center published some very compelling numbers about this matter that jive nicely with what NewsBusters has been sharing for over a week. As reported by the Weekly Standard Friday: The BPC study found that the United States is likely to hit the debt limit sometime between August 2 and August 9. “It’s a 44 percent overnight cut in federal spending” if Congress hits the debt limit, [Jay Powell of the Bipartisan Policy Center]said. The BPC study projects there will be $172 billion in federal revenues in August and $307 billion in authorized expenditures. That means there's enough money to pay for, say, interest on the debt ($29 billion), Social Security ($49.2 billion), Medicare and Medicaid ($50 billion), active duty troop pay ($2.9 billion), veterans affairs programs ($2.9 billion). That leaves about $39 billion to fund other things. As such, whether or not the President specifically said Social Security checks are in jeopardy if the debt ceiling isn't raised, the mere suggestion is indeed fear-mongering, and the American people deserve a more factual representation of what would happen in a few weeks if Congress doesn't reach an agreement on this issue. As it's become crystal clear that's not going to come from the White House or their media minions, it sure was surprising to see a grain of truth on MSNBC, especially coming from Sanders.
Continue reading …Socialist Senator: Obama Was Wrong – Social Security Checks Will Go Out If Debt Ceiling Isn’t Raised
July 13, 2011 No CommentAmerica's only admittedly socialist member of Congress said Wednesday that he disagreed with President Obama's comments concerning Social Security checks possibly not going out on August 3rd if the debt ceiling isn't raised. When Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said he felt checks to seniors and disabled vets would be cut no matter what, the host of MSNBC's “The Ed Show” responded, “So you would take issue with the President on that statement, that he may have been fear-mongering in essence?” (video follows with transcript and commentary): ED SCHULTZ, HOST: And Senator, what was your response to the President when he told a, an anchor in an interview he couldn’t guarantee that the checks would be there on April 3rd, that he couldn’t guarantee that the Social Security checks would, would hit people’s bank accounts if we don’t take action. What’s your response to that? True or false? SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS (I-VERMONT): Well, there are differences of opinion about that. There are some who would argue, and I tend to agree, that given the fact that Social Security has a $2.6 trillion surplus, then you can figure out a way you must make sure that seniors and disabled vets get their checks. SCHULTZ: So you would take issue with the President on that statement, that he may have been fear-mongering in essence? SANDERS: What he is saying is, look, there’s not enough money here to pay our debts. That’s true. I think, in fact, we can pay Social Security. Interesting when possibly the most liberal member of Congress goes on national television contradicting a Democrat president. That'll teach Schultz never to ask a question he doesn't know the answer to. Of course, on this rare occasion, Sanders was correct. The Bipartisan Policy Center published some very compelling numbers about this matter that jive nicely with what NewsBusters has been sharing for over a week. As reported by the Weekly Standard Friday: The BPC study found that the United States is likely to hit the debt limit sometime between August 2 and August 9. “It’s a 44 percent overnight cut in federal spending” if Congress hits the debt limit, [Jay Powell of the Bipartisan Policy Center]said. The BPC study projects there will be $172 billion in federal revenues in August and $307 billion in authorized expenditures. That means there's enough money to pay for, say, interest on the debt ($29 billion), Social Security ($49.2 billion), Medicare and Medicaid ($50 billion), active duty troop pay ($2.9 billion), veterans affairs programs ($2.9 billion). That leaves about $39 billion to fund other things. As such, whether or not the President specifically said Social Security checks are in jeopardy if the debt ceiling isn't raised, the mere suggestion is indeed fear-mongering, and the American people deserve a more factual representation of what would happen in a few weeks if Congress doesn't reach an agreement on this issue. As it's become crystal clear that's not going to come from the White House or their media minions, it sure was surprising to see a grain of truth on MSNBC, especially coming from Sanders.
Continue reading …Tucker Carlson Carries Water for Rupert Murdoch, Claims Outrage Politically Motivated by Liberal Media
July 13, 2011 No Comment
Click here to view this media After being asked if Rupert Murdoch’s scandal in the U.K. might affect his operation here in the United States, Tucker Carlson, who is a frequent guest on Fox News, of course carries water for his Uncle Rupert on this morning’s edition of C-SPAN’s Washington Journal. CARLSON: Well Fox News is a huge and vital part, as far as I can tell from the publicly available data on this question of News Corporation. Fox is a profit center. Fox is very successful and in my view for good reason. Um… Fox is fine. As far as I know Fox has not been implicated in this and I don’t expect it will be. Maybe someone should ask Carlson if he’s read any of these posts by Media Matters. Three Things You Should Know About NOTW’s Hollywood Operation 9-11 Families: Investigate Murdoch In U.S. Shareholder Lawsuit: Phone-Hacking Scandal Damaged News Corp.’s Image Tucker went on to claim that a lot of the outrage strikes him as being politically motivated and said that if people are upset with what News of the World did when they were spying on people, they should be equally upset about the government doing it and that they’re hypocrites if they’re not. I don’t remember ever hearing Tucker Carlson complain about the Patriot Act before this. And I would imagine that most of the people who are complaining about what Murdoch did don’t like the Patriot Act too terribly much either and have voiced their opposition to it. Finally Carlson was asked about the claims that Fox is ignoring the story and instead of answering the question, he immediately went on to attack the rest of the media that is covering it as being liberal and just having it out for Rupert Murdoch and Fox. SCULLY: CNN and MSNBC, two of your former employers… CARLSON: Yes. SCULLY: …have been running stories saying that Fox is ignoring this story. CARLSON: Of course they are. They’re Fox’s competitors. Of course. They love it. The New York Times is going wall to wall. I mean this is like a new 9-11 for the New York Times. I was reading the Times a minute ago… I read the New York Times everyday. I think it’s a great newspaper. It’s a very left wing paper however and they’re not good at hiding their agenda sometimes. Sometimes they are. But they’ve got a lot of good stuff on there in their pages, but they are just going hard on this story and gleefully so. They don’t like Rupert Murdoch. They don’t like his politics. They hate Fox. They hate Fox’s politics. Their editor, the guy who was the editor up until a couple of weeks ago has said so in public. So yeah, of course they’re reveling in it, as is their right by the way. And you know, I understand that. When your enemy is in trouble, pounce.
Continue reading …NPR's Sam Sanders gave some free publicity on Wednesday to a boycott organized online targeting Rupert Murdoch and his News Corp. Sanders spotlighted the efforts of self-described ” geek socialist ” Chris Coltrane, who “wants people to vote against Murdoch” due to his supposed ” unaccountable power .” The writer also failed to include any quotes from supporters of the media tycoon. The radio producer, who also recently worked for The Washington Post , began his NPR.com article, ” Boycotting Murdoch Could Be Harder Than You Think ,” by briefly touching on the current News of the World scandal. He then noted that “Facebook users organized a handful of groups aimed at exacting revenge by boycotting Murdoch and his British newspaper publishing company, News International, a subsidiary of Murdoch's behemoth News Corp.” Sanders also highlighted the efforts of anti-Murdoch protesters on another social media site, despite admitting that the cause has yet to take off: “On Twitter, a BoycottMurdoch account launched before the hacking scandal is drawing more followers . ( The effort is still small — it has fewer than 800 followers and 125 tweets so far .).” After acknowledging that “Murdoch's vast holdings, especially in the United States, make it challenging to carry out a boycott in a way that truly hurts his bottom line,” the NPR writer quoted extensively from his “geek socialist”: Some protesters realize it may be tough to exact real financial pain. Chris Coltrane, a comedian and self-described “geek socialist,” has staked out the domain www.boycottmurdoch.com , where he plans to launch a full-fledged site soon. Coltrane remains pragmatic about its goals. As he put it in an email to NPR: “In practice, Murdoch's empire is so vast that we know this [a Murdoch boycott] isn't always practical. In fact, we dare say that it's almost impossible, without relentless dedication . … Because of that, we are asking people to boycott Rupert Murdoch as much as possible. Do as much as you can to not give Murdoch money.” Coltrane says he's been planning the campaign for a while to protest what he calls Murdoch's “unaccountable power,” but the recent hacking scandal pushed him over the edge . He wants people to vote against Murdoch with their wallets now, even if a total boycott may never happen: ” If we can convince people to boycott Murdoch completely, we'll be delighted. But even if we can only get people from 40 percent to 80 percent, that will still be a definite victory .” Near the end of his article, Sanders listed several “things you couldn't do if you were engaging in a complete boycott of all things News Corp.” (including being unable to “watch any of your favorite sitcoms on the o nline video site Hulu.com, which is a NewsCorp joint venture with NBC Universal and Disney;” as well as a total ban on ” any book published by HarperCollins since NewsCorp owns that company as well. So forget picking up an extra copy of a J.R.R. Tolkien book .”). Despite his wide-reaching list, the NPR producer added that ” there's one bright spot for would-be Murdoch boycotters who also happen to be Super Bowl fans . Fox, which frequently broadcasts the big game, and did so this January, isn't scheduled to broadcast a Super Bowl again until 2014. So, you can get your pigskin fix and stick it to News Corp . at the same time, at least for a few more years.” In reality, a would-be boycott participant isn't actually “sticking it” to News Corp. if they don't have the rights to broadcast the big game in the first place. Only months earlier, NPR promoted another left-leaning online campaign, when correspondent Tovia Smith spotlighted a homosexual activist's income tax protest on the Morning Edition program on April 12.
Continue reading …Blast at industrial estate in Boston engages local emergency services and kills ‘up to five people’ Police have begun a forensic investigation after five people were killed and at least one other injured in an explosion at an industrial unit in Lincolnshire . The explosion occurred shortly before 7.30pm in the Broadfield Lane estate in Boston, a collection of light industrial outlets including a mechanic’s workshop and a vehicle wrecking yard. “Five men have been confirmed dead,” a police spokeswoman said. She added that a sixth man had been taken to Boston Pilgrim hospital and later transferred to the Queen’s medical centre in Nottingham. “Inquiries are ongoing and will be ongoing throughout the night to establish the cause of this explosion,” the spokeswoman said. “The circumstances at the moment are still unclear. There will be a full forensic examination of the unit,” she added. A spokesman for East Midlands Ambulance Service said: “We took a 999 call at 7.22pm this evening to attend an address on Broadfield Lane, Boston, Lincolnshire. We dispatched one double-crewed ambulance and transported one patient to Boston hospital. The call was to an explosion within an industrial unit. There have been fatalities.” Shazia Gill, of nearby Peck Avenue, said she had heard ambulances at 7.30pm. Another witness said a large number of emergency service vehicles had been seen at the site of the blast. More details soon. Firefighters Police Barry Neild guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …