Home » Posts tagged with » media (Page 309)
Ricky Martin: ‘I hated it when people tried to force me to come out’

The Puerto Rican singer talks about his struggle with his sexuality, his happiness at having finally come out and the ‘very erotic’ show he is bringing to London Ricky Martin would like to make one thing completely clear. The show he is bringing to London this month is “erotic”, he says, leaning towards me. “Very erotic,” he lowers his voice meaningfully. There’ll be fetish play, whips, chains, nudity (on film), he tells me, and an onstage orgy involving him and his eight dancers. He predicts the 18,000-strong audience will want to join in. And it’s this that worries me. When I go to his Madrid show the next day, the temperature outside is 33C. Inside, in a stadium heaving with heavily perfumed women and heavily muscled men, the temperature is anyone’s guess. When the fiftysomething woman beside me stands up, howling, at Martin’s first appearance, a slug of her sweat hits me, and I suck my teeth nervously. It’s a bacterial breeding ground, I think. When this orgy gets under way, veruccas will be spreading like wildfire. But I needn’t worry. The show is less erotic, more exuberant. Martin bounds around the stage like a huge, horny chipmunk, thrusting, hopping and swaying through the daffy charms of Shake Your Bon-Bon and She Bangs . There is a sweetness about him, a yearning for approval, that recalls his boyband childhood, and his enormous success in the late 1990s; when he sings the lyric “I wanna be your lover” and mimes holding a massive phallus, eyes astonished, then beseeching, it calls to mind nothing so much as a child proffering a large frog. The crowd screams when he opens his shirt, they punch the air to his 1998 football anthem La Copa de la Vida , and lose it when he sings his recent Spanish language release Más . As the gig ends, Martin gazes out at the audience, sweaty with joy. These are ecstatic times for him. Last year, after more than a decade of rumours and sniping about his sexuality, Martin announced online that he was “a fortunate homosexual man” ; he followed this statement with his autobiography, Me, in which he described his sheer pride and relief at coming out. For this, his first UK newspaper interview since the announcement, we meet in a hotel suite in Madrid, and he is warm and open, all hugs, as are his entourage of family and lifelong friends. When I ask whether he still feels as euphoric as he did while writing the book, he sprawls on the couch, and starts running his hands wildly over his chest. He is the most physically expansive person I’ve ever interviewed. “I feel liberated ,” he laughs. “I feel in touch with myself.” Then he sits up, suddenly serious. “I feel protected. I don’t feel alone. Because sometimes when you’re quiet about yourself, you feel all alone. And all of a sudden you come out and you have this amazing community, the LGBT community, and LGBT-friendly people, who are giving you nothing but love. And if I focus on this, I get tears in my eyes, because, oh my God, I wish everyone that was struggling right now could feel what I’m feeling as I’m talking to you. It’s just love coming from every fucking direction!” This is particularly poignant for Martin because of the years spent dodging questions and insinuations. The most notable incident was when Barbara Walters, the veteran US journalist, interviewed him for an Oscars special in 2000, and badgered him to address the rumours . (She has since said those questions were “inappropriate”, the one regret in her three decades of Oscar interviews.) He replied that “sexuality and homosexuality should not be a problem for anybody” and refused to say much more; back then, he was terrified of what would happen if he came out, the possible rejection. “I hated it when people tried to force me out when I wasn’t ready,” he says. “It was very painful, and it actually pushed me away from doing so.” The salacious tone of the coverage only made him more convinced that people would react badly when he did. At 39, it’s clear he’s spent much of his life trying to understand and control his sexuality. “If I had spent a quarter of the time that I spent manipulating my sexuality in front of a piano instead, I would be the most gifted piano player of my lifetime,” he says. “What people were expecting from me was not who I was, and I forced myself to believe that what they wanted could be my truth, my reality, and I went after it hardcore. What I’m trying to say is this: I don’t think I was lying . . . I would have my flings [with men], and I would think, OK, maybe I’m bisexual, but then, no – because I can be with a girl, and it feels amazing.” In his book, Me, he seems genuinely smitten when he writes about his female lovers. He writes of one that “she hated her breasts, but they made me crazy. I loved looking at her body; it was like a painting that I could describe to the last detail. Her legs and the little toes on her feet lit me up. I wanted to devour them – and I always did.” And so these feelings made him think, “I’m not gay,” he says. “And you would watch TV, and you would see this caricature of someone who’s in the LGBT community and you’d say, ‘Well, I’m definitely not that.’ And then you start convincing yourself, or trying to prove to yourself, that you’re not gay. If you add to that the amount of success I was having,” he pounds his fist against his palm, “I’m singing La Vida Loca and enjoying it and being successful and accepted , and I thought, let’s keep pushing towards this, because who’s not seduced by acceptance?” Martin’s early life, particularly his years in the boy band Menudo , would probably have confused any gay child. He grew up in Puerto Rico, the only child of psychologist Enrique Martin and accountant Nereida Morales; his parents split up when he was two, and both had children with other partners, but doted on him. At just three or four, he realised he had an attraction “to my friends, to the same sex – I felt something really magnetic about boys. And then I thought, no, I’m not supposed to be feeling this.’ But it was very powerful.” He was Catholic, believed in the church’s teachings, and loved being an altar boy. “I thought, I’m supposed to like girls, because that’s what the church says, and that’s what my priest told me . . . Unfortunately, according to my faith, what I was feeling was evil, and I struggled.” He always wanted to be in the spotlight, and at nine he started appearing in TV commercials; by 10, in the early 80s, he wanted nothing more than to join Menudo. The band had released their first album in 1977, and had a distinctive structure – when members hit their 16th birthday they would be replaced by someone new. At his first couple of auditions he was too short. But when he was 12, he was accepted, and early the next morning was on his way to the band’s base in Orlando, Florida, to start a new life. His job, from now on, was to be appealing to girls. In his autobiography, Martin says Menudo cost him his childhood, but he equivocates slightly now. “A child is a child, no matter what,” he says. “But I became a rock’n’roll star slash sex symbol at a very young age. I was thinking: what do I have to do to get the attention of the girls? It was my job to move my hips, because then they scream, and that meant I was successful, like the rest of the guys. Was I ready for that? I don’t know. But that’s what I was supposed to go through, according to my karma.” (Martin no longer follows a specific religion – he has a T-shirt that reads “God is too big to fit in one religion” – but he refers to his spiritual beliefs passionately and often. His autobiography begins with a quote from Gandhi, and is sprinkled liberally with references to yoga and swamis, which can be hard to take seriously. At one point in our interview he says: “Buddhism has a very beautiful teaching that says the worst thing you can do to your soul is to tell someone their faith is wrong.” His eyes widen with awe. “And when I heard that I was like: ‘Oooh! That’s a tweet!’”) He says he was 13 “when this obsession with being accepted kicked in. You needed to say yes, because if you said yes, the girls liked you, the girls screamed, and the media would talk about you. I was travelling all over the world, and I had girls following me, private jets, private suites. You would look out of the window and you would have thousands of people . . .” He throws his arms in the air, mimes screaming wildly. The media called it Menuditis. Sounds painful, I say. “Like meningitis!” he laughs. Martin was in the band for five years, and then went to live in New York, where he spent a lot of time sitting on park benches, exhausted and reflective. But he was soon appearing in a musical in Mexico, then a soap opera, and at 18 he signed a contract with Sony Music and began making Spanish language albums. He played a singing bartender on the US soap General Hospital, and by the late 1990s he had an enormous hit with World Cup anthem La Copa de la Vida (The Cup of Life). It reached No1 in more than 60 countries. This led to a star-making performance at the 1999 Grammy Awards, a duet with Madonna, and the release of his first English-language album, Ricky Martin. The standout track, Livin’ La Vida Loca, dominated the summer of 1999 – it was an ear-worm of a song about a wild, superstitious young woman who encourages people to take their clothes off and go dancing in the rain. He was everywhere. The album sold almost 17m copies worldwide, his personal appearances brought Oxford Circus to a halt, it was rumoured his trousers had to be triple-stitched to keep his pelvis-thrusting performances in check and he was the subject of countless drooling interviews about his sex symbol status. He seemed unstoppable, but the pressure of work, and the media attention surrounding his sexuality, started to feel oppressive. So in the early 2000s, he cancelled a concert in Buenos Aires, and went home. “I didn’t like who I was,” he writes in Me. “I moped around my house and had very little sense of humour.” He describes a friend telling him he was screwed up. He responded by throwing a glass against the wall. Was he depressed? “A doctor never told me that,” he says, “so it was not diagnosed. But a lot of people around me were like: ‘Oh my God, we lost him . . .’ But rather than depression, I think it was a touch of rebellion, you know? It was the first time in 10 years that I was relaxing in my house, waking up when I wanted, watching movies until the sun came out, going to a club if I wanted to. It was the first time in my life I was not dealing with a schedule.” Martin continued to record – Spanish-language albums, and the English-language album, Life, which came out in 2005. But his thoughts were turning to family. He wanted children. And so he said: “OK, what are my options? Am I going to adopt? I just sat in front of the computer, doing research, until I found surrogacy, and I was like: ‘Woah! This looks really interesting.’ I interviewed so many people that were part of this beautiful world, and I decided this was going to be my way.” When he told his mother, “she was like ‘surr-o-ga-what? This is like a movie of the future, Rick.’ And I replied, ‘Well, Mom, we’re part of the future.’” He found an egg donor, and another woman to carry the baby, but it was a closed surrogacy – neither woman knew then, or now, that Martin was the father. In August 2008 his twin boys, Matteo and Valentino, were born. He was determined to look after them without help, until his mother said: “‘You’re like a zombie.’ And I’m like, ‘No, I’m noooooooot’” – he pretends to fall asleep, mid-speech – “because I wanted to do it all.” He makes a loud snoring noise, and drops his head again. “And that’s when I said, ‘OK.’” I ask whether he wants more kids, and he says he’d like “a daddy’s girl”. He’s going to be living in New York next year, playing Che Guevara in Evita on Broadway, and he plans to start the whole process again. “I’ll be steady in New York, and then, after I do the play, the baby [will be] born, and I’m going to be able to spend time with her.” It was having his kids that gave Martin the final push to come out; he told Oprah Winfrey last year that he didn’t want his family “to be based on lies”. Still, when it came to announcing the news, he was seriously nervous. “When I pressed send, I was really scared,” he says. “I went to my room, and I was holding my pillow, and three minutes later I called a very good friend and said: ‘Tell me what they’re saying.’ And she’s on the other line, crying: ‘You don’t understand the amount of love you’re receiving.’” He’s been in a relationship for almost four years now, and says that he can’t believe it. “That was not in my plans – not part of the schedule! His name is Carlos, and he’s an amazing human being. He works with the other side of the brain, because he’s a financial adviser, a stockbroker.” Does he think they’ll get married? “It’s funny because, you know, we never talked about it, but now the question is coming up [in interviews] all the time. The other day we were reading a magazine and,” he mimes them looking at each other, “we were like: ‘You’re cool with this, right? No pressure?’ And I’m like: ‘I’m cool, everything is cool.’ Not yet. Whenever it’s time. I would love the option to marry in my land, my island [Puerto Rico], but unfortunately it’s not an option for us yet, which I think is ridiculous. But it’s part of a very beautiful process that’s happening around the world little by little. Hopefully I will see it, and my kids will see it.” Martin’s career will probably never return to its late-90s peak, but it is healthy: he is about to release a new greatest hits collection in the UK, is on a tour that will last until the end of the year and he has 3 million followers on Twitter. Until now, much of his success seems to have been driven by the need to avoid asking himself difficult questions, to keep moving and pushing ahead. Is he still as hungry as ever? “My priorities are different,” he says quietly. “My priorities are: I need to be good; I need to be well within for my children to be well within; and then the creative process flows, organically and smoothly. I’m not looking to experience what I went through in the Livin’ La Vida Loca days again. Now I just get really turned on by the audience.” He pauses significantly. “Really turned on.” Ricky Martin’s Greatest Hits is out now. He plays the HMV Apollo Hammersmith on 12 July. Ricky Martin Gay rights Kira Cochrane guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …
Muammar Gaddafi: rebels tell leader he can stay in Libya

Opposition says post-surrender deal could allow Gaddafi to remain in Libya under international supervision Muammar Gaddafi can live out his retirement in Libya if he surrenders all power, the country’s opposition leader has said. Gaddafi is facing an international arrest warrant and has resisted all demands to step down, but members of his inner circle have indicated they are ready to negotiate with the rebels, including on the Libyan leader’s future. Mustafa Abdel Jalil, who heads the rebels’ national transitional council, told Reuters: “As a peaceful solution we offered that he can resign and order his soldiers to withdraw from their barracks and positions, and then he can decide either to stay in Libya or abroad. “If he desires to stay in Libya, we will determine the place and it will be under international supervision. And there will be international supervision of all his movements.” Speaking in the rebels’ eastern Libyan stronghold of Benghazi, Jalil, who was formerly Gaddafi’s justice minister, said he made the proposal about a month ago through the UN but had yet to receive any response from Tripoli. He said one suggestion was that Gaddafi could spend his retirement under guard in a military barracks. The Libyan government has repeatedly insisted that Gaddafi is a symbolic figurehead who has no involvement in the day-to-day running of the country. The regime’s spokesman, Moussa Ibrahim, said it was willing to “set down in writing” that Gaddafi would have no political or military powers under a new constitution. Asked if this would leave Gaddafi’s role comparable to that of the Queen in the UK, Ibrahim added: “Maybe for the sake of argument, something like that.” But pressed on the latest concession by Jalil he was dismissive, saying that any such decisions should be left to the Libyan people. “What we are doing is legally and morally and politically far more convincing,” he said. “We are saying Libyans should decide for everyone on the position of the leader. Now who is more democratic, us or the rebels?” Gaddafi’s daughter Aisha has said her father would be prepared to cut a deal with the rebels though he would not leave the country, and his son, Saif al-Islam, said the leader would step down if that was the will of the Libyan people. Turkey, which had close economic ties to Gaddafi before the uprising, has pledged £125m in aid for the rebels in addition to the £62m it announced in June. “Public demand for reforms should be answered, Gaddafi should go and Libya shouldn’t be divided,” Turkish foreign minister Ahmet Davutoglu told Reuters in Benghazi, adding that he saw the rebel council as the “legitimate representative” of the people. The conflict in Libya is close to deadlock, with rebels on three fronts unable to make a decisive advance towards Tripoli and growing strains inside Nato about the cost of the operation and lack of a military breakthrough. Libya Muammar Gaddafi Middle East Africa Arab and Middle East unrest David Smith guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …
Councils could offer loans to homeowners in Dilnot report proposal

Commission will suggest fund-raising changes allowing local authorities to lend money against the value of property Local councils are poised to take on a major financial services role under proposed reforms to be unveiled on Monday of the funding system for the care of elderly and disabled people. Under the scheme local authorities will be empowered to make a loan at a preferential rate against the value of a property owned by someone entering a care home. The loan would be redeemed on the sale of the property after the person dies. The plan is part of a series of ideas drawn up by a government commission led by the economist Andrew Dilnot. The proposals seek to inject more funding into the care system by tapping into people’s assets. The typical 55- to 64-year-old in the UK has total wealth of £200,000. Although the centrepiece of Dilnot’s report will be a recommended cap of about £35,000 on individual liability for care costs, which would require underwriting by the government, other proposals will seek to make it easier for people to draw on their assets without having to sell their home during their lifetime. According to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation about a million elderly homeowners have properties worth more than £100,000 yet qualify for means-tested benefits. Charities and welfare groups are calling on the government and Labour to seize the opportunity presented by Dilnot to begin a shakeup of the care funding system. An open letter from 26 leading charities declared on Sunday: “We expect all parties to deliver on this.” Ed Miliband, the Labour leader, has reiterated his offer to engage in cross-party talks on the Dilnot proposals with an “open mind”, setting aside his party’s previous policy of a national care service. However, there are fears the issue will again be kicked into the long grass because of the potential cost to the Treasury – which amounts to perhaps £2bn to underwrite the cap, plus as much again if ministers accept a recommendation to raise significantly the ceiling of £23,250 personal assets above which the state currently offers no assistance with care costs. In a BBC interview, the health secretary, Andrew Lansley, promised “a very positive response” to Dilnot. But he added: “We are going to treat it as the basis for engagement … it is part of the overall questions that need to be answered.” In a blog on the Liberal Democrat Voice website, the care services minister, Paul Burstow, said: “Don’t expect … to hear the government’s final word on social care. The Dilnot report will mark an important milestone on the road to reform, but there are other questions and more milestones to come.” A No 10 source said the report was something to be looked at “very carefully”. There would not be a detailed government response straight away. An estimated 20,000 people sell their home each year to pay for their care costs, which for one in four people exceed £50,000, and for one in 10 run to more than £100,000. The so-called hotel costs, meaning accommodation and food in care homes, come on top of this. One of the key issues in Monday’s report, which applies to England and Wales, will be what Dilnot says about these extra costs, which can be as much again as the bill for care alone. The proposal for councils to lend to homeowners entering residential care represents a radical development of a little-known existing provision for deferred payment of care home fees. Under the Health and Social Care Act 2001, councils can make a deferred payment arrangement by taking a charge on an individual’s property. But interest is not levied until 56 days after the person’s death, making the scheme unattractive for councils. The key difference under the new plan is that the council would make a return on the loan from day one, being able to charge interest straight away. The Local Government Association reported last year that demand for such arrangements had almost doubled over 18 months because the housing market slump had made it hard to sell property. The association said at the time restrictions could be considered if such requests kept increasing. A spokesman was at the weekend unable to say if councils had begun to limit the number of arrangements. Another scheme studied by the Dilnot commission is the Rowntree Foundation’s “home cash plan” pilot, run with a financial services company and three councils. It enables homeowners to free up money from the value of their property to pay for care at home. Under the scheme, in Maidstone, Kent, and in the London boroughs of Kensington and Chelsea, and Islington, people can borrow an initial £5,000 and further instalments up to a £30,000 ceiling. However, the arrangements carry fees of about £1,000. Long-term care Welfare Older people Carers Social care Health Local politics Local government Ed Miliband David Brindle Andrew Sparrow guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …
MPs misled over impact of welfare changes on homelessness

Liam Byrne insists leaked letter from Eric Pickles office shows ministers ‘haven’t been straight with the House of Commons’ Ministers have been accused of repeatedly misleading MPs about the impact of their £26,000 cap on welfare payments after it emerged that Eric Pickles, the communities secretary, secretly warned the plan would cost more money than it saved and increase homelessness by 20,000. Liam Byrne, the shadow work and pensions secretary, insisted that Pickles’s comments, set out in a letter from his private secretary to No 10 that was leaked to the Observer , showed that a succession of ministers “haven’t been straight with the House of Commons”. They have either dismissed claims that the cap would increase homelessness, or insisted its likely impact was impossible to quantify. The benefit cap, announced by George Osborne, the chancellor, to the delight of the Tory right at the Conservative party conference last autumn, is one of the most high-profile and controversial of the government’s myriad welfare reforms. The welfare bill still has to go through the Lords and Pickles’s letter will embolden peers seeking to amend it so the cap is less punitive. The letter, sent on Pickles’s behalf by Nico Heslop, his private secretary, explicitly says welfare cuts could make 40,000 families homeless. “Our modelling indicates that we could see an additional 20,000 homelessness acceptances as a result of the total benefit cap. This on top of the 20,000 additional acceptances already anticipated as a result of other changes to housing benefit,” Heslop wrote. The letter was sent in January. Since then, ministers and officials have made a series of Commons statements that Labour believes are hard to square with what Pickles was telling No 10 in private. Those highlighted by Labour include: • The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) publishing an impact assessment in February saying that it was “not possible to quantify” the cost to local councils generated by the welfare cap and the likelihood that it will require councils to house some families made homeless. • Grant Shapps, the housing minister, citing the DWP’s impact assessment when specifically asked by a Labour MP if he had an estimate of the number of households that would be made homeless as a result of the benefit cap. • Maria Miller, a welfare minister, telling Karen Buck, a Labour MP, to “get real” when asked about the impact of the benefit cap on homelessness. “I do not accept that the policies we are advocating will have the impact on homelessness that she talked about,” Miller said. • Chris Grayling, another welfare minister, saying: “I do not deny that the benefit cap may result in individual cases of housing mobility [ie, people having to move], but I do not believe that the measure will exacerbate [the problem].” Byrne said on Sunday night: “The idea that you can go out and say that there is no further evidence that you are aware of, four months after the Department for Communities wrote to the prime minister saying there was different evidence, is breathtaking. “We want answers from Iain Duncan Smith [the work and pensions secretary] in the House of Commons about why his department hid official government evidence that his policy would make 40,000 families homeless.” Byrne’s colleague Caroline Flint, the shadow communities secretary, said: “It has become clear that while Eric Pickles defends his government housing policies in public, in truth he doesn’t believe in them. The public and parliament have a right to know why time and again his department dismissed the very same housing concerns he secretly raised with the prime minister.” It is understood that Labour will try to force Pickles and Duncan Smith to respond to an urgent question on this in the Commons chamber on Monday. But it is up to the Speaker, John Bercow, to decide whether to accept the move. In the letter, the Department for Communities and Local Government suggested that the impact of the policy could by ameliorated by ensuring child benefit is not included in those benefits that count towards the cap. But on Sunday , the DWP, which is in charge of the plan to impose a £26,000 cap on the total amount of benefits than can be claimed in any year by an unemployed family, confirmed that Pickles’s proposal had been rejected and that child benefit would be taken into account when the cap comes into force in 2013. In the letter, Heslop also claimed the benefit cap would cost the exchequer money. Although it was projected to save £270m, that sum “does not take account of the additional costs to local authorities (through homelessness and temporary accommodation),” he said. “In fact, we think it is likely that the policy as it stands will generate a net cost.” He also said that up to 23,000 affordable rental units could be lost because the benefit cap would stop developers charging the rents they wanted, giving them less incentive to build property. The DWP said it did not recognise the figures in the letter, and did not accept the cap would increase homelessness. “You know what councils are like – when they have concerns, they are very vocal about it,” one source said. “The cap only comes in at £26,000 and that’s equivalent to a gross income of £35,000 for a family that’s working. And the minute someone enters into part-time work, they are exempted from the cap,” the source went on. “There might be some people who have to move to a less expensive area. But that doesn’t mean they won’t have anywhere to live. We are very optimistic about the behavioural change that this will bring about. We have already started to change housing benefit. And have you seen droves of homeless people? No, you have not.” The Department for Communities said Pickles was “fully supportive of the government’s policies on benefits”. A source said Pickles had not personally raised the issues set out in the letter with cabinet colleagues, either formally or informally. A spokesperson for the DWP said: We cannot carry on with a situation where people on benefits can receive more in welfare payments than hard-working families and where a life on benefits robs people of achieving their potential. No one needs to be homeless because of these reforms. Many working families live on this amount of money.” Welfare Homelessness Eric Pickles Andrew Sparrow guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …
Chris Matthews Show Panel on How New Media Have Affected Modern Politics

Click here to view this media (h/t Heather of VideoCafe ) New media? They keep using that phrase. I do not think it means what they think it means. Five Villagers, comfortably ensconced within the Beltway Bubble and the DC Cocktail Circuit, sit around and discuss how “new media” has changed modern politics. Except… Showing themselves to be on the pulse of what’s happening right now, they look the 2003 smearing of John Kerry by Swiftboaters and the astroturfed uprising of the town halls prior over the summer before the ACA vote. And they point to YouTube (?) and viral videos as the stuff that changed the world. But really, who played the Swiftboat ads ad nauseam to an audience perhaps not inclined to get their news from the internet (who gets their news from YouTube, for crying out loud?)? It was the mainstream media on the content-starved 24 hour news channels who played those videos and played right into the hands of these insidious partisan astroturf groups. It was Drudge and his rumors that ruled the mainstream airwaves. Sarah Palin did serious damage to Obama’s health care reform? No…the mainstream media that lapped up every ghostwritten Facebook entry and breathlessly repeated them verbatim did damage…and even then, polls showed that most Americans wanted even more than the ACA offered. The whole concept of “death panels” SHOULD have been laughed off by any responsible media outlet, but instead was left for the “new media” on the left to push back against. Katty Kay tries to give all the Villagers an out, by claiming that these videos reflected the zeitgeist of the American people…but did they? At best, they reflected the zeitgeist of a very, very small percentage of American millionaires and corporations. I think there are very cogent arguments that new media has changed American politics. But it’s also very clear that the old guard of the mainstream media is completely behind the curve on how and why.

Continue reading …
George Will Asks This Week Panel: Can Congress Require Obese People to Sign Up for Weight Watchers?

As NewsBusters previously noted , ABC's “This Week” began its Independence Day weekend program disparaging the Founding Fathers as guys who didn't let women vote and allowed slavery. What followed was a Roundtable discussion about the Constitution which got quite interesting when the host brought up ObamaCare and George Will marvelously asked the group, “Does Congress have the constitutional power to require obese people to sign up for Weight Watchers? If not, why not?” (video follows with transcript and commentary): CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, HOST: We touched briefly on health care. The whole debate about President Obama's health care act is being called unconstitutional in some quarters. So is that going to be challenged at the Supreme Court? GEORGE WILL: 26 states, more or less, (inaudible) 26 are in various courts around the country in a case absolutely certain to be decided by the Supreme Court. The question is, has the congressional power to regulate interstate commerce been so loosely construed that now Congress can do anything at all, that there is nothing it cannot do. Let me ask the three of you. Obviously, obesity and its costs affect interstate commerce. Does Congress have the constitutional power to require obese people to sign up for Weight Watchers? If not, why not? Fabulous question. After all, if the entire premise of the individual mandate is that everyone has to have health insurance for their own good – and that it's not right that some people opt not to and therefore use emergency rooms that end up costing everyone else money – shouldn't it be constitutional to require people to lose weight? Will clearly stumped the liberal panelists: RICHARD STENGEL, TIME MAGAZINE: Justice Vincent's opinion about Obamacare, saying that the government can't regulate inactivity and that we're stretching the Commerce Clause too far. I mean, I think it's kind of silly. Everything having to do with healthcare does cross state boundaries. Even that notion of the Commerce Clause as regulating among the states is a kind of antiquarian idea. The government can ask you to do things. It asks us to — WILL: It's not asking us, it's mandating. STENGEL: It asks us to pay our taxes. It asks us to register for the draft. It asks us to buy car insurance if we want to drive our car around. (CROSSTALK) WILL: If you choose to buy a car. Exactly. This is a point it seems everyone on the Left – especially in the media – doesn't seem to understand. The states that require citizens to purchase auto insurance only require it of those that own cars. They don't require people to purchase cars, though, which means there is no mandate to have auto insurance. In addition, this is a state requirement not governed by the Commerce Clause because it is not interstate. But Stengel wasn't done making a fool of himself: STENGEL: If something is unconstitutional, people out there tend to think like some alarm will go off if something is unconstitutional. It's unconstitutional if the Supreme Court decides it's unconstitutional. And by the way, this can go to the Supreme Court, and we can see whether that happens. Well, that's not necessarily true. It could be constitutional or unconstitutional for the time being as the Court has been known to overturn its previous rulings. As such, what one group of nine jurists thinks does not necessarily mean they've definitively decided the constitutionality of an issue. But Will wasn't done pressing this one: WILL: Well, does Congress have the power to mandate that obese people sign up for — do they have the power to do this? STENGEL: I don't know the answer to that. WILL: You don't know. No, he doesn't know. Yet, like most in the press, he believes Congress has the power to require people to buy health insurance. Interesting hypocrisy that Will's next victim obviously shares: MICHAEL ERIC DYSON, GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY: Well, the beauty of that is, the not knowing — and we can predict that Rick would say that because he's saying that's the color of the curtain. The basic foundation is set. WILL: Is that a yes, Congress does have the power to mandate? DYSON: It's open. If they decide that they will, they will have the power to do so. “If they decide that they will, they will have the power to do so.” Heaven help us.

Continue reading …
Italian police break up bear-meat banquet laid on by Berlusconi allies

Meal was a protest against reintroduction of bears to Dolomites, says Northern League Police have broken up a banquet of bear meat hosted by Silvio Berlusconi’s powerful coalition partner in northern Italy after government ministers and animal rights groups described the event as scandalous. The order to down cutlery came as about 200 people lined up to devour grilled and stewed bear at a rally in Imer in the Italian Dolomites organised by the Northern League. Organisers said they had bought the meat legally in Slovenia to get round a ban on bear hunting in Italy, but food safety officers from Italy’s paramilitary carabinieri police objected to the lack of import documentation for the 50kg of meat. Speaking at the event, Enzo Erminio Boso, a former League senator, said he suspected the raid had been arranged by members of Berlusconi’s People of Liberty party who earlier demanded that League leader Umberto Bossi halt proceedings. Foreign minister Franco Frattini and tourism minister Michela Vittoria Brambilla had condemned the bear feast as “a scandalous initiative”, while environment minister Stefania Prestigiacomo described the get-together as “barbarous”. In his blog, Frattini said the banquet was particularly offensive since Italian bears were “almost extinct and we are trying with great effort to bring them back to the mountains that have hosted them for centuries”. The brown bear population has risen to about 35 in and around the Dolomites after 10 were reintroduced there a decade ago. But instead of celebrating their return, some locals have complained that the bears are attacking chickens and sheep. Claims made for lost livestock rose to ¤100,000 (£90,000) last year, and farmers were fed up, said Maurizio Fugatti, an MP for the devolutionist and anti-immigrant Northern League. Hence the banquet, which, said Fugatti, had been planned to “send a clear signal to citizens who have the right to reconquer their territory and freely circulate”. To protect locals from marauding bears, he added, “we prefer to eat them like this.” Fugatti said half of the bear meat had been cooked for the cancelled banquet but the remainder was frozen and ready for a new dinner date should the paperwork be put in order. “The idea was to attract attention to a bear repopulation plan which has got out of hand, resulting in locals being followed by bears through woods normally frequented by families. Even if the banquet doesn’t happen, we have made our point,” he went on. The Northern League has long specialised in controversial statements and stunts. In 2007 Senator Roberto Calderoli proposed dissuading Muslims from building a mosque in Bologna by parading a pig across the chosen site, defiling it. Massimiliano Rocco, an officer with the WWF in Italy, praised the police raid on the banquet: “If they wanted to provoke debate about the right way to manage the bears in the area, there was no need to illegally import the meat of a protected species.” Italy Europe Conservation Tom Kington guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …
Murder of schoolboy in south London ‘as bad as it gets’, says senior detective

Stabbing of Yemurai Kanyangarara in broad daylight is ‘among the very worst I’ve investigated in 25 years’, says Mark Dunne A senior detective has said that the murder of a 16-year-old boy, who died after having his throat slashed by attackers, is among the worst he has investigated. Yemurai Kanyangarara from Belvedere, south-east London, was stabbed in the neck in nearby Welling early on Friday evening. Detective Chief Inspector Mark Dunne described the killing as an act of “sheer brutality against a defenceless schoolboy”, adding that the murder – carried out in broad daylight on a busy street – was “about as bad as it gets”. Kanyangarara, who was brought to Britain from Zimbabwe when very young, was attacked by three boys almost immediately after stepping off a 96 bus with a friend on Upper Wickham Lane. Det Ch Insp Dunne told reporters: “You’ve got someone, 16 years old, a schoolboy, being stabbed in broad daylight in a busy street in front of many, many shoppers out enjoying the afternoon. “It’s about as bad as it gets. It’s among the very worst I’ve investigated in 25 years, the sheer brutality against a defenceless schoolboy.” Police believe the three attackers had been in a group of five or six who had got off another 96 at an earlier stop before walking to the stop where Kanyangarara and his friend disembarked. No clear motive for the attack has emerged and police cannot confirm if the weapon used was a knife. A man arrested after the attack has been released. The attack caused “catastrophic injuries” and the victim died “very quickly” after the attack, said Dunne. “It would be wrong to suggest this was a random attack – our belief is that they were known to each other, but we don’t know how,” he said. Nigel Fisher, principal at St Columba’s Catholic boys’ school in Bexleyheath, said Kanyangarara was a “kind, gentle lad”. He added: “He was a very popular and very well-known student, hard working, and had just finished his GCSEs. Our thoughts and prayers are with his family at this time.” Kanyangarara is the eighth teenager murdered in London this year. Crime London Knife crime Alexandra Topping guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …
Lord Patten hints at pay cuts for BBC executives

BBC Trust chairman said BBC managers’ ‘toxic’ salaries were unpopular with viewers and licence fee payers Lord Patten, the BBC Trust chairman, has hinted at pay cuts for senior executives at the corporation. Lord Patten said BBC managers “toxic” salaries were unpopular with viewers and licence fee payers ahead of announcements BBC salaries. “There are four aspects which we will be making announcements about in the next few days,” he said. “First of all there’s the pay level at the very top; secondly there’s the number of people who get more than £150,000 ; thirdly there’s the number of people who are deemed to be senior managers; and fourthly there’s the whole issue of fairness across the board, with senior managers getting some deals which don’t apply to others. “We can deal with all that and if we do so, we will deal with one of the most toxic reasons for the public’s lack of sympathy with the BBC as an institution, even though they like enormously what it does.” Lord (Chris) Patten, Britain’s last governor of Hong Kong and a former Conservative party chairman, hailed research by Will Hutton of the Work Foundation into a government proposal to limit top public servants’ pay to no more than 20 times that of their lowest paid staff. Speaking to BBC1′s Andrew Marr Show, Lord Patten said: “I will be looking very closely at what Will Hutton said about top pay in the public sector – there were some very good ideas.” He added: “You look at the relationship between top pay and median pay and I would like the BBC to be the first organisation in the public sector which gets into implementing some of Will Hutton’s ideas.” Lord Patten took over as chairman of the trust – the corporation’s governing body and charged with protecting licence fee payers’ interests – in May and today said he wanted a “more flexible, leaner” BBC, “aware of the principles on which it was founded”. He said it was “a fantastic organisation”, but said it should “take out a lot of costs” and learn to live within its £3.5bn budget, funded by the £145.50 licence fee. “We are looking at how much we can get through greater efficiencies, through greater productivity and how much will involve us stopping doing things we would like to do but which are probably expendable.” He said channel and station closures were possible, but praised the much-criticised BBC3 which screens shows such as World’s Craziest Fools, Don’t Tell the Bride and Kids Behind Bars. Lord Patten BBC BBC Trust guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …
Cornyn: Constitutional argument raising for debt ceiling is ‘crazy talk’

Click here to view this media Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) said Sunday that it was a mistake to argue that it is unconstitutional not to raise the debt ceiling. Section 4 of the 14th Amendment reads : “The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.” On a conference call last week, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) told reporters that the idea that the 14th Amendment requires the debt ceiling to be raised was “certainly worth exploring.” “That’s crazy talk,” Cornyn told Fox News’ Shannon Bream. “It’s not acceptable for Congress and the president not to do their job and the say somehow the president has the authority to then basically do this by himself.” “We ought to sit down and work together, and it shouldn’t take the form of press conferences like the president gave last week, where he was essentially the schoolmarm, scolding Congress for not getting its job done when, in fact, he is the one who has not stepped up and given us a proposal,” he continued. In May, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner pulled out a copy of the Constitution and read the 14th Amendment during a discussion with Politico about raising the debt ceiling. “This is the important thing -’shall not be questioned,’” Geithner said. For his part, President Barack Obama has sidestepped the question . “I’m not a Supreme Court justice so I’m not going to put my constitutional law professor hat on,” the president told NBC’s Chuck Todd at a press conference last week.

Continue reading …