Liz Trotta: Bachmann and Palin Both Took the Same American History Class at ‘Fleabag U’
July 3, 2011 No Comment
Click here to view this media What’s the world coming to when a Fox commentator like Liz Trotta is quoting Rolling Stone’s Matt Taibbi (even though she got his name wrong) and the Washington Post’s Ezra Klein? From Raw Story — Fox commentator: Bachmann and Palin took history at ‘Fleabag U’ : Liz Trotta, a commentator on Fox Saturday, remarked that two top conservative females, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) and former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, would inevitably be compared: “it’s almost preordained because it seems to be they both took the same American history course, and it may have been at Fleabag U.” Trotta was playfully quoting Rolling Stone‘s Matt Taibbi and Ezra Klein, but she didn’t refute the fact that Palin and Bachmann have each had their share of flubs, between Palin’s Revere gaffe and Bachmann’s insistence that John Quincy Adams is a founding father, among others. More like Teabagger U if you ask me. Look out Liz, Palin will be coming after you on her Facebook page for being mean to her and her buddy Michele.
Continue reading …American Productivity At Record Levels — With Income And Wages In The Basement
July 3, 2011 No Comment
enlarge First, go look at these charts. Now read this , and then this Mother Jones piece: Webster’s defines speedup as “an employer’s demand for accelerated output without increased pay,” and it used to be a household word. Bosses would speed up the line to fill a big order, to goose profits, or to punish a restive workforce. Workers recognized it, unions (remember those?) watched for and negotiated over it—and, if necessary, walked out over it. But now we no longer even acknowledge it—not in blue-collar work, not in white-collar or pink-collar work, not in economics texts, and certainly not in the media (except when journalists gripe about the staff-compacted-job-expanded newsroom). Now the word we use is “productivity,” a term insidious in both its usage and creep. The not-so-subtle implication is always: Don’t you want to be a productive member of society? Pundits across the political spectrum revel in the fact that US productivity (a.k.a. economic output per hour worked) consistently leads the world. Yes, year after year, Americans wring even more value out of each minute on the job than we did the year before. U-S-A! U-S-A! Except what’s good for American business isn’t necessarily good for Americans. We’re not just working smarter, but harder. And harder. And harder, to the point where the driver is no longer American industriousness, but something much more predatory. Productivity has surged, but income and wages have stagnated for most Americans. If the median household income had kept pace with the economy since 1970, it would now be nearly $92,000, not $50,000. SOUND FAMILIAR: Mind racing at 4 a.m.? Guiltily realizing you’ve been only half-listening to your child for the past hour? Checking work email at a stoplight, at the dinner table, in bed? Dreading once-pleasant diversions, like dinner with friends, as just one more thing on your to-do list? Guess what: It’s not you. These might seem like personal problems—and certainly, the pharmaceutical industry is happy to perpetuate that notion—but they’re really economic problems. Just counting work that’s on the books (never mind those 11 p.m. emails), Americans now put in an average of 122 more hours per year than Brits, and 378 hours (nearly 10 weeks!) more than Germans. The differential isn’t solely accounted for by longer hours, of course—worldwide, almost everyone except us has, at least on paper, a right to weekends off, paid vacation time (PDF), and paid maternity leave. (The only other countries that don’t mandate paid time off for new moms are Papua New Guinea, Sierra Leone, Liberia, Samoa, and Swaziland. U-S…A?) To understand how we got here, first let’s consider the Ben Franklin-Horatio Alger-Henry Ford ur-myth: To balk at working hard—really, really hard—brands you as profoundly un-American . Who besides the archetypical Japanese salaryman derives so much of his self-image from self-sacrifice on the job? Slacker is one of the most biting insults available in polite company. And so we kowtow to—nay, embrace— a cultural maxim that just happens to be enormously convenient to corporate America. “Our culture has encouraged me to only feel valuable if I’m barely hanging on to my sanity,” one friend emailed as we were working on this article. In fact, each time we mentioned this topic to someone—reader, source, friend—they first took pains to say: I’m not lazy. I love my job. I come from a long line of hard workers. But then it would pour out of them—the fatigue, the isolation, the guilt. I think I was ahead of the curve on this one, because back in the 1980s, during the Age of Reagan, I lost every shred of anything resembling company loyalty and started telling my friends: If you’re not paid for it, don’t do it. Even today, I’m amazed at the number of people who refuse to go out for lunch, instead eating at their desks while checking their email and working. I also told my friends, “Don’t have higher standards for your work than your boss does.” Meaning, if your boss doesn’t think strongly enough about getting something done to hire additional people or pay overtime to get it done, why should you break your back trying to do it? Because if there’s one thing I know, it’s that bosses rarely appreciate all that extra effort. Instead, they nod and say to themselves, “See, I knew they could do it.” And then the next thought: “So why don’t they work that hard for me all the time?” It’s a no-win game. I can understand why people feel they have to do that now, because we’re back in the Gilded Age and we’re supposed to be grateful to have a job. But really, why should you be? They should be grateful you’re still vulnerable enough to be exploited while they make record profits.
Continue reading …
Yingluck Shinawatra set to be country’s first female leader as prime minister Abhisit Vejjajiva prepares for opposition Thailand’s Democrat government has conceded defeat in Sunday’s election – putting Yingluck Shinawatra on course to become the country’s first female leader, five years after her brother Thaksin was toppled as prime minister in a coup. Preliminary results suggest a remarkable turnaround for Thaksin, a billionaire now living as a fugitive in Dubai. Although Yingluck is putatively leader of the Puea Thai party, she is regarded as his proxy. Yingluck, a 44-year-old businesswoman who entered politics just six weeks ago, cautioned that she was waiting to see the results on Monday. But she added that she had already spoken to the Chart Thai Pattana party, whom she said would take a coalition past the halfway mark in the 500-seat parliament. “We have tough days ahead and all of this is just the beginning,” she said. “I’ll do my best and will not disappoint you.” Five hours after polls closed , the election commission projected Puea Thai would win 261 seats with prime minister Abhisit Vejjajiva’s Democrats taking just 162. An absolute majority would prevent the weeks of horse-trading to form a coalition that many had expected. Hundreds of redshirt supporters squeezed into the party’s Bangkok headquarters and crowded outside – chanting, cheering and applauding as results came in. Many waved pictures of Yingluck and Thaksin and some let off firecrackers to celebrate. Moments before Yingluck spoke, Abhisit congratulated the opposition “for the right to form a government”. He said he wanted to see unity and reconciliation, and added that the Democrats were ready for opposition. Analysts have warned that the election could lead to further turmoil in Thailand, after years of intense political conflict. Last year more than 90 people died in clashes as the military cracked down on Thaksin-supporting redshirt protesters in the centre of the capital. Exit polls had predicted a landslide for Puea Thai, but Dr Andrew Walker, an expert on south-east Asian politics at the Australian National University, said even an absolute majority would be remarkable. “If they get [one] they will be only the second government in Thailand’s history to do so, the first being Thaksin Shinawatra’s [in 2005]. It shows this is still a very strong electoral brand,” he said. Earlier, Professor Thitinan Pongsudhirak of Chulalongkorn University said: “If they win at all it’s a big statement. “[It means] the ideas and policies that made [Thaksin's] original Thai Rak Thai party so electable are unstoppable and indestructible … This is a party that has been dissolved twice; its leading politicians have been banned twice; it’s being led by a deposed exile and former prime minister a six-hour flight away.” Redshirt leaders have warned they will take to the streets again if Yingluck wins the vote but does not become prime minister. They have said they fear that opponents could attempt to mount a legal challenge to her, or even another coup. Analyst Chris Baker said it was likely that opponents of Thaksin had a plan B. “[Most] likely, I think, is that it will look calm for a short time. But there have been several things said in the last week that suggest the Democrats and their supporters will accept this result – but not what it means,” he said. “If Puea Thai do what they say they will – bring Thaksin back and change the constitution – [opponents] will resist that in the same way as before, with street demonstrations and so on. I don’t think we can avoid it … We are in a changing political society and there’s big resistance from the old institutions: the bureaucracy, monarchy, military and a lot of the middle class.” Thaksin told the Thai PBS television station: “I have wanted to come back since yesterday, but I do not want to create problems.” He spoke in a telephone interview from Dubai, where he lives to avoid a two-year prison sentence for abuse of power, which he says was politically motivated. Puea Thai leaders have repeatedly indicated they plan an amnesty allowing Thaksin to return to Thailand, though his sister has said it is not a priority and that an amnesty would not be about one person. The billionaire has polarised Thai politics. He draws his support largely from poorer residents in the north and north-east – who see him as a champion – while the Democrats are dependent on the urban upper and middle classes in central Thailand and the south. They regard the former prime minister as corrupt and autocratic. “I have been waiting five years [since the coup] for this moment,” said Sompoon Tamakaew as he watched the results at Puea Thai’s headquarters. “Bangkok is full of the elites and upper classes, so they don’t really understand how much of an impact Thaksin had.” Sompoon, a 50-year-old gardener from the north-eastern province of Ubon Ratchathani, added that he was not worried that elites would seek to interfere again. “I don’t think [another coup] will happen, but if it does I will keep fighting,” he added. Police said more than 170,000 officers were on duty throughout the country on Sunday to monitor voting by 47 million eligible Thais. Britain was among the countries warning its nationals of potential violence, urging visitors to avoid demonstrations. Thailand Thaksin Shinawatra Tania Branigan guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Breitbart: Media Ask Palin and Bachmann Gotcha Questions to Make Them Look Stupid on YouTube
July 3, 2011 No Comment
Conservative publisher Andrew Breitbart was on Saturday's “Fox & Friends” to discuss the double standard concerning how President Obama's gaffes are reported compared to the miscues of Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann. In Breitbart's view, “Life for [Palin and Bachmann] is a permanent game of Jeopardy where the George Stephanopouloses of the world, he of the Clinton war room, are there to try to make them look stupid on YouTube” (video follows with transcript and commentary): MOLLY LINE, CO-HOST: Does the mainstream media have a bias against conservative women? Our next guest, Andrew Breitbart from BigGovernment.com joining us. DAVE BRIGGS, CO-HOST: Andrew, good morning to you, sir. No, he's not one of the Founding Fathers, but I think the questioning here, these very questions being asked of Michele Bachmann, would you hear those posed to Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty, etc.? ANDREW BREITBART: No, well, you wouldn’t hear this against Barbara Boxer or Loretta Sanchez. The thing is that Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann represent an existential threat to the Democratic Party the way that 20 years ago Clarence Thomas as a black man represented to liberals and the Democrat Party. The Democratic Party likes to think of itself as the party of minorities, and when in the Republican Party so many women and attractive women and accomplished women rise to the top, it's going to take the media to destroy them because at the end of the day, Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin, you go by the polls, represent what the American people represent on the issues. LINE: You know, our lawmakers and the candidates themselves, they're not infallible. They do make mistakes. And we have a little clip here together of some of the mistakes, the gaffes that President Obama has made. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. I've now been in 57 states. I don't know what the term is in Austrian. Wheeling and dealing. Navy corpsman Christian Bouchard. Corpsman Bouchard. Corpsman Bouchard. Malia’s thirteen, Sasha’s ten. They're thirteen and ten. (END VIDEO CLIP) LINE: Now, you know, everybody does make mistakes out there, but do you feel like the media is treating President Obama differently from how they’re treating Michele Bachmann as she gains steam on the campaign trail? BREITBART: Well, what you just saw with President Obama they call in tennis an unforced error. What they try and do with Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann is to force errors, to ask gotcha questions. Life for them is a permanent game of Jeopardy where the George Stephanopouloses of the world, he of the Clinton war room, are there to try to make them look stupid on YouTube. Indeed. We saw this in 2008 with Katie Couric and Charlie Gibson's interviews of Palin where it was clear that she was being quizzed like a game show contestant by an arrogant moderator doing his or her best to make the former Alaska governor look foolish. Now Bachmann is being subjected to the same treatment. As this isn't how male presidential candidates are questioned, and wasn't the way the press handled Hillary Clinton in 2008, one has to conclude that attractive, conservative women are flat out treated differently by America's so-called journalists. Pretty pathetic.
Continue reading …Breitbart: Media Ask Palin and Bachmann Gotcha Questions to Make Them Look Stupid on YouTube
July 3, 2011 No CommentConservative publisher Andrew Breitbart was on Saturday's “Fox & Friends” to discuss the double standard concerning how President Obama's gaffes are reported compared to the miscues of Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann. In Breitbart's view, “Life for [Palin and Bachmann] is a permanent game of Jeopardy where the George Stephanopouloses of the world, he of the Clinton war room, are there to try to make them look stupid on YouTube” (video follows with transcript and commentary): MOLLY LINE, CO-HOST: Does the mainstream media have a bias against conservative women? Our next guest, Andrew Breitbart from BigGovernment.com joining us. DAVE BRIGGS, CO-HOST: Andrew, good morning to you, sir. No, he's not one of the Founding Fathers, but I think the questioning here, these very questions being asked of Michele Bachmann, would you hear those posed to Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty, etc.? ANDREW BREITBART: No, well, you wouldn’t hear this against Barbara Boxer or Loretta Sanchez. The thing is that Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann represent an existential threat to the Democratic Party the way that 20 years ago Clarence Thomas as a black man represented to liberals and the Democrat Party. The Democratic Party likes to think of itself as the party of minorities, and when in the Republican Party so many women and attractive women and accomplished women rise to the top, it's going to take the media to destroy them because at the end of the day, Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin, you go by the polls, represent what the American people represent on the issues. LINE: You know, our lawmakers and the candidates themselves, they're not infallible. They do make mistakes. And we have a little clip here together of some of the mistakes, the gaffes that President Obama has made. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. I've now been in 57 states. I don't know what the term is in Austrian. Wheeling and dealing. Navy corpsman Christian Bouchard. Corpsman Bouchard. Corpsman Bouchard. Malia’s thirteen, Sasha’s ten. They're thirteen and ten. (END VIDEO CLIP) LINE: Now, you know, everybody does make mistakes out there, but do you feel like the media is treating President Obama differently from how they’re treating Michele Bachmann as she gains steam on the campaign trail? BREITBART: Well, what you just saw with President Obama they call in tennis an unforced error. What they try and do with Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann is to force errors, to ask gotcha questions. Life for them is a permanent game of Jeopardy where the George Stephanopouloses of the world, he of the Clinton war room, are there to try to make them look stupid on YouTube. Indeed. We saw this in 2008 with Katie Couric and Charlie Gibson's interviews of Palin where it was clear that she was being quizzed like a game show contestant by an arrogant moderator doing his or her best to make the former Alaska governor look foolish. Now Bachmann is being subjected to the same treatment. As this isn't how male presidential candidates are questioned, and wasn't the way the press handled Hillary Clinton in 2008, one has to conclude that attractive, conservative women are flat out treated differently by America's so-called journalists. Pretty pathetic.
Continue reading …Rafael Nadal v Novak Djokovic – Wimbledon 2011 men’s final live | Jacob Steinberg
July 3, 2011 No Comment
• Hammer F5 or turn on our auto-refresh tool for updates • Email jacob.steinberg.casual@guardian.co.uk for a chat • Follow Jacob on Twitter if that’s your thing The toss. Djokovic calls heads. And it’s tails. An early psychological blow for Nadal, but he chooses to receive. Djokovic will serve first then. The players are led through the corridors and out on to Centre Court. Djokovic, walking a few paces ahead of Nadal, is in his regulation cap, although there’s not much sun today. Then again, my brother wears sunglasses inside. We all have our little quirks. Nadal is wearing his trademark headband. He’s jumping up and down, a nervous ball of energy. He’s got his game face on. This is going to be good. Sue Barker asks what Tim Henman’s handicap is. A useless second serve, I’d say. It’s 10 years since this marvellous game, by the way. I love John McEnroe. He exudes cool. And he was in Curb Your Enthusiasm . Anyway, turns out he’s going for Nadal in five as well. Maybe he never backed Djokovic then. Or maybe he’s changed his mind. It’s not a crime. Boris Becker is talking about the boxing farce last night. “At least David Haye went 12 rounds,” says the German. There was more diving in that travesty of a match than in the Djokovic v Tsonga tussle on Friday. Borg tips Nadal to win – in five sets. There, Borg agrees with me. Borg. Bjorn Borg is on the BBC. A man who knows a thing or two about retirement, he expects Roger Federer to quit if he doesn’t win a major next year. Ah, yes, Federer. How strange not to have him here on the final Sunday. Borg didn’t say whether the Swiss great would win another major – but I think we know. Imagine playing tennis against a brick wall that can predict what you’re going to do in three shots’ time. A brick wall that never misses. A brick wall with plenty of tricks of its own, one that can mix power and subtlety, slice and spin. A brick wall with formidable levels of self-belief. A sentient brick wall. I’m terrifying myself already, and having read this, you’re probably sitting in a corner of your room, hunched over, rocking back and forth, furiously weeping. It’s the Mitch Hedberg principle taken to the Nth degree – and this is what it is like to play against Rafael Nadal. How do you beat this? Well, you can make like Andy Bernard , but that only leads to a disciplinary hearing, anger management and a broken fist. For a set and three-and-a-half games on Friday, Nadal was outplayed by Andy Murray, who produced some of his finest tennis ever. We can all pinpoint the moment the match changed though: that missed forehand at 15-30 on Nadal’s serve. It wasn’t Gascoigne against Germany at Euro 96 territory, but it was close. Reprieved, Nadal was never going to lose. Drop your level for a millisecond, and you’ve got more chance of finding your way out of the Bermuda Triangle than locating a route back against him. Which is precisely what happened to Murray. It’s debatable whether Murray actually did anything wrong. Plenty of his shots were hard, accurate and in the corner; it’s just that they kept on coming back over the net, and when that happens, it can drive a player to the edge of insanity. Watch Nadal when he loses a point. The camera pans to him and he’s livid with himself, frowning, grunting and thoroughly resolved to bludgeon a path to the next 20. How intimidating is that? Perhaps not so much for Novak Djokovic. There was a time when this match would have been a foregone conclusion – in fact, probably only a year ago. For a while, it seemed like Djokovic, if not wasting his talent, was certainly not making the most of it. Too often, he would crumble on court, always ready to find a reason to lose. That Djokovic is history. He’s already the world No1, and a 43-match unbeaten run was only ended by a superhuman effort from Roger Federer in the French Open semi-final. His backhand is glorious, his forehand has improved immeasurably and his movement rivals Nadal’s. He’s won the Australian Open and he’s won his last last four matches against Nadal (although he still has an 11-6 losing record overall). But he’s never beaten Nadal in a grand slam match, and even though he was outstanding when the pair met in the US Open final last year, he was defeated. If this match is half as good as that one, we could be in for a treat. And it still might not be enough for Djokovic. Over five sets against Nadal, it’s not enough to be excellent; you have to be perfect. My prediction A stick to beat me with once Djokovic wins 6-0, 6-0, 6-0 : Now then, I don’t like disagreeing with John McEnroe – not that he’ll be bothered – but I fancy Nadal to edge it in four sets (or, if we’re being greedy, five). Although it’s surely not going to be straight sets, I can’t go against Nadal. This is Djokovic’s first Wimbledon final though. It could spur him on. If Nadal wins, The Leftorium will be the place to be tonight. Following on from Petra Kvitova’s win yesterday, it could be a famous weekend for lefties. The action starts at: 2pm. The action ends at: An unspecified time. Wimbledon 2011 Rafael Nadal Novak Djokovic Wimbledon Tennis Jacob Steinberg guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Hassan Nasrallah defies UN-backed tribunal’s arrest warrants for four Hezbollah members wanted for 2005 assassination Hezbollah’s leader has vowed never to turn over four members of his Shia militant group who have been indicted in the 2005 murder of the former Lebanese prime minister, Rafik Hariri. In a defiant speech, Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah said that “even in 300 years” authorities will not be able to touch them. In his first comments since the indictments were announced Thursday , he promised that the country would not see a new “civil war” linked to the findings of the UN-backed tribunal. But Saturday’s assurance came with a tacit warning that peace in Lebanon depends on the government not pushing ahead with the arrests. Nasrallah also denounced the six-year investigation as a plot by Israel and the US and said it was “an aggression against us and our holy warriors”. Bursts of celebratory gunfire and fireworks erupted in Beirut immediately after Nasrallah’s comments. Hezbollah, which gets crucial support from Iran and Syria, has denied any role in the killing. The accusations that Hezbollah – the most powerful political and military force in Lebanon – had a role in the 2005 Beirut truck bombing that killed Hariri threatens to plunge the country into a new and violent crisis. Nasrallah, however, sought to allay such fears and said “there will be no civil war in Lebanon”. “This is because there is a responsible government in Lebanon that will not act with revenge,” he added. Hezbollah has amassed growing political clout in the government this year, having toppled the previous administration in January when then-prime minister Saad Hariri refused to renounce the tribunal investigating his father’s death. The new prime minister, Najib Miqati, who was Hezbollah’s pick for the post, issued a vague promise on Thursday that Lebanon would respect international resolutions as long as they did not threaten the civil peace. The ambiguous wording leaves ample room to brush aside the arrest warrants if street battles are looming. The cabinet is packed with Hezbollah allies, so there is little enthusiasm within the current leadership to press forward with the case. Even if Saad Hariri were still in power, however, it’s unlikely he would be able to force Lebanese authorities to arrest the men to do so– they would have to directly confront a well-armed militant group that wields serious power over the Lebanese state. The bombing that killed Hariri and 22 other people in February 2005 was one of the most dramatic political assassinations in the Middle East. A billionaire businessman, Hariri was Lebanon’s most prominent politician after the 15-year civil war ended in 1990. In the six years since his death, the investigation has sharpened some of Lebanon’s most intractable issues: the role of Hezbollah and its massive arsenal, and the country’s history of sectarian divisions and violence. Lebanon Global terrorism Middle East guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
After adulatory crowds in Ottawa, the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge’s tour of Canada enters tricky phase in Quebec The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge faced the first organised protests against their visit to Canada within minutes of their arrival in Montreal on Saturday night. Demonstrators held up placards denouncing the couple as “parasites” as they arrived at the world renowned Sainte-Justine university hospital. They were heavily outnumbered by others who had come out to cheer the royal couple, but one of the protest organisers, Guillaume Martin, told reporters: “We think the monarchy is something from the middle ages and we don’t want to pay for the trip.” The Canadian government, which is meeting the bill, says that the extra cost equivalent to £950,000 amounts to only a few cents a head for the country’s entire population. The couple ignored the demonstration and spent more than an hour chatting to child cancer patients inside the hospital. Sunday promises to be more fraught when the royal party moves on to Quebec City, the heart of the long-established separatist movement, where more protests are planned. Royal visitors have had an uncertain welcome in Quebec province – where more than 80% of the population speak French – in recent decades. The Queen has not returned to Quebec city since protesters turned their backs on her and booed in 1964, and two years ago Prince Charles and Camilla were held up by scuffles between demonstrators and police as they visited Montreal. Radical young protesters from the Quebec Resistance Network have called for a demonstration outside the city hall, though they have promised it will be peaceful. Patrick Bourgeois, leader of the network, said the separatists want to send a message “that the monarchy is not welcome in Quebec”. Prince William has emphasised Canada’s bilingualism and dual identity – “Bonne fête, Canada, happy birthday,” he exclaimed in a speech. The visit to Quebec province is a sign that the authorities believe their appearance there will be a success. In a recent poll, more than half of those questioned described themselves as excited by the prospect of seeing them. During the first two days of their tour in Ottawa, the royal couple have been greeted by huge and adulatory crowds. More than 300,000 people were estimated to have crowded around the capital’s Parliament Hill during the Canada Day celebrations on Friday, many of them travelling for hours and some sleeping out to catch a glimpse of the prince and his bride. Although the duchess has not visited Canada before, her husband has stressed her links to the country where he recalled that her grandfather had trained as a pilot in Alberta during the second world war. The Queen has visited Canada more frequently than any other country: 22 times, most recently last year. The royal couple on Saturday went through the near-obligatory tree-planting ceremony at the governor-general’s residence – a Canadian hemlock. They later met military veterans and members of the war brides association at the Canadian war museum – nearly 45,000 young British and European women emigrated to the country after the second world war. Canada Prince William Monarchy Kate Middleton Stephen Bates guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
enlarge Credit: Life Magazine John Dean – aka: Mr. “There’s A Cancer On The Presidency”. Click here to view this media So July started off with a bang in 1973. First was a threatened Constitutional Crisis over the bombings of Cambodia. It was agreed the bombing would end in August, but Nixon also wanted to keep his options open and so he threatened a Veto to the measure and it threw Congress into a state of near chaos. Keeping the nickname “Tricky” alive even as focus was down the hall. The little matter of Watergate resumed with John Dean giving his historic bomb-strewn testimony. But by the end of the week he concluded that he “hoped the President is forgiven”. Meanwhile, it was suggested President Nixon be called on to testify himself, but that drew a vigorous “ain’t gonna happen” from the White House. The whole matter of bugging was on everyone’s minds, with even freshly resigned former Attorney General Richard Kleindienst expressing shock and outrage that even he had his phone conversations bugged. The irony wasn’t lost on anyone, but it did produce a few chuckles. World-wise, Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev concluded his summit talks in Washington and was asked if he and Nixon discussed Watergate which was met with a sharp and somewhat perplexed “no”. China trumpeted success in their first test of a Hydrogen Bomb, letting the world know. And in return the world became just a bit more nervous. In South America a military coup in Chile against the Allende government failed due to alleged lack of support from the Military. But that wasn’t going to be the last, not by a long shot. And a Military Attache at the Israeli Embassy in Washington was gunned down by “unknown assailants”. And so went this particular July 1st in 1973 as reported by Stuart Novins on the CBS Radio program The World This Week.
Continue reading …
Mark Zuckerberg’s social network giant poised to announce ‘awesome’ launch this week according to technology blog Facebook is reportedly planning this week to team up with Skype to launch a video chat function for its millions of users. It would mean that Facebook members, already accustomed to posting status updates and photographs, sharing news stories and sending messages via their profiles, would also be able to video chat live with other members. The news was reported by a respected technology blog, Tech Crunch , in a story written by its editor, Michael Arrington, a well-known figure in social media circles across the world. “Next week, says a source with knowledge of the partnership, Facebook will launch a new video chat product, powered by Skype,” Arrington wrote. Rumours about a tie-up between Facebook and Skype have swirled for several years without a finished product emerging. But this latest round of speculation is given credence by the fact that Facebook’s young founder, Mark Zuckerberg, has announced a major news conference for a new product this Wednesday. Zuckerberg told reporters that the firm would “launch something awesome” that had been developed by the firm’s Seattle research engineering office. Predictions that this would involve video chat were also boosted by the fact that press invitations to the event were decorated with a small chat icon with a silhouette of a person in one of them. “Suddenly those chat icons in the invitation have a lot more meaning,” Arrington commented. Another influential tech blog, Mashable , confirmed the story. “While Facebook and Skype aren’t saying anything officially, our sources confirm that Skype-powered video chat on Facebook will indeed be launching next week,” the website reported. If true, the move is likely to cement Facebook even further into the lives of its growing number of global users. The company, founded in 2004, is already one of the biggest and most influential in the world, with an estimated 500 million-plus active users. Through the exploding industry of social media, Facebook’s influence is spreading through the media, entertainment and advertising industries. Having a video chat function using Skype would extend its reach even further, potentially encroaching on the mobile telephone sector. Facebook’s success has turned 27-year-old Zuckerberg into one of the richest self-made men in the world, worth billions of dollars. Last year he was the subject of the Hollywood film The Social Network , which was nominated for eight Oscars. Facebook Skype Social networking Mark Zuckerberg Telecoms Paul Harris guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …