We get it. San Francisco wants to save animals—especially the cuter ones like puppies, kittens, hamsters and now goldfish—from inhumane abuse. But how many people will say yes to being deprived of their little companions? Recently, the San Francisco Animal Control & Welfare Commission has gotten a lot of attention for proposing to ban selling
Continue reading …
A new book explores western involvement in what has become a scourge of the developing world: sex selection of babies In 1979 China signed a $50m four-year deal with a UN body designed to help it control its spiralling population through family planning. It was the largest foreign aid package Beijing had accepted in almost 20 years. But the funds became entwined in China’s one-child policy that was just taking hold, and instead of sponsoring an education drive for small families, the money was used to pay for posters in Chinese villages proclaiming “You can abort it! But you cannot give birth to it.” The story of the complicity of the UNFPA, the UN’s main population agency, in the tyranny of China’s forced abortion policy is just one of the examples given in a book that explores western involvement in what has become a modern scourge: sex selection. Unnatural Selection by Mara Hvistendahl charts how the trend towards choosing boys over girls, largely through sex-selective abortions, is rapidly spreading across the developing world. While the natural sex ratio at birth is 105 boys born for every 100 girls, in India the figure has risen to 112 boys and in China 121. The Chinese city of Lianyungang recorded an astonishing 163 boys per 100 girls in 2007. The bias towards boys has been estimated to have caused the “disappearance” of 160 million women and girls in Asia alone over the past few decades. The pattern has now spilled over to Azerbaijan, Georgia and Armenia, the Balkans and Albania, where the sex ratio is 115/100. The unnatural skewing towards male populations has become so pronounced in recent decades that Hvistendahl, a writer for Science magazine, says it has given rise to a new “Generation XY”. She raises the possibility that with so many surplus men – up to a fifth of men will be single in northwestern India by 2020 – large parts of the world could become like America’s wild west, with excess testosterone leading to raised levels of crime and violence. “Historically, societies in which men substantially outnumber women are not nice places to live,” Hvistendahl writes. Already, the relative shortage of women in countries like China and Taiwan has helped create new markets in women. They include arranged wedding agencies that set up marriages between South Korean men and foreigners, often women from poorer nearby countries like Vietnam, that now account for 11% of all marriages in South Korea. There is also a booming trade in trafficking of women for prostitution out of Vietnam and a growing practice of child marriage in China, where wealthier families secure wives for their sons early by effectively buying young girls for their sons. Much of the literature on sex selection has suggested that cultural patterns explain the phenomenon. But Hvisten dahl lays the blame squarely on western governments and businesses that have exported technology and pro-abortion practices without considering the consequences. Amniocentesis and ultrasound scans have had largely positive applications in the west, where they have been used to detect foetal abnormalities. But exported to Asia and eastern Europe they have been intricately linked to an explosion of sex selection and a mushrooming of female abortions. Hvistendahl claims western governments actively promoted abortion and sex selection in the developing world, encouraging the liberalisation of abortion laws and subsidising sales of ultrasounds as a form of population control. “It took millions of dollars in funding from US organisations for sex determination and abortion to catch on in the developing world,” she writes. Even now, when the pattern of sex selection has been well documented and the prospect exists of the developing world accommodating tens of millions more men than women, the UNFPA is refusing to face up to its mistakes and confront the problem, she says. “The effects of the major UN agency tasked with population advocacy distancing itself from the issue of sex selective abortion are immense,” she writes, noting that the agency’s foot-dragging has discouraged other global funds from engaging with the crisis. Population China India United Nations Ed Pilkington guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Rep. Luis Gutierrez at Netroots: Latinos want to vote for President Obama, but being taken for granted will kill their turnout
June 17, 2011 No Comment
Click here to view this media I took part in a small-group discussion at Netroots Nation this morning with Rep. Luis Gutierrez organized by the fine folks at America’s Voice , and afterward I managed to squeeze in a brief interview kind of summing up the discussion. The upshot: President Obama’s political team may well be endangering his ability to gain re-election by deferring action on immigration — not merely in passing comprehensive immigration, but in providing administrative relief for DREAM Act-eligible students , and laying off its draconian “Secure Communities” initiative — because it wants to tackle these issues in its his second term. As the congressman said: GUTIERREZ: That’s what he doesn’t understand, I think, is that people just won’t show up. And you know what? There’s nothing more, I believe, that the Republicans want, than to see us just kind of sit on our hands. ‘Cause guess what — they’re voting. They’re not staying home. You can say in the polls they’re 10 points behind, but they’re still going to show up the next day. Our folks? We need to be fed. C&L: Well, if you’re being taken for granted … GUTIERREZ: And we have been. And unfortunately, we have an administration who made us a promise about bringing about comprehensive immigration reform. Now, are there challenges this president — are there challenges the president of the United States could have been defeated on? Yeah. But you see, what they want is someone who goes down fighting. I would say that the congressman is talking about a lot of progressives from across a wide spectrum. But this is a significant case of short-sightedness. Latinos delivered the vote for Obama and Democrats in 2008 . They saved the Senate for Democrats in 2010 . And now the administration’s inaction threatens to wash all that down the drain — along with their own re-election chances. That’s plain stupid.
Continue reading …
Richard O’Dwyer may face jail for copyright infringement in case echoing that of Gary McKinnon The mother of a British student who is facing extradition to the United States over alleged copyright offences online has spoken of her anguish that he could face a possible jail sentence. In a case carrying echoes of that of Gary McKinnon , the computer hacker who has spent years fighting US extradition, 23-year-old undergraduate Richard O’Dwyer was arrested late last month at the request of the US immigration and customs enforcement department. Until last year, when police and US officials first visited him at his student accommodation in Sheffield, O’Dwyer ran a website called TVShack which provided links to other sites where users could download pirated versions of films and television shows. He appeared before magistrates in the capital this week for a preliminary hearing into the planned extradition, which he is fighting. The case seemed “beyond belief”, said O’Dwyer’s mother, Julia, from Chesterfield. “The first he knew about it was this visit from the police and the American officials in November,” she said. “He shut the website down the very next day and I don’t think he expected it to go this far. But then in May he even had to spend a night in Wandsworth prison as the court was too slow for us to sort out his passport and bail. “Richard’s still studying in Sheffield. He’s doing his best not to think about it. But it’s a real strain for the family. I wake up every morning and think about it. What we can do? I’m no expert but I’ve read the extradition treaty from cover to cover.” It is the UK’s 2003 extradition agreement with the US, campaigners say, which is at the centre of the problem. Much criticised in the case of McKinnon, it currently contains no provision for what is known legally as forum, which would allow a UK judge to consider whether a case is best heard in the UK or abroad. O’Dwyer’s mother says she is baffled why a case with no direct links to the US – her son last went there aged five – should be heard in the US. Her lawyers agree. “The (computer) server was not based in the US at all,” O’Dwyer’s barrister, Ben Cooper, who has also been heavily involved in the McKinnon case, told Tuesday’s hearing at Westminster magistrates court. “Mr O’Dwyer did not have copyrighted material on his website; he simply provided a link. The essential contention is that the correct forum for this trial is in fact here in Britain, where he was at all times.” Some experts on digital law question whether providing links to illegal downloads rather than directly hosting them would even constitute an offence in the UK. In February last year charges involving fraud and copyright against a similar site, TV-Links, were dismissed after a judge ruled that linking alone was not illegal. “If it’s an offence under UK law, then it has to be prosecuted and tested under UK law,” said James Firth of the Open Digital Policy Organisation thinktank. “If there is no offence under UK law, then there is no ‘victim’ to copyright infringement and no case for extradition.” Civil liberties groups have also questioned why the government has not swiftly amended the extradition law by enacting a pre-existing but dormant forum clause, given that both coalition parties were heavily critical of it while in opposition. In September last year the home secretary, Theresa May, instead ordered a wider, year-long review of all extradition laws. “The government hasn’t acted in time. This is exactly what we warned against,” said Isabella Sankey, director of policy for Liberty. “Enacting the forum amendment would have been quite simple. It’s not that we’re arguing that in every case where activity has taken place here we shouldn’t allow people to be extradited. But we should at least be leaving our judges some discretion to look at the circumstances.” Extradition Filesharing UK criminal justice UK civil liberties Internet United States Peter Walker guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Texas Tea Party leader, Rebecca Forrester says there are too many Hispanics in legislature to crack down on illegal immigration
June 17, 2011 No Comment
In January, Jeb Bush urged the GOP that they should reach out to the Latino community if they want to stay relevant. Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush is calling on conservatives to step up their outreach to Hispanic voters if they want to remain politically relevant. Former President George Bush in a speech said that the Tea Party suffers from nativism which drew the ire of Laura Ingraham. And other mainstream Republicans also began to make the same argument including Newt Gingrich: ‘Moderate’ Republicans try to do outreach with Latinos. Lots of luck with that. Newt Gingrich, a potential presidential candidate and a thought leader inside the party, talks about creating a zone between amnesty and mass deportation. It appears that that message has fallen on deaf ears. KTRH: Tea Party Leader Makes “Racist” Remarks, Says Texas Has Too Many Hispanic Lawmakers Rebecca Forrester the co-founder of “Women on the Wall” said that “part of the problem” behind the inability of the Texas legislature to pass a crack down on illegal immigrants is “because Texas has… 36 Hispanics in the legislature.” Too many, she suggests, to pass a meaningful reform bill as the matter is “too close to them.” It’s a remark that Luis Vera, the National General Counsel for LULAC says crosses the line.”There was no reason for that comment, we can disagree on being Democrat or Republican but she’s drawing it straight down racial lines and nothing else,” says Vera. The comments are also sparking condemnation from Hispanics in the legislature like State Representative Armando Walle. “We are proud Americans and many of us were born in this country and have generations and generations in this country and that type of mentality doesn’t deserve a response,” says Walle . Meanwhile Felicia Cravens with the Houston Tea Party says the comments made don’t reflect the Tea Party movement as a whole, as “Women on the Wall” is a fringe group. “When people start slapping a Tea Party label on things it causes confusion and it makes the message less clear,” she said. You can always count on Republicans to claim that the racists in their midst are fringers. If the Tea Party or the GOP was trying to engage on an honest level with the Hispanic community they would have willing partners in the Democratic Party to get a deal done, but FOX News and AM hate talk radio will never allow that to happen. Limbaugh and his pals torpedoed Bush’s push for immigration reform in 2007 . And Rebecca Forrester clearly is the wrong woman to help bridge the gap.The base of the GOP will never allow a meaningful dialogue on immigration reform and it’s too bad because America would benefit greatly along with millions of Latinos. Click here to view this media George Bush has infuriated the Tea Party faction of the GOP when he spoke out January 24 at Southern Methodist University in Dallas against what he perceives is a historic shift back to the olden days of isolationism, protectionism and its demon-seed hellspawn, Nativism. Laura Ingraham filled in for O’Reilly and was furious at the president she once held so dear to her heart. Ingraham: Last November President Bush remarked that the Tea Party is good for the country. But why did he attack a key priority for many Tea Partiers, namely, getting our borders under control and preventing mass amnesty for illegal immigrants? Bush: What’s interesting about our country, if you study history, is that there are some ‘isms’ that occasionally pop up — pop up. One is isolationism and its evil twin protectionism and its evil triplet nativism. So if you study the ’20s, for example, there was — there was an American first policy that said who cares what happens in Europe?…And there was an immigration policy that I think during this period argued we had too many Jews and too many Italians; therefore we should have no immigrants. And my point is that we’ve been through this kind of period of isolationism, protectionism and Nativism. I’m a little concerned that we may be going through the same period. ” Ingraham: Now as someone who was at the forefront in opposing the 2006 Bush immigration reform effort, I was saddened, but not all that surprised by the President’s insulting characterization…. To say that it’s all about hostility to foreigners is ludicrous. To back up her position she uses a Dallas Tea Party poll which showed over 95% in favor of Arizona’s hateful SB1070 law. I guess that’s irrefutable proof that Conservative opposition towards immigration reform is anything but Nativism, right? Ingraham uses the phony Conservative claim that this is all about “the rule of law” as a crutch to back up her Nativist position on immigration. Jeb Bush also got under her skin when he spoke out against Republicans and called their opposition “wrong and stupid.” Laura wasn’t happy being tag teamed by the Bush Brothers. Ingraham: Now that’s an interesting way to court future GOP voters given their overwhelming opposition to amnesty, Gov. Bush. maybe President Bush was right. We are suffering from an outbreak of ism’s. Elitism comes to mind. Calling George and Jeb Bush ‘elitists’ are fightin’ words , young lady, since that’s the exact opposite of how she viewed them when they were in office. Oh, how times have changed — because here I am, writing about something that I agree with George Bush on, and here Laura Ingraham is, attacking the president she once defended to the hilt. That’s how far right the GOP has moved. Click here to read more on the Limbaugh/Bush immigration fight.
Continue reading …
Royal College of Midwives brands withdrawal of central funding for 18-year campaign ‘disappointing’ The government has stepped back from a campaign launched 18 years ago to encourage new mothers to start and continue breastfeeding, in spite of the low proportion of women who breastfeed their babies in the UK for any length of time. National Breastfeeding Awareness Week, which begins on Monday, is no longer receiving central funds from the Department of Health. Events will take place around the country, organised by local hospitals or groups such as the National Childbirth Trust (NCT), but there will be no central co-ordination or national campaign, which the Royal College of Midwives said was “very disappointing”. The Department of Health, which has cut back on all forms of social marketing, is said to be reviewing the situation. But also worrying campaigners is the disappearance of a network of regional infant feeding co-ordinators who were based in the strategic health authorities which are now being abolished. Yet organisations involved with new mothers, such as the royal colleges of midwives and nurses as well as the NCT, say the battle to increase breastfeeding rates is far from won. New figures, to be published next week, are likely to show an increase in the number of women who start to breastfeed their baby, but are not expected to show a big shift in the numbers who continue to do so even close to the six months recommended by the World Health Organisation and endorsed by the UK government. The last official breastfeeding figures were published in 2007, and showed only a 2% increase over the previous 20 years. Less than half – 48% – of mothers were breastfeeding at six weeks. Only a quarter of mothers were breastfeeding at six months. Exclusive breastfeeding was highest among women from professional and managerial occupations, aged over 30 and with higher levels of education. Most women were willing to try – before the birth, 70% of women said they would like to breastfeed and 84% said they were aware of the health benefits. A new survey from Lansinoh, makers of breastfeeding products, appears to bear out the willingness of most women to attempt to breastfeed. Nearly 87% of the 1,400 women who responded to their online survey said they did or would breastfeed for “the health benefits of my baby” and almost all – 98% – thought “breast is best”. A substantial proportion – 40% – felt that they had received good support from midwives and health visitors. Some 30% had “early issues” that were overcome, but 20% felt they had to deal with it on their own. Unicef, which runs the Baby Friendly Initiative, accrediting hospitals and maternity units that offer good supportive breastfeeding care, says that more training is needed for health visitors and midwives. It has just accredited the first health visitor course, at Bolton University, which has a specific two-day training module on breastfeeding. Rosie Dodds, senior policy advisor at the NCT, said another issue is that some women are deterred still from breastfeeding in public, in spite of the Equality Act passed last year which specifically protects their right to feed in cafes and other public places. “Women are hesitant about it,” she said, “especially the youngest and least confident women.” The Department of Health said: “Due to reduced budgets this year, the department is unable to offer any funding for National Breastfeeding Week.” However, it said it valued and encouraged the support and information available to health professionals and parents through NHS Choices, the National Breastfeeding Helpline, Unicef UK Baby Friendly Initiative and peer support programmes. “The department recognises the importance of breastfeeding both for the mother and her baby and we continue to support breastfeeding through the Healthy Child Programme, as set out in the Public Health White Paper. The coalition government has made the challenging commitment to an extra 4,200 health visitors by 2015. Health visitors will be able to help support women who want to breastfeed but may find it difficult.” Breastfeeding Health policy Public services policy Parents and parenting Health Health & wellbeing Sarah Boseley guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Click here to view this media What Tim Pawlenty is finding out–or maybe he already knew–is that the GOP has descended into a John Birch/John Galt party because of the FOXation of the party and some of its members reveling in racism. Mother Jones: During his recent swing through New Hampshire for CNN’s presidential debate, former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty courted more than a hundred Republicans at a house party in the town of North Conway. But the Pawlenty campaign’s choice of a host for the event, which was arranged by the candidate’s regional field manager in the Granite State, was nothing if not controversial. The party took place at the home of Ray Shakir, a local Republican activist and retired construction executive, who calls President Obama a “jungle alien,” Hillary Clinton “Osama’s dream girl,” and once labeled certain disabled children “uneducatable” and thus undeserving of taxpayer-funded schooling. In an interview, Shakir says Pawlenty addressed tough issues at the house party, such as cutting subsidies for corn ethanol and implementing right-to-work legislation, which would allow employees to opt out of union membership but still receive union-won benefits. Shakir praises Pawlenty as “a real nice guy, very gregarious,” adding, “at this point in the game, Tim Pawlenty is my choice for president.” The Breitbarts of wingnutopia can scream the word racism as much and as loud as they want in an attempt to cheapen its meaning, but it doesn’t change the fact that that’s exactly what the party has embraced. We saw it during the August Townhall meeting during the health care debate and Pawlenty is actively courting them on his presidential run. Check out some of the other insane things Shakir has said in the past: You can call me a birther if you want.” Shakir claims the long-form birth certificate recently released by the Obama administration is merely a clever forgery. (The Pawlenty campaign did not respond to a request for comment.) Moving to other issues, Shakir called human-caused climate change “bullshit” and accused liberals of “trying to destroy this country.” “They’re brainwashing people,” he says Shakir has a history of rhetorical flamethrowing. He’s referred to President Obama as “Borat Hussein O’Bummer” and suggested he is “a radical, subversive, con-artist fraud.” — In response to a special education official who said there was “no such thing as an uneducatable person,” Shakir told a gym full of citizens: “I would dispute that fact. There are certainly individuals that are uneducateable. I am simply suggesting to you and everybody else that there should be a line drawn where the taxpayer is responsible to educate certain people.” Shakir’s statement drew a chorus of boos, calls to resign, and even a comparison to Hitler. To which Shakir responded, “If you don’t like it, that’s the way it is. You people are divorced from reality.” Andy Kroll asks a question in his great piece that he really doesn’t answer: Q) But why did the Pawlenty campaign, running on a “Time for Truth” message, turn to Shakir, an activist whose eyebrow-raising comments on a range of topics fly in the face of that theme? enlarge A) Because that’s who the GOP of today are. Simple.
Continue reading …Click here to view this media What Tim Pawlenty is finding out–or maybe he already knew–is that the GOP has descended into a John Birch/John Galt party because of the FOXation of the party and some of its members reveling in racism. Mother Jones: During his recent swing through New Hampshire for CNN’s presidential debate, former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty courted more than a hundred Republicans at a house party in the town of North Conway. But the Pawlenty campaign’s choice of a host for the event, which was arranged by the candidate’s regional field manager in the Granite State, was nothing if not controversial. The party took place at the home of Ray Shakir, a local Republican activist and retired construction executive, who calls President Obama a “jungle alien,” Hillary Clinton “Osama’s dream girl,” and once labeled certain disabled children “uneducatable” and thus undeserving of taxpayer-funded schooling. In an interview, Shakir says Pawlenty addressed tough issues at the house party, such as cutting subsidies for corn ethanol and implementing right-to-work legislation, which would allow employees to opt out of union membership but still receive union-won benefits. Shakir praises Pawlenty as “a real nice guy, very gregarious,” adding, “at this point in the game, Tim Pawlenty is my choice for president.” The Breitbarts of wingnutopia can scream the word racism as much and as loud as they want in an attempt to cheapen its meaning, but it doesn’t change the fact that that’s exactly what the party has embraced. We saw it during the August Townhall meeting during the health care debate and Pawlenty is actively courting them on his presidential run. Check out some of the other insane things Shakir has said in the past: You can call me a birther if you want.” Shakir claims the long-form birth certificate recently released by the Obama administration is merely a clever forgery. (The Pawlenty campaign did not respond to a request for comment.) Moving to other issues, Shakir called human-caused climate change “bullshit” and accused liberals of “trying to destroy this country.” “They’re brainwashing people,” he says Shakir has a history of rhetorical flamethrowing. He’s referred to President Obama as “Borat Hussein O’Bummer” and suggested he is “a radical, subversive, con-artist fraud.” — In response to a special education official who said there was “no such thing as an uneducatable person,” Shakir told a gym full of citizens: “I would dispute that fact. There are certainly individuals that are uneducateable. I am simply suggesting to you and everybody else that there should be a line drawn where the taxpayer is responsible to educate certain people.” Shakir’s statement drew a chorus of boos, calls to resign, and even a comparison to Hitler. To which Shakir responded, “If you don’t like it, that’s the way it is. You people are divorced from reality.” Andy Kroll asks a question in his great piece that he really doesn’t answer: Q) But why did the Pawlenty campaign, running on a “Time for Truth” message, turn to Shakir, an activist whose eyebrow-raising comments on a range of topics fly in the face of that theme? enlarge A) Because that’s who the GOP of today are. Simple.
Continue reading …
Angela Merkel seeks peace with European Central Bank over Greek debt crisis Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany has sued for peace with the European Central Bank (ECB) following weeks of feuding over how to rescue Greece from the devastating debt crisis threatening the future of the euro single currency. Merkel announced on Friday that the decisions on a new three-year bailout package for Greece, which is tipped to run to about €120bn (£106bn), would need to be agreed with the ECB. At a Berlin summit with French president Nicolas Sarkozy, Merkel softened her terms for the new Greek bailout, urged a quick decision on Greece, stressed that any participation by private creditors in the rescue should be voluntary and insisted that a new package with Greece would be reached together with the ECB. Merkel’s climbdown was welcomed by the financial markets, as the prospect of Greece suffering a catastrophic disorderly default receded. The euro rallied strongly, gaining more than one cent against the dollar. Europe’s major stock markets also closed higher as traders took a more positive view of the Greek situation. The German media, though, promptly predicted that Merkel’s olive branch could cost her politically at home. “For the German government, this is a remarkable shift,” said the liberal Sueddeutsche Zeitung. “The chancellor has backed off from a central German demand,” said the conservative Frankfurter Allgemeine. In a research note, JP Morgan said Berlin seemed to be dropping its insistence on a bond swap by Greece’s private creditors, the central factor that the ECB feared would cause Greece to be declared in sovereign default. The Berlin summit came at the end of a week of intense political and market turbulence with riots on the streets of Athens, a Greek government on the brink of collapse and bad-tempered disarray among EU leaders. Despite the apparent progress, it remained to be seen how the second Greek bailout in a year would be structured. Sarkozy, who has been on the ECB side of the argument, characteristically claimed a “breakthrough” in Berlin and said France and Germany were united on all essential points on Greece. Merkel has become increasingly isolated in the last fortnight over Germany’s insistence that Greece’s private creditors – the banks, pension funds and insurance companies holding much of the insolvent country’s €340bn of debt – have to take “haircuts” or sizeable losses on their investments as part of the new deal to rescue Greece. The Germans wanted the creditors to swap maturing Greek bonds for new seven-year paper bonds on a scale that would be “quantifiable and substantial.” The ECB, supported by the European Commission, France and Jean-Claude Juncker of Luxembourg, head of the group of 17 eurozone countries, had warned that Berlin’s policy could trigger calamity. The ratings agencies would declare Greece in default, bringing down the Greek banks and unleashing financial failure across the European banking sector. The ECB recommended a rollover of Greek debt, with the banks pledging to buy new Greek paper as current loans are repaid, avoiding a “credit event” or a Greek default. It now seems that this option will prevail and a deal will be reached much more quickly following Merkel’s concessions. Merkel emphasised that any involvement by private creditors would be “explicitly voluntary”. A German parliament resolution last week underpinning her negotiating mandate in the EU stipulated the government could only agree to a new bailout “if an appropriate involvement of private creditors is included”. The Germans hoped this would amount to a quarter of the slated €120bn, but the contribution could now be merely symbolic. As she has consistently done throughout the 18-month crisis, Merkel had been playing for time, initially hoping to put off a new bailout until September. After the summit in Berlin, she said: “It’s not about September. It’s about the quickest possible solution.” Finance ministers from the eurozone and the EU meet in Luxembourg on Sunday and Monday and could now hammer out a bailout deal to be blessed by a European summit on Thursday. Greece became the first eurozone country to require a bailout in May last year when the Europeans put together a €110bn package. That has failed amid escalating turmoil in Greece and growing resistance to the swingeing austerity programmes that were the price for the rescue. George Papandreou, the Greek prime minister, will visit Luxembourg on Monday for talks with EU leaders who are anxious that the entire rescue scenario could still unravel because of his inability to deliver on a radical privatisation programme, spending cuts, and tax increases. Merkel’s remarks came as the IMF warned that debt-ridden European countries were “playing with fire” unless they took immediate steps to reduce their budget deficits. The IMF, in its regular assessment of global economic prospects, said bigger threats to growth had emerged since its previous report in April, citing the euro zone debt crisis and signs of overheating in emerging market economies. The IMF also revised downwards its forecast for US growth, estimating GDP would grow a tepid 2.5 percent this year and 2.7 percent in 2012 compared with an expected 2.8 percent and 2.9 percent growth, respectively, two months ago. European debt crisis European banks Europe Currencies Economics Global economy Greece Germany Angela Merkel Nicolas Sarkozy Euro Euro European Union Ian Traynor guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …London 2012: Two-thirds miss out on Olympics tickets in first-round lottery
June 17, 2011 No Comment
Organisers outline plans for the next batch of Olympics tickets, which go on sale on a first come, first served basis on 24 June Two-thirds of applicants for London 2012 tickets have been left empty handed in the face of “huge demand”, it emerged as organisers outlined details of the sale of the next batch of 2.3m tickets. A total of 21 events have sold out altogether, with only limited availability for others. There will be only 40,000 athletics tickets available, mainly at high prices, when the second phase opens at 6am on 24 June to the 1.2 million applicants who received nothing in the first phase on a first come, first served basis. Around 1.7m of the remaining 2.3m tickets are for the football tournament, which is taking place at large stadiums around the country. Of the 600,000 remaining for other events, the next most are for volleyball and hockey. There will be a further 1m tickets on sale next year to the general public once venue layouts have been finalised. The London 2012 chairman, Sebastian Coe, said he “empathised with and understands the level of disappointment” but said that the commitment to low pricing had helped drive huge demand. “I don’t know if it’s unprecedented, but I would be hard pushed to give you an example of such a demand for any sporting event anywhere in the world in my lifetime,” he said. Although the London Organising Committee of the Olympic and Paralympic Games (Locog) has to work within the framework laid down by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) regarding ticket allocation, there is likely to be further anger at the distribution of tickets for the biggest events. It has emerged that the men’s 100m final attracted 1.3m applications, but only 30,000 of the 80,000 seats at the stadium will be sold to the British public. The rest of the stadium will be made up of a further 30,000 tickets given to sponsors, hospitality, international sales and international sporting federations, and the rest to the media and IOC officials. Of the 30,000 available to the public, 21,000 went in the first round – half in the more expensive A, B and C categories and half in the D and E categories – and the remaining 9,000 will go on sale next year. Paul Deighton, the Locog chief executive, said that 16m of the 22m ticket applications were for the bottom two price categories. “It all comes back to the number of people who wanted tickets. There were a lot of really affordable tickets and that generated enormous demand,” he said. “The sheer level of demand has left more people disappointed than we would want and we are committed to fixing that as best we can.” There were 1.3m applications for the men’s 100m final, 5m in total for the athletics and 2m for the opening ceremony, including 1.5m who hoped for a £20.12 seat. A total of 1.9 million people applied for 22m tickets in the first phase of the sales process, with 700,000 of them securing a total of 3m tickets. More than 1,500 ballots were held for oversubscribed sessions. “We are determined to do everything we possibly can to get tickets to those people who missed out in the first application,” insisted Coe. He set a target of getting at least two-thirds of the original 1.9 million applicants a ticket by the start of the Games if they wanted one. The ticketing process had come in for criticism from consumer groups including Which? and many applicants for apparently favouring those who could afford to bid for lots of highly priced tickets in lots of sessions. Organisers were also criticised for withdrawing money from the accounts of successful applicants weeks before they learned which tickets they had received. But Deighton said the figures did not bear out the worst fears of consumer groups. He said the average successful application was for four tickets costing £275. Eighty percent of applicants applied for between one and five sessions, with just 5% applying for more than five and “a fraction of 1%” applying for the maximum of 20. “The 3m tickets that were sold will mostly go to different people. Between 2.5 million and 2.7 million people will get to use those tickets,” he said. “We don’t have a situation where there was a small number of people who got a large number of tickets to the detriment of people who didn’t get any.” Unsuccessful applicants will have a 10-day window from 24 June to apply for the 2.3m tickets available in the second round. They will be available on a first come, first served basis. On 8 July, the 700,000 successful applicants will also be offered another chance to buy what is left. Deighton also hinted that Locog, which expects to bring in £400m of its £500m ticket revenue target by the end of the second phase, would have limited the number of sessions and tickets that could have been applied for if it had known the extent of the demand. In the second phase applicants will be restricted to up to six tickets in up to three sessions – apart from those for football, volleyball and the race walk where there are lots of tickets left. “Learning from the demand we had in the first session, we have pared down the event and ticket numbers in this first come, first served second session,” he said. The remaining tickets, expected to total around 1m across all price points and sessions, will start to go on sale from December this year. A ticket exchange service for those who can no longer use their tickets will be set up early next year and organisers will also release tickets that will allow access to the Olympic Park but not to any of the venues. Olympic Games 2012 London Owen Gibson guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …