Click here to view this media Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) has no doubt that his former running mate Sarah Palin can defeat President Barack Obama in 2012 if she decides to run. “Can she win the Republican nomination and can she beat Barack Obama?” Fox News’ Chris Wallace asked McCain Sunday. “Of course she can — she can,” McCain insisted. “Now whether she will or not, whether she’ll even run or not, I don’t know.” “A lot of things happen in campaigns, Chris. I was written off a couple of times and was able to come back. It will be a roller coaster ride for all of them before we finally arrive at our nominee. But she certainly is a major factor. And I believe that she can be very competitive,” he added. “What about her high negatives, especially among independents?” Wallace wondered. “I think that the, again, that’s what campaigns are all about. I’ve never seen anyone as mercilessly and relentlessly attacked as I have seen Sarah Palin in the last couple of years. But she also inspires great passion; particularly, among Republican faithful,” the Arizona senator explained. Publications like The New York Times reported last week that Palin is hinting that she might run. The former Republican vice presidential candidate has purchased a house in Arizona, has a movie premiering in Iowa to rehabilitate her image and is launching an East Coast bus tour. A recent Washington Post /ABC News poll found that only 17 percent of Republicans had a “strongly favorable” view of her.
Continue reading …
Pro-Palestinian campaigners claim their lobbying forced the prime minister to withdraw support David Cameron has stepped down as a patron of the Jewish National Fund (JNF) in a move pro-Palestinian campaigners claim is a result of pressure but which Downing Street insists is part of a general review of the prime minister’s charity connections. The JNF was only one of a number of charities from which Cameron stepped down, said Downing St. His predecessors Gordon Brown and Tony Blair continued to be JNF patrons throughout their tenure. The JNF was originally set up to buy land in Palestine to establish Jewish settlements before the creation of the state of Israel. Now it is a global charity which describes itself as the “caretakers of the land and people of Israel”, specialising in planting forests. Critics say it expropriated land belonging to Palestinians and has obliterated pre-1948 Arab villages by planting forests and parks. The JNF is involved in the demolition of Bedouin villages in the Negev desert as part of an afforestation plan. Sofiah Macleod of the UK-based Stop the JNF Campaign said the organisation’s lobbying had led Cameron to withdraw. “There has been a change in public opinion and awareness about Israel’s behaviour and there was specific pressure on [Cameron] to step down from the JNF,” she said. “We believe he has stepped down as a result of this political pressure. Given the establishment support that the JNF has received, it’s not a decision he will have taken lightly.” The Stop the JNF Campaign wrote an open letter to the prime minister this month, claiming the JNF had committed war crimes against the Palestinian people and urging his resignation as patron. An early day motion tabled in the Commons in March regretted Cameron was a JNF patron and said revoking its charitable status should be considered. However, Downing St insisted Cameron’s resignation was part of a wider review. “Following the formation of the coalition government, a review was undertaken of all the organisations and charities the prime minister was associated with. As a result of this review, the prime minister stepped down from a number of charities – this included the JNF,” it said in a statement. Traditionally, the leaders of the three main political parties have become patrons of the JNF. However, Cameron’s resignation means that none of the current three leaders are JNF patrons. The Palestine Solidarity Campaign welcomed the decision. “It reflects the fact it is now impossible for any serious party leader to lend public support to racism,” campaign director, Sarah Colborne, said in a statement. “The JNF plays a critical role in facilitating the continued dispossession and suffering of Palestinians.” The JNF did not respond to a request for comment. In a letter to the Guardian last October, Samuel Hayek, JNF UK chairman, said: “To accuse the JNF of being “actively complicit in the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians’ represents a distortion of the truth on the grandest of scales. “Our environmental and humanitarian work is not based on any political or religious affiliation, but rather on supporting Israel and its population – whatever their background. This was the case before the modern state of Israel was created and will continue to be the case long into the future.” David Cameron Middle East Israel Palestinian territories Charities Harriet Sherwood guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
‘Significant and tenacious’ attempt made to breach information systems network Lockheed Martin, the US government’s top IT provider, has thwarted a “significant and tenacious” cyber-attack made on its information systems network. A spokeswoman said no personal data had been compromised, thanks to “almost immediate” protective action taken after the attack was detected on 21 May. She said the company, the world’s biggest aerospace company and the Pentagon’s top supplier by sales, was working around the clock to restore employee access to the targeted network while maintaining the highest security level. There has been no information about where the attack may have originated. The US defence department said it was working with Lockheed to determine the scope of the attack. US air force Lieutenant Colonel April Cunningham said the incident’s impact on the department was “minimal and we don’t expect any adverse effect”. She declined to specify the nature of the impact. Lockheed makes the F-16, F-22 and F-35 fighter jets as well as warships and other multibillion-dollar arms systems sold worldwide. Military contractors’ systems contain technical specifications on weapons under development as well as those in use. A homeland security official said the US government had offered to help Lockheed analyse “available data in order to provide recommendations to mitigate further risk”. A person with direct knowledge told Reuters on Friday that unknown attackers had broken into sensitive networks of Lockheed and several other US military contractors. Boeing and Northrop Grumman, the Pentagon’s other leading suppliers, declined to discuss matters involving corporate security. Data and computer security Computing Hacking United States US military US national security guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …McConnell Insists Ryan Medicare Plan is ‘On the Table’ as Hostage Taking on Debt Ceiling Continues
May 29, 2011 No Comment
Click here to view this media Instead of running away from Paul Ryan’s disastrous budget plan and the Republicans’ extremely unpopular proposal to turn Medicare into a voucher system, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell decided to double-down in support of Ryan’s plan instead. So the Republican’s irresponsible hostage taking on raising the debt ceiling continues. McConnell: Ryan Medicare plan ‘on the table’ : The top Republican in the Senate said Sunday that a controversial House Medicare plan is “on the table” as President Barack Obama and his GOP rivals wrestle over budget cuts to enact this summer. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said on NBC’s “Meet The Press” that he supports the controversial plan by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., to transform Medicare into a voucher-like system in which future beneficiaries — those 54 and younger — would get subsidies to buy health insurance rather than have the government directly pay their doctor and hospital bills. The House plan has come under a sustained assault from Democrats, who charge it would “end Medicare as we know it.” Democrats successfully used the charge is winning a House special in a strongly Republican district in upstate New York last week. Asked whether he would concede that the Ryan Medicare plan won’t be part of any budget deal this year, McConnell said: “No. It’s on the table.” McConnell was referring to budget talks led by Vice President Joe Biden and senior lawmakers in both parties over what spending cuts to add to must-pass legislation to allow the government to continue to borrow to fund federal programs and prevent a market-rattling, first-ever default on U.S. bonds But McConnell seemed to acknowledge that with a Democrat in the White House, the Ryan plan is effectively dead for now. The measure by the Wisconsin GOP congressman also fell well short in a Senate vote last week. “I’m personally very comfortable with the way Paul Ryan would structure it,” McConnell said. “But we have a Democratic president. We’re going to have to negotiate with him on the terms of changing Medicare so we can save Medicare.” And by save it, he means turn it over to the insurance industries. And of course he was still saying that any tax increases were off the table and unnecessary. Update: Full transcript below the fold. MR. GREGORY: The problem is huge, and the entitlement program… SEN. McCONNELL: Yeah. MR. GREGORY: …is really the heart of it. But I ask the same question, which is, is Medicare the third rail? Look, you said, reportedly, to the speaker of the House John Boehner, “I wouldn’t push this Ryan proposal because poetical it’s going to hurt the party.” SEN. McCONNELL: Well, I don’t know where that quote came from. But the point is, what are we going to do about the problem? We, we know that–what–let’s–oh, you want to talk about Medicare? The president says Medicare needs to be on the table, the vice president says Medicare needs to be on the table. Steny Hoyer, the number two Democrat in the House, says Medicare needs to be on the table. It is on the table in the discussions related to the debt ceiling. So… MR. GREGORY: But not in its current form. If it passes… SEN. McCONNELL: Well, look, we’re… MR. GREGORY: …as part of the debt ceiling vote… SEN. McCONNELL: The Democrats… MR. GREGORY: …it’s got to be different, does it not, than the Ryan plan? SEN. McCONNELL: As you pointed out from my comments in the lead-in, the Democrats have no plan at all. We had, we had four votes in the Senate this week… MR. GREGORY: Fair enough. But, leader, my question is if there’s going to be a deal on the debt ceiling on Medicare reform… SEN. McCONNELL: Mm-hmm. MR. GREGORY: …would you concede it’s got to look a lot different than the Ryan plan? SEN. McCONNELL: No! I–it’s on the table. We’re going to discuss what ought to be done. Everybody agrees something ought to be done, except the Democrats in the Senate, who have no plan at all. MR. GREGORY: But you’re not even… SEN. McCONNELL: We had four… MR. GREGORY: …you haven’t even said publicly whether you’re for the Ryan plan. So you’re not behind that version of Medicare reform. SEN. McCONNELL: I voted for the–I, I voted for the Ryan budget this week. MR. GREGORY: You didn’t whip up your colleagues, though. You didn’t try to get additional support. SEN. McCONNELL: Well, we, we had, we had competing versions in the Senate. Senator Toomey, a Republican senator in the Senate, had a plan. Senator Paul had a plan. The only people who didn’t vote for any plan at all–we–by the way, we had a vote on the president’s budget, didn’t get a single solitary vote. Not a single Democratic senator voted for the president’s budget. MR. GREGORY: Fair–but do you support Ryan’s reforms? SEN. McCONNELL: And the guy, the guy that you’re going to have on after me thinks that all we’re doing right now is positioning for the 2012 election. What about the country? What about the next generation, not the next election? MR. GREGORY: I’m just trying to understand where you are particularly on how to change Medicare so… SEN. McCONNELL: Well, let me tell you. MR. GREGORY: You’re not–you don’t believe that the Ryan plan is the basis of where you’re going get agreement. SEN. McCONNELL: I, I voted for the Ryan budget this week. MR. GREGORY: But do you believe it’s really the big–because it failed. SEN. McCONNELL: What I’m not going to do… MR. GREGORY: It’s not going anywhere. SEN. McCONNELL: …is negotiate the deal with you, David, with all due respect. The president of the United States, the only person in America who can sign a bill into law, is at the table through the vice president, and we are discussing a package that will begin to deal with deficit and debt in connection… MR. GREGORY: But, leader, I’m not asking you to negotiate. I’m just asking you to help in the interest of what I assume you want, which is building some kind of political consensus around reform. Having a discussion publicly on television like this and saying, what are the contours of that that could actually get some Democratic support? SEN. McCONNELL: Well, this is not the place to do that. The place to do it is in the discussions with the one individual out of 307 million Americans who can sign a bill into law. And those discussions are under way, and I can assure you, David, that to get my vote to raise the debt ceiling, for whatever that’s worth, my one vote, Medicare will be a part of it. The details of that are yet to be negotiated with the guy who can sign something into law. MR. GREGORY: But do you have to keep the basis of the Medicare program in place? Is that your view? Because that’s not what Ryan is proposing. And then you could do other things. SEN. McCONNELL: And no matter how many times you ask me to, to kind of craft what the Medicare fix should be like, I’m not going to give that answer to you today because that’s a subject to be negotiated with the president of the United States. MR. GREGORY: But do you understand that the currents here in the Republican Party–when Newt Gingrich was on this program and called Ryan’s plan right-wing social engineering, conservatives flocked to his aid and said, “No, no, the Ryan plan is a litmus test for conservatives in America.” What you’re saying is not that. You voted for it, but you didn’t rally your colleagues behind it and it failed. So there seems to be a split in the party about what it is should constitute actual reform. SEN. McCONNELL: Actually, there’s very little split in the party at all. We all know Medicare’s going to change. It’s got to change. David, the trustees of Medicare and Social Security, who are appointed by the president of the United States, that includes some members of his own Cabinet, just said a couple of weeks ago that Medicare’s going broke. The one thing we know we can’t do is nothing. And our Democratic friends in the Senate have no plan at all. The president, to his credit, is at the table discussing with us the way in which you save Medicare. Medicare is going down. Doing nothing is not a plan. And we’re going to negotiate the contours of the plan in these negotiations. I’m personally very comfortable with the way Paul Ryan would structure it in the out years. But we have a Democratic president. We’re going to have to negotiate with him on the terms of changing Medicare so we can save Medicare. MR. GREGORY: Are you confident that the debt ceiling will ultimately be raised? SEN. McCONNELL: I’m confident that unless we do something really significant about debt and deficit, it’s not going to be raised. It’s not going to get my vote unless we deal with the problem raised by the request of the president to raise the debt ceiling. In other words… MR. GREGORY: Does Medicare–is it… SEN. McCONNELL: This is, this is an opportunity. MR. GREGORY: Yeah. SEN. McCONNELL: You know, rather than play scare tactics about what if and, you know, what if you do this or what if you do that, the point is use this opportunity to come together on a bipartisan basis like Ronald Reagan and Tip O’Neill did in 1983 to save Social Security for another generation. They came together, made an important adjustment–and, by the way, the–you know, all this talk about next year’s election, after participating in raising the age limit for Social Security, Reagan the next year carried 49 out of 50 states. Anything we agree to do together, David, will not be an issue in next year’s election. But this is about the future of the country. MR. GREGORY: Hm. SEN. McCONNELL: Not about the election a year and a half from now.
Continue reading …
Sam Alexander and Ollie Augustin were killed by a blast from an improvised explosive device in Helmand province The families of two Royal Marines who died in an explosion in Afghanistan have paid tribute to them . Marine Sam Alexander, 28, from Hammersmith, west London, and 23-year-old Lieutenant Ollie Augustin, from Kent, were killed by an improvised explosive device in Helmand province on Friday. The men, both from Juliet Company 42 Commando Royal Marines, had been on patrol in the Loy Mandeh area of the Nad-e Ali district. In 2009, Alexander was awarded the Military Cross for gallantry during a previous tour of Afghanistan. Earlier that year, he charged at a Taliban position with his pistol to save a wounded colleague. Colleagues described him as an example to all who worked with him. His wife, Claire, said: “He risked his safety for his friends, but never batted an eyelid. It was his job, and a job he did well. “Sam was a loving husband and a wonderful father. He was our rock and my best friend. He has been taken from me all too soon.” Alexander also leaves a son, Leo, and parents, Stuart and Serena. The commanding officer of 42 Commando Royal Marines, Lieutenant Colonel Ewen Murchison, said Alexander had joined “the legends, the bravest of the brave”. Augustin, who was leading Friday’s patrol, was said to have made a considerable impact within the unit despite only passing for duty six months ago, having trained to join the marines as a commissioned officer. His parents, Jane and Sean, said he was “a much loved and cherished son”. “His warmth and humour lit a room and infected all around him,” they said. “He dealt with people in a thoughtful and compassionate way. His independence and sense of adventure meant that he embraced life and his chosen path.” Augustin also leaves behind a sister, Sarah. Murchison described him as an “inspirational, passionate and selfless” leader. Military Afghanistan Haroon Siddique guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Click here to view this media You know the time-tested-and-proven adage — a gaffe is when a politician opens his mouth and what he or she really believes comes out. Sometimes it’s the revelation that the politician is barking mad and doesn’t have the foggiest notion what they are talking about. We only have to look back a week for a perfect example of this phenomenon, when Mitch McConnell said this in an interview with Congressional Quarterly : “Last week, the Social Security trustees issued a report saying Social Security and Medicare are not sustainable under their current structure.” Back in the day, when we had a functioning press corps instead of a cocktail-weenie-wagging press corpse; back when we had real reporters doing actual journalism instead of the steno-pool full of faithful scribes who can be counted on to regurgitate right-wing talking points unchallenged; back then, that sort of nonsense would have been a bit in the teeth of the reporter, who would have done his or her homework ahead of time, and McConnell would have been hammered mercilessly with the fact that the trustees said no such thing . “Projected long-run program costs for both Medicare and Social Security are not sustainable under currently scheduled financing.” There is a world of difference between what McConnell said the trustees reported and what the McConnell said they reported. McConnell’s implication is that there is a hair-on-fire emergency and Social Security has to be fundamentally changed because it’s doomed to bankruptcy otherwise; when in fact what the trustees presented was an either/or — either revenues will have to be raised, or benefits will have to be cut decades down the road. The essential Dean Baker had the best analogy I have seen on McConnell’s misrepresentation: This would be like driving from Chicago to Detroit and determining that at some point you will need more gas to complete the trip. That would mean stopping at a gas station and refilling your tank. By contrast, McConnell’s comment implies that the car is about to breakdown and will not make the trip. Congressional Quarterly failed their readers when they didn’t follow up and press the Senator to clarify whether A.) he didn’t understand what the trustees actually said or B.) was being deliberately dishonest in pursuit of political gain. There is no option C. The reality is there is no Social Security crisis , no matter how loudly the greed-mongers and deficit scolds insist there is. They can wail and gnash their teeth and rend the cloth from their breast all day long and into the night. That still won’t change the fact that Social Security is not only not responsible for our deficit woes, it is independent of the deficit /and/ it is solvent for decades . Period. Full stop. The trustees report that McConnell misrepresented actually presents the same findings as the CBO report in that last link. Both report that the Social Security trustfund, without changing a thing, will be able to make full payouts through 2030-something — it should also be noted that the full payout projections have been pushed downward not by flaws in the system, but by the economic downturn of the last couple of years. Both note that those numbers should start ticking back up as the economy recovers, and if that isn’t the case, we have a lot bigger problems than Social Security heading our way. In reality, any projected shortfalls in future Social Security benefits could be easily remedied with either of a couple of easy fixes would not only fill that hole, it would put the program on a sound footing indefinitely. The first option would be to raise the cap. Currently, a person making more than $106,800 pays no Social Security tax on any monies earned over that amount. Removing the cap and taxing all monies equally would put the program on solid footing indefinitely. So would a very modest increase — 1% or less — in the amount of payroll tax withheld from the wages of those of us who earn less than $106,800. I don’t know about you, but I would be willing to give up three designer coffees a pay-period now to assure that Social Security will be there when I reach retirement age. Elected leaders who embrace the “fundamental change is necessary” mantra are either stupid, or lying. In neither instance should they be making decisions that affect millions of Americans. And that goes double for those who parrot the BS knowing full well it’s just that…BS. I’m looking at you, CQ. [ This post originally appeared at Show Me Progress and is part of a series I am writing as a blogging fellow for the Strengthen Social Security Campaign , a coalition of more than 270 national and state organizations dedicated to preserving and strengthening Social Security. ]
Continue reading …
California court forces site to reveal personal details of user accused of libelling local authority in north-east England Twitter has been forced to hand over the personal details of a British user in a libel battle that could have huge implications for free speech on the web. The social network has passed the name, email address and telephone number of a south Tyneside councillor accused of libelling the local authority via a series of anonymous Twitter accounts. South Tyneside council took the legal fight to the superior court of California, which ordered San Francisco-based Twitter to hand over the user’s private details. It is believed to be the first time Twitter has bowed to legal pressure to unmask anonymous users and comes amid a huge row over privacy and free speech online. Ryan Giggs, the Manchester United footballer named as being behind a gagging order preventing reporting of his alleged affair with a reality TV model, is separately attempting to unmask Twitter users accused of revealing details of his high-profile privacy injunction. However, Giggs brought the lawsuit at the high court in London and the move to use California courts is likely to be seen as a landmark moment in the internet privacy battle. Ahmed Khan, the south Tyneside councillor accused of being the author of the pseudonymous Twitter accounts, described the council’s move as “Orwellian”. Khan received an email from Twitter earlier this month informing him that the site had handed over his personal information. He denies being the author of the allegedly defamatory material. “It is like something out of 1984,” Khan told the Guardian. “If a council can take this kind of action against one of its own councillors simply because they don’t like what I say, what hope is there for freedom of speech or privacy?” Khan said the information Twitter handed over was “just a great long list of numbers”. The subpeona, submitted by the council last month, ordered Twitter to hand over 30 pieces of information relating to several Twitter accounts, including @fatcouncillor and @ahmedkhan01 . “I don’t fully understand it but it all relates to my Twitter account and it not only breaches my human rights, but it potentially breaches the human rights of anyone who has ever sent me a message on Twitter. “A number of whistleblowers have sent me private messages, exposing any wrongdoing in the council, and the authority knows this.” He added: “I was never even told they were taking this case to court in California. The first I heard was when Twitter contacted me. I had just 14 days to defend the case and I was expected to fly 6,000 miles and hire my own lawyer – all at my expense. “Even if they unmask this blogger, what does the council hope to achieve ? The person or persons concerned is simply likely to declare bankruptcy and the council won’t recover any money it has spent.” A spokesman for south Tyneside council said that the legal action was brought by the authority’s previous chief executive, but that it has “continued with the full support” of the current head. He added: “The council has a duty of care to protect its employees and as this blog contains damaging claims about council officers, legal action is being taken to identify those responsible.” Twitter had not returned a request to comment at time of publication. Twitter Internet Blogging Privacy United States Josh Halliday guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …California court forces site to reveal personal details of user accused of libelling local authority in north-east England Twitter has been forced to hand over the personal details of a British user in a libel battle that could have huge implications for free speech on the web. The social network has passed the name, email address and telephone number of a south Tyneside councillor accused of libelling the local authority via a series of anonymous Twitter accounts. South Tyneside council took the legal fight to the superior court of California, which ordered San Francisco-based Twitter to hand over the user’s private details. It is believed to be the first time Twitter has bowed to legal pressure to unmask anonymous users and comes amid a huge row over privacy and free speech online. Ryan Giggs, the Manchester United footballer named as being behind a gagging order preventing reporting of his alleged affair with a reality TV model, is separately attempting to unmask Twitter users accused of revealing details of his high-profile privacy injunction. However, Giggs brought the lawsuit at the high court in London and the move to use California courts is likely to be seen as a landmark moment in the internet privacy battle. Ahmed Khan, the south Tyneside councillor accused of being the author of the pseudonymous Twitter accounts, described the council’s move as “Orwellian”. Khan received an email from Twitter earlier this month informing him that the site had handed over his personal information. He denies being the author of the allegedly defamatory material. “It is like something out of 1984,” Khan told the Guardian. “If a council can take this kind of action against one of its own councillors simply because they don’t like what I say, what hope is there for freedom of speech or privacy?” Khan said the information Twitter handed over was “just a great long list of numbers”. The subpeona, submitted by the council last month, ordered Twitter to hand over 30 pieces of information relating to several Twitter accounts, including @fatcouncillor and @ahmedkhan01 . “I don’t fully understand it but it all relates to my Twitter account and it not only breaches my human rights, but it potentially breaches the human rights of anyone who has ever sent me a message on Twitter. “A number of whistleblowers have sent me private messages, exposing any wrongdoing in the council, and the authority knows this.” He added: “I was never even told they were taking this case to court in California. The first I heard was when Twitter contacted me. I had just 14 days to defend the case and I was expected to fly 6,000 miles and hire my own lawyer – all at my expense. “Even if they unmask this blogger, what does the council hope to achieve ? The person or persons concerned is simply likely to declare bankruptcy and the council won’t recover any money it has spent.” A spokesman for south Tyneside council said that the legal action was brought by the authority’s previous chief executive, but that it has “continued with the full support” of the current head. He added: “The council has a duty of care to protect its employees and as this blog contains damaging claims about council officers, legal action is being taken to identify those responsible.” Twitter had not returned a request to comment at time of publication. Twitter Internet Blogging Privacy United States Josh Halliday guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Fifa in crisis live blog – Bin Hammam out of race as ethics committee meets | John Ashdown
May 29, 2011 No Comment
• Bin Hammam vows to clear name after withdrawing • Fifa ethics committee hearing meeting later on Sunday • Email your thoughts to john.ashdown@guardian.co.uk 1.11pm: This whole shebang was kicked off, of course, by our old friend Chuck Blazer, a man who likes to wear his trousers high . In fact, while we’re waiting for Fifa’s announcement, you could do worse than take a tour through Chuck’s blog . Halloween is a particular highlight. 12.53pm: So who is the man in charge of today’s proceeedings? You can read about Petrus Damaseb here and here 12.30pm: So the pieces are being placed on the board. Here’s Matt Scott in Zurich: “MBH has come in to Fifa House in the back seat of a large black limo to face Petrus Damaseb’s ethics committee.” 12.22pm: Today is all about a Fifa meeting. And thanks to Fifa.com, you can re-live the best bits (no, really) of Fifa meetings past . Will this week’s bunfight make it on to that list? Who knows. Yes, this does smack of filler, doesn’t it. Only four hours 38 minutes to go! 12.06pm: The ever excellent Paul Hayward’s view : In their official literature, Fifa kindly offer a list of the honours bestowed on President Sepp Blatter for his efforts to make the world a better place. On his wanderings, the supreme leader has picked up a knighthood from the Sultanate of Pahang, the Medalla al Mérito Deportivo from Bolivia, the French Legion of Honour, the Dove of Geneva and countless honorary doctorates. The scroll is longer even than the charge sheet confronting Fifa officials on Sunday in Zurich, where Blatter, his presidential rival Mohamed bin Hammam and the ubiquitous Jack Warner are among those up before the world governing body’s Ethics Committee – itself increasingly an example of Orwellian doublespeak. All across the globe – certainly in the Arab states – the cult of the leader is under attack. But Fifa still manage to mimic the kind of hilltop state employed by the Marx Brothers in Duck Soup. Yet Fifa are not Freedonia and they are not bankrupt: Groucho’s big problem, as head of state. Blatter and his committees sit on reserves of $1.28bn and emote obsessively about spreading this largesse around the five continents, even though no one seems able to say clearly where all the money ends up. In his mission statement, headed “Fifa Brand – Our commitment” (note the word brand), Blatter makes a “promise” – “For the Games, For the World”. He says: “The world is a place rich in natural beauty and cultural diversity, but also one where many are still deprived of their basic rights. Fifa now have an even greater responsibility to reach out and touch the world, using football as a symbol of hope and integration.” Right now the world would probably rather not be “touched” by Fifa. 11.55am: Franz Beckenbauer has offered Uncle Sepp his support: “He did a wonderful job,” the former Germany captain told Radio 5 Live. “It’s not easy. Fifa is like the United Nations – we have 208 members. It’s not an easy to handle, but I think Blatter and his staff are doing a wonderful job.” ‘A wonderful job’? Really? 11.48am: The big news this morning is that Mohamed Bin Hammam has withdrawn from the presidential race. Here’s Matt Scott, in Zurich : Mohamed bin Hammam has withdrawn from the race to become the next Fifa president and has vowed to clear his name when he appears before the body’s ethics committee. The president of the Asian Football Confederation is facing bribery allegations, alongside the Fifa vice-president Jack Warner, while the organisation’s president, Sepp Blatter, is being investigated for knowing about alleged bribery. Bin Hammam’s decision to pull out of the election means Blatter is unopposed in his attempt to secure a fourth term as the head of world football in Wednesday’s vote. Bin Hammam said: “I pray that my withdrawal will not be tied to the investigation held by the Fifa ethics committee as I will appear before the ethics committee to clear my name from the baseless allegations that have been made against me. “I promise those who stood by me that I will walk with my head held high and will continue to fight for the good of the game. “I have a special thank you to my friend and colleague Jack Warner for his unlimited support. I am sorry to see that he has to suffer because of me, but I am promising him that I will be with him all the way through thick and thin. “I look forward to working closely with my colleagues to restore Fifa’s reputation to what it should be – a protector of the game that has credibility through honesty, transparency and accountability. It saddens me that standing up for the causes I believed in has come at a great price – the degradation of Fifa’s reputation. This is not what I had in mind for Fifa and this is unacceptable. “I cannot allow the game that I love to be dragged more and more in the mud because of competition between two individuals. The game itself and the people who love it around the world must come first. It is for this reason that I announce my withdrawal from the presidential election.” Bin Hammam’s withdrawal is only one hurdle for Blatter to overcome in his attempt to extend his tenure into a fourth term. The corruption allegations that have engulfed world football and destroyed Bin Hammam’s candidacy also threaten him: like the Qatari challenger, he faces an ethics committee hearing on Sunday. Today’s order of play, as it were: • Starting this morning: Fifa’s ethics committee meets in Zurich. • At 5pm there will be a press conference where the committee’s findings will be revealed. As a grandiose Fifa statement today explains: Fifa vice-president Jack Warner, executive committee member Mohamed bin Hammam, as well as Caribbean Football Union officials Debbie Minguell and Jason Sylvester, have been invited to attend a hearing by the Fifa ethics committee at the home of Fifa in Zurich on the same day. The meeting, which starts in the morning, will be followed by a press conference in the auditorium of the home of Fifa, planned for 6pm CET [5pm BST] (time subject to change). The press conference will be attended by deputy chairman of the Fifa ethics committee, Petrus Damaseb and Fifa secretary general Jérôme Valcke. Fifa Football politics Sepp Blatter Mohamed bin Hammam John Ashdown guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
General secretary of University and College Union says coalition is ‘fundamental threat’, undermining work done in further and higher education Education spending cuts put the UK at risk of turning into “yesterday’s country”, the leader of the university lecturers’ union has warned. In a scathing attack on the government, Sally Hunt, the general secretary of the University and College Union (UCU) , says the coalition is a “fundamental threat”, undermining the work done in further and higher education. In a speech to delegates at the UCU’s annual conference in Harrogate, she will say that while all public services are facing cuts, universities and colleges have been “singled out for special treatment”, with spending slashed by 17% over the next two years. UCU represents more than 120,000 academics and other staff. “The cost to our country of this attack on education will be substantial,” Hunt will say, adding: “When you weigh the cost of keeping kids on benefit versus giving them a chance in life, it is ignorance that is the expensive option, not education.” She will tell delegates the UK is at risk of losing its place as a world leader for education. “Since the turn of the century, the UK’s qualification rates have been overtaken by Iceland, Poland, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, the Netherlands, Japan, Ireland, Portugal, the US, Sweden, Denmark and Norway,” she will add. “It is possible that all those countries are wrong to be investing more in education and we are right, but I doubt it. A country equipped with yesterday’s skills will soon become yesterday’s country. “If the legacy the coalition inherited was far from golden, what they have done in this area since May beggars belief. “Last year, UCU showed that the only league table the UK tops is that of the most expensive place to get a public education in the world – and that was before the tripling of university fees and the axing of the education maintenance allowance. “What an indictment of this government that, within six months, they had made it harder to go to college and more expensive to go to university. “They claim their goal is to promote social mobility, but we must judge them by what they do, not what they say. In reality, coalition policy is about putting barriers up, not pulling them down.” The universities and science minister, David Willetts, said: “We agree that education is critical for social mobility and economic growth. That is why we are funding 250,000 more apprenticeships over this parliament, improving careers advice and transforming university finance. “We estimate universities will receive 10% more teaching income by 2014/15. But, crucially, funding will follow the decisions of students so successful universities will thrive.” Higher education Further education Education policy Liberal-Conservative coalition David Willetts Trade unions guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …