Click here to view this media After right-wing distortions of the President’s speech last week on the Middle East and his meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu on Friday, he came back this morning to speak to AIPAC to clarify his remarks on returning to 1967 borders with mutually agreed swaps as the basis for negotiating a two-state solution. Here’s the excerpt: But the march to isolate Israel internationally – and the impulse of the Palestinians to abandon negotiations – will continue to gain momentum in the absence of a credible peace process and alternative. For us to have leverage with the Palestinians, with the Arab States, and with the international community, the basis for negotiations has to hold out the prospect of success. So, in advance of a five day trip to Europe in which the Middle East will be a topic of acute interest, I chose to speak about what peace will require. There was nothing particularly original in my proposal; this basic framework for negotiations has long been the basis for discussions among the parties, including previous U.S. Administrations. But since questions have been raised, let me repeat what I actually said on Thursday. I said that the United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine. The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states. The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state. As for security, every state has the right to self-defense, and Israel must be able to defend itself – by itself – against any threat. Provisions must also be robust enough to prevent a resurgence of terrorism; to stop the infiltration of weapons; and to provide effective border security. The full and phased withdrawal of Israeli military forces should be coordinated with the assumption of Palestinian security responsibility in a sovereign, non-militarized state. The duration of this transition period must be agreed, and the effectiveness of security arrangements must be demonstrated. That is what I said. Now, it was my reference to the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps that received the lion’s share of the attention. And since my position has been misrepresented several times, let me reaffirm what “1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps” means. By definition, it means that the parties themselves – Israelis and Palestinians – will negotiate a border that is different than the one that existed on June 4, 1967. It is a well known formula to all who have worked on this issue for a generation. It allows the parties themselves to account for the changes that have taken place over the last forty-four years, including the new demographic realities on the ground and the needs of both sides. The ultimate goal is two states for two peoples. Israel as a Jewish state and the homeland for the Jewish people, and the state of Palestine as the homeland for the Palestinian people; each state enjoying self-determination, mutual recognition, and peace. If there’s a controversy, then, it’s not based in substance. What I did on Thursday was to say publicly what has long been acknowledged privately. I have done so because we cannot afford to wait another decade, or another two decades, or another three decades, to achieve peace. The world is moving too fast. The extraordinary challenges facing Israel would only grow. Delay will undermine Israel’s security and the peace that the Israeli people deserve. It was the strongest public statement I’ve heard on this question. Let’s hope it puts pressure on the parties to step up and negotiate a peaceful settlement. (Nicole:) Now note the fairly positive reception that Obama’s speech drew. Leave it to RWNJs over at Gateway Pundit to start the intertoobz rumor that Obama was booed . Wait for it to be on Drudge in 5…4….3…2… and then carried on Politico, Fox News and CNN. Because that’s how the echo machine works.
Continue reading …An analysis of the New York Times' response (a May 19, 2011 editorial ) to the Vatican's recent clergy abuse guidelines reveals yet another ill-informed and skewed attack on the Catholic Church. 1. The Times writes that bishops once oversaw “hush payments to victims and relocation of abusive priests.” “Hush payments” are yet another popular falsehood in the reporting of the narrative of the clergy abuse scandals. They have become somewhat of an urban legend that the media continues to propagate. The Honorable Patrick J. Schiltz , now a U.S. District Judge in Minnesota, has had as much experience as any individual with clergy abuse cases. Discussing the issue of settlements with victims, Judge Schiltz has said, “I have been involved in hundreds of settlements, and I literally cannot recall one that required the victim not to talk about his or her abuse.” In the uncommon instances that there were secrecy components, Schiltz has noted that it was usually the victim who requested secrecy. “There is a reason why victims often sue as 'Jane Doe' or 'John Doe' and often seek protective orders from courts,” wrote the jurist. “Victims are understandably concerned to protect their privacy.” As far as the issue of bishops relocating abusive priests: Yes, bishops indeed did not always remove abusive priests. That is a sad, undeniable fact. Yet there is another side to this truth that the media has not reported. Here is Judge Schiltz once again: These stories were horrible because what the bishops did was often horrible. It should be noted, however, that something rather important was usually left out
Continue reading …An analysis of the New York Times' response (a May 19, 2011 editorial ) to the Vatican's recent clergy abuse guidelines reveals yet another ill-informed and skewed attack on the Catholic Church. 1. The Times writes that bishops once oversaw “hush payments to victims and relocation of abusive priests.” “Hush payments” are yet another popular falsehood in the reporting of the narrative of the clergy abuse scandals. They have become somewhat of an urban legend that the media continues to propagate. The Honorable Patrick J. Schiltz , now a U.S. District Judge in Minnesota, has had as much experience as any individual with clergy abuse cases. Discussing the issue of settlements with victims, Judge Schiltz has said, “I have been involved in hundreds of settlements, and I literally cannot recall one that required the victim not to talk about his or her abuse.” In the uncommon instances that there were secrecy components, Schiltz has noted that it was usually the victim who requested secrecy. “There is a reason why victims often sue as 'Jane Doe' or 'John Doe' and often seek protective orders from courts,” wrote the jurist. “Victims are understandably concerned to protect their privacy.” As far as the issue of bishops relocating abusive priests: Yes, bishops indeed did not always remove abusive priests. That is a sad, undeniable fact. Yet there is another side to this truth that the media has not reported. Here is Judge Schiltz once again: These stories were horrible because what the bishops did was often horrible. It should be noted, however, that something rather important was usually left out
Continue reading …
Four believed to have been killed after up to 15 militants entered the Mehran naval station in the southern city of Karachi Islamist militants have stormed one of Pakistan’s largest military bases, attacking a US supplied surveillance aircraft, in a move that will cause further embarrassment for the country just weeks after the death of Osama bin Laden. Four people including a Pakistani navy officer and a fire fighter were believed to have been killed after up to 15 militants entered the high-security Mehran naval station in the southern city of Karachi. The attack late on Sunday is believed to be the most serious attack against the military since October 2009. According to navy spokesman Irfan ul Haq, the fighters split up into smaller groups to set off the explosions before hiding in the sprawling security facility. A P-3C Orion, a maritime surveillance aircraft recently given to Pakistan by America, was destroyed, a second navy spokesman, Salman Ali, said. One report said a team of US technicians were working on the aircraft at the time of the strike, but US Embassy spokesman Alberto Rodriguez said no Americans were on the base. The attack began with at least three loud explosions heard by people who live around the base, according to one report. while the Associated Press reported there were at least six other explosions and sporadic firing. Several dozen navy and police commandos sent in to battle the militants were met with gunfire and grenades from the militants, said Ali. The coordinated strike rocked Pakistan’s largest city just under three weeks after the death of terrorist leader Osama bin Laden in a US raid on the northwestern garrison city of Abbottabad. Extremists allied with al-Qaida have vowed to avenge his death. The killing of bin Laden triggered a strong backlash in the country against Washington, trying to support Pakistan in its fight against militants, as well as rare domestic criticism against the armed forces for failing to detect or prevent the operation. Pakistani Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani condemned the attack, saying such a “cowardly act of terror could not deter the commitment of the government and people of Pakistan to fight terrorism.” Sunday’s raid appeared to be most serious against the military since October 2009, when militants attacked the army headquarters near the capital, Islamabad. The country’s security forces, following heavy US prodding, have launched several operations against militants in their heartland close to the border with Afghanistan over the last three years. But extremists have struck back against police and army targets around Pakistan. No group has claimed responsibility for the attack. However the Pakistani Taliban, an al-Qaida allied network which has previously launched attacks in Karachi, has pledged to retaliate for the death bin Laden, and has claimed responsibility for several bloody attacks since then. The US gave two Orions to the Pakistan navy at a ceremony at the base in June 2010 attended by 250 Pakistan and US officials, according to the US Central Command website. It said by late 2012 the Pakistan would have eight of the planes. Global terrorism Pakistan Amy Fallon guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Four believed to have been killed after up to 15 militants entered the Mehran naval station in the southern city of Karachi Islamist militants have stormed one of Pakistan’s largest military bases, attacking a US supplied surveillance aircraft, in a move that will cause further embarrassment for the country just weeks after the death of Osama bin Laden. Four people including a Pakistani navy officer and a fire fighter were believed to have been killed after up to 15 militants entered the high-security Mehran naval station in the southern city of Karachi. The attack late on Sunday is believed to be the most serious attack against the military since October 2009. According to navy spokesman Irfan ul Haq, the fighters split up into smaller groups to set off the explosions before hiding in the sprawling security facility. A P-3C Orion, a maritime surveillance aircraft recently given to Pakistan by America, was destroyed, a second navy spokesman, Salman Ali, said. One report said a team of US technicians were working on the aircraft at the time of the strike, but US Embassy spokesman Alberto Rodriguez said no Americans were on the base. The attack began with at least three loud explosions heard by people who live around the base, according to one report. while the Associated Press reported there were at least six other explosions and sporadic firing. Several dozen navy and police commandos sent in to battle the militants were met with gunfire and grenades from the militants, said Ali. The coordinated strike rocked Pakistan’s largest city just under three weeks after the death of terrorist leader Osama bin Laden in a US raid on the northwestern garrison city of Abbottabad. Extremists allied with al-Qaida have vowed to avenge his death. The killing of bin Laden triggered a strong backlash in the country against Washington, trying to support Pakistan in its fight against militants, as well as rare domestic criticism against the armed forces for failing to detect or prevent the operation. Pakistani Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani condemned the attack, saying such a “cowardly act of terror could not deter the commitment of the government and people of Pakistan to fight terrorism.” Sunday’s raid appeared to be most serious against the military since October 2009, when militants attacked the army headquarters near the capital, Islamabad. The country’s security forces, following heavy US prodding, have launched several operations against militants in their heartland close to the border with Afghanistan over the last three years. But extremists have struck back against police and army targets around Pakistan. No group has claimed responsibility for the attack. However the Pakistani Taliban, an al-Qaida allied network which has previously launched attacks in Karachi, has pledged to retaliate for the death bin Laden, and has claimed responsibility for several bloody attacks since then. The US gave two Orions to the Pakistan navy at a ceremony at the base in June 2010 attended by 250 Pakistan and US officials, according to the US Central Command website. It said by late 2012 the Pakistan would have eight of the planes. Global terrorism Pakistan Amy Fallon guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Downing Street acknowledges that it has struggled to explain the idea to voters who appear not to have digested the message David Cameron will launch his troubled “big society” for the fourth time on Monday as he describes the project as being more than a “fluffy add-on” for a government with greater ambitions than imposing the toughest spending cuts in a generation. Following an admission by the minister responsible for running the big society project that the government had failed to explain it, the prime minister will say the initiative runs through all the government’s public service reforms. It also explains why he wants to build a “stronger society” with families at its heart. Cameron will say: “You learn about responsibility and how to live in harmony with others. Strong families are the foundation of a bigger, stronger society. This isn’t some romanticised fiction. It’s a fact. There’s a whole body of evidence that shows how a bad relationship between parents means a child is more likely to live in poverty, fail at school, end up in prison or be unemployed in later life.” Downing Street acknowledges that it has struggled to explain to voters the big society, the central theme of last year’s general election campaign. It is intended to devolve power and to foster a greater sense of responsibility by loosening the role of the state. Francis Maude, the Cabinet Office minister who runs the project, admitted on Sunday the government had struggled to sell its message. “We may have failed to articulate it clearly and we’ll carry on explaining as best as we can,” Maude told Radio 4′s The World This Weekend. “I think people understand what is meant when we explain it and think that it is all a good idea.” Cameron will try to rejuvenate the big society as he attempts to show his government has bigger goals than simply “balancing the books”. He will say: “The big society is not some fluffy add-on to more gritty and important subjects. This is about as gritty and important as it gets: giving everyone the chance to get on and making our country a better place to live.” The prime minister will announce a series of concrete steps to illustrate his point: • A white paper on giving will be unveiled on Monday to encourage charitable donations. The Link cash machine network has reached agreement with banks that use its service to allow customers, who make 10m transactions a day, to donate through its machines from 2012. Paperwork for gift aid donations up to £5,000 will be removed and the rate of inheritance tax for estates that leave 10% or more to charity will be reduced. • The Whitehall green book, which is used to assess the costs and benefits of different government policies, will be amended to take account of their social impact. • Cabinet ministers will devote at least one day a year to volunteering. Cameron will say: “Too many people think that’s the limit of our ambitions, that all we care about is balancing the books. Wrong. I want to balance the books so we can achieve things I really care about.” The giving white paper will say charitable donations have “flatlined” in recent years and the poorest in society are, in relative terms, more generous than wealthier people. The white paper says: “Donors in the poorest income brackets give more as proportion of their income than those in middle-income households and the wealthiest. We think there’s significant potential for the better-off to give more.” Cameron will say the government is modernising public services in the spirit of the big society as he defends Michael Gove’s plans to expand academies and Andrew Lansley’s plans to hand greater commissioning powers to GPs, though he will acknowledge the NHS reforms are subject to a pause. He will say: “We’re not introducing free schools and expanding academies because it’s a way of saving money from the schools budget. We’re doing it because it’s the best way to improve education. More choice for parents. More freedom for professionals to innovate. A greater ability for new providers to come forward. It is the big society way to improve education. “In our health service, we’re not giving patients more control and doctors more professional freedom because we want to save money. We’re doing it because it’s the best way to improve the NHS.”Cameron will show the influence of the New York Times columnist David Brooks whose new book, The Social Animal, highlights the importance of social networks. He will say: “In the past, the left focused on the state and the right focused on the market. We’re harnessing that space in between – society – the ‘hidden wealth’ of our nation.” David Cameron Nicholas Watt guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Education secretary argues in a Guardian interview that the changes will enable good schools to expand Ministers want to scrap restrictions on the expansion of the most popular state schools, allowing them to take on more pupils in a move that will increase the financial pressures on struggling schools. More parents will get their first choice of school under government plans to “remove bureaucracy” around the expansion of good schools, the education secretary, Michael Gove, revealed in an interview with the Guardian. Weaker schools will feel the squeeze because the level of school funding is determined by the number of pupils. The changes, which will apply to all state schools, will be outlined when ministers publish a revised school admissions code this summer. Ministers believe local authorities are in some cases deliberately preventing good schools from raising their “planned admissions numbers” because it becomes harder to sustain a weaker school if pupils defect. Some popular schools, including a Muslim girls’ school in Blackburn and a Catholic secondary school in Hull, are proposing to set up “overflow” free schools to absorb demand for places, but the government also wants to make it easier for successful schools to take on more children without creating an offshoot. Gove said: “We hope the new admissions code allows the possibility of increasing planned admissions numbers so good schools can expand, and there will be underperforming schools that have fewer and fewer numbers. That will compel their leadership and the local authority to ask: what’s wrong? “I think it’s wrong to have a situation where the local authority says: ‘This is a good school, it’s full up, parents have to go to the less good school down the road’.Because as a result of the local authority’s failure to deal with educational underperformance, children continue to go to a poor school.” Gove also compared the extension of the academies programme – schools that are independent of local authorities and get their funding directly from government – to council house sales in the 1980s. The government plans to lobby university vice-chancellors, businesses and private schools to become involved in sponsoring academies in an attempt to reach areas of the country where few have converted. A total of 658 schools are now academies. A further 686 are in the pipeline. But there are 18 local authorities where no academies have been established, including Blackpool, Leicestershire, Warrington and Wigan. Gove said: “There’s an analogy which, as a Conservative politician, I reach for … which is with council house sales … initially the people who bought council houses, people who were perhaps seen by their neighbours as a bit pushy and assertive – ‘Why do they think they’re so special?’. And then, after in a community a few people had done it, and the neighbours noticed they had a greater degree of freedom and flexibility, other people thought, that makes sense, I’ll take advantage of it too. So the position moved from being a few pioneers, to being a minority but respectable position to becoming mainstream, to becoming the majority position.” He said the plan was to identify areas “which stick out like sore thumbs” before picking sponsors to help establish academies. Gove also said he wanted to strengthen the role of the schools adjudicator, the government watchdog that rules in disputes over admissions. The current chief adjudicator, Ian Craig, announced in March he was stepping down early. Last year he warned that government plans to simplify the admissions code could weaken it. When Craig announced his decision to quit, the department said it would allow his successor time to “get up to speed” ahead of the new admissions process. Gove said: “One of the things we hope to do in the admissions code – still Is are being dotted and Ts crossed — one of the other things we want to do is ensure that in the system there will be more fairness, the schools adjudicator will have more teeth, so that anyone concerned about admissions arrangements can report them to the schools adjudicator. “Before it had to be a relevant individual, a parent at the school or connected [in some way], now if you are a parent anywhere and you see admissions arrangements which you think are unfair you can refer it to the schools adjudicator. Our aim is to allow good schools to expand, but also to have a strong adjudicator who is in a position to investigate and clamp down.” School admissions Schools Education policy Michael Gove Jeevan Vasagar guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Click here to view this media (h/t David at VideoCafe) I love Newt Gingrich’s campaign strategy of demanding that the media only hold him accountable for how great he is *right now*. Ignore all those ethical issues in his past tenure as Speaker of the House , he’s *now* the only one with leadership skills. Ignore all those infidelities in the past , he loves his wife *now*. Ignore what he said last week about Paul Ryan’s budget, he thinks it’s the best thing for America *now*. Likewise, *right now* Newt knows exactly how to get us out of the economic crisis we’re in because he’s debt-free and frugal, just ignore the fact that his own financial dealings have been less than cut and dried. Bob Schieffer brings up this week’s revelation that Callista Gingrich disclosed five years ago an outstanding debt to Tiffany’s Jewelers in the six figures. Callista claimed the debt (of somewhere between $250,000 and 500,000) was her husband’s. Now, I don’t know about you, but I think it’s hard to claim understanding the financial concerns of most Americans when you’re floating a six figure debt to Tiffany’s, but Newt wants you to know that *right now* he and Callista are living frugally and debt-free . Whew! I’m relieved to know that, aren’t you? Except… Newt’s “small businesses” actually owed back taxes just a short time ago : Companies run by Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich have faced overdue tax bills in four states worth more than $6,000, according to records reviewed by The Associated Press. The tax liens, which generally allow governments to seize assets or property to settle tax bills, ranged in size from a $195 property tax bill in the Atlanta suburbs to $1,969 in unpaid Missouri taxes. Most of the liens were paid shortly after tax authorities filed them. One exception was in Pennsylvania, where Gingrich Holdings Inc. last week paid off a $1,599 lien for unpaid corporate income taxes just days before Gingrich formally announced he would run against Democratic incumbent Barack Obama. Gingrich spokesman Rick Tyler said Gingrich and his firms were unaware of most of the tax liens until being contacted this week by the AP. And on the subject of being debt free…Newt never really has ever explained where he came up with the money to pay his ethics violation charges. Initially, he said he’d pay it via a $300K loan from Bob Dole , but then the outrage made him back down and offer to pay for it himself . Where that money came from is anyone’s guess. Then-wife Marianne Gingrich (Callista was only a little something something on the side) said that the Gingriches were extremely cash-poor in those days and Newt’s plan to write a book to cover expenses fell apart . So where did the money come from? We know that Citizens United donated money to Newt’s production company and we know he’s raking in cash (some $14 million according to some sources) from donations to various foundations . Maybe Gingrich ought to release his tax filings so we can see just how frugal and debt-free he is.
Continue reading …
Click here to view this media Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels (R) has pledged not to run for president in 2012, leaving former House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-TX) unimpressed with the remaining Republican candidates. “We have about 2 million activists across the country, and frankly we’re disappointed,” Armey told CNN’s Candy Crowley Sunday. “Now, obviously, we’ll have to start looking, and I was just saying this morning maybe it’s time to start drafting Paul Ryan.” “We understand the fiscal crisis of this nation and this nation’s government faces is so acute that somebody’s got the stand up and take on the big issues. Paul Ryan has done that.” He added: “I have said for years on, for example, the subject of medicare. It’s always a debate that’s governed by Republicans that don’t dare and Democrats that don’t care, and at least now we have a Republican that dares. He needs to be applauded, encouraged, and his work needs to be appreciated as serious professional work.” The FreedomWorks tea party organizer also suggested that he wasn’t worried that future seniors might have trouble paying for insurance if Republicans are successful at enacting Ryan’s plan to turn Medicare into a voucher system. “I’m perfectly capable of having my own health insurance, that which I’ve had all my life,” Armey said. “Paul Ryan is doing more to save grandma’s health care than anybody I know right now because Medicare is going to go bust and bring the government to going bust if it’s not attended to, and he ought to be applauded.”
Continue reading …
Click here to view this media Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels (R) has pledged not to run for president in 2012, leaving former House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-TX) unimpressed with the remaining Republican candidates. “We have about 2 million activists across the country, and frankly we’re disappointed,” Armey told CNN’s Candy Crowley Sunday. “Now, obviously, we’ll have to start looking, and I was just saying this morning maybe it’s time to start drafting Paul Ryan.” “We understand the fiscal crisis of this nation and this nation’s government faces is so acute that somebody’s got the stand up and take on the big issues. Paul Ryan has done that.” He added: “I have said for years on, for example, the subject of medicare. It’s always a debate that’s governed by Republicans that don’t dare and Democrats that don’t care, and at least now we have a Republican that dares. He needs to be applauded, encouraged, and his work needs to be appreciated as serious professional work.” The FreedomWorks tea party organizer also suggested that he wasn’t worried that future seniors might have trouble paying for insurance if Republicans are successful at enacting Ryan’s plan to turn Medicare into a voucher system. “I’m perfectly capable of having my own health insurance, that which I’ve had all my life,” Armey said. “Paul Ryan is doing more to save grandma’s health care than anybody I know right now because Medicare is going to go bust and bring the government to going bust if it’s not attended to, and he ought to be applauded.”
Continue reading …