Lindsey Graham wants to bomb Tripoli to pressure Gaddafi’s inner circle at the cost of civilian lives
April 24, 2011 No Comment
Click here to view this media The rationale President Obama gave to get involved with Libya was because he feared thousands of civilian lives would be at stake. We’ve debated and discussed the decision to go into Libya already so I won’t do it here, but today, Sen. Lindsey Graham said to CNN that in reality he’s willing to kill thousands of civilians with a bombing raid on Tripoli to pressure Gaddafi’s inner circle to revolt against him.. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said the United States should take a more aggressive approach in Libya to oust dictator Muammar Gaddafi, bombing the capital city so members of Gaddafi’s inner circle “wake up every day wondering, ‘will this be my last?’” Graham defended the United States’ involvement in Libya, including the newly-approved use of predator drones in the country. Russia and China have accused the U.S. of overstepping a U.N. mandate against excessive force in Libya, arguing Western allies have made the situation in Libya worse. “I like coalitions: It’s good to have them, it’s good to have the U.N. involved. But the goal is to get rid of Gaddafi,” Graham said on CNN’S “State of the Union.” “A military stalemate is ensuing, and the only way I know to make this thing successful is to put pressure on Tripoli,” he said. “So I would not let the U.N. mandate stop what is the right thing to do.” CNN’s Candy Crowley told him that’s against the UN mandate, but to hell with them, right Goober? War hawks rule! Graham: My recommendation to NATO and the administration is to cut the head of the snake off , go to Tripoli and start bombing Gaddafi’s inner circle, their compounds, their military headquarters in Tripoli the way to get Gaddafi to leave is to have his inner circle break and turn on him and that’s going to take a sustained effort through an air campaign. Crowley: Here’s the problem, the UN resolution calls for protecting the Libyan people so it’s going top be hard to make that connection, listen we’re going after Gaddafi, we’re going after his men, that’s not within their mandate. Collateral damage is a term that is meaningless to war hawks. I didn’t know Lindsey liked Ozzy Osbourne . Bat’s or snakes, it’s all the same to warmongers, right?
Continue reading …
Click here to view this media Likely Republican presidential candidate and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum told Fox News’ Chris Wallace Sunday that LGBT people don’t deserve equal rights. “You opposed gay marriage,” Wallace noted. “I did,” Santorum agreed. “You oppose civil unions, you want to reinstate ‘don’t ask, don’t tell.’ Do you think gays have any rights, should have any access to benefits as partners?” Wallace asked. “Well, sure. I mean there are all sorts of contractual benefits that anybody can contract for. But the question is whether we should institutionalize that in public policy? My feeling is that people can live their lives however they want to live it,” Santorum explained. “The question is: what are you going to do to try to impact public policy to recognize particular relationships?” he continued. “My feeling is the relationship that should be recognized in public policy that provides exceptional benefit, unusual unique benefits to society is marriage. Marriage between a man and a woman who are there to join together for the purpose of continuing society, which is having children and raising the children in a home with a mom and a dad.” “But you wouldn’t give them any rights as a matter of public policy?” Wallace wondered. “It depends what you mean by ‘rights.’ Are you talking benefits as far as rights? They have the right to be able to — employment. I don’t know what you mean by rights. What I’m talking about are privileges. Privileges of marriage, privileges of government benefits is a different thing than basic right to live their lives as they well should and can as free Americans,” Santorum replied. The former Pennsylvania senator came under fire in 2003 when he suggested that gays did not have the right to privacy with respect to sexual acts. “If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual (gay) sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything,” he told The Associated Press . “In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That’s not to pick on homosexuality. It’s not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be,” he added . Wallace gave Santorum a chance Sunday to plug his website and plead for contributions. The controversial Republican has launched an exploratory committee and said he will run for president in 2012 if he gets enough donations.
Continue reading …
Support for royals remains constant but royal wedding greeted by tolerant scepticism, Guardian/ICM poll finds Britain is a nation made up of moderate monarchists and reluctant republicans, according to a Guardian/ICM poll published today. More people are looking forward to an extra day off work than watching the royal wedding – but support for the monarchy has nonetheless climbed notably since the crisis following Princess Diana’s death. The country is in no mood for a revolution. The poll shows a large majority think the monarchy is still relevant to national life, makes Britain more respected around the world and is better than any alternative. But there seems to be tolerant scepticism rather than royalist hysteria around the wedding itself. Only 37% agree that they are genuinely interested in the wedding, while 46% say they are not. Women are much more likely to be interested than men, but only 18% of all people questioned say they are strongly interested in the event. Even so, 47% agree they will probably watch it on television this Friday, including a majority of women and people aged 18-24. Almost the same proportion, 49%, say they are more excited by the idea of an extra bank holiday than the wedding – only 31% disagree. The poll includes some questions proposed by Guardian readers online, among them the suggestion that the wedding will boost the nation’s feelgood factor at a time of economic uncertainty. Almost everyone, monarchist or not, agrees that the wedding will cheer Britain up: 75% say yes, only 17% no. That may be one reason why the poll seems to dash republican hopes that the monarchy is becoming an outmoded institution. Instead support for the crown, if anything, is growing. More people think the monarchy is a unifying national institution than one that divides the country and reinforces the class system. Almost half those questioned, 47%, say it is a unifying force, against 36% who think it a divisive one. Only among Labour supporters do more people think it divisive than unifying. And despite all the celebrity hype surrounding the wedding, only 32% think the event is more about glamour and celebrity than British values (52%). More people think the crown should pass directly to Prince William, rather than Prince Charles, 46% to 40%. But most people also think there is nothing wrong with having to call a member of the royal family “your highness”: 64% approve of the practice and only 29% do not. So the age of deference is not quite dead. There’s a strong shared national belief, too, that the monarchy is something that improves Britain’s image around the world. While 60% say it does, only 2% think it definitely does the opposite, with 36% saying it makes little difference either way. More significant, perhaps, are changing attitudes to the monarchy’s place in British life. A strong majority among people of all political persuasions and social groups think that Britain would be worse off without the monarchy. While just 26% think the country would be better off getting rid of the royal family, 63% say the opposite. There has been a small regrowth in royalist support since the nadir following Princess Diana’s death. In August 1997 a Guardian/ICM poll found that only 48% thought the country would be worse off without the crown, 15 points lower than today. By August 1998, that had risen to 62%, one point lower than now. Despite massive political and economic shifts in the decade since then, attitudes to the monarchy seem almost static. There is hope, though, for republicans in the fact that the most enthusiastic supporters of the monarchy are pensioners, and young people are less keen. Among 19-24s, 37% think Britain would be better off without the monarchy, 10 points higher than the average. Even so, 67% of all people – including 73% of women and 57% of 18-24s – think the monarchy is relevant to life in Britain today. Only 32% disagree. Again, there has been almost no shift in opinion over the last 10 years. In May 2002 a Guardian/ICM poll found that 66% saw the monarchy as relevant and 33% thought not – figures almost identical to the ones in this month’s poll. As for the future, the Queen’s death could make a big difference to attitudes. Almost everyone, 89%, thinks Britain will still have a monarch in 10 year’s time – but that belief drops sharply when people are asked about the next 50 and 100 years. A narrow majority, 57%, think there will be a place for a British monarch in 50 years but only 40% think William and Kate’s descendants will still be on the throne in 2111. Even so, confidence in the future of the monarchy has grown since 1997: then only 38% thought there would be a monarch in 50 years time and just 26% thought the crown would survive the next century, 14 points lower than today. There’s also a widespread feeling that a monarch such as the Queen should retire rather than cling on if they cease to be mentally or physically capable. While 64% think the monarch should retire, only 31% do not. ICM Research interviewed a random sample of 1,003 adults across the United Kingdom aged 18 and over by telephone on 15-17 April 2011. Interviews were conducted across the country and the results have been weighted to the profile of all adults. Monarchy Republicanism Prince William Kate Middleton Royal wedding Diana, Princess of Wales Prince Charles Julian Glover guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Support for royals remains constant but royal wedding greeted by tolerant scepticism, Guardian/ICM poll finds Britain is a nation made up of moderate monarchists and reluctant republicans, according to a Guardian/ICM poll published today. More people are looking forward to an extra day off work than watching the royal wedding – but support for the monarchy has nonetheless climbed notably since the crisis following Princess Diana’s death. The country is in no mood for a revolution. The poll shows a large majority think the monarchy is still relevant to national life, makes Britain more respected around the world and is better than any alternative. But there seems to be tolerant scepticism rather than royalist hysteria around the wedding itself. Only 37% agree that they are genuinely interested in the wedding, while 46% say they are not. Women are much more likely to be interested than men, but only 18% of all people questioned say they are strongly interested in the event. Even so, 47% agree they will probably watch it on television this Friday, including a majority of women and people aged 18-24. Almost the same proportion, 49%, say they are more excited by the idea of an extra bank holiday than the wedding – only 31% disagree. The poll includes some questions proposed by Guardian readers online, among them the suggestion that the wedding will boost the nation’s feelgood factor at a time of economic uncertainty. Almost everyone, monarchist or not, agrees that the wedding will cheer Britain up: 75% say yes, only 17% no. That may be one reason why the poll seems to dash republican hopes that the monarchy is becoming an outmoded institution. Instead support for the crown, if anything, is growing. More people think the monarchy is a unifying national institution than one that divides the country and reinforces the class system. Almost half those questioned, 47%, say it is a unifying force, against 36% who think it a divisive one. Only among Labour supporters do more people think it divisive than unifying. And despite all the celebrity hype surrounding the wedding, only 32% think the event is more about glamour and celebrity than British values (52%). More people think the crown should pass directly to Prince William, rather than Prince Charles, 46% to 40%. But most people also think there is nothing wrong with having to call a member of the royal family “your highness”: 64% approve of the practice and only 29% do not. So the age of deference is not quite dead. There’s a strong shared national belief, too, that the monarchy is something that improves Britain’s image around the world. While 60% say it does, only 2% think it definitely does the opposite, with 36% saying it makes little difference either way. More significant, perhaps, are changing attitudes to the monarchy’s place in British life. A strong majority among people of all political persuasions and social groups think that Britain would be worse off without the monarchy. While just 26% think the country would be better off getting rid of the royal family, 63% say the opposite. There has been a small regrowth in royalist support since the nadir following Princess Diana’s death. In August 1997 a Guardian/ICM poll found that only 48% thought the country would be worse off without the crown, 15 points lower than today. By August 1998, that had risen to 62%, one point lower than now. Despite massive political and economic shifts in the decade since then, attitudes to the monarchy seem almost static. There is hope, though, for republicans in the fact that the most enthusiastic supporters of the monarchy are pensioners, and young people are less keen. Among 19-24s, 37% think Britain would be better off without the monarchy, 10 points higher than the average. Even so, 67% of all people – including 73% of women and 57% of 18-24s – think the monarchy is relevant to life in Britain today. Only 32% disagree. Again, there has been almost no shift in opinion over the last 10 years. In May 2002 a Guardian/ICM poll found that 66% saw the monarchy as relevant and 33% thought not – figures almost identical to the ones in this month’s poll. As for the future, the Queen’s death could make a big difference to attitudes. Almost everyone, 89%, thinks Britain will still have a monarch in 10 year’s time – but that belief drops sharply when people are asked about the next 50 and 100 years. A narrow majority, 57%, think there will be a place for a British monarch in 50 years but only 40% think William and Kate’s descendants will still be on the throne in 2111. Even so, confidence in the future of the monarchy has grown since 1997: then only 38% thought there would be a monarch in 50 years time and just 26% thought the crown would survive the next century, 14 points lower than today. There’s also a widespread feeling that a monarch such as the Queen should retire rather than cling on if they cease to be mentally or physically capable. While 64% think the monarch should retire, only 31% do not. ICM Research interviewed a random sample of 1,003 adults across the United Kingdom aged 18 and over by telephone on 15-17 April 2011. Interviews were conducted across the country and the results have been weighted to the profile of all adults. Monarchy Republicanism Prince William Kate Middleton Royal wedding Diana, Princess of Wales Prince Charles Julian Glover guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Support for royals remains constant but royal wedding greeted by tolerant scepticism, Guardian/ICM poll finds Britain is a nation made up of moderate monarchists and reluctant republicans, according to a Guardian/ICM poll published today. More people are looking forward to an extra day off work than watching the royal wedding – but support for the monarchy has nonetheless climbed notably since the crisis following Princess Diana’s death. The country is in no mood for a revolution. The poll shows a large majority think the monarchy is still relevant to national life, makes Britain more respected around the world and is better than any alternative. But there seems to be tolerant scepticism rather than royalist hysteria around the wedding itself. Only 37% agree that they are genuinely interested in the wedding, while 46% say they are not. Women are much more likely to be interested than men, but only 18% of all people questioned say they are strongly interested in the event. Even so, 47% agree they will probably watch it on television this Friday, including a majority of women and people aged 18-24. Almost the same proportion, 49%, say they are more excited by the idea of an extra bank holiday than the wedding – only 31% disagree. The poll includes some questions proposed by Guardian readers online, among them the suggestion that the wedding will boost the nation’s feelgood factor at a time of economic uncertainty. Almost everyone, monarchist or not, agrees that the wedding will cheer Britain up: 75% say yes, only 17% no. That may be one reason why the poll seems to dash republican hopes that the monarchy is becoming an outmoded institution. Instead support for the crown, if anything, is growing. More people think the monarchy is a unifying national institution than one that divides the country and reinforces the class system. Almost half those questioned, 47%, say it is a unifying force, against 36% who think it a divisive one. Only among Labour supporters do more people think it divisive than unifying. And despite all the celebrity hype surrounding the wedding, only 32% think the event is more about glamour and celebrity than British values (52%). More people think the crown should pass directly to Prince William, rather than Prince Charles, 46% to 40%. But most people also think there is nothing wrong with having to call a member of the royal family “your highness”: 64% approve of the practice and only 29% do not. So the age of deference is not quite dead. There’s a strong shared national belief, too, that the monarchy is something that improves Britain’s image around the world. While 60% say it does, only 2% think it definitely does the opposite, with 36% saying it makes little difference either way. More significant, perhaps, are changing attitudes to the monarchy’s place in British life. A strong majority among people of all political persuasions and social groups think that Britain would be worse off without the monarchy. While just 26% think the country would be better off getting rid of the royal family, 63% say the opposite. There has been a small regrowth in royalist support since the nadir following Princess Diana’s death. In August 1997 a Guardian/ICM poll found that only 48% thought the country would be worse off without the crown, 15 points lower than today. By August 1998, that had risen to 62%, one point lower than now. Despite massive political and economic shifts in the decade since then, attitudes to the monarchy seem almost static. There is hope, though, for republicans in the fact that the most enthusiastic supporters of the monarchy are pensioners, and young people are less keen. Among 19-24s, 37% think Britain would be better off without the monarchy, 10 points higher than the average. Even so, 67% of all people – including 73% of women and 57% of 18-24s – think the monarchy is relevant to life in Britain today. Only 32% disagree. Again, there has been almost no shift in opinion over the last 10 years. In May 2002 a Guardian/ICM poll found that 66% saw the monarchy as relevant and 33% thought not – figures almost identical to the ones in this month’s poll. As for the future, the Queen’s death could make a big difference to attitudes. Almost everyone, 89%, thinks Britain will still have a monarch in 10 year’s time – but that belief drops sharply when people are asked about the next 50 and 100 years. A narrow majority, 57%, think there will be a place for a British monarch in 50 years but only 40% think William and Kate’s descendants will still be on the throne in 2111. Even so, confidence in the future of the monarchy has grown since 1997: then only 38% thought there would be a monarch in 50 years time and just 26% thought the crown would survive the next century, 14 points lower than today. There’s also a widespread feeling that a monarch such as the Queen should retire rather than cling on if they cease to be mentally or physically capable. While 64% think the monarch should retire, only 31% do not. ICM Research interviewed a random sample of 1,003 adults across the United Kingdom aged 18 and over by telephone on 15-17 April 2011. Interviews were conducted across the country and the results have been weighted to the profile of all adults. Monarchy Republicanism Prince William Kate Middleton Royal wedding Diana, Princess of Wales Prince Charles Julian Glover guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Cokie Roberts: People Call Obama Muslim Because They Can’t Say ‘I Don’t Like Him Cause He’s Black’
April 24, 2011 No Comment
ABC devoted its entire “This Week” on Easter Sunday to “God and Government,” and not surprisingly the question of President Obama's faith prominently entered the discussion. When it did, Cokie Roberts said, “The bad part about this is that it's acceptable to say that he's a Muslim because the same people won't say, 'I don't like him cause he's black'” (video follows with transcript and commentary): STEVE ROBERTS: The word Muslim is a code word, and it's a metaphor. It's a metaphor for racism. It's a metaphor for he's different from us, he's not like us, he's got this funny name, which he says all the time. And it is – and he's an alien on some level. But this goes back to our earlier discussion, that there has always been a strain of America that wants to exclude the other. Exclude someone who's different… (CROSSTALK) COKIE ROBERTS: But – but – but the bad part about this… (CROSSTALK) ROBERTS, S.: But in the long run, the forces of… (CROSSTALK) ROBERTS, C.: Right. But – but… (CROSSTALK) RICHARD LAND, SOUTHERN BAPTIST CONVENTION: Forty seven percent of white people voted for him. Actually, it's 43 percent , but still a spectacular point by Land that most on the panel missed and most in the country ignore. They also forget that shortly after his inauguration, Obama's favorability rating was around 75 percent. That includes a lot of white people as well. What the media just can't get their hands around is that disapproval of Obama today isn't because he's black – it's because of his policies. Or do the 70 percent of the country that now believe the nation is on the wrong track also feel this way because the President is black? ROBERTS, C.: But – but the bad part about this is that he – that – that it's acceptable to say that he's a Muslim… EBOO PATEL, INTERFAITH YOUTH CORE: That's right. ROBERTS, C.: …because the same people won't – won't say, “I don't like him cause he's black.” So it's – it's – and – and the fact that it's acceptable to dislike him because he's a Muslim is the problem that you were talking about. Calling Americans racist, despite there being an African-American in the White House, is acceptable on Easter Sunday. I doubt I'm the only one that felt this was highly inappropriate on such a holy day.
Continue reading …Cokie Roberts: People Call Obama Muslim Because They Can’t Say ‘I Don’t Like Him Cause He’s Black’
April 24, 2011 No Comment
ABC devoted its entire “This Week” on Easter Sunday to “God and Government,” and not surprisingly the question of President Obama's faith prominently entered the discussion. When it did, Cokie Roberts said, “The bad part about this is that it's acceptable to say that he's a Muslim because the same people won't say, 'I don't like him cause he's black'” (video follows with transcript and commentary): STEVE ROBERTS: The word Muslim is a code word, and it's a metaphor. It's a metaphor for racism. It's a metaphor for he's different from us, he's not like us, he's got this funny name, which he says all the time. And it is – and he's an alien on some level. But this goes back to our earlier discussion, that there has always been a strain of America that wants to exclude the other. Exclude someone who's different… (CROSSTALK) COKIE ROBERTS: But – but – but the bad part about this… (CROSSTALK) ROBERTS, S.: But in the long run, the forces of… (CROSSTALK) ROBERTS, C.: Right. But – but… (CROSSTALK) RICHARD LAND, SOUTHERN BAPTIST CONVENTION: Forty seven percent of white people voted for him. Actually, it's 43 percent , but still a spectacular point by Land that most on the panel missed and most in the country ignore. They also forget that shortly after his inauguration, Obama's favorability rating was around 75 percent. That includes a lot of white people as well. What the media just can't get their hands around is that disapproval of Obama today isn't because he's black – it's because of his policies. Or do the 70 percent of the country that now believe the nation is on the wrong track also feel this way because the President is black? ROBERTS, C.: But – but the bad part about this is that he – that – that it's acceptable to say that he's a Muslim… EBOO PATEL, INTERFAITH YOUTH CORE: That's right. ROBERTS, C.: …because the same people won't – won't say, “I don't like him cause he's black.” So it's – it's – and – and the fact that it's acceptable to dislike him because he's a Muslim is the problem that you were talking about. Calling Americans racist, despite there being an African-American in the White House, is acceptable on Easter Sunday. I doubt I'm the only one that felt this was highly inappropriate on such a holy day.
Continue reading …
• Hit F5 because autorefresh is broken. Sorry • Email simon.burnton@guardian.co.uk with your thoughts • Check out fixtures and results , plus the latest tables 4.02pm: The first minute’s commentary throws up this double-whammy: “2011 has been a terrible year for Arsenal” … “they’re the only unbeaten team in the Premier League.” I do hope that one day my team can be as unsuccessful as Arsenal. 1min: Peeeeep! And they’re off! 3.59pm: Inevitable interesting pre-match @optajoe stat: Bolton have hit the woodwork least often this season (five times), Arsenal the most (20). 3.56pm: Bolton’s players are lining up in the tunnel. Lots of people in the crowd are wearing silly outfits. The Arsenal players are there too. It’s action time. 3.49pm: Sky are hosting a debate about whether we need a winter break. Pur-leese, I thought that hoary old chestnut was done with for eight months or so. 3.41pm: Gary Naylor responds to our continuing auto-refresh crisis. “The Guardian have had this obvious problem for ages now and still haven’t done anything about it,” he notes. “Who’s in charge of your IT? Arsène Wenger?” 3.39pm: Thanks to Richard Eloli for this Australian bloopers compilation, which includes possibly my favourite goal celebration of the season (zip straight to it by clicking here ). The lad looks genuinely delighted, for a short while. 3.25pm: Of course, there was a time when Bolton were something of a bogey team for Arsenal. No more, though: Arsenal have won their last eight games against the Trotters, including three here, and the clubs’ Premier League head-to-head reads: Played: 23, Arsenal wins: 14, Draws: 5, Bolton wins: 4. 3.17pm: In no way related to this game question of the day: Fiorentina have a 16-year-old Brazilian striker called Jackson Beckham Diego Socrates da Silva Jesus . Is he the first professional footballer named after England’s own David Beckham? It certainly shows just how old the LA-based midfield veteran is getting… 3.14pm: The teams are in – and we’re told that Johan Elmander will line up in central midfield for Bolton. Bolton: Jaaskelainen, Steinsson, Cahill, Knight, Robinson, Lee, Elmander, Muamba, Taylor, Sturridge, Kevin Davies. Subs: Bogdan, Petrov, Mark Davies, Klasnic, Moreno, Cohen, Wheater. Arsenal: Szczesny, Sagna, Djourou, Koscielny, Clichy, Song, Wilshere, Walcott, Fabregas, Nasri, van Persie. Subs: Lehmann, Ramsey, Squillaci, Arshavin, Eboue, Gibbs, Chamakh. Referee: Mike Jones. 3.10pm: Well, Arsenal probably can’t win the title this season. That situation won’t change even if they win today, but if they don’t, we’ll be able to exchange the word “probably” with “definitely”. Bolton, arses still stinging from last week’s FA Cup semi-final hiding from Stoke, simply must be beaten. 3pm: Good afternoon, world. I hope you’re out somewhere, enjoying the bumper bank holiday sunshine and preparing to follow this afternoon’s game and engage in some email-based banter via a mobile device. I’ll sit inside and watch TV, friends, so you don’t have to. Premier League Bolton Wanderers Arsenal Simon Burnton guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Analysts warn that South Sudan, which will gain independence in July, is at risk of immediately becoming a failed state At least 55 fighters have died in clashes between southern Sudan’s army and a rebel militia, a state minister said. The fighting was the latest development in a wave of violence across the territory, which will gain independence in July. Scores of troops and civilians were injured in the clash, the Upper Nile state information minister, Peter Lam Both, said. The oil-producing south voted to separate from the north in a referendum in January. The referendum was promised in a 2005 peace deal that ended decades of civil war in Sudan, but the region has been beset by violence and insecurity since the poll. The southern army is at war with at least seven rebel militia, and traditional tribal clashes have intensified with the onset of the rainy season, according to the UN, which said more than 800 people have been killed there this year. Analysts have warned that the south risks becoming a failed state and destabilising the region if it cannot control the crisis, with tens of thousands of people displaced by the conflicts affecting nine of its 10 states, the UN said. On Saturday, the army clashed with forces loyal to renegade army commander Gabriel Tang during what was meant to be the reintegration of his forces into southern Sudan’s army, Both said. “We understand that on the side of [Tang's forces], 55 were killed including five of his generals,” Both told Reuters, saying his information had come from the army. “We don’t have reports of those killed from the army and civilian sides, but the [overall] death toll must be much higher,” he said, adding that the state capital, Malakal, had received 34 wounded soldiers and 43 injured civilians. The clashes happened south of Malakal, just across the border in Jonglei state, Both said. In a separate incident in Jonglei, a Sudanese employee of the UN World Food Programme was killed on Friday in an ambush by unknown assailants. In the neighbouring Unity state, renegade army officer Peter Gadet this week began a sustained assault against army forces, with at least 45 people killed so far, officials said. A spokesman for Gadet said the offensive would continue “until victory”. Oil production in the state was disrupted by the violence, according to state officials, who said they first expelled, then readmitted, northern Sudanese workers to oil areas, underscoring the threat the insecurity poses to the economy. The Unity state information minister, Gideon Gatpan Thoar, could not confirm whether the workers had yet returned. Around 98% of the south’s budget comes from oil revenue, and how it shares its oil with the north after independence remains unresolved. It is currently spilt roughly 50-50, and the only pipelines to export oil run through the north. The petroleum ministry could not say how much of the 500,000 barrel daily production was affected by the violence. The southern government accuses the north of sponsoring the militia groups fighting the army – an allegation Khartoum denies. Rebel groups accuse the government of plotting to stay in power indefinitely, not fairly representing and supporting all tribal groups while neglecting development in rural areas. Sudan guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Astronomer royal urges Darwinists to adopt ‘peaceful coexistence’ with moderate groups to beat fundamentalism Martin Rees, the astronomer royal, has called on anti-religion campaigners to abandon their tactics and strive for “peaceful coexistence” with mainstream religious groups. Rees, one of the country’s most senior scientists, criticised those who pit science against religion and urged atheists to embrace the moderate strands of faith in opposing fundamentalism. The Cambridge cosmologist declared what he described as his “pallid and boring” view in an article in the New Statesman that amounts to a defence of his decision to accept a £1m prize given annually by the Templeton Foundation for work of a spiritual nature. The announcement that Rees had accepted drew criticism from some scientists who claim the prize undermines the integrity of science. Rees said some modern proponents of Darwinism took a “glaringly different stance to the Victorian naturalist who once commented that religion was too profound for the human intellect to comprehend. “We should all oppose – as Darwin did – views manifestly in conflict with the evidence, such as creationism … But we shouldn’t set up this debate as ‘religion v science’; instead we should strive for peaceful coexistence with at least the less dogmatic strands of mainstream religions, which number many excellent scientists among their adherents.” Rees, who is master of Trinity College, Cambridge, was among the first generation of scientists to contemplate the big bang. In subsequent work he has asked how large is physical reality. In the article, Rees, who does not believe in God , described himself as an “accommodationist” and “tribal Christian” who was happy to attend church services. “Campaigning against religion can be socially counter-productive. If teachers take the uncompromising line that God and Darwinism are irreconcilable, many young people raised in a faith-based culture will stick with their religion and be lost to science. Moreover, we need all the allies we can muster against fundamentalism – a palpable, perhaps growing concern,” he wrote. Martin Rees Atheism Creationism Christianity Religion Ian Sample guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …