Home » Posts tagged with » media (Page 666)

Ginni Thomas is no fan of the media, but now she’s a part of it. Thomas, the wife of Supreme Court justice Clarence Thomas who is a Tea Party activist in her own right, has joined the right-wing site Daily Caller . Her job will be “identifying and interviewing people who…

Continue reading …
Political violence on the left and the right: fantasy and reality

Click here to view this media If you were looking for an example of how right’s wingnutosphere manages to spin the most innocuous wisps of nothing into massive earth-shaking scandals of cosmic import, look no further than the outbreak of right-wing hives that erupted last week over these words from the estimable political-philosophy professor Brian Leiter : Meanwhile, the Republican criminals in Wisconsin forced through their attack on workers’ rights, leading to an uproar in Madison. … At some point these acts of brazen viciousness are going to lead to a renewed philosophical interest in the question of when acts of political violence are morally justified, an issue that has, oddly, not been widely addressed in political philosophy since Locke. Within a week’s time, these words had morphed into an example of left-wingers advocating violence in places like Wisconsin! , one of the favorite memes o’ the week at Fox. Megyn Kelly devoted an entire segment to wondering about the meaning of Leiter’s words: KELLY: Well, some on the left now suggesting that crackdowns on unions like we saw in Wisconsin will lead to renewed interest in whether violence would be morally justified. Of course, Kelly couldn’t manage to find a Faux Democrat who could actually read what Leiter wrote in context and laugh the whole discussion off the screen, since such a creature does not exist. This left Kelly free to then compare Leiter’s quip to a nutty rant from Louis Farrakhan. Fair ‘n’ balanced! The person who pretty much kicked off the whole charade last week was the Ole Perfesser, Glenn Reynolds, who wanked: This whole “new civility” business just isn’t working out as promised. On the other hand, it is working out pretty much as expected. . . . It seemed that everyone on the right, rather than read what Leiter’s words actually said, wanted to read what they thought his hidden meaning was — namely, that violence might become philosophically justified, a la Eugene Volkh : “My sense from Prof. Leiter’s post, though, is that he is hinting at more than just a philosophical inquiry”. Ann Althouse, as is her wont, made the leap and went there : How quickly the lefty mind turns toward violence! … Here, I’ll help you get your fancy-schmancy, high-tone philosophy seminar started: Acts of political violence are justified to get what you want. … Leiter is…inclined to approve of the impulse toward violence on the left and willing to mobilize the discipline of philosophy to generate rhetoric to support its political goals. It’s quite disgusting. Indeed, there was great handwringing on the right that Leiter was actually inciting violence. James Taranto cites reader John Benjamin: Frankly, Leiter borders on incitement. Not to see that comments such as his enhance the possibility of actual violence in the future is unacceptable. There is a profound degree of antipathy in political circles today and one would be denying reality if one expressed surprise at an act of political violence today. Shock and horror, yes, but surprise, no and it’s due precisely to the allowing of intellectual lunatics such as Leiter the light of day on campus or anywhere inside civilization. Even Taranto — who nonetheless read Leiter’s remarks as intimating an approval of violence — wouldn’t go quite that far. But nonetheless it became a fait accompli that Brian Leiter was urging the left to engage in violence. Which is not just patent nonsense but patently dishonest nonsense: The clear meaning of Leiter’s remarks is that this kind of political-miscreancy-without-accountability ultimately gets people to thinking about violence, and some of them concoct philosophical justifications for it — which really is almost unquestionably true, regardless of which side of the political aisle you sit upon. He says absolutely nothing to indicate approval or disapproval; he merely remarks on this point. For what it’s worth, we’re of the opinion that political violence of any kind regardless of source — whether privately inflicted or state supported — is only acceptable in the name of self-defense or humanitarian defense of others. And while we have been adamant in standing up to the rhetoric of eliminationist violence that has been endemic on the Right in recent years, we’re similarly adamant that threatening rhetoric has no place on the Left. And to the extent that it has bubbled up in Wisconsin in recent weeks, we are willing to stand with those who condemn the threats. But what’s most amazing about this episode is how finely tuned right-wing ears have become to even the vaguest intimation of advocacy of violence from the left, in part because of the anger bubbling up in Wisconsin. Amazing, because they have been utterly deaf when it comes to the endless deluge of vicious and hateful bile that’s come from the American right in recent years. John Benjamin’s fears that Brian Leiter is inciting violence are downright laughable when stacked up against, say, your run-of-the-mill Glenn “Progressives Are Cancer on Society” Beck rant , or Sean Hannity’s latest eliminationist joke. Their fears are especially ironic in the face of what they have produced. In contrast to the handful of relatively low-level threatening remarks we’ve seen out of Wisconsin, there has been a real flood of threats from the American Right directed at liberals and government officials, including some that have produced federal prosecutions for making threats. These threats have come from sovereign citizens, among others; they have involved numerous instances of political-campaign violence , as well as threats to judges, and ‘Patriot’ threats of violence against sitting governors . There have been explicit threats from Tea Partiers and death threats from anonymous racists . But those are just the threats, which really have been so numerous and have become so common that it’s really impossible to track them. This is not the case when it comes to incidents involving real or imminent violence producing arrests. Here’s what a map tracking them for the past two and half years looks like: Here’s the complete list. As you can see, since July 2008, we are up to 24 incidents and counting. Here’s my challenge to all those right-wing bloggers who are up in arms about the left’s supposed countenancing of the advocacy of violence: Come up with a comparable map. Really. I’d like to challenge the entire wingnutosphere to map out for us the incidents of actual left-wing violence targeting conservatives over the same time period. Threats don’t count: You have to demonstrate that someone inspired by left-wing ideology either engaged in a violent act or was arrested while preparing to engage in one. Because then you could demonstrate that you have solid grounds for fearing the potential advocacy of violence in left-wing rhetoric. Over here on the Left, we don’t have that problem. We have those grounds. My guess is, the best you’ll be able to come up with is Kenneth Gladney. Which is about as lame and hapless an example of “political violence” on recent record. Of course, we understand why you’re trying to make someone like Brian Leiter out to be an advocate for violence: It’s a way of diverting our attention from the very real concerns that exist about the results of right-wing violent rhetoric. Of course, in order to succeed, you have to completely whitewash away the very real and troubling history of right-wing extremist violence in America over the past 20 years. But that’s something you’ve all become very skilled at.

Continue reading …
Political violence on the left and the right: fantasy and reality

Click here to view this media If you were looking for an example of how right’s wingnutosphere manages to spin the most innocuous wisps of nothing into massive earth-shaking scandals of cosmic import, look no further than the outbreak of right-wing hives that erupted last week over these words from the estimable political-philosophy professor Brian Leiter : Meanwhile, the Republican criminals in Wisconsin forced through their attack on workers’ rights, leading to an uproar in Madison. … At some point these acts of brazen viciousness are going to lead to a renewed philosophical interest in the question of when acts of political violence are morally justified, an issue that has, oddly, not been widely addressed in political philosophy since Locke. Within a week’s time, these words had morphed into an example of left-wingers advocating violence in places like Wisconsin! , one of the favorite memes o’ the week at Fox. Megyn Kelly devoted an entire segment to wondering about the meaning of Leiter’s words: KELLY: Well, some on the left now suggesting that crackdowns on unions like we saw in Wisconsin will lead to renewed interest in whether violence would be morally justified. Of course, Kelly couldn’t manage to find a Faux Democrat who could actually read what Leiter wrote in context and laugh the whole discussion off the screen, since such a creature does not exist. This left Kelly free to then compare Leiter’s quip to a nutty rant from Louis Farrakhan. Fair ‘n’ balanced! The person who pretty much kicked off the whole charade last week was the Ole Perfesser, Glenn Reynolds, who wanked: This whole “new civility” business just isn’t working out as promised. On the other hand, it is working out pretty much as expected. . . . It seemed that everyone on the right, rather than read what Leiter’s words actually said, wanted to read what they thought his hidden meaning was — namely, that violence might become philosophically justified, a la Eugene Volkh : “My sense from Prof. Leiter’s post, though, is that he is hinting at more than just a philosophical inquiry”. Ann Althouse, as is her wont, made the leap and went there : How quickly the lefty mind turns toward violence! … Here, I’ll help you get your fancy-schmancy, high-tone philosophy seminar started: Acts of political violence are justified to get what you want. … Leiter is…inclined to approve of the impulse toward violence on the left and willing to mobilize the discipline of philosophy to generate rhetoric to support its political goals. It’s quite disgusting. Indeed, there was great handwringing on the right that Leiter was actually inciting violence. James Taranto cites reader John Benjamin: Frankly, Leiter borders on incitement. Not to see that comments such as his enhance the possibility of actual violence in the future is unacceptable. There is a profound degree of antipathy in political circles today and one would be denying reality if one expressed surprise at an act of political violence today. Shock and horror, yes, but surprise, no and it’s due precisely to the allowing of intellectual lunatics such as Leiter the light of day on campus or anywhere inside civilization. Even Taranto — who nonetheless read Leiter’s remarks as intimating an approval of violence — wouldn’t go quite that far. But nonetheless it became a fait accompli that Brian Leiter was urging the left to engage in violence. Which is not just patent nonsense but patently dishonest nonsense: The clear meaning of Leiter’s remarks is that this kind of political-miscreancy-without-accountability ultimately gets people to thinking about violence, and some of them concoct philosophical justifications for it — which really is almost unquestionably true, regardless of which side of the political aisle you sit upon. He says absolutely nothing to indicate approval or disapproval; he merely remarks on this point. For what it’s worth, we’re of the opinion that political violence of any kind regardless of source — whether privately inflicted or state supported — is only acceptable in the name of self-defense or humanitarian defense of others. And while we have been adamant in standing up to the rhetoric of eliminationist violence that has been endemic on the Right in recent years, we’re similarly adamant that threatening rhetoric has no place on the Left. And to the extent that it has bubbled up in Wisconsin in recent weeks, we are willing to stand with those who condemn the threats. But what’s most amazing about this episode is how finely tuned right-wing ears have become to even the vaguest intimation of advocacy of violence from the left, in part because of the anger bubbling up in Wisconsin. Amazing, because they have been utterly deaf when it comes to the endless deluge of vicious and hateful bile that’s come from the American right in recent years. John Benjamin’s fears that Brian Leiter is inciting violence are downright laughable when stacked up against, say, your run-of-the-mill Glenn “Progressives Are Cancer on Society” Beck rant , or Sean Hannity’s latest eliminationist joke. Their fears are especially ironic in the face of what they have produced. In contrast to the handful of relatively low-level threatening remarks we’ve seen out of Wisconsin, there has been a real flood of threats from the American Right directed at liberals and government officials, including some that have produced federal prosecutions for making threats. These threats have come from sovereign citizens, among others; they have involved numerous instances of political-campaign violence , as well as threats to judges, and ‘Patriot’ threats of violence against sitting governors . There have been explicit threats from Tea Partiers and death threats from anonymous racists . But those are just the threats, which really have been so numerous and have become so common that it’s really impossible to track them. This is not the case when it comes to incidents involving real or imminent violence producing arrests. Here’s what a map tracking them for the past two and half years looks like: Here’s the complete list. As you can see, since July 2008, we are up to 24 incidents and counting. Here’s my challenge to all those right-wing bloggers who are up in arms about the left’s supposed countenancing of the advocacy of violence: Come up with a comparable map. Really. I’d like to challenge the entire wingnutosphere to map out for us the incidents of actual left-wing violence targeting conservatives over the same time period. Threats don’t count: You have to demonstrate that someone inspired by left-wing ideology either engaged in a violent act or was arrested while preparing to engage in one. Because then you could demonstrate that you have solid grounds for fearing the potential advocacy of violence in left-wing rhetoric. Over here on the Left, we don’t have that problem. We have those grounds. My guess is, the best you’ll be able to come up with is Kenneth Gladney. Which is about as lame and hapless an example of “political violence” on recent record. Of course, we understand why you’re trying to make someone like Brian Leiter out to be an advocate for violence: It’s a way of diverting our attention from the very real concerns that exist about the results of right-wing violent rhetoric. Of course, in order to succeed, you have to completely whitewash away the very real and troubling history of right-wing extremist violence in America over the past 20 years. But that’s something you’ve all become very skilled at.

Continue reading …

Smiley Culture’s relatives intend to fight all the way – with the help of Lee Jasper There was anger, there were tears and it was standing room only in the Karibu Centre. Not everyone knew Smiley Culture, the reggae artist who died last week during a police operation to arrest him at his home, but everyone knew his music. And it wasn’t just the music. It was also the fact that he fused reggae with a diction and landscape that was unmistakably British. Anglo/West Indian fusion is unremarkable now, particularly on the radio. Many say Smiley did it first. Now he is dead, in questionable circumstances. The authorities say Smiley, who faced drugs charges, stabbed himself through the heart while officers conducting a fresh drugs search were in another room. His relatives insist that is highly unlikely. They intend to fight this all the way and they’ll have help. Hello again Lee Jasper. Remember Lee Jasper? He was a streetwise race activist, then equalities director during Ken Livingstone’s London mayoralty. He was hurried from office by hotly contested allegations – personal and professional – relentlessly pursued by the Evening Standard. He withdrew into journalism, blogging and community activism. Smiley’s relatives contacted Jasper, and he chaired that community meeting at the Karibu. It looked like something out of the 1980s I told him the following morning. But surely things are different now; black officers, black investigators on the police complaints body; all the things you campaigned for. Why are we back to this? “There was small-scale, incremental progress,” he concedes. “We don’t have the horror of black men being murdered and the police doing nothing. But it’s a mixed bag. Look at the deaths in custody; look at stop and search, up by 70%.” You really can’t trust the system, Jasper says. Not without community pressure to keep it honest – it’s likely to be a three- to five-year battle. “But Smiley’s relatives are extraordinary in their strength and dignity. They are certainly not naive.” So here comes a campaign, similar to those before, but boosted now by social media. Stand by for leaflets, meetings, the poignancy of a funeral. Testimony in favour of Smiley Culture; headlines spun against. And expect to hear quite a bit more from Lee Jasper. Race issues Hugh Muir guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …
Nato to take lead role in Libya air campaign

• Nato to assume day-to-day military command in Libya • Obama and Cameron: Substantial progress made Britain, France and the United States have agreed that Nato will take over the military command of the no-fly zone over Libya in a move which represents a setback for Nicolas Sarkozy, who had hoped to diminish the role of the alliance. Barack Obama agreed in separate phone calls with Sarkozy and David Cameron that political oversight would be handed to a separate body consisting of members of the coalition, including Arab countries such as Qatar and the United Arab Emirates that are outside Nato. The agreement, which will have to be put be to all 28 members of Nato, indicates that the alliance has resolved one of its most serious disagreements. Countries had been splintering as they tried to comply with Obama’s demand that Washington be relieved of command of the air campaign. Sarkozy moved to portray the agreement as a Franco-American success. In a statement the Élysée Palace said: “The two presidents have come to an agreement on the way to use the command structures of Nato to support the coalition.” But the agreement represents a blow for Sarkozy, who had tried to persuade Britain set up an Anglo-French command for all military operations in Libya. This was strongly resisted by Britain, who said Nato was best placed to run the military operations. Cameron – who also spoke to Obama – prevailed, as Britain, the US and France agreed that: • Nato will assume the day-to-day military command of the no-fly zone, using the alliance’s usual military structures. The operation could be run by Admiral James Stavridis, the US supreme allied commander in Europe, who works from the Nato’s military headquarters in Mons, Belgium. • Political oversight will be provided by members of the coalition and not by Nato. Sarkozy will say this shows Nato is not in complete command of the operation, as it was in the bombing campaign against Serbian targets during the 1999 Kosovo campaign. In a traditional Nato-led operation, political control would be provided by the North Atlantic Council, which is the main political decision-making body of the alliance. The plan will be put to the council on Wednesday, which will hold its third meeting in as many days at ambassadorial level. All 28 members of NATO will have to agree on the proposal. The breakthrough emerged when the Élysée hailed Sarkozy’s agreement with Obama. Downing Street adopted a more cautious approach when it confirmed that Cameron and Obama had agreed that Nato should play a key role. A spokesman said: “The prime minister and the president agreed that good progress had been made, that Nato should play a key role in the command structure, and that these arrangements now need to be finalised. The prime minister and the president agreed to stay in close touch.” Diplomatic sources said that progress on the new structures for the no-fly zone emerged as France and Turkey started to give ground. France softened its stance after Britain and the US agreed that the interational coalition would have political oversight, but that Nato would have to assume military control. London and Washington were supported by newer members of Nato, such as Romania and the Czech Republic, who said they could only support the campaign if it was run by Nato. A phone call between Obama and the Turkish prime minister Tayyip Recep Erdogan led to what was described as a more pragmatic approach in Ankara. “Turkey has become more flexible in the last day or so,” one diplomat said. Turkey, the third largest member of Nato, and which has a predominantly Muslim population, had highlighted tensions within the alliance when it launched a strong attack on France. Sarkozy had tried to reach out to the Muslim world by playing down Nato’s role in Libya. Egemen Bagis, Turkey’s Europe minister, accused the French president of exploiting Libya for his own electoral needs. Sarkozy has been the biggest opponent of Ankara’s ambitions to join the European Union. “A European leader began his election campaign by organising a meeting that led to a process of air strikes against Libya. He acted before a Nato decision, and his act was based on his subjective evaluation of a UN resolution,” said Bagis. The intense diplomatic discussions took place as key military figures expressed dismay at Downing Street’s handling of the Libyan conflict. Senior defence officials make it clear they deeply resent the way Downing Street appeared to undermine General Sir David Richards, the country’s most senior military officer, who rejected ministers’ claims that Gaddafi might be a legitimate target. Defence officials said that by identifying Gaddafi as a target, Britain laid itself to the charge that “if you kill him, it was premeditated, and if you don’t, you have failed”. Libya Muammar Gaddafi Nato Arab and Middle East unrest Middle East US foreign policy Barack Obama United States Germany France Europe Turkey David Cameron Foreign policy Nick Hopkins Nicholas Watt Ian Traynor guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …

Public school teachers grapple with 80-hour work weeks on tight salaries, with little creative freedom, while the media attacks their unions—and on top of all that, they face mass layoffs on a regular basis. In San Francisco, for example, 2,800 teachers were warned last week that their jobs…

Continue reading …
Our Libyan Excursions – Operation El Dorado Canyon – April 14, 1986

enlarge Operation El Dorado Canyon – if it wasn’t for some guy in Malta giving a heads up . . . . Click here to view this media Our history with Libya and our run-ins with Muammar Gaddafi go back a ways. Last week I posted a piece on an attack that took place on Libya by U.S. forces in March of 1986. A few weeks later there was the infamous disco bombing in Berlin that killed two Americans and injured scores of others and less than two weeks after that, President Regan ordered up a military operation dubbed Operation El Dorado Canyon which was in retaliation to the Berlin bombings. The interesting parallels between that military operation and the current one are the loud proclamations that “we-aren’t-really-trying-to-kill-the-guy ., . .but-if he-happens-to-be . . . .” (nudge-nudge/wink-wink) by spokespeople from both Administrations. In Reagan’s case, the non-assassination assassination was bungled by a tip from Malta as F-14′s flew past on their way to Tripoli. The word of warning helped Gaddafi dodge the attack by minutes and allowed us to arrive at this point in history today. The other big difference between our latest military operation and the one in 1986 is that at least we have a coalition of other countries (including some tacit support among the Arab Nations), not to mention the rebels in Libya who are relieved the playing field is a bit more level than it was this time last week when they were threatened with annihilation. At this point we’re in the “damned if you/damned if you don’t” stage on Capitol Hill and with mainstream media. In 1986 they weren’t asking that question. And next week it will probably be something else. Here are reports from the first 2-3 hours of Operation El Dorado Canyon as reported on CBS Radio on the night of April 14 – morning of April 15, 1986.

Continue reading …
Eight killed in Israeli strikes on Gaza

Civilians among victims, including three from the same family At least eight people have been killed and dozens injured after Israeli attacks on the Gaza Strip. The dead included four civilians who were killed when a tank shell was fired at a Gaza City suburb. It is believed three members of the same family were killed. There were unconfirmed reports of a fifth victim. Four people were killed when an Israeli aircraft fired at a car in another suburb of Gaza City. It was claimed the passengers were Islamic Jihad militants. Within an hour, a rocket was fired at the Israeli city of Ashkelon. Tension has been mounting in the area since two members of Hamas were killed in an airstrike last week, after sporadic firing from Gaza into Israel. On Saturday, 50 mortar shells were fired from Gaza into Israel causing several injuries. On Monday evening, an airstrike injured 18 people. The Israeli army said it had been an attack on a tunnel that could be used to smuggle terrorists into Israel. Attacks on Gaza continued from tanks and the air throughout Tuesday. A spokeswoman for the Israeli army said that she regretted the civilian deaths but the army had been targeting mortar fire coming from a residential area. Since the end of the 2009 war, Hamas and Israel have maintained an uneasy ceasefire, characterised by sporadic airstrikes and rocket fire claimed by smaller militant groups. Saturday was the first time that Hamas claimed responsibility for an attack on Israel from Gaza. After the killing in Gaza City, Ismail Radwan, a spokesman for Hamas, said: “The brutal crime of today will not pass without a response by the resistance.” Gaza Israel Palestinian territories Middle East Conal Urquhart guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …
Budget boost for ‘squeezed middle’

Despite rise in inflation and borrowing, chancellor to court medium earners in ‘steady-as-she-goes’ financial package George Osborne will seek to appeal to Britain’s “squeezed middle” when he announces help for first-time buyers, motorists and 25 million income tax payers in a budget designed to tighten the Treasury’s grip over public spending. Despite disappointing news for the public finances, the chancellor is expected to say that he has scope to raise the income tax personal allowance by £600 next year, fund a £250m shared equity scheme for new homes and defer the above-inflation increase in petrol duty due next month. But Osborne will balance tax giveaways with fresh tax-raising measures, a crackdown on tax avoidance and “special measures” for overspending Whitehall departments in what sources insisted would be a “steady-as-she-goes” package. The chancellor will outline a range of measures – including a shake-up of planning laws, deregulation of employment laws affecting small businesses, and the long-awaited plans for a green investment bank as the coalition government seeks to shift the focus of the economy from deficit reduction to boosting growth. Osborne will admit that the UK’s growth prospects for 2011 have worsened since last autumn, with the independent Office for Budget Responsibility likely to pencil in an increase of around 1.8% in gross domestic product this year against the 2.1% it forecast last November. But the chancellor will signal his determination not to let the government’s deficit reduction plans slip, with fresh controls designed to intensify pressure on ministers to rein in spending. Departments that fail to manage their budgets properly will be placed in special measures – akin to the Ofsted rating given to a failing school – with tough penalties. These could include fines for overspending or being forced to seek Treasury authorisation for larger spending decisions. City hopes that public borrowing for 2010-11 would come in £10bn below the £148bn forecast received a dent with news that the deficit in February topped £10bn – the highest for the month since modern records began in 1993. Meanwhile, inflation according to the consumer price index rose from 4% to a 28-month high of 4.4% last month, pushing up government spending on state benefits. Dearer food, fuel and clothing were the main factors behind last month’s jump in inflation, which is now more than double the government’s 2% target. The increase in the CPI measure of inflation was matched by a rise in the alternative yardstick of the cost of living, the retail prices index, which rose from 5.1% to 5.5% last month, its highest for 20 years. In a move that will please the Liberal Democrat wing of the coalition, Osborne will say that the income tax personal allowance, due to go up to £7,475 next month, will be raised by more than inflation from next year. The increase of around £600 – which comes on top of the £1,000 rise next month – will be worth an average of £45 a year for taxpayers earning up to £115,000 a year. The 550,000 taxpayers who earn more than £115,000 will lose £45 a year because they no longer have a personal allowance. Osborne will announce a joint scheme with the construction industry to help some of the potential first-time buyers currently frozen out of the housing market. First-time buyers with a household income of less than £60,000 a year who can put down a 5% deposit on a new home will be eligible for an equity loan worth up to 20% of the value of the property jointly funded by the government and housebuilders. The loan will be interest-free for five years and only be repayable when the house is sold. With most first-time buyers only able to secure mortgages worth 75% of a property’s value, Osborne is expected to say his scheme will give some young people the chance to meet the exacting loan standards demanded by lenders in the wake of the financial crisis, lead to the building of 10,000 new homes and protect 40,000 jobs in the construction industry. The year long cabinet battle over Britain’s ability to invest in the next generation of green infrastructure will be resolved when a green investment bank is established with access to up to £3bn of funds, and an ability to borrow from April 2015. Green groups will be disappointed about the deferral of borrowing powers, but pleased at the higher than expected interim funding. The battle over the bank was resolved on Sunday and the outcome reflects a wider political struggle to ensure plans in the budget to ease pressure on the squeezed middle, including freezing planned fuel duty rises, does not strip the coalition of its green credentials. Ministers admit the deferral of the bank’s borrowing powers to 2015-16 reflects Treasury determination to ensure net debt as a percentage of GDP is falling by 2015-16. But they also argue that decisions on the next big wave of green investment projects, including offshore wind farms, do not need to be made until after 2015. In a negotiating success for Chris Huhne, the energy secretary, the bank will be given access to £1bn of funds from 2012-13, as opposed to the earlier plan to wait until 2013-4. The bank will also be given access from 2012-13 to £775m from the asset sales from HS1, the superfast rail track between London and the Channel tunnel. In addition the bank will have access to £1bn from the sales from 2013-14 from Urenco, the company that makes enriched uranium from nuclear power. The government owns a third of Urenco jointly with the Dutch government and German energy companies RWE and E.On. The Treasury has given a guarantee that if the income from the sale of Urenco is not forthcoming, the green bank will have access to other funds. Budget 2011 George Osborne Conservatives Tax and spending Budget Property Family finances Motoring Borrowing & debt Inflation Larry Elliott Patrick Wintour Polly Curtis guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …
US anger at World Service cash bid

Application for state department funding to combat censorship in countries such as China and Iran is greeted with derision • BBC World Service to sign funding deal with US An application by the BBC World Service Trust for US government funding to help combat censorship in countries such as China and Iran has met with a furious response in America. Some figures within rival US international broadcasters such as Voice of America are said to be “deeply angry” that, at a time when the Congress is embroiled in a delicate budgetary standoff with the Obama administration, the World Service Trust is hoping to receive US tax dollars. One Washington source said that the Broadcasting Board of Governors, the US government agency which distributes about $760m of public money annually to five US international broadcasters, should receive the funding and not the BBC World Service Trust. “We are deeply angry here in the States. The Voice of America is the US government’s international broadcaster and needs support,” the source added. “This is coming at a time when the US government is cutting funding for the BBG as well as National Public Radio and people are angry that money is going to the BBC World Service Trust. “The sums which the trust is now seeking are puny but it’s the symbolism that’s important. Americans are trying to conserve resources and our money is going to something which supports the work of a foreign broadcaster – it’s infuriating.” The US state department said no decision had yet been taken on the BBC World Service Trust’s proposal for funding – believed to be a low six figure sum – for anti-jamming technology. Courtney Austrian, office director, policy planning and public diplomacy at the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, said: “To clarify the situation, earlier this month the BBC World Service Trust, along with many other organisations, was invited to submit a proposal for funding in the area of internet freedom to the state department. “This invitation was extended based upon a statement of interest the World Service Trust had previously submitted. We have not yet received a full proposal from any organisation and no funding decisions have yet been made.” A spokeswoman for the BBG, which funds America’s five international broadcasters – Voice of America, Radio & TV Marti, Radio Free Asia, Radio Free Europe and Middle East Broadcasting Networks – declined to be drawn on the row. “Competition for funds from the state department is ongoing,” she said. News of the BBC’s application for the grant from the US state department to develop anti–jamming technology in repressive countries such as Iran and China, revealed by the Guardian , has also met with a critical response in America. Under the heading “Your tax dollars funding a second left wing radio network: the BBC”, Thomas Lifson wrote on the American Thinker blog : “The BBC has a problem with political bias at least as bad as that of NPR. But that is no obstacle to shipping money, borrowed from China, to yet another left wing network. Don’t worry: we’ll just let our children pay for it when the Chinese come to collect.” A diary item on the New York Magazine’s website added : “Just wait til the anti-NPR brigade gets wind that U.S. funds are going to foreigners.” However, BBC World Service sources insisted that American money will be going to the World Service Trust – which is the corporation’s international charity – and not to the World Service, the international broadcaster. “It is quite reasonable that project by project work by the trust could apply for state department and US funding,” said a BBC World Service Trust source. The BBC World Service Trust has previously received $4.5m in US international development funding for an ongoing media and development project in Nigeria and is bidding for another $293,000 for similar work in Burma. •

Continue reading …