Reliable Sources Panel Defend Firing of NPR Host and Attack MSNBC’s Ratigan for Support of #OWS
October 23, 2011 No Comment
Click here to view this media Apparently Dylan Ratigan inserting himself into the Occupy Wall Street has got the folks over at TeaNN terribly upset, since Howard Kurtz decided to spend a segment carping about it on his show that claims to report on media bias, Reliable Sources. And apparently Kurtz believes someone who was a former Trent Lott staffer and now an anchor on Glenn Beck’s GBTV, Amy Holmes, qualifies as some sort of objective “journalist” to weigh in on Ratigan’s advocacy of the #OWS protests. Kurtz’s panel also included The Washington Post’s Dana Milbank and PBS’ Terence Smith, who like Holmes thought it was just awful that someone who appears on a “news network” like Ratigan would openly show support for the Wall Street protesters, also defended the firing of Lisa Simeone from NPR for openly advocating for the protesters as well. So much for free speech. James Fallows at The Atlantic has more on that here as well . They also discussed the AstroTurf “tea party” being openly supported by pundits over at Fox “News”, but what was missing here was any mention whatsoever of the fact that CNN was every bit as big of a cheerleader for that “movement” as anyone at Fox was. They sent their reporters to be embedded on their buses and if you had twenty of these people showing up anywhere, there were CNN reporters there to cover it and make sure those protests or town hall meetings made it into the national spotlight. And what other network besides CNN has allowed the “tea party” to co-host their presidential primary debates? None. But they’re going to talk about Fox supporting them as though that happened in a vacuum and their network wasn’t participating in propping up that Koch brothers, FreedomWorks, Dick Armey, and friends corporate sponsored fiasco as well. Matt Taibbi responded to the recent dust-up over the hacked emails from himself, Ratigan and others at his Rolling Stone blog here — Why Rush Limbaugh Is Freaking Out About Occupy Wall Street . Full transcript below the fold. KURTZ: The media coverage has intensified since the “Occupy Wall Street” protests have gone global. And there have been more clashes with police. A hundred people arrested last night in Chicago. But the carping by conservative commentators and surely by some liberal types makes you wonder whether they’re looking at the same demonstrators. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BILL O’REILLY, FOX NEWS: These people — they’re not winning and they’re not going to win. They’re loons. ED SCHULTZ, MSNBC: My Virginia public school education tells me the 99 percent movement is twice as popular as the nut jobs in the Tea Party. ERIC BOLLING, FOX NEWS: These communist, Nazi — BOB BECKEL, FOX NEWS: I haven’t called the Tea Party people fascists. BOLLING: — pot smoking, sex addicted morons. And you compared them to the Tea Party? (LAUGHTER) KURTZ: Let’s keep the debate on this high level, shall we? Dana Milbank, you went down to the protests here in D.C. When you look at those kinds clips, are the lefty pundits and righty pundits projecting their views on these Wall Street protesters, almost like a war shock test? MILBANK: I’m insulted you came to me immediately after sex- addicted morons. But, yes. I mean, they are. This is exactly, look, we’re seeing a mirror image of the complaints from the left about the Tea Party and sort of the fueling by FOX News on the right. Now, we’re seeing the exact same thing happen on the other side. The complaints, they’re not saying it’s Astroturf. They’re saying — they have other insults for it, and we’re seeing the same sort of behaviors at MSNBC. KURTZ: Now, Amy Holmes, you went to the demonstrations in New York. Are the mainstream media treating “Occupy Wall Street” a bit more sympathetically than they did the Tea Party? HOLMES: I think they are at GBTV, if I can give us a plug, we have been following, you know, who is behind this, who is funding it, where do these beautifully produced, you know, sort of faux newspapers come from. So, I notice that haven’t gotten coverage, you see this hodge-podge of leftist causes and posters, seem that don’t make sense, people doing some customs and it’s pretty right down there, that you don’t see any representation or any representative from feminist causes, which surprised me. No wage gap ceiling, not talk about women if they were bankers, maybe Wall Street would be a friend leer place. And now, we’re getting reports of sexual assaults there, and the “Occupy Wall Street” protesters are advising people not to go to the police. KURTZ: OK. You know, there’s a pretty good story in “The Washington Post” this morning about interviewing both Wall Street protesters and Tea Party protesters. But I think the challenge for journalists, Terry, is figuring out what the protesters want because there’s no established leadership. And it’s easy to focus on a few crazy people with signs or people who are engaging in appropriate behavior. But it’s harder to make judgments on the movement as a whole. SMITH: I think that’s right. And actually I think mainstream media were slow to pick up on this story. It is a phenomenon that has gone global. I went down to the demonstration in Freedom Square here in Washington and looked at this rather benign scene to tell you the truth. But this is — I mean, this is a phenomenon. And if it’s unformed and if the issues are ill-defined, it’s still worthy of substantial reporting. And the commentary will come at it from two directions. But I think it’s a phenomenon that will get more attention, not less. KURTZ: And speaking of mainstream media, some people will actually have some involvement with the “Occupy Wall Street” protesters. One of them is Lisa Simeone, the host of a show called “The World of Opera,” that was distributed by National Public Radio. NPR is now dropping distribution of it. It was distributed by someone else. And she had no documentary show she was fired from because Lisa Simeone also serving as an “Occupy Wall Street” spokesperson. Does that overlap? HOLMES: Well, two key points here when I read about her getting fired. First, she was fired from the show, not by NPR. KURTZ: Right. HOLMES: NPR distributes the show. KURTZ: Right. HOLMES: And I think the key point here was because a programming director complained and as someone from the radio world, you listen to your programming directors because they’re the ones making decision whether or not you’ll be on the air. Secondly, NPR is in the middle of a fund-raising drive. So, they certainly don’t want this when they’re asking listeners for money. KURTZ: On “The Opera Show,” Simeone had a great quote. She says, “What is NPR afraid I’ll do — insert a seditious comment into synopsis of Madame Butterfly?” But on the other hand MILBANK: That’s right. But if that person — excuse me — at “The Washington Post” had done the same thing, I think there may have been a similar reaction. KURTZ: Even if it was a music critic? MILBANK: Yes, because that’s the policy. And NPR has a big target on it right now because of mistakes they made in the past. So, they overreacted to Juan Williams, they’re going to overreact to a lot of things because of the target. SMITH: You know, it’s worth pointing out she was also an anchor on the weekend edition before on NPR. In other words, if you’re on an organization that presents news, whether you’re doing it that moment or not, steer clear of this sort of thing. KURTZ: Setting me up for the next question about MSNBC anchor Dylan Ratigan who has spoken frequently on the air with some sympathy for the Wall Street protesters. Let me show you a clip and we’ll have the question on the other side. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) DYLAN RATIGAN, MSNBC ANCHOR: I was there after the 700 arrests on the Brooklyn Bridge. And the energy that night at the general assembly that Tim was just talking about was loving and warm and more courageous, more resolute. (END VIDEO CLIP) KURTZ: So there’s some leaked E-mails, Terry, obtained by the conservative side of the government in which Dylan Ratigan is obviously helping to shape the message. Here’s one for him to focus on, simple shared principles and unique strength. And here’s another E-mail from another person saying, “Here it is, a statement the group is going to put out with Dylan suggesting revisions the ending needs smoothing out. Is that troubling? SMITH: Totally inappropriate. Absolutely wrong and not new. Journalists have fallen into the trap of telling politicians how to shape their message, now protesters how to shape their message. It is a big mistake. They shouldn’t do it. It is crossing the line. KURTZ: But this is – you know, it’s one thing if you want to go on the air and say, “Look, I have been talking to these people, and here is my advice.” This is behind the scenes. It’s not something MSNBC would know anything about. MILBANK: But this is the world we live in now. So I don’t think – you may not like it. Nobody should be surprised by it. And this sort of thing goes on. The line has been blurred between activism and between journalism. I mean, I suppose if we’re going to look at gradations and, you know, shades of gray here, it is perhaps better to be fomenting a movement like “Occupy Wall Street” or the Tea Party event actually getting in and helping a political candidate. So – HOLMES: I think it is very problematic, and Fox had a flare-up where one of their executives was advising the Bush campaign. That person was fired. But we do see – KURTZ: Advising? HOLMES: I believe so. There were e-mails going back and forth. What we do see this blurring, and here at CNN, James Carville and Paul Begala, it was reported, were having morning phone conversation with Rahm Emanuel when he was chief of staff. KURTZ: Which they say were friendly calls, but both of them – look, the people who are outside contributors – they help parties raise money – HOLMES: You can say that about this host Simeone, that she said she was an independent person with an independent show being distributed by NPR. So why should she have to – KURTZ: But here in the case of Dylan Ratigan, we have a guy who is a host, who is on everyday at 4:00 in the afternoon, part of MSNBC corporate family, who was involved in E-mails with a group that he is covering. Would the media coverage – we’re running a little short of time here – have been different if this had been a host at Fox News having E-mails with the tea party? HOLMES: Absolutely. Absolutely. SMITH: The only defense is that he is commentator, really, and entertainer, not news deliverer, and that’s not much of a defense. HOLMES: But how can you ever hope to have, you know, somebody regarded as fair when he has a politician, someone is running for office, that they’re going to have fair sit-downs. KURTZ: I don’t see him as an entertainer at all and I think it is a mistake as well. Amy Holmes, Dana Milbank and Terrence Smith, thanks for stopping by this morning.
Continue reading …
• Anglo-French row holds up EU summit • PM braced for biggest Commons revolt David Cameron has begun a week of intense political infighting over Europe by becoming embroiled in a furious row with Nicolas Sarkozy over Britain’s role in talks to solve the crisis enveloping the euro. The bust-up between Cameron and Sarkozy held up the conclusion of the EU-27 summit for almost two hours, with the French president expressing rage at the constant criticism and lectures from UK ministers. Sarkozy bluntly told Cameron: “You have lost a good opportunity to shut up.” He added: “We are sick of you criticising us and telling us what to do. You say you hate the euro and now you want to interfere in our meetings.” The prime minister has torn up his travel plans this week – a move urged on him by Labour leader Ed Miliband in a Guardian interview on Saturday – to attend an emergency heads of state meeting on Wednesday, and has demanded that all 27 EU countries be given the final say over measures to prevent the eurozone’s sovereign debt crisis spreading and Europe sliding into deep recession. On Monday the prime minister is facing both the largest Commons revolt of his premiership and the largest rebellion of eurosceptics suffered by a Conservative prime minister when parliament votes on whether the UK should have a referendum on Europe. Cameron will meet parliamentary aides in Downing Street before the vote in an attempt to dissuade as many as 10 members of the government minded to rebel against the prime minister, requiring them to resign their posts. The government is sticking to its decision to impose a three-line whip on MPs to vote against the motion despite criticism it has been too heavy-handed. Officials who witnessed the angry exchanges between Cameron and Sarkozy said the prime minister insisted that the package to be adopted on Wednesday by the 17 eurozone countries had serious implications for non-euro countries in the EU and their interests must be safeguarded. Eventually, after what Donald Tusk, the Polish prime minister, who chaired the summit, called a “stormy” discussion, the French president secured an agreement that all 27 leaders will first debate the three-pronged package of measures to recapitalise banks, build up the bailout find and write down Greek debt, but then the eurosummit would have the final say at back-to-back summits on Wednesday. Cameron, however, got his fellow leaders to insert into the final communique recognition that laws on the single market must be upheld and a level playing field safeguarded for countries not in the euro. He later brushed aside the divisions, saying that what mattered was that markets regain confidence that the eurozone is preventing contagion from the Greek debt crisis. The vote in parliament on Monday will be a testy encounter with his own party on Britain’s membership of the EU. The vote calls for a nationwide referendum on whether Britain should leave the EU, renegotiate its treaty with Brussels, or remain a member on current terms. The government will not suffer a defeat, since Labour and the Lib Dems will vote down the motion, but a voluble and sizeable group believe the prime minister should honour pledges once made to allow a national poll on Britain’s relationship with Europe. They would like the repatriation of social and employment rights. On Sunday in Brussels, Cameron used a press conference to appeal directly to potential rebels, talking up the chance of repatriating powers with the “possibility” of treaty change coming on to the agenda as early as December, as euro countries push towards fiscal integration. He claimed he had proved his ability last year to “exact” a good price when he agreed an EU treaty change that created a new mechanism for bailing out troubled eurozone countries but exempted Britain from having to pay for bailouts from 2013. It is not clear if this would trigger the government’s stated commitment to a referendum because it is due to stage a vote only if new powers are transferred from Westminster to Brussels, and any change by Cameron would be likely to do the reverse. “If there is a treaty change, that gives Britain an opportunity,” Cameron said. “Treaty change can only happen if it is agreed by all the 27 member states of the European Union. “Any treaty change – as the last treaty change did – is an opportunity for Britain to advance our national interest. The last limited treaty change which brought about the European stability mechanism gave us the opportunity to get out of the euro bailout fund that the last government opted into.” Cameron said: “I’ve also argued that this crisis means that greater fiscal and economic integration of the eurozone is inevitable. But this must not be at the expense of Britain’s national interest. So I’ve secured a commitment today, which will be in the council’s conclusions, that we must safeguard the interests of countries that want to stay outside of the euro, particularly with respect to the integrity of the single market for all 27 countries of the EU. Academics at Nottingham University predict the number rebelling against the government is likely to top the 41 Conservative MPs who voted against John Major in May 1993 on the third reading of the Maastricht bill – the biggest backbench rebellion for a Tory PM on Europe on whipped business. They also said 41 was the number who rebelled in October last year over an attempt to make using insulting language a criminal act, which was then the biggest rebellion of Cameron’s premiership. The two sides in the referendum battle fortified their positions, with government ministers defending the decision to impose a three-line whip on the vote brought to the Commons by a petition. The defence secretary, Philip Hammond, said the whip had been put in place because the motion was contrary to government policy and holding a referendum on the EU would be “just a distraction”. The former Conservative leader Lord Howard also weighed in, saying that an EU referendum would be a mistake in current conditions. The former foreign secretary Sir Malcolm Rifkind said he believed a vote for a referendum would make Britain a “laughing stock”. But Cameron faces the likely resignations of some parliamentary aides to ministers and rebellion by the chairman of the 1922 committee, Graham Brady. Lord Tebbit suggested that “not even Ted Heath faced the chairman of the 1922 voting against him”. The number rebelling could hit 90 if the 68 who signed up to the original amendment tabled by the MP for Bury North, David Nuttall combine with another 33 who have signed compromise amendments which ministers say also run counter to government policy. Nuttall would commit the government to holding a referendum by May 2013 but would give the public three options – keeping the status quo, leaving the EU or reforming the terms of the UK’s membership. An amendment from George Eustice, a new but influential MP who used to work for Cameron, calls on the coalition to publish a white paper in the next two years setting out which powers ministers would repatriate from Brussels. The government would then renegotiate the UK’s relationship with the EU and hold a referendum on the outcome. Some names on Eustice’s list may have signed up in the brief window when they thought Eustice’s amendment would come to be adopted by the government as a way of the party high command giving backbenchers a compromise to vote through.The Commons speaker John Bercow may however choose not to call Eustice’s amendment. European Union David Cameron Euro European debt crisis Foreign policy Nicolas Sarkozy House of Commons Allegra Stratton David Gow guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Click here to view this media From this Saturday’s Forbes on Fox, more attacks on labor unions and calls to privatize the United States Postal Service. Host David Asman opened the segment talking about the postal union’s decision to hire Ron Bloom, one of the advisers that helped steer the auto industry out of bankruptcy . That was followed by a call from panel member Dennis Kneale to just shut down the whole Post Office and allow FexEx and UPS to buy it and in his words to “chop it up.” Fellow panel member Victoria Barret, while disagreeing with Kneale that it’s not possible to just “junk the whole Post Office” and said she still likes sending Christmas cards, but of course thought that the union contracts need to be ripped up. Here was host David Asman’s response to that: ASMAN: Well Steve, you can send Christmas cards for free on the Internet now! I mean the Internet changes everything, doesn’t it? To which Barret and Forbes responded, “It’s not the same.” Well, no it’s not but how about someone reminding Asman that the Internet is not free? Forbes continued with the fearmongering that if the Post Office is not privatized, tax payers are going to be on the hook for their pension funds and finally one of their panelists actually pointed out the real problem the Post Office is facing right now, which is that Congress has forced them to over fund their pensions to the tune of $75 billion and if some of that money was returned, it would solve their problems immediately. Which was naturally met with scorn from the other panel members. When Asman also brought up the fact that shutting down the Post Office would likely harm services for those who live in rural areas, Forbes claimed that private industry would take care of the problem on its own and Dennis Kneale chimed back in and said if they’re unhappy with not having service after the business is privatized, they can…get this… just move. So if you live in a rural area, according to Kneale you’d better suck it up and move to the city if you want to get mail service. What a guy. So much for those claims of “compassionate conservatism.” Our own Kenneth Quinnell has been following this story which you can read about here: New York Times Blames Workers for Postal Service Woes, Glosses Over Real Cause of Problems here: More Details Emerge in Republican Assault on Post Office and Postal Unions and here: The Plot to Kill the Post Office…And Its Union Contracts .
Continue reading …
“There’s a saying that a lie can travel halfway around the world before the truth can hit someone’s lips.” In his most directly indirect response since allegations surfaced of a sordid hot tub affair with 22-year-old Sara Leal in September, Ashton Kutcher turned to social networking site chime.in Wednesday to share his thoughts on honesty, integrity and the media in a candid video post. Wearing a Chicago Bears hoodie and sporting a shaggy beard, the actor — still married to wife Demi Moore of six years — became philosophical as he discussed a recent text he had been reading, which discussed the bastardaziation of religion and spirituality as it pertained to the cost of printing literature. In the 3:55 minute video, Ashton — who is a well-known investor in tech start-ups like FourSquare and Flipboard — doesn’t mention specific names but states that in today’s current social media environment, one is responsible for distributing his or her own truth. “I started thinking about that in relation to social media and media today. The threshold to have literature printed and distributed — the cost structure went down to zero dollars. Thereby, there is no gatekeeper of the truth. We are our own editors, and our own publishers. We are our own printers. Therefore people can bastardize the truth in any way, shape or truth they want,” Ashton said, speaking in a low voice and directly facing the camera. Ashton and Demi were last seen together on an intimate Kaballah camping trip in mid-October. But with the couple remaining mum and Sara Leal spilling her story and lurid details about unprotected sex to the presses, one can’t help but instantly place Ashton’s soul-searching monologue into its current context, and derive deeper meaning from his words — especially from this last bit: “We really have to take it upon ourselves to instill a level of honesty in our works and the media we create and we share with each other. And be certain we are doing our own diligence to ensure what we’re saying is for the benefit of another…using our full capacity to share the truth.”
Continue reading …
I'm not sure what press reports media analyst Howard Kurtz observed since Thursday's announcement that Moammar Gaddafi had been killed in Libya, but they certainly can't be what most people in this country have seen. On CNN's “Reliable Sources” Sunday, Kurtz actually asked his guests why the press aren't giving President Obama more credit (video follows with transcript and commentary): HOWARD KURTZ, HOST: Remember when President Obama was getting pounded in the press for dragging his feet on Libya? Eight months later, we got this news. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) REPORTER: Three sources, all rebel sources, are saying that Gadhafi has, in fact, been killed. (END VIDEO CLIP) KURTZ: Did most journalists give credit to the president when it paid off? I must have missed that. “Remember when President Obama was getting pounded in the press for dragging his feet on Libya?” No, I don't. Quite the contrary, back in March, Kurtz himself scolded the media for drumbeating war again and not asking skeptical questions about this mission: KURTZ ON MARCH 20, 2011: One major question about the assault on Libya, what happened to the media's skepticism? U.S. warplanes hitting targets in Libya for a second day today. And I have to say this at the outset — the media get excited by war, the journalistic adrenaline starts pumping as we talk about warships and warplanes and cruise missiles, and we put up the maps and we have the retired generals on. And sometimes something is lost in that initial excitement. It reminds me of eight years ago this very weekend, when Shock and Awe was rained down upon Baghdad and the media utterly failed to ask skeptical questions. So, I looked at my “New York Times” this morning, went through all the sections, I looked at my “Washington Post” this morning and looked through all the sections. Didn't see any skeptical articles, columns, editorials about this no-fly position. Two fine newspapers, don't see the skeptical questions. What if there's a long-term stalemate here? What is this goes on and on? What if there are American casualties? Do you stop this operation with Gadhafi still in power?
Continue reading …I'm not sure what press reports media analyst Howard Kurtz observed since Thursday's announcement that Moammar Gaddafi had been killed in Libya, but they certainly can't be what most people in this country have seen. On CNN's “Reliable Sources” Sunday, Kurtz actually asked his guests why the press aren't giving President Obama more credit (video follows with transcript and commentary): HOWARD KURTZ, HOST: Remember when President Obama was getting pounded in the press for dragging his feet on Libya? Eight months later, we got this news. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) REPORTER: Three sources, all rebel sources, are saying that Gadhafi has, in fact, been killed. (END VIDEO CLIP) KURTZ: Did most journalists give credit to the president when it paid off? I must have missed that. “Remember when President Obama was getting pounded in the press for dragging his feet on Libya?” No, I don't. Quite the contrary, back in March, Kurtz himself scolded the media for drumbeating war again and not asking skeptical questions about this mission: KURTZ ON MARCH 20, 2011: One major question about the assault on Libya, what happened to the media's skepticism? U.S. warplanes hitting targets in Libya for a second day today. And I have to say this at the outset — the media get excited by war, the journalistic adrenaline starts pumping as we talk about warships and warplanes and cruise missiles, and we put up the maps and we have the retired generals on. And sometimes something is lost in that initial excitement. It reminds me of eight years ago this very weekend, when Shock and Awe was rained down upon Baghdad and the media utterly failed to ask skeptical questions. So, I looked at my “New York Times” this morning, went through all the sections, I looked at my “Washington Post” this morning and looked through all the sections. Didn't see any skeptical articles, columns, editorials about this no-fly position. Two fine newspapers, don't see the skeptical questions. What if there's a long-term stalemate here? What is this goes on and on? What if there are American casualties? Do you stop this operation with Gadhafi still in power?
Continue reading …
View supports Justice for Jane campaign that wants prosecutors to be allowed to appeal against judges’ decision to grant bail The director of public prosecutions has said he would welcome a right to appeal against crown court judges’ decisions to grant bail. Keir Starmer last week met the parents of nurse Jane Clough, who was stabbed to death by her ex-partner, to discuss their campaign to amend bail laws. Ambulance technician Jonathan Vass murdered the 26-year-old mother-of-one in the car park of Blackpool Victoria hospital while he was on bail charged with raping her. He was jailed for a minimum of 30 years last October. Her parents, John and Penny Clough, of Barrowford, Lancashire, launched the Justice for Jane campaign which backs an amendment to the legal aid, sentencing and punishment of offenders bill to allow prosecutors to appeal against a judge’s decision to grant bail. In a statement , Starmer said: “I met Mr and Mrs Clough and we discussed a number of issues. One of which is the current government proposal to provide the prosecution with the opportunity to appeal against the decision of a crown court judge to grant bail. From my perspective having given the matter careful consideration, I have come to the view that we would welcome the introduction of such a power for the prosecution.” Clough kept a diary detailing her abuse and fears of what Vass might do, Preston crown court was told during his trial. She and her family had been “rocked and devastated” when he was bailed, leaving her extremely concerned for her safety. She left home to live with her parents and recorded in the diary that she was worried “Johnny was going to do something stupid”. Starmer added: “We would not anticipate such a right of appeal being used very often; however, where it was felt that a judge had got a decision on bail wrong, and the interests of victims and the wider public demanded that such a decision be challenged, then this would be regarded as a useful and appropriate option for the prosecution to have available to it. Former victims commissioner Louise Casey, who attended the meeting, said: “As commissioner I have often had cause to challenge and criticise what can be an opaque and process-driven criminal justice system but I am enormously heartened that the director of public prosecutions has shown he has both a keen regard for the human suffering behind the cases he prosecutes and has his door open to those who propose sensible changes to the system.” Nick Herbert, the justice minister, told the Commons last month that the government was considering changing the law on bail. In June this year the Cloughs’ MP, Andrew Stephenson, introduced a bill calling for the prosecution to have a right to appeal against bail. However, the amendment has a greater chance of becoming law as it is part of a government bill, said Clough. Legal aid Judiciary UK criminal justice Prisons and probation guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Tunisians flock to voting stations for first taste of democracy in 50 years
October 23, 2011 No Comment
People queue to vote as candidates from 110 political parties and scores of independents bid to join new 217-seat government At 7am, at the front of a long queue outside a polling station near the Tunis casbah yesterday, shop assistant Samira was impatiently waiting for the doors to open on Tunisia’s first free elections. The 50-year-old had been camped there since 5.45am in order to be the first voter and had not slept a wink all night. “How could I sleep? It’s the first time I’ve ever voted in my life,” she said, rubbing her eyes. “What’s one night when we’ve waited decades for freedom? This ballot box is what we took to the streets for.” Nine months after a people’s revolution ousted the despot Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali and inspired uprisings across the region, Tunisia on Sunday was holding the first vote of the Arab spring. The small country of 10 million was being watched by the Arab world as an experiment in moving from dictatorship to democracy. If the elections usher in a credible new political class after 50 years of a one-party state, they could boost the democratic hopes for neighbouring such as post-Gaddafi Libya and Egypt, where there is profound uncertainty. One common complaint among Tunisians is that they were never able to properly celebrate their revolution with an outpouring of joy. When Ben Ali fled, it was followed by weeks of curfews, uncertainty and violent outbreaks stoked by remnants of the old regime. Then people again took to the streets and occupied the casbah to protest over a succession of weak, discredited and ineffective transition governments featuring faces present under the old regime. Ben Ali is in Saudi Arabia but his state apparatus remains in place: torture and police brutality continues, the justice system is craven and compromised, corruption is rife and unemployment – a main cause of the revolution – is rising. “There’s an overwhelming sense of joy and relief,” said Mehdi Lassoued, a tyre company worker, wrapped in the Tunisian flag. “I feel we are finally moving on, that we can finish this revolution, vote for a legitimate government.” Tunis university professor Ghofrane Ben Miled said: “There’s so much expectation and excitement on the street. I didn’t sleep, I was wired. It felt like the nights during the revolution, but calmer. I’m 42 and I’ve never voted before.” Flag-festooned cars with horns blaring were everywhere and hundreds queued in the sun, wearing home-made paper hats. Asked who the election winner would be, most said: “We all will.” During the 23 years under Ben Ali’s notorious secret police, elections were a farce and few turned out to vote. Those who officially did vote were often in fact dead. Ben Ali would achieve unlikely landslides, such as the 99.91% he announced in 1994. The people’s uprising that began in December with the self-immolation of a poor vegetable seller in a desolate rural town was not led by any party, ideology or religion. So the election is the first test of a new political landscape. There are now 110 political parties and scores of independents. Tunisians will appoint a 217-seat assembly with the specific role of rewriting the constitution to prepare for parliamentary elections next year. A complex proportional representation system means that no one party will dominate the assembly. But the Islamist party, An-Nahda, previously outlawed and brutally repressed, is expected to win an important share of the vote. The party has campaigned as a moderate, pro-democracy force, vowing to respect the diversity of Tunisia – one of the region’s most highly educated countries, with a strong secular tradition and the most advanced women’s rights in the Arab world. An-Nahda likens itself to Turkey’s Islamist-rooted ruling Justice and Development party – liberal and conservative. Secular critics say An-Nahda is an unknown quantity and its hardliners could seek to enforce a more fundamentalist Islam on Tunisia’s civil society. When its leader, Rachid Ghannouchi, who recently returned from 22 years of exile in London, arrived at to vote followed by camera crews he walked straight to the front. But he was jeered by crowds waiting to vote, who shouted: “The queue, the queue! Democracy starts there!” He swiftly took his place in the line and said: “The people have a hunger for democracy.” The assembly is also likely to feature an array of secular centrist parties, such as the centre-left Ettakatol which was in opposition under Ben Ali. Its founder, Mustapha Ben Jaafar, 70 – who is a doctor and professor of medicine – was barred from running for president in 2009 but is tipped to seek a senior position in the new government, perhaps the interim presidency. He faces opposition from Ahmed Nejib Chebbi, 67, of the rival PDP. A new party, the Congress for the Republic, led by long-exiled human rights activist Moncef Marzouki, is also expected to win seats. A high turnout is expected – as high as 80% in some precincts. Full results will be released on Monday. The assembly will face wrangling over who gets the top jobs. Those elected might choose to focus on the vast task of producing a new democratic constitution – to build a new state – while a government of technocrats keeps the country ticking over. With unemployment officially at 19% but thought to be much higher (and over 40% for graduate women), the government will be pressured to kickstart the economy and deal with the huge divide between Tunisia’s golden tourist coast and the poor interior. In Ettadhamen, a poor, densely-populated suburb of Tunis which rose up in the revolution and saw young men killed by Ben Ali’s forces, hundreds were queueing to vote at primary schools. “I’ve never seen anything like this,” said Lameen Muhammed, a teacher. “Nine months ago you couldn’t even talk about politics in the street for fear of the secret police. The stress was unbearable. “Now everyone’s out debating and voting, the stress has lifted. It has been difficult, but we’re leaning towards democracy. With this vote, the people will have spoken.” A 52-year-old builder said he would choose An-Nahda. “They have a history of struggle against the regime, they were treated brutally, their families suffered. I want them to improve security. There are a lot of problems here. Alcohol is sold openly, and there are drugs sold on the street.” A stay-at-home mother, 44, in long robe and headscarf said she had voted for the centrist secular party Ettakatol because she liked what its spokesmen said on TV. Meanwhile, a student had chosen the CPR, “They’re a new party, I trust them. I’m nearly 20 – I’m desperate to think I can hope for some kind of job.” Amid the optimism there was a sense of vigilance. Many said that the people had staged the revolution and they would take to the streets again if they felt they were being cheated or let down. Najila Ahrissi, one of the many cleaners who leave Ettadhamen each day to work in the homes of the rich for about £150 a month, had voted for a small secular party. She said: “In the old days, every election here was fixed. Let’s just hope we can trust the politicians of tomorrow.” Tunisia Arab and Middle East unrest Africa Angelique Chrisafis guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Queues continue at the meat cooler that houses the body of deposed dictator Muammar Gaddafi Ritha Mohammed crouched with a napkin to wipe the soles of his daughter’s shoes, which he feared might have picked up the dirt and stench that spilled from Colonel Gaddafi’s corpse, which still lies on public view in Misrata. “Just in case,” he said, as he cleaned the five-year-old. He quickly moved on to dust down the carry cot that held his new-born son who, like the four young girls in their new dresses, he had ushered in to see the dead despot. “I wanted them all to witness this. This will be a day we will all remember.” An impatient crowd seethed around Mohammed, shouting and surging against guards who had linked arms to prevent the meat cooler holding Gaddafi, his son Mutassim and his military chief, from being overrun. The three decaying bodies inside ought to have repelled the hordes. In Misrata, they did just the opposite. A growing throng of at least several thousand snaked throughout the day for a chance to see the ignominious end of a tyrant, who had been so terrifying and out of reach to them all for more than four decades. Now here he was vanquished and shrivelled. Even three days after Gaddafi’s death, it still hardly seemed possible. “He made our lives hell,” said Mohammed. “I wanted to see him dead with my own eyes. Who cares if it’s not dignified for him. That was not his first concern for any of the people here.” Many of the people queuing in the grounds of this vegetable market on the outskirts of Misrata said they had come to see Gaddafi’s corpse for the same reason. The ghoulish scene had an unedifying head-on-a-stake feel to it but it was also a collective closure for residents of a city that had suffered more than any other during eight grinding months of civil war. “There are so many rumours in Libya that it’s difficult to believe anything without verifying it,” said Tareq Zawabi, who had waited 90 minutes for the chance to survey the three corpses. “He didn’t look like I had imagined. He was a lot smaller.” As each day passes, the three bodies are becoming less and less suitable for public view. But uncertainty still surrounds their fate, with Gaddafi’s surviving family in Algeria demanding the remains for burial and Libya’s interim government not yet sure what to do with them. One of many obstacles facing Libya’s provisional leadership is its own human rights record, and the question of whether Gaddafi was killed in the minutes following his capture in Sirte. A forensic report in Misrata on Sunday concluded that Gaddafi had died from a bullet to the head. The finding added to the weight of evidence that suggests he was killed in the frantic minutes after his capture in Sirte, three hours to the east. It is still unclear who fired the fatal shot, and under what circumstances. Dr Othman al-Zintani, Libya’s chief pathologist, carried out the autopsy. He said it was “obvious” Gaddafi had died “from a gunshot wound to the head”. He did not elaborate but appeared to be referring to the neat entry wound clearly visible on the left side of Gaddafi’s head, and shown in numerous shots of his corpse screened around the world. Zintani said: “There are still several issues. We have to pass [the report] to the prosecutor general, but everything will be revealed publicly. Nothing will be hidden.” A Misrata rebel claimed to have witnessed Gaddafi’s final moment. “I was there when he was shot,” said Adam Zwabi, one of thousands of fighters who were chasing the remnants of Gaddafi’s loyalists last Thursday. “I heard the bullet and I saw him after he fell.” Libya’s National Transitional Council has changed its version of Gaddafi’s death, no longer suggesting he was killed in crossfire. Even the unit that captured him, know as Katiba Goran, are sanguine about how Gaddafi died. “Did anyone complain when the Americans shot Osama [bin Laden] in the head?” asked a rebel leader, Moustafa Zoubi, as he twirled on his desk the golden gun seized from Gaddafi’s luggage. “One of the resistance fighters became overcome with anger. He acted before anyone could stop him.” Nevertheless, the rebels have rearranged Gaddafi’s body to hide the bullet wound. His head has been tilted to the left, obscuring the entry point, just above his left ear. All three bodies have been wrapped in new grey blankets. How Gaddafi died does not seem to matter much in a city that seems inured to brutality. Throughout central Misrata, where ravaged buildings line sweeping boulevards, at least 10,000 people are thought to have been killed in months of fierce fighting. “The price for this freedom has been very, very high,” said Radwan Zwabi, as celebratory gunfire rattled nearby. “And I don’t know what’s been left behind. On the one hand, I celebrate this day, but the uncertainty is profound. What has Gaddafi done to these people, these young boys who killed him? They knew nothing else. But now they must learn something else, another way, or we will never move on.” The US secretary of state Hillary Clinton and Britain’s defence secretary, Philip Hammond, both called on Sundayfor a full investigation into the circumstances of Gaddafi’s death. The Libyan revolutionaries’ image had been “a little bit stained” by Gaddafi’s death, Hammond told the BBC. “It’s certainly not the way we do things. We would have liked to see Colonel Gaddafi going on trial to answer for his misdeeds.” Muammar Gaddafi Libya Middle East Africa Arab and Middle East unrest Martin Chulov guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Click here to view this media Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) says President Barack Obama has made a “serious mistake” by planning to withdraw all troops from Iraq by the end of the year. “I think in the last year he has made some very poor, dangerous foreign policy decisions at the strategic level,” Graham told Fox News’ Chris Wallace Sunday. “I would argue that Iraq and Afghanistan is being run out of Chicago — not Washington — in terms of decisions.” “What about the argument that in the last six months, bin Laden is gone, al-Awlaki is gone and now Gaddafi is gone?” Wallace asked. “I give him credit for making good tactical decisions, killing bin Laden,” Graham admitted. “Not being able to close the deal in Iraq is a very serious mistake. Celebrating leaving with no troops behind is a serious mistake… He’s put in question our success in Afghanistan and he ended Iraq poorly. He fumbled the ball inside of the ten. I hope I’m wrong about what happens in Iraq, but they are dancing in the streets in Tehran.” “This was a failure by the Obama administration to close the deal. The military commander said we needed 15,000 to 18,000 [troops in Iraq]. We have none. So, that’s the bottom line here. At a time when we need troops in Iraq to secure the place against intervention by Iran and the bad actors in the region, we’re going to go into 2012 with none. It was his job, the Obama administration’s job to end this well. They failed.” John Amato: The serious mistake was invading Iraq in the first place. Why is Goober Graham on my teevee, again after saying that the GOP opposed the Libya mission because Obama was president? Qaddafi was captured for like an hour when when Lindsey was drooling over how much money we could make off their oil and resources. I’m no fan of these wars and deaths and drones and military tribunals, but if you’re a right winger or Independent, you should be thrilled with the president’s actions so far in national security, so these phony attacks really come off as being very petty. The troops had to leave because the Iraq government wanted them out . And the American people are clearly against both wars so I ask, why is Graham on my TV? There’s nobody else that wants to do interviews?
Continue reading …