• Hundreds of rebels storming Gaddafi’s compound • Fighting continues in areas of Tripoli • Muammar Gaddafi’s location unknown • Click here to see how today’s events unfolded so far 5.14pm: Chris Stephen writes from Misrata that Nato’s actions are subject to scrutiny by the international criminal court just as Muammar Gaddafi’s are. The ICC’s statute prohibits attacks on civilians, of which there appear to be thousands in residential areas around the Libyan leader’s Bab al-Aziziya complex, Chris writes. But war law does allow for what amounts to “collateral damage” – if the target is military then civilian losses may be allowed if they are proportional to the damage inflicted. And ICC judges may be likely to agree that targeting what is the command and control complex for the Libyan leader, who is himself a legitimate military target, makes the compound a legitimate target, even if there are some civilian casualties. The problem for even the most hard-headed Nato lawyers is that the ICC has set no precedent for where lies the line between acceptable and unacceptable civilian losses; only a court judgment would do this and the alliance will be anxious, as it debates strategy in the coming hours, not to become the first test case. Chris Stephen is author of Judgement Day: The Trial of Slobodan Milosevic . 5.10pm: Al-Jazeera just showed pictures it said were from inside Muammar Gaddafi’s compound showing rebel fighters holding up the head of a Gaddafi statue, and kicking it around on the floor. 5.09pm: Hello and welcome to Middle East live this evening as events move quickly in Libya. Here’s a summary of today’s key developments. Click here to read today’s live blog and see how events unfolded . Libya • Hundreds of Libyan rebels are storming Muammar Gaddafi’s main compound in the centre of Tripoli as the battle for the capital continues ( see 4.35pm ). There are reports they control one of the gates and have been firing into the air in celebration, an indication perhaps of their confidence. They appear to be meeting little or no resistance there. However, the compound covers a large area. Fighting continues in various areas of the city. • Gaddafi’s whereabouts are still unknown, although he is suspected to be in his compound. Russian chess federation chief Kirsan Ilyumzhinov said he spoke to the Libyan leader today by phone and he said he was still in Libya, and apparently in the company of his son Mohammad, who reportedly escaped from house arrest by the rebels yesterday ( see 3.59pm ). A Nato spokesman said he had no idea where he was and played down his importance ( see 1.53pm ). • Nato officials in Brussels said the alliance’s warplanes were flying over Tripoli today, but that there are no “indications” they have dropped any bombs on the city ( see 2.49pm ). Nato ambassadors are meeting in Brussels at Nato headquarters to discuss the way forward in Libya and look at “options for a possible Nato role” once the conflict is over ( see 1.53pm ). This will not include Nato troops on the ground and any role would have to be requested by the new Libyan government and led by the UN. The Nato mission will continue until all Gaddafi’s forces have withdrawn to their bases and there is full humanitarian access. Reuters is reporting that the US is monitoring Libya’s few chemical weapons sites. Amnesty International warned that the continued fighting was posing a serious danger to civilians ( see 4.05pm ). Rebels from Misrata are rushing to Tripoli to help with the fight ( see 3.23pm ). • Confusion surrounds the reappearance last night of Gaddafi’s son Saif al-Islam. Opposition figures said he had escaped from custody. The international criminal court has denied that it ever confirmed he had been arrested ( see 10.55am ). His reappearance is seen as an embarrassment to the court as it attempts to seek war crimes prosecutions. Britain’s deputy prime minister Nick Clegg said Saif’s reappearance was “not the sign of a comeback” . The rebels’ original report of his capture may have been an inept attempt at propaganda that has now misfired ( see 3.19pm ). • Bahrain recognised the National Transitional Council as Libya’s legitimate authority. Italy announced plans for meeting in Milan between Mahmoud Jibril of Libya’s National Transition Council and the Italian prime minister Silvio Berlusconi ( see 11.19am ). Syria • Eighteen people have been killed in the past 24 hours in Syria, according to activists ( see 3.31pm ). The UN human rights council has condemned and launched a new inquiry into the regime’s crackdown on anti-government protests ( see 2.40pm ). A UNHRC mission found evidence of a shoot-to-kill policy by the Assad regime and estimated that more than 2,200 had been killed since the protests began ( see 8.50am ). Middle East Muammar Gaddafi Saif al-Islam Gaddafi Military Nato Libya Syria Paul Owen guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Ben Stein Destroys Bill O’Reilly’s Idea Taxing The Rich Hurts The Economy
August 23, 2011 No Comment
Click here to view this media Bil O’Reilly started his program off with his Talking Points Memo attacking Obama’s vacation. See, Liberals were upset that George Bush took over 1000 vacation days were just as wrong headed as conservatives who say that Obama’s 26 days off are more than Bush’s downtime . He’s the king of keeping it real. Bill did his usual propaganda, blaming all our deficit problems on Obama and says he’s glad the President is on vacation. His real point of TPM (and mission in life) is to cut our social safety nets and to spread his anti-tax increase on the rich dogma. He’s outraged at the idea we should raise taxes on the right-wing job producers because that’s a job killer in every economic time and Warren Buffett is out of his mind in Margaritaville for saying we need to raise taxes on the wealthy. (He really said Margaritaville) Anyway, Fox News stock “market gurus” Ben Stein ( Ferris Bueller’s Day Off ) and Wayne Rogers ( M.A.S.H ) joined him to discuss Bill’s brilliance. However, Stein didn’t play the game and he’s usually on board with the whole taxing thing. O’Reilly: Alright Mr. Stein, you know, you know that everything I said in the memo was true, correct? Stein: Absolutely not, I would say that almost every part of it is wrong except for the fact that it’s better he’s on vacation because he works terribly hard and he deserves a vacation… Then BillO did his usual interrupting routine by asking him if he thought Obama was a positive force in the economy. Stein shot back that Bush caused the recession and debt and Billie started yelling I mean now, now, now …Rogers said he was a neutral force because it’s up to Congress to pass the laws. They were brought on to talk about his opening remarks (of which Ayn Rand would be proud) but that’s Bill and that’s why he’s good at his job. I usually don’t find Ben Stein agreeable , but in this segment he flat out beat back the lie. Bill then held up the lie chart about IRS stats produced by the WSJ to prove his points about there are less wealthy people now to tax so what’s the point? By the way, that WSJ report was thoroughly debunked by Chelsea Rudman. O’Reilly: You get more money the better the economy is Stein: Absolutely. O’Reilly: If you take (meaning taxes from millionaires) then you’re helping the recession. You’re feeding the flames o fit. Stein: That’s not true. O’Reilly: Sure it is Stein: There’s no correlation, I’m going to call you Mr. O’Reilly. There’s no correlation Mr. O’Reilly, between tax rates on millionaires and people above that level (billionaires) and the growth of the economy… We had the highest growth in capitol and productivity and in the economy in general in the 40′s, 50′s and 60′s when we had much higher taxes then..(Bill: yea, but they were inaudible ) Higher taxes don’t correlate with inaudible growth… (Below is the TPM video that they discussed) (h/t Heather for coming through with the video)
Continue reading …
Newsweek's Michael Tomasky counts himself as one of many “impressed liberal[s]” who are heartened by Jon Huntsman's attacks on Rick Perry. Writing yesterday on the Daily Beast website, Tomasky suggested the former Utah governor was “a narrow thread of hope about the future” of the GOP dominated by both leaders and rank-and-file primary voters who are far from “reasonable.” As such, Huntsman's tactic of violating Ronald Reagan's 11th Commandment was harmful in the short term but a perfect plan for a long-term resurgence, Tomasky insisted (emphasis mine): The Huntsman strategy here is obvious: position himself as the moderate and reasonable guy on the off chance Republicans decide to be moderate and reasonable. We must assume he is aware that his odds on this are rather long, so what he’s really hoping for is to be the consensus candidate of 2016. Maybe the party just has to go through this purge, this Reign of Terror; so just let it do that, and once it does and nominates an extremist who can’t beat a weak incumbent during a time of 9 percent unemployment rates, and the heads are piled high enough in the tumbrels and enough people finally have returned to their senses, he will ride the Thermidorian wave to victory after Obama leaves town. Tomasky went on to complain that Huntsman is hardly a moderate, being an advocate of a flat income tax but that, “Even so, his remarks about science, Perry, and the debt ceiling all suggest a man who doesn’t think compromise is, to use Perry’s word, treason,” the Newsweek contributor noted approvingly. All the same, Tomasky issued a smug prediction that foresees at least 12 more years of Democratic dominance of the White House: The more likely long-term scenario is that Huntsman will have negligible impact on his party. Unless the GOP does something truly self-immolating next year, like nominating a Bachmann who goes on to win 120 electoral votes, the current trajectory will likely continue for the foreseeable future. I think the Republicans, a stubborn bunch, will have to endure eight years of Obama and then eight years of some other Democrat (Hillary?) before they finally acknowledge certain realities, and even that seems iffy. So that’s 2024 at the earliest. Huntsman will be 64 then. But Sarah Palin will be just 60.
Continue reading …Newsweek's Michael Tomasky counts himself as one of many “impressed liberal[s]” who are heartened by Jon Huntsman's attacks on Rick Perry. Writing yesterday on the Daily Beast website, Tomasky suggested the former Utah governor was “a narrow thread of hope about the future” of the GOP dominated by both leaders and rank-and-file primary voters who are far from “reasonable.” As such, Huntsman's tactic of violating Ronald Reagan's 11th Commandment was harmful in the short term but a perfect plan for a long-term resurgence, Tomasky insisted (emphasis mine): The Huntsman strategy here is obvious: position himself as the moderate and reasonable guy on the off chance Republicans decide to be moderate and reasonable. We must assume he is aware that his odds on this are rather long, so what he’s really hoping for is to be the consensus candidate of 2016. Maybe the party just has to go through this purge, this Reign of Terror; so just let it do that, and once it does and nominates an extremist who can’t beat a weak incumbent during a time of 9 percent unemployment rates, and the heads are piled high enough in the tumbrels and enough people finally have returned to their senses, he will ride the Thermidorian wave to victory after Obama leaves town. Tomasky went on to complain that Huntsman is hardly a moderate, being an advocate of a flat income tax but that, “Even so, his remarks about science, Perry, and the debt ceiling all suggest a man who doesn’t think compromise is, to use Perry’s word, treason,” the Newsweek contributor noted approvingly. All the same, Tomasky issued a smug prediction that foresees at least 12 more years of Democratic dominance of the White House: The more likely long-term scenario is that Huntsman will have negligible impact on his party. Unless the GOP does something truly self-immolating next year, like nominating a Bachmann who goes on to win 120 electoral votes, the current trajectory will likely continue for the foreseeable future. I think the Republicans, a stubborn bunch, will have to endure eight years of Obama and then eight years of some other Democrat (Hillary?) before they finally acknowledge certain realities, and even that seems iffy. So that’s 2024 at the earliest. Huntsman will be 64 then. But Sarah Palin will be just 60.
Continue reading …
John Tunney, 63, is seeking compensation for permanent injuries caused by unnecessary operation to remove tumour A former paramedic is seeking compensation and an investigation by the General Medical Council (GMC) after part of his brain was removed in error by an NHS surgeon. John Tunney, from Sutton Coldfield, Birmingham, suffered a haemorrhage and permanent brain injuries after he was subjected to unnecessary brain surgery, lawyers at Irwin Mitchell said. Tunney, 63, underwent a biopsy in 2008 after scans showed a tumour in his pituitary gland. During the procedure, at Walsgrave hospital in Coventry, a surgeon wrongly removed healthy brain tissue rather than the tumour, lawyers said. Tunney, who worked for West Midlands ambulance service, was left partially sighted and in need of constant supervision and support. Timothy Deeming from Irwin Mitchell described the blunder as “appalling”. He said the tumour had been found to be benign and could have been controlled with medication if blood test results had been reviewed before the biopsy. Deeming added: “The fact that the surgeon managed to remove perfectly healthy tissue rather than a sample of the tumour tissue is, in itself, an appalling error. To then find that the procedure was totally unnecessary because clinicians had failed to review a blood test really does add insult to injury. “The failings of the surgeon involved are so serious that the family is calling on the GMC to investigate his actions. We also very much hope that the trust has reviewed its procedures and, where necessary, retraining has taken place to ensure that lessons are learned to protect patients’ safety in the future.” University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust has admitted liability for the mistakes and apologised to Tunney. Richard Kennedy, chief medical officer, said: “I very much regret the tragic outcome for Mr Tunney and his family, and on behalf of the trust would like to apologise for this. “Since 2008, this case has been thoroughly reviewed through our governance process and I am confident that measures have been put in place to prevent this type of incident reoccurring. For example, we now collaborate with expert clinicians at other trusts in these kinds of cases.” Tunney’s wife, Pamela, said: “John’s brain injury has had devastating effects on him. Prior to the surgery, he was a very easygoing person who was always active and on the go. To see the change in him and to know that it was all entirely avoidable is extremely upsetting. “As a paramedic, based at the Small Heath ambulance station with more than 23 years experience of working with the NHS, John put his complete trust in his surgeon, believing that he was an expert who knew best. “It is appalling to think that the surgeon managed to botch the procedure completely. Then to find that the biopsy wasn’t even necessary makes me incredibly angry. This mistake is not something that the hospital can just take back. She added: “I pray that they don’t make this mistake again and no other family has to experience seeing their husband suffer the pain and loss that John has.” Deeming said: “The trust has now admitted liability for the errors. However, before a settlement can be reached, we will need to evaluate the substantial lifelong care and support that Mr Tunney will now require. “While no amount of money will turn back the clock for him and his family, the future settlement will hopefully provide him with financial security to pay for the lifetime of care that he will now need.” NHS Health guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …John Tunney, 63, is seeking compensation for permanent injuries caused by unnecessary operation to remove tumour A former paramedic is seeking compensation and an investigation by the General Medical Council (GMC) after part of his brain was removed in error by an NHS surgeon. John Tunney, from Sutton Coldfield, Birmingham, suffered a haemorrhage and permanent brain injuries after he was subjected to unnecessary brain surgery, lawyers at Irwin Mitchell said. Tunney, 63, underwent a biopsy in 2008 after scans showed a tumour in his pituitary gland. During the procedure, at Walsgrave hospital in Coventry, a surgeon wrongly removed healthy brain tissue rather than the tumour, lawyers said. Tunney, who worked for West Midlands ambulance service, was left partially sighted and in need of constant supervision and support. Timothy Deeming from Irwin Mitchell described the blunder as “appalling”. He said the tumour had been found to be benign and could have been controlled with medication if blood test results had been reviewed before the biopsy. Deeming added: “The fact that the surgeon managed to remove perfectly healthy tissue rather than a sample of the tumour tissue is, in itself, an appalling error. To then find that the procedure was totally unnecessary because clinicians had failed to review a blood test really does add insult to injury. “The failings of the surgeon involved are so serious that the family is calling on the GMC to investigate his actions. We also very much hope that the trust has reviewed its procedures and, where necessary, retraining has taken place to ensure that lessons are learned to protect patients’ safety in the future.” University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust has admitted liability for the mistakes and apologised to Tunney. Richard Kennedy, chief medical officer, said: “I very much regret the tragic outcome for Mr Tunney and his family, and on behalf of the trust would like to apologise for this. “Since 2008, this case has been thoroughly reviewed through our governance process and I am confident that measures have been put in place to prevent this type of incident reoccurring. For example, we now collaborate with expert clinicians at other trusts in these kinds of cases.” Tunney’s wife, Pamela, said: “John’s brain injury has had devastating effects on him. Prior to the surgery, he was a very easygoing person who was always active and on the go. To see the change in him and to know that it was all entirely avoidable is extremely upsetting. “As a paramedic, based at the Small Heath ambulance station with more than 23 years experience of working with the NHS, John put his complete trust in his surgeon, believing that he was an expert who knew best. “It is appalling to think that the surgeon managed to botch the procedure completely. Then to find that the biopsy wasn’t even necessary makes me incredibly angry. This mistake is not something that the hospital can just take back. She added: “I pray that they don’t make this mistake again and no other family has to experience seeing their husband suffer the pain and loss that John has.” Deeming said: “The trust has now admitted liability for the errors. However, before a settlement can be reached, we will need to evaluate the substantial lifelong care and support that Mr Tunney will now require. “While no amount of money will turn back the clock for him and his family, the future settlement will hopefully provide him with financial security to pay for the lifetime of care that he will now need.” NHS Health guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Family of singer say reports showed alcohol but no drugs present in singer’s body at time of death The family of Amy Winehouse has revealed toxicology reports showed there were “no illegal substances” in her body at the time of her death. The 27-year-old singer was found dead at her north London home last month. Her family said the reports showed alcohol was present in her body, but it is not yet known if it contributed to her death. Winehouse’s father, Mitch Winehouse, had previously said she had “conquered her drug dependency” before she died. “Toxicology results returned to the Winehouse family by authorities have confirmed that there were no illegal substances in Amy’s system at the time of her death,” the family said in a statement on Tuesday. “Results indicate that alcohol was present, but it cannot be determined as yet if it played a role in her death. “The family would like to thank the police and coroner for their continuing thorough investigations and for keeping them informed throughout the process. They await the outcome of the inquest in October.” Winehouse was discovered by her bodyguard at her Camden flat at around 4pm on Saturday 23 July. An initial postmortem examination proved inconclusive, and an inquest was opened and adjourned with no cause of death given. At her funeral on 27 July, Mitch Winehouse said she had recently “completed three weeks of abstinence”, adding that she had told him: “Dad, I’ve had enough of drinking, I can’t stand the look on your and the family’s faces any more.” He had announced that he would set up an Amy Winehouse Foundation in memory of the singer and was flooded with donations, only to have to put plans on hold last week after a “dickhead” beat the family to registering the website domain name . He had hoped the foundation would be able to “help all children in need”, but said he was having to return all donations. “We all have to bombard the tabloids’ websites to put pressure on this dickhead who stole our foundation name,” he wrote on Twitter. “This person was offering to sell [the] name on [a] website.” Amy Winehouse had fought a well documented battle with drink and drugs. In the month before she died, she was booed off stage in Belgrade on the first night of what had been billed as a 12-show comeback tour. The dates were later cancelled. The singer rose to fame in 2003 with the release of her debut album, Frank. Her second and last album, Back to Black, was released in 2006, reaching No 1 in the UK. In the week after her death, the album again topped the UK chart as fans mourned the singer. Amy Winehouse Adam Gabbatt guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Family of singer say reports showed alcohol but no drugs present in singer’s body at time of death The family of Amy Winehouse has revealed toxicology reports showed there were “no illegal substances” in her body at the time of her death. The 27-year-old singer was found dead at her north London home last month. Her family said the reports showed alcohol was present in her body, but it is not yet known if it contributed to her death. Winehouse’s father, Mitch Winehouse, had previously said she had “conquered her drug dependency” before she died. “Toxicology results returned to the Winehouse family by authorities have confirmed that there were no illegal substances in Amy’s system at the time of her death,” the family said in a statement on Tuesday. “Results indicate that alcohol was present, but it cannot be determined as yet if it played a role in her death. “The family would like to thank the police and coroner for their continuing thorough investigations and for keeping them informed throughout the process. They await the outcome of the inquest in October.” Winehouse was discovered by her bodyguard at her Camden flat at around 4pm on Saturday 23 July. An initial postmortem examination proved inconclusive, and an inquest was opened and adjourned with no cause of death given. At her funeral on 27 July, Mitch Winehouse said she had recently “completed three weeks of abstinence”, adding that she had told him: “Dad, I’ve had enough of drinking, I can’t stand the look on your and the family’s faces any more.” He had announced that he would set up an Amy Winehouse Foundation in memory of the singer and was flooded with donations, only to have to put plans on hold last week after a “dickhead” beat the family to registering the website domain name . He had hoped the foundation would be able to “help all children in need”, but said he was having to return all donations. “We all have to bombard the tabloids’ websites to put pressure on this dickhead who stole our foundation name,” he wrote on Twitter. “This person was offering to sell [the] name on [a] website.” Amy Winehouse had fought a well documented battle with drink and drugs. In the month before she died, she was booed off stage in Belgrade on the first night of what had been billed as a 12-show comeback tour. The dates were later cancelled. The singer rose to fame in 2003 with the release of her debut album, Frank. Her second and last album, Back to Black, was released in 2006, reaching No 1 in the UK. In the week after her death, the album again topped the UK chart as fans mourned the singer. Amy Winehouse Adam Gabbatt guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
dulceduffcoast says: Kelly Clarkson Opens Up About Leaked Tracks http://t.co/SAN0xXW
Continue reading …
Could the above shot be the first 4G LTE smartphone for AT&T? BGR thinks it just might be. The site nabbed a shot of what purports to be the Samsung Impulse 4G, which may grab that distinction on its release. That’s about all we’re getting in the way of details on this Droid Charge-esque device at the moment. Hopefully the screen of truth will be pulled back even further in the near future. Samsung Impulse 4G to lead AT&T’s 4G LTE charge? originally appeared on Engadget on Tue, 23 Aug 2011 11:48:00 EDT. Please see our terms for use of feeds . Permalink
Continue reading …