Home » Archives by category » News (Page 1926)
ShowBiz Minute: Pukkelpop, Sugarland, DeVito

Storm kills 5 at Belgian music festival; Sugarland tour resumes after stage tragedy; Danny DeVito gets star on Hollywood Walk. (Aug. 19)

Continue reading …

Touchpad

No Comment
Touchpad

Korg Kaossilator Dynamic Phrase Acer Aspire One AOD257-13836 10.1-Inch Netbook (Burgundy Red) Acer AO532h-2588 10.1-Inch Onyx Blue Netbook – Up to 8 Hours of Battery Life CGarison says: HP is still running their 30 minute spots for the TouchPad . After yesterday, would anyone purchase an HP PC or Tablet???

Continue reading …
Raw Video: Pakistan Mosque Blast Kills 40

A bomb exploded in a mosque in a Pakistani tribal region as hundreds were gathered for prayers on Friday, killing at least 40 people and wounding 85 others in the first major attack in the country during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan. (Aug. 19)

Continue reading …
Raw Video: Australian TV Crew Killed in Crash

Three people were killed in a helicopter crash in southern Australia Friday, with a prominent Australian journalist believed to be among the dead. (Aug. 19)

Continue reading …
Finally, Someone Kind Of Disses Adele And Katy Perry

Linda Perry, super-producer, has something to say! And she should speak, because she’s a formidable presence in pop music, having written a lot of important songs (#iambeautiful), and also having fronted 4 Non Blondes, which blessed/cursed us all with “What’s Up.” (But seriously, she’s worked with a lot of one-name pop starlets, from Christina to Gwen to Pink.) So what does she think of Adele and Katy… Broadcasting platform : YouTube Source : VH1′s Today In Music Discovery Date : 19/08/2011 01:51 Number of articles : 3

Continue reading …
Fall in funding raises question mark over future of global fight against Aids

International financing for HIV programmes in developing nations worldwide has fallen 10% according to a new report Get the data International funding for Aids programmes in developing countries across the world dropped by 10% in 2010, according to a new report, raising concern that funding for the global fight against HIV and Aids may be on a long-term downward trend. Figures show that funding from 15 of the world’s largest donors dropped in 2010 for the first time in a decade. An annual funding analysis by UNAids and the Kaiser Family Foundation, released this week, shows donors gave $6.9bn in 2010 for HIV prevention, care, treatment and support – down $740m from 2009. The decrease comes when innovative methods to stop the spread of HIV are emerging. Earlier this year, for example, groundbreaking studies in Botswana, Kenya, and Uganda , found that partners of people living with HIV can protect themselves from infection by taking a once-daily pill. At the UN high-level meeting on Aids in June, donors committed to put another 9 million people on treatment by 2015, raising the total number of those receiving HIV treatment to 15 million. But mobilising the resources needed to take advantage of new treatments, and raising funds to meet the “15 by 15″ goal, now looks more challenging than at any time in the past 10 years. This week’s study shows funding for HIV and Aids programmes in low- and middle-income countries increased more than six-fold between 2002 and 2008, before levelling off in 2009 and dropping in 2010. Much of this change is attributed to the impact of the global financial crisis on government budgets. Of the 15 donors surveyed by the report, seven had rolled back their funding for HIV and Aids programmes in 2010. Some of the overall drop is due to fluctuations in countries’ exchange rates. But the fall is largely driven by a reduction in disbursements from the US: “as the single largest donor, the US delay affected the overall financial picture for the year,” said the report. While Washington appropriated about $5.5bn for Aids in both 2009 and 2010, disbursements dropped from $4.4bn in 2009 to $3.7bn in 2010. Figures are not yet available for 2011. Despite the drop in funding, Bernhard Schwartlander, director of evidence, strategy and results for UNAids, insists: “We haven’t seen a decrease in access to services. More people have received treatment than ever before.” “Even though we have seen – for the first time – a significant decrease in funding from international donors, we have also seen programmes become more efficient,” explains Schwartlander. “But could we have done more if we had more resources? That, of course, is a very different question.” A key issue is whether the decrease in funding in 2010 is a one-off drop or the beginning of a new trend. If donor contributions to the fight against HIV and Aids continue to shrink, “it will be impossible to get where we need to go,” says Schwartlander. “The drop in funding may be a temporary blip,” says Jennifer Kates, vice president and director of global health policy and HIV for the Kaiser Family Foundation. “However, given the budget battles in Washington – and the fact that the US provides the majority of donor government funding for the Aids response – the future of Aids financing remains unclear.” UNAids estimates that at least $22bn will be needed by 2015 to reach the millennium development goal targets to ensure universal access to HIV prevention, treatment, care and support. This level of funding could prevent more than 12 million new HIV infections and avert more than 7 million deaths, says this week’s study. At June’s UN meeting, commitments were reaffirmed to raise funding for the global Aids response to $22-24bn by 2015. Some key points from this week’s report: • Of the 15 governments surveyed for the study, donations from seven – Australia, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden and the US – dropped in 2010. • While $8.7bn was committed towards the global fight against HIV and Aids in 2010, only $6.9bn was actually disbursed. • In 2010, despite the slowdown in disbursements from Washington, the US was still the largest donor, accounting for more than half (54.2%) of Aids funding. • But, taking into account the different sizes of government economies, the US ranks seventh in Aids funding as a share of GDP. Denmark ranks first, followed by the Netherlands, Ireland, the United Kingdom, Sweden and Norway. • Overall, funding increased more than sixfold between 2002 and 2008, before levelling off in 2009 and dropping in 2010. The biggest year-on-year jump in funding was between 2007 and 2008, when flows rose from $4.9bn to $7.7bn. Note that the data in the report focuses on funding for the delivery of HIV-related services – from prevention and care to treatment and support – and doesn’t include funding for international HIV research carried out in donor countries. And just because overall funding has dropped doesn’t mean that all Aids programs have suffered a shrink in resources. Different programmes may attract different levels of funding. In November, UNAids is expected to release a more detailed analysis of financing for the global Aids response, looking in part at the support received by different types of programmes. Here we’re highlighting the data from this week’s report. We’ve also looked at previous funding analyses, extracting figures on countries’ past commitments and disbursements. What can you do with the data? Data summary Download the data • DATA: download the full spreadsheet More data Data journalism and data visualisations from the Guardian World government data • Search the world’s government data with our gateway Development and aid data • Search the world’s global development data with our gateway Can you do something with this data? • Flickr Please post your visualisations and mash-ups on our Flickr group • Contact us at data@guardian.co.uk • Get the A-Z of data • More at the Datastore directory • Follow us on Twitter • Like us on Facebook Development data Aids and HIV Health Claire Provost guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …
Georgetown, Bayi Attempt to Make-Up After Brawl

The Chinese team that got into a nasty brawl with Georgetown University players in an exhibition game went to the Beijing airport Friday to reconcile and see off their departing rivals ahead of a rematch Sunday in Shanghai. (Aug. 19)

Continue reading …
Raw Video: Amvids Purport to Show Syria Protests

Amateur videos released on Friday were claimed to show thousands of protesters flooded onto the streets across Syrian cities, shouting for the ouster of President Bashar Assad as his embattled regime. (Aug. 19)

Continue reading …

(Rick Perlstein joins Chris Matthews on Hardball in above video) Rick Perlstein is a damn good piano player with a love of fusion, a great guy and an incredible historical writer. He said on Hardball Thursday: PERLSTEIN: Chris, forget the word left. Ronald Reagan, let’s quote him. “There is no left and right. There`s only up or down.” Up for the middle class means some kind of protection of their economic interests. I mean, Obama is worried that if he talks about this stuff, he`s going to sound divisive. History suggests that people who talk about this stuff aren’t divisive. They’re uniters. I mean, look at — look at Franklin Roosevelt. This is the guy who said the kind of stuff you — you heard in that clip. This is also the guy who built the strongest, the biggest, the most diverse political coalition in American history, and then he united the whole country to defeat Hitler. The idea that talking about malefactors of great wealth, about — about people who are taking away the birthright of every American, is going to make people think that you`re somehow creating class war, history doesn’t suggest it. It`s just not there in the record. This is the kind of stuff that makes people feel that the Democratic Party is on their side, that Democratic leaders are going to lay down the tracks for their interests Rick’s latest piece in Time is very instructive to you and to me and to hopefully President Obama. How Democrats Win: Defending the Social Safety Net I was flattered to learn from Joe Klein’s Aug. 15 column in TIME that Barack Obama is reading my book ­Nixonland . The book is about the “separate and irreconcilable fears” over the past 50 years that have come to define the increasingly acrimonious cohabitation of Americans on the left and on the right. I assume Obama turned to it for insight about how he might help turn down the volume in our political conversation. But there’s also a story in Nixonland about how the Democratic Party wins, why it loses and the good things that happen when the party gets the formula right. I surely hope Obama did not miss it. It concerns the two major axes upon which major national elections get fought. Sometimes they become battles over the cultural and social anxieties that ordinary Americans suffer. Other times they are showdowns about middle-class anxieties when the free market fails. Normally, in the former sort of election, Republicans win. In the latter, Democrats do — as we saw in 2008, when the tide turned after John McCain said “the fundamentals of the economy are strong.” So we learn that the president is reading Nixonland which is an excellent idea because knowing our history is like having a window into the soul of future decisions. There’s always been a two party system and Republicans have blocked social programs and opposed helping the middle class and the poor while the Democrats created our social safety nets and weren’t afraid to tell Americans that fact. Now Obama has at times defended the principles of the safety nets like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, especially when Paul Ryan had his insane Medicare destruction budget passed, but now since the 2010 midterm elections all that is coming out of the White House is how we must cut the deficit, reduce spending and fix entitlements. He’s been using our safety nets as a bargaining chip against the tea party to appeal to Independents. Even if it’s a chess match of sorts, the middle class loses because the narrative is all about cutting and chopping during a bad economy to appease the confidence fairies and austerity freaks that inhabit the WSJ op-ed pages. Need proof? Just read the Senate Democrats who are on the Super Congress piece in the WSJ to be totally horrified. As Digby says: We are so screwed: confidence fairy, “shared sacrifice”, “balanced approach”, China bashing, the whole nine yards. Back to Perlstein: Two years later, Nixon thought he had another one in the bag — the 1970 elections, in which he campaigned tirelessly for Republican candidates, then gave an ­election-eve TV speech blaming Democrats for the “thugs and hoodlums” in the streets. Only he made a terrible mistake: he sounded just as frantic and ugly as the forces he claimed the GOP would subdue. In contrast, the Democrats ran a response to Nixon’s hysterical election-eve address from Edmund Muskie, the calm, quiet Senator from Maine, who sat in an armchair and asked Americans to vote against a “politics of fear” that insists “you are encircled by monstrous dangers” and instead choose a “politics of trust.” You might say Muskie’s was a very Barack Obama sort of speech — but with a difference. It was overwhelmingly partisan. It excoriated Republicans for the way they “cut back on health and education for the many … while expanding subsidies and special favors for the few.” In other words, it was just the kind of speech Obama will not give. This shows how much power Broderism has over this administration. He’s been sucked into the right-wing framing of our economy and seems to give more credence to the deficit hawks than the principles that have made the Democratic Party the champion of the American people. By the way, there are many Congressional Democrats that are behaving much the same way. Since the President is reading Nixonland he still has time to readjust his post Labor Day jobs speech and grasp these fine points of analysis by Perlstein; Here’s what LBJ knew that ­McGovern didn’t: There are few or no historical instances in which saying clearly what you are for and what you are against makes Americans less divided. But there is plenty of evidence that attacking the wealthy has not made them more divided. After all, the man who said of his own day’s plutocrats, “I welcome their hatred,” also assembled the most enduring political coalition in U.S. history. The Republicans will call it class warfare. Let them. Done right, economic populism cools the political climate. Just knowing that the people in power are willing to lie down on the tracks for them can make the middle much less frantic. Which makes America a better place. And which, incidentally, makes Democrats win . Republicans have been attacking, attacking and attacking while your advisers are saying to be measured and adult-like. Sorry, this is a fight to save this country and its senior citizens and not to see who wins the credit rating agencies hearts and to get hand shakes from the Chamber of Commerce . Hardball Transcript: Rick, everybody here loves you, so we can’t wait to hear your thinking about this. I want to start this off, lady and gentleman, because this is the best piece of clip I’ve ever seen to make your point, Rick, and to educate all of us how to be, if you want to be, a strong Democratic president.Here`s President Roosevelt warning about Republicans back in 1936 in words that could be used right now in this partisan fight. Let’s listen. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)FRANKLIN DELANO ROOSEVELT, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Let me warn the nation against the smooth evasion that says, Of course, we believe these things. We believe in Social Security. We believe in work for the unemployed. We believe in saving homes.Cross our hearts and hope to die, we believe in all these things. But we do not like the way the present administration is doing them. Just turn them over to us. We will do all of them, we will do more of them, we will do them better, and most important of all, the doing of them will not cost anybody anything! (CHEERS AND APPLAUSE)(END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: Unbelievable! Rick, that is American speech. That`s how you talk to people today. Your thoughts because it seems to me what you`re saying. RICK PERLSTEIN, AUTHOR, “NIXONLAND”: Today. That`s right. I mean, every Democratic candidate from dog catcher to, you know, (INAUDIBLE) presidential candidate have been saying the same thing ever since, every generation.I mean, in 1960, everyone remembers the famous debate between Nixon and Kennedy. Kennedy made Nixon sweat. Well, why did he sweat? It came right after Kennedy said, I`m a Democrat. I`m proud to be a Democrat. We built Social Security. And by the way, you elect me, I`m going to put together something called Medicare, you know, Social Security for medical care for old people. And this guy, Nixon — he`s part of a great, proud American party called the Republicans. Oh, and by the way, let me just mention the Republican Party opposed all those things. MATTHEWS: Yes. Let me go out to Alex Wagner. This politics, it seems to me, reminding people what the stakes are — you won`t have all this stuff even to kick around anymore, to use a Nixon phrase. There won`t be Medicare, Medicaid. These are things the Republicans have been dying to take apart and now they`re on the verge of doing it. — – read on

Continue reading …

(Rick Perlstein joins Chris Matthews on Hardball in above video) Rick Perlstein is a damn good piano player with a love of fusion, a great guy and an incredible historical writer. He said on Hardball Thursday: PERLSTEIN: Chris, forget the word left. Ronald Reagan, let’s quote him. “There is no left and right. There`s only up or down.” Up for the middle class means some kind of protection of their economic interests. I mean, Obama is worried that if he talks about this stuff, he`s going to sound divisive. History suggests that people who talk about this stuff aren’t divisive. They’re uniters. I mean, look at — look at Franklin Roosevelt. This is the guy who said the kind of stuff you — you heard in that clip. This is also the guy who built the strongest, the biggest, the most diverse political coalition in American history, and then he united the whole country to defeat Hitler. The idea that talking about malefactors of great wealth, about — about people who are taking away the birthright of every American, is going to make people think that you`re somehow creating class war, history doesn’t suggest it. It`s just not there in the record. This is the kind of stuff that makes people feel that the Democratic Party is on their side, that Democratic leaders are going to lay down the tracks for their interests Rick’s latest piece in Time is very instructive to you and to me and to hopefully President Obama. How Democrats Win: Defending the Social Safety Net I was flattered to learn from Joe Klein’s Aug. 15 column in TIME that Barack Obama is reading my book ­Nixonland . The book is about the “separate and irreconcilable fears” over the past 50 years that have come to define the increasingly acrimonious cohabitation of Americans on the left and on the right. I assume Obama turned to it for insight about how he might help turn down the volume in our political conversation. But there’s also a story in Nixonland about how the Democratic Party wins, why it loses and the good things that happen when the party gets the formula right. I surely hope Obama did not miss it. It concerns the two major axes upon which major national elections get fought. Sometimes they become battles over the cultural and social anxieties that ordinary Americans suffer. Other times they are showdowns about middle-class anxieties when the free market fails. Normally, in the former sort of election, Republicans win. In the latter, Democrats do — as we saw in 2008, when the tide turned after John McCain said “the fundamentals of the economy are strong.” So we learn that the president is reading Nixonland which is an excellent idea because knowing our history is like having a window into the soul of future decisions. There’s always been a two party system and Republicans have blocked social programs and opposed helping the middle class and the poor while the Democrats created our social safety nets and weren’t afraid to tell Americans that fact. Now Obama has at times defended the principles of the safety nets like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, especially when Paul Ryan had his insane Medicare destruction budget passed, but now since the 2010 midterm elections all that is coming out of the White House is how we must cut the deficit, reduce spending and fix entitlements. He’s been using our safety nets as a bargaining chip against the tea party to appeal to Independents. Even if it’s a chess match of sorts, the middle class loses because the narrative is all about cutting and chopping during a bad economy to appease the confidence fairies and austerity freaks that inhabit the WSJ op-ed pages. Need proof? Just read the Senate Democrats who are on the Super Congress piece in the WSJ to be totally horrified. As Digby says: We are so screwed: confidence fairy, “shared sacrifice”, “balanced approach”, China bashing, the whole nine yards. Back to Perlstein: Two years later, Nixon thought he had another one in the bag — the 1970 elections, in which he campaigned tirelessly for Republican candidates, then gave an ­election-eve TV speech blaming Democrats for the “thugs and hoodlums” in the streets. Only he made a terrible mistake: he sounded just as frantic and ugly as the forces he claimed the GOP would subdue. In contrast, the Democrats ran a response to Nixon’s hysterical election-eve address from Edmund Muskie, the calm, quiet Senator from Maine, who sat in an armchair and asked Americans to vote against a “politics of fear” that insists “you are encircled by monstrous dangers” and instead choose a “politics of trust.” You might say Muskie’s was a very Barack Obama sort of speech — but with a difference. It was overwhelmingly partisan. It excoriated Republicans for the way they “cut back on health and education for the many … while expanding subsidies and special favors for the few.” In other words, it was just the kind of speech Obama will not give. This shows how much power Broderism has over this administration. He’s been sucked into the right-wing framing of our economy and seems to give more credence to the deficit hawks than the principles that have made the Democratic Party the champion of the American people. By the way, there are many Congressional Democrats that are behaving much the same way. Since the President is reading Nixonland he still has time to readjust his post Labor Day jobs speech and grasp these fine points of analysis by Perlstein; Here’s what LBJ knew that ­McGovern didn’t: There are few or no historical instances in which saying clearly what you are for and what you are against makes Americans less divided. But there is plenty of evidence that attacking the wealthy has not made them more divided. After all, the man who said of his own day’s plutocrats, “I welcome their hatred,” also assembled the most enduring political coalition in U.S. history. The Republicans will call it class warfare. Let them. Done right, economic populism cools the political climate. Just knowing that the people in power are willing to lie down on the tracks for them can make the middle much less frantic. Which makes America a better place. And which, incidentally, makes Democrats win . Republicans have been attacking, attacking and attacking while your advisers are saying to be measured and adult-like. Sorry, this is a fight to save this country and its senior citizens and not to see who wins the credit rating agencies hearts and to get hand shakes from the Chamber of Commerce . Hardball Transcript: Rick, everybody here loves you, so we can’t wait to hear your thinking about this. I want to start this off, lady and gentleman, because this is the best piece of clip I’ve ever seen to make your point, Rick, and to educate all of us how to be, if you want to be, a strong Democratic president.Here`s President Roosevelt warning about Republicans back in 1936 in words that could be used right now in this partisan fight. Let’s listen. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)FRANKLIN DELANO ROOSEVELT, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Let me warn the nation against the smooth evasion that says, Of course, we believe these things. We believe in Social Security. We believe in work for the unemployed. We believe in saving homes.Cross our hearts and hope to die, we believe in all these things. But we do not like the way the present administration is doing them. Just turn them over to us. We will do all of them, we will do more of them, we will do them better, and most important of all, the doing of them will not cost anybody anything! (CHEERS AND APPLAUSE)(END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: Unbelievable! Rick, that is American speech. That`s how you talk to people today. Your thoughts because it seems to me what you`re saying. RICK PERLSTEIN, AUTHOR, “NIXONLAND”: Today. That`s right. I mean, every Democratic candidate from dog catcher to, you know, (INAUDIBLE) presidential candidate have been saying the same thing ever since, every generation.I mean, in 1960, everyone remembers the famous debate between Nixon and Kennedy. Kennedy made Nixon sweat. Well, why did he sweat? It came right after Kennedy said, I`m a Democrat. I`m proud to be a Democrat. We built Social Security. And by the way, you elect me, I`m going to put together something called Medicare, you know, Social Security for medical care for old people. And this guy, Nixon — he`s part of a great, proud American party called the Republicans. Oh, and by the way, let me just mention the Republican Party opposed all those things. MATTHEWS: Yes. Let me go out to Alex Wagner. This politics, it seems to me, reminding people what the stakes are — you won`t have all this stuff even to kick around anymore, to use a Nixon phrase. There won`t be Medicare, Medicaid. These are things the Republicans have been dying to take apart and now they`re on the verge of doing it. — – read on

Continue reading …