China’s best known artist, looking thinner after 81 days in detention, says ‘I’m fine … I’m on bail. Please understand’ After 81 days in detention, China’s best-known artist, Ai Weiwei, returned home a considerably thinner and noticeably quieter man. “I’m fine. I’m out,” the 54-year-old artist told the Guardian in a telephone call shortly after his release on bail. “I’m back with my family. I’m very happy.” The state news agency, Xinhua, said police had released him “because of his good attitude in confessing his crimes” and a chronic illness. Speaking from his home in north Beijing, the usually outspoken artist said he could not comment any further, adding: “I’m on bail. Please understand.” Ai’s sister Gao Ge said: “I’m very, very happy … we thank everyone, including our media friends, for all their help and support so far.” His mother, Gao Ying, told NPR that the family “won’t sleep tonight”. The artist’s disappearance on 3 April sparked international condemnation, with political leaders calling for his release and sustained protests throughout the art world. He vanished after he was stopped by officials at Beijing airport, where he was due to board a flight to Hong Kong. Officials later said police were investigating him on suspicion of economic crimes, although police never formally notified his family of his detention, which they are supposed to do within a day of seizing a suspect. The Xinhua report on Ai’s release said: “The decision comes also in consideration of the fact that Ai has repeatedly said he is willing to pay the taxes he evaded, police said. The Beijing Fake Cultural Development Ltd, a company Ai controlled, was found to have evaded a huge amount of taxes and intentionally destroyed accounting documents, police said.” Ai’s works include helping design the Olympic Bird’s Nest stadium in Beijing and last year’s Sunflower Seeds installation in Tate Modern’s turbine hall. But he has become as well known for his activism as for his art – although he suggested it was not easy to draw a line between the two. He is the most high profile of dozens of activists and dissidents arrested, detained or harassed in recent months in what campaigners called China’s most severe crackdown on human rights in over a decade. Several are still held and many of those who have been freed are understood to have been released under strict conditions. The decision to bail Ai comes days before Chinese premier Wen Jiabao visits Europe, where leaders were expected to press the case for the release. It is impossible to know whether the events are connected. Although China has often released dissidents on the eve of major political visits, it has not done so recently. A message on the official Twitter feed for the EU president, Herman Van Rompuy, read: “Happy to learn that Ai Weiwei has been released.” Ai’s only contact with the outside world during his detention – a brief 20-minute visit by his wife Lu Qing – was arranged by police on the eve of Van Rompuy’s visit to China last month. At the time Lu said he had looked mentally conflicted and tense despite appearing to be in good physical health and receiving treatment for diabetes and high blood pressure. Nicholas Bequelin, Asia researcher for Human Rights Watch, welcomed Ai’s release. “His detention was political and his release is political. It is the result of a huge domestic and international outcry that forced the government to this resolution … I think Beijing realised how damaging it was to hold China’s most famous artist in detention,” he said. Although in theory police are able to take further action on a case for up to a year after a suspect is bailed, in practice detainees who are released do not usually face trial unless they are judged to have reoffended. Bequelin said Ai would probably have to report to police and would probably not be allowed to travel abroad without official permission. US state department deputy spokesman Mark Toner told a news conference: “It’s always a good thing when an individual who is only in prison for exercising his internationally recognised human rights is released.” Speaking before Ai’s release, Germany’s foreign minister, Guido Westerwelle, said it “would be a big relief for the artist and his family, even though the reported circumstances of his release on bail continue to appear depressing”. Patrick Poon, executive secretary of the Chinese Human Rights Lawyers Concern Group, tweeted: “It’s ‘good news’ for Ai Weiwei and for all of us who support Ai Weiwei and other human rights defenders, but the Chinese government’s handling of Ai Weiwei’s case once again proves that China is miles away from the real ‘rule of law’.” The Chinese government has said Ai’s case was nothing to do with human rights, while his family believed it was retaliation for his social and political activism. But some human rights campaigners thought the economic allegations offered officials room for manoeuvre, whereas they would not have felt able to drop political charges. Catherine Baber, Amnesty International’s Asia-Pacific deputy director, said: “Ai Weiwei must now be granted his full liberty, and not be held in illegal house arrest as has been the pattern with so many others recently released from arbitrary detention.” She also called for the immediate release of his four associates – Wen Tao, one of his friends, Zhang Jinsong, his driver and cousin, Hu Mingfen, an accountant, and Liu Zhenggang, a designer – who went missing shortly after him . Wen’s girlfriend Shi Jing, who had volunteered at Ai’s studio, said: “For both [Ai's] friends and family, it is positive news. “As for Wen Tao, his family hasn’t got any information so far … I still feel anxious, but since Ai is going to be bailed, there will probably be information about the others. They got into this because of Ai’s case, so there should also be news about them.” Ai Weiwei China Human rights Tania Branigan guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Former business secretary and pension reform architect calls for deal with unions and says coalition risks exodus from scheme The former Labour business secretary who designed the coalition’s contentious public sector pension reforms will warn ministers on Thursday that their plans are risk becoming so punitive they could force people out of pension schemes altogether. Lord Hutton of Furness will warn of a “serious” risk of a mass exodus from the local government pension scheme – which is funded and has 3.5 million members – if contributions are raised too high and no other compensation is provided. But he will also urge the unions and ministers to get back round the negotiating table to thrash out a deal. “If these reforms have any chance of succeeding then people need to know that they are being treated fairly … there should be full and proper consultation and discussion with the trade unions,” he will say. “That is how we do things in Britain – the public would take a very dim view of any government that fails to honour this basic requirement. “We must try and avoid the confrontation and division that marked previous decades and must not turn the clock back.” Danny Alexander, the chief secretary to the Treasury, sparked a union backlash last week by unilaterally announcing plans to increase contributions for public sector workers and raise their pension age to 66 by 2020. Ministers have also accused some unions of undermining talks by announcing strike action on 30 June before the negotiations conclude. Hutton, who was work and pensions secretary in the Blair government, will speak at the Institute for Public Policy Research thinktank in London. He will stress that there is no choice but to reform pensions as people live longer. “This issue is coming down the track at us whether we like it or not and we can’t afford to duck it or fudge it,” he will say. He will question the coalition’s moves – under the “fair deal” consultation that ended last week – to allow private companies to drop public sector pensions when they take over a state service in an outsourcing arrangement, saying: “We have to avoid a new race to the bottom here.” On the risk of opt-outs, Hutton will urge ministers to consider alternatives being proposed for local government workers. His report to the government in March urged caution about the risk of members pulling out more generally, but on Thursday he will highlight the plight of the local government pension – a self-contained, funded scheme unlike the majority of public sector pensions, which rely heavily on the Treasury. Ministers have acknowledged the risk of the welfare system being left to pick up the pieces after a mass opt-out from public sector pensions. Last week Alexander announced that those earning under £15,000 a year would be exempted from the 3.2 percentage point average increase and for those under £18,000 it would be limited to 1.5 percentage points. But that underpinning means even bigger increases for higher earners, including teachers, doctors and managers. A survey by the GMB union suggested that about 50% of middle earners in local government could opt out as a result of higher contributions. Delegates at Unison’s annual conference in Manchester on Wednesday heard appeals for co-ordinated walkouts in the first week of October to disrupt the Tory party conference should the talks on pensions, due to resume on Monday, collapse. Unison, the biggest public sector union, voted to mandate its general secretary to ballot for strike action at any point, with some members calling for a strike to disrupt the Tory conference in October, which is also in Manchester. Amid defiant warnings that state employees would not be railroaded into changes, John McLoughlin, a delegate from Tower Hamlets council, London, said: “We should come back to this city, and when Cameron and George Osborne get up to speak they should be met with resistance.” David Cameron’s official spokesman said on Wednesday the government wanted to avoid strikes. “Our objective here is to protect public sector pensions in a way that is fair to public sector workers but also fair to taxpayers,” he said. Public sector pensions Danny Alexander Welfare Trade unions Liberal-Conservative coalition Conservatives Polly Curtis Dan Milmo guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Former business secretary and pension reform architect calls for deal with unions and says coalition risks exodus from scheme The former Labour business secretary who designed the coalition’s contentious public sector pension reforms will warn ministers on Thursday that their plans are risk becoming so punitive they could force people out of pension schemes altogether. Lord Hutton of Furness will warn of a “serious” risk of a mass exodus from the local government pension scheme – which is funded and has 3.5 million members – if contributions are raised too high and no other compensation is provided. But he will also urge the unions and ministers to get back round the negotiating table to thrash out a deal. “If these reforms have any chance of succeeding then people need to know that they are being treated fairly … there should be full and proper consultation and discussion with the trade unions,” he will say. “That is how we do things in Britain – the public would take a very dim view of any government that fails to honour this basic requirement. “We must try and avoid the confrontation and division that marked previous decades and must not turn the clock back.” Danny Alexander, the chief secretary to the Treasury, sparked a union backlash last week by unilaterally announcing plans to increase contributions for public sector workers and raise their pension age to 66 by 2020. Ministers have also accused some unions of undermining talks by announcing strike action on 30 June before the negotiations conclude. Hutton, who was work and pensions secretary in the Blair government, will speak at the Institute for Public Policy Research thinktank in London. He will stress that there is no choice but to reform pensions as people live longer. “This issue is coming down the track at us whether we like it or not and we can’t afford to duck it or fudge it,” he will say. He will question the coalition’s moves – under the “fair deal” consultation that ended last week – to allow private companies to drop public sector pensions when they take over a state service in an outsourcing arrangement, saying: “We have to avoid a new race to the bottom here.” On the risk of opt-outs, Hutton will urge ministers to consider alternatives being proposed for local government workers. His report to the government in March urged caution about the risk of members pulling out more generally, but on Thursday he will highlight the plight of the local government pension – a self-contained, funded scheme unlike the majority of public sector pensions, which rely heavily on the Treasury. Ministers have acknowledged the risk of the welfare system being left to pick up the pieces after a mass opt-out from public sector pensions. Last week Alexander announced that those earning under £15,000 a year would be exempted from the 3.2 percentage point average increase and for those under £18,000 it would be limited to 1.5 percentage points. But that underpinning means even bigger increases for higher earners, including teachers, doctors and managers. A survey by the GMB union suggested that about 50% of middle earners in local government could opt out as a result of higher contributions. Delegates at Unison’s annual conference in Manchester on Wednesday heard appeals for co-ordinated walkouts in the first week of October to disrupt the Tory party conference should the talks on pensions, due to resume on Monday, collapse. Unison, the biggest public sector union, voted to mandate its general secretary to ballot for strike action at any point, with some members calling for a strike to disrupt the Tory conference in October, which is also in Manchester. Amid defiant warnings that state employees would not be railroaded into changes, John McLoughlin, a delegate from Tower Hamlets council, London, said: “We should come back to this city, and when Cameron and George Osborne get up to speak they should be met with resistance.” David Cameron’s official spokesman said on Wednesday the government wanted to avoid strikes. “Our objective here is to protect public sector pensions in a way that is fair to public sector workers but also fair to taxpayers,” he said. Public sector pensions Danny Alexander Welfare Trade unions Liberal-Conservative coalition Conservatives Polly Curtis Dan Milmo guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
As the nation gears up for Independence Day celebrations, federal officials are warning people about the injuries caused by improper use of fireworks. (June 22)
Continue reading …
As the nation gears up for Independence Day celebrations, federal officials are warning people about the injuries caused by improper use of fireworks. (June 22)
Continue reading …
Authorities say ten people in the waiting room of a family medical clinic in Williamston, SC were injured after a car crashed into the building. Four people were in critical condition while six more had less serious injuries. (June 22)
Continue reading …Authorities say ten people in the waiting room of a family medical clinic in Williamston, SC were injured after a car crashed into the building. Four people were in critical condition while six more had less serious injuries. (June 22)
Continue reading …Sending A Shock Through The Market, PIMCO Director Bill Gross Says Fiscal Conservatism Doesn’t Equal Job Growth
June 22, 2011 No Comment
enlarge PIMCO director Bill Gross. Bill Gross is the manager director of PIMCO, the world’s largest bond fund, and thus one of the most important bond traders in the world. And his concerns about the deficit have been cited as a compelling case for austerity. Now? Via Ezra Klein, not so much: But in an unusual mid-month note to his investors, Gross hammered the “anti-Keynesians” in both parties who believe “that fiscal conservatism equates to job growth.” The truth, he says, is just the opposite. “Fiscal balance alone will not likely produce 20 million jobs over the next decade. The move towards it, in fact, if implemented too quickly, could stultify economic growth.” Gross goes on to spend some time mocking the “ivory tower theorem” that deficit reduction will convince consumers to spend more now because they’ll worry less about taxes and service cuts later. “I know of no family,” he writes, “who, after watching the Republican candidates’ debate in New Hampshire, went out the next day and bought themselves a flat screen under the assumption that their Medicare entitlements would be cut in future years and the U.S. budget balanced.” That theory belongs “in the trash bin of theses and research aimed more towards academics than a practical remedy to America’s job crisis.” So what should we do? “Government must temporarily assume a bigger, not a smaller, role in this economy, if only because other countries are dominating job creation with kick-start policies that eventually dominate global markets.” But what about the deficit? “Deficits are important, but their immediate reduction can wait for a stronger economy and lower unemployment. Jobs are today’s and tomorrow’s immediate problem.” Gross goes on to offer some ideas for how the government can goose job growth, both in the short term and the long term. Some of them I find convincing, some of them I don’t. But his overall point is well-taken, and more subtle than some commentators are giving it credit for: Politicians have increasingly been pretending that deficit reduction slices, dices and blends. Don’t believe them. Cutting deficits tends to destroy jobs. And though the deficit matters in the long run, we need to survive the short run first. Gross’s credentials as a deficit hawk are unimpeachable, but he’s arguing here that, to be a deficit hawk over the long term, you need to be jobs-focused now, as no economy with 9 percent unemployment is going to achieve the growth necessary to get its deficit under control. And he’s right. The question is whether his call for the government to refocus on jobs and brush aside fantasies that deficit reduction is also job creation will get as much attention as his concerns about debt and deficits.
Continue reading …Sending A Shock Through The Market, PIMCO Director Bill Gross Says Fiscal Conservatism Doesn’t Equal Job Growth
June 22, 2011 No Comment
enlarge PIMCO director Bill Gross. Bill Gross is the manager director of PIMCO, the world’s largest bond fund, and thus one of the most important bond traders in the world. And his concerns about the deficit have been cited as a compelling case for austerity. Now? Via Ezra Klein, not so much: But in an unusual mid-month note to his investors, Gross hammered the “anti-Keynesians” in both parties who believe “that fiscal conservatism equates to job growth.” The truth, he says, is just the opposite. “Fiscal balance alone will not likely produce 20 million jobs over the next decade. The move towards it, in fact, if implemented too quickly, could stultify economic growth.” Gross goes on to spend some time mocking the “ivory tower theorem” that deficit reduction will convince consumers to spend more now because they’ll worry less about taxes and service cuts later. “I know of no family,” he writes, “who, after watching the Republican candidates’ debate in New Hampshire, went out the next day and bought themselves a flat screen under the assumption that their Medicare entitlements would be cut in future years and the U.S. budget balanced.” That theory belongs “in the trash bin of theses and research aimed more towards academics than a practical remedy to America’s job crisis.” So what should we do? “Government must temporarily assume a bigger, not a smaller, role in this economy, if only because other countries are dominating job creation with kick-start policies that eventually dominate global markets.” But what about the deficit? “Deficits are important, but their immediate reduction can wait for a stronger economy and lower unemployment. Jobs are today’s and tomorrow’s immediate problem.” Gross goes on to offer some ideas for how the government can goose job growth, both in the short term and the long term. Some of them I find convincing, some of them I don’t. But his overall point is well-taken, and more subtle than some commentators are giving it credit for: Politicians have increasingly been pretending that deficit reduction slices, dices and blends. Don’t believe them. Cutting deficits tends to destroy jobs. And though the deficit matters in the long run, we need to survive the short run first. Gross’s credentials as a deficit hawk are unimpeachable, but he’s arguing here that, to be a deficit hawk over the long term, you need to be jobs-focused now, as no economy with 9 percent unemployment is going to achieve the growth necessary to get its deficit under control. And he’s right. The question is whether his call for the government to refocus on jobs and brush aside fantasies that deficit reduction is also job creation will get as much attention as his concerns about debt and deficits.
Continue reading …After Giving Free Pass to Planned Parenthood Head, Spitzer Batters FRC’s Tony Perkins Over Abortion Funding
June 22, 2011 No Comment
It was an obvious contrast in demeanor last week, Eliot Spitzer's lapdog interview of the president of Planned Parenthood and his aggressive sparring with social conservative Tony Perkins. Spitzer simply let Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards air her spin on the organization, but went after the Family Research Council's (FRC) Perkins from the get-go on CNN Thursday night. Consider the statements Richards made last Wednesday night that Spitzer was content not to scrutinize: Planned Parenthood has received “enormous support” from both Democrats and Republicans, the organization is “very transparent” about its services, Planned Parenthood reduces need for abortions through family planning, and the recent efforts by Congress and state legislatures to cut its funding “were to eliminate access for women to get access to life-saving breast cancer screenings, pap smears, and birth control.” [Video below the break.] Spitzer is no foe of the pro-choice movement. It was known that he was pro-abortion as New York's governor and attorney general. A NARAL New York PAC bragged about being “central” to his election as attorney general in 1998. He was pushing a pro-abortion bill as governor before he was ousted in a prostitution scandal in March of 2008. In the Perkins interview, Spitzer grilled the FRC head over his assumption that Planned Parenthood has been implicated in multiple scandals involving covering for child prostitution and improper funding. Spitzer outright told Perkins that he was guilty of slandering Planned Parenthood. Perkins was steadfast in his accusations. “Let me tell your listeners, your viewers, to go to LiveAction.com and they can see for themselves the undercover video that was filmed in Planned Parenthood clinics that shows them covering and facilitating sex trafficking. And then let your viewers make that decision for themselves,” he told the news host. Spitzer wouldn't buy that, conveniently ignoring the accusations made by Live Action. Meanwhile, Spitzer even took Cecile Richards' spin as his own words. Richards had claimed that Planned Parenthood works “like every other hospital in America, every other medical provider” in ensuring federal money covers health care, but not abortions. Spitzer then used those words as fact against Perkins. “The structure that Planned Parenthood has, that you're saying should prohibit their getting any federal money, is identical to the structure that every hospital in the United States has,” Spitzer claimed. “Hospitals provide abortions. Hospitals cannot use federal money to provide those abortions. They segregate those services. They account for them separately, just the way Planned Parenthood does.” Perkins argued that the tax dollars are fungible go to underwrite abortions at Planned Parenthood. “Dollars are fungible,” he insisted. “And so what is happening is government tax dollars are being used to underwrite the overhead of Planned Parenthood doing abortions.” For a transcript of the segment, which aired on June 16 at approximately 8:28 p.m. EDT, is as follows: ELIOT SPITZER: In tonight's American issues segment, the return of the highly-charged battle over abortion rights and the funding of the procedure. Three states have voted to eliminate Planned Parenthood's funding and three more states are about to do the same. Last night, I spoke with the organization's president Cecile Richards, and she had this to say. (Video Clip) CECILE RICHARDS, president, Planned Parenthood Federation of America: I think it's a political miscalculation, Eliot. I think that they are playing politics with women's health care. And when you talk about – we're not even talking about abortion here. The moves by these legislatures, and the efforts by the U.S. Congress were to eliminate access for women to get access to life-saving breast cancer screenings, pap smears and birth control. And the American people don't want that. (End Video Clip) SPITZER: Joining me now from Washington is someone who has been working feverishly to cut Planned Parenthood's funding, Tony Perkins, President of the Family Research Council. Tony, thanks for joining us. TONY PERKINS, president, Family Research Council: Good evening, Eliot. SPITZER: Let me begin with this question. Aren't you trying to prevent the government from funding health care services that are constitutionally protected, services the Supreme Court has said women should have access to? PERKINS: No, not at all. I mean, this is not about health care. In fact, all of the procedures in terms of health care are still being funded in these states. What's being done here is that funding to the nation's largest abortion provider is being redirected. And so –
Continue reading …