Home » Archives by category » News (Page 5229)
Lithuania’s Soviet nostalgia

Feeling nostalgic for the good old Soviet Union? Then head to Lithuania, where several theme parks let visitors feel exactly what it was like – right down to scary, abusive guards ‘Forget your past! Forget your history!” A colossal bullfrog of a guard, in an olive-green uniform with red epaulets, is spitting at us in Russian while a huge alsatian strains at the leash, barking ferociously. “Welcome to the Soviet Union,” snarls the guard. “Here you are nobody!” I can’t say I wasn’t warned: I had just signed a health and safety waiver that included the following clause: “In case of disobedience participants may receive psychological or physical punishments.” This is 1984: Survival Drama in a Soviet Bunker , a three-hour long, quasi-theatrical experience in a genuine Soviet bunker in the middle of the Lithuanian forest; imagine Punchdrunk Theatre Company run by retired KGB officers. While most former Soviet republics have let their memories of the period fade into red mist, 20 years since the Russian tanks rolled out, Lithuania is confronting its communist past head-on. An hour earlier, Ruta Vanagaite, the creator of the Soviet Bunker, was setting the mood. “Someone always faints – our record is five people fainting in one show,” she explained matter-of-factly, re-assuring me that my translator will have smelling salts handy. “But be sure to answer the guards’ questions promptly and clearly. They are mostly actors, but they can get stuck in that time and forget they are actors. We had to fire some of them because they were a little too hard on people. It’s very easy to break people’s will – once you are down there, six metres underground, you feel like you can’t get out.” Just by the Neris river, towards the Belorussian border, a red flag by the side of the road indicates a turning into the forest, down a path towards an anonymous, decrepit building in a small clearing. Inside, Soviet anthems blare out from a creaking old radio, the paint is not so much chipping as crumbling off in blocks, the few striplights that are working are flickering maddeningly, and damp swarms over the walls like triffids. We are given mouldy overcoats that are so damp they’re virtually liquid, and a cup of Soviet coffee – coffee with no coffee in it, made from barley. As we wait for the actors to show up (several of them genuine ex-KGB), the 40 or so participants, mostly Lithuanians in their 20s, laugh at the absurdity of it, smirking at the kitsch costuming. This, it becomes clear, is the fun bit. “Do you guys understand Russian?” asks a Lithuanian comrade. An Australian, Matt, answers for both of us: “I understand people with dogs shouting at me.” Vanagaite chips in to tell us the alsation’s day-job is working in the police’s organised crime squad, digging for corpses. Oh good. The bullfrog-guard enters and gives us our orders: we will answer only in the affirmative or negative; dissent will be punished with beatings and solitary confinement; and we will forget all thoughts other than the glory of the socialist paradise in which we now live. We stand to attention for the Soviet anthem and hoisting of the red flag, and then down we go, into the freezing-cold bunker. For three hours, we are force-marched through icy, virtually pitch-black corridors, barked at (by canine and human alike), humiliated, interrogated, forced to sign false confessions to imagined crimes, shown propaganda, and taught to prepare for a nuclear attack by the imperialist pigs. Each stage is designed to illustrate, with little allowance for subtlety – or health and safety – an aspect of life in the Soviet Union. Having failed to answer a question correctly in Russian, I get it repeated in broken, angry English. The interrogating KGB officer pushes me against a filing cabinet. “Where are y’fRRROM?” England, I say, cowering. He prods me in the chest, hard. “You are English? English spy! English spy!” In another “scene”, a KGB doctor forces me to strip to the waist, in front of the other participants. “Jacket off! Shirt off! Strip to waist! Quick! Quick!” She sits me down on a stool, grabs a clump of cotton wool, douses it in alcohol, and sets it alight. This is then dropped in a glass jar and applied to my bare shoulders: known as “fire cupping”, it was supposed to draw out disease through the skin. Six metres underground, and comprising 3,000 square metres of tunnels and cave-like rooms, the bunker was built in 1984 as an emergency base for Lithuanian state TV transmissions, in case the capital Vilnius came under attack from Nato. It boasts stand-alone heating and sewerage facilities, and communication lines to Moscow, and a roof designed to withstand the impact of a nuclear bomb. Ignes, the young project administrator, thinks it is more of an educational experience than a dramatic one, especially for those, like him, who are too young to remember the parades, the food shortages, the paranoia and the rest. His parents would never even dream of enduring the bunker, he laughs, “but for us, for my generation, we should all come, so we can feel what it was like too”. This isn’t the first time a Lithuanian in their early 20s has used that very physical verb about their Soviet history to me – you have to “feel” it; just reading about it isn’t enough, because it is almost too strange to be believable. “The young people, they don’t understand what it was like,” Vanagaite insists. “They say: ‘How come you couldn’t get out of the country? You just take a train and you leave.’ They think they could just overpower Soviet guards. We try to show them the reality.” Less theatrical, but equally harrowing, is the Museum of Genocide Victims , housed in a former KGB prison in central Vilnius where hundreds were tortured and killed. The exercise yard is adorned with poignant children’s paintings in response to school trips here. “We encourage them to imagine what it was like,” says Remigija Paldauskaite, herself only five years old when the Berlin Wall fell. “The best way to learn it is to feel it.” She mimes a bored child flicking through a text book. “It’s a better way than history lessons.” The final, stunning plank in the trinity of Lithuanian exercises in Soviet memory is Grutas Park , known slightly glibly to some as “Stalin’s World”. It is not exactly a theme park (though there is a playground, and a zoo featuring llamas and bears), but a massive outdoor collection of the country’s Soviet-era statues, as well as log cabins containing thousands of other exhibits, from rugs with Lenin’s face on them to Pioneer drums, communist toys, flags, paintings and Soviet-era calculators. Now celebrating its 10th anniversary, this macabre oasis of socialist realism was built on snail money (the owner Viliumas Malinauskas is a wealthy snail and mushroom farmer), and is situated deep in the tranquil Lithuanian forest. It is a surreal experience, walking for a mile through the tiny village of Grutas, past a solitary fisherman sitting by a lake, to discover a world where Stalin stands quietly gathering cobwebs in a clearing, and Marx and Engels peek out from the shadows. Glimmers of sunlight pass through the cedars, dappling totemic statues to collective farm chiefs and partisan martyrs: it’s both fascinating and oddly beautiful. Malinauskas brought them there at a point when they were facing destruction, either deliberately or via neglect; the only Soviet statues left standing in Vilnius are the socialist-realist figures that adorn the four corners of the famous Green Bridge – and they are frequently doused in green paint by nationalist protesters. But again, perhaps problematically, they are beautiful statues – inspiring, optimistic, and utopian; totems to the radiant future that was always promised, but never quite arrived. “We will never escape our history,” the daughter of a Lithuanian communist chief said, upon visiting her father’s monument in Grutas Park recently – and Lithuanians are rare in recognising that fact. Hungary has a monument park similar to Grutas, and so does Poland – but generally former eastern bloc countries have chosen to remember the cold war by trying to forget it, sweeping their Lenin busts under the carpet and hoping people won’t trip up over them. But then Lithuanians have a number of endearingly eccentric characteristics. This is a country where the capital’s mayor travels everywhere on a Segway and is not ridiculed; beaver and mashed potato is served as a delicacy; and a high-profile monument has been erected to Frank Zappa , even though he never once visited, sung about – or even mentioned – Lithuania. The Zappa statue was audaciously suggested by local artists in 1992, as a slightly flippant test of their country’s newfound democratic freedoms; to their surprise, the authorities called their bluff. There are inevitable differences of opinion about how best to commemorate the Soviet occupation; Grutas Park in particular has attracted criticism for creating a shrine to communism, rather than a mausoleum for it. Vanagaite is dismissive of its softer approach: “What we are doing is the opposite of Grutas Park – you cannot buy anything here, this is not about nostalgia.” She suggests that the extensive gift shop and nostalgia-channelling Soviet-style cafe – featuring “Russian-style sprats” and a minimal “Nostalgija” borsch – make it a “Stalinist amusement park”. Grutas Park is unapologetic about using mockery as a weapon: on special occasions, they employ lookalikes to pose as Lenin, Stalin et al, and put on performances by young actors dressed up as Pioneers. “Now we can laugh at our Soviet past,” announces the park’s audio guide at one point. Vanagaite eventually agrees there is a role for this, as well as shock tactics: “I suppose it’s about finding the right mixture of absurdity and horror.” What they have in common is a recognition that, 20 years on, whether it provokes laughter or terror, the spectre of communism is still haunting certain parts of Europe – and ignoring the ghost is not going to make it go away. Lithuania Vilnius Europe Lithuania Europe Russia Dan Hancox guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …
Top Hollywood directors protest over home downloads

Film-makers say studios’ plan to allow video-on-demand while movies still on release could close cinemas and increase piracy More than 20 leading film-makers, including James Cameron, Peter Jackson and Robert Zemeckis, have written a protest letter to Hollywood studios over their decision to allow films to be downloaded into people’s homes while they are still being screened in cinemas, rather than once they have completed their theatrical run, will take its toll on the box-office and film-making. The directors say they are shocked that Sony Pictures Entertainment, 20th Century Fox, Universal Studios and Warner Bros are to release some films on a premium video-on-demand (VOD) service 60 days after their cinema release. At the moment, cinemas generally have an exclusive run of around 120 days. Although VOD and theatrical releases are already overlapping for some films, directors and producers are alarmed that four of the biggest studios are going down that route. They have joined cinema owners to warn that reducing the exclusive release window traditionally given to cinema chains will lead to dwindling audiences and increased piracy with pristine digital copies being made available so early. Cameron, who was showered with Oscars for Titanic and Avatar, said: “The cinema experience is the wellspring. If the exhibitors are worried, I’m worried. Why on earth would you give audiences an incentive to skip the highest and best form of your film?” The letter, whose signatories also include Kathryn Bigelow, Roland Emmerich and Michael Mann, states that changing release patterns “could irrevocably harm the financial model of our film industry”. Acknowledging that studios are struggling to replace revenue lost by declining DVD sales, it condemns “a distribution model that cannibalises theatrical ticket sales”. It warns: “Some theatres will close. The competition for those screens that remain will become more intense, foreclosing all but the most commercial movies from theatrical release.” Last week, Sony’s Just Go With It, starring Jennifer Aniston and Adam Sandler in a romantic comedy about a plastic surgeon who pretends to be married, had a VOD release 70 days after opening in cinemas. John Fithian, head of the National Association of Theatre Owners, which represents cinemas in 50 countries, including the UK, warned of the perils of what he called a “misguided adventure”. Phil Clapp, chief executive of the Cinema Exhibitors’ Association in the UK, said that it could be “particularly destructive” for smaller, independent cinemas, leading to “a significant enough erosion of attendances to make them no longer financially viable”. But the industry is divided. A leading British producer, Stephen Margolis, head of Future Films, sees the benefits of change. He released his film Flawless, starring Demi Moore and Michael Caine, on VOD three weeks before it went into theatres to work up word-of-mouth recommendations.He said: “The film industry has an opportunity to avoid some mistakes that the music industry made. It has to grasp reality and understand what the consumer needs are. With VOD, you can watch it when you want, you don’t have to book a babysitter, and it’s no longer a £100 evening, but maybe £15 or £25 for VOD.” This seems to be the next chapter in the internet’s revolution of home entertainment. The legal downloads of films more than doubled from £35m to £78m in 2010, according to a recent report by the British Video Association. Last year, the supermarket giant Walmart, owner of the Asda chain in Britain, acquired the US VOD service Vudu. Last month, Tesco saw the potential of the British VOD market, taking an 80% stake in Blinkbox, a rival to existing services such as Amazon’s LoveFilm. Christopher Dodd, head of the Motion Picture Association of America, which represents the studios, said: “Films are made to be shown on big screens in dark theatres filled with people.” He added: “This is all part of a broad effort by our industry to lead through innovation and develop new business models that respond to growing demand by expanding consumer choice in an era of tremendous technological development.” Film industry Video on demand James Cameron Kathryn Bigelow Peter Jackson Technology sector United States Dalya Alberge guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …
John Paul II beatified in Vatican City

Beatification of the late pope John Paul II in the Vatican City presided over by his successor, Benedict XVI More than a million Roman Catholics set aside the scandals that have rocked their church to take part in a jubilant beatification of their late pope, John Paul II. The Polish pontiff who helped speed the fall of communism in Europe was placed just a step from sainthood at a ceremony in St Peter’s Square presided over by his successor, Benedict XVI. Looking out at a congregation that stretched half a mile down the broad avenue leading to the river Tiber, the pope said John Paul had “reclaimed for Christianity that impulse of hope which had in some sense faltered before Marxism and the ideology of progress”. Benedict said the man who could now be referred to as Blessed Karol Wojtyla turned back “with the strength of a titan … a tide which appeared irreversible”. On the square’s colonnades, one of John Paul’s sayings was spelled out in giant letters: “Do not be afraid! Open wide the doors to Christ.” Benedict said his predecessor had “helped believers throughout the world not to be afraid to be called Christian, to belong to the church, to speak the gospel”. A roar of approval went up when the pope, speaking in Latin, declared John Paul beatified. A tapestry of his charismatic predecessor in his prime was unfurled above the door of the basilica. Many who converged on Rome had stayed up all night, or slept in churches or on pavements, to get within squinting distance of the ceremony. Crash barriers were erected to keep them from the area around St Peter’s Square until just before dawn, but by 2am the pressure of numbers was such that police let them through. Among those who packed the area – many singing and waving flags – were blue-robed Brazilian nuns, young men wrapped in the gold and scarlet Spanish flag, US Legionaries of Christ and more than 50 men and women from the diocese of Abuja in Nigeria, led by their archbishop. The Poles inevitably predominated, though. Long before the ceremony began, St Peter’s Square was an undulating ocean of red and white flags. The beatification, six years after John Paul’s death, was the fastest on record. For some, particularly those critical of his failure to respond to evidence of clerical sex abuse, it was too hasty. “Not for us,” said Elzbieta Bielawska, accompanying a group of scouts from Elk in north-eastern Poland. “We believe our pope was not just blessed, but a saint.” Ignacio Fernandez from Barcelona thought about the question for an instant and said: “Sanctity can’t be measured in time.” The requirement for beatification is proof of a miracle (canonisation needs two). John Paul is deemed by the Vatican to have interceded to cure a French nun, Sister Marie Simon-Pierre Normand, who was dying of Parkinson’s disease, the illness that killed him. She, and the Polish nun who was at his bedside when he died, were given a central role at the beatification as bearers of the reliquary: a silver olive branch containing a phial of John Paul’s blood, set aside for a transfusion that never took place. Representatives of five royal houses, including the Duke of Gloucester, attended. So did seven prime ministers and 16 heads of state, including Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe, who flew to Rome on Saturday, once again dodging a ban on his entry into the EU. Though the beatification had been arranged for May Day, when Karol Wojtyla’s communist enemies flaunted their armed might, the irony went studiously unacknowledged at the Vatican. The choice of 1 May had “a very precise connotation”, the chief organiser, Monsignor Marco Frisina, had told correspondents at a briefing last week. “It is the Sunday of Divine Mercy”. And, somehow, he managed to say it with a straight face. Pope John Paul II Religion Catholicism Christianity Pope Benedict XVI Italy John Hooper guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …
UK cuts prompt May Day protest

Organisers of the May Day rally said about 10,000 protesters gathered in Trafalgar Square to demonstrate against coalition policies Thousands of people marched across London to protest against government spending cuts and support calls for a general strike. Organisers of the May Day rally said about 10,000 protesters gathered in Trafalgar Square to demonstrate against the coalition’s claims that cuts were inevitable. The police did not give figures. The peaceful follow-up to the mass turnout in London on 26 March was organised by trade unions and international human rights organisations. The marchers were supporting trade union rights, human rights and international solidarity. Tony Benn called for action from the “majority who create the world’s wealth” to re-establish their rights over “the handful who control the world’s wealth”. The former Labour cabinet minister added: “All the gains that have been made have been made by people like ourselves, campaigning year in and year out. This week, local authorities have got their elections. We must use our vote to build on what the TUC did on 26 March, and work for a better society for ourselves and our children and grandchildren.” To cheers, Lee Jasper of Black Activists Rising Against Cuts, called on the TUC “to get off its knees and call a general strike, as early as June”. He warned spending cuts could boost the popularity of far-right groups. “It will be the BNP who seek to exploit the effect of the cuts in their communities. It will be the English Defence League who blame ethnic minorities for the problems the cuts cause.” Sarah Veale of the TUC said cuts in public spending would have a devastating effect on public services. “It’s going to have a particularly devastating effect on women, both as the providers and main users of services. It’s given new meaning to the phrase ‘women and children first’, because that’s where the cuts are going to bite,” she added. May Day Amelia Hill guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …
Warren Buffett’s Mistake: How The Saint Of Capitalism Damaged His Reputation

Yesterday morning, thousands of shareholders of Berkshire Hathaway, one of the world’s most well-regarded companies, flocked to a convention hall in Omaha, Nebraska, for a meeting with their venerated leader, Warren Buffett. Over the course of his long and extremely lucrative career, Buffett has built a reputation for himself as a paragon of integrity and virtue, and the annual meeting of his company’s shareholders has come to resemble a sort of beatification ceremony, if you can imagine a religion in which the same person is beatified year after year. Buffett has called the gathering the “Woodstock of Capitalism,” nicely evoking both the massiveness of the crowd and the blissed-out vibe that pervades it. The vibe going into this year’s convention, however, was different. The trouble began about five months ago, when David Sokol, a top lieutenant in Berkshire Hathaway, persuaded Buffett to take over a chemical-products manufacturer called Lubrizol. Buffett later said that he had initially been cool on the idea, and it’s hard not to wonder if something Sokol told him bothered him on some level, even an unconscious one. At some point in their conversation, Sokol had mentioned that he owned personal stock in Lubrizol (his lawyer says that Buffett was in fact informed of this not once but twice), yet he didn’t say how much he owned or how he’d come to own it. As it turned out, Sokol had come to own the stock only a few weeks before, after learning about Lubrizol through a group of investment bankers who suggested that Berkshire look into buying the company. And as it also turned out, he’d come to own a lot of it — ten million dollars worth, to be exact. In other words, Sokol bought the shares knowing there was a chance he could convince Buffett to take over the company, which would almost certainly make the stocks’ value shoot up. Shoot up, it did. Buffett bought Lubrizol for 9 billion dollars, and Sokol’s 10 million dollars became 13 million. Was this insider trading? Perhaps. The legalities are murky. But as any first-year business student could have told you, it reflected poor ethical judgment on Sokol’s part. Sokol resigned when the full story came out, and is now under investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission. Buffet’s vaunted reputation, meanwhile, took a blow. On Tuesday, an audit committee convened by Berkshire Hathaway released a report that sharply rebuked Sokol for violating the company’s “highest standards of business ethics,” while absolving Buffett and further distancing him from his former presumed successor. According to the report, Sokol first learned of Lubrizol last fall through investment bankers at Citigroup, who’d specifically come to him with the names of companies they thought might interest Buffett. On December 13, a Monday, Sokol asked Citi to introduce him to Lubrizol’s CEO, James Hambrick, and the next day, he made his first purchase of Lubrizol stock, 2,300 shares. That Friday, a Citi representative told Sokol that Hambrick had agreed to convey the news of Bershire’s possible interest to the Lubrizol board, and on Tuesday, Sokol unloaded his stock. But two weeks later, over the course of three days, he bought 96,060 shares for a total of $10 million. On January 14, Hambrick and Sokol agreed to meet, and either that day or the next Sokol made his pitch to Buffett. The report says Buffett was “initially unimpressed,” but asked how Sokol had learned of the company. Sokol “mentioned” that he owned Lubrizol stock but did not say how much he’d bought, or when he’d bought, or anything about his conversations with Citi or Lubrizol that might have caused concern. In fact, the report maintains that Buffett didn’t learn of Citi’s involvement until after Berkshire and Lubrizol announced the signing of the merger agreement in March, when “a Citi representative with whom Berkshire Hathaway did business congratulated Mr. Buffett” and mentioned that Citi investors had played a part. In response to the report, a lawyer for Sokol said Sokol had been “studying Lubrizol for personal investment since the summer of 2010,” and that when he bought the stock, he “had no reason to anticipate that Mr. Buffett would have any interest whatsoever in Lubrizol.” Despite the audit committee’s apparent confidence in Buffett’s blamelessness, Buffett still faces criticism over a letter that he wrote to the media last month, in which he announced Sokol’s resignation while playing down any suggestion that the younger man had done anything wrong. “Neither Dave nor I feel his Lubrizol purchases were in any way unlawful,” he wrote. This seemed surprising coming from a businessman who has constantly exhorted his employees not just to stay within the law but to do what’s ethically right, who famously said, “Lose money for the firm and I will be understanding, lose even a shred of reputation and I will be ruthless.” After his letter came out, questions swirled: What had happened to the valiant hero who’d made that famous vow? Had Buffett grown soft? Had he lost the will or the nerve required to be ruthless? At the meeting yesterday, Buffett was harder on Sokol, and on himself. He called the situation “inexplicable and inexcusable” and said, “”I obviously made a big mistake by not saying, ‘Well when did you buy it?” So why didn’t he? The most obvious and plausible explanation is the one that casts Buffett in the kindest light. Buffett built his company on the principle that the managers under him should be allowed to operate with as much freedom as possible. Had Berkshire Hathaway been an ordinary company, Sokol might have had to report his stock purchases to a legal department, but no one has ever accused Berkshire Hathaway of being a ordinary company. Only 21 people, including Buffett himself, work at the company’s headquarters, which occupy a single floor of an office building in Omaha. Berkshire is often described as “decentralized,” which is another way of saying that it’s centered around Buffett’s trust in his managers. “Trust has gotten Berkshire very far,” said Jeff Matthews, a Berkshire Hathaway shareholder and the author of “Secrets in Plain Sight: Business & Investing Secrets of Warren Buffett.” “It’s worked,” he said. “People do what they’re good at, they do what they love to do. They don’t work for the money, they work for the joy of it. They don’t have some home office MBA telling them how to run a business.” Buffett trusted Sokol. In his 11-year tenure at Berkshire Hathaway, Sokol had proven highly adept at earning Buffett money, and Buffett, in turn, had endowed Sokol with a great amount of responsibility. Most recently, he’d put him in charge of NetJets, a Berkshire subsidiary that offered rentals and fractional ownerships of luxury jets and specialized in causing Buffett distress; it lost $711 million before taxes in 2009. Sokol ordered a gut renovation of NetJets, reducing its debt from 1.9 billion to 1.3 billion, slashing about $100 million in costs, furloughing hundreds of pilots, and sweeping senior management out the door. This turned out to be the right move. Within a year, NetJets was posting profits again, as Buffett triumphantly reported in a letter to shareholders, lauding the “breadth and importance of Dave Sokol’s achievements” just a week before the impropriety of Sokol’s Lubrizol purchase came to light. By giving free reign to Sokol, who many considered to be his top choice for a successor, Buffett opened the way for a breach like this to happen. In other words, the very quality that has arguably made Buffett one of the most admired business leaders in history, never mind the third-richest man in the world, is the same quality that exposed his company to abuse. Which is not to say that Buffett himself is perfect. Far from it. He’s been linked to questionable dealings before, notably in 2004, when General Re, an insurance concern that Buffett had owned since 1998, came under investigation for conducting fraudulent business with American International Group in 2000. Then, as now, Buffett was criticized for granting an executive too much leeway to operate; in that case, the role of Sokol was played by Ronald Ferguson, then the CEO of General Re. In 2008, a jury convicted Ferguson and three other former General Re executives, along with one former AIG executive, on corporate fraud and conspiracy charges, and Ferguson was sentenced to three years in prison. So Buffett’s management style is a gamble, and it’s possible that if he were to adopt a more cautious approach he wouldn’t be nearly as successful as he is. Of course, that still doesn’t answer the question of why he defended Sokol even after the full story of his purchases was disclosed. In the Buffett biography “The Snowball,” Alice Schroeder quotes Buffett telling a group of business school students, “Basically, when you get to my age, you’ll really measure your success in life by how many of the people you want to have love you do love you. I know people who have a lot of money, and they get testimonial dinners and they get hospitals wings named after them. But the truth is that nobody in the world loves them.” If it’s true that Buffett initially held back from censuring Sokol out of some fear of losing respect or admiration or even love, how ironic that this misstep should cost him so much of those very things. At yesterday’s meeting in Omaha, Buffett took steps to restore them. He discussed the possibility of two acquisitions that would be about the size of the Lubrizol deal, and said that he was considering someone new to step into his shoes. “I would lay a lot of money,” he said, “on him being straight as an arrow.”

Continue reading …

Charlie Sheen’s going up in smoke, but not in the way you might’ve hoped: The chain-smoking actor/sideshow is getting into the e-cigarette business, reports TMZ. Sheen has partnered with NicoSheen, the agonizingly dubbed “winning e-cigarette” and “Sheen safe smoke,” which is currently available for pre-orders on its website. Lenny Dykstra…

Continue reading …
Gaddafi son death sparks Nato doubt

Regime claims attack that killed son and three grandchildren was aimed at Libya’s leader, as allies accused of overstepping UN security council resolution Nato is facing urgent questions about the legality of its air strike on a Gaddafi family compound at the weekend, which the Libyan government said had killed the leader’s second youngest son, 29-year old Saif al-Arab, and three grandchildren under 12. The grandchildren were not named. The Libyan government spokesman, Moussa Ibrahim, said Muammar Gaddafi and his wife, Safiya, had been in the building at the time, but had escaped injury. He said the aim of the attack was clear: to assassinate the Libyan leader. Nato swiftly scrambled to deny that it was targeting any individuals, insisting that it was only interested in attacking the military command structure. The prime minister, David Cameron, told the BBC that UN resolutions permitted attacks against the regime’s “command and control” sites because their aim was to prevent “a loss of civilian life by targeting Gaddafi’s war-making machine”. But the deaths of Gaddafi’s three grandchildren, if confirmed, will reinforce the doubts of alliance members uncomfortable with Nato’s six-week bombing campaign and generate criticism from countries such as Russia that Nato is pushing beyond its UN security council mandate. “Statements by participants in the coalition that the strikes on Libya are not aimed at the physical destruction of … Gaddafi and members of his family raise serious doubts,” the Russian foreign ministry said. “The disproportionate use of force … is leading to detrimental consequences and the death of innocent civilians.” The ministry called for “an immediate ceasefire and the beginning of a political settlement process without preconditions.” The Venezuelan president, Hugo Chávez, said in Caracas: “There is no doubt the order was given to kill Gaddafi. It doesn’t matter who else is killed … this is a murder.” The attack, which one diplomatic source said had been carried out by Danish airmen possibly in an F16 bomber, ripped through the Gaddafi residence at around 8pm on Saturday night. It was the second time in recent days that an airstrike has come close to the Libyan leader, and Ibrahim indicated that someone within the leader’s circle may have leaked intelligence on his whereabouts. But in Washington, Stephen Hadley, former national security adviser in the Bush administration, warned that the assassination of Gaddafi by Nato aircraft could prove counterproductive. “The narrative we want to come out of this is that the Libyan people overthrew a dictator – not that we came in and toppled a despot,” he told CNN. “What we really want him to do is to leave or to die at a Libyan hand, not an American hand.” But senior Republicans expressed little concern over the prospect of Gaddafi becoming a casualty. Senator Lindsey Graham told Fox News: “Wherever Gaddafi goes, he is a legitimate military target. He’s the command and control source. He’s not the legitimate leader of Libya and the way to get this to end is to go after the people around him and his support system.” Reminded that assassinating foreign leaders is illegal, Graham said: “In my view, he’s not a foreign leader, he’s a murderer.” John McCain, another Republican senator who specialises in foreign affairs, told CBS: “We should be taking out his command and control. If he is killed or injured because of that, that’s fine.” Michele Bachmann, a Republican congresswoman considering seeking the Republican presidential nomination who was also on the Sunday talk shows, said it was foolish of Barack Obama to have become involved in Libya. She told Fox: “When President Obama went in, his doctrine was to enter Libya for humanitarian purposes. The point of what I am saying is that we are seeing many, many lives lost, including innocent civilians’ lives. “What will be the ultimate objective and gain? I don’t see it. I think it was a foolish decision to have gotten involved.” In spite of criticism by Russia that Nato is trying to assassinate Gaddafi, Moscow has stopped short of raising the attacks at the UN security council. The Libyan government has been pressing Russia and China to challenge the legality of the Nato action. Both have expressed sympathy with the argument that Nato strikes against compounds where Gaddafi and his family live go beyond the UN mandate to protect civilians in rebel-held areas. A UN security council official said on Sunday that there was no sign of Moscow seeking to bring the issue up at the security council. The official said China was taking its cue from Russia. Both abstained in the vote on the resolution sanctioning action against Libya in March. According to British diplomats, the Gaddafi regime retaliated against the airstrike by dispatching a mob to attack western embassy buildings, which have been abandoned in recent weeks as the hostilities have gathered pace. A spokeswoman said a building housing the ambassador’s residence had been set on fire, and according to initial reports had been burned down. Sky News journalist Mark Stone, who visited the embassy, reported on Twitter: “Totally burnt out. WW2 memorial smashed on the ground. Burnt out cars. Looted.” A British official, speaking on condition of anonymity said there was no doubt in London that the mob attacks had been officially sanctioned. “There are no demos allowed to move anywhere in Tripoli unless they are 100% orchestrated by the regime.” William Hague said: “I condemn the attacks on the British embassy premises in Tripoli as well as the diplomatic missions of other countries. The Vienna convention requires the Gaddafi regime to protect diplomatic missions in Tripoli. By failing to do so that regime has once again breached its international responsibilities and obligations. I take the failure to protect such premises very seriously indeed.” Omar Jelban, the Libyan ambassador, who has worked as a diplomat in London since 2001, was given 24 hours to leave. Britain expelled five Libyan diplomats in March, on the grounds that they were a threat to national security. The Libyan embassy in London continues to function without about a dozen remaining staff, according to British officials. Britain retains a minimal diplomatic presence in Tripoli within the Turkish embassy. Libya Middle East Arab and Middle East unrest Muammar Gaddafi Nato United Nations United States Europe Julian Borger Ian Traynor Ewen MacAskill guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …
Gaddafi son death sparks Nato doubt

Regime claims attack that killed son and three grandchildren was aimed at Libya’s leader, as allies accused of overstepping UN security council resolution Nato is facing urgent questions about the legality of its air strike on a Gaddafi family compound at the weekend, which the Libyan government said had killed the leader’s second youngest son, 29-year old Saif al-Arab, and three grandchildren under 12. The grandchildren were not named. The Libyan government spokesman, Moussa Ibrahim, said Muammar Gaddafi and his wife, Safiya, had been in the building at the time, but had escaped injury. He said the aim of the attack was clear: to assassinate the Libyan leader. Nato swiftly scrambled to deny that it was targeting any individuals, insisting that it was only interested in attacking the military command structure. The prime minister, David Cameron, told the BBC that UN resolutions permitted attacks against the regime’s “command and control” sites because their aim was to prevent “a loss of civilian life by targeting Gaddafi’s war-making machine”. But the deaths of Gaddafi’s three grandchildren, if confirmed, will reinforce the doubts of alliance members uncomfortable with Nato’s six-week bombing campaign and generate criticism from countries such as Russia that Nato is pushing beyond its UN security council mandate. “Statements by participants in the coalition that the strikes on Libya are not aimed at the physical destruction of … Gaddafi and members of his family raise serious doubts,” the Russian foreign ministry said. “The disproportionate use of force … is leading to detrimental consequences and the death of innocent civilians.” The ministry called for “an immediate ceasefire and the beginning of a political settlement process without preconditions.” The Venezuelan president, Hugo Chávez, said in Caracas: “There is no doubt the order was given to kill Gaddafi. It doesn’t matter who else is killed … this is a murder.” The attack, which one diplomatic source said had been carried out by Danish airmen possibly in an F16 bomber, ripped through the Gaddafi residence at around 8pm on Saturday night. It was the second time in recent days that an airstrike has come close to the Libyan leader, and Ibrahim indicated that someone within the leader’s circle may have leaked intelligence on his whereabouts. But in Washington, Stephen Hadley, former national security adviser in the Bush administration, warned that the assassination of Gaddafi by Nato aircraft could prove counterproductive. “The narrative we want to come out of this is that the Libyan people overthrew a dictator – not that we came in and toppled a despot,” he told CNN. “What we really want him to do is to leave or to die at a Libyan hand, not an American hand.” But senior Republicans expressed little concern over the prospect of Gaddafi becoming a casualty. Senator Lindsey Graham told Fox News: “Wherever Gaddafi goes, he is a legitimate military target. He’s the command and control source. He’s not the legitimate leader of Libya and the way to get this to end is to go after the people around him and his support system.” Reminded that assassinating foreign leaders is illegal, Graham said: “In my view, he’s not a foreign leader, he’s a murderer.” John McCain, another Republican senator who specialises in foreign affairs, told CBS: “We should be taking out his command and control. If he is killed or injured because of that, that’s fine.” Michele Bachmann, a Republican congresswoman considering seeking the Republican presidential nomination who was also on the Sunday talk shows, said it was foolish of Barack Obama to have become involved in Libya. She told Fox: “When President Obama went in, his doctrine was to enter Libya for humanitarian purposes. The point of what I am saying is that we are seeing many, many lives lost, including innocent civilians’ lives. “What will be the ultimate objective and gain? I don’t see it. I think it was a foolish decision to have gotten involved.” In spite of criticism by Russia that Nato is trying to assassinate Gaddafi, Moscow has stopped short of raising the attacks at the UN security council. The Libyan government has been pressing Russia and China to challenge the legality of the Nato action. Both have expressed sympathy with the argument that Nato strikes against compounds where Gaddafi and his family live go beyond the UN mandate to protect civilians in rebel-held areas. A UN security council official said on Sunday that there was no sign of Moscow seeking to bring the issue up at the security council. The official said China was taking its cue from Russia. Both abstained in the vote on the resolution sanctioning action against Libya in March. According to British diplomats, the Gaddafi regime retaliated against the airstrike by dispatching a mob to attack western embassy buildings, which have been abandoned in recent weeks as the hostilities have gathered pace. A spokeswoman said a building housing the ambassador’s residence had been set on fire, and according to initial reports had been burned down. Sky News journalist Mark Stone, who visited the embassy, reported on Twitter: “Totally burnt out. WW2 memorial smashed on the ground. Burnt out cars. Looted.” A British official, speaking on condition of anonymity said there was no doubt in London that the mob attacks had been officially sanctioned. “There are no demos allowed to move anywhere in Tripoli unless they are 100% orchestrated by the regime.” William Hague said: “I condemn the attacks on the British embassy premises in Tripoli as well as the diplomatic missions of other countries. The Vienna convention requires the Gaddafi regime to protect diplomatic missions in Tripoli. By failing to do so that regime has once again breached its international responsibilities and obligations. I take the failure to protect such premises very seriously indeed.” Omar Jelban, the Libyan ambassador, who has worked as a diplomat in London since 2001, was given 24 hours to leave. Britain expelled five Libyan diplomats in March, on the grounds that they were a threat to national security. The Libyan embassy in London continues to function without about a dozen remaining staff, according to British officials. Britain retains a minimal diplomatic presence in Tripoli within the Turkish embassy. Libya Middle East Arab and Middle East unrest Muammar Gaddafi Nato United Nations United States Europe Julian Borger Ian Traynor Ewen MacAskill guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …
Sir Henry Cooper has died aged 76

• British heavyweight boxer dies at his son’s home in Surrey • ‘A true warrior and great human being,’ says David Haye Sir Henry Cooper, who will always be remembered for flooring Muhammad Ali, has died aged 76. Cooper, who was knighted in 2000, is best remembered for two famous clashes with Ali in the 1960s. He floored Ali in the fourth round with “Enry’s Ammer” – his trademark left hook – but Ali eventually won the 1963 non-title fight at Wembley. Ali triumphed again when they boxed three years later but Cooper remained a favourite with the British public. Alongside Frank Bruno, Tommy Farr and Lennox Lewis, he is regarded as one of the best all-time British heavyweights. The former British, Commonwealth and European heavyweight champion fought 55 times but never won a world title and retired in 1971 after losing to Joe Bugner. Tributes began to pour in on Sunday night for the London-born Cooper, who died at his son’s house at Oxted, Surrey, two days before his 77th birthday. David Haye, the British WBA world heavyweight champion, tweeted: “One of Britain’s greatest sports man Sir Henry Cooper passed away today. A true warrior and great human being. Rest in Peace.” Robert Smith, the general secretary of the British Boxing Board of Control, described Cooper as “one of the sporting icons, not just for the boxing public but sport in general”. Speaking to Sky Sports News, Smith said: “He fought Muhammad Ali twice, once when he was Cassius Clay and once when he was Muhammad Ali, and he put up wonderful performances. “Ali is possibly the greatest athlete there’s ever been and Henry put up a great performance and just wasn’t quite good enough on both occasions – but he’s not the only one who wasn’t good enough to beat Ali. “Ali was one of the first ‘big’ heavyweights and Henry lost to Joe Bugner, who was 15-odd stone and Henry was 14 – just bigger men. For such a small man, he put up some great performances in a world-class context.” On the affection in which Cooper was held he said: “It’s not just the boxing and your ability, it’s the personality as well. He won the BBC Sports Personality of the Year on two occasions, which is a tremendous feat for a boxer. Everyone called him ‘Our Enry’ and he was much loved, he served boxing wonderfully.” Johnny Nelson, the former WBO cruiserweight world champion, told Sky Sports News: “Henry was a total champion. He was always a gentleman, always straight down the line. He told it how it was. “Ali always showed that bit of respect for Henry Cooper. He was a no-nonsense fighter, the man that almost dethroned one of the greatest fighters in the world, Muhammad Ali. There’s nobody that came across Sir

Continue reading …
Sir Henry Cooper has died aged 76

• British heavyweight boxer dies at his son’s home in Surrey • ‘A true warrior and great human being,’ says David Haye Sir Henry Cooper, who will always be remembered for flooring Muhammad Ali, has died aged 76. Cooper, who was knighted in 2000, is best remembered for two famous clashes with Ali in the 1960s. He floored Ali in the fourth round with “Enry’s Ammer” – his trademark left hook – but Ali eventually won the 1963 non-title fight at Wembley. Ali triumphed again when they boxed three years later but Cooper remained a favourite with the British public. Alongside Frank Bruno, Tommy Farr and Lennox Lewis, he is regarded as one of the best all-time British heavyweights. The former British, Commonwealth and European heavyweight champion fought 55 times but never won a world title and retired in 1971 after losing to Joe Bugner. Tributes began to pour in on Sunday night for the London-born Cooper, who died at his son’s house at Oxted, Surrey, two days before his 77th birthday. David Haye, the British WBA world heavyweight champion, tweeted: “One of Britain’s greatest sports man Sir Henry Cooper passed away today. A true warrior and great human being. Rest in Peace.” Robert Smith, the general secretary of the British Boxing Board of Control, described Cooper as “one of the sporting icons, not just for the boxing public but sport in general”. Speaking to Sky Sports News, Smith said: “He fought Muhammad Ali twice, once when he was Cassius Clay and once when he was Muhammad Ali, and he put up wonderful performances. “Ali is possibly the greatest athlete there’s ever been and Henry put up a great performance and just wasn’t quite good enough on both occasions – but he’s not the only one who wasn’t good enough to beat Ali. “Ali was one of the first ‘big’ heavyweights and Henry lost to Joe Bugner, who was 15-odd stone and Henry was 14 – just bigger men. For such a small man, he put up some great performances in a world-class context.” On the affection in which Cooper was held he said: “It’s not just the boxing and your ability, it’s the personality as well. He won the BBC Sports Personality of the Year on two occasions, which is a tremendous feat for a boxer. Everyone called him ‘Our Enry’ and he was much loved, he served boxing wonderfully.” Johnny Nelson, the former WBO cruiserweight world champion, told Sky Sports News: “Henry was a total champion. He was always a gentleman, always straight down the line. He told it how it was. “Ali always showed that bit of respect for Henry Cooper. He was a no-nonsense fighter, the man that almost dethroned one of the greatest fighters in the world, Muhammad Ali. There’s nobody that came across Sir

Continue reading …