Paul Ryan: Don’t Blame Me for NY-26 Loss! The criticisms of Paul Ryan’s budget is based on sound economics and honest appraisal of what his ideas would do to our country and its senior citizens. Never mind that Republicans fear-mongered over the national deficit and tried to make Americans believe that it’s more important to keep funding the enormous military machine than to care for its peoples. The critiques aren’t based on his personality. Why should it? The numbers speak for themselves. Enter Joe Nocera, who’s replacing Bob Herbert at the NY Times. He was totally against Ryan’s ideas on handling the situation, but is now smitten after meeting with the Wisconsinite because Ryan reminds him of Jack Kemp. He’s now taking the Villager prospective that Ryan’s a brave guy for putting something out there supposedly tackling the rising Medicare costs even if it’s absurd. I hadn’t realized until I met him on Tuesday that Paul Ryan had been a protégé of Jack Kemp. But the minute I heard him talking about his late mentor, everything suddenly made sense.“Jack used to talk about the battle of ideas,” Ryan told me. In fact, he lived for those battles. [E]ven if Ryan’s solution is wrongheaded, he’s right that Medicare is headed for trouble. It might not be in nine years, but as health care costs continue to rise uncontrollably, and as baby boomers continue to age, Medicare will gobble up an ever larger percentage of the federal budget. […] To put it another way, while the Democratic Party might be well served in trying to use the Ryan plan to bury their political opponents, the country itself is not. The debate we need is not about whether Medicare should be reformed, but how. […] It would be nice if we could treat the Ryan plan not as an object of derision but as a launching off point for a serious debate. Let me remind everyone and Joe that Jack Kemp was Grover Norquist’s hero and we know how much damage he’s caused to the welfare of America. Who Was Jack Kemp? by Grover Norquist 05/03/2009 Jack French Kemp changed the conservative movement, the Republican Party, the nation and the world. For the good. Few men have accomplished as much in one lifetime. Kemp was a football player who changed how economists understand the way the world works. — In the Wake of the 2006 and 2008 elections many conservatives have asked, “Where is the next Reagan.?” The first question to be answered, however, may be, “Where is the next Jack Kemp?” Joe Nocera isn’t some newbie getting into the world of politics and economics. He’s been opining and editing on this for a long time including a stint at the Washington Monthly. So he should be aware how Conservatives think and operate when they propose economic legislation. There’s nothing brave about Ryan’s plan or the fact that he published it and the Republican-led House passed it. He simply got drunk on the midterm election victory of 2010 and felt emboldened enough to exalt his Randian beliefs. George Bush did the same thing when he won re-election in 2004 and tried to force feed the country the idea that it would be just swell if we privatized Social Security. That policy idea failed miserably with the American people, but can you imagine what would have happened to the seniors in our country if it had passed and then we had the financial and stock market collapse after the mortgage fraud scam was uncovered? Millions of people would never have recovered from that and their security would have been destroyed forever. No bailouts or stock market boom afterwards could have ever recovered the monies lost for each individual person dependent on Social Security to live out their lives. Paul Ryan’s budget works for the wealthiest like a con-man’s dream because those at the top would get richer at the expense of the welfare and health care of the rest of the constituents. We know there’s a problem. Yes, anyone could promote an idea on how to solve it, but it has to at least be credible . You need to get the policy right. You need to actually care about controlling healthcare costs. You need to actually care about delivery systems. You need to actually care about what works and what doesn’t. You need to actually care about the details. Paul Ryan doesn’t. He’s a right-wing ideologue with a single right-wing solution for everything. But he’s sociable and friendly, not a fire breather, so everyone figures he’s not one of the tea party nutjobs. This is a serious mistake.” As Steve Benen writes: Nocera wants to give Ryan credit for noticing problems with the bridge. But that’s not just overly generous, it’s also setting the bar for seriousness way too low. Overall, there are two broad ways of scrutinizing the GOP’s Medicare privatization plan. The first is to emphasize its needless cruelty towards seniors, which is problematic for those who believe Medicare beneficiaries deserve better. He wants to shift costs onto seniors and use the “savings” for tax cuts, all while pretending to care about a non-existent debt crisis. The other is to note that Paul Ryan’s numbers simply don’t add up , making his approach unworthy of serious consideration. The combination of the two points to a proposal worthy of the trash heap, not “serious debate.” The question isn’t why the left would treat this scam as “an object of derision”; the question is why others aren’t doing the same . Digby joins in: This is the new columnist for the NY Times, not some windbag blogger. And he’s spouting the most shallow analysis of the current Medicare debate possible. And, sadly, it’s probably going to have an influence on the way the Villagers see it. After all, he’s a crackerjack “business reporter.” He must know what he’s talking about, right? Instead of reading that stale Village CW (Jack Kemp — idea man!) read this piece by Nocera’s Times colleague: The Economy Is Wavering. Does Washington Notice? Nocera is upset that the Democrats are pointing out that the Republican budget they are promoting will surely kill Medicare as we know it and has been proven to be junk science. Because he hates that the Democrats are using the GOP’s own actions against them. You can’t make this stuff up.
Continue reading …
Click here to view this media You know the time-tested-and-proven adage — a gaffe is when a politician opens his mouth and what he or she really believes comes out. Sometimes it’s the revelation that the politician is barking mad and doesn’t have the foggiest notion what they are talking about. We only have to look back a week for a perfect example of this phenomenon, when Mitch McConnell said this in an interview with Congressional Quarterly : “Last week, the Social Security trustees issued a report saying Social Security and Medicare are not sustainable under their current structure.” Back in the day, when we had a functioning press corps instead of a cocktail-weenie-wagging press corpse; back when we had real reporters doing actual journalism instead of the steno-pool full of faithful scribes who can be counted on to regurgitate right-wing talking points unchallenged; back then, that sort of nonsense would have been a bit in the teeth of the reporter, who would have done his or her homework ahead of time, and McConnell would have been hammered mercilessly with the fact that the trustees said no such thing . “Projected long-run program costs for both Medicare and Social Security are not sustainable under currently scheduled financing.” There is a world of difference between what McConnell said the trustees reported and what the McConnell said they reported. McConnell’s implication is that there is a hair-on-fire emergency and Social Security has to be fundamentally changed because it’s doomed to bankruptcy otherwise; when in fact what the trustees presented was an either/or — either revenues will have to be raised, or benefits will have to be cut decades down the road. The essential Dean Baker had the best analogy I have seen on McConnell’s misrepresentation: This would be like driving from Chicago to Detroit and determining that at some point you will need more gas to complete the trip. That would mean stopping at a gas station and refilling your tank. By contrast, McConnell’s comment implies that the car is about to breakdown and will not make the trip. Congressional Quarterly failed their readers when they didn’t follow up and press the Senator to clarify whether A.) he didn’t understand what the trustees actually said or B.) was being deliberately dishonest in pursuit of political gain. There is no option C. The reality is there is no Social Security crisis , no matter how loudly the greed-mongers and deficit scolds insist there is. They can wail and gnash their teeth and rend the cloth from their breast all day long and into the night. That still won’t change the fact that Social Security is not only not responsible for our deficit woes, it is independent of the deficit /and/ it is solvent for decades . Period. Full stop. The trustees report that McConnell misrepresented actually presents the same findings as the CBO report in that last link. Both report that the Social Security trustfund, without changing a thing, will be able to make full payouts through 2030-something — it should also be noted that the full payout projections have been pushed downward not by flaws in the system, but by the economic downturn of the last couple of years. Both note that those numbers should start ticking back up as the economy recovers, and if that isn’t the case, we have a lot bigger problems than Social Security heading our way. In reality, any projected shortfalls in future Social Security benefits could be easily remedied with either of a couple of easy fixes would not only fill that hole, it would put the program on a sound footing indefinitely. The first option would be to raise the cap. Currently, a person making more than $106,800 pays no Social Security tax on any monies earned over that amount. Removing the cap and taxing all monies equally would put the program on solid footing indefinitely. So would a very modest increase — 1% or less — in the amount of payroll tax withheld from the wages of those of us who earn less than $106,800. I don’t know about you, but I would be willing to give up three designer coffees a pay-period now to assure that Social Security will be there when I reach retirement age. Elected leaders who embrace the “fundamental change is necessary” mantra are either stupid, or lying. In neither instance should they be making decisions that affect millions of Americans. And that goes double for those who parrot the BS knowing full well it’s just that…BS. I’m looking at you, CQ. [ This post originally appeared at Show Me Progress and is part of a series I am writing as a blogging fellow for the Strengthen Social Security Campaign , a coalition of more than 270 national and state organizations dedicated to preserving and strengthening Social Security. ]
Continue reading …
Click here to view this media You know the time-tested-and-proven adage — a gaffe is when a politician opens his mouth and what he or she really believes comes out. Sometimes it’s the revelation that the politician is barking mad and doesn’t have the foggiest notion what they are talking about. We only have to look back a week for a perfect example of this phenomenon, when Mitch McConnell said this in an interview with Congressional Quarterly : “Last week, the Social Security trustees issued a report saying Social Security and Medicare are not sustainable under their current structure.” Back in the day, when we had a functioning press corps instead of a cocktail-weenie-wagging press corpse; back when we had real reporters doing actual journalism instead of the steno-pool full of faithful scribes who can be counted on to regurgitate right-wing talking points unchallenged; back then, that sort of nonsense would have been a bit in the teeth of the reporter, who would have done his or her homework ahead of time, and McConnell would have been hammered mercilessly with the fact that the trustees said no such thing . “Projected long-run program costs for both Medicare and Social Security are not sustainable under currently scheduled financing.” There is a world of difference between what McConnell said the trustees reported and what the McConnell said they reported. McConnell’s implication is that there is a hair-on-fire emergency and Social Security has to be fundamentally changed because it’s doomed to bankruptcy otherwise; when in fact what the trustees presented was an either/or — either revenues will have to be raised, or benefits will have to be cut decades down the road. The essential Dean Baker had the best analogy I have seen on McConnell’s misrepresentation: This would be like driving from Chicago to Detroit and determining that at some point you will need more gas to complete the trip. That would mean stopping at a gas station and refilling your tank. By contrast, McConnell’s comment implies that the car is about to breakdown and will not make the trip. Congressional Quarterly failed their readers when they didn’t follow up and press the Senator to clarify whether A.) he didn’t understand what the trustees actually said or B.) was being deliberately dishonest in pursuit of political gain. There is no option C. The reality is there is no Social Security crisis , no matter how loudly the greed-mongers and deficit scolds insist there is. They can wail and gnash their teeth and rend the cloth from their breast all day long and into the night. That still won’t change the fact that Social Security is not only not responsible for our deficit woes, it is independent of the deficit /and/ it is solvent for decades . Period. Full stop. The trustees report that McConnell misrepresented actually presents the same findings as the CBO report in that last link. Both report that the Social Security trustfund, without changing a thing, will be able to make full payouts through 2030-something — it should also be noted that the full payout projections have been pushed downward not by flaws in the system, but by the economic downturn of the last couple of years. Both note that those numbers should start ticking back up as the economy recovers, and if that isn’t the case, we have a lot bigger problems than Social Security heading our way. In reality, any projected shortfalls in future Social Security benefits could be easily remedied with either of a couple of easy fixes would not only fill that hole, it would put the program on a sound footing indefinitely. The first option would be to raise the cap. Currently, a person making more than $106,800 pays no Social Security tax on any monies earned over that amount. Removing the cap and taxing all monies equally would put the program on solid footing indefinitely. So would a very modest increase — 1% or less — in the amount of payroll tax withheld from the wages of those of us who earn less than $106,800. I don’t know about you, but I would be willing to give up three designer coffees a pay-period now to assure that Social Security will be there when I reach retirement age. Elected leaders who embrace the “fundamental change is necessary” mantra are either stupid, or lying. In neither instance should they be making decisions that affect millions of Americans. And that goes double for those who parrot the BS knowing full well it’s just that…BS. I’m looking at you, CQ. [ This post originally appeared at Show Me Progress and is part of a series I am writing as a blogging fellow for the Strengthen Social Security Campaign , a coalition of more than 270 national and state organizations dedicated to preserving and strengthening Social Security. ]
Continue reading …Andrew Sullivan Shocks Chris Matthews: Palin Can Beat Obama as the ‘Principled’ Tea Party Candidate
May 29, 2011 No Comment
Andrew Sullivan this weekend seemed to shock Chris Matthews when he said that former Alaska governor Sarah Palin could actually beat President Obama in next year's elections running as the “principled candidate” representing “this grassroots movement of cutting government down to size.” Maybe even more surprising, Time's Joe Klein seemed to agree telling the host of “The Chris Matthews Show,” “You were around in ’79 and ’80 as I was. Did you see many people in the Carter administration think that Ronald Reagan could beat Jimmy Carter?” (video follows with transcript and commentary): CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: Does anybody here really, does anybody imagine Sarah Palin being elected President of the United States? ANDREW SULLIVAN, DAILY BEAST: Yes. MATTHEWS: You can. SULLIVAN: Yes, because… [LAUGHTER] GLORIA BORGER, CNN: Uh oh, here it comes. SULLIVAN: …not because of her apparent virtues, not because of Obama’s weakness, but because of unforeseen events. I do think that if for example we have a collapse in the markets because of a debt ceiling crisis, if we have a second recession… MATTHEWS: You’re talking Armageddon. SULLIVAN: If we have another terrorist attack… BORGER: Sorry. SULLIVAN: No, I’m just saying we shouldn’t rule out things. MATTHEWS: Okay, okay, let’s go… JOE KLEIN, TIME MAGAZINE: You were around, you were around in ’79 and ’80 as I was. Did you see many people in the Carter administration think that Ronald Reagan could beat Jimmy Carter? MATTHEWS: Okay, let’s imagine that short of an Armageddon moment like the capture of 80 hostages and the humiliation of the United States for year-long and inflation and unemployment like Carter had. Well, we’ve got the soaring gas and food prices as well as the unemployment. Apparently Obama gives Matthews too much of a thrill up his leg to notice. Regardless, a few minutes later, the discussion came back to Palin: MATTHEWS: Okay, let’s go to Palin. Lot of fun here. Palin, you love Palin. In some strange way you’re fascinated by her, Andrew. SULLIVAN: As I said on the show many times, she started running the day after the 2008 election ended, and there’s no reason to believe she isn’t running. MATTHEWS: Did she take a smart break the last three or four months so that the Newts and the Trumps make fools of themselves more or less? SULLIVAN: Her position has been formerly if no one else will represent this grassroots movement of cutting government down to size and standing up for America abroad, then I will have to go in. MATTHEWS. Anger. She’ll be the anger candidate. SULLIVAN: Not just the angry candidate. She’ll be the principled candidate against what she will describe as the free… MATTHEWS: Are you getting her into this race? Are you escorting her into this race? SULLIVAN: No, no, no, no, no. I’m too terrified for the country to do such a thing. But I don’t, I do think Washington has misread her, underestimated her, and doesn’t see the… MATTHEWS: Okay, can Palin and Bachmann run both on the right? KLEIN: Sure they can both run, but I don’t know that either of them can win. But one thing you have to say about Palin: she doesn’t know anything about policy, but she’s got skills. She knows how to be a standup politician. MATTHEWS: I agree. Great on the stage. KLEIN: Yeah. BORGER: But I believe in the end she’s so relentlessly negative that the, the American people don’t like relentlessly negative politicians. Look at Ronald Reagan. Ronald Reagan was optimistic, positive… SULLIVAN: But “Sarah Palin’s Alaska” is the most – I know it’s completely phony – but it’s very optimistic. This whole “Triumph of the Will” movie she’s putting out there, two hours of total upbeat, optimistic stuff. She, she knows this, and she’s going to work around it. It is indeed fascinating that any media discussion of Republican presidential candidates always goes back to Palin. Is it because the press really want her to run to make the race more interesting, or much like Sullivan they secretly fear she could be the one to beat the president they love so much?
Continue reading …
Largely Catholic nation was last EU member to not allow divorce but country votes for change in law through referendum Malta has voted yes in a non-binding referendum on legalising divorce , the country’s prime minister, Lawrence Gonzi, has confirmed. Almost three-quarters of the electorate voted on Saturday on whether divorce should be introduced in Malta. A majority Catholic country, Malta is the only EU country not to allow divorce. Figures from the electoral commission late on Saturday out the turnout at 72%, according to The Times of Malta . “Even though the result is not what I wished for, now it is our duty to see that the will of the majority is respected,” Gonzi said in a televised speech on Sunday. Gonzi, who campaigned against the introduction of divorce, said it was now up to parliament to enact a law legalising the dissolution of marriage on the island. The influential Catholic church supported a no vote during the campaign. The leader of the yes movement, Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando, of the governing Nationalist party, said the result was significant. “It brings Malta into a new era where the state and the church are separate,” he told the EFE news agency. Chile was the last country to legalise divorce in 2004 after overwhelming public pressure. Maltese voters were asked whether parliament should introduce a new law that would allow couples to obtain a divorce after four years of separation. Previously, couples could apply for a legal separation through the courts, or seek a church annulment – a complex process that can take up to nine years. A third option was to get divorced abroad, which would be recognised as valid in Malta. Malta Divorce David Sharrock guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …The NPR/PBS 2012 Campaign Wisdom: It’s Down to Romney, Pawlenty, or Huntsman; Gingrich Is a ‘Joke’ and a ‘Travesty’
May 29, 2011 No Comment
The conventional wisdom manufacturers on NPR and PBS this week have announced that the actual Republican presidential field has only three serious candidates: Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty, and the new media favorite, Jon Huntsmann. On Friday night’s All Things Considered, “conservative” NPR analyst David Brooks said the week belonged to Huntsman, and Texas Gov. Rick Perry is too conservative to have appeal. Liberal analyst E.J. Dionne suggested Perry was “very, very conservative.” On Monday night’s Charlie Rose show on PBS, the assembled journalists came up with the same trio, but former Wall Street Journal Washington Bureau Chief Al Hunt strongly insisted Newt Gingrich was just a “joke” and a “travesty” as a candidate: First, Friday night on NPR: MICHELE NORRIS, anchor: Fellows, I think it's time for our weekly check-in on the ever-growing, shifting, evolving, shrinking, expanding GOP field. This week, Governor Romney is in Iowa. Michele Bachmann says she'll have a big announcement soon – no exact date. And today, Governor Rick Perry of Texas says he's now considering a run in 2012. Perry is one candidate we really haven't spent much time talking about. Should we assume that a governor from a big state will automatically shake up the candidate pool? DAVID BROOKS: Well, he is from a big state, but that state happens to be Texas. And I think there was a general view among Republicans that governors of Texas have been tried and maybe they shouldn't go back to that well again so soon. He's also quite a conservative fellow on education, some of those things which will hurt him. He's also – the reputation is not the greatest campaigner on earth. So, I'm not sure Perry is flirting because there's a vacuum there. I would say this week sort of belongs to Jon Huntsman. Among those who talk about those things, the former governor of Utah, his stock has suddenly risen and I would say he seems to have entered the big three of Huntsman, Pawlenty and Romney. NORRIS: E.J.? E.J. DIONNE: I agree with David that Huntsman is going to become the next darling of the Washington conventional wisdom, at least for a while. You know, Governor Perry spoke loosely about Texas secession a couple of years ago. Maybe he could run on a program to let all the states secede – and Massachusetts and Vermont might actually want to if he got elected. He's a very, very conservative governor. But the Republican race now is like the Publisher's Clearinghouse Sweepstakes. Anybody can enter, anybody can win. And I think that the field is so cut up, Republican opinion is so divided that it's hard to rule out anybody as having a possibility of winning… NORRIS: That's an amazing statement you made – anybody can win. Is that true? DIONNE: Well, I don't mean the general election, I do mean the nomination. BROOKS: It's not true, by the way. Only Pawlenty, Romney and Huntsman can win. All the rest are in there for fun. Then there’s the PBS chatter on Gingrich from Monday: MARK HALPERIN: I still think under a certain scenario he could be a nominee. I`m in a pretty small group who thinks that still. AL HUNT: You and Callista. (Laughter) HALPERIN: He`s in
Continue reading …
California court forces site to reveal personal details of user accused of libelling local authority in north-east England Twitter has been forced to hand over the personal details of a British user in a libel battle that could have huge implications for free speech on the web. The social network has passed the name, email address and telephone number of a south Tyneside councillor accused of libelling the local authority via a series of anonymous Twitter accounts. South Tyneside council took the legal fight to the superior court of California, which ordered San Francisco-based Twitter to hand over the user’s private details. It is believed to be the first time Twitter has bowed to legal pressure to unmask anonymous users and comes amid a huge row over privacy and free speech online. Ryan Giggs, the Manchester United footballer named as being behind a gagging order preventing reporting of his alleged affair with a reality TV model, is separately attempting to unmask Twitter users accused of revealing details of his high-profile privacy injunction. However, Giggs brought the lawsuit at the high court in London and the move to use California courts is likely to be seen as a landmark moment in the internet privacy battle. Ahmed Khan, the south Tyneside councillor accused of being the author of the pseudonymous Twitter accounts, described the council’s move as “Orwellian”. Khan received an email from Twitter earlier this month informing him that the site had handed over his personal information. He denies being the author of the allegedly defamatory material. “It is like something out of 1984,” Khan told the Guardian. “If a council can take this kind of action against one of its own councillors simply because they don’t like what I say, what hope is there for freedom of speech or privacy?” Khan said the information Twitter handed over was “just a great long list of numbers”. The subpeona, submitted by the council last month, ordered Twitter to hand over 30 pieces of information relating to several Twitter accounts, including @fatcouncillor and @ahmedkhan01 . “I don’t fully understand it but it all relates to my Twitter account and it not only breaches my human rights, but it potentially breaches the human rights of anyone who has ever sent me a message on Twitter. “A number of whistleblowers have sent me private messages, exposing any wrongdoing in the council, and the authority knows this.” He added: “I was never even told they were taking this case to court in California. The first I heard was when Twitter contacted me. I had just 14 days to defend the case and I was expected to fly 6,000 miles and hire my own lawyer – all at my expense. “Even if they unmask this blogger, what does the council hope to achieve ? The person or persons concerned is simply likely to declare bankruptcy and the council won’t recover any money it has spent.” A spokesman for south Tyneside council said that the legal action was brought by the authority’s previous chief executive, but that it has “continued with the full support” of the current head. He added: “The council has a duty of care to protect its employees and as this blog contains damaging claims about council officers, legal action is being taken to identify those responsible.” Twitter had not returned a request to comment at time of publication. Twitter Internet Blogging Privacy United States Josh Halliday guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …California court forces site to reveal personal details of user accused of libelling local authority in north-east England Twitter has been forced to hand over the personal details of a British user in a libel battle that could have huge implications for free speech on the web. The social network has passed the name, email address and telephone number of a south Tyneside councillor accused of libelling the local authority via a series of anonymous Twitter accounts. South Tyneside council took the legal fight to the superior court of California, which ordered San Francisco-based Twitter to hand over the user’s private details. It is believed to be the first time Twitter has bowed to legal pressure to unmask anonymous users and comes amid a huge row over privacy and free speech online. Ryan Giggs, the Manchester United footballer named as being behind a gagging order preventing reporting of his alleged affair with a reality TV model, is separately attempting to unmask Twitter users accused of revealing details of his high-profile privacy injunction. However, Giggs brought the lawsuit at the high court in London and the move to use California courts is likely to be seen as a landmark moment in the internet privacy battle. Ahmed Khan, the south Tyneside councillor accused of being the author of the pseudonymous Twitter accounts, described the council’s move as “Orwellian”. Khan received an email from Twitter earlier this month informing him that the site had handed over his personal information. He denies being the author of the allegedly defamatory material. “It is like something out of 1984,” Khan told the Guardian. “If a council can take this kind of action against one of its own councillors simply because they don’t like what I say, what hope is there for freedom of speech or privacy?” Khan said the information Twitter handed over was “just a great long list of numbers”. The subpeona, submitted by the council last month, ordered Twitter to hand over 30 pieces of information relating to several Twitter accounts, including @fatcouncillor and @ahmedkhan01 . “I don’t fully understand it but it all relates to my Twitter account and it not only breaches my human rights, but it potentially breaches the human rights of anyone who has ever sent me a message on Twitter. “A number of whistleblowers have sent me private messages, exposing any wrongdoing in the council, and the authority knows this.” He added: “I was never even told they were taking this case to court in California. The first I heard was when Twitter contacted me. I had just 14 days to defend the case and I was expected to fly 6,000 miles and hire my own lawyer – all at my expense. “Even if they unmask this blogger, what does the council hope to achieve ? The person or persons concerned is simply likely to declare bankruptcy and the council won’t recover any money it has spent.” A spokesman for south Tyneside council said that the legal action was brought by the authority’s previous chief executive, but that it has “continued with the full support” of the current head. He added: “The council has a duty of care to protect its employees and as this blog contains damaging claims about council officers, legal action is being taken to identify those responsible.” Twitter had not returned a request to comment at time of publication. Twitter Internet Blogging Privacy United States Josh Halliday guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Fifa in crisis live blog – Bin Hammam out of race as ethics committee meets | John Ashdown
May 29, 2011 No Comment
• Bin Hammam vows to clear name after withdrawing • Fifa ethics committee hearing meeting later on Sunday • Email your thoughts to john.ashdown@guardian.co.uk 1.11pm: This whole shebang was kicked off, of course, by our old friend Chuck Blazer, a man who likes to wear his trousers high . In fact, while we’re waiting for Fifa’s announcement, you could do worse than take a tour through Chuck’s blog . Halloween is a particular highlight. 12.53pm: So who is the man in charge of today’s proceeedings? You can read about Petrus Damaseb here and here 12.30pm: So the pieces are being placed on the board. Here’s Matt Scott in Zurich: “MBH has come in to Fifa House in the back seat of a large black limo to face Petrus Damaseb’s ethics committee.” 12.22pm: Today is all about a Fifa meeting. And thanks to Fifa.com, you can re-live the best bits (no, really) of Fifa meetings past . Will this week’s bunfight make it on to that list? Who knows. Yes, this does smack of filler, doesn’t it. Only four hours 38 minutes to go! 12.06pm: The ever excellent Paul Hayward’s view : In their official literature, Fifa kindly offer a list of the honours bestowed on President Sepp Blatter for his efforts to make the world a better place. On his wanderings, the supreme leader has picked up a knighthood from the Sultanate of Pahang, the Medalla al Mérito Deportivo from Bolivia, the French Legion of Honour, the Dove of Geneva and countless honorary doctorates. The scroll is longer even than the charge sheet confronting Fifa officials on Sunday in Zurich, where Blatter, his presidential rival Mohamed bin Hammam and the ubiquitous Jack Warner are among those up before the world governing body’s Ethics Committee – itself increasingly an example of Orwellian doublespeak. All across the globe – certainly in the Arab states – the cult of the leader is under attack. But Fifa still manage to mimic the kind of hilltop state employed by the Marx Brothers in Duck Soup. Yet Fifa are not Freedonia and they are not bankrupt: Groucho’s big problem, as head of state. Blatter and his committees sit on reserves of $1.28bn and emote obsessively about spreading this largesse around the five continents, even though no one seems able to say clearly where all the money ends up. In his mission statement, headed “Fifa Brand – Our commitment” (note the word brand), Blatter makes a “promise” – “For the Games, For the World”. He says: “The world is a place rich in natural beauty and cultural diversity, but also one where many are still deprived of their basic rights. Fifa now have an even greater responsibility to reach out and touch the world, using football as a symbol of hope and integration.” Right now the world would probably rather not be “touched” by Fifa. 11.55am: Franz Beckenbauer has offered Uncle Sepp his support: “He did a wonderful job,” the former Germany captain told Radio 5 Live. “It’s not easy. Fifa is like the United Nations – we have 208 members. It’s not an easy to handle, but I think Blatter and his staff are doing a wonderful job.” ‘A wonderful job’? Really? 11.48am: The big news this morning is that Mohamed Bin Hammam has withdrawn from the presidential race. Here’s Matt Scott, in Zurich : Mohamed bin Hammam has withdrawn from the race to become the next Fifa president and has vowed to clear his name when he appears before the body’s ethics committee. The president of the Asian Football Confederation is facing bribery allegations, alongside the Fifa vice-president Jack Warner, while the organisation’s president, Sepp Blatter, is being investigated for knowing about alleged bribery. Bin Hammam’s decision to pull out of the election means Blatter is unopposed in his attempt to secure a fourth term as the head of world football in Wednesday’s vote. Bin Hammam said: “I pray that my withdrawal will not be tied to the investigation held by the Fifa ethics committee as I will appear before the ethics committee to clear my name from the baseless allegations that have been made against me. “I promise those who stood by me that I will walk with my head held high and will continue to fight for the good of the game. “I have a special thank you to my friend and colleague Jack Warner for his unlimited support. I am sorry to see that he has to suffer because of me, but I am promising him that I will be with him all the way through thick and thin. “I look forward to working closely with my colleagues to restore Fifa’s reputation to what it should be – a protector of the game that has credibility through honesty, transparency and accountability. It saddens me that standing up for the causes I believed in has come at a great price – the degradation of Fifa’s reputation. This is not what I had in mind for Fifa and this is unacceptable. “I cannot allow the game that I love to be dragged more and more in the mud because of competition between two individuals. The game itself and the people who love it around the world must come first. It is for this reason that I announce my withdrawal from the presidential election.” Bin Hammam’s withdrawal is only one hurdle for Blatter to overcome in his attempt to extend his tenure into a fourth term. The corruption allegations that have engulfed world football and destroyed Bin Hammam’s candidacy also threaten him: like the Qatari challenger, he faces an ethics committee hearing on Sunday. Today’s order of play, as it were: • Starting this morning: Fifa’s ethics committee meets in Zurich. • At 5pm there will be a press conference where the committee’s findings will be revealed. As a grandiose Fifa statement today explains: Fifa vice-president Jack Warner, executive committee member Mohamed bin Hammam, as well as Caribbean Football Union officials Debbie Minguell and Jason Sylvester, have been invited to attend a hearing by the Fifa ethics committee at the home of Fifa in Zurich on the same day. The meeting, which starts in the morning, will be followed by a press conference in the auditorium of the home of Fifa, planned for 6pm CET [5pm BST] (time subject to change). The press conference will be attended by deputy chairman of the Fifa ethics committee, Petrus Damaseb and Fifa secretary general Jérôme Valcke. Fifa Football politics Sepp Blatter Mohamed bin Hammam John Ashdown guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Fifa in crisis live blog – Bin Hammam out of race as ethics committee meets | John Ashdown
May 29, 2011 No Comment
• Bin Hammam vows to clear name after withdrawing • Fifa ethics committee hearing meeting later on Sunday • Email your thoughts to john.ashdown@guardian.co.uk 1.11pm: This whole shebang was kicked off, of course, by our old friend Chuck Blazer, a man who likes to wear his trousers high . In fact, while we’re waiting for Fifa’s announcement, you could do worse than take a tour through Chuck’s blog . Halloween is a particular highlight. 12.53pm: So who is the man in charge of today’s proceeedings? You can read about Petrus Damaseb here and here 12.30pm: So the pieces are being placed on the board. Here’s Matt Scott in Zurich: “MBH has come in to Fifa House in the back seat of a large black limo to face Petrus Damaseb’s ethics committee.” 12.22pm: Today is all about a Fifa meeting. And thanks to Fifa.com, you can re-live the best bits (no, really) of Fifa meetings past . Will this week’s bunfight make it on to that list? Who knows. Yes, this does smack of filler, doesn’t it. Only four hours 38 minutes to go! 12.06pm: The ever excellent Paul Hayward’s view : In their official literature, Fifa kindly offer a list of the honours bestowed on President Sepp Blatter for his efforts to make the world a better place. On his wanderings, the supreme leader has picked up a knighthood from the Sultanate of Pahang, the Medalla al Mérito Deportivo from Bolivia, the French Legion of Honour, the Dove of Geneva and countless honorary doctorates. The scroll is longer even than the charge sheet confronting Fifa officials on Sunday in Zurich, where Blatter, his presidential rival Mohamed bin Hammam and the ubiquitous Jack Warner are among those up before the world governing body’s Ethics Committee – itself increasingly an example of Orwellian doublespeak. All across the globe – certainly in the Arab states – the cult of the leader is under attack. But Fifa still manage to mimic the kind of hilltop state employed by the Marx Brothers in Duck Soup. Yet Fifa are not Freedonia and they are not bankrupt: Groucho’s big problem, as head of state. Blatter and his committees sit on reserves of $1.28bn and emote obsessively about spreading this largesse around the five continents, even though no one seems able to say clearly where all the money ends up. In his mission statement, headed “Fifa Brand – Our commitment” (note the word brand), Blatter makes a “promise” – “For the Games, For the World”. He says: “The world is a place rich in natural beauty and cultural diversity, but also one where many are still deprived of their basic rights. Fifa now have an even greater responsibility to reach out and touch the world, using football as a symbol of hope and integration.” Right now the world would probably rather not be “touched” by Fifa. 11.55am: Franz Beckenbauer has offered Uncle Sepp his support: “He did a wonderful job,” the former Germany captain told Radio 5 Live. “It’s not easy. Fifa is like the United Nations – we have 208 members. It’s not an easy to handle, but I think Blatter and his staff are doing a wonderful job.” ‘A wonderful job’? Really? 11.48am: The big news this morning is that Mohamed Bin Hammam has withdrawn from the presidential race. Here’s Matt Scott, in Zurich : Mohamed bin Hammam has withdrawn from the race to become the next Fifa president and has vowed to clear his name when he appears before the body’s ethics committee. The president of the Asian Football Confederation is facing bribery allegations, alongside the Fifa vice-president Jack Warner, while the organisation’s president, Sepp Blatter, is being investigated for knowing about alleged bribery. Bin Hammam’s decision to pull out of the election means Blatter is unopposed in his attempt to secure a fourth term as the head of world football in Wednesday’s vote. Bin Hammam said: “I pray that my withdrawal will not be tied to the investigation held by the Fifa ethics committee as I will appear before the ethics committee to clear my name from the baseless allegations that have been made against me. “I promise those who stood by me that I will walk with my head held high and will continue to fight for the good of the game. “I have a special thank you to my friend and colleague Jack Warner for his unlimited support. I am sorry to see that he has to suffer because of me, but I am promising him that I will be with him all the way through thick and thin. “I look forward to working closely with my colleagues to restore Fifa’s reputation to what it should be – a protector of the game that has credibility through honesty, transparency and accountability. It saddens me that standing up for the causes I believed in has come at a great price – the degradation of Fifa’s reputation. This is not what I had in mind for Fifa and this is unacceptable. “I cannot allow the game that I love to be dragged more and more in the mud because of competition between two individuals. The game itself and the people who love it around the world must come first. It is for this reason that I announce my withdrawal from the presidential election.” Bin Hammam’s withdrawal is only one hurdle for Blatter to overcome in his attempt to extend his tenure into a fourth term. The corruption allegations that have engulfed world football and destroyed Bin Hammam’s candidacy also threaten him: like the Qatari challenger, he faces an ethics committee hearing on Sunday. Today’s order of play, as it were: • Starting this morning: Fifa’s ethics committee meets in Zurich. • At 5pm there will be a press conference where the committee’s findings will be revealed. As a grandiose Fifa statement today explains: Fifa vice-president Jack Warner, executive committee member Mohamed bin Hammam, as well as Caribbean Football Union officials Debbie Minguell and Jason Sylvester, have been invited to attend a hearing by the Fifa ethics committee at the home of Fifa in Zurich on the same day. The meeting, which starts in the morning, will be followed by a press conference in the auditorium of the home of Fifa, planned for 6pm CET [5pm BST] (time subject to change). The press conference will be attended by deputy chairman of the Fifa ethics committee, Petrus Damaseb and Fifa secretary general Jérôme Valcke. Fifa Football politics Sepp Blatter Mohamed bin Hammam John Ashdown guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …