Why is CNN’s Anderson Cooper Lending Elliot Abrams Credibility by Having Him on 360?
May 19, 2011 No Comment
Click here to view this media For all of the good things you can say about a lot of Anderson Cooper’s reporting on CNN, it’s segments like this that are just plain infuriating and where he proves himself to be little more than a hack like much of the rest of our corporate media who are happy to whitewash the corruption of past presidential administrations by treating someone like Elliot Abrams as though he’s someone who’s opinion should be respected rather than sitting in a jail cell right now. If anyone doesn’t think Cooper or his staff knew full well who they were bringing on here to discuss the situation in Syria along with one of CNN’s other correspondents, Jill Dougherty, a simple search yielding his Wiki page would tell most people who wanted to do about two minutes of research just how slimy this man’s background is. Or maybe if they’d looked a bit more, they would have found this article at The Nation : “How would you feel if your wife and children were brutally raped before being hacked to death by soldiers during a military massacre of 800 civilians, and then two governments tried to cover up the killings?” It’s a question that won’t be asked of Elliott Abrams at a Senate confirmation hearing–because George W. Bush, according to press reports, may appoint Abrams to a National Security Council staff position that (conveniently!) does not require Senate approval. Moreover, this query is one of a host of rude, but warranted, questions that could be lobbed at Abrams, the Iran/contra player who was an assistant secretary of state during the Reagan years and a shaper of that Administration’s controversial–and deadly–policies on Latin America and human rights. His designated spot in the new regime: NSC’s senior director for democracy, human rights and international operations. (At press time, the White House and Abrams were neither confirming nor denying his return to government.) More there so go read the rest. If you’d like to contact CNN and Cooper’s show to voice your displeasure, here’s the link for that . Transcript below the fold . COOPER: Let’s bring in Jill Dougherty, also Elliott Abrams, a veteran of the Reagan and George W. Bush administrations and currently a senior fellow for Middle Eastern studies at the Council on Foreign Relations. Elliott, obviously, some tough sanctions announced today. Maybe the president will have more to say. But how much can be done? How much can be accomplished? What can — what else can be done to stop these killings? ELLIOTT ABRAMS, COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS: Two things. First, we need to be clearer that Assad has got to go. The president said that about Mubarak and Gadhafi. He still hasn’t said it about Assad. I hope he does tomorrow, but the sooner the better. We need more sanctions and we need more Europeans to join us in them, because we have got to get the richer people, the elites, particularly the Sunni elites in Syria, to turn against him, and the way to do that is through the economy. COOPER: Jill, do we know what the president is going to say tomorrow? JILL DOUGHERTY, CNN FOREIGN AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: We think it’s going to be tougher. There could be a good portion of it on Syria. I don’t think, judging by what we have heard, he’s going to go as far as Elliott is saying and say, you know, you have outlived your usefulness. You have to step down. The sanctions really did that. Or at least that’s the message. But, you know, look at what they said, Anderson, in the sanctions announcement today, to go for a political transition or leave. They’re still leaving that window open for political transition, even though the United States has no idea and no — there’s no belief at all that he’s going to — that Assad is going to change. COOPER: Elliott, I mean, the White House in the past, toward the end of the Mubarak regime, called on Mubarak to step down, Gadhafi, obviously. Why hasn’t the president made the same demand of Assad? ABRAMS: Well, I think one thing is, they still believe in this reformer nonsense. You have shown these pictures. This is a regime that survives by murdering its own population. But it’s been very slow to get particularly Secretary Clinton to turn away from this idea that he’s secretly a reformer. The other thing is, they’re afraid of what comes next. There’s the bogeyman out there of the Muslim Brotherhood taking over Syria. No one ever produces any evidence for why that would happen, but that’s the other argument… (CROSSTALK) COOPER: So, you have no concerns about what comes next? Because we have all seen in many — look what’s happening in Egypt right now. Things are not turning out necessarily the way certainly many of the secular reformers wanted. ABRAMS: Well, how much worse can it get than this regime? It’s murdering its own people. It is Iran’s greatest ally. It is an enemy of Israel. It is trying to take over and as it used to have control over Lebanon. It is a regime that was building a nuclear weapon with the help of North Korea. It was a regime that funneled jihadis into Iraq to kill as many Americans as possible. What is going to be worse than that? COOPER: Jill, we have seen ambassadors pulled from other countries that are in a lot better shape than Syria is right now in terms of violence directed at its people. Any discussion of removing the ambassador? DOUGHERTY: No. In fact, we talked to two State Department officials today who said they’re not thinking about that. And the rationale they usually use in this case is having an ambassador there, even if you can send a signal by yanking him out, it still gives you a chance to talk directly with the regime, deliver a message, that type of thing, maybe even a harder message. But they’re not talking about pulling him out yet. Elliott, is there some… (CROSSTALK) COOPER: Sorry. Go ahead, Elliott. ABRAMS: I was just going to jump in and say that’s a mistake, because, as I talk to Syrians, what they’re worried about is, why is the American government in favor of Assad staying? We need to do something symbolically that proves to Syrians we’re on their side, not on his side. Pulling the ambassador is probably the easiest symbolic move to make that clear to them. COOPER: Elliott Abrams, I appreciate you being on the show, Jill Dougherty as well. Thanks very much. ABRAMS: Thank you. COOPER: Again, we will continue to follow this tomorrow, when the president is supposed to speak about it.
Continue reading …
Gerry Adams joins in near-universal praise for British monarch’s gestures of reconciliation – and words of Gaelic The Queen woke to find herself an unlikely star in the Irish Republic, almost universally praised for her gestures of reconciliation during the first official visit by a British monarch in 100 years. Her words and bearing have astonished and delighted many. Both the Queen’s speech at the state dinner in Dublin Castle and her silent tribute at the national garden of remembrance to those killed fighting the British for Irish independence at the start of her visit on Tuesday have been well received. There has even been speculation that her visit may outshine President Barack Obama’s next week. Eamon Gilmore, the tánaiste (Ireland’s deputy prime minister) and foreign minister, told the Guardian: “The visit has gone very, very well and has been great for the country.” The broadcaster RTÉ says 500,000 viewers watched its coverage of the Queen planting a tree at the presidential residence on Tuesday, and other channels also covered the occasion. Even her few words of Gaelic at the start of her speech at the state dinner – “A Úachtárain agus a chairde” (“president and friends”, immaculately pronounced) – were an unexpected gesture. Mary McAleese, the Irish president, who was sitting beside the Queen, turned to others at the table open-mouthed, exclaiming “wow”. The speech, with its apology for “things we wish had been done differently or not at all”, was greeted across the Irish political spectrum with near universal praise. Her words, calling for forbearance and conciliation and the loosening of the knots of history, striving to create a more harmonious relationship “close as good neighbours should always be”, led all the Irish papers. All were full of praise for the address, which was delivered in front of dignitaries from both sides of the Irish border, including the taoiseach, Enda Kenny, the Unionist first minister of Northern Ireland, Peter Robinson, religious leaders including Cardinal Seán Brady, the Nobel laureate Seamus Heaney, Irish rugby star Brian O’Driscoll and various Irish former prime ministers. They gave the Queen rapturous applause and a standing ovation. Some Sinn Féin politicians pronounced themselves “underwhelmed” – and found themselves roundly attacked. The television interviewer Vincent Browne asking the parliamentarian Aengus Ó Snodaigh: “So when did the IRA ever apologise?” The Sinn Féin president, Gerry Adams, however, united with David Cameron to praise the Queen’s historic address. “I believe that her expression of sincere sympathy for those who have suffered as a consequence of our troubled past is genuine,” he said. His party has been criticised for refusing to meet the Queen. Cameron said: “I believe that her expression of sincere sympathy for those who have suffered as a consequence of our troubled past is genuine,” he said. “I think this visit will set the seal on what is already a very strong relationship between our two countries, but a relationship I believe that can get even stronger still.” The Queen and Duke of Edinburgh moved away from the symbolism of the first half of their visit, to what was undoubtedly more congenial and relaxed ground for her, visiting several stud farms on the Curragh near Dublin. At the Irish National Stud at Kildare, the Queen was applauded as visibly relaxed and smiling broadly, she was introduced to jockeys, trainers, farriers and apprentices and shown racehorses. Sue Lilley, farrier course co-ordinator, said: “This is the biggest day of our lives.” Simon Coveney, the Irish agriculture minister, who accompanied the royal party, said: “I think she is on comfortable ground here, surrounded by horsey people, many of whom she knows. She would be welcome to come to the races here at any time.” Michael O’Connell, the Labour lord mayor of Cork, called on residents to line the route when the Queen visits the city. It is yet another resonant gesture, as one of O’Connell’s predecessors, Terence MacSwiney, famously starved himself to death in Brixton prison in 1920 after being jailed by the British for sedition. O’Connell said the visit was “a unique opportunity for the people of Cork, civic leaders and businesses to show the best of what our special city has to offer and to make an unforgettable first impression. “It’s our opportunity to give Queen Elizabeth a welcome to remember in front of an audience of over 30 million people tuned in worldwide.” In Dublin, the British embassy hosted a reception to mark the visit, with a fashion show featuring Irish and British designers, followed by a concert featuring the boy band Westlife, the X Factor finalist Mary Byrne, who was born locally, and the 1996 Irish Eurovision song contest winner Eimear Quinn. Obama will be visiting County Offaly to see his ancestral family roots, before a state visit to London when he will meet the 85-year-old woman who has unexpectedly become an Irish media star. Press Reaction: ‘Not just polite applause’ The Irish newspapers have covered the Queen’s visit in exhaustive detail, from the constitutional and political implications to details of the state dinner and Her Majesty’s clothes – and all have been lavish in their praise of the 85-year-old monarch. The Evening Herald: “You really could not make it up … It was truly a spectacle of epic proportions. When Queen Elizabeth rose to speak at last night’s state dinner in Dublin Castle, stylish in a white silk crepe state dress and the Queen Mary tiara, she had a little surprise up that shamrock-embroidered sleeve. In a strong voice that belied her 85 years she began with the words “A Uachtaráin agus a chairde”. Irish Independent: “It was a moving speech delivered in her clear cut crystal voice and after the toast the room stood and applauded. Not just polite applause but sustained heartfelt appreciation of the bridge that the Queen herself had built … she had the look of a woman for whom the weight of history had just got a lot lighter.” Irish Times: “For some, perhaps far fewer in number than was the case on Monday … Queen Elizabeth should simply have apologised for colonial rule, or never have come at all. As expected, she was far more nuanced … Queen Elizabeth is welcome as a remarkable woman in her own right, as a figure to whom a significant minority on this island give allegiance and, above all, as a symbol of the mutual affection and common interests of two separate but closely connected countries.” The Queen Monarchy Ireland Europe Gerry Adams Stephen Bates Henry McDonald guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Social scientist made remarks on his blog claiming he had analysed data from an online study of physical attractiveness Student groups at the London School of Economics are calling for the dismissal of a social scientist who has become embroiled in a racism row after claiming that a study showed black women to be less attractive than women of other races. Dr Satoshi Kanazawa, an evolutionary psychologist at the institution, published his comments on a blog and claimed he had analysed data from an online study of physical attractiveness. In his article for Psychology Today , Kanazawa wrote: “Black women are … far less attractive than white, Asian, and Native American women.” The piece drew a barrage of complaints from readers and has since been removed from the site. The row has prompted the University of London Union Senate, the union’s legislative body, which represents more than 120,000 students, to vote unanimously for the dismissal of Kanazawa, and to condemn his research. Sherelle Davids, anti-racism officer-elect of the LSE students’ union, said: “Kanazawa deliberately manipulates findings that justify racist ideology. As a black woman I feel his conclusions are a direct attack on black women everywhere who are not included in social ideas of beauty.” Amena Amer, incoming LSE students’ union education officer, added: “We support free speech and academic freedom, but Kanazawa’s research fuels hate against ethnic and religious minorities promoted by neo-Nazi groups. Not only does he use the LSE’s credentials to legitimise his ‘research’ but this jeopardises the academic credibility of the LSE.” The LSE launched an internal investigation into Kanazawa’s comments after senior academics at the school, including the new director, Judith Rees, received letters of complaint over the remarks. Dr Kanazawa is abroad on sabbatical this year. The incident is the latest embarrassment for the LSE, following the resignation of previous director Sir Howard Davies, in March after admitting that the institution’s reputation had been damaged by the acceptance of a £1.5m donation from a foundation controlled by Muammar Gaddafi’s son, Saif al-Islam. The investigation will look at the data Kanazawa analysed and the quality of his work, before deciding what punitive action, if any, it can take. In a statement, the LSE sought to distance itself from the researcher’s comments, but acknowledged freedom of academic expression. “The views expressed by this academic are his own and do not in any way represent those of the LSE as an institution. The important principle of academic freedom means that authors have the right to publish their views – but it also means the freedom to disagree. We are conducting internal investigations into this matter,” the statement said. Kanazawa has been criticised in the past for substandard research in the area of race and intelligence. Race issues London School of Economics and Political Science Higher education Women Ian Sample guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Report calls for £1bn to be stripped out of industry and recommends fares shakeup to reduce overcrowding Commuters face the biggest shakeup of the railways since the ignominious Railtrack era after a government-commissioned report called for £1bn in costs to be stripped out of the industry – and for it to give all involved a “better deal”. An overhaul of the fares system was the most eye-catching recommendation in a study by Sir Roy McNulty, former chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority. The report into rail industry costs also outlined changes to slash the £5.2bn state subsidy, including phasing out ticket offices in small stations, removing conductors and giving train operators control of maintenance on some routes. McNulty said fares in the UK were 30% higher than in France, Holland, Sweden and Switzerland, with operating costs running 40% higher than those countries. “There is a clear imperative to give both farepayers and taxpayers a better deal,” McNulty said. “This industry has a serious cost deficiency issue to address. Everyone concerned must be aware that passengers are paying above the odds.” In a warning that fares policy is needlessly increasing overcrowding, the report made radical proposals, including scrapping some cheap walk-up tickets for long-distance journeys and lifting price restrictions on selected commuter season tickets. The government announced a fares review in the wake of the report, which pledged not to add to the financial pressure on farepayers, who already spend £6.2bn a year on the railways. McNulty stated the case for airline-style pricing that would see fares raised for overcrowded services in order to encourage travel on less busy trains. He said overcrowding could be tackled by charging higher fares on busier trains and lower fares on less busy ones. Such an approach is impossible under the current fares regime, which limits increases on season tickets and some off-peak fares at inflation +3%. The government immediately quashed some of McNulty’s blue-sky proposals and ruled out lifting fare restrictions on the busiest peak commuter services and scrapping savers entirely. However, some off-peak fares are likely to be targeted. A number of saver fares from London become available after 7pm, encouraging overcrowding on services that would have been less busy at 6.30pm. Emphasising that his proposals represented “evolution not revolution”, McNulty said £1bn a year could be taken out of the industry’s £12bn operating costs before the end of the decade by devolving power at Network Rail, the owner of Britain’s tracks and stations, and tackling costs at the companies that run passenger services. Network Rail, a government-backed business, took over from a stricken Railtrack in 2002 and soon brought safety and punctuality records back to acceptable levels after a series of fatal accidents during the early years of privatisation. A former managing director at the Strategic Rail Authority, the government body that oversaw the birth of Network Rail, said the proposals represented the most serious changes to the industry in a decade. Jim Steer, now a rail industry consultant, said: “Together with the devolution of Network Rail, it signals the biggest shakeup of the industry since Network Rail was formed. It is seeking to change the way the different organisations involved in the railways behave with each other.” The changes will not require primary legislation. Network Rail has already launched a devolution programme, while many of the changes at operating companies will be written into franchises as they come up for renewal. The transport secretary, Philip Hammond, indicated that the government had no appetite for the kind of structural tinkering that broke up British Rail and rushed the system into private ownership in the 1990s. Questions were raised over the establishment of a Rail Delivery Group, made up of senior executives from across the industry, to co-ordinate the cost reductions. The powerful RMT trade union, which views the report as a shot across its bows, objected to appointing the chief executive of FirstGroup, a privately owned train operator, as chair of the group. Last week FirstGroup’s boss, Tim O’Toole, announced that the company was handing back its First Great Western franchise three years ahead of schedule, avoiding £826.6m in payments to the government. Blaming the industry’s high costs on the fragmentation caused by privatisation, the RMT’s general secretary, Bob Crow said: “A graphic example is FirstGroup bailing out of the Great Western franchise three years early, depriving the taxpayer of £826m in premium payments while soaking up £140m in government subsidy at the same time. Deal with that kind of scandal and the government could claw back their £1bn savings target at a stroke.” A senior rail industry source also raised doubts about whether privately owned train operators would sacrifice their profits to protect the taxpayer. London’s major commuter routes are all operated by listed businesses. “Company directors have no interest in reducing their profitability. It is a real tension,” said the source. McNulty defended the achievements of privatisation, saying that punctuality and safety standards were now at impressive levels. More than nine out of 10 trains now arrive on time, while the last fatal accident due to a maintenance error was in 2007. Rail transport Transport Rail travel Dan Milmo guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Click here to view this media There was a pretty amazing moment Tuesday during the JPMorgan Chase shareholders meeting . A woman from the group Illinois People’s Action, Dawn Dannenbring, who as a shareholder had the right to speak at the meeting, said to CEO Jamie Dimon: “As a person of faith, my God believes you shouldn’t take advantage of people when they are down. Do you believe in the same God I believe in?” Dimon was apparently a little taken aback, answering, “That’s a hard one to answer.” Well, I’m sure on one level it was. He wouldn’t have known what religion the woman was, or what she truly thought about God. He probably has never been asked his theological views in his job as JPMorgan Chase CEO before. But even though I have no knowledge whatsoever of Jamie Dimon’s faith or theology, I feel extremely confident in saying I know the answer: it would be “no.” I don’t know what Dannenbring’s religion is, but it is clear she comes out of the historic faith tradition that takes the idea of a God caring about justice for regular people seriously. From the God of Genesis condemning Cain for not being his brother’s keeper, to Old Testament prophets who condemned their societies for throwing poor people out of their homes and leaving people to starve in the streets, to Jesus telling people to treat the weak and poor with mercy and help the least of these, the Judeo-Christian Bible shows us a God who cares deeply about economic justice and the downtrodden. And it isn’t just the Bible: pretty much every major religion, and every major ethical system ever developed, shares fundamental notions of fairness, compassion, honesty, treating others as you would want to be treated, and looking out for those weaker and poorer than you. These ideas are thousands of years old, and are the basis of a decent civilization. Now I know some people in the financial industry who are fine people. Some of them understood the flaws in our financial system, and helped make constructive proposals on financial reform. Some of them invested the old-fashioned way, in great companies that are creating new jobs in America. But it seems apparent that most of the top executives and traders of the biggest financial institutions in America — the six Too Big To Fail banking conglomerates that own assets equivalent to 64 percent of our GDP — tend to get deeply confused by any question related to this kind of moral, ethical, or religious set of values because they don’t think about them in any way in their work lives. Some — the people who blatantly steal bigger and bigger sums of money from their own companies and clients — have no ethical code at all. But even for most of those who do, the ethical code is constructed so that it allows them to abuse everyone outside of his or her own firm: what they believe is that their sole obligation is to their shareholders. Period. The bank clerks and secretarial staff don’t get paid very well and don’t share in the big bonuses handed out every quarter. Their clients sometimes get the short end of the stick, as these firms have frequently and notoriously traded against their clients’ interest. Their mortgage holders have been cheated over and over again, as the courts and more and more government investigators have been finding. The small businesspeople who accept debit and credit cards from the big banks have been forced to pay exorbitant swipe fees for years. Beyond these moral failings with the people they deal with most closely, these big bankers seem to have no ethics about other people in general. After gambling recklessly with other people’s money, creating the biggest financial panic since the crash of 1929, needing to take a massive government bailout (TARP ain’t the half of it, check out this article about the free money they got from the Fed), wrecking the world economy and throwing 8 million Americans out of work, and then handing themselves record bonuses the year after the crash, they seem to feel not even an iota of shame. One Wall Street banker even compared Obama to Hitler for daring to suggest they pay a fair share of taxes. Now, after outspending reformers more than 500 to 1 during the legislative fight over financial reform last year, and weakening the bill in some important ways, these same Wall Street bankers are trying to roll back the best of the reforms we did win, and they are trying to weasel out of any liability over destroying the housing market. On derivatives regulation, on swipe fee reform, on the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and on helping homeowners with underwater mortgages, the big banks on definitely on the wrong side. They don’t want any oversight; they don’t want to negotiate with anyone over anything; they don’t want to help anyone they have wronged or anyone in financial stress; they don’t want to pay another dime in taxes even as they make record profits and take home record bonuses. They don’t care who they hurt, as long as they stay wealthy and overwhelmingly powerful. So look, I’m not going to claim to know whether a God of compassion, mercy, and justice exists. But I do feel quite confident in stating there is no way Jamie Dimon could believe in such a God, and still act the way he does as CEO of JPMorgan Chase.
Continue reading …
Click here to view this media This is really funny. Rick Santorum, never known for his brains, is called out by one of John McCain’s aides for stating that McCain doesn’t understand torture . Yeah, because unlike Rick Santorum, he didn’t just read a story about it: WASHINGTON, May 17 (UPI) — GOP U.S. presidential hopeful Rick Santorum said Tuesday John McCain, tortured as a prisoner of war, “doesn’t understand how enhanced interrogation works.” During an interview on Hugh Hewitt’s talk show on the Salem Radio Network, Santorum, a former Republican U.S. senator from Pennsylvania, credited so-called enhanced interrogation methods with helping the United States track down al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden in Pakistan. When Hewitt pointed out that McCain, the Republican presidential nominee in 2008 and a U.S. senator from Arizona who spent years in a North Vietnamese prison camp during the Vietnam War, has said there is no such evidence, Santorum said everything he has read shows the trail to bin Laden began with “information from people who were subject to enhanced interrogation.” Well, sure! If the only things you read are Townhall.com, Red State and World Net Daily, I can see where he might get that idea… “And so this idea that we didn’t ask that question while Khalid Sheik Mohammed was being waterboarded, he [McCain] doesn’t understand how enhanced interrogation works,” Santorum said. “I mean, you break somebody, and after they’re broken, they become cooperative. And that’s when we got this information. “Maybe McCain has better information than I do, but from what I’ve seen, it seems pretty clear that but for these cooperative witnesses who were cooperative as a result of enhanced interrogations, we would not have gotten bin Laden.” McCain aide Mark Salter responded on Facebook, saying, “For pure, blind stupidity, nobody beats Santorum. In my 20 years in the Senate, I never met a dumber member, which he reminded me of today,” MSNBC reported.
Continue reading …
• President unveils shift in American policy towards Arab nations • ‘Status quo not sustainable,’ he warns region’s autocracies • Sets out two-state solution to Israel-Palestine conflict • Tells Syria’s al-Assad to lead transition or ‘get out of way’ President Barack Obama has sought to realign US policy on the Middle East, promising to shift from the long-held American backing for autocratic regimes to support for the pro-democracy movements and to set out the shape of an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal. “The status quo is not sustainable,” Obama said in a major speech at the state department in Washington on Thursday, the first on the Middle East since he spoke in Cairo in 2009. In a speech dubbed Cairo Two, he threw US weight behind the protesters, saying: “We face a historic opportunity. We have embraced the chance to show that America values the dignity of the street vendor in Tunisia more than the raw power of the dictator … After decades of accepting the world as it is in the region, we have a chance to pursue the world as it should be.” He was addressing criticism that America has been behind the curve in response to the pro-democracy movements sweeping the region. As well as support for the newly emerging democracies in Egypt and Tunisia, he criticised long-term US allies such as Bahrain, where America has a huge naval base, for its suppression of democracy movements. The US had been criticised as inconsistent in issuing only a mild rebuke to Bahrain. But Obama said: “We have insisted publicly and privately that mass arrests and brute force are at odds with the universal rights of Bahrain’s citizens, and will not make legitimate calls for reform go away.” He also addressed what he has previously said was one of the main sources of Middle East antagonism towards the west, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He set out the parameters of a deal and called on Israel to act boldly. It comes at a time when there is stalemate in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. Although the US has long recognised that the boundaries of a Palestinian state should be based on those that existed before the 1967 Arab-Israeli war, it was a significant shift for Obama to stress this in his speech. “The United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine. The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines, with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognised borders are established for both states,” he said. Although he prefaced this by saying that Israel’s security remained a core US aim in the Middle East, it marks a move towards the Palestinians. Obama is due to see the Israeli prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, in Washington on Friday. “As for Israel, our friendship is rooted deeply in a shared history and shared values,” Obama said. “Our commitment to Israel’s security is unshakeable. And we will stand against attempts to single it out for criticism in international forums. But precisely because of our friendship, it is important that we tell the truth: the status quo is unsustainable, and Israel too must act boldly to advance a lasting peace.” He stopped short of calling for the Syrian leader, Bashar al-Assad, to step down from office but told him he had a choice. “The Syrian people have shown their courage in demanding a transition to democracy. President Assad now has a choice: he can lead that transition or get out of the way,” Obama said. The speech made no mention of other autocracies such as Saudi Arabia, on which America depends for oil. He said that Osama Bin Laden’s death had changed the dynamic in the Middle East. “Bin Laden was no martyr,” Obama said. “He was a mass murderer who offered a message of hate – an insistence that Muslims had to take up arms against the west, and that violence against men, women and children was the only path to change. He rejected democracy and individual rights for Muslims in favour of violent extremism.” It is the most important speech he has made on the Middle East since one in Cairo in June 2009, in which he called for a new beginning in relations between the US and the Muslim world after a decade dominated by 9/11 and the Iraq war. He focused then on a need for an Israeli-Palestinian peace, a deal in which Iran would give up any nuclear weapons ambitions, and ways to neutralise extremism. He also promised to close Guantanamo. Obama’s speech comes after intensive debate within the White House between those arguing that the US should be at the forefront of the democracy movement and those whose concern is US national security and protection of oil supplies. The few billion dollars proposed so far is not comparable to the vast sums the US sent to Europe after 1945, and some of it has already been announced by the World Bank and the IMF. The speech was aimed at a global audience, with the state department providing simultaneous translation into Arabic and Farsi, and was deliberately timed for midday in Washington so that it could be watched live in the evening in the Middle East. The White House view is that the best way to support democracy is through economic reform, and drew comparisons with the massive injection of American aid to Europe after the war, and with the support given to central and eastern Europe in 1989. The US is to relieve Egypt of up to $1bn in debt and lend or guarantee up to $1bn. The World Bank, the IMF and other multilateral institutions are to provide a further $2bn-3bn. The White House sees the investment as essential to help deal with problems such as unemployment in Egypt, where a majority of the population is under 30 and youth unemployment is estimated at 30%. The problem for Obama domestically is that Americans may look at the high unemployment rates in the US, officially around 9%, though the real figure may be double that, and question why billions are being sent overseas. Arab and Middle East unrest Barack Obama Middle East United States Ewen MacAskill guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Wins Songwriter of the Year prize and awards for Defamation of Strickland Banks and most performed work She Said His alter-ego Strickland Banks may have found himself incarcerated for a crime he did not commit, but the career path of his creator Ben Drew, aka Plan B, continues to follow a much more successful trajectory. The musician dominated the Ivor Novello awards on Thursday, taking home three honours including the most-coveted prize of Songwriter of the Year, as well as the album award for the Defamation of Strickland Banks, and the most performed work for She Said. Accepting his third award, an emotional Drew described making songs in his bedroom in east London while he saw friends succumb to heroin and get thrown out of tower blocks. “I wanted to stand up for those kids, I wanted to write about those kids who were ignored and forgotten,” he said. After he received the award from Elton John, who called the Defamation of Strickland Banks his favourite record of the year, he added that his next album would be a return to his hip hop roots with the Ballad of Belmarsh. “I am never going to make music that I don’t like because a record label is making me do it,” he said, referring to his decision to move away for the commercial success he has had with soul. It was a good day for British urban music at the 56th Novello awards for British songwriting at the Grosvenor Hotel, London. Tinie Tempah – real name Patrick Okogwu – took home the prize for best contemporary song for the stratospherically successful Pass Out, which he co-wrote with Timothy McKenzie, better known by his stage name Labrinth, and Marc Williams. One of the biggest honours went to the boy grime star turned seasoned man of pop Dizzee Rascal, who accepted the Ivors Inspiration Award. Mr Rascal, as he was once called by Newsnight presenter Jeremy Paxman, gracefully accepted his invitation into the songwriting establishment. Wearing a tuxedo, with a maroon silk scarf and matching bow tie, he said with typical boisterousness: “We are doing this shit! Thanks to everyone man, respect.” The Ivors have always been more about the beauty of the songs rather than the brawn of the charts, and there was plenty of talent. Conor O’ Brian, of the Villagers, won the Best song Musically and Lyrically for Becoming a Jackal, the performance of which held Mercury music prize attendees spell-bound when the band was nominated last year. “Holy shit,” said the diminuitive Irishman. “I see songs as self-rewarding so I’ll see this as a bonus to the incredible year we’ve had.” Fresh from winning a Grammy for their latest album The Resistance, Devon’s finest stadium rockers Muse, comprising Matthew Bellamy, Dominic Howard and Christopher Wolstenholme, took home the award for international achievement. The awards, which value talent over chart success, reach out across generations of musicians and songwriters. The award for outstanding contribution to British music went to 62-year-old rock singer-songwriter Paul Rodgers, who first gained success as a member of Free and Bad Company in the 70s. The outstanding song collection award went to multi-instrumentalist Steve Winwood, who among other instruments, plays the mandolin, violin, electric organ, synthesizers, bass, drums and guitar. Michael Nyman, the pianist and composer of the multi-platinum soundtrack to the Piano as well as several operas, won the classical music award. This year’s best original film score went to John Powell for How To Train Your Dragon, while Dan Jones won the best television soundtrack for Any Human Heart. Now in its second year, the award for best original video game score went to Richard Beddow, Richard Birdsall and Ian Livingstone for Napoleon: Total War. There was a standing ovation for American composer and lyricist Stephen Sondheim, who could not accept his award personally as he is ill in New York. The composer, whose most famous scores include Sweeney Todd, into the Woods and Assassins as well as the lyrics for West Side Story, received the special international award, to add to his countless Tonys, Academy awards, Grammys and Pulitzers. Ivor Novello awards Awards and prizes Pop and rock Alexandra Topping guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Law to suspend licences was introduced in 2008 but has not been used until now Driving on Venezuela’s lawless roads is a libertarian paradise for some, a hellish, perilous ordeal for others, but now a little piece of history has been made. Ramon Parra, 41, a bus driver, has become the first person to have a licence suspended after being caught speeding with too many passengers and too few wheels. “This is a totally new act; for the first time in Venezuela we are suspending a driving licence, for 12 consecutive months,” the national police chief, Luis Fernández, told reporters. A law allowing authorities to suspend licences was introduced in 2008 but had not been used until now, said Fernández. Killing someone can trigger the maximum suspension of five years. Under normal circumstances Parra’s bus would not have merited a second glance. Motorways can resemble scenes from Mad Max, with crumbling vehicles racing around huge potholes heedless of oncoming traffic. But police in Zamora, in the western state of Falcon, decided to make an example of the driver of the bus, which was going too fast, was overloaded with passengers and had one of its six wheels tucked into an aisle, pending repairs. The vehicle was impounded, another rarity, and the driver and his company, Expreso Los Llano, will be fined, said Fernández. The move may have been prompted by a survey, published this week, which showed people ranked unsafe buses high on their list of transport concerns. One reason Venezuela is so full of jalopies is a petrol subsidy: 1.4p per litre, which works out at 70p to fill the tank of an average car. As a result ancient pick-up trucks and buses fill the roads alongside shiny SUVs and other gas guzzlers. Drink driving is common but breathalysers are almost unknown. Venezuela Rory Carroll guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …When O’Reilly’s own poll shows he got creamed by Jon Stewart, you know it was total evisceration
May 19, 2011 No Comment
Click here to view this media Remember how Bill O’Reilly asked viewers to log in and vote on who won the debate he had just had with Jon Stewart over Fox’s lame “Common controversy” the other night? Well, it didn’t turn out so well for BillO. O’Reilly sorta kinda halfway copped to it at the end of his show last night, responding to one the usual fawning letter writers he reads at the end of each night. It seems the outcome was the fault of us dirty f–ing hippies: O’REILLY: Randy DeFord, Monticello, Indiana: “Bill, the debate with Stewart was great. Too bad he lost.” Well, you know, lots of folks think he won, Randy. But it’s impossible to get an accurate tally, because some far-left Websites have intruded on our poll. I thought that might happen. It is entirely my fault. But the results are skewed. You know, they tell their Night of the Living Dead people — uuggghhh, go — you know, all of that. Notice that Bill didn’t bother to tell you the actual numbers. Of course, if you go to his website, here’s what you see: enlarge Yep, that’s pretty much what we thought, too. And no, it wasn’t anything we said or did. There might have been other sites organizing a GOTV operation on O’Reilly’s website, but those results probably came pretty much naturally.
Continue reading …