Astounding, just astounding. They have to raise the premiums because people might eventually be able to buy gas, or afford the co-pay? We are a society where the corporate monsters have no shame at all. We live in the wealthiest country in the world, yet we can’t manage to create a system that allows everyone to see a doctor when they need to — you know, like the rest of the civilized world. Just amazing: The nation’s major health insurers are barreling into a third year of record profits, enriched in recent months by a lingering recessionary mind-set among Americans who are postponing or forgoing medical care. The UnitedHealth Group, one of the largest commercial insurers, told analysts that so far this year, insured hospital stays actually decreased in some instances. In reporting its earnings last week, Cigna, another insurer, talked about the “low level” of medical use. Yet the companies continue to press for higher premiums, even though their reserve coffers are flush with profits and shareholders have been rewarded with new dividends. Many defend proposed double-digit increases in the rates they charge, citing a need for protection against any sudden uptick in demand once people have more money to spend on their health, as well as the rising price of care. Even with a halting economic recovery, doctors and others say many people are still extremely budget-conscious, signaling the possibility of a fundamental change in Americans’ appetite for health care. Yes, because using healthcare is just a bad habit, like smoking or doing drugs. If only health insurance companies can drive people to the point where they’re afraid to ever use their insurance at all, why, everyone will be happy!
Continue reading …Last year, MSNBC and other so-called “news” outlets mercilessly attacked Kentucky Senatorial candidate Rand Paul for giving an honest libertarian answer to Rachel Maddow concerning the Civil Rights Act of 1964. On Friday's “Hardball,” Chris Matthews tried the same tactic on Paul's father Ron, but the elder Texas Congressman was ready for the question and ended up making the host look rather silly for asking it (video follows with transcript and commentary): CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: Let me ask you. The `64 civil rights bill — REPRESENTATIVE RON PAUL (R-TEXAS): Total — total — MATTHEWS: The `64 civil rights bill, do you think an employer, a guy who runs his shop down in Texas or anywhere has a right to say, if you`re black, you don`t come in my store? Readers are reminded that last May, Matthews' colleague Rachel Maddow asked a similar question during her interview with Paul's son Rand. When he gave an honest, libertarian answer, the media pounced on him as a racist. This of course included MSNBC which did segment after segment attacking Rand leading him to tell a Louisville radio station, “I need to be very careful about going on certain networks that seem to have a bias.” Clearly aware of what this pathetic excuse for a “news” network did to his son last year, Ron was ready, willing, and able to parry the blow: PAUL: Well, I believe — (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: That was the right under — that was the libertarian right before `64. Was it the better society? PAUL: I believe — I believe that property rights should be protected. Your — your right to be on TV is protected by property rights, because somebody owns that station. I can`t walk into your station. So, right of freedom of speech is protected by property. The right of your church is protected by property. So, people should honor and protect it. This gimmick, Chris, it`s just — it`s off the wall when you, I`m for property rights and states` rights; therefore, I`m a racist. I mean, that`s just outlandish. MATTHEWS: No. I`m just asking you — (CROSSTALK) PAUL: Wait. Wait, Chris. Wait, Chris. People who — let`s say that law was there, and you could do that. Who`s going to do it? What idiot would do that? What idiot would do that? MATTHEWS: Everybody was in the South. I saw the white — I saw the “white only” signs driving through the South in college. Of course they did it. You remember them doing it. PAUL: Oh, yes, yes. Yes, but I also know that the Jim Crow laws were illegal, and we got rid of them under that same law. And that`s all good. (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: Right. Well, you would have voted against that law. PAUL: Pardon me? MATTHEWS: You would have voted against that law. You wouldn`t have voted for the `64 civil rights bill. PAUL: Yes, but not in — I wouldn`t vote against getting rid of the Jim Crow laws. (CROSSTALK) See where this is going? As NewsBusters has been reporting for months, MSNBC's goal is to make every Republican presidential candidate look racist. With 9 percent unemployment, $4 gasoline, rising food costs and plummeting housing prices, Barack Obama's cheerleaders know they're going to have to get the public's attention off the economy for him to get reelected. The answer: make every contender a racist, and the man that gets a thrill up his leg at the mere mention of the name “Obama” is more than willing to do his part: MATTHEWS: But you would have voted for the — you know you — oh, come on. Honestly, Congressman, you were not for the `64 civil rights bill. PAUL: Because — because of the property rights element, not because it got rid of the Jim Crow law. MATTHEWS: Right. The guy who owns a bar says, no blacks allowed, you say that`s fine. PAUL: No, Chris, you`re demagoguing it now. You know that isn`t what I`m saying. MATTHEWS: No, I`m asking a question. (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: Well, what`s the answer? What`s your answer? (CROSSTALK) PAUL: You know, segregation was created by government laws. Slavery was created by government laws. Segregation — MATTHEWS: Oh. PAUL: Let me go. Let me — segregation in the military by government laws. So, what we want to do, as libertarians, is repeal all of those laws and honor and respect people with — (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: OK. Look, I have seen this. (CROSSTALK) PAUL: But for you to imply — for you to imply that a property rights` person is endorsing that stuff, you don`t understand that there would be zero signs up today saying something like that. And, if they did, they would be an idiot and they would out of business. So, I think you`re just getting overboard in order to try to turn it around and — MATTHEWS: No, I`m not. I`m asking it. I`m talking about facts. PAUL: — try to accuse somebody of being a racist. (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: I`m not calling anybody a racist. I`m saying the laws are racist. (CROSSTALK) PAUL: Yes. That`s what you`re implying. That`s what you`re implying, Chris. (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: I once knew a laundromat when I was in the Peace Corps training in Louisiana, in Baker, Louisiana. A laundromat had this sign on it in glaze, “whites only” on the laundromat, just to use the laundromat machines. This was a local shop saying no blacks allowed. You say that should be legal. PAUL: That`s — that`s ancient history. That`s ancient history. That`s over and done with. (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: Because it`s been outlawed. PAUL: Segregation on buses and all was done by law. So it was a culture. That`s over and done with, Chris. Why do you want to go back to ancient days and ancient history? It`s past. MATTHEWS: Because you want to come back — (CROSSTALK) PAUL: It`s past. And nobody is advocating it. (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: You`re running for president — because you`re running for president as a libertarian. Believe me, we don`t need laws to protect people. PAUL: Well, look, you are concocting and you`re reading much more into it, and you`re trying to imply certain beliefs that I don`t have. And I think you`re wrong. I think you`re wrong. MATTHEWS: No. I think you`re a libertarian. I think you`re a total libertarian. I think you`re a total libertarian. I think that is what is appealing about you. And I think people like you. PAUL: And you`re doing it deliberately. (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: You know why they like you? They want to live in a simpler society. (CROSSTALK) PAUL: The comparison to being a total libertarian is believing in liberty vs. being a totalitarian. (LAUGHTER) PAUL: So, if you want the opposite, just look around. That`s what we have. We have a totalitarian world. That`s what most of history has been about, totalitarianism, dictatorship. MATTHEWS: I know. PAUL: We have only had a small taste of freedom of choice and the principle of private property — MATTHEWS: OK. PAUL: — and contract rights. And we`re blowing it. MATTHEWS: OK. PAUL: So, this — this whole thing that we`re going to give up on that, what we`re doing is trying to emphasize that something good and wonderful comes from freedom — MATTHEWS: Right. OK. PAUL: — and freedom of choice, and that we should not say this, that — that liberty is disgusting, as you imply, and totalitarian should be the way we run our country. MATTHEWS: No, I`m not. I`m asking — you`re answering your own questions. PAUL: I think that`s absurd. I may not support many of Paul's views, but I sure like the way he handled this Obama-loving sycophant! Bravo, Ron! Bravo!
Continue reading …• Hit F5 or auto-refresh for the latest news • Email rob.smyth@guardian.co.uk • Follow the latest scores in the Premier League 45 min Lovely play from United. Rooney and Hernandez almost reprised the Yorke/Cole classic in Barcelona , with Rooney dummying, then picking up the ball from Hernandez before trying to play a first-time return pass. Hernandez was blocked off, but the ball came to Nani 20 yards out. He swept his shot miles over the bar. 44 min Rooney tries a cute chip from just outside the box on the right, but he overhits it and it drifts a few yards over. 43 min Nani plays a good one-two with Rooney, and Givet comes across to make a good interception. Moments later, Olsson’s excellent defensive header stops Nani’s cross reaching Valencia. Excellent defending. “Any word on how well Blackburn are defending?” honks Damian Wims. 42 min “De La Soul? Tetris?” sniffs Linda Howard. “Your age is showing.” Pass me the Werthers Original. 41 min Some more diabolical faffing from Kuszczak, who spends ages over a backpass, gawping at the ball like a moron. Hoilett charges towards him, and Kuszczak’s panicky clearance deflects off Hoilett before going out for a goalkick. It could have gone anywhere. Moments later, Evans’ cross-shot from a rtght angle on the left is pushed away Robinson. It was a fairly comfortable save. 40 min Nani, put through on goal, is wrongly flagged offside. That’s a big call. He shoots wide anyway; some Blackburn fans call for a card, but that’s only a yellow-card offence against Barcelona. 39 min A fine break from Blackburn almost brings a second goal. Salgado, 97, winces forward and drills a clever angled cross, beyond the far post and over the head of Fabio. Olsson, arriving late, thrashes a volley wide of the near post from a tight angle. He might have had time to control it first. 38 min “From my memory of Michael Stewart, if he is still approaching life in the same unique style, he’s probably starting a fight in an empty room at this very moment,” says Jon Millard. 37 min Nzonzi leaves his foot in on Fabio and is booked. 36 min ” Any chance you can link to this ?” says Alex Netherton. Why the flip not. 35 min Giggs’s low cross from the right finds Hernandez on the edge of the box, and he drives a shot on the turn with his left foot that is creeping in the bottom corner when Robinson dives to his right to palm it away for a corner. That was an excellent effort, out of nothing really. 33 min I’m a bit of a stuck record, but Blackburn have defended so well thus far. Apart from that Nani header, United haven’t really created anything of note. That said, it’s a hell of a strain mentally to keep this up for 90 minutes. It’s like a 90-minute game of Tetris. 32 min More excellent defending from Samba, who was left one on one with Rooney and blocked him off on the edge of the area. 31 min It’s not a great surprise to see United struggling a wee bit. They have won only five or their 18 away games this season, potentially the lowest total by a championship-winning side since 1977. 30 min A wonderful cross from Emerton, curved from deep on the right, is expertly headed clear by the backpedalling Ferdinand. 28 min “My biggest regret of the Ferguson era is that Paul Rachubka never made it as first choice keeper as I had a rather nifty song for the stretford end based on Kate Bush’s Babushka,” says Niall Murphy. “Oh well. I am still hoping that Have You Heard About The Berb (The Berb is the word) finds a greater audience than my increasingly pissed off friends.” I was looking at some of the lesser-known players who have been part of United’s title campaigns yesterday: Rachubka, Colin McKee, Craig Lawton (an unused sub at QPR in 1992-93 I think), Bojan Djordjic, Michael Stewart. I wonder what they’re all doing now. 27 min After a few minutes of Blackburn pressure, the game has reverted to its early pattern: United passing and moving, Blackburn diligently putting out fires all across the field. They have defended really well. 25 min “So… with Samba & Nelson being the most undervalued centre half pairing in the league, is Phil Jones of similar quality?” says Adam Hirst. “Will they still have a good pair if Samba joins Arsenal in the summer?” I haven’t seen much of him, but apparently he is extremely good and a cert to play for England sooner rather than later. 22 min The ball was very nearly out of play in the build up to the goal, but the assistant referee got the decision right. It was identical to the Gomes/Chelsea incident, in terms of how much of the ball was on the line and how much was over (around nine-tenths). GOAL! Blackburn 1-0 Manchester United (Emerton 20) That volcanic heat you can feel is coming from newspaper editors all round the country, whose plans for tomorrow’s papers might be going up in smoke. Hoilett played the ball wide to Olsson, who clipped over an excellent cross to the far post. Evans was flat-footed and Emerton, 10 yards out, swept it sweetly past Kusczak on the half-volley with his weaker left foot. 19 min A bad mistake from Kuszczak almost gives Blackburn a goal. He faffed around with Carrick’s bobbling backpass, and for a moment he thought about picking it up. Roberts was on him, and Kuszczak tried to dribble past him, and in the end it needed the covering Ferdinand to boot the ball clear. Moments later, Jermaine Jones is booked for a foul in midfield. 18 min Samba has a goal disallowed for a push on Vidic. Everybody had stopped playing, so it’s nowhere near as dramatic as it sounds. 17 min “I see Sir Alex is up on a charge again,” says Gary Naylor. “Any chance of that keeping him in the stands when the trophy is awarded? Harsh, but it would seem right somehow.” He’s been charged for saying exactly the same thing as Carlo Ancelotti and Harry Redknapp, who haven’t been charged. I’m sure it all has nothing to do with David Bernstein becoming the FA chairman. 16 min United have had 74 per cent of the possession so far, which is three times as much as they’ll have at Wembley in a fortnight. 14 min “Whilst even I think it churlish to quibble too much about SAF’s achievements, his titles have coincided with the structural advantages that accrue to the CL teams who are, literally and metaphorically, in a different league to the rest,” says Gary Naylor. “Finding a way to beat the same few challengers is more straightforward than dealing with the barbarians that massed at the gates of the top dogs of the past, the attacks coming thick and fast from all quarters from one season to the next.” That’s true up to a point, but that only applies to the last decade or so, and the Glazers have taken away many of those advantages. 13 min It’s still all United. Giggs plays a neat one-two with Rooney and then tries a through ball to Hernandez. The accomplished Samba comes across to clear. 10 min Olsson earns Blackburn’s first corner down the left. It’s headed clear by Nani, but Hoilett picks the loose ball up and runs between Giggs and Nani on the left of the box. His cut-back deflects off Ferdinand and comes to Samba, who shanks it over the bar from 12 yards. It was an awkward chance, because it bounced higher than he expected, but he probably should have scored. 9 min “Thanks for the tip re: Daniel Harris’ On The Road.,” says Kim Taylor. “For those who may be interested, Nemanja Vidic’s biography is rubbish… but it has some lovely pictures (sigh!).” Daniel’s book, I’m sad to report, doesn’t have any pictures of him in his lovely flip-flops. 8 min Hernandez wins United’s first corner off Phil Jones. It’s taken by Giggs and headed clear by Phil Jones. Giggs picks up the loose ball and stabs a dangerous cross from the right of the box that Samba boots clear. Blackburn are being under a helluva lot of pressure, and 15 seconds later Nani drags a shot wide of the near post from the edge of the box. 7 min It’s still all United, but Blackburn have defended pretty well apart from that one moment when Nani hit the bar. Salgado exemplifies that with a superb tackle on Nani. 5 min “Afternoon Rob,” says Chris Hunt. “Speaking of medals, Gary Neville will get one won’t he? Reckon he’ll pop out of the Sky box to go and fizz some champers round later?” The viewers would love him even more if he did. But no, he won’t, as he only played three games. (And should have been sent off in two of them.) 4 min Nani hits the bar! This was a real reversal of roles: Rooney drifted to the right and curved over a beautiful, Nani-like cross, and Nani got between Samba and Phil Jones to thump a header against the bar from seven yards. He probably should have scored. 3 min United have started like the home side, as you would expect, with some crisp, high-tempo passing. The away fans are in fine voice, almost certainly fuelled by industrial quantities of booze for breakfast. 2 min “Is Owen going to get a medal if he played so little?” says Mateusz. “I remember a couple years back there was a discussion whether Kuszczak would be getting it because he played in less than 10 games I believe. Do the 239 minutes spread out over 10 games? And does Bebe get one too?” Owen will; he has played 10 games, nine as sub. Bebe won’t, although the two low-flying aircraft he demolished with his crosses against Wolves count as a memento of sorts. 1 min “MUFC 19-18 YSB” says a flag in the crowd. United, in red, kick off from right to left. Blackburn are in their usual blue and white. Pic of the day that has nothing to do with this game Neil Shipperley, after . More players should let themselves go like this. More people should. Indulge yourself. It’s not a rehearsal. Team news Blackburn make two changes, with Michel Salgado and Phil Jones replacing Morten Gamst Pedersen and Mame Biram Diouf. For United, Edwin Van der Sar and Park Ji-sung have been given the day off, while Jonny Evans is preferred to Patrice Evra at left back. It may be that Evra has not fully recovered from his thigh injury, or that Sir Alex Ferguson wants more height to deal with Blackburn’s set pieces. Blackburn (4-1-3-1-1) Robinson; Salgado, Samba, Phil Jones, Givet; Jermaine Jones; Emerton, Nzonzi, Olsson; Hoilett; Roberts. Subs: Bunn, Dunn, Kalinic, Pedersen, Andrews, Santa Cruz, Mwaruwari. Man Utd (4-4-1-1) Kuszczak; Fabio Da Silva, Ferdinand, Vidic, Evans; Valencia, Carrick, Giggs, Nani; Rooney; Hernandez. Subs: Amos, Evra, Owen, Anderson, Berbatov, Smalling, Scholes. Referee Phil Dowd (Staffordshire)AQS Plug department If you’re a fan of Manchester United and/or high-class modern writing, you really should read Daniel Harris’s On The Road , which was shortlisted at the British Sports Book Awards. It’s the best United book I’ve read in years. On 22 November 1986 , Sir Alex Ferguson’s first programme notes as Manchester United manager were published ahead of the match against QPR. “A man is very fortunate if he gets the chance to manage Manchester United in his lifetime,” he wrote, “and I can assure you I have no intention of wasting my opportunity.” We are, it is safe to say without even the teensiest fear of contradiction, assured. Preamble II Sir Alex Ferguson? Bloody hell. If Manchester United draw at Blackburn today, he will win his 12th title and United’s 19th, putting them ahead of Liverpool for the first time in their history. You can argue until you’re blue in the face and purple in the nose about whether he knocked Liverpool off their perch – in reality it was a combination of George Graham, Kenny Dalglish and Graeme Souness – but the fact he has kept them and almost everyone else off that perch for the next 20 years is a mind-blowing achievement. And now he is on the cusp of the magic number. De La Soul didn’t know what they were talking about; in half of Manchester, at least, 19 is the magic number. This, more than any other, feels like Ferguson’s title rather than United’s. His Glazerphilia may be pretty unpleasant, but as a football manager he takes some beating. To win the league with this squad is a minor miracle. Some of us have made complete tools of ourselves by writing him off at various points over the last five years; yet again, the old man has bent the world to his will. Today is not all about Ferguson and United, though. Blackburn need points if they are to avoid relegation, which some would see as an appropriate punishment for the ludicrous decision to sack Sam Allardyce. Their last game is at Wolves next week, and Blackburn are so hopeless away from home – just 12 points in 18 games – that this might almost be their best chance of picking up the point they need to reach 40. United don’t win very often at Ewood Park; they have done so just twice in the league since 1998. Then again, they don’t need to win today. Nor do Blackburn. If this was a Serie A match I’d be putting my imaginary life savings on the draw. Preamble Today is an iconic day for one of the all-time greats of British football. Yes, Michael Owen is on the brink of his first title winners’ medal. It’s deserved reward for a man who has never scored 20 league goals in a season, and who has played 239 whole minutes in 2010-11, scoring one goal in the process. Hang on, let’s try that one again… Premier League Manchester United Blackburn Rovers Rob Smyth guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Eye-for-an-eye punishment of Majid Movahedi put on hold despite calls by his disfigured victim, Ameneh Bahrami, for retribution Iran has postponed blinding a man with acid following an international outcry over the retributive punishment imposed after he was found guilty of doing the same to a woman who refused to marry him. In a literal application of the sharia law of an eye for an eye, Majid Movahedi was scheduled to be rendered unconscious in Tehran’s judiciary hospital today while his victim, Ameneh Bahrami, dropped acid in both his eyes. But Iran’s semi-official ISNA news agency reported that officials had postponed the sentence on Friday night and not indicated when the punishment might be carried out in future. Bahrami, who had asked for an eye-for-an-eye retribution in a criminal court in Tehran, was not informed of the postponement. In a highly publicised dossier in November 2008 the court ordered qisas (retribution) on Movahedi after he admitted throwing a jar of acid in his victim’s face while she was returning home from work in 2004. Bahrami, who was left blind and disfigured by the attack, told the court in 2008: “He was holding a red container in his hand. He looked into my eyes for a second and threw the contents of the red container into my face.” Movahedi was required to pay compensation. Bahrami refused to accept the “blood money” and told the court: “Inflict the same life on him that he inflicted on me.” Iranian officials have endorsed the sentence in the hope of halting an increase in the rate of acid attacks. But human rights activists have warned against an “inhumane” sentence. “It is unbelievable that the Iranian authorities would consider implementing such a punishment,” said Hassiba Hadj Sahraoui, deputy director of Amnesty International’s Middle East and North Africa Programme. “Regardless of how horrific the crime suffered by Ameneh Bahrami, being blinded with acid is a cruel and inhuman punishment amounting to torture and the Iranian authorities have a responsibility under international law to ensure it does not go ahead.” Since the attack Bahrami has undergone 17 operations, including an unsuccessful attempt to reconstruct her face in Spain. Her injuries led to the loss of one eye and although she recovered 40% of her sight in the remaining eye an infection in 2007 left her totally blind. Bahrami has consistently demanded retribution for her injuries and has insisted that the punishment be carried out. Iran Middle East Amnesty International Saeed Kamali Dehghan guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Prime minister’s commitment to ‘greenest government ever’ is questioned in open letter from environmental coalition • Read the open letter to David Cameron The prime minister is in danger of breaking his pledge to lead the “greenest government ever”, a coalition of environmental charities and aid agencies has warned. In an open letter to David Cameron on the first anniversary of the speech in which he made the promise, the chief executives of 15 campaign groups including Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, Christian Aid, Oxfam and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds said he must set out the case that a green economy was central to UK prosperity and not “a cost to be endlessly debated and watered down”. As a first step the prime minister must send a signal to investors and the public by accepting key recommendations by the government’s climate advisors to sign up to a 50% cut in emissions on 1990 levels by 2025 and 60% cuts by 2030, they urged. The call comes after reports of a split within the cabinet over whether to accept the Committee on Climate Change’s recommendations on the fourth five-year “carbon budget”, which will govern emissions reductions to 2027, with some departments voicing concerns that meeting the goal could hamper economic growth. The government is likely to announce next week whether it accepts the recommendations. The 15 organisations state that the government “started with a strong sense of purpose on the environment but is now in danger of losing its way”. As examples of a “promising start” the groups cite the cancellation of the third runway at Heathrow, the decision to set up a green investment bank and a commitment to a natural environment white paper. But they say that elsewhere the government’s green record in the past 12 months has been “less impressive”. The campaigners identify a range of “real setbacks”, pointing to the proposed changes in the planning system, which they claim will not provide sufficient protection for wildlife and the countryside, the weakening of the zero carbon homes policy and delays in giving borrowing powers to the new green investment bank. They criticise the inclusion of all environmental protection law in the government’s review of red tape. The campaigners write there is still scope for Cameron to fulfil his pledge but it would require urgency, resolve and strong leadership. “We urge you to set out the case that a green economy is central to the future prosperity of the UK,” they write. The government must prioritise strong environmental protection in planning rules, commit resources to restoring the countryside and seas and put international funding to tackle climate change and secure natural resources at the forefront of foreign policy, they add. The letter is signed by the chief executives of Green Alliance, Christian Aid, Greenpeace, RSPB, WWF, the Campaign to Protect Rural England, the Campaign for Better Transport, Oxfam, Friends of the Earth, the Institute for European Environmental Policy, the Wildlife Trusts, Butterfly Conservation, Plantlife, the Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust and the Woodland Trust. It follows a statement by the environment secretary, Caroline Spelman, that set out the government’s “green successes since taking office” but did not reflect on policies that have been criticised by the green lobby such as the proposed forest sell-off and eventual U-turn, the huge cuts to flood and coastal defence spending, and the proposed badger cull. Liberal-Conservative coalition David Cameron Greenpeace Activism Friends of the Earth RSPB Climate change David Batty guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …What better way for ABC to kick off its weekend news coverage than by mocking the physical appearance of a Republican presidential candidate?
Continue reading …Government’s duty of care towards service personnel and their families will become legally binding for the first time The military covenant is to be recognised in law, legally binding the government to a duty of care for members of the armed forces and their families, a defence minister has said. A government statement is expected on Monday but it is unclear whether the covenant will include specific pledges. The defence minister Andrew Robathan, who is steering the legisation through the House of Commons, told the Daily Telegraph : “We are putting the military covenant on a statutory basis for the first time.” David Cameron, the prime minister, had been accused of backing away from a pledge to give the armed forces “a new military covenant that’s written into the law of the land”. The covenant is an agreement under which the state pledges a duty of care toward its military personnel in return for the sacrifices they make. At present it is not legally binding. Prior to forming government, David Cameron set up a review that he suggested would set out commitments on issues such as compensation, care for injured troops and the education of children of service personnel. But when the government published the Armed Forces Bill, which is now going through Parliament, it only required the defence secretary to issue a report on the state of the covenant. The Royal British Legion described the legisation as “pretty depressing”. Concerns over the government’s legal liability are thought to have prompted the formulation in the bill. Its passage has now been delayed. The Conservative backbencher Philip Hollobone has tabled an amendment creating formal recognition of the covenant. The Telegraph said the law would not enshrine specific pledges about individual public services but concentrate on broader principles – such as that no one should be disadvantaged because of their military service, and also that special treatment could sometimes be justified. The shadow defence secretary, Jim Murphy, said: “The prime minister appears to have finally done the right thing. If true, this is a retreat from a inevitable defeat in parliament in the face of real anger from forces families and MPs. “We will now wait to hear the detail and will want to ensure that the principles of the covenant are being properly set out in law.” At Commons question time this month Cameron denied watering down his commitment. “I do not believe for a minute that that is what is being done. What is going to happen is that we are going to clearly reference the covenant in law and then the covenant will be published and debated in this house every year,” he told MPs. “It is vital that we are able to update and improve it every year, because our military personnel face so many changing circumstances.” A government spokesman said: “Discussions are ongoing and it would be inappropriate to comment further at this stage.” The covenant was codified in 2000 but not made law. It states soldiers will be called upon to make sacrifices, including the ultimate sacrifice of laying down their lives. In return they and their families can expect fair treatment and to be sustained and rewarded. Officially it only applies to the army. But its core principles are taken to also cover members of the air force and navy. Military Defence policy David Batty guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …On the May 13 Fox & Friends , MRC President and NewsBusters publisher Brent Bozell came abaord to recap the 2011 Media Research Center Gala and DisHonors Awards dinner held on May 7 in Washington, D.C. Anchor Brian Kilmeade started off by showing the ” Quote of the Year ,” which was “won” by MSNBC's Ed Schultz for ranting that Republicans “want to see you dead” and “make money off your dead corpse.” [For the full Fox & Friends segment, watch the video embedded after the page break or listen to MP3 audio here ]
Continue reading …On the May 13 Fox & Friends , MRC President and NewsBusters publisher Brent Bozell came abaord to recap the 2011 Media Research Center Gala and DisHonors Awards dinner held on May 7 in Washington, D.C. Anchor Brian Kilmeade started off by showing the ” Quote of the Year ,” which was “won” by MSNBC's Ed Schultz for ranting that Republicans “want to see you dead” and “make money off your dead corpse.” [For the full Fox & Friends segment, watch the video embedded after the page break or listen to MP3 audio here ]
Continue reading …