Good morning everyone. It looks like the House Republican leadership is planning on a new round of hostage taking stunts for next year’s budget fight. Not happy with the crushing cuts they enacted through the last budget “deal,” the House GOP is looking to ram through a new round of crazy cuts aiming straight at health, labor and education programs. The New York Times reports this morning on the. The New York Times reports GOP’s latest plans to hold our government hostage (emphasis added): While the net reduction in spending is $30 billion, the impact on many domestic programs would be much more pronounced because the Pentagon received a $17 billion increase in its budget. Committee officials said spending that was not related to security would decrease by about $46 billion. The overall proposal is $121.5 billion less than what President Obama sought in his original budget this year. Labor, health and education programs, a priority of the president and Congressional Democrats, would be cut by $18.2 billion, coming in at $41 billion less than the amount recommended by the White House . Representative Norm Dicks of Washington State, the top Democrat on the spending panel, assailed the Republican proposal as irresponsible, saying it would necessitate “draconian” cuts to college aid, early childhood education, food safety, law enforcement, public health and national infrastructure. “It’s clear from what we’re seeing in the economy that if these cuts were enacted, they would lead to a severe setback for economic growth by shedding more government jobs and further depressing state and local government spending,” Mr. Dicks said. At a time when the pace of our country’s ongoing economic recovery is fragile, the relentless drive towards cutting and slashing our budget is nothing short of crazy and delusional . The increase in defense spending is also a classic touch of House Republican brand of crazy. I mean even Defense Secretary Robert Gates – Bush II appointed Republican – supports strategic cuts in Pentagon’s budget . One would think with the huge majority of Americans looking for US to end the war Afghanistan following the death of bin Laden , this would be the perfect time to look for strategic cuts in our defense budget. But the extreme, tone deaf House GOP leadership will apparently have none of that. They have no desire to represent the wishes of the majority of Americans and instead they want to go alone with the dogmatic, extreme right wing ideology of killing the government with no concern whatsoever with regards to how to serve our communities. As for the Democrats, this morning we are reading report of the President urging the Democratic Senate leadership to be “flexible” in the upcoming debt-ceiling “debate” with the House Republicans. The President does not want our party leaders to draw the proverbial lines in the sand. I agree with the President on this. I think drawing lines in the sand are essentially meaningless. Anyone can draw lines in the sand. The question always becomes where exactly is that line being drawn. We do not need our President and the Congressional Democratic Leadership to push out press releases and sound bites boldly drawing lines in the sand. We don’t need them blustering in public. Yet at the same time we there is no need for them to send hapless signals of flexibility and “bipartisanship” to make the villagers blush. What we need from them is to ensure they do not compromise on our core Democratic principles. We also need them to not operate under the illusion that they are dealing with a set of Republican leadership who can be trusted. As Karoli and Digby pointed out yesterday that is just a pipe dream.
Continue reading …Good morning everyone. It looks like the House Republican leadership is planning on a new round of hostage taking stunts for next year’s budget fight. Not happy with the crushing cuts they enacted through the last budget “deal,” the House GOP is looking to ram through a new round of crazy cuts aiming straight at health, labor and education programs. The New York Times reports this morning on the. The New York Times reports GOP’s latest plans to hold our government hostage (emphasis added): While the net reduction in spending is $30 billion, the impact on many domestic programs would be much more pronounced because the Pentagon received a $17 billion increase in its budget. Committee officials said spending that was not related to security would decrease by about $46 billion. The overall proposal is $121.5 billion less than what President Obama sought in his original budget this year. Labor, health and education programs, a priority of the president and Congressional Democrats, would be cut by $18.2 billion, coming in at $41 billion less than the amount recommended by the White House . Representative Norm Dicks of Washington State, the top Democrat on the spending panel, assailed the Republican proposal as irresponsible, saying it would necessitate “draconian” cuts to college aid, early childhood education, food safety, law enforcement, public health and national infrastructure. “It’s clear from what we’re seeing in the economy that if these cuts were enacted, they would lead to a severe setback for economic growth by shedding more government jobs and further depressing state and local government spending,” Mr. Dicks said. At a time when the pace of our country’s ongoing economic recovery is fragile, the relentless drive towards cutting and slashing our budget is nothing short of crazy and delusional . The increase in defense spending is also a classic touch of House Republican brand of crazy. I mean even Defense Secretary Robert Gates – Bush II appointed Republican – supports strategic cuts in Pentagon’s budget . One would think with the huge majority of Americans looking for US to end the war Afghanistan following the death of bin Laden , this would be the perfect time to look for strategic cuts in our defense budget. But the extreme, tone deaf House GOP leadership will apparently have none of that. They have no desire to represent the wishes of the majority of Americans and instead they want to go alone with the dogmatic, extreme right wing ideology of killing the government with no concern whatsoever with regards to how to serve our communities. As for the Democrats, this morning we are reading report of the President urging the Democratic Senate leadership to be “flexible” in the upcoming debt-ceiling “debate” with the House Republicans. The President does not want our party leaders to draw the proverbial lines in the sand. I agree with the President on this. I think drawing lines in the sand are essentially meaningless. Anyone can draw lines in the sand. The question always becomes where exactly is that line being drawn. We do not need our President and the Congressional Democratic Leadership to push out press releases and sound bites boldly drawing lines in the sand. We don’t need them blustering in public. Yet at the same time we there is no need for them to send hapless signals of flexibility and “bipartisanship” to make the villagers blush. What we need from them is to ensure they do not compromise on our core Democratic principles. We also need them to not operate under the illusion that they are dealing with a set of Republican leadership who can be trusted. As Karoli and Digby pointed out yesterday that is just a pipe dream.
Continue reading …Good morning everyone. It looks like the House Republican leadership is planning on a new round of hostage taking stunts for next year’s budget fight. Not happy with the crushing cuts they enacted through the last budget “deal,” the House GOP is looking to ram through a new round of crazy cuts aiming straight at health, labor and education programs. The New York Times reports this morning on the. The New York Times reports GOP’s latest plans to hold our government hostage (emphasis added): While the net reduction in spending is $30 billion, the impact on many domestic programs would be much more pronounced because the Pentagon received a $17 billion increase in its budget. Committee officials said spending that was not related to security would decrease by about $46 billion. The overall proposal is $121.5 billion less than what President Obama sought in his original budget this year. Labor, health and education programs, a priority of the president and Congressional Democrats, would be cut by $18.2 billion, coming in at $41 billion less than the amount recommended by the White House . Representative Norm Dicks of Washington State, the top Democrat on the spending panel, assailed the Republican proposal as irresponsible, saying it would necessitate “draconian” cuts to college aid, early childhood education, food safety, law enforcement, public health and national infrastructure. “It’s clear from what we’re seeing in the economy that if these cuts were enacted, they would lead to a severe setback for economic growth by shedding more government jobs and further depressing state and local government spending,” Mr. Dicks said. At a time when the pace of our country’s ongoing economic recovery is fragile, the relentless drive towards cutting and slashing our budget is nothing short of crazy and delusional . The increase in defense spending is also a classic touch of House Republican brand of crazy. I mean even Defense Secretary Robert Gates – Bush II appointed Republican – supports strategic cuts in Pentagon’s budget . One would think with the huge majority of Americans looking for US to end the war Afghanistan following the death of bin Laden , this would be the perfect time to look for strategic cuts in our defense budget. But the extreme, tone deaf House GOP leadership will apparently have none of that. They have no desire to represent the wishes of the majority of Americans and instead they want to go alone with the dogmatic, extreme right wing ideology of killing the government with no concern whatsoever with regards to how to serve our communities. As for the Democrats, this morning we are reading report of the President urging the Democratic Senate leadership to be “flexible” in the upcoming debt-ceiling “debate” with the House Republicans. The President does not want our party leaders to draw the proverbial lines in the sand. I agree with the President on this. I think drawing lines in the sand are essentially meaningless. Anyone can draw lines in the sand. The question always becomes where exactly is that line being drawn. We do not need our President and the Congressional Democratic Leadership to push out press releases and sound bites boldly drawing lines in the sand. We don’t need them blustering in public. Yet at the same time we there is no need for them to send hapless signals of flexibility and “bipartisanship” to make the villagers blush. What we need from them is to ensure they do not compromise on our core Democratic principles. We also need them to not operate under the illusion that they are dealing with a set of Republican leadership who can be trusted. As Karoli and Digby pointed out yesterday that is just a pipe dream.
Continue reading …Al-Qaida leader had major head wounds, says James Inhofe, who says less ‘gruesome’ pictures of corpse should be released A US senator permitted to view secret photographs of Osama bin Laden’s corpse has described “pretty grotesque” images of a badly mutilated body that leave no doubt that the al-Qaida leader is dead. Senator James Inhofe said he saw 15 pictures at the CIA headquarters in Virginia, some of which were taken immediately after Bin Laden was shot. They show the al-Qaida leader with large head wounds around the eye and ear. Inhofe described some of the pictures as “gruesome”. “One of the shots went through the ear and out through an eye socket, or through the eye socket and out through the ear and exploded, that was the kind of ordinance it was. That caused the brains to be hanging out of the eye socket,” he told CNN. Inhofe said that he had no doubt that the pictures were of Bin Laden. “Absolutely no question about it. A lot of people out there say, ‘I want to see the pictures,’ but I’ve already seen them. That was him. He’s gone. He’s history,” he said. Inhofe, a member of the Senate’s armed services committee, has pressed the Obama administration to make public pictures of Bin Laden’s body to challenge any claims that he is still alive. However, after viewing the photographs Inhofe hesitated to say they should all be released. Instead he said that three pictures taken aboard a ship after Bin Laden’s body was cleaned for burial at sea are more acceptable for distribution. “I still believe they should release these pictures, some of these pictures to the public,” he said. “At least the ones during the cleanup period on the USS Vincent, that’s just a personal opinion.” The administration agreed to permit members of congressional armed services and intelligence committees to view the pictures amid the debate over their release. However, concerns that Bin Laden’s supporters may not believe he was killed have diminished with al-Qaida’s acknowledgement that its leader is dead. Osama bin Laden al-Qaida Obama administration US foreign policy US military US politics Chris McGreal guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …PM and deputy say two parties have distinct identities but insist coalition will endure as they make joint appearance David Cameron and Nick Clegg have marked the coalition government’s first anniversary with a show of unity and a pledge to see out a full five-year term in power. At an event in east London, the prime minister and his deputy took turns to portray the coalition as two parties with distinct identities, prone to arguments behind the scenes, but intent on coming up with unified policy conclusions that would best serve the country. Cameron and Clegg appeared together in Stratford as the coalition government sought to draw a line under the events of last week, when the Lib Dems fared very badly in local and devolved parliament elections and failed to win the alternative vote referendum. Speaking in the wake of the disastrous results for his party, Clegg said the Liberal Democrats had gone into coalition with its eyes “wide open”. He said that he had always known that the elections would be a “tough period” but insisted that the party would be judged by what it had achieved at the end of five years in power. Cameron said the voters would not be swayed by unspecified “fripperies” but by whether the government delivered “good results about the things that British people care about”. “That’s what we’re focused on, that’s why it’s a five-year government and that’s why I believe it will endure.” Clegg insisted that “whoever was in government” would have to do difficult, controversial and, in some respects, downright unpopular things. “I went into this with my eyes open, my party went into this collectively with our eyes open, that it wouldn’t be easy– you shouldn’t go into government because it is easy – but because we genuinely believe that what we are doing together, two parties coming together, yes retaining our differences, to clear up a lot of the problems we have inherited of the past that is the long-term interest of the country.” Clegg added: “Polls go up and down. People’s popularity goes up and down, parties’ popularity goes up and down. At the end of the day, how will we be judged? We will be judged about whether we have sorted out the mess we have inherited and restored a sense of optimism, of prosperity, of jobs for this country. It is a job we have started and we are going to see it through. This was always going to be the really, really tough part for the coalition and the tough part for the country economically.” The reason for coalition was “as strong today as it was a year ago”, said Cameron, as he highlighted long-term “structural problems” facing the country, the nation’s debt and youth unemployment. “We have different traditions and views and beliefs and we have robust discussions, even arguments in private, and then we come out with agreed policies that we think are good for the country,” said Cameron. “If people could see what actually happens in private, where both parties stand up for their views but we come to a good, collective decision, I think they’d see it is a strong coalition government and that’s what I’m absolutely committed to delivering.” The prime minister and his deputy PM made a joint appearance to outline plans to “reverse the trend of rising youth unemployment” through apprenticeships and work placements in private firms later down the line. But a brief question-and-answer session with the media was dominated by the relations between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrat party in the aftermath of last week’s local and devolved elections and the referendum. The two men were also grilled on the Commons standard watchdog’s decision to suspend David Laws , a former Lib Dem minister and MP for Yeovil, for “serious breaches” of the expenses system. Clegg was caught out when he began to speak about David as being “a close friend of mine” only to be stopped by Cameron who joked he might want to make it clear that he was referring to Laws, in an answer to a two-part question that involved the seven-day suspension of Laws. Both men laughed as Clegg clarified he was referring to Laws. Earlier in the day, Clegg aired his unhappiness at the political point-scoring of both sides of the alternative vote referendum campaign as he appealed for unity over House of Lords reform . Giving evidence to the Commons political and constitutional reform committee on Thursday morning, Clegg said he was determined to press ahead with moves towards electing the upper chamber despite the resounding public rejection of a change to the voting system. Clegg said he hoped for less argument over the Lords than those witnessed by both camps in the referendum. “The referendum campaign was characterised, some would say disfigured, by party politics and point-scoring. It was not a particularly uplifting argument by either side of the debate. “What lessons does one learn? It reinforces my view that where we can develop ideas together rather than everyone shouting at each other across the barricades, clearly it is best.” He said he had gone to “very considerable effort” to find agreement by talking to all parties in the committee drawing up the proposals for the reforms. “I hope that desire to try to move forward as consensually as possible on something as constitutionally significant as that will be reflected and recognised in the draft bill we will be publishing shortly,” he told the Commons political and constitutional reform committee. Asked about criticisms from within his own party that he should not concentrate on issues that were more important to the party than the public, he said: “Things that are important are not always resonant. The fact that we as a country, as a national community, have been talking about this one way or another for a century or more suggests that it is not a preoccupation or an obsession for one party or one politician. “I do not think that as a government we should apologise, not only in this area, for proceeding with things that are important but might not be things that your constituents and mine will raise in our weekly surgeries.” David Cameron Nick Clegg Liberal-Conservative coalition Conservatives Liberal Democrats Hélène Mulholland guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Click here to view this media As MSNBC’s Cenk Uygur pointed out here, after President Obama had a pretty good couple of weeks in the news cycle, Fox looks pretty desperate with their latest attack on the administration. Here’s more from Media Matters — “Very Positive”: Fox News’ Smear Of “Vile Rapper” Common Debunked By Own Reporting : Conservatives such as Fox News, the Daily Caller and Sarah Palin are criticizing the White House’s invitation to rapper Common for a poetry event over the purported vulgarity of his lyrics. Fox Nation, for instance, called Common a “vile rapper.” But roughly half-a-year ago, Fox News had a different tone about Common. In an October 2010 report for FoxNews.com, reporter Jason Robinson interviewed the “rap legend” and told him, “your music is very positive. And you’re known as the conscious rapper . How important is that to you, and how important do you think that is to our kids?” Common replied that it’s a “significant role. I just try to show who we are as well-rounded people and I’m happy to be known as the conscious artist.” They really need to quit writing Jon Stewarts’ material for him over at Fox. They’re making it too easy for him with this sort of nonsense. And right on cue, Jon Stewart ripped them up for it tonight.
Continue reading …Obama’s “deliberate, almost scholarly” approach to foreign policy may be obtaining mixed results at best, but New York Times reporter Mark Landler trumpeted the White House line that the killing of Osama bin Laden would enable Obama to “reset” American policy in the Arab world: ” Obama Seeks Reset in Arab World – Speech Likely to Put Bin Laden’s Death in Context of Uprisings .” After years of falsely deriding President Bush
Continue reading …Leaked emails reveal Burson-Marsteller attempted to get USA Today and other titles to write about Google’s privacy policies Facebook has been caught secretly paying a top public relations firm to plant negative stories about Google in the US media. Burson-Marsteller, one of the world’s largest PR firms, attempted to get USA Today, the Washington Post and other high profile US news outlets to write scaremongering stories about Google’s privacy policies. The explosive revelation – which will seriously damage relations between the two technology giants, already bitter rivals – came to light in leaked emails late on Wednesday. Facebook later confirmed to the Daily Beast that it had hired Burson-Marsteller. Paul Cordasco, a spokesman for Burson-Marsteller, told the Guardian on Thursday that the assignment was “not at all standard operating procedure” and was against the company’s policies. He added: “The assignment on those terms should have been declined.” Cordasco confirmed to the Guardian that “the assignment” was now terminated and that Burson-Marsteller was no longer working with the social network. Facebook declined to comment when contacted by the Guardian. Suspicions in Silicon Valley were aroused earlier this week when two high-profile media figures – former CNBC tech reporter Jim Goldman, and John Mercurio, a former political reporter – began pitching anti-Google stories on behalf of their new employer, Burson-Marsteller. The pair consistently refused to disclose the identity of their client. Goldman and Mercurio approached USA Today and other outlets offering to ghost write op-ed columns and other stories that raised privacy concerns about Google Social Circle, a social network feature based on Gmail. In their pitch to journalists, the pair claimed Social Circle was “designed to scrape private data and build deeply personal dossiers on millions of users – in a direct and flagrant violation of [Google's] agreement with the FTC [Federal Trade Commission]“. Facebook’s cover was blown when Burson-Marsteller offered to help write an op-ed for Chris Soghoian, a prominent internet security blogger. Soghoian challenged the company’s assertion that Social Circle was a privacy threat and accused them of “making a mountain out of a molehill”. Soghoian was stonewalled by Burson-Marsteller when he asked them who their client was. He later published an email exchange between himself and Mercurio. Cordasco said on Thursday: “Now that Facebook has come forward, we can confirm that we undertook an assignment for that client. “The client requested that its name be withheld on the grounds that it was merely asking to bring publicly available information to light and such information could then be independently and easily replicated by any media. Any information brought to media attention raised fair questions, was in the public domain, and was in any event for the media to verify through independent sources. “Whatever the rationale, this was not at all standard operating procedure and is against our policies, and the assignment on those terms should have been declined. When talking to the media, we need to adhere to strict standards of transparency about clients, and this incident underscores the absolute importance of that principle.” Google declined to comment. Facebook Google Internet Social networking Newspapers Newspapers & magazines Media business Marketing & PR Digital media United States Josh Halliday guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …BPI figures reveal total digital spending by fans since 2004, with Adele’s 21 the biggest-selling album Music fans have spent more than £1bn on downloads in the seven years since legal digital services launched in the UK – with Adele’s 21 now the biggest-selling album online. A total of £316m was spent on music downloads by music fans in 2010 – almost a third of the total spent since legal services first launched in the UK in 2004 – according to industry trade body the BPI’s annual yearbook. The UK total for 2010 tallies with the figure put out in March by international music industry body the IFPI, which said digital sales in the UK grew almost 20% last year. The BPI said that spending on digital albums grew 23% to £146m, more than 56.5m digital albums sold since the format launched in 2006. A total of £132m was spent on digital singles, a 12% year-on-year increase, with almost 600m sold since 2004. The BPI reckons that the rise of cheaper digital music downloads has led to the cost of an album – both physical and digital – falling by a third in the past decade to £7.32. Digital music sales account for 25% of total music sales in the UK. The industry continues to suffer from declining sales of physical formats, with singles down 27% year on year to £6.9m and albums down 14.5% to £863m. •
Continue reading …1.3bn tonnes of food is lost or wasted each year, UN food agency report says, and reducing losses in developing countries could have ‘immediate and significant’ impact on poor people One-third of the world’s food produced for human consumption is lost or wasted each year, according to a study (pdf) released on Wednesday by the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) . Roughly 1.3bn tonnes of food is either lost or wasted globally due to inefficiencies throughout the food supply chain, says the report, based on research by the Swedish Institute for Food and Biotechnology (Sik) . Amid rising global food prices, the study says that reducing food losses in developing countries could have an “immediate and significant” impact on livelihoods and food security in some of the world’s poorest countries. According to the report, industrialised and developing countries waste or lose roughly the same amount of food each year – 670m and 630m tonnes respectively. But while rich countries waste food primarily at the level of the consumer, the main issue for developing countries is food lost due to weak infrastructure – including poor storage, processing and packaging facilities that lack the capacity to keep produce fresh. Food losses mean lost income for small farmers and higher prices for poor consumers in developing countries, says the study. The average European or North American consumer wastes 95kg-115kg of food a year, above all fruits and vegetables. In contrast, the average consumer in sub-Saharan Africa, south Asia or south-east Asia wastes only 6kg-11kg. The study notes that in developing countries poverty and limited incomes make it unacceptable to waste food, and that poor consumers in low-income countries generally buy smaller amounts of food at a time. Food wasted by consumers in rich countries (222m tonnes) is roughly equal to the entire food production of sub-Saharan Africa (230m tonnes). Looking for solutions, the report argues that reducing reliance on retailers such as big supermarkets could help cut food waste in the north, and suggests promoting the direct sale of farm produce to consumers. It also encourages retailers and charities to work together, to distribute unsold but perfectly edible food that would otherwise go to waste. For developing countries, the study says the key lies in strengthening food supply chains, urging investment in infrastructure and transportation, along with increased attention to food storage, processing and packaging. While world food prices fell slightly in March this year – after eight months of successive increases – the overall cost of food in April was 36% higher than it was last year. Prices of wheat, maize and soya reached levels last seen in 2008, when a global food crisis sparked food riots across the developing world. Last month, the World Bank said that rising food prices had pushed 44 million more people into extreme poverty , and the World Bank president, Robert Zoellick, added that an additional 10 million people could soon fall below the $1.25 a day extreme poverty line unless immediate action was taken to increase the supply of food. But the FAO-backed report says: “Food production must clearly increase significantly to meet the future demands of an increasing and more affluent world population … In a world with limited natural resources (land, water, energy, fertiliser), and where cost-effective solutions are to be found to produce enough safe and nutritious food for all, reducing food losses should not be a forgotten priority.” Food security Food Claire Provost guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …