Downing Street’s chief mouser snares his first prey after two months in the job It’s a good job his political masters don’t do targets any more, because otherwise Larry the cat must surely have failed. After two months in the job, Downing Street’s “chief mouser” – as cats who catch government rats are called – finally snared his first prey. On Good Friday, Larry appeared through a window from the Downing Street garden with a mouse in his mouth. He is supposed to have dropped his swag at the feet of No 10′s secretaries. Recruited to deal with a rodent problem – black rats have been seen bolting across the Downing Street lawn – Larry has preferred hanging out in the corridors of power to stalking in the grass. Announcing his new hire in February, the prime minister’s spokesman said Larry had been “highly recommended”. The four-year-old tabby cat, who came from the Battersea dogs and cats home, had a “very strong predatory drive and high chase-drive and hunting instinct”, the spokesman said. But whether vegetarian, pacifist or just more a political anorak than a trained killer, Larry failed to deliver in his first two months in power. Staff resorted to training Larry by giving him a toy mouse to play with. In Margaret Thatcher’s period as PM, a stray called Humphrey was adopted after wandering into No 10. Humphrey was kept on in the post by John Major, but was sacked when Tony Blair entered office in 1997, with Cherie Blair thought to be responsible for blackballing him. David Cameron Allegra Stratton guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Support for royals remains constant but royal wedding greeted by tolerant scepticism, Guardian/ICM poll finds Britain is a nation made up of moderate monarchists and reluctant republicans, according to a Guardian/ICM poll published today. More people are looking forward to an extra day off work than watching the royal wedding – but support for the monarchy has nonetheless climbed notably since the crisis following Princess Diana’s death. The country is in no mood for a revolution. The poll shows a large majority think the monarchy is still relevant to national life, makes Britain more respected around the world and is better than any alternative. But there seems to be tolerant scepticism rather than royalist hysteria around the wedding itself. Only 37% agree that they are genuinely interested in the wedding, while 46% say they are not. Women are much more likely to be interested than men, but only 18% of all people questioned say they are strongly interested in the event. Even so, 47% agree they will probably watch it on television this Friday, including a majority of women and people aged 18-24. Almost the same proportion, 49%, say they are more excited by the idea of an extra bank holiday than the wedding – only 31% disagree. The poll includes some questions proposed by Guardian readers online, among them the suggestion that the wedding will boost the nation’s feelgood factor at a time of economic uncertainty. Almost everyone, monarchist or not, agrees that the wedding will cheer Britain up: 75% say yes, only 17% no. That may be one reason why the poll seems to dash republican hopes that the monarchy is becoming an outmoded institution. Instead support for the crown, if anything, is growing. More people think the monarchy is a unifying national institution than one that divides the country and reinforces the class system. Almost half those questioned, 47%, say it is a unifying force, against 36% who think it a divisive one. Only among Labour supporters do more people think it divisive than unifying. And despite all the celebrity hype surrounding the wedding, only 32% think the event is more about glamour and celebrity than British values (52%). More people think the crown should pass directly to Prince William, rather than Prince Charles, 46% to 40%. But most people also think there is nothing wrong with having to call a member of the royal family “your highness”: 64% approve of the practice and only 29% do not. So the age of deference is not quite dead. There’s a strong shared national belief, too, that the monarchy is something that improves Britain’s image around the world. While 60% say it does, only 2% think it definitely does the opposite, with 36% saying it makes little difference either way. More significant, perhaps, are changing attitudes to the monarchy’s place in British life. A strong majority among people of all political persuasions and social groups think that Britain would be worse off without the monarchy. While just 26% think the country would be better off getting rid of the royal family, 63% say the opposite. There has been a small regrowth in royalist support since the nadir following Princess Diana’s death. In August 1997 a Guardian/ICM poll found that only 48% thought the country would be worse off without the crown, 15 points lower than today. By August 1998, that had risen to 62%, one point lower than now. Despite massive political and economic shifts in the decade since then, attitudes to the monarchy seem almost static. There is hope, though, for republicans in the fact that the most enthusiastic supporters of the monarchy are pensioners, and young people are less keen. Among 19-24s, 37% think Britain would be better off without the monarchy, 10 points higher than the average. Even so, 67% of all people – including 73% of women and 57% of 18-24s – think the monarchy is relevant to life in Britain today. Only 32% disagree. Again, there has been almost no shift in opinion over the last 10 years. In May 2002 a Guardian/ICM poll found that 66% saw the monarchy as relevant and 33% thought not – figures almost identical to the ones in this month’s poll. As for the future, the Queen’s death could make a big difference to attitudes. Almost everyone, 89%, thinks Britain will still have a monarch in 10 year’s time – but that belief drops sharply when people are asked about the next 50 and 100 years. A narrow majority, 57%, think there will be a place for a British monarch in 50 years but only 40% think William and Kate’s descendants will still be on the throne in 2111. Even so, confidence in the future of the monarchy has grown since 1997: then only 38% thought there would be a monarch in 50 years time and just 26% thought the crown would survive the next century, 14 points lower than today. There’s also a widespread feeling that a monarch such as the Queen should retire rather than cling on if they cease to be mentally or physically capable. While 64% think the monarch should retire, only 31% do not. ICM Research interviewed a random sample of 1,003 adults across the United Kingdom aged 18 and over by telephone on 15-17 April 2011. Interviews were conducted across the country and the results have been weighted to the profile of all adults. Monarchy Republicanism Prince William Kate Middleton Royal wedding Diana, Princess of Wales Prince Charles Julian Glover guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Support for royals remains constant but royal wedding greeted by tolerant scepticism, Guardian/ICM poll finds Britain is a nation made up of moderate monarchists and reluctant republicans, according to a Guardian/ICM poll published today. More people are looking forward to an extra day off work than watching the royal wedding – but support for the monarchy has nonetheless climbed notably since the crisis following Princess Diana’s death. The country is in no mood for a revolution. The poll shows a large majority think the monarchy is still relevant to national life, makes Britain more respected around the world and is better than any alternative. But there seems to be tolerant scepticism rather than royalist hysteria around the wedding itself. Only 37% agree that they are genuinely interested in the wedding, while 46% say they are not. Women are much more likely to be interested than men, but only 18% of all people questioned say they are strongly interested in the event. Even so, 47% agree they will probably watch it on television this Friday, including a majority of women and people aged 18-24. Almost the same proportion, 49%, say they are more excited by the idea of an extra bank holiday than the wedding – only 31% disagree. The poll includes some questions proposed by Guardian readers online, among them the suggestion that the wedding will boost the nation’s feelgood factor at a time of economic uncertainty. Almost everyone, monarchist or not, agrees that the wedding will cheer Britain up: 75% say yes, only 17% no. That may be one reason why the poll seems to dash republican hopes that the monarchy is becoming an outmoded institution. Instead support for the crown, if anything, is growing. More people think the monarchy is a unifying national institution than one that divides the country and reinforces the class system. Almost half those questioned, 47%, say it is a unifying force, against 36% who think it a divisive one. Only among Labour supporters do more people think it divisive than unifying. And despite all the celebrity hype surrounding the wedding, only 32% think the event is more about glamour and celebrity than British values (52%). More people think the crown should pass directly to Prince William, rather than Prince Charles, 46% to 40%. But most people also think there is nothing wrong with having to call a member of the royal family “your highness”: 64% approve of the practice and only 29% do not. So the age of deference is not quite dead. There’s a strong shared national belief, too, that the monarchy is something that improves Britain’s image around the world. While 60% say it does, only 2% think it definitely does the opposite, with 36% saying it makes little difference either way. More significant, perhaps, are changing attitudes to the monarchy’s place in British life. A strong majority among people of all political persuasions and social groups think that Britain would be worse off without the monarchy. While just 26% think the country would be better off getting rid of the royal family, 63% say the opposite. There has been a small regrowth in royalist support since the nadir following Princess Diana’s death. In August 1997 a Guardian/ICM poll found that only 48% thought the country would be worse off without the crown, 15 points lower than today. By August 1998, that had risen to 62%, one point lower than now. Despite massive political and economic shifts in the decade since then, attitudes to the monarchy seem almost static. There is hope, though, for republicans in the fact that the most enthusiastic supporters of the monarchy are pensioners, and young people are less keen. Among 19-24s, 37% think Britain would be better off without the monarchy, 10 points higher than the average. Even so, 67% of all people – including 73% of women and 57% of 18-24s – think the monarchy is relevant to life in Britain today. Only 32% disagree. Again, there has been almost no shift in opinion over the last 10 years. In May 2002 a Guardian/ICM poll found that 66% saw the monarchy as relevant and 33% thought not – figures almost identical to the ones in this month’s poll. As for the future, the Queen’s death could make a big difference to attitudes. Almost everyone, 89%, thinks Britain will still have a monarch in 10 year’s time – but that belief drops sharply when people are asked about the next 50 and 100 years. A narrow majority, 57%, think there will be a place for a British monarch in 50 years but only 40% think William and Kate’s descendants will still be on the throne in 2111. Even so, confidence in the future of the monarchy has grown since 1997: then only 38% thought there would be a monarch in 50 years time and just 26% thought the crown would survive the next century, 14 points lower than today. There’s also a widespread feeling that a monarch such as the Queen should retire rather than cling on if they cease to be mentally or physically capable. While 64% think the monarch should retire, only 31% do not. ICM Research interviewed a random sample of 1,003 adults across the United Kingdom aged 18 and over by telephone on 15-17 April 2011. Interviews were conducted across the country and the results have been weighted to the profile of all adults. Monarchy Republicanism Prince William Kate Middleton Royal wedding Diana, Princess of Wales Prince Charles Julian Glover guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Support for royals remains constant but royal wedding greeted by tolerant scepticism, Guardian/ICM poll finds Britain is a nation made up of moderate monarchists and reluctant republicans, according to a Guardian/ICM poll published today. More people are looking forward to an extra day off work than watching the royal wedding – but support for the monarchy has nonetheless climbed notably since the crisis following Princess Diana’s death. The country is in no mood for a revolution. The poll shows a large majority think the monarchy is still relevant to national life, makes Britain more respected around the world and is better than any alternative. But there seems to be tolerant scepticism rather than royalist hysteria around the wedding itself. Only 37% agree that they are genuinely interested in the wedding, while 46% say they are not. Women are much more likely to be interested than men, but only 18% of all people questioned say they are strongly interested in the event. Even so, 47% agree they will probably watch it on television this Friday, including a majority of women and people aged 18-24. Almost the same proportion, 49%, say they are more excited by the idea of an extra bank holiday than the wedding – only 31% disagree. The poll includes some questions proposed by Guardian readers online, among them the suggestion that the wedding will boost the nation’s feelgood factor at a time of economic uncertainty. Almost everyone, monarchist or not, agrees that the wedding will cheer Britain up: 75% say yes, only 17% no. That may be one reason why the poll seems to dash republican hopes that the monarchy is becoming an outmoded institution. Instead support for the crown, if anything, is growing. More people think the monarchy is a unifying national institution than one that divides the country and reinforces the class system. Almost half those questioned, 47%, say it is a unifying force, against 36% who think it a divisive one. Only among Labour supporters do more people think it divisive than unifying. And despite all the celebrity hype surrounding the wedding, only 32% think the event is more about glamour and celebrity than British values (52%). More people think the crown should pass directly to Prince William, rather than Prince Charles, 46% to 40%. But most people also think there is nothing wrong with having to call a member of the royal family “your highness”: 64% approve of the practice and only 29% do not. So the age of deference is not quite dead. There’s a strong shared national belief, too, that the monarchy is something that improves Britain’s image around the world. While 60% say it does, only 2% think it definitely does the opposite, with 36% saying it makes little difference either way. More significant, perhaps, are changing attitudes to the monarchy’s place in British life. A strong majority among people of all political persuasions and social groups think that Britain would be worse off without the monarchy. While just 26% think the country would be better off getting rid of the royal family, 63% say the opposite. There has been a small regrowth in royalist support since the nadir following Princess Diana’s death. In August 1997 a Guardian/ICM poll found that only 48% thought the country would be worse off without the crown, 15 points lower than today. By August 1998, that had risen to 62%, one point lower than now. Despite massive political and economic shifts in the decade since then, attitudes to the monarchy seem almost static. There is hope, though, for republicans in the fact that the most enthusiastic supporters of the monarchy are pensioners, and young people are less keen. Among 19-24s, 37% think Britain would be better off without the monarchy, 10 points higher than the average. Even so, 67% of all people – including 73% of women and 57% of 18-24s – think the monarchy is relevant to life in Britain today. Only 32% disagree. Again, there has been almost no shift in opinion over the last 10 years. In May 2002 a Guardian/ICM poll found that 66% saw the monarchy as relevant and 33% thought not – figures almost identical to the ones in this month’s poll. As for the future, the Queen’s death could make a big difference to attitudes. Almost everyone, 89%, thinks Britain will still have a monarch in 10 year’s time – but that belief drops sharply when people are asked about the next 50 and 100 years. A narrow majority, 57%, think there will be a place for a British monarch in 50 years but only 40% think William and Kate’s descendants will still be on the throne in 2111. Even so, confidence in the future of the monarchy has grown since 1997: then only 38% thought there would be a monarch in 50 years time and just 26% thought the crown would survive the next century, 14 points lower than today. There’s also a widespread feeling that a monarch such as the Queen should retire rather than cling on if they cease to be mentally or physically capable. While 64% think the monarch should retire, only 31% do not. ICM Research interviewed a random sample of 1,003 adults across the United Kingdom aged 18 and over by telephone on 15-17 April 2011. Interviews were conducted across the country and the results have been weighted to the profile of all adults. Monarchy Republicanism Prince William Kate Middleton Royal wedding Diana, Princess of Wales Prince Charles Julian Glover guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Rush Limbaugh says: Left Upset With Obama Because "White People Are Not Shining The Shoes Of Black People"
April 24, 2011 No CommentRush Limbaugh is getting more racist as time goes by. I know, I know, he’s been truly racist already, but I’m telling you, his vitriol is increasing and will continue as the election grows near. It’s getting me very nervous. Limbaugh: Left Upset With Obama Because “White People Are Not Shining The Shoes Of Black People He rambles on about the left and their anger and blacks and whatever you can make of it. Yes, progressives aren’t happy about many things, but not who’s shining whose shoes. He’s been trying to gin up phony racism coming from the African American community ever since Obama was elected. Here’s a flashback post I wrote on 10/10/09, when he used a clipped audio from Detroit via WJR Detroit’s Ken Rogulski. Rush Limbaugh Uses Innocent Detroiters As Show Pinata The conservo-talk reporter cherry picked through the audio booty until he found the absolute best soundbite that would most perfectly frame the city as one filled with Obama-fawning morons, black Sambos, and greedy welfare grabbers – precisely, as Limbaugh would later argue, the kind of rank idiots who would vote for someone like America’s first black president. Surely Ken’s heart must have been pounding as he attached the audio to his corporate email and double checked the top-secret “To” address that would land the .MpP3 directly onto the desk of Rush’s long time producer, Kitt Carson. JACKPOT! Carson fast-tracked the audio to the OXYmoron, and by noon it was airing live. “Where’s the money coming from?!” Rogulski quickly quizzes. “Obama!” the giddy resident chirps, confident the day will end in a bill being paid, or a week’s worth of groceries to stuff into the old fridge. “And where does Obama get it from?!” Rogulski follows up. To the more politically refined in the conservative talk world, the answer is loud and clear – TAXPAYERS. But Rogulski knows full well these “Motown simpletons” will not be so cynical as to believe he’s recording them with intentions of caricaturing them later as thigh-slapping morons. “I dunno! His stash, I dunno. But he givin’ to us! We love him!” — And Rush could not have been happier. No editing necessary for his staff, no double checking, it was packaged, edited and air ready. And for three straight days, the AM Shock Talker pounded the audio candy like he had just been told the funniest joke this week. Listen to how the first audio soundbite is edited to end with a laugh, which to the racist’s ear is a dog-whistle. To a bigot, it is the laugh of bug-eyed Jemima. But to the rest of America, it is the innocent guffaw of a child holding out her hands for a cool drink of water in one of the hottest economic downturns in a century . This is sickening stuff. Lost in all this garbage is that George Bush and Conservative policies after Clinton left office with a “surplus’ have put this country in a very bad position as well as the rest of the world. Conservatives like to forget that they burned down the house already.
Continue reading …Cokie Roberts: People Call Obama Muslim Because They Can’t Say ‘I Don’t Like Him Cause He’s Black’
April 24, 2011 No Comment
ABC devoted its entire “This Week” on Easter Sunday to “God and Government,” and not surprisingly the question of President Obama's faith prominently entered the discussion. When it did, Cokie Roberts said, “The bad part about this is that it's acceptable to say that he's a Muslim because the same people won't say, 'I don't like him cause he's black'” (video follows with transcript and commentary): STEVE ROBERTS: The word Muslim is a code word, and it's a metaphor. It's a metaphor for racism. It's a metaphor for he's different from us, he's not like us, he's got this funny name, which he says all the time. And it is – and he's an alien on some level. But this goes back to our earlier discussion, that there has always been a strain of America that wants to exclude the other. Exclude someone who's different… (CROSSTALK) COKIE ROBERTS: But – but – but the bad part about this… (CROSSTALK) ROBERTS, S.: But in the long run, the forces of… (CROSSTALK) ROBERTS, C.: Right. But – but… (CROSSTALK) RICHARD LAND, SOUTHERN BAPTIST CONVENTION: Forty seven percent of white people voted for him. Actually, it's 43 percent , but still a spectacular point by Land that most on the panel missed and most in the country ignore. They also forget that shortly after his inauguration, Obama's favorability rating was around 75 percent. That includes a lot of white people as well. What the media just can't get their hands around is that disapproval of Obama today isn't because he's black – it's because of his policies. Or do the 70 percent of the country that now believe the nation is on the wrong track also feel this way because the President is black? ROBERTS, C.: But – but the bad part about this is that he – that – that it's acceptable to say that he's a Muslim… EBOO PATEL, INTERFAITH YOUTH CORE: That's right. ROBERTS, C.: …because the same people won't – won't say, “I don't like him cause he's black.” So it's – it's – and – and the fact that it's acceptable to dislike him because he's a Muslim is the problem that you were talking about. Calling Americans racist, despite there being an African-American in the White House, is acceptable on Easter Sunday. I doubt I'm the only one that felt this was highly inappropriate on such a holy day.
Continue reading …Cokie Roberts: People Call Obama Muslim Because They Can’t Say ‘I Don’t Like Him Cause He’s Black’
April 24, 2011 No Comment
ABC devoted its entire “This Week” on Easter Sunday to “God and Government,” and not surprisingly the question of President Obama's faith prominently entered the discussion. When it did, Cokie Roberts said, “The bad part about this is that it's acceptable to say that he's a Muslim because the same people won't say, 'I don't like him cause he's black'” (video follows with transcript and commentary): STEVE ROBERTS: The word Muslim is a code word, and it's a metaphor. It's a metaphor for racism. It's a metaphor for he's different from us, he's not like us, he's got this funny name, which he says all the time. And it is – and he's an alien on some level. But this goes back to our earlier discussion, that there has always been a strain of America that wants to exclude the other. Exclude someone who's different… (CROSSTALK) COKIE ROBERTS: But – but – but the bad part about this… (CROSSTALK) ROBERTS, S.: But in the long run, the forces of… (CROSSTALK) ROBERTS, C.: Right. But – but… (CROSSTALK) RICHARD LAND, SOUTHERN BAPTIST CONVENTION: Forty seven percent of white people voted for him. Actually, it's 43 percent , but still a spectacular point by Land that most on the panel missed and most in the country ignore. They also forget that shortly after his inauguration, Obama's favorability rating was around 75 percent. That includes a lot of white people as well. What the media just can't get their hands around is that disapproval of Obama today isn't because he's black – it's because of his policies. Or do the 70 percent of the country that now believe the nation is on the wrong track also feel this way because the President is black? ROBERTS, C.: But – but the bad part about this is that he – that – that it's acceptable to say that he's a Muslim… EBOO PATEL, INTERFAITH YOUTH CORE: That's right. ROBERTS, C.: …because the same people won't – won't say, “I don't like him cause he's black.” So it's – it's – and – and the fact that it's acceptable to dislike him because he's a Muslim is the problem that you were talking about. Calling Americans racist, despite there being an African-American in the White House, is acceptable on Easter Sunday. I doubt I'm the only one that felt this was highly inappropriate on such a holy day.
Continue reading …
Click here to view this media Even after admitting just how toxic politically for the Republicans Paul Ryan’s budget plan is and how extremely unpopular making any cuts to Medicare is with voters on all sides of the aisle, David Brooks still insists on calling Ryan “brave.” Sorry David, but refusing to ask the rich to pay more in taxes, giving them another tax break they don’t need, and balancing the budget off of the backs of the poor and the middle class is not “brave”, “sort of brave” or anything resembling it. Standing up to the insurance industries and demanding that we get a single-payer system where we’re all in the same pool as these seniors — now that would be brave. Transcript via PBS : JIM LEHRER: Has the president gotten any traction, do you think, Mark, on his — going after the Republicans on the grounds of lowering taxes for the rich and fooling with Medicare? MARK SHIELDS: I think — I think this is potentially a game-changer. JIM LEHRER: For him. MARK SHIELDS: For him. I really do. I think the — David and I can argue about the policy, which I think is morally weak on the Ryan plan and puts those most vulnerable at most risk but you can’t argue about the politics. The politics of it are terrible. They have given the Democrats an incredible opening. The Democrats were reeling, have been on the defensive politically. And you talk about the town meetings that Republican congressmen are having during this congressional break. They are on the defensive, saying, no, I’m not going to abolish Medicare. I’m not going to dismantle it. They have given an incredible opening to the Democrats to change the conversation, to put the president and the Democrats on the offensive. JIM LEHRER: Do you think they are changing the conversation? DAVID BROOKS: Yes. I mean, they knew they would open — be creating an opening. I mean, they walked into this with their eyes wide open. JIM LEHRER: The Republicans knew it, right. DAVID BROOKS: I mean, they can read the polls like anybody else. JIM LEHRER: Sure. DAVID BROOKS: And raising taxes on the rich is popular. Cutting defense spending is pretty popular. Cutting — any — changing Medicare in any way, shape or form is extremely unpopular, including with Republicans. And, so, they knew they were walking into it. That is why I think it was sort of brave of them to do this, because they do point to an elemental reality, that it’s — we can’t balance the budget just by raising taxes on the rich and cutting defense spending. You have to touch the middle class and you have to touch seniors. And so I agree with Mark on the politics. And I — last week, I called the election for Obama on the basis of that. JIM LEHRER: You did. I remember that. I remember that. DAVID BROOKS: I’m already regretting that, of course, by the way. MARK SHIELDS: This week, he is calling it — this week, he is calling it for Mitt Romney. DAVID BROOKS: Yes. It is going to be Mitt Romney. JIM LEHRER: Yes. (LAUGHTER) DAVID BROOKS: No, but, you know, I overstated it, but it is definitely an advantage that the Democrats are happy to walk into. JIM LEHRER: Yes. MARK SHIELDS: Republicans have done this. They did it in 1985 after — I mean, 2005, after George W. Bush’s re-election, they came out with the privatization of — in Social Security. JIM LEHRER: Social Security. MARK SHIELDS: In 1995, with Newt Gingrich and the new Congress, they were going to cut Medicare spending. In 1985, with a Republican Senate, they wanted to cut the COLA, the COLA increase. I mean, they want to go after the social programs. And each time, they take this election win as a mandate to do it, and they end up… DAVID BROOKS: Well, but I can say, on the substance, they are right each time. I mean… JIM LEHRER: You think it is courageous to do that? DAVID BROOKS: Well, I mean, as I said, your average Medicare enrollee, average income, making I don’t know what it is, $50,000 a year, is paying in $145,000 over the lifetime into the system, taking out $450,000. Well, there is a big gap there. And that is unsustainable. And so the $450,000 has to be brought down over time. And they are absolutely right to try to bring it down. It just happens to be extremely unpopular to try to talk about that. MARK SHIELDS: I just think there is a moral test to every budget. And when you are doing it, those who are suffering the most are those who don’t have a voice at the table, I mean and they really don’t have a place at the table. DAVID BROOKS: Yes, that’s our grandchildren. MARK SHIELDS: It’s our grandchildren. It’s the poor. It’s the unemployed. It’s the jobless. It’s the homeless. I mean, these people… JIM LEHRER: And that is the Democratic message, right? MARK SHIELDS: But they’re not even — they’re not even — well, the Democrats haven’t been particularly solicitous or championing of them either. But I mean, the Republicans just kind of write them off like they are not existing. DAVID BROOKS: One rabid point, who is taking money away from the homeless, programs for the homeless? It is Medicare. That is what is taking money. That is what squeezing all these other programs. MARK SHIELDS: No, no, not when you’re talking about making Medicaid into a private… JIM LEHRER: Goodbye. Goodbye. (LAUGHTER) JIM LEHRER: Nice talking to you all.
Continue reading …
• Hit F5 because autorefresh is broken. Sorry • Email simon.burnton@guardian.co.uk with your thoughts • Check out fixtures and results , plus the latest tables 4.02pm: The first minute’s commentary throws up this double-whammy: “2011 has been a terrible year for Arsenal” … “they’re the only unbeaten team in the Premier League.” I do hope that one day my team can be as unsuccessful as Arsenal. 1min: Peeeeep! And they’re off! 3.59pm: Inevitable interesting pre-match @optajoe stat: Bolton have hit the woodwork least often this season (five times), Arsenal the most (20). 3.56pm: Bolton’s players are lining up in the tunnel. Lots of people in the crowd are wearing silly outfits. The Arsenal players are there too. It’s action time. 3.49pm: Sky are hosting a debate about whether we need a winter break. Pur-leese, I thought that hoary old chestnut was done with for eight months or so. 3.41pm: Gary Naylor responds to our continuing auto-refresh crisis. “The Guardian have had this obvious problem for ages now and still haven’t done anything about it,” he notes. “Who’s in charge of your IT? Arsène Wenger?” 3.39pm: Thanks to Richard Eloli for this Australian bloopers compilation, which includes possibly my favourite goal celebration of the season (zip straight to it by clicking here ). The lad looks genuinely delighted, for a short while. 3.25pm: Of course, there was a time when Bolton were something of a bogey team for Arsenal. No more, though: Arsenal have won their last eight games against the Trotters, including three here, and the clubs’ Premier League head-to-head reads: Played: 23, Arsenal wins: 14, Draws: 5, Bolton wins: 4. 3.17pm: In no way related to this game question of the day: Fiorentina have a 16-year-old Brazilian striker called Jackson Beckham Diego Socrates da Silva Jesus . Is he the first professional footballer named after England’s own David Beckham? It certainly shows just how old the LA-based midfield veteran is getting… 3.14pm: The teams are in – and we’re told that Johan Elmander will line up in central midfield for Bolton. Bolton: Jaaskelainen, Steinsson, Cahill, Knight, Robinson, Lee, Elmander, Muamba, Taylor, Sturridge, Kevin Davies. Subs: Bogdan, Petrov, Mark Davies, Klasnic, Moreno, Cohen, Wheater. Arsenal: Szczesny, Sagna, Djourou, Koscielny, Clichy, Song, Wilshere, Walcott, Fabregas, Nasri, van Persie. Subs: Lehmann, Ramsey, Squillaci, Arshavin, Eboue, Gibbs, Chamakh. Referee: Mike Jones. 3.10pm: Well, Arsenal probably can’t win the title this season. That situation won’t change even if they win today, but if they don’t, we’ll be able to exchange the word “probably” with “definitely”. Bolton, arses still stinging from last week’s FA Cup semi-final hiding from Stoke, simply must be beaten. 3pm: Good afternoon, world. I hope you’re out somewhere, enjoying the bumper bank holiday sunshine and preparing to follow this afternoon’s game and engage in some email-based banter via a mobile device. I’ll sit inside and watch TV, friends, so you don’t have to. Premier League Bolton Wanderers Arsenal Simon Burnton guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Analysts warn that South Sudan, which will gain independence in July, is at risk of immediately becoming a failed state At least 55 fighters have died in clashes between southern Sudan’s army and a rebel militia, a state minister said. The fighting was the latest development in a wave of violence across the territory, which will gain independence in July. Scores of troops and civilians were injured in the clash, the Upper Nile state information minister, Peter Lam Both, said. The oil-producing south voted to separate from the north in a referendum in January. The referendum was promised in a 2005 peace deal that ended decades of civil war in Sudan, but the region has been beset by violence and insecurity since the poll. The southern army is at war with at least seven rebel militia, and traditional tribal clashes have intensified with the onset of the rainy season, according to the UN, which said more than 800 people have been killed there this year. Analysts have warned that the south risks becoming a failed state and destabilising the region if it cannot control the crisis, with tens of thousands of people displaced by the conflicts affecting nine of its 10 states, the UN said. On Saturday, the army clashed with forces loyal to renegade army commander Gabriel Tang during what was meant to be the reintegration of his forces into southern Sudan’s army, Both said. “We understand that on the side of [Tang's forces], 55 were killed including five of his generals,” Both told Reuters, saying his information had come from the army. “We don’t have reports of those killed from the army and civilian sides, but the [overall] death toll must be much higher,” he said, adding that the state capital, Malakal, had received 34 wounded soldiers and 43 injured civilians. The clashes happened south of Malakal, just across the border in Jonglei state, Both said. In a separate incident in Jonglei, a Sudanese employee of the UN World Food Programme was killed on Friday in an ambush by unknown assailants. In the neighbouring Unity state, renegade army officer Peter Gadet this week began a sustained assault against army forces, with at least 45 people killed so far, officials said. A spokesman for Gadet said the offensive would continue “until victory”. Oil production in the state was disrupted by the violence, according to state officials, who said they first expelled, then readmitted, northern Sudanese workers to oil areas, underscoring the threat the insecurity poses to the economy. The Unity state information minister, Gideon Gatpan Thoar, could not confirm whether the workers had yet returned. Around 98% of the south’s budget comes from oil revenue, and how it shares its oil with the north after independence remains unresolved. It is currently spilt roughly 50-50, and the only pipelines to export oil run through the north. The petroleum ministry could not say how much of the 500,000 barrel daily production was affected by the violence. The southern government accuses the north of sponsoring the militia groups fighting the army – an allegation Khartoum denies. Rebel groups accuse the government of plotting to stay in power indefinitely, not fairly representing and supporting all tribal groups while neglecting development in rural areas. Sudan guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …