Drink-related deaths among men in hard-pressed rural areas exacerbate the decline in the nation’s population Down a winding lane, through fields still covered in snow, stands a cluster of wooden cottages an hour’s drive east of Moscow. Twenty years ago, the village of Rybaki was a lively community of more than 1,000 people. Today the population is a quarter of that. Almost no one has a job inside the village; the only thing thriving is a cemetery, which is black with fresh graves. The fate of Rybaki is echoed across Russia. Late last month the government published the initial results of a census taken last year. Since 2002, Russia’s population has fallen by 2.2 million to just under 143 million. The proportion of men has fallen from 46.6% to 46.3%, which means the country now has 10.5 million more females than males. That speaks of an ugly truth: while outward migration to towns plays its part, a punishing mortality rate among men has devastated places such as Rybaki. “Most of my contemporaries are already dead,” says Oleg Zlotnikov, 50, who sells sand and crushed stone at the end of a track in the village. He is one of only a few dozen men, and among the tiny handful who still work. While it is only 25 miles from the skyscrapers and Bentley showrooms of central Moscow, much of Rybaki looks like a scene from Tolstoy. Shabby cottages made from split logs stretch along streets of mud and slush. A few smart brick buildings fringe the community, but these are dachas built by rich Muscovites who are there for only a few weeks in the summer. Russia’s demographic crisis sets it apart from most of Europe, where numbers have been more or less stable for two decades. Its population reached about 148m in 1990, but has declined since. While many countries have low fertility rates, here the problem is compounded by a high early death rate. Smoking, heart disease and accidents all contribute. One of the greatest killers, however, is the old Russian demon: vodka. “We are only women left,” says Nina Burenina, a 75-year-old former milkmaid in a coloured headscarf, sitting in her kitchen in Moskvaretskaya Street. “Two of my sons died from drink – and my husband, too. Why hide it?” The first to die was Alexei, 23, who got into a drunken brawl with some men on a barge by the river, not long after coming back from his army service. “They beat him to a pulp and tossed him overboard, then pretended he fell in and got caught up in the propeller,” says Burenina. “His body was found downstream three days later.” Her husband, Ivan, a digger driver, succumbed to booze at the comparatively ripe age of 77. Then last May, her son, Konstantin, a 42-year-old engineer, died after contracting lung cancer, an ulcer and paralysis caused by drinking. Such stories are rife in Rybaki. On the other side of the village is a crumbling two-storey apartment block, behind the ruins of a social club where dances were held in the Soviet days. On the second floor, Klavdiya Turbanova, 78, peeps out of her window from behind a geranium plant. She moved to the village three years ago, but is shocked by the spectacle she sees in the yard below. “All the time there are people crawling around drunk,” she says. “Once I found a man lying in the snow and wrapped him in a coat. Another time I dragged one out of a puddle. One of my neighbours said, ‘You’ll soon get used to ignoring them.’ But I can’t get used to it, it’s not right.” An alcoholic woman from the floor below recently burst into the flat and demanded the tiny bottle of nastoyka – a mix of vodka and herbs – that Turbanova sips to help with her high blood pressure. “After I retired I mopped floors and made pies and knitted socks to make a little money,” she says. “Even now I have a little allotment out the back where I grow potatoes and cucumbers. These drunkards have lost all hope. They don’t want to look for a job.” Turbanova’s granddaughter, Nastya, who is visiting from Zhukovsky, a town closer to Moscow, would like her to move away. Rybaki has a small medical station with a nurse, but two years ago Turbanova began to suffer fainting attacks. She had to go to a hospital in a larger village nearby. “It was ghastly,” says Nastya. “There were cockroaches all over the place, the toilets were falling apart. We had to buy grandma’s medicines ourselves because they didn’t have any.” Oleg Zlotnikov says people are driven to alcohol by lack of opportunity and the harsh living conditions. A long-promised gas supply has not been connected, so all the households are heated with wood or coal burners, or small electric heaters. In December and January, when temperatures fell well below zero, Rybaki went without electricity for almost two weeks after an ice storm brought down the power lines, said Zlotnikov. “Life is tough and people need jobs,” he adds. “There’s a farm, but they pay practically nothing, so only a few Tajik and Kyrgyz migrants are prepared to work there.” Land is sold for dacha construction at such high prices that buying it for agricultural use is unprofitable. Meanwhile, Zlotnikov and his wife, Marina, have struggled to keep their business alive. The desperate conditions can lead to hatred and envy. One winter someone plugged up the holes Oleg had drilled in the ice of his pond to keep his fish alive. “Just out of spite,” said a neighbour. In 2006, Zlotnikov was jailed for four years for planning to murder a business rival. He claims that the accusation was fabricated because he refused to cede to a local mafia kingpin. “They didn’t reckon on my wife,” he says, smiling. Marina fended off the raiders while Oleg was in jail, and saved his life when he contracted tuberculosis. Marina says: “Corruption also kills. It’s psychological; in the end people just lower their hands. We didn’t give up.” Now the couple have branched out into breeding geese and turkeys. They even have two shaggy Bactrian camels from Astrakhan which they hope to hire to a local holiday camp for rides. Despite the hardships, some residents refuse to blame Russia’s ruling tandem – President Dmitry Medvedev and Vladimir Putin, the prime minister, who is still thought to be the dominant force – for Rybaki’s decline. “Please say thank you to Putin,” says Burenina. “It’s not his fault my sons turned to drink. It was the local shop, for staying open too late. Putin speaks well. He said he would raise pensions and he did.” Turbanova said there were worse things than watching the drunks outside her window. “I lived through the war: I lost my father and brother at the front,” she says. “At least there’s no war now.” What did she think of the country’s leadership? “I like Putin, he’s good. And that other one, his assistant.” President Medvedev? “That’s it. I like him, too.” Russia Population Europe Alcohol Tom Parfitt guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Tributes are paid to the screenwriter described as ‘the Dickens of his generation’ who has died after a short illness Tributes paid to John Sullivan, the scriptwriter famous for creating Only Fools and Horses , who has been described as “the Dickens of his
Continue reading …
Media members better get their facts straight when reporting about Donald Trump or they just might end up biting off more than they can chew. On Friday, while CNN's Eliot Spitzer was doing a report contradicting Trump's claims about his net worth, the real estate mogul called into the studio to set the record straight (video follows with transcript and commentary): ELIOT SPITZER, HOST: OK. Now we have something surprising right now. We have a phone call coming in right now from Donald Trump. Donald, can you hear us? DONALD TRUMP, ENTREPRENEUR: Yes, I can. SPITZER: Well, thank you for calling in. Thank you for joining us. I gather — I know from a call earlier in the day you're not happy with the critique that we've made of the deposition. As I said to you when we spoke, I'll give you fair chance to respond. Fire away. Take your best shot. TRUMP: Well, I don't think that — I didn't see the piece, but I heard one or two people called me up — not too many, but one or two people called me up and they said it was a very unfair piece. First of all, I'm a private company, you know nothing about what I own and what I don't own, Eliot. And in all due respect, I think you'd be the first to admit that. You don't know where I come from or what I — what I own, although I did — I was a fan of yours, and I was a little bit surprised to see that you would do a negative piece. But being a private company you really have no idea what I own and it's very substantial. Now should I decide to run — and by the way, among my best years have been the last two or three years, should I decide to run, you'll see all of that because as you know I have very, very detailed Federal Disclosure forms that I have to fill out, and I think people would be surprised to see what the numbers are. They are very, very substantial. SPITZER: Look, Donald, just so it is clear. I have made it very clear on this show. In fact, I just added a few moments ago, you may not have been able to hear it. I'm a fan of yours. I love the bravado. I think all of that is wonderful. The issue here, and I also agree as a private entity and a private company you do not have the obligation to make the disclosures that a public company does. And therefore there's a certain lack of knowledge that all of us bring to this conversation which is why the only thing we've used here is the deposition. Tell me if I'm right about this. You made certain presentations to banks in a certain point of time, Deutsche Bank and North Fork. You said you had a net worth of $3.5 billion. They came back with very significantly lower numbers. TRUMP: No. But as you probably know they were only looking at certain assets. This was for a building that I was building, and they didn't need to have $3.5 billion. They just needed to have a certain net worth. SPITZER: That's right. TRUMP: Anything — and not even a net worth. Just assets of a certain amount in order to — SPITZER: But Donald, you would agree — TRUMP: — for a building. Excuse me, Eliot, let me talk. SPITZER: Absolutely. So what they did is this was just a percentage. They just took a basic percentage. It had to be over 750 in order to do the loan. This wasn't a net worth of 750. This was a statement that it had to be over 750 in order to do a loan and that's very well documented by Deutsche Bank. SPITZER: But you would acknowledge that looking at the same materials that you presented to them they came in with a net worth that was significantly lower than what you had initially stated. TRUMP: That's not right, Eliot. SPITZER: No, wait, wait. (CROSSTALK) SPITZER: Donald, it was sufficient for the loan — TRUMP: Well, in excess of $750 million. SPITZER: Right. TRUMP: In other words, it had to get up to $750 million in order to make a loan. This is many years ago, just so you understand. SPITZER: OK. TRUMP: So I'm going back many years. SPITZER: OK. TRUMP: Many, many years. SPITZER: Can we — TRUMP: But we had to have a net worth over a certain amount in order to do a loan. SPITZER: OK. TRUMP: Now, once that amount was hit it didn't make any difference because you didn't need any more than that, so all they wanted to do was to make sure it was more than the $700 or $750 million. That wasn't a net worth. That was just to be over a certain limit. SPITZER: Right. But your initial signed statement to them was $3.5, they came in at $1.2 instead of — TRUMP: Let me just — no, that's not right. Let me just tell you something. SPITZER: Right. I'm listening. TRUMP: My net worth, you may very well see and very accurately because of federal forms — SPITZER: OK. TRUMP: You're going to see in very great deal. I have built a great company. SPITZER: No doubt about that. TRUMP: I have built a company that is — and I think you sort of know that because you're involved in real estate in New York. I have built a great company. I have built a company that has very little debt, has a lot of cash and I have among the best locations anywhere in the United States. I have great property. SPITZER: Donald — TRUMP: If I decide to run, and I may surprise you by my decision. SPITZER: Right. TRUMP: You will see filed, not 90 days later when that I'm expected to do it, but the day that I decide to run, you will see a large number of papers that add up to a certain number and on that paper and on that cover paper will be the amount of cash I have, what banks the cash is in and also what net worth there is, approximately. SPITZER: Donald, just so it's clear — TRUMP: And it will be very simple. And you're wasting a lot of time on your show and to be honest, you know, you'll find out, very likely, you'll find out — hopefully you will find out because this country is in such bad shape that somebody has to do something as quickly as possible. SPITZER: We'll get to that — TRUMP: So hopefully you'll find out in a very short number of weeks. SPITZER: We'll get to that in just a moment. TRUMP: What the number is. SPITZER: We'll get to that in just a moment. Here's the question I have for you. What is your net worth? Why don't you tell us right now? TRUMP: I will save it but I will tell you this. SPITZER: You're going to say your net worth or you're going to save your statement? TRUMP: My net worth — excuse me, Eliot. Excuse me. My net worth according to “Forbes” is $2.7 billion? SPITZER: Right. TRUMP: I will tell you this, it is substantially in excess of that. When I say substantially, much, much more. They don't have access to my books, they don't have access to my records. JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN: It's Jeff Toobin. SPITZER: Jeff has a question for you. TOOBIN: Let me ask you a question about the Hawaii project, in Waikiki that we raised earlier in the program today. He said that — you said you own it. In interviews and in letters you said you own it. In fact, in the deposition you said well, I have a license. It's a licensing agreement but it's really a good licensing agreement. Isn't there a difference between owning something — TRUMP: You're talking about Hawaii? I really don't know if it's an ownership position or license. I have so many jobs that I wouldn't know that. I can tell you this, it's a very successful job, it's a beautiful job. TOOBIN: I don't doubt that for a second that you're very successful but — TRUMP: And it's — and it's — (CROSSTALK) TRUMP: Excuse me, Jeffrey. TOOBIN: I'm sorry. TRUMP: It's up, it's open, it's doing very well and people are very happy. As to whether or not it's a licensing deal or an ownership deal, I have many, many deals all over the world. I'd have to really check that, I don't know. SPITZER: Donald, we've got to take a quick break. You know this. You have a TV show somewhere, don't you? TRUMP: I do. I certainly do. Something media members must find very scary – and possibly one of the reasons they've been so on the attack concerning Trump – is that he's not afraid of them. Part of the press's power especially on television is that politicians generally fear those that make a living offering political opinion to the public. What we've seen in the past few weeks is this is not one of Trump's concerns. Quite the contrary, he seems to love getting in the ring with his adversaries as the cameras are rolling. If The Donald is really going to run for president, and this isn't just him having a lot of fun getting the nation's attention in a greater fashion than normal, his courageous, devil may care attitude around the media may be a quality that goes a long way with voters. What the talking heads don't realize is for better or worse, most Americans don't vote based on the issues. If they did, Obama never would have gotten anywhere near as far as he did in 2008. One of the many things to be learned from that campaign was how many people in this country vote for personalities not issues or positions. Say what you will about the former junior senator from Illinois, he did ooze what a goodly percentage of the public was looking for at that moment in time. The same could end up being true of Trump if he decides to run. There's potentially a sizable number of people that would support him just because of the confidence he has to call an on air television host and challenge him or her about what he or she is reporting at that instant. His positions on a number of issues might be offensive to some, but that could end up being largely irrelevant to people who couldn't care less about Obama's birth certificate or possible tariffs on Chinese goods. This real estate mogul right now is playing the press better than any candidate we've seen in a long time, and that could be winning him more fans than some campaign promise they expect will be reneged upon shortly after their vote is cast. Another wild card is ratings, for if Trump's even come close to what media outlets were getting in 2008 every time Obama or his wife was in a studio or on a magazine cover, this could get really interesting in the coming months because they're going to want him on as much as possible. That could mean this is just the start of a lot of Donald exposure which will certainly make him very happy, but will end up really displeasing the current White House resident. Wouldn't that be a shame? (H/T Mediaite )
Continue reading …
Hamdi denies driving Mohamed Bouazizi to take his own life, as all charges of striking the Tunisian stallholder are dropped It was the slap that started a revolution. When the Tunisian street trader Mohamed Bouazizi, 26, was slapped in the face by a female municipal inspector last December, he burned himself alive in protest and sparked a wave of anti-government riots that engulfed the Arab world. True or false? The woman at the centre of the controversy has now denied hitting Bouazizi and claims she was wrongly imprisoned for four months. Fedia Hamdi, 46, who has not spoken publicly about the incident until now, told the Observer that she had been used as a political pawn by the former Tunisian president, Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali. “I feel I was a scapegoat,” she said. “I feel there has been a grave injustice and it hurts me to think that no one wanted to listen to my story.” After 111 days of incarceration, Hamdi was freed by a tribunal in her hometown of Sidi Bouzid last Tuesday after defence lawyers demolished the case against her. Hamdi was found innocent of all charges when it emerged in court that only a single person claimed to have seen the slap – a fellow street trader who bore a grudge against her – while four new witnesses testified that there had been no physical confrontation. “I would never have hit him [Bouazizi],” Hamdi said, speaking from her parents’ home in Meknassy, approximately 50km from Sidi Bouzid where the alleged incident took place. “It was impossible because I am a woman, first of all, and I live in a traditionally Arab community which bans a woman from hitting a man. And, secondly, I was frightened … I was only doing my job.” The tale of Bouazizi’s self-immolation rapidly became the stuff of legend in the early days of the jasmine revolution. It was reported in media outlets across the globe that Bouazizi, a fruit and vegetable seller, had set up his stall as usual on the morning of 17 December in the central Tunisian town of Sidi Bouzid. At about 11.30am Hamdi, accompanied by another municipal official, approached the market trader to insist that the regulations did not allow him to sell his wares without a permit. It was reported at the time that Hamdi confiscated Bouazizi’s electronic scales and his cart when he refused to pay a bribe. When he became agitated, it was alleged that she slapped him across the face. Hamdi, who is unmarried and has no children, denies this. What is indisputable is that when Bouazizi tried to retrieve his cart from the police station, he was turned away. He then asked to see the local governor, but was also refused entry. At about 1pm he set himself alight. He later died of his injuries in hospital. Within hours of Bouazizi burning himself alive, a crowd of 4,000 people had gathered in Sidi Bouzid to protest against his public humiliation. For many, Bouazizi’s death became a potent symbol of an ordinary individual who struggled to make a living under President Ben Ali’s corrupt regime. It was the spark that ignited a series of revolutions across the Arab world – most notably in Egypt, Yemen and Libya. But for Hamdi, the reality was rather different. “I was just doing my job,” she says now, sitting in a large front room surrounded by her seven siblings and elderly parents. “The only thing I was trying to do that day was to apply the law and the law doesn’t allow market traders to go in a public zone. When I asked him to leave, he refused and he grabbed hold of my hand, hurting my finger. He was angry with me, so I let it go, but as a penalty I confiscated some of his bananas and peppers and gave them to a charitable association… Afterwards, I went back to my work and then I went home at 1pm and I didn’t do anything else.” According to Hamdi, Bouazizi was “hysterical” when she left him. “He was almost unaware of what he was doing.” One resident of Sidi Bouzid, speaking on condition of anonymity, claimed that Bouazizi poured petrol on himself “as a threat. He didn’t mean to kill himself”. Several of Hamdi’s colleagues, some of whom set up a Facebook group to campaign for her release, suggest Bouazizi set himself on fire by accident while lighting a cigarette. Whatever the truth of the incident, in the days after Bouazizi’s self-immolation, the atmosphere in Sidi Bouzid was extremely unstable. President Ben Ali, wishing to avert any further protest, ordered Hamdi’s detention on 28
Continue reading …That didn’t take long. As the battle over health care reform reached a fever pitch in the fall of 2009, the Republican National Committee rolled out a ” Seniors’ Bill of Rights .” But with the midterms safely won, the GOP has predictably turned its back on its pledge of “no cuts to Medicare to pay for another program.” After all, the House GOP budget passed last week not only and massively shifts costs onto the elderly. As it turns out, the Ryan plan calls for the very same cuts to the Medicare Advantage program Republicans decried during the 2010 elections. In November, the GOP rode a gray wave to victory, winning elderly voters by a 21 point margin. Key to the Republican triumph was the strategy of terrifying seniors about “death panels” and warnings about Democrats’ slashing $500 billion from the insurance program covering 46 million elderly Americans. Despite the fact that the Affordable Care Act did not impact Medicare’s core benefits and affected only the 15% of beneficiaries who enroll in higher cost private plans, Republicans ran devastating ads darkly warning of Armageddon. As the Wall Street Journa l described one ad: “Maybe Schauer’s trying to hide his own vote to cut $500 billion from Medicare,” said one typical television ad, this one targeting then-Rep. Mark Schauer (D., Mich.), who lost his re-election bid. “Let’s save Medicare, and cut Schauer.” Like others, this ad was paid for by the National Republican Congressional Committee. But it was RNC chairman Michael Steele who put the GOP on record against Medicare cuts in the fall of 2009 with his ” Seniors’ Health Care Bill of Rights .” Starring in his own ad, Steele proclaimed: “Let’s agree in both parties that Congress should only consider health reform proposals that protect senior citizens. For starters, no cuts to Medicare to pay for another program. Zero.” Steele’s spot followed on the heels of his August 24, 2009 Washington Post op-ed similarly dedicated to producing fear and loathing among the elderly. Despite the conclusions of Politifact and the AARP that the Obama White House was not calling for benefit cuts to the basic Medicare program, Steele again portrayed the President as the grim reaper: The Republican Party’s contract with seniors includes tenets that Americans, regardless of political party, should support. First, we need to protect Medicare and not cut it in the name of “health-insurance reform.” As the president frequently, and correctly, points out, Medicare will go deep into the red in less than a decade. But he and congressional Democrats are planning to raid, not aid, Medicare by cutting $500 billion from the program to fund his health-care experiment. Steele’s Bill of Rights for seniors quickly led to one of the most bizarre chapters in the midterm campaign. GOP leaders in both houses of Congress were furious with Steele and for good reason. The party that tried to kill Medicare in the 1960′ s and gut it in the 1990′s had no intention of protecting it from the budgetary ax as soon as the campaign was over. As Politico reported at the time: The congressional leaders were particularly miffed that Steele had in late August unveiled a seniors’ “health care bill of rights” without consulting with them. The statement of health care principles, outlined in a Washington Post op-ed, began with a robust defense of Medicare that puzzled some in a party not known for its attachment to entitlements… Steele was taken aback by the comments from Boehner, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), Senate GOP conference Chairman Lamar Alexander of Tennessee and Senate GOP policy Chairman John Thune of South Dakota and grew defensive during the 10-minute discussion, according to two people in the room. Of course, Politico’s description of the GOP as “a party not known for its attachment to entitlements” is a comical understatement when it comes to the perpetual Republican war on Medicare . 18 months later, all but four House Republicans voted to slash $3 trillion from Medicare, killing the traditional insurance program through a voucher scheme that would leave American seniors paying for 70% of their health care by 2030. Left to fend for themselves with only their under-funded vouchers against a predatory private insurance market, rationing is the inevitable result. But as Ezra Klein and Jonathan Cohn each explained, the Republicans’ cynicism in shattering their own Seniors’ Bill of Rights and GOP Pledge to America (“The new law’s massive Medicare cuts will fall squarely on the backs of seniors, millions of whom will be forced off their current Medicare coverage”) hardly ends there. The Ryan GOP budget includes those very same Medicare cuts the Republicans so successfully ran against: You’ve seen hypocrisy in politics before. But rarely have you seen the brazen kind Republicans just showed on the House floor, when they voted for Budget Chairman Paul Ryan’s “Path to Prosperity.” Ryan’s budget calls for repealing most of the Affordable Care Act, including both the insurance coverage expansions and creation of an independent board to help restrain Medicare costs. But it would leave in place the rest of the planned reductions in Medicare spending, at least for the next ten years. Among those cuts are $136 billion in reductions to Medicare Advantage plans. Of course, the GOP Pledge to America and the RNC Seniors’ Bill of Rights were frauds, promises meant to be broken as soon as the Republican Party regained its majority. As it turns out, back in the 1990′s former House Speaker and would-be 2012 White House hopeful Newt Gingrich made a commitment on Medicare Republicans plan to keep: “We don’t want to get rid of it in round one because we don’t think it’s politically smart,” he said. “But we believe that it’s going to wither on the vine because we think [seniors] are going to leave it voluntarily.” By killing Medicare outright, Republicans are now proposing to cut that vine and ensure there will be nothing voluntary about it for what would doubtless be millions of newly impoverished seniors. (THis piece also appears at Perrspectives .)
Continue reading …Howard Fineman: Republican Congress’s Unfavorability Hurting Obama’s Poll Numbers
April 23, 2011 No Comment
Can you imagine liberal media members in 2007 or 2008 blaming George W. Bush's sagging poll numbers on the public's dismal view of the Democrat Congress? On Friday, the Huffington Post's Howard Fineman actually told MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell “the fact the Republicans and Congress are so poorly regarded, that the whole system is so poorly regarded, drags everybody down, including the president” (video follows with transcript and commentary): LAWRENCE O'DONNELL, HOST: The latest “New York Times”/CBS News poll shows the number of people who think the U.S. is on the wrong track is at 70 percent, the highest it has been since the final days of George W. Bush’s presidency. President Obama now gets low marks across the board — 57 percent disapprove of how he’s handling the economy, 59 percent disapprove of how he’s handling the deficit, 45 percent disapprove of how he’s handling the situation in Libya. His overall job approval is at 46 percent compared to 45 percent of those who disapprove. The president thinks he knows what’s moving his numbers, the price at the pump. Last night at a fundraiser, the president said, “I’m confident because I travel around the country and my poll numbers go up and down, depending on the latest crisis. And right now, gas prices are weighing heavily on people. But when I talk to ordinary folks, they are not paying attention and we understand the world is complicated.” If you don’t understand the world is complicated and if you exaggerate wildly and if you’re crazy, this is the way you talk about gas prices. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) TRUMP: Look at what’s going on with the gasoline prices. They’re going to go to $5, $6, $7. And we don’t have anybody in Washington that calls OPEC and says, fellas, it’s time. It’s over. You’re not going to do it anymore. (END VIDEO CLIP) O’DONNELL: If you don’t understand the world is complicated, you don’t know that you can create worldwide economic chaos by not raising the debt ceiling when necessary. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) REP. MICHELE BACHMANN (R), MINNESOTA: I say no to the debt ceiling. No to raising our debt ceiling. (CHEERS AND APPLAUSE) BACHMANN: Now, some people will tell you, but, Michele, you don’t want the government to shut down. The government won’t shut down. This is what will happen. Revenue will continue to come in to the United States Treasury. And we will, first, pay off our debts, our obligations and interest on the debt. That’s the first thing we’ll do so we don’t violate our credit ratings. (END VIDEO CLIP) O’DONNELL: If you don’t understand the world is complicated, then 142 characters is more than enough to articulate all of your thinking about the United States’ role in Libya. @SarahPalinUSA tweeted, “Get in, hit hard, get out. Need to send the world a message: we’ll only intervene in anyone’s business if we are dead serious.” If you do understand the world is complicated, there is no one left in the Republican Party who speaks for you. Joining me now is Howard Fineman, senior political editor for “The Huffington Post” and an MSNBC political analyst, and Richard Wolffe, MSNBC political analyst and author of “Renegade: The Making of a President.” Thank you both for joining me tonight. RICHARD WOLFFE, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST: You bet. HOWARD FINEMAN, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST: Hi, Lawrence. O’DONNELL: Richard, did these poll numbers hit the White House by surprise? Did they — did they understand there was a trend building with these kinds of negative numbers? WOLFFE: No, they have known this is building for awhile. Gas prices haven’t just suddenly spike. But they also know that in spite of all vulnerability they have on the economy, there’s only one set of numbers that are actually worse than this, and that’s what voters say they think about Republicans and specifically about the Republican plans on things like budget or on cutting taxes for the super wealthy. So, you know, people talk about hope and change here — you know, yes, they are hoping gas prices come down and people feel better about the economy. But they also know the risk of change is what’s going to drive people in this dynamic we’re going to see over the next year or so. O’DONNELL: Howard, the president does have some high disapproval numbers in there for a president running for re-election. But the Congress has a disapproval number of 75 percent. How do you think voters are balancing that out — their disapproval of the Congress and the disapproval of the job done by the White House? Where does that leave them when it comes time to vote for president? FINEMAN: Well, it leaves them in a quandary. And it leaves them very upset that the Washington hasn’t changed. It is true that the gas price numbers are hurting the president right now. It’s true that there’s a lot of uneasiness still about the economy. As a matter of fact, it’s growing again. But I think it’s also true that people are a little disappointed in the president because he hasn’t been able to change the way Washington works at all. Indeed, Congress is even more poorly regarded. Everybody wanted a bigger deal than was done the last budget go around. And so, in an odd way, the fact the Republicans and Congress are so poorly regarded, that the whole system is so poorly regarded drags everybody down, including the president. Harken back to 2008 when stocks were collapsing as was the entire financial services industry along with President Bush's poll numbers. Can you imagine a liberal media member like Howard Fineman, Lawrence O'Donnell, or Richard Wolffe giving any of the blame to former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.), or the Democrat Party? Neither can I. You know what else was collapsing back then? Congress's poll numbers. They were even lower than they are today. Sadly, the only thing shocking about this analysis was that nobody figured out a way to blame Obama's sagging poll numbers on Bush. Give it time. (H/T RCP )
Continue reading …
Documents submitted to Office for Fair Access are blow to government expectations on increased access Cambridge University fears it will attract fewer students from the state sector next year, despite government expectations that universities charging £9,000 in tuition fees would “dramatically” increase their intake from disadvantaged communities. Documents submitted to the Office for Fair Access (Offa), and seen by the Observer, reveal that Cambridge’s initial target, following the rise in fees, will be merely to maintain the status quo. A university source told the Observer there were even concerns that the proportion of students enrolled from the state sector could drop next year, as it did in 1999 when fees were first introduced, and in 2004 when they were increased. Offa can only reject Cambridge’s plans to charge the maximum in tuition fees if it believes the university has been “seriously negligent” in its interpretation of the office’s published guidance. The university said that it believed its access statement – submitted to Offa in justification of its fees – was challenging and fair but “realistic”. Cambridge’s submission confirms that its “principal milestone is to increase the proportion of our UK undergraduate intake from schools in the UK state sector”. But it adds: “Given the uncertainty regarding application trends in light of the new financial circumstances, our minimum objective for 2012 will be to maintain our intake profile.” Of the 15,700 students accepted by Cambridge last year, 59% were from state schools. It hopes to increase that figure to between 61% and 63% by 2015. The plans appear to contradict assurances by the deputy prime minister, Nick Clegg. In response to Cambridge’s plans to charge £9,000, he said: “They’re only going to be given permission to do so if they can prove that they can dramatically increase the number of people from poorer and disadvantaged backgrounds who presently aren’t going.” The president of the National Union of Students, Aaron Porter, said: “After months of warnings to the government that huge debts would put students from less well-off backgrounds off going to university … we now see that one of those universities with the worst participation records has secretly acknowledged the negative impacts of rushing to the £9,000 cap.” The government’s access watchdog revealed last week that all universities intend to charge at least £6,000 a year. David Willetts, the universities minister, had initially predicted that universities would charge different levels and that the average would be £7,500. He later revised that to £7,500-£8,000. The shadow universities minister, Gareth Thomas, said: “The government got wrong the number of universities that would charge the full £9,000; ministers were wrong that Offa could control fee levels; and now they’ve been found out on claims of more access.” A spokesman for Cambridge University said: “The access agreement we have submitted clearly shows that there will be a concerted drive to increase state school participation, but we must be realistic and realise that in the first year this will be a challenge.” A spokesman for the Department for Business, Innovations and Skills said: “In order to charge more for tuition, Offa will expect universities to set themselves stretching targets on access, achieving a more representative student body and improving student retention.” Tuition fees University of Cambridge Higher education Students Education policy Daniel Boffey guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Chelsea’s late-season surge continues and despite Manchester United still leading them by six points part of the message from Carlo Ancelotti’s side now is that Fernando Torres has finally scored, and may continue to do so until the title is decided. Entering after 77 minutes, the Spaniard registered his first goal since the £50m move from Liverpool in January suggested his sharpness has returned: on the rain-soaked Stamford Bridge turf the ball held up behind the striker but he was able to nonchalantly pirouette before delivering the sweetest of finishes with his left foot. West Ham had begun this game rooted to the bottom, two points off 17th, which for any player in the relegation dog-fight at this juncture of the season can appear a yawning margin. Avram Grant lined his side up in a 4-3-3 that matched Carlo Ancelotti’s formation, and it was Chelsea who had the best of the chances during a first half that would frustrate the Italian yet end the best way. Throughout the opening period Ancelotti had been waving at his side to slide balls in behind Lars Jacobsen, the visiting right-back: after 43 minutes Chelsea finally received the message and they had the lead. Didier Drogba, who had been the focus of most of Ancelotti’s glowering, twisted a pass that released Ashley Cole into a gallop that had the visiting rearguard turned and desperate to regain ground. Before they could manage any damage limitation though, the England left-back zipped over a cross that allowed Frank Lampard to bury a finish beyond Robert Green for a lead that had been coming. First up, Florent Malouda had raced down the inside right channel but unloaded a shot that Green parried with his body. Now Chelsea began proving that they are able to switch tempo when required, which has not always been evident this campaign. When Freddie Sears hacked a clearance away from the touchline the ball went straight to Malouda. He ambled a couple of steps then smacked a pass into Drogba’s feet. An instant turn and the Ivorian blazed a shot at Green that skidded across the sodden surface before the keeper collected. After Ashley Cole swung at a volley with his “wrong” right foot Chelsea again tip-toed through West Ham’s defence. Salomon Kalou laid possession off to Drogba before swivelling into the area where he found the ball returned by the striker only marginally too heavy for him. At this point West Ham appeared to have dug in for an attritional contest in which they would defend while Chelsea came at them in ceaseless waves of blue. Yet from somewhere Grant’s gang found their mojo. Sears sprinted from near halfway past Cole to halt in the home area with the ball at his feet. He sent over a cross for Jonathan Spector to produce a diving header that forced Petr Cech into his opening save. Then, from a Mark Noble corner, Sears backheeled from close range, but Ashley Cole stopped the ball on the line and Cech gathered. Grant had reckoned before kick-off that nine points were required from the final 15 available. Yet if he informed his band at the break that an invaluable draw could be salvaged here, the sight of Kalou hitting Green’s right post might have doused this hope. For a frantic period before Torres’ intervention the drenched pitch levelled the contest as initially Drogba and company hurtled forward before West Ham subsequently went close themselves. Drogba played in Lampard but the midfielder could not finish, then the Ivorian striker appeared in West Ham’s area but his chested control proved too heavy. Next up a David Luiz 20-yard drive crashed off Green’s crossbar. But this presaged West Ham moving into their opponents’ territory. Demba Ba stung Cech’s hands before Robbie Keane – on for Mark Noble – failed to finish. While Malouda smashed home in added time Grant could at least console himself that at least Scott Parker should return immediately, after the newly crowned Football Writers’ Footballer of the Year missed this one with an achilles problem. THE FANS’ PLAYER RATINGS AND VERDICT TRIZIA FIORELLINO, ChelseaSupportersGroup.net When Torres finally scored I thought the ground was going to collapse, the noise was so loud. We were pretty average and our play was pretty slow. When Lampard scored I thought the flood gates would open but it didn’t happen, but it was party time all the way once Torres scored. We keep winning but I think we probably left our run two games too late. The fan’s player ratings Cech 8 ; Ivanovic 8 , Luiz 7 , Terry 8 , Cole 7 ; Essien 7 (Benayoun 57 7 ), Lampard 7 , Mikel 7 ; Malouda 7 , Drogba 9 (Torres 77 8 ), Kalou 6 (Anelka 70 6 ) TIM CONLAN, Observer reader I never thought we would get anything out of this game, especially when I saw the line-up, but I thought we played quite well. Grant gambled at the end with effectively four forwards and we got caught with two late goals, but I thought the scoreline flattered Chelsea. I think we could still stay up with 39 points, but it’s possible rather than probable. We could do with a point at City next week. The fan’s player ratings Green 7 ; Jacobsen 7 , Gabbidon 8 , Da Costa 7 , Bridge 8 ; Hitzlsperger 6 , Noble 6 (Keane 60 5 ), Spector 8 ; Sears 8 (Obinna 82 4 ), Cole 7 (Piquionne 79 5 ), Ba 6 To take part in the Fans’ Verdict, email sport@observer.co.uk Premier League Chelsea West Ham United Jamie Jackson guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
‘Big society’ under pressure with philanthropy biased towards the capital, says leading thinktank David Cameron’s “big society” emphasis on charities and philanthropy to compensate for public sector cuts will exacerbate the north-south divide, according to one of the UK’s leading thinktanks. A report from the Institute for Public Policy Research North suggests the government’s hopes that the voluntary, business and philanthropic sectors will help transform society at a time of budget cuts across the public sector are misplaced. Depending on philanthropic donations to help achieve this goal will backfire because donations are unevenly distributed in favour of London, the IPPR warns. It found that 40 donations of more than £1m were made in London in 2009, compared with six in the north-east of England, eight in the Midlands and nine in Scotland. “Clearly, the gap between London and the rest of the UK is enormous,” the IPPR says. The rise of the modern philanthropist has been exemplified by Dame Vivien Duffield, who has given more than £200m to good causes, notably an £8.3m donation last month to a number of British arts organisations including Tate Britain, the National Theatre and the Royal Shakespeare Company. The IPPR also claims that relying on the private sector to provide the resources to bring about the “big society” will put areas such as London – where many of the largest businesses have their headquarters – at a huge advantage. The south also benefits because it is home to the largest charities and voluntary organisations, which are better equipped to compete for public sector contracts. Conversely, the north suffers because it is home to more voluntary and community organisations that are reliant on public funding. As a result, the IPPR warns public spending cuts could “doubly disadvantage” the north and claims 62% of voluntary and charitable organisations in the north-east have already seen a decrease in funding. “Our research shows that the big society is not currently a fair society and goodwill is beginning to wear thin as the voluntary and community sector try to deal with budget cuts,” said Ed Cox, director of IPPR North. “We need to target what little money there is to organisations that struggle to find it elsewhere. Less attractive organisations that lack donor appeal or those operating in areas where business or corporate gifts are hard to come by should be the
Continue reading …
More than 1,000 people have died in Misrata since protests began in February, but its volunteer fighters remain defiant The slight, smooth-cheeked young man sat patiently in the hospital reception as gurneys rushed by carrying the dead and wounded from the frontline. He had two crutches at his side. He had one leg. His name was Hassan Ibrahim, he said. Born in 1992 in Misrata, Libya’s third biggest city, home to more than 300,000 people. A first-year engineering student. What had happened? He flipped open a laptop, and called up a picture taken on 18 March, a month after the uprising began, and the day when Muammar Gaddafi sent in five brigades to crush it once and for all. Ibrahim had been walking along a street near the city centre with several friends when a column of tanks suddenly advanced, firing. A shell exploded close to them. The photograph showed his torso, his right leg, and mangled flesh where his left thigh used to be. Bleeding heavily, he was brought to the private clinic that now serves as a trauma hospital. Doctors who just a few weeks earlier had barely even seen a bullet wound had to make a quick decision. They amputated his left leg just below the hip to save his life. Ibrahim grimaced slightly as he stood up, and then said: “What happened to me is nothing compared to others who have given their lives.” This is the spirit of Misrata, a besieged city that has resisted everything that Gaddafi has thrown at it for more than two months, thanks to the solidarity and fierce determination of its people. On Friday night the Libyan government admitted that its military solution in Misrata was not working, with deputy foreign minister Khaled Kaim saying local pro-Gaddafi tribes might be sent into the city to end the rebellion. The rebels even claimed that the tables had been turned on Gaddafi’s forces. “Misrata is free, the rebels have won. Of Gaddafi’s forces, some are killed and others are running away,” rebel spokesman Gemal Salem said. But heavy fighting continued on Saturday, with street battles in the area around the technical college, close to where Gaddafi’s forces have a base. By noon at least 14 rebel fighters had been killed. But each day of anguish only appears to strengthen the people’s resolve. Many thousands of men who had never held a gun before have taken up arms and fight street by street against an enemy with far superior firepower. Other volunteers drive bulldozers or trucks, bringing sand from the beach to stop Gaddafi’s tanks rolling down the streets. Families forced to flee from the outskirts of the city, or the city centre, where the fighting has been heaviest, have been welcomed into strangers’ homes in safer areas. “People who never knew each other are now living together in the same home,” said Ibrahim Amer, 21. “In a big house, you can find 50 or 60 people living together.” Committees have been set up to help the poor and the displaced, who collect free food from warehouses and $10 in cash daily. Women prepare meals, which are sent out to the hundreds of checkpoints manned by young volunteers. The cost of the resistance has been huge. At least 1,000 people have died, picked off by Gaddafi’s snipers, who set up base in the city’s tallest buildings, or by indiscriminate shelling. Thousands more have been injured. “We have done too many amputations here, arms, legs, both legs,” said Dr Khalid Abu Falgha, a member of Misrata’s medical committee. “When this is over we are going to need so many prosthetic limbs.” No one knows when that will be. But this much is certain: nobody in Misrata can contemplate life under Gaddafi again. They will win, or they will die. “If people put their guns down, Gaddafi is going to kill us all,” said Haythem Ibrahim, who runs a large company importing goods from China. He has a US passport, but has never contemplated leaving the city by boat, as he could have. Instead, he spends most days at the hospital with his brother Suleiman, archiving footage of the revolution – and the war. The brothers’ younger twin siblings, 24, a dentist and trainee doctor, are also at the hospital, working 18-hour days, sleeping on the premises. “The people of Misrata are all in this together – this revolution has brought us together,” said Haythem, 31. “I have lost so much of my business because of this. But it’s only money. People are sacrificing much more.” The uprising began on 19 February, a small demonstration called in support of the people of Benghazi in the east, whose own protests had been crushed by the government. For 14 days the people of Misrata controlled the city. Some say it was the greatest time of their lives. People flooded the streets, crying with joy. But they knew Gaddafi’s forces would come back. And they were prepared. When a large convoy of Gaddafi tanks and armoured vehicles reached the city on 6 March, they met no resistance and were drawn into the city centre. Hundreds of young men were waiting on the roofs of buildings, armed with petrol bombs and “gelatinas”, tiny bombs made with TNT, which they had been instructed to prepare. The mobile network was still working then, and once the order was given the homemade bombs rained down on the convoy. Gaddafi’s forces were humbled. Many died, others retreated. Inside some of the destroyed tanks rebels found cakes and juice; the troops had been so convinced that they would retake the city they had prepared for a party. On 18 March, a day after Nato instituted the no-fly zone, Gaddafi’s forces launched a furious attack on Misrata. For two days they pounded it, but again the rebels rode out the attack. Gaddafi’s troops were unable to take control of the city, and remain on its southern side. Last week many of the snipers in the tallest buildings were killed, captured or chased away by the rebels. But the shelling by Gaddafi’s forces continued. On Wednesday night, Ibrahim was in the hospital again. He had an inch-long wound on his neck. “I was sleeping at home with my family when I heard shells falling nearby,” he said. “I went to wake up my brother and tell him to move. Then the shell came through the roof.” A piece of shrapnel nicked his neck. When he looked at the wall behind him, he saw a big piece of metal. If it had landed a few inches closer, he would have been dead. He shrugged, and half-smiled. Then he excused himself, took hold of his crutches and hopped away towards his car, which he has already learned to drive with one leg. On the back of his jersey was sewn a small flag, black, red, and green, with a star and crescent in the middle – the Libyan flag before Gaddafi took over. ■ The British government will face pressure to explain its strategy in Libya this week amid growing concerns that a “stalemate” has been reached. Writing for the Observer , shadow foreign secretary Douglas Alexander has said the government needs a “clearer and better articulated strategy” and that “strategic, tactical and operational matters” had become “worryingly confused”. Libya Middle East Muammar Gaddafi Arab and Middle East unrest Xan Rice guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …