Tucker Carlson Calls California Curriculum Changes To Include Gays and Muslims Propaganda
April 19, 2011 No Comment
Click here to view this media Tucker Carlson is all ablaze with a neon-green tie and red-hot fury over the California Senate’s passage of a bill requiring California curriculum to include instruction regarding gays and Muslims . In fact, he’s so outraged over it that he calls it “propaganda”, with some strange reasoning attached. The purpose of the bill is to raise awareness of the place gays and Muslims take in history in an effort to raise awareness and hopefully, tolerance. This isn’t a bad thing, despite Tucker’s worrying over it. After all, it wasn’t all that long ago that a 15-year old with access to a gun shot another student at point-blank range just up the street from where I live because the other student was struggling with his sexual identity. This is the state where Harvey Milk was assassinated, after all. Should teachers teach that lesson in California history while failing to mention why Harvey Milk was assassinated? This is the state that just passed the odious Proposition 8 after an even more odious ad campaign. Should teachers simply ignore the reasons why our state constitution now actually defines marriage? To Fox Talkers, the answer to all of those questions is yes. Led by Tucker Carlson, they want California schoolchildren to learn about the Catholic priests who came and built missions, and about the gold in them thar hills, but gays and Muslims? Strictly off-limits. And just to pile on a little more, Carlson completely dodges the question of what age group will have this instruction in their curriculum, so of course he makes it sound like all the little kindergartners are going to have a lesson and coloring worksheet on Jane and Judy in the mosque. Here’s Carlson’s reasoning behind why he believes it to be propaganda: Second, it’s propaganda. It’s lying. Whenever a school system is mandated by law to teach happy news, non-controversial, complimentary facts about a group of people they are by definition excluding the unhappy facts. And they are therefore, lying. That’s propaganda. His reference to “happy news” stems from this: The measure further would prohibit the adoption of any materials that “reflect adversely” on gays or particular religions. School districts would have flexibility in deciding what to include in the lessons and at what grades students would receive them. Gretchen Carlson tries to get him to specify the age group to receive this instruction, to which he replies: Look, it doesn’t matter, because at any age teaching propaganda is wrong. No one is suggesting — and as far as I know has ever suggested — that people who are gay not be included in history. While that may be true, it’s also true that kids are not informed as to whether they were gay or not. Earlier in his diatribe, Carlson goes on about how Trotsky is a historical figure, but not because he’s gay. Perhaps not. But should that be ignored? The central question here is whether or not we teach all of history or just the parts some people like. It would be nice not to have a law mandating curriculum that teaches these sorts of facts, but they have for too long been buried and swept under the rug. Yes, it does matter, because homosexuality isn’t something that just burst onto the scene 3 years ago. It should be taught as a fact and historical figures should not have relevant facts omitted simply because they make the Tucker Carlsons of the world squirm.
Continue reading …SF Chronicle’s Lochhead Hits Republicans Over Pay Rate for Lawyer Defending DOMA
April 19, 2011 No Comment
As part of its effort to “shore up” the backing of social conservatives, House Republicans today “issued a contract today to pay former Solicitor General Paul Clement $575 an hour, up to $500,000 to defend the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act,” San Francisco Chronicle's Carolyn Lochhead insisted in the paper's Politics Blog. “Republicans claim they will take the money out of the Justice Department's budget, as if that will hold taxpayers harmless. But a cost is a cost and taxpayers will pay it either way. Any funds removed from DOJ are funds removed from other work,” Lochhead groused. This from the same reporter who approved of Obama's fiscal year 2012 budget proposal as “centrist.” Yet nowhere in her four paragraph April 19 blog entry did Lochhead note that the reason the Republican House of Representatives is hiring a lawyer to defend DOMA in federal court is because the Obama administration in February announced it will no longer defend the popular bipartisanly-supported law in court. Lochhead also failed to remind readers that although the Obama administration insists DOMA is unconstitutional, it is still enforcing the law's federal implications on tax, including tax and immigration implications of failing to recognize same-sex marriages.
Continue reading …
Bradley Manning, accused of leaking classified material, is to be moved after international condemnation of his treatment Bradley Manning, the soldier being held on suspicion of leaking classified material to Wikileaks, is being moved to a different prison after what the Associated Press describes as “international criticism about his treatment”. Manning had been held at the brig of the US Marine base in Quantico, in Virginia, since July last year in conditions that have been described as ” inhumane “, while Amnesty International has said that Manning’s treatment potentially violates his human rights. At times during his solitary confinement in Quantico, Manning has been labeled a suicide risk, kept under close watch and has at times been forced to strip naked at night. According to the AP report , Manning is being moved to Fort Leavenworth military prison in Kansas: The officials say an announcement that Army Pfc. Bradley Manning will be moved is expected Wednesday at the Pentagon. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because the move has not yet been made public. In January, Manning’s lawyer made a formal protest at his treatment , saying that holding him in maximum security custody for five months and placing him on suicide watch amounted to abuse. Manning was arrested in May 2010 on suspicion of having passed restricted material to WikiLeaks, and later charged with transferring classified data and national security information to unauthorised sources. Bradley Manning WikiLeaks US constitution and civil liberties United States Kansas US military Richard Adams guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Inquest told Tomlinson’s death was caused by bleeding after he was struck with a baton and shoved to the ground by police A forensic pathologist has told an inquest that the only plausible explanation for the death of Ian Tomlinson at the G20 protests was internal bleeding from an injured liver. Dr Kenneth Shorrock, who was instructed by the Metropolitan Police after one of its officers was shown on film shoving Tomlinson to the ground, said the injury to the organ was “consistent” with the footage. Shorrock is one of three forensic pathologists who concluded that Tomlinson died as a result of internal bleeding in the abdomen, minutes after being struck with a baton and pushed to the ground by PC Simon Harwood at the G20 demonstration in April 2009. They all disagree with evidence presented by a fourth pathologist, Dr Freddy Patel, who has maintained that the newspaper seller died of a spontaneous arrhythmic heart attack. Patel was forced to significantly alter his evidence on Monday after it emerged that readings taken from a defibrillator that paramedics attached to Tomlinson after his collapse were inconsistent with that kind of heart attack. Shorrock took issue with a number of findings by Patel, who has been removed from the Home Office register of experts and is currently suspended for failings in cases unrelated to Tomlinson’s death. Patel said the damage to the 47-year-old’s liver was relatively minor, and suggested it would not have caused a major bleed. Shorrock said the injury was “significant”. “To say it was relatively minor, the context of how it was said, almost appeared to trivialise it, and I felt this wasn’t a trivial injury, this was something to take notice of,” he said. Matthew Ryder QC, counsel for Tomlinson’s family, asked Shorrock if the video footage was “consistent” with a trauma to the right side of the body that would have caused abdominal bleeding. The pathologist replied: “It is consistent, yes.” Ryder then asked: “Did you see anything else that could have caused intra-abdominal bleeding in the video or any other evidence you have seen?” Shorrock replied: “No, I didn’t.” Another witness, Professor Robin Williamson, a consultant, said he concurred with the “internal bleeding” explanation of Tomlinson’s death. “One cannot rule out coronary artery disease, perhaps acute coronary syndrome, and he was a smoker,” he said. “But there is precious little evidence in support.” The final evidence for the inquest will be heard on Thursday. Ian Tomlinson Police London Protest G20 Paul Lewis guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Exclusive: Labour leader calls for review of regulation and practices after News International’s admission of wrongdoing Ed Miliband has become the first political leader to call for an independent review of newspaper regulation and practices after the admission by News International that it hacked into the phones of celebrities and politicians then failed to carry out full inquiries into the wrongdoing. Miliband told the Guardian: “I think there does need to be a review after the police inquiries have been completed and any criminal cases that flow from it. “I think it is in the interests of protecting the reputation of the British press that these matters should not simply be left to rest, and lessons have to be learned.” He is aware that a front-rank politician, especially a party leader, is taking a political risk by challenging the media over its practices, including the powerful News International stable, but he argued: “The press itself will want to look at how self-regulation can be made to work better because it clearly did not work very well in relation to these issues here.” He went on: “What happened was very bad, and it is right to say that, but there are very good traditions in our press, and they have to be maintained, but we have to get rid of the bad ones, and we have to find a way of doing that.” He argued: “My strong instincts are that we do not want governmental regulation of these issues, but I don’t think the Press Complaints Commission has covered itself in glory.” The PCC, chaired by the Tory peer Lady Buscombe, is responsible for newspaper regulation and has been widely criticised for failing to challenge News International over the scale of phone hacking. Miliband said: “It is not about government imposing this on the press, but I think the review needs to have some independence, both from government and from those involved in the day-to-day running of newspapers. I think that would help the industry. There has to be a sense that the future is not going to be like the past. Wider lessons have to be learned.” He stressed he had no grand plans about who should run the inquiry. Labour is aware that Lord Fowler, the chairman of the Lords communications select committee and a former Conservative party chairman, has been calling for a judge-led inquiry into the newspaper industry. Miliband added: “I would separate out the backward looking issue of who did what wrong, and any criminalitity, on the one hand and the forward looking issue of what lessons need to be learned.” He stressed: “The immediate priority is to have this police inquiry, for it to do its work and to get to the bottom of what really happened. We now know because News Interantional have said so the media did some things they regret. This inquiry has got to take its course and it is very important it does that”. He added: “My clear view is that self regulation continues to be the right thing. We do not want the government regulating the press.” He was also pleased the police were investigating suggestions that newspapers regularly paid police for stories. “The first police investigation clearly did not uncover the full facts, but in the second investigation they seem to be going about it the right way, and I am sure they too will want learn lessons from it.” In a wide-ranging interview while on the election trail, Miliband also disclosed he was engaging closely with the so-called “Blue Labour” project associated with Lord Glasman, the controversial political theoretician ennobled by Miliband. Glasman has argued Labour has become disconnected from its traditional working class voters by developing a top-down model of government that became remote, bossy and managerial. Miliband said: “People value local institutions in their lives that go beyond the bottom line from the local high street, the local post office, the NHS and the local Sure Start. Local people have got be able to have more say about their area, its character and whether they have a local Tesco. People have got to have more say about 24-hour drinking and nightclubs, and what is changing in their area. We need strong communities.” He said he disagreed with Glasman’s claim in a forthcoming interview that Labour caused a massive rupture of trust by lying about immigration, but said the party had to talk more about the big issues underlying immigration’s impact on working-class people, including the undercutting of wages. “I don’t agree we lied,” he said. “We underestimated the impact of eastern European migration and flexible labour markets. The two came together and we got aspects of that badly wrong.” He also said the elections on 5 May represented “a chance to change the contours of British politics for the rest of the parliament” and he did not rule out the coalition imploding if the Lib Dems were hit hard. Nick Clegg had made a fundamental mistake in aligning himself with the Conservatives and becoming a prisoner of David Cameron, Miliband argued. He suggested trust in the Lib Dem leader had been destroyed. “There is a fundamental lesson about politics – if you go round making promises and then breaking them, it is disastrous for you personally and pretty bad for politics generally, and that is what has happened. “When you say you are going to vote against rise in tuition fees and parade round students saying that and then do the opposite, it just makes people cynical and jaded.” He also promised to say more about the Labour government’s mistakes. Faced by polls showing the party is blamed by most people for the deficit, he accepts “there is more work to win back economic credibility”. He added: “We have been very clear about mistakes on bank regulation and the fact that we did not build a broad enough industrial base. “We should have acknowledged earlier that our four-year deficit reduction plan did involve spending cuts, but what I am not going to do is to buy into the Tory argument that the deficit is all the fault of Labour overspending. “It is not true, it is just not true, I am not going to say because it is not the case.” Press freedom Newspapers & magazines Newspapers Ed Miliband News International Patrick Wintour guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …The Numbers Reveal The Truth: Tea Party Influence Wanes Everywhere But In The Beltway
April 19, 2011 No Comment
If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound? It’s a philosophical conundrum that progressives activists agonize over daily. Since the overreaches of the Bush administration, conscientious progressives have protested, marched, signed petitions, called representatives and fought constantly against the rightward push of politics in the country. But the media coverage of this true grassroots activism has always been somewhat tepid, if acknowledged at all. Not so the case of tea party rallies. Its origins–purportedly over Rick Santelli’s rant on the floor of the Stock Exchange –have never been truly grassroots, the corporate underwriters just hidden under folksy-named 501 (c)(4)s. Their message and issues have always been muddled ( Taxed Enough Already? Didn’t the middle class all just get a tax cut? What are they bitching about then?) and laced with an uncomfortable undercurrent of racism. Despite the ignorance of the protestors ( Get the Government Out Of My Medicare! ) and openly violent rhetoric and racist aspects , the media LOVED the tea party rallies, covering them exhaustively. One would think that there was only one side of this equation. But as Rachel points out in the video above, the progressive protests never stopped, they just were discounted, dismissed and ignored . I hope at least in small part to the realization that the tea baggers they put in office are pushing legislation that will really hurt them in long run , tea party support is dwindling : A listing of events on the umbrella group Trea Party Patriots’ website for Monday and Friday showed a total of 145 events — the same listing shows 638 events on tax day 2010. Notably, there was also no tax day tea party rally in Washington, D.C. this year, unlike in years past. And in dozens of state capitals and major cities across the country, turnout at rallies on Monday and Friday (the typical tax day of April 15) was down precipitously from last year, as a small sampling from ThinkProgress’ analysis shows: – Albuquerque, NM: From “ thousands ” in 2010 to “ dozens ” in 2011. – Boston, MA: From “ several thousand ” in 2010 to 300 in 2011. While last year’s rally featured Sarah Palin, this year’s featured Tim Pawlenty. – Chicago, IL: From “ at least 1,500 ” in 2010 to “ [s]everal hundred ” in 2011. – Columbia, SC: From “ more than 1,000 ” in 2010 to “ a paltry 300 ” in 2011, even though this year’s rally featured Tea Party favorite Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) while last year’s featured disgraced former governor Mark Sanford. – Denver, CO: From 2,000 in 2010 to “ hundreds ” in 2011. Friday’s rally was “ nothing like the thousands who mobbed the Capitol lawn in previous years,” the AP noted. – Des Moines, IA: From 700 in 2010 to 340 in 2011. 2009′s rally drew 3,000 . – Hartford, CT: From 1,200 in 2010 to 700 in 2011, even though Hartford was the only city hosting rallies this year, while there were rallies in three Connecticut cities last year. – Indianapolis, IN: From 2,000 in 2010 to “ hundreds ” in 2011. – Lansing, MI: From “ more than 1,000 ” in 2010 to 300 in 2011 in front of Michigan’s Capitol. In 2009, a rally at the same spot drew 4,000 . – Pittsburgh, PA: From 2,000 in 2010 to 500 in 2011. – Sacramento, CA: From “ 2,000 to 3,000 ” in 2010 to a “ light turnout ” of several dozen. 2009′s tax day rally at the Capitol brought out 5,000 . – St. Paul, MN: From “ more than 500 ” in 2010 to “ dozens ” in 2011. – Tulsa, OK : From “ several thousand ” in 2010 to “ less than 30 ” in 2011. “ The turnout was a far cry from the 5,000 who showed up to a similar event on April 15 two years ago outside the Capitol,” the Tulsa World notes. ThinkProgress could also find no media reports of Tea Party rallies this year in several cities which hosted large rallies last year, such as Houston, TX and Atlanta, GA, which saw rallies of 6,000 and 3,000 , respectively, in 2010. Yet one only needed to tune in to Fox or CNN last weekend to see lavish attention paid to the teabaggers, with little to no acknowledgment of the reality that counter-protesters outnumbered teabaggers . The good news is that Americans by and large are ignoring the narratives being driven by the corporate media. Attendance at progressive rallies have not diminished at all…even when called thugs in the media . The bad news is that the media doesn’t want you or anyone else to know it. What will it take for the media to stop paying such disproportionate attention to the teabaggers and start listening to the rest of us?
Continue reading …
Prince William and Kate Middleton can headline a royal wedding like Jennifer Aniston can open a movie. They can’t • Pull up a pink gin and tug your forelock at the first Lost in Royalbiz – your daily look at the wedding the media would have you believe is all about class. And perhaps it is. After all, who are these fabled gazillions who genuinely care about it? One certainly doesn’t know such people socially. Chances are, you think Prince William and Kate Middleton can headline a royal wedding like Jennifer Aniston can open a movie. Which is to say, they can’t. They wouldn’t even get top billing at one of the Reverend Moon’s events, sure to be outdone in the charisma stakes by approximately 25,000 couples from suburban Seoul. Yet much like Jennifer Aniston’s cinematic career, so-called royal wedding fever does sustain the media – and as an avowedly republican newspaper, the Guardian will obviously be devoting eleventy thousand column inches to it all. If you don’t like it, why not register your displeasure by putting in a full day’s work on the bank holiday you’re getting out of it? I know I will be. • We begin with the launch of behind-the-scenes feature Know Your Pundits, wherein we celebrate the experts glossing the Royal Wedding for no-marks like us. First up is novelist Kathy Lette, who parlays a fleeting encounter with Kate Middleton at some polo event last year into a Reader’s Digest article about what the couple “are REALLY like”. As always when Kathy makes a foray into print, the only source of mild intrigue is how she will shoehorn one of her trademark sexual puns into what follows, perhaps in this case making arch reference to the Regina Monologues. Ah yes, call off the search. “I’ve no doubt,” Kathy declares, “the down-to-earth KM has already concluded that the ‘cream of British society’ just means rich, thick, and prone to whipping.” • And so to the news that Ms Middleton’s dress is now heavily tipped to be designed by dark horse Sophie Cranston, founder of little-known label Libelula. Alas, this column finds itself in the desperately vulgar position of being able to “exclusively reveal” something: namely, that Sophie was also a pupil at Downe House, the school at which Kate spent two ill-starred terms, and which would go on to inspire one recent News of the World splash, and a deluge of Fleet Street follow-ups. Should you require further detail, Sophie would have been a few years above Kate, but both girls were in Tedworth house. Indeed, following a painstaking journalistic investigation already believed to be attracting the admiration of the Pulitzer committee, I can further reveal that the girls’ housemistress was the sensationally charmless Mrs Gwatkin, who once led me by my ear back to my own house (Aisholt – we won all the lax cups), having caught me after-hours within her purview, despite my attempts to escape using a goods lift. (Hey, don’t hate the playa, hate the game). Apologies if you’re having trouble picturing this incident – I did ask the Guardian art department to create a graphic showing the route from Tedworth goods lift, down the Kitchen Passage (the catering end, not the bit with the tuck shop in), across the Vestibule and back into Aisholt, but it turns out they had other stuff on. • As for Prince William’s appeal to the wider dominions, much light is shed by a recent piece in the Sun by Kathy Lette, who, the paper informs us somewhat vaguely, “knows Wills”. “Egalitarian, earthy, sceptical Aussies detest pomp and ceremony,” explains Kathy. “We think the cream of society just means rich, thick and prone to whipping.” • From the Downing Street press office, no less, comes official confirmation that wedding attire means a lounge suit for David Cameron, to whom almost nothing is more important than not appearing posh. Yet does this go far enough, I inquire of No 10? Couldn’t the PM wear something by Sean John, accessorised with a nine-carat gold-plated necklace bearing the legend “Mo money, mo problems”? “Is this a serious inquiry?” asks a spokeswoman. Deadly serious. Requires an official response. “I highly doubt the prime minister is going to wear a tracksuit to the royal wedding,” she eventually obliges. Long may this co-operative mindset continue. • To the Sydney Morning Herald, finally, where a certain royal expert is struck by a flash of inspiration. “Australians have chronic sceptic-emia,” reveals Kathy Lette in a trenchant comment piece. “We detest pomp and ceremony. To us, the ‘cream of society’, just means rich, thick and prone to whipping.” It never loses its bite, does it? Let its author henceforth be known as Regina Dentata, and not leave it long before granting us players of Lette Bingo a full house. Royal wedding Kate Middleton Prince William Monarchy Weddings Marina Hyde guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
The Middletons have revealed the design of their new family crest, but what do the acorns, chevrons and colours all mean? Kate Middleton’s family might have chosen something festive for their coat of arms. Bearing in mind that the family fortune is based on supplying mail-order party accessories, crossed balloons on a field of serviettes with blowers rampant, perhaps? Nothing so irreverent: the crest that the family has chosen in consultation with the College of Arms consists of three acorns separated with gold and white chevrons. There are two in-jokes, but you probably have to be a medieval French herald to appreciate them fully: the gold chevron refers to Carole Middleton’s maiden name, Goldsmith, and the division down the centre of the crest between blue and red is a little pun on the Middle-ton name. The rest of the design is also laden with symbolism: the three acorns represent Michael and Carole Middleton’s three children, Kate, Pippa and James, as well as strength and Englishness. Oak trees are common around the family’s Berkshire home village of Bucklebury, reputedly since Nelson’s colleague Admiral Collingwood passed that way after Trafalgar, scattering acorns so that the Royal Navy should never be short of ships’ timber. The narrow, white chevrons represent hills and mountains, a reference to the family’s enjoyment of outdoor pursuits, and the blue and red background refers to the colours of the union flag. While a family crest might not have been strictly necessary for the family’s oldest daughter to marry the second in line to the throne, now that royal brides do not necessarily come equipped with their own escutcheons, it certainly helps her to fit in. At the moment Kate Middleton’s armature is lozenge-shaped and hangs from blue ribbons – signs that she is an unmarried daughter – but it will be transformed by her marriage into a shield. And, in due course, once a royal warrant is issued by William’s grandmother, her coat of arms will be impaled in the centre of her husband’s crest. The rest of the Middleton family and their descendants will be able to carry the original crest for the rest of their days. Thomas Woodcock, Garter King of Arms, who devised the coat of arms over the past few months, mainly in consultation with Michael Middleton, said: “The purpose is to provide a traditional heraldic identity for Catherine as she marries into the royal family. The intent was to represent the whole Middleton family together, their home and aspects of what they enjoy. “Heraldry is Europe’s oldest, most visual and strictly regulated form of identity and it surrounds us in Britain, giving clues to our history and surroundings. After her marriage, Catherine Middleton will place her father’s arms beside those of her husband in what is known as an impaled coat of arms.” The quaint medievalism sits strangely alongside the palace’s arrangements for hi-tech wedding coverage. There will be live streaming on YouTube’s royal channel, Flickr and Twitter and even an official video wedding book for the public to send the couple their best wishes – though for that “there will be some pre-moderation, as you would expect”, an official said. A palace spokesman said: “Both William and Catherine are very familiar with YouTube and Facebook and they have taken a keen interest in this. They are the same as any other people of their age in terms of social media. Catherine designed the Party Pieces website and helped devise the royal wedding website.” Royal wedding Kate Middleton Monarchy Weddings Prince William Stephen Bates guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …NY Times Celebrates Murdered Pro-Hamas Activist on Front Page, Almost Ignores Young Hamas Victim
April 19, 2011 No CommentAfter relegating to page A16 the stabbing slaughter of five members of a family of Israeli settlers on March 12 at the hands of Palestinians, the New York Times mustered front-page sympathy for Vittorio Arrigoni, a pro-Palestinian activist murdered in Gaza by a fringe Islamic group. Fares Akram and Isabel Kershner reported from Gaza for Saturday’s front page, “ Killing of Pro-Palestinian Activist In Gaza Deals a Blow to Hamas .” For Vittorio Arrigoni, an Italian pro-Palestinian activist who friends said fought peacefully for justice, the end was as violent as it was incongruous. Police officers from Hamas, the Islamic militant group that rules Gaza, found his body in a house in Gaza City that was empty of furniture, except for the mattress on which the body was lying, according to witnesses. The doctor who performed the autopsy said Mr. Arrigoni’s killers had used a plastic cord to strangle him. And after years of championing the Palestinian cause, the 36-year-old Mr. Arrigoni apparently died at the hands of a fringe group of Palestinians, inspired by Al Qaeda, that was seeking the release of a local Islamist leader. …. Mr. Arrigoni had dedicated his life to people he saw as oppressed , beginning his work as an activist right out of college and in recent years writing a blog and a book from Gaza. He was well known in Gaza City for his willingness to take chances to help make his case for the Palestinians. CAMERA has a less sympathetic view . Alex Safian wrote: Vittorio Arrigoni was, in plain terms, a terror tourist. He wandered the world looking for radical causes that would give his life meaning, eventually hooked up with the like-minded and pro-Palestinian International Solidarity Movement, and found his calling in supporting not just Palestinians, but specifically the extremist terrorists of Hamas. Inevitability he also adopted an extremely anti-Israel line, writing in his blog numerous times that Israel is “apartheid” and accusing it of “using weapons banned by international treaties” and passing “relentlessly racist laws.” No surprise then that his murder in Gaza, at the hands of a terror group even more radical than Hamas, was the occasion for hagiography in the New York Times. …. Supporting Hamas is fighting peacefully for justice? A few days ago, on April 7, Hamas fired a highly advanced and deadly anti-tank missile (a Russian supplied Kornet) at an Israeli school bus – a clearly marked yellow schoolbus – injuring the bus driver and gravely wounding the only passenger, 16-year-old Daniel Viflic. Hamas’s young victim died of his wounds on Sunday, as the Times reported in passing in a larger article on arrests being made in the killings of the settler family. Not only has Viflic not received a sympathetic profile in the Times, a nytimes.com search shows that Sunday’s article was the first time his name had even been has mentioned by the Times, either in print or online.
Continue reading …
• Hit F5 or the auto-refresh button for the latest updates • Email rob.smyth@guardian.co.uk with your wit and whimsy Half-time email “Think that little cameo before halftime sums up the shortcomings of Michael Carrick: 1664 minutes of league action this season, and apparently that is his first booking,” says Paul Keane. “I’m not advocating Scholes type ‘tackles’, but he should be sailing close enough to the wind that he picks up the occasional yellow…,,and his record is not because he is such a brilliant tackler. It explains why United get dominated in middle of the park when relying on him, and why he is (and only ever will be) what is commonly referred to as a “luxury player”. Well, 1664 is a neat number, as he could do with some Dutch courage, or any type of courage. That said, and while I know what you mean, I don’t think it’s fair to criticise him for lack of bookings. He reads the game pretty well, and nobody criticises, say, Rio Ferdinand for the fact he is so rarely booked. His greatest problem is his relatively newfound lack of moral courage with the ball, in my always humble one. Talking of an underrated XI of the season , this is a great link from Gary Naylor . Chris Brunt can go in too. So: Baines, Brunt, Tiote, Vaughan, Campbell. Perhaps Albrighton and Kuyt. Anyone else? Half time: Newcastle United 0-0 Manchester United … and it was a fitting end to a breakneck half that was full of incident. It could easily be 2-2; as it is, a level scoreline is just about fair. See you in 10 minutes for the second half. 45+2 min An excellent Manchester United counter-attack ends with Giggs’s smart, angled pass and a shot from Hernandez that is blocked by Coloccini. That’s the last touch of the half… 45+1 min Michael Carrick, who has had better weeks, is booked for a foul on Shola Ameobi just past the halfway line. I think it was accidental. 44 min A great chance for Lovenkrands. Barton, again in a deep position on the right, spanks over a superb curling cross that beats the two Manchester United centre backs and finds Lovenkrands 12 yards from goal. He picks the right option, trying to head it back across goal and into the boot corner, but makes a mess of it and it goes wide. That was such a good cross from Barton, reminiscent of David Beckham in his pomp. 42 min Coloccini strides across to make a vital interception from Hernandez, who was moving through on goal after a cute pass from Giggs. 42 min “Keep the updates coming as it’s keeping me sane from a nagging wife,” says Paul, who will be served any minute now, and not necessarily with his dinner. “I need the sympathy and a Newcastle goal.” 41 min Smalling is penalised for putting his hands on Ameobi (I think), 20 yards from goal and fractionally infield from the left side of the box. Barton shapes a curler towards the far post, and Van der Sar makes a comfortable tumbling save. 40 min “Have you any idea how annoying it is when you refer to just ‘United’?” says Raymond King. “It is also extremely insulting to Newcastle and all the other Uniteds such as Leeds, West Ham, Sheffield etc.” It’s force of habit; sorry. I’ll do my best not to engage your wick any more. 39 min It’s all Manchester United now, and Nani’s 20-yard shot is well blocked. 37 min “Let’s jump to an assumption,” says Ben Hendy. “If United win the title, will this be Fergie’s worst title-winning team, or will they just be a team that really knew how to pace a season? They seemed to stroll and luck their way through many of their early games but since the wake up call of that run of defeats they’ve looked bright and fresh (Saturday aside) and looked especially good and in control against Chelsea.” The worst, and by a distance, with 1996-97 second. In my always humble opinion. 35 min This is Manchester United’s best spell in terms of sustained possession, and Giggs eventually wins a corner off his former team-mate Simpson. It’s a poor corner from Giggs – how many times has that been typed or spoken in the last 20 years – and easily cleared. 33 min Hernandez towers above Simpson to head O’Shea’s cross towards goal, but he couldn’t generate enough power and it was a comfortable save for Krul. Still, Hernandez looks extremely sharp in what remains a very open game. 32 min “Gravity beats Nani again,” says Niall Mullen. “Stupid Isaac Newton.” 31 min “In the week of the PFA awards, any nominations for underrated team of the season?” says Niall Murphy. “Tiote in midfield certainly. DJ Campbell up front?” Yep, wouldn’t argue with those. I haven’t seen much of Blackpool, but when I have Vaughan has been really good. I really like Albrighton, too, although I don’t suppose he’s underrated. Dirk Kuyt? Is he underrated any more? 30 min Another long cross from the excellent Barton goes all the way across the box to Gutierrez, who takes a touch and then thrashes into the side netting at the near post from a tightish angle. 29 min Nani dives in the penalty area after a nothing challenge from Gutierrez. Utterly pathetic, and he should have been booked. 28 min Nani shanks a loose ball over the bar from the right side of the box. He has been terrible so far. 27 min “Is Gutierrez always this good or is it just because O’Shea’s trying to mark him?” asks David Naylor. “He looks to be quite a player on this evidence.” So did 97-year-old Beryl Nosiadek when she came up against O’Shea the other week. 25 min Manchester United are being bullied in midfield. Anderson, one of the few in that area who is usually up for a scrap, has been pretty anonymous. It’s been excellent stuff from Newcastle, though. 24 min Manchester United have settled into the game after that very difficult start, yet they still look extremely fragile at the back. Giggs pulls Gutierrez over 25 yards from goal, pretty central, and Barton clips it straight at Van der Sar. 21 min Gutierrez is giving O’Shea major problems – it’s almost as if they’ve targeted the wheezing lummox – and wins another corner. It comes to nothing. 19 min Rooney misses a great chance. Hernandez fought for a loose ball with Coloccini and helped it towards Rooney, who skipped past the last man Williamson and then, from around 12 yards and to the left of centre, tried to sweep a right-footed shot high into the net. It looked like he had skied it, especially when a goal kick was given, although replays showed it hit the body of the keeper Krul. Still, Rooney should have scored. 18 min Hernandez forces a rudimentary save from Krul with a decent effort from a tight angle on the right side of the box. He looks very sharp. 17 min Hernandez tries to guide a curler into the top-right corner from 25 yards, but he sets it a fraction too wide and it doesn’t come back enough. 16 min A good move from Newcastle ends with Gutierrez winning a corner on the left. Barton drills it to the far post and Vidic heads clear, but the ball comes straight back at United and this time Barton’s deep cross from the left is headed wide by Ameobi. Newcastle had two against one then – Ameobi and Williamson on Vidic – but they got in each other’s way. 15 min Carrick, trying to redeem that shocker on Saturday, moves smoothly away from Tiote 25 yards out but then drags a weak shot across goal and wide. 13 min The keen to Newcastle’s early dominance – they have had 70 per cent of the possession – has been their energy without the ball. It’s almost as if they tried to lull United into a false sense of security by sitting them off for the first two minutes, but after that they bombed them for an exhilarating ten-minute spell. 11 min United win their first corner; it’s taken by Giggs and comes to nothing. 9 min Apparently the auto-refresh button isn’t working. No idea why, as it’s set up in the article. Sorry about that. 8 min Newcastle win back-to-back corners. The second is eventually cleared to Tiote, who hits a vicious daisy-cutter from 25 yards that Van der Sar saves comfortably. It was a lovely strike, though, and this has been a fantastic start from Newcastle. They are all over United, pressuring them high up the pitch. 6 min This is a great spell for Newcastle. Barton drives over an excellent, angled cross from a narrow position on the right. It clears everyone except Ameobi, who stretches out his right foot to turn it towards goal from the corner of the six-yard box. He couldn’t control the shot, however, and it was straight at Van der Sar. 5 min A fine run infield from Gutierrez, aided by some feeble defending from Nani, O’Shea and finally Carrick, ends with a curling shot from the edge of the box that is well blocked by Smalling at the expense of the corner. 4 min Barton gets too clever for his own good. Gutierrez’s cross from the left was only half cleared by the head of Smalling and came to Barton, beyond the far post and in a bit of space. He took a touch but then, instead of smacking the ball towards goal, tried a cute cut back that was cleared. 2 min A vital save from Tim Krul. It was devastating, penetrative play from United. Evra clipped a long pass down the left to Rooney, who had curved his run to stay onside, and he sidefooted a beautiful ball across the face of goal for Hernandez. He met the ball only four yards from goal and tried to sidefoot it wide of Krul, who spread himself bravely to smother the chance. Superb goalkeeping. 1 min United (Manchester), in red, kick off from left to right. Sam Allardyce is the co-commentator. Is this a first? “I did the math,” says Ric Arthur. “Arsenal are two points ahead of Chelsea with six games to play each. If United lose today and Arsenal win their remaining games, they will probably be champions. So it’s not the math, is it? You are factoring in some choke factor here, such as that Chelsea could beat Man U, but Arsenal couldn’t.” Not so much that as the fact that Arsenal are in miserable form and have a much tougher run-in than Chelsea. Which is not to say that they will finish below Chelsea, simply that it looks more likely than not at this stage. There is potential for a repeat of 2007-08, when Arsenal were United’s main challengers for nine-tenths of the season before being overtaken by Chelsea at the death. Team news Wayne Rooney returns after serving a two-match ban for inciting the most laughable moral panic since someone at the Daily Mail heard the lyrics to Pulp’s Sorted for E’s & Wizz. Professional scapegoat Dimitar Berbatov is not even on the bench, although he is with the squad. For Newcastle, the excellent Cheick Tiote also returns from suspension. Newcastle United (4-4-2) Krul; Simpson, Coloccini, Williamson, Enrique; Barton, Guthrie, Tiote, Gutierrez; Ameobi, Lovenkrands. Subs: Soderberg, Perch, Ryan Taylor, Ireland, Steven Taylor, Ranger, Kuqi. Manchester United (4-2-3-1) Van der Sar; O’Shea, Smalling, Vidic, Evra; Carrick, Anderson; Nani, Rooney, Giggs; Hernandez. Subs: Kuszczak, Owen, Park, Fabio, Evans, Valencia, Gibson. Referee Lee Probert (Wiltshire) You do the math(s) United need 13 points from their last six games to be certain of the title, and 11 to finish above Chelsea, who appear to be their main challengers. Preamble Newcastle United v Manchester United may not be one of the classical fixtures of English football, but it has frequently produced classic matches and moments, from Philippe Albert’s chip to arguably the greatest team performance of the Premier League era . There were eight goals that day and, as much as anything, this fixture has been a serial netbotherer: there have been 519 goals in 152 matches between this sides, a startling level of productivity that has actually – at St James’ Park at least – increased in modern times. There have been 56 goals in 16 Premier League games on this ground; over the last decade, we’ve seen 37 in eight matches. Worth knowing, then, that you can get odds of 10-1 on a 0-0 draw. You can get even longer odds on Arsenal or Chelsea denying United (Manchester) a record 19th title. Those odds might be a little generous but, while the big-boned lady has no business clearing her throat just yet, United will probably have to pay tribute Sir Alex Ferguson’s beloved Devon Loch if they are to lose the title. Since three points for a win was introduced in 1981, no side has failed to win the title having had such a lead with six games to play. The closest case was Blackburn in 1994-95. They led by eight points at this stage and, although they almost did do a Devon Loch – they lost three of their last five games and would have lost a fourth but one of the all-time-great goalkeeping performances from Tim Flowers – they crept over the line because United (Manchester) failed to win at West Ham on the final day. In the end, Blackburn’s remorseless excellence for six-sevenths of that season meant that they had enough points in the bank, just about. United may well have enough in the bank to allow for a late-season blip, especially with Arsenal giving haemorrhaging points in the comedy style, but they won’t want to take the risk. That’s a ludicrous statement of the obvious really; I don’t know why I typed it. Football-team-wants-to-win-games shocker. Duh. Pulitzer please! Premier League Newcastle United Manchester United Rob Smyth guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …