Britain’s first national park deserves support in its battle to balance the needs of locals and protection of the environment The Peak District national park , 60 years old this month, famously lacks any peaks and isn’t a park. But as Britain’s first national park, and almost certainly its busiest, it has played a proud part in preserving a special part of the English landscape and encouraging the public to enjoy it. The high gritstone Dark Peak countryside remains a true wilderness, even though on a mist-free day you can see the fringes of Manchester and Sheffield from its tops. The soft limestone countryside of the White Peak is still quietly rural, and a refuge for the millions of visitors who come each year from the Midlands and beyond. As Roger Redfern’s country diary records twice a month on these pages, the Peak District is part of the life of the cities on its borders, and has been since well before the famous Kinder mass trespass of 1932, which saw ramblers demand their right to walk across the Duke of Devonshire’s shooting estate. The national park authority has often found itself caught in the middle of a debate between access, development and preservation, and has done a decent job at all three. With limited resources, it has restricted quarrying and tried to balance the needs of locals for new homes with the protection of a delicate environment. It deserves strong support in this battle – as do the rights of all national parks, reported to be under scrutiny in a crowdsourcing exercise to test red tape. This Easter, there can no better place than the Peak to tramp the moors or wander past meadows and spring lambs. Peak District guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Republican denies that bill, aimed at reforming requirements for election candidates, was swipe at president Arizona governor Jan Brewer has vetoed a bill that would have required President Barack Obama and other presidential candidates to prove their US citizenship before their names could appear on the state’s ballot. The bill would have made Arizona the first state to pass such a requirement. Opponents had warned the bill would further denigrate Arizona’s reputation after last year’s controversy over the state’s illegal immigration enforcement law. Brewer said in her veto letter that she was troubled that the bill empowered Arizona’s secretary of state to judge the qualifications of all candidates when they file to run for office. “I do not support designating one person as the gatekeeper to the ballot for a candidate, which could lead to arbitrary or politically motivated decisions,” said Brewer, who was secretary of state until she became governor in 2009. “In addition, I never imagined being presented with a bill that could require candidates for president of the greatest and most powerful nation on Earth to submit their ‘early baptismal circumcision certificates’ among other records to the Arizona secretary of state,” she said. “This is a bridge too far.” The certificates were among the documents a candidate could have submitted under the bill in place of a birth certificate. So-called “birthers” claim that there is no proof Obama was born in the US, and he is therefore ineligible to be president. But Hawaii officials have certified Obama was born in that state. The US constitution requires that presidential candidates be “natural-born” US citizens, be at least 35 years old, and be a resident of the US for at least 14 years. Opponents questioned whether Arizona’s bill would have added additional requirements. The measure would have required that political parties and presidential candidates hand in affidavits stating a candidate’s citizenship and age. It also would have required the candidate’s birth certificate and a sworn statement saying where the candidate has lived for 14 years. If candidates did not have a copy of their birth certificates, they could meet the requirement by providing baptismal or circumcision certificates, hospital birth records and other documents. If it could not be determined whether candidates who provided documents in place of their birth certificates were eligible to appear on the ballot, the secretary of state would have been able to set up a committee to help determine whether the requirements were met. The names of candidates could be kept off the ballot if the secretary of state didn’t believe the candidates met the citizenship requirement. The bill did not explicitly provide an appeals process for a candidate whose name was kept off the ballot. The bill’s sponsor, Republican representative Carl Seel, said he was disappointed by the veto. It would have been reasonable to have the secretary of state, the state’s top election officer, decide whether a candidate had adequately documented his or her qualifications, he said. Because the bill would have required candidates for all offices to submit documentation of their qualifications, he said “it would have been excellent reform”. Seel had said previously the measure wasn’t intended as a swipe against the president, and would have helped maintain the integrity of elections. US politics Arizona United States Barack Obama guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Republican denies that bill, aimed at reforming requirements for election candidates, was swipe at president Arizona governor Jan Brewer has vetoed a bill that would have required President Barack Obama and other presidential candidates to prove their US citizenship before their names could appear on the state’s ballot. The bill would have made Arizona the first state to pass such a requirement. Opponents had warned the bill would further denigrate Arizona’s reputation after last year’s controversy over the state’s illegal immigration enforcement law. Brewer said in her veto letter that she was troubled that the bill empowered Arizona’s secretary of state to judge the qualifications of all candidates when they file to run for office. “I do not support designating one person as the gatekeeper to the ballot for a candidate, which could lead to arbitrary or politically motivated decisions,” said Brewer, who was secretary of state until she became governor in 2009. “In addition, I never imagined being presented with a bill that could require candidates for president of the greatest and most powerful nation on Earth to submit their ‘early baptismal circumcision certificates’ among other records to the Arizona secretary of state,” she said. “This is a bridge too far.” The certificates were among the documents a candidate could have submitted under the bill in place of a birth certificate. So-called “birthers” claim that there is no proof Obama was born in the US, and he is therefore ineligible to be president. But Hawaii officials have certified Obama was born in that state. The US constitution requires that presidential candidates be “natural-born” US citizens, be at least 35 years old, and be a resident of the US for at least 14 years. Opponents questioned whether Arizona’s bill would have added additional requirements. The measure would have required that political parties and presidential candidates hand in affidavits stating a candidate’s citizenship and age. It also would have required the candidate’s birth certificate and a sworn statement saying where the candidate has lived for 14 years. If candidates did not have a copy of their birth certificates, they could meet the requirement by providing baptismal or circumcision certificates, hospital birth records and other documents. If it could not be determined whether candidates who provided documents in place of their birth certificates were eligible to appear on the ballot, the secretary of state would have been able to set up a committee to help determine whether the requirements were met. The names of candidates could be kept off the ballot if the secretary of state didn’t believe the candidates met the citizenship requirement. The bill did not explicitly provide an appeals process for a candidate whose name was kept off the ballot. The bill’s sponsor, Republican representative Carl Seel, said he was disappointed by the veto. It would have been reasonable to have the secretary of state, the state’s top election officer, decide whether a candidate had adequately documented his or her qualifications, he said. Because the bill would have required candidates for all offices to submit documentation of their qualifications, he said “it would have been excellent reform”. Seel had said previously the measure wasn’t intended as a swipe against the president, and would have helped maintain the integrity of elections. US politics Arizona United States Barack Obama guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Rebel spokesman says there have been no Nato air strikes on government forces around the besieged town for three days Forces loyal to Muammar Gaddafi could retake Misrata within days unless Nato steps up its military intervention to assist the besieged rebels, according to an opposition spokesman inside the shell-battered city. “It will be over in a few days, honest to God,” said Mohamed, who asked for his full name to be withheld. The rebel fighters and civilians of the city were like “rats in a cage, that is to put it mildly”, he said. Nato’s mandate was to protect civilians, “but every day there are scores of people dying. The human suffering goes on and on.” Mohamed, speaking from Misrata on Skype, claimed there had been no Nato air strikes on government positions, which are surrounding the city on three sides, for three days. “We are being hit by mortars, Grads, Katyushas, you name it – and there is no action.” Anas Rifta, a doctor inside Misrata, said there were acute shortages of baby formula, nappies, and renal, cardiovascular and cancer drugs, and medication to treat psychotic conditions. “If this situation sustains we will face a crisis. Even when we receive [fresh supplies], they are depleted in a small time.” There were still supplies of anaesthetic drugs, but they were finite, he said, and the city’s clinics were overwhelmed with injured patients. “We make beds in the corridors and offices.” He said Misrata desperately needed aid and medical supplies, “but all [Gaddafi] is sending us is mortar bombs, cluster bombs and tank shells.” Electricity, water and basic foodstuffs are in short supply, according to residents. “Bread queues are very long,” Donatella Rovera, a researcher for Amnesty International who is in the city, told the Guardian by phone. There were also queues for fuel, not because of shortages but because “there are so few petrol stations open in safe areas”, she said. “The situation is really dire. There are huge problems with water and electricity.” The city’s sewage treatment plant and water reservoirs were in areas controlled by government forces, she said. “Coping with daily life is really hard.” Although supplies were arriving by boat, the quantities were inadequate to meet need, she said. There had been heavy shelling in the west of the city for the past three days. “A lot of families have left. They are crowding in with other families. There are people who have moved several times in three weeks.” Four civilians were killed on Monday and the death toll on Sunday was 25, Gemal Salem, a spokesman for the insurgents, told Reuters. More than 1,000 people have died since the siege began seven weeks ago, according to Mohamed. The official hospital death toll was 304 until Sunday night, he said, “but a much greater number are pronounced dead at the scene and buried immediately”. There were further numbers “missing, presumed dead. Gaddafi’s forces kidnap the bodies and present them as people killed by Nato.” There was renewed shelling of the city on Monday – “the industrial area, the port area – the whole city” – and significant battles on Heavy Transport Road leading to the port, said Mohamed. Although Misrata has been under siege for seven weeks, it has been the focus of international attention only for about a fortnight. The battle for the city has become emblematic of the civil war in Libya, and a symbol of Nato’s failure so far to protect civilians caught up in it. There have been chaotic and desperate scenes at the port – the only means of access to and from Misrata – in recent days as ships bringing aid and attempting to evacuate injured civilians and refugees struggle to dock under fire. “One ship came in last night, and two more are due today,” said Mohamed. “I was there last night. The captain said he had only one hour to offload the aid and load refugees. It was chaotic. The shelling puts great strain on those in the port.” The International Organisation for Migration (IOM) said almost 1,000 people trapped in Misrata had been evacuated by boat and were due to reach Benghazi later on Monday. At least 4,000 migrant workers were waiting to be evacuated, the IOM said. Some of those who have managed to flee described terror and wretched conditions in the city. “In Misrata, people are just waiting for their time to die. You hear the bombs and you think ‘It’s me next,’” said Wajdi Salah, 26, who arrived in Benghazi on a tugboat last week. Most civilians were now crowded into three areas of the city, all near the sea, with up to a dozen families crammed into a single house. Some captured civilians had been used as human shields by Gaddafi’s forces, said Abubakar Faraj from a hospital bed in Benghazi. The shelling was indiscriminate. “At night they [government forces] wear thermal goggles, and they shoot everything that moves. Even dogs and cats.” Attempts by humanitarian organisations to reach the besieged population are mounting. The UN has signed an agreement with the Libyan government which the Libyan authorities say includes access to Misrata, although the UN has not confirmed this. The International Committee of the Red Cross has also been permitted to visit Misrata for an assessment but has made no public statement on its findings. Mohamed rejected the Libyan government’s claims that al-Qaida was driving the rebellion. “I know lawyers, engineers, even a professional football player who have taken up arms. It is the whole people. The whole of Libya has been oppressed by [Gaddafi] for 42 years. Nobody thinks he is even human, let alone loves him.” The rebel opposition felt “disappointed and let down by Nato”, he said. “We ask the US to take the lead again. Since Nato took over there has been nothing but carnage and destruction. Nato is toothless without the US. They are selling us to the tyrant. Please, please, please tell the world of our disappointment with Nato.” Libya Muammar Gaddafi Arab and Middle East unrest Middle East Harriet Sherwood Xan Rice guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Ed Schultz Lies About Bush Tax Cuts Seconds After Saying ‘Republicans Make Stuff Up’
April 18, 2011 No Comment
As NewsBusters has been reporting, America's media have been on a full-court press to raise taxes ever since Barack Obama proposed this in his deficit reduction speech last Wednesday. So supportive of soaking the rich is MSNBC's Ed Schultz that on Monday's program bearing his name, seconds after claiming “Republicans are forced I guess you could say to make stuff up,” he lied about what happened after taxes were cut by President George W. Bush (video follows with transcript and commentary): ED SCHULTZ: In the fight over taxes, Democrats have simple fairness on their side. They have simple math on their side, and polls show that Americans favor ending tax cuts for the wealthy. So Republicans are forced I guess you could say to make stuff up, but they do a pretty good damn good job of that, don’t they? Like Congressman Joe Walsh, Republican of Illinois talking about how tax cuts increase revenue to the government. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) REPRESENTATIVE JOE WALSH (R-ILLINOIS): Every time we’ve cut taxes, revenues have gone up. (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: EVERY TIME! Republicans just love that saying: “Every time we’ve cut revenues, we’ve cut taxes, revenues have gone up.” I doubt it. But when the Bush tax cuts went into effect, revenues went down. Even taking into account the impact of 9/11, there was no reason to believe the Bush tax cuts helped the to raise revenue. Even seven years later, revenues were lower than before the Bush tax cuts went into effect. Notice that the source of information for that graph was supposedly the Office of Management and Budget: I'm not sure who did this research for Schultz, but here are the numbers directly from OMB: Above is a screencap from page 22 of OMB's “Historical Tables: Budget of the United States.” The column on the left represents total unified tax receipts, the center is total unified expenditures, and the right is the associated surplus or deficit. The first Bush tax cuts happened in 2001 when we brought in $1.991 trillion in receipts. This declined for two years, then started increasing, and by 2005 not only were receipts higher than in 2001, they were also higher than the previous record set in 2000. “Even seven years later, revenues were lower than before the Bush tax cuts went into effect.” Not even close. Revenues in 2008 were $2.523 trillion, $532 billion or 27 percent higher than 2001. Where Schultz got his information is beyond me – and likely beyond him. So much for Democrats having “simple math on their side.” One other point before we move on: notice that revenues actually peaked at $2.568 trillion in 2007. That was the last year the Republicans controlled the White House and both chambers of Congress. After four years of Democrat control of the legislature, and two-plus years of Obama, tax receipts have yet to get back to where they were when Republicans ran everything. It of course goes without saying Schultz would view this as me being forced to make stuff up despite the facts speaking for themselves. As for the initial decline in tax receipts after the first Bush cuts were implemented, the Congressional Budget Office began asking why that was happening as early as August 2002 (emphasis added): Spring 2002 brought an “April surprise” of a type that had not been seen for roughly a decade: federal revenues substantially lower than expected, a reversal of the pattern that characterized the late 1990s. Even though the current fiscal year is nearly over, revenue forecasters have substantially revised their expectations of how much fiscal year (FY) 2002 revenues will be as a consequence of April, May, and June receipts. A fiscal year that began with a forecast of a budget in approximate balance now faces a deficit of $157 billion, $103 billion of which results from revenues that are lower for reasons other than the effects of legislation. That latest revision comes on top of downward revisions from last August and January. The most obvious explanation for what happened to receipts is the recession , which has reduced the level of economic activity–the main determinant of tax collections. Although CBO incorporated effects of an economic slowdown in its baseline as early as January 2001, its projections did not reflect the effects of a recession until the January 2002 baseline, after the seriousness of the downturn had become evident. Since then–although indications are that the economy has begun recovering–the recession's effects on receipts still linger. So, $103 billion of the reduction in revenues up to that point were not caused by the Bush tax cuts, but instead the recession. By January of 2003, the CBO offered another reason for the huge decline in revenues: an unexpected drop in capital gains taxes associated with the fall in the stock market. Even the liberal think tank the Center for Economic Policy Research couldn't hide the truth: The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) acknowledged that the deflation of the stock market bubble will seriously depress capital gains revenue in its new economic and budget projections. Prior to this year, CBO had continued to project that capital gains tax revenue would be larger than its historic share of GDP over its ten-year projection period. It clung to these projections in spite of the fact that its own profit projections implied that the stock market was hugely over-valued and was virtually certain to collapse within its projection period. The downward adjustment in the projections for capital gains tax revenue has a serious impact on the future budget projections. The new projections show that revenue from capital gains taxes will be $428 billion less than was indicated in the January 2001 projections (for the over-lapping years), which were the most recent projections at the time President Bush’s tax cut was approved. Including the effect of interest, the 10-year surplus projections would have been $516 billion lower in 2001, if the current capital gains projections had been used. Readers are advised to review those two paragraphs again, for in them lies the heart of the so-called Clinton surpluses and why they disappeared. What shills like Schultz don't know, and folks like the New York Times's Paul Krugman and former Clinton labor secretary Robert Reich refuse to share with the public, is that the Clinton surpluses beyond 2001 were an illusion created by tremendously optimistic assumptions by the CBO. Tax receipts exploded in 1998, 1999, and 2000 as a result of the stock market bubble and the resulting dramatic rise in capital gains taxes. CBO projected that such increases would continue for the next ten years resulting in surpluses as far as the eye can see. When the bubble began to burst in March 2000, and the economy receded twelve months later, CBO clung to the expectation that these revenues were still going to materialize. As CEPR noted in its report, it wasn't until January 2003 that CBO realized its error and began seriously revising down its revenue targets and up its deficit projections. Regardless of what shills like Schultz, Krugman, Reich, and virtually all of the liberal media have been saying for the last decade, the Bush tax cuts didn't turn surpluses into deficits. It was instead a mixture of terrible forecasting by CBO, a plummeting stock market with a resulting decline in capital gains taxes, and a recession caused by a bear market that began ten months before Bush was inaugurated. You can beat your head against a wall trying to get a liberal media member to acknowledge any of these immutable facts, so don't bother wasting your time. As for this lie by Schultz, it's becoming so commonplace on this joke of a so-called news network that MSNBC executives must be numb to it, but that doesn't explained why the folks at Comcast and General Electric put up with it.
Continue reading …Ed Schultz Lies About Bush Tax Cuts Seconds After Saying ‘Republicans Make Stuff Up’
April 18, 2011 No Comment
As NewsBusters has been reporting, America's media have been on a full-court press to raise taxes ever since Barack Obama proposed this in his deficit reduction speech last Wednesday. So supportive of soaking the rich is MSNBC's Ed Schultz that on Monday's program bearing his name, seconds after claiming “Republicans are forced I guess you could say to make stuff up,” he lied about what happened after taxes were cut by President George W. Bush (video follows with transcript and commentary): ED SCHULTZ: In the fight over taxes, Democrats have simple fairness on their side. They have simple math on their side, and polls show that Americans favor ending tax cuts for the wealthy. So Republicans are forced I guess you could say to make stuff up, but they do a pretty good damn good job of that, don’t they? Like Congressman Joe Walsh, Republican of Illinois talking about how tax cuts increase revenue to the government. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) REPRESENTATIVE JOE WALSH (R-ILLINOIS): Every time we’ve cut taxes, revenues have gone up. (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: EVERY TIME! Republicans just love that saying: “Every time we’ve cut revenues, we’ve cut taxes, revenues have gone up.” I doubt it. But when the Bush tax cuts went into effect, revenues went down. Even taking into account the impact of 9/11, there was no reason to believe the Bush tax cuts helped the to raise revenue. Even seven years later, revenues were lower than before the Bush tax cuts went into effect. Notice that the source of information for that graph was supposedly the Office of Management and Budget: I'm not sure who did this research for Schultz, but here are the numbers directly from OMB: Above is a screencap from page 22 of OMB's “Historical Tables: Budget of the United States.” The column on the left represents total unified tax receipts, the center is total unified expenditures, and the right is the associated surplus or deficit. The first Bush tax cuts happened in 2001 when we brought in $1.991 trillion in receipts. This declined for two years, then started increasing, and by 2005 not only were receipts higher than in 2001, they were also higher than the previous record set in 2000. “Even seven years later, revenues were lower than before the Bush tax cuts went into effect.” Not even close. Revenues in 2008 were $2.523 trillion, $532 billion or 27 percent higher than 2001. Where Schultz got his information is beyond me – and likely beyond him. So much for Democrats having “simple math on their side.” One other point before we move on: notice that revenues actually peaked at $2.568 trillion in 2007. That was the last year the Republicans controlled the White House and both chambers of Congress. After four years of Democrat control of the legislature, and two-plus years of Obama, tax receipts have yet to get back to where they were when Republicans ran everything. It of course goes without saying Schultz would view this as me being forced to make stuff up despite the facts speaking for themselves. As for the initial decline in tax receipts after the first Bush cuts were implemented, the Congressional Budget Office began asking why that was happening as early as August 2002 (emphasis added): Spring 2002 brought an “April surprise” of a type that had not been seen for roughly a decade: federal revenues substantially lower than expected, a reversal of the pattern that characterized the late 1990s. Even though the current fiscal year is nearly over, revenue forecasters have substantially revised their expectations of how much fiscal year (FY) 2002 revenues will be as a consequence of April, May, and June receipts. A fiscal year that began with a forecast of a budget in approximate balance now faces a deficit of $157 billion, $103 billion of which results from revenues that are lower for reasons other than the effects of legislation. That latest revision comes on top of downward revisions from last August and January. The most obvious explanation for what happened to receipts is the recession , which has reduced the level of economic activity–the main determinant of tax collections. Although CBO incorporated effects of an economic slowdown in its baseline as early as January 2001, its projections did not reflect the effects of a recession until the January 2002 baseline, after the seriousness of the downturn had become evident. Since then–although indications are that the economy has begun recovering–the recession's effects on receipts still linger. So, $103 billion of the reduction in revenues up to that point were not caused by the Bush tax cuts, but instead the recession. By January of 2003, the CBO offered another reason for the huge decline in revenues: an unexpected drop in capital gains taxes associated with the fall in the stock market. Even the liberal think tank the Center for Economic Policy Research couldn't hide the truth: The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) acknowledged that the deflation of the stock market bubble will seriously depress capital gains revenue in its new economic and budget projections. Prior to this year, CBO had continued to project that capital gains tax revenue would be larger than its historic share of GDP over its ten-year projection period. It clung to these projections in spite of the fact that its own profit projections implied that the stock market was hugely over-valued and was virtually certain to collapse within its projection period. The downward adjustment in the projections for capital gains tax revenue has a serious impact on the future budget projections. The new projections show that revenue from capital gains taxes will be $428 billion less than was indicated in the January 2001 projections (for the over-lapping years), which were the most recent projections at the time President Bush’s tax cut was approved. Including the effect of interest, the 10-year surplus projections would have been $516 billion lower in 2001, if the current capital gains projections had been used. Readers are advised to review those two paragraphs again, for in them lies the heart of the so-called Clinton surpluses and why they disappeared. What shills like Schultz don't know, and folks like the New York Times's Paul Krugman and former Clinton labor secretary Robert Reich refuse to share with the public, is that the Clinton surpluses beyond 2001 were an illusion created by tremendously optimistic assumptions by the CBO. Tax receipts exploded in 1998, 1999, and 2000 as a result of the stock market bubble and the resulting dramatic rise in capital gains taxes. CBO projected that such increases would continue for the next ten years resulting in surpluses as far as the eye can see. When the bubble began to burst in March 2000, and the economy receded twelve months later, CBO clung to the expectation that these revenues were still going to materialize. As CEPR noted in its report, it wasn't until January 2003 that CBO realized its error and began seriously revising down its revenue targets and up its deficit projections. Regardless of what shills like Schultz, Krugman, Reich, and virtually all of the liberal media have been saying for the last decade, the Bush tax cuts didn't turn surpluses into deficits. It was instead a mixture of terrible forecasting by CBO, a plummeting stock market with a resulting decline in capital gains taxes, and a recession caused by a bear market that began ten months before Bush was inaugurated. You can beat your head against a wall trying to get a liberal media member to acknowledge any of these immutable facts, so don't bother wasting your time. As for this lie by Schultz, it's becoming so commonplace on this joke of a so-called news network that MSNBC executives must be numb to it, but that doesn't explained why the folks at Comcast and General Electric put up with it.
Continue reading …
Thousands gather in city after reports that security forces shot dead 17 citizens on Sunday Syrian forces fired shots at hundreds of protesters who had gathered overnight in Homs city in defiance of warning by the authorities to halt what they called an insurrection. A member of the security police addressed the protesters at Clock Square through a loud speaker asking them to leave, and then the forces opened fire, said a human rights campaigner, who is in contact with protesters in the square. Tear gas was also used. At least one protester was injured, the activist added. Two residents of Homs also said they heard the sound of gunfire coming from around the square. Several hours earlier, Syrian state television broadcast an interior ministry statement that described the wave of unrest in Syria as an insurrection, pointing specifically to Homs as one of two cities where “armed groups belonging to Salafist organisations” were trying to terrorise the population. Salafism is a strict form of Sunni Islam which many Arab governments equate with militant groups like al-Qaida. President Bashar al-Assad announced on Saturday that he would end nearly half a century of emergency rule with legislation that should be in place by next week, but his pledge did little to appease protesters calling for political freedoms. Rights campaigners say more than 200 people have been killed since the protests began. Syrian authorities have intensified bans on independent media since protests challenging the authoritarian rule of Assad erupted more than a month ago. No independent media is allowed into Homs or other cities witnessing unprecedented pro-democracy demonstrations. Several international journalists have been expelled or arrested. Thousands demanded the overthrow of Assad on Monday at the funerals of 17 protesters killed in Homs, 165 km (100 miles) north of Damascus. Human rights campaigners said the 17 had been killed late on Sunday during protests against the death in custody of a tribal leader in Homs. “From alleyway to alleyway, from house to house, we want to overthrow you, Bashar,” the mourners chanted, according to a witness at the funeral. Further north, in Jisr al-Shughour, 1,000 people called for “the overthrow of the regime”, echoing the chants of protesters who overthrew leaders in Egypt and Tunisia, at the funeral of a man who they said had been killed by security forces. Protests against the authoritarian rule of Assad’s Baath Party erupted in the southern city of Deraa more than a month ago, and have spread across the country. The government says Syria is the target of a conspiracy and authorities blame the violence on armed gangs and infiltrators supplied with weapons from Lebanon and Iraq. Opposition groups say there is no evidence of a conspiracy. The interior ministry statement said Salafist groups were trying “to spread terror across Syria … using the march of freedom and reform that was launched according to a timetable by President Assad in his guiding speech”. The demonstrations present the gravest challenge yet to Assad, who succeeded his late father Hafez al-Assad, who died in 2000 after 30 years of rule. Syria Arab and Middle East unrest Protest Middle East guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
The first Pulitzer Prize won by print-free investigation goes to ProPublica while the Los Angeles Times celebrates twin wins For the first time in the history of the Pulitzer Prize – the highest honour in American journalism – the award has gone to a series of articles in an investigation that never appeared on the printed page. ProPublica , the web-based independent investigative news organisation, was awarded a Pulitzer Prize for national reporting for its expose of dubious dealing on Wall Street leading up to the financial crisis, with the judges praising the way journalists Jesse Eisinger and Jake Bernstein used online tools “to help explain the complex subject to lay readers.” While ProPublica won its first Pulitzer Prize last year for an article that appeared in the New York Times Magazine – and split the award with the Los Angeles Times – this year it won the award outright for its series, The Wall Street Money Machine . “We at ProPublica are delighted by this award, and deeply honoured,” wrote the organisation’s editor in chief, Paul Steiger , noting: “This year’s prize is the first for a group of stories not published in print.” The ProPublica series included collaboration with NPR’s Planet Money and This American Life programmes, but radio output is not eligible for the award under the Pulitzer criteria. Previous winners have included news agencies such as Reuters and the Associated Press, although their content generally also appears in print. Among the other winners, the Los Angeles Times celebrated its recovery with two Pulitzers, one for Barbara Davidson’s brilliant and haunting portraits of Los Angeles gang violence and the award for public service for its investigation into the unusually high salaries awarded to officials in the city of Bell in California , revealing how taxes in the small town were raised to pay for them. The New York Times also won two Pulitzers, for international reporting and for commentary. In a surprise move, the board administering the prize decided not to make an award in the breaking news category, for the first time since the prize was founded 95 years ago. In the separate arts section of the award, Jennifer Egan won the Pulitzer Prize for fiction for A Visit from the Goon Squad. The awards, winners and short-listed finalists (summary by AP): Public service The Los Angeles Times for its exposure of corruption in the small California city of Bell, where officials tapped the treasury to pay themselves exorbitant salaries, resulting in arrests and reforms. Finalists: Bloomberg News for the work of Daniel Golden, John Hechinger and John Lauerman revealing how some for-profit colleges exploited low-income students, leading to a federal crackdown on a multi-billion-dollar industry; and the New York Times for the work of Alan Schwarz in illuminating the peril of concussions in football and other sports, spurring a national discussion and a re-examination of helmets and of medical and coaching practices. Breaking news reporting No award. Finalists: Chicago Tribune staff for coverage of the deaths of two Chicago firefighters killed while searching for squatters in an abandoned burning building; the Miami Herald and El Nuevo Herald, a joint staff entry, for coverage of the Haitian earthquake, often working under extreme conditions; and the Staff of The Tennessean, Nashville, for coverage of the most devastating flood in the area’s history. Investigative reporting Paige St John of the Sarasota Herald-Tribune , for her examination of weaknesses in the murky property-insurance system vital to Florida homeowners, providing handy data to assess insurer reliability and stirring regulatory action. Finalists: Walt Bogdanich of the New York Times for his spotlighting of medical radiation errors that injure thousands of Americans, sparking national discussion and remedial steps; and Sam Roe and Jared S Hopkins of the Chicago Tribune for their investigation, in print and online, of 13 deaths at a home for severely disabled children and young adults, resulting in closure of the facility. Explanatory reporting Mark Johnson, Kathleen Gallagher, Gary Porter, Lou Saldivar and Alison Sherwood of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel for their lucid examination of an epic effort to use genetic technology to save a four-year-old boy imperiled by a mysterious disease, told with words, graphics, videos and other images. Finalists: the Wall Street Journal staff for its penetration of the shadowy world of fraud and abuse in Medicare, probing previously concealed government databases to identify millions of dollars in waste and corrupt practices; and the Washington Post staff for its exploration of how the military is using trauma surgery, brain science and other techniques both old and new to reduce fatalities among the wounded in warfare, telling the story with words, images and other tools. Local reporting Frank Main, Mark Konkol and John J Kim of the Chicago Sun-Times for their immersive documentation of violence in Chicago neighborhoods, probing the lives of victims, criminals and detectives as a widespread code of silence impedes solutions. Finalists: Marshall Allen and Alex Richards of the Las Vegas Sun for their compelling reports on patients who suffered preventable injuries and other harm during hospital care, taking advantage of print and digital tools to drive home their findings; and Stanley Nelson of the Concordia Sentinel, a weekly, for his courageous and determined efforts to unravel a long forgotten Ku Klux Klan murder during the Civil Rights era. National reporting Jesse Eisinger and Jake Bernstein of ProPublica for their exposure of questionable practices on Wall Street that contributed to the nation’s economic meltdown, using digital tools to help explain the complex subject to lay readers. Finalists: David Evans of Bloomberg News for his revelations of how life insurance companies retained death benefits owed to families of military veterans and other Americans, leading to government investigations and remedial changes; and the Wall Street Journal Staff for its examination of the disastrous explosion on the Deepwater Horizon oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico, using detailed reports to hold government and major corporations accountable. International reporting Clifford J Levy and Ellen Barry of the New York Times for dogged reporting that put a human face on the faltering justice system in Russia, remarkably influencing the discussion inside the country. Finalists : Deborah Sontag of the New York Times for her coverage of the earthquake in Haiti, steadfastly telling poignant, wide-ranging stories with a lyrical touch and an impressive eye for detail; and the Wall Street Journal staff for its examination of the causes of Europe’s debt crisis, taking readers behind closed doors to meet pivotal characters while illuminating the wider economic, political and social reverberations. Feature writing Amy Ellis Nutt of the Star-Ledger , Newark, New Jersey, for her deeply probing story of the mysterious sinking of a commercial fishing boat in the Atlantic Ocean that drowned six men. Finalists : Tony Bartelme of the Post and Courier, Charleston, South Carolina, for his engaging account of a South Carolina neurosurgeon’s quest to teach brain surgery in Tanzania, possibly providing a new model for health care in developing countries; and Michael M Phillips, of the Wall Street Journal, for his portfolio of deftly written stories that provide war-weary readers with fresh perspective on the conflict in Afghanistan. Commentary David Leonhardt of the New York Times for his graceful penetration of America’s complicated economic questions, from the federal budget deficit to health care reform. Finalists : Phillip Morris of the Plain Dealer, Cleveland, for his blend of local storytelling and unpredictable opinions, enlarging the discussion of controversial issues that stir a big city; and Mary Schmich of the Chicago Tribune for her versatile columns exploring life and the concerns of a metropolis with whimsy and poignancy. Criticism Sebastian Smee of the Boston Globe for his vivid and exuberant writing about art, often bringing great works to life with love and appreciation. Finalists : Jonathan Gold of the LA Weekly for his delightful, authoritative restaurant reviews, escorting readers through a city’s diverse food culture; and Nicolai Ouroussoff of the New York Times for his well-honed architectural criticism, highlighted by ambitious essays on the burst of architectural projects in oil-rich Middle East countries. Editorial writing Joseph Rago of the Wall Street Journal for his editorials challenging the health care reform advocated by President Obama. Finalists : Jackson Diehl of the Washington Post for his insightful editorials on foreign affairs, marked by prescient pieces critical of America’s policy toward Egypt well before a revolution erupted there; and John McCormick of the Chicago Tribune for his relentless campaign to reform an unsustainable public pension system that threatens the economic future of Illinois. Editorial cartooning Mike Keefe of the Denver Post for his widely ranging cartoons that employ a loose, expressive style to send strong, witty messages. Finalists : Matt Davies for cartoons in the Journal News, Westchester County, New York, work notably original in concept and execution, offering sharp opinion without shrillness; and Joel Pett of the Lexington Herald-Leader, for provocative cartoons that often tackle controversial Kentucky issues, marked by a simple style and a passion for humanity. Breaking news photography Carol Guzy, Nikki Kahn and Ricky Carioti of the Washington Post for their up-close portrait of grief and desperation after a catastrophic earthquake struck Haiti. Finalists : Daniel Berehulak and Paula Bronstein of Getty Images for their compelling portrayal of the human will to survive as historic floods engulfed regions of Pakistan; and Carolyn Cole of the Los Angeles Times for her often haunting images of a massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, capturing the harsh reality of widespread devastation. Feature photography Barbara Davidson of the Los Angeles Times for her intimate story of innocent victims trapped in the city’s crossfire of deadly gang violence. Finalists : Todd Heisler of the New York Times for his sensitive portrayal of a large Colombian clan carrying a genetic mutation that causes Alzheimer’s disease in early middle age; and Greg Kahn of The Naples Daily News for his pictures that show the mixed impact of the recession in Florida – loss of jobs and homes for some but profit for others. US press and publishing Pulitzer prize United States New York Times Richard Adams guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Title: Manic Monday Artist: The Bangles Here’s a Monday song written by Prince and performed by the lovely Susanna Hoffs and co. Hope your week got started right.
Continue reading …
Click here to view this media Ignore the obvious Fox spin from Gretchen Carlson and the Washington Examiner guy who thinks Paul Ryan walks on water in this clip and listen to Jim Kessler from Third Way tell us that the “Gang of Six” compromise which hasn’t been reached, hasn’t been unveiled and contains no specifics is the “only game in town.” This stuff drives me crazy for a number of reasons, not the least of which is this notion that we’ll “all hate it”, which means we should “all like it.” It drives me crazy mostly because it suggests that there are no real creative ways to look at deficit reduction and begins with the presumption that taxes cannot be raised to deal with the deficit. Here are the Senators who comprise the Gang of Six: Mark Warner (D-Va.), Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.), Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) and Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) Does anyone really think a group that includes Coburn, Crapo, and Chambliss will arrive at a compromise that involves a tax increase? I certainly don’t. My problem with Third Way is where they start . They frame the entire debate by calling the progressive approach “Soak the Rich” and the conservative approach “Starve the Beast.” Neither are accurate, given that progressives have argued for fairness in the tax code and not a soaking, while conservatives aren’t as interested in starving beasts as they are in shifting where the beast is fed and who feeds it. While they haven’t unveiled specific ideas yet, it seems clear that they’re already pushing for their plan to be the only plan that makes sense, and to cut off debate — an option I find unacceptable. The Progressive Caucus has ideas that make sense , and are not “soaking” the rich as much as they are a way to make tax burdens fair to all — corporations, middle class, and wealthy alike. The entire debate is being framed too widely at this point, anyway. Social Security should come off the table, except to the extent that the payroll tax is adjusted as the original formula intended. The tax code needs to be overhauled. In my view, any deficit reduction package that amends the tax code as it exists today is not reform, since it’s loaded with sunset provisions, obscure tax breaks for one or two companies all over it, and other inconsistent and mostly unintelligible footnotes that give billions away to the high-end earners. Going on Fox & Friends and telling viewers it’s our way or no way is not a third way. It’s just what conservatives do on a near-daily basis. Surely we can do better than that.
Continue reading …