Obama professor among 250 experts who have signed letter condemning humiliation of alleged WikiLeaks source More than 250 of America’s most eminent legal scholars have signed a letter protesting against the treatment in military prison of the alleged WikiLeaks source Bradley Manning, contesting that his “degrading and inhumane conditions” are illegal, unconstitutional and could even amount to torture. The list of signatories includes Laurence Tribe, a Harvard professor who is considered to be America’s foremost liberal authority on constitutional law. He taught constitutional law to Barack Obama and was a key backer of his 2008 presidential campaign. Tribe joined the Obama administration last year as a legal adviser in the justice department, a post he held until three months ago. He told the Guardian he signed the letter because Manning appeared to have been treated in a way that “is not only shameful but unconstitutional” as he awaits court martial in Quantico marine base in Virginia. The US soldier has been held in the military brig since last July, charged with multiple counts relating to the leaking of thousands of embassy cables and other secret documents to the WikiLeaks website. Under the terms of his detention, he is kept in solitary confinement for 23 hours a day, checked every five minutes under a so-called “prevention of injury order” and stripped naked at night apart from a smock. Tribe said the treatment was objectionable “in the way it violates his person and his liberty without due process of law and in the way it administers cruel and unusual punishment of a sort that cannot be constitutionally inflicted even upon someone convicted of terrible offences, not to mention someone merely accused of such offences”. The harsh restrictions have been denounced by a raft of human rights groups, including Amnesty International, and are being investigated by the United Nations’ rapporteur on torture. Tribe is the second senior figure with links to the Obama administration to break ranks over Manning. Last month, PJ Crowley resigned as state department spokesman after deriding the Pentagon’s handling of Manning as “ridiculous and counterproductive and stupid”. The intervention of Tribe and hundreds of other legal scholars is a huge embarrassment to Obama, who was a professor of constitutional law in Chicago. Obama made respect for the rule of law a cornerstone of his administration, promising when he first entered the White House in 2009 to end the excesses of the Bush administration’s war on terrorism. As commander in chief, Obama is ultimately responsible for Manning’s treatment at the hands of his military jailers. In his only comments on the matter so far, Obama has insisted that the way the soldier was being detained was “appropriate and meets our basic standards”. The protest letter , published in the New York Review of Books, was written by two distinguished law professors, Bruce Ackerman of Yale and Yochai Benkler of Harvard. They claim Manning’s reported treatment is a violation of the US constitution, specifically the eighth amendment forbidding cruel and unusual punishment and the fifth amendment that prevents punishment without trial. In a stinging rebuke to Obama, they say “he was once a professor of constitutional law, and entered the national stage as an eloquent moral leader. The question now, however, is whether his conduct as commander in chief meets fundamental standards of decency”. Benkler told the Guardian: “It is incumbent on us as citizens and professors of law to say that enough is enough. We cannot allow ourselves to behave in this way if we want America to remain a society dedicated to human dignity and process of law.” He said Manning’s conditions were being used “as a warning to future whistleblowers” and added: ” I find it tragic that it is Obama’s administration that is pursuing whistleblowers and imposing this kind of treatment.” Ackerman pointed out that under the Pentagon’s own rule book, the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Manning’s jailers could be liable to prosecution for abusing him. Article 93 of the code says “any person who is guilty of cruelty toward any person subject to his orders shall be punished”. The list of professors who have signed the protest letter includes leading figures from all the top US law schools, as well as prominent names from other academic fields. Among them are Bill Clinton’s former labour secretary Robert Reich, President Theodore Roosevelt’s great-great-grandson Kermit Roosevelt, the former president of the American Civil Liberties Union Norman Dorsen and the novelist Kwame Anthony Appiah. Bradley Manning WikiLeaks United States US constitution and civil liberties Ed Pilkington guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …CNN.com Paints Would-be Mosque-burner as Anti-Muslim Radical, Omits That He’s Muslim
April 10, 2011 No CommentCNN has, for years, touted itself as “The Most Trusted Name in News,” and yet time and again it belies its own claim to unique (among cable news entworks) political neutrality. CNN.com editor Dan Gilgoff has once again undercut the channel’s gimmicky self-identification. Gilgoff recently discussed Californian Roger Stockham, who drove across the country to Detroit, Michigan, planning to wreak inferno-laden havoc on an area mosque. Thankfully, he was arrested by Detroit police in front of the Dearborn, Michigan Islamic Centers of America before having a chance to do so. In an astounding omission, Gilgoff attempted to paint Stockham as a radicalized redneck driven to violence by anti-Muslim rhetoric of some sort. But not once did he mention that Stockham is apparently a devout Muslim! Gilgoff offers the following observation, succeeded by a quote from the executive administrator of the ICA, Kassem Allie: To [ICA executive administrator Kassem] Allie, the incident is evidence that some Americans are being radicalized against Islam, turning the allegation of growing Muslim radicalization on its head. “The suspect was apparently radicalized quite some time ago,” Allie said. “And there are other instances of radicalization that are of great concern to us. “I have no problem addressing Islamic radicalization,” he said, monitoring the mosque's security cameras from a computer screen in his ground-floor office. “But there should be an acknowledgment that other communities have the same problem.” Indeed, dismay was expressed far and wide regarding the now-further tarnished reputation of the American Christian community, thanks to the actions of its newest celebrity adherent, Roger Stockham, would-be incinerator of mosques. There was, however, one rather sizeable problem with all the handwringing: Stockham isn’t actually a Christian! Gilgoff overlooked the even more pertinent fact that, by all appearances, Stockham himself is a Muslim, as Islamist Watch noted : Back on January 31, the AP described the arrestee as “a Vietnam veteran-turned Muslim holy warrior” based on what he had said to a Detroit restaurant manager, who later testified that in addition to bragging about the plot, Stockham had told him about becoming Muslim and joining the “mujahedeen.” Stockham's own attorney also called his client an “Islamic convert.” Behaving like a radical Sunni, the defendant rejected his first lawyer because “he is a Shiite and I am not,” asserting that the man attends the Shiite-run ICA. The same news item cites sources claiming that Stockham spoke fluent Arabic and quoted from the Koran during an interview. Stockham’s beef with the Dearborn ICA was that it was a Shiite center, rather than Sunni, the strand of Islam of which Stockham himself is a devotee. Thus, as Islamist Watch pinpoints, the problem at issue here is not simply hostility towards Islam displaying itself in acts of violence – the “Islamophobia” CNN routinely insists is plaguing the American Muslim community. Rather, this is an instance of how Islamic balkanization has led to sectarianism run amok within the religion itself – and how such divisions can lead to violence. To make matters worse, it appears Gilgoff could have learned the facts of the story here, had he bothered to try. He authored his blog post on March 27, 2011. Stockham’s interception and arrest had occurred on January 31. In spite of the misguided hysteria which initially ensued, notable portions of which blamed Christians for spawning the likes of Stockham, the record had been corrected fairly early on…definitely long before Gilgoff wrote it up. So was this willful obfuscation on Gilgoff’s part or sloppiness? Either way, it constitutes fairly egregious journalistic malfeasance for one who purports to edit a blog on genuine belief and practice of religion in the United States of America. Gilgoff touted Dearborn Muslims' allegations of anti-Islam radicalization thusly: Indeed, a common complaint around Dearborn, the epicenter of southeast Michigan’s Muslim community, is that the only time religion is mentioned in a crime story is when the suspect is Muslim. Well, at least this story didn't mention it. But shouldn't it have?
Continue reading …
Renewed popularity in the drug in recent years has put Britain at the top of European ‘league table’ for cocaine abuse The government’s expert drug advisers are to publish their first significant review of the harms caused by cocaine use this week to counter the “increasingly common” idea that it is a relatively safe drug. The increasing popularity of cocaine use among young adults in recent years has put Britain at the top of the European “league table” for cocaine abuse – a position it has held for six out of the last seven years. Cocaine is the second most popular drug in Britain, after cannabis, with its use increasing markedly in the past decade from 0.6% of 16- to 59-year-olds reporting use to the British Crime Survey to 2.4% in 2009-10. This is equivalent to nearly 800,000 people reporting that they have used it within the last year. Among those aged 16 to 24, the increase in use has been even sharper from 1.3% to 5.5% in 2009-10 – or about 367,000 teenagers and young adults. The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) wanted to launch its review of cocaine last year but was delayed by requests for advice from the home secretary, Theresa May, on banning the new generation of designer drugs or “legal highs” such as spice and mephedrone. The council is to confirm the cocaine review at its open meeting in London on Tuesday. The review, which is expected to take a year, will not be looking at the illegal class A status of cocaine. The drug council chairman, Professor Les Iversen, recently wrote to the May telling her: “The ACMD has previously indicated that it would initiate a review of cocaine and that this review would be focused on the nature of the trade, its prevalence in the UK and the harms of the drug – not classification issues. “As you are aware, the substantial work the ACMD has undertaken on the legal highs agenda has prevented it from having resource to initiate this review, however, the ACMD is now in a position to start this with immediate effect.” Iversen, who took over from Prof David Nutt after he was sacked, said that he was firmly of the view that cocaine is, and should remain, a class A drug. He said that the council has never looked at cocaine as a single substance in its 40-year history and the review was needed to reinforce public health work to reduce its harmful effects. It would tackle “the need to disabuse the misapprehension that cocaine is a relatively safe drug”. The decision to prioritise the cocaine review means that a similar investigation into the use of qat, requested by the home secretary in February, is now unlikely to start until May at the earliest. Qat is a leafy green plant whose leaves are chewed and used as a stimulant principally among Britain’s Somali community. The drug advisers are also finalising their official advice on the wider implications of the emergence of the “legal highs” phenomenon and make further recommendations for tackling suppliers and reducing market demand. Drugs Drugs policy Drugs trade Drugs Alan Travis guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Party’s biggest donor – who vanished with £20m – believed to be living under false name in tropical hideaway The international confidence trickster who gave £2.4m of fraudulently obtained money to the Liberal Democrats is believed to be hiding in the Caribbean with access to a multimillion pound stolen fortune, inquiries by the Guardian have found. Michael Brown, a 44-year-old Glasgow-born fugitive and the party’s most generous donor, has been living under a false British identity and moved between tropical islands as recently as last year, according to private investigators. He disappeared in June 2008 while awaiting trial for false accounting and theft and was sentenced in his absence to seven years in jail. Police believe he has escaped with up to £20m of stolen money after analysing bank accounts attached to his fraudulent company, 5th Avenue Partners. Such a sum would buy access to private planes, yachts and protection, allowing Brown to live in luxury and move between islands at will. The disclosures are the latest developments in a saga which has dogged the Lib Dems since they accepted the donation six years ago. It has led to demands from Brown’s victims – who are still owed millions of pounds – for the cash to be returned by Nick Clegg. Sir Alistair Graham, who was chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life when the £2.4m donation was received, suggested that the party’s grandees could devise a strategy to make incremental payments to Brown’s victims. “This does provide a problem for the Liberal Democrats. The public will have many questions about their integrity in these matters particularly when some individuals are suffering as a result of the fraud perpetrated by this man. “While we have to be realistic – the Lib Dems are a members of a relatively small party and do not have this kind of money to hand – it may be time for the party’s leaders to make a long term plan to return this money,” he said. City of London police also believe he has been helped by at least one accomplice to go on the run. Detective Superintendent Bob Wishart, who is leading the review of the case, said that his whereabouts remain a top priority for the force: “We believe that he has fled the country, likely with assistance, and has considerable assets at his disposal, but that does not diminish our desire to see him face justice. Our aim remains for him to be returned to the UK to serve his prison sentence. We urge anyone with information to come forward.” Brown, the son of a whisky executive, appeared to come from nowhere when he approached the Lib Dems with a donation in early 2005. He was not registered to vote, lived in Mallorca and had never been a party member, but offered a huge sum to the then leader Charles Kennedy weeks before a general election campaign. The money was spent on advertising. Four months after the party celebrated its most successful election since the war, Brown was arrested over suspicions that he was engaged in a high yield fraud. A court subsequently concluded that he had donated money to the Lib Dems to give himself an air of respectability while defrauding investors. Brown was accused of stealing nearly £50m from four investors, including £11m from Martin Edwards, the former Manchester United chairman. He convinced potential “clients” that he was a highly educated member of the landed gentry who would use US security services to vet potential investors. The reality was that he had few qualifications, had run a string of failed businesses and was subject to an outstanding warrant for cheque fraud in Florida. He had spent the proceeds of his crimes on a life of luxury. He owned a jet – in which he flew Kennedy and other Lib Dem officials across the UK – a Bentley and a yacht, and rented an office in Mayfair. His sprawling Mallorcan mansion was close to a holiday home of the model Claudia Schiffer and he would entertain friends with an outside cinema. Awaiting trial in June 2008, Brown jumped bail while living in Hampstead. Weeks earlier, he changed his name to Campbell-Brown on bank documents and the electoral roll. Neighbours said he had grown a full grey beard and applied for credit cards using his new name before going on the run. Since then, private detectives working for two of Brown’s creditors have claimed that someone using the name Campbell-Brown has used credit cards on at least two Caribbean islands. Sources close to the investigators have confirmed that Brown is still believed to be moving between islands in the Caribbean, but has adopted another UK identity. City of London police launched their review of Brown’s case last year. About £36m of stolen money had passed through the bank accounts of 5th Avenue, but so far only £16m has been recovered or accounted for. Officers believe he has access to “substantial” funds. Brown has also been placed on Crimewatch’s Most Wanted list where he is described as 1.9 metres (6ft 2in), heavily built with a round face and greying hair. Detectives have approached a number of his former associates for information. A newly-ennobled Lib Dem befriended by Brown has been assisting police, a party source has confirmed. Lord Strasburger, a retired Bath-based businessman who was elevated to the House of Lords in January, put up £250,000 for Brown’s bail money as well as paying for most of Brown’s legal fees. With his wife Evelyn, he has donated more than £760,000 to the Lib Dems over the past six years. Strasburger said through a party spokesman that he has co-operated fully with the police. “Without going into specific figures, it is true that I lost out financially in the Michael Brown case,” he added. An inquiry by the Electoral Commission, the political donations watchdog, cleared the Lib Dems of any wrongdoing in 2009 on the grounds that Brown’s company was a permissible donor when it gave the donation, and that the party had acted in good faith. But Brown’s victims continue to call for the party to return their stolen cash. Robert Mann, the US tax attorney whose $5m (£3m) investment with Brown provided a proportion of the Lib Dem donation, said he hoped the renewed police investigation would shame Clegg in to authorising repayments. “I hope that everyone involved in this travesty will ultimately do the honourable and right thing,” he said. Crime Liberal Democrats Rajeev Syal guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Mike Huckabee Claims That Planned Parenthood is ‘Primarily An Abortion Provider’
April 10, 2011 No Comment
Click here to view this media Even after Jon Kyl was forced to admit he had his numbers wrong on Planned Parenthood the other day, it looks like HuckaJesus is still out there flogging the lie that Planned Parenthood is “primarily an abortion provider.” After the Fox & Friends host Alisyn Camerota reminds him that Planned Parenthood’s numbers on that are only 3%, instead of admitting he’s wrong, Huckabee says he’s like to see them audited to prove it. h/t Media Matters
Continue reading …Tell Me It’s Not Class Warfare: Pharma Ups Cost Of Preemie-Preventative Treatment–From $30 to $1,500!
April 10, 2011 No CommentAfter having a painful miscarriage some years earlier, I spent a long period of time in my next pregnancy on pins and needles, worried that I might lose another pregnancy. And as it turned out, I did go into labor early. I stayed on bedrest for the last six weeks of the pregnancy and delivered my eldest about 3 weeks earlier than her due date. She was healthy, thank the deity of your choice. But I also had the luxury of having decent insurance, so I knew that I had options in the event that we could not stop the labor from progressive past the point of no return. So how can you look at this story and not see it as the so-called “free market” deciding that poor people don’t deserve those same options ? For years, a drug given to high-risk pregnant women to prevent premature births has cost $10 to $20 per injection. Next week, the price shoots up to $1,500, meaning the total cost during a pregnancy could be as much as $30,000. The drug, a form of progesterone given as a weekly shot, has been made cheaply for years, mixed in special pharmacies that custom-compound treatments that are not federally approved. But KV Pharmaceutical recently won government approval to exclusively sell the drug, known as Makena (Mah-KEE’-Nah). The March of Dimes and many obstetricians supported that because it means quality will be more consistent and it will be easier to get. It seems no one anticipated the dramatic price hike. “That’s a huge increase for something that can’t be costing them that much to make. For crying out loud, this is about making money,” said Dr. Roger Snow, deputy medical director for Massachusetts’ Medicaid program. Doctors say the price hike may deter low-income women from getting the drug, leading to more premature births. And it will certainly be a financial burden for health insurance companies and government programs. Children born very prematurely may require extensive and expensive hospitalizations, and ongoing therapy and medical assistance, expenses that can drain and/or bankrupt even a well-off family. Will we really be the kind of society that tells people–on the basis of their bank account–that their unborn child doesn’t deserve every fighting chance? There was no substantive need to raise the price of Makena so high. Thankfully, the FDA is going to allow generic versions of the drug KV Pharmaceuticals recently won FDA approval of its brand-name Makena (hydroxyprogesterone caproate), a synthetic form of the hormone progesterone. The drug is approved to lower the risk of some preterm births in women who have already had at least one previous preterm birth. The approval seemed to be good news — until KV announced that Makena would cost $1,500 a shot — up from the $10 to $15 that compounding pharmacies charge. After getting the approval, KV sent a letter to compounding pharmacies telling them that the FDA would enforce the company’s exclusive right to make the drug. “This is not correct,” the FDA said today. “In order to support access to this important drug, at this time and under this unique situation, FDA does not intend to take enforcement action against pharmacies that compound hydroxyprogesterone caproate based on a valid prescription for an individually identified patient unless the compounded products are unsafe, of substandard quality, or are not being compounded in accordance with appropriate standards for compounding sterile products,” the FDA announced.
Continue reading …Chris Matthews: Republicans Are ‘Going for the Kill! Want to Fight to the Death!’
April 10, 2011 No Comment
Chris Matthews has clearly forgotten all the concern over violent rhetoric he and his colleagues expressed in January after the tragic shootings in Tucson. On this week's syndicated program bearing his name, Matthews began the show saying, “Going for the kill! This week's shutdown fight is just the beginning. The young Republican turks want to fight to the death!” (video follows with transcript and commentary): CHRIS MATTHEWS: Going for the kill! This week's shutdown fight is just the beginning. The young Republican turks want to fight to the death! They just don't want cuts in programs like Medicare, birth control, the environment, but the end of them. It isn't about reform, it's about repeal. It isn’t about 2011, it’s about 2012. It appears Matthews forgot what he and his “Hardball” guests said on January 10 of this year, just two days after Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) and other innocent Americans were shot in Tucson: CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: Good evening. I’m Chris Matthews in Washington, with this special edition of HARDBALL. This country has a history of political violence. Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley shot and killed in office, Teddy Roosevelt shot in the chest in 1912 while campaigning for the presidency, Franklin Roosevelt shot at a month before his inauguration. The bullet killed the mayor of Chicago. In 1950, assassins carried out a plot to kill Harry Truman, killing one of the president’s bodyguards, Jack Kennedy killed by an assassin, Gerald Ford shot at twice in separate assassination attempts, Ronald Reagan nearly killed by an assassin, saved only by the quick thinking of a Secret Service agent who gets him to the hospital in three minutes. Huey Long, George Lincoln Rockwell, Martin Luther King, Robert Kennedy, Allard Lowenstein, Malcolm X all killed by gunmen. We’ve grown up with this stuff, knowing this stuff. We’re not like other countries, not in Europe, not in Africa, not in Asia, not in South America, not in Canada or in Mexico. It’s only here that political assassination has worked its way into the history books and won’t get out. Given this, why would anyone bring a gun to a political event in this country? Why would anyone want to? Why would any political leader think it’s just fine to do so? For one reason, I can only suppose, to say that guns can be a solution to a political difference. What does it mean when a possible presidential candidate paints targets, crosshairs over members of Congress she disagrees with, or when a Senate candidate says she supports “2nd Amendment remedies” to political differences with the Congress? How can a person who has any sense of our country’s history talk like that? John Wilkes Booth didn’t like which way the Civil War went. Lee Harvey Oswald was infatuated politically with Fidel Castro and didn’t like what Kennedy had said about him. Sirhan Sirhan didn’t like Bobby Kennedy’s strong support for Israel. Assassins often have recognized political motives, left and right, to go out and kill a politician. They don’t like what a leader says, they go kill them. The matter here is what you believe about gun violence and politics. Do we think guns are a proper reference point in political debate? If not, why are guns even mentioned in our political discussions? Why are they carried to political events? Is there any other interpretation than this, that some people believe guns, the threat of using them, are a political solution to this country’s debate? Can we, out of this horror in Arizona, simply agree on this one thing? Don’t bring guns to political events. Don’t talk about guns in a political argument. Let’s stop it right here. Gun violence against politicians is not a metaphor. It’s not about the Old West. It’s not cowboy talk. It’s not about the Founding Fathers and the British army. When you talk about using guns or threatening to use them against policies or politicians you don’t like, it’s for real. When you bring a gun to a political event, you are the problem. And leaders who refuse to say just this are themselves part of the problem. Let’s begin with three members of Congress who are all close friends with Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords — U.S. Congressman Raul Grijalva of Arizona. He represents another part of Tucson. Also with us, U.S. Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida and Congresswoman Chellie Pingree of Maine. Thank you all for joining us. I want to start with my friend, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and talk about this development tonight, and that is that Michael Bennet, the senator from Colorado, has just had someone threaten his life. That person has been arrested. This goes on. Your thoughts. REP. DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ (D), FLORIDA: Well, my thoughts, just to follow up on your introduction to the show or that — you’re absolutely right, Chris. We have to tone down the rhetoric. We have to really look inside ourselves. I think members of Congress need to lead by example. And then, hopefully, by removing and checking ourselves on the violent rhetoric that far too many people sometimes use in the political arena, that we’ll be able to lead by example and push the outside world, the shock jocks and the — and other political leaders, to take a page from our book. It’s absolutely critical because there’s fragile people who are mentally unstable that, you know, we just don’t know when they’re going to take those — that language literally. MATTHEWS: Congressman Grijalva, your thoughts about this, coming so close to where you live and your friend? REP. RAUL GRIJALVA (D), ARIZONA: Yes, it’s been devastating for all of us. We’re happy with some of the prognostics that’s happening about Gabby, but generally, it’s a level of shock. That’s all I can say. And you know, this whole political discourse that we’ve had for the last four or five years in this country, we’re not — I’m not saying that this has led to this, but there is a contributing factor that all of us in political life that use rhetoric that is incendiary, that creates demons out of other people — we need to be very careful and we need to tone that whole thing down. MATTHEWS: And Congresswoman Pingree from Maine. Thank you for joining us, as well. REP. CHELLIE PINGREE (D), MAINE: Absolutely. Well, our thoughts and prayers are with Gabby and the families of all the victims of this senseless crime. And it was a deranged person, but the fact is, it gives us an opportunity to talk about political speech, to remember that words do matter, that as Debbie Wasserman Schultz said, people are influenced by these words. And you know, honestly, it happens on the left and the right. There was a left-wing blogger, when Debbie didn’t vote for Nancy Pelosi, said, Gabby Giffords, you’re dead. In my state, there’s a right-wing group that has a slogan on its Web site that said, If you’re willing to fight for your country, are you willing to kill for your country? We can’t use language like this and expect that it won’t have some effect on civil discourse, which is critical to our political system. So, exactly three months ago, two days after the Tucson shootings, Schultz told Matthews, “We have to tone down the rhetoric…Hopefully, by removing and checking ourselves on the violent rhetoric that far too many people sometimes use in the political arena, that we’ll be able to lead by example and push the outside world, the shock jocks and the — and other political leaders, to take a page from our book.It’s absolutely critical because there’s fragile people who are mentally unstable that, you know, we just don’t know when they’re going to take those — that language literally.” I guess Matthews has forgotten this, as he did Grijalva telling him, “This whole political discourse that we’ve had for the last four or five years in this country, we’re not — I’m not saying that this has led to this, but there is a contributing factor that all of us in political life that use rhetoric that is incendiary, that creates demons out of other people — we need to be very careful and we need to tone that whole thing down.” It appears he also forgot Pingree saying, “We can’t use language like this and expect that it won’t have some effect on civil discourse, which is critical to our political system.” Now, three months later, Matthews is quite comfortable saying Republicans are “Going for the kill” and “want to fight to the death.” Just more proof that all this hand-wringing about violent rhetoric in politics three months ago was utter nonsense, for people like Matthews and Schultz are now using the same language against their Republican rivals that they were complaining about in January. How does hypocrisy smell to you on a Sunday?
Continue reading …
• Click refresh to update or click the auto-update button • Email your thoughts to scott.murray@guardian.co.uk • Read Lawrence Donegan’s day three report • Official Masters leaderboard • A golf tome you may like (but I would say that) 6.35pm: Dustin Johnson, tipped by many to do well this weekend on account of his searing talent, although only by those who didn’t factor in his ability to implode on a regular basis, has been uncharacteristically steady today: six pars followed by a birdie on 7. He’s -2 for the tournament. “Forget green jackets for a sec, some Scots Green Battle Fever is on,” writes Greig Aitken, and he’s not talking about Martin Laird. “The Scottish Greens launched their election broadcast online today, featuring among others a Jock Wallace sound-a-like discussing Donald Trump’s Aberdeenshire golf abomination.” I’ve had a wee look further down Greig’s email, and it turns out he’s a press officer for the aforementioned envoronmentally friendly clique, and this is crowbarring of the most shameless order. But it does give me an excuse to link to this , without waiting for somebody to toss their wedge at their caddy after chipping into Rae’s Creek from a bunker at 12, so I’ll let that slide. 6.25pm: Not a huge sample, admittedly, but no amazing scoring out there yet, which suggests the course is set up to give up as few birdies as possible. I’m hoping the pins aren’t too tight today: there’s nothing like witnessing a few charges on Masters Sunday. All good news for McIlroy, though, providing he doesn’t implode himself. 6.20pm: Trevor Immelman was as steady as they come in 2008, leading from beginning to end, but today he’s anything but: a run between holes 3 and 7 of birdie, bogey, bogey, birdie, birdie to find himself one under for the day, and -2 for the tournament. Justin Rose, who came so close here in 2007 before falling away at the death, has started smoothly enough, though: he’s birdied 2 and is alongside Immelman at -2 on the scoreboard through 5. 6.10pm: Villegas bucks his ideas up with a birdie at 9. Meanwhile the first-day co-leader, Alvaro Quiros, has opened with a bogey. He’s +3 for the 1st hole this week. That opening-day 65 remains the only time he’s broken par at Augusta in three visits, having followed it up this time round with 73 and 75. 6pm: One player who started the tournament well, only to fall away dismally, was Camilo Villegas. He started out with a 70, before carding 75 and 73, and today he’s +3 for his round through 8, with only Kim Kyung-tae below him on the leaderboard. For some reason I’ve had him suspended in amber for the last few years in my mind: I thought he was in his early 20s, but he’s 29 now! Three top-ten major finishes doesn’t seem much of a return for his talent, especially as he was never really in the running for any of those tournaments (the 2008 US Open and PGA, and last year’s PGA). I suppose being constantly voted the sexiest player on tour by the readers of glossy magazines is fair compensation, though. Tiger must be awfully jealous. 5.50pm: Ishikawa’s double-bogeyed the par-three 4th to drop back to level par for the day, -1 for the tournament. The main movers now are Justin Rose and Ryan Moore, who are both -1 today through 3, -2 overall, and Brandt Snedeker and Jim Furyk, good Scrabble hands who have both birdied 2 and are -3 for this year’s Masters. “Where on the leaderboard is the 31-year-old American with a bad shirt, terrible sunglasses and all the conversational verve of a mormon insurance salesman on a twelve-step programme who’s going to nick this?” asks Jon Millard, who I’m sensing hasn’t got over Zach Johnson’s victory in 2007 yet. Then again, who has? 5.40pm. In lieu of anything interesting to report at this early stage, some music: “Awww-gusta I love you but you’re bringing me down…” 5.30pm: So, let’s get on with it. A couple of minor moves down in the nether regions of the leaderboard. The heroic Ryo Ishikawa has eagled the 2nd to move to -3 for the tournament. Sergio Garcia, meanwhile, has dropped a shot, need we tell you. He’s level par for the championship through 4. I wonder whether he’ll ever win a major? Actually, no I don’t. I know the answer to that one. It’s the final round of the Masters, everyone! Hee heeeeeeeeeee! IT IS ON!!! Some selected times, in the UK money: Justin Rose is off at 5.10pm, Ian Poulter at 5.30pm, Lee Westwood at 6pm, Lefty at 6.10pm, the amateur Hideki Matsuyama at 6.20pm, Tiger at 6.40pm, Freddie Couples at 6.50pm, Bubba and Ross Fisher at 7pm, Luke at 7.10pm, and the final pairings: 7.20pm – Jason Day and Adam Scott 7.30pm – Charl Schwartzel and KJ Choi 7.40pm – Rory McIlroy and Angel Cabrera Other golf players are available, of course. And there’s a selection of fine fellows who, should McIlroy not make it, would also be worthy Masters champions. Angel Cabrera, Tiger Woods and Fred Couples, the only men with a realistic shout who’ve been there, got the jacket. The Korean pair KJ Choi and YE Yang. The talented Charl Schwartzel. The Aussie pairing of Jason Day and Adam Scott. Golf’s Mr Beige Nice, Luke Donald, and his British compatriots Ross Fisher and Martin Laird. Bubba Watson, Bo Van Pelt, Matt Kuchar, Ryan Palmer, Phil Mickelso… I’m just typing out the entire field now. Whatever happens, it’s going to be a very enjoyable afternoon’s golf, is what I’m trying to say. A very enjoyable afternoon’s golf indeed. Rory, then, if history teaches us anything, will need to keep going with the positive approach he’s displayed all week. Tee to green, he’s been in a league of his own. It’s no exaggeration to say that, had his putter been hot this week, his current lead could be double figures. If he keeps hitting the approaches he’s been hitting, this should be a done deal. But he’ll have to stay firm with the putter, and there have been times (especially on Friday) when he’s been wafting it around like a divining rod. Still, no great disasters with it yet, but the pressure’s going to be unreal now, so hopefully he’ll maintain his mental equilibrium and putt with conviction. It’s nothing he doesn’t already know, of course: after the first round, he spoke of the importance of staying positive and attacking the course whenever possible. It’s an approach that should, all being well, win him the green jacket. God speed, young man. Venturi had a four-shot lead going into that fateful final round, but ended up shooting 80, and was overtaken by Jack Burke Jr, who won by a single stroke. Venturi could cite mitigating circumstances: it was pelting with rain, the wind was blowing a gale, and the lowest scores of the day were a pair of 71s, from Burke and Sam Snead, the only two men in the field to break par. Also, Venturi was, at the time, an amateur (which meant, adding insult to injury, he disappeared back down Magnolia Lane without a dime in his pocket for his troubles). Despite all this, Venturi’s story is probably the most relevant to McIlroy. Because instead of blaming the conditions for his collapse, Venturi would blame his putter. “The mistake I made was consciously trying to two-putt every green and just coast home,” he admitted years later. “I hit 15 greens that day but three-putted six times. The hardest thing in golf is trying to two putt when you have to, because your brain isn’t wired that way. You’re accustomed to trying to make putts, and when you change that mindset, your brain short-circuits, especially under pressure.” There’s an elephant in the room, of course. And there’s no point trying to ignore its brash trumpeting: should Rory fail to seal the deal today, the capitulation would go down as one of the great instances of Masters gift-horse dentistry. There have been 13 previous occasions where the 54-hole leader has held a four-shot advantage or more, and only three men have failed to go on and win. There’s Greg Norman in 1996, of course, who had a six-shot lead over Nick Faldo going into the last day, only to stumble along the first nine before crumbling round Amen Corner and then totally losing his motor skills during a painful traipse home. There was Ed Sneed in 1979, who held a five-shot 54-hole advantage, and was still three ahead with three to play; he bogeyed 16, 17 and 18, then lost a play-off to Fuzzy Zoeller. And then there was Ken Venturi in 1956. Now, if Rory pulls this off, he’ll become the second-youngest Master of all time. He’s 21 years, 11 months and six days old today, a rickety old pensioner compared to Tiger Woods, who was 21 years, three months and four days old when he ran away with the green jacket in 1997. Still, it’d be an amazing record nonetheless. Although not quite as jaw-dropping as the fact that, if he does end the day triumphant, 50% of golf’s current major champions will hail from Northern Ireland. So have the exploits of Rory McIlroy given you Masters Fever? Yes, I thought they would have. Let’s all just try to calm down, and concentrate on what could be a very enjoyable afternoon’s golf. A very enjoyable afternoon’s golf indeed. Masters 2011 Golf The Masters Scott Murray guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Law of Mother Earth expected to prompt radical new conservation and social measures in South American nation Bolivia is set to pass the world’s first laws granting all nature equal rights to humans. The Law of Mother Earth, now agreed by politicians and grassroots social groups, redefines the country’s rich mineral deposits as “blessings” and is expected to lead to radical new conservation and social measures to reduce pollution and control industry. The country, which has been pilloried by the US and Britain in the UN climate talks for demanding steep carbon emission cuts, will establish 11 new rights for nature. They include: the right to life and to exist; the right to continue vital cycles and processes free from human alteration; the right to pure water and clean air; the right to balance; the right not to be polluted; and the right to not have cellular structure modified or genetically altered. Controversially, it will also enshrine the right of nature “to not be affected by mega-infrastructure and development projects that affect the balance of ecosystems and the local inhabitant communities”. “It makes world history. Earth is the mother of all”, said Vice-President Alvaro García Linera. “It establishes a new relationship between man and nature, the harmony of which must be preserved as a guarantee of its regeneration.” The law, which is part of a complete restructuring of the Bolivian legal system following a change of constitution in 2009, has been heavily influenced by a resurgent indigenous Andean spiritual world view which places the environment and the earth deity known as the Pachamama at the centre of all life. Humans are considered equal to all other entities. But the abstract new laws are not expected to stop industry in its tracks. While it is not clear yet what actual protection the new rights will give in court to bugs, insects and ecosystems, the government is expected to establish a ministry of mother earth and to appoint an ombudsman. It is also committed to giving communities new legal powers to monitor and control polluting industries. Bolivia has long suffered from serious environmental problems from the mining of tin, silver, gold and other raw materials. “Existing laws are not strong enough,” said Undarico Pinto, leader of the 3.5m-strong Confederación Sindical Única de Trabajadores Campesinos de Bolivia, the biggest social movement, who helped draft the law. “It will make industry more transparent. It will allow people to regulate industry at national, regional and local levels.” Foreign Minister David Choquehuanca said Bolivia’s traditional indigenous respect for the Pachamama was vital to prevent climate change. “Our grandparents taught us that we belong to a big family of plants and animals. We believe that everything in the planet forms part of a big family. We indigenous people can contribute to solving the energy, climate, food and financial crises with our values,” he said. Little opposition is expected to the law being passed because President Evo Morales’s ruling party, the Movement Towards Socialism, enjoys a comfortable majority in both houses of parliament. However, the government must tread a fine line between increased regulation of companies and giving way to the powerful social movements who have pressed for the law. Bolivia earns $500m (£305m) a year from mining companies which provides nearly one third of the country’s foreign currency. In the indigenous philosophy, the Pachamama is a living being. The draft of the new law states: “She
Continue reading …
Remains of Alfred Adler, a member of Freud’s inner circle credited with defining the inferiority complex, found in Edinburgh crematorium The long-lost remains of Alfred Adler, one of the founding fathers of psychoanalysis, have been rediscovered in a crematorium in Edinburgh nearly 74 years after he died suddenly on a lecture tour. Adler, a core figure with Sigmund Freud in the group that founded the psychoanalytic movement before the pair split in 1911, collapsed after a suspected heart attack in May 1937 while he was in Aberdeen for a three-week-long series of lectures and seminars at the university. The Viennese doctor, credited with developing the theory of the inferiority complex, was cremated alone, and his widow and surviving children lost track of his ashes. For the following 70 years their location remained a mystery to his family, his followers and Adlerian scholars. Later this month, however, his ashes will be returned to Vienna for a civic ceremony following a remarkable discovery by the honorary Austrian consul to Scotland, John Clifford. Asked to trace Adler’s remains by the institute he founded in Vienna, Clifford traced the casket to a crematorium only a few hundred metres behind the consulate in Edinburgh. They had been stored there in a quiet, wood-panelled gallery rarely visited by the public, alongside dozens of other caskets and urns. His US-based granddaughter, Margot Adler, said his family thought Adler’s remains were lost. “The first story I had heard was that the remains had disappeared … They thought they were supposed to be in Aberdeen. “The next story I heard was that I got some letters or an article about three Viennese Adlerian students going on a search … and then I heard about John’s discovery.” Margot, the daughter of Adler’s only son, Kurt, said it was customary within the family to be cremated. In 1937, Scotland’s only crematorium was at Warriston in Edinburgh, so after a funeral attended by Aberdeen university’s most senior academics, his body was sent south. It appears the family heard nothing more. Europe was on the brink of war, and Adler’s wife, Raissa, had been living in the United States since 1932. They believed he died partly from stress, she said. Then 67, he had just learned that his oldest and favourite daughter, Valentina, a committed communist, had been sent to a Soviet gulag in one of Stalin’s purges. Many of the family were socialists, and the Adlers were friends of Leon Trotsky and his wife. Margot Alder found references to Valentina’s disappearance in her own family papers, in a letter from Albert Einstein asking about her aunt. “Our family wasn’t the kind of family which cared about remains. I don’t think anyone gave it much thought. Remember this happened in 1937 and then the war came. I think during the war, that was the last thing on anybody’s mind,” she said. She believes her father would have been delighted that Adler’s ashes were being returned to Vienna. Adler was made a freeman of Vienna in 1930, before fascism took hold. “Vienna was essentially Adler’s home, his birth home and there was the triangle, you know, Adler, Jung and Freud, and all had that sense of coming out of that place, so there’s something rather fitting about him going back there. I
Continue reading …