Break Out The Tiny Violins: WI Rep Eager To Cut State Employee Salaries Says "It’s A Struggle" To Make It on $174K A Year
March 31, 2011 No Comment
enlarge If the parents of this quaint picture seem vaguely familiar to you, you probably watched a lot of MTV 15-20 years ago. Sean Duffy and Rachel Campos-Duffy were both participants in different seasons of “The Real World” (Sean in Boston in the sixth season, Rachel in San Francisco in the third). They met during the filming of “Real World Road Rules” in 1998 and married in 1999. Between raising six children, Rachel has done some television work and contributes to parenting websites. Sean was appointed District Attorney in Wisconsin and in 2010, was elected to his first term in the House of Representatives for Wisconsin’s 7th District in 2010. Behind the meet-cute back story, the shining American success story and whatever-you-want-to-call-having-so-damn-many-kids story, there is of course the darker shades of conservative Republicanism. Duffy has been quite outspoken, supporting his fellow Republicans in the state, calling for public employees to take paycuts to help the state meet their fiscal needs of giving millionaires and corporations more tax cuts. But do you think that he too should show his commitment to fiscal responsibility and take a pay cut himself? Silly liberal expecting consistency : At a town hall meeting in Polk County, Wisconsin earlier this year, Rep. Sean Duffy (R-WI) was asked whether he’d vote to cut his $174,000 annual salary. Duffy sort of hedged, and went on to talk about how $174,000 really isn’t that much for his family of seven (sic–Duffy has a family of 8) to live on. Then he went on to say he supports cutting compensation for all public employees, along the lines of what Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) has proposed for the Badger State. Cuts for thee, but not for me, unless I really have to? How very Republican. Like all House members, Duffy makes $174,000 in taxpayer-funded salary every year. The Speaker makes a lot more ($223,500) and the party leaders and president pro tempore of the Senate make a bit more ($193,400.) All of them make way more than most people in Polk County, Wisconsin do. The median household income there was $50,520 in 2008, according to Census data . Whether or not Duffy is rich is a matter for debate. But that’s apparently not a debate the Polk County GOP wanted to have, at least not on the wider Internet. Here’s a screenshot of what the page containing the video looked like on Monday . Today, the video is gone . Of course, Duffy’s spokesperson, perhaps realizing damage control was in order, started criticizing “partisan shots” at Duffy. You know, because facts have a liberal bias.
Continue reading …Ed Schultz Fights With Far-Left ‘Nation’ Reporter Who’s Against Arming Libyan Rebels
March 31, 2011 No Comment
It was revealed Wednesday evening that the Obama administration sent clandestine CIA operatives to Libya weeks ago to assist rebels in their civil war against Moammar Gaddafi. Not only did MSNBC's Ed Schultz express his support for this action as well as arming these rebels, he also got into a heated argument with a Nation magazine reporter that compared this operation to the “disastrous dirty wars of the 1980s” bringing up images of Ollie North and the Iran-Contra scandal (video follows with transcript and commentary): ED SCHULTZ, HOST: But, this is the story we start with, that has me fired up tonight. It wasn’t supposed to go like this, but this is how it’s unfolding. “Reuters” reporting there are American boots on the ground in Libya. “President Obama has signed a secret order authorizing covert U.S. government support for rebel forces in Libya, officials tell Reuters.” The order was signed within the past two or three weeks. Tonight, “The New York Times” is reporting the Central Intelligence Agency has inserted clandestine operatives into Libya to gather intelligence for military airstrikes and make contacts with rebels battling Gadhafi’s forces, according to American officials. And the “National Journal” reporting more than a dozen CIA operatives were sent to Libya. You would think this announcement would quickly change the mind of a devout antiwar liberal like Schultz despite his having sycophantically and hypocritically expressed support for this Libyan operation right from the start. Well, think again: SCHULTZ: When the president announced the United States military engagement in Libya, he was emphatic. There would be no troops, no boots on the ground. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BARACK OBAMA,PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We will not — I repeat — we will not deploy any U.S. troops on the ground. (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: In fact, U.N. resolution 1973 excludes, quote, “a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory.” Of any form? What’s that mean? NBC sources are telling NBC that the revelation of CIA operatives in Libya is pro forma. Still, the White House knows this kind of revelation — this kind of headline could change the dynamic on the ground in Libya, and support for the president at home could also shift. Indeed, as well as support from his friends in the media that have been for this war. At least, that's what you would think: SCHULTZ: The big question tonight that remains: will the United States or its allies arm these Libyan freedom fighters? “Reuters” also reports today U.S. officials have said that Saudi Arabia and Qatar, whose leaders despise Gadhafi, have indicated a willingness to supply Libyan rebels — I call them freedom fighters — with weapons. Now, remember yesterday, the president told Brian Williams that the operation of arming Libyan rebels wasn’t off the table. He also said the following to ABC News. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) OBAMA: It’s fair to say that if we wanted to get weapons into Libya, we probably could. We’re looking at all our options at this point. (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: Senior European diplomat says the coalition of nations involved in Libya, considered arming rebels a serious option and that the coalition is considering that option now. Reports from the front lines are that anti-Gadhafi forces, they are in retreat. It was not a good day for them. And they are poorly armed. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) REPORTER: The momentum has changed very quickly in this war. And on the front line, Libya’s revolution is being held together with sticky tape. Show me what you’re armed with. What’s your weapon? Only that? UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Only that. (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: So, we have stopped Gadhafi from slaughtering his people in Benghazi. Our airstrikes have allowed the rebels to advance. But now, they’re retreating. After all that, does the world community stand by and watch the freedom fighters get crushed? The president pledged that there would be no U.S. troops on the ground in Libya. Today, we learned that CIA operatives are on the ground. What does that all mean? Still, it looks like the freedom fighters’ only shot for survival at this point is a real injection of military hardware that they say they desperately need. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton today said that there was still no decision on arming the rebels. Nobody wants another situation like the mujahideen in Afghanistan in 1980s. Whether or not we arm rebels, freedom fighters, whatever you want to call them, is a very hard decision. But I think we have to do it. It is a moral decision at this point. Imagine that. Despite what resulted from arming the mujahideen in Afghanistan – Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda – Schultz is all for doing it AGAIN! This seems especially absurd given reports that al Qaeda is already present amongst the Libyan rebels. But none of that matters to Schultz. His President is for this, and regardless of how he opposes this kind of conflict with every fabric of his being, this MSNBC shill is all in: SCHULTZ: You just saw that piece of videotape, that young kid, we have a state in the United States of America, New Hampshire, live free or die. What do you think that Libyan freedom fighter wants? What is his choice? He’s made what’s on the license plates in New Hampshire, live free or die. That’s where he is. And where does the United States stand tonight? Look, I am a liberal. I am a progressive. But that means that we need to stand behind people who want freedom. This isn’t Bush talk. This is totally different from Iraq. It’s totally different from any other situation in my opinion. This is a situation where we have got a coalition that has come together and realized that Gadhafi is a terrorist. The president has gone on record saying that Libyan agents have killed Americans. That’s all as an American I need to hear. This president has also gone on record that he was going to get America out of Iraq, close the terrorist center in Guantanamo Bay, and end secret CIA renditions. Despite him having gone back on all three pledges, Schultz is still taking him at his word: SCHULTZ: Let’s get it done. Let’s arm these rebels. Let’s give them a chance to fight. At least if they’re going to die, they’re going to have some hardware in their hands to defend themselves. There was a sound bite in Richard Engel’s piece last night, a gentleman says they’re pulling women out of houses. They’re lining people up and assassinating them. They’ve got shooters up on top of the roofs to picking people off. I mean, come on, America. When do we fight? Does it have to be absolutely perfect and we have to have an absolute end game, and, you know, dot all the I’s and cross all the T’s? Hell no. This is about freedom, is it not? This is about people who want to get rid of a dictator — a guy who has brutalized them for 40 years and we stand here tonight as if we’re not free. We stand here tonight as if — well, I don’t know about this, I don’t know about that. The military equation here I understand is very, very complicated. They not trained freedom fighters. But they have in their heart, they have in their soul the same things, and the same qualities and the same spirit that the people who founded this country had in their hearts and their minds centuries ago. How does he know that? Exactly how does anyone at this point know who or what these rebels are? Quite the contrary, we don't know. But Schultz's president is for this, and therefore, so is he: SCHULTZ: Look, this is a tough call. There’s no doubt. It’s a tough call for not only the president, and for people who support the president, who really have had enough of war. We don’t have a stomach for this, I know that. Just listen to the people on talk radio across America. They’re using this as a tool to take down our president, because they politically hate him. They have made it their goal over on the right to make sure that President Obama does not get reelected. So they’re playing the political games with the lives and the heart and the spirit and the soul of the Libyan people who all they want is a fighting chance to take down a dictator who has killed Americans. Liberals, we are better than this. Give them a chance. Arm them. That section there tells it all. Schultz must clearly think that if this mission in Libya fails, Obama's public support will plummet and with it his reelection chances. As such, he's willing to publicly and aggressively support an operation that he would otherwise be totally against simply because he believes it will help his president retain office. It's really quite disturbing when you think about it that way, for Schultz is pointing fingers at conservatives for “playing the political games with the lives and the heart and the spirit and the soul of the Libyan people.” But isn't it him playing political games with the lives of Americans that will be needed to assist these rebels?
Continue reading …
Committee’s focus on forests sell-off allows environment secretary to avoid difficult questions on flood defence spending After nearly an hour of her grilling by MPs had gone by without a question on forests, Caroline Spelman might have hoped she was going to get away with it. No such luck. After a brief break for the MPs to vote on the police reform bill, the onslaught began in earnest. Spelman was at the environment, food and rural affairs committee on Wednesday, being interviewed as part of its report on last year’s comprehensive spending review. This committee is better known for questions about dead sheep than for savaging ministers. So an easy lob from Tom Blenkinsop, the Labour member for Middlesborough South and East Cleveland, gave Spelman an ideal opportunity. What, he asked, were the main achievements of her tenure so far? After reeling off her many triumphs (talking to trade unions, dealing with arms-length bodies, safeguarding spending on canals) Spelman eventually made it to the B-minus section of her report form. Forests. “Of course,” the secretary of state began: “I could not talk about last year without touching on the experiences with regard to forestry, which were very difficult, as I’m sure you saw, Mr Blenkinsop.” This “difficult experience” was, we should recall, the most humiliating climbdown of the coalition government’s first year. Floating the idea of a sell-off of the entire national forest estate last year , the coalition was stunned by the extraordinarily broad range of voters who protested against it. Tory knights of the shires roused themselves, ramblers combined with online bloggers, and the National Trust found common cause with the Socialist Workers’ party to stop the government in its tracks. Half a million people signed a petition to protest against the plan. Finally, in February, after repeated insistence that the government would not be deflected from its course, David Cameron sent Spelman into the House of Commons chamber to apologise to MPs and the country for her mistake. But, as Spelman recounted, all of the fuss was perfectly smoothed over by the unusual appearance of a secretary of state in the House of Commons to say sorry . (Not that she repeated that word, of course.) We were swiftly hurried on from that “difficult experience” to a paean of thanks to her civil servants. Ministers, we heard, had been “very pleasantly surprised” at how wonderfully they had been assisted by the officials who are paid to assist them. “All this has resulted in a very good working relationship with civil servants,” Spelman told the MPs. Who’d have thought it. The lengthy and fulsome praise was a clear attempt to scotch persistent rumours that Spelman has not enjoyed the most supportive of relations with her officials, who were said during the forestry debacle to be miffed both at her refusal to seek or take their advice, and by her repeated assertions that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) was a “flabby” department with too many people in it. Telling your staff that they are useless is not a technique that features in many management handbooks. Spelman also made a curious assertion – answering a question as to whether she had sought the opinions of “stakeholders” such as the National Trust ahead of pursuing the sell-off, she said firmly that she had, and that she spoke to all “stakeholders” constantly. This is very strange – Fiona Reynolds, director general of the National Trust, categorically denies that Spelman ever spoke to her about the policy before it was announced. She found out about the policy through the media. But the MPs failed to pursue the point, though Spelman’s repeated mea culpa did not get the minister off the hook entirely. Questioned again on why she wanted to sell off the forests, Spelman insisted that every government for the last 30 years had been quietly selling off forestry land (true), and all she wanted was to make the process more transparent. And the only reason people took against this admirable aim was because those awful people in the media had created a “mythology” about the forests. All this took some time. Which meant that, after a few more questions on subsidy payments to farmers (delayed, for many) and how the government could buy more British food products, there was very little time for anything else. At 5pm, after two hours of such “grilling”, the chairwoman Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Thirsk and Malton) asked for briefer questions and answers. But the minister had other plans – she thought the time was up. After some haggling, we got 10 more minutes. And at last someone – in this case Amber Rudd, the new Conservative MP for Hastings and Rye (in the marshes) – asked the real question. About 145,000 homes would be better protected from flooding under Spelman’s plans. But what about the many thousands of other homes and businesses that would not receive the new or upgraded defences that had been planned ? This is a crucial point. Despite repeated assurances from Cameron that flood defence spending would be “protected”, Defra’s budget cuts mean that hundreds of flood defence schemes will no longer go ahead. These include some huge measures – the city of Leeds, for instance, threatened several times in recent years with major floods that would disable its business district and affect thousands of homes, is to be left without flood defences because the budget for its £100m planned defence project has been cut. The same is true for flood defence schemes across the country, spelling a potential disaster for thousands of homes and businesses. Spelman sailed blithely through. Private sector funding would fill up the breach, she told MPs. The Association of British Insurers was delighted that the abdication of the public sector from its duty to protect citizens meant that private companies were now freed to spend their own money on safeguarding homes. And that was it. There was no questioning of the secretary of state’s highly questionable assertion that private companies are just begging to build floodwalls and divert rivers. Five minutes on flooding. Less than was spent on pig farming. Much less than on the future of English and Welsh waterways (government funding of £39m a year to continue to 2022). And the time spent on owning up to the forestry debacle now looked like a very handy way to deflect attention from the real scandal of Defra’s budget: the fact that, in a clear betrayal of the prime minister’s promise to ringfence flood defence spending, the budget is being cut and thousands of homes and businesses, and several major cities, will be left unprotected, even as scientists warn that more severe storms and floods are on the way. But before the assembled MPs could register how they had been flummoxed, the bell rang again for a division. The committee rose, and Spelman beamed. The minister had got away with it after all! Home and dry. England’s forest sell-off Forests Flooding Rural affairs Green politics Tax and spending Fiona Harvey guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Ryanair chief Michael O’Leary says cost of compensating stranded passengers means add-on fee is airline’s only option Ryanair chief executive Michael O’Leary has denied the airline is “punishing” millions of passengers by imposing a £2 levy (€2 in Europe) on fares to pay for customers stranded during last year’s snow, volcano and air traffic control chaos. The chief executive of Europe’s largest short-haul carrier said the airline had no choice but to introduce a new add-on charge from next week after the European Union failed to reform its EU261 compensation law. O’Leary said the £110m raised by the fee over the next 12 months will cover the cost of providing hotels and compensation to passengers stranded by last year’s severe weather, the Icelandic volcano eruption and air traffic control strikes in Belgium, France and Spain. ” If you are not allowed, as EU261 regulation states, to recover these costs then the passenger must pay,” said O’Leary, repeating calls for a ” force majeure ” clause that would waive compensation for delays and cancellations outside an airline’s control. O’Leary denied he was punishing passengers this year in order to pay for customers stranded last year who, for instance, had to spend an extra fortnight in hotels in Tenerife due to the Icelandic volcano that shut down European airspace in April . “Nobody has argued that Ryanair punishes people given that we offer the lowest fares and are the most punctual airline,” O’Leary said. He also predicted that other airlines will soon follow suit if there is no EU261 reform. “If the EU says airlines should become the insurer of last resort then we have to be allowed to recover the costs from passengers.” The Ryanair boss pledged to reduce the levy to zero next year if the airline incurs no “unfair” EU261 costs over the next 12 months. The levy represents a 6% increase on last year’s average fare of £30. The consumer group Which? said Ryanair should use the proceeds from the levy to ensure that all EU261 payments are dealt with swiftly in the future. Rochelle Turner, head of research for Which? Travel, said: “Since this charge is going to be passed on to all Ryanair passengers from now on, we will be watching closely to see how it deals with claims made under EU261. With more money to put towards resources for processing claims, Ryanair will have no excuse for delays in dealing with them.” Ryanair Airline industry Michael O’Leary Flights Consumer affairs Dan Milmo guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Christopher La Jaunie, who shot film of PC Simon Harwood shoving newspaper vendor to ground, gives evidence Ian Tomlinson was “not confrontational at all” when he was “violently shoved” by a police officer at the London G20 protests, the man who filmed the incident told an inquest. Christopher La Jaunie, from New York, on Thursday said he was in the City for a conference and decided to take a colleague to watch the protests. Once the police brought dogs out on the streets he took out a compact digital camera and commenced filming. La Jaunie later passed his film to The Guardian, casting doubt on earlier police claims that Tomlinson, a 47-year-old newspaper vendor, who died within an hour of being struck by a police baton and pushed to the ground, had suffered a heart attack unrelated to his treatment. La Jaunie told Alison Hewitt, counsel to the inquest, that he was about 10ft from the police “frontline” when tension began rising shortly after 6.30pm on 1 April 2009. “There was a bit of a frontline with the police and protestors. One protester had obviously had some kind of altercation, he was bleeding from the head and so I went to see what was going on.” He said that police started kettling the protesters towards the Royal Exchange building in Cornhill after bottles were thrown. “Once the police had brought the dogs out there was certainly more an air of fear and people started to back away from that line. A few people dared to go close and I saw Mr Tomlinson just sort of wandering very close to that line. He was obviously trying to get through. That’s what caught my attention. “It looked to me as if he was trying to get through. They let a few people through but once they cut the line off no one could get through. “My impression of him was that he certainly was not involved in what was going on, he was not a protester. He was caught in the crowd and just wanted to get somewhere.” Asked about his impression of Tomlinson, he said: “He was moving slowly but nothing more than that. “I am not sure he was really engaged with the protests itself. I think he was more determined to just be on his way. Anyone who got too close to the line I think risked some type of action by the police. “Mr Tomlinson piqued my interest because he was getting very close to the police and they did not look accommodating to someone approaching them. “He was facing the police and basically trying to negotiate, like he was just trying to get there and being turned away. Just by hand gestures it looked like he was trying to explain to them, ‘I need to get over here’ and then was obviously refused.” Asked again about Tomlinson’s demeanour by Hewitt, La Jaune replied: “So you are asking me if I thought he was intoxicated? No, not particularly. “He was not confrontational at all, he had his hands in his pockets, it was clear now he wasn’t going to get through so he turned his back to walk away. “Once his back was turned, I mean a push is a very polite term. He was rather violently shoved. His hands were in his pockets so when he flew forward he was unable to break his fall.” Describing the film he was shooting he said: “His head goes out of the frame but I saw it. He hit the ground, his head hit the ground.” La Jaune said he saw the police officer responsible “with no badge and a balaclava and riot gear. I saw who it was, I couldn’t see his face”. He added that he saw the officer pull out a baton, which he used to strike Tomlinson before shoving him. Although the officer had his baton out, from where he was standing he “mostly saw the shove”. And he admitted that he was afraid to draw attention to himself by focussing on the officer with his camera in case “he would come after me”. La Jaune said Tomlinson “eventually sat up and someone came to his aid and from what I could tell … he appeared to ask ‘Why did you do that?’ The police didn’t respond and he eventually got up and stumbled away.” Shortly after, La Jaune saw a man lying on the pavement some distance away. “It was further up Cornhill, don’t remember, it was quite chaotic. I saw him lying there on his back. He looked very unwell, somewhat ashen, he looked like he was about to pass out.” La Jaune said it was clear to him that it was the same man he had filmed. Tomlinson died after being struck with a baton and pushed to the ground by Metropolitan police officer Pc Simon Harwood in the City of London at around 7.20pm on 1 April 2009. Earlier, PC Andrew Hayes, who was working alongside PC Harwood as a carrier driver in the Territorial Support Group on the day, told the inquest that PC Harwood had not told him about striking and pushing Tomlinson when they were writing up their notes on the day’s events. Matthew Ryder QC, counsel for Tomlinson’s family, asked Hayes: “Did he at any time tell you that he had made baton strikes on what appeared to be a middle-aged man?” Hayes replied: “No.” “Did he at any time tell you that he had pushed a man to the floor?” “No.” “Or that the man had been helped by a younger person, or anything of that kind?” “No.” The inquest continues. Ian Tomlinson Police David Sharrock guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Justice secretary says contingencies in place as he confirms private security company G4S is to run Birmingham prison The justice secretary, Kenneth Clarke, has confirmed that he is willing to call in the army should “serious trouble” erupt over his decision that the private security company, G4S, should run Birmingham prison – making it the first public sector jail to be privatised. “We have to be prepared should anything go wrong,” he told MPs. The Prison Officers’ Association (POA) said it would not rule out industrial action in protest at the decision, despite the fact that such action may be illegal. Clarke said the military contingency plans, involving up to 3,000 trained regular soldiers, were needed because industrial action involving prisons “can rapidly become far worse than an ordinary strike”. The justice secretary told MPs: “Nobody is contemplating a military takeover of a prison; the governor will still be in charge. But it is only proper that we have made military preparations that would be required if serious trouble erupts.” The justice secretary also announced that G4S is to run a new “supersized” prison with 1,600 inmates next to the existing Featherstone prison at Wolverhampton. A third prison, Buckley Hall, at Rochdale, will remain in the public sector. The 752 staff at Birmingham were told at noon that G4S will take over the prison in October. About 250 prison officers, a third of the staff, immediately walked out. They held a short meeting outside the prison before branch officials asked them to return to work. Clarke could not reassure them that they would not face redundancies. Instead he hoped they may find jobs at the new Featherstone prison, which is due to open next April. The POA has a mandate from its members to take industrial action if any existing public sector prison is taken over by the private sector. The decision will bring the number of private prisons in England and Wales to 13 out of the 140 existing jails, with G4S running six of them. The contracts will run for an initial 14 years with the option to renew for a further seven years. The decision to “market test” Birmingham – formerly Winson Green, which has 1,450 inmates and is one of the largest in Britain – was taken by Jack Straw when he was justice secretary after it was branded a “failing prison”. Clarke said staff at Birmingham had made “considerable efforts” and that the public sector bid, which cost £2m to prepare, had been of a good quality. “But this is an objective process and the private sector bid was better and less costly,” he said. The justice secretary also announced that private sector company Serco would continue to run Doncaster prison, but that 10% of the contract will now be on a “payment by results” basis. He also confirmed that a fifth jail, Wellingborough, had been withdrawn from the competition process because its 1960s buildings were in such a poor state it needs massive capital investment to remain in use. During his Commons statement Clarke repeatedly told MPs that the military contingency plans were necessary “should anybody be so foolish as to go into industrial action”. It is believed that up to 3,000 regular troops based at the army’s military glasshouse at Colchester and elements of the RAF regiment have been trained in control and restraint techniques and jailcraft such as how to lock down wings and move inmates safely around a jail in preparation for a POA dispute. The POA held a successful ballot in favour of industrial action two years ago when the market test of Birmingham was announced by Straw. Colin Moses, the POA chairman, said earlier this week that mandate still stood. It is expected that the union will ask its branches to hold a gate meeting tomorrow when their shifts start to decide what action they should take. The only POA national strike happened in August 2007, when 90% of prison officers walked out for 12 hours, causing chaos in prisons. The action was ended only by a court injunction, which could have led to the union’s assets being seized and its officials jailed. A reserve power putting a legal ban on prison officers taking industrial action was reimposed by Straw in 2008. Clarke told the Commons the changes would deliver savings of £21m for the three existing prisons over the next four years and deliver the new Featherstone 2 prison £31m cheaper than originally planned. He said “cumulative savings over the lifetime of the contracts for the three existing prisons are very impressive at £216m”. He added: “This process shows that competition can deliver innovation, efficiency and better value for money for the taxpayer, but also that it can do so without compromising standards.” The Prison Governors Association said it was dismayed by the Birmingham decision. It also raised concerns that the former director general of the prison service, Phil Wheatley, was now an adviser to G4S. “This is a decision which is unprecedented and will have a resounding effect on the prison service.” Steve Gillan, general secretary of the POA, said: “This is a disgraceful decision. Prisons should not be run for the benefit of shareholders nor for profit. The state has a duty to those imprisoned by the criminal justice system and this coalition government has betrayed loyal public sector workers for their friends in the private sector.” The POA has already launched a judicial review regarding Wheatley’s employment by G4S. Moses added: “Both a Labour government and now this coalition government have demonstrated their love affair with the private sector. This decision is wrong and immoral. The POA will continue with its long campaign against private prisons.” Prisons and probation UK criminal justice Kenneth Clarke Military Alan Travis guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Tea party favorite Rep. Joe Walsh (R-Il) thinks that a government shutdown could be just what this country needs. “This is the most serious financial situation I think we’ve had,” Walsh told CBS News’ Nancy Cordes Tuesday. “And so if we need a jolt, if we need the government shutdown for a few days for us to really get serious, I think the American people are with that.” Walsh said he regularly holds town hall meetings where a majority of the people support a shut down. “I typically, near the middle or the end of the town hall, will pose a question. If I face a vote in a week in a half where I can fund the government for the rest of the year and barely get some more spending cuts or shut down government, what do you want me to do?” “And I got to tell you, in my district, 99 percent of the people raise their hands and say ‘shut it down,’” he explained. “Is that a function of who’s coming to your town hall?” Cordes asked. “I firmly believe when it comes to this issue people back home are miles ahead of politicians… I don’t think this notion of a shutdown scares them,” he said. If recent polls are any indication, Walsh may be misreading his constituency. Seventy-seven percent recently told Bloomberg that Republicans and Democrats should reach a compromise on a plan to curb federal spending and keep the government running. Another recent CNN poll found that nearly half of Americans viewed the tea party unfavorably, up 21 points since January 2010. Senate Democrats warned Tuesday that House Speaker John Boehner would have to bring tea party “extremists” in line or prepare for a government shutdown come April 8.
Continue reading …
Cyclist groups condemn plans to allow the length of articulated lorries to increase by 2.05m Road safety groups are warning that government plans to allow longer lorries in the UK will increase the number of fatal road accidents. In a statement to parliament on Wednesday, the roads minister, Mike Penning, announced that the government is considering allowing the length of articulated lorries to increase by 2.05 metres, to a new maximum total length of 18.75m. At that length, HGVs would be longer than bendy buses which are currently being phased out in London after they were reported to be the cause of twice as many injuries as other buses. Penning told the Guardian: “There may be a case for a small increase in the overall length of articulated lorries with a single trailer from 16.5 to 18.75m – this would not make these lorries any longer than vehicles already being used on UK roads. I am considering the economic, safety and environmental impacts of any potential change and plan to announce my decision shortly.” Government research published on Wednesday said lengthening the lorries is “not expected to result in a noticeable increase in road traffic accidents. Although the risk per vehicle may be marginally higher, the reduction in the number of vehicle movements means that the overall number of HGV accidents is expected to fall.” The Freight Transport Association (FTA) welcomed the proposals, also arguing that longer vehicles will equate to fewer journeys. Andy Mair, FTA’s head of engineering policy, said: “Increasing the length of semi-trailers makes business sense and environmental sense, as it will improve logistics efficiency and reduce carbon dioxide emissions from the freight industry.” But the Freight on Rail partnership said that the same arguments were made prior to the last increase in lorry length, and the promised reduction in journeys didn’t happen. Philippa Edmunds, Freight on Rail manager, said : “Previous increases to lorry dimensions have led to more HGVs driving around with less cargo causing more pollution and road congestion – currently one in four lorries on our roads is empty. The proponents of longer HGVs are using the same flawed arguments again to justify the increased length. Therefore, before even considering increasing lorry dimensions, existing vehicle efficiency and compliance with existing road regulations should be improved. Already we are seeing demands for even heavier as well as longer lorries, showing that this length increase won’t be the end of it.” Cyclist groups vehemently condemn the proposal. Christopher Peck, policy co-ordinator at CTC , the national cyclists’ organisation, said “CTC is already deeply worried by the danger posed by large vehicles – across the UK they represent just 3.7% of traffic yet account for 19% of deaths. In urban areas it is even worse: whereas just 2% of traffic is HGVs, they are involved in a quarter of all cyclists’ road deaths. Allowing longer vehicles on to our roads will create even greater threats to cyclist safety, particularly at junctions, where nearly all these crashes occur. Longer vehicles will have even less visibility and need even more room to make maneuvers – putting all other road users at risk.” Former HGV driver turned London Cycle Campaign (LCC) development officer, Charlie Lloyd, said: “The London Cycling Campaign is strongly opposed to longer artic trailers. We don’t see it as at all possible for those to operate in urban areas and Britain doesn’t have the infrastructure that allows them to be separated from urban areas, so we consider them not to be suitable at all for UK roads.” A study released last year found that HGVs were involved in 43% of cycling deaths in London. Its authors called for HGVs to be banned from Britain’s cities. The LCC organised a day of action on Wednesday to collect signatures for their No More Lethal Lorries campaign . Campaign for Better Transport’s chief executive, Stephen Joseph, said: “Introducing longer HGVs will further damage this government’s green credentials and undermine efforts to adopt rail as a more sustainable, safer and environmentally sensible way to move freight. Rather than making HGVs longer and more dangerous to other motorists and cyclists, the government should be doing more to promote rail freight and enforcing existing road regulations to reduce accidents involving lorries. If the government allows this increase it could be the tip of the iceberg with so-called mega trucks just around the corner.” This proposal is at the consultation stage . Interested parties have until 21 June 2011 to make their views heard. Cycling Travel and transport Frederika Whitehead guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
The former Smog man is back with a new album, Apocalypse, that deals with America, emotions and the ‘cattle inside you’. Just don’t tell him it’s a change of direction … Just as Bill Callahan is pondering which seat to chose in a half-deserted London hotel lobby, a news item about the sex offenders register comes on the TV in the corner. “If my name comes up,” Callahan requests – deliberately turning his back to the screen – “please let me know.” As beginnings of interviews with Callahan go, this is about as good as it gets. And not only because the laconic one-liner with a sleazy undertow is one his lyrical calling cards. Alongside the resonant baritone and mordant wit that have – in the course of a career now stretching into its third decade – earned him the right to be considered the post-punk Leonard Cohen, this most saturnine of American troubadours has also built a fearsome reputation as a uncommunicative and sometimes even malevolent interviewee. So his decision to kick things off with a gag certainly bodes well. Recently, there have been welcome signs of Callahan’s stern public visage cracking into a smile. “A couple of years ago,” he explains, “I realised that I was an entertainer” – he pauses for a moment, as if waiting for an unseen drummer to round off a punchline – “and that helped me immensely. From the first time you can look in the paper and you accept that you’re the entertainment for some people that night,” he continues, “it becomes so much more enjoyable to play live. Before that I was always wondering, ‘What am I?’” Callahan’s moment of clarity has benefited both audience and performer. First, he abandoned the wilfully off-putting stage name Smog (on the characteristically gnomic grounds that “hanging on to it any longer didn’t seem healthy”). Then 2009′s Sometimes I Wish We Were An Eagle – the second album released under his own name, and one of his most accessible records to date – struck a chord with a wider audience. By an irony that will not be lost on its writer, the song which did more than any other to bring him a new audience was Eid Ma Clack Shaw – a hilariously unsparing depiction of the vanity of the artist, in which a lovelorn Callahan “dreams the perfect song”, then wakes to find the lyrics are gibberish. For those who are already devotees, it will suffice to say that Callahan’s new album, Apocalypse, bears roughly the same relation to its surprisingly accessible predecessor as 2005′s blues-tinged A River Ain’t Too Much to Love did to 2004′s unexpectedly palatable Supper; while less accessible, it flows with a sinuous unity every bit as captivating. For those not yet properly acquainted with this man’s compendious oeuvre, a riveting encyclopedia of human frailty awaits your exploration. I think Callahan’s best work – any of the three albums named above, as well as earlier creative highlights Wild Love, The Doctor Came at Dawn, Red Apple Falls and Knock Knock – ranks alongside that of his friend and Drag City (and formerly Domino) labelmate Will Oldham (aka Bonnie “Prince” Billy) as the finest English-language songwriting of the last 20 years. And while not so explicit a departure in terms of subject matter as, say, Sonic Youth’s Dirty or PJ Harvey’s Let England Shake, Apocalypse registers an intriguing shift away from the forensic self-examination that has been his traditional stock-in-trade towards a more external, geopolitically rooted brand of lyricism. Callahan – who once observed that his tendency to instinctively refute all statements made by interviewers was “natural in any exchange between someone who has the answers and someone who doesn’t” – is having none of this. Apocalypse’s opening number is a thrilling frontiersman’s lament called Drover, which switches viewpoints from cowboy to herd with a generosity of spirit not seen in Callahan’s most celebrated previous excursion into extended animal metaphor – the exquisitely heartless Smog classic I Break Horses. When asked if the line, “The pain and frustration is not mine – it belongs to the cattle”, signals a more empathetic, outward-looking approach, Callahan demurs with some force. “I think this is a really inward-looking record in a way that I haven’t really done in the past,” he insists (I thought everything was going a little too smoothly). “The cattle in that song are things inside you, so I suppose it’s about corralling the emotions.” Is it possible that he could write something which seemed more inward-looking than usual to him, while having external ramifications other people might see more clearly than he did? “Yeah,” Callahan admits grudgingly, “I guess that’s possible. To me, this record is like a lot of mirrors, and I suppose if you hold up a mirror to yourself and then you turn it around, it reflects outwards … also, if you look in a mirror you might see someone standing behind you who you’d didn’t know was there…” Like Uncle Sam, for instance. America! – the song on Apocalypse that most leaps out at the listener on first hearing – is partly a touring performer’s yearning for the land of his birth (“I watch David Letterman in Australia”), and partly a defiant celebration of cultural imperialism, in which Callahan seems to be enlisting “Captain Kristofferson, Bucks sergeant [Mickey] Newbury … Sergeant Cash” into an imaginary army of patriotic singer-songwriters. “Those are the ranks those people actually achieved in real life”, Callahan corrects me sternly, “I did research.” America! seems to be looking on almost enviously at his musical forbears who had the opportunity to serve their country. “It’s more like an observation: these people made great music and they did that other thing as well … so maybe I should’ve too.” Some might think that the global reputation of the US military is at a low enough ebb already, without Callahan bearing arms, but that, in a way, is exactly his point. “I know that since 9/11 the world has sort of turned against America,” he explains, “and America turned on itself too – ‘everyone hates us, and maybe we do kind of suck’. But with the election of Obama our self-esteem almost came up again. Then that kind of fizzled out too – even though it wasn’t necessarily his fault – so the song was concerns the thinking that America could still actually be a good place to come from.” The pioneering tone that Drover sets seems to carry through the whole album, and the suggestion that Apocalypse might have been conceived – and can certainly be listened to – as a Western meets with a surprisingly favourable response. “Maybe because it starts with a cattle drive,” Callahan nods. “Then the second song, Baby’s Breath, is about what happens when you finally choose where you’re going to settle down and get your own plot of land. After that comes America!, which is looking at the bigger picture of stuff that’s gone before in terms of the whole country.” Before the shock of Callahan collaborating in an analytical discussion of his own music has had a chance to really take hold, he’s run through all seven tracks. He graciously concedes that Apocalypse’s “most inward-looking” song, Universal Applicant, could best be described as a metaphysical boat ride, and identifies the ecstatic Riding for the Feeling as “the point where the searching stops and everything is much freer, to the point where you’re able to just … experience”. The strangely titled Free’s, the shortest song on the record, is, he explains, “supposed to sum up the whole thing in the broadest possible terms – that’s why there’s no character in it”. And the tear-jerkingly transcendent 8:45 finale One Fine Morning seems as close as a Bill Callahan album is ever going to get to a riding-off-into-the-sunset moment. “I wanted that open feeling Westerns give you,” he almost enthuses. “They’re kind of minimalist because the landscape is so blank and stark, which means that when people appear, they stand out, and their personalities are magnified because there’s nothing much else around.” That is pretty much how Bill Callahan interviews used to play out – the long pauses were like the mythic expanses of Monument Valley, and the songs he was so reluctant to talk about were the isolated lawmen. Anyone nostalgic for the inscrutable enigma of the Smog era will find him elegantly memorialised in the pages of Callahan’s recently published “epistolary novelette”, Letters to Emma Bowlcut. This slim and discreet volume will be a great disappointment to those hoping for prurient insights into the exact circumstances of his real-life romances with alt-country pin-ups Joanna Newsom and Cat Power, but its glimpse of the inner Bill could hardly be more revealing. “I don’t fill the silences often” the unerringly Callahan-esque writer of Letters to Emma Bowlcut’s titular missives warns at one point. “About our visit,” he advises at another, “I’m not mild-mannered, but you may want to bring a book.” Taking advantage of the new mood of glasnost to pose a question few would have dared to ask the remorselessly closed-off Callahan of 10 or 15 years ago, I wonder if this creator of so many memorable equine-themed lyrics can actually ride a horse? Callahan dissembles nervously for a few moments before seeing the opportunity for a suitably provocative and salacious last word: “There’s nothing like riding an animal,” he maintains, totally deadpan, “it doesn’t even have to be a horse …” Apocalypse is out Monday Bill Callahan Pop and rock Indie Folk music Ben Thompson guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Labour leader’s announcement of wedding to Justine Thornton comes as marriage rate in England and Wales falls to lowest level since 1862 Ed Miliband and his partner, Justine Thornton, are part of an ever-decreasing number of people tying the knot, according to statistics that show the marriage rate in England and Wales has fallen to its lowest level since 1862. The Office for National Statistics attributed the decline to a rise in people cohabiting rather than getting married and an increase in the number of people delaying marriage. Others have suggested that financial concerns may be at the root of the change. Only 231,490 couples got married in England and Wales in 2009. In the UK overall, the provisional number was 266,950, in line with a downward trend after a peak of 480,285 in 1972, and around half the all-time high figure of 533,866 marriages in 1940. Marriages in Scotland fell 4.8% from 28,903 in 2008 to 27,524 in 2009, while in Northern Ireland the number of marriages decreased by 6.8% to 7,931 in 2009. In England and Wales in 2009, the average age of people marrying for the first time was 32.1 years for men and 30 years for women, but many are leaving it much later. While just 6% of women born in 1931 were still not married by the age of 40, this figure rose to 27% for 40-year-olds born in 1969. Of the marriages that took place in 2009, 150,600 (65%) of weddings saw both partners in the couple married for the first time, compared to a remarriage for one (19%) or both (16%). The ONS stressed that the figures, published on Wednesday, are provisional. It estimates that a further 1% of marriage returns from 2009 are yet to be received, but the final figures for England and Wales are still expected to remain slightly below the final 2008 figure of 235,794. “The number of people available to marry, the unmarried population aged 16 and over, has been increasing over the last few decades, so this is not the reason for the drop in marriages in 2009,” an ONS spokeswoman said. “In contrast, there has been a long-term decline in the marriage rate since the early 1970s and this is the driver of the fall in the number of marriages in 2009.” The relationship service Relate said the trends could be a symptom of money getting tighter rather than people being turned off the idea of getting married. Jenny North, the head of public policysaid the continued fall in marriage rates was “worrying” in the light of research which suggests that the aspiration to marry is still high among younger people. “There is evidence that couples are setting themselves a ‘to do’ list before getting married – perhaps buying a house, getting the perfect job or buying the dream car,” she said. “As money gets tighter, these things get harder to achieve, and we could see less couples tying the knot as a result.” Iain Duncan Smith, the secretary of state for work and pensions and an advocate of marriage providing a stable family life and averting social breakdown, reiterated the case for financial help from the state in the belief that many are holding back from marriage for financial reasons. It remains to be seen whether government plans to introduce tax breaks for married couples and civil partnerships will turn the tide. A treasury spokesperson said proposals that recognise marriage and civil partnerships in the income tax system will be brought forward by the chancellor, George Osborne, “at the appropriate time”. Ed Miliband Labour Iain Duncan Smith Marriage Hélène Mulholland guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …