• North-east Essex seaside resort tops deprivation table • Jaywick Sands belies north-south divide Neil Stock swings his Jaguar into the car park by the sandy south-facing beach and, with the sun beating down on what at first glance could be a bohemian seaside community, says: “It’s embarrassing isn’t it? We’re only 60 miles from London, in the affluent south-east and here we are in the most deprived place in the country.” Jaywick, a ward of Tendring district council in north-east Essex, has earned the unhappy distinction of being placed first in the dauntingly named Indices of Multiple Deprivation 2010. Using statistics for income, employment, health, disability, crime and living standards, the government report ranks 32,482 neighbourhoods by local authority area according to where they stand in a national poverty league table. At the opposite end of the scale, the Hertfordshire suburb of Chorleywood, where houses cost 30 times as much as property in Jaywick, is named least deprived. With its magnificent miles of golden sand it’s hard to imagine how Jaywick stumbled first on hard times and then disappeared into the abyss. Its chalets along the shoreline look satisfyingly weather-beaten, painted in bleached pastel shades. But take a few steps inland and gaps appear like missing teeth in a smiling face. In the Brookslands estate, the Mermaid Tavern has been torched and left as a blackened shell, as have numerous houses. Nearby, not a single shop remains open for business – even the whelks and jellied eels store on the promenade which used to cater for the summer day-trippers has gone. The locals are happy enough to talk but don’t want to give their names, “in case we get our windows put in”. Stock, the Conservative leader of the council, which is run from the town hall in neighbouring Clacton-on-Sea, looks somewhat out of place. “It is depressing being number one, because we do take this issue very seriously. It’s a problem beyond the scope of a district council. We need national and European intervention.” So how did Jaywick – or more specifically the Brooklands estate – get here, having overtaken Breckfield in Anfield, Liverpool? Despite its problems, Jaywick still possesses character. It’s the largest surviving example of the “plotlands” movement of the 1920s and 1930s, when land was sold off in little strips, usually to city dwellers longing for a piece of paradise. Jaywick Sands was built in 1928 as a resort by Fabian property developer Frank Stedman. He marketed them as “chalets” but people lived in their two-bedroom bungalows all year round. One local recalled his father had bought the house off-plan at an exhibition in London. After the second world war most plotlands were bulldozed but the Jaywick residents hung on, even going to court in 1970 and succeeded in preserving it. There is a proud tradition of self-reliance. But the area is relatively isolated and the properties have deteriorated. A total of 62% of working age residents receive benefits, compared with the national average of 15%. It is in a high-risk flood zone. Many of the roads are not maintained by the council and are narrow dirt tracks. Mains sewerage did not arrive until the 1980s and in some areas street lighting and pavements have never been installed. “Eight years ago Jaywick had the highest rate of outright property ownership in the area but that has gone into reverse,” said Stock. Four fifths of the housing stock is rented, with ownership concentrated in the hands of “one or two landlords” who rent out to housing benefit claimants. “The going rate is £450 a month for a two-bedroom house, which these qualify as. Because of their state of deterioration there’s no deposit required, so we are attracting people from miles away to live here,” he said. Those incomers aren’t necessarily what an old community like Jaywick needs. Anne Dewart moved here in the 1970s, paying £15,000 for her house. She wanted to escape London and found a job in a local factory making waxed-cotton jackets. “But when that closed down you had to go to Colchester to find work, which a lot of people didn’t want to do or couldn’t,” she said. “It’s like most places in that you get your good and you get your bad. But in every one of these streets there will be one person who thinks they own the road. “And for that reason a lot of the houses were going up in flames. The attitude was ‘If the police won’t do anything about it, we will’. But it does seem to have calmed down. The kids are destructive but to be honest there’s nothing for them to do and they get bored.” Anne strokes her Alsation pet dog ‘Fella’. “That’s why I’ve got him. Mind you, he was stolen from me as a puppy. The police knew which drug-dealer took him but they wouldn’t do anything. I only got him back because someone went round and said ‘Give him back or your legs’ll get broken’ and miraculously the next morning Fella reappeared. “I had a stone bench stolen from outside the house and nobody saw a thing, funny that.” Stock says it’s a housing problem. “The Guinness Trust came in and built some lovely new houses on the edge of the estate. “But as soon as they’d decanted families into the new homes the old ones filled up. I’m afraid the old ones have to be pulled down as they become vacant.” Communities Essex Local government United Kingdom Europe Poverty Social exclusion Social trends Unemployment Disability Health David Sharrock guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
enlarge The Arab Oil Embargo of 1973 – The wolf at the front door started to look like the family pet. Click here to view this media Having noticed the steep and continuing climb in gas prices (over $4.00 a gallon in L.A.), and the state of nervousness surrounding the Jasmine Revolution, once again the oil producing Arab nations are being tagged as the culprits in the latest energy crisis. Whatever the circumstances are (and there are always countless circumstances for spikes in gas prices; some imagined, some imaginable), the region has not been a stranger to crisis situations. In 1973 it was the Arab Oil Embargo based on the then-Arab-Israeli War and our support of Israel in the way of military aid. And since there was the Cold War still going on, the Soviet Union was a source of concern with their support in the way of military aid to the Arab nations. There was also the domestic furor over Watergate which some have contended suited the Arab Oil Embargo quite nicely as it took our attention away from Nixon for a while. Whatever the real situation was, it created a crisis which has become something of a playing card ever since. But in 1973 it was something new and the signs of “no gas” were creeping up all over the country. Somehow, we knew this was the beginning of the future and it was never going to go back to the way it was. And of course all the punditry and experts were lined up to explain what was going and why this was going on and in their way, get us used to it. One of those experts called upon was Walter Levy an economist and Oil consultant who appeared on an episode of Meet The Press on November 23, 1973 to explain what this all meant. Walter Levy: “Certainly the last three years have shown that oil companies, that have huge operations in the Middle East, who discovered this oil, who developed it, exported it all over the world, have lost practically all of their bargaining power with regards to the Middle East producing countries. We have a story in the last three years of nothing but broken agreements between oil companies and oil producing countries. And where, when the producing country concerned, the producing country concerned, changed it’s demands, increased its requirements for money, for control, against arrangements just concluded, the oil companies could never afford to say ‘we want to negotiate, we want to change it’, because the usual reply of the producing country was ‘if you do not – quote/unquote agree today, we will legislate tomorrow’, and a minute before the legislation became due, the oil companies, just in order to protect whatever they still had said ‘yes, sir’.” In what sounds like the ultimate “good cop-bad cop” scenario, the Arab Oil Embargo of 1973 set a precedent which has been repeated over and over simply because it works. Shift blame, shrug shoulders, wring hands and repeat. And let’s face it – this is way too comfortable a situation on the parts of the Oil Companies and the Oil producing countries to change since all parties are quite happily in bed with each other. The system has been figured out and is played at every chance. And it is most likely for that reason there will probably never be a successful alternative to Arab oil in our lifetimes. Ain’t gonna happen IMHO.
Continue reading …
Government says levels are not harmful to human health as anxiety grows over leaks at stricken nuclear power plant Traces of plutonium have been found in the soil at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, Japanese officials said on Monday, but not at levels considered harmful to human health. The discovery of plutonium – a byproduct of nuclear reactions – added to anxiety over the stricken plant, 150 miles north of Tokyo. Earlier, the government confirmed that levels of radioactivity in water leaking from a reactor at the facility resulted from a partial meltdown of fuel rods, amid growing fears that radiation may also have seeped into seawater and soil. The plant’s operator, Tokyo Electric Power [Tepco], said readings of plutoinium-238, 239 and 240 were similar to those recorded in other parts of Japan after nuclear tests conducted overseas. “I apologise for making people worried,” Tepco’s vice president, Sakae Muto, told reporters. “It’s not at a level that’s harmful to human health.” But an official from Japan’s nuclear safety agency was more cautious. “While it’s not at a level harmful to human health, I am not optimistic,” Hidehiko Nishiyama said. “This means the containment mechanism is being breached, so I think the situation is worrisome.” Tepco has yet to determine the source of the plutonium, although it appeared that in two places, the radioactive element had come from reactors rather than from the atmosphere. One of the plant’s three reactors contains plutonium in its fuel mix. Meanwhile, contamination in a pool of water in the turbine building of the No 2 reactor was found to be 100,000 times normal levels, Tepco said. On Sunday the firm said the figure was 10m times higher, a mistake the government’s chief spokesman, Yukio Edano, said was “absolutely unforgivable”. Tepco was forced into another embarrassing apology after it admitted it had twice named the wrong isotope in its corrections about the levels of radiation. “On one hand, I do think the workers at the site are getting quite tired,” Edano told reporters. “But these radiation tests are being used for making various decisions on safety … they are absolutely unforgivable.” In addition, radiation above 1,000 millisieverts per hour was found in surface water in concrete tunnels outside the No 2 reactor, Tepco said. It added that the tunnels did not lead to the sea, but conceded it could not rule out that radioactive water had seeped into the ground. Greenpeace, meanwhile, said that it had recorded radiation levels of up to 10 microsieverts per hour in Iitate, a village 25 miles from the plant, and urged authorities to expand the evacuation zone from its current 12-mile radius. “It is clearly not safe for people to remain in Iitate, especially children and pregnant women, when it could mean receiving the maximum-allowed dose of radiation in only a few days,” said Jan van de Putte, the group’s radiation safety expert. “When further contamination from possible ingestion or inhalation of radioactive particles is factored in, the risks are even higher.” Tepco has reportedly asked the French nuclear sector for assistance, seeking help from Electricite de France, Areva and the Nuclear Energy Agency, a research body, according to Eric Besson, France’s industry and energy minister. Japan’s nuclear and industrial safety agency (Nisa) said radioactive iodine-131 of 1,150 times the maximum allowable level had been detected in seawater near drainage outlets serving four of Fukushima’s reactors. Nisa’s spokesman Hidehiko Nishiyama said he suspected radioactive water from the plant was leaking into the sea. On Sunday he had denied any connection. Edano said partial meltdown had probably occurred when the plant was hit by the tsunami on 11 March, adding that there was no evidence of subsequent meltdown. Four of the facility’s six reactors have yet to be made safe, while efforts are continuing to pump in fresh water to prevent a far more dangerous full meltdown. “The radiation seems to have come from fuel rods that were partially melted down and came into contact with the water used to cool the reactor,” Edano said. “Steam may have condensed … carrying water from within the containment vessel.” Airborne radiation has been confined to the reactor buildings, and work to remove contaminated water from the structures continued on Monday. Setbacks to attempts to cool the reactors, and the realisation the crisis is far from over, have added to the plight of tens of thousands of people living nearby. Sakae Muto, vice-president of Tepco, said: “Regrettably, we don’t have a concrete schedule at the moment to enable us to say how many months, or years it will take [to make the plant safe].” About 70,000 people within a 12-mile radius of the Fukushima plant were evacuated soon after the disaster, while a further 130,000 people living in a 12-20-mile radius have been told to stay indoors. The government said that it had no plans to widen the evacuation zone. It is not known exactly how many people remain in the outer zone. Many have left voluntarily after days without essential supplies and services. Truck drivers are refusing to enter the zone, fearing radiation exposure. The government created confusion last week when it advised people within a 20-mile radius to consider leaving. It insisted the advice was given due to concern for their quality of life, not exposure to harmful levels of radiation. According to the public broadcaster NHK, self-defence force personnel in the evacuation zone said 30 people had yet to leave the 12-mile evacuation zone, and 10 had indicated they wanted to remain in their homes. Evacuees have been urged not to return to the area to collect belongings while the Fukushima plant remains unstable. Residents who return, even temporarily, would expose themselves to “great risk of radiation contamination”, Edano said. “It is very likely that the [12m] area is contaminated and there is a significant risk to health,” he added. Local authorities reported, however, that some people had already returned. Others forced out of their homes are coming to terms with the possibility that they may never be able to return. Even if they do, the many residents who depended on Tepco for employment accept that with the plant ruined, their chances of finding work in the area are close to nil. A large number of evacuees have already moved twice since the nuclear crisis began, and could be forced to move again if the situation worsens and the evacuation zone is expanded. “We’re assuming that in a worse-case scenario we might also be subject to evacuation,” Norio Hattori, a disaster official in Nihonmatsu, said, adding that he had sent his own daughter to Tokyo. Some of the refugees are beginning to accept that a vast area surrounding the Fukushima plant could be condemned as a nuclear wasteland. “If it had been an earthquake or a tsunami, we could have gone home again, but because it’s radiation, we can’t,” said Tokuko Sujimoto. Her home, in the village of Namie, was so close to the plant she heard the first reactor explosion on 12 March. Her husband had watched from the roof of their house as a cloud of smoke rose from the reactor, before they fled. Yoshimoto Nogi, who had a job at the Fukushima plant until he retired last summer, said he had no hopes of going home this year. “It’s going to take a year or two. It is not a question of months,” said Nogi. “Even if the nuclear plant is stabilised tomorrow, I don’t think the government is going to tell us it is safe to go back any time soon.” Japan disaster Japan Nuclear power Energy Justin McCurry Suzanne Goldenberg guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
US president gives speech to nation claiming US action has saved ‘countless lives’ – but rules out targeting Gaddafi Barack Obama has addressed the American people on TV and said that military intervention by America had prevented a massacre in Libya. The US president also called on those people still loyal to Muammar Gaddafi to desert him, and said that the end of the Libyan leader’s rule was inevitable. “We will deny the regime arms, cut off its supply of cash, assist the opposition, and work with other nations to hasten the day when Gaddafi leaves power,” Obama said. “It may not happen overnight, as a badly weakened Gaddafi tries desperately to hang on to power. But it should be clear to those around Gadaffi, and to every Libyan, that history is not on his side.” Obama had previously said that he wanted Gaddafi to leave power, even though such a goal appears to exceed the mandate of the UN resolution authoring a no-fly zone and the protection of civilians. But Obama did say that the coalition would not target Gaddafi, and that regime change by armed force – especially by American ground troops – was not an aim. “To be blunt, we went down that road in Iraq. Thanks to the extraordinary sacrifices of our troops and the determination of our diplomats, we are hopeful about Iraq’s future. “But regime change there took eight years, thousands of American and Iraqi lives, and nearly a trillion dollars. That is not something we can afford to repeat in Libya,” he said. Instead Obama sought to justify the military attacks on Gaddafi’s army by saying there was no doubt that a massacre of opposition forces and civilians had been prevented. Obama pulled no punches in detailing what he believed would have happened had the rebel stronghold of Benghazi fallen into loyalist hands. “Gaddafi declared that he would show “no mercy” to his own people. He compared them to rats, and threatened to go door to door to inflict punishment. In the past, we had seen him hang civilians in the streets, and kill over a thousand people in a single day. We knew that if we waited one more day Benghazi … could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world,” Obama declared. The powerful language of Obama’s speech was used in part to explain to the American public why the US is now involved in a third conflict in a Muslim country. The setting of the address – the National Defence University in Washington – was also a clear part of Obama’s communication strategy. Normally when American presidents speak to the nation they use the Oval Office. Obama has come in for a barrage of criticism from Republicans and some Democrats for a perceived slowness to speak clearly and publicly about why American forces are involved in Libya. Critics have accused him of not setting out concrete objectives and failing to justify another military intervention in the Muslim world. Obama’s own administration has appeared somewhat divided on the issue. While Hillary Clinton, the secretary of state, has pushed for military action, others – like Pentagon chief Robert Gates – have seemed more reluctant. On Sunday, Gates gave a television interview in which he said he did not think Libya was a “vital interest” to America. But during Obama’s speech Gates was seated in the front row, perhaps as an attempt to show a unity of purpose. Obama’s speech sought to address the complexity of the changes sweeping through the Arab world. Some critics have wondered why military force has been used in Libya but not in other states, such as Syria, Yemen and Bahrain, where government crackdowns have cost scores of lives. Obama said the US could not use its military in every situation, and would always seek to build and lead coalitions rather than act unilaterally. But, verbally at least, he signalled that his administration will embrace change across the region and those who espouse democratic ideals. “The United States will not be able to dictate the pace and scope of this change. Only the people of the region can do that. But we can make a difference. I believe that this movement of change cannot be turned back, and that we must stand alongside those who believe in the same core principles that have guided us through many storms,” he said. Barack Obama US foreign policy US military Libya United States Nato Protest Middle East Paul Harris guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Here is the full text of President Obama’s speech. Video reactions will come shortly. Good evening. Tonight, I’d like to update the American people on the international effort that we have led in Libya – what we have done, what we plan to do, and why this matters to us. I want to begin by paying tribute to our men and women in uniform who, once again, have acted with courage, professionalism and patriotism. They have moved with incredible speed and strength. Because of them and our dedicated diplomats, a coalition has been forged and countless lives have been saved. Meanwhile, as we speak, our troops are supporting our ally Japan, leaving Iraq to its people, stopping the Taliban’s momentum in Afghanistan, and going after al Qaeda around the globe. As Commander-in-Chief, I am grateful to our Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines, Coast Guardsmen, and their families, as are all Americans. For generations, the United States of America has played a unique role as an anchor of global security and advocate for human freedom. Mindful of the risks and costs of military action, we are naturally reluctant to use force to solve the world’s many challenges. But when our interests and values are at stake, we have a responsibility to act. That is what happened in Libya over the course of these last six weeks. Libya sits directly between Tunisia and Egypt – two nations that inspired the world when their people rose up to take control of their own destiny. For more than four decades, the Libyan people have been ruled by a tyrant – Moammar Gaddafi. He has denied his people freedom, exploited their wealth, murdered opponents at home and abroad, and terrorized innocent people around the world – including Americans who were killed by Libyan agents. Last month, Gaddafi’s grip of fear appeared to give way to the promise of freedom. In cities and towns across the country, Libyans took to the streets to claim their basic human rights. As one Libyan said, “For the first time we finally have hope that our nightmare of 40 years will soon be over.” Faced with this opposition, Gaddafi began attacking his people. As President, my immediate concern was the safety of our citizens, so we evacuated our Embassy and all Americans who sought our assistance. We then took a series of swift steps in a matter of days to answer Gaddafi’s aggression. We froze more than $33 billion of the Gaddafi regime’s assets. Joining with other nations at the United Nations Security Council, we broadened our sanctions, imposed an arms embargo, and enabled Gaddafi and those around him to be held accountable for their crimes. I made it clear that Gaddafi had lost the confidence of his people and the legitimacy to lead, and I said that he needed to step down from power. In the face of the world’s condemnation, Gaddafi chose to escalate his attacks, launching a military campaign against the Libyan people. Innocent people were targeted for killing. Hospitals and ambulances were attacked. Journalists were arrested, sexually assaulted, and killed. Supplies of food and fuel were choked off. The water for hundreds of thousands of people in Misratah was shut off. Cities and towns were shelled, mosques destroyed, and apartment buildings reduced to rubble. Military jets and helicopter gunships were unleashed upon people who had no means to defend themselves against assault from the air. Confronted by this brutal repression and a looming humanitarian crisis, I ordered warships into the Mediterranean. European allies declared their willingness to commit resources to stop the killing. The Libyan opposition, and the Arab League, appealed to the world to save lives in Libya. At my direction, America led an effort with our allies at the United Nations Security Council to pass an historic Resolution that authorized a No Fly Zone to stop the regime’s attacks from the air, and further authorized all necessary measures to protect the Libyan people. Ten days ago, having tried to end the violence without using force, the international community offered Gaddafi a final chance to stop his campaign of killing, or face the consequences. Rather than stand down, his forces continued their advance, bearing down on the city of Benghazi, home to nearly 700,000 men, women and children who sought their freedom from fear. At this point, the United States and the world faced a choice. Gaddafi declared that he would show “no mercy” to his own people. He compared them to rats, and threatened to go door to door to inflict punishment. In the past, we had seen him hang civilians in the streets, and kill over a thousand people in a single day. Now, we saw regime forces on the outskirts of the city. We knew that if we waited one more day, Benghazi – a city nearly the size of Charlotte – could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world. It was not in our national interest to let that happen. I refused to let that happen. And so nine days ago, after consulting the bipartisan leadership of Congress, I authorized military action to stop the killing and enforce UN Security Council Resolution 1973. We struck regime forces approaching Benghazi to save that city and the people within it. We hit Gaddafi’s troops in neighboring Ajdabiya, allowing the opposition to drive them out. We hit his air defenses, which paved the way for a No Fly Zone. We targeted tanks and military assets that had been choking off towns and cities and we cut off much of their source of supply. And tonight, I can report that we have stopped Gaddafi’s deadly advance. In this effort, the United States has not acted alone. Instead, we have been joined by a strong and growing coalition. This includes our closest allies – nations like the United Kingdom, France, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Italy, Spain, Greece, and Turkey – all of whom have fought by our side for decades. And it includes Arab partners like Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, who have chosen to meet their responsibility to defend the Libyan people. To summarize, then: in just one month, the United States has worked with our international partners to mobilize a broad coalition, secure an international mandate to protect civilians, stop an advancing army, prevent a massacre, and establish a No Fly Zone with our allies and partners. To lend some perspective on how rapidly this military and diplomatic response came together, when people were being brutalized in Bosnia in the 1990s, it took the international community more than a year to intervene with air power to protect civilians. Moreover, we have accomplished these objectives consistent with the pledge that I made to the American people at the outset of our military operations. I said that America’s role would be limited; that we would not put ground troops into Libya; that we would focus our unique capabilities on the front end of the operation, and that we would transfer responsibility to our allies and partners. Tonight, we are fulfilling that pledge. Our most effective alliance, NATO, has taken command of the enforcement of the arms embargo and No Fly Zone. Last night, NATO decided to take on the additional responsibility of protecting Libyan civilians. This transfer from the United States to NATO will take place on Wednesday. Going forward, the lead in enforcing the No Fly Zone and protecting civilians on the ground will transition to our allies and partners, and I am fully confident that our coalition will keep the pressure on Gaddafi’s remaining forces. In that effort, the United States will play a supporting role – including intelligence, logistical support, search and rescue assistance, and capabilities to jam regime communications. Because of this transition to a broader, NATO-based coalition, the risk and cost of this operation – to our military, and to American taxpayers – will be reduced significantly. So for those who doubted our capacity to carry out this operation, I want to be clear: the United States of America has done what we said we would do. That is not to say that our work is complete. In addition to our NATO responsibilities, we will work with the international community to provide assistance to the people of Libya, who need food for the hungry and medical care for the wounded. We will safeguard the more than $33 billion that was frozen from the Gaddafi regime so that it is available to rebuild Libya. After all, this money does not belong to Gaddafi or to us – it belongs to the Libyan people, and we will make sure they receive it. Tomorrow, Secretary Clinton will go to London, where she will meet with the Libyan opposition and consult with more than thirty nations. These discussions will focus on what kind of political effort is necessary to pressure Gaddafi, while also supporting a transition to the future that the Libyan people deserve. Because while our military mission is narrowly focused on saving lives, we continue to pursue the broader goal of a Libya that belongs not to a dictator, but to its people. Despite the success of our efforts over the past week, I know that some Americans continue to have questions about our efforts in Libya. Gaddafi has not yet stepped down from power, and until he does, Libya will remain dangerous. Moreover, even after Gaddafi does leave power, forty years of tyranny has left Libya fractured and without strong civil institutions. The transition to a legitimate government that is responsive to the Libyan people will be a difficult task. And while the United States will do our part to help, it will be a task for the international community, and – more importantly – a task for the Libyan people themselves. In fact, much of the debate in Washington has put forward a false choice when it comes to Libya. On the one hand, some question why America should intervene at all – even in limited ways – in this distant land. They argue that there are many places in the world where innocent civilians face brutal violence at the hands of their government, and America should not be expected to police the world, particularly when we have so many pressing concerns here at home. It is true that America cannot use our military wherever repression occurs. And given the costs and risks of intervention, we must always measure our interests against the need for action. But that cannot be an argument for never acting on behalf of what’s right. In this particular country – Libya; at this particular moment, we were faced with the prospect of violence on a horrific scale. We had a unique ability to stop that violence: an international mandate for action, a broad coalition prepared to join us, the support of Arab countries, and a plea for help from the Libyan people themselves. We also had the ability to stop Gaddafi’s forces in their tracks without putting American troops on the ground. To brush aside America’s responsibility as a leader and – more profoundly – our responsibilities to our fellow human beings under such circumstances would have been a betrayal of who we are. Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different. And as President, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action. Moreover, America has an important strategic interest in preventing Gaddafi from overrunning those who oppose him. A massacre would have driven thousands of additional refugees across Libya’s borders, putting enormous strains on the peaceful – yet fragile – transitions in Egypt and Tunisia. The democratic impulses that are dawning across the region would be eclipsed by the darkest form of dictatorship, as repressive leaders concluded that violence is the best strategy to cling to power. The writ of the UN Security Council would have been shown to be little more than empty words, crippling its future credibility to uphold global peace and security. So while I will never minimize the costs involved in military action, I am convinced that a failure to act in Libya would have carried a far greater price for America. Now, just as there are those who have argued against intervention in Libya, there are others who have suggested that we broaden our military mission beyond the task of protecting the Libyan people, and do whatever it takes to bring down Gaddafi and usher in a new government. Of course, there is no question that Libya – and the world – will be better off with Gaddafi out of power. I, along with many other world leaders, have embraced that goal, and will actively pursue it through non-military means. But broadening our military mission to include regime change would be a mistake. The task that I assigned our forces – to protect the Libyan people from immediate danger, and to establish a No Fly Zone – carries with it a UN mandate and international support. It is also what the Libyan opposition asked us to do. If we tried to overthrow Gaddafi by force, our coalition would splinter. We would likely have to put U.S. troops on the ground, or risk killing many civilians from the air. The dangers faced by our men and women in uniform would be far greater. So would the costs, and our share of the responsibility for what comes next. To be blunt, we went down that road in Iraq. Thanks to the extraordinary sacrifices of our troops and the determination of our diplomats, we are hopeful about Iraq’s future. But regime change there took eight years, thousands of American and Iraqi lives, and nearly a trillion dollars. That is not something we can afford to repeat in Libya. As the bulk of our military effort ratchets down, what we can do – and will do – is support the aspirations of the Libyan people. We have intervened to stop a massacre, and we will work with our allies and partners as they’re in the lead to maintain the safety of civilians. We will deny the regime arms, cut off its supply of cash, assist the opposition, and work with other nations to hasten the day when Gaddafi leaves power. It may not happen overnight, as a badly weakened Gaddafi tries desperately to hang on to power. But it should be clear to those around Gadaffi, and to every Libyan, that history is not on his side. With the time and space that we have provided for the Libyan people, they will be able to determine their own destiny, and that is how it should be. Let me close by addressing what this action says about the use of America’s military power, and America’s broader leadership in the world, under my presidency. As Commander-in-Chief, I have no greater responsibility than keeping this country safe. And no decision weighs on me more than when to deploy our men and women in uniform. I have made it clear that I will never hesitate to use our military swiftly, decisively, and unilaterally when necessary to defend our people, our homeland, our allies, and our core interests. That is why we are going after al Qaeda wherever they seek a foothold. That is why we continue to fight in Afghanistan, even as we have ended our combat mission in Iraq and removed more than 100,000 troops from that country. There will be times, though, when our safety is not directly threatened, but our interests and values are. Sometimes, the course of history poses challenges that threaten our common humanity and common security – responding to natural disasters, for example; or preventing genocide and keeping the peace; ensuring regional security, and maintaining the flow of commerce. These may not be America’s problems alone, but they are important to us, and they are problems worth solving. And in these circumstances, we know that the United States, as the world’s most powerful nation, will often be called upon to help. In such cases, we should not be afraid to act – but the burden of action should not be America’s alone. As we have in Libya, our task is instead to mobilize the international community for collective action. Because contrary to the claims of some, American leadership is not simply a matter of going it alone and bearing all of the burden ourselves. Real leadership creates the conditions and coalitions for others to step up as well; to work with allies and partners so that they bear their share of the burden and pay their share of the costs; and to see that the principles of justice and human dignity are upheld by all. That’s the kind of leadership we have shown in Libya. Of course, even when we act as part of a coalition, the risks of any military action will be high. Those risks were realized when one of our planes malfunctioned over Libya. Yet when one of our airmen parachuted to the ground, in a country whose leader has so often demonized the United States – in a region that has such a difficult history with our country – this American did not find enemies. Instead, he was met by people who embraced him. One young Libyan who came to his aid said, “We are your friends. We are so grateful to these men who are protecting the skies.” This voice is just one of many in a region where a new generation is refusing to be denied their rights and opportunities any longer. Yes, this change will make the world more complicated for a time. Progress will be uneven, and change will come differently in different countries. There are places, like Egypt, where this change will inspire us and raise our hopes. And there will be places, like Iran, where change is fiercely suppressed. The dark forces of civil conflict and sectarian war will have to be averted, and difficult political and economic concerns addressed. The United States will not be able to dictate the pace and scope of this change. Only the people of the region can do that. But we can make a difference. I believe that this movement of change cannot be turned back, and that we must stand alongside those who believe in the same core principles that have guided us through many storms: our opposition to violence directed against one’s own citizens; our support for a set of universal rights, including the freedom for people to express themselves and choose their leaders; our support for governments that are ultimately responsive to the aspirations of the people. Born, as we are, out of a revolution by those who longed to be free, we welcome the fact that history is on the move in the Middle East and North Africa, and that young people are leading the way. Because wherever people long to be free, they will find a friend in the United States. Ultimately, it is that faith – those ideals – that are the true measure of American leadership. My fellow Americans, I know that at a time of upheaval overseas – when the news is filled with conflict and change – it can be tempting to turn away from the world. And as I have said before, our strength abroad is anchored in our strength at home. That must always be our North Star – the ability of our people to reach their potential, to make wise choices with our resources, to enlarge the prosperity that serves as a wellspring of our power, and to live the values that we hold so dear. But let us also remember that for generations, we have done the hard work of protecting our own people, as well as millions around the globe. We have done so because we know that our own future is safer and brighter if more of mankind can live with the bright light of freedom and dignity. Tonight, let us give thanks for the Americans who are serving through these trying times, and the coalition that is carrying our effort forward; and let us look to the future with confidence and hope not only for our own country, but for all those yearning for freedom around the world. Thank you, God Bless you, and may God Bless the United States of America.
Continue reading …Here is the full text of President Obama’s speech. Video reactions will come shortly. Good evening. Tonight, I’d like to update the American people on the international effort that we have led in Libya – what we have done, what we plan to do, and why this matters to us. I want to begin by paying tribute to our men and women in uniform who, once again, have acted with courage, professionalism and patriotism. They have moved with incredible speed and strength. Because of them and our dedicated diplomats, a coalition has been forged and countless lives have been saved. Meanwhile, as we speak, our troops are supporting our ally Japan, leaving Iraq to its people, stopping the Taliban’s momentum in Afghanistan, and going after al Qaeda around the globe. As Commander-in-Chief, I am grateful to our Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines, Coast Guardsmen, and their families, as are all Americans. For generations, the United States of America has played a unique role as an anchor of global security and advocate for human freedom. Mindful of the risks and costs of military action, we are naturally reluctant to use force to solve the world’s many challenges. But when our interests and values are at stake, we have a responsibility to act. That is what happened in Libya over the course of these last six weeks. Libya sits directly between Tunisia and Egypt – two nations that inspired the world when their people rose up to take control of their own destiny. For more than four decades, the Libyan people have been ruled by a tyrant – Moammar Gaddafi. He has denied his people freedom, exploited their wealth, murdered opponents at home and abroad, and terrorized innocent people around the world – including Americans who were killed by Libyan agents. Last month, Gaddafi’s grip of fear appeared to give way to the promise of freedom. In cities and towns across the country, Libyans took to the streets to claim their basic human rights. As one Libyan said, “For the first time we finally have hope that our nightmare of 40 years will soon be over.” Faced with this opposition, Gaddafi began attacking his people. As President, my immediate concern was the safety of our citizens, so we evacuated our Embassy and all Americans who sought our assistance. We then took a series of swift steps in a matter of days to answer Gaddafi’s aggression. We froze more than $33 billion of the Gaddafi regime’s assets. Joining with other nations at the United Nations Security Council, we broadened our sanctions, imposed an arms embargo, and enabled Gaddafi and those around him to be held accountable for their crimes. I made it clear that Gaddafi had lost the confidence of his people and the legitimacy to lead, and I said that he needed to step down from power. In the face of the world’s condemnation, Gaddafi chose to escalate his attacks, launching a military campaign against the Libyan people. Innocent people were targeted for killing. Hospitals and ambulances were attacked. Journalists were arrested, sexually assaulted, and killed. Supplies of food and fuel were choked off. The water for hundreds of thousands of people in Misratah was shut off. Cities and towns were shelled, mosques destroyed, and apartment buildings reduced to rubble. Military jets and helicopter gunships were unleashed upon people who had no means to defend themselves against assault from the air. Confronted by this brutal repression and a looming humanitarian crisis, I ordered warships into the Mediterranean. European allies declared their willingness to commit resources to stop the killing. The Libyan opposition, and the Arab League, appealed to the world to save lives in Libya. At my direction, America led an effort with our allies at the United Nations Security Council to pass an historic Resolution that authorized a No Fly Zone to stop the regime’s attacks from the air, and further authorized all necessary measures to protect the Libyan people. Ten days ago, having tried to end the violence without using force, the international community offered Gaddafi a final chance to stop his campaign of killing, or face the consequences. Rather than stand down, his forces continued their advance, bearing down on the city of Benghazi, home to nearly 700,000 men, women and children who sought their freedom from fear. At this point, the United States and the world faced a choice. Gaddafi declared that he would show “no mercy” to his own people. He compared them to rats, and threatened to go door to door to inflict punishment. In the past, we had seen him hang civilians in the streets, and kill over a thousand people in a single day. Now, we saw regime forces on the outskirts of the city. We knew that if we waited one more day, Benghazi – a city nearly the size of Charlotte – could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world. It was not in our national interest to let that happen. I refused to let that happen. And so nine days ago, after consulting the bipartisan leadership of Congress, I authorized military action to stop the killing and enforce UN Security Council Resolution 1973. We struck regime forces approaching Benghazi to save that city and the people within it. We hit Gaddafi’s troops in neighboring Ajdabiya, allowing the opposition to drive them out. We hit his air defenses, which paved the way for a No Fly Zone. We targeted tanks and military assets that had been choking off towns and cities and we cut off much of their source of supply. And tonight, I can report that we have stopped Gaddafi’s deadly advance. In this effort, the United States has not acted alone. Instead, we have been joined by a strong and growing coalition. This includes our closest allies – nations like the United Kingdom, France, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Italy, Spain, Greece, and Turkey – all of whom have fought by our side for decades. And it includes Arab partners like Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, who have chosen to meet their responsibility to defend the Libyan people. To summarize, then: in just one month, the United States has worked with our international partners to mobilize a broad coalition, secure an international mandate to protect civilians, stop an advancing army, prevent a massacre, and establish a No Fly Zone with our allies and partners. To lend some perspective on how rapidly this military and diplomatic response came together, when people were being brutalized in Bosnia in the 1990s, it took the international community more than a year to intervene with air power to protect civilians. Moreover, we have accomplished these objectives consistent with the pledge that I made to the American people at the outset of our military operations. I said that America’s role would be limited; that we would not put ground troops into Libya; that we would focus our unique capabilities on the front end of the operation, and that we would transfer responsibility to our allies and partners. Tonight, we are fulfilling that pledge. Our most effective alliance, NATO, has taken command of the enforcement of the arms embargo and No Fly Zone. Last night, NATO decided to take on the additional responsibility of protecting Libyan civilians. This transfer from the United States to NATO will take place on Wednesday. Going forward, the lead in enforcing the No Fly Zone and protecting civilians on the ground will transition to our allies and partners, and I am fully confident that our coalition will keep the pressure on Gaddafi’s remaining forces. In that effort, the United States will play a supporting role – including intelligence, logistical support, search and rescue assistance, and capabilities to jam regime communications. Because of this transition to a broader, NATO-based coalition, the risk and cost of this operation – to our military, and to American taxpayers – will be reduced significantly. So for those who doubted our capacity to carry out this operation, I want to be clear: the United States of America has done what we said we would do. That is not to say that our work is complete. In addition to our NATO responsibilities, we will work with the international community to provide assistance to the people of Libya, who need food for the hungry and medical care for the wounded. We will safeguard the more than $33 billion that was frozen from the Gaddafi regime so that it is available to rebuild Libya. After all, this money does not belong to Gaddafi or to us – it belongs to the Libyan people, and we will make sure they receive it. Tomorrow, Secretary Clinton will go to London, where she will meet with the Libyan opposition and consult with more than thirty nations. These discussions will focus on what kind of political effort is necessary to pressure Gaddafi, while also supporting a transition to the future that the Libyan people deserve. Because while our military mission is narrowly focused on saving lives, we continue to pursue the broader goal of a Libya that belongs not to a dictator, but to its people. Despite the success of our efforts over the past week, I know that some Americans continue to have questions about our efforts in Libya. Gaddafi has not yet stepped down from power, and until he does, Libya will remain dangerous. Moreover, even after Gaddafi does leave power, forty years of tyranny has left Libya fractured and without strong civil institutions. The transition to a legitimate government that is responsive to the Libyan people will be a difficult task. And while the United States will do our part to help, it will be a task for the international community, and – more importantly – a task for the Libyan people themselves. In fact, much of the debate in Washington has put forward a false choice when it comes to Libya. On the one hand, some question why America should intervene at all – even in limited ways – in this distant land. They argue that there are many places in the world where innocent civilians face brutal violence at the hands of their government, and America should not be expected to police the world, particularly when we have so many pressing concerns here at home. It is true that America cannot use our military wherever repression occurs. And given the costs and risks of intervention, we must always measure our interests against the need for action. But that cannot be an argument for never acting on behalf of what’s right. In this particular country – Libya; at this particular moment, we were faced with the prospect of violence on a horrific scale. We had a unique ability to stop that violence: an international mandate for action, a broad coalition prepared to join us, the support of Arab countries, and a plea for help from the Libyan people themselves. We also had the ability to stop Gaddafi’s forces in their tracks without putting American troops on the ground. To brush aside America’s responsibility as a leader and – more profoundly – our responsibilities to our fellow human beings under such circumstances would have been a betrayal of who we are. Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different. And as President, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action. Moreover, America has an important strategic interest in preventing Gaddafi from overrunning those who oppose him. A massacre would have driven thousands of additional refugees across Libya’s borders, putting enormous strains on the peaceful – yet fragile – transitions in Egypt and Tunisia. The democratic impulses that are dawning across the region would be eclipsed by the darkest form of dictatorship, as repressive leaders concluded that violence is the best strategy to cling to power. The writ of the UN Security Council would have been shown to be little more than empty words, crippling its future credibility to uphold global peace and security. So while I will never minimize the costs involved in military action, I am convinced that a failure to act in Libya would have carried a far greater price for America. Now, just as there are those who have argued against intervention in Libya, there are others who have suggested that we broaden our military mission beyond the task of protecting the Libyan people, and do whatever it takes to bring down Gaddafi and usher in a new government. Of course, there is no question that Libya – and the world – will be better off with Gaddafi out of power. I, along with many other world leaders, have embraced that goal, and will actively pursue it through non-military means. But broadening our military mission to include regime change would be a mistake. The task that I assigned our forces – to protect the Libyan people from immediate danger, and to establish a No Fly Zone – carries with it a UN mandate and international support. It is also what the Libyan opposition asked us to do. If we tried to overthrow Gaddafi by force, our coalition would splinter. We would likely have to put U.S. troops on the ground, or risk killing many civilians from the air. The dangers faced by our men and women in uniform would be far greater. So would the costs, and our share of the responsibility for what comes next. To be blunt, we went down that road in Iraq. Thanks to the extraordinary sacrifices of our troops and the determination of our diplomats, we are hopeful about Iraq’s future. But regime change there took eight years, thousands of American and Iraqi lives, and nearly a trillion dollars. That is not something we can afford to repeat in Libya. As the bulk of our military effort ratchets down, what we can do – and will do – is support the aspirations of the Libyan people. We have intervened to stop a massacre, and we will work with our allies and partners as they’re in the lead to maintain the safety of civilians. We will deny the regime arms, cut off its supply of cash, assist the opposition, and work with other nations to hasten the day when Gaddafi leaves power. It may not happen overnight, as a badly weakened Gaddafi tries desperately to hang on to power. But it should be clear to those around Gadaffi, and to every Libyan, that history is not on his side. With the time and space that we have provided for the Libyan people, they will be able to determine their own destiny, and that is how it should be. Let me close by addressing what this action says about the use of America’s military power, and America’s broader leadership in the world, under my presidency. As Commander-in-Chief, I have no greater responsibility than keeping this country safe. And no decision weighs on me more than when to deploy our men and women in uniform. I have made it clear that I will never hesitate to use our military swiftly, decisively, and unilaterally when necessary to defend our people, our homeland, our allies, and our core interests. That is why we are going after al Qaeda wherever they seek a foothold. That is why we continue to fight in Afghanistan, even as we have ended our combat mission in Iraq and removed more than 100,000 troops from that country. There will be times, though, when our safety is not directly threatened, but our interests and values are. Sometimes, the course of history poses challenges that threaten our common humanity and common security – responding to natural disasters, for example; or preventing genocide and keeping the peace; ensuring regional security, and maintaining the flow of commerce. These may not be America’s problems alone, but they are important to us, and they are problems worth solving. And in these circumstances, we know that the United States, as the world’s most powerful nation, will often be called upon to help. In such cases, we should not be afraid to act – but the burden of action should not be America’s alone. As we have in Libya, our task is instead to mobilize the international community for collective action. Because contrary to the claims of some, American leadership is not simply a matter of going it alone and bearing all of the burden ourselves. Real leadership creates the conditions and coalitions for others to step up as well; to work with allies and partners so that they bear their share of the burden and pay their share of the costs; and to see that the principles of justice and human dignity are upheld by all. That’s the kind of leadership we have shown in Libya. Of course, even when we act as part of a coalition, the risks of any military action will be high. Those risks were realized when one of our planes malfunctioned over Libya. Yet when one of our airmen parachuted to the ground, in a country whose leader has so often demonized the United States – in a region that has such a difficult history with our country – this American did not find enemies. Instead, he was met by people who embraced him. One young Libyan who came to his aid said, “We are your friends. We are so grateful to these men who are protecting the skies.” This voice is just one of many in a region where a new generation is refusing to be denied their rights and opportunities any longer. Yes, this change will make the world more complicated for a time. Progress will be uneven, and change will come differently in different countries. There are places, like Egypt, where this change will inspire us and raise our hopes. And there will be places, like Iran, where change is fiercely suppressed. The dark forces of civil conflict and sectarian war will have to be averted, and difficult political and economic concerns addressed. The United States will not be able to dictate the pace and scope of this change. Only the people of the region can do that. But we can make a difference. I believe that this movement of change cannot be turned back, and that we must stand alongside those who believe in the same core principles that have guided us through many storms: our opposition to violence directed against one’s own citizens; our support for a set of universal rights, including the freedom for people to express themselves and choose their leaders; our support for governments that are ultimately responsive to the aspirations of the people. Born, as we are, out of a revolution by those who longed to be free, we welcome the fact that history is on the move in the Middle East and North Africa, and that young people are leading the way. Because wherever people long to be free, they will find a friend in the United States. Ultimately, it is that faith – those ideals – that are the true measure of American leadership. My fellow Americans, I know that at a time of upheaval overseas – when the news is filled with conflict and change – it can be tempting to turn away from the world. And as I have said before, our strength abroad is anchored in our strength at home. That must always be our North Star – the ability of our people to reach their potential, to make wise choices with our resources, to enlarge the prosperity that serves as a wellspring of our power, and to live the values that we hold so dear. But let us also remember that for generations, we have done the hard work of protecting our own people, as well as millions around the globe. We have done so because we know that our own future is safer and brighter if more of mankind can live with the bright light of freedom and dignity. Tonight, let us give thanks for the Americans who are serving through these trying times, and the coalition that is carrying our effort forward; and let us look to the future with confidence and hope not only for our own country, but for all those yearning for freedom around the world. Thank you, God Bless you, and may God Bless the United States of America.
Continue reading …
• Nato prepares to take on full control of miltiary operation • Britain and France call on Gadaffi to go ‘before it is too late’ • Gadaffi’s forces retain control of Sirte • Read our latest Libya news story here • Read a summary of events so far 1.08am: Some reaction Twitter to Obama’s speech. @ChangeInLibya , a Libyan anti-Gaddafi activist, tweets: Obama also said that “[they] are working with the opposition”. That’s all I needed to hear. #libya #feb17 12.53am: The president cited the warm welcome afforded to US pilots whose jet fighter crashed in the east of Libya. It was a reflection, he said, of the desire for change and a sign of hope, even after the “demonisation” of the US for so long by Gaddafi. Wherever people long to be free, they will find a friend in the United States, he added, without mentioning the casualties caused to local villagers during the US extraction operation for one of the downed air crew. 12.52am: Turning to the road ahead, he said: “As the bulk of our military effort ratchets down, what we can do – and will do – is support the aspirations of the Libyan people.” “We have intervened to stop a massacre, and we will work with our allies and partners as they’re in the lead to maintain the safety of civilians. We will deny the regime arms, cut off its supply of cash, assist the opposition, and work with other nations to hasten the day when Gaddafi leaves power.” “It may not happen overnight, as a badly weakened Gaddafi tries desperately to hang on to power. But it should be clear to those around Gadaffi, and to every Libyan, that history is not on his side. With the time and space that we have provided for the Libyan people, they will be able to determine their own destiny, and that is how it should be.” 12.51am: Obama added: “The task that I assigned our forces – to protect the Libyan people from immediate danger, and to establish a No Fly Zone – carries with it a UN mandate and international support. It is also what the Libyan opposition asked us to do.” “If we tried to overthrow Gaddafi by force, our coalition would splinter. We would likely have to put U.S. troops on the ground, or risk killing many civilians from the air. The dangers faced by our men and women in uniform would be far greater. So would the costs, and our share of the responsibility for what comes next.” “To be blunt, we went down that road in Iraq. Thanks to the extraordinary sacrifices of our troops and the determination of our diplomats, we are hopeful about Iraq’s future. But regime change there took eight years, thousands of American and Iraqi lives, and nearly a trillion dollars. That is not something we can afford to repeat in Libya. ” 12.50am: “Moreover, America has an important strategic interest in preventing Gaddafi from overrunning those who oppose him,” he adds. “A massacre would have driven thousands of additional refugees across Libya’s borders, putting enormous strains on the peaceful – yet fragile – transitions in Egypt and Tunisia. The democratic impulses that are dawning across the region would be eclipsed by the darkest form of dictatorship, as repressive leaders concluded that violence is the best strategy to cling to power. “The writ of the UN Security Council would have been shown to be little more than empty words, crippling its future credibility to uphold global peace and security. So while I will never minimize the costs involved in military action, I am convinced that a failure to act in Libya would have carried a far greater price for America. 12.48am: The President is now tackling the argument of critics on the Libyan intervention. “To brush aside America’s responsibility as a leader and – more profoundly – our responsibilities to our fellow human beings under such circumstances would have been a betrayal of who we are,” he said. “Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different. And as President, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action.” 12.42am: The president is now moving in a section of the speech that appears designed to underline how the US is pulling back from the operation, after succeeding in its initial goals. “The United States of American has done what we said we would do,” he said. “That is not to say our work is complete,” says the president, who outlines how the US military will continue to be involved in the Nato operation, while humanitarian aid will continue to be provided to the Libyan people. 12.39am: In just one month, the US has worked with our international partners, secured a coalition, stopped an advancing army and secured a no-fly zone, the president said. To put it in context, he added “when people were being brutalised” in Bosnia in the 1990s it took the international community as long as a year. “It took us 31 days,” he said. 12.38am: The rebel-held city of Benghazi would have suffered a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and “stained the conscience of the world” if action had not been taken, said Obama. 12.35am: In the face of the world’s condemnation, Gaddafi chose to escalate his attacks rather than stepping down, Obama said. “At my direction, American led and effort without allies at the UN to pass an historic resolution,” he said, name-checking “European allies” and the Arab League. 12.33am: “Mindful of the cost of military action, we are reluctant to use force,” he said, but there has been a responsibility to act in the case of Libya. 12.32am: Obama has started by paying tribute to US troops on the ground in Afghanistan and on duty elsewhere. 12.26am: We’re expecting Barack Obama to make a speech on Libya in the next few minutes. We’ll bring you coverage of that as it happens. 11.58pm: While the spotlight has fallen on the looming showdown between rebels and pro-Gaddafi forces outside the town of Sirte, each side is still claiming control over parts of Misrata, Libya’s third largest city, east of Tripoli. With the constant crackle of automatic fire ringing out around the city, Misrata bore the marks of intense fighting, and plumes of smoke rose high above its dusty skyline, according to a Reuters report filed after journalists were taken to view one of its suburbs. Houses were riddled with bullet holes. Windows were smashed and rubble littered its deserted streets. “Down with Gaddafi,” said graffiti scrawled on one wall. No civilians were in sight and residential houses appeared abandoned. A herd of camels quietly crossed a street strewn with smouldering rubble and fallen electricity poles. Burned hulks of military and civilian vehicles and blown-up fuel tanks and shipping containers were scattered about. Areas north of Tripoli Street in southern Misrata which appeared to be under state control were off limits to visiting journalists, and there was gunfire from that direction. A small crowd of Gaddafi supporters, including children, waved flags in front of a Libyan state television camera broadcasting live images to Libya’s seven million people from what it described as “liberated Misrata”. “Misrata is ours. There are still some bad guys in other parts, but Gaddafi is winning, the city is ours,” said Abdul Karim, a local resident, a green bandana around his head. A Libyan army officer said rebel forces had been pushed out to the northern part of the city. “Yes there are still some bad guys. We squeezed them out, there are less than 100 of them. We control the city,” he said. Nearby, soldiers manned checkpoints and rag-tag bands of government militiamen stood in front of battered buildings. Several pro-Gaddafi gunmen were visible on rooftops. Anti-aircraft guns pointed into the sky and tanks were hidden under large leafy trees. The atmosphere was nervous, and soldiers were on edge. As distant gunfire intensified, panicked government minders herded journalists into their vehicles and rushed out of the city before dark. Outside Misrata, a coastal road leading to Tripoli was firmly under government control. Checkpoints were reinforced with anti-aircraft guns. Slabs of concrete blocked the highway. Rebel Saadoun al-Misrati said pro-Gaddafi forces had been trying to advance on the eastern front and rebels were heavily engaged with them. “We are determined not to allow them to enter the main street to the east as they did with Tripoli Street.” Rebels and a resident said eight people were killed when forces loyal to Gaddafi resumed attacks on Sunday. 11.13pm: The Libyan foreign minister, Moussa Koussa, has arrived in Tunisia for a “private visit”, according to Tunisia’s official news agency, the BBC reports. Tunisia’s foreign ministry was reported to have said that Koussa was on a “private visit”. 11.07pm: Libya’s army is pouring reinforcements into Sirte, reports the Guardian’s Ian Black from Muammar Gaddafi’s strategic hometown . He reports that units of regular soldiers in jeeps were driving towards the town on Monday as the frontline moved ominously closer to a key regime stronghold for what could turn out to be the decisive battle of the war. Crowds gathered in central Martyrs Square to chant pro-regime slogans and fire bursts of machine-gun fire into the air – that bizarre Libyan ritual of celebrating reverses and expressing determination to resist. But there were signs of anxiety when an aircraft was heard far overhead. Many shops were shut. Libyan forces are deployed outside Sirte and nervousness is evident at the makeshift roadblocks manned by police or militiamen at intervals of just a few hundred yards in some places. To the west the soldiers at a mobile radar battery – part of the country’s now battered air defence system – looked especially apprehensive. In early afternoon a convoy of 15 Toyota Land Cruisers carrying groups of fresh-looking regular soldiers moved east from Misrata where some rebels are still holding out. But there were no signs of heavy armour or artillery – perhaps because these have been easily hit in coalition air strikes in the battles for Ajdabiya, Ras Lanuf and Brega over the past few days. Lightly armed infantrymen, backed up by militiamen and civilians driving mud-smeared cars armed en masse by the government will be a far more elusive target for allied pilots if they are involved in a battle for a sizeable town or skirmishes along the coastal road. 10.56pm: Chris McGreal reports for the Guardian from the Libyan rebels’ frontline staging post at Wadi al-Ahmar , where he was told of ‘dirty tricks’ on the part of pro-Gaddafi troops dug in to defend the key town of Sirte. Suliman Abdul Mula was not surprised when he saw the white flag waved by a group of Muammar Gaddafi’s soldiers caught between western air strikes and the rapid advance of Libya’s rebels. “We saw they raised the white flag. We thought they no longer wanted to fight for Gaddafi. They are losing and no one in Libya wants to die for Gaddafi any more,” said the 31-year-old. “But when we approached, they opened fire. It was a trick.” Several of the rebels were wounded, including one whose left arm was hanging by a string of flesh. Another soldier with Mula estimated that there were 100 or more government soldiers in the group flying the white flag as the rebels pushed forward to within 50 miles of the strategically and politically important town of Sirte where Gaddafi was born. The soldier said that as soon as the rebels got close enough, Gaddafi’s forces shot at them with machine guns. Mula was outraged. “Everyone knows the white flag if for surrender. These are Gaddafi’s dirty tricks,” he said. 10.46pm: Air strikes have hit the town of Surman, 70 km west of Tripoli, according to Libyan state television, Reuters reports. 10.14pm: British voters – by a margin of 47 percent to 43 percent – did not back the decision to commit British armed forces to the Libya action, according to a ComRes survey for The Independent. It also suggested that 71 percent were concerned that the UK could be “dragged into a prolonged conflict like the Iraq war”. Almost a quarter (24 percent said they did not share that fear. A majority of those who expressed an opinion (46 percent to 40 percent said they believed Gaddafi was a legitimate target. And more than two-thirds (68percent) agreed that the Libya mission showed the government should not be cutting defence spending. 10.10pm: Downing Street has said that David Cameron set out his priorities for tomorrow’s London summit on Libya in a video conference with US president Barack Obama, French president Nicolas Sarkozy and Germany’s chancellor, Angela Merkel. The Prime Minister’s spokesman added: “He hoped it would strengthen and broaden the coalition of countries committed to implementing the UN resolutions and protecting the people of Libya; it would discuss plans for the provision of urgent humanitarian assistance; and it would call for a political process which would allow the people of Libya to shape their own future.” “There was also a discussion of the reform process in Egypt and agreement on the importance of revitalising the Middle East peace process.” 10.03pm: Efforts appear to be under way to offer Muammar Gaddafi a way of escape from Libya , with Italy saying it is trying to organise an African haven for him, and the US signalling it will not try to stop the dictator from fleeing. Julian Borger and Richard Norton-Taylor report for the Guardian on a move that comes as diplomatic and military pressure on Gaddafi mounts. On the eve of tomorrow’s London conference, focused on coordinating assistance in the face of a possible humanitarian disaster, Italy offered to broker the ceasefire deal in Libya, involving asylum for Gaddafi in an African country. “Gaddafi must understand that it would be an act of courage to say: ‘I understand that I have to go’,” said the Italian foreign minister, Franco Frattini. “We hope that the African Union can find a valid proposal.” 9.55pm: Some more from that Pentagon briefing. The coalition carried out strikes against the command headquarters of one of Muammar Gaddafi’s most loyal units, which has been one of the most active attacking civilians, Admiral Bill Gortney said. Gortney also said coalition had fired six Tomahawk cruise missiles in the past 24 hours and had carried out 178 air sorties, most of them strike-related. 9.08pm: The coalition has flown 178 sorties in the skies over Libya in the last 24 hours, the Pentagon briefing has been told by Vice Admiral Gortney. He made a point of saying that Qatari jets have now also taken part in the operations and that air force units from the United Arab Emirates are ready to take part over the course of the next day or two. 9.04pm: A briefing is underway at the Pentagon, where a spokesman says that coalition forces have yet to receive “a single, confirmed” report of civilians deaths as a result of air strikes. 8.49pm: The Gaddafi regime has carried out a spate of enforced disappearances, according to Amnesty International , which has published a new report. ‘Libya: detainees, disappeared and missing’ details more 30 cases of individuals who were ‘disappeared’ since before the beginning of protests against the regime. Children were also among those seized as rebel forces seized control of the eastern city of Benghazi and pro-Gaddafi forces retreated, according to Amnesty. A relative of 14-year-old schoolboy Hassan Mohammad al-Qata’ni told the organisation: “I haven’t slept since he’s gone missing, nobody in my family has slept; we are so worried; he is just a kid; we don’t know what to do, where to look for him, who to turn to for help.” 8.45pm: Now to Syria, where security forces fired shots and used teargas to disperse up to 4,000 protesters in the volatile Syrian city of Deraa earlier today. As frustration continues to mount at the slow pace of promised reforms, the Guardian has a report from inside Syria , where protesters appear to be consolidating their positions in Deraa in the deep south and in the northern port city of Latakia despite the widespread presence of security forces. 8.38pm: The Guardian’s Richard Adams has been blogging from Washington DC on Barack Obama’s speech later tonight on Libya: While opinion polls show American voters broadly in favour of the military action, the demand for more detail comes in two forms. One is that the administration has not set out its objectives clearly. The other is to explain why Libya’s pro-democracy forces deserve US aid delivered via Tomahawk cruise missiles, and those in Yemen or Syria – for example – do not. Setting out the precise extent of the US mission will be the more difficult of the two. The administration has already said clearly that overthrowing or killing Gaddafi himself is not the mission’s objective. That has given Obama’s Republican and neocon critics an opening to criticise the president’s handling of the action while still supporting it overall. At an event in DC today, Obama gave a quick preview of his remarks, saying: “Our involvement [in Libya] is going to be limited, both in time and in scope.” So Obama should outline exactly what that means this evening – especially the “time limited” part. On the second point, earlier today Obama’s deputy national security adviser Denis McDonough said the argument that the president would make for US involvement in Libya cannot be applied to the protests going on elsewhere in the region. 8.33pm: For those in need of a basic up-to-date primer on Nato’s assumption of control over operations in Libyan skies and seas, here’s a quick Q&A from Julian Borger, the Guardian’s diplomatic editor: Who is running the military operation? Officially Nato has taken over all military operations. But at the moment it is only running the naval blockade, which is enforcing the arms embargo, and the no-fly zone. The Nato commander, Lieutenant General Charles Bouchard, will assume control of the most controversial operations, the air strikes against Gaddafi’s ground forces, in a few days’ time. Why is there a delay in Nato taking over air strikes? Bouchard said that the handover would take some days because it was “complex”. The delay gives more time to the existing coalition, co-ordinated by the US but led by the French and British, to continue to choose their own targets for bombing. Will the handover to Nato control make any difference? Nato’s 28-member countries agreed rules of engagement for air strikes on Sunday. As sceptics like Turkey and Germany were involved in the draft, the rules are likely to be more restrictive that those being used by the French and the British, who have been bombing Libyan government forces across the country. 8.24pm: The Ministry of Defence has said that two RAF Tornados conducting reconnaissance flights over the area “around” the Libyan town of Misrata fired Brimstone missiles which destroyed two main battle tanks and two armoured vehicles. 8.18pm: The UN Security Council has been meeting to discuss Libya and is currently being briefed on the progress of sanctions imposed on the Gaddafi regime. The briefing is being given by the Portuguese UN Ambassador, Jose Filipe Moraes Cabral, who chairs the committee overseeing the sanctions. Laura Trevelyan, the BBC’s UN correspondent, reports that the security council will go into a closed session later where she said that it will talk about adding the names of additional Libyan officials who could be the subject of sanctions. However, that meeting is also an opportunity for certain countries to speak out against the sanctions. 8.12pm: Western air strikes have hit civilian and military areas in the towns of Garyan and Misdah, Libyan state television is reporting, according to Reuters. 8.04pm: From Cairo, Jack Shenker has more on that statement by Egypt’s ruling generals that the ousted president, Hosni Mubarak has been placed under house arrest. The revelation by Egypt’s Supreme Council of the Armed Forces – who have been in power since Mubarak’s three-decade dictatorship succumbed to revolution last month – was an attempt to quash speculation that the ailing 82 year old had fled to Saudi Arabia to receive medical treatment. The Saudi monarch, King Abdullah, has been a stalwart supporter of Mubarak throughout Egypt’s recent turmoil, and has repeatedly offered the former president sanctuary in the kingdom. In an announcement on its official facebook page, the Egyptian military said: “Out of the supreme military council’s belief in the importance of maintaining communication with the Egyptian people and the youth of the revolution, we stress [that] news of the departure of former president Mohamed Hosni Mubarak to Tabuk in Saudi Arabia is not true, as he is under house arrest along with his family.” For now, Mubarak remains in internal exile in the Red Sea resort of Sharm El Sheikh. He and his family are facing a raft of corruption charges and have already been hit by a travel ban and asset freeze. The latest moves against Mubarak come amid renewed criticism of Egypt’s armed forces as they begin to prepare for national elections later this year and a planned transition towards democratic, civilian government. 7.57pm: The US is preparing to pull a number of vessels from the Mediterranean as Nato takes over operations, US military officials have told Reuters. 7.44pm: Is this the soundtrack to the Libyan uprising? Some young Libyans have put together a rap song as their sound track to the rising against the Gaddafi. It’s been posted on YouTube, while it can be viewed with English language subtitles on this site . To watch the full video, turn off the auto-refresh button at the top of this page. _ 7.28pm: The “Arab Spring” might have “stopped in its tracks” without the military response unleashed against the actions of Muammar Gaddafi, tweets the former US State department spokesman, PJ Crowley : Crowley, who fell on his sword after criticising the treatment of Bradley Manning , the alleged source of the WikiLeaks files, has given an interview to the BBC’s HardTalk programme . He was at pains to differentiate what is happening in Libya with the US-led campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to advance interview snippets released by the BBC. “They’re of a totally different magnitude and totally different purpose. There’s no question that in protecting civilians you are also protecting political opposition, you are creating a level playing field so that the opposition has a fair opportunity to make its case to the Libyan people and to force Gaddafi to step down,” said Crowley. 7.27pm: We’ve also published an interesting piece debating the proposal by Turkey for a ceasefire and a negotiated solution . The Paris-based writer Nabia Ramdani supports the calls by the Turkish prime minister. Prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s suggestion that what started out as a wholly humanitarian effort is deteriorating into a “second Iraq” or “another Afghanistan” is entirely correct. Cruise and Tomahawk missiles do not bring peace to a country any more than AK-47-wielding paramilitaries expressing vague affiliations to overseas governments. Atrocities have certainly been committed by Gaddafi’s army as it fights to put down the rebellion, but the killing on both sides is unremitting. Whereas our Middle East expert Brian Whitaker says we should wait for the imminent collapse of the Gadaffi regime. Amid repeated claims that Libya could turn into another Iraq or Afghanistan, there are growing calls for a negotiated solution. Such talk at the moment serves no purpose, apart from throwing a lifeline to the Gaddafi family and helping them maintain their grip on the country, or at least some of it. Calls for negotiation are predicated on the idea that the situation in Libya will reach a political/military impasse. It might do, but it hasn’t yet – so there is no need to start behaving as if it had. A more likely scenario, though, is that the Gaddafi regime will implode suddenly and fairly soon – in a matter of weeks rather than months or years. We should at least wait to see if that is what happens. 7.18pm: The Guardian’s award-winning photographer, Sean Smith, has spent the past month in Libya documenting the uprising, from its triumphant beginnings in Benghazi to its near-defeat, and its apparent rescue by the coalition air strikes. Here’s a collection of his best images in this gallery . _ 7.02pm: After half hour on the ground in the town of Misrata, CNN’s Nic Robertson tweets that Libyan government minders have been loading journalists on to a bus again to bring them back to Tripoli: _ 6.56pm: The British prime minister David Cameron and the French president Nicolas Sarkozy have released a joint statement setting out the objectives of an international conference on Libya being hosted by the UK in London tomorrow. Britain and France of course have been at the forefront of the military action – and at the brunt of criticism that it is tipping over into the area of regime change. The statement is pretty bullish: it says military operations would end “only when the civilian population are safe and secure from the threat of attack”. The current regime has “completely lost its legitimacy” and Gaddafi must “go immediately” the statement says, calling on the dictator’s supporters to “leave him before it is too late”. 6.30pm: Good evening and welcome to our continuing coverage of the Libya crisis. Here is a summary of events so far today. • Ahead of a UK-hosted summit on Libya tomorrow, the British and French leaders have issued a joint statement calling on Gadaffi to step down “before it is too late”. Both countries have rejected criticism that the coalition-led operation has gone beyond the terms of the UN resolution that authorised it. • Rebels and pro-Gadaffi forces are gearing up for a battle for Sirte, the psycologically important birthplace of the Libyan leader. Revolutionary forces had advanced more than 150 miles in two days, helped by coalition air strikes, breaking the stalemate at Ajdabiya streaming along Libya’s coastal road. But they appear to have halted about 50km east of Sirte, with reports of pro-Gadaffi forces advancing the other way. • Barack Obama is due to make a speech on the Libya crisis tonight. Libya Nato Ben Quinn guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Joe Bageant, author, blogger and class warrior, died yesterday after a short bout with cancer. The financial success of Joe’s first book, Deer Hunting with Jesus , shocked and, I think, embarrassed him. He tried to give away as much of the money as he could, as fast as he made it, but felt compelled to hang onto at least some of it because he figured sooner or later, his drinking and smoking would catch up with him and he’d be at the mercy of the American healthcare system. He was right. I don’t think I ever felt so comfortable, so fast with anyone like I did with Joe. We were fans of each other’s work, and corresponded back and forth for years. I still remember our first phone call, which lasted a couple of hours and covered everything from class stratification to the consciousness-raising wonders of LSD. I always intended to visit him, either in Winchester, Virgina where he was first born and returned decades later, or in Belize and then Ajijic, Mexico, where he’d been spending a lot of time and was trying to lure his many friends down to form a community of like-minded ex-pats. But I never had a reliable car, or enough money to pay for gas. And then he got sick. After a vibrant life, Joe Bageant died yesterday following a four-month struggle with cancer. He was 64. Joe is survived by his wife, Barbara, his three children, Timothy, Patrick and Elizabeth, and thousands of friends and admirers. He is also survived by his work and ideas. According to Joe’s wishes, he will be cremated. His family will hold a private memorial service. Did I mention that Joe was, in fact, an actual socialist? He wrote so powerfully about the tyranny of owning things , but also had a deep well of compassion for his fellow Americans who were caught on the wheels of the economic machine. He was my friend, my mentor, and my hero. He was no doubt easier at a distance, but really, aren’t we all? I have a review copy of his latest book, Rainbow Pie , sitting on my desk. I haven’t gotten to it yet. But I will. Bless you, Joe. See you on the other side.
Continue reading …I have never before encountered a more evil force in American politics than the Kochs and their ilk. Never. Since March 2009 I have been researching the funding patterns of the right wing and their activity with regard to the tea party movements, how they move money through Republican establishment organizations, and the impact of their investment in organizations and publications intended to legitimize ideas that work against the interests of 99% of the citizens of this country. I’m not alone. Many others are also digging deep. AlterNet . Think Progress. My reasons for searching and paying attention go beyond ideology. Regardless of what their views are, emergency sirens sound when I consider exactly how much control two people and one corporation have over right-wing politics. It transcends ideology. It’s anti-democracy . In my travels I’ve found the same information that many others have found but which always seems to languish in the shadows of the Internet. Influence is held in the hands of the very few, and right now the Koch brothers hold the reins. Consider this list, created in 2004 . It lists every organization that has received funding from the Koch Family Foundations. Then it was $120 million. Fast forward to 2010, where they spent millions we know about, and more millions we don’t. For 2012, they’ve pledged $49 million toward a goal of $88 million . All of this to say one thing: The Koch threat isn’t just to liberal politics. It is a threat to the very democracy we treasure in this country. And like Glenn Greenwald , I view them as the most dangerous type of ideologue: the True Believer. True Believers are dangerous because they don’t have any goal other than to make all of us True Believers. They proselytize free markets the way evangelicals preach Jesus. And when those same free markets fail? They facepalm and admit shock that perhaps there is a flaw in their flawless philosophy , then go right back to preaching and selling the free market gospel like it’s God’s word in the flesh. News flash for the Koch devotees: Markets are not people. Not yet. They don’t breathe, eat, cry, love, hate. They do, however, determine the future of people who are at their mercy. It’s one thing to control markets like Koch and a few others do. It’s entirely another to be at their mercy. I would still have a job that I adored, but for capricious markets and their puppetmasters. Which is why when I read nonsense like this Weekly Standard Koch Brothers Rehab Piece by Matthew Continetti, I get angry. Really angry. And when I read self-pitying, whinging comments like the one I’m about to quote from a man who wouldn’t know what it’s like to have your livelihood and your self-respect ripped away in ten minutes’ time, I get angrier. Forget the facts, folks. Charles and David Koch are just bewildered and overwhelmed rich men who cannot for the life of them understand how the left can be so oblivious to the good free markets can do for the world and every individual in the United States who has a set of bootstraps and a pair of arms to use to yank on them. The left’s inability to understand where the Kochs were coming from puzzled Charles and David. Wasn’t it obvious that small government and free markets resulted in a better world? “Why don’t we teach in schools things that make society more prosperous, and more peaceful, and people will respect each other more? It’s a strange thing, isn’t it?” said Charles. “It’s unbelievable how they distort what your message is!” said David. The Kochs thought their aim was to increase the standard of living for everyone. The way to do this, they believed, was by applying to society the same methods that had grown their company. Small governments and free markets resulted in a better world? Really? Was it big government that allowed Wall Street to run amok and gamble away people’s retirement savings in markets they knew were doomed to fail? What society does David Koch mean when he says “teach in schools things that make society more prosperous”? Surely he doesn’t mean this one, because the facts speak otherwise. This society is NOT more prosperous, though Mr. Koch certainly has prospered. What the Kochs do is corrupt government , then blame it for screwing the rest of us. This world is not better because Koch pollutes it while denying there might be even an iota of truth in climate change science. This world is not better because our children’s educations are being raped and sold to the “free markets” so we can create yet another “market” which will put “prosperity” ahead of education. This world is not better because Koch Industries put millions into propaganda campaigns to convince people to act against their own interests in order to further Charles and David’s “prosperity”. This world is not better because the faith in “free markets” brought the entire world economy to the brink of ruin. This world is not better because David and Charles Koch think it’s better for people to die after losing everything because they were unfortunate enough to be uninsured and sick at the same time. So what “better world” is it that Mr. Koch sees? I want to see that world too. Instead what I see are people like me, who are educated, motivated, intelligent and have a strong work ethic unable to find work. Why can’t we find work? Well, the ‘markets’ are flooded right now with lots of young people looking for work, and when the markets write the rules, they’re written to maximize profits. That means people like me won’t find a job until the “market” has eaten its fill of the younger generation. Commentary like this makes my head explode: The raw emotions and mindless smears left employees of Koch Industries hurt and befuddled. They kept searching for an answer. It was as if the universe had turned upside down. “All of us are given something, some more than others, and it’s up to us to build on it,” said Koch Minerals executive Steve Tatum. “Charles and David did. They built on what they inherited from their family. Hopefully, I have too. And I inherited nothing but a little help with college. “What doesn’t seem right is when a person works to get through college, gets a degree, works for 25 years to become successful—and now you’re the bad guy,” Tatum said. “And I think, that’s the American dream, isn’t it?” I’ll leave you all to parse the first part about Charles and David building on their inherited money. But that second comment? The one about it not being right when a person works their way through college, gets a degree, yadayada? Yeah. Well, here’s my counter-question: What doesn’t seem right is when a person works to get through college, build a business, is a faithful employee for years and years, has a strong work ethic, pays their taxes, tries to raise their family and gets kicked in the teeth by those “free markets.” That doesn’t seem quite right either. Jamie Johnson, heir to the Johnson & Johnson fortune and now a blogger at Vanity Fair, made a documentary in 2006 about the differences between the very wealthy and the rest of us called The One Percent . If you haven’t seen it, I highly recommend it. You won’t necessarily come away knowing more than you did before you watched it, but it’s the attitude of that 1% — the utter separation from the reality the rest of us live in — that stands out. The resistance of his family and the financial advisers behind them is almost comical, but the attitudes are simply out of touch with what it’s like for everyone else. One of the finest moments is when Milton Friedman rises up and calls the young heir to the Johnson and Johnson fortune a socialist who’s afraid to admit it. It’s easy to point to bootstraps when yours were inherited, after all. To Charles, the call for bigger government was egalitarianism run amok. Liberals, he thought, fetishized equality of condition at the expense of personal liberty. “They cannot stand that some people are better off than others,” Charles said. “I think part of it fits Mencken’s definition of a Puritan: someone that’s miserable because he knows that someone, somewhere, is enjoying himself. He cannot stand that. And I think they all slept through Economics 101.” He has this so wrong. Let me clear it up. I don’t care that some have more than others. I care that some have more than others because they took it out of my bank account and my hard work. That’s what I care about. I care about Wall Street moguls taking home big fat bonuses while the Dow Industrial-Military Complex sits on trillions and leaves people without work, without prospects, without hope, and without self-respect. Here’s a proposal for Charles and David. How about if they live for a year without their billions, just like the rest of us? How about they find out what it’s like to be told over and over and over again that you’re not hired even though you know you were as qualified as the guy who got the job? How about if they subject themselves to the whim of the markets, the uncertainty of not knowing whether they’ll have a home tomorrow or food to eat? Perhaps they should try scratching out a living without any government in a world with no regulation where the food they dig out of the dumpster might be contaminated with chemical pollutants because the industrial customer who used that dumpster last didn’t care to be careful about how they disposed of toxins. Perhaps they should try it before they condemn liberals as people who are miserable because someone else is enjoying themselves. Perhaps Charles and David should put their grandchildren in public schools (along with the little DeVos children) and see how teachers struggle with no budget, no supplies, larger class sizes, more children with problems, and a test looming at the end of each year that stresses children to their breaking point while proving nothing other than that there’s a market for test writers and scantron forms. Until they’ve done these things, until they’ve shed their silver spoons and ideological turtle shells, Continetti can write apologetics all day long and it won’t change a thing. They are an evil force in today’s politics, feeding evil men with evil ambitions, and they should be called evil every single chance we get until they figure out how ignorant and out of touch they are. Which will be about the time hell freezes over and the cows come home, I’m sure. Make no mistake. The Kochs are not the only billionaires who perpetrate this evil. Back in Clinton’s day, it was Scaife and the Tobacco Puppets. They’re all part of the same group, but the Kochs have chosen to put themselves at the front as the evangelists of the New Free Market Ayn Rand/John Birch Society. By that choice, they receive the bulk of my criticism, but no one is exempt. If you don’t know how the other 99% lives , don’t bother trying to tell us what’s wrong with our thinking. Now that I’ve ranted, one question lingers. How do we counter their message and their money before it’s too late?
Continue reading …
The animated pig’s new theme park has plenty to delight kids – but don’t forget to bring a towel She’s bright pink, bossy and her TV show is watched in more than 180 countries. Before you make any unflattering guesses, we’re talking about Peppa Pig, whose animated adventures – usually involving muddy puddles – have splashed across our screens since 2004. The character is such a phenomenon among the under-fives that she’s appeared in videogames and a live stage show. Now comes the ultimate accolade: Peppa Pig World, a £5m three-acre area of Paultons Family Theme Park in
Continue reading …