Smiley Culture’s relatives intend to fight all the way – with the help of Lee Jasper There was anger, there were tears and it was standing room only in the Karibu Centre. Not everyone knew Smiley Culture, the reggae artist who died last week during a police operation to arrest him at his home, but everyone knew his music. And it wasn’t just the music. It was also the fact that he fused reggae with a diction and landscape that was unmistakably British. Anglo/West Indian fusion is unremarkable now, particularly on the radio. Many say Smiley did it first. Now he is dead, in questionable circumstances. The authorities say Smiley, who faced drugs charges, stabbed himself through the heart while officers conducting a fresh drugs search were in another room. His relatives insist that is highly unlikely. They intend to fight this all the way and they’ll have help. Hello again Lee Jasper. Remember Lee Jasper? He was a streetwise race activist, then equalities director during Ken Livingstone’s London mayoralty. He was hurried from office by hotly contested allegations – personal and professional – relentlessly pursued by the Evening Standard. He withdrew into journalism, blogging and community activism. Smiley’s relatives contacted Jasper, and he chaired that community meeting at the Karibu. It looked like something out of the 1980s I told him the following morning. But surely things are different now; black officers, black investigators on the police complaints body; all the things you campaigned for. Why are we back to this? “There was small-scale, incremental progress,” he concedes. “We don’t have the horror of black men being murdered and the police doing nothing. But it’s a mixed bag. Look at the deaths in custody; look at stop and search, up by 70%.” You really can’t trust the system, Jasper says. Not without community pressure to keep it honest – it’s likely to be a three- to five-year battle. “But Smiley’s relatives are extraordinary in their strength and dignity. They are certainly not naive.” So here comes a campaign, similar to those before, but boosted now by social media. Stand by for leaflets, meetings, the poignancy of a funeral. Testimony in favour of Smiley Culture; headlines spun against. And expect to hear quite a bit more from Lee Jasper. Race issues Hugh Muir guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
• Nato to assume day-to-day military command in Libya • Obama and Cameron: Substantial progress made Britain, France and the United States have agreed that Nato will take over the military command of the no-fly zone over Libya in a move which represents a setback for Nicolas Sarkozy, who had hoped to diminish the role of the alliance. Barack Obama agreed in separate phone calls with Sarkozy and David Cameron that political oversight would be handed to a separate body consisting of members of the coalition, including Arab countries such as Qatar and the United Arab Emirates that are outside Nato. The agreement, which will have to be put be to all 28 members of Nato, indicates that the alliance has resolved one of its most serious disagreements. Countries had been splintering as they tried to comply with Obama’s demand that Washington be relieved of command of the air campaign. Sarkozy moved to portray the agreement as a Franco-American success. In a statement the Élysée Palace said: “The two presidents have come to an agreement on the way to use the command structures of Nato to support the coalition.” But the agreement represents a blow for Sarkozy, who had tried to persuade Britain set up an Anglo-French command for all military operations in Libya. This was strongly resisted by Britain, who said Nato was best placed to run the military operations. Cameron – who also spoke to Obama – prevailed, as Britain, the US and France agreed that: • Nato will assume the day-to-day military command of the no-fly zone, using the alliance’s usual military structures. The operation could be run by Admiral James Stavridis, the US supreme allied commander in Europe, who works from the Nato’s military headquarters in Mons, Belgium. • Political oversight will be provided by members of the coalition and not by Nato. Sarkozy will say this shows Nato is not in complete command of the operation, as it was in the bombing campaign against Serbian targets during the 1999 Kosovo campaign. In a traditional Nato-led operation, political control would be provided by the North Atlantic Council, which is the main political decision-making body of the alliance. The plan will be put to the council on Wednesday, which will hold its third meeting in as many days at ambassadorial level. All 28 members of NATO will have to agree on the proposal. The breakthrough emerged when the Élysée hailed Sarkozy’s agreement with Obama. Downing Street adopted a more cautious approach when it confirmed that Cameron and Obama had agreed that Nato should play a key role. A spokesman said: “The prime minister and the president agreed that good progress had been made, that Nato should play a key role in the command structure, and that these arrangements now need to be finalised. The prime minister and the president agreed to stay in close touch.” Diplomatic sources said that progress on the new structures for the no-fly zone emerged as France and Turkey started to give ground. France softened its stance after Britain and the US agreed that the interational coalition would have political oversight, but that Nato would have to assume military control. London and Washington were supported by newer members of Nato, such as Romania and the Czech Republic, who said they could only support the campaign if it was run by Nato. A phone call between Obama and the Turkish prime minister Tayyip Recep Erdogan led to what was described as a more pragmatic approach in Ankara. “Turkey has become more flexible in the last day or so,” one diplomat said. Turkey, the third largest member of Nato, and which has a predominantly Muslim population, had highlighted tensions within the alliance when it launched a strong attack on France. Sarkozy had tried to reach out to the Muslim world by playing down Nato’s role in Libya. Egemen Bagis, Turkey’s Europe minister, accused the French president of exploiting Libya for his own electoral needs. Sarkozy has been the biggest opponent of Ankara’s ambitions to join the European Union. “A European leader began his election campaign by organising a meeting that led to a process of air strikes against Libya. He acted before a Nato decision, and his act was based on his subjective evaluation of a UN resolution,” said Bagis. The intense diplomatic discussions took place as key military figures expressed dismay at Downing Street’s handling of the Libyan conflict. Senior defence officials make it clear they deeply resent the way Downing Street appeared to undermine General Sir David Richards, the country’s most senior military officer, who rejected ministers’ claims that Gaddafi might be a legitimate target. Defence officials said that by identifying Gaddafi as a target, Britain laid itself to the charge that “if you kill him, it was premeditated, and if you don’t, you have failed”. Libya Muammar Gaddafi Nato Arab and Middle East unrest Middle East US foreign policy Barack Obama United States Germany France Europe Turkey David Cameron Foreign policy Nick Hopkins Nicholas Watt Ian Traynor guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Liberal Democrat leader to push for changes to health and social care bill Nick Clegg told a meeting of his MPs in Westminster on Tuesdayyesterday that he would now be “taking the lead” within government to rein in its programme of reform for the NHS. The Liberal Democrat leader said he was determined to ensure changes were made to the health and social care bill, the clearest sign that he will personally negotiate with the health secretary, Andrew Lansley. A senior party source said that the Lib Dem leader had decided to “front up” the issue with the Conservatives. Lansley’s reforms to the NHS – handing over a majority of the healthcare budget to GPs for commissioning, and scrapping primary care trusts – have been opposed by some Conservative MPs and the British Medical Association, and 10 days ago Lib Dems voted at their spring party conference to ensure modifications were made to the bill. Then it was suggested that even though the Lib Dems had registered their discontent, there was little their leader would be able to do within government. Now Clegg’s aides say he will push for alterations to the bill, including beefing up the governance and accountability while minimising the financial risk of the new GP consortiums, and having some limits on the types of new private providers that can come into the system. Clegg’s closest colleagues – his parliamentary adviser Norman Lamb and the chief secretary to the Treasury Danny Alexander – have been newly charged with liasing with their backbench MPs and the wider party, to secure policy modifications. There is speculation that Clegg’s opposition to the bill would delay it until beyond the Easter recess as officials work behind the scenes to reformulate a bill to the tastes of the Lib Dems. However a source said Tuesday that it might not be necessary to delay the bill with changes being tabled in the House of Lords stage instead. Clegg addressed his MPs hours after Lansley went before the commons health select committee to explain the progress of the bill. He surprised some MPs when he admitted they were “still thinking through” what would happen should one of the newly empowered GP consortia go bust. Lansley said: “The responsibility lies with the NHS commissioning board. To identify and then intervene – they will have powers to take over responsibility or ask another hospital to take over.” But he said there was still a debate about what would be the “trigger” for the NHS commissioning board to step in. In an overture to those concerned about the reforms, and in a nod to the parliamentary push back from Clegg’s team, Lansley said there would be “opportunities to clarify, if not improve, the bill as it goes through parliament.” Lansley insisted that the bill was compatible with EU law and that he was supported by legal advice. But when pressed five times by Labour MP Valerie Vaz to publish the exact legal advice, he appeared to refuse. The level of confusion was such that the committee’s chair Stephen Dorrell asked for a note of clarification on the issues of competition. He also admitted that the government had not yet worked out the role of Monitor, the regulatory body that ensures fair play between GP consortia. The Tory MP for Totnes, and a GP, Sarah Wollaston suggested that without clear legislated restrictions the “public interest” of Monitor was “clearly open to interpretation”. Lansley committed to sending a written explanation on the regulatory body. Lansley said the current debate was turning on an incorrect sum and that the size of the budget being handed to GPs was not £80bn as has been accepted but £60bn, owing to elements within the budget being redirected to areas like public health and regional specialised services which will not be channelled through GP consortia. Nick Clegg NHS Health Andrew Lansley GPs Liberal Democrats Conservatives Liberal-Conservative coalition Allegra Stratton guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
enlarge Operation El Dorado Canyon – if it wasn’t for some guy in Malta giving a heads up . . . . Click here to view this media Our history with Libya and our run-ins with Muammar Gaddafi go back a ways. Last week I posted a piece on an attack that took place on Libya by U.S. forces in March of 1986. A few weeks later there was the infamous disco bombing in Berlin that killed two Americans and injured scores of others and less than two weeks after that, President Regan ordered up a military operation dubbed Operation El Dorado Canyon which was in retaliation to the Berlin bombings. The interesting parallels between that military operation and the current one are the loud proclamations that “we-aren’t-really-trying-to-kill-the-guy ., . .but-if he-happens-to-be . . . .” (nudge-nudge/wink-wink) by spokespeople from both Administrations. In Reagan’s case, the non-assassination assassination was bungled by a tip from Malta as F-14′s flew past on their way to Tripoli. The word of warning helped Gaddafi dodge the attack by minutes and allowed us to arrive at this point in history today. The other big difference between our latest military operation and the one in 1986 is that at least we have a coalition of other countries (including some tacit support among the Arab Nations), not to mention the rebels in Libya who are relieved the playing field is a bit more level than it was this time last week when they were threatened with annihilation. At this point we’re in the “damned if you/damned if you don’t” stage on Capitol Hill and with mainstream media. In 1986 they weren’t asking that question. And next week it will probably be something else. Here are reports from the first 2-3 hours of Operation El Dorado Canyon as reported on CBS Radio on the night of April 14 – morning of April 15, 1986.
Continue reading …
What’s it like to run an art gallery in Roubaix, France’s poorest town? Bruno Gaudichon, director of La Piscine, a museum of art and industry set in an old bath-house, reveals all How did you get started? When I was a boy, I wanted to be an archaeologist – digging up all those hoards of hidden treasure. Then later, a
Continue reading …
Civilians among victims, including three from the same family At least eight people have been killed and dozens injured after Israeli attacks on the Gaza Strip. The dead included four civilians who were killed when a tank shell was fired at a Gaza City suburb. It is believed three members of the same family were killed. There were unconfirmed reports of a fifth victim. Four people were killed when an Israeli aircraft fired at a car in another suburb of Gaza City. It was claimed the passengers were Islamic Jihad militants. Within an hour, a rocket was fired at the Israeli city of Ashkelon. Tension has been mounting in the area since two members of Hamas were killed in an airstrike last week, after sporadic firing from Gaza into Israel. On Saturday, 50 mortar shells were fired from Gaza into Israel causing several injuries. On Monday evening, an airstrike injured 18 people. The Israeli army said it had been an attack on a tunnel that could be used to smuggle terrorists into Israel. Attacks on Gaza continued from tanks and the air throughout Tuesday. A spokeswoman for the Israeli army said that she regretted the civilian deaths but the army had been targeting mortar fire coming from a residential area. Since the end of the 2009 war, Hamas and Israel have maintained an uneasy ceasefire, characterised by sporadic airstrikes and rocket fire claimed by smaller militant groups. Saturday was the first time that Hamas claimed responsibility for an attack on Israel from Gaza. After the killing in Gaza City, Ismail Radwan, a spokesman for Hamas, said: “The brutal crime of today will not pass without a response by the resistance.” Gaza Israel Palestinian territories Middle East Conal Urquhart guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Is Elizabeth Warren More Effective On The Outside, Or The Inside? Barney Frank Pushing For Her Appointment
March 22, 2011 No CommentLooks like Barney Frank is trying to goad the White House into nominating Elizabeth Warren to head the new consumer agency. Interesting, because that’s the second time in 24 hours that we’ve seen Democrats challenge the White House unwillingness to pick a fight (the other is with the new proposed legislation that raises taxes on those earning a million or more per year): President Obama may not be willing to endure the ideological battle that would result from nominating Elizabeth Warren to head the new consumer protection agency, a top Democrat said Monday. Rep. Barney Frank (Mass.), who co-authored the law creating the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, said that if she were nominated, Warren might not be confirmed to head the agency. While Frank argued that’s a fight worth having, he cautioned that the president might disagree. “I think the president is too unwilling to make the kind of fights that don’t necessarily win. And I’m not sure she couldn’t be [confirmed],” he said on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” program. Frank’s comments could add pressure on the administration to nominate Warren, a consumer advocate and Harvard Law School professor who is currently serving as a White House adviser. Warren is a favorite of liberal lawmakers and activists, who say she would hold financial institutions accountable, and currently works as a special adviser helping to establish the new agency. The White House has not yet selected a nominee to permanently lead the CFPB, and some lawmakers — like Frank — are still pushing for Warren. “She’s an enormously popular, very thoughtful woman,” Frank said. Frank said it’s possible she could win confirmation. “The Republican Party is united against healthcare, united against the environment. They are not united against financial reform,” he said. “The Tea Party people did not send people to Washington to defend derivatives. “I think the fight over Elizabeth Warren would be worth having and I’m not sure how all the Republican senators would vote.” Yves at Naked Capitalism begs to differ: The reactions to Warren, both on the right and left, are becoming divorced from reality. She has assumed iconic status as a lone mediagenic figure in the officialdom who reliably speaks out for the average person, a Joan of Arc for the little guy. And she drives the right crazy because she is rock solid competent and plays their game better than they do. She sticks to simple, compelling soundbites and images without the benefit of Roger Ailes and Madison Avenue packaging, and she speaks to an even broader constituency, Americans done wrong by the banks, than they target. No wonder they want to burn her at the stake. But the shadow she is casting is much larger than her current and prospective power. And as we have indicated, the policy she has allowed to become associated with her name, namely, the mortgage fraud settlement, does not serve her or the public at large well. I want to stress that Warren did a great job at the Congressional Oversight Panel, by taking a post that was likely to amount to a hill of beans and using it to serve as a watchdog of the public’s interest. And I have no doubt that everything she has done since then has been to try to advance causes she very much believes in. But as the old saying goes, “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.” Have we heard zip from Warren, save when she’s been trotted out to serve as a punching bag for dyspeptic Congresscritters? She’s been effectively leashed and collared by being made an advisor and Treasury employee. In theory, taking that post still could have advanced her aims if she was prepared to be bloody minded about it. Her real power lies in her access to media; she’d have more even in an ambiguous role in the Administration than back as a Harvard law professor. And if she was deemed to be too out of line, what could they do? Fire her? That would further enhance her stature and embarrass the Administration. But it appears the powers that be judged her character correctly, in that Warren is apparently unwilling to take on a powerful bureaucracy. it instead appears she’s acceded to what appears to be a minor-sounding but effective Team Obama threat, that if you are not a “team player”, you get excluded from meetings and decisions. But the part she evidently misses is she’d be able to do more to influence those decisions as a semi or actual outsider using a bully pulpit than from the inside. And what does this say for her defenders? Talent and being on the side of right count for very little when the cards are badly stacked against you. Unfortunately, her supporters, in wanting to buck her up in a quixotic battle, are also either backing or giving a free pass to the absurd mortgage “settlement” that is now being bandied about (see a long-form critique here ). Whatever evil genius fobbed Tom Miller, the head of the 50 state attorneys general effort, off on Warren knew exactly what he was doing.
Continue reading …Is Elizabeth Warren More Effective On The Outside, Or The Inside? Barney Frank Pushing For Her Appointment
March 22, 2011 No CommentLooks like Barney Frank is trying to goad the White House into nominating Elizabeth Warren to head the new consumer agency. Interesting, because that’s the second time in 24 hours that we’ve seen Democrats challenge the White House unwillingness to pick a fight (the other is with the new proposed legislation that raises taxes on those earning a million or more per year): President Obama may not be willing to endure the ideological battle that would result from nominating Elizabeth Warren to head the new consumer protection agency, a top Democrat said Monday. Rep. Barney Frank (Mass.), who co-authored the law creating the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, said that if she were nominated, Warren might not be confirmed to head the agency. While Frank argued that’s a fight worth having, he cautioned that the president might disagree. “I think the president is too unwilling to make the kind of fights that don’t necessarily win. And I’m not sure she couldn’t be [confirmed],” he said on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” program. Frank’s comments could add pressure on the administration to nominate Warren, a consumer advocate and Harvard Law School professor who is currently serving as a White House adviser. Warren is a favorite of liberal lawmakers and activists, who say she would hold financial institutions accountable, and currently works as a special adviser helping to establish the new agency. The White House has not yet selected a nominee to permanently lead the CFPB, and some lawmakers — like Frank — are still pushing for Warren. “She’s an enormously popular, very thoughtful woman,” Frank said. Frank said it’s possible she could win confirmation. “The Republican Party is united against healthcare, united against the environment. They are not united against financial reform,” he said. “The Tea Party people did not send people to Washington to defend derivatives. “I think the fight over Elizabeth Warren would be worth having and I’m not sure how all the Republican senators would vote.” Yves at Naked Capitalism begs to differ: The reactions to Warren, both on the right and left, are becoming divorced from reality. She has assumed iconic status as a lone mediagenic figure in the officialdom who reliably speaks out for the average person, a Joan of Arc for the little guy. And she drives the right crazy because she is rock solid competent and plays their game better than they do. She sticks to simple, compelling soundbites and images without the benefit of Roger Ailes and Madison Avenue packaging, and she speaks to an even broader constituency, Americans done wrong by the banks, than they target. No wonder they want to burn her at the stake. But the shadow she is casting is much larger than her current and prospective power. And as we have indicated, the policy she has allowed to become associated with her name, namely, the mortgage fraud settlement, does not serve her or the public at large well. I want to stress that Warren did a great job at the Congressional Oversight Panel, by taking a post that was likely to amount to a hill of beans and using it to serve as a watchdog of the public’s interest. And I have no doubt that everything she has done since then has been to try to advance causes she very much believes in. But as the old saying goes, “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.” Have we heard zip from Warren, save when she’s been trotted out to serve as a punching bag for dyspeptic Congresscritters? She’s been effectively leashed and collared by being made an advisor and Treasury employee. In theory, taking that post still could have advanced her aims if she was prepared to be bloody minded about it. Her real power lies in her access to media; she’d have more even in an ambiguous role in the Administration than back as a Harvard law professor. And if she was deemed to be too out of line, what could they do? Fire her? That would further enhance her stature and embarrass the Administration. But it appears the powers that be judged her character correctly, in that Warren is apparently unwilling to take on a powerful bureaucracy. it instead appears she’s acceded to what appears to be a minor-sounding but effective Team Obama threat, that if you are not a “team player”, you get excluded from meetings and decisions. But the part she evidently misses is she’d be able to do more to influence those decisions as a semi or actual outsider using a bully pulpit than from the inside. And what does this say for her defenders? Talent and being on the side of right count for very little when the cards are badly stacked against you. Unfortunately, her supporters, in wanting to buck her up in a quixotic battle, are also either backing or giving a free pass to the absurd mortgage “settlement” that is now being bandied about (see a long-form critique here ). Whatever evil genius fobbed Tom Miller, the head of the 50 state attorneys general effort, off on Warren knew exactly what he was doing.
Continue reading …
Despite rise in inflation and borrowing, chancellor to court medium earners in ‘steady-as-she-goes’ financial package George Osborne will seek to appeal to Britain’s “squeezed middle” when he announces help for first-time buyers, motorists and 25 million income tax payers in a budget designed to tighten the Treasury’s grip over public spending. Despite disappointing news for the public finances, the chancellor is expected to say that he has scope to raise the income tax personal allowance by £600 next year, fund a £250m shared equity scheme for new homes and defer the above-inflation increase in petrol duty due next month. But Osborne will balance tax giveaways with fresh tax-raising measures, a crackdown on tax avoidance and “special measures” for overspending Whitehall departments in what sources insisted would be a “steady-as-she-goes” package. The chancellor will outline a range of measures – including a shake-up of planning laws, deregulation of employment laws affecting small businesses, and the long-awaited plans for a green investment bank as the coalition government seeks to shift the focus of the economy from deficit reduction to boosting growth. Osborne will admit that the UK’s growth prospects for 2011 have worsened since last autumn, with the independent Office for Budget Responsibility likely to pencil in an increase of around 1.8% in gross domestic product this year against the 2.1% it forecast last November. But the chancellor will signal his determination not to let the government’s deficit reduction plans slip, with fresh controls designed to intensify pressure on ministers to rein in spending. Departments that fail to manage their budgets properly will be placed in special measures – akin to the Ofsted rating given to a failing school – with tough penalties. These could include fines for overspending or being forced to seek Treasury authorisation for larger spending decisions. City hopes that public borrowing for 2010-11 would come in £10bn below the £148bn forecast received a dent with news that the deficit in February topped £10bn – the highest for the month since modern records began in 1993. Meanwhile, inflation according to the consumer price index rose from 4% to a 28-month high of 4.4% last month, pushing up government spending on state benefits. Dearer food, fuel and clothing were the main factors behind last month’s jump in inflation, which is now more than double the government’s 2% target. The increase in the CPI measure of inflation was matched by a rise in the alternative yardstick of the cost of living, the retail prices index, which rose from 5.1% to 5.5% last month, its highest for 20 years. In a move that will please the Liberal Democrat wing of the coalition, Osborne will say that the income tax personal allowance, due to go up to £7,475 next month, will be raised by more than inflation from next year. The increase of around £600 – which comes on top of the £1,000 rise next month – will be worth an average of £45 a year for taxpayers earning up to £115,000 a year. The 550,000 taxpayers who earn more than £115,000 will lose £45 a year because they no longer have a personal allowance. Osborne will announce a joint scheme with the construction industry to help some of the potential first-time buyers currently frozen out of the housing market. First-time buyers with a household income of less than £60,000 a year who can put down a 5% deposit on a new home will be eligible for an equity loan worth up to 20% of the value of the property jointly funded by the government and housebuilders. The loan will be interest-free for five years and only be repayable when the house is sold. With most first-time buyers only able to secure mortgages worth 75% of a property’s value, Osborne is expected to say his scheme will give some young people the chance to meet the exacting loan standards demanded by lenders in the wake of the financial crisis, lead to the building of 10,000 new homes and protect 40,000 jobs in the construction industry. The year long cabinet battle over Britain’s ability to invest in the next generation of green infrastructure will be resolved when a green investment bank is established with access to up to £3bn of funds, and an ability to borrow from April 2015. Green groups will be disappointed about the deferral of borrowing powers, but pleased at the higher than expected interim funding. The battle over the bank was resolved on Sunday and the outcome reflects a wider political struggle to ensure plans in the budget to ease pressure on the squeezed middle, including freezing planned fuel duty rises, does not strip the coalition of its green credentials. Ministers admit the deferral of the bank’s borrowing powers to 2015-16 reflects Treasury determination to ensure net debt as a percentage of GDP is falling by 2015-16. But they also argue that decisions on the next big wave of green investment projects, including offshore wind farms, do not need to be made until after 2015. In a negotiating success for Chris Huhne, the energy secretary, the bank will be given access to £1bn of funds from 2012-13, as opposed to the earlier plan to wait until 2013-4. The bank will also be given access from 2012-13 to £775m from the asset sales from HS1, the superfast rail track between London and the Channel tunnel. In addition the bank will have access to £1bn from the sales from 2013-14 from Urenco, the company that makes enriched uranium from nuclear power. The government owns a third of Urenco jointly with the Dutch government and German energy companies RWE and E.On. The Treasury has given a guarantee that if the income from the sale of Urenco is not forthcoming, the green bank will have access to other funds. Budget 2011 George Osborne Conservatives Tax and spending Budget Property Family finances Motoring Borrowing & debt Inflation Larry Elliott Patrick Wintour Polly Curtis guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Comedy Central’s Jon Stewart wondered Monday why the U.S. had gone to war with Libya. “We’re at war?” he asked. “Again?” “I don’t want to be a pain in the ass, but don’t we already have two wars?” “You know, wars aren’t kids, where you don’t have to pay attention to the youngest one because the older two will take care of it,” Stewart observed. With operation Odyssey Dawn well underway, Stewart pointed out that both Democrats and Republicans have complained the U.S. is out of money. “You know, you can’t simultaneously fire teachers and Tomahawk missiles,” he said.
Continue reading …