• Air strikes in Libya continued for a third night • Libyan government claims more civilians killed • Disputes over whether Gaddafi legitimate target • Fighting continues on the ground Follow live updates here 8.16am: Air attacks on Libya are likely to slow, a US general has said, as Washington holds back from being sucked into the Libyan civil war. “My sense is that – that unless something unusual or unexpected happens, we may see a decline in the frequency of attacks,” General Carter Ham, who is leading US forces in the Libyan operation, told reporters in Washington. 8am: Good morning, welcome to the Guardian’s live coverage of the continuing military action in Libya. • A third successive night of air strikes against targets in Libya took place last night, with heavy anti-aircraft fire and explosions heard in Tripoli. Libyan state television reported that several sites in Tripoli had been subject to new attacks by what it called the “crusader enemy”. Al-Jazeera television said radar installations at two air defence bases in eastern Libya had been hit. However, a French armed forces spokesman said France, which has been involved in strikes in the east, had no planes in the air at the time. • A breach within Britain’s political and military leadership has opened up as David Cameron argued that the Libyan leader, Muammar Gaddafi, may be a legitimate target while the chief of the defence staff, Sir David Richards, said he was “absolutely not”. The clash fed concern on the third day of the air assault that the hastily assembled international alliance is struggling to paper over disagreements about its ultimate war aims, the future role of Nato and the legitimacy of the rebel groups. • Residents in two besieged rebel-held cities in western Libya, Misrata and Zintan, said they had been attacked by Gaddafi’s forces, Reuters reported. In Misrata, residents said people had gone out into the streets to try to stop Gaddafi’s forces entering the city. Zintan, near the Tunisian border, faced heavy shelling, two witnesses said, forcing residents to flee to mountain caves. Several houses were destroyed and a mosque minaret destroyed. “New forces were sent today to besiege the city. There are now at least 40 tanks at the foothills of the mountains near Zintan,” Abdulrahmane Daw told Reuters by phone from the town. • The US has showed signs of exasperation with its European partners amid confusion over who will take control of the Libyan operation from America. Facing questions at home about the US military getting bogged down in a third Muslim country, President Barack Obama said Washington would cede control of the Libyan operation in days, either to a Nato-led command or some Nato-style operation headed by France or Britain. Libya Arab and Middle East unrest Middle East Defence policy Protest Adam Gabbatt guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
enlarge Bending over backwards to portray One Big Happy Family. Click here to view this media Smack in the middle of the Cold War, the Arms Race and threats of nuclear annihilation, the Public Relations war was in full swing in an attempt to assuage a nervous country that The Bomb was okay, Atomic power was fine and Nuclear Energy was going to be the wave of the future. The Atomic Energy Commission heavily lobbied the radio (and TV) networks to try and put some positive spin on the subject of Nuclear Energy and in this documentary, produced for CBS Radio on February 25, 1950 they did their best to paint the rosiest picture possible about the Oak Ridge Tennessee Nuclear facility and town. Alan Jackson (CBS News): “Shortly after the Atomic Energy story itself became known there circulated around the country, in fact around the world, frequently some stories that working anywhere near an Atomic project was bad for workers health. Is that true now? What is the situation here at Oak Ridge?” Dr. Raymond Johnson (Oak Ridge medical Doctor): “I certainly don’t agree that there is any danger here. I think our safety departments at the plants leave no stones unturned in furnishing protection for all the people at the plant. And I think there is absolutely no danger either to the workers or to the people who live in the city.” Since Oak Ridge was the location for the production of the first Atomic Bomb, and also had become the stuff of various UFO sightings throughout the 1950′s and 1960′s, it was a natural people were more than leery of what went on there. But this was Government by Public Relations at its best. And in 1950 there were a lot of very apprehensive people.
Continue reading …
Move agreed without Commons vote after MPs were told to be ‘in step’ with British workers or risk public anger MPs last night agreed to freeze their £65,738 salaries without a Commons vote after they were told to be “in step” with workers around the country or risk public anger. The move brings MPs into line with most public sector workers, whose pay has been frozen for two years. The Senior Salaries Review Body, whose recommendations have been implemented since 2008, had suggested a 1% rise. However, there was disagreement when the leader of the House, Sir George Young, said MPs’ pay should be set by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, which is disliked by many MPs. The decision has angered many backbenchers on all sides of the House with some believing they are underpaid and others who do not agree that they should have to vote on their own salary. Many are also angry about curbs placed on their expenses in the wake of the scandal over abuses. Sir George told MPs the Government had to take “difficult decisions” across the public sector, including imposing a two-year pay freeze for those earning over £21,000. He said: “Colleagues must now decide whether their constituents would welcome Parliament exempting itself from this policy and thus insulating itself from decisions that are affecting households up and down the country. “Or whether, as I believe they should be in step with what is being required of other public servants. I believe it is right for us as MPs to forgo the pay increase which the current formula would have produced.” The call was backed by the Shadow leader of the House, Hilary Benn, who said: “The public would find it very hard to understand if we got a pay rise when they are not getting a pay rise and that is why we will support the motion.” Labour MP John Mann (Bassetlaw) said he was against MPs having to vote on their own salaries, insisting that “the principle of Members’ salaries should be set by a body entirely independent of Parliament”. He said: “Having been through the pain (of the expenses scandal), but the pain is not over, having been through that, having eventually determined that we should determine our own pay, having agreed the principle, we suddenly get back to where we started. MPs’ expenses House of Commons Ben Quinn guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Glenn Beck is still in denial about Martin Luther King’s progressive leadership
March 21, 2011 No Comment
Glenn Beck has always been a bit muddled about just whose side Martin Luther King — whose legacy Beck has tried to hijack in the most bizarre fashion for some time now — was really on. Beck has often tried to exalt King on the one hand while smearing progressives as evil — even though King in fact was a leader not merely of the Civil Rights movement but also of the larger progressive movement of his time . So today he sneered at Richard Trumka for recalling King’s martyrdom while standing up for the workers in a public employees union: GLENN BECK: Madison is just the beginning, AFL-CIO chief Richard Trumka told a union rally in Annapolis on Monday. Madison is just the beginning; you ain’t seen nothing yet, he says. The message? Angry schoolteachers and the unions are the same. Join us April 4th, 2011, a day to stand in solidarity with working people of Wisconsin, Ohio, Indiana, and a dozen other states, where well-funded right-wing corporate politicians are trying to take away the rights that Dr. King gave his life for. Wait, wait, hold it, just a second. Dr. King lost his life for collective bargaining for the public unions, really? Did you know that? ‘Cause — that — we have to update our history books, because I didn’t know that. Did you know that? PAT GRAY: I personally didn’t. (Laughs) BECK: Thank you for that. GRAY: I didn’t know that. I – I was – I’m a little confused, I guess, ’cause, yeah, I thought it had something to do with civil rights, but it was a union deal? As Media Matters explains , King in fact was assassinated while fighting for a public union: King Spoke On Behalf Of Memphis “Public Servants” In His Final Speech. From Dr. King’s “I’ve Been to the Mountaintop” speech, delivered the day before his assassination: The issues is injustice. The issue is the refusal of Memphis to be fair and honest in its dealings with its public servants, who happen to be sanitation workers. Now, we’ve got to keep attention on that. That’s always the problem with a little violence. You know what happened the other day, and the press dealt only with the window-breaking. I read the articles. They very seldom got around to mentioning the fact that one thousand, three hundred sanitation workers were on strike, and that Memphis is not being fair to them, and that Mayor Loeb is in dire need of a doctor. They didn’t get around to that. Now we’re going to march again, and we’ve got to march again, in order to put the issue where it is supposed to be. And force everybody to see that there are thirteen hundred of God’s children here suffering, sometimes going hungry, going through dark and dreary nights wondering how this thing is going to come out. That’s the issue. And we’ve got to say to the nation: we know it’s coming out. For when people get caught up with that which is right and they are willing to sacrifice for it, there is no stopping point short of victory. [Dr. Martin Luther King, 4/3/1968, via American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees] King Was Assassinated While In Memphis To Support Public Sanitation Workers. Memphis Workers Were Fighting For Recognition Of Their Union, Better Wages. Of course, not only is Beck absurdly confused about whose side progressives were on in the civil-rights struggle, he has a convenient case of amnesia when it comes to which side conservatives were on. Hint: It wasn’t Martin Luther King’s side. Especially conservatives who Glenn Beck avidly promotes, such as Mormon far-right icon W. Cleon Skousen. Here’s a flier that was distributed by Skousen’s friend and longtime associate , Ezra Taft Benson: Among the foremost leaders in the campaign to discredit King as a Communist, especially among Mormons, was none other than the Church’s future president, Benson . Here are some prime quotes from Benson: “LOGAN, UTAH-Former Agriculture Secretary Ezra Taft Benson charged Friday night that the civil-rights movement in the South had been ‘formatted almost entirely by the Communists.’ Elder Benson, a member of the Council of the Twelve of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, said in a public meeting here that the whole civil-rights movement was ‘phony.’” (Deseret News, Dec. 14, 1963) “The Communist program for revolution in America has been in progress for many years and is far advanced. While it can be thwarted in a fairly short period of time merely by sufficient exposure, the evil effects of what has already been accomplished cannot be removed overnight. The animosities, the hatred, the extension of government control into our daily lives–all this will take time to repair. The already-inflicted wounds will be slow to heal. First of all, we must not place blame on the Negroes. They are merely the unfortunate group that has been selected by professional Communist agitators to be used as the primary source of cannon fodder. Not one in a thousand Americans–black or white–really understands the full implications of today’s civil-rights agitation. The planning, direction, and leadership come from the Communists, and most of those are white men who fully intend to destroy America by spilling Negro blood, rather than their own. Next, we must not participate in any so-called ‘blacklash’ activity which might tend to further intensify inter-racial friction. Anti-Negro vigilante action, or mob action, of any kind fits perfectly into the Communist plan. This is one of the best ways to force the decent Negro into cooperating with militant Negro groups. The Communists are just as anxious to spearhead such anti-Negro actions as they are to organize demonstrations that are calculated to irritate white people. We must insist that duly authorized legislative investigating committees launch an even more exhaustive study and expose the degree to which secret Communists have penetrated into the civil rights movement. The same needs to be done with militant anti-Negro groups. This is an effective way for the American people of both races to find out who are the false leaders among them” (Ezra Taft Benson, General Conference Report, Oct. 1967). And here’s the cover of a book for which Benson wrote the introduction: enlarge Alexander Zaitchik describes the book in his recent piece for the SPLC on Beck’s espousal of Skousen: Benson was also an advocate for Bircher-style conspiracy theories. Throughout the 1960s and 1970s, he saw the hand of communism in every social welfare policy and fought them as both immoral and unconstitutional. A rabid foe of the civil rights movement, Benson in 1971 allowed one of his anti-civil rights talks to be reprinted as the introduction to a book of race hate called Black Hammer: A Study of Black Power, Red Influence, and White Alternatives. The book’s cover featured the severed, bloody head of an African American. By the end of the decade, his politics had taken a similar turn to that of his friend Skousen. During a 1972 general conference of the Church of Latter-day Saints, Benson recommended all Mormons read Gary Allen’s New World Order tract None Dare Call it Conspiracy . And then there was Skousen — whose views on race somehow are never mentioned by Beck: Skousen’s rolling theocratic lecture tour ran into problems in 1987, when outsiders started examining the contents of the book on which the seminars were based. The Making of America, it turned out, presented a history of slavery that could have been written by a propagandist for the Ku Klux Klan. Skousen relied for his interpretation of slavery on historian Fred Albert Shannon’s Economic History of the People of the United States (1934). Quoting Shannon, Skousen described African-American children as “pickaninnies” and described American slave owners as the “worst victims” of the slavery system. He further explained that “[slave] gangs in transit were usually a cheerful lot, though the presence of a number of the more vicious type sometimes made it necessary for them all to go in chains.” Shannon and Skousen also cast a skeptical eye on accounts of cruelty by slave masters and expressed much more interest in the “fear” Southern whites had while trying to protect “white civilization” from slave revolts. This is why Beck’s constant posturing on behalf of the civil-rights movement — mostly in order to claim a King-like aura for himself — is so bizarre. In order for Glenn Beck to convince his fellow conservatives to adopt this mantle, he essentially has to persuade millions of people who have opposed it with every fiber of their beings for most of their lives to completely reverse course and claim the opposite of their former beliefs. In reality, of course, it’s just a pose intended to mislead the gullible and blunt the critics who can see right through Beck’s phony veneer of advocacy for the civil rights of right-wing white people.
Continue reading …
Investigation under way into how two transplant patients were given kidneys from a donor with a rare form of lymphoma An investigation is under way into how two transplant patients were given kidneys from a donor with a rare and aggressive form of cancer. The incident at the Royal Liverpool University hospital involved organs from a woman who died at another hospital, and was later found to have had a hard-to-identify disease called intravascular B-cell lymphoma. Both patients had been preparing for live transplants from their sisters but accepted the donor kidneys instead. The recipients are now receiving chemotherapy treatment. Although cancer transmission is a known risk of transplantation among clinicians, the case raises questions about guidance to patients and whether sufficient checks are made. One senior official at the NHS Blood and Transplant Service (NHSBT) warned: “We can minimise risk but we can’t abolish it.” An investigation has been launched by the hospital and the transplant service. James Neuberger, associate medical director at NHSBT, said the incident, last November, happened weeks before new guidance was circulated to clinicians on obtaining consent from patients and warning them of risks – including from donor-donated tumours. The service has also begun work on compiling a national register of such incidents. Its says postmortems on donors before transplantation are impossible as they would take too long and render organs unusable. Most lymphomas could not be detected by blood tests. The patients in the Liverpool case have notified lawyers, who are seeking legal aid to investigate how they were counselled, the donor investigated and the organs screened. The case, which has also been investigated for BBC Radio Four’s File on Four documentary broadcast on Tuesday , comes as the government considers removing state aid in potential clinical negligence cases . Both patients have made formal complaints to the NHS. One, Robert Law, 59, from Wirral, Cheshire, said: “I don’t know whether there is anyone to blame or not. We want to find out how, why and when and what mistakes have been made, if any. “Given that I had a live donor, who has been tested, gone through all the procedures, why was I given a cancer-infected kidney from someone else? Anger has not really entered my mind … all my energies are focused on getting better.” Gillian Smart, 46, from St Helens, Merseyside, said a transplant had previously been her “get out of jail card”. She added: “This was where my life could start again. Now I think, goodness, I may have many years of fighting a potentially fatal illness.” The Royal Liverpool’s medical director, Peter Williams, said the hospital was told by the transplant service that two kidneys had become available from a donor who died at another hospital. “When we received confirmation that the kidneys were suitable for transplant, our specialist transplant team discussed options and risks with these patients and obtained their consent,” Williams said. “Both operations went well and it was only after a postmortem had been performed that we were made aware of the donor’s condition. We immediately fully informed both patients and discussed their options with them. “This is a very difficult and distressing time for Rob and Gillian and we continue to offer our full support, care and treatment to them. “We understand that this has been a very upsetting experience for them but we would like to emphasise that such cases are very rare.” In a letter to Law, the hospital’s chief executive, Tony Bell, said that “had there been any suspicion that the donor had cancer the transplant would not have taken place”. He understood “the donor’s death was not due to the lymphoma” and explained most patients remained on waiting lists for kidneys from dead donors in case potential live donors proved unsuitable. Neuberger said “everything possible is always done to reduce the risk of any transmissible diseases”. When patients were registered for a transplant, “they are given a full explanation of the risks surrounding transplantation. No transplant is risk-free, but we do everything we can to make sure that any organ offered up for transplant is tested and deemed fit for transplant. “A full medical history of the donor is always obtained from the medical notes and from talking to the donor’s family, as well as virology screening by a blood test. Tests are also undertaken to ascertain how well the organs are functioning.” Law’s lawyer, Eddie Jones, of Manchester-based JMW , said his client’s condition before the transplant had not been life-threatening. “The tragedy of his particular case is that if he had had his sister’s kidney, he would have been fine … lymphoma, or indeed any type of haematological cancer, is an absolute contra-indication for transplantation. Why wasn’t a postmortem on the dead donor performed sooner? “And as lifesaving operations are increasing, isn’t it time that strict guidelines are laid down to ensure patient safety and avoid this type of situation in future cases?” Smart’s solicitor, John Kitchingman, of law firm Pannone , said: “Unexpected malignancy in a transplant donor is a known risk which arises from time to time, but the circumstances of each case differ. In all cases, though, the transplant team’s decision to offer a kidney for transplant should be underpinned by the requisite certainty as to the cause of the donor’s death.” He would investigate whether Smart was unnecessarily exposed to risk when she was offered the kidney and whether she was advised properly so that she could make an informed choice. “Kidney transplantation isn’t urgent like liver or heart transplant,” said Kitchingham. “Gill and her doctors knew that there was no urgency and that she had alternatives.” The NHS says such incidents are rare and there are long waiting lists for transplants. Three people die in the UK every day because not enough organs are donated. The service says 6% of people on waiting lists for kidney transplants die each year. For heart and lung transplants, the figure is about 20% and for those awaiting a liver transplant, 15%. In October 2009 an inquest heard how a former soldier died after being given a smoker’s lungs in a transplant at Papworth hospital, Cambridge . Health NHS Cancer James Meikle guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
David Cameron says Libyan leader may be a legitimate target while Chief of the Defence Staff said he was ‘absolutely not’ A breach within Britain’s political and military leadership has opened up as David Cameron argued the Libyan leader, Muammar Gaddafi, may be a legitimate target while the Chief of the Defence Staff, Sir David Richards, said he was “absolutely not”. The clash fed a growing concern on the third day of the air assault against Gaddafi that the hastily assembled international alliance is struggling to paper over disagreements about its ultimate war aims in Libya, the future role of Nato and the legitimacy of the rebel groups. There was also cabinet anxiety that the scale of the initial heavy bombardment may strengthen popular support for Gaddafi in Tripoli and be seen in the Middle East as exceeding the UN security council goal of protecting civilians. Gaddafi’s compound was hit by British missiles on Sunday night in an attempt to weaken his command structure as fighting continued across the coastal towns of Libya. Tripoli faced a third night of bombing with no sign yet that the allies would call an early halt to attacks on the basis that the no-fly zone had been established. Senior cabinet ministers admitted that “the emotional optics” of cruise missiles raining down on Libya, backed by coalition military briefings, had unwelcome echoes of Iraq. Downing Street is urgently trying to help organise the rebel forces so they become a more coherent and visible political and military force. During a long Commons debate, Cameron eventually won cross-party support from sceptical MPs for his actions, but there was widespread disquiet in the Commons about mission creep, and whether the intervention would end in an unstable partition of Libya. The rift between Cameron and his defence chief arose after the defence secretary, Liam Fox, said on Sunday that an attack on Gaddafi could be a possibility if it did not lead to civilian casualties. When asked whether Gaddafi was a legitimate target, Sir David replied: “Absolutely not. It is not allowed under the UN resolution and it is not something I want to discuss any further.” Cameron told MPs: “The UN resolution is limited in its scope and explicitly does not provide legal authority for action to bring about Gaddafi’s removal by military means. We will help fulfil the security council aims, and leave it to the Libyan people to determine their government and their destiny, but our view is clear that there is no decent future for Libya with Colonel Gaddafi remaining in power.” Later Cameron’s spokesman argued it was lawful to target Gaddafi if he was seen as organising the threat to Libyan civilians, pointing out the security council’s objective is the protection of civilians. A summary of the legal advice given to the cabinet by the attorney general, Dominic Grieve, was published. It implies attacks on Gaddafi are lawful if he poses a threat. The head of the US Africa Command, Gen Carter F Ham, said attacking Gaddafi was not part of his mission. A French spokesman said that even if the Libyan leader’s exact location were known, he would not be targeted. However, the French foreign minister, Alain Juppe, said he hoped the allied attacks would topple Gaddafi. “It is very probable that faced with the increased fragility of the regime, it falls apart from within. In any case that is what we are hoping for.” Barack Obama, on tour in South America, echoed the dispute in London, saying there was no contradiction between the Pentagon saying removal of Gaddafi was not a goal and the White House saying it was. The aim of the military was restricted to fulfilling the mandate of the UN, which was to protect the civilian population, but the White House and the state department was working for his removal. “I have also stated that it is US policy that Gaddafi has to go and we have a wide range of tools to support that policy,” Obama said, making it clear he had in mind diplomatic pressure. Obama said the core principle was when a leader loses legitimacy and turns his army on civilians, the international community cannot respond with “empty words”. Republicans, while backing intervention to prevent a massacre in Benghazi, objected to Obama going to war without proper consultation with Congress and without a clear mission. Although Obama said he had expected to transfer command from the US to Europe within days, that is being held up by a Nato dispute involving Turkey, which objects to the scale of the attack on Libya. Ham insisted he was not worried about mission creep. Most of the action to destroy Gaddafi’s air defence systems and push back his forces from Benghazi had taken place in the first 24 hours and he did not anticipate further action on that scale. Ham said he also saw coalition partners taking a bigger share in the days ahead. There had been 60 sorties on Sunday in which coalition planes took part in about half, 70 on Monday, and again about half were non-American. New members were joining the coalition, with Canadians and Belgian forces being added and an expectation of more to follow. A total of 12 Tomahawk missiles had been fired in the last 24 hours, he said, aimed at a Scud missile base, a regional command centre and a repeat attack on an air defence system. US, British, French, Italian and Spanish planes were over Benghazi and he expected the no-fly zone soon to extend along the length of the coastline. Ham insisted the mission was not to provide air cover for the rebels, only to protect civilians. But Mark Toner, the state department spokesman, suggested that regime change was an aim after Gaddafi’s failure to honour the ceasefire he declared at the end of last week. “What we are trying to do is convince Gaddafi and his regime to step down from power … that remains our ultimate goal.” Arab and Middle East unrest Muammar Gaddafi Libya David Cameron Middle East Patrick Wintour Ewen MacAskill guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …CNN’s Nic Robertson Slams Fox For Claiming Their Crews Were Used as Human Shields for Gadhafi
March 21, 2011 No Comment
Click here to view this media CNN’s Nic Robertson in Libya responds to Fox’s claim that their crews were used as human shields for Moammar Gadhafi. Fox News Claims CNN Crews Acted As Human Shields For Gadhafi in Libya : Fox News has launched a smear campaign on CNN’s patriotism by reporting that CNN crews were used a human shields and prevented a British attack on Gadhafi’s compound in Libya. CNN denies the story, but this hasn’t stopped Fox News from running an attack on their breaking news competition at CNN. Anchor Jon Scott asked if the media was brought in after the first two cruise missiles struck and Griffin answered, “After those Tomahawks landed the Libyan Ministry of Information went to the hotel where most of the journalists were staying they asked journalists to come and see the damage. From their point of view this was a propaganda opportunity to show that Gadhafi himself was being targeted because his compound had being targeted. Some news crews decided to go; others including our Steve Harrigan did not go to the compound. They were concerned that they could be used as human shields and what we are now learning is that British defense forces had to call off tornado fighter planes that were loaded with seven missiles that were destined for that compound. One of the other journalistic crews that went to the compound that Fox News didn’t bother to mention was the News Corp owned Times of London, but that doesn’t very well fit into the Fox News narrative that the dirty liberal CNN acted as willing human shields for an enemy of America. The FNC point being that if Gadhafi stays in power it could very well be because of those five British Tomahawk missiles that did not get fired on his compound. This was a very clever way for Fox News to question the patriotism and journalistic integrity of CNN. More there so go read the rest of the post, but I agree with their conclusion on the likely reason Fox did this. The reason for this FNC attack on CNN is simple. CNN is the third place cable news network, until breaking news occurs. CNN is still the destination in many viewers’ minds for breaking news coverage. CNN still has more international resources than any other cable network, and the only time their ratings skyrocket is when there is a breaking news story out there. After the Japan earthquake CNN’s ratings more than doubled. Breaking news coverage is the one area of the market that Fox News does not lead, so it is not a surprise that they would use the coalition efforts in Libya to smear CNN. Here is the video from Fox News Robertson was criticizing. (h/t Dave N.) Click here to view this media Transcript below the fold. We have learned that the British fighter jets actually had seven missiles. They were in fact going to be fired from tornado fighter planes onto that compound, but the mission had to be cut short because of the presence of CNN television crews and Reuters journalists on the ground who had been taken to the site by the Libyan Ministry of Information, so the British generals in charge of the operation and flying those tornado planes called off the operation to fire those seven missiles that were supposed to be fired at Gadhafi’ s compound at what’s being described as a command and control center to us because of the presence of CNN crews, Reuters crews, as well some civilians that had been brought essentially has human shields by the Minister of Information to that compound, Gadhafi’s compound in Tripoli. Dave N.: Remember: Those chants in Wisconsin were just telling the cold truth.
Continue reading …
A new website claims it can help women to bag a rich husband, but if we all get on our bikes, we might find something far more valuable ✤ It is not often that one is delivered a press release quite so dispiriting as last week’s little number for a flight comparison site that had thoughtfully “mapped out exactly where to find the world’s richest people in order for women to know where to bag a billionaire”. If you can hear a distant thud, don’t worry, it is only me bashing my head against my desk. Said website apparently pooled the recent Forbes Billionaire List and a map , to produce every woman’s indispensable guide to hunting down a rich husband (if that’s not attractive, I don’t know what is). The site notched up a second achievement in perpetuating the myth that women are all secretly witchy little gold-diggers. Well done guys! Quite what Christy Walton or Liliane Bettencourt make of it I’m not sure, but for those of you trying to bag a female billionaire, I believe easyJet has a special offer on flights past the glass ceiling. ✤ We chanced across a rather fascinating new book this week, Wheels of Change: How Women Rode the Bicycle to Freedom by Sue Macy, which looks at how the success of the bike in late 19th-century America heralded a period of new liberation for women. Our favourite excerpt sees Macy quoting the great Elizabeth Cady Stanton , an early proponent of the contraption: “The bicycle,” she stated, “will inspire women with more courage, self-respect and self-reliance and make the next generation more vigorous of mind and body; for feeble mothers do not produce great statesmen, scientists and scholars.” And billionaires, naturally. ✤ I have been delighted by news of a man who has Julia Roberts’s face tattooed all over his body . Eighty-two tattoos in total, and all inspired by scenes from Erin Brockovich. I can’t help but feel this places a question mark over last week’s revelation that women are better at stalking . Do any of you have 83 tattoos of John Cusack? Been liberated by a bicycle? Do share. Women Rich lists Cycling Laura Barton guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Click here to view this media I’m no fan of military intervention as you know, unless someone attacks us, and then it has to be deliberated intelligently. There are legitimate concerns surfacing from the left about this new action in Libya. James Fallows asks the important question: ‘What Happens Then?’ Indeed. Here’s part of Obama’s remarks on Libya during his Chile presser: “Our military actions are in support of an international mandate from the Security Council that specifically focuses on the humanitarian threat posed by Colonel Qadhafi on his people,” he says. (2:46 p.m.) Obama then says that the U.S. policy is that “Qadhafi needs to go.” He says, “We’ve got a wide range of tools in addition to our military efforts to support that policy.” He then says the United States was “very rapid” in acting. “When it comes to military action, we are doing so in support of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973,” he says, “and we are going to make sure that we stick to that mandate.” (2:47 p.m.) Stressing that other countries are involved in the attack on Libya, Obama says “there’s going to be a transition taking pace,” in which European countries and Arab League members will establish a no-fly zone. “We are one of the partners, among many, who are going to ensure that a no-fly zone is enforced,” he says. Obama then takes on the second part of the question — about being abroad while starting the attack. “Keep in mind that we are working on very short time frames,” he says. “We had done all the work. And it was just a matter of seeing how Qadhafi would respond to the warning on Friday.” “It was a matter of me directing Secretary of Defense Gates and Admiral Mullen that the plan that had been developed in great detail prior to my departure was put in place,” he says. (2:50 p.m.) Answering the last part of the Libya question, President Obama says the Arab League’s involvement in the no-fly zone in Libya is “absolutely” part of the mission. “There are different phases to that campaign,” he says. “Keep in mind, we’ve only been in this process for two days now. … We are continuing to … evaluate the situation on the ground.” Obama repeats that Muammar Qadhafi “has lost his legitimacy.” President Obama is calling it a humanitarian effort. New polling is coming out, and surprisingly 70% of Americans support the “no-fly” zone, but there are other mixed signals being sent as well. There are several different questions in the poll. For instance, when CNN asked people about the establishment of a “no-fly zone”, and provided a fairly lengthy description of it, support registered 70 percent, up significantly from last week. But support dropped to 54 percent when CNN asked a more targeted question about about airborne attacks on Muammar el-Qaddafi’s forces. And there was strong opposition to any use of ground troops, which president Obama has pledged not to employ. My only hope is that there is a fairly quick resolution to the Libyan struggle. Do I realistically see that happening? No. Do I want to protect other people from genocide like Bosnia and Rwanda? Yes, I do, but we have to weigh events very carefully. On a political front, the president also needs a quick resolution because although there is support at this point; America likes winners. They’ve seen way too much incompetence and malfeasance in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars by the Bush administration to be sympathetic for very long.
Continue reading …
Click here to view this media I’m no fan of military intervention as you know, unless someone attacks us, and then it has to be deliberated intelligently. There are legitimate concerns surfacing from the left about this new action in Libya. James Fallows asks the important question: ‘What Happens Then?’ Indeed. Here’s part of Obama’s remarks on Libya during his Chile presser: “Our military actions are in support of an international mandate from the Security Council that specifically focuses on the humanitarian threat posed by Colonel Qadhafi on his people,” he says. (2:46 p.m.) Obama then says that the U.S. policy is that “Qadhafi needs to go.” He says, “We’ve got a wide range of tools in addition to our military efforts to support that policy.” He then says the United States was “very rapid” in acting. “When it comes to military action, we are doing so in support of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973,” he says, “and we are going to make sure that we stick to that mandate.” (2:47 p.m.) Stressing that other countries are involved in the attack on Libya, Obama says “there’s going to be a transition taking pace,” in which European countries and Arab League members will establish a no-fly zone. “We are one of the partners, among many, who are going to ensure that a no-fly zone is enforced,” he says. Obama then takes on the second part of the question — about being abroad while starting the attack. “Keep in mind that we are working on very short time frames,” he says. “We had done all the work. And it was just a matter of seeing how Qadhafi would respond to the warning on Friday.” “It was a matter of me directing Secretary of Defense Gates and Admiral Mullen that the plan that had been developed in great detail prior to my departure was put in place,” he says. (2:50 p.m.) Answering the last part of the Libya question, President Obama says the Arab League’s involvement in the no-fly zone in Libya is “absolutely” part of the mission. “There are different phases to that campaign,” he says. “Keep in mind, we’ve only been in this process for two days now. … We are continuing to … evaluate the situation on the ground.” Obama repeats that Muammar Qadhafi “has lost his legitimacy.” President Obama is calling it a humanitarian effort. New polling is coming out, and surprisingly 70% of Americans support the “no-fly” zone, but there are other mixed signals being sent as well. There are several different questions in the poll. For instance, when CNN asked people about the establishment of a “no-fly zone”, and provided a fairly lengthy description of it, support registered 70 percent, up significantly from last week. But support dropped to 54 percent when CNN asked a more targeted question about about airborne attacks on Muammar el-Qaddafi’s forces. And there was strong opposition to any use of ground troops, which president Obama has pledged not to employ. My only hope is that there is a fairly quick resolution to the Libyan struggle. Do I realistically see that happening? No. Do I want to protect other people from genocide like Bosnia and Rwanda? Yes, I do, but we have to weigh events very carefully. On a political front, the president also needs a quick resolution because although there is support at this point; America likes winners. They’ve seen way too much incompetence and malfeasance in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars by the Bush administration to be sympathetic for very long.
Continue reading …