Florida judge says she will soon be released due to time already served Casey Anthony, who was acquitted of killing her toddler in a trial that became a media sensation, is likely to stay in prison for several more weeks after being sentenced on charges she lied to investigators. Anthony, 25, was sentenced to four years for the four counts of lying to police, but she has already served nearly three years in jail and will also receive some credit for good behaviour. Judge Belvin Perry estimated that she would be freed in late July or early August. An exact date was to be determined later on Thursday after attorneys for both sides decide exactly how much time she should be credited. The judge also fined her $1,000 on each count. Her defence attorneys, who had been pressing for Anthony to be released, argued before sentencing that her convictions should be combined into one, but the judge disagreed. Anthony was convicted of lying to investigators about working at the Universal Studios theme park, about leaving her daughter with a nonexistent nanny named Zanny, about leaving the girl with friends and about receiving a phone call from her. Prosecutors contended Anthony, then 22, suffocated two-year-old Caylee with duct tape because she was interfering with her desire to be with her boyfriend and party with her friends. Defence attorneys countered that the toddler accidentally drowned in the family swimming pool. They said that when Anthony panicked, her father, a former police officer, decided to make the death look like a murder. They said he put duct tape on the girl’s mouth and then dumped the body in woods about a quarter of a mile (half a kilometre) away. The defence said Anthony’s apparent carefree life hid emotional distress caused by sexual abuse from her father. Her father firmly denied both the cover-up and abuse claims. The prosecution called Anthony’s story about what happened to her daughter absurd, and said no one would make an accident look like a murder. When she is released, Anthony could be hard-pressed to piece together some semblance of a normal life. Threats have been made against her, and online she is being vilified. More than 17,000 people “liked” the “I hate Casey Anthony” page on Facebook, which included comments wishing her the same fate that befell Caylee. Ti McCleod, who lives a few doors from Anthony’s parents, said: “Society is a danger to Casey; she’s not a danger to society.” “Anthony will always be dogged by the belief that she killed her child,” said Lewis Katz, a law professor at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland. “She will never lead a normal life.” Anthony’s attorney, Jose Baez, told ABC before the verdict that he was concerned about his client’s safety when she is freed, given the high emotions surrounding the case. “I am afraid for her,” he told ABC television. Jurors declined to talk to reporters immediately after Tuesday’s verdict, and juror Jennifer Ford told ABC television in an interview that the case was a troubling one. “I did not say she was innocent,” Ford told the network. “I just said there was not enough evidence. If you cannot prove what the crime was, you cannot determine what the punishment should be.” Ford said the fact that Anthony could have faced the death penalty was a consideration. “If they want to charge and they want me to take someone’s life, they have to prove it. They have to prove it, or else I’m a murderer too.” United States guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Florida judge says she will soon be released due to time already served Casey Anthony, who was acquitted of killing her toddler in a trial that became a media sensation, is likely to stay in prison for several more weeks after being sentenced on charges she lied to investigators. Anthony, 25, was sentenced to four years for the four counts of lying to police, but she has already served nearly three years in jail and will also receive some credit for good behaviour. Judge Belvin Perry estimated that she would be freed in late July or early August. An exact date was to be determined later on Thursday after attorneys for both sides decide exactly how much time she should be credited. The judge also fined her $1,000 on each count. Her defence attorneys, who had been pressing for Anthony to be released, argued before sentencing that her convictions should be combined into one, but the judge disagreed. Anthony was convicted of lying to investigators about working at the Universal Studios theme park, about leaving her daughter with a nonexistent nanny named Zanny, about leaving the girl with friends and about receiving a phone call from her. Prosecutors contended Anthony, then 22, suffocated two-year-old Caylee with duct tape because she was interfering with her desire to be with her boyfriend and party with her friends. Defence attorneys countered that the toddler accidentally drowned in the family swimming pool. They said that when Anthony panicked, her father, a former police officer, decided to make the death look like a murder. They said he put duct tape on the girl’s mouth and then dumped the body in woods about a quarter of a mile (half a kilometre) away. The defence said Anthony’s apparent carefree life hid emotional distress caused by sexual abuse from her father. Her father firmly denied both the cover-up and abuse claims. The prosecution called Anthony’s story about what happened to her daughter absurd, and said no one would make an accident look like a murder. When she is released, Anthony could be hard-pressed to piece together some semblance of a normal life. Threats have been made against her, and online she is being vilified. More than 17,000 people “liked” the “I hate Casey Anthony” page on Facebook, which included comments wishing her the same fate that befell Caylee. Ti McCleod, who lives a few doors from Anthony’s parents, said: “Society is a danger to Casey; she’s not a danger to society.” “Anthony will always be dogged by the belief that she killed her child,” said Lewis Katz, a law professor at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland. “She will never lead a normal life.” Anthony’s attorney, Jose Baez, told ABC before the verdict that he was concerned about his client’s safety when she is freed, given the high emotions surrounding the case. “I am afraid for her,” he told ABC television. Jurors declined to talk to reporters immediately after Tuesday’s verdict, and juror Jennifer Ford told ABC television in an interview that the case was a troubling one. “I did not say she was innocent,” Ford told the network. “I just said there was not enough evidence. If you cannot prove what the crime was, you cannot determine what the punishment should be.” Ford said the fact that Anthony could have faced the death penalty was a consideration. “If they want to charge and they want me to take someone’s life, they have to prove it. They have to prove it, or else I’m a murderer too.” United States guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Paul Ryan thinks voters will go for his Medicare-killing budget plan if it’s just sold right
July 7, 2011 No Comment
Click here to view this media Republicans have been deluding themselves, ever since the debacle in NY-26, that all Republicans really have to do is sell their proposals better, and voters will get on board with the Paul Ryan Path to the Poorhouse budget plan — you know, the one that ends Medicare as we know it, among other things. In an interview with WISN-TV , Ryan himself explained why polls consistently voters strongly disapprove of his plan: RYAN: Those polls don’t describe it very well. When the plan is described accurately, it actually polls very well. Well, Greg Sargent runs through the list and finds that the polls describe his plan perfectly well: In reality, the polls that accurately describe Ryan’s plan almost all show woefully low support for it. What’s more, Republicans have in effect already acknowledged that they lost the larger argument over Medicare by beginning to attack Dems from the left on the issue. They are now accusing Democrats of being the ones who really want to cut Medicare, and have even accused Dems of wanting to “shred the social safety net.” And even Mitch McConnell has distanced himself from Ryan’s plan. How does Ryan intend to improve those poll numbers? The WISN interview makes it plain that his strategy is simple: Slag the Democrats on Medicare. RYAN: Whenever you lead and propose a solution to a complex problem, you’re putting yourself out there to be distorted, to be demagogued to be lied about. What’s happening is the other party’s chosen to try to scare senior citizens to try and get votes. Here’s the deal on our Medicare plan: ObamaCare ends Medicare as we know it. Got that? The whole story on Ryan’s plan is that it’s actually “Obamacare” that’s the problem. Of course, this has been Ryan’s fresh new lie for a week now . And as Brian Beutler observes, it’s profoundly mendacious: Ryan’s plan actually sustains those $500 billion in cuts, while repealing just about all other parts of the health care law. Far beyond that, though, his plan would close the door on traditional Medicare in 10 years, and phase it out by putting new retirees in a private, subsidized health insurance market. As usual, though, privatizing a major entitlement polls really poorly, and Republicans are facing huge voter backlash in their districts after voting to endorse Ryan’s plan. The most amusing part of all this is watching Republicans flop back and forth on scaremongering seniors. After NY-26, they denounced Democrats for waging “Mediscare” tactics . There was no small irony in this, considering that this was the party that invented the “death panels” lie and ran videos of Democrats killing poor grannies.
Continue reading …
Tonight MSNBC's cast and crew will gather in Washington D.C. to celebrate their network being on the air for 15 long years. In that time its hosts, reporters and guests have attacked conservatives and Republicans on everything from impeaching Bill Clinton and conducting a war on terrorism, up to the fight over public unions. All the while some of its reporters and hosts have been thrilled by the likes of Mikhail Gorbachev and Barack Obama. For that entire 15 years MRC analysts have been dutifully watching and noting these often outrageous outbursts of leftism from NBC News' cable outlet. The following collection of the worst MSNBC quotes, year-by-year, is just a sampling of the Lean Forward network's decade-and-a-half long devotion to advancing the cause of liberalism under the guise of journalism. (video compilation after the jump)
Continue reading …
The Guardian’s editor debates with readers from 2.30pm about issues arising from the phone-hacking scandal Sometimes the forward momentum of newspaper investigations is virtually invisible to the naked eye. It’s lucky that Nick Davies is an exceptionally patient reporter because there must have been times during the past two years when he felt no one wanted to hear what he was so clearly saying. Nick’s first story on the full extent of the phone-hacking scandal was published almost exactly two years ago – on 8 July 2009. It was – or should have been – explosive. It reported that a major global media company – News International – had paid out £1m secretly to settle legal cases which revealed criminality within their business. Instead of going back to parliament or the regulator to admit that they had been misled, the company’s chairman, James Murdoch, signed a large cheque to stop the truth coming out. With any non-media company this revelation would have led to blanket coverage, calls for resignations, immediate action by the regulator etc. Instead there was a kind of ghostly silence. The Metropolitan police – led by Assistant Commissioner John Yates – announced an inquiry. And then, within the space of a few hours, he announced the inquiry was over and there was nothing to inquire into. News International, doubtless pleased by this clean bill of health, came out all guns blazing, denouncing the Guardian’s deliberate attempts to mislead the public. Most of the press decided it wasn’t much of a story. The regulator decided there was nothing wrong. And many MPs were sympathetic in private, but indicated there was little in it for them in sticking their heads above any public parapet. And so we settled in for the long haul. Week by week, story by story, column by column, doorstep by doorstep, Nick Davies prised open the truth. There were some other heroes: a handful of lawyers and MPs and a few journalists – on the New York Times, Independent, FT, BBC and Channel 4. But it was pretty lonely work for those at the heart of it. And there were plenty of people yawning from the sidelines, claiming it was all a bit obsessive. But investigative journalism is a bit obsessive. Sometimes it works by small, incremental, barely perceptible steps. Scroll forward two years and the full truth of what was going on at the News of the World is dramatically being stripped bare. Some kind of mental dam has been broken. MPs, journalists, regulators and police are speaking confidently again as they should. The palpably intimidating spectre of an apparently untouchable media player has been burst. But what now? How can we make sure that we never again have this kind of dominant force in British public life? One positive step yesterday was the announcement that there would be at least one public inquiry into what on earth was going on within the Metropolitan police. There are two outstanding issues that will affect the future of the media in this country. One is the threatened imminent decision to wave through the deal which would give Rupert Murdoch total control over the biggest commercial broadcaster as well as 40% of the national press. Anyone who reads into the story of the last two years can see that’s a terrible idea. But – on the narrow grounds on which Jeremy Hunt and David Cameron are fighting – it’s a complex issue mixing competition law, Ofcom, plurality and politics. And then there’s the question of how the press should be regulated. There will be plenty of calls for statutory regulation in the days and weeks to come. I don’t like the idea. I resist the notion of state licensing of journalists – and I struggle to see how there is any easy definition of “journalist” in 2011. So I would like to see self-regulation continue. But I admit this is shaky ground. When the PCC came out with its laughable report into phone hacking in November 2009 (which, to its credit, it finally retracted yesterday) I warned that this was going to be dangerous for the cause of self regulation and I quit the PCC’s code committee in protest. The PCC’s weakness is that it doesn’t have the powers of a regulator. So it should either abandon the claim to be a regulator – and carry on doing its valuable work of mediation and adjudication – or else it has to acquire powers of compelling witnesses, calling evidence etc. But how does it do that without becoming laboriously legalistic and horrendously expensive to run? These are some of the issues now coming down the slipway and I look forward to discussing them. Comments will be off on this article until 2.30pm on Thursday when Alan Rusbridger will be answering questions live online for two hours. Bochi asks: Oborne goes on to allege you also warned Nick Clegg about Coulson’s activities. Is this true? If so, what were Cameron and Clegg told that is now in the public domain? What have they known all along? Alan Rusbridger replies: Peter Oborne is right. Before the election it was common knowledge in Fleet Street that an investigator used by the NoW during Andy Coulson’s editorship was on remand for conspiracy to murder. We couldn’t report that due to contempt of court restrictions, but I thought it right that Cameron should know before he took any decisions about taking Andy Coulson into Number 10. So I sent word via an intermediary close to Cameron. And I also told Clegg personally. shanecroucher asks: Does the Guardian have any evidence of phone hacking happening at other British newspapers ? If so, once the dust settles over NotW, will the Guardian widen its continuing investigation to these papers too? Alan Rusbridger replies: I think the bulk of Nick Davies’s evidence relates to the NotW. He did write a more general chapter on the so-called dark arts of Fleet Street in his book, Flat Earth News. To be frank, it’s taken him all this time to land this one, so he’s hardly had time to look elsewhere so far nega9000 asks: The past few days have had me genuinely wondering about what, if any, licensing requirements there are on running a newspaper. If a broadcaster had been up to what the NoW were doing it would quite rightly have been pulled off the air. So what exactly does a newspaper have to do to lose its right to publish in the UK? Alan Rusbridger replies: I’m anxious about the notion of state licensing for the press. We got rid of that more than 150 years ago (date, someone?) and I wouldn’t want to see it back. In an age when anyone can call thsemselves a journalist I see difficulties of definition. Would Huffington Post have to get a licence? So, I think it’s probably unworkable as well as undesirable. But I’d be interested to hear other views. digit asks: Do you agree with Oborne that this renders Cameron’s position questionable? Alan Rusbridger replies: No – but I do think it showed lousy judgement. I don’t think I was the only person to warn Cameron in advance about Coulson, incidentally. passthebucket asks: Many congratulations on your determined coverage of this story. Also, do you ever fear retribution from Mr Murdoch, as many people apparently do? Alan Rusbridger replies: Thank you. But Nick Davies is the hero of the hour. I honestly don’t think Murdoch would win much public sympathy if he started going after the people who have been criticising him or the NoW this week. miket10000 asks: Media regulation. I don’t like the idea of state regulation either, but we’ve seen that self-regulation in its current form just doesn’t work. Do you see a future role for, e.g. Ofcom in providing or overseeing independent press regulation? Alan Rusbridger replies: I agree that this hasn’t been a wonderful advertisement for self-regulation. The short answer is that, no, the PCC can’t go on as it is. Its credibility is hanging by a thread. We did say this back in November 2009 when the PCC came out with its laughable report into phone-hacking. We said in an editorial that this was a dangerous day for press regulation – and so it’s turned out. The PCC has this week withdrawn that report and has a team looking at the issues and at the mistakes it’s made in the past. I don’t know how Ofcom could do the job without falling into the category of statutory regulation. Does anyone else? Phone hacking Newspapers & magazines The Guardian National newspapers Newspapers News International News of the World Alan Rusbridger guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …The Guardian’s editor debates with readers from 2.30pm about issues arising from the phone-hacking scandal Sometimes the forward momentum of newspaper investigations is virtually invisible to the naked eye. It’s lucky that Nick Davies is an exceptionally patient reporter because there must have been times during the past two years when he felt no one wanted to hear what he was so clearly saying. Nick’s first story on the full extent of the phone-hacking scandal was published almost exactly two years ago – on 8 July 2009. It was – or should have been – explosive. It reported that a major global media company – News International – had paid out £1m secretly to settle legal cases which revealed criminality within their business. Instead of going back to parliament or the regulator to admit that they had been misled, the company’s chairman, James Murdoch, signed a large cheque to stop the truth coming out. With any non-media company this revelation would have led to blanket coverage, calls for resignations, immediate action by the regulator etc. Instead there was a kind of ghostly silence. The Metropolitan police – led by Assistant Commissioner John Yates – announced an inquiry. And then, within the space of a few hours, he announced the inquiry was over and there was nothing to inquire into. News International, doubtless pleased by this clean bill of health, came out all guns blazing, denouncing the Guardian’s deliberate attempts to mislead the public. Most of the press decided it wasn’t much of a story. The regulator decided there was nothing wrong. And many MPs were sympathetic in private, but indicated there was little in it for them in sticking their heads above any public parapet. And so we settled in for the long haul. Week by week, story by story, column by column, doorstep by doorstep, Nick Davies prised open the truth. There were some other heroes: a handful of lawyers and MPs and a few journalists – on the New York Times, Independent, FT, BBC and Channel 4. But it was pretty lonely work for those at the heart of it. And there were plenty of people yawning from the sidelines, claiming it was all a bit obsessive. But investigative journalism is a bit obsessive. Sometimes it works by small, incremental, barely perceptible steps. Scroll forward two years and the full truth of what was going on at the News of the World is dramatically being stripped bare. Some kind of mental dam has been broken. MPs, journalists, regulators and police are speaking confidently again as they should. The palpably intimidating spectre of an apparently untouchable media player has been burst. But what now? How can we make sure that we never again have this kind of dominant force in British public life? One positive step yesterday was the announcement that there would be at least one public inquiry into what on earth was going on within the Metropolitan police. There are two outstanding issues that will affect the future of the media in this country. One is the threatened imminent decision to wave through the deal which would give Rupert Murdoch total control over the biggest commercial broadcaster as well as 40% of the national press. Anyone who reads into the story of the last two years can see that’s a terrible idea. But – on the narrow grounds on which Jeremy Hunt and David Cameron are fighting – it’s a complex issue mixing competition law, Ofcom, plurality and politics. And then there’s the question of how the press should be regulated. There will be plenty of calls for statutory regulation in the days and weeks to come. I don’t like the idea. I resist the notion of state licensing of journalists – and I struggle to see how there is any easy definition of “journalist” in 2011. So I would like to see self-regulation continue. But I admit this is shaky ground. When the PCC came out with its laughable report into phone hacking in November 2009 (which, to its credit, it finally retracted yesterday) I warned that this was going to be dangerous for the cause of self regulation and I quit the PCC’s code committee in protest. The PCC’s weakness is that it doesn’t have the powers of a regulator. So it should either abandon the claim to be a regulator – and carry on doing its valuable work of mediation and adjudication – or else it has to acquire powers of compelling witnesses, calling evidence etc. But how does it do that without becoming laboriously legalistic and horrendously expensive to run? These are some of the issues now coming down the slipway and I look forward to discussing them. Comments will be off on this article until 2.30pm on Thursday when Alan Rusbridger will be answering questions live online for two hours. Bochi asks: Oborne goes on to allege you also warned Nick Clegg about Coulson’s activities. Is this true? If so, what were Cameron and Clegg told that is now in the public domain? What have they known all along? Alan Rusbridger replies: Peter Oborne is right. Before the election it was common knowledge in Fleet Street that an investigator used by the NoW during Andy Coulson’s editorship was on remand for conspiracy to murder. We couldn’t report that due to contempt of court restrictions, but I thought it right that Cameron should know before he took any decisions about taking Andy Coulson into Number 10. So I sent word via an intermediary close to Cameron. And I also told Clegg personally. shanecroucher asks: Does the Guardian have any evidence of phone hacking happening at other British newspapers ? If so, once the dust settles over NotW, will the Guardian widen its continuing investigation to these papers too? Alan Rusbridger replies: I think the bulk of Nick Davies’s evidence relates to the NotW. He did write a more general chapter on the so-called dark arts of Fleet Street in his book, Flat Earth News. To be frank, it’s taken him all this time to land this one, so he’s hardly had time to look elsewhere so far nega9000 asks: The past few days have had me genuinely wondering about what, if any, licensing requirements there are on running a newspaper. If a broadcaster had been up to what the NoW were doing it would quite rightly have been pulled off the air. So what exactly does a newspaper have to do to lose its right to publish in the UK? Alan Rusbridger replies: I’m anxious about the notion of state licensing for the press. We got rid of that more than 150 years ago (date, someone?) and I wouldn’t want to see it back. In an age when anyone can call thsemselves a journalist I see difficulties of definition. Would Huffington Post have to get a licence? So, I think it’s probably unworkable as well as undesirable. But I’d be interested to hear other views. digit asks: Do you agree with Oborne that this renders Cameron’s position questionable? Alan Rusbridger replies: No – but I do think it showed lousy judgement. I don’t think I was the only person to warn Cameron in advance about Coulson, incidentally. passthebucket asks: Many congratulations on your determined coverage of this story. Also, do you ever fear retribution from Mr Murdoch, as many people apparently do? Alan Rusbridger replies: Thank you. But Nick Davies is the hero of the hour. I honestly don’t think Murdoch would win much public sympathy if he started going after the people who have been criticising him or the NoW this week. miket10000 asks: Media regulation. I don’t like the idea of state regulation either, but we’ve seen that self-regulation in its current form just doesn’t work. Do you see a future role for, e.g. Ofcom in providing or overseeing independent press regulation? Alan Rusbridger replies: I agree that this hasn’t been a wonderful advertisement for self-regulation. The short answer is that, no, the PCC can’t go on as it is. Its credibility is hanging by a thread. We did say this back in November 2009 when the PCC came out with its laughable report into phone-hacking. We said in an editorial that this was a dangerous day for press regulation – and so it’s turned out. The PCC has this week withdrawn that report and has a team looking at the issues and at the mistakes it’s made in the past. I don’t know how Ofcom could do the job without falling into the category of statutory regulation. Does anyone else? Phone hacking Newspapers & magazines The Guardian National newspapers Newspapers News International News of the World Alan Rusbridger guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …I’ve had this audio sitting in a draft for a while, but I think it’s time to hear Piers Morgan again. I wrote about this topic in an earlier post on the News Corp. phone hacking scandal that the US media refuses to give any time to. Since the news broke that Rupert Murdoch’s rag actually allegedly deleted phone messages which interfered with a police investigation because the voice mail was full from a 13 year old girl named Milly Dowler, who was murdered by a serial killer . Listen to Morgan’s rant and then ask yourself how he ended up on CNN. he equates what news Corp did to Wikileaks and Hollywood stars like Hugh Grant, who in his mind use the media to become more famous. It’s seriously bizarre and just whacked out.
Continue reading …
Activists from Welcome to Palestine campaign expected to land in Tel Aviv after blocking of aid flotilla Israel was bracing itself on Thursday for an expected attempt by hundreds of pro-Palestinian activists to fly into the country, as the latest flotilla of ships intended for Gaza appeared to have been largely stalled. Israeli media reported that hundreds of extra police would be deployed at Ben Gurion airport in Tel Aviv to try to halt the influx of protesters, who are part of the Welcome to Palestine campaign. Most are expected to arrive on an estimated 50 scheduled flights from across Europe, beginning at 1am on Friday. The campaign has denied that those participating intend to try to reach Gaza or provoke deliberate disruption at Ben Guirion airport. “As stated … we invite international guests including families to visit us in Palestine,” Welcome to Palestine said in a statement on Thursday. “We hope and expect the Israeli authorities to allow them safe passage in compliance with international law and normal diplomatic relations. “We also reject the Israeli government threat of mass deportation of peace activists and the attempt to justify this unjustifiable action with rumours that have been spread.” Israel’s prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, has taken a personal interest in the “flytilla” threat, visiting airport officials before a trip to Romania and insisting that “every country has the right to prevent entry of disrupters and provocateurs at its borders”. Israel’s public security minister, Yitzhak Aharonovitch, had already denounced those planning to participate as “hooligans and radicals”. “The same hooligans who tried to break the law and disrupt the peace will not be allowed into Israel and will return to their home countries,” he said this week. “I want to make it clear that as a sovereign, democratic country, we will not allow public propaganda, incitement and illegal demonstrations to occur, not at the airport and not in any other place.” In expectation of what has also been called the “fly in” Israel’s transport authorities have demanded foreign airlines present lists of passengers two days in advance of departure for scrutiny. Israel expects at least 600 activists to attempt to enter, half of them from France. They have said they intend to spend a week visiting Palestinian families. Michael Rabb, a US pro-Palestinian activist, told Israel Army Radio he expected at least 500 activists to arrive at Ben Gurion airport and “announce openly and honestly that we’re flying into Palestine to visit our friends”. Announced earlier this week by Welcome to Palestine, the campaign said that those taking part would include citizens of Britain, Belgium, Italy, France, Germany and the US. The “fly in” is the latest chapter in the continuing game of cat and mouse between Israel and pro-Palestinian protesters who have increasingly used tactics designed to challenge Israel and invite a response which would embarrass it in front of the world. Ben Gurion airport has long had a reputation for its stringent screening of arriving foreign passengers and questioning of departing non-Israeli nationals, including questions about where they have travelled and whether they have met Palestinians. According to the Haaretz newspaper, in this case Israeli officials have warned that if a plane arrives with a suspect on board, that person will be detained at Ben Gurion and be put on a plane back to his home country before he reaches passport control. Israeli authorities are also making arrangements for planes suspected of carrying larger numbers of activists to be diverted to an outer runway at the airport so passengers can be questioned. According to the paper, police being deployed for the operation were told during a briefing that “when you enter the airport, it will be as if you are entering the set of Big Brother” – and warned they should not be be goaded into using force and then being filmed by activists. The concern has been prompted by the international outrage that followed the release of footage of the Israeli commando raid on the Gaza aid flotilla ship the MV Marmara, a raid that resulted in the deaths of nine activists on board. Gaza flotilla Israel Middle East Gaza Palestinian territories Protest Peter Beaumont guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Priceless 12-century manuscript, which contains Europe’s first travel guide, went missing from a safe in Spanish cathedral A priceless 12th-century illustrated manuscript containing what has been described as Europe’s first travel guide has been stolen from the cathedral at Santiago de Compostela in northern Spain. The Codex Calixtinus, which was kept in a safe at the cathedral’s archives, is thought to have been stolen by professional thieves on Sunday afternoon. Archivists did not notice its disappearance, however, until Tuesday, when the cathedral’s dean was told it was missing. The local Correo Gallego newspaper reported that distraught cathedral staff spent hours searching for the manuscript before contacting police late that night. “Although security systems have been improved considerably it is true to say that they are not of the kind one might find in a bank or a well-protected jewellers,” the newspaper reported. Only five security cameras were used to watch the archive area, according to the newspaper, and none were pointing directly at the safe where the priceless manuscript was stored. Police reportedly believe that a black market dealer in antique manuscripts may have commissioned the robbery. The codex was rarely removed from its safe, with researchers wishing to study it generally being handed a copy kept at the same archive. The 225 parchment pages include a guide to the pilgrimage routes to Santiago, apparently written by a French friar, Aimeric Picaud. They also tell the story of how St James the Apostle’s body was supposedly transported from Judea on a raft without oars or sails, which swiftly crossed the Mediterranean and travelled north through the Atlantic before grounding in north-western Spain. From there it was supposedly dragged inland by two oxen, and the body was buried in a forest. It was only eight centuries later, however, that locals began to claim the tomb of St James could be found there. Pilgrims eventually began to travel to the site, and an 11th-century pope declared that on certain years pilgrims could obtain plenary indulgence for their sins and so avoid purgatory. The manuscript, apparently commissioned by Pope Calixtus II, helped popularise a pilgrimage that still attracts tens of thousands of people every year. The author claimed pilgrims travelled from as far away as Scotland, Ireland, Wales, Jerusalem and Asia seeking “mortification of the body, increase of virtue, forgiveness of sins … and the protection of the Heavens”. His guidebook also included warnings against eating some local fish which would cause you to “die soon afterwards or fall ill”. Spain Catholicism Santiago de Compostela Europe Religion Christianity Giles Tremlett guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Reuters Ignores Projected August Debt Payments in ‘Exclusive’ About Preventing Default
July 7, 2011 No Comment
Reuters on Thursday issued what it called an “exclusive” report about the Treasury department “secretly” weighing options to avert a default if the debt ceiling isn't raised by August 2nd. In the piece , the authors shared with readers the amount of tax revenue Treasury projects it will collect in August as well as projected Social Security payments, but conspicuously ignored what the department expects to pay in interest costs on the federal debt: A small team of Treasury officials is discussing options to stave off default if Congress fails to raise the country's borrowing limit by an August 2 deadline, sources familiar with the matter said on Wednesday. Senior officials, including Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, have repeatedly said there are no contingency plans if lawmakers do not give the U.S. government the authority to borrow more money. But behind the scenes, top Treasury officials have been exploring ways to prevent a financial meltdown that would be triggered if the government were unable to pay its bills on time, sources told Reuters. Sounds reasonable, right? Unfortunately, Reuters failed to accurately report what those contingencies could be: In August, the Treasury will take in roughly $172 billion, but is obligated to make $306 billion in payments — meaning it cannot pay about 45 percent of its bills without borrowing more money, according to the Bipartisan Policy Center, a Washington think tank. That would force the administration to make some difficult choices, even though officials believe emergency measures will buy little time and cannot stave off an economic catastrophe. If Treasury were to decide to delay some payments, one option could be to postpone a disbursement of more than $49 billion to Social Security recipients that is due on August 3. It would be a politically explosive step but one that could allow the government to temporarily pay bondholders to try to avoid foreign investors dumping U.S. Treasuries and the dollar. Notice something missing? Like how much interest is due on our debt in August? If we're going to bring in $172 billion next month, and we owe $49 billion to Social Security recipients, that leaves $123 billion, right? As NewsBusters reported Tuesday, our August interest payment isn't likely to be higher than $35 billion, meaning we will have more than enough in revenues to make our debt payment and fulfill our obligations to America's seniors. After paying the interest due on our debt and Social Security bills, we'll still have $88 billion remaining to pay military men in the field, Medicare expenses, and a whole host of things. Wouldn't this have been valuable information for Reuters to share in an article titled “Exclusive: Treasury Secretly Weighs Options to Avert Default?” Or would informing the public that there really is absolutely no danger whatsoever of America defaulting on its debt not fit the media's current desire to gin up hysteria about this supposedly looming “crisis” in order to put pressure on Congressional Republicans to raise taxes? Shouldn't it be the press's responsibility to actually give the public the complete picture without withholding key elements of the story? Or would that be too much like journalism?
Continue reading …