A UN-backed tribunal in Cambodia is holding the trial of the four most senior surviving members of the Khmer Rouge regime The United Nations-backed trial of the four most senior surviving members of Cambodia’s murderous Khmer Rouge regime began on Monday, three decades after its “year zero” revolution marked one of the darkest chapters of the 20th century. The defendants, all now elderly and infirm, were among the inner circle of the late Pol Pot, the French-educated architect of the Khmer Rouge’s ultra-Maoist Killing Fields revolution. An estimated 1.7 million Cambodians – a quarter of the population – were killed through torture, execution, starvation and exhaustion from 1975-1979. The quartet, “Brother Number Two” Nuon Chea, former President Khieu Samphan, ex-Foreign Minister Ieng Sary and Ieng Thirith, a former Social Affairs Minister, are accused of war crimes and crimes against humanity, among other charges. All are expected to enter not guilty pleas. “Brother Number One” Pol Pot, died in 1998. Except for Khieu Samphan, none have shown willingness to cooperate with the court and there are concerns that Cambodians will be denied the chance to hear first-hand accounts of the motivation and ideology that fuelled an unrelenting killing spree by one of the world’s most enigmatic regimes. The closest any of the former cadres have come to disclosure is seen in an award-winning documentary film yet to be released in Cambodia entitled “Enemies of the People”, in which Nuon Chea, during six years of recorded interviews with a journalist, admitted those seen as threats to the party line were “corrected” at the behest of the regime. The filmmakers have said they would not hand over tapes if asked by the court, but judges say material from the film can be used by prosecutors once in the public domain. The case is a crucial test of whether the multi-million dollar Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC), a hybrid international-led tribunal created in 2005, can deliver justice. Ou Virak, President of the Cambodian Center for Human Rights, said the start of the second case was a “cathartic moment” that he hoped would help bring some closure. The crimes “remain ingrained in Cambodia’s collective psyche. I hope that this trial … provides all victims with some sense of justice, however delayed that justice may be”, Ou Virak said in a statement. But justice might continue to elude Cambodia. Cases have moved at a snail’s pace in the ECCC its processes are extremely bureaucratic. The defendants are old and in poor health and some might die before a verdict is delivered by the ECCC, which estimates its spending will reach $150 million by year-end. The court has so far handed down just one sentence, a 35-year jail term, commuted to 19 years, for Kaing Guek Eav, alias Duch, over his role in the deaths of more than 14,000 people at the notorious S-21 torture centre in Phnom Penh. Duch has appealed against the ruling. His sentence was seen by many Cambodians as too lenient and a so far unexplained decision earlier this month by co-investigating judges not to pursue a third case, believed to involve two senior Khmer Rouge military commanders, has prompted resignations by court staff and outrage from rights groups complaining of political interference by Cambodia’s government and inaction by the United Nations. Prime Minister Hun Sen, himself a former Khmer Rogue cadre, has made no secret of his disdain for the court and last year told UN chief Ban Ki-moon that further indictments were “not allowed”. This week’s opening proceedings are expected to be dominated by moves from Ieng Sary’s lawyers to have charges against him dropped on the grounds that he was sentenced to death by a court created by Vietnamese invaders in 1979 and pardoned by Cambodia’s then King Norodom Sihanouk 17 years later. The pardon for Ieng Sary, a reclusive guerilla leader, came as part of a peace deal between warring factions in Cambodia, but prosecutors are expected to argue the pardon was for the death sentence, not the charges he currently faces. Cambodia Pol Pot United Nations guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Defence secretary to reveal Lord Levene’s blueprint for tightening highest levels of services and cutting ministerial posts Britain’s armed forces will be radically overhauled in plans that will cut the number of senior officers and could also lead to ministerial posts being axed. Downing Street and the Ministry of Defence (MoD) have approved the reforms recommended by Lord Levene, and the proposals will be published on Monday. In a speech, the defence secretary, Liam Fox, will say Levene’s blueprint sets out “a vision of transformation on a scale not seen in defence for a generation”. The long-awaited overhaul of one of Whitehall’s most complex and dysfunctional ministries will lead to each of the three services thinning ranks at the highest level. As the Guardian revealed last month, the army, navy and air force will each be run by a single chief. At the moment, the services have two commanders, one in charge of strategy, the second in charge of day-to-day operations. The reforms would see operational control pushed down the chain of command. The three service chiefs will be removed from the defence board, a powerful committee the defence secretary chairs. The overall head of the military, the chief of the defence staff, currently General Sir David Richards, will represent them. Fox said on Sky News: “We’ve always wanted to see a tighter defence board. In opposition I made very clear the MoD had to have much better management, much tighter management.” The post of deputy chief of the defence staff will be retained initially, but is expected to become redundant when the current holder of the job, General Sir Nicholas Houghton, moves on. A committee chaired by an independent non-executive director, chosen by the defence secretary, will be in charge of appointments to the services’ top ranks. Levene argued that the services were top-heavy – a finding that chimed with Fox’s belief that the number of elite officers should be trimmed to reflect cuts further down the ranks. The department is seeking to make 17,000 service personnel redundant over the next three years. Levene also said the boundaries between the department’s ministerial posts were blurred, and that it may be time to scrap one of the junior positions. Some minor boards set up to oversee individual projects will be scrapped too. “These reforms should lead to major savings,” said a Whitehall source. By scrapping subcommittees set up to oversee procurement projects, the MoD hopes to speed up the process and make individuals responsible for costs. Fox will say in his speech: “Lord Levene is clear in his critique. [The MoD is] a department with overly bureaucratic management structures, dominated by committees that led to indecisiveness and a lack of responsibility.” The MoD is expected to axe up to 8,000 civil servants in the next year. The Treasury has given the department the money to start the cuts, but some in Whitehall fear it will be difficult to implement Levene’s plans with so many staff leaving. There has been a gradual erosion of the powers of the individual service chiefs over the years and Levene’s proposals will see another shift of power away from them. However, they are being mollified by plans which would give them more overall control of their budgets and internal appointments. The Levene reforms are regarded as an important first step in the complete overhaul of the way the armed forces are managed. Next month they will be followed by details of how the MoD intends to meet the £1bn overspend in the budget for last year, as well as an assessment of what is really affordable between 2015 and 2020. The government has set out plans for the size and structure of the armed forces by 2020, but has recognised that the changes can only be achieved if defence spending increases significantly after 2015. The chancellor, George Osborne, has yet to commit any new money, but the MoD is negotiating with Treasury officials and the Cabinet Office because it needs to take some long-term procurement decisions now. A three-month study into what might be affordable is due to conclude at the end of this month. Military Defence policy Liam Fox Liberal-Conservative coalition Conservatives Nick Hopkins guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Stossel Admits He Could’ve Had Breitbart’s ACORN Scoop But Passed Due to ABC’s Politics
June 26, 2011 No Comment
Despite slipping mostly under the radar, John Stossel disclosed something on his FBN program last Thursday that should have garnered a lot more attention. As he chatted with guest Andrew Breitbart, Stossel admitted that the conservative publisher had offered him the James O'Keefe/Hannah Giles/ACORN scoop, but the former ABC Newser declined due to politics at the network he used to work for (video follows with transcript and commentary): JOHN STOSSEL, HOST: Speaking of the mainstream media, I am a little bit ashamed of this one, but I am revealing now for the first time publicly that when I worked at 20/20, you, who I didn't know at that time, pitched me with this story about ACORN and the sting. And I didn't cover it. And you remember that I assume? ANDREW BREITBART: Oh, do I ever? I mean, I've referenced it in speeches that I went to ABC to a producer because I realized you can't just break a story on a blog. You have to get the mainstream media to cover it as well and so I thought what the hey. I'll call up John Stossel. Seems like an honest guy. Seems like he'd think that the president's vaunted community organizing group — treating a fake prostitute and a fake pimp with service with a smile in every office except for one, I thought maybe there is a story here. STOSSEL: What did I tell you? BREITBART: You said that it is a story and that you would probably commit a month to a story like this because it is so blatant, but you said that the politics within ABC were just, you know, that you couldn't do it. STOSSEL: And that's true. I had all kinds of good stories I couldn't get on, but, well, I didn't. I could have had that scoop and I blew it. I'm so annoyed Just imagine how much news organizations like ABC don't disclose to the public because the story's don't fit their liberal agenda. Makes you proud to be an American, doesn't it? (H/T Big Journalism )
Continue reading …Jon Kyl Defends Republicans Refusal to Raise Taxes During Debt Ceiling Negotiations
June 26, 2011 No Comment
Click here to view this media After walking out of the debt ceiling negotiations this week, which Chris Wallace conveniently forgot to ask Sen. Jon Kyl about, Kyl defended the Republicans refusal to raise taxes during this interview on Fox News Sunday. Republicans continue to pretend that trickle-down economics work with their claims that raising taxes on the rich will hurt the economy and Kyl went so far as to pretend raising taxes on those making over a half a million dollars a year would eventually mean taxes being raised on everyone. I’ve heard some whoppers as excuses for not raising taxes on upper earners, but this one has to take the cake. WALLACE: We’re going to get to the economic growth aspect in a minute. But let’s just go through the taxes because the White House says — and let’s just make it clear what we’re talking about here — the White House says they’ve given up on the idea of raising tax rates for individuals, even those over $250,000. They understand the politics, as you say, the House, it’s just a nonstarter. But let’s go through some of the things, Senator, that they are proposing. Let’s put them on the screen. Limit deductions — tax deductions for households making more than $500,000 a year to 10 percent of gross adjusted income. They said that would bring in $210 billion over the next decade. And here’s the argument the White House is going to make. I want you to respond to it. They say, do you really want to be protecting mortgage deductions for millionaires at the same time that you are cutting Medicare for seniors? KYL: Well, let’s be clear. What they are talking about is charitable giving, mortgage deductions, that sort of thing. And it always happens — they aim at the millionaires and billionaires. But there’s not enough money for those folks to run the government for very long. So, they end up affecting everybody. That’s what the alternative minimum tax did. And I think that’s what actually happened here. And naturally Wallace let him get away with that with no follow up. Full transcript below the fold. WALLACE: As we said, the president starts talks tomorrow, separate talks with Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid, and then with Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell. Given the GOP’s refusal to include any new revenue, what’s the basis for a deal? KYL: Well, we have not refused any new revenue. For example, we’ve been discussing some fee increases and some other things that would actually generate revenue. But what we object to is changing the tax code. We don’t need new taxes right now. We need to reduce spending. WALLACE: But the White House is talking about $3 in spending cuts for every $1 in additional revenue. Given the fact that you got a divided government, you don’t control, Republicans, the whole deal, and given the fact that stakes are so enormous, danger of the country going in default — why isn’t that a $3 to $1, spending to taxes, why isn’t that a fair deal? KYL: First of all, the key here is to get economic growth going again. In the last quarter, our economic growth was less than 2 percent. I think it was 1.8 percent or 1.9 percent. We need to put people back to work. Most economists agree that in times of economic downturn like this, the last thing you want to do is to add more taxes on to the economy. So, it would be inimical to economic growth and job creation, which is what we all ought to be urging here. When our economy grows and people are making more money, at the same income tax rates, they would pay more a lot more in taxes and the government will have more revenues. But you don’t want to pile taxes on at a time when companies don’t have the ability to invest and hire people. That’s the primary reason we are opposed to raising taxes right now. There’s also a very practical problem in the House of Representatives. It’s not going to pass when you have big tax increases. WALLACE: We’re going to get to the economic growth aspect in a minute. But let’s just go through the taxes because the White House says — and let’s just make it clear what we’re talking about here — the White House says they’ve given up on the idea of raising tax rates for individuals, even those over $250,000. They understand the politics, as you say, the House, it’s just a nonstarter. But let’s go through some of the things, Senator, that they are proposing. Let’s put them on the screen. Limit deductions — tax deductions for households making more than $500,000 a year to 10 percent of gross adjusted income. They said that would bring in $210 billion over the next decade. And here’s the argument the White House is going to make. I want you to respond to it. They say, do you really want to be protecting mortgage deductions for millionaires at the same time that you are cutting Medicare for seniors? KYL: Well, let’s be clear. What they are talking about is charitable giving, mortgage deductions, that sort of thing. And it always happens — they aim at the millionaires and billionaires. But there’s not enough money for those folks to run the government for very long. So, they end up affecting everybody. That’s what the alternative minimum tax did. And I think that’s what actually happened here. We have always been willing to consider so-called tax expenditures — but as the president originally proposed, in the context of overall tax reform. He has said, for example, let’s eliminate some of these – they’re called tax expenditures even though you don’t think of deduction for charitable giving as a tax expenditure. But if we could reduce — WALLACE: That’s money that the Treasury is giving us. KYL: It’s foregoing. And so, if you could reduce some of those, you could also then reduce overall tax rates. And if you look at the United States as a worldwide competitor, for example, the president himself has proposed eliminating some of those things for business so that we could reduce the overall corporate tax rate. So, what we’ve said is we’re perfectly willing to consider those kinds of issues in the context of tax reform, which we would very much like to do. But we’re not going to have the time to do it or be able to do it in order just to raise revenue as part of the exercise which should be about reducing spending. WALLACE: All right. Let’s put up another White House proposal that doesn’t involve individual taxes. It involves tax breaks for specific businesses. Put it on the screen. Eliminate oil and gas subsidies for companies making more than — have more than $1 billion in annual profits. They say that would raise $21 billion. And again, this is at a time when Republicans are demanding big cuts in government programs and services. KYL: Yes. There are several answers here. First of all, if you want gas prices to rise, if you want to pay more than 4 bucks at the pump, then go ahead and do this. That’s not what we should be about right now. That kind of tax increase is going to flow right to the consumer. Everybody knows that. Secondly, what you’re doing is picking out one industry in the United States, an industry that employs almost 10 million people, represents about 7.5 percent of our gross domestic product. And you’re saying to them, you are not going to get the same kind of tax treatment that all other manufacturing corporations get in the United States. So, we’re going to — we’re going to punish you, because you make a lot of money. It’s also true that with those big profits, they have enormous costs of investment. You’ve, of course, covered the issue of how much it costs to put one of those platforms out in the middle of Gulf of Mexico. It’s billions of dollars. So, it’s big money all the way around. But you’re going to hurt the American consumer if you impose more taxes on them. WALLACE: So, in 30 seconds, if he says you got to have taxes, even if it’s $1 for $3 in spending cuts that you say no, how does that get resolved in the next month? KYL: I think the president has to make a decision. Which is more important to him: solving this problem, reducing spending somewhat, or making sure that we raise taxes on American economy? If that’s his ideological bench here and under all circumstances that’s what he’s going to insists on, we got a big problem. I think at the end of the day, he’ll recognize that simply getting a handle on spending and making sure that we cannot hurt the economy is going to be the way to derive revenues in the future when the economy begins to recover. WALLACE: So, basically, you’re saying he is going to agree to your terms? KYL: Well, I hope so. I hope he’ll — he’s got to make that choice, let’s put it that way. And the obvious, best choice, I think, is not doing anything to harm the economy at this point. WALLACE: Senator Kyl, we want to thank you. KYL: Thank you, Chris. WALLACE: Always a pleasure to talk to you, sir.
Continue reading …Update: AP Still Won’t Acknowledge Both Sides of Wis. Supreme Court Judges’ Altercation
June 26, 2011 No CommentGiven a chance to revise and extend its 9:58 a.m. report (covered this afternoon at NewsBusters ; at BizzyBlog ) on the June 13 altercation between Wisconsin Supreme Court Judges David Prosser, Jr. and Ann Walsh Bradley, the Associated Press's 5:29 p.m. version persists in telling its national audience only one side of the story. Although the fact is that accounts as to who was the aggressor completely differ, the wire service's oddly unbylined story (a 650-word AP item usually has a byline — it's almost as if someone doesn't want their name on it) will cause its readers, including subscribing news outlets around the country, to believe that the only open question is whether and how hard Prosser choked Bradley. One suspects that AP's “fairness” defense will be the employment of these three words in Paragraph 8: “While accounts differ …” Sorry guys, that doesn't cut it when the accounts are totally opposite. Here are excerpts from that AP report ( saved here for future reference, fair use and discussion purposes): A member of the Wisconsin Supreme Court's liberal faction has accused a conservative justice of choking her during an argument in her office earlier this month – a charge he denied.
Continue reading …With Cantor and Kyl exiting the debt ceiling debates with their best drama queen flourish this week, it was inevitable that the debt ceiling would be of discussion on the Sunday shows. But in true disinformation fashion that really embodies the state of journalism these days, the conversation falls far short in really pointing out what the problems are. For a low info voter (or someone not forced by John Amato to watch these shows week after week), it sounds as if this is just a politics-as-usual posturing by both parties…a kabuki theater where everyone understands the ending. But let’s be clear: this theater, these dramatics are wholly the fault of the Republican Party, because they have stated that their number one goal–more important than taking care of their citizens, their fat money donors, hell, the country as a whole–is to make Obama a one-term president. They raised the debt ceiling nineteen times in eight years during the Bush administration without once feeling the need to create this drama. As Chrystia Freeland points out, the GOP’s choice to play these games right up to the deadline is causing uncertainty in the market as well. So why not call a spade a spade and point out exactly the consequences of the GOP’s gamesmanship? Any delay in making an interest or principal payment by Treasury even for a very short period of time would put the U.S. Treasury and overall financial markets in uncharted territory, and could trigger another catastrophic financial crisis. It is impossible to know the full impact of such a crisis on overall economic growth and on Treasury’s financing costs. However, the lessons from the recent crisis suggest that several damaging consequences will likely result, ultimately raising Treasury’s long-term funding costs and increasing the burden on the American taxpayer. These consequences stem from five developments that could likely occur if Treasury were to default on its obligations as a result of a failure to raise the debt limit in a timely manner. First, foreign investors, who hold nearly half of outstanding Treasury debt, could reduce their purchases of Treasuries on a permanent basis, and potentially even sell some of their existing holdings. A worrisome precedent is the sharp decline in foreign sponsorship of [government-sponsored enterprise, or G.S.E.] debt since Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were placed under conservatorship. Despite assurances from Treasury officials regarding the U.S. commitment to these institutions, foreign sponsorship has yet to return to pre-conservatorship levels. If foreigners began curtailing their investment in Treasuries as a result of a default, Treasury rates, and thus Treasury’s borrowing costs, would undoubtedly rise. A sustained 50 basis point increase in Treasury rates would eventually cost U.S. taxpayers an additional $75 billion each year. Second, a default by the U.S. Treasury, or even an extended delay in raising the debt ceiling, could lead to a downgrade of the U.S. sovereign credit rating. Indeed, Standard and Poor’s decision to change the U.S. ratings outlook from stable to negative this week indicates a one-in-three chance that Standard and Poor’s will downgrade the U.S. rating within the next two years. One reason cited for the change in the outlook is a material risk that U.S. policymakers might not reach an agreement on how to address medium- and long-term budgetary challenges. It is possible that a default, or even a delay in acting on the debt ceiling, will be perceived as an increased indication of the political inability to forge a compromise on essential long-term fiscal reforms. The consequences of a ratings downgrade would be significant, with the potential for Treasury rates to rise by a full percentage point for each one-notch downgrade. Third, the financial crisis you warned of in your April 4th Letter to Congress could trigger a run on money market funds, as was the case in September 2008 after the Lehman failure. In the event of a Treasury default, I think it is likely that at least one fund would be forced to halt redemptions or conceivably “break the buck.” Since money fund investors are primarily focused on overnight liquidity, even a single fund halting redemptions would likely cause a broader run on money funds. Such a run would spark a severe crisis, disrupting markets and ultimately necessitating the same kind of backstops that Treasury and the Federal Reserve initiated in the aftermath of the 2008 crisis. Such further increases in Treasury’s off-balance-sheet commitments are likely to be viewed negatively by investors and ratings agencies, which will potentially put further downgrade pressure on U.S. sovereign ratings. Fourth, a Treasury default could severely disrupt the $4 trillion Treasury financing market, which could sharply raise borrowing rates for some market participants and possibly lead to another acute deleveraging event. Because Treasuries have historically been viewed as the world’s safest asset, they are the most widely-used collateral in the world and underpin large parts of the financing markets. A default could trigger a wave of margin calls and a widening of haircuts on collateral, which in turn could lead to deleveraging and a sharp drop in lending. Fifth, the rise in borrowing costs and contraction of credit that would occur as a result of this deleveraging event would have damaging consequences for the still-fragile recovery of our economy. In 2008, placing the GSEs in conservatorship combined with a tightening of credit standards caused mortgage spreads to widen by 1.5 percent, ultimately raising mortgage rates for consumers. A similar rise in mortgage and Treasury rates would adversely impact economic growth, potentially pushing the U.S. economy back into recession. Finally, I would emphasize that because the long-term risks from a default are so large, a prolonged delay in raising the debt ceiling may negatively impact markets well before a default actually occurs. This is no small thing. Seniors should know that when they get a letter saying there may be delays in getting their Social Security checks that it’s the GOP playing politics with their lives. People looking at interest rates should know that the instability has been caused by the GOP deciding that harming Obama’s re-election chances is the most important factor in this struggling economy. As we look at other institutions teeter on the brink of collapse, we should know that it is the GOP putting on the kabuki makeup. But these roundtables never acknowledge from where this kabuki theater originates and why the GOP is making the calculus to do so.
Continue reading …Bill Kristol Ribs Chris Wallace for Asking Michele Bachmann if She’s a Flake
June 26, 2011 No Comment
Fox News's Chris Wallace on Sunday actually asked Republican presidential candidate Michele Bachmann if she's a flake. Possibly feeling the question was a bit over the top, the Weekly Standard's Bill Kristol during the panel discussion segment of “Fox News Sunday” ribbed the host saying, “You can call me a flake if you want” (video follows with transcript and commentary): CHRIS WALLACE, HOST: Finally, let's talk about Michele Bachmann because — and you say — it's interesting. You say that the people saw in the debate and saw you as a serious person. I don't have to tell you that you have — the rap on you here in Washington is that you have a history of questionable statements, some would say gaffes, ranging from — talking about anti-America members of Congress — on this show — a couple of months ago, when you suggested that NATO airstrikes had killed up to 30,000 civilians. Are you a flake? CONGRESSWOMAN MICHELE BACHMANN (R-MINNESOTA): Well, I think that would be insulting, to say something like that, because I'm a serious person. WALLACE: But you understand when I say that, that that's what the rap on you is? BILL KRISTOL, THE WEEKLY STANDARD: I don't know. And I have just personally been radicalized on this in the last couple of months. And maybe you can call me a flake if you want. (LAUGHTER) WALLACE: I simply asked the question. KRISTOL: No, that's OK. WALLACE: It's a perfectly sensible answer. KRISTOL: She gave a good answer. I'll associate myself with her, on this issue at least, as a flake, because I don't really know why the Republicans should negotiate. Yes, she did give a perfectly sensible answer, but was it a perfectly sensible question? Would Wallace ask a male political figure that? Vice President Joe Biden has made his share of gaffes during his career. Would it be acceptable to ask if he's a flake? As NewsBusters has been reporting almost since the moment former Alaska governor Sarah Palin was announced as John McCain's running mate in August 2008, there has been a rash of sexist attacks by the press on conservative women the past three years. As a huge fan of Wallace's, I would never accuse him of acting like his liberal colleagues, but have to wonder what got into his head Sunday to ask such a question? Was he consciously or sub-consciously feeling the need to be extra hard on his guest after last Sunday's showdown with comedian Jon Stewart? Rather shockingly, Bachmann got more of a grilling on Fox Sunday than she did on CBS's “Face the Nation.” Seems a metaphysical certitude she didn't envision that when she woke up this morning. On the other hand, Wallace is by far one of the best interviewers on television, and has a reputation for being as tough on Republicans as he is on Democrats. With this in mind, maybe I'm being hyper-sensitive given all the conservative woman bashing the past three years. Regardless, it will be fascinating to see the media response to this exchange in the coming days. If the usual liberal suspects call Wallace out for this, it will be the height of hypocrisy given their own behavior regarding Bachmann, Palin, et al. If they don't, it might likely be because they recognize how hypocritical it would be, and they're better off letting the matter rest. Either way, it'll be very telling.
Continue reading …
Pyramid stage Beyoncé’s headline slot has attracted none of the this-doesn’t-belong-at-Glastonbury controversy of her husband Jay-Z’s headlining performance a few years ago, but there’s a definite sense of curiosity in the air before she takes the stage: what is she going to do? The immediate answer appears to be everything at once: let off fireworks, rise out of the stage on a hydraulic platform doing a choreographed dance routine while singing her biggest hit, Crazy In Love. It’s a gobsmacking opening that leaves you wondering what she’s going to do next. But more gobsmacking still is that the show doesn’t sag afterwards. She hurtles into Single Ladies (Put A Ring On It). More fireworks. More dancing. Aside from a faintly baffling guest appearance by Tricky – who seems as confused as the audience – she never puts a foot wrong, rattling through Destiny’s Child hits and cover versions of Alanis Morrisette’s You Oughta Know, Kings Of Leon’s Sex On Fire and Etta James’s At Last, the latter over footage of the civil rights movement and Barack Obama, the sheer visceral power of her voice chafing thrillingly against the slickness of the show. Moreover, she looks genuinely taken aback by the reception: “You are witnessing a dream! I always wanted to be a rock star!” she shouts, utterly delighted. The audience response suggests the feeling is entirely mutual. Whether or not you agree with Michael Eavis’s assessment that it was a “mistake” to book the Wombles for Glastonbury, it’s hard not to feel at least a little impressed by them before they even play a note of music. On its final day, Glastonbury is being blasted by pitiless sun: it’s a brave person who chooses to take to the stage dressed in a giant furry costume. Equally it’s hard not to be a little puzzled by their decision to open their set with their best-known hit, Remember You’re A Womble: when it finishes, alas, quite a lot of their audience chose to Womble off elsewhere. Over on the Pyramid stage, Paul Simon plays a set studded with tracks from his sparkling, African-influenced 1986 album Graceland, which sounds oddly contemporary: there isn’t that much distance between it and Vampire Weekend. And it fits the atmosphere of a sunny afternoon on Pilton Farm. He’s followed by Plan B, whose ascendency to pop fame is confirmed by the size of the crowd he draws. It’s hard to work out what’s more striking: the way he manages to project emotional fragility to such a huge audience, or the sight of said vast crowd cheerily singing along to Prayin’, a song about a prison murder. Either way, the sense that he’s a unique artist is heavily underlined. Rating: 4/5 Glastonbury 2011 Beyoncé Pop and rock Glastonbury festival R&B Festivals Alexis Petridis guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Suspicion falls on Islamist group Boko Haram, which claimed responsibility for recent killings in Abuja At least 25 people were killed and 12 injured in a bomb attack believed to have been carried out by Islamist extremists in north-eastern Nigeria on Sunday. Police said the attack was carried out by two men riding on motorcycles who threw bombs into three beer gardens in the city of Maiduguri, Borno state, during the
Continue reading …
Click here to view this media House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) explained Sunday that Republicans had walked away from negotiations on raising the debt ceiling because Democrats had suggested closing special interest tax loopholes for big corporations. “Leader Cantor can’t handle the truth when it comes to these tax subsidies for big oil, for corporations sending jobs overseas or giving tax breaks to the wealthiest people in the country, while they’re asking seniors to pay more for less, as they abolish Medicare,” Pelosi told CNN’s Candy Crowley. “In the Bush years the Republicans said that tax cuts will produce jobs,” she later added. “They didn’t. They produced a deficit.”
Continue reading …