Story of Sri Lankan maid comes amid bitter row between Indonesia and Saudi Arabia over execution of Indonesian maid Authorities in Saudi Arabia have discovered a Sri Lankan maid who had been kept against her will without pay for nearly 14 years by her local employers, in the latest case of abuse of domestic workers in the kingdom. The discovery comes amid a bitter diplomatic row between Indonesia and Saudi Arabia following the execution of an Indonesian maid at the weekend. The Saudi authorities are sensitive to the global reaction to the execution and may hope the apparent rescue of the Sri Lankan maid helps to deflect some of the negative headlines. According to local news reports, the 45-year-old was found in the south-western Jizan province following a tipoff from a neighbour and her employer was arrested. Family members contacted by local journalists said they had not heard from the woman for so long that they thought she was dead. “I am very happy to know that she is living and we want her back home as quickly as possible,” her husband told the Jeddah-based Arab News. The Indonesian government on Wednesday told Saudi Arabia it would allow no further workers to the country until a deal on migrant labourers’ protection was
Continue reading …Story of Sri Lankan maid comes amid bitter row between Indonesia and Saudi Arabia over execution of Indonesian maid Authorities in Saudi Arabia have discovered a Sri Lankan maid who had been kept against her will without pay for nearly 14 years by her local employers, in the latest case of abuse of domestic workers in the kingdom. The discovery comes amid a bitter diplomatic row between Indonesia and Saudi Arabia following the execution of an Indonesian maid at the weekend. The Saudi authorities are sensitive to the global reaction to the execution and may hope the apparent rescue of the Sri Lankan maid helps to deflect some of the negative headlines. According to local news reports, the 45-year-old was found in the south-western Jizan province following a tipoff from a neighbour and her employer was arrested. Family members contacted by local journalists said they had not heard from the woman for so long that they thought she was dead. “I am very happy to know that she is living and we want her back home as quickly as possible,” her husband told the Jeddah-based Arab News. The Indonesian government on Wednesday told Saudi Arabia it would allow no further workers to the country until a deal on migrant labourers’ protection was
Continue reading …I’ve made my feelings on PolitiFact clear previously. For a group that claims to be non-partisan and interested in the fact-based reporting, there’s precious little of that in the larger editorial choices of whom to fact check and how they rate the lie. They will let some rather large and disgusting lies go unchallenged when it comes from a Republican but focus on a small rhetorical flourish when it comes from a Democrat to pounce on them and declare their statement false. And so it was with Jon Stewart’s interview on Fox News Sunday. Politifact seized on the word “every” in Stewart’s confrontation of Chris Wallace’s bizarre rationalization that Fox is simply offering the other side of the story”: Do you know who consistently is misinformed in every poll?” and rated Stewart’s statement as false. Now, one of the things my parents drummed in my head during my petulant teen years is that qualifiers like that are useless. No one is ever “always” wrong, and “every” event doesn’t necessarily have the same result and saying that someone “never” listens is manifestly untrue. But they are rhetorical flourishes that people use to round up a larger truth. And while it’s true that not every poll shows Fox News viewers as the most uninformed, the unqualified truth is that they are *consistently* the least informed and Politifact is being disingenuous to claim otherwise . in an environment in which conservatives are more inaccurate and more misinformed about science and basic policy facts, the “fact checkers” nevertheless feel unduly compelled to correct “liberal” errors too—which is fine, as long as they are really errors. But sometimes they aren’t. A case in point is Politifact’s recent and deeply misguided attempt to correct Jon Stewart on the topic of…misinformation and Fox News. This is a subject on which we’ve developed some expertise here …my recent post on studies showing that Fox News viewers are more misinformed, on an array of issues, is the most comprehensive such collection that I’m aware of, at least when it comes to public opinion surveys detecting statistical correlations between being misinformed about contested facts and Fox News viewership . I’ve repeatedly asked whether anyone knows of additional studies—including contradictory studies—but none have yet been cited. Stewart, very much in the vein of my prior post, went on the air with Fox’s Chris Wallace and stated, “Who are the most consistently misinformed media viewers? The most consistently misinformed? Fox, Fox viewers, consistently, every poll.” My research, and my recent post , most emphatically supports this statement. Indeed, I cited five ( 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 ) separate public opinion studies in support of it—although I carefully noted that these studies do not prove causation (e.g., that watching Fox News causes one to be more misinformed). The causal arrow could very well run the other way—believing wrong things could make one more likely to watch Fox News in the first place. But the fundamental point is, when it comes to believing political misinformation and watching Fox News, I know of no other studies than these five–though I’d be glad to see additional studies produced. Until then, these five all point in one obvious direction. The specific, on point surveys that validate what Stewart said were conveniently ignored. Hmmmmm…. What Stewart obviously meant—and what I mean—is that when it comes to politicized, contested issues where the facts have been made murky due to political biases, it is Fox viewers who are the most likely to believe incorrect things—to fall prey to misinformation . A quintessential example of such an issue is global warming , or whether Saddam Hussein’s Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction or was collaborating with Al Qaeda . There are many, many others. To rebut Stewart’s claim, Politifact relied upon irrelevant and off-point studies . Thus, the site cited a number of Pew surveys that examine basic political literacy and relate it to what kind of media citizens consume. E.g., questions like whether people know “who the vice president is, who the president of Russia is, whether the Chief Justice is conservative, which party controls the U.S. House of Representatives and whether the U.S. has a trade deficit.” Too few citizens know the answers to such basic questions—which is lamentable, but also irrelevant in the current context. These are not contested issues, nor are they skewed by an active misinformation campaign. As a result, on such issues, many Americans may be ill-informed but liberals and conservatives are nevertheless able to agree. Politifact has s emi-acknowledged this criticism , but is still attempting to spin this as a fundamentally correct take.
Continue reading …I’ve made my feelings on PolitiFact clear previously. For a group that claims to be non-partisan and interested in the fact-based reporting, there’s precious little of that in the larger editorial choices of whom to fact check and how they rate the lie. They will let some rather large and disgusting lies go unchallenged when it comes from a Republican but focus on a small rhetorical flourish when it comes from a Democrat to pounce on them and declare their statement false. And so it was with Jon Stewart’s interview on Fox News Sunday. Politifact seized on the word “every” in Stewart’s confrontation of Chris Wallace’s bizarre rationalization that Fox is simply offering the other side of the story”: Do you know who consistently is misinformed in every poll?” and rated Stewart’s statement as false. Now, one of the things my parents drummed in my head during my petulant teen years is that qualifiers like that are useless. No one is ever “always” wrong, and “every” event doesn’t necessarily have the same result and saying that someone “never” listens is manifestly untrue. But they are rhetorical flourishes that people use to round up a larger truth. And while it’s true that not every poll shows Fox News viewers as the most uninformed, the unqualified truth is that they are *consistently* the least informed and Politifact is being disingenuous to claim otherwise . in an environment in which conservatives are more inaccurate and more misinformed about science and basic policy facts, the “fact checkers” nevertheless feel unduly compelled to correct “liberal” errors too—which is fine, as long as they are really errors. But sometimes they aren’t. A case in point is Politifact’s recent and deeply misguided attempt to correct Jon Stewart on the topic of…misinformation and Fox News. This is a subject on which we’ve developed some expertise here …my recent post on studies showing that Fox News viewers are more misinformed, on an array of issues, is the most comprehensive such collection that I’m aware of, at least when it comes to public opinion surveys detecting statistical correlations between being misinformed about contested facts and Fox News viewership . I’ve repeatedly asked whether anyone knows of additional studies—including contradictory studies—but none have yet been cited. Stewart, very much in the vein of my prior post, went on the air with Fox’s Chris Wallace and stated, “Who are the most consistently misinformed media viewers? The most consistently misinformed? Fox, Fox viewers, consistently, every poll.” My research, and my recent post , most emphatically supports this statement. Indeed, I cited five ( 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 ) separate public opinion studies in support of it—although I carefully noted that these studies do not prove causation (e.g., that watching Fox News causes one to be more misinformed). The causal arrow could very well run the other way—believing wrong things could make one more likely to watch Fox News in the first place. But the fundamental point is, when it comes to believing political misinformation and watching Fox News, I know of no other studies than these five–though I’d be glad to see additional studies produced. Until then, these five all point in one obvious direction. The specific, on point surveys that validate what Stewart said were conveniently ignored. Hmmmmm…. What Stewart obviously meant—and what I mean—is that when it comes to politicized, contested issues where the facts have been made murky due to political biases, it is Fox viewers who are the most likely to believe incorrect things—to fall prey to misinformation . A quintessential example of such an issue is global warming , or whether Saddam Hussein’s Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction or was collaborating with Al Qaeda . There are many, many others. To rebut Stewart’s claim, Politifact relied upon irrelevant and off-point studies . Thus, the site cited a number of Pew surveys that examine basic political literacy and relate it to what kind of media citizens consume. E.g., questions like whether people know “who the vice president is, who the president of Russia is, whether the Chief Justice is conservative, which party controls the U.S. House of Representatives and whether the U.S. has a trade deficit.” Too few citizens know the answers to such basic questions—which is lamentable, but also irrelevant in the current context. These are not contested issues, nor are they skewed by an active misinformation campaign. As a result, on such issues, many Americans may be ill-informed but liberals and conservatives are nevertheless able to agree. Politifact has s emi-acknowledged this criticism , but is still attempting to spin this as a fundamentally correct take.
Continue reading …In Tuesday night’s “Grapevine” segment, the Fox News Channel’s Bret Baier picked up on an observation about the NBC Nightly News detailed in a Tuesday morning NewsBusters post: “ NBC News Twists Its Network’s Pledge Censorship Into Slam at Rick Perry’s Intolerance .” Baier informed viewers of how, in NBC’s look at the reaction to the NBC Sports “omission of ‘under God’ from the Pledge of Allegiance during the U.S. Open golf coverage,” reporter Mike Taibbi “went on to reference the Obama impersonator who was pulled off stage early” during a GOP event “and Jon Stewart’s appearance on Fox News Sunday.” With the quoted words on screen credited to NewsBusters, Baier noted: One conservative media watchdog said NBC was, quote: “Trying to submerge its own network’s ‘under God’ censorship into a greater narrative.” From the Tuesday, June 21 Special Report with Bret Baier: Last night, NBC Nightly News included the backlash over Sunday’s omission of “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance during the U.S. Open golf coverage, in a story labeled “Bad Decisions” quoting from a second apology from NBC in as many days. Reporter Mike Taibbi then went on to reference the Obama impersonator who was pulled off stage early during the Republican Leadership Conference and Jon Stewart’s appearance on Fox News Sunday . One conservative media watchdog said NBC was, quote: “Trying to submerge its own network’s ‘under God’ censorship into a greater narrative.” Larger jpg of the screen shot .
Continue reading …16-year-old boy allegedly killed ex-girlfriend, Rebecca Aylward, 15, in Bridgend woods as ‘sick’ bet to win a free breakfast A pupil murdered a former girlfriend by battering her with a rock after he was promised a free breakfast if he carried out the killing, a jury heard. The alleged killer, aged 16, lured Rebecca Aylward, 15, to woods near Bridgend in south Wales where he attacked her, Swansea crown court heard. The teenage boy, who cannot be named for legal reasons, denies murdering Rebecca in October last year and blames his best friend. Greg Taylor QC, prosecuting, said the accused and Rebecca had briefly been in a relationship about a year before the murder and had kept in touch. The defendant used to meet friends at a local cafe for breakfast, the court heard. At one meeting, he openly discussed killing the girl. His friends assumed he was joking but, in a text, he asked one friend: “What would you do if I actually did kill her?” the court heard. The friend replied: “Oh, I would buy you breakfast.” Two days before the killing the defendant contacted his friend to confirm he would attend a breakfast date. He added: “Don’t say anything but you may just owe me a breakfast.” His friend replied: “Sick, sick boy.” After the killing, the teenager is alleged to have asked one friend: “Do you know how hard it is to break someone’s neck?” The jury heard that he told two friends: “She was facing away from me and I thought: ‘This is it, I’m going to go for it.’ I tried to break her neck. She was screaming so I picked up the rock and started to hit her with it. The worst part was feeling and seeing her skull give way.” The “academic” teenage boy and Rebecca had dated for three months and had a sexual relationship, the court heard. Taylor said: “When they split up it was not amicable – all of their friends observed a love-hate relationship between them. They gave different reasons for the break-up. “The boy said Rebecca tried to trick him into getting her pregnant. She told him she was on the pill and he found out that she wasn’t and that she had lied to him. The boy was also telling people that Rebecca was going to go to the police and alleged that he raped her. “Rebecca’s version was that the boy refused to wear condoms and she asked him repeatedly to wear them.” The boy allegedly told a friend: “Wouldn’t it be easier if she wasn’t here? I am going to kill her – it would be real easy.” The jury heard another friend said the defendant claimed he would “kill her, cover it up and not get caught”. He also allegedly claimed he would make “a poison” out of foxgloves and kill her with it. Hours after murdering Rebecca the accused tried to lay a false trail by using Facebook as an alibi, it was claimed. Taylor said: “The boy updated his Facebook saying: ‘I’m just chilling with my two friends”. He used his Facebook to say this was just an ordinary day.” Later he wrote: “I enjoyed a rather good day and a lovely breakfast.” Police were led to Rebecca’s body by a friend of the accused after he had broken down in tears and told his parents, the court heard. Taylor said: “It was the following morning when the boy went into his parents’ bedroom. He told them a girl he knew was going to be missing and he feared she had been hurt or worse. “They could see the state he was in – pale, frightened and obviously upset. “They phoned the police straight away. The boy took police to the forest.” A post mortem examination of Rebecca – who was just 5ft 2ins and weighed six stone – showed she had died of head injuries. The trial continues. Crime Children Steven Morris guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Amid American debate about illegal immigration, Pulitzer Prize winner causes shock with admission he is an undocumented immigrant One of America’s top journalists has admitted he is an undocumented alien. In a startling first person piece in the New York Times , Pulitzer Prize winner Jose Antonio Vargas, who has written for the Washington Post, the New Yorker and the Huffington Post, reveals he is not a legal US resident and was brought into the country with faked papers when he was a child. The news is certain to shock many observers and add more controversy to the debate over illegal immigration. “We’re not always who you think we are. Some pick your strawberries or care for your children. Some are in high school or college. And some, it turns out, write news articles you read,” Vargas writes in an article for the paper’s magazine section. He explains his decision to reveal himself in simple terms: “I’m done running. I’m exhausted. I don’t want that life anymore.” Vargas, who was born in the Philippines, describes how a man who he thought was an uncle brought him to the US in 1993 when he was aged 12 to live with his grandparents in California. He attended high school in America and learned English. He only learned his papers were fake when, aged 16, he tried to get a driver’s permit. It was then that his grandparents revealed the man who brought him to the US had been a smuggler who was paid $4,500 (£2,800) to get him through immigration control with a false passport. Vargas, who is gay, admits his life, that has been highly successful professionally, has been marked by secrecy when it came to his illegal status. “Tough as it was, coming out about being gay seemed less daunting than coming out about my legal status. I kept my other secret mostly hidden,” he writes. But no longer. Vargas has revealed he is one of at least 11 million illegal aliens living in the US and his confession comes as the issue is rarely out of the headlines. Republican Senator John McCain caused controversy earlier this week with remarks suggesting the recent devastating wildfires in Arizona had been caused by illegal immigrants. The comments prompted outrage from immigrants rights’ groups and Hispanic activists, although McCain later expressed surprise that his words were deemed controversial. Vargas’ revelations are likely to have a similar polarising effect. On the New York Times website , many comments praise his bravery in speaking out. “I hope you earn the citizenship you deserve. Best of luck. And keep your head up; you have nothing to be ashamed of,” says one commenter from New York. But others are less forgiving and call for Vargas to be sent back to the country of his birth. “It is important that everyone come here the right and legal way so that it is fair to everyone. Mr Vargas should go back to his homeland and apply like everyone else,” writes one reader in Washington DC. The journalist’s future in America is now unclear. He has launched a website, called Define American, that will seek to campaign on the immigration debate and press for the passage of the Dream Act, which aims to grant permanent residency to some illegal alien students who have graduated from US high schools. US immigration United States New York Newspapers Paul Harris guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …The CBO proves the only reason America should have a deficit problem is if Conservatives want one. Ezra Klein: The Congressional Budget Office just released the latest edition of its long-term budget outlook (pdf), and it shows the same thing as always: If Congress lets the Bush tax cuts expire or offsets their extension, implements the Affordable Care Act as scheduled and makes or offset the Medicare cuts prescribed by the 1997 Balanced Budget Act — which CBO calls the “extended baseline scenario” — the national debt will be totally manageable. If Congress passes laws extending the Bush tax cuts without offsetting the cost, repealing the Affordable Care Act and its cost controls and protecting doctors from Medicare cuts without making up the savings elsewhere — the “alternative fiscal scenario” — the national debt will be totally out of control : Or, if Politicians want a deficit they will get one. We can now say to the Villagers that if you guys want to have a serious and adult conversation about our deficit then tax increases for the rich are off the table and all the talk deficit fearmongering for months has been total garbage. Hullabaloo In other words there is no long term debt crisis unless the politicians decide to create one. Everything’s already in place to keep it perfectly under control. So why are we talking about it? I don’t think there’s any better evidence that this deficit fever is nothing more than a disaster capitalist boondoggle. The wealthy elites and their nihilist ideologue allies in both parties are flogging this debt crisis in order to enact favorable legislation and fill out their long term wish list. That they are doing it under a Democratic administration just makes it sweeter.
Continue reading …Time writer Michael Grunwald unloaded on leftists on the Swampland blog on Tuesday — for not being supportive enough of Barack Obama. The post was titled: “Earth to the Left: Obama Is Into You.” Grunwald was furious that the “disillusionment addicts of the left” would suggest abandoning the Democrat ship. He began with gays-in-the-military activist Dan Choi, who was handed an Obama flyer and “Choi dramatically ripped up the flyer and declared that he wouldn't support Obama.” And why should he? What has Obama ever done to help gays serve openly in the military? Other than repeal don't-ask-don't-tell, so that gays can serve openly in the military? Ah, “the professional left,” never happy unless it's unhappy. When White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer tried to explain during a later panel that Obama is the most progressive president ever on gay rights, the Daily Kos blogger who was moderating cut him off: “That's a pretty low bar.” With friends like these, who needs Republicans? If the primary theme of the Obama era is the insanity of the right –attacking government-run health care and Medicare cuts simultaneously, demanding deficit reduction through deficit-busting tax cuts, denying climate science — the secondary theme is the ingratitude of the left. And the latter infuriates the White House far more than the former, the way a rebellious teenage son causes far more angst than a crazy old neighbor. It's true that President Obama is not as liberal as some Daily Kos bloggers would like him to be. (Although he has blogged at Daily Kos.)
Continue reading …Ed Miliband has commissioned policy reviews in 16 areas, and today we reveal what those areas are – and we’re asking you to help Labour fill in that blank sheet Tom Clark Paddy Allen Paul Owen
Continue reading …