Surprise, Surprise: CNN Belief Blog Offers Lazy, Hasty Rebuke of Biblical Condemnation of Gay Marriage
June 21, 2011 No Comment
CNN's Belief Blog contributor Jonathan Dudley offered the same tired liberal arguments against a Biblical defense of traditional marriage in a June 21 piece. The same writer who satirically argued that heterosexuals should not be allowed to raise children grilled the Biblical argument as being “riddled with self-serving double-standards.” “I also don't doubt that those who advocate gay marriage are advocating a revision of the Christian tradition,” Dudley boldly asserted. Why is the Biblical position on gay marriage fallacious? Dudley's first argument is that St. Paul condemns homosexual relations as “unnatural,” but later preaches that long hair is naturally degrading for men, but is women's glory. Hence, he condemns both long hair and homosexuality as “unnormal,” but today's Christian church would only condemn homosexuality – therefore today's Evangelical Christians are hypocritical. Do you follow his logic here? The rest of the post follows in a similar pattern. Dudley finds Bible verses or random teachings by Church Fathers to buttress his position, which is that beliefs and practices that were condemned or allowed in the early Christian church are not so today, and so today's Christians are not pro-tradition though they might like to think so. And apparently abortion was a part of the Christian tradition for 1900 years – contrary to popular opinion. Dudley used two isolated philosophical positions by Church Fathers (St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas) as “proof” that the early and medieval Christian church widely did not believe that life begins at conception. Yes, Dudley uses two opinions that the human soul might not be present at the moment of conception to deduce that today's pro-life Christians are at odds with Christian “tradition” on the matter of abortion.
Continue reading …
Company also plans to increase its own student intake tenfold by undercutting fees at public universities from next year A private, run-for-profit university has launched an aggressive expansion plan to jointly run at least 10 of its publicly funded counterparts, the Guardian can reveal. BPP, which offers undergraduate and postgraduate business and law degrees at 14 UK study centres, said it was in talks about managing the business side of the universities’ campuses. Talks with three are at a “serious stage”, but commercial negotiations are yet to begin. Under the model, universities would control all academic decisions, while BPP would be responsible for managing the campus estate, IT support, the buying of goods and services and other “back office” roles. BPP would not hold equity in the universities. Chief executive Carl Lygo said his firm stood to make tens to hundreds of thousands of pounds from working with each institution, but that it would be “too radical at the moment” to bid to take over a university. “The partnership model is more palatable in the UK … we have a long tradition of higher education being publicly funded, rather than run for profit.” BPP also plans to increase the number of its own undergraduates tenfold by undercutting publicly funded universities next year, when they will be able to charge up to £9,000 a year. At the moment, BPP has just over 1,000 undergraduates. “We want to offer a radical, high-quality alternative, with classroom-hours contact which is in small groups,” Lygo said. BPP’s disclosure comes ahead of an imminent white paper expected to signal the government’s intention to encourage the expansion of private institutions in higher education in England. Ministers believe they will encourage competition and improve the quality of degree courses. In an interview with the Guardian last year, David Willetts , the universities minister, said there would be “greater diversity” in the higher education sector in future and that “the crucial thing is for the existing providers to rise to the competitive challenge they will face”. The government hopes private firms will drive down tuition fees, which could save the Treasury millions of pounds. Many more universities than the government expected intend to charge the maximum of £9,000 a year from autumn 2012. The government pays students’ tuition fees in the first instance, and graduates pay them back when they are earning more than £21,000. Higher fees mean the government will have to pay more up front, which may not be sustainable. BPP would not disclose the names of the universities it is in talks with. Lygo said, however, that they were a “mixed bag” and “not necessarily those who were in financial difficulty”. Universities could save a quarter of their costs if they agreed to BPP running the commercial side of their operation, money they could invest in the academic side, he said. “We have got a lot of universities in the UK and not all are in a strong financial position … There is an opportunity for the private sector to help the higher education sector to achieve its goals. By working in partnership, the private provider would add expertise in the back office functions. “Most universities are running at high costs and don’t properly utilise their buildings. The private sector is better at procurement because they are keener at negotiating better prices.” Barclays Corporate, which lends money or provides banking services to 60% of the country’s universities, said other large private providers were looking at the UK. “I think what BPP is doing is very indicative of what is happening in the market and indicates the changing environment that universities are operating in,” said head of education Chris Hearn. He added, however, that private firms may be put off by “relatively thin” margins and “heavy regulation”. Others may be dissuaded if, unlike BPP, they do not have a base and reputation in the UK. Roger Brown, professor of higher education policy at Liverpool Hope University, said BPP’s plans could make universities more efficient, but ultimately the company’s shareholders would be its top priority. “The problem with partnerships is that they blur accountability,” he said. “It is unclear who will benefit and who will pay for these partnerships and to whom they are accountable.” Earlier this month, it was announced that the philosopher AC Grayling had set up a private college, staffed by celebrity professors, which would offer degrees in the humanities, economics and law from 2012 at the cost of £18,000 a year. Other private companies already provide services to universities. The University Partnerships Programme manages student accommodation, while INTO runs courses at UK universities for overseas students who need extra preparation to get onto degree programmes. Last July, BPP was given degree-awarding powers , which meant it was allowed to call itself a university college. It was the first new private university in the UK for more than 30 years. Willetts said it was “healthy to have a vibrant private sector working alongside our more traditional universities”. This would create a “dynamic and flexible” degree system and could encourage online degrees, he said. BPP is part of the Apollo Group, a market-listed US company that owns the University of Phoenix, a private institution offering degrees through distance learning. In 2004, Phoenix was fined $9.8m (£6m) for unethical practices in recruiting students. Higher education University administration Tuition fees Students Education policy Jessica Shepherd guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Cable Magazine Columnist Jokes About ‘Redneck Channel’ for Fox Fans With ‘No Interest in Fair or Balanced’
June 21, 2011 No Comment
In Broadcasting & Cable magazine's latest issue, columnist Ben Grossman joked that he'd just returned from a fishing trip in Sitka, Alaska, and is almost a redneck. But his contempt for rednecks came through loud in clear. The column was titled: “Steal This Idea, The Redneck Channel.” (It's not online.) Grossman suggested the redneck Fox fans he met demonstrated “This demo largely has no interest in fair and balanced.” As if brie-and-Chablis PBS liberals don't want their news delicately slanted all to one side? The Minnesota-based columnist really mocked this “type of people” and their strange habits: Believe me, when you are sitting at a lodge full of people full of a certain type of people – ones that come from all over the country, by the way – you can see some trends. For instance, doctors who treat lip and gum cancer are going to be driving nice cars for a while, because chewing tobacco is still the breakfast of choice for many. But I also watched the TV viewing habits of these folks, and bundled together, it confirmed for me one beautiful concept: The Redneck Channel. A large text box unveiling “This Saturday on the Redneck Channel” included snarky liberal listings like this: 9-11 a.m. HUNTING PROGRAMMING: Two hours of men (and the occasional woman) in camouflage going into the woods and shooting large animals with a rifle or bow and arrow, then hugging each other a little more tightly than you’d expect… 11 a.m-1 p.m. FISHING PROGRAMMING: Two hours of shows about men sitting on boats catching big fish, then hugging a little more tightly that you’d expect…. 4 p.m. THE BEST OF THE O’REILLY FACTOR: This demo largely has no interest in fair and balanced , and they love the Fox News star. Grossman clearly doesn't watch enough O'Reilly to know he's likely to put on more liberals each week on his one-hour show than the MSNBC lineup will put on conservatives in all of prime time. And the proposed evening lineup is even dumber: 9-11 p.m. NIGHTLY MOVIE: In which a minimum of 25 people must die, and there can be no stupid B-story focusing on a love angle of any kind. 11 p.m. THE TV ASSAULT HOUR BROUGHT TO YOU BY SONY: A highlight show featuring clips from Jon Stewart’s Daily Show, The Colbert Report, and MSNBC prime-time shows. Intended to get true rednecks pissed off enough that they smash their TV, and when they go to replace it, all the Sony ads persuade them to buy one of their new sets. Rednecks are apparently, to this amateur anthropologist, a set of rage-filled Incredible Hulks with a large credit line at Best Buy. We could create an Elitist Snob Channel for intolerant people who hate rednecks — but PBS already exists.
Continue reading …
US president set to reject military advice by withdrawing more troops from Afghanistan Barack Obama is set to reject the advice of the Pentagon by announcing on Wednesday night the withdrawal of up to 30,000 troops from Afghanistan by November next year, in time for the US presidential election. The move comes despite warnings from his military commanders that recent security gains are fragile. They have been urging him to keep troop numbers high until 2013. The accelerated drawdown will dismay American and British commanders in Kabul, who have privately expressed concern that the White House is now being driven by political rather than military imperatives. “This is not something we feel entirely comfortable with,” a Whitehall official told the Guardian. Obama’s nationally televised address, the sixth he has given since becoming president, is intended to mark the beginning of the end of American military deployment in Afghanistan, from a present high of almost 100,000 troops. The White House confirmed that the withdrawal will be “significant”. Obama’s decision is aimed at placating an American public tired of a 10-year war that has cost 1,522 US lives. The killing of Osama bin Laden added impetus to calls to pull out. Nato commanders led by General David Petraeus have set out the risks of withdrawing too many troops too soon, and warned Obama there has been no noticeable dividend from the death of the al-Qaida leader. They had urged him to keep in place the bulk of the extra 30,000 troops he committed to the “surge” until the end of 2012, so a drawdown can begin in 2013. That would give the military another full “fighting season” to attack Taliban strongholds and target insurgent leaders. “They say they need another full year of this,” one official told the Guardian. “They want as much as possible for as long as possible.” This year’s fighting season, which is now underway, has shown that the Taliban is still strong, despite the pounding given to them over the winter by ISAF forces. In the first week of June, there were 701 security incidents across Afghanistan. The withdrawal has created deep divisions in Washington. The defence secretary, Robert Gates, argued for a modest reduction – at one point as low as 2,000 – citing the advice of US commanders in Afghanistan that they need to protect gains made during the winter against the Taliban. But senior White House staff, conscious that the president has an election to fight next year, argued in favour of a reduction that would send a signal to the US public that an end to the war is in sight. The Associated Press reported that Obama could announce 10,000 troops to be brought home by the end of the year, and a further 20,000 next year – all of the 30,000 extra troops he ordered to Afghanistan as part of the “surge” in 2009. That would still leave about 70,000 troops, with all combat troops scheduled to leave by 2014, provided that Afghan forces are ready to take over. The US military could fill some of the gaps by keeping combat troops in place and pulling out mainly support staff. The US drawdown is a compromise that will not satisfy Democratic party doves seeking a quick end to US involvement. When Obama first became president, he lost out in his first major battle with the Pentagon. But, as he has grown in confidence, he has been more willing to take them on, ignoring Gates’s advice to avoid US military involvement in Libya and now again on Afghanistan. Gates, who, along with secretary of state Hillary Clinton, was scheduled to meet Obama at the White House to finalise the details, acknowledged on Tuesday that US political considerations as well as conditions on the ground in Afghanistan contributed to the decision. He said the war’s unpopularity in the US and with Congress had to play a significant part in the president’s thinking. David Cameron was told in advance about the scale of Obama’s withdrawal of US forces, but the prime minister is not intending to make an immediate corresponding announcement on the scale of the British military drawdown that will start later this year. He is expected to delay his own announcement until next week. The timeframe may reflect continuing tensions between Cameron and the military over the scale of troop reductions. Until recently, the Ministry of Defence was expecting the White House to take a cautious approach. The likelihood of a substantial drawdown was described as being “miles off” what US officials were telling their counterparts in Whitehall. In a BBC2 documentary, Afghanistan: War Without End?, to be shown on Wednesday night, General Sir Peter Wall, the head of the British army, appeared to challenge Cameron’s intention to pull out of Afghanistan in 2015 regardless of the political or security position in the country. Wall said that while the British army is “committed to deliver against that timeline … Whether or not it turns out to be an absolute timeline or a more conditions-based approach nearer the time, we shall find out.” In an interview for the programme, Cameron said he will withdraw troops from combat in 2015 irrespective of whether Afghanistan has been hardened against the return of al-Qaida by then: “No, the deadline is a deadline and it won’t slip, because I’m very clear that the British people deserve to have a clear endpoint.” Cameron’s determination to withdraw without conditions is expected to be fiercely criticised in a report from the Commons defence select committee, due to be published in the next fortnight. The Conservative chairman of the committee, James Arbuthnot, has been a strong advocate of a conditions-based timetable for withdrawal. Afghanistan Barack Obama United States US military Global terrorism Taliban al-Qaida Military Defence policy Ewen MacAskill Patrick Wintour Nick Hopkins guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
In 1994, against huge odds, two men saved hundreds of Tutsis during the genocide in Rwanda. Finally reunited, they recall the extraordinary story of their first meeting In a park in London, two men greet each other as old friends. One is grey-haired and American, the other a tall Rwandan in a smart suit. They embrace. The American wipes tears from his eyes. The last time the two men met was in Kigali, the Rwandan capital, in 1994: the year of the genocide in which 800,000 people were killed in 100 days. The two men, Jean-Francois Gisimba and Carl Wilkens, met a handful of times in that year but in the most extreme of circumstances. Together with Jean-Francois’ brother, Damas, they saved more than 400 children and hundreds of adults from the Interahamwe, the Hutu militia intent on eradicating Tutsi ” inyenzi ” or “cockroaches”. Seventeen years later, the Aegis Trust, which campaigns against genocide, has brought Jean-Francois and Carl back together in the UK. At last, Jean-Francois has the chance to say: “You saved my life but I don’t understand why.” Back in 1994, Jean-Francois, then 24, and Damas were running the orphanage their late parents had founded in Kigali in the 1980s. Of mixed Hutu and Tutsi parentage, they were caring for around 60 children of different ethnicities. “We were brought up not to see a difference,” Jean-Francois says. Damas ran the orphanage full-time, while Jean-Francois also worked for Radio Rwanda. On 6 April, a private jet carrying Rwandan President Juvenal Habyarimana was shot down near Kigali airport, triggering the genocide. Government-controlled news organisations began reporting that the Hutu president had been assassinated by Tutsi rebels. Within hours, Kigali was surrounded by roadblocks and the systematic murder of Tutsi families by militia groups began. Jean-Francois rushed home from the radio station to find hundreds of people gathered at the orphanage, seeking shelter. “They came not because they thought we could save them, but because they didn’t want to die alone,” he says. People were hiding in the attic, in the basement and in locked rooms, sick with dysentery and starvation. The brothers kept them alive for months with the help of Red Cross parcels. Because of their father, they had Hutu identity cards, and Damas began to negotiate for the orphanage’s survival. “My brother would go for a beer with the killers,” Jean-Francois remembers. “He would say: don’t come, don’t panic the kids, but he was also protecting the adults inside. He was pretending to be with them.” As the killings continued, the militia members became restless. Armed men began turning up drunk at the orphanage. On one visit they tortured and killed eight people they found hiding on the roof. Then the brothers heard from friends that they planned to kill everyone at the orphanage. “The day you came was the day the massacre was going to happen,” Jean-Francois tells Carl. “There was a knock at the door and I thought: this is it. A boy said, there is a muzungu – a white man – at the door looking for you.” Jean-Francois looks at the man sitting next to him. “It was you in your white Toyota Corolla.” Carl was then the 36-year-old head of Adrai, an Adventist relief organisation working in Rwanda. On 10 April, the UN had evacuated all foreigners from the country, including Carl’s wife, parents and three young children. Carl was the only American who stayed through the genocide. By negotiating with key militia figures including Colonel Tharsisse Renzaho, the prefect of Kigali, he managed to get supplies of water and food through to people in dire need. Renzaho had told him there was an orphanage that needed help. “I came out and you started telling me: ‘I’m bringing water,’” Jean-Francois says. “I wanted you to stop talking. I had the feeling that you did not know what was going on. You just wanted to deliver water and go to the next place. I dragged you to Damas’s office. “I said to you: they are coming in five or 10 minutes to kill all of us. I just wanted you to stay there and witness – so that later you could tell people what had happened.” Carl wanted to leave immediately to fetch help. “I remember standing in the parking lot by my Corolla. You kept on telling me: don’t go.” Jean-Francois shakes his head. “We went together slowly up to the car. You were trying to start it. You looked in the mirror and I remember you putting your hands through your hair. You got out again and got on your radio.” As the men stood by the car, dozens of Interahamwe militia began surrounding the orphanage. “The leader said: ‘I am coming to take all the Tutsis who are here.’” “Carl was still on his radio. Then I heard them say: ‘We were going to carry out our mission, but the American is there.’ The boss said in Kinyarwanda: ‘Leave the place, don’t do it in front of that man.’” With Jean-Francois still begging him to stay, Carl left to raise the alarm. When he reached Renzaho’s office he found that the prime minister, Jean Kambanda – who would later plead guilty to genocide – was visiting. “He was one of three people orchestrating the genocide,” Carl says. “But what choice did I have? I said: ‘There’s a massacre about to happen at Gisimba.’ “He talked to his men and said: ‘We’re aware of this.’ He promised me that the orphans would be OK. He shook hands with me.” At the orphanage, Jean-Francois waited. “For three days nothing happened,” he says. “Then an army major arrived. Many Interahamwe came behind him. One of the biggest killers – who had killed thousands – was there. ‘ Inyenzi ‘ he called us – cockroaches.” The major took Jean-Francois aside. “He said to me, ‘I am not a killer, I am with you, but you need to tell me the truth.’ I decided to trust him. I said, well, the truth is we are hiding many people – more than 400 children, and a big number of adults, widows. I don’t even know the number myself. “He said: ‘Be ready to be evacuated.’” By the next day, more militia had surrounded the orphanage. The Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF), the Tutsi rebel army fighting their way back into Rwanda, were now close to the capital. “Bombs were landing like rain from the hills,” Jean-Francois says. “I thought: now we are going to die. “The major returned with 12 bodyguards. He said to his men, ‘Whoever tries to shoot, you shoot all of them.’ If only more soldiers had been like him. “I thought these were my last moments. There was shooting. They took us to the road. He packed all of us into buses. He had a revolver in his hand and a Kalashnikov on his shoulder. They took us all up to St Michel Cathedral. Two to three days later the RPF took the area and we were safe.” More than 17 years later, Carl and Jean-Francois have met again because the Gisimba orphanage (still run by Jean-Francois and Damas) needs money. Next week is the 25th anniversary of the orphanage’s foundation. “We want it to have a future,” Jean-Francois says. In London, the American turns to the Rwandan and says: “I never knew if it was the right decision to leave you at the orphanage.” “It was the right decision,” Jean-Francois replies. “But what about my question – why did you help us?” Carl talks about not abandoning his Rwandan staff and friends, but Jean-Francois is shaking his head. “You were on the other side of the city so why cross through all those roadblocks, bombs and bullets to get to the orphanage?” Carl looks at him as if he should know. Jean-Francois, after all, is a man who let hundreds shelter in the orphanage knowing it meant almost certain death. “Why did you help those people?” he asks. Jean-Francois looks at him with incredulity. “How would we turn people away? We were taught by our parents that we should respect other people’s lives. If you tell people to get away you are an animal not a human being.” And so somehow he himself answers the question he has been waiting 17 years to ask. For further information on the Gisimba Orphanage, and details about how to support it, go to www.aegistrust.org Rwanda Human rights Ros Wynne-Jones guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …In 1994, against huge odds, two men saved hundreds of Tutsis during the genocide in Rwanda. Finally reunited, they recall the extraordinary story of their first meeting In a park in London, two men greet each other as old friends. One is grey-haired and American, the other a tall Rwandan in a smart suit. They embrace. The American wipes tears from his eyes. The last time the two men met was in Kigali, the Rwandan capital, in 1994: the year of the genocide in which 800,000 people were killed in 100 days. The two men, Jean-Francois Gisimba and Carl Wilkens, met a handful of times in that year but in the most extreme of circumstances. Together with Jean-Francois’ brother, Damas, they saved more than 400 children and hundreds of adults from the Interahamwe, the Hutu militia intent on eradicating Tutsi ” inyenzi ” or “cockroaches”. Seventeen years later, the Aegis Trust, which campaigns against genocide, has brought Jean-Francois and Carl back together in the UK. At last, Jean-Francois has the chance to say: “You saved my life but I don’t understand why.” Back in 1994, Jean-Francois, then 24, and Damas were running the orphanage their late parents had founded in Kigali in the 1980s. Of mixed Hutu and Tutsi parentage, they were caring for around 60 children of different ethnicities. “We were brought up not to see a difference,” Jean-Francois says. Damas ran the orphanage full-time, while Jean-Francois also worked for Radio Rwanda. On 6 April, a private jet carrying Rwandan President Juvenal Habyarimana was shot down near Kigali airport, triggering the genocide. Government-controlled news organisations began reporting that the Hutu president had been assassinated by Tutsi rebels. Within hours, Kigali was surrounded by roadblocks and the systematic murder of Tutsi families by militia groups began. Jean-Francois rushed home from the radio station to find hundreds of people gathered at the orphanage, seeking shelter. “They came not because they thought we could save them, but because they didn’t want to die alone,” he says. People were hiding in the attic, in the basement and in locked rooms, sick with dysentery and starvation. The brothers kept them alive for months with the help of Red Cross parcels. Because of their father, they had Hutu identity cards, and Damas began to negotiate for the orphanage’s survival. “My brother would go for a beer with the killers,” Jean-Francois remembers. “He would say: don’t come, don’t panic the kids, but he was also protecting the adults inside. He was pretending to be with them.” As the killings continued, the militia members became restless. Armed men began turning up drunk at the orphanage. On one visit they tortured and killed eight people they found hiding on the roof. Then the brothers heard from friends that they planned to kill everyone at the orphanage. “The day you came was the day the massacre was going to happen,” Jean-Francois tells Carl. “There was a knock at the door and I thought: this is it. A boy said, there is a muzungu – a white man – at the door looking for you.” Jean-Francois looks at the man sitting next to him. “It was you in your white Toyota Corolla.” Carl was then the 36-year-old head of Adrai, an Adventist relief organisation working in Rwanda. On 10 April, the UN had evacuated all foreigners from the country, including Carl’s wife, parents and three young children. Carl was the only American who stayed through the genocide. By negotiating with key militia figures including Colonel Tharsisse Renzaho, the prefect of Kigali, he managed to get supplies of water and food through to people in dire need. Renzaho had told him there was an orphanage that needed help. “I came out and you started telling me: ‘I’m bringing water,’” Jean-Francois says. “I wanted you to stop talking. I had the feeling that you did not know what was going on. You just wanted to deliver water and go to the next place. I dragged you to Damas’s office. “I said to you: they are coming in five or 10 minutes to kill all of us. I just wanted you to stay there and witness – so that later you could tell people what had happened.” Carl wanted to leave immediately to fetch help. “I remember standing in the parking lot by my Corolla. You kept on telling me: don’t go.” Jean-Francois shakes his head. “We went together slowly up to the car. You were trying to start it. You looked in the mirror and I remember you putting your hands through your hair. You got out again and got on your radio.” As the men stood by the car, dozens of Interahamwe militia began surrounding the orphanage. “The leader said: ‘I am coming to take all the Tutsis who are here.’” “Carl was still on his radio. Then I heard them say: ‘We were going to carry out our mission, but the American is there.’ The boss said in Kinyarwanda: ‘Leave the place, don’t do it in front of that man.’” With Jean-Francois still begging him to stay, Carl left to raise the alarm. When he reached Renzaho’s office he found that the prime minister, Jean Kambanda – who would later plead guilty to genocide – was visiting. “He was one of three people orchestrating the genocide,” Carl says. “But what choice did I have? I said: ‘There’s a massacre about to happen at Gisimba.’ “He talked to his men and said: ‘We’re aware of this.’ He promised me that the orphans would be OK. He shook hands with me.” At the orphanage, Jean-Francois waited. “For three days nothing happened,” he says. “Then an army major arrived. Many Interahamwe came behind him. One of the biggest killers – who had killed thousands – was there. ‘ Inyenzi ‘ he called us – cockroaches.” The major took Jean-Francois aside. “He said to me, ‘I am not a killer, I am with you, but you need to tell me the truth.’ I decided to trust him. I said, well, the truth is we are hiding many people – more than 400 children, and a big number of adults, widows. I don’t even know the number myself. “He said: ‘Be ready to be evacuated.’” By the next day, more militia had surrounded the orphanage. The Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF), the Tutsi rebel army fighting their way back into Rwanda, were now close to the capital. “Bombs were landing like rain from the hills,” Jean-Francois says. “I thought: now we are going to die. “The major returned with 12 bodyguards. He said to his men, ‘Whoever tries to shoot, you shoot all of them.’ If only more soldiers had been like him. “I thought these were my last moments. There was shooting. They took us to the road. He packed all of us into buses. He had a revolver in his hand and a Kalashnikov on his shoulder. They took us all up to St Michel Cathedral. Two to three days later the RPF took the area and we were safe.” More than 17 years later, Carl and Jean-Francois have met again because the Gisimba orphanage (still run by Jean-Francois and Damas) needs money. Next week is the 25th anniversary of the orphanage’s foundation. “We want it to have a future,” Jean-Francois says. In London, the American turns to the Rwandan and says: “I never knew if it was the right decision to leave you at the orphanage.” “It was the right decision,” Jean-Francois replies. “But what about my question – why did you help us?” Carl talks about not abandoning his Rwandan staff and friends, but Jean-Francois is shaking his head. “You were on the other side of the city so why cross through all those roadblocks, bombs and bullets to get to the orphanage?” Carl looks at him as if he should know. Jean-Francois, after all, is a man who let hundreds shelter in the orphanage knowing it meant almost certain death. “Why did you help those people?” he asks. Jean-Francois looks at him with incredulity. “How would we turn people away? We were taught by our parents that we should respect other people’s lives. If you tell people to get away you are an animal not a human being.” And so somehow he himself answers the question he has been waiting 17 years to ask. For further information on the Gisimba Orphanage, and details about how to support it, go to www.aegistrust.org Rwanda Human rights Ros Wynne-Jones guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Former US ambassador to China served under Obama and had praised the president in the leaked diplomatic cables There are only a few positive remarks about Barack Obama dotted about in the embassy cables sent by former American ambassador to China, Jon Huntsman, and subsequently leaked to WikiLeaks. But they will be enough to cause problems for the latest Republican president candidate in the months ahead. Huntsman, from a podium in New Jersey, with the Statue of Liberty in the background, announced on Tuesday that he would join the race to take on his old boss for the White House next year. Confirming his intention to seek the nomination, he criticised the president’s record and, in contrast with his time as ambassador when he projected American strength, portrayed the US as vulnerable. “For the first time in our history, we are passing down to the next generation a country that is less powerful, less compassionate, less competitive and less confident than the one we got. This, ladies and gentlemen, is totally unacceptable and totally un-American,” he said. Huntsman, 51, could be a formidable presidential candidate, given his experience in foreign affairs and as a former governor of Utah. But many Republicans cannot forgive the fact that he served in the Obama administration. The president approached Huntsman in 2009 and asked him to be the ambassador to Beijing, and Huntsman accepted, serving until this April. In that time, he worked alongside the Obama on issues ranging from climate change to human rights, and stood side by side with him when the president visited China. It is rare in US politics for someone who worked for one president to turn around and challenge him. Huntsman’s work in the Obama administration is almost certain to be raised by Republican rivals. It could also undercut his attacks on the president. In the leaked diplomatic cables from Beijing, Huntsman is careful to avoid hostages to fortune. Some ambassadors are more flamboyant and comment at length, but Huntsman is strictly professional, sticking to reports of what Chinese leaders, officials, academics and human rights activists have told him and his colleagues in the embassy. There is little editorialising in them. In spite of that, there are moments when he does speak positively about Obama. In August 2009, he said, according to one of the leaked cables: “President Obama had a good feel for the US-China relationship.” He said he was looking forward to Obama’s visit to China later that year. Huntsman’s care in keeping praise for Obama to a minimum suggests he was thinking even then about entering the Republican race. Given that, the question is why he agreed to Obama’s request to serve. Huntsman, a Mormon, spent two and a half years as a missionary in Taiwan and speaks Mandarin. Obama may have chosen him for his experience as a governor and Mandarin-speaker or may have asked him in an attempt to take him out of the Republican race. As well as having worked for Obama, another potential negative for Huntsman is that he was a strong believer in the importance of tackling climate change, an issue on which many Republicans, including some of his rivals have expressed scepticism. Huntsman has since reversed his position, dropping his support for a greenhouse gas cap. But in a meeting with Chinese president Hu Jintao at the Great Hall of the People, Huntsman identified climate change as one of three key topics, saying the two countries would have “many opportunities to interact and work together on key global issues such as climate change and the environment, regional security and global finance”. Huntsman again stressed that climate change is a priority the following month in a meeting with the foreign minister Yang Jiechi. Huntsman, again tying himself to Obama, “expressed his and President Obama’s hope to keep the US-China relations moving in a positive direction” and noted US and Chinese interests “were aligned on many aspects of the key issues of global economic recovery, regional security and climate change”. Yang proposed that the US and China handle their differences “discreetly to avoid public perception that there was friction between the two countries”. In the cable at least, Huntsman did not respond. In other cables, particularly ahead of Obama’s state visit to China, Huntsman sets out his views on a host of issues, from Chinese concern about a major US military presence in Afghanistan, through to human rights. On the latter, the ambassador said the Chinese record makes it difficult for the US to keep a low profile on the issue. Jon Huntsman Republican presidential nomination 2012 Republicans US elections 2012 United States US politics Barack Obama WikiLeaks Ewen MacAskill guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Conservatives threaten to scupper EU vote on carbon reduction by opposing the 30% cut in emissions committed by the PM David Cameron is facing a revolt from Conservative members of the European parliament against the coalition’s environmental policies, as they try to scupper a proposed toughening of Europe’s climate targets. The revolt of the MEPs is an embarrassment for the prime minister, who has committed Britain to some of the most ambitious greenhouse gas targets in the world and staked his reputation on leading “the greenest government ever”. Tomorrow the European parliament will vote on whether to toughen the EU’s emissions-cutting target from 20% reductions by 2020, compared with 1990 levels, to a 30% cut. The commitment to a 30% cut is in the coalition agreement, and has won support from other member states. But British Conservative MEPs said they would vote to oppose the 30% cut. The leader of the UK Conservative delegation, Martin Callanan, said: “Conservative MEPs have always been sceptical of the EU unilaterally increasing its target to 30% without a worldwide agreement … European companies will be unable to compete if the reduction targets are set too high. “Many high energy consuming companies are already being forced to relocate to countries outside the EU, which have little or no environmental legislation, putting many Europeans out of work, and an increased target will exacerbate this trend. “We are also concerned that the higher carbon costs from an increased target will feed through into energy price increases for domestic consumers, who are already facing steep rises.” His remarks were echoed by several other Tory MEPs who replied to a Guardian question to all Tory MEPs asking how they would vote. Only one out of the 23 – Marina Yannakoudakis – replied to say she would vote in favour of 30%, and Julie Girling said she planned to vote for 20% but might compromise on 25% if that was on the table. The MEPs’ reluctance to agree with the coalition’s climate aims is at odds with Cameron’s statements. Only last month, after committing the UK to the toughest carbon targets in the EU , Cameron reiterated his green claims: “When the coalition came together last year, we said we wanted this to be the greenest government ever. This is the right approach for Britain if we are to combat climate change, secure our energy supplies for the long-term and seize the economic opportunities that green industries hold … the UK can prove that there need not be a tension between green and growth.” Climate scepticism among Tory MPs and MEPs is increasing, according to party insiders. Labour said the vote was tight enough that it could be lost. “Cameron’s own MEPs prove that the Conservative party is not serious about tackling climate change. The ‘greenest government ever’ is increasingly exposed as all talk, and little action,” said Meg Hiller, the shadow energy secretary. “Cameron should step in,” said Martyn Williams, a campaigner at Friends of the Earth. “He should tell his MEPs ‘we look stupid if you vote against this’.” Downing Street did not respond to a request for comment. The row among the Conservatives reflects a wider disagreement within the EU over toughening the carbon targets. Although more than 70 large businesses , including Google, Unilever and Scottish and Southern Energy, recently came out in favour of the stiffer cuts, many business lobby groups oppose them . The move comes as EU environmental policy was undermined by one of the most important figures in the European commission, causing alarm in Brussels. Janusz Lewandowski, the commissioner in charge of fraught negotiations on the future of the EU’s €130bn budget, cast doubt on the science of climate change and the future of emissions policy. In an interview with a Polish newspaper he said: “We already have overambitious agreements on CO 2 emission reduction. There is a notion that the thesis that coal energy is the main cause of global warming is highly questionable. Moreover, more and more often there is a question mark put over the whole [issue of] global warming as such.” Lewandowski said the CO 2 targets “are too ambitious for the Polish economy … Polish politicians have to persuade that there cannot be a quick jump away from coal. For Poland it would be a disaster.” His remarks were all the more pointed as the Poles at the European council blocked progress on the carbon roadmap to 2050, which the commission hoped would be the basis of a strengthening of climate policy. Poland will hold the revolving presidency of the EU from 1 July. Ruth Davis, chief policy adviser at Greenpeace UK, said: “It’s terrifying that the man in charge of Europe’s budget is someone you might expect to see in Sarah Palin’s Republican party. “He has a huge influence over all of our economic futures and yet not only does he deny the overwhelming evidence of climate change, but he’s also opposing measures that leading businesses say would drive green growth and create millions of new jobs in Europe’s clean industries.” The ructions came as peace unexpectedly broke out in another key area of European environmental policy, when the EU’s energy chief and climate chief reached an amicable compromise over a new directive on energy efficiency. The row was over plans for a new energy efficiency directive from Günther Oettinger , energy commissioner, that will force businesses to cut dramatically the amount of energy they waste. But green experts feared the new rules would create problems for the EU’s emissions trading scheme, because if companies reached their efficiency targets they would be left with large amounts of unused carbon permits. The influx of these permits would drive down the cost of carbon overall, and render the emissions trading system useless as a means of driving investment in clean technology, as well as improving efficiency. Connie Hedegaard, the climate commissioner, favoured setting aside a quantity of permits in order to prop up the carbon price, but many businesses opposed this as they feared it would impose higher costs. The compromise arrived at on Tuesday means that if the emissions trading system is seen to be failing because of the energy efficiency directive, adjustments can be made – including setting aside permits. Green politics Carbon emissions Climate change Conservatives European Union David Cameron Fiona Harvey guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Newtie’s peeps are leaving in droves. All hail the literati! Newt Gingrich’s top two fundraising advisers resigned on Tuesday, and officials said the Republican candidate’s hobbling presidential campaign carried more than $1 million in debt. The departures of fundraising director Jody Thomas and fundraising consultant Mary Heitman were the latest blow for the former House speaker who watched 16 top advisers abandon his campaign en masse earlier this month, partly because of what people familiar with the campaign spending described as a dire financial situation. These people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the campaign inner workings, said the former Georgia lawmaker racked up massive travel bills but money had only trickled in since he got into the race earlier this spring. These officials said that he is at least $1 million in debt. The current fundraising quarter ends June 30, and Gingrich will have to disclose his campaign finances by July 15. He is personally wealthy and could fund his campaign out of his own pocket, at least in the short term, to keep his campaign afloat. Gingrich has insisted that he will not abandon his troubled bid and will continue fighting for the Republican nomination for president “no matter what it takes.” He’s revamping his campaign, given the series of departures. Look at the power we have over the inner workings of the Gingrich campaign. Nicole Belle recently wrote: Sign Of Things To Come: Gingrich Aides Resign En Masse Looks like she was correct. I haven’t seen Newt on The O’Reilly Factor since his ” Ryan’s Medicare plan is right wing social engineering ” MTP performance and he was a fixture on BillO’s show. That’s something that’s hard to go back on because he’s no amateur when it comes to being on TV. I doubt he’ll be on any time soon. Benen: Now Gingrich has been reduced to scheduling events within driving distance of his home. At least for now, the disgraced former Speaker insists he’s going to stay in the race, but his willingness to keep trying is irrelevant. He has no campaign operation, no financial resources, no work ethic, and no popularity. Come on, Steve. You just don’t understand Newt these days. Well, nobody does these days.
Continue reading …Another Obamacare ‘Twist,’ and Another AP Failure to Admit That Almost No One Read or Understood the Bill
June 21, 2011 No Comment
In the run-up to the passage of Obamacare in 2010, Nancy Pelosi infamously told a friendly audience :
Continue reading …