• Suspended vice-president quits all international positions • Fifa: ‘presumption of innocence is maintained’ Jack Warner, the man at the centre of the Fifa bribery scandal, has resigned from all his positions in international football. Warner, the longest-serving member of Fifa’s executive committee, had been suspended pending the outcome of a bribery inquiry. Fifa said the ethics committee procedures against him “have been closed and the presumption of innocence is maintained”. Warner had been suspended last month pending an investigation into claims that he and the Fifa presidential challenger Mohamed bin Hammam had offered financial incentives to members of the Caribbean Football Union. World football’s governing body released a statement on Monday which read: “Jack A Warner has informed Fifa about his resignation from his posts in international football. Fifa regrets the turn of events that have led to Mr Warner’s decision. “His resignation has been accepted by world football’s governing body, and his contribution to international football and to Caribbean football in particular and the Concacaf confederation are appreciated and acknowledged. “Mr Warner is leaving Fifa by his own volition after nearly 30 years of service, having chosen to focus on his important work on behalf of the people and government of Trinidad & Tobago as a cabinet minister and as the chairman of the United National Congress, the major party in his country’s coalition government. “The Fifa executive committee, the Fifa president and the Fifa management thank Mr Warner for his services to Caribbean, Concacaf and international football over his many years devoted to football at both regional and international level, and wish him well for the future. “As a consequence of Mr Warner’s self-determined resignation, all ethics committee procedures against him have been closed and the presumption of innocence is maintained.” Jack Warner Fifa Football politics guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Protesters take to streets after Syrian president sinks hopes of a ‘groundbreaking’ speech, saying unrest makes reform impossible Syria’s embattled leader, Bashar al-Assad, has blamed “saboteurs” backed by foreign powers for fomenting widespread civil unrest and said reform will not be possible while nationwide chaos continues. Assad’s speech had been widely anticipated inside Syria and hailed in advance as potentially “groundbreaking”. But the hour-long address offered no substantive concessions to demonstrators who had demanded an overhaul of laws that have greatly restricted freedoms for more than four decades. Opposition activists reacted furiously, with protesters taking to the streets in several cities soon after the speech ended. Around 300 marchers in the Irbin suburb of Damascus chanted “No to dialogue with murderers,” a witness told Reuters by telephone. “There is no middle option between tyranny and democracy,” opposition organiser, Maluth Aumran, said on Twitter. “We are in the 98th day of protests and Bashar is still in denial.” The centrepiece of the hour-long speech was a call for a “national dialogue”, which Assad said could “lead to a news Syrian constitution”. He said committees had been formed to reform electoral laws and to introduce a freer press in Syria, which has banned most foreign journalists since March. He conceded that the past three months of violence had “tarnished the image of Syria abroad and weakened the political position of the nation. He also admitted that the violence had imperilled the economy. “The collapse of the Syrian economy is the most serious problem we face. We need a new economic system to safeguard the citizens.” Assad repeatedly spoke of a conspiracy against Syria, a familiar theme during his two previous addresses in March and April. “Why is it happening?,” he asked. “Because of our political stances, which benefit our interests and principles. These conspiracies are designed outside and perpetrated inside Syria.” He also blamed “religious extremists”, who he said had taken advantage of the ongoing trouble. “This is the sort of ideology that we haven’t seen for many decades. They are trying to spread chaos in the name of freedom.” However, Assad also claimed to have met with Syrian citizens, who had “legitimate demands’. He said he had compiled a list of 1,200 such demands, dealing with such issues as passports and basic services. “Some think the government is dragging its feet,” he said. “I want to assure you that reform for us is a conviction.” Assad did signal electoral and constitutional reforms, which he said would be part of a deep transformation of the country. But he offered no detail or timeframe. He claimed that the army acted to quell an uprising in the northern town of Jisr al-Shughour, which saw some of the worst violence since the uprisings began. Almost all residents fled the town as the Syrian army advanced on it, with many now having crossed the border into Turkey where they are being housed in refugee camps. Assad urged all residents to return to the town and pledged they would be safe to do so. An analyst in Damascus said the address would not stop further protests. “Assad did not address anything of importance, such as reining in the security forces to obey the rule of law. We didn’t expect much and this certainly didn’t offer anything other than vague committees. The idea of dialogue is dead for the opposition.” Nidaa Hassan is the pseudonym of a journalist working in Damascus Syria Bashar Al-Assad Arab and Middle East unrest Middle East Martin Chulov guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Who would have ever thunk it was possible that under a Democratic President, the idea of cutting benefits to Social Security and deficit reduction hawks would be so prevalent? The beltway media has really forced the issue of fearmongering the American people on the federal debt which is the only way Republicans could ever get any traction for their hatred of New Deal and Great Society programs. Even with a total global financial meltdown and high unemployment, all the polls show Americans still do not want their Medicare, Medicaid or Social Security touched, privatized or voucherized, but that hasn’t stopped the Villagers from telling us to get serious and be adults about ‘entitlements.” Republicans will always attack these incredible has programs brought us dignity as we get older and have made this country special because now seniors and the elderly are taken care of in a way that so appalled Presidents like FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, JFK and LBJ. Even Nixon wanted some sort of universal health care to take care of people. AARP stood tall against Bush’s attempts to privatize Social Security, but new reports have shown them going all squishy on us at a great time of need. Roger Hickey: AARP Tells Members They Won’t Fight Social Security Benefit Cuts The front page of today’s Wall Street Journal features an article (” Key Seniors Association Pivots on Benefit Cut “) saying the organization “is dropping its longstanding opposition to cutting Social Security benefits.” The piece is based on a conversation with AARP policy director John Rother. This is a big deal — not because AARP was ever such a strong force against proposed benefit cuts (other groups are doing that much more effectively), but because the mainstream media is now full of headlines like this from ABC News: ” AARP Wobbles on Social Security Benefit Cuts ” and this column by David Von Drehle, from Time Online: ” Victory! The Grey Goliath Gives Way on Social Security .” AARP members across the country are outraged . Some are burning their membership cards . The timing of this front page story couldn’t be worse. Conservatives have fixated Congress and the White House on deficits and spending cuts that will kill jobs — even though most Americans care more about jobs than deficits. Most Americans were heartened when Paul Ryan’s plan for dismantling Medicare was decisively rejected by the very Republican voters of New York’s 26th Congressional District — after Ryan got almost every Republican in the Congress to vote for it. Democrats were starting to re-learn how to campaign as defenders of Medicare and Social Security. And now this — from a top level AARP leader — a real momentum killer. AARP then sent out a new press release that seemed to say that the WSJ report was inaccurate, but still their statement was very fuzzy via email: AARP CEO A. Barry Rand offered the following statement in response to inaccurate media stories on the association’s policy on Social Security: “Let me be clear – AARP is as committed as we’ve ever been to fighting to protect Social Security for today’s seniors and strengthening it for future generations. Contrary to the misleading characterization in a recent media story, AARP has not changed its position on Social Security. “First, we are currently fighting some proposals in Washington to cut Social Security to reduce a deficit it did not cause. Social Security should not be used as a piggy bank to solve the nation’s deficit. Any changes to this lifeline program should happen in a separate, broader discussion and make retirement more secure for future generations, not less. — Second, we have maintained for years – to our members, the media and elected officials – that long term solvency is key to protecting and strengthening Social Security for all generations, and we have urged elected officials in Washington to address the program’s long-term challenges in a way that’s fair for all generations. “It has long been AARP’s policy that Social Security should be strengthened to provide adequate benefits and that it is sufficiently financed to ensure solvency with a stable trust fund for the next 75 years. It has also been a long held position that any changes would be phased in slowly, over time, and would not affect any current or near term beneficiaries. Sorry, but that’s not strong enough for my taste. AARP should be mad as hell and not taking all this deficit and benefit cutting lunacy coming out of DC any more. We’re mad as hell, get it. We’re not gonna take it anymore. Hickey continues: The AARP has just issued a statement by their CEO, A. Barry Rand, entitled “AARP Has Not Changed Its Position on Social Security.” In it, Rand calls the WSJ piece inaccurate and misleading, but doesn’t clarify what they think was inaccurate. In the Journal article, John Rother was clear that he’s willing to support SS benefit cuts. AARP in its statement just reiterates its commitment to “solvency” of the program. I believe SS can be made solvent without benefit cuts. John Rother disagrees. Where does the AARP as the largest organization claiming to represent seniors stand? They are not clear. The AARP statement claims to oppose including Social Security in the deficit discussions. If they really mean that, the group that promotes itself as the most powerful defender of seniors in America should get their vaunted citizen’s lobby in gear — to make sure Social Security doesn’t become the sacrificial lamb of this dangerous season of budget-cutting blood on the floor. I’ve been fighting to save Social Security benefit cuts and will continue to do so until my last breath and I’m eligible to become an AARP member. This is outrageous on so many levels Digby has more: What I’m hearing in this from AARP and Begich and people like Kay Bailey Hutchison (who “coincidentally” dropped her Social Security destruciton plan yesterday) is that they’ve got some kind of agreement to “tackle” Social Security outside the deficit talks around the debt ceiling and the budget. It’s a very neat and tidy compartment of the Grand Bargain. Here’s Hutchison on the AARP’s statement : Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, who on Thursday unveiled her own Social Security reform package, said Friday that the AARP has marked “a huge shift in the debate on the solvency of Social Security.” Ms. Hutchison went on to say that her hope is “that Social Security is included in the bipartisan discussions on raising the debt ceiling, as it is an opportunity to fix this important entitlement for seventy-five years rather than just focusing on a short-term Band-Aid.” Hutchison, who is retiring, is the designated Social Security extremist in this battle. Her plan would raise the retirement age to 69 for everyone under the current age of 58. As you can see, she’s also demanding that Social Security be part of any deficit talks for no apparent reason, just as the Democrats are all firmly insisting that they will have none of it. (As if that’s the issue …) I think we can all see the outlines of the agreement here, can’t we? So we’re looking at cuts to Social Security and eventually many rationales as to why they are “the best they could do.” On the Democratic side, we’ll be told that an agreement to only discuss Social Security outside the deficit discussions was a big win for the good guys. Why something that doesn’t affect the deficit and is solvent so far in the future should even be on the agenda at a time of crippling unemployment and a moribund economy remains a mystery. The truth, of course, is that the deficit is beside the point in all these discussions. The Grand Bargain was conceived long before it was a major issue. These talks are really about changing the nature of American government — which apparently will be accomplished by cutting social programs and the safety net.
Continue reading …
Horse is thought to have charged after giving carriage rides to visitors at fair in Bury St Edmunds A woman has died after an incident involving a runaway horse and cart. She had been in a critical condition at Addenbrooke’s hospital in Cambridge after being injured at Nowton Park in Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk, on Sunday afternoon. Police were contacted by the ambulance service just before 4.30pm to report that a horse and cart had got loose at a country show. A police spokeswoman said the woman who died aged 57 and from Bury St Edmunds. Witnesses said visitors screamed and fled as the animal charged at the Nowton Park country fair. Seven other people who were injured have been released from hospital. A number suffered back or abdominal injuries. Among them was Cindy Taylor, 65, who was knocked to the ground when her mobility scooter was crushed by the horse. She told the East Anglian Daily Times: “It was horrendous. Just terrible. I was terrified when I saw this horse coming towards me. Something had certainly spooked him.” The horse, which had been giving carriage rides to visitors earlier in the day, is believed to have broken free from where it was tethered, running over several people. Tony Curd, the St John Ambulance county commander, said: “Our volunteers provided medical cover at the event with an ambulance and mobile treatment centre and were able to respond immediately. They dealt with multiple casualties under difficult circumstances and are to be commended for their prompt actions. Our thoughts are with those injured this afternoon, at what should have been an enjoyable Father’s Day event.” A spokeswoman for St Edmundsbury borough council, which staged the event, said the council would work with the Health and Safety Executive to carry out a full investigation. She added: “Our thoughts are with those who were injured.” The four-year-old Breton horse, called Lucas, had been due to be sold for meat when he was rescued by his owner, Carriage Tours, of Bury St Edmunds, last September. The owners could not be contacted on Monday. guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
“HERETIC!!!” That is what leftwingers will be screaming at their computer monitors when they read The New Republic article by Ruy Teixeira in which he praises President Barack Obama for agreeing to extend the Bush tax cuts which are so hated by liberals. Even worse, he claims that the Bush tax cuts extension will improve the economy to the extent that they could improve Obama's re-election chances. Well, there are a lot of other factors at play which will serve to keep the economy in its current doldrums but what Teixeira specifically says about the Bush tax cuts are enough to send liberal blood pressures through the roof over his “heresy.” Here a few “heretical” tidbits from Teixeira: …Far from dividing Obama's coalition, the tax-cut deal is brilliant move that could cement it, in the process winning back some of the white working-class voters who deserted the Democrats in 2010. That's because Democrats' devastating defeat in the midterm elections resulted primarily from the weak economy and the government’s perceived failure to improve it, not from any lack of resoluteness in upholding liberal principles or applying liberal rhetoric. Therefore, the central task for the Obama administration after the election was—and is—to improve the economy by any means necessary. ….And Obama's $858 billion package of tax cuts, tax credits, and unemployment benefits will in effect deliver a second economic stimulus , albeit not one any progressive—or sane—economist would have dreamed up on their own. In a world where unemployment barely budged and GDP growth couldn’t get above 3 percent, Obama's re-election would be in considerable doubt. But with the tax-cut deal, there should be a significant decline in unemployment (though the absolute level will remain high) and a more robust growth rate, including during quarters two and three of election year, which political scientists tell us is particularly important to electoral outcomes. So is Teixeira just some registered Democrat who actually holds conservative views? Nope. His liberal credentials are well established by the fact that he co-wrote “The Emerging Democratic Majority” in 2002 as well as being a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress. In addition, Teixeira's disdain for Republicans can be seen in this quote by him which appeared in NewsBusters last November: “The outlook for Republicans is even worse than people think,” says Ruy Teixeira, author of The Emerging Democratic Majority. “Their biggest problem is that they really believe what they believe.” And the problem for Teixeira is that he is sure to catch holy hell from his fellow leftists for admitting that the Bush Tax Cuts are good for the economy. Of course, Teixeira will also need to convince Obama to expand oil drilling and exploration, eliminate many regulations hindering business, and work to repeal ObamaCare among other things in order to bring the economy back to the robust way it was…during the Bush administration. UPDATE:
Continue reading …
Trial in absentia of Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali begins after former leader fled to Saudi Arabia Tunisia began the trial on Monday of former president Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali, whose ousting by protesters angry over corruption and police repression inspired the Arab spring that has swept the region. Ben Ali fled to Saudi Arabia on 14 January, after mass protests against 23 years of rule in which he, his wife and their family built stakes in the country’s biggest businesses and accumulated vast fortunes at what Tunisians say was their expense. Tunisia’s revolt inspired many across the Arab world suffering similarly high unemployment, rising prices and repressive rule. Ben Ali’s trial will be watched closely in Egypt, where former president Hosni Mubarak is due to stand trial over the killing of protesters. Judge Touhami Hafian, sitting in the palace of justice in the Tunisian capital, said the court would begin by hearing charges that Ben Ali was in unlawful possession of foreign currency, jewellery, archaeological artefacts, drugs and weapons. “This is a normal trial,” the judge said. Speaking to Reuters before the hearing began, Husni Beji, one of five lawyers representing Ben Ali, told Reuters: “We are going to ask for an adjournment … I want to convince Ben Ali to attend the trial.” Since Ben Ali’s departure, most Tunisians have been preoccupied with deteriorating law and order and political instability as the caretaker authorities try to guide the country towards democracy. But there is still deep-seated anger at Ben Ali’s rule, which many people say was characterised by repression and corruption on a grand scale involving members of Ben Ali’s extended family. The Tunisian press, enjoying unprecedented freedom after years of state control, has carried numerous reports saying The Family, as Tunisians refer to them, had absconded from the country with large sums of money and gold. More than 30 members of Ben Ali’s family and that of his wife, Leila Trabelsi, were arrested in the days following the fall of his regime. Some have since been charged with economic crimes and abuse of power. Angry protesters looted and vandalised the luxury villas they owned in coastal suburbs. Ben Ali and his family built up interests in many Tunisian companies and industries during his two decades in power, including in hotels, banks, tuna exports, construction, newspapers and pharmaceuticals. Tunisian officials have vowed to recover Ben Ali’s assets and return them to the state. In a statement released by his lawyers on Sunday, 74-year-old Ben Ali denied the charges against him. He said the prosecution was an attempt by Tunisia’s new leaders to distract attention from their failure to restore stability in the six months since he left the country. Ben Ali is also due to face a separate trial, in a Tunisian military court, on charges that include conspiring against the state and manslaughter. Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali Tunisia Arab and Middle East unrest Africa Middle East guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-OH) is what we used to call a “social justice Catholic,” just like Michael Moore. I can live with her stance against abortion because she fights like hell for every other interest of women, children and working people everywhere. She’s one of the most articulate, principled political figures we have. In this video from last week, she’s railing against the inadequate funding ($7 billion less than requested) in the Department of Agriculture funding bill and the effects it will have on the food stamp program and supplemental food programs like WIC. She was furious because the previous speaker on the House floor talked about Ayn Rand’s beloved “rugged individualism.” “Rugged individualism produces a heartless bill like this,” Kaptur retorted. She said if you wanted to know why the nation’s “in the dumpster”, go back to the 1990s. She calls Alan greenspan a “great proponent of rugged individualism” and tags Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley as “an interesting group of individuals that took America to the cleaners.” The spending bill “takes food away from about 350,000 women and children,” she said. She also challenged House members: “Most of the people here are Christian,” she said. “The first Beatitude says ‘Feed the hungry,’ not ‘rugged individualism.’ ” She bemoaned the “heartlessness” of those who take everything for themselves and turn their backs on the rest of the American people. In a warning to House Republicans, Kaptur said, “They didn’t clean house last November because they thought you were better. They just wanted a change and they’ll vote for it again if their lives don’t get better.” “This is the most gutless institution. Let them pay their fair share of taxes. We couldn’t even do that… They hurt the Republic. They hurt our country, and they have not been held accountable. …”I don’t have enough power to hold them accountable, but I hope God does. Because what they’ve done is unforgivable. Their rugged individualism is unpatriotic, it’s unChristian and it hurts this country.” “There has been no justice to this date. “I can guarantee you, for all the big shots who have cleaned up at the expense of the American people, most of them have never been to a WIC site and sat with mom…So I think the sad fact of this bill is, rather than big oil paying their fair share of taxes, then rather than us taking those bonuses from those who truly don’t deserve them because of what they did to the republic, for all the tax breaks that going to companies that are locating jobs overseas and taking our livelihood, the answer isn’t to take food away from those people that are paying the price. ” “… There are many people who talk about life – without decent nuttition, the hundreds of thousands of children in this bill, their brains won’t grow as fast.”
Continue reading …Maureen Dowd Wages War on the ‘Starchbishop’ of New York for Having the ‘Gall’ to Oppose Gay Lobby
June 20, 2011 No CommentNew York Times columnist Maureen Dowd is a nominal Catholic. She doesn’t believe at all in the church’s teaching that homosexuality is a sin. When Timothy Dolan, the Archbishop of New York, opposes “gay marriage” in New York, the best Dowd could do in her Saturday column was call him the “Starchbishop” and drag out (repeatedly) the sexual abuse scandal of the 1960s and 1970s. If this kind of knee-jerk thinking is annoying at the dinner table, who'd enjoy it in the newspaper? Archbishop Dolan was born in 1950. Maureen Dowd was born in 1952. Can Dowd really blame Dolan for something that she was “equally” as responsible for in the Catholic church of their childhood? Dolan didn't become a priest until 1976 and didn't get a bishop's responsiblities until 2002. But Dowd is offended that the prelate would dare intervene or speak out on a matter of sexuality: Certainly his effort to kill the gay marriage bill, just one vote away from passing in Albany, shows a lot of gall. The archbishop has been ferocious in fighting against marriage between same-sex couples, painting it as a perversity against nature. If only his church had been as ferocious in fighting against the true perversity against nature: the unending horror of pedophile priests and the children who trusted them. Abusive priests were (and are) a horror. But Dowd drags this out as the liberal argument against any church tradition. If Dolan argued like Dowd, every time Dowd started to write, he’d drag out her scandalous front-page story insisting Nancy Reagan and Frank Sinatra were lovers: “Can you really trust a journalist who has this standard of accuracy?” Or dragged out the Jayson Blair fabrications every time the New York Times editorialized against anything. Archbishop Dolan’s job is to evangelize the public with the Word of God, not the Word of Dowd.
Continue reading …
Veteran Nepalese members of British army challenging Ministry of Defence over pensions disparity British Gurkhas are taking their battle for equal pension rights to the European court of human rights. After winning a battle championed by actor and campaigner Joanna Lumley for equal rights of UK residence, the veteran Nepalese members of the British army are challenging the Ministry of Defence over their pension arrangements. The British Gurkhas Welfare Society (BGWS) said it was turning to the Strasbourg court after being rebuffed in a test case in the UK. The legal battle is over the fact that Gurkhas who retired before 1997, despite having won the right to settle in the UK after Lumley’s campaign, continue to receive far smaller pensions than their British and Commonwealth counterparts. A case launched by the BGWS ended with the court of appeal backing the MoD, and the supreme court last December refused the Gurkhas permission to appeal further. The next step is a legal challenge in Strasbourg for allegedly breaching the Gurkhas’ human rights. The BGWS chairman, Tikendra Dal Dewan, a retired army major, said on Monday: “We have taken this step reluctantly but with the knowledge that not pursuing legal options further would effectively put a nail in the coffins of many veterans. It is desperately sad that, after many years of committed and courageous service, these old soldiers cannot find justice within the UK’s borders – and it should be to the government’s shame that the continuing poverty they face goes uncorrected.” The organisation says many elderly veterans, in the UK and Nepal and particularly those who retired before 1997, face “desperate poverty”. In May 2009 the Labour government announced that Gurkha veterans who had served four years or more in the British army before 1997 would be allowed to settle in Britain. However, the former soldiers will have to wait years for a hearing and verdict in their pensions case as the Strasbourg judges are not expected to consider their claim until late 2012 at the earliest, with a final verdict due in 2013 or 2014. Gurkhas European court of human rights Human rights Military Europe guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
From an illicit Pixies gig to a Mesopotamian ziggurat, Guardian critics recall their biggest moment of inspiration in their respective fields Pop: Alexis Petridis Can any gig you see as a critic ever match the ones you saw as a teenager? Bizarrely, going to a gig when I was 17 was harder work than writing reviews has ever been. It involved not merely getting to London, but lying to my parents about where I was going, lying to my friend’s parents about where my parents thought I was going, bunking off school, and then convincing somebody who looked 18 to go to the bar on my behalf. But none of that mattered the night I saw the Pixies supported by My Bloody Valentine, in September 1988. It’s not every night you see arguably the two most important guitar bands of the era on the same stage at the peak of their powers: the Pixies had just released their incredible second album, Surfer Rosa , while My Bloody Valentine had released the astonishing single You Made Me Realise . It says something about the pre-internet age that, before they walked on, I had no idea what the Pixies looked like. I didn’t expect the guy who sang all those dark songs about sex and violence to be chubby and balding. This was nothing compared to the shock of their sound: a ceaseless roar, with the next song starting as the last chord of the previous one was still dying away. I remember that gig in snapshots. Two roadies having to hold on to My Bloody Valentine’s drumkit as Colm O’Cíosóig hit it with such ferocity that
Continue reading …