Home » Archives by category » News » Politics (Page 866)

Title: In The Summertime Artist: Mungo Jerry I’ve been running through the woods for two days and this song has been in my head. Must be the heat. Happy Saturday!

Continue reading …
Afghan Car Owners Refuse to Have the Number 39 On Their Plates

Afghanistan’s car industry may seem like an unlikely target for superstitious rumors, but it turns out the number 39 is causing quite a stir for car dealers and drivers in Kabul.  The haunted numbers first won a bad reputation after a pimp living in neighboring Iran earned the nickname “39″ from the license plate number

Continue reading …

At Netroots Nation , Felipe Matos of the Trail of Dreams caught White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer in two lies, yesterday: (1) Obama “hears from DREAM Act Students all the time,” and (2) Obama “does not have the executive authority [to stop the deportations of DREAMers].” The first lie is probably the greatest disrespect to the migrant youth movement. It is not widely known that Obama refuses to meet with undocumented people himself. Undocumented youth have certainly confronted him at public events , but Obama refuses to meet with undocumented people to talk with them about an immigration system that is doing violence to them. Felipe Matos would know that Obama refuses to meet with undocumented people because he himself walked 1,500 miles from Miami, FL, to Washington, D.C. only to be denied a meeting with Obama. Obama has met with currently documented former DREAMers, but not with undocumented youth themselves. Felipe himself makes this clear in the video, only to be dismissed by Pfeiffer: Felipe Matos : He has spoken to people who are not DREAM Act-eligible, people who are not undocumented, because he has made it very clear that he doesn’t want to talk to undocumented people . Dan Pfeiffer : I don’t think that’s accurate. Felipe Matos : I mean I was in meetings with Valerie Jarrett when she told me that so I know it’s accurate. Netroots Nation (17 June 2011) While the first lie is disrespectful to the migrant youth movement, it is probably the second lie that does the most violence to migrant communities. Obama does have the power to grant administrative relief to migrant communities. The Immigration Policy Center has made that very clear. As a former teacher of constitutional law, and as the signatory of nearly 80 Executive Orders, President Obama understands that the role of the Executive branch of the U.S. government has never been limited to blindly enforcing laws passed by the Legislative branch. In fact, the effective implementation of any law (criminal law, tax law, environmental law, securities law, etc.), requires the Executive branch to interpret that law and develop strategies to implement it. Every new administration brings its own set of values and priorities to this task. That is why federal regulations, policies, and procedures change from administration to administration. This fundamental fact has been repeatedly recognized by the Obama Administration outside of the immigration context. Speaking in 2008, President Obama’s transition chief, John Podesta, noted: “There’s a lot that the President can do using his executive authority without waiting for congressional action, and I think we’ll see the president do that.” Speaking in 2010, White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer observed: “The challenges we had to address in 2009 ensured that the center of action would be in Congress. In 2010, executive actions will also play a key role in advancing the agenda.” Dan Pfeiffer lied to Felipe Matos, pure and simple, just as Obama has been lying to Latino voters across the country . I’m struggling a little bit with categorizing these as lies so blatantly right now, primarily because I feel an unproductive narrative of liberal anger at Obama is emerging from Netroots Nation. Were I to craft my own productive narrative of why Obama needs to provide administrative relief to migrant communities, it would go something like this: We’re not asking Obama to ignore the laws that are already on the books, as broken, unjust, and violent as we feel those laws are. What we are saying is that the Obama administration has limited resources to enforce the law, and that his administration should use those resources wisely. At a time when the federal government is struggling with a growing deficit, it makes no sense to spend thousands upon thousands of dollars detaining and deporting young people who know no other country as their home, or any undocumented people with strong and productive ties to their communities in the U.S. for that matter. Even with the Obama administration deporting over 400,000 people a year, now, the undocumented population continues to hover at around 11 million people. There’s even research to suggest ( pdf ) that heavy enforcement actually increases the undocumented population in the U.S., not because more people are coming in, but because less people want or are able to leave. If Obama continues to force pro-migrant voters to choose between helping to elect him, and stopping the deportations of our family members, friends, and peers, guess where we’re going to put our energy? Dreamers have regularly shown the ability to mobilize tens of thousands of people to stop their deportations one-by-one. Wouldn’t Obama prefer that they direct their energy at convincing or electing lawmakers who can change the laws, rather than have us continue to direct our energy at his administration? As it gets closer and closer to election time, pressure is going to increase on the pro-migrant movement to shut our mouths lest we help elect a nativist Republican to the presidency. It’s difficult to say where different pro-migrant groups will fall as that pressure increases but I can say that I certainly won’t help elect someone that continues to decimate my community. With Obama deporting more people that George W. Bush ever did, and now implementing a program, [In]Secure Communities, which would turn every local police officer into a border patrol agent by 2013 , there might even be situations where a Republican president would be better for the pro-migrant community. In other words, does Obama want to continue wasting limited resources and grassroots energy by continuing to deport folks who don’t need to be deported, or does he want to save money and direct that energy towards lawmakers who should be taking responsibility for fixing this unjust immigration system? I hope the answer is clear and that Obama grants migrant communities administrative relief. Kyle de Beausset is a pro-migrant blogger at Citizen Orange .

Continue reading …

At Netroots Nation , Felipe Matos of the Trail of Dreams caught White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer in two lies, yesterday: (1) Obama “hears from DREAM Act Students all the time,” and (2) Obama “does not have the executive authority [to stop the deportations of DREAMers].” The first lie is probably the greatest disrespect to the migrant youth movement. It is not widely known that Obama refuses to meet with undocumented people himself. Undocumented youth have certainly confronted him at public events , but Obama refuses to meet with undocumented people to talk with them about an immigration system that is doing violence to them. Felipe Matos would know that Obama refuses to meet with undocumented people because he himself walked 1,500 miles from Miami, FL, to Washington, D.C. only to be denied a meeting with Obama. Obama has met with currently documented former DREAMers, but not with undocumented youth themselves. Felipe himself makes this clear in the video, only to be dismissed by Pfeiffer: Felipe Matos : He has spoken to people who are not DREAM Act-eligible, people who are not undocumented, because he has made it very clear that he doesn’t want to talk to undocumented people . Dan Pfeiffer : I don’t think that’s accurate. Felipe Matos : I mean I was in meetings with Valerie Jarrett when she told me that so I know it’s accurate. Netroots Nation (17 June 2011) While the first lie is disrespectful to the migrant youth movement, it is probably the second lie that does the most violence to migrant communities. Obama does have the power to grant administrative relief to migrant communities. The Immigration Policy Center has made that very clear. As a former teacher of constitutional law, and as the signatory of nearly 80 Executive Orders, President Obama understands that the role of the Executive branch of the U.S. government has never been limited to blindly enforcing laws passed by the Legislative branch. In fact, the effective implementation of any law (criminal law, tax law, environmental law, securities law, etc.), requires the Executive branch to interpret that law and develop strategies to implement it. Every new administration brings its own set of values and priorities to this task. That is why federal regulations, policies, and procedures change from administration to administration. This fundamental fact has been repeatedly recognized by the Obama Administration outside of the immigration context. Speaking in 2008, President Obama’s transition chief, John Podesta, noted: “There’s a lot that the President can do using his executive authority without waiting for congressional action, and I think we’ll see the president do that.” Speaking in 2010, White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer observed: “The challenges we had to address in 2009 ensured that the center of action would be in Congress. In 2010, executive actions will also play a key role in advancing the agenda.” Dan Pfeiffer lied to Felipe Matos, pure and simple, just as Obama has been lying to Latino voters across the country . I’m struggling a little bit with categorizing these as lies so blatantly right now, primarily because I feel an unproductive narrative of liberal anger at Obama is emerging from Netroots Nation. Were I to craft my own productive narrative of why Obama needs to provide administrative relief to migrant communities, it would go something like this: We’re not asking Obama to ignore the laws that are already on the books, as broken, unjust, and violent as we feel those laws are. What we are saying is that the Obama administration has limited resources to enforce the law, and that his administration should use those resources wisely. At a time when the federal government is struggling with a growing deficit, it makes no sense to spend thousands upon thousands of dollars detaining and deporting young people who know no other country as their home, or any undocumented people with strong and productive ties to their communities in the U.S. for that matter. Even with the Obama administration deporting over 400,000 people a year, now, the undocumented population continues to hover at around 11 million people. There’s even research to suggest ( pdf ) that heavy enforcement actually increases the undocumented population in the U.S., not because more people are coming in, but because less people want or are able to leave. If Obama continues to force pro-migrant voters to choose between helping to elect him, and stopping the deportations of our family members, friends, and peers, guess where we’re going to put our energy? Dreamers have regularly shown the ability to mobilize tens of thousands of people to stop their deportations one-by-one. Wouldn’t Obama prefer that they direct their energy at convincing or electing lawmakers who can change the laws, rather than have us continue to direct our energy at his administration? As it gets closer and closer to election time, pressure is going to increase on the pro-migrant movement to shut our mouths lest we help elect a nativist Republican to the presidency. It’s difficult to say where different pro-migrant groups will fall as that pressure increases but I can say that I certainly won’t help elect someone that continues to decimate my community. With Obama deporting more people that George W. Bush ever did, and now implementing a program, [In]Secure Communities, which would turn every local police officer into a border patrol agent by 2013 , there might even be situations where a Republican president would be better for the pro-migrant community. In other words, does Obama want to continue wasting limited resources and grassroots energy by continuing to deport folks who don’t need to be deported, or does he want to save money and direct that energy towards lawmakers who should be taking responsibility for fixing this unjust immigration system? I hope the answer is clear and that Obama grants migrant communities administrative relief. Kyle de Beausset is a pro-migrant blogger at Citizen Orange .

Continue reading …

At Netroots Nation , Felipe Matos of the Trail of Dreams caught White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer in two lies, yesterday: (1) Obama “hears from DREAM Act Students all the time,” and (2) Obama “does not have the executive authority [to stop the deportations of DREAMers].” The first lie is probably the greatest disrespect to the migrant youth movement. It is not widely known that Obama refuses to meet with undocumented people himself. Undocumented youth have certainly confronted him at public events , but Obama refuses to meet with undocumented people to talk with them about an immigration system that is doing violence to them. Felipe Matos would know that Obama refuses to meet with undocumented people because he himself walked 1,500 miles from Miami, FL, to Washington, D.C. only to be denied a meeting with Obama. Obama has met with currently documented former DREAMers, but not with undocumented youth themselves. Felipe himself makes this clear in the video, only to be dismissed by Pfeiffer: Felipe Matos : He has spoken to people who are not DREAM Act-eligible, people who are not undocumented, because he has made it very clear that he doesn’t want to talk to undocumented people . Dan Pfeiffer : I don’t think that’s accurate. Felipe Matos : I mean I was in meetings with Valerie Jarrett when she told me that so I know it’s accurate. Netroots Nation (17 June 2011) While the first lie is disrespectful to the migrant youth movement, it is probably the second lie that does the most violence to migrant communities. Obama does have the power to grant administrative relief to migrant communities. The Immigration Policy Center has made that very clear. As a former teacher of constitutional law, and as the signatory of nearly 80 Executive Orders, President Obama understands that the role of the Executive branch of the U.S. government has never been limited to blindly enforcing laws passed by the Legislative branch. In fact, the effective implementation of any law (criminal law, tax law, environmental law, securities law, etc.), requires the Executive branch to interpret that law and develop strategies to implement it. Every new administration brings its own set of values and priorities to this task. That is why federal regulations, policies, and procedures change from administration to administration. This fundamental fact has been repeatedly recognized by the Obama Administration outside of the immigration context. Speaking in 2008, President Obama’s transition chief, John Podesta, noted: “There’s a lot that the President can do using his executive authority without waiting for congressional action, and I think we’ll see the president do that.” Speaking in 2010, White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer observed: “The challenges we had to address in 2009 ensured that the center of action would be in Congress. In 2010, executive actions will also play a key role in advancing the agenda.” Dan Pfeiffer lied to Felipe Matos, pure and simple, just as Obama has been lying to Latino voters across the country . I’m struggling a little bit with categorizing these as lies so blatantly right now, primarily because I feel an unproductive narrative of liberal anger at Obama is emerging from Netroots Nation. Were I to craft my own productive narrative of why Obama needs to provide administrative relief to migrant communities, it would go something like this: We’re not asking Obama to ignore the laws that are already on the books, as broken, unjust, and violent as we feel those laws are. What we are saying is that the Obama administration has limited resources to enforce the law, and that his administration should use those resources wisely. At a time when the federal government is struggling with a growing deficit, it makes no sense to spend thousands upon thousands of dollars detaining and deporting young people who know no other country as their home, or any undocumented people with strong and productive ties to their communities in the U.S. for that matter. Even with the Obama administration deporting over 400,000 people a year, now, the undocumented population continues to hover at around 11 million people. There’s even research to suggest ( pdf ) that heavy enforcement actually increases the undocumented population in the U.S., not because more people are coming in, but because less people want or are able to leave. If Obama continues to force pro-migrant voters to choose between helping to elect him, and stopping the deportations of our family members, friends, and peers, guess where we’re going to put our energy? Dreamers have regularly shown the ability to mobilize tens of thousands of people to stop their deportations one-by-one. Wouldn’t Obama prefer that they direct their energy at convincing or electing lawmakers who can change the laws, rather than have us continue to direct our energy at his administration? As it gets closer and closer to election time, pressure is going to increase on the pro-migrant movement to shut our mouths lest we help elect a nativist Republican to the presidency. It’s difficult to say where different pro-migrant groups will fall as that pressure increases but I can say that I certainly won’t help elect someone that continues to decimate my community. With Obama deporting more people that George W. Bush ever did, and now implementing a program, [In]Secure Communities, which would turn every local police officer into a border patrol agent by 2013 , there might even be situations where a Republican president would be better for the pro-migrant community. In other words, does Obama want to continue wasting limited resources and grassroots energy by continuing to deport folks who don’t need to be deported, or does he want to save money and direct that energy towards lawmakers who should be taking responsibility for fixing this unjust immigration system? I hope the answer is clear and that Obama grants migrant communities administrative relief. Kyle de Beausset is a pro-migrant blogger at Citizen Orange .

Continue reading …

At Netroots Nation , Felipe Matos of the Trail of Dreams caught White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer in two lies, yesterday: (1) Obama “hears from DREAM Act Students all the time,” and (2) Obama “does not have the executive authority [to stop the deportations of DREAMers].” The first lie is probably the greatest disrespect to the migrant youth movement. It is not widely known that Obama refuses to meet with undocumented people himself. Undocumented youth have certainly confronted him at public events , but Obama refuses to meet with undocumented people to talk with them about an immigration system that is doing violence to them. Felipe Matos would know that Obama refuses to meet with undocumented people because he himself walked 1,500 miles from Miami, FL, to Washington, D.C. only to be denied a meeting with Obama. Obama has met with currently documented former DREAMers, but not with undocumented youth themselves. Felipe himself makes this clear in the video, only to be dismissed by Pfeiffer: Felipe Matos : He has spoken to people who are not DREAM Act-eligible, people who are not undocumented, because he has made it very clear that he doesn’t want to talk to undocumented people . Dan Pfeiffer : I don’t think that’s accurate. Felipe Matos : I mean I was in meetings with Valerie Jarrett when she told me that so I know it’s accurate. Netroots Nation (17 June 2011) While the first lie is disrespectful to the migrant youth movement, it is probably the second lie that does the most violence to migrant communities. Obama does have the power to grant administrative relief to migrant communities. The Immigration Policy Center has made that very clear. As a former teacher of constitutional law, and as the signatory of nearly 80 Executive Orders, President Obama understands that the role of the Executive branch of the U.S. government has never been limited to blindly enforcing laws passed by the Legislative branch. In fact, the effective implementation of any law (criminal law, tax law, environmental law, securities law, etc.), requires the Executive branch to interpret that law and develop strategies to implement it. Every new administration brings its own set of values and priorities to this task. That is why federal regulations, policies, and procedures change from administration to administration. This fundamental fact has been repeatedly recognized by the Obama Administration outside of the immigration context. Speaking in 2008, President Obama’s transition chief, John Podesta, noted: “There’s a lot that the President can do using his executive authority without waiting for congressional action, and I think we’ll see the president do that.” Speaking in 2010, White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer observed: “The challenges we had to address in 2009 ensured that the center of action would be in Congress. In 2010, executive actions will also play a key role in advancing the agenda.” Dan Pfeiffer lied to Felipe Matos, pure and simple, just as Obama has been lying to Latino voters across the country . I’m struggling a little bit with categorizing these as lies so blatantly right now, primarily because I feel an unproductive narrative of liberal anger at Obama is emerging from Netroots Nation. Were I to craft my own productive narrative of why Obama needs to provide administrative relief to migrant communities, it would go something like this: We’re not asking Obama to ignore the laws that are already on the books, as broken, unjust, and violent as we feel those laws are. What we are saying is that the Obama administration has limited resources to enforce the law, and that his administration should use those resources wisely. At a time when the federal government is struggling with a growing deficit, it makes no sense to spend thousands upon thousands of dollars detaining and deporting young people who know no other country as their home, or any undocumented people with strong and productive ties to their communities in the U.S. for that matter. Even with the Obama administration deporting over 400,000 people a year, now, the undocumented population continues to hover at around 11 million people. There’s even research to suggest ( pdf ) that heavy enforcement actually increases the undocumented population in the U.S., not because more people are coming in, but because less people want or are able to leave. If Obama continues to force pro-migrant voters to choose between helping to elect him, and stopping the deportations of our family members, friends, and peers, guess where we’re going to put our energy? Dreamers have regularly shown the ability to mobilize tens of thousands of people to stop their deportations one-by-one. Wouldn’t Obama prefer that they direct their energy at convincing or electing lawmakers who can change the laws, rather than have us continue to direct our energy at his administration? As it gets closer and closer to election time, pressure is going to increase on the pro-migrant movement to shut our mouths lest we help elect a nativist Republican to the presidency. It’s difficult to say where different pro-migrant groups will fall as that pressure increases but I can say that I certainly won’t help elect someone that continues to decimate my community. With Obama deporting more people that George W. Bush ever did, and now implementing a program, [In]Secure Communities, which would turn every local police officer into a border patrol agent by 2013 , there might even be situations where a Republican president would be better for the pro-migrant community. In other words, does Obama want to continue wasting limited resources and grassroots energy by continuing to deport folks who don’t need to be deported, or does he want to save money and direct that energy towards lawmakers who should be taking responsibility for fixing this unjust immigration system? I hope the answer is clear and that Obama grants migrant communities administrative relief. Kyle de Beausset is a pro-migrant blogger at Citizen Orange .

Continue reading …
Old foe Di Pietro closes in on Berlusconi after 15-year feud

Anti-corruption campaigner Antonio Di Pietro believes last week’s referendum defeat could spell the beginning of the end for Berlusconi After one of the worst weeks of Silvio Berlusconi’s political career, the former magistrate who has spent the 15 years denouncing the prime minister’s behaviour is pretty pleased with himself. As a magistrate in the early 1990s, Antonio Di Pietro famously battled corruption in Italy’s “clean hands” investigation, which led to the meltdown of the country’s main political parties. It was also Di Pietro who called for the referendum which defeated Berlusconi’s plans to build nuclear power plants and privatise the water supply. The setback, following disastrous local election results, prompted even close allies to wonder if the media mogul had reached the end of his political shelf life. Di Pietro is jubilant. “Right now is the moment to rebuild Italy,” he told the Observer , “and we must find an alternative to Silvio Berlusconi, whether he likes it or not.” Berlusconi’s poll numbers have tumbled from 40% to 29% in the wake of his trials for bribery and alleged payment to a teenage runaway for sex. Two weeks before the Di Pietro-inspired referendum, Berlusconi’s party, Il Popolo della Libertà (The People of Freedom), lost control of Milan – the prime minister’s heartland – when a former Communist won the local mayoral election. The push for the referendum was buoyed by support from web campaigns and Facebook, which proliferated despite the limited coverage of the vote on Italy’s state-controlled TV networks. Di Pietro senses belated vindication. The rough-and-ready former magistrate’s run-ins with Berlusconi over the past 15 years are the stuff of legend. The magistrate emerged from the “clean hands” probe as one of Italy’s most popular men, prompting Berlusconi to offer him a job as interior minister after the media mogul was first elected prime minister in 1994. According to Marco Travaglio, an Italian journalist who has documented Berlusconi’s tangles with the law, Berlusconi took Di Pietro’s rejection badly. “Di Pietro turned him down then,” he said, “and again in 1995, prompting the entourage of Berlusconi to cook up a series of false dossiers revealing alleged corruption, which kept Di Pietro tied up in the courts during the mid-90s proving his innocence. The mud-slinging machine that Berlusconi has used against his ex-wife and others was honed on Di Pietro.” “Berlusconi discovered I wasn’t for sale and henceforth tried to convince Italians that I was a criminal,” said Di Pietro. The feud has never stopped. Di Pietro, who founded his own political party, Italy of Values, has described Berlusconi as the “rapist of democracy” and “an arrogant little dictator” who entered politics to escape justice. Berlusconi has in turn claimed the former magistrate “put innocent people in prison, ruining their lives and their families” during the “clean hands” campaign. According to Di Pietro, it is largely down to Berlusconi that Italy’s fraud and corruption problems are almost as bad now as they were in the early 1990s. Tax evasion amounts to the equivalent of 16% of gross domestic product, while the country’s mafia clans boast revenues of around €135bn (£120bn). “Berlusconi introduced the idea that you can do what you want,” Di Pietro said. “Today the first thought of anyone with a title, from mayor down to parking attendant, is: who can I cheat?” Asked if Italy is suffering from an honesty deficit, Di Pietro said: “Yes, but this is because people see politicians paying less for their crimes and are encouraged to try to scam everyone else.” The tide is finally turning, he argues. Apart from defeating the government’s plans for nuclear power and water privatisation, the referendum also overturned Berlusconi’s law allowing ministers to use official business as an excuse to delay trials they are involved in. “Before, Berlusconi was saying ‘I can do whatever I like’. Well, he can’t say that any more,” said Di Pietro. The stinging defeat, he said, would make Berlusconi think twice about his next reported measure – a law to shorten trials which would be likely to “time out” those he is already involved in: “If he tries that, we could be looking at a real revolt in Italy.” Silvio Berlusconi Italy Tom Kington guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …
Greek debt crisis: George Papandreou in emergency talks for more EU money

Greek protesters warn that ‘people may die’ as anger over fresh austerity measures sees Athens in revolt With its coffers nearly empty, its people protesting and its political system under unprecedented attack, Greece stands on the brink of crisis as European officials prepare for a week of crucial meetings to avert economic collapse. Fears that a debt-choked Athens could plunge global financial markets into turmoil are mounting as Germany and France edge closer to a new multibillion rescue package for the nation. Eurozone finance ministers are expected to give the green light to an emergency loan for the country when they convene for urgent talks in Luxembourg. But as George Papandreou, Greece’s beleaguered prime minister, also prepares to hold emergency discussions with European commission president José Manuel Barroso, the assurances have done little to dampen concerns that Athens is heading towards default. The chances are “so high that you almost have to say there is no way out”, said Alan Greenspan, the former US Federal Reserve chairman. His prediction followed reports that 18 months after the eruption of Europe’s worst crisis in decades, the European commission has begun to have a “profound sense of foreboding” about Greece and the future of the eurozone. The explosive political atmosphere in Athens, a year after it was bailed out to the tune of €110bn by the EU and IMF, has done little to assuage the fears. Last week, as the Greek parliament began debating a new round of austerity measures – demanded in exchange for further aid – and ruling Pasok party MPs began defecting in disgust, Papandreou’s days in power seemed increasingly numbered. A government rejig, which saw the finance minister being replaced by Evangelos Venizelos, a man who until recently was Papandreou’s greatest political rival, was welcomed with scepticism on Friday. “The gravity of the situation is lost on this administration and Friday’s cabinet reshuffle is ample proof of it,” the former national economy minister Stefanos Manos told the Observer . “In the posts of finance minister and alternate finance minister,” Manos said, “Papandreou has appointed two populists who are opposed to the memorandum [outlining the reforms agreed by Greece in return for being bailed out] and the very measures they are asked to implement. He’s nuts.” Twenty months after the socialist leader assumed office – only to discover that, at 15.4% of GDP, Greece’s budget deficit was three times higher than that claimed by the outgoing conservatives – Greeks’ patience with austerity is running out. A year of wage and pension cuts, benefit losses and tax increases has taken its toll: almost a quarter of the population now live below the poverty line, unemployment is at a record 16% and, as the economy contracts for a third year, economists estimate that about 100,000 businesses have closed. With Athens erupting into violence last week as tens of thousands of protesters marched on parliament, it became clear that the prospect of further belt-tightening is a line few are willing to cross. Banners draped in central Syntagma Square – the hub of relentless demonstrations in front of the parliament building – proclaimed only dictators would pass such measures. The Spanish-inspired movement of the Aganaktismenoi, or “outraged”, who gather daily in the square – often venting their spleen in loud outbursts – has added to a climate already charged by fear, uncertainty and despair. For the first time since the return of democracy with the collapse of the colonels’ regime in 1974, Greeks say that they are determined to take fate into their own hands beyond party or political creed. “We are the silent majority who are sick of the corrupt people who have ruled this country for far too long,” said Apostolos Anagnostopoulos, a pensioner, wagging his finger angrily at the parliament building. “What this and every government has to understand is that Greeks aren’t willing to pauper themselves to pay off debt for which they are not to blame. We are in revolt, people may be killed, but whatever it takes we are not going to let those measures pass.” Like many of those who have joined the protests, Anagnostopoulos says he was spurred into action by the spectre of Greek resources – state-owned assets from prime real estate to public companies – being sold at fire-sale prices to foreigners as part of a €50bn privatisation drive. “Our creditors, the EU and IMF, have basically told Greece ‘sell everything, let foreigners run your ministries, give up your wealth’. It’s outrageous.” Papandreou has made it equally clear that the top priority of the new government, which faces a vote of confidence on Tuesday, is the implementation of the austerity measures. The task of persuading Greeks that they are the only way of slashing Athens’s colossal €355bn debt now falls on the shoulders of Venizelos. “But time is running out,” said Manos. “Banks in Greece are living day-to-day because the government is continuing to overspend. Not enough is being done, here or abroad, to stop Greece going bust.” Greece Protest Europe Financial crisis Global recession Banking European commission European Union European debt crisis European banks Helena Smith guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …
Half a million displaced as Khartoum moves to crush Sudan’s Nuba people

Fierce fighting raises fears the country’s 22-year civil war will be reignited as the government turns on the north’s Africans, sidelined in the south’s peace deal Fierce new fighting along Sudan’s volatile north-south divide is raising deep concern for the safety of the Nuba people, the forgotten victims of the country’s long-running civil war who are once again under attack by government forces and militias. The fighting has significantly increased the chances that the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) that ended the civil war six years ago will collapse, reigniting a north-south war and ending all hopes of peaceful partition when oil-rich South Sudan formally declares itself independent on 9 July. Many Nuba fought alongside the southern rebels of the Sudan People’s Liberation Army (SPLA) in the 22-year war. As black Africans within the Arabised north of Sudan, their hope was that the “New Sudan” promised by the SPLA would end their marginalisation and win respect for Nuba languages, religious observances and culture. The war that began in the 1980s in the Nuba region of South Kordofan was not just a footnote to the war in the south, it was a civil war in its own right, a deep-rooted indigenous rebellion that prompted a declaration of jihad by the Khartoum government in January 1992. Villages were burnt, livestock raided, food stores destroyed and hundreds of thousands of Nuba forced into “peace camps”. But the Nuba were short-changed in the CPA. It denied them self-rule and, crucially, did not specify what would happen to the 30,000-strong Nuba rebel army enrolled in the SPLA. On 5 June, as the Sudanese government army prepared to “control” – disarm – Nuba fighters, fighting erupted in South Kordofan’s capital, Kadugli, and spread quickly across most of the region. The battle for Kadugli became a street-by-street war of attrition: Khartoum piled in brigades of regulars and irregulars, and the SPLA relentlessly mortared the army’s divisional headquarters. UN reports seen by the Observer state that “human rights abuses are commonplace and part of the strategy” in the new Nuba war. There are “door-to-door searches, presumably for SPLA elements”; “wide-scale exactions against unarmed civilians with specific targeting of African tribes”; looting of relief offices and warehouses; and “sightings of cattle-trucks with people sitting on their floors, with sentries guarding them”. “They take the young men,” one official said. “Are they going to detain them and feed them and give them water for months? I don’t think so.” Four days into the war, the United Nations Mission in Sudan (Unmis) warned in an internal report that a humanitarian crisis was already developing “of a magnitude that Unmis… is not sufficiently prepared to counter and the UN agencies are unprepared to deal with”. On Thursday the Nuba leader, Abdelaziz Adam al-Hilu, told African Union (AU) mediators frantically crafting a ceasefire agreement that more than 3,000 people have disappeared – either killed or their whereabouts unknown – “because they are Nuba or belong to the SPLA”. He said 400,000-500,000 have been displaced, in a population of approximately 2.5 million, and more than 50 towns had been bombed. Food, he said, was being used as a weapon, with no flow of goods to rural areas since May. Kadugli airport has been closed to humanitarian flights. Relief coming by road has been turned away. The war in the Nuba mountains is already being seen through the lens of earlier wars: the north-south war; the Darfur war; the jihad. It is different. The sheer number of armed men under organised command on both sides has never before been matched in Sudan— including more than 60,000 on the government side. In focusing so heavily on the north-south conflict, the international community has underestimated the determination of the Nuba: their fighters are more numerous and much better led than the Darfur rebels, with formidable organisational skills, command capabilities and discipline. As in the 1990s, Khartoum is closing Nuba to international scrutiny. Unmis has been told to leave by 9 July, the day of partition. In Kadugli, government troops helped Unmis evacuate international relief workers, but then, according to confidential reports, stepped up the “intimidation and obstruction” of Unmis itself. An Unmis helicopter was warned it would be shot at if it attempted to land. An 11 June report said: “International staff are restricted from leaving the [Unmis] compound and the majority of the national staff left are now not willing to leave for fear of their lives.” On Friday, after two bombs from an Antonov plane fell 500 yards west of the compound, Unmis said: “The excessive use of bombardment recently is threatening our presence and putting the lives of civilians at high risk.” “The government is bringing an enormous amount of military hardware and reinforcements into Kadugli and doesn’t want witnesses,” one foreign observer said. “They are trying to make sure we can’t report on what they do. It’s a war, and a dirty war.” Although the AU team led by former South African president Thabo Mbeki has won both sides’ agreement in principle to cease firing, Unmis is so weak and discredited that its capacity to sustain a ceasefire is doubtful. In an attack on an army base in the south-west of South Kordofan last week, the Darfur rebels of the Justice and Equality Movement seized large amounts of heavy weapons, including anti-tank and anti-aircraft guns, and told the Observer : “We will not allow the government to defeat the Nuba.” Most Nuba saw state elections last month as a last chance to achieve democratic change in northern Sudan through a political process. They were confident of victory. But although they won a majority of votes, they won only 21 seats to the 33 claimed by President Omar al-Bashir’s National Congress party (NCP). In gubernatorial elections, the NCP’s Ahmad Haroun, indicted by the International Criminal Court on 42 counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity allegedly committed in Darfur, was declared victorious over Hilu. “They rigged the census, the elections, the ballot boxes,” Hilu told Mbeki on Thursday. “We tested the NCP over six years. They don’t respect agreements, they did not implement the CPA. They declared clearly there is no room in this country for any group except Arabs, and no other religion except Islam.” Sudan Julie Flint guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …
Michele Bachmann: the Tea Party crusader electrifying the US right

Congresswoman will come under scrutiny about hardline politics. But will she be able to reach beyond her Tea Party base? Mary Cecconi is the only Democrat to have beaten Michele Bachmann, the rising star of the Republican right, in a popular election. “It’s my claim to fame!” she laughs. Her victory came in a race in 1999 for a seat on the school board of Stillwater, Minnesota, a tiny, picturesque river town on the banks of the Mississippi. Bachmann – then known locally as a conservative education activist – had unexpectedly run as part of a slate of rightwing Republicans. The move politicised what had previously been a non-partisan affair. It failed. Cecconi, the incumbent, held her position. It was a minuscule electoral footnote yet it saw the political birth of a woman who just 12 years later is running for president and electrifying the radical right wing of the party. Bachmann, who announced her White House run last week, and then shone in the first major Republican debate, is eclipsing Sarah Palin as the new darling of the Tea Party. She is an evangelical whose husband runs a controversial Christian counselling service. She is a Minnesota congresswoman who has vowed to repeal healthcare reform and lambasts Barack Obama as a socialist. Like Palin, she makes political capital of her role as a mother to a large family: five children of her own and more than 20 foster kids. She is also a glamorous woman in a party that is frequently dominated by older white men. Yet her remarkable story began with that Stillwater race and Cecconi, now head of a parental lobbying group for schools in Minnesota, is not the only person to remember it. Joan Beaver, a now retired Stillwater high school teacher, recalled the election as heralding a shift in the town away from smalltown moderate Republicanism towards more extreme rightwing thought. “The town changed,” she said, noting that the shift occurred after the development of suburban housing estates and an influx of wealthy newcomers. Bachmann was part of the influx. She was born in Iowa, although the family moved to Minnesota when she was young. After a divorce, her mother remarried and Bachmann spent her childhood in a family of working-class Democrats. The real change came during adolescence, when at 16 she became “born again”. She went on to study law at the religious Oral Roberts University, which taught a biblical worldview alongside its legal classes. By the time Bachmann and her husband, Marcus, arrived in Stillwater with their burgeoning family they were staunch members of the religious right. She home-schooled her own children, but by law had to enrol her foster children into local public schools. It was that experience – she saw the state curriculum as too liberal and politically correct – that led to her becoming involved in educational activism, and ultimately politics. Still, to Beaver it seems strange to see the Bachmann she knew from Stillwater school politics striding across the American political stage with officially declared ambitions to capture the Oval Office and become the most powerful woman in the world. “She has more perseverance and staying power than anyone expected,” Beaver said. Many on the American left see Bachmann’s presidential ambitions as little more than a joke: the punchline to a gag about how far right the Republican party has drifted. She is mocked and lampooned by those who expect her to fail. But not all of her opponents in Stillwater are joining in that ridicule. Cecconi is certainly not. She recalls going to an education meeting only two days after beating Bachmann in 1999. Bachmann was supposed to be playing second fiddle to a speech by education campaigner Michael Chapman. But instead she had become the main attraction: “She was amazing. She held the room in her hand.” A year later Bachmann would run for – and win – a state senate seat. Shortly after that she would run for the US Congress in the sprawling district of which Stillwater is a part. She would emerge victorious from that, too. Now she is running for the White House. Cecconi has a warning for those mocking her: “She has got as far as she has by people underestimating her. I am not going to underestimate her.” Even Bachmann’s admirers, however, sometimes confess that her passionate style of ultra-rightwing politics has its drawbacks. “It is very attractive to some folks, and she certainly does not hesitate to say what she thinks. But that can upset others,” said Edwin Cain, a Stillwater-based lobbyist who has worked frequently with Bachmann. Indeed, it is not hard to find Bachmann critics, even among Republican supporters in the town. Though she makes her home here – in a million-dollar house on an upmarket estate near the golf course – this is not automatically Bachmann territory. The town is prosperous and thrives on a tourist economy; Main Street is packed with bistros and bars and represents a slice of urban city life with a hint of liberal values. Preston Norris, who works in a bar, voted for Bachmann for Congress but will not do so for the presidency. “She has some views that are just too much for that office,” he said bluntly. It is not hard to see what those views are. Bachmann’s criticism of homosexuality is open and brutal. She has led the charge against gay marriage, even at the cost of a once-close relationship with a lesbian stepsister. In 2004 Bachmann said of gay people: “It’s a very sad life. It’s part of Satan, I think, to say that this is gay. It’s anything but gay.” She is on record as viewing homosexuality as a “disorder” or a “sexual dysfunction” and is a staunchly anti-abortion Christian conservative. She believes Obama is “the final leap to socialism” in America, and has accused him of wanting to set up youth indoctrination camps for teenagers. She has called for investigations into fellow congressional politicians to see if they are “anti-American”. She once claimed to know of a plan to give up half of Iraq to Iran. She is against raising America’s debt ceiling for running up its deficit, and wants to repeal healthcare reform in its entirety. She is a firm sceptic on the dangers of global warming. She once introduced a resolution seeking to prevent the dollar being replaced by a foreign currency, despite the fact that such a move is already illegal. She has called the Environmental Protection Agency a “job-killing” organisation. Such extremism can lead to some very odd ideological bedfellows. Away from Stillwater, in the rural hinterland of Bachmann’s vast congressional district, she is more popular. Here, in a landscape of deeply religious small towns and rolling farms, Bachmann’s support is solid. In Buffalo, a small community beside a lake of the same name, one Bachmann supporter was delighted she was running. “I think it’s great! She can win and I have found the president very disappointing,” said one elderly woman who declined to give her name. Asked what was most disappointing about Obama, the woman said: “He has not been honest about being a Muslim.” Such beliefs are unusual, but not exactly unknown in these parts. Not far from Buffalo lies the town of Annandale, which acts as the base for a rightwing Christian ministry called You Can Run But You Cannot Hide. Led by the drummer of nu-metal band Junkyard Prophet, Bradlee Dean, the ministry has made its name by denying Obama’s Christianity and also promoting slurs against gay people, accusing them of child abuse and even once suggesting they be executed. Yet Bachmann herself has headlined a fundraising gala for Dean and his ministry. That sort of thing has so far passed under the radar of most American media, but seasoned Bachmann-watchers, such as Stillwater writer Karl Bremer, whose Ripple in Stillwater blog has chronicled Bachmann’s career, believe that will not last for long now: “She has to soften her image. But her image is already on the table. She is in the big leagues now. It is not just a little congressional race.” Bremer believes Bachmann’s politics and career are about to get the sort of scrutiny they have long deserved. Indeed, he has already chronicled much of it on his blog. “She has got plenty of skeletons in her closet,” he said. One of those skeletons could be her relationship with Frank Vennes, a man who served time in jail for cocaine distribution and money-laundering after being convicted in 1987. After his release, and apparently after finding God while in prison, Vennes became a friend of Bachmann and a big campaign donor for her elections. However, Vennes has recently been indicted on charges stemming from a Ponzi scheme and could end up behind bars again. That is a juicy story. As are Bachmann’s links to the mysterious “Bobby Charles Thompson”, who disappeared after the collapse of his apparently fraudulent fundraising organisation, which had been portrayed as a navy veterans’ group. Arrest warrants have now been issued for Thompson, whose real identity is not known. But what is known is that Thompson’s group donated campaign funds to Bachmann. Then there is the issue of the Bachmann family farm in Wisconsin. The large rural property has been the recipient of considerable government largesse in the form of agricultural subsidies, despite the fact that Bachmann is a vociferous critic of government handouts. Yet Bremer’s blog has reported that the farm has reaped the Bachmanns about $154,000 of government cash since 2001. That is obviously not illegal but – given Bachmann’s virulent dislike of state welfare – it could make for some interesting headlines. Finally, there are bizarre incidents such as the one in 2005 when Bachmann accused two lesbians of trying to lock her in a lavatory and keep her prisoner. The women claimed they were just trying to talk to her about her anti-gay beliefs, but Bachmann went to the police. However, the authorities dismissed her claims. “Both women simply wanted to discuss certain issues further with Ms Bachmann,” wrote the county attorney, who declined to press the matter. To her supporters – and there are many of them – such incidents do not matter. They are either irrelevant or part of the media plot against her. “The media beat up on her. I don’t know why,” said Lee Bohlsen, chairwoman of the Republican party of Washington county, in which Stillwater lies. Bohlsen is an enthusiastic fan, praising Bachmann’s attention to detail and warm personality. “I definitely think she can win. She is unwavering and she has a very strong character,” she said. Indeed, there is no doubting Bachmann’s political talents. She ticks all the same boxes as Palin but has a more polished image, even more conservative credentials, and a family and religious outlook that makes Palin look positively liberal. She also has a prodigious, widely admired work ethic and a fierce sense of mission. “She is absolutely hard-driving and passionate, but that does not make her unpleasant to work with,” said Karen Effrem, a conservative education activist who has worked with her. “It makes her a dynamo. I’m pleased she is running.” Reconciling the liberal and conservative visions of Bachmann is impossible. Her detractors and supporters inhabit different worlds. But it has led to speculation that Bachmann might privately not believe all she says in public: that her ambition is simply to bask in the spotlight. Perhaps, like Palin, she may have more of an eye on realising her value on the lucrative TV talk show circuit than on winning a political race. Bremer is unsure of the theory and not keen to test it. “Does she believe what she says? Or is it just a road to success?” he said. “I don’t know the answer to that – but I do think she should be stopped.” Michele Bachmann US elections 2012 Sarah Palin Tea Party movement Barack Obama US politics United States Republicans Paul Harris guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …