Business is booming in Kabul, but as the west prepares to ship out, ordinary citizens worry about what lies ahead Under the trees, the Karimi family have spread out a rug. The Afghan summer sun filters through the leaves. There is chicken, fried potato cakes, salad and water melon. This is a Friday afternoon ritual, at least since the security improved enough to allow the family to drive the 10 miles from Kabul without fear of insurgents or robbers. The Karimis came back to the city in 2002, after living as refugees in Iran through the civil war of the early 1990s and the rule of the Taliban that followed. Now three generations live together in Kabul: 70-year-old Syed Hussein, Fatima, 29, a student teacher, her husband and her two children. And every Friday they come to this patch of riverside woodland on the outskirts of the city. “When we came back, life was very hard,” Fatima says. “But every year that has passed things have got better.” Syed Hussein, her father, smiles when asked when times were best in his long life – the average life expectancy for Afghans is still only 44, two years more than a decade ago. “Afghanistan is a wonderful country… the only problem is the Afghans!” he says and chuckles at his own joke. “The best times were when I was a teenager. Since, it has been just trouble after trouble.” Physical reminders of those troubles surround the family’s picnic site, known as Daoud’s Garden after Mohammed Daoud Khan, the president deposed and assassinated in a communist coup in 1978. There is a large military base less than a mile away. Once manned by Afghan auxiliaries fighting alongside the Soviets, it is now full of Afghans being trained to fight with, or instead of, US-led coalition forces. A major American base is close by too. An Afghan commando unit guards the approaches to the gardens. “Without these soldiers we could not come here,” says Fatima. “In fact, we could barely go anywhere.” For behind the bucolic scene lies deep anxiety. Every year in Kabul there is a different theme to the interminable conversations about “the situation”. In 2008 it was the apparently inexorable advance of the Taliban, almost to where Fatima and her family were picnicking. In 2009, it was the new “surge” of troops and money announced by President Barack Obama. In 2010, it was the success or failure of the expanded campaign. Now, without exception, talk is of the withdrawal of western troops, aid and attention from Afghanistan. Within weeks, Obama is expected to announce the first departures. David Cameron has already said he wants 450 of Britain’s 9,500 men out within months. The international community has agreed that all foreign combat troops are to be gone by 2014, leaving the Afghans to fight the Afghans. “This is a very worrying thing,” says Fatima, and the festive atmosphere of the picnic cools. “If the west go, then it will all fall apart and the Taliban will come back.” The Karimis are from the Hazara ethnic minority, persecuted under the largely Pashtun Taliban’s rule. They are also Shia Muslims, whom the Taliban once saw as heretics. Their moderate traditions – Fatima wears a simple white headscarf rather than the all-covering burqa – meant they suffered greatly when the radical movement were in power. Now there are functioning universities, schools, relative law and order and even improving electricity. “But we still have much to fear,” Mousa, Fatima’s husband, said. Many in Kabul are more worried about their wallets than persecution. The 10-year international effort has seen Kabul change from being a moribund city of fewer than 400,000 to a bustling metropolis of 4.5 million flush with cash. The last two years have seen an explosion in conspicuous consumption. There are blocks of luxury apartments under construction, giant video hoardings advertising energy drinks, BMWs and Hummers blasting their way through the traffic with overpowered horns. Miralam Hosseini, 56, sells at least two $140,000 4x4s every week. Across the street from his showroom, an electronics shops stocks the latest 52in flat screen. “We sell one every few days,” said Mahmud Shah, who returned to Kabul earlier this year after seven years in London. Cars and televisions alike are always paid for in cash. “Narc-hitecture” – vast and garish villas built by those said to be involved in Afghanistan’s $4bn drugs trade – is becoming increasingly visible. There are also the new restaurants where lunch is 30 times the average daily wage. If soaring food prices pose a huge problem to millions in the city, they do not bother those who have profited from the boom. But there is a sense now that the party is over. Little of the money in Kabul – other than the profits of the narcotics trade – has been created here. Beyond drugs, Afghanistan still produces very little. Profits from the country’s vast mineral or metal deposits are a distant prospect. “No one is within a decade of even beginning to successfully mine, process, transport and sell all the copper and iron that is here,” one European diplomat admitted. Much of the economy has thus been built on the tens of billions poured into Afghanistan by the west. Huge sums have been embezzled, vast wasteful contracts have fuelled a “construction sector on speed” and the main bank is alleged to have made $500m in undocumented and potentially fraudulent loans, many to associates or relatives of the president, Hamid Karzai. Once much disappeared to Dubai. More recently, following the global turndown, the cash has stayed in Kabul. Land prices have risen fivefold. Then there are the tens of thousands of consultants, translators and office staff working for international NGOs or foreign government contractors. Salaries of $3,000 are common, an enormous sum locally. The best paid earn much more. “I vetoed a contract giving a local consultant a salary three times that of the president of my country,” said the diplomat. “Then I found out it had been done anyway behind my back.” The new money and the westernisation that has gone with it is most evident in places like the Gulbahar Centre, a recently opened complex of luxury flats, shops and fast-food restaurants in the heart of Kabul, only a hundred metres from the new main mosque. Last week Samer, 18, and Zohour, 21, were having lunch in Big Chief Burger on the ground floor of the complex. One was a “cultural adviser” for the US embassy; the other a business student and son of a major government transport contractor. “It’s a stressful place to live. I relax by going to the gym or hanging out. This is an Islamic country so there are no bars or clubs,” said Zohour, wearing a sweatshirt, baggy shorts and flip-flops. “I’m worried about when the Americans go. Now the war is a long way from here. We don’t want it any closer.” Some observers have noted a parallel with the 1980s, when Kabul benefited from Soviet aid, reconstruction projects and jobs while the war continued in the countryside. As early as 2005, a World Bank report noted that “the main beneficiaries of [overseas] assistance have been the urban elite”. There are bombings and attacks in Kabul but few casualties and little destruction compared to the south or east. A Nato military intelligence officer told the Observer that the economic “rural-urban divide” was one of the biggest drivers of the insurgency. When the Soviets left, Afghanistan was plunged into civil war and much of Kabul destroyed. Now all in Kabul are worrying what the departure of the most recent batch of foreigners to intervene in their country will bring. “The whole of the American effort and that of our allies is starting to be framed around this concept of 2014 and the need for an Afghan lead by then,” a US official told the Observer . “Is there a rush for the exit? Absolutely not. Too many people have lost their lives, too many valuable things have been gained.” This at least is a sentiment Fatima and her family would agree with. “They can’t leave, they simply can’t,” said Mohammed, Fatima’s brother-in-law. “It’ll be chaos, anarchy. The Taliban will be back. Everything that has got better will get worse. I am certain the foreign troops will still be here in many, many years.” Afghanistan Taliban Jason Burke guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Foreign secretary visits Benghazi while British and French gunships batter Gaddafi’s radar station and command posts Britain demonstrated its solidarity with the cause of the Libyan rebel forces in a dramatic fashion yesterday, as the foreign secretary, William Hague, became the first government minister to visit their stronghold of Benghazi in the east of the country. Following his unannounced visit he said he had seen the “inspiring” hope of many Libyans for freedom. Hague’s visit came in the wake of the first attacks by British Apache helicopters which targeted Muammar Gaddafi’s troops, destroying a radar station and a military checkpoint during a night-time raid. They marked a sharp escalation in the Nato campaign in Libya. Hague and the international development secretary, Andrew Mitchell, discussed a political roadmap for Libya’s future with the head of the National Transitional Council (NTC), Mustafa Abdul Jalil. The council is recognised by the UK as the legitimate post-Gaddafi government and has been given significant non-military assistance by the British government. Hague stressed the importance of “developing plans for a competent, inclusive and transparent administration that includes clear civilian control of military and regional representation”. The ministers spoke about British humanitarian assistance, visited a medical centre and laid a wreath at Commonwealth war graves before meeting citizens in Benghazi’s Freedom Square. “We are here today for one principal reason: to show our support for the Libyan people and for the National Transitional Council, the legitimate representative of the Libyan people,” Hague said. “We are here together as part of a coordinated and strategic approach to Libya – ensuring that our military, diplomatic and development actions are aligned.” Renewing calls on Gaddafi to go, he said the dictator was “isolated internationally and domestically” and “continues to abuse human rights without mercy or compunction”. Hague added: “Of course we all want a political, not a military, solution to any conflict, including this one. But that is only possible if Colonel Gaddafi will go. “You only have to talk to the people here, see the graffiti that is written on all the walls, listen to anybody in the street, to realise that there isn’t a political solution that involves Gaddafi still being at the head of Libya.” Mitchell announced new British support for the clearance of mines in Misrata, Benghazi and other affected areas to help ensure the safety of 200,000 people. Of the 4,000 wounded people that have been treated in Misrata alone so far, more than 400 have reportedly required limb amputations, according to the Foreign Office. The British office in Benghazi is now the largest in north Africa after Cairo. After the talks, Hague wrote on Twitter: “In Malta, returning from Benghazi. The work and hope of many Libyans for freedom is inspiring, as I’ve now seen for myself.” Earlier, one of the two Apaches came under light-arms fire from forces loyal to Gaddafi near Brega, a strategic oil city close to the eastern frontline. Both helicopters returned undamaged to HMS Ocean, stationed off the Libyan coast. French Tigre and Gazelle helicopters struck separately, hitting 15 military vehicles and five command buildings at an undisclosed site. The new air operation is expected to boost the morale of the rebels and may help break the military stalemate. Four months into the conflict, rebel forces are holding their ground in various parts of the country but have been unable to make strong advances towards Tripoli because better-equipped government forces still hold towns along key routes to the capital. As part of its mission to protect civilians, Nato has relied on jets flying nearly three miles above the ground to target Gaddafi’s command centres and military arsenal, especially weapons and vehicles deployed in open areas. But the introduction of combat helicopters, which can fly more slowly at low altitudes, will give the alliance a key advantage in close-quarters fighting, allowing it to pinpoint targets in built-up locations where Gaddafi’s troops are dug in and to reduce the chance of what the military terms “collateral damage”. “This is an escalation in support of the civilians Gaddafi is persecuting,” said Lieutenant Colonel Jason Etherington, commanding officer of 4 Regiment, Army Air Corps. He added: “This is all part of a campaign to step things up. We are stepping things up, bringing another capability for protection of civilians.” In a statement, Nato said that the craft would allow it to “track and engage pro-Gaddafi forces who deliberately target civilians and attempt to hide in populated areas”. But the move also signals the strong intent, especially from Britain and France, to prevent the conflict from dragging on for many more months. The defence secretary, Liam Fox, said that the use of the attack helicopters was “a logical extension” of Nato’s campaign. “This gives us a chance to target new targets in a way we weren’t able to do,” he said from Singapore, where he was attending a security conference. “What it does show is our willingness to use the range of assets we have to keep the pressure up. We will continue with the methods we have to degrade his [Gaddafi's] command and control, to degrade his supplies.” Nato said yesterday’s mission was aimed at destroying military vehicles, equipment and forces. Major General Nick Pope, the chief of the defence staff’s strategic communications officer, said the helicopters, equipped with thermal imaging capabilities, used Hellfire missiles and 30mm cannon during the attack. At the same time, Tornado and Typhoon jets struck another military installation in Brega, and two ammunition bunkers in Waddan, in central Libya. “Our understanding of the detailed disposition of Colonel Gaddafi’s forces has been improving in a very satisfactory manner, despite their efforts to conceal themselves,” Pope said. One of the Apache pilots, an Army Air Corps officer based at Wattisham, in Suffolk, who has also served in Afghanistan, said that as they hit the military checkpoint, they came under “a direct threat”. “We had made sure that we were looking at a definite military target, rather than a civilian one, and we took out the threat,” he said. “Most of our pilots have experience of Afghanistan and of course we are facing something completely new in Libya. There is always a degree of trepidation, but the Apache provides us with great protection and brings us safely back home.” The deployment of the low-flying Apache helicopters, which have been used extensively in Iraq and Afghanistan, raises the possibility of western forces suffering casualties for the first time in the war. Nonetheless Lieutenant General Charles Bouchard, commander of Nato’s Libyan operation, indicated that the helicopters would be used again. “We will continue to use these assets whenever and wherever needed, using the same precision as we do in all of our missions,” he said. The decision to send four British Apache helicopters to Libya was made by David Cameron on 27 May. Their deployment via HMS Ocean means there should be less chance of civilian casualties in operations that previously relied on the use of Tornado and Typhoon aircraft. Rebel forces are concentrated in three main areas spread across Libya. In the east, where the revolution started in February, they are trying to push towards the west from Ajdabiya. Brega is the next town along the highway, and Nato hopes that the helicopter attacks may weaken loyalist defences to the extent that the rebels can push through. Separately, the opposition forces also control Libya’s third city, Misrata, 130 miles (210km) from Tripoli, as well as several small towns in the western Nafusa mountain range. Gaddafi has become increasingly reclusive in Tripoli as the Nato bombing campaign has intensified. While members of his regime continue to defect, his diplomatic isolation is near complete, with China holding initial talks with rebel representatives this week. Yet Gaddafi, who has ruled since 1969, remains defiant, and has refused to entertain suggestions that he leave power or go into exile. Nato’s involvement in Libya stems from the UN security council resolution authorising all necessary measures to protect civilians in the country under threat of attack. Libya Arab and Middle East unrest William Hague Military Muammar Gaddafi Foreign policy Defence policy Middle East Africa Nato Xan Rice guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Foreign secretary visits Benghazi while British and French gunships batter Gaddafi’s radar station and command posts Britain demonstrated its solidarity with the cause of the Libyan rebel forces in a dramatic fashion yesterday, as the foreign secretary, William Hague, became the first government minister to visit their stronghold of Benghazi in the east of the country. Following his unannounced visit he said he had seen the “inspiring” hope of many Libyans for freedom. Hague’s visit came in the wake of the first attacks by British Apache helicopters which targeted Muammar Gaddafi’s troops, destroying a radar station and a military checkpoint during a night-time raid. They marked a sharp escalation in the Nato campaign in Libya. Hague and the international development secretary, Andrew Mitchell, discussed a political roadmap for Libya’s future with the head of the National Transitional Council (NTC), Mustafa Abdul Jalil. The council is recognised by the UK as the legitimate post-Gaddafi government and has been given significant non-military assistance by the British government. Hague stressed the importance of “developing plans for a competent, inclusive and transparent administration that includes clear civilian control of military and regional representation”. The ministers spoke about British humanitarian assistance, visited a medical centre and laid a wreath at Commonwealth war graves before meeting citizens in Benghazi’s Freedom Square. “We are here today for one principal reason: to show our support for the Libyan people and for the National Transitional Council, the legitimate representative of the Libyan people,” Hague said. “We are here together as part of a coordinated and strategic approach to Libya – ensuring that our military, diplomatic and development actions are aligned.” Renewing calls on Gaddafi to go, he said the dictator was “isolated internationally and domestically” and “continues to abuse human rights without mercy or compunction”. Hague added: “Of course we all want a political, not a military, solution to any conflict, including this one. But that is only possible if Colonel Gaddafi will go. “You only have to talk to the people here, see the graffiti that is written on all the walls, listen to anybody in the street, to realise that there isn’t a political solution that involves Gaddafi still being at the head of Libya.” Mitchell announced new British support for the clearance of mines in Misrata, Benghazi and other affected areas to help ensure the safety of 200,000 people. Of the 4,000 wounded people that have been treated in Misrata alone so far, more than 400 have reportedly required limb amputations, according to the Foreign Office. The British office in Benghazi is now the largest in north Africa after Cairo. After the talks, Hague wrote on Twitter: “In Malta, returning from Benghazi. The work and hope of many Libyans for freedom is inspiring, as I’ve now seen for myself.” Earlier, one of the two Apaches came under light-arms fire from forces loyal to Gaddafi near Brega, a strategic oil city close to the eastern frontline. Both helicopters returned undamaged to HMS Ocean, stationed off the Libyan coast. French Tigre and Gazelle helicopters struck separately, hitting 15 military vehicles and five command buildings at an undisclosed site. The new air operation is expected to boost the morale of the rebels and may help break the military stalemate. Four months into the conflict, rebel forces are holding their ground in various parts of the country but have been unable to make strong advances towards Tripoli because better-equipped government forces still hold towns along key routes to the capital. As part of its mission to protect civilians, Nato has relied on jets flying nearly three miles above the ground to target Gaddafi’s command centres and military arsenal, especially weapons and vehicles deployed in open areas. But the introduction of combat helicopters, which can fly more slowly at low altitudes, will give the alliance a key advantage in close-quarters fighting, allowing it to pinpoint targets in built-up locations where Gaddafi’s troops are dug in and to reduce the chance of what the military terms “collateral damage”. “This is an escalation in support of the civilians Gaddafi is persecuting,” said Lieutenant Colonel Jason Etherington, commanding officer of 4 Regiment, Army Air Corps. He added: “This is all part of a campaign to step things up. We are stepping things up, bringing another capability for protection of civilians.” In a statement, Nato said that the craft would allow it to “track and engage pro-Gaddafi forces who deliberately target civilians and attempt to hide in populated areas”. But the move also signals the strong intent, especially from Britain and France, to prevent the conflict from dragging on for many more months. The defence secretary, Liam Fox, said that the use of the attack helicopters was “a logical extension” of Nato’s campaign. “This gives us a chance to target new targets in a way we weren’t able to do,” he said from Singapore, where he was attending a security conference. “What it does show is our willingness to use the range of assets we have to keep the pressure up. We will continue with the methods we have to degrade his [Gaddafi's] command and control, to degrade his supplies.” Nato said yesterday’s mission was aimed at destroying military vehicles, equipment and forces. Major General Nick Pope, the chief of the defence staff’s strategic communications officer, said the helicopters, equipped with thermal imaging capabilities, used Hellfire missiles and 30mm cannon during the attack. At the same time, Tornado and Typhoon jets struck another military installation in Brega, and two ammunition bunkers in Waddan, in central Libya. “Our understanding of the detailed disposition of Colonel Gaddafi’s forces has been improving in a very satisfactory manner, despite their efforts to conceal themselves,” Pope said. One of the Apache pilots, an Army Air Corps officer based at Wattisham, in Suffolk, who has also served in Afghanistan, said that as they hit the military checkpoint, they came under “a direct threat”. “We had made sure that we were looking at a definite military target, rather than a civilian one, and we took out the threat,” he said. “Most of our pilots have experience of Afghanistan and of course we are facing something completely new in Libya. There is always a degree of trepidation, but the Apache provides us with great protection and brings us safely back home.” The deployment of the low-flying Apache helicopters, which have been used extensively in Iraq and Afghanistan, raises the possibility of western forces suffering casualties for the first time in the war. Nonetheless Lieutenant General Charles Bouchard, commander of Nato’s Libyan operation, indicated that the helicopters would be used again. “We will continue to use these assets whenever and wherever needed, using the same precision as we do in all of our missions,” he said. The decision to send four British Apache helicopters to Libya was made by David Cameron on 27 May. Their deployment via HMS Ocean means there should be less chance of civilian casualties in operations that previously relied on the use of Tornado and Typhoon aircraft. Rebel forces are concentrated in three main areas spread across Libya. In the east, where the revolution started in February, they are trying to push towards the west from Ajdabiya. Brega is the next town along the highway, and Nato hopes that the helicopter attacks may weaken loyalist defences to the extent that the rebels can push through. Separately, the opposition forces also control Libya’s third city, Misrata, 130 miles (210km) from Tripoli, as well as several small towns in the western Nafusa mountain range. Gaddafi has become increasingly reclusive in Tripoli as the Nato bombing campaign has intensified. While members of his regime continue to defect, his diplomatic isolation is near complete, with China holding initial talks with rebel representatives this week. Yet Gaddafi, who has ruled since 1969, remains defiant, and has refused to entertain suggestions that he leave power or go into exile. Nato’s involvement in Libya stems from the UN security council resolution authorising all necessary measures to protect civilians in the country under threat of attack. Libya Arab and Middle East unrest William Hague Military Muammar Gaddafi Foreign policy Defence policy Middle East Africa Nato Xan Rice guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Back in 2008, candidate Barack Obama called the DREAM Act, “something we could do right away” to clear up some basic injustices in this country. He argued passionately for the need to provide a path to citizenship for young people, like Ricardo Muñiz , who had been brought to the U.S. through no fault of their own. Watch: Where’s the DREAM Act now? In 2010, after passing out of the U.S. House of Representatives and gaining a majority of votes in the Senate, it was blocked by a Republican filibuster . In 2011, many states are fighting battles over local versions of the bill, Barack Obama is again campaigning on the DREAM Act, and Sarah Palin is busy slamming it ( at Ellis Island no less ). Senator Durbin (D-IL) has re-introduced it, alongside thirty of his colleagues in the Senate, but the common-sense legislation faces a rocky fate in this Congress. More importantly than where the DREAM Act is, perhaps, are where the DREAMers are — the hundreds of thousands of young people who would be eligible to earn their citizenship through completing two years of college or military service. The young leaders of the DREAM Act movement are still working hard to build support for DREAM, but they are busy fighting off anti-immigrant legislation in Georgia and across the country. At the same time, these youth are increasingly getting swept up in the federal government’s aggressive deportation dragnet , whether through Bush-era programs like 287(g) or the controversial “Secure Communities” fingerprint-sharing program, which has been expanded by President Obama and which New York’s Governor Andrew Cuomo just decided to freeze. This means communities across the country are having to fight one by one for these young students, like California DREAMer Ricardo Muñiz,whose dream is to build eco-friendly structures and be able to support his mother. According to a petition his friends at the California Dream Network started at Change.org : Ricardo Muniz is a 22-year old student, environmentalist, community activist, teen mentor, DREAM promoter, son, and brother. He is originally from Michoacan, Mexico, and was brought over by his parents to the United States when he was seven years old. Ricardo is a student at Fullerton Jr. College and wants to go on to pursue a double major in international business and environmental economy. Ricardo grew up in a tough neighborhood in Anaheim and overcame many challenges in his twenty-two years. Today, Ricardo is a mentor and an inspirational speaker who focuses on keeping troubled youth in school and off the streets. Not exactly the kind of “dangerous criminal” ICE and DHS have insisted they are spending precious taxpayer dollars finding and deporting. Despite the support of his community and teachers, Ricardo still faces a looming deportation date of June 9th. According to United We Dream: On Monday March 28, on Univision network’s Latino youth town hall, President Obama said that it wasn’t his responsibility to stop the deportation of DREAM Act youth. Less than a week ago, however, on the same television network, he said his administration was not deporting those youth at all. DREAM activists and even twenty-two U.S. Senators argue that it’s time for the Obama administration to stop targeting and deporting the very youth that candidate Obama said should be quickly put on a path to citizenship. As DREAMers and legal experts have been reminding him, Yes, Mr. President, You Can. As we push for administrative action, please sign the petition for Ricardo — we still have several days to stop his deportation. Jackie is the Director of Organizing for Immigrant Rights at Change.org, where this piece is cross-posted .
Continue reading …Back in 2008, candidate Barack Obama called the DREAM Act, “something we could do right away” to clear up some basic injustices in this country. He argued passionately for the need to provide a path to citizenship for young people, like Ricardo Muñiz , who had been brought to the U.S. through no fault of their own. Watch: Where’s the DREAM Act now? In 2010, after passing out of the U.S. House of Representatives and gaining a majority of votes in the Senate, it was blocked by a Republican filibuster . In 2011, many states are fighting battles over local versions of the bill, Barack Obama is again campaigning on the DREAM Act, and Sarah Palin is busy slamming it ( at Ellis Island no less ). Senator Durbin (D-IL) has re-introduced it, alongside thirty of his colleagues in the Senate, but the common-sense legislation faces a rocky fate in this Congress. More importantly than where the DREAM Act is, perhaps, are where the DREAMers are — the hundreds of thousands of young people who would be eligible to earn their citizenship through completing two years of college or military service. The young leaders of the DREAM Act movement are still working hard to build support for DREAM, but they are busy fighting off anti-immigrant legislation in Georgia and across the country. At the same time, these youth are increasingly getting swept up in the federal government’s aggressive deportation dragnet , whether through Bush-era programs like 287(g) or the controversial “Secure Communities” fingerprint-sharing program, which has been expanded by President Obama and which New York’s Governor Andrew Cuomo just decided to freeze. This means communities across the country are having to fight one by one for these young students, like California DREAMer Ricardo Muñiz,whose dream is to build eco-friendly structures and be able to support his mother. According to a petition his friends at the California Dream Network started at Change.org : Ricardo Muniz is a 22-year old student, environmentalist, community activist, teen mentor, DREAM promoter, son, and brother. He is originally from Michoacan, Mexico, and was brought over by his parents to the United States when he was seven years old. Ricardo is a student at Fullerton Jr. College and wants to go on to pursue a double major in international business and environmental economy. Ricardo grew up in a tough neighborhood in Anaheim and overcame many challenges in his twenty-two years. Today, Ricardo is a mentor and an inspirational speaker who focuses on keeping troubled youth in school and off the streets. Not exactly the kind of “dangerous criminal” ICE and DHS have insisted they are spending precious taxpayer dollars finding and deporting. Despite the support of his community and teachers, Ricardo still faces a looming deportation date of June 9th. According to United We Dream: On Monday March 28, on Univision network’s Latino youth town hall, President Obama said that it wasn’t his responsibility to stop the deportation of DREAM Act youth. Less than a week ago, however, on the same television network, he said his administration was not deporting those youth at all. DREAM activists and even twenty-two U.S. Senators argue that it’s time for the Obama administration to stop targeting and deporting the very youth that candidate Obama said should be quickly put on a path to citizenship. As DREAMers and legal experts have been reminding him, Yes, Mr. President, You Can. As we push for administrative action, please sign the petition for Ricardo — we still have several days to stop his deportation. Jackie is the Director of Organizing for Immigrant Rights at Change.org, where this piece is cross-posted .
Continue reading …Liberal Commentator on Palin’s Media Disdain: ‘Refreshing to See Someone Say Screw You to People Who Treat Her Like Garbage’
June 4, 2011 No Comment
The gang at “Fox News Watch” had some very interesting things to say about how media members who absolutely despise former Alaska governor Sarah Palin just can't get enough of her “One Nation” bus tour. The best line came from liberal commentator Kirsten Powers who said of the former vice presidential candidatee, “It’s actually kind of refreshing to see somebody who just says screw you to these people who treat her like garbage” (video follows with transcript and commentary): JON SCOTT, HOST: Sarah Palin going on the record there with Greta Van Susteren. The Palin family is on the “One Nation” tour of historical sites, and the media trying to keep up with her along the way. So Judy, what do you think, is she just toying with the media here? JUDY MILLER, FOX NEWS CHANNEL: I think she is having a wonderful time with, turning us in to paparazzi as one commentator noted. You know, the other thing that strikes me about Sarah Palin is how much the media, some in the media really do hate her. I mean, the commentary, Gloria Borger saying, “Okay, get on with it already and stop tweeting trying to tweet your way into relevance.” I mean, there’ve been some really, really nasty comments about her. SCOTT: There have been some nice ones, too, like this one from Michelle Malkin who wrote this week: “In the 1970s, “The Boys on the Bus” exposed how a clubby pack of male political reporters ruled the road to the White House and shaped the news. Four decades later an outsider gal from Alaska has commandeered the 2012 media bus and left beltway journalism insiders eating her dust. We have come a long way, baby.” Does that sum it up? KIRSTEN POWERS, NEW YORK POST: Yeah, but I don’t think it’s that surprising that Michelle Malkin is saying nice things about her. I think if you look at the mainstream media there’s just a lot of hostility towards her, and, you know, pretty much everything she does makes them angry. And I think what she says is exactly right. She owes them nothing and does not have to play by their rules. It’s actually kind of refreshing to see somebody who just says screw you to these people who treat her like garbage. SCOTT: The, the media, Jim, have been saying to her that she is not respecting them because she wasn't, you know, letting them know her schedule, her itinerary in advance and so forth. And they are warning that that’s going to hurt, yeah, hurt her with voters. But the question is, I mean it's not the voters who are angry with her. It's the media. JIM PINKERTON: Right, and so Chris Matthews who says she is the most divisive politician since the civil war. She’s got a long way down, she can go lower than that in Chris Matthews’ eyes, right? I got to tell you, I saw the sneak preview of a new movie by Steven Bannon called “The Undefeated.” It’s about Sarah Palin, it’s this documentary coming out later in the summer, and in there there’s a brilliant quote from Andrew Breitbart saying that the thing the media hate about Sarah Palin is that she refuses to cooperate with her own demise. That is she refuses to play ball with reporters while they try to kill her. Good for her. SCOTT: You’re nodding in agreement I guess? ANDREA TANTAROS: Yeah, it’s absolutely true. Dan Balz from the Washington Post summed it up. She has mastered the art of playing with the media, and it also exposed this week how wimpy the media are. I mean, they came out and were whining that they’re, this is endangering their health and chasing after her might hurt them. I mean, buck up already. I mean, for people who dislike her so much, they sure are obsessed with her. I mean, it’s like a fatal attraction thing. I mean, get over it already. MILLER: How do you get elected president – if she is running, and we still don't know – how do you get elected president with such hostility on the part of the lame stream media as she calls us? SCOTT: Are you saying she couldn’t do it, she couldn’t overcome that? MILLER: I’m saying it’s really hard to overcome dislike and intense hatred of that kind. POWERS: Yeah, it’s true. It's very difficult. I mean, when the media turned on Hillary, you saw what happened. You know, they were behind her and they decided, “No, we're going to go with Obama.” Hard to fight that. Pretty interesting to have four media members of differing political persuasions all agree on how poorly Palin is and has been treated by their colleagues. If it's so obvious to these four, why don't the rest of the press get it? Or is there something else in play? Are the media just furious that after almost three years of tearing this woman apart, they haven't been able to finish her off? Rush Limbaugh commented on this Friday: They hate her, they despise her, they are frustrated that they haven't destroyed her. They can't believe she's still smiling. They can't believe she's still drawing crowds. They can't believe that she's enjoying life. They can't believe her family is still together. They can't believe her husband hasn't walked out on her. They can't believe any of this. Folks, you know this as well as I do: When they set out to destroy you, they mean just that — and Palin's not playing along with the script. She's not acting destroyed. She's not asking for forgiveness. She's not begging them to leave her alone. She's not changing in order to make them lighten up or anything. She's just looking at 'em and smiling. Indeed, and it's galling the lot of them with the exception of the precious few that are willing to be honest with themselves and the public.
Continue reading …
Complex market for salad makes origin of E coli outbreak harder to pinpoint, say scientists Scientists have warned that there is a desperate need to pinpoint the source of the E coli outbreak that has already claimed the lives of 17 people in Germany and infected 1,800 others around the world. On Friday, four new cases were identified in Britain, bringing the total here to 11. However, German authorities say that the number of new cases reported each day there has now started to decline. “This could bubble along for some time yet unless we find the source and stop it infecting the food chain,” said Dr Paul Wigley of Liverpool University. Most evidence suggests that some type of salad product is the source. “That in itself is unusual,” added Wigley. “Eighty per cent of food poisoning cases are usually traced to meat or poultry.” The fact that infected vegetables may be responsible for the cases of E coli that affected Germany last week, before spreading round the rest of Europe, makes the hunt for the source more difficult, Wigley said. “Salad products are grown and shipped across Europe. Meat or poultry tend to have more localised markets.” On Saturday, attention focused on a German restaurant, Kartoffel-Keller (Potato Cellar), in the Baltic port of Luebeck, which the local newspaper claimed had been identified by scientists as a possible infection point, after one person died and 17 others fell sick. In Britain, the National Farmers Union said that it had spoken to all of Britain’s major retailers to seek assurances they were backing British growers and paying a proper price for their products. Most were behaving sensibly, said a spokesman. “They are not using this unfortunate situation as an excuse to drop prices to British growers.” However, severe problems face the growers of cucumbers, thought to be the most likely source of the outbreak. Derek Hargreaves of the Cucumber Growers’ Association told the BBC on Thursday that he feared the outbreak would affect British producers if the source of the E coli remained unknown. “If this keeps rolling on and the Germans don’t find the source of the outbreak, then obviously people are going to say, ‘Well, there’s no point in listening to experts.’ People will stop buying the salads.” E coli Farming Germany Microbiology Health Robin McKie guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Universities minister faces votes of no confidence from Oxford and Cambridge dons calling for his removal from office Oxford and Cambridge dons attempting to force the resignation of the universities minister, David Willetts, have been given a boost by a declaration from the politician’s former economics tutor that he had “no confidence in him”. The controlling bodies of the universities are due to stage a vote calling for the minister’s removal from office amid growing unrest over the government’s trebling of the limit on tuition fees and recent announcements on higher education policy. Now, speaking to the Observer , Peter Oppenheimer, an emeritus professor at Christ Church, Oxford, and a tutor to the beleaguered minister in the mid-1970s, has admitted: “I have no confidence in him, absolutely. He was a highly intelligent and thoughtful person, very able – but no politician. He has got the kind of open-mindedness which enables him to see the value of a whole range of points of view, especially that of the person he last talked to.” Senior academics at Cambridge and Oxford are calling on Willetts, nicknamed “Two Brains” for his reputed intelligence, to reconsider the hike in undergraduate tuition fees, cuts to higher education and what they say are “incoherent” messages on university admissions. Almost 150 academics at Cambridge, including the renowned poet Jeremy Halvard Prynne, have signed a motion of no confidence in the minister. It will be sent to the university’s council, which is expected to endorse it and the university will then need to tell the government that it has passed a vote of no confidence in Willetts by the end of this month. More than 170 Oxford academics sought signatures for a similar motion and they too will vote next week on whether Willetts is up to his role. The passing of a vote of no confidence would be a first for any university in England and comes as Willetts is set to unveil his delayed white paper on the higher education. Tthe shadow universities minister, Gareth Thomas, said: “David Cameron and David Willetts shouldn’t be surprised to have lost the confidence of so many. They have refused to listen to the huge concern, in every part of England, that cutting 80% of teaching funds, axing vital investment in research facilities and then allowing universities to treble fees would have a devastating impact on the hopes and dreams of all those wanting to better themselves through university.” Willetts’s critics are on both the left and the right. Oppenheimer, who was seconded from his college in the 1980s to be chief economist to oil giant Shell, said he believed his former pupil had been a victim of the coalition agreement with the Liberal Democrats. “I have no confidence in him because I think it is tragic that higher education policy should be made on the basis of those considerations,” he said. “He is not a man to fight for ideological rigidity. Academically it is admirable but as a policymaker it is a bit sad; it is not worthy of him.” Oppenheimer said he believed a sector of the university system – Oxford, Cambridge and “two or three others” – should be allowed to opt out of government regulation and to develop “like the Ivy League universities in America”. That way, he said, they would be able to charge their own fees and be “far more effective in promoting fairness and access and redistribution”. “The average fee would be no more than the £9,000 now talked about but the spread around the average would be much higher, so that those who can afford it can pay £20,000 like they already do for their schooling, in their boarding schools. And those who can’t afford it pay nothing,” he said. David Willetts University of Oxford University of Cambridge Tuition fees University funding Daniel Boffey guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Counter-terrorism review insists groups must reflect British mainstream values to get funds David Cameron will emerge as the victor from a bitter cabinet battle over multiculturalism this week as the government unveils a hardline approach to tackling Islamist extremism. Home Office sources say that Cameron has quashed Nick Clegg’s argument for a more tolerant attitude to Muslim groups by insisting on a strategy centred upon the notion that violent extremism is incubated within the ideology of non-violent extremism. The shift in approach will be outlined when the government’s counter-terrorism strategy is unveiled by the home secretary, Theresa May, on Tuesday. Central to the Prevent strategy is a broader definition of extremism that will be extended beyond groups condoning violence to those considered non-violent but whose views, such as the advocacy of sharia law, fail to “reflect British mainstream values”. A Home Office source said: “There will be a direct challenge to these [non-violent] groups.” The Prevent review has been delayed for five months because of disagreements within the coalition cabinet. In his view that engaging with non-violent extremists can be used as a bulwark against violent extremists, Clegg has been joined by the attorney general, Dominic Grieve, the Tory chairman, Baroness Warsi, and others including Charles Farr, the head of the office of security and extremism. They argue it is crucial to maintain a distinction between violent and non-violent extremism and that it is necessary to engage rather than alienate. Warsi, who sits on the cabinet subcommittee dealing with integration, is understood to disagree strongly with the new direction of Prevent but has been dissuaded from publicly criticising the strategy. Among those supporting the prime minister on a crackdown on Muslim groups was the education secretary, Michael Gove, and Lord Carlile, who is in charge of the Prevent review. Ostensibly the strategy echoes Cameron’s contentious speech to an international counter-terrorism conference in Munich last February when he suggested that “state multiculturalism” had failed. During the speech the Tory leader categorised those who espoused an ideology of Islamic extremism alongside those who supported violence. He said: “Move along the spectrum, and you find people who may reject violence, but who accept various parts of the extremist world view, including real hostility towards western democracy and liberal values.” A Home Office source said: “When a prime minister states something so unequivocally, it is unlikely they will be allowed to deviate from that.” The strategy will warn Muslim groups that they will only receive public funding under certain conditions. Groups would be allocated funding on short-term projects but only after proving they do not promote or support extremist views. “Under the old Prevent strategy we sprayed a lot of cash willy-nilly and the new strategy is opposed to that,” said the source. Haras Rafiq, director of Centri, a counter-extremism consultancy, welcomed the strategy, but said the main challenge was implementation. “They need to build a criteria to establish which organisation they fund has extremist views, which one doesn’t, and ensure extremist groups do not receive funding from other pots.” One group, the Mosques and Imams National Advisory Board, which has links to the hardline Muslim Association of Britain, received £250,000 in the year up to April but has already had its annual public funding withdrawn, the Observer has learned. During the Munich speech Cameron said it was “nonsense” to fund groups with extremist elements, adding: “Would you allow far-right groups a share of public funds if they promise to help you lure young white men away from fascist terrorism? Of course not.” The strategy, however, will shy away from naming groups, effectively dismissing speculation that the initiative will proscribe non-violent, extremist Islamist groups such as Hizb ut-Tahrir, a step which Cameron has publicly supported but which legal sources advise is not possible. The Conservative manifesto named Hizb ut-Tahrir as a group it wanted to proscribe; in 2009 the then shadow home secretary, Chris Grayling, promised to “immediately ban” the group if the Tories were elected. The strategy to be unveiled this week will explain that the issue of funding groups that promote community cohesion will be left to the Department for Communities and Local Government. Sources say that under the previous system community groups had to apply for support from counter-terrorism funding, which succeeded only in stigmatising them. Terrorism policy David Cameron Nick Clegg Islam British identity and society Religion Mark Townsend guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Former Tory backers voice concern over government’s economic policy as critics say chancellor needs plan B Some of Britain’s leading economists are warning the chancellor, George Osborne, that the economy is too fragile to withstand his drastic spending cuts and that he must draw up a plan B. Experts, including two former Whitehall advisers and two signatories of last year’s high-profile letter backing the Tories’ cuts, have told the Observer that they have profound concerns about the direction of Treasury policy. Since the chancellor laid out his plans to balance the books by the end of the parliament in his “emergency budget” a year ago, the outlook has deteriorated markedly. Growth has gone flat over the past six months and a slew of dismal data has raised fears that the UK could be sliding towards a double-dip recession, as the US recovery wanes and the Greek debt crisis rattles the eurozone. Jonathan Portes, the director of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, who until February was chief economist at the Cabinet Office, advising the prime minister, said: “You do not gain credibility by sticking to a strategy that isn’t working.” He said that the recent slowdown in growth was partly the result of factors outside the government’s control, but insisted: “It isn’t just about the international environment, it’s because of the strategy the government has followed.” Another former Whitehall insider, Vicky Pryce, the head of the government’s economic service before becoming a director at FTI Consulting, said that ministers would be advised to begin preparing the ground for a U-turn: “It’s a very risky situation, and I think that at some stage they’ll panic.” Professor John Muellbauer of Oxford University, an expert on the housing market who signed the letter to the Sunday Times last year supporting the Conservatives’ approach, said: “Things are going badly. I had hoped that the focus in the budget would be on improving growth in the places where there are growth prospects, and also maintaining infrastructure investment, and that they would tackle failures of planning.” Tim Besley, a former Bank of England monetary policy committee member who orchestrated the letter, said: “Everybody has been disappointed with growth.” He still believes that the chancellor must stick to his guns, but complained that the Treasury had failed to articulate where growth would come from in the months ahead. “The disappointing growth has almost nothing to do with the fiscal plans of the government – I’m coming to the view that it’s just a long, slow, hard slog – but what I would like to see from the government is a much more clearly defined growth strategy.” Danny Blanchflower, another former MPC member, said: “Economic policy is in disarray.” The increasingly bleak prospects for recovery have also prompted more than 50 prominent leftwing academics to write to the Observer to demand that the government pursues a plan B, to boost jobs and growth. The signatories – including Sir Tony Atkinson and David Marquand of Oxford University, Marcus Miller of Warwick and Richard Grayson of Goldsmiths in London, a former Liberal Democrat policy director – say that if Osborne keeps to his policy, there will be “a lot more pain and a lot less gain”. They call for a crackdown on tax evasion, a targeted industrial policy – including investment in green technologies – and higher taxes on the rich to create jobs and growth, saying, “these are the foundations of a real alternative”. A Treasury spokesman said: “We haven’t seen anything that makes us question what we are doing.” The political argument over who can be trusted with the economy has intensified in recent days. Osborne’s predecessor, Alistair Darling, accused him on Radio
Continue reading …