US president reverses previously cautious approach to Libyan conflict and signs America up to more muscular intervention President Obama today signals the return of America to the forefront of the international effort in Libya, writing a joint article with David Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy in which the three leaders commit their countries to pursue military action until Colonel Gaddafi has been removed. In the joint article, Obama reverses America’s earlier cautious approach to the conflict – which saw the US hand control to Nato and withdraw fighter planes just days after the intervention began – and signs up his country to the more muscular intervention of his European colleagues. Obama’s new interest could transform the efforts of the international community after three days of talks in the Gulf state of Qatar in effect came to nothing. Writing in Washington Post, the Times and Le Figaro, the three leaders say the world would have committed an “unconscionable betrayal” if the Libyan leader is left in place, putting rebels who have been fighting against the Gaddafi regime at the mercy of his government. If left, Libya risks becoming a failed state, they write. Obama, Sarkozy and Cameron call on Gaddafi to “go and go for good”, rejecting demands for an immediate ceasefire and a negotiated exit for the Libyan dictator. Diplomats are considering how the language of the United Nations mandate can accommodate a more active role on the ground. In the piece, the three leaders acknowledge the legal constrictions but suggest they must overcome them: “Our duty and our mandate under UN Security Council Resolution 1973 is to protect civilians, and we are doing that. It is not to remove Gaddafi by force. But it is impossible to imagine a future for Libya with Gaddafi in power. The international criminal court is rightly investigating the crimes committed against civilians and the grievous violations of international law. It is unthinkable that someone who has tried to massacre his own people can play a part in their future government.” Yesterday Gaddafi was seen driving through Tripoli on what seemed to be a victory parade. His soldiers bombarded the city of Misrata with shells. In their article the three leaders call the attack on Misrata a “medieval siege … to strangle its population into submission”. They write: “The brave citizens of those towns that have held out against forces that have been mercilessly targeting them would face a fearful vengeance if the world accepted [Gaddafi staying]. It would be an unconscionable betrayal. “So long as Gaddafi is in power, Nato and its coalition partners must maintain their operations so that civilians remain protected and the pressure on the regime builds … Britain, France and the United States will not rest until the UN security council resolutions have been implemented and the Libyan people can choose their own future.” The Times reported on its publication that the article originally began as a collaboration between Cameron and Sarkozy, coinciding with the prime minister’s trip to Paris on Wednesday to discuss the military action. A draft was sent to the White House as a courtesy, prompting a request from Obama to add his name. Diplomatic sources said that only minor changes were made to accommodate him. Libya Barack Obama David Cameron Nicolas Sarkozy Muammar Gaddafi Nato Middle East Allegra Stratton guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Sarah Palin says the 19-year-old who threatened to kill her has stepped up his game, threatening to harm her family and even rape her daughter. Palin made the accusations in court documents filed to get a new restraining order against Shawn Christy, according to TMZ . Palin doesn’t specify which daughter…
Continue reading …No, we’re pretty sure it’s not April Fool’s Day, and yes, you are reading this correctly: Frederic Prinz von Anhalt—or, as TMZ insists on calling him, “Prince von Ahole”—apparently wants to have a baby with his 94-year-old wife, Zsa Zsa Gabor. TMI alert: The sprightly 67-year-old deposited sperm…
Continue reading …
Tensions grow over ‘tens of thousands’ figure with ‘incandescent’ Vince Cable challenging policy interpretation The first major rift between David Cameron and Nick Clegg opened up after the Liberal Democrats accused the Tories of attempting to breach the agreement on immigration. In a sign of tensions in the run up to the local elections and AV referendum on 5 May, senior ministerial sources dismissed Clegg’s view of the policy. The row erupted after the prime minister declared in his first major speech on the subject since the election that the government would cut net migration to the “tens of thousands” each year rather than hundreds of thousands. Cameron also warned that immigrants unable to speak English or unwilling to integrate have created a “kind of discomfort and disjointedness” which has disrupted communities. An “incandescent” Vince Cable, the business secretary who was not briefed about the speech, rounded on Cameron. “I do understand there is an election coming but talk of mass immigration risks inflaming the extremism to which he and I are both strongly opposed,” he told the BBC. Cable also challenged Cameron’s interpretation of government policy. “The reference to the tens of thousands of immigrants rather than hundreds of thousands is not part of the coalition agreement, it is Tory party policy only,” he added. Cameron slapped down Cable when he appeared to accuse him of being “off beam”. He said after his speech: “[It was] an important attempt to explain why we are doing what we are doing, why it’s right and why some of the critics of it, actually, are off beam.” Clegg, who “noted rather than approved” Cameron’s speech, was initially irritated with Cable for coming close to breaching cabinet collective responsibility. The deputy prime minister was relatively relaxed with Cameron on the grounds that he was mentioning “tens of thousands” as an aspiration and not a formal target. One senior Lib Dem, who reflected Clegg’s thinking, said: “The tens of thousands is Conservative policy. It is not Lib Dem policy. We do not think that it can be set as a target. It is not government policy.” But Tory government sources challenged Clegg’s interpretation when they insisted that the tens of thousands figure was formal coalition policy agreed by the cabinet. One source said: “That figure is in the background documents to the Queen’s speech and is in Home Office documents. It has been used on the floor of the Commons. It is government policy. “It is true that it is not in the coalition agreement. But there are quite a lot of things that are not in the coalition agreement. This policy has been cleared at all levels of government.” The row over the highly sensitive matter of immigration showed that relations between the Tories and Lib Dems are becoming tense in the run up to the elections and AV referendum. Senior Lib Dem cabinet ministers have become irritated with George Osborne over his claims about the funding of the yes campaign. Danny Alexander, Osborne’s deputy at the Treasury, accused him of “pretty desperate scaremongering”. Lib Dems made it clear that differences are extending beyond a “permitted” area, such as AV, to immigration where the coalition partners are meant to work together. Lord Oakeshott, an ally of Cable’s who resigned as a Lib Dem treasury spokesman in a row with Osborne over the banks, hit out at Cameron. “When something is not in the coalition agreement it does not become coalition policy just because David Cameron says so, even if he has shown his speech to Nick Clegg,” he said. Oakeshott’s dig at Clegg highlighted tensions between Cable and the deputy prime minister. Cable was angry with both Cameron and Clegg for failing to brief him on the speech which relates to his ministerial portfolio. “Vince didn’t know anything about the speech and was absolutely horrified,” one source said. “Nick is clearly not being tough enough in saying no to Cameron.” Lib Dem sources had earlier hailed Cable for his success in restraining the Tories in cabinet negotiations over immigration. They believe the party’s greatest success was in rejecting Tory pressure to impose a cap on student migration. “Nick and Vince are very proud to have worked hard to get the policies where they are. The Tories wanted a student migration cap. That has not happened.” Clegg had earlier tried to downplay the differences. His spokesman said: “This is a Conservative prime minister speaking to Conservative party activists using Conservative language.” Yvette Cooper, the shadow home secretary, said: “The Tory-led government’s immigration policy is in chaos. And now the business secretary has said he doesn’t even agree with the policy in the first place. “David Cameron said ‘no ifs, no buts’ he would deliver on his target to cut net migration to the tens of thousands, yet Vince Cable said that it isn’t coalition policy. What on earth is going on?” David Cameron Immigration and asylum Liberal-Conservative coalition Nick Clegg Vince Cable Elections 2011 Alternative vote Nicholas Watt guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Arizona’s Senate approved a bill yesterday requiring presidential candidates to show their “long-form” birth certificate—including date and place of birth, the names of the hospital and attending physician, and witness signatures—before competing in the state. The bill passed 20-9, without a single Democrat voting in favor, the Arizona…
Continue reading …Stephen Colbert has certainly tackled women’s issues on his show , but until last night, he had yet to address “the most pressing women’s issue of all: how to make some cash off of them.” Fortunately, Unilever is already on the job with the brilliant marketing of its “shame-o-vation,” a Dove…
Continue reading …My wife has indulged my fantasies about her with other men but not anymore, and now I’m struggling without the prospect of new sexual adventures I’m a 45-year-old man who has been married to a beautiful woman for 15 years. I find my wife talking about her previous sexual experiences very erotic. But she’s quite conventional and her imagination isn’t great. She’s indulged my desire to hear new stories by meeting other men, sometimes just for drinks but occasionally it’s gone far beyond that – to my pleasure. She’s now told me she will no longer indulge this and I’m struggling to accept there’s no scope for adventure. It’s a big part of what makes me tick sexually, and my frustration’s growing. We’ve discussed me having an affair, but it’s not what I want. My wife says she couldn’t cope with it, anyway. The issue is the difference between fantasy and reality. It’s fantasy that does it for you, isn’t it? You don’t need your wife to actually go with someone else. Since the idea of her being with someone else turns you on, you could negotiate with her to create fantasy scenarios that will inspire you. But first, find out what she really wants from your love-making, and provide it. If you can give her what she wants, and promise you won’t expect her to have sex with other men, she may be willing to put more effort into making up new stories or searching for erotic tales in, say, the media. Perhaps you could find scripts for her, or research stories yourself and use them privately to enhance your arousal. • Pamela Stephenson Connolly is a clinical psychologist and psychotherapist who specialises in treating sexual disorders. • Email your problem to private.lives@guardian.co.uk Sex Relationships Pamela Stephenson Connolly guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …A focus on famous people risks blurring the message that mental illness can happen to anyone In an ideal world, it would not take a film star to get the media focused on mental illness. But we don’t live in an ideal world, we live in a celebrity culture where Catherine Zeta-Jones being treated for bipolar disorder can soar to the top of news websites’ “most viewed”, and relegate Andrew Lansley’s woes or even David Cameron’s pre-election views on immigration. I am an ambassador for Time to Change, the campaign to change attitudes on mental illness, to break down the stigma and taboo which still surround it. It appears to be having some success: when England cricketer Michael Yardy left the World Cup because of depression, the “pull yourself together … what has he got to be depressed about?” brigade were in the minority. There is greater understanding, but still stigma. Some people with mental illness say the discrimination can be worse than the symptoms. What the mental health charities find deeply frustrating is that they can only get on the media via celebrities. If Zeta-Jones had been diagnosed with cancer, we would be talking about cancer. It is as though the celebs attached to an issue lead a debate, rather than the issue and how it affects millions of people. There is a danger that focus on famous people tends to get in the way of one of our central messages – it can happen to anyone – or that it reinforces one of the myths, that mental illness hits “creative, achieving people”. But if you are the charity in question, trying to raise your profile so as to raise funds and awareness for the services you provide, you have to play the game. I was inundated with media bids and the charities wanted me to take them up. Isn’t it better if a doctor or a nurse goes up? Ah, but they want a name. So here’s an idea for the Guardian. Take Catherine Zeta-Jones as the “peg” – but open a few pages of G2 to fellow sufferers most of us have never heard of. The charities will help find them. Then your readers will see that not all bipolar sufferers look like Stephen Fry or Catherine Zeta-Jones … They look like the woman next door, the guy on the bus, the colleague across the office, the kid you met on holiday last year. One in four of us will have a mental illness at some point. That is a lot of people. Very few are film stars. Zeta-Jones will help raise the profile of the issues, whether she wanted it that way or not. That should lead to better understanding. But as I said when I spoke to the Royal College of Nursing on Wednesday about mental health, including my own issues of breakdown and depression, better understanding must be an accompaniment to good treatment, not a substitute. I join the many others who wish her well and thank her for the support her name will lend our campaign. But there are people with the same illness who cannot get the support they need, who still feel they have to lie about their condition to get or keep a job, and who really worry about the impact of government cuts and reforms that will fundamentally change the way mental health services are run. Those issues should be getting an airing regardless of celebrity support or involvement. Alastair Campbell has asked for his fee for this article to go to Rethink. Bipolar disorder Mental health Catherine Zeta-Jones Charities Depression Health Alastair Campbell guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …British police have arrested News of the World senior reporter James Weatherup on the suspicion that he illegally hacked into voicemails in search of scoops. That makes him the third reporter from the tabloid recently arrested in the phone hacking scandal , the AP reports. Until recently, the News of the…
Continue reading …Guess who’s back? Serena Williams. And she made sure her return to the tennis court Tuesday was a stylish one, the Miami Herald notes, tweeting a picture of herself in a hot pink body suit. “Look who I spotted on the court. Her first day back,” Williams wrote. She hadn’t…
Continue reading …