Tuesday, March 1, 2011

David Cameron gains taste for military action after slow start to Libya crisis

A week after telling Middle East that democracy cannot be dropped from 40,000ft, prime minister turns to the military

Danny Finkelstein is a wise man.

In his Times column last Wednesday, Finkelstein wrote that Britain would learn a great deal about the prime minister from his response to the Middle East crisis. Finkelstein, whose column appeared as David Cameron struggled to take command of the evacuation of British citizens from Libya during his trip to the Gulf, wrote:

The revolution sweeping through the Middle East will help to define our Prime Minister.

So what are we learning about the prime minister? What is the Cameron Doctrine? His statement to the House of Commons on Monday showed that the man who sweated bricks before voting in favour of the Iraq war in 2003 is now developing a taste for military action. This is what he told MPs:

We do not in any way rule out the use of military assets. We must not tolerate this regime using military force against its own people. In that context, I have asked the Ministry of Defence and the Chief of the Defence Staff to work with our allies on plans for a military no-fly zone. It is clear that this is an illegitimate regime that has lost the consent of its people, and our message to Colonel Gaddafi is simple: go now.

Simon Tisdall, the Guardian's foreign affairs commentator, was unamused. Simon wrote:

Criticised for reacting too slowly to the Libyan crisis, Britain and its allies now risk a dangerous, ill-thought out over-reaction in raising the prospect of direct western military intervention. If any lesson has been learned from Iraq and Afghanistan, it is that while it is very easy to get into a war in the Middle East, it is difficult to control events once engaged, and harder still to find a way out.

Cameron's bullish tone does appear to contrast with one of the central messages during his trip to the Middle East last week. In an attempt to distinguish himself from Tony Blair and George Bush jnr, the prime minister said outsiders should be careful about intervening. In Cairo the prime minister said:

I am not a naive neocon who thinks you can drop democracy out of an aeroplane at 40,000ft or that, simply by holding an election, you have satisfied the needs of democracy.

Cameron will no doubt argue that he is not talking about a neocon mission to reshape Libya. He will say that he simply wants to help a country in dire need. This, he will say, is an example of his middle way foreign policy which rejects the idea that the west should impose its will (the Bush jnr approach) and the idea the west should stand by when a dictator turns on his own people (the Bush snr approach).

But the prime minister will want to show that his interest in the military is not part of a rush to distract attention after the government's hesitant response to the Libyan crisis. Cameron will not want people to gain the impression that the Cameron Doctrine is: call for the armed forces to make up for lost (political) ground.


guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2011 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds


Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/wintour-and-watt/2011/mar/01/davidcameron-libya

Jimmy Carter Fidel Castro Hugo Chavez Dick Cheney Noam Chomsky

George Osborne turns up heat on rival Ed Balls after spotting chinks in armour

Chancellor believes Labour's campaign on behalf of Britain's 'squeezed middle' is undermined by contradictions at heart of its economic policy

George Osborne reckons he has spotted a couple of highly significant chinks in the armour of his enemy.

In an article in the Guardian, the chancellor writes that Ed Miliband's campaign to champion Britain's "squeezed middle" has two fundamental flaws.

First, it is ill defined. Osborne mocks Miliband by writing:

Let's pass over his failure in every interview to define it ? his last effort included around 90% of taxpayers.

Second, Labour's economic policy is riddled with contradictions. Osborne writes:

Here is a cut-out-and-keep guide to the contradictions at the heart of Labour's economic argument that would not �survive first contact with reality.

The chancellor then outlines three contradictions in Labour's economic policy:

? Ed Balls, the shadow chancellor, is wrong to claim that Britain's public finances were in fine form before the economic crash. Osborne writes:

Even Tony Blair has now admitted that 'from 2005 onwards Labour was insufficiently vigorous in limiting or eliminating the potential structural deficit'. If the current Labour leadership won't even admit the basic errors of the past, why should voters believe that it wouldn't repeat them?

? Labour says it would abide by Alistair Darling's plans to halve the fiscal deficit over four years. This would lead to �14bn in spending cuts in the coming financial year ? �2bn less than the coalition's plans ? and yet Labour opposes many of the planned cuts. Osborne writes:

Day after day [Labour] opposes the spending cuts [the Darling plan] requires...With just five weeks to go until April we know everything about the cuts Labour opposes but nothing about the cuts it supports.

? Labour accuses the coalition of tackling Britain's deficit for ideological reasons but does not criticise the organisations that have endorsed the plans. Osborne writes:

Labour...claims we are dealing with their deficit for ideological reasons, but funnily it doesn't accuse the organisations who support our approach of a similar motive.

The pace of the government's plan is backed by, among others, the G20, OECD, IMF and European commission ? and at home, the CBI, IFS and two of the three main political parties. That doesn't look like an ideological line-up to me. Quite the reverse: it is close to a domestic and international consensus.

Osborne concludes:

My party learned the hard way over 13 years that opposition without a credible alternative tends to remain just that: opposition. The real squeeze is not on the middle, but on Labour's muddle.

The chancellor's article is designed to mark a sharpening of the coalition's political attacks on Labour ? and specifically Ed Balls ? in the run up to the budget on 23 March. One Treasury source said:

We are surprised that Ed Balls, who has been in post for a month, has not grappled with these contradictions. That shows weakness. If you don't deal with contradictions in your economic policy in opposition then it will unravel.

Ed Balls, who is laughing after the BBC pictured him as a bulldog in a film on Sunday, will be up for the fight. He likes nothing better than a good scrap.


guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2011 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds


Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/wintour-and-watt/2011/feb/28/georgeosborne-edballs

Duchess of Cornwall Robert Mugabe Ralph Nader Saparmurat Niyazov Ehud Olmert

The Sky Above, the Crud Below

Dennis Cozzalio stops and smells the gasoline fumes rolling off the DVD release of The Outfit, based on one of Donald Westlake's Parker novels (written under the pseudonym Richard Stark).



John Flynn?s The Outfit, a brutally efficient bit of business based glancingly on Richard Stark?s procedurally inquisitive and poetic crime novel, is a movie that feels like it?s never heard of a rounded corner; it?s blunt like a 1970 Dodge Monaco pinning a couple of killers against a Dumpster and a brick wall.



And not just any Dodge, but one driven by Karen Black in a Faye Dunaway Bonnie & Clyde beret!



Substituting headlong, arrogant force for the mapped-out strategies detailed in the book, Flynn pile-drives forward just like his protagonist, setting up one cast-iron set piece after another in clean, broad strokes, as cinematically equivalent to Stark?s lean, unfussy prose as one could imagine being without galloping forward into insufferable self-consciousness.

[snip]

It?s easy to wonder if those probable budgetary restrictions had anything to do with Flynn?s scrapping of the idea to film The Outfit as a full-on noir period piece set in the postwar ?40s. Personally, I think what we?ve got works just fine, probably better than any attempt to predate even the novel and recreate a shadowy atmosphere which would likely only call attention to its artificiality. As is, The Outfit, set in 1973, is only 10 years removed from the cars, the styles, the guns, the diners and the entire milieu of Stark?s novel, which was published in 1963. Not much in the way of adaptation in terms of production design was really needed to stay true to the cynicism-soaked atmosphere originating from Stark?s typewriter.



Maybe because right now I'm immersed in the 70's and watched the movie just this weekend, the result strikes me as better than fine--there's an authentic cruddiness to the interiors and exteriors (diners, motels, gas stations, back offices, poker rooms), all of the lower-echelon men sitting behind desks or loitering at the fringes are meaty and look as if they down a lot of antacids, the cars look like they've been driven hard, not wheeled off some studio backlot, and the cloudy skies clamp a glum, sulky lid over the action, making it look even meaner and more entrapping. It doesn't look all art-directed and anally lit to perfection, its functional utility more faithful to the Parker world than the attitudinizing of nearly all the other adaptations.

Cozzalio rightly pays tribute to Sheree North (seen "first in a knockout black turtleneck sweater and then in a clingy, pointedly thin bathrobe, as the brother?s shrewish"), who's like a dirty-blonde version of Julie London, but my eyes were equally agog at how gleaming and gorgeous Joanna Cassidy was in a small role as Robert Ryan's moll, dressed in classy white as if her expensive wardrobe had laundered his ill-gotten gains.

Robert Duvall, Joe Don Baker, Sheree North, Robert Ryan, Joanna Cassidy, Richard Jaeckel (love him), plus all of the noir familiars (Elisha Cook Jr., Jane Greer, Roy Roberts) studding the cast--it's one hell of a lineup, going about their business with no muss no muss expediency, a dead-ahead stance loosened only by Joe Don Baker's leering grin in every getaway.

The explosion of Stark/Parker reissues continues apace, and I've just knocked off Deadly Edge, which I recommend unreservedly. The novel that moves him into the lakeside hideaway he shares with Claire in a rural pocket of New Jersey where the state lines of Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania converge, Deadly Edge begins with a heist that goes without a hitch until the crew returns to the safe house where their stuff is stashed and discover--well, no spoilers here. This is one of the most scarifying of the Parker novels. Where most of the violence in the Parker series is meted out with thuggish blunt force on anyone who stands between the crooks and the money, here there's a sadistic psychopathological zeal to the lethal punishments inflicted on Parker's crew by their pursuers that looks backward to the Manson family and forward to Peckinpah's Straw Dogs, especially once the Jersey home comes under siege. Parker is used to dealing with tough-guy tactics--this is a whole different witches' brew. Everything about Deadly Edge is distinctive; only its title is generic.



Source: http://www.vanityfair.com/online/wolcott/2011/02/dennis-cozzalio-stops-and-smells.html

King Abdullah Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Omar al-Bashir Gloria Arroyo Joe Biden

Pass notes No 2,935: Tony Blair

Former PM renews his acquaintance with Colonel Gaddafi with a phone call. (Don't worry Cherie, it was reverse charge.)

Age: 57. A jolly youthful 57.

Appearance: Oddly sparing for a Middle East peace envoy, given the current situations in the ? uh ? Middle East.

Yes, I thought that. But I gather he's popped up again now. What's he doing? He's made a phone call to Colonel Gaddafi. (Reverse charge, probably. Can't see Cherie letting the landline be used for long-distance.)

Saying what? Saying, "Hey man, why not stop being so uncool and just, you know, like, step down?"

Yes, I can see that our former PM would be moved to action by the threat of some egomaniac using unwarranted force against an Arab people. Well, quite.

So Blair thinks one phone call from him will be enough to turn prominent mentalist Gaddafi from his current calculation of "better to kill or be killed by my own people"? Is he now as bonkers as the colonel? Hey, man, blessed are the peacemakers, 'kay? And anyway, they do have a personal connection.

I thought Our Tone had denied the Gaddafi family's claims to friendship with him? Well, yes, you would, wouldn't you? But Tony probably harbours some warm feelings since he was in charge when Libya agreed to moderate some of its policies and preferred modes of government in 2004.

Oh, yes, that's right. That was in the wake of the Afghanistan and Iraq invasions, wasn't it? What's your point?

It was when Gadaffi looked around and saw what the UK was prepared to do to bigger, better equipped countries and decided that dictatorial discretion was the better part of valour, badmouthed terrorism for a bit and let some oil companies back in. Doubtless one of the many positive ramifications Tony saw when he conceived his plan to follow wherever Bush led. Honestly, the glass is always half empty with some of you folk, isn't it? I sometimes worry that the poor man is doomed to be misunderstood forever.

Do say: "I accept the charges and accede to the request!"

Don't say: "Tony? Tony who?"


guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2011 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds


Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/feb/28/pass-notes-tony-blair

Al Gore Chuck Hagel Stephen Harper Dennis Hastert Vaclav Havel

Some SDP thinking might strengthen Labour nerve

Confused by third-way boxing clever, stricken with taboos about its core values, the party needs a dose of social democracy

March marks 30 years since the birth of the Social Democratic party. For those too young to remember, this 1981 Labour schism may seem an obscure footnote in history. Those of us who were part of it tend to rewrite the history to suit whatever we did next.

The handful who later joined the Tories ? Andrew Lansley, Danny Finkelstein, Chris Grayling and Andrew Cooper now joining No 10 ? see it quite differently from those of us who rejoined Labour. The spectacle of SDP founders such as Shirley Williams and Vince Cable appearing on Newsnight to champion George Osborne's economic policies leaves many dumbfounded, political compasses spinning.

In 1981 Michael Foot was leading Labour to certain destruction: his 700-page 1983 manifesto was for pulling out of Europe and nationalising a swath of industries ? including the banks (rather more credible now). Local parties were under hostile takeover by Militant tendency and Trotskyite impossibilists, on instruction to move into bedsits in vulnerable seats and pass late-night motions beyond the patience and bedtimes of ordinary members of parliament. All this was supported by Tony Benn, a ruthless destroyer now curiously regarded as a charming national treasure. My own Lambeth Labour party was a wreckage of extremism, running the council into disrepute.

In power, Margaret Thatcher was wielding an axe more bloody than any since the war, although she seems positively pragmatic compared with this government's revolutionary dynamiting of the state. She was the most unpopular PM since polls began, with riots in Brixton, Bristol and Toxteth. Between the Scylla and Charybdis of these two unpalatables there was no voice for a European-style social democratic party of a kind that brought prosperity and social progress to Scandinavia and Germany. In alliance with the Liberals, the SDP nearly broke the two-party grip, coming just 2% behind Labour in 1983. But the first-past-the-post mincer saw 25% of the vote deliver a tiny handful of seats. Roy Hattersley said on Radio 4's Archive on 4 documentary, Breaking the Mould : "Had we come third the SDP would have taken off, and it would have been all over for Labour." But it didn't happen. Thatcher's Falklands victory made her triumphant. Within Labour, late at night, embers of old arguments rekindle: did the SDP let her win by splitting the vote ? or did the SDP help bring Labour back to electability?

What-ifs are an idle pastime, but history needs constant rewriting in the light of following events. Political ground shifts. Now the far left has vanished from effective politics, those of us who fought them often find ourselves called "the left" without having changed our views. What matters is where the people are, and where they have moved in the last decades. From the polling, they stand pretty much where they always did ? and a majority was always pragmatic social democrat.

Tony Blair was wrong to think this an essentially conservative country. The voting system gifted conservative rule for most of the last century: no wonder they fight to the last against voting reform. Two-thirds of the Lib Dem vote identifies itself as left, rather than right, of centre: under proportional voting with a horseshoe Commons reflecting more shades of opinion, this coalition would not be so extreme. Blair would have been denied the hegemony that led to such hubris. The alternative vote may be a poor apology, but it's a first step towards governments that better reflect the national view.

Talking to David Owen, the former SDP leader, I was looking for clues as to where his old party would be now on a political spectrum that the coalition has sent haywire. He warns Ed Miliband in private meetings as well as in public to cast off Blairism and go back to Labour values.

That might strike some as ironic, but this Labour deserter still declares undying love for the party that he sees standing at a new crossroads. He vigorously disavows Blair as any heir of the SDP, with withering scorn for his corrupting fascination with wealth and his lack of ideological moorings. Blair, he says, opened the door to much that Cameron now espouses. He sees the "any willing provider" explosive opening-up of the NHS and all public services to any private company as a toxic Blair legacy: "The NHS is poised to be destroyed." The SDP first advocated an internal market as a way to define prices within a public service ? but never to open them to private markets.

Is any SDP history remotely relevant to Labour now? Miliband and his team are struggling under the Conservative assault on all things public, branded as statist, centralising supporters of fat-cat public employees. MPs' expenses, and BBC and local authority executive pay are used to rouse popular indignation and distract the public's attention from the savagery of the cuts.

Owen points Miliband towards the social market model of the SDP, based on European social democracy, acknowledging the necessity for markets, but that markets exist for social purposes ? and capitalism can only thrive when well-regulated. He urges Miliband not to be afraid to stand up for public service and the public good. Don't shun trade unions, as Blair did. A social market needs unions ? markets working together with unions and government, as in northern Europe.

Owen's great regret is the SDP's failure to bring unions with it. Labour's electoral college with the unions needs urgent reform ? but build on union roots or risk being as un-anchored as the party was under Blair. All these seem wise words from one who can hardly be called old Labour.

Miliband needs a clean break with the recent past. But he was only 12 when the SDP had its brief firefly moment, so why bother with it now? Because Labour has lost a clear idea of itself, confused by years of third-way boxing clever, stricken with taboos about its core values. The Tories' unexpected plunge rightwards helps give Labour back its identity and purpose. Some SDP thinking ? reformist, redistributionist ? might strengthen Labour's nerve to espouse the public good against the anti-government anarchy Cameron has let loose. But no doubt old SDP politicians now so strangely inside the coalition will draw quite different historical lessons.


guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2011 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds


Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/mar/01/labour-unions-social-democracy-unions

Ban Ki-moon Henry Kissinger Dennis Kucinich Nelson Mandela Paul Martin

Foster parent ban: 'no place' in the law for Christianity, High Court rules

Senior churchmen, including Lord Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, recently began a campaign urging Christians to stand up for their rights and have petitioned the Prime Minister to review human rights laws.

In their ruling yesterday, the judges complained that it was not yet ?well understood? that British society was largely secular and that the law has no place for Christianity.

?Although historically this country is part of the Christian West, and although it has an established church which is Christian, there have been enormous changes in the social and religious life of our country over the last century,? they said.

It was a ?paradox? that society has become simultaneously both increasingly secular and increasingly diverse in religious affiliation, they said.

?We sit as secular judges serving a multicultural community of many faiths. We are sworn (we quote the judicial oath) to 'do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of this realm, without fear or favour, affection or ill will?.?

The judges acknowledged that there was a ?tension? in the case of Mr and Mrs Johns between the rights of individuals to maintain their religious beliefs and the rights of homosexual people to live free from discrimination.

However, when fostering regulations were taken into account, ?the equality provisions concerning sexual orientation should take precedence? over religious rights, they said.

Andrea Williams, from the Christian Legal Centre, which backed the Johns?s case, said the ruling ?undermines the position of the established Church? in England.

The Rt Rev Michael Nazir-Ali, the former bishop of Rochester, described the judgment as ?absurd?. He pointed out the monarch took a coronation oath promising to uphold the laws of God, while Acts of Parliament are passed with the consent of ?the Lords Spiritual?, and the Queen?s Speech finishes with a blessing from Almighty God.

?To say that this is a secular country is certainly wrong,? he said.

?However, what really worries me about this spate of judgments is that they leave no room for the conscience of believers of whatever kind. This will exclude Christians, Muslims and Orthodox Jews from whole swaths of public life, including adoption and fostering.?

Speaking personally, Canon Dr Chris Sugden, the executive secretary of Anglican Mainstream, said the judges were wrong to say religion was a matter of private individuals? beliefs.

?They are treating religion like Richard Dawkins does, as if Christian faith was on a parallel with Melanesian frog worship,? he said.

?The judgment asserts that there is no hierarchy of rights, but itself implies there is one in which the right to practise one?s religion is subordinated to the secular assumptions about equality.?



Powered By WizardRSS - Full Text RSS Feeds

Source: http://telegraph.feedsportal.com/c/32726/f/568387/s/130b5754/l/0L0Stelegraph0O0Cnews0Cnewstopics0Creligion0C83534960CFoster0Eparent0Eban0Eno0Eplace0Ein0Ethe0Elaw0Efor0EChristianity0EHigh0ECourt0Erules0Bhtml/story01.htm

George W. Bush Hillary Clinton Bill Clinton Rudy Giuliani Jimmy Carter

Un-American Revolutions

Niall Ferguson, Newsweek
Americans love a revolution. Their own great nation having been founded by a revolutionary declaration and forged by a revolutionary war, they instinctively side with revolutionaries in other lands, no matter how different their circumstances, no matter how disastrous the outcomes. This chronic reluctance to learn from history could carry a very heavy price tag if the revolutionary wave currently sweeping across North Africa and the Middle East breaks with the same shattering impact as most revolutionary waves.

Source: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/2011/02/28/un-american_revolutions_251215.html

Robert Mugabe Ralph Nader Saparmurat Niyazov Ehud Olmert Ron Paul