TOP 100 NEWSPAPER SITES
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Hugh Muir's diary We need people with convictions, says Dave. He certainly hit gold in Romford• Bizarre to reflect that, for all his agonies about "broken Britain", David Cameron seems content with things in Romford. Earlier this week we wrote of Alby Tebbutt, who visited Witham magistrates last week and left with a conviction for common assault. It was his first visit to Witham mags but not to court – Alby, the chair of Romford Conservatives, where hanging 'em and flogging 'em remains in vogue, now has three convictions. He was found to have committed actual bodily harm in 1991 and a public order offence in 2007. If Dave is cross, he hasn't yet said anything.• No denunciation from Andrew Rosindell, the MP for Romford, and a minister shadowing the Home Office. Alby, by contrast, has plenty to say. He is going to appeal, he tells us. And he was innocent. Victim of three miscarriages of justice. "You are assuming that, by being convicted, I was guilty," he says. We agree. He never wanted to be chairman anyway and admits his position is "under consideration". But it would be illogical to dump him now, he suggests, when he became chairman with two convictions under his belt just a year ago. Britain is broken, but Alby's spirit remains intact.• And it will do Lord Ashcroft no good at all if he finds that he has neutralised that business of his still-cloudy tax status, bankrolled the Tories to power, but still has the millstone of a difficult reputation. For what is power without status? Perhaps this is why the controversial Tory peer is taking steps to ensure that literate types up and down the country don't just accept the scurrilous headlines and can at least access his side of the story. The billionaire has "updated and revised" Dirty Politics, Dirty Times, his book listing grievances and allegations against the Times newspaper, which had the temerity to publish unhelpful claims about him that were later withdrawn. It is available for download, for he is a man of our times, so to speak. But not everyone has the web, and so the good Lord is also sending copies of his broadside to every chief librarian in the country. A batch went out this week with a covering letter. And they are an ungrateful bunch to be sure, these librarians, but then imagine the disappointment. A package from Lord Ashcroft arrives. No cash. No cheque.• Another day, another stinging letter to ministers from Prince Charles, and among the projects he has in mind is a revamp for London's Chinatown, "to make it more authentic". Aides want to place nine dragons at the nine entrance points to the area. But which dragon best represents the royal patron? Should it be Yazi, a valiant and bellicose dragon; or Chiwen, who likes to gaze into the distance? Jiaotu, as tight-lipped as a mussel or a snail; or Haoxian, who is reckless and adventurous? Surely Pulao – who is fond of roaring – best fits the bill. Wouldn't it look good holding a pen?• He has been King Lear and Hannibal Lecter but no one yet knows how much inspiration actor Brian Cox will draw from each as he prepares to metamorphosise again – as the departed, hounded Speaker Michael Martin. Filming for the BBC4 drama on the expenses scandal is taking place this week. Cox, reflecting at the Marrakech Film Festival, claims his fellow Scot got a raw deal, especially from those who criticised his project to redecorate the Speaker's accommodation. "When he took over the flat it was a shit hole; it had not been renovated for years," he says. "It was going to rack and ruin." The makeover man certainly dealt with that; overall cost to the taxpayer: £1.7m. Cox (pictured), as Speaker, might not excel at the Woolsack. But he would keep the place looking nice, and he would definitely be cheaper.• Finally, we have been wondering, does this Diary have a role this Christmas – a time characterised by goodwill and a generosity of spirit? No. We thought not. So let's start again on 5 January.Hugh Muirguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds guardian.co.uk |
Sudan MPs pass key referendum law Sudan's parliament passes a key law paving the way for a referendum on independence for the south, ending months of wrangling. news.bbc.co.uk |
What chance of a change for Sri Lanka? | Natalie Samarasinghe A year after my uncle's murder, the freedoms he died for have not come to pass in Sri LankaOne year ago today, my uncle Lasantha Wickrematunge – one of Sri Lanka's best-known journalists – was assassinated. For 15 years his paper, the Sunday Leader, was the strongest liberal democratic voice in the country. Despite frequent attacks on its staff and offices, it produced impartial reporting on the brutal civil war and high-level corruption, and thwarted censorship to expose human rights violations.Grimly aware of the danger he faced, Lasantha anticipated his murder in an editorial penned days before his death: a searing indictment of government tyranny and an eloquent defence of free speech. His killing marked a turning point in awareness, both internally and externally, of just how far rights had been eroded in Sri Lanka.Much has happened since his death, most importantly the defeat of the LTTE in May 2009. The end of the conflict saw callous contempt for the hundreds of thousands of civilians – predominantly Tamil – trapped by fighting. The government shelled "no-fire zones" and barred access to aid and media agencies. The LTTE ruthlessly used civilians as bargaining chips and human shields. The UN has accused both sides of war crimes.The military victory prompted scenes of jubilation, and proclamations that Sri Lanka held the key to defeating terrorism. Many believed that now the war was over, Tamil grievances would be addressed, a political system acceptable to all installed, and freedoms – necessarily curtailed in the interests of security – restored. I'm sure I'm not the only one who missed Lasantha's incisive commentary and dry wit during this time.But in many ways, not much has changed. Those civilians who survived entrapment on the battleground continued to be trapped in camps with health and sanitation facilities described as "woeful". Though more than 150,000 have now been released, the UN Refugee Agency estimates that over 100,000 remain, and organisations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have voiced concerns over the manner of returns.And it's business as usual in other areas too. There has been no real inquiry into Lasantha's death, which remains unresolved. Who perpetrated the deed and who ordered it done? The court of public opinion may have passed its sentence but justice has not been served. There is still a media ban in the north of the country and journalists continue to face harsh treatment. In September, JS Tissainayagam was sentenced to 20 years under Sri Lanka's prevention of terrorism act for writing two articles in 2006. President Obama has called Tissainayagam an "emblematic example" of an unjustly persecuted reporter.So what are the chances of change? The new year brings a presidential election on 26 January. Many are placing their hopes on President Rajapakse's main challenger, former army chief Sarath Fonseka, who is backed by an alliance of opposition parties – including the Tamil National Alliance. He has wooed supporters by promising sweeping reforms, including amnesty for the 10,000 detainees being held without charge on suspicion of LTTE involvement, and an end to the "state of emergency". Just two days ago, the Sri Lankan parliament voted to extend these draconian laws, which have been in place almost continuously since 1983, the official outbreak of hostilities with the LTTE.But just how much difference can there be between the president and one of the chief architects of his war? In the run-up to the election, both face questions in relation to the alleged shooting of surrendering LTTE rebels, unarmed and bearing flags. At this important juncture, the Sri Lankan electorate would do well to revisit Lasantha's writings.Sri LankaHuman rightsRefugeesWar crimesPress freedomUnited NationsNatalie Samarasingheguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds guardian.co.uk |
If you're disillusioned with Obama, you don't understand how he won | Gary Younge The distance between the aspirations he raised and his record a year on is the distinction between the electoral and the politicalYou've got to feel sorry for the Democratic ÂSenate leader, Harry Reid. In 1995, when it seemed Colin Powell might run for president, Powell explained his Âappeal to white voters thus: "I speak reasonably well, like a white person", and, visually, "I ain't that black".More than a decade later, Reid said almost the same thing about Barack Obama, arguing that the presidential candidate owed his success in part to his "light-skinned" appearance and the fact that he spoke "with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one".There is a crucial difference here (leaving aside that Reid has not updated his terminology since the 50s). Powell was talking about himself and is black, while Reid was referring to someone else and is not. But if the ensuing Âbrouhaha was embarrassing for Reid – on those rare occasions when Fox News finds a sliver on the high ground, it tends to take out a long mortgage and build on it – it was emblematic of a far bigger issue for Obama.Because on top of an economy in Âcollapse, two wars unravelling and plummeting approval ratings, he has what can best be described as a Â"discursive" problem.A full year after he took office, people have not found a sensible way to talk about him. One minute Jesse Jackson, in an unscripted moment, says he wants to "cut his nuts off"; the next he is crying in Chicago's Grant Park as Obama delivers his victory speech. The same people on the right who insist he is a Muslim fulminated over his pastor, ÂJeremiah Wright. When you point out that Muslims don't have pastors, they just shrug. Europeans who wish he led their country also wish their countries would pull their troops out of Afghanistan – the very war he is escalating.When it comes to Obama, it really doesn't have to make sense – it just has to connect. Those who misunderstood how Obama came to office are now struggling to understand what has Âhappened in the year since he has been in it for three main reasons.First, Obama was never a radical. He won on a decidedly middle-of-the-road Democratic platform. Beyond the Iraq war, which he opposed and she Âsupported, there was little to chose between him and Hillary Clinton in terms of their programmes. They had voted the same way in the Senate 90% of the time.True, he represents a dramatic progressive shift in direction from the previous eight years. But in almost any other western country his policies on the Middle East, gay marriage, trade and capital punishment would cast him out of polite leftwing company. Yes, there are grounds for disappointment. Bush's torture infrastructure has been left largely intact, the Iraq withdrawal has been extended by two years and the healthcare reform debate might have panned out differently had he led more decisively. But there is a world between that and accusations of betrayal and treachery. In Afghanistan in particular, the problem was that he kept his campaign pledge whereas many of us wish that he had broken it."Why as an intellectual did you believe in a God anyway," asked the ÂPalestinian intellectual Edward Said after rereading The God That Failed, a book in which six prominent ex-communists relate their disillusionment with communism. "And besides, who gave you the right to imagine that your early disbelief and later disenchantment were so important?" Those who think they have been let down by a leftwing champion must answer for their own selective hearing.What really distinguished Obama's campaign from Clinton's was its Âgrassroots energy. Which brings us to the Âsecond point. While it was a grassroots campaign, it was never a movement. That didn't mean there wasn't the possibility that it might have become one. But its sole function was to get him elected. When you pointed this out to his supporters during the election, many would become indignant. But one year on, the question is: "Where are they now?" In a handful of areas, the energy and determination of those days is still evident. But for most of this year the right has been making all the running outside of the electoral politics and forcing the administration on to the back foot. It is reasonable to argue that Obama should tack to the left. But given the range of forces he has to deal with, from Fox News to corporate lobbyists, it is not reasonable to argue that he would make that leftward journey without some pressure from outside or to expect him to organise the left opposition himself.Finally, for all his financial and organisational advantage, the fact that he ran a far better campaign, had a far more impressive running mate, was a far more charismatic candidate, and was campaigning against a party that had overseen a huge economic crisis and two unpopular wars, Obama did not win by much. In terms of the popular vote he won 53% of the vote against John McCain's 47%. True, there were 192 electoral college votes between them. But 73 of those – Florida, Ohio, North Carolina and Indiana – were won with just 51% of the vote or less.When it comes to health reform and the economic stimulus bill, Obama may reasonably be accused of timidity in Âpromoting a more progressive agenda, but only in the context of what is legislatively possible. He needs 60 votes in the Senate to get a bill passed. No 60, no bill.All of this comes by way of critique rather than criticism, and explanation as opposed to Âexcuse. Obama does not need the benefit of our doubt. He is the president of the most powerful country on the planet. He has enough benefits already. But the absence of rational discussion will lead, Âineluctably, to the absence of rational conclusions. Tomorrow being Martin Luther King day, those who want to compare him to the civil rights leader must first acknowledge that King never had to stand for election. If he did, he would certainly have lost. We are only still talking about Obama because he won. And his victory was secured with narrow margins on a mainstream agenda. One need not accept these limitations in Âorder to acknowledge their existence.What the response to his election indicated was a sizeable constituency, both at home and abroad, for a shift towards greater peace and equality than the politics that dominated the last decade. But, given the entrenched interests in the American polity, no election by itself can deliver that. The distance between the aspirations invested in him during his campaign and his record after one year is the distinction between the electoral and the political in this current period. Popular demands thwarted by institutional stasis and ideological sclerosis.These are early days. But the risk at this moment is twofold. First, that Obama ends this year with no progressive legislative victories. Second, and arguably worse, that he embraces legislation that sounds progressive but does not substantially improve people's lives. People don't want healthcare reform; they want affordable healthcare. They don't want a stimulus bill; they want jobs. The time for lofty rhetoric has long gone. The time for measured analysis has been too long coming.• This article was amended on 18 January 2010. It originally stated that there were 92 electoral college votes between Obama and McCain. There were 192. This has been corrected.Barack ObamaUS politicsGary Youngeguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds guardian.co.uk |
My costume dramas | Holly Walsh Put more thought into your fancy dress themes, people. Tarts and vicars just won't cut itNext weekend I've got to go to a fancy dress party. Which I'd quite look forward to if the theme weren't "tarts and vicars". As the daughter of a female vicar, the last thing I want to do is go to a party dressed as my mother (although this is only a matter of time. I've already found myself flicking through the Lands' End catalogue and eyeing up Ecco shoes).Don't get me wrong – I bloody love a fancy dress party. I take them very seriously. I've been known to take a sick day from work to make a costume. But this tarts and vicars thing annoys me because it's just so unoriginal. I like a party with a theme that makes demands of the imagination. A good fancy dress costume is all about lateral thinking; you have to consider the most obvious thing you could go as, and then work backwards. The best Halloween costume I've ever seen was someone who arrived in a long white tube with a little round window, and two blue lines painted across their face. They'd come as a pregnancy scare.The fancy dress challenge is more complicated for women, who must battle against any temptation to Just Make It Sexy. Look through anyone's photos and eventually you'll come across some fancy dress party where the girls are all dressed as either sexy cats or sexy devils. The theme? Presumably "half-heartedness". If sexy cats and sexy devils are the default costumes for women, the default for men is James Bond – whatever the brief.A couple of years ago I went to a party where the theme was "sea creatures". Now, you'd have thought you couldn't make "sea creatures" sexy, and you'd be right, which is why most women had come as sexy cats, lamely claiming to be catfish. I'd come as a giant king prawn. The other women looked at me like I was a dick, even though my papier-mâché shell was anatomically spot on. The men came as James Bond.Take note of the papier-mâché point here. The best fancy dress costumes are always home-made. There's something delightfully stupid about a giant Facebook page made of cardboard, with the wearer's head poking through for the profile picture. You couldn't buy it in a shop, and it probably won't last the night, but it was made especially for the occasion.Hiring an elaborate costume might look slicker, but I think it's a bit of a cop-out. Just once, I'd like to see Elton John and David Furnish throw one of their massive charity balls where all the celebrities have to make their own costumes. Imagine David and Victoria up till past midnight the night before adding the finishing touches to their cardboard robot costumes. Or Liz Hurley on the cover of Heat dressed as a wonky pirate.Of course, there are some parts of a costume that are harder to make than others, and that's where the party shop comes in. My local high street has changed radically in the last couple of years because of the recession. Supermarkets, banks and Woolworths have disappeared, but somehow the party shop has stayed open, despite the fact that most people I know only buy a pair of Austin Powers glasses once in a lifetime. I discovered something of an unlikely fancy dress mecca recently, in Galway on the west coast of Ireland. Over the course of a weekend, I found half a dozen fancy dress shops. That's a lot of pretending for one town. Presumably the low sales of Salvador Dalà moustaches are offset by the booming popularity of sexy cat ears.For the guest, fancy dress is a chance to show off. For the host, it's a test to see how much effort your friends are willing to make for you. Which is why, even though I think the theme is a bit dull, I'm going to push the boat out next weekend. It's no mere vicar for me. I'm going as the archbishop of Canterbury – complete with homemade mitre, hand-stitched vestments and a full-sized crosier. I've worn it once before – to the 2003 annual synod – and let me tell you, that was one hell of an after-party.CraftHolly Walshguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds guardian.co.uk |