Axel Weber and Mario Draghi, the two candidates who have emerged to replace Jean-Claude Trichet as ECB, could sharpen further the banks's profile as a conservative guardian of the Europe's single currency

Paper and card, food, garden waste and plastics on proposed list of items that would have to be recycled

Black bins for household waste could become a thing of the past under proposals to be published tomorrow to ban almost everything thrown away by households from being sent to landfill.

Paper and card, food, garden waste and plastics are all on a list of items that would have to be recycled, composted, or burned for energy. The move would represent a transformation in England and Wales, where about half of what people put in the bin at home or at work ends up in holes in the ground.

The announcement – to be put out for a 12-week consultation – is likely to raise fears about how difficult it will be for householders to manage their bins, and how councils might enforce the new rules, especially following claims that council officials have searched bags and fined people for mixing the wrong items.

Tonight, Hilary Benn, the environment secretary, said the ban would have both financial and environmental benefits. It would cut greenhouse gas emissions from landfill sites and from manufacturing new products such as cans and bottles from virgin materials.

It would also save councils money on the landfill tax charged for every tonne of waste, and allow them to make money from selling recycling materials. As existing landfill sites fill up, there is also a looming problem of finding new locations.

Recycling rates have increased dramatically over the last decade or so, from about 8% to more than one third, but the rate of growth has slowed in the last two years.

"We have made good progress, but we can go further," said Benn. "We're sending a lot of waste currently to landfill which really doesn't make sense, one because it's costing money because of the landfill levy, two because it produces emissions ... and three, there are people out there prepared to pay you for materials."

Bans on most items could be introduced in five years, with food waste taking longer, perhaps 10 years, said Benn, who cited the success of similar policies in Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden and Austria.

Councils appeared concerned about how a strict ban on items going to landfill could be met. While various methods are being developed to separate "dry" items such as glass or plastics, the question of who will pay and how to separate out food waste seems to be a particular worry.

"[The government] needs to think carefully about where the money to pay for a landfill ban will come from and how the ban will be policed," said Gary Porter, chairman of the Local Government Association environment board. "Councils do not want to be put in a position where they have to fine people for putting their leftovers in the wrong bin."

Under the proposal published tomorrow [THUR] , the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) will propose a ban on sending a list of common items to landfill: paper and card; food; textiles; metals; wood; garden waste; glass; plastics; and electrical and electronic equipment. Together those items represent 84% of waste collected, said the government's waste advisers, Wrap.

Earlier this week,Wrap published its biggest-ever study of what should be done with waste, following claims that households were wasting their time separating their rubbish because many items were sent to landfill, exported, or were a waste of energy to recycle. It found that in more than 80% of cases recycling was the best option, followed by incineration, and composting and anaerobic digestion.

The Conservative party has pledged to "work towards zero waste", using policies including a voluntary arrangement with producers to cut back on the production of waste and improve its disposal, setting a minimum price "floor" under the landfill tax to give businesses long term certainty to invest in new forms of waste disposal, and encouraging councils to reward families that recycle.

• Waste
• Recycling
• Incineration

Juliette Jowitguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

A WorldNetDaily article distorted a passage from a book by Rev. Jim Wallis to falsely claim that he "previously labeled the U.S. 'the great captor and destroyer of human life.' " In fact, Wallis, a member of President Obama's faith council, referred to "the powers of the world" that "demand unconditional allegiance and obedience" when he wrote that, for the Christian community, "the modern state is the great power, the great seducer, the great captor and destroyer of human life."

WND distortion: Wallis "labeled the U.S. 'the great captor and destroyer of human life' "

WND: "Obama's new controversial pastor" has "labeled the U.S. 'the great captor and destroyer of human life.' " A March 15 article on WorldNetDaily by Aaron Klein was headlined, "Not again! Meet Obama's new controversial pastor: Champion of communism, socialism called U.S. 'destroyer of human life.' " The article reported, "Rev. Jim Wallis, a member of President Obama's 'faith council' who is described as a spiritual adviser to the president, is a socialist activist who has championed communist causes and previously labeled the U.S. 'the great captor and destroyer of human life.' " Klein appeared on the March 16 edition of Radio America's The G. Gordon Liddy Show, where he asserted of Wallis, "Jeremiah Wright is back in a new form." Klein further stated, " I started looking into him earlier this week and I found out that Wallis is a socialist activist who openly champions communist causes, and he's labeled the United States, quote, 'the great captor and great destroyer of human life.' "

Wallis did not label the U.S. "the great captor and destroyer of human life"

Wallis actually wrote that "the modern state" -- not the U.S. -- "is the great power, the great seducer, the great captor and destroyer of human life." Contrary to WorldNetDaily's distortion of his book, Wallis did not label the United States "the great captor and destroyer of human life." From Pages 72-73 of Wallis' 1976 book Agenda for Biblical People:

When the powers of the world demand unconditional allegiance and obedience that assumes human beings should assign them ultimate value, then the worship of God and the assigning of ultimate value of God's kingdom becomes a radical act, a political threat. In fact, worship is where the vitality of the life of the Christian community is most clearly manifest and where the claims and purposes of the idolatrous powers are most clearly threatened. This is contrary to the political "use" and therefore abuse of worship which is so common to ideological religion. Rather, it is the simple, joyous, purely offered worship and praise of God who alone is the source, author, and giver of life that is the single greatest threat to the powers which worship and serve death. Biblically understood, the worship of God is to be the definition of our lives. Worship is not to be conceived as mere ritual and ceremony apart from ethics, politics, and other parts of life. Instead, worship and praise become the style of life for the gathered community living in faithful obedience to the Word of God in the midst of the blasphemy of the fallen powers [emphasis in original].

The Christian community must always be asking which of the powers are now most aggressively seeking to bring human life under their control. Discernment is the spiritual gift employed to understand where and how a particular power is on the offensive in the effort to impose conformity and slavery upon the lives of men and women. For us, the modern state is the great power, the great seducer, the great captor and destroyer of human life, the great master of humanity and history in its totalitarian claims and designs. The state as a power or principality has subsumed and subordinated even other powers of nation, tradition, racial and ethnic cultures, common and constitutional law, local community institutions and groupings, the media, information, education, religion, the professions, movements and causes, the economic system -- other principalities which would rival and compete with the state and, perhaps, inadvertently limit its power in benefit of human life.

Right-wing witch hunt turns to Wallis

WND paints Wallis as a "controversial" figure who is connected to "radicals." As Media Matters for America noted, the right-wing witch hunt against Obama's advisers has turned to Wallis, a member of the president's faith council who has worked with numerous conservative and mainstream religious leaders. The WorldNetDaily article uses a series of falsehoods and distortions to portray Wallis as "Obama's new controversial pastor" and a "champion of communism" whose magazine "has published a slew of radicals."

Conservative media figures and outlets have falsely claimed a New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) survey found that 46 percent of primary care physicians would consider leaving their profession if Democrats' health care reform bill passes. In fact, NEJM says that the 3-month-old email "survey" was not published in or conducted by NEJM.

NEJM spokeswoman confirms: Survey has nothing to do with the "original research" published in The New England Journal of Medicine

Media Matters for America contacted The New England Journal of Medicine and received confirmation from spokesperson Jennifer Zeis that the study had "nothing to do with the New England Journal of Medicine's original research." Zeis also made clear that the study "was not published by the New England Journal of Medicine."

The Medicus Firm, a medical recruitment firm, conducted the survey

The Medicus Firm conducted the survey in December 2009. The Medicus Firm, a Dallas- and Atlanta-based firm that recruits and places physicians in jobs, was responsible for conducting the survey. It issued a press release about the results on December 17, 2009.

Article actually appeared in employment newsletter. The report appeared in Recruiting Physicians Today, an employment newsletter produced by Massachusetts Medical Society, "the publishers of the New England Journal of Medicine." The report also appeared on the NEJM "CareerCenter" website, but was taken down on March 17. Zeis also said that this article "was written by The Medicus Firm." Both versions of the write-up clearly indicate that the source for the survey is The Medicus Firm and provide contact information for its media relations department.

NEJM CareerCenter website: "Recruiting Physicians Today is a free advertiser newsletter," and the survey report represents opinions "of The Medicus Firm only." The report written by The Medicus Firm about its survey appeared on the NEJM CareerCenter website, which "offers a full suite of physician job searching tools," and "provides physician-employment articles in the resource center, offering helpful articles on physician careers, physician job-hunting tips, physician employment trends and more." The report was taken down from the CareerCenter on March 17 and replaced with the following message:

Recruiting Physicians Today is a free advertiser newsletter published by the Worldwide Advertising Sales and Marketing Department in the publishing division of the Massachusetts Medical Society. Each issue of the newsletter features research and content produced by physician recruiting firms and other independent groups involved in physician employment.

On December 17, 2009 The Medicus Firm, a national physician search firm based in Dallas and Atlanta, published the results of a survey they conducted with 1,000 physicians regarding their attitudes toward health reform. To read their survey results at The Medicus Firm website, click here.

The opinions expressed in the article linked to above represent those of The Medicus Firm only. That article does not represent the opinions of the New England Journal of Medicine or the Massachusetts Medical Society.

Methodology involved emailing doctors in The Medicus Firm's database. The NEJM CareerCenter article indicated that "[t]he survey sample was randomly selected from a physician database of thousands. The database has been built over the past eight years by The Medicus Firm (formerly Medicus Partners and The MD Firm) from a variety of sources including, but not limited to, public directories, purchased lists, practice inquiries, training programs, and direct mail responses. The survey was conducted via emails sent directly to physicians."

In "survey" write-up, physician recruitment firm touted the importance of physician recruitment firms "[a]fter health reform is passed and implemented." After discussing the results of its "survey," the article added:

What does this mean for physician recruiting? It's difficult to predict with absolute certainty, but one consequence is inevitable. After health reform is passed and implemented, physicians will be more in demand than ever before. Shortages could be exacerbated further beyond the predictions of industry analysts. Therefore, the strongest physician recruiters and firms will be in demand. Additionally, hospitals and practices may be forced to rely on unprecedented recruitment methods to attract and retain physicians. "Health reform, even if it's passed in a most diluted form, could be a game-changer for physician recruitment," said Bob Collins, managing partner of The Medicus Firm in Texas. "As competitive as the market is now, we may not even be able to comprehend how challenging it will become after health reform takes effect."

Media falsely attribute survey to The New England Journal of Medicine

Bill O'Reilly: Survey was "published by The New England Journal of Medicine, a prestigious magazine." On the March 16 edition of his Fox News show, Bill O'Reilly said, "A new survey published by The New England Journal of Medicine, a prestigious magazine, says that nearly half of primary care doctors in America could leave the medical profession if Obamacare is passed." After citing statistics from The Medicus Firm survey, O'Reilly said, "I believe the study in The New England Journal of Medicine, because I've talked to enough doctors myself to know there's no great enthusiasm for Obamacare in the medical community, even here in liberal New York City."

Kilmeade: NEJM "published a report and did a survey" that found doctors "feel reform will force them out." On the March 17 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, co-host Brian Kilmeade said: "Well, if this does in fact pass, no matter how it does pass, what would it mean for the medical profession, those who spend so much money, oftentimes go way in debt, just to be doctors for you, not to be rich. You don't do the -- you don't become a doctor to be rich, you know, now especially. How do they feel about it? Well, The New England Journal of Medicine has published a report and did a survey, and they said the impact of reform on primary care physicians, 46 percent, they say, feel reform will force them out or make them want to leave medicine."

HotAir.com: NEJM "polled health-care providers." On HotAir.com, blogger Ed Morrissey wrote: "And you thought wait times were long now. The New England Journal of Medicine, hardly a bastion of conservative thought, polled health-care providers to determine their reaction to ObamaCare, and discovered that it has many doctors looking for the exits. Almost half of all general-practice doctors would feel compelled to leave medicine altogether if it passes."

Hannity guest attributes study to NEJM. On the March 16 edition of his Fox News show, Sean Hannity asked Milton Wolf, a radiologist who says he is President Obama's second cousin, "Will this plan that they're now pushing, and I think in a very corrupt way, do you believe this will harm and -- if you believe so, how greatly will it harm our health care system?" Wolf replied: "We just learned from The New England Journal of Medicine that a significant percentage of doctors would consider leaving -- seriously consider leaving the profession if this went through. We will actually have less providers if this went through to try to take on these extra burdens, and there would be no choice but to ration care. They've already built it into this plan."

Marc Siegel: "A new study in The New England Journal of Medicine says that one-third of physicians would consider quitting or retiring early if this goes through." On the March 16 edition of Fox News' Your World, Fox News contributor Dr. Marc Siegel stated: "First of all, the [American Medical Association] is a bureaucratic organization that doesn't represent practicing doctors. A new study in The New England Journal of Medicine says that one-third of physicians would consider quitting or retiring early if this goes through."

Unless you've bee living under a rock lately, you've heard about the Citizens United decision by the Supreme Court, which reiterated corporate personhood in certain circumstances -- specifically with regards to political campaign funding -- effectively freeing up companies to spend as much money as they wanted to support (or not support) political candidates. The ruling was quite controversial, and it's not at all surprising that a Facebook group popped up with the creative name "Citizens United Against Citizens United." Turns out that the Citizens United organization was none too happy about the criticism. Paul Alan Levy alerts us to the news that the new bastion of "free speech" is claiming that the Facebook group violates its trademark and is demanding the destruction of all documents bearing its mark. Although we haven't seen this issue litigated in the context of Facebook, Citizens United's demand flies in the face of the many decisions holding that an Internet gripe site (or fan site) may use the trademark of the subject of the discussion as its domain name. Under Lamparello v. Falwell, 420 F.3d 309 (4th Cir. 2005), that's even the rule in the Fourth Circuit, where Citizens United is located. How can they possibly hope to win a case like that?

Wisconsin Democracy Campaign's argument would seem to be even stronger, because it is using "Citizens United" in its descriptive sense, and not as a mark. It seems doubtful that Citizens United the conservative group can prevent a group of citizens who are united to support or oppose a particular proposition from referring to their effort as Citizens United For X or Citizens United Against Y. (Otherwise, many groups that would have to change their names). It is especially hard to understand how any confusion about source could be expected to result from labeling a campaign "Citizens United Against Citizens United."

Interestingly, Citizens United asks Wisconsin Democracy Campaign to destroy all documents bearing the Citizens United trademark. If that demand were extended to the Supreme Court, could it succeed in wiping the Citizens United decision off the books?

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

In a blog post, Center for Immigration Studies executive director Mark Krikorian advised respondents to the 2010 Census to avoid disclosing their ethnicity by selecting "[s]ome other race" and writing in "American." Other conservative bloggers and radio hosts have followed suit, mounting a campaign to thwart the Census' efforts to gather information on the topic, which the Census says is needed to enforce federal laws.

Krikorian encourages people to "[p]ass it on"; other bloggers comply

Krikorian pushes "a way for ordinary citizens to express their rejection of unconstitutional racial classification schemes." From Krikorian's March 8 3/7/10]

MPs from the UK’s three leading political parties will field questions from the videogames industry during a Q&A session on March 29.

Tom Watson MP will represent the Labour Party, while Ed Vaizey MP and Don Foster MP will attend for the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrats respectively.

The pre-election event will be held at BAFTA in London and be hosted by the Entertainment and Leisure Software Publishers Association.

read more

President Makes Relatively Safe Picks in Both Men's and Women's Brackets; Full Bracket to be Unveiled Later Today

 

Steven Monjeza and Tiwonge Chimbalanga, the gay couple jailed since January in Malawi for daring to hold an engagement ceremony, will learn their fate on Monday.

The AP reports that religious leaders met this week to discuss homosexuality ahead of the verdict:

"Church leaders say they have met in this fiercely conservative southern African nation to 'understand the phenomenon' of same sex partners days ahead of a court verdict that could send two gay men to jail for up to 14 years. Bishop Joseph Bvumbwe, head of the Malawi Council of Churches, says the leaders gathered Wednesday in the southern town of Mangochi to discuss homosexuality as an issue 'most Malawians do not understand.'"

Amnesty International has adopted Monjeza and Chimbalanga as "prisoners of conscience" ahead of the verdict: "LGBT human rights group, OutRage!. The group's campaign coordinator, Tatchell, has written to the Director of Amnesty International UK, Kate Allen. The group coordinator Peter Tatchell letter to Ms Allen reads in part: 'We urge Amnesty International to adopt Steven Monjeza and Tiwonge Chimbalanga as Prisoners of Conscience...Everyone is very appreciative of the statement that Amnesty has already issued, which deplores the men's arrest and calls for their release. We are now hoping that Amnesty will go one step further and recognise them as Prisoners of Conscience.'"

You can join in Amnesty's campaign to the Malawi government here.

You can also send letters of support directly to the couple.

Media reports have repeatedly clouded the health care reform debate by uncritically reporting on false claims that the Senate health care bill provides federal funding for abortion beyond the limited cases allowed by current law: rape, incest, and conditions that endanger the life of the pregnant woman.

Senate bill does not allow federal funding for abortion in cases other than rape, incest, and danger to the life of the mother

Senate bill forbids use of federal subsidies for abortion services except in cases allowed by the Hyde amendment. The health care reform bill passed by the Senate states that if a "qualified health plan" offered under the health insurance exchange provides coverage of abortion services for which public funding is banned, "the issuer of the plan shall not use any amount attributable" to the federal subsidies created under the bill "for purposes of paying for such services." Public funding is currently banned by the Hyde amendment for all abortions except in cases of rape, incest, or if the life of the pregnant woman is in danger.

Senate bill requires insurance plans that cover abortion to segregate funds to ensure that federal funds are not used to pay for abortions. The Senate bill requires issuers to "collect from each enrollee" in plans that cover abortions a "separate payment" for "an amount equal to the actuarial value of the coverage of" abortion services. All such funds are deposited into a separate account used by the issuer to pay for abortion services; federal funds and the remaining premium payments are used to pay for all other services. Additionally, as Slate.com's Timothy Noah noted, the Senate bill requires that "every insurance exchange must offer at least one abortion-free health plan," so people who do not want to pay the "fee" "can simply choose a different health plan offered through the exchange, one that doesn't cover abortions."

Current law permits abortion coverage through Medicaid so long as funds are segregated. According to a November 1, 2009, study by the Guttmacher Institute, 17 states provide coverage under Medicaid for "all or most medically necessary abortions," not just abortions in cases of life endangerment, rape, and incest. Those states "us[e] their own funds" -- not federal funds -- "to pay" for the procedures. Therefore, in 17 states, Medicaid, a federally subsidized health care program, covers abortions in circumstances in which federal money is prohibited from being spent on abortion.

ABC World News "Truth Squad": "[T]he bill makes it clear there can be no federal money for abortion." On March 4, The ABC World News "Truth Squad" investigated Stupak's claim that "the federal government will directly subsidize abortions" in the Senate bill and found "the bill makes it clear there can be no federal money for abortion."

Mainstream media fail to report fact that bill bans federal funding for most abortions

Wash. Post reports: "Antiabortion Democrats say it would permit federal funding for abortion." A March 16 Washington Post article reported that "House leaders have worked for days to round up support for the legislation, but the Senate measure has drawn fierce opposition from a broad spectrum of members. Antiabortion Democrats say it would permit federal funding for abortion, liberals oppose its tax on high-cost insurance plans, and Republicans say the measure overreaches and is too expensive." However the Post article did not note that the bill's abortion restrictions are consistent with the current law, which forbids federal funding for abortion in most cases.

AP: Some Dems "won't support the legislation without a prohibition on paying for abortions with federal money." On March 11, The Associated Press reported that a "dozen socially conservative Democrats say they won't support the legislation without a prohibition on paying for abortions with federal money. [Rep. Bart] Stupak [D-PA] wrote a provision to their liking for a House bill approved last November, but the Senate replaced it with wording he considers unacceptable." However, the AP did not note that the Senate bill does not allow federal funding for abortion.

NPR cast debate as he-said, she-said without reporting that Senate bill doesn't allow for federal funding of abortion beyond current law. In a March 12 All Things Considered story headlined, "Abortion Language Still Sticking Point For Health Bill," NPR health policy correspondent Julie Rovner reported on Stupak's claim that the Senate bill uses federal tax subsidies for abortion coverage, followed by Rep. Jan Schakowsky's (D-IL) statement that "[i]t does not":

Abortion opponents, led in the House by Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., say the Senate bill would loosen current restrictions on abortion funding. He cites specific language on specific pages, "which basically says that your federal tax subsidies can be used to pay for abortion coverage. That's contrary to current federal law."

For example, Stupak says, the language gives federal officials discretion to allow abortion funding in the future. And Stupak says he has as many as a dozen other Democrats who oppose abortion-rights who won't vote for the Senate bill unless their concerns are addressed.

But abortion-rights supporters, like Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., say Stupak's interpretation is simply wrong.

"I don't know why he persists in saying that somehow the Senate bill allows for federal funding of abortion," Schakowsky says. "It does not."

However, Rovner did not report that Schakowsky was correct in stating that the Senate bill "does not" allow for federal funding of abortion, except in cases allowed by current law.

NY Times blog uncriticially reported Stupak's suggestion that the Senate bill does not "keep current law." In a post on The New York Times' Prescriptions blog, David Herszenhorn reported Stupak's suggestion that the Senate bill does not keep current law, writing: "Mr. Stupak said he would continue to fight for tighter abortion restrictions in the health insurance legislation." Herszenhorn then quoted Stupak saying: "My intent is not to hold up this legislation. ... My intent is to keep current law. Eight different pieces of legislation currently say no public funding for abortion. That's all we're saying. No public funding for abortion." However Herszenhorn did not note that the Senate bill does indeed maintain current law.

NBC's Gregory falsely suggested "there's ... federal money paying for abortions." On the March 7 edition of NBC's Meet the Press, host David Gregory aired video of Stupak stating that the Senate bill "says you must offer insurance policies that will be paid for by the federal government that covers abortion." Gregory then asked Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius: "Will you make the fix that he's talking about so there is no federal money paying for abortions?" As Sebelius noted, "there is no federal money paying for abortions."

Conservative media have repeatedly advanced falsehood about federal funding for abortion

Fox's Cameron: Senate health bill "does not contain any legislative ban on using tax dollars for abortion services." On the March 5 edition of Fox News' Special Report -- one of Fox's self-described "news programs" -- Cameron falsely asserted that the Senate bill "does not contain any legislative ban on using tax dollars for abortion services." He went on say that some Democrats "oppose the Senate bill because it lacks a ban on tax dollars for abortion services."

Van Susteren let McCain falsely claim that "federal funding would be involved in performing of abortions." On her March 5 Fox News show, Greta Van Susteren let Sen. John McCain falsely claim that passing the Senate bill "really would be the first time, since the Hyde amendment many years ago, that federal funding would be involved in the performing of abortions, and most Americans I think resoundingly reject that." Van Susteren also let Stupak falsely claim that his amendment does not go beyond the current law as defined in the Hyde amendment.

Rove: Senate bill contains "abortion funding language." In a March 11 Wall Street Journal editorial, Fox News contributor Karl Rove falsely suggested the Senate bill allows for federal funding of abortion. Rove wrote: "Pro-life House Democrats are deeply disturbed by the Senate abortion-funding language."

Fox's Doocy falsely suggested Senate bill allows for federal "funding of abortion." On the March 15 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, co-host Steve Doocy falsely suggested that the Senate health bill contains "language that does allow for" federal funding for abortion beyond what is currently allowed under the Hyde Amendment.

Fox News' Johnson: Senate health bill includes "federal funding of abortion." On the March 2 edition of Fox & Friends, Fox News' Peter Johnson Jr. claimed the Senate health bill allows "federal funding of abortion.

Rush Limbaugh: Health care reform "hinges on" deciding by Easter whether U.S. "will pay for the killing of babies." Limbaugh announced on his March 4 radio show that he found "some irony" in the idea that health care reform "all hinges on whether the federal government will pay for the killing of babies or not -- deciding that by Easter."

Conservative media figures have recently claimed that the use of a legislative procedure called a "self-executing rule" to pass health care reform in the House is unconstitutional. However, Yale law professor Jack Balkin has explained that the procedure in question would pass constitutional muster; additionally, federal appeals courts have recently held that the constitutional requirement that both houses pass a bill has been met when the House speaker and Senate president attest the bill has passed.

Right-wing media claim Dems are "slaughtering the Constitution" with rule

Beck: "How is this even constitutional?" Discussing the "Slaughter rule" on the March 16 edition of his show, Beck asked: "How is this even constitutional?" Beck similarly wrote in his newsletter that Democrats are "slaughtering the Constitution" and that "the Constitution is being thwarted" if the health care reform legislation passes using the self-executing rule.

BigGovernment: Congress is "violating the Constitution" with Slaughter rule. A March 11 post on Andrew Breitbart's BigGovernment website stated that the "Slaughter Solution has one very large obstacle -- the Constitution Article I, Section 7," and that "if this Congress continues down this path of violating the Constitution, the 'people' will have a viable case, class-action or otherwise, in the US courts because it is going to be extremely difficult for a judge to ignore that the 111th Democrat-Progressive led Congress violated Article I, Section 7 to the most obscene extent."

Jim Hoft: "Democrats will use the unconstitutional 'Slaughter Rule.' " In a March 14 post on his Gateway Pundit blog, Jim Hoft wrote: "Democratic leader Rep. Chris Van Hollen admitted today on FOX News Sunday that democrats will use the unconstitutional 'Slaughter Rule' to ram their pro-abortion nationalized health care bill through Congress. Democrats announced this tactic last week. They will pass the bill without voting on it. They will take over one-sixth of the US economy without even voting on it."

Hot Air: House is using self-executing rule "for the first time in U.S. history." A March 14 Hot Air blog post stated: "We're hours away from Slaughter revealing the strategy and Democrats have no other mechanism to pass a bill other than using an extra-Constitutional procedure. They don't have the votes to pass the Senate Bill, so they are -- for the first time in U.S. history -- about to rule that they actually passed a bill they never voted on."

Malkin calls Rep. Slaughter a "Constitution-butcher." On March 13, Fox News contributor Michelle Malkin displayed the following graphic on her website under the headline, "Constitution Butchers: Stop Pelosi's Slaughter House":

Legal scholar Balkin debunks claim that rule is unconstitutional

Yale Law professor Balkin: Self-executing rule is constitutional if done properly. In a March 15 post on his Balkinization blog, Balkin wrote:

[T]here is a way that "deem and pass" could be done constitutionally. There have to be two separate bills signed by the President: the first one is the original Senate bill, and the second one is the reconciliation bill. The House must pass the Senate bill and it must also pass the reconciliation bill. The House may do this on a single vote if the special rule that accompanies the reconciliation bill says that by passing the reconciliation bill the House agrees to pass the same text of the same bill that the Senate has passed. That is to say, the language of the special rule that accompanies the reconciliation bill must make the House take political responsibility for passing the same language as the Senate bill. The House must say that the House has consented to accept the text of the Senate bill as its own political act. At that point the President can sign the two bills, and it does not matter that the House has passed both through a special rule. Under Article I, section 5 of the Constitution, the House can determine its own rules for passing legislation. There are plenty of precedents for passing legislation by reference through a special rule.

Federal appeals courts recently decided that constitutional requirement is satisfied when Speaker and Senate president attest that identical language passed both houses. In Public Citizen v. U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit held that if both the House speaker and the Senate president attest that identical bills have passed both houses of Congress, the courts must accept that the constitutional requirement has been satisfied. (Malkin and other conservatives have pointed to the Public Citizen case to falsely accuse Democrats of hypocrisy.) From the decision (which quoted from the Supreme Court case, Marshall Field et al. v. Clark):

The Court crafted a clear rule: "[I]t is not competent for [a party raising a bicameralism challenge] to show, from the journals of either house, from the reports of committees or from other documents printed by authority of Congress, that [an] enrolled bill" differs from that actually passed by Congress. Id. at 680, 12 S.Ct. 495. The only "evidence upon which a court may act when the issue is made as to whether a bill ... asserted to have become a law, was or was not passed by Congress" is an enrolled act attested to by declaration of "the two houses, through their presiding officers." Id. at 670, 672, 12 S.Ct. 495. An enrolled bill, "thus attested," "is conclusive evidence that it was passed by Congress." Id. at 672-73, 12 S.Ct. 495. "[T]he enrollment itself is the record, which is conclusive as to what the statute is ..." Id. at 675, 12 S.Ct. 495. [alterations in the original]

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit agreed with the D.C. Circuit in OneSimpleLoan v. Secretary of Education.

Ornstein: Conservative complaints of rule is "hypocrisy," "disinformation"

Congressional scholar Ornstein: Conservative criticism of self-executing rule is "hypocrisy," "feigned indignation," and "disinformation." From a post by Norman Ornstein on the American Enterprise Institute's blog, The Enterprise, titled, "Hypocrisy: A Parliamentary Procedure":

Any veteran observer of Congress is used to the rampant hypocrisy over the use of parliamentary procedures that shifts totally from one side to the other as a majority moves to minority status, and vice versa. But I can't recall a level of feigned indignation nearly as great as what we are seeing now from congressional Republicans and their acolytes at the Wall Street Journal, and on blogs, talk radio, and cable news. It reached a ridiculous level of misinformation and disinformation over the use of reconciliation, and now threatens to top that level over the projected use of a self-executing rule by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. In the last Congress that Republicans controlled, from 2005 to 2006, Rules Committee Chairman David Dreier used the self-executing rule more than 35 times, and was no stranger to the concept of "deem and pass." That strategy, then decried by the House Democrats who are now using it, and now being called unconstitutional by WSJ editorialists, was defended by House Republicans in court (and upheld). Dreier used it for a $40 billion deficit reduction package so that his fellow GOPers could avoid an embarrassing vote on immigration.

Washington Post media critic Howard Kurtz recently reported that some "Fox journalists" believe that colleague Glenn Beck "uses distorted or inflammatory rhetoric that undermines their credibility." Nevertheless, Fox News' reporters and "news" programs have routinely promoted and echoed Beck on stories such as the 9-12 Project, tea party protests, ACORN and former White House officials Van Jones and Anita Dunn.

Kurtz: Some "Fox journalists" worried Beck "undermines their credibility"

From Kurtz's March 15 Washington Post column:

In just over a year, Glenn Beck's blinding burst of stardom has often seemed to overshadow the rest of Fox News.

And that may not be a good thing for the top-rated cable news channel, as many of its staffers are acutely aware.

With his celebrity fueled by a Time cover story, best-selling books, cheerleading role at protest rallies and steady stream of divisive remarks, Beck is drawing big ratings. But there is a deep split within Fox between those -- led by Chairman Roger Ailes -- who are supportive, and many journalists who are worried about the prospect that Beck is becoming the face of the network.

By calling President Obama a racist and branding progressivism a "cancer," Beck has achieved a lightning-rod status that is unusual even for the network owned by Rupert Murdoch. And that, in turn, has complicated the channel's efforts to neutralize White House criticism that Fox is not really a news organization. Beck has become a constant topic of conversation among Fox journalists, some of whom say they believe he uses distorted or inflammatory rhetoric that undermines their credibility.

[...]

Friction between opinionated cable personalities and journalists has also flared occasionally at MSNBC. But Beck has caused such anguish at Fox that some of its journalists celebrated the failure of last week's interview with embattled ex-congressman Eric Massa, which Beck pronounced a waste of time.

[...]

One thing is beyond debate: Beck provides a strong lead-in for the network's evening lineup. "The significance of Beck to Fox's bottom line cannot be underestimated," says Tyndall, the industry analyst. "Getting an audience that size at 5 p.m. is absolutely unheard of."

But that growth has come at a price, at least for those at Fox who believe that Beck is beginning to define their brand. Glenn Beck is a media phenomenon married to a phenomenally successful network, but away from the cameras, theirs is a troubled relationship.

The New York Times reported on October 11, 2009, that Fox News claims its news hours are objective and defined as "9 a.m. to 4 p.m. and 6 to 8 p.m. on weekdays." Those weekday hours include America's Newsroom, Happening Now, America Live, Studio B, Special Report, and The Fox Report. America Live replaced Live Desk in early 2010.

"News" division takes cues from Beck on ACORN tapes

Beck brings ACORN videos to Fox. On the September 9, 2009, edition of his Fox News program, Beck previewed an "exclusive" that would air on his program the next day, which he claimed would make "things change a lot for those in power." Beck later aired snippets of a video from James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles in which they entered the Baltimore office of ACORN. Beck suggested the video was the "exclusive stuff" that he predicted the media would be "talking about" instead of health care. On September 10, Beck interviewed Giles and credited Andrew Breitbart with starting the story. On September 15, Beck again hosted O'Keefe for a "one-hour special." Beck continued pushing subsequent ACORN videos from O'Keefe and Giles in the following months. Investigations later found significant problems with the ACORN tapes and cleared ACORN of criminal wrongdoing.

Fox "news" programs follow Beck's lead, seize on ACORN videos. Following Beck's "exclusive" preview, on September 10, 2009, through 7 p.m., Fox News dedicated at least 17 segments to the ACORN video. Fox "news" programs covering the video included: America's Newsroom; Happening Now; Live Desk; and Special Report.

Fox "news" programs hype Beck-promoted San Bernardino ACORN tapes. On September 15 and 16, 2009, Fox "news" programs devoted significant programming to O'Keefe and Giles' video of their interactions with an ACORN worker in San Bernardino, CA, who claimed that she murdered her husband and gave advice on how to run a brothel. The worker stated after the video was released that she hadn't murdered her husband -- which was confirmed by police -- and was attempting to "shock them as much as they were shocking me." Live Desk teased the video, with co-host Martha MacCallum stating: "We can now tell you that you are going to see yet another big development in the ACORN story. Another tape is expected to come out tonight after 5 p.m." -- a reference to Glenn Beck's program. At 5 p.m., Beck devoted a "special program" to the San Bernardino video. Following Beck, Special Report and America's Newsroom ran reports on the video.

Fox News Sunday devoted 18 minutes, over two consecutive broadcasts, to ACORN controversy. In September, Fox News Sunday devoted a total of 18 minutes of programming time on two consecutive broadcasts to covering the ACORN tapes. During his September 20 broadcast, host Chris Wallace conducted an interview with ACORN CEO Bertha Lewis and Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) to discuss the story. During the September 27 broadcast of the program, Wallace aired a segment on O'Keefe, in which he advanced several of O'Keefe's claims without noting that they are contradicted by readily available evidence and labeled O'Keefe the "Power Player of the Week."

"News" division follows Beck's lead on bogus Dunn controversy

Beck pushed concocted story that Dunn "worships" and "revere[s]" Mao Zedong. Throughout his October 15, 2009, program, Beck claimed that then-White House communications director Anita Dunn "worships" and "idolizes" "her hero" Mao Zedong. As evidence, Beck aired a video in which Dunn cited two of her "favorite political philosophers," Mao Zedong and Mother Teresa during a speech to high school graduates. However, Dunn offered no endorsement of Mao's ideology or actions -- rather, she spoke of Mao and Mother Teresa as two of her favorite "political philosophers," and based on short quotes from them, she offered the advice that "you don't have to follow other people's choices and paths" or "let external definition define how good you are internally." Indeed, admiration" for Mao and that President Obama has "surrounded himself with Mao supporters."

Special Report followed Beck's lead in highlighting Dunn's "Mao" comments. On October 19, 2009, Fox News' Special Report aired a truncated clip of Dunn's Mao quote, and Fox News contributor Brit Hume responded: "Well, she also said that this is the two people she turns to most. This doesn't sound like it was a one-off attempt to make a joke and imitate the Republican strategist Lee Atwater."

"News" division follows Beck's campaign against Van Jones

Beck led the charge against Van Jones. Beck repeatedly attacked then-White House green jobs adviser Van Jones. Beck has falsely accused Van Jones of being a "convicted felon," misleadingly stated that Jones' place in the Obama administration "says that the president has an agenda that is radical, revolutionary, and in some cases, Marxist." A September 6, 2009, New York Times article stated that "[c]hief among those keeping the story alive was Glenn Beck, the conservative host of a Fox News Channel program. Mr. Beck began criticizing Mr. Jones in July, first in segments on his syndicated talk radio show and then, on July 23, on his Fox News program, said Christopher Balfe, the president of Mr. Beck's production company."

"News" division picks up Jones "controversy." On September 3, 2009, America's Newsroom, Live Desk, and Special Report ran segments on the "controversy" over Jones. Fox News dispatched at least two reporters, Molly Henneberg and James Rosen, to the Van Jones story. For instance, America's Newsroom's Megyn Kelly said Jones has a "somewhat radical and sometimes racially-charged past," and asked Henneberg if Jones "described himself as a communist." Kelly further wondered how Jones became a "czar." From America's Newsroom:

Live Desk covered Jones' past remarks with Rosen and promoted the results of a non-scientific poll finding that 97 percent of Fox News viewers aren't "satisfied with Van Jones' apology" for past remarks:

On Special Report, host Bret Baier introduced a report by Rosen by stating that there's a "troubling pattern of behavior by one of the president's top advisers [Jones]" and later concluded, "We'll see if the national hoo-rah develops" over Jones.

Van Jones resigns; Beck and Fox "stories" receive credit. On September 6, 2009, Jones resigned, citing that he "cannot in good conscience ask my colleagues to expend precious time and energy defending or explaining my past." The Huffington Post's Ryan Grim noted that "[b]efore Beck mentioned Jones in the last few weeks on his Fox News television show, Jones remained an obscure figure in the administration. After Beck mentioned him, protesters at town hall meetings made Jones a staple of their complaints." In an October 28, 2009, speech (retrieved from the Congressional Record) on the House floor, Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) said: "Fox reports the stories that the national media ignore. For example, without Fox News, you might not have heard about the recent ACORN scandal. You might not have heard about the troubling political associations of the President's former green jobs czar, which eventually led to his resignation."

Wallace: It is "certainly the case that Van Jones had a history as a radical, as a self-professed communist." In a panel discussion about Jones' resignation on the September 6, 2009, edition of Fox News Sunday, Wallace stated that "it certainly is the case that Van Jones had a history as a radical, as a self-professed communist, and also, the fact that is -- that he signed a 2004 petition suggesting that there be an investigation of whether or not the government had a role in 9/11."

News division continues to track Jones post-resignation. Fox News' Special Report has continued to discuss Van Jones despite his White House resignation. Since Jones' resignation, according to Nexis, Special Report has mentioned Van Jones on February 25, February 24, October 19, October 6, September 28, September 16, and September 10.

"News" division promotes Beck's 9-12 special and rally

Beck started conservative 9-12 Project, whose members helped organize 9-12 protests. On March 13, 2009, during his "You Are Not Alone" special, Beck announced the launch of his 9-12 Project, whose members helped organize and turn out participants to a protest on September 12, 2009. Beck routinely implored his audience to attend the Washington, D.C. rally on his Fox News show. Beck then aired a special edition of his television show live from 1 to 3 p.m. ET on Fox News on September 12.

Happening Now promotes Beck's original 9-12 Project special. On March 13, 2009, Happening Now hosted Beck to promote his special. From Happening Now:

Live Desk promotes Beck's original special as "the place to be." On the March 13, 2009, edition of Live Desk, co-host Trace Gallagher started a countdown to Beck's special and said Beck's show is "gathering steam across the country." Co-host Martha MacCallum added that Beck's special is "the place to be this Friday night." Gallagher said that Beck's first principle is "America is good and we seemed to have forgotten that." Gallagher interviewed Beck live outside Fox News' offices while he and Fox News graphics repeatedly promoted the special:

Wallace: "I'm a big Glenn Beck fan." On the March 13, 2009, edition of Fox News' Studio B, while discussing Beck's special, Wallace said he sensed that Fox News host Shepard Smith was "begrudging" Glenn Beck and that he himself is a "big Glenn Beck fan" and is "on the Glenn Beck bandwagon."

Fox News heavily promoted the Beck-fueled 9-12 rally. Fox News heavily promoted the 9-12 Tea Party rally and the Tea Party Express tour, whose last stop was on September 12 in Washington. For instance, during the August 23, 2009, edition of America's News HQ, host and reporter Shannon Bream said, "We want to let folks know" the Tea Party Express' schedule so "they can be a part" of the events. And on August 28, 2009, Fox News dispatched reporters Griff Jenkins and William La Jeunesse to the Tea Party Express kickoff in Sacramento, California. Jenkins also reported from the 9-12 rally for Beck's special; a Fox News producer was caught encouraging the crowd to cheer during Jenkins' report.

"News" division heavily promotes April 15 Tea Parties -- featuring Glenn Beck

Beck promotes, hosts a "FNC Tax Day" Tea Party. While discussing the April 15, 2009, Tea Party protests on his April 6, 2009, program, Glenn Beck suggested that viewers could "[c]elebrate with Fox News" by either attending a protest or watching it on Fox News. Beck stated that in addition to himself, hosts Neil Cavuto, Greta Van Susteren, and Sean Hannity would be "live" at different protests. While Beck spoke, on-screen text labeled those protests as "FNC Tax Day Tea Parties." In the lead-up to April 15, Beck repeatedly promoted the tea parties and urged viewers to attend them.

Like Beck, Fox "news" programs repeatedly urged attendance at tea parties. In the lead-up to the April 15, 2009, tea parties, Fox's "news" programs and anchors frequently aired segments publicizing and encouraging viewers to get involved with the protests. For instance, Special Report host Baier noted the URL of TaxDayTeaParty.com and stated that the protests have been "largely ignored by the mainstream media," while America's Newsroom frequently hosted tea party organizers and posted on-screen organizing information, such as protest dates and locations. Host Bill Hemmer also repeatedly directed viewers to the show's section on the Fox News website, which posted a list of tea party protests. The following are some of the graphics America's Newsroom aired to promote the April 15 tea parties:

Hemmer promotes Beck's appearance at the Alamo. While guest-hosting the April 12, 2009, edition of Fox News Watch, news anchor Hemmer promoted Beck's appearance at the Alamo tea party, stating:

HEMMER: While the mainstream is ignoring the tea party movement, here at the Fox News Channel, we're gearing up to bring you special coverage of the events all across the country. Sean Hannity is in Atlanta. Glenn Beck is at the Alamo. Where else would he be? San Antonio. Neil Cavuto is live in Sacramento and Greta is in Washington, D.C.

Can't get to a tea party? Fox Nation hosts a virtual tea party. You can check it out on the site for the location of a tea party in your area. Again, that is Wednesday, the 15th of April.

The right-wing witch hunt against President Obama's advisers has turned to Rev. Jim Wallis, a member of the president's faith council who has worked with numerous conservative and mainstream religious leaders. A WorldNetDaily article uses a series of falsehoods and distortions to portray Wallis as "Obama's new controversial pastor" and a "champion of communism" whose magazine "has published a slew of radicals."

WND and Fox attack Wallis

WND headline: "Not again! Meet Obama's new controversial pastor." The headline and subhead of WorldNetDaily's March 15 article attacking Wallis reads:

Not again! Meet Obama's new controversial pastor

Champion of communism, socialism called U.S. 'destroyer of human life'

 

WND paints Wallis as a "controversial" figure who is connected to "radicals." The March 15 WorldNetDaily article by Aaron Klein stated:

Rev. Jim Wallis, a member of President Obama's "faith council" who is described as a spiritual adviser to the president, is a socialist activist who has championed communist causes and previously labeled the U.S. "the great captor and destroyer of human life."

[...]

Sojourners has published a slew of radicals, including socialist activist Cornel West and James Cone, considered the founder of Black Liberation Theology, which spawned the likes of Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Obama's pastor of nearly 20 years.

[...]

Wallis continues to openly support socialism. Along with socialist activist West, Wallis in 1995 founded Call to Renewal, a coalition of religious groups demanding the spread of U.S. wealth to promote "social justice."

Fox Nation links to WorldNetDaily article attacking Wallis. The Fox News website Fox Nation linked to the WorldNetDaily article, repeating its headline: "Not again! Meet Obama's new controversial pastor." From Fox Nation, accessed March 16:

Mainstream and conservative leaders have worked with Wallis and praised his efforts

Despite the WorldNetDaily article's portrayal of Wallis as a "controversial" figure who is connected to "radicals," mainstream and conservative religious groups have participated in numerous programs with Wallis and have praised his efforts.

Evangelicals for Darfur. Wallis joined a number of religious leaders as "initiating endorsers" of the group Evangelicals for Darfur. Other endorsers included Rich Cizik, vice-president for government affairs for the National Association of Evangelicals; Baptist evangelist Tony Campolo; and Joel Hunter, former president of the Christian Coalition of America.

Wallis' group's anti-poverty effort included 100,000 congregations from "wide spectrum" of faiths. Call to Renewal's Covenant to Overcome Poverty included participation of the National Council of Churches, an organization of "faith groups ... from a wide spectrum of Protestant, Anglican, Orthodox, Evangelical, historic African American and Living Peace churches" that "includes 45 million persons in more than 100,000 local congregations in communities across the nation."

Colson lauded Wallis for "battling for traditional values." Chuck Colson, founder and chairman of Prison Fellowship Ministries, listed Wallis among evangelical leaders who are "battling for traditional values." Colson further wrote:

We're defending life, pursuing justice, and caring for the poor. Yes, we're beginning to be more involved in environmental issues, thanks to younger evangelicals reminding us that God commanded us to care for his creation. But we do all of this in God's name--which is what sets the secular media's teeth on edge.

WND attacks Wallis with falsehoods and distortions

WND claims Wallis is a "Champion of communism," but he has called communism a "failed" system. Klein's WorldNetDaily article called Wallis a "Champion of communism" and described him as "a socialist activist who has championed communist causes." But in a 1998 interview for PBS' Reaching Out series, Wallis stated that "[o]ur systems have failed the poor and they have failed the earth. ... [B]oth macrosystems, capitalism and communism, have failed."

WND says Sojourners has published a "slew of radicals"; but Sojourners has published a "slew" of conservatives. Klein wrote that "Sojourners has published a slew of radicals, including socialist activist Cornel West and James Cone, considered the founder of Black Liberation Theology, which spawned the likes of Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Obama's pastor of nearly 20 years." However, Sojourners has published a number of articles by prominent conservative religious leaders, including Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission; and John DiIulio, President Bush's first director of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. Sojourners has also published an extensive interview with former Governor Mike Huckabee (R-AR).

WND claims Sojourners "urges readers to 'refuse to accept [capitalist] structures.' " From the March 15 WorldNetDaily article:

Sojourners' official "statement of faith" urges readers to "refuse to accept [capitalist] structures and assumptions that normalize poverty and segregate the world by class."

But actual text of statement doesn't even mention capitalism. The language that WorldNetDaily quotes is apparently taken from a statement that no longer appears on the Sojourners website. The statement, retrieved from a 2004 version of the site saved in the Internet Archive, contains a preface that reads, in part: "Members of Sojourners Community in Washington, D.C., wrote this 20th anniversary statement of faith in August 1991." The unaltered text of the passage reads: 

We believe in binding up the divisions that the world often creates, especially those based on race, class, gender, or culture. We are called to combat racism in all its forms and to build a more just and pluralistic society where diversity is respected, freedom is secured, and power is shared. We refuse to accept structures and assumptions that normalize poverty and segregate the world by class. We are committed to resisting sexism in all its forms and affirming the integrity and equality of women and men both in the church and in the world.

The word "capitalist" does not appear in the entirety of the statement, nor does the word "capitalism." WorldNetDaily did not explain why it added "capitalist" in brackets.

It has been clear for some time that David Cameron is determined to prevent the Conservative party from sliding back into the sort of destructive introspection over Europe in which it might once more tear itself apart

MPs from the Liberals, Bloc, and NDP today all supported a motion at the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage to extend the private copying levy to devices such as iPods.  The motion, proposed by Bloc MP Carole Lavallée, provided:

That the Committee recommends that the government amend Part VIII of the Copyright Act so that the definition of “audio recording medium” extends to devices with internal memory, so that the levy on copying music will apply to digital music recorders as well, thereby entitling music creators to some compensation for the copies made of their work.

Interestingly, the committee was split - 5 in support ( Charlie Angus, Carole Lavallée, Roger Pomerleau, Scott Simms, Justin Trudeau) and 5 against (Rod Bruinooge, Dean Del Mastro, Royal Galipeau, Nina Grewal, Tim Uppal).  That left it to Conservative Chair Gary Schellenberger who voted in favour of the motion.  That is seemingly at odds with comments today from Canadian Heritage Minister James Moore and Industry Minister Tony Clement who were strongly opposed to measure.

New event will celebrate videogames.

Labour Prime Minister Gordon Brown, Conservative top-dog David Cameron and Liberal Democrat boss-cat Nick Clegg have all thrown support behind the new British Inspiration Awards initiative, which aims to promote and celebrate the videogames, among other things.

"Britain is a country full of talent," declared Gordon Brown. "You see it every time you turn on the TV, when you watch a sports event, a film, or flick through the pages of a fashion magazine. You can hear it in our music. And you can feel it in the energy and dynamism of our communities.

"I am enormously proud of the talented people in this country who, through their creative and entrepreneurial gifts, illuminate their lives and enrich ours. And the British Inspiration Awards is a great way of both recognising their endeavours and celebrating our achievements as a nation."

Read more...

Prime Minister Gordon Brown, Conservative leader David Cameron and Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg are lending cross-party support to the British Inspiration Awards, a new initiative to honour the UK's creative sectors, including games, film and the arts.

The executive committee for the awards is being led by Nintendo's David Yarnton, and it will also be a charity-facing event with 100 per cent of proceeds split between Games Aid and The Dallaglio Foundation.

"I am enormously proud of the talented people in this country who, through their creative and entrepreneurial gifts, illuminate their lives and enrich ours. And the British Inspiration Awards is a great way of both recognising their endeavours and celebrating our achievements as a nation," said Brown in a statement.

Read more...