From the daily archives: "Monday, March 19, 2012"


Powered by Guardian.co.ukThis article titled “Peyton Manning set to join Denver Broncos” was written by Steve Busfield, for guardian.co.uk on Monday 19th March 2012 17.28 UTC

Peyton Manning, who was recently cut by the Indianapolis Colts, is set to join the Denver Broncos.

As a result the Broncos are likely to trade current quarterback Tim Tebow, with Florida a possible destination for the Tebowmania phenomenon.

According to ESPN, Manning’s agent Tom Condon is now negotiating the details of the deal with Denver.

Manning called John Elway, Denver’s vice president of football operations today to inform him of his decision, said NFL.com. Manning also informed the other teams he had been talking to – the San Francisco 49ers and Tennessee Titans. The QB had worked out for all three teams and undergone physical tests.

The 11-time Pro Bowl quarterback and four-time NFL Most Valuable Player missed the 2011 season after neck surgery. He was cut by Indianapolis on March 7 after a 14-year stint where he smashed the franchise’s major passing records and won a Super Bowl.

In choosing the Broncos, Manning would be staying in the American Football Conference (AFC), the same conference as the Colts, and joining a team that won the AFC West division last season with an 8-8 record.

The arrival of Manning, who turns 36 this month, would raise the prospects of Denver trading popular quarterback Tebow, who led the Broncos to several comeback victories last year to reach the playoffs but who struggled with his throwing accuracy.

Mannings’s contract negotiations will include details of how the Broncos will be protected in the event of Manning’s neck surgeries causing him to be unable to perform. Manning has, however, already passed a Denver physical examination when the two sides met in Durham last week.

Manning wore the No.18 jersey for 14 years in Indianapolis, but the Broncos have retired that number. The club’s first quarterback Frank Tripucka wore the No.18 for three seasons in the 60s.

But Tripucka, who is now 84, said last week: “He should have it. Let’s give it to him.”

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010

Published via the Guardian News Feed plugin for WordPress.


Powered by Guardian.co.ukThis article titled “Slashing of environment ‘red tape’ is far from over” was written by Damian Carrington, for guardian.co.uk on Monday 19th March 2012 17.31 UTC

And lo, Oliver Letwin’s scythe swept through the “red tape” of environmental regulations. As I revealed on Friday, 73% of the 255 rules protecting the nation’s land, air and water, and all that lives there, are affected.

Caroline Spelman, the environment secretary, has now published the full document, an accurate summary of which I had obtained. Some of the regulations being scrapped are clearly obsolete, while others appear to be tidying up a few overlapping rules.

That would make the absurd secrecy and paranoia I encountered pretty laughable – no-one at all would speak to me – except for three things.

First, many of the regulations being cut remain a source of deep concern. Second, the government continues to spin this slashing of green regulations as led by the public, when that is demonstrably false. Third, it’s not over yet. Work is now underway on a “significant rationalisation of guidance”, a phrase that tallies with Letwin’s desire to see the 10,000 pages of guidance bolied down to 50, as has happened to planning regulation.

However, let’s hear from Spelman first. She wasn’t actually at the key “star chamber” meeting in January, but she’s leading the announcement of its results today.

“I want to be very clear that this is not about rolling back environmental safeguards, nor is it just about cutting regulation to stimulate growth. This was about getting better rules, not weaker ones,” she said. “The results of the red tape challenge (RTC) will be good for the environment and good for business, because as well as upholding environmental protection we will remove unnecessary bureaucracy to allow businesses to free up resources to invest in growth.”

She reckons businesses will gain £1bn over five years as a result, but will that be offset by losses to others due to increased environmental damage? You can see all the measures here, but I have chosen a few examples for you to consider:

• “Reducing uncertainty about when contaminated land needs to be remediated” will mean fewer sites are decontaminated, saving £140m (page 6)

• More works can be carried out on common land without planning consent (p12)

• Construction sites will no longer need plan how to manage their waste (p4)

• The obligation for electrical equipment and battery manufacturers to take financial responsibility for their waste will be weakened (p3-4)

• In wildlife and landscape management, 35 “out-of-date” regulations are being scrapped and 69 are being “improved” (p12)

• The ban on selling second-hand goods containing asbestos will be scrapped (p6)

Unconvinced this is all utterly benign? Blame yourself, because according to business minister Mark Prisk, it was you who wanted all these changes: “The comments made on the website, by people who deal with these regulations every day, are what has driven this whole process, and I’m pleased that so many people have taken this chance to have their say.”

Except that my analysis shows that 97% of the thousands of public responses on the RTC website demanded stronger protection or no change in the rules on air pollution, wildlife and landscape management. Futhermore, a robust opinion poll from YouGov/Greenpeace shows that when asked what you think about the current safeguards that protect Britain’s wildlife and countryside, only 4% said they were too strong, with ten times more saying they were too weak, and 37% said they were about right.

The businessman brought in as “sector champion for the environment RTC theme” describes the process rather more accurately, in my view: “I’m delighted that so many businesses have contributed to this unique opportunity to ease the burdens placed on industry by some overly complex and unnecessary environmental regulations,” said Robert Hunt, executive director at the multinational colossus Veolia Environmental Services.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the wheels of Whitehall are still whirring on the red tape wheeze. The department for environment’s (Defra) press release said: “Many comments [sic] in the RTC suggested that the environmental framework – covering 257 regulatory instruments, over 10,000 pages of guidance and 397 data sets – is overly complex and inconsistent and gets in the way of businesses complying effectively with their environmental obligations. Defra will start work immediately with business and environment organisations to identify the scope for significant rationalisation of guidance.”

Wasn’t that the point of the RTC in the first place? I’m told Defra believe there’s “more we can do, that we couldn’t do in the time available”. Does that sound reassuring to you?

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010

Published via the Guardian News Feed plugin for WordPress.


Powered by Guardian.co.ukThis article titled “Afghanistan and American imperialism” was written by Glenn Greenwald, for guardian.co.uk on Monday 19th March 2012 17.16 UTC

US army staff sergeant Robert Bales is accused of slaughtering 16 Afghan villagers, including nine children, and then burning some of the bodies. The massacre took place in two villages in the southern rural district of Panjwai. Though this horrific crime targeted Afghans on Afghan soil, Afghanistan will play no role in investigating the crime or bringing the perpetrator (or perpetrators) to justice. That is because the US almost immediately whisked the accused out of Afghanistan and brought him to an American army base in Fort Leavensworth, Kansas.

The rapid exclusion of Afghans from the process of trying the accused shooter has, predictably and understandably, exacerbated the growing anti-American anger in that country. It is hard to imagine any nation on the planet reacting any other way to being denied the ability to try suspects over crimes that take place on its soil. A Taliban commander quickly gave voice to that nationalistic fury, announcing: “We want this soldier to be prosecuted in Afghanistan. The Afghans should prosecute him.”

Demands that the atrocity be investigated by Afghans are grounded in part by reports that Bales did not act alone. While US military officials decreed from the start that Bales was the lone culprit, eyewitnesses in the villages reported the presence of multiple attackers. Many Afghans simply cannot fathom how such a large-scale attack could have been perpetrated by a single shooter. Bacha Agha of the Balandi village told the Associated Press: “One man can’t kill so many people. There must have been many people involved.” He added: “If the government says this is just one person’s act we will not accept it.” President Hamid Karzai initially added fuel to those suspicions, notably accusing “American forces” of the attacks.

The suspicion that other American soldiers may have been involved, though unproven, is far from irrational. The notorious American “kill team” that deliberately executed random, innocent Afghan civilians (often teenagers) for sport, planted weapons on their bodies, and then posed with their corpses as trophies operated out a base in the same area. America’s former top commander in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal, admitted: “We’ve shot an amazing number of people and killed a number and, to my knowledge, none has proven to have been a real threat to the force.”

That US-Afghan tensions are at an all-time high due to recent events makes suspicions of a coordinated attack even more substantive. As Robert Fisk recalled, the US army’s top commander in Afghanistan, General John Allen, went out of his way just a couple weeks ago to tell his soldiers that “now is not the time for revenge for the deaths of two US soldiers killed in Thursday’s riots” resulting from the burning of Qu’rans, and he urged his soldiers to “resist whatever urge they might have to strike back.” Clearly, General Allen was concerned about coordinated military revenge attacks on Afghan civilians.

Afghan doubts about an exclusively American investigation are surely inflamed, again understandably, by the history of untruths by the US military about episodes of violence in Afghanistan. As the war correspondent Jerome Starkey documented: “US-led forces in Afghanistan are committing atrocities, lying, and getting away with it.”

Starkey was writing in the wake of one incident where the American military, thanks to his investigative reporting, got caught out over the wanton killing of Afghan villagers. In February, 2010, US forces entered a village in the Paktia Province in Afghanistan and, after surrounding a home where a celebration of a new birth was taking place, shot dead two male civilians (government officials) who exited the house in order to inquire why they had been surrounded, and then shot and killed three female relatives (a pregnant mother of 10, a pregnant mother of six, and a teenager).

The Pentagon then issued statements insisting that the dead men were insurgents and that the dead women were already gagged and killed inside the house by the time US forces had arrived, victims of an “honor killing.” They depicted as liars the Afghan villagers who insisted that it was US soldiers who did the killing and that the dead were all civilians. American media outlets largely regurgitated the American military version uncritically. But enough evidence subsequently emerged disproving those claims such that the Pentagon was forced to admit that their original version was totally false and that, just as the villagers attested, it was US troops who killed the women.

As Starkey wrote: “This is perhaps the most harrowing instance” but “it’s not the first time I’ve found Nato lying.” Is it any wonder that Afghans do not trust the US government to conduct its own investigation and hold accountable those responsible?

What is most revealed by the decision to remove Bales from Afghanistan is the American belief that no other country – including those its invades and occupies – can ever impose accountability on Americans. This was seen most recently, and vividly, in Iraq.

President Obama’s most swooning supporters love to credit him with “ending the war in Iraq,” but that is simply not what happened. It was President Bush who entered into an agreement with the Iraqi government mandating the removal of all US forces by the end of 2011. Rather than comply with that agreement, the Obama administration tried desperately to persuade and pressure the Iraqis to allow American troops to remain beyond that deadline. But those efforts failed because of one cause: the refusal (or, more accurately, the inability) of the Malaki government to agree that US troops would be immunized and shielded from Iraqi law for any future crimes they commit on Iraqi soil.

One prime prerogative of all empires is that it is subject to no laws or accountability other than its own, even when it comes to crimes committed on other nations’ soil and against its people. That was the imperial principle that finally compelled America’s withdrawal from Iraq, and it is apparently what caused the US to quickly remove the accused shooter from Afghanistan. It may be understandable why the US perceives it in its interest to preserve this imperial power, but it should be equally understandable why its victims react with increasing levels of suspicion, resentment and rage.

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010

Published via the Guardian News Feed plugin for WordPress.

Welcome to the Holtville Tribune

 

Welcome to the HOLTVILLE TRIBUNE E-Edition for the latest news go to http://holtvilletribune.com/holtville-tribune-online/

 

Welcome to Holtville Tribune Online

For your local valley and national news click here

Holtvilletribune.com +smartphone apps

Holtvilletribune.com +smartphone apps

Holtvilletribune.com +smartphone apps

  • Unlimited access to holtvilletribune.com from any device.
  • Unlimited access to the Holtville Tribune app for your BlackBerry®, iPhone®, Windows® Phone 7 and Android™-powered phones.
  • Unlimited access to our new Election 2012 app for iPhone.
  • click here
UA-28480107-1 [s2Member-Security-Badge v="1" /] [s2Member-Security-Badge v="1" /]
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • YouTube