The Canadian Press
NEW DELHI — India has banned telecom equipment from China citing national security reasons, heightening trade tensions between the two Asian economic giants.
In a recent order, the government has told mobile operators not to import any network equipment manufactured by Chinese vendors such as Huawei and ZTE.
Indian officials say the ban was prompted by concerns that Chinese telecom equipment could have spyware or malicious software – known as “malware” – embedded in it which could give Chinese intelligence agencies access to telecom networks in India.
The ban and other regulations come less than a week after media reports that Chinese hackers had broken into the computer networks of India’s security, defence and diplomatic establishment.
Under strict new conditions, Indian telecom companies will have to get “security clearance” from India’s home ministry before projects are approved, an official said Friday.
“All service providers have to submit details of the equipment used, and their applications will have to get security clearance from the home ministry,” said Satyendra Prakash, a telecommunications ministry spokesman.
The government also ordered that the operation and maintenance of telecom networks be carried out “entirely” by Indian engineers…
One-time moderate Arizona senator keeps step with the Tea Party and gets tough on illegal immigration
Guardian – Ewen MacAskill in Tucson
John Ladd points to the piles of empty water and Coke bottles, a yellow blanket and numerous other bits of debris abandoned on his cattle ranch in Cochise county, near Tombstone, Arizona. The sprawling estate, stretching 10 miles along the US-Mexico border, is a favoured route for those making the illegal, dangerous and often fatal, journey to what they hope is a bright new future.
Ladd recalls waking up one morning in 2004 and finding about 900 Mexicans milling about on his land. “You could not go anywhere without seeing one and the border patrol was screeching around everywhere,” he says.
This is Wild West country, a land of mesquite and sagebrush, of Apache trails and re-enactments for the tourists of the OK Corral shoot-out. The ranch, and other crossing points like it, lie at the heart of the immigration debate that has gripped the US over the past week. That debate is anchored to Arizona’s controversial extension of police powers in dealing with immigrants.
Already the subject of international attention, it is threatening to consume one of America’s best-known politicians, John McCain, former PoW, senator for Arizona, and Republican choice for a doomed campaign against Barack Obama in 2008.
McCain is up for re-election for a fifth term in the Senate and the resurgence of the immigration issue is potentially disastrous. Ladd has met the defeated presidential candidate three times since 2004: on each occasion McCain went to the ranch to see firsthand the disruption caused by the almost non-stop flow of immigrants. “He is a neat guy,” says Ladd. “But he’s done nothing. He tells me, ‘This is terrible, I need to help you.’ And nothing happens.”
Ladd, who voted for McCain in the past, now feels betrayed and is not planning to support him in the Republican primary in August.
For McCain, now 73 and one of the Republican party’s elder statesman, re-election to the Senate might have been routine. Instead he is battling for survival amid a Republican party being forced ever more to the right. In an email this week appealing for donations, he wrote: “I am facing what many have called the toughest political fight of my life.” He is saying it is proving tougher than the 2008 Republican primary race, which saw him resurrect a struggling campaign and beat Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee and Rudy Giuliani; tougher even than taking on Obama.
To survive in Arizona, McCain is having to reinvent himself at speed. The straight-talking maverick, who bucked his own party to form alliances with the Democrats, is now portraying himself as a mainstream conservative and courting rightwing talkshow hosts.
Astonishingly, McCain told Newsweek: “I never considered myself a maverick.” Yet, he frequently referred to himself as such in the 2008 campaign and even proudly included the label in the title of a book he wrote, The Education of an American Maverick.
McCain is disliked by the right for his approach to climate change, for restrictions he championed on campaign finance and for his support of the Wall Street bailout. He has now dropped his climate change plan, said he was misled about the bailout, and was muted when the supreme court undid his campaign finance initiative.
The biggest about-turn, however, has been on immigration. In 2007, McCain proposed a joint immigration bill with Ted Kennedy that would have opened the path to citizenship for the estimated 12 million to 20 million illegal immigrants in the US. Other Republicans branded it an amnesty and killed it off.
This time, McCain has taken a hard line. He has described the new Arizona legislation, which requires police to stop all people they suspect of being illegal immigrants, as a necessary tool. The border has to be secured first, before immigration reform is tackled, he says; he proposes a six-point plan which includes sending 3,000 National Guard members to the border, a move not so different from the Arizona Cattlemen’s Association’s 10-point plan.
On the Bill O’Reilly show on Fox News this week, contrary to his previous habit of not demonising illegal immigrants, McCain claimed that “the drivers of cars with illegals in it … are intentionally causing accidents on the freeway”.
His U-turn prompted a New York Times editorial, entitled Come Back, John McCain, that argued that no election was worth winning “if you have to abandon what you believe”. Columnist Michelle Malkin made much the same point in the National Review, saying: “I need a Dramamine to cover Senator John McCain’s re-election bid. With his desperate lurch to the right he’s inducing more motion sickness than a Disneyland teacup.”
… Wes Harris, one of the founders of the North Phoenix Tea Party, not only voted for McCain in the past but worked on his campaigns. He has shifted his allegiance to Hayworth. Harris, 70, a military veteran, called McCain a hero but a poor senator, and was upset about his immigration plan. He was disappointed too with the campaign against Obama. “If he had exhibited as much zeal against Obama as he has done against Hayworth, he might have won … Everything else you could almost have forgiven him for but the campaign he ran was almost treasonable.” Harris predicts a McCain win, thanks to his well-run political machine and tremendous cash backing.
On Wednesday a meeting of the Tea Party, at Queen Creek, east of Phoenix, attracted about 20 people, a mix of ages with one African-American. Asked how many would back McCain, no one volunteered. The concerns were about Obama being a socialist, about the federal debt, and about immigration.
Obama has promised to reform immigration laws, having classed it as immoral and impractical to expect illegal immigrants to return “home”.
A practical benefit for the Democrats is that this would help them woo Latino voters, the fastest growing demographic group in the US. The Republicans risk alienating Latinos by calling for a crackdown on illegal immigrants in public, while bowing in private to business interests that want cheap workers.
“The Republicans want cheap labour, the Democrats cheap votes, and the American public cheap tomatoes,”…]
KNOX News – By Jim Balloch
KNOXVILLE — A federal jury this afternoon convicted Sarah Palin e-mail intruder David C. Kernell of felony destruction of records to hamper a federal investigation and misdemeanor unlawfully obtaining information from a protected computer.
The jury acquitted Kernell, 22, of felony wire fraud.
U.S. District Judge Thomas W. Phillips declared a mistrial on the fourth charge, felony identity theft, after the jurors said they were hopelessly deadlocked.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Greg Weddle said federal prosecutors would decide next week if they would retry the former University of Tennessee economics major on that charge.
Phillips said he would set a sentencing date after prosecutors make that decision.
Kernell and his family left the federal courthouse without comment. His attorney, Wade Davies, said they would issue a statement later.
Kernell remains free on bond.
The jury of six men and six women began its fourth day of deliberations this morning by hearing a special added instruction from Phillips.
Called an Allen charge in legal parlance, it is commonly called “a dynamite charge.”
Phillips told the jurors that as they resume deliberating they should each reconsider their positions, but there was no need to rush to a verdict.
By Thursday, the panel had reached unanimous agreement on three of the four counts against Kernell, whose father is state Rep. Mike Kernell, D-Memphis. Those verdicts were not announced until this afternoon.
The four charges are all felonies with only the protected computer count including a lesser misdemeanor offense. The jurors chose the misdemeanor count of the charge. Kernell was facing a total of 50 years in prison if convicted of all the felonies…]
PajamasMedia – Ron Radosh
There is no better précis of how the Left thinks about the world, and acts on it, than the British journalist Nick Cohen’s article appearing in the new issue of Standpoint. Cohen writes a candid appraisal of what left-wing politics did to the mind and life of the late actor Corin Redgrave, brother of the more famous Vanessa, who like her brother, is a lifetime member of a small fanatic Trotskyist sect, the Workers Revolutionary Party, led by a man named Gerry Healy. The group was so fanatic that it accused Trotsky’s American followers of having been responsible for his murder in Mexico, ignoring all the evidence that it was an NKVD operation orchestrated by Joseph Stalin.
As Cohen notes, all the Redgraves are good actors. Vanessa could, while she denounced Israel and praised Palestinian terrorists, at the same time appear on American television as a Jewish concentration camp victim in a Holocaust drama. I used to say, when people asked for my position on the blacklist of the 1950s, that I despise Vanessa Redgrave’s politics, but would go at a minute’s notice to see her perform in a Broadway play. I praised her acting ability, and her prowess as an actor did not make me pay an ounce of attention to her political harangues.
This, of course, is not how the British media (so similar to the American media in this regard) dealt with her brother’s politics after his recent death. All the usual sources praised Redgrave as a man who fought “injustice and oppression,” and who tried “to make a better world.” That is certainly the case, if by a better world one means the regimented police states so favored by Marxist-Leninist regimes, to which Redgrave devoted his life.
… It should not be a surprise to learn from Cohen that as the recent past emerged, “Healy took money from Gaddafi’s Libya and Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. In return for funding from Arab dictators, the WRP led the charge of the far-Left into the anti-Semitic conspiracy theories of the far-Right and, as seriously, agreed to spy on Iraqi dissidents living in London and hand over their details to the Baathist state without a thought of what could happen to their families back in Iraq. Even after the scandals about the rapes and links to Saddam broke, the Redgraves stuck with Healy, as did Ken Livingstone,” the former Mayor of London.
Except for the demented few like Vanessa Redgrave and the dwindling group of true believers, to whom no facts stand in the way of accepting the revolutionary myth, the rest of the liberal community has moved on, away from Communist era politics. This is the case except in one regard, and Cohen puts his finger on it. The old ideology still remains “in the bloodstream of the wider Left — the propensity for Jew-baiting and conspiracy theory, the shrieking dogmatism, and, beyond all that, the self-censorship, which stops a broadcaster legally obliged to be objective dealing plainly with news that reflects badly on its class and kind.”
After all, in the media spokesmen’s eyes — so many of whom were part of the ’60s generation — Corin and Vanessa Redgrave represented their pure ideals, and hence must be defended even after their passing, even if what they did and lived for was hideous. To do the opposite would be to condemn their own youthful illusions — illusions few are prepared to thoroughly give up.
They call it ‘Globish’ and a ‘dialect’ international and accepted by many anglophone – Simplification of a language can be useful to learn
ELPAIS – By FRANCESCO Manette
The stage can be a medical conference, an economic summit or an international electronics fair. The actors are surgeons, researchers, politicians, engineers or executives. They all represent, or, rather, they improvise their role in a show with simple argument. The goal is not to achieve critical acclaim. Here it is simply to communicate, understand and be understood and, if the script requires it, or close a business deal. For it is advisable to speak the same language. “English? Let’s say English, or, in most cases, something like that.
That something was what looked like Jean-Paul Nerrière every time he went to a symposium or a congress, from the U.S. to Asia. When work commitments allowed him to her home in Paris, the former IBM executive turned the matter. Why is better understood a Mexican and a Chinese that a Chinese and an American? ¿What language is bound to each other? One day she finally decided to strike (and protected by intellectual property laws) the word Globish, a fusion of global terms and English (English) which aims to summarize a philosophy of universal understanding. “Globish English is commonly spoken in Istanbul or in Montevideo,” explains Nerrière telephone from France. E In a more technical definition is “a thoughtful and organized structure of English that puts limitations on itself, say they are not used more than 1,500 words,” he continues. “It will end with a whole culture and a tradition of teaching?
The invention, with tens of thousands of supporters, it might seem yet another method of learning more or less rapid and more or less effective than one language, similar to what already proposed almost a century ago the linguist Charles K. Ogden with the 850 words of the Basic Español. However, Nerrière, which was responsible for marketing strategies of the multinational computer and knows how to sell an abstract concept, has gone further. Has succeeded in creating a system that has set and found acceptance even in the Anglo world. Robert McCrum, literary critic and editor of Britain’s Sunday Observer, congratulated him on a book, Globish The World Over, in which he outlined his thoughts on language teaching. And the same McCrum is about to publish a text on the phenomenon: Globish: How the language Español Became the World’s language.
It will, he says, a kind of “dialect” XXI century that finds its origins in a changing international geopolitical awareness. Something that makes now the English and their culture is perceived as differentiated values of all colonial heritage. The complex called imperialist, at least in the Western world, has disappeared. Like saying: “Cheer up, English is the heritage of everyone, both those born in Boston and those who have grown up in Istanbul.
P It therefore seems a good opportunity to learn the language once. It can also be the perfect excuse for self-indulgence and to convince (deceive, as by some professors usually do much of the ruling class) that few words are enough to master. Depends. Perhaps both occur is a matter of perspective….
Original Link (Spanish)
- Study Globish means learning some 1,500 words, many combinations of two terms, monosyllables … We must speak with direct expressions, avoiding negative phrases or sentences passive. The streets were cleaned in the morning se convertiría, en globish, en The workmen cleaned the streets in the morning. The phrasal verbs are allowed, but must know how to use them because they can cause problems. The streets were clean in the morning would become, in Globish in The workmen cleaned the streets in the morning. Jean-Paul Nerrière up as an example the beginning of the speech Barack Obama’s inaugural.
- Inglés. I stand here today humbled by the task before us, grateful for the trust you have bestowed, mindful of the sacrifices borne by our ancestors. – English. I stand here today Humbled by the task Before us, Grateful for the trust you Have bestower, mindful of The Sacrifice borne by Our ancestors.
- ‘Globish’. I stand here today full of Respect for the work Before us. I want to thank you for the trust you have given, and I remember the sacrifices made by our ancestors. I want to thank you for the trust you Have Given, and I remember the Sacrifices Made by Our ancestors.
- Castilian. I stand here today humbly aware of the task before us, grateful for the confidence you have placed in me, knowing the sacrifices made by our ancestors.