World news

Subterms

    More stories

    • 125 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Hillary Clinton faced constant sexism in 2016 campaign, says ex-aide

      by

      Hillary Clinton faced constant sexism in 2016 campaign, says ex-aideHuma Abedin says candidate and her team would feel obliged to laugh off offensive remarks When Hillary Clinton ran for the US presidency in 2016, she received sexist comments “on a constant basis” and her team had “no idea” how to deal with them, her former aide Huma Abedin has said.Abedin, who worked closely with Clinton on her campaign, recalled that the former secretary of state was deluged with openly sexist remarks as well as unhelpful advice, or instructions to emulate male politicians.Abedin said these started when Clinton sought the Democratic nomination in 2008 and continued when she ran for president in 2016, and “nothing changed over that period”, which took place before the #MeToo movement began in 2017.Speaking to the Hay festival to promote her recent memoir, Both/And, Abedin said Clinton and her team would feel obliged to laugh off offensive remarks from conservative commentators such as the newsreader Tucker Carlson, who said: “When Hillary Clinton shows up on TV I inadvertently cross my legs.”Other frequent gendered criticisms included that her voice was too loud or annoying; commentary on her choice of dress – with some people recommending that she only wear dark colours, and other saying she should wear colours “to look more cheerful” – and advice that she look at a picture of her granddaughter when speaking to prevent her from “looking so angry”. Abedin told the audience: “Who says that to Boris Johnson or Barack Obama? Nobody ever says that!”Abedin recalled that one Hollywood director offered media training to Clinton. “I said: ‘Can you give me an example of who she should emulate, who’s her model? Give me an idea of a woman.’ He said: ‘Yeah, yeah, her husband.’ ‘Anybody else?’ ‘President Obama.’”However, she said Clinton did not suit the “personality-driven” nature of US politics, which she said favoured the likes of Donald Trump, a “charismatic shock and awe communicator”; Barack Obama, who would make people “think anything’s possible, it’s going to rain honey and ice-cream”; and Bill Clinton, who “connected with every single person in the room” whenever he gave a speech.While the latter two were “amazing orators, communicators of their generations”. Abedin said, “Hillary’s the first person to say that was not her strength, she’s a policy wonk and she gets stuff done”.She added: “If we voted for people based on how popular they were and how many numbers of people voted for them, Hillary Clinton would be in her second term as president now. But that’s not how we do it. There’s a system and it’s an outdated system.”Abedin shared how she and Clinton were connected through their mutual experiences of sex scandal. Bill Clinton had an affair with Monica Lewinsky, while Abedin’s ex-husband Anthony Weiner was convicted of sexual assault after he sexted with a teenage girl.She said that while Clinton was still “judged” for having chosen to remain with her husband, she had been told “you left, but it was easy for you”.She stressed how difficult the experience of becoming part of “the first sex scandal in the digital age” had been. Although it did not damage her professionally, she felt like the “elephant in the room” and found it “hard being out on the streets”.She said Weiner’s sexting was the result of falling into “a pattern of behaviour online that started as a compulsion” and turned into an addiction.“We didn’t understand what it was … Anthony really struggled with the advent of social media. Twitter and Facebook in 2009 were these new portals. He was very popular and as he had more followers he fell down this rabbit hole of behaviour and it just exploded. We lost everything, he lost his reputation, he lost his job, it was very hard.”TopicsHillary ClintonHuma AbedinUS politicsWomen in politicsHay festivalnewsReuse this content More

    • 63 Shares129 Views

      in World Politics

      The Right to Fair Recollection

      by

      The Fair Observer website uses digital cookies so it can collect statistics on how many visitors come to the site, what content is viewed and for how long, and the general location of the computer network of the visitor. These statistics are collected and processed using the Google Analytics service. Fair Observer uses these aggregate statistics from website visits to help improve the content of the website and to provide regular reports to our current and future donors and funding organizations. The type of digital cookie information collected during your visit and any derived data cannot be used or combined with other information to personally identify you. Fair Observer does not use personal data collected from its website for advertising purposes or to market to you.As a convenience to you, Fair Observer provides buttons that link to popular social media sites, called social sharing buttons, to help you share Fair Observer content and your comments and opinions about it on these social media sites. These social sharing buttons are provided by and are part of these social media sites. They may collect and use personal data as described in their respective policies. Fair Observer does not receive personal data from your use of these social sharing buttons. It is not necessary that you use these buttons to read Fair Observer content or to share on social media. More

    • 138 Shares149 Views

      in US Politics

      BTS visit White House to discuss anti-Asian hate crime – video

      by

      BTS visited the White House to discuss hate crimes targeting Asians with the US president.
      The band members J-Hope, RM, Suga, Jungkook, V, Jin and Jimin joined the White House press secretary, Karine Jean-Pierre, at her briefing with reporters before their meeting with Joe Biden.
      Jimin said the group had been ‘devastated by the recent surge’ of hate crime and intolerance against Asian Americans and others that has persisted since the start of the coronavirus pandemic.
      ‘It’s not wrong to be different,’ Suga said through an interpreter. ‘Equality begins when we open up and embrace all of our differences’ 

      BTS-mania sweeps the White House as band speaks on anti-Asian hate More

    • 313 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      Why did the doctor ask if we have a gun in the house at my toddler’s check up? Because this is America | Arwa Mahdawi

      by

      Why did the doctor ask if we have a gun in the house at my toddler’s checkup? Because this is AmericaArwa MahdawiAfter taking my daughter to the paediatrician, I was left wondering if I want to raise her in a country obsessed with the right to own deadly weapons A couple of weeks ago, my wife and I took my daughter to a paediatrician in Philadelphia for her one-year checkup. It was all very routine until, squeezed between a discussion about weaning and a question about baby gates, the paediatrician asked if we had a gun in the house. I was so taken aback by the idea that I might casually keep a glock in my knicker drawer that I burst out laughing. “She’s from England,” my wife, also somewhat taken aback, explained. “They’re not used to guns.” The paediatrician gave a sad smile. “I know it’s terrible, but I do have to ask,” she said. “This is America.”Once we got home from the appointment, I looked up whether it really was normal for paediatricians to ask about guns, or if we just had a very vigilant doctor. It turns out that, yes, the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that firearm safety is discussed with patients and families. Which makes sense in a country where there are more guns than people and where people get accidentally shot by toddlers on a weekly basis. This is the US – where guns are the leading cause of death for children age one and older, and where the state of Texas restricts dildo ownership (it’s illegal to own more than six dildos) but lets people carry a handgun without licensing or training.Also, uniquely American? The fact that some people seem to think that paediatricians asking about guns isn’t an indictment of American values, but an infringement of their liberties. In 2010, a woman in Florida was outraged over her kids’ doctor asking this “invasive” question, and helped set into motion a years-long legal saga known as “the docs versus the glocks”. The National Rifle Association (NRA) lobbied to get Florida to pass a law called the Firearm Owners’ Privacy Act, which prevented doctors from asking about gun ownership except in certain circumstances. If a doctor did raise the gun question, they risked losing their licence, and a $10,000 fine. This turned into a protracted lawsuit (the only thing the US loves as much as its guns is lawsuits), and, eventually, a court ruled that preventing doctors from discussing guns violated their freedom of speech. Which was a small win for sanity: now doctors don’t have to worry about losing their jobs if they tell their patients that keeping automatic weapons in their coat closet might be dangerous.My trip to the paediatrician was obviously not the first time I realised that the US has a dysfunctional relationship with firearms. However, talking about shooting while your toddler is getting their shots made the gun situation suddenly feel a lot more personal; I left that doctors appointment feeling very sick indeed. Did I really want to raise my kid in a country obsessed with the right to own deadly weapons? Was it irresponsible to voluntarily bring a child up in a place where 95% of public (state) schools carry out active shooter drills? A country where kids as young as three rehearse what to do if a gunman bursts into their classroom? The UK isn’t perfect by any means, but at least kids aren’t taught to prepare for the very real possibility their classroom might become a killing field.Because this is the US, those questions didn’t have a chance to recede. Shortly after the appointment, 10 people were murdered at a Buffalo, New York, supermarket, allegedly by an 18-year-old white supremacist. About a week later, 19 little children and two teachers were murdered in their Texas classroom by another 18-year-old. On Sunday, six minors were shot in Chattanooga, Tennessee. On Monday, a 10-year-old boy in Florida was arrested after threatening to shoot up a school. It never stops. And there seems to be no hope that it’s going to stop any time soon, either. The US supreme court is about to issue its first major ruling on gun rights in over a decade – but the conservative court is widely expected to expand gun rights and make it harder for cities and states to restrict the concealed carry of firearms. For the rest of the world, looking on in horror after the Texas massacre, this is insanity. For conservatives, this is the US.
      Arwa Mahdawi is a Guardian columnist
      TopicsUS gun controlOpinionUS politicsUS crimecommentReuse this content More

    • 125 Shares119 Views

      in World Politics

      Making Sense of the Economic Consequences of the Russia-Ukraine War

      by

      The Fair Observer website uses digital cookies so it can collect statistics on how many visitors come to the site, what content is viewed and for how long, and the general location of the computer network of the visitor. These statistics are collected and processed using the Google Analytics service. Fair Observer uses these aggregate statistics from website visits to help improve the content of the website and to provide regular reports to our current and future donors and funding organizations. The type of digital cookie information collected during your visit and any derived data cannot be used or combined with other information to personally identify you. Fair Observer does not use personal data collected from its website for advertising purposes or to market to you.As a convenience to you, Fair Observer provides buttons that link to popular social media sites, called social sharing buttons, to help you share Fair Observer content and your comments and opinions about it on these social media sites. These social sharing buttons are provided by and are part of these social media sites. They may collect and use personal data as described in their respective policies. Fair Observer does not receive personal data from your use of these social sharing buttons. It is not necessary that you use these buttons to read Fair Observer content or to share on social media. More

    • 125 Shares139 Views

      in World Politics

      Tibetan Activist and Writer Tenzin Tsundue Talks to Fair Observer

      by

      The Fair Observer website uses digital cookies so it can collect statistics on how many visitors come to the site, what content is viewed and for how long, and the general location of the computer network of the visitor. These statistics are collected and processed using the Google Analytics service. Fair Observer uses these aggregate statistics from website visits to help improve the content of the website and to provide regular reports to our current and future donors and funding organizations. The type of digital cookie information collected during your visit and any derived data cannot be used or combined with other information to personally identify you. Fair Observer does not use personal data collected from its website for advertising purposes or to market to you.As a convenience to you, Fair Observer provides buttons that link to popular social media sites, called social sharing buttons, to help you share Fair Observer content and your comments and opinions about it on these social media sites. These social sharing buttons are provided by and are part of these social media sites. They may collect and use personal data as described in their respective policies. Fair Observer does not receive personal data from your use of these social sharing buttons. It is not necessary that you use these buttons to read Fair Observer content or to share on social media. More

    • 138 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      Kevin McCarthy refuses to comply with House Capitol attack panel subpoena

      by

      Kevin McCarthy refuses to comply with House Capitol attack panel subpoenaThe Republican minority leader sent an 11-page letter appearing to demand materials from the committee related to his questioning Kevin McCarthy, the top Republican in the House, indicated on Friday to the House select committee investigating the Capitol attack that he would not cooperate with a subpoena unless he could review deposition topics and the legal rationale justifying the request.The California congressman’s response adopts an adversarial position similar to other subpoenaed Republican Congress members, and it sets a conundrum for the panel over whether to entertain the requests that also challenge the January 6 inquiry’s legitimacy.McCarthy appeared to tell the select committee in an 11-page letter through his lawyer that he would not consider complying with the subpoena until House investigators turned over materials that would reveal what the panel intended to use in questioning ahead of a deposition.Rudy Giuliani stonewalls Capitol attack investigators during lengthy depositionRead moreThe House minority leader also asked the panel to give him internal analyses about the constitutional and legal rationales justifying the subpoena, and whether the panel would adhere to one-hour questioning between majority and minority counsel, according to the letter.McCarthy’s references to the minority counsel amounted to a thinly veiled attack at the investigation, which Republicans have called illegitimate because the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, refused last year to appoint some of McCarthy’s picks for the Republican minority.The accusations, however, are to some degree disingenuous: it was McCarthy who pulled all Republican participation, incensed at Pelosi’s refusals, rather than name different members. Pelosi later added Republican congressmembers Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger to the panel.McCarthy’s requests also appeared phrased in a manner expecting the select committee to decline his requests, with the letter accusing the panel of issuing unprecedented subpoenas to five House Republicans in an illegal and unconstitutional manner.“The select committee is clearly not acting within the confines of any legislative purpose,” the letter said. “It is unclear how the select committee believes it is operating within the bounds of law or even within the confines of any legislative purpose.”The response from McCarthy largely mirrored the response from Ohio congressman Jim Jordan on Wednesday. In the letter, obtained by the Guardian, Jordan said he would consider complying only if the panel shared material that put him under scrutiny.Like with Jordan, it was not immediately clear how McCarthy might act if the select committee refused his requests. The investigation’s standard operating procedure to date has been not to share such materials with witnesses, according to a source familiar with the matter.The panel’s next move could have significant ramifications for both its inquiry and Congress. If the panel refused the request and the five subpoenaed House Republicans in turn declined to cooperate, it could leave large unanswered questions about the Capitol attack.But it could also set a problematic precedent for Republicans themselves, who might like the idea of subpoenaing Democrats in partisan investigations should the GOP take control of the House – as Capitol Hill widely expects – after the 2022 midterm elections.A spokesperson for the select committee declined to comment.The resistance from McCarthy came as he and Jordan denounced the investigation as a “kangaroo court” in a Wall Street Journal op-ed. “For House Republican leaders to agree to participate in this political stunt would change the House forever,” they wrote.With McCarthy’s refusal to appear for a deposition without first receiving materials from the select committee, at least four of the five Republicans subpoenaed to testify about their roles in the events of 6 January have now declined to comply without some sort of negotiation.The current chairman of the ultra-conservative House Freedom Caucus, Scott Perry, and its previous chairman, Andy Biggs, have both sent letters to the panel refusing to cooperate, CNN reported. It was not clear whether the fifth Republican, Mo Brooks, would comply.TopicsUS Capitol attackRepublicansHouse of RepresentativesUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

    • 138 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Kevin McCarthy refuses to comply with January 6 attack panel subpoena

      by

      Kevin McCarthy refuses to comply with January 6 attack panel subpoenaThe Republican minority leader sent an 11-page letter appearing to demand materials from the committee related to his questioning Kevin McCarthy, the top Republican in the House, indicated on Friday to the House select committee investigating the Capitol attack that he would not cooperate with a subpoena unless he could review deposition topics and the legal rationale justifying the request.The California congressman’s response adopts an adversarial position similar to other subpoenaed Republican Congress members, and it sets a conundrum for the panel over whether to entertain the requests that also challenge the January 6 inquiry’s legitimacy.McCarthy appeared to tell the select committee in an 11-page letter through his lawyer that he would not consider complying with the subpoena until House investigators turned over materials that would reveal what the panel intended to use in questioning ahead of a deposition.Rudy Giuliani stonewalls Capitol attack investigators during lengthy depositionRead moreThe House minority leader also asked the panel to give him internal analyses about the constitutional and legal rationales justifying the subpoena, and whether the panel would adhere to one-hour questioning between majority and minority counsel, according to the letter.McCarthy’s references to the minority counsel amounted to a thinly veiled attack at the investigation, which Republicans have called illegitimate because the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, refused last year to appoint some of McCarthy’s picks for the Republican minority.The accusations, however, are to some degree disingenuous: it was McCarthy who pulled all Republican participation, incensed at Pelosi’s refusals, rather than name different members. Pelosi later added Republican congressmembers Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger to the panel.McCarthy’s requests also appeared phrased in a manner expecting the select committee to decline his requests, with the letter accusing the panel of issuing unprecedented subpoenas to five House Republicans in an illegal and unconstitutional manner.“The select committee is clearly not acting within the confines of any legislative purpose,” the letter said. “It is unclear how the select committee believes it is operating within the bounds of law or even within the confines of any legislative purpose.”The response from McCarthy largely mirrored the response from Ohio congressman Jim Jordan on Wednesday. In the letter, obtained by the Guardian, Jordan said he would consider complying only if the panel shared material that put him under scrutiny.Like with Jordan, it was not immediately clear how McCarthy might act if the select committee refused his requests. The investigation’s standard operating procedure to date has been not to share such materials with witnesses, according to a source familiar with the matter.The panel’s next move could have significant ramifications for both its inquiry and Congress. If the panel refused the request and the five subpoenaed House Republicans in turn declined to cooperate, it could leave large unanswered questions about the Capitol attack.But it could also set a problematic precedent for Republicans themselves, who might like the idea of subpoenaing Democrats in partisan investigations should the GOP take control of the House – as Capitol Hill widely expects – after the 2022 midterm elections.A spokesperson for the select committee declined to comment.The resistance from McCarthy came as he and Jordan denounced the investigation as a “kangaroo court” in a Wall Street Journal op-ed. “For House Republican leaders to agree to participate in this political stunt would change the House forever,” they wrote.With McCarthy’s refusal to appear for a deposition without first receiving materials from the select committee, at least four of the five Republicans subpoenaed to testify about their roles in the events of 6 January have now declined to comply without some sort of negotiation.The current chairman of the ultra-conservative House Freedom Caucus, Scott Perry, and its previous chairman, Andy Biggs, have both sent letters to the panel refusing to cooperate, CNN reported. It was not clear whether the fifth Republican, Mo Brooks, would comply.TopicsUS Capitol attackRepublicansHouse of RepresentativesUS politicsnewsReuse this content More