Wednesday, 30 September 2009
Sunday, 20 September 2009
Captured Pakistan Taliban commander dies in jail
ISLAMABAD – A feared Taliban commander known for beheading opponents died in custody Sunday from wounds sustained during a fierce firefight with Pakistani security forces last week, the military said.
Sher Muhammad Qasab died after being critically wounded in the gunbattle in Swat Valley, the army's media center said in a statement. Qasab's three sons were killed when he was captured.
Qasab is an Urdu-language word meaning "butcher." He was given the title because of his ruthlessness toward enemies.
The arrest of Qasab — who had a $121,000 bounty on his head — was the third from the army's list of 10 most-wanted Swat militants. Qasab allegedly decapitated many Pakistani troops in Swat when the Taliban was in control.
The Pakistan Taliban has been on the run since being cleared from the scenic valley, once a tourist hotspot, and surrounding areas in July after the military launched a major offensive to retake the region in April.
The military announced Sunday that security forces killed eight militants in search operations throughout Swat since Saturday. Twenty-three insurgents were also apprehended and another 22 surrendered, it said in a statement. One of the militants killed was a Taliban commander identified as Chamtu Khan, it said.
A Pakistani patrol also killed 10 Taliban attempting to infiltrate Swat Valley's main city of Mingora on Thursday.
The army offensive against Taliban fighters in Swat has killed more than 1,800 alleged militants, according to the military. It says 330 Pakistani troops also died in operations in the valley.
U.S. missile attacks have played a significant role in neutralizing the insurgency. Taliban leader Baitullah Mehsud was killed in an Aug. 5 CIA missile strike, plunging the group's leadership into disarray. Officials said Thursday they believed the al-Qaida operations chief for Pakistan and a top Uzbek militant died in missile attacks in the northwest earlier this month.
Despite recent successes against extremists, attacks continue. On Friday, a suicide bomber plowed his explosives-laden vehicle into a hotel in the northwestern town of Kohat, killing more than 30 and wounding dozens of others.
About 2 million civilians were forced to flee the fighting in Swat, though 1.6 million have since returned home. Aid efforts carried out by the military continue in the region.
President Barack Obama, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari will hold a meeting this Thursday in New York to step up international efforts — including aid and investment — to stabilize Pakistan and help people displaced by the conflict in Swat and surrounding areas. The "Friends of Democratic Pakistan" grouping was launched last year promising to help build dams, power stations, schools and clinics.
Sher Muhammad Qasab died after being critically wounded in the gunbattle in Swat Valley, the army's media center said in a statement. Qasab's three sons were killed when he was captured.
Qasab is an Urdu-language word meaning "butcher." He was given the title because of his ruthlessness toward enemies.
The arrest of Qasab — who had a $121,000 bounty on his head — was the third from the army's list of 10 most-wanted Swat militants. Qasab allegedly decapitated many Pakistani troops in Swat when the Taliban was in control.
The Pakistan Taliban has been on the run since being cleared from the scenic valley, once a tourist hotspot, and surrounding areas in July after the military launched a major offensive to retake the region in April.
The military announced Sunday that security forces killed eight militants in search operations throughout Swat since Saturday. Twenty-three insurgents were also apprehended and another 22 surrendered, it said in a statement. One of the militants killed was a Taliban commander identified as Chamtu Khan, it said.
A Pakistani patrol also killed 10 Taliban attempting to infiltrate Swat Valley's main city of Mingora on Thursday.
The army offensive against Taliban fighters in Swat has killed more than 1,800 alleged militants, according to the military. It says 330 Pakistani troops also died in operations in the valley.
U.S. missile attacks have played a significant role in neutralizing the insurgency. Taliban leader Baitullah Mehsud was killed in an Aug. 5 CIA missile strike, plunging the group's leadership into disarray. Officials said Thursday they believed the al-Qaida operations chief for Pakistan and a top Uzbek militant died in missile attacks in the northwest earlier this month.
Despite recent successes against extremists, attacks continue. On Friday, a suicide bomber plowed his explosives-laden vehicle into a hotel in the northwestern town of Kohat, killing more than 30 and wounding dozens of others.
About 2 million civilians were forced to flee the fighting in Swat, though 1.6 million have since returned home. Aid efforts carried out by the military continue in the region.
President Barack Obama, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari will hold a meeting this Thursday in New York to step up international efforts — including aid and investment — to stabilize Pakistan and help people displaced by the conflict in Swat and surrounding areas. The "Friends of Democratic Pakistan" grouping was launched last year promising to help build dams, power stations, schools and clinics.
Obama: Missile defense decision not about Russia
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama sharply dismisses criticism that Russian opposition influenced his decision to scrap a European missile defense system, calling it merely a bonus if the leaders of Russia end up "a little less paranoid" about the U.S.
"My task here was not to negotiate with the Russians," Obama told CBS' "Face the Nation" in an interview for broadcast Sunday. "The Russians don't make determinations about what our defense posture is."
The president's comments were his first on the matter since he abruptly announced on Thursday that he was scuttling plans to deploy 10 missile interceptors in Poland and a related radar in the Czech Republic. That shield had been proposed under President George W. Bush.
Russia condemned it is a threat to its security despite years of U.S. assurances to the contrary.
In its place will be a different missile-defense plan relying on a network of sensors and interceptor missiles based at sea, on land and in the air. Obama says that adapts to the most pressing threat from Iran to U.S. troops and allies in Europe, potential attacks by short- and medium-range missiles.
Yet at home and abroad, Obama's decision immediately raised a political question of whether it was done in part to appease Russia and win its help in other areas, mainly in confronting the potential of a nuclear-armed Iran. That point was underscored when Russia lauded the change.
In an interview with CBS News that was taped Friday, Obama was pressed on why he did not seek anything in exchange from Russia.
"Russia had always been paranoid about this, but George Bush was right. This wasn't a threat to them," Obama said. "And this program will not be a threat to them."
He added: "If the byproduct of it is that the Russians feel a little less paranoid and are now willing to work more effectively with us to deal with threats like ballistic missiles from Iran or nuclear development in Iran, you know, then that's a bonus."
Russia said Saturday that it will scrap a plan to deploy missiles near Poland since Obama dumped the planned missile shield in Eastern Europe.
Russia's Deputy Defense Minister Vladimir Popovkin said Obama's move made the deployment of short-range missiles in the Kaliningrad region unnecessary, and he called the U.S. president's decision a "victory of reason over ambitions."
Washington is counting on Moscow to help raise pressure on Tehran over its disputed nuclear program, although there are no clear signs that will happen.
Also Sunday, Defense Secretary Robert Gates asserted that the United States is not walking away from European allies to appease Russia.
"Russia's attitude and possible reaction played no part in my recommendation to the president on this issue," Gates wrote in an essay in The New York Times. He said he would be surprised if Russia likes the replacement European missile defense plan much better.
Gates acknowledged that one criticism of the replacement plan is that it relies heavily on fresh intelligence about the Iranian missile threat. The U.S. now judges shorter-range missiles as a greater problem in the near term than the long-range missiles the old system was conceived to counter. But he suggested it would have been foolhardy to stick with a plan that had become obsolete before it was built.
"Having spent most of my career at the CIA, I am all too familiar with the pitfalls of over-reliance on intelligence assessments that can become outdated," wrote Gates, a former CIA director.
That system never moved past the blueprint stage, and would not have been fully fielded until at least 2017.
Part of the replacement system could be in place as soon as 2011, Gates said.
"My task here was not to negotiate with the Russians," Obama told CBS' "Face the Nation" in an interview for broadcast Sunday. "The Russians don't make determinations about what our defense posture is."
The president's comments were his first on the matter since he abruptly announced on Thursday that he was scuttling plans to deploy 10 missile interceptors in Poland and a related radar in the Czech Republic. That shield had been proposed under President George W. Bush.
Russia condemned it is a threat to its security despite years of U.S. assurances to the contrary.
In its place will be a different missile-defense plan relying on a network of sensors and interceptor missiles based at sea, on land and in the air. Obama says that adapts to the most pressing threat from Iran to U.S. troops and allies in Europe, potential attacks by short- and medium-range missiles.
Yet at home and abroad, Obama's decision immediately raised a political question of whether it was done in part to appease Russia and win its help in other areas, mainly in confronting the potential of a nuclear-armed Iran. That point was underscored when Russia lauded the change.
In an interview with CBS News that was taped Friday, Obama was pressed on why he did not seek anything in exchange from Russia.
"Russia had always been paranoid about this, but George Bush was right. This wasn't a threat to them," Obama said. "And this program will not be a threat to them."
He added: "If the byproduct of it is that the Russians feel a little less paranoid and are now willing to work more effectively with us to deal with threats like ballistic missiles from Iran or nuclear development in Iran, you know, then that's a bonus."
Russia said Saturday that it will scrap a plan to deploy missiles near Poland since Obama dumped the planned missile shield in Eastern Europe.
Russia's Deputy Defense Minister Vladimir Popovkin said Obama's move made the deployment of short-range missiles in the Kaliningrad region unnecessary, and he called the U.S. president's decision a "victory of reason over ambitions."
Washington is counting on Moscow to help raise pressure on Tehran over its disputed nuclear program, although there are no clear signs that will happen.
Also Sunday, Defense Secretary Robert Gates asserted that the United States is not walking away from European allies to appease Russia.
"Russia's attitude and possible reaction played no part in my recommendation to the president on this issue," Gates wrote in an essay in The New York Times. He said he would be surprised if Russia likes the replacement European missile defense plan much better.
Gates acknowledged that one criticism of the replacement plan is that it relies heavily on fresh intelligence about the Iranian missile threat. The U.S. now judges shorter-range missiles as a greater problem in the near term than the long-range missiles the old system was conceived to counter. But he suggested it would have been foolhardy to stick with a plan that had become obsolete before it was built.
"Having spent most of my career at the CIA, I am all too familiar with the pitfalls of over-reliance on intelligence assessments that can become outdated," wrote Gates, a former CIA director.
That system never moved past the blueprint stage, and would not have been fully fielded until at least 2017.
Part of the replacement system could be in place as soon as 2011, Gates said.
Medvedev: Israel not planning to strike Iran
MOSCOW – Russian President Dmitry Medvedev says Israeli officials have assured him that they are not planning a military strike on Iran. In an interview with CNN television broadcast Sunday, Medvedev also confirmed that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made a secret visit to Moscow this month that included a meeting with the Russian president.
In a transcript of the interview released by the Kremlin, Medvedev hedges on the question of whether Russia would support Iran if it were attacked by Israel.
Although Russia has no defense agreement with Iran "this does not mean we would like to be or will be indifferent to such an occurrence. This is the worst thing that can be imagined," Medvedev said of a potential Israeli strike.
"What would happen after that? Humanitarian disaster, a vast number of refugees, Iran's wish to take revenge — and not only upon Israel, to be honest, but upon other countries as well."
"But my Israeli colleagues told me they were not planning to act in this way, and I trust them," Medvedev said.
It was not clear whether those referred to included Netanyahu. Israeli President Shimon Peres also reportedly told Medvedev in a meeting this month that Israel wasn't planning an attack on Iran. But Medvedev gave the first confirmation from the Russian side that a meeting with Netanyahu had taken place.
Netanyahu vanished from public view in Israel for most of the day on Sept. 7. His office said he had visited a secret security facility, but there was widespread speculation that he had gone to Russia — either to pressure Moscow not to deliver S-300 air-defense missiles to Iran or to inform the Kremlin of attack plans.
"Prime Minister Netanyahu came to Moscow. He did this under a closed regime, this was his decision. I don't understand what this was connected with, but sometimes our partners decide it this way," Medvedev said. He did not give details of the meeting.
Russia signed a contract two years ago to sell S-300s to Iran, a move that disturbs Israel because the missiles would substantially boost Iran's defenses. However, no deliveries have been made public.
In the interview, Medvedev acknowledged Israel's concerns but said that "any supplies of any weapons, especially defensive weapons, cannot increase tension; on the contrary, they should ease it."
Russia has cultivated close cooperation with Iran, including building the Bushehr nuclear power plant that critics say is a key element of Iranian attempts to develop nuclear weapons. But Russia has shown irritation with Iran's failure to cooperate with the International Atomic Energy Agency as it seeks to determine if Iran is pursuing nuclear arms.
Although Russia — which has veto power in the United Nations Security Council — so far has resisted additional sanctions on Iran, Medvedev admonished Tehran in the interview.
"Iran must cooperate with the IAEA, this is absolutely obvious, if it wishes to develop its nuclear dimension, its nuclear energy program. This is a duty and not a matter of choice," he said.
In a transcript of the interview released by the Kremlin, Medvedev hedges on the question of whether Russia would support Iran if it were attacked by Israel.
Although Russia has no defense agreement with Iran "this does not mean we would like to be or will be indifferent to such an occurrence. This is the worst thing that can be imagined," Medvedev said of a potential Israeli strike.
"What would happen after that? Humanitarian disaster, a vast number of refugees, Iran's wish to take revenge — and not only upon Israel, to be honest, but upon other countries as well."
"But my Israeli colleagues told me they were not planning to act in this way, and I trust them," Medvedev said.
It was not clear whether those referred to included Netanyahu. Israeli President Shimon Peres also reportedly told Medvedev in a meeting this month that Israel wasn't planning an attack on Iran. But Medvedev gave the first confirmation from the Russian side that a meeting with Netanyahu had taken place.
Netanyahu vanished from public view in Israel for most of the day on Sept. 7. His office said he had visited a secret security facility, but there was widespread speculation that he had gone to Russia — either to pressure Moscow not to deliver S-300 air-defense missiles to Iran or to inform the Kremlin of attack plans.
"Prime Minister Netanyahu came to Moscow. He did this under a closed regime, this was his decision. I don't understand what this was connected with, but sometimes our partners decide it this way," Medvedev said. He did not give details of the meeting.
Russia signed a contract two years ago to sell S-300s to Iran, a move that disturbs Israel because the missiles would substantially boost Iran's defenses. However, no deliveries have been made public.
In the interview, Medvedev acknowledged Israel's concerns but said that "any supplies of any weapons, especially defensive weapons, cannot increase tension; on the contrary, they should ease it."
Russia has cultivated close cooperation with Iran, including building the Bushehr nuclear power plant that critics say is a key element of Iranian attempts to develop nuclear weapons. But Russia has shown irritation with Iran's failure to cooperate with the International Atomic Energy Agency as it seeks to determine if Iran is pursuing nuclear arms.
Although Russia — which has veto power in the United Nations Security Council — so far has resisted additional sanctions on Iran, Medvedev admonished Tehran in the interview.
"Iran must cooperate with the IAEA, this is absolutely obvious, if it wishes to develop its nuclear dimension, its nuclear energy program. This is a duty and not a matter of choice," he said.
Iran's leader says US nuke accusations wrong
TEHRAN, Iran – Iran's supreme leader said Sunday that U.S. officials know they are wrongly accusing Iran of seeking to develop nuclear weapons.
In Iran's first official reaction to the U.S. decision to scrap a European missile intercept system to defend against threats from Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei claimed President Barack Obama's administration is following the same policies as its predecessor.
"The U.S. officials who talk about Iranian missiles and their danger while saying Iran intends to build a nuclear bomb, they know these words are wrong," Khamenei said in remarks broadcast on state-run radio. "Despite its apparent friendly messages and words" the Obama administration is pursuing the same policy of Iran-phobia, he said.
The U.S. administration has invited Iran to start a dialogue on its nuclear program and gave a vague September deadline for Tehran to take up the offer. The U.S. and five other world powers accepted an offer from Iran earlier this month to hold "comprehensive, all-encompassing and constructive" talks on a range of security issues, including global nuclear disarmament.
European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana will meet Iran's nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili on Oct. 1 for talks on Iran's nuclear program. Iran has long maintained the program is purely for peaceful purposes and Khamenei reiterated that Iran considers the production and use of nuclear arms forbidden by the country's Muslim beliefs.
The Obama administration announced earlier this month it was scrapping a Bush-era plan for a missile defense system based in Poland and the Czech Republic. Former President George W. Bush contended the system was needed to shoot down any Iranian missile if Tehran ever developed one with adequate range to threaten the United States or Europe.
U.S. officials have said the decision was based largely on a new U.S. intelligence assessment that Iran's effort to build a nuclear-capable long-range missile would take three years to five years longer than originally thought. The scrapped plan will be replaced by a new one initially geared more to the threat of short- and medium-range missiles from Iran.
Khamenei also addressed Iran's domestic political crisis, warning government supporters against accusing opposition members of wrongdoing without proof. It was the latest indication that the Islamic government may be easing up on critics of the June presidential election.
In a speech marking the end of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, Khamenei appeared to be working to iron out tensions that have created the country's biggest domestic political crisis since the 1979 Islamic Revolution — the fallout from the disputed June 12 election in which President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad won re-election in a race critics say was marred by widespread fraud.
Amid mass trials of supporters of reformist presidential candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi, as well as claims of abuse, coerced confessions and intimidation by security forces targeting the opposition, Khamenei said while a suspect's own confession was admissible, his testimony or accusations could not be used to implicate others in the unrest.
"We do not have the right to accuse without any proof," Khamenei said, urging the judiciary and security forces to pursue offenders within the bounds of the law. The speech was carried live on Iran's state radio and television.
"What a suspect says in court against a third party has no legitimate validity," he said.
Khamenei did not single out any individuals, but his remarks appeared to refer to testimony by some detainees who maintain that former President Hashemi Rafsanjani and other reformists supported Mousavi to weaken Khamenei.
Rafsanjani — who has been absent from several recent official ceremonies, including a Friday prayer led by the supreme leader earlier in September — was seen sitting in the first row of worshippers during the prayer ceremony at which Khamenei spoke.
Khamenei has been a staunch supporter of Ahmadinejad, support that has further angered critics and opened up a wide rift between the country's influential clerics — reformists on one side, hard-liners on the other.
But in what could be an attempt to bridge that gap, he said accusing others in the media without any proof would create a climate of suspicion.
The country has already been faced with just such a situation for months since tens of thousands took to the streets in protests after the elections, sparking a harsh government crackdown in which hundreds were arrested or detained and dozens subsequently being brought to court in mass trials. Some opposition members say 72 died in the post-vote police crackdown, roughly double the government's official casualty figures.
Khamenei's latest comments could signal a change in the direction of the ongoing court cases against protesters. Some detainees blamed opposition figures and their supporters of fomenting the postelection unrest. Among those blamed were Rafsanjani and his son.
In Iran's first official reaction to the U.S. decision to scrap a European missile intercept system to defend against threats from Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei claimed President Barack Obama's administration is following the same policies as its predecessor.
"The U.S. officials who talk about Iranian missiles and their danger while saying Iran intends to build a nuclear bomb, they know these words are wrong," Khamenei said in remarks broadcast on state-run radio. "Despite its apparent friendly messages and words" the Obama administration is pursuing the same policy of Iran-phobia, he said.
The U.S. administration has invited Iran to start a dialogue on its nuclear program and gave a vague September deadline for Tehran to take up the offer. The U.S. and five other world powers accepted an offer from Iran earlier this month to hold "comprehensive, all-encompassing and constructive" talks on a range of security issues, including global nuclear disarmament.
European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana will meet Iran's nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili on Oct. 1 for talks on Iran's nuclear program. Iran has long maintained the program is purely for peaceful purposes and Khamenei reiterated that Iran considers the production and use of nuclear arms forbidden by the country's Muslim beliefs.
The Obama administration announced earlier this month it was scrapping a Bush-era plan for a missile defense system based in Poland and the Czech Republic. Former President George W. Bush contended the system was needed to shoot down any Iranian missile if Tehran ever developed one with adequate range to threaten the United States or Europe.
U.S. officials have said the decision was based largely on a new U.S. intelligence assessment that Iran's effort to build a nuclear-capable long-range missile would take three years to five years longer than originally thought. The scrapped plan will be replaced by a new one initially geared more to the threat of short- and medium-range missiles from Iran.
Khamenei also addressed Iran's domestic political crisis, warning government supporters against accusing opposition members of wrongdoing without proof. It was the latest indication that the Islamic government may be easing up on critics of the June presidential election.
In a speech marking the end of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, Khamenei appeared to be working to iron out tensions that have created the country's biggest domestic political crisis since the 1979 Islamic Revolution — the fallout from the disputed June 12 election in which President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad won re-election in a race critics say was marred by widespread fraud.
Amid mass trials of supporters of reformist presidential candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi, as well as claims of abuse, coerced confessions and intimidation by security forces targeting the opposition, Khamenei said while a suspect's own confession was admissible, his testimony or accusations could not be used to implicate others in the unrest.
"We do not have the right to accuse without any proof," Khamenei said, urging the judiciary and security forces to pursue offenders within the bounds of the law. The speech was carried live on Iran's state radio and television.
"What a suspect says in court against a third party has no legitimate validity," he said.
Khamenei did not single out any individuals, but his remarks appeared to refer to testimony by some detainees who maintain that former President Hashemi Rafsanjani and other reformists supported Mousavi to weaken Khamenei.
Rafsanjani — who has been absent from several recent official ceremonies, including a Friday prayer led by the supreme leader earlier in September — was seen sitting in the first row of worshippers during the prayer ceremony at which Khamenei spoke.
Khamenei has been a staunch supporter of Ahmadinejad, support that has further angered critics and opened up a wide rift between the country's influential clerics — reformists on one side, hard-liners on the other.
But in what could be an attempt to bridge that gap, he said accusing others in the media without any proof would create a climate of suspicion.
The country has already been faced with just such a situation for months since tens of thousands took to the streets in protests after the elections, sparking a harsh government crackdown in which hundreds were arrested or detained and dozens subsequently being brought to court in mass trials. Some opposition members say 72 died in the post-vote police crackdown, roughly double the government's official casualty figures.
Khamenei's latest comments could signal a change in the direction of the ongoing court cases against protesters. Some detainees blamed opposition figures and their supporters of fomenting the postelection unrest. Among those blamed were Rafsanjani and his son.
One in seven Germans want Berlin Wall back?
BERLIN – One in seven Germans want the Berlin Wall back because they were better off when the country was divided, according to an opinion poll published on Wednesday ahead of the 20th anniversary of its collapse on November 9, 1989.
The survey of 1,002 Germans by the Forsa institute published in Stern magazine said 15 percent of the country's 82 million long for the days when there were two Germanys. Some 16 percent pining for the Wall were westerners and 10 percent easterners.
The survey found that many westerners are bitter about higher taxes to pay for rebuilding the formerly communist east, where some 1.2 trillion euros ($1,762 billion) worth of state funds has been transferred in the last 20 years.
Eastern Germans are unhappy about income levels that are on average only 80 percent of western levels and that due to higher unemployment depopulation is decimating parts of the east, where the population has declined by about two million since 1990.
The poll found 55 percent of Germans believe unification could be helped if a "solidarity tax" to help fund the costs of rebuilding were abolished while 50 percent believe higher pensions for easterners would help ease east-west tensions.
The survey of 1,002 Germans by the Forsa institute published in Stern magazine said 15 percent of the country's 82 million long for the days when there were two Germanys. Some 16 percent pining for the Wall were westerners and 10 percent easterners.
The survey found that many westerners are bitter about higher taxes to pay for rebuilding the formerly communist east, where some 1.2 trillion euros ($1,762 billion) worth of state funds has been transferred in the last 20 years.
Eastern Germans are unhappy about income levels that are on average only 80 percent of western levels and that due to higher unemployment depopulation is decimating parts of the east, where the population has declined by about two million since 1990.
The poll found 55 percent of Germans believe unification could be helped if a "solidarity tax" to help fund the costs of rebuilding were abolished while 50 percent believe higher pensions for easterners would help ease east-west tensions.
volkeswagon to sponsor sochi 2014 winter olympics
SOCHI, Russia – Volkswagen became a sponsor of the 2014 Winter Olympics on Friday in a deal that Sochi organizers said brings total sponsorship revenues to more than $750 million.
Sochi organizing committee chief Dmitry Chernyshenko signed the agreement with Dietmar Korzekwa, director general of Volkswagen Group Rus, in the Black Sea resort city.
Volkswagen will provide the organizing committee with about 3,000 vehicles for use during preparations for the Olympics and the games themselves. Most of the vehicles will be produced in the Volkswagen factory in Russia's Kaluga region, southwest of Moscow.
"The support of the Olympic Games in Sochi will help us to demonstrate our automotive competence and the strong connection with Russia and our Russian consumers," Korzekwa said in a statement.
Volkswagen was the official automobile partner of the 2008 Summer Games in Beijing.
Financial terms were not given, but Sochi organizers have said previous deals with top-tier domestic sponsors were worth more than $100 million.
Volkswagen is the sixth "tier one" sponsor signed by Sochi organizers. The others are Aeroflot, telecommunication firms Rostelecom and Megafon, oil and gas company Rosneft and lender Sberbank.
Sochi organizing committee chief Dmitry Chernyshenko signed the agreement with Dietmar Korzekwa, director general of Volkswagen Group Rus, in the Black Sea resort city.
Volkswagen will provide the organizing committee with about 3,000 vehicles for use during preparations for the Olympics and the games themselves. Most of the vehicles will be produced in the Volkswagen factory in Russia's Kaluga region, southwest of Moscow.
"The support of the Olympic Games in Sochi will help us to demonstrate our automotive competence and the strong connection with Russia and our Russian consumers," Korzekwa said in a statement.
Volkswagen was the official automobile partner of the 2008 Summer Games in Beijing.
Financial terms were not given, but Sochi organizers have said previous deals with top-tier domestic sponsors were worth more than $100 million.
Volkswagen is the sixth "tier one" sponsor signed by Sochi organizers. The others are Aeroflot, telecommunication firms Rostelecom and Megafon, oil and gas company Rosneft and lender Sberbank.
Spain eye 4th davis cup against czechs
PARIS (AFP) – Defending champions Spain will face the Czech Republic in the 2009 Davis Cup final after decisively proving once again that there is life beyond Rafael Nadal.
The world number two skipped this weekend's semi-final win over Israel in Murcia after being forced to rest an abdominal strain picked up in his recent run to the US Open last four.
It was a familiar scenario for the Spanish who defeated Argentina in the 2008 final without the six-time Grand Slam title winner, sidelined from that encounter because of a knee injury.
On Saturday, doubles pair Tommy Robredo and Feliciano Lopez defeated Jonathan Erlich and Andy Ram 7-6 (8/6), 6-7 (7/9), 6-4, 6-2 to give their team an unassailable 3-0 lead and a place in a seventh Davis Cup final.
In the December 4-6 title match, which they will host, they'll start overwhelming favourites to claim a fourth title having now won 17 straight Davis Cup home ties.
It will also give Spain captain Albert Costa a selection headache with Nadal and fellow top 10 player Fernando Verdasco, who was another semi-final absentee, likely to be fit.
"It was a question of taking our opportunities," said Robredo. "The first two sets were very close, but then we played our best in the third and fourth sets."
The Czechs, who opened up an unbeatable 3-0 lead over 2005 winners Croatia in Porec, will be playing in only their third final, and first since 1980 when they won their one and only title.
Spain had been 2-0 ahead overnight after David Ferrer had swept past Harel Levy 6-1, 6-4, 6-3 before Juan Carlos Ferrero, Nadal's replacement, outclassed Dudi Sela 6-4, 6-2, 6-0.
Lopez and Robredo won the first set on the tiebreak and even had two set points in the second before the Israeli doubles specialists levelled.
Israel had defeated former champions Russia in the quarter-finals, but any hope of a repeat were quickly snuffed out when Lopez and Robredo opened up a 4-0 lead in the third set.
Erlich then needed treatment on an injured elbow at 1-1 in the fourth set before the Spanish duo romped to victory.
"That was the point that we lost the match," said Ram. "Jonathan couldn?t serve his best, but it?s tough to beat Spain on clay, even if we were healthy."
Costa dedicated the victory to a young woman who died in floods caused by a torrential storm in Murcia on Wednesday. A minute?s silence was observed in her memory before the start of Friday?s first singles.
The Czech Republic reached their first final in 29 years when Tomas Berdych and Radek Stepanek defeated Lovro Zovko and Marin Cilic 6-1, 6-3, 6-4, a welcome straight-sets win coming after Friday's two marathon singles which had taken almost 10 hours to complete.
In 1975, Czechoslovakia were runners-up to Sweden and then in 1980, led by Ivan Lendl, they beat Italy to win their lone title.
"I am extremely proud of these boys, the whole team. For the first time since 1980 the Czechs are in the Davis Cup final, but I hope that this time we will hold this cup under under the Czech name," coach Jaroslav Navratil said.
In 1980 the Czech Republic was part of Czechoslovakia. The country split amicably into the Czech Republic and Slovakia in 1993 after the toppling of the communist regime in 1989.
On Friday, Stepanek won a five-hour, 59-minute marathon against Ivo Karlovic in the opening singles.
Karlovic sent down a world record 78 aces and had five match points, but Stepanek still prevailed 6-7 (5/7), 7-6 (7/5), 7-6 (7/5), 6-7 (2/7), 16-14.
The second rubber also went the distance with Berdych beating Cilic 6-3, 6-3, 3-6, 4-6, 6-3.
The world number two skipped this weekend's semi-final win over Israel in Murcia after being forced to rest an abdominal strain picked up in his recent run to the US Open last four.
It was a familiar scenario for the Spanish who defeated Argentina in the 2008 final without the six-time Grand Slam title winner, sidelined from that encounter because of a knee injury.
On Saturday, doubles pair Tommy Robredo and Feliciano Lopez defeated Jonathan Erlich and Andy Ram 7-6 (8/6), 6-7 (7/9), 6-4, 6-2 to give their team an unassailable 3-0 lead and a place in a seventh Davis Cup final.
In the December 4-6 title match, which they will host, they'll start overwhelming favourites to claim a fourth title having now won 17 straight Davis Cup home ties.
It will also give Spain captain Albert Costa a selection headache with Nadal and fellow top 10 player Fernando Verdasco, who was another semi-final absentee, likely to be fit.
"It was a question of taking our opportunities," said Robredo. "The first two sets were very close, but then we played our best in the third and fourth sets."
The Czechs, who opened up an unbeatable 3-0 lead over 2005 winners Croatia in Porec, will be playing in only their third final, and first since 1980 when they won their one and only title.
Spain had been 2-0 ahead overnight after David Ferrer had swept past Harel Levy 6-1, 6-4, 6-3 before Juan Carlos Ferrero, Nadal's replacement, outclassed Dudi Sela 6-4, 6-2, 6-0.
Lopez and Robredo won the first set on the tiebreak and even had two set points in the second before the Israeli doubles specialists levelled.
Israel had defeated former champions Russia in the quarter-finals, but any hope of a repeat were quickly snuffed out when Lopez and Robredo opened up a 4-0 lead in the third set.
Erlich then needed treatment on an injured elbow at 1-1 in the fourth set before the Spanish duo romped to victory.
"That was the point that we lost the match," said Ram. "Jonathan couldn?t serve his best, but it?s tough to beat Spain on clay, even if we were healthy."
Costa dedicated the victory to a young woman who died in floods caused by a torrential storm in Murcia on Wednesday. A minute?s silence was observed in her memory before the start of Friday?s first singles.
The Czech Republic reached their first final in 29 years when Tomas Berdych and Radek Stepanek defeated Lovro Zovko and Marin Cilic 6-1, 6-3, 6-4, a welcome straight-sets win coming after Friday's two marathon singles which had taken almost 10 hours to complete.
In 1975, Czechoslovakia were runners-up to Sweden and then in 1980, led by Ivan Lendl, they beat Italy to win their lone title.
"I am extremely proud of these boys, the whole team. For the first time since 1980 the Czechs are in the Davis Cup final, but I hope that this time we will hold this cup under under the Czech name," coach Jaroslav Navratil said.
In 1980 the Czech Republic was part of Czechoslovakia. The country split amicably into the Czech Republic and Slovakia in 1993 after the toppling of the communist regime in 1989.
On Friday, Stepanek won a five-hour, 59-minute marathon against Ivo Karlovic in the opening singles.
Karlovic sent down a world record 78 aces and had five match points, but Stepanek still prevailed 6-7 (5/7), 7-6 (7/5), 7-6 (7/5), 6-7 (2/7), 16-14.
The second rubber also went the distance with Berdych beating Cilic 6-3, 6-3, 3-6, 4-6, 6-3.
NASA launches rocket, dozens report strange lights
WALLOPS ISLAND, Va. – NASA says it successfully launched a rocket in Virginia as part of an experiment, and the blast may have caused dozens of people to report seeing strange lights in the sky.
The space agency said it launched the Black Brant XII on Saturday evening to gather data on the highest clouds in the Earth's atmosphere. About the time of the launch, dozens of people in the Northeast started calling local television stations to report seeing strange lights.
The calls came from as far away as Boston, which is about 380 miles northeast of the launch site.
The rocket is designed to create an artificial cloud. NASA hopes the experiment will provide information on the formation and properties of noctilucent clouds, which occur at high altitudes.
The space agency said it launched the Black Brant XII on Saturday evening to gather data on the highest clouds in the Earth's atmosphere. About the time of the launch, dozens of people in the Northeast started calling local television stations to report seeing strange lights.
The calls came from as far away as Boston, which is about 380 miles northeast of the launch site.
The rocket is designed to create an artificial cloud. NASA hopes the experiment will provide information on the formation and properties of noctilucent clouds, which occur at high altitudes.
Torres keeps liverpool on title track
LONDON (AFP) – Fernando Torres extended Liverpool?s recent revival with two goals that helped Rafael Benitez?s side move up to third place on the back of a 3-2 victory at West Ham United.
Torres's excellent finishes, sandwiched between a close-range effort from Dirk Kuyt, proved decisive after Liverpool's poor defending had twice allowed the home side to equalise, first through an Alessandro Diamanti penalty and then a Carlton Cole header.
Two early defeats to Spurs and Aston Villa have given Benitez?s side no margin for error as they bid to keep pace with the early leaders.
Chelsea?s ominous start of five wins from their opening five games has set a testing standard, and after failing to win the title despite losing just two league games last season, Liverpool are under no illusions about what is required over the coming months.
Three successive wins, including the Champions League victory over Debrecen, had improved the mood at Anfield and prompted Benitez to declare before this game that confidence is growing in the dressing room.
Nonetheless, the early defeats have left their mark and Carragher spoke last week about the need to embark on an unbeaten run of at least 15 games before any plaudits are handed out.
Given that background then, the last thing Liverpool needed was for the former England defender to gift West Ham the chance to open the scoring after just two minutes.
Carragher?s unexpected slip presented West Ham youngster Zavon Hines with a clear route to Pepe Reina?s goal and the Liverpool defender was relieved to see Hines strike his early effort against the post.
That wouldn?t be the last time Hines got the better of Carragher, but it was Liverpool who responded more positively after their early shock and looked as though they would take control of the game.
The home side?s cause wasn?t helped by an early injury to centre back Matthew Upson, but with Torres looking in determined form, a Reds goal was always imminent.
Inevitably it came from the Spaniard, but only after he had sent an acrobatic volley wide.
He made no such mistake in the 20th minute, though, when he collected a ball from Emiliano Insua on the left hand side of the Hammers? box and simply powered past James Tomkins before rifling his right foot shot into the roof of Robert Green?s net.
Despite the lead, Liverpool never looked totally comfortable with the back-line looking vulnerable to Hines? pace and Cole?s power.
And it was no surprise when Hines again found his way past Carragher, this time forcing the defender into a clumsy challenge that gifted Diamanti the chance to mark his full debut with a goal and equalise from the penalty spot.
Television replays suggested the Italian's strike should not have stood as he slipped and made a double contact on the ball.
Liverpool had it all to do again, but they were given the chance to reassert control when Steven Gerrard was allowed to rise unchallenged and meet Yossi Benayoun?s corner with Kuyt on hand two yards out to help the ball home.
All Liverpool needed to do was see out the remaining three minutes and reach the interval with the cushion of a lead. But once again, they showed their defensive frailties when they couldn't defend a routine corner and Cole headed home from Diamanti?s cross.
With both defences all at sea, it seemed inevitable more goals would follow, but the second half proved to be a much tighter affair with Torres finally conjuring the decisive act when he met Ryan Babel?s cross and headed home with fifteen minutes remaining
Torres's excellent finishes, sandwiched between a close-range effort from Dirk Kuyt, proved decisive after Liverpool's poor defending had twice allowed the home side to equalise, first through an Alessandro Diamanti penalty and then a Carlton Cole header.
Two early defeats to Spurs and Aston Villa have given Benitez?s side no margin for error as they bid to keep pace with the early leaders.
Chelsea?s ominous start of five wins from their opening five games has set a testing standard, and after failing to win the title despite losing just two league games last season, Liverpool are under no illusions about what is required over the coming months.
Three successive wins, including the Champions League victory over Debrecen, had improved the mood at Anfield and prompted Benitez to declare before this game that confidence is growing in the dressing room.
Nonetheless, the early defeats have left their mark and Carragher spoke last week about the need to embark on an unbeaten run of at least 15 games before any plaudits are handed out.
Given that background then, the last thing Liverpool needed was for the former England defender to gift West Ham the chance to open the scoring after just two minutes.
Carragher?s unexpected slip presented West Ham youngster Zavon Hines with a clear route to Pepe Reina?s goal and the Liverpool defender was relieved to see Hines strike his early effort against the post.
That wouldn?t be the last time Hines got the better of Carragher, but it was Liverpool who responded more positively after their early shock and looked as though they would take control of the game.
The home side?s cause wasn?t helped by an early injury to centre back Matthew Upson, but with Torres looking in determined form, a Reds goal was always imminent.
Inevitably it came from the Spaniard, but only after he had sent an acrobatic volley wide.
He made no such mistake in the 20th minute, though, when he collected a ball from Emiliano Insua on the left hand side of the Hammers? box and simply powered past James Tomkins before rifling his right foot shot into the roof of Robert Green?s net.
Despite the lead, Liverpool never looked totally comfortable with the back-line looking vulnerable to Hines? pace and Cole?s power.
And it was no surprise when Hines again found his way past Carragher, this time forcing the defender into a clumsy challenge that gifted Diamanti the chance to mark his full debut with a goal and equalise from the penalty spot.
Television replays suggested the Italian's strike should not have stood as he slipped and made a double contact on the ball.
Liverpool had it all to do again, but they were given the chance to reassert control when Steven Gerrard was allowed to rise unchallenged and meet Yossi Benayoun?s corner with Kuyt on hand two yards out to help the ball home.
All Liverpool needed to do was see out the remaining three minutes and reach the interval with the cushion of a lead. But once again, they showed their defensive frailties when they couldn't defend a routine corner and Cole headed home from Diamanti?s cross.
With both defences all at sea, it seemed inevitable more goals would follow, but the second half proved to be a much tighter affair with Torres finally conjuring the decisive act when he met Ryan Babel?s cross and headed home with fifteen minutes remaining
US justice dept wants changes to google book ideal
WASHINGTON (AFP) - The US Justice Department has advised a court to reject a legal settlement between Google and authors and publishers that would allow the Internet giant to scan and sell millions of books online.
The Justice Department, in a filing late Friday with a US District Court in New York, said the class action settlement raises copyright and anti-trust issues but it encouraged the parties to continue their discussions to address its concerns.
"This Court should reject the Proposed Settlement in its current form and encourage the parties to continue negotiations to modify it," the department said in a 32-page filing submitted to the court.
"The public interest would best be served by direction from the Court encouraging the continuation of those discussions," it said.
US District Court Judge Denny Chin is to hold a hearing on October 7 on the class action settlement reached in October between Google and the Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers to a copyright infringement suit they filed against the Mountain View, California, company in 2005.
Under the settlement, Google agreed to pay 125 million dollars to resolve outstanding claims and establish an independent "Book Rights Registry," which would provide revenue from sales and advertising to authors and publishers who agree to digitize their books.
Google rivals Microsoft, Amazon and Yahoo! have filed objections to the settlement with the court along with the French and German governments, privacy advocates and consumer watchdog groups.
Sony Electronics of Japan, maker of the electronic book reader the Sony Reader, and a group of 32 US professors of law and economics, have filed briefs supporting the deal.
In its filing, the Justice Department proposed a number of changes to the agreement that it said would help address its concerns.
They included imposing limitations on the most open-ended provisions for future licensing, providing additional protections for unknown rights holders and addressing the concerns of foreign authors and publishers.
The Justice Department also proposed setting up a mechanism by which Google's competitors can gain comparable access to book collections.
"The Proposed Settlement has the potential to breathe life into millions of works that are now effectively off limits to the public," the department said.
"Nonetheless, the breadth of the Proposed Settlement -- especially the forward-looking business arrangements it seeks to create -- raises significant legal concerns."
The department said that presently, the settlement would give Google sole authority over so-called "orphan works" -- books whose copyright holder cannot be found -- and books by foreign rightsholders.
"The Proposed Settlement raises concerns about the adequacy of representation afforded to absent class members, especially owners of 'orphan' out-of-print works and foreign rightsholders," it said.
"The Proposed Settlement operates to sweep in untold numbers of foreign works, whose authors, under current law, are not required to register in the same manner as US rightsholders," it said.
The Justice Department said its investigation into whether the settlement violated US anti-trust provisions was "not yet complete" but it did express concerns.
"In the view of the Department, the Proposed Settlement raises two serious issues," it said. "First, through collective action, the Proposed Settlement appears to give book publishers the power to restrict price competition.
"Second, as a result of the Proposed Settlement, other digital distributors may be effectively precluded from competing with Google in the sale of digital library products and other derivative products to come," it said.
The Justice Department's opinion comes a week after the head of the US Copyright Office argued that the book deal violates "fundamental copyright principles."
Marybeth Peters, the US Register of Copyrights, said the settlement "absolves Google of the need to search for the rights holders or obtain their prior consent and provides a complete release from liability.
"It could affect the exclusive rights of millions of copyright owners, in the United States and abroad, with respect to their abilities to control new products and new markets, for years and years to come," she said.
The Justice Department, in a filing late Friday with a US District Court in New York, said the class action settlement raises copyright and anti-trust issues but it encouraged the parties to continue their discussions to address its concerns.
"This Court should reject the Proposed Settlement in its current form and encourage the parties to continue negotiations to modify it," the department said in a 32-page filing submitted to the court.
"The public interest would best be served by direction from the Court encouraging the continuation of those discussions," it said.
US District Court Judge Denny Chin is to hold a hearing on October 7 on the class action settlement reached in October between Google and the Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers to a copyright infringement suit they filed against the Mountain View, California, company in 2005.
Under the settlement, Google agreed to pay 125 million dollars to resolve outstanding claims and establish an independent "Book Rights Registry," which would provide revenue from sales and advertising to authors and publishers who agree to digitize their books.
Google rivals Microsoft, Amazon and Yahoo! have filed objections to the settlement with the court along with the French and German governments, privacy advocates and consumer watchdog groups.
Sony Electronics of Japan, maker of the electronic book reader the Sony Reader, and a group of 32 US professors of law and economics, have filed briefs supporting the deal.
In its filing, the Justice Department proposed a number of changes to the agreement that it said would help address its concerns.
They included imposing limitations on the most open-ended provisions for future licensing, providing additional protections for unknown rights holders and addressing the concerns of foreign authors and publishers.
The Justice Department also proposed setting up a mechanism by which Google's competitors can gain comparable access to book collections.
"The Proposed Settlement has the potential to breathe life into millions of works that are now effectively off limits to the public," the department said.
"Nonetheless, the breadth of the Proposed Settlement -- especially the forward-looking business arrangements it seeks to create -- raises significant legal concerns."
The department said that presently, the settlement would give Google sole authority over so-called "orphan works" -- books whose copyright holder cannot be found -- and books by foreign rightsholders.
"The Proposed Settlement raises concerns about the adequacy of representation afforded to absent class members, especially owners of 'orphan' out-of-print works and foreign rightsholders," it said.
"The Proposed Settlement operates to sweep in untold numbers of foreign works, whose authors, under current law, are not required to register in the same manner as US rightsholders," it said.
The Justice Department said its investigation into whether the settlement violated US anti-trust provisions was "not yet complete" but it did express concerns.
"In the view of the Department, the Proposed Settlement raises two serious issues," it said. "First, through collective action, the Proposed Settlement appears to give book publishers the power to restrict price competition.
"Second, as a result of the Proposed Settlement, other digital distributors may be effectively precluded from competing with Google in the sale of digital library products and other derivative products to come," it said.
The Justice Department's opinion comes a week after the head of the US Copyright Office argued that the book deal violates "fundamental copyright principles."
Marybeth Peters, the US Register of Copyrights, said the settlement "absolves Google of the need to search for the rights holders or obtain their prior consent and provides a complete release from liability.
"It could affect the exclusive rights of millions of copyright owners, in the United States and abroad, with respect to their abilities to control new products and new markets, for years and years to come," she said.
Can robots make ethical decisons?
Robots and computers are often designed to act autonomously, that is, without human intervention. Is it possible for an autonomous machine to make moral judgments that are in line with human judgment?
This question has given rise to the issue of machine ethics and morality. As a practical matter, can a robot or computer be programmed to act in an ethical manner? Can a machine be designed to act morally?
Isaac Asimov's famous fundamental Rules of Robotics are intended to impose ethical conduct on autonomous machines.Issues about ethical behavior are found in films like the 1982 movie Blade Runner. When the replicant Roy Batty is given the choice to let his enemy, the human detective Rick Deckard, die, Batty instead chooses to save him.
A recent paper published in the International Journal of Reasoning-based Intelligent Systems describes a method for computers to prospectively look ahead at the consequences of hypothetical moral judgments.
The paper, Modelling Morality with Prospective Logic, was written by LuÃs Moniz Pereira of the Universidade Nova de Lisboa, in Portugal and Ari Saptawijaya of the Universitas Indonesia. The authors declare that morality is no longer the exclusive realm of human philosophers.
Pereira and Saptawijaya believe that they have been successful both in modeling the moral dilemmas inherent in a specific problem called "the trolley problem" and in creating a computer system that delivers moral judgments that conform to human results.
The trolley problem sets forth a typical moral dilemma; is it permissible to harm one or more individuals in order to save others? There are a number of different versions; let's look at just these two.
CircumstancesThere is a trolley and its conductor has fainted. The trolley is headed toward five people walking on the track. The banks of the track are so steep that they will not be able to get off the track in time.
Bystander versionHank is standing next to a switch, which he can throw, that will turn the trolley onto a parallel side track, thereby preventing it from killing the five people. However, there is a man standing on the side track with his back turned. Hank can throw the switch, killing him; or he can refrain from doing this, letting the five die.
Is it morally permissible for Hank to throw the switch?
What do you think? A variety of studies have been performed in different cultures, asking the same question. Across cultures, most people agree that it is morally permissible to throw the switch and save the larger number of people.
Here's another version, with the same initial circumstances:
Footbridge version Ian is on the footbridge over the trolley track. He is next to a heavy object, which he can shove onto the track in the path of the trolley to stop it, thereby preventing it from killing the five people. The heavy object is a man, standing next to Ian with his back turned. Ian can shove the man onto the track, resulting in death; or he can refrain from doing this, letting the five die.
Is it morally permissible for Ian to shove the man?
What do you think? Again, studies across cultures have been performed, and the consistent answer is reached that this is not morally permissible.
So, here we have two cases in which people make differing moral judgments. Is it possible for autonomous computer systems or robots to come to make the same moral judgments as people?
The authors of the paper claim that they have been successful in modeling these difficult moral problems in computer logic. They accomplished this feat by resolving the hidden rules that people use in making moral judgments and then modeling them for the computer using prospective logic programs.
Ethical dilemmas for robots are as old as the idea of robots in fiction. Ethical behavior (in this case, self-sacrifice) is found at the end of the 1921 play Rossum's Universal Robots, by Czech playwright Karel Capek. This play introduced the term "robot".
Science fiction writers have been preparing the way for the rest of us; autonomous systems are no longer just the stuff of science fiction. For example, robotic systems like the Predator drones on the battlefield are being given increased levels of autonomy. Should they be allowed to make decisions on when to fire their weapons systems?
The aerospace industry is designing advanced aircraft that can achieve high speeds and fly entirely on autopilot. Can a plane make life or death decisions better than a human pilot?
The H-II transfer vehicle, a fully-automated space freighter, was launched just last week by the Japan's space agency JAXA. Should human beings on the space station rely on automated mechanisms for vital needs like food, water and other supplies?
Ultimately, we will all need to reconcile the convenience of robotic systems with the acceptance of responsibility for their actions. We should have taken all of the time that science fiction writers have given us to think about the moral and ethical problems of autonomous robots and computers; we don't have a lot more time to make up our minds
This question has given rise to the issue of machine ethics and morality. As a practical matter, can a robot or computer be programmed to act in an ethical manner? Can a machine be designed to act morally?
Isaac Asimov's famous fundamental Rules of Robotics are intended to impose ethical conduct on autonomous machines.Issues about ethical behavior are found in films like the 1982 movie Blade Runner. When the replicant Roy Batty is given the choice to let his enemy, the human detective Rick Deckard, die, Batty instead chooses to save him.
A recent paper published in the International Journal of Reasoning-based Intelligent Systems describes a method for computers to prospectively look ahead at the consequences of hypothetical moral judgments.
The paper, Modelling Morality with Prospective Logic, was written by LuÃs Moniz Pereira of the Universidade Nova de Lisboa, in Portugal and Ari Saptawijaya of the Universitas Indonesia. The authors declare that morality is no longer the exclusive realm of human philosophers.
Pereira and Saptawijaya believe that they have been successful both in modeling the moral dilemmas inherent in a specific problem called "the trolley problem" and in creating a computer system that delivers moral judgments that conform to human results.
The trolley problem sets forth a typical moral dilemma; is it permissible to harm one or more individuals in order to save others? There are a number of different versions; let's look at just these two.
CircumstancesThere is a trolley and its conductor has fainted. The trolley is headed toward five people walking on the track. The banks of the track are so steep that they will not be able to get off the track in time.
Bystander versionHank is standing next to a switch, which he can throw, that will turn the trolley onto a parallel side track, thereby preventing it from killing the five people. However, there is a man standing on the side track with his back turned. Hank can throw the switch, killing him; or he can refrain from doing this, letting the five die.
Is it morally permissible for Hank to throw the switch?
What do you think? A variety of studies have been performed in different cultures, asking the same question. Across cultures, most people agree that it is morally permissible to throw the switch and save the larger number of people.
Here's another version, with the same initial circumstances:
Footbridge version Ian is on the footbridge over the trolley track. He is next to a heavy object, which he can shove onto the track in the path of the trolley to stop it, thereby preventing it from killing the five people. The heavy object is a man, standing next to Ian with his back turned. Ian can shove the man onto the track, resulting in death; or he can refrain from doing this, letting the five die.
Is it morally permissible for Ian to shove the man?
What do you think? Again, studies across cultures have been performed, and the consistent answer is reached that this is not morally permissible.
So, here we have two cases in which people make differing moral judgments. Is it possible for autonomous computer systems or robots to come to make the same moral judgments as people?
The authors of the paper claim that they have been successful in modeling these difficult moral problems in computer logic. They accomplished this feat by resolving the hidden rules that people use in making moral judgments and then modeling them for the computer using prospective logic programs.
Ethical dilemmas for robots are as old as the idea of robots in fiction. Ethical behavior (in this case, self-sacrifice) is found at the end of the 1921 play Rossum's Universal Robots, by Czech playwright Karel Capek. This play introduced the term "robot".
Science fiction writers have been preparing the way for the rest of us; autonomous systems are no longer just the stuff of science fiction. For example, robotic systems like the Predator drones on the battlefield are being given increased levels of autonomy. Should they be allowed to make decisions on when to fire their weapons systems?
The aerospace industry is designing advanced aircraft that can achieve high speeds and fly entirely on autopilot. Can a plane make life or death decisions better than a human pilot?
The H-II transfer vehicle, a fully-automated space freighter, was launched just last week by the Japan's space agency JAXA. Should human beings on the space station rely on automated mechanisms for vital needs like food, water and other supplies?
Ultimately, we will all need to reconcile the convenience of robotic systems with the acceptance of responsibility for their actions. We should have taken all of the time that science fiction writers have given us to think about the moral and ethical problems of autonomous robots and computers; we don't have a lot more time to make up our minds
russia says it wont deploy missiles on poland
MOSCOW – Russia said Saturday it will scrap a plan to deploy missiles near Poland since Washington has dumped a planned missile shield in Eastern Europe. It also harshly criticized Iran's president for new comments denying the Holocaust.
Neither move, however, represented ceding any significant ground. A plan to place Iskander missiles close to the Polish border was merely a threat. And while the Kremlin has previously criticized Tehran for questioning the reality of the Holocaust, Russian leaders have refused to back Western push for tougher sanctions against Iran.
It still remains unclear whether Moscow will make any significant concessions on Iran and other issues in response to President Barack Obama's move to scrap the Bush-era plan for U.S. missile defense in Poland and the Czech Republic.
Russia's Deputy Defense Minister Vladimir Popovkin told Ekho Moskvy radio Saturday that Obama's move has made the deployment of Iskander short-range missiles in the Kaliningrad region unnecessary.
He described Obama's move as "victory of reason over ambitions."
"Naturally, we will cancel countermeasures which Russia has planned in response, one of which was the deployment of Iskander missiles in the Kaliningrad region," Popovkin said.
Popovkin's statement was the most explicit declaration yet of Russia's intention to scrap the plan after Obama's decision, which was announced Thursday.
Popovkin later added, however, that the final decision on the subject can only be made by Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, Russian news agencies reported. Medvedev hasn't yet spoken on the issue.
Russia staunchly opposed the plan by the former administration of George W. Bush to deploy 10 missile interceptors in Poland and a related radar in the Czech Republic and said if the project went ahead it would respond by deploying the Iskander missiles in its westernmost Baltic Sea region.
Obama's decision to scrap the plan was based largely on a new U.S. intelligence assessment that Iran's effort to build a nuclear-capable long-range missile would take three to five years longer than originally thought, U.S. officials said. The new U.S. missile-defense plan would rely on a network of sensors and interceptor missiles based at sea, on land and in the air as a bulwark against Iranian short- and medium-range missiles.
Medvedev hailed Obama's decision as a "responsible move," but Russian officials have given no indication yet that Moscow could make concessions in other areas, including Iran. Washington is counting on Moscow to help raise pressure on Tehran over its nuclear program.
On Saturday, the Russian Foreign Ministry harshly criticized Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for his Friday's comments in which he again questioned whether the Holocaust was a "real event."
Foreign Ministry spokesman Andrei Nesterenko called the Iranian remarks "absolutely unacceptable" and insulting to the memory of the World War II victims.
"It won't help create a favorable international atmosphere for starting and conducting an efficient dialogue on issues regarding Iran," Nesterenko said in a statement.
Officials from the United States, Britain, France, Russia, China and Germany are to meet Iranian diplomats in Turkey on Oct.1, for the first time since a 2008 session in Geneva foundered over Iran's refusal to discuss its uranium enrichment program.
Russia, which has close commercial ties with Iran and is building its first nuclear power plant, has condemned similar Ahmadinejad's statements in the past. Saturday's statement didn't necessarily mean that Moscow was prepared to toughen its stance on Iran in response to Obama's move to scrap the missile defense plan.
The U.S., Israel and the EU fear that Iran is using its nuclear program to develop weapons. But Tehran says the program serves purely civilian purposes.
Iran already has defied three sets of U.N. Security Council sanctions since 2006 for its refusal to freeze uranium enrichment. Russia, which holds veto power on the U.N. Security Council, backed those sanctions but used its clout to water down tougher U.S. proposals. Russian officials have said too much pressure would be counterproductive.
Russian intentions could become more clear after Obama meets with Medvedev at the United Nations and the Group of 20 economic summit in the coming week.
Medvedev's predecessor and mentor, Vladimir Putin, who is widely believed to be continuing to call the shots as Russia's prime minister, has praised Obama's decision but challenged the U.S. to do more by canceling Cold War-era restrictions on trade with Russia and facilitating Moscow's entry into the World Trade Organization.
Neither move, however, represented ceding any significant ground. A plan to place Iskander missiles close to the Polish border was merely a threat. And while the Kremlin has previously criticized Tehran for questioning the reality of the Holocaust, Russian leaders have refused to back Western push for tougher sanctions against Iran.
It still remains unclear whether Moscow will make any significant concessions on Iran and other issues in response to President Barack Obama's move to scrap the Bush-era plan for U.S. missile defense in Poland and the Czech Republic.
Russia's Deputy Defense Minister Vladimir Popovkin told Ekho Moskvy radio Saturday that Obama's move has made the deployment of Iskander short-range missiles in the Kaliningrad region unnecessary.
He described Obama's move as "victory of reason over ambitions."
"Naturally, we will cancel countermeasures which Russia has planned in response, one of which was the deployment of Iskander missiles in the Kaliningrad region," Popovkin said.
Popovkin's statement was the most explicit declaration yet of Russia's intention to scrap the plan after Obama's decision, which was announced Thursday.
Popovkin later added, however, that the final decision on the subject can only be made by Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, Russian news agencies reported. Medvedev hasn't yet spoken on the issue.
Russia staunchly opposed the plan by the former administration of George W. Bush to deploy 10 missile interceptors in Poland and a related radar in the Czech Republic and said if the project went ahead it would respond by deploying the Iskander missiles in its westernmost Baltic Sea region.
Obama's decision to scrap the plan was based largely on a new U.S. intelligence assessment that Iran's effort to build a nuclear-capable long-range missile would take three to five years longer than originally thought, U.S. officials said. The new U.S. missile-defense plan would rely on a network of sensors and interceptor missiles based at sea, on land and in the air as a bulwark against Iranian short- and medium-range missiles.
Medvedev hailed Obama's decision as a "responsible move," but Russian officials have given no indication yet that Moscow could make concessions in other areas, including Iran. Washington is counting on Moscow to help raise pressure on Tehran over its nuclear program.
On Saturday, the Russian Foreign Ministry harshly criticized Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for his Friday's comments in which he again questioned whether the Holocaust was a "real event."
Foreign Ministry spokesman Andrei Nesterenko called the Iranian remarks "absolutely unacceptable" and insulting to the memory of the World War II victims.
"It won't help create a favorable international atmosphere for starting and conducting an efficient dialogue on issues regarding Iran," Nesterenko said in a statement.
Officials from the United States, Britain, France, Russia, China and Germany are to meet Iranian diplomats in Turkey on Oct.1, for the first time since a 2008 session in Geneva foundered over Iran's refusal to discuss its uranium enrichment program.
Russia, which has close commercial ties with Iran and is building its first nuclear power plant, has condemned similar Ahmadinejad's statements in the past. Saturday's statement didn't necessarily mean that Moscow was prepared to toughen its stance on Iran in response to Obama's move to scrap the missile defense plan.
The U.S., Israel and the EU fear that Iran is using its nuclear program to develop weapons. But Tehran says the program serves purely civilian purposes.
Iran already has defied three sets of U.N. Security Council sanctions since 2006 for its refusal to freeze uranium enrichment. Russia, which holds veto power on the U.N. Security Council, backed those sanctions but used its clout to water down tougher U.S. proposals. Russian officials have said too much pressure would be counterproductive.
Russian intentions could become more clear after Obama meets with Medvedev at the United Nations and the Group of 20 economic summit in the coming week.
Medvedev's predecessor and mentor, Vladimir Putin, who is widely believed to be continuing to call the shots as Russia's prime minister, has praised Obama's decision but challenged the U.S. to do more by canceling Cold War-era restrictions on trade with Russia and facilitating Moscow's entry into the World Trade Organization.
Worlds 2 most valuable brands coco-cola and ibm
Consumers lost trust in brands this year as the recession deepened, according to an industry report released Thursday, although longtime staples Coca-Cola and IBM retained their spots as the world's two most valuable brands.
This is the first time the combined value of the world's top 100 brands as ranked by Interbrand, a branding agency, has fallen in the 10 years Interbrand has assessed them.
The list's total value, including brands like Google Inc., Nintendo and Sony, fell 4.6 percent to $1.15 trillion, Interbrand estimates.
"That says something about the environment that we're in, especially when you consider that brands are by nature less volatile than business valuations," said Interbrand CEO Jez Frampton, who called a company's brand its most valuable asset.
The environment — a recession the likes of which the world hasn't seen for decades — has eaten away at people's trust in specific brands, starting with financial companies, he said. Consumers even started to question retail brands as stores slashed prices to get sales, leading consumers to wonder about pricing, and why they had to pay so much before.
"All of these things lead you to re-evaluate the nature of the relationships that we have with brands and indeed how confident we feel in brands to live up to the promises they make," he said. "Brands are promises which we value and are prepared to pay for and if we feel those promises have been broken we're less likely to trust."
Brands are more than just names, colors or logos — think Coca-Cola's red or McDonald's golden arches. A brand includes all the elements of a product or service from its design, ingredients and manufacture to its marketing, advertising and logo.
A well-honed brand evokes in consumers an emotion and a promise of what it will deliver, without the consumer having to do much — if any — research, said Allen Adamson, managing director at branding firm Landor Associates. Brands are important for all businesses, and critical in categories that have direct consumer contact, like autos, he said.
"In a cluttered world where people are time-compressed, brands are short cuts to help them make decisions," he said.
Each year, Interbrand ranks companies by the amount of their revenue that is attributable to their brands, using a formula that takes into account the brand's future strength and its role in creating demand, whether among consumers or business customers or both.
The firm assigns a monetary value to each brand and measures annual growth, in this case from July 1, 2008, to June 30, 2009.
Given the recession, it was not surprising to see financial companies posting the steepest decline in their brands' values this year, with drops by American Express (now number 22, down from 15) HSBC (now 32, down from 27), Citi (now 36, down from 19), and UBS (now 72, down from 41). Merrill Lynch and AIG both dropped off the list.
Automakers also dropped in the rankings as their sector's sales slumped in the recession. In addition, major U.S. automakers General Motors Corp. and Chrysler Group LLC received government aid to stay afloat, which generated negative feelings among consumers. Neither of those brands made the top 100 Interbrand list.
Even Toyota's brand — top-ranked among auto companies at number eight, down from 6 in 2008 — suffered, while BMW went from 13 to 15, and Ford was unchanged at 49. Honda edged up two slots to 18.
Despite the economic uncertainty, the top 10 brands this year stayed relatively stable, with Coca-Cola Co. in the first slot, a place it has held since the rankings started in 2000. The soft-drink maker retains its recognition around the world, Frampton said, and it has been releasing new products as it hopes to woo consumers shifting to healthier juices and teas.
Coca-Cola's brand value rose 3 percent in 2009 to $68.73 billion, while IBM's gained 2 percent to $60.21 billion.
The technology giant, often known as "Big Blue," also rolled out new products that increased the value of its brand in 2009, according to the report. The company — which sells computer servers, software and technical services to businesses — received more than 4,000 U.S. patents during the period, marking the 16th straight year it has received the most.
Rolling out new products keeps customers interested and spending, even in a recession, Frampton said. Companies can't be idle when times are tough, he warned.
"Innovation is the bedrock of any successful company in the future," he said. "Nobody can stand still nowadays."
The remaining brands in the top five all lost value but retained their ranks from last year. Microsoft's brand value fell 4 percent to $56.64 billion to take third, while General Electric's value fell 10 percent to $47.77 billion for fourth. Nokia lost 3 percent to place fifth at $34.86 billion.
The value of online giant Google's brand grew the fastest in the world again, rising 25 percent to $31.98 billion to place seventh, up from 10th place last year and 20th the year before. Frampton said the company's brand growth is "miraculous," though the report notes that as it gets bigger, "it has to deal with the inevitable mistrust and ugliness ascribed to being a very large, diversified and very profitable company."
But Deborah Mitchell, executive fellow at the Center for Brand and Product Management at Wisconsin School of Business, thinks Google already has found balance by earning consumers' trust even as it becomes nearly omnipresent in their lives.
That's partly due to Google's value statement — "Do no evil" — which resonates with consumers, especially in a downturn, she said. Mitchell said consumers are increasingly focusing on a company's values and don't want to associate with businesses whose values they question.
"There's been a shift in the focus on values and not just economics to consumers," she said. "They're looking more closely at who is selling them what."
This is the first time the combined value of the world's top 100 brands as ranked by Interbrand, a branding agency, has fallen in the 10 years Interbrand has assessed them.
The list's total value, including brands like Google Inc., Nintendo and Sony, fell 4.6 percent to $1.15 trillion, Interbrand estimates.
"That says something about the environment that we're in, especially when you consider that brands are by nature less volatile than business valuations," said Interbrand CEO Jez Frampton, who called a company's brand its most valuable asset.
The environment — a recession the likes of which the world hasn't seen for decades — has eaten away at people's trust in specific brands, starting with financial companies, he said. Consumers even started to question retail brands as stores slashed prices to get sales, leading consumers to wonder about pricing, and why they had to pay so much before.
"All of these things lead you to re-evaluate the nature of the relationships that we have with brands and indeed how confident we feel in brands to live up to the promises they make," he said. "Brands are promises which we value and are prepared to pay for and if we feel those promises have been broken we're less likely to trust."
Brands are more than just names, colors or logos — think Coca-Cola's red or McDonald's golden arches. A brand includes all the elements of a product or service from its design, ingredients and manufacture to its marketing, advertising and logo.
A well-honed brand evokes in consumers an emotion and a promise of what it will deliver, without the consumer having to do much — if any — research, said Allen Adamson, managing director at branding firm Landor Associates. Brands are important for all businesses, and critical in categories that have direct consumer contact, like autos, he said.
"In a cluttered world where people are time-compressed, brands are short cuts to help them make decisions," he said.
Each year, Interbrand ranks companies by the amount of their revenue that is attributable to their brands, using a formula that takes into account the brand's future strength and its role in creating demand, whether among consumers or business customers or both.
The firm assigns a monetary value to each brand and measures annual growth, in this case from July 1, 2008, to June 30, 2009.
Given the recession, it was not surprising to see financial companies posting the steepest decline in their brands' values this year, with drops by American Express (now number 22, down from 15) HSBC (now 32, down from 27), Citi (now 36, down from 19), and UBS (now 72, down from 41). Merrill Lynch and AIG both dropped off the list.
Automakers also dropped in the rankings as their sector's sales slumped in the recession. In addition, major U.S. automakers General Motors Corp. and Chrysler Group LLC received government aid to stay afloat, which generated negative feelings among consumers. Neither of those brands made the top 100 Interbrand list.
Even Toyota's brand — top-ranked among auto companies at number eight, down from 6 in 2008 — suffered, while BMW went from 13 to 15, and Ford was unchanged at 49. Honda edged up two slots to 18.
Despite the economic uncertainty, the top 10 brands this year stayed relatively stable, with Coca-Cola Co. in the first slot, a place it has held since the rankings started in 2000. The soft-drink maker retains its recognition around the world, Frampton said, and it has been releasing new products as it hopes to woo consumers shifting to healthier juices and teas.
Coca-Cola's brand value rose 3 percent in 2009 to $68.73 billion, while IBM's gained 2 percent to $60.21 billion.
The technology giant, often known as "Big Blue," also rolled out new products that increased the value of its brand in 2009, according to the report. The company — which sells computer servers, software and technical services to businesses — received more than 4,000 U.S. patents during the period, marking the 16th straight year it has received the most.
Rolling out new products keeps customers interested and spending, even in a recession, Frampton said. Companies can't be idle when times are tough, he warned.
"Innovation is the bedrock of any successful company in the future," he said. "Nobody can stand still nowadays."
The remaining brands in the top five all lost value but retained their ranks from last year. Microsoft's brand value fell 4 percent to $56.64 billion to take third, while General Electric's value fell 10 percent to $47.77 billion for fourth. Nokia lost 3 percent to place fifth at $34.86 billion.
The value of online giant Google's brand grew the fastest in the world again, rising 25 percent to $31.98 billion to place seventh, up from 10th place last year and 20th the year before. Frampton said the company's brand growth is "miraculous," though the report notes that as it gets bigger, "it has to deal with the inevitable mistrust and ugliness ascribed to being a very large, diversified and very profitable company."
But Deborah Mitchell, executive fellow at the Center for Brand and Product Management at Wisconsin School of Business, thinks Google already has found balance by earning consumers' trust even as it becomes nearly omnipresent in their lives.
That's partly due to Google's value statement — "Do no evil" — which resonates with consumers, especially in a downturn, she said. Mitchell said consumers are increasingly focusing on a company's values and don't want to associate with businesses whose values they question.
"There's been a shift in the focus on values and not just economics to consumers," she said. "They're looking more closely at who is selling them what."
bad habits takes decades off life
PARIS (AFP) – Middle-aged male smokers with high cholesterol and blood pressure die, on average, a decade sooner than peers without any of these heart disease risk factors, according to a study published on Friday.
Many studies have shown that not smoking, eating healthily and exercising cut heart disease rates.
But few have tackled the problem from the other end: to what extent is life expectancy shortened by having these heart disease risk factors?
To find out, researchers from Oxford University sifted through data from 19,000 male civil servants who were examined in the late 1960s when they were 40 to 69 years old.
Participants provided detailed information about their medical history, lifestyle and smoking habits, and doctors recorded their weight, blood pressure, lung function, cholesterol and blood sugar levels.
More than 7,000 of the surviving participants were re-evaluated in 1997, 28 years after the initial examination.
The study, published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ), found that the men who faced a triple risk threat at the outset were two-to-three times more likely to have died of a heart-related problem than men free of all three risk factors.
On average, their lives were shortened by a decade, the study found.
The percentage of people who have fatal strokes or heart attacks has declined by about a quarter in many rich countries over the last decade.
But the prevalence of known risk factors has not dropped as quickly.
In the United States, for example, uncontrolled hypertension has fallen since 1999 by only 16 percent, high blood cholesterol by 19 percent, and tobacco use by just over 15 percent, says the American Heart Association.
Other sources of risk have remained constant or even increased: people exercise no more than 10 years ago, while rates of obesity have climbed sharply, especially among children
Many studies have shown that not smoking, eating healthily and exercising cut heart disease rates.
But few have tackled the problem from the other end: to what extent is life expectancy shortened by having these heart disease risk factors?
To find out, researchers from Oxford University sifted through data from 19,000 male civil servants who were examined in the late 1960s when they were 40 to 69 years old.
Participants provided detailed information about their medical history, lifestyle and smoking habits, and doctors recorded their weight, blood pressure, lung function, cholesterol and blood sugar levels.
More than 7,000 of the surviving participants were re-evaluated in 1997, 28 years after the initial examination.
The study, published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ), found that the men who faced a triple risk threat at the outset were two-to-three times more likely to have died of a heart-related problem than men free of all three risk factors.
On average, their lives were shortened by a decade, the study found.
The percentage of people who have fatal strokes or heart attacks has declined by about a quarter in many rich countries over the last decade.
But the prevalence of known risk factors has not dropped as quickly.
In the United States, for example, uncontrolled hypertension has fallen since 1999 by only 16 percent, high blood cholesterol by 19 percent, and tobacco use by just over 15 percent, says the American Heart Association.
Other sources of risk have remained constant or even increased: people exercise no more than 10 years ago, while rates of obesity have climbed sharply, especially among children
Obama's risky "full Ginsburg"
On Sunday, President Barack Obama will execute what might be called a Modified Full Ginsburg — appearing on five Sunday morning talk shows to make a pitch for health reform.
It’s a move few politicians have attempted. Even fewer have been able to stick the landing.
The Full Ginsburg, of course, was named for Monica Lewinsky’s lawyer William Ginsburg, who first did the five-fecta of Sunday talk on Feb. 1, 1999. Obama’s move is slightly different – swapping in the Spanish-language network Univision for Fox News Channel.
But there’s no guarantee it’ll work.
Then-Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C) attempted a Full Ginsburg in October of 2004, only to go down to defeat as the Democratic vice presidential nominee weeks later. Hillary Clinton pulled a Full Ginsburg in September of 2007 at the peak of her political power – 22 points ahead of a long-shot named Barack Obama.
Even the maneuver’s namesake hit a rough patch afterward — widely criticized as star struck for his love of the camera, Lewinsky fired him a few months later.
“There is risk associated with this,” acknowledged White House spokesman Josh Earnest. “But it is also a unique opportunity to reach a pretty diverse audience.”
In the eyes of political pros, it’s also an opportunity for Obama to get dangerously overexposed. You’ve heard of “jumping the shark.” This might be “jumping the Ginsburg.” And on Monday, he’ll do another show, becoming the first sitting president to appear on the David Letterman show.
“More isn’t always more when it comes to a president’s words,” said former Clinton White House Press Secretary Dee Dee Myers. “This is something they need to start to be concerned about.”
Obama, Myers said, believes that if he has enough time, he can convince anyone of his position on health care reform. “But there’s a limit to that,” she said. “You cannot convince everyone, even when your argument is indisputably airtight and true. You can’t convince people who believe in death panels that there aren’t any death panels.”
The overexposure theme is bipartisan. Former George W. Bush Press Secretary Ari Fleischer said Obama is spreading himself too thin. “This is a mistake they can, and should avoid,” Fleischer said. “In the White House, you start to look at your boss through such rose colored glasses that you lose your ability to make objective decisions.”
The White House, though, has made the opposite calculation, figuring that the audience for the Sunday shows is politically active and interested, and therefore ripe for Obama’s pitch, whether they’re liberals or conservatives.
“I think it is important that the president continue to speak to a host of different audiences to reach as many people as possible to talk about the benefits of health care reform,” said White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs on Friday. “People are getting their news from so many different places and so many different outlets, that we're going to use the president to communicate through that fragmentation.”
The audience may be fragmented but the message is not. Obama will say pretty much the same thing to each audience – and won’t try to offer some unique news nugget to each of the five interviewers. “Things will be pretty consistent across interviews,” Earnest said.
And of course, there’s one big advantage to pulling a Full Ginsburg when you’re the guy in the Oval Office: “When you’re the President, you make them come to you,” said CNN’s John King, host of State of the Union. “Ginsburg had to go to all five studios.”
The White House press office chose the order of the interviews at random — scrambling slips of paper on a desk and picking the names to draw up a list Thursday afternoon. Starting at 3:30 p.m. Friday, the hosts began rotating in and out of the room with Obama in this order: CBS, NBC, ABC, Univision, CNN.
CNN’s King says he doesn’t mind bringing up the rear. “I actually enjoy being last,” he said. “Ask me tomorrow when we’re done, though. There are two possibilities – either he’s tired and sick of us by then, or he’ll be somewhat liberated, knowing it’s the end.”
The interviews, which were pre-taped on Friday, were tightly choreographed. Each interviewer got 15 minutes with the president, seated by a fireplace in the White House’s Roosevelt Room. There were five minutes in between to switch interviewers, but all the networks had to use the same pool camera set-up, in this case, operated by NBC.
While each interview is going on, the other Sunday-show hosts had to cool their heels in the White House briefing room, and were unable to see what their predecessors asked the president.
That means that most of the questions will probably be the same from interview to interview. “The questions are health care, the anger in the country, and what’s going to happen in Afghanistan,” said Bob Schieffer, moderator of CBS’ Face the Nation. “I guess George [Stephanopoulos] and David [Gregory] or any of the others would say the same thing.”
Each of the networks were allowed to select one sound-bite for use on Friday evening’s newscast and in promos for the Sunday show. The rest of the content is embargoed from release until 9 a.m. Sunday.
The Full Ginsburg is in the elite pantheon of named maneuvers in any field. It is to pundits what Pugachev’s Cobra is to jet fighter pilots, or Fermat’s Last Theorem is to mathematicians. And as with jet pilots and mathematicians, the pundits who have actually completed a Full Ginsberg represent an extremely small elite corps in a highly selective field.
Only eight people, including Ginsburg himself, have ever pulled it off. Dick Cheney did it in 2000, during the Republican National Convention. Edwards did it in 2004. Former Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff did it in the wake of Hurricane Katrina in 2005. And Clinton used her 2007 Full Ginsburg to trumpet a health care proposal.
Ginsburg’s 1999 feat amazed the Washington punditocracy. The Sunday network shows are known to be so protective of their bookings that guests are often banned from appearing on other broadcasts – even cable shows – for days in advance of their Sunday show appearances. To be invited on all five shows at the same time shows that an invitee has achieved a truly stratospheric level of newsworthiness.
Still, the networks grant Full Ginsburgs only grudgingly, even to a president. “We don’t like it when he does all the shows,” Schieffer said. “For us, it’s not quite as special as when you have an exclusive. But the president is a newsmaker, and it’s our job to show up and ask questions.”
Ginsburg himself, who ten years after his sex-scandal fueled Sunday show splash is practicing law in Burbank, Calif., joked that he’s proud of the legacy he’s left in Washington. “It’s nice to know that preeminent men and women like Secretary Clinton and President Obama can appreciate and are willing to commit ‘The Full Ginsburg,’” he said in an e-mail to POLITICO.
But his feat has been eclipsed. Earlier this year, three Obama administration officials pulled off a never-before-attempted Triple Full Ginsburg, when Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and acting CDC Director Richard Besser appeared as a group on five Sunday shows in May to discuss the spread of swine flu
It’s a move few politicians have attempted. Even fewer have been able to stick the landing.
The Full Ginsburg, of course, was named for Monica Lewinsky’s lawyer William Ginsburg, who first did the five-fecta of Sunday talk on Feb. 1, 1999. Obama’s move is slightly different – swapping in the Spanish-language network Univision for Fox News Channel.
But there’s no guarantee it’ll work.
Then-Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C) attempted a Full Ginsburg in October of 2004, only to go down to defeat as the Democratic vice presidential nominee weeks later. Hillary Clinton pulled a Full Ginsburg in September of 2007 at the peak of her political power – 22 points ahead of a long-shot named Barack Obama.
Even the maneuver’s namesake hit a rough patch afterward — widely criticized as star struck for his love of the camera, Lewinsky fired him a few months later.
“There is risk associated with this,” acknowledged White House spokesman Josh Earnest. “But it is also a unique opportunity to reach a pretty diverse audience.”
In the eyes of political pros, it’s also an opportunity for Obama to get dangerously overexposed. You’ve heard of “jumping the shark.” This might be “jumping the Ginsburg.” And on Monday, he’ll do another show, becoming the first sitting president to appear on the David Letterman show.
“More isn’t always more when it comes to a president’s words,” said former Clinton White House Press Secretary Dee Dee Myers. “This is something they need to start to be concerned about.”
Obama, Myers said, believes that if he has enough time, he can convince anyone of his position on health care reform. “But there’s a limit to that,” she said. “You cannot convince everyone, even when your argument is indisputably airtight and true. You can’t convince people who believe in death panels that there aren’t any death panels.”
The overexposure theme is bipartisan. Former George W. Bush Press Secretary Ari Fleischer said Obama is spreading himself too thin. “This is a mistake they can, and should avoid,” Fleischer said. “In the White House, you start to look at your boss through such rose colored glasses that you lose your ability to make objective decisions.”
The White House, though, has made the opposite calculation, figuring that the audience for the Sunday shows is politically active and interested, and therefore ripe for Obama’s pitch, whether they’re liberals or conservatives.
“I think it is important that the president continue to speak to a host of different audiences to reach as many people as possible to talk about the benefits of health care reform,” said White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs on Friday. “People are getting their news from so many different places and so many different outlets, that we're going to use the president to communicate through that fragmentation.”
The audience may be fragmented but the message is not. Obama will say pretty much the same thing to each audience – and won’t try to offer some unique news nugget to each of the five interviewers. “Things will be pretty consistent across interviews,” Earnest said.
And of course, there’s one big advantage to pulling a Full Ginsburg when you’re the guy in the Oval Office: “When you’re the President, you make them come to you,” said CNN’s John King, host of State of the Union. “Ginsburg had to go to all five studios.”
The White House press office chose the order of the interviews at random — scrambling slips of paper on a desk and picking the names to draw up a list Thursday afternoon. Starting at 3:30 p.m. Friday, the hosts began rotating in and out of the room with Obama in this order: CBS, NBC, ABC, Univision, CNN.
CNN’s King says he doesn’t mind bringing up the rear. “I actually enjoy being last,” he said. “Ask me tomorrow when we’re done, though. There are two possibilities – either he’s tired and sick of us by then, or he’ll be somewhat liberated, knowing it’s the end.”
The interviews, which were pre-taped on Friday, were tightly choreographed. Each interviewer got 15 minutes with the president, seated by a fireplace in the White House’s Roosevelt Room. There were five minutes in between to switch interviewers, but all the networks had to use the same pool camera set-up, in this case, operated by NBC.
While each interview is going on, the other Sunday-show hosts had to cool their heels in the White House briefing room, and were unable to see what their predecessors asked the president.
That means that most of the questions will probably be the same from interview to interview. “The questions are health care, the anger in the country, and what’s going to happen in Afghanistan,” said Bob Schieffer, moderator of CBS’ Face the Nation. “I guess George [Stephanopoulos] and David [Gregory] or any of the others would say the same thing.”
Each of the networks were allowed to select one sound-bite for use on Friday evening’s newscast and in promos for the Sunday show. The rest of the content is embargoed from release until 9 a.m. Sunday.
The Full Ginsburg is in the elite pantheon of named maneuvers in any field. It is to pundits what Pugachev’s Cobra is to jet fighter pilots, or Fermat’s Last Theorem is to mathematicians. And as with jet pilots and mathematicians, the pundits who have actually completed a Full Ginsberg represent an extremely small elite corps in a highly selective field.
Only eight people, including Ginsburg himself, have ever pulled it off. Dick Cheney did it in 2000, during the Republican National Convention. Edwards did it in 2004. Former Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff did it in the wake of Hurricane Katrina in 2005. And Clinton used her 2007 Full Ginsburg to trumpet a health care proposal.
Ginsburg’s 1999 feat amazed the Washington punditocracy. The Sunday network shows are known to be so protective of their bookings that guests are often banned from appearing on other broadcasts – even cable shows – for days in advance of their Sunday show appearances. To be invited on all five shows at the same time shows that an invitee has achieved a truly stratospheric level of newsworthiness.
Still, the networks grant Full Ginsburgs only grudgingly, even to a president. “We don’t like it when he does all the shows,” Schieffer said. “For us, it’s not quite as special as when you have an exclusive. But the president is a newsmaker, and it’s our job to show up and ask questions.”
Ginsburg himself, who ten years after his sex-scandal fueled Sunday show splash is practicing law in Burbank, Calif., joked that he’s proud of the legacy he’s left in Washington. “It’s nice to know that preeminent men and women like Secretary Clinton and President Obama can appreciate and are willing to commit ‘The Full Ginsburg,’” he said in an e-mail to POLITICO.
But his feat has been eclipsed. Earlier this year, three Obama administration officials pulled off a never-before-attempted Triple Full Ginsburg, when Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and acting CDC Director Richard Besser appeared as a group on five Sunday shows in May to discuss the spread of swine flu
State Govts have made police officers "football": HM
NEW DELHI, India: Home Minister P Chidambaram today had some sharp words for the state government for their handling of police when he said the officials were reduced to football to be kicked here and there.
"Throughout the last nine months, my effort has been to impress upon State Governments, the security forces and the people at large that we can no longer do business as usual. I cannot claim great success in this regard," he said in his address at the three-day conference of Directors General and Inspectors General of Police here.
He highlighted non-constitution of Police Establishment Board which would decide on transfers and postings.
"Throughout the last nine months, my effort has been to impress upon State Governments, the security forces and the people at large that we can no longer do business as usual. I cannot claim great success in this regard," he said in his address at the three-day conference of Directors General and Inspectors General of Police here.
He highlighted non-constitution of Police Establishment Board which would decide on transfers and postings.
Chilli: The Worlds Largest Bull
Chilli is a black and white Fresian bull, weighing a whopping 1.25 tons and standing at 6 feet and 6 inches in height. Abandoned by its owner on the doorstep of the sanctuary he lives in today, when he was just 6 days old, back in 1999, Chilli grew up to become the biggest bovine in the world, according to Guinness Book of Records. According to Naomi Clarke, manager of the Ferne Animal Sanctuary in Ferne, Somerset, the bull doesn't eat as much as the other cows and yet he outgrows them by far. He's also abnormally friendly and gentle.
You could say Chilli had a stroke of luck when he ended up in the shelter, because normally he would have ended up chopped into pieces and on the shelves of a meat market somewhere. Now he's 9 years old and the proud owner of the title "Largest Bovine in the World", nice going Chilli.
You could say Chilli had a stroke of luck when he ended up in the shelter, because normally he would have ended up chopped into pieces and on the shelves of a meat market somewhere. Now he's 9 years old and the proud owner of the title "Largest Bovine in the World", nice going Chilli.
Highest Glass Floor of the World in Chicago
If you're scared of heights, it may be time to look away now.
Not content with having the tallest building in America, the owners of Sears Tower in Chicago have installed four glass box viewing platforms which stick out of the building 103 floors up.The balconies are suspended 1,353 feet in the air and jut out four feet from the building's Skydeck.
Fearless: Anna Kane, five, spreads out on the floor of the 10ft square box which is 1,353ft up
Spectacular: She also enjoyed amazing views out across the city
'At first I was kind of afraid but I got used to it', 10-year-old Adam Kane from Alton, Illinois, said as clouds drifted by below.
'Look at all those tiny things that are usually huge.' John Huston, one of the owners of the Sears Tower, even admitted to getting 'a little queasy' the first time he ventured out on to the balcony. However, after 30 or 40 trips, he seems to have got used to it.
Thrillseekers: The boxes jut out four feet from the building and were specifically designed to make visitors feel as if they are floating
'The Sears Tower has always been about superlatives - tallest, largest, most iconic,' he said.
'The Ledge is the world's most awesome view, the world's most precipitous view, the view with the most wow in the world.'
The balconies are 10ft high and 10ft wide, can hold five tons, and have glass which is 1.5 inch thick
Long way up: Even the floor of the platforms are glass - few were brave enough to look straight down
Inspiration came from the hundreds of forehead prints visitors left behind on Skydeck windows every week. Now, staff will have a new glass surface to clean: floors.
Architect Ross Wimer said: 'We did studies that showed a four-foot-deep (1.2 metres) enclosure makes you feel like you're floating since there's only room for one row of people, not two.'
The Skydeck attracts 25,000 visitors on clear days. They each pay $15 to take an elevator ride up to the 103rd floor of the 110-story office building that opened in 1973.
Towering: A view of the Sears Tower (black building in the foreground). The Ledge is on the 103rd floor
Not content with having the tallest building in America, the owners of Sears Tower in Chicago have installed four glass box viewing platforms which stick out of the building 103 floors up.The balconies are suspended 1,353 feet in the air and jut out four feet from the building's Skydeck.
Fearless: Anna Kane, five, spreads out on the floor of the 10ft square box which is 1,353ft up
Spectacular: She also enjoyed amazing views out across the city
'At first I was kind of afraid but I got used to it', 10-year-old Adam Kane from Alton, Illinois, said as clouds drifted by below.
'Look at all those tiny things that are usually huge.' John Huston, one of the owners of the Sears Tower, even admitted to getting 'a little queasy' the first time he ventured out on to the balcony. However, after 30 or 40 trips, he seems to have got used to it.
Thrillseekers: The boxes jut out four feet from the building and were specifically designed to make visitors feel as if they are floating
'The Sears Tower has always been about superlatives - tallest, largest, most iconic,' he said.
'The Ledge is the world's most awesome view, the world's most precipitous view, the view with the most wow in the world.'
The balconies are 10ft high and 10ft wide, can hold five tons, and have glass which is 1.5 inch thick
Long way up: Even the floor of the platforms are glass - few were brave enough to look straight down
Inspiration came from the hundreds of forehead prints visitors left behind on Skydeck windows every week. Now, staff will have a new glass surface to clean: floors.
Architect Ross Wimer said: 'We did studies that showed a four-foot-deep (1.2 metres) enclosure makes you feel like you're floating since there's only room for one row of people, not two.'
The Skydeck attracts 25,000 visitors on clear days. They each pay $15 to take an elevator ride up to the 103rd floor of the 110-story office building that opened in 1973.
Towering: A view of the Sears Tower (black building in the foreground). The Ledge is on the 103rd floor
Amazing World of Lowriders, Hot Rods and Concept Cars
Spellbound watching the ravishing performance cars go zoom at full speed? Souped up cars are so awesomely breathtaking – Lowriders, Hot Rods, Concept Cars, Custom Cars, Muscle Cars and the list just goes on….
Lowriders are classic cars or trucks whose suspension system has been modified so that it rides at a very low level to the ground. With the use of modern day hydraulics, users have height adjustable suspension. Most of the lowriders are vintage cars of the 1940’s to 1960’s.
Creating a lowrider is an art that’s creating fascinating cars with modern day hydraulics that not only lower but also raise the car, and also make it hop, and tilt it from side to side. Lowriders are designed with chrome accessories, gold plating, stunning paint schemes, spot lights, wire wheels, spectacular spinners and more.
Low riders also include Competition hoppers, cars built with an emphasis on the hydraulic suspension to give them a maximum ability to hop, especially for competitions. But they are less artistic and less luxurious too.
Hot rods are vintage cars with large engines modified for linear speed. Car owners modify their production car in the attempt to increase acceleration and top end speed. Most Americans are fond of restoring vintage cars as hot rods.
Traditional hot rods are made by reusing original, old parts from the junkyard and remanufacturing cars that were popular from the 1940s through the 1960s. But street rodding is based on building or getting cars built with new parts.
Hot rods look great with the abundance of chrome parts, fat tires, modified engine and various body panels removed. Most hot rods are typically painted with a design of flames behind the front wheels. A typical hot rod is heavily modified by replacing the engine and transmission and a few other components, including brakes and steering.
Concept car are important to the automotive industry as they are car prototypes made to showcase a concept, new styling, technology and more. Very often concept cars are seen in motor shows with an intention to gauge end user reaction of the latest and radical changes. But these concept cars don’t always go into production. They are just experimental pieces to test the waters before diving into large scale production. Concepts are a great way for car designers to fine tune their styling, designing and engineering skills. Concept cars with a complete transformation in design, appearance or engineering truly stand out.
Face-lift concepts are not particularly interesting as there is very minor styling cues, but the basic car structure remains the same. Irrespective of what the car is –concept, muscle car or a hot rod – the ever-improving creative skills will always fascinate the big boys!
Lowriders are classic cars or trucks whose suspension system has been modified so that it rides at a very low level to the ground. With the use of modern day hydraulics, users have height adjustable suspension. Most of the lowriders are vintage cars of the 1940’s to 1960’s.
Creating a lowrider is an art that’s creating fascinating cars with modern day hydraulics that not only lower but also raise the car, and also make it hop, and tilt it from side to side. Lowriders are designed with chrome accessories, gold plating, stunning paint schemes, spot lights, wire wheels, spectacular spinners and more.
Low riders also include Competition hoppers, cars built with an emphasis on the hydraulic suspension to give them a maximum ability to hop, especially for competitions. But they are less artistic and less luxurious too.
Hot rods are vintage cars with large engines modified for linear speed. Car owners modify their production car in the attempt to increase acceleration and top end speed. Most Americans are fond of restoring vintage cars as hot rods.
Traditional hot rods are made by reusing original, old parts from the junkyard and remanufacturing cars that were popular from the 1940s through the 1960s. But street rodding is based on building or getting cars built with new parts.
Hot rods look great with the abundance of chrome parts, fat tires, modified engine and various body panels removed. Most hot rods are typically painted with a design of flames behind the front wheels. A typical hot rod is heavily modified by replacing the engine and transmission and a few other components, including brakes and steering.
Concept car are important to the automotive industry as they are car prototypes made to showcase a concept, new styling, technology and more. Very often concept cars are seen in motor shows with an intention to gauge end user reaction of the latest and radical changes. But these concept cars don’t always go into production. They are just experimental pieces to test the waters before diving into large scale production. Concepts are a great way for car designers to fine tune their styling, designing and engineering skills. Concept cars with a complete transformation in design, appearance or engineering truly stand out.
Face-lift concepts are not particularly interesting as there is very minor styling cues, but the basic car structure remains the same. Irrespective of what the car is –concept, muscle car or a hot rod – the ever-improving creative skills will always fascinate the big boys!
NATO air strike a "major error": Afghan president
KABUL - A NATO air strike believed to have killed scores of Afghan civilians was a major "error of judgment" by German forces, Afghan President Hamid Karzai said in an interview published on Monday.
Karzai, who is closing in on a first-round victory in a presidential election held last month, also revealed in the interview strained relations with the United States, saying criticism of his friends and family was intended to undermine his own position and make him more malleable.
Germany again defended the decision of its commander in the area to call in the raid last week and brushed off suggestions restrictions it places on its soldiers had prevented them from approaching the scene and from fighting ground battles.
"General (Stanley) McChrystal telephoned me to apologize and to say that he himself hadn't given the order to attack," Karzai told French newspaper Le Figaro, referring to the commander of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan.
Berlin has warned against hasty judgments of the deadliest operation involving German forces since World War Two.
The strike, in which a U.S. F-15 fighter jet summoned by German troops bombed fuel trucks hijacked by the Taliban, has become a big domestic issue in Germany weeks before elections.
"Why didn't they send in ground troops to recover the fuel tank?" Karzai said in the interview with Le Figaro.
German Defense Ministry spokesman Thomas Raabe on Monday said the decision to order the strike was based on information that indicated the presence of armed Taliban near the tankers.
"STRIKE RIGHT DECISION"
He rejected suggestions that a German reluctance to shoot first in combat was behind a decision not to send ground troops to secure the fuel trucks, which were parked in a riverbed.
"Based on the information we have, we believe this strike was right and the suggestion that we are not capable of fighting (ground) battles is ridiculous," said Raabe at a news conference where he was grilled for more than an hour.
"You must realize we are talking about the middle of the night, with special visibility conditions, where we don't know what the enemy is planning. Therefore I think the decision that was made at the time was absolutely correct," he said.
In a first independent estimate of the death toll, a prominent Afghan rights group said up to 70 civilians had been killed in the strike in Char Dara district of Kunduz province.
Afghanistan Rights Monitor (ARM), a non-governmental group funded by domestic rights campaigners, said it had reached the figure based on interviews with residents in the area.
Karzai, who is closing in on a first-round victory in a presidential election held last month, also revealed in the interview strained relations with the United States, saying criticism of his friends and family was intended to undermine his own position and make him more malleable.
Germany again defended the decision of its commander in the area to call in the raid last week and brushed off suggestions restrictions it places on its soldiers had prevented them from approaching the scene and from fighting ground battles.
"General (Stanley) McChrystal telephoned me to apologize and to say that he himself hadn't given the order to attack," Karzai told French newspaper Le Figaro, referring to the commander of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan.
Berlin has warned against hasty judgments of the deadliest operation involving German forces since World War Two.
The strike, in which a U.S. F-15 fighter jet summoned by German troops bombed fuel trucks hijacked by the Taliban, has become a big domestic issue in Germany weeks before elections.
"Why didn't they send in ground troops to recover the fuel tank?" Karzai said in the interview with Le Figaro.
German Defense Ministry spokesman Thomas Raabe on Monday said the decision to order the strike was based on information that indicated the presence of armed Taliban near the tankers.
"STRIKE RIGHT DECISION"
He rejected suggestions that a German reluctance to shoot first in combat was behind a decision not to send ground troops to secure the fuel trucks, which were parked in a riverbed.
"Based on the information we have, we believe this strike was right and the suggestion that we are not capable of fighting (ground) battles is ridiculous," said Raabe at a news conference where he was grilled for more than an hour.
"You must realize we are talking about the middle of the night, with special visibility conditions, where we don't know what the enemy is planning. Therefore I think the decision that was made at the time was absolutely correct," he said.
In a first independent estimate of the death toll, a prominent Afghan rights group said up to 70 civilians had been killed in the strike in Char Dara district of Kunduz province.
Afghanistan Rights Monitor (ARM), a non-governmental group funded by domestic rights campaigners, said it had reached the figure based on interviews with residents in the area.
Gray Kasprov
There are two good reasons Igor Stohl starts his second collection of Garry Kasparov’s best games in 1994. The first reason, which Stohl mentions in Garry Kasparov’s Greatest Chess Games: Volume 2, is that 1994 marks the time when Kasparov started to use computers seriously. The switch to computers made Kasparov’s games (and following him the rest of the chess elite’s games) more concrete and dynamic. The second reason to start in 1994, which is probably connected to the first one but not mentioned in his book, is that 1994 is about the time when I, Chessbug, stopped understanding any of Kasparov’s games. Although I read the games with annotations from daily papers and serious periodicals, such as New in Chess, I just could not get it, and my sense is that this is true for other amateurs.
The games would make sense in the first three moves and would start resembling chess at around move 20, but anything in between seemed totally chaotic. All the principals that I thought I understood (piece development, king safety and avoidance of long term weaknesses) were not to be seen in the games of Kasparov (and later Shirov, Morozevich, Topalov, Aronian...) What made it even worse was that most games seemed to be decided in those very moves which I did not understand. With a good annotator I could understand Capablanca, Tal, or even Karpov, but the late Kasparov games were like abstract art explained in Chinese. For this reason I thought that the greatest challenge for Stohl would be to explain the games I did not understand. Stohl handles the challenge in a most impressive way (and he even tops it with other goodies).
The first game that I rushed to see was Kasparov-Anand, as I had spent many hours with this “encrypted” game. Here are the questions I still remembered and (in parentheses) the answers I got from Garry Kasparov’s Greatest Chess Games: Volume 2. Why did Kasparov play such a dubious opening against an opponent as mighty as Anand? (Psychology, my dear Watson, Kasparov wanted to play ultra aggressive and defeat Anand just before their World Championship match) What is so wonderful about 7 Be2? (Not much, only that it has hardly ever been played before) Why didn’t Anand castle? (He probably should have castled on move 12) At what point did the game become totally won for White? (After Black’s 18th move) And, most difficult, wasn’t Anand’s resignation somewhat premature or in more direct words why the _ _ _ _ did Anand resign? (He resigns for very good reasons, which Stohl demonstrates with a couple of straight forward variations). Stohl passed the first test and I continued reading with a lot of anticipation. The rest of the games were not disappointing, not disappointing at all. Stohl has the right mixture of variation annotations, verbal explanations, some psychology and background explanations, and short surveys about the development of the opening variations Kasparov used in his games. This means you can read the book in three different levels of reading: you could either skim through the games and read it as a bedtime book, or you could read it as a guide for modern chess thinking (to see how the top players of the last decade think about the game), or, and this is the best way in my opinion, you can read every game deeply, go with the annotations and beyond and gather many chess insights. Let us take one game for example and see these three options of reading. The game Kasparov – Panno, Argentina-Kasparov simul, Buenos-Aires, 1997 is a game that you can just read through and understand its place in the history of the development of the Nimzo-Indian defense or you can read it from a “positional” interest and see the work of the passed pawn and later the restricting effect of White’s h pawn on Black’s pawns, or you can try and understand another one of Kasparov’s mysterious games. The third option can be achieved only by taking out your board, playing through the game, and going through the variations that Stohl gives. For example look at the following position:
The games would make sense in the first three moves and would start resembling chess at around move 20, but anything in between seemed totally chaotic. All the principals that I thought I understood (piece development, king safety and avoidance of long term weaknesses) were not to be seen in the games of Kasparov (and later Shirov, Morozevich, Topalov, Aronian...) What made it even worse was that most games seemed to be decided in those very moves which I did not understand. With a good annotator I could understand Capablanca, Tal, or even Karpov, but the late Kasparov games were like abstract art explained in Chinese. For this reason I thought that the greatest challenge for Stohl would be to explain the games I did not understand. Stohl handles the challenge in a most impressive way (and he even tops it with other goodies).
The first game that I rushed to see was Kasparov-Anand, as I had spent many hours with this “encrypted” game. Here are the questions I still remembered and (in parentheses) the answers I got from Garry Kasparov’s Greatest Chess Games: Volume 2. Why did Kasparov play such a dubious opening against an opponent as mighty as Anand? (Psychology, my dear Watson, Kasparov wanted to play ultra aggressive and defeat Anand just before their World Championship match) What is so wonderful about 7 Be2? (Not much, only that it has hardly ever been played before) Why didn’t Anand castle? (He probably should have castled on move 12) At what point did the game become totally won for White? (After Black’s 18th move) And, most difficult, wasn’t Anand’s resignation somewhat premature or in more direct words why the _ _ _ _ did Anand resign? (He resigns for very good reasons, which Stohl demonstrates with a couple of straight forward variations). Stohl passed the first test and I continued reading with a lot of anticipation. The rest of the games were not disappointing, not disappointing at all. Stohl has the right mixture of variation annotations, verbal explanations, some psychology and background explanations, and short surveys about the development of the opening variations Kasparov used in his games. This means you can read the book in three different levels of reading: you could either skim through the games and read it as a bedtime book, or you could read it as a guide for modern chess thinking (to see how the top players of the last decade think about the game), or, and this is the best way in my opinion, you can read every game deeply, go with the annotations and beyond and gather many chess insights. Let us take one game for example and see these three options of reading. The game Kasparov – Panno, Argentina-Kasparov simul, Buenos-Aires, 1997 is a game that you can just read through and understand its place in the history of the development of the Nimzo-Indian defense or you can read it from a “positional” interest and see the work of the passed pawn and later the restricting effect of White’s h pawn on Black’s pawns, or you can try and understand another one of Kasparov’s mysterious games. The third option can be achieved only by taking out your board, playing through the game, and going through the variations that Stohl gives. For example look at the following position:
Bombs across Iraq kill 19, wound 39
AGHDAD - Two separate bomb attacks killed 10 people in Iraq Monday evening, police said, bringing the death toll from bomb attacks across the country to 19.
In one attack, a suicide bomber wearing a police uniform killed six people and wounded 18 others when he detonated an explosive vest at the entrance of a Shi'ite mosque in Baquba, 65 km (40 miles) northwest of Baghdad, police said.
The attack took place as people gathered to hear an evening sermon after breaking their fast during Ramadan, the Muslim holy month. Some of those killed were police.
Baquba is the capital of the restive, ethnically and religiously mixed Diyala province, which has been site of numerous suicide and other attacks as violence across most of Iraq has subsided.
In a separate attack, a bomb planted on a minibus in southern Iraq killed four passengers and wounded eight others.
The bus exploded on the outskirts of the Shi'ite Muslim holy city of Kerbala, 80 km (50 miles) south of Baghdad, police said.
Earlier in the day, nine people were killed in a suicide attack in western Anbar province. In that attack, a suicide bomber drove a car packed with explosives into a police checkpoint just outside the city of Ramadi.
At least 13 people were wounded.
Violence has dropped sharply in Iraq since the height of sectarian killing unleashed by the U.S.-led invasion in 2003.
But a series of recent attacks, including twin truck bombings last month that killed almost 100 people in Baghdad, have raised doubts about whether Iraqi security forces can stave off renewed violence as U.S. troops gradually withdraw.
Magnetic bombs that can be attached to the underside of vehicles, known in Iraq as 'sticky' bombs, have been an increasingly common tool for insurgents who continue to defy U.S. and Iraqi security efforts.
In one attack, a suicide bomber wearing a police uniform killed six people and wounded 18 others when he detonated an explosive vest at the entrance of a Shi'ite mosque in Baquba, 65 km (40 miles) northwest of Baghdad, police said.
The attack took place as people gathered to hear an evening sermon after breaking their fast during Ramadan, the Muslim holy month. Some of those killed were police.
Baquba is the capital of the restive, ethnically and religiously mixed Diyala province, which has been site of numerous suicide and other attacks as violence across most of Iraq has subsided.
In a separate attack, a bomb planted on a minibus in southern Iraq killed four passengers and wounded eight others.
The bus exploded on the outskirts of the Shi'ite Muslim holy city of Kerbala, 80 km (50 miles) south of Baghdad, police said.
Earlier in the day, nine people were killed in a suicide attack in western Anbar province. In that attack, a suicide bomber drove a car packed with explosives into a police checkpoint just outside the city of Ramadi.
At least 13 people were wounded.
Violence has dropped sharply in Iraq since the height of sectarian killing unleashed by the U.S.-led invasion in 2003.
But a series of recent attacks, including twin truck bombings last month that killed almost 100 people in Baghdad, have raised doubts about whether Iraqi security forces can stave off renewed violence as U.S. troops gradually withdraw.
Magnetic bombs that can be attached to the underside of vehicles, known in Iraq as 'sticky' bombs, have been an increasingly common tool for insurgents who continue to defy U.S. and Iraqi security efforts.
Fresh Thinking On the war on drugs ?
There are times when silence can be as eloquent as words. Take the case of Washington’s reaction to announcements, in quick succession, from Mexico and Argentina of changes in their drug policies that run counter to America’s own rigidly prohibitionist federal laws. No U.S. expressions of dismay or alarm.
Contrast that with three years ago, when Mexico was close to enacting timid reforms almost identical to those that became effective on August 21. In 2006, shouts of shock and horror from the administration of George W. Bush reached such a pitch that the then Mexican president, Vicente Fox, abruptly vetoed a bill his own party had written and he had supported.
What has changed? Was it a matter of something happening in August, when most of official Washington is on holiday? Or was it a sign of greater American readiness to rethink a war on drugs that has, in almost four decades, failed to curb production and stifle consumption of illicit drugs? And that despite law enforcement efforts that resulted in an average of around 4,700 arrests for drug offences every single day since the beginning of the millennium. (Just under 40 percent of those arrests are for possession of marijuana).
Or was it a matter of more countries realising that, as drug reform advocate Ethan Nadelmann puts it, “looking to the United States as a role model for drug control is like looking to apartheid-era South Africa for how to deal with race.” Nadelmann heads the Drug Policy Alliance, one of several groups lobbying for reform of U.S. drug policies.
Under the Mexican law that took effect in August, it is legal to possess small, precisely specified amounts, for personal use, of marijuana, heroin, opium, cocaine, methamphetamine and LSD. In Argentina, the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional criminal sanctions for the possession of small quantities of marijuana for personal use. The ruling opened the door to legislation similar to Mexico’s.
Brazil decriminalised drug possession in 2006; Ecuador is likely to follow suit this year. In much of Europe, drug use (as opposed to drug trafficking) is treated as an administrative offence rather than a criminal act. America’s hard-line approach has helped to make the United States the country with the world’s largest prison population.
Advocates of more flexible policies say they feel the winds of change beginning to rise in the administration of Barack Obama, a president who has admitted that in his youth, he smoked marijuana frequently and used “a little blow”(of cocaine) when he could afford it. But hopes for a break from long-standing orthodoxy might be premature, even though a recent Zogby poll showed 52 percent support for treating marijuana as a legal, taxed and regulated drug.
AMSTERDAM’S SCHIZOPHRENIC PRAGMATISM
“As regards to legalization, it is not in the president’s vocabulary and it is not in mine,” Obama’s drug czar, former Seattle police chief Gil Kerlikowske said in July. “Marijuana is dangerous and has no medicinal benefits.”
Oddly, he made the statement in California, where an estimated 250,000 people can legally buy marijuana with a letter of recommendation from their physician. The drug is used for a variety of illnesses, from chronic pain to insomnia and depression. There is extensive academic literature on the medical benefits of marijuana.
Medical opinion, however, conflicts with the congressionally-mandated job description Kerlikowske inherited when he took up the post. It says that the director of the Office of National Drug Policy, the White House group in charge of drug war strategy, must “oppose any attempt to legalize the use of a substance listed in schedule I of section 202 of the Controlled Substances Act.”
Schedule I of the act, which took force in 1970 during the administration of Richard Nixon, the president who formally declared “war on drugs”, places marijuana alongside powerfully addictive drugs such as heroin. The wrong-headed classification matches that of an international treaty, the 1961 United Nations Single Convention of Narcotics Drugs. The convention is a major obstacle for signatory countries that want to legalize drugs.
No country has actually done that. Even the Netherlands, the Mecca of marijuana aficionados, operates on a system best described as schizophrenic pragmatism. Amsterdam’s “coffee shops” are allowed to have 500 grams of marijuana on the premises and sell no more than 5 grams per person to people over 18. The runners who re-supply the shops routinely carry more than the legal quantity and violate the law. So do importers.
While the failure of the drug war and the prohibitionist ideology that drives it have been analysed in great detail in scores of sober assessments by academics and government commissions, there have been few studies of the “how to” of legalization. What, for example, would happen to the criminal mafias that are now running a violent illicit business with a turnover estimated at more than $300 billion a year?
Some drug traffickers would switch to other criminal activities and it is realistic to expect increases in such areas as cyber crime and extortion, according to Steve Rolles, Head of Research of the Transform Drug Policy Foundation, a British think tank. “But the big picture will undoubtedly show a significant net fall in overall criminal activity in the longer term,” he said in an interview. “Getting rid of illegal drug markets is about reducing opportunities for crime.”
Rolles is author of the optimistically titled “After the war on drugs: Blueprint for Regulation,” a book scheduled for publication in November and meant to kickstart a debate on what he sees as something of a blank slate - the specifics of regulation for currently illegal drugs.
On a global scale, nothing much can happen unless there are changes in the world’s largest and most lucrative market for drugs, the United States. If they happen, they won’t happen fast. “I see this as a multi-generational effort, with incremental changes,” said Nadelmann, who has been involved in drug policy since he taught at Princeton University in the late 1980s. “But for the first time, I feel I have the wind in my back and not in my face.”
Contrast that with three years ago, when Mexico was close to enacting timid reforms almost identical to those that became effective on August 21. In 2006, shouts of shock and horror from the administration of George W. Bush reached such a pitch that the then Mexican president, Vicente Fox, abruptly vetoed a bill his own party had written and he had supported.
What has changed? Was it a matter of something happening in August, when most of official Washington is on holiday? Or was it a sign of greater American readiness to rethink a war on drugs that has, in almost four decades, failed to curb production and stifle consumption of illicit drugs? And that despite law enforcement efforts that resulted in an average of around 4,700 arrests for drug offences every single day since the beginning of the millennium. (Just under 40 percent of those arrests are for possession of marijuana).
Or was it a matter of more countries realising that, as drug reform advocate Ethan Nadelmann puts it, “looking to the United States as a role model for drug control is like looking to apartheid-era South Africa for how to deal with race.” Nadelmann heads the Drug Policy Alliance, one of several groups lobbying for reform of U.S. drug policies.
Under the Mexican law that took effect in August, it is legal to possess small, precisely specified amounts, for personal use, of marijuana, heroin, opium, cocaine, methamphetamine and LSD. In Argentina, the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional criminal sanctions for the possession of small quantities of marijuana for personal use. The ruling opened the door to legislation similar to Mexico’s.
Brazil decriminalised drug possession in 2006; Ecuador is likely to follow suit this year. In much of Europe, drug use (as opposed to drug trafficking) is treated as an administrative offence rather than a criminal act. America’s hard-line approach has helped to make the United States the country with the world’s largest prison population.
Advocates of more flexible policies say they feel the winds of change beginning to rise in the administration of Barack Obama, a president who has admitted that in his youth, he smoked marijuana frequently and used “a little blow”(of cocaine) when he could afford it. But hopes for a break from long-standing orthodoxy might be premature, even though a recent Zogby poll showed 52 percent support for treating marijuana as a legal, taxed and regulated drug.
AMSTERDAM’S SCHIZOPHRENIC PRAGMATISM
“As regards to legalization, it is not in the president’s vocabulary and it is not in mine,” Obama’s drug czar, former Seattle police chief Gil Kerlikowske said in July. “Marijuana is dangerous and has no medicinal benefits.”
Oddly, he made the statement in California, where an estimated 250,000 people can legally buy marijuana with a letter of recommendation from their physician. The drug is used for a variety of illnesses, from chronic pain to insomnia and depression. There is extensive academic literature on the medical benefits of marijuana.
Medical opinion, however, conflicts with the congressionally-mandated job description Kerlikowske inherited when he took up the post. It says that the director of the Office of National Drug Policy, the White House group in charge of drug war strategy, must “oppose any attempt to legalize the use of a substance listed in schedule I of section 202 of the Controlled Substances Act.”
Schedule I of the act, which took force in 1970 during the administration of Richard Nixon, the president who formally declared “war on drugs”, places marijuana alongside powerfully addictive drugs such as heroin. The wrong-headed classification matches that of an international treaty, the 1961 United Nations Single Convention of Narcotics Drugs. The convention is a major obstacle for signatory countries that want to legalize drugs.
No country has actually done that. Even the Netherlands, the Mecca of marijuana aficionados, operates on a system best described as schizophrenic pragmatism. Amsterdam’s “coffee shops” are allowed to have 500 grams of marijuana on the premises and sell no more than 5 grams per person to people over 18. The runners who re-supply the shops routinely carry more than the legal quantity and violate the law. So do importers.
While the failure of the drug war and the prohibitionist ideology that drives it have been analysed in great detail in scores of sober assessments by academics and government commissions, there have been few studies of the “how to” of legalization. What, for example, would happen to the criminal mafias that are now running a violent illicit business with a turnover estimated at more than $300 billion a year?
Some drug traffickers would switch to other criminal activities and it is realistic to expect increases in such areas as cyber crime and extortion, according to Steve Rolles, Head of Research of the Transform Drug Policy Foundation, a British think tank. “But the big picture will undoubtedly show a significant net fall in overall criminal activity in the longer term,” he said in an interview. “Getting rid of illegal drug markets is about reducing opportunities for crime.”
Rolles is author of the optimistically titled “After the war on drugs: Blueprint for Regulation,” a book scheduled for publication in November and meant to kickstart a debate on what he sees as something of a blank slate - the specifics of regulation for currently illegal drugs.
On a global scale, nothing much can happen unless there are changes in the world’s largest and most lucrative market for drugs, the United States. If they happen, they won’t happen fast. “I see this as a multi-generational effort, with incremental changes,” said Nadelmann, who has been involved in drug policy since he taught at Princeton University in the late 1980s. “But for the first time, I feel I have the wind in my back and not in my face.”
Pakisthans nuclear weapons and the doomsday scenario
The problem with Pakistan is that it is almost impossible to come up with a view that is not either alarmist or complacent. It is such a complex country that nobody can agree a frame of reference for assessing the risk. It is the base for a bewildering array of militants including Afghan and Pakistani Taliban, al Qaeda and anti-India groups, yet also has a powerful and professional army which would be expected to defend to the last its Punjab heartland and nuclear weapons against a jihadi takeover. Its potent mix of poverty and Islamist sympathies among a significant section of the population make it ripe for revolution, yet it also has a strong and secular-minded civil society which was willing to go out into the streets earlier this year to demand an independent judiciary.
You can assess the risk in Pakistan by looking at the rate of decline in stability there, and that was faster than anyone expected over the past year or so until a military offensive against the Taliban in Swat which began in April halted the slide.
Or you can look at the worst case scenario, of Islamist militants taking over a nuclear-armed Pakistan, and decide that even if that outcome is unlikely, the potential dangers arising from it are so great as to put Pakistani stability at the top of global risks.
In an essay in the National Interest, Bruce Riedel, the former CIA officer who led a review of strategy in Afghanistan and Pakistan for President Barack Obama, lays out the implications of that worst case scenario.
“A jihadist Pakistan would be the most serious threat to the United States since the end of the Cold War. Aligned with al-Qaeda and armed with nuclear weapons, the Islamic Emirate of Pakistan would be a nightmare. U.S. options for dealing with it would all be bad,” he writes.
And if the United States were to try to invade “the Pakistanis would, of course, use their nuclear weapons to defend themselves. While they do not have delivery systems capable of reaching America, they could certainly destroy cities and bases in Afghanistan, India, the Gulf states and, if smuggled out ahead of time by terrorists, perhaps the United States. A victory in such a conflict would be Pyrrhic indeed.
“Of course, the hardest problem would be the day after. What would we do with a country twice the size of California with enormous poverty, almost 50 percent illiteracy and intense popular hatred for all that we stand for after we have fought a nuclear war to occupy it?”
Riedel’s essay, titled “Armageddon in Islamabad” goes some way to answering the oft-asked question of why western troops are fighting in Afghanistan when al Qaeda and its allies are believed to be based in Pakistan. It also helps explain why the United States is so keen to see a peace deal with India that might help stabilise the country.
“A jihadist, nuclear-armed Pakistan is a scenario we need to avoid at all costs,” he says. That means working with the Pakistan we have today to try to improve its spotty record on terrorism and proliferation. There is good reason for pessimism. Working with the existing order in Pakistan may not succeed. But there is every reason to try, given the horrors of the alternative.”
Do read it in conjunction with this article in the CTC Sentinel (pdf), in which Shaun Gregory, a professor at Britain’s Bradford University, assesses the risk of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons falling into the hands of Islamist militants. The nuclear weapons, he argues, are well guarded by the Pakistan Army against the internal threat of a seizure by Islamist militants. But this also means that they could not be spirited out of the country by a third party, or destroyed, in the event of a state collapse
You can assess the risk in Pakistan by looking at the rate of decline in stability there, and that was faster than anyone expected over the past year or so until a military offensive against the Taliban in Swat which began in April halted the slide.
Or you can look at the worst case scenario, of Islamist militants taking over a nuclear-armed Pakistan, and decide that even if that outcome is unlikely, the potential dangers arising from it are so great as to put Pakistani stability at the top of global risks.
In an essay in the National Interest, Bruce Riedel, the former CIA officer who led a review of strategy in Afghanistan and Pakistan for President Barack Obama, lays out the implications of that worst case scenario.
“A jihadist Pakistan would be the most serious threat to the United States since the end of the Cold War. Aligned with al-Qaeda and armed with nuclear weapons, the Islamic Emirate of Pakistan would be a nightmare. U.S. options for dealing with it would all be bad,” he writes.
And if the United States were to try to invade “the Pakistanis would, of course, use their nuclear weapons to defend themselves. While they do not have delivery systems capable of reaching America, they could certainly destroy cities and bases in Afghanistan, India, the Gulf states and, if smuggled out ahead of time by terrorists, perhaps the United States. A victory in such a conflict would be Pyrrhic indeed.
“Of course, the hardest problem would be the day after. What would we do with a country twice the size of California with enormous poverty, almost 50 percent illiteracy and intense popular hatred for all that we stand for after we have fought a nuclear war to occupy it?”
Riedel’s essay, titled “Armageddon in Islamabad” goes some way to answering the oft-asked question of why western troops are fighting in Afghanistan when al Qaeda and its allies are believed to be based in Pakistan. It also helps explain why the United States is so keen to see a peace deal with India that might help stabilise the country.
“A jihadist, nuclear-armed Pakistan is a scenario we need to avoid at all costs,” he says. That means working with the Pakistan we have today to try to improve its spotty record on terrorism and proliferation. There is good reason for pessimism. Working with the existing order in Pakistan may not succeed. But there is every reason to try, given the horrors of the alternative.”
Do read it in conjunction with this article in the CTC Sentinel (pdf), in which Shaun Gregory, a professor at Britain’s Bradford University, assesses the risk of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons falling into the hands of Islamist militants. The nuclear weapons, he argues, are well guarded by the Pakistan Army against the internal threat of a seizure by Islamist militants. But this also means that they could not be spirited out of the country by a third party, or destroyed, in the event of a state collapse
U.S. poverty rate hits 11-year high as recession bites
WASHINGTON - The U.S. poverty rate hit its highest level in 11 years in 2008 as the worst recession since the Great Depression threw millions of Americans out of work, a government report showed on Thursday.
The Census Bureau said the poverty rate rose to 13.2 percent in 2008, the highest level since 1997, from 12.5 percent in 2007. About 39.8 million Americans were living in poverty, up from 37.3 million in 2007.
The government defines poverty as an annual income of $22,025 for a family of four, $17,163 for a family of three and $14,051 for a family of two.
Real median household income fell 3.6 percent, the biggest annual drop since 1991, to $50,303 in 2008.
"This breaks a string of three years of annual income increases and coincides with the recession that started in December 2007," said David Johnson, head of Housing and Household Economic Statistics Division.
The longest and deepest recession in 70 years has been marked by rising unemployment as companies aggressively cut payrolls to cope with slumping demand.
As of August, the unemployment rate was at 9.7 percent, the highest in 26 years, and almost 7 million people had lost their jobs since the start of the recession.
Analysts said the poverty and income figures underscored the depth of the strain on households.
"This recession is whacking almost everyone," said Ron Haskins, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution in Washington.
The Census Bureau also said 46.3 million Americans were without health insurance last year compared to 45.7 million in 2007. The numbers could feature in arguments over President Barack Obama's plans to overhaul the U.S. healthcare system and dramatically expand medical insurance coverage.
The family poverty rate rose to 10.3 percent last year and 8.1 million families were in poverty, the Bureau said. This compares to 9.8 percent and 7.6 million respectively in 2007.
Poverty was higher among blacks and Hispanics, the report showed. About 14.1 million children under the age of 18 lived in poverty last year, up from 13.3 million in 2007.
"We project that with the continuing deterioration in the labor market, by 2009 a quarter of all children in this country will be living in poverty," said Heidi Shierholz, a labor market economist at the Economic Policy Institute in Washington.
The Census Bureau said the poverty rate rose to 13.2 percent in 2008, the highest level since 1997, from 12.5 percent in 2007. About 39.8 million Americans were living in poverty, up from 37.3 million in 2007.
The government defines poverty as an annual income of $22,025 for a family of four, $17,163 for a family of three and $14,051 for a family of two.
Real median household income fell 3.6 percent, the biggest annual drop since 1991, to $50,303 in 2008.
"This breaks a string of three years of annual income increases and coincides with the recession that started in December 2007," said David Johnson, head of Housing and Household Economic Statistics Division.
The longest and deepest recession in 70 years has been marked by rising unemployment as companies aggressively cut payrolls to cope with slumping demand.
As of August, the unemployment rate was at 9.7 percent, the highest in 26 years, and almost 7 million people had lost their jobs since the start of the recession.
Analysts said the poverty and income figures underscored the depth of the strain on households.
"This recession is whacking almost everyone," said Ron Haskins, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution in Washington.
The Census Bureau also said 46.3 million Americans were without health insurance last year compared to 45.7 million in 2007. The numbers could feature in arguments over President Barack Obama's plans to overhaul the U.S. healthcare system and dramatically expand medical insurance coverage.
The family poverty rate rose to 10.3 percent last year and 8.1 million families were in poverty, the Bureau said. This compares to 9.8 percent and 7.6 million respectively in 2007.
Poverty was higher among blacks and Hispanics, the report showed. About 14.1 million children under the age of 18 lived in poverty last year, up from 13.3 million in 2007.
"We project that with the continuing deterioration in the labor market, by 2009 a quarter of all children in this country will be living in poverty," said Heidi Shierholz, a labor market economist at the Economic Policy Institute in Washington.
Pak Taliban leader Hakimullah Mehsud dead: Pak media
Islamabad: Newly-appointed Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) chief Hakimullah Mehsud has already been killed and it was his look-alike brother who gave an interview to the BCC some days ago, Pakistani security forces said.
According to a private television channel, Hakimullah's look-alike brother was specially summoned from Afghanistan to Pakistan, while the decision to appoint their new chief was being taken by the Taliban after Baitullah Mehsud's death in a US drone attack last month.
Security forces said Taliban had declared Hakimullah as their chief only to misguide the military and give a wrong impression its leadership was still alive.
Pakistani forces are preparing a plan to launch a major operation against the Taliban in South Waziristan, The Dawn reports.
It may be recalled that Pakistan Interior Advisor Rehman Malik had also rejected reports about Hakimullah Mehsud being appointed as the new TTP chief.
In an interview with the state television, Malik said reports about Hakimullah taking over the TTP's command were merely 'speculations'.
"If Hakimullah Mehsud has been elected new Taliban chief than he should come to fore. It is all speculation till he himself comes forward and says that he has become the chief of TTP," Malik had said.
Malik said the there were reports of serious infighting among the leaders of the TTP to gain hold of the organization following Baitullah Mehsud's death in the US drone attack in August.
"Our information is that they have not been able to appoint someone despite the lapse of so many days since his (Baitullah Mehsud's) death because now they are fighting among themselves," he said.
According to a private television channel, Hakimullah's look-alike brother was specially summoned from Afghanistan to Pakistan, while the decision to appoint their new chief was being taken by the Taliban after Baitullah Mehsud's death in a US drone attack last month.
Security forces said Taliban had declared Hakimullah as their chief only to misguide the military and give a wrong impression its leadership was still alive.
Pakistani forces are preparing a plan to launch a major operation against the Taliban in South Waziristan, The Dawn reports.
It may be recalled that Pakistan Interior Advisor Rehman Malik had also rejected reports about Hakimullah Mehsud being appointed as the new TTP chief.
In an interview with the state television, Malik said reports about Hakimullah taking over the TTP's command were merely 'speculations'.
"If Hakimullah Mehsud has been elected new Taliban chief than he should come to fore. It is all speculation till he himself comes forward and says that he has become the chief of TTP," Malik had said.
Malik said the there were reports of serious infighting among the leaders of the TTP to gain hold of the organization following Baitullah Mehsud's death in the US drone attack in August.
"Our information is that they have not been able to appoint someone despite the lapse of so many days since his (Baitullah Mehsud's) death because now they are fighting among themselves," he said.
Mexican hijack ends peacefully, all aboard safe
MEXICO CITY - Hijackers seized an AeroMexico passenger plane in Mexico with more than 100 people on board on Wednesday but the incident ended quickly. without bloodshed, and nine suspects were detained.
In the first hijack drama to hit Mexico in decades, pilots of the Boeing 737 radioed in after taking off from the Caribbean resort of Cancun to say they had been hijacked in mid-air, Transport Minister Juan Molinar told reporters.
About two hours after the plane landed at Mexico City's international airport, its original destination, Molinar said all the passengers were safely off the aircraft and that there was no bomb threat.
"The passengers are safe. There was no bomb," Molinar told Mexico's Televisa channel shortly after TV images showed police leading the hijackers off the plane in handcuffs.
Nine men were detained, the daily El Universal reported on its website.
Mexican media said the hijackers had threatened to blow up the plane unless they were allowed to speak to President Felipe Calderon, whose presidential jet took off from Mexico City for the southeastern city of Campeche shortly after the drama.
Passengers described the men as well-dressed and said they had not been aware of the hijack during the flight. One man on board said one of the hijackers was carrying a bible.
"We really didn't know what was going on," passenger Adriana Romero told Mexican television. "We realized it was a hijack when we saw the police trucks."
CALM EXIT
It was not clear what the hijackers wanted. Some Mexican media said the men appeared to be Bolivian.
Mexico has no major radical political groups who espouse violence, and it was not known if the hijacking was linked in any way to Mexico's violent drug battles. Calderon is embroiled in a bitter war with powerful drug cartels, whose turf wars have killed more than 13,000 people since he took power in late 2006 and set the army on traffickers.
Direct attacks by drug gangs on the public or attempts to force talks with the government are very rare, however.
The last time a commercial plane was hijacked in Mexico was in 1972, when four men describing themselves as part of a group of armed communists seized an aircraft in the northern city of Monterrey and redirected it to Cuba.
Cancun is Mexico's top tourist destination and attracts millions of U.S. and European sunseekers every year to its white-sand beaches and luxury hotels.
Molinar said that after landing the plane had taxied to a part of the airport reserved for emergencies.
In the first hijack drama to hit Mexico in decades, pilots of the Boeing 737 radioed in after taking off from the Caribbean resort of Cancun to say they had been hijacked in mid-air, Transport Minister Juan Molinar told reporters.
About two hours after the plane landed at Mexico City's international airport, its original destination, Molinar said all the passengers were safely off the aircraft and that there was no bomb threat.
"The passengers are safe. There was no bomb," Molinar told Mexico's Televisa channel shortly after TV images showed police leading the hijackers off the plane in handcuffs.
Nine men were detained, the daily El Universal reported on its website.
Mexican media said the hijackers had threatened to blow up the plane unless they were allowed to speak to President Felipe Calderon, whose presidential jet took off from Mexico City for the southeastern city of Campeche shortly after the drama.
Passengers described the men as well-dressed and said they had not been aware of the hijack during the flight. One man on board said one of the hijackers was carrying a bible.
"We really didn't know what was going on," passenger Adriana Romero told Mexican television. "We realized it was a hijack when we saw the police trucks."
CALM EXIT
It was not clear what the hijackers wanted. Some Mexican media said the men appeared to be Bolivian.
Mexico has no major radical political groups who espouse violence, and it was not known if the hijacking was linked in any way to Mexico's violent drug battles. Calderon is embroiled in a bitter war with powerful drug cartels, whose turf wars have killed more than 13,000 people since he took power in late 2006 and set the army on traffickers.
Direct attacks by drug gangs on the public or attempts to force talks with the government are very rare, however.
The last time a commercial plane was hijacked in Mexico was in 1972, when four men describing themselves as part of a group of armed communists seized an aircraft in the northern city of Monterrey and redirected it to Cuba.
Cancun is Mexico's top tourist destination and attracts millions of U.S. and European sunseekers every year to its white-sand beaches and luxury hotels.
Molinar said that after landing the plane had taxied to a part of the airport reserved for emergencies.
Here lies the Great American Consumer
“Cash-for-clunkers” aside, consumers seem bent on actually paying back debt rather than racking it up, a change that if sustained, as it is likely to be, will dampen economic growth not for months but for years, and not just in the U.S.
Outstanding U.S. consumer borrowing fell by a jaw-dropping $21.6 billion in July, according to data released this week by the Federal Reserve, five times more than analysts expected and the second largest monthly drop since the end of World War II.
June’s borrowing was revised to negative $15.5 billion from what had been an impressive minus $10.3 billion.
Over the past year, the stock of consumer loans outstanding has dropped by 4.2 percent, or nearly $110 billion, leaving the total now lower than it was before the crisis began in 2007.
Over the long term, this is exactly what needs to happen. With household wealth badly hit by the housing and stock market crashes balance sheets are stretched. And with a huge baby boomer cohort hurtling towards retirement age also, spending and borrowing were bound to be curtailed.
The question really becomes how entrenched the trend towards the new frugality becomes.
“Memories of debt are very powerful. The generation that grew up in the 1920s and 1930s, was wary of getting into debt as it - and its parents - had experienced two periods of deflation,” Lombard Street Research economist Gabriel Stein wrote in a note to clients.
“We are now in another period of debt repayment and deflation. The thought that US households will forget 2007-2009 and begin to borrow and spend as they did in the early 2000s, is fanciful at best.”
For years the mantra on Wall Street was “don’t bet against the American consumer,” a creature so fabulously resilient as to be almost super human.
Wars and recessions did little to brook consumption and the debt that grew alongside. Even the September 11 attacks saw healthy month on month growth in borrowing in the aftermath.
Whole industries, some now vanished, were predicated on Americans continuing to borrow and spend. It’s an overstatement, but only a slight one, to say that the global economy was predicated on U.S. consumption, which in turn was predicated on consumers borrowing.
THE NEW FRUGALITY
It is doubtless true that lenders of all stripes are making credit harder to get. But there is a good bit of evidence that individuals are changing their preferences. Much of the cash from stimulus handouts earlier this year was used to pay down debt rather than goosing consumption.
A Gallup poll asking Americans how much they had spent in the past day, not including major purchases or normal household bills hit $63 when most recently measured, down from above $100 a year ago.
Now on the face of it, that reduction must be overstated. If consumption had fallen by that magnitude, we’d be in a depression rather than debating the strength of a recovery.
But of course the Gallup poll is a self reported one, and I would be willing to bet that people are now exaggerating how frugal they are, where once they would have exaggerated how much they were spending. That in itself is an important marker of a social trend. Once you wanted the nice people at Gallup to think you were a big shot leaking money, now you probably want them to see you as a saver.
Gallup also looked at the data by generational group, and found that it was not just those in or approaching retirement who were cutting back on self-reported spending. So-called Generation Xers and Millennials, who followed the boomers into the workforce, are also cutting back in similar scale.
But the issue isn’t the rate of savings but the stock of savings as compared to liabilities. While it is reasonably possible to cut back on spending and so increase your savings rate that is far different from suddenly becoming financially robust.
The other thing to bear in mind is that there is a huge difference between stocks and flows. A person can quite quickly raise her savings rate - as we have seen - but that does not mean that her debts are quickly paid off.
If U.S. consumers cut debt as quickly as Japanese corporations did in the 1990s, it will still take them until 2018 to get their debt down to 100 percent of GDP from recent peaks of 130 percent, according to a study from the San Francisco Federal Reserve.
If the trend in consumer borrowing continues, it will not be long before the conversation will turn back to stimulus, quantitative easing, and a relapse for the U.S. economy.
Outstanding U.S. consumer borrowing fell by a jaw-dropping $21.6 billion in July, according to data released this week by the Federal Reserve, five times more than analysts expected and the second largest monthly drop since the end of World War II.
June’s borrowing was revised to negative $15.5 billion from what had been an impressive minus $10.3 billion.
Over the past year, the stock of consumer loans outstanding has dropped by 4.2 percent, or nearly $110 billion, leaving the total now lower than it was before the crisis began in 2007.
Over the long term, this is exactly what needs to happen. With household wealth badly hit by the housing and stock market crashes balance sheets are stretched. And with a huge baby boomer cohort hurtling towards retirement age also, spending and borrowing were bound to be curtailed.
The question really becomes how entrenched the trend towards the new frugality becomes.
“Memories of debt are very powerful. The generation that grew up in the 1920s and 1930s, was wary of getting into debt as it - and its parents - had experienced two periods of deflation,” Lombard Street Research economist Gabriel Stein wrote in a note to clients.
“We are now in another period of debt repayment and deflation. The thought that US households will forget 2007-2009 and begin to borrow and spend as they did in the early 2000s, is fanciful at best.”
For years the mantra on Wall Street was “don’t bet against the American consumer,” a creature so fabulously resilient as to be almost super human.
Wars and recessions did little to brook consumption and the debt that grew alongside. Even the September 11 attacks saw healthy month on month growth in borrowing in the aftermath.
Whole industries, some now vanished, were predicated on Americans continuing to borrow and spend. It’s an overstatement, but only a slight one, to say that the global economy was predicated on U.S. consumption, which in turn was predicated on consumers borrowing.
THE NEW FRUGALITY
It is doubtless true that lenders of all stripes are making credit harder to get. But there is a good bit of evidence that individuals are changing their preferences. Much of the cash from stimulus handouts earlier this year was used to pay down debt rather than goosing consumption.
A Gallup poll asking Americans how much they had spent in the past day, not including major purchases or normal household bills hit $63 when most recently measured, down from above $100 a year ago.
Now on the face of it, that reduction must be overstated. If consumption had fallen by that magnitude, we’d be in a depression rather than debating the strength of a recovery.
But of course the Gallup poll is a self reported one, and I would be willing to bet that people are now exaggerating how frugal they are, where once they would have exaggerated how much they were spending. That in itself is an important marker of a social trend. Once you wanted the nice people at Gallup to think you were a big shot leaking money, now you probably want them to see you as a saver.
Gallup also looked at the data by generational group, and found that it was not just those in or approaching retirement who were cutting back on self-reported spending. So-called Generation Xers and Millennials, who followed the boomers into the workforce, are also cutting back in similar scale.
But the issue isn’t the rate of savings but the stock of savings as compared to liabilities. While it is reasonably possible to cut back on spending and so increase your savings rate that is far different from suddenly becoming financially robust.
The other thing to bear in mind is that there is a huge difference between stocks and flows. A person can quite quickly raise her savings rate - as we have seen - but that does not mean that her debts are quickly paid off.
If U.S. consumers cut debt as quickly as Japanese corporations did in the 1990s, it will still take them until 2018 to get their debt down to 100 percent of GDP from recent peaks of 130 percent, according to a study from the San Francisco Federal Reserve.
If the trend in consumer borrowing continues, it will not be long before the conversation will turn back to stimulus, quantitative easing, and a relapse for the U.S. economy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)