What Adam Curry is reading

John Kerry's face looks different: Exhaustion, illness, Botox? - The Washington Post
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Sun, 08 Sep 2013 13:38
  By The Reliable Source, Published: SEPTEMBER 04, 7:46 PM ET Aa In the midst of the intense congressional hearings on Syria, many longtime observers had questions that had nothing to do with a possible military strike: Why did Secretary of State John Kerry look so different? His eyes seemed less droopy than usual, his entire face seemed somehow wider.
  Secretary of State John Kerry at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on Syria in Washington Tuesday. (Melina Mara / The Washington Post)
  Simple explanation, said his personal spokesman Glen Johnson. Kerry has been working non-stop with no vacation -- and barely has had time to squeeze in a simple haircut.
  But that didn't stop the speculation.
  "It's looks to me that he has limited movement on the left side of his face," said cosmetic dermatologist Tina Alster.
  "He doesn't have any movement in his face at all," said plastic surgeon Barry Cohen.
  The photo of Kerry from The Washington Post's Wednesday front page that startled some readers with his unusual affect. (Melina Mara / The Washington Post)
  It could also be one of many other possibilities. Lack of sleep -- no surprise, given the last couple of months with his wife's illness and the Syrian crisis. Or something as simple as allergies, which could cause his eyes and face to puff up. It could be a minor cosmetic procedure like Botox or another injectable, or Bell's palsy, a common virus which affects facial nerves and can mimic a minor stroke or bad Botox. Or simply stress.
  "Stress can always make you look not like yourself," said Alster. "It can definitely change how your face looks."
  Kerry, 69, is no stranger to speculation about his classic patrician face. In the 1970's, he had an operation to correct a "malocclusion" -- a problem with his bite that caused clicking in his jaw (and yes, made him more handsome). His smooth, unwrinkled appearance during the 2004 presidential race caused enough of a stir that his campaign was forced to deny Botox rumors directly. And in January of 2012, Kerry showed up at the White House celebration for the Boston Bruins sporting two black eyes. Plastic surgery? Nah, he said -- just the result of a nasty spill while playing hockey with family and friends over the New Year's break.
  But the fact that the chatter arose again this week about whether his appearance was the result of exhaustion or some cosmetic snafu annoyed those close to him.
  "Not only is it a little sad that this constitutes news by anyone's definition in Washington when we're debating the use of force in Syria, but the answer is simple: No, end of story. That's not a denial, that's a fact," Johnson said.
  Kerry on the Hill again Wednesday. (Shawn Thew / Bloomberg)
  Fueling the rumors is the reality that many of today's aging politicians (women and men) have artificially tweaked their looks. That makes it almost impossible to distinguish between good genes, natural aging, stress and bad cosmetic work.
  Said Cohen: "People are certainly not wearing their wrinkles and age spots with the grace they once did."
  Looking more like himself: Kerry in Colombia, August 12. (Fernando Vergara / AP)
  Also in The Reliable Source:
  Scarlett Johansson engaged to French guy, Romain Dauriac
  Love, etc.: Ashley Taylor and Matt Bronczek welcome daughter
  Wizards' John Wall buys Potomac mansion for $4.9 million
  Teresa Heinz Kerry makes first public appearance since illness
  Quoted: Dennis Rodman on the purpose of his latest North Korea visit
  Katie Couric engaged to banker John Molner
  hashLoc = window.location.href.indexOf('#');allPage = false; if(hashLoc > -1 && !allPage) {if(window.location.href.indexOf('?') < >MORE
  My Account
  Sign InSubscribe(C) Copyright 1996-2013 The Washington Post
  View desktop site
Yahoo! Transparency - United States
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Sun, 08 Sep 2013 13:22
  The numbers reported below represent requests from government agencies all over the world for user data received by Yahoo! Inc. during the reporting period.1 Each government data request was processed in a manner consistent with local law, the Yahoo! Inc. Terms of Service, and the Yahoo! Privacy Policy.
  The numbers reported above include all types of government data requests such as criminal law enforcement requests and those under U.S. national security authorities, including the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and National Security Letters (NSLs), if any were received.
  The U.S. Government does not permit us to disclose additional details regarding the number of requests, if any, under national security authorities at this time, or even to separate them in aggregate from other requests. Additionally, the government would not authorize us to separate NSLs from other government data requests or to express the NSLs that we have received, if any, as a range from 0 to 1,000'--even though the government allowed other providers to do so in the past. We strenuously disagree with the government's position and will continue to advocate for greater transparency regarding requests made under national security authorities. If we succeed in persuading the U.S. Government to allow greater transparency, we will disclose additional details in future reports, and we will also update this report with more details related to national security requests as permitted.
  For more information on the legal process that can be used by the U.S. government to obtain user data and our policies related to requests for user data, click here: Yahoo! Inc. Law Enforcement Response Guidelines.
Global cooling: Arctic ice caps grows by 60% against global warming predictions | Mail Online
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Sun, 08 Sep 2013 12:41
  Almost a million more square miles of ocean covered with ice than in 2012BBC reported in 2007 global warming would leave Arctic ice-free in summer by 2013Publication of UN climate change report suggesting global warming caused by humans pushed back to later this monthBy David Rose
  PUBLISHED: 18:37 EST, 7 September 2013 | UPDATED: 07:01 EST, 8 September 2013
  9,000shares
  441
  Viewcomments
  A chilly Arctic summer has left nearly a million more square miles of ocean covered with ice than at the same time last year '' an increase of 60 per cent.
  The rebound from 2012's record low comes six years after the BBC reported that global warming would leave the Arctic ice-free in summer by 2013.
  Instead, days before the annual autumn re-freeze is due to begin, an unbroken ice sheet more than half the size of Europe already stretches from the Canadian islands to Russia's northern shores.
  The Northwest Passage from the Atlantic to the Pacific has remained blocked by pack-ice all year. More than 20 yachts that had planned to sail it have been left ice-bound and a cruise ship attempting the route was forced to turn back.
  Some eminent scientists now believe the world is heading for a period of cooling that will not end until the middle of this century '' a process that would expose computer forecasts of imminent catastrophic warming as dangerously misleading.
  The disclosure comes 11 months after The Mail on Sunday triggered intense political and scientific debate by revealing that global warming has 'paused' since the beginning of 1997 '' an event that the computer models used by climate experts failed to predict.
  In March, this newspaper further revealed that temperatures are about to drop below the level that the models forecast with '90 per cent certainty'.
  The pause '' which has now been accepted as real by every major climate research centre '' is important, because the models' predictions of ever-increasing global temperatures have made many of the world's economies divert billions of pounds into 'green' measures to counter climate change.
  Those predictions now appear gravely flawed.
  THERE WON'T BE ANY ICE AT ALL! HOW THE BBC PREDICTED CHAOS IN 2007Only six years ago, the BBC reported that the Arctic would be ice-free in summer by 2013, citing a scientist in the US who claimed this was a 'conservative' forecast. Perhaps it was their confidence that led more than 20 yachts to try to sail the Northwest Passage from the Atlantic to the Pacific this summer. As of last week, all these vessels were stuck in the ice, some at the eastern end of the passage in Prince Regent Inlet, others further west at Cape Bathurst.
  Shipping experts said the only way these vessels were likely to be freed was by the icebreakers of the Canadian coastguard. According to the official Canadian government website, the Northwest Passage has remained ice-bound and impassable all summer.
  The BBC's 2007 report quoted scientist Professor Wieslaw Maslowski, who based his views on super-computer models and the fact that 'we use a high-resolution regional model for the Arctic Ocean and sea ice'.
  He was confident his results were 'much more realistic' than other projections, which 'underestimate the amount of heat delivered to the sea ice'. Also quoted was Cambridge University expert
  Professor Peter Wadhams. He backed Professor Maslowski, saying his model was 'more efficient' than others because it 'takes account of processes that happen internally in the ice'.
  He added: 'This is not a cycle; not just a fluctuation. In the end, it will all just melt away quite suddenly.'
  The continuing furore caused by The Mail on Sunday's revelations '' which will now be amplified by the return of the Arctic ice sheet '' has forced the UN's climate change body to hold a crisis meeting.
  The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was due in October to start publishing its Fifth Assessment Report '' a huge three-volume study issued every six or seven years. It will now hold a pre-summit in Stockholm later this month.
  Leaked documents show that governments which support and finance the IPCC are demanding more than 1,500 changes to the report's 'summary for policymakers'. They say its current draft does not properly explain the pause.
  At the heart of the row lie two questions: the extent to which temperatures will rise with carbon dioxide levels, as well as how much of the warming over the past 150 years '' so far, just 0.8C '' is down to human greenhouse gas emissions and how much is due to natural variability.
  In its draft report, the IPCC says it is '95 per cent confident' that global warming has been caused by humans '' up from 90 per cent in 2007.
  This claim is already hotly disputed. US climate expert Professor Judith Curry said last night: 'In fact, the uncertainty is getting bigger. It's now clear the models are way too sensitive to carbon dioxide. I cannot see any basis for the IPCC increasing its confidence level.'
  She pointed to long-term cycles in ocean temperature, which have a huge influence on climate and suggest the world may be approaching a period similar to that from 1965 to 1975, when there was a clear cooling trend. This led some scientists at the time to forecast an imminent ice age.
  Professor Anastasios Tsonis, of the University of Wisconsin, was one of the first to investigate the ocean cycles. He said: 'We are already in a cooling trend, which I think will continue for the next 15 years at least. There is no doubt the warming of the 1980s and 1990s has stopped.
  Then... NASA satelite images showing the spread of Artic sea ice 27th August 2012
  ...And now, much bigger: The same Nasa image taken in 2013
  'The IPCC claims its models show a pause of 15 years can be expected. But that means that after only a very few years more, they will have to admit they are wrong.'
  Others are more cautious. Dr Ed Hawkins, of Reading University, drew the graph published by The Mail on Sunday in March showing how far world temperatures have diverged from computer predictions. He admitted the cycles may have caused some of the recorded warming, but insisted that natural variability alone could not explain all of the temperature rise over the past 150 years.
  Nonetheless, the belief that summer Arctic ice is about to disappear remains an IPCC tenet, frequently flung in the face of critics who point to the pause.
  Yet there is mounting evidence that Arctic ice levels are cyclical. Data uncovered by climate historians show that there was a massive melt in the 1920s and 1930s, followed by intense re-freezes that ended only in 1979 '' the year the IPCC says that shrinking began.
  Professor Curry said the ice's behaviour over the next five years would be crucial, both for understanding the climate and for future policy. 'Arctic sea ice is the indicator to watch,' she said.
  Share or comment on this article
Conservatives sweep to Australia election victory '' USA TODAY
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Source: News 1 Stop
  Sun, 08 Sep 2013 12:29
  Australia's conservative opposition swept to power, ending six years of Labor Party rule and winning over a disenchanted public by promising to end a hated tax on carbon emissions, boost a flagging economy and bring about political stability. (Sept.
  Rod McGuirk, Associated Press 11:47 a.m. EDT September 7, 2013
  Opposition leader Tony Abbott makes a speech to party supporter in Sydney, on Sept. 7, 2013, following his win in Australia's national election.(Photo: Rick Rycroft, AP)
  Story HighlightsAustralia's conservative opposition has swept to power in a national electionPrime Minister Kevin Rudd conceded defeat SaturdayThe win comes despite the relative unpopularity of party leader Tony AbbottSHARE 790 CONNECTEMAILMORE
  CANBERRA, Australia (AP) '-- Australia's conservative opposition swept to power Saturday, ending six years of Labor Party rule and winning over a disenchanted public by promising to end a hated tax on carbon emissions, boost a flagging economy and bring about political stability after years of Labor infighting.
  "I know that Labor hearts are heavy across the nation tonight, and as your prime minister and as your parliamentary leader of the great Australian Labor Party, I accept responsibility," Prime Minister Kevin Rudd said in a speech to supporters, after calling opposition leader Tony Abbott to concede defeat. "I gave it my all, but it was not enough for us to win."
  A victory for the conservative Liberal Party-led coalition comes despite the relative unpopularity of Abbott, a 55-year-old former Roman Catholic seminarian and Rhodes scholar who has struggled to connect with women voters and was once dubbed "unelectable" by opponents and even some supporters.
  But voters were largely fed up with Labor and Rudd, after a years-long power struggle between him and his former deputy, Julia Gillard. Gillard, who became the nation's first female prime minister after ousting Rudd in a party vote in 2010, ended up losing her job to Rudd three years later in a similar internal party coup.
  The drama, combined with Labor reneging on an election promise by imposing a deeply unpopular tax on the nation's biggest carbon polluters, proved deadly for Labor's re-election chances.
  In his concession speech, Rudd said he would be stepping down as party leader.
  "The Australian people, I believe, deserve a fresh start with our leadership," he said.
  Former Labor Prime Minister Bob Hawke blamed the party's loss on its inability to unite. "This is an election lost by the government rather than won by Tony Abbott," he told Sky News.
  With more than 90 percent of votes counted late Saturday night, official figures from the Australian Electoral Commission showed the Liberals ahead 53 percent to Labor's 47 percent. The coalition was on track to win 91 seats in the 150-seat House of Representatives, and Labor 54.
  Abbott, who becomes Australia's third prime minister in three months, will aim to end a period of extraordinary political instability in Australia.
  The swing away from Labor was a resounding rejection of Australia's first minority government since World War II. Voters disliked the deals and compromises struck between Labor, the minor Greens party and independent lawmakers to keep their fragile, disparate and sometime chaotic coalition together for the past three years, including the carbon tax.
  Abbott has vowed to scrap the carbon from July 2014 '-- two years after it was implemented '-- and instead introduce taxpayer-funded incentives for polluters to operate cleaner.
  It is unclear whether Abbott will be able to pass the necessary law changes through Parliament, but he has threatened to hold early elections if the Senate thwarts him.
  Abbott's popularity seems to have peaked at the right time. Two polls published this past week by Sydney-based market researcher Newspoll are the only ones in which Abbott beat Rudd as preferred prime minister since Newspoll first began comparing the two leaders in 2010.
  There is unlikely to be any honeymoon period for Abbott, as he inherits a slowing economy, hurt by the cooling of a mining boom that kept the resource-rich nation out of recession during the global financial crisis.
  Australia's new government has promised to slash foreign aid spending as it concentrates on returning the budget to surplus. Labor spent billions of dollars on stimulus projects to avoid recession. But declining corporate tax revenues from the mining slowdown forced Labor to break a promise to return the budget to surplus in the last fiscal year.
  Abbott has also promised to repeal a tax on coal and iron ore mining companies, which he blames in part for the downturn in the mining boom. The 30 percent tax on the profits of iron ore and coal miners was designed to cash in on burgeoning profits from a mineral boom fueled by Chinese industrial demand. But the boom was easing before the tax took effect. The tax was initially forecast to earn the government 3 billion Australian dollars ($2.7 billion) in its first year, but collected only AU$126 million after six months.
  Abbott was a senior minister in the government of Prime Minister John Howard, who ruled for 11 years until Rudd first took office in 2007.
  Under Howard, Australia '-- one of the world's worst greenhouse gas polluters on a per capita basis '-- and the United States had been the only wealthy countries to refuse to ratify the Kyoto Protocol on reducing global warming.
  One of Rudd's first acts as prime minister was to ratify the Protocol, and he became Australia's most popular prime minister of the past three decades with his promise to introduce a carbon emissions trading scheme. His popularity fell after he failed to persuade the Senate to deliver the scheme.
  Saturday's election likely brought Australia's first Aboriginal woman to Parliament. Former Olympian Nova Peris is almost certain to win a Senate seat for Labor in the Northern Territory, but the final results will not be known for days. Less likely is WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange's bid for a Senate seat in Victorian state.
  SHARE 790 CONNECTEMAILMORE
  Copyright 2013 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Chinese premier congratulates new Australian PM on election win
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Source: Global Times
  Sun, 08 Sep 2013 12:18
  Chinese Premier Li Keqiang on Sunday extended congratulations to Australia's newly elected Prime Minister Tony Abbott.Li said in his congratulatory message that China and Australia, as two important countries in the Asia-Pacific region, shared broad common interests.
  Following a strategic and long-term perspective, China is ready to work with Australia to continuously push forward their strategic partnership on the basis of equality, mutual respect and mutual benefits, Li said.
  Abbott, leader of the opposition Coalition, won a crushing victory in national polls Saturday to end six years of Labor government.
  By leaving a comment, you agree to abide by all terms and conditions (See the Comment section).
the tap: Were kidnaped children gassed in Syria? Why did no women die?
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Sun, 08 Sep 2013 12:15
  In a statement released by the White House, the U.S. Director of Intelligence, James Clapper, said that 1,429 people were killed in a massive chemical attack on a dozen localities, August 21, 2013 in the suburbs of Damascus [1] .The French services were unable to conduct an on-site victim toll, according to the declassified notes of intelligence coordinator Alain Zebulun [2]. However, they saw about 281 victims on videos, while the French ''non-governmental'' organization, Doctors Without Borders, counted 355 in hospitals.Allied services all refer to videos. So, the Americans have collected a hundred on YouTube, while the French have only found 47. Washington and Paris consider them all as authentic. However, some of them were posted at 7:00 am, Damascus time (which explains why they are dated August 20th on YouTube, which is based in California), but with an almost midday sun, which implies they were filmed in advance [3].All observers have noted the high proportion of children among the victims. The United States has counted 426, or more than a third. Some observers, but neither those of the US nor their French counterparts, were intrigued to find that victims were almost all of the same age and they had no families to cry over them. Stranger still, the gas would have killed children and adult men, but would have spared women.The wide distribution of satellite channel images of victims allowed Alawite families near Latakia to recognize their children who had been abducted two weeks prior by the ''rebels.'' This identification was long in coming because there are few survivors of the massacre by the allies of the United States, the United Kingdom and France in loyalist villages where more than a thousand bodies of civilians were discovered in mass graves.Americans, British and French agree that the victims were killed by nerve gas that could be sarin or contain sarin. They claim to base their findings on their own analysis, carried out in their laboratories on samples collected by each of their services. However, the UN inspectors, who came on site to collect other samples will give their verdict in a dozen days. Indeed, the analyzes carried out by the Americans, British and French are unknown to the world scientific community for whom culturing tissue samples requires a much longer period.Though it is clear that the children died of chemical poisoning, it is not at all certain that they were gassed. The videos show that the dying produce a white foam while sarin causes yellow emissions.The three Western powers also agreed to attribute the responsibility for this event to various extents to the Syrian Arab army. The U.S. Director of Intelligence says that its services observed the Syrian military, during the previous four days, mixing chemicals. The chairman of the British Intelligence Committee, Jon Day, assures that the Syrian Arab army is not at its first attempt and has used gas 14 times since 2012 [4] that is to say as many cases as reports of the use of chemical weapons by the United States during the Second Gulf War.The revelations of the US, British and French services are corroborated by a telephone interception. A senior official of Syrian defense would have made a panicked call to the head of the chemical gases unit about the massacre. However, the interception was not made by the Americans, British or French, but was provided by Unit 8200 of the Israeli Mossad [5].In summary, US, British and French services are 100% certain that the Syrian Arab army gassed an unknown number of civilians:In international law, war propaganda is the most serious crime because it makes all other crimes possible.
Facing Fury Over Antigay Law, Stoli Says 'Russian? Not Really' - NYTimes.com
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Sun, 08 Sep 2013 12:00
  RIGA, Latvia '-- When a number of prominent Americans, outraged by what they saw as a rising tide of state-sponsored homophobia in Russia, called for a boycott of Stolichnaya vodka this summer, they had no more eager ally against Moscow than Kaspars Zalitis, a gay rights advocate here in Latvia, a Baltic nation with a long and painful experience with Russia's oppression of minorities.
  Then came an awkward surprise: Stolichnaya, Mr. Zalitis discovered, is made not in Russia but here in his hometown, the capital of Latvia, which broke free of Russian subjugation more than two decades ago. ''I always thought it was Russian,'' he said.
  Boycotts have long been a blunt and contentious instrument of protest. But efforts to pressure Russia's abstemious president, Vladimir V. Putin, into dropping a new law outlawing ''homosexual propaganda'' by getting Americans to dump vodka have provided particularly fertile ground for complaints of good intentions gone awry.
  ''They thought Stoli was an easy target,'' said Stuart Milk, a gay activist and the nephew of Harvey Milk, the murdered California gay rights pioneer.
  Vodka is a boycott target over a Russian law, but Stolichnaya is actually made in Latvia.
  Jonathan Alcorn / Reuters
  Promoted by influential gay Americans like the writer Dan Savage and the group Queer Nation, the vodka boycott had ''good intentions,'' Mr. Milk said. But he said he knew from previous work in the Baltics for his organization, the Harvey Milk Foundation, that Stolichnaya had a large Latvian work force. He decided that boycotting the vodka was ''misguided'' as it would only hurt a company and a country that are at odds with the Kremlin.
  Stolichnaya has contributed to the confusion, for decades promoting itself as Russian vodka on the label and going so far as to proclaim itself the ''mother of all vodkas from the motherland of vodka'' in a 2006 advertising campaign. The Russia link was later dumped, with labels changed in 2010 to read simply ''premium vodka,'' but by then its Russian identity had been established.
  The exact nationality of Stolichnaya, like many global brands, is hard to pin down. It was made for a time in Russia and simply bottled in Riga but has in recent years been filtered and blended in Latvia. Yet while its water comes from Latvian springs, its main ingredient, raw alcohol distilled from grain, still comes from Russia. Its bottles are from Poland and Estonia, its caps from Italy.
  All of the roughly 100,000 bottles of Stolichnaya produced each day for sale in the United States and elsewhere, aside from in Russia, come from a factory here in Riga operated by Latvijas Balzams, a century-old enterprise that ranks as one of the country's biggest taxpayers and employers.
  All Stolichnaya sold in the United States is made in Riga.
  The New York Times
  Its principal owner, Yury Shefler, was born and raised in Russia. But accused by Moscow of stealing the Stolichnaya name from the Russian state in the chaotic 1990s, he risks arrest in Russia and has not been there for more than a decade.
  The company that controls the brand, the Luxembourg-based SPI Group, is also owned by Mr. Shefler, who declined to be interviewed about the boycott of his best-known product. SPI has mounted a vigorous public campaign to show that it is not Russian, does not share the Kremlin's take on homosexuality and is, as it asserted in a July statement, a ''fervent supporter and friend'' of those who are lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender.
  To that end, the company's Latvia office has been badgering the bigger of Riga's gay bars '-- there are only two '-- to start stocking Stolichnaya. Anatolijs Skangalis, the manager of the bar, Golden, said he did not sell the vodka, simply because he preferred other brands, like Russian Standard. It has nothing to do with the American-led boycott, he says, which he ridiculed as a ''dirty brand war'' that has nothing to do with gay rights.
  Stolichnaya, said Val Mendeleev, SPI Group's Russian-born chief executive, is no more a proxy for the Russian state than Google, whose co-founder Sergey Brin was born in Moscow. ''People say Stoli is owned by a rich Russian, but Sergey Brin is an even richer Russian,'' Mr. Mendeleev said.
  Kaspars Zalitis, a gay rights advocate in Latvia, opposes a boycott of Stolichnaya vodka, saying the effort could hurt jobs.
  Thomasz Lazar for The New York Times
  SPI Group, he said, is ''not trying to hide'' its Russian roots '-- Stolichnaya's formula, basic ingredients and name, which means capital, all come from Russia '-- but the company wants to make clear that it is anything but an ally of the Kremlin and that ''you will not hurt Russia by dumping Stoli.''
  In any event, the Riga Stolichnaya factory says its vodka business, 60 percent of which is in the United States, has not yet been hurt by the boycott, despite reports that a number of bars from New York to San Francisco have started taking the drink off their shelves. It can take several weeks for a collapse of sales to work its way into the production end.
  Mr. Zalitis, for one, is hoping it all blows over. ''If the boycott works, Latvians will lose their jobs. Who are they going to blame? Putin? No, they are going to blame gays,'' said Mr. Zalitis, who issued an open letter last month protesting the boycott on behalf of Mozaika, Latvia's only gay rights lobby group.
  Gay men and lesbians face discrimination not just in Russia but across much of Eastern and Central Europe. Nationalist rabble-rousers frequently single them out, along with Roma, for verbal and sometimes physical attack, accusing them of subverting traditional values in the service of decadent foreign forces, notably the European Union. The bloc requires that Latvia, which joined in 2004, and all other 27 member states have laws banning all forms of discrimination.
  When Latvia held its first gay pride march in 2005, protesters hurled stones at the marchers while politicians denounced the event as a national shame. ''The hatred was dreadful,'' said Juris Calitis, an Anglican and former Lutheran priest in Riga. In 2006, Mr. Calitis was pelted with animal excrement after he held a church service for people attending Latvia's second gay pride event. The Latvian Lutheran church then expelled him from its clergy.
  But, according to Mr. Calitis and gay advocates here, the climate has since mellowed considerably. ''These are the growing pains of a provincial place that is still trying to shake off the ugly words and ways of the Soviet Union,'' he said.
  Queer Nation, a group in the forefront of the vodka boycott, recently widened its anti-Russia activities to focus on soft drinks, too. Last month it staged a protest against Coca-Cola in New York, smashing cans and pouring Coke down drains to protest the Atlanta-based company's sponsorship of the 2014 Winter Olympics in the Russian city of Sochi.
  But when Mr. Zalitis wrote an open letter suggesting that Americans behind the vodka boycott reconsider their ''Dump Stoli'' campaign, Queer Nation fired off a tart response. The boycott, the group wrote back, is aimed at all Russian vodkas, and ''because Stolichnaya is a Russian vodka that is made by a Russian company, it is also an appropriate target.''
  In response to Mr. Zalitis's complaints that Stolichnaya is actually made in Latvia, Queer Nation said curtly that the brand ''is not a Latvian vodka'' because the grain used to make it all comes from Russia and because SPI, Mr. Shefler's drinks conglomerate, ''has offices and operations in Russia.''
  Mr. Mendeleev, SPI's chief executive, acknowledged that the company has an office in Moscow, but with only around 10 employees. The company also grows grain and operates a distillery in the Russian region of Tambov to produce raw alcohol for shipment to the vodka plant in Riga. Together, there are about 600 employees in Russia, Mr. Mendeleev said, and 900 or so working in Latvia.
  Mr. Calitis, the priest defrocked by Latvian Lutherans, said that he did not know whether singling out Stolichnaya would help or hurt gay rights but that he was nonetheless ''all in favor of boycotting vodka'' regardless of its nationality.
  Active for years helping orphaned children and the hungry, he has seen the ravages of alcohol. ''If vodka were boycotted here in Latvia, it would be a great day,'' he said.
VIDEO-BBC News - Syria: 'This is our Munich moment', says John Kerry
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Sun, 08 Sep 2013 10:58
  This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.
Being watched makes electricity users consume less
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Source: Phys.org - latest science and technology news stories
  Sun, 08 Sep 2013 10:55
  Being watched makes electricity users consume lessJavascript is currently disabled in your web browser. For full site functionality, it is necessary to enable Javascript. In order to enable it, please see these instructions.35 minutes ago by Nancy Owano Credit: Wikipedia
  (Phys.org) '--The Hawthorne effect is a concept whereby subjects modify and change their behavior in response to the fact that they know they are being studied. A team from Carnegie Mellon have applied this phenomenon to the question of whether people might change their energy savings habits for the better if they are aware they are being watched. The findings, reported in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences(PNAS), are that people use less energy when they believe they are being watched. In turn, energy consumption can be reduced if people are told they are participating in a study.
  In preparing their research for the paper, "The Hawthorne Effect and Energy Awareness," Daniel Schwartz and colleagues partnered with a mid-Atlantic utility company in 2011. The researchers chose 5600 households, which were randomly selected. Half served as the control group, none of whom knew that a study was going on.
  The other half were told by postcard they had been chosen to participate in a one-month study. They knew the study was about electricity use, but they were not required to take any actions and they were not given any special incentives.
  They were sent four more postcards reminding them of the study. The study results: Households that were told about the study cut their electricity consumption by 2.7 percent during the study month.
  "We find evidence for a 'pure' (study participation) Hawthorne effect in electricity use," the authors wrote. "Residential consumers who received weekly postcards informing them that they were in a study reduced their monthly use by 2.7%'--an amount greater than the annual conservation goal currently mandated by any state."
  An interesting finding about this study, and not one to be overlooked, is that the energy savings went away after the research period came to an end. The changed behavior did not last. All households returned to their typical energy consumption.
  The authors shared some insights about this and the nature of the Hawthorne effect in scientific research:
  "The Hawthorne effect has long been known as a potential experimental artifact..any socially acceptable way of increasing awareness might reduce consumption for those motivated to do so, but only as long as the intervention continues." The authors further noted:"if awareness alone can improve performance in contexts where people require no additional information, we might retire the 'Hawthorne effect' in favor of a 'Hawthorne strategy' of reminding people about things that matter to them but can get neglected in the turmoil of everyday life."
  Explore further:Breakthrough cancer-killing treatment has no side-effects, study finds
  More information: The Hawthorne effect and energy awareness, PNAS, Published online before print September 3, 2013, DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1301687110
  AbstractThe feeling of being observed or merely participating in an experiment can affect individuals' behavior. Referred to as the Hawthorne effect, this inconsistently observed phenomenon can both provide insight into individuals' behavior and confound the interpretation of experimental manipulations. Here, we pursue both topics in examining how the Hawthorne effect emerges in a large field experiment focused on residential consumers' electricity use. These consumers received five postcards notifying, and then reminding, them of their participation in a study of household electricity use. We found evidence for a Hawthorne (study participation) effect, seen in a reduction of their electricity use'--even though they received no information, instruction, or incentives to change. Responses to a follow-up survey suggested that the effect reflected heightened awareness of energy consumption. Consistent with that interpretation, the treatment effect vanished when the intervention ended.
  (C) 2013 Phys.org
  More from Physics Forums - General Engineering
  Related Stories
  Breakthrough cancer-killing treatment has no side-effects, study finds Apr 03, 2013
  (Medical Xpress)'--Cancer painfully ends more than 500,000 lives in the United States each year, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The scientific crusade against cancer recently ...
  Researchers argue energy policy rebound effect is overestimated Jan 24, 2013
  (Phys.org)'--Researchers from Yale University, the University of California, Davis, and the U.S. Environmental Defense Fund argue in a Nature commentary piece that those who suggest the rebound effect, as it ...
  Can Western Australia get smart on energy use? Jun 20, 2013
  A Murdoch University researcher has examined the benefits and challenges of adopting Smart Meters in Western Australia as the state's peak energy use continues to rise. ...
  Home energy monitors may not cut electricity use Sep 14, 2010
  (PhysOrg.com) -- Home energy monitors (smart meters or Home Energy Management Systems (HEMS)), monitor the energy used by households and/or individual appliances within the home, and they are often recommended ...
  Big environmental footprints: 21 percent of homes account for 50 percent of greenhouse gas emissions Jul 18, 2013
  Energy conservation in a small number of households could go a long way to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, scientists are reporting. Their study, which measured differences in energy demands at the household level, appears ...
  21 percent of homes account for 50 percent of greenhouse gas emissions Jun 26, 2013
  Energy conservation in a small number of households could go a long way to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, scientists are reporting. Their study, which measured differences in energy demands at the household ...
  Recommended for you
  New connection between stacked solar cells can handle energy of 70,000 suns Sep 06, 2013
  (Phys.org) '--North Carolina State University researchers have come up with a new technique for improving the connections between stacked solar cells, which should improve the overall efficiency of solar ...
  Physicists find a compound to more efficiently convert waste heat to electrical power Sep 06, 2013
  Physicists at the University of Houston's physics department and the Texas Center for Superconductivity are working on an innovation that could boost vehicle mileage by 5 percent and power plant and industrial processing ...
  Coal more risky than renewables Sep 05, 2013
  Coal-fired electricity may have little or no economic future in Australia, even if carbon capture and storage becomes commercially available, a new analysis has found.
  Program introduces electric rental cars in Orlando (Update) Sep 05, 2013
  Visitors to Orlando often try new things while on vacation: thrilling roller coasters, luxury hotels, different cuisines.
  Cheaper Chinese solar panels are not due to low-cost labor Sep 05, 2013
  A study of the photovoltaic industries in the US and China shows that China's dominance in solar panel manufacturing is not driven solely by cheaper labour and government support, but by larger-scale manufacturing and resulting ...
  Japan's radioactive water leaks: How dangerous? Sep 05, 2013
  New revelations of contaminated water leaking from storage tanks at the tsunami-ravaged Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant have raised alarm, coming just weeks after Japanese officials acknowledged that ...
  User comments : 0More news stories
  Thousands in German anti-NSA protestThousands took to the streets in Berlin Saturday in protests against Internet surveillance activities by the US National Security Agency and other intelligence agencies, and the German government's perceived ...
  New connection between stacked solar cells can handle energy of 70,000 suns(Phys.org) '--North Carolina State University researchers have come up with a new technique for improving the connections between stacked solar cells, which should improve the overall efficiency of solar ...
  After touch screens, researchers demonstrate electronic recording and replay of human touch (w/ Video)Researchers at the University of California, San Diego report a breakthrough in technology that could pave the way for digital systems to record, store, edit and replay information in a dimension that goes ...
  Report: NSA cracked most online encryptionThe National Security Agency, working with the British government, has secretly been unraveling encryption technology that billions of Internet users rely upon to keep their electronic messages and confidential ...
  Physicists find a compound to more efficiently convert waste heat to electrical powerPhysicists at the University of Houston's physics department and the Texas Center for Superconductivity are working on an innovation that could boost vehicle mileage by 5 percent and power plant and industrial processing ...
  Dutch vegetarian butcher takes on the 'Frankenburger'Never mind last month's revolutionary test-tube beef burger grown from meat stem cells. The Dutch are way ahead with a "vegetarian butcher" who transforms plants into "meat". Dubbed the "Frankenburger", the lab-grown beef ...
  Yin-yang effect of sodium and chloride presents salt conundrum'Eat less salt' is a mantra of our health-conscious times and is seen as an important step in reducing heart disease and hypertension.
  IBM moving some retirees off its health planIBM plans to move many retired workers off its health plan and give them money to buy coverage on a health-insurance exchange. The move is part of a corporate trend away from providing traditional retiree health benefits ...
  Qatar announces second MERS virus deathA Qatari man has died from the MERS coronavirus, becoming the second fatality from the SARS-like virus to be recorded in the Gulf state, health authority said Saturday.
  First trial to compare e-cigarettes with nicotine patches shows comparable success in helping smokers to quitThe first ever clinical trial to compare e-cigarettes with nicotine patches has found that both methods result in comparable success in quitting, with roughly similar proportions of smokers who used either method remaining ...
  (C) Phys.org' 2003-2013
  Being watched makes electricity users consume lessJavascript is currently disabled in your web browser. For full site functionality, it is necessary to enable Javascript. In order to enable it, please see these instructions.35 minutes ago by Nancy Owano Credit: Wikipedia
  (Phys.org) '--The Hawthorne effect is a concept whereby subjects modify and change their behavior in response to the fact that they know they are being studied. A team from Carnegie Mellon have applied this phenomenon to the question of whether people might change their energy savings habits for the better if they are aware they are being watched. The findings, reported in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences(PNAS), are that people use less energy when they believe they are being watched. In turn, energy consumption can be reduced if people are told they are participating in a study.
  In preparing their research for the paper, "The Hawthorne Effect and Energy Awareness," Daniel Schwartz and colleagues partnered with a mid-Atlantic utility company in 2011. The researchers chose 5600 households, which were randomly selected. Half served as the control group, none of whom knew that a study was going on.
  The other half were told by postcard they had been chosen to participate in a one-month study. They knew the study was about electricity use, but they were not required to take any actions and they were not given any special incentives.
  They were sent four more postcards reminding them of the study. The study results: Households that were told about the study cut their electricity consumption by 2.7 percent during the study month.
  "We find evidence for a 'pure' (study participation) Hawthorne effect in electricity use," the authors wrote. "Residential consumers who received weekly postcards informing them that they were in a study reduced their monthly use by 2.7%'--an amount greater than the annual conservation goal currently mandated by any state."
  An interesting finding about this study, and not one to be overlooked, is that the energy savings went away after the research period came to an end. The changed behavior did not last. All households returned to their typical energy consumption.
  The authors shared some insights about this and the nature of the Hawthorne effect in scientific research:
  "The Hawthorne effect has long been known as a potential experimental artifact..any socially acceptable way of increasing awareness might reduce consumption for those motivated to do so, but only as long as the intervention continues." The authors further noted:"if awareness alone can improve performance in contexts where people require no additional information, we might retire the 'Hawthorne effect' in favor of a 'Hawthorne strategy' of reminding people about things that matter to them but can get neglected in the turmoil of everyday life."
  Explore further:Breakthrough cancer-killing treatment has no side-effects, study finds
  More information: The Hawthorne effect and energy awareness, PNAS, Published online before print September 3, 2013, DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1301687110
  AbstractThe feeling of being observed or merely participating in an experiment can affect individuals' behavior. Referred to as the Hawthorne effect, this inconsistently observed phenomenon can both provide insight into individuals' behavior and confound the interpretation of experimental manipulations. Here, we pursue both topics in examining how the Hawthorne effect emerges in a large field experiment focused on residential consumers' electricity use. These consumers received five postcards notifying, and then reminding, them of their participation in a study of household electricity use. We found evidence for a Hawthorne (study participation) effect, seen in a reduction of their electricity use'--even though they received no information, instruction, or incentives to change. Responses to a follow-up survey suggested that the effect reflected heightened awareness of energy consumption. Consistent with that interpretation, the treatment effect vanished when the intervention ended.
  (C) 2013 Phys.org
  More from Physics Forums - General Engineering
  Related Stories
  Breakthrough cancer-killing treatment has no side-effects, study finds Apr 03, 2013
  (Medical Xpress)'--Cancer painfully ends more than 500,000 lives in the United States each year, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The scientific crusade against cancer recently ...
  Researchers argue energy policy rebound effect is overestimated Jan 24, 2013
  (Phys.org)'--Researchers from Yale University, the University of California, Davis, and the U.S. Environmental Defense Fund argue in a Nature commentary piece that those who suggest the rebound effect, as it ...
  Can Western Australia get smart on energy use? Jun 20, 2013
  A Murdoch University researcher has examined the benefits and challenges of adopting Smart Meters in Western Australia as the state's peak energy use continues to rise. ...
  Home energy monitors may not cut electricity use Sep 14, 2010
  (PhysOrg.com) -- Home energy monitors (smart meters or Home Energy Management Systems (HEMS)), monitor the energy used by households and/or individual appliances within the home, and they are often recommended ...
  Big environmental footprints: 21 percent of homes account for 50 percent of greenhouse gas emissions Jul 18, 2013
  Energy conservation in a small number of households could go a long way to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, scientists are reporting. Their study, which measured differences in energy demands at the household level, appears ...
  21 percent of homes account for 50 percent of greenhouse gas emissions Jun 26, 2013
  Energy conservation in a small number of households could go a long way to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, scientists are reporting. Their study, which measured differences in energy demands at the household ...
  Recommended for you
  New connection between stacked solar cells can handle energy of 70,000 suns Sep 06, 2013
  (Phys.org) '--North Carolina State University researchers have come up with a new technique for improving the connections between stacked solar cells, which should improve the overall efficiency of solar ...
  Physicists find a compound to more efficiently convert waste heat to electrical power Sep 06, 2013
  Physicists at the University of Houston's physics department and the Texas Center for Superconductivity are working on an innovation that could boost vehicle mileage by 5 percent and power plant and industrial processing ...
  Coal more risky than renewables Sep 05, 2013
  Coal-fired electricity may have little or no economic future in Australia, even if carbon capture and storage becomes commercially available, a new analysis has found.
  Program introduces electric rental cars in Orlando (Update) Sep 05, 2013
  Visitors to Orlando often try new things while on vacation: thrilling roller coasters, luxury hotels, different cuisines.
  Cheaper Chinese solar panels are not due to low-cost labor Sep 05, 2013
  A study of the photovoltaic industries in the US and China shows that China's dominance in solar panel manufacturing is not driven solely by cheaper labour and government support, but by larger-scale manufacturing and resulting ...
  Japan's radioactive water leaks: How dangerous? Sep 05, 2013
  New revelations of contaminated water leaking from storage tanks at the tsunami-ravaged Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant have raised alarm, coming just weeks after Japanese officials acknowledged that ...
  User comments : 0More news stories
  Thousands in German anti-NSA protestThousands took to the streets in Berlin Saturday in protests against Internet surveillance activities by the US National Security Agency and other intelligence agencies, and the German government's perceived ...
  New connection between stacked solar cells can handle energy of 70,000 suns(Phys.org) '--North Carolina State University researchers have come up with a new technique for improving the connections between stacked solar cells, which should improve the overall efficiency of solar ...
  After touch screens, researchers demonstrate electronic recording and replay of human touch (w/ Video)Researchers at the University of California, San Diego report a breakthrough in technology that could pave the way for digital systems to record, store, edit and replay information in a dimension that goes ...
  Report: NSA cracked most online encryptionThe National Security Agency, working with the British government, has secretly been unraveling encryption technology that billions of Internet users rely upon to keep their electronic messages and confidential ...
  Physicists find a compound to more efficiently convert waste heat to electrical powerPhysicists at the University of Houston's physics department and the Texas Center for Superconductivity are working on an innovation that could boost vehicle mileage by 5 percent and power plant and industrial processing ...
  Dutch vegetarian butcher takes on the 'Frankenburger'Never mind last month's revolutionary test-tube beef burger grown from meat stem cells. The Dutch are way ahead with a "vegetarian butcher" who transforms plants into "meat". Dubbed the "Frankenburger", the lab-grown beef ...
  Yin-yang effect of sodium and chloride presents salt conundrum'Eat less salt' is a mantra of our health-conscious times and is seen as an important step in reducing heart disease and hypertension.
  IBM moving some retirees off its health planIBM plans to move many retired workers off its health plan and give them money to buy coverage on a health-insurance exchange. The move is part of a corporate trend away from providing traditional retiree health benefits ...
  Qatar announces second MERS virus deathA Qatari man has died from the MERS coronavirus, becoming the second fatality from the SARS-like virus to be recorded in the Gulf state, health authority said Saturday.
  First trial to compare e-cigarettes with nicotine patches shows comparable success in helping smokers to quitThe first ever clinical trial to compare e-cigarettes with nicotine patches has found that both methods result in comparable success in quitting, with roughly similar proportions of smokers who used either method remaining ...
  (C) Phys.org' 2003-2013
Kerry seeks Arab support over Syria
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Source: BBC News - Middle East
  Sun, 08 Sep 2013 10:53
  8 September 2013Last updated at06:43 ETUS Secretary of State John Kerry is meeting Arab League leaders in Paris as part of a European tour to gather support for intervention in Syria.
  Earlier Mr Kerry said the number of nations prepared to take military action was now in "double digits", but the list has not been made public.
  France strongly supports intervention in response to the use of chemical weapons in Damascus last month.
  But it wants to wait for a report by UN weapons experts before taking action.
  From Paris, Mr Kerry will travel to London where he will meet the Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas and British Foreign Secretary William Hague.
  Meanwhile, inside Syria, there are reports that rebel forces have taken control of the historic Christian town of Maalula, north of Damascus.
  Abdel Rahman, the director of the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, a UK-based activist group, told the AFP news agency that troops loyal to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad had withdrawn form the area.
  'Silent spectators'During a news conference with his French counterpart Laurent Fabius on Saturday, Mr Kerry said the world could not be "silent spectators to slaughter" after Syria's alleged use of chemical weapons against its civilians.
  The US accuses Mr Assad's forces of killing 1,429 people in a sarin gas attack on 21 August.
  Continue reading the main storyThe CIA believes Syria has had a chemical weapons programme "for years and already has a stockpile of CW agents which can be delivered by aircraft, ballistic missile, and artillery rockets"Syria is believed to possess mustard gas and sarin, a highly toxic nerve agentThe CIA also believes that Syria has attempted to develop more toxic and more persistent nerve agents, such as VX gasA report citing Turkish, Arab and Western intelligence agencies put Syria's stockpile at approximately 1,000 tonnes of chemical weapons, stored in 50 towns and citiesSyria has not signed the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) or ratified the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BTWC)Sources: CSIS, RUSI
  Repeating a phrase he used earlier in the week, Mr Kerry said the international community was facing a "Munich moment" - a reference to the policy of appeasement that failed to stop Nazi Germany in the 1930s.
  "We in the United States know, and our French partners know, that this is not the time to be silent spectators to slaughter," he said.
  He insisted there was growing support for Washington's call for intervention in Syria, saying: "There are a number of countries, in the double digits, who are prepared to take military action."
  This was more countries than could actually be used "in the kind of military action being contemplated", Mr Kerry added.
  Please turn on JavaScript. Media requires JavaScript to play.
  John Kerry: "This is our Munich moment... this is not the time to be silent spectators to slaughter"
  Mr Fabius - who staunchly backs Mr Kerry on this issue - added that there was "wide and growing support" for action.
  Earlier on Saturday, in the Lithuanian capital Vilnius, Mr Kerry welcomed a statement on Syria by EU foreign ministers who were meeting there.
  The EU ministers urged a "clear and strong response" to the alleged chemical attack.
  But the EU also welcomed French President Francois Hollande's call to wait for the UN weapons inspectors' report before taking any further action.
  Mr Hollande said he expected the report to be ready by next weekend.
  Meanwhile the BBC has learnt that the UK government has sent chemical protection suits to some members of the opposition forces in Syria this week, as it continues to give technical and non-lethal aid to members of the Syrian national coalition.
  'Defeat for humanity'Mr Kerry's visit to Europe comes amid deep divisions over whether to take military action in Syria.
  The G20 summit in Russia last week failed to produce international agreement, with US President Barack Obama at odds with Russia's President Vladimir Putin, who blames the gas attack on rebels.
  Both Russia and China, which have refused to agree to a UN Security Council resolution against Syria, insist any military action without the UN would be illegal.
  President Obama now faces a tough week of trying to persuade Congress to authorise military action.
  He has only a few days to convince Congress, which returns from its summer recess on Monday. Both the Senate and House of Representatives could vote on the Syrian issue later this week.
  A poll commissioned by the BBC and ABC News suggested more than a third of Congress members were undecided whether or not to back military action - and a majority of those who had made a decision said they would vote against the president.
  Many remain concerned that military action could draw the US into a prolonged war and spark broader hostilities in the region.
  Some 100,000 people have already been killed in the two-and-a-half-year-old Syrian conflict, according to the UN.
NewsWires : euronews : the latest international news as video on demand
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Sun, 08 Sep 2013 10:50
  Reuters, 08/09 04:24 CET
  By Arshad Mohammed and John Irish
  PARIS (Reuters) '' French, it is said, is the language of love.
  U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry flaunted his fluency in the language on Saturday to deliver something of a love letter to France, one of the few world powers that seems likely to join the United States in any military action against Syria.
  Following the British parliament's August 29 vote to reject any British use of force against Syria, which the United States accuses of gassing its own people with sarin, France has made no secret of its desire to play Washington's supporting partner.
  Speaking in French for eight minutes beneath the gold-painted cherubs of one of the Quai d'Orsay's elegant salons, Kerry traced the history of U.S.-French relations beginning from the American Revolution, while glossing over their many tiffs.
  ''When he visited General de Gaulle in Paris more than 50 years ago, President Kennedy said, and I quote, 'The relationship between France and the United States is crucially important for the preservation of liberty in the whole world,''' Kerry said.
  ''Today, faced with the brutal chemical weapons attacks in Syria, that relationship evoked by President Kennedy is more crucial than ever,'' he added.
  Not to be outdone, French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius broke a taboo by speaking in English at a news conference in the Foreign Ministry's elegant building on the banks of the Seine, where he once chided a reporter, ''Here, sir, we speak French.''
  While Kerry's performance might be seen as flattering a French government that is one of the few to back U.S. President Barack Obama's call for air strikes to deter Syria from using chemical arms, it may help convince a sceptical French public.
  An IFOP poll published on Saturday showed 68 percent of French were against an intervention in Syria.
  France took no part in the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, which it strongly opposed, but joined the United States, Britain and others in a military intervention that helped oust Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi in 2011.
  POLITICALLIABILITY, DIPLOMATICASSET
  Kerry, who learned French as a boy, found his fluency a liability during his 2004 U.S. presidential campaign, feeding an image of the Democrat as a wealthy elitist that his Republican opponent, then-President George W. Bush, exploited.
  As a diplomat, however, it is an asset, allowing him to speak directly to the French about their unhappy history with chemical warfare during World War One as one reason why the French government is sensitive to its alleged use in Syria.
  ''Some of the very first lethal chemical weapons attacks happened here, on French soil, during the First World War and a large number of these victims of these deadly, indiscriminate weapons were young French soldiers, just 19 or 20 years old,'' he said.
  Fabius, an experienced politician best known for having been France's youngest prime minister, showed a rare moment of intensity and outrage about an August 21 attack in Syria in which the Syrian government is accused of using sarin gas.
  Syria, embroiled in a 2-1/2-year-old civil war in which more than 100,000 are believed to have died, denies that.
  ''You have to look at the images of these children in rows with the shrouds over them, not an injury, not a drop of blood? And they are there and they are sleeping forever,'' Fabius said, visibly shaken.
  ''There's a dictator who did it and is ready to start again,'' he said gesticulating with his fists. ''This concerns us, too. You can't say that globalization is everywhere except for terrorism and chemical weapons.''
  As if to underscore their countries' ties, Kerry and Fabius went for a walk outside the Foreign Ministry on a pleasant Paris evening, where, later, the sky to the west was lit with gold and to the east by a rainbow.
  ''France and the United States stand shoulder to shoulder. Some ask why? Just look at history. Each time that the cause is just, France and the United States stand together,'' Fabius said.
  ''We are exceedingly grateful to have France by our side,'' said Kerry.
  (Reporting By Arshad Mohammed; Editing by Peter Cooney)
  euronews provides breaking news articles from Reuters as a service to its readers, but does not edit the articles it publishes.
  Copyright 2013 Reuters.
kerry Fabius vudeo - Google Search
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Sun, 08 Sep 2013 10:48
  VIDEO. Syrie : Fabius et Kerry assurent b(C)n(C)ficier d'un "soutien ...lci.tf1.fr/.../syrie-fabius-et-kerry-assurent-beneficier-d-un-soutien-large- 8260410.html
  il y a 16 heures ... Le ministre des Affaires (C)trang¨res, Laurent Fabius, et le secr(C)taire d'Etatam(C)ricain, John Kerry, ont assur(C) samedi avoir la "certitude" qu'il y a ...Kerry delivers a love letter to France, in French - Yahoo! News UKuk.news.yahoo.com/kerry-delivers-love-letter-france-french-022459939. html
  8 hours ago ... U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry flaunted his fluency in the language onSaturday to deliver ... As if to underscore their countries' ties, Kerry and Fabiuswent for a walk outside the Foreign Ministry ... Viral videos of the week.Kerry, Fabius Meet in Paris to Discuss Mali, Syria - Bloombergwww.bloomberg.com/.../kerry-fabius-meet-in-paris-to-discuss-mali-syria. html- Cached27 Mar 2013 ... U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry met his French counterpart today to discuss ...Kerry and Fabius also discussed the Central African Republic, Psaki toldreporters traveling with the secretary of state. .... Forex Trading Videos.John Kerry News, Photos and Videos - ABC Newsabcnews.go.com/topics/news/us/john-kerry.htm- CachedBrowse John Kerry latest news and updates, watch videos and view all ... PhotoSecretary of State John Kerry and French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius stood ...Fabius & Kerry: strong statement for EU - Mtvmtv.com.lb/en/News/248696
  13 hours ago ...Fabius & Kerry: strong statement for EU ... of State John Kerry headed to Franceto meet his counterpart Laurent Fabius. ... Political Videos.Kerry delivers 'letter of love' to France in their own language in ...www.dailymail.co.uk/.../Kerry-delivers-letter-love-France-language-attempt- woo-partners-strike-Syria.html
  2 hours ago ... As if to underscore their countries' ties, Kerry and Fabius went for a walk ... Horror: The Obama administration is showing videos that show dead ...Laurent Fabius: Latest News, Photos, Videos on ... - NDTV.comwww.ndtv.com/topic/laurent-fabius- CachedFind Laurent Fabius Latest News, Videos & Pictures on Laurent Fabius and seelatest updates, news, information from NDTV.COM. Explore more on Laurent ...
Kerry and French Foreign Minister Appeal Together for Strike Against Syria - NYTimes.com
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Sun, 08 Sep 2013 10:45
  PARIS '-- The two most vocal advocates of an international response to a chemical weapons attack in Syria teamed up on Saturday when Secretary of State John Kerry and his French counterpart made an unusual joint appeal for military action.
  ''France and the United States stand together,'' said Laurent Fabius, the French foreign minister, who argued that a punishing military strike was needed to redraw the red line against the use of chemical weapons.
  Mr. Kerry reached back to President John F. Kennedy's meetings with President Charles de Gaulle and sought to touch a chord with wary Europeans over the need to stand up to the ''slaughter'' of civilians by delivering much of his presentation in fluent French.
  France has displaced Britain as the United States' main military ally if force is to be used against the Syrian government.
  But Mr. Kerry and Mr. Fabius, who each confront a skeptical public at home, need each other politically as well. France has been Exhibit A in the State Department's campaign to demonstrate that it has managed to mobilize some international support.
  French officials, for their part, have made clear that they do not want to go it alone against Syria.
  The events that unfolded on Saturday, however, indicated that the next phase of the American and French partnership on Syria will require more coordination.
  In an effort to obtain broader backing for a military operation from European nations, France's president, Fran§ois Hollande, said Friday that his government would not act militarily before United Nations inspectors presented their findings about the Aug. 21 chemical weapons attack near Damascus, Syria's capital.
  The move was intended to secure a measure of support from Germany, Italy and other European nations, which are concerned that action will be taken without the approval of the United Nations Security Council because of the threat of a Russian veto. And it enabled Mr. Hollande to make the point that there would be some sort of United Nations process before the use of force.
  After Mr. Hollande's remarks, the European Union issued a statement on Saturday at a meeting in Lithuania calling for a ''clear and strong response,'' endorsing his decision and expressing hope that a ''preliminary'' version of the report by the United Nations inspectors would be released ''as soon as possible.''
  The statement, which was read by Catherine Ashton, the European Union's chief foreign policy official, papered over some of the lingering divisions in the European Union's ranks.
  The statement urged the Security Council to ''fulfill its responsibilities'' but pointedly did not call for an attack or say that the Council's approval was required before a military strike could be carried out.
  Still, the European Union's move enabled Germany and France to narrow the gaps between their positions.
  On Saturday, Germany indicated that it would support an international response in Syria, with Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle saying in Vilnius, Lithuania, that Berlin had wanted to wait for European foreign ministers to take a common stand before making its decision.
  But while the maneuvering preserved the appearance of European unity, it posed some potential complications for the Obama administration.
  Since the mandate of the United Nations inspectors is limited to establishing whether a chemical attack took place, and not who carried it out, the Obama administration has repeatedly asserted that the United Nations evaluation is irrelevant.
  But since the administration is also eager to have French participation in any attack, it also has a powerful incentive to accept Mr. Hollande's approach, especially if it would not greatly delay an American strike for which President Obama has decided to seek Congressional approval.
  Senate and House members return from their recess on Monday, when debate on the issue is expected to pick up. Mr. Obama is scheduled to address the nation Tuesday night about Syria.
  Mr. Fabius suggested on Saturday that an arrangement might be worked out to protect the interests of all sides.
  He said Ban Ki-moon, the United Nations secretary general, had assured him that the inspectors' assessment would be submitted very soon.
  Mr. Fabius made it clear that he expected the report to be presented before October, and a Western European official who asked not to be named, because he was privy to private diplomatic communications, said it might be ready by next Sunday or soon after.
  Such a schedule would enable the United Nations to claim that the work of its inspectors was relevant. It would enable European governments to tell their constituents that there had been United Nations involvement before military action, and it would not appear to tie the Americans' hands.
  Mr. Kerry declined to comment on the Europeans' insistence that any military action follow the submission of the inspectors' preliminary report, adding that he would take up the question with Mr. Obama and top officials after he returned to Washington on Monday.
  But with an uphill battle to win Congressional support and Mr. Obama receiving less backing than he would have wished during the recent Group of 20 summit meeting, the White House may be ready to embrace Mr. Hollande's strategy.
  ''The president has given up no right of decision in respect to what he will do,'' said Mr. Kerry, who nonetheless added that he was encouraged by the ''very powerful statement'' made by the European Union.
  Suzanne Daley contributed reporting from Paris.
HOLLANDE PANICS
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Source: aangirfan
  Sun, 08 Sep 2013 10:41
  France Backs off Support for Syrian Strike
  Sep 07, 2013. Military.com| by Richard Sisk"France had been the only nation to agree to the joint use of force with the U.S. against Syria...""French President Francois Hollande said he is now waiting for a report from United Nations weapons inspectors on whether chemical weapons were used in the Aug. 21 rocket attacks on the Damascus suburbs."Hollande said, at a news conference in St. Petersburg, Russia:"We shall await the report of the inspectors just as we will await (the U.S.) Congress."UN officials have said the report of the weapons inspectors may not be ready until October.
  They have stressed that the findings will only show whether chemical weapons were used, and not who was responsible. Russian President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly said that rebel forces may have been to blame, and not President Bashar al-Assad.Poll Shows French Overwhelmingly Oppose Military ActionThe Syrian rebels work with Israel.Shady PR operatives, pro-Israel ties, inside the Syrian opposition ... - Mondoweiss
  The West Dethroned: Washington is ''The Axis of Evil''US Journalists and War Crime GuiltCongress Members Who Have Seen Classified Evidence About Syria Say It Fails to Prove AnythingThe Grim, Relentless March to War with SyriaThe Conflict in Syria and Global Resistance: Why Humanity will PrevailDiabolical Chemical Weapons Intelligence Operation? Killing Syrian Civilians and Blaming it on the EnemySyria: Killing Innocent Civilians as part of a US Covert Op. Mobilizing Public Support for a R2P War against Syria
Waiver of Restriction on Assistance to the Central Government of Tajikistan
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Source: Federal Register Latest Entries
  Sun, 08 Sep 2013 10:31
  Pursuant to Section 7031 (b)(3) of the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2012 (Div. I, Pub. L. 112-74) (''the Act''), and Department of State Delegation of Authority Number 245-1, I hereby determine that it is important to the national interest of the United States to waive the requirements of Section 7031 (b)(1) of the Act with respect to Tajikistan and I hereby waive this restriction.
  This determination and accompanying Memorandum of justification shall be reported to the Congress, and the determination shall be published in the Federal Register.
  Dated: June 13, 2012.
  Thomas R. Nides,
  Deputy Secretary for Management and Resources.
  This document was received at the Office of the Federal Register September 4, 2013.
  [FR Doc. 2013-21878 Filed 9-6-13; 8:45 am]
  BILLING CODE 4710-03-P
Waiver of Restriction on Assistance to the Central Government of Turkmenistan
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Source: Federal Register Latest Entries
  Sun, 08 Sep 2013 10:30
  Pursuant to Section 7031 (b)(3) of the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2012 (Div. I, Pub. L. 112-74) (''the Act''), and Department of State Delegation of Authority Number 245-1, I hereby determine that it is important to the national interest of the United States to waive the requirements of Section 7031 (b)(1) of the Act with respect to Turkmenistan, and I hereby waive this restriction.
  This determination and accompanying Memorandum of Justification shall be reported to the Congress, and the determination shall be published in the Federal Register.
  Dated: April 23, 2013.
  Thomas R. Nides,
  Deputy Secretary for Management and Resources.
  [FR Doc. 2013-21872 Filed 9-6-13; 8:45 am]
  BILLING CODE 4710-03-P
Waiver of Restriction on Assistance to the Central Government of Uzbekistan
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Source: Federal Register Latest Entries
  Sun, 08 Sep 2013 10:30
  Pursuant to Section 7031 (b)(3) of the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2012 (Division I, Pub. L. 112-74) (''the Act''), and Department of State Delegation of Authority Number 245-1, I hereby determine that it is important to the national interest of the United States to waive the requirements of Section 7031 (b)(1) of the Act with respect to Uzbekistan and I hereby waive this restriction.
  This determination and accompanying Memorandum of Justification shall be reported to the Congress, and the determination shall be published in the Federal Register.
  Dated: May 7, 2012.
  Thomas R. Nides,
  Deputy Secretary for Management and Resources.
  This document was received at the Office of the Federal Register September 4, 2013.
  [FR Doc. 2013-21885 Filed 9-6-13; 8:45 am]
  BILLING CODE 4710-03-P
European Parliament election, 2014 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Sun, 08 Sep 2013 10:29
  Apportionment of seats[edit source |edit]The article 14 of the Treaty of Lisbon lays down that '"The European Parliament shall be composed of representatives of the Union's citizens. They shall not exceed seven hundred and fifty in number, plus the President. Representation of citizens shall be degressively proportional, with a minimum threshold of six members per Member State. No Member State shall be allocated more than ninety-six seats."'
  It had been the stated desire of the member-state governments to ratify the Treaty of Lisbon before the 2009 election so that its articles governing the European Parliament could enter force as of this election. However, this was blocked by the Irish rejection of the treaty in a referendum. Therefore, in June 2009, the European Parliament was elected under the rules of the Treaty of Nice, which foresaw 736 seats, instead of the 751 foreseen in the Treaty of Lisbon.
  The Lisbon Treaty was subsequently ratified, and provisional measures were ratified in December 2011 to give the additional seats to the "increasing" countries already before the 2014 elections, without withdrawing the 3 extra-seats of Germany. These 18 additional MEPs brought the number of MEPs to 754 for a transitional period until 2014.[38] These 18 "phantom MEPs" would first have an observer statute, before becoming full members of parliament if an additional protocol is ratified by 2014.[39][40]
  As a consequence, the 2014 election will be the first to apply the apportionment of seats foreseen in application of the Lisbon treaty.
  However, the accession of Croatia that took place on 1 July 2013 forces the EU to review the distribution of seats within the European Parliament as the number of seats will reach 766 with this new member state, exceeding the ceiling of 751 seats laid down by article 14 of the Treaty on the European Union.
  MEP Andrew Duff (ALDE, UK) tabled two reports in March 2011 and September 2012 proposing new aportionments of seats (see opposite table). Decisions on the aportionment of seats within the Parliament are governed by article 14 of the Treaty on the European Union establishing that '"The European Council shall adopt by unanimity, on the initiative of the European Parliament and with its consent, a decision establishing the composition of the European Parliament"', respecting the principle of degressive proportionality, the threshold of 6 MEPs for smaller member states and the limit of 96 MEPs of bigger member states.
  EU electoral law[edit source |edit]Since October 2008,[41] MEP Andrew Duff (ALDE, UK) has advocated within the European Parliament for a reform of EU electoral law for the 2014 elections. He has been nominated rapporteur, as the European Parliament has the right of initiative in this field ruled by unanimity in the Council.
  After the 2009 election, Andrew Duff proposed a new version of his report,[42] which was adopted by the parliamentary Committee on Constitutional Affairs (AFCO) in April 2011. However, the plenary session of the Parliament referred the report back to the AFCO committee in July 2011. A third version of the report [43] was published in September 2011 and adopted by the AFCO committee in January 2012, but was withdrawn before being discussed in plenary in March 2012 for fear that it would likely be turned down.
  The report proposes the following measures:
  the election of 25 MEP by a single constituency formed of the whole territory of the European Union. The election within the single constituency would respect the following criteria:election on the basis of pan-European lists composed of candidates drawn from at least one third of the States,adequate gender representation.each elector would be enabled to cast one vote for the EU-wide list in addition to their vote for the national or regional list.to bring forward the timing of the European elections from June to May.amendments to the 1965 Protocol on Privileges and Immunities with a view to establishing a uniform supranational regime for Members of the European Parliament.It is unlikely that this report will be adopted before the 2014 European elections.
German politician: Stop US trade talks until NSA surveillance is disclosed | Ars Technica
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Sun, 08 Sep 2013 05:22
  View all'...A German political opposition leader has called for a complete halt to the ongoing European Union-United States trade negotiations, further indicating a breakdown between the two longstanding allies over spy-related issues.
  "I would interrupt the negotiations until the Americans say if German government offices and European institutions are bugged or wiretapped,'' Peer Steinbr¼ck, leader of the Social Democratic (SPD) party, told German public television broadcaster ARD (Google Translate) on Sunday evening.
  Steinbr¼ck is running as a rival candidate against Chancellor Angela Merkel in the upcoming election next month. He formerly served as Minister of Finance in the Merkel government and also as the Minister President (Governor) of North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany's largest state by population.
  ''We don't know if the Americans may be sitting under our desks with some technical devices,'' he added.
  His remarks came just after the German magazine Der Spiegeldisclosed that the National Security Agency bugged and wiretapped the United Nations and 80 consulates and embassies worldwide.
  "Merkel is saying one thing about all this: Let's wait,'' Steinbr¼ck noted. ''I don't think a chancellor should wait when civil liberties are at stake.''
  Chancellor Merkel has said that she has no evidence that the United States has violated German law, despite the fact that her government is currently negotiating a bilaterial ''no-spy'' agreement.
  For decades, Germany has had much stricter privacy and data protection laws than the United States. American security consultant and Tor developer Jacob Appelbaum and American filmmaker (and Glenn Greenwald's primary colleague on the Ed Snowden leaks) Laura Poitras are known to have taken up residence in Germany.
The Transatlantic Journey '' TTIP & Cautious Optimism | European Public Affairs
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Sun, 08 Sep 2013 05:10
  Transatlantic economic cooperation has been something on the minds of those on both sides of the Atlantic before the recent economic woes. For instance, the Transatlantic Economic Council (TEC) was formed in 2007 to deal with increasing regulatory cooperation, as well as aid in addressing non-tariff barriers to transatlantic trade. With the economic situations in both Europe and the United States, starting in 2008 with the housing market collapse, the two entities were more concerned about their individual recovery than cooperation between the two. Yet at the same time, the situation proved for many individuals that now is the time to pursue closer transatlantic trade and investment cooperation.
  Data protection and surveillance was recently brought to light as a major issue between the U.S., and the E.U.. One which almost delayed the transatlantic trade talks due to, most notably, German and French objections after knowledge of possible U.S. surveillance tactics came to light. After some U.S. promises, the trade talks will continue as planned, but this is a glimpse of the extensive number of policy differences which will require discussion during this process. The intention and common belief is that the trade talks will go smoothly, creating a broad spectrum trade relationship between two of the world's largest regional economies. Yet, with recent events one would think the talks are already off to a rocky start. Therefore, it is important to be aware of some of the issues or perspectives concerning E.U. / U.S. relations before they formally appear in the trade talks that are underway. While not all of these will specifically be discussed as part of the trade negotiations, as is seen with the recent occurrence about data protections, some of these issues may in fact be drawn into the talks surrounding the greater European Union relations with the United States.
  After recent events, Data Protection is definitely an issue. Data protection issues have been recurrent between the two since the terror attacks of 9/11, though most recently brought to light again due to accusations of the U.S. tapping into various E.U. offices. In order to prevent this recent development from completely derailing the upcoming trade negotiations, the United States has offered to create 'working groups' on the subject.
  A hot topic recently has been Cybersecurity. This is mainly due to the court cases surrounding U.S. based companies such as Google and Facebook. Yet despite the fact that there are, and probably will remain to be differences in the regulation of cybersecurity, both sides do appear willing to increase cooperation on this front in order to help counter cybercrime.
  The European Union Trading System (ETS) is also a touchy subject, a system put in place to have airlines purchase carbon allowances in an effort to offset CO2 emissions by encouraging airlines to invest in more environmentally friendly aircraft. The E.U., under pressure from international relations has stopped, at least for the moment, the system's international implementation. Part of this 'international' pressure was undoubtedly derived from a piece of legislation passed by U.S. Congress in 2012 that 'prohibits' U.S. aircraft operators from actively engaging in the European ETS. This matter has currently been taken up by the U.N.'s International Civil Aviation Organization, which promised in November of 2012 that this would be an issue addressed within the coming year.
  Periodically, officials from the U.S. will bring up European energy security as an issue, or at least something that, with deeper trade relations, is considered to be a U.S. interest. Part of this issue is the diversification of European energy resources, since currently it is fairly reliant on Russian supplies. Also of concern in the energy sector is the increase of sustainable energy and the consolidation of the EU's internal energy market.
  The fight against terror and the future of NATO are not likely to be discussed at the trade talks; however these two issues need to be considered when looking at the current level of general cooperation between Europe and the United States. Both have been led by joint U.S. / European forces and since September 11, 2001, there has most assuredly been a deeper level of communication and cooperation. This is linked in part to other issues such as cybersecurity and data protection, and was, at least in part, some of the reasoning behind recent developments in those two sectors.
  The Euro-crisis greatly concerns the U.S., given how interconnected, even without the TTIP, the two economies are. Despite the U.S. administration encouraging European leaders to find a workable solution, the U.S. has been unable to play a part in planning for recovery. Many in the United States talk about the trade pact as a way that the U.S. can be allowed involvement in the European economic recovery process. While it still remains highly unlikely that the United States will be allowed involvement in things such as the establishment of a regulatory body for the monetary union present in the E.U., it may increase the power that the U.S. has on those decisions due to the high level of economic dependence between the two within the upcoming TTIP.
  Two other areas of regulations that appear as touchy subjects on both sides, are that of Sanitary regulations and Phytosanitary regulations. In these two areas in particular, at this point, it seems as if both sides are reluctant to bend regarding the standards that are currently maintained. The regulations under dispute here concern issues such as Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs), hormone treated meats, and the qualifications for being organic, amongst other issues. It is unlikely that this will be a major rift in the negotiations themselves, but it is an area of anticipated concern.
  One of the things integral to the economic policies in Europe as well as the United States is Agricultural subsidies. Both have sectors dependent on these economic incentives, which makes their viability better within the internal market, yet it remains to be seen, in order to increase or support forms of transatlantic agricultural trade, if the two very different systems can be integrated. The integration of these two systems, if attempted, could potentially be the biggest challenge of transatlantic trade talks.
  Another point that could prove to be 'tough' at the negotiation table is that of licensing and qualification requirements. In order to increase the work flow across the Atlantic, these requirements need to be somewhat standardized. Since there are licensing or qualification requirements for nearly everything, the discussion of every detail will be time consuming. Of course, here it must then be pointed out that the current trade discussions are intended to be broad based. Yet even if one engages in a broad based discussion of this matter, it will, undeniably, still be complex.
  All these issues aside, it is important for us to bear in mind that the United States and the E.U. already has one of the largest trade and investment relationships in the world. The pact is estimated to boost jobs and growth on both sides of the Atlantic by significant amounts. Every day the E.U. and U.S. trade of goods and services is ~2.7 billion dollars (U.S.). It is also estimated that transatlantic trade supports around 15 million jobs. The ongoing TTIP is estimated to increase these numbers, benefiting both sides. Not only is the European Union and the United States already close on economic issues, but they also have increased their international cooperation and coordination in addressing international security problems, such as counter-terrorism. Despite the challenges that these upcoming talks present, increased transatlantic cooperation concerning trade and investment could potentially be beneficial to all involved on both sides of the Atlantic. So with a little bit of patience, perseverance, and well-mannered negotiations, we all will soon be affected by an ever closer tie between the United States of America and the European Union.
  Click here for a TTIP Fact Sheet done by the E.U. in the U.S.
  Natasha Marie LevantiI have a great passion for all aspects of European policy and politics, as well as North American politics. Having been born and raised in the U.S., I tend to see things in Europe with a different 'twist'. I received my Bachelor's from University of Richmond, receiving a degree in Leadership Studies and International Studies, with a concentration in World Politics and Diplomacy. My life and passions were pivotally changed by studying in Denmark during 2010-2011. There I became 'hooked' on European politics and commenced a two-year research project, specifically on Danish Parliamentarians.This is what led me to a Masters in European Public Affairs from Maastricht University in the Netherlands, and what has also led me back to the United States for an internship in New York City with the European American Chamber of Commerce. So if you happen to be a fellow Europhile in the Big Apple - I would love to hear about it.
  Whenever you read my posts, feel free to contact me for questions or comments, preferably in English, Danish, or French.
  Email at natashalevanti@europeanpublicaffairs.eu or tweet me at @NatashaLevanti
VIDEO-TTIP mandate: "We want this to happen very quickly" says EU Commission - viEUws - the EU Policy Broadcaster
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Sun, 08 Sep 2013 04:45
  A challenging EU Presidency for LithuaniaJul 4th, 2013Lithuania, the first baltic state to take the helm of the EU's rotating Presidency, faces a daunting task with a full agenda and the need to secure agreements between 28 Member States on over 500 issues, ahead of the EU elections to be held next year.
  Categories : EU Institutions, Homepage
Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) - Trade - European Commission
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Sun, 08 Sep 2013 04:34
  Other linguistic versions available via language menu
  During the first round of the trade and investment talks, the so-called TTIP, which took place in Washington, D.C. between 8 and 12 July 2013, negotiating groups have set out respective approaches and ambitions in as much as twenty various areas that the TTIP is set to cover. The negotiators also met with 350 stakeholders to listen to formal presentations and answer questions. The second round of negotiations will take place in October 2013, in Brussels.
  On 14 June, the Member States gave the European Commission the green light to start the talks with the United States.
  The Commission negotiates on behalf of the EU and will keep its Member States and the European Parliament regularly informed and updated. The EU is committed to providing as much information as possible for the public, the media, and the many stakeholders as we move through the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership negotiation. For example, we have taken the unprecedented step of making available to the public a number of the EU's initial position papers on various aspects of the negotiations and made available the list of the lead negotiators for all the areas covered by the process.
  EU-US Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership- Past and future events:
  The EU-US trade relationship is already the biggest in the world '' every day we trade goods and services worth '‚¬2 billion.
  This agreement, the biggest bilateral trade deal ever negotiated, could result in millions of euros of savings to companies and create hundreds of thousands of jobs. It is expected that every year an average European household would gain an extra '‚¬545 and our economy would be boosted by around 0.5% of GDP, once the deal was fully implemented.
  Questions and answers
  What will this agreement be about?The agreement would benefit both the EU's economy and its citizens. EU companies are expected to be able to sell an additional '‚¬187 billion worth of goods and services a year to the US '' this is good news for jobs.
  On top of cutting tariffs, our main focus in these negotiations will be to tackle those barriers that lie behind the customs border '' such as differences in technical regulations, standards and certification. These often cost time and money for companies (for example: when a car is approved as safe in the EU, it currently has to undergo a new safety check in the US).
  This is where we could make real savings for our businesses and ultimately for consumers. 80% of the benefits of an agreement would result from reducing this regulatory burden and bureaucracy, as well as from opening up services and public procurement markets.
  More jobs and growthThe decision to launch negotiations followed the recommendations of a joint EU-US Working Group on jobs and growth. The Working Group found that in order to boost transatlantic trade and investment, the EU and the US would need to be creative, flexible, and open-minded in developing and negotiating solutions that respond to the specific characteristics of transatlantic economic relations. Together, the EU and the US have invested more than '‚¬2.8 trillion in each other's economy.
NEW: TTIP FAQ: the negotiation phase '' events, updates, key positions and docs
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Sun, 08 Sep 2013 04:26
  TTIP FAQ '' Negotiation phase
  (Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership)
  - Latest update: 17 July 2013 -
  - The pre-negotiation phase TTIP FAQ can be accessed here -
  1. Upcoming meetings and events
  On 18 July 2013 a hearing on the US President's Trade Policy Agenda is scheduled by the House Ways and Means Committee, this hearing might give more info on preparations for Trade Promotion Authority (TPA).On 4 September 2013 the US Monitoring Group of the International Trade Committee of the European Parliament will meet with Commission negotiators to reflect on the first negotiation round that took place from 8-11 July in Washington DC. This meeting is not open for the public.On 26 September 2013 the US Congress International Trade Committee (US ITC) is expected to deliver its impact assessments.A second negotiation round is envisaged for mid-October 2013 in Brussels, a third round is expected to be held in December 2013 in Washington DC.The US ITC will also investigate and produce a report on trade-related barriers that US small-and-medium enterprises perceive as disproportionally affecting their exports to the EU; this report should be prepared by January 2014.2. Past meetings and events
  From 8 to 11 July 2013 in Washington DC US and EU negotiators met for the first round of formal negotiations. The first round was likely to focus on the framework of the negotiations and the scope of TTIP.On 25 June in Brussels, the European Commission informed the 'US Monitoring Group' about the upcoming round of negotiations. This group was set up specifically to deal with TTIP and consists of delegates from the International Trade Committee (''INTA'') of the European Parliament. The meeting was not open to the public. The Commission will report on the first round of negotiations at the beginning of September. INTA will receive all the documents that the member states receive. In this way, the Parliament will remain involved and informed.3. First negotiation round: 8-11 July, Washington DC
  EU and US negotiators met in Washington DC from 8-11 July. A joint press release was issued on the first day. The opening remarks by the United States Trade Representative (USTR), Mr. Michael Froman can be read here. A joint USTR, Commission update was published on 10 July. A joint press conference took place on 12 July (link).According to the Lithuanian Presidency of the European Council 24 working groups have been established to streamline the negotiations. So far the names of the negotiating team of the EU have not been published, it is expected these will be disclosed in the coming days. USTR has already published a list of lead negotiators.Negotiators discussed the following topics on 8 July: investment, government procurement, cross-border services, textiles, rules of origin, energy and raw materials and legal issues (source: USTR).Negotiators discussed the following topics on 9 July: sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) measures, market access and industrial goods, government procurement, cross-border services, investment, and energy and raw materials. The negotiating groups on labor and environment also will hold a joint session (source: USTR).Negotiators have met several times to discuss investments (daily), labor and SPS measures.According to negotiators the talks so far have been of a technical nature, in terms of exchanging factual information, common practices on each side and how to streamline the negotiating process.Both U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman and Trade Commissioner Karel De Gucht will stay closely involved, while giving the negotiators space to do their job.According to trade info portal insidetrade.com talks on detailed matters such as how to schedule trade liberalization commitments were also included. On services for example the US favors the ''negative list'' approach while the EU favors the ''positive lists'' approach, explicitly stating which areas are included in a final deal.Regulators from US sides were involved in the talks: Food and Drug Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Federal Telecommunications Commission and the Department of Transportation (source: insidestrade.com), from the EU side the DG's Health and Consumers, Agriculture and Rural Development, Internal Market and Services, and Enterprises and Industry took part in the talks.On 10 July an open stakeholder meeting was organized by USTR, attended by both the EU and US top negotiatorsOn 16 July the European Commission hosted an ''ad hoc meeting'' to update on the Transatlantic and Investment Partnership '' First Negotiation Round. After this meeting, the Commission published a number of TTIP initial position papers, which were also presented to the American negotiators. These documents can be found here.4. State of play
  The first phase '' or 'pre-negotiation phase' is concluded with the granting of a negotiating mandate by the European Member States to the European Commission, and by the expiration of the 90-day consultation period (on 18 June 2013) of the US Congress after the Obama administration formally notified it of its intend to engage in trade negotiations with the EU. The second phase '' or 'negotiation phase' is about to start with the first talks on July 8th in Washington DC. The US side is not yet allowed to hold 'market access' discussion until the US International Trade Committee (''ITC'') publishes its impact investigation (upon request of the United States Trade Representative (''USTR''), the US negotiator) on 26 September 2013.
  The European Commission, as the exclusive negotiator for the European Union, has a binding obligation to duly inform the European Parliament before and after the negotiation rounds and will also share the final negotiating mandate with the INTA committee and other key documents, provided that the EU's strategic position will not be undermined.
  In the US the White House has indicated it intends to request so-called ''Trade Promotion Authority'' (''TPA'') or ''Fast Track'', from the US Congress (where the House Ways and Means Committee is in the lead), by which the Congress agrees to a simplified consideration procedure for the negotiated trade deal, meaning that no amendments can be made and it has a limited amount of time to approve or reject the agreement.
  5. Key figures/data
  Data: CEPR
  Total bilateral trade in goods between the EU and US in 2011 amounted to '‚¬455 billion, with a positive balance for the EU of just over '‚¬72 billion.The US was the EU's third largest supplier, selling it '‚¬192 billion of goods (representing around 11% of total EU imports) and the EU's main export market, buying '‚¬264 billion of EU goods (representing around 17% of total EU exports).Top sectors for trade in goods for the EU were machinery and transport equipment (some '‚¬71 billion of imports and '‚¬104 billion of exports), followed by chemicals (roughly '‚¬41 billion of imports and '‚¬62 billion of exports).In 2011 trade in commercial services was worth '‚¬282.3 billion (according to the latest available figures from Eurostat) with a positive balance for the EU of '‚¬5.5 billion.The US was the EU's top partner for trade in commercial services, with its imports reaching '‚¬138.4 billion (around 29% of total EU imports) and its exports '‚¬143.9 billion (around 24% of total EU exports).In total, the commercial exchanges of goods and services across the Atlantic average almost '‚¬2 billion per day.In 2008 around 5 million jobs across the EU were supported by exports of goods and services to the US market.In 2011, US companies invested around '‚¬150 billion in the EU and EU firms some '‚¬123 billion in the US. In the same year, the US stock of investments in the EU reached over '‚¬1.3 trillion and the total of EU stock of investments in US over '‚¬1.4 trillion.An ambitious and comprehensive TTIP could generate 119 billion Euros in economic gains for the EU as a whole every year. This translates on average to 545 Euros of disposable income each year for a family of four in the EU. A Comprehensive TTIP would also structurally increase salaries for both skilled and unskilled workers by 0.5% on average. Aside from wages, the agreement would also stimulate the growth of jobs due to the increased output in most industry sectors.
  The TTIP would boost exports in almost all sectors, but would be especially beneficial to certain sectors in both the EU and the US. In the motor vehicles sector, EU imports are expected to go up by 42% and exports by 43%. EU exports of motor vehicles to the US would increase by 149%. Other EU sectors that have a lot to gain from the TTIP by increased sales to the rest of the world would be the metal products (+12%), processed foods (+9%), chemicals (+9%), other manufactured goods (+6%) and other transport equipment (+6) sectors.
  6. Transparency
  Based on Article 207 (3) and Article 208 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (''TFEU'') the European Parliament has to give its consent to any international agreement, including trade agreements, before these can enter into force. While the Parliament is not officially engaged in the negotiations with the US the European Commission has a binding obligation to fully inform the Parliaments about the progress and process of the negotiations (before and after each negotiation round). The Parliament has made it very clear in its two resolutions of October 2012 and May 2013 that maximum transparency and involvement of all stakeholders is required in orde to build trust and legitimacy of both the negotiations and the outcome:
  ''Recalls the need for proactive outreach and continuous and transparent engagement by the Commission with a wide range of stakeholders, including business, environmental, agricultural, consumer, labour and other representatives, throughout the negotiation process, in order to ensure fact-based discussions, build trust in the negotiations, obtain proportionate input from various sides, and foster public support by taking stakeholders' concerns into consideration; encourages all stakeholders to actively participate and to put forward initiatives and information relevant to the negotiations;''
  7. Bottlenecks
  SPS measures, food & product safety regulation
  Both the EU and the US have high standards for food and product safety regulation. The EU treaty includes the so-called 'precautionary principle' (Art. 191 TFEU) that seeks to enable a rapid response by authorities in case of a direct danger to human, animal or pant health, or to protect the environment. The principle leads to preventive decision-making ('better safe than sorry') in the case of risk, which means that certain products are not allowed to be exported to the EU. The EU can invoke the principle if a scientific ''evaluation does not allow the risk to be determined with sufficient certainty'', and puts the burden of proof on the manufacturer of the product to show there is no danger. The EU has invoked the precautionary principle to ban the import of US hormone-treated beef. Other areas of concern are chlorine-washed chicken, cherries, molluscan shellfish, tallow, raw milk and genetically modified/engineered crops (GMO/GE). High levels of consumer protection and current practices will make it difficult for both sides to compromise or adapt standards on these highly sensitive issues.
  Public procurement
  The EU and the US (except for 13 of the 50 individual States) have both signed up to the revised Agreement on Government Procurement (''GPA''), currently being implemented. The GPA rules and coverage will be the baseline for the procurement chapter in TTIP. Public procurement in the US is not a competence of the Federal Government, which cannot bind public procurement markets of the individual States. This is a concern for the EU which has a major interest in the opening up of US State procurement markets and wants TTIP to be binding on all levels of government. The EU is specifically worried about existing ''Buy America (n) clauses which excludes EU companies from tendering. The US also maintains a preferential regime for national SME's (Small and Medium seize Enterprises). Under the revised GPA commitments (yet to be implemented) only 32% (178 bln. EUR) of the US procurement market is open for EU businesses (source: EC estimates). The new GPA has not changed the current commitments of the US at state level, with the coverage in the 37 States varying but excluding the procurement of cities, municipalities (in charge of procurement in the domain of utilities). The EU's public procurement market is de jure open.
  Air and maritime transport
  While it is impossible for EU airlines to hold more than 25% of an US carrier and the US cabotage market is totally closed to EU business both in air and maritime transport, the reverse does not hold for the EU. This has serious negative effects also on the EU express and courier services industry. Many of the additional regulatory barriers stakeholders brought to the attention of the Commission are on the US sub-federal (i.e. state) level. For the maritime sector the US Jones Act establishes the biggest barrier. The Jones Act (formally The U.S. Merchant Marine Act 1920) is a 1920 law that protects the U.S. maritime industry from competition. It also raises costs for many other industries, keeps foreign ships from helping when disasters like the BP oil spill strike. The Jones Act requires all waterborne shipping between US ports to be carried out by vessels built in the US and these vessels have to be owned, registered and operated by Americans. As a consequence of the Jones Act and its subsequent revisions, the European shipbuilding industry including ship repair and maintenance has been effectively excluded from selling vessels to be used in American coastwise trades. If the Jones Act would be partially lifted for European ship types, the European shipbuilding industry (including ship maintenance and repair, marine equipment) will be able to enter a new 'market' and to compete with the US industry on a fair level playing field.
  8. Intellectual Property Rights
  TTIP will inevitably include provision on Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) in order to protect the interests of European businesses in the United States and vice-versa. You can watch a recording of an event I hosted on May 15th in the European Parliament on ''What role for IPR in TTIP'' via this link. The European Commission has made it clear it does not want to include online copyright enforcement provisions in TTIP. An official summary of a so-called 'civil society dialogue' on IPRs in trade negotiations with the US (and Japan) can be read here.
  European Trade Commissioner De Gucht has made the following statements in the International Trade Committee on TTIP and ACTA:
  ''ACTA, one of the nails in my coffin. I'm not going to reopen that discussion. Really, I mean, I am not a masochist. I'm not planning to do that.''
  ''If the Commission advances new basic legislation, which I think she should, we will revisit the question, but I'm not going to do this by the back door''.
  The approved negotiating mandate explicitly states in paragraph 30 that:
  ''The Agreement shall not include provisions on criminal sanctions''.
  9. Key positions
  EU:
  Full list of contributions submitted to a public consultation round by the European Commission following the HLWG '' http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2012/july/tradoc_149761.pdf
  European Commission initial TTIP position papers published after the first round of negotiations '' http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/index.cfm?id=943
  Association for Ships and Maritime Equipment, SEA Europe '' http://www.marietjeschaake.eu/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/20130405-SEA-Europe-position-paper-for-TTIP-on-the-Jones-Act.pdf
  FoodDrinkEurope '' 'Europe's Food Manufacturers welcome EU '' USA trade talks. http://www.fooddrinkeurope.eu/news/press-release/europes-food-manufacturers-welcome-eu-usa-trade-talks/
  European Chemical Industry Council CEFIC '' 'Kick-off of EU-US Free Trade Agreement at G8 summit' http://www.cefic.org/newsroom/top-story/20121/Kick-off-of-EU-US-free-trade-negotiations-at-G8-Summit/
  Medica Technology Industry (AdvaMed, COCIR, Eucomed, EDMA, MITA) http://insidetrade.com/iwpfile.html?file=apr2013%2Fwto2013_1148a.pdf
  IATP (Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy) position: http://www.iatp.org/files/2013_06_25_US_EU_letter.pdf
  Orgalime (European Engineering Industries Association): http://www.orgalime.org/position/negotiations-comprehensive-transatlantic-trade-and-investment-partnership
  (Something missing? Please send your suggestions to marietje.schaake@europarl.europa.eu)
  US:
  American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations AFL-CIO '' http://www.aflcio.org/content/download/83241/2300531/AFL-CIO+Comments+on+TTIP+%26+Request+to+Testify+May13.docx.pdf
  National Association of Manufacturers, NAM '' http://www.nam.org/~/media/26CB9C76E98C4284A9D45AEF21849587/JT_Letter_to_POTUS_on_EU.pdf
  Business Coalition for Transatlantic Trade (BCTT) '' http://insidetrade.com/iwpfile.html?file=apr2013%2Fwto2013_1127a.pdf
  Medical Technology Industry (AdvaMed, COCIR, Eucomed, EDMA, MITA) http://insidetrade.com/iwpfile.html?file=apr2013%2Fwto2013_1148a.pdf
  American Automotive Policy Council (AAPC) '' http://insidetrade.com/iwpfile.html?file=apr2013%2Fwto2013_1151a.pdf
  U.S. Food and Agricultural Groups '' http://insidetrade.com//index.php?option=com_iwpfile&file=apr2013/wto2013_1196.pdf
  Manufacturers Alliance for Productivity and Innovation '' http://insidetrade.com/iwpfile.html?file=apr2013%2Fwto2013_1266a.pdf
  Financial Services Sector '' http://www.sifma.org/workarea/downloadasset.aspx?id=8589943558
  (Something missing? Please send your suggestions to marietje.schaake@europarl.europa.eu)
  10. Short history of TTIP
  In 2011 the U.S. and the EU jointly established a High Level Working Group on Jobs and Growth (HLWG) tasked with a scoping exercise into measures and sectors that could strengthen and optimize the transatlantic economy in order to create new jobs and economic growth. As the world's largest trading partners (50% of world GDP) with bilateral trade flows representing 33% of world trade the benefits were expected to be huge and could alleviate the burdens of the financial and economic crisis that hit both the EU and the US. Moreover, in rapidly changing world with emerging economies displaying a more active role in global trade and politics a deepened transatlantic partnership also brings strategic benefits and robustness. The HLWG issued an interim report of the scoping exercise in June, reporting good progress, and recommended to transatlantic political leaders to launch formal negotiations as soon as possible. During his state of the Union address on February 12th President Obama politically endorsed the talk. On March 20th the US Administration formally notified the US Congress of its intend to start negotiations with the EU on a trade and investment agreement, kicking of a 90-day consultation allowing formal negotiations to start upon its expiry. On June 14th the 27 EU Trade Ministers handed gave the European Commission a broad mandate to negotiate on their behalf with the Americans. The European Parliament has adopted two political resolutions to feed into the final mandate. After the conclusion of the talks all EU Member States and the European Parliament have to approve the agreement. In the US the deal is subject to Congressional approval.
  11. Official documents
  June 2013 '' approved negotiating mandate for the European Commission of 14 June 2013 '' http://www.marietjeschaake.eu/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/TTIP-mandate.pdf
  May 2013 '' Commission Memo on the audiovisual sector and TTIP '' http://blogs.r.ftdata.co.uk/brusselsblog/files/2013/06/non-paper-guarantees-of-the-treatment-of-AV-in-TTIP-1.pdf
  May 2013 '' European Parliament Resolution on draft Commission Mandate '' http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&reference=P7-TA-2013-0227&language=EN&ring=B7-2013-0187
  April 2013 '' European Parliament impact assessment of Commission Impact assessment of TTIP '' http://www.europarl.europa.eu/committees/en/studiesdownload.html?languageDocument=EN&file=92710
  March 2013 '' European Commission '' Staff Working Document '' Impact Assessment Report on the future of EU-US trade relations '' http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2013/march/tradoc_150759.pdf
  March 2013 '' Notification letter to the US Congress by the United States Trade Representative '' http://www.sice.oas.org/TPD/USA_EU/Negotiations/03202013_TTIP_Notification_Letter.PDF
  February 2013 '' Final report of the High Level Working Group on Jobs and Growth '' http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2013/february/tradoc_150519.pdf
  October 2012 '' European Parliament Resolution on report High Level Working Group on Jobs and Growth '' http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&reference=P7-TA-2012-0388&language=EN
  June 2012 '' Interim report of the High Level Working Group on Jobs and Growth '' http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2012/june/tradoc_149557.pdf
  12. Studies on the impact on TTIP
  (Something missing? Please send your suggestions tomarietje.schaake@europarl.europa.eu)
  June 2013 '' 'A Transatlantic Corporate Bill of Rights', Corporate Europe Observatory & The Transnational Institute '' http://corporateeurope.org/publications/transatlantic-corporate-bill-rights
  June 2013 '' 'TTIP, Who Benefits From A Free Trade Deal?', Bertelsmann Foundation, '' http://www.bertelsmann-stiftung.de/cps/rde/xbcr/SID-05089388-192802B3/bst_engl/xcms_bst_dms_38065_38066_2.pdf
  2013 '' 'EU policies on online entrepreneurship. Conversations with U.S. venture capitalists', ECIPE '' http://www.ecipe.org/media/publication_pdfs/OCC22013.pdf
  March 2013 '' 'Reducing Transatlantic Barriers to Trade and Investment: An Economic Assessment', Centre for Economic Policy Research '' http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2013/march/tradoc_150737.pdf
  March 2013 '' 'Crafting a Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership: What can be done?', Peterson Institute for International Economics '' http://insidetrade.com/iwpfile.html?file=mar2013%2Fwto2013_0813.pdf
  February 2013 '' 'Dimensions and Effects of a Transatlantic Free Trade Agreement Between the EU and US, Ifo Institut '' http://insidetrade.com//index.php?option=com_iwpfile&file=mar2013/wto2013_0979.pdf
  October 2012 '' 'Study on EU-US High Level Working Group', ECORYS '' http://english.ecorys.nl/dmdocuments/EU-US%20HLWG%20Ecorys%20Final%20report.pdf
  2012 '' 'A New Era For Transatlantic Trade Leadership', ECIPE '' http://www.ecipe.org/media/publication_pdfs/TATF_Report_2012__PDF.pdf
  2012 '' 'Regulatory Cooperation in the EU-US Economic Agreement', BusinessEurope, U.S. Chamber of Commerce '' http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/international/cooperating-governments/usa/jobs-growth/files/consultation/regulation/9-business-europe-us-chamber_en.pdf
  2012 '' 'Jobs and Growth Through a Transatlantic Trade and Economic Partnership', BusinessEurope '' http://www.businesseurope.eu/Content/default.asp?pageid=568&docid=30028
Obama appeals for backing to hit Syria, Europeans urge delay | Reuters
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Sun, 08 Sep 2013 04:24
  1 of 4. U.S. President Barack Obama speaks during a news conference at the G20 Summit in St. Petersburg, Russia September 6, 2013.
  Credit: Reuters/Kevin Lamarque
  By Roberta Rampton and Justyna Pawlak
  WASHINGTON/VILNIUS | Sat Sep 7, 2013 7:34pm EDT
  WASHINGTON/VILNIUS (Reuters) - President Barack Obama urged Americans on Saturday to back him in launching an attack on Syria, as diplomatic pressure grew on the United States to wait for a U.N. report expected in a week's time before beginning military action.
  Fresh from a European trip in which he failed to forge a consensus among global leaders, Obama plunged into a campaign on radio and television to try to convince a skeptical U.S. public and Congress of the need for a military strike on Syria.
  In Europe, pressure increased for delay. European Union foreign ministers meeting in Lithuania on Saturday blamed the August 21 chemical weapons attack in Syria on President Bashar al-Assad's government. But they did not endorse military action and made clear the bloc wanted the United Nations to have a role in agreeing on an international response.
  Pope Francis, who two days ago branded a military solution in Syria "a futile pursuit," led the world's 1.2 billion Roman Catholics in a global day of prayer and fasting for peace in Syria, the Middle East and the world.
  Obama, clearly still the reluctant warrior who rose to political prominence on his opposition to the Iraq war, emphasized he favored limited strikes on Syria to deter future chemical weapons attacks - not another costly and protracted conflict.
  "This would not be another Iraq or Afghanistan," Obama declared in his weekly radio address, previewing arguments he will make in a nationally televised address on Tuesday.
  "I know that the American people are weary after a decade of war, even as the war in Iraq has ended, and the war in Afghanistan is winding down. That's why we're not putting our troops in the middle of somebody else's war," Obama said.
  Obama will give interviews on Monday to the three network news anchors, as well as PBS, CNN and Fox News, more evidence of a "full-court press" strategy before pivotal congressional votes on military strikes in Syria.
  The interviews will air during each network's Monday evening news broadcast, the White House said.
  Lawmakers returning to Washington after a summer break say many of their constituents have told them they do not think the United States should respond militarily to the August chemical weapons attack that Washington blames on Assad's government.
  The Obama administration says over 1,400 people were killed by the poison gas, hundreds of them children. A recent Reuters/Ipsos poll said 56 percent of Americans believed the United States should not intervene in Syria; 19 percent backed action.
  Obama is seeking congressional approval for a strike, but early vote-count estimates do not look encouraging for the president, with scores of lawmakers still undecided. The Senate is expected to take action next week. The House of Representatives will vote later, but the time is not set.
  As the White House cranked up its campaign, CNN showed excerpts on Saturday from the gruesome aftermath of the attack taken from a DVD shown to lawmakers and compiled from publicly available videos on YouTube and other internet sites.
  PRESSURE RISES FOR DELAY IN EUROPE
  Many EU governments have expressed reservations about using military force to punish Assad, now fighting a 2-1/2-year battle against rebels in which more than 100,000 people have died.
  In a carefully worded message, the foreign ministers of 28 EU governments stopped short of endorsing possible U.S. and French military action against Syria ahead of the U.N. report.
  French President Francois Hollande said the report could be made public at the end of next week and he suggested that France might then wish to take the matter to the U.N. Security Council, a step that could further delay any action.
  "When the (U.S.) Congress will have voted on Thursday or Friday and when we will have the inspectors' report, likely at the end of the week, a decision will have to be made, including after possibly referring the matter to the United Nations (Security Council)," Hollande said, speaking from the southeastern city of Nice after a meeting with his Lebanese counterpart.
  An iFop poll published in Le Figaro on Saturday found that 64 percent of the French opposed any kind of international military intervention in Syria, up 19 percentage points in just one week, with even more - 68 percent - opposing a French intervention in the war-torn country.
  A senior Obama administration official suggested on Friday that the White House could wait for a U.N. inspectors' report on chemical arms use in Syria before ordering U.S. naval forces gathered in the Mediterranean to hit Syria.
  U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, who was also in Lithuania, said later that Obama had made no decisions about waiting for the U.N. inspectors and was keeping options open.
  Apart from anything else, delay in attacking Syria might help the White House gather more support in Congress and among public opinion.
  The senior official told reporters that during Obama's discussions with other G20 leaders in Russia on Friday on the timing of any military response to the Syrian crisis, it was apparent that "a number of countries feel it's important that the U.N. inspectors have time to report back their findings first.
  "That's entirely consistent with our timetable," the official said. Final votes in Congress could come after the U.N. report is announced.
  SCRAMBLING FOR VOTES
  Supporters of military action scrambled for votes in Congress. House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi on Saturday sent her fifth letter to Democratic lawmakers urging them to back Obama, noting that Congress had voted overwhelmingly to condemn Syria's acquisition of weapons of mass destruction a decade ago.
  The influential pro-Israel group AIPAC said it planned a major lobbying effort next week to try to round up support for military action, with about 250 activists in Washington to meet senators and representatives.
  But it was unclear whether the effort was working.
  Senator Mark Pryor, a member of the president's Democratic Party, who is running for re-election next year, said on Saturday he would not support action against Syria at this time.
  Pryor said that before U.S. military action is taken, the administration must prove a compelling national security interest, define the mission and build a "true" coalition of participating allies - criteria he said had not been met.
  Outside the White House, about 200 opponents of U.S. action in Syria gathered on Saturday, chanting, "Hands Off Syria" and waving signs that read: "Tell Congress: no war on Syria."
  "The American people are tired of war. The government is not," said retired teacher Andra Sufi, 66, of northern Virginia, who was dressed in white and carried a rainbow "Peace" flag.
  In New York, tourists entering St. Patrick's Cathedral said they were frightened and depressed by events.
  Beth Alberty, a 72-year-old retired museum curator taking part in a Times Square protest against U.S. military action, said she was disappointed in Obama. "This is completely against what he campaigned on in regard to Iraq. And the arguments are very much the same it seems to me in this case. We are creating a reason to go in," she said.
  Democratic congressional aides said Obama's planned speech to the nation on Tuesday and briefings that top members of Obama's national security team will give to the entire House on Monday would prove pivotal in the thinking of many lawmakers.
  But Republican Representative Justin Amash, who opposes U.S. intervention in Syria, suggested classified briefings would make no difference. "If Americans could read classified docs, they'd be even more against Syria action," he tweeted.
  (Additional reporting by Susan Cornwell, Thomas Ferraro, Patricia Zengerle and Matt Spetalnick in Washington, Arshad Mohammed in Paris, and Philip Pullella in Vatican City, and Noreen O'Donnell in New York; Writing by Susan Cornwell; Editing by Alistair Bell and Peter Cooney)
  Link thisShare thisDigg thisEmailReprints
Ex-bodyguard to Lady Gaga, Rihanna, Beyonce dies in Miami police tussle - NY Daily News
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Sun, 08 Sep 2013 04:06
  RAIGO PAJULA/AFP/GettyImagesLady Gaga was among several celebrities protected by Norman Oosterbroek during his career as a bodyguard.
  A 6-foot-5 bodyguard to celebrities couldn't protect himself from being killed when cops tasered him during a bizarre break-in, the Miami Herald reported.
  A naked Norman Oosterbroek, 43, who had guarded Lady Gaga, Rihanna and Beyonc(C), broke into a Miami mansion around 10:45 p.m. Monday.
  RELATED: RED HOT CHILI PEPPER ANTHONY KIEDIS FIGHTS BODYGUARD OUTSIDE FOUR SEASONS
  Nicknamed the ''Dutch Giant'' because of his tall, 280-pound frame, the human shield was tasered by Pinecrest police while he was allegedly hitting the resident and ingesting suspected drugs. He died a short time later at a nearby hospital.
  Oosterbroek got his start in the business guarding Nelson Mandela in South Africa.
  With News Wire Services
Board and Advisors - About Us - ProPublica
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Sun, 08 Sep 2013 04:02
  DirectorsPaul Steiger, Executive ChairmanPaul E. Steiger was the founding editor-in-chief, CEO and president of ProPublica from 2008 through 2012. As Executive Chairman beginning Jan. 1, 2013, he remains actively involved in strategic issues, development, representing ProPublica in public venues, and consulting with management on business and editorial issues as needed and on a part-time basis.
  Steiger served as the managing editor of the Wall Street Journal from 1991 to 2007. During his tenure, members of the Journal's newsroom staff were awarded 16 Pulitzer Prizes. In addition, ProPublica reporters received Pulitzer Prizes in May 2010 and 2011.
  He is a member of the steering committee of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, based in Arlington, Va., which provides free legal assistance to journalists. He is a trustee of the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, based in Miami, that funds efforts to enhance journalism and the functioning of American communities. From 1999 to 2007, he was a member of the Pulitzer Prize Board, serving as its chairman in his final year. For six years, from June 2005 to June 2011, Steiger was the chairman of the Committee to Protect Journalists, a New York-based nonprofit that advocates for press freedom around the globe.
  Awards include the Columbia Journalism Award, the University of Missouri Honor Award for Distinguished Service in Journalism, the Goldsmith Career Award for Excellence in Journalism from Harvard University's Joan Shorenstein Center, the Gerald Loeb Award for lifetime achievement from the John E. Anderson Graduate School of Management at UCLA, the Dean's Medal for Distinguished Leadership from Brandeis University, the Fourth Estate Award from the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., the National Press Foundation's George Beveridge Editor of the Year Award, the Decade of Excellence Award from the World Leadership Forum in London, and the American Society of News Editors Leadership Award.
  Steiger worked for 15 years as a reporter, the Washington economics correspondent, and the business editor for the Los Angeles Times, and for 26 years as a reporter and editor for the Wall Street Journal. He received a bachelor's degree in economics from Yale University in 1964.
  Herbert Sandler, Founding ChairmanMr. Sandler and his late wife, Marion, founded Golden West Financial Corporation in 1963. They were Golden West's chief executive officers and chairmen of the board from 1963 until 2006, when the company was sold to Wachovia Corporation. Under the Sandlers' leadership, Golden West became the second-largest thrift institution in the United States and was considered to be one of the best managed financial institutions in the country by many industry observers. Fortune magazine ranked Golden West as the nation's most admired mortgage services company, and on seven separate occasions named Golden West America's most admired savings institution. Morningstar, a leading provider of investment research, named the Sandlers CEOs of the Year in 2004. Mr. Sandler is currently president of the Sandler Foundation.
  Mark ColodnyMark M. Colodny is a managing director of Warburg Pincus.
  He joined Warburg Pincus in 2001 and is co-head of the technology, media and telecommunications team. Mr. Colodny also is a member of the firm's executive management group. Previously, he served as senior vice president of corporate development at Primedia, where he ran the mergers and acquisitions group.
  Mr. Colodny began his career as a journalist at Fortune magazine. He is a director of A Place for Mom, Evidon, iParadigms, Liaison International, MultiView, OnTargetJobs and Slickdeals, and is also chair of ProPublica's Business Advisory Council. He received an A.B. from Harvard University, an M.B.A. from Harvard Business School and a J.D. from Harvard Law School.
  Henry Louis Gates, Jr.Henry Louis Gates, Jr., is the W. E. B. Du Bois Professor of the Humanities and the Director of the W. E. B. Du Bois Institute for African and African American Research at Harvard University.
  Professor Gates is also Editor-in-Chief of the Oxford African American Studies Center, the first comprehensive scholarly online resource in the field of African American Studies and Africana Studies. He is co-editor with K. Anthony Appiah of the encyclopedia Encarta Africana published on CD-ROM by Microsoft (1999), and in book form by Basic Civitas Books under the title Africana: The Encyclopedia of the African and African American Experience (1999). His most recent books are America Behind the Color Line: Dialogues with African Americans (Warner Books, 2004), African American Lives, co-edited with Evelyn Brooks Higginbotham (Oxford, 2004), and The Annotated Uncle Tom's Cabin, edited with Hollis Robbins (W. W. Norton, 2006).
  In 2006, Professor Gates wrote and produced the PBS documentary also called "African American Lives," the first documentary series to employ genealogy and science to provide an understanding of African American history. He also wrote and produced the documentaries "Wonders of the African World" (2000) and "America Beyond the Color Line" (2004) for the BBC and PBS, and authored the companion volumes to both series. Professor Gates is currently at work on a sequel to "African American Lives."
  Professor Gates is the author of several works of literary criticism, including Figures in Black: Words, Signs and the "Racial" Self (Oxford University Press, 1987); and The Signifying Monkey: A Theory of Afro-American Literary Criticism(Oxford, 1988), winner of the American Book Award in 1989. He authenticated and facilitated the publication, in 2002, of The Bondwoman's Narrative by Hannah Crafts, the only known novel by a female African American slave and possibly the first novel by an African American woman. He is the co-author, with Cornel West, of The Future of the Race (Knopf, 1996), and the author of a memoir, Colored People (Knopf, 1994), that traces his childhood experiences in a small West Virginia town in the 1950s and 1960s.
  Professor Gates has edited several influential anthologies, including The Norton Anthology of African American Literature (W. W. Norton, 1996); and the Schomburg Library of Nineteenth Century Black Women Writers (Oxford, 1991). In addition, Professor Gates is editor of Transition magazine, an international review of African, Caribbean, and African American politics. An influential cultural critic, Professor Gates's publications include a 1994 cover story for Time magazine, numerous articles for the New Yorker, and in September 2004, a biweekly guest column in The New York Times.
  Professor Gates earned his M.A. and Ph.D. in English literature from Clare College at the University of Cambridge, and his B.A. summa cum laude in English language and literature from Yale University in 1973. Before joining the faculty of Harvard in 1991, he taught at Yale, Cornell, and Duke. His honors and grants include a MacArthur Foundation "genius grant" (1981), the George Polk Award for Social Commentary (1993), Time magazine's "25 Most Influential Americans" list (1997), a National Humanities Medal (1998), election to the American Academy of Arts and Letters (1999), the Jefferson Lecture (2002), and a Visiting Fellowship at the School of Social Science at the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton (2003-2004). He has received 44 honorary degrees.
  Professor Gates served as Chair of the Department of African and African American Studies at Harvard from 1991 to 2006.
  Gara LaMarcheGara LaMarche is a Senior Fellow at New York University's Robert F. Wagner School of Public Service. From 2007 to 2011, he was President and Chief Executive Officer of the Atlantic Philanthropies, an international foundation that focuses on aging, children and youth, health, and human rights operating in Australia, Bermuda, Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland, South Africa, the United States, and Vietnam. During his tenure at Atlantic, the foundation made the largest grant ever made by a foundation for an advocacy campaign -- over $25 million -- to press for comprehensive health care reform in the U.S., embraced a social justice framework for grantmaking, and worked closely with new governments in many of its geographies to take advantage of opportunities to achieve changes in HIV/AIDS and nursing policies in South Africa, civic engagement and democratic reform in Ireland, a more secure peace in Northern Ireland, and many other areas.
  Before joining Atlantic in April 2007, Mr. LaMarche served as Vice President and Director of U.S. Programs for the Open Society Institute (OSI), a foundation established by philanthropist George Soros. Mr. LaMarche joined OSI in 1996 to launch its U.S. Programs, which focus on challenges to social justice and democracy. During his tenure there, OSI (since renamed the Open Society Foundations) became the leading funder of criminal justice reform, launched and supported a number of fellowship programs in justice, law, medicine and community engagement, established an office critical in the revitalization of Baltimore, and helped create and foster a network of urban high school debate leagues.
  Mr. LaMarche previously served as Associate Director of Human Rights Watch and Director of its Free Expression Project from 1990 to 1996. He was Director of the Freedom-to-Write Program of the PEN American Center from 1988 to 1990.
  He served in a variety of positions with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), with which he first became associated with in 1972 at age 18. Mr. LaMarche was the Associate Director of the ACLU's New York branch and the Executive Director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas.
  Mr. LaMarche is the author of numerous articles on human rights and social justice issues, and is the editor of "Speech and Equality: Do We Really Have to Choose?" (New York University Press, 1996). He teaches a course on philanthropy and public policy at NYU's Wagner School and has been an adjunct professor at New School University and the John Jay College of Criminal Justice.
  Mr. LaMarche has been recognized as a "Good Guy" by the Texas Women's Political Caucus and as a Voice for Justice by the Fifth Avenue Committee. He has received the John Dewey Award for Distinguished Public Service from Bard College, the Hubert H. Humphrey Civil and Human Rights Award from the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the Progressive Leadership Award from USAction, the President's Award from the National Council of La Raza, the Champion Award from the Center for Community Change, and the Hope Award from Providence House.
  Mr. LaMarche serves on the boards of StoryCorps, ProPublica, and the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy.
  A Westerly, Rhode Island, native, Mr. LaMarche is a graduate of Columbia College at Columbia University in New York.
  Bobby MonksRobert C.S. Monks is a serial entrepreneur and real estate developer who has founded, lead, and grown 19 businesses in the financial services, real estate, technology, and communication sectors. He is highly regarded for creating strategic partnerships that promote shared ownership and tether profitability to economic and social development in communities across the country. Mr. Monks is a proponent of the belief that active ownership is the key to successful ventures.
  In 2011, Mr. Monks became an owner and Chairman of Spinnaker Trust, a Maine based trust company managing over $1 billion in assets. Spinnaker Trust provides personalized and integrated financial services primarily to high net worth families, individuals, and private foundations. Spinnaker Trust's mission is to deliver first class stewardship and wealth enhancement strategies with a global perspective.
  From 2001 to 2007, Mr. Monks was Chairman of Institutional Shareholder Services, the world's leading provider of proxy voting and corporate governance services. With more than 1,000 institutional and corporate clients, the company analyzes proxies and produces research and objective vote recommendations and handles electronic voting for more than 28,000 companies across 102 markets worldwide.
  Mr. Monks currently serves on the boards of Maine Today Media, T3i, Mediant Communications, Maine Fiber Company, Spinnaker Trust, and the Black Point Corporation. He is also a founder and owner of the Eagle Point Companies, Dirigo Management Company, Monks O'Neil Development, The Signal Group, Maine Workforce Housing, and Headwater Capital Management. He was previously a founder and Director of Atlantic Bank.
  Mr. Monks serves and has served on many non-profit boards including: Maine Center for Creativity, University of Southern Maine School of Business, Maine for Obama Steering and Finance Committee, Gulf of Maine Research Institute, Natural Resources Council of Maine, Maine Employers Mutual Insurance Company, Children's Museum of Maine, Spurwink Foundation, Waynflete School, and the Portland Performing Arts Center.
  Ronald OlsonRonald L. Olson is a partner in the Los Angeles office of Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP. Mr. Olson has practiced law with the firm since 1968. Mr. Olson also is a director of Berkshire Hathaway, Edison International, City National Corporation, The Washington Post Company and Western Asset Trusts. He serves as a director of several non-profits, including the RAND Corporation (formerly chair), the Mayo Clinic, and the California Institute of Technology. He counsels individual executives and boards of directors in a range of matters, including numerous high profile transaction, corporate governance and litigation matters.
  Mr. Olson received his B.S. degree from Drake University in 1963, his J.D. from the University of Michigan in 1966 and a Diploma in Law from Oxford University, England, in 1967, at which time he was the recipient of a Ford Foundation fellowship.
  Paul SaganPaul Sagan, Executive Vice Chairman of Akamai Technologies, joined the company in October 1998. Mr. Sagan was elected to the Akamai Board of Directors in January 2005, and he became CEO in April 2005 and served as chief executive through 2012. He also served as President of Akamai from May 1999 until September 2010, and again from October 2011 through December 2012.
  Previously, Mr. Sagan served as senior advisor to the World Economic Forum from 1997 to 1998, consulting to the Geneva-based organization on information technology for the world's 1,000 foremost multinational corporations.
  In 1995, Mr. Sagan was named president and editor of new media at Time Inc., a division of Time Warner, and worked in that position until 1997. Previously, he served as managing editor of Time Warner's News on Demand project and was a senior member of the team responsible for the development of the company's online business activities. He was a founder of Road Runner, the world's first broadband cable modem service, and Pathfinder, one of the early Web properties that pioneered Internet advertising.
  Mr. Sagan joined Time Warner in 1991 as senior vice president of cable programming to design and launch NY 1 News, the cable news network based in New York City. NY 1 became known for its use of digital video technology and video journalists carrying their own small-format cameras. His career began in broadcast television news. He joined WCBS-TV in 1981 as a news writer and was named news director in 1987.
  President Obama appointed Mr. Sagan to the President's National Security Telecommunications Advisory Committee in 2010. He is a three-time Emmy Award winner for broadcast journalism in New York, a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences since 2008, and the 2009 Ernst & Young Entrepreneur of the Year in the technology category. In 1996 he was named a Global Leader for Tomorrow by the World Economic Forum.
  Mr. Sagan is a director of Massachusetts-based EMC Corp. (NYSE: EMC) and iRobot Corp. (NASDAQ: IRBT), and previously served as a director of Dow Jones & Company, Digitas Inc., and Maven Networks before they were acquired. He is a trustee of Northwestern University; a graduate of the Medill School of Journalism at Northwestern; co-chairman of the Medill Board of Advisors; a member of the MIT Visiting Committee in the Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science; a member of the Dean's Council at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University; and a member of the advisory board of the Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics & Public Policy at the Kennedy School. He was a member of the Knight Commission on the Information Needs of Communities in a Democracy.
  Kat TaylorKat Taylor's life has been dedicated to serving social justice and environmental health.
  Kat is active in a variety of social business, public benefit and philanthropic ventures in the San Francisco Bay Area. Currently, she focuses on beneficial banking services as CEO of One PacificCoast Bank, a CDFI whose mission is to bring beneficial banking to low-income communities in an economically and environmentally sustainable manner. One PacificCoast Bank is the result of a merger between OneCalifornia Bank, which Kat and her husband, Tom Steyer, founded in Oakland, CA, and ShoreBank Pacific, with offices in Oregon and Washington. The bank's revolutionary ownership design requires that its profits be invested in the communities it serves.
  Kat is also a Founding Director of TomKat Ranch Educational Foundation (TKREF) dedicated to sustainable food production through ranching, tours, research, and school lunch and garden programs. TKREF owns the social business LeftCoast GrassFed, which raises cattle in ways good for people and planet. Kat serves and has served on many non-profit boards including Good Samaritan Family Resource Center, Insight Prison Project, KQED, CuriOdyssey, and Yerba Buena Center for the Arts. She matriculated from Harvard College and earned a JD/MBA from Stanford. Kat and Tom have four children and reside in San Francisco.
  Tom UntermanTom Unterman is the Managing Partner of Rustic Canyon Partners, which he founded in 1999 after a long career as a corporate executive and prior to that, a corporate lawyer. From 1992 through 1999, he held several executive positions at the Times Mirror Company, most recently as its Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer. Prior to joining Times Mirror, Tom was a partner of the law firm of Morrison & Foerster LLP, which he joined after serving as a partner of Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP. He earned his bachelor's degree from Princeton University before receiving his law degree from the University of Chicago. In addition to serving as a director of several of Rustic Canyon's portfolio companies, Tom currently serves on the boards of The California Community Foundation, CalArts, and Heal the Bay.
  Journalism Advisory BoardJill Abramson, executive editor, The New York Times
  David Boardman, executive editor, The Seattle Times
  Raymond T. Bonner, writer living in London
  Robert A. Caro, historian and biographer of Robert Moses and Lyndon Johnson
  John S. Carroll, former editor of the Los Angeles Times and the Baltimore Sun
  L. Gordon Crovitz, former publisher of The Wall Street Journal, partner, Journalism Online
  David Gergen, professor of public service, Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government and director of its Center for Public Leadership
  Tom Goldstein, director, Media Studies Program, University of California, Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism
  Isaac Lee, president, news, Univision
  Shawn McIntosh, public editor, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
  Ellen Miller, executive director, The Sunlight Foundation
  Priscilla Painton, executive editor, non-fiction, Simon & Schuster
  David Shribman, executive editor, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
  Allan Sloan, senior editor at large, Fortune magazine
  Kerry Smith, senior vice president for editorial quality, ABC News
  Cynthia A. Tucker, columnist, Universal Press Syndicate
  Business Advisory CouncilMark Colodny, Chair, Managing Director, Warburg Pincus LLC
  Joanna Stone Herman, Vice Chair
  Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., Partner, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
  Ben Boyd, Global Chair, Corporate Practice, Edelman
  David Coulter, Managing Director, Warburg Pincus LLC
  Sean Fieler, General Partner, Equinox Partners
  Maria Gotsch, President & CEO, NYC Investment Fund
  Dave Goldberg, CEO, SurveyMonkey
  Jack Griffin, CEO, Empirical Strategic Advisors
  Michael Hansen, CEO, Cengage Learning
  Mellody Hobson, President, Ariel Investments
  Lori E. Lesser, Partner, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP
  Martin Maleska, Advisory Director, Investcorp International Inc.
  Reed Phillips III, Managing Partner, DeSilva+Phillips
  William Pollak, Board Chair, Pro Bono Net
  Lawrence Rand, President and CEO, Kekst and Company
  Davia Temin, President and CEO, Temin & Company
  Gregory Waldorf, CEO-in-Residence, Accel Partners
Herbert Sandler - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Sun, 08 Sep 2013 03:57
  Herbert Sandler is the former CO-CEO (with his wife, Marion Sandler) of Golden West Financial Corporation and World Savings Bank.
  CareerIn 1963, the Sandlers created Golden West Financial Corporation, a savings and loan holding company, to acquire Golden West Savings and Loan Association, the predecessor to World Savings Bank. Since that time, Golden West grew into one of the largest thrifts in the U.S. with assets of approximately $125 billion, deposits of $60 billion, and 12,000 employees. Under the Sandlers' management, Golden West generated a 19 percent average annual compound growth in earnings per share over a 39 year period. The company was described as "one of the most efficient and productive money machines on the planet",[1] and was included 10 times in Fortune magazine's annual list of the United States' most admired companies.[2] The Sandlers were also named "2004 CEOs of the Year" by Morningstar, Inc.
  Sandler graduated from the City College of New York in 1951, and from Columbia Law School in 1954.
  Golden West was sold in 2006 for $24 billion to Wachovia Bank and the acquisition was completed in October 2006. [3] The Sandlers owned about 10% of the company at the time of the sale, making their share of the sale price worth about $2.4 billion. Of this the Sandlers gave $1.3 billion to the Sandler Foundation.[4]
  Philanthropic workThe Sandlers helped found and are among the largest benefactors of the Center for Responsible Lending, a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization fighting predatory mortgage lending, payday loans, and other products that prey on consumers;[5] the Center for American Progress, a progressive think tank; ProPublica, an investigative reporting newsroom; and the American Asthma Foundation. In addition, the Sandlers or their foundation support organizations involved in medical research, the environment, human rights, and civil liberties.
  References and notesPersondataNameSandler, HerbAlternative namesShort descriptionAmerican bankerDate of birthPlace of birthDate of deathPlace of death
GuideStar Exchange Reports for PRO Publica, Inc.
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Sun, 08 Sep 2013 03:55
  Basic Organization InformationPRO Publica, Inc.
  Also Known As:ProPublicaPhysical Address:New York, NY 10006 EIN:14-2007220Web URL:propublica.org NTEE Category:A Arts, Culture, and Humanities A33 Printing, Publishing Ruling Year:2008 How This Organization Is Funded:Sandler FoundationJohn S. and James L. Knight FoundationJohn D. and Catherine T. MacArthur FoundationSign in or create an account to see this organization's full address, contact information, and more!
  Mission StatementTo expose abuses of power and betrayals of the public trust by government, business, and other institutions, using the moral force of investigative journalism to spur reform through the sustained spotlighting of wrongdoing.
  Expert AssessmentThere are no Expert Reviews for this organization. Learn more about TakeAction@GuideStar.Impact Summary from the NonprofitOur work focuses exclusively on truly important stories, stories with "moral force." We do this by producing journalism that shines a light on exploitation of the weak by the strong and on the failures of those with power to vindicate the trust placed in them.
  Personal ReviewsThere are no reviews for this organization.
  A multi-year analysis of key balance sheet, income statement, profitability and liquidity measures is available for this organization. Financial SCAN includes a detailed financial health analysis and peer comparison and benchmarking tool. Learn More
  Key Financial SCAN FeaturesFinancial Health Dashboard: Highlights key financial trends and ratios for a selected nonprofit organization over a period of up to five years.Peer Comparison Dashboard: Compares the organization's financials with up to five peer nonprofits that you select.Graphical Analysis: Provides multi-year graphs and an interpretive guide in a format ready to present to your clients.Printable PDF Report: Provides a complete analysis of the organization for your records. The full report tells you what to look for and why it matters.Advanced Search: Allows you to search by EIN (Employer Identification Number), organization name, city, state, revenue, expenses, and assets.Revenue and ExpensesRevenue and Expense data from Forms 990 for 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007 are included in the GuideStar Premium Report. Upgrade NowReport Added To Cart
  Balance SheetBalance Sheet data from Forms 990 for Year 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007 are included in the GuideStar Premium Report. Upgrade NowReport Added To Cart
  A multi-year analysis of key balance sheet, income statement, profitability and liquidity measures is available for this organization. Financial SCAN includes a detailed financial health analysis and peer comparison and benchmarking tool. Learn More
  Key Financial SCAN FeaturesFinancial Health Dashboard: Highlights key financial trends and ratios for a selected nonprofit organization over a period of up to five years.Peer Comparison Dashboard: Compares the organization's financials with up to five peer nonprofits that you select.Graphical Analysis: Provides multi-year graphs and an interpretive guide in a format ready to present to your clients.Printable PDF Report: Provides a complete analysis of the organization for your records. The full report tells you what to look for and why it matters.Advanced Search: Allows you to search by EIN (Employer Identification Number), organization name, city, state, revenue, expenses, and assets.LeadershipMr. Richard Tofel
  Term:
  Since Jan 2013
  Profile:
  Richard Tofel was the founding general manager of ProPublica from 2007-2012, and became president on January 1, 2013. He has responsibility for all of ProPublica's non-journalism operations, including communications, legal, development, finance and budgeting, and human resources. He was formerly the assistant publisher of The Wall Street Journal and, earlier, an assistant managing editor of the paper, vice president, corporate communications for Dow Jones & Company, and an assistant general counsel of Dow Jones. More recently, he served as vice president, general counsel and secretary of the Rockefeller Foundation, and earlier as president and chief operating officer of the International Freedom Center, a museum and cultural center that was planned for the World Trade Center site. He is the author of "Why American Newspapers Gave Away the Future" (Now and Then Reader, 2012), "Eight Weeks in Washington, 1861: Abraham Lincoln and the Hazards of Transition" (St. Martin's, 2011), "Restless Genius: Barney Kilgore, The Wall Street Journal, and the Invention of Modern Journalism" (St. Martin's, 2009); "Sounding the Trumpet: The Making of John F. Kennedy's Inaugural Address" (Ivan R. Dee, 2005), "Vanishing Point: The Disappearance of Judge Crater, and the New York He Left Behind" (Ivan R. Dee, 2004) and "A Legend in the Making: The New York Yankees in 1939" (Ivan R. Dee, 2002).
  Highest Paid Employees & Their CompensationHighest Paid Employee Data for 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007 are included in the GuideStar Premium Report. Upgrade NowReport Added To Cart
  Program: Investigative JournalismBudget:$5,234,123Category:Arts, Culture & HumanitiesPopulation Served:General Public/UnspecifiedProgram Description:
  We have established a newsroom of 28 working journalists, all of them dedicated to investigative reporting on stories with significant potential for major impact. Paul Steiger, former managing editor of The Wall Street Journal, is our Editor-in-Chief, Stephen Engelberg, former investigative editor of The New York Times, is Managing Editor. Each story we publish is distributed in a manner designed to maximize its impact. Many of our "deep dive" stories are offered exclusively to a traditional news organization, free of charge, for publication or broadcast. After an appropriate period of exclusivity, each story is also be published on our own site, http://propublica.org. This site also features outstanding investigative reporting produced by others, sometimes with our annotation and follow-up, thus making our site both more of a destination and a tool to promote more good work in this field.
  Program Long-Term Success:
  Program Short-Term Success:
  Program Success Monitored by:
  Program Success Examples:
  Evidence of ImpactExpert Comments
  There are no comments available for this organization.
  Organizational StrengthsExpert Comments
  There are no comments available for this organization.
  Areas for ImprovementExpert Comments
  There are no comments available for this organization.
Privacy Scandal: NSA Can Spy on Smart Phone Data
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Source: WT news feed
  Sun, 08 Sep 2013 03:50
  The United States' National Security Agency intelligence-gathering operation is capable of accessing user data from smart phones from all leading manufacturers. Top secret NSA documents that SPIEGEL has seen explicitly note that the NSA can tap into such information on Apple iPhones, BlackBerry devices and Google's Android mobile operating system.
  The documents state that it is possible for the NSA to tap most sensitive data held on these smart phones, including contact lists, SMS traffic, notes and location information about where a user has been.
  The documents also indicate that the NSA has set up specific working groups to deal with each operating system, with the goal of gaining secret access to the data held on the phones.
  In the internal documents, experts boast about successful access to iPhone data in instances where the NSA is able to infiltrate the computer a person uses to sync their iPhone. Mini-programs, so-called "scripts," then enable additional access to at least 38 iPhone features.
  The documents suggest the intelligence specialists have also had similar success in hacking into BlackBerrys. A 2009 NSA document states that it can "see and read SMS traffic." It also notes there was a period in 2009 when the NSA was temporarily unable to access BlackBerry devices. After the Canadian company acquired another firm, it changed the way in compresses its data. But in March 2010, the department responsible declared it had regained access to BlackBerry data and celebrated with the word, "champagne!"
  The documents also state that the NSA has succeeded in accessing the BlackBerry mail system, which is known to be very secure. This could mark a huge setback for the company, which has always claimed that its mail system is uncrackable.
  In response to questions from SPIEGEL, BlackBerry officials stated, "It is not for us to comment on media reports regarding alleged government surveillance of telecommunications traffic." The company said it had not programmed a "'back door' pipeline to our platform."
  The material viewed by SPIEGEL suggests that the spying on smart phones has not been a mass phenomenon. It has been targeted, in some cases in an individually tailored manner and without the knowledge of the smart phone companies.
  Visit SPIEGEL ONLINE International on Monday for the full article.
  (C) SPIEGEL ONLINE 2013All Rights ReservedReproduction only allowed with the permission of SPIEGELnet GmbH
The Chemistry-Sarin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Sun, 08 Sep 2013 03:46
  Sarin[1](RS)-Propan-2-yl methylphosphonofluoridate
  Other names
  (RS)-O-Isopropyl methylphosphonofluoridate; IMPF;GB;[2]2-(Fluoro-methylphosphoryl)oxypropane;Phosphonofluoridic acid, P-methyl-, 1-methylethyl ester
  IdentifiersCAS number107-44-8 YPubChem7871ChemSpider7583 YUNIIB4XG72QGFM NChEMBLCHEMBL509554 YJmol-3D imagesImage 1InChI=1S/C4H10FO2P/c1-4(2)7-8(3,5)6/h4H,1-3H3 YKey: DYAHQFWOVKZOOW-UHFFFAOYSA-N Y
  InChI=1/C4H10FO2P/c1-4(2)7-8(3,5)6/h4H,1-3H3
  InChI=1/C4H10FO2P/c1-4(2)7-8(3,5)6/h4H,1-3H3Key: DYAHQFWOVKZOOW-UHFFFAOYAY
  PropertiesMolecular formulaC4H10FO2PMolar mass140.09 g mol''1AppearanceClear colorless liquidOdorOdorless in pure formDensity1.0887 g/cm" (25 °C)1.102 g/cm" (20 °C)Melting point-56 °C, 217 K, -69 °F
  Boiling point158 °C, 431 K, 316 °F
  Solubility in waterMiscibleHazardsMSDSLethal Nerve Agent Sarin (GB)EU classificationExtremely Toxic (T+)[3]Main hazardsIt is a lethal cholinergic agent.NFPA 704LD5070 mg-min/m3 N (verify) (what is: Y/N?)Except where noted otherwise, data are given for materials in their standard state (at 25 °C, 100 kPa)Infobox referencesSarin, or GB, is an organophosphorus compound with the formula [(CH3)2CHO]CH3P(O)F. It is a colorless, odorless liquid,[4] used as a chemical weapon owing to its extreme potency as a nerve agent. It has been classified as a weapon of mass destruction[5] in UN Resolution 687. Production and stockpiling of sarin was outlawed by the Chemical Weapons Convention of 1993 where it is classified as a Schedule 1 substance.
  Even at very low concentrations, sarin can be fatal within one minute after direct ingestion of a lethal dose, due to suffocation from lung muscle paralysis, unless some antidotes, typically atropine or Biperiden and pralidoxime, are quickly administered to a person.[4] People who absorb a non-lethal dose, but do not receive immediate medical treatment, may suffer permanent neurological damage.
  Sarin is a chiral molecule because it has four chemically different substituents attached to the tetrahedral phosphorus center.[6] The SP form (the ('') optical isomer) is the more active enantiomer due to its greater binding affinity to acetylcholinesterase.[7][8] The P-F bond is easily broken by nucleophilic agents, such as water and hydroxide. At high pH, sarin decomposes rapidly to nontoxic phosphonic acid derivatives. It is usually manufactured and weaponized as a racemic mixture'--an equal mixture of both enantiomeric forms'--by the alcoholysis reaction of methylphosphonyl difluoride with isopropyl alcohol: Isopropylamine is also included in the reaction to neutralize the hydrogen fluoride byproduct. As a binary chemical weapon, it can be generated in situ by this same reaction.
  Like other nerve agents, sarin attacks the nervous system. It stops nerve endings in muscles from switching off. Death will usually occur as a result of asphyxia due to the inability to control the muscles involved in breathing function.
  Specifically, sarin is a potent inhibitor of acetylcholinesterase,[9] a protein that degrades the neurotransmitteracetylcholine after it is released into the synaptic cleft. In vertebrates, acetylcholine is the neurotransmitter used at the neuromuscular junction, where signals are transmitted between neurons from the central nervous systems to muscle fibres. Normally, acetylcholine is released from the neuron to stimulate the muscle, after which it is degraded by acetylcholinesterase, allowing the muscle to relax. A build-up of acetylcholine in the synaptic cleft, due to the inhibition of cholinesterase, means the neurotransmitter continues to act on the muscle fibre, so that any nerve impulses are effectively continually transmitted.
  Sarin acts on cholinesterase by forming a covalent bond with the particular serine residue at the active site. Fluoride is the leaving group, and the resulting phosphoester is robust and biologically inactive.[10][11]
  Its mechanism of action resembles that of some commonly used insecticides, such as malathion. In terms of biological activity, it resembles carbamate insecticides, such as Sevin, and the medicines pyridostigmine, neostigmine, and physostigmine.
  The most important chemical reactions of phosphoryl halides is the hydrolysis of the bond between phosphorus and the fluoride. This P-F bond is easily broken by nucleophilic agents, such as water and hydroxide. At high pH, sarin decomposes rapidly to nontoxic phosphonic acid derivatives.[12][13]
  Sarin degrades after a period of several weeks to several months. The shelf life can be shortened by impurities in precursor materials. According to the CIA, some Iraqi sarin had a shelf life of only a few weeks, owing mostly to impure precursors.[14]
  Its otherwise short shelf life can be extended by increasing the purity of the precursor and intermediates and incorporating stabilizers such as tributylamine. In some formulations, tributylamine is replaced by diisopropylcarbodiimide (DIC), allowing sarin to be stored in aluminium casings. In binary chemical weapons, the two precursors are stored separately in the same shell and mixed to form the agent immediately before or when the shell is in flight. This approach has the dual benefit of solving the stability issue and increasing the safety of sarin munitions.
  Sarin has a high volatility (ease with which a liquid can turn into a gas) relative to similar nerve agents, therefore inhalation can be very dangerous and even vapor concentrations may immediately penetrate the skin. A person's clothing can release sarin for about 30 minutes after it has come in contact with sarin gas, which can lead to exposure of other people.[15] People who absorb a non-lethal dose but do not receive immediate appropriate medical treatment may suffer permanent neurological damage.
  Even at very low concentrations, sarin can be fatal. Death may follow in one minute after direct ingestion of a lethal dose unless antidotes, typically atropine and pralidoxime, are quickly administered.[4]Atropine, an antagonist to muscarinic acetylcholine receptors, is given to treat the physiological symptoms of poisoning. Since muscular response to acetylcholine is mediated through nicotinic acetylcholine receptors, atropine does not counteract the muscular symptoms. Pralidoxime can regenerate cholinesterases if administered within approximately five hours. Biperiden, a synthetic acetylcholine antagonist, has been suggested as an alternative to atropine due to its better blood''brain barrier penetration and higher efficacy.[16]
  Sarin is estimated to be over 500 times more toxic than cyanide.[17] The LD50 of subcutaneously injected sarin in mice is 172 Î¼g/kg.[18] Treatment measures have been described.[19]
  Initial symptoms following exposure to sarin are a runny nose, tightness in the chest and constriction of the pupils. Soon after, the victim has difficulty breathing and experiences nausea and drooling. As the victim continues to lose control of bodily functions, the victim vomits, defecates and urinates. This phase is followed by twitching and jerking. Ultimately, the victim becomes comatose and suffocates in a series of convulsive spasms. Moreover, common mnemonics for the symptomatology of organophosphate poisoning, including sarin gas, are the "killer B's" of bronchorrhea and bronchospasm because they are the leading cause of death,[20] and SLUDGE - Salivation, Lacrimation, Urination, Defecation, Gastrointestinal distress, and Emesis.
  Diagnostic tests[edit source |edit]Controlled studies in healthy men have shown that a nontoxic 0.43 mg oral dose administered in several portions over a 3 day interval caused average maximum depressions of 22 and 30%, respectively, in plasma and erythrocyte cholinesterase levels. A single acute 0.5 mg dose caused mild symptoms of intoxication and an average reduction of 38% in both measures of cholinesterase activity. Sarin in blood is rapidly degraded either in vivo or in vitro. Its primary inactive metabolites have in vivo serum half-lives of approximately 24 hours. The serum level of unbound isopropylmethylphosphonic acid (IMPA), a sarin hydrolysis product, ranged from 2-135 µg/L in survivors of a terrorist attack during the first 4 hours post-exposure. Sarin or its metabolites may be determined in blood or urine by gas or liquid chromatography, while cholinesterase activity is usually measured by enzymatic methods.[21]
  Sarin was discovered in 1938 in Wuppertal-Elberfeld in Germany by scientists at IG Farben attempting to create stronger pesticides; it is the most toxic of the four G-Series nerve agents made by Germany. The compound, which followed the discovery of the nerve agenttabun, was named in honor of its discoverers: Schrader, Ambros, R¼diger and Van der Linde.[22]
  Use as a weapon[edit source |edit]In mid-1939, the formula for the agent was passed to the chemical warfare section of the German Army Weapons Office, which ordered that it be brought into mass production for wartime use. A number of pilot plants were built, and a high-production facility was under construction (but was not finished) by the end of World War II. Estimates for total sarin production by Nazi Germany range from 500 kg to 10 tons.[23] Though sarin, tabun and soman were incorporated into artillery shells, Germany did not use nerve agents against Allied targets.
  1950s (early): NATO adopted sarin as a standard chemical weapon, and both the USSR and the United States produced sarin for military purposes.1953: 20-year-old Ronald Maddison, a Royal Air Force engineer from Consett, County Durham, died in human testing of sarin at the Porton Down chemical warfare testing facility in Wiltshire, England. Ten days after his death an inquest was held in secret which returned a verdict of "misadventure". In 2004, the inquest was reopened and, after a 64-day inquest hearing, the jury ruled that Maddison had been unlawfully killed by the "application of a nerve agent in a non-therapeutic experiment."[24]1956: Regular production of sarin ceased in the United States, though existing stocks of bulk sarin were re-distilled until 1970.March 1988: Over the span of two days in March, the ethnic Kurd city of Halabja in northern Iraq (population 70,000) was bombarded with chemical and cluster bombs, which included sarin, in the Halabja poison gas attack. An estimated 5,000 people died.[25]April 1988: Sarin was used four times against Iranian soldiers in April 1988 at the end of the Iran''Iraq War, helping Iraqi forces to retake control of the al-Faw Peninsula during the Second Battle of al-Faw. Using satellite imagery, the United States assisted Iraqi forces in locating the position of the Iranian troops during those attacks.[26]1993: The United Nations Chemical Weapons Convention was signed by 162 member countries, banning the production and stockpiling of many chemical weapons, including sarin. It went into effect on 29 April 1997, and called for the complete destruction of all specified stockpiles of chemical weapons by April 2007.[27]1994: The Japanese religious sect Aum Shinrikyo released an impure form of sarin in Matsumoto, Nagano, killing eight people and harming over 200. (see Matsumoto incident)1995: Aum Shinrikyo sect released an impure form of sarin in the Tokyo Metro. Thirteen people died. (see Sarin gas attack on the Tokyo subway)1998: In the US, Time Magazine and CNN ran unconfirmed news stories alleging that in 1970 U.S. Air ForceA-1E Skyraiders engaged in a covert operation called Operation Tailwind, in which they deliberately dropped sarin-containing weapons on U.S. troops who had defected in Laos. CNN and Time Magazine later retracted the stories and fired the producers responsible.[28] The producers, Oliver and Smith, were chastised but defended their position by putting together a 77-page document supporting their side of the story, with testimony from military personnel, which they claim confirms the use of sarin.2004: Iraqi insurgents detonated a 155 mm shell containing binary precursors for sarin near a U.S. convoy in Iraq. The shell was designed to mix the chemicals as it spins during flight. The detonated shell released only a small amount of sarin gas, either because the explosion failed to mix the binary agents properly or because the chemicals inside the shell had degraded with age. Two United States soldiers were treated after displaying the early symptoms of exposure to sarin.[29]21 August 2013: Deaths from an alleged sarin[30] attack on Wednesday, 21 August 2013, in the Ghouta region of the Rif Dimashq Governorate of Syria during the Syrian civil war. Varying[31] sources gave a death toll of 322[32] to 1,729, and said that none of the victims had physical wounds.[33] However, the United States put the death toll at 1,429. This included 426 children.^"Material Safety Data Sheet -- Lethal Nerve Agent Sarin (GB)". 103d Congress, 2d Session. United States Senate. May 25, 1994. Retrieved 2004-11-06. ^"Sarin". National Institute of Standards and Technology. Retrieved 2011-03-27. ^"Institut f¼r Arbeitsschutz der Deutschen Gesetzlichen". GESTIS Substance Database. Retrieved November 15, 2011. ^ abcSarin (GB). Emergency Response Safety and Health Database. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. Accessed April 20, 2009.^"Chemical weapons 101: Six facts about sarin and Syria's stockpile". CS Monitor. 21 August 2013. ^D. E. C. Corbridge "Phosphorus: An Outline of its Chemistry, Biochemistry, and Technology" 5th Edition Elsevier: Amsterdam 1995. ISBN 0-444-89307-5.^Kovarik, Zrinka (March 2003). "Acetylcholinesterase active centre and gorge conformations analysed by combinatorial mutations and enantiomeric phosphonates". Biochem. J.373 (Pt 1): 33''40. doi:10.1042/BJ20021862. PMC 1223469. PMID 12665427. ^Benschop, H. P.; De Jong, L. P. A. (1988). "Nerve agent stereoisomers: analysis, isolation and toxicology". Acc. Chem. Res.21 (10): 368''374. doi:10.1021/ar00154a003. ^Abu-Qare AW, Abou-Donia MB (October 2002). "Sarin: health effects, metabolism, and methods of analysis". Food Chem. Toxicol.40 (10): 1327''33. doi:10.1016/S0278-6915(02)00079-0. PMID 12387297. ^Millard CB, Kryger G, Ordentlich A, et al. (June 1999). "Crystal structures of aged phosphonylated acetylcholinesterase: nerve agent reaction products at the atomic level". Biochemistry38 (22): 7032''9. doi:10.1021/bi982678l. PMID 10353814. . See Proteopedia1cfj.^H¶rnberg, Andreas; Tunemalm, Anna-Karin; Ekstr¶m, Fredrik (2007). "Crystal Structures of Acetylcholinesterase in Complex with Organophosphorus Compounds Suggest that the Acyl Pocket Modulates the Aging Reaction by Precluding the Formation of the Trigonal Bipyramidal Transition State' ,'". Biochemistry46 (16): 4815''4825. doi:10.1021/bi0621361. PMID 17402711. ^"Nerve agents". ^Housecroft, C. E.; Sharpe, A. G. (2000). Inorganic Chemistry (1st ed.). New York: Prentice Hall. p. 317. ISBN 978-0582310803. ^"Stability of Iraq's Chemical Weapon Stockpile". United States Central Intelligence Agency. July 15, 1996. Retrieved 2007-08-03. ^"Facts About Sarin". Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 17 May 2004. Retrieved 23 December 2012.^Shim, TM; McDonough JH (May 2000). "Efficacy of biperiden and atropine as anticonvulsant treatment for organophosphorus nerve agent intoxication". Archives of Toxicology74 (3): 165''172. doi:10.1007/s002040050670. PMID 10877003. ^"Council on Foreign Relations '-- Sarin". Retrieved 2007-08-13. ^Inns, RH; NJ Tuckwell, JE Bright, TC Marrs (July 1990). "Histochemical Demonstration of Calcium Accumulation in Muscle Fibres after Experimental Organophosphate Poisoning". Hum Exp Toxicol9 (4): 245''250. doi:10.1177/096032719000900407. PMID 2390321. ^"Facts About Sarin". Retrieved 2011-03-27. ^Gussow, Leon. Nerve Agents: Three Mechanisms, Three Antidotes. Emergency Medicine News. 27(7):12, July 2005.^R. Baselt, Disposition of Toxic Drugs and Chemicals in Man, 9th edition, Biomedical Publications, Seal Beach, CA, 2011, pp. 1531-1533.^Richard J. Evans (2008). The Third Reich at War, 1939-1945. Penguin. p. 669. ISBN 978-1-59420-206-3. Retrieved 13 January 2013 ^"A Short History of the Development of Nerve Gases". Noblis. ^"Nerve gas death was 'unlawful'". BBC News Online. November 15, 2004. ^"1988: Thousands die in Halabja gas attack". BBC News. 1988-03-16. Retrieved 2011-10-31. ^Harris, Shane; Matthew M. Aid (2013-08-26). "Exclusive: CIA Files Prove America Helped Saddam as He Gassed Iran". Foreign Policy (magazine). Archived from the original on 2013-08-26. Retrieved 2013-08-26. ^"Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction". Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. Retrieved 2011-03-27. ^"Cohen: No nerve gas used in Operation Tailwind". CNN. July 21, 1998. Archived from the original on 2007-02-28. Retrieved 2007-08-03. ^"Bomb said to hold deadly sarin gas explodes in Iraq". MSNBC. May 17, 2004. Retrieved 2007-08-03. ^Murphy, Joe (2013-09-05). "Cameron: British scientists have proof deadly sarin gas was used in chemical weapons attack". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 2013-09-05. Retrieved 2999-12-31. ^"Syria: Thousands suffering neurotoxic symptoms treated in hospitals supported by MSF". M(C)decins Sans Fronti¨res. 2013-08-24. Archived from the original on 2013-08-24. Retrieved 2013-08-24. ^"NGO says 322 died in Syria 'toxic gas' attacks". AFP. 25 August 2013. Retrieved 24 August 2013. ^"Bodies still being found after alleged Syria chemical attack: opposition". Dailystar.com.lb. Retrieved 24 August 2013. Agonists: 77-LH-28-1AC-42AC-260,584AceclidineAcetylcholineAF30AF150(S)AF267BAFDX-384AlvamelineAQRA-741ArecolineBethanecholButyrylcholineCarbacholCDD-0034CDD-0078CDD-0097CDD-0098CDD-0102CevimelineCholinecis-DioxolaneEthoxysebacylcholineLY-593,039L-689,660LY-2,033,298McNA343MethacholineMilamelineMuscarineNGX-267OcvimelineOxotremorinePD-151,832PilocarpineRS86SabcomelineSDZ 210-086SebacylcholineSuberylcholineTalsaclidineTazomelineThiopilocarpineVedaclidineVU-0029767VU-0090157VU-0152099VU-0152100VU-0238429WAY-132,983XanomelineYM-796Antagonists: 3-Quinuclidinyl Benzilate4-DAMPAclidinium BromideAnisodamineAnisodineAtropineAtropine MethonitrateBenactyzineBenzatropine/BenztropineBenzydamineBIBN 99BiperidenBornaprineCAR-226,086CAR-301,060CAR-302,196CAR-302,282CAR-302,368CAR-302,537CAR-302,668CS-27349CyclobenzaprineCyclopentolateDarifenacinDAU-5884DimethindeneDexetimideDIBDDicyclomine/DicycloverineDitranEA-3167EA-3443EA-3580EA-3834EtanautineEtybenzatropine/EthylbenztropineFlavoxateHimbacineHL-031,120Ipratropium bromideJ-104,129HyoscyamineMamba Toxin 3Mamba Toxin 7MazaticolMebeverineMethoctramineMetixeneN-Ethyl-3-Piperidyl BenzilateN-Methyl-3-Piperidyl BenzilateOrphenadrineOtenzepadOxybutyninPBIDPD-102,807PD-0298029PhenglutarimidePhenyltoloxaminePirenzepinePiroheptineProcyclidineProfenamineRU-47,213SCH-57,790SCH-72,788SCH-217,443Scopolamine/HyoscineSolifenacinTelenzepineTiotropium bromideTolterodineTrihexyphenidylTripitamineTropatepineTropicamideWIN-2299XanomelineZamifenacin; Others: 1st Generation Antihistamines (Brompheniraminechlorphenaminecyproheptadinedimenhydrinatediphenhydraminedoxylaminemepyramine/pyrilaminephenindaminepheniraminetripelennaminetriprolidine, etc)Tricyclic Antidepressants (Amitriptylinedoxepintrimipramine, etc)Tetracyclic Antidepressants (Amoxapinemaprotiline, etc)Typical Antipsychotics (Chlorpromazinethioridazine, etc)Atypical Antipsychotics (Clozapineolanzapine, etc.)Agonists: 5-HIAAA-84,543A-366,833A-582,941A-867,744ABT-202ABT-418ABT-560ABT-894AcetylcholineAltiniclineAnabasineAnatoxin-aAR-R17779ButinolineButyrylcholineCarbacholCholineCotinineCytisineDecamethoniumDesformylflustrabromineDianiclineDimethylphenylpiperaziniumEpibatidineEpiboxidineEthanolEthoxysebacylcholineEVP-4473EVP-6124GalantamineGTS-21IsproniclineLobelineMEM-63,908/RG-3487NicotineNS-1738PHA-543,613PHA-709,829PNU-120,596PNU-282,987PozaniclineRivaniclineRJR-2429Sazetidine ASebacylcholineSIB-1508YSIB-1553ASSR-180,711SuberylcholineSuxamethonium/SuccinylcholineTC-1698TC-1734TC-1827TC-2216TC-5214TC-5619TC-6683TebaniclineTropisetronUB-165VareniclineWAY-317,538XY-4083Antagonists: 18-MethoxycoronaridineÎ±-BungarotoxinÎ±-ConotoxinAlcuroniumAmantadineAnatruxoniumAtracuriumBupropionChandoniumChlorisondamineCisatracuriumCoclaurineCoronaridineDacuroniumDecamethoniumDextromethorphanDextropropoxypheneDextrorphanDiadoniumDHÎ²EDimethyltubocurarine/MetocurineDipyrandiumDizocilpine/MK-801DoxacuriumDuadorEsketamineFazadiniumGallamineHexafluroniumHexamethonium/BenzohexoniumIbogaineIsofluraneKetamineKynurenic acidLaudexium/LaudolissinLevacetylmethadolMalouetineMecamylamineMemantineMethadone (Levomethadone)Methorphan/RacemethorphanMethyllycaconitineMetocurineMivacuriumMorphanol/RacemorphanNeramexaneNitrous OxidePancuroniumPempidinePentaminePentoliniumPhencyclidinePipecuroniumRadafaxineRapacuroniumRocuroniumSurugatoxinThiocolchicosideToxiferineTrimethaphanTropeiniumTubocurarineVecuroniumXenon
Internet experts want security revamp after NSA revelations | Reuters
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Sun, 08 Sep 2013 03:21
  A general view of the large former monitoring base of the U.S. intelligence organization National Security Agency (NSA) in Bad Aibling south of Munich, June 18, 2013.
  Credit: Reuters/Michaela Rehle
  By Joseph Menn
  SAN FRANCISCO | Sat Sep 7, 2013 10:08pm EDT
  SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Internet security experts are calling for a campaign to rewrite Web security in the wake of disclosures that the U.S. National Security Agency has developed the capability to break encryption protecting millions of sites.
  But they acknowledged the task won't be easy, in part because internet security has relied heavily on brilliant government scientists who now appear suspect to many.
  Leading technologists said they felt betrayed that the NSA, which has contributed to some important security standards, was trying to ensure they stayed weak enough that the agency could break them. Some said they were stunned that the government would value its monitoring ability so much that it was willing to reduce everyone's security.
  "We had the assumption that they could use their capacity to make weak standards, but that would make everyone in the U.S. insecure," said Johns Hopkins cryptography professor Matthew Green. "We thought they would never be crazy enough to shoot out the ground they were standing on, and now we're not so sure."
  The head of the volunteer group in charge of the Internet's fundamental technology rules told Reuters on Saturday that the panel will intensify its work to add encryption to basic Web traffic and to strengthen the so-called secure sockets layer, which guards banking, email and other pages beginning with Https.
  "This is one instance of the dangers that we face in the networked age," said Jari Arkko, an Ericsson scientist who chairs the Internet Engineering Task Force. "We have to respond to the new threats."
  Other experts likewise responded sharply to media reports based on documents from former NSA contractor Edward Snowden showing the NSA has manipulated standards.
  Documents provided to The Guardian, the New York Times and others by Snowden and published on Thursday show that the agency worked to insert vulnerabilities in commercial encryption gear, covertly influence other designs to allow for future entry, and weaken industry-wide standards to the agency's benefit.
  In combination with other techniques, those efforts led the NSA to claim internally that it had the ability to access many forms of internet traffic that had been widely believed to be secure, including at least some virtual private networks, which set up secure tunnels on the Internet, and the broad security level of the secure sockets layer Web, used for online banking and the like.
  The office of the Director of National Intelligence said Friday that the NSA "would not be doing its job" if it did not try to counter the use of encryption by such adversaries as "terrorists, cybercriminals, human traffickers and others."
  Green and others said a great number of security protocols needed to be written "from scratch" without government help.
  Vint Cerf, author of the some of the core internet protocols, said that he didn't know whether the NSA had truly wreaked much damage, underscoring the uncertainty in the new reports about what use the NSA has made of its abilities.
  "There has long been a tension between the mission to conduct surveillance and the mission to protect communication, and that tension resolved some time ago in favor of protection at least for American communications," Cerf said.
  Yet Cerf's employer Google Inc confirmed it is racing to encrypt data flowing between its data centers, a process that was ramped up after Snowden's documents began coming to light in June.
  Author Bruce Schneier, one of the most admired figures in modern cryptography, wrote in a Guardian column that the NSA "has undermined a fundamental social contract" and that engineers elsewhere had a "moral duty" to take back the Internet.
  RELYING ON NSA FOR HELP
  But all those interviewed warned that rewriting Web security would be extremely difficult.
  Mike Belshe, a former Google engineer who has spearheaded the IETF drive to encrypt regular Web traffic, said that his plan had been "watered down" in the committee process during the past few years as some companies looked after their own interests more than users.
  Another problem is the relatively small number of mathematical experts working outside the NSA.
  "A lot of our foundational technologies for securing the Net have come through the government," said researcher Dan Kaminsky, famed for finding a critical flaw in the way users are steered to the website they seek. "They have the best minds in the country, but their advice is now suspect."
  Finally, governments around the world, including democracies, are asserting more authority over the Internet, in some cases forbidding the use of virtual private networks.
  "As much as I want to say this is a technology problem we can address, if the nation states decide security isn't something we're allowed to have, then we're in trouble," Kaminsky said. "If security is outlawed, only outlaws will have security."
  (Editing by Peter Henderson and Eric Walsh)
  Link thisShare thisDigg thisEmailReprints
VIDEO-NBC Nightly News Shocker: Nearly 2/3 of Jobs Created This Year Are Part-Time | MRCTV
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Sun, 08 Sep 2013 02:52
  MRC TV is an online platform for people to share and view videos, articles and opinions on topics that are important to them -- from news to political issues and rip-roaring humor.
  MRC TV is brought to you by the Media Research Center, a 501(c) 3 nonprofit research and education organization. The MRC is located at: 1900 Campus Commons Drive, Reston, VA 20194. For information about the MRC, please visit www.MRC.org.
  Copyright (C) 2013, Media Research Center. All Rights Reserved.
For 2020 Olympics, I.O.C. Picks Tokyo, Considered Safe Choice - NYTimes.com
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Sun, 08 Sep 2013 02:47
  BUENOS AIRES '-- Tokyo was selected Saturday to host the 2020 Summer Olympics in what was considered a safe rather than transformative choice in a time of political and economic uncertainty around the globe.
  After Japan's prime minister gave an emphatic assurance of safety regarding the country's 2011 nuclear disaster and continuing concerns about radioactivity, Tokyo easily defeated Istanbul and Madrid to be named host of the Summer Games for a second time.
  ''When I heard the name Tokyo, I was so touched, overwhelmed,'' said Shinzo Abe, Japan's prime minister. ''The joy was even greater than when I won my own election.''
  The decision was met with elation in Japan, where it was seen as a vote of international support for the nation's efforts to pull itself out of a long economic and political decline, and to overcome the devastating earthquake, tsunami and nuclear accident two years ago.
  Members of the Tokyo 2020 delegation celebrated after Tokyo was awarded the 2020 Olympic Games during the 125th IOC session in Buenos Aires, Argentina.
  Victor R. Caivano / Associated Press
  Winning the Games also appeared to affirm Abe's efforts to restore Japan's confidence at a time when it has appeared increasingly eclipsed by neighboring China.
  ''Japan has seemed to be overshadowed by the rise of China and other developing nations,'' said Harumi Arima, an independent political analyst. ''These Olympics will give Japanese a chance to feel reborn, to feel for themselves that Japan can still be vibrant.''
  For the International Olympic Committee, environmental concerns in Japan appeared less urgent than the Syrian war on Turkey's border, a recent harsh crackdown against anti-government protesters in Istanbul and Spain's economic recession and high unemployment.
  The Olympic movement has also been buffeted by protests in Brazil over heavy government spending for the 2014 World Cup and the 2016 Olympics to be held in Rio de Janeiro.
  And there has been a backlash against what the West considers antigay legislation passed in Russia ahead of the 2014 Winter Olympics in the Black Sea resort of Sochi, a Games that will come with a $50 billion price tag.
  Amid such economic, political and human rights maelstroms, Tokyo was seen as a calm harbor. It won handily over Istanbul in the second round of voting by 60-36 in a secret ballot of Olympic delegates.
  Tokyo presented its bid as a ''safe pair of hands,'' an appeal that clearly resonated with Olympic officials. ''This is something that appeals to me as a surgeon,'' said Jacques Rogge, the president of the Olympic committee and a retired orthopedist from Belgium, who did not vote Saturday, as is tradition.
  Tokyo hosted the 1964 Summer Olympics, and Japan has twice hosted the Winter Games, in Sapporo in 1972 and in Nagano in 1998. Japan also co-hosted the 2002 World Cup with South Korea, repeatedly showing it can organize the world's largest sporting events. It already has a reserve fund worth $4.5 billion in the bank to build stadiums for the 2020 Games.
  ''The members wanted to have a choice between a bid addressing tradition and stability and another bid that was addressing new projects,'' said Thomas Bach, an I.O.C. delegate from Germany who is expected to succeed Rogge as president. ''In today's political and economic situation, the clear tendency was toward tradition and stability.''
  Kevan Gosper, an I.O.C. delegate from Australia, said that Tokyo represented ''a pretty secure option, and demonstrates a shift in world activity and economics and sport toward Asia,'' a reference to the 2008 Summer Games held in Beijing and the 2018 Winter Games, which will take place in Pyeongchang, South Korea.
  Prince Albert, an I.O.C. delegate from Monaco, said that Saturday's result also might have represented a strategy by the Olympic committee, which is Eurocentric, to vote for an Asian host with an eye toward returning the Summer Games to Europe in 2024 after they go to Rio in 2016 and Tokyo in 2020.
  Richard W. Pound, an I.O.C. member from Montreal, said that he would not rule out the chances of the United States, which is expected to bid on the 2024 Games and has not hosted a Summer Olympics since Atlanta in 1996. The United States Olympic Committee and the I.O.C. recently settled a feud over sharing rights to television and sponsorship fees.
  ''If we are in kiss and make up with the U.S., then why not?'' Pound said of the potential American chances.
  Though Istanbul did better than many expected in finishing second to Tokyo, the Turkish metropolis lost a sixth attempt to host the Games. They would have been the first held in a predominantly Muslim country.
  Some I.O.C. delegates had expressed reluctance trying to forecast Turkey's political situation seven years from now, given regional instability; what some critics in the country call the autocratic governing style of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan; and a divide between secularists and Islamists.
  Madrid was considered to be making a late charge, but ultimately it was the first city eliminated, failing for a third consecutive time to be named host of the Games.
  Apparently, Madrid was unable to allay concerns by the Olympic committee that it could stage a successful Games even at a relatively low cost in a climate of recession and high unemployment that has left half of Spain's young without jobs.
  During Saturday's final pitches to the Olympic committee, both Madrid and Istanbul also faced pointed questions about their countries' poor records in combating doping. Tokyo noted that no Japanese athlete had ever tested positive for banned substances at the Olympics.
  As Tokyo made its final presentation, Abe addressed the issue of the crippled Fukushima nuclear power plant, which is about 150 miles from Tokyo. It is considered the worst nuclear disaster since Chernobyl in 1986.
  ''Let me assure you that the situation is under control,'' Abe said. ''It has never done and will never do any damage to Tokyo.''
  Gerhard Heiberg, an I.O.C. delegate from Norway, asked Abe how he could make such guarantees. The prime minister replied that there were no health-related problems related to the nuclear disaster, ''nor will there be in the future.''
  The Japanese government has pledged nearly $500 million to try to stabilize the stricken nuclear plant, including the building of a frozen wall to curb the flow of groundwater into the contaminated buildings at the reactor site.
  Some critics have accused Japanese leaders of being misleading or in denial about the severity of the radiation problem. South Korea has banned fish imports from the Fukushima area. But Olympic delegates were sufficiently convinced that the nuclear disaster would not hinder the 2020 Games.
  ''A lot of folks have been reading in the media that hundreds of tons of radioactive water are being fed into the Pacific every day,'' Pound said.
  Abe seemed to be saying, ''I'm satisfied on that so that nothing will happen,'' according to Pound, who added, ''If there's another earthquake or something like that, that's not something you can blame the prime minister for.''
  Some analysts said they hoped winning the 2020 Olympics would give Tokyo the same sort of economic boost, and rebirth in spirit, that the city experienced the last time it hosted the summer Games, in 1964.
  Those Olympics are still vividly remembered as proclaiming the success of Japan's recovery from the ashes of World War II and launching the modern city of highways and bullet trains.
  Shusei Tanaka, a political scientist at Fukuyama University, said that Tokyo would get not only an expected economic boost of $30 billion in new growth, but also a chance to reinvent itself in the 21st century.
  ''I feel like I did during the last Olympics, when I was still a university student,'' Tanaka, 72, said. ''Why am I so excited this time? I think it's the natural disaster. We have a chance to build a new economy, hopefully without nuclear power, and to build a new urban lifestyle.''
  Reporting was contributed by Martin Fackler, Hiroko Tabuchi and Joshua Hunt from Tokyo; Raphael Minder from Madrid; and Ceylan Yeginsu from Istanbul.
  A Showdown of No. 1 vs. No. 2
Anonymity, Privacy, and Security Online | Pew Research Center's Internet & American Life Project
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Sun, 08 Sep 2013 02:34
  OverviewA new survey finds that most internet users would like to be anonymous online, but many think it is not possible to be completely anonymous online. Some of the key findings:
  86% of internet users have taken steps online to remove or mask their digital footprints'--ranging from clearing cookies to encrypting their email.55% of internet users have taken steps to avoid observation by specific people, organizations, or the government.The representative survey of 792 internet users also finds that notable numbers of internet users say they have experienced problems because others stole their personal information or otherwise took advantage of their visibility online. Specifically:
  21% of internet users have had an email or social networking account compromised or taken over by someone else without permission.12% have been stalked or harassed online.11% have had important personal information stolen such as their Social Security Number, credit card, or bank account information.6% have been the victim of an online scam and lost money.6% have had their reputation damaged because of something that happened online.4% have been led into physical danger because of something that happened online.''Users clearly want the option of being anonymous online and increasingly worry that this is not possible,'' said Lee Rainie, Director of the Pew Research Center's Internet Project and an author of a report on the survey findings. ''Their concerns apply to an entire ecosystem of surveillance. In fact, they are more intent on trying to mask their personal information from hackers, advertisers, friends and family members than they are trying to avoid observation by the government.''
  About the SurveyThis survey by the Pew Research Center's Internet Project was underwritten by Carnegie Mellon University. The findings in this report are based on data from telephone interviews conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International from July 11-14, among a sample of 1,002 adults ages 18 and older. Telephone interviews were conducted in English by landline and cell phone. For results based on the total sample, one can say with 95% confidence that the error attributable to sampling is plus or minus 3.4 percentage points and for the results from 792 internet and smartphone users in the sample, the margin of error is 3.8 percentage points. More information is available in the Methods section at the end of this report.
VIDEO- "NSA Has Found Ways To Beat The Encryption That Is Supposed To Protect EVERYTHING YOU Do Online!" - YouTube
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Sun, 08 Sep 2013 02:34
VIDEO- Dianne Feinstein Chuckles (Lightly) With Every Answer Given About Supporting War On Syria - YouTube
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Sun, 08 Sep 2013 02:20
VIDEO- U.S. Drone Strike In Pakistan Kills At Least 7 "Suspected" Militants - YouTube
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Sun, 08 Sep 2013 02:16
VIDEO- "This Is The President That Captured Osama Bin Laden!" Congresswoman Jackson Lee - YouTube
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Sun, 08 Sep 2013 02:14
VIDEO- Moon Probe Launch Should Be Visible TONIGHT Across The U.S. East Coast At Approximately 11:30 PM EST - YouTube
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Sun, 08 Sep 2013 02:07
Drones: Actually the Most Humane Form of Warfare Ever - Michael W. Lewis - The Atlantic
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Sun, 08 Sep 2013 02:02
  How better targeting and surveillance can reduce the number of civilian casualties.
  An X-47B pilot-less drone combat aircraft comes to a stop after landing on the deck of the USS George H.W. Bush aircraft carrier. (Rich-Joseph Facun/Reuters)
  In this month's cover story, Mark Bowden's description of the drone operator's reaction -- one of shock and uncertainty -- to performing a specific mission clearly undermines the widely circulated but exceptionally irresponsible criticism that drones have created a "Playstation mentality" among their operators. An additional fact that the article did not include, but that has been understood (although not widely reported) for several years now, is that drone operators suffer from PTSD-like symptoms at rates similar to -- and sometimes greater than -- those experienced by combat forces on the ground. It turns out that even from 8,000 miles away, taking human life and graphically observing your handiwork is nothing like playing a video game.
  For this and other reasons, this article is one of the best things I've seen written on drones in the past several years. His descriptions and takeaways on most aspects of the drone program are consistent with my own experience in military aviation and the information I have gathered from human rights organizations, drone operators, military lawyers, senior military, and CIA personnel who have run the drone programs, as well as from senior military policy advisors who were involved in changing the way drones are used.
  Turning to the question of civilian casualties: All armed conflicts cause civilian casualties, and most modern conflicts have done so in large numbers, in part due to the fact that insurgents often hide among the civilian population. The 2006 Israeli conflict with Hezbollah and its 2009 and 2012 battles with Hamas in Gaza, the 1999 Russian war with Chechen rebels, and the final stages of the struggle between Sri Lanka and the LTTE (Tamil Tigers) all killed more civilians than combatants, in some cases substantially more. Although the U.S. has not caused civilian casualties at rates that high, there have been memorable examples of civilian casualties in each of the recent conflicts in which we have been involved, and those casualties were caused by all kinds of weapons systems. The 1991 Gulf War involved the Al-Firdos bunker airstrike that killed up to 400 civilians. The Kosovo campaign included airstrikes that hit the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade and struck a civilian train in the Grdelica gorge. The 2003 Iraq War included civilian casualties caused by Marine ground troops in Haditha and military contractors in Nisoor Square, while a cruise missile strike in 2009 killed approximately 35 civilians at al-Majalah in Yemen.
  Like any other weapons system, drones have caused civilian casualties. But they also have the potential to dramatically reduce civilian casualties in armed conflicts, and particularly in counterinsurgencies. Their ability to follow targets for days or weeks accomplishes two things that contribute to saving the lives of innocents: First, it confirms that the target is engaged in the behavior that put them on the target list, reducing the likelihood of striking someone based on faulty intelligence. Second, by establishing a "pattern of life" for the intended target, it allows operators to predict when the target will be sufficiently isolated to allow a strike that is unlikely to harm civilians.
  Another, less obvious, feature that reduces civilian casualties is that drones are controlled remotely, so the decision to employ a weapon can be reviewed in real time by lawyers, intelligence analysts, and senior commanders without any concern (in most cases) that a hesitation to act may cost lives. Even more importantly, the operators themselves are not concerned for their own safety, eliminating the possibility that the combination of tension, an unexpected occurrence, and a concern for personal safety leads to weapons being fired when they shouldn't be.
  This potential of drones to vastly reduce civilian casualties was not fully realized at first, but it has been dramatically attained in the past few years.
  In 2007, the U.S. Army and Marine Corps began disseminating a new Counterinsurgency (COIN) Manual that emphasized the need for soldiers to be involved in nation-building and bolstering local civil-society institutions, in addition to defeating insurgents militarily. Part of implementing this strategy involved minimizing civilian casualties. When Gen. Stanley McChrystal took command of ISAF (International Security Assistance Force) in Afghanistan in 2009, he emphasized the need to continue reducing civilian casualties in all phases of operations. He assigned teams of civilians and military officers to conduct root-cause analysis of every civilian casualty in theater and tasked them with developing protocols to eliminate such deaths.
  These teams produced a number of recommendations for drones. One of the most significant was switching the preferred method of targeting from compounds to vehicles. While targeting compounds improved the likelihood that the right individual was being targeted, it also greatly increased the chances that members of the target's family and the families of his bodyguards and close associates would be harmed. Although vehicle strikes ran a greater risk of target misidentification, increasing surveillance and pattern-of-life analysis mitigated that risk. Because it is easier to determine who is in a vehicle than to keep track of everyone who enters and leaves a compound, vehicle strikes reduced the likelihood that family members and friends would be collateral damage. Also, because vehicle strikes can be conducted on isolated roads, the likelihood of other civilian bystanders being harmed was minimized.
  How do we know that this has succeeded? Bowden mentions studies done by several independent organizations that have assessed civilian casualties caused by drones in Pakistan. The three most well respected and independent sources on this issue are the Long War Journal, the New America Foundation and The Bureau of Investigative Journalism (TBIJ). Among these, the U.K.-based TBIJ has consistently produced the highest estimates of civilian casualties for drone strikes. According to TBIJ, between January 2012 and July 2013, there were approximately 65 drone strikes in Pakistan, which they estimate to have killed a minimum of 308 people. Yet of these casualties, even TBIJ estimates that only 4 were civilians. This would amount to a civilian casualty rate of less than 1.5 percent, meaning that only 1 in 65 casualties caused by drones over that 19-month period was a civilian. This speaks to drones effective discrimination between civilian and military targets that no other weapons system can possibly match.
  Another indication that drones cause fewer civilian casualties than traditional warfare was provided by Hamid Karzai in 2011. The U.S. was employing all types of units in Afghanistan, ground troops, airstrikes, artillery and drones. But the source of friction with the Afghan government was not drones but rather special forces night raids. Karzai proclaimed that he would withhold further cooperation until his government was given greater control over night raids. Drones did not cause him or the Afghan people any appreciable concern.
VIDEO- "As The Leader Of The World's Oldest Constitutional Democracy" I CAN BOMB ANYONE I WANT! - YouTube
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Sun, 08 Sep 2013 00:30
Terror suspect pleads not guilty to charges that he tried to have FBI agent murdered - CBS News
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Sat, 07 Sep 2013 21:31
  CHICAGO A teenage terror suspect accused by the government of trying to set off what he thought was a bomb outside a Chicago bar pleaded not guilty Friday to new charges that he tried to have an FBI agent murdered from behind bars.
  Adel Daoud, 19, looked relaxed as he entered a U.S. district courtroom in Chicago for his arraignment, his legs shackled at the ankles. After marshals unlocked his handcuffs, he waved to his parents, then fist-bumped his lead attorney, asking, "What's up man?"
  Outside court later, the defense attorney, Thomas Durkin, told reporters that Daoud's cheerful demeanor raised questions about his psychological state. He said he wasn't sure if the teenager of Hillside, a Chicago suburb, appreciated the gravity of the situation, "which is part of the problem."
  Daoud in October pleaded not guilty to a terrorism charge. According to court documents, an undercover agent pretending to be a terrorist provided the teen with a phony car bomb, watched him plant the bomb in downtown Chicago and press a trigger.
  He is now charged with solicitation of murder, a charge that alone carries a maximum 20-year prison term. If convicted of terrorism, Daoud faces life in prison.
  According to court documents, Daoud tried in late 2012 to arrange the killing of an FBI agent who was involved in the sting that snared him earlier that year. The documents say the plot was intended to prevent the agent from testifying.
  Durkin says the new charges are based on the word of a street gang leader-turned-jailhouse snitch who shared a cell with Daoud. The attorney asserted that such informants are notoriously unreliable.
  "It's an absurd plot on its face. It's laughable," Durkin said.
  "If my client's a terrorist, I'll eat my hat," he added.
  A spokeswoman for the U.S. attorney's office, Kimberly Nerheim, declined to comment Friday.
Google encrypts data amid backlash against NSA spying - The Washington Post
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Sat, 07 Sep 2013 21:23
  Google is racing to encrypt the torrents of information that flow among its data centers around the world in a bid to thwart snooping by the NSA and the intelligence agencies of foreign governments, company officials said Friday.
  The move by Google is among the most concrete signs yet that recent revelations about the National Security Agency's sweeping surveillance efforts have provoked significant backlash within an American technology industry that U.S. government officials long courted as a potential partner in spying programs.
  Google's encryption initiative, initially approved last year, was accelerated in June as the tech giant struggled to guard its reputation as a reliable steward of user information amid controversy about the NSA's PRISM program, first reported in The Washington Post and the Guardian that month. PRISM obtains data from American technology companies, including Google, under various legal authorities.
  Encrypting information flowing among data centers will not make it impossible for intelligence agencies to snoop on individual users of Google services, nor will it have any effect on legal requirements that the company comply with court orders or valid national security requests for data. But company officials and independent security experts said that increasingly widespread use of encryption technology makes mass surveillance more difficult '-- whether conducted by governments or other sophisticated hackers.
  ''It's an arms race,'' said Eric Grosse, vice president for security engineering at Google, based in Mountain View, Calif. ''We see these government agencies as among the most skilled players in this game.''
  Experts say that, aside from the U.S. government, sophisticated government hacking efforts emanate from China, Russia, Britain and Israel.
  The NSA seeks to defeat encryption through a variety of means, including by obtaining encryption ''keys'' to decode communications, by using super-computers to break codes, and by influencing encryption standards to make them more vulnerable to outside attack, according to reports Thursday by the New York Times, the Guardian and ProPublica, based on documents provided by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden.
  But those reports made clear that encryption '-- essentially converting data into what appears to be gibberish when intercepted by outsiders '-- complicates government surveillance efforts, requiring that resources be devoted to decoding or otherwise defeating the systems. Among the most common tactics, experts say, is to hack into individual computers or other devices used by people targeted for surveillance, making what amounts to an end run around coded communications.
  Security experts say the time and energy required to defeat encryption forces surveillance efforts to be targeted more narrowly on the highest-priority targets '-- such as terrorism suspects '-- and limits the ability of governments to simply cast a net into the huge rivers of data flowing across the Internet.
  ''If the NSA wants to get into your system, they are going to get in .'‰.'‰. . Most of the people in my community are realistic about that,'' said Christopher Soghoian, a computer security expert at the American Civil Liberties Union. ''This is all about making dragnet surveillance impossible.''
VIDEO-Climate Crimes - Englische Version - YouTube
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Sat, 07 Sep 2013 21:04
GLOBAL LOOTING: Polish Government 'protects' private pension funds'....by confiscating them. | The Slog. 3-D bollocks deconstruction
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Sat, 07 Sep 2013 20:21
  Looting's newest euphemism: 'pension overhaul'Yesterday, the Polish state confiscated slightly under 50% of the private sector pension fund assets. In a new and even more bizarre form of Geithner Bazooka, given that the Polish Government has so much debt (and cannot credibly issue any more), the newly confiscated assets will dramatically reduce the debt-to-GDP ratio. Thus, with its debt halved, the Warsaw Government is in good shape to issue more sovereign bonds and get a high uptake'.....thus landing itself yet further in debt. But at the private citizen-saver's expense.
  Although I could bill this as the never-ending-yet-never-happening wake-up call for the European populace, it isn't really: on a brass-neck scale of nought to ten, the Poles are doing nothing different to the eleven out of ten scored by the US and UK'....who handed out rescue monies using private citizens' taxes, and in Britain's case f**ked up a mutual bank so badly, it now plans to make ordinary investors in the Co-op Bank destitute with its first 'Open Bank reconciliation'.
  But it is a poke in the eye for those who persist in calling The Slog 'alarmist'. Remember: as The Slog revealed here exclusively three months ago, a similar pension confiscation going direct to the private suppliers has been on the Troika's Greek agenda for ages. Both Greece and Spain have, in turn, stolen the citizens' social security and pension budgets to pay off debt.
  When, one wonders, will people decide to do something about this slow, up-against-the-wall rape?
  About these ads
Poland Confiscates Half Of Private Pension Funds To "Cut" Sovereign Debt Load | Zero Hedge
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Sat, 07 Sep 2013 20:21
  While the world was glued to the developments in the Mediterranean in the past week, Poland took a page straight out of Rahm Emanuel's playbook and in order to not let a crisis go to waste, announced quietly that it would transfer to the state - i.e., confiscate - the bulk of assets owned by the country's private pension funds (many of them owned by such foreign firms as PIMCO parent Allianz, AXA, Generali, ING and Aviva), without offering any compensation. In effect, the state just nationalized roughly half of the private sector pension fund assets, although it had a more politically correct name for it: pension overhaul.
  By way of background, Poland has a hybrid pension system: as Reuters explains, mandatory contributions are made into both the state pension vehicle, known as ZUS, and the private funds, which are collectively known by the Polish acronym OFE. Bonds make up roughly half the private funds' portfolios, with the rest company stocks.
  And while a change to state-pension funds was long awaited - an overhaul if you will - nobody expected that this would entail a literal pillage of private sector assets.
  On Wednesday, Prime Minister Donald Tusk said private funds within the state-guaranteed system would have their bond holdings transferred to a state pension vehicle, but keep their equity holdings. The funds would effectively be left with only the equities portions of their assets, even this would be depleted, and there will be uncertainty about the number of new savers joining.
  But why is Poland engaging in behavior that will ultimately be disastrous to future capital allocation in non-public pension funds (the type that can at least on paper generate some returns as opposed to "public" funds which are guaranteed to lose)? After all, this is a last ditch step which no rational person would engage in unless there were no other option. Simple: there were no other option, and the driver is the same reason the world everywhere else is broke too - too much debt.
  By shifting some assets from the private funds into ZUS, the government can book those assets on the state balance sheet to offset public debt, giving it more scope to borrow and spend. Finance Minister Jacek Rostowski said the changes will reduce public debt by about eight percent of GDP. This in turn, he said, would allow the lowering of two thresholds that deter the government from allowing debt to raise over 50 percent, and then 55 percent, of GDP. Public debt last year stood at 52.7 percent of GDP, according to the government's own calculations.
  To summarize:
  Government has too much debt to issue more debtGovernment nationalizes private pension funds making their debt holdings an "asset" and commingles with other public assetsNew confiscated assets net out sovereign debt liability, lowering the debt/GDP ratioDebt/GDP drops below threshold, government can issue more sovereign debtAnd of course, once Poland borrows like a drunken sailor using the new window of opportunity, and maxes out its new and improved limits, it will have no choice but to confiscate more assets, and to make its balance sheet appear better, until one day, there is nothing left in the private sector to confiscate. At that point the limit itself will have to be legislated away, and Poland will simply continue borrowing until one day there are no foreign lenders willing to take the same risk as the nation's private pensioners. At that point, Poland, which is in the EU but still has the Zloty, can just go ahead and monetize its own debt by printing unlimited amounts of its currency.
  Of course, we all know how that story ends.
  The response to the confiscation was, naturally, one of shock:
  The reform is "a decimation of the ...(private pension fund) system to open up fiscal space for an easier life now for the government," said Peter Attard Montalto of Nomura. "The government has an odd definition of private property given it claims this is not nationalisation."
  "This is worse than many on the markets had feared," a manager at one of the leading pension funds, who asked not to be identified, told Reuters.
  "The devil is in the detail and we don't yet know a lot about the mechanism of these changes, what benchmarks will be use to evaluate our performance... (It) looks like pension funds will lose a lot of flexibility in what they can invest."
  Catastrophic consequences for fund flows aside, the Polish prime minister had a prompt canned response:
  Tusk said people joining the pension system in the future would not be obliged to pay into the private part of the system. Depending on the finer points, this could mean still fewer assets in the private funds.
  "The (current) system has turned out to be built in part on rising public debt and turned out to be a very costly system," Tusk told a news conference.
  "We believe that, apart from the positive consequence of this decision for public debt, pensions will also be safer."
  You see, he is from the government, and he is confiscating the pensions to make them safer. Confiscation is Safety and all that...
  Polish officials have tried to reassure investors, saying the overhaul avoids the more radical options of taking both bond and equity assets away from the private funds outright.
  They say the old system effectively made Polish public debt appear higher than it really is.
  Well, once you nationalize private assets, the public debt will lindeed appear lower than it was before confiscation: we give them that much.
  End result: "The Polish pension funds' organisation said the changes may be unconstitutional because the government is taking private assets away from them without offering any compensation.... This may lead to the private pension systems shutting down," said Rafal Benecki of ING Bank Slaski."
  Unconstitutional? What's that. But whatever it is, it's ok - after all the public pension system is still around. At least until that too is plundered. But in the meantime, all such pensions will be "safer", guaranteed.
  But best of all, in the aftermath of Cyprus, we now know what the two most recent European blueprints for preserving the myth of solvency are: bail-ins, which confiscate deposits, and pension fund "overhauls", which confiscate, well, pension funds.
  And now, back to the global recovery soap opera.
  Average:Your rating: NoneAverage: 5(81 votes)
UPDATE 2-Poland reduces public debt through pension funds overhaul | Reuters
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Sat, 07 Sep 2013 20:20
  Wed Sep 4, 2013 12:56pm EDT
  * Reform moves bond assets from private to state fund
  * Some equity assets to gradually move to state as well
  * Changes seen reducing Polish public debt by 8 pct of GDP
  * Funds say moves could be unconstitutional
  * Warnings that private pension funds could be wiped out
  By Dagmara Leszkowicz and Chris Borowski
  WARSAW, Sept 4 (Reuters) - Poland said on Wednesday it will transfer to the state many of the assets held by private pension funds, slashing public debt but putting in doubt the future of the multi-billion-euro funds, many of them foreign-owned.
  The changes went deeper than many in the market expected and could fuel investor concerns that the government is ditching some business-friendly policies to try to improve its flagging popularity with voters.
  The Polish pension funds' organisation said the changes may be unconstitutional because the government is taking private assets away from them without offering any compensation.
  Announcing the long-awaited overhaul of state-guaranteed pensions, Prime Minister Donald Tusk said private funds within the state-guaranteed system would have their bond holdings transferred to a state pension vehicle, but keep their equity holdings.
  He said that what remained in citizens' pension pots in the private funds will be gradually transferred into the state vehicle over the last 10 years before savers hit retirement age.
  The reform is "a decimation of the ...(private pension fund) system to open up fiscal space for an easier life now for the government," said Peter Attard Montalto of Nomura. "The government has an odd definition of private property given it claims this is not nationalisation."
  Tusk said people joining the pension system in the future would not be obliged to pay into the private part of the system. Depending on the finer points, this could mean still fewer assets in the private funds.
  "The (current) system has turned out to be built in part on rising public debt and turned out to be a very costly system," Tusk told a news conference.
  "We believe that, apart from the positive consequence of this decision for public debt, pensions will also be safer."
  MARKET FEARS
  By shifting some assets from the private funds into ZUS, the government can book those assets on the state balance sheet to offset public debt, giving it more scope to borrow and spend.
  Finance Minister Jacek Rostowski said the changes will reduce public debt by about eight percent of gross domestic product (GDP).
  This in turn, he said, would allow the lowering of two thresholds that deter the government from allowing debt to raise over 50 percent, and then 55 percent, of GDP. Public debt last year stood at 52.7 percent of GDP, according to the government's own calculations.
  The private funds hold assets worth about one fifth of Polish economic output and are among the biggest investors on the Warsaw bourse. Players in the pension market include international firms such as ING, Aviva, Axa , Generali and Allianz.
  Bonds make up roughly half the private funds' portfolios, with the rest company stocks.
  Soon after Tusk unveiled his plans, the benchmark index on the Warsaw stock exchange was down 2.6 percent on the day.
  "This is worse than many on the markets had feared," a manager at one of the leading pension funds, who asked not to be identified, told Reuters.
  "The devil is in the detail and we don't yet know a lot about the mechanism of these changes, what benchmarks will be use to evaluate our performance... (It) looks like pension funds will lose a lot of flexibility in what they can invest."
  Polish officials have tried to reassure investors, saying the overhaul avoids the more radical options of taking both bond and equity assets away from the private funds outright.
  They say the old system effectively made Polish public debt appear higher than it really is.
  UNCERTAIN FUTURE FOR FUNDS
  Poland has a hybrid pension system at the moment; mandatory contributions are made into both the state pension vehicle, known as ZUS, and the private funds, which are collectively known by the Polish acronym OFE.
  The funds would effectively be left with only the equities portions of their assets, even this would be depleted, and there will be uncertainty about the number of new savers joining.
  "This may lead to the private pension systems shutting down," said Rafal Benecki of ING Bank Slaski.
  Policy in Poland is still much more prudent than in many of its European peers. However, the reform could erode Poland's reputation under Tusk for steady financial stewardship.
  In the past few months, the opinion poll rating of Tusk's Civic Platform party has, for the first time in years, slipped below that of the main opposition, the conservative Law and Justice Party.
  Though the next election is not until 2015, some analysts believe electoral concerns are already influencing economic policy and pushing the government to find scope for spending.
  Link thisShare thisDigg thisEmailReprints
Google Gestapo. Again
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Sat, 07 Sep 2013 20:11
  I received an email today, apparently from a 'Search Engine Optimization' consultant for an insurance company, requesting I remove a link from a page on one of my servers..
  I looked at the 'offending' link and saw that it was part of the No Agenda shownotes, from a topic in July 2011 where we discussed how GPS and other tracking systems are affecting insurance premiums. I recall we had a 1984-type discussion about it.
  Click here to read what she wrote.
  Hello,
  I am emailing on behalf of http://www.co-operativeinsurance.co.uk/.
  We have been reviewing our website and have become aware of a drop in our rankings for certain terms. When in
  conversation with Google via webmaster tools they highlighted our link at
  http://321.nashownotes.com/shownotes/na32120110714Shownotes/expandAllTopicsClickOnTheIconsForLinks as being one
  that they consider potentially unnatural.
  Can I therefore ask how we can get that link removed please?
  I think that if Google consider this link potentially unnatural that removing it will benefit both our site and
  +yours so I am keen to work with you to get it removed.
  Please let me know if that is possible and what we need to do to get it removed.
  Thanks in advance,
  Marie Davis
  Perfectly normal to have this documented in our notes, yet Google is apparently penalizing the company's rankings and maybe our (I have no idea if that is true or even how to check) and even call it an 'unnatural' link. WTF.
  Click here to read my reply to the consultant:
  Hi Marie,
  This is very interesting. This link and associaate text, was used in context of 'shownotes' for a podcast, where
  we discussed the "Smartbox" for young drivers that affects insurance premiums.
  Why should either of us have to accept Google's analysis that this is ann 'unnatural link'. And what does that even mean. Moreover, why should either of us be penalized for this?
  Please send me the exact language google webmaster tools used to explain this and I would also appreciate at leas
  t a try at resolving this with google, since their claim is simply untrue.
  We should not have to bend over backwards to this pressure if it is completely unwarranted.
  Regards,
  AC
  This situation doesn't really affect me or the show one way or the other, but someone, and I think users of the internet in general should stop being so submissive to google.
  I personallyhave been weening myself off of google by installing my own node of the peer to peer search network YaCy
Clive Palmer lays claim to titanic victory and seat in parliament | World news | theguardian.com
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Sat, 07 Sep 2013 19:52
  Mining magnate. Multimillionaire builder of the Titanic II. Dinosaur fan. Litigation lover. And now Clive Palmer looks set to add a new title to his CV: member of the Australian parliament.
  Palmer has claimed victory in the Queensland seat of Fairfax in the election and though the result is yet to be officially declared, with 67% of the vote counted, he has received 28.02% of the primary vote.
  The Liberal National party candidate has gained about 38% of the vote but, after preferences are distributed from the six other candidates, Palmer may win the seat.
  Palmer claimed victory on Channel 7 saying his party would also take the neighbouring seat of Fisher, held by Liberal National party member turned independent Peter Slipper, the former house Speaker.
  With 67% of the vote counted, Fisher is set to go to the Liberals, with former Howard government minister Mal Brough on 58% of the vote.
  "We think we'll win the seat of Fairfax without any problems," he said. "We also think we'll win the seat of Fisher if you understand the way preferences flow."
  His top Senate candidate in Tasmania, former Broncos player Glenn Lazarus, looks like he will win a seat in the upper house.
  Palmer's campaign had been treated as something of a joke '' generating headlines about his intention to build the Titanic II and plans for a dinosaur park at his Sunshine Coast resort, which he renamed the Palmer Coolum resort. A video of him twerking on a radio show went viral.
  He currently has a life-sized Tyrannosaurus rex on the grounds of the resort and has named it Jeff '' a move widely interpreted as a dig at Queensland's deputy premier, Jeff Seeney.
  But Palmer's eccentric brand of campaigning seems to have resonated with the people who were unhappy with the leaders of the major parties and were looking for somewhere to lodge a protest vote.
  He crisscrossed the country on his private jet '' bought for about $40m a few years ago '' sometimes changing his mind mid-air about where he was going.
  In his press releases Palmer always uses the title ''Professor'', a reference to his appointment as an adjunct professor at Deakin University.
  Hedley Thomas, a Walkley-winning journalist at the Australian newspaper '' owned by Rupert Murdoch '' wrote a series of articles on Palmer's business interests as well as his estimated fortune, resulting in Palmer starting legal action and threatening to sue Murdoch personally.
  Palmer maintained throughout the campaign he would win a slew of seats, even though polls had him picking up none.
  He campaigned on repealing the carbon tax and retrospectively refunding everyone who had paid it, refused to give his position on same-sex marriage, saying he did not want to influence party members, and made about $150bn worth of promises, saying he would pay for it through the stimulation to the economy of cutting taxes.
High Costs and Errors of German Transition to Renewable Energy - SPIEGEL ONLINE
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Sat, 07 Sep 2013 19:47
  If you want to do something big, you have to start small. That's something German Environment Minister Peter Altmaier knows all too well. The politician, a member of the center-right Christian Democratic Union (CDU), has put together a manual of practical tips on how everyone can make small, everyday contributions to the shift away from nuclear power and toward green energy. The so-called Energiewende, or energy revolution, is Chancellor Angela Merkel's project of the century.
  "Join in and start today," Altmaier writes in the introduction. He then turns to such everyday activities as baking and cooking. "Avoid preheating and utilize residual heat," Altmaier advises. TV viewers can also save a lot of electricity, albeit at the expense of picture quality. "For instance, you can reduce brightness and contrast," his booklet suggests.
  Altmaier and others are on a mission to help people save money on their electricity bills, because they're about to receive some bad news. The government predicts that the renewable energy surcharge added to every consumer's electricity bill will increase from 5.3 cents today to between 6.2 and 6.5 cents per kilowatt hour -- a 20-percent price hike.
  German consumers already pay the highest electricity prices in Europe. But because the government is failing to get the costs of its new energy policy under control, rising prices are already on the horizon. Electricity is becoming a luxury good in Germany, and one of the country's most important future-oriented projects is acutely at risk.
  After the Fukushima nuclear accident in Japan two and a half years ago, Merkel quickly decided to begin phasing out nuclear power and lead the country into the age of wind and solar. But now many Germans are realizing the coalition government of Merkel's CDU and the pro-business Free Democrats (FDP) is unable to cope with this shift. Of course, this doesn't mean that the public has any more confidence in a potential alliance of the center-left Social Democrats (SPD) and the Greens. The political world is wedged between the green-energy lobby, masquerading as saviors of the world, and the established electric utilities, with their dire warnings of chaotic supply problems and job losses.
  Even well-informed citizens can no longer keep track of all the additional costs being imposed on them. According to government sources, the surcharge to finance the power grids will increase by 0.2 to 0.4 cents per kilowatt hour next year. On top of that, consumers pay a host of taxes, surcharges and fees that would make any consumer's head spin.
  Former Environment Minister J¼rgen Tritten of the Green Party once claimed that switching Germany to renewable energy wasn't going to cost citizens more than one scoop of ice cream. Today his successor Altmaier admits consumers are paying enough to "eat everything on the ice cream menu."
  Paying Big for Nothing
  For society as a whole, the costs have reached levels comparable only to the euro-zone bailouts. This year, German consumers will be forced to pay '‚¬20 billion ($26 billion) for electricity from solar, wind and biogas plants -- electricity with a market price of just over '‚¬3 billion. Even the figure of '‚¬20 billion is disputable if you include all the unintended costs and collateral damage associated with the project. Solar panels and wind turbines at times generate huge amounts of electricity, and sometimes none at all. Depending on the weather and the time of day, the country can face absurd states of energy surplus or deficit.
  If there is too much power coming from the grid, wind turbines have to be shut down. Nevertheless, consumers are still paying for the "phantom electricity" the turbines are theoretically generating. Occasionally, Germany has to pay fees to dump already subsidized green energy, creating what experts refer to as "negative electricity prices."
  On the other hand, when the wind suddenly stops blowing, and in particular during the cold season, supply becomes scarce. That's when heavy oil and coal power plants have to be fired up to close the gap, which is why Germany's energy producers in 2012 actually released more climate-damaging carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than in 2011.
  If there is still an electricity shortfall, energy-hungry plants like the ArcelorMittal steel mill in Hamburg are sometimes asked to shut down production to protect the grid. Of course, ordinary electricity customers are then expected to pay for the compensation these businesses are entitled to for lost profits.
  The government has high hopes for the expansion of offshore wind farms. But the construction sites are in a state of chaos: Wind turbines off the North Sea island of Borkum are currently rotating without being connected to the grid. The connection cable will probably not be finished until next year. In the meantime, the turbines are being run with diesel fuel to prevent them from rusting.
  In the current election campaign, the parties are blaming each other for the disaster. Meanwhile, the federal government would prefer to avoid discussing its energy policies entirely. "It exposes us to criticism," says a government spokesman. "There are undeniably major problems," admits a cabinet member.
  But this week, the issue is forcing its way onto the agenda. On Thursday, a government-sanctioned commission plans to submit a special report called "Competition in Times of the Energy Transition." The report is sharply critical, arguing that Germany's current system actually rewards the most inefficient plants, doesn't contribute to protecting the climate, jeopardizes the energy supply and puts the poor at a disadvantage.
  The experts propose changing the system to resemble a model long successful in Sweden. If implemented, it would eliminate the more than 4,000 different subsidies currently in place. Instead of bureaucrats setting green energy prices, they would be allowed to develop indepedently on a separate market. The report's authors believe the Swedish model would lead to faster and cheaper implementation of renewable energy, and that the system would also become what it is not today: socially just.
  Trouble Paying the Bills
  When Stefan Becker of the Berlin office of the Catholic charity Caritas makes a house call, he likes to bring along a few energy-saving bulbs. Many residents still use old light bulbs, which consume a lot of electricity but are cheaper than newer bulbs. "People here have to decide between spending money on an expensive energy-saving bulb or a hot meal," says Becker. In other words, saving energy is well and good -- but only if people can afford it.
  A family Becker recently visited is a case in point. They live in a dark, ground-floor apartment in Berlin's Neuk¶lln neighborhood. On a sunny summer day, the two children inside had to keep the lights on -- which drives up the electricity bill, even if the family is using energy-saving bulbs.
  Becker wants to prevent his clients from having their electricity shut off for not paying their bill. After sending out a few warning notices, the power company typically sends someone to the apartment to shut off the power -- leaving the customers with no functioning refrigerator, stove or bathroom fan. Unless they happen to have a camping stove, they can't even boil water for a cup of tea. It's like living in the Stone Age.
  Once the power has been shut off, it's difficult to have it switched on again. Customers have to negotiate a payment plan, and are also charged a reconnection fee of up to '‚¬100. "When people get their late payment notices in the spring, our phones start ringing," says Becker.
  In the near future, an average three-person household will spend about '‚¬90 a month for electricity. That's about twice as much as in 2000.
  Two-thirds of the price increase is due to new government fees, surcharges and taxes. But despite those price hikes, government pensions and social welfare payments have not been adjusted. As a result, every new fee becomes a threat to low-income consumers.
London student reported to police: "Enchanted by anarchism and individualism" | The Libertarian
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Sat, 07 Sep 2013 19:27
  A headteacher in the London borough of Camden has come under fire by bloggers for reporting one of his students to police after reading the student's blog, which criticised the school and revealed the student's 'enchantment' with the philosophies of anarchism and individualism. The student, named Kinnan Zaloom, 19, operated the 'Hampstead Trash' blog as an outlet for his and his classmates' dissatisfaction with the practices of the Hampstead School and the conduct of its employees, lambasting the school's overspending on promotional material, lack of investment in musical instruments and gym equipment, insincere attempts to listen to pupils' views about the school, and a failure to raise GCSE results to a higher level.
  The headteacher, in addition to reporting Zaloom to the police, phoned Glasgow University, where the student had applied to study, in an attempt to dissuade them from accepting him.
  While the headteacher's actions may certainly be described as an overreaction, what is more worrying is his own justification for them.
  Asked what had first inclined him to contact the police, Mr. Szemalikowski said ''the fact that Kinnan has mentioned the ideologies of anarchism and individualism on this blog.'' Digging himself even deeper, the headteacher added, ''I must do something. In the last year he has become more and more enchanted by antiestablishment ways of thinking and has even said that there is an inherent risk that every government is corrupt.''
  The inherent risk of corruption in every human government, despite likely being taught by the politics faculty at Glasgow University, is evidently off-limits for discussion by pupils at the Hampstead School. Kinnan Zaloom, as a result of his articles, has been banned from returning to the school grounds, and now that this scandal has gone public, I imagine that alumni of the Hampstead School will be hard put to enter the grounds of Glasgow University from now on. It is hard to see how a school with a new and painfully poor reputation such as this could ever hope to bring its students to success.
  The Hampstead School, according to Zaloom's blog, has for years played the school league tables and invested more of its funding in public relations than teaching, putting the reputation of the school before the success of its own students. The focus on collective achievement over achievement of the individual '' which lies at the center of the headteacher's philosophy '' is a blight on any field or industry, but perhaps no more so than in education. In an economy filled with millions of different jobs and roles for millions of unique individuals with their own skills, characters, and aspirations, the job of educators is not to boost the rankings of their own institutions but to prepare their charges for the demands of an increasingly diverse world. Individuality is necessary for success, now more than ever, and Jacques Szemalikowski and others in his position would do well to recognise that.
  Now that the head of the school has publicly admitted to phoning universities to discourage them from accepting Hampstead students he doesn't like, it is time for the public to hold him accountable, before another student's career is ruined by his ideological crusade.
  ''What worries me is if I had been a year younger they said they would have expelled me halfway through my A-levels,'' writes Zaloom in a post. ''That means they would have been prepared to ruin my education because they didn't like my thoughts.''
  The Hampstead School can be reached by telephone at: 020 7794 8133
  The Camden New Journal, which was the first to cover this story, can be reached at: [email protected]
  . Bookmark the
  .
John C. Dvorak: NSA Calls Americans Adversaries, Who To Vote Out Now
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Sat, 07 Sep 2013 18:36
  aNewDomain.net commentary '' The latest revelations regarding the NSA snoops were not totally unexpected. A backdoor to Windows? Everyone knew there was one. People just needed confirmation. Cracking codes? Well, it was always assumed that is what the National Security Administration (NSA) was supposed to do.
  But the NSA showing an apparent deep hatred and resentment of the American public as a whole? That is not only a surprise. It's inexcusable. And perverse.
  What I'm referring to here is the NSA's use of the word ''adversaries'' to describe people and institutions who use any sort of encryption to protect information that is important to them. This includes banking records, other financial records, medical records, private discussions, chat and more. All done by law-abiding Americans.
  Here is a snippet from the Guardian story covering this.
  Among other things, the program is designed to 'insert vulnerabilities into commercial encryption systems.' These would be known to the NSA, but to no one else, including ordinary customers, who are tellingly referred to in the document as 'adversaries.'
  (The document reads:) 'These design changes make the systems in question exploitable through Sigint collection '... with foreknowledge of the modification. To the consumer and other adversaries, however, the systems' security remains intact.' ''
  This is a non-trivial comment. It's not minor. It's not semantics. Insofar as the NSA is concerned you are an adversary. Let's look at the definition of the word:
  Adversary: NOUN: pl. ad'ver'sar'ies1. An opponent; an enemy.2. Adversary The Devil; Satan. Often used with 'The.' ''
  So let me get this straight. The NSA, supported by the American public, the taxpayer, considers the people funding the operation to be the enemy? How did that happen? When did that happen?
  I thought this sort of thing was not supposed to happen because we have these fabulous oversight committees in the House and Senate. Are they in on this? Does Senator Dianne Feinstein see her constituents as ''the enemy?'' The people who voted for her are her enemies to be destroyed? Really?
  What kind of sick perversion are we dealing with here?
  I put the blame directly on those representatives who run the U.S. Senate Select Committee on UnIntelligence and the House Intelligence Committee. All of the members involved have violated their Constitutional duties and have declared the American public to be the enemy.
  They need to be voted out immediately.
  If it were possible to recall them I would do that tomorrow. These are the same folks who sold the American public down the river. They have done nothing but encourage the onerous growth of a spy agency that we know spies on the citizens of the United States of America. Spying on Americans.
  The NSA is obviously out of control if it considers the public and its institutions to be adversaries.
  No wonder Dianne Feinstein, Mike Rogers and Dutch Ruppersberger are so bent out of shape over the Snowden leaks. They are in on the schemes.
  And, because we know that these recent documents were never expected to see the light of day, you have to know that honesty prevails throughout. There is no good reason to sugarcoat the comments. This is what they really think. They didn't have to be coy about it. The NSA considers the American people to be its adversary, thus its use of the word adversary.
  The use of the word adversary to describe the American people is not by accident. It is not some casual usage. It's not slang.
  So now you wonder about the most-outspoken apologists for the agency, guys like Ruppersberger. You wonder if some blackmailing is going on or whether these folks just hate the country they serve.
  It's got to be one of the two.
  Do something about these Congressional stooges. The worst of this group are in the Senate committee. They are making the biggest fuss about these revelations. Look at this press release '-- it condemns the fact that you, the American public, found out about any of this in the first place.
  And there are plenty of others to blame. Here are the Republicans in the House committee. Vote them all out. And here are the Democrats. Vote them all out. All of them.
  In the Senate you have these folks. Get rid of them all '-- including Marco Rubio.
  These people have not protected the American public. And they are apparently on board with seeing the public as adversaries, as the NSA describes them so clearly.
  None of them can be trusted any more. They should have resigned the committee if they saw things differently. Or they should have exposed the wrongdoing on the floor of the Senate, where they have complete immunity from saying anything including these sorts of revelations.
  They all said nothing.
  And let's get one point straight. None of this complaining is about real state secrets or screwing with field operatives trying to protect the United States of America. It's about the core idea that America is the enemy.
  How do you protect the U.S. if you define it as the enemy? You can't.
  This definition of the U.S. as the enemy '-- the adversary '-- explains so much of what NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden revealed. It exposes members of Congress as horrible individuals and elected representatives for doing nothing to prevent it.
  For all we know, our elected officials encouraged it.
  The entire country has been corrupted by this re-targeting of who is really the enemy. If you are okay having a target on your back then re-elect Mark Udall and Tom Coburn and the rest of these folks who took part in the re-definition. Ask them why they feel this way about you.
  As for the NSA, they are not going anywhere. They just need to re-examine their mission and their attitude.
  And they need to apologize.
  Send a copy of this column to everyone you know.
  For aNewDomain.net and the No Agenda Show, I'm John C. Dvorak.
  John C. Dvorak is co-founder with Gina Smith and Jerry Pournelle of aNewDomain.net. An award-winning commentator, he discusses these sorts of issues with Adam Curry on the No Agenda Show. Check it out at www.noagendashow.com , and follow John @theRealDvorak. He writes Tech Stock Corner for aNewDomain.
Presidential Proclamation -- National Days of Prayer and Remembrance, 2013
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Source: White House.gov Press Office Feed
  Sat, 07 Sep 2013 00:15
  The White House
  Office of the Press Secretary
  For Immediate Release
  September 06, 2013
  NATIONAL DAYS OF PRAYER AND REMEMBRANCE, 2013
  - - - - - - -
  BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
  A PROCLAMATION
  This week, Americans come together to mark the 12th anniversary of a day that shook our country to its core. Where two towers once cast a shadow, men and women gather in the early light to pay their respects. In a Pennsylvania field once scarred by debris, bells ring out and fingers trace over names etched in white marble. At the Pentagon, where a single stone still bears the scars of fire, a Nation honors souls who now know peace.
  On this anniversary, images of darkness are never far from our thoughts. We remember planes cutting through a clear September sky, black smoke rising from the ruins below. These images will never leave us. But Scripture teaches us that light shines even in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.
  When the first calls for help reached squad cars, ambulances, and ladder companies, there was no hesitation. First responders rushed to the scene. They stormed up the stairs and into the flames. Aboard Flight 93, heroic passengers and crew members gave everything they had to prevent even more devastation.
  Their legacy lives on in those they saved and in the memories we keep. Most of all, it lives on in the spirit they embodied: compassion, resilience, unity. Many of those we lost set aside their own well-being in the hope they could save someone they would never know.
  That selflessness shows the best of who we are as a people. And for more than a decade, that same selflessness has summoned a new generation to serve in our Armed Forces. These solemn days also call upon us to reflect on their extraordinary service and sacrifice and to rededicate ourselves to showing our troops, our veterans, and their families the fullest support of a grateful Nation.
  Finally, as we honor those who have borne so much since 9/11, let us turn our thoughts once again toward renewal. When shock and confusion could have torn us apart, we chose instead to move forward together, as one people. We have proven our resilience. We have recovered and rebuilt, better and brighter. We have kept faith with our oldest American beliefs. Years from now, these acts will reveal the true legacy of that day -- of a safer world, a stronger Nation, and a country more united than ever before.
  NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim Friday, September 6 through Sunday, September 8, 2013, as National Days of Prayer and Remembrance. I ask that the people of the United States honor and remember the victims of September 11, 2001, and their loved ones through prayer, contemplation, memorial services, the visiting of memorials, the ringing of bells, evening candlelight remembrance vigils, and other appropriate ceremonies and activities. I invite people around the world to participate in this commemoration.
  IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this sixth day of September, in the year of our Lord two thousand thirteen, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-eighth.
  BARACK OBAMA
Presidential Proclamation-- National Grandparents Day, 2013
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Source: White House.gov Press Office Feed
  Sat, 07 Sep 2013 00:14
  The White House
  Office of the Press Secretary
  For Immediate Release
  September 06, 2013
  NATIONAL GRANDPARENTS DAY, 2013
  - - - - - - -
  BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
  A PROCLAMATION
  In every corner of our country and across all walks of life, grandparents are a tremendous source of wisdom, strength, and joy. They are caregivers, teachers, and friends -- windows to the past and guideposts for the future. On National Grandparents Day, America pauses to honor the bedrocks of our families and thank every grandmother and grandfather for their immeasurable contributions to our country.
  Our grandparents' generations made America what it is today. They led our Nation through times of war, heralded new ages of innovation, and tested the limits of human imagination. They challenged longstanding prejudices and shattered barriers, both cultural and scientific. In our homes and our communities, grandparents pass down the values that have led generations of Americans to live well and give back. As individuals, as families, and as a society, we have an unshakable obligation to provide the care and support our grandparents have earned. Together, let us guarantee the right of every American to live out their golden years in dignity and security.
  Today, we reflect on the ways our grandparents have enriched our lives, and we celebrate their contributions to the life of our Nation.
  NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim September 8, 2013, as National Grandparents Day. I call upon all Americans to take the time to honor their own grandparents and those in their community.
  IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this sixth day of September, in the year of our Lord two thousand thirteen, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-eighth.
  BARACK OBAMA
FACT SHEET: The G-20 St. Petersburg Summit | The White House
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Sat, 07 Sep 2013 00:12
  The White House
  Office of the Press Secretary
  For Immediate Release
  September 06, 2013
  The G-20 is the world's premier forum for economic cooperation '' where Leaders representing economies generating more than 80 percent of global GDP assemble around the table to address the world's most important and difficult economic challenges.
  This year's St. Petersburg G-20 Summit '' the seventh that President Obama has attended since taking office '' has reaffirmed the G-20's leadership as the premier forum at which the major countries coordinate their economic policies to promote strong, sustainable and balanced growth and to address global challenges that no country can tackle alone. This year, G-20 Leaders were united in the belief that promoting growth and creating better-quality jobs is their top economic policy priority.
  Leaders also agreed on a number of specific steps to strengthen the global economy, address climate change, fill holes in the international tax system, expand trade, strengthen nuclear industry liability, improve workplace safety, combat corruption, and promote global development. Among the most significant agreements were:
  to phase down the production and consumption of a potent category of greenhouse gases (hydrofluorocarbons) through the Montreal Protocol, a mechanism with a proven track record of success.to work together to address international tax evasion, to fix tax rules that allow multinational companies to avoid paying tax anywhere, and to support efforts by less developed countries to strengthen their revenue collection.to achieve a strong multilateral trade agreement this December, with trade facilitation at its core, and to extend the standstill on protectist trade measures for an additional two years through 2016. Building a Stronger Global Economy through Jobs and Growth
  The St. Petersburg Summit marks another milestone in the recovery from the global financial crisis that first erupted five years ago this month. Thanks in part to decisive action by the G-20, this Summit was the first in several years not to take place under the looming threat of financial crisis; instead, G-20 Leaders were focused on securing and deepening the gains we have made '' and the key role of growth and jobs in this effort.
  Crucially, the United States is a source of strength for the global economy because we've focused on creating jobs and growth. All told, our businesses have created a total of 7.5 million new jobs over the past 42 months. We have cleared away the rubble of the financial crisis and put in place new rules to strengthen our banks and reduce the chance of another financial crisis. At the same time, the United States is getting its fiscal house in order, with deficits falling at the fastest rate in 60 years.
  Yet, even given this progress, both at home and around the world, G-20 Leaders came to St. Petersburg mindful of the challenges that remain '' and reached a consensus on how to proceed, agreeing that our focus needs to be on creating the growth and jobs that put people back to work. They agreed to a St. Petersburg Action Plan with growth and job creation at its core:
  Focusing on job creation. All G-20 countries will present jobs plans at next year's G-20 Summit in Brisbane.
  Reinforcing economic stability in Europe. The Euro Area committed to strengthen the foundations for economic and monetary union, including through further efforts to strengthen bank balance sheets, reduce financial fragmentation and moving ahead decisively and without delay toward a banking union. Advanced G-20 countries also agreed to maintain a flexible approach in implementing their fiscal strategies, while remaining committed to sustainable public finances. Managing emerging market volatility. Facing increased financial volatility, emerging economies agreed to take the necessary actions to maintain stability '' including efforts to improve their economic fundamentals, increase resilience to external shocks, and strengthen financial systems.Coordinating reforms to promote growth. All G-20 nations committed to cooperate to ensure that policies implemented to support growth at home will also support global growth and financial stability and to push ahead more urgently with important structural reforms, in order to strengthen the foundations for long-term growth.Rebalancing the global economy. All G-20 nations reiterated their commitment to move more rapidly toward more market-determined exchange rate systems and exchange-rate flexibility. Confronting Climate Change
  Addressing Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs). G-20 Leaders committed to using the expertise and institutions of the Montreal Protocol to phase down the production and consumption of HFCs. This commitment marks an important step forward toward addressing HFCs '' highly potent greenhouse gases that are rapidly increasing in use '' through the proven mechanism of the Montreal Protocol. Phasing down HFCs would yield enormous climate benefits, reducing as much as 90 gigatons of CO2 equivalent between now and 2050, or roughly two years of global greenhouse gas emissions at current levels.Phasing out inefficient fossil fuel subsidies. Building on the commitment made at the Pittsburgh G-20 Summit in 2009 to phase out inefficient fossil fuel subsides, G-20 Leaders agreed on the methodology for a new peer-review process of fossil fuel subsidies, an important step in combatting climate change: the International Energy Agency estimates that eliminating subsidies '' which amount to more than $500 billion annually '' would lead to a 10 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions below business-as-usual by 2050. Building Stronger International Tax Standards
  Fighting tax evasion. G-20 Leaders committed to fight cross-border tax evasion, requiring financial institutions to learn where their customers are resident for tax purposes and report that information to tax authorities. This measure will help to stop tax cheats from hiding their money in foreign bank accounts. The G-20 committed to make automatic exchange of information between tax authorities '' based on the U.S. FATCA legislation '' the single, new global standard, with automatic exchange of information expected to begin by the end of 2015. Ending tax avoidance. G-20 Leaders endorsed an ambitious action plan to change national tax rules that encourage multinational companies to shift their profits to low- or no-tax jurisdictions, allowing them not to pay tax on much of their income. Opening Doors to Greater Global Trade
  Supporting a WTO Trade Facilitation Agreement. With its support for a strong outcome at the upcoming WTO Ministerial Conference in Bali, with a trade facilitation agreement at its core, G-20 Leaders reaffirmed the significance of the WTO to the multilateral trading system.Combating protectionism. Protectionist trade barriers weaken trade and investment. That is why the G-20 Leaders committed to extending their commitment to refrain from protectionist measures for two more years through 2016. Establishing a Global Nuclear Liability Regime
  Recognizing that countries may opt for nuclear power as a part of their energy mix, G-20 Leaders called for a commitment to nuclear safety, security, and nonproliferation and reiterated the call for the establishment of a global nuclear liability regime to ensure appropriate and swift compensation for nuclear damage in the case of a nuclear accident.Improving Global Labor Conditions
  Given the recurring loss to human life across the world on account of unsafe working places, G-20 Leaders directed the G-20 Task Force on Employment to partner with ILO in consultation with countries, and to consider how the G-20 might contribute to safer workplaces.Strengthening Global Anti-Corruption Efforts
  G-20 Leaders endorsed a number of anti-corruption initiatives:Beneficial Ownership: The G-20 endorsed action to ensure greater transparency about shell companies, which can be misused to facilitate illicit financial flows stemming from corruption, tax evasion, and money laundering.Mutual Legal Assistance: To facilitate cooperation, G-20 countries adopted high-level principles on mutual legal assistance. These will be implemented in accordance with each country's legal system.Foreign Bribery: To promote better business environments, the G-20 Anti-Corruption Working Group finalized two sets of principles on enforcing anti-bribery commitments and on addressing solicitation of bribes.Asset Recovery: To facilitate the return of moneys taken though the proceeds of corruption, G-20 countries agreed to assess their laws and procedures against high level asset recovery principles and to produce publicly available guides on their asset recovery regimes '' inspired by a U.S.-led G-8 initiative. Promoting Global Development, Food Security, and Public Health
  Development. The G-20 set the course for its future work on core development priorities: food security, financial inclusion and remittances, infrastructure, human resource development and domestic resource mobilization. Leaders expressed their strong support for the elaboration of a post-2015 development agenda.
  In 2013, the G-20 held the Second Meeting of Chief Agricultural Scientists (MACS) to improve global food security. The MACS works to strengthen collaborative research in priority areas and to intensify sustainable agricultural production to meet the world's increasing demands for healthy, safe and nutritious food.The G-20's Agricultural Market Information System (AMIS) is generating greater food market transparency and coordination of policies in response to market uncertainty. Global Public Health. To respond to the human and economic threat of emerging infectious diseases, including current H7N9 Influenza and Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS-CoV) outbreaks, the G-20 called upon countries to improve rapid and effective responses to public health threats and to strengthening compliance with the World Health Organization's International Health Regulations.
Joint Statement on Syria | The White House
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Sat, 07 Sep 2013 00:07
  The White House
  Office of the Press Secretary
  For Immediate Release
  September 06, 2013
  The Leaders and Representatives of Australia, Canada, France, Italy, Japan, Republic of Korea, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States of America made the following statement on the margins of the Group of 20 Nations Leader's Meeting in Saint Petersburg, Russia:
  The international norm against the use of chemical weapons is longstanding and universal. The use of chemical weapons anywhere diminishes the security of people everywhere. Left unchallenged, it increases the risk of further use and proliferation of these weapons.
  We condemn in the strongest terms the horrific chemical weapons attack in the suburbs of Damascus on August 21st that claimed the lives of so many men, women, and children. The evidence clearly points to the Syrian government being responsible for the attack, which is part of a pattern of chemical weapons use by the regime.
  We call for a strong international response to this grave violation of the world's rules and conscience that will send a clear message that this kind of atrocity can never be repeated. Those who perpetrated these crimes must be held accountable.
  Signatories have consistently supported a strong UN Security Council Resolution, given the Security Council's responsibilities to lead the international response, but recognize that the Council remains paralyzed as it has been for two and a half years. The world cannot wait for endless failed processes that can only lead to increased suffering in Syria and regional instability. We support efforts undertaken by the United States and other countries to reinforce the prohibition on the use of chemical weapons.
  We commit to supporting longer term international efforts, including through the United Nations, to address the enduring security challenge posed by Syria's chemical weapons stockpiles. Signatories have also called for the UN fact finding mission to present its results as soon as possible, and for the Security Council to act accordingly.
  We condemn in the strongest terms all human rights violations in Syria on all sides. More than 100,000 people have been killed in the conflict, more than 2 million people have become refugees, and approximately 5 million are internally displaced. Recognizing that Syria's conflict has no military solution, we reaffirm our commitment to seek a peaceful political settlement through full implementation of the 2012 Geneva Communique. We are committed to a political solution which will result in a united, inclusive and democratic Syria.
  We have contributed generously to the latest United Nations (UN) and ICRC appeals for humanitarian assistance and will continue to provide support to address the growing humanitarian needs in Syria and their impact on regional countries. We welcome the contributions announced at the meeting of donor countries on the margins of the G20. We call upon all parties to allow humanitarian actors safe and unhindered access to those in need.
  European signatories will continue to engage in promoting a common European position.
Court: Federal Law Allows Lying in TSA-Related FOIA Requests | TSA Out of Our Pants!
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Fri, 06 Sep 2013 19:56
  Moments ago, the remaining claims in my lawsuit stemming from being illegally detained at FLL airport and then lied to about the existence of CCTV video of the incident, were dismissed.
  The questions before the court were as follows:
  Can the TSA (or local governments as directed by the TSA) lie in response to a FOIA request?Sure, no problem! Even the NSA responds that they ''can't confirm or deny the existence'' of classified things for which admitting or denying existence would (allegedly, of course) damage national security. But the TSA? U.S. District Judge Joan A. Lenard granted the TSA the special privilege of not needing to go that route, rubber-stamping the decision of the TSA and the airport authority to write to me that no CCTV footage of the incident existed when, in fact, it did. This footage is non-classified and its existence is admitted by over a dozen visible camera domes and even signage that the area is being recorded. Beyond that, the TSA regularly releases checkpoint video when it doesn't show them doing something wrong (for example, here's CCTV of me beating their body scanners). But if it shows evidence of misconduct? Just go ahead and lie.Can the TSA hide the names and faces of its public-facing employees (and any local law enforcement coming to their aid) who are accused of misconduct?You bet! Despite the fact that they all wore name tags and I could have legally taken photos of them, Judge Lenard feels that the public servants who illegally searched and detained me deserve ''privacy,'' and upheld the TSA's decision to redact their names from every document sent to me and to blur the entirety of every video sent to me. This is the same TSA that cares so much about privacy that they ''accidentally'' published a copy of my driver's license in court filings.Can the TSA frustrate court review of whether or not a document is releasable under FOIA simply by ''ordering'' it secret?Why not?! Judge Lenard ruled that once a document is labeled ''Sensitive Security Information'' (which the TSA does by merely waiving a magic wand and writing ''SSI'' on the cover of a document) the U.S. District Court loses its power to review that determination, and the U.S. Court of Appeals is the proper forum. But wait, the Court of Appeals doesn't evaluate FOIA claims, so now, in order to get a document you want, you must petition 2 courts and pay over $800 in filing fees alone. Yes, clearly this is how Congress intended public records laws '-- designed to allow transparency in government '-- to work.On top of this recent heap of fail, Judge Lenard had previously tossed the bulk of my lawsuit '-- 19 out of 21 charges '-- and then refused to allow me to appeal those 19 charges until she contemplated these two remaining charges. She then took 6 months to write this 19-page opinion. Her decision today, therefore, is not much of a surprise to me, since Judge Lenard seems to be more inclined to rubber-stamp government thuggery, through convoluted, ill-supported, and needlessly delayed rulings, rather than to dispense justice. I will be filing a notice of appeal this week, sending this case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, and I am strongly tempted to file a complaint of judicial misconduct based on her purposeful delay of my case and the sheer absurdity of some of her arguments. But, appeal first, misconduct complaint later.
  Corbett v. TSA '' Full Dismissal (.pdf)
  Donate to help fund the appeal?'...or via Bitcoin: 15ftA2938sp7Mnsi8U7wYVmEtd4BRbFnkT
  Like this:LikeLoading...
Biden wants Napolitano on Supreme Court '' CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Fri, 06 Sep 2013 18:16
  (CNN) - Vice President Joe Biden made it clear Friday how he feels about departing Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano.
  "I think Janet Napolitano should be on the Supreme Court of the United States," he said Friday morning at her going away ceremony.His statement was met with raucous applause by those attending, including current and former cabinet secretaries, law enforcement officials, and Attorney General Eric Holder.
  Napolitano announced in June she would leave her current position this month. She's now preparing to start her next gig as president of the University of California system.
  As President Barack Obama was choosing Supreme Court nominees in 2009 and 2010, Napolitano's name was floated as a potential contender to replace retiring Justice David Souter and Justice John Paul Stevens. He ultimately tapped Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, respectively, for the nominations.
  Napolitano, 55, has a law degree but has never been a judge. A former Democratic governor of Arizona, Napolitano was also a onetime U.S. attorney and state attorney general.
  While in private practice, she was a lawyer for Anita Hill when she testified in the 1991 Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings for the high court.
  During her tenure as homeland security secretary, she was criticized strongly for her department's initial response - and her public statements - to the Christmas 2009 attempted terror bombing of a Detroit-bound airliner.
  Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 80, is the current court member most frequently mentioned as the next to step down, but she has voiced her intention to stay on as long as possible.
US Attacking Syria to Ensure Israel is Natural Gas Export Leader - Susanne Posel | Susanne Posel
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Fri, 06 Sep 2013 16:30
  Susanne PoselOccupy CorporatismSeptember 5, 2013
  A study released from IHS Economics (IHSE) stated that the petrol and natural gas boom is saving consumers thousands of dollars.
  Because of natural gas, Americans are pocketing $1,200 annually in lower energy prices.
  Estimations project savings to increase to $2,700 by 2020 and $3,500 by 2025.
  State and federal monies saved will be an additional $283 billion which can be added to the gross domestic product (GDP).
  It is envisioned that this boom will create 319,000 new jobs with the number of newly employed reaching 3.9 million by 2025.
  California is sitting above the Monterey shale . This state could use its own natural gas reserves, rather than import oil from Bakken and Saudi Arabia.
  Halliburton, who is associated with fracking and drilling services, could become the giant of the hydraulic fracturing industry.
  Exxon Mobil is investing in Eagle Ford, the Marcellus and Bakken to support fracking.
  Last June the Cypriot government signed a deal with Noble Energy, a US '' based corporation with ties to the Israeli government, to build a $10 billion natural gas terminal to tap into the reserves in the eastern Mediterranean seabed.
  This endeavor is advantageous to the Israeli government because it provides direct access to Europe, Southeast Asia and other natural gas consumers through Cyprus.
  Earlier this year Cyprus was economically '' terrorized by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the European Central Bank (ECB) wherein customer accounts had large portions of their balances syphoned out to pay back debts governmental to the technocrats.
  Michalis Sarris, finance minister of Cyprus has travelled to Russia to speak with Igor Shuvalov, Russian finance minister have been in talks of Russian financial intervention in exchange for Cypriot resources; such as the natural gas reserves just offshore.
  This plan was ultimately not accepted by Russia which left Cyprus open to being taken advantage of.
  In August, Israel signed an agreement with Cyprus and Greece wherein all three nations would pool-together their natural gas reserves for a mutual benefit profit scheme to service global market needs.
  Last year Greece was also the victim of economic '' terrorism after the country defaulted on loans which caused a financial crisis.
  With vast untapped natural gas reserves, Greece asked the Russian Federation for help. Greek Prime Minster Antonis Samarus wrote a letter to Russian President Vladimir Putin to appeal to him for assistance.
  The Greek government paid the highest prices in natural gas imported from the European Union (EU); as well as the 3rd highest taxes.
  Utilizing their natural gas reserves would lower the cost of energy for the nation while allowing them to export and profit from sales to other nations.
  However, Greece ended up in the same situation as Cyprus which culminated in the agreement with Israel over the fate of their energy resources.
  In Israel, the Leviathan Field may prove to be a ''game changer'' which would propel the country to become the 3rd largest provider of natural gas in the Middle East.
  Noble Energy and Avner Oil Exploration is involved in the development of this vast reserve which is 130 kilometers from the Israeli coast and 5,000 feet under the Mediterranean sea.
  The Leviathan Field is estimated at being worth over $7 billion.
  Congress has recognized that this reserve ''could represent 200 years' worth of Israel's natural gas consumption''; as well as the potential financial benefit of assisting Israel in becoming the leader in natural gas export.
  Since 2005, Egypt was supplying Israel with natural gas; however this agreement ended recently which left Israel in an energy crisis.
  Eastern Mediterranean Gas Co ''sold 1.7 billion cubic meters of natural gas at a rate of $1.50 per million British thermal units, (BTUs)'' which proved to be a financial downfall for Egypt.
  Because they were underpaid for their product, Mohamed Shoeb, the head of the Egyptian Natural Gas Holding Company (ENGC) stated that they would no longer ''ship natural gas to Israel because of contractual obligations violations.''
  After the Saudi Arabian government aligned with the US government for military assistance because of an invasion from Sunni ''radicals'', the deal with Egypt and Israel for natural gas began to fail.The Arab Spring in Egypt proved to be difficult for Israel with regard to natural gas exports. Installed president Mohammad Morsi's eventual removal will be ''good for Israel and for anyone who relies on Israel in the Middle East.''
  On the Sinai Peninsula, a natural gas pipeline that transported the resource from Egypt to Israel was partially destroyed which disrupted ''the flow of gas''.
  Because of a 1979 peace treaty with Israel, Egypt is forced to sell the natural gas to Israel for $2.5 billion. This price comes from an export deal signed in 2005 which extracts an estimated 40% of Egyptian natural gas which is sent straight to Israel.
  In 2011, governments of Iraq, Iran and Syria signed a $10 billion accord to build a natural gas pipeline that would fuel income to the Middle Eastern nations.
  Syria is expected to purchase ''20 million to 25 million cubic meters a day of Iranian gas'' daily.
  The pipeline ''length is more than 1,500 kilometers and will run from Assalouyeh to Damascus while passing through Iraq'', then Tehran, Lebanon and out to the Mediterranean Sea; eventually becoming a servicer to Europe, Southeast Asia and other nations.
  Because Saudi Arabia would also be negatively affected by this pipeline, they have invested $3 billion into financially supporting the Free Syrian Army (FSA) who are terrorizing the Syrian citizens and trying to over-throw Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
  Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan has been making the rounds from Moscow to Paris and hoping to gain support against Syria.
  Secret contracts have been offered by Bandar to Putin and French President Francois Hollande to strategically gain major governmental accord to bring Syrian President Bashar al-Assad down from power and crush the furtherance of the pipeline.
  Before the creation of the Iraq, Iranian and Syrian pipeline, ''Qatar proposed a gas pipeline from the Gulf to Turkey in a sign the emirate is considering a further expansion of exports from the world's biggest gasfield after it finishes an ambitious program to more than double its capacity to produce liquefied natural gas (LNG).''
  Part of the scheme, according to Turkey, is to strategically move the Nabucco pipeline project to ''transport Central Asian and Middle Eastern gas to Europe, bypassing Russia.''
  In this way, Qatar and Turkey would join efforts and share in the spoils.
  Europe would rely on Qatar for natural gas instead of Russia.
  However, Assad rejected the pipeline prosed by Qatar in favor for the deal with Iraq and Iran.
  The Saudi Arabian government has been funding Chechen terrorist factions; including the elder brother involved in the Boston Bombing '' Tamerlan Tsarnaev.
  According to Russian intelligence provided by the Anti-Extremism Center, a faction of the Ministry of the Interior of Russia, Tamerlan had spent half a year in southern Russia, and then disappeared off their radar. At this point US federal agencies are claiming that they began their assessment of Tamerlan's radicalization and training with militants in Chechnya.
  The theme is being built that there is an Islamic insurgency in Chechnya, a republic of Russia. Social networking is being used by these alleged militants to communication and reaches out to others to become part of their jihad.
  The point missed by most of the mainstream and alternative media is the history of US and Saudi financed terrorist cells in Chechnya. Facilitated by the CIA, the radicalization of Wahhabist groups to terrorize Russia have been a scheme kept silent in US media.
  US Special Forces, intelligence operatives and money flowing from Saudi Arabia have combined to attempt to secure an outpost in Chechnya that would send a clear message to the Russian government.
  The Wahhabist faction supported by the US is not actually adherents of Islam, but a fake, pasty terrorist army created as a tool for US foreign policy interests.
  Born of the relationship between Saudi Arabia and the US government, Wahhabism (a.k.a. Salafism) is used because of their inherent ''radical'' movement toward ''progressive social change'' which makes them will to take extreme measures to fight against secularism.
  Currently, the proxy war being fought in Syria is multifaceted with regard to purpose.
  The US and UK governments are funding the FSA; while the Saudi Arabian government is arming the opposition.During US Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens time in Libya, he was responsible for making sure there was safe passage for the weapons being shipped to Syria intended for the FSA.
  This was just one of his missions while dealing with the National Transitional Council (NTC).
  Sarin gas was used in Aleppo to murder Syrian civilians; including women and children. This chemical weapon was also sent through the pathway set up by Stevens.
  When it was of no consequence to the Obama administration, Jay Carney, press secretary for the Obama administration, admitted in a media conference that the use of chemical weapons was perpetrated by the ''opposition'' and not the Syrian government.
  Now that the US military has been requested to protect Israeli interests in the Middle East, Assad is being accused of using chemical weapons on his own people.
  In the end, this war with Syria is about ensuring that Israel becomes the leader in natural gas export.
  DeliciousFaves
  Portland, Oregon, United States, -08:00
Former NSA Chief Was Worried About ''Enemy Of The State'' Reputation | TIME.com
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Fri, 06 Sep 2013 16:28
  REUTERSActors Will Smith and Gene Hackman in "Enemy of the State."
  In the past week, details on two of the most closely guarded and controversial federal surveillance programs have been brought into the light of day and has turned the public perception of the shadowy National Security Agency into a potentially menacing and out of control organization.
  And it's not for the first time.
  The 1998 Will Smith and Gene Hackman film Enemy of the State portrayed a rogue agency attempting to kill Smith's character, a lawyer who they believe possesses information that would embarrass the agency.
  ''The government's been in bed with the entire telecommunications business since the '40s,'' Gene Hackman's character, a retired NSA official, tells Smith. ''They have infected everything. They can get into your bank statements, computer files, e- mail, listen to your phone calls.''
  Former NSA Director Gen. Michael Hayden was promoted to head the agency as the movie came out, and was deeply worried about the public perception it created, James Risen reported in his 2006 book State of War: The Secret History of the C.I.A. and the Bush Administration. Hayden, who went on to become the director of the CIA under President George W. Bush, ''was appalled'' by the NSA's portrayal, and responded with a full-fledged PR campaign. The agency's very existence was long a state secret.
  ''I made the judgment that we couldn't survive with the popular impression of this agency being formed by the last Will Smith movie,'' he told CNN in a segment pulling back the curtain on the agency.
  ''It has to be somewhat a secretive agency, and right in the middle of a political culture that just trusts two things most of all: power and secrecy,'' he continued. ''That's a challenge for us, and that's why, frankly, we're trying to explain what it is we do for America, how it is we follow the law. Could there be abuses? Of course. Would there be? I am looking you and the American people in the eye and saying: there are not.''
  With it's current test far more real than a Hollywood blockbuster, it remains to be seen how the agency, and it's director, Gen. Keith Alexander, will respond.
  (h/t to former Romney senior adviser Stuart Stevens, who wrote the screenplay for a forthcoming HBO movie on the NSA and Bush's domestic spying program.)
VIDEO- Gates: Another War In Middle East? You Should Have Your Head Examined - YouTube
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Fri, 06 Sep 2013 16:20
How can I stop Paypal from freezing my crowdfunding campaign? | Ars Technica
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Fri, 06 Sep 2013 15:28
  Yesterday, we ran a story about how global payment processing company Paypal froze $45,000 of funds pledged to Mailpile, a company attempting to build a more secure self-hosted set of e-mail tools. The article generated no small amount of vitriol against Paypal, not the least of which came from the fact that this wasn't the first time the company had stepped in and frozen the funds belonging to a legitimate crowdfunding campaign.
  Several hours after the story went live, Paypal released the funds pledged to Mailpile with an accompanying statement saying in part that they "never want to get in the way of innovation, but as a global payments company we must ensure the payments flowing through our system around the world are in compliance with laws and regulations. We understand that the way in which we are complying to these rules can be frustrating in some cases and we've made significant changes in North America to adapt to the unique needs of crowd funding campaigns."
  Paypal offered to talk with Ars about their response to the Mailpile incident, and so yesterday afternoon I found myself on the phone with Anuj Nayar, Paypal's Senior Director of Global Initiatives. Nayar was quick to point out that Paypal is aware of the problems and is working to change them. A common refrain after each question was that Paypal wants to stay out of the way and not insert itself as a roadblock in the crowdfunding process.
  With that in mind, then, how can folks avoid falling into the same frozen funds situation as Mailpile?
  Promises, promisesIt's a simple question, but the answer took quite some time to get to. Nayar started off by emphasizing that Paypal is currently undergoing sweeping changes at the behest of their new president, David Marcus. Nayar referred repeatedly to a recent blog post by Marcus, wherein Marcus acknowledges that Paypal has problems with perception and with adequate responses to customers' problems. The blog post came up several times during the call; Nayar wanted to emphasize firmly that Paypal is aware, at every level including the executive, that they have missed the mark and that they are changing.
  That's certainly good, but it doesn't seem like the directive from Marcus' level had fully flowed down to the customer service level when the incident in question occurred; Marcus made his post on 28 August, and Mailpile's funds were frozen on 31 August. "I totally understand how frustrating and difficult it is when this happens," Nayar said. "One incorrect call on this is one too many, and that's very much the message we want to be pushing forward. The idea of crowdfunding is relatively new, and...Paypal has to manage the risk model and also the regulatory and compliance issues in every market in which we operate," Nayar explained. Paypal's "customer" in the broadest sense here is Indiegogo, but Paypal must also manage regulatory and compliance issues for Indiegogo's customers, and according to Nayar, "that is sometimes where issues come in."
  Nayar was unable to go deeper into those specific issues, nor was he able to discuss exactly what about the Mailpile campaign twigged Paypal's problem detectors, due to Paypal's privacy rules. But that still left the question unanswered: what can folks do to avoid their crowdfunding money being frozen by Paypal?
  "We're working very diligently with some of these crowdfunding organizers to work out the system," he clarified. "Right now, I'd love to be able to say that tomorrow we're going to be issuing new guidelines, but it's more complicated than that'--it really is dependent on where people are located. We have to remain in compliance around the rules depending on which market both the crowdfunding organizer is, and also their customers. If it was an easy problem," he finished, "we would have fixed it already!"
  You want what now?According to Mailpile, Paypal had asked for "an itemized budget" and their "developmental goal dates" in order to release the funds; I asked Nayar if that was the SOP response and what redress a customer has in Mailpile's situation.
  "I would love to have a straightfoward discussion about this, but I cannot talk about any one specific case due to our privacy rules...but I can talk about this in general. The very essence of what Paypal is about is connecting buyers and sellers," he explained. "Paypal as a business does not want to get into the way. We are not in the business of evaluating business plans'--that's not what's going to be happening at all. We are working with the crowdfunding sites to work out the best approach to ensure that fewer dolphins get caught in the net, but we still catch all the sharks."
  He elaborated on this metaphor by noting that generally among the first group of people to try out any new development in the online payments world are folks attempting to game the system. "It is so sad to us," he said by way of example, "that there are a bunch of fake sites that come up encouraging folks to send money, and they're just not real."
  Nayar also emphasized that Paypal is successful far more often than not in singling out fraudsters or folks attempting to scam money from consumers; the times they aren't successful, though, tend to draw widespread media attention (like the firestorm generated when Paypal froze SomethingAwful's Katrina donation).
  "The problem with crowdfunding is that sometimes it hits triggers," Nayar said, "where we haven't worked out what the triggers for good or bad are. And we are dedicated to making this right." The problem, Nayar noted, was that when money flows in a global fashion'--like in the Mailpile campaign, with world-wide donors sending money to an Icelandic company'--the amount of regulatory compliance attached to those transactions quickly spikes to extreme levels. "We have to stay in compliance with all that stuff'--it's the key to keeping the Paypal ecosystem safe, but we don't always just catch the people who are doing wrong. We're dedicated to getting that down to zero errors."
  Good words, and definitely in line with the president's message, but those words don't really provide redress. Mailpile ended up coming out on top because their story was picked up by a number of media outlets, including Ars; if not for that kind of attention, would they still have to submit their business plan or forfeit their donations? Who, really, should they call? Paypal?
  "If they don't get validation from calling the [crowdfunding] provider, it should absolutely be us," Nayar responded. "I know in this particular case that Mailpile did not get satisfaction from that. I understand that....there is a continuing education process going on across the company for the 7,000 people we have working on the phone around the world. We are educating them to know how to deal with these kinds of things effectively. That is something we are absolutely, 100 percent dedicated to getting fixed."
  Again, good words, but still not quite cutting to the heart of the matter. Was Paypal's response to Mailpile an accurate reflection of Paypal policy, and if you don't happen to have your story written up in the news, what's a legitimate non-fraud customer supposed to do?
  The heart of the matterNayar didn't have a ready answer that could be easily communicated, so I shortened the question: does he consider Paypal's response to Mailpile's situation'--the request to provide a business plan'--a valid and proper response that reflects Paypal policies? Nayar took a moment to frame the answer in such a way that didn't get into the details of this specific case and explained again that when dealing with complex and shifting international financial regulations, sometimes false positives creep through. "It's not an ideal answer, I very much understand that," Nayar finished.
  We'd been talking for quite some time, and I wanted to at least close the conversation with the understanding that Paypal's actions with Mailpile were not the best way to have handled things. "So, the response to this particular incident," I said, "is not what you guys would consider exemplary, and this is not how Paypal wants to treat crowdfunding going forward'--asking for business plans or detailed budgets is not the optimal way to redress a situation like that, and you guys realize that. Do you think that's a fair assessment?" I asked Nayar.
  "That is a very fair assessment," he replied, adding that he wanted to re-emphasize that there is awareness at the top of Paypal that changes need to be made, and that those changes are being pushed with alacrity. "We know we are not there yet, but we are absolutely committed to getting it fixed," he said as we ended the call.
Reports: NSA has cracked much online encryption - CNN.com
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Fri, 06 Sep 2013 15:25
  The NSA has been able to unscramble much of the encoding that keeps people's personal data safe online, reports say.
  STORY HIGHLIGHTS
  NEW: This is the most important leak to date from Edward Snowden, an analyst saysReports: NSA and GCHQ have cracked much of the encryption protecting online dataThe agencies have secret partnerships with technology companies, the reports sayThe encryption safeguards data including e-mails, banking systems and medical records(CNN) -- The U.S. National Security Agency has secretly succeeded in breaking much of the encryption that keeps people's personal data safe online, according to reports by The New York Times, The Guardian and ProPublica.
  The reports, produced in partnership and published Thursday, are the latest to emerge based on documents leaked by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden to Britain's Guardian newspaper.
  According to the reports, the NSA, alongside its UK equivalent, Government Communications Headquarters, better known as GCHQ, has been able to unscramble much of the encoding that protects everything from personal e-mails to banking systems, medical records and Internet chats.
  The agencies' methods include the use of supercomputers to crack codes, covert measures to introduce weaknesses into encryption standards and behind-doors collaboration with technology companies and Internet service providers themselves.
  "Through these covert partnerships, the agencies have inserted secret vulnerabilities -- known as backdoors or trapdoors -- into commercial encryption software," The Guardian says.
  Sharing secrets: U.S. intelligence leaks
  Sharing secrets: U.S. intelligence leaks
  Sharing secrets: U.S. intelligence leaks
  Sharing secrets: U.S. intelligence leaks
  Sharing secrets: U.S. intelligence leaks
  Sharing secrets: U.S. intelligence leaks
  Sharing secrets: U.S. intelligence leaks
  Sharing secrets: U.S. intelligence leaks
  Sharing secrets: U.S. intelligence leaks
  Sharing secrets: U.S. intelligence leaks
  HIDE CAPTION
  The Guardian cites a 2010 GCHQ memo that it says describes a briefing on NSA accomplishments given to GCHQ employees.
  "For the past decade, NSA has lead (sic) an aggressive, multi-pronged effort to break widely used Internet encryption technologies," the memo reportedly says. "Vast amounts of encrypted Internet data which have up till now been discarded are now exploitable."
  A second memo is quoted as saying that when the British analysts, who often work alongside NSA officers, were first told about the program, "those not already briefed were gobsmacked."
  Another document states that GCHQ has been working to find ways into the encrypted data sent via four big Internet firms, Google, Yahoo, Facebook and Microsoft's Hotmail, the reports claim.
  GCHQ told CNN it had no comment on The Guardian report.
  The reports claim that the NSA worked to develop more covert ways of unscrambling online data after losing a public battle in the 1990s to insert a government "back door" into all programming.
  'Foundation of web security'
  Computer security expert Mikko Hypponen believes the revelation is the most important leak to date from Snowden.
  "It may not have gained as many headlines as some of his other stories, because most people don't understand how crypto systems work. If indeed U.S intelligence does indeed have such a wide range of systems, then I'm surprised," he told CNN.
  Crypto encryption is relevant to everyday applications that everyone uses, for example in communications and transactions, he said. "Now we learn that the foundation of web security has been compromised."
  Hypponen, the chief research officer for F-Secure, said he believes the NSA and GCHQ had probably cracked the encryption by placing moles in key companies at key locations. "Any major service provider must have sizable amounts of moles from intelligence agencies. Remember that the NSA has 35,000 people working for it," he said.
  "The ordinary user should not be worried by these revelations -- it's obvious that intelligence agencies are not interested in hacking financial transactions -- but they should be outraged."
  He suggested those outside the United States should be the most concerned.
  "How many U.S. politicians use French cloud-services? Almost none. But how many French politicians use U.S. cloud services? All of them," he said. "Remember that 96% of the planet's inhabitants are foreigners to the United States, so it's wrong that the U.S. has a legal right to access foreign communications."
  Public concern
  The scope of hidden U.S. surveillance programs has been brought to public light through leaks to media outlets by Snowden, who fled the United States and is now in Russia under temporary asylum. He faces espionage charges.
  The revelations have led many Americans, according to polls, to harbor skepticism about the NSA programs. They've also generated concern in Congress as well as from privacy groups and libertarians.
  Last month, President Barack Obama sought to allay people's unease over the work of the intelligence agency in an interview with CNN "New Day" anchor Chris Cuomo.
  Obama said he was confident no one at the NSA is "trying to abuse this program or listen in on people's e-mail." The president chalked much of the concern with domestic snooping on changes in technology.
  "I think there are legitimate concerns that people have that technology is moving so quick," Obama said. "What I recognize is that we're going to have to continue to improve the safeguards and as technology moves forward, that means that we may be able to build technologies that give people more assurance."
  CNN's Bharati Naik contributed to this report.
U.S. military planners don't support war with Syria - The Washington Post
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Fri, 06 Sep 2013 15:24
  By Robert H. Scales,Robert H. Scales, a retired Army major general, is a former commandant of the U.S. Army War College.
  The tapes tell the tale. Go back and look at images of our nation's most senior soldier, Gen. Martin Dempsey, and his body language during Tuesday's Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearings on Syria. It's pretty obvious that Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, doesn't want this war. As Secretary of State John Kerry's thundering voice and arm-waving redounded in rage againstBashar al-Assad's atrocities, Dempsey was largely (and respectfully) silent.
  Dempsey's unspoken words reflect the opinions of most serving military leaders. By no means do I profess to speak on behalf of all of our men and women in uniform. But I can justifiably share the sentiments of those inside the Pentagon and elsewhere who write the plans and develop strategies for fighting our wars. After personal exchanges with dozens of active and retired soldiers in recent days, I feel confident that what follows represents the overwhelming opinion of serving professionals who have been intimate witnesses to the unfolding events that will lead the United States into its next war.
  They are embarrassed to be associated with the amateurism of the Obama administration's attempts to craft a plan that makes strategic sense. None of the White House staff has any experience in war or understands it. So far, at least, this path to war violates every principle of war, including the element of surprise, achieving mass and having a clearly defined and obtainable objective.
  They are repelled by the hypocrisy of a media blitz that warns against the return of Hitlerism but privately acknowledges that the motive for risking American lives is our ''responsibility to protect'' the world's innocents. Prospective U.S. action in Syria is not about threats to American security. The U.S. military's civilian masters privately are proud that they are motivated by guilt over slaughters in Rwanda, Sudan and Kosovo and not by any systemic threat to our country.
  They are outraged by the fact that what may happen is an act of war and a willingness to risk American lives to make up for a slip of the tongue about ''red lines.'' These acts would be for retribution and to restore the reputation of a president. Our serving professionals make the point that killing more Syrians won't deter Iranian resolve to confront us. The Iranians have already gotten the message.
  Our people lament our loneliness. Our senior soldiers take pride in their past commitments to fight alongside allies and within coalitions that shared our strategic goals. This war, however, will be ours alone.
  They are tired of wannabe soldiers who remain enamored of the lure of bloodless machine warfare. ''Look,'' one told me, ''if you want to end this decisively, send in the troops and let them defeat the Syrian army. If the nation doesn't think Syria is worth serious commitment, then leave them alone.'' But they also warn that Syria is not Libya or Serbia. Perhaps the United States has become too used to fighting third-rate armies. As the Israelis learned in 1973, the Syrians are tough and mean-spirited killers with nothing to lose.
  Our military members understand and take seriously their oath to defend the constitutional authority of their civilian masters. They understand that the United States is the only liberal democracy that has never been ruled by its military. But today's soldiers know war and resent civilian policymakers who want the military to fight a war that neither they nor their loved ones will experience firsthand.
  Civilian control of the armed services doesn't mean that civilians shouldn't listen to those who have seen war. Our most respected soldier president, Dwight Eisenhower, possessed the gravitas and courage to say no to war eight times during his presidency. He ended the Korean War and refused to aid the French in Indochina; he said no to his former wartime friends Britain and France when they demanded U.S. participation in the capture of the Suez Canal. And he resisted liberal democrats who wanted to aid the newly formed nation of South Vietnam. We all know what happened after his successor ignored Eisenhower's advice. My generation got to go to war.
  Over the past few days, the opinions of officers confiding in me have changed to some degree. Resignation seems to be creeping into their sense of outrage. One officer told me: ''To hell with them. If this guy wants this war, then let him have it. Looks like no one will get hurt anyway.''
  Soon the military will salute respectfully and loose the hell of hundreds of cruise missiles in an effort that will, inevitably, kill a few of those we wish to protect. They will do it with all the professionalism and skill we expect from the world's most proficient military. I wish Kerry would take a moment to look at the images from this week's hearings before we go to war again.
  Read more at PostOpinions: Dana Milbank: The White House's Syria secrets Anne Applebaum: Obama's mixed messages on Syria E.J. Dionne Jr: Syria and the return of dissent David Ignatius: Syria nears a turning point Greg Sargent: Why House Dems think Syria resolution could still pass Robert J. Samuelson: Syria and the myth that Americans are 'war weary'
Keating Five - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Fri, 06 Sep 2013 15:22
  The Keating Five were five United States Senators accused of corruption in 1989, igniting a major political scandal as part of the larger Savings and Loan crisis of the late 1980s and early 1990s. The five senators '' Alan Cranston (Democrat of California), Dennis DeConcini (Democrat of Arizona), John Glenn (Democrat of Ohio), John McCain (Republican of Arizona), and Donald W. Riegle, Jr. (Democrat of Michigan) '' were accused of improperly intervening in 1987 on behalf of Charles H. Keating, Jr., Chairman of the Lincoln Savings and Loan Association, which was the target of a regulatory investigation by the Federal Home Loan Bank Board (FHLBB). The FHLBB subsequently backed off taking action against Lincoln.
  Lincoln Savings and Loan collapsed in 1989, at a cost of over $3 billion to the federal government. Some 23,000 Lincoln bondholders were defrauded and many investors lost their life savings. The substantial political contributions Keating had made to each of the senators, totaling $1.3 million, attracted considerable public and media attention. After a lengthy investigation, the Senate Ethics Committee determined in 1991 that Cranston, DeConcini, and Riegle had substantially and improperly interfered with the FHLBB's investigation of Lincoln Savings, with Cranston receiving a formal reprimand. Senators Glenn and McCain were cleared of having acted improperly but were criticized for having exercised "poor judgment".
  All five senators served out their terms. Only Glenn and McCain ran for re-election, and they both retained their seats. McCain would go on to run for President of the United States twice, including being the Republican Party nominee in 2008.
  The U.S. Savings and Loan crisis of the 1980s and early 1990s was the failure of 747 savings and loan associations (S&Ls) in the United States. The ultimate cost of the crisis is estimated to have totaled around $160.1 billion, about $124.6 billion of which was directly paid for by the U.S. taxpayer.[1] The accompanying slowdown in the finance industry and the real estate market may have been a contributing cause of the 1990-1991 economic recession. Between 1986 and 1991, the number of new homes constructed per year dropped from 1.8 million to 1 million, at the time the lowest rate since World War II.[2]
  The Keating Five scandal was prompted by the activities of one particular savings and loan: Lincoln Savings and Loan Association of Irvine, California. Lincoln's chairman was Charles Keating, who ultimately served five years in prison for his corrupt mismanagement of Lincoln.[3] In the four years after Keating's American Continental Corporation (ACC) had purchased Lincoln in 1984, Lincoln's assets had increased from $1.1 billion to $5.5 billion.[4]
  Such savings and loan associations had been deregulated in the early 1980s, allowing them to make highly risky investments with their depositors' money. Keating and other savings and loan operators took advantage of this deregulation.[4][5] Savings and loans established connections to many members of Congress, by supplying them with needed funds for campaigns through legal donations.[5] Lincoln's particular investments took the form of buying land, taking equity positions in real estate development projects, and buying high-yield junk bonds.[6]
  The core allegation of the Keating Five affair is that Keating had made contributions of about $1.3 million to various U.S. Senators, and he called on those Senators to help him resist regulators. The regulators backed off, to later disastrous consequences.
  Beginning in 1985, Edwin J. Gray, chair of the Federal Home Loan Bank Board (FHLBB), feared that the savings industry's risky investment practices were exposing the government's insurance funds to huge losses.[6] Gray instituted a rule whereby savings associations could hold no more than ten percent of their assets in "direct investments",[6] and were thus prohibited from taking ownership positions in certain financial entities and instruments.[7] Lincoln had become burdened with bad debt resulting from its past aggressiveness, and by early 1986,[6] its investment practices were being investigated and audited by the FHLBB:[8] in particular, whether it had violated these direct investment rules; Lincoln had directed Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation-insured accounts into commercial real estate ventures.[4] By the end of 1986, the FHLBB had found that Lincoln had $135 million in unreported losses and had surpassed the regulated direct investments limit by $600 million.[6]
  Keating had earlier taken several measures to oppose Gray and the FHLBB, including recruiting a study from then-private economist Alan Greenspan saying that direct investments were not harmful,[6] and getting President Ronald Reagan to make a recess appointment of a Keating ally, Atlanta real estate developer Lee H. Henkel Jr., to an open seat on the FHLBB.[6] By March 1987, however, Henkel had resigned, upon news of his having large loans due to Lincoln.[6] Meanwhile, the Senate had changed control from Republican to Democratic during the 1986 Congressional elections, placing several Democratic senators in key positions, and starting in January 1987, Keating's staff was putting pressure on Cranston to remove Gray from any FHLBB discussion regarding Lincoln.[9] The following month, Keating began large-scale contributions into Cranston's project to increase California voter registration.[9] In February 1987, Keating met with Riegle and began contributing to Riegle's 1988 re-election campaign.[10]
  It appeared as though the government might seize Lincoln for being insolvent.[7] The investigation was, however, taking a long time.[8] Keating was asking that Lincoln be given a lenient judgment by the FHLBB, so that it could limit its high risk investments and get into the safe (at the time) home mortgage business, thus allowing the business to survive. A letter from audit firm Arthur Young & Co. bolstered Keating's case that the government investigation was taking a long time.[11] Keating now wanted the five senators to intervene with the FHLBB on his behalf.
  By March 1987, Riegle was telling Gray that "Some senators out west are very concerned about the way the bank board is regulating Lincoln Savings," adding, "I think you need to meet with the senators. You'll be getting a call."[10] Keating and DeConcini were asking McCain to travel to San Francisco to meet with regulators regarding Lincoln Savings; McCain refused.[7][11] DeConcini told Keating that McCain was nervous about interfering.[7] Keating called McCain a "wimp" behind his back, and on March 24, Keating and McCain had a heated, contentious meeting.[11]
  On April 2, 1987, a meeting with Gray was held in DeConcini's Capitol office, with Senators Cranston, Glenn, and McCain also in attendance.[7] The senators requested that no staff be present.[12] DeConcini started the meeting with a mention of "our friend at Lincoln".[7] Gray told the assembled senators that he did not know the particular details of the status of Lincoln Savings and Loan, and that the senators would have to go to the bank regulators in San Francisco that had oversight jurisdiction for the bank. Gray did offer to set up a meeting between those regulators and the senators.[7]
  On April 9, 1987, a two-hour meeting[4] with three members of the FHLBB San Francisco branch was held, again in DeConcini's office, to discuss the government's investigation of Lincoln.[7][11] Present were Cranston, DeConcini, Glenn, McCain, and additionally Riegle.[7] The regulators felt that the meeting was very unusual and that they were being pressured by a united front, as the senators presented their reasons for having the meeting.[7] DeConcini began the meeting by saying, "We wanted to meet with you because we have determined that potential actions of yours could injure a constituent."[13] McCain said, "One of our jobs as elected officials is to help constituents in a proper fashion. ACC [American Continental Corporation] is a big employer and important to the local economy. I wouldn't want any special favors for them.... I don't want any part of our conversation to be improper." Glenn said, "To be blunt, you should charge them or get off their backs," while DeConcini said, "What's wrong with this if they're willing to clean up their act? ... It's very unusual for us to have a company that could be put out of business by its regulators."[7] The regulators then revealed that Lincoln was under criminal investigation on a variety of serious charges, at which point McCain severed all relations with Keating.[7]
  The San Francisco regulators finished their report in May 1987 and recommended that Lincoln be seized by the government due to unsound lending practices.[4][7] Gray, whose time as chair was about to expire, deferred action on the report, saying that his adversarial relationship with Keating would make any action he took seem vindictive, and that instead the incoming chair should take over the decision.[6] Meanwhile, Keating filed a lawsuit against the FHLBB, saying it had leaked confidential information about Lincoln.[6] The new FHLBB chair was M. Danny Wall, who was more sympathetic to Keating and took no action on the report, saying its evidence was insufficient.[4][7] In September 1987, the Lincoln investigation was removed from the San Francisco group[7] and in May 1988, the FHLBB signed an agreement with Lincoln that included not going ahead with a criminal referral to the Department of Justice.[14] In July 1988, a new audit of both Lincoln and American Continental began in Washington.[7][14]
  Cranston continued intervening on behalf of Keating after the April 1987 meetings, contacting both Wall and California state regulators and continuing to receive large amounts of new donations to the voter registration projects from Keating.[15] DeConcini also continued on behalf of Keating, contacting Wall, California state regulators, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) advocating approval of a sale of Lincoln as a December 1988 alternative to government seizure.[14][15] Bank regulators refused to approve the sale of Lincoln.[14] Glenn too continued to help Keating after the April 1987 revelation, by setting up a meeting with then-House Majority Leader Jim Wright.[16]
  News of the April meetings between the senators and the FHLBB officials first appeared in National Thrift News in September 1987, but was only sporadically covered by the general media for the next year and a half.[17] In early 1988, The Detroit News ran a story on Riegle's participation,[18] which Riegle responded to on Meet the Press by denying an interceding on Lincoln's behalf,[13] before returning Keating's campaign contributions back to him.[18] In spring 1988, the Los Angeles Times ran a short piece in their business section, but their political reporters did not follow up on it; two isolated, inside page mentions by The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal similarly failed to develop further.[18] As media critic Howard Kurtz would later write, "the saga of Charles Keating took years to penetrate the national consciousness."[18] The political fortunes of the senators involved did not suffer at this time. During the 1988 U.S. presidential election, McCain was mentioned by the press as a vice-presidential running mate for Republican nominee George H. W. Bush,[19][20] while Glenn was one of the two vice-presidential finalists in Michael Dukakis' selection process, losing out to Lloyd Bentsen.[21]
  Failure of Lincoln and investigation of the senators[edit source |edit]Lincoln stayed in business; from mid-1987 to April 1989, its assets grew from $3.91 billion to $5.46 billion.[6] During this time, the parent American Continental Corporation was desperate for cash inflow to make up for losses in real estate purchases and projects.[22] Lincoln's branch managers and tellers convinced customers to replace their federally-insured certificates of deposit with higher-yielding bond certificates of American Continental; the customers later said they were never properly informed that the bonds were uninsured and very risky given the state of American Continental's finances.[22] Indeed the regulators had already adjudged the bonds to have no solvent backing.[12] FDIC chair L. William Seidman would later write that Lincoln push to get depositors to switch was "one of the most heartless and cruel frauds in modern memory."[12]
  American Continental went bankrupt in April 1989, and Lincoln was seized by the FHLBB on April 14, 1989.[4] About 23,000 customers were left with worthless bonds.[23] Many investors, often ones living in California retirement communities, lost their life savings, and felt emotional damage for having been duped on top of their financial devastation.[22][24] The total bondholder loss came to between $250 million and $288 million.[23][25] The federal government was eventually liable for $3.4 billion to cover Lincoln's losses when it seized the institution.[26]
  Keating was hit with a $1.1 billion fraud and racketeering action, filed against him by the regulators.[4] In talking to reporters in April, Keating said, "One question, among many raised in recent weeks, had to do with whether my financial support in any way influenced several political figures to take up my cause. I want to say in the most forceful way I can: I certainly hope so."[27]
  In the wake of the Lincoln failure, former FHLBB chair Gray went public about all five of the senators' assistance to Keating in a May 21, 1989 front page story by John Dougherty in the Dayton Daily News, saying that in the April 1987 meetings the senators had sought "to directly subvert the regulatory process" to benefit Keating.[14][28] Press attention to the senators began to pick up, with a July 1989 Los Angeles Times article about Cranston's role.[18] With a couple of months, Arizona Republic and Washington Post reporters were investigating McCain's personal relationships with Keating.[18]
  On September 25, 1989, several Republicans from Ohio filed an ethics complaint against Glenn, charging that he had improperly intervened on Keating's behalf.[29][30] The initial charges against the five Senators were made on October 13, 1989 by Common Cause, a public interest group, who asked for the U.S. Justice Department and the Senate Ethics Committee to investigate the actions of the senators relative to Lincoln and the contributions received from Keating and whether they violated the rules of the Senate or federal election laws.[30][31][32][33] But the most public attention came from the House Banking Committee, whose new chair Henry B. Gonzalez held 50 hours of hearings into the Lincoln failure and associated events.[18]
  By November 1989, the estimated cost of the overall savings and loan crisis had reached $500 billion, and the media's formerly erratic coverage had turned around and become a feeding frenzy.[18][34] The Lincoln matter was getting large-scale press attention and the senators became commonly known as the "Keating Five".[35][36] All the senators denied they had done anything improper in the matter, and said Keating's contributions made no difference to their actions.[29] The senators' initial defense of their actions rested on Keating being one of their constituents; McCain said, "I have done this kind of thing many, many times," and said the Lincoln case was like "helping the little lady who didn't get her Social Security."[35] Some of the five hired high-power Washington lawyers to represent them '' including Charles Ruff for Glenn and John Dowd for McCain '' while others feared that to do so would give the appearance their political careers were in jeopardy.[37][38]
  The Justice Department and the FBI began by investigation possible criminal actions by Keating, but then expanded its inquiries to include the five senators.[39] The FBI soon focused their attention on Cranston, because the largest sums of money from Keating came into Cranston-involved voter-registration drives whose tax-exempt status might have been violated.[40]
  Relationships of senators to Keating[edit source |edit]Much of the press attention to the Keating Five focused on the relationships of each of the senators to Keating.
  Cranston had received $39,000 from Keating and his associates for his 1986 Senate re-election campaign.[4] Furthermore, Keating had donated some $850,000 to assorted groups founded by Cranston or controlled by him, and another $85,000 to the California Democratic Party.[4] Cranston considered Keating a constituent because Lincoln was based in California.[35]
  DeConcini had received about $48,000 from Keating and his associates for his 1988 Senate re-election campaign.[4] In September 1989, after the government sued Keating and American Continental for improper actions regarding contributions, DeConcini returned the money.[41] DeConcini considered Keating a constituent because Keating lived in Arizona; they were also long-time friends.[35]
  Glenn had received $34,000 in direct contributions from Keating and his associates for his 1984 presidential nomination campaign, and a political action committee tied to Glenn had received an additional $200,000.[4] Glenn considered Keating a constituent because one of Keating's other business concerns was headquartered in Ohio.[35]
  McCain and Keating had become personal friends following their initial contacts in 1981,[11] and McCain was the only one of the five with close social and personal ties to Keating.[42][43] Like DeConcini, McCain considered Keating a constituent as he lived in Arizona.[35] Between 1982 and 1987, McCain had received $112,000 in political contributions from Keating and his associates.[44] McCain and his family had made several trips at Keating's expense. McCain did not pay Keating (in the amount of $13,433) for some of the trips until years after they were taken, when he learned that Keating was in trouble over Lincoln.[7][45] In 1989 Phoenix New Times writer Tom Fitzpatrick opined that McCain was the "most reprehensible" of the five senators.[46]
  Riegle had received some $76,000 from Keating and his associates for his 1988 Senate re-election campaign.[4] Riegle later announced in April 1988 he was returning the money.[6] Riegle's constituency connection to Keating was that Keating's Hotel Pontchartrain was located in Michigan.[35]
  Senate Ethics Committee investigation and findings[edit source |edit]History[edit source |edit]The Senate Ethics Committee's investigation began on November 17, 1989.[47] It focused on all five senators and lasted 22 months,[32] with 9 months of active investigation and 7 weeks of hearings.[48] The committee was composed of three Democratic senators, Howell Heflin (chair), David Pryor, and Terry Sanford, and three Republican senators, Warren Rudman (vice chair), Trent Lott, and Jesse Helms.[47] Washington attorney Robert S. Bennett was appointed as special outside counsel to the committee, tasked with conducting the investigation.[47]
  Initially the committee investigated in private. On September 10, 1990, Bennett submitted a confidential report, which soon leaked, that recommended that the committee continue its investigation of Cranston, DeConcini, and Riegle, but take no action against Glenn and McCain,[31] as there was insufficient evidence to pursue the latter two.[49] Bennett also recommended that public hearings be held.[30]
  Speculation that this would be the decision had already taken place, and both Glenn and McCain were frustrated that the long delay in resolving their cases was damaging their reputations.[49] However, there were political implications, as the removal of the two would eliminate the only Republican from the case.[49] The committee's work was further made difficult by there being no specific rule that governed the propriety of members intervening with federal regulators.[49] By mid-October, several Republican senators, including former Ethics Committee chair Ted Stevens, were taking the unusual step of publicly complaining about the Ethics Committee's inaction, saying that it was unfair to Glenn and McCain, that the whole lengthy process was unfair to all five, and that political motives might be behind the delays.[50] Eventually, the committee could not agree on the Bennett recommendation regarding Glenn and McCain:[31] vice chair Rudman agreed with Bennett, chair Heflin did not.[16] On October 23, 1990, the committee decided to keep all five senators in the case, and scheduled public hearings to question them and other witnesses.[30][31]
  These hearings would take place from November 15 through January 16, 1991.[31] They were held in the Hart Senate Office Building's largest hearing room.[51] They were broadcast live in their entirety by C-SPAN, with CNN and the network news programs showing segments of the testimonies.[51] At the opening of the hearings, as The Washington Post would later write, "the senators sat dourly alongside one another in a long row, a visual suggestive of co-defendants in a rogues' docket."[52] Overall, McCain would later write, "The hearings were a public humiliation."[51]
  The committee reported on the other four senators in February 1991, but delayed its final report on Cranston until November 1991.[48] During that period there was partisan-aligned disagreement within the committee over how to treat Cranston, and in August 1991 a special counsel's report was released by Helms.[53] A delay was also caused when Pryor suffered a heart attack in April 1991, and was replaced on the committee by Jeff Bingaman.[54] Bingaman spent months learning the complex materials involved in the matter, only to resign in July due to a conflict of interest.[54] Pryor was reassigned to the committee in August 1991, so as to not further delay its deliberations.[54]
  The various committee reports addressed each of the five senators.
  Cranston: reprimanded[edit source |edit]The Senate Ethics Committee ruled that Cranston had acted improperly by interfering with the investigation by the FHLBB.[55] He had received more than a million dollars from Keating, including $850,000 to the voter registration groups closely affiliated with him; he had done more arm-twisting than the other Senators on Keating's behalf; and was the only senator officially rebuked by the Senate in this matter.[56]
  Cranston was given the harshest penalty of all five senators. In November 1991, the Senate Ethics Committee voted unanimously to reprimand Cranston, instead of the more severe measure that was under consideration: censure by the full Senate. Extenuating circumstances that helped to save Cranston from censure included the fact that he was suffering from cancer, and that he had decided to not seek reelection, according to Heflin. The Ethics Committee took the unusual step of delivering its reprimand to Cranston during a formal session of the full Senate, with almost all 100 Senators present.[32]
  Cranston was not accused of breaking any specific laws or rules, but of violating standards that Heflin said "do not permit official actions to be linked with fund-raising." Although the Ethics Committee stated "No evidence was presented to the Committee that Senator Cranston ever agreed to help Mr. Keating in return for a contribution," the Committee officially found that Cranston's conduct had been "improper and repugnant", deserving of "the fullest, strongest and most severe sanction which the committee has the authority to impose." The sanction was in these words: "the Senate Select Committee on Ethics, on behalf of and in the name of the United States Senate, does hereby strongly and severely reprimand Sen. Alan Cranston.''[32][57]
  After the Senate reprimanded Cranston, he took to the Senate floor to deny key charges against him. In response, Rudman charged that Cranston's response to the reprimand was ''arrogant, unrepentant and a smear on this institution," and that Cranston was wrong to imply that everyone does what Cranston had done. Alan Dershowitz, serving as Cranston's attorney, alleged that other senators had merely been better at ''covering their tracks.''[32]
  Riegle and DeConcini: criticized for acting improperly[edit source |edit]The Senate Ethics Committee ruled that Riegle and DeConcini had acted improperly by interfering with the investigation by the FHLBB.[55] Specifically, it said that even though neither of them violated any Senate rule, their conduct "gave the appearance of being improper."[41] DeConcini was especially faulted for having taken the lead in the two meetings with the FHLBB.[41]
  After the ruling, Riegle expressed contrition, saying "I certainly regret and accept responsibility [for actions that] did lend themselves to an appearance of a conflict of interest."[41] DeConcini, however, said he would continue to be "aggressive" in representing his constituents in their affairs with federal regulators.[41]
  Glenn and McCain: cleared of impropriety but criticized for poor judgment[edit source |edit]The Senate Ethics Committee ruled that the involvement of Glenn in the scheme was minimal, and the charges against him were dropped.[55] He was only criticized by the Committee for "poor judgment."[58]
  The Ethics Committee ruled that the involvement of McCain in the scheme was also minimal, and he too was cleared of all charges against him.[55][56] McCain was criticized by the Committee for exercising "poor judgment" when he met with the federal regulators on Keating's behalf.[7] The report also said that McCain's "actions were not improper nor attended with gross negligence and did not reach the level of requiring institutional action against him....Senator McCain has violated no law of the United States or specific Rule of the United States Senate."[59] On his Keating Five experience, McCain has said: "The appearance of it was wrong. It's a wrong appearance when a group of senators appear in a meeting with a group of regulators, because it conveys the impression of undue and improper influence. And it was the wrong thing to do."[7]
  Regardless of the level of their involvement, both senators were greatly affected by it. McCain would write in 2002 that attending the two April 1987 meetings was "the worst mistake of my life".[60] Glenn has described the Senate Ethics Committee investigation as the low point of his life.[8]
  The Senate Ethics Committee did not pursue, for lack of jurisdiction, any possible ethics breaches in McCain's delayed reimbursements to Keating for trips at the latter's expense, because they occurred while McCain was in the House.[61] The House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct said that it too lacked jurisdiction, because McCain was no longer in the House.[62] It said it did not require that McCain amend his existing financial disclosure forms for his House years, on the grounds that McCain had now fully reimbursed Keating's company.[62]
  Reactions[edit source |edit]Not everyone was satisfied with the Senate Ethics Committee conclusions. Fred Wertheimer, president of Common Cause, which had initially demanded the investigation, thought the treatment of the senators far too lenient, and said, "[The] action by the Senate Ethics Committee is a cop-out and a damning indictment of the committee,"[41] and "The U.S. Senate remains on the auction block to the Charles Keatings of the world."[63]Joan Claybrook, president of Public Citizen, called it a "whitewash".[63]Jonathan Alter of Newsweek said it was a classic case of the government trying to investigate itself, labeling the Senate Ethics Committee "shameless" for having "let four of the infamous Keating Five off with a wrist tap."[64]The New York Times ran several editorials criticizing the Ethics Committee for having let the senators off lightly.[65]Margaret Carlson of Time suspected the committee had timed its first report to coincide with the run-up to the Gulf War, minimizing its news impact.[63] One of the San Francisco bank regulators felt that McCain had gotten off too lightly, saying that Keating's business involvement with Cindy McCain was an obvious conflict of interest.[66]
  Some of the Senate Ethics Committee members were concerned that letting the senators off lightly would harm their own reputations.[41] Nevertheless, the existing Senate rules did not specifically proscribe the actions taken by DeConcini, Riegle, Glenn, and McCain.[41] Vice-chair Rudman defended the committee's actions, saying: "Given the news media frenzy surrounding [the Keating Five], the easiest thing for the committee to do would have been to find them guilty of something and recommend sanctions. ... The politically difficult thing, the one requiring backbone, was what we did '-- to review all the evidence and reach a predictably unpopular conclusion based only on fact."[65]
  Leaks[edit source |edit]A number of press reports came out during the Ethics Committee's work that purported to reveal aspects of the investigations.[67] Chair Heflin was upset by the leaks and two investigations into them were held, one by the General Accounting Office acting on behalf of the committee and one by the Senate's Temporary Special Independent Counsel.[67][61] Neither report reached a conclusive finding or directly implicated anyone in the leaks.[61] The special counsel report, released in 1992, ascribed partisanship as the motive for the leaks and said they were intended to hurt DeConcini, Riegle, and Cranston; it also gave an inference that McCain and his staff were responsible for key leaks.[67][61]
  DeConcini later charged that McCain had leaked to the press sensitive information about the investigation that came from some of the closed proceedings of the Ethics Committee.[7] McCain denied doing so under oath, although several press reports concluded that McCain had been one of the main leakers during that time.[7][61] The GAO investigator later said, "There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that McCain made those leaks."[67] Vice chair Rudman stated in his 1996 autobiography that McCain and his staff were responsible for some of the leaks,[61] but later repudiated the assertion.[67]
  Keating and Lincoln Savings became convenient symbols for arguments about what had gone wrong in America's financial system and society,[68] and were featured in popular culture references.[68][69] The senators did not escape infamy either.[66] By spring 1992, a deck of playing cards was being marketed, called "The Savings and Loan Scandal", that featured on their face Charles Keating holding up his hand, with images of the five senators portrayed as puppets on his fingers.[7][68] Polls showed that most Americans believed the actions of the Keating Five were typical of Congress as a whole.[48] Political historian Lewis Gould would later echo this sentiment, as well as Cranston attorney Dershowitz's argument, writing that, "the real problem for the 'Keating Three' who were most involved was that they had been caught."[5]
  McCain testified against Keating in a civil suit brought by Lincoln bondholders, and was seen as the plaintiffs' best witness.[70] The other four senators refused to testify.[70] Cranston left office in January 1993, and died in December 2000. DeConcini and Riegle continued to serve in the Senate until their terms expired, but they did not seek re-election in 1994. DeConcini was appointed by President Bill Clinton in February 1995 to the Board of Directors of the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation.[71] Glenn did choose to run for re-election in 1992, trying to become the first senator ever to win a fourth term from Ohio.[8] The Republican candidate, Lieutenant GovernorR. Michael DeWine, attacked Glenn on Keating Five as well as a number of other matters, in one of the dirtiest campaigns in the country that year and the toughest of Glenn's senatorial contests.[8][72] Glenn prevailed, however, defeating DeWine by nine percentage points to gain one more term in the Senate before retiring and not running for re-election in 1998.[8][72]
  After 1999, the only member of the Keating Five remaining in the U.S. Senate was John McCain, who had an easier time gaining re-election in 1992 than he anticipated.[73] He survived the political scandal in part by becoming friendly with the political press.[73] McCain subsequently ran for president in 2000 and became the Republican presidential nominee in 2008. During the 2000s, several retrospective accounts of the controversy reiterated the contention that McCain was included in the investigation primarily so that there would be at least one Republican target.[16][25][30][34] Glenn's inclusion in the investigation has been attributed to Republicans who were angered by the inclusion of McCain,[25] as well as committee members who thought that dropping Glenn (and McCain) would make it look bad for the remaining three Democratic Senators.[30]
  The scandal was followed by a number of attempts to adopt campaign finance reform'--spearheaded by U.S. Sen. David Boren (D-OK)'--but most attempts died in committee. A weakened reform was passed in 1993. Substantial campaign finance reform was not passed until the adoption of the McCain-Feingold Act in 2002. Bennett would later write that the Keating Five investigation did make a difference, as members of Congress were afterward far less likely to intercede with federal investigations on behalf of contributors.[74]
  In early October 2008, the Keating Five scandal, its possible parallel to the subprime mortgage crisis and liquidity crisis of September 2008, and specifically the role in the scandal of Republican presidential nominee McCain, were briefly emphasized by the campaign of his Democratic opponent, Barack Obama, through a 13-minute "documentary" entitled Keating Economics.[75][76] This introduction occurred after the McCain campaign began emphasizing the Obama''Ayers controversy.[75] The Keating Five matter otherwise had little impact on McCain's eventually unsuccessful campaign.[77]
  United States Senate Select Committee on Ethics. Preliminary inquiry into allegations regarding Senators Cranston, DeConcini, Glenn, McCain, and Riegle, and Lincoln Savings and Loan: Open session hearings before the Select Committee on Ethics, United States Senate, One Hundred First Congress, second session, November 15, 1990, through January 16, 1991. Washington D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1991.United States Senate Select Committee on Ethics. Senate Select Committee on Ethics, Investigation of Senator Alan Cranston together with Additional Views, Report of the Senate Select Committee on Ethics, S. Rep. No. 223, 102d Cong., 1st Sess. 36 (November 20, 1991). Washington D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1991.^"Financial Audit: Resolution Trust Corporation's 1995 and 1994 Financial Statements" (PDF). U.S. General Accounting Office. July 1996. ^"Housing Finance in Developed Countries An International Comparison of Efficiency, United States" (PDF). Fannie Mae. 1992. ^Grossman, Political Corruption in America: An Encyclopedia of Scandals, Power, and Greed, p. 201.^ abcdefghijklm"The Lincoln Savings and Loan Investigation: Who Is Involved". The New York Times. 1989-11-22. ^ abcGould, The Most Exclusive Club, pp. 289''290.^ abcdefghijklNash, Nathaniel C. (1989-07-09). "Showdown Time for Danny Wall". The New York Times. ^ abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvNowicki, Dan and Muller, Bill (2007-03-01). "John McCain Report: The Keating Five". The Arizona Republic. Retrieved 2007-11-23. ^ abcdef"John Glenn archives: John Glenn ~ Political Career". The Ohio State University. 2008. Retrieved 2008-07-16. ^ abBinstein and Bowden, Trust Me, p. 275.^ abBinstein and Bowden, Trust Me, pp. 278''279.^ abcdeAlexander, Man of the People, pp. 108''111.^ abcSeidman, Full Faith and Credit, pp. 233, 235.^ abPizzo, Inside Job, pp. 291, 294''296.^ abcdeDougherty, John (1993-07-14). "DeConcini & Keating". Phoenix New Times. ^ ab"Who were the Keating Five?". Chicago Tribune. 1990-01-14. ^ abcKaraagac, John McCain: An Essay in Military and Political History, pp. 163, 169.^McCain and Salter, Worth the Fighting For, pp. 185''186. Used because it has a thorough list of media references to what would become Keating Five.^ abcdefghKurtz, Media Circus, pp. 69''72.^Alexander, Man of the People, pp. 115''119.^Nowicki, Dan and Muller, Bill (2007-03-01). "John McCain Report: The Senate calls". The Arizona Republic. Retrieved 2007-11-23. ^Germond and Witcover, Whose Broad Stripes and Bright Stars?, pp. 340, 343.^ abcNash, Nathaniel C. (1989-11-30). "Collapse of Lincoln Savings Leaves Scars for Rich, Poor and the Faithful". The New York Times. ^ abStevenson, Richard W. (1991-12-13). "U.S. Files Keating Charges". The New York Times. ^Stevenson, Richard W. (1990-09-19). "Keating Indicted in Savings Fraud and Goes to Jail". The New York Times. ^ abcTolchin, Glass Houses, p. 51.^Berthelsen, Christian (1999-04-07). "Keating Pleads Guilty to 4 Counts of Fraud". The New York Times. ^Nash, Nathaniel C. and Shenon, Philip (1989-11-09). "A Man of Influence: Political Cash and Regulation: A Special Report: In Savings Debacle, Many Fingers Point Here". The New York Times. ^Dougherty, John (1989-05-21). "unknown". Dayton Daily News. See also Preliminary inquiry into allegations regarding Senators Cranston, DeConcini, Glenn, McCain, and Riegle, and Lincoln Savings and Loan committee report, p. 126.^ abRoberts and Doss, From Watergate to Whitewater, pp. 140''141.^ abcdefBennett, In the Ring, pp. 129, 133''134.^ abcdeDewar, Helen (1991-02-08). "Panel Finds 'Credible Evidence' Cranston Violated Ethics Rules". The Washington Post. ^ abcdeDewar, Helen (1991-11-21). "Cranston Accepts Reprimand; 'Keating 5' Senator Angers Colleagues by Denying Misconduct". The Washington Post. ^Berke, Richard L. (1989-10-27). "Savings and Loan Executives Accused of Tapping Phones". The New York Times. ^ abMitchell, Talking Back, pp. 147-148.^ abcdefgBerke, Richard L. (1989-11-05). "Helping Constituents or Themselves?". The New York Times. ^Carlson, Margaret (1989-11-27). "'A Legal Bank Robbery'". Time. ^Shenon, Philip (1989-11-22). "5 Senators Struggle to Avoid Keating Inquiry Fallout". The New York Times. Retrieved 2008-10-05. ^McCain and Salter, Worth the Fighting For, p. 195. Used to specify McCain's attorney.^Nash, Nathaniel C. (1989-11-13). "Savings Official's Ties In Senate Investigated". The New York Times. ^Berke, Richard L. (1989-12-06). "Cranston Inquiry Widens to Include Signups of Voters". The New York Times. ^ abcdefgh"Senate ethics panel cites Cranston in Keating Five case". Chicago Tribune. 1991-02-28. ^Berke, Richard L. (1991-01-05). "2 Senators Deny Impropriety In Dealings With Keating". The New York Times. ^Rosenblatt, Robert A. and Fritz, Sara (1991-01-05). "McCain Probed Over Traveling to Keating Spa Thrifts". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 2008-09-31. ^Sullum, Jacob (2005-03-11). "How John McCain Reformed". Reason. ^Rasky, Susan (1989-12-22). "To Senator McCain, the Savings and Loan Affair Is Now a Personal Demon". The New York Times. ^Fitzpatrick, Tom (1989-11-29). "McCain: The Most Reprehensible of the Keating Five". Phoenix New Times. Retrieved 2008-10-06. ^ abcMcCain and Salter, Worth the Fighting For, pp. 194''195. Used to give committee composition.^ abcWilliams, Political Scandals in the USA, p. 103.^ abcdBerke, Richard L. (1990-09-29). "Ethics Committee is Urged to Clear 2 of 5 in Savings Inquiry". The New York Times. ^Berke, Richard L. (1990-10-15). "G.O.P. Senators See Politics In Pace of Keating 5 Inquiry". The New York Times. ^ abcMcCain and Salter, Worth the Fighting For, p. 199. Used to give atmosphere of hearings.^Dobbs, Michael (2008-10-22). "Senator's Image as Reformer Born in Crisis". The Washington Post. Retrieved 2008-10-26. ^Berke, Richard L. (1991-08-05). "Cranston Censure Urged by Counsel". The New York Times. ^ abc"Senator Pryor Returns to Ethics Committee". The New York Times. 1991-08-22. ^ abcd"The Online NewsHour: Washington Corruption Probe". PBS. Retrieved 2008-02-21. ^ abPurdy, Elizabeth (2005). "Keating Five". In Salinger, Lawrence M. (ed.). Encyclopedia of White-collar & Corporate Crime. Sage Publications. ISBN 0-7619-3004-3. pp. 476''478.^Senate Select Committee on Ethics, Investigation of Senator Alan Cranston ...^Regens and Gaddie, The Economic Realities of Political Reform, p. 6.^"Excerpts of Statement By Senate Ethics Panel". The New York Times. 1991-02-28. Retrieved 2008-04-19. ^McCain and Salter, Worth the Fighting For, p. 161. Used to support direct quotation.^ abcdefRobinson, Walter V. (2000-02-29). "Pluck, leaks helped McCain to overcome S&L scandal". The Boston Globe. ^ abMcCain and Salter, Worth the Fighting For, p. 188. Gives best explanation for House treatment of Keating reimbursements.^ abcCarlson, Margaret (1991-03-11). "Then There Was One". Time. ^Alter, Jonathan (1993-10-25). "The Buck Stops Where?". Newsweek. ^ abRudman, Warren (1991-10-31). "To the Editor: On Keating Five, Ethics Panel Acted Properly". The New York Times. ^ abRutenberg, Jim; Thompson, Marilyn W.; Kirkpatrick, David D.; Labaton, Stephen (2008-02-21). "For McCain, Self-Confidence on Ethics Poses Its Own Risk". The New York Times. Retrieved 2008-02-21. ^ abcdeMahtani, Sahil (2008-11-01). "McCain First, Second, And Always". The New Republic. Retrieved 2008-11-03. ^ abcBinstein and Bowden, Trust Me, pp. 388''389.^"The Simpsons: Lisa's First Word". TV.com. Retrieved 2008-10-08. ^ abAbramson, Jill and Mitchell, Alison (1999-11-21). "Senate Inquiry In Keating Case Tested McCain". The New York Times. Retrieved 2008-10-17. ^"Dennis DeConcini Papers, 1944''2003: Biographical Note". University of Arizona Library. Retrieved 2009-01-02. ^ abMondak, Nothing to Read, p. 38.^ abNowicki, Dan and Muller, Bill (2007-03-01). "John McCain Report: Overcoming scandal, moving on". The Arizona Republic. Retrieved 2007-11-23. ^Bennett, In the Ring, p. 148.^ abBacon Jr, Perry (2008-10-06). "Dems: Forget Ayers, Remember Keating". The Washington Post. Retrieved 2008-10-06. ^Miller, S.A. (2008-10-31). "Candidates attack political associations". The Washington Times. Retrieved 2008-11-19. ^Juliano, Nick (2008-09-25). "Fox host tells guest mentioning McCain role in Keating Five scandal to 'pipe down'". The Raw Story. Retrieved 2009-01-04. [dead link]Alexander, Paul (2002). Man of the People: The Life of John McCain. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 0-471-22829-X. Bennett, Robert S. (2008). In the Ring: The Trials of a Washington Lawyer. Random House. ISBN 0-307-39443-3. Binstein, Michael; Bowden, Charles (1993). Trust Me: Charles Keating and the Missing Billions. Random House. ISBN 0-679-41699-4. Germond, Jack; Witcover, Jules (1989). Whose Broad Stripes and Bright Stars? The Trivial Pursuit of the Presidency 1988. Warner Books. ISBN 0-446-51424-1. Gould, Lewis J. (2005). The Most Exclusive Club: A History of the Modern United States Senate. Basic Books. ISBN 0-465-02778-4. Grossman, Mark (2003). Political Corruption in America: An Encyclopedia of Scandals, Power, and Greed. ABC-CLIO. ISBN 1-57607-060-3. Karaagac, John (2000). John McCain: An Essay in Military and Political History. Lexington Books. ISBN 0-7391-0171-4. Kurtz, Howard (1994). Media Circus: The Trouble with America's Newspapers (paperback). Times Books. ISBN 0-8129-6356-3. McCain, John; Salter, Mark (2002). Worth the Fighting For. New York: Random House. ISBN 0-375-50542-3. Mitchell, Andrea (2007). Talking Back: To Presidents, Dictators, and Assorted Scoundrels. Penguin Books. ISBN 0-14-303873-7. Mondak, Jeffrey J. (1995). Nothing to Read: Newspapers and Elections in a Social Experiment. University of Michigan Press. ISBN 0-472-06599-8. Pizzo, Stephen; Fricker, Mary; Muolo, Paul (1989). Inside Job: The Looting of America's Savings and Loans. McGraw-Hill. ISBN 0-07-050230-7. Regens, James; Gaddie, Ronald (1996). The Economic Realities of Political Reform: Elections and the U.S. Senate. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-47468-X. Roberts, Robert North; Doss, Marion T. (1997). From Watergate to Whitewater: The Public Integrity War. Greenwood Publishing Group. ISBN 0-275-95597-4. Seidman, L. William (1993). Full Faith and Credit: The Great S & L Debacle and Other Washington Sagas. Random House. ISBN 0-8129-2134-8. Tolchin, Martin; Tolchin, Susan J. (2003). Glass Houses: Congressional Ethics and the Politics of Venom. Westview Press. ISBN 0-8133-4161-2. Williams, Robert (1998). Political Scandals in the USA. Edinburgh University Press. ISBN 1-85331-189-8.
VIDEO- Emotional Woman Attacks John McCain on Syria at Town Hall - 9-5-2013 - YouTube
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Fri, 06 Sep 2013 15:19
Radiation Protection Basics | Radiation Protection | US EPA
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Fri, 06 Sep 2013 15:18
  Radiation Protection Basics
  Understanding Radiation:
  Radiation Protection BasicsThree basic concepts apply to all types of ionizing radiation. When we develop regulations or standards that limit how much radiation a person can receive in a particular situation, we consider how these concepts might affect a person's exposure.
  Time The amount of radiation exposure increases and decreases with the time people spend near the source of radiation.
  In general, we think of the exposure time as how long a person is near radioactive material. It's easy to understand how to minimize the time for external (direct) exposure. Gamma and x-rays are the primary concern for external exposure.
  However, if radioactive material gets inside your body, you can't move away from it. You have to wait until it decays or until your body can eliminate it. When this happens, the biological half-life of the radionuclide controls the time of exposure. Biological half-life is the amount of time it takes the body to eliminate one half of the radionuclide initially present. Alpha and beta particles are the main concern for internal exposure.
  How does EPA use the concept of time in radiation protection?When we set a radiation standard that assumes an exposure over a certain period, we are applying the concept of time. For example, we often express exposures in terms of a committed dose. A committed dose is one that accounts for continuing exposures over long periods of time (such as 30, 50, or 70 years). It refers to the exposure received from radioactive material that enters and remains in the body for many years.
  When we assess the potential for exposure in a situation, we consider the amount of time a person is likely to spend in the area of contamination. For example, in assessing the potential exposure from radon in a home, we estimate how much time people are likely to spend in the basement.
  Top of page
  Distance The farther away people are from a radiation source, the less their exposure.
  How close to a source of radiation can you be without getting a high exposure? It depends on the energy of the radiation and the size (or activity) of the source. Distance is a prime concern when dealing with gamma rays, because they can travel long distances. Alpha and beta particles don't have enough energy to travel very far.
  As a rule, if you double the distance, you reduce the exposure by a factor of four. Halving the distance, increases the exposure by a factor of four.
  Why does exposure change more rapidly than the distance?The area of the circle depends on the distance from the center to the edge of the circle (radius). It is proportional to the square of the radius. As a result, if the radius doubles, the area increases four times.
  Think of the radiation source as a bare light bulb. The bulb gives off light equally in every direction, in a circle. The energy from the light is distributed evenly over the whole area of the circle. When the radius doubles, the radiation is spread out over four times as much area, so the dose is only one fourth as much. (In addition, as the distance from the source increases so does the likelihood that some gamma rays will lose their energy.
  Exposure at 2 feet
  Exposure at 4 feet
  The exposure of an individual sitting 4 feet from a radiation source will be 1/4 the exposure of an individual sitting 2 feet from the same source
  How does EPA use the concept of distance in radiation protection?We also consider distance in analyzing potential exposures from a source. If a person is at a contaminated site, or working around radioactive material, we assess how the exposures vary if the person is closer to, or farther away from, the source of radiation.
  Top of page
  ShieldingThe greater the shielding around a radiation source, the smaller the exposure.
  Shielding simply means having something that will absorb radiation between you and the source of the radiation (but using another person to absorb the radiation doesn't count as shielding). The amount of shielding required to protect against different kinds of radiation depends on how much energy they have.
  (Alpha)
  A thin piece of light material, such as paper, or even the dead cells in the outer layer of human skin provides adequate shielding because alpha particles can't penetrate it. However, living tissue inside body, offers no protection against inhaled or ingested alpha emitters.(Beta)
  Additional covering, for example heavy clothing, is necessary to protect against beta-emitters. Some beta particles can penetrate and burn the skin.(Gamma)
  Thick, dense shielding, such as lead, is necessary to protect against gamma rays. The higher the energy of the gamma ray, the thicker the lead must be. X-rays pose a similar challenge, so x-ray technicians often give patients receiving medical or dental X-rays a lead apron to cover other parts of their body.How does EPA use the concept of shielding in radiation protection?We take into account the type of shielding that might be provided by soil when we assess sites that have been contaminated or used for disposal of radioactive material. We also account for the shielding provided by buildings for a person working or living at a site that has been cleaned up.
  Top of page
N.S.A. Able to Foil Basic Safeguards of Privacy on Web - NYTimes.com
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Fri, 06 Sep 2013 15:04
  The National Security Agency is winning its long-running secret war on encryption, using supercomputers, technical trickery, court orders and behind-the-scenes persuasion to undermine the major tools protecting the privacy of everyday communications in the Internet age, according to newly disclosed documents.
  The agency has circumvented or cracked much of the encryption, or digital scrambling, that guards global commerce and banking systems, protects sensitive data like trade secrets and medical records, and automatically secures the e-mails, Web searches, Internet chats and phone calls of Americans and others around the world, the documents show.
  Many users assume '-- or have been assured by Internet companies '-- that their data is safe from prying eyes, including those of the government, and the N.S.A. wants to keep it that way. The agency treats its recent successes in deciphering protected information as among its most closely guarded secrets, restricted to those cleared for a highly classified program code-named Bullrun, according to the documents, provided by Edward J. Snowden, the former N.S.A. contractor.
  Beginning in 2000, as encryption tools were gradually blanketing the Web, the N.S.A. invested billions of dollars in a clandestine campaign to preserve its ability to eavesdrop. Having lost a public battle in the 1990s to insert its own ''back door'' in all encryption, it set out to accomplish the same goal by stealth.
  CITING EFFORTS TO EXPLOIT WEB James R. Clapper Jr., the director of national intelligence.
  Susan Walsh / Associated Press
  The agency, according to the documents and interviews with industry officials, deployed custom-built, superfast computers to break codes, and began collaborating with technology companies in the United States and abroad to build entry points into their products. The documents do not identify which companies have participated.
  The N.S.A. hacked into target computers to snare messages before they were encrypted. In some cases, companies say they were coerced by the government into handing over their master encryption keys or building in a back door. And the agency used its influence as the world's most experienced code maker to covertly introduce weaknesses into the encryption standards followed by hardware and software developers around the world.
  ''For the past decade, N.S.A. has led an aggressive, multipronged effort to break widely used Internet encryption technologies,'' said a 2010 memo describing a briefing about N.S.A. accomplishments for employees of its British counterpart, Government Communications Headquarters, or GCHQ. ''Cryptanalytic capabilities are now coming online. Vast amounts of encrypted Internet data which have up till now been discarded are now exploitable.''
  When the British analysts, who often work side by side with N.S.A. officers, were first told about the program, another memo said, ''those not already briefed were gobsmacked!''
  An intelligence budget document makes clear that the effort is still going strong. ''We are investing in groundbreaking cryptanalytic capabilities to defeat adversarial cryptography and exploit Internet traffic,'' the director of national intelligence, James R. Clapper Jr., wrote in his budget request for the current year.
  In recent months, the documents disclosed by Mr. Snowden have described the N.S.A.'s reach in scooping up vast amounts of communications around the world. The encryption documents now show, in striking detail, how the agency works to ensure that it is actually able to read the information it collects.
  The agency's success in defeating many of the privacy protections offered by encryption does not change the rules that prohibit the deliberate targeting of Americans' e-mails or phone calls without a warrant. But it shows that the agency, which was sharply rebuked by a federal judge in 2011 for violating the rules and misleading the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, cannot necessarily be restrained by privacy technology. N.S.A. rules permit the agency to store any encrypted communication, domestic or foreign, for as long as the agency is trying to decrypt it or analyze its technical features.
  The N.S.A., which has specialized in code-breaking since its creation in 1952, sees that task as essential to its mission. If it cannot decipher the messages of terrorists, foreign spies and other adversaries, the United States will be at serious risk, agency officials say.
  Just in recent weeks, the Obama administration has called on the intelligence agencies for details of communications by leaders of Al Qaeda about a terrorist plot and of Syrian officials' messages about the chemical weapons attack outside Damascus. If such communications can be hidden by unbreakable encryption, N.S.A. officials say, the agency cannot do its work.
  But some experts say the N.S.A.'s campaign to bypass and weaken communications security may have serious unintended consequences. They say the agency is working at cross-purposes with its other major mission, apart from eavesdropping: ensuring the security of American communications.
  Some of the agency's most intensive efforts have focused on the encryption in universal use in the United States, including Secure Sockets Layer, or SSL; virtual private networks, or VPNs; and the protection used on fourth-generation, or 4G, smartphones. Many Americans, often without realizing it, rely on such protection every time they send an e-mail, buy something online, consult with colleagues via their company's computer network, or use a phone or a tablet on a 4G network.
  For at least three years, one document says, GCHQ, almost certainly in collaboration with the N.S.A., has been looking for ways into protected traffic of popular Internet companies: Google, Yahoo, Facebook and Microsoft's Hotmail. By 2012, GCHQ had developed ''new access opportunities'' into Google's systems, according to the document. (Google denied giving any government access and said it had no evidence its systems had been breached).
  ''The risk is that when you build a back door into systems, you're not the only one to exploit it,'' said Matthew D. Green, a cryptography researcher at Johns Hopkins University. ''Those back doors could work against U.S. communications, too.''
  Paul Kocher, a leading cryptographer who helped design the SSL protocol, recalled how the N.S.A. lost the heated national debate in the 1990s about inserting into all encryption a government back door called the Clipper Chip.
  ''And they went and did it anyway, without telling anyone,'' Mr. Kocher said. He said he understood the agency's mission but was concerned about the danger of allowing it unbridled access to private information.
  ''The intelligence community has worried about 'going dark' forever, but today they are conducting instant, total invasion of privacy with limited effort,'' he said. ''This is the golden age of spying.''
  A Vital Capability
  The documents are among more than 50,000 shared by The Guardian with The New York Times and ProPublica, the nonprofit news organization. They focus on GCHQ but include thousands from or about the N.S.A.
  Intelligence officials asked The Times and ProPublica not to publish this article, saying it might prompt foreign targets to switch to new forms of encryption or communications that would be harder to collect or read. The news organizations removed some specific facts but decided to publish the article because of the value of a public debate about government actions that weaken the most powerful privacy tools.
  The files show that the agency is still stymied by some encryption, as Mr. Snowden suggested in a question-and-answer session on The Guardian's Web site in June.
  ''Properly implemented strong crypto systems are one of the few things that you can rely on,'' he said, though cautioning that the N.S.A. often bypasses the encryption altogether by targeting the computers at one end or the other and grabbing text before it is encrypted or after it is decrypted.
  The documents make clear that the N.S.A. considers its ability to decrypt information a vital capability, one in which it competes with China, Russia and other intelligence powers.
  ''In the future, superpowers will be made or broken based on the strength of their cryptanalytic programs,'' a 2007 document said. ''It is the price of admission for the U.S. to maintain unrestricted access to and use of cyberspace.''
  The full extent of the N.S.A.'s decoding capabilities is known only to a limited group of top analysts from the so-called Five Eyes: the N.S.A. and its counterparts in Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Only they are cleared for the Bullrun program, the successor to one called Manassas '-- both names of an American Civil War battle. A parallel GCHQ counterencryption program is called Edgehill, named for the first battle of the English Civil War of the 17th century.
  Unlike some classified information that can be parceled out on a strict ''need to know'' basis, one document makes clear that with Bullrun, ''there will be NO 'need to know.' ''
  Only a small cadre of trusted contractors were allowed to join Bullrun. It does not appear that Mr. Snowden was among them, but he nonetheless managed to obtain dozens of classified documents referring to the program's capabilities, methods and sources.
  Ties to Internet Companies
  When the N.S.A. was founded, encryption was an obscure technology used mainly by diplomats and military officers. Over the last 20 years, it has become ubiquitous. Even novices can tell that their exchanges are being automatically encrypted when a tiny padlock appears next to a Web address.
  Because strong encryption can be so effective, classified N.S.A. documents make clear, the agency's success depends on working with Internet companies '-- by getting their voluntary collaboration, forcing their cooperation with court orders or surreptitiously stealing their encryption keys or altering their software or hardware.
  According to an intelligence budget document leaked by Mr. Snowden, the N.S.A. spends more than $250 million a year on its Sigint Enabling Project, which ''actively engages the U.S. and foreign IT industries to covertly influence and/or overtly leverage their commercial products' designs'' to make them ''exploitable.'' Sigint is the acronym for signals intelligence, the technical term for electronic eavesdropping.
  By this year, the Sigint Enabling Project had found ways inside some of the encryption chips that scramble information for businesses and governments, either by working with chipmakers to insert back doors or by exploiting security flaws, according to the documents. The agency also expected to gain full unencrypted access to an unnamed major Internet phone call and text service; to a Middle Eastern Internet service; and to the communications of three foreign governments.
  In one case, after the government learned that a foreign intelligence target had ordered new computer hardware, the American manufacturer agreed to insert a back door into the product before it was shipped, someone familiar with the request told The Times.
  The 2013 N.S.A. budget request highlights ''partnerships with major telecommunications carriers to shape the global network to benefit other collection accesses'' '-- that is, to allow more eavesdropping.
  At Microsoft, as The Guardian has reported, the N.S.A. worked with company officials to get pre-encryption access to Microsoft's most popular services, including Outlook e-mail, Skype Internet phone calls and chats, and SkyDrive, the company's cloud storage service.
  Microsoft asserted that it had merely complied with ''lawful demands'' of the government, and in some cases, the collaboration was clearly coerced. Some companies have been asked to hand the government the encryption keys to all customer communications, according to people familiar with the government's requests.
  N.S.A. documents show that the agency maintains an internal database of encryption keys for specific commercial products, called a Key Provisioning Service, which can automatically decode many messages. If the necessary key is not in the collection, a request goes to the separate Key Recovery Service, which tries to obtain it.
  How keys are acquired is shrouded in secrecy, but independent cryptographers say many are probably collected by hacking into companies' computer servers, where they are stored. To keep such methods secret, the N.S.A. shares decrypted messages with other agencies only if the keys could have been acquired through legal means. ''Approval to release to non-Sigint agencies,'' a GCHQ document says, ''will depend on there being a proven non-Sigint method of acquiring keys.''
  Simultaneously, the N.S.A. has been deliberately weakening the international encryption standards adopted by developers. One goal in the agency's 2013 budget request was to ''influence policies, standards and specifications for commercial public key technologies,'' the most common encryption method.
  Cryptographers have long suspected that the agency planted vulnerabilities in a standard adopted in 2006 by the National Institute of Standards and Technology and later by the International Organization for Standardization, which has 163 countries as members.
  Classified N.S.A. memos appear to confirm that the fatal weakness, discovered by two Microsoft cryptographers in 2007, was engineered by the agency. The N.S.A. wrote the standard and aggressively pushed it on the international group, privately calling the effort ''a challenge in finesse.''
  ''Eventually, N.S.A. became the sole editor,'' the memo says.
  Even agency programs ostensibly intended to guard American communications are sometimes used to weaken protections. The N.S.A.'s Commercial Solutions Center, for instance, invites the makers of encryption technologies to present their products to the agency with the goal of improving American cybersecurity. But a top-secret N.S.A. document suggests that the agency's hacking division uses that same program to develop and ''leverage sensitive, cooperative relationships with specific industry partners'' to insert vulnerabilities into Internet security products.
  By introducing such back doors, the N.S.A. has surreptitiously accomplished what it had failed to do in the open. Two decades ago, officials grew concerned about the spread of strong encryption software like Pretty Good Privacy, designed by a programmer named Phil Zimmermann. The Clinton administration fought back by proposing the Clipper Chip, which would have effectively neutered digital encryption by ensuring that the N.S.A. always had the key.
  That proposal met a backlash from an unlikely coalition that included political opposites like Senator John Ashcroft, the Missouri Republican, and Senator John Kerry, the Massachusetts Democrat, as well as the televangelist Pat Robertson, Silicon Valley executives and the American Civil Liberties Union. All argued that the Clipper would kill not only the Fourth Amendment, but also America's global technology edge.
  By 1996, the White House backed down. But soon the N.S.A. began trying to anticipate and thwart encryption tools before they became mainstream.
  Each novel encryption effort generated anxiety. When Mr. Zimmermann introduced the Zfone, an encrypted phone technology, N.S.A. analysts circulated the announcement in an e-mail titled ''This can't be good.''
  But by 2006, an N.S.A. document notes, the agency had broken into communications for three foreign airlines, one travel reservation system, one foreign government's nuclear department and another's Internet service by cracking the virtual private networks that protected them.
  By 2010, the Edgehill program, the British counterencryption effort, was unscrambling VPN traffic for 30 targets and had set a goal of an additional 300.
  But the agencies' goal was to move away from decrypting targets' tools one by one and instead decode, in real time, all of the information flying over the world's fiber optic cables and through its Internet hubs, only afterward searching the decrypted material for valuable intelligence.
  A 2010 document calls for ''a new approach for opportunistic decryption, rather than targeted.'' By that year, a Bullrun briefing document claims that the agency had developed ''groundbreaking capabilities'' against encrypted Web chats and phone calls. Its successes against Secure Sockets Layer and virtual private networks were gaining momentum.
  But the agency was concerned that it could lose the advantage it had worked so long to gain, if the mere ''fact of'' decryption became widely known. ''These capabilities are among the Sigint community's most fragile, and the inadvertent disclosure of the simple 'fact of' could alert the adversary and result in immediate loss of the capability,'' a GCHQ document warned.
  Since Mr. Snowden's disclosures ignited criticism of overreach and privacy infringements by the N.S.A., American technology companies have faced scrutiny from customers and the public over what some see as too cozy a relationship with the government. In response, some companies have begun to push back against what they describe as government bullying.
  Google, Yahoo, Microsoft and Facebook have pressed for permission to reveal more about the government's requests for cooperation. One e-mail encryption company, Lavabit, closed rather than comply with the agency's demands for customer information; another, Silent Circle, ended its e-mail service rather than face such demands.
  In effect, facing the N.S.A.'s relentless advance, the companies surrendered.
  Ladar Levison, the founder of Lavabit, wrote a public letter to his disappointed customers, offering an ominous warning. ''Without Congressional action or a strong judicial precedent,'' he wrote, ''I would strongly recommend against anyone trusting their private data to a company with physical ties to the United States.''
  John Markoff contributed reporting.
VIDEO-Riverside explosion levels home, sets other homes on fire | abc7.com
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Fri, 06 Sep 2013 15:00
  RIVERSIDE, Calif. (KABC) -- An explosion rocked a Riverside County neighborhood Friday morning, completely leveling one house and setting at least two others on fire.
  The blast rocked Cochise Drive near Ivanpah Place shortly after 4 a.m., frightening residents from their beds.
  The flames were so fierce, they quickly spread to homes nearby.
  Fortunately, no one was injured. The leveled house was believed to be vacant. Neighbors say it has been under construction for some time. Officers quickly evacuated the surrounding homes.
  As daylight broke, flames could be seen shooting up from a natural gas line. Southern California Gas Company officials were on scene looking for the main line to shut that off. Until that's done, firefighters cannot go through the rubble.
  There was no word on what caused the explosion. Officials say there's no evidence of foul play.
  Officers at the scene initially thought it was plane crash because of the extensive damage.
  Area resident Wayne Keller was awakened by the explosion. His home and car sustained severe damage, making it uninhabitable. Keller and his wife were able to escape with their dogs without injury. They said they're thankful they got out alive and their kids are away in college.
  (Copyright (C)2013 KABC-TV/DT. All Rights Reserved.)
  Get more Inland Empire News >>
  Tags:
  riverside county, explosion, fire, inland empire news, sid garcia
"NSA Has Found Ways To Beat the Encryption That is Supposed To Protect Everything YOU Do Online!"
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Source: Uploads by MOXNEWSd0tC0M
  Fri, 06 Sep 2013 04:58
U.S. intercepts Iranian order for attack on U.S. interests in Iraq -report
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Source: Reuters: World News
  Fri, 06 Sep 2013 04:57
  WASHINGTON | Fri Sep 6, 2013 12:17am EDT
  WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States has intercepted an order from an Iranian official instructing militants in Iraq to attack U.S. interests in Baghdad in the event the Obama administration launches a military strike in Syria, the Wall Street Journal reported on Thursday.
  The American embassy in Baghdad was a likely target, according to unnamed U.S. officials quoted by the newspaper. The Journal said the officials did not describe the range of potential targets indicated by the intelligence.
  In addition, the State Department issued a warning on Thursday telling U.S. citizens to avoid all but "essential" travel to Iraq.
  President Barack Obama has asked the U.S. Congress to back his plan for limited strikes in response to a chemical weapons attack on civilians that the United States blames on Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's forces.
  The Journal reported that the Iranian message was intercepted in recent days and came from the head of the Revolutionary Guards' Qods Force. The newspaper said the message went to Iranian-supported Shi'ite militia groups in Iraq.
  The Journal reported that the message informed Shi'ite groups to be prepared to respond with force after any U.S. military strike on Syria.
  "Travel within Iraq remains dangerous given the security situation," according to the State Department's warning, which replaced an earlier one "to update information on security incidents and to remind U.S. citizens of ongoing security concerns in Iraq, including kidnapping and terrorist violence."
  The department said that numerous insurgent groups, including al Qaeda's Iraq affiliate, remain active and "terrorist activity and sectarian violence persist in many areas of the country at levels unseen since 2008."
  It added: "The ability of the embassy to respond to situations in which U.S. citizens face difficulty, including arrests, is extremely limited."
  The State Department declined immediate comment. The CIA declined comment.
  (Additional reporting by Tabassum Zakaria; Reporting by Will Dunham and Arshad Mohammed; Editing by Eric Walsh)
  Link thisShare thisDigg thisEmailReprints
US Sen. Graham Warns of Nuke Strike After Missing Warheads Report
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Source: WTF RLY REPORT
  Fri, 06 Sep 2013 04:57
  Infowars
  Senator Lindsay Graham has warned South Carolinians about the threat of a 'terrorist nuclear attack' on the same day that our exclusive high level military intel revealed to us that nuclear warheads were being shipped to South Carolina from a major Texas airforce base under an 'off the record' black ops transfer.
  Found in the CBS report entitled 'Graham: Nukes In Hands Of Terrorists Could Result In Bomb Coming To Charleston Harbor', the report details Graham's warning that a lack of military action in Syria could result in a nuclear 'bombing' in Charleston, South Carolina '-- the very destination of the black ops nuclear transfer. The CBS report reads:
  ''He [Graham] says if there is no U.S. response [to Syria], Iran will not believe America's resolve to block Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Graham also says those nuclear weapons in the hands of terrorists could result in a bomb coming to Charleston Harbor.''
  Graham is quite literally saying that if we do not launch a war with Syria, South Carolina may be nuked. And this ultimately reeks of yet another false flag being orchestrated by the United States government in order to send us into war, or at the very least a threat. Except this time, we're talking about nuclear weapons. Amazingly, we were the first to get intel on this from our credible and extremely high level military source, who told us the following:
  ''Dyess is beginning to move out nuclear war heads today. I got a tap from DERMO earlier. He said it was the first time they have been even acknowledged since being put there in the 80'²s. No signature was required for transfer'... There was no directive. He said that Dyess Commander was on site to give authority to release. No one knew where they were going really, but the truck driver said to take them to South Carolina and another pick up will take them from there.''
  This was sent to us before the Graham report came out warning about the nuclear attack on South Carolina, and coincides exactly with what Graham is saying. I am deeply concerned by these findings, and ask everyone to spread the word on this information immediately. Whether or not Graham is receiving intel from higher ups and believes in a legitimate terror attack on the horizon is unknown, but the reality here is that we have intelligence that has linked the unsigned transfer of nuclear warheads to this exact location.
  Here is the video report we did on Tuesday regarding the missing nuclear warheads:
  Now, we need answers.
  The entire event is eerily similar to the unsigned nuke transfer that is now known as the '2007 United States Air Force nuclear weapons incident', in which nuclear warheads went 'missing' from Minot Air Force Base and Barksdale Air Force Base back in August of 2007. The Minot event, however, was major national news and was even covered by the mainstream media extensively. Disturbingly, however, numerous individuals from the base began dying like flies and committing suicide after the event '-- and that's even when it was in the mainstream.
  Hopefully, this entire thing will amount to nothing and pass by without any form of 'terror' attack. Hopefully the attendee during the speech who told the US News publication that Graham's speech was 'absolute fear mongering' is right. Unfortunately, the military source revealing this information is extremely accurate and is absolutely certain that a black ops nuclear transfer did indeed take place. And what's more concerning is the fact that we have not heard from the source in quite some time.
  We are risking our lives bringing you this report on the high level intel and connecting the dots here to what Lindsay is saying. You won't hear about this in the mega media unless we force them to cover it, and it's up to us to get this out there. For the first time, we may be able to utilize this high level intelligence to get answers and stop a potential attack.
  infowars.com
Don't look over here: Four killed in NWA drone attack
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Source: The News International - Top stories
  Fri, 06 Sep 2013 04:55
  News DeskFriday, September 06, 2013From Print Edition
  PESHAWAR: Four persons were killed in a drone attack on a locality in Tehsil Ghulam Khan of North Waziristan Agency (NWA) late Thursday night, reports Geo News.
  Please enable JavaScript to view the comments.
U.S. Postal Service Likely to Seek "Emergency" Increase in Stamp Prices
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Source: Cato @ Liberty
  Fri, 06 Sep 2013 04:54
  The U.S. Postal Service is structured to subsist on the revenues it generates from the sale of its products and services. In recent years, however, USPS expenses have exceeded revenues and the government agency now finds itself effectively broke having maxed out its $15 billion line of credit with the U.S. Treasury.
  Postal employee unions blame a 2006 law that forces the USPS to prefund retiree health benefits (a benefit that a small and declining number of private sector workers enjoy) for the government agency's financial woes. But as a recent Congressional Research Service paper notes, the USPS would be in trouble even without the required payments:
  While [Retiree Health Benefits Fund] payments have affected the USPS's profitability, the USPS would have run deficits each of the past four years even if the agency did not have to make RHBF payments. These non-RHBF deficits would total $14.7 billion, an amount nearly equal to the USPS's total borrowing authority. [T]hese deficits were produced by a sharp drop in revenues. (Expenses did not fall equivalently.)
  Congress has been fumbling around with postal reform legislation for a couple of years now. And as I've noted more times than I can count, congressional micromanagement makes it difficult for the USPS to downsize its operations to match 21stcentury realities. So the USPS is reportedly looking to generate more revenue through higher stamp prices.
  The USPS is limited in its ability to increase stamp prices. For ''market-dominant'' (the government's amusing euphemism for ''monopoly'') products, annual price increases cannot exceed inflation (as measured by the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers). The USPS can, however, request a rate increase above inflation on the basis of extraordinary or exceptional circumstances from its regulator, the Postal Regulatory Commission (PRC).
  The PRC rejected such a request in 2010, but it appears that the USPS will try again. And both the Washington Post and The Hill are reporting that industries forced to use the USPS (greeting card companies, magazines, direct marketers, etc) are non-too-pleased with the prospect of higher prices. The mailers argue that an excessive price increase to deliver their products will speed up the diversion from physical mail to electronic alternatives (and thus hurt their bottom lines).
  Here's my opinion on an exigent increase in stamp prices: the postal service should be privatized and delivery charges should be determined by market forces. Maybe the mailing industry is paying too little; maybe it's paying too much. I think it's impossible to say so long as the government maintains a monopoly on the delivery of its products and delivery prices are set by politicians and regulators. Unfortunately, ending the government mail monopoly and privatizing the postal service isn't even a topic for discussion in Congress.
  Nope, those busy little bees have more important postal matters to attend to (from the New York Times):
  As Congress has become less and less efficient, the numbers are all the more striking. In the 111th Congress, which met from 2009 to 2010, members passed 383 statutes, 70 of which named post offices. In the 112th Congress, the last Congress to meet before the current one convened in January, members passed 46 measures naming post offices, out of 240 statutes over all.
Fifty Shades Of Red And Grey
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Source: JustOneMinute
  Fri, 06 Sep 2013 04:52
  When Obama explained to a bemused world audience that it was the US Congress that had drawn a red line with respect to Syrian use of chemical weapons he cited the "Syria Accountability Act". That presumably is a reference to the Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act (SALSRA) of 2003 (text):
  "First of all, I didn't set a red line," said Obama. "The world set a red line. The world set a red line when governments representing 98 percent of the world's population said the use of chemical weapons are [inaudble] and passed a treaty forbidding their use, even when countries are engaged in war. Congress set a red line when it ratified that treaty. Congress set a red line when it indicated that in a piece of legislation entitled the Syria Accountability Act that some of the horrendous things happening on the ground there need to be answered for.
  Well, Congress used SALSRA to exhort Syria to do all manner of helpful but unlikely things per this CRS summary:
  Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2003 - (Sec. 3) Declares the sense of Congress that the Government of Syria should immediately and unconditionally halt support for terrorism, permanently and openly declare its total renunciation of all forms of terrorism, and close all terrorist offices and facilities in Syria, including the offices of Hamas, Hizballah, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command.
  Declares the sense of Congress that the Government of Syria should: (1) immediately and unconditionally stop facilitating transit from Syria to Iraq of individuals, military equipment, and all lethal items, except as authorized by the Coalition Provisional Authority or a representative, internationally recognized Iraqi government; (2) cease its support for "volunteers" and terrorists who are traveling from and through Syria into Iraq to launch attacks; (3) undertake concrete, verifiable steps to deter such behavior and control the use of territory under Syrian control; and (4) immediately declare its commitment to completely withdraw its armed forces, including military, paramilitary, and security forces, from Lebanon, and set a firm timetable for such withdrawal.
  ...
  Declares the sense of Congress that: (1) the Government of Syria should halt the development and deployment of medium- and long-range surface-to-surface missiles and cease the development and production of biological and chemical weapons; and (2) the Governments of Lebanon and Syria should enter into serious unconditional bilateral negotiations with the Government of Israel in order to realize a full and permanent peace.
  And having made these demands, Congress naturally included an "or else". But despite Obama's rhetoric, the "or else" did not include a threat of military action:
  (Sec. 5) Sets forth the following penalties against Syria until the President determines and certifies to Congress that Syria meets the requirements of this Act.
  Directs the President to prohibit the export to Syria of any item, including the issuance of an export license, on the United States Munitions List or Commerce Control List of dual-use items in the Export Administration Regulations.
  Requires the President, at the same time, to impose two or more of the following sanctions: (1) prohibit the export to Syria of U.S. products (other than food and medicine); (2) prohibit U.S. businesses from investing or operating in Syria; (3) restrict Syrian diplomats in Washington, D.C., and at the United Nations in New York City, to travel only within a 25-mile radius of Washington, D.C., or the United Nations headquarters building, respectively; (4) prohibit aircraft of any air carrier owned or controlled by Syria to take off from, land in, or overfly the United States; (5) reduce U.S. diplomatic contacts with Syria (other than those required to protect U.S. interests or carry out the purposes of this Act); and (6) block transactions in any property in which the Government of Syria has any interest, by any person, or with respect to any property, subject to U.S. jurisdiction.
  Authorizes the President to waive such sanctions for one or more six-month periods if the President determines that it is in the national security interest of the United States to do so and reports his reasons to Congress.
  Syrian diplomats might restricted from visiting Disneyland or the Grand Canyon, but cruise missiles don't get a mention.
  So that was a pretty pale red line Congress drew back in 2003. However, it was not so pale that George Bush did not use his signing statement to explain that he would maintain the perogatives of the Executive Branch:
  Section 5 of the Act purports to impose upon the President requirements to take certain actions against Syria unless the President either determines and certifies to the Congress that the Government of Syria has taken specific actions, or determines that it is in the national security interest of the United States to waive such requirements and reports the reasons for that determination to the Congress. A law cannot burden or infringe the President's exercise of a core constitutional power by attaching conditions precedent to the use of that power. The executive branch shall construe and implement section 5 in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority to conduct the Nation's foreign affairs and as Commander in Chief, in particular with respect to the conduct of foreign diplomats in the United States, the conduct of United States diplomats abroad, and the exportation of items and provision of services necessary to the performance of official functions by United States Government personnel abroad.
  ...
  My approval of the Act does not constitute my adoption of the various statements of policy in the Act as U.S. foreign policy. Given the Constitution's commitment to the Presidency of the authority to conduct the Nation's foreign affairs, the executive branch shall construe such policy statements as advisory, giving them the due weight that comity between the legislative and executive branches should require, to the extent consistent with U.S. foreign policy.
  Or put another way, however pale that line may have been, George Bush claimed an encroachment on Executive responsibility and erased it.
Insider Suggests Obama ''Not Close'' To House Votes On Syria
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Source: The Ulsterman Report
  Fri, 06 Sep 2013 04:50
  Americans are slamming at least 22 members of Congress with thousands of phone calls and emails, urging lawmakers not to approve a military strike on Syria '' by a margin of as much as 499 to 1.
  A national debate is raging on Twitter. Tweets and statements from members of Congress '' both Democrat and Republican '' show tremendously strong opposition to President Obama's call for an air strike on Syria:
  Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash., tweeted, ''Calls and emails from my constituents is 100 to 1 AGAINST getting involved in Syria. The American people are speaking.''
  Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., said 99 percent of the calls his office oppose an attack.
  Rep. Andy Harris, R-Md., said, ''Constituents who have contacted my office by phone or mail oppose action in Syria 523-4 so far.''
  Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., tweeted, ''My phones are blowing up, and an overwhelming amount of constituents oppose U.S. military intervention in Syria.''
  Rep. Matt Salmon, R-Ariz., tweeted, ''Syria constituent calls 489-2 against.''
  Rep. Shelley Capito, R-W.V., said of ''about 1,000 calls to my office, maybe 5 are for.''
  Rep. Vern Buchanan, R-Fla., said calls and emails to his offices are 600 to 9 against striking Syria.
  Rep. Tim Griffin, R-Ark., tweeted, ''I received 225 emails ..over the weekend regarding Syria, and out of the 225 only 3 support U.S. military action against Syria.''
  Rep. Steve Chabot, R-Ohio, said he is getting swamped with phone calls and on-the-street comments from constituents telling him to oppose a strike on Syria.
  Rep. Rand Paul, R-Ky., said, ''I'm told the phone calls are 9 out of 10 against a strike in Syria, from my constituents in Kentucky.''
  Rep. Ralph Hall, R-Texas: ''I have received hundreds of calls and letters from constituents expressing strong opposition.''
  Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., tweeted, ''My office has been inundated with constituent phone calls and emails about Syria. Virtually unanimous opposition to military intervention.''
  Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, tweeted, ''So far about 500 emails regarding Syria. 499 say NO and 1 say YES go to war'' and ''Hundreds of calls to our Provo and Washington, D.C., office. So far not a single call in favor of bombing Syria.''
  Rep. Paul Gosar, R-Ariz., tweeted, ''The phones in my office are ringing off the hook and mail is flowing in. Almost all of the people are opposed to intervention in Syria.''
  Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, tells WND his office is hearing the same overwhelming opposition to intervention.
  Rep. Brad Sherman, D-Calif., said, ''I don't know a member of Congress whose e-mails and phone calls are in favor of [bombing Syria.]''
  Rep. Steve Southerland, R-Fla., said 96 percent of his emails and phone calls are from constituents who want to express their opposition to military action. He said, ''Overwhelmingly, we are hearing pushback from our citizens against military intervention in Syria.''
  Rep. Jeff Duncan, R-S.C., said he's heard no support from his constituents for striking Syria: ''I have not had a single person, not a single person, in over 92 Facebook posts just a little while ago in a question we posed, having a single constituent or a South Carolinian saying let's go to war in Syria.''
  Sen. Angus King, I-Maine, said ''a very high percentage'' of the constituents contacting his office have been against U.S. involvement in Syria. He estimated that 90 percent of more than 1,000 calls and emails from Americans have been urging him not to support intervention.
  Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., said, ''I can tell you that in my office, the phones are bopping off the hook there. And almost unanimously people are opposed to what the president is talking about.''
  Rep. Ted Yoho, R-Fla., told the House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing he and his constituents say ''not just no, but heck no!'' to Syria intervention.
  Rep. Justin Amash, R-Mich., tweeted, ''I've been hearing a lot from members of our armed forces. The message I consistently hear: Please vote no on military action against Syria.''
  http://www.wnd.com/2013/09/calls-to-congress-244-to-1-against-syria-war/
Putin Rips Obama '' What Will You Do When You Discover Rebels Used Chemical Weapons?
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Source: The Ulsterman Report
  Fri, 06 Sep 2013 04:49
  Russia's Vladimir Putin continued his openly aggressive denunciation of President Obama's mishmash mess Syrian foreign policy, warning both the president, and thus by default, the American people, of the very real possibility the very rebels the Obama administration is training, funding, and protecting, are the very rebels who used chemical weapons to murder hundreds of Syrians to try and create public outcry and American military intervention on their behalf.
  __________________________________________
  (via BareNakedIslam)
  In a videotaped interview published today concerning U.S. attempts to go to war in Syria, not only did Putin criticize Secretary of State John Kerry's dissembling concerning the nature of the Syrian opposition, but he also said:''There is another question: if it turns out that the armed rebels are the ones who used weapons of mass destruction, what will the United States do with the armed rebels? And what will it do with those sponsoring the rebels? Will they stop supplying them with arms? Will they start fighting against them?'' LINK
  ___________________________________
  Putin makes a valid point, one the Obama White House and certain Republicans supportive of military intervention in Syria refuse to fully discuss '' the radicalized Islamic factions that are growing within the Syrian rebel movement. Are the American people to trust the Obama administration after such disastrous failures in both Egypt and Libya, where the power vacuum created by toppled governments led to further chaos and the rise in power and influence of radical Muslim groups?
  The Obama White House blustered into military provocation, then backed off after public opinion demanded he do so, and now it sits pouting as Congress, and our allies, shake their heads at how foolish, arrogant, ignorant and dangerous this administration is proving to all it truly is. -UM
  ___________________________________
  ''If you care about America- You need to read ALL in the DW Ulsterman collection'...I can safely speak for other readers of his Benghazi trilogy; we wait with baited breath for his forthcoming book, Mac Walker's 'Betrayal.'' -Brie A Garber
  CHECK OUT D.W. ULSTERMAN'S AMAZON.COM BOOK PAGE HERE
  CHECK OUT D.W. ULSTERMAN'S AMAZON.COM BOOK PAGE HERE
  ''How I hate it when these books end! More realistic than any reports we get from media. Looking forward to the next trip with Mac walker! Please keep them coming!'' -Patricia Tadlock
  ''WOW! A fascinating, believable concept of history as we saw it unfold.'' -Blakey
  ''I absolutely loved this book.'' -Kathy Boyd
  ''Love the action and the characters. Couldn't put it down.''-Eve Baughman
  Nook, Apple, and Sony format versions available HERE
  Kindle version available HERE
  PAPERBACK version available HERE
Putin And Reuters versus Kerry
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Source: JustOneMinute
  Fri, 06 Sep 2013 04:48
  Putin calls John Kerry a liar for his Congressional testiminy about the role of Al Qaeda in Syria; Reuters confirms that Putin has a point.
  Putin first:
  Speaking to his human rights council, Mr Putin recalled watching a congressional debate where Mr Kerry was asked about al-Qaeda. Mr Putin said he had denied that it was operating in Syria, even though he was aware of the al-Qaeda-linked Jabhat al-Nusra group.
  Mr Putin said: "This was very unpleasant and surprising for me. We talk to them (the Americans) and we assume they are decent people, but he is lying and he knows that he is lying. This is sad."
  Maybe something got lost in translation - as best we can tell, Kerry didn't say Al Qaeda was not operating in Syria at all; he said their influence was on the wane. But Reuters disputes even that:
  (Reuters) - Secretary of State John Kerry's public assertions that moderate Syrian opposition groups are growing in influence appear to be at odds with estimates by U.S. and European intelligence sources and nongovernmental experts, who say Islamic extremists remain by far the fiercest and best-organized rebel elements.
  Kerry took one pass at this in the House hearing on Wednesday:
  In a second hearing on Wednesday, Kerry was challenged by Representative Michael McCaul, Texas Republican.
  "Who are the rebel forces? Who are they? I ask that in my briefings all the time," McCaul said. "And every time I get briefed on this it gets worse and worse, because the majority now of these rebel forces - and I say majority now - are radical Islamists pouring in from all over the world."
  Kerry replied: "I just don't agree that a majority are al Qaeda and the bad guys. That's not true. There are about 70,000 to 100,000 oppositionists ... Maybe 15 percent to 25 percent might be in one group or another who are what we would deem to be bad guys.
  "There is a real moderate opposition that exists. General Idriss is running the military arm of that," Kerry continued, referring to General Salim Idriss, head of the rebel Free Syrian Army. Increasingly, he said, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states are funneling assistance through Idriss.
  Kerry said this in a Senate hearing on Tuesday:
  It was unclear exactly what Mr Putin was referencing, but Mr Kerry was asked on Tuesday while testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee if the Syrian opposition had become more infiltrated by al-Qaeda.
  Mr Kerry responded that that was "basically incorrect" and that the opposition has "increasingly become more defined by its moderation."
Ibrahim Mothana Dead: Yemeni Activist Dies At 24
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Fri, 06 Sep 2013 00:36
  Ibrahim Mothana, a 24-year-old Yemeni activist, died Thursday.
  Co-founder of the Watan Party and Arab Thought Foundation's 2011 ambassador, Mothana was internationally known for his activism in Yemen and writings against U.S. drone policy.
  The U.S. has been deeply criticized for its use of drone strikes in Yemen -- meant to target Al Qaeda militants -- due to a high number of civilian casualties.
  Journalist Jeremy Scahill tweeted on Mothana's death:
  jeremy scahillHorrified to hear of the sudden death of my friend Ibrahim Mothana, an amazing, tireless activist who never stopped fighting for Yemen
  Guardian columnist Glenn Greenwald added:
  Glenn GreenwaldThis is unbearably sad and tragic RT This is who Ibrahim Mothana was. Such a huge huge loss: http://t.co/aLijWhHWdxLast year, Mothana penned an op-ed in The New York Times, "How Drones Help Al Qaeda," arguing that "Drone strikes are causing more and more Yemenis to hate America and join radical militants; they are not driven by ideology but rather by a sense of revenge and despair."
  This past May, Greenwald published Mothana's testimony for a Senate sub-committee when the activist was unable to attend the meeting.
  Mothana wrote in the testimony: "We Yemenis got our first experience with targeted killings under the Obama administration on December 17, 2009, with a cruise missile strike in al-Majala, a hamlet in a remote area of southern Yemen. This attack killed 44 people including 21 women and 14 children, according to Yemeni and international rights groups including Amnesty International."
  Mothana concluded, "I call on the United States to critically reflect on using targeted strikes and the existing counterterrorism policy in Yemen and to see that, it is insecurity and not security that these are creating in my country, the region, the US, and the entire world."
  WATCH Mothana at TEDxSanaa 2012:
PrawfsBlawg: The Legal Case for Intervening in Syria (Anthony Colangelo Guesting)
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Fri, 06 Sep 2013 00:25
  Mapping Public Fiduciary Relationships | Main
  Wednesday, September 04, 2013The Legal Case for Intervening in Syria (Anthony Colangelo Guesting)An International Legal Case for Military Intervention in Syria
  By Anthony J. Colangelo
  Does international law allow U.S. military intervention in Syria? The Obama Administration has advanced a number of possible justifications including self-defense, halting civilian deaths, and debilitating the Assad regime's chemical weapons capabilities. None of these justify intervention on the current state of international law.
  Yet that doesn't mean international law would view a U.S. intervention as illegal in the long run. International law is a tricky sort of law, and the United States could make a strong legal argument that intervention would help change the law to allow interventions to halt mass human rights abuses. Going forward, this argument could retrospectively ratify U.S. intervention in Syria and give the United States a central role in formulating international legal criteria for future interventions.
  Legal arguments against intervention are straightforward and rely principally on treaty law. Most prominently, the U.N. Charter prohibits the ''use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.'' There are only two ways intervention is permissible under the Charter: the Security Council authorizes it, which has not and will not happen, or the United States acts in self-defense. Even the very best international lawyers can't stretch the doctrine of self-defense to cover a U.S. strike in these circumstances. Even if they could, that's both an awful and an awfully expansive precedent.
  The Administration has also seized upon the Assad regime's evident use of chemical weapons as a violation of international law that justifies intervention. Yet here too, treaty law cuts the other way. Syria is not a party to recent treaties banning the use of such weapons. Because treaties bind only states that have agreed to be bound by them, Syria's use of chemical weapons cannot violate the treaties. The only treaty banning the use of chemical weapons Syria is a party to addresses international, not internal, conflicts. And in any event, it doesn't authorize states to attack other states that violate it. In sum, treaty law does not allow intervention in Syria.
  There is, however, another type of international law that might allow intervention, called customary international law. Unlike treaty law, customary international law doesn't derive from formal agreements among states. Instead, it arises from the practice of states accompanied by what international lawyers call opinio juris, or states' intent that their practice carries legal significance.
  States can usually treaty around custom much the same way private individuals can contract around the norms that govern our everyday behavior. But there are some rules of customary international law that cannot be contracted around and that override treaties inconsistent with their rules. These are called jus cogens, or peremptory norms of international law. Jus cogens contain prohibitions on serious international law violations like genocide, torture, slavery, and crimes against humanity. To illustrate, Hitler and Mussolini can agree by treaty to afford each other's nations certain preferential trade treatment. But they cannot enter into a treaty legalizing genocide. Jus cogens would swoop in to invalidate that treaty as contrary to a peremptory norm of international law.
  Where does this leave the international legal justification for intervention in Syria? Many favoring intervention have cited jus cogens prohibitions on mass human rights abuses as justification. But that argument is flawed because the jus cogens norm does not directly conflict with the U.N. Charter's prohibition on the use of force. That is, the Charter doesn't authorize human rights abuses'--in fact, just the opposite: it seeks to ''promot[e] and encourage[e] respect for human rights.'' Thus even if one can safely classify the Assad regime's abuses as violations of jus cogens, that only gets the argument halfway to intervention. To justify intervention, the jus cogens norm would need to encompass not only a prohibition on human rights abuses but also the capacity of other states to enforce that prohibition. This latter enforcement component is presently lacking under the law. Finally, the Charter's prohibition on the use of force isn't some run-of-the-mill international rule. It is a cornerstone of the postwar international legal system that outlaws aggressive war. For this reason, the prohibition on the use of force is itself considered a jus cogens norm.
  Nonetheless, it may be time for a change. Because customary international law arises from state practice, as practices change so too does the law, including the law of jus cogens. One way customary international law changes is states break it to form new norms; breaches effectively plant the seeds from which new norms grow. Although a breach may violate international law when it occurs, the law may develop to ratify that breach as the early stage of a new norm's development.
  If the United States intervenes in Syria, it has an initial international legal choice to make: it can ignore international law or seek to justify intervention within it. The second option's benefit is that if state practice develops to allow intervention the illegality of U.S. action will wilt as the new norm blossoms. Yet some may view this option as undesirable precisely because it may prompt other states to accept the legality of intervention. Reciprocity is also a cardinal rule of international law: if it's legal for us, it's legal for you.
  The question then becomes whether it's better to operate within the law or outside it. For other states also will face that same initial choice above, to which this first-order reciprocity norm also extends; that is, the initial choice to ignore law or to justify their actions within it. In this respect, the United States may actually derive two distinct benefits from choosing to justify its actions under international law: a retrospective ratification of U.S. intervention and the ability to formulate criteria for a budding international law of humanitarian intervention.
  Posted by Dan Markel on September 4, 2013 at 01:44 PM in Article Spotlight, Current Affairs, International Law | Permalink
  TrackBackTrackBack URL for this entry:http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c6a7953ef019aff3073cf970c
  Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Legal Case for Intervening in Syria (Anthony Colangelo Guesting):
  CommentsIsn't there a difference between a bilateral treaty violating what might be considered jus cogens, and virtually every country in the world ratifying such a treaty? Isn't the later the kind of thing that is evidence that a particular norm is universal to begin with? And if the law against aggression is itself jus cogen, is there any precedent at all for reversing such a norm?
  This seems like a real stretch to me. The form of argument would allow you to justify anything. Either you are following international law or you are breaking international law in the hopes of changing it.
  Posted by: brad | Sep 4, 2013 5:34:21 PM
  Thank you for your questions and comments.
  International law contemplates the modification of jus cogens. Here it would be modification of the norm against the use of force so as to give way, in limited circumstances, when that norm shields regimes perpetrating mass atrocities'--the prohibition of which is also jus cogens. We're not talking about a wholesale acceptance of the legality of aggressive war. This is precisely why, in my view, the United States should seek to justify its actions with international legal argument should we decide to intervene. That argument will have a constraining effect on any future interventions. On the other hand, if the United States simply ignores international law then it's a free-for-all; other states also may feel free to ignore international law. We have a vested interest in the maintenance of international law generally even if we choose to break it in a specific situation. Which leads to the second point: it's not true that you are either following international law or you are breaking it in the hopes of changing it. You could be breaking it, period. The key element is the expression of opinio juris, which would be the United States seeking to justify the intervention under international law. It is true that this argument would allow you to justify anything'--provided other states agree going forward. But that's how customary international law changes. It's not a stretch; it's just how this particular form of law works.
  Posted by: Anthony Colangelo | Sep 4, 2013 6:24:23 PM
  I have always been somewhat mystified by the workings of international law. This explanation of how it applies in the specific context of Syria is extremely helpful.
  Posted by: Susannah Pollvogt | Sep 5, 2013 8:26:07 AM
  Anthony,
  I share Brad's skepticism, and would like you to elaborate on something. You write that by supplying a justification under International Law, the U.S. would not actually be breaking International Law, notwithstanding the fact that action being justified would not heretofore have been widely recognized as lawful. No problem, you say - either the U.S. will fail to persuade other countries (in which case, I presume, we will retrospectively view the now-historical U.S. action as unlawful - or the U.S. will be successful, in which case the "new" International Law will merely confirm that the U.S. had it right all along.
  This is interesting (at least to skeptics) in several ways, but I'd like to focus on one: At what point will we know that the U.S. argument has been rejected? Would acquiescence by lots of the "right" countries, and scholars learned in international law (who I believe are a legitimizing source for customary IL) be enough? What if several countries agreed with the U.S., but failed to get a treaty ratified by a majority of countries?
  Note also that this process, which the rest of the world hardly seems inclined to expedite in the case of Syria, could take some time. What would the lawfulness of the historic U.S. action be during this extended period of suspense?
  Finally, how can the processes you describe realistically achieve conclusivity? I see nothing to prevent successive U.S. presidents from asserting a position that the rest of the world does not really subscribe to, but also declines to oppose formally. Would it really be your position that a U.S. president in 2040 (George P. Bush, perhaps?) would be entitled to make the same case for invading a reinvigorated Iraq that you urge Obama to make with regard to Syria? Namely: "I know this STILL isn't recognized as legal, but Obama was right a quarter-century ago, and this position is still correct now. My administration is determined to keep making the case until the rest of the world agrees." What principle of actual...law would prevent George P. from doing this?
  Adam Scales
  Posted by: Adam Scales | Sep 5, 2013 11:56:19 AM
  Slight correction: as hastily written, my fourth paragraph partially replicates the second. To simplify, I'm asking about conclusivity going either way - how much is (just) enough to know when the position has become "law", and at what point should IL "give up" on the proposed justification so becoming? Sorry for any confusion.
  Adam
  Posted by: Adam Scales | Sep 5, 2013 12:04:45 PM
  Adam, these are great questions and I hope you will forgive me if I'm unable to provide definitive answers to all of them'--say, the exact number of states necessary to form customary international law, something I don't think anybody knows for certain.
  Let me start by clarifying that I'm not arguing that by seeking to justify intervention under international law ''the U.S. would not actually be breaking international law.'' Rather, my argument is that nothing being advanced right now, including stopping mass human rights abuses, can ''justify intervention on the current state of international law. Yet that doesn't mean international law would view a U.S. intervention as illegal in the long run.'' This is because: ''Although a breach may violate international law when it occurs, the law may develop to ratify that breach as the early stage of a new norm's development.'' Accordingly, ''if state practice develops to allow intervention the illegality of U.S. action will wilt as the new norm blossoms.'' So there would be a breach; the real question I'm trying to address is how international law views that breach going forward.
  Which brings us to your conclusiveness question. But before I try to answer that I would like to reemphasize thrust of my argument: if the United States simply ignores international law, there is a breach, period. That state practice will not ''count,'' so to speak, toward the development of a new norm. It also weakens the rule of international law generally. Seeking to justify intervention with international legal argument, however, bestows opinio juris and tends to uphold the rule of international law generally even while trying to modify one of its norms.
  So how can we tell when the norm has changed? It is true that other states may not view humanitarian intervention as permissible going forward, and thus even if the United States intransigently insists upon its legality the United States is just wrong and the breach endures. But other states may come around to viewing a limited humanitarian intervention as acceptable. As you allude to, one easy way to achieve conclusiveness is a treaty essentially codifying the customary norm. For example, after World War II the Genocide Convention ''confirm[ed] that genocide . . . is a crime under international law.'' But there may not always be a treaty. And a treaty is not always necessary. For a long time, the vast majority of international law was customary. The basic methodology is that some major proportion of the world's nations agree the practice is legal. This agreement can take any number of forms including, as you say, acquiescence, particularly on the part of states not directly involved in the dispute. And a norm may well be in legal limbo while this practice either accumulates or fails to accumulate. In this regard, international law is a fundamentally empirical phenomenon. I would also hasten to add that international law scholars are not themselves a legitimizing a source of customary international law. Their views merely assist the empirical assessment of the law to the extent they describe what state practice is, not what it should be.
  I hope I've been able to answer some of your great questions.
  Anthony
  Posted by: Anthony Colangelo | Sep 5, 2013 1:47:56 PM
  Anthony,
  Is your analysis offered in anticipation of a broader "military intervention" in Syria than the "punitive" strikes that are presently being discussed? I ask because your analysis seems to assume a humanitarian intervention--i.e., one calculated to halt civilian attrocities--which is at odds with the nature of the strikes for which authorization has been sought.
  The processes by which CIL evolves is an interesting angle; I too have given some thought to this in relation to the Syria situation, and concluded that it would not render the contemplated strikes lawful.
  It is true, as you observe, that rules of customary international law can (and are) overtaken by contrary practice. But this process of law formation (and adjustment) is much better suited to, say, rules governing the ways in which States delineate maritime zones or the outer limits of their continental shelf than modifying a jus cogens norm. As you observe, the non-intervention rule embodied in 2(4) was recognized as a jus cogens in the Nicaragua case (I recall both the U.S. and Nicaragua were in accord on this point). If you accept Art. 53 VCLT as authoritative on jus cogens, a jus cogens norm can be modified only by a subsequent norm of general international law having the same character. I personally think it is a stretch that practice--and the legal justifications offered for that practice--surrounding the Syria case could give rise to a rule of CIL. I cannot contemplate how this practice and accompanying justifications could be said to give rise to a peremptory norm "accepted and recognized by the international community as a whole as a norm for which no derogation is permitted."
  The Nicaragua judgment is relevant for another point. The ICJ took jurisdiction in that case having found that the CIL non-intervention rule was not displaced by the conventional rule in the Charter. Your analysis addresses how subsequent practice may modify the CIL rule, but do you contend that it would also overtake the conventional rule in the UN Charter? That would be a startling development in light of Article 103 of the Charter.
  Finally, I understand your overall point to be that if the USG strikes Syria, it should not be silent on international law, but should carefully articulate a legal justification with an eye toward the future. I couldn't agree more. My own view is that this justification will not attempt to lay the groundwork for a "humanitarian intervention" norm. In the wake of the 1999 NATO air campaign over Belgrade, the Acting Legal Adviser at the State Department went to some lengths, in articulating a particularized legal basis for the strikes, to make clear that the USG/allies had not accepted a doctrine of humanitarian intervention as an independent legal justification.
  Thank you for taking the time to share your ideas.
  Posted by: Brian | Sep 5, 2013 2:27:09 PM
  Brian, thank you for these very informed and insightful questions and comments. I am indeed arguing for a humanitarian intervention justification. Which is not to say that the administration has taken or will take that position in its words or deeds.
  I can certainly appreciate your difficulty contemplating a jus cogens norm permitting intervention. These norms tend to be cast as prohibitions rather than authorizations: No genocide. No torture. No aggressive war. What I have in mind is an enlargement of the existing jus cogens norm against atrocities to encompass some enforcement mechanism where the U.N. fails to uphold its own commitments to human rights. If these are in fact norms from which ''no derogation is permitted,'' international law should not permit derogations. And if the norm enlarges to authorize enforcement, it would trump a treaty'--the Charter'--to the contrary.
  Anthony
  Posted by: Anthony Colangelo | Sep 5, 2013 7:02:27 PM
  Another question if you don't mind.
  If opinio juris are actions by states under the understanding that they are legally required, is it in some sense too late? Wouldn't any white paper at this point be, and be seen, as post hoc justitification rather than an explanation of motives? Or does that sort of subjectivity not matter much in int'l law?
  Thanks for an interesting post and clarifying responses.
  Posted by: Brad | Sep 5, 2013 7:46:31 PM
  Post a comment
Russia gave UN 100-page report in July blaming Syrian rebels for Aleppo sarin attack | Wichita Eagle
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Fri, 06 Sep 2013 00:24
  BERLIN '-- Russia says a deadly March sarin attack in an Aleppo suburb was carried out by Syrian rebels, not forces loyal to President Bashar Assad, and it has delivered a 100-page report laying out its evidence to the United Nations.
  A statement posted on the Russian Foreign Ministry website late Wednesday said the report included detailed scientific analysis of samples that Russian technicians collected at the site of the alleged attack, Khan al Asal in northern Syria. The attack killed 26 people.
  A U.N. spokesman, Farhan Haq, confirmed that Russia delivered the report in July.
  The report itself was not released. But the statement drew a pointed comparison between what it said was the scientific detail of the report and the far shorter intelligence summaries that the United States, Britain and France have released to justify their assertion that the Syrian government launched chemical weapons against Damascus suburbs on Aug. 21. The longest of those summaries, by the French, ran nine pages. Each relies primarily on circumstantial evidence to make its case, and they disagree with one another on some details, including the number of people who died in the attack.
  The Russian statement warned the United States and its allies not to conduct a military strike against Syria until the United Nations had completed a similarly detailed scientific study into the Aug. 21 attack. It charged that what it called the current ''hysteria'' about a possible military strike in the West was similar to the false claims and poor intelligence that preceded the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003.
  Russia said its investigation of the March 19 incident was conducted under strict protocols established by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, the international agency that governs adherence to treaties prohibiting the use of chemical weapons. It said samples that Russian technicians had collected had been sent to OPCW-certified laboratories in Russia.
  ''The Russian report is specific,'' the ministry statement said. ''It is a scientific and technical document.''
  The Russian statement said Russian officials had broken the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons' code of silence on such probes only because Western nations appear to be ''preparing the ground for military action'' in retaliation for the Aug. 21 incident.
  A U.N. team spent four days late last month investigating the Aug. 21 incident. The samples it collected from the site and alleged victims of the attack are currently being examined at the chemical weapons organization's labs in Europe. U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has urged the United States to delay any strike until after the results of that investigation are known. But U.S. officials have dismissed the U.N. probe, saying it won't tell them anything they don't already know.
  White House spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden said U.S. officials were unmoved by the Russian report and held the Assad government responsible for both the Khan al Asal attack in March and the Aug. 21 attack outside Damascus.
  ''We have studied the Russian report but have found no reason to change our assessment,'' she said.
  Independent chemical weapons experts contacted by McClatchy said they were not familiar with the report and had not read the Russian statement, which was posted as Secretary of State John Kerry was appearing before the House Foreign Affairs Committee to make the Obama administration's case for a retaliatory strike on Syria as punishment for the August attack. But they were cautious about the details made public in the Russian statement.
  Richard Guthrie, formerly project leader of the Chemical and Biological Warfare Project of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, said the Russian statement on the makeup of the sarin found at Khan al Asal, which the Russians indicated was not military grade, might reflect only that ''there are a lot of different ways to make sarin.''
  He added: ''The messy mix described by the Russians might also be the result of an old sarin stock being used. Sarin degrades (the molecules break up) over time and this would explain a dirty mix.''
  He also said there could be doubts about the Russian conclusion that the rockets that delivered the sarin in the March 19 incident were not likely to have come from Syrian military stocks because of their use of RDX, an explosive that is also known as hexogen and T4.
  ''Militaries don't tend to use it because it's too expensive,'' Guthrie said. He added in a later email, however, that it's not inconceivable that the Syrian military would use RDX ''if the government side was developing a semi-improvised short-range rocket'' and ''if there happened to be a stock available.''
  ''While I would agree that it would be unlikely for a traditional, well-planned short-range rocket development program to use RDX in that role, it is not beyond the realms of possibility that, as the Syrian government did not seem to have an earlier short-range rocket program, it may have been developing rockets with some haste and so using materials that are at hand,'' he wrote.
  Jean Pascal Zanders, a leading expert on chemical weapons who until recently was a senior research fellow at the European Union's Institute for Security Studies, questioned a Russian assertion that the sarin mix appeared to be a Western World War II vintage.
  ''The Western Allies were not aware of the nerve agents until after the occupation of Germany,'' he wrote in an email. ''The USA, for example, struggled with the sarin (despite having some of the German scientists) until the 1950s, when the CW program expanded considerably.''
  The Russian Foreign Ministry posted the statement shortly after Russian President Vladimir Putin had asked a Russian interviewer what the American reaction would be if evidence showed that Syrian rebels, not the Assad regime, had been behind a chemical weapons attack.
  The report dealt with an incident that occurred March 19 in Khan al Asal, outside Aleppo, in which 26 people died and 86 were sickened. It was that incident that the U.N. team now probing the Aug. 21 attack was originally assigned to investigate, and the Russian statement noted that the investigation had been sidetracked by the sudden focus on the later incident.
  Haq, the U.N. spokesman, acknowledged that the most recent attack ''has pushed the investigation of the Aleppo incident to the back burner for now.'' But he said that ''the inspectors will get back to it as soon as is possible.''
  The statement's summary of the report said that neither the munitions nor the poison gas in the Khan al Asal attack appeared to fit what is possessed by the Syrian government. The statement said Russian investigators studied the site, sent the materials they found to study to the Russian laboratories of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, and followed agreed-upon United Nations investigation standards.
  According to the statement, the report said the shell ''was not regular Syrian army ammunition but was an artisan-type similar to unguided rocket projectiles produced in the north of Syria by the so-called gang 'Bashair An-Nasr.'''
  The Russian analysis found soil and shell samples contained a sarin gas ''not synthesized in an industrial environment,'' the statement said. The report said the chemical mix did not appear to be a modern version of the deadly agent but was closer to those ''used by Western states for producing chemical weapons during World War II.''
  The statement said the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons team had examined Syrian soldiers injured in the March attack and said that no reaction to the more recent alleged chemical account should be considered without also considering that the rebels, too, have used chemical weapons.
  ''It is obvious that any objective investigation of the incident on Aug. 21 in East Ghouta is impossible without considering the circumstances of the March attack,'' the statement said. Ghouta is the area near Damascus where the Aug. 21 attack took place.
  (Lesley Clark contributed to this report from St. Petersburg, Russia.)
VIDEO- Jafari After Meeting UN Official - YouTube
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Fri, 06 Sep 2013 00:13