How Secondhand Cigarette Smoke Changes Your Genes

By Alice Park

As if the growing number of smoking bans in restaurants, airplanes and other public places isn't sending a strong enough message, researchers now have the first biological data confirming the health hazards of secondhand smoke.

Scientists led by Dr. Ronald Crystal at Weill Cornell Medical College documented changes in genetic activity among nonsmokers triggered by exposure to secondhand cigarette smoke. Public-health bans on smoking have been fueled by strong population-based data that links exposure to secondhand cigarette smoke and a higher incidence of lung diseases such as emphysema and even lung cancer, but do not establish a biological cause for the correlation. Now, for the first time, researchers can point to one possible cause: the passive recipient's genes are actually being affected. (See a new recipe for longevity that says no to smoking.)

Crystal's team devised a study in which 121 volunteers — some of whom smoked and some of whom had never smoked — agreed to have samples of their airway cells studied for genetic activity. The subjects also provided urine so the researchers could measure the amount of nicotine and its metabolites, like cotinine, for an objective record of their exposure to cigarette smoke.

Airway cells that line the bronchus, from the trachea all the way to the tiny alveoli deep in the lungs, are the first cells that confront cigarette smoke, whether it is inhaled directly from a cigarette or secondhand from the environment. Crystal's group hypothesized that any deterioration in lung function associated with cancer or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, including emphysema and bronchitis, in which the lungs lose their ability to take in air, would begin with these cells. (See TIME's guide for good health at every age.)

And indeed, that's what he and his team found. The researchers removed airway cells from the volunteers using a bronchoscope and tested all 25,000 identified human genes in them to determine which ones were active — either turned on or off — in response to cigarettes. They narrowed the search to 372 genes that were active among the smokers but not in the cells of the nonsmokers. Based on the level of nicotine in the urine, the scientists also divided the volunteers into three groups: smokers, who showed the highest level of the tobacco metabolites; nonsmokers, who showed none of these compounds and a low-exposure group who fell in between. Comparing the 372 genes among these three groups, they found that the low-exposure group shared 34% of the same active genes with nonsmokers and 11% of the same gene activity with smokers. The low-exposure group included both nonsmokers who have never lit up as well as those who admitted to smoking only occasionally.

The results suggest that the genetic changes among the low-exposure volunteers, some of whose exposure is exclusively secondhand, mimicked those of smokers and represent the first molecular steps toward later lung disease. The study did not follow the subjects long enough to document what effect the genetic changes may actually have on the lung tissue, but Crystal says those studies are forthcoming.

"What is interesting to me is how sensitive the lung cells are to any cigarette smoke," he says. "It doesn't matter if you are walking into a cocktail party where other people are smoking or if you smoke one cigarette a week. No matter what level of exposure you have, your lung cells know it and they are responding. It's sort of like canaries in the coal mine — they are crying out and saying, 'I'm changing here, I'm changing the genes that I turn on and off in response to this environmental stress.'" (Read about Bavaria's ban on cigarettes at Oktoberfest.)

It's not clear how permanent these genetic changes are, but previous data suggests that, at least in smokers, some of the alterations may be irreversible. Smokers experience a decline in lung function that is accelerated compared with nonsmokers, and even if they kick the habit, they can never achieve the same level of function as those who never lit up. If the genetic results are confirmed, says Crystal, they may help doctors to identify those whose genetic makeup put them at higher risk of developing lung disease when exposed to cigarettes, and potentially steer them toward drugs that can help them suppress the dangerous effects of nicotine on their cells.

In the meantime, the latest findings should reinforce public-health messages about the dangers of cigarette smoke, even if it is secondhand, says Dr. Norman Edelman, chief medical officer of the American Lung Association. "When you look at the biology, there is no safe level of exposure to tobacco smoke," he says. "This [study] adds an important piece of evidence that inhaling secondhand smoke is deleterious and does things to the airway that are not good."

Source

Study: Nonreligious Doctors Hasten Death

By AP / MARIA CHENG

(LONDON) — Doctors who are atheist or agnostic are twice as likely to make decisions that could end the lives of their terminally ill patients, compared to doctors who are very religious, according to a new study in Britain.

Dr. Clive Seale, a professor at Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, conducted a random mail survey of more than 3,700 doctors across Britain, of whom 2,923 reported on how they took care of their last terminal patient. (See the top 10 medical breakthroughs of 2009.)

Many of the doctors surveyed were neurologists, doctors specializing in the care of the elderly, and palliative care, though other specialists like family doctors, were also included.

Doctors who described themselves as "extremely" or "very nonreligious" were nearly twice as likely to report having made decisions like providing continuous deep sedation, which could accelerate a patient's death.

To ensure doctors are acting in accordance with their patients' wishes, Seale wrote that "nonreligious doctors should confess their predilections to their patients."

Seale also found that doctors who were religious were much less likely to have talked about end of life treatment decisions with their patients.

According to guidelines from the British Medical Association, doctors must not allow their religious beliefs to interfere with their treatment of patients.

"Whatever your personal beliefs may be...you must be respectful of the patient's dignity and views," the association says.

The guidelines also recommend that when patients are unable to communicate their wishes, doctors must not simply rely on their own values, but that they "should take all reasonable steps to maximize the patient's ability to participate in the decision-making process."

The study was paid for by Britain's National Council for Palliative Care and was published online Thursday in the Journal of Medical Ethics.

Source

The Government Can Use GPS to Track Your Moves

By Adam Cohen

Government agents can sneak onto your property in the middle of the night, put a GPS device on the bottom of your car and keep track of everywhere you go. This doesn't violate your Fourth Amendment rights, because you do not have any reasonable expectation of privacy in your own driveway — and no reasonable expectation that the government isn't tracking your movements.

That is the bizarre — and scary — rule that now applies in California and eight other Western states. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which covers this vast jurisdiction, recently decided the government can monitor you in this way virtually anytime it wants — with no need for a search warrant. (See a TIME photoessay on Cannabis Culture.)

It is a dangerous decision — one that, as the dissenting judges warned, could turn America into the sort of totalitarian state imagined by George Orwell. It is particularly offensive because the judges added insult to injury with some shocking class bias: the little personal privacy that still exists, the court suggested, should belong mainly to the rich.

This case began in 2007, when Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agents decided to monitor Juan Pineda-Moreno, an Oregon resident who they suspected was growing marijuana. They snuck onto his property in the middle of the night and found his Jeep in his driveway, a few feet from his trailer home. Then they attached a GPS tracking device to the vehicle's underside.

After Pineda-Moreno challenged the DEA's actions, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit ruled in January that it was all perfectly legal. More disturbingly, a larger group of judges on the circuit, who were subsequently asked to reconsider the ruling, decided this month to let it stand. (Pineda-Moreno has pleaded guilty conditionally to conspiracy to manufacture marijuana and manufacturing marijuana while appealing the denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained with the help of GPS.)

In fact, the government violated Pineda-Moreno's privacy rights in two different ways. For starters, the invasion of his driveway was wrong. The courts have long held that people have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their homes and in the "curtilage," a fancy legal term for the area around the home. The government's intrusion on property just a few feet away was clearly in this zone of privacy.

The judges veered into offensiveness when they explained why Pineda-Moreno's driveway was not private. It was open to strangers, they said, such as delivery people and neighborhood children, who could wander across it uninvited. (See the misadventures of the CIA.)

Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, who dissented from this month's decision refusing to reconsider the case, pointed out whose homes are not open to strangers: rich people's. The court's ruling, he said, means that people who protect their homes with electric gates, fences and security booths have a large protected zone of privacy around their homes. People who cannot afford such barriers have to put up with the government sneaking around at night.

Judge Kozinski is a leading conservative, appointed by President Ronald Reagan, but in his dissent he came across as a raging liberal. "There's been much talk about diversity on the bench, but there's one kind of diversity that doesn't exist," he wrote. "No truly poor people are appointed as federal judges, or as state judges for that matter." The judges in the majority, he charged, were guilty of "cultural elitism." (Read about one man's efforts to escape the surveillance state.)

The court went on to make a second terrible decision about privacy: that once a GPS device has been planted, the government is free to use it to track people without getting a warrant. There is a major battle under way in the federal and state courts over this issue, and the stakes are high. After all, if government agents can track people with secretly planted GPS devices virtually anytime they want, without having to go to a court for a warrant, we are one step closer to a classic police state — with technology taking on the role of the KGB or the East German Stasi.

Fortunately, other courts are coming to a different conclusion from the Ninth Circuit's — including the influential U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. That court ruled, also this month, that tracking for an extended period of time with GPS is an invasion of privacy that requires a warrant. The issue is likely to end up in the Supreme Court.

In these highly partisan times, GPS monitoring is a subject that has both conservatives and liberals worried. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit's pro-privacy ruling was unanimous — decided by judges appointed by Presidents Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush and Bill Clinton. (Comment on this story.)

Plenty of liberals have objected to this kind of spying, but it is the conservative Chief Judge Kozinski who has done so most passionately. "1984 may have come a bit later than predicted, but it's here at last," he lamented in his dissent. And invoking Orwell's totalitarian dystopia where privacy is essentially nonexistent, he warned: "Some day, soon, we may wake up and find we're living in Oceania."

Source

Space is the final frontier for evolution, study claims

Mammals had plenty of space in which to thrive after the extinction of the dinosaurs

Charles Darwin may have been wrong when he argued that competition was the major driving force of evolution.

He imagined a world in which organisms battled for supremacy and only the fittest survived.

But new research identifies the availability of "living space", rather than competition, as being of key importance for evolution.

Findings question the old adage of "nature red in tooth and claw".

The study conducted by PhD student Sarda Sahney and colleagues at the University of Bristol is published in Biology Letters.

The research team used fossils to study evolutionary patterns over 400 million years of history.

Focusing on land animals - amphibians, reptiles, mammals and birds - the scientists showed that the amount of biodiversity closely matched the availability of "living space" through time.

Continue reading the main story

“Start Quote

Competition did not play a big role in the overall pattern of evolution”

End Quote Professor Michael Benton Bristol University

Living space - more formally known as the "ecological niche concept" by biologists - refers to the particular requirements of an organism to thrive. It includes factors like the availability of food and a favourable habitat.

'Lucky break'

The new study proposes that really big evolutionary changes happen when animals move into empty areas of living space, not occupied by other animals.

For example, when birds evolved the ability to fly, that opened up a vast range of new possibilities not available to other animals. Suddenly the skies were quite literally the limit, triggering a new evolutionary burst.

Similarly, the extinction of the dinosaurs left areas of living space wide open, giving mammals their lucky break.

This concept challenges the idea that intense competition for resources in overcrowded habitats is the major driving force of evolution.

Continue reading the main story

“Start Quote

What is the impetus to occupy new portions of ecological space if not to avoid competition?”

End Quote Professor Stephen Stearns Yale University

Professor Mike Benton, a co-author on the study, explained that "competition did not play a big role in the overall pattern of evolution".

"For example, even though mammals lived beside dinosaurs for 60 million years, they were not able to out-compete the dominant reptiles. But when the dinosaurs went extinct, mammals quickly filled the empty niches they left and today mammals dominate the land," he told BBC News.

Alternative view

However, Professor Stephen Stearns, an evolutionary biologist at Yale University, US, told BBC News he "found the patterns interesting, but the interpretation problematic".

He explained: "To give one example, if the reptiles had not been competitively superior to the mammals during the Mesozoic (era), then why did the mammals only expand after the large reptiles went extinct at the end of the Mesozoic?"

"And in general, what is the impetus to occupy new portions of ecological space if not to avoid competition with the species in the space already occupied?"

Source

Drinking water before meals helps dieting, says study

Water contains no calories and drinking it makes us feel full

Drinking water before meals can help people to lose weight, says a US study.

Scientists from Virginia found that slimmers can lose an average of 5lb extra if they drink two glasses of water three times a day before meals.

They tested the theory on 48 older adults, split into two groups, over 12 weeks.

While drinking water can make you feel full on zero calories, say researchers, too much water can also lead to serious health problems.

The researchers presented their findings at the National Meeting of the American Chemical Society in Boston.

All adults who took part in the study were aged 55 to 75.

The first group followed a low-calorie diet but did not drink any extra water before meals.

Continue reading the main story

“Start Quote

People should drink more water and less sugary, high-calorie drinks. It's a simple way to facilitate weight management”

End Quote Prof Brenda Davy Virginia Tech

The second group followed the low-calorie diet but also drank two glasses of water before each meal.

'No calories'

Over the course of 12 weeks, those drinking water lost about 15.5lbs while the others lost about 11lbs.

A previous study found that middle-aged and older people who drank two glasses of water before eating a meal ate between 75 and 90 fewer calories during that meal.

Professor Brenda Davy, senior author of the study, from Virginia Tech, said it was the first randomised controlled trial looking at water consumption and dieting.

She said the reason water may be so effective is because it fills up the stomach with a liquid that has no calories.

"People should drink more water and less sugary, high-calorie drinks. It's a simple way to facilitate weight management," Professor Davy said.

Diet drinks and other drinks with artificial sweeteners may also help people reduce their calorie intake and lose weight, researchers said.

However, Professor Davy advised against drinks sweetened with sugar, because they are high in calories.

A regular can of fizzy drink contains about 10 teaspoons of sugar, she explained.

The study was funded by the charity, The Institute for Public Health and Water Research.

Source

EU rebukes Israel for convicting Palestinian protester

Israel has called Lady Ashton's "interference" highly improper

The European Union has criticised Israel for convicting an organiser of weekly Palestinian protests against the West Bank separation barrier.

EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton said she was "deeply concerned" about Abdullah Abu Rahmeh, who now faces several years in prison.

She said he was a "human rights defender" committed to non-violent protest.

Israel's foreign ministry described her statement as highly improper.

Continue reading the main story

Israel and the Palestinians

• Q&A: Middle East talks
• Direct peace talks to resume
• US gambles with no clear plan
• Guide: Eased Gaza blockade

'Legitimate right'

Jailed since December, Abdullah Abu Rahmeh was convicted by a military court on Tuesday of inciting protests in the West Bank village of Bilin and of participating in the protests without a legal permit.

Lady Ashton expressed deep concern "that the possible imprisonment of Mr Abu Rahmeh is intended to prevent him and other Palestinians from exercising their legitimate right to protest against the existence of the separation barriers in a non-violent manner," her office said.

"The EU considers the route of the barrier where it is built on Palestinian land to be illegal," it quoted her as saying in a statement.

Her statement drew a sharp rebuke from Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Yigal Palmor, who said that any "interference with a transparent legal procedure is highly improper".

Sentencing is scheduled for next month, after which Abu Rahmeh - a 39-year-old schoolteacher - will appeal the conviction, his lawyer has said.

Weekly protests

Activists have been protesting against the barrier for five years in what they say are mostly peaceful demonstrations. Some demonstrations have been attended by stone-throwing Palestinian youths.

Continue reading the main story

West Bank barrier

• West Bank village marks five years of protest
• Guide: West Bank barrier

Israel says it considers the protests to be "violent and illegal". Israeli security services have fired tear gas, stun grenades, rubber bullets and on occasion live rounds at protesters.

There have been two fatalities among protesters and an American peace activist suffered brain damage after being hit by a tear gas canister.

Israel says the barrier was established to stop Palestinian suicide bombers entering from the West Bank.

But Palestinians point to its route, winding deep into the West Bank around Israeli settlements - which are illegal under international law - and say it is a way to grab territory they want for their future state.

In 2004, the International Court of Justice in The Hague issued an advisory ruling that the barrier was illegal and should be removed where it did not follow the Green Line, the internationally recognised boundary between the West Bank and Israel.

Source

Vacuum lab to grow space crystals may be added to ISS

By Katia Moskvitch Science reporter, BBC News, Novosibirsk

The vacuum lab may be added to the ISS in the years to come

Scientists are planning to use the space station to grow a new kind of crystal for use in solar cells by 2013.

They say the vacuum conditions in space improve the quality of thin film crystals, giving them properties that are unachievable on Earth.

The technique, called Molecular Beam Epitaxy, could improve electronics, in particular raising the efficiency of solar cells as much as 60%.

Scientists behind the proposed move call it "an industrial evolution".

Continue reading the main story

“Start Quote

If we're able to make it work in the next decade, it will be a huge deal for Russia's prestige”

End Quote Alexandr Ivanov TSNIIMASH

"The unique vacuum environment of space allows us to move forward in terms of computers, solar cells, high speed transistors, high power transistors, energy - all these areas would benefit from advancing materials in space," Professor Alex Ignatiev from the University of Houston in Texas told BBC News.

The scientist explained that the space-grown extremely pure artificial crystals, known as ultra-thin semiconductor films, would be produced in a space vacuum lab, spinning above Earth.

The lab will either be attached to the International Space Station (ISS) or carried by a small unmanned spacecraft that will periodically dock to the ISS.

The semiconductor films would consist of atomic layers formed from different elements, placed on top of one another. Every layer would be a different element, to ultimately form a very thin film of an extremely complex composition.

Russia's prestige

The new project is mainly funded by the Russian federal space agency Roscosmos, with both Russian and US scientists involved.

It has already been partially approved, but still needs to be given a final go-ahead in the coming months.

The launch of the mechanism into orbit, if it is given the go-ahead, is scheduled for 2013.

A solar cell made by molecular beam epitaxy technique

The scientists working on the project are now hoping that other investors besides Roskosmos will eventually emerge, including Nasa.

Without sufficient funding, the endeavour might have to be frozen.

But in light of the recent push by the Russian government to step up the efforts with space exploration, many believe the project is likely to go ahead.

"If we're able to make it work in the next decade, it will be a huge deal for Russia's prestige," said Alexandre Ivanov, head of the department of preparation of science programmes at the Roskosmos Research Institute for Machine-Building, TSNIIMASH.

"And it will also be an incentive for other countries to do the same."

Dr Ivanov said that it would be possible to produce such artificial crystals on Earth, but they would be a lot less pure.

"These structures don't exist in nature, they're completely man-made. If produced in space, they will be of a much higher quality than on Earth, and that means that we will get new properties in materials that will allow us to develop new technologies to improve our quality of life."

Cosmonaut Krikalev conducted the first experiments with thin film space crystals on board US shuttles

"Something completely new will appear that will have an even greater impact than when mobile phones came onto the market," he stressed.

From shuttle to ISS

Besides Russia and the US, Kazakhstan is also involved in the project, and several other nations have expressed an interest.

But the main people working on developing the mechanism are Professor Ignatiev and scientists from Siberia.

"Our main goal with Alex Ignatiev is to research the methods of producing nanomaterials that are highly effective in turning sunlight into electrical light," said Professor Oleg Pchelyakov from the Institute of Semiconductor Physics in Novosibirsk.

"So the priority now is the solar cells. But such a space-based vacuum lab could also be useful for other things - for any such technological processes where the cleanness of the product is of vital importance."

The mechanism is ready to be launched into orbit

Professor Ignatiev came up with applying the Molecular Beam Epitaxy technique in the vacuum of space years ago. The recent technology has been based on his earlier experiments aboard the US space shuttles in the 1990s.

He managed to conduct three successful tests of thin film growth in space before the ill-fated shuttle Columbia exploded in 2003.

The US scientist collaborated with Nasa to launch a specially designed vacuum laboratory called the Wave Shield facility.

Even though the lab was flying in space, the vacuum there was not "ultra-high" because of contamination from the shuttle. To achieve the perfect condition of "emptiness", scientists came up with the idea of using a huge circular shield to disperse atoms behind the mechanism and create an ultra-high vacuum in the cone-shaped space there - impossible to achieve on Earth.

The same thing will happen when the new vacuum lab docks to the ISS - the new shield will be deployed behind the lab, and within the protected space, the thin film crystals will be grown.

Russian cosmonaut Sergey Krikalev carried out the very first experiment with thin films on the Wake Shield Facility aboard the shuttle Discovery in 1994.

Mr Krikalev shot to fame as the "last citizen of the USSR": in 1991-1992 he spent 311 days, 20 hours and 1 minute aboard the Mir space station as the Soviet Union collapsed.

'Not good enough'

Despite successfully producing revolutionary artificial crystals during the three shuttle flights, for Professor Ignatiev they were just not good enough.

"We had an ultra-vacuum when we flew on with the space shuttles, but only for a short period of time, only for a couple of days," he explained.

"It takes a while for the vacuum to essentially stabilise. When we launched the shuttle, it was dirty, it contaminated the environment around it.

An atomic microscope scan of a thin film grown during the Wake Shield experiments

"So we're hoping that at the space station we'll have a longer time available to get a better vacuum environment and then start looking at different material possibilities, especially in the solar cells energy area," he added.

Professor Ignatiev said the thin film crystals that were produced back then were mostly research films to try to understand how the ultra-vacuum of space improved quality of materials.

Now, if the new vacuum lab joins the ISS, the goal will be quite different and a lot more practical - how to apply the results of the research to everyday life, and in particular, to produce solar cells for use in space and on Earth.

"We'll be looking at a large number of different elements and the beauty of this technique is that I can take different atomic species and combine them together to make unique atomic structures that have specific performance," said the researcher.

Professor Pchelyakov said that compared with space, within our planet's atmosphere conditions were far from ideal.

"A vacuum lab on Earth sort of 'remembers' what chemicals you were working with last time and it can't ever be as clean as in the beginning. But in space, you can use all the periodic table if you wish," he said.

"Also in space, once the molecules are out of the way, they won't ever come back. On Earth it's different - vacuum volume is limited, vacuum chambers are usually quite small, there are walls. It's impossible to produce absolutely clean materials here."

If the project is a success, the scientists say their long-term goal is to fabricate solar cells on the Moon by means of power plants set up directly on the lunar surface that would generate electricity from solar energy.

"It sounds like science fiction now, but one day, it may well become a reality," said Dr Ivanov.

Source

The Terrorists Win

The Terrorists Win

The 9/11 attacks brought out the best and the worst in America. It would be simplistic to argue that the best could be found in the reactions of individual citizens and the worst in the Bush administration, its apologists and its cheerleaders in the media... but it would be true.

Few who were in New York City that morning can forget the outpouring of heroism by the police force, firefighters and emergency medical technicians, along with all kinds of everyday people, who dropped everything to rush to Lower Manhattan—some traveling thousands of miles—to help. Ditto the statements of solidarity from around the world. Meanwhile, right from the start, the Bush administration sought to manipulate the truth about the attacks and its response, democratic accountability be damned. Nine years later, we still have never been given a true accounting of what actually took place on that day or why the Bush administration, in clear contrast to the impression it later tried to create, took so many panicky, counterproductive measures in the immediate aftermath of the attacks. Why, for instance, was Bush able to keep reading to those kids, potentially endangering their lives, when he was a likely target himself? Why, if given a tip about a possible attack on Air Force One, would Bush be rushed to Air Force One? What kind of government lies to rescue workers about the safety of breathing the air in a disaster area? (I brought my kid down there on the basis of those assurances. She was 3 at the time.) And what about the plan to invade Iraq, hatched internally within days of the attack, purely because we could? Were two wars, instead of one, really what the country needed in order to recover?

Many in the media also sought to exploit the attacks. A tiny minority on the left—including contributors to this magazine—took the attacks as an opportunity to tell America we had it coming, but these voices were so vilified and drowned out by condemnation that they functioned in the public only as political punching bags. On the right, ideologues and profiteers successfully steered the debate toward aggressive warmaking. Just days after the attacks, Wall Street Journal editors demanded that President Bush get to work immediately to exploit the tragedy for political gain, calling upon Bush to "spend his windfall of political capital" on such things as tax cuts for the wealthy, offshore drilling, free trade agreements and the approval of his political nominees. Right-wing jihadists like Seth Lipsky, writing in the same pages, called for US attacks "from Afghanistan to Iran to Iraq to Syria to the Palestinian Authority." The New Republic's Marty Peretz declared, I kid you not, "We are all Israelis now." And Andrew Sullivan sounded like he wanted to round up "decadent" Gore voters on both coasts for the crime of having voted for the guy who actually got the most votes.

The rest is well-known: the Bush administration deceived the country into invading Iraq, undercutting its military efforts in Afghanistan—around which virtually all Americans were united—and helping to "spawn a new generation of Islamic radicalism," as the National Intelligence Council, representing the views of sixteen US intelligence agencies, found in 2006, confirming its explicit (albeit ignored) prewar warnings. Next came civil war, Abu Ghraib, rendition, waterboarding, official McCarthyism, wiretapping and the slow destruction of key constitutional liberties.

But something else happened as well. Remember Lt. Gen. William "Jerry" Boykin, who, one day after being promoted to deputy under secretary of defense for intelligence, boasted to a church audience that his Christian God was "bigger" and more "real" than that of the Muslims, who pray to an "idol"? Nine years after the attacks, the hatred of Islam and contempt for civil liberties has infected much of post-9/11 America. How else to explain the number of citizens who are demanding that we deny American Muslims the right to build a community center two blocks away from where the attacks took place? Sure, the demagogues deserve some credit. Newt Gingrich equates Muslims with Nazis and sputters on like a crazy man about "Islamic triumphalism" in America and continues to be treated like a respected statesman by the mainstream media. Fox News hosts combine ignorance, avarice, prejudice and McCarthyite malice toward Islam to a degree that might have impressed Bernard of Clairvaux. Newsweek puts a scare cover headline of "A Mosque at Ground Zero?" superimposed above a photo of the burned-out towers, when its editors know very well that Park51 is not a mosque and is not at Ground Zero. And pitiful old Abe Foxman, head of the Anti-Defamation League, decides that discrimination on the basis of religion is all right after all. Were I bin Laden, I'd be dancing in my cave.

And perhaps he is. Evan Kohlmann, a terror analyst who tracks militant websites, recently told the New York Times that supporters of Al Qaeda have seized on the Park51 fight "with glee." Radical online forums place it on par with the Florida pastor who wants this September 11 to be "Burn a Koran Day," no doubt proving to many potential Al Qaeda soldiers that we are indeed the enemies of a billion Muslims worldwide, and not just the few who support the violent extremists.

George W. Bush, who kept a lid on this kind of thing among members of his administration, has remained strangely silent this time around. Perhaps he is afraid it will eat into sales of his forthcoming memoir. Perhaps he is afraid to speak on any topic at all without Dick Cheney pulling his strings. Whatever the case, the evidence is clear. Nine years later, Ground Zero remains an undeveloped eyesore and America a less free nation, less true to its own ideals, less honest with itself, less trusted by the rest of the world and more fearful and hostile to Islam than ever. It gives me no pleasure to admit this, but in these respects, at least, it is not us but the terrorists who have won.

Eric Alterman

Source

Israeli academics boycott West Bank settlements

An arts centre in Ariel, one of the West Bank's largest settlements, is to open in November

More than 150 Israeli academics say they will no longer lecture or work in Jewish settlements in the West Bank.

In a letter, they said they supported the recent decision by a group of actors and others not to take part in cultural activity there.

The academics said that acceptance of the settlements caused "critical" damage to Israel's chances of achieving peace with the Palestinians.

The actors were criticised for refusing to perform at a new cultural centre.

Continue reading the main story

Israel and the Palestinians

• Q&A: Middle East talks
• Direct peace talks to resume
• US gambles with no clear plan
• Guide: Eased Gaza blockade

On Sunday, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said the last thing Israel needed as it resumed direct peace talks was a boycott from within.

'Stupid behaviour'

In a letter published on Sunday, the academics said they would no longer take part in any kind of cultural activity, or lecture in any kind of academic setting, in settlements built on land occupied following the Middle East war - demarcated by what is commonly known as the "Green Line".

They explained that they wanted to show support and solidarity for the 53 actors, writers and directors who last week said they would not take part in performances at the new cultural centre built in Ariel.

"We'd like to remind the Israeli public that, like all settlements, Ariel is also in occupied territory," the academics said.

"If a future peace agreement with the Palestinian authorities puts Ariel within Israel's borders, then it will be treated like any other Israeli town."

"Legitimatisation and acceptance of the settler enterprise cause critical damage to Israel's chances of achieving a peace accord with its Palestinian neighbours."

Settlements are considered illegal under international law, although Israel disputes this

Close to 500,000 Jews live in more than 100 settlements built since Israel's 1967 occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem. They are considered illegal under international law, although Israel disputes this.

A separate letter, signed by a number of well-known Israeli authors and artists, is expected to be published in the coming days.

Yigal Cohen-Orgad, the chancellor of the Ariel University Centre, told Haaretz newspaper on Tuesday that "stupid behaviour seems to attract academic stupidity".

Several right-wing politicians have criticised the actors, saying they are subsidised by the Israeli state and should have their funds withdrawn if they refuse to work in any settlements.

Source

ChildLine calls prompted by parents' drink and drugs

A total of 150,000 calls were received by ChildLine in the 2009-10 year

More than 100 children a week are contacting the ChildLine helpline with worries about their parents' drinking or drug use, according to the NSPCC.

It said in the year to March, 5,700 children had called, but founder Esther Rantzen told the BBC there were likely to be many more too afraid to do so.

Two-thirds of those callers had mentioned their parents' drinking.

Continue reading the main story

Related stories

• Lonely children calling helpline
• Childline launches online service

The children calling about that issue were also more likely than other child callers to report abuse, it added.

Ms Rantzen said: "These are the children that know our number and ring us, but what about the many, many thousands of children who aren't, alas, familiar with ChildLine's work and who might be fearful of ringing us?"

She added: "I am, in a sense, imploring those people who work with children to be alert to the possibility that the silent, friendless child... may have trouble at home created by alcohol and drug problems."

'Fiercely protective'

An NSPCC report detailing the figures suggests the children, some of whom were as young as five years old, were often trying to cope with the role reversal of attempting to look after their parents, brothers and sisters.

The helpline, which is run by the NSPCC, received more than 150,000 calls during the year.

Although concerns about parental drug and alcohol abuse made up only a small percentage of them, the head of ChildLine, Sue Minto, said: "The fall-out from parental drug and alcohol abuse is a ticking timebomb in many children's lives.

"It's vital these children are helped before lasting damage occurs."

Continue reading the main story

“Start Quote

The news should serve as a timely reminder that you don't have to be an alcoholic to have a direct impact on your children”

End Quote Chris Sorek Drinkaware chief executive

She said children living with parental alcohol and drug problems were at more risk of harm than other children and ways needed to be found of helping them sooner.

"But we must also remember they can be fiercely protective of their parents," she added.

"One young girl's first comment to the ChildLine counsellor was: 'I don't want anything to happen to my mother'."

The NSPCC also cited the example of one 10-year-old, who said: "My mum drinks all the time. She leaves me alone lots of the time. I feel scared and lonely.

"I look after mum when she drinks and put her to bed. She shouts and hits me. I don't want to feel pain. I want to die."

It said more than 4,000 children had rung the helpline during the 12-month period to say they were worried about their parents' excessive drinking.

Thirty-five per cent of those had reported suffering physical abuse, which was more than three times the rate among other children who called.

'Episodes of violence'

Twenty per cent mentioned issues with family conflicts, while 10% spoke of sexual abuse.

Ms Minto said: "Some children told ChildLine about their parents' severe mood swings, episodes of violence and emotional instability.

"Some said their parents were regularly sick and that caring for them had affected their schooling, or prevented them forming friendships with other children."

Chris Sorek, chief executive of charity Drinkaware, said: "Lots of parents might be horrified to learn of the number of young people seeking help as a result of parental alcoholism, but the news should serve as a timely reminder that you don't have to be an alcoholic to have a direct impact on your children.

"Regularly drinking to excess in front of children will only normalise alcohol misuse but it's important this pattern within the family unit is broken to ensure young people grow up to have a healthy relationship with alcohol."

Source

~~~~

Commentary

What are they talking about? There is no such thing as a healthy relationship with alcohol. It's a constant tug and pull on the edge of disaster. What part of that is healthy?

What benefit is there to it?

None.

So why even suggest kids drink when they grow up?

The reality is, if you want to be successful in life and not sabotage your efforts, you need to not drink, at all.

After everything this article goes through, how can it ever suggest risking the same fate for the children, that the parents faced?