Speed-of-light experiments give baffling result at Cern

By Jason Palmer Science and technology reporter, BBC News

The neutrinos are fired deep under the Italian Alps at Gran Sasso

Puzzling results from Cern, home of the LHC, have confounded physicists - because it appears subatomic particles have exceeded the speed of light.

Neutrinos sent through the ground from Cern toward the Gran Sasso laboratory 732km away seemed to show up a tiny fraction of a second early.

The result - which threatens to upend a century of physics - will be put online for scrutiny by other scientists.

In the meantime, the group says it is being very cautious about its claims.

"We tried to find all possible explanations for this," said report author Antonio Ereditato of the Opera collaboration.

"We wanted to find a mistake - trivial mistakes, more complicated mistakes, or nasty effects - and we didn't," he told BBC News.

"When you don't find anything, then you say 'Well, now I'm forced to go out and ask the community to scrutinise this.'"

Caught speeding?

The speed of light is the Universe's ultimate speed limit, and much of modern physics - as laid out in part by Albert Einstein in his special theory of relativity - depends on the idea that nothing can exceed it.

Thousands of experiments have been undertaken to measure it ever more precisely, and no result has ever spotted a particle breaking the limit.

But Dr Ereditato and his colleagues have been carrying out an experiment for the last three years that seems to suggest neutrinos have done just that.

Neutrinos come in a number of types, and have recently been seen to switch spontaneously from one type to another.

The team prepares a beam of just one type, muon neutrinos, sending them from Cern to an underground laboratory at Gran Sasso in Italy to see how many show up as a different type, tau neutrinos.

In the course of doing the experiments, the researchers noticed that the particles showed up a few billionths of a second sooner than light would over the same distance.

The team measured the travel times of neutrino bunches some 15,000 times, and have reached a level of statistical significance that in scientific circles would count as a formal discovery.

But the group understands that what are known as "systematic errors" could easily make an erroneous result look like a breaking of the ultimate speed limit, and that has motivated them to publish their measurements.

"My dream would be that another, independent experiment finds the same thing - then I would be relieved," Dr Ereditato said.

But for now, he explained, "we are not claiming things, we want just to be helped by the community in understanding our crazy result - because it is crazy".

"And of course the consequences can be very serious."

Source

Pakistan 'backed Haqqani attack on Kabul' - Mike Mullen

Outgoing chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen was speaking to a US Senate panel

Continue reading the main story

Taliban Conflict

• Taliban tactical shift
• Haqqani militant network
• Q&A: Fighting the Taliban
• US chief takes heat

The most senior US military officer has accused Pakistan's spy agency of supporting the Haqqani group in last week's attack on the US Kabul embassy.

"The Haqqani network... acts as a veritable arm of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence Agency," Adm Mike Mullen told a Senate panel.

Some 25 people died in last Tuesday's 20-hour attack on Kabul's US embassy and other official buildings.

Pakistan's interior minister earlier denied links with the Haqqani group.

Rehman Malik told the BBC Pakistan was determined to fight all militants based on its border with Afghanistan.

Pakistani officials have consistently denied links with militant groups.

US-Pakistan ties deteriorated sharply after the killing of al-Qaeda chief Osama Bin Laden on Pakistani soil by US commandos in May.

'Credible intelligence'

The Kabul attack on 13 September left 11 civilians dead, as well as at least four police and 10 insurgents.

Continue reading the main story

Analysis

M Ilyas Khan BBC News, Islamabad

These comments are just the latest and most extreme in a series of statements that will be seen in Pakistan as incendiary. They will generate concern in government circles as well as among the wider public.

Pakistanis have long been worried that the Afghan war is coming to their side of the border.

The Haqqani network - and Pakistan's alleged relationship with it - has been a source of frustration for the US. But only today Pakistan's interior minister denied any links. Pakistan will also be keen to remind people that it too is in the grip of terror.

In the 1980s when militants were fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan, the head of the Haqqani network was nurtured by Pakistani intelligence - and indeed by the CIA.

Some analysts believe the links between the militants and Pakistan's intelligence are still alive. But others say that Pakistan's secret service no longer has control over the potent militant groups it helped create.

• US frustrations over Pakistan blow over

"With ISI support, Haqqani operatives planned and conducted a truck bomb attack [on 11 September], as well as the assault on our embassy," said Adm Mullen.

"We also have credible intelligence that they were behind the 28 June attack against the Inter-Continental Hotel in Kabul and a host of other smaller but effective operations."

In July Adm Mullen, who steps down this month as chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, accused Pakistan's government of sanctioning the killing of investigative journalist Saleem Shahzad.

Pakistan called that statement "irresponsible".

Correspondents say that during his tenure, Adm Mullen has been a forceful advocate for maintaining dialogue with Pakistan and with its military establishment.

He was said to be close to the Pakistani army's chief of staff, Gen Ashfaq Kayani. Indeed, Adm Mullen is thought to have made more visits to Pakistan than any other senior US official or chief of staff in recent times.

But, correspondents say, the latest comments are yet more evidence of his patience wearing thin, and suggest he is prepared to be more outspoken as his term in office draws to a close.

Strained ties

The Haqqani network, which is closely allied to the Taliban and reportedly based in Pakistan, has been blamed for several high-profile attacks against Western, Indian and government targets in Afghanistan.

It is often described by Pakistani officials as a predominantly Afghan group, but correspondents say its roots reach deep inside Pakistani territory, and speculation over its links to Pakistan's security establishment refuses to die down.

The Haqqani network is thought have bases in Pakistan's volatile tribal regions

US officials have long been frustrated at what they perceive to be Pakistani inaction against the Haqqani network, and analysts say US concern about the group's capabilities is particularly acute as Nato begins withdrawing troops from Afghanistan.

Earlier this month, Washington said it could target the Haqqani network on Pakistani soil if the authorities there failed to take action against the militants.

But on Thursday, Mr Malik told the BBC that Pakistan's government had taken "very, very strict actions" whenever it had received information about militant groups.

"We will not allow any terrorist to operate from our area, from our side, irrespective of any country, including Afghanistan," he said. "I assure you that, if their presence is there and which is detrimental, action is going to be taken."

Mr Malik said his government's efforts were hindered by the fact that neither Pakistan nor Afghanistan had control over some parts of the border area between them.

"There is no biometric system on the border. Forty thousand to 50,000 people cross this border every day. It is very difficult to keep an eye on everyone.

"[The US Senate's linking of $1bn US assistance to Pakistan to its action again Haqqani and others] will not make Pakistanis happy," he added. "We have sacrificed 35,000 lives [in fighting terrorism] and have suffered economic losses."

Ties between the US and Pakistan had already been strained by continuing US drone strikes targeting militants in the tribal areas and the controversy over the release of Raymond Davis, the CIA contractor who killed two Pakistani men in Lahore.

Source

Poisoned school lunch kills Peru children

Children who have fallen sick have been taken to hospital in Cajabamba

Three children have died and more than 50 others are seriously ill in Peru after eating a school meal contaminated with pesticide, officials say.

The children were being fed by a government nutrition programme for the poor, at a remote mountain village in the north of the country.

It is thought the meal of rice and fish was prepared in a container which may have previously held rat poison.

At least three adults have also been taken ill.

The mass poisoning happened in the village of Redondo in the Cajamarca region, about 750km (470 miles) north of the capital, Lima.

The three dead were between six and 10 years old.

The food had been donated by the National Food Assistance Programme, which gives food to schools in the poorest parts of the country.

The mother of one of the children who died said they showed signs of having been poisoned.

"I think it was poison because all the kids are purple, from all parts of the school," said the mother, who was not named.

"My little boy has died. My nine-year-old boy, Miguel Angel, has died."

Peruvian health official Miguel Zumaeta said the incident "looks like it was a carbonates intoxication, which means rat poison".

Prosecutors and health ministry officials are investigating how the meal became tainted.

In a similar case in 1999, 24 children died in a village near Cusco in southern Peru after eating food contaminated by pesticide.

Source

Democracy Now! streaming Troy Davis execution live

Watch live streaming video from democracynow at livestream.com

Is 'genius' a dirty word?

By Kate Dailey BBC News Magazine

Extraordinary individuals: Albert Einstein, Marie Curie, Ludwig van Beethoven

The annual awarding of MacArthur Foundation grants means that another 22 people are going to find themselves called "genius". But is the title a blessing or a curse?

According to the MacArthur Foundation, annual fellowships are awarded to outstanding individuals who show talent, originality, and dedication in all fields. They must also be citizens of, or resident in, the United States.

But due to a popular nickname, the fellows are known by a much grander moniker - genius.

The winners of the genius grants, as they're often called in the media, reflect the Foundation's broader goals. While some fellows fit the traditional idea of a genius - philosophers, physicists, composers - the grants have also gone to community organisers, journalists, and educators.

Continue reading the main story

“Start Quote

A lot of kids who are labelled prodigies early on end up being mediocre or worse”

David Shenk Author of The Genius In All of Us

For those awarded the fellowship, the $500,000, no-strings -attached prize money is much more valuable than the honorific, a mantle most winners shrug off.

"It's a joke. Do you think if you met Plato, you would have called him a genius? If you met Socrates, would you have called him a genius?" says Ved Metha, a writer who won the award in 1982.

The disdain some winners have for the title "genius" is both a mix of humility and a sense that the true geniuses are far ahead of their time.

"When people are doing something that's really innovative, it's not recognized for a long time," says former fellow Richard A Muller, a senior scientist at the Lawrence Berkeley laboratory and professor of physics at the University of California, Berkeley. "Most people think you're just wasting your time."

Unfathomable insight

To call oneself a genius seems like a boast. It invites unflattering comparisons to other canonic geniuses and endless opportunities for people to point out your failings.

Continue reading the main story

Genius Class of 2011

• Jad Abumrad - New York radio producer, co-host of Radiolab, featuring "audio explorations" of philosophical and scientific issues
• Yukiko Yamashita - developmental biologist at the University of Michigan exploring the biochemical, structural, and molecular genetic mechanisms that regulate stem cell division
• Shwetak Patel - Seattle-based technologist inventing low-cost sensor systems to enable users to track household energy consumption
• A E Stallings - Poet and translator mining the classical world and traditional poetic techniques to explore contemporary life
• And 18 others...

• Meet the 2011 Fellows - MacArthur Foundation

"It's the irony between someone getting a grant for being a genius in the popular mind and the fact that any human being is likely to have done a number of stupid things," says Dirk Obbink, a professor at the University of Oxford and 2001 fellow.

Regardless of how uncomfortable it may make people, "genius" is still an often-used term.

"When people use the word 'genius,' it comes out of a mostly good place," says David Shenk, author of The Genius In All Of Us: New Insights Into Genetics, Talent, and IQ.

"They're really just admiring the tremendous and almost unfathomable insight or ability or aesthetic, or whatever other skill that someone else has that seems so far removed from their own ability."

The word does, however, have a slightly dangerous connotation.

"A lot of people use the word genius as a way to say these people were born geniuses, they have this amazing stuff inside and aren't they lucky," he says. "That's really far from where greatness comes from."

Director Julie Taymor received a "genius" grant in 1991

This tendency to conflate "genius" with "gifted" can be especially dangerous for children, who have yet to learn lessons about failure and resilience.

Calling child prodigies "geniuses" may be very damaging. "These people end up not taking risks any more, they end up sticking to what they're good at and what people are praising them for," says Mr Shenk.

"The real path to being extraordinary is risk taking and a willingness to fail. A lot of kids who are labelled prodigies early on end up being mediocre or worse," he says.

The freedom factor

For successful adults, being called a genius doesn't have the same dangerous effect - in part because they know that hard work, not lofty titles, are the key to greatness.

"In my family, it became sort of a family joke, because I don't exactly pass for a genius in my family and life," says Robert Darnton, history professor, director of the Harvard University library, and former MacArthur fellow. "I don't think my colleagues took it too seriously."

Historian Henry Louis Gates was one of the first recipients of a MacArthur fellowship

More important than the mantle of "genius", he says, was the ability to turn down teaching work to focus on his research.

"The idea of taking people of promise and allowing them to take risks is a rather good idea," he says. "In my life, it made a tremendous difference."

Giving people the freedom and security to try new things, rather than declaring them brilliant, is one of the best ways to incubate genius-like ideas and execution, says Mr Shenk.

Still, calling these men and women geniuses may have some positive effects.

"Society at large doesn't really understand the intricacies of whale echo-location or French medieval history," says Charles Bigelow, a type historian, professor, and designer who received the award in 1982.

Labelling such work the output of geniuses, however, gives the public a reason to take note. "It gives our society a way to label it, to graph it and understand it," he says. "It's a useful term - maybe not for the fellows, but for society."

Plus, as far as name-calling goes, you could do a lot worse.

"It enhances one's credibility," says Billie Jean Young, the artist in residence at Judson college and a 1991 recipient.

"You probably already thought you were pretty smart, but it's nice to have it affirmed."

Source

Barack Obama 'will veto' Palestinian UN bid

President Obama says there can be "no short cut" to a lasting peace

Barack Obama has told Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas he will veto his bid for UN membership, as he tried to persuade him to drop the plans.

But Mahmoud Abbas vowed to press ahead during a meeting with the US president, the White House said afterwards.

Mr Obama had told the UN General Assembly a Palestinian state could only be achieved through talks with Israel.

But French President Nicolas Sarkozy warned a veto could spark another cycle of violence in the region.

Diplomatic efforts for Palestinian UN membership have intensified, with Mr Abbas preparing to submit a written application to Secretary General Ban Ki-moon in New York on Friday.

Meanwhile, thousands of people have rallied in the West Bank in support of the move.

If Mr Ban approves the request, the Security Council would examine and vote on it. In order to pass, it would need the backing of nine out of 15 council members, with no vetoes from the permanent members.

'Badge of honour'

However, Mr Obama had indicated the US would use its veto, leaving Western diplomats trying to find ways to put off the voting process to buy more time.

And the US president made his position clear to both Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Mr Abbas during meetings late on Wednesday.

Continue reading the main story

Analysis

Jeremy Bowen BBC Middle East editor, at the UN

The contradictions of American policy towards the Middle East have been on display.

In his speech, President Obama praised the way Arabs in Egypt, Libya and Tunisia had seized their freedom. But even with the prospect of the US vetoing the Palestinian UN bid, the Palestinians are claiming some victories - they've put the issue of their independence back on the international agenda.

The president's speech was as much about the politics of his own re-election bid next year as it was about the politics of making peace.

His leading Republican opponent has accused him of appeasing the Palestinians. Mr Obama said nothing today that Israel and its friends will not like.

That may well be good for the Israeli government. It isn't necessarily good for Middle East peace.

"We would have to oppose any action at the UN Security Council including, if necessary, vetoing," White House national security council spokesman Ben Rhodes said after Mr Obama met Mr Abbas, Reuters news agency reported.

Mr Netanyahu told reporters Mr Obama deserved a "badge of honour" for his defence of Israel.

However, senior Palestinian negotiator Nabil Shaath argued that Palestinian UN membership was "morally, legally and politically acceptable in every way".

French President Sarkozy urged a compromise, suggesting the General Assembly give the Palestinians enhanced status as a non-member state to allow a clear timeline for talks - a month to start negotiations, six months to deal with borders and security and a year to finalise a "definitive agreement".

A vote on enhanced status - enjoyed by others such as the Vatican - would not require a Security Council recommendation but a simple majority in the General Assembly, where no veto is possible.

Failed talks

French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe said any UN vote on the issue was in any case "several weeks" away.

Mr Obama had earlier told the General Assembly: "Peace will not come through statements and resolutions at the UN.

"There is no short cut to the end of a conflict that has endured for decades.

Continue reading the main story

Palestinian UN Statehood Bid

• Palestinians currently have permanent observer entity status at the UN
• They are represented by the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO)
• Officials now want an upgrade so a state of Palestine has full member status at the UN
• They seek recognition on 1967 borders - in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and Gaza
• Enhanced observer member status could be an interim option

• Q&A: Palestinians' UN statehood plans

"Ultimately, it is Israelis and Palestinians - not us - who must reach agreement on the issues that divide them: on borders and security; on refugees and Jerusalem."

Palestinians say their bid for statehood has been inspired by the Arab Spring, and is the result of years of failed peace talks.

In the West Bank on Wednesday, schools and government offices were shut to allow for demonstrations backing the UN membership bid in Ramallah, Bethlehem, Nablus and Hebron.

While UN recognition would have largely symbolic value, the Palestinians argue it would strengthen their hand in peace talks.

"The end of the Israeli occupation and a Palestinian state are the only path to peace," AFP quoted Mr Abbas' spokesman as saying after Mr Obama's speech.

Mediation attempt

"We will agree to return to the negotiations the minute that Israel agrees to end the settlements and the lines of 1967," added the spokesman, Nabil Abu Rudeina.

In his meeting with Mr Obama, Mr Netanyahu said direct negotiation was the only way to achieve a stable Middle East peace. The last round of talks broke down a year ago.

The "quartet" of US, European, Russian and UN mediators aims to give the two sides a year to reach a framework agreement, based on Mr Obama's vision of borders fashioned from Israel's pre-1967 boundary, with agreed land swaps.

Efforts are now reportedly under way to provide a basis for resumed peace negotiations, but work by mediators has yet to produce guidelines for the resumption of talks.

Source

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Commentary

2 questions for Barack Obama

1. Why are you denying Palestine U.N membership?

There is no fair or just answer to this question. I have checked every statement and website out there. The only answer is the obvious one; he is biased against Palestine and their people.

2. If this U.N membership bid is useless, why are you blocking it?

Barack Obama is simply another U.S President that oppresses the Palestinian people while the majority of the world have spoken up in defense.

120+ countries in the U.N already agree on 1967 lines, and an end to settlements in Palestinian occupied territories.

Obama is threatening America's future and inciting hatred in the middle east with this bold, cowardly, and ignorant move.

All polls show even the American people are in the majority as to how to bring peace, by recognizing legitimate U.N membership for Palestine and statehood.

I am once again validated in my decision not to vote for you in 2008. Once again I am happy that I did not live up to the hysteria, hype, and fame and instead analyzed you according to the merits of your previous positions and offices.

You have failed every test of analysis by me from the moment you hit the public's radar. You are not the honest, caring, compassionate, or fair reformer you claimed to be.

You are simply another politician that lied themselves into office. Congratulations and may your name be forever tainted with the blood of innocent victims that died due to your positions and policies.

Troy Davis execution: US Supreme Court decides

Amnesty International's Laura Moye: "Serious doubts about his guilt remain"

Death row inmate Troy Davis is awaiting the outcome of his final appeal to the US Supreme Court as he faces execution for the murder of a policeman.

The state of Georgia's top court earlier rejected an appeal by the 42-year-old, whose lethal injection was scheduled for 19:00 EST (23:00 GMT).

Seven out of nine witnesses recanted their testimony in the case. Protests and vigils have been held all week.

Davis' request for a polygraph test was denied by prison officials.

He was convicted in 1991 of killing Mark MacPhail, an off-duty police officer, but maintains he is innocent.

Ballistic 'flawed'

MacPhail was shot dead in July 1989 as he tried to help a homeless man who was being attacked in a Burger King car park.

Mark MacPhail was shot dead in 1989 as he tried to defend a homeless man

Prosecutors say Davis was beating the man with a gun after demanding a beer from him.

But no gun was ever found and no DNA evidence conclusively linked Davis to the murder.

On Wednesday morning, Davis' lawyers appealed to the county court responsible for Georgia's death row, but that was also rejected.

The legal team had argued that ballistic testing from the case was flawed.

The pardons board also dismissed an appeal to reconsider their decision on Monday to deny Davis clemency.

During what could be his last hours, Davis had not asked for a final meal and was spending time with family, friends and supporters.

'It has got to end'

Prosecutors say they have no doubts as to his guilt.

"He had all the chances in the world," Anneliese MacPhail, the mother of the murdered policeman, said in a phone interview with the Associated Press news agency.

"It has got to come to an end."

But Davis counts among his supporters Pope Benedict XVI and former US President Jimmy Carter, as well as US conservative figures like representative Bob Barr and former FBI director William Sessions.

Bianca Jagger says the evidence against Mr Davis is virtually non-existent

Spencer Lawton, the district attorney who secured the conviction, told the Associated Press news agency he was embarrassed that the execution had taken so long.

"What we have had is a manufactured appearance of doubt which has taken on the quality of legitimate doubt itself. And all of it is exquisitely unfair," he said.

Outside the prison in Jackson, Georgia - where Davis is to be executed - a crowd of about 200 people have gathered, chanting "They say death row; we say, hell no!"

Around 10 counter-demonstrators were also present, voicing support for the death penalty and for the family of MacPhail.

His sister Martina Correia told reporters: "Troy Davis has impacted the world. They say, 'I am Troy Davis,' in languages he can't speak."

There is a heavy police presence outside the prison, including large numbers of riot police, but no disturbances have been reported.

Protests in Paris

Davis' conviction has been upheld by several federal and appeal courts.

He was previously denied a hearing at the US Supreme Court after a federal judge refused a new trial for his case.

Protests in Georgia have been organized by the Amnesty International and NAACP

Davis' execution date has been stopped three times.

While vigils have been scheduled at both the Georgia state capitol and the jail, protests have taken on an international dimension since Monday's decision to deny clemency.

The Council of Europe has called for Davis' sentence to be commuted.

Amnesty International and other groups organised protests at the US embassy in Paris, where 150 people gathered in Place de la Concorde, holding signs bearing Davis' image.

In Washington DC dozens gathered outside the White House, in the hope that President Barack Obama might intervene at the last-minute.

Reports suggest around a dozen people have been arrested for refusing to co-operate with police.

But White House press secretary Jay Carney said it would not be appropriate for the president to interfere in specific cases of state prosecution, such as this one.

The president does not have the authority to pardon Davis, but he could order an investigation into the case and delay the execution.

Meanwhile in the US state of Texas another death row inmate, Lawrence Russell Brewer, was executed on Wednesday evening - in a very different case.

In 1998, white supremacist gang member Brewer, 44, dragged a black man chained to the back of a pick-up truck along a road until he died.

Source

~~~~~~~~

Commentary

No one should execute him with this much lack of evidence and 7 or 9 witnesses recanting their testimony.

Ahmadinejad's Words Aren't Taken Seriously at the U.N. But Are Obama's?

Posted by Tony Karon Tuesday, September 20, 2011 at 4:10 pm

Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad speaks during the 1st International Islamic Awakening Conference in Tehran September 18, 2011. (Photo: Raheb Homavandi / Reuters)

NBC may have been seduced into doing a credulous exclusive "Day in the Life of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad" special -- as if the embattled Iranian president was sufficiently relevant to world events as to warrant interest in his workout routine -- but no decision-makers will set much store by what he says when he turns up for his annual wretched-of-the-earth burlesque performance at the U.N. General Assembly.

That's because Ahmadinejad has long-since become the lamest of ducks after taking on Supreme Leader Ayatullah Ali Khamenei and the conservative clerical elite in a game of political Mortal Kombat -- and getting owned by the Mullahs. Many of his closest allies have been arrested, and his control over government and ability to influence decision-making has been demonstrably curbed. He has even been shunned by the Revolutionary Guard Corps, which helped secure his disputed reelection. When Ahmadinejad tried to inflate his significance in the Western media mind on the eve of his departure by offering to release two American hikers jailed for espionage, his rivals in the judiciary made sure the world understood that Ahmadinejad doesn't make the decisions that count by slapping down his offer.

(SEE: Photos of Tehran's brutal 2009 crackdown on the opposition.)

Ahmadinejad's wings have been clipped to the point that his words, whether provocations and threats or conciliations, can't be taken as any indication of Iran's official stance. (There was speculation that Khamenei might even stop him traveling to New York for this week's events.) The position of the presidency has limited power in the Iranian power structure, and Ahmadinejad lost his battle to change that reality. Instead, he has been reduced to a role familiar to his reformist predecessor, Mohammed Khatami. A loose cannon he may be, but he's firing blanks. Try as he may, this week, to reclaim global attention with the usual provocations, the U.N.'s concerns are focused elsewhere. Never mind the fact that his regional role in challenging Israel has been usurped by Turkey; the Iranian President could even find himself upstaged by his mild-mannered and accommodating namesake and counterpart, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.

But just as the international body is unlikely to set much store by the words of President Ahmadinejad, President Barack Obama may find himself in a not entirely dissimilar situation when it comes to the Palestinian bid for statehood recognition. The experience of the past 30 months has given many observers pause before taking to the bank Obama's pronouncements on matters Middle Eastern. That's because the President's words haven't always translated into reality, particularly when faced with Israeli defiance backed by bipartisan support on Capitol Hill.

Obama came into office determined to relaunch a peace process that had been effectively stalled (beyond occasional Israeli-Palestinian photo opportunities and non-committal chats) since President George W. Bush and Israel's Prime Minister Ariel Sharon assumed office within weeks of one another early in 2001. He began by seeking a substantive demonstration of good faith by Israel, in the form of a settlement freeze: The U.S. government had never accepted Israeli settlement construction on land conquered in 1967 -- a practice branded illegal by the U.N. Security Council. Halting the growth of the permanent Israeli presence on occupied territory that the international consensus held would belong to a future Palestinian state was the key demand from the Palestinian and Arab side for resuming talks.

In his outreach to the Muslim world in a speech in Cairo in June of 2009, Obama was blunt:

"The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. (Applause.) This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop. (Applause.)

"And Israel must also live up to its obligation to ensure that Palestinians can live and work and develop their society. Just as it devastates Palestinian families, the continuing humanitarian crisis in Gaza does not serve Israel's security; neither does the continuing lack of opportunity in the West Bank. Progress in the daily lives of the Palestinian people must be a critical part of a road to peace, and Israel must take concrete steps to enable such progress."

The Gaza blockade remains in force, of course it was partially eased last summer after it was challenged by a Turkish-backed activist flotilla that prompted the Israeli commando raid that left ten of the activists dead -- a matter that eventually triggered the collapse of Israeli-Turkish diplomatic relations. And according to a World Bank report released last week, the West Bank economy remains fundamentally dependent on donor aid, because the growth of its private sector choked by the occupation's restrictions.

On Obama's demand for a complete settlement freeze, Netanyahu responded by announcing a time-limited partial moratorium, and the Administration eventually managed to coax the Palestinians back to the table for three negotiating sessions shortly before last year's U.N. General Assembly session. That allowed Obama, in his U.N. address, to hail his Administration's achievement in getting Abbas and Netanyahu around a table:

"We know that there will be tests along the way and that one test is fast approaching. Israel's settlement moratorium has made a difference on the ground and improved the atmosphere for talks. And our position on this issue is well known. We believe that the moratorium should be extended. We also believe that talks should press on until completed. Now is the time for the parties to help each other overcome this obstacle. Now is the time to build the trust -- and provide the time -- for substantial progress to be made. Now is the time for this opportunity to be seized, so that it does not slip away... If we do, when we come back here next year, we can have an agreement that will lead to a new member of the United Nations -- an independent, sovereign state of Palestine, living in peace with Israel."

But Israel did not extend its partial moratorium, and the Palestinians walked away from the table. By the end of last year, the Obama Administration was forced to concede defeat on settlements, and to try and move on as if it hadn't made that demand in the first place. (Another key applause line in the 2009 Cairo speech went the same way: The one in which President Obama announced that he had "ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed by early next year.")

Unfortunately for the President, however, the Palestinians were having none of it; they took Israel's response on settlements -- and the ease with which it had simply walked the U.S. back on the issue -- as a signal that further talks with Netanyahu would produce no progress, and would simply provide political cover for the status quo.

For all the promise of Obama's early speeches, Palestinians -- as well as the citizenry of the Arab world and most of the rest of the developing world and even Europe -- view him as ultimately toeing a line laid down by Israel and its partisans on Capitol Hill. Needless to say, the Administration's insistence that it's opposition to the Palestinian statehood bid is based on preserving some hypothetical peace process is not taken very seriously among Palestinians, or in the wider Arab world. Indeed, a Zogby poll published in July found that Obama's approval rating across the Arab world has plummeted to around 10%, and that opinions of the U.S. are actually lower than they were in the final year of the Bush Administration. And remember, the same polling organization found his Arab approval rating about 50% in the wake of the Cairo speech. The reason for the fall is that the Arab world is paying less heed to Obama's words than to his actions.

Source

Independant Senetor Sanders - How to fix the economy

In 40 Years of Cancer Research, How Far Have We Come?

By Alice Park Wednesday, September 21, 2011

An artist's rendering of a cancer cell

Getty Images

I don't normally write about anniversaries, but this one seems worth noting. It's been 40 years since President Richard Nixon signed the National Cancer Act in 1971, the historic legislation that focused attention — and perhaps more importantly, government funding — on the need to research and find treatments for cancer.

A lot has changed in the past four decades. The disease that doctors thought they knew then is very different from the cancer they're studying today. For one thing, scientists have a much better understanding that cancer isn't simply one disease in which cells suddenly start to grow out of control, but rather hundreds of different diseases. In fact, according to the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) Cancer Progress Report, cancer is actually more like 200 distinct diseases, each spurred on by slightly different causes and requiring different treatments.

And instead of focusing so slavishly on the tumors themselves, as experts did initially, researchers have enlarged the window through which they study cancer, allowing the consideration of other critical features, such as how the patient's own makeup might affect the disease. Scientists also look at how tumors tend to co-opt their environment for their own pathological needs, turning healthy tissues into diseased ones in a process that makes cancer increasingly difficult to control.

"In the haste to continue research and fund it, you sometimes need to stop and turn around and look back at what we've accomplished," notes Dr. William Dalton, president, CEO and center director of the Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute and a co-chair of the AACR committee writing the report. "The reduction in death rates of many common cancers that has occurred over the last 40 years is incredible. That's important because that's huge progress against something that is probably the biggest health scare for any society."

Indeed, the death rates for cancer in the U.S. have dropped by 22% for men and 14% for women between 1990 and 2007. And in 1975, only 50% of people diagnosed with cancer could expect to live for another five years; now nearly 70% do. Among children, the gains are even greater: 80% of youngsters can expect to survive their childhood cancer today, compared with 52% in 1975.

Much of that success can be attributed to two key milestones in cancer research: understanding the simple lifestyle factors that contribute to cancer and, on the opposite end of the technological spectrum, the mapping of the human genome in 2001. Behavioral changes such as quitting smoking and avoiding exposure to UV rays, for example, have played a significant role in preventing lung and skin cancers, while the Human Genome Project continues to yield new and useful information on the genetic drivers of cancer.

"If I were to rank developments over the past 40 years that have had the most impact on our understanding of cancer, I would say genetics is No. 1, and lifestyle factors are No. 2," says Dalton.

Advances in genetics are making it possible to shift into the next phase of cancer care, a more personalized approach in which every patient's cancer will be treated in the way that best suits his or her case. Already, in the past decade scientists have developed more tailored therapies that target cancer cells specifically, and as these approaches become more routine and refined, physicians will be better able to match the right therapies with the right cancers.

"When I think of the next 40 years, the ultimate goal is personalized medicine," says Dalton. "I think personalized medicine will have the greatest impact on prevention." Matching an individual's cancer biology to the best treatments for that tumor will go a long way toward controlling illness and death from cancer, and personalized approaches can help identify people at highest risk of developing cancer as well.

Preventing cancer is just as important as treating it, he says, especially as the U.S. population ages. "By and large, cancer affects older people; the longer we live, the more likely we will be to develop cancer," he says. That means that stopping the disease before it even starts will have a huge impact on controlling costs and deaths in coming decades. According to the National Institutes of Health, cancer care in 2010 cost $263.8 billion, including direct medical expenses as well as indirect costs due to lost productivity and early death.

So while the AACR report highlights how far researchers have come in understanding cancer, it's clear that we're not close to conquering cancer — at least not yet. Last year, more than 570,000 people died of cancer, still a sobering number that experts hope to shrink in coming years.

Alice Park is a writer at TIME. Find her on Twitter at @aliceparkny. You can also continue the discussion on TIME's Facebook page and on Twitter at @TIME.

Source