Time.com Quote of the Week

"When I sign this in the Rose Garden, each and every one of you will be able to look back and say, 'This was my finest moment in politics.'"
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA, to Congressional Democrats, urging them to pass health-care reform

Cao, a Lone GOP vote for Health Care Reform

Joe Cao (pronounced Gow) is the name on most people's lips Inside the Beltway this morning. So, how did this freshman Republican escape GOP Whip Eric Cantor's hammer to vote with Democrats for health care reform, ruining Cantor's goal of unified opposition?

Cao arrived in Houston at the age of eight with his parents and two siblings as refugees from Vietnam. Cao's father, a lieutenant in the South Vietnamese Army, had spent the better part of the previous seven years in a North Vietnamese “reeducation camp.” Cao originally became a Roman Catholic Priest, serving six years in a Jesuit seminary after getting his bachelors degree in physics at Baylor University in Waco, Texas. After leaving the priesthood he received a master's in philosophy from Fordham University in New York and a law degree from Loyola in New Orleans in 2000, where he also taught undergraduate philosophy. He practiced immigration law before getting involved in politics after Hurricane Katrina.

After upsetting nine-term incumbent William Jefferson – who was under indictment at the time for taking bribes -- in 2008, Cao became the first Vietnamese American elected to Congress. He holds the most Democratic seat – rated D+28 by the Cook Political Report – of any Republican. He's married to Hieu “Kate” Hoang, whom he met at Mary Queen of Vietnam Catholic Church in New Orleans East in 1998. The couple still attends the church with their two daughters.

So how did Cao end up voting for the bill? He was subject to much lobbying from three sides: the White House, embodied by Nancy Ann DeParle, Rahm Emanuel and President Obama; Eric Cantor, the GOP Whip; and, harkening back to his early years as a young priest, the Conference of Catholic Bishops. The Louisiana chapter was the only one to endorse the bill in October, long before the hot button issue of abortion was even raised. Cao had objected, along with more than 60 pro-life Democrats, to the idea that the legislation might help fund abortions. After last minute negotiations, Democratic leaders agreed to allow an amendment authored by Bart Stupak, a Michigan Democrat, that would ensure that no money could go to funding abortions. The amendment passed, gaining the bill the support of the national Conference of Catholic Bishops. “Thanks to the Stupak-Pitts Amendment, taxpayer dollars will not go to supporting elective abortions, and for thousands of my constituents, this was a top priority,” Cao said in a statement. “By incorporating this amendment into the health reform bill, my colleagues and I made this bill better, and that is an achievement of which I will always be proud.”

But by far the most amount of pressure came from Cantor and the White House. Obama pledged to work with Cao on additional financial aid for his district, especially in disaster loan forgiveness, and on help paying for expanded Medicaid services under the bill in the years to come. Cantor also lobbied Cao, meeting with him several times Saturday. Of course, according to Cao, the decision was purely altruistic. “I have always said that I would put aside partisan wrangling to do the business of the people. My vote tonight was based on my priority of doing what is best for my constituents,” Cao said in his statement.

Source

Obama says health vote 'historic'

President Obama: "For years we've been told that this could not be done"

US President Barack Obama has hailed as "historic" the approval of a health bill by the House of Representatives.

He said he was "absolutely confident" the Senate would pass its own version, and that healthcare reforms would become law by the end of the year.

Passed in a narrow 220-215 vote by the House, the bill aims to extend coverage to 36 million more Americans and provide affordable healthcare to 96%.

Mr Obama has made healthcare reform a central plank of his domestic agenda.

Correspondents say the legislation could lead to the biggest changes in American healthcare in decades.

Tight numbers

Democratic Senators must now consider their own bill. They need 60 out of 100 votes to bring it to a final vote.

I look forward to signing comprehensive health insurance reform into law by the end of the year Barack Obama

There are only 57 Democrats and two independents in the Senate. Two Republicans have signalled they could approve a compromise health bill.

If it is passed, lawmakers from both houses will try to reconcile the two versions before the programme can be signed into law by the president.

In Saturday's vote, the bill was supported by 219 Democrats and one Republican - Joseph Cao from New Orleans. Opposed were 176 Republicans and 39 Democrats.

Mr Obama said: "Tonight, in an historic vote, the House of Representatives passed a bill that would finally make real the promise of quality, affordable healthcare for the American people.

"The United States Senate must follow suit and pass its version of the legislation. I am absolutely confident it will, and I look forward to signing comprehensive health insurance reform into law by the end of the year."

Abortion amendment

The debate had sparked strong emotions on both sides.

Democratic Party representative John Dingell said: "[The bill] offers everyone, regardless of health or income, the peace of mind that comes from knowing they will have access to affordable healthcare when they need it."

KEY BILL PROVISIONS Aims to provide affordable healthcare to 96% to redress 2008 figure of 47 million uninsured Individuals must obtain coverage and most firms must provide it to workers Creates an insurance market for purchase of coverage One product will be a government health insurance plan People with pre-existing health problems cannot be denied insurance Funded by raft of measures, including 5.4% surtax on those earning $500,000 a year or more Those who earn up to 150% of poverty level to qualify for Medicaid government programme for the poor Insurers must justify increases in premiums Q&A: US healthcare reform Send us your views on reforms

But Republican representative Candice Miller said: "We are going to have a complete government takeover of our healthcare system faster than you can say 'this is making me sick'."

Before the vote, Mr Obama had made a rare visit to Congress to try to persuade wavering members of his own Democratic Party to back the bill.

He said such opportunities came around "maybe once in a generation".

After the vote House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said: "I thank the president for his tremendous leadership, because without President Obama in the White House, this victory would not have been possible."

The bill will allow the government to sell insurance in competition with private companies and make insurers offer cover to those with pre-existing conditions.

However, the government-run healthcare programme - the so-called "public option" - was scaled back in the run-up to the vote.

One key concession to get the bill through was to anti-abortion legislators.

An amendment was passed that prohibits coverage for abortion in the government-run programme except for rape, incest or if the mother's life is threatened. Private plans can still offer the cover.

Democrat Bart Stupak, who sponsored the amendment, said: "Let us stand together on principle - no public funding for abortions."

Abortion rights supporters said the amendment was the biggest setback to their cause in decades.

The Senate debate on healthcare reform is expected in the coming days.

Senate majority leader Harry Reid said after the House vote: "We realise the strong will for reform that exists, and we are energised that we stand closer than ever to reforming our broken health insurance system."

Source

Tiny tech sparks cell signal find

By Jason Palmer Science and technology reporter, BBC News

The study used fibroblast cells to illuminate the cell signalling

Tiny metal particles have been shown to cause changes to DNA across a cellular barrier - without having to cross it.

The nanometre and micrometre scale particles resulted in an increase of damage to DNA across the barrier via a never-before-seen cell signal process.

Reporting in Nature Nanotechnology, the researchers say the mechanism could be both a risk and an opportunity.

They say the preliminary result is relevant as more medical therapies rely on small-scale particles.

For instance, nanoparticle-based approaches are being considered for use to improve MRI images or direct the delivery of cancer drugs.

However, they concede their model system is far simpler than the human body, where the effects will be harder to unpick.

As yet, the researchers are not even certain of the mechanism by which the signalling molecules cause damage to DNA.

Communication skills

The team studied the effects of particles made from cobalt and chromium, either 30 billionths of a metre or four millionths of a metre across.

These metals are used in implants such as artificial hips or knees.

They grew a thin, artificial membrane from human cells and placed the particles on the membrane. Beneath it, they placed fibroblast cells, which in the body help to form connective tissue.

Although the team showed that the particles had not crossed the membrane, the fibroblast cells beneath were shown to have about 10 times as many damage sites in their DNA than the case in which no particles were used.

Gevdeep Bhabra, lead author on the research from the Bristol Implant Research Centre, explained that cells in close contact are known to exhibit cell-to-cell communication through structures known as gap junctions and hemichannels.

The signalling may well effect much more than just DNA changes

"We used a variety of chemicals to block this cell-to-cell signalling and found that in the presence of these blockers, the damage we were seeing was completely prevented," he said.

The team stressed that the concentrations of the particles were thousands of times higher than would be found in the human body, for instance from wear and tear on implants.

As a result, there is no reason to believe that implants pose a risk via the signalling mechanism.

However, its discovery suggests that there is much work to be done to establish if the mechanism that appears to be responsible for the DNA damage is limited to those materials, or can occur in the presence of other materials of a similar size.

That issue is of particular importance as more therapeutic and imaging approaches begin to make use of nano-scale materials.

Ashley Blom, head of orthopaedic surgery at the University of Bristol, explained that although the signalling could pose a future risk, once understood it could be put to good therapeutic use.

"If the barriers in the human body do work in this way, the first exciting thing is: can we deliver novel therapies across barriers without having to cross them?

"For example, if you have a condition that affects the brain, maybe we could treat you with something that doesn't cross the blood-brain barrier, that does not come in contact with the brain."

Source

If You Must Know

When Is It Legal to Frame a Man for Murder?

By Claire Suddath Thursday, Nov. 05, 2009

Terry Harrington stands with family and friends outside the Clarinda Correctional Facility after Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack signed a reprieve for Harrington on April 17, 2003

Charlie Neibergall / AP

In July 1977, retired police captain John Schweer was shot and killed while working as a night watchman at an Oldsmobile dealership in Council Bluffs, Iowa. Two teenagers, Curtis McGhee and Terry Harrington, were convicted of the murder based on evidence they allege was knowingly fabricated by prosecutors.

Pottawattamie County prosecutors David Richter and Joseph Hrvol presented a case that rested almost entirely on the testimony of a 16-year-old kid who was caught stealing cars and offered a $5,000 reward if he provided information about the murder. The witness misidentified the murder weapon, changed his story multiple times and fingered two other men before naming McGhee and Harrington in the crime. He even had to be coached by prosecutors about what to say during the trial so that his story matched the evidence. Richter and Hrvol revealed none of this at trial, nor the fact that they had previously suspected another man — one who had been positively identified by an eyewitness and had failed a polygraph test.

On Nov. 4, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments not over whether Richter and Hrvol had framed two men for murder, but whether they could be sued for it. In 2003, Iowa's supreme court overturned Harrington's conviction, while McGhee pled guilty to lesser charges and was released. Now both men are suing the Pottawattamie County prosecutors, claiming they coerced and coached witnesses, fabricated evidence and arrested them without probable cause. But according to federal law supported by numerous legal precedents, prosecutors have immunity for anything they do during a trial. Richter and Hrvol say they were just doing their job.

"If a prosecutor knowingly introduces false evidence at trial, that prosecutor is absolutely immune from lawsuit," explains Stephen Sanders, an attorney representing Richter and Hrvol. The rationale is that if prosecutors could be blamed for errors in a trial, they would become vulnerable targets for any litigious convict with an ax to grind.

"This means that some people who are genuinely wronged by a prosecutor [are not] able to recover," Sanders concedes. "But better that, the court says, than have prosecutors plagued by endless nuisance litigation or have them make decisions about whether or not to bring someone to trial based on whether they think they're going to get sued."

Sanders has a point: prosecutors build cases around eyewitnesses and uncooperative informants; holding them accountable for others' attempts to impede justice would hamper the entire judicial system. And yet, what of Harrington and McGhee? They were only 17 years old when they were convicted, and their story reads like something out of a John Grisham novel.

Theirs was a small town still reeling from the shock of a murder. Richter, the county attorney, was up for election the following year. The authorities' first suspect — a white man married to the daughter of the fire chief — failed a lie-detector test and was identified by more than one witness; his case was inexplicably dropped. Instead, Hrvol and Richter targeted two black teenagers whose only connection to the murder came from the testimony of a teenage boy who was arrested for stealing a car. The boy gave three alternate versions of the murder, admitted to lying on multiple occasions, and was allegedly pressured by Hrvol and Richter into naming Harrington and McGhee.

Hrvol and Richter cannot be tried for knowingly putting a dishonest witness on the stand. They don't have to own up to the fact that they presented false evidence or coerced a witness's testimony. But fortunately for McGhee and Harrington, they did something on which the law is not completely clear — they didn't just present the evidence at trial, but also helped gather it. In an unusual move, the prosecutors aided detectives by canvassing the neighborhood and interviewing witnesses, and so their actions may not be covered by absolute immunity. That is what the Supreme Court will decide.

"Usually when there's a case of fabricating evidence, it's done by the police officers because they're the ones investigating the crime. Like with Mark Furman allegedly planting a bloody glove on O.J. Simpson's property," says Todd Pettys, a law professor at the University of Iowa. Police officers don't have absolute immunity and can be sued when their actions are egregious enough. Framing someone for murder definitely falls into that category. "But if the prosecutors do it," says Pettys, "then what do you do?"

Sanders says his clients have not admitted to any wrongdoing. They haven't admitted or denied that they framed two men for murder. Instead, they are claiming that their guilt doesn't matter, that it was legal either way.

But to McGhee and Harrington, it does matter. They spent 25 years behind bars for a crime that they almost certainly did not commit. And now the men have gone to the Supreme Court not for justice but for the simple right to seek it.

"If the court doesn't protect an American from being framed for murder, if there isn't a remedy for being put in prison for something he didn't do based on evidence falsified against him," says McGhee's layer, Steve Davis, "then I'm going to move."

Source

Is a two-state solution a viable option? - 05 Nov 09

One state solution, non isolationism, justice, equality, and hope for all. Who can ask for a better solution?

CIA agents guilty of Italy kidnap

Hassan Mustafa Osama Nasr was snatched from a street in Milan

An Italian judge has convicted 23 Americans - all but one of them CIA agents - and two Italian secret agents for the 2003 kidnap of a Muslim cleric.

The agents were accused of abducting Hassan Mustafa Osama Nasr, known as Abu Omar, from Milan and sending him to Egypt, where he was allegedly tortured.

The trial, which began in June 2007, is the first involving the CIA's so-called "extraordinary rendition" programme.

The Obama administration has expressed its disappointment at the convictions.

"We are disappointed by the verdicts," state department spokesman Ian Kelly said in Washington.

He declined to comment further pending a written opinion from the judge, but said an appeal was likely.

Three Americans and five Italians were acquitted by the court in Milan.

Symbolic ruling

The Americans were all tried in their absence as they have not been extradited from the US to Italy.

For us, this first case puts the war on terror on trial Joanne Mariner Human Rights Watch spokeswoman

The CIA's Milan station chief at the time, Robert Lady, was given an eight-year term, while the other 22 Americans convicted - one of them a US air force colonel - were sentenced to five years in prison.

Lawyers for the 23 Americans said they would appeal against their convictions.

The two Italian agents, who were convicted as accomplices to kidnapping, were given three-year prison terms.

The court also ruled that those convicted must pay 1m euros ($1.5m) in damages to Abu Omar and 500,000 euros to his wife.

CIA spokesman George Little in Washington declined to comment on the convictions, telling the Associated Press news agency: "The CIA has not commented on any of the allegations surrounding Abu Omar."

Secrecy laws

Italian prosecutors said Abu Omar was taken as part of a series of extraordinary renditions carried out by the CIA - when terror suspects were moved between countries without any public legal process.

Judge Oscar Magi acquitted some of the highest-ranking defendants

They told the court he had been kidnapped in daylight on a Milan street in February 2003 and flown to Germany, and then Cairo, where he was held for years until being released without charge.

Judge Oscar Magi acquitted the CIA chief for Rome, Jeffrey Castelli, saying he was protected by state secrecy rules, as were the former head of Italy's military intelligence agency, Nicolo Pollari, and his deputy, Marco Mancini.

Mr Pollari, who resigned over the affair, told the court earlier this year that documents showing he had no involvement in the kidnapping were classified under secrecy laws.

Prosecutor Armando Spataro rejected the argument that legal provisions could shield those accused from prosecution, saying any agreement to carry out a kidnapping was "absolutely against Italian law".

He had sought a 13-year jail term for Mr Castelli and Mr Pollari and 12 years for Robert Lady.

Activist group Human Rights Watch welcomed the verdict, saying it sent "a strong signal of the crimes committed by the CIA in Europe".

Spokeswoman Joanne Mariner said: "For us, this first case puts the war on terror on trial."

Source

Jake Diliberto on Larry King Live

Israel keeps up Palestinian evictions 04 Nov 09

Taking the capital out of a city

Is Tehran coming to the end of its days as a capital city?

Iran's rulers are considering plans to relocate the country's capital. They say Tehran is in danger of being struck by a major earthquake. So how easy is it to move a capital out of a city, and where might Iran's go? Penny Spiller reports.

Tehran is a sprawling metropolis at the foot of the Alborz mountain range. It is home to some 12 million people, and is the largest city in the Middle East.

Not only is it the political and economic heart of the country, the city has a cosmopolitan air with its museums, art galleries, parks and universities. It has been Iran's capital since 1795.

But now a powerful state body, the expediency council, has approved plans by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei to end Tehran's days as a capital.

These plans are not new. They are part of a long-term strategy to see the capital moved by 2025, and will need approval from many more government bodies before any relocation begins.

The government is said to be reacting to calls from Iranian seismologists, who have long warned that Tehran lies on at least 100 known fault lines, and would not survive a major quake intact.

The devastating earthquake that killed some 40,000 people in the south-eastern city of Bam in 2003 has certainly concentrated minds on the issue.

But the timing of this decision - coming as it does months after some of the worst anti-government riots Tehran has ever seen - is interesting, says Dominic Dudley, Deputy Editor of the London-based Middle East Economic Digest.

Tehran is very much a liberal enclave in Iran, he says - and it was many of those liberals who took to the streets complaining of fraud when conservative incumbent Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was declared winner of June's presidential election.

"It is tempting to view anything going on Iran these days through the lens of that dispute," Mr Dudley told the BBC. "It certainly wouldn't hurt the government to move away from the big centre of liberal protests and opposition".

But where would it move to?

Iranian seismologist Professor Bahram Akasheh told the Guardian newspaper that a new capital should be built between the holy city of Qom and Delijan, in Markazi province.

This is an area, he said, that has not seen an earthquake in 2,000 years.

However, Qom is the spiritual home of Iran's conservative Islamic establishment. Moving the capital nearer to Qom could be seen as a sign of the conservatives stamping their authority, says Mr Dudley.

Distorted market

Wherever the capital moves to, and for whatever reasons, the government will have some other important considerations to take into account if creating a capital from scratch, says Andrew Jones of the engineering, planning and architectural design firm AECOM.

One of the things about a new capital is that it tends to insulate the government from the pressures and influences of the big city Claudio de Magalhaes University College of London

It is all very well moving government buildings and staff, but the new city will flounder if it has no cultural life and its economy is solely driven by the government.

"Generally, our capital cities are economic powerhouses as well as seats of government. That takes a long time to bed in," he told the BBC.

"A new city generally takes 10 to 20 years to build, it takes a century or more to mature into something that is an attractive and self-sustaining place."

Brazil's capital, Brasilia, might be an interesting example for the Iranian authorities to study.

It was built because the coastal location of the old seat of power, Rio de Janeiro, was deemed too far from large swathes of the country.

So the new capital was unveiled in a remote part of central Brazil in 1961.

Claudio de Magalhaes, senior lecturer in planning and urban regeneration at the University College of London, said this location suited the military government that came to power three years later.

CAPITAL MOVES Brazil: Brasilia, 1961 Tanzania: Dodoma, 1973 Ivory Coast: Yamoussoukro, 1983 Nigeria: Abuja, 1991 Kazakhstan: Astana, 1997 Burma: Naypyidaw, 2005

"One of the things about a new capital is that it tends to insulate the government from the pressures and influences of the big city," he said.

"The military government found it very convenient to have the political class away from the city. You don't have any demonstrations on your doorstep. It's very easy to close the airport and access to the city whenever you see fit, which happened in the early days of the government."

In the beginning, Brasilia was inhabited mostly by people whose livelihoods depended on the government.

But over the years it grew, and grew, and grew - confounding the planners' expectations.

"What no-one had predicted was the growth in the satellite areas around the city. These were places peopled by construction workers, cleaners for government buildings, mechanics for employees' cars," Mr Magalhaes told the BBC.

In the early days, land in the centre of Brasilia - known as the pilot plan and now a Unesco heritage site - was compulsory purchased and given to government ministries who were then able to offer homes to staff.

But as these assets were sold off, they reaped huge profits for the buyers as increasing numbers of people moving to the city sought to live in that area, Mr Magalhaes said.

"It distorted the market. And you had this strange situation whereby large houses with swimming pools outside Brasilia were much cheaper than a small flat in the centre," he said.

'Remake itself'

The total cost of moving Brazil's capital from Rio to Brasilia is so huge it has never really all been accounted for, Mr Magalaes believes.

Even 20 years after Brasilia was created, the government was still having pay premiums to get people to move there, he adds.

Losing its capital status also had a huge effect on Rio, which had already seen its economy suffer as businesses migrated to Sao Paulo.

"Local politics became very low level and was dominated by its relationship with the drug lords," Mr Magalaes said.

Andrew Jones of AECOM believes Tehran will also have a tough period of adjustment if it goes the same way as Rio.

"Although the underlying character of the city will stay, it will lose the added extras that come with being home to the seat of government. It will start to lose cultural institutions and some other components that make it a powerful place," he said.

"But I think Tehran will survive. It has been a major city for thousands of years, so it will recover and remake itself."

Source