Showing posts with label Lifestyle. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Lifestyle. Show all posts

Scandal spotlights 'hellish' horse trade




(File photo) A horse breathes heavily after finishing a race on February 10, 2013 in Exeter, England.




STORY HIGHLIGHTS


  • Roly Owers says public must be made aware of appalling consequences of horse trade

  • Every year around 65,000 horses are crammed into trucks and transported across Europe

  • Few, if any of them, are fit enough to travel on such long journeys, Owers says




Editor's note: Roly Owers is chief executive of World Horse Welfare and a qualified veterinarian with a lifetime of involvement with horses. He is active in working with governments, sport regulators, veterinary bodies and non-profit organizations to improve horse welfare worldwide.


(CNN) -- A welcome spotlight is now being shone on the murky trade in European horsemeat, but the public are still being left in the dark about the brutal treatment and needless suffering of the horses destined for their plates.


Every year around 65,000 horses are crammed into trucks and transported across Europe to the slaughterhouse for what can be days on end in hellish conditions.


Q&A: What's behind the horsemeat contamination scandal?



Roly Owers

Roly Owers



Stressed, injured, exhausted, dehydrated and suffering from disease, these horses are desperate for food, water and rest.


No type of horse is spared: including infirm working horses, foals (foal steak commands a premium among those who eat horse meat) and those bred and fattened to obesity to command the highest prices at slaughter.


Few, if any of them, are fit enough to travel on such long journeys -- a feat which would challenge even the most athletic sport horses. Many thousands of America's horses are also transported vast distances on journeys to slaughter in Mexico and Canada, so this is not simply a European problem.










EU health chief vows plan to restore confidence in wake of horsemeat scandal


World Horse Welfare undertakes regular field investigations as part of its campaign to stop these long-distance journeys, and for years we have documented the appalling suffering of these horses. In recent shipments we inspected, 89% of the horses had an injury and 93% showed clinical signs of disease.


Their misery was clear - all were showing signs of exhaustion and depression and many had suffered painful wounds from poorly designed compartments and terrible friction injuries due to inadequate space on the vehicle. No animal should have to suffer this.


The European Commission's own advisors, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) have clearly stated that "journey duration should not exceed 12 hours for horses."


First UK tests reveal scope of horsemeat contamination


Yet still the European Commission refuses to change the legislation that allows horses to be transported indefinitely, so long as they are given rest every 24 hours (a rule often broken, in part because it is unenforceable in practice).


Horses' immune systems decline after 10 hours of transportation making them more susceptible to disease. This is extremely unpleasant for the horses and it also poses a real risk to the equine industry of Europe, as horses intended for slaughter, often mix with other horses along the major routes.


We regularly present the findings from our investigations to the European Commission, and share information on breaches of transport law with the authorities. We have also presented a number of recommendations in our 'Dossier of Evidence' of welfare problems caused by the trade and our proposed solutions.


At the center of these recommendations is a 9-12 hour journey limit for horses (in keeping with the view of the European Commission's own scientific advisors), which is perfectly feasible given the abundance of slaughterhouses licenced to take horses, and would actually save money and red tape by harmonising with other laws. Yet the European Commission still refuses to act.


So what we can do to help these horses? First, we can make people aware of this appalling trade and encourage more Europeans to speak out against it. We can also write to our own governments in Europe to call for change.


And we can continue to press the European Commission for the short, maximum journey limit that is recommended by the Commission's own scientific experts. This is not about stopping people eating horsemeat -- that is a personal choice -- it is about fulfilling our basic responsibility to care for horses during their lifetime.


Together the louder we can shout to be the horses' voice, the more chance we'll have to put an end to this needless suffering. And that's exactly what it is -- utterly needless, reckless and brutal.


The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Roly Owers.






Read More..

Model: Getting what I don't deserve






STORY HIGHLIGHTS


  • Model Cameron Russell's TED Talk has been viewed more than a million times

  • She says, as winner of "genetic lottery," she has been able to have a modeling career

  • Her looks fit a narrow definition of beauty, she says

  • Russell: I work hard but my modeling career gives my views undeserved attention




Editor's note: Cameron Russell has been a model for brands such as Victoria's Secret, Calvin Klein, Ralph Lauren and Benetton and has appeared in the pages of Vogue, Harpers Bazaar and W. She spoke at TEDx MidAtlantic in October. TED is a nonprofit dedicated to "ideas worth spreading" which it makes available through talks posted on its website.


(CNN) -- Last month the TEDx talk I gave was posted online. Now it has been viewed over a million times. The talk itself is nothing groundbreaking. It's a couple of stories and observations about working as a model for the last decade.


I gave the talk because I wanted to tell an honest personal narrative of what privilege means.


I wanted to answer questions like how did I become a model. I always just say, " I was scouted," but that means nothing.


The real way that I became a model is that I won a genetic lottery, and I am the recipient of a legacy. What do I mean by legacy? Well, for the past few centuries we have defined beauty not just as health and youth and symmetry that we're biologically programmed to admire, but also as tall, slender figures, and femininity and white skin. And this is a legacy that was built for me, and it's a legacy that I've been cashing in on.


Some fashionistas may think, "Wait. Naomi. Tyra. Joan Smalls. Liu Wen." But the truth is that in 2007 when an inspired NYU Ph.D. student counted all the models on the runway, of the 677 models hired, only 27, or less than four percent, were non-white.


Usually TED only invites the most accomplished and famous people in the world to give talks. I hoped telling a simple story -- where my only qualification was life experience (not a degree, award, successful business or book) -- could encourage those of us who make media to elevate other personal narratives: the stories of someone like Trayvon Martin, the undocumented worker, the candidate without money for press.



Instead my talk reinforced the observations I highlighted in it: that beauty and femininity and race have made me the candy of mass media, the "once you pop you just can't stop" of news.


In particular it is the barrage of media requests I've had that confirm that how I look and what I do for a living attracts enormous undeserved attention.


Do I want a TV show? Do I want to write a book? Do I want to appear in a movie? Do I want to speak to CNN, NBC, NPR, the Times of India, Cosmo, this blogger and that journal? Do I want to speak at this high school, at that college, at Harvard Law School or at other conferences?


TED.com: A teen just trying to figure it out



I am not a uniquely accomplished 25-year-old. I've modeled for 10 years and I took six years to finish my undergraduate degree part-time, graduating this past June with honors from Columbia University. If I ever had needed to put together a CV it would be quite short. Like many young people I'd highlight my desire to work hard.


But hard work is not why I have been successful as a model. I'm not saying I'm lazy. But the most important part of my job is to show up with a 23-inch waist, looking young, feminine and white. This shouldn't really shock anyone. Models are chosen solely based on looks. But what was shocking to me is that when I spoke, the way I look catapulted what I had to say on to the front page.


Even if I did give a good talk, is what I have to say more important and interesting than what Colin Powell said? (He spoke at the same event and his talk has about a quarter of the view count.)




TED.com: Isaac Mizrahi on fashion and creativity


Like many young people I believe I have potential to make a positive impact in the world. But if I speak from a platform that relies on how I look, I worry that I will not have made room for anyone else to come after me. I will have reinforced that beauty and race and privilege get you a news story. The schoolteacher without adequate support, the domestic worker without rights, they won't be up there with me.


So what do I do? I am being handed press when good press for important issues is hard to come by. These outlets are the same outlets that spent two years not reporting a new drone base in Saudi Arabia while press in the UK covered it.


They are the same organizations that have forgotten New Orleans and forgotten to follow up on contractors who aren't fulfilling their responsibilities there -- important not only for the people of NOLA, but also for setting a precedent for the victims of Sandy, and of the many storms to come whose frequency and severity will rise as our climate changes.


TED. com: Amy Tan on where creativity hides


Should I tell stories like these instead of my own? I don't feel like I have the authority or experience to do so.


How can we change this cycle? The rise of the Internet and the camera phone have started to change what stories are accessible. And we now have the ability to build more participatory media structures. The Internet often comes up with good answers to difficult questions. So I ask: How can we build media platforms accessible to a diversity of content creators?


On a personal note, what should I talk about? Do I refuse these offers outright because of my lack of experience, because I'm not the right person to tell the stories that are missing from the media? Can I figure out a way to leverage my access to bring new voices into the conversation? Right now I'm cautiously accepting a few requests and figuring out what it all means.


I'm listening, tweet me @cameroncrussell


Follow @CNNOpinion on Twitter.


Join us at Facebook/CNNOpinion.


The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Cameron Russell.






Read More..

Afghanistan's future: Five questions






STORY HIGHLIGHTS


  • President Obama has revealed new details about the troop withdrawal in Afghanistan

  • But there are several key issues that still must be resolved in the coming months

  • The Afghan military has its critics, but the U.S. has praised its progress

  • There are fears that Afghanistan's advancements might be at risk after 2014




(CNN) -- In his State of the Union address, President Obama reaffirmed that the country's war in Afghanistan would be over by the end of 2014.


He also laid out more specifics.


Of the approximately 66,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan now, more than half -- 34,000 -- will come home in the next year, Obama said.


At the same time, Afghan troops will assume most of the responsibility for combat missions.


"This spring, our forces will move into a support role, while Afghan security forces take the lead," Obama said.


It was previously expected that Afghan forces would take the lead in combat missions by the middle of this year. But a U.S. official told CNN that the military transition has accelerated and that Afghans will lead all security operations by March.


What does this news mean for Afghanistan and America's longest war? Here are some key questions that will be asked in the coming months:


1. Are the Afghan troops up to the task?


There are certainly doubts.


A Pentagon review in December claimed that only one of 23 Afghan army brigades was capable of functioning on its own.










Meanwhile, literacy rates are low, desertion rates are high, and many deserters have joined the insurgency. There also have been a troubling number of "green-on-blue" attacks: Afghan troops attacking their American comrades.


But Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has spoken positively about the progress Afghans have made in growing their army, reducing violence and becoming more self-sufficient. Afghan forces now lead nearly 90% of operations across the country.


"We're on the right path to give (Afghanistan) the opportunity to govern itself," Panetta said earlier this month.


Afghan President Hamid Karzai said he welcomes the U.S. troop withdrawal and insists his army can defend the country against the Taliban.


"It is exactly our job to deal with it, and we are capable of dealing with it," Karzai said during an interview with CNN's Christiane Amanpour.


What the army needs now, Karzai says, is more equipment and firepower. He came to the Pentagon last month with a wish list asking for more helicopters, drones and other hardware, according to a senior defense official.


"We need an air force. We need air mobility," Karzai told Amanpour. "We need proper mechanized forces. We need, you know, armored vehicles and tanks and all that."


2. What presence will the U.S. have after 2014?


The plan is to withdraw all combat troops but keep a residual force in the country to help train Afghans and carry out counterterrorism operations when needed.


The size of that force is still being discussed.


Gen. John Allen, the former commander of U.S. troops in Afghanistan, recommended between 6,000 and 15,000 troops. But that figure was lowered to a range between 2,500 and 9,000, according to a defense official.


There might not be any U.S. troops at all if the United States cannot come to an agreement over immunity with Afghanistan. There was no American presence in Iraq at the end of that war because the Iraqi government refused to extend legal protections to U.S. troops.


Karzai, who's in favor of a residual force, said he would put the immunity decision in the hands of Afghan elders, and he expressed confidence that he could persuade the elders to see things his way.


Leaving no U.S. troops at all would be a major misstep, said Peter Bergen, CNN's national security analyst. He said the U.S. has abandoned Afghanistan already, in 1989, and the decision left America with little understanding of the power vacuum that led to the Taliban's rise in the first place.


"The current public discussion of zero U.S. troop presence in Afghanistan ... will encourage those hardliner elements of the Taliban who have no interest in a negotiated settlement and believe they can simply wait the Americans out," Bergen wrote in an op-ed for CNN.com. "It also discourages the many millions of Afghans who see a longtime U.S. presence as the best guarantor that the Taliban won't come back in any meaningful way."


3. What's at stake?


The main fear among the Afghan people is that the country could revert to another civil war once the United States withdraws its combat troops. The Taliban are still "resilient and determined," according to a recent Pentagon report, and insurgents continue to carry out attacks and pose a major security threat.


"Some people we've spoken to sort of take it for granted that there's going to be a civil war when the United States leaves," said CNN's Erin Burnett on a recent trip to Afghanistan. "It happened before when the Soviet Union left (in 1989)."










For all the violence Afghanistan has seen in the past decade, it has also seen major advancements in human rights and quality of life.


"During the Taliban, basically there were thousands of girls going to school in Afghanistan. Now you have millions of girls going to school," Burnett said. "So there's been real progress on women's rights. Obviously there remain a lot of problems -- honor killings, forced marriages, domestic violence -- but there has been real progress."


Retired Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal, once America's top commander in Afghanistan, said the Afghan people are "terrified."


"They're terrified because they think they have something to lose," McChrystal said. "There has been progress made. There is a better life. There are girls in school. There are things that are better than they were and opportunities potentially ahead.


"But they're afraid that if we completely abandon them in 2014, as they perceive we did in 1989, (things) would all go back."


And in Washington, there are worries that the wrong move could put the United States right back where it started, with nothing to show for a bloody conflict that started in 2001.


Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Rep. Buck McKeon, R-California, expressed concern last week that a hasty withdrawal could be "needlessly fraught with risk."


"Since the president took the commendable step of deploying a surge to Afghanistan in 2009, we have known that our hard-fought gains are fragile and reversible," McKeon said. "That isn't my assessment, but the consistent opinion of experts both military and civilian."


4. Who will lead after Karzai?


Afghanistan's only president of this century won't be in charge for much longer.


Elections are scheduled for April 2014, and Karzai has reached the term limit set by his country's constitution. He told Amanpour it's "absolutely time to go."


"A new president will come to this country. A new government will come to this country. And I'll be a happily retired civil servant," he said.


So while Afghanistan oversees a major military transition, it also will have to make a political transition.


Who will lead the country during this critical moment in its history? Will the vote go smoothly, without violence and without controversy? There were reports of ballot tampering and other violations in the last one.


The answers might be just as important to Afghanistan's security as the readiness of its troops.


"The single biggest challenge for us is the political transition, the elections of 2014," said Saad Mohseni, the media mogul behind Afghanistan's Tolo Television. "(If) we have credible elections, I think we'll be OK for the next five, six years. (If) we don't, there is a real danger that we'll see instability, especially in 2014 as the U.S. troops withdraw."


5. What part will the Taliban play?


Despite the ongoing insurgency, Karzai seems eager to resume stalled peace talks with the Taliban and include them in the political process.


The Taliban pulled out of talks last year, but Karzai said last month they "are very much conveying to us that they want to have peace talks. They're also people. They're also families. They also suffer, like the rest of Afghans are suffering."


Javid Ahmad, a Kabul native now with the Asia Program of the German Marshall Fund of the United States, believes revitalized peace talks are essential to Afghanistan's future and to the legacy of America's war.


"If withdrawing responsibly in 2014 is indeed high on President Obama's agenda, then he has little choice but to prioritize and accelerate the peace talks, negotiate a cease-fire between all sides, and reach a settlement that ensures that the Taliban lay down their weapons," Ahmad wrote in a recent column.


But will the Taliban be willing to cooperate? And if they enter negotiations, how much of an influence would they have on an Afghan society that has seen so many changes in the past decade?


"There have to be some red lines," said Jawed Ludin, Afghanistan's deputy foreign minister for political affairs. "Some of the achievements that we've had in the last 10 years can't be negotiated."


Karzai sounded confident that most of the Taliban would acknowledge this.


"I think there is now a critical mass in Afghanistan of the educated, of the Afghan people who want a future of progress and stability," he said. "And I think also that the Taliban recognize that this corner has been turned, the majority of them. Some may be there among them who would not -- who would remain, you know, in the darkest of the mindset possible. But those are a few."


CNN's Chris Lawrence, Mike Mount and Jake Tapper contributed to this report.






Read More..

How Carnival can clean up PR mess






STORY HIGHLIGHTS


  • David Bartlett: For Carnival, impact of 'cruise from hell' potentially devastating.

  • Passenger video, media puts Carnival increasingly on the defensive, he says

  • He says it must show real concern, lay out plan, go a long way to make amends

  • Don't try to justify or explain, he says, but get proactive now about fixing problem




Editor's note: David Bartlett is a senior vice president of Levick, a crisis and issues management and strategic communications firm based in Washington. He is the author of "Making Your Point" (St. Martin's Press), a guide to communication strategy and tactics.


(CNN) -- As three tugboats towed the disabled Carnival cruise ship Triumph back to port in Mobile, Alabama, things went from bad to worse.


The fire that caused the ship to lose power and drift aimlessly on rough Gulf of Mexico swells was just the beginning. Raw sewage seeped into corridors and cabin ways. Food had to be rationed. There were fears of looting. Not surprisingly, passengers were furious and emotional. Some were reported to be "acting like savages."


For Carnival and the rest of the cruise line industry, the implications are potentially devastating. The deadly capsizing in January 2012 of the Costa Concordia ship off the coast of Italy still lingers in the public's mind. About a month later, the Costa Allegra liner suffered a similar engine fire, lost power, and was set adrift in pirate-infested waters in the Indian Ocean. Carnival owns Costa Cruises, and now a third high-profile crisis for Carnival in just over a year threatens to cement the perception among vacationers that cruising might not be worth the risk.


Five things we've learned about cruises



David Bartlett

David Bartlett




In the age of social and digital media, the problems faced by cruise lines are compounded. Using mobile phones, passengers aboard the Triumph have been providing concerned family members with constant updates. Those enraged family members have immediately passed the horror stories along to the eager media. The public is getting the full play-by-play in virtual real time, leaving Carnival playing catchup from an increasingly defensive posture.


But as bad as the potential damage to Carnival's image may be, the company, as well as the rest of the cruise line industry, has an opportunity to blunt the impact, if it acts quickly and wisely.


It seems counterintuitive, but while the gruesome stories of the "cruise from hell" are still fresh, the crisis offers an opportunity for the cruise line to make a compelling statement about the industry's commitment to its passengers. (Statements from Carnival.)


Crisis management experts know that customers and the general public are more likely to judge an organization by how it handles a problem than how it got into the problem in the first place. That means Carnival has to go much further than mere reimbursements and vouchers for onward travel.


The challenge to Carnival's reputation is three-fold.


First the company must articulate real concern for passengers and clearly communicate what it is doing to make things right for customers. This will require financial sacrifices, of course. But Carnival has little choice but to pay now and win some badly needed goodwill -- or pay later in the courtroom, in the court of public opinion, and, of course, at the cash register when bookings decline.


Second, the company must clearly communicate what it is doing to fix the problem and prevent anything like it from ever happening again. How did an engine fire, serious as that might be, so quickly develop into a disaster of this magnitude?


My celebration trip on the Carnival Triumph: From joy to misery


How could it have been allowed to happen? Why was the widely reported chaos and disorder allowed to develop? Why did Carnival not have emergency response plans in place? What is the industry doing to prepare for what would seem to be a manageable situation? The public will demand answers to these basic questions before it will begin to trust again. Uncertainty breathes life into a crisis. Accurate and timely information smothers it.




Third, Carnival must aggressively and clearly deliver these messages now, and for as long as it takes to restore the public's trust.


So far, the story has been about the unthinkable conditions the passengers have been forced to endure. Carnival must move aggressively to reshape that narrative to reflect all that it is doing to rectify the situation.


After a bad cruise, can you cruise into court?


Carnival has to resist the temptation to explain, minimize, or justify what happened and position itself instead as part of the solution to the problems that caused the disaster. That is what the public will focus on and remember, but only if Carnival is able to communicate it fast and effectively.


Follow us on Twitter @CNNOpinion.


Join us on Facebook/CNNOpinion.


The opinions in this commentary are solely those of David Bartlett.






Read More..

How safe are nanoparticles in food?







STORY HIGHLIGHTS


  • Andy Behar: Some foods contain tiny, engineered particles called nanomaterials

  • Behar: Nanoparticles might pose health risks, since they have adversely affected mice

  • He says not enough studies have adequately demonstrated the safety of nanoparticles

  • Behar: With an emerging technology such as this, companies have to be careful




Editor's note: Andy Behar is the chief executive of As You Sow, a nonprofit organization that promotes corporate accountability.


(CNN) -- Some foods sold in supermarkets across America contain tiny, engineered particles called nanomaterials. Our organization decided to test doughnuts after learning that the titanium dioxide used as a coloring in the powdered sugar coating likely contained nano-sized particles.


The tests, conducted by an independent laboratory, found that both Dunkin' Donuts Powdered Cake Donuts and Hostess Donettes did indeed contain titanium dioxide nanoparticles. In response, a spokeswoman for Dunkin Donuts said the company was looking into the matter.


You must be wondering: What are nanomaterials? They are microscopic in size. "If a nanoparticle were the size of a football, a red blood cell would be the size of the field." Nanoparticles have been heralded as having the potential to revolutionize the food industry -- from enabling the production of creamy liquids that contain no fat, to enhancing flavors, improving supplement delivery, providing brighter colors, keeping food fresh longer, or indicating when it spoils.



Andy Behar

Andy Behar



But there are a few problems.


One is that no one knows how many and which food products have them. Companies are not being forthcoming about whether they are using nanoparticles. To further complicate the issue, some companies may not even be aware that they are selling products containing them.


Many companies are reluctant or uninterested in discussing the issue, and concrete information has been difficult to obtain. The majority of food companies are not responsive in providing information about their specific uses, plans and policies toward nanoparticles. There is also no law in the United States that requires disclosure. In contrast, companies in the European Union are required to label foods containing nanoparticles.


The bigger issue with nanoparticles is that they might pose health risks, as they have been found to in tests on mice.


There are not nearly enough studies that can adequately demonstrate the safety of nanoparticles in food additives or packaging. Scientists are still investigating how the broad range of nanoparticles, with their myriad potential uses, would react in the body.


When ingested, nano-sized particles can pass into the blood and lymph, where they circulate through the body and reach in potentially sensitive sites such as bone marrow, lymph nodes, the spleen, the brain, the liver and the heart.


Our knowledge about how nanomaterial food additives react in the body and their health impact is still in its infancy. While efforts are under way to understand them better, much deeper scientific inquiry should occur before nanoparticles are sold in food and food-related products.


More companies and consumers need to be aware of the use of engineered nanomaterials in foods and the potential unknown risks of this technology. More food products like M&M's and Pop-Tarts should be tested as recent studies have identified them as likely to contain nanomaterials as well.


Fortunately, a few companies have become willing to take a public position on nanoparticles.


McDonald stated that it "does not currently support the use by suppliers of nano-engineered materials in the production of any of our food, packaging, and toys." Similarly, Kraft Foods said that it was not using nanotechnology.


Some of the largest food companies in the world, including YUM! Brands, PepsiCo, and Whole Foods, need to know more about nanomaterials and check with their supplies to see if they are using them.


Americans are becoming increasingly interested in what is in the food they're eating. No longer content with label information on daily allowances of vitamins and minerals, U.S. consumers are following the lead of their counterparts in many other countries by demanding more disclosure about where and how their food is grown and whether it is safe.


Even though communicating risks to consumers can be challenging, the public's perception of safety will be paramount in determining the acceptance of nanomaterials. This is especially true for an emerging food-products technology the safety of which even the FDA has acknowledged a lack of understanding.



Follow us on Twitter @CNNOpinion.


Join us on Facebook/CNNOpinion.


The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Andy Behar.






Read More..

Obama speech 'relied on amnesia'






STORY HIGHLIGHTS


  • Matt Welch: State of the Union featured content-free calls to action for action's sake

  • He says governed might want to know what they've gotten in return for ballooning debt

  • Didn't we try repairing infrastructure with the stimulus package? he asks

  • Welch: Rand Paul spoke to those who think government should get out of way




Editor's note: Matt Welch is editor in chief of Reason and co-author of "The Declaration of Independents: How Libertarian Politics Can Fix What's Wrong With America" (Public Affairs).


(CNN) -- The two most memorable lines of President Barack Obama's fourth State of the Union address were the ad-libbed: "Get it done" (which doesn't appear in the remarks as prepared), and the emotional "They deserve a vote," concerning victims of gun violence.


As exasperated appeals for an obstructionist Congress to get off its duff, the exhortations provided emotional catnip for Democrats. For the rest of us, however, they were sobering reminders of what governing liberalism has deteriorated into: content-free calls to take action for action's sake.


Consumers of national governance are within their rights to ask just what we've gotten in return for ballooning the cost of the stuff since 2000. The answer may lie in not just what the president said, but what he has assumed we've already forgotten.



Matt Welch

Matt Welch



"Let's cut in half the energy wasted by our homes and businesses over the next 20 years," said the president, who promised a "Recovery Through Retrofit" three years ago. "The American people deserve a tax code that ... lowers tax rates for businesses and manufacturers that create jobs right here in America," said the man who before he took office vowed to, uh, give "tax breaks to companies that are investing here in the United States."


That "aging infrastructure badly in need of repair"? Well, what happened to the $50 billion from the stimulus package dedicated to precisely that task, or the $50 billion plan 18 months later? Making college "more affordable"? That has been the motivation for continuous ratcheting of government involvement in higher education, which has -- surprise! -- coincided with a several-decade increase in tuition costs and student loan debt.


Greene: In 2013, democracy talks back



Do-something politics works when Americans have amnesia, or are reacting to headline-making tragedies, or when they just want free stuff. But this irresistible force is butting up against the immovable object of a have-nothing U.S. Treasury. Debt service costs will soon overtake defense spending, and baby boomer entitlements are about to transform the federal government into a check-writing program for senior citizens.


Americans know by now that Obama can't possibly believe his own promises that his policies won't "increase our deficit by a single dime," not only because of his poor track record with that particular vow, but because he spends the rest of his time talking about all the various things the government needs to "invest" to create "broad-based growth." It's a conflict at the basic level of vision with those of us who think prosperity is mostly a private-sector affair that is on balance imperiled, not improved, by the exertions of a deficit-spending government.


Opinion: Obama dares Congress to get the job done








Thankfully, and quite unlike during the 2012 presidential campaign, the competing vision was voiced Tuesday night. Not necessarily by a dehydrated but game Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Florida, who delivered the Republican response to the State of the Union address, but by Sen. Rand Paul, R-Kentucky, who did the honors online for the tea party.


"The path we are on is not sustainable," Paul said, directly. "All that we are, all that we wish to be, is now threatened by the notion that you can have something for nothing, that you can have your cake and eat it, too, that you can spend a trillion dollars every year that you don't have."


Paul dinged Republicans as well as Democrats, targeted military spending as well as entitlements, and spent a good 30 seconds giving a more full-throated defense of wartime civil liberties than the allegedly anti-war candidate Obama ever did.


Most importantly, he laid out a truly alternative vision that speaks directly to the growing number of Americans who feel like the federal government has failed as the engine of economic growth, and needs urgently to take a back seat before it does more harm.


Rothkopf: This time, a president in full


"What America needs," Paul said, "is not Robin Hood, but Adam Smith." As Obamanomics continues underperforming through a second term, it will be fascinating to see whether Ron Paul's kid can get more people to agree.


Follow us on Twitter: @CNNOpinion.


Join us at Facebook/CNNOpinion.


The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Matt Welch.






Read More..

Was euro ever 'about to collapse'?








By Ramy Inocencio, for CNN


February 12, 2013 -- Updated 0948 GMT (1748 HKT)









STORY HIGHLIGHTS


  • Former European Central Bank chief says euro was never going to collapse

  • In 2012, critics predicted at least partial breakup of 17-member eurozone

  • Euro plunged to 25-month low against U.S. dollar in July 2012

  • Currency war fears prevail in run-up to G20 finance ministers meeting this week




Hong Kong (CNN) -- Less than six months ago, eurozone watchers had been predicting the breakup of the 17-member bloc of nations as the euro plunged to a 25-month low against the U.S. dollar last July.


Even as recently as November, Warren Buffett, the famed CEO of Berkshire Hathaway, said of the eurozone's future that "it's hard to tell exactly how it comes out."


But since then, the euro has appreciated nearly 11% as its member countries battled to contain sovereign debt crises, rising unemployment and social unrest. The euro now stands at a 13-month high against the greenback.


And flying in the face of last year's critics, former European Central Bank chief Jean-Claude Trichet told CNN's Nina dos Santos that the euro "was never about to collapse" and that its viability as a currency is solid.








"The euro as a currency has never been put in question," asserted Trichet, while at the same time admitting the euro area's financial stability and credit worthiness had been tested.


As for the euro, he said it "is certainly reliable and credible."


Yet, the euro's gains over the past seven months is a mixed blessing. Arguments have long-existed for and against a stronger currency. Appreciation means investors are more confident in the euro but eurozone exports become more expensive when sold overseas; devaluation makes the bloc's exports more competitive globally, which many eurozone officials would prefer.


But if the world's major economies devalued their currencies to make exports more competitive and to spur their economies to growth again, it would be chaos, says Trichet.


"If the reasoning is the same in all constituencies you have nothing but...a 'beggar-thy-neighbor' policy which is a recipe for catastrophe."


That catastrophe could take the form of an all-out currency war. And this week, the world's leading banks called on the G20 group of richest nations to avoid such an outcome.


"We believe major central banks should focus on enhancing their cooperation...to guide market expectations and thus help avoid a disorderly interest rate adjustment process and undue exchange rate volatility," the Institute of International Finance wrote in a letter to Russian Finance Minister Anton Siluanov, who is chairing the G20 finance minister's meeting later this week.


But with the eurozone in recession for the second time in four years, the desire to devalue the euro may be strong. The European Central Bank in December cut its 2013 growth forecast, with a best-case growth rate scenario of only 0.3%.


"It is no time for complacency," warned Trichet who added that the central banks of the United States, Japan and Europe as well as their private sectors should get their "house(s) in order."












Part of complete coverage on







January 21, 2013 -- Updated 1357 GMT (2157 HKT)



This month, the world's political and business elite will converge on Europe's highest-altitude town for the annual talk-shop that is the World Economic Forum.







January 11, 2013 -- Updated 1326 GMT (2126 HKT)



It started with one man peddling lavender and rosemary oil at local markets -- now it's a business valued at $4.8 billion.







January 10, 2013 -- Updated 1904 GMT (0304 HKT)



For the 19th year in a row, the Heritage Foundation, a conservative American think tank, has ranked the city of Hong Kong the freest economy in the world.







December 18, 2012 -- Updated 1951 GMT (0351 HKT)



So Brand Beckham now moves to the next generation. One of the Beckham juniors, 10-year-old Romeo, is appearing in the Burberry Spring 2013 campaign.







January 8, 2013 -- Updated 1535 GMT (2335 HKT)



All indications are that sanctions against Iran are really starting to bite and this time it is coming from the oil ministry in Tehran, which for months has denied that oil production was suffering due to international pressure.







January 1, 2013 -- Updated 1050 GMT (1850 HKT)



Flicking through her photos on her living room couch, Julia Quinn recounts the array of plastic surgery procedures she has undergone.







January 3, 2013 -- Updated 1222 GMT (2022 HKT)



If you want to reach the top at work, it's better to be feared than liked, according to a new study.







December 12, 2012 -- Updated 1114 GMT (1914 HKT)



In a historic fine, HSBC will pay out a record $1.92 billion to U.S. authorities to settle money laundering accusations.







December 6, 2012 -- Updated 0655 GMT (1455 HKT)



While China has become the world's second largest economy, doing business in China is now perceived to be more corrupt, according to Transparency International.







January 8, 2013 -- Updated 1501 GMT (2301 HKT)



You had better be logical and forceful when writing your resume. Your expertise and practical experience should stand out, if you want to get back resume filters.

















Read More..

Why pope will long be remembered




Tim Stanley says Pope Benedict will be seen as an important figure in church history.




STORY HIGHLIGHTS


  • Timothy Stanley: Benedict XVI's resignation is historic since popes usually serve for life

  • He says pope not so much conservative as asserting church's "living tradition"

  • He backed traditionalists, but a conflicted flock, scandal, culture wars a trial to papacy, he says

  • Stanley: Pope kept to principle, and if it's not what modern world wanted, that's world's problem




Editor's note: Timothy Stanley is a historian at Oxford University and blogs for Britain's The Daily Telegraph. He is the author of "The Crusader: The Life and Times of Pat Buchanan."


(CNN) -- Journalists have a habit of calling too many things "historic" -- but on this occasion, the word is appropriate. The Roman Catholic Church is run like an elected monarchy, and popes are supposed to rule until death; no pope has stepped down since 1415.


Therefore, it almost feels like a concession to the modern world to read that Benedict XVI is retiring on grounds of ill health, as if he were a CEO rather than God's man on Earth. That's highly ironic considering that Benedict will be remembered as perhaps the most "conservative" pope since the 1950s -- a leader who tried to assert theological principle over fashionable compromise.



Timothy Stanley

Timothy Stanley



The word "conservative" is actually misleading, and the monk who received me into the Catholic Church in 2006 -- roughly a year after Benedict began his pontificate -- would be appalled to read me using it. In Catholicism, there is no right or left but only orthodoxy and error. As such, Benedict would understand the more controversial stances that he took as pope not as "turning back the clock" but as asserting a living tradition that had become undervalued within the church. His success in this regard will be felt for generations to come.


He not only permitted but quietly encouraged traditionalists to say the old rite, reviving the use of Latin or receiving the communion wafer on the tongue. He issued a new translation of the Roman Missal that tried to make its language more precise. And, in the words of one priest, he encouraged the idea that "we ought to take care and time in preparing for the liturgy, and ensure we celebrate it with as much dignity as possible." His emphasis was upon reverence and reflection, which has been a healthy antidote to the 1960s style of Catholicism that encouraged feverish participation bordering on theatrics.


Nothing the pope proposed was new, but it could be called radical, trying to recapture some of the certainty and beauty that pervaded Catholicism before the reforming Vatican II. Inevitably, this upset some. Progressives felt that he was promoting a form of religion that belonged to a different century, that his firm belief in traditional moral theology threatened to distance the church from the people it was supposed to serve.



If that's true, it wasn't the pope's intent. Contrary to the general impression that he's favored a smaller, purer church, Benedict has actually done his best to expand its reach. The most visible sign was his engagement on Twitter. But he also reached out to the Eastern Orthodox Churches and spoke up for Christians persecuted in the Middle East.


In the United Kingdom, he encouraged married Anglican priests to defect. He has even opened up dialogue with Islam. During his tenure, we've also seen a new embrace of Catholicism in the realm of politics, from Paul Ryan's nomination to Tony Blair's high-profile conversion. And far from only talking about sex, Benedict expanded the number of sins to include things such as pollution. It's too often forgotten that in the 1960s he was considered a liberal who eschewed the clerical collar.


The divisions and controversies that occurred under Benedict's leadership had little to do with him personally and a lot more to do with the Catholic Church's difficult relationship with the modern world. As a Catholic convert, I've signed up to its positions on sexual ethics, but I appreciate that many millions have not. A balance has to be struck between the rights of believers and nonbelievers, between respect for tradition and the freedom to reject it.


As the world has struggled to strike that balance (consider the role that same-sex marriage and abortion played in the 2012 election) so the church has found itself forced to be a combatant in the great, ugly culture war. Benedict would rather it played the role of reconciler and healer of wounds, but at this moment in history that's not possible. Unfortunately, its alternative role as moral arbiter has been undermined by the pedophile scandal. Nothing has dogged this pontificate so much as the tragedy of child abuse, and it will continue to blot its reputation for decades to come.


For all these problems, my sense is that Benedict will be remembered as a thinker rather than a fighter. I have been so fortunate to become a Catholic at a moment of liturgical revival under a pope who can write a book as majestic and wise as his biography of Jesus. I've been lucky to know a pope with a sense of humor and a willingness to talk and engage.


If he wasn't what the modern world wanted -- if he wasn't prepared to bend every principle or rule to appease all the people all the time -- then that's the world's problem rather than his. Although he has attained one very modern distinction indeed. On Monday, he trended ahead of Justin Bieber on Twitter for at least an hour.


Follow us on Twitter @CNNOpinion


Join us on Facebook/CNNOpinion


The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Timothy Stanley.






Read More..

What beats Grammy? Immortality













Legends beyond their own time


Legends beyond their own time


Legends beyond their own time


Legends beyond their own time


Legends beyond their own time


Legends beyond their own time








STORY HIGHLIGHTS


  • Bob Greene: Grammy nominated acts should remember the real prize comes later in life

  • He says at a hotel he ran into a group of singing stars from an earlier era, in town for a show

  • He says the world of post-fame touring less glamorous for acts, but meaningful

  • Greene: Acts grow old, but their hits never will and to fans, the songs are time-machine




Editor's note: CNN Contributor Bob Greene is a best-selling author whose 25 books include "When We Get to Surf City: A Journey Through America in Pursuit of Rock and Roll, Friendship, and Dreams"; "Late Edition: A Love Story"; and "Once Upon a Town: The Miracle of the North Platte Canteen."


(CNN) -- Memo to Carly Rae Jepsen, Frank Ocean, Hunter Hayes, Mumford & Sons, Miguel, the Alabama Shakes and all the other young singers and bands who are nominated for Sunday night's Grammy Awards:


Your real prize -- the most valuable and sustaining award of all -- may not become evident to you until 30 or so years have passed.


You will be much older.


But -- if you are lucky -- you will still get to be out on the road making music.



Bob Greene

Bob Greene



Many of Sunday's Grammy nominees are enjoying the first wave of big success. It is understandable if they take for granted the packed concert venues and eye-popping paychecks.


Those may go away -- the newness of fame, the sold-out houses, the big money.


But the joy of being allowed to do what they do will go on.


I've been doing some work while staying at a small hotel off a highway in southwestern Florida. One winter day I was reading out on the pool deck, and there were some other people sitting around talking.


They weren't young, by anyone's definition. They did not seem like conventional businessmen or businesswomen on the road, or like retirees. There was a sense of nascent energy and contented anticipation in their bearing, of something good waiting for them straight ahead. A look completely devoid of grimness or fretfulness, an afternoon look that said the best part of the day was still to come.


I would almost have bet what line of work they were in. I'd seen that look before, many times.


I could hear them talking.


Yep.


The Tokens ("The Lion Sleeps Tonight," a No. 1 hit in 1961).




Little Peggy March ("I Will Follow Him," a No. 1 hit in 1963).


Little Anthony and the Imperials ("Tears on My Pillow," a top 10 hit in 1958).


Major singing stars from an earlier era of popular music, in town for a multi-act show that evening.


It is the one sales job worth yearning for -- carrying that battered sample case of memorable music around the country, to unpack in front of a different appreciative audience every night.


It's quite a world. I was fortunate enough to learn its ins and outs during the 15 deliriously unlikely years I spent touring the United States singing backup with Jan and Dean ("Surf City," a No. 1 hit in 1963) and all the other great performers with whom we shared stages and dressing rooms and backstage buffets:


Chuck Berry, Martha and the Vandellas, Jerry Lee Lewis, Little Richard, the Everly Brothers, James Brown, Lesley Gore, Freddy "Boom Boom" Cannon, the Kingsmen, the Drifters, Fabian, the Coasters, Little Eva, the Ventures, Sam the Sham. ...


Jukebox names whose fame was once as fresh and electric as that now being savored by Sunday's young Grammy nominees.


Decades after that fame is new, the road may not be quite as glamorous, the crowds may not be quite as large. The hours of killing time before riding over to the hall, the putrid vending-machine meals on the run, the way-too-early-in-the-morning vans to the airport -- the dreary parts all become more than worth it when, for an hour or so, the singers can once again personally deliver a bit of happiness to the audiences who still adore their music.


Greene: Super Bowl ad revives iconic voice


As the years go by, the whole thing may grow complicated -- band members come and go, they fight and feud, some quit, some die. There are times when it seems you can't tell the players without a scorecard -- the Tokens at the highway hotel were, technically and contractually, Jay Siegel's Tokens (you don't want to know the details). One of their singers (not Jay Siegel -- Jay Traynor) was once Jay of Jay and the Americans, a group that itself is still out on the road in a different configuration with a different Jay (you don't want to know).


But overriding all of this is a splendid truism:


Sometimes, if you have one big hit, it can take care of you for the rest of your life. It can be your life.


Sunday's young Grammy nominees may not imagine, 30 years down the line, still being on tour. But they -- the fortunate ones -- will come to learn something:


They will grow old, but their hits never will -- once people first fall in love with those songs, the songs will mean something powerful and evocative to them for the rest of their lives.


And as long as there are fairground grandstands on summer nights, as long as there are small-town ballparks with stages where the pitcher's mound should be, the singers will get to keep delivering the goods.


That is the hopeful news waiting, off in the distance, for those who will win Grammys Sunday, and for those who won't be chosen.


On the morning after that pool-deck encounter in Florida I headed out for a walk, and in the parking lot of the hotel I saw one of the Tokens loading his stage clothes into his car.


His license plate read:


SHE CRYD


I said to him:


"You sing lead on 'She Cried,' right?"


"Every night," he said, and drove off toward the next show.


The next show.


That's the prize.


That's the trophy, right there.


Follow @CNNOpinion on Twitter.


Join us at Facebook/CNNOpinion.


The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Bob Greene.






Read More..

Gun violence plans: What's in the works






STORY HIGHLIGHTS


  • Connecticut school massacre prompts a number of proposals in Washington aimed at curbing gun violence

  • They include a ban on assault weapons that insiders say has little chance of getting through Congress

  • Some bipartisan support for proposals to expand background checks around gun purchases




Washington (CNN) -- December's school massacre in Newtown, Connecticut, has prompted congressional lawmakers and the White House to offer a number of proposals aimed at curbing gun violence.


Here are some of the measures garnering the most attention:


The White House plan


President Barack Obama signed 23 executive actions, which don't require congressional approval, to strengthen existing gun laws and take related steps on mental health and school safety.


He has also called on Congress to reinstate the Clinton-era assault weapons ban that expired in 2004, to restrict ammunition magazines to no more than 10 rounds, and to expand background checks to anyone buying a gun, whether at a store or in a private sale at an auction or convention.










Assault weapons ban revisited


A proposal by Sen. Diane Feinstein, D-California, would not ban ownership of assault weapons outright, but would prohibit new ones from being manufactured, sold or imported. It would also outlaw ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.


She said the goal is to "dry up the supply of these weapons over time." The measure, along with a companion bill in the House, is opposed by the nation's powerful gun lobby, led by the National Rifle Association.


Cracking down on straw purchases


Vermont Democrat Sen. Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has called for stronger background checks and a crackdown on so-called straw purchases, in which people who can pass background checks buy weapons for others. Leahy has proposed a measure to increase penalties for straw purchasers.


Curbing gun trafficking


A new House bipartisan gun control bill seeks to make gun trafficking a federal crime. It has some bipartisan support and mirrors a measure proposed in the Senate.


House Democratic efforts


A group of House Democrats, who were part of the chamber's Democratic Gun Violence Prevention Task Force, unveiled 15 proposals to address gun violence. The measures largely echoed those previously backed by the White House.


The package is similar to other Democratic measures that would address background checks, ban high capacity magazines, and crack down on gun trafficking.


House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Viginia, told CNN that he supports beefed up background checks for gun sales.


Closing gun show loophole


A group of four senators working behind the scenes on a bipartisan bill to expand background checks on gun sales is making significant progress, according to sources in both parties familiar with their work.


The group includes Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Oklahoma, who has an A rating with the National Rifle Association, and Sen. Joe Manchin, D-West Virginia, a long time advocate of gun rights.


The legislation would effectively require background checks on private gun purchases made with non-licensed gun dealers, according to sources in both parties. That would include closing the so-called gun show loophole.


Political play


House Speaker John Boehner has said he has no plans to bring any measure up for a vote until the Senate acts first.


Republicans oppose any assault weapons ban and rural-state Democrats facing tough re-election fights are unlikely to support it as well, meaning that proposal has little chance of passing Congress.


There is some bipartisan support for expanded background checks, especially to keep guns out of the hands of people with mental illness. A number of lawmakers may also support limiting the size of ammunition magazines.


Some lawmakers have said that various gun proposals may be addressed in separate bills, rather than a comprehensive package, which could more easily be targeted by opponents.


The top Democrat in Congress, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, has a good rating from gun rights groups and has said he would work to ensure that a variety of proposals are brought to the floor for consideration.


He opposed the 1994 assault weapons ban and has indicated support for expanding background checks but refuses to endorse a new weapons prohibition.







Read More..

Facts? Shmacts. It's only a movie






STORY HIGHLIGHTS


  • Gene Seymour: "Lincoln" error on emancipation vote shines light on how films tell history

  • He says Oscar chances for "Argo," "Zero Dark Thirty" may be hurt after facts questioned

  • He says films have long gotten history wrong but are useful in showing society's perceptions

  • Seymour: It's art, not history, sometimes a vision, something we wish had been or could be




Editor's note: Gene Seymour is a film critic who has written about music, movies and culture for The New York Times, Newsday, Entertainment Weekly and The Washington Post.


(CNN) -- Everyone's a critic; I get that. But does everyone have to be a historian, too?


What audiences perceive as their inalienable right to challenge the accuracy and authenticity of movies seems to get much more exercised before the Academy Awards than at any other time of the year.


The latest challenge came Tuesday from Rep. Joe Courtney of Connecticut, who said Steven Spielberg's "Lincoln" misrepresented the way his predecessors in the 1865 House of Representatives voted on the 13th Amendment banning slavery. Courtney looked it up online and found in his research that all four Connecticut representatives voted for the amendment -- the movie shows two voting against. So in a letter to Spielberg's DreamWorks production office in Los Angeles, he asked DreamWorks for some form of correction. (DreamWorks hasn't been heard from yet.)



Gene Seymour

Gene Seymour



The film, considered a favorite for a best picture Oscar, places the back-and-forth struggle over the amendment in the forefront of its depiction of the 16th president, played by Daniel Day-Lewis. Courtney, unlike most others who have complained about big-time Oscar contenders, isn't out to ruin anybody's chances. He says he likes everything else about the movie. He merely wants props restored to his home state. And he seems to have a good case.


But you can bet your annual subscription to US Weekly magazine that the chatterboxes who gossip about and/or handicap the Academy Awards are going to try using his complaint as further indication of "Lincoln's" slipping stature as a best picture shoo-in. Some of these pundits claim "Argo" is charging hard from behind since its unexpected wins at both the Golden Globes and Screen Actors Guild Awards.


And yet "Argo" has truthiness issues of its own. Director-star Ben Affleck even admitted before the movie's release last fall that his movie about the 1979 CIA rescue of State Department employees from Iran stretched certain details for dramatic effect. (Spoiler alert!) There was, for instance, no last-minute car chase on a Tehran tarmac as Americans tried to escape on a plane, and their check-in at the terminal wasn't in real life nearly the white-knuckle sequence of events you see in the film.








Others have said the movie misrepresents the Iranian people as completely unified in their support of the takeover of the U.S. Embassy. "Thirty-three million Iranians ... did not commit acts of murder and terrorism," Iranian commentator Kambiz Atabai wrote on The Daily Beast. "Thirty-three million Iranians did not chant 'Death to America!' or take Americans hostage."


But neither "Lincoln" nor "Argo" has reaped the whirlwind of criticism of Kathryn Bigelow's "Zero Dark Thirty" for its depiction of events leading up to the 2011 killing of Osama bin Laden. Even before its limited release in December, the movie couldn't be discussed without referring to those accusing the movie of glorifying waterboarding of suspected terrorists or, at best, misleading audiences into believing that such so-called "enhanced interrogation" played a key role in guiding the United States to bin Laden.


Whatever critics or defenders say, the dispute alone is enough to make academy voters skittish about rewarding something that causes so much trouble.



You have to wonder: What is the big deal?


None of these films are documentaries and thus do not have the same obligations to fact. Yet one could argue that taking too many liberties with real life (whatever that means) could distort for generations the true story; that, indeed, what is enhanced for dramatic purposes becomes what everyone believes is what actually happened.


It's not so cut and dried. Consider D.W. Griffith's 1915 "The Birth of a Nation," regarded as the first great American film epic, whose glorification of the Ku Klux Klan makes contemporary audiences uneasy at best, infuriated at worst. Despite protests by the NAACP and other civil rights organizations, audiences generally agreed with President Woodrow Wilson's purported assessment of the movie: "It's like history written with lightning."


But society can change perception of art over time to the point of neutralizing, even transfiguring its original intent. No one now mistakes Griffith's movie as anything close to historic fact, but it could still be seen as a representation of a racist viewpoint that once held sway over much of America


Then there is John Ford, the great American director of such classic westerns as "Stagecoach" (1939), "The Searchers" (1956) and "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance" (1962). It was in the latter movie that Ford's aesthetic credo was put forth by a minor character, a journalist who discovers that the career-making triumph of a U.S. senator over an outlaw didn't happen as originally believed. The journalist chooses to keep things status quo. "This is the West, sir," he explains. "When legend becomes fact, print the legend." He might have added: "Because it makes a better story."


Or consider "My Darling Clementine," Ford's 1946 version of the Wyatt Earp saga. As the movie opens, the Earp brothers are herding cattle to Tombstone, Arizona, in 1882 when the youngest brother James is shot dead (in the back, of course) by the rustling Clanton family.


Three things, right off the bat are wrong: James was the eldest of the Earps, not the youngest, the Earp brothers never had any cattle either heading toward or ensconced within Tombstone's city limits and, though James' death is depicted as the spark that eventually led to the Earps' confrontation with the Clantons at the OK Corral, that famous gunfight actually occurred in 1881 -- if you're scoring, that's one year earlier. And the inaccuracies only begin there.


And yet the movie endures as one of Ford's best even after four movies about the same legend have been made, each claiming to be more faithful to historic fact than "Clementine." But "My Darling Clementine," a dream about a past that didn't exist, endures in collective memory. It may not be factual, but it's true to something; a vision, a state of mind, an aspiration to something we wish had been, or could be.


The most recent film about the legend, Lawrence Kasdan's "Wyatt Earp" (1994), is so faithful that you can barely remember anything about it.


Follow @CNNOpinion on Twitter.


Join us at Facebook/CNNOpinion.


The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Gene Seymour.






Read More..

Bring drones out of the shadows






STORY HIGHLIGHTS


  • John Brennan's confirmation hearing is a chance to ask about drone program, author says

  • Sarah Holewinski: Brennan is one of a few officials who knows full story on drones

  • She says senators need to ask about damage drone program does to civilians, U.S. reputation

  • Holewinski: CIA should hand over drone program to Defense Department




Editor's note: Sarah Holewinski is executive director of the Center for Civilians in Conflict, which advocates protections for civilians affected by armed conflict. She was a member of the White House AIDS policy team in President Bill Clinton's second term.


(CNN) -- The president's pick for CIA director -- John Brennan -- is one of a handful of U.S. officials who understands America's covert drone campaign inside and out.


Nearly everyone else is in the dark about the whos, wheres and whys of the program, including most members of Congress. But Brennan is also one of the few U.S. officials who's stood in front of a public audience and tried to explain the targeting of terrorists outside recognized battlefields. And while overseeing a massive use of lethal force, Brennan is also known inside the administration as a moderating voice in the fight against terrorism.



Sarah Holewinski

Sarah Holewinski



The fact is, Brennan's personal views are as opaque as the drone campaign itself. He may assume leadership of the CIA and decide a clandestine agency should not conduct what is an obvious military operation (a stance I and many others would fully support); after all, a veteran of the CIA may believe the agency should get back to gritty intelligence gathering.


Or, maybe Brennan believes that when it comes to the fight against al Qaeda, the public and its Congress should trust the executive office to protect the American people by whatever means it sees fit.


One way or the other, this week's Senate confirmation hearings should be an opportunity to bring Brennan's views out of the shadows, along with the basic attributes and justifications of the covert drone campaign. The man, the machine and the policy are inextricably linked.


Bergen: John Brennan, America's drone warrior



U.S. officials have consistently claimed that offering too many details about the covert drone program could threaten national security. Fair enough; some classification for national security is understandable. But the secrecy surrounding covert drone use is unduly excessive and not in keeping with the transparent government President Barack Obama promised.


Since the bulk of Brennan's hearing will be behind closed doors, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence has no reason to shy away from asking tough questions about the drone program. It matters that Congress is there to represent the American people. On their behalf, Congress has a duty to ensure the use of lethal force beyond our borders is being considered and carried out responsibly, with due consideration for the harm it may inflict on civilian populations.


Talk Back: Should U.S. be able to kill American terrorist suspects without trial?


Senators might ask a very basic question to Brennan, one that is seldom clearly answered by the administration: "What impact is the drone campaign against al Qaeda and its associates having?"




John Brennan, President Barack Obama's choice for CIA director, has been deeply involved in the U.S. drone program.



This is a fundamental question of accountability any U.S. official involved in setting or carrying out counterterrorism policy should be able to answer. That answer may describe a dwindling kill list, but it must also put forward facts about what impact drones are having on civilians living under them.


U.S. armed forces in Afghanistan and Iraq learned that the positive or negative impacts of an operation on the local population are an important metric of mission effectiveness. Commanders worked hard to reverse anti-American sentiment caused by a seemingly callous U.S. attitude toward civilian deaths and injuries. In the case of counterterrorism operations, palpable anger toward America would be antithetical to the goal of decreasing the number of terrorists and those who support their cause.


As it stands, it's unclear whether anyone, including Brennan, knows what negative consequences are emerging on the ground because of remote drones.


Rather, claims of low civilian casualties and drone precision capabilities paint a picture of extreme effectiveness in taking out terrorists while sparing civilians. It's true that a drone is precise, meaning it will hit what it is aimed at -- a building, a bunker or a person. But there are valid concerns about whether the target hit is the right one.


Opinion: When are drone killings illegal?


Remote drones likely rely on sources that may be questionable such as video and cell phone intercepts to identify a target. Civilians may be mistakenly targeted as combatants and counted as such because there are no ground troops to conduct a battle damage assessment, interview witnesses or properly identify bodies.


Civilians may also get caught up in so-called "signature strikes" in which operators target individuals based on behavior, not on known identity. This is legally questionable but also has real ramifications for civilians living under drones.


If a civilian in Pakistan doesn't know what behavior makes him a target for U.S. drones, he cannot fully protect himself and his family. If a drone harms his family, even mistakenly, our research shows they won't receive an apology, explanation or any help from the United States. Certainly there will be no love lost for America.


Any deaths and injuries are compounded by psychological trauma, displacement and fear and suspicion among neighbors. One Pakistani told us, "We fear that the drones will strike us again. ... My aged parents are often in a state of fear. We are depressed, anxious and constantly remembering our deceased family members."


Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the former commander of international forces in Afghanistan, recently noted, "What scares me about drone strikes is how they are perceived around the world. ... (T)he resentment created by American use of unmanned strikes ... is much greater than the average American appreciates. They are hated on a visceral level, even by people who've never seen one or seen the effects of one."


The drone program needs to come out of the shadows, with explanations about who is a civilian, who is a target, and how drone operators distinguish between the two.


The CIA should get out of the drone operation business, handing it over to the Defense Department, which has a culture of learning lessons, accountability to Congress and a new openness about civilian protection after 10 years of war in Afghanistan and Iraq.


Drone operators should be trained in civilian protection best practices, and any civilian harmed should receive recognition and help for their losses, in accordance with the values American policymakers have espoused about humanity even during times of war.


The Senate may confirm Brennan as head of the CIA. It should also confirm where he stands on government accountability for lethal force and the CIA's role in the remote drone program.


Follow us on Twitter @CNNOpinion.


Join us on Facebook/CNNOpinion.


The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Sarah Holewinski.






Read More..

What follows N. Korea's nuclear test?






STORY HIGHLIGHTS


  • Lopez: Uranium-based blast would pose new challenge to U.N. Security Council

  • Indicates Pyongyang has advanced centrifuge technologies and related systems

  • North Korea's young leader appears to care little about what U.N. or China think

  • Product-based sanctions may stifle the North's ability to continue nuclear program




Editor's note: George A. Lopez holds the Hesburgh Chair in Peace Studies at the Kroc Institute, University of Notre Dame. He is a former member, U.N. Panel of Experts on North Korea, or the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK).


Indiana, U.S. (CNN) -- North Korea will soon test its third nuclear device. Earlier tests in 2006 and 2009 drew worldwide condemnation, Security Council sanctions and led Pyongyang to withdraw from the six-party talks.


In resolution 2087, passed on January 22, the Council imposed new sanctions on North Korea for its December 12 space missile launch and made clear that new violations would be dealt with harshly.


READ: N.Korea: Close to nuclear missile?


In response, North Korea rejected Council legitimacy, asserted their right to nuclear weapons and deterrence and proclaimed it would soon conduct a new nuclear test.


In addition the North engaged in some strong saber-rattling aimed at South Korea.


READ: For South Koreans, a familiar tone from Pyongyang










Because some analysts believe this will be a uranium explosion, it is a game-changer for the region and poses new and unfavorable challenges to the Security Council. A successful uranium test indicates that Pyongyang has advanced centrifuge technologies and related support systems. It means that North Korea, if left unchecked, can both produce and export such material, raising new concerns that Pyongyang and Iran cooperate in such developments.


Politically the test will reveal that the new regime of Kim Jong-Un exceeds the defiance to U.N. dictates of his predecessors in pursuing his nation's nuclear goals. Neither the prospect of stronger sanctions, nor the growing discontent of Russia and China with his behavior, appears to deter North Korea's young leader.


OPINION: Rescind North Korea's license to provoke


These dilemmas confront the permanent five members of the Council with a harsh reality check regarding their unity of action and what message to convey to the north via what particular sanctions. If the Council follows the logic of resolution 2087, it will impose more extensive and punishing sanctions than ever before. Such sanctions will blacklist companies, government agencies and individuals long known for their role in illicit technology procurement and sanctions evasion. They will expand financial sanctions into areas of banking that would require substantial transnational enforcement to bite, and they may call upon countries in the region to inspect almost all North Korean trade. The economic squeeze and further isolation of the DPRK will increase substantially.


READ: Why sticks don't work with North Korea


These sanctions would require China to play an enforcement role against North Korean economic actors it has hitherto resisted. Seizing prohibited goods that pass through Dalian harbor and other trans-shipment points, as well as shutting down various border activities, would also fall to China. These extensive sanctions as punishment operate from the assumption that at some point the north will forego its nuclear program in order to survive as an authoritarian state.


But there may be an alternative to the punishment approach that could bring Beijing on board with effective Council action. China might well accept specialized trade sanctions aimed to degrade the DPRK's ability to sustain the nuclear program for lack of material and due to prohibitive costs of sanctions busting, as a way of conveying to Pyongyang that it must return to the negotiating table.


The logic of extensive new product-focused sanctions is that DPRK can make -- or jerry-rig -- only a small fraction of the advanced technologies and specialty materials that sustain an ongoing uranium enrichment program. To choke off these materials -- and the illicit means of financing them -- provides the Council with a possibility to make it technically impossible for DPRK to have a functioning uranium-based bomb program.


Precise lists of dozens of the materials used in centrifuge operation that should be sanctioned are already recorded for the Council in the reports of their Panel of Experts for the DPRK. Lists of related materials have also been developed by the Nuclear Supplies Group. To date the permanent five have sanctioned only a very few of the materials on either list. The Council also needs member states to strengthen export, customs and financial controls on dual-use items that are "below grade" of those newly sanctioned items. This will stifle the North's ability to upgrade or jerry-rig these hitherto unsanctioned items as a way of maintaining their program.


READ: Five things to know about North Korea's planned nuclear test


Also critical to the success of this choking of supplies would be stricter controls of the illicit financing that supports such trade. Putting strong enforcement behind the 2087 resolution's concern about DPRK cash flows, especially through its embassies, is also in order.


Another, somewhat unprecedented, sanctions option would be a Council-issued travel ban on North Korea placed on all scientists, engineers and others with specialized expertise in centrifuge technologies and uranium enrichment.


Political agreement on these measures will not be easy to attain among the permanent five nations of the Security Council. But a product-focused sanctions approach -- especially leveraged to aim for more direct diplomatic engagement with the DPRK while denying them material to grow their illicit programs -- has the best chance of gaining Council consensus.


The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of George A. Lopez.






Read More..