The EU must act in Darfur

April 29, 2007 11:00 AM *From Guardian Unlimited

For four years, violence and terror have ruled in Darfur. After many futile efforts, the EU must get tough with the perpetrators.

Darfur is a humanitarian catastrophe: more than 200,000 dead, thousands raped and tortured, and 2.6 million people displaced, owing to the Sudanese government's war against its own people. Originally an anti-insurgency effort, the campaign quickly mutated into a killing and expulsion operation. Sudan's government has been recruiting and paying the local "Janjaweed" militiamen, who have attacked hundreds of defenseless villages and towns, often in close co-ordination with the Sudanese air force.

The consequences are devastating. Roughly a third of Darfur's population has been forced from their homes and are now in displaced persons camps inside Sudan, where they remain subject to the Janjaweed terror, or in equally vulnerable refugee settlements in Chad. International humanitarian efforts to help those in Sudan are hampered by Sudanese government harassment and pointless bureaucratic hassles. Even if the aid arrives, the point, to quote one senior UN official, seems to be "keeping people alive with our humanitarian assistance until they are massacred".

Darfur demands consistent and firm international action. We all bear responsibility to help the displaced return to their homes. In the last three years, the United Nations Security Council has passed ten resolutions requiring the Sudanese government to change course and fulfill its obligation to protect its own people. These include a demand from the Security Council to disarm the Janjaweed. Yet the Sudanese government never follows through on its repeated promises to do so.

In November 2004, a peaceful solution was within reach, when the government and rebels signed a ceasefire and humanitarian agreement. For a short moment, there was reason to hope that peace was at hand. A Security Council resolution and international negotiation efforts had paved the way to end the 20-year war in southern Sudan - a breakthrough that in fact led to a deal signed by the government and southern rebels in January 2005. At that time, it appeared that a similar breakthrough in western Sudan would follow.

But the worst was yet to come. After an apparent lull in aerial bombardments, the planes soon returned, and the Janjaweed resumed their campaign of murder and destruction. The next round of peace negotiations, which opened in December 2004, stalled because the government launched a military offensive just as they started, in defiance of the ceasefire. This behavior is symptomatic of the lack of respect Sudan's government has shown towards its obligations.

A Security Council resolution last August mandated a 20,300-strong UN peacekeeping force to replace the small and overwhelmed African Union mission currently on the ground. Not surprisingly, the government in Khartoum rejected the idea. Subsequent negotiations led to a compromise agreement in November for a hybrid AU-UN force that would deploy in three stages. Talks continue to this day, but despite the occasional newspaper headline announcing a deal, the Sudanese government has been using every opportunity to delay or to attempt to add conditions to the force's mandate. The result is, the second phase of the deployment has still not taken place even though it was accepted by Khartoum six months ago.

The heart of the matter is this: the Sudanese government is either unable or unwilling to protect its own citizens from mass violence. In accordance with the "responsibility to protect" doctrine, adopted unanimously by heads of state and government at the UN World Summit in September 2005, if a state fails to meet this primary obligation, responsibility shifts to the international community, which may exercise various measures, including, if absolutely necessary, military force.

But military intervention in Darfur without the Sudanese government's consent is not an option today. Not only is there insufficient political will for an international force, but, more importantly, there are valid doubts about the feasibility and prospects for the success of such an operation.

Even so, the international community still has options. Although it would be best if these options were adopted by the UN Security Council, the EU itself can and must act to increase the costs to the Sudanese government of its continued obstruction of aid deliveries and its delaying tactics on deployment of international peacekeepers.

That is why it is so important that EU foreign ministers heed the European Parliament's call for serious sanctions against the Sudanese government, whose key players were clearly identified by a UN Commission of Inquiry and Panel of Experts. The EU must freeze these individuals' assets and impose an EU-wide travel ban on them.

In addition, measures should target the Sudanese government where it hurts most: revenue and foreign investment inflows into Sudan's petroleum sector, and supply of goods and services to that and associated sectors. The EU and its member states' governments must enact legislation to ban companies based in their countries from direct involvement in Sudan's petroleum sector and in industries related to it.

Moreover, an investigation into the offshore accounts of Sudanese businesses affiliated with the National Congress Party, the ruling majority party in Khartoum, should be launched, paving the way for sanctions against the regime's commercial entities, which form the main conduit for financing its Janjaweed proxies in Darfur.

Such targeted sanctions would affect the power and privileges of the key players in this crisis. By imposing them, Europe would finally take a real step towards stopping the killing in Darfur and extending meaningful help to its people.

Criminalising the consumer

IS IT legal to make a copy of that DVD you’ve just bought so the family can watch it around the home or in the car? In one of the most watched copyright cases in recent years, a judge in northern California ruled last month that copying DVDs for personal use was legal, given the terms of the industry’s licence and the way the copies were made.


The wider implication of the ruling remains clouded—not least because the DVD Copy Control Association, the loser in the case, has 60 days to appeal. But whatever the video industry may like to think, the writing is on the wall for copy protection.

Copyright is a tricky thing. It protects only the way that an author, designer, photographer, film-maker or composer has expressed himself. It does not cover the ideas or the factual information conveyed in the work.

What constitutes fair use or an infringement is trickier still. Much depends on the purpose and character of the borrowed material’s use. Limited reproduction for the purpose of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship and research is considered fair game. But the wholesale repackaging of the content for commercial use is a flagrant infringement.

In America, the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 made it legal for people to record copyrighted radio broadcasts for personal use. But while the act said nothing about making digital recordings, ripping copyrighted music tracks off CDs and storing them on an iPod has become an everyday occurrence. Despite the number of iTunes downloaded for a fee, Apple would be in trouble if people were prevented from transferring legitimately owned CDs to their iPods. The software Apple gives away to iPod customers is designed to let them do just that.

Most people think it ludicrous that they can’t do the same with the DVDs they own. Now it seems, despite squeals from the movie industry, the law is finally moving in the video fan’s favour.

The issue in the recent case was whether Kaleidescape, a maker of digital “jukeboxes” that store a person’s video and music collections and distribute the entertainment around the home, had breached the terms of the DVD Content Control Association’s CSS (content scrambling system) licence.

A Kaleidescape server stores digital content ripped from CDs and DVDs on its hard drive. The content is then encrypted and fed to various screens and speakers around the home by a secure cable. Kaleidescape claimed that content distributed this way was even safer than it was on the original polycarbonate disks. The judge not only agreed, but couldn’t find any breach of the copy-protection licence either.

If the case ends there, to all intents and purposes the notion of fair use would appear to apply to DVDs as well as CDs. The movie industry, which nowadays depends as much on DVD sales as on box-office receipts, still seems to think that making life difficult for its customers is a recipe for success.

After likewise shooting itself in the foot for ages, the record industry is now falling over itself to abandon DRM (digital rights management) on CDs. A number of online music stores such as eMusic, Audio Lunchbox and Anthology have given up using DRM altogether. In a recent survey by Jupiter Research, two out of three music industry executives in Europe reckoned that dropping DRM would improve sales.

The latest music publisher to do so is EMI, which announced in January that it had stopped producing CDs with DRM protection. “The costs of DRM,” it declared, “do not measure up to the results.”

In an open letter entitled “Thoughts on Music”, even Steve Jobs, Apple’s charismatic boss and chief evangelist, recently called for the elimination of DRM. From this month, Apple’s iTunes will sell EMI’s highest quality recordings (those with sampling rates of 256 kilobits per second) without DRM for a small premium.

Belatedly, music executives have come to realise that DRM simply doesn’t work. It is supposed to stop unauthorised copying, but no copy-protection system has yet been devised that cannot be easily defeated. All it does is make life difficult for paying customers, while having little or no effect on clandestine copying plants that churn out pirate copies.

Now the copy protection on DVDs is proving just as easy to bypass. The biggest flop has been the CSS technology featured in the recent Kaleidescape case. It was first cracked back in 1999 by a Norwegian programmer called Jon Lech Johansen, who showed, in a few short lines of elegant code called DeCSS, just how trivial such lauded protection systems really were. Since then, even the DRM used to protect the new high-definition video disks (the Blu-ray format from the Sony camp and its HD-DVD rival from the Toshiba alliance) have been cracked wide open.

While most of today’s DRM schemes that come embedded on CDs and DVDs are likely to disappear over the next year or two, the need to protect copyrighted music and video will remain. Fortunately, there are better ways of doing this than treating customers as if they were criminals.

One of the most promising is Audible Magic’s content protection technology. Google is currently testing this to find the “fingerprints” of miscreants who have posted unauthorised television or movie clips on YouTube.

The beauty of such schemes is that they don’t actually prevent anyone from making copies of original content. Their purpose is simply to collect royalties when a breach of copyright has occurred. By being reactive rather than pre-emptive, normal law-abiding consumers are then left in peace to enjoy their music and video collections in any way they choose. Why couldn’t we have thought of that in the beginning?

Hooked On Violence

BYLINE: By BOB HERBERT

BODY:

Two days after the massacre at Virginia Tech, a mentally disturbed man with a .40-caliber semiautomatic handgun opened fire in a house in Queens, killing his mother, his mother's disabled companion and the disabled man's health care aide. The gunman then killed himself.

Sixteen months ago, in the basement of a private home in the Dorchester neighborhood of Boston, four aspiring rappers, aged 19 to 22, were summarily executed in a barrage of semiautomatic gunfire. Two teenagers were arrested five months later, and one was charged as the gunman.

I had coffee the other day with Marian Wright Edelman, president of the Children's Defense Fund, and she mentioned that since the murders of Robert Kennedy and the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. in 1968, well over a million Americans have been killed by firearms in the United States. That's more than the combined U.S. combat deaths in all the wars in all of American history.

''We're losing eight children and teenagers a day to gun violence,'' she said. ''As far as young people are concerned, we lose the equivalent of the massacre at Virginia Tech about every four days.''

The first step in overcoming an addiction is to acknowledge it. Americans are addicted to violence, specifically gun violence. We profess to be appalled at every gruesome outbreak of mass murder (it's no big deal when just two, three or four people are killed at a time), but there's no evidence that we have the will to pull the guns out of circulation, or even to register the weapons and properly screen and train their owners.

On the day after Christmas in 2000, an employee of Edgewater Technology, a private company in Wakefield, Mass., showed up at work with an assault rifle and a .12-gauge shotgun. Around 11 a.m. he began methodically killing co-workers. He didn't stop until seven were dead.

An employee who had not been at work that day spoke movingly to a reporter from The Boston Globe about the men and women who lost their lives. ''They were some of the sweetest, smartest people I've ever had the chance to work with,'' he said. ''The cream of the crop.''

The continuing carnage has roused at least one group of public officials to action: mayors. ''We see the violence that is happening in America today,'' said Mayor Thomas Menino of Boston. ''Illegal guns are rampant. Go into almost any classroom in Boston -- sixth and seventh grade, eighth grade, high school -- and 50 percent of those kids know somebody who had a gun.''

The mayor noted that since the beginning of the year, more than 100 people have already been killed in Philadelphia, and nearly 80 in Baltimore. Most of the victims were shot to death.

Last year Mayor Menino and Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York, at a meeting they hosted at Gracie Mansion, organized a group of mayors committed to fighting against illegal firearms in the U.S. ''It is time for national leadership in the war on gun violence,'' Mr. Bloomberg said at the time. ''And if that leadership won't come from Congress or come from the White House, then it has to come from us.''

The campaign has grown. There were 15 mayors at that first gathering. Now more than 200 mayors from cities in 46 states have signed on.

When asked why Mayor Bloomberg had become so militant about the gun issue, John Feinblatt, the city's criminal justice coordinator, mentioned the ''human element.'' He said: ''I think it's because he's watched eight police officers be shot. And because, like all mayors, he's the one who gets awakened, along with the police commissioner, at 3 in the morning and 4 in the morning, and has to rush to the hospital and break the news that can break somebody's heart.''

Those who are interested in the safety and well-being of children should keep in mind that only motor vehicle accidents and cancer kill more children in the U.S. than firearms. A study released a few years ago by the Harvard School of Public Health compared firearm mortality rates among youngsters 5 to 14 years old in the five states with the highest rates of gun ownership with those in the five states with the lowest rates.

The results were chilling. Children in the states with the highest rates of gun ownership were 16 times as likely to die from an accidental gunshot wound, nearly seven times as likely to commit suicide with a gun, and more than three times as likely to be murdered with a firearm.

Only a lunatic could seriously believe that more guns in more homes is good for America's children.

URL: http://www.nytimes.com

LOAD-DATE: April 26, 2007

logical fallacies

1. Genetic Fallacy

instead of talking about the real argument itself, talks about the origin of the argument. <- irrelevant!

e.g. I've noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born. (Ronald Reagan)

2. Ad Hominem

ignores the merits of his/her opponents' arguments rather target at the persons who produce the arguments.

i. Abusive<- irrelevant!

ii. Circumstantial

point out the circumstance of the opponents themselves (they CAN have an ulterior motive and their arguments are still GOOD for OTHER people) >> only means you should be more careful, it doesn't mean the opposite is true!!!

iii. Tu Quoque

“you do it too!” <- hasn't really respond to the argument!

3. Ad Populam

the person appeals to bandwagoning, snobbery, or fear of being different than the majority in order to influence the other person

i. Bandwaggoning: “a lot of people do it!”

ii. Snobbery: “the elite do it!”

4. Appeal to Pity

emotional appeal <- irrelevant!

5. Straw Man

distort an opponent's position, directs arguments at this distorted position <- you've changed my point!

6. Appeal to force

7. Appeal to authority

EXPLAIN why he's credible/ more credible than the other authority

8. Appeal to Ignorance

lack of evidence =negation of the argument

9. slippery slope

10. false dichotomy

the arguer claims that his conclusion is one of only 2 options, when in fact there are other possibilities. he goes on to show that 1 option is outrageous therefore his preferred conclusion must be embraced.

key difference btw slippery slope & false dichotomy: SS. the disjunction maybe true (could be only 2 choices), the problem is how you get “not B”; FD. there are MORE options

11. alternate description

gives an alternate description of an object or event, and implying that under the new description the opponent's argument is flawed. [it's a fallacy if the original description is more appropriate]

e.g. take his son to a topless bar ~ “spend time with his loving father!”

12. composition [particulars -> whole]/ division

one mis-attributes properties of the whole to the part [division ]or the part to the whole [composition]

e.g. The Balboa Suspension Bridge was constructed using the strongest steel available, so the bridge must be extremely strong. >> what about the other parts of the bridge? what about a loosened nail? what about the design?

13. false cause [requires a causal chain]

mistaken a correlation for a cause

i. coincidence

ii. A causes B

iii. B causes A

iV. A and B both caused by C

14. hasty generalization [some particulars -> all particulars]

sample not typical: sample might be too small, or systematically biased

15. weak analogy

A has features WXYZ

B has features WXYZ

C has features WXYZ

D has features WXY, so it also has feature Z

16. begging the question

the arguer attempts to establish some conclusion P by appealing to some premises such that one or more of the premises illicitly assumes that P is true

17. affirming the antecedent / denying the consequent

attempting to fallaciously derive a conclusion from a conditional

e.g. if I had cake, I would be full; I'm full, so I had cake. (why? I could have had bread!)

.....; I didn't have cake, so I'm hungry. (really?)

Guns and More Guns

By now, the logic is almost automatic. A shooter takes innocent lives, and someone says that if the victims had been armed, this wouldn’t have happened. The only solution to a gun in the wrong hands, it seems, is a gun in the hands of everyone.

That’s the state of the debate over gun control today. The National Rifle Association and the gun lobby have silenced every legislature in this country. Instead of stricter laws, tighter controls and better background checks, the gun lobby proposes more guns. And what the gun lobby proposes, lawmakers deliver.

Seung-Hui Cho bought his guns illegally, though with the appearance of legality. He slipped through a loophole, through a disconnect between the way Virginia defines a disqualifying mental incapacity and the way the federal government does. After the fact, the loophole is self-evident, and it’s tempting to believe that now political leaders will work harder to keep people who are dangers to themselves from becoming dangers to others by buying guns. But the laws are as fragile and imperfect as they are because that is how the gun lobby wants them — and it is paying good money to keep them that way.

Those gun advocates who believe that the Second Amendment confers the right to carry a gun in public are quick to point out that they are law-abiding, decent citizens trying to protect themselves and their families in a world gone mad. But, of course, the guns can’t tell the difference. Arming more people would be a recipe for disaster.

True safety lies in the civility of society, in laws that publicly protect all of our rights and in having law-enforcement officers who are trained in the use of deadly force, then authorized to apply it in rationally defined situations. It is the gun lobby’s incessant efforts to weaken the gun laws that makes a tragedy like the one at Virginia Tech possible.

Climate Change Adds Twist to Debate Over Dams

The power company that owns four hydroelectric dams on the Klamath River says the dams provide a crucial source of so-called clean energy at a time when carbon emissions have become one of the world’s foremost environmental concerns.

But the American Indians, fishermen and environmentalists who want the dams removed point to what has happened since the first one was built nearly 90 years ago: endangered salmon have been blocked from migrating, Indian livelihoods have been threatened, and, more recently, the commercial fishing industry off the Oregon and California coasts has been devastated. They say the dams are anything but clean. They say the river is a mess.

“Should we have to sacrifice water quality for air quality?” said Craig Tucker, who is coordinating efforts by the Karuk tribe of Northern California to take down the dams. “Should Indians and family fisherman be the ones who have to sacrifice to address this problem?”

Whether the power company, PacifiCorp, wants to keep the dams because they improve air quality or simply because they are inexpensive to operate is not clear. But emphasizing an environmental argument that touches on climate change has added a new wrinkle to the longstanding debate over dam removal in the Pacific Northwest. In a region where plenty of residents measured their “carbon footprints” long before green became the new black, PacifiCorp is suggesting that righting one environmental wrong could lead to another, one that could affect people more than fish.

The Klamath dams provide enough power to serve about 70,000 homes, a small fraction of PacifiCorp’s 1.6 million customers, which span six Western states. But the company says only coal or natural gas are likely to be reliable enough to replace the river, which hits hydroelectric turbines four times on its way to the sea from east of the snow-capped Cascade Range.

Those who support removing the dams largely dismiss the clean-energy argument, saying the benefits outweigh losing a relatively small source of hydropower. They note that PacifiCorp’s increased interest in the environment comes as recent rulings by judges and federal fisheries agencies have given new momentum for removal. The company’s federal license to run the dams expired last year, and the government has said PacifiCorp must build fish ladders over the four dams to get a new license, a proposition that could cost $300 million and reduce the power the dams generate, potentially making removal a less costly choice.

Yet whatever is spent to restore salmon, and whether the solution is fish ladders or dam removal, the company has said that its customers will bear the cost, and the carbon.

“It’s a conundrum in many ways,” said Dave Kvamme, a spokesman for PacifiCorp. “Taking away a very useful resource like the Klamath puts more pressure on us to build something else or buy it on the market.”

The Klamath runs more than 250 miles from southwest Oregon to the California coast, connecting two states where power and water supply have long been contentious issues. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger of California and Gov. Theodore R. Kulongoski of Oregon are helping lead the push for clean fuel sources. Last year, California passed a law requiring a 25 percent reduction in the state’s carbon dioxide emissions by 2020. Oregon is also pushing to increase the amount of renewable energy it uses.

Both governors have said removing the Klamath dams should be an option, but they have not taken firm positions. Earlier this year, Mr. Schwarzenegger proposed spending about $4 billion to build two dams on the San Joaquin River for water storage, an idea environmentalists have long opposed.

The Northwest, where more than 80 percent of the power generated comes from hydroelectricity, has long had some of the lowest electricity rates in the nation. It has also been the setting for epic environmental fights that reflect the tension across the region’s topographic and demographic divides.

“We think of ourselves as ahead of the curve, as eco-topia, when it comes to saving endangered species, like the spotted owl,” said John M. Findlay, a history professor at the University of Washington. “But these things are much more complicated when we try to actually solve them.”

Mr. Findlay said the region’s identity as an environmental leader was rooted in cities like Portland and Seattle, not in the areas where rivers provide power and water for farms.

“They’re the most sympathetic to taking down the dams,” he said of big-city residents. “But they’re also the people who are kind of taking cheap power for granted. If you’re in a city and you have the power just piped in over wires it’s too easy to not recognize where that comes from, and not to realize that people and economies are all connected to that.”

The Klamath dams are among the most controversial in a much broader dam removal effort led by environmentalists, American Indians and commercial fishermen.

In the next several years, dams on the Elwha and White Salmon Rivers in Washington and the Sandy River in Oregon are scheduled to be removed. But in many ways, they are only steppingstones to larger targets, including the dams on the Klamath and four on the Lower Snake River.

More fish could be saved by removing the bigger dams, but more power would be lost, too.

Supporters of removal say conservation measures and new sources of energy like wind and sun can replace lost hydroelectric power. Some also say the fact that snowpack is decreasing could reduce the amount of electricity dams generate. Dam owners in the region, including private utilities and the federal government, say the new sources of clean energy cannot replace dams. The use of wind power is expanding quickly, but its effectiveness depends in part on having dams or another steady energy source during lulls in the breeze.

In a written statement last month, Bill Fehrman, the president of PacifiCorp, said replacing power from the Klamath would “cost our customers more money, and potentially a lot more money” and “could result in adding combustion emissions to the environment.”

PacifiCorp has said it is not opposed to removal, but it would need approval from regulating commissions in six states before it could pass on costs of dam removal to its customers. Blending the cost and climate change arguments could strengthen its case.

“We have to demonstrate to our commissions that we’ve done what we can to protect their interest,” said Mr. Kvamme, the spokesman.

Salmon and air quality are not all that is at risk. The river and its dams support an elaborate irrigation system started by the federal government more than a century ago. Water from the river provides for about 240,000 acres of cattle pastures, alfalfa fields and other farming. It also flows through a wildlife preserve.

When Edward Bartell and his family moved to southwest Oregon from California to raise beef cattle 30 years ago, land, water and power were inexpensive. Now, the water supply is at the mercy of an ever denser maze of environmental regulations intended to protect fish. And the price of power, delivered wholesale thanks to the Klamath dams, went through the roof when PacifiCorp said it could no longer justify the discounted rate in the current market.

Mr. Bartell shook his head when asked if families who moved here to farm because of the available irrigation knew such a knot could one day develop, that the dams might not last forever.

“It was unthinkable,” Mr. Bartell said. “Obviously, nobody would have come.”

U.S. Rules Made Killer Ineligible to Purchase Gun

Under federal law, the Virginia Tech gunman Seung-Hui Cho should have been prohibited from buying a gun after a Virginia court declared him to be a danger to himself in late 2005 and sent him for psychiatric treatment, a state official and several legal experts said Friday.

Federal law prohibits anyone who has been “adjudicated as a mental defective,” as well as those who have been involuntarily committed to a mental health facility, from buying a gun.

The special justice’s order in late 2005 that directed Mr. Cho to seek outpatient treatment and declared him to be mentally ill and an imminent danger to himself fits the federal criteria and should have immediately disqualified him, said Richard J. Bonnie, chairman of the Supreme Court of Virginia’s Commission on Mental Health Law Reform.

A spokesman for the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives also said that if Mr. Cho had been found mentally defective by a court, he should have been denied the right to purchase a gun.

The federal law defines adjudication as a mental defective to include “determination by a court, board, commission or other lawful authority” that as a result of mental illness, the person is a “danger to himself or others.”

Mr. Cho’s ability to buy two guns despite his history has brought new attention to the adequacy of background checks that scrutinize potential gun buyers. And since federal gun laws depend on states for enforcement, the failure of Virginia to flag Mr. Cho highlights the often incomplete information provided by states to federal authorities.

Currently, only 22 states submit any mental health records to the federal National Instant Criminal Background Check System, the Federal Bureau of Investigation said in a statement on Thursday. Virginia is the leading state in reporting disqualifications based on mental health criteria for the federal check system, the statement said.

Virginia state law on mental health disqualifications to firearms purchases, however, is worded slightly differently from the federal statute. So the form that Virginia courts use to notify state police about a mental health disqualification addresses only the state criteria, which list two potential categories that would warrant notification to the state police: someone who was “involuntarily committed” or ruled mentally “incapacitated.”

“It’s clear we have an imperfect connection between state law and the application of the federal prohibition,” Mr. Bonnie said. The commission he leads was created by the state last year to examine the state’s mental health laws.

Mr. Bonnie, the director of the University of Virginia Institute on Law, Psychiatry and Public Policy, said his panel would look into the matter. “We are going to fix this,” he said.

“I’m sure that the misfit exists in states across the country and the underreporting exists,” he said.

After two female Virginia Tech students complained about Mr. Cho’s behavior in 2005, he was sent to a psychiatric unit for evaluation and then ordered to undergo outpatient treatment, which would not qualify as an involuntary commitment under Virginia law, Mr. Bonnie said.

“What they did was use the terms that fit Virginia law,” he said. “They weren’t thinking about the federal. I suspect nobody even knew about these federal regulations.”

But Christopher Slobogin, a law professor at the University of Florida who is an expert on mental health, said that under his reading of Virginia law, outpatient treatment could qualify as involuntary commitment, meaning Virginia law should have barred Mr. Cho from buying a weapon as well. Mr. Bonnie said he and the state’s attorney general disagreed with that interpretation.

Mr. Slobogin added that the federal statute “on the plain face of the language, it would definitely apply to Cho.”

A spokesman for the Virginia attorney general’s office declined to comment on Friday, saying only that various agencies were “reviewing this situation.”

Richard Marianos, a spokesman for the federal firearms agency, said Friday that federal and state officials were looking into the question, studying the court proceedings and testimony.

But Mr. Marianos added, “If he was adjudicated as a mental defective by a court, he should have been disqualified.”

Dennis Henigan, legal director at the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, said the oversight on the federal law in Virginia had probably been occurring for some time.

“They may have been doing this for years, just basically assuming, if the guy’s not disqualified under state law, then we don’t have to send anything to the state police,” Mr. Henigan said. “It’s a failure to recognize the independent obligation to the federal law.”

Most states do not follow the letter of the federal law when it comes to the mental health provisions, said Ron Honberg, legal director for the National Alliance on Mental Illness, an advocacy group.

“I suspect if we look at all the requirements that exist for the states, there’s probably a whole lot of them that don’t implement them,” Mr. Honberg said, explaining that the gap often comes from a lack of resources but also because no one is enforcing the requirements.

“When something like this happens, then people start to pay attention to this,” he said.

Representative Carolyn McCarthy, Democrat of New York, has been pushing a bill to require states to automate their criminal history records so computer databases used to conduct background checks on gun buyers are more complete.

The bill would also require states to submit their mental health records to their background check systems and give them money to allow them to do so.

According to gun control advocates, the mental health information currently submitted to the national check system is often spotty and incomplete, something Ms. McCarthy’s bill is designed to address.

Representative John D. Dingell, Democrat of Michigan and a former member of the National Rifle Association’s board of directors, is co-sponsoring the bill, which has twice passed the House only to stall in the Senate. Congressional aides say Mr. Dingell is negotiating with pro-gun groups to come up with language acceptable to them.

“The N.R.A. doesn’t have objections,” Mr. Dingell said in an interview. “There are other gun organizations on this that are problems.”

A spokesman for the rifle association declined to comment Friday on the legislation, but Mr. Dingell said the measure could prevent future tragedies.

“It resolves some serious problems in terms of preventing the wrong people from getting firearms,” he said.

Cho’s Mental Illness Should Have Blocked Gun Sale

Under federal law, the Virginia Tech shooter Seung-Hui Cho should have been prohibited from purchasing a gun after a Virginia court declared him to be a danger to himself in late 2005 and sent him for psychiatric treatment, a government official and several legal experts said Friday.

Federal law prohibits anyone who has been “adjudicated as a mental defective,” as well as those who have been involuntarily committed to a mental health facility, from purchasing a gun.

A special justice’s order in late 2005 that directed Mr. Cho to seek outpatient treatment and declared him to be mentally ill and an imminent danger to himself fits the federal criteria and should have immediately disqualified him, said Richard J. Bonnie, chairman of the Supreme Court of Virginia’s Commission on Mental Health Law Reform. A spokesman for the Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms also said if that if found mentally defective by a court, Mr. Cho should have been denied a gun.

The federal law defines adjudication as a mental defective to include “determination by a court, board, commission or other lawful authority” that as a result of mental illness, the person is a “danger to himself or others.”

Mr. Cho’s ability to purchase two guns despite his history of mental illness has cast new attention on Virginia’s relatively lax gun laws. And since states are supposed to enforce federal gun laws, the sales raise questions about whether Virgina — and other states — fully comply with the federal restrictions.

Virginia state law on mental health disqualifications to firearms purchases is worded slightly differently from the federal statute. As a result, the form that Virginia courts use to notify state police about a mental health disqualification only addresses the state criteria, which lists two potential categories that would warrant notification to the state police — someone who was “involuntarily committed,” or ruled mentally “incapacitated.”

“It’s clear we have an imperfect connection between state law and the application of the federal prohibition,” said Mr. Bonnie. The commission he chairs was created by the state last year to examine the state’s mental health laws.

Mr. Bonnie, the director of the University of Virginia Institute on Law, Psychiatry and Public Policy, said his panel would look into the matter: “We are going to fix this.”

He also said he believed similar problems likely exist elsewhere in the country.

“I’m sure that the mis-fit exists in states across the country, and the underreporting exists,” he said.

After a pair of female students complained about his behavior in 2005, Mr. Cho was sent to a psychiatric unit for evaluation and then ordered to undergo outpatient treatment, which would not qualify as an involuntary commitment under Virginia law, Mr. Bonnie said.

“What they did was use the terms that fit Virginia law,” he said. “They weren’t thinking about the federal. I suspect nobody even knew about these federal regulations.”

But Christopher Slobogin, a professor of law at the University of Florida who is an expert on mental health issues, said that under his reading of the Virginia law, outpatient treatment could also qualify as involuntary commitment, meaning Virginia state law should have barred him from buying a weapon as well, an interpretation Mr. Bonnie said he and the state’s attorney general disagree with.

Mr. Slobogin added that the federal statute “on the plain face of the language, it would definitely apply to Cho.”

A spokesman for the Virginia state attorney general’s office declined to comment today, saying only that various agencies are “reviewing this situation.”

Richard Marianos, a spokesman for the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, would only say today that federal and state officials were looking into the question, studying the court proceedings and testimony.

But he added: “If he was adjudicated as a mental defective by a court, he should have been disqualified.”

Federal authorities apparently have not noticed Virginia’s failure to comply with federal guidelines restricting gun sales to the mentally ill. Dennis Henigan, legal director at the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, said the oversight on the federal law in Virginia has probably been occurring for some time.

“They may have been doing this for years, just basically assuming, if the guy’s not disqualified under state law, then we don’t have to send anything to the state police,” he said. “It’s a failure to recognize the independent obligation to the federal law.”

Most states do not follow the letter of the federal law when it comes to the mental health provisions, said Ron Honberg, legal director for the National Alliance on Mental Illness, an advocacy group.

“I suspect if we look at all the requirements that exist for the states, there’s probably a whole lot of them that don’t implement them,” he said, explaining the gap often comes from a lack of resources but also because no one is enforcing them. “When something like this happens, then people start to pay attention to this.”

Representative Carolyn McCarthy, a New York Democrat, has been pushing a bill that would require states to automate their criminal history records so that computer databases used to conduct background checks on gun buyers are more complete. The bill would also require states to submit their mental health records to their background check systems and give them money to allow them to do so.

Currently, only 22 states submit any mental health records to the federal National Instant Criminal Background Check System, the Federal Bureau of Investigation said in a statement on Thursday. Virginia is the leading state in reporting disqualifications based on mental health criteria for the NICS system, the statement said.

According to gun control advocates, however, the mental health information submitted is often spotty and incomplete, something Ms. McCarthy’s bill is designed to address.

Representative John Dingell, a Michigan Democrat and former member of the National Rifle Association’s board of directors, is co-sponsoring the bill, which has twice passed the House only to stall in the Senate, with Ms. McCarthy. According to congressional aides, he is negotiating with pro-gun groups to come up with language acceptable to them.

“The NRA doesn’t have objections,” he said in an interview. “There are other gun organizations on this that are problems.”

A spokesman for the NRA declined to comment Friday on the legislation, but Mr. Dingell said the measure could prevent future tragedies: “It resolves some serious problems in terms of preventing the wrong people from getting firearms.”

Loosening the Stem Cell Binds

The Senate easily approved a bill this week that would free embryonic stem cell research from the worst shackles imposed by the Bush administration. The House passed its version earlier. A substantial majority of Americans tell pollsters they support embryonic stem cell research. Yet one man, President Bush, and a minority of his party, the religious and social conservatives, are once again trying to impose their moral code on the rest of the nation and stand in the way of scientific progress.
Mr. Bush is threatening a veto, and neither house had enough votes for the bills on initial passage to override him. Concerned voters will need to ratchet up the pressure on recalcitrant Republicans to help stop the president from killing the second enlightened stem cell bill in less than a year.
Under the president’s current policy, federal funds can be used to support research on only some 20 stem cell lines that have limited scientific value. Many of the lines are deteriorating or contaminated, and the group as a whole lacks the diversity needed to conduct a wide range of studies. There is no doubt that progress is being hampered. The director of the National Institutes of Health, who had initially been a good soldier in trying to live within the president’s policy, told the Senate last month that American science would be better served if the nation let researchers have access to more stem cell lines.
The restrictions on federal financing have led to absurdly complicated and costly maneuvers. Scientists are forced to buy extra equipment and laboratory space with private money to perform off-limits research while using equipment and supplies bought with federal money on the permitted stem cell research. In a shocking example cited during Senate debate, a California researcher who had been cultivating stem cells in a makeshift privately financed lab suffered a power failure but was unable to transfer her lines into industrial-strength freezers in another lab because they were federally financed. Two years of work melted away because of this inanity.
The Senate bill would greatly expand the available stem cell lines by tapping into the thousands of surplus embryos left over at fertility clinics. The bill would allow federal support for research on stem cell lines derived from embryos originally created for fertility treatments but not needed for that purpose and thus doomed to be discarded. The donors would have to give their informed consent and could not receive any financial or other inducements to donate their surplus embryos. In a nod to the religious conservatives, the bill also calls for research on alternative techniques to derive stem cells without the use of human embryos, an approach that is certainly worth pursuing but is deemed less promising by most experts.
At the same time, the Senate passed a bill proposed by supporters of the president’s policy that seeks to derive stem cells from embryos that might be judged “naturally dead,” perhaps because they were considered unsuitable for transplantation at a fertility clinic. This is a poorly considered proposal that can only be deemed a diversion from the main business at hand — the need to free American science from the chains imposed by the president.

Nobody Neets this lazy lot any more

The Neets, the idle young, are a huge drain on welfare and with immigrants keen to do the jobs they won’t, they will remain so, says David Smith
This week Channel 4 will begin a new series of Shameless, the series set around the Gallaghers, described by the producers as “the UK’s most dysfunctional family”, on the fictional Chatsworth Estate.
The father figure, Frank Gallagher, is an ageing “Neet” — the government’s own acronym for those of working age who are not in employment, education or training. The surprise, and this is perhaps why the series is fictional, is that his children are hard working although they are mostly still at school. In real life they would almost certainly end up as Neets.
If so they would join more than a million others. The number of young people aged 16 to 24 in Britain who are classified as Neets stands at 1.24m. The number of young male Neets has risen by 27% to 575,000 since the spring of 1997, while the number of young female Neets is also up but by only 6% to 669,000.
Other countries have Neets although only in Britain, and curiously Japan, is the problem considered significant enough for the term to be widely used.
The Neets are the yobs hanging around off-licences late into the night. They are the graffiti artists who cannot spell and the drug-dealing pit-bull owners. They are also the Vicky Pollard types who become single mothers. Not all Neets fit the caricature. A young mother in a stable relationship bringing up children at home would be classified as a Neet. So could somebody temporarily out of work, such as a university graduate looking for their first job.
In many cases, however, Neets do fit the caricature and are responsible for much more than their fair share of crime and antisocial behaviour.
A study by the Department for Education and Skills in 2005 found that the proportion of Neets among 16 to 18-year-olds “has remained stubbornly persistent” over the past decade at about 10%.
Research assembled by Reform, the think tank, shows that on the government’s own figures, each new entrant to the Neet class will cost the public £97,000 over their lifetime, with the worst examples weighing in at more than £300,000.
The same study also analysed their social impact. Drug use among 16 to 18-year-olds is higher, with 71% admitting to having used illegal drugs, compared with 45% of non-Neets. This and other factors had an impact on their health: 15% of male and 25% of female Neets were in poor health by age 21 (compared with 10% and 15% respectively of non-Neets).
Neets are also more likely to have children earlier — potentially disrupting their education. Some 60% of Neet women have had children by the age of 21, compared with only 10% of the non-Neet population. They are also more likely to drift into crime.
The same study found that 29% of male and 8% of female young Neets were involved in crime, three times the rate among all young people. It estimated that the cost to society of the Neet class in terms of crime, public health and antisocial behaviour was so high that a single 157,000-strong cohort of 16 to 18-year-old Neets would cost the country £15 billion by the time they died (prematurely) in about 2060.
David Willetts, the Tory shadow education secretary, says the problem is down to educational failings. Neets tend to do badly at primary school, leaving without being able to read or write properly, and then getting stuck in the slow lane at secondary school. Children who have neither parent working, like the Gallaghers, or a single parent who does not work, are much more likely to end up as Neets.
The rising number of Neets also reflects another governent failing. When he introduced the “New Deal” for young people in 1998, Gordon Brown insisted that there would be “no fifth option” beyond work, training, education or starting a business. But the New Deal, for many, has proved to be a revolving door back to unemployment. And the Neets have discovered that there is indeed a fifth option. Most continue to claim benefit while happily ignoring the strictures of our future prime minister.
“The New Deal is very effective, by international standards, at what it does — getting young long-term unemployed benefit claimants into jobs — but its focus on unemployed benefit claimants has meant less was provided to the majority of 18-24 Neets,” says Paul Bivand, head of analysis at Inclusion, a non-profit organisation which promotes social justice.
The Neets are part of a wider problem identified by Nicholas Boys Smith, a welfare expert. Welfare, he says, has become the forgotten problem, largely because of government propaganda which implies that the benefits bill is now trivial and that most spending goes on health and education.
In fact, as he points out, spending on social security in 2005-6 was £79 billion, excluding pensions, £6 billion more than was spent on education and not that far below the health budget of £96 billion.
The number of working age people dependent on benefits, 5.4m, or 14% of the age group, has stayed high, as has the tendency for them to be benefit “lifers”. More than 70% of claimants remain on benefits for over a year.
For the Neets, and for others on the margins of the workforce, there is a particular problem now that was barely on the radar screen when Brown was talking so bullishly about his New Deal in 1998 — immigration.
In a speech last week David Blanchflower, one of the members of the Bank of England’s monetary policy committee, said it was wrong to blame immigration for the rise in unemployment over the past year or so; it would probably have occurred anyway. The government’s own research has come to similar conclusions.

However, there is no doubt that the arrival of skilled and enthusiastic immigrants from eastern Europe has raised the bar for Neets. Those willing to work face tougher competition than their predecessors.
In many cases they offer no competition. Sir Digby Jones, appointed as the government’s skills “czar” last month, gives the example of a Scottish employer who offered jobs to unemployed young people. On the first day some of them did not turn up; by the end of the week none did. The Polish workers he employed instead, in contrast, have yet to take a day off.
The Neets are going to be with us for a very long time.

plz click the title to see related news on xinhua

Challenge to Emissions Rule Is Set to Start

The fight over cars and carbon dioxide moves today from the Supreme Court to a federal courtroom in Burlington, Vt., in a case that automakers say could reshape vehicles sold on the East and West Coasts.
The industry is suing to block a 2004 California regulation on global warming from taking effect. The rule would require a 30 percent cut in emissions of greenhouse gases from cars and trucks sold in Vermont and New York, which follow California’s air quality rules, to be fully phased in by the 2016 model year.
In court filings, automakers have argued that regulating the emissions will increase pollution, cause more traffic deaths and lead domestic automakers to stop selling most of their passenger models in states that adopt such regulations.
The companies have disputed that global warming is a problem, even though they have acknowledged it in different forums as a serious problem. And they tried, mostly unsuccessfully, to close much of this case to the public.
“This is a huge issue to consumers, because it may well determine what vehicles are available for them to purchase,” said Gloria Bergquist, a spokeswoman for the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, which includes General Motors, Toyota and most other large automakers. “If it’s a big issue for consumers, it’s a big issue to us.”
Environmental groups and the offices of the attorneys general in Vermont and New York, which is a party to the case, say the automakers are overstating the complexity and hardship of such a regulation.
“It’s that sky-is-falling approach, but the sky didn’t fall with catalytic converters,” Attorney General William H. Sorrell of Vermont said, referring to the antipollution technology forced on the industry in the 1970s.
Last week, in a 5-to-4 decision in Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, the Supreme Court ruled that the agency has the authority to regulate heat-trapping gases in automobiles. The Bush administration has long opposed that.
Instead, more than 12 states, including California, Massachusetts, New York and Vermont, have already or are in the process of moving to regulate such emissions.
California has the authority to set air-quality rules, and Northeastern states have long chosen to follow those rules instead of Washington’s. The Supreme Court victory was important for the states, because the approval of the environmental agency is needed before California can regulate emissions involving global warming.
Automakers have sued to block the California regulation in federal courts in California, Rhode Island and Vermont, though just the Vermont case has gone forward. That case is scheduled to enter the trial phase today.
The battle has exposed fault lines among automakers. Two trade groups representing the major manufacturers are involved in the suit, one dominated by domestic producers and one by foreign.
They have clashed in their legal strategies, and just G.M. and DaimlerChrysler, two of the more outspoken companies opposing the new regulation, are directly listed as plaintiffs. The trade groups had initially sued separately but are now plaintiffs in a consolidated suit.
The main legal argument uniting the industry is their contention that states cannot regulate carbon dioxide emissions because that would be little different from regulating fuel economy, and Washington has the sole authority to set mileage standards. The recent Supreme Court ruling, however, appeared to undermine that argument.
The industry estimates that the new regulation would impose a 50 percent increase in fuel economy for passenger cars and small sport-utility vehicles but a more modest increase for large trucks, effectively making it harder for a company like G.M. to bring smaller vehicles like the Chevrolet Malibu into compliance than its Hummers.
An expert hired by automakers said, according to court filings, that DaimlerChrysler, Ford Motor and G.M. “will need largely to exit” from the passenger car and small truck markets.
Environmental groups say the industry is ignoring the potential effects of its move to bolster alternative fuels like ethanol, as well as the advent of hybrid electric technology and other technologies.
Automakers argued in a court filing in January that “defendants make unsubstantiated predictions that global climate change is having a number of alarming adverse effects.”
Michael J. Stanton, the president of the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers, a plaintiff group, said in an interview the position did not represent the views of the mostly Asian automakers who are his constituents, some of whom are trying to create “eco-friendly” reputations.
“We believe that there is enough information out there to address climate change and we know that cars — passenger cars and light trucks — contribute, and we want to be part of the solution,” Mr. Stanton said.
The regulation California adopted in 2004 was to begin taking effect with 2009 models and to be phased in over eight years. President Bush and Congress more recently discussed fuel economy rules that could potentially accomplish similar reductions for gases tied to global warming, though no firm plan is in place.
Among other points, the industry says more fuel efficient cars could be dangerous, because they will be cheaper to drive and lead people to drive more and potentially have more accidents.
“Everybody’s getting a good laugh out of the safety claim,” said David Bookbinder, a lawyer for the Sierra Club, which is a party to the case. “Detroit is saying it’s a bad idea for everybody to drive more.”

A Call for Manners in the World of Nasty Blogs

Is it too late to bring civility to the Web?
The conversational free-for-all on the Internet known as the blogosphere can be a prickly and unpleasant place. Now, a few high-profile figures in high-tech are proposing a blogger code of conduct to clean up the quality of online discourse.
Last week, Tim O’Reilly, a conference promoter and book publisher who is credited with coining the term Web 2.0, began working with Jimmy Wales, creator of the communal online encyclopedia Wikipedia, to create a set of guidelines to shape online discussion and debate.
Chief among the recommendations is that bloggers consider banning anonymous comments left by visitors to their pages and be able to delete threatening or libelous comments without facing cries of censorship.
A recent outbreak of antagonism among several prominent bloggers “gives us an opportunity to change the level of expectations that people have about what’s acceptable online,” said Mr. O’Reilly, who posted the preliminary recommendations last week on his company blog (radar.oreilly.com). Mr. Wales then put the proposed guidelines on his company’s site (blogging.wikia.com), and is now soliciting comments in the hope of creating consensus around what constitutes civil behavior online.
Mr. O’Reilly and Mr. Wales talk about creating several sets of guidelines for conduct and seals of approval represented by logos. For example, anonymous writing might be acceptable in one set; in another, it would be discouraged. Under a third set of guidelines, bloggers would pledge to get a second source for any gossip or breaking news they write about.
Bloggers could then pick a set of principles and post the corresponding badge on their page, to indicate to readers what kind of behavior and dialogue they will engage in and tolerate. The whole system would be voluntary, relying on the community to police itself.
The code of conduct already has some early supporters, including David Weinberger, a well-known blogger (hyperorg.com/blogger) and a fellow at the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law School. “The aim of the code is not to homogenize the Web, but to make clearer the informal rules that are already in place anyway,” he said.

But as with every other electrically charged topic on the Web, finding common ground will be a serious challenge. Some online writers wonder how anyone could persuade even a fraction of the millions of bloggers to embrace one set of standards. Others say that the code smacks of restrictions on free speech.
Mr. Wales and Mr. O’Reilly were inspired to act after a firestorm erupted late last month in the insular community of dedicated technology bloggers. In an online shouting match that was widely reported, Kathy Sierra, a high-tech book author from Boulder County, Colo., and a friend of Mr. O’Reilly, reported getting death threats that stemmed in part from a dispute over whether it was acceptable to delete the impolitic comments left by visitors to someone’s personal Web site.
Menacing behavior is certainly not unique to the Internet. But since the Web offers the option of anonymity with no accountability, online conversations are often more prone to decay into ugliness than those in other media.
Nowadays, those conversations often take place on blogs. At last count, there were 70 million of them, with more than 1.4 million entries being added daily, according to Technorati, a blog-indexing company. For the last decade, these Web journals have offered writers a way to amplify their voices and engage with friends and readers.
But the same factors that make those unfiltered conversations so compelling, and impossible to replicate in the offline world, also allow them to spin out of control.
Women are not the only targets of nastiness. For the last four years, Richard Silverstein has advocated for Israeli-Palestinian peace on a blog (richardsilverstein.com) that he maintains from Seattle.
People who disagree with his politics frequently leave harassing comments on his site. But the situation reached a new low last month, when an anonymous opponent started a blog in Mr. Silverstein’s name that included photos of Mr. Silverstein in a pornographic context.
One public bid to improve the quality of dialogue on the Web came more than a year ago when Mena Trott, a co-founder of the blogging software company Six Apart, proposed elevating civility on the Internet in a speech she gave at a French blog conference. At the event, organizers had placed a large screen on the stage showing instant electronic responses to the speeches from audience members and those who were listening in online.
“Any community that does not make it clear what they are doing, why they are doing it, and who is welcome to join the conversation is at risk of finding it difficult to help guide the conversation later,” said Lisa Stone, who created the guidelines and the BlogHer network in 2006 with Elisa Camahort and Jory Des Jardins.
A subtext of both sets of rules is that bloggers are responsible for everything that appears on their own pages, including comments left by visitors. They say that bloggers should also have the right to delete such comments if they find them profane or abusive.
That may sound obvious, but many Internet veterans believe that blogs are part of a larger public sphere, and that deleting a visitor’s comment amounts to an assault on their right to free speech. It is too early to gauge support for the proposal, but some online commentators are resisting.
Mr. O’Reilly said the guidelines were not about censorship. “That is one of the mistakes a lot of people make — believing that uncensored speech is the most free, when in fact, managed civil dialogue is actually the freer speech,” he said. “Free speech is enhanced by civility.”

Britain’s Military to Permit Former Captives to Sell Stories

Two days after they were paraded as heroes with a story to tell, some of the 15 British sailors and marines captured and released by Iran seemed Sunday to have decided they have a story to sell.
In a highly unusual decision, Britain’s Ministry of Defense — normally tight-lipped, to say the least — acknowledged Saturday that it had agreed to permit them to offer their experiences for sale to newspapers and television stations.
Such transactions are common enough among civilians, some of whom have traded the rights to their stories for considerable sums of money. But the notion of active military service members making a profit from their exploits — particularly when thousands of others serving in Iraq and Afghanistan face daily peril and sometimes death — has reinforced the criticism of the 15 Britons’ seemingly pliant behavior toward the Iranians holding them.
“Our armed forces are, I think, the most respected institution in the country pretty much, and they deserve to be after the job they have done in very difficult circumstances in Iraq and in Afghanistan,” William Hague, the opposition Conservative spokesman on foreign affairs, said in a television interview.
“But if, whenever people have been in a difficult situation, they are going to be allowed to sell their story quickly after that, then I think we are going to lose steadily that dignity and respect for our armed forces.”
Six of the 15 former captives spoke at a news conference on Friday, recounting moments when some of them thought they were about to be executed as they faced psychological pressure to make public “confessions” on state-run Iranian television that they had unlawfully strayed into Iranian territorial waters.
The Ministry of Defense’s decision to allow them to tell the stories of solitary confinement and blindfolding to the public seemed intended to offset criticism in newspapers here that the sailors and marines had succumbed too easily and too quickly to Iranian pressure. The critics said their behavior contrasted markedly with that of service personnel in earlier eras, when captured service members were under orders to provide their captors with only limited information.
“It seems reasonable to at least wonder whatever happened to divulging one’s name, rank and number,” the columnist Marina Hyde wrote in The Guardian.
Opposition even came from the possibly unexpected quarter of Max Clifford, one of Britain’s leading publicists, who, as a well-known agent on behalf of people selling their stories, has done as much as anyone to put the word checkbook into checkbook journalism.
“This is purely a propaganda exercise,” Mr. Clifford told The Press Association news agency. “In the past troops were always stopped from talking about what had gone on.”
“They can control it, and they do control it when it suits them,” he said, referring to the Ministry of Defense. “It didn’t suit them in this particular case.”
The Ministry of Defense said in a statement on Sunday that the sale of stories would strengthen its control over what the released sailors and marines had to say.
“It was clear that the stories they had to tell were likely to have emerged via family and friends, regardless of any decision the navy took,” the statement said.
By allowing them to sell their stories, by contrast, the statement said, the navy and the Ministry of Defense would have “sight of what they were going to say as well as providing proper media support to the sailors and marines in the same way as would have been the case in more ordinary circumstances.”
Mr. Clifford estimated that the sales could earn about $500,000, with the biggest amount likely to be paid to Leading Seaman Faye Turney, the only woman among the captives, who was said by Iranian television to have written letters home criticizing British and American policy.
Mr. Clifford said he had been approached by three or four of the service members about selling their stories.
In some ways, the unfolding saga of the 15 — captured on March 23 in the Persian Gulf — has become a parable for modern Britain in a time when warfare has become intertwined with the battle of perceptions and versions played out on 24-hour television news channels.
During the captivity, British, American and other broadcasters picked up and retransmitted Iranian video of the captives seeming to deny Britain’s official insistence that they were captured while performing a legal search in Iraqi waters.
“The released hostages are behaving like reality TV stars,” Col. Bob Stewart, a former commander of United Nations forces in Bosnia, told The Sunday Times of London. “I am appalled that the Ministry of Defense is encouraging them to profit in this way.”
There is an element, too, of the class distinctions that still stratify some parts of British society. “No one complains if a general writes his memoirs,” said Flight Lt. John Nichol, who was captured and tortured during the Persian Gulf war of 1991. “But there is snobbery about a junior rank telling their story.”
The most poignant criticism came from the relatives of the 140 British service members who have died in Iraq since the invasion in March 2003 and of the 52 who have died in Afghanistan since 2001.
“This is wrong and I don’t think it should be allowed,” Rose Gentle, the mother of a 19-year-old soldier killed in Basra in 2004, said of the decision to allow the sailors and marines to sell their stories.
One of the former captives, at least, had a different view on the sale of stories. “I am not interested in making money out of this,” said Lt. Felix Carman of the navy, the highest-ranking of the 15 captives, who spoke at length during Friday’s news conference. “My main aim is to tell the story.”
“There’s some people who might be making money, but that’s an individual’s decision, that’s very private, but that’s not something that myself or many of the others will do,” he said.

Costly Contraceptives

For almost 20 years, college health centers have been able to purchase contraceptives at nominal prices. This was not a tax-funded subsidy. It was a financial incentive that gave drug manufacturers an exemption from Medicaid pricing rules so they could sell contraceptives and other products to certain charitable groups, like the college clinics, at an extreme discount. In response to concerns that drug companies were abusing this privilege, language was sewn into legislation in 2005 to close a loophole. It also inadvertently slashed this important benefit for clinics and their patients.
On some college campuses, the price of brand-name contraceptives has risen from the neighborhood of $5 per month to $40 or even $50. Switching to a generic is an option in some cases, but it can still entail a 300 percent price increase. Generics often run at about $15 per month. Newer contraceptives, like the NuvaRing, which contains a very low hormone dose and does not require a daily action that is easily forgotten, are not yet available generically. Many students are priced out of the market.
The spike in price affects more than just consumers of contraceptive devices and pills. College and university health clinics sold these products for a small profit — buying them at, say, $3 and selling them at $5. Even on a small campus, these dollars add up quickly. The money was an important part of health center operating budgets, paying for classes and even subsidizing more expensive medications.
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services could reapply these exemptions with the stroke of a pen. If they do not, Congress should restore this much-needed benefit.

WASHINGTON, April 7 — Senior members of Congress from both parties are working feverishly on legislation that could give consumers access to lower-cost copies of biotechnology drugs that now cost tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars a year.

Prospects for the legislation have increased since Democrats took control of Congress this year. Consumer groups, employers and insurers are lobbying for the bill, which they see as a way to hold down health costs.

The proposal faces formidable scientific and political obstacles. Brand-name pharmaceutical companies contend that biotechnology products, made from cells and living organisms, are so complex that a copy will never be identical to the original and therefore cannot be certified as safe without testing in humans.

Biotech medicines are the fastest-growing category of health spending, with sales of $40 billion last year, up 20 percent from 2005, according to IMS Health, a market research company. More than 400 biotech products are in the pipeline, for more than 100 diseases, including cancer, AIDS, diabetes and Alzheimer’s.

Conventional drugs are synthesized by putting atoms together from basic chemicals and are often in pill form.

Biotech drugs, also known as biologic products, are typically proteins made by modifying the DNA of bacteria, yeast or mammal cells, and they are often given by injection or infusion.

Supporters of the legislation received an unexpected boost when the chief medical officer of the Food and Drug Administration, Dr. Janet Woodcock, told Congress last month that the agency had the expertise and experience to decide what types of human and laboratory tests were needed to ensure that copies of a biotechnology drug worked as well as the original.

Brand-name drug manufacturers have urged Congress to require human trials before allowing the sale of any products billed as comparable or equivalent to biotechnology medicines already on the market.

But Dr. Woodcock said: “Where trials are not needed, it is of questionable ethics to repeat them. The use of human subjects for trials that are not needed is not desirable.”

Many biotech drugs are effective but expensive. Avastin, a cancer treatment made by Genentech, can cost $4,400 to $8,800 a month, with a maximum cost of $55,000 a year for people who qualify for the company’s patient assistance program.

Cerezyme, a drug made by Genzyme for Gaucher disease, costs $200,000 a year. Enbrel, made by Amgen for rheumatoid arthritis and psoriasis, costs an average of $16,000 a year.

Biotech treatments for multiple sclerosis range in price from $16,000 to $25,000 a year. “Many patients are denied access to these important drugs because even the co-payments can reach thousands of dollars a year,” said Arney Rosenblat, a spokeswoman for the National Multiple Sclerosis Society.

Consumers save billions of dollars a year by using low-cost generic versions of conventional drugs, which are approved by the government under a 1984 law.

One author of the 1984 law, Representative Henry A. Waxman, Democrat of California, is pushing a bill that would authorize the Food and Drug Administration to approve safe, lower-cost versions of biotechnology drugs.

Senators Charles E. Schumer and Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, both Democrats, have introduced an identical bill, with support from several Republicans, including Senators Susan Collins of Maine and David Vitter of Louisiana.

The chief lobby for makers of biotech drugs, the Biotechnology Industry Organization, strongly opposes the bill, saying it would endanger patients and kill incentives for research and innovation.

The debate over biotech drugs is filled with paradoxes. Brand-name drug companies, which have for years criticized the regulation of drug prices in Europe, now point to Europe’s strict regulation of “follow-on biologics” as a possible model for the United States. Democrats, who have often criticized the F.D.A. as lax in enforcing drug safety laws, now say they trust the agency to decide whether copies of biotech drugs are safe and effective, without the full range of tests required for new products.

The Widening College Loan Scandal

Congress needs to address the college loan scandal that has unfolded since New York’s attorney general, Andrew Cuomo, began to investigate the troubling — and possibly illegal — payments to universities that steer students to so-called preferred lending companies. These kickbacks are part of a wider pattern of shady dealing that, we now find out, reaches into the federal government as well.
The Times reported last week that a senior official at the Department of Education who helped oversee the federal student loan program held shares of the parent company of the student loan company Student Loan Xpress. That came one day after financial aid officials at three universities that listed Student Loan Xpress as a preferred lender — Columbia University, The University of Texas at Austin and the University of Southern California — were found to have sold shares in the company. The official at Columbia, who earned more than $100,000 on the sale, bought his shares for about $1 each and sold them for about $10.
These cases show what lenders will do to win a slice of the business — last year students took out $85 billion in loans — and the all-too-frequent willingness of universities to go along. Financial aid officers are offered gifts and trips, and universities are offered hundreds of thousands of dollars in payments, if they place a company on their list of preferred lenders that most students use when looking for loans. Universities have also been offered large payments to switch from the government’s student loan program to private lenders whose huge profits are based in part on government subsidies.
This program is clearly in need of serious and immediate reform. For starters, Congress needs to make it illegal for colleges and universities to accept anything of value from lenders. It should also require universities to choose preferred lenders through an open process that guarantees the best rates and treatment for student borrowers.

Hot and Cold

Last week began with a Supreme Court decision declaring that the federal government had the authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions and all but ordering the Bush administration to do so. It ended with a report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — the world’s authoritative voice on global warming — warning that failure to contain these emissions will have disastrous environmental effects, especially in poorer countries, which are least able to defend themselves and their people against the consequences of climate change.
One would hope that these events would shake President Bush out of his state of denial and add his authority to the chorus of governors, legislators and business leaders calling for an aggressive regulatory and technological response to the dangers of global warming. They haven’t. When asked about the Supreme Court decision, the president said he thought he was already doing enough.
He argued further that there was little point in the United States’ doing any more unless other polluters like China acted as well. That ignores the reality that no developing country is going to move unless the United States — which produces one-fourth of the world’s emissions with only 5 percent of its population — takes the lead.
The report from the intergovernmental panel was the second of three due this year. The first concluded with “90 percent certainty” that humans had caused the rise in atmospheric temperatures over the last half-century. The most recent focused on the consequences, few of them positive.
The northern latitudes will have longer growing seasons. But elsewhere climate change will lead to more severe storms, the flooding of tropical islands and coastlines inhabited by hundreds of millions of people, the likely extinction of at least one-fourth of the world’s species and, in poorer countries in Asia and Africa, drought and hunger.
Some of these changes have begun. “We’re no longer arm-waving with models,” said Martin Parry, the co-chairman of the team that wrote the report. But the report also makes clear that while emissions already accumulated in the atmosphere make some damage inevitable, the worst can be avoided if the world’s nations take swift action to stabilize and then reverse emissions.
What must be avoided, the report said, is a rise of 3 to 5 degrees Fahrenheit, the point at which truly devastating effects will begin to kick in. But such a rise is almost inevitable over the next century if the world continues to do business as usual.
The panel’s next paper will discuss alternatives to business as usual. These policies will almost certainly require a major shift in the way energy is produced and used, as well as massive investments in new technologies. They will also be expensive. But what the world’s scientists are telling us, with increasing confidence, is that the costs of doing nothing will be far greater than the costs of acting now.