Translate this Blog

Traduisez , Übersetzen Sie, Traduca , Traduza , Traduzca , 翻訳しなさい , 번역하다 , 翻译 , يترجم

Saturday, February 28, 2009

"Virtual Camera" Captures Actors’ Movements for Resident Evil 5


Motion capture technology allows actors to emote while fighting video game zombies


By Jeremy Hsu, Posted 02.27.2009


Motion capture technology has worked its magic for years by digitally translating actors’ movements into films and video games. But makers of the popular Resident Evil video games upped the ante – they used one of only four existing "virtual cameras" to help create the fifth game in the series.
Actors Reuben Langdon and Karen Dyer throw punches and lunge, while the virtual camera's screen shows their real-time movements translated through their video game characters. The camera itself has the appearance of a video game controller, appropriately enough.
"When I look at Sheva, I know it's my walk," Dyer told Fox News' Gamers Weekly. "I know it's my voice. I know it's my facial movement."
The new camera may not represent a huge technological leap, but it shows the growing ease of using motion capture technology for creating video games and other digital media. That trend could help create more compelling games in the right hands.
"I think there'll be more invested in the story because of the humanity that the actors and directors brought," said Ken Lally, an actor who plays the Resident Evil 5 baddie, in his Fox News interview.
Indeed, creating compelling video game narratives has become an obsession for the video game industry, although games may still face an uphill climb. Film critics and moviegoers continually scoff at films that adapt video game stories, such as the critically-panned Resident Evil films.

Resident Evil 5: Jogos4Gamers


Even Andy Serkis, an actor who's no stranger to motion capture tech through his roles in Lord of the Rings and King Kong, recently came under fire for a casual remark that some construed as critical of video game stories.
There may also be a different challenge in the growing popularity of motion-capture and digital characters in both films and video games. Some characters have fallen prey to the "Uncanny Valley" phenomenon, which describes our uneasiness regarding almost-photorealistic characters that remain stiff in their movements or expressions.
Resident Evil 5 appears to dance on the edge by creating characters which we still recognize as video game creations, rather than doll-like humans with vacant eyes. For those looking for more creepy info, check out this video, which aptly dubs the animated film Polar Express as Zombie Express.
For a video on the making of Resident Evil 5, click here.

If you liked this post, Dont forget to BOOKMARK it for others as well. Please CLICK your favorite SOCIAL BOOKMARKING ELEMENT:

StumpleUpon Ma.gnolia DiggIt! Del.icio.us Blinklist Yahoo Furl Technorati Simpy Spurl Reddit Google

So, You Want to Be an Entrepreneur

First, answer these questions to see if you have what it takes

By KELLY K. SPORS
Thinking about starting a business? Make sure you're cut out for it first.
In this bleak economy, lots of people are contemplating striking out on their own -- whether they're frustrated job seekers or people who are already employed but getting antsy about their company's prospects.
For some people, entrepreneurship is the best option around, a way to build wealth and do something you love without answering to somebody else. But it's also a huge financial gamble -- and some people, unfortunately, will discover too late that it's not the right fit for them.
Building a successful business can take years filled with setbacks, long hours and little reward. Certain personalities thrive on the challenge and embrace the sacrifices. But it can be a hard switch for someone who has spent years sitting in a cubicle with a steady paycheck.
So, how can you figure out whether you're suited for self-employment? We spoke with entrepreneurship researchers, academics and psychologists to come up with a list of questions you should ask yourself before making a big leap. Entrepreneurs, of course, come from all sorts of backgrounds, with all sorts of personalities. But our experts agreed that certain attributes improve the odds people will be successful and happy about their decision.
Keep in mind that any self-analysis is only as useful as the truthfulness of the answers -- and most people aren't exactly the best judges of their own character. So, you might enlist a friend's help.

Here, then, are 10 questions to ask to see whether you're up for the challenge of entrepreneurship.

1. Are you willing and able to bear great financial risk?
Roughly half of all start-ups close within five years, so you must be realistic about the financial risks that come with owning a business -- and realize that you could very well lose a sizable chunk of your net worth.
Consider how much you'll have to ante up and how losing it would affect your other financial goals, such as having a sound retirement or paying your kids' college tuition. Weigh the importance of starting a business against the sacrifices you might face.
Entrepreneurs should be sure that "if they lose this capital, it either won't destroy their financial situation, or they can accept the concept of bankruptcy," says Scott Shane, an entrepreneurship professor at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland. "Some people thrive on the financial risk; others are devastated by the thought of losing even $10,000."
And don't assume you'll be able to lower your risk substantially by finding investors. Less than 10% of start-up financing comes from venture capitalists, angel investors and loans from friends and family combined, Prof. Shane says. And that's true even in good economic times. Banks, meanwhile, often won't lend to start-up founders without a proven track record. When they do, they generally require the founders to guarantee the loan or credit line with their personal savings or home -- an incredibly risky proposition. (To learn how to mitigate risk by keeping your old job while starting a new venture, see "A Toe in the Water".)

2. Are you willing to sacrifice your lifestyle for potentially many years?
If you're used to steady paychecks, four weeks' paid vacation and employer-sponsored health benefits, you might be in for an unpleasant surprise.
Creating a successful start-up often entails putting in workweeks of 60 hours or more and funneling any revenue you can spare back into the business. Entrepreneurs frequently won't pay themselves a livable salary in the early years and will forgo real vacations until their business is financially sound. That can often take eight years or longer, says William Bygrave, a professor emeritus of entrepreneurship at Babson College in Wellesley, Mass.
Even if you can steal away, it's hard to find somebody who can fill in for you. Many entrepreneurs must tow along their cellphone and laptop, so they can be available to answer questions from clients or employees.
Jennifer Walzer learned those lessons the hard way. In 2002, after being laid off from a $100,000 consulting job when the company closed, she started Backup My Info! Inc., which sells online data-backup services to businesses.
For the first year, the New York-based company brought in just $29,000 in gross revenue. Ms. Walzer didn't pay herself a salary until the third year, and even then it was a slim $30,000. She could have taken more out, but she wanted to shovel as much money into the business as possible to keep it financially sound.
Having no income for two years meant that Ms. Walzer had to be extremely frugal; she virtually never ate out or went on vacations or clothes-shopping trips. Twenty-nine years old at the time, she says, "I got very jealous of my girlfriends who got home at 5 o'clock every night and could go out gallivanting and pretty much do whatever they pleased." She'd occasionally meet friends for coffee instead of drinks, since coffee was less expensive.
Now that her business generates about $2 million in annual revenue, the tables have turned. Ms. Walzer says she earns more from the business than she did as a consultant, and "I have friends who are struggling to keep their jobs because they have bosses."

3. Is your significant other on board?
Don't ignore the toll running a business will take on your loved ones. Failed ventures frequently break up marriages, and even successful ones can cause lots of stress, because entrepreneurs devote so much time and money to the business.[The Journal Report: Small Business] Stephen Webster
"I'm always surprised at the number of husbands who start a business and don't tell their wives," says Bo Fishback, vice president of entrepreneurship at the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation.
You can avoid the heartache by talking at length with your spouse and family about how the business will affect home life, including the time commitment, changes in daily schedules and chores, financial risks and sacrifices. They must also understand the huge financial gamble they're making with you.

4. Do you like all aspects of running a business?
You better. In the early stages of a business, founders are often expected to handle everything from billing customers to hiring employees to writing marketing materials. Some new entrepreneurs become annoyed that they're spending the majority of their time on administration when they'd rather be focused on the part of the job they enjoy, says Donna Ettenson, vice president of the Association of Small Business Development Centers in Burke, Va.
"All of a sudden, they have to think about all these things they never had to think about before," she says.
Jeromy Stallings, the 33-year-old founder of Ninthlink Inc., a San Diego interactive-marketing firm with 15 employees, always felt he had plenty of passion for entrepreneurship and self-motivation. But when starting his agency in 2003 and hiring his first couple of employees, he realized he wasn't prepared for the day-to-day challenges of managing other people.
Mr. Stallings had assumed his passion would rub off on employees and they would do their jobs as enthusiastically as he did. But some clients started calling him directly, complaining that his employees weren't returning phone calls or that projects were behind schedule.
"My clients were saying, 'We love your passion, we love your skill, we're just having a really hard time with your management style,' " he says.
So, Mr. Stallings turned to peers, mentors and guidebooks for help. He realized he needed to work more closely with employees and create a more structured project-management system. "I didn't really have a plan in place for how they spend their time," he says.

5. Are you comfortable making decisions on the fly with no playbook?
With a new business, you're calling all the shots -- and there are a lot of decisions to be made without any guidance. You might not be used to that if you've spent years working in corporate America, says Bill Wagner, author of "The Entrepreneur Next Door," a book that lays out the characteristics of successful entrepreneurs.
"For most entrepreneurial ventures, there's no structure," he says. "You're going into a business, and nobody has told you how to be successful."
Mr. Wagner has surveyed more than 10,000 entrepreneurs to find out what traits distinguish successful start-up founders from less-successful ones. Among other things, most entrepreneurs he interviewed said they liked making decisions. He doesn't rule out the idea that less-decisive people could become better at the leadership role. It's just that they will have to work a lot harder at it.

6. What's your track record of executing your ideas?
One of the biggest differences between successful entrepreneurs and everyone else is their ability to implement their ideas, says Prof. Bygrave of Babson College. You might have a wonderful concept, but that doesn't mean you possess that special mix of drive, persuasiveness, leadership skills and keen intuition to actually turn the idea into a lucrative business.
So, examine your past objectively to see whether you have assumed leadership roles or initiated solo projects -- anything that might suggest you're good at executing ideas. "Were you senior class president? Did you play varsity sports?" Prof. Bygrave suggests asking.[The Journal Report: Small Business] Stephen Webster
You might even find clues back in your childhood, he adds: "A lot of successful entrepreneurs were starting businesses when they were still kids."

7. How persuasive and well-spoken are you?
Nearly every step of the way, entrepreneurship relies on selling. You'll have to sell your idea to lenders or investors. You must sell your mission and vision to your employees. And you'll ultimately have to sell your product or service to your customers. You'll need strong communication and interpersonal skills so you can get people to believe in your vision as much as you do.
If you don't think you're very convincing or have difficulty communicating your ideas, you might want to reconsider starting your own company -- or think about getting some help.
In 2007, Brad Price left a $135,000-a-year job as an associate at a Baltimore law firm to purchase a PuroClean Emergency Restoration Services franchise, which cleans up property damage such as mold and flooded basements. A former Naval officer, Mr. Price felt he was very self-motivated and a good leader. But he was less comfortable cold-calling and striking deals -- something he'd never had to do in previous jobs.
"There's a big difference in waiting for the phone to ring and getting an assignment and having to make the phone ring," says the 33-year-old Mr. Price.
Mr. Price says he now has his wife handle the marketing and networking. "My wife is very good at that, 'Hey, next time a call comes in, how about you give it to us?' " he says.

8. Do you have a concept you're passionate about?
Every morning you want to jump out of bed eager to get to work. If you're not that exuberant about how you'll be spending your time -- or the business concept itself -- running a business is going to be a rough ride.
Ms. Ettenson of the Association of Small Business Development Centers has coached many prospective entrepreneurs about their chosen business. She always asks why they're doing it. If they suggest it's mostly for the prospect of making a lot of money or because they're tired of working for someone else, she steers them toward something more in line with their interests or avoiding self-employment altogether.
"If you hate doing paperwork, the last thing you want to do is become a bookkeeper," Ms. Ettenson says. "If you'd rather be outside taking people into the wilderness, then that's the type of business you should be in."
But it's also usually wise to find a business in an industry you are very familiar with; it will be much harder to succeed if you know little about the field. Mr. Fishback at Kauffman says he has steered a doctor and other professionals away from starting restaurants because they often don't grasp how difficult and risky restaurant ownership is. And they'd be competing against restaurateurs with years of experience.

9. Are you a self-starter?
Entrepreneurs face lots of discouragement. Potential buyers don't return calls, business sours or you face repeated rejection. It takes willpower and an almost unwavering optimism to overcome these constant obstacles.
John Gartner, an assistant clinical-psychiatry professor at Johns Hopkins University and author of the book "The Hypomaniac Edge," theorizes that many well-known entrepreneurs have a temperament called hypomania. They're highly creative, energetic, impatient and very persistent -- traits that help them persevere even when others lose faith.
"One of the things about having this kind of confidence is they're kind of risk-blind because they don't think they could fail," Prof. Gartner says. And, he adds, "if they fail, they're not down for that long, and after a while they're energized by a whole new idea."
You don't have to be as driven as, say, Steve Jobs to succeed. But somebody who gets deterred easily, or too upset when things go wrong, won't last.

10. Do you have a business partner?
If you don't have all the traits you need to run the show, it's not necessarily a hopeless endeavor. Finding a business partner who compensates for your shortcomings -- and has equal enthusiasm for the business concept -- can help mitigate the risks and even boost the odds of success.
David Gage, co-founder of BMC Associates, an Arlington, Va., business-mediation practice, points to a Marquette University study of 2,000 businesses. The researchers found that partner-run businesses are far more likely to become high-growth ventures than those started by solo entrepreneurs.
The key, Mr. Gage says, is finding a partner who prefers handling different aspects of the business, so you're complementing each other -- and not constantly at each other's throats.
Someone who likes to take risks and be in the spotlight, for instance, might choose a cautious partner who prefers to work in the back room. "If they're willing to work with that person, and not just look at them as a wet blanket, then it can be great," Mr. Gage says.
But taking on a partner isn't a light decision. Many partnerships split due to conflicts over everything from attitudes about money to miscommunication and contrasting work ethics. Mr. Gage recommends that potential partners spend several days hashing out the specifics of the business and how the arrangement will work to see if they're compatible.

—Ms. Spors is a staff reporter of The Wall Street Journal in Minneapolis.

If you liked this post, Dont forget to BOOKMARK it for others as well. Please CLICK your favorite SOCIAL BOOKMARKING ELEMENT:

StumpleUpon Ma.gnolia DiggIt! Del.icio.us Blinklist Yahoo Furl Technorati Simpy Spurl Reddit Google

40 days after war, Hamas Rule of Gaza gaining legitimacy

Three rockets fell Thursday in the area around the Gaza Strip, one in the yard of a Sderot home - just a few reminders that Israel is still far from its declared goal in Operation Cast Lead. Discussion about the military operation's outcome revolves around the term "deterrence."

If Israel can enshrine Cast Lead in a long-term agreement, the war will be remembered as a success. But fears are mounting that the operation's military achievements are dissipating. If so, the operation will go down in history as a less-than-successful round in a long war in the Gaza Strip.

The Israel Defense Forces left Gaza with the feeling that it had proven itself, after its debacle in Lebanon in 2006. But it seems that the bottom line will have to wait. In Lebanon, too, it took several months before it could be concluded that although the IDF made mistakes, enough deterrence against Hezbollah was achieved to prevent renewed fighting.

Barak, who was quick to criticize what went wrong in Lebanon, followed Olmert and Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni's lead in withdrawing from Gaza without a real agreement. But like in Lebanon, faced with only an aerial attack or one followed by a ground operation, Israel chose the middle ground and acted slowly and partially. Because in Gaza the enemy was less determined than in Lebanon, the move first appeared to be a victory. Only when the IDF left could the results of the war be seen as limited, with almost daily attacks near the fence, a continuing "drizzle" of rockets and information on renewed arms smuggling.

The blow Hamas was dealt has only led to increased admiration for the group, according to opinion polls in the territories. Hamas is still waiting for another crowning achievement: if abducted IDF soldier Gilad Shalit is released for more than 1,000 Palestinian prisoners.

However, the army is currently reviewing its performance during the war and an encouraging picture is emerging in terms of its professionalism, control over units, aerial assistance to ground forces, quality of intelligence and logistics compared to the Second Lebanon War.

Diplomatic lessons

Outgoing Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's government made three major moves during its term: the Second Lebanon War, the bombing of the Syrian nuclear facility and Operation Cast Lead. The same lesson can be learned from all: The international community will back Israel's military operations as long as they are short, focused, conducted from the air and do not result in major civilian casualties.

Cast Lead raised international hackles, because Israel lost few people to the rockets fired from Gaza, but its response caused widespread death and destruction. What's more, in Gaza the victims were Palestinians, who already bear the brunt of the tragedy of 1948; the world is much more sympathetic to them than to Syria's Bashar Assad or Hezbollah's Hassan Nasrallah.

The major damage Cast Lead did was in legitimizing Hamas as the ruler of the Gaza Strip, with increasing calls for "reconciliation talks" that will return the organization to the Palestinian leadership.

The operation was planned to coincide with the end of the term of the Israel-friendly President George W. Bush, before President Barack Obama entered office. But now, instead of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton coming to talk to Israel about the Iranian threat, her first visit in office will focus on the problems of the Palestinians in Gaza. That might be the greatest damage of all.

Reservists' two cents

Forty days after the end of the war in Gaza, reserve paratroop sergeant, Keren Hagigi, whose unit fought north of Gaza City, said that when the cabinet announced the end of the operation, "of course I was glad to get home to my wife and little boy, but I couldn't stop thinking about the fact that even when we were sitting in a house in Beit Lahiya, we could still see Katyushas being launched, right next to us."

But Sgt. 1st Class Amitai Ahiman added: "I think that except for getting [kidnapped soldier] Gilad Shalit back, we did the most we could. From what I saw inside [the Strip], we did attain deterrence."

Another reservist, Amir Marmor, a gunner, said he left the war ashamed. "The IDF used disproportionate power, in a kind of punishment operation."

Same old in Sderot

The Color Red alert was followed Thursday by the muffled sound of a falling rocket, seemingly not too close to the center of town. Only later, people found out a rocket had hit a house and a few people were suffering from shock. In Sderot, it's business as usual.

To their credit, people in Sderot are amazingly tolerant of their sometimes diametrically opposed positions about the war, a tolerance that allowed the city to continue functioning during the war, despite the exhaustion, the bedwetting children and the anxiety attacks.

After two weeks in front of the cameras, Sderot is back on the margins it knows so well: failing businesses, a desperate school system. But who has the strength to talk about it?

Healthcare struggles

Out of 500 injured people during Operation Cast Lead - soldiers and civilians - and 548 victims of shock and trauma, 18 soldiers are still hospitalized at Sheba Medical Center, Tel Hashomer. Barzilai Hospital in Ashkelon is still struggling to build its rocket-proof emergency room.

Psychological trauma is still visible. Dr. Ronny Berger, head of the Natal community services for trauma victims, says, "these are people who have lost their sense of security, and because rockets are still 'drizzling,' it's hard to persuade them that it's all over." Natal is still responding to the serious psychological needs of people, who contact the organization through its hot line or whom its staff locates during home visits, a model Berger says Natal developed and finds very effective, since some people are afraid to leave their homes to get treated.

Cities take stock

After many sleepless nights, 40 days later, mayors are taking stock of how their cities functioned during the war, and most importantly, they say, how to get ready for the next round. Be'er Sheva Mayor Rubik Danilovich ordered all his department heads to submit reports on problems and lessons learned. "I asked the Defense Ministry to install shelters as quickly as possible throughout the city," he said. The head of the Eshkol Regional Council, Haim Yellin, said his area has still not returned to normal, even after all the repairs, "physical and organizational" have been made. Sha'ar Hanegev Regional Council head Alon Shuster says, "security directives have changed; everything has changed; except for one thing - they're still firing at us."

Damage to farms

Cultivated fields were dealt a mortal blow by Operation Cast Lead, after the army prohibited farmers from spraying, irrigating and harvesting. Forty days on, the government has still not paid farmers compensation. Out of 140,000 dunams (35,000 acres), 3,000 were hit. "Another problem is that the army took over land and damaged it," Lior Katari, coordinator of the Agricultural Council of the Eshkol region, says, adding that he estimates the damage to farmers at NIS 150 million.


By Aluf Benn, Amos Harel and Avi Issacharoff , Published in an Israeli Newspaper

If you liked this post, Dont forget to BOOKMARK it for others as well. Please CLICK your favorite SOCIAL BOOKMARKING ELEMENT:

StumpleUpon Ma.gnolia DiggIt! Del.icio.us Blinklist Yahoo Furl Technorati Simpy Spurl Reddit Google

Friday, February 27, 2009

Pasta is not a weapon

The border crossings between Israel and Gaza have become a central tool in the struggle against Hamas in the years since it took over the Strip. Security circles claim they have solid proof that Hamas is using raw materials and "innocent" products for the creation of weapons. In addition to the security arguments, Israel makes it difficult for goods to enter the Gaza Strip as a means of punishment and as pressure on Hamas every time it disturbs the peace. Recently Israel added food products, such as pasta, and building materials, such as glass, which are needed for repairing the many buildings destroyed during Operation Cast Lead, to the list of prohibited goods.
The experience from the war in Lebanon and the territories should have taught the decision makers that collective punishment of the civilian population is not merely not moral, but also harmful. The residents do not turn their anger against Hamas but rather against those who prevent the food from reaching their children and even against their Palestinian interlocutors in Ramallah.
The international community, including the moderate Arab states, which is currently enlisting donations for rehabilitating the Gaza Strip, is being forced to condemn Israel for its imperviousness to the humanitarian needs of one and a half million long-suffering civilians. Haaretz reported yesterday that United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has demanded Israel remove the restrictions on the transfer of humanitarian aid to the Strip, and that she plans to address this issue during her upcoming visit. Israel's legitimate struggle against Hamas does not gain credence from the fact that the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, John Kerry, discovered during his visit to Gaza that trucks loaded with bags of pasta are not being permitted to enter the Gaza Strip because Israel is letting in only rice. The result is that Hamas has chalked up points to its credit in the struggle for world public opinion. The closing of the border crossings has so far not opened the way for Gilad Shalit to be returned and there is not an iota of evidence that tightening the closure will advance his release by Hamas.
It is superfluous to wait for the worsening of the humanitarian crisis in Gaza and for additional pressure from outside. Outgoing Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Defense Minister Ehud Barak must immediately order the opening of the crossings to enable the orderly, constant entry of essential products into the Gaza Strip.
By Haaretz Editorial

If you liked this post, Dont forget to BOOKMARK it for others as well. Please CLICK your favorite SOCIAL BOOKMARKING ELEMENT:

StumpleUpon Ma.gnolia DiggIt! Del.icio.us Blinklist Yahoo Furl Technorati Simpy Spurl Reddit Google

14-year-old girl becomes Israel's youngest-ever divorcee

The Jerusalem Rabbinic Court held expedited divorce proceedings for a 14-year-old girl and her 17-year-old husband this week, after the court ruled the makeshift wedding ceremony the two held did indeed conform to Jewish religious law.
The boy had recited the marriage vows in front of friends, who served as witnesses, and even gave the girl a ring. This means the girl is most likely Israel's youngest divorcee, the court said.
The boy and girl are both from traditionally religious families in the Jerusalem area. When the boy's parents learned the pair had held a wedding ceremony, they insisted on a "get," a religious divorce, so he could marry in the future. The girl initially refused, insisting that she wanted to live with the boy as his wife, and said she had intended to marry him officially in another three years, once she passed the legal age. She relented only after the groom's parents offered her NIS 10,000.
The divorce proceeding was held earlier this week, after the religious court ruled the couple had met the three requirements for marriage under Jewish law: The couple had recited the wedding vows, exchanged an item of value (traditionally a ring), and consummated the relationship.
The court said the divorce would be reported to the Interior Ministry, which means that when the girl receives her identity card at age 16, it will state she is divorced. In terms of Jewish law, this means she cannot marry a Cohen, since it prohibits marriage between Cohens and divorced women. By Yair Ettinger

If you liked this post, Dont forget to BOOKMARK it for others as well. Please CLICK your favorite SOCIAL BOOKMARKING ELEMENT:

StumpleUpon Ma.gnolia DiggIt! Del.icio.us Blinklist Yahoo Furl Technorati Simpy Spurl Reddit Google

Pakistan Army & ISI in CIA's Firing Line

By Asif Haroon Raja, Published in Asian Tribune, Feb 25, 2009

It is now getting clear as to why FATA has been declared most dangerous place on earth. After making series of allegations that FATA is the main breeding ground where militants and suicide bombers are trained for launching into Afghanistan; where the entire senior leadership of Al-Qaeda and Taliban is housed; and from where possible attack on US homeland would take off, so far not a single training camp has been located in FATA, nor any high-profile militant leader nabbed or killed. This is in spite of continuous hovering of spy planes and next door US-NATO troops equipped with latest state-of-the-art surveillance and detection gadgets breathing over Pakistan’s neck, and RAW-CIA-Mossad agents having infiltrated into FATA in big numbers.
If CIA controlled drones can hit suspected houses, madrassas and Hujras based on intelligence, why have they been unable to detect so-called training sites and the top wanted leaders? Why have the drones not taken a pot shot at Baitullah Mehsud or Maulana Fazlullah if the US considers Pakistani Taliban a threat? The fact is that whatever has been said about FATA is pack of white lies uttered with sinister designs. All sorts of harrowing stories were cooked up to justify drone attacks as well as ground raids in Pakistan’s northwestern tribal belt. Blatant lies are similar to the WMD falsehood to justify invasion of Iraq. Why not Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Sudan or for that matter India which has become the hub-centre of extremism and terrorism been added to the list of most dangerous places?
Other than the militants, which the US is keen to eliminate, Pakistan army and the ISI also continue to remain in CIA’s firing line. CIA is deliberately leaking out stories in US leading newspapers while CNN, Fox News drum beats scandalous news on electronic media to malign the two institutions. The allegations made against the two institutions range from collaboration with the Taliban and playing a double game. The themes played are: One, the army is either incapable of dealing with militants or is soft towards them; Two, the army has surrendered FATA and Swat to the Taliban; Three, the army uses the Taliban as a weapon to regain strategic depth in Afghanistan; Four, the army is not under civil government control; Five, the ISI trains, equips and launches militants into Pakistan to hit Afghan-Nato targets.
In order to nullify the negative impact of deadly drone attacks which have killed mostly innocent men, women and children, USA has launched a bizarre campaign in its bid to convince Pakistanis and the world that drones are flown from air bases in Baluchistan and not from Afghanistan. Earlier on it was stated that there was a tacit understanding between Gen Musharraf and USA and that Zardari on his visit to Washington had given his blessing to continue drone attacks. It was also said that missile attacks were conducted without informing Pakistan because of strong suspicion that the army and the ISI forewarned the Taliban about the intended attack.
David E Sanger and Ron Suskind, both from USA have belatedly come up with news that Gen Musharraf had played a double game. In his book ‘Inheritance’, Sanger claims that he learnt about the ISI and Pakistani Generals protecting the Taliban by listening to the highly classified tapes in which telephonic conversations of top Pakistani Generals with the then ISI chief were recorded. Who will buy this crap for everyone knows that Generals use highly secured communication system which cannot be breached. More so, why the hell they should be discussing Taliban over phones? Diane Feinstein, chairperson of US Senate Committee on Intelligence came out with a startling disclosure that US drones were operating form certain ISI bases within Pakistan and that USAF and US army had nothing to do with it. The ISI was deliberately added to generate feelings of hatred against it. Who doesn’t know that the ISI do not control any bases and that drones are flown from Bagram air base in Afghanistan? It is also a known fact that Shamsi and Dalbaldin air bases are utilized by CIA and FBI for covert operations in Baluchistan and Iran.
The CIA and ISI have always enjoyed cordial relations. The Afghan war against the Soviets brought the two very close to each other. This closeness got reinvigorated when Pakistan volunteered to become the frontline state against war on terror. The two sailed along smoothly till as late as 2007 after which there was a sudden shift in CIA’s attitude. This change in attitude occurred after ISI learnt about CIA playing a double game in FATA and Baluchistan by providing all out assistance to RAW to destabilize the marked regions. When ISI became cautious and started to take protective measures, it irked CIA and started to distance itself. CIA’s relations with Pak army and the ISI became strained when the army-ISI outspread details of drug trade in Afghanistan in which CIA, RAW and Mossad were deeply involved. This disclosure with proofs was made when the USA had begun to tantalize Pak army and blamed it for its woes in Afghanistan. Pakistan argued that one of the principle reasons for USA not being able to control militancy in Afghanistan was the unchecked drug trade which was also a source of income for the militants to fund their militancy. It transpired that CIA assisted by India was sponsoring multi-billon dollar Afghan drug trade. The duo banks on $3 trillion worth of drug money each year, generated through heroin production and its subsequent sale across the world. Drug money is used by CIA for carrying out covert operations in the world. RAW utilizes drug money for running tens of training camps, for recruiting and equipping agents and suicide bombers and funding dissident elements within Pakistan.
Exposure of this racket angered CIA and relations of the two soured. Matters worsened when the Indian defence attaché serving in Indian Embassy in Kabul got killed on 7 July 2008 suicide bombing. He was a lynchpin arranging drug deals and hence very dear to the CIA. RAW convinced CIA that the attack had been perpetrated by ISI. It infuriated CIA so intensely that it vowed to teach ISI a lesson. We remember how Deputy Director CIA and Adm. Mullen came fuming to Pakistan and expressed their deepest concern. Ever since, CIA is not missing any opportunity to fire salvos to defame and axe this premier organization which provides first line of defence to Pakistan.
Otherwise too, both CIA and RAW consider the army and ISI as the only bottlenecks which are blocking their route to denuclearize Pakistan. Among the many conditions attached to Benazir return to Pakistan was to turn the army into a counter terrorism force and to bring the ISI and the nuclear program under civilian control. A serious attempt was made in August last year when the ISI had nearly been placed under Ministry of Interior. CIA was part of the gory drama of Mumbai in which the army and ISI in particular were blamed. The CIA not only exercises control over US media and think tanks which it uses for propaganda purposes and for forming perceptions, it has also cultivated intellectuals, writers, journalists, English newspapers and TV channels in Pakistan and uses Pakistani brigade to supplement its propaganda warfare. Among the latter category some are based in foreign countries but subscribe their articles in Pakistan’s leading English newspapers. Of late this brigade has become very active and is parroting dictated themes with greatest vigor.
There is no denying the fact that the CIA used drug money to finance war against the Soviets in the 1980s. Earlier on it had also used drug money in Nicaragua in 1979-80 to finance Contras. By the close of Afghan war in 1989, Afghanistan was the second biggest opium producing country in the world. It was almost cleansed of the curse of drugs by the Taliban during their rule from 1996 to 2001.
It has now been converted into the largest heroin producing state in the world. Hamid Karzai brother Izzatullah Wasifi is the biggest heroin producer and there are dozens of heroin factories established across the country and run by Wasifi and other Afghan warlords. Ahmad Wali Karzai in Kandahar handles all exports of heroin to Europe through Turkmenistan. The 7 July attack on Indian Embassy had been masterminded by Wasifi once he learnt that the Indian officer was betraying him to US Drug Enforcement Agency.
It is surprising that neither CIA has ever recommended to US government to launch a crackdown on heroin factories that finance militants and warlords nor the US military command or NATO command in Kabul have raised this issue. It seems as if all are party to the drug game. Without Pentagon and CIA blessing it is not possible to export thousands of tons of heroin. Reportedly, even US military cargo planes are in use to shift heroin and on occasions coffin boxes were used. Possibility of NATO countries and Afghan army and police indulging in this lucrative business cannot be ruled out. It is to be seen whether the hard taskmaster Holbrook would be able sort this critical matter without which any amount of troop surge will not produce any tangible results.

Asif Haroon Raja is a retired Brig and a defence analyst.

If you liked this post, Dont forget to BOOKMARK it for others as well. Please CLICK your favorite SOCIAL BOOKMARKING ELEMENT:

StumpleUpon Ma.gnolia DiggIt! Del.icio.us Blinklist Yahoo Furl Technorati Simpy Spurl Reddit Google

Wednesday, February 25, 2009

Woman wins house in raffle after husband laid off

DANVILLE, Calif. – Susan Wells was thrilled to learn she'd won a $2 million house in a raffle days after her husband had been laid off from his job. "I'm floored," said Wells, who bought the ticket as a surprise to celebrate the couple's 16th anniversary. "I can't believe this has happened. Needless to say, my husband is very surprised."

The house is in upscale Marin County, just north of San Francisco. The couple already own a home in Danville, a suburb south of San Francisco, and if they don't want to move they have the option of $1.2 million in cash.

They're still deciding what do, but Brad Wells, who had been a sales executive for a Silicon Valley high-tech company, said the winnings are definitely a boost.

"I got laid off on Wednesday and the company went bankrupt on Friday," he said. The couple got word of their win on Saturday. "It's been a really rough ride for the last year. This gives us an unbelievable lift."

The raffle was held by Community Action Marin, which netted about $1.3 million, down from $2 million last year, the first time the event was held.

"In this economy, we're still very pleased," said Russ Hamel, director of development for the group, a private social services organization.

There were 29,000 tickets sold and prizes in addition to the dream house included $200,000 in cash.

Susan Wells said the couple is celebrating by having dinner with their neighbors.

"We're bringing a very good bottle of champagne," she said.

___

Raffle link On the Net:

http://www.marinraffle.com

If you liked this post, Dont forget to BOOKMARK it for others as well. Please CLICK your favorite SOCIAL BOOKMARKING ELEMENT:

StumpleUpon Ma.gnolia DiggIt! Del.icio.us Blinklist Yahoo Furl Technorati Simpy Spurl Reddit Google

Bin Laden probably dead : Pakistan's Musharraf

An old article published in CNN on Jan 18, 2002

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (CNN) -- Pakistan's president says he thinks Osama bin Laden is most likely dead because the suspected terrorist has been unable to get treatment for his kidney disease.

"I think now, frankly, he is dead for the reason he is a ... kidney patient," Gen. Pervez Musharraf said on Friday in an interview with CNN.

Musharraf said Pakistan knew bin Laden took two dialysis machines into Afghanistan. "One was specifically for his own personal use," he said.

"I don't know if he has been getting all that treatment in Afghanistan now. And the photographs that have been shown of him on television show him extremely weak. ... I would give the first priority that he is dead and the second priority that he is alive somewhere in Afghanistan."


U.S. officials skeptical

In Washington, a senior Bush administration official said Musharraf reached "reasonable conclusion" but warned it is only a guess.

"He is using very reasonable deductive reasoning, (but) we don't know (bin Laden) is dead," said the official, who requested anonymity. "We don't have remains or evidence of his death. So it is a decent and reasonable conclusion -- a good guess but it is a guess."

The official said U.S. intelligence is that bin Laden needs dialysis every three days and "it is fairly obvious that that could be an issue when you are running from place to place, and facing the idea of needing to generate electricity in a mountain hideout."

Other U.S. officials contradicted the reports of bin Laden's health problems, saying there is "no evidence" the suspected terrorist mastermind has ever suffered kidney failure or required kidney dialysis. The officials called such suggestions a "recurrent rumor."

Gen. Tommy Franks, the commander of U.S. forces in central and southwest Asia, said Friday that he had not seen any intelligence confirming or denying Musharraf's statements on bin Laden's condition.

The United States has said that bin Laden is the prime suspect in the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon that killed about 3,000 people.


Hunt for bin Laden

The United States launched its campaign in Afghanistan after the country's ruling Taliban refused to turn over bin Laden.

Earlier this week U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said he believed bin Laden and Taliban spiritual leader Mullah Mohammed Omar were inside Afghanistan but "we are looking at some other places as well from time to time."

Rumsfeld noted there were dozens of conflicting intelligence reports each day and said most of them were wrong. Most of the reports are based on sightings by local Afghans that cannot be verified.

There are reports that bin Laden and his convoys have been sighted recently by a Predator unmanned aerial vehicle.

A senior Defense Department source said the lack of credible information about the two was so severe that many officials believe the U.S. would catch bin Laden or Omar only through pure luck, or an "intelligence break" -- essentially one of their associates turning them in.

Top CIA analysts who track bin Laden and Omar have been asked for their best assessment on the two men's whereabouts. That has led to a variety of thoughts, placing bin Laden in Afghanistan, in Pakistan or Iran, on the open ocean onboard a ship, or headed north through Tajikistan or Uzbekistan -- if he is still alive.

The videotape seen worldwide several weeks ago of bin Laden talking about the September 11 attacks was made in Kandahar. He then apparently disappeared -- possibly going north to Tora Bora.

Franks said there was evidence bin Laden was in Tora Bora but he gave no indication of when that might have been. In October, intelligence officials thought they had bin Laden pinned down to a 10-square-mile area in the eastern central mountains of Afghanistan.

Two senior military officers told CNN it would not have been hard for bin Laden to change location several times because vast areas of Afghanistan are virtually unseen by the U.S. military, and he would have been even harder to spot if he moved without his telltale large security contingent.

Even before the war, bin Laden moved around frequently, making it difficult for the United States to determine his location and launch an attack against him.

end of article



Even Benazir Bhutto said in an interview that Bin Ladin was murdered.
http://ugghani.blogspot.com/2008/11/wait-see-what-in-store.html

Now (Oct 2008) we have a news item claiming Bin Ladin is writing book.....


wow

If you liked this post, Dont forget to BOOKMARK it for others as well. Please CLICK your favorite SOCIAL BOOKMARKING ELEMENT:

StumpleUpon Ma.gnolia DiggIt! Del.icio.us Blinklist Yahoo Furl Technorati Simpy Spurl Reddit Google

Turkish plane crashes in Amsterdam


A Turkish Airlines plane carrying 127 passengers and seven crew members on board has crashed while attempting to land in Holland.
The crash happened at around 9.30am local time on Wednesday when flight 1951 from Istanbul to Amsterdam missed the runway at the capital's Schipol Airport.
The Turkish transport minister said there were no fatalities following the crash, although at least 20 people are believed to be injured.
The plane split into three parts after it hit the ground next to the runway.
Yusuf Sharif, Al Jazeera's correspondent in the Turkish capital Ankara, said the plane landed around 3km before the start of the runway.
"Passengers were shocked... the weather was fine... [they] have told Turkish media that at least 20 are injured," he said.
Sharif said the plane did not explode on impact and that there were no signs of fire from the wreckage.
Chris Yates, an aviation expert with Jane's Defence Weekly magazine, said that because the plane was so close to landing most passengers would have been wearing seat belts which may have helped to save lives.
He said it was possible the plane could have been struck by birds; as was the case in the New York Hudson river crash in January.
"Bird-strike is always a potential problem... as we saw with the Hudson crash, bird-strike can happen at any point," Yates said.
"When you get birds in the two engines you lose power and all sorts of horrible things can happen.
Anita McNaught, Al Jazeera's correspondent in Istanbul, said the pilot - who trained with the Turkish airforce - was praised for his handling of the crash by the transport minister.to the runway.

If you liked this post, Dont forget to BOOKMARK it for others as well. Please CLICK your favorite SOCIAL BOOKMARKING ELEMENT:

StumpleUpon Ma.gnolia DiggIt! Del.icio.us Blinklist Yahoo Furl Technorati Simpy Spurl Reddit Google

Saudis replacing Egypt as regional leader : U.S. report

A recent U.S. National Intelligence Council report suggests Egypt has lost its superior status among Arab states, and that leadership in the Middle East is passing to Saudi Arabia despite the kingdom's efforts to avoid it.

The study, "Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan: Policies on Regional Issues and Support for U.S. Goals in the Middle East," is based on a workshop held last summer, but was released only in December, after U.S. President Barack Obama was elected and senior intelligence officials in his administration took office.

The National Intelligence Council describes itself as a center for midterm and long-term strategic thinking within the U.S. intelligence community. It is subordinate to the Director of National Intelligence, and provides intelligence estimates to the president and senior decision makers on foreign policy issues.

While the council is a government agency, the report emphasizes it does not necessarily reflect the administration's foreign policy.

According to news reports yet to be confirmed in Washington, Obama intends to appoint Chas W. Freeman Jr., a former U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia, to head the intelligence council. Some Israeli officials have expressed concern that Freeman's political views are not in line with those of Jerusalem.

The experts convened to draft the study agreed Egypt is no longer the undisputed leader of the Arab world as it had been in previous decades, and that the torch of regional leadership is being passed to Saudi Arabia. However, the report indicates the Saudi regime is loath to accept that role, largely because of implications of the growing threat Iran poses the Arab world.

"Mubarak is getting older and no longer has the energy to provide the leadership he once did," the report states. "No one in the government, including his son or Omar Suleiman, the chief of the Egyptian External Intelligence Service, has replaced him in regional relations."

U.S.-Egyptian relations remain strong, it says, but officials in Cairo have begun to doubt how these ties benefit Egypt. The report's authors do not expect either of Mubarak's potential successors to effect a significant change in relations with Washington, but they believe the leader's son Gamal may embark on a process of internal political liberalization.

Regarding Saudi Arabia, the report notes that the regime's foreign policy has been ineffective in recent years, having failed in attempts to reconcile between Palestinian factions Fatah and Hamas, as well as Hezbollah and Lebanese prime minister Fouad Siniora.

The kingdom is interested in seeing Iran weakened, and to that end seeks a stable, united Iraq free from Iranian influence. Saudi Arabia also would like an Israeli-Palestinian agreement that could pave the way for Saudi relations with Israel.


By Amir Oren

If you liked this post, Dont forget to BOOKMARK it for others as well. Please CLICK your favorite SOCIAL BOOKMARKING ELEMENT:

StumpleUpon Ma.gnolia DiggIt! Del.icio.us Blinklist Yahoo Furl Technorati Simpy Spurl Reddit Google

Amnesty denying Israel the right to defend itself : ADL

The Anti-Defamation League on Monday blasted Amnesty International as denying Israel the right to defend itself after the human rights organization urged a global freeze on arms sales to Israel.

"In calling for an arms embargo of Israel, Amnesty International is doing nothing short of denying Israel the right to self-defense, an internationally accepted right of every sovereign nation," said ADL National Director Abraham H. Foxman in a statement.

Amnesty called for the embargo in a report released Monday that claimed more than 20 countries sold Israel weapons and munitions whose use during its offensive in Gaza could constitute war crimes and might pose serious infractions of international law.

"Indeed, with this pernicious and biased report, Amnesty International has now become the research arm for and a proponent of the extremist anti-Israel boycott, divestment and sanctions movement," the Jewish-American organization's statement said.

"The manner in which Amnesty's 'evidence' is presented and the tone of the report convey an obvious agenda to vilify Israel."

The Foreign Ministry also lambasted the report on Monday, calling it biased and stating that Amnesty ignored the fact that Hamas is a terror organization.

Israel has faced a spate of war crimes allegations following the offensive against Hamas, in which about 1300 Palestinians were killed, according to Gaza officials. 13 Israelis were also killed during the campaign, which Israel launched to combat cross-border rocket fire.

In the ADL statement, Foxman added: "The report omits any mention of Hamas' use of civilian shields, or tactics of basing their operations in the midst of population centers, in mosques, hospitals, schools, and UN facilities."

By Natasha Mozgovaya, Israeli Newspaper

If you liked this post, Dont forget to BOOKMARK it for others as well. Please CLICK your favorite SOCIAL BOOKMARKING ELEMENT:

StumpleUpon Ma.gnolia DiggIt! Del.icio.us Blinklist Yahoo Furl Technorati Simpy Spurl Reddit Google

Tuesday, February 24, 2009

Israel's new Iran policy: Sway Obama on Tehran talks

The latest International Atomic Energy Agency report was greeted with ennui by the Israeli media, deemed not especially exciting compared to the twists and turns of coalition talks or the tongue-lashing Prime Minister Ehud Olmert gave Defense Ministry official Amos Gilad.

But the political and security echelons' attitude to the report, which states that Iran has managed to accumulate a ton of enriched uranium and is heading quickly toward a nuclear bomb, is a different story. The report confirms the assumption, shared for some time by the intelligence services of Israel, the United States and Europe, that Iran is closer to the bomb, with mid-2010 as the likely date it will reach its goal.

Iran was a major topic of conversation between Defense Minister Ehud Barak, Israel Defense Forces Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi, and U.S. senators John Kerry and Joe Lieberman on their recent visits to Israel.

From Israel's perspective, President Barack Obama is a key player in the Iranian drama. Although Obama has more urgent things on his agenda - first and foremost among them the rehabilitation of the U.S. economy - Iran will be his first major foreign-policy test. Israel regards Obama's decision to talk to Tehran about its nuclear program as a done deal. What it is trying to do, in a low-profile way, is to impact the way the Americans reach the point of dialogue.

In his lecture last week to senior IDF officers, Barak sketched the outlines of the Israeli approach in the coming months. Israel hopes that potential U.S.-Iranian talks will be relatively short-term, and harbors few illusions about a positive outcome.

When and if talks fail, Israel would expect the U.S. to head an international move for immediate and harsher sanctions, this time effectively involving Russia, China and India. The assumption is that Obama will find it easier than Bush to urge the world to pressure Iran, especially after he shows he has taken dialogue as far as it can go.

Israel would prefer for the Americans to condition their talks with Iran on freezing uranium enrichment during the talks.

The oversight system now allows reasonable follow-up on whether Tehran is meeting this condition. In the 15 years of Tehran's contacts with the international community, it has proven itself a master of deception and delay and Israel is concerned that the Iranians will use the dialogue as a feint, while steadily moving closer to a bomb.

But it is difficult to imagine Iran agreeing to this condition, similar to the one it rejected when the Bush administration proposed it.

And if all efforts fail? Barak told the cabinet yesterday that "Israel will take no option off the table." The commander of the Israel Navy, Maj. Gen. Eliezer Marom said in a rare statement yesterday: "An axis of evil coordinated between Iran, Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas will require Israel to wage a campaign against it that will require our best efforts and abilities."

The General Staff is divided about the practical chances of such a campaign if Israel goes it alone, without coordination with and assistance from the United States.

The Israeli statements illustrate that the Middle East is beginning to move according to a new schedule: elections in Iran and in Lebanon in June, U.S.-Iranian talks and perhaps sanctions. Attention in Israel is gradually being directed eastward and northward, toward the possibility of a renewed front with Hezbollah and perhaps even with Syria.

That is one of the main reasons the General Staff supports a cease-fire with Hamas in the south that would also include the release of kidnapped soldier Gilad Shalit. Israel is about to have more pressing problems.

By Amos Harel, Isreali newspaper

If you liked this post, Dont forget to BOOKMARK it for others as well. Please CLICK your favorite SOCIAL BOOKMARKING ELEMENT:

StumpleUpon Ma.gnolia DiggIt! Del.icio.us Blinklist Yahoo Furl Technorati Simpy Spurl Reddit Google

Monday, February 23, 2009

Scoring the Oscars: 'Slumdog Millionaire' was no surprise as big winner at Academy Awards

When does eight equal more than 1,000,000?

Only on Oscar night.


"Slumdog Millionaire," the fairytale story of an impoverished boy from Mumbai who wins the grand prize on the Indian version of "Who Wants to be a Millionaire?" scored an embarrassment of riches during Sunday's Academy Awards. It took home eight of the 10 statues for which it was nominated, including the grand prize, Best Picture.


Once threatened with a direct-to-DVD release, the film was an underdog story on the screen and behind the scenes. But it became an underdog no more as it piled up accolades at numerous awards shows, making its Oscar haul, for all intents and purposes, inevitable. Oddly, the longshot was leading nominee, "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button," with 13 nods; although it won for Best Makeup, Visual Effects and Art Direction, it was shut out of all major categories.

Consider Slumdog for a moment: It was shot under hectic, unpredictable conditions in India, with unproven actors, many of them children, in key roles, and a relatively miniscule budget of $15 million. It was honored by Oscar in a breadth of categories, from writing (Best Adapted Screenplay) to music (Best Score and Song, for Jai Ho) to the technical (Best Editing, Sound Mixing and Cinematography) and directing (Danny Boyle, best known for "Trainspotting" and "28 Days Later").

List of winners


Its eight wins are notable in an age of Oscar parity, and the most since "The Lord of the Rings: Return of the King" snagged 11 in 2004. Such diversity in achievement suggests Slumdog is one of 2008's most complete films, a notion few would disagree with. (Notably, many cried foul when star Dev Patel was snubbed in acting categories.) Critics and audiences have lauded it since its autumn debut at the Toronto International Film Festival, and it has grossed $98 million at the domestic box office.

But frankly, the success of Slumdog was no surprise on Oscar night. Neither was Heath Ledger's Best Supporting Actor win for his entertaining, often disturbing, portrayal of The Joker in "The Dark Knight."

As many predicted, Kate Winslet won Best Actress for "The Reader," probably less for the role of an amoral ex-Nazi who has an affair with a 15-year-old boy than for the accumulation of five previous nods with no wins. I call it the Enough Already Rule.

The most suspense came in the Best Actor category, with Sean Penn ("Milk") beating Mickey Rourke ("The Wrestler") presumably by a nose. It was a timely role, that of famed San Francisco gay activist Harvey Milk, considering the outrage in California after a November vote banned gay marriage in the state.


Sean Penn accepts the Oscar for best actor for his work in "Milk."Thus, the typically humorless Penn delivered an unexpectedly funny speech, first sarcastically calling the Academy Commie, homo-loving sons-of-guns, then referring to his own prickly demeanor. "I did not expect this. I want to be very clear that I do know how hard I make it to appreciate me," he said, drawing big laughs.

As for the new-look Oscar ceremony? Host Hugh Jackman kicked it off with a comically lo-fi song-and-dance medley with tinfoil and construction-paper sets, Anne Hathaway playing Richard Nixon, The Craigslist Dancers and lyrics such as "I haven't seen The Reader" people just saw Iron Man a second time and Im Wolveriiiiiiiine!

The first half of the telecast, which ran 30 minutes over its expected time, had more loosey-goosey laughs than usual, but the show lost some steam, reverting back to basics as it dragged on. Which means I had plenty of opportunities to hand out my annual Serbie Awards, for the best and worst Oscar moments:

Best Comedy Duo: Tina Fey and Steve Martin, who exchanged witty banter -- and ridiculed Scientology -- while giving out the two screenplay. Once, she gazed at him longingly, and he spat, "Don't fall in love with me." Classic.

Best Straight Woman: Natalie Portman, presenting with Ben Stiller, who did a Joaquin Phoenix impression. Wearing a bushy beard and sunglasses, he wandered around the stage, muttered nonsense and plopped his gum on the podium. You look like you work at a Hasidic meth lab, she quipped.

The Meee-owww! National Enquirer Award: Goes to the producer who kept showing Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie while Jennifer Aniston was on stage presenting. Gotta play up the well-worn love triangle for ratings, apparently.

Most Radiant Face: Winslet's, of course. With her hair swept back, she so closely resembled Ingrid Bergman, she had us (OK, me) melting in our (OK, my) recliners.

The Eye-Roll Political Speechifying Serbie: Penn, who deviated from levity and got on his soapbox, just like Harvey Milk. The role speaks for itself, Sean.

Biggest Train Wreck: The big Baz Luhrmann-designed production number, which I've affectionately titled How Much Junk Can We Cram Into Four Minutes? Beyonce Knowles joined Jackman on stage for a mushy mish-mash medley of movie musical tunes ranging from "Grease" to ABBA, and derailed long before Zac Efron and Amanda Seyfried jumped in. What ...? They couldn't wedge in Phil Collins singing "Against All Odds," or some Electric Boogaloo breakdancing? For shame.

And, The Goofy Bits: Philippe Petit, tightrope-walking subject of Best Documentary "Man on Wire," balanced the Oscar on his chin. The way-lovable Danny Boyle bouncing like Tigger for his kids during his acceptance speech. And Kunio Kato, director of Best Animated Short winner "La Maison en petits cubes," thanking his pencil (his film was constructed of colored-pencil drawings) and muttered the nonsequitir "domo arigato Mr. Roboto" through his very thick accent.

Moments like this mostly, almost, might possibly make it worth sitting through the Academy's annual 210-minute self-congratulatory celebration.

by John Serba The Grand Rapids Press
Monday February 23, 2009, 4:29 AM





If you liked this post, Dont forget to BOOKMARK it for others as well. Please CLICK your favorite SOCIAL BOOKMARKING ELEMENT:

StumpleUpon Ma.gnolia DiggIt! Del.icio.us Blinklist Yahoo Furl Technorati Simpy Spurl Reddit Google

Mumbai slums hail Slumdog Millionaire's Oscar triumph


Among those following the Academy Awards with baited breath were hundreds of slumdwellers from the impoverished Mumbai neighbourhood that supplied the child stars who helped make Slumdog Millionaire the evening's outstanding winner.
Scores of people gathered to watch the Oscars ceremony on television in the tiny ramshackle hutments of Garib Nagar, the area where the film's British director, Danny Boyle, found Azharuddin Mohammed Ismail, 10, and Rubina Ali Qureshi, 9, who play the film's lead characters as children.
The announcement that Slumdog had won the award for best picture was greeted with whoops of joy by locals who hope that that the film's success – it won eight awards in all – will rub off on them.
Rubina's mother told The Times: "It is not just important for my daughter that the film won, though she did work really hard: it was important for all of India.
Yakub Abdul Sheikh, a neighbour of Azharuddin's family for 40 years, said: "We prayed to the almighty that the movie would do well at the Oscars and that it could brighten the future of these children."
Garib Nagar, a litter-strewn stretch of shantytown next to a train track, is about as far removed from the red carpet of the glittering Oscar awards ceremony as it is possible to get.
Azharuddin's real-life story plays testament to the hardship's endured by many of Mumbai's slum dwellers. His father usually earns 50-100 rupees a day selling scrap wood, but has been in hospital recently with tuberculosis. His family were recently evicted from their hut and they now live under a tarpaulin on the edge of a slum.
"He's supposed to be the hero in the movie, but look how he's living," his mother, Shameem Ismail, said last week.
On a normal day, dozens of small children run around half naked while flea bitten street dogs suckle their pups. The scenes today were of jubilation, with the families of the child actors feeding each other sweets in celebration.
India was also celebrating the success of A R Rahman, Bollywood's best known composer, who scooped the Oscars for Best Original Music Score and Best Song, cementing his place as a national hero.

If you liked this post, Dont forget to BOOKMARK it for others as well. Please CLICK your favorite SOCIAL BOOKMARKING ELEMENT:

StumpleUpon Ma.gnolia DiggIt! Del.icio.us Blinklist Yahoo Furl Technorati Simpy Spurl Reddit Google

Faithful to lost honor

Gilad Shalit could have spent this weekend at home in Mitzpe Hila. The bitter fact is that he could have been released a very long time ago. The cat was let out of the bag by none other than the prime minister himself. "There is no reason Israel should lose what remains of its national pride," said Ehud Olmert at a cabinet meeting, as he surprisingly toughened Israel's stance in the negotiations.

The soldier Shalit, it now appears, is rotting in jail as a service to returning lost pride to the nation. He never signed up for this flawed and perverted task, his parents did not volunteer their son for this, and it's even doubtful whether the majority of Israelis would support such a cruel and futile view.

Olmert, and the others faithful to the nation's lost honor, are welcome to sacrifice themselves for their cause, rather than shoulder it on to others. The nation's honor was lost in the Gaza war, fought under Olmert, as the ghastly footage of our soldiers' actions demonstrate; much more so than if Israel finally does what it must do and releases the thousand prisoners, without which we will not get Shalit back. It is the forestalling of the deal that stains national honor: This is not the conduct of a nation mindful of its soldiers' fate.


The deal is unequivocal and crystal clear. Release the prisoners and get Shalit. Keep the prisoners and don't get Shalit. Crossings or no crossings, no delays will lower the bar. They only raise it and put Shalit at greater risk. The price of a thousand prisoners would have brought Shalit home long ago, and it's better now than never.

But the bitter truth is even more outrageous. This is no "price." What "price" did Israel pay when it released Samir Kuntar, for instance? What damage came to our security and honor from the sight of him paraded across the Arab world, a Palestinian kaffiyeh around his shoulders? He killed and paid his dues, with 30 years of jail time, and was eventually released so that two families can bring their sons to rest. And what "price" did we endure with the release of the scandalous "bargaining chips," Dirani and Obeid?

A price? Even if you multiply this so-called price by a thousand, this is still no price to pay. The thousand prisoners requested by Hamas are less than a tenth of the many prisoners rotting in Israeli jails. Most of them served lengthy sentences, and experience shows they are unlikely to return to terrorism if released. Some are political prisoners who should never have been arrested and jailed under any rule of law. They deserve to be released with or without connection to Shalit.

Take, for example, the Palestinian parliamentarians. Or Marwan Barghouti, whose release would not only be no "price" to Israel, but may turn out to be a great advantage by establishing a new Palestinian leadership. Others were convicted by military courts that are quite difficult to define as a judicial system based on justice or proper trial. Go attend a military court in session and see it for yourselves. Either way, many of them have served long sentences and are, after all, supposed to be released some day.

The terms employed are deliberate deceit. The Israeli propaganda system works to make the price seem dear. "Blood on their hands" - Israel is unwise to use this term. All hands are bloodied here, Israelis' and Palestinians', and it's better not to ask whose hands more so. The "murderers" are not all murderers, after all - this is a term used to serve one of the sides, as is "terrorists." If you define "terrorism" as the killing of civilians, what can we say for ourselves? Even the deterrence argument is misleading: The Palestinians will go on trying to kidnap and kill soldiers, at least while the occupation continues.

So let us stop the chatter: Shalit can and must be returned in a single move. A thousand prisoners coming home, after years of imprisonment, could have signified the begining of a new era in the relationship with the Palestinians, had the initiative come from us. This will not happen now, but let us at least get what we can, which is a lot.

Yesterday, today, tomorrow at the latest - a thousand for Shalit. A thousand to return a captured soldier home, and yes, that too - a thousand to restore a nation's pride.

By Gideon Levy
© Copyright 2009 Haaretz. All rights reserved
Last update - 01:37 22/02/2009

If you liked this post, Dont forget to BOOKMARK it for others as well. Please CLICK your favorite SOCIAL BOOKMARKING ELEMENT:

StumpleUpon Ma.gnolia DiggIt! Del.icio.us Blinklist Yahoo Furl Technorati Simpy Spurl Reddit Google

Iran inches closer to the bomb

This time we are not dealing with an intelligence assessment based on shadowy sources, or statements by politicians on the eve of elections, but rather a technical report by United Nations experts, who examined findings in the field and whose credibility is beyond reproach. Inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency found that Iran has crossed the "technological threshold," and has built up one ton of enriched uranium. If the material undergoes further processing at the Natanz enrichment facility, it will be sufficient to produce one nuclear bomb.

The new findings heighten the sense of urgency to deal with the Iranian nuclear program while highlighting the failure of previous attempts to stop it through Security Council resolutions and economic sanctions. From Israel's standpoint, the increasing threat requires that it tighten its diplomatic coordination with the new U.S. administration. All the options at Israel's disposal depend on an understanding with the United States.

Prime minister-designate Benjamin Netanyahu declared during the election campaign that the Iranian nuclear program is an "existential threat" to Israel, and that "Iran will not arm itself with a nuclear weapon, and that includes all that is required so that this possibility will not materialize." Netanyahu views Iran as the most urgent issue in a future dialogue with the Obama administration.

Meanwhile, the new administration is keeping its distance from Israel, signaling that it does not unreservedly support its policies. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton embarked on a trip to Asia before visiting the Middle East. Senator John Kerry, who is chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, visited Hamas-controlled Gaza and also traveled to Damascus. Obama envoy George Mitchell began his Middle East visit in Cairo, not Jerusalem. These instances indicate that Israel needs to earn the trust of the administration in Washington.

Israel must support the diplomatic efforts Obama is planning to pursue with Iran to remove the nuclear threat. But for Israel's interests to be adequately represented in the negotiations, it needs to contribute its fair share. It must refrain from impassioned declarations that will strain already-high tensions in the region. It must avoid provocations in the settlements and unnecessarily resorting to force in the territories, which will complicate matters for Obama. It must also understand that there are no free lunches in diplomacy and that an American push for a strategic "arrangement" of the Middle East will also encapsulate Israel's demands. This is Netanyahu's challenge.


© Copyright 2009 Haaretz. All rights reserved
Last update - 01:28 22/02/2009

If you liked this post, Dont forget to BOOKMARK it for others as well. Please CLICK your favorite SOCIAL BOOKMARKING ELEMENT:

StumpleUpon Ma.gnolia DiggIt! Del.icio.us Blinklist Yahoo Furl Technorati Simpy Spurl Reddit Google

Saturday, February 21, 2009

Netanyahu picked to form Israeli government

JERUSALEM (CNN) -- Benjamin Netanyahu, the head of the conservative Likud Party, has been chosen to form Israel's next government, Israeli President Shimon Peres announced Friday.

At a joint news conference with Peres, Netanyahu said he accepted the task and he is willing to work with the moderate parties of Labor, led by Ehud Barak, and Kadima, headed by Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni.

"We have different approaches in different areas, but we are all together in our desire to act for the good of the state," Netanyahu said. "We will be able to find the common ground to lead the state toward security, prosperity and peace."

He said Israeli leaders need to unite as the country faces "great challenges," particularly from Iran, which he said "is developing nuclear weapons and poses the biggest threat to Israel since the war of independence."

A U.N. report released this week found that Iran has enough uranium for a single nuclear weapon, but the uranium has not been enriched to make it weapons-grade. Iran consistently has denied the weapons allegations, calling them "baseless," and said that data that indicated otherwise was "fabricated."

To become Israel's next prime minister, Netanyahu must form a coalition within six weeks, or the process will start all over.

The decision comes after Avigdor Lieberman, head of the right-wing Yisrael Beytenu party, said he would recommend Netanyahu for the post, but only if he promises to form a "broad-based" coalition government.

In last week's parliamentary elections, no single party won the minimum 61 seats needed to form a government. That means a government of two or more parties -- or coalition government -- is inevitable.

The ruling Kadima Party won the most seats in the Knesset, Israel's parliament. But Kadima received just one more seat than Netanyahu's Likud Party.

The strong showing of other right-wing parties -- including Yisrael Beytenu and the Orthodox Shas movement -- could give Netanyahu a better chance of forming a coalition government.

Speaking to fellow Likud members Monday, Netanyahu expressed confidence that he has enough support to emerge as Israel's next prime minister.

"I plan to form a government as soon as possible with our natural partners," the former Israeli prime minister said. "We have a government in our hands, but we want a broader one."

He added that he will negotiate with other parties, including Kadima, "to form a broad national unity government."

Livni took over as Kadima leader after Prime Minister Ehud Olmert stepped down from the post amid corruption investigations. Livni's failure to assemble a ruling coalition at that time triggered last week's elections.

Netanyahu, 59, is a former Israeli soldier who served in the elite commando unit Sayeret Matkal. He was one of a dozen Israeli commandos who stormed a Belgian aircraft hijacked by Palestinian terrorists in 1972 and helped rescue 140 hostages.

After his stint as prime minister from 1996 to 1999, he served in the Cabinet of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, then Likud Party leader, but resigned in 2005, saying he disagreed with Sharon's plan to remove Israeli troops and settlements from Gaza. Sharon left Likud and formed Kadima as a more centrist party.

Netanyahu has supported the expansion of Israeli settlements on the West Bank and has opposed making further territorial concessions in hope of ending the decades-old Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

He has been reminding the public that he warned that Palestinian militants in Gaza could launch rockets at Israeli cities such as Ashkelon and Ashdod -- which has happened and led to Israel's recent military operation in Gaza.

His Likud Party had a strong showing in last week's election, more than doubling the number of seats it holds in the Knesset. Netanhayu said that showing proves that voters have rejected Kadima's leadership, and he predicted right-leaning parties will be able to form a majority.

"With God's help, I shall head the coming government," he said. "I am sure that I can manage to put together a good, broad-based and stable government that will be able to deal with the security crisis and the economic crisis."

If you liked this post, Dont forget to BOOKMARK it for others as well. Please CLICK your favorite SOCIAL BOOKMARKING ELEMENT:

StumpleUpon Ma.gnolia DiggIt! Del.icio.us Blinklist Yahoo Furl Technorati Simpy Spurl Reddit Google

Reebok Pump is Back on the Scene! Well, Sort Of

The company that first told you to 'Pump it Up' is launching a new 2-in-1 design that converts from a running shoe to a cross trainer... with nothing more than your footsteps

The original Pump sneaker (which we all remember well) was intended to optimize the shoe's fit; the new Reebok SmoothFit SelectRide goes the extra mile, offerering both the stability of a trainer and the cushion of a running shoe; and you don't even have to untie your laces. Launching next Wednesday, and available for $149.99 only at Champs Sports, the SelectRide is the second attempt by the footwear industry to design an intelligent shoe. The first attempt, the Adidas1, received a surge of press coverage but garnered only average sales. Reebok, which is now actually owned by Adidas, expects that the SelectRide will meet with much greater success.

"One thing we wanted to improve on for our shoe was the public perception. With the Adidas1, while you can put it on an impact machine and measure the changes, we wanted something where you can really feel the difference," Bill McInnis, Reebok's Managing Director of Advanced Concepts, said. "We were cognizant of someone trying it on in the store and making sure they can feel the difference in 5-10 steps."

The SelectRide has an inflatable bladder across the entire sole of the shoe. For your warm-up jog, just push the button on the side of the shoe marked 'run'. This opens an intake valve in a manual pump in the heel of the shoe. With each step you take, air is drawn into the bladder. After 5-10 steps, the shoe's sole lifts the foot up by an extra four millimeters, providing 21.6% more cushioning.

As air is pumped in through the heel, it passes through a one-way check valve and then into the forefoot bladder. The forefoot bladder is linked openly to the heel bladder to ensure the foot is 'lifted' in a uniform fashion as the pressure finds equilibrium. Each individual will actually have a slightly different amount of pressure in their bladder based on the force of their heel strike. McInnis explained that the range is normally between 6-8 PSI with some larger men reaching up to 12 PSI. A mechanical testing machine showed that to withstand a simulated heel strike load of 2000N, the shoe displaced 14 mm in running mode but just 11.5 mm in training mode.

When you're all warmed up and ready to diversify your workout, just push the 'train' button and the shoe reverts to a stiffer version of itself, with increased stability.

McInnis noted that while the Adidas1 relied on a complex circuitry and mechanical system, the SelectRide uses a simple air pump, and contains no moving parts. Testing on the shoe showed that the foam surrounding the shoe will start to break down before any problems with the bladder crop up. This level of simplicity provides a key advantage for the SelectRide over its predecessor.

"There's a significantly different price point that puts us in a different place. We're selling at $150 which is the price of other premium shoes. They were the only shoe above $200 and they were all the way up at $300. We expect our sales volume to be much higher," said McInnis.

Reebok relied on in-house expertise in designing the shoe, and drew upon intellectual property from older pump models. Any multi-functional technology raises the question of whether the combined effect will be as good as the separate parts. McInnis believes the answer is 'yes'. The shoe is just five percent heavier than the brand's best running shoe, and the stiffness of the shoe in each mode is consistent with Reebok's high-end lines for each category. After eleven rounds of development, they're confident that the SelectRide is robust enough to withstand rain, sweat, sand, and all of the pavement-pounding you might be inclined to subject it to.


By Brett Zarda,

Source: Popular Science

If you liked this post, Dont forget to BOOKMARK it for others as well. Please CLICK your favorite SOCIAL BOOKMARKING ELEMENT:

StumpleUpon Ma.gnolia DiggIt! Del.icio.us Blinklist Yahoo Furl Technorati Simpy Spurl Reddit Google

Finger Flickin’ Good

German scientists turn the average finger into remote control and simultaneously break the how-lazy-can-we-be ceiling

Lose this remote control you've got a serious problem. In two short weeks, a group of German scientists will unveil the iPoint 3D, which allows users to communicate with a 3-D display through simple finger gestures. The technology doesn't require a data glove, 3-D glasses or any contact with the screen. On the down side it doesn't negate the need to actually lift your arm.

So how does it work? iPoint 3D is essentially a recognition device about the size of keyboard that is suspended from the ceiling or integrated into a coffee table. Two cheapo video cameras connected via FireWire pick up any movement from a couch potato's hands or fingers and transmit the data in real time back to the device. No physical contact or special markers are involved.

Ok, so maybe spuds and gamers aren't the only potential beneficiaries. According to Paul Chojecki, a research scientist at the Fraunhofer Institute for Telecommunications, Heinrich-Hertz-Institut, iPoint 3D's applications might include office, hospital or interactive information system environments. "Since the interaction is entirely contactless, the system is ideal for scenarios where contact between the user and the system is not possible or not allowed, such as in an operating room," Chojecki says. In addition, it could be used as a means of controlling other devices or appliances. For example, a multitasking cook can turn down the boiling potatoes by waving a finger without leaving meatloaf slime on the stove knob.

If iPoint 3D proves successful, no doubt we'll all be giving each other the finger this holiday season.

If you liked this post, Dont forget to BOOKMARK it for others as well. Please CLICK your favorite SOCIAL BOOKMARKING ELEMENT:

StumpleUpon Ma.gnolia DiggIt! Del.icio.us Blinklist Yahoo Furl Technorati Simpy Spurl Reddit Google

Obama’s Worst Pakistan Nightmare

By DAVID E. SANGER

Published: January 8, 2009

TO GET TO THE HEADQUARTERS of the Strategic Plans Division, the branch of the Pakistani government charged with keeping the country's growing arsenal of nuclear weapons away from insurgents trying to overrun the country, you must drive down a rutted, debris-strewn road at the edge of the Islamabad airport, dodging stray dogs and piles of uncollected garbage. Just past a small traffic circle, a tan stone gateway is manned by a lone, bored-looking guard loosely holding a rusting rifle. The gateway marks the entry to Chaklala Garrison, an old British cantonment from the days when officers of the Raj escaped the heat of Delhi for the cooler hills on the approaches to Afghanistan. Pass under the archway, and the poverty and clamor of modern Pakistan disappear.

Chaklala is a comfortable enclave for the country's military and intelligence services. Inside the gates, officers in the army and the Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence, known as the ISI, live in trim houses with well-tended lawns. Business is conducted in long, low office buildings, with a bevy of well-pressed adjutants buzzing around. Deep inside the garrison lies the small compound for Strategic Plans, where Khalid Kidwai keeps the country's nuclear keys. Now 58, Kidwai is a compact man who hides his arch sense of humor beneath a veil of caution, as if he were previewing each sentence to decide if it revealed too much. In the chaos of Pakistan, where the military, the intelligence services and an unstable collection of civilian leaders uneasily share power, he oversees a security structure intended to protect Pakistan's nuclear arsenal from outsiders — Islamic militants, Qaeda scientists, Indian saboteurs and those American commando teams that Pakistanis imagine, with good reason, are waiting just over the horizon in Afghanistan, ready to seize their nuclear treasure if a national meltdown seems imminent.

In the second nuclear age, what happens or fails to happen in Kidwai's modest compound may prove far more likely to save or lose an American city than the billions of dollars the United States spends each year maintaining a nuclear arsenal that will almost certainly never be used, or the thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars we have spent in Iraq and Afghanistan to close down sanctuaries for terrorists.

Just last month in Washington, members of the federally appointed bipartisan Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism made it clear that for sheer scariness, nothing could compete with what they had heard in a series of high-level intelligence briefings about the dangers of Pakistan's nuclear technology going awry. "When you map W.M.D. and terrorism, all roads intersect in Pakistan," Graham Allison, a Harvard professor and a leading nuclear expert on the commission, told me. "The nuclear security of the arsenal is now a lot better than it was. But the unknown variable here is the future of Pakistan itself, because it's not hard to envision a situation in which the state's authority falls apart and you're not sure who's in control of the weapons, the nuclear labs, the materials."

For Kidwai, there is something both tiresome and deeply suspicious about the constant stream of warnings out of Washington that Pakistan is the epicenter of a post-cold-war Armageddon. "This is all overblown rhetoric," Kidwai told me on a rainy Saturday morning not long ago when I went to visit him in his office, which is comfortably outfitted with oversize white leather chairs and models of the Pakistani missiles that can deliver a nuclear weapon to the farthest corners of India. Even if the country's leadership were to be incapacitated, he insisted, Pakistan's protections are so strong that the arsenal could never slip from the hands of the country's National Command Authority, a mix of hardened generals (including Kidwai) and newly elected politicians. Kidwai has spent the past five years making the same case to American officials: just because a savvy metallurgist named Abdul Qadeer Khan, a national hero for his role in turning Pakistan into a nuclear-weapons power, managed to smuggle nuclear secrets and materials to the likes of Iran, North Korea and Libya for profit in the 1980s and 1990s, it doesn't mean that such a horrendous breach of security could happen again.

"Please grant to Pakistan that if we can make nuclear weapons and the delivery systems," Kidwai said, gesturing to the models and a photo of Pakistan's first nuclear test, a decade ago, "we can also make them safe. Our security systems are foolproof."

"FOOLPROOF" IS MOST likely not the word Barack Obama would use to describe the status of Pakistan's nuclear safety following the briefings he has been receiving since Nov. 6, which is when J. Michael McConnell, the director of national intelligence, showed up in Chicago to give the president-elect his first full presidential daily brief. For obvious reasons, neither Obama nor McConnell will talk about the contents of those highly classified briefings. But interviews over the past year with senior intelligence officials and with nuclear experts in Washington and South Asia and at the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna provide strong indications of what Obama has probably heard.

By now Obama has almost surely been briefed about an alarming stream of intelligence that began circulating early last year to the top tier of George W. Bush's national-security leadership in Washington. The highly restricted reports described how foreign-trained Pakistani scientists, including some suspected of harboring sympathy for radical Islamic causes, were returning to Pakistan to seek jobs within the country's nuclear infrastructure — presumably trying to burrow in among the 2,000 or so people who have what Kidwai calls "critical knowledge" of the Pakistani nuclear infrastructure.

"I have two worries," one of the most senior officials in the Bush administration, who had read all of the intelligence with care, told me one day last spring. One is what happens "when they move the weapons," he said, explaining that the United States feared that some groups could try to provoke a confrontation between Pakistan and India in the hope that the Pakistani military would transport tactical nuclear weapons closer to the front lines, where they would be more vulnerable to seizure. Indeed, when the deadly terror attacks occurred in Mumbai in late November, officials told me they feared that one of the attackers' motives might have been to trigger exactly that series of events.

"And the second," the official said, choosing his words carefully, "is what I believe are steadfast efforts of different extremist groups to infiltrate the labs and put sleepers and so on in there."
As Obama's team of nuclear experts have discovered in their recent briefings, it is Pakistan's laboratories — one of which still bears A. Q. Khan's name — that still pose the greatest worries for American intelligence officials. It is relatively easy to teach Kidwai's security personnel how to lock down warheads and store them separately from trigger devices and missiles — training that the United States has conducted, largely in secret, at a cost of almost $100 million. It is a lot harder for the Americans to keep track of nuclear material being produced inside laboratories, where it is easier for the Pakistanis to underreport how much nuclear material has been produced, how much is in storage or how much might be "stuck in the pipes" during the laborious enrichment process. And it is nearly impossible to stop engineers from walking out the door with the knowledge of how to produce fuel, which Khan provided to Iran, and bomb designs.

After more than four years, no one in Washington has a clear sense of whether the small, covert American program to help Pakistan secure its weapons and laboratories is actually working. Kidwai has been happy to take the cash and send in progress reports, but auditors from Washington have been rebuffed whenever they have asked to see how, exactly, the money was being spent. Kidwai, when pressed, says that the Americans shouldn't offer lectures about nuclear security, not after the U.S. Air Force lost track of some of its own weapons in 2007 for 36 hours, flying them around unguarded to air bases and leaving them by the side of the tarmac. He makes use of another argument as well, a legacy of the Bush era that will last for many years: how can an intelligence apparatus in the United States that got Iraq's nuclear progress so wrong in 2003 be so certain today that Pakistan's arsenal is at risk?

Pakistani officials are understandably suspicious that the real intent of the American program is to gather the information needed to snatch, or neutralize, the country's arsenal. So they have met most requests with the same answer they gave the C.I.A. when it wanted to interview Khan: Don't waste your time submitting a formal request. "It is a matter of national sovereignty," Kidwai says, "and a matter of our honor."

Khalid Kidwai is only a few years younger than Pakistan itself, and he has spent much of his life trying to create pockets of order in a nation to which order does not come naturally. His father, Jalil Ahmed Kidwai, was one of the country's best-known authors and critics; his mother founded a school in Karachi. Kidwai was born into an era in which the overriding question on the minds of most Muslims in Pakistan was whether the country could withstand India's onslaughts, and it did not take long for the young Khalid to settle on his dream: to fly with the Pakistani Air Force, the most romantic branch of the armed forces in a new nation that believed it needed to be able to strike deep into India if it was to survive. At age 12, he passed the exam for the air-force-sponsored school in Sargodha, the site of the country's largest air base, but when he graduated, Kidwai received the disheartening news that he would never become a pilot: a mild eye disorder disqualified him. "My next obvious choice was the army," he told me, and like many in his generation of military men in Pakistan, he never fully left it, even after his retirement, or lost the professional pride and the security blanket it provides.

In 1971, Kidwai was captured during a war with India and held as a prisoner of war for two years in the north Indian city of Allahabad — an experience he is still reluctant to discuss. After returning to the Pakistani officer corps, he was posted in 1979 to the artillery training school at Fort Sill, Okla., as part of a program that allowed the American military to get to know a rising generation of Pakistani officers. Kidwai recalls that whenever the fort's brass turned to nuclear-weapons training, they found something else for the foreign officers to do. "We'd be sent off for trips to Washington or someplace," Kidwai recalled with a laugh, "so that we were out of earshot."

In 1998, Pakistan responded to a round of Indian nuclear tests by exploding its own bombs. Like the rest of the country, Kidwai watched on television as the Chagai hills shook from Pakistan's underground tests. His nation had done more than answer India's challenge; it had built the ultimate deterrent. Along the way, Pakistan had overcome a series of halfhearted efforts, led by the United States, to cut off its nuclear supplies. Year after year, Pakistan lied to Washington when confronted with all-but-definitive evidence that it was constructing a weapon. Pakistan simply endured the resulting economic sanctions. It all seemed worth it, Pakistani officials have told me, after India detonated five test bombs and Pakistan came back with six.

"That was one-upmanship," Kidwai said, smiling proudly as we looked at a photograph of one test, which was hanging on his office wall. "India had conducted only five." Below the photographs, Kidwai keeps a small fragment of the Chagai mountain under glass, displayed like a moon rock at the Smithsonian. The explosion had turned it bright white.

NO SOONER HAD THE radioactive and diplomatic dust settled from the test site than Kidwai was called in by his army superiors, and ultimately, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, and told that he would now head an urgent project: to come up with a system to protect Pakistan's new weapon from all of its enemies — the Indians, Western Europeans and the angry Americans.
Kidwai knew speed was of the essence. Pakistan's leaders feared that if the West thought that Pakistan had just a few weapons in its inventory, and no system to assure their safety, they would come under even more pressure to roll back the program and give up the handful they had manufactured. The only way to resist that pressure, they knew, was to create a large arsenal quickly and to hide it in underground facilities where neither the Indians nor the Americans could seize or destroy the warheads. Then they needed to convince the world that Pakistan could become a responsible nuclear power, one capable of securing its weapons as well as the Russians, the Chinese or the Israelis did. That meant Kidwai had to learn the arts of nuclear safety from the Americans, but without teaching his teachers how to neutralize Pakistan's arsenal.

Kidwai got off to a rocky start. The Pakistani nuclear program owes its very existence to the government-endorsed and government-financed subterfuges of A. Q. Khan, who then turned the country into the biggest source of nuclear-weapons proliferation in atomic history. And while Khan may be the most famous nuclear renegade in Pakistan, he is not the only one. Soon after Kidwai took office, he also faced the case of the eccentric nuclear scientist Sultan Bashiruddin Mahmood, who helped build gas centrifuges for the Pakistani nuclear program, using blueprints Khan had stolen from the Netherlands. Mahmood then moved on to the country's next huge project: designing the reactor at Khushab that was to produce the fuel Pakistan needed to move to the next level — a plutonium bomb.

An autodidact intellectual with grand aspirations, Mahmood was fascinated by the links between science and the Koran. He wrote a peculiar treatise arguing that when morals degrade, disaster cannot be far behind. Over time, his colleagues began to wonder if Mahmood was mentally sound. They were half amused and half horrified by his fascination with the role sunspots played in triggering the French and Russian Revolutions, World War II and assorted anticolonial uprisings. "This guy was our ultimate nightmare," an American intelligence official told me in late 2001, when The New York Times first reported on Mahmood. "He had access to the entire Pakistani program. He knew what he was doing. And he was completely out of his mind."

While Khan appeared to be in the nuclear-proliferation business chiefly for the money, Mahmood made it clear to friends that his interest was religious: Pakistan's bomb, he told associates, was "the property of a whole Ummah," referring to the worldwide Muslim community. He wanted to share it with those who might speed "the end of days" and lead the way for Islam to rise as the dominant religious force in the world.

Eventually Mahmood's religious intensity, combined with his sympathy for Islamic extremism, scared his colleagues. In 1999, just as Kidwai was beginning to examine the staff of the nuclear enterprise, Mahmood was forced to take an early retirement. At a loss for what to do, Mahmood set up a nonprofit charity, Ummah Tameer-e-Nau, which was ostensibly designed to send relief to fellow Muslims in Afghanistan. In August 2001, as the Sept. 11 plotters were making their last preparations in the United States, Mahmood and one of his colleagues at the charity met with Osama bin Laden and his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, over the course of several days in Afghanistan. There is little doubt that Mahmood talked to the two Qaeda leaders about nuclear weapons, or that Al Qaeda desperately wanted the bomb. George Tenet, the C.I.A. chief, wrote later that intelligence reports of the meeting were "frustratingly vague." They included an account that there was talk of how to design a simple firing mechanism, and that a senior Qaeda leader displayed a canister that may have contained some nuclear material (though almost certainly not bomb-grade).

In the weeks after 9/11, the tales of the meeting were enough to set off panic. Rolf Mowatt-Larssen, a longtime C.I.A. nuclear expert, was given perhaps the most daunting job at the agency in the aftermath of 9/11: to make sure that Al Qaeda did not have a weapon of mass destruction at its disposal. "The worst nightmare we had at that time was that A. Q. Khan and Osama bin Laden were somehow working together,"
Mowatt-Larssen told me one day last winter in his basement office in a secure vault at the Energy Department, where he moved after his time at the C.I.A. to head up the department's intelligence unit. As if to drive home the point to visitors to his underground lair, Mowatt-Larssen, who is leaving the government this month to become a senior fellow at Harvard, keeps a floor-to-ceiling centrifuge in the corner of his office, where most people might put a potted plant. The gleaming silver device, which is meant to spin at terrifying speed to enrich uranium, was seized in Libya — part of the cache that Muammar el-Qaddaffi bought from Khan.

Musharraf tried to tamp down American alarm. He told Tenet and Mowatt-Larssen that "men in caves can't do this." He had Mahmood and his colleague rearrested, though they were never prosecuted. Pakistan did not want to risk a trial in which the country's own nuclear secrets came out. Today, Mahmood, like Khan, is back home, under tight surveillance that seems intended primarily to keep him a safe distance from reporters.

Kidwai insists that the Mahmood incident was overblown, raised time and again by Americans to create the image that Pakistan is a nuclear sieve. "Nothing went anywhere," he assured me. "It's over." But what's terrifying about Mahmood's story is not what happened around the campfire, but rather that the meetings happened at all. They took place three years after Kidwai and his team started their work and demonstrated the huge vulnerabilities in the Pakistani nuclear infrastructure at the time.

Kidwai says he has not received any specific intelligence from the United States about "sleeper" scientists trying to infiltrate Pakistan's facilities. Moreover, he says, there is now also a far more effective screening process in place. When we met, Kidwai spent considerable time describing the extensive "personal-reliability program" that he has created to screen existing employees and applicants to the program. Kidwai's intelligence agency monitors nuclear employees' private bank accounts, foreign trips and meetings with anyone who might be considered an extremist. But Americans have their doubts. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates noted to me that "there is no human vetting system that is entirely reliable," pointing out that lie detector tests and other screening techniques that C.I.A. employees regularly undergo have, at times, failed to identify spies. In Pakistan, the problem is made worse by the fact that the universities — where the nuclear program draws its young talent — are now more radicalized than at any time in memory, and the nuclear program itself has greatly expanded. Kidwai estimated that there are roughly 70,000 people who work in the nuclear complex in Pakistan, including 7,000 to 8,000 scientists and the 2,000 or so with "critical knowledge."
If even 1 percent of those employees are willing to spread Pakistan's nuclear knowledge to outsiders with a cause, Kidwai — and the United States — have a problem.

JUST AS KIDWAI FEARS, every few months someone in Washington — either at the Pentagon, or the Energy Department, or on the campus of the National Defense University — runs a simulation of how the United States should respond if a terrorist group infiltrates the Pakistani nuclear program or manages to take over one or two of its weapons. In these exercises, everyone plays to type: the State Department urges negotiations, while the Joint Special Operations Command loads its soldiers and nuclear teams into airplanes. The results of these simulations are highly classified, for fear of tipping off the Pakistanis about what the United States knows and doesn't know about the location of the country's weapons. But most of these war games conclude in a sea of ambiguity, with the participants who are playing top officials in Islamabad and Washington unable to get a clear picture of what happened and, if something is missing, the Pakistanis unwilling to admit it. As one frequent participant in these tabletop exercises put it to me, "Most of them don't end well."

The Pakistanis insist that these American fears are exaggerated and that it would be next to impossible for someone to steal all the elements of a weapon. As Kidwai paced me through PowerPoints and diagrams, his message was that Pakistan's nuclear-weapons-safety program is up to "international standards." But back in Washington, military and nuclear experts told me that the bottom line is that if a real-life crisis broke out, it is unlikely that anyone would be able to assure an American president, with confidence, that he knew where all of Pakistan's weapons were — or that none were in the hands of Islamic extremists. "It's worse than that," the participant in the simulations told me. "We can't even certify exactly how many weapons the Pakistanis have — which makes it difficult to sound convincing that there's nothing to worry about."

Over time, it appears that the deep mutual suspicions have impeded the effort to ensure the safety of Pakistan's arsenal. One of America's key nuclear-safety technologies — PALs, or "permissive action links" — is a series of codes and hardware protections that make sure only a very small group of authorized users can arm and detonate a nuclear weapon. It is a cold-war leftover, designed to make sure some rogue sergeant in a silo didn't wing a weapon toward Moscow. But it may be more important in the second nuclear age than it was in the first. When countries that have little or no experience with nuclear weapons suddenly find themselves stacking their arsenal up in tunnels and caves, it would be nice to know that a terrorist who procured a weapon could not simply set the timer and walk away.

PALs depend on what is essentially a switch in the firing circuit that requires the would-be user to enter a numeric code to start a timer for the weapon's arming and detonation. If the sequence of numbers entered turns out to be incorrect in a fixed number of tries, the whole system disables itself. It is pretty similar to what happens when you repeatedly type the wrong password into an A.T.M., and the machine eats your bank card. But in this case, imagine that someone trying to use your stolen card entered the wrong code one time too many, and a series of small explosions was set off to wreck the innards of the bank machine. That's what happens to an American warhead — it is rendered useless.

Pakistan would clearly benefit from a PALs system of its own. But under U. S. law, Washington cannot transfer nuclear technology to the Pakistanis, even technology to make their weapons safer, because the country is a rogue nuclear state. By all accounts, the Bush administration has abided by the law. Nuclear experts like Harold M. Agnew, the former director of the Los Alamos weapons laboratory, view the restriction as ridiculous. "Anybody who joins the club should be helped to get this," he told my colleague Bill Broad. "Whether it's India or Pakistan or China or Iran, the most important thing is that you want to make sure there is no unauthorized use. You want to make sure that the guys who have their hands on the weapons can't use them without proper authorization."

Even if Washington had made PALs available, it's doubtful that the Pakistanis would have trusted the United States enough to accept them. Any PALs devices delivered in a FedEx box from Washington, they would have figured, would come with a secret "kill switch" allowing someone deep inside the bowels of the Pentagon to track or disable Pakistan's nuclear assets. They would have undoubtedly been right.

Kidwai insists that he solved this problem by sending Pakistani engineers off to develop what you might call "Pak-PALs," a domestic version of the American system. He told me that it was every bit as safe as the American version. No one will talk about what role, if any, the United States played in helping design this system. But history provides a possible guide. Back in the early 1970s, the United States sought to help France protect its own arsenal without directly divulging its own methods. American nuclear scientists began highly secretive discussions with their French counterparts that amounted to a game of 20 Questions, though in Washington-speak it was termed "negative guidance."

IN BUSH'S LAST YEAR in office, Pakistan's downward spiral came to dominate the meetings of the principals down in the Situation Room of the White House. First came the assassination in late December 2007 of Benazir Bhutto, which resulted in a secret trip by McConnell, the intelligence chief, and the director of the C.I.A., Michael V. Hayden, to Islamabad. It was the first of a series of secret missions to convince Musharraf and his handpicked successor as the chief of the army, Gen. Ashfaq Kayani, that the militants in the tribal areas were now aiming to bring down the government in Islamabad. The message was simple and direct: The Pakistani leadership needed to forget about India and focus on the threat from within.

But with each successive trip it became clearer and clearer, particularly to McConnell, that the gap between how Washington viewed the threat and how the Pakistanis viewed it was as yawning as ever. Even worse, suspicions grew that Inter-Services Intelligence was directly aiding the Taliban and other jihadist militants, seeing them as a useful counterweight to India's influence in the region.

Washington's sanguinity was not increased when Pakistan's new prime minister, Yousaf Raza Gilani, arrived in Washington over the summer for what turned out to be a disastrous first visit. Gilani, as the country's first civilian leader in more than a decade, was under huge pressure to show he could bring the intelligence agency, and the country, under control. He couldn't — a brief effort to force the ISI to report to the civilian leadership was quashed — but he thought he had better show up with a gift for President Bush.

Gilani wanted to tell Bush that he had sent forces into the tribal areas to clean out a major madrassa where hard-line ideology and intolerance were part of the daily curriculum. There were roughly 25,000 such private Islamic schools around Pakistan, though only a small number of them regularly bred young terrorists. The one he decided to target was run by the Haqqani faction of Islamic militants, one of the most powerful in the tribal areas.

Though Gilani never knew it, Bush was aware of this gift in advance. The National Security Agency had picked up intercepts indicating that a Pakistani unit warned the leadership of the school about what was coming before carrying out its raid. "They must have called 1-800-HAQQANI," said one person who was familiar with the intercepted conversation. According to another, the account of the warning sent to the school was almost comic. "It was something like, 'Hey, we're going to hit your place in a few days, so if anyone important is there, you might want to tell them to scram.' "

When the "attack" on the madrassa came, the Pakistani forces grabbed a few guns and hauled away a few teenagers. Sure enough, a few days later Gilani showed up in the Oval Office and conveyed the wonderful news to Bush: the great crackdown on the madrassas had begun. The officials in the room — Bush; his national security adviser, Stephen Hadley; and others — did not want to confront Gilani with the evidence that the school had been warned. That would have required revealing sensitive intercepts, and they judged, according to participants in the discussion, that Gilani was both incapable of keeping a secret and incapable of cracking down on his military and intelligence units. Indeed, Gilani may not even have been aware that his gift was a charade: Bush and Hadley may well have known more about the military's actions than the prime minister himself.

WHAT OBAMA NOW inherits in Pakistan is a fully dysfunctional relationship between that country and the United States. Last summer, Bush signed secret orders allowing American special forces to run ground raids into Pakistani territory to root out not only Al Qaeda but also a list of other militants who could be targeted by either the C.I.A. or American military commandos. The first such raid, in September, provoked such a firefight and outrage in Pakistan that most other raids were suspended. But the reasons for the Pakistani government's anger went beyond the concern that Bush was publicly violating Pakistani sovereignty. If American special forces were now authorized to come into the country to snatch or kill a range of militants, several Pakistani officials said to me, would it be very long before they tried to get the country's nuclear weapons as well?

Though few in Washington will admit it, it is the right question. At the end of Bush's term, his aides handed over to Obama's transition team a lengthy review of policy in Afghanistan and Pakistan, concluding that in the end, the United States has far more at stake in preventing Pakistan's collapse than it does in stabilizing Afghanistan or Iraq.

"Only one of those countries has a hundred nuclear weapons," a primary author of the report said to me. For Al Qaeda and the other Islamists, he went on to say, "this is the home game." He paused, before offering up the next thought: For anyone trying to keep a nuclear weapon from going off in the United States, it's our home game, too.



David E. Sanger is chief Washington correspondent for The New York Times. His book "The Inheritance: The World Obama Confronts and the Challenges to American Power," from which this article is adapted, will be published this week by Harmony Books.

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: January 25, 2009
An article on Jan. 11 about the options and possible reactions of the United States if Pakistan's nuclear weapons fell into the hands of jihadists misstated part of the name of an American military unit that has run simulated responses to such an event. It is the Joint Special Operations Command, not the Joint Special Forces Command.

If you liked this post, Dont forget to BOOKMARK it for others as well. Please CLICK your favorite SOCIAL BOOKMARKING ELEMENT:

StumpleUpon Ma.gnolia DiggIt! Del.icio.us Blinklist Yahoo Furl Technorati Simpy Spurl Reddit Google

Contact Me or Subscribe to my posts

Click to Join my FaceBook Blog Group Page

If you want to send a quick message to me, please click

To Subscribe to my posts, please choose:

Search my Blog for posts that are of interest to you...results will be displayed below

Custom Search

Here are the Results, if you seached for a post

Blog Archive

About Me

My photo
Dubai, DXB, United Arab Emirates

Washington, USA

Western Europe Time (GMT)

Dubai

Pakistan

Australia