U.N. approves new debate on arms treaty opposed by U.S. gun lobby

The U.N. General Assembly voted overwhelmingly on Monday to restart negotiations on a draft international treaty to regulate the $70 billion global trade in conventional arms, a pact the powerful U.S. National Rifle Association has been lobbying hard against.
U.N. delegates and gun control activists have complained that talks collapsed in July largely because U.S. President Barack Obama feared attacks from Republican rival Mitt Romney before the November 6 election if his administration was seen as supporting the pact, a charge U.S. officials have denied.
The NRA, which has come under intense criticism for its reaction to the December 15 shooting massacre of 20 children and six educators at an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut, opposes the idea of an arms trade treaty and has pressured Obama to reject it.
But after Obama's re-election last month, his administration joined other members of a U.N. committee in supporting the resumption of negotiations on the treaty.
That move was set in stone on Monday when the 193-nation U.N. General Assembly voted to hold a final round of negotiations on March 18-28 in New York.
The foreign ministers of Argentina, Australia, Costa Rica, Finland, Japan, Kenya and the United Kingdom - the countries that drafted the resolution - issued a joint statement welcoming the decision to resume negotiations on the pact.
"This was a clear sign that the vast majority of U.N. member states support a strong, balanced and effective treaty, which would set the highest possible common global standards for the international transfer of conventional arms," they said.
There were 133 votes in favor, none against and 17 abstentions. A number of countries did not attend, which U.N. diplomats said was due to the Christmas Eve holiday.
The exact voting record was not immediately available, though diplomats said the United States voted 'yes,' as it did in the U.N. disarmament committee last month. Countries that abstained from last month's vote included Russia, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Sudan, Belarus, Cuba and Iran.
Among the top six arms-exporting nations, Russia cast the only abstention in last month's vote. Britain, France and Germany joined China and the United States in the disarmament committee in support of the same resolution approved by the General Assembly on Monday.
NRA THREATENS "GREATEST FORCE OF OPPOSITION"
The main reason the arms trade talks are taking place at all is that the United States - the world's biggest arms trader, which accounts for more than 40 percent of global transfers in conventional arms - reversed U.S. policy on the issue after Obama was first elected and decided in 2009 to support a treaty.
Obama administration officials have tried to explain to U.S. opponents of the arms trade pact that the treaty under discussion would have no effect on gun sales and ownership inside the United States because it would apply only to exports.
But NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre told U.N. delegations in July that his group opposed the pact and there are no indications that
it has changed that position.
"Any treaty that includes civilian firearms ownership in its scope will be met with the NRA's greatest force of opposition," LaPierre said, according to the website of the NRA's lobbying wing, the Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA).
LaPierre's speech to the U.N. delegations in July was later supported by letters from a majority of U.S. senators and 130 congressional representatives, who told Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that they opposed the treaty, according to the NRA-ILA.
It is not clear whether the NRA would have the same level of support from U.S. legislators after the Newtown massacre.
U.S. officials say they want a treaty that contributes to international security by fighting illicit arms trafficking and proliferation but protects the sovereign right of states to conduct legitimate arms trade.
"We will not accept any treaty that infringes on the constitutional rights of our citizens to bear arms," a U.S. official told Reuters last month.
The United States, like all other U.N. member states, can effectively veto the treaty since the negotiations will be conducted on the basis of consensus. That means the treaty must receive unanimous support in order to be approved in March.
Arms control activists say it is far from clear that the Obama administration truly wants a strong treaty. Any treaty agreed in March would also need to be ratified by the parliaments of individual signatory nations before it could come into force.

Read More..

Japan's Abe to pick MP Kishida as foreign minister: Kyodo

 Incoming Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe will appoint lower house lawmaker Fumio Kishida to the key post of foreign minister, Kyodo news agency reported on Tuesday, as the government seeks to balance a bolder diplomatic stance with the need to repair frayed ties with China and South Korea.
The hawkish Abe must balance the need to stabilize relations with key trade partner Beijing and U.S. ally Seoul - which have been strained by rows over territory and wartime history - while bolstering Tokyo's alliance with Washington and trying to loosen the limits of the pacifist constitution on the military.
Kishida, 55, entered politics after working at the now-defunct Long-Term Credit Bank of Japan and previously served as a state minister in charge of Okinawa-related issues in Abe's first 2006-2007 cabinet. Previous media reports had said Abe might tap former Foreign Minister Yoriko Kawaguchi for the post.
Abe will formally take office on Wednesday and is expected to quickly form his new cabinet following his Liberal Democratic Party's December 16 landslide election win.

Read More..

Lawmakers play waiting game with 'fiscal cliff' deadline in sight

 With only a week left before a deadline for the United States to go over a "fiscal cliff," lawmakers played a waiting game on Monday in the hope that someone will produce a plan to avoid harsh budget cuts and higher taxes for most Americans from New Year's Day.
Though Republicans and Democrats have spent the better part of a year describing a plunge off the cliff as a looming catastrophe, the nation's capital showed no outward signs of worry, let alone impending calamity.
The White House has set up shop in Hawaii, where President Barack Obama is vacationing.
The Capitol was deserted and the Treasury Department - which would have to do a lot of last-minute number-crunching with or without a deal - was closed.
So were all other federal government offices, with Obama having followed a tradition of declaring the Monday before a Tuesday Christmas a holiday for government employees, notwithstanding the approaching fiscal cliff.
Expectations for some 11th-hour rescue focused largely on Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Republican, in part because he has performed the role of legislative wizard in previous stalemates.
But McConnell, who is up for re-election in 2014, was shunning the role this year, his spokesman saying that it was now up to the Democrats in the Senate to make the next move.
"We don't yet know what Senator Reid will bring to the floor. He is not negotiating with us and the president is out of town," said McConnell's spokesman, referring to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Democrat. "So I just don't know what they're going to do over there," he said.
Two-day-old tweets on leadership websites told the story insofar as it was visible to the public.
House Speaker John Boehner's referred everyone to McConnell. McConnell's tweet passed the responsibility along to Obama, saying it was a "moment that calls for presidential leadership."
Reid's tweet said: "There will be very serious consequences for millions of families if Congress fails to act" on the cliff.
The next session of the Senate is set for Thursday, but the issues presented by across-the-board tax hikes and indiscriminate reductions in government spending, were not on the calendar.
The House has nothing on its schedule for the week, but members have been told they could be called back at 48 hours notice, making a Thursday return a theoretical possibility.
However, aides to the Republican leaders in Congress said there were no talks with Democrats on Monday and none scheduled after negotiations fell off track last week when Boehner failed to persuade House Republicans to accept tax increases on incomes of more than $1 million a year.
"Nothing new, Merry Christmas," an aide to Boehner responded when asked if there was any movement on the fiscal cliff.
But a senior Obama administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said White House aides were talking with Senate Democratic staffers about the situation.
SCALED-BACK EXPECTATIONS
If there is some last-minute legislation, Republicans and Democrats agreed on Sunday news shows that it will not be any sort of "grand bargain" encompassing taxes and spending cuts, but most likely a short-term deal putting everything off for a few weeks or months, thereby risking a negative market reaction.
A limited agreement would still need bipartisan support, as Obama has said he would veto a bill that does not raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans.
On Monday, Texas Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison urged fellow Republicans to be flexible.
"We're now at a point where we're not going to get what we think is right for our economy and our country because we don't control government. So we've got to work within the system we have," she told MSNBC.
Two bills in Congress could conceivably form the basis for a last-minute stopgap measure.
Last spring, Republicans in the House passed a measure that would extend Bush-era tax cuts for everyone, reflecting the party's deep reluctance to increase taxes.
The Democratic-controlled Senate passed a bill in August, extending lower tax rates for everyone except the wealthiest Americans - a group defined at that point as households with a net income of $250,000 or above. Obama has since increased that to $400,000 a year, in an effort to win Republican support.
Analysts say Democrats might be able to get the backing of enough Republicans in both the House and Senate, especially if they are willing to raise the number to $500,000.
Under that scenario, lawmakers might also put off spending cuts of $109 billion that would take effect from January and agree to Republican demands for cuts in entitlement programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, the government-run health insurance plans for seniors and the poor.
However, with only a few work days left in Congress after Christmas, there is a good chance that no deal can be worked out and tax rates would then go up, at least briefly, until an agreement is reached in Washington.
"We may go off the cliff on January 1, but we would correct that very quickly thereafter," Democratic Representative John Yarmuth told MSNBC.
The prospects of the United States going over the fiscal cliff dampened enthusiasm on Wall Street for a "Santa rally" in the holiday season, when stocks traditionally rise.
The Dow Jones industrial average dropped 51.76 points, or 0.39 percent, in Monday's shortened holiday session.
Failure to work out tax rates in the coming days would cause chaos at the Internal Revenue Service, said analyst Chris Krueger of Guggenheim Securities.
"Next weekend is going to be a total, total debacle," he said. The IRS is unlikely to have enough time to revise its tables for withholding taxes.
"The withholding tables are sort of like an aircraft carrier, you can't turn the thing on a dime." he said.

Read More..

U.N. General Assembly voices concern for Myanmar's Muslims

 The U.N. General Assembly expressed serious concern on Monday over violence between Rohingya Muslims and Buddhists in Myanmar and called upon its government to address reports of human rights abuses by some authorities.
The 193-nation General Assembly approved by consensus a non-binding resolution, which Myanmar said last month contained a "litany of sweeping allegations, accuracies of which have yet to be verified."
Outbreaks of violence between ethnic Rakhine Buddhists and the Rohingyas have killed dozens and displaced thousands since June. Rights groups also have accused Myanmar security forces of killing, raping and arresting Rohingyas after the riots. Myanmar said it exercised "maximum restraint" to quell the violence.
The unanimously adopted U.N. resolution "expressing particular concern about the situation of the Rohingya minority in Rakhine state, urges the government to take action to bring about an improvement in their situation and to protect all their human rights, including their right to a nationality."
At least 800,000 Muslim Rohingyas live in Rakhine State along the western coast of Myanmar, also known as Burma. But Buddhist Rakhines and other Burmese view them as illegal immigrants from neighboring Bangladesh who deserve neither rights nor sympathy.
The resolution adopted on Monday is identical to one approved last month by the General Assembly's Third Committee, which focuses on human rights. After that vote, Myanmar's mission to the United Nations said that it accepted the resolution but objected to the Rohingyas being referred to as a minority.
"There has been no such ethnic group as Rohingya among the ethnic groups of Myanmar," a representative of Myanmar said at the time. "Despite this fact, the right to citizenship for any member or community has been and will never be denied if they are in line with the law of the land.

Read More..

Venezuela's Chavez improving after surgery: officials

 Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez is improving after a cancer operation in Cuba and has started exercising, officials said on Monday, amid doubts over whether the former soldier is in good enough health to continue governing.
Vice President Nicolas Maduro said he had spoken by phone with Chavez, who was walking and doing exercises as part of his treatment.
"We've gotten the best present we could get this Christmas: a phone call from our commander president," Maduro said on state television.
Information Minister Ernesto Villegas said earlier in the day that Chavez had "shown a slight improvement in his condition," without providing details.
Chavez has not been heard from in two weeks following a fourth operation for an unspecified type of cancer in the pelvic region. The government has said he suffered post-operatory complications including unexpected bleeding and a lung infection, but offered few details about his actual condition.
His death, or even his resignation for health reasons, would upend the politics of the South American OPEC nation where his personalized brand of oil-financed socialism has made him a hero to the poor but a pariah to critics who call him a dictator.
His allies are now openly discussing the possibility that he may not be back in time to be sworn in for his third six-year term on the constitutionally mandated date of January 10.
Opposition leaders say a delay to his taking power would be another signal that Chavez is not in condition to govern and that fresh elections should be called to choose his replacement.
They believe they have a better shot against Maduro, Chavez's anointed successor, than against the charismatic president who for 14 years has been nearly invincible at the ballot box.
But a constitutional dispute over succession could lead to a messy transition toward a post-Chavez era.
Maduro has become the government's main figurehead in the president's absence. His speeches have mimicked Chavez's bombastic style that mixes historical references with acid insults of adversaries.
Opposition leader Henrique Capriles, who lost to Chavez in the October presidential vote, slammed Maduro in an interview published on Sunday for failing to seek dialogue with the opposition at a time of political uncertainty.
"Maduro is not the one that won the elections, nor is he the leader," Capriles told the local El Universal newspaper. "Because Chavez is absent, this is precisely the time that (Maduro) needs help from people (in the opposition camp)."
Chavez has vastly expanded presidential powers and built a near-cult following among millions of poor Venezuelans, who love his feisty language and social welfare projects.
The opposition is smarting from this month's governors elections in which Chavez allies won 20 of 23 states. They are trying to keep attention focused on day-to-day problems from rampant crime to power outages.

Read More..

The longest war: The shooting at a Connecticut school shows, once again, that there’s no end in sight to our lethal way of life

Sometime between the shootings in Columbine in 1999 and at a Tucson supermarket with Gabby Giffords in early 2011, Americans stopped uttering the pieties about “Never again.” Now we are heartsick, but somehow never completely surprised, when we hear the latest gruesome news bulletins from a movie theater in Aurora or a quiet elementary school in Newtown.
We are a nation of 311 million people and roughly a similar number of guns. (Since there is no central federal registry of firearms and a 100-year-old unlicensed weapon can be lethal, estimates are far from precise.) What we do know for certain is that there are almost as many legal places to buy guns (130,000 registered dealers) as gasoline stations (144,000). Through the end of November, the FBI conducted nearly 17 million background checks of prospective gun owners this year.

This is the Faustian bargain that comes with being a 21st-century American. We are a nation of stubborn individualism and lethal gun violence. These two characteristics are entwined in our national psyche. And—as much as I weep over the dead children at Sandy Hook Elementary School—I sadly know that nothing will change in my lifetime. 

The last glimmer of hope for effective gun control in America died in 2008 when the Supreme Court (District of Columbia v. Heller) endorsed an expansive view of the right to bear arms. As Justice Antonin Scalia declared in the majority opinion, “The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia.”

It is hard to pin down exactly when Americans made the collective decision that periodic massacres of the innocent are the price that we supposedly pay for our liberties.

Maybe it dates back to the late19th century when Americans in peaceful communities embraced the myth of the Wild West and the gunslinger. Maybe it partially reflects the tabloid fascination that accompanied the gangster era of the 1920s and 1930s. Maybe it has something to do with the way that movies—that most American of art forms—have successfully turned mass violence into a mass commodity.

Politics also played a role as well. As Jill Lepore pointed out in a New Yorker article earlier this year, the National Rifle Association (NRA) only embarked on its modern crusade against virtually all gun legislation around 1970. Fully entering the political arena with its endorsement of Ronald Reagan for president in 1980, the NRA emerged as a key player in the conservative coalition that came to dominate the Republican Party.

It’s hard to remember that for a while in the 1980s and 1990s, a limited form of gun control seemed politically possible. Reagan’s press secretary James Brady, badly wounded in the John Hinckley assassination attempt on Reagan, became a courageous Republican symbol for sensible regulation of the most lethal weaponry.

But then too many on Capitol Hill (Democrats as well as Republicans) grew fearful in the face of the frenzied opposition from the NRA. And following the 2008 Heller decision, it seemed the height of folly for legislators to take on gun control since the Supreme Court had so narrowed the framework for permissible regulation. As a result, even though the Aurora shootings took place in a swing state (Colorado) in an election year, Obama and the Democrats at the time never even raised the possibility of new federal legislation.

This should not be portrayed in cartoonish terms as a story of the white hats (liberals with a visceral hatred of guns) versus the black hats (hunters and other Americans who enjoy owning firearms). There was an element of cultural superiority to the urban liberal disdain for gun ownership, just as there was a self-destructive stubbornness to conservative opposition to all forms of regulation.

The result is an America that no sane person of any political persuasion could have possibly wished for. Who in his right mind wants to live in a country where maybe twice a year a crazed individual guns down dozens of people in schools and theaters? There is no plausible remedy since we are neither going to disarm Americans nor are we going to pass out guns to elementary school teachers as a just-in-case precaution.

All we can do is mourn and mourn again. And think of the young children who died only because they went to school giggling over silly things and dreaming of recess. Such is the American way of life and, sadly, death.

Read More..

The daily gossip: Kristen Stewart apologizes to everyone, and more

5 pieces of celebrity gossip — from Kate Middleton's stereotypically English pregnancy cravings to Kim Kardashian's slightly altered hairdo
1. Kristen Stewart apologizes to everyone for whatever they're mad at her about
If Kristen Stewart actually wronged you over the past year — we're talking to you, Robert Pattinson — you already got your apology back in June. But if you're one of the billions of earthlings who wasn't personally wronged by Stewart, the young actress would like you to know that she's very sorry anyway. "I apologize to everyone for making them so angry. It was not my intention," said Stewart in an interview with Newsweek, covering both fans who are upset that Twilight is over and critics who were forced to review the Twilight movies.
2. Kate Middleton having adorably English pregnancy cravings
Noted English pregnant person Kate Middleton has been experiencing some stereotypically English pregnancy cravings. "Kate has been craving scones with strawberry jam and clotted cream," says a source at Showbiz Spy. "And she washes it down with a cup of old-fashioned English breakfast tea." For now, Duchess Kate seems content with the high-tea staples — but her chefs might be well-advised to start preparing bangers and mash, and spotted dick.
3. Samuel L. Jackson insists he said "Fuh" on Saturday Night Live
Samuel L. Jackson may have landed himself in hot water when he dropped an F-bomb on last week's episode of Saturday Night Live, but he's already attempting to preempt an FCC fine by claiming he only said half of the word, reports Entertainment Weekly. "I only said FUH not FUCK!" insisted the actor on Twitter, a claim he repeated while visiting Jimmy Kimmel Live on Tuesday night. Anyone who wishes to hear Samuel L. Jackson utter an entire curse word need only watch a Quentin Tarantino movie for more than 20 seconds.
4. BREAKING: Kim Kardashian has bangs now
Today in Kim Kardashian developments: A slightly different haircut. The tabloid fixture arrived in LAX sporting a "new" 'do masterminded by celebrity stylist Chris McMillan. The far-from-startling look features "sideswept bangs and shorter locks," said an actual reporter at E! Online, who made the decision that Kim's marginally different hairdo merited an entire article. "We're loving this sassy look."
5. Taylor Swift and Harry Styles might elope, alleges unnamed source
Lovebirds Taylor Swift and Harry Styles have been spotted holding hands and enjoying meals together in public, as happy young couples are wont to do. But according to a source at Hollywood Life, the fact that the couple has enjoyed each other's company for a whole month can only mean one thing: Weddings bells. "Harry is totally in love. I can see them getting married in a week, just going for it!" speculates the anonymous source. The same source has predicted that Kim Kardashian will soon shave her head.

Read More..

WHEN SCIENCE DOESN'T COUNT

When the press reported that Adam Lanza had Asperger's syndrome (part of the autism spectrum disorders) and other unspecified personality problems, the autism community swung into action in a way that is totally understandable. The Associated Press' headline: "Experts: No Link Between Asperger's, Violence."
The vast majority of autistic people are not violent. Autistics like Temple Grandin, the professor who helped create humane strategies for the meat industry, remind us that many people with high-functioning also go on to live full, rich lives of value to themselves and others.
Grandin also reminded us that, for austic people, "The principal emotion experienced by autistic people is fear.
If you cannot read people's social cues, it's hard to tell who is a threat and who is not. If you live in a world with social rules created by "neurotypicals" that make no sense, anxiety and fear are natural, perhaps inevitable, responses.
But the suggestion that science has demonstrated there is no link at all between autism and aggressive violence is questionable.
Google "autism" and "aggression" and you will suddenly be treated to a counter world the formal autism community claims does not exist: desperate mothers seeking help or respite from the violent behavior of large, aggressive, beloved autistic boys (and a few girls).
In the name of love and absent decent institutions for these troubled young adults, we are permitting a silent epidemic of domestic terrorism against women that we would not tolerate under any other banner.
These are mothers. Many are willing to sacrifice their lives, if necessary, to keep their beloved sons out of institutions that would terrify them.
Consider an essay by novelist Ann Bauer. She believed passionately that autism is a beautiful, mysterious neurodifference. She wrote essays about her fierce love for her son Andrew and his beautiful mind. Then in 2009, she wrote another essay, "The Monster Inside My Son," after learning about Trudy Steuernagel's murder by her 18-year-old autistic son, Sky:
"I'm exhausted and hopeless and vaguely hung over because Andrew, who has autism, also has evolved from sweet, dreamy boy to something like a golem: bitter, rampaging, full of rage. It happened no matter how fiercely I loved him or how many therapies I employed."
Ann is an "official writer," but on the Web there is heartbreak galore
One mother of an 11-year-old with high-functioning autism:
"Over the last year he has evolved into a violently tempered child who seems to 'snap' when things (don't) go his way. He is at a point now that he has pulled knives on us and our other child and has threatened to kill us. ... I have no idea what to do and I'm in tears daily."
Another mom:
"He has bitten me, tried to strangle me, tried to sit on my younger son to crush him when he was an infant (18 months old) talked of shooting us, shooting our younger son in the eye with a bow and arrow, punched himself in the face so he got a black eye, threw large objects at us like our baby's sit-and-spin, kicked my husband in the groin area, aggressed toward babies in the park, punched me and my younger son while I was driving etc. ... This is the short list."
Yet another:
"I have spent the entire evening feeling so alone. Thanks for all your stories. I am recovering from my son's outburst this evening. The bruises from the last one were just starting to heal. He has autism, and at 13, he is over 6 feet tall and 200 pounds. There are pieces bitten out of my arms and hands, and my breast and stomach are full of red bruises. His much smaller twin brother tried to get him off of me and got bit in the process. I sent him out of the room so he would not get hurt any further. My husband left us and a divorce is in the works."
Enough anecdotes.
The 19th European Congress of Psychiatry abstracts included one study of "autism and violence." Researchers in Morocco handed out questionnaires to families being served by handicapped centers. They found that 43.3 percent of families in this sample reported problems with aggression.
According to another recent study, "The prevalence of and risk factors for aggression were examined in 1,380 children and adolescents with autism spectrum disorders (ASD). Prevalence was high, with parents reporting that 68 percent had demonstrated aggression to a caregiver and 49 percent to non-caregivers."
The human cost of denying the relationship between autism and aggression is simply unacceptable. Mothers need to know they should not allow themselves to be hit, beaten, bitten or threatened in their own homes. And a mother like Liza Long, who is afraid enough to have developed a "safe plan" for her younger children in the event their brother goes berserk, needs to know her first obligation, her very first one, is to protect those siblings and give them a safe home.
We need to give them better options than generalized overcrowded psych wards, jail and permitting violence against mothers.

Read More..

WE KNOW HOW TO STOP SCHOOL SHOOTINGS

In the wake of a monstrous crime like a madman's mass murder of defenseless women and children at the Newtown, Conn., elementary school, the nation's attention is riveted on what could have been done to prevent such a massacre.
Luckily, some years ago, two famed economists, William Landes at the University of Chicago and John Lott at Yale, conducted a massive study of multiple victim public shootings in the United States between 1977 and 1995 to see how various legal changes affected their frequency and death toll.
Landes and Lott examined many of the very policies being proposed right now in response to the Connecticut massacre: waiting periods and background checks for guns, the death penalty and increased penalties for committing a crime with a gun.
None of these policies had any effect on the frequency of, or carnage from, multiple-victim shootings. (I note that they did not look at reforming our lax mental health laws, presumably because the ACLU is working to keep dangerous nuts on the street in all 50 states.)
Only one public policy has ever been shown to reduce the death rate from such crimes: concealed-carry laws.
The effect of concealed-carry laws in deterring mass public shootings was even greater than the impact of such laws on the murder rate generally.
Someone planning to commit a single murder in a concealed-carry state only has to weigh the odds of one person being armed. But a criminal planning to commit murder in a public place has to worry that anyone in the entire area might have a gun.
You will notice that most multiple-victim shootings occur in "gun-free zones" -- even within states that have concealed-carry laws: public schools, churches, Sikh temples, post offices, the movie theater where James Holmes committed mass murder, and the Portland, Ore., mall where a nut starting gunning down shoppers a few weeks ago.
Guns were banned in all these places. Mass killers may be crazy, but they're not stupid.
If the deterrent effect of concealed-carry laws seems surprising to you, that's because the media hide stories of armed citizens stopping mass shooters. At the Portland shooting, for example, no explanation was given for the amazing fact that the assailant managed to kill only two people in the mall during the busy Christmas season.
It turns out, concealed-carry-holder Nick Meli hadn't noticed that the mall was a gun-free zone. He pointed his (otherwise legal) gun at the shooter as he paused to reload, and the next shot was the attempted mass murderer killing himself. (Meli aimed, but didn't shoot, because there were bystanders behind the shooter.)
In a nonsense "study" going around the Internet right now, Mother Jones magazine claims to have produced its own study of all public shootings in the last 30 years and concludes: "In not a single case was the killing stopped by a civilian using a gun."
This will come as a shock to people who know something about the subject.
The magazine reaches its conclusion by simply excluding all cases where an armed civilian stopped the shooter: They looked only at public shootings where four or more people were killed, i.e., the ones where the shooter wasn't stopped.
If we care about reducing the number of people killed in mass shootings, shouldn't we pay particular attention to the cases where the aspiring mass murderer was prevented from getting off more than a couple rounds?
It would be like testing the effectiveness of weed killers, but refusing to consider any cases where the weeds died.
In addition to the Portland mall case, here are a few more examples excluded by the Mother Jones methodology:
-- Mayan Palace Theater, San Antonio, Texas, this week: Jesus Manuel Garcia shoots at a movie theater, a police car and bystanders from the nearby China Garden restaurant; as he enters the movie theater, guns blazing, an armed off-duty cop shoots Garcia four times, stopping the attack. Total dead: Zero.
-- Winnemucca, Nev., 2008: Ernesto Villagomez opens fire in a crowded restaurant; concealed carry permit-holder shoots him dead. Total dead: Two. (I'm excluding the shooters' deaths in these examples.)
-- Appalachian School of Law, 2002: Crazed immigrant shoots the dean and a professor, then begins shooting students; as he goes for more ammunition, two armed students point their guns at him, allowing a third to tackle him. Total dead: Three.
-- Santee, Calif., 2001: Student begins shooting his classmates -- as well as the "trained campus supervisor"; an off-duty cop who happened to be bringing his daughter to school that day points his gun at the shooter, holding him until more police arrive. Total dead: Two.
-- Pearl High School, Mississippi, 1997: After shooting several people at his high school, student heads for the junior high school; assistant principal Joel Myrick retrieves a .45 pistol from his car and points it at the gunman's head, ending the murder spree. Total dead: Two.
-- Edinboro, Pa., 1998: A student shoots up a junior high school dance being held at a restaurant; restaurant owner pulls out his shotgun and stops the gunman. Total dead: One.
By contrast, the shootings in gun-free zones invariably result in far higher casualty figures -- Sikh temple, Oak Creek, Wis. (six dead); Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Va. (32 dead); Columbine High School, Columbine, Colo. (12 dead); Amish school, Lancaster County, Pa. (five little girls killed); public school, Craighead County, Ark. (five killed, including four little girls).
All these took place in gun-free zones, resulting in lots of people getting killed -- and thereby warranting inclusion in the Mother Jones study.
If what we care about is saving the lives of innocent human beings by reducing the number of mass public shootings and the deaths they cause, only one policy has ever been shown to work: concealed-carry laws. On the other hand, if what we care about is self-indulgent grandstanding, and to hell with dozens of innocent children being murdered in cold blood, try the other policies.

Read More..

Zero dark lashes

Zero Dark Thirty is a movie that makes you feel insignificant, not even a bit player in the meaningful world. This is especially true for those of us who have lived and breathed the subjects of intelligence, special operations, the Bin Laden raid and counter-terrorism after 9/11.  Oh, to be the ultimate fly on the wall. What's so great, to me, about the entirety of the chase for Osama Bin Laden is that thing fell together, people made choices, and it worked. The end result was something to laud. It's rare that the system works! And what a redemption story for the intelligence community.
The context of everything else that happened: Iraq, Islamic blowback, the manipulation of public opinion, the endless counter-terrorism scares, is literally seconded to a television screen in Mark Boal's script. For all the controversy about the information the Pentagon allegedly helped provide Boal with, it is quite clear that his story has a perspective, and it ain't the Department of Defense's.  Zero Dark Thirty is about the heroic profession of the intelligence operative, and that profession's effort to be significant again after its major failure: the institutional blindness that allowed the 9/11 hijackers to slip through the net. (Iraq, to me, is a political failure more than an intelligence one.)
From the looks of it, the CIA gave Boal access to virtually everything. I know something of the look and feel, of the tiny details (like the types of folders used to hold dossiers), of the way that verbs are used. But Boal literally knows what Leon Panetta said to his chief of staff, Jeremy Bash, as the two descended in the director's private elevator after hearing the CIA's first presentation of its evidence that the tall guy walking around in Abbottabad was Osama bin Laden.
Boal has been criticized for a choice he made: to play up the information gleaned from torturing detainees. Boal's script is far subtler. One of the detainees does indeed give up the name of bin Laden's courier, but several other prisoners had done so already, and the critical pieces of the puzzle come from detainees in foreign custody who either do or don't identify the courier in a way that matches the assumptions made by the heroine, Maya, a CIA case officer played by Jessica Chastain. Maya clearly disagrees with the torture but eagerly uses its fruits; there is very little in the way of rumination about the propriety of what "Dan," the CIA officer who ran the torture program, was actually doing. He did it, and then, when things got hot, the CIA stopped doing it. Director Kathryn Bigelow portrays the torture graphically. it is, literally, disgusting, and shameful. There's no flinching from the reality of what actually happened.
One scene late in the film is telling. Kyle Chandler, playing a character who is a composite of the Pakistan Chief of Station and the head of the Al Qaeda division in the agency's Counter-Terrorism Center tells a figure clearly meant to represent Obama's counter-terrorism adviser John Brennan that the surety that the "national security adviser" character wants cannot be obtained because the CIA can't go back to the detainees anymore.  "You'll find a way," the foil replies. And indeed, the CIA does, by marshaling evidence that the man protected by the high walls of the compound cannot be a drug dealer, because, really, how can a drug dealer not do all the things that the mysterious man doesn't do?
Boal's take is precisely correct: the CIA by and large believed that the detainees provided reliable evidence AND that the torture techniques were valuable. He also provides enough information for us to evaluate that claim independently, and indeed, someone completely new to the subject can conclude that the torture didn't actually get the CIA anything but a bunch of false leads and a black eye. It is certainly true that the Obama White House, as compacted into the persona of the Brennan character, mistrusted the CIA because of its association with and defense of the torture program.
But to make the film a film, a vehicle to convey emotion and character, Boal has to give us a point of view, and that point of view is derived from his best sources, which very clearly were in the CIA.
Zero Dark Thirty is not a movie about the killing of Osama bin Laden. It is not a movie about the Naval Special Warfare Development Group SEALs who captured him, or the DevGru commander who planned the raid, or Admiral William McRaven, who has gotten the most credit for it.
It is a movie about a major institution seeking redemption and a CIA analyst seeking to justify her life's work and avenge the deaths of her own colleagues. Torture is part of that story.

Read More..

Diagnosing the Home Alone burglars' injuries: A professional weighs in

Ever wondered what a blow torch to the head would actually do? Read on
Since its debut in 1990, Home Alone has become as much a part of the Christmas cinematic ritual as It's a Wonderful Life. But unlike that uplifting tale about the good of mankind, Home Alone tells a rather unsettling Christmas story of a precocious 8-year-old who, accidentally abandoned by his family, is forced to defend his home from two dimwitted burglars. Kevin McCallister (Macaulay Culkin) turns his family's home into a veritable funhouse of torturous booby traps that so-called Wet Bandits Marv (Daniel Stern) and Harry (Joe Pesci) hilariously stumble through, and the transformation of a suburban Chicago home into a relentless injury machine is nothing short of spectacular. But it does require quite a suspension of disbelief. Can a man really be hit square in the face with a steam iron and walk away unfazed? What kind of permanent physical damage would a blow torch to the head really do? To answer these questions and officially dissolve the Home Alone's Hollywood magic, I spoke with my friend Dr. Ryan St. Clair of the Weill Cornell Medical College. Enjoy.
The injury: BB gun to the forehead
SEE ALSO: 5 reasons The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is a disappointment

The set-up: Marv and Harry try to sneak into the McCallister home by sweet talking Kevin from the back door. Kevin, meanwhile, points his BB gun through the doggie door and directly at Harry's groin — and shoots. When Marv goes to investigate the source of Harry's pain, he is met by the same BB gun, which is fired at extremely close range to his forehead.
SEE ALSO: WATCH: The new Man of Steel trailer
The doctor's diagnosis: "Classic air-powered projectile weapons typically have muzzle velocities of 350 feet per second or less. A BB fired at close range from such a weapon could break the skin, but will not penetrate the skull, and is unlikely to penetrate Harry's scrotum, especially through fabric."
**
The injury: Iron to the face
SEE ALSO: The 2013 Screen Actors Guild nominations: 5 surprises

The set-up: Thwarted by the BB gun at the back door, Marv runs around to the basement stairwell — which Kevin has deliberately iced. Once he has stumbled his way down into the dark basement, Marv grabs for what he thinks is the light bulb cord. It's actually a rope attached to a steam iron that is propped up on the laundry chute door. The heavy iron comes plummeting down and smacks Marv in the face.
SEE ALSO: 7 awful Christmas movies that flopped
The doctor's diagnosis: "Let's estimate the distance from the first floor to the basement at 15 feet, and assume the steam iron weighs 4 pounds. And note that the iron strikes Marv squarely in the mid-face. This is a serious impact, with enough force to fracture the bones surrounding the eyes. This is also known as a 'blowout fracture,' and can lead to serious disfigurement and debilitating double vision if not repaired properly."
**
The injury: Handling a burning-hot doorknob
SEE ALSO: Hyde Park on Hudson: Does Bill Murray shine as FDR?

The set-up: While Marv is getting an iron to the face, Harry tries to enter the home through the front door. The first attempt doesn't go well, as the stocky burglar slips on the icy steps and falls to the ground, landing with a thud on his back. Easing up a second time with the help of the railing, Harry makes it to the front door, reaches for the doorknob — which we see is literally burning red — and grasps the searing handle, the pain of which forces him once again down the icy steps.
SEE ALSO: The 25 films added to the National Film Registry in 2012
The doctor's diagnosis: "If this doorknob is glowing visibly red in the dark, it has been heated to about 751 degrees Fahrenheit, and Harry gives it a nice, strong, one- to two-second grip. By comparison, one second of contact with 155 degree water is enough to cause third degree burns. The temperature of that doorknob is not quite hot enough to cause Harry's hand to burst into flames, but it is not that far off... Assuming Harry doesn't lose the hand completely, he will almost certainly have other serious complications, including a high risk for infection and 'contracture' in which resulting scar tissue seriously limits the flexibility and movement of the hand, rendering it less than 100 percent useful. Kevin has moved from 'defending his house' into sheer malice, in my opinion."
**
The injury: A blowtorch to the scalp
SEE ALSO: WATCH: The epic new Star Trek Into Darkness teaser

The set-up: Unable to get through the front door, Harry returns to the back. He kicks his foot through the doggy door to disarm a potential BB gun threat, delicately taps at the doorknob to test its temperature, and, finding it cool, opens the back door — only to unknowingly arm a blowtorch that fires at the top of his head.
SEE ALSO: 10 ways the entertainment industry is being sensitive to the Connecticut massacre
The doctor's diagnosis: "Harry has an interesting reaction to having a lit blowtorch aimed directly at his scalp. Rather than remove himself from danger, he keeps the top of his skull directly in the line of fire for about seven seconds. What was likely a simple second-degree skin burn is now a full thickness burn likely to cause necrosis of the calavarium (skull bone)." That means the skin and bone tissue on Harry's skull will be so damaged and rotted that his skull bone is essentially dying and will likely require a transplant.
**
The injury: Walking barefoot on Christmas tree ornaments
SEE ALSO: WATCH: The trailer for Tom Cruise's new sci-fi blockbuster Oblivion

The set-up: After surviving the iron to the face, getting his shoes and socks peeled off by tar, and stepping onto a 3-inch nail, Marv abandons the basement entrance and enters the home through a conveniently opened window. Without looking down, however, and still barefoot, Marv jumps in, putting his full weight on a dozen pointy ornaments littered on the wood floor.
SEE ALSO: The 10 worst-reviewed movies of 2012
The doctor's diagnosis: "Walking on ornaments seems pretty insignificant compared to everything else we've seen so far. If I was Marv, I'd be more concerned about my facial fractures."
**
The injury: Paint can to the face
SEE ALSO: The 2013 Golden Globes nominations: Winners and losers

The set-up: Although severely injured, both the burglars are finally inside the house, and have forgone their looting plan for one of revenge. Hearing the taunts of Kevin's pre-pubescent voice, they scamper into the foyer only to slip dramatically on scores of Micro Machines, landing, once again, on their backs. Kevin cruelly mocks them from the top step: "You guys give up yet? Or are you thirsty for more?" Marv and Harry scramble up the staircase, where they are met by a speeding paint can attached to a rope. Harry manages to duck and evade the first hit, but Marv gets a paint can square in the face. Harry continues up the stairs but is hit by a second paint can. Both burglars end up back on the ground floor.
SEE ALSO: Why Jon Stewart almost quit The Daily Show
The doctor's diagnosis: "Assuming the paint can is full (roughly 10 pounds) and the rope is 10 feet long, Marv and Harry each take a roughly 2 kilo-newton hit to the face. That is easily enough to fracture multiple facial bones, and is probably going to knock you out cold. Also, I wouldn't expect either of the Wet Bandits to walk away from this with all of their teeth."
**
The injury: Shovel to the back of the head
SEE ALSO: Where Homeland can go from here: 4 theories

The set-up: Kevin eventually lures the Wet Bandits through his house of injurious horrors, across the street, and into a neighbor's house. But Marv and Harry have clued into the fact that following the little tyke has provided them nothing but pain. They enter the neighbor's house their own way and meet little Kevin at the top of the basement steps. They hang him by his sweater from a hook on the back of a door and outline all the ways in which they will pay him back for the pain he caused, beginning with biting "every one of these little fingers, one at a time." Just before Harry can take the first bite, Kevin's elderly neighbor saves the day, coming up behind the burglars and hitting each one over head with his shovel, knocking them out cold.
SEE ALSO: 6 superhero franchises that deserve to be rebooted
The doctor's diagnosis: "Seriously? At this point, Marv and Harry have both suffered potentially crippling hand and foot injuries. Harry has proved to be nearly impervious to burns, and both managed to retain consciousness after taking a flying paint can straight to the face. Suddenly, a frail elderly man appears and weakly slaps them in turn with a flimsy aluminum Home Depot snow shovel. And, somehow, this is too much for them, and they collapse. This movie was way more believable when I was 8."

Read More..