Monday I am the commander of Isaf forces in Afghanistan, and I am a dignified Special Forces warrior monk. My body is my temple, war is my holy creed. I am at my happiest in my tent, with my aides, where we all eat sand and hit each other in the faces with rifle butts, for fun.
But today I gotta go the city, to speak with a politician from France. It’s f***ing gay.
“Yo, sir,” says one of my aides. “You wanna know more about this French bitch?” Hell no. These civilians are all the same. Especially the Euros. They just don’t understand the enemy we’re facing out here. Fact is, these blue-skinned bastards put up a hell of a fight, and blowing up their holy tree just made ’em come at us all the harder. Some of ’em were riding dragons. I shit you not one bit.
“He’s got issues,” sighs my aide. “They all do. Reckon you’re outta touch, gone loco, too fixated on your own myth, livin’ like some general guy outta some Hollywood movie.
It’s BS.” “Civilian assholes,” I snort. “Wouldn’t even know Unobtanium if they choked on it.” “Um, what?” says my aide.
Tuesday Back in the tent. “Yo, General?” says another aide. “We got the President on the satellite phone. Sounds like he gotta hard-on ’bout somethin’. You wanna take it?”
“Tell him I’m out,” I say, idly scratching my crotch with a bayonet.
“The dumbass.” The aide nods meaningfully towards a corner of the tent. There’s some journalist dude sitting there, who we granted all kinda special access. Forgot all about him.
“And you can quote me on that,” I say. “Where you from again?” Grazia, he says. It’s a British gossip weekly. Apparently I’ve a good chance of getting on the cover. It’s down to either me or Piers Morgan’s wedding.
“Not bad,” I say. “You gettin’ much?” “Not really,” says the journalist. Just me and my boys savagely ridiculing the US Ambassador, the Vice-President, the President, the British, the French, the Canadians, Hamid Karzai, Queen Elizabeth II, Pope Benedict XVI, Muslims, vegetarians, English football, ginger hair and anybody who wears spectacles. “Huh,” I say. “Well, sorry to waste your time.”
Source:The Times
search the web
Custom Search
Saturday, June 26, 2010
10 years after the genome, Africa finally to reap benefits of genetics
The genetic roots of African diseases are to be investigated in a £25 million initiative to bring the medical benefits of the human genome to the poorest continent.
The Human Heredity and Health in Africa project, or H3 Africa, will fund African scientists to research how genetic factors contribute to infectious diseases such as HIV/Aids, malaria and tuberculosis, which are the continent’s leading causes of death and ill health. It will also support research into non-communicable conditions such as diabetes, heart disease and cancer.
The programme, launched as scientists celebrate the tenth anniversary of the sequencing of the human genome this week, aims to redress concerns that Africa has missed out on the exciting medical research made possible since.
It is funded by two organisations that made the biggest financial contributions to the original Human Genome Project: the US National Institutes of Health and the Wellcome Trust, the British biomedical research charity.
“Africa has, for the most part, been left out of the boom in genomic science. We have not equally applied the tools of genomics to African disease and we are attempting to rectify that,” said Charles Rotimi, a Nigerian-born scientist at the US National Human Genome Research Institute, a leader of H3 Africa.
In the decade since the genome was sequenced scientists have used it to identify hundreds of genetic variations linked to human disease. Most of these studies, however, have involved European or Asian populations.
H3 Africa will support dozens of studies of the continent’s diseases, exploring how individual DNA variations influence susceptibility. It will also underpin genetic research into African pathogens and the vectors that carry themsuch as the malarial mosquito. The initiative aims to change the colonial approach to medical research in Africa and to increase the continent’s capacity to investigate its health problems for itself.
Bongani Mayosi, of the University of Cape Town in South Africa, who leads H3 Africa’s non-communicable disease steering group, said: “It indicates a very important shift in the way science is done in Africa. Up to nowwe have operated in almost a colonial mode of science. People outside Africa came here to collect samples, but studied them outside Africa to promote the knowledge and careers of people outside Africa. This is promoting science in Africa, by Africans and for Africans.”
As African populations are older and more genetically diverse than those from other continents, some insights from African genomes will be relevant to the health of other ethnicities.
Francis Collins, a leader of the Human Genome Project who is now director of the NIH, said: “Africa is a special place to carry out those kinds of studies. There is more genetic variation in Africa than anywhere; it is the cradle of humanity. Things that we learn in Africa will undoubtedly have broad implications for people in all areas of the planet.”
The Human Heredity and Health in Africa project, or H3 Africa, will fund African scientists to research how genetic factors contribute to infectious diseases such as HIV/Aids, malaria and tuberculosis, which are the continent’s leading causes of death and ill health. It will also support research into non-communicable conditions such as diabetes, heart disease and cancer.
The programme, launched as scientists celebrate the tenth anniversary of the sequencing of the human genome this week, aims to redress concerns that Africa has missed out on the exciting medical research made possible since.
It is funded by two organisations that made the biggest financial contributions to the original Human Genome Project: the US National Institutes of Health and the Wellcome Trust, the British biomedical research charity.
“Africa has, for the most part, been left out of the boom in genomic science. We have not equally applied the tools of genomics to African disease and we are attempting to rectify that,” said Charles Rotimi, a Nigerian-born scientist at the US National Human Genome Research Institute, a leader of H3 Africa.
In the decade since the genome was sequenced scientists have used it to identify hundreds of genetic variations linked to human disease. Most of these studies, however, have involved European or Asian populations.
H3 Africa will support dozens of studies of the continent’s diseases, exploring how individual DNA variations influence susceptibility. It will also underpin genetic research into African pathogens and the vectors that carry themsuch as the malarial mosquito. The initiative aims to change the colonial approach to medical research in Africa and to increase the continent’s capacity to investigate its health problems for itself.
Bongani Mayosi, of the University of Cape Town in South Africa, who leads H3 Africa’s non-communicable disease steering group, said: “It indicates a very important shift in the way science is done in Africa. Up to nowwe have operated in almost a colonial mode of science. People outside Africa came here to collect samples, but studied them outside Africa to promote the knowledge and careers of people outside Africa. This is promoting science in Africa, by Africans and for Africans.”
As African populations are older and more genetically diverse than those from other continents, some insights from African genomes will be relevant to the health of other ethnicities.
Francis Collins, a leader of the Human Genome Project who is now director of the NIH, said: “Africa is a special place to carry out those kinds of studies. There is more genetic variation in Africa than anywhere; it is the cradle of humanity. Things that we learn in Africa will undoubtedly have broad implications for people in all areas of the planet.”
Britain and Russia to form closer ties
David Cameron held out the prospect of warmer relations with Russia last night but cautioned that the two countries still had difficulties to work through.
The Prime Minister raised the murder of Alexander Litvinenko at the start of his first face-to-face meeting with President Medvedev and said it was important that the pair were candid with each other.
Mr Cameron said there was an opportunity to improve London-Moscow relations as the pair delivered a largely upbeat report on their first meeting at the G8 summit of world leaders in Canada.
Mr Medvedev said they had agreed to stay in close personal touch and promised to give Downing Street his “personal and intense” attention.
After the 45-minute meeting, Mr Cameron said he would be following Mr Medvedev’s Twitter feed.
But the Prime Minister acknowledged that a full thaw would be difficult while Mr Litvinenko’s killer remained untried.
He said: “I think there is a real opportunity to put the bilateral relations on to a new footing to try (and) make a stronger footing and work through the issues where we have agreement and those we still have things to work through.”
Moscow has refused to comply with Scotland Yard’s request for the extradition of their prime suspect for the 2006 murder in London, Andrei Lugovy.
A diplomatic tit-for-tat over the past few years has seen rows over BP contracts and the closure of British Council offices in Russia.
Mr Medvedev appeared to acknowledge the difficulties, saying: “We agreed that certain changes must be made in our relations... We also agreed we will stay in touch personally.
The Prime Minister raised the murder of Alexander Litvinenko at the start of his first face-to-face meeting with President Medvedev and said it was important that the pair were candid with each other.
Mr Cameron said there was an opportunity to improve London-Moscow relations as the pair delivered a largely upbeat report on their first meeting at the G8 summit of world leaders in Canada.
Mr Medvedev said they had agreed to stay in close personal touch and promised to give Downing Street his “personal and intense” attention.
After the 45-minute meeting, Mr Cameron said he would be following Mr Medvedev’s Twitter feed.
But the Prime Minister acknowledged that a full thaw would be difficult while Mr Litvinenko’s killer remained untried.
He said: “I think there is a real opportunity to put the bilateral relations on to a new footing to try (and) make a stronger footing and work through the issues where we have agreement and those we still have things to work through.”
Moscow has refused to comply with Scotland Yard’s request for the extradition of their prime suspect for the 2006 murder in London, Andrei Lugovy.
A diplomatic tit-for-tat over the past few years has seen rows over BP contracts and the closure of British Council offices in Russia.
Mr Medvedev appeared to acknowledge the difficulties, saying: “We agreed that certain changes must be made in our relations... We also agreed we will stay in touch personally.
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
'Kick-ass' Obama launches personal attack on BP chief Tom Hayward
BP may have hoped yesterday to boast of its first real progress in containing the leaking well at the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico.
Instead, it faced a harsh personal attack on its chief executive from President Obama and a devastating new report that called the company a “recurring environmental criminal”.
Even as US government analysts said that the top cap installed over the well last week was finally capturing up to three quarters of the oil rising to the well head, Mr Obama lashed out at Tony Hayward, saying that he would have fired him for a series of remarks that have already made the BP CEO a lightning rod for the growing fury of Gulf Coast residents.
“He wouldn’t be working for me after any of those statements,” Mr Obama said, when asked for his reaction to Mr Hayward’s claim last month that the environmental impact of the spill would be “very, very modest” and his admission that “I would like to have my life back”.
Mr Hayward will testify before Congress next week for the first time since the Deepwater Horizon explosion.
Mr Obama has frequently answered those who criticise his handling of the crisis by saying that his job is to solve the problem and co-ordinate the clean-up, rather than vent. However, he used an interview broadcast yesterday on NBC to do just that.
In the process, he revealed what appears to be a complete breakdown of trust between the White House and BP’s high command. Asked why he had not yet spoken directly to Mr Hayward, 49 days into the disaster, Mr Obama said: “Here’s the reason: because my experience is, when you talk to a guy like a BP CEO, he’s gonna say all the right things to me. I’m not interested in words. I’m interested in actions.”
Mr Obama also gave the clearest signal yet that his Administration may use evidence of negligence in the days and weeks before the blowout to build a criminal case against BP, potentially adding billions of dollars to the company’s liabilities.
“Initial reports indicate that there may be situations in which not only human error was involved, but you also saw some corner-cutting in terms of safety,” he told NBC’s Today Show.
The claim was supported by Courtney Kemp, the widow of one of the 11 men killed when the rig blew up. Testifying before Congress’s House Energy and Commerce Committee, Mrs Kemp said that her husband had been concerned for weeks before the explosion about the difficulties that engineers were having in controlling the well. “This well was different in the fact that they were having so many problems,” she said. “It was just kind of out of hand.”
The pressure to ensure that heads roll at BP will only mount with the publication of a new report on BP’s record of spills and accidents — the worst of any oil major operating in North America. The company pleaded guilty in 1999 to illegally dumping oil off the north coast of Alaska, failed to update vital equipment and safety systems at its Alaskan base in Prudhoe Bay and allowed a “fundamental culture of mistrust” to fester between workers and management there, according to the report by ProPublica, a non-profit research organisation.
“They are a recurring environmental criminal and they do not follow US health, safety and environmental policy,” Jeanne Pascal, a former lawyer for the US Environmental Protection Agency, told ProPublica.
Source:The Times
Instead, it faced a harsh personal attack on its chief executive from President Obama and a devastating new report that called the company a “recurring environmental criminal”.
Even as US government analysts said that the top cap installed over the well last week was finally capturing up to three quarters of the oil rising to the well head, Mr Obama lashed out at Tony Hayward, saying that he would have fired him for a series of remarks that have already made the BP CEO a lightning rod for the growing fury of Gulf Coast residents.
“He wouldn’t be working for me after any of those statements,” Mr Obama said, when asked for his reaction to Mr Hayward’s claim last month that the environmental impact of the spill would be “very, very modest” and his admission that “I would like to have my life back”.
Mr Hayward will testify before Congress next week for the first time since the Deepwater Horizon explosion.
Mr Obama has frequently answered those who criticise his handling of the crisis by saying that his job is to solve the problem and co-ordinate the clean-up, rather than vent. However, he used an interview broadcast yesterday on NBC to do just that.
In the process, he revealed what appears to be a complete breakdown of trust between the White House and BP’s high command. Asked why he had not yet spoken directly to Mr Hayward, 49 days into the disaster, Mr Obama said: “Here’s the reason: because my experience is, when you talk to a guy like a BP CEO, he’s gonna say all the right things to me. I’m not interested in words. I’m interested in actions.”
Mr Obama also gave the clearest signal yet that his Administration may use evidence of negligence in the days and weeks before the blowout to build a criminal case against BP, potentially adding billions of dollars to the company’s liabilities.
“Initial reports indicate that there may be situations in which not only human error was involved, but you also saw some corner-cutting in terms of safety,” he told NBC’s Today Show.
The claim was supported by Courtney Kemp, the widow of one of the 11 men killed when the rig blew up. Testifying before Congress’s House Energy and Commerce Committee, Mrs Kemp said that her husband had been concerned for weeks before the explosion about the difficulties that engineers were having in controlling the well. “This well was different in the fact that they were having so many problems,” she said. “It was just kind of out of hand.”
The pressure to ensure that heads roll at BP will only mount with the publication of a new report on BP’s record of spills and accidents — the worst of any oil major operating in North America. The company pleaded guilty in 1999 to illegally dumping oil off the north coast of Alaska, failed to update vital equipment and safety systems at its Alaskan base in Prudhoe Bay and allowed a “fundamental culture of mistrust” to fester between workers and management there, according to the report by ProPublica, a non-profit research organisation.
“They are a recurring environmental criminal and they do not follow US health, safety and environmental policy,” Jeanne Pascal, a former lawyer for the US Environmental Protection Agency, told ProPublica.
Source:The Times
UN passes toughest sanctions yet on Iran
The UN Security Council today imposed its toughest sanctions yet on Iran in what could be its last chance to prevent a defiant Tehran from acquiring a nuclear bomb.
Both China and Russia joined the 12-vote majority in favour of the sanctions in the 15-nation council, but Lebanon abstained and Brazil and Turkey voted against.
The resolution will be the fourth round of UN sanctions since 2006 aimed at curbing Iran’s suspected nuclear weapons ambitions – and it is not clear that the big powers will have time to negotiate another round before Iran achieves “breakout” potential to build a nuclear bomb.
Analysts voiced doubt that the tightened sanctions would dissuade Iran from pursuing a nuclear weapon that would upend the strategic calculus in the Middle East.
“Iran has been very successful at getting round sanctions to date and continues to find ways to move equipment and other supplies. They use false fronts and change ship names. They understand the legal limits of sanctions and are able to play around with them,” said Dr Theodore Karasik, research director at the Institute for Near East & Gulf Military Analysis in Dubai.
“Whatever happens, Iran will continue its nuclear weapons programme. Everyone in this part of the world understands that.”
The new UN sanctions will prohibit the sale of heavy weapons such as tanks, warplanes, attack helicopters and warships to Iran and allow inspection of planes and ships suspected of carrying banned cargoes.
The resolution will also freeze the assets of 41 more Iranian firms, including 15 controlled by the increasingly powerful Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps.
One individual, Javad Rahiqi, the head of Iran’s Esfahan Nuclear Technology Centre, where uranium is processed, will be added to a UN blacklist that subjects him to a travel ban and asset freeze.
Sir Richard Dalton, associate fellow at Chatham House, said: “The measures in this resolution send a strong political message but it has been clear for years that that no economic factors are going to bring about any flexibility in the Iranian position.”
With Iran continued to enrich uranium, the failure of the “dual track” approach of diplomatic sticks and carrots, pursued by the six-power grouping of Britain, France, Germany, Russia, China and the United States, could make an attack by Israel or the United States the only option left to prevent Iran acquiring nuclear arms.
The resolution also contains language that could trigger non-UN sanctions by major powers, including the European Union, on key “correspondent banking” and insurance services to Iran.
It calls on all UN members “to prevent the provision of financial services... if they have information that provides reasonable grounds to believe that such services... could contribute to Iran’s proliferation-sensitive nuclear activities.” The new package, however, falls short of the “crippling sanctions” threatened last year by Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state.
Moscow and Beijing won a series of concessions from the United States as negotiations on the new resolution dragged on for six months after President Obama’s year-end deadline for Iran to cooperate with UN demands that it halt uranium enrichment.
As well as dropping a proposal for a ban on new investment in Iran’s energy sector, the United States agreed to water down the text to limit the scope of the new sanctions against the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corp and the Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines.
Washington removed four Russian firms from a US blacklist for helping to arm Iran and Syria, and re-wrote the resolution to allow Moscow to go ahead with its much-delayed sale of S-300 air defence missiles to Teheran.
The Obama Administration also promised to try to exempt Russian and Chinese firms from future Congressional sanctions on companies that do business with Iran.
Susan Rice, the US representative at the UN, told the Security Council, however: “These sanctions are as tough as they are smart and precise.” Sir Mark Lyall-Grant, Britain’s UN ambassador, read the council a statement from the foreign ministers of the six powers, also known as the “E3+3”, stressing that the resolution “keeps to door open for continued engagement between the E3+3 and Iran.” “We expect Iran to demonstrate a pragmatic attitude and to respond positively,” the six-power statement said.
Brazil and Turkey voted against the resolution in a display of annoyance that the big powers had ignored a deal they struck with Iran last month to swap low-enriched uranium for higher-grade nuclear fuel for the Teheran Research Reactor.
The United States, Russia and France dismissed the swap deal yesterday in confidential responses to the International Atomic Energy Agency.
Glyn Davies, the US chief told the nuclear watchdog’s 35-nation board in Vienna that Iran appeared “determined to defy and to obfuscate’ international attempts to probe its nuclear programme.
“We do not see sanctions as an effective implement in this case,” said Maria Luiza Ribeiro Viotti, Brazil’s UN representative, told the Security Council. “Sanctions will most probably lead to the suffering of the people of Iran and will play into the hands of those on both sides who do not want dialogue to prevail.” Ertugrul Apakan, Turkey’s UN envoy, said: “We see no viable alternative to a diplomatic and peaceful solution.”
Source:The Times
Both China and Russia joined the 12-vote majority in favour of the sanctions in the 15-nation council, but Lebanon abstained and Brazil and Turkey voted against.
The resolution will be the fourth round of UN sanctions since 2006 aimed at curbing Iran’s suspected nuclear weapons ambitions – and it is not clear that the big powers will have time to negotiate another round before Iran achieves “breakout” potential to build a nuclear bomb.
Analysts voiced doubt that the tightened sanctions would dissuade Iran from pursuing a nuclear weapon that would upend the strategic calculus in the Middle East.
“Iran has been very successful at getting round sanctions to date and continues to find ways to move equipment and other supplies. They use false fronts and change ship names. They understand the legal limits of sanctions and are able to play around with them,” said Dr Theodore Karasik, research director at the Institute for Near East & Gulf Military Analysis in Dubai.
“Whatever happens, Iran will continue its nuclear weapons programme. Everyone in this part of the world understands that.”
The new UN sanctions will prohibit the sale of heavy weapons such as tanks, warplanes, attack helicopters and warships to Iran and allow inspection of planes and ships suspected of carrying banned cargoes.
The resolution will also freeze the assets of 41 more Iranian firms, including 15 controlled by the increasingly powerful Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps.
One individual, Javad Rahiqi, the head of Iran’s Esfahan Nuclear Technology Centre, where uranium is processed, will be added to a UN blacklist that subjects him to a travel ban and asset freeze.
Sir Richard Dalton, associate fellow at Chatham House, said: “The measures in this resolution send a strong political message but it has been clear for years that that no economic factors are going to bring about any flexibility in the Iranian position.”
With Iran continued to enrich uranium, the failure of the “dual track” approach of diplomatic sticks and carrots, pursued by the six-power grouping of Britain, France, Germany, Russia, China and the United States, could make an attack by Israel or the United States the only option left to prevent Iran acquiring nuclear arms.
The resolution also contains language that could trigger non-UN sanctions by major powers, including the European Union, on key “correspondent banking” and insurance services to Iran.
It calls on all UN members “to prevent the provision of financial services... if they have information that provides reasonable grounds to believe that such services... could contribute to Iran’s proliferation-sensitive nuclear activities.” The new package, however, falls short of the “crippling sanctions” threatened last year by Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state.
Moscow and Beijing won a series of concessions from the United States as negotiations on the new resolution dragged on for six months after President Obama’s year-end deadline for Iran to cooperate with UN demands that it halt uranium enrichment.
As well as dropping a proposal for a ban on new investment in Iran’s energy sector, the United States agreed to water down the text to limit the scope of the new sanctions against the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corp and the Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines.
Washington removed four Russian firms from a US blacklist for helping to arm Iran and Syria, and re-wrote the resolution to allow Moscow to go ahead with its much-delayed sale of S-300 air defence missiles to Teheran.
The Obama Administration also promised to try to exempt Russian and Chinese firms from future Congressional sanctions on companies that do business with Iran.
Susan Rice, the US representative at the UN, told the Security Council, however: “These sanctions are as tough as they are smart and precise.” Sir Mark Lyall-Grant, Britain’s UN ambassador, read the council a statement from the foreign ministers of the six powers, also known as the “E3+3”, stressing that the resolution “keeps to door open for continued engagement between the E3+3 and Iran.” “We expect Iran to demonstrate a pragmatic attitude and to respond positively,” the six-power statement said.
Brazil and Turkey voted against the resolution in a display of annoyance that the big powers had ignored a deal they struck with Iran last month to swap low-enriched uranium for higher-grade nuclear fuel for the Teheran Research Reactor.
The United States, Russia and France dismissed the swap deal yesterday in confidential responses to the International Atomic Energy Agency.
Glyn Davies, the US chief told the nuclear watchdog’s 35-nation board in Vienna that Iran appeared “determined to defy and to obfuscate’ international attempts to probe its nuclear programme.
“We do not see sanctions as an effective implement in this case,” said Maria Luiza Ribeiro Viotti, Brazil’s UN representative, told the Security Council. “Sanctions will most probably lead to the suffering of the people of Iran and will play into the hands of those on both sides who do not want dialogue to prevail.” Ertugrul Apakan, Turkey’s UN envoy, said: “We see no viable alternative to a diplomatic and peaceful solution.”
Source:The Times
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
