Openers Rohit Sharma and Gautam Gambhir put on 140 runs to help India pummel Pakistan by nine wickets in an ICC Twenty20 warmup tie that resembled a final in its festive look at the Oval cricket ground on Wednesday.
Sharma, opening in place of Virender Sehwag, hit a brilliant and confident 80 off only 53 balls (9x4, 2x6) as defending world champions India took only 17 overs to score 159 for one, easily overhauling Pakistan's 158 for six.
Gambir remained not out on 53 (47 balls, 5X4) to see India through to victory in the company of his skipper M.S. Dhoni, (nine runs, 2X4).
Playing before a stadium packed with delirious Indian and Pakistani supporters, India gave a masterly display of Twenty20 cricket - first restricting what looked like a rampaging Pakistan side to 158 and then knocking up the winning runs with remarkable ease.
Earlier, captain Younis Khan and Misbah-ul-Haq helped Pakistan put on 158 for six in a batting performance that began in marauding fashion but failed to live up to expectations.
Electing to bat before a nearly exclusively South Asian crowd, Pakistan began disastrously, losing opener Shahzaid Hasan for a duck to Praveen Kumar in the first over.
Spinner Harbhajan Singh dropped teenage batting sensation Ahmed Shehzad in the very next over off R.P. Singh before Shehzad (25 off 19 balls, 5 fours) and Kamran Akmal (19 off nine, 4 fours) began wreaking carnage on Kumar and Singh, hammering them to all corners of the Oval.
The men in blue then bounced back, to the delight of tens of thousands of supporters, and grabbed four quick wickets to leave Pakistan tottering on 63 for five before Younis Khan (32 off 32 balls) came up with a captain's innings in the company of Misbah (37 off 30).
Kumar, Irfan Pathan, Ishant Sharma, Harbhajan Singh and P.P. Ojha took one wicket each for India, while Suresh Raina ran out Akmal.
India left out Virender Sehwag and Zaheer Khan, and Pakistan were without Salman Butt and Ifthikar Anjum in a 13-a-side game, where only 11 could field at any given time.
Brief scores:
Pakistan: 158 for six (Misbah-ul-Haq 37, Y. Khan 32, S. Ahmed 25, Y. Arafat 25, I. Sharma one for 11)
India: 159 for one (R. Sharma 80, G. Gambhir 53, M.S. Dhoni 9, Mohammad Aamer one for 18).
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Senators grill GM, Chrysler executives on dealer cuts
Executives from bailed-out General Motors Corp. and Chrysler faced intense congressional heat Wednesday for plans to close about 2,000 dealers as part of their bankruptcies, demonstrating the potential complications of the government's direct involvement in the auto industry.
"I honestly don't believe that companies should be allowed to take taxpayer funds for a bailout and then leave it to local dealers and their customers to fend for themselves with no real plan, no real notice, no real help," said Senate Commerce Committee Chairman John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), who convened a hearing on the issue.
The standing-room-only crowd -- which included about 30 dealers and more senators than Rockefeller said he had seen at a hearing in 24 years -- gave weight to suggestions that the Obama administration's decision to take ownership stakes in the companies made members of Congress a rump board of directors.
Lawmakers acknowledged they probably could do little more than make life uncomfortable for the companies. But they also could spread that same discomfort to the Obama administration, which must balance congressional concerns with a vow not to get involved in daily operations of Chrylser or GM.
"If there were any more impetus to try to get back to profitability and try to get the government out of your business . . . today's session ought to be that impetus," Sen. Mark R. Warner (D-Va.) told GM Chief Executive Fritz Henderson and Chrysler President James Press.
Several senators said they were uncomfortable with probing the inner workings of manufacturing companies. But they all agreed the pain and job loss the dealer cuts would impose on communities was a tragedy. Two dealers explained the heartbreak they were facing as their franchise agreements with Chrysler and GM were being terminated.
"To be arbitrarily closed with no compensation is wasteful and devastating," said Russell Aubrey Whatley III, owner of a Chrysler dealership in Mineral Wells, Texas, that has been in his family for decades. "A 90-year investment is just gone and neither my family or my employees have nothing to say about it."
Like nearly every other senator, Rockefeller told of calls and e-mails from dealers in his state complaining about the cuts being enacted by GM and particularly Chrysler, which last month gave 789 dealers less than three weeks to liquidate their vehicles, parts and specialized tools before their franchises are terminated Tuesday.
GM was taking a slower approach, but its cuts affect many more dealers. The company last month notified 1,100 of its 6,000 dealers that it was terminating their franchise agreements by October 2010, with a goal of reducing its dealer network by as much as 42% during that period. As part of its bankruptcy filing, GM notified most of its dealers this week that they will have to operate under strict new rules or the court could end their franchise agreements.
Dealer groups have estimated the cuts could cost 100,000 jobs, as well as billions of dollars in lost state and local tax revenue.
Henderson and Press defended their decisions, saying they were painful ones made so the companies could become leaner and profitable.
"They were gut-wrenching [decisions] but absolutely necessary for Chrysler' survival," Press said.
Obama administration officials pushed them to be more aggressive about their restructuring, but did not dictate the numbers or review a list of dealers whose franchise agreements would be eliminated, the executives said in response to inquiries from Republicans about White House involvement.
Although Chrysler had released a list of dealers it is cutting, GM has not, saying the dealers themselves did not want to be named while they try to wind down their businesses through next year. But the committee flexed some power on that point, as Rockefeller agreed to a request by Sen. Mark Begich (D-Alaska) that GM provide a list. Henderson said he would do so, but it was unclear whether the list would be made public.
But senators did not agree to a request by the National Automobile Dealers Assn. that the government provide more money to Chrysler so it could purchase any leftover vehicles at the dealers it was terminating.
Press said the company had offered help and 97% of the 42,000 vehicles at the dealerships have either been sold or Chrysler has commitments to redistribute them to dealerships that are staying in business.
Chrysler, however, was not guaranteeing it would reimburse dealers for those cars, which after Tuesday they cannot sell.
"Every dealers' biggest fear is on June 9 we lose all options on these cars," Whatley said. "They're just planter boxes on June 9."
On Tuesday, all of GM's dealers received a fresh round of letters, copies of which were reviewed by The Times. One letter, sent to dealers singled out for termination, offered cash payments to help them unwind their businesses, with a goal of selling off their inventories and closing between January 1 and October 31 of next year. Those dealers will still be allowed to provide warranty service, but will not be able to purchase more new vehicles, and must provide their customer lists to GM. In addition, they waive their right to sue the automaker.
"This is a difficult step, but one that is part of GM's court-supervised restructuring efforts," the letter said.
The other letter, sent to dealers that GM intends to maintain, laid out strict new operating rules for dealers, including obligations to purchase more cars and trucks than in the past and boost performance. Each dealer "must substantially increase its sales of new motor vehicles" or face possible elimination. They also must waive their right to sue.
Both letters asked that dealers agree to the new terms in writing by June 12. If not, GM said, it would move to terminate their contracts in U.S Bankruptcy Court.
"If we sign that letter, we sign our life away," said Pete Lopez, whose Chrysler and GM dealerships in Spencer, W. Va., are being terminated.
Henderson said that 647 dealers had already signed and returned the new agreements, while only 10 had declined to sign.
Senators said they normally would not be involved in the business decisions of private companies. But with the government funneling billions of dollars to the two automakers -- and in GM's case taking a majority ownership stake -- they had an obligation to probe complaints from dealers.
"You find yourself with a board of directors of essentially 535 members," said Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) , who acknowledged he was uncomfortable delving into the inner workings of the companies. "We are now partners and as partners these are the type of questions you get to answer."
"I honestly don't believe that companies should be allowed to take taxpayer funds for a bailout and then leave it to local dealers and their customers to fend for themselves with no real plan, no real notice, no real help," said Senate Commerce Committee Chairman John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), who convened a hearing on the issue.
The standing-room-only crowd -- which included about 30 dealers and more senators than Rockefeller said he had seen at a hearing in 24 years -- gave weight to suggestions that the Obama administration's decision to take ownership stakes in the companies made members of Congress a rump board of directors.
Lawmakers acknowledged they probably could do little more than make life uncomfortable for the companies. But they also could spread that same discomfort to the Obama administration, which must balance congressional concerns with a vow not to get involved in daily operations of Chrylser or GM.
"If there were any more impetus to try to get back to profitability and try to get the government out of your business . . . today's session ought to be that impetus," Sen. Mark R. Warner (D-Va.) told GM Chief Executive Fritz Henderson and Chrysler President James Press.
Several senators said they were uncomfortable with probing the inner workings of manufacturing companies. But they all agreed the pain and job loss the dealer cuts would impose on communities was a tragedy. Two dealers explained the heartbreak they were facing as their franchise agreements with Chrysler and GM were being terminated.
"To be arbitrarily closed with no compensation is wasteful and devastating," said Russell Aubrey Whatley III, owner of a Chrysler dealership in Mineral Wells, Texas, that has been in his family for decades. "A 90-year investment is just gone and neither my family or my employees have nothing to say about it."
Like nearly every other senator, Rockefeller told of calls and e-mails from dealers in his state complaining about the cuts being enacted by GM and particularly Chrysler, which last month gave 789 dealers less than three weeks to liquidate their vehicles, parts and specialized tools before their franchises are terminated Tuesday.
GM was taking a slower approach, but its cuts affect many more dealers. The company last month notified 1,100 of its 6,000 dealers that it was terminating their franchise agreements by October 2010, with a goal of reducing its dealer network by as much as 42% during that period. As part of its bankruptcy filing, GM notified most of its dealers this week that they will have to operate under strict new rules or the court could end their franchise agreements.
Dealer groups have estimated the cuts could cost 100,000 jobs, as well as billions of dollars in lost state and local tax revenue.
Henderson and Press defended their decisions, saying they were painful ones made so the companies could become leaner and profitable.
"They were gut-wrenching [decisions] but absolutely necessary for Chrysler' survival," Press said.
Obama administration officials pushed them to be more aggressive about their restructuring, but did not dictate the numbers or review a list of dealers whose franchise agreements would be eliminated, the executives said in response to inquiries from Republicans about White House involvement.
Although Chrysler had released a list of dealers it is cutting, GM has not, saying the dealers themselves did not want to be named while they try to wind down their businesses through next year. But the committee flexed some power on that point, as Rockefeller agreed to a request by Sen. Mark Begich (D-Alaska) that GM provide a list. Henderson said he would do so, but it was unclear whether the list would be made public.
But senators did not agree to a request by the National Automobile Dealers Assn. that the government provide more money to Chrysler so it could purchase any leftover vehicles at the dealers it was terminating.
Press said the company had offered help and 97% of the 42,000 vehicles at the dealerships have either been sold or Chrysler has commitments to redistribute them to dealerships that are staying in business.
Chrysler, however, was not guaranteeing it would reimburse dealers for those cars, which after Tuesday they cannot sell.
"Every dealers' biggest fear is on June 9 we lose all options on these cars," Whatley said. "They're just planter boxes on June 9."
On Tuesday, all of GM's dealers received a fresh round of letters, copies of which were reviewed by The Times. One letter, sent to dealers singled out for termination, offered cash payments to help them unwind their businesses, with a goal of selling off their inventories and closing between January 1 and October 31 of next year. Those dealers will still be allowed to provide warranty service, but will not be able to purchase more new vehicles, and must provide their customer lists to GM. In addition, they waive their right to sue the automaker.
"This is a difficult step, but one that is part of GM's court-supervised restructuring efforts," the letter said.
The other letter, sent to dealers that GM intends to maintain, laid out strict new operating rules for dealers, including obligations to purchase more cars and trucks than in the past and boost performance. Each dealer "must substantially increase its sales of new motor vehicles" or face possible elimination. They also must waive their right to sue.
Both letters asked that dealers agree to the new terms in writing by June 12. If not, GM said, it would move to terminate their contracts in U.S Bankruptcy Court.
"If we sign that letter, we sign our life away," said Pete Lopez, whose Chrysler and GM dealerships in Spencer, W. Va., are being terminated.
Henderson said that 647 dealers had already signed and returned the new agreements, while only 10 had declined to sign.
Senators said they normally would not be involved in the business decisions of private companies. But with the government funneling billions of dollars to the two automakers -- and in GM's case taking a majority ownership stake -- they had an obligation to probe complaints from dealers.
"You find yourself with a board of directors of essentially 535 members," said Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) , who acknowledged he was uncomfortable delving into the inner workings of the companies. "We are now partners and as partners these are the type of questions you get to answer."
47 police officers questioned in disappearance of Mexican customs official
Nearly 50 police officers were questioned in the disappearance of a top Mexican customs official in the port city of Veracruz, authorities said Wednesday.
The probe targeted traffic police in Veracruz, where customs administrator Francisco Serrano disappeared Monday night from the scene of an apparent traffic collision. Forty-seven police officers were heldfor questioning by federal authorities.Salvador Mikel Rivera, attorney general for the state of Veracruz, said authorities decided to question all officers on duty that night after viewing security camera footage of a crash involving Serrano's vehicle. The footage showed several police cars arriving. Serrano has not been seen since.
Veracruz is the nation's main cargo port on the Gulf of Mexico and watched by customs officials for smuggling of illegal drugs and other contraband.
The action came as federal authorities this week detained 58 police officers in the northern state of Nuevo Leon for suspected ties with drug traffickers. Among those taken into custody were the public safety chiefs in two towns.
for questioning by federal authoritiesPolice corruption remains a major obstacle for Mexican President Felipe Calderon's 30-month-old crackdown on drug cartels and other organized-crime groups.
Though the administration has sought to clean up and reorganize the roughly 25,000-strong federal police, graft is entrenched in cities and small towns, where officers sometimes moonlight as gunmen for drug-smuggling groups.
Calderon has responded by sending the Mexican military to patrol drug-trafficking hot spots. In a growing number of places, retired Mexican army generals and colonels have been put in charge of police.
More than 10,000 people have died in drug-related violence since Calderon launched the nationwide anti-crime offensive in December 2006. Traffickers have fought government forces and feuded with one another over prized smuggling routes
The probe targeted traffic police in Veracruz, where customs administrator Francisco Serrano disappeared Monday night from the scene of an apparent traffic collision. Forty-seven police officers were heldfor questioning by federal authorities.Salvador Mikel Rivera, attorney general for the state of Veracruz, said authorities decided to question all officers on duty that night after viewing security camera footage of a crash involving Serrano's vehicle. The footage showed several police cars arriving. Serrano has not been seen since.
Veracruz is the nation's main cargo port on the Gulf of Mexico and watched by customs officials for smuggling of illegal drugs and other contraband.
The action came as federal authorities this week detained 58 police officers in the northern state of Nuevo Leon for suspected ties with drug traffickers. Among those taken into custody were the public safety chiefs in two towns.
for questioning by federal authoritiesPolice corruption remains a major obstacle for Mexican President Felipe Calderon's 30-month-old crackdown on drug cartels and other organized-crime groups.
Though the administration has sought to clean up and reorganize the roughly 25,000-strong federal police, graft is entrenched in cities and small towns, where officers sometimes moonlight as gunmen for drug-smuggling groups.
Calderon has responded by sending the Mexican military to patrol drug-trafficking hot spots. In a growing number of places, retired Mexican army generals and colonels have been put in charge of police.
More than 10,000 people have died in drug-related violence since Calderon launched the nationwide anti-crime offensive in December 2006. Traffickers have fought government forces and feuded with one another over prized smuggling routes
47 police officers questioned in disappearance of Mexican customs official
Nearly 50 police officers were questioned in the disappearance of a top Mexican customs official in the port city of Veracruz, authorities said Wednesday.
The probe targeted traffic police in Veracruz, where customs administrator Francisco Serrano disappeared Monday night from the scene of an apparent traffic collision. Forty-seven police officers were heldfor questioning by federal authorities.Salvador Mikel Rivera, attorney general for the state of Veracruz, said authorities decided to question all officers on duty that night after viewing security camera footage of a crash involving Serrano's vehicle. The footage showed several police cars arriving. Serrano has not been seen since.
Veracruz is the nation's main cargo port on the Gulf of Mexico and watched by customs officials for smuggling of illegal drugs and other contraband.
The action came as federal authorities this week detained 58 police officers in the northern state of Nuevo Leon for suspected ties with drug traffickers. Among those taken into custody were the public safety chiefs in two towns.
for questioning by federal authoritiesPolice corruption remains a major obstacle for Mexican President Felipe Calderon's 30-month-old crackdown on drug cartels and other organized-crime groups.
Though the administration has sought to clean up and reorganize the roughly 25,000-strong federal police, graft is entrenched in cities and small towns, where officers sometimes moonlight as gunmen for drug-smuggling groups.
Calderon has responded by sending the Mexican military to patrol drug-trafficking hot spots. In a growing number of places, retired Mexican army generals and colonels have been put in charge of police.
More than 10,000 people have died in drug-related violence since Calderon launched the nationwide anti-crime offensive in December 2006. Traffickers have fought government forces and feuded with one another over prized smuggling routes
The probe targeted traffic police in Veracruz, where customs administrator Francisco Serrano disappeared Monday night from the scene of an apparent traffic collision. Forty-seven police officers were heldfor questioning by federal authorities.Salvador Mikel Rivera, attorney general for the state of Veracruz, said authorities decided to question all officers on duty that night after viewing security camera footage of a crash involving Serrano's vehicle. The footage showed several police cars arriving. Serrano has not been seen since.
Veracruz is the nation's main cargo port on the Gulf of Mexico and watched by customs officials for smuggling of illegal drugs and other contraband.
The action came as federal authorities this week detained 58 police officers in the northern state of Nuevo Leon for suspected ties with drug traffickers. Among those taken into custody were the public safety chiefs in two towns.
for questioning by federal authoritiesPolice corruption remains a major obstacle for Mexican President Felipe Calderon's 30-month-old crackdown on drug cartels and other organized-crime groups.
Though the administration has sought to clean up and reorganize the roughly 25,000-strong federal police, graft is entrenched in cities and small towns, where officers sometimes moonlight as gunmen for drug-smuggling groups.
Calderon has responded by sending the Mexican military to patrol drug-trafficking hot spots. In a growing number of places, retired Mexican army generals and colonels have been put in charge of police.
More than 10,000 people have died in drug-related violence since Calderon launched the nationwide anti-crime offensive in December 2006. Traffickers have fought government forces and feuded with one another over prized smuggling routes
U.S. Accidentally Releases List of Nuclear Sites
The federal government mistakenly made public a 266-page report, its pages marked “highly confidential,” that gives detailed information about hundreds of the nation’s civilian nuclear sites and programs, including maps showing the precise locations of stockpiles of fuel for nuclear weapons.
The publication of the document was revealed Monday in an online newsletter devoted to issues of federal secrecy. That set off a debate among nuclear experts about what dangers, if any, the disclosures posed. It also prompted a flurry of investigations in Washington into why the document had been made public.
On Tuesday evening, after inquiries from The New York Times, the document was withdrawn from a Government Printing Office Web site.
Several nuclear experts argued that any dangers from the disclosure were minimal, given that the general outlines of the most sensitive information were already known publicly.
“These screw-ups happen,” said John M. Deutch, a former director of central intelligence and deputy secretary of defense who is now a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. “It’s going further than I would have gone but doesn’t look like a serious breach.”
But David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security, a private group in Washington that tracks nuclear proliferation, said information that shows where nuclear fuels are stored “can provide thieves or terrorists inside information that can help them seize the material, which is why that kind of data is not given out.”
The information, considered confidential but not classified, was assembled for transmission later this year to the International Atomic Energy Agency as part of a process by which the United States is opening itself up to stricter inspections in hopes that foreign countries, especially Iran and others believed to be clandestinely developing nuclear arms, will do likewise.
President Obama sent the document to Congress on May 5 for Congressional review and possible revision, and the Government Printing Office subsequently posted the draft declaration on its Web site.
As of Tuesday evening, the reasons for that action remained a mystery. On its cover, the document seems to attribute its publication to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. But Lynne Weil, the committee spokeswoman, said the committee had “neither published it nor had control over its publication.”
Gary Somerset, a spokesman for the printing office, said it had “produced” the document “under normal operating procedures” but had now removed it from its Web site pending further review.
The document contains no military information about the nation’s stockpile of nuclear arms, or about the facilities and programs that guard such weapons. Rather, it presents what appears to be an exhaustive listing of the sites that make up the nation’s civilian nuclear complex, which stretches coast to coast and includes nuclear reactors and highly confidential sites at weapon laboratories.
Steven Aftergood, a security expert at the Federation of American Scientists in Washington, revealed the existence of the document on Monday in Secrecy News, an electronic newsletter he publishes on the Web.
Mr. Aftergood expressed bafflement at its disclosure, calling it “a one-stop shop for information on U.S. nuclear programs.”
In his letter of transmittal to Congress, Mr. Obama characterized the information as “sensitive but unclassified” and said all the information that the United States gathered to comply with the advanced protocol “shall be exempt from disclosure” under the Freedom of Information Act.
The report details the locations of hundreds of nuclear sites and activities. Each page is marked across the top “Highly Confidential Safeguards Sensitive” in capital letters, with the exception of pages that detailed additional information like site maps. In his transmittal letter, Mr. Obama said the cautionary language was a classification category of the International Atomic Energy Agency’s inspectors.
The agency, in Vienna, is a unit of the United Nations whose mandate is to enforce a global treaty that tries to keep civilian nuclear programs from engaging in secret military work.
In recent years, it has sought to gain wide adherence to a set of strict inspection rules, known formally as the additional protocol. The rules give the agency powerful new rights to poke its nose beyond known nuclear sites into factories, storage areas, laboratories and anywhere else that a nation might be preparing to flex its nuclear muscle. The United States signed the agreement in 1998 but only recently moved forward with carrying it out.
The report lists many particulars about nuclear programs and facilities at the nation’s three nuclear weapons laboratories — Los Alamos, Livermore and Sandia — as well as dozens of other federal and private nuclear sites.
One of the most serious disclosures appears to center on the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee, which houses the Y-12 National Security Complex, a sprawling site ringed by barbed wire and armed guards. It calls itself the nation’s Fort Knox for highly enriched uranium, a main fuel of nuclear arms.
The report lists “Tube Vault 16, East Storage Array,” as a prospective site for nuclear inspection. It said the site, in Building 9720-5, contains highly enriched uranium for “long-term storage.”
An attached map shows the exact location of Tube Vault 16 along a hallway and its orientation in relation to geographic north, although not its location in the Y-12 complex.
Tube vaults are typically cylinders embedded in concrete that prevent the accidental formation of critical masses of highly enriched uranium that could undergo bursts of nuclear fission, known as a criticality incident. According to federal reports, a typical tube vault can hold up to 44 tons of highly enriched uranium in 200 tubes. Motion detectors and television cameras typically monitor each vault.
Thomas B. Cochran, a senior scientist in the nuclear program of the Natural Resources Defense Council, a private group in Washington that tracks atomic arsenals, called the document harmless. “It’s a better listing than anything I’ve seen” of the nation’s civilian nuclear complex, Mr. Cochran said. “But it’s no national-security breach. It confirms what’s already out there and adds a bit more information.”
The publication of the document was revealed Monday in an online newsletter devoted to issues of federal secrecy. That set off a debate among nuclear experts about what dangers, if any, the disclosures posed. It also prompted a flurry of investigations in Washington into why the document had been made public.
On Tuesday evening, after inquiries from The New York Times, the document was withdrawn from a Government Printing Office Web site.
Several nuclear experts argued that any dangers from the disclosure were minimal, given that the general outlines of the most sensitive information were already known publicly.
“These screw-ups happen,” said John M. Deutch, a former director of central intelligence and deputy secretary of defense who is now a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. “It’s going further than I would have gone but doesn’t look like a serious breach.”
But David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security, a private group in Washington that tracks nuclear proliferation, said information that shows where nuclear fuels are stored “can provide thieves or terrorists inside information that can help them seize the material, which is why that kind of data is not given out.”
The information, considered confidential but not classified, was assembled for transmission later this year to the International Atomic Energy Agency as part of a process by which the United States is opening itself up to stricter inspections in hopes that foreign countries, especially Iran and others believed to be clandestinely developing nuclear arms, will do likewise.
President Obama sent the document to Congress on May 5 for Congressional review and possible revision, and the Government Printing Office subsequently posted the draft declaration on its Web site.
As of Tuesday evening, the reasons for that action remained a mystery. On its cover, the document seems to attribute its publication to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. But Lynne Weil, the committee spokeswoman, said the committee had “neither published it nor had control over its publication.”
Gary Somerset, a spokesman for the printing office, said it had “produced” the document “under normal operating procedures” but had now removed it from its Web site pending further review.
The document contains no military information about the nation’s stockpile of nuclear arms, or about the facilities and programs that guard such weapons. Rather, it presents what appears to be an exhaustive listing of the sites that make up the nation’s civilian nuclear complex, which stretches coast to coast and includes nuclear reactors and highly confidential sites at weapon laboratories.
Steven Aftergood, a security expert at the Federation of American Scientists in Washington, revealed the existence of the document on Monday in Secrecy News, an electronic newsletter he publishes on the Web.
Mr. Aftergood expressed bafflement at its disclosure, calling it “a one-stop shop for information on U.S. nuclear programs.”
In his letter of transmittal to Congress, Mr. Obama characterized the information as “sensitive but unclassified” and said all the information that the United States gathered to comply with the advanced protocol “shall be exempt from disclosure” under the Freedom of Information Act.
The report details the locations of hundreds of nuclear sites and activities. Each page is marked across the top “Highly Confidential Safeguards Sensitive” in capital letters, with the exception of pages that detailed additional information like site maps. In his transmittal letter, Mr. Obama said the cautionary language was a classification category of the International Atomic Energy Agency’s inspectors.
The agency, in Vienna, is a unit of the United Nations whose mandate is to enforce a global treaty that tries to keep civilian nuclear programs from engaging in secret military work.
In recent years, it has sought to gain wide adherence to a set of strict inspection rules, known formally as the additional protocol. The rules give the agency powerful new rights to poke its nose beyond known nuclear sites into factories, storage areas, laboratories and anywhere else that a nation might be preparing to flex its nuclear muscle. The United States signed the agreement in 1998 but only recently moved forward with carrying it out.
The report lists many particulars about nuclear programs and facilities at the nation’s three nuclear weapons laboratories — Los Alamos, Livermore and Sandia — as well as dozens of other federal and private nuclear sites.
One of the most serious disclosures appears to center on the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee, which houses the Y-12 National Security Complex, a sprawling site ringed by barbed wire and armed guards. It calls itself the nation’s Fort Knox for highly enriched uranium, a main fuel of nuclear arms.
The report lists “Tube Vault 16, East Storage Array,” as a prospective site for nuclear inspection. It said the site, in Building 9720-5, contains highly enriched uranium for “long-term storage.”
An attached map shows the exact location of Tube Vault 16 along a hallway and its orientation in relation to geographic north, although not its location in the Y-12 complex.
Tube vaults are typically cylinders embedded in concrete that prevent the accidental formation of critical masses of highly enriched uranium that could undergo bursts of nuclear fission, known as a criticality incident. According to federal reports, a typical tube vault can hold up to 44 tons of highly enriched uranium in 200 tubes. Motion detectors and television cameras typically monitor each vault.
Thomas B. Cochran, a senior scientist in the nuclear program of the Natural Resources Defense Council, a private group in Washington that tracks atomic arsenals, called the document harmless. “It’s a better listing than anything I’ve seen” of the nation’s civilian nuclear complex, Mr. Cochran said. “But it’s no national-security breach. It confirms what’s already out there and adds a bit more information.”
New Hampshire Legalizes Same-Sex Marriage
The New Hampshire legislature approved revisions to a same-sex marriage bill on Wednesday, and Gov. John Lynch promptly signed the legislation, making the state the sixth in the nation to let gay couples wed.The bill had been through several permutations in an effort to satisfy Mr. Lynch and certain legislators that it would not force members of religious groups that oppose same-sex marriage to participate in ceremonies celebrating it.
Mr. Lynch, who previously supported civil unions but not marriage for same-sex couples, said in a statement that he had heard “compelling arguments that a separate system is not an equal system.”
“Today,” he said, “we are standing up for the liberties of same-sex couples by making clear that they will receive the same rights, responsibilities — and respect — under New Hampshire law.”
The law will take effect on Jan. 1. As originally cast, the legislation exempted members of the clergy from having to perform same-sex weddings. Then Mr. Lynch, a centrist Democrat, said he would veto the bill unless the legislature added language also exempting religious groups and their employees from having to participate in such ceremonies.
Mr. Lynch also ordered that the bill protect members of religious groups from having to provide same-sex couples with religious counseling, housing designated for married people and other services relating to “the promotion of marriage.”
But the House rejected that language last month by a two-vote margin, and legislative leaders appointed a committee to negotiate a compromise.
The committee last week recommended small changes further emphasizing the rights of religious groups not to participate in same-sex weddings. They include a preamble to the bill that states, “Each religious organization, association, or society has exclusive control over its own religious doctrine, policy, teachings and beliefs regarding who may marry within their faith.”
Republicans have called the committee’s work tainted because the Senate president, Sylvia B. Larsen, a Democrat, replaced one of its Republican members when that legislator would not sign off on last week’s compromise. Under legislative rules, the committee’s decision needed to be unanimous.
As more states have legalized same-sex marriage in recent months, opponents have increasingly lobbied for “conscience protections,” language that exempts religious organizations from having to participate if they object to same-sex unions.
But many of the bill’s opponents believe the language adopted by New Hampshire and several other states does not go far enough because it protects only religious groups and their employees. New Hampshire’s bill does not exempt photographers or florists, for example, from having to provide services.
But groups that advocate for gay rights, some of whom poured money into the state in recent months, said the law was yet another step toward mainstream America accepting same-sex marriage. “As people get to know the loving and committed couples at the heart of marriage equality,” said Neil G. Giuliano, president of the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, “our culture is moving to equality.”
Kevin Smith, director of the Cornerstone Policy Research, a group opposing the bill, said lawmakers “rammed this legislation through” in a way that “reeks of backroom deals and a subversion of the legislative process.”
Mr. Lynch, who previously supported civil unions but not marriage for same-sex couples, said in a statement that he had heard “compelling arguments that a separate system is not an equal system.”
“Today,” he said, “we are standing up for the liberties of same-sex couples by making clear that they will receive the same rights, responsibilities — and respect — under New Hampshire law.”
The law will take effect on Jan. 1. As originally cast, the legislation exempted members of the clergy from having to perform same-sex weddings. Then Mr. Lynch, a centrist Democrat, said he would veto the bill unless the legislature added language also exempting religious groups and their employees from having to participate in such ceremonies.
Mr. Lynch also ordered that the bill protect members of religious groups from having to provide same-sex couples with religious counseling, housing designated for married people and other services relating to “the promotion of marriage.”
But the House rejected that language last month by a two-vote margin, and legislative leaders appointed a committee to negotiate a compromise.
The committee last week recommended small changes further emphasizing the rights of religious groups not to participate in same-sex weddings. They include a preamble to the bill that states, “Each religious organization, association, or society has exclusive control over its own religious doctrine, policy, teachings and beliefs regarding who may marry within their faith.”
Republicans have called the committee’s work tainted because the Senate president, Sylvia B. Larsen, a Democrat, replaced one of its Republican members when that legislator would not sign off on last week’s compromise. Under legislative rules, the committee’s decision needed to be unanimous.
As more states have legalized same-sex marriage in recent months, opponents have increasingly lobbied for “conscience protections,” language that exempts religious organizations from having to participate if they object to same-sex unions.
But many of the bill’s opponents believe the language adopted by New Hampshire and several other states does not go far enough because it protects only religious groups and their employees. New Hampshire’s bill does not exempt photographers or florists, for example, from having to provide services.
But groups that advocate for gay rights, some of whom poured money into the state in recent months, said the law was yet another step toward mainstream America accepting same-sex marriage. “As people get to know the loving and committed couples at the heart of marriage equality,” said Neil G. Giuliano, president of the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, “our culture is moving to equality.”
Kevin Smith, director of the Cornerstone Policy Research, a group opposing the bill, said lawmakers “rammed this legislation through” in a way that “reeks of backroom deals and a subversion of the legislative process.”
Obama Open to Plan Requiring Everyone to Get Insurance
President Obama said Wednesday that he was receptive to Congressional proposals that would require every American to have health insurance and that would force employers to offer health insurance to their employees. But he said there should be exemptions for people who cannot afford coverage and for small businesses in general.
Mr. Obama set forth his views in a letter to the chairmen of the two Senate committees writing health legislation, Max Baucus of Montana and Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, both Democrats.
He did not use the terms “individual mandate” or “employer mandate,” which suggest a degree of coercion that Democrats try to avoid. Still, the letter is the first time that Mr. Obama, as president, has opened the door to an individual mandate or amplified his views on health care overhaul.
In the presidential primaries last year, Hillary Rodham Clinton called for an individual mandate, while Mr. Obama said the requirement for coverage should at first apply only to children. But that proposal has not found any significant support in Congress, where Democrats favor an individual mandate, with federal subsidies or tax credits to help defray the cost of insurance for people with low or moderate income.
In the letter made public on Wednesday, Mr. Obama wrote, “If we are going to make people responsible for owning health insurance, we must make health care affordable.”
He added, “If we do end up with a system where people are responsible for their own insurance, we need to provide a hardship waiver to exempt Americans who cannot afford it.”
Moreover, the president said, “while I believe that employers have a responsibility to support health insurance for their employees, small businesses face a number of special challenges in affording health benefits and should be exempted.”
Mr. Obama also confirmed his strong support for a public health insurance option as part of any reform package “to keep insurance companies honest.”
To help pay for coverage of the uninsured, Mr. Obama called for additional cutbacks in the growth of Medicare and Medicaid, beyond the savings he proposed in February as “a down payment on health care reform.”
In his earlier request, Mr. Obama proposed savings of $316 billion in the two programs over 10 years. On Wednesday he said he wanted to work with Congress to reduce projected spending on Medicare and Medicaid by an additional $200 billion to $300 billion over the next 10 years.
Such proposals are sure to face stiff resistance from health care providers, who were already alarmed at the president’s initial proposals to cut payments to hospitals, drug companies, H.M.O.’s and home care agencies, among others.
Mr. Obama said he was “committed to working with the Congress to fully offset the cost of health care reform,” by curbing the growth of Medicare and Medicaid and “by enacting appropriate proposals to generate additional revenues.”
The president did not comment on proposals to tax some employer-provided health benefits, an idea favored by Senator Baucus but strongly opposed by labor unions and many employers.
Mr. Obama set forth his views in a letter to the chairmen of the two Senate committees writing health legislation, Max Baucus of Montana and Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, both Democrats.
He did not use the terms “individual mandate” or “employer mandate,” which suggest a degree of coercion that Democrats try to avoid. Still, the letter is the first time that Mr. Obama, as president, has opened the door to an individual mandate or amplified his views on health care overhaul.
In the presidential primaries last year, Hillary Rodham Clinton called for an individual mandate, while Mr. Obama said the requirement for coverage should at first apply only to children. But that proposal has not found any significant support in Congress, where Democrats favor an individual mandate, with federal subsidies or tax credits to help defray the cost of insurance for people with low or moderate income.
In the letter made public on Wednesday, Mr. Obama wrote, “If we are going to make people responsible for owning health insurance, we must make health care affordable.”
He added, “If we do end up with a system where people are responsible for their own insurance, we need to provide a hardship waiver to exempt Americans who cannot afford it.”
Moreover, the president said, “while I believe that employers have a responsibility to support health insurance for their employees, small businesses face a number of special challenges in affording health benefits and should be exempted.”
Mr. Obama also confirmed his strong support for a public health insurance option as part of any reform package “to keep insurance companies honest.”
To help pay for coverage of the uninsured, Mr. Obama called for additional cutbacks in the growth of Medicare and Medicaid, beyond the savings he proposed in February as “a down payment on health care reform.”
In his earlier request, Mr. Obama proposed savings of $316 billion in the two programs over 10 years. On Wednesday he said he wanted to work with Congress to reduce projected spending on Medicare and Medicaid by an additional $200 billion to $300 billion over the next 10 years.
Such proposals are sure to face stiff resistance from health care providers, who were already alarmed at the president’s initial proposals to cut payments to hospitals, drug companies, H.M.O.’s and home care agencies, among others.
Mr. Obama said he was “committed to working with the Congress to fully offset the cost of health care reform,” by curbing the growth of Medicare and Medicaid and “by enacting appropriate proposals to generate additional revenues.”
The president did not comment on proposals to tax some employer-provided health benefits, an idea favored by Senator Baucus but strongly opposed by labor unions and many employers.
Will a tomato pill really "beat heart disease"?
A tomato pill could "beat heart disease", "protect against strokes" and "save thousands of lives" according to various newspapers this week. We've looked at the evidence behind the claims.
What's all the fuss about?The excitement centres on lycopene, the bright red chemical that gives colour to tomatoes, watermelons, and pink grapefruit. Lycopene belongs to a group of chemicals called antioxidants. Other antioxidants include vitamin C, vitamin E, and beta-carotene.
There's been lots of attention paid to antioxidants because of their potential health benefits. The healthiest diets seem to contain large amounts of antioxidants. For example, a Mediterranean-style diet includes lots of grains, fruits, nuts, and vegetables, while also being low in red meat and saturated fats. There's growing evidence that a Mediterranean-style diet is one of the healthiest ways to eat.
Unfortunately, when researchers have tried to replicate the benefits of a healthy diet in pill form, it hasn't always been successful. The best research so far on antioxidant supplements found no evidence that they could help people live longer.
What's in the new pill?The problem with lycopene is that, in its natural form, it's difficult for the body to absorb. Tomatoes seem to provide more lycopene when they're cooked, and about 85 percent of our intake comes from processed foods, such as tomato juice, ketchup, pizza toppings, and tomato soup. In studies, researchers sometimes use tomato purée as a good source of lycopene.
To create a lycopene supplement in pill form, the food multinational Nestlé developed a combination of lycopene and milk protein. This creates a form of lycopene that's easily absorbed. Nestlé have licensed the product to a company called Cambridge Theranostics, which is marketing the pill under the brand name Ateronon.
Does it work?We asked the manufacturers of Ateronon what evidence they had for their product. They provided a study from 2002 which looked at 33 people. It found that a combination of lycopene and milk protein was absorbed by the body just as well as tomato purée.
The manufacturers also sent a description of two further studies, which looked at 10 and 12 people. Neither of these studies compared lycopene supplements with a placebo, which is an important way of making sure research doesn't give biased results. The two studies found that a lycopene and milk protein supplement reduced a chemical process in the body called oxidation. The theory is that oxidation makes cholesterol more harmful.
It's important to remember that, on its own, high cholesterol isn't an illness. The problem occurs when it builds up in your arteries and increases your risk of heart disease or a stroke. There isn't much point taking a drug or supplement to lower your cholesterol unless it also cuts your risk of these illnesses.
The best treatments for high cholesterol, such as drugs called statins, don't just reduce cholesterol levels. Long-term trials looking at tens of thousands of people have proved that these drugs prevent heart attacks and strokes, and help people to live longer. This kind of research simply doesn't exist for lycopene supplements.
What should I do now?It's always a good idea to talk to your doctor before taking supplements. People often assume that vitamins and similar products are safe, because they tend to come from "natural" sources. That's not always the case. In 1996, a large trial of beta-carotene and vitamin A was stopped early, because the supplements increased the risk of lung cancer for smokers and other vulnerable groups.
Most heart specialists would advise people to wait for any new drug or modified "natural" product to be clinically proven to offer benefits before taking it. People with heart disease or those at high risk are advised to take medications prescribed by their doctor, which have been proven to work. Following a Mediterranean-style diet with plenty of fruit and vegetables and little saturated fat has also been shown to lower cholesterol, and reduce heart attacks and strokes in those at risk.
Where does the story come from?Ateronon was launched at the British Cardiovascular Society Annual Conference and Exhibition (ACE) 2009, 1-3 June, EcXeL, London
What's all the fuss about?The excitement centres on lycopene, the bright red chemical that gives colour to tomatoes, watermelons, and pink grapefruit. Lycopene belongs to a group of chemicals called antioxidants. Other antioxidants include vitamin C, vitamin E, and beta-carotene.
There's been lots of attention paid to antioxidants because of their potential health benefits. The healthiest diets seem to contain large amounts of antioxidants. For example, a Mediterranean-style diet includes lots of grains, fruits, nuts, and vegetables, while also being low in red meat and saturated fats. There's growing evidence that a Mediterranean-style diet is one of the healthiest ways to eat.
Unfortunately, when researchers have tried to replicate the benefits of a healthy diet in pill form, it hasn't always been successful. The best research so far on antioxidant supplements found no evidence that they could help people live longer.
What's in the new pill?The problem with lycopene is that, in its natural form, it's difficult for the body to absorb. Tomatoes seem to provide more lycopene when they're cooked, and about 85 percent of our intake comes from processed foods, such as tomato juice, ketchup, pizza toppings, and tomato soup. In studies, researchers sometimes use tomato purée as a good source of lycopene.
To create a lycopene supplement in pill form, the food multinational Nestlé developed a combination of lycopene and milk protein. This creates a form of lycopene that's easily absorbed. Nestlé have licensed the product to a company called Cambridge Theranostics, which is marketing the pill under the brand name Ateronon.
Does it work?We asked the manufacturers of Ateronon what evidence they had for their product. They provided a study from 2002 which looked at 33 people. It found that a combination of lycopene and milk protein was absorbed by the body just as well as tomato purée.
The manufacturers also sent a description of two further studies, which looked at 10 and 12 people. Neither of these studies compared lycopene supplements with a placebo, which is an important way of making sure research doesn't give biased results. The two studies found that a lycopene and milk protein supplement reduced a chemical process in the body called oxidation. The theory is that oxidation makes cholesterol more harmful.
It's important to remember that, on its own, high cholesterol isn't an illness. The problem occurs when it builds up in your arteries and increases your risk of heart disease or a stroke. There isn't much point taking a drug or supplement to lower your cholesterol unless it also cuts your risk of these illnesses.
The best treatments for high cholesterol, such as drugs called statins, don't just reduce cholesterol levels. Long-term trials looking at tens of thousands of people have proved that these drugs prevent heart attacks and strokes, and help people to live longer. This kind of research simply doesn't exist for lycopene supplements.
What should I do now?It's always a good idea to talk to your doctor before taking supplements. People often assume that vitamins and similar products are safe, because they tend to come from "natural" sources. That's not always the case. In 1996, a large trial of beta-carotene and vitamin A was stopped early, because the supplements increased the risk of lung cancer for smokers and other vulnerable groups.
Most heart specialists would advise people to wait for any new drug or modified "natural" product to be clinically proven to offer benefits before taking it. People with heart disease or those at high risk are advised to take medications prescribed by their doctor, which have been proven to work. Following a Mediterranean-style diet with plenty of fruit and vegetables and little saturated fat has also been shown to lower cholesterol, and reduce heart attacks and strokes in those at risk.
Where does the story come from?Ateronon was launched at the British Cardiovascular Society Annual Conference and Exhibition (ACE) 2009, 1-3 June, EcXeL, London
Harvard establishes chair in gay and lesbian studies
Harvard University has taken a step towards shrugging off its image as a fusty straight-laced academic institution by endowing America's first named professorship of sexuality.
The chair in lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender studies introduces a discipline still in its infancy into the heart of the country's academic establishment. Its supporters claim that the move by one of the world's most august universities will send a message to other institutions globally that "queer studies", as some call it, has finally arrived.
The new professorship is also being billed as a turning point in the history of Harvard.
"For 25 years we've been in somewhat antagonistic position to the university, pushing it to recognise lesbian and gay rights. Its recognition of the professorship marks a totally new sense of the relationship," said Warren Goldfarb, a Harvard philosophy don.
The chair has been backed by a $1.5m (£920,000) gift from the university's 4,600-strong caucus of gay men and lesbians which will fund an eminent visiting scholar to teach at Harvard on a rotating basis. Some 275 donors supported the campaign.
The chair is named after FO Matthiessen, a prominent Harvard literary professor who was seminal in the early days of the now ubiquitous field of American studies. He contributed to the revival of interest in Henry James and wrote influentially on TS Eliot, DH Lawrence and Walt Whitman.
Matthiessen was a Rhodes scholar at Oxford, and while making a transatlantic crossing in the 1920s he met the American painter Russell Cheney. They forged a relationship that would last for 23 years, living together in Maine and Boston.
Matthiessen's sexuality remained an "open secret". But his devotion to Cheney - he once wrote to his partner that "you'll give me balance, a touch with life" - was fully visible to friends. He went as far as seeking approval for the partnership from fellow members of Skull and Bones, the secret fraternity he joined as an undergraduate at Yale.
Cheney died in 1945, leaving Matthiessen distraught. With pressure also mounting on him over his socialist convictions from Joseph McCarthy's House committee on un-American activities, he jumped to his death from the 12th storey of a Boston hotel in April 1950, aged 48.
The naming of the FO Matthiessen visiting professorship of gender and sexuality, to give its full title, may inspire some controversy in that during his life Matthiessen was not himself entirely frank about being gay.
Tom Parry, former president of the Harvard Gay and Lesbian Caucus, said that Matthiessen was for his day as openly homosexual as he could have been, entertaining friends as a couple with Cheney in their Boston home.
"At the time he was [a] very progressive champion of women's rights, and in today's context he would be delighted to be associated with gay and lesbian rights," Parry said. He added that the organisers of the new chair had received several letters from Matthiessen's former students, now in their eighties and nineties, supporting the association.
Advocates of the new academic programme admit that it represents a scramble to catch up with rival universities. As Parry put it: "Harvard has been fairly far behind other institutions" in its pursuit of sexuality studies.
The first university to adopt gay and lesbian studies is thought to have been the progressive City University of New York in 1986.
After a sticky start, Yale also has a large discipline. It initially turned down an offer to endow a chair made by Larry Kramer, the playwright and Aids activist who wrote the screenplay to Ken Russell's film version of Women in Love. The university later accepted, tail between legs, $1m from Kramer's brother Arthur to set up a programme.
Courses at Duke, Chicago, Pennsylvania, Berkeley, New York, Brown and Rutgers universities have also tended to be ahead of the game.
With its new chair, Harvard hopes to regain the initiative
The chair in lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender studies introduces a discipline still in its infancy into the heart of the country's academic establishment. Its supporters claim that the move by one of the world's most august universities will send a message to other institutions globally that "queer studies", as some call it, has finally arrived.
The new professorship is also being billed as a turning point in the history of Harvard.
"For 25 years we've been in somewhat antagonistic position to the university, pushing it to recognise lesbian and gay rights. Its recognition of the professorship marks a totally new sense of the relationship," said Warren Goldfarb, a Harvard philosophy don.
The chair has been backed by a $1.5m (£920,000) gift from the university's 4,600-strong caucus of gay men and lesbians which will fund an eminent visiting scholar to teach at Harvard on a rotating basis. Some 275 donors supported the campaign.
The chair is named after FO Matthiessen, a prominent Harvard literary professor who was seminal in the early days of the now ubiquitous field of American studies. He contributed to the revival of interest in Henry James and wrote influentially on TS Eliot, DH Lawrence and Walt Whitman.
Matthiessen was a Rhodes scholar at Oxford, and while making a transatlantic crossing in the 1920s he met the American painter Russell Cheney. They forged a relationship that would last for 23 years, living together in Maine and Boston.
Matthiessen's sexuality remained an "open secret". But his devotion to Cheney - he once wrote to his partner that "you'll give me balance, a touch with life" - was fully visible to friends. He went as far as seeking approval for the partnership from fellow members of Skull and Bones, the secret fraternity he joined as an undergraduate at Yale.
Cheney died in 1945, leaving Matthiessen distraught. With pressure also mounting on him over his socialist convictions from Joseph McCarthy's House committee on un-American activities, he jumped to his death from the 12th storey of a Boston hotel in April 1950, aged 48.
The naming of the FO Matthiessen visiting professorship of gender and sexuality, to give its full title, may inspire some controversy in that during his life Matthiessen was not himself entirely frank about being gay.
Tom Parry, former president of the Harvard Gay and Lesbian Caucus, said that Matthiessen was for his day as openly homosexual as he could have been, entertaining friends as a couple with Cheney in their Boston home.
"At the time he was [a] very progressive champion of women's rights, and in today's context he would be delighted to be associated with gay and lesbian rights," Parry said. He added that the organisers of the new chair had received several letters from Matthiessen's former students, now in their eighties and nineties, supporting the association.
Advocates of the new academic programme admit that it represents a scramble to catch up with rival universities. As Parry put it: "Harvard has been fairly far behind other institutions" in its pursuit of sexuality studies.
The first university to adopt gay and lesbian studies is thought to have been the progressive City University of New York in 1986.
After a sticky start, Yale also has a large discipline. It initially turned down an offer to endow a chair made by Larry Kramer, the playwright and Aids activist who wrote the screenplay to Ken Russell's film version of Women in Love. The university later accepted, tail between legs, $1m from Kramer's brother Arthur to set up a programme.
Courses at Duke, Chicago, Pennsylvania, Berkeley, New York, Brown and Rutgers universities have also tended to be ahead of the game.
With its new chair, Harvard hopes to regain the initiative
Pregnant Briton jailed for life in Laos for heroin trafficking
Orobator, the pregnant London woman arrested on drug trafficking charges in Laos last year, was jailed for life today after a brief trial in the capital, Vientiane.
She is likely to be allowed to serve her sentence in the United Kingdom, following the signing of a prisoner transfer treaty by both countries last month.
Orobator, 20, from Peckham, south London, avoided a potential death sentence on the grounds of her pregnancy. The Lao authorities required her to sign a statement before her trial saying that she had not been raped or sexually abused while in custody. Her baby is due in September and she was arrested last August.
A Foreign Office spokesperson confirmed the sentence and British consular officials from Bangkok were present in court for the hearing. "We will be in contact with her to discuss her options," said a spokesperson. It is possible that she will be able to fly back to the UK before the end of the month.
Although Orobator has been sentenced to life, she may be eligible for release in the UK after a few years, as it is her first offence and a defence of duress has been advanced.
Orobator was stopped at Wattay international airport just outside the capital and her luggage searched last August. Inside her case, officials found 0.68 kg (1.5lb) of heroin, an amount that brings a charge of trafficking rather than possession under Lao law.
She initially denied that the drugs were hers. She was taken to the Phonthong prison, which human rights groups suggest provides a low standard of care. Attempts by the human rights group Reprieve to have a private meeting with her were rebuffed by the Lao authorities.
Orobator's mother, Jane, who lives in Dublin with three of her other children but has been in Laos for the last two weeks, said her daughter appeared to be in good health. Earlier she said that for her daughter to be involved in drugs trafficking was "totally out of character".
"She is very fragile, just a little thing," she said.
Although there are 85 people on death row in Laos, there
She is likely to be allowed to serve her sentence in the United Kingdom, following the signing of a prisoner transfer treaty by both countries last month.
Orobator, 20, from Peckham, south London, avoided a potential death sentence on the grounds of her pregnancy. The Lao authorities required her to sign a statement before her trial saying that she had not been raped or sexually abused while in custody. Her baby is due in September and she was arrested last August.
A Foreign Office spokesperson confirmed the sentence and British consular officials from Bangkok were present in court for the hearing. "We will be in contact with her to discuss her options," said a spokesperson. It is possible that she will be able to fly back to the UK before the end of the month.
Although Orobator has been sentenced to life, she may be eligible for release in the UK after a few years, as it is her first offence and a defence of duress has been advanced.
Orobator was stopped at Wattay international airport just outside the capital and her luggage searched last August. Inside her case, officials found 0.68 kg (1.5lb) of heroin, an amount that brings a charge of trafficking rather than possession under Lao law.
She initially denied that the drugs were hers. She was taken to the Phonthong prison, which human rights groups suggest provides a low standard of care. Attempts by the human rights group Reprieve to have a private meeting with her were rebuffed by the Lao authorities.
Orobator's mother, Jane, who lives in Dublin with three of her other children but has been in Laos for the last two weeks, said her daughter appeared to be in good health. Earlier she said that for her daughter to be involved in drugs trafficking was "totally out of character".
"She is very fragile, just a little thing," she said.
Although there are 85 people on death row in Laos, there
Profile: Hafiz Mohammad Saeed - a fugitive India wants be arrested
The founder of the Pakistani-based Lashkar-e-Taiba militant group is a free man after the High Court in Lahore ordered his release, in spite of the apparent efforts of the Pakistani government to keep him under detention.
Hafiz Mohammad Saeed was put under house arrest on 11 December 2008 when the United Nations declared his controversial Islamic charity, Jamaat-ud-Dawa, to be a front for Lashkar.
The sanctions came days after the November 2008 Mumbai (Bombay) attacks which the Indian government blamed on Lashkar.
India's position was vindicated when the Pakistani government later acknowledged that "part" of the conspiracy to attack Mumbai did take place on its soil, and that Lashkar had been involved.
Prolonged detentions
It made several arrests in connection with the attacks, but no criminal charges were brought against Mr Saeed.
Instead, he was detained under the Maintenance of Public Order (MPO) law which lawyers say empowers the government to arrest individuals who are likely to disrupt public order.
The law allows such detentions only for a limited period, and courts often set aside prolonged detentions under the MPO.
This is the second time since 2006 that a court has ordered Mr Saeed's release from detention under the MPO law.
In August 2006, he was detained for activities which the government said were "detrimental" to its relations with other governments. The court ordered his release in December that year.
Significantly, both these detentions came at a time of mounting international pressure on Pakistan to reign in Lashkar.
On both occasions, the government arrested Mr Saeed but brought no criminal charges against him.
Pakistan's actions against the group as a whole have also been rather tentative, apparently taken under outside pressure.
It proscribed Lashkar in January 2002 after the US put it on its list of terrorist organisations.
Likewise, it proscribed Jamaat-ud-Dawa in December 2008 after the UN imposed sanctions on the charity.
This raised eyebrows in Pakistan where the links between the militant and social welfare wings of some groups are often not clear.
Since 9/11, some organisations banned by the US or Pakistan have continued to operate under different aliases, portraying themselves as welfare rather than militant outfits.
Propaganda network
In some cases it appears that the authorities have turned a blind eye when militant groups have simply renamed themselves and continued operating as before.
The Lashkar-e-Taiba/Jamaat-ud-Dawa combination would appear to be one such case.
Lashkar-e-Taiba was an offshoot of Jamaat-ud-Dawa wal-Irshad, a preaching, publishing and propaganda network set up by Hafiz Saeed for jihad (holy war) in Afghanistan in 1985.
Abdullah Uzzam, a Palestinian scholar and one of the earliest Arab ideologues of jihad in Afghanistan, was a co-founder.
Mr Saeed raised Lashkar as the militant wing of the organisation in the early 1990s, when many militant groups started shifting from Afghanistan to Kashmir after the Soviet Union had pulled out of Afghanistan.
Subsequently, Lashkar's rise as a major Pakistani group operating in Kashmir is widely credited to Mr Saeed's close links with the Pakistani military and the intelligence services.
The group also had access to huge funds from Middle Eastern mosques and a countrywide network to raise donations locally.
After 9/11, the group came under increasing international pressure, principally because of its involvement in some high-profile attacks in Indian-administered Kashmir and cities in India.
The Indians blamed the group for attacks in Mumbai and Delhi in 2003, 2005 and 2008.
It was also named in connection with armed raids on Delhi's Red Fort in December 2000 and on the Indian parliament a year later.
Signboards changed
Days before Lashkar was proscribed by former Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf in January 2002, Hafiz Saeed revived the group's parent organisation, Jamaat-ud-Dawa wal-Irshad, and amended its name.
The name of Lashkar-e-Taiba was replaced with that of Jamaat-ud-Dawa, as it is now called, on the signboards of the group's offices and recruiting centres around Pakistan.
But there was no significant change in the nature of its activities.
Their offices continued to recruit fighters for militant training camps occupied by Lashkar-e-Taiba in Pakistani-administered Kashmir.
The presence of militants in those camps made it possible for them to start early rescue missions in the aftermath of the earthquake that hit the Kashmir region in October 2005.
That enabled the Musharraf government to portray Dawa as an efficient relief organisation working closely with the Pakistan army as well as UN agencies in the quake-hit areas.
Since it was banned, Lashkar-e-Taiba has experienced some defections from its ranks by elements not happy with Pakistan's policy of easing tensions with India.
But independent observers believe the bulk of the organisation has remained united under the clandestine leadership of Hafiz Saeed.
These observers also point out that Lashkar has remained more loyal to Islamabad's policies than other militant groups, and has remained comparatively more focused on India.
For this reason, the group has become unpopular with militant factions fighting the Pakistani army in Swat and the tribal region.
Many also suspect Mr Saeed and other Dawa leaders of having played a role in the 2002 arrest of some top al-Qaeda operatives in Pakistan.
These operatives, including a top al-Qaeda leader, Abu Zubaydah, were arrested from a Lashkar safe house in the city of Faisalabad.
Hafiz Mohammad Saeed was put under house arrest on 11 December 2008 when the United Nations declared his controversial Islamic charity, Jamaat-ud-Dawa, to be a front for Lashkar.
The sanctions came days after the November 2008 Mumbai (Bombay) attacks which the Indian government blamed on Lashkar.
India's position was vindicated when the Pakistani government later acknowledged that "part" of the conspiracy to attack Mumbai did take place on its soil, and that Lashkar had been involved.
Prolonged detentions
It made several arrests in connection with the attacks, but no criminal charges were brought against Mr Saeed.
Instead, he was detained under the Maintenance of Public Order (MPO) law which lawyers say empowers the government to arrest individuals who are likely to disrupt public order.
The law allows such detentions only for a limited period, and courts often set aside prolonged detentions under the MPO.
This is the second time since 2006 that a court has ordered Mr Saeed's release from detention under the MPO law.
In August 2006, he was detained for activities which the government said were "detrimental" to its relations with other governments. The court ordered his release in December that year.
Significantly, both these detentions came at a time of mounting international pressure on Pakistan to reign in Lashkar.
On both occasions, the government arrested Mr Saeed but brought no criminal charges against him.
Pakistan's actions against the group as a whole have also been rather tentative, apparently taken under outside pressure.
It proscribed Lashkar in January 2002 after the US put it on its list of terrorist organisations.
Likewise, it proscribed Jamaat-ud-Dawa in December 2008 after the UN imposed sanctions on the charity.
This raised eyebrows in Pakistan where the links between the militant and social welfare wings of some groups are often not clear.
Since 9/11, some organisations banned by the US or Pakistan have continued to operate under different aliases, portraying themselves as welfare rather than militant outfits.
Propaganda network
In some cases it appears that the authorities have turned a blind eye when militant groups have simply renamed themselves and continued operating as before.
The Lashkar-e-Taiba/Jamaat-ud-Dawa combination would appear to be one such case.
Lashkar-e-Taiba was an offshoot of Jamaat-ud-Dawa wal-Irshad, a preaching, publishing and propaganda network set up by Hafiz Saeed for jihad (holy war) in Afghanistan in 1985.
Abdullah Uzzam, a Palestinian scholar and one of the earliest Arab ideologues of jihad in Afghanistan, was a co-founder.
Mr Saeed raised Lashkar as the militant wing of the organisation in the early 1990s, when many militant groups started shifting from Afghanistan to Kashmir after the Soviet Union had pulled out of Afghanistan.
Subsequently, Lashkar's rise as a major Pakistani group operating in Kashmir is widely credited to Mr Saeed's close links with the Pakistani military and the intelligence services.
The group also had access to huge funds from Middle Eastern mosques and a countrywide network to raise donations locally.
After 9/11, the group came under increasing international pressure, principally because of its involvement in some high-profile attacks in Indian-administered Kashmir and cities in India.
The Indians blamed the group for attacks in Mumbai and Delhi in 2003, 2005 and 2008.
It was also named in connection with armed raids on Delhi's Red Fort in December 2000 and on the Indian parliament a year later.
Signboards changed
Days before Lashkar was proscribed by former Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf in January 2002, Hafiz Saeed revived the group's parent organisation, Jamaat-ud-Dawa wal-Irshad, and amended its name.
The name of Lashkar-e-Taiba was replaced with that of Jamaat-ud-Dawa, as it is now called, on the signboards of the group's offices and recruiting centres around Pakistan.
But there was no significant change in the nature of its activities.
Their offices continued to recruit fighters for militant training camps occupied by Lashkar-e-Taiba in Pakistani-administered Kashmir.
The presence of militants in those camps made it possible for them to start early rescue missions in the aftermath of the earthquake that hit the Kashmir region in October 2005.
That enabled the Musharraf government to portray Dawa as an efficient relief organisation working closely with the Pakistan army as well as UN agencies in the quake-hit areas.
Since it was banned, Lashkar-e-Taiba has experienced some defections from its ranks by elements not happy with Pakistan's policy of easing tensions with India.
But independent observers believe the bulk of the organisation has remained united under the clandestine leadership of Hafiz Saeed.
These observers also point out that Lashkar has remained more loyal to Islamabad's policies than other militant groups, and has remained comparatively more focused on India.
For this reason, the group has become unpopular with militant factions fighting the Pakistani army in Swat and the tribal region.
Many also suspect Mr Saeed and other Dawa leaders of having played a role in the 2002 arrest of some top al-Qaeda operatives in Pakistan.
These operatives, including a top al-Qaeda leader, Abu Zubaydah, were arrested from a Lashkar safe house in the city of Faisalabad.
Armstrong's 'poetic' slip on Moon
Neil Armstrong missed out an "a" and did not say "one small step for a man" when he set foot on the Moon in 1969, a linguistic analysis has confirmed.
The researchers show for the first time that he intended to say "a man" and that the "a" may have been lost because he was under pressure.
They say that although the phrase was not strictly correct, it was poetic.
And in its rhythm and the symmetry of its delivery, it perfectly captured the mood of an epic moment in history.
There is also new evidence that his inspirational first words were spoken completely spontaneously - rather than being pre-scripted for him by Nasa or by the White House.
In the recording of Neil Armstrong's iconic phrase he says: "One small step for man. One giant leap for mankind". However, "man" and "mankind" mean much the same thing in this context.
But on returning to Earth, he explained that he thought he had said "one small step for a man".
Explanations offered for the discrepancy are that perhaps transmission static wiped out the "a" or that Commander Armstrong's Ohio accent meant that his "a's" were spoken softly.
In 2006, an analysis by an Australian entrepreneur added credence to these explanations - as it found there was a gap for the "a". However, subsequent analyses disputed this conclusion.
To settle the argument, Dr Chris Riley, author of the new Haynes book Apollo 11, An Owner's Manual, and forensic linguist John Olsson carried out the most detailed analysis yet of Neil Armstrong's speech patterns.
"For me that phrase is of great significance," said Dr Riley.
"It has been an important part of my life and those words sum up much of the optimism of the later part of the 20th Century."
Using archive material of Neil Armstrong speaking, recorded throughout and after the mission, Riley and Olsson also studied the best recordings of the Apollo 11 mission audio ever released by Nasa.
They have been taken from the original magnetic tape recordings made at Johnson Space Center, Houston, which have recently been re-digitised to make uncompressed, higher-fidelity audio recordings.
These are discernibly clearer than earlier, more heavily compressed recordings used by the Australian investigation.
These clearer recordings indicate that there was not room for an "a". A voice print spectrograph clearly shows the "r" in "for" and "m" in "man" running into each other.
The researchers say the Australian analysis may not have picked up the fact that Armstrong drawled the word "for" so that it sounded like "ferr" and mistook the softly spoken "r's" for a gap.
"It's perfectly clear that there was absolutely no room for the word 'a'," Mr Olsson explained.
Riley and Olsson also concluded that Commander Armstrong and his family members do pronounce the word "a" in a discernible way.
And based on broadcasts from Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin from the surface of the Moon, it is clear that the word "a" was easily transmitted to Earth without being obliterated.
But their analysis of the intonation of the phrase strongly suggests Commander Armstrong had intended to say "a man". There is a rising pitch in the word "man" and a falling pitch when he says "mankind".
According to Mr Olsson: "This indicates that he’s doing what we all do in our speech, he was contrasting using speech - indicating that he knows the difference between man and mankind and that he meant man as in 'a man' not 'humanity'."
There has also been speculation that Neil Armstrong was reading from a pre-prepared script penned for him by another party. According to Mr Olsson, that is not borne out by Armstrong's body language and speech patterns.
"When you look at the pictures, you see that he's moving as he is speaking. He says his first word 'that's' at the moment he puts his foot on the ground. When he says 'one giant leap for mankind', he moves his body," he said.
"As well as this, there is no linking conjunction such as 'and' or 'but' between the two parts of the sentence. So it's for all those reasons that we think this is a completely spontaneous speech."
It may well have been that spontaneity that led to Armstrong's slight mistake. But according to Mr Olsson - Armstrong may have subconsciously drawn from his poetic instincts to utter a phrase that, far from being incorrect - was perfect for the moment.
"When you look at the whole expression there's a symmetry about this. If you put the word 'a' in, it would totally alter the poetic balance of the expression," he explained.
This makes Dr Riley feel that the research has made a positive contribution to the story of the Apollo mission.
"I’m pleased we've been able to contribute in this way and have hopefully drawn a line under the whole thing as a celebration of Neil and everyone involved with Apollo, rather than this constant little niggling criticism," he said.
The researchers show for the first time that he intended to say "a man" and that the "a" may have been lost because he was under pressure.
They say that although the phrase was not strictly correct, it was poetic.
And in its rhythm and the symmetry of its delivery, it perfectly captured the mood of an epic moment in history.
There is also new evidence that his inspirational first words were spoken completely spontaneously - rather than being pre-scripted for him by Nasa or by the White House.
In the recording of Neil Armstrong's iconic phrase he says: "One small step for man. One giant leap for mankind". However, "man" and "mankind" mean much the same thing in this context.
But on returning to Earth, he explained that he thought he had said "one small step for a man".
Explanations offered for the discrepancy are that perhaps transmission static wiped out the "a" or that Commander Armstrong's Ohio accent meant that his "a's" were spoken softly.
In 2006, an analysis by an Australian entrepreneur added credence to these explanations - as it found there was a gap for the "a". However, subsequent analyses disputed this conclusion.
To settle the argument, Dr Chris Riley, author of the new Haynes book Apollo 11, An Owner's Manual, and forensic linguist John Olsson carried out the most detailed analysis yet of Neil Armstrong's speech patterns.
"For me that phrase is of great significance," said Dr Riley.
"It has been an important part of my life and those words sum up much of the optimism of the later part of the 20th Century."
Using archive material of Neil Armstrong speaking, recorded throughout and after the mission, Riley and Olsson also studied the best recordings of the Apollo 11 mission audio ever released by Nasa.
They have been taken from the original magnetic tape recordings made at Johnson Space Center, Houston, which have recently been re-digitised to make uncompressed, higher-fidelity audio recordings.
These are discernibly clearer than earlier, more heavily compressed recordings used by the Australian investigation.
These clearer recordings indicate that there was not room for an "a". A voice print spectrograph clearly shows the "r" in "for" and "m" in "man" running into each other.
The researchers say the Australian analysis may not have picked up the fact that Armstrong drawled the word "for" so that it sounded like "ferr" and mistook the softly spoken "r's" for a gap.
"It's perfectly clear that there was absolutely no room for the word 'a'," Mr Olsson explained.
Riley and Olsson also concluded that Commander Armstrong and his family members do pronounce the word "a" in a discernible way.
And based on broadcasts from Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin from the surface of the Moon, it is clear that the word "a" was easily transmitted to Earth without being obliterated.
But their analysis of the intonation of the phrase strongly suggests Commander Armstrong had intended to say "a man". There is a rising pitch in the word "man" and a falling pitch when he says "mankind".
According to Mr Olsson: "This indicates that he’s doing what we all do in our speech, he was contrasting using speech - indicating that he knows the difference between man and mankind and that he meant man as in 'a man' not 'humanity'."
There has also been speculation that Neil Armstrong was reading from a pre-prepared script penned for him by another party. According to Mr Olsson, that is not borne out by Armstrong's body language and speech patterns.
"When you look at the pictures, you see that he's moving as he is speaking. He says his first word 'that's' at the moment he puts his foot on the ground. When he says 'one giant leap for mankind', he moves his body," he said.
"As well as this, there is no linking conjunction such as 'and' or 'but' between the two parts of the sentence. So it's for all those reasons that we think this is a completely spontaneous speech."
It may well have been that spontaneity that led to Armstrong's slight mistake. But according to Mr Olsson - Armstrong may have subconsciously drawn from his poetic instincts to utter a phrase that, far from being incorrect - was perfect for the moment.
"When you look at the whole expression there's a symmetry about this. If you put the word 'a' in, it would totally alter the poetic balance of the expression," he explained.
This makes Dr Riley feel that the research has made a positive contribution to the story of the Apollo mission.
"I’m pleased we've been able to contribute in this way and have hopefully drawn a line under the whole thing as a celebration of Neil and everyone involved with Apollo, rather than this constant little niggling criticism," he said.
US presses China over Tiananmen
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has urged China to publicly account for those killed in the suppression of the Tiananmen Square protests 20 years ago.
Mrs Clinton said China should release those still held over the protests and stop harassing those who took part.
Hundreds, possibly thousands, of people died in the crackdown in Beijing, and open discussion of the events of 20 years ago remains taboo in China.
China has boosted security ahead of Thursday's anniversary of the killings.
Many dissidents say they have been told to leave Beijing or are confined to their homes.
Even in Hong Kong, where freedom of expression is guaranteed, some dissidents have been denied entry.
But Mrs Clinton said in a statement that the anniversary was a chance for China to "reflect upon the meaning of the events that preceded that day".
She said China "should examine openly the darker events of its past and provide a public accounting of those killed, detained or missing, both to learn and to heal."
"China can honour the memory of that day by moving to give the rule of law, protection of internationally-recognised human rights, and democratic development the same priority as it has given to economic reform," she added.
Turned away
The statement represents a tougher line than the Obama administration has taken so far when addressing China's human rights record, the BBC's Kim Ghattas reports from Washington
She says Mrs Clinton had disappointed activists at the start of her tenure by saying human rights should not interfere in discussions with China about other issues, like climate change and North Korea.
The Chinese Communist Party has never held an official inquiry into what happened in and around the square 20 years ago, and discussion of the issue is banned on the mainland.
Earlier on Wednesday, Xiang Xiaoji, now a US citizen, was trying to come to Hong Kong on Wednesday to join commemorative events being held to mark the anniversary. But he was refused entry and returned to New York.
Another prominent protest leader, Wu'er Kaixi, flew from his home in Taiwan to Macau on Wednesday, but was detained on arrival.
Mr Kaixi told reporters that he had wanted to go from Macau into mainland China, to see his parents.
Tiananmen Mothers
On the eve of the anniversary, police have been examining visitors at checkpoints dotted around Tiananmen Square, and checking the bags and papers of people in the area
Some journalists say they have been turned away from the site.
Ding Zilin, the head of a group called Tiananmen Mothers - made up of women whose children were shot dead in the crackdown - has reportedly been blocked from leaving her home, as has the wife of jailed dissident Hu Jia.
Bao Tong - a former official who was purged for sympathising with the Tiananmen protesters - was escorted out of Beijing last week.
In the run-up to the anniversary, the authorities are also blocking social networking sites such as Twitter and Flickr.
Even the architect of Beijing's Bird's Nest Olympic stadium, Ai Weiwei, says his blogs have been blocked.
"Three of my blogs have all been shut down," he told the BBC. "I don't know the exact reason, but I can sense it's about the coming-up anniversary."
Influence from Beijing?
In Hong Kong, too, there is evidence of pre-anniversary sensitivitiesWhile one exiled Tiananmen leader, Xiong Yan, was allowed into Hong Kong at the weekend, another student leader, Xiang Xiaoji, and a Danish sculptor who made a statue entitled Pillar of Shame were both denied entry.
As a former British colony, Hong Kong is guaranteed autonomy and freedom of expression by the Chinese, but bans on Mr Xiang and others are adding to a growing sense of unease over how solid the territory's rights record really is.
According to the BBC's Vaudine England in Hong Kong, the ruling elite of Beijing-appointed civil servants and powerful business figures believes closeness to Beijing is the only guarantee of survival.
Yet the majority of Hong Kong people consistently suggest in surveys that they want the freedoms they were promised
Mrs Clinton said China should release those still held over the protests and stop harassing those who took part.
Hundreds, possibly thousands, of people died in the crackdown in Beijing, and open discussion of the events of 20 years ago remains taboo in China.
China has boosted security ahead of Thursday's anniversary of the killings.
Many dissidents say they have been told to leave Beijing or are confined to their homes.
Even in Hong Kong, where freedom of expression is guaranteed, some dissidents have been denied entry.
But Mrs Clinton said in a statement that the anniversary was a chance for China to "reflect upon the meaning of the events that preceded that day".
She said China "should examine openly the darker events of its past and provide a public accounting of those killed, detained or missing, both to learn and to heal."
"China can honour the memory of that day by moving to give the rule of law, protection of internationally-recognised human rights, and democratic development the same priority as it has given to economic reform," she added.
Turned away
The statement represents a tougher line than the Obama administration has taken so far when addressing China's human rights record, the BBC's Kim Ghattas reports from Washington
She says Mrs Clinton had disappointed activists at the start of her tenure by saying human rights should not interfere in discussions with China about other issues, like climate change and North Korea.
The Chinese Communist Party has never held an official inquiry into what happened in and around the square 20 years ago, and discussion of the issue is banned on the mainland.
Earlier on Wednesday, Xiang Xiaoji, now a US citizen, was trying to come to Hong Kong on Wednesday to join commemorative events being held to mark the anniversary. But he was refused entry and returned to New York.
Another prominent protest leader, Wu'er Kaixi, flew from his home in Taiwan to Macau on Wednesday, but was detained on arrival.
Mr Kaixi told reporters that he had wanted to go from Macau into mainland China, to see his parents.
Tiananmen Mothers
On the eve of the anniversary, police have been examining visitors at checkpoints dotted around Tiananmen Square, and checking the bags and papers of people in the area
Some journalists say they have been turned away from the site.
Ding Zilin, the head of a group called Tiananmen Mothers - made up of women whose children were shot dead in the crackdown - has reportedly been blocked from leaving her home, as has the wife of jailed dissident Hu Jia.
Bao Tong - a former official who was purged for sympathising with the Tiananmen protesters - was escorted out of Beijing last week.
In the run-up to the anniversary, the authorities are also blocking social networking sites such as Twitter and Flickr.
Even the architect of Beijing's Bird's Nest Olympic stadium, Ai Weiwei, says his blogs have been blocked.
"Three of my blogs have all been shut down," he told the BBC. "I don't know the exact reason, but I can sense it's about the coming-up anniversary."
Influence from Beijing?
In Hong Kong, too, there is evidence of pre-anniversary sensitivitiesWhile one exiled Tiananmen leader, Xiong Yan, was allowed into Hong Kong at the weekend, another student leader, Xiang Xiaoji, and a Danish sculptor who made a statue entitled Pillar of Shame were both denied entry.
As a former British colony, Hong Kong is guaranteed autonomy and freedom of expression by the Chinese, but bans on Mr Xiang and others are adding to a growing sense of unease over how solid the territory's rights record really is.
According to the BBC's Vaudine England in Hong Kong, the ruling elite of Beijing-appointed civil servants and powerful business figures believes closeness to Beijing is the only guarantee of survival.
Yet the majority of Hong Kong people consistently suggest in surveys that they want the freedoms they were promised
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)