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.”
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)