California backs a 'fiscal cliff' compromise — sort of, poll says

As America careens toward the year-end "fiscal cliff" with Democrats pressing for tax hikes and Republicans demanding budget cuts, California voters have one firm word for their elected officials:

Compromise.

By that they mean: Make the other side compromise.

In a survey that confirms the difficulty of coming up with popular ways to do unpopular things, a USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times poll found that 3 in 5 Californians want their elected officials to "compromise with the opposite party, even if that means giving up some long-held positions."

But things foundered on the details.

When Democrats were asked whether cuts in Medicare and Social Security benefits should be offered to get Republican agreement on some tax hikes, or whether all reductions were off the table, they strongly opposed any benefit cuts.

When Republicans were asked whether some revenue hikes should be accepted to get Democrats to agree to benefit cuts, they just as firmly opposed any tax increases.

The independent voters in the middle sided with Democrats in saying that benefits should not be sacrificed for tax hikes. Only narrowly did they say that Republicans should agree to raise taxes as part of a budget deal that would also slice benefits.

In short, the state that is often cast as far out on the fringe of the nation's political thought demonstrated that it has at least this in common with everywhere else: defining compromise as a one-way street.

"People are in favor of compromise as long as other people are doing the compromising," said David Kanevsky of the Republican firm American Viewpoint, half of a bipartisan duo that conducted the poll for The Times and the USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences.

The poll also confirmed the outcome of last week's election, in which President Obama won a second romping victory in California. There was broad support for the president and his campaign proposal to raise taxes on incomes over $250,000 a year.

Given a choice of three options loudly debated in the campaign, 51% of Californians said the George W. Bush administration tax cuts set to expire at the end of the year should be left in place for those making less than that amount. Only 28% took the position espoused by Republican leaders that all of the tax cuts should remain in place. A smaller group still, 17%, said everyone's taxes should be raised to help cut the nation's deficit.

"This is a difficult problem to solve, but the president's agenda came out of this in a strong position in California," said Drew Lieberman of Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research, the Democratic poll partner of American Viewpoint.

When budget options for the fight now brewing in Washington were proposed separately, California was generally in line with voters elsewhere in the nation. Voters took a measured approach to taxes, weren't keen on cutting the defense budget and objected strenuously to cuts in social programs, Medicare and Social Security. Essentially, they endorsed the stalemate that has blocked both parties from attacking the federal deficit.

Asked whether taxes should be raised wholesale, Californians objected, 54% to 43%. Anti-tax feelings were shared by unusual bedfellows: 79% of Republicans, 65% of Latinos, 60% of those making less than $50,000 a year.

Sentiment flipped when it came to raising taxes on those making more than $250,000 a year, an option supported by 67% of respondents; 31% opposed it. Most major demographic and ideological groups, except for Republicans, strongly backed such a move. Even those most directly affected — those making more than $100,000 — favored a tax hike by a 24-percentage-point margin.

When it came to budget cuts, Californians were split on whether to cut defense spending by $600 billion, as required in the budget deal agreed to by Obama and Republicans last year. Democrats backed the cuts by almost 2 to 1, while independent voters gave it narrow support and Republicans strongly objected.

No substitute cuts passed muster, however. Seventy percent of Californians rejected replacing the defense cuts with ones to spending on education and healthcare. All major groups but Republicans shared that view; Republicans were split on domestic cuts.

Objections ran even stronger to proposed reductions in Medicare and Social Security benefits, part of the turf on which the presidential campaign was fought. At least 4 in 5 white voters, Latinos and Democrats rejected such cuts, as did 75% of Republicans and independent voters.

"You have to feel bad for voters," said poll director Dan Schnur of the Jesse M. Unruh School of Politics at USC. "After a yearlong presidential campaign, no one has bothered to tell them that raising taxes on people making over $250,000 does not balance the federal budget. No one on either side.

Read More..

In Britain, spate of prosecutions for Twitter and Facebook tirades spark free-speech debate

LONDON – One teenager made offensive comments about a murdered child on Twitter. Another young man wrote on Facebook that British soldiers should “go to hell.” A third posted a picture of a burning paper poppy, symbol of remembrance of war dead.

All were arrested, two convicted, and one jailed — and they’re not the only ones. In Britain, hundreds of people are prosecuted each year for posts, tweets, texts and emails deemed menacing, indecent, offensive or obscene, and the number is growing as our online lives expand.

Lawyers say the mounting tally shows the problems of a legal system trying to regulate 21st century communications with 20th century laws. Civil libertarians say it is a threat to free speech in an age when the Internet gives everyone the power to be heard around the world.

“Fifty years ago someone would have made a really offensive comment in a public space and it would have been heard by relatively few people,” said Mike Harris of free-speech group Index on Censorship. “Now someone posts a picture of a burning poppy on Facebook and potentially hundreds of thousands of people can see it.

“People take it upon themselves to report this offensive material to police, and suddenly you’ve got the criminalization of offensive speech.”

Figures obtained by The Associated Press through a freedom of information request show a steadily rising tally of prosecutions in Britain for electronic communications — phone calls, emails and social media posts — that are “grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character — from 1,263 in 2009 to 1,843 in 2011. The number of convictions grew from 873 in 2009 to 1,286 last year.

Behind the figures are people — mostly young, many teenagers — who find that a glib online remark can have life-altering consequences.

No one knows this better than Paul Chambers, who in January 2010, worried that snow would stop him catching a flight to visit his girlfriend, tweeted: “Crap! Robin Hood airport is closed. You’ve got a week and a bit to get your (expletive) together otherwise I’m blowing the airport sky high.”

A week later, anti-terrorist police showed up at the office where he worked as a financial supervisor.

Chambers was arrested, questioned for eight hours, charged, tried, convicted and fined. He lost his job, amassed thousands of pounds (dollars) in legal costs and was, he says, “essentially unemployable” because of his criminal record.

But Chambers, now 28, was lucky. His case garnered attention online, generating its own hashtag — (hash)twitterjoketrial — and bringing high-profile Twitter users, including actor and comedian Stephen Fry, to his defence.

In July, two and half years after Chambers’ arrest, the High Court overturned his conviction. Justice Igor Judge said in his judgment that the law should not prevent “satirical or iconoclastic or rude comment, the expression of unpopular or unfashionable opinion about serious or trivial matters, banter or humour, even if distasteful to some or painful to those subjected to it.”

But the cases are coming thick and fast. Last month, 19-year-old Matthew Woods was sentenced to 12 weeks in jail for making offensive tweets about a missing 5-year-old girl, April Jones.

The same month Azhar Ahmed, 20, was sentenced to 240 hours of community service for writing on Facebook that soldiers “should die and go to hell” after six British troops were killed in Afghanistan. Ahmed had quickly deleted the post, which he said was written in anger, but was convicted anyway.

On Sunday — Remembrance Day — a 19-year-old man was arrested in southern England after police received a complaint about a photo on Facebook showing the burning of a paper poppy. He was held for 24 hours before being released on bail and could face charges.

For civil libertarians, this was the most painfully ironic arrest of all. Poppies are traditionally worn to commemorate the sacrifice of those who died for Britain and its freedoms.

“What was the point of winning either World War if, in 2012, someone can be casually arrested by Kent Police for burning a poppy?” tweeted David Allen Green, a lawyer with London firm Preiskel who worked on the Paul Chambers case.

Critics of the existing laws say they are both inadequate and inconsistent.

Many of the charges come under a section of the 2003 Electronic Communications Act, an update of a 1930s statute intended to protect telephone operators from harassment. The law was drafted before Facebook and Twitter were born, and some lawyers say is not suited to policing social media, where users often have little control over who reads their words.

It and related laws were intended to deal with hate mail or menacing phone calls to individuals, but they are being used to prosecute in cases where there seems to be no individual victim — and often no direct threat.

And the Internet is so vast that policing it — even if desirable — is a hit-and-miss affair. For every offensive remark that draws attention, hundreds are ignored. Conversely, comments that people thought were made only to their Facebook friends or Twitter followers can flash around the world.

While the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that First Amendment protections of freedom of speech apply to the Internet, restrictions on online expression in other Western democracies vary widely.

In Germany, where it is an offence to deny the Holocaust, a neo-Nazi group has had its Twitter account blocked. Twitter has said it also could agree to block content in other countries at the request of their authorities.

There’s no doubt many people in Britain have genuinely felt offended or even threatened by online messages. The Sun tabloid has launched a campaign calling for tougher penalties for online “trolls” who bully people on the Web. But others in a country with a cherished image as a bastion of free speech are sensitive to signs of a clampdown.

In September Britain’s chief prosecutor, Keir Starmer, announced plans to draw up new guidelines for social media prosecutions. Starmer said he recognized that too many prosecutions “will have a chilling effect on free speech.”

“I think the threshold for prosecution has to be high,” he told the BBC.

Starmer is due to publish the new guidelines in the next few weeks. But Chambers — reluctant poster boy of online free speech — is worried nothing will change.

“For a couple of weeks after the appeal, we got word of judges actually quoting the case in similar instances and the charges being dropped,” said Chambers, who today works for his brother’s warehouse company. “We thought, ‘Fantastic! That’s exactly what we fought for.’ But since then we’ve had cases in the opposite direction. So I don’t know if lessons have been learned, really.”

___

Jill Lawless can be reached at http://Twitter.com/JillLawless

Social Media News Headlines – Yahoo! News

Read More..

Lisa Whelchel Has West Nile Virus

TV Watch

Survivor

By Steve Helling

11/15/2012 at 07:30 AM EST

Lisa Whelchel

Scott Kirkland/PictureGroup

She has been plotting and scheming her way through Survivor: Philippines, but now Lisa Whelchel is facing another challenge: She is fighting the West Nile virus.

On Tuesday, the newly single former Facts of Life star, 49, tweeted her diagnosis. "Dr. just called with blood test results...I have West Nile. Ugh. I'm fine, just tired. Takes a year to recover," she wrote.

There is no indication that her diagnosis is related to her stint on Survivor, which wrapped up filming in April. Although the disease is spread by mosquitoes, there have been nearly 4,000 cases in the U.S. this year. The symptoms include fatigue and body aches.

Although battling West Nile isn't the type of challenge Whelchel wants, she told PEOPLE in September that she looks at life as one big adventure.

After signing up for Survivor, "I didn't have one moment where I regretted being out there," she said. "In fact, the contrary. I was having an adventure; I was doing something that was a challenge, that was very hard."

Whelchel later Tweeted her thanks to well-wishers, adding that she's "expecting a full recovery."

Read More..

Changing of the Guard: China’s ‘Princelings’ Wield Sway to Shape Politics

Philippe Lopez/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

Officers of China's People's Liberation Army watched planes perform at an exhibition on Tuesday.

BEIJING — When Maoists were trying to keep control of China in the 1970s, a powerful general from the south came to the aid of moderates, helping to arrest the radicals and throw them in jail. The bold actions of the general, Ye Jianying, paved the way for the country’s move to a more market-oriented economy, and created a political dynasty that still plays kingmaker, able to influence national policy and protect its sprawling business empire in southern China long after his death.

Over the past year, according to party insiders familiar with the situation, members of Mr. Ye’s family have helped organize meetings to criticize the country’s current course and have influenced top military appointments while helping block a vocal economic reformer from joining the Politburo Standing Committee, the small, powerful group at the top of the party hierarchy, because they felt that he was not attentive to their interests.

The rise of so-called princelings like the Ye family will reach a capstone this week, when Xi Jinping, himself the son of a Communist Party pioneer, is to be unveiled as China’s top leader at the conclusion of the 18th Party Congress. Mr. Xi is likely to be joined by at least two other relatives of senior leaders on the seven-member Standing Committee.

Despite rising controversy over their prominent role in government and business — highlighted by recent corruption cases, as well as the fall of Bo Xilai, whose wife was found guilty of murder — China’s princelings, who number in the hundreds, are emerging as an aristocratic class with an increasingly important say in ruling the country.

While they feud and fight among themselves, many have already made their mark in the established order, playing important roles in businesses, especially state-owned enterprises. Others are heavily involved in finance or lobbying, where personal connections are important.

“Many countries have powerful families, but in China, they are becoming the dominant force in politics and business,” said Lü Xiaobo, a political science professor at Columbia University. “In this system, they have good bloodlines.”

Many of the oldest among them — those now set to take power — share something else: an upbringing during some of China’s most difficult years. Many were children during the Great Leap Forward, when upward of 30 million people died of famine from 1958 to 1962, and teenagers during the Cultural Revolution from 1966 to 1976, a period many spent as outcasts or in exile after their parents were attacked by Maoist radicals.

“This is a volatile generation, one that didn’t have a systematic education and often saw the worst side of the Communist revolution,” said a senior party journalist who grew up with some of China’s princelings and spoke on the condition of anonymity because of pressure from China’s security apparatus. “They’ve learned one thing, and that’s all you can count on is your family.”

The princelings are distinct from the current top rulers of China, most of whom owe their allegiance to institutions in the Communist Party. The departing party general secretary, Hu Jintao, rose up through the Communist Youth League, one of the party’s central bodies. Likewise, the prime minister, Wen Jiabao, who leaves office next year, is an organization man with few outside sources of power.

Mr. Hu’s legitimacy derives from being appointed by Deng Xiaoping, the last leader to have played a central role in the Chinese Revolution and a dominant figure until his death in 1997. Mr. Deng had a series of general secretaries and prime ministers whom he dismissed before settling on Jiang Zemin after the 1989 Tiananmen uprising. Later, he gave Mr. Hu the nod as Mr. Jiang’s successor.

“Without a Deng to settle questions, you have competition for the top spots,” said an independent Chinese political commentator who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he is under police observation during the congress. “We don’t have elections, and we don’t have a system, so they go for the person with the most connections.”

That was evident five years ago when Mr. Xi was picked to be Mr. Hu’s successor. Initially, the front-runner had been one of Mr. Hu’s protégés, Li Keqiang. But Mr. Xi won a higher-ranking slot, with the help of another princeling, Zeng Qinghong, then vice president and son of a security minister.

Mr. Xi’s career reflects his status. His father had been a senior party leader for half a century: military commissar, governor, vice prime minister and pioneer of market reforms, a background that helped create a network of support for Mr. Xi.

The elder Mr. Xi’s status helped his son enter university during the Cultural Revolution when few were allowed to study, then secured him a job as personal secretary to one of the country’s top military leaders. Later, when the younger Mr. Xi was working in local government and ran afoul of a provincial leader, his family got him transferred to a province run by a friend of his father’s.

Edward Wong contributed reporting. Mia Li contributed research.

Read More..

Report: FDA wanted to close Mass pharmacy in 2003

WASHINGTON (AP) — Nearly a decade ago, federal health inspectors wanted to shut down the pharmacy linked to a recent deadly meningitis outbreak until it cleaned up its operations, according to congressional investigators.

About 440 people have been sickened by contaminated steroid shots distributed by New England Compounding Center, and more than 32 deaths have been reported since the outbreak began in September, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. That has put the Framingham, Mass.-based pharmacy at the center of congressional scrutiny and calls for greater regulation of compounding pharmacies, which make individualized medications for patients and have long operated in a legal gray area between state and federal laws.

The House Energy and Commerce Committee released a detailed history of NECC's regulatory troubles on Monday, ahead of a meeting Wednesday meeting to examine how the outbreak could have been prevented. The 25-page report summarizes and quotes from FDA and state inspection memos, though the committee declined to release the original documents.

The report shows that after several problematic incidents, Food and Drug Administration officials in 2003 suggested that the compounding pharmacy be "prohibited from manufacturing" until it improved its operations. But FDA regulators deferred to their counterparts in Massachusetts, who ultimately reached an agreement with the pharmacy to settle concerns about the quality of its prescription injections.

The congressional report also shows that in 2003 the FDA considered the company a pharmacy. That's significant because in recent weeks public health officials have charged that NECC was operating more as a manufacturer than a pharmacy, shipping thousands of doses of drugs to all 50 states instead of small batches of drugs to individual patients. Manufacturers are regulated by the FDA and are subject to stricter quality standards than pharmacies.

The report offers the most detailed account yet of the numerous regulatory complaints against the pharmacy, which nearly date back to its founding in 1998. Less than a year later, the company was cited by the state pharmacy board for providing doctors with blank prescription pads with NECC's information. Such promotional items are illegal in Massachusetts and the pharmacy's owner and director, Barry Cadden, received an informal reprimand, according to documents summarized by the committee.

Cadden was subject to several other complaints involving unprofessional conduct in coming years, but first came to the FDA's attention in 2002. Here are some key events from the report highlighting the company's early troubles with state and federal authorities:

__ In March of 2002 the FDA began investigating reports that five patients had become dizzy and short of breath after receiving NECC's compounded betamethasone repository injection, a steroid used to treat joint pain and arthritis that's different from the one linked to the current meningitis outbreak.

FDA inspectors visited NECC on April 9 and said Cadden was initially cooperative in turning over records about production of the drug. But during a second day of inspections, Cadden told officials "that he was no longer willing to provide us with any additional records," according to an FDA report cited by congressional investigators. The inspectors ultimately issued a report citing NECC for poor sterility and record-keeping practices but said that "this FDA investigation could not proceed to any definitive resolution," because of "problems/barriers that were encountered throughout the inspection."

__ In October of 2002, the FDA received new reports that two patients at a Rochester, N.Y., hospital came down with symptoms of bacterial meningitis after receiving a different NECC injection. The steroid, methylprednisolone acetate, is the same injectable linked to the current outbreak and is typically is used to treat back pain. Both patients were treated with antibiotics and eventually recovered, according to FDA documents cited by the committee.

When officials from the FDA and Massachusetts Board of Pharmacy visited NECC later in the month, Cadden said vials of the steroid returned by the hospital had tested negative for bacterial contamination. But when FDA scientists tested samples of the drug collected in New York they found bacterial contamination in four out of 14 vials sampled. It is not entirely clear whether FDA tested the same lot shipped to the Rochester hospital.

__ At a February 2003 meeting between state and federal officials, FDA staff emphasized "the potential for serious public consequences if NECC's compounding practices, in particular those relating to sterile products, are not improved." The agency issued a list of problems uncovered in its inspection to NECC, including a failure to verify if sterile drugs met safety standards.

But the agency decided to let Massachusetts officials take the lead in regulating the company, since pharmacies are typically regulated at the state level. It was decided that "the state would be in a better position to gain compliance or take regulatory action against NECC as necessary," according to a summary of the meeting quoted by investigators.

The FDA recommended the state subject NECC to a consent agreement, which would require the company to pass certain quality tests to continue operating. But congressional investigators say Massachusetts Board of Pharmacy did not take any action until "well over a year later."

__ In October 2004, the board sent a proposed consent agreement to Cadden, which would have included a formal reprimand and a three-year probationary period for the company's registration. The case ended without disciplinary action in 2006, when NECC agreed to a less severe consent decree with the state.

Massachusetts officials indicated Tuesday they are still investigating why NECC escaped the more severe penalty.

"I will not be satisfied until we know the full story behind this decision," the state's interim health commissioner Lauren Smith said in a transcript of her prepared testimony released a day ahead of delivery. Smith is one of several witnesses scheduled to testify Wednesday, including FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg.

The committee will also hear from the widow of 78-year-old Eddie C. Lovelace, a longtime circuit court judge in southern Kentucky. Autopsy results confirmed Lovelace received fungus-contaminated steroid injections that led to his death Sept. 17.

Joyce Lovelace will urge lawmakers to work together on legislation to stop future outbreaks caused by compounded drugs, according to a draft of her testimony.

"We now know that New England Compounding Pharmacy, Inc. killed Eddie. I have lost my soulmate and life's partner with whom I worked side by side, day after day for more than fifty years," Lovelace states.

Barry Cadden is also scheduled to appear at the hearing, after lawmakers issued a subpoena to compel him to attend.

The NECC has been closed since early last month, and Massachusetts officials have taken steps to permanently revoke its license. The pharmacy has recalled all the products it makes, including 17,700 single-dose vials of a steroid that tested positive for the fungus tied to the outbreak.

Read More..

2 LAPD officers guilty of perjury in drug case

Two Los Angeles Police Department officers lied under oath during a drug possession case four years ago, a Los Angeles County jury decided Tuesday.

The trial revolved around competing interpretations of a grainy, black and white video that the prosecution argued sharply contradicted sworn testimony from three officers regarding the discovery of cocaine. The video, the prosecution argued, showed the officers conspired to convict Guillermo Alarcon Jr. on drug charges.

"It's always tragic when police officers throw away their freedom and careers." LAPD Chief Charlie Beck said after the jury's verdict. "They lost sight of the fact that the ends never justify the means and that they must always police constitutionally… That is the great slippery slope of policing. It always has been and likely always will be."

As the verdict was read, former Officer Evan Samuel and suspended Officer Richard Amio showed no reaction. After the jury left the downtown Los Angeles courtroom, Samuel's mother blew her nose into a white tissue, her eyes filled with tears.

The jury found the two officers guilty on one count of conspiracy each and multiple counts of perjury. Samuel faces a maximum prison sentence of more than five years, while Amio faces more than four years.

Sentencing is scheduled for Dec. 12.

The jury deadlocked on conspiracy and perjury charges against a third officer, Manuel Ortiz, voting 11 to 1 for a guilty verdict. Judge Kathleen A. Kennedy declared a mistrial on those charges. Prosecutors have not yet decided whether to retry Ortiz, who has also been suspended.

Amio and Samuel testified in 2008 that while on patrol the previous year, they recognized Alarcon, a suspected gang member, in front of his East Hollywood apartment. The two officers said they chased him into the building's carport, where he threw a small black box against a trash bin. When it hit the ground, they said, the object cracked open and Samuel picked it up. Inside, they testified, they found rock and powder cocaine.

But in the video — which begins after Alarcon is in custody — officers search for more than 20 minutes before finding an object that prosecutors contended held the cocaine.

After the prolonged search, officers also appear to discuss opening the object and later say it contains cocaine.

Deputy Dist. Atty. Geoffrey Rendon told jurors during closing arguments that the officers conspired to deliver Alarcon to the court system "based on a set of lies."

The prosecution's key evidence was the video. At one point in the video, an officer tells another to "be creative in your writing," after the box was recovered, apparently alluding to an arrest report that would be written.

"Oh yeah, don't worry, sin duda ('no doubt')," comes the reply from another officer.

"The video," Rendon said, "doesn't lie."

Defense attorneys for the officers disputed that notion, saying the video didn't capture the entire story.

Attorney Ira Salzman, who represents Samuel, told jurors last week that the officers had already recovered the drugs when the video begins. The tape came from a security camera at the building managed by Alarcon's mother.

In the video, the officers were simply looking for additional evidence and the object recovered in the video was a piece broken off the black box that was recovered earlier, the defense argued.

Outside court Tuesday, Salzman said the video was either started too late or intentionally edited to obscure the portion where he said his client recovered the drugs.

But jurors rejected that argument.

"It just shows the power of video," Salzman said.

Outside of court, Alarcon's civil attorney Luis Carrillo hailed the verdict and said his client was not a gang member.

"It's a good day for justice all around the country," he said. "This verdict upholds the principle of equal justice under the law for everybody."

andrew.khouri@latimes.com

Times staff writer Joel Rubin contributed to this report.

Read More..

The Voice Sends Two Contestants Home

TV Watch

The Voice

By Julia Haskins

11/13/2012 at 10:20 PM EST

Adam Levine and Christina Aguilera

Christopher Polk/Getty

It was a great night for Teams Cee Lo and Adam on The Voice Tuesday. And though not everyone got good news on elimination night, there were plenty of entertaining performances from the coaches and contestants alike.

To open the night, Christina Aguilera and Green performed the world premiere of "Make the World Move," from her new album Lotus. Guest Jason Aldean also took the stage, and Blake Shelton rocked out with his team to Tom Cochrane's "Life is a Highway."

Green's Trevin Hunte, Nicholas David and Cody Belew came together for a '70s inspired – bell bottoms and all! – performance of the Bee Gee's "Stayin' Alive." But was it a sign of things to come? Keep reading for all the results ...

All of Green's singers as well as Levine's Bryan Keith, Melanie Martinez and Amanda Brown felt the love from viewers at home, and will have another shot at next week's show.

America also saved Aguilera's Sylvia Yacoub and Dez Duron, and Shelton's Cassadee Pope and Terry McDermott.

But without enough votes to keep them in the competition, Team Aguilera's Adriana Louise and Team Blake's Michaela Paige said goodbye.

Aguilera consoled Louise by reminding her that even she didn't win Star Search, but still made it to superstardom. Louise was grateful for all her coach's support. "You believed in me more than I believed in myself," she told Aguilera through tears.

Paige also enjoyed an uplifting experience on The Voice. "If I inspired anyone, that's all I wanted to do," Paige said. "Follow your dreams and believe in your heart." But her coach Shelton isn't too concerned about the aspiring singer's future.

"Her big old mohawk is going to be walking across the stage at the Grammys," he said, "and I can't wait."

Read More..

Afghan Warlord Ismail Khan’s Call to Arms Rattles Kabul

Bryan Denton for The New York Times

Mujahedeen commanders at a gathering in Herat, Afghanistan, to address the threat to security posed by the Taliban.

HERAT, Afghanistan — One of the most powerful mujahedeen commanders in Afghanistan, Ismail Khan, is calling on his followers to reorganize and defend the country against the Taliban as Western militaries withdraw, in a public demonstration of faltering confidence in the national government and the Western-built Afghan National Army.

Mr. Khan is one of the strongest of a group of warlords who defined the country’s recent history in battling the Soviets, the Taliban and one another, and who then were brought into President Hamid Karzai’s cabinet as a symbol of unity. Now, in announcing that he is remobilizing his forces, Mr. Khan has rankled Afghan officials and stoked fears that other regional and factional leaders will follow suit and rearm, weakening support for the government and increasing the likelihood of civil war.

This month, Mr. Khan rallied thousands of his supporters in the desert outside Herat, the cultured western provincial capital and the center of his power base, urging them to coordinate and reactivate their networks. And he has begun enlisting new recruits and organizing district command structures.

“We are responsible for maintaining security in our country and not letting Afghanistan be destroyed again,” Mr. Khan, the minister of energy and water, said at a news conference over the weekend at his office in Kabul. But after facing criticism, he took care not to frame his action as defying the government: “There are parts of the country where the government forces cannot operate, and in such areas the locals should step forward, take arms and defend the country.”

President Karzai and his aides, however, were not greeting it as an altruistic gesture. The governor of Herat Province called Mr. Khan’s reorganization an illegal challenge to the national security forces. And Mr. Karzai’s spokesman, Aimal Faizi, tersely criticized Mr. Khan.

“The remarks by Ismail Khan do not reflect the policies of the Afghan government,” Mr. Faizi said. “The government of Afghanistan and the Afghan people do not want any irresponsible armed grouping outside the legitimate security forces structures.”

In Kabul, Mr. Khan’s provocative actions have played out in the news media and brought a fierce reaction from some members of Parliament, who said the warlords were preparing to take advantage of the American troop withdrawal set for 2014.

“People like Ismail Khan smell blood,” Belqis Roshan, a senator from Farah Province, said in an interview. “They think that as soon as foreign forces leave Afghanistan, once again they will get the chance to start a civil war, and achieve their ominous goals of getting rich and terminating their local rivals.”

Indeed, Mr. Khan’s is not the only voice calling for a renewed alliance of the mujahedeen against the Taliban, and some of the others are just as familiar.

Marshal Muhammad Qasim Fahim, an ethnic Tajik commander who is President Karzai’s first vice president, said in a speech in September, “If the Afghan security forces are not able to wage this war, then call upon the mujahedeen.”

Another prominent mujahedeen fighter, Ahmad Zia Massoud, said in an interview at his home in Kabul that people were worried about what was going to happen after 2014, and he was telling his own followers to make preliminary preparations.

“They don’t want to be disgraced again,” Mr. Massoud said. “Everyone tries to have some sort of Plan B. Some people are on the verge of rearming.”

He pointed out that it was significant that the going market price of Kalashnikov assault rifles had risen to about $1,000, driven up by demand from a price of $300 a decade ago. “Every household wants to have an AK-47 at home,” he said.

“The mujahedeen come here to meet me,” Mr. Massoud added. “They tell me they are preparing. They are trying to find weapons. They come from villages, from the north of Afghanistan, even some people from the suburbs of Kabul, and say they are taking responsibility for providing private security in their neighborhood.”

Habib Zahori and Jawad Sukhanyar contributed reporting from Herat, Afghanistan, and an employee of The New York Times from Kabul.

Read More..

British medical journal slams Roche on Tamiflu

LONDON (AP) — A leading British medical journal is asking the drug maker Roche to release all its data on Tamiflu, claiming there is no evidence the drug can actually stop the flu.

The drug has been stockpiled by dozens of governments worldwide in case of a global flu outbreak and was widely used during the 2009 swine flu pandemic.

On Monday, one of the researchers linked to the BMJ journal called for European governments to sue Roche.

"I suggest we boycott Roche's products until they publish missing Tamiflu data," wrote Peter Gotzsche, leader of the Nordic Cochrane Centre in Copenhagen. He said governments should take legal action against Roche to get the money back that was "needlessly" spent on stockpiling Tamiflu.

Last year, Tamiflu was included in a list of "essential medicines" by the World Health Organization, a list that often prompts governments or donor agencies to buy the drug.

Tamiflu is used to treat both seasonal flu and new flu viruses like bird flu or swine flu. WHO spokesman Gregory Hartl said the agency had enough proof to warrant its use for unusual influenza viruses, like bird flu.

"We do have substantive evidence it can stop or hinder progression to severe disease like pneumonia," he said.

In the U.S., the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends Tamiflu as one of two medications for treating regular flu. The other is GlaxoSmithKline's Relenza. The CDC says such antivirals can shorten the duration of symptoms and reduce the risk of complications and hospitalization.

In 2009, the BMJ and researchers at the Nordic Cochrane Centre asked Roche to make all its Tamiflu data available. At the time, Cochrane Centre scientists were commissioned by Britain to evaluate flu drugs. They found no proof that Tamiflu reduced the number of complications in people with influenza.

"Despite a public promise to release (internal company reports) for each (Tamiflu) trial...Roche has stonewalled," BMJ editor Fiona Godlee wrote in an editorial last month.

In a statement, Roche said it had complied with all legal requirements on publishing data and provided Gotzsche and his colleagues with 3,200 pages of information to answer their questions.

"Roche has made full clinical study data ... available to national health authorities according to their various requirements, so they can conduct their own analyses," the company said.

Roche says it doesn't usually release patient-level data available due to legal or confidentiality constraints. It said it did not provide the requested data to the scientists because they refused to sign a confidentiality agreement.

Roche is also being investigated by the European Medicines Agency for not properly reporting side effects, including possible deaths, for 19 drugs including Tamiflu that were used in about 80,000 patients in the U.S.

____

Online:

www.bmj.com.tamiflu/

Read More..

Secret donation hindered campaigns, GOP advisors say

SACRAMENTO — An $11-million campaign donation that was secretly routed through an obscure Arizona group might have hurt the conservative effort in California on election day more than it helped, Republican operatives say.

The money went to oppose Gov. Jerry Brown's tax hikes, Proposition 30, and push a ballot measure to curb unions' political fundraising, Proposition 32. Voters approved the governor's tax plan and rejected the proposal to reduce labor's influence in California politics.

Some people behind the conservative campaigns now have second thoughts about the money's effect.

"At the end of the day, it was a significant distraction that took us off our campaign message," said Beth Miller, a spokeswoman for the Small Business Action Committee, which received the controversial $11 million.

Brown attacked the donation during many of his stump speeches, accusing "shadowy forces" of trying to undermine California's schools. If his tax plan failed, nearly $6 billion would have been cut from the budget, mostly from public schools.

Members of Brown's campaign team said the donation was something of a political gift. "They gave us the issue while hitting us in the nose," said Sean Clegg, a campaign advisor.

The furor over the money became one of the most closely watched sideshows in the final days before the Nov. 6 election.

State authorities sued the Arizona group, Americans for Responsible Leadership. The nonprofit group eventually named its contributors, but the mystery only deepened — the contributors were identified only as other nonprofits, which keep their donors secret.

Aaron McLear, a Republican strategist who worked against the tax plan, said Brown was successful in turning the controversy into a campaign issue.

"He was able to create a bigger boogeyman than Sacramento politicians, which is hard to do," he said.

Despite the $11-million cash infusion, conservatives still didn't have the money to match the Democrats and labor unions. Brown's campaign outspent its opponents, and unions flooded the airwaves to help sink Proposition 32.

Americans for Responsible Leadership did not admit any wrongdoing when it disclosed its contributors as other nonprofits. One of them, also located in Arizona, has been tied to Charles and David Koch, billionaire energy executives and Republican donors.

California officials are pushing forward with an investigation into who gave the money and are considering civil and criminal penalties for what they called "campaign money laundering."

"It ain't over," state Atty. Gen. Kamala Harris said in a recent speech. "It wasn't over on election day and we're going to keep pushing it through."

chris.megerian@latimes.com

Times staff writer Ken Bensinger contributed to this report.

Read More..