Former US president George W. Bush convoluted some definitions. ‘The ambiguity began shortly after 9/11, when then-U.S. President George W. Bush defined two missions: waging a war on terror, and bringing Osama bin Laden and his followers to justice. Both made for good rhetoric. But they also were fundamentally contradictory. A war is not a judicial inquiry, and a criminal investigation is not part of war.’

However, there is no ambiguity in international law regarding the status of al-Qaeda members. ‘The Geneva Conventions do not apply to them because they have not adhered to a fundamental requirement of the Geneva Conventions, namely, identifying themselves as soldiers of an army.’

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder’s decision ‘to transfer Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to federal court makes it clear that Mohammed was not a soldier acting in time of war, but a criminal.’ If the process goes by the stipulations of the Geneva Conventions, Mohammed’s actions in organizing the September 11 attacks, which were carried out without uniforms or other badges of a combatant, denies him status and protection as a Prisoner of War (POW). Logically, he is therefore a criminal.’

But spies, saboteurs and terrorists do not belong in the realm of international law. ‘This class of actors falls under the category of national law, leaving open the question of their liability if they conduct acts inimical to a third country. Who has jurisdiction? The United States is claiming that Mohammed is to be tried under the criminal code of the United States for actions planned in Afghanistan but carried out by others in the United States.’

9/11 revises some accepted legal norms. ‘The fact is that international law has not evolved to deal with persons like Mohammed.’

Image

Via STRATFOR

Apple Inc. has announced that its next flagship store to be inaugurated at the prestigious Broadway, New York will be opened for operations on Nov. 14. The opening of the new Apple Store  coincides with the holiday shopping season, a time when the electronics industry generally witnesses a hike in sales and does everything possible in the trade book to attract as many consumers as possible. From slashing prices to providing endless goodies with their products, the holiday shopping season is a time, when a company with the right strategies can cover all the losses suffered in the last few months.

Same is in the case with Apple, minus the loss factor. The new Apple flagship located at Broadway and 67th and to charm the consumers to come to the store, Apple has also covered the store with a red curtain. Kind of a curtain raiser for Apple Inc. The red curtain it seems has become a calling card for Apple, as it has depicted the curtain on its website as well as the official invitations sent to the members of the press for the gala opening.

The new Apple Store stands at 54 feet tall, 75 feet wide and 30 feet deep and has a curved roof design made entirely from glass. Besides the ground floor of the store, there are two additional floors underground and the cost to the company for this elegant piece of architecture is estimated at $37.9 million.

The Broadway Apple Store is the fourth in a series of Apple outlets spread across Manhattan and the one on the Fifth Avenue is said to be one of the most profitable outlets for Apple with an annual sales figure of $350 million.

Via Apple Insider.

The state of Vermont has long been hailed as the greenest place in the United States due to the ‘consistent thinking about low-impact living.’ The state, after all, is profuse with trees, farms, and backyard compost heaps. It also has environmentally aware citizens, and no crowded expressways. In other words, Vermont is green basically because it has more spaces with less people. ‘The population of Vermont’s largest city, Burlington, is just under 40,000.’

But Vermont ‘sets a poor environmental example.’ Because Vermont ‘has no truly significant public transit system’ and because ‘its population is so dispersed,’ the state is heavily dependent on automobiles. ‘A typical Vermonter consumes 545 gallons of gasoline per year — almost a hundred gallons more than the national average.’

On the other hand, people-compact New York with its population density may be comparatively greener when seen in the general environmental scheme. ‘In the most significant ways,  New York is a paragon of ecological responsibility. The average city resident consumes only about a quarter as much gasoline as the average Vermonter — and the average Manhattan resident consumes even less, just 90 gallons a year, a rate that the rest of the country hasn’t matched since the mid-1920s. New Yorkers also consume far less electricity — about 4,700 kilowatt hours per household per year, compared with roughly 7,100 kilowatt hours in Vermont and more than 11,000 kilowatt hours in the United States as a whole. New York City is more populous than all but 11 states; if it were granted statehood, it would rank 51st in per-capita energy use.’

Daily destinations of New Yorkers are closer together, reducing the need for automobiles, while encouraging walking or biking. Because of New York’s density, efficient public transit infrastructure has been developed.

’Metropolitan New York accounts for almost a third of all the public-transit passenger miles traveled in the United States, and it has, by far, the nation’s lowest rate of automobile ownership. (Fifty-four percent of New York City households — and 77 percent of Manhattan households — own no car at all. In Vermont and the rest of the country, the percentage of no-automobile households is close to zero.) Eighty-two percent of employed Manhattanites travel to work by public transit, by bicycle, or on foot. That’s 10 times the rate for Americans in general, eight times the rate for workers in Los Angeles County, and 16 times the rate for residents of metropolitan Atlanta.’

New York has also been made bicycle-friendly. As it is, 112,000 New Yorkers bicycle on an average day, an increase of 10% over the last decade. The local government plans to double that number by 2015, as well as add 200 miles worth of new bicycle lane between 2007 and 2009, install 37 bicycle shelters and 5,000 bike parking racks by 2011, and install 15 additional miles of protected on-street bike lanes by 2010 and 30 miles from 2011 to 2015.

Image

Via environment360

In the war against the obesity, the scientists found a new enemy: the sugary drinks. A group of renowned studious and specialists in nutrition asked the federal government from the USA that applies a new tax on that type of refreshments, that, according to them, are big responsible for the overweight epidemic that the country lives. With the collected money it would be possible to finance a part of the reform of the health system. The industry, however, glimpsed a possible fall in the sales and it passed to the attack, reinforcing their lobbies in Washington and getting ready to avoid any increase in the prices, at all costs.

The proposal of rating drinks was made in the last month passed by a group of influential specialists of the universities of Yale and Harvard, in a controversial article published in “New England Journal of Medicine” .

The political price could be very high. In the USA there were some meetings in the Senate, but the measure was not accepted. In the middle of the debate on the reform of the health system and like it will be financed, the specialists’ group retook the cause. They criticize the sugary drinks for they be caloric bombs, replete of sugar. Besides, they explain, the consumers don’t know how to compensate the fact the amount of calories that they have drunk in oder to reducing other foods in the meals. A psychological separation exists between the liquid calories and the solid ones.

The proposed tax would increase the price of the sugary refreshments between 15 and 20% and it would generate an entrance of 10 billion euros a year for the government’s budget.

In that extent, New York became a pioneering city, that serves as model to the country. Mayor Michael Bloomberg ordered that all of the restaurants that operate in public spaces to detail in their menus the amount of calories of each kind of beverage and food. The food industry, however, began a preventive attack to avoid that the politicians at least get to examine the proposal.

In spite of the setbacks, New York discovered the key to combat the obesity: to become aware against the excess of the gigantic portions, loaded of addictive susbstancies on the enormous drinks and potatoes that are sold by the fast food industry. It was necessary an obesity epidemic in the developed world so that scientists and nutritionists threw the fashion of the frugality in the hour of ingesting calories.

Via: El Pais.

The US Health Department is all set to fight obesity amongst the citizen of its country. 32.2 percent of adults and 17.1 percent of children are clinically obese in the United States costing the government $147 billion every year.  An advertisement is aired in the New York to make the people aware, rather shock them. The “Pouring on the Pounds” is a campaign with not a very appealing image like others. It shows an image of a yellow human body fats with blood vessels. Together with this ugly image comes the strong words, “Are you pouring on the pounds?”.

This campaign is targeted towards the millions in the US who consume soft drinks and exceed their daily calorie intake. Although the administration has forced the fast food joints to print the calorie information on menus and fresh fruit vendors are encouraged to put up their stalls in the poor neighborhoods, the problem doesn’t seem to be solved.

Obesity has been overlooked by the citizen way too much. This campaign hopes to shock people enough to take taking the initiative to exercise regularly and eat healthy. Obesity leads to number of dangerous diseases like heart diseases, Diabetes Type 2, cancer, high blood pressure, stroke and arthritis to name a few. The campaign will roll out across the all the states in the US starting with the New York.

Via: BBC

His speech was long and rambling about nothing much more than his aversion to the powers of the Security Council. His first translator got very tired. At the end of his speech, the hall was half-empty.

Some of his rantings were: Israel having had a hand in the JFK assassination, swine flu might be a military weapon that leaked from a lab, his jet lag from the 20-hour trip (his first trip to America) and that he had to wake up early for the conference, the major wars since the UN was founded (saying that only the preamble of the UN charter was legit). He also suggested the word ‘Isratine’ as the name of a single Israeli-Palestinian state.

Colonel Muammar Gadhafi, the Libyan leader who is also the current head of the African Union, ‘denounced the domination of the 15-nation Security Council by the five veto-bearing permanent members – Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States.’ He says, “It should not be called the Security Council, it should be called the ’Terror Council’.”

He attended the conference primarily to encourage ‘world leaders to engage directly in negotiations over a proposed $100 billion dollar package to help emerging economies reduce carbon emissions.’

He attempted to ‘pitch his Bedouin tent on an estate in New York’s northern suburbs owned by mogul Donald Trump’ but was stopped by local authorities. He was also turned down at the New York Plaza hotel after his arrival on Tuesday. He finally stayed at Libya’s diplomatic mission on East 48th Street.

Image

Via Times Online

Based on the proceedings of September 22 ‘disappointing climate change summit’ at the UN headquarters in New York, there is now a nagging doubt that not much can be achieved in the huge climate change summit to be held in Copenhagen this December. So far, the said pre-Copenhagen UN summit has been ‘the highest-level summit on climate ever convened,’ bringing together more than 100 heads of government and dignitaries.

The intention was noble: ‘to give a boost to negotiations for a new deal on reducing emissions and, in particular, to break the deadlock between leading developed nations and leading developing nations – which in practice means the US and China.’ Logically, much was expected of Barack Obama and Hu Jintao.

Obama’s declarations offered nothing new. It was still about such ideals as ‘increasing investment in renewable energy and research into carbon capture.’ There are already, of course, concrete actions along these lines. However, the caveat still hangs: ‘Obama said once again that the US could do nothing if developing nations didn’t take steps towards reducing their own emissions.’

It is still a deadlock.

On Hu’s part, he outlined China’s already set goals such as for developing nations to seek reduction in carbon emissions per unit of GDP by a ‘notable margin by 2020 from the 2005 level.’ This “carbon efficiency” strategy does not really set goals for cutting carbon emissions.

But, all in all, it was China that offered a better deal, according to Yvo de Boer, executive secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and leader of the negotiations.

It is less than 12 weeks before the Copenhagen conference opens but pertinent world leaders are still at the stage of mere ‘political declarations.’

There were only lukewarm results for UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon’s conference objective which he stated as: “The objective of the Summit on Climate Change, which I am convening on 22 September, is to mobilize the political will and vision needed to reach an ambitious agreed outcome based on science at the UN climate talks in Copenhagen.”

Image

Via NewScientist

In New York, there is a campaign war against soda and other sweetened drinks. The city’s health department has launched ‘a public-awareness campaign, which includes posters in the subway system and a multilingual Health Bulletin’ that began on the end of August and will run for three months.

The new campaign asks New Yorkers if they’re “Pouring On the Pounds.” Highlighting the health impact of sweetened drinks, this is the Health Department’s tactic ‘to encourage consumers to choose beverages with less sugar.’

Says New York City Health Commissioner Thomas A. Farley, “Sugary drinks shouldn’t be a part of our everyday diet. Drinking beverages loaded with sugars increases the risk of obesity and associated problems, particularly diabetes but also heart disease, stroke, arthritis and cancer.”

This war on soda is explosive since soft drinks are part of everyday life in metropolitan areas such as New York. The situation must be really bad for the city to slam head on against the soda industry. The health and diet statistics may have been enough reason to launch such a campaign: ‘On average, Americans now consume 200 to 300 more calories each day than we did 30 years ago. Nearly half of these extra calories come from sugar-sweetened drinks. When Health Department researchers surveyed adult New Yorkers about their consumption of soda and other sweetened drinks, the findings showed that more than 2 million drink at least one sugar-sweetened soda or other sweetened beverage each day – at as much as 250 calories a pop. Daily consumption was highest among Bronx residents, followed by residents of Staten Island, Brooklyn, Queens and Manhattan. Sweetened-beverage consumption is higher among men than among women, and especially prevalent among 18- to 44-year-olds and among adult blacks and Hispanics.’

Desperate times need desperate measures, hence.

The citizens of New York are confronted with a visual of a soda, cola, sports and energy drink, or sweetened iced tea being poured into a glass. What gets poured are gooey, yucky blobs of fat, the kind that is suctioned off during a liposuction procedure, thereby evoking images of obesity. The cautionary reminder goes: “Don’t drink yourself fat” with these high-calorie beverages.

Via The New York Times

In the countdown to the much-awaited and carefully-prepared for climate summit to be held in Copenhagen towards the end of 2009, ‘the United Nations is planning a form of diplomatic shock therapy for world leaders this week in the hope of injecting badly needed urgency into negotiations for a climate change treaty that, it is now widely acknowledged, are dangerously adrift.’

This preliminary round of discussions is meant to ‘force heads of rich states to listen to those of third world in hope of kickstarting radical action. According to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, unless world leaders are finally converted into radical advocates against climate change, ‘it will be very hard to reach a credible and enforceable agreement to avoid the most devastating consequences of climate change.’

According to one diplomat, “We need these leaders to go outside their usual comfort zones. Our sense is that leaders have got a little too cosy and comfortable. They really have to hear from countries that are vulnerable and suffering.”

The planned pared-down summit in New York will have the attending heads of state ‘stripped of their entourages,’ with only have one aide for each that will most likely be the country’s environment minister. Leaders will be paired off to chair discussion groups such as Britain will be with Guyana, Tuvalu with the Netherlands, and Mongolia with the European commission. The leaders will have lunch with environmental activists and chief executives of corporations who have been pressing their governments for action. For dinner, ‘the leaders of the biggest polluting countries will dine with the leaders of Bangladesh, Kiribati and Costa Rica – which are among the primary victims of climate change.’

Via guardian.co.uk

The WWF denies any connection to or knowledge of a ‘tasteless’ 9/11 ad that bears its logo. The ad shows a squadron of planes about to attack Manhattan, an obvious reminder of the 9/11 explosive tragedy. The ad bears the copy: “The tsunami killed 100 times more people than 9/11. The planet is brutally powerful. Respect it. Preserve it.” It is a heady mix of visually mnemonic political reminder and a powerful environmental statement.

However, the WWF states that it never authorized the ad. The group said it quickly rejected it last year when it was a spec study submitted by an ad agency in Brazil. Being a ‘tasteless’ ad, the organization declared that it was ‘not something that anyone in our organization would ever have signed off on.’ Hence, WWF considered the creation dead and trashed.

The spec resurrected as a full blown ad after ‘someone submitted it to a competition.’ What’s more, the ad has gone viral and even won an award for public service for its creator, DDB Brazil agency.

No matter how popular the ad has become, the WWF does not want to have anything to do with it. As stressed in a World Wildlife Fund statement, “The concept was summarily rejected by W.W.F. and should never have seen the light of day. It is an unauthorized use of our logo and we are aggressively pursuing action to have it removed from Web sites.”

Image

Via Los Angeles Times