news.notes20090527c

[National on Today's Paper] from [Los Angeles Times]

Sotomayor's record sets off few ideological alarm bells

Obama's choice for the Supreme Court is like outgoing Justice Souter in many ways, experts say. She has made some controversial remarks, but observers say she's not particularly liberal.

By David G. Savage and Christi Parsons
May 27, 2009

Reporting from Washington -- In nominating Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court on Tuesday, President Obama tapped a veteran jurist whose humble upbringing and moderate-to-liberal record is unlikely to trigger an ideological battle in the Senate.

Sotomayor, 54, would be the first Latino on the court. Legal experts said that her narrowly written opinions resembled those of the justice she would replace, David H. Souter. She has not ruled squarely on controversial issues such as gay rights or abortion.

Standing with Sotomayor by his side in the East Room of the White House, Obama said, "I have decided to nominate an inspiring woman who I believe will make a great justice."

The president said he had considered many factors in his selection: "First and foremost is a rigorous intellect. . . . Second is a recognition of the limits of the judicial role," noting that "a judge's job is to interpret, not make, law." Obama also said he wanted a nominee with "a sense of compassion, an understanding of how the world works and how ordinary people live."

Sotomayor, who was raised in a Bronx housing project, spoke of the inspiration that her family and the law had provided.

"For as long as I can remember," she said, "I have been inspired by the achievement of our Founding Fathers. They set forth principles that have endured for more than two centuries. . . . It would be a profound privilege for me to play a role in applying those principles to the . . . controversies we face today."

In a statement after the nomination was announced, the abortion rights group NARAL Pro-Choice America said: "We look forward to learning more about Judge Sotomayor's views on the right to privacy and the landmark Roe vs. Wade decision as the Senate's hearing process moves forward."

One of Sotomayor's colleagues on the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in New York said he was surprised that some conservative groups had called Sotomayor a liberal or an activist judge.

"We have some judges on the left end of the spectrum. Sonia's well in the middle," said Judge Guido Calabresi, a former Yale Law School dean. "That's one of the things I have been pointing out to people. . . . Activism has a meaning -- judges who reach out to decide things that aren't before them. Sonia simply doesn't do that."

"She is a moderate liberal who often rules in favor of corporations and against civil rights plaintiffs," said Kevin Russell, a Washington lawyer who has studied her writings in recent weeks.

Though Sotomayor has avoided strong rhetoric in her rulings, she has made several controversial statements.

In 2001, she said her Puerto Rican heritage could cause her to see cases differently. "Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences . . . our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. . . .," she said. "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

But she did not cite examples during the speech at UC Berkeley, and said at one point that she vigilantly checked her "assumptions, presumptions and perspectives" about other people.

She also spoke at a Duke University School of Law forum about how the appeals courts made policy. She quickly added that she did not mean the judges made law, but instead that they set the law for their regional circuits.

Her most controversial decision appears to be a two-paragraph, unsigned opinion last year in a racial bias case.

A three-judge panel that included Sotomayor upheld a lower court order that tossed out a lawsuit by white firefighters in New Haven, Conn., who had good scores on tests used for promotions. The firefighters sued the City Council after it dropped the test upon learning that it indicated that no blacks had qualified for promotions.

"We are not unsympathetic to the [white firefighters'] expression of frustration," the appeals court said. But the city, "in refusing to validate the exams, was simply trying to fulfill its obligations under the [Civil Rights Act] when confronted with test results that had a disproportionate racial impact."

Dissenting judges on the full appeals court accused Sotomayor and her colleagues of ignoring the real issue. They said the white firefighters were denied promotions because of their race, a clear violation of civil rights laws.

The Supreme Court agreed in January to hear the white firefighters' appeal. If the justices overrule Sotomayor's decision, it will be an embarrassment for her before her confirmation hearing. But White House lawyers said it would be hard for her critics to make a major controversy out of an unsigned two-paragraph opinion.

Sotomayor has been overturned by Supreme Court conservatives in several other cases, including an environmental decision handed down by the high court in April.

Disagreeing with the Bush administration, Sotomayor said the law did not permit officials to consider "cost-benefit analysis" when deciding how to protect river fish from power generators. The law itself spoke of using the "best technology" to protect the environment. But the high court disagreed with her in a 6-3 opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia.

In another case three years ago, Sotomayor won the favor of campaign funding reformers by upholding a Vermont law that would have strictly limited spending and contributions in state races. The Supreme Court disagreed by a 6-3 vote and said the strict limits violated candidates' free-speech rights.

In both cases, Souter took the same view as Sotomayor.

At times, Sotomayor's rulings have won approval from conservatives on the high court.

Ten years ago, she wrote an opinion holding that drug evidence could be used against a man who was stopped based on a warrant that should have been removed from a police computer. Earlier this year, the Supreme Court adopted the same view in a 5-4 decision written by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.

And in a case that may have demonstrated to Obama some of the capacity for empathy he said he wanted in a judge, Sotomayor dissented Friday when the 2nd Circuit Court threw out a suit brought by county jail inmates who were strip-searched after being arrested on misdemeanor charges. She called the searches needlessly humiliating and unconstitutional.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said the president hoped that Sotomayor -- who if she follows a moderate-to-liberal course is not likely to shift the court's ideological balance -- would be confirmed by the Senate by September.

Washington lawyer Thomas Goldstein, who appears regularly before the high court, predicted that Sotomayor would not be the outspoken liberal some on the left had hoped for.

"On the modern court, she's on the center left, pretty much right in line with Justice Souter," he said, based on an analysis of her opinions. "Back in the day of the Warren court, she certainly would have been regarded as a moderate."

news.notes20090527d

[Politics on Today's Paper] from [The New York Times]

Obama Hails Judge as ‘Inspiring’

By PETER BAKER and JEFF ZELENY
Published: May 26, 2009

WASHINGTON — President Obama announced Tuesday that he would nominate Sonia Sotomayor, a federal appeals judge in New York, to the Supreme Court, choosing a daughter of Puerto Rican parents who was raised in a Bronx public housing project to become the nation’s first Hispanic justice.

In making his first pick for the court, Mr. Obama emphasized Judge Sotomayor’s “extraordinary journey” from modest beginnings to the Ivy League and now the pinnacle of the judicial system. Casting her as the embodiment of the American dream, he touched off a confirmation battle that he hopes to wage over biography more than ideology.

Judge Sotomayor’s past comments about how her sex and ethnicity shaped her decisions, and the role of appeals courts in making policy, generated instant conservative complaints that she is a judicial activist. Senate Republicans vowed to scrutinize her record. But with Democrats in reach of the 60 votes needed to break a filibuster, the White House appeared eager to dare Republicans to stand against a history-making nomination at a time when both parties are courting the growing Hispanic vote.

“When Sonia Sotomayor ascends those marble steps to assume her seat on the highest court of the land,” Mr. Obama said as he introduced her in the East Room of the White House, “America will have taken another important step towards realizing the ideal that is etched above its entrance: Equal justice under the law.”

Ms. Sotomayor, 54, a graduate of Princeton and Yale who served as a prosecutor, corporate litigator and federal district judge before joining the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in New York, a decade ago, would become the nation’s 111th justice.

She would be the third woman to hold a seat on the court and the sixth person on the current nine-member panel with a Roman Catholic background.

If confirmed to succeed Justice David H. Souter, a mainstay of the liberal wing who is retiring, Judge Sotomayor would probably not change the court’s broad philosophical balance. But her views on same-sex marriage, gun rights, financial and environmental regulation, executive power and other polarizing issues could help shape judicial rulings for years, if not decades, to come.

At the heart of the fight over her nomination will be a debate over the role that a judge’s experience should play in rendering decisions. Although Mr. Obama said on Tuesday that “a judge’s job is to interpret, not make law,” his emphasis on a nominee with “empathy” has generated criticism from Republicans, who saw that as code for legislating personal views from the bench.

Judge Sotomayor has said that “our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions.” In a lecture in 2001 on the role her background played in her jurisprudence, she said, “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”

She also said at a conference in 2005 that a “court of appeals is where policy is made,” a statement she seemed to understand at the time would be controversial, because she added, “I know this is on tape and I should never say that, because we don’t make law.” The White House said she meant that appeals courts play a greater role in interpreting laws than district courts, but Republicans pointed to the comment as another sign that she would try to impose her values in rendering decisions.

“Judge Sotomayor is a liberal activist of the first order who thinks her own personal political agenda is more important than the law as written,” said Wendy E. Long, counsel to the Judicial Confirmation Network, a conservative group. “She thinks that judges should dictate policy and that one’s sex, race and ethnicity ought to affect the decisions one renders from the bench.”

Other conservatives said they would focus on her ruling in a New Haven affirmative action case or on how she might rule on same-sex marriage. “Abortion is in some sense a stale issue that has been fought over many times, but gay marriage is very much up for grabs,” said Curt Levey, executive director of the Committee for Justice, a legal group. “Gay marriage will be bigger than abortion.”

As she was nominated on Tuesday, Judge Sotomayor did not retreat from her view that judges ought to look at the impact of their rulings. “I strive never to forget the real-world consequences of my decisions on individuals, businesses and government,” she said.

While conservative groups took aim, Republican senators responded more cautiously, weighing how aggressively they want to fight her confirmation. Twenty-nine Senate Republicans voted against her confirmation to the appellate bench in 1998, including Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, now the party’s Senate leader, while 25 voted for her. Of those still in the Senate, 11 voted against her and 9 for her.

Mr. McConnell said on Tuesday that the Senate would not be a “rubber stamp” and promised that Republicans would “examine her record to ensure she understands that the role of a jurist in our democracy is to apply the law even-handedly, despite their own feelings or personal or political preferences.”

Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama, the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, told Fox News that he was “uneasy with” Judge Sotomayor’s approach and expressed concern that if Mr. Obama appointed two or three more justices like her it would shape the court “in a way that would be different from our heritage so far.”

Rather than recruiting an elder statesman to lead the confirmation effort, as past presidents have, Mr. Obama has decided to enlist Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York. The White House worked quickly to build support by organizing conference calls and sending tailored information to potential allies.

The Rev. Samuel Rodriguez, president of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference, an evangelical group courted by Democrats and Republicans, said the administration sent him information emphasizing evidence of moderation in Judge Sotomayor’s record, including a ruling against an abortion-rights group.

In that 2002 case, Judge Sotomayor ruled that the group did not have grounds to try to overturn the Bush administration’s ban on aid to overseas family planning organizations that performed or promoted abortions.

“She went against the abortion lobby,” Mr. Rodriguez said. “The spin was that Obama did not reach into the far left, and that is great for me and it is great for my constituents.”

Mr. Obama selected Judge Sotomayor from a field dominated by women as he sought to add a second female justice to the court. Advisers culled through writings of 40 candidates before narrowing the list to nine who were actually contacted, officials said. From there, Mr. Obama chose four finalists, who were spirited into the White House to meet with him secretly last week.

The president conducted one-on-one interviews with Diane P. Wood, a federal appeals judge, and Elena Kagan, his solicitor general, last Tuesday, and then Judge Sotomayor and Janet Napolitano, the homeland security secretary, two days later. Each session in the Oval Office lasted an hour, officials said. Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. also interviewed the four, and his chief of staff, Ronald A. Klain, and counsel, Cynthia Hogan, ran the selection process.

To dispense with any health concerns about Judge Sotomayor, officials said the White House contacted her doctor and independent experts to determine whether diabetes, which she learned she had at 8 years old, might be problematic and concluded it would not. The Obama team also interviewed colleagues on the Second Circuit to check out reports that she was difficult to get along with, and was reassured it was not true.

Judge Sotomayor was the only finalist Mr. Obama had never met before last week. She spent seven hours in the White House last Thursday, and by Friday the president told advisers he was leaning toward her but wanted to think about it over the weekend, officials said.

At 8 p.m. Monday, he told aides he had made his decision, and at 9 p.m. he called Judge Sotomayor from the White House residence. He then called the runners-up. Judge Sotomayor was rushed to Washington that night, driven by a friend in time to attend Tuesday’s announcement.

Her mother, Celina Sotomayor, who moved to New York from Puerto Rico during World War II, wiped away tears as the president announced the nomination.

Judge Sotomayor recalled visiting the White House when President Bill Clinton nominated her for the appeals court. “It was an overwhelming experience for a kid from the South Bronx,” she said. “Never in my wildest childhood imaginings did I ever envision that moment, let alone did I ever dream that I would live this moment.”

news.notes20090527e

[Supreme Court on Today's Paper] fom [The Washington Post]

First Latina Picked for Supreme Court; GOP Faces Delicate Task in Opposition
By Shailagh Murray and Michael D. Shear
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, May 27, 2009

President Obama nominated federal judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court yesterday, putting her in line to become the nation's first Hispanic justice and creating a difficult political equation for Republicans as they weigh how aggressively to fight her appointment.

An all-out assault on Sotomayor by Republicans could alienate both Latino and women voters, deepening the GOP's problems after consecutive electoral setbacks. But sidestepping a court battle could be deflating to the party's base and hurt efforts to rally conservatives going forward.

In introducing Sotomayor at the White House yesterday morning, Obama hailed the 54-year-old appeals court judge as an accomplished and "inspiring" individual with a compelling life story. She would replace Justice David H. Souter, who was appointed by President George H.W. Bush but became a reliable member of the court's liberal wing.

Senate Republicans responded with restraint to the announcement yesterday, and their largely muted statements stood in sharp contrast to the fractious partisanship that has defined court battles in recent decades. Leading conservatives outside the Senate, however, did not hold back, targeting a pair of speeches in which Sotomayor said appellate courts are where "policy is made" and another in which she said a Latina would often "reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

Critics also targeted her support for affirmative action, with Rush Limbaugh calling her a "reverse racist" in his syndicated radio program, citing a case in which she ruled against a group of white firefighters who claimed discrimination in hiring practices.

White House officials argued that the comments in the speeches were taken out of context, and they said that the firefighters case was an example of Sotomayor accepting established precedent, something they said conservatives should applaud. Senate Democrats, meanwhile, who are on the verge of controlling a filibuster-proof 60-vote majority in the Senate, warned Republicans of the dangers of pushing too hard against Obama's first court pick.

Strong Words

"They oppose her at their peril," Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) said of his GOP colleagues and conservative activists who are leading the court fight. "I think this process is going to be more a test of the Republican Party than of Sonia Sotomayor."

Conservative interest groups have been warily preparing for the prospect of Sotomayor's nomination since word of Souter's retirement first circulated last month, viewing her as among the most liberal contenders for the appointment. But some Senate GOP officials privately conceded that, barring a major stumble, the judge will probably be confirmed with relative ease.

"You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that we need to tread very carefully," said John Weaver, a Republican political consultant who advised Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) for years. "The only way we'll find ourselves in a political predicament is if we don't treat her with the same respect that other nominees received."

"If she answers questions in a crazy way, then that's one thing," said one senior Republican aide who participated in strategy discussions. "But the immediate reaction is not to just try and bring her down."

Sen. Jeff Sessions (Ala.), the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, did not comment on Sotomayor's qualifications for the nation's highest court yesterday but indicated that he was not inclined to rush the confirmation process.

"We must remember that a Supreme Court justice sits for a lifetime appointment, and the Senate hearing is the only opportunity for the American people to engage in the nomination process," Sessions said in a statement. "Adequate preparation will take time."

Obama's Plan

Senior White House officials said the key to what they hope will be a 72-day campaign to confirm Sotomayor by Aug. 7, the start of the Senate's month-long recess, is to ensure that they retain control over the story line of the judge's life and career. A senior White House official said the administration had mapped out four distinct phases of what officials hope will be the path to an easy confirmation: the first 24 to 72 hours of the rollout; the period between the rollout and the start of Sotomayor's Judiciary Committee hearing; the hearing process itself; and the period between the hearing and the Senate floor vote.

"We have to keep control of the narrative, to make sure that her story doesn't get told by someone else," the senior aide said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss strategy. Within hours of the announcement, White House officials and Senate Democrats circulated favorable quotes about Sotomayor from Republicans, including former senator Alphonse D'Amato of New York, who supported her 1992 appointment to the federal bench by President George H.W. Bush.

Schumer, who is Sotomayor's senior home-state senator, will take the lead in introducing her to his colleagues, officials said. One Democratic aide who is helping to manage the nomination said that to minimize potential missteps, Sotomayor will pay courtesy visits to Judiciary members "and then disappear" until the confirmation hearings begin.

On Record

Senate Democratic aides said one factor working in Sotomayor's favor is her long public record as a federal judge. The confirmation of Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., for instance, was slowed while the committee sought to extract records from the nominee's executive branch service from the Reagan presidential library. But no such obstacles appear to threaten information gathering on Sotomayor, aides said.

White House officials were scrambling to prepare materials to transmit to the Judiciary Committee yesterday. The nominee will submit an extensive committee questionnaire in the coming days, and a law enforcement background check is already underway, as is an effort to gather all of her judicial opinions. But if Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) and Sessions fail to reach agreement on a time frame for moving forward, and Republicans elect to exercise their right to procedural delays, the confirmation process could easily spill into September, giving Sotomayor's opponents four additional weeks to attempt to derail her nomination.

Sotomayor is no stranger to confirmation politics. In 1997, President Bill Clinton nominated the federal district judge to a vacancy on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit. The Judiciary Committee held her nomination hearing in September 1997 but took six months to approve her on a 16 to 2 vote, in March 1998. She was finally confirmed on Oct. 2, 1998, after facing extensive questioning about her position on federal sentencing guidelines.

The effort to confirm Sotomayor will be led inside the White House by Cynthia Hogan, the chief counsel to Vice President Biden. White House officials described her as a veteran of the process and said Biden, a former Judiciary Committee chairman, and his chief of staff, Ron Klain, will also play key roles.

Republican aides have already noted the warm response to Sotomayor's nomination from a key group of centrist Democrats and Republicans who could make or break their chances at waging a filibuster. Sen. Olympia J. Snowe (R-Maine) noted that White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel called her before the announcement to inform her about the pick. And White House aides highlighted a conciliatory statement from Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine).

"Judge Sotomayor has a compelling life story and a long record of judicial service that will require careful consideration for this most important appointment," Collins said. "I look forward to a timely confirmation process that is fair, thorough, and conducted with civility."

news.notes20090527f

[UK News] from [The Guardian]

MI5 faces fresh torture allegations
Ex-civil servant to sue home secretary over alleged complicity in beatings

Ian Cobain
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 26 May 2009 21.36 BST
Article history

The home secretary Jacqui Smith faces legal action over allegations that MI5 agents colluded in the torture of a British former civil servant by Bangladeshi intelligence officers.

Lawyers for the British man, Jamil Rahman, are to file a damages claim alleging that Smith was complicit in assault, unlawful arrest, false imprisonment and breaches of human rights legislation over his alleged ill-treatment while detained in Bangladesh.

The claims bring to three the number of countries in which British intelligence agents have been accused of colluding in the torture of UK nationals. Rahman says that he was the victim of repeated beatings over a period of more than two years at the hands of Bangladeshi intelligence officers, and he claims that a pair of MI5 officers were blatantly involved in his ordeal.

The two men would leave the room where he was being interrogated whenever he refused to answer their questions, he says, and he would be severely beaten. They would then return to the room to resume the interrogation.

On occasion, he adds, his wife would be held in a nearby cell, and his torturers would threaten to rape her if he did not cooperate. Rahman's lawyers say that there is a wealth of evidence to support his allegations, including eyewitness testimony and medical evidence. Rahman was also able to provide his lawyers with the number of a mobile telephone that he says was used by one of the MI5 officers and a number for MI5 in London.

Rahman remains deeply traumatised, and is receiving treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder. His lawyer, Imran Khan, wrote to Smith last week putting her on notice of the intention to start proceedings. Smith and MI5 declined to comment; the Home Office said it would respond to Khan in due course.

Rahman's allegations follow recent claims of British collusion in the torture of a British citizen in Egypt, and growing evidence that MI5 officers have aided and abetted in the torture of several people in Pakistan.

Two high court judges say they have seen what they describe as "powerful evidence" of the torture by Pakistani agents of Binyam Mohamed, a British resident who was questioned by MI5 after being beaten and deprived of sleep, and was later "rendered" to Morocco for even more brutal torture.

In another case, MI5 and Greater Manchester Police drew up a list of questions for officers of a notorious intelligence agency to put to Rangzieb Ahmed while he was illegally detained in Pakistan.

Several other men have come forward to say they have been questioned by British intelligence officers after being tortured by Pakistani agents. Not all have gone on to be charged or convicted of terrorism: some have been innocent people who were released without charge.

The alleged complicity of the MI5 officers who failed to report or do anything to prevent torture appears to be in line with a secret government-approved interrogation policy at the time. Gordon Brown has ordered a review of the policy, but there have been numerous calls for an independent inquiry into the affair.

Among those demanding an inquiry are opposition leaders David Cameron and Nick Clegg; Ken Macdonald, the former director of public prosecutions; Lord Carlile of Berriew, the government's independent reviewer of counter-terrorism legislation; Lord Howe, foreign secretary in the Thatcher government, and Lord Guthrie, former chief of defence staff.

Rahman, 31, settled in Bangladesh in 2005 after marrying a woman he met while travelling in the country.

He returned to the UK last year and embarked upon legal action once his wife and child were able to join him earlier this month.

Rahman has not been questioned by police since his return, no attempt has been made to arrest him and he has not been subjected to a control order.


[World News] from [The Guardian]

Swine flu outbreak at Birmingham school infects 44
Welford school, hit by biggest outbreak in UK, will undergo 'deep clean' during half-term holiday

Polly Curtis and Helen Pidd
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 26 May 2009 17.49 BST
Article history

An outbreak of swine flu at a Birmingham primary school led to 44 new cases of the virus being confirmed yesterday, the largest number in a single day since the spread began.

Pupils at Welford primary in Handsworth, Birmingham, began feeling ill last week when three cases were initially diagnosed. Yesterday, lab results confirmed a further 44 infections at the school. They included 41 children and three adults. Three more people from the east of England and London were also diagnosed, taking the total in the UK so far to 184, the Department of Health said.

The Health Protection Agency (HPA) insisted that high rates of infection were to be expected in school environments where children come into close contact with one another. The school is closed this week for half term and expected to open for all pupils who are feeling well next week.

Before the holidays began, the headteacher informed the HPA there had been an unusually high number of absences owing to illness. At least 100 children had been off sick, according to local reports. As a result of the first confirmed case, all parents and staff were told either to attend the school over the weekend to collect antiviral medication or to receive medical attention at home.

A joint statement issued by the school and the HPA, posted on the school's website, says that it is undergoing a "deep clean" of the premises during the holiday before it reopens. The headteacher, Chris Smith, was unavailable for comment yesterday.

The HPA said that all confirmed cases are being treated at home with antivirals and are responding well to treatment. HPA officers contacted every parent of children in the school as well as teachers to find out if they have symptoms.

A spokeswoman for the HPA said that they had not yet identified the source of the outbreak. "The initial case is still under investigation. The vast majority of cases have been in people recently returning from an infected country or who have been in close contact with someone who has just returned. This is one of a very small number of cases where there isn't that history," she said.

The school recently featured in a BBC2 documentary called The Primary, about building a multicultural school community with children of 17 different nationalities. The school has 420 pupils and 60 in its nursery unit.

Almost 50 countries have now confirmed cases of swine flu and about 13,000 people around the world have been diagnosed with the virus. The death toll from the virus in Mexico stands at 83, while 12 people have died in the United States and two have died in Canada.

Of four cases confirmed on Monday in the UK, one was yesterday revealed to be a two-year-old boy from Oxford.

A DoH spokesman said: "The localised cases of swine flu found in the UK have so far been mild, and we have not seen evidence of widespread community transmission. Our strategy of containing the spread with anti-virals appears to have been effective in reducing symptoms and preventing further spread of infection.

"But we must not be complacent – it is right to prepare for the possibility of a global pandemic. The UK's arrangements are continuing, to ensure that we are well-placed to deal with this new infection.

news.notes20090527g

[Today's Paper] from [Slate Magazine]

Sotomayor Presents a Quandary to GOP

By Daniel Politi
Posted Wednesday, May 27, 2009, at 6:55 AM ET

The New York Times　(NYT) and Los Angeles Times (LAT) banner, while everyone else leads with, President Obama's nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. The LAT easily wins the headline-of-the-day award by connecting Sotomayor's nomination to the day's other big news—California's Supreme Court upholding the ban on marriage for same-sex couples—with the banner headline: "A Latina in the Middle." By nominating the 54-year-old New Yorker, Obama is "aiming to make good on his promise to bring 'empathy' to the court by naming a liberal with a compelling life story who would be its first Hispanic justice," notes the Wall Street Journal (WSJ). Obama made a point of emphasizing Sotomayor's "extraordinary journey" from a Bronx housing project to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York. "I have decided to nominate an inspiring woman who I believe will make a great justice," Obama said. The LAT points out that while she hasn't issued any significant rulings on hot-button issues like gay rights and abortion, "her narrowly written opinions resembled those of the justice she would replace, David H. Souter."

Obama's nomination, "paves the way for a heated summer debate on the role her gender, Hispanic roots and working-class Bronx background should play in her rulings," notes USA Today (USAT). But how much of a debate will there actually be? No one expects too many fireworks. The NYT says the "White House appeared eager to dare Republicans to stand against a history-making nomination." Indeed, Republicans seem to still be trying to decide how much they'll push back against Sotomayor, knowing full well that an "all-out assault … could alienate both Latino and women voters" while at the same time "sidestepping a court battle could be deflating to the party's base and hurt efforts to rally conservatives going forward," points out the Washington Post (WP).

Sotomayor, who would be the third woman on the country's highest court and the nation's 111th justice undoubtedly has an impressive resumé. She is a graduate of Princeton and Yale, and went on to serve as a prosecutor and then became a partner at a New York law firm before she was nominated by George H.W. Bush in 1992 to become a judge. Besides her professional experience though it undeniable that her "up-by-the-bootstraps tale, an only-in-America story that in many ways mirrors Mr. Obama's own," is one of the reasons why she was selected, notes the NYT in a separate front-page piece.

While Republicans in the Senate mostly stayed silent while vowing to closely examine her record, conservatives were ready with some attack lines, tagging her as a judicial activist. Conservatives focused on a speech where Sotomayor said a "court of appeals is where policy is made" and another where she said that "our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. … I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." In a front-page look at Sotomayor's story, the Post says that her life has "been heavily sculpted, if not fully defined, by her ethnicity."

Conservatives also focused on her support for affirmative action, particularly what appears to be her most controversial ruling in which she ruled against a group of white firefighters who said they were discriminated against. Sotomayor was part of a three-judge panel that issued a two-paragraph, unsigned opinion dismissing a lawsuit by the Connecticut firefighters who sued after they received good scores on tests that were supposed to be used to decide promotions but were later thrown out after no blacks qualified. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, and if the justices decide to overrule the decision it could an embarrassment before confirmation hearings. But the White House pushed back, saying that the unsigned decision was an example of Sotomayor following precedent, and, besides, officials seem confident that it would be difficult for opponents to turn two paragraphs into a major controversy.

Rush Limbaugh called her a "reverse racist," but her nomination "brought a surprisingly muted response from the Republican senators who will actually vote on it," notes the LAT. "The senators seemed to be taking their cues from quieter voices within the party who cautioned that opposing the country's first Latino Supreme Court nominee would amount to political suicide."

Some legal experts, including one of her colleagues, were quick to say that Sotomayor can best be described as a moderate liberal. "On the modern court, she's on the center left, pretty much right in line with Justice Souter," one lawyer who frequently argues in front of the Supreme Court tells the LAT. "Back in the day of the Warren court, she certainly would have been regarded as a moderate."

For those interested in the process, the NYT reports that Sotomayor spent seven hours at the White House last Thursday. By Friday, Obama said he was leaning toward selecting her but said he would take the weekend to think about it. The Post has the most detail about the White House plan for what "they hope will be a 72-day campaign to confirm Sotomayor by Aug. 7," when the Senate will go on a month-long recess. "We have to keep control of the narrative, to make sure that her story doesn't get told by someone else," one senior official said. The plan is to have Sen. Chuck Schumer introduce her to his colleagues and she will "then disappear" until confirmation hearings begin.

In a front-page analysis, the NYT's Adam Liptak says Sotomayor's "opinions are marked by diligence, depth and unflashy competence." Her decisions "are usually models of modern judicial craftsmanship" but "they reveal no larger vision, seldom appeal to history and consistently avoid quotable language." The WP says that on controversial issues, "Sotomayor has been difficult to categorize ideologically, with some rulings that have pleased conservatives and others liberals." Liptak adds that her penchant for "technical, incremental and exhaustive" decisions "makes her remarkably cursory treatment" of the firefighters case—Ricci v. DeStefano— "so baffling." This is why that one case will probably attract more attention than any other during confirmation hearings. Slate's Emily Bazelon writes that "Sotomayor punted when Ricci came before her, to such a degree that she raised more questions than she answered." (See here for Slate's complete coverage on Sotomayor.)

The NYT talks to some conservatives who say the big issue will be how she might rule on a same-sex marriage case. "Abortion is in some sense a stale issue that has been fought over many times, but gay marriage is very much up for grabs," said the executive director of the Committee for Justice. "Gay marriage will be bigger than abortion."

Same-sex marriage was certainly the topic of the day in California, where, as was widely expected, the state's Supreme Court upheld the ban on same-sex marriage that voters approved when they backed Proposition 8. At the same time, the court ruled that the marriages of approximately 18,000 same-sex couples who got married before the November election are still valid. The justices also emphasized that same-sex couples would continue to have the right to enter into ""committed, officially recognized and protected family relationships" recognized under the state's domestic partnership law. The LAT points out that certain parts of the ruling "read as a lament over the ease with which the California Constitution can be amended."

Within a few hours of the California Supreme Court decision, activists on both sides of the issue were already staking out their battle plans for their next fight, notes the LAT. As upset as gay rights activists may have been, the decision was largely expected so they wasted no time in urging supporters to donate money and time in anticipation of the next ballot measure that could come as early as 2010. Supporters of the ban were obviously pleased by the decision but emphasized that this is no time to rest on their laurels. It would be "foolish to think this will be the end of the battle," a pastor tells the LAT.

In an overview of the state of same-sex marriage in the country, the WP points out that, as of now, five states allow them, and four of them are in New England. The three other states that look set to approve it in the near future are in the Northeast, "making same-sex marriage appear increasingly to be a regional phenomenon rather than a national trend."

CONTINUED ON news.notes20090527h

news.notes20090527h

[Today's Paper] from [Slate Magazine]

Sotomayor Presents a Quandary to GOP

By Daniel Politi
Posted Wednesday, May 27, 2009, at 6:55 AM ET

CONTINUED FROM news.notes20090527g

The LAT, NYT, and WP front the other big news of the day as they all hear word that General Motors and the United Auto Workers have agreed to a new restructuring plan that would give the union a smaller stake in the company and leave the government owning as much as 70 percent of the automaker. It was previously thought that the government would get a 50 percent stake in the company. So now the much-repeated quip, which the NYT mentions today, that GM will now stand for Government Motors may be more appropriate than ever, although everyone is careful to mention the numbers could still change before GM files for bankruptcy, which is widely expected to happen Monday. The WP points out that once you add the stakes that Canada would get in the company, nearly three-quarters of the new GM could end up being government-owned.

The new bankruptcy reorganization proposal would have the United States lending the automaker around $30 billion more, which would be in addition to the $19.4 billion it has already spent. The NY points out that some estimate that "tens of billions beyond that amount may be required." The WSJ specifies that the plan would have the government paying off GM's secured lenders in full to the tune of around $6 billion. Out of concern for GM's future, the union sought to lower its stakes in the company down to 17.5 percent, in exchange for some concessions. As the NYT emphasizes, the idea that GM will effectively be a government company raises lots of questions since numerous "policy decisions—on matters such as fuel economy standards, tax incentives to replace aging cars and green technology initiatives—will present conflicting interests.

In the NYT's op-ed page, the paper's former Supreme Court correspondent, Linda Greenhouse, writes that many people ignore how the highest court in the land "is a dynamic institution whose component parts are always, although not always visibly, in motion." Even if Sotomayor holds similar views to that of Souter, the truth is that every time someone enters Washington's most exclusive clique, it makes a difference. "Will it be a difference that is discernible in the outcomes of cases? That may not be clear immediately." But she could eventually help some of her colleagues, particularly Justice Anthony Kenedy, see things through her eyes. Coming after a few years when it seemed the Court was "headed in the opposite direction from the country" Sotomayor's arrival "will, at the least, change the way the world sees the Supreme Court."

news.notes20090526a

[Biography of the Day] from [Britannica]

Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Sally Ride
In June 1983 astronaut Sally Ride, born this day in 1951, became the first American woman to travel into outer space, 20 years after Valentina Tereshkova of Russia had made history as the first woman to do so.

[On This Day] from [Britannica]

Tuesday, May 26, 2009
1521: Martin Luther declared a heretic by the Edict of Worms
Passed this day in 1521, the Edict of Worms banned the writings of Martin Luther—a German cleric whose efforts to change the church led to the Reformation—and declared him an outlaw and a heretic who was to be captured.


[TODAY'S TOP STORIES] from [The Japan Times]

[NATIONAL NEWS]
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
More sanctions seen as ineffective

By JUN HONGO
Staff writer

Japan joined the international community in condemning North Korea's nuclear test Monday, but some experts questioned whether imposing further sanctions will help get the reclusive state to drop its nuclear program.

Following reports of the test, the government was quick to say it will collaborate with Japan's allies to handle Pyongyang's latest act of defiance.

Prime Minister Taro Aso said the test was "unacceptable."

"North Korea's nuclear test was a grave defiance toward the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and clearly violates the resolution adopted by the U.N. Security Council," Aso said. "It can by no means be tolerated."

He said Japan will demand that the United Nations adopt a resolution against Pyongyang, and that Japan will decide what measures to take, including implementing further sanctions, once the nuclear test is officially confirmed.

But experts pointed out that North Korea hasn't shied away from its nuclear development program despite continued sanctions.

"We've done pretty much everything there is to do in terms of sanctions," said Masao Okonogi, a political science professor at Keio University in Tokyo and an expert on North Korean issues.

Okonogi explained that while Washington will not swiftly agree with Pyongyang's desire to hold bilateral talks, ignoring the message will only encourage the North to take increasingly drastic measures.

"If the U.S. doesn't launch direct talks eventually, the next step for North Korea could possibly include intercontinental ballistic missiles," Okonogi said.

Following Pyongyang's first nuclear test in October 2006, the U.N. Security Council adopted a resolution against North Korea that imposed economic sanctions and banned missile development. But North Korea continues to defy such demands, most recently in April when it launched a rocket over Japan.

While the missile launch resulted in a nonbinding presidential statement by the Security Council, the North reacted by removing International Atomic Energy Agency officials who were monitoring its nuclear programs, ultimately speeding up its preparations for a nuclear test.

Patterns from the past decade also indicate that the North will continue its forceful diplomacy until it gets what it wants, which Keio University's Okonogi said is to talk directly with the U.S. on upgrading the ceasefire agreement on the Korean Peninsula to a full peace treaty.

Meanwhile, some experts say Japan's next step — and its only option — is to join hands with South Korea and the U.S. to impose strict sanctions against Pyongyang.

"We need to strengthen penalties once more and call for tough regulations," Hisahiko Okazaki, an expert on Japanese foreign policy, said.

With Monday's nuclear test, Russia and China, which were against imposing strict penalties in April, will not be able to oppose sanctions on the North by the Security Council, he said.

"The new sanctions must be tough, and be agreed on swiftly. We were too cushy over April's missile launch," Okazaki said.
-

[NATIONAL NEWS]
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Kansai kids return to school as flu threat fades

By ERIC JOHNSTON
Staff writer

OSAKA — It was back-to-school day Monday for the majority of students at 4,400 schools in Hyogo and Osaka prefectures after being kept home for a week by the outbreak of swine flu.

As of Monday afternoon, 346 people, mostly junior high and high school students in the Kansai region, were confirmed to have contracted the virus.

Local schools, which announced early last week they would close until Monday or Tuesday, reopened with a sense of relief as the health ministry announced the number of new infections peaked last week and local governments reported many people who fell ill had recovered by the weekend.

However, a few schools in both Hyogo and Osaka, where large numbers of students were stricken or where students became sick after their schools closed, will remain shut for another few days, pending the discovery of new cases among their students.

For most, though, it was time to put on the school uniforms again. Some who headed back to class Monday, predictably, were hoping for more time off.

"It was great. I had a relaxing week, getting caught up with friends and just hanging around the house. I didn't study too much," said Yuko Nakanishi, 17, a high school student in Osaka.

Parents of younger students were especially happy to see the schools reopen.

"It was a tough week," said Masanori Kawahara, a 31-year-old office worker whose daughter goes to an Osaka-area school.

"My daughter, a third-grader, was home, but my wife had to go to her part-time job and leave her with friends. I hope she can get caught up quickly, although I suspect there will have to be makeup classes."

Last Friday, at the urging of the governors of Hyogo and Osaka prefectures, the health ministry agreed to allow local municipalities to decide for themselves whether to open or close schools as evidence mounted that the outbreak was due to what is likely a less virulent strain of the H1N1 virus than the one that has killed 86 people worldwide, according to the World Health Organization.

On Monday, the ministry said newly confirmed cases of the virus peaked May 20 and have been decreasing since.


[NATIONAL NEWS]
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Government to embrace 'Green New Deal'

(Kyodo News) The government will promote "Green New Deal" policies to expand the nation's markets related to environmental conservation and build a society where environmental policies will not hamper economic growth, according to a draft of the 2009 white paper on the environment.

The annual report on the environment, recycling society and biodiversity, penned by the Environment Ministry, will call for such policies as the promotion of environmentally friendly consumer appliances for replacement demand. The Cabinet is set to approve the paper June 2.

The Green New Deal strategy, officially unveiled by Environment Minister Tetsuo Saito on April 20, is designed to expand Japan's environment-linked market 1.7-fold from the 2006 level to 120 trillion by 2020 and double employment in the market to 2.8 million.

In one of the main features of the new policy, the government will provide interest of up to 3 percent on loans to be taken out by businesses for introducing natural energy and equipment with low carbon dioxide emissions.

The draft paper cites as an example that switching from an air conditioner made in 1997 to one made in 2008 would cut carbon dioxide emissions by 260 kg and save 19,000 in electricity a year.

The paper also refers to Prime Minister Taro Aso's pledge in early April to boost Japan's solar power output capacity 20-fold by 2020.

The draft says Japan aims to lead negotiations at key U.N. climate talks in Copenhagen in December, which will set the framework for a pact to replace the 1997 Kyoto Protocol to fight global warming. Kyoto expires in 2012.

news.notes20090526b

[TODAY'S TOP STORIES] from [The Japan Times]

[BUSINESS NEWS]
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Economy looking up for first time since '06

(Kyodo News) The government on Monday raised its assessment of the economy for the first time in more than three years, citing a gradual pickup in external demand and falling corporate inventories, possibly indicating the worst of the recession is over.

"While the economy is in a difficult situation, the tempo of worsening has become moderate," the Cabinet Office said in its monthly economic report for May.

It is the first time since February 2006 the government has upgraded its overall assessment of the economy, abandoning the wording it used over the past two months, when it said, "The economy is worsening rapidly while in a severe situation."

It noted that some economic indicators, including those related to industrial output and exports, have improved, while others such as those gauging the health of consumer spending and housing markets have shown signs of leveling out.

The government expected the economy to be backed by strengthening economic conditions abroad, especially in China, the ongoing progress in inventory adjustment and the effects from a huge package of stimulus measures, which include tax cuts for the purchase of environmentally friendly cars and expressway toll discounts.

But the report says the economy remains vulnerable for the time being, warning in particular that deteriorating job conditions could be the next big obstacle to recovery.

The government lowered its assessment of employment conditions for the first time since December, when it said for the first time ever that they were "getting worse rapidly."

Now it says, "The employment situation, which is worsening rapidly, is severe."

The seasonally adjusted unemployment rate in March, released earlier this month, rose at its fastest pace in more than 40 years to hit a four-year high of 4.8 percent.

Because salaries have also been cut, Cabinet Office officials are concerned about a possible renewed slowdown in consumer spending, a key driver of domestic demand.

In the latest monthly economic report, the government kept the assessment for consumer spending unchanged for the fourth straight month, saying it is "decreasing modestly."

On the outlook of private consumption, the report says the impact of the swine flu outbreak must be watched carefully.

Its evaluations of all economic areas, except the job environment, were either upgraded or kept intact.

The assessment of industrial production was upgraded for the first time since December 2007, saying it is "nearing the bottom," while that of bankruptcies improved for the first time since June 2004.

The description of capital spending remained "decreasing" for the sixth consecutive month.

On the economic climate overseas, the government upgraded its overall view for the first time since December 2003, saying there are some positive effects arising from policy responses and fewer risks, although the situation remains severe.

The United States, Asia and the euro zone all received higher grades for their economic conditions.


[BUSINESS NEWS]
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Honda passes Toyota as No. 1 with suppliers

NEW YORK (AP) Honda Motor Co. has overtaken Toyota Motor Corp. as the company auto parts suppliers most want to do business with, according to an annual survey released Monday.

Toyota was the No. 1 automaker among parts suppliers since 2002, but its ratings have fallen steadily over the last two years, according to a study by Planning Perspectives Inc., a U.S.-based company that surveys manufacturing and service industries. Honda's marks also declined from last year, although not by as much.

Japanese automakers continued to enjoy the best relations with their suppliers, with Nissan Motor Co. coming in third among the six automakers ranked. Ford Motor Co., whose supplier relations improved dramatically for the second year in a row, came in fourth, followed by General Motors Corp. and Chrysler LLC.

A total of 231 first-tier parts suppliers representing 52 percent of automakers' annual purchases responded to the survey, which was conducted over three weeks in April. The survey ranked the automakers based on degree of trust, open and honest communications, amount of help given to suppliers to reduce costs and supplier profit opportunities, Planning Perspectives said.

"While Ford still has a lot of work to do, what they're doing with their suppliers is working," said John W. Henke, president and chief executive of Planning Perspectives, in a written statement.

Suppliers who work with Toyota complained of a younger, less experienced staff at the automaker's purchasing group, Henke said. It said Ford's improvement was due to its recent decision to transfer its top European purchasing executive to the United States.

Ford remains the only automaker among the Detroit Three that has not accepted government aid. Rival Chrysler is in the midst of bankruptcy proceedings and many of its biggest creditors are parts suppliers waiting to be paid.

GM, meanwhile, is holding out hope for an out-of-court restructuring.


[BUSINESS NEWS]
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Consumer electronics dive 14%

(Kyodo News) Shipments of consumer electronic products fell 13.7 percent in April from a year earlier to \200.3 billion, declining for the seventh consecutive month due largely to sluggish demand for car navigation systems and other audiovisual equipment for automobiles, an industry body said Monday.

But the pace of decline slowed from a drop of 14.8 percent in March, partly because of relatively robust demand for flat-panel televisions and DVD players, the Japan Electronics and Information Technology Industries Association said.

The association is expecting some improvement in shipments in May, saying demand for environmentally friendly TVs is likely to increase further thanks to the government's so-called eco-point system.

The program provides incentives to buyers of ecologically friendly electronic appliances, including TV sets designed for terrestrial digital broadcasting.

By product, shipments of audiovisual equipment for automobiles tumbled 27.1 percent to \44.7 billion, down for the seventh straight month.

Shipments of visual equipment such as TVs fell 6.6 percent to \140.8 billion and those of audio devices dropped 24.4 percent to \14.8 billion.


[BUSINESS NEWS]
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
NTT unit to buy Pacific Crossing

(Kyodo News) NTT Communications Corp. said Monday it has agreed to acquire all of Pacific Crossing Ltd. at a price of more than \10 billion to expand its underwater cable network to meet growing data communication needs, particularly between Japan and the United States.

The unit of telecommunications giant NTT Corp. said it plans to complete the acquisition by mid-September. Pacific Crossing privately owns an undersea fiber optic ring network connecting the U.S. and Japan.

"We had been purchasing undersea cables when the need arose, but we've decided to purchase a whole company in view of future growth in information and Internet use," NTT Communications spokesman Koji Yamamoto said.

Pacific Crossing, registered in Bermuda, operates a cable measuring 21,000 km with a capacity of 3.2 terabits per second.


[BUSINESS NEWS]
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Eco-point plan helps retailers' share prices

(Bloomberg) Bic Camera Inc., Kojima Co. and other appliance retailers advanced in Tokyo trading Monday after a government program prompted higher sales of environmentally friendly goods.

Bic Camera jumped 7.5 percent to close at \31,150 on the Tokyo Stock Exchange, the highest since Nov. 13. Kojima surged 17 percent to \619, its highest since November 2007. Edion Corp. advanced 6.1 percent to \683. K's Holdings Corp. gained 3.3 percent to \2,195 and Yamada Denki Co. added 0.5 percent to \5,780.

"After the eco-point system started, sales of televisions, refrigerators and air conditioners almost doubled from a year ago," Bic Camera spokeswoman Mayumi Tamura said.

Customers buying products with high eco-points, as the incentives are known, increased, Tamura said.

news.notes20090526c

[World on Today's Paper] from [Los Angeles Times]

Tensions rise on Korean peninsula
Seoul announces that it will join an effort to prevent Pyongyang from getting nuclear materials. The North has said such a move would be considered a declaration of war, and it test-launches two more missiles.

John M. Glionna, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
12:09 AM PDT, May 26, 2009

Reporting from Seoul -- A day after North Korea's nuclear test, tensions on the Korean Peninsula rose further as Seoul announced that it would join a U.S.-led initiative to curb nuclear trade and the North reportedly test-launched two more short-range missiles.

North Korea said Monday that it had conducted a nuclear test followed by several short-range missile launches, drawing criticism from world capitals as well as a warning that Pyongyang had violated a United Nations Security Council resolution.

Citing an unnamed government source, the Yonhap news agency reported today that North Korea had launched two more missiles. That news came after Asian and European leaders called for restraint by Pyongyang, which has said it would consider Seoul's participation in the anti-proliferation effort a declaration of war.

A statement signed by ministers in more than 40 countries urged Pyongyang to stop conducting nuclear tests and rejoin six-nation talks designed to halt its nuclear development.

After high-level meetings at the South Korean presidential Blue House, officials announced today that Seoul was joining 100 other nations in the so-called Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI).

For months, South Korea had waffled on joining the largely symbolic naval blockade of ports that might trade in nuclear-related arms, concerned that the move would further alienate its communist neighbor.

In a statement, South Korean Foreign Ministry spokesman Moon Tae-young said the move came in response "to the grave threat to world peace and security from the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and of missiles."

In a telephone call to South Korean President Lee Myung-bak, President Obama praised South Korea for its support.

In a statement, Pyongyang's state-run Korean Central News Agency accused Obama of "pursuing the same reckless policy as followed by the former Bush administration to stifle [North Korea] by force of arms."

It cited what it called the "dangerous scenario of the U.S. to put the Asia-Pacific region under its military control … as foolish an attempt as taking oil to extinguish a fire."

In the past, Pyongyang has reacted angrily to the prospect of Seoul supporting the PSI, referring to Lee as a traitor and his administration as "puppet authorities."

Lee Jong-joo, a vice spokesman of South Korea's Unification Ministry, said today that the PSI did not single out any country but was meant as a blanket policy against nuclear proliferation.

"We have been telling the North that this is not a matter related to South-North Korea relations," she said. "I hope North Korea will not make any wrong perception on this level."

Officials in Seoul suggested that they would not actively harass North Korean vessels, while continuing to honor a 2005 maritime agreement with the North that stressed nonviolence.

Experts also questioned the effectiveness of Seoul's joining the PSI, saying the move could further complicate matters between the two Koreas. "It's obviously [a move] that can escalate tensions," said Paik Hak-soon, director at the Center for North Korean Studies at Sejong Institute in suburban Seoul. "This is not an effective policy instrument to solve fundamental questions about denuclearizing North Korea."

Reacting to the growing sensitivity, Seoul also established new guidelines for South Koreans working in the jointly run Kaesong Industrial Complex, calling for them to avoid contact with workers from the North.

news.notes20090526d

[Asia/Pacific on Today's Paper] from [The New York Times]

Tested Early by North Korea, Obama Has Few Options

By DAVID E. SANGER
Published: May 25, 2009

Facing the first direct challenge to his administration by an emerging nuclear weapons state, President Obama declared Monday that the United States and its allies would “stand up” to North Korea, hours after that country defied international sanctions and conducted what appeared to be its second nuclear test.

Mr. Obama reacted to the underground blast as White House officials scrambled to coordinate an international response to a North Korean nuclear capacity that none of his predecessors had proved able to reverse.

Acutely aware that their response to the explosion in the mountains of Kilju, not far from the Chinese border, would be seen as an early test of a new administration, Mr. Obama’s aides said they were determined to organize a significantly stronger response than the Bush administration had managed after the North’s first nuclear test, in October 2006.

Speaking in the Rose Garden after returning to the White House from Camp David and meeting with his top aides in the Oval Office, Mr. Obama vowed to “take action” in response to what he called “a blatant violation of international law” and the North’s declaration that it was repudiating past commitments to dismantle its nuclear program.

But as they had meetings every few hours — including a lengthy session in the Situation Room on Monday evening — some of Mr. Obama’s aides acknowledged that the administration’s options were limited.

Much depends, they said, on the new president’s ability to persuade Russia and China to go significantly beyond the strong condemnations that they issued Monday against North Korea, their former ally and a vestige of cold-war communism.

“I think we were all impressed with the fact that the Russians and the Chinese denounced this so strongly,” Rahm Emanuel, Mr. Obama’s chief of staff, said in a telephone call.

Yet turning that into effective action will prove a challenge.

Efforts by the Clinton administration to entice the North to halt its weapons program by providing it with oil and nuclear power plants, and by the Bush administration to push the country to collapse and then to try to seize its leaders’ assets, all failed.

So did Mr. Bush’s second-term strategy reversal, when he alienated hard-liners in his administration by reaching a deal with the North to dismantle its main nuclear plant, a step the North began last year.

In recent months, the North has renounced the accord and taken the first steps to restart operations and manufacture more plutonium for bomb fuel.

Now Mr. Obama must decide how to mix what he called “stronger international pressure” with a new set of diplomatic overtures at a moment when, his aides are acutely aware, Iran and other nations are taking his measure, examining the confrontation with North Korea for hints of how he will handle complex confrontations to come.

While Mr. Obama delivered a Memorial Day speech and then took the afternoon off to play golf, aides tried to sift through the sparse data to determine exactly what abilities North Korea had proved, if any.

Initial seismic readings showed the blast at Kilju, exactly where North Korea conducted its 2006 test, was “a several kiloton event,” according to one senior administration official. If that judgment is correct, the test yielded a somewhat bigger explosion than the 2006 test, which was later judged a partial fizzle.

But it will take days or weeks of testing radioactive particles vented into the atmosphere to calculate the size of the device, and even then there will be continuing debate about whether the North has the engineering ability to make a weapon compact enough to fit in the warhead of a missile, much less to deliver it to a target.

The White House said that on Monday evening Mr. Obama called the leaders of the two strongest American allies in northeast Asia, President Lee Myung-bak of South Korea and Prime Minister Taro Aso of Japan, promising that he would press for “concrete measures to curtail North Korea” and vowing an “unequivocal commitment” to the defense of both countries.

While hardly unexpected, that statement was considered an important signal by American officials who are eager to tamp down any nervousness among Asian allies about whether a new and untested president is willing to face down a regime that has been defying Washington since Eisenhower was in the Oval Office.

But as Japanese and South Korean officials acknowledge, they are less concerned about a direct attack from the North — which would almost certainly result in a devastating, American-led response — than about North Korea selling its twice-tested nuclear weapons technology on the black market, much as it has sold missile and reactor technology in the Middle East.

“We’re back to the same problem Bush had,” one intelligence official said. “The threat is not that they will shoot off a nuclear weapon; it’s that they will sell nuclear material.”

In emergency conference calls after the North gave less than an hour’s notice through its mission to the United Nations that it would conduct a test early Monday, Mr. Obama’s team agreed on some preliminary strategy.

One senior administration official said that the United States would never grant full diplomatic recognition to North Korea, or sign a peace treaty formally ending the Korean War, unless its nuclear capability is dismantled.

To devise a common response, administration officials began planning to meet with Asian leaders, and eventually with the central player in the diplomatic drama: China. Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates will begin the effort this week on a previously scheduled trip for an annual defense meeting, and his spokesman, Geoff Morrell, said, “There is simply no greater security challenge facing Asia than a nuclear-armed North Korea.” He said Mr. Gates would work “to figure out how we collectively can prevent that from becoming a reality.”

Outside experts say it is probably a reality already. A C.I.A. assessment concluded that North Korea had built one or two nuclear weapons during the administration of the first President Bush, and in the spring of 2003, while the United States was focused on Iraq, the North expelled inspectors and harvested the fuel for six or more weapons. The second Bush administration said it would never “tolerate” a nuclear North Korea, but by the time it left office, none of that fissile material had been recovered.

Perhaps the most powerful untapped sanction available to Mr. Obama and his allies is contained in a United Nations Security Council resolution passed after the 2006 test. It authorizes the United States and other nations to halt and inspect shipping into and out of North Korea for contraband missile parts or nuclear materials. The sanction has never been enforced, partly because of concerns that it could escalate hostilities with North Korea, the poorest and least predictable state in Northeast Asia.

When asked whether Mr. Obama would seek to intercept North Korean shipping, a step that could paralyze the country’s trade, a senior administration official said, “That’s getting ahead of ourselves.”

Another senior official, however, said, “Other than having the Chinese cut off their oil, it might be the only step that would show them we are serious.”

The calculation about how hard to press the North is made more complex by doubts about who is making decisions in Pyongyang. Kim Jong-il, whom North Koreans call the Dear Leader, appeared to have suffered a debilitating stroke last year. Mr. Kim reappeared recently, looking gaunt, thin and greatly aged, but intelligence officials say they believe he is again making day-to-day decisions. Nonetheless, they say, a succession struggle has begun.

In the past, the two countries most cautious about pushing North Korean leaders to change course were China and Russia, so it was significant on Monday that when work began at the Security Council on a new resolution, both appeared to support stiffer penalties, after having blocked steps in that direction after the North’s test of a missile in April.

The Russians were surprisingly adamant. Vitaly I. Churkin, the Russian ambassador to the United Nations, said that the world had to face down threats to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, which many view on the brink of collapse, and the still-unapproved Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.

news.notes20090526e

[Asia/Pacific on Today's Paper] fom [The Washington Post]

North Korean Nuclear Blast Draws Global Condemnation
China, Russia Decry Ally; Device Seen as Small Advance

By Blaine Harden
Washington Post Foreign Service
Tuesday, May 26, 2009

TOKYO, May 27 -- North Korea's detonation of a nuclear device Monday appears not to have been a significant technical advance over its first underground test three years ago. But it has triggered a swifter, stronger and more uniform wave of international condemnation, most notably from the isolated nation's historical allies, China and Russia.

The U.N. Security Council moved quickly in an emergency meeting Monday to condemn the test, saying it constituted a clear violation of a 2006 U.N. resolution barring the communist state from exploding a nuclear weapon. The council's speedy response contrasted with protracted discussions that followed North Korea's April 5 launch of a long-range missile and reflected what analysts called deep displeasure by Russia and China.

Earlier, the Chinese government, North Korea's main economic patron, said it was "resolutely opposed" to the test and told Pyongyang to avoid actions that heighten tensions and return to multi-nation talks focused on dismantling its nuclear program. China's response Monday was significantly more pointed than it was to North Korea's first nuclear test, in October 2006.

President Obama, whose staff was informed of Monday's test about an hour before it took place and who had been briefed several times in the past week about the possibility, accused North Korea of "blatant violation of international law."

"By acting in blatant defiance of the United Nations Security Council, North Korea is directly and recklessly challenging the international community," Obama said in a brief statement outside the White House. "North Korea's behavior increases tensions and undermines stability in Northeast Asia. Such provocations will only serve to deepen North Korea's isolation."

The test, described as "successful" by North Korea's official Korean Central News Agency, escalates a pattern of provocation that this spring has included the long-range missile launch, detention of two U.S. journalists, kicking out U.N. nuclear inspectors, restarting a plutonium factory and halting six-nation negotiations on its nuclear program.

North Korea said its second nuclear test was more powerful and better controlled than its 2006 test, which many experts characterized as a semi-failure.

But several U.S. experts on nuclear weapons said Monday's test demonstrated that the North Koreans have not yet mastered the technology of creating a reliable nuclear bomb.

"The simplest hypothesis is that they're trying to build a weaponizable device and they're still not that good at it," said Jeffrey Lewis, director of the Nuclear Strategy and Nonproliferation Initiative at the New America Foundation, a nonprofit group.

The explosive yield from Monday's test was in the range of 2 to 4 kilotons, which is two to five times that of the 2006 test, according to Siegfried S. Hecker, a periodic visitor to North Korea's nuclear complex in Yongbyon who is a former director of the Los Alamos National Laboratory and current co-director of Stanford University's Center for International Security and Cooperation.

"You would expect 10 to 20 times that yield," said Theodore Postol, a professor of science, technology and national security policy at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. "These guys have not solved the problem."

On a technical level, Postol said, the North Koreans appear to be having trouble building a device that uses explosives to compress plutonium into a perfect ball, which creates a uniformly spherical implosion and the maximum possible explosive yield.

"It means they are not yet able to confidently build an experimental weapon and they may not be able to determine what they did wrong," Postol said.

Still, Monday's test represented some progress, according to a former intelligence official who has long studied North Korea.

"Without question, it's a step forward," said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of his past work.

North Korea has for years been the target of international sanctions intended to limit the country's access to bomb and missile-making technology. But a senior administration official said that although the sanctions have undermined the North's economy, they have had little direct effect on its "entirely indigenous" nuclear program.

The government mines its own uranium, builds laboratories using its own technical expertise and generates its own plutonium, making it hard to stop the process from the outside, the official said.

After it exploded a small nuclear device in 2006, North Korea agreed to begin shutting down its main nuclear reactor and began to disable it. It did so in return for food, fuel and diplomatic concessions, including a move by the Bush administration last year to remove North Korea from a U.S. list of state sponsors of terrorism. But the negotiations did nothing to stop North Korea from trying to improve the quality of its nuclear devices.

"It is not surprising that the North tested again," said Hecker, who has occasionally been in contact with North Korean nuclear scientists. "The October 2006 test must have raised as many questions for them as it answered. The technical people must have been eager to conduct another test or two."

Hecker said that after North Korea decided in April to cut off the six-nation nuclear talks sponsored by China and reprocess about 18 pounds of plutonium in spent reactor fuel, "they had sufficient material for another test or two."

Reassuring Allies

Japanese Prime Minister Taro Aso said Monday night that his country "absolutely cannot tolerate" the nuclear test because North Korea is also beefing up its ballistic missile capability, which "could be a means of transportation for weapons of mass destruction."

Obama spoke by telephone Monday evening with Aso and South Korean President Lee Myung-bak. Obama told both men that the nuclear test was a violation of international law and reiterated the United States' "unequivocal commitment to the defense" of its two allies, according to an account of the calls released by the White House.

Japan dispatched three military aircraft Monday night from three bases to monitor the possible presence of radioactive substances in the air, the Defense Ministry said. Japan's anxiety about the test is heightened by its vulnerability to attack from nearby North Korea, which has more than 200 midrange Nodong missiles capable of striking most of the country.

U.S. intelligence and some independent experts have concluded that North Korea is attempting to build nuclear warheads small enough to fit atop those missiles. Monday's test should be viewed as a step forward in that process, said David Albright, a physicist and nuclear weapons experts who runs the Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security.

"They want to improve their craft," Albright said. "They want to have assurance that if they put a device on a Nodong or another kind of missile that it will actually work. This explosion takes them down the road a bit toward that goal."

'A Serious Threat'

The nuclear test pushed South Korea on Tuesday to join a U.S.-led campaign to stop countries such as North Korea from exporting missiles and weapons of mass destruction. Pyongyang has warned that it would regard the South's participation in the Proliferation Security Initiative as an act of war.

Chinese reaction to Monday's test was notable for being far less ambivalent than its response three years ago. Then, Beijing expressed concern that its neighbor had violated its commitments, but its state media denounced the United States' confrontational policies and blamed the Bush administration for cutting off aid and provoking the crisis.

China has long been conflicted about how to deal with North Korea's nuclear program. It opposes another nuclear power in the region, which could push Japan and other countries into a military buildup. But it was cautious about weakening the government of Kim Jong Il and setting loose a flow of North Korean refugees into China.

With this test, though, China may consider increasing sanctions on the North, some experts said.

"There is every reason to think they might shut down food or communications links," said Christopher R. Hughes, a professor in international relations at the London School of Economics and Political Science.

China cooperated in 2006 with banking sanctions against North Korea on the island of Macau. "Those things obviously hurt the North Koreans and did bring them back to the table," Hughes said.

Significantly at the United Nations on Monday, it was Russia's envoy, Vitaly Churkin, who spoke on behalf of the Security Council's 15 members. Until the early 1990s, the former Soviet Union was by far the most important supporter of North Korea's government.

"The members of the Security Council voice their strong opposition to and condemnation of the nuclear test conducted by" North Korea, said Churkin, who is serving as the council's president this month.

Susan E. Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, welcomed the council's swift agreement and said the United States would seek support for a new resolution containing tough unspecified measures against Pyongyang.

CONTINUED ON news.notes20090526f

news.notes20090526f

[Asia/Pacific on Today's Paper] fom [The Washington Post]

North Korean Nuclear Blast Draws Global Condemnation
China, Russia Decry Ally; Device Seen as Small Advance

By Blaine Harden
Washington Post Foreign Service
Tuesday, May 26, 2009

CONTINUED FROM news.notes20090526e

'No Easy Situation'

The government of Kim Jong Il has been fuming over Security Council condemnation of its long-range missile launch in April 5. It had said repeatedly that it might test another nuclear device. In its statement Monday, North Korea said the test was intended to "bolster up its nuclear deterrent for self-defense in every way."

Analysts said the test may also be related to succession issues.

Last summer Kim reportedly suffered a stroke, and recent photos show that he is much thinner and more frail. His youngest son, Kim Jong Un, is widely speculated to be the most likely successor. "North Korea's leader is ailing, and he may be impatient," said Koh Yu-whan, a professor of North Korean studies at Seoul's Dongguk University. "Realizing that there is change in store for him, Kim seems to have opted for a strong message that the United States cannot ignore."


North Korea has focused on establishing full diplomatic relations with the United States and receiving recognition as a nuclear state, according to several official statements and many analysts.

Obama's special envoy to North Korea, Stephen Bosworth, has signaled he is willing to begin bilateral talks with Pyongyang, as well as continue negotiations in a six-nation disarmament forum. But North Korea is rejecting all talks, accusing Obama of continuing the Bush administration's "hostile policy."

"North Korea's message is that they are heading towards status as a nuclear nation and that they will, therefore, deal only with the United States," said Cha Du-hyeogn, director of North Korean research at the Seoul-based Korean Institute of Defense Analysis, a government-affiliated think tank. "This is no easy situation for the United States and a worse one for South Korea."

news.notes20090526g

[Science on Today's Paper] from [The Guardian]

What the future looks like
As the planet faces the most dangerous century in its 4.5bn-year history, astronomer royal Martin Rees looks into his crystal ball

Martin Rees
The Guardian, Tuesday 26 May 2009
Article history

It would be foolhardy to venture technological predictions for 2050. Even more so to predict social and geopolitical changes. The most important advances, the qualitative leaps, are the least predictable. Not even the best scientists predicted the impact of nuclear physics, and everyday consumer items such as the iPhone would have seemed magic back in the 1950s.

But there are some trends that we can predict with confidence. There will, barring a global catastrophe, be far more people on Earth than today. Fifty years ago the world population was below 3 billion. It has more than doubled since then, to 6.7 billion. The percentage growth rate has slowed, but it is projected to reach 9 billion by 2050. The excess will almost all be in the developing world where the young hugely outnumber the old.

If population growth were to continue beyond 2050, one can't be other than exceedingly gloomy about the prospects. And the challenge of feeding such a rapidly growing population will be aggravated by climate change.

The world will be warmer than today in 2050; the patterns of rainfall and drought across the world will be different. If we pursue "business as usual",

CO2 concentration levels will reach twice the pre-industrial level by around 2050. The higher its concentration, the greater the warming - and, more important still, the greater the chance of triggering something grave and irreversible: rising sea levels due to the melting of Greenland's icecap; runaway release of methane in the tundra.

Some technical advances - information technology, for instance - surprise us by their rapidity; others seemingly stagnate. Only 12 years elapsed between the launch of Sputnik and Neil Armstrong's "one small step" on the moon. Many of us then expected a lunar base, even an expedition to Mars, within 30 years. But it's more than 36 years since Jack Schmitt and Eugene Cernan, the last men on the moon, returned to Earth. Since that time, hundreds of astronauts have been into orbit, but none has ventured further.

The Apollo programme now seems a remote historical episode: young people all over the world learn that America landed men on the moon, just as they learn that the Egyptians built the pyramids; the motivations seem almost as bizarre in the one case as in the other. The race to the moon was an end in itself - a magnificent "stunt", driven by superpower rivalry. Thereafter, the impetus for manned flight was lost. But, of course, we now depend on space in our everyday lives (GPS, weather forecasting and communications). And robotic exploration has burgeoned. Unmanned probes to other planets have beamed back pictures of varied and distinctive worlds.

I hope that by 2050 the entire solar system will have been explored and mapped by flotillas of tiny robotic craft. Robots and "fabricators" may enable large construction projects, using raw materials that need not come from Earth. But will people follow them? The practical case for sending people into space gets ever-weaker with each advance in robots and miniaturisation. But I'm nonetheless an enthusiast for manned missions - to the moon, to Mars and even beyond - simply as a long-range adventure for (at least a few) humans.

Each mobile phone today has far more computing power than was available to the whole of Nasa in the 1960s. And advances proceed apace. Some claim that computers will, by 2050, achieve human capabilities. Of course, in some respects they already have. For 30 years we've been able to buy calculators that can hugely surpass us at arithmetic. IBM's "Deep Blue" beat Kasparov, the world chess champion. But not even the most advanced robot can recognise and move the pieces on a real chessboard as adeptly as a five-year-old child.

Deep Blue didn't work out its strategy like a human player: it exploited its computational speed to explore millions of alternative series of moves and responses before deciding an optimum move. Likewise, machines may make scientific discoveries that have eluded unaided human brains - but by testing out millions of possibilities rather than via a theory or strategy.

But will we continue to push forward the frontiers, enlarging the range of our consensual understanding? Some aspects of reality - a unified theory of physics, or a theory of consciousness - might elude our understanding simply because they're beyond the powers of human brains, just as surely as quantum mechanics would flummox a chimpanzee.

We can with some confidence predict continuing advances in computer power, in IT, in techniques for sequencing and interpreting and modifying the genome. But there could, by 2050, be qualitatively new kinds of change. For instance, one thing that's been unaltered for millennia is human nature and human character. But in this century, mind-enhancing drugs, genetics, and "cyborg" techniques may start to alter human beings themselves.

And we should keep our minds open, or at least ajar, to concepts on the fringe of science fiction. Flaky American futurologists aren't always wrong. They remind us that a superintelligent machine is the last instrument that humans may ever design - the machine will itself take over in making further steps. Another speculation is that the human lifespan could be greatly extended, something that would wreak havoc on all population projections. At the moment this hope leads some to bequeath their bodies to be "frozen" on their death, in the hope of some future resurrection. For my part, I'd still opt to end my days in an English churchyard rather than a Californian refrigerator.

We can make one firm forecast that's important for all "citizen scientists". There will surely be a widening gulf between what science enables us to do, and what applications it's prudent or ethical to pursue.

It's sometimes wrongly imagined that astronomers, contemplating timespans measured in billions, must be serenely unconcerned about next year, next week and tomorrow. But a "cosmic perspective" actually strengthens my own concerns about the here and now.

Ever since Darwin, we've been familiar with the stupendous timespans of the evolutionary past. But most people still somehow think we humans are necessarily the culmination of the evolutionary tree. No astronomer could believe this.

Our sun formed 4.5bn years ago, but it's got 6bn more before the fuel runs out. And the expanding universe will continue - perhaps for ever - becoming ever colder, ever emptier. As Woody Allen said, "Eternity is very long, especially towards the end". Any creatures who witness the sun's demise, here on Earth or far beyond, won't be human. They will be entities as different from us as we are from a bug.

But even in this "concertinaed" timeline - extending millions of centuries into the future, as well as into the past - this century is special. It's the first in our planet's history where one species - ours - has Earth's future in its hands, and could jeopardise not only itself, but life's immense potential.

Suppose some aliens had been watching our planet for its entire history. Over nearly all that immense time - 4.5bn years - Earth's appearance would have altered very gradually. But in just a tiny sliver of its history - the last few thousand years - the patterns of vegetation altered much faster than before. This signalled the start of agriculture. The pace of change accelerated as human populations rose.

Then there were other changes, even more abrupt. Within the last 50 years - little more than one hundredth of a millionth of the Earth's age - the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere began to rise anomalously fast. The planet became an intense emitter of radio waves (TV, cellphone, and radar transmissions.) And something else unprecedented happened: small projectiles launched from the planet escaped the biosphere. Some were propelled into orbits around the Earth; some journeyed to the moon and planets.

If they understood astrophysics, the aliens could confidently predict that the biosphere would face doom in a few billion years when the sun flares up and dies. But could they have predicted this unprecedented spike less than halfway through the Earth's life - these human-induced alterations occupying, overall, less than a millionth of the elapsed lifetime and seemingly occurring with runaway speed?

If they continued to keep watch, what might these hypothetical aliens witness in the next few decades? Will final spasm be followed by silence? Or will the planet itself stabilise? And will some of the objects launched from the Earth spawn new oases of life elsewhere?

The outcome depends on political choices. But those choices can be influenced by effective and idealistic scientists, environmentalists and humanists, guided by the knowledge and technology that the 21st century will offer.

news.notes20090526h

[Today's Paper] from [Slate Magazine]

No Good Options To Deal With North Korea

By Daniel Politi
Posted Tuesday, May 26, 2009, at 6:42 AM ET

All the papers lead with the swift international condemnation of North Korea's second nuclear bomb test. The five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council denounced the test, calling it a "clear violation" of a 2006 resolution. Everyone points out that the quick condemnation from Russia and China was particularly significant, particularly when compared to the long discussions over a response after North Korea launched a long-range missile in April. President Obama called it a "blatant violation of international law" and said the international community "must take action in response." The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) talks to a senior administration official who said the White House is optimistic that the Security Council will impose strong sanctions, partly due to China's reaction.

The Washington Post (WP) hears word that the White House was informed about the test around an hour before it happened, and officials had received several briefings in the past week about the possibility of such an event. The Los Angeles Times (LAT) points out that while officials insisted Monday's events "did not catch them by surprise" it's bad timing for an administration dealing with so many international crises that it "has yet to develop its formal policy on North Korea." USA Today (USAT) points out that North Korea's move came a mere five days after Iran carried out its own missile test, and might be a sign that the two governments "could be testing the limits of a relatively new president who has emphasized diplomacy over military might." Indeed, the New York Times (NYT) notes that Obama's aides are well aware everyone is likely to see this as an early test for the young administration and the White House is determined to "organize a significantly stronger response" than the Bush administration did after North Korea's first nuclear test in 2006. Early morning wire reports reveal that North Korea launched two more short-range missiles today.

The WP says that North Korea's test "appears not to have been a significant technical advance over its first underground test three years ago." Although the isolationist regime insisted the test was more successful than the one in 2006, experts say it showed how "North Koreans have not yet mastered the technology of creating a reliable nuclear bomb." It could take weeks to have a reliable estimate on how big the test was, but several papers have some initial analysis. The NYT hears from an administration official that the blast was "a several kiloton event," the WSJ talks to a senior Pentagon official who called it a "relatively small" bomb of around 1.5 kilotons, while an expert tells the WP the test was in the range of 2 to 4 kilotons. That would make it "two to five times" more powerful than the 2006 test, but still far less than would be expected if the regime had mastered the technology of creating a reliable nuclear bomb. "You would expect 10 to 20 times that yield," one expert tells the Post. "These guys have not solved the problem." Still, it seems certain that, however small, it still represented a step forward in the country's nuclear capabilities.

Despite the fact that the world powers seem to be pulling together to condemn North Korea's actions, administration officials readily acknowledge that they have limited options in how to proceed. Trying to get North Korea to stop developing nuclear weapons is something that has eluded previous administrations. "We're back to the same problem Bush had," one intelligence official said. "The threat is not that they will shoot off a nuclear weapon; it's that they will sell nuclear material." The NYT details that the "most powerful untapped sanction" available to the administration may be one that was authorized after the 2006 test that permits nations to inspect all shipping into and out of the country for nuclear materials. "Other than having the Chinese cut off their oil, it might be the only step that would show them we are serious," a senior official said.

The WSJ hears word that the Pentagon believes North Korea purposefully picked Memorial Day for the test to send a message to the United States. "America was going to be memorializing the military and our own history, and boom, they pull this one off," a military official said. But others aren't quite so sure the communist regime's primary purpose was really to send a message to the United States. In a front-page analysis, the LAT says that while North Korea's previous tests and missile launches "had a ring of foot-stamping about them" because they could clearly be seen as demands for more attention from Washington, yesterday's "motives seem more complex." Particularly when considering that North Korea appears to have become more assertive in its foreign policy after the leader, Kim Jong Il, is believed to have suffered a stroke in August. In addition to considering the international dimensions, some analysts believe the test was Kim's way of boosting support from the military, maybe to ensure that power remains in his family. In its own analysis, the NYT echoes the belief that the test might have been a way for Kim to show solidarity with the military, but also notes that some think the "intended audience was North Korea's largely impoverished population." The idea is that Kim wants North Koreans to believe that he managed to create a powerful country during his years in power.

The real question now is what the young administration will choose to do now that it's faced with "just the sort of national security crisis that President Obama's campaign rivals warned he would face early in his term," as USAT points out. Besides the fact that there might not be any good options, many believe Iran is going to be taking careful notes to figure out how Obama will deal with future confrontations. "I think North Korea and Iran are very closely comparing strategies," one expert tells USAT. "And whether the moves were coordinated or not, they are watching how the U.S. responds to each."

Faced with such complicated questions, the WP's editorial page says it's time to "call Mr. Kim's bluff" and Obama "should simply decline to treat North Korea as a crisis, or even as a matter of urgency." That hardly means ignoring the country, or cutting off communication but there should be "no new economic favors to the North, no further political recognition, no grand visits by the secretary of state to Pyongyang."

Moving on to other stories, the WP fronts the growing fears that the Federal Reserve's "efforts to steer the economy away from a 1930s-era depression would push the country toward '70s-style inflation." The good news that has been coming out of the economy lately is making these fears more pronounced since experts warn that the Fed might have to make a choice between "propping up credit markets today and fighting inflation tomorrow." Considering there's a significant lag time between a change in Fed policy and when it starts showing up in the economy, the central bank might have to act while unemployment is still high and there are still problems in the financial sector, which might be a politically unpalatable option.

In an interesting front-page piece, the NYT takes a look at how servicemembers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan have been given CT scans and autopsies, something that was hardly ever done in previous wars. The information the military has been able to obtain from these procedures has helped it develop better equipment and get useful insight into how medical equipment used in a warzone could be improved. Families of the deceased are informed of the autopsies and approximately 85 percent to 90 percent request reports.

CONTINUED ON news.notes200926i

news.notes20090526i

[Today's Paper] from [Slate Magazine]

No Good Options To Deal With North Korea

By Daniel Politi
Posted Tuesday, May 26, 2009, at 6:42 AM ET

CONTINUED FROM news.notes20090526h

The WP reports that Obama is likely to announce later this week that he will create a new "cyber czar" who will be in charge of figuring out ways to protect government and private computer networks. The official will have a broad mandate to deal with a range of issues and will probably be a member of the National Security Council and report to both the national security adviser and the president's senior economic advisers. But the goal is that this new czar would be able to "pick up the phone and contact the president directly, if need be," an administration official said.

The WSJ takes a look at how the "recession is cramping the style of hip-hop artists and wannabes" because many are finding it difficult to afford the "bling" that has long been used "to project an aura of outsized wealth." But now celebrity jewelers say artists are asking for less expensive materials and some even say that cubic zirconia has become a popular stand-in. While it's true that few have ever been able to afford a necklace like Lil Jon's famous "CRUNK AIN'T DEAD" one that contains 3,756 round-cut white diamonds, jewelers say inferior-quality materials have never been more widespread. But don't count on a rap about cubic zirconia hitting the Top 20 any time soon. "If you admit you wear fake jewelry, it is over for you," says a man who has interviewed many rappers. "It's like bragging you drive a Lamborghini when you really drive a Toyota."


[News & Politics] from [Double X, Slate's magazine for women]

The Affirmative Action Questions Sotomayor Didn't Answer

Posted: Tuesday, May 26, 09 11:30am
By Emily Bazelon

Judge Sonia Sotomayor is smart and sharp, and her formidable track record on the bench should put to rest any lingering doubts that she isn’t. (Speaking of which: Why was the left, or at least the center, criticizing one of its own?) But there is a mystery in Sotomayor’s recent history: a brief, unsigned opinion in the difficult race case now before the Supreme Court, Ricci v. DeStefano. Sotomayor punted when Ricci came before her, to such a degree that she raised more questions than she answered.

Ricci is a hard case with bad facts—a case that could do serious damage to Title VII, one of Congress’s landmark civil rights laws. In 2003, the city of New Haven, Conn. decided to base future promotions in its firefighting force—there were seven for captain and eight for lieutenant—primarily on a written test. The city paid an outside consultant to design the test so that it would be job-related. Firefighters studied for months. Of the 41 applicants who took the captain exam, eight were black; of the 77 who took the lieutenant exam, 19 were black. None of the African-American candidates scored high enough to be promoted. For both positions, only two of 29 Hispanics qualified for promotion.

In other situations like this, minority candidates have successfully sued based on the long-recognized legal theory that a test that has a disparate impact—it affects one racial group more than others—must truly be job-related in order to be legal. You can see why New Haven’s black firefighters might have done just that. Why promote firefighters based on a written test rather than their performance in the field? Why favor multiple-choice questions over evaluations of leadership and execution? It’s like granting a driver’s license based solely on the written test, only with much higher stakes.

Faced with these complaints, which translated into both political and potential legal fallout in a city that is nearly 60 percent African American, New Haven withdrew its test. But that fueled an intense and also understandable frustration on the part of the white firefighters who’d spent time and money on test-prep materials. They’d succeeded by scoring high, only to be told that now their investment counted for nothing. Frank Ricci is a 34-year-old “truckie”—he throws ladders, breaks windows, and cuts holes for New Haven’s Truck 4. His uncle and both his brothers are firefighters. He studied fire science at college. He has dozens of videos about firefighting tagged on a website he set up to recruit for the department. He is also dyslexic, which means that his high score on the promotion test was especially hard-won. Ricci and 19 other firefighters sued New Haven alleging reverse discrimination, in light of Title VII and also the 14th Amendment’s promise of equal protection under the law. They said that New Haven shouldn’t have thrown out the test.

The district court judge who heard Ricci’s case ruled against him and his fellow plaintiffs. They appealed to the Second Circuit, the court on which Judge Sotomayor sits. In an unusual, short, and unsigned opinion, a panel of three judges, including Sotomayor, adopted the district court judge’s ruling without adding their own analysis. As Judge Jose Cabranes put it, in protesting this ruling later in the appeals process, “Indeed, the opinion contains no reference whatsoever to the constitutional claims at the core of this case ... This perfunctory disposition rests uneasily with the weighty issues presented by this appeal.”

If Sotomayor and her colleagues were trying to shield the case from Supreme Court review, her punt had the opposite effect. It drew Cabranes’ ire, and he hung a big red flag on the case, which the Supreme Court grabbed. The court heard argument in Ricci in April. New Haven didn’t fare well.

The high court’s decision in the case will come in June, before Sotomayor’s confirmation hearings. The problem for her will not be why she sided with New Haven over Frank Ricci. The court’s four liberal-moderate justices currently on the court are likely to agree with her, in the name of preserving Title VII as a tool for fair hiring. There’s even an outside chance that Justice Anthony Kennedy will follow along. The problem for Sotomayor, instead, is why she didn’t grapple with the difficult constitutional issues, the ones Cabranes pointed to. Did she really have nothing to add to the district court opinion? In a case of this magnitude and intricacy, why would that be?