Syria and the best of bad options

An excellent analysis of the Syrian situation.

http://www.semissourian.com/story/1864919.html

Syria and the best of bad options

Thursday, June 28, 2012

By Wayne H. Bowen

The increasingly catastrophic conflict in Syria has led many world leaders -- from members of Congress to diplomats in the Arab League -- to call for a robust international intervention, along the lines of the NATO-led air campaign that helped topple Libya's Muammar Qadhafi. The temptation has been growing among many -- admittedly even with this writer -- to bring an end to the pro-Iranian Baathist regime in Damascus quickly through an air campaign. While a U.S.-led coalition could overthrow the corrupt and brutal state of Bashar Assad relatively quickly, and hand power to the opposition, we should resist the temptation of direct intervention, in the form of airstrikes or the insertion of ground forces.
At the same time, the timid steps taken by President Obama, essentially confined to modest economic sanctions and some kind words for the opposition, have emboldened the Syrian dictatorship and convinced Russia and Iran that they can continue to support Assad with impunity.
Between sending in the Marines, and tolerating the intolerable, however, there is a third option: letting the Syrians fight, and win, their own war.
The United States and its allies should openly recognize the opposition Syrian National Council, and equip the Free Syrian Army with humanitarian and military aid. This would allow the Syrians to liberate their own nation, rather than receiving it at the hands of Western power.
While a campaign of this type, with free Syrians fighting on the ground, might lead to more casualties in the short run, it would lend legitimacy to the opposition's final victory. Winning against Assad could also assist in creating a new common bond among the Syrian people in the struggle against the current regime.
Most importantly, the U.S. should guarantee an easy exit, in the form of immunity from prosecution, for the key figures of the regime. Safe havens for Baathists leaders, including Bashar Assad and his family, would discourage them from waging a war to the bitter end. We should also allow the al-Assad family to maintain a significant percentage of their wealth, estimated in the billions.
While it seems unlikely that any Arab state would be willing to host the Assad circle as permanent refugees, perhaps Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan or some other pro-Baathist nation could be persuaded, with adequate payments from the overseas bank accounts of Syria's current ruling class, to accept a few dozen well-heeled refugees from Damascus. With, for example, even 10 percent of their net worth left to them, Syria's current leaders could ensure for themselves a lifetime of luxury and protection, while allowing their people to be free of their onerous presence.
It may seem contrary to the idea of justice to allow a brutal dictator to flee into the security of exile, even if this refuge is as unwelcoming as Minsk or the windswept Kazakh steppes. However, one only has to compare Tunisia -- where the exile to Saudi Arabia of former dictator Ben Ali enabled a peaceful and rapid transition to democracy -- with Libya, which endured months of civil war and 30,000 deaths before Muammar Qadhafi died at the hands of insurgents.
Qadhafi, under international indictment for war crimes, was not guaranteed exile by the West, even though several nations seemed willing to offer. Libya has still not emerged as a stable state and remains hobbled by damage done to its infrastructure during its recent civil war. Surely it would have been worth considering such an option for Libya to avoid the conflict it endured.
In some ways, the NATO-led intervention made conditions in Libya worse, as the hasty ending of foreign air support to the interim government weakened their ability to defeat regime holdouts and rebellious tribes who had been allies of Qadhafi.
While Syria has unfortunately already endured much loss of life at the hands of the Assad regime, it is not too late to avoid a full-scale civil war and an even greater humanitarian disaster.
Neighboring Turkey, which has provided support to the Syrian opposition, could be a partner in a U.S.-led effort to equip the free Syrians for victory over Bashar Assad. By all accounts, the official Syrian army is militarily incompetent, equipped with outdated Soviet equipment, and losing soldiers at all levels to defections.
The time is now for diplomatic recognition of the Syrian opposition, a public announcement of military aid to the free Syrians, and an open door into exile for regime leaders. Not only would the U.S. and NATO avoid another direct and costly intervention, but these measures could also help bring to a rapid end the anti-American and pro-Iranian regime that currently rules Damascus.
There are no guarantees that a new government in Syria would be more stable, more pro-Western, or less anti-Israel. Given that uncertainty, it makes even more sense to avoid risking U.S. casualties in a nation not considered a vital American interest.
If, however, we can offer diplomatic and material support to the Syrian opposition, we will create opportunities for a better relationship with a new government. Certainly this possibility is more preferable than our toleration of a cruel anti-American regime, and its daily massacres of its own people.
Dr. Wayne H. Bowen, professor and chairman of the Department of History at Southeast Missouri State University, is also a lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Army Reserve.

© Copyright 2012 Southeast Missourian. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Vigilante required for World Peace

Syria needs a vigilante to save its people

Ned Dobos

June 28, 2012 

 

The world should bypass the UN because it is politically paralysed.
ON APRIL 12 Kofi Annan negotiated a ceasefire between the warring factions in Syria, though you wouldn't know it. The body count continues to climb, and the fighting has now grown so intense that the UN has suspended its monitoring activities in the country.
So what now? Ideally, the UN authorises tougher action, maybe even military intervention. Unfortunately the structure of the Security Council still reflects the distribution of power that existed at the time of its creation. The five permanent members each wield a veto. One of those members - Russia - looks almost certain to use it against any resolution authorising the use of force.

Advertisement: Story continues below

Should any state or coalition decide to bypass the Security Council, that would be unlawful, at least according to the orthodox interpretation of the UN charter. But would it therefore be unethical? If Security Council authorisation is a legal necessity, is it also a moral imperative?
Admittedly there is considerable overlap between law and morality, but the two are not co-extensive. Something that is illegal is not necessarily immoral - ask any advocate of gay marriage or recreational drug use. And things that are immoral are not always illegal - the historical record of state-sanctioned murder, slavery and discrimination is a testament to that. Still, there is in general a good moral reason to insist on a UN mandate.
''Just war'' theory has its origins in the work of Catholic theologians, but today the concepts and precepts of the theory guide secular thinking about the moral legitimacy of using military force. Recourse to war is justified when there is a sufficiently weighty reason for it, when there is a good prospect of success, when all peaceful alternatives have been exhausted, and when the expected human and material costs are not excessive compared to the anticipated benefits. These are, respectively, the conditions of ''just cause'', ''likely success'', ''last resort'', and ''proportionality''.
A UN mandate can help to ensure that these conditions are satisfied. The motives of states that engage in humanitarian intervention unilaterally are often viewed with suspicion, which invariably aggravates and protracts the resistance from within the target society. This impedes the success or at least augments the costs of intervention. The motives of the international community, by contrast, seldom arouse the same distrust.
All this tells us, however, is that UN approval can on occasion be indirectly necessary; morally required not for its own sake, but only to help a military operation satisfy other standard justifying conditions. The more interesting question is whether we should think of UN approval as being morally necessary in its own right.
It is sometimes said that unilateral intervention is vigilante justice writ large. So we can begin by asking: what's wrong with vigilantism?
When individuals come together in a society, they each consent to obey the laws, pay their taxes, and to invest the power of law enforcement in the sovereign state exclusively. This is all part of the social contract. The vigilante imposes on his "victim" a coercive authority that the victim has not consented to; he usurps the legitimate power of the state; and he breaks his commitment to the people around him - he violates the social contract.
Analogously, a state engaged in unilateral intervention is guilty of wronging at least three parties: the target state, whose sovereign equality has been denied; the United Nations, whose legitimate authority has been usurped; and its co-signatories in the United Nations, whose self-restraint has gone unreciprocated.
But it would be a mistake to think that these observations show unilateral intervention to be unethical, always and without exception. A simple thought experiment once presented by Scottish philosopher W.D. Ross is illustrative.
You make a promise to meet a friend. On your way you come across the scene of an accident that has left a person injured and in need of attention on the side of the road. If you stop to render assistance you will not meet your friend, and therefore you will break your promise. Nevertheless we all agree that stopping is permissible, and obligatory. The explanation, crudely put, is that obligations arising out of one's promises are "prima facie". That is, these obligations can be overridden by competing moral demands. The duty to render assistance trumps the duty to keep one's promises.
Champions of the UN often fail to see or acknowledge that the obligations of a state's international commitments are equally prima facie, and that in some cases a perfectly good justification for their transgression will be available.
Syria is one of those cases. The global body entrusted with the task of preventing human rights abuses is, once again, paralysed by politics. For any state that is able and willing to act unilaterally, the imperative to defend people against murder, torture and rape trumps fidelity to international covenant. A vigilante that defends the innocent when the police can't or won't is not a villain, he is a hero.
Dr Ned Dobos is a lecturer in ethics at the University of New South Wales, Canberra, and author of Insurrection and Intervention. This article is based on a presentation given at the Second International Conference on Humanitarian Intervention.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/syria-needs-a-vigilante-to-save-its-people-20120627-212ra.html#ixzz1z3qiryRb

Animals prove smarter than we think- AP

Animals prove smarter than we think

Sapa-AP | 25 June, 2012 10:25

A vervet monkey in the Kruger National Park.
Image by: Bruce Gorton

Researchers are finding that the more we study animals, the less special we seem.

Related News

• Chimps can plan 'future deception': study

Baboons can distinguish between written words and gibberish.
Monkeys seem to be able to do multiplication. Apes can delay instant gratification longer than a human child can. They plan ahead. They make war and peace. They show empathy. They share.
“It’s not a question of whether they think — it’s how they think,” says Duke University scientist Brian Hare. Now scientists wonder if apes are capable of thinking about what other apes are thinking.
The evidence that animals are more intelligent and more social than we thought seems to grow each year, especially when it comes to primates. It’s an increasingly hot scientific field with the number of ape and monkey cognition studies doubling in recent years, often with better technology and neuroscience paving the way to unusual discoveries.
This month scientists mapping the DNA of the bonobo ape found that, like the chimp, bonobos are only 1.3% different from humans.
Says Josep Call, director of the primate research center at the Max Planck Institute in Germany: “Every year we discover things that we thought they could not do.”
Call says one of his recent more surprising studies showed that apes can set goals and follow through with them.
Orangutans and bonobos in a zoo were offered eight possible tools — two of which would help them get at some food.
At times when they chose the proper tool, researchers moved the apes to a different area before they could get the food, and then kept them waiting as much as 14 hours
Call says this is similar to a person packing luggage a day before a trip: “For humans it’s such a central ability, it’s so important.”
For a few years, scientists have watched chimpanzees in zoos collect and store rocks as weapons for later use. In May, a study found they even add deception to the mix. They created haystacks to conceal their stash of stones from opponents, just like nations do with bombs.
Hare points to studies where competing chimpanzees enter an arena where one bit of food is hidden from view for only one chimp. The chimp that can see the hidden food, quickly learns that his foe can’t see it and uses that to his advantage, displaying the ability to perceive another ape’s situation. That’s a trait humans develop as toddlers, but something we thought other animals never got, Hare said.
And then there is the amazing monkey memory.
At the National Zoo in Washington, humans who try to match their recall skills with an orangutan’s are humbled. Zoo associate director Don Moore says: “I’ve got a Ph.D., for God’s sake, you would think I could out-think an orang and I can’t.”  In French research, at least two baboons kept memorizing so many pictures — several thousand — that after three years researchers ran out of time before the baboons reached their limit. Researcher Joel Fagot at the French National Center for Scientific Research figured they could memorize at least 10,000 and probably more.
And a chimp in Japan named Ayumu who sees strings of numbers flash on a screen for a split-second regularly beats humans at accurately duplicating the lineup. He’s a YouTube sensation, along with orangutans in a Miami zoo that use iPads.
It’s not just primates that demonstrate surprising abilities.
Dolphins, whose brains are 25% heavier than humans, recognize themselves in a mirror. So do elephants. A study in June finds that black bears can do primitive counting, something even pigeons have done, by putting two dots before five, or 10 before 20 in one experiment.
The trend in research is to identify some new thinking skill that chimps can do, revealing that certain abilities are “not uniquely human,” said Emory University primatologist Frans de Waal. Then the scientists find that same ability in other primates further removed from humans genetically. Then they see it in dogs and elephants.
“Capacities that we think in humans are very special and complex are probably not so special and not so complex,” de Waal said.
“This research in animals elevates the animals, but it also brings down the humans.... If monkeys can do it and maybe dogs and other animals, maybe it’s not as complex as you think.” 
At Duke, professor Elizabeth Brannon shows videos of monkeys that appear to be doing a “fuzzy representation” of multiplication by following the number of dots that go into a box on a computer screen and choosing the right answer to come out of the box. This is after they’ve already done addition and subtraction.
This spring in France, researchers showed that six baboons could distinguish between fake and real four-letter words — BRRU vs KITE, for example. And they chose to do these computer-based exercises of their own free will, either for fun or a snack.
It was once thought the control of emotions and the ability to empathize and socialize separated us from our primate cousins. But chimps console, and fight, each other. They also try to soothe an upset companion, grooming and putting their arms around him.
“I see plenty of empathy in my chimpanzees,” de Waal said. But studies have shown they also go to war against neighboring colonies, killing the males and taking the females. That’s something that also is very human and led people to believe that war-making must go back in our lineage 6 million years, de Waal said.
When scientists look at our other closest relative, the bonobo, they see a difference. Bonobos don’t kill. Hare says his experiments show bonobos give food to newcomer bonobos, even when they could choose to keep all the food themselves.
One reason scientists are learning more about animal intellect is computers, including touch screens. In some cases, scientists are setting up banks of computers available to primates 24-7. In the French word recognition experiment, Fagot found he got more and better data when it was the baboons’ choice to work.
Animal cognition researcher Steve Ross at the Lincoln Park Zoo in Chicago agrees.
“The apes in our case seem to be working better when they have that control, that choice to perform,” he said.
Brain scans on monkeys and apes also have helped correct mistaken views about ape brain power. It was once thought the prefrontal cortex, the area in charge of higher reasoning, was disproportionately larger than the rest of the brain only in humans, giving us a cognitive advantage, Hare said. But imaging shows that monkey and ape prefrontal cortexes have that same larger scale, he said.
What’s different is that the human communication system in the prefrontal cortex is more complex, Hare said.
So there are limits to what non-human primates can do. Animals don’t have the ability to communicate with the complexity of human language. In the French study, the baboons can recognize that the letters KITE make a word because through trial and error they learn which letters tend to go together in what order. But the baboons don’t have a clue of what KITE means. It’s that gap that’s key.
“The boundaries are not as sharp as people think, but there are certain things you can’t overcome and language is one of them,” said Columbia University animal cognition researcher Herbert Terrace.
And that leads to another difference, Ross said. Because apes lack language skills, they learn by watching and mimicking. Humans teach with language and explanation, which is faster and better, Ross said.
Some of the shifts in scientific understanding of animals are leading to ethical debates. When Emory University researcher Lori Marino in 2001 co-wrote a groundbreaking study on dolphins recognizing themselves in mirrors, proving they have a sense of self similar to humans, she had a revelation.
“The more you learn about them, the more you realize that they do have the capacity and characteristics that we think of as a person,” Marino said. “I think it’s impossible to ignore the ethical implications of these kinds of findings.”
After the two dolphins she studied died when transferred to another aquarium, she decided never to work on captive dolphins again. She then became a science adviser to the Nonhuman Rights Project, which seeks legal rights or status for animals.
The idea, Marino said, is to get animals such as dolphins “to be deemed a person, not property.”
The intelligence of primates was one of the factors behind a report last year by the Institute of Medicine that said the National Institutes of Health should reduce dramatically the number of chimpanzees it uses in biomedical research.
The NIH is working on new guidelines that would further limit federal medical chimpanzee use down from its current few dozen chimps at any given time, said NIH program planning chief James Anderson. Chimps are a special case, with their use “very, very limited,” he said. But he raises the question: “What happens if your child is sick or your mother is dying” and animal research might lead to a cure?
The issue is more about animal welfare and giving them the right ”not to be killed, not to be tortured, not to be confined unnecessarily” than giving them legal standing, said David DeGrazia, a philosophy and ethics professor at George Washington University.
Hare says that focusing on animal rights ignores the problem of treatment of chimps in research settings. He contends that for behavioral studies and even for many medical research tests they could be kept in zoos or sanctuaries rather than labs.
Animals performing tasks in near-natural habitats “is like an Ivy League college” for the apes, Hare said. “We’re going to see them do stunning and sophisticated things.”

Najib double-talk & "FALSE DEMOCRAT": Intl Press

 http://www.malaysia-chronicle.com/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=35519%3Anajib-undressed-by-the-intl-press-from-champion-of-double-talk-to-false-democrat&Itemid=2

 

Najib 'UNDRESSED' by the int'l press: From champion of double-talk to "FALSE DEMOCRAT"

Written by  Wong Choon Mei, Malaysia Chronicle

If Prime Minister Najib Razak thought he had succeeded in pulling wool over the eyes of the Malaysian people and the international community with a slew of reforms that have been described by critics as "whitewash", "insincere" and "sinister", he is terribly wrong.
And just like the mythical Emperor who wore no clothes, the 58-year old Malaysian leader is now being peeled and exposed for hypocrisy and accused of harboring dark intentions to retain power by force as have many of the world's disgraced despots.
Just months ago, Najib was crowned co-champion of "double-talk" by the influential Washington Post which is read by the likes of President Obama and other top US leaders. The Washington Post lashed out in a stinging editorial after Najib controversially deported Saudi journalist Hamza Kashgari home to face certain torture and perhaps even death. The blunt language used by the US paper raised eyebrows and caused many to cough nervously in the corridors of power in Putrajaya, the Malaysian administrative capital.
But no, Najib and his advisers would not take the hint and clean up their act. Stubbornly, they clung to the belief that because they controlled the local mainstream media, they held the upper hand. If they told a lie often enough, the people and the world would believe them!
However, it did not work. Not only have Najib's attempts to pass glib sleight-of-hand laws that strengthen his own grip on power under the guise of 'reforms' been seen through, he has been slammed locally whilst a reputable Canadian newspaper has now categorized him as being a "false democrat".
"False democracies give the impression of being freer than they really are, which means they rarely face the kind of international pressure that the ally nasty regimes get," said the article published on June 8 by The Globe and Mail.
Like Mubarak & Co, Najib will use all ways to cling on
Entitled 'A 21st-century checklist of the new autocrats', the article also places Najib in the same league as the world's worst autocrats. The author Mark Mackinnon had categorised autocrats into four groups - false democrats, mad egotists, violent populists and callous capitalists.
Najib was put into the first category, along with Russian President Vladimir Putin, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, Algerian President Abdelaziz Bouteflika, Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles Zenawi and Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen. The 'ex-members' of the club are former Yugoslavia president Slobodan Milosevic and former Egypt president Hosni Mubarak.
Mackinnon said such leaders "hold elections but have no intention of giving up power" and their "serious political rivals are jailed and their parties are outlawed on legal technicalities".
According to Opposition stalwart Lim Kit Siang, Najib was clearly very upset by the article. But no denial would hold any traction unless Najib issued a public pledge that he and his Umno party would pass over power peacefully if they lost at the ballot boxes, Lim said in response to news that the Malaysian Foreign Affairs Ministry had challenged the Canadian article.
"A week ago, I had asked Najib to declare publicly whether he is prepared to accept the verdict of the electorate to ensure a peaceful transition of federal government if Pakatan Rakyat wins the next general election," said Kit Siang, who also the MP for Ipoh Timur.
"It is significant that at the post-UMNO Supreme Council press conference last Friday, Najib studiously avoided answering this question when it was posed by the press. Hence, the question Malaysians and the world are asking is whether Najib is a false democrat who holds elections but has no intention of giving up power."
Najib now in int'l rogues gallery: GE-13 promises to be "interesting"
To Mackinnon, there is reason for hope in countries governed by such leaders as the "false democracies" they practiced also created the possibility of change.
"Mr Milosevic and Mr Mubarak were ousted because citizens used the political space allowed them in a false democracy... The next election in Malaysia promises to be interesting," said Mackinnon.
However, in a rebuttal published today, the Malaysian Foreign Affairs Ministry detailed a list of reforms initiated by Najib over the past three years, describing these as "an impressive track record by anyone's standards".
The reforms included the abolition of Internal Security Act, ending of a 60-year state of emergency, measures to increase media freedom, amendment to the Universities and University Colleges Act, the enactment of the Peaceful Assembly Act, announcement to review the Sedition Act, repeal of the Banishment Act and the Restricted Residences Act, as well as the implementation of electoral reforms.
"This view does not tally with the fact that the opposition won an unprecedented number of seats in the last election.Next time round, Malaysians will again be free to choose who they want to lead their country - and while the prime minister takes nothing for granted, he hopes he will be given a mandate to continue Malaysia's transformation," fumed foreign ministry under-secretary Ahmad Rozian in his letter.
Malaysia Chronicle

Customers are not always right: Steve Jobs

 http://www.forbes.com/sites/carminegallo/2012/06/14/why-the-new-macbook-pro-is-tilted-70-degrees-in-an-apple-store/
"There is a school of thought in management theory that — if you’re in the consumer-facing space building products and services — you’ve got to listen to your customer.  Steve Jobs was one of the first businessmen to say that was a waste of time.  The customers today don’t always know what they want, especially if it’s something they’ve never seen, heard, or touched before.  When it became clear that Apple would come out with a tablet, many were skeptical.  When people heard the name (iPad), it was a joke in the Twitter-sphere for a day.  But when people held one, and used it, it became a ‘must have.’  They didn’t know how they’d previously lived without one.  It became the fastest growing Apple product in its history.  Jobs (and the Apple team) trusted himself more than others.  Picasso and great artists have done that for centuries.  Jobs was the first in business."

Justice under BN

MENGIMBAS KEMBALI KES ROGOL GADIS BAWAH UMUR MELIBATKAN KETUA MENTERI MELAKA TAHUN 1994


Mungkin ada di antara kita yang masih ingat tetapi semakin lupa akan penderitaan yang ditanggung oleh nenek bernama Pendek binti Ahmad yang mengetahui akhirnya cucu perempuannya, Noryati binti Mohamad Yusop yang ketika itu berumur 14 tahun dirogol oleh Ketua Menteri Melaka waktu itu, RAHIM TAMBY CHIK! Dibawah dipaparkan kembali apa yang sebenarnya berlaku, 18 tahun lalu!

Perbicaraan Lim Guan Eng, 1997

Perbicaraan LIM GUAN ENG, 1997 adalah perbicaraan mengenai kes rogol gadis bawah umur oleh bekas Ketua Menteri Melaka, Tan Sri Abdul Rahim Tamby Chik. Lim Guan Eng merupakan ahli politik pembangkang di Malaysia serta Setiausaha Agung bagi Parti Tindakan Demokratik (DAP).

Sebaliknya, Tan Sri dikatakan merogol seorang murid sekolah berumur 15 tahun. Disebabkan tuduhan ini serta tuduhan-tuduhan rasuah, beliau terpaksa meletakkan jawatannya walaupun beliau tidak dituduh secara rasmi bagi kes rogol dan tuduhan-tuduhan rasuah telah digugurkan.

Dalam perbicaraannya, murid itu telah memberi bukti bahawa dia melakukan hubungan seks dengan menteri tersebut. Di bawah undang-undang Malaysia yang berdasarkan undang-undang British, hubungan seks dengan gadis bawah umur dianggapi sebagai rogol tanpa mengira adakah gadis itu bersetuju dengan perlakuan atau tidak.

Murid perempuan itu kemudian dihukum tiga tahun jagaan perlindungan di pusat pemulihan. Lim mengemukakan anomali-anomali kes tersebut selepas penjaga murid itu, yakni neneknya yang tinggal di Kawasan Parlimen Lim, telah meminta pertolongan.

Pada 28 Februari 1995, Lim didakwa di bawah Akta Hasutan, 1948 kerana menyebabkan "perasaan tidak puas hati akan pelaksanaan keadilan di Malaysia". Pada 17 Mac 1995, satu tuduhan tambahan di bawah Akta Percetakan dan Penerbitan dikenakan kepadanya kerana 'mencetak dengan niat jahat' risalah yang mengandungi 'maklumat palsu', khususnya kerana beliau telah menggunakan perkataan 'mangsa terpenjara' untuk menggambarkan murid sekolah itu.

Dalam perbicaraan pertama pada tahun 1997, Lim telah disabitkan bersalah dalam kedua-dua tuduhan dan didenda sebanyak RM15,000. Kerajaan merayu ke atas hukuman yang dianggapi terlalu ringan dan pada perbicaraan yang berikutan, hukuman dinaikkan kepada pemenjaraan tiga tahun.

Disebabkan hukuman ini, Lim dilarang menjadi ahli parliamen secara automatik. Lim berkata: "... saya tidak menyesal. Saya tidak berasa sesal kerana gagal dalam perjuangan prinsip-prinsip kebenaran dan keadilan. Serta perjuangan hak asasi manusia, khususnya hak asasi wanita.

Tidak akan terdapatnya hak asasi wanita sekiranya mangsa rogol dianggapi sebagai pihak yang perlu bertanggungjawab bersama-bersama dan ditahan juga, sedangkan orang yang dituduh masih bebas."

Amnesty Antarabangsa telah menerima Lim sebagai "Banduan Hati Nurani". Marina Mahathir, anak perempuan kepada Perdana Menteri ketika itu berkata: "Terdapat ketidakadilan dalam undang-undang yang amat membingungkan... Pengajaran adalah jelas — pilihlah perogol anda dengan teliti...

Sebagai seorang wanita, khususnya wanita Muslim, saya berasa marah, meluat dan malu... Sebagai seorang ibu, kini saya mengalami ketakutan yang benar terhadap anak perempuan saya. Apakah perlindungan yang kami dapat berharap bagi anak-anak perempuan kami sekiranya, dalam kepentingan politik, seorang gadis bawah umur boleh dikorbankan dengan amat mudah?"

Ulang siar kenyataan nenek kepada mangsa rogol Rahim Tamby Chik

Berikut disiarkan semula kenyataan Sabri bin Mohamed Yasin bagi pihak ibunya Pendek binti Ahmad, nenek kepada Noryati binti Mohamad Yusop, mangsa rogol yang terlibat dengan kekas Ketua Menteri Melaka Tan Sri Abdul Rahim Tamby Chik di Hotel Belmount, Melaka pada 3hb November 1999:
Ahli Parlimen Kota Melaka waktu itu, Lim Guan Eng dipenjara
kerana mempertahankan gadis Melayu yang dirogol
oleh bekas Ketua Menteri Melaka, Rahim Tamby Chik

Saya tidak faham mengapa cucu saya hanya menyatakan sekarang tidak mempunyai hubungan sulit dengan Tan Sri Rahim bila dia telah mengakui selama 5 tahun kebelakangan ini sejak 1994 bahawa dia mempunyai hubungan sulit dengan Tan Sri Rahim, termasuk membuat keterangan bersumpah di mahkamah di depan tuan hakim.

Cucu saya, telah membuat satu kenyataan pada 2hb November 1999 menafikan keterangan Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim di Mahkamah Tinggi Kuala Lumpur pada 29hb Oktober 1999 bahawa dia mempunyai hubungan sulit dengan bekas Ketua Menteri Melaka Tan Sri Abdul Rahim Tamby Chik pada tahun 1994.

Saya amat terkejut dengan kenyataan cucu saya ini kerana sepanjang 5 tahun ini, cucu saya telah mengakui mempunyai hubungan sulit dengan Tan Sri Rahim semasa cucu saya masih berumur 15 tahun. Cucu saya juga memberitahu ahli keluarga dan saya bahawa Tan Sri Rahim merupakan orang lelaki pertama yang melakukan hubungan sulit dengannya.

Oleh kerana cucu terlibat dengan Tan Sri Rahim, dia ditahan oleh pihak polis pada akhir bulan Ogos 1994 sehingga saya sebagai nenek yang membesarkannya tidak dapat berjumpa dengannya. Saya hairan mengapa pihak polis dan kerajaan BN boleh membenarkan seorang mangsa rogol ditahan sedangkan mereka yang merogolnya bebas tanpa dipenjarakan.

Ini boleh dilihat selepas 14 lelaki, kecuali Tan Sri Rahim, mengakui merogol gadis bawah umur di mahkamah tetapi tidak dipenjarakan sebaliknya dibebaskan. Akibat peristiwa hitam itu, cucu saya telah melahirkan seorang anak perempuan pada 1995. Oleh kerana tidak dapat menjumpai cucu saya, saya telah meminta bantuan daripada Ahli Parlimen Kawasan Kota Melaka YB Lim Guan Eng yang berjaya memaksa pihak polis membenarkan saya melawat cucu saya.

Saya amat kesal dan sedih bahawa YB Lim dalam usaha membantu mendapat keadilan untuk cucu saya telahpun dipenjarakan di Penjara Kajang pada 25hb Ogos 1998 dan kehilangan statusnya sebagai Ahli Parlimen. Dalam kes mahkamah Lim Guan Eng yang mulai pada 20hb Jun 1995, Ketua Jabatan Siasatan Jenayah Mok Siew Hoong menyatakan bahawa cucu saya telah mengakui mempunyai hubungan sulit dengan Tan Sri Rahim.

Pada 27hb Februari 1997, cucu saya pula memberikan keterangan sebagai seorang saksi kepada hakim Mahkamah Tinggi dalam kes YB Lim Guan Eng bahawa Tan Sri Rahim mempunyai hubungan sulit dengannya. Selepas itu cucu saya, semasa berjumpa dengan saya, masih mengakui bahawa Tan Sri Rahim ada hubungan sulit dengannya.

Malah, cucu saya telah membuat satu ucapan di depan kami di Hotel Federal, Kuala Lumpur pada 27hb Januari 1999 menyokong YB Lim Guan Eng yang dipenjarakan seperti berikut:-

“Saya merasa sungguh kesal atas apa yang telah berlaku di masa lampau, dan merasa sungguh sedih sekali kerana YB Lim Guan Eng kini telah dipenjarakan. Apa yang beliau cuba lakukan hanyalah untuk membantu saya. Tetapi beliau sendiri pula menjadi mangsa. Semua ini sungguh tidak adil. Saya berdoa semoga keadilan akan dikembalikan kepada YB.

Malam ini, saya telah membawa dua surat rayuan, satu kepada Yang Di Pertuan Agong dan satu lagi kepada Yang Di Pertua Negeri Melaka, meminta supaya YB Lim Guan Eng diampunkan dan dibebaskan segera supaya meneruskan tanggungjawab sebagai seorang Ahli Parlimen sejati Malaysia. Saya meminta supaya YB Lim Kit Siang selaku Ketua Pembangkang Parlimen boleh membantu sampaikan surat-surat rayuan saya ini kepada kedua-dua pihak itu.”

Saya tidak faham mengapa cucu saya hanya menyatakan sekarang tidak mempunyai hubungan sulit dengan Tan Sri Rahim bila dia telah mengakui selama 5 tahun kebelakangan ini sejak 1994 bahawa dia mempunyai hubungan sulit dengan Tan Sri Rahim, termasuk membuat keterangan bersumpah di mahkamah di depan tuan hakim.

Saya berasa hampa, malu dan marah atas kejadian rogol yang menimpa cucu saya. Tetapi saya berasa lebih hampa, malu dan marah bila cucu saya boleh membelakangkan kebenaran dan keadilan dengan melupai jasa baik YB Lim sehingga bersedia bohong dengan menafikan dia mempunyai hubungan sulit dengan Tan Sri Rahim.

Nyata sekali, ini adalah satu lagi konspirasi kerajaan BN menutup kebenaran demi kepentingan politik. Saya masih mengingati cucu saya begitu tersiksa semasa ditahan di Pusat Pemulihan Rembau sehingga cuba melarikan diri banyak kali. Dia memberikan keterangan di mahkamah bahawa dia berjaya melarikan diri daripada tahanan sekali sebelum ditangkap balik. Jelas, kasih sayang keluarga kami kepadanya tidak dibalas.

Lim Guan Eng ditangkap kerana membantu mangsa yang dirogol oleh Rahim Thamby Chik. Apa yang dilakukan oleh cucu saya adalah tidak adil kepada YB Lim Guan Eng yang telah kehilangan begitu banyak, termasuk dipenjarakan kerana cuba mempertahankan hak cucu saya ini. Saya tidak boleh lupa betapa susah anak-anak dan isterinya yang sering menangis merindui bapa mereka semasa dipenjara.

Oleh itu, saya ingin meminta maaf kepada YB Lim atas apa yang cucu saya telah lakukan. Saya juga berhasrat memberikan jaminan kepada YB Lim bahawa keluarga kami sentiasa mengenang pengorbanan beliau dan mengingati kesediaan beliau menanggung segala penderitaan dan kerugian kewangan demi membantu sebuah keluarga Melayu miskin yang dianiayai oleh kezaliman kerajaan BN.

Kami tidak akan lupai YB Lim adalah satu-satunya orang yang bersedia menegakkan keadilan untuk kami bila tidak ada seorang pun yang berani tolong sama kami. Semoga Allah S.W.T boleh memaafkan cucu saya.

Pendek binti Ahmad
Sabri bin Mohamad Yasin
Alamat: Batu 13, Kampung Sungai Petai, 78000 Alor Gajah, Melaka

Arab must declare war against Russia

Since Russia and China are gambling on the side of shia Assad, let the
Arab worlds go against Russia and China. Let the Syrians kick out
russia once and for all.

You may say that it will anger Russia, but Russian is already
supplying arms to Assadm weapons that are used to kill innocent
Syrians. NOthing more to lose in declaring open hostility towards
Russia. At least Russian should know of the consequences of supporting
murderers. Russia, China and Iran wil pay a high price for killing
Arabs.

http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2012/6/9/reutersworld/20120609183513&sec=reutersworld

Russia pushes for big Syria meeting, not sanctions

MOSCOW: Russia amplified its call for an international meeting on
Syria on Saturday, saying sanctions or military intervention would
"only aggravate the already difficult atmosphere".

"Our logic is that it is not necessary now to apply additional
pressure, to introduce sanctions or use the threat of force," Deputy
Foreign Minister Gennady Gatilov told the Interfax news agency.

Eager to maintain its firmest Middle East foothold and stop the West
pushing governments from power, Russia has used its U.N. Security
Council veto and other tools to protect President Bashar al-Assad from
coordinated condemnation and sanctions.

Two reported massacres in Syria in as many weeks have deepened doubts
a U.N.-backed peace plan can work and prompted some Western states to
threaten sanctions.

"Introducing restrictive or forceful measures clearly will not foster
(peace) and will only aggravate the already difficult atmosphere,"
Gatilov was quoted as saying.

Russia says a better way to make the peace plan work is to hold a
meeting of nations and groups with influence on Assad's government or
its foes, a proposal Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov announced on
Wednesday.

Lavrov was to hold a news conference later on Saturday about the
initiative which has already run into a snag in the form of U.S.
opposition to include Iran.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said on Wednesday that it was
"hard to imagine inviting a country that is stage-managing the Assad
regime's assault on its people."

Gatilov said Iran had a "full right" to participate and that its
influence on Syria meant it could play a "constructive role in seeking
ways to resolve the Syrian conflict."

Gatilov said there was no "fundamental difference" between Russia's
initiative and a proposal Annan has floated for a "contact group" on
Syria that would also include Iran as well as other regional players.

Russia says it is not out to protect Assad but that his fate is up to
Syrians themselves, not foreign countries or the U.N. Security
Council, and that his exit cannot be a precondition for a political
process in Syria.

Russia and China have twice vetoed Western-backed Security Council
resolutions critical of Syria, whose security forces have killed at
least 10,000 people, by a U.N. count, while losing more than 2,600 of
their own, according to Damascus.

One of the resolutions they blocked, in February, would have backed an
Arab League call for Assad to cede power.

Analysts say that if Moscow were to help engineer Assad's exit it
would hope to retain influence in Syria.

Assad's government has bought billions of dollars worth of Russian
weapons and hosts a Mediterranean logistical facility that is Russia's
only permanent warm-water naval port outside the former Soviet Union.
- Reuters

OBAMA IS A WEAK LEADER

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303665904577450241196981150.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Assad's Fall Is In America's Interests

The U.S. should help establish safe zones in Turkey, offer medicine and intelligence, work to unify the Syrian opposition, and certainly abandon hope in Kofi Annan.

• Article
• Comments (42)

MORE IN OPINION »

• smaller
• Larger

By MARCO RUBIO

The world has watched for more than a year as the Assad regime in Syria has been slaughtering innocent civilians. The recent massacre in Houla—including of scores of children—is a reminder of why the United States must step up and lead an aggressive international campaign to hasten Bashar al-Assad's departure from power.

Several diplomatic actions are required immediately. Others, especially involving the Syrian opposition, should be incremental and seek to help anti-Assad forces get organized.

One immediately required action is to abandon any wishful thinking that the efforts of former United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan will help the situation, or that Russia's conscience will finally be shocked straight. The U.S. should urge Mr. Annan to condemn Assad and resign his job as envoy so that Syria's regime and other governments can no longer hide behind the facade of his mediation efforts.

Diplomacy doesn't stand a chance in Syria unless the military balance tips against Assad. With Iran and Hezbollah now directly involved in the conflict—sending soldiers and weapons into Syria—the U.S. must stop insisting that arming the opposition will only make the violence worse. The conflict is also attracting jihadis whose presence will only make an eventual reconciliation in Syria that much harder.

To address these problems, the U.S. should work with NATO, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Qatar and others to establish safe zones in Turkey and, eventually, in parts of Syria. This will help turn the opposition into a better-organized and viable force. The U.S. can provide valuable aid in the form of food, medicine, communications equipment, intelligence and logistical support.

Enlarge Image

AFP/Getty Images

Demonstrators protest in front of the Syrian consulate in Istanbul against the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

Our allies in this mission should take the main responsibility for arming and training the most capable and trustworthy rebels now. But the U.S. should make clear that we stand ready to step in and fill key gaps between the rebels' military needs and our allies' capabilities. Empowering and supporting Syria's opposition today will give us our best chance of influencing it tomorrow, to ensure that revenge killings are rare in a post-Assad Syria and that a new government follows a moderate foreign policy.

Also crucial is helping secure Syria's chemical-weapons stockpile, which is the largest in the Middle East and poses a serious proliferation threat. Fostering a post-Assad government-in-waiting will help ensure that a plan is developed to prevent these weapons from falling into the wrong hands.

While we pursue these steps, we should also immediately pass additional sanctions against Assad. Unfortunately, the Democratic majority in the Senate has been reluctant to consider tough new sanctions legislation. I urge Majority Leader Harry Reid to take up the Syria Democracy Transition Act of 2012, which authorizes the president to impose crippling sanctions on the Syrian regime to cut off the financial lifeline that is helping keep Assad afloat.

Then there's the opportunity to assign Robert Ford, our former ambassador in Syria, as the envoy to the Syrian opposition, encouraging him to engage Jordan and Turkey and to lay the groundwork for a relationship with a post-Assad Syrian government. We can also pursue a commercial air embargo on Damascus, whereby no airport should facilitate flights to or from the Syrian capital.

By not pursuing a policy that takes bolder steps to stop Assad and assist the more pro-Western opposition leaders, we prolong this conflict and allow Syria to hurtle toward becoming a radicalized, failed state whose violence will spill over and threaten its neighbors. Such an outcome would damage American interests and delight Iran and Hezbollah.

Barack Obama is not the first president to face difficult choices about dealing with tyrants, and he won't be the last. As the Syrian ordeal reaches new levels of horror, we should take heed of Ronald Reagan's words: "It is a sad, undeniable fact of modern life that wishes are no substitute for national will. And wishful thinking only encourages the tyrants for whom human rights are as easily trampled as protesters in a city square."

America's Syria policy has been all wishful thinking and no national will. It has been based on the false hope that Assad will realize the error of his ways, that Russia and other unreliable nations will change, and that a positive outcome can be attained absent American leadership. Although U.S. policy has been that Assad must go, this demand has not been coupled with action. This devalues America's power and influence in the world, with disastrous and lasting consequences.

Mr. Rubio, a Republican, is a U.S. senator from Florida and a member of the Senate's Intelligence and Foreign Relations committees.

A version of this article appeared June 7, 2012, on page A19 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: Assad's Fall Is In America's Interests.

JOIN THE DISCUSSION42 Comments, add yours

WORLD MUST ARM SYRIA FREEDOME FIGHTERS

 instead of invading, like IRAQ. Like IRAQ, we shouldn't allow another massa care of Muslims by so valley Muslims, even those that Call themselves Islamic republik Like Iran and Taliban.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/may/29/houla-massacre-us-accuses-iran?newsfeed=true

Houla massacre: US accuses Iran of 'bragging' about its military aid to Syria

As nations expel Syrian diplomats, US state department says the militia accused of Houla killings is modelled on Iranian Basij

• Share 131
• Email

• Chris McGreal in Washington
• guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 29 May 2012 21.51 BST

The US has joined Britain, France, Canada and other nations in expelling top Syrian diplomats over the Houla massacre. Photograph: Karen Bleier/AFP/Getty Images

The US has accused Iran of "aiding and abetting" the massacre of women and children in Houla by providing support for the Syrian militia accused of carrying out the slaughter.
The state department said that Tehran was "bragging" about its role at the weekend after the deputy commander of Iran's elite Quds force said the force has units inside Syria in support of President Bashar al-Assad.
Victoria Nuland, the state department spokeswoman, said that Iran's hand is clearly visible in the killing of more than 100 people, including scores of young children, by a Syrian militia group, the Shabiha, which closely resembles an Iranian militia, the Basij.
"The Iranians have clearly supplied support and training and advice to the Syrian army, but this Shabiha thug force mirrors the same force that the Iranians use. The Basij and the Shabiha are the same type of thing and clearly reflects the tactics and the techniques that the Iranians use for their own suppression of civil rights," she said.
"It was Assad and his regime that created this Shabiha force to begin with. It very much models the Iranian Basij model where they hire young guys to indiscriminately wreak vengeance and do this kind of hand-to-hand violence."
Nuland further implicated Iran by drawing attention to the timing of a claim by the deputy head of its Quds force, Esmail Ghani, that it has played a "physical and non-physical" role in Syria, and that if it were not present "the killing of citizens would be greater".
"We find it interesting that it was on this very weekend that the deputy head of the Quds force decided to take credit for the advice they're giving to Syria," she said.
The US claim of Iranian involvement came as Washington joined Britain, France, Canada and other nations in expelling top Syrian diplomats over the Houla massacre. The Syrian charge d'affaires, Zuheir Jabbour, was given three days to leave the US. The Syrian ambassador left Washington in December and has not been replaced.
"We took this action in response to the massacre in the village of Houla – absolutely indefensible, vile, despicable massacre against innocent children, women shot at point blank range by regime thugs, the Shabiha, aided and abetted by the Iranians who were actually bragging about it over the weekend," said Nuland.
The US's attempts to hold Iran responsible in part for the Houla massacre is likely to be seen as interwoven with Washington's attempts to pressure Tehran over over its nuclear programme.
But the diplomatic expulsions fall well short of the action demanded by some members of Congress and human rights groups.
Mitt Romney, the Republican presidential candidate, said he welcomed the move but called on Barack Obama to be more assertive and arm the Syrian opposition.
"President Obama's lack of leadership has resulted in a policy of paralysis that has watched Assad slaughter 10,000 individuals. We should increase pressure on Russia to cease selling arms to the Syrian government and to end its obstruction at the United Nations. And we should work with partners to arm the opposition so they can defend themselves," he said.
On Sunday, General Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff, warned that Syria could face military intervention if the killings of civilians continued.
But the White House on Tuesday rejected armed involvement either directly or by supplying weapons to the regime's opponents, saying that it "could make it harder to achieve the political transition that the Syrian people deserve".
Jay Carney, the White House spokesman, said: "We do not believe that militarisation, further militarisation of the situation in Syria at this point is the right course of action. We believe that it would lead to greater chaos, greater carnage."
He added that calls for the US to replicate the military action it took with Nato during the uprising against Muammar Gaddafi in Libya last year failed to take account of a very different situation in Syria.
"The comparison with I think Libya is one that requires a great deal of recognition of the differences between the two. And as you know, in a unique situation with regards to Libya, with a broad international consensus, a request for military action from the opposition, and the fact that forces loyal to Qaddafi were on the verge of assaulting an entire city and with the promise of annihilating residents of that city, we were able to act with our allies to prevent that," he said.
"Every situation within the Arab Spring and the circumstances is different as we've said on numerous occasions, and certainly the situation in Syria is different from what it was in Libya."
Nuland said the US government recognises that expelling diplomats only has a limited impact.
"Obviously this is a political measure. This is a statement of our extreme disapproval and horror at the massacre. We will obviously continue to look at other ways we can pressure the regime economically, politically, diplomatically and continue to try to tighten the noose," she said.
US officials say that Washington is constrained on the UN security council by Russia's opposition to stronger measures against Damascus. However, Moscow has said it does support an impartial investigation of the Houla killings. Nuland said the US hopes that is indicative of a greater willingness by Russia to permit greater international pressure to be brought to bear on Damascus.
"We are appreciative of the fact that the Russians are willing to have a full investigation because we think it's indisputable what that investigation's going to show. It's going to show that these were regime-sponsored thugs who went into villages, went into homes, and killed children at point blank range and their parents," she said. "Is this going to be a turning point in Russian thinking? We hope so."
Amnesty International has called on the UN security council to move beyond condemnation and refer the actions of the Syrian government to the International Criminal Court for investigation.
The human rights group said it has collected the names of more than 1,300 people killed in Syria since the start of the UN observer mission on 14 April.
Amnesty International said it had little confidence in the Syrian government announcement that it will set up a "judicial military committee" to investigate the killings.
"We do not know of a single suspected perpetrator of abuses by the regime's forces having been brought to justice throughout these 14 months of protest and unrest," it said. On Sunday, General Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff, warned that Syria could face military intervention if the killings of civilians continues.
"There is always a military option," he told Fox News. "You'll always find military leaders to be somewhat cautious about the use of force, because we're never entirely sure what comes out on the other side. But that said, it may come to a point with Syria because of the atrocities."
But in his Memorial Day address, Obama said he would not be rushing into other conflicts after Afghanistan and Iraq "unless it is absolutely necessary".

RUNNING FAST OR LONG IS BAD FOR YOU

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/06/moderation-as-the-sweet-spot-for-exercise/

Moderation as the Sweet Spot for Exercise

Phys Ed |

By GRETCHEN REYNOLDS

| June 6, 2012, 12:01 am 83 Comments

Thor Swift for The New York Times Moderate exercise may be more beneficial than vigorous workouts.

• Facebook
• Twitter
• Linkedin
• Share
• E-mail
• Print

For people who exercise but fret that they really should be working out more, new studies may be soothing. The amount of exercise needed to improve health and longevity, this new science shows, is modest, and more is not necessarily better.

Phys Ed

Gretchen Reynolds on the science of fitness.

That is the message of the newest and perhaps most compelling of the studies, which was presented on Saturday at the annual meeting of the American College of Sports Medicine in San Francisco. For it, researchers at the University of South Carolina Arnold School of Public Health and other institutions combed through the health records of 52,656 Am (53:00 PM 12h)erican adults who’d undergone physicals between 1971 and 2002 as part of the Aerobics Center Longitudinal Study at the Cooper Institute in Dallas. Each participant completed physical testing and activity questionnaires and returned for at least one follow-up visit.
The researchers found that about 27 percent of the participants reported regularly running, although in wildly varying amounts and paces.
The scientists then checked death reports.
Over the course of the study, 2,984 of the participants died. But the incidence was much lower among the group that ran. Those participants had, on average, a 19 percent lower risk of dying from any cause than non-runners.
Notably, in closely parsing the participants’ self-reported activities, the researchers found that running in moderation provided the most benefits. Those who ran 1 to 20 miles (20 miles = 32.2 km) per week at an average pace of about 10 or 11 minutes per mile — in other words, jogging — reduced their risk of dying during the study more effectively than those who didn’t run, those (admittedly few) who ran more than 20 miles (20 miles = 32.2 km) a week, and those who typically ran at a pace swifter than seven miles an hour.
“These data certainly support the idea that more running is not needed to produce extra health and mortality benefits,” said Dr. Carl J. Lavie, medical director of cardiac rehabilitation and prevention at the Ochsner Medical Center in New Orleans and an author of the study. “If anything,” he continued, “it appears that less running is associated with the best protection from mortality risk. More is not better, and actually, more could be worse.”
His analysis echoes the results of another new examination of activity and mortality, in which Danish scientists used 27 years’ worth of data collected for the continuing Copenhagen City Heart Study. They reported that those Danes who spent one to two and a half hours per week jogging at a “slow or average pace” during the study period had longer life spans than their more sedentary peers and than those who ran at a faster pace.
This decidedly modest amount of exercise led to an increase of, on average, 6.2 years in the life span of male joggers and 5.6 years in women.
“We can say with certainty that regular jogging increases longevity,” Dr. Peter Schnorr, a cardiologist and an author of the study, said in presenting the findings at a clinical meeting organized last month by the European Association for Cardiovascular Prevention and Rehabilitation. “The good news is that you don’t actually need to do that much to reap the benefits.”
“The relationship appears much like alcohol intakes,” he continued. “Mortality is lower in people reporting moderate jogging than in non-joggers or those undertaking extreme levels of exercise.”
There’s further confirmation of that idea in the findings of a large study of exercise habits published last year in The Lancet, which showed that among a group of 416,175 Korean adults, 92 minutes a week of moderate exercise, like walking, gentle jogging or cycling, increased life span by about three years and decreased the risk of mortality from any cause by about 14 percent.
In that study, those who embarked on more ambitious exercise programs did gain additional risk reduction, as seems only fair, but the benefits plateaued rapidly. For each further 15 minutes per week of moderate exercise that someone completed beyond the first 92, his or her mortality risk fell, but by only about another 4 percent.
Whether and at what point more exercise becomes counterproductive remains uncertain. “In general, it appears that exercise, like any therapy, results in a bell-shaped curve in terms of response and benefit,” says Dr. James H. O’Keefe, a cardiologist and lead author of a thought-provoking review article published on Monday in Mayo Clinic Proceedings that examines whether extreme amounts of vigorous exercise, particularly running, can harm the heart.
“To date, the data suggests that walking and light jogging are almost uniformly beneficial for health and do increase life span,” Dr. O’Keefe says. “But with more vigorous or prolonged exercise, the benefits can become questionable.
“I’m a fan of distance running,” he adds. “I run. But after about 45 to 60 minutes a day, you reach a point of diminishing returns, and at some point, you risk toxicity.”
His advice? The study by Dr. Lavie and his colleagues offers excellent guidelines for safe and effective exercise, Dr. O’Keefe says. “Twenty miles a week or less of jogging at a 10- or 11-minute-mile pace can add years to your life span. That’s very good news.” Indeed it is — especially since that routine happens to replicate almost exactly my own weekly exercise regimen.
“I wouldn’t automatically discourage people from doing more if they really want to” and are not experiencing side effects, like extreme fatigue or repeated injuries, Dr. O’Keefe continued. “But the message from the latest data is that the sweet spot for exercise seems to come with less.”