Mexico City considers fixed-term marriage licences

Mexico City politicians want to help newlyweds avoid the hassle ofdivorce by giving them an easy exit strategy: temporary marriagelicences.

Leftwing politicians in the city's assembly – who have already legalised gay marriage – proposed a reform to the civil code this week that would allow couples to decide on the length of their commitment, opting out of a lifetime.

The minimum marriage contract would be for two years and could be renewed if the couple stays happy. The contracts would include provisions on how children and property would be handled if the couple splits.

"The proposal is, when the two-year period is up, if the relationship is not stable or harmonious, the contract simply ends," said Leonel Luna, the Mexico City assembly member who co-authored the bill.

"You wouldn't have to go through the tortuous process of divorce," said Luna, from the lefwing Party of the Democratic Revolution, which has the most seats in the 66-member chamber. Luna says the proposed law is gaining support and he expects a vote by the end of this year.

Around half of Mexico City marriages end in divorce, usually in the first two years. The capital, one of the world's largest cities, is much more liberal than the rest of the country, where the divorce rate is significantly lower although on the rise.

Abortion is legal in Mexico City, while the supreme court ruled this week to uphold state laws in Baja California that say life begins at conception.

Leftwing mayor Marcelo Ebrard, who angered the Catholic church when he made Mexico City the first Latin American city to legalise gay marriage in late 2009, announced this month he would soon step down to run for president.

The church criticised the proposed change. "This reform is absurd. It contradicts the nature of marriage," said Hugo Valdemar, spokesman for the Mexican archdiocese. "It's another one of these electoral theatrics the assembly tends to do that are irresponsible and immoral."

The church holds considerable sway in the country with the world's second largest Catholic population after Brazil.

Water supply nearing limit for food production

If everyone becomes a vegetarian, the world has enough water to grow the food needed to sustain a global population of eight billion people.
While Alexander Zehnder isn't advocating a mass renunciation of steak and ribs, the water and energy export told the Global Business Forum Friday that food choices - both what we grow and what we consume - have huge impacts.
"I think we can still have the good food that we are used to," Zehnder, a visiting professor at Nanyang Technological University in Singapore, said. "We have to cut back a little bit on the meat."
With a world population headed to eight or nine billion, he said, thought must be given to how enough produce to feed them all and water is a key component - both as part of the problem and part of the solution.
If everyone were vegetarian, there would be enough water to produce the necessary food, he said.
With 20 per cent of the average diet being meat, Zehnder said "we start to get in trouble in the next 10 to 15 years," adding meat requires 10 times more water per unit of energy produced compared to plants.
Zehnder painted a global picture illustrated with the world's reliance on five countries, including Canada, to supply them with food and questionable growing options related more to market concerns than climate and soil.
Using Egypt as an example, where high food prices helped fuel anger against the former government and led to its ouster.
Zehnder pointed out that the country has taken to growing wheat, calling it "the dumbest thing they can do there," given its water supply.
But part of that decision relates to giving the country some independence from the global food market, he said.
"Everyone in the world has to have access to the five countries," he added, referring to the U.S., Australia, Argentina, France and Canada which are basically the ones providing food to everyone else.
While shifting patterns will see more countries with not enough water to produce sufficient food, he said "even in 20 years, it will be the same five countries."
Increasing the nutritional value of the food produced will also be a benefit, Zehnder said.
Stanford Blade, the CEO of Alberta Innovates - Bio Solutions, said improving technology will make a big difference moving forward, both in the amount of food being produced and its nutritional makeup.
"There have been remarkable gains in many parts of the world because of technology," he said, pointing to transgenics as one example. "You're going to see more and more around nutrient content."
Zehnder pointed out that while agriculture uses a significant amount of water to produce food, "it's not the bad guy in the room."
Most of the water used to grow wheat, canola, peas or corn is socalled "green water," he said, water that sits in the soil and can't be used by anyone or anything else if not taken up by roots.
While there is often talk of water shortages in Alberta, Zehnder said if water in the rivers aren't used to grow food, "it flows down to Saskatchewan. Why not use the water and make something tangible out of it."
Blade said Alberta is in a good position to continue feeding the world because we have land and we have water."


Read more: http://www.calgaryherald.com/health/Water+supply+nearing+limit+food+production/5453168/story.html#ixzz1ZNEsxJfR


http://www.calgaryherald.com/health/Water+supply+nearing+limit+food+production/5453168/story.html

http://www.FrontlineMobility.com

Jehovah's Witnesses investigated by police

The Watchtower, the magazine for Jehovah's Witnesses, is under investigation by British police, after complaints that it is in breach of religious hatred laws.

The magazine – distributed around the world - described those who leave the church as “mentally diseased.”

According to the Telegraph, the article being investigated by detectives reportedly warned followers to avoid "false teachers" which it condemned as being "mentally diseased".

"Suppose that a doctor told you to avoid contact with someone who is infected with a contagious, deadly disease," part of the article stated.

"You would know what the doctor means, and you would strictly heed his warning. Well, apostates are 'mentally diseased', and they seek to infect others with their disloyal teachings."

Former Jehovah's Witnesses made the complaint to their local police who are investigating the allegations.

Angus Robertson, a former Witness "elder" told The Independent: "The way scripture is being used to bully people must be challenged.

“If a religion was preaching that blacks or gays were mentally diseased there would understandable outrage."

The Jehovah's Witnesses defended the passage saying ostracisation from the organization was "a personal matter for each individual to decide for himself".

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatches/globalpost-blogs/weird-wide-web/jehovahs-witnesses-investigated-illegal

http://www.FrontlineMobility.com

First Irish case' of death by spontaneous combustion

It is believed to be the first case of its kind in Ireland.

West Galway coroner Dr Ciaran McLoughlin said it was the first time in 25 years of investigating deaths that he had returned such a verdict.

Michael Faherty, 76, died at his home at Clareview Park, Ballybane, Galway on 22 December 2010.

An inquest in Galway on Thursday heard how investigators had been baffled as to the cause of death.

Forensic experts found a fire in the fireplace of the sitting room where the badly burnt body was found had not been the cause of the blaze that killed Mr Faherty.

The court was told that no trace of an accelerant had been found and there had been nothing to suggest foul play.

The court heard Mr Faherty had been found lying on his back with his head closest to an open fireplace.

The fire had been confined to the sitting room. The only damage was to the body, which was totally burnt, the ceiling above him and the floor underneath him.

Dr McLoughlin said he had consulted medical textbooks and carried out other research in an attempt to find an explanation.

He said Professor Bernard Knight, in his book on forensic pathology, had written about spontaneous combustion and noted that such reported cases were almost always near an open fireplace or chimney.

"This fire was thoroughly investigated and I'm left with the conclusion that this fits into the category of spontaneous human combustion, for which there is no adequate explanation," he said.

'Sharp intake of breath'

Retired professor of pathology Mike Green said he had examined one suspected case in his career.

He said he would not use the term spontaneous combustion, as there had to be some source of ignition, possibly a lit match or cigarette.

"There is a source of ignition somewhere, but because the body is so badly destroyed the source can't be found," he said.

He said the circumstances in the Galway case were very similar to other possible cases.

"This is the picture which is described time and time again," he said.

"Even the most experienced rescue worker or forensic scientist takes a sharp intake of breath (when they come across the scene)."

Mr Green said he doubted explanations centred on divine intervention.

"I think if the heavens were striking in cases of spontaneous combustion then there would be a lot more cases. I go for the practical, the mundane explanation," he said.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-15032614

http://www.FrontlineMobility.com

BEIJING — China on Thursday angrily demanded the Obama administration cancel its plans to upgrade Taiwan’s aging fleet of F-16 fighter jets, warning that the decision will harm U.S.-China ties overall and military cooperation between the two countries.

A statement Thursday on the Chinese foreign ministry’s website, and an article on the website of Xinhua, the official news agency here, said China’s Vice Foreign Minister Zhang Zhijun summoned U.S. Ambassador Gary Locke to lodge a “strong protest.” Xinhua said China’s ambassador in Washington, Zhang Yesui, also lodged a protest.

“The wrongdoing by the U.S. side will inevitably undermine bilateral relations as well as exchanges and cooperation in military and security areas,” Zhang Zhijun reportedly told Locke, according to theXinhua report.

“China strongly urges the United States to be fully aware of the high sensitivity and serious harm of the issue, seriously treat the solemn stance of China, honor its commitment and immediately cancel the wrong decision,” the vice foreign minister told Locke, according to the report.

“The new round of U.S. arms sales to Taiwan, no matter in what excuses and reasons, cannot hide the intention of interfering in China's internal affairs and will send very wrong signals to the ‘Taiwan independence’ secessionist forces, and will severely disturb the momentum of peaceful development in cross-Strait relations,” the vice foreign minister said.

China’s official reaction came the day after the Obama administration formally notified Congress on Wednesday of a plan, worth $5.8 billion, to upgrade Taiwan’s 145 F-16 A/B fighter jets, rejecting, for now, the island’s request to purchase 66 more sophisticated F-16 C/Ds.

Last year, when the U.S. approved a separate arms package for Taiwan worth $6.4 billion, Beijing reacted by temporarily suspending military exchanges with Washington. Those military ties were only fully restored in January, when then-Defense Secretary Robert Gates traveled to China and met his counterpart Liang Guanglie, ahead of an official visit to Washington by Chinese President Hu Jintao.

At the time, Gates and Liang told reporters that military ties between the U.S. and China should not be affected by politics.

From Thursday’s tough language, it was unclear whether military ties once again would be affected by the U.S. agreeing to sell — or in this case, upgrade — weapons for Taiwan’s defense.

China did not immediately announce any retaliatory measures, other than Vice Foreign Minister Zhang’s warning that “exchanges and cooperation in military and security areas” would be harmed.

Some experts believed that this time, relations should not suffer as a result of the arms deal, despite Beijing’s official protests.

“The arms sale will affect the bilateral relationship a little bit because China feels that they are not respected enough by the U.S.,” said Chu Shulong, a professor at the Institute of International Studies at Tsinghua University. “But it will have a minor influence, and won’t have impact on the military ties, like last time. There won’t be any direct effect on the Sino-U.S. relationship because of the arms sale this time.”

The first reason, Chu said, was because the size of the arms package was carefully calibrated, and did not include the new fighters. “This is the best decision the Obama administration can make for the U.S. to balance the interests of all sides — Taiwan, the mainland and the domestic politics — although none of the sides will be fully satisfied,” he said.

Second, Chu said, China had a chance to learn of the decision beforehand, perhaps during Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s visit in August. “So China feels they are more respected than in the past,” Chu said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia-pacific/china-denounced-us-arms-deal-for-taiwan/2011/09/21/gIQADDIemK_story.html

Http://www.FrontlineMobility.com

Calderón Hints at Drug Legalization Again

Mexican President Felipe Calderón seems to be experiencing a dramatic change of mind regarding his war against drug cartels. Soon after a drug gang set fire to a casino in Monterrey a few weeks ago killing 52 people, Calderón told the media that “”If [the Americans] are determined and resigned to consuming drugs, they should look for market alternatives that annul the stratospheric profits of the criminals, or establish clear points of access that are not the border with Mexico.” Many people interpreted that as a veiled reference to drug legalization.

Yesterday, during a speech to the Americas Society and Council of the Americas in New York,Calderón was at it again: “We must do everything to reduce demand for drugs,” he said. “But if the consumption of drugs cannot be limited, then decision-makers must seek more solutions—including market alternatives—in order to reduce the astronomical earnings of criminal organizations.”

After launching a military offensive against drug cartels that has resulted in approximately 42,000 people killed in drug-related violence thus far, it appears that President Calderón has finally realized that the war on drugs is a futile endeavor and that drug legalization is the only alternative to the mayhem.

Calderón has flirted with an alternative approach before. A year ago, he said that it was “fundamental” to have a debate on drug legalization. Shortly afterwards, Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos openly supported the call for a debate. However, Calderón soon recanted, firmly stating that he was against legalization, and the possibility of a high-level hemispheric debate on drug reform died there.

If we take his recent statements seriously, perhaps the massacre in Monterrey finally broke Calderón’s faith in his war on drugs. His two immediate predecessors, Ernesto Zedillo and Vicente Fox, have been vocal proponents of drug legalization in the years since they left office. Calderón still has over a year left in his term. He has been very assertive in the past, demanding that Americans reduce their demand for drugs and change their gun laws in order to curb violence in Mexico. But his rhetoric has proven fruitless time and time again, all the while thousands have needlessly died. Calderon must remain assertive towards Washington, but now he should demand a change in drug policy in the U.S.

Nothing will reverse the damage that his war against drugs cartels has inflicted on his country. But Felipe Calderón could do his country a great service if he becomes the first sitting president to raise his voice to Washington and demand an end to the war on drugs.

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/calderon-hints-at-drug-legalization-again/

http://www.FrontlineMobility.com

How the War on Terrorism Did Russia a Favor

Ten years ago, on Sept. 20, 2001, President George W. Bush announced for the first time that in response to the terrorist attacks of 9/11 the U.S. was starting a "war on terror," and he asked every nation to help. Four days later, against the advice of many of his generals, Russian President Vladimir Putin agreed, creating a bond unlike any the U.S. and Russia had built since World War II. But as with many of the unlikely relationships the U.S. formed after 9/11, the reasoning behind this one was not just solidarity or common cause. Countries around the world realized the practical appeal of a war on terrorism. Over the past ten years, it has become a seemingly permanent call to arms, a kind of incantation used to dodge questions, build alliances and justify the use of force. No one, not even Bush, grasped this as quickly as Putin.

Even before Putin became Russia's President in early 2000, and long before the Twin Towers fell, he had invoked the idea of a war against global terrorism to justify Russia's war in Chechnya. The terrorism aspect, at least, was true. Chechen separatists, who renewed their centuries-old struggle for independence soon after the Soviet Union fell, had resorted to terrorism as early as 1995, when they seized a hospital in the Russian town of Budyonnovsk and held more than 1,500 people hostage. Then in 1999, a series of apartment bombings, also blamed on the Chechens, killed hundreds of people in Moscow and other Russian cities. Putin responded by launching Russia's second full-scale invasion of Chechnya in less than a decade. "He received carte blanche from the citizens of Russia," says Mikhail Kasyanov, who was Russia's Finance Minister at the time. "They simply closed their eyes and let him do whatever he wanted as long as he saved them from this threat."(See pictures of Russian leaders Vladimir Putin and Dmitri Medvedev.)

There was scant evidence, however, that the Chechen rebels were part of some global Islamist terrorist network, as Putin and his government repeatedly claimed. The leader of the separatists at the time was Aslan Maskhadov, a former Red Army colonel who was closer to communism than Islamism, and there was no proof that he received much help from abroad. "Still, all official statements said that we are fighting a war against international terror," says Andrei Illarionov, who served as Putin's senior economic adviser between 2000 and '05. "Of course, nobody outside Russia bought it." In the West, Putin's war in Chechnya thus enjoyed little sympathy. The Chechen conflict was seen as part of a rebellion that Moscow was trying to crush, and the atrocities allegedly committed by both sides earned widespread condemnation.

In late 1999, when Bush was campaigning for the presidency, he vowed to start urging an end to the war. "Even as we support Russian reforms, we cannot support Russian brutality," he said during a speech at the Reagan Library in California. "When the Russian government attacks civilians, leaving orphans and refugees, it can no longer expect aid from international lending institutions." Some days later, Condoleezza Rice, who later became Bush's National Security Adviser after his election, reiterated the need for financial pressure against "what is really a quite brutal campaign against innocent women and children in Chechnya." And in the fall of 2000, then U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright told the U.N. that the Chechen war "has greatly damaged Russia's international standing and is isolating Russia from the international community."(See more about Chechen warlord Doku Umarov.)

But when Bush announced his own war on terrorism, all this rhetoric quickly evaporated. Putin, who had been the first to call Bush with his sympathy after learning of the 9/11 attacks, graciously offered to help with the invasion of Afghanistan. He let the U.S. ship supplies through Russian territory and did not object to the U.S. setting up bases in Central Asia, where the local despots quickly caught on to the opportunity. Uzbek President Islam Karimov, for instance, allowed the U.S. to build a permanent base, perhaps hoping that his new alliance with the war on terrorism would help reduce U.S. scrutiny of alleged human-rights abuses in Uzbekistan. "It all flowed naturally into the picture of a global war on terror," says Kasyanov, who by that time had been promoted to serve as Putin's Prime Minister. "There was no more criticism ... It just ceased to be a thorny issue."

By the summer of 2000, Russia had defeated the Chechen separatists and installed a puppet government led by the Kadyrov family, a Chechen clan loyal to the Kremlin. But claims of wholesale violations of human rights, including torture and extrajudicial killings, continued to surface as the Kadyrovs consolidated power in Chechnya. The need to remind the world that Russia was still fighting the war on terrorism remained, and Putin began to claim ever stronger links between Chechen rebels and the global jihad.(See pictures inside Chechnya.)

"Exaggeration of these links was one of the goals," Kasyanov recalls. During and after the 2004 terrorists siege of a school in the town of Beslan, where hundreds of hostages died, the Russian government claimed firm links between the Chechen terrorists and Islamist networks such as al-Qaeda. Soon after the siege, Putin said that nine of the hostage-takers were from the "Arab world," a claim that was never substantiated. Asked why he had decided to storm the building instead of trying to resolve the crisis through negotiations, Putin fumed: "I don't tell you to meet Osama bin Laden and invite him to Brussels or the White House for talks."

But the very idea of a war on terrorism had unnerved some officials inside Putin's own government. "Terrorism is a method of waging conflict," says Illarionov, Putin's former adviser. "How can you fight a war against a method? The very idea is nonsense. It's like announcing a war against tanks." In early 2005, Illarionov resigned from his post in the Kremlin, citing the rollback in democracy that followed the Beslan siege. Kasyanov had resigned in early 2004 for similar reasons, going on to join the opposition.(See pictures of Russia celebrating Victory Day.)

Yet the idea of a global war on terrorism remains one of Putin's key political narratives. It is trotted out to this day after every terrorist attack in the Russian heartland and during most discussions with Western leaders, who see it as a firm bond in their alliances with Moscow. Since Bush left office, President Barack Obama has let the term fade from White House rhetoric, usually preferring to name a specific enemy of the U.S. But the use of the phrase has spread far and wide. During this year's Arab Spring revolts, besieged dictators from Egypt to Libya and Syria have claimed that the revolutionaries trying to overthrow them are in fact foreign terrorists with links to the global jihad. Few Western governments have taken these claims seriously. But 10 years on, Bush's idea of a global war on terrorism is still more often used for propaganda than to prevent more attacks like 9/11. Changing that could take many more years.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2093529,00.html?xid=rss-mostpopular

http://www.FrontlineMobility.com