Graveyard shift work linked to cancer

 

Graveyard shift work linked to cancer

By MARIA CHENG, AP Medical Writer

Like UV rays and diesel exhaust fumes, working the graveyard shift will soon be listed as a "probable" cause of cancer. It is a surprising step validating a concept once considered wacky. And it is based on research that finds higher rates of breast and prostate cancer among women and men whose work day starts after dark.

Next month, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, the cancer arm of the World Health Organization, will add overnight shift work as a probable carcinogen. The American Cancer Society says it will likely follow. Up to now, the U.S. organization has considered the work-cancer link to be "uncertain, controversial or unproven."

The higher cancer rates don't prove working overnight can cause cancer. There may be other factors common among graveyard shift workers that raise their risk for cancer.

However, scientists suspect that overnight work is dangerous because it disrupts the circadian rhythm, the body's biological clock. The hormone melatonin, which can suppress tumor development, is normally produced at night.

If the graveyard shift theory eventually proves correct, millions of people worldwide could be affected. Experts estimate that nearly 20 percent of the working population in developed countries work night shifts.

Among the first to spot the night shift-cancer connection was Richard Stevens, a cancer epidemiologist and professor at the University of Connecticut Health Center. In 1987, Stevens published a paper suggesting a link between light at night and breast cancer.

Back then, he was trying to figure out why breast cancer incidence suddenly shot up starting in the 1930s in industrialized societies, where nighttime work was considered a hallmark of progress. Most scientists were bewildered by his proposal.

But in recent years, several studies have found that women working at night over many years were indeed more prone to breast cancer. Also, animals that have their light-dark schedules switched develop more cancerous tumors and die earlier.

Some research also suggests that men working at night may have a higher rate of prostate cancer.

Because these studies mostly focused on nurses and airline crews, bigger studies in different populations are needed to confirm or disprove the findings.

There are still plenty of skeptics. And to put the risk in perspective, the "probable carcinogen" tag means that the link between overnight work and cancer is merely plausible.

Among the long list of agents that are listed as "known" carcinogens are alcoholic beverages and birth control pills. Such lists say nothing about exposure amount or length of time or how likely they are to cause cancer. The American Cancer Society Web site notes that carcinogens do not cause cancer at all times.

Still, many doubters of the night shift link may be won over by the IARC's analysis to be published in the December issue of the journal Lancet Oncology.

"The indications are positive," said Vincent Cogliano, who heads up the agency's carcinogen classifications unit. "There was enough of a pattern in people who do shift work to recognize that there's an increase in cancer, but we can't rule out the possibility of other factors."

Scientists believe having lower melatonin levels can raise the risk of developing cancer. Light shuts down melatonin production, so people working in artificial light at night may have lower melatonin levels.

Melatonin can be taken as a supplement, but experts don't recommend it long-term, since that could ruin the body's ability to produce it naturally.

Sleep deprivation may be another factor in cancer risk. People who work at night are not usually able to completely reverse their day and night cycles.

"Night shift people tend to be day shift people who are trying to stay awake at night," said Mark Rea, director of the Light Research Center at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in New York, who is not connected with the IARC analysis.

Not getting enough sleep makes your immune system vulnerable to attack, and less able to fight off potentially cancerous cells.

Confusing your body's natural rhythm can also lead to a breakdown of other essential tasks. "Timing is very important," Rea said. Certain processes like cell division and DNA repair happen at regular times.

Even worse than working an overnight shift is flipping between daytime and overnight work.

"The problem is re-setting your body's clock," said Aaron Blair, of the United States' National Cancer Institute, who chaired IARC's recent meeting on shift work. "If you worked at night and stayed on it, that would be less disruptive than constantly changing shifts."

Anyone whose light and dark schedule is often disrupted — including frequent long-haul travelers or insomniacs — could theoretically face the same increased cancer risk, Stevens said.

He advises workers to sleep in a darkened room once they get off work. "The balance between light and dark is very important for your body. Just get a dark night's sleep."

Meanwhile, scientists are trying to come up with ways to reduce night workers' cancer risk. And some companies are experimenting with different lighting, seeking a type that doesn't affect melatonin production.

So far, the color that seems to have the least effect on melatonin is one that few people would enjoy working under: red.

___

American Cancer Society's list of known and probable carcinogens from IARC and National Toxicology Program: http://tinyurl.com/2kl5ab

International Agency for Research on Cancer: http://www.iarc.fr/

 

A Muslim Belongs In The Cabinet

A Muslim Belongs In the Cabinet

Nov. 27, 2007

 

by Mansoor Ijaz.

 

 

Mitt Romney tells good jokes. I had the chance to hear a few of them this month at a political fundraiser in Las Vegas, where the Republican presidential contender gave his audience a few good chuckles before going into his domestic and foreign policy agenda.

His platform seemed sound enough analytically -- until he demonstrated an aggravating hypocrisy in his reply to my query on one of his key foreign policy positions. It's a stance that should give pause to all Americans who are considering voting for him.

I asked Mr. Romney whether he would consider including qualified Americans of the Islamic faith in his cabinet as advisers on national security matters, given his position that "jihadism" is the principal foreign policy threat facing America today. He answered, "…based on the numbers of American Muslims [as a percentage] in our population, I cannot see that a cabinet position would be justified. But of course, I would imagine that Muslims could serve at lower levels of my administration."

Romney, whose Mormon faith has become the subject of heated debate in Republican caucuses, wants America to be blind to his religious beliefs and judge him on merit instead. Yet he seems to accept excluding Muslims because of their religion, claiming they're too much of a minority for a post in high-level policymaking. More ironic, that Islamic heritage is what qualifies them to best engage America's Arab and Muslim communities and to help deter Islamist threats.

I am an American-born citizen of the Islamic faith. I stand as a living symbol of all that America offers in its system of liberty, justice, and, most of all, opportunity. I am also proud of my Muslim heritage and beliefs, and, true to the American work ethic, I have worked tirelessly to raise up the voices of disaffected Muslims everywhere and help them, too, share in America's promise.

As a private American citizen, I negotiated Sudan's offer of counterterrorism assistance to the Clinton administration in 1997 when the US government had no relations with that country's leaders. I felt there was still an opportunity at that time to unravel the metastasizing terror network being organized by Osama bin Laden and his followers.

I later initiated dialogue with an Arab counterintelligence official in the summer of 2000 that could have resulted in the extradition of Mr. bin Laden to a friendly Muslim country and neutralized Al Qaeda's pre-9/11 planning. That summer, I also helped negotiate a cease fire in Kashmir, which brought peace to a region that has known constant conflict since partition between India and Pakistan.

In early 2001, I notified national security adviser Stephen Hadley that Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency and militant Islamists, some of whom I had worked with during the cease-fire campaign, were actively engaged in the sale and distribution of Pakistan's nuclear technology. Mr. Hadley asked me to make recommendations on how these proliferation activities could be stopped. I did so, mindful that, as an American Muslim whose father was a pioneer in Pakistan's nuclear program, I risked harming the name of my family. But for the sake of my duty as a citizen, I helped the US government expose the illicit transfers. A.Q. Khan, who headed Pakistan's nuclear program, was arrested a few years later.

The point I make in enumerating these efforts to contribute to US national interests is that Americans of the Islamic faith - even when they have no formal role in government - are committed to helping our nation defend its interests. And we have done so. Why, then, should we be excluded from holding positions that carry the highest levels of responsibility?

Imagine how a qualified American Muslim FBI director, sensitized to the genuine concerns among Arab and Muslim communities about civil rights violations, would be able to ensure that FBI actions and policies target the real bad guys, not communities as a whole. Imagine how an American Muslim CIA director or defense secretary whose understanding of cultural differences in places that breed Islamist violence would ensure that intelligence was not biased by bigotry or lack of understanding and that defense strategies were constructed on data acquired from authentic sources.

If Romney wins the White House, he will probably rely on those who know Mormonism best to help him explain it to those who distrust it most. It is time for him to reconsider his views on who should help America craft the right policies that attack the scourge on civilization that Islamic extremism has become.

He, and other candidates for the presidency from both political parties, should actively begin searching for American Muslims and Arab Americans who can serve in primary decisionmaking cabinet level posts. To do otherwise is to risk promulgating policies that once again put the US straight in the sights of the terrorists who seek to bring America down.

Mansoor Ijaz is chairman of The Crescent Investment Group, a private equity firm based in New York.

Prince Alwaleed: Why Chuck had to go

In a Fortune exclusive, Citigroup's biggest single investor talks about his disappointment in Chuck Prince, the bank's colossal losses, and his views on a successor CEO.

By Andy Serwer and Barney Gimbel, Fortune

November 16 2007: 2:37 PM EST

(Fortune) -- In the midst of staggering losses and intense public scrutiny, former Citigroup CEO Charles O. Prince III could always count on the support of the company's biggest individual shareholder: Prince Alwaleed bin Talal bin Abdul Aziz al Saud. Less than a month ago, the Saudi prince, who owns 3.6% of the company, even dismissed a sharp drop in earnings as a "mere hiccup."

But Fortune has learned that Prince Alwaleed and other major shareholders agreed last week that, if Chuck Prince didn't offer his resignation after the news of the additional $8 billion to $11 billion writedowns, they would publicly call for his ouster. In an exclusive interview, Prince Alwaleed, speaking by phone from the desert outside Riyadh, talked with Fortune's Andy Serwer and Barney Gimbel about the final days of Chuck Prince's tenure at Citigroup (Charts, Fortune 500).

Fortune: When Citigroup first reported the writedown three weeks ago, you said that you supported Citi and Chuck Prince. Do you feel like you were misled? Did the situation change? What happened there?

Prince Alwaleed: Let me tell you the facts. Basically when Citigroup pre-announced the $6.4 billion writeoff, Chuck Prince called me within five minutes of the announcement and informed me of that loss and I told him bluntly and openly, "Is this the end of the story? Did you think of everything?"

His answer was "yes" and he expected normalization in the fourth quarter. I listened to the analyst discussion he had with everybody else and he said there would be normalization in the fourth quarter. So obviously, this gave me comfort that this was a onetime event and only an aberration and I backed off.

Although the writeoff said $6.4 billion, post-tax $3.4 billion, if you compare this to the equity of Citibank and the profits of Citibank in the third quarter, there was a $2.4 billion profit. So it was a hiccup assuming that this was a onetime event. But what happened two or three weeks later, another $8 to $11 billion additional write-off, the situation changed completely.

You cannot come to the public and say that this normalization is expected in the fourth quarter and then three weeks later, not three months later, you come and say there is an $11 billion writeoff. This is unacceptable. That's when the events changed completely. My backing was withdrawn dramatically. You should never commit to something that you can't deliver. Never.

Q: When did you learn about the additional write-down?

A: I got a sense that something big was going to happen when the 10K was delayed.

Q: Did Chuck Prince call you to talk with you about the delay?

A: No, but it was public information.

Q: [Former Citi CEO] Sandy Weill was in town then as well.

A: Sandy was in Riyadh.

Q: Did you meet with him about this? Did he come over specifically to talk to you about Chuck or was that a regularly scheduled visit?

A: Sandy meets me more than four or five times a year. I will meet him in Riyadh or in the United States. We are very close friends. Last week, Sandy was in Riyadh and he met me and we discussed many things and obviously one item on the agenda was the results of Citibank. We discussed the situation, what was wrong and why things are happening like that. But remember, this was before the additional $11 billion was announced.

Q: When you heard that the losses were going to be greater, did you immediately question your support of Chuck Prince?

A: Immediately my support was withdrawn. He got my message very clear that my support has been withdrawn because I cannot really tolerate that, obviously. You can't go publicly and say that our losses are around $3 billion post-tax and then all the sudden add another $11 billion loss.

Q: How did you let Chuck Prince know?

A: I was in touch with him. In the last two weeks, we were in touch almost every two or three days. Four or five calls over the past 10 days.

Q: Did you ask him to resign?

A: No, I did not ask him to resign, but I told him my support is no longer there.

Q: Did you think that Sandy Weill should come back on an interim basis?

A: No, no, Sandy is not seeking to be president. What Sandy likes to do is to be involved in the process of selecting a new boss. Sandy told me, "I have no aspirations whatsoever to be CEO or chairman."

However, he would like to be involved in the process of selecting the boss for Citi because Citi can't afford to have another loss. The situation right now is unacceptable for a bank like Citi with $2.5 trillion in assets and $120 billion of equity, and is in more than 100 countries. It's a pity for Citibank to be in this position. It's not right. We can't afford to have another blunder like that.

Q: Are you concerned about Citigroup's position right now?

A: No, Citibank will withstand everything. Frankly speaking, you can imagine the strength of this company. Even with the $6.4 billion writeoff they took in the third quarter, this company had $2.4 billion of profit. So this company can withstand a lot of pressure and a lot of stress because its equity is so big.

Q: Do you have assurances that there aren't going to be more losses when they reevaluate the debt again?

A: No one is sure of that. The situation right now is they took around $6.4 billion pre-tax losses in the third quarter. They announced another $8 to $11 billion pre-tax loss for the fourth quarter. However, Citibank was able to absorb the $6.4 billion and the $8 to $11 billion -- I wouldn't say comfortably -- but they were able to withstand that.

Q: Are you disappointed in Chuck Prince?

A: I am extremely disappointed with Chuck Prince and I believe that Chuck Prince let down the shareholders completely. Citibank did not conduct itself in the right way. The risk-management situation was very wrong at Citibank.

Q: Who is the right kind of leader for Citi now?

A: I was in touch with the board when they selected Mr. [Robert] Rubin as chairman and Mr. [Winfried] Bischoff as the [interim] CEO. Mr. Rubin called me and I am very close friends with Mr. [Richard] Parsons of Time Warner (Charts, Fortune 500), who was involved in the search process. I am in touch with them on a continuous basis.

Q: Do you have anybody in mind?

A: Frankly speaking, I don't have anybody in mind. I trust Mr. Rubin. I trust Mr. Bischoff. I trust Mr. Parsons. The selection process has to be very careful and they should take their time finding the right guy. My recommendation and advice for them is they don't hire anyone unless this guy has expertise in banking. I told them, next time no lawyer, please.

Q: Do you think Citi is undervalued now? Are you going to buy more of it?

A: Look, frankly speaking, Citibank at this price is ridiculous. Citibank does not deserve that. Citibank deserves a lot better.

Q: You once said that you would hold your Citi shares forever. You still stand by that?

A: I will sell nothing. We are selling nothing. I want to make it clear that I fully support the leadership of Citigroup and think it is a very strong company with a good future.

You remember something very important, that theaverage [price at which] I bought Citibank was $2.75 per share adjusted for stock splits. That's my average. But still Citibank does not deserve to be where it is right now. It is a pity what is happening, but I hope that a big lesson is learned in the board of directors and the management of Citibank.

Q: What is that lesson specifically?

A: The lesson is that, No. 1, this management has to be at the highest class possible. No. 2, they have to have a succession plan. You can't have a company that size without a [successor] ready. And No. 3, you need a professional who has run a bank.

Q: Was Chuck Prince not going resign without [pressure]?

A: The impression I had is that he was not going to resign at all.

Q: Did Chuck Prince ever offer his resignation to you?

A: No, he did not.

Q: Did you like Chuck Prince?

A: Yes, Chuck Prince was a good man. Honest man. Decent man.

Q: When did you start realizing that he might have not been the right person to lead Citigroup?

A: I gave him the benefit of the doubt for the first two or three years. And the first two quarters of this year were good. But clearly you cannot go public and say we lost $6.4 billion, and then three weeks later say you will lose another $8 to $11 billion.

Q: Does Citigroup need to do a deal now to combine with another institution like Wachovia (Charts, Fortune 500) to become strong?

A: It is not time for that right now, for sure. I am against it now. Not at this price, for sure. It would not be fair for the shareholders of Citibank at all. I mean even after the stock went down, Citibank is still worth $160 billion. It's still a force to be reckoned with. I mean, how many companies in the world can withstand a writeoff of $6.4 billion and another writeoff of $8 to $11 billion three weeks later, and still stand on its own feet? Not many

 

Abu Dhabi Pumping $7.5B Into Citi

 

Abu Dhabi Pumping $7.5B Into Citi
Liz Moyer, 11.26.07, 11:31 PM ET

Citigroup is still in search of a chief executive, but it has found an angel.

The Abu Dhabi Investment Authority is sinking $7.5 billion into the largest U.S. bank, shoring up its capital after billions in write-offs related to subprime mortgages.

The state investment fund will receive securities that will be convertible into no more than a 4.9% stake in Citi, the financial services giant said Monday night. It is a sizeable investment at a time when many investors and pundits are calling for major changes at Citigroup, including a possible breakup of the company. (See: “Citi: Size Doesn’t Matter”)

One of Citi’s largest individual shareholders, Saudi Arabia’s Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, who is said to hold about a 4% stake, has pressed for tighter cost controls at the company since last year. Chief Executive Charles Prince quit earlier this month as Citi faced another $10 billion to $13 billion of additional write-downs in mortgage security holdings and after losing the confidence of the board and major shareholders. (See: “Another Wall Street Chief Falls”)

A search committee led by Citi director and ex-Treasury head Robert Rubin has yet to come up with a successor, adding more downward pressure to Citi shares, which have declined 20% since the beginning of November. John Thain, one contender, took the vacant chief executive job at Merrill Lynch, another firm that is reeling from subprime mortgage exposure. (See: “Merrill Hires Mr. Fix-It”) Another possibility is Robert Willumstad, the chairman of American International Group, who left Citi two years ago after being passed over for the top job at the bank.

"This investment, from one of the world's leading and most sophisticated equity investors, provides further capital to allow Citi to pursue attractive opportunities to grow its business," acting chief executive Win Bischoff said in a statement Monday night.

“It builds on a series of actions we have taken over the past several months to strengthen our capital base, which have included sales of certain non-strategic assets, the issuance of trust preferred securities, and the previously announced plan to use common stock to purchase 32% of Nikko Cordial in Japan,” he added.

The deal is the third big investment in a multinational made in recent weeks by the oil-rich sheikdoms of the United Arab Emirates. An investment vehicle of the ruler of Dubai announced earlier Monday that it was buying a stake in Sony that was also believed to be under 5%, and a state-run Abu Dhabi fund struck a deal Nov. 16 to take an 8.1% stake in AMD.

Apart from the mortgage securities exposure, one of Citi’s biggest problems in the last few years has been holding down expenses, which have outpaced revenue growth for several quarters. Citi cut 17,000 jobs earlier this year and said it was going to embark on a major cost control initiative. There were reports Monday that many thousands more jobs would be cut in the wake of its current problems.

A Citi spokesman wouldn’t put a number to the cuts, but acknowledged, “We are engaged in a planning process in anticipation of our new CEO and our business heads are planning ways in which we can be more efficient and cost effective to position our businesses in line with economic realities.”

Analysts, notably CIBC World Markets’ Meredith Whitney, have warned that the company’s declining capital levels mean it either needs to sell assets or cut its dividend to shore up capital. At the end of September, Citi’s main capital level, called Tier 1, was 7.3%, below the company’s 7.5% target, but above the regulatory red line of 4%.

The investment by Abu Dhabi will apply to Tier 1 capital. "This investment also enables us to access capital in an efficient manner, and is consistent with our strategy of maintaining a balance sheet that benefits from highly diverse sources of funding in terms of both geography and type of security," Bischoff said in the statement.

Now all they need is a permanent chief executive.

 

Don't say iPod, say I love you

 

Don't say iPod, say I love you

PATRICK WHITE

From Tuesday's Globe and Mail

November 27, 2007 at 9:14 AM EST

Parents have a new weapon in the battle to hush demands for $500 handbags and $250 jeans this Christmas: compliments.

Researchers at the University of Minnesota have found that a child's need for material objects is tied to his or her self-esteem. The weaker their self-esteem, the greater their desire for the material trappings of adolescent popularity, according to the study published in the current issue of the Journal of Consumer Research.

Until recently, little research has probed what triggers materialism in children. "It's always such a mystery trying to understand why children, and particularly teens, do what they do," said Deborah John, who co-authored the study.

"This should be a good lesson for parents being pestered for all these very expensive things."

To figure out why children covet the iPod and Nintendo at $400 a pop, Dr. John, a marketing professor, and her colleagues conducted two studies. In the first, they examined 150 youngsters - 50 each from three age cohorts: 8-to-9-year-olds, 12-to-13-year-olds and 16-to-18-year-olds. They then asked the kids a series of questions about their self-esteem and had them create a collage of items that made them happy.

Those with low self-esteem were more likely to arrange a hodge-podge of cars, money, jewellery, sports equipment and - among the youngest bunch - stuffed animals. The children with high self-regard assembled images related to friends, family and outdoor activities such as camping.

A striking correlation emerged from the results. For the 8-to-9-year-olds, self-esteem was relatively high and materialism relatively low.

But those results reversed for the middle group. Self-esteem nosedived among the 12-to-13-year-olds, while the desire for big-ticket items peaked.

By the late teens, the children had recovered most of their pre-teen self-regard and asceticism.

"I'd always wanted to know why all of a sudden a child can hit 12 or 13 and become an absolute pester machine," said Dr. John, who has two former pre-teens of her own, now aged 17 and 21. "Well, it's because they have this low self-worth and they've figured out that they can use brands and possessions to signal certain things about themselves."

When Dr. John saw the correlation, she wanted to devise a surefire method of curbing that pre-teenage materialism. As a second part of their study, researchers discovered that propping up a child's self-esteem is as simple as giving them a well-earned compliment.

In the second study, she looked at 12-to-13-year-olds in summer camps and found that children who were given paper plates bearing compliments such as "smart" and "fun" immediately reined in their materialistic tendencies.

"It really surprised us to see how much a small compliment can make a difference," Dr. John said.

But too many parents do exactly the opposite, child experts say, caving to their child's every request for clothes and electronics. In effect, they become complicit in suppressing their kid's self-regard.

"You end up creating a Britney Spears effect," says Michael Ungar, a professor at the School of Social Work at Dalhousie University and the author of several books on youth. "You are telling them that 'you are what you have.' It's all very superficial."

Dr. Ungar suggests including kids in holiday cooking and decorating as a way of propping up a child's self-esteem. "We have to offer them a way of asserting an identity," he said, "rather than buying one."

 

How the Muslim political movement is killed in India

How the Muslim political movement is killed in India
11/22/2007

By Kashif-ul-Huda

Contrary to popular belief, Muslim leadership does exist in India. They make their presence known by street protests, writing articles in newspapers and lobbying ministers and government officials for local or national issues concerning the Muslims of India.

Nandigram, where a number of Muslims that were killed raped, and their houses destroyed, has become the latest rallying cry of Muslim leadership of India. Everyone in India, from Mumbai to Jammu to Indian Muslims of the US has shown outrage on how Muslims can be killed with the collusion of party in power and local administration. The most shocking part for a community that has seen all this before was that it happened in a state ruled by secular parties.

The Left Front government of West Bengal is made up of various communist parties. Muslims enjoyed peace in West Bengal since the Left Front government took over in 1977. Communists or secular parties should have been religion blind and should have ensured social and economic development of all citizens. But alas, Muslims have not only not gained, but have slipped further down the steps of the social and economic ladder under the Left Front rule.

Muslims who form 25% of the state population should have protested for the lack of their presence in state jobs, about their low literacy level and a host of other issues. Killing of Muslims in Nandigram made the Muslims angry that the state government cannot ensure the only thing they expected from the government. In fact, it seems that the government and the ruling parties have done their best to inflict maximum damage to Muslims of Nandigram, resulting in the loss of life and property.

Muslim organizations in West Bengal got their act together and formed Milli Ittehad Parishad to pressure the government to take action benefitting Muslims of the state. Their recent demonstrations have been impressive with about sixty thousand to one lakh Muslims coming out in the streets of Kolkata on the15th November to peacefully protest the violence that had taken place in Nandigram.

Five days later, another protest of a few thousand demonstrators held by an unknown group called “All India Minority Forum” turns violent. This is probably the first time that the Army was deployed in a city in a matter of hours. The violence was mainly between the police and the protestors. Later though, police and the Rapid Action Force was unable to contain it and the local administration had to call the Army to control the violence, so we are told.

The All India Minority Forum (AIMF), called their demonstration to protest the Nandigram violence and also to protest Tasleema Nasrin’s stay in India. While the protest over Nandigram and Kolkata being the state capital is justified, it doesn’t seem right to combine the Tasleema visa issue with it. These two issues are completely separate; one is a law and order issue of the state and the second is a policy issue of the central government.

By combining the two separate issues, AIMF have successfully diluted and confused the two. They have sabotaged and robbed other movements of the Nandigram issues and the media will now be fixated on the Kolkata violence rather than Nandigram violence.

This gives an opening to the Left Front which so far was under pressure from all sides by all parties and organizations. Having resorted to violence, now AIMF will be considered as a legitimate voice of the Muslims by the government. Since LF is not in the mood to compromise on Nandigram, they will easily take up the second issue raised by AIMF which is Taslima’s stay in India so as to appear to be listening to Muslims’ demands.

Biman Bose, Chairman of the Left Front has already made a statement that Tasleema Nasrin should leave Kolkata. Thus by moving Taslima out of Kolkata at least temporarily, LF will appear to care about Muslim demands. AIMF can claim victory and yet again the legitimate demands of Muslims will be thrown in the dustbin and a movement of Indian Muslims will be killed before it can demand fair share for the community.

 

Nandigram Lessons for the Indian Muslim

Nandigram Lessons for the Indian Muslim

November 22nd, 2007

After outbursts from Left Front chairmen first and then the Speaker of the West Bengal Assembly against her presence in Kolkata, controversial Bangladeshi writer Taslima Nasreen was finally moved out from West Bengal. She was today moved to Rajasthan, a day after outbreak of large-scale violence in central Kolkata during a `shutdown` called by a Muslim outfit over demanding cancelling her visa. 

This move follows Left Front Chairman Biman Bose retracting his comments on the controversial Bangladeshi writer who has sought political asylum in India. The BJP meanwhile attacked the ruling Left Front in West Bengal for asking controversial Bangladeshi writer Taslima Nasreen to leave Kolkata and demanded that she be granted a permanent visa.

If you are left scratching your head on what all of this has to do with Nandigram, you are not alone. But then the large-scale violence in central Kolkata during a shutdown called by All India Minority Forum is puzzling to say the least. The protest ostensibly for Nandigram on the ground that the majority of the victims were Muslim but then the agenda broadened to unrelated Islamic issues.

If the Islamisation of the protest against Nandigram is puzzling on the face of it so was the response of the ruling CPI-Mafioso which was quick to call in the Army and the Rapid Action Force. For an Administration which dragged its heels for months to deal with a motley group of villagers defying the rule of law this rapid response to the events in Kolkota followed by requests to Taslima to leave Bengal by the top party appartachik highlights the dark side of the “psuedo-secular” politics practised by the political Left.

Some fellow bloggers like Gaurav have expressed disappointment in Offstumped highlighting the fact that the majority of the victims in Nandigram were Muslim. It was precisely to expose this “dark side” that Offstumped “harped” (as Gaurav put it) on the religious identity of the victims.

It was nobody’s case that the victims in Nandigram were targeted because of their religious identity. But here is the reality. The dominant paradigm of Left of Center Politics in India is based on identifiying minorities based on religious persuasion and then cultivating them as a political constituency. From Sonia Gandhi to Manmohan Singh, Lalu Yadav to Chandrababu Naidu they have all abused the Muslim Identity by treating it as a vote bank.

So here you have their favorite political constituency, one for which they bend over backwards so routinely, victimised in large numbers by one of their own, and what is their response ?

If those who swear by politics of Minorytism, and so called welfare of Minorities cannot even stand up and hold to account one of their own for injustices inflicted with full state sponsorship, what does it tell us about the politics of Minorytism and the politicians who practice it ?

The answer to that question was perhaps not so obvious, but then events in Kolkota have provided us that answer.

So what does the ruling CPI-Mafioso do to deflect attention from the fact that it just waged war on a mostly Muslim community after its recent Taliban Act of paying back with the same coin ?

It resorts to appeasement with a convenient cause, that strangely presents itself from out of the blue - Taslima Nasreen’s continued presence in Kolkota. So you have mobs hitting the streets of Kolkota with no apparent provocation venting their ire at the State Government knowing fully well asylum to Taslima was a Central issue. You then have the Left Front returning back some friendly fire knowing fully well once again that it has no locus standi on the issue. Within 24 hours the police ensure Taslima packed and sent to a BJP ruled state.

So what is the lesson to the Indian Muslim?

The irony of Nandigram is that the most vocal advocates, from amongst the Political Spectrum, for justice and accountability to the mostly muslim victims has been the BJP with Mr, LK Advani being the only national leader from across the entire political spectrum to defy conventional wisdom and actually visit Nandigram.

There in lies the lesson from Nandigram for the Indian Muslim.

For far too long have the Indian Muslims allowed the Left of Center forces from the Congress to the Communists to abuse them with politics of appeasement. By pandering to the Islamists and thriving on politics of fear mongering these “psuedo secular” parties have taken the Indian Muslim for a ride. With Nandigram all of these parties who swear by Minorytism stand exposed of practising appeasement while shying away from delivering or demanding real justice or accountability.

Offstumped Bottomline:  Nandigram is a defining moment in Indian Politics with an interesting role reversal that saw the BJP demanding justice for the mostly muslim victims while the Congress and the Communists equivocate. It is time for the Indian Muslim to decisively reject the politics of appeasement. It is time for the Indian Muslims to make their political choices on real issues of justice and opportunity rather than on Islamist paranoia.

Babies may make social judgments

Babies may make social judgments

By SETH BORENSTEIN, AP Science Writer

November 21, 2007

Even infants can tell the difference between naughty and nice playmates, and know which to choose, a new study finds.

Babies as young as 6 to 10 months old showed crucial social judging skills before they could talk, according to a study by researchers at Yale University's Infant Cognition Center published in Thursday's journal Nature.

The infants watched a googly-eyed wooden toy trying to climb roller-coaster hills and then another googly-eyed toy come by and either help it over the mountain or push it backward. They then were presented with the toys to see which they would play with.

Nearly every baby picked the helpful toy over the bad one.

The babies also chose neutral toys — ones that didn't help or hinder — over the naughty ones. And the babies chose the helping toys over the neutral ones.

"It's incredibly impressive that babies can do this," said study lead author Kiley Hamlin, a Yale psychology researcher. "It shows that we have these essential social skills occurring without much explicit teaching."

There was no difference in reaction between the boys and girls, but when the researchers took away the large eyes that made the toys somewhat lifelike, the babies didn't show the same social judging skills, Hamlin said.

The choice of nice over naughty follows a school of thought that humans have some innate social abilities, not just those learned from their parents.

"We know that they're very, very social beings from very, very early on," Hamlin said.

A study last year out of Germany showed that babies as young as 18 months old overwhelmingly helped out when they could, such as by picking up toys that researchers dropped.

David Lewkowicz, a psychology professor at Florida Atlantic University in Boca Raton who wasn't part of the study, said the Yale research was intriguing. But he doesn't buy into the natural ability part. He said the behavior was learned, and that the new research doesn't prove otherwise.

"Infants acquire a great deal of social experience between birth and 6 months of age and thus the assumption that this kind of capacity does not require experience is simply unwarranted," Lewkowicz told The Associated Press in an e-mail.

But the Yale team has other preliminary research that shows similar responses even in 3-month-olds, Hamlin said.

Researchers also want to know if the behavior is limited to human infants. The Yale team is starting tests with monkeys, but has no results yet, Hamlin said.

___

On the Net:

Nature: http://www.nature.com

 

Muslim woman files complaint over dress code

Muslim woman files complaint over dress code

Tue Nov 20, 2007 2:24 PM EST
By Irene Kuan

TORONTO (Reuters) - A Muslim woman suspended from her job at Toronto's Pearson airport for wearing a skirt deemed too long by her employer has filed a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

The complaint states the woman had been discriminated against on the basis of her religion by the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority (CATSA) and the security company that employed her, Garda of Canada.

Halima Muse, 33, had worked as a screener in the airport's security area for the past five years. She had worn pants with her uniform, but in February 2007, she asked her employer to supply her with a skirt because she felt the pants were not modest enough and showed the shape of her body. She said she was told her choices were either pants or a knee-length skirt, which goes against the Islamic dress code.

Muse decided to make her own longer version of the skirt, using identical fabric.

"Before I make it, I talked to the uniform guy, and I asked him if I can make it the same color. He told me, if I make it the same color, I can make it," Muse said in an interview.

She wore the home-made skirt for about seven months without problems before she was told she was in violation of CATSA's uniform code.

"They just sent me home. They told me, we need you to wear pants or short skirt. But my skirt was only 2 inches longer." Muse said.

A press release from the Canadian Council on American-Islamic Relations said the Teamsters union that represented Garda workers had approached the company on behalf of Muse but was told that CATSA would not make any exceptions to the uniform policy.

The rights body was presented with a similar case in 2003. A 16 year-old Muslim girl was expelled from a private school in Montreal for wearing a head scarf even though it was the same color as her school uniform. The complaint was later dropped by her family and the girl enrolled at a public school.

Last week, an 11 year-old Muslim girl was ousted from a judo tournament in Manitoba because she refused to remove her head scarf.

 

An inconvenient truth for secular CPM: Nandigram victims' mainly Muslim face

The India Express

An inconvenient truth for secular CPM: Nandigram victims’ mainly Muslim face

Subrata Nagchoudhury

Posted online: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 at 0000 hrs IST

 

 

KOLKATA, NOVEMBER 19
•The first fallout of what has happened at Nandigram is that it weakens our case in Gujarat. The CPM, which always speaks of high ideals, is indulging in such shameful acts of violence. This is not an issue that concerns Muslims only. It’s a national issue: Kamal Faruqui, permanent member, All India Muslim Personal Law Board

 

•The only good thing with regard to Muslims is that in the last 30 years of Left rule in West Bengal, they were safe. What happened in Nandigram now puts question mark on that, too: Manzoor Alam, general secretary, All India Milli Council

 

This is, perhaps, the worst-kept secret of the Nandigram violence that’s now being talked about openly. And is reason for embarrassment to the CPM which swears by its secular credentials: a majority of those targeted by its party cadres as they reclaim their turf are Muslim.

 

Certainly, the violence is political, not communal — the protests were over proposed land acquisition and a turf war, not any religious issue — but the demographics of Nandigram and the nature of opposition to the CPM have ensured that wherever you go, in relief camp after relief camp, most of the refugees are Muslim.

 

Local administration officials admit that at least 65% of those huddled in the largest relief camp at the Brojomohan Tiari Institute are Muslim. So is the victim of the first gangrape case officially registered and eight of those who have been killed so far.

 

Then there is the reference the National Human Rights Commission has made to Gujarat in its indictment of the state government. And, ironically, the CPM, at pains to draw a distinction between Gujarat and Nandigram to argue against a debate in Parliament, has ended up reinforcing this aspect.

 

Ask CPM MP Mohammed Salim and he says this is a mere coincidence. “Those who are trying to draw the Gujarat-Nandigram parallel are trying to undermine the seriousness of the Gujarat riots. If a particular area has 46% Muslim population it is natural that they will also be affected.”

 

When contacted, Abdus Sattar, Minister of State for Minorities Welfare and Development and Madrassa Education, says: “A large number of Muslims might have been affected but what happened in Nandigram was not on the basis of religion. The Chief Minister is the minister for minorities, I have no other comment to make.”

 

What both the MP and the Minister do not admit is that sections in the party are concerned over a possible backlash given how a majority of the victims in Nandigram are Muslim.

Consider the following:

 

•In areas where the Government proposed land acquisition for the chemical SEZ, almost 65% of the population is Muslim, largely the middle peasantry and sharecroppers. Says Siddiqullah Chowdhury of Jamiat-e-Ulema-Hind which became the backbone of the political opposition: “We could mobilise Muslims because they are the ones most dependent on land for livelihood. Most of them are unrecorded sharecroppers haunted by the fear that they might not get any compensation for not possessing any valid documents. In the core area of the proposed SEZ, a large number of Muslims owned small shops and were engaged in tailoring and zari work.”

 

•So it’s no surprise that the top rung of the Bhoomi Uchched Pratirodh Committee (Save Land Committee) — the umbrella group that began the agitation against the CPM — is Muslim: the chief is Abu Sufiyan, a former CPM panchayat leader who the party claims was expelled because of alleged financial irregularities. Sufiyan. however claims, he fell out of favour because he “refused to carry out illegal orders.”

 

•Working president of the BUPC is Abdus Samad who owes his allegiance to the Congress. Helping Sufiyan and Samad are Abu Taher of the Trinamool Congress, Ashrafultullah who is the Treasurer and executive committee member Sayum Kazi.

 

•Muslims make up a significant section of the villages in Nandigram’s Block 1 — the core of the agitation — which include Muhammadpur, Kendamarichar, Jalpai, Samsabad, Daudpur, Kalicharanpur, Garchakrebaria and Satengabad-Ranichawk.

 

•Admits Block Development Officer Ashok Sarkar: “In most of these villages, a large number of houses damaged belong to Muslims. They were from both sides but obviously those under the BPUC banner have suffered more.” One estimate, according to Samad, is that in the latest cycle of violence, 500 houses belonging to Muslims have either been burnt or damaged.

While the CPM may see in these facts nothing more than mere coincidence, several powerful, influential voices from the Muslim community — and the Opposition — are now speaking up.

 

Says pro-CPM Salman Kurshid, secretary, Muslim Institute, a highly respected organisation of Muslim intellectuals: “Muslims in the state are thoroughly frustrated at what happened in Nandigram. The High Court has also called it (the March 14 firing) unconstitutional. It was just like in Gujarat where Narendra Modi gave his men three days to wrap up their operation. In Nandigram, CPM cadres were let loose from November 6 to 9 when the administration collapsed. The Muslims in the state have been talking that there is no difference between BJP and the so called progressive Marxists.”

 

Said the Akhbar-e-Mashriq, the largest Urdu newspaper in Kolkata: “Believers of Marxist philosophy have never accepted democracy by heart. For remaining in power they can resort to any cruelty and oppression and term those as legally valid. Both the BJP and the CPM intend to make common people mental slaves to attain their goal...For God’s sake, Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee, let the (CRPF) jawans do their work, and issue instructions to the CPI(M) cadres top return to their barracks.”

 

The respected Azad Hind also wrote on November 15: “In this tense and dirty ambience, at present, everybody should stay cautious because power’s toxicity can put any one on the wrong path. Specially, Muslim organisations and the Muslim people need to take steps keeping in mind the prevailing situation.” (with Md Safi Samshi, Kolkata, and Jayanth Jacob, New Delhi)