Poison pill: Not all mercury is toxic

A global treaty on mercury pollution will do more harm than good if it bans the vaccine preservative thiomersal

NEXT week, governments from around the world will gather in Geneva to finalise a long-overdue treaty on mercury. The aim of the negotiations is laudable: to ban those mercury-laden products and pollutants that are a danger to human health and the environment.

Among the targets are some of the most toxic products of the industrial age, including methyl mercury. This notorious compound killed and injured thousands in the Japanese city of Minamata in the 1950s and 1960s and still poses a significant global health risk.

Another compound facing a possible ban, however, is a benign medicinal preservative called thiomersal (thimerosal in the US). Although it contains mercury, there is no evidence that it is harmful. In fact, it helps save the lives of well over a million children every year. Banning it would be a grave mistake.

Thiomersal aside, the world clearly needs to deal with mercury pollution. Mercury is a powerful neurotoxin that is especially dangerous to unborn children. Estimating its global impact is difficult but in some populations almost 2 per cent of children are born with mental retardation caused by mercury poisoning.

Much of this mercury comes from industry, which consumes about 3400 tonnes of the element a year. About a third of this is used in batteries, 800 tonnes in a process called chlor-alkali manufacturing and 650 tonnes in so-called artisanal mining.

Most eventually finds its way into the environment, along with mercury released from burning coal, smelting metal, making cement and incinerating waste. Large quantities of mercury are also released by natural processes such as volcanic eruptions, forest fires and erosion. The United Nations Environment Program estimates that the total global emissions of mercury are between 4400 and 7500 tonnes a year.

Mercury released into the environment eventually finds its way into oceans, lakes and rivers, where it is converted into methyl mercury by microorganisms. This toxic compound accumulates up the aquatic food chain and is often concentrated at high levels in fish, shellfish and marine mammals - and ultimately in the people who eat them. Methyl mercury in food is the biggest cause of mercury poisoning.

In comparison to industrial and natural mercury emissions, thiomersal is negligible. The European Union's vaccine industry uses less than 0.25 tonnes of thiomersal a year, corresponding to just 100 kilograms of mercury. The American Academy of Pediatrics has described this as "infinitesimally small".

Thiomersal also serves an irreplaceable function. It has been added to medical products since the 1930s as a preservative, including in vaccines packaged in multi-dose vials. These are especially vulnerable to bacterial and fungal contamination because many doses are drawn from each vial. Single-dose vials, in contrast, are used once and then thrown away.

Vaccinating from multi-dose vials is cheaper than from single-dose ones. Multi-dose vials also take up less space, reducing the amount of refrigerated storage required to get them to where they are needed. They are thus particularly important for poorer countries, which do not have the money or facilities to use single-dose vials for large-scale immunisation programmes.

Currently 120 countries, accounting for 64 per cent of global births, depend on thiomersal-containing vaccines. These prevent an estimated 1.4 million child deaths a year, according to the World Health Organization. At present there is no substitute.

Thiomersal is also added to influenza vaccines, which can be important in developed countries. The consequences of banning the compound are therefore wide-reaching and dramatic.

A number of developing countries have expressed concern over thiomersal's proposed ban. Public health experts around the world, including the WHO, have no doubt about the importance of allowing it to remain in vaccines.

So why has thiomersal been dragged into the negotiations? The debate is partly fuelled by a historic confusion between risks ascribed to methyl mercury and the ethyl mercury in thiomersal. In 1999, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the US Public Health Service issued a joint statement recommending the removal of thiomersal from vaccines as a precautionary measure, following a US Food and Drug Administration review.

At the time there was abundant evidence that methyl mercury was toxic, but little evidence on ethyl mercury. Additional pressure came from rumours of a link between thiomersal and autism. Since then, however, numerous studies have shown that thiomersal is harmless.

In 2006, an expert panel convened by the WHO issued a statement on thiomersal in vaccines, concluding that there was "no evidence of toxicity". It highlighted the fact that while methyl mercury builds up in the body, ethyl mercury is excreted rapidly. The American Academy of Pediatrics has since endorsed the WHO's position.

Nonetheless, a handful of well-meaning campaigners still believe that thiomersal is harmful. Led by two groups - the Coalition for Mercury-free Drugs and SafeMinds - they have brought the thiomersal "debate" into negotiations designed to address environmental problems.

What happens next depends on the negotiators. The latest draft treaty does not specifically name thiomersal, but there is a clause that leaves the door open for additional items to be added.

There is no question that mercury is dangerous. But thiomersal is not a threat, and banning it would create far more human misery than failing to negotiate a treaty at all.

Heidi Larson is an anthropologist at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine who studies public trust in vaccines

If you would like to reuse any content from New Scientist, either in print or online, please contact the syndication department first for permission. New Scientist does not own rights to photos, but there are a variety of licensing options available for use of articles and graphics we own the copyright to.

All comments should respect the New Scientist House Rules. If you think a particular comment breaks these rules then please use the "Report" link in that comment to report it to us.

If you are having a technical problem posting a comment, please contact technical support.

Read More..

China to survey islands disputed with Japan

BEIJING: China is to carry out a geographical survey of islands in the East China Sea at the centre of a bitter dispute with Japan, the official Xinhua news agency said.

The survey of the Diaoyu islands was part of a programme to map China's "territorial islands and reefs", Xinhua said, citing a state geographical agency. They are known as the Senkaku in Japan, which controls them.

The survey was part of China's efforts to "safeguard its maritime rights and interests", Xinhua said, without giving a date for the exercise or making clear whether it would involve activities on land or be confined to the sea.

It quoted Zhang Huifeng, an official with China's National Administration of Surveying, Mapping and Geoinformation, acknowledging that the mapping could encounter problems.

"There are some difficulties in landing on some islands to survey, and in surveying and mapping the surrounding sea area of the islands, because some countries infringed and occupied these islands of China," he said.

The maritime dispute, which has simmered off and on for years, intensified last year when the Japanese government nationalised islands in the small chain it did not already own, triggering anger and protests in China.

Both sides have scrambled fighter jets to the area in recent weeks in a further escalation, though no actual clashes have taken place.

- AFP/ck

Read More..

Chelsea Clinton: Make a difference

First lady Michelle Obama helps paint a bench at a service event. She and her family will be participating in National Service Day.

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

• Chelsea Clinton heads National Day of Service on Saturday, will kick off inauguration weekend


• All the states will offer volunteer opportunities everyone can participate in, she writes


• Chelsea Clinton's grandmothers instilled in her family the value of service


• She says if everyone commits to year-round volunteer work, lots can be achieved

Editor's note: Chelsea Clinton works with the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton Global Initiative and serves on the boards of both organizations. She is a special correspondent for NBC News and also serves on the boards of the School of American Ballet, Common Sense Media and the Weill Cornell Medical College. She and her husband, Marc, live in New York City.

(CNN) -- I'm proud to be the honorary chair of the National Day of Service happening this Saturday, inspired by Martin Luther King Jr.'s life and legacy. It's the perfect way to kick off the inauguration weekend because anyone can participate, and we know that when we work together, we will achieve more than one person could on his or her own.

President Barack Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, members of Congress and their families will be rolling up their sleeves at service projects in our nation's capital. But you don't have to be in Washington to get involved. From repairing fire-damaged homes in Colorado and cleaning sidewalks in Detroit to spending time with children with disabilities in New Orleans, every state will offer opportunities to volunteer.

All these projects have one big thing in common: They're making a community, our country and our world better. That's part of what makes service special. Whether it's volunteering time, skills, ideas or resources, we all can make a difference.

Chelsea Clinton

When I was growing up, my parents and grandparents taught me that engaging in service, helping our neighbors and building strong communities are all part of being a good citizen and a good person.

My grandmothers, Virginia and Dorothy, embodied that conviction.

They both had hard lives growing up during the Depression and World War II, but despite the obstacles they faced, they found time to volunteer at their churches and community centers and later, their kids' schools. They created families full of love, support and service.

My parents instilled their mothers' values in me from early on. In Little Rock, Arkansas, we went to church on Sundays, and afterward, conversation often turned to what volunteer project we could do together. Favorites were deciding which books to donate to the church or library and cleaning up parks together, something my father always managed turn into a game.

When we moved to Washington, service remained an important part of my life. In high school, I helped head the service club, and in college, I volunteered as an America Reads tutor and in the art therapy room at the Lucile Packard Children's Hospital in California. I loved talking to my grandmothers about my volunteer work, and I agreed with them: I received more than I could ever possibly give.

Some volunteer work, such as removing debris after hurricanes, is undeniably hard, physically and emotionally. But a lot of activities, such as chaperoning school field trips, helping a sick child make a collage, reading to older people who have lost their eyesight or participating in an AIDS walk with friends, can be lots of fun. The work is also elevating and powerful.

This Saturday, as I join thousands of Americans coming together to do their part, I'll be thinking about my grandmothers, just like I do every day. I know they'd be proud of our country, that in cities and towns across America, people are lending their neighbors a hand, just as they taught their children and grandchildren to do.

But as exciting as the National Day of Service will be, it will be even more powerful if it is just the beginning. Already, people are going online to pledge to make giving back a part of their lives, not just for a day or for a week, but all year round. If everyone who pitches in this weekend keeps up that commitment throughout the year, think about how much good we can all do. Lots of small acts add up to big change.

Nineteen years ago, my father proudly signed the bill making Martin Luther King Day a time dedicated to serving others. At the speech he gave to mark the event, he reminded us of what King once called, "Life's most persistent and urgent question: What are you doing for others?"

There are countless right answers to that question -- the only wrong one is to do nothing. As we think about the future of our communities and our country, we each have the ability and the responsibility to participate.

I hope you can join me, the first family and our entire American family this Saturday as we make this country that we love even better. You can learn more, find an event near you, and pledge to serve here, at the National Day of Service site.

Follow us on Twitter @CNNOpinion.

Join us on Facebook/CNNOpinion.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Chelsea Clinton.

Read More..

N.Y. state about to get first post-Newtown gun law

ALBANY, N.Y. Days after calling for an overhaul of gun control in New York following the Connecticut school shooting, Gov. Andrew Cuomo worked out a tough proposal on gun control with legislative leaders who promised to pass the most restrictive gun law in the nation.

The measure was approved by the Senate Monday night, 43-18, on the strength of support from Democrats, many of whom previously sponsored the bills that were once blocked by Republicans.

The Democrat-led Assembly gaveled out before midnight and planned to take the issue up at 10 a.m. Tuesday. It is expected to pass easily.

It would be the first state-level gun control legislation in the nation since the Newtown massacre," reports CBS New York station WCBS-TV.

"This is a scourge on society," Cuomo said Monday night, one month after the Newtown, Conn., shooting that took the lives of 20 first graders and six educators. "At what point do you say, 'No more innocent loss of life."'

"It is well-balanced, it protects the Second Amendment," said Senate Republican leader Dean Skelos of Long Island. "And there is no confiscation of weapons, which was at one time being considered.

"This is going to go after those who are bringing illegal guns into the state, who are slaughtering people in New York City," Skelos said. "This is going to put people in jail and keep people in jail who shouldn't be out on the street in the first place."

"This will be the toughest gun control package in the nation," said Sen. Jeffrey Klein, leader of the Independent Democrat Conference that shares majority control with Republican senators. "All in all, it is a comprehensive, balanced approach that will save lives," Klein said in an interview.

Cuomo said he wanted quick action to avoid a run on assault rifles and ammunition as he tries to address what he estimates is about 1 million assault rifles in New York state. He made it a centerpiece of his progressive agenda in last week's State of the State address.

Republican Sen. Greg Ball called that political opportunism in a rare criticism of the popular and powerful governor seen by his supporters as a possible candidate for president in 2016.

"We haven't saved any lives tonight, except one: the political life of a governor who wants to be president," said Ball who represents part of the Hudson Valley. "We have taken an entire category of firearms that are currently legal that are in the homes of law-abiding, tax paying citizens. ... We are now turning those law-abiding citizens into criminals."

The governor confirmed the proposal, previously worked out in closed session, called for a tougher assault weapons ban and restrictions on ammunition and the sale of guns, as well as a mandatory police registry of assault weapons, grandfathering in assault weapons already in private hands.

It would create a more powerful tool to require the reporting of mentally ill people who say they intend to use a gun illegally and would address the unsafe storage of guns, the governor confirmed.

The bill is designed "to basically eradicate assault weapons from our streets in New York as quickly as possible is something the people of this state want and it's an important thing to do. It is an emergency," Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver told WCBS-TV. "We are going to ban assault weapons. We are going to eliminate all of the loopholes that existed previously."

Under current state law, assault weapons are defined by having two "military rifle" features spelled out in the law. The proposal would reduce that to one feature and include the popular pistol grip.

Private sales of assault weapons to someone other than an immediate family member would be subject to a background check through a dealer. Also, Internet sales of assault weapons would be banned, and failing to safely store a weapon could be subject to a misdemeanor charge.

Ammunition magazines would be restricted to seven bullets, from the current 10, and current owners of higher-capacity magazines would have a year to sell them out of state. An owner caught at home with eight or more bullets in a magazine could face a misdemeanor charge.

In another provision, a therapist who believes a mental health patient made a credible threat to use a gun illegally would be required to report the incident to a mental health director who would have to report serious threats to the state Department of Criminal Justice Services. A patient's gun could be taken from him or her.

The legislation also increases sentences for gun crimes, including the shooting of a first responder that Cuomo called the "Webster provision." Last month in the western New York town of Webster, two firefighters were killed after responding to a fire set by the shooter, who eventually killed himself.

Legislators wouldn't comment on the tentative deal or the provisions discussed in closed-door conferences.

"It's a tough vote," said Senate Deputy Majority Leader Thomas Libous, of Broome County. "This is a very difficult issue, depending on where you live in the state. I have had thousands of emails and calls ... and I have to respect their wishes." He said many of constituents worry the bill will conflict with the Second Amendment's right to bear arms while others anguish over shootings like at Newtown, Conn., and Columbine, Colo.

Monday's Senate vote came exactly one month after a gunman killed 20 children and six educators inside Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown.

The closed-door meetings prompted about a dozen gun workers to travel more than two hours to Albany to protest the legislation they say could cost 300 to 700 jobs in the economically hard-hit Mohawk Valley.

"I have three small kids myself," said Jamie Rudall, a unionized worker who polishes shotgun receivers. "So I know what it means, the tragedy ... we need to look at ways to prevent that, rather than eliminate the rights of law-abiding citizens."

In the gun debate, one concern for New York is its major gun manufacturer upstate.

Remington Arms Co. makes the Bushmaster semi-automatic rifle that was used in the Connecticut shootings and again on Christmas Eve when the two firefighters were slain in Webster. The two-century-old Remington factory in Ilion in central New York employs 1,000 workers in a Republican Senate district.

Assemblyman Marc Butler, a Republican who represents the area, decried the closed-door meetings by Senate Republicans and the Democratic majority of the Assembly as "politics at its worst."

The bill would be the first test of the new coalition in control of the Senate, which has long been run by Republicans opposed to gun control measures. The chamber is now in the hands of Republicans and five breakaway Democrats led by Klein, an arrangement expected to result in more progressive legislation.

Former Republican Sen. Michael Balboni said that, for legislators from the more conservative upstate region of New York, gun control "has the intensity of the gay marriage issue." In 2011, three of four Republicans who crossed the aisle to vote for same-sex marriage ended up losing their jobs because of their votes.

Read More..

Armstrong Admits Doping in Tour, Sources Say

Lance Armstrong today admitted to Oprah Winfrey that he used performance enhancing drugs to win the Tour de France, sources told ABC News.

A goverment source tells ABC News that Armstrong is now talking with authorities about paying back some of the US Postal Service money from sponsoring his team. He is also talking to authorities about confessing and naming names, giving up others involved in illegal doping. This could result in a reduction of his lifetime ban, according to the source, if Armstrong provides substantial and meaningful information.

Armstrong made the admission in what sources describe as an emotional interview with Winfrey to air on "Oprah's Next Chapter" on Jan. 17.

The 90-minute interview at his home in Austin, Texas, was Armstrong's first since officials stripped him of his world cycling titles in response to doping allegations.

Word of Armstrong's admission comes after a Livestrong official said that Armstrong apologized today to the foundation's staff ahead of his interview.

The disgraced cyclist gathered with about 100 Livestrong Foundation staffers at their Austin headquarters for a meeting that included social workers who deal directly with patients as part of the group's mission to support cancer victims.

Armstrong's "sincere and heartfelt apology" generated lots of tears, spokeswoman Katherine McLane said, adding that he "took responsibility" for the trouble he has caused the foundation.

Riccardo S. Savi/Getty Images|Ray Tamarra/Getty Images

Lance Armstrong Stripped of Tour de France Titles Watch Video

Lance Armstrong Doping Charges: Secret Tapes Watch Video

McLane declined to say whether Armstrong's comments included an admission of doping, just that the cyclist wanted the staff to hear from him in person rather than rely on second-hand accounts.

Armstrong then took questions from the staff.

Armstrong's story has never changed. In front of cameras, microphones, fans, sponsors, cancer survivors -- even under oath -- Lance Armstrong hasn't just denied ever using performance enhancing drugs, he has done so in an indignant, even threatening way.

Armstrong, 41, was stripped of his seven Tour de France titles and banned from the sport for life by the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency in October 2012, after allegations that he benefited from years of systematic doping, using banned substances and receiving illicit blood transfusions.

"Lance Armstrong has no place in cycling and he deserves to be forgotten in cycling," Pat McQuaid, the president of the International Cycling Union, said at a news conference in Switzerland announcing the decision. "This is a landmark day for cycling."

The U.S. Anti-Doping Agency issued a 200-page report Oct. 10 after a wide-scale investigation into Armstrong's alleged use of performance-enhancing substances.

Armstrong won the Tour de France from 1999 to 2005.

According to a source, speaking to ABC News, a representative of Armstrong's once offered to make a donation estimated around $250,000 to the agency, as "60 Minutes Sports" on Showtime first reported.

Lance Armstrong's attorney Tim Herman denied it. "No truth to that story," Herman said. "First Lance heard of it was today. He never made any such contribution or suggestion."

Armstrong, who himself recovered from testicular cancer, created the Lance Armstrong Foundation (now known as the LIVESTRONG Foundation) to help people with cancer cope, as well as foster a community for cancer awareness. Armstrong resigned late last year as chairman of the LIVESTRONG Foundation, which raised millions of dollars in the fight against cancer.

Read More..

Benefits of emissions cuts kick in only next century

Are we the altruistic generation? Do we care what happens to our grandchildren, and to their children? Or are we with Groucho Marx when he said: "Why should I care about future generations? What have they ever done for me?"

A new study of climate change lays out in detail why this matters. According to its author, Nigel Arnell of the University of Reading, UK, the unpalatable truth is that even rapid action now to curb greenhouse gas emissions would have only a "negligible effect by 2030, and the benefits in 2050 would remain small". The big dividend – cooler temperatures, fewer floods and droughts and better crop yields, compared to carrying on as we are – would only become clear by about 2100.

Arnell and colleagues used climate models to look at how different policies to curb greenhouse gases would affect temperature, sea levels, crop yields and the incidence of droughts and floods. Two findings emerged. The first is that lags in the climate system mean the real benefits of cutting emissions will only show up late this century. This, says Arnell, underlines that there is a lot of global warming "in the pipeline" that cannot now be prevented.

But the study also shows that tackling climate change early brings big rewards. Arnell compared a policy of letting emissions peak in 2016 and then cutting them by 2 per cent a year with one that delays the peak till 2030 and then cuts by 5 per cent a year. He found that both restricted warming in 2100 to about 2 °C, but the climate disruption over the next century would be much less with the early start. Coastal flooding from sea-level rise in particular would be much reduced. This, he told New Scientist, contradicts a common view that drastic action to curb warming should wait for renewable energy to become cheaper.

"Arnell has shown just how crucial the emissions pathway we take today will be for our children and grandchildren," said Dave Reay, geoscientist at the University of Edinburgh, UK. Bill McGuire of University College London agrees: "It shows taking effective action now is far better than putting it off until later."

It's a shame, then, that even if all goes well with UN negotiations, no global deal to bring down emissions will come into force until at least 2020. Our great-great-grandchildren will be cursing our delay.

Journal reference: Nature Climate Change, DOI: 10.1038/NCLIMATE1793

If you would like to reuse any content from New Scientist, either in print or online, please contact the syndication department first for permission. New Scientist does not own rights to photos, but there are a variety of licensing options available for use of articles and graphics we own the copyright to.

All comments should respect the New Scientist House Rules. If you think a particular comment breaks these rules then please use the "Report" link in that comment to report it to us.

If you are having a technical problem posting a comment, please contact technical support.

Read More..

Jodie Foster teases Globes about "coming out"

 

LOS ANGELES: Jodie Foster teased the Golden Globes on Sunday by hailing her female ex-partner as "one of the deepest loves of my life" -- but then denying she was giving a coming-out speech.

Foster, long rumoured to be lesbian, surprised the audience by announcing she had a confession to make, saying she had "a sudden urge to say something that I've never really been able to air in public".

Announcing a "declaration that I'm a little nervous about, but maybe not quite as nervous as my publicist," she said: "I'm just going to put it out there, right?

"Loud and proud, right? So I'm going to need your support on this," she told the A-list audience at the Beverly Hilton hotel, but this time listening intently.

"I am single," she said, to laughter, "Yes, I am. I am single. No, I'm kidding, but I mean, I'm not really kidding, but I'm kind of kidding.

"Seriously, I hope that you're not disappointed that there won't be a big coming-out speech tonight, because I already did my coming out about a thousand years ago, back in the Stone Age."

She then went on to give a shout-out to a list of friends in the audience, including Mel Gibson, before saying: "There is no way I could ever stand here without acknowledging one of the deepest loves of my life.

Pointing to ex-partner Cydney Bernard, she called her "my heroic co-parent, my ex-partner in love, but righteous soul sister in life, my confessor, ski buddy, consigliere, most beloved BFF of 20 years."

"Thank you Cyd," she said, "I am so proud of our modern family. our amazing sons, Charlie and Kit (Christopher), who are my reason to breathe and to evolve, my blood and soul."

The 50-year-old, who won a Golden Globe and Oscar for her role in 1991's "Silence of the Lambs", was picking up the award from Globes organizers the Hollywood Foreign Press Association, which announced it last November.

Previous honourees include Al Pacino, Steven Spielberg, Judy Garland, Harrison Ford, Walt Disney, Frank Sinatra, Bette Davis and Lucille Ball. Morgan Freeman received the award at last year's show.

-AFP/fl

Read More..

Fleischer: Hagel is wrong about Israel

Former Sen. Chuck Hagel was nominated by President Obama for defense secretary.

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

• In 2006, Hagel said 'the Jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people up here'


• Ari Fleischer: The support for Israel isn't because of 'intimidation,' but merit


• Polls show most Americans view Israel favorably, but don't support Iran or Palestinians


• Fleischer: Israel is a steady friend of the U.S. and a tolerant democracy

Editor's note: Ari Fleischer, a CNN contributor, was White House press secretary in the George W. Bush administration from 2001 to 2003 and is the president of Ari Fleischer Sports Communications Inc. He is a paid consultant and board member for the Republican Jewish Coalition, which opposes the Hagel nomination. Follow him on Twitter: @AriFleischer

(CNN) -- "The political reality is ... that the Jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people up here." -- Senator Chuck Hagel, 2006

As a result of those words and his voting record, former Nebraska Sen. Chuck Hagel's nomination has turned a decades-long, bipartisan confirmation process for secretary of defense into an acrimonious one.

While some leading figures such as the Anti-Defamation League's Abe Foxman and the Simon Wiesenthal Center's Rabbi Abraham Cooper say Hagel's words are borderline anti-Semitism, I'm less worried about anti-Semitism and more worried about the judgment of a potential defense secretary who thinks Israel has won support because of "intimidation," not merit.

Ari Fleischer

Israel is widely supported by the American people because Israel deserves to be supported. Israel is a lonely democratic ally and a steady friend of the United States in a dangerous and tumultuous region. Their people are like the American people -- free, independent, capitalistic and tolerant.

A Gallup poll taken last year showed 71% of the American people view Israel favorably while only 19% view the Palestinian Authority favorably and just 10% view Iran favorably.

In a Pew Research Center study last month, 50% of adults said they sympathize more with Israel in its dispute than with the Palestinians. Just 10% sympathize more with the Palestinians, while about as many (13%) volunteered that they sympathize with neither side.

Contrary to Hagel's logic, Israel doesn't enjoy widespread American support because anyone -- from any faith -- intimidated someone else; Israel earned the support of the American people because of its people's values.

Opinion: Hagel is a friend to Israel

The danger in what Hagel said is if he thinks Israel is supported on Capitol Hill because of intimidation, then it's not hard to see why Hagel is so soft in his support for our ally. He sees himself as an independent voice willing to stand up to intimidation, and he wears his anti-Israel votes as badges of honor.

But Hagel isn't independent. He's alone.

His position on Middle Eastern matters is so outside the mainstream of both parties that almost no one agrees with him.

In 2000, Hagel was one of only four senators who refused to sign a Senate letter in support of Israel.

Peter Beinart: What's behind Hagel nomination fight

The following year Hagel was one of only 11 senators who refused to sign a letter urging President George W. Bush to continue his policy of not meeting with Yasser Arafat until the Palestinian leader took steps to end the violence against Israel.

John Cornyn: Why I can't support Hagel

Contrary to America's longstanding bipartisan position, Hagel has called for direct talks with terrorist organizations Hamas and Hezbollah. In 2007, Hagel voted against labeling the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, the group responsible for the death of many American servicemen in Iraq, a terrorist organization.

And in 2008, he was one of two senators on the banking committee to oppose a bill putting sanctions on Iran. One of the measure's biggest backers was an Illinois senator named Barack Obama.

I'm a New Yorker and neither of my senators -- Chuck Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand -- supports Israel because someone muscled them into that position through intimidation. They both support Israel because the lobby that wants them to support Israel is an American lobby, made up of people from both parties and all religions and from people with no religion or political party at all.

But if Chuck Hagel believes that it's intimidation and not sound judgment that has caused his colleagues to support Israel, then Chuck Hagel should not be confirmed as our next secretary of defense.

Follow us on Twitter @CNNOpinion

Join us on Facebook/CNNOpinion

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Ari Fleischer.

Read More..

Pittsburgh police shoot driver, mother during chase

PITTSBURGH Police say a man and woman are in serious condition after officers fired shots at their car during an early morning chase in Pittsburgh.

Police chief Nathan Harper told reporters Sunday that the driver ran a red light shortly after 1:30 a.m. Sunday in the Homestead neighborhood.

Pittsburgh told CBS Pittsburgh station KDKA officers tried to use road spikes to slow down the driver's vehicle, but he was able to avoid them

Harper said five off-duty officers shot at the car after it began driving into cars in the city's South Side area. He said the officers believed the use of deadly force was justified because the driver was using the vehicle as a weapon.

Harper said the car finally stopped when it rear-ended another vehicle. The 37-year-old driver and his passenger, identified as his mother, were hospitalized in serious condition.

Both were both hit by bullets, KDKA reports.

To see exclusive KDKA video of the incident, click at left.

Police told the station the scene was chaotic, since the incident happened around the time many of the South Side's bars were closing. Officers from several zones were called out to control the unruly crowd -- at one point, close to two dozen officers lined the perimeter of the scene.

One witness said he saw police officers shoot the driver through the window of the car after it crashed and claims police never told the driver to put his hands up or step out of the car.

"I had just left the bar on the South Side and I heard a car crash and I turn around and as I was turning, I heard two gun shots," the witness told KDKA. "And I looked and a police officer had ran and jumped right on top of a car and fired into the window of the vehicle that had just crashed four times, it was pop, pop, pop, pop and after that it was dead silence."

"All of a sudden, the cops came over, pushed everyone out of the way," he said. "There was lights, sirens coming from both directions. It was craziness, something I'd never seen before."

Harper said no weapons or drugs were found in the car.

Officials say the five officers who shot at the car are on administrative leave with pay.

The District Attorney is currently investigating the incident.

It's not clear where the man and his mother were hit, or what injuries they sustained.

However, one woman who witnessed the shooting from a nearby cafe says the man in the car was alive when authorities pulled him out, but was not moving his right arm. She also says the woman in the car was shot through the right eye. Police have yet to comment on the woman's account.

Read More..

Big Winners, Top Moments From the Golden Globes

Let's finally bury this idea that women can't be funny once and for all. Fey and Poehler were undeniably hilarious throughout the Globes, so much so that many fans on Twitter demanded more of them during the ceremony. From their opening bit -- Poehler: "Meryl Streep is not here tonight, she has the flu. And I hear she's amazing in it." -- to their pseudo drunk heckling of best TV comedy actress winner Lena Dunham, they were radiant, energetic, and above all, funny. More please.

Foster made her acceptance of the Cecil B. DeMille lifetime achievement award a coming out, of sorts. She first shocked the audience by leading them to think that she was about to make a huge public statement about her sexuality. Instead, she said she was single, adding "I already did my coming out in the stone age."

"Now, apparently, I'm told that every celebrity is expected to honor the details of their private life with a press conference ... You guys might be surprised, but I'm not Honey Boo Boo child," she said, to a flurry of laughter and applause.

"If you had been a public figure from the time that you were a toddler ... then maybe you too might value privacy above all else," she said. "Privacy."

But Foster did specifically thank her ex-partner Cydney Bernard, with whom she has two kids. Both boys gestured to her from the audience.

She also implied that she was retiring from acting when she said she would not be returning to the Globes stage or any stage. "It's just that from now on, I may be holding a different talking stick," Foster said, bringing many in the audience to tears.

But backstage, Foster clarified to reporters that she was not retiring from acting. "Oh that's so funny," she responded to reporters. "You couldn't drag me away. And I'd like to be directing tomorrow."

It takes a lot to make Hollywood star struck. Bill Clinton did it when he strutted on stage to introduce a clip of "Lincoln," which was up for best drama. He brought the crowd of A-listers to its feet and commended the 16th president. "We're all here tonight because he did it," he said of Lincoln's battle to end slavery.

If there was any doubt that Lena Dunham wasn't Hollywood's next big thing, it was obliterated Sunday night. The star and creator of HBO's "Girls" went home with two awards, best actress in a TV comedy and best TV comedy. Her heartfelt acceptance speech for best actress struck a chord: "This award is for everyone who feels like there wasn't a place for her," she said. "This show made a space for me."

Jessica Chastain won the Globe for best actress in a drama for "Zero Dark Thirty." She offered a moving tribute to director Kathryn Bigelow, the first woman to win a best director Oscar who failed to get a nomination for that award this year, though "ZDT" was up for a slew of other awards, including best picture. "I can't help but compare my character of Maya to you," Chastain said to Bigelow. "When you make a film that allows your character to disobey the conventions of Hollywood, you've done more for women in cinema than you take credit for."

Blame it on nerves, the spirit of spontaneity, or the a-a-a-a-alcohol (apologies to Jamie Foxx), but Jennifer Lawrence's acceptance speech was a tad insulting to a Hollywood icon, if totally hilarious. "Oh what does it say?" she asked, looking at her trophy. "I beat Meryl." She meant Meryl Streep, who was also up for the award.

Read More..