Latest News Clips 2013.09.30

                         Bengo’s Latest News Clips              2013.09.30

1.      What threat do foreign jihadists pose?

CNN      September 24, 2013

Heavy smoke rises from the Westgate Mall in Nairobi, Kenya, during a siege by Al-Shabaab fighters.

 (CNN) -- The Westgate Mall siege in Kenya has claimed the lives of more than 60 people including the Kenyan president's nephew, at least one Canadian diplomat and American, British, French and Chinese nationals. Al Qaeda's affiliate in Somalia, Al-Shabaab, has claimed responsibility for the siege and it has been reported that a number of the militants involved in the attack may have been foreign jihadists from Western nations.

If true, does the phenomenon of Westerners killing Westerners in Kenya represent a victory for al Qaeda and is this representative of the future of the group's transnational jihad? Does the radicalization of Muslims in the West pose a substantial threat to global security and what can be done to stop it?

Al Qaeda has looked to inspire Western Muslims to commit such atrocities for years with help from Anwar al-Awlaki's online sermons and the group's magazine, "Inspire," which has often praised the actions of Western Islamists in their own countries and abroad. Most notably, it commended the Tsarnaev brothers, the alleged Boston bombers as well as Roshonara Choudhary, the young girl from Newham, east who attempted to murder her local parliamentary representative. However, Western Muslims fought in the Afghanistan jihad against the USSR that originally gave rise to al Qaeda as well as in other conflicts in Bosnia, Chechnya, Iraq and Syria.

2.      The Pope's revolutionary message

By David M. Perry, Special to CNN

September 23, 2013

Pope Francis makes someunexpected comments on issues facing the Roman Catholic Church on Monday, July 29. He spoke on the record to journalists on a flight back to Italy from Brazil after finishing his first international trip as pontiff. Among the topics he addressed were homosexuality, the church's alleged "gay lobby," the role of women, abortion, divorce and the Vatican Bank.

(CNN) -- It's time to stop being surprised by Pope Francis.

Since he became pontiff, he's made a lot of news. His tweets echo around the world. He embodies principles of humility and piety. He eschews the fancy trappings of office favored by his predecessor, from the Popemobile to the red shoes. He washed the feet of prisoners, including a Muslim woman, on Holy Thursday. He telephones ordinary people who write to him.

In Rome, he called for "revolutionaries" to leave the comforts of their home and bring the word into the streets. In Rio, he told the gathered youth to "make a mess" in the dioceses as they help the church shake off clericalism.

He has sought to create a "culture of encounter" in which atheists and Catholics might come together. "Do good," he said memorably. "We will meet each other there." When he announced that he would canonize Pope John XXIII, the great reformer, on the same day as John Paul II, he emphasized continuity among all Catholics, even those of different factions. When asked about gay priests, he replied, "Who am I to judge?"

Most recently, he gave a long interview in which he articulated a new vision of the church that does seem revolutionary. In the West, reaction has focused on his statements about hot-button social issues. For example, he said, "the teaching of the church (on abortion, gay marriage, and contraception), for that matter, is clear ... (but) it is not necessary to talk about these issues all the time."

Given the constant drumbeat of the American church hierarchy on exactly those issues, the line comes off as a surprising rebuke. Deeper critiques lie within the interview as well. When he spoke about doubt and dialogue, he said, "If the Christian is a restorationist, a legalist, if he wants everything clear and safe, then he will find nothing."

3.      What do shutdown and debt limit have to do with Obamacare?

By Leigh Ann Caldwell, CNN

September 24, 2013 -- Updated 1418 GMT (2218 HKT)

The game is the same, but many of the players have changed. Congress and the president are facing off in another supreme spending showdown. If they don't agree on a funding bill by the end of September 30, much of government will shutdown. This last happened in 2011, when Congress avoided a shutdown by passing a spending measure shortly after the midnight deadline hit. Who controls what happens this time? Take a look at the key players who will determine how this fight ends: 

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

·         The federal government is facing a potential government shutdown next week

·         Meanwhile, if debt ceiling isn't raised, the government will soon be unable to pay its debts

·         Many are confused about the difference between the two and their link to Obamacare

·         The Affordable Care Act is being used as a bargaining chip in both debates

Washington (CNN) -- With a series of potential disasters hovering over the nation like a demon storm, the most prominent words of a Washington-based word cloud would be: government shutdown, continuing resolution, debt limit and Obamacare.

Although a potential shutdown and the need to raise the debt limit are different issues, they are interrelated and have one big thing in common: They are both products of a crisis manufactured by Washington. And both are being used for leverage in attempts to undermine Obamacare.

So, what's the difference between them and why should you care?

First up, the shutdown

The federal government's fiscal year starts next week -- October 1. And Congress' one key duty laid out in the Constitution is to pass spending bills that fund the government.

Photos: The last shutdown showdown

If it doesn't, most of the functions of the government -- from paying the military to funding small business loans to collecting the trash in Washington -- could come to a slow-motion halt.

It shuts down.

4.      The Monkey Business of Pure Altruism

The Wall Street Journal    2013.09.27

I've been reflecting on how Bill and Melinda Gates resemble a pair of monkeys. Earlier this month, the Lasker Awards were announced. The prestigious prize, known as the "American Nobel," is given annually to a few extraordinary biomedical scientists. A Lasker for public service is also usually awarded—this year to the Gateses.

Great move. They've given vast sums of money to medical research and have galvanized other billionaires into doing the same. They've targeted research about diseases that bring incalculable misery to the developing world. All with great wisdom.

Philosophers have long debated whether truly selfless altruism is possible. Some argue that pure altruism can occur, while others proclaim the jaundiced sound bite, "Scratch an altruist and a hypocrite bleeds."

After all, altruism can be immensely fulfilling, and neuroimaging studies show that altruistic acts activate reward centers of the brain. Altruism also can enhance a giver's reputation and prompt reciprocal gifts. And costly displays of prowess, evolutionary biologists have demonstrated, can serve to attract mates—"If I can afford to grow these gigantic antlers, I must have some studly genes." Some scientists speculate that altruism evolved as a costly signal meant to impress prospective mates.

But there's also anonymous altruism, with its glow from doing good by one's internal standards. And there is cynically self-serving altruism. In 1892, the loathed robber baron Charles Yerkes found himself overextended financially; creditors readied their knives. Yerkes offered the fledgling University of Chicago an enormous financial gift—to be delivered in a few months but announced that day.

The press reported the plan and the confused creditors, fearing they had miscalculated Yerkes's financial state, backed off. He recovered, profited and, as promised, gave the university what was for him a trivial sum.

Which brings us to monkeys, who spend hours each day sitting around, picking through each other's fur. It's a calming social glue that cements relationships. Grooming lowers heart rate, and my own work with baboons in Africa shows that animals who groom the most have lower stress hormone levels. It makes sense—you scratch my back, I scratch yours, we're both happier.

An interesting twist to this story came with a study of Barbary macaque monkeys by Stuart Semple of London's Roehampton University and colleagues. Monkeys who were groomed a lot didn't have low stress hormone levels. Monkeys that groomed others a lot did. Dr. Semple's work seemed to answer a question contained in the paper's title: "Better to give than to receive?" In other monkey species, too, grooming decreases the behavioral markers of anxiety in the groomer. So monkeys, who don't care about charitable tax write-offs, are less stressed when they give, rather than when they receive.