Pruney fingers give us better grip underwater

WHY do our fingers do prune impressions when soaked? It could be an adaptation that gives us better grip underwater.

Fingers and toes wrinkle in water after about 5 minutes due to the constriction of blood vessels. This reduction in volume pulls the skin inward, but as the skin's surface area cannot change, it wrinkles. A study in 2011 showed that wrinkles form a pattern of channels that divert water away from the fingertip – akin to rain treads on tyres. The team thought that this could aid grip.

To find out, Tom Smulders and his team at Newcastle University, UK, timed people as they transferred wet or dry objects from one box to another with and without wrinkled fingers.

With wrinkles, wet objects were transferred about 12 per cent faster than with unwrinkled fingers. The time it took to transfer dry objects was the same regardless of wrinkles.

So why aren't our digits always prune-like? "With wrinkles, less of your skin surface touches the object, so there may be issues of sensitivity," Smulders suggests.

Journal reference: Royal Society Biology Letters, DOI: 10.1098/rsbl.2012.0999.

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..

Relatives sob as US massacre 911 calls heard in court

CENTENNIAL, Colorado: Relatives wept in court Tuesday as frantic 911 calls were played from a US theater shooting that killed 12 people last year, as prosecutors closed their case for the alleged gunman to face trial.

The court heard how suspected killer James Holmes purchased more than 6,000 rounds of ammunition in the months before last July's shooting in Colorado, and rigged up elaborate booby-traps at his apartment.

Defense lawyers will call witnesses Wednesday, the third day of hearings, to decide if there is enough evidence for Holmes to go on trial. They are expected to highlight his mental instability as a possible reason he should not do so.

In the first of 41 harrowing emergency calls made in a 10-minute period in Colorado, 30 loud booms could be heard in less than half-a-minute, making it difficult for the 911 dispatcher to distinguish what was being said.

In another, six minutes after the first call was logged at 12:38 am, 14-year-old Kaylan Bailey told the emergency operator her two cousins had been shot, and that one of them did not appear to be breathing.

"We need to start CPR (cardio-pulmonary resuscitation) on your cousin who's not breathing," said the operator.

"I can't hear you," responded Bailey, as chaos unfolded in the theater in Aurora, where Holmes -- clad in body armor and a mask -- threw at least one smoke-bomb type device before opening fire in the early hours of July 20.

The hearings opened Monday with officers choking back tears as they recalled scenes after the slaughter, which left 12 dead and 58 injured by gunshots at a packed midnight screening of the Batman film "The Dark Knight Rises."

The Aurora massacre revived the perennial US debate over gun control -- an issue re-ignited even more intensely by last month's shooting of 20 young children at a Connecticut elementary school.

Tuesday's hearing heard testimony from federal firearms supervisor Steven Beggs that Holmes made at least 16 purchases from May to July 2012 including four firearms, incendiary devices and almost 6,300 rounds of ammunition.

Holmes's lawyers could argue that he is mentally unfit to stand trial.

Defense attorney Tamara Brady asked Beggs: "Is there any process in Colorado to screen out purchases by a severely mentally ill person?"

"No," replied Beggs, who detailed the purchases made online and in person by Holmes.

FBI bomb technician Garrett Gumbinner said Holmes told investigators after being arrested that he had booby-trapped his apartment, in an attempt to draw emergency responders away from the theater shooting site.

Officers found a trip wire at the door of his home, rigged to set off flame and sparks that would catch the gasoline-soaked carpet and go on fire.

There were six-inch fireworks shells filled with improvised thermite, a hot-burning explosive.

"You can't put it out with water," Gumbinner told judge William Sylvester. There were also three containers of improvised napalm, 11 bottles of gasoline and other chemicals intended to act as fire accelerants, he said.

There were three systems in the apartment intended to initiate the explosive devices, including one linked to a trash bag near the apartment dumpster by a remote control.

Curious behavior by Holmes during police questioning was also recounted: At one point he tried to stick a metal staple into a power socket. At another he played hand puppets with gloves that had been put on him to preserve evidence.

Prosecutors are trying to build up their case that the shootings were a premeditated act of mass murder, and identifying Holmes as the lone shooter.

Supporting that strategy, Aurora police officer Tom Welton testified that Holmes made postings on two dating websites earlier in July, asking "Will you visit me in prison?"

Prosecutors wrapped up their evidence in the hearing by listing all the victims by name, the injuries they suffered and the charges -- more than 160 in all -- filed on behalf of each.

-AFP/ac

Read More..

Opinion: Time for tough talk with Karzai

The last time Presidents Obama and Karzai met was in May in Kabul, when they signed a pact regarding U.S. troop withdrawal.

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

• Afghan President Karzai meeting with President Obama in Washington this week


• Felbab-Brown: Afghan politics are corrupt; army not ready for 2014 troop pullout


• She says Taliban, insurgents, splintered army, corrupt officials are all jockeying for power


• U.S. needs to commit to helping Afghan security, she says, and insist corruption be wiped out

Editor's note: Vanda Felbab-Brown is a senior fellow in foreign policy at the Brookings Institution. Her latest book is "Aspiration and Ambivalence: Strategies and Realities of Counterinsurgency and State-Building in Afghanistan."

(CNN) -- Afghan President Hamid Karzai is meeting this week with President Obama in Washington amid increasing ambivalence in the United States about what to do about the war in Afghanistan.

Americans are tired of the war. Too much blood and treasure has been spent. The White House is grappling with troop numbers for 2013 and with the nature and scope of any U.S. mission after 2014. With the persisting corruption and poor governance of the Afghan government and Karzai's fear that the United States is preparing to abandon him, the relationship between Kabul and Washington has steadily deteriorated.

As the United States radically reduces its mission in Afghanistan, it will leave behind a stalled and perilous security situation and a likely severe economic downturn. Many Afghans expect a collapse into civil war, and few see their political system as legitimate.

Karzai and Obama face thorny issues such as the stalled negotiations with the Taliban. Recently, Kabul has persuaded Pakistan to release some Taliban prisoners to jump-start the negotiations, relegating the United States to the back seat. Much to the displeasure of the International Security Assistance Force, the Afghan government also plans to release several hundred Taliban-linked prisoners, although any real momentum in the negotiations is yet to take place.

Vanda Felbab-Brown

Washington needs to be careful that negotiations are structured in a way that enhances Afghanistan's stability and is not merely a fig leaf for U.S. and NATO troop departure. Countering terrorism will be an important U.S. interest after 2014. The Taliban may have soured on al Qaeda, but fully breaking with the terror group is not in the Taliban's best interest. If negotiations give the insurgents de facto control of parts of the country, the Taliban will at best play it both ways: with the jihadists and with the United States.

Negotiations of a status-of-forces agreement after 2014 will also be on the table between Karzai and Obama. Immunity of U.S. soldiers from Afghan prosecution and control over detainees previously have been major sticking points, and any Afghan release of Taliban-linked prisoners will complicate that discussion.

Karzai has seemed determined to secure commitments from Washington to deliver military enablers until Afghan support forces have built up. The Afghan National Security Forces have improved but cannot function without international enablers -- in areas such as air support, medevac, intelligence and logistical assets and maintenance -- for several years to come. But Washington has signaled that it is contemplating very small troop levels after 2014, as low as 3,000. CNN reports that withdrawing all troops might even be considered.

Everyone is hedging their bets in light of the transition uncertainties and the real possibility of a major security meltdown after 2014. Afghan army commanders are leaking intelligence and weapons to insurgents; Afghan families are sending one son to join the army, one to the Taliban and one to the local warlord's militia.

Patronage networks pervade the Afghan forces, and a crucial question is whether they can avoid splintering along ethnic and patronage lines after 2014. If security forces do fall apart, the chances of Taliban control of large portions of the country and a civil war are much greater. Obama can use the summit to announce concrete measures -- such as providing enablers -- to demonstrate U.S. commitment to heading off a security meltdown. The United States and international security forces also need to strongly focus on countering the rifts within the Afghan army.

Assisting the Afghan army after 2014 is important. But even with better security, it is doubtful that Afghanistan can be stable without improvements in its government.

Afghanistan's political system is preoccupied with the 2014 elections. Corruption, serious crime, land theft and other usurpation of resources, nepotism, a lack of rule of law and exclusionary patronage networks afflict governance. Afghans crave accountability and justice and resent the current mafia-like rule. Whether the 2014 elections will usher in better leaders or trigger violent conflict is another huge question mark.

Emphasizing good governance, not sacrificing it to short-term military expediencies by embracing thuggish government officials, is as important as leaving Afghanistan in a measured and unrushed way -- one that doesn't jeopardize the fledgling institutional and security capacity that the country has managed to build up.

Karzai has been deaf and blind to the reality that reducing corruption, improving governance and allowing for a more pluralistic political system are essential for Afghanistan's stability. His visit provides an opportunity to deliver the message again -- and strongly.

Follow us on Twitter @CNNOpinion

Join us on Facebook/CNNOpinion

The opinions in this commentary are solely those of Vanda Felbab-Brown.

Read More..

USADA head: I got death threats during Armstrong probe

(CBS News) Travis Tygart is the head of the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency, which polices U.S. Olympic sports. Lance Armstrong won the world's most grueling event, the Tour de France, seven times. But after Tygart's investigation, Armstrong lost all of his titles. In his first interview, Tygart spoke with us for the premier of a new program, "60 Minutes Sports" on Showtime. Tygart says Armstrong was doping in his very first win at the Tour de France in 1999. The drug was EPO, which boosts endurance.

TRAVIS TYGART: Six samples that were taken from Lance Armstrong were retested in '05. And they were positive.

SCOTT PELLEY: In '99, when the tests were originally taken, was it reported that they were negative?

TYGART: There was no test for EPO. They were not tested for EPO at that time.

PELLEY: And when you tested for them in 2005, you discovered that they were --

TYGART: All six were flaming positive.

PELLEY: Flaming positive?

TYGART: Flaming positive.

Armstrong allegedly offered large "donation" to doping agency
Atty. denies report Lance Armstrong will admit doping
Lance Armstrong sued for more than $1.5M by U.K. newspaper over libel case

Tygart told Pelley that throughout the investigation, witnesses were intimidated to try to keep the code of silence from breaking.

PELLEY: Was Lance Armstrong personally involved in intimidating these other riders to keep them quiet?

TYGART: He was. It was tough. All -- all these witnesses were -- were scared of the repercussions of them simply telling the truth.

PELLEY: What could Lance Armstrong do to them?

TYGART: Incinerate them.

Former teammate Levi Leipheimer felt the heat. In his sworn affidavit, he says he came to a cycling dinner after he testified to the grand jury. Leipheimer says Armstrong was there and sent Leipheimer's wife a text that read, "Run don't walk."

PELLEY: What did she take it to mean?

TYGART: It's a veiled threat. Knowing her husband had just testified, truthfully, in front of the grand jury and had told citizens of this country about this great fraud. It was a message: You better run.

PELLEY: Your investigation showed that there were personal threats made against riders who had decided to come clean. I wonder if there were any threats against you.

TYGART: There were, Scott.

PELLEY: These threats came from where?

TYGART: Emails, letters.

PELLEY: Anonymous?

TYGART: Yeah.

PELLEY: Can you remember any of the lines from the emails or the letters?

TYGART: The worst was probably putting a bullet in my head.

PELLEY: Did you take that seriously?

TYGART: Absolutely.

To hear the rest of Travis Tygart's story, tune into the premiere edition of "60 Minutes Sports" tomorrow at 10:00 p.m. on the Showtime Network.

Read More..

CIA Nominee May Have 'Zero Dark Thirty' Problem

Navy SEALs are seen fighting through a dust storm in the new thriller directed by Kathryn Bigelow, "Zero Dark Thirty." (Columbia Pictures/AP Photo)

There’s only one White House staffer portrayed in the new movie “Zero Dark Thirty,” and it is someone described in the credits as “National Security Advisor.”

It’s a position that’s possibly filled in real life by John Brennan, the president’s counterterrorism advisor, who President Obama nominated Jan. 7 to be director of C.I.A.. The character in the movie, with references to the C.I.A’s involvement in the flawed intelligence on weapons of mass destruction that led the U.S. into war in Iraq, explains to a frustrated agency representative the difficulty of the president’s decision in acting on partial intelligence.

Spoiler alert: The president does ultimately act on that partial intelligence and Osama bin Laden is nabbed.

The character in real life – Brennan – has been opposed by some for his work at the C.I.A. under President Bush and the “enhanced interrogation” policies like waterboarding that also play a prominent role in the movie.

President Obama makes a cameo in the movie in the form of a “60 Minutes” interview in which he declares that, “America doesn’t torture, and I’m gonna make sure that we don’t torture.”

That declaration is viewed, in the film, by a table full of CIA agents in Pakistan who have been involved in “enhanced” interrogations.

The U.S. used waterboarding on three al Qaeda detainees at secret prisons run by the CIA.  It  ended the practice of using secret prisons in September of 2006 under President Bush and in 2009 President Obama signed executive orders in his first days in office that banned of the use of waterboarding and other “enhanced interrogation” techniques.

But that was after the techniques had already scuttled Brennan’s first chance to head the CIA.  Brennan wasn’t nominated to be CIA director back in the early days of the Obama administration, but he was widely considered to be a front-runner for the job. ABC’s Jake Tapper reported at the time that Brennan withdrew his name for consideration and most of the opposition came as a result of his work at the C.I.A. when those techniques were in use.

And there is indication that they will make his nomination difficult this year.

“I appreciate John Brennan’s long record of service to our nation, but I have many questions and concerns about his nomination to be Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, especially what role he played in the so-called enhanced interrogation programs while serving at the CIA during the last administration, as well as his public defense of those programs,” said Sen. John McCain after Brennan was nominated Monday.  ”I plan to examine this aspect of Mr. Brennan’s record very closely as I consider his nomination.”

The movie has certainly brought “enhanced interrogation” – it’s critics call it torture – back into the conversation about the war on terror, as ABC’s Lee Ferran reported Monday:

Last week three high-powered senators, Intelligence Committee Chairman Dianne Feinstein (D.-Calif.), Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D.-Mich.) and 2008 Presidential candidate John McCain (R.-Ariz.), revealed they had written two letters to Morell in December demanding to know what impact the CIA may have had on the depiction of enhanced interrogation in the film and whether the agency “misled” the filmmakers into thinking the tactic was effective.

“As you know, the film depicts CIA officers repeatedly torturing detainees. The film then credits CIA detainees subjected to coercive interrogation techniques as providing critical lead information on the courier that led to the [bin Laden] compound,” one letter says. “The CIA cannot be held accountable for how the Agency and its activities are portrayed in film, but we are nonetheless concerned, given the CIA’s cooperation with the filmmakers and the narrative’s consistency with past public misstatements by former senior CIA officials, that the filmmakers could have been misled by information they were provided by the CIA.”

Brennan, for his part, has said he opposed torture techniques, as Jake Tapper reported back in 2008 when Brennan removed his name from consideration for the C.I.A. job in 2008.

In a letter released to the media, apparently by Brennan or someone operating on Brennan’s behalf, the former CIA official wrote, “It has been immaterial to the critics that I have been a strong opponent of many of the policies of the Bush Administration such as the preemptive war in Iraq and coercive interrogation tactics, too include waterboarding. The fact that I was not involved in the decision making process for any of these controversial policies and actions has been ignored. Indeed, my criticism of these policies within government circles why I was twice considered for more senior-level positions in the current Administration only to be rebuffed by the White House.”

But Brennan did defend the practice in news media interviews when he described the actions of C.I.A. director George Tenet. This is what Brennan told CBS’s Harry Smith about enhanced interrogation in 2007: “The CIA has acknowledged that it has detained about 100 terrorists since 9/11, and about a third of them have been subjected to what the CIA refers to as enhanced interrogation tactics, and only a small proportion of those have in fact been subjected to the most serious types of enhanced procedures….There have been a lot of information that has come out from these interrogation procedures that the agency has in fact used against the real hard-core terrorists. It has saved lives. And let’s not forget, these are hardened terrorists who have been responsible for 9/11, who have shown no remorse at all for the deaths of 3,000 innocents.”

Brennan has also spoken out in support of “rendition” – the practice where the U.S. government captures terror suspects in one country and relocates them to another. That’s a practice still employed by the Obama administration, according to a recent Washington Post investigation.

Related: Watch Martha Raddatz’s Nightline interview with ‘Zero Dark Thirty’ Director Kathryn Bigelow:

Read More..

World's oldest pills treated sore eyes

In ancient Rome, physicians treated sore eyes with the same active ingredients as today. So suggests an analysis of pills found on the Relitto del Pozzino, a cargo ship wrecked off the Italian coast in around 140 BC.

"To our knowledge, these are the oldest medical tablets ever analysed," says Erika Ribechini of the University of Pisa in Italy, head of a team analysing the relics. She thinks the disc-shaped tablets, 4 centimetres across and a centimetre thick, were likely dipped in water and dabbed directly on the eyes.

The tablets were mainly made of the zinc carbonates hydrozincite and smithsonite, echoing the widespread use of zinc-based minerals in today's eye and skin medications. Ribechini says there is evidence that Pliny the Elder, the Roman physician, prescribed zinc compounds for these uses almost 250 years after the shipwreck in his seminal medical encyclopaedia, Naturalis Historia.

The tablets were also rich in plant and animal oils. Pollen grains from an olive tree suggest that olive oil was a key ingredient, just like it is today in many medical and beauty creams, says Ribechini.

The tablets were discovered in a sealed tin cylinder called a pyxis (see image above). The tin must have been airtight to protect its contents from oxygen corrosion.

"Findings of such ancient medicines are extremely rare, so preservation of the Pozzino tablets is a very lucky case," says Ribechini.

The cargo of the wreck, discovered in 1989, is rich in other medical equipment, including vials and special vessels for bloodletting. This suggests that one of the passengers may have been a physician.

Journal reference: PNAS, DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1216776110

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..

Hagel draws fire as Obama's Pentagon pick

WASHINGTON: US President Barack Obama named Chuck Hagel on Monday to lead the Pentagon, setting up an ugly confirmation battle as Republican opponents said he was too hard on Israel and too soft on Iran.

Obama's choice of John Brennan to replace scandal-tainted David Petraeus as CIA chief was seen as more straightforward despite the counter-terrorism czar's defense of "enhanced interrogation techniques" and the US drone war.

The second term revamp of the president's national security team was expected to win ultimate approval but several leading Republicans signaled they would make it tough for Hagel even though he is one of their own.

Obama paid particular tribute to retiring Pentagon chief Leon Panetta before giving ringing endorsements to the "outstanding" Hagel and Brennan and urging the Senate not to dally in confirming their important appointments.

"Chuck Hagel is the leader that our troops deserve. He is an American patriot," the president said, heaping praise on a war hero who was awarded two Purple Heart medals for his bravery as a soldier in Vietnam.

"When Chuck was hit by shrapnel, his brother saved him. When his brother was injured by a mine, Chuck risked his life to pull him to safety. To this day, Chuck bears the scars -- and the shrapnel -- from the battles he fought in our name," Obama said.

Some Republicans have never forgiven him for his outspoken criticism of ex-president George W. Bush's handling of the Iraq war, and his closeness to the Democratic president sees him regarded by others as a traitor.

But Obama, who wants to be remembered as a leader who ended wars abroad to set about the tricky task of nation-building at home following a crippling recession, described Hagel as someone perfectly fitted to that mold.

"Maybe most importantly, Chuck knows that war is not an abstraction. He understands that sending young Americans to fight and bleed in the dirt and mud, that's something we only do when it's absolutely necessary," he said.

Administration appointments are often tense affairs in the United States as confirmation hearings provide senators with opportunities to turn away unwanted candidates or score cheap political points, or both.

Hagel, 66, known for a fiercely independent streak and a tendency to speak bluntly, is expected to get particularly rough treatment due to his criticism of America's "Jewish lobby" and opposition to some Iran sanctions.

Republican Senator Lindsey Graham said Hagel would be "the most antagonistic defense secretary towards the state of Israel in our nation's history."

Another Republican senator, John Cornyn of Texas, said he would oppose the nomination, charging it would be the "worst possible message we could send to our friend Israel and the rest of our allies in the Middle East."

But in an interview with The Lincoln Journal Star, a newspaper in his home state of Nebraska, Hagel hit back at his critics.

There is "not one shred of evidence that I'm anti-Israeli, not one vote (of mine) that matters that hurt Israel," he said.

If confirmed by the Senate, Hagel will have to manage major cuts to military spending while wrapping up the US war effort in Afghanistan and preparing for worst-case scenarios in Iran or Syria.

Serving as an enlisted man who never joined the officer ranks, Hagel carries a particular empathy for the unheralded infantry "grunts" in the field.

As he grapples with budget pressures, the former sergeant will likely try to shield frontline troops from the effect of spending cuts.

In his typical straight-shooting fashion, Hagel has called the Defense Department "bloated" and said that "the Pentagon needs to be pared down."

Obama, smarting from watching Susan Rice -- reportedly his first choice to succeed Hillary Clinton as secretary of state -- fold her bid in the face of Republican opposition, pressed hard for the Senate to approve Hagel.

"He would be the first person of enlisted rank to serve as secretary of defense. One of the few secretaries who had been wounded in war and the first Vietnam veteran to lead the department," Obama said, calling his appointment "historic."

Brennan, 57, may get an easier ride but is sure to face questions over his support for the use of certain "enhanced interrogation techniques" under the Bush administration and for his staunch defense of the US drone program.

The 25-year Central Intelligence Agency veteran, an Arabic-speaking Middle East expert, replaces Petraeus, who resigned in November after confessing to an extramarital affair with his biographer Paula Broadwell.

Obama highlighted what he called Brennan's incredible work ethic, saying "John is legendary even in the White House" and reminding everyone of a now-famous quote from August 2010.

Asked if he got any down time or was all work and no play, Brennan replied: "I don't do down time."

In a moment of levity at the White House event, the avuncular 74-year-old Panetta drew loud laughs when he said he would be retiring to his walnut farm and "dealing with a different set of nuts."

- AFP/ac

Read More..

Marijuana use is too risky a choice

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

• David Frum: Casual use of marijuana shouldn't be a reason to lock people up


• He says there are serious risks to brain development, mental health in using marijuana


• Frum says it's better to send simple message that marijuana is illegal


• He says too often social rules become so complex many people can't navigate them

Editor's note: David Frum, a CNN contributor, is a contributing editor at Newsweek and The Daily Beast. He is the author of eight books, including a new novel, "Patriots," and his post-election e-book, "Why Romney Lost." Frum was a special assistant to President George W. Bush from 2001 to 2002.

(CNN) -- Last week, I joined the board of a new organization to oppose marijuana legalization: Smart Approaches to Marijuana. The group is headed by former U.S. Rep. Patrick Kennedy and includes Kevin Sabet, a veteran of the Office of National Drug Control Policy under President Obama.

The new group rejects the "war on drugs" model. It agrees that we don't want to lock people up for casual marijuana use -- or even stigmatize them with an arrest record. But what we do want to do is send a clear message: Marijuana use is a bad choice.

David Frum

There are many excellent reasons to avoid marijuana. Marijuana use damages brain development in young people. Heavy users become socially isolated and perform worse in school and at work. Marijuana smoke harms the lungs. A growing body of evidence suggests that marijuana can trigger psychotic symptoms that otherwise would have remained latent.

It's possible to imagine a marijuana rule that tries to respond precisely to such risk factors as happen to be known by the current state of science. Such a rule might say: "You shouldn't use marijuana until you are over 25, or after your brain has ceased to develop, whichever comes first. You shouldn't use marijuana if you are predisposed to certain mental illnesses (most of which we can't yet diagnose in advance). Be aware that about one-sixth of users will become chronically dependent on marijuana, and as a result will suffer a serious degradation of life outcomes. As yet, we have no sure idea at what dosage marijuana will impair your ability to drive safely, or how long the impairment will last. Be as careful as you can, within the limits of our present knowledge!"

Yet as a parent of three, two exiting adolescence and one entering, I've found that the argument that makes the biggest impression is: "Marijuana is illegal. Stay away." I think many other parents have found the same thing.

When we write social rules, we always need to consider: Who are we writing rules for? Some people can cope with complexity. Others need clarity. Some people will snap back from an early mistake. Others will never recover.

"Just say no" is an easy rule to follow. "It depends on individual risk factors, many of them unknowable in advance" -- that rule is not so easy.

Richard Branson: War on drugs a trillion-dollar failure

Over the past three decades, and in area after area of social life, Americans have replaced simple rules that anybody can follow with complex rules that baffle large numbers of people.

Consider, for example, the home mortgage. Once the mortgage was a very simple product. Put 20% down, then sign up for a fixed schedule of payments over the next 30 years. In the space of a single generation, these 30-year fixed-rate amortizing mortgages turned what had been a nation of renters into a nation of homeowners.

The goal of public policy should be to protect ... the vulnerable from making life-wrecking mistakes in the first place.

For more sophisticated buyers, however, the standard mortgage was a big nuisance. For them, bankers developed more flexible products: no money down, no documentation, interest-only, adjustable rate. These products met genuine needs. But as they diffused down-market, they became traps for people who did not understand the risks they were accepting.

Consider how we finance higher education. Once, state governments subsidized their universities to offer a low tuition fee to all comers. Fee increases at private universities were constrained by the lower fees at the public institutions: Duke can raise its price only so high above the University of North Carolina. The universities soon realized, however, that by setting their tuition fees low, they were forgoing revenues that might be collected from the most affluent students. Universities rapidly raised their tuition fees, then offered discounts and aid to students in need.

Kevin Sabet: Legalize Pot? No, reform laws

But while anybody could understand a $500 per semester tuition bill, the new system of rebates confuses the very people who most need help.

A few days before Christmas, Jason DeParle of The New York Times reported a depressing example of the toll modern financial aid exacts upon students from less sophisticated backgrounds. He told the story of three bright girls from poor families who had recently tried -- and failed -- to gain college degrees. One of them was admitted to Emory, a prestigious school with a full-ticket price of $50,000, but one that grants very generous financial aid -- if the student can figure out how to make the financial aid work for her.

The trouble was that students who most need aid are often precisely those who have nobody around them who has ever successfully navigated a complicated bureaucratic institution like a university financial aid office.

"Though Emory sent weekly e-mails -- 17 of them, along with an invitation to a program for minority students -- they went to a school account she had not learned to check," DeParle wrote.

"Angelica reported that her mother made $35,000 a year and paid about half of that in rent. With her housing costs so high, Emory assumed the family had extra money and assigned ... an income of $51,000. ... (Angelica) discovered what had happened only recently."

Unable to cope with the school's e-mail system or to decrypt its rules for imputing family income, Angelica finally dropped out of Emory, burdened by $61,000 in student debt.

In 1943, Vice President Henry Wallace published a book celebrating the coming "century of the common man." That century did not last very long. We have transitioned instead into the era of the clever man and clever woman. We have revised our institutions, our programs, our rules in ways that offer profitable new chances to those with cultural know-how -- and that inflict disastrous consequences on those who are overwhelmed by a world of ever-more-abundant and ever-more-risky choices.

Opinion: The end of the war on marijuana

We're not going to uninvent the no-money-down loan. Universities that receive applications from all over the planet cannot finance themselves like an old-fashioned state land-grant college. But we need to recognize that modern life is becoming steadily more dangerous for people prone to make bad choices.

At a time when they need more help than ever to climb the ladder, marijuana legalization kicks them back down the ladder. The goal of public policy should not be to punish vulnerable kids for making life-wrecking mistakes. The goal of public policy should be to protect (to the extent we can) the vulnerable from making life-wrecking mistakes in the first place.

There's a trade-off, yes, and it takes the form of denying less vulnerable people easy access to a pleasure they believe they can safely use. But they are likely deluding themselves about how well they are managing their drug use. And even if they are not deluded -- if they really are so capable and effective -- then surely they can see that society has already been massively re-engineered for their benefit already. Surely, enough is enough?

Follow @CNNOpinion on Twitter.

Join us at Facebook/CNNOpinion.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of David Frum.

Read More..

Millions of foreclosure abuse victims to get checks

(CBS News) LOS ANGELES - Since the real estate implosion five years ago, major banks have been accused of fraudulent tactics to foreclose on thousands of Americans.

On Monday, the U.S. government reached a settlement with 10 banks who will pay $8.5 billion. About four million homeowners who lost their homes to foreclosure will be getting some compensation.

About 200 people showed up to a workshop in south Los Angeles last month trying to figure out if their banks improperly foreclosed on their homes. Now many of them will be getting a check.

10 banks agree to pay $8.5B for foreclosure abuse
Consumer advocates question $8.5B foreclosure deal

The 10 banks -- including Citi, JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, and Wells Fargo -- will make $3.3 billion in direct payments to customers who were in foreclosure during 2009 and 2010.

Homeowners charged improper fees could be paid a couple hundred dollars. About $125,000 would go to homeowners who were foreclosed on even though they were up to date in their mortgage payments.

The settlement replaces an existing independent foreclosure review program that began in 2011 after it was discovered many banks approved foreclosure without actually reviewing the cases, sometimes hundreds a day.

Tunua Thrash

/

CBS News

Tunua Thrash helps homeowners in Los Angeles navigate foreclosure. She worries the bank payouts won't go far enough.

"Certainly the fact that there have been many mistakes, and some homeowners have lost equity that could exceed that amount, is letting the banks off easy...as far making sure that homeowners are made whole," Thrash said.

The banks will also spend $5.2 billion on loan modifications and principal reductions for current homeowners. That may help James Bruce, who could lose his south L.A. home at the end of the month unless Citibank modifies his adjustable rate mortgage, which he can no longer afford.

"It started adjusting on me and it just got overbearing and I couldn't take it, so it just ate up all my savings and everything that I could muster up to pay that mortgage for over a year," Bruce said.

About 3.8 million people will be getting some payment from these 10 banks. Even homeowners whose foreclosures were processed properly will get something because the banks have decided it's simply easier to write a check than try to figure out who was actually harmed.

Read More..

Cops Break Down as They Describe Aurora Horror

Two veteran police officers broke down on the stand today during a preliminary hearing for accused movie theater gunman James Holmes, with one officer choking up when he described finding the body of a 6-year-old girl inside the theater.

Sgt. Gerald Jonsgaard needed a moment to compose himself as he described finding the little girl, Veronica Moser Sullivan, in the blood splattered theater in Aurora, Colo.

An officer felt for a pulse and thought Veronica was still alive, Jonsgaard said, but the officer then realized he was feeling his own pulse.

A preliminary hearing for Holmes began today in Colorado, with victims and families present. He is accused of killing 12 people and wounded dozens more in the movie theater massacre. One of Veronica's relatives likened attending the hearing to having to "face the devil."

The officers wiped away tears as they described the horror they found inside of theater nine.

Officer Justin Grizzle recounted seeing bodies lying motionless on the floor, surrounded by so much blood he nearly slipped and fell.

Grizzle, a former paramedic, says ambulances had not yet made it to the theater, so he began loading victims into his patrol car and driving to the hospital.

"I knew I needed to get them to the hospital now, " Grizzle said, tearing up. "I didn't want anyone else to die."

Arapahoe County Sheriff/AP Photo

James Holmes Tries to Harm Himself, Sources Say Watch Video

Aurora, Colorado Gunman: Neuroscience PhD Student Watch Video

Grizzle drove six victims in four trips, saying that by the end there was so much blood in his patrol car he could hear it "sloshing around."

Click here for full coverage of the Aurora movie theater shooting.

An officer who took the stand earlier today described Holmes as "relaxed" and "detached" when police confronted him just moments after the shooting stopped.

The first two officers to testify today described responding to the theater and spotting Holmes standing by his car at the rear of the theater on July 20, 2012. He allegedly opened fire in the crowded theater during the midnight showing of "The Dark Knight Rises."

Officer Jason Oviatt said he first thought Holmes was a cop because he was wearing a gas mask and helmet, but as he got closer realized he was not an officer and held Holmes at gunpoint.

Throughout the search and arrest, Holes was extremely compliant, the officer said.

"He was very, very relaxed," Oviatt said. "These were not normal reactions to anything. He seemed very detached from it all."

Oviatt said Holmes had extremely dilated pupils and smelled badly when he was arrested.

Officer Aaron Blue testified that Holmes volunteered that he had four guns and that there were "improvised explosive devices" in his apartment and that they would go off if the police triggered them.

Holmes was dressed for the court hearing in a red jumpsuit and has brown hair and a full beard. He did not show any reaction when the officers pointed him out in the courtroom.

This is the most important court hearing in the case so far, essentially a mini-trial as prosecutors present witness testimony and evidence—some never before heard—to outline their case against the former neuroscience student.

The hearing at the Arapahoe County District Court in Centennial, Colo., could last all week. At the end, Judge William Sylvester will decide whether the case will go to trial.

Read More..