In the shame of the fatherThe son of Pablo Escobar tries to atone for the drug kingpin's sins and help Colombia heal(Natacha Pisarenko/associated Press) "His father was a man of epic evil in an era of epic evil: He was the world's deadliest criminal, responsible for thousands of deaths. He put a bounty on the heads of police and got hundreds killed. He blew up an airliner, Colombia's intelligence headquarters and a Bogota newspaper. He ordered the assassinations of a presidential candidate and other prominent politicians. The entire fleet of taxi drivers in Medellin was his informant force at one point. Only fictional villains compare."    

  Two Quit in Flap Over Admissions   Associated Press  Two University of Illinois trustees have resigned and a commission appointed by Gov. Patrick Quinn is expected Thursday to recommend that the remaining seven step down following charges that trustees eased admissions for hundreds of politically connected students.      

  Leaving Israel With No Choice?
By Michael Gerson
Friday, October 2, 2009
    On June 7, 1981, Israeli F-15s and F-16s took off for the Osirak nuclear reactor in Iraq, after the pilots were emotionally briefed that "the alternative is our destruction." In fact, Prime Minister Menachem Begin had no idea whether the raid would stop the Iraqi nuclear program or merely slow it. But slowing it was reason enough. Since the George W. Bush administration, the American military has estimated that an attack against Iran's nuclear facilities would only delay the development of its program. "The reality is," Defense Secretary Robert Gates said recently, "there is no military option that does anything more than buy time. The estimates are one to three years or so." But for several months, high-ranking Israeli officials have been telling American visitors that buying time may be worth it. The Osirak raid, after all, turned out to be an unexpectedly decisive blow. And who knows what political changes might take place in Iran during a few years of nuclear breathing space? Not many Israelis would need to be convinced by this argument -- a recommendation would go from the chief of staff of the Israel Defense Forces, to Defense Minister Ehud Barak, to the security cabinet and Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu. Perhaps a dozen people could shake the world. Clues to Israeli desperation are now so obvious that many have missed them. Netanyahu's recent speech at the United Nations was generally reported as part of a rhetorical tit for tat with Israel's bombastic enemies. But perhaps Netanyahu's impassioned warning against the world's first Holocaust-denying nuclear state should be taken at face value. Former U.S. undersecretary of defense Dov S. Zakheim thinks Netanyahu might have been "setting the stage to say to the world after a strike, 'I told you so.' " An Israeli strike on Iran is an outcome that no American administration would desire. Though an attack might be privately cheered by some Arab rulers, the public consequences would be broad and unpredictable. If Israeli planes were to fly over Iraq, the reaction against America in that country could get ugly. Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas would probably be forced to step away from talks with Israel. Iran could escalate the crisis, with missile launches against Israel and attacks from terrorist proxies such as Hezbollah. In a global anti-Israel backlash, it is possible that the diplomatic and economic isolation of Iran would be eased instead of increased, making the reconstitution of its nuclear program more likely. On Iran, the Obama administration, while differing in some diplomatic methods, has adopted the same basic approach as the Bush administration -- offering Tehran a reasonable way out of confrontation, building support among allies for crippling economic sanctions when the Iranians refuse, somehow persuading Russia and China to play along, and preserving a military option as the last of the last resorts. Many question…

 Oscars 2010: 10 best picture contenders   The 10 best picture nominees in this year's Oscar nominations are:    

 Barack Obama shifts towards talks with TalibanNegotiation has long been advocated by the Afghanistan president, Hamid Karzai, and the British and Pakistan governments but until now it has been resisted by the USEwen MacAskill in Washington and Simon Tisdall guardian.co.uk, Monday 19 July 2010 Article historyThe Obama administration is revising its Afghanistan strategy to embrace the idea of negotiating with senior members of the Taliban through third parties – a policy it had previously been lukewarm towards.Negotiation with the Taliban has long been advocated by Hamid Karzai, the Afghanistan president, and the British and Pakistan governments, but resisted by the US.The Guardian has learned that while the official position of the US government is still resistant to the idea of talks with Taliban leaders, behind the scenes a shift is under way, and Washington is now encouraging Karzai to take a lead in such negotiations."There is a change of mindset in DC," a senior official in Washington said. "There is no military solution. That means you have to find something else. There was something missing." The missing element is talks with the Taliban leadership, the official added.The US rethink comes in the aftermath of the departure in June of General Stanley McChrystal, the top US commander in Afghanistan Barack Obama, apparently frustrated at the way the war is going, reminded his national security advisers that while he was on the election campaign trail in 2008, he had advocated talking to America's enemies.A US review of Afghanistan policy is under way, and is due for completionin December, but officials in Washington, Kabul and Islamabad with knowledge of internal discussions said feelers have already been put out. Negotiations would be conducted largely in secret, through a web of contacts, involving governments such as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, or organisations with back-channel links to the Taliban."It will be messy and could take years," said a diplomatic source.The change of heart by the US comes as Afghanistan hosts the biggest international gathering in the capital for 40 years, with representatives from 60 countries and dignitaries including the US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, and Ban Ki-moon, the UN secretary-general.The dominant theme of the Kabul conference is 'reintegration', reaching out to low-level insurgents to encourage them to lay down their arms.Earlier this year, outlining US policy, the state department special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, Richard Holbrooke, made a distinction between 'reintegration', which the US supported, and 'reconciliation', negotiation with senior members of the Taliban. "Let me be clear,"Holbrooke said, "there is no American involvement in any reconciliation process."There is growing disenchantment with the war in the US and senators on the foreign relations committee last week grilled Holbrooke over what they described as lack of clarity on the part of the Obama administration on an exit strategy.The US has no agreed position on who among the leaders of the insurgency should be wooed and who would be…