Sunday, March 2, 2014

How Did Hungary’s Election Become a Circus?

 
BUDAPEST — THE most visible poster on the streets here is not the one advertising the Deep Purple concert at the Papp Laszlo Sportarena. And it’s not the one for “Balkan Kobra,” a theatrical comedy featuring a stubbly hero sporting tight jeans and a Kalashnikov. And it’s definitely not the one for the Budapest Dance Festival.
Instead, it’s the one that shows three or four guys wearing neckties standing in a police lineup, alongside a clown. In one of the more ubiquitous versions of the poster, two of the men are former left-wing prime ministers of Hungary. A third is Attila Mesterhazy, president of the country’s Socialist Party and a current candidate for prime minister in the coming election in April. The fourth is Miklos Hagyo, the former left-wing deputy mayor of Budapest, who is currently the subject of a corruption trial.
The men, and the clown, appear above the slogan “They Don’t Deserve Another Chance.”
Given that political advertising has been sharply and abruptly curtailed by Prime Minister Viktor Orban and his ruling Fidesz Party, the pre-eminence of a political ad — on billboards, lampposts and the sides of buses — might seem surprising. But Fidesz, which has been widely criticized as taking Hungary in an autocratic direction since taking power in 2010, has become adept at controlling the message. It has rewritten the state’s Constitution, come to dominate all branches of government and held increasing sway over the news media. Meanwhile, according to the International Monetary Fund, Hungary’s economic output is not expected to return to 2008 levels until 2017.
Fidesz has reshaped the country’s rules for political advertising. Commercial television stations are barred from charging money for political advertising, which has largely driven political ads off commercial TV. That leaves state-owned stations, which are restricted to eight hours of political advertising over the 50 days of the official campaign. In Budapest, outdoor advertising on billboards, lampposts and other areas has also been sharply restricted.
The outdoor-advertising restriction, however, does not apply to “independent” groups, notably the pro-Orban Civil Union Forum, which has been partly funded in the past by a Fidesz foundation and is behind the clown ad. The group has plastered the ad all over the capital and throughout the country.
Think of it as soft money, Hungarian style, or Hungary’s own version of “super PACs,” the political action committees that have transformed the American political process. In the United States, though, both sides of the political aisle take part in the super PAC arms race. In Hungary, the rules have been changed quickly to benefit the ruling party, leaving the opposition flat-footed and well behind.
The clown poster can be seen around almost every corner here. There’s one on a large pole not far from the central bank. There are many along main thoroughfares like Bajcsy-Zsilinszky Way, including one near St. Stephen’s Basilica, where they keep the right hand of St. Stephen, the king who founded Hungary a thousand years ago, on display as a relic. There are many on Szent Istvan Boulevard, including one on a telephone booth, another outside a Turkish takeout place and a third defaced with white graffiti that says “Viktor Is Disgusting,” referring, one assumes, to Mr. Orban.
In a statement, Mr. Orban’s administration noted that many other members of the European Union also put various restrictions on political advertising, including bans or sharp limits on television ads in countries like Spain and France. “In Europe there are only four countries that do not restrict political advertisements in any way: Austria, Estonia, Finland and Poland,” the statement said.
Asked if they received any input from Fidesz on their ad campaign, the two founders of the Civil Union Forum, Tamas Fricz and Laszlo Csizmadia, said in a brief statement: “No, we did not. We do not need help.” They did not detail the financing of the campaign, and they are not required to file a disclosure report until after the election.
Gordon Bajnai, one of the former prime ministers featured in the ad, says of Fidesz: “It’s in their interest to limit political advertising — the public media is under their control.”
While political parties are given a few designated places to advertise, “Half of the billboard posts around the country are owned by their oligarchs, and the rest is being flooded by state-owned company advertising, so there is no room for us,” Mr. Bajnai added.
Referring to the elections, he added, “They are going to be free, but they are not going to be fair.”
Zoltan Lakner, a political scientist and professor at Eotvos Lorand University, called the situation “tragicomic.”
“Officially, this is a civil campaign — it is a campaign of a civil group, but the civil group is not civil, it is an ally of Fidesz,” he said, adding, “The rules are unequal, to say politely.”
The ads have become so ubiquitous that they attracted attention on social media sites after they were recently spoofed, darkly, by Bertalan Soos, a 30-year-old Budapest photographer.
“I’ve seen this Fidesz poster everywhere,” Mr. Soos said in an email. Initially it was funny, he said, “but only for one joke, not to see it everywhere for months.”
He took a picture of a bus with the ad on the side, then cropped the ad so that only the slogan remained. What was left was an eerie image of gloomy bus riders over the slogan, “They Don’t Deserve Another Chance.”

Support Your Local Slaughterhouse


BOLINAS, Calif. — LATE on Saturday, Feb. 8, news broke of the recall of 8.7 million pounds of beef that had come through a Northern California slaughterhouse. Social media buzzed with tweets and posts pronouncing it the latest example of a dysfunctional industrialized food system incapable of producing safe meat. “Buy local!” “Know your farmer!” “Eat grass-fed beef!”
The problem was that this slaughterhouse, the Rancho Feeding Corporation, didn’t handle only commodity beef.
Here, amid wind-swept pastures of coastal California in the epicenter of the nation’s sustainable food movement, dozens of small- and medium-scale farms and ranches, including mine, have been affected by the recall. These are grass-based operations, many of them certified organic, whose owners have labored for decades to create a food stream that is humane, ecological and wholesome.
A Rancho employee called the next morning with the news: All the beef that had gone through the plant in 2013 was covered. No exceptions. Every ounce of meat remaining in the public food supply had to be turned back in. All of it would be destroyed. The slaughterhouse provided no further information.
An Agriculture Department news release said the recall was necessary because the facility “processed diseased and unsound animals and carried out these activities without the benefit or full benefit of federal inspection. Thus, the products are adulterated.” There was no suggestion of any plant-wide contamination, and it noted that there were no cases of human illness associated with any of the beef. The Agriculture Department has refused requests for more information, citing a continuing investigation by its inspector general.
We operate a small meat company supplied exclusively by our ranch and nine other ranches that all follow the same protocols. Complying with the recall would mean destroying over 100,000 pounds of meat we had intentionally frozen throughout the year to extend our beef season. Our beef comes from grass-fed cattle. We never use hormones; we feed no drugs. We know the complete history of each animal, from the identity of its mother to where it spent each day of its life. And we knew that all our own cattle received full federal inspections at the slaughterhouse, both ante- and post-mortem.
While it’s painful to see our beautiful animals die, my husband, Bill, or our cattle manager has always accompanied every single one to the slaughterhouse stunning area. Being handled by a familiar person reassures the animals and guarantees that none is ever mistreated. We have advocated that everyone raising livestock do the same.
We are involved with each of the federal inspections as well: of live animals, whole carcasses, lymph glands and internal organs. We observe and record, at every stage, details about the condition of each carcass and the viscera. These protocols are labor-intensive, but the data is invaluable in early identification of quality problems and for assessing which lineages provide the best beef.
Those carcasses are cut in quarters and then transported from the slaughterhouse to a federally certified processing plant. Here again, before butchering, each carcass is inspected by both Agriculture Department employees and us.
Why were our rigorous procedures insufficient to keep us out of the recall? The Agriculture Department’s tools for safeguarding the nation’s meat supply are blunt and clumsy instruments, especially when dealing with independent farmers. In a battle between the slaughterhouse and the federal agency over proper inspections for animals in its commodity meat business, it was apparently decided that it would be simpler and more convenient to conduct a blanket recall. We and about 35 other farming and ranching families are the collateral damage.
Beyond the immediate financial strain caused by the recall, it threatens the very existence of the Bay Area’s smaller-scale grass-fed and organic farms. The facility involved was the only remaining Bay Area slaughterhouse, and there are just a handful in all of Northern California. Now the recall has precipitated the slaughterhouse’s closure. Without it, ranchers will be forced to either transport their cattle hundreds of miles for slaughter or exit the business.
People love supporting local food and farms. But when was the last time you saw someone wearing a T-shirt that said “Support Local Slaughterhouses”? But if we want to eat eggs, dairy and meat, we must come to terms with the need for good slaughter facilities available to all farmers. From 1979 to 2009, California went from having 70 slaughterhouses to 23. Because it is more complicated and costly to do so, nearly all large facilities refuse to work with smaller farms. This makes slaughtering the most serious bottleneck in the sustainable food chain.
Congress should require all slaughterhouses to open their doors to local farmers, perhaps one day a week. And the Agriculture Department should assist in establishing and maintaining smaller-scale slaughterhouses in every region.
Understaffing of food-safety inspectors may have played a role in the recall. Stan Painter, president of the National Joint Council of Food Inspection Locals, has suggested that federal inspectors are overextended and may not have had time to properly examine all of Rancho’s meat.
That makes it an apt time to require video cameras throughout every slaughterhouse. Tapes would be made available to meat inspectors, and regularly handed over to the Agriculture Department as part of its oversight. The idea is not far-fetched. Cameras in slaughter facilities are already commonplace in Britain. In 2005, a United States Senate committee recommended requiring slaughterhouses to install cameras to ensure humane animal handling. As recently as 2008, the Agriculture Department gave the idea serious consideration. If cameras were installed at all key inspection points, it could also help people like us prove that the meat received full, proper inspections.
The way we track each animal is rare in the food industry. But the technology to follow an individual animal from birth to slaughter exists and is relatively inexpensive. If all animals were routinely tracked, a recall like this could be a scalpel instead of a sledgehammer.
Our company is appealing the Agriculture Department’s decision to include us in this blanket recall. If allowed to stand, it will be financially devastating for us and for many other farming and ranching families. But even more abhorrent is the waste. We took the lives of our animals to feed people. Being forced to throw away their meat would be sacrilege.

Saturday, March 1, 2014

2014 Oscar predictions: Insiders' knowledge put to the test

<strong>Best picture nominees: </strong>"American Hustle" (pictured), <strong>"</strong>12 Years a Slave," "The Wolf of Wall Street," "Captain Phillips," "Her," "Gravity," "Dallas Buyers Club," "Nebraska" and "Philomena"
(CNN) -- It's that time again, time to pull out the ballots and read the tea leaves and see who's going to take home the trophies at Sunday's 86th Academy Awards.
Will it be "12 Years a Slave"? Leonardo DiCaprio? "Let It Go" from "Frozen"?
Oscar forecasting is a lighthearted parlor game for many and a "who cares" shrug for others. (Go ahead, commenters, let us know how you really feel!)
 <strong>Best actor nominees:</strong> Leonardo DiCaprio in "The Wolf of Wall Street" (pictured), Christian Bale in "American Hustle," Bruce Dern in "Nebraska," Chiwetel Ejiofor in "12 Years a Slave" and Matthew McConaughey in "Dallas Buyers Club"
But to studios, agents, managers and many of the nominees, winning the Oscar is not only first-line-of-the-obituary recognition, but it also means "cold, hard cash," as Oscar winner Wendy Hiller once bluntly put it, in box-office receipts and future contracts.
With that in mind -- and with the possibility of some of this article's readers taking home cold, hard cash for winning their Oscar pools -- here are a few key indicators to follow at the 2014 Oscars Sunday night. Of course, the Oscars being the Oscars, nothing is guaranteed.
What are the best picture front-runners?
There may be nine nominees for best picture, but only three have a good chance of winning, says Tom O'Neil of the awards handicapping site GoldDerby.com: "12 Years a Slave," "Gravity" and "American Hustle." "12 Years" is the favorite among his 30 experts, with "Gravity" second at 10-3 odds and "Hustle" at 50-1. Everything else is 100-1.
The site TheCredits.org agrees. Its social awards season app, DataViz, crunched the numbers based on mentions on Facebook, Twitter, Pinterest and film-related sites. It determined that "12 Years" has 42% of the online mentions (as of February 24) and "Gravity" is second with 33%.
 <strong>Best actress nominees:</strong> Sandra Bullock in "Gravity" (pictured), Amy Adams in "American Hustle," Cate Blanchett in "Blue Jasmine," Judi Dench in "Philomena" and Meryl Streep in "August: Osage County"
But, points out Clayton Davis of AwardsCircuit.com, in a year with divisive choices -- and "12 Years," though widely hailed, is not necessarily widely loved -- the preferential voting system for best picture can favor everybody's second choice. That's "Gravity," which also has the benefit of being the people's choice as the highest-grossing film among the nominees.
 <strong>Best supporting actor nominees: </strong>Jared Leto in "Dallas Buyers Club" (pictured), Barkhad Abdi in "Captain Phillips," Bradley Cooper in "American Hustle," Michael Fassbender in "12 Years a Slave" and Jonah Hill in "The Wolf of Wall Street"
Film editing is your friend
Of course, best picture is the last category of the night. What are some of the early signs that one of these films has an edge?
The film editing category may seem minor to Oscar viewers, but it often has an outsized role in showcasing best picture winners. O'Neil observes that the best picture has won the editing Oscar more than half the time -- and if you rule out action-oriented flicks such as "Bullitt," "Star Wars" and "The Bourne Ultimatum," it's even more predictive.
This year's editing nominees include all three best picture front-runners along with "Captain Phillips," directed by the handheld-camera-favoring, quick-cutting Paul Greengrass, and "Dallas Buyers Club." "Gravity" is the favorite, says O'Neil, and that could foretell a spacey night. But even more notable will be if "12 Years" or "Hustle" grabs the trophy, since a win would be so unexpected. As for "Phillips," that would simply acknowledge the expertise of Greengrass and editor Christopher Rouse -- who won for "Ultimatum" six years ago.
 <strong>Best adapted screenplay nominees: </strong>Billy Ray for "Captain Phillips" (actor Tom Hanks pictured); Richard Linklater, Julie Delpy and Ethan Hawke for "Before Midnight"; Steve Coogan and Jeff Pope for "Philomena"; John Ridley for "12 Years a Slave"; and Terence Winter for "The Wolf of Wall Street"
Pressing the flesh
Though overt Oscar campaigning is frowned upon, there's nothing wrong with showing up at industry functions, saying the right things, posing for pictures and shaking a few hands.
That could make a difference in the best actor category, whose favorites are Matthew McConaughey ("Dallas Buyers Club") and Leonardo DiCaprio ("The Wolf of Wall Street").
Though both have some high-profile wins, they have yet to face off in the same category. (Both won Golden Globes, but McConaughey's was for a drama and DiCaprio's was for comedy.) And when it comes to politicking, DiCaprio has played the game well, says O'Neil, who points out that the "Wolf" star has been making the rounds with humor and class.
"When I look at the list of past winners of best actor, I see movie stars," he says. "There's kind of a veteran glow to it. With Leo being overdue, it's to his advantage -- and he's given the biggest performance of his career in the most talked-about movie of the year."
But McConaughey may have a secret weapon. No, not his extreme weight loss. Try "True Detective" on HBO, which has become an addictive hit.
"(One academy member) told me he's voting for McConaughey because he's addicted to 'True Detective,' " says O'Neil.
Technically speaking
"Gravity" is up for several technical awards, including production design, sound editing, sound mixing and visual effects. It's considered the front-runner for most of them. If it falters, it could be a long night for director Alfonso Cuaron and his film.
"If you see 'Gravity' lose some techs, it's indicative that it's not going all the way," says Davis.
A 'Slave' surprise
"12 Years a Slave" has fewer technical nominations but has a number of acting nods: best actor Chiwetel Ejiofor, best supporting actor Michael Fassbender and best supporting actress Lupita Nyong'o. Only Nyong'o is given a strong shot to win -- she's the top pick of GoldDerby's experts -- but if Fassbender and Ejiofor triumph, expect "Slave" to take it all.
Fassbender has the toughest road, says O'Neil. The academy has softened up about giving Oscars for villainous roles, but there's usually a wink involved -- think Christoph Waltz in "Inglourious Basterds" or even Anthony Hopkins in "The Silence of the Lambs." Not so for Fassbender's character, a vicious slave owner.
"He's pure Satan," says O'Neil.
Do the "Hustle"
"American Hustle" did even better among the major categories -- it's the only film nominated in the Big Six of picture, director, actor, actress, supporting actor and supporting actress. But of all the film's nominees, only Jennifer Lawrence -- who's won a Globe and a SAG Award, and who's the most popular actress in the world right now -- is considered a threat in her category, best supporting actress.
The key is probably Amy Adams, up for best actress. That category is considered a runaway for Cate Blanchett of "Blue Jasmine," but if the Woody Allen controversy has rubbed off on her, five-time nominee Adams could take the Oscar and indicate bigger things for the film about the '70s Abscam scandal.
Davis is doubtful, though. Even the Seahawks gave up a touchdown during the Super Bowl, he says.
"I'm sure she'll lose a couple votes, but not enough to matter," he says.
Watch Weinstein
Producer Harvey Weinstein is the master of awards gamesmanship. He makes high-quality, often audience-friendly films with good casts -- "Shakespeare in Love," "The Artist," Quentin Tarantino's films -- and he knows how to promote them.
This year he's putting his chips on his best picture nominee, "Philomena." The film has earned good reviews, done respectable box office and features the ageless Judi Dench. It has a good shot at adapted screenplay, which was co-written by star Steve Coogan, and Dench is a seven-time nominee who's won once before.
Along with Martin Scorsese's "The Wolf of Wall Street," it's probably the leading dark horse -- but whereas "Wolf" is divisive, "Philomena" is liked.
O'Neil thinks screenplay is possible -- "sometimes the most emotional movie wins" -- but thinks that might be it.
Still, at least "Philomena" picked up a best picture nomination. Weinstein's other major film, "August: Osage County," didn't even get that.
Splitting tickets
Finally, this is an odd handicapping year. Usually the best director has directed the best picture, but this year the handicappers are picking "Gravity's" Cuaron for best director and "12 Years a Slave" for best picture. When the two categories differ, it's a surprise, not an expectation.
Davis can't shake the feeling that voters won't split their votes -- and that will make "Gravity" the big winner. (Sorry, "12 Years" director Steve McQueen.) Cuaron not only won the top award from the Directors Guild, but "Gravity" also tied "12 Years" as the best film picked by the Producers Guild -- which, given the PGA's use of the preferential ballot, was an incredible shocker.
And O'Neil suggests another indicator: "Gravity" star Sandra Bullock, who's up for best actress.
"If 'Gravity' wins best picture, Sandra might go along for the rocket ride," he says. "She is 'Gravity' -- she's the whole movie."
One sure thing?
This won't predict the best picture winner, but if you're looking to check off a category on your Oscar ballot, look no further than "The Lady in Number 6: 'Music Saved My Life'," a documentary short subject about a Holocaust survivor who lived to be 110. As Mark Harris noted in Grantland, she died Sunday -- two days before Oscar voting ended. Harris sums it up: "We're done here."
Dominoes and randomness
A lot of the foregoing, of course, assumes the Oscars are logical. Let us emphasize: The Oscars are not logical. They are a popularity contest, a business proposition, a plea for attention, a throw of a dart.
Sometimes films gather momentum like so many falling dominoes, as "Argo" did last year. Other times big favorites fall short at the end: 1976's "Network" won three of four acting categories but lost best picture to "Rocky"; 1972's "Cabaret" took home eight Oscars -- including best director -- but lost best picture to "The Godfather."
And if you need any more proof that the Oscar universe can be as random as a roll of the dice, consider two words: Roberto Benigni.
Good luck in your pool.

Finding a Setting That Captures a Scene

Wes Anderson’s films are best known for their eccentric characters and rigorously whimsical tone. But just as distinctively captured are their settings. Think of the colors and textures of the Indian landscapes in “The Darjeeling Limited,” for example, or the lovingly rendered Mediterranean locations in “The Life Aquatic With Steve Zissou.”
The director’s latest offering, “The Grand Budapest Hotel,” which opens March 7, tells the story of a concierge (Ralph Fiennes) between the world wars who becomes a murder suspect. The movie takes place in the invented European Republic of Zubrowka. But because the primary location plays such a large role, finding the right spot to shoot entailed intricate scouting.
Below, in an edited conversation, is a taste of what that process entailed, and some of the places that have inspired Mr. Anderson.
Q. What is the process you go through when choosing a location?
A. For this type of movie we start on Google and Wikipedia and so on — and that was how I wandered my way over to the Library of Congress Photochrom Prints collection, which is almost like Google Earth for 1902. There are a vast number of tinted photographs that take you all over the Austro-Hungarian Empire and Prussia. Then we traveled around Eastern Europe to see many of these particular views. Most of them look radically different — but some are very close to the old pictures.
Photo
Launch media viewer
“The Grand Budapest Hotel,” directed by Wes Anderson, was filmed in the German town of Görlitz on the Polish border. Credit Fox Searchlight Pictures
We decided to work in Germany partly because of the great big tax rebate, and then also because we found this old Jugenstil department store in a little city on the Polish border, Görlitz. It had everything we needed, including abandoned thermal baths, a gigantic ballroom and a very good, terrifying prison about 20 minutes away, in Zittau. The town became the center for our production. Our cutting room was a former tavern in the basement of the town’s City Hall.
What do you look for in a hotel? 
I am very interested in getting a good rate. Also: the shortest distance from the street to the room. You don’t want to lose hours and hours in the course of time crossing through lobbies and going up and down long corridors. In Görlitz, our entire cast and many in our company stayed in a place called the Hotel Börse, right in the center of the old city. It was perfect. We converted the ground floor into the hair and makeup area; in fact, the owner and his wife and several of his employees appear in the movie in various roles, in particular behind the front desk.
Are there locations for other films of yours that you particularly fell in love with?
In Rhode Island, for “Moonrise Kingdom,” we worked in a beautiful scout camp built in maybe the ’20s called Camp Yawgoog. We also found a place we try to get back to called the Matunuck Oyster Bar. In the Himalayan foothills, on location for “The Darjeeling Limited,” we stumbled by helicopter across an Indian town called Mussoorie, which I particularly loved.
Also, the Italian island of Ponza, where we worked for a day or two during “The Life Aquatic.” The very best thing about Ponza is the next-door island, Palmarola. You must swim to your table for pasta on the beach.
Correction: February 28, 2014
An earlier version of this article misstated the name of a movie directed by Wes Anderson. It is “The Darjeeling Limited,” not “The Darjeeling Express.”

Monica Bellucci & David Gandy: Dolce&Gabbana Fashion Show!








 monica bellucci david gandy dolcegabbana fashion show 07
Monica Bellucci looks beautiful in a black dress while being escorted by her security guard into the Dolce&Gabbana fashion show held during Milan Fashion Week Womenswear Autumn/Winter 2014 on Sunday (February 23) in Milan, Italy.
The 49-year-old actress sat in the front row alongside handsome male model David Gandy.
PHOTOS: Check out the latest pics of David Gandy
David, who celebrated his 34th birthday last week, sent a message on his Twitter account to fans thanking them for their well wishes.
“Huge THANKS for the wonderful bday messages + to those of you who sent cards, gifts + made donations to my charities,” David wrote.

Attackers With Knives Kill 29 at Chinese Rail Station



HONG KONG — A group of assailants wielding knives stormed into a railway station in southwestern China on Saturday, slashing employees and commuters and leaving at least 29 people dead and 130 wounded, according to Xinhua, the official Chinese news agency. The local government indicated that the attackers were Uighur separatists seeking an independent homeland in the Xinjiang region in China’s far west.
The attack, in Yunnan Province, was far from Xinjiang, and if carried out by members of the largely Muslim Uighur minority could imply that the volatile tensions between them and the government might be spilling beyond that restive region.
The violence erupted about 9 p.m. in the city of Kunming, when the assailants, all wearing similar clothing, entered the square in front of the station as well as a ticket sales hall, according to the official Yunnan news service.
“According to eyewitnesses, the group of males held knives and all wore the same black clothing,” said the China News Service, another state-run news agency. “They slashed at whoever they saw, and at the scene there were many people injured.” Photographs circulated by Chinese news websites, which they said were taken after the attack, showed men and women sprawled and bleeding.
If the Kunming government’s account is correct, the attack would be the worst violence outside of Xinjiang to stem from discontent by Uighurs over what they call repression by the country’s Han Chinese majority. The central government in Beijing said Uighur separatists were behind a small but dramatic attack in October near Tiananmen Square, when a vehicle plowed into a crowd, killing two tourists and injuring dozens. Three people in the vehicle also died.
The latest attack appears certain to prompt the authorities to increase the already heavy security across Xinjiang, which could deepen the divide between Uighurs and Han Chinese there that has been fueling violence in the region. News reports on Saturday did not identify the attackers, but on Sunday the Kunming government said that there was evidence at the scene “showing that this was an act of violent terror planned and organized by Xinjiang separatists,” according to Xinhua. Although the government’s statement did not say the attackers were Uighurs, it contained language often used to refer to members of the minority group.
Many Uighurs resent the government’s controls on their religious life and say the growing presence of Han Chinese people in Xinjiang has deprived them of jobs, land and opportunities. The authorities have consistently blamed violence there on extremist groups inspired and organized from abroad. Advocates of Uighur self-determination have said the Chinese government’s own repressive policies have seeded the violence.
After the slashing attack, President Xi Jinping of China said the government would “sternly punish the terrorists according to the law and resolutely put down their arrogant audacity.”
The Ministry of Public Security issued a statement vowing that there would be no mercy for the assailants. “No matter what the motive of the perpetrators, to spill innocent blood is to become an enemy of all decency under heaven,” the statement said.
According to an article in The Beijing News, a student who witnessed the attack, Wang Dinggeng, said the assailants included women. They pulled long knives from underneath their garments and began slashing at people.
“Inside the hall,” Mr. Wang said, “there were still many people lined up to buy tickets, and the people outside came pouring in saying, ‘Murder!’ ”

Pakistani Taliban, Announcing Cease-Fire, Urge the Revival of Peace Talks



ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — The Pakistani Taliban announced a monthlong cease-fire on Saturday and urged the government to revive peace talks that broke down last month.
Shahidullah Shahid, the spokesman of Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan, or TTP, the umbrella organization of militants, urged the government to join the cease-fire and instructed all militant groups in the country to comply with the truce.
“The senior leadership directs all constituents and groups to respect and fully abide by the cease-fire declaration and restrain themselves from all kinds of jihadist activities,” the Taliban spokesman said in a statement.
Publicly, Pakistani government officials welcomed the cease-fire and indicated that the peace talks, which began last month but were soon suspended, could be revived as soon as next week. But there was no official reaction from Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s office or the military.
“It is a welcome move,” said Irfan Siddiqui, the top government negotiator, according to local news media reports.
Maulana Samiul Haq, a religious leader who represented the Taliban during the talks with the government, also welcomed the cease-fire, describing it as a step toward ensuring peace in the country, which has been ravaged by more than a decade of insurgency and terrorism.
“The Taliban have taken a step,” Mr. Haq said. “Now the government and military should take further steps to ensure durable peace.”
Mr. Shahid claimed that the Taliban had received assurances from the government on some of its demands, though he did not elaborate. Other militant leaders told Reuters that the government promised to halt its attacks on the militants during the truce.
The Taliban have previously claimed that women, children and elderly men have been taken into custody by the military and have demanded their release as a condition for a cease-fire. The military has denied the charges, but a government negotiator, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said Saturday that the government had assured the Taliban of the release of any noncombatant detainees on “humanitarian grounds.”
The Taliban also demanded a “demilitarized safe zone for direct talks,” the negotiator said.
Peace talks between the militants and the government grew out of an initiative announced on Jan. 29 by Mr. Sharif, who said he would pursue a dialogue with the Taliban despite their terrorist attacks and growing calls in Pakistan for military action against the militants. But the talks between the two sides yielded little, and the dialogue was suspended on Feb. 17 after a Taliban faction claimed that it had killed 23 paramilitary soldiers in its custody.
Since then, the Pakistani military has attacked militant hide-outs in North Waziristan and the Khyber tribal regions, killing dozens of militants, officials said.
There has been growing speculation about plans for a military offensive in North Waziristan, the rugged tribal region where Taliban and foreign militants have found a haven.
Pakistani analysts said the Taliban’s cease-fire offer was probably aimed at forestalling a military offensive.
“The Taliban had come under pressure,” said Talat Masood, a retired general and a political analyst based in Islamabad. “The military showed its resolve with surgical strikes and there was every likelihood of a military offensive in subsequent weeks.”
Another factor, Mr. Masood added, was the internal pressure from within the broader network of militants. “The Haqqani network and Hafiz Gul Bahadur must have leaned on the Taliban,” saying “you are creating problems for us,” he said.
The Haqqani network is a feared militant group that operates in Pakistan and Afghanistan and is involved in attacks on American forces in Afghanistan. Mr. Bahadur is a local warlord who has maintained a truce with the Pakistani military since 2009, and his fighters have not attacked security forces.
“They wanted to avoid the military operation,” said Asad Munir, a retired army brigadier, referring to the militants.
“They realized that almost all political parties were now supporting the military operation, and troops were positioned for action,” Mr. Munir said.
Pakistani analysts warned that the militants could use the cessation of hostilities to recover from the military’s airstrikes.
“I think the cease-fire offer should be taken at its face value, but the government should ensure that it is not used by the Taliban to strengthen themselves,” said Mr. Masood, the analyst.
Mr. Munir suggested that because several militant factions were opposed to peace talks, the cease-fire would remain tenuous. “I don’t think there will be an end to terrorist attacks,” he said. “All militants will not agree to it.”
The announcement of the truce came just hours after two bombings killed 13 people and wounded 10 in an attack on a polio vaccination team in the northwestern Khyber region. There was no immediate claim of responsibility.
Efforts to eradicate polio have been hampered by militants, who say the vaccination program is a cover for spying.