Month: May 2015

Andrew Bolt applies the sting of racism daily. Yet he denies it’s existence when it comes to the constitution.

“You would not think this whinger and peddler of poor-me victimhood was actually the pampered wife of the President of the United States.”

We’ve both felt the sting of those daily slights throughout our entire lives. The folks who crossed the street in fear of their safety, the clerks who kept a close eye on us in all those department stores. The people at formal events who assumed we were the help,” she said. “And those who have questioned our intelligence, our honesty, even our love of this country, and I know that these little indignities are obviously nothing compared to what folks across the country are dealing with every single day. Those nagging worries about whether you’re going to get stopped or pulled over for absolutely no reason. The fear that your job application will be overlooked because of the way your name sounds.”

Andrew Bolt’s Racism is clearly expressed in that;

“Obama is not entitled to her experiences, certainly not to talk about them,” going on: “[J]ust as Eleanor Roosevelt articulated the experiences and plight of the poor as well as racial and ethnic minorities, so does Michelle Obama articulate the black experience. If that sometimes makes others uncomfortable, it damn well should.”

Bolt tends to cry reverse racism  when the Obamas of this world raise it. Then Noel Pearson gets  labelled an”active racial agitator”  Bolt wants  to let bygones be bygones. All is forgotten and forgiven eliminate history. Clean the slate and start afresh. If only it were that simple. But it’s not. This whole line of reasoning is racial crap running from the dread of compensation or trying to close the gap.

Bolt’s problem with outspoken indigenous elders is they don’t  encourage silence about inequity nor do other groups who feel disadvantaged rather they shine a light on it. As a consequence the ineqitie’s benefactors cant enjoy the cumulative fruit of centuries of racial graft or decades of migrant exploitation without current-day guilt.

In disallowing and denying others their personal experiences and even sharing those experiences with others Bolt found himself in trouble under the Racial Discrimination Act and Section 18C. Race may not exist in scientific terms however for something that doesn’t exist it sure has an impact on peoples daily lives. Something Racists refuse to accept and when brought up they cry foul and victimization.

Commerical Militarism is Pricey: Uncle Sam Paying Millions to NFL to Promote Warfare State | The Free Thought Project

Uncle-Sam-Paying-Millions-to-NFL-to-Promote-Warfare-State

Commerical Militarism is Pricey: Uncle Sam Paying Millions to NFL to Promote Warfare State | The Free Thought Project.

William Pfaff, The Pundit Who Hated Militarism and War « Antiwar.com Blog

William Pfaff, The Pundit Who Hated Militarism and War « Antiwar.com Blog.

Why Is D.C. Media ‘Primed To Take Down Hillary Clinton’? | Blog | Media Matters for America

Why Is D.C. Media ‘Primed To Take Down Hillary Clinton’? | Blog | Media Matters for America.

‘Anyone You See, You Shoot’: Israeli Soldiers Recall the 2014 Gaza War | The Nation

‘Anyone You See, You Shoot’: Israeli Soldiers Recall the 2014 Gaza War | The Nation.

Sea level rising faster in past 20 years than in entire 20th century, study finds – World News – ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Bayside picnic area, Assateague, Maryland

Sea level rising faster in past 20 years than in entire 20th century, study finds – World News – ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation).

Tony Abbott Village Idiot

Assad’s Loss Could Be ISIS’s Gain, US Officials Warn — News from Antiwar.com

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Assad’s Loss Could Be ISIS’s Gain, US Officials Warn — News from Antiwar.com.

Iraqi Sunni Leaders Say Govt Alienating Them : Are we recruiters for IS here and in Iraq ?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Iraqi Sunni Leaders Say Govt Alienating Them — News from Antiwar.com.

Holding Tikrit, Iraq Fuels New Round of Sectarian Unrest — News from Antiwar.com

 

 

 

 

 

 

Holding Tikrit, Iraq Fuels New Round of Sectarian Unrest — News from Antiwar.com.

Federal Budget 2015: Abbott must stop playing politics with infrastructure: Victoria out in the cold

<p>

Federal Budget 2015: Abbott must stop playing politics with infrastructure.

Federal budget 2015: Joe Hockey takes his budget tips from Wayne Swan

Peter Martin

Federal budget 2015: Joe Hockey takes his budget tips from Wayne Swan.

The unbalanced Budget: Hockey uses UK Labour’s election promise to reduce the deficit every year no matter the state of the economy. Sounds as if austerity economics is here to stay.

The unbalanced Budget.

Australia Pays Labor Cost of Climate-Driven Heat Waves (from @Truthdig)

Australia Pays Labor Cost of Climate-Driven Heat Waves (from @Truthdig).

Kimberley Land Council chief threatens to ‘kill’ Broome’s tourism industry in protest against closure of remote Aboriginal communities – ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

 

Pandanus Park

Kimberley Land Council chief threatens to ‘kill’ Broome’s tourism industry in protest against closure of remote Aboriginal communities – ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation).

Discrimination against Indigenous Australians – ATN – All Together Now

Discrimination - Indigenous

 

Discrimination against Indigenous Australians – ATN – All Together Now.

Unworthy victims: Western wars have killed four million Muslims since 1990

(AFP)

Landmark research proves that the US-led ‘war on terror’ has killed as many as 2 million people, but this is a fraction of Western responsibility for deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan over the last two decades

Last month, the Washington DC-based Physicians for Social Responsibility (PRS) released a landmark study concluding that the death toll from 10 years of the “War on Terror” since the 9/11 attacks is at least 1.3 million, and could be as high as 2 million.

The 97-page report by the Nobel Peace Prize-winning doctors’ group is the first to tally up the total number of civilian casualties from US-led counter-terrorism interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The PSR report is authored by an interdisciplinary team of leading public health experts, including Dr. Robert Gould, director of health professional outreach and education at the University of California San Francisco Medical Center, and Professor Tim Takaro of the Faculty of Health Sciences at Simon Fraser University.

Yet it has been almost completely blacked out by the English-language media, despite being the first effort by a world-leading public health organisation to produce a scientifically robust calculation of the number of people killed by the US-UK-led “war on terror”.

Mind the gaps

The PSR report is described by Dr Hans von Sponeck, former UN assistant secretary-general, as “a significant contribution to narrowing the gap between reliable estimates of victims of war, especially civilians in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan and tendentious, manipulated or even fraudulent accounts”.

The report conducts a critical review of previous death toll estimates of “war on terror” casualties. It is heavily critical of the figure most widely cited by mainstream media as authoritative, namely, the Iraq Body Count (IBC) estimate of 110,000 dead. That figure is derived from collating media reports of civilian killings, but the PSR report identifies serious gaps and methodological problems in this approach.

For instance, although 40,000 corpses had been buried in Najaf since the launch of the war, IBC recorded only 1,354 deaths in Najaf for the same period. That example shows how wide the gap is between IBC’s Najaf figure and the actual death toll – in this case, by a factor of over 30.

Such gaps are replete throughout IBC’s database. In another instance, IBC recorded just three airstrikes in a period in 2005, when the number of air attacks had in fact increased from 25 to 120 that year. Again, the gap here is by a factor of 40.

According to the PSR study, the much-disputed Lancet study that estimated 655,000 Iraq deaths up to 2006 (and over a million until today by extrapolation) was likely to be far more accurate than IBC’s figures. In fact, the report confirms a virtual consensus among epidemiologists on the reliability of the Lancet study.

Despite some legitimate criticisms, the statistical methodology it applied is the universally recognised standard to determine deaths from conflict zones, used by international agencies and governments.

Politicised denial

PSR also reviewed the methodology and design of other studies showing a lower death toll, such as a paper in the New England Journal of Medicine, which had a range of serious limitations.

That paper ignored the areas subject to the heaviest violence, namely Baghdad, Anbar and Nineveh, relying on flawed IBC data to extrapolate for those regions. It also imposed “politically-motivated restrictions” on collection and analysis of the data – interviews were conducted by the Iraqi Ministry of Health, which was “totally dependent on the occupying power” and had refused to release data on Iraqi registered deaths under US pressure.

In particular, PSR assessed the claims of Michael Spaget, John Sloboda and others who questioned the Lancet study data collection methods as potentially fraudulent. All such claims, PSR found, were spurious.

The few “justified criticisms,” PSR concludes, “do not call into question the results of the Lancet studies as a whole. These figures still represent the best estimates that are currently available”. The Lancet findings are also corroborated by the data from a new study in PLOS Medicine, finding 500,000 Iraqi deaths from the war. Overall, PSR concludes that the most likely number for the civilian death toll in Iraq since 2003 to date is about 1 million.

To this, the PSR study adds at least 220,000 in Afghanistan and 80,000 in Pakistan, killed as the direct or indirect consequence of US-led war: a “conservative” total of 1.3 million. The real figure could easily be “in excess of 2 million”.

Yet even the PSR study suffers from limitations. Firstly, the post-9/11 “war on terror” was not new, but merely extended previous interventionist policies in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Secondly, the huge paucity of data on Afghanistan meant the PSR study probably underestimated the Afghan death toll.

Iraq

The war on Iraq did not begin in 2003, but in 1991 with the first Gulf War, which was followed by the UN sanctions regime.

An early PSR study by Beth Daponte, then a US government Census Bureau demographer, found that Iraq deaths caused by the direct and indirect impact of the first Gulf War amounted to around 200,000 Iraqis, mostly civilians. Meanwhile, her internal government study was suppressed.

After US-led forces pulled out, the war on Iraq continued in economic form through the US-UK imposed UN sanctions regime, on the pretext of denying Saddam Hussein the materials necessary to make weapons of mass destruction. Items banned from Iraq under this rationale included a vast number of items needed for everyday life.

Undisputed UN figures show that 1.7 million Iraqi civilians died due to the West’s brutal sanctions regime, half of whom were children.

The mass death was seemingly intended. Among items banned by the UN sanctions were chemicals and equipment essential for Iraq’s national water treatment system. A secret US Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA) document discovered by Professor Thomas Nagy of the School of Business at George Washington University amounted, he said, to “an early blueprint for genocide against the people of Iraq”.

In his paper for the Association of Genocide Scholars at the University of Manitoba, Professor Nagi explained that the DIA document revealed “minute details of a fully workable method to ‘fully degrade the water treatment system’ of an entire nation” over a period of a decade. The sanctions policy would create “the conditions for widespread disease, including full scale epidemics,” thus “liquidating a significant portion of the population of Iraq”.

This means that in Iraq alone, the US-led war from 1991 to 2003 killed 1.9 million Iraqis; then from 2003 onwards around 1 million: totalling just under 3 million Iraqis dead over two decades.

Afghanistan

In Afghanistan, PSR’s estimate of overall casualties could also be very conservative. Six months after the 2001 bombing campaign, The Guardian’s Jonathan Steele revealed that anywhere between 1,300 and 8,000 Afghans were killed directly, and as many as a further 50,000 people died avoidably as an indirect result of the war.

In his book, Body Count: Global Avoidable Mortality Since 1950 (2007), Professor Gideon Polya applied the same methodology used by The Guardian to UN Population Division annual mortality data to calculate plausible figures for excess deaths. A retired biochemist at La Trobe University in Melbourne, Polya concludes that total avoidable Afghan deaths since 2001 under ongoing war and occupation-imposed deprivation amount to around 3 million people, about 900,000 of whom are infants under five.

Although Professor Polya’s findings are not published in an academic journal, his 2007 Body Count study has been recommended by California State University sociologist Professor Jacqueline Carrigan as “a data-rich profile of the global mortality situation” in a review published by the Routledge journal, Socialism and Democracy.

As with Iraq, US intervention in Afghanistan began long before 9/11 in the form of covert military, logistical and financial aid to the Taliban from around 1992 onwards. This US assistance propelled the Taliban’s violent conquest of nearly 90 percent of Afghan territory.

In a 2001 National Academy of Sciences report, Forced Migration and Mortality, leading epidemiologist Steven Hansch, a director of Relief International, noted that total excess mortality in Afghanistan due to the indirect impacts of war through the 1990s could be anywhere between 200,000 and 2 million. The Soviet Union, of course, also bore responsibility for its role in devastating civilian infrastructure, thus paving the way for these deaths.

Altogether, this suggests that the total Afghan death toll due to the direct and indirect impacts of US-led intervention since the early nineties until now could be as high 3-5 million.

Denial

According to the figures explored here, total deaths from Western interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan since the 1990s – from direct killings and the longer-term impact of war-imposed deprivation – likely constitute around 4 million (2 million in Iraq from 1991-2003, plus 2 million from the “war on terror”), and could be as high as 6-8 million people when accounting for higher avoidable death estimates in Afghanistan.

Such figures could well be too high, but will never know for sure. US and UK armed forces, as a matter of policy, refuse to keep track of the civilian death toll of military operations – they are an irrelevant inconvenience.

Due to the severe lack of data in Iraq, almost complete non-existence of records in Afghanistan, and the indifference of Western governments to civilian deaths, it is literally impossible to determine the true extent of loss of life.

In the absence of even the possibility of corroboration, these figures provide plausible estimates based on applying standard statistical methodology to the best, if scarce, evidence available. They give an indication of the scale of the destruction, if not the precise detail.

Much of this death has been justified in the context of fighting tyranny and terrorism. Yet thanks to the silence of the wider media, most people have no idea of the true scale of protracted terror wrought in their name by US and UK tyranny in Iraq and Afghanistan.

 Nafeez Ahmed PhD is an investigative journalist, international security scholar and bestselling author who tracks what he calls the ‘crisis of civilization.’ He is a winner of the Project Censored Award for Outstanding Investigative Journalism for his Guardian reporting on the intersection of global ecological, energy and economic crises with regional geopolitics and conflicts. He has also written for The Independent, Sydney Morning Herald, The Age, The Scotsman, Foreign Policy, The Atlantic, Quartz, Prospect, New Statesman, Le Monde diplomatique, New Internationalist. His work on the root causes and covert operations linked to international terrorism officially contributed to the 9/11 Commission and the 7/7 Coroner’s

– See more at: http://www.middleeasteye.net/columns/unworthy-victims-western-wars-have-killed-four-million-muslims-1990-39149394#sthash.rnIqjv6u.dpuf

White America’s half century of shame: How the media’s Baltimore racism reveals a shocking lack of progress – Salon.com

 

White America's half century of shame: How the media's Baltimore racism reveals a shocking lack of progress

White America’s half century of shame: How the media’s Baltimore racism reveals a shocking lack of progress – Salon.com.

Robert Reich: How to fix the economy — step No. 1 – Salon.com

Robert Reich: How to fix the economy -- step No. 1

Robert Reich: How to fix the economy — step No. 1 – Salon.com.

Targeted Racism: The Language Of Asylum And Deterrence | newmatilda.com

Targeted Racism: The Language Of Asylum And Deterrence | newmatilda.com.

The Budget, the UK election, the Murdoch media and the fragility of power

A week in Canberra watching Abbott and Hockey rearranging the figures from the Budget to try to save their fragile political careers, as well as my access again to the private papers of Sir Keith Arthur Murdoch, were two good lessons in the fragility of power.

The conservative political party that Robert Gordon Menzies created in Australia about 100 years ago, that he chose to call “Liberal“, is even more conservative than the British Conservatives of Winston Churchill.

David Cameron’s result last week was surprising and shifty. He scored better, perhaps, with Rupert Murdoch banging the table in front of his staff at The Sun, some of whom were siding with Labor.

Perhaps, once again,

‘It was The Sun wot won it!’

Meanwhile, here at home, Tony Abbott and his dopey crew of political “wannabes” have crossed into a form of reverse anarchism that gives all power to elected politicians and none to the voters. The Queensland Liberal-National Party was doing the same, with far less propriety, when the people sent them to the Opposition benches.

As for Keith Rupert Murdoch, who at least had the decency to decline a knighthood, unlike his beknighted father, has been as he has always been, the dark eminence that has wrecked all ideas about democracy.

Sir Keith Arthur Murdoch, his father, knew all about power and how to use it. His only son instead acquired the skills of a tyrant.

That showed in his father’s private papers:

‘There is only one secret to the production of a good newspaper, and that is infinite care and accuracy and constant attention to detail.’

And, another comment:

‘The real thinking and leadership in Australia has to be done by the Australian people, informed by the truth in all matters.’

Embedded image permalink

Rupert Murdoch: “Kill Miliband!” Kill Labour. Kill Labor.

Mind you, these words were not written to support the Labor Party. Murdoch senior was never anything other than a Menzies conservative, even though he would often brush aside complaints from Menzies. Keith much preferred Billy (William Morris) Hughes as prime minister.

He wrote personal messages to his staff in his own hand and chose to do so because he suffered from a speech defect.

As a newcomer at his Melbourne primary school, he was both shy and afraid of the rowdier youngsters who chose him as a target because his conservative religious upbringing came in a strict family of two clerics — a grandfather and father of the Scottish Free Church. He paid the price of being a child within a public school of mixed and rowdy backgrounds. A well-mannered, well-behaved newcomer soon became an easy target for bullies.

He developed a nervous stutter that haunted him throughout his life, even in spite of those who helped him. When he was a young man, his family sent to him England to study and to take speech lessons from the celebrated Adelaide therapist, Lionel Logue, who had a practice in London and had famously taught a stuttering King of England to speak in public.

Keith Murdoch”s speech improved in London as he moved through higher circles because of his short connection with the Anzacs. Back home, as his journalistic career thrived, he eventually became editor in chief of the Herald and Weekly Times under Theodore Fink, the company’s founder, chairman and managing director.

From that time, Keith preferred writing short notes of both praise and criticism to his editors and reporters, both to encourage them and to train them in the arts and skills of journalism.

To a Herald editor who allowed an error to escape his eagle eye, he wrote:

‘We must always assume that the public reads us critically and so must be ever watchful wherever a meaning might be misinterpreted.’

To a reporter:

‘The circulation of our newspaper is based on sound writing and intense loyalty to the truth and such must never be in doubt.’

More false glorification of war. Why embellish if the truth is so great? Sir Keith Murdoch’s Gallipoli heroics https://independentaustralia.net/business/business-display/the-truth-about-sir-keith-murdochs-gallipoli-heroics,7656#.VUgFL4FsZvA .

To a new political reporter in Canberra:

‘I hope you will move consistently among the Federal members and write about their personalities and be ready to challenge any of their scattered inconsistencies.’

To a sub-editor:

‘You have made your leading headline scarcely worth reading. A good rule is the advice to a musician – ”do not sound a top note every day and make the unimportant unnecessarily important.”‘

To an editorial writer:

‘The real thinking and leadership in Australia has to be done by the Australian people, not by this newspaper.’

To a young reporter:

‘The secret of a good story is infinite care and strict attention to detail.’

To a rural correspondent:

‘We talk of land monopolists. Why? The sheep men are doing great work for Australia. We should not ally ourselves with those who call good men ”land monopolists.”‘

To all the staff one day he circulated:

‘When you travel home by train please count the number of people reading The Herald.’

And then an occasional word of praise:

‘The paper is well edited today and the wireless and bus features are splendidly done. It is altogether a paper to be proud of.’

You can follow Rodney Lever on Twitter @RodneyELever.

How all Australians could bring down the Murdoch news empire, if only they followed this advice from a young girl. http://tinyurl.com/lax4a3u 

Joe Hockey’s piggy ‘trickle down’ Budget

Joe Hockey’s piggy ‘trickle down’ Budget.

Universities ‘censor’ bad ideas all the time, Tim Wilson. It’s called learning Bjørn Lomborg’s assessment of climate change isn’t just a ‘contrarian’ take. It’s at odds with peer-reviewed science and isn’t entitled to a platform at taxpayer expense

Bjørn Lomborg

Late last week the University of Western Australia reversed course and rejected the $4m the Abbott government had awarded it to host Bjørn Lomborg’s Australian Consensus Centre. Christopher Pyne expressed the sentiments of the government:

What a sad day for academic freedom when staff at a university silence a dissenting voice rather than test their ideas in debate

Now the human rights commissioner, Tim Wilson, has weighed in, condemning the university for engaging in what he called “a culture of soft censorship”. The human right of free speech requires, he argues, “more than just stopping censorious laws. It also requires a culture that tolerates dissent and allows for challenging ideas to be voice, heard and debated”.

I’m 100% down with the idea that free speech requires more than stopping censorious laws, and I’m very much with Wilson on the point that it also requires a culture that tolerates dissent and allows challenging ideas to be voiced.

But the idea that all challenging ideas have a right to be heard is just nonsense – and it’s a nonsense that he himself has rejected in an earlier mood:

Apart from the water cannons bit I agree. A right to free speech doesn’t mean a right to a platform to be heard.

We’re used to the idea that universities are rampantly radical institutions, full of unwashed students in desperate need of a water cannon and lecturers like me who only egg them on

But actually, universities are fundamentally conservative institutions. We engage in what Wilson would call “soft censorship” of bad ideas all the time. It’s called learning.

In fact, the word censor comes from the Latin “to assess”. In universities – whether in the sciences, social sciences or the humanities – people voice their ideas by submitting them for peer review, and if they’re deemed good then they get a platform to be heard by a wider audience.

Great idea? Hurrah, you get published in Nature. Crap idea? You’ll be rejected by the journals that have a reputation for quality. You don’t get to have your ideas heard just because you really like them, because you say them over and over again, or because you’ve got powerful friends in the government.
Live Budget 2015: parties swap barbs on childcare and paid parental leave – politics live
With the budget looming, the government and opposition parties jockey for position on key proposals. All the developments from Canberra, live
Read more

So the academics and students at the University of Western Australia had every right to defend their reputation as a place that values actual scholarship – to defend their platform to be heard by students and the wider community – from the muckraking of the Abbott government and climate change action sceptics.

Lomborg’s assessment of the potential impact of climate change isn’t just a lighthearted contrarian take. It stands at odds with what the peer-reviewed science says, and Lomborg has presented insufficient evidence to sway such thinking.

Wilson argued that “the University of Western Australia essentially endorsed a culture of soft censorship by stopping these public policy questions even being asked”. Lomborg remains as welcome as he’s always been to submit his ideas to either the world of peer review or to raise his voice in other places. He just doesn’t get a free platform to be heard at taxpayer expense.

Filed under:

Hillary Vows To Slash Deficit By Eliminating Executive Oversight Committees

hillary5

DES MOINES – (CT&P) – At a rest area somewhere near Compost, Iowa this morning Hillary Clinton paused as she was exiting the men’s restroom to tell a group of near-rabid, obsessive-compulsive journalists that if elected she planned on banning executive oversight and investigative committees in both houses of Congress, along with the Office of the Special Prosecutor in D.C.

hillary-clinton

The Democrat candidate said that she would do this by executive order on her first day in office and the actions would be taken to reduce waste in government and save taxpayers’ money.

“I really don’t see the need for members of Congress to spend months going over the same old shit trying to dig up dirt on our president,” said Clinton. “The president has better things to do than worry about deleting emails, erasing tapes, and ‘disappearing’ key witnesses. Besides, the citizens of the United States elected these bozos to bring back subsidies for huge corporations, give tax breaks to the wealthiest members of our society, and get funding for bridges to nowhere so a few jobs can be created in their districts.”

badges

“I think that if members of Congress were to just concentrate on what the hell they were elected to do, we could reduce the number of days they are in session by about half and drastically cut their salaries and expenses. That would really help the federal government’s bottom line,” said Clinton.

When a reporter from the New York Times asked Clinton who would then provide oversight of the executive branch, an agitated Alphonso Bedoya, Clinton Campaign Hispanic Vote Liaison Officer, told him what he thought of executive oversight committees.

“Oversight? To god-damned hell with oversight! We have no oversight. In fact, we don’t need no oversight. I don’t have to show you any stinking oversight, you god-damned cabron and ching tu madre!”

Clinton then thanked the journalists, jumped in her van, and sped off too her next campaign fundraiser at Jim Bob’s Pork and Corn Barbecue Palace in Steaming Excrement Springs just outside Cedar Rapids.

Reminder what money can’t buy when so many only talk deficit diaster.

First Indigenous doctor graduates from Charles Darwin University’s medicine course – ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Dr Kane Vellar

First Indigenous doctor graduates from Charles Darwin University’s medicine course – ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation).

The hypocrisy of Abbott and Hockey at the halfway mark

The hypocrisy of Abbott and Hockey at the halfway mark.

Did you know that we all share 99.9% of the same DNA? And on a deeper level, we are all made out of the same energy?

The illusion that we are different is a mental one.

The important question we need to ask ourselves is, who really wants to keep people racially or religiously divided?

Does ANY human being, regardless of race or religion, REALLY enjoy the tension of war and looking over their shoulder and the feeling of having enemies? Obviously not. Aside from a tiny minority who are profoundly mentally unstable due to extraordinary circumstances, this is not logical or scientifically plausible.

Who then, stands to gain from keeping the people fighting amongst themselves through propaganda and the teachings of hate through things like television PROGRAMMING, while they are left to conduct their ‘business’ of ruling over all the races and religions unabated?

The day that we begin to ask this question and figure out the answer, is the day that the world will begin to change.

UK election: Riot erupts in London against re-election of Conservative prime minister David Cameron : Not all are happy in the Kingdom

Protesters and police face off at the gates of Downing Street

UK election: Riot erupts in London against re-election of Conservative prime minister David Cameron – ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation).

Merchants of Hate by Justin Raimondo — Antiwar.com

Merchants of Hate by Justin Raimondo — Antiwar.com.

What is “Islamic”? A Muslim Response to ISIS and The Atlantic – MuslimMatters.org

What is “Islamic”? A Muslim Response to ISIS and The Atlantic – MuslimMatters.org.

Shouting Down Your Critics – Pyne, Lomborg And Why $4 Million Is Worth Every Cent! – » The Australian Independent Media Network

ventriloquist doll

Shouting Down Your Critics – Pyne, Lomborg And Why $4 Million Is Worth Every Cent! – » The Australian Independent Media Network.

Pamela Geller Defends Free Speech By Calling for Censorship by Sheila Musaji

 Not much to say about this one.  You can’t make this stuff up.  In yet another display of “Geller logic”, the self-described “defender of free speech” will be holding a press conference to investigate Al Jazeera and stop it from being shown in the U.S.  Not surprising, since she has previously called Al Jazeera “Leftist Jihadist Media Nexus: Terror TV”, and said “Let’s not let the Islamic supremacists once again invoke the freedom of speech to kill our freedom of speech”.

Her opinion differs from that of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton who praised Al-Jazeera saying “You may not agree with [Al-Jazeera], but you feel you’re getting real news around the clock instead of a million commercials.”

I’ve noted before that Pamela Geller Does Not Understand Freedom of Speech when she found fault with American Muslims and others for denouncing her hate ads.  This she called an attempt to “impose blasphemy restrictions on free speech”.  Freedom of speech does not include freedom from condemnation of that speech.Geller’s article on the Al Jazeera press conference however, goes beyond objecting, or condemning, and includes a graphic saying “STOP Al Jazeera expansion in the U.S.”

What she wants is to censor speech that she doesn’t like, and to be the one to decide what such censored speech will consist of.  She isn’t calling for condemnation, or asking people not to watch, or to boycott the channel, all perfectly reasonable responses to something an individual considers to be inappropriate speech.  No, she is calling for them not to be allowed to be heard at all.

As Gary Wasserman in the Washington Post noted about the Al Jazeera brouhaha

The announcement that al-Jazeera is buying Al Gore’s Current TV network can be expected to run into what pundits call “a serious image problem.” Allowing the Qatar-based, Arab-owned network to be seen in 40 million U.S. households may be more than our fragile citizenry can bear.

With its alleged positions against U.S. foreign policies and wars, al-Jazeera is just too “left” to be allowed access to our fearful public. Has anyone noticed that much of the world is “left” of the United States?

Because of my occasional appearances on al-Jazeera news shows, and having written opinion pieces for its Web site, I can be accused of knowing on which side my pita is being buttered. Fair enough. And my experiences with al-Jazeera will only confirm the obvious. In its selection of stories and editorial slants, it is to the left of mainstream American media.  So what?

Al-Jazeera is also an outlet of professional journalists, generally well-informed and seeking to at least appear balanced. No one has ever suggested to me what to say or write. The network may present Arab voices, but its coverage includes more of the world than this parochial image allows. From oppressed native tribes in Peru to Zimbabwean refugees in South Africa, al-Jazeera reports undercovered news. Its reporters may be pro-Palestinian, but the network provides a rare platform in a region where Israeli officials and dissenters can both appear.

Looking for objective journalism in an era of 400 channels plus the Internet is looking backward to the bygone ideals of three national networks and Uncle Walter. Seeking the widest, most diverse sources for views of the world seems a more realistic goal for American media.

My own opinions may be shaped by experiences with al-Jazeera’s English-language channel. The Arabic part of the network has a separate staff, housed in more modest quarters across the street in Doha from the English channel. And in my few appearances on the Arabic channel, the editorial slant seemed a bit different.

Whether I was invited to comment on congressional elections, global warming or race relations, the questions inevitably veered toward the pro-Israel lobby. As in, after a few questions on the scheduled topic, something like: “Interesting point about liberalizing relations with Cuba, and how does that affect the Israel lobby?”

Obsessed? A bit. But perhaps we should wait for Chuck Hagel to actually be nominated as secretary of defense before we write off this view of the power of the pro-Israel lobby as completely delusional.

al-Jazeera will be running its American operation under a separate U.S.-based news channel with its own staff, which shows recognition of the issue of bias. Much of the paranoia about al-Jazeera rests on a somewhat antiquated notion of media ownership. While any of us writing about media will occasionally fall back on the vision of the willful reactionary owner (read: Rupert Murdoch) controlling the direction of his empire, the reality is more complicated. Reporters, editors, advertisers, sources, competitors, corporate strategists and even the audience shape the content of modern media. Bringing al-Jazeera to more of America may also mean bringing more of America to al-Jazeera.

There may be winners on both sides. We Americans do brag about our marketplace of ideas. The U.S. audience may gain access to the perspectives of a respected international network covering stories from regions of the world — sub-Saharan Africa, the various -stans and South Asia — that our national media has largely ignored. Al-Jazeera may gain insights into people that are far more diverse, engaged and welcoming than many of the images it broadcasts abroad.

Those still stridently opposing this alien investment in our homeland might remember the words of the great media strategist Lyndon Johnson. When asked why he had brought a longtime political antagonist into his camp, he replied: “Better to have him inside the tent pissing out than outside the tent pissing in.”

UPDATE 5/5/2015
More of Geller’s hateful ads were to appear on NYC subways ‘Killing Jews is Worship’ posters will soon appear on NYC subways and buses.  After all the controversy and legal battles over this and other hateful ads produced by Geller and Spencer’s AFDI, MTA votes to ban all political ads. ”…  New York follows in the footsteps of cities including Los Angeles, Chicago and Philadelphia, which already have banned political ads on public transit…”  (See: How New York City Buses Are Becoming Vehicles for Hateful Speech http://gawker.com/how-new-york-city-buses-are-becoming-vehicles-for-hate-1700075181?utm_campaign=socialflow_gawker_twitter&utm_source=gawker_twitter&utm_medium=socialflow )

It is ironic that Geller who hides hate speech under the claim of “defending freedom of speech” is personally responsible for reducing the amount of free speech in the public square.  This sort of confusion about the meaning of free speech is not surprising since previously Pamela Geller Defended Free Speech By Calling for Censorship (of Al Jazeera), clearly Pamela Geller Does Not Understand Freedom of Speech.

Perhaps Pamela Geller should read my article Freedom of speech does not include freedom from condemnation of that speech to gain a better understanding of this Constitutional freedom that we all share as citizens of this great country.

As I said in that article:

… What all of these folks don’t seem to understand is that freedom of speech does not come with freedom from condemnation of that speech, and condemnation of hate speech does not equal an attempt to take away the freedom of speech from those making such hateful speech.  Condemnation is NOT implementing “a de facto blasphemy law dealing with Islam in the United States.”

It is perfectly reasonable to both disagree with, or even condemn the speech of another, and at the same time defend their right to engage in such speech.  It is perfectly reasonable to ask an individual to consider the possible implications of hate speech.  It is perfectly reasonable to defend freedom of speech, and yet make a judgement that some speech is not socially acceptable, even though it is legal.  It is also perfectly reasonable to carry out peaceful protests against hateful speech.  Any intimidation or violence carried out in response to speech is immoral, and illegal and also deserves condemnation and prosecution. …

Pamela Geller’s AFDI sponsored a “Draw Muhammad” cartoon contest in Garland, Texas on Sunday, May 3rd.  Tragically a couple of extremists showed up and began shooting.  Thank God they only injured one individual before being shot and killed by a policeman.  What will be the fallout from this event remains to be seen, but Geller insists that she did this to defend freedom of speech.  In the past few days, this is already sparking a debate on the line between free speech and hate speech, and it is very possible that Geller’s hate speech will once again reduce the amount of free speech in the public square.

Obama and Pay Day Loans: How do we regulate poverty lending?

http://reut.rs/1xIPscP

God “Sick And Tired” Of National Day Of Prayer

GOD!!

VATICAN CITY – (CT&P) – After his normal Friday lunch with Pope Francis, God paused briefly outside the Vatican to discuss world events and crises with members of the international press corps. The deity expressed concern over ongoing problems in Ukraine, the Middle East, and David Cameron’s shocking reelection in Great Britain.

“I don’t know what the hell those people were thinking re-electing that two-faced Tory aristocrat,” said God. “You think they would’ve learned their lesson by now.”

Sean-Hannity

When a reporter from Fox News asked the Creator and Ruler of the Universe what he thought was accomplished by America’s National Day of Prayer yesterday, God responded, “Not a damn thing as far as I can tell.”

“Frankly, I’m sick and tired of it,” said the Supreme Being. “It’s not enough that I have to field requests every damn day about Little Johnny’s toenail fungus and Aunt Lizzie’s sick chickens, not to mention the millions of teenage boys praying that they lose their virginity before graduation, and the gazillions of requests for cash I get on an hourly basis. No, you guys have to go and proclaim a special day where everybody stops what the hell they’re doing and bombards my ass with all kinds of ridiculous requests.”

“My advice to you talking monkeys is that you take advantage of millions of years of natural selection and use your huge brains to come up with some of your own solutions to your problems. In other words, if you want something done, then get off your ass and do it! I’m busy trying to run a universe here. I’ve got better things to do than listen to you sniveling cretins in sagging skin sacks. I mean, shit!”

God then apologized to reporters and explained that he had to leave because he was due in the Andromeda galaxy to supervise a planet-wide referendum on third trimester abortions by the Reptile People.

DEA Steals $16,000 In Cash From Young Black Man, Because He Must Be A Drug Dealer

DEA AGENT

DEA Steals $16,000 In Cash From Young Black Man, Because He Must Be A Drug Dealer.

Hockey’s budget black hole solution: Send Hockey and Abbott to China to fix their economy. It’s their fault.

Hockey’s budget black hole solution.

Five More Years of Tory Government: What Fresh Hell Is This?

By Roisin Davis

It’s been an astonishing election, one that stumped the betting markets, gave victory to the Tories and left almost everyone else reeling and wondering, in the words of Dorothy Parker, “What fresh hell is this?”

Amid the highest voter turnout since 1997, Prime Minister David Cameron and his Conservative Party trounced the opposition to return with a majority 331 seats (out of 650). Ed Miliband (Labour) and Nick Clegg (Liberal Democrats) have now resigned as leaders of their parties. Unencumbered by the centrist Lib Dem coalition, the Tories will have free rein to advance their brutal politics of inequality.

Cameron, an almost Monty Python-esque upper-class caricature, will lead Britain further down the murky path of austerity, privatization, increased surveillance and jingoism. The Tory electoral victory has, for now, annihilated multiparty politics and emboldened British nationalism to a dangerous degree.

If this sounds extreme, let’s turn first to the Tories’ program of 30 billion pounds ($46 billion) in cuts. This program, what some have called a “secret plan,” contains 12 billion pounds ($18.5 billion) in cuts aimed at some of Britain’s most vulnerable. It includes increased taxes on benefits for the disabled and massive reductions in benefits to caregivers and struggling parents


One result is likely to be a greater need for food banks. Under the Tories, the number of food banks has already increased from 56 to 445, and, according to a University of Oxford study, the Conservatives’ cuts will force 2.1 million Britons to use food banks by 2017-18, double the current figure.

Ignoring the root causes of food-bank dependency, Cameron’s party will ensure that the wealthy are protected above all else. Even though his government came to power in 2010 on a deficit-reducing platform, government spending has been reduced by only 3 percent, and the money cut from services has in fact been recycled into lavish tax breaks for the rich—a 7-billion-pound prize (almost $11 billion) for returning Cameron to Downing Street.

Over the next five years, inequality will be deepened by a 10 percent cut in school funding and the “stealth privatization” of the National Health Service (NHS). Undoubtedly, the attack on the world’s premier public health care system is one of the most heartbreaking aspects of the Tory tenure. In March, Cameron signed the largest privatization deal in the system’s history, worth 780 million pounds ($1.2 billion), and increased NHS privatization by a staggering 500 percent in the last year. As an article in Open Democracy has pointed out, the U.K.’s transition toward the U.S. model was affirmed by Cameron’s Health and Social Care Act, which ended the government’s duty to provide its citizens with health care, a duty that had existed in some form since the NHS was created by Labour in 1948.

The coming years will also bear witness to an assault on the basic rights and freedoms of U.K. citizens. Now that the Conservatives are free from the constraints of the Liberal Democrat coalition, their next term will see a boost in surveillance under the Snooper’s Charter. This legislation, previously blocked by the Lib Dems, “is expected to force British internet service providers to keep huge amounts of data on their customers, and to make that information available to the government and security services,” according to The Independent.

“Speaking in January,” The Independent continues, “[Cameron] said that there should be no form of communication that the government was unable to read—likely causing chaos among the many internet services that rely on encryption to keep users’ data safe.”

Cameron’s government also is expected to keep its promise of scrapping the Human Rights Act and replacing it with a British bill of rights. What exactly this new bill of rights will be remains unclear, but as Labour’s justice spokesman, Sadiq Khan, said: “I’ve lost count of how many times the Tories have promised a British Bill of Rights. But still they can’t spell out how it would differ from the Human Rights Act. If it is different, Cameron needs to be honest with the British people and say which rights he wants to strip from them—the right to a fair trial, the right to life or perhaps the right to privacy or freedom of expression?”

In 1951, the U.K. was one of the first countries to ratify the European Convention on Human Rights, which was championed early on by Winston Churchill as a means of preventing the re-emergence of fascism. What the new, selective approach to human rights will offer is a shameful destruction of that legacy. What this also provides is a symbolic rejection of European Union “meddling” in Britain’s governance—a rejection that Cameron’s now-imminent 2017 EU referendum will advance, especially when it comes to restricting immigration and migrant rights.

Euro-skepticism, however, is nowhere to be found when it comes to Tory support for the disastrous Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) deal, which will transfer a significant amount of Britain’s sovereignty to multinational corporations. In addition to its assault on democracy, the TTIP will further endanger the U.K.’s public services (including the good old NHS) and may spell huge job losses.

In this fresh hell, Cameron and his soon-to-be-unleashed radical agenda will preside over widening inequality and the further dismantling of social protections. As the shock subsides, inevitable questions will emerge about how Britain’s left will fight back. But with Miliband’s failed attempt at a slightly softer neoliberal agenda offering no real alternative, the next five years require a stronger fight than ever.

John Cleese Gives Yanks the Lowdown on the U.K. Elections (from @Truthdig)

John Cleese Gives Yanks the Lowdown on the U.K. Elections (from @Truthdig).

Rupert Murdoch backs another election victor, but was it the Sun wot won it? | Politics | The Guardian

Newspaper front pages

Rupert Murdoch backs another election victor, but was it the Sun wot won it? | Politics | The Guardian.

Why the polls got it so wrong in the British election

Why the polls got it so wrong in the British election.

Interviews with Climate Scientists

Climate Science Deniers Part 2

Pity the Climate Change Denialist – » The Australian Independent Media Network

climate-hoax

Pity the Climate Change Denialist – » The Australian Independent Media Network.

PM’s Chief Business Advisor Sees Communist Red Over ‘Climate Change Hoax’ |

 

PM’s Chief Business Advisor Sees Communist Red Over ‘Climate Change Hoax’ | newmatilda.com.

Mordechai Kedar Joined Geller and Spencer At Pro-Israel, Anti-Muslim Rally

Mordechai-Kedar-at-AFDI-rally-August-2014
If you had any doubts of the type of cretins we are dealing with look who flew-in just for the anti-Muslim, pro-Israel massacre on Gaza rally.via. IslamophobiaWatch

Yesterday Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer’s American Freedom Defense Initiative held a rally in Union Square, New York, under the slogan “We the living support Israel”.

In an apparent attempt to boost turnout – even Geller must be aware that the vast majority of New York’s Jewish community, including committed supporters of the state of Israel, will have nothing to do with her – the event was subtitled “And minorities persecuted under Islamic rule”.

According to Geller, an individual who enjoys at best a tenuous relationship with reality, the event attracted “thousands” of AFDI supporters, though it’s odd that her website contains no pictures of this vast throng. From photographic evidence, it looks as though the attendance was at most a couple of hundred. A report at the Huffington Post puts it at “around 150″.

The speakers included Israeli academic Mordechai Kedar (pictured), who flew to the US specially to address the rally. According to Geller’s report, he devoted his speech to showing “how the jihadists are proceeding according to quranic imperatives”.

You’ll remember Kaidar. He’s the man who recently hit the headlines after he argued that the only thing that would deter attacks on Israel would be if the sisters or mothers of the perpetrators were raped.

Revolutionary Tesla battery heralds end of fossil fuels

Revolutionary Tesla battery heralds end of fossil fuels.

Caught between Assad’s regime and Islamist violence, the Syrian peace movement finds its voice.