Another Africa Day

Another May 25, another Africa Day, another round of back-slapping, gala dinners, empty promises made in verborrea-filled speeches, collections of meaningless clichés and words of the occasion and over fifty years on, here we go again with a "day" to celebrate the entire continent's woes and to insult its inhabitants to the core.

Another May 25, another Africa Day, commemorating the day when the Organization of African Unity was established back in 1963 and instituted by the African Union in July 2002. And what difference has this "day" made over the last year in the continent where tens of millions of people were transported against their will to be illegally detained as slaves just a few centuries ago, in Africa's holocaust?

In a word, none. As usual, Africa Day 2015 commemorates a continent which last year saw shocking degrees of incompetence and nonchalance reverberate through the international community as Ebola Virus Disease swept through West Africa until it became a public health emergency and ultimately claimed 11,140 deaths. "Yes, we were a bit slow off the mark" was the conclusion.

Tweet

• Print version
• Font Size
• Send to friend

It commemorates a continent whose mentor for the great African project, Libya's Muammar al-Qathafi, was unceremoniously and illegally removed from his position by the FUKUS Axis (France-UK-US) using terrorists as their foot-soldiers in 2011, as the country with the highest human development index in the continent was reduced to utter chaos, which continues today. Speaking of which, it commemorates the continent whose leaders demonstrated a sickening degree of cowardice as they looked the other way and saw al-Qathafi lynched. And did nothing.

As the FUKUS Axis destroyed the Libya water supply and electricity grid "to break their backs" (those of the civilians, of course), it also bombed away al-Qathafi's pan-African healthcare and e-learning programs rendering the entire continent weaker and presenting the sorry scenario we see today. This is a scenario of weak capacities in pan-African organizations to draw up meaningful statistics, it is a scenario of inadequate administrative capacities, insufficient professional independence, lack of sustainable funding and lack of training programs.

So no wonder thousands of young Africans flock to the shores of the Mediterranean desperately trying to buy a passage across the sea to Europe, the continent which once colonized their forefathers and took them on a similar journey chained together lying in a sea of excrement on the slave ships to be whipped and caned and raped and abused on sugar plantations on the other side of the Atlantic. Many of these slaves were literate and could read and write in Arabic and other languages, which were banned on the plantations by the owners and foremen, who in almost all cases were semi-literate or illiterate, even in their own languages.

And what has Africa Day done for these migrants whose only option in life is to risk life and limb to get to a continent where they are disrespected and unwanted? Ask that to the thousands pulled dead from the sea. Ask that to the flotilla of European Union boats on their way to "intercept" the traffickers. Ask that to the terrorists used by the West operating in Libya who after slaughtering boys and girls, raping women and slicing their breasts off, have now turned their activities to torturing and using and abusing African migrants from the south.

Africa Day commemorates a continent where Boko Haram perpetrates the most shocking human rights violations, as Islamic State does in the Middle East but since Boko Haram has not defaced any ancient statues and instead just kidnapped and raped a few hundred schoolgirls, the entire story has been dropped.

It commemorates a continent rife with violence, wars and human rights atrocities which if anything, get worse by the year.

In economic terms, Africa Day commemorates a year in which again there was visible growth in the sale of commodities (as usual on a one-way street out of Africa on terms and conditions favoring the buyer). Yet does the sale of commodities do anything to stimulate the economy by investing in economic diversification, in creating jobs or fostering social development, creating added value? The answer in all cases is no.

Africa Day commemorates a continent where a slave can be bought for 11 Euros in Mauretania and 64 Euros in Sudan, it commemorates a continent where today millions of people are held in conditions of slavery or quasi-slavery.

It commemorates international reports drawn up by consulting houses which make broad statements such as "manuals should be drawn up and printed which use established international standards". They have been saying that for decades. They speak about "creating a technological environment". Al-Qathafi was trying that and look what happened to him.

Africa Day commemorates statistics which sees the illiteracy rate rise from 65 to 71% in the decade since 2005 in Benin and which remains at way over a third of the adult population in a large number of countries.

Forgive me for not celebrating yet another Africa Day and for wondering why I feel depressed to the core every time I write about this continent.

Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey

Pravda.Ru  

(timothy.hinchey@gmail.com)

*Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey has worked as a correspondent, journalist, deputy editor, editor, chief editor, director, project manager, executive director, partner and owner of printed and online daily, weekly, monthly and yearly publications, TV stations and media groups printed, aired and distributed in Angola, Brazil, Cape Verde, East Timor, Guinea-Bissau, Portugal, Mozambique and São Tomé and Principe Isles; the Russian Foreign Ministry publication Dialog and the Cuban Foreign Ministry Official Publications. He has spent the last two decades in humanitarian projects, connecting communities, working to document and catalog disappearing languages, cultures, traditions, working to network with the LGBT communities helping to set up shelters for abused or frightened victims and as Media Partner with UN Women, working to foster the UN Women project to fight against gender violence and to strive for an end to sexism, racism and homophobia. He is also a Media Partner of Humane Society International, fighting for animal rights.

Source : english[dot]pravda[dot]ru

post from sitemap

Is Wi-Fi Making Our Kids Sick?

The French government has just banned Wifi in nursery schools: should we be worried for our kids?

In February this year, the French government banned Wi-Fi in nursery schools.

In Germany, the government has recommended that the use of Wi-Fi in the workplace or home should be avoided where possible. 

However, here in Australia, the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) has declared that it’s totally fine for Aussie schools to have Wi-Fi networks as there is, “no established scientific evidence showing that the low exposure to radio waves from Wi-Fi adversely affects the health of children”.

So, the question is, who is right?

Digging a little deeper into the ‘is Wifi safe’ debate, there are multiple opinions across the world and the debate seems to be changing with new information coming to light all the time.

In fact here in Australia, the government has just put 5 million dollars behind the recently established health initiative - The Australian Centre for Electromagnetic Bioeffects Research — in order to study the effects of electromagnetic energy on brain function. So far, they centre has found no clear evidence that low-level electromagnetic radiation has an impact on health. 

So we can all breathe a sigh of relief, right? 

Wrong.

The Centre’s director, Professor Rodney Croft, told News that while this is the current case, “there is not enough information, particularly relating to children, to be sure that it doesn’t’’.

So where do we all stand now?

According to ARPANSA, “On the basis of current scientific information, ARPANSA sees no reason why Wi-Fi should not continue to be used in schools and in other places. However, ARPANSA recognises that exposure to RF EME from Wi-Fi and other wireless devices can be of concern to some parents. ARPANSA will continue to review the research into potential health effects of RF EME emissions from Wi-Fi and other devices in order to provide accurate and up to date advice.”

But on their website it states that if parents are concerned about the effects of Wifi on kids they should, consider increasing the distance to Wi-Fi equipment and reduce the amount of time you use Wi-Fi equipment.

Is anyone else confused about whether or not Wifi is safe for their kids? 


Is Wifi something you worry about, especially in schools?

Source : nickjrparents[dot]com[dot]au

post from sitemap

Arab leaders and insanity of sectarian warfare

 

Source: Pravda.Ru photo archive

By Mahboob A. Khawaja, PhD. 

Wars kill human beings and destroy human habitats. But the Western warmongers flag it as a positive development for change and economic necessity. Its net result is the militarization of the societal thinking and geopolitics. Peace is not the outcome of wars and human cruelty. The ongoing Arab sectarian warfare spells out dark images of human paradoxes. The global community is watchful of all the developments shaping the sectarian bloodbaths in the Arab Middle East. What surprises most across the Arab bewildered human consciousness that continuing deaths and destructions are the agenda-making items, whereas, reconciliation and peace-making leading to conflict management are not the top strategic priorities. America and Britain control and manage the Arab leadership mindset.

Tweet

• Print version
• Font Size
• Send to friend

Terrorism myth and the ISIL war advances warrant rethinking and nobody is ready to face the reality check. Facts speak the language of reality loud and clear. Time and history are not on the side of American-led war adventures and humanitarian disasters happening daily throughout the Arabian Peninsula. All war monsters are on the losing end. None can explain logically why and for what purpose are they engaged in humanitarian catastrophes. Logic seeks truth. Simply put, America, Britain and its Arab coalition do not have the moral and intellectual capacity to face the truth. The fake war paradigm is expanding to create favorable opportunities for the warmongers to trade-in oil supplies for weapons of mass destruction to the affluent oil exporting Arab countries. Arab leaders do not enjoin moral and intellectual capacity to think of their own national interests and priorities. There is no critical thinking and no public institutions amongst the Arab elite to determine what is right and what is wrong. They are faithful followers of foreign military dictum.

Conflicts can be Managed by Reconciliation and Peacemaking

In an interview to AlJezeera TV news (05/22/2015), Hillary Leverett, a former official of the US State Department and a current Professor at Georgetown University clarified that American and British invasion of 2003 had created the political disasters in Iraq. She outlined how both of them had incapacitated the Iraqi political governance and ushered the era of sectarian warfare. When asked, what is needed to change the strategic balance against ISIL advances, she made it known that reconciliation and peacemaking should have been the strategic agenda and now it is a lost game. America and Britain are fighting proxy wars and the ten years of illegal occupation of Iraq and deliberate dismantling of its institutions are the real factors for Iraq's political defeat.  Do the US leaders have any strategy for a navigational change?  The Arab coalition and America are not winning the war but creating Arab cultural annihilation and destruction of the human habitats.  

Ironically, America and Britain both have enriched capacity in military planning and strategic development. Yet, none seems to offer any possibility for change and successful strategy to encounter the ISIL fighting strategy. Is it a deliberate policy to imagine the enriched Arab nations to be bogged down in foreign dictates of bloodbath and human destruction on such large scale unknown in modern history?  If so, who will gain most out of the religious divides and political defeats across the Arab world?  Even most intelligent strategic planners lack understanding of the immediate and long terms consequences of their own military actions. Most would draw comfort that wars are the continuing phenomenon across the Arab world, not in any parts of Western Europe or American sphere of ethnic and cultural influence. 

The rise of sectarian bloodbath, the ISIL-Alqaeda and the emergence of Arab military coalition are planned distractions from the real issues of the Arab Middle East. The issue of Palestine and the prospective establishment of an independent State of Palestine and formation of normal ties with Israel are the pertinent issues to be addressed. The Western proponent of animosity view it blessing in disguise for opportunities to distract and to carve-up a war theatre by collapsed Arab leadership lacking courage and intellectual vision for change and political development. There is no righteous cause and harmony between the rulers and the ruled. They live in conflicting time zones manned and infested by foreigners to support the secretive police apparatus and continuity of authoritarian governance denying Islam a place for change and human manifestation as was the case in the Arabian history.  

Arab Leaders Lack Rational Understanding of Global Affairs

What went wrong to the Arab leadership mindset?  They are so divided and enjoin moral and intellectual discord that one cannot foresee any signs of modest recovery in the near future. Often leadership's individuality is a factor to propel belligerency and feuds. There is no creative thought or coherent search for a navigational change and more so, to look for reconciliation and innovative approaches toward conflict management and peacemaking. Professor Fouad Ajami (Arab Predicament) noted it all: "the problems of Arab world are the result of self-inflicted wounds."  Why can't the Arab leaders initiate a dialogue for reconciliation and problem-solving to deal with ISIL? Until the 2003 US-led attack on Iraq, there was no al-Qaeda, no ISIL and no terrorism in the Arab heartland. The US and Britain created the havoc societal conditions to divide the Arabs into Sunnis-Shias animosities to occupy Iraq. How can the sectarian bloodbath resolve the multifaceted inherent problems when there is no viable institutionalized mechanism to address the political issues?  Strangely enough, all oil exporting Arab rulers appear to rely on America and Britain for military support and conflict resolution.  John Scales Avery ("Is the Threat of Terrorism Real?" Information Clearing House: 01/06/2014), is a member of the TRANSCEND Network and Associate Professor Emeritus at the H.C. Ørsted Institute, University of Copenhagen, Denmark. Professor Avery outlines the true motives propagated for the threat of terrorism:

Is the threat of terrorism real? Or is it like the barking of a dog driving a herd?..... Millions starve. Millions die yearly from preventable diseases. Millions die as a consequence of wars....Terrorism is an invented threat. Our military industrial complex invented it to take the place of the threat of communism after the end of the Cold War. They invented it so that they would be able to continue spending 1,700,000,000,000 dollars each year on armaments, an amount almost too large to be imagined....So the people, the driven cattle, have been made to fear terrorism. How wants this done? It was easy after 9/11. Could it be that the purpose of the 9/11 disaster was to make people fear terrorism, so that they could be more easily manipulated, more easily deprived of their civil rights, more easily driven into a war against Iraq?

Towards Unity of Purpose and New Thinking for Political Change

Islam taught and practiced unity in cultural diversity. Yet, the message of Islam has been ignored and denied a rightful place in the contemporary Arabian political governance. There is a rational criterion for moral and political accountability to God if they believe- in and the people they claim to serve. None of the Arab leaders have capacity to face the reality check. They are wrong people, embedded with wrong thinking and continued to do the wrong things in global political affairs. All Arab states appear to be on the path self-engineered destruction because of the authoritarianism. The wars in Iraq, Syria, Libya, Egypt, Yemen and entrapment of Saudi Arabia will continue until the Western masters are sure of ultimate cultural, economic and political destruction to make the Arabs captive for future-making. It is already happening, why to wait for the coming future.  

To change the course of time and history, Arab people deserve new thinking and new- age proactive and intelligent leaders from the young and educated generations to imagine a new world of hope and optimism for political change and future-making. Wars and man-made conflicts will not disappear on their own but will continue to have ripple effects on the future generations. The cancerous egoism of the few has dislodged the world of new thinking and political change through peaceful means.  Why are there more than four millions Iraqi refugees in their own homeland?  Why the Government of PM Al-Abaidi not allow several thousands displaced Sunni people from Ramadi to enter Baghdad's protective sanctuary? Why do Shias and Sunni daily commit crimes against each other? Do they long for paradise by cold-blooded massacres of fellow Muslims?  Are the Arabs and Muslims so mean and inhuman that they cannot distinguish between right and wrong?  Arguably, wickedness and piety cannot be combined in one human character.

Arab leaders and the masses live in conflicting time zones often unable to connect with one another. The US orchestrated militarization has dehumanized the Arab moral, spiritual and intellectual culture in which all positive and creative thinking for political change are viewed as anti-state acts of terrorism. Its imagery is fast becoming a culture of political nuisance and absurdity draining out the primary values and principles of Islam as a way of life.  The Arab masses urgently need transformational leaders who can think rationally out of the box and act intelligently to protect the people, the culture and future from deaths and destruction. This does not sound like a day dream but an attainable goal only if the Arab people take action to change the course of history or else wars and perpetuated sectarian belligerency will consume all that is morally and intellectually valuable and credible assets for a sustainable future. There is no military triumph in seeking a peaceful transformation for political change and future-building. 

Mahboob Khawaja

(Dr. Mahboob A. Khawaja specializes in global security, peace and conflict resolution with keen interests in Islamic-Western comparative cultures and civilizations, and author of several publications including the latest: Global Peace and Conflict Management: Man and Humanity in Search of New Thinking. Lambert Academic Publishing, Germany, May 2012).

 

Source : english[dot]pravda[dot]ru

post from sitemap

Choi Byul-I Photo & Imaging 2015

Model Choi Byul I at Seoul International Photo & Imaging Industry Show (P&I) in April 2015 with Nikon cameras and a lucky teddy bear.

Source : koreangirlshd[dot]com

post from sitemap

Another Decapitator-in-Chief of America's Working Class

 

By Ben Tanosborn

It is not Senators Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders who don't get it.  It is our near-sighted Globalist-in-Chief who really doesn't get it, following in the footsteps of that other Republican-lite president, William Jefferson Clinton.  But what can one expect, given the advice he's getting from a cadre of Wall-Streeters working with, or influencing, the White House?  Or, from a president who has confessed to being a "great admirer" of celebrated JP Morgan Chase chief, Jamie Dimon?

A few days ago President Obama honored our Portland (Oregon) area with a visit to promote the Trans-Pacific Trade Partnership (TPP) agreement; which for all intents and purposes is but another addition to the gallery of NAFTA, CAFTA, and PNTR ugly siblings.  Perhaps an even uglier sibling in this period of expanding economic inequality!

Tweet

• Print version
• Font Size
• Send to friend

It seems comical, yet ill-omened, how Barack Obama is herding the already decimated middle class along a path sure to reach economic oblivion, while maintaining support from much of the old guard of school-government-trade unionists which has kept the Democratic Party afloat during the last five decades in a conservative sea dominated by currents of old-time religion and misguided patriotism.

Common sense and humanity, and not just blind acceptance of global economics, tell us that eventually most barriers to competition should be coming down; and that there will be a significant trend towards greater homogenization in both productivity and personal income throughout much of world.  But we might still be two or three generations away from such happening, assuming changes take place in an orderly and least painful fashion... without allowing our politicians, Democrats or Republicans alike, to follow the will of the elite that place them in power... and, correspondingly, expect a payback.

And that's where we are today in Congress, ominously on the eve of passing this terrible TPP legislation sure to reach a smiling Obama, pen in hand ready to sign, instead of rejecting it with a forceful and merited veto.Could it be that Obama is suffering from the same illusionary political disease as Bill Clinton, after the latter's receipt of unmerited kudos for all the low-paying jobs created during his two terms in office?  Is it so difficult to understand that job numbers can have a profoundly different significance in economic, social and political terms than labor income?

Regardless of the POTUS' misleading sermonizing on "what's good for the United States," the reality is acrimoniously different.  The anticipated net outsource of labor income sure to come from the TPP agreement is likely to be similar in results as past global renditions initiated with NAFTA.  The economic capillary effect of this agreement (TPP) will affect labor significantly, not just in the manufacturing sector (possibly losing half as many jobs as the number lost to China and the American hemisphere in the past two decades), but also in the service sector - and here, we are not referring to jobs in low remuneration call centers, but jobs with high technical skills in both medicine and engineering, which could result in the loss of half of the  now existing - and anticipated increases - programmer jobs; and a reduction in overall pay of the remaining half by a third or more.

Other areas in Americans' lives will also be affected or threatened, from food safety standards, to the environment, to increases in the already stratospheric cost of drugs, to the protection of rights and sovereignty that we've inherited from the sacrifice of past generations.

So who's to gain from this TPP agreement that Barack Obama is pushing with greater fervor than that exhibited in critical domestic issues such as immigration reform and the (dirty secret) racial divide?  As it's always the case in our predatory society, Corporate America and its circle of influential friends are the culprit... and it's beginning to look as if the villains will get their way: Wall Street, Big Pharma, and a long list of multinationals displaying their corporate flags at the top of the pole, knowing that their safety is in the good hands of the Pentagon; all international policing costs defrayed by the American taxpayer... in its incredible masochistic docility.

ISIS' literal style of decapitation is repugnant and shocking. US' self-imposed economic decapitation may not appear at first as shocking, but the end result will be as gruesome to America's working class: not the proletariat of old, but most everyone holding both blue and white collar jobs.

Ben Tanosborn                   

Source : english[dot]pravda[dot]ru

post from sitemap

America and Russia clash in Macedonia

By Ylli Përmeti

As Moscow was celebrating Victory Day over Nazism on May 9, we witnessed a fight in the city of Kumanovo in which the Macedonian police were protagonist. At first it was a fight without an opponent. A few hours later, news agencies reported that the "opponent" was "the National Liberation Army" of the Albanians. As a result, 22 innocent people were killed (14 members of the army, eight police officers, a lot of wounded and ruined residencies). Although the event will be reported by the final report of the Macedonian police, on how it begun, which, unsurprisingly, is being delayed, judging from the final result - we may conclude that it has fired without warning.

Tweet

• Print version
• Font Size
• Send to friend

First, because the police had preliminary information of it. For the same reason they could manage it differently: for example, by encircling and pressuring it to hand over into the police. Second, there was an unequal confrontation of powers: a powerful army (state's forces with heavy army), with a very inferior power. The police, therefore, violated the mandate: because the police before attacking s/o seek preliminary negotiations. For the role of the police is to prevent injuries, pains and bloodshed. And if we judge from the communiqué and of the action of the Albanian "army" - it bears three main contradictions:

• it claims to be a "liberation" army for all national Albanians. This is a contradiction because to represent a whole people it must be approved by it;

• it was there 'as a result of the terror exercised upon the Albanian people from the police state of Macedonia'. This is a contradiction because it ignores the emergence of revolt "from within", namely, from the same people; and

• it does not mention the right of Kumanovian people, for Self-determination and for the creation of another institutional framework through it the Albanian and Macedonian people will live together in harmony. On the contrary, it tells us that it 'is loyal of the ideal and the last will of martyrs, [and it] will fight until the end, for an Albanian national state, free and pure'!

The realization of the objective 'for an Albanian national state, free and pure' implies a lot of dynamics. But I will emphasise the last two conceptions: "free" and "pure" - by raising a question: 'free' and 'pure' from whom? Presumably from Macedonians! The approach for a 'pure' nation has been adopted historically by the Nazi. But let us hope that with 'purity' they mean "something" else.

Who triggered the fighting in Kumanovo?

Thus, this "army" misrepresent every struggle for "social and national liberation": because the struggle for liberation begins "from the oppressed people" and must not be pushed "from without", whoever may be. So here we are talking about for "social and national liberation". Not only for "national liberation". The later has been embraced historically by the "National Front" in Albania which collaborated with the Nazi! In short, this "army", if we can call it an 'army', cannot represent the whole people of Albania, since it violates every principle of 'representing' and 'liberation'. And there is another contradiction: they showed a lack of military organization since they courted disaster. Because if they were truly military officers - they wouldn't undertake such an action - particularly in actual conditions in which both Albania and Kosovo are in a deep multi-dimensional crisis.

Also read: Russia must build strong Orthodox coalition in Europe to defeat the West

The state of Macedonia, on the other hand, suffers from everything that other neighbouring countries suffer too - if not every country integrated into the New World Order (NWO) of Neoliberal Globalization (N/G) fully or/and partly. So, first, in Macedonia, there is no political organization that would fight for Self-determination and national unification. Albanian political parties have adopted the approach similar to all political parties in Albania: to integrate the country into the NWO of N/G. Second, Macedonia has installed the modern institutional framework of representative "democracy" and market economy as all other countries in the region and beyond - where the heteronomy and the exploitation of humans by humans is the main characteristic of the state. The concentration of power therefore becomes unavoidable. The ecofascism, in the double sense -economic and ecological- becomes also unavoidable. The accusations that the state of Macedonia is fascistic and the solution is the eradication of Macedonia, which are coming from "patriotic" circles, are without scientific foundation. Even if we accept this approach, the issue of organised ecofascism, as it was mentioned above, cannot be solved.

The use of Scanderbeg, the national hero of Albania, on the other hand, as an inspiration for the liberation of the Albanian territories from these circles is contradictory: because Scanderbeg, just because he was a 'strategist' (this word implies good knowledge of the military strategies, the advantages and disadvantages of the parties involved in the war and, of international politics) - triumphed in his battles against the biggest Empire of the time: the Ottoman Empire. Moreover, he had the approval of the Albanian people for leading it in war battles; had created the conditions and had a visible enemy. Unlike that time, the Albanians who fight for 'freedom', not only failed to create the conditions in the 'bosom' of the oppressed Albanians (Macedonia etc.) but they, unlike Scanderbeg, cooperate with the biggest Empire of our time: America! Namely, they cooperate with the hub of global power in order to replace a smaller regional power: the Macedonian state power. In addition, they cooperate with a power that lives thousands of miles away from them. This orientation in itself will estrange the people of the region with which they lived and will live in the same area for thousands of years. So, these circles, instead of revealing the real enemy of the people -the modern institutional framework and neoliberal globalization- and to self-criticise for their spontaneous actions from different organizations, they conform with the general approach that the enemy is Gruevsky who, moreover, may use the military doctrine of state terror for political reasons under the flag of the opposition (false flag)!

Who wants to set up Macedonian Prime Minister Gruevsky? 

Thirdly, the crisis in Macedonia was caused by the opposition leader, Zoran Zaev, when he revealed in public that the government of Gruevsky wiretapped his citizens. According to him, wiretapping was made possible with the help of a foreign agency! Albanian political parties have stood far from this battle. So the appearance of the Albanian armed forces in Kumanovo cannot have any relation with the battle of the political parties in power. On the other hand, the actual government consolidated its relations with the Russian government with the appointment of the new ambassador to Moscow, Goce Karajanov, an ex-member of the Russian Institute for International Relations. Meanwhile, Russia supported Macedonia for the arrests in Kumanovo in April of this year and condemned the efforts of Zaev for the "colour revolution" he has warned. Unlike other countries in the region, Macedonia sent its president for the Victory Day in Moscow and does not support Washington's sanctions against Russia.

Russian and Serbian newspapers, meanwhile, propagate the creation of "Greater Albania". The main problem with this propaganda is that it does not mention the right of the Albanian people for Self-determination! Nor do they mention the main characteristic of modern state: the concentration of power. It would not be a surprise that the government of Russia related the events in Kumanovo with the opposing stance of the Macedonian government against anti-Russian Western sanctions and the Balkan Stream gas pipeline. This confrontation raged with the revealing conversation of the interior minister, Jankulofska, in which she's being fascisticised against the Albanians of Macedonia. Clearly, it aimed at angering and including the Albanians of Macedonia for the 17^th May protest against the government.

The Americans, on the other hand, understood that Russia, with the agreement with Turkey - and later on with Greece (the government of "SYRIZA")- that the new stream, which could pass through Macedonia and beyond, along the line of the "TAP", which is being controlled directly by Washington and Brussels' bureaucrats, may challenge its monopoly. In other words, it will threaten its profits from the "TAP". For the same reason the annulment of the gas-project of Russia in the Balkans for Washington is a priority. It is not accidental that Washington uses the argument of 'dependence' from Russia and ignores the fact that it 'monopolises' the sector of energy in the region and beyond! And it is not accidental that after the agreement between the Greek and the Russian governments about the Balkan Stream, Washington "castrated" Greek Foreign Minister Nikolaos Kotzias by visiting him in all Zionist's "nests" (AIPAC, B'nai B'rith etc.) and other centres of international relations (CSIS etc.). Immediately after the meeting Washington sent its envoy of the State Department of Energy, Amos Hochstein, to Athens.

If we judge from recent reports, Washington is putting pressure both on Athens and Brussels for the annulment of the Russian project. And, it is not accidental that Greece operates unilaterally in some disputed regions for oil, and Washington keeps silent: because Greece signed an agreement in 2013 for the creation of a US army base in southern Greece to patrol the entire region with the use of UAVs! To implement the project, it would be normal that the government of Greece would seek Washington's diplomatic assistance in puting pressure on Albania. The latter, moreover, is being occupied economically mainly by three countries: Italy, Greece and Turkey, and has no political power for negotiations.

Thus, instead of fighting for the Russian gas, both countries, Greece and Albania, in order to put pressure on the price of the western gas industry and to lower the cost of production...they are playing the game of Washington and are in the process of destroying not only relations between the two countries, but the ecosystem of our seas and beyond. It should be emphasised here that both the Greek and Albanian governments are being dominated by western oil corporations. In other words, the exploitation of oil resources will be realised mainly by American corporations. And if the project of Russia is going to be impeded - it passes from the destabilization of Macedonia too. Because if Macedonia gets politically destabilised - Brussels will suspend any gas-line that could pass through Macedonia and Serbia towards Europe.

In other words, Washington is playing the same time with two (if not more) project "cornerstones": the Greek elite and Macedonia. If the Greek elite moves forward the Russian project, which under actual conditions is impossible - Washington will play with Macedonia. If not, Macedonia will be used. And if the objective of suspending it is being realised - Washington monopolises the sector of energy for the next hundred years. The monopolization of gas sector has been put forward recently by global oil and gas companies, such as Shell. This is a war, as administrators of global companies argue, of who is going to dominate the sector of energy in Europe for the next hundred years. 

Ylli Permeti

 

Source : english[dot]pravda[dot]ru

post from sitemap

Seo Jin Ah G-STAR 2014

Model Seo Jin Ah cosplaying for SKYSAGA (developed by SmileGate) during G-STAR game exhibition in Busan, November 2014.

Source : koreangirlshd[dot]com

post from sitemap

The day that Humanity died

Tragedy in the Andaman Sea. A boat laden with refugees drifting in the ocean currents after more than one country in South-East Asia refused to accept them. Deplorable conditions, many dead or dying of illness. The food ran out provoking a fight to the death. Around one hundred were stabbed, hanged or thrown overboard. The day that Humanity died.

This weekend, Humanity died, if it ever existed. A boat laden with immigrants from Bangladesh and Myanmar (the Rohingya migrants) was intercepted by the Indonesian authorities after drifting at sea for around two months after the Governments of Malaysia and Thailand refused to allow it to dock. Around one hundred people had died as a result of a furious fight which broke out when food stocks ran out.

The crew by then had abandoned the migrants to their fate. Nobody air-dropped food, medicines or other supplies to them. They were left - men, women and children - drifting around in a sea of excrement, starving to death, seared by the sun, lashed by the winds and rain. The Bangladeshis, poverty-stricken in their own overpopulated country and the Rohingya, Moslems living in Myanmar which does not accept them as citizens and which has relegated them to a status of statelessness.

Tweet

• Print version
• Font Size
• Send to friend

When the boat was finally found by the Indonesian authorities and allowed to dock at the port of Langsa, there were around seven hundred survivors aboard, most of whom had to receive hospital treatment for illness or severe dehydration or malnutrition.

What was going through the minds of the Malaysian and Thai authorities when they refused these migrants the right to dock in their countries? Why did nobody at least provide them with supplies?

The legal issue

Under international law, if indeed today such a thing exists in practical terms, States are obliged to help those in need at sea (*):

The 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) provides that 'Every State shall require the master of a ship flying its flag, in so far as he can do so without serious danger to the ship, the crew or the passengers: (a) to render assistance to any person found at sea in danger of being lost; (b) to proceed with all possible speed to the rescue of persons in distress, if informed of their need of assistance, in so far as such action may reasonably be expected of him' (Article 98(1));

The 1974 International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS Convention) obliges the 'master of a ship at sea which is in a position to be able to provide assistance, on receiving information2 from any source that persons are in distress at sea, ... to proceed with all speed to their assistance, if possible informing them or the search and rescue service that the ship is doing so' (SOLAS regulation V/33.1).

UNCLOS imposes an obligation on every coastal State Party to '... promote the establishment, operation and maintenance of an adequate and effective search and rescue service regarding safety on and over the sea and, where circumstances so require, by way of mutual regional arrangements co-operate with neighbouring States for this purpose' (Article 98(2)).

The SOLAS Convention requires each State Party to '... ensure that necessary arrangements are made for distress communication and co-ordination in their area of responsibility and for the rescue of persons in distress at sea around its coasts. These arrangements shall include the establishment, operation and maintenance of such search and rescue facilities as are deemed practicable and necessary ...' (SOLAS regulation V/7).

In addition, the 1979 International Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue (SAR Convention) obliges State Parties to '... ensure that assistance [is] provided to any person in distress at sea ... regardless of the nationality or status of such a person or the circumstances in which that person is found' (Chapter 2.1.10) and to '... provide for their initial medical or other needs, and deliver them to a place of safety' (Chapter 1.3.2).

The 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees defines a Refugee as a person who 'owing to [a] well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his [or her] nationality3 and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself [or herself] of the protection of that country' (Article 1A(2)).

The 1951 Refugee Convention prohibits refugees and asylum-seekers from being expelled or returned in any manner whatsoever 'to the frontiers of territories where [their] life or freedom would be threatened on account of [their] race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion' (Article 33(1)).

(*) International Maritime Organization

Conclusion

In the last three years, 120,000 Rohingya have been forced to flee Myanmar. So far this year, it is estimated by the UNO that 25,000 Rohingya have been transported out of Myanmar, where their plight is inhumane to say the least, by traffickers. It is believed there are several more boats like this one floating on the high seas, ignored by the countries of the region despite the legal principles and agreements set out above.

Worse, it is reported that the authorities of some of these countries have instructed commercial vessels not to help the migrants at sea.

It doesn't get much more callous than that, does it? This despicable story leads us to believe that neither is international law worth anything these days not does Humanity exist outside the realms of a vague chimera or notion or a meaningless precept on paper.

Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey

Pravda.Ru  

(timothy.hinchey@gmail.com)

 

*Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey has worked as a correspondent, journalist, deputy editor, editor, chief editor, director, project manager, executive director, partner and owner of printed and online daily, weekly, monthly and yearly publications, TV stations and media groups printed, aired and distributed in Angola, Brazil, Cape Verde, East Timor, Guinea-Bissau, Portugal, Mozambique and São Tomé and Principe Isles; the Russian Foreign Ministry publication Dialog and the Cuban Foreign Ministry Official Publications. He has spent the last two decades in humanitarian projects, connecting communities, working to document and catalog disappearing languages, cultures, traditions, working to network with the LGBT communities helping to set up shelters for abused or frightened victims and as Media Partner with UN Women, working to foster the UN Women project to fight against gender violence and to strive for an end to sexism, racism and homophobia. He is also a Media Partner of Humane Society International, fighting for animal rights.

 

Source : english[dot]pravda[dot]ru

post from sitemap

One Reason to Not Hate the Apple Watch

Is this the saving grace for one of the most underwhelming tech innovations ever?

As far as techno-innovations go, the Apple watch has got some serious street cred issues.

Far from the designer hype and the passionate queuing to purchase that previous Apple products have inspired, the Apple Watch has been a bit of a PR dud.

Computerworld.com pulled no punches when it stated that people “hate” it, apart from “$17,000 spendy douchbags”.

Pitch Perfect 2 actress Anna Kendrick took to her Twitter feed to express her feelings about the Apple Watch, stating, “We should be thanking Apple for launching the $10,000 "apple watch" as the new gold standard in douchebag detection”.



And even eminent philosophers have been lining up to put the boot in to what could have been a great leap forward in the world of tech.

But in recent news, Molly Watt, a profoundly deaf and mostly blind 20-year-old from the UK has found that features in the watch actually assist her greatly in her day-to-day life. Molly found that the haptic vibrate feature in the watch’s map function has been very helpful as a way to navigate her way around the streets of London.

She says on her blog review, 
“I was born deaf and registered blind when I was 14.  The condition I have is Usher Syndrome Type 2a. I am severely deaf and have only a very small tunnel of vision in my right eye… So far for me the most useful App on the Apple Watch is Maps – on my iPhone I can plan my journey from one destination to another, for me it will be on foot with Unis my guidedog. This is where Haptics really come into its own – I can be directed without hearing or sight, but by a series of taps via the watch onto my wrist – 12 taps means turn right at the junction or 3 pairs of 2 taps means turn left, I’m still experimenting with this but so far very impressed – usher syndrome accessible!”

So, now it looks like Apple has increased its market share beyond the “douchebag” set, to people in genuine need for some tech innovation.
 

Do you know anyone who’s actually bought an Apple watch?

Source : nickjrparents[dot]com[dot]au

post from sitemap

Chae Eun In The Club

Portrait photoshoot of model Rock Chae Eun with an old English club setting, or a pub, resthouse, whatever… she looks hot regardless.

Source : koreangirlshd[dot]com

post from sitemap

Democracy, elections and the fickle nature of Politics 2015

Politics 2015. Now the dust has settled on the British election and we see which way the wind blows the political particles in the fall-out, in a year in which there are no less than forty-seven Legislative, Presidential or Federal elections across the world (*), and the big one next year in the USA, to what extent can we draw parallels from the UK and predict the outcome of the democratic act by analyzing global political trends?

For a start let us ask whether this so-called democratic act is indeed about democracy and secondly let us analyze the United Kingdom election as an example, asking who voted, for what and why.

1. Did the majority of the population in the United Kingdom vote, being fully informed of the options, know what they were voting for and who was representing them?

2. Do the people trust the politicians?

3. Is there a narrow space, empathy, between the people and those they elect as their representatives?

4. Are all policies that are enshrined in law open to examination?

Tweet

• Print version
• Font Size
• Send to friend

If the answer to any of these questions is negative, then the system is flawed and cannot be called democratic. If the answer to all of these questions is a resounding "NO!" then this underlines what I am about to write. Let us take the questions one by one.

1. Did the majority of the population in the United Kingdom vote, being fully informed of the options, know what they were voting for and who was representing them?

The voter turnout for the UK election in 2015 was just over 66 per cent, meaning over a third of the electorate did not vote, demonstrating a worrying trend shown elsewhere that a growing percentage of young voters are turned off by politics and politicians - these representing apparently around 42 per cent in the UK general election on May 7.

The fact that nearly half of the voters in the 18 to 24 age group did not bother to vote and some of those that did placed spoiled or blank votes, lends credence to the belief that they understand any participation in an electoral process will not make any difference, leading political analyst Christof Lehmann to conclude: "The situation brings to mind the words of the late German journalist and later RAF terrorist Ulrike Meinhof, who spoke out about a disenfranchised youth and the street as only remaining place to democratically voice actual dissent".

 As for who the people voted for, the electoral system in the UK is based on political constituencies where the grass roots level of the political parties play an important role in selecting candidates to stand for election as Members of Parliament, each constituency electing one Member in a first-past-the-post suffrage. Sounds good? It would be but unfortunately a recent survey indicated that over three-quarters of voters do not even know who their representative is. In other political systems, in which the Parties draw up lists of candidates to be Members of Parliament, the candidates are wholly unknown to the population, and so people do not know who they are electing, making this void even wider.

If the void is wider, the mistrust is deeper. This is not democracy.

2. Do the people trust the politicians?

It is not necessary to answer this question because the answer is an obvious two-letter word, anywhere in the world, although there are exceptions: those with a calling to public service and to work for the good of the people, answering their trust with hard work and policies that make sense. The popularity/approval rating of 86 per cent places Russia's own Vladimir Putin in this category.

But as a rule the opposite is true. People do not trust politicians because they are seen to lie, they make pledges at election time, they place promises in manifestos and then promptly, blatantly and shamelessly break them. This may be the reason why more and more people are turned off by the entire process, because after all what use does a manifesto serve if it is not respected? And even then, how good an instrument of communication is it if it is written in a pompous verborrea nobody understands?

Let us once again take the UK elections as an example and take a look at the manifestos. Here is how the (victorious) Conservative/Tory Party's starts:

"Over the last five years, we have put our country back on the right track. Five years ago, Britain was on the brink. As the outgoing Labour Treasury Minister put it with brutal candour, 'there is no money'. Since then, we have turned things around".

Translation: The Conservative/Tory Party managed, through repetition of the same message throughout five years, to place the British Labour Party at the center of the world's economic, financial and banking crisis (the result of the capitalist/monetarist model, not party politics in one nation) and the Labour Party was so inept they did not pull this statement apart from day one.

In fact, the Tory Party won the election for two reasons alone: this agrument and the scaremongering about the Scots Nationalists sitting in London and ruling the roost under a Labour-led Government.

Labour's manifesto developed under the following theme: "Britain only succeeds when working people succeed. This is a plan to reward hard work, share prosperity and build a better Britain".

 And here is Labour's problem: the "working class" argument in today's UK might work in those areas where the expression means something but there is a fundamental difference in Labour values in the inner cities of factory towns and cities in the north of England and among the intelligentsia in and around London, Labour's two heartlands. Now virtually wiped out in Scotland (Labour lost 50 seats there to the Scottish National Party, which won 56 out of the country's 59 seats) Labour has to claw back some fifty seats from the Conservatives in England if it ever wants to be a majority player again. Yet it has to claw those fifty seats back in a country where Conservative values are now national and traditional Labour values are regional. Bottom line: Labour has to reinvent itself.

When all is said and done, the system itself presents two alternatives to the people, one supposedly center-right and the other, center-left and anything outside this space is derided as loony, menacing or dangerously insane, those representing this space being wholly incapable of getting the message across. The several Communist Parties failed to get a vote in the UK in the 2015 election.

And around these two center options, like a vice, close the lobbies which pull the strings behind the scenes, forwarding people for jobs in or around Government, choosing the candidate for the job then writing the job description from the candidate's own CV so that only that candidate fulfils the requirements. This is not democracy.

3. Is there a narrow space, empathy, between the people and those they elect as their representatives?

Again, no. In fact the space could not be wider. The reason why is because the Government is not really chosen by the people, the leader of the party is. Political discussions can be summed up as discussions about "Him being better than the other one", or "There isn't any alternative" or "He does look nice on TV". And if it is the image on television and the slickness of the campaign which chooses the candidate, if it is the one who stands up on a soap box and shouts above the crowd or grabs more kids when the camera is on him/her, this is a cosmetic detail and no reason to elect a person to implement meaningful policies nationwide. This is not democracy.

4. Are all policies that are enshrined in law open to examination?

No, they are not. For one simple reason: many of them do not enter the Manifesto. For instance, in how many NATO countries is membership of this offensive alliance, the payment of two per cent of GDP to military expenditure, the collective budget of one point two trillion USD per year every year on weapons and administrative military costs, open to discussion?

In how many NATO member states is the control of national foreign policy by this supra-national organism on the political table at election time? The result in both cases is none.

In conclusion, less than two-thirds of the adult population and just over half the young adult population votes for a manipulated image, ignorant of the main guidelines of policy, ignorant of the character, competence or curriculum on their representatives; even so they vote for the leader they distrust less, feeling little or no empathy with the political party in power and in any case, neither is the manifesto a commitment to policy (but rather, often a meaningless tissue of lies from beginning to end) nor are all policies contained in the manifesto.

If this is democracy, then it is unrepresentative. Or else, this is not democracy.

While it is true that if people have bread on their table, a roof over their heads and a minimum of human rights then they are less politically motivated, it is also true that most people are unhappy with the governments that represent them. This is not democracy.

The main issues are the right to a job and the right to security - what sort of a system has endemic unemployment rates of over ten per cent built into it, and up to 40 per cent of youth unemployment? What sort of system has people terrified to venture out of their homes at night for fear of being assailed by drug addicts or marauding gangs of drunks? What sort of a system has failed to deliver full rights for women? What sort of system takes growing amounts of hard-earned cash and gives less and less back in return in the way of public services? What sort of system has turned dental care into a luxury for the rich and the healthcare and education sectors into businesses? Is this what the people want? I don't think so. This is not democracy.

The politicians don't care. They have jobs to go to once they have passed the "use by" date and they have bodyguards at the doors of the buildings they grace with their presence. This is not democracy.

(*) 2015 is election year for Parliamentary/Legislative elections (L) or Presidential elections (P) in no less than forty-seven countries/territories, namely:

In Africa, Benin (L), Burkina Faso (L), Burundi (L,P), Central African Republic (L), Comoros (L), Ivory Coast (P), Egypt (L), Ethiopia (L), Lesotho (L), Nigeria (L), Sudan (L), Tanzania (L), Togo (P), Zambia (P) and a constitutional referendum in Tanzania; in Asia, Kazakhstan (P), Sri Lanka (P), Tajikistan (L), Turkey (L), Uzbekistan (P); in the Middle East, Israel (L); in Europe, Andorra (L), Croatia (P), Denmark (L), Faroe Islands (L), Estonia (L), Finland (L), Gibraltar (L), Greece (L), Italy (P), Poland (L,P), Portugal (L), Spain (L), Turkey (L), United Kingdom (L) and a Federal election in Switzerland; in North America, a Federal election in Canada, Mexico (L); in Oceania, State elections in Queensland and New South Wales, F.S. Micronesia (L), Tuvalu (L); in the Caribbean, Trinidad and Tobago (L); in Central America, Guatemala (L); in South America, Argentina (L), Guyana (L), Surinam (L).

Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey

Pravda.Ru  

(timothy.hinchey@gmail.com)

 *Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey has worked as a correspondent, journalist, deputy editor, editor, chief editor, director, project manager, executive director, partner and owner of printed and online daily, weekly, monthly and yearly publications, TV stations and media groups printed, aired and distributed in Angola, Brazil, Cape Verde, East Timor, Guinea-Bissau, Portugal, Mozambique and São Tomé and Principe Isles; the Russian Foreign Ministry publication Dialog and the Cuban Foreign Ministry Official Publications. He has spent the last two decades in humanitarian projects, connecting communities, working to document and catalog disappearing languages, cultures, traditions, working to network with the LGBT communities helping to set up shelters for abused or frightened victims and as Media Partner with UN Women, working to foster the UN Women project to fight against gender violence and to strive for an end to sexism, racism and homophobia. He is also a Media Partner of Humane Society International, fighting for animal rights.

 

 

Source : english[dot]pravda[dot]ru

post from sitemap

How Seymour Hersh decries Obama and western warmongers

 

By Nicolas Bonnal 

The Bush era, I felt it was much easier to be critical than it is of Obama...

Almost everybody hated or despised Bush Jr., even in America. This is why Bush Number Two was less perilous for global peace and world order than Obama whom we worship. But Obama was re-elected because he allegedly killed Osama (what a paronomasia!), Bush's old Nemesis. And messiah Obama behaved just like another bushman.

Concerning Seymour Hersh and his revelations about the assassination of Bin Laden, I agree with Dr Roberts. There is nothing very serious about that stuff. Hersh looks very imaginative, but his long and blurred storytelling is not really credible for an audience, like that of the Pravda.Ru readers, accustomed to decrypt the incessant lies of the West and its stupid agencies. We know that a global gullible opinion can swallow nowadays any kind of crap, given that this opinion is still more interested in the intellectual remarks and philosophical achievements of Kim Kardashian or Lady Gaga...

Yet as we say in Paris we cannot, "cracher dans la soupe", spit in the soup! And the prestigious Pulitzer Prize acknowledges in his burst of rage the inconsequence, the amateurism and the cowardice of the main newspapers in the West. Here too I must add that a journal or a magazine, for instance in France, is worth nothing: only four millions Euros to buy the once prestigious Nouvel Observateur for instance. This datum confirms a fact: the Illuminati clowns who drive us to the abysm whether in America or in Western Europe really do not need a public opinion whose brains are continually moulded by servile and obsessive media. They just help themselves, confident in the global inertia underlined by De Tocqueville two centuries ago, an inertia that is congenital to classical western democracies. See the hundreds of stupid wars run by old imperialistic powers like England, France or the US.

But let us recall with the dictionary the different meanings of the word press. As a verb:

- To move or cause to move into a position of contact with something by exerting continuous physical force.

- To take strong efforts to persuade or force (someone) to do something

And as a noun, it means "a device for applying pressure to something in order to flatten or shape it or to extract juice or oil." Juice or oil: that means cash (liquid) or blood. For this is what western press got from the conflicts it encouraged in Syria, Ukraine, Libya or Iraq. But the bloody warmongers are never fed up. They ask more, like a monstrous baby-ogre. There will be oil, there will be cash, and there will be blood.

So let's listen and savour what the Pulitzer Prize tells us in his spicy prose about the western press:

"I'll tell you the solution, get rid of 90% of the editors that now exist and start promoting editors that you can't control," he says. I saw it in the New York Times, I see people who get promoted are the ones on the desk who are more amenable to the publisher and what the senior editors want and the trouble makers don't get promoted. Start promoting better people who look you in the eye and say 'I don't care what you say".

We all know that the "Watergate scandal" (Jean Baudrillard laughed at this creepy expression) was a complex operation designed to oust the last authentic - despite all his defaults - president in order to move forward the global agenda of the Trilateral (Nelson Rockefeller became Gerald Ford's vice-president); but what about the journalistic consequences?

Adds a shrewd Hersh's commentator:

"Woodward and Bernstein led to journalists wanting to have star power, get invited to the best Georgetown dinner parties and be best buddies with the political heavyweights, people you don't want to piss off."

Then Hersh plays the role of a rebellious citizen. He does a courageous job indeed, like Hollywood stars I spoke of last year, Gary Oldman, Mel Gibson, Javier Bardem or Sean Penn. But as we know in America it is the audience that is very dumb, not the famous. 

"Do you think Obama's been judged by any rational standards? Has Guantanamo closed? Is a war over? Is anyone paying any attention to Iraq? Is he seriously talking about going into Syria? We are not doing so well in the 80 wars we are in right now, what the hell does he want to go into another one for. What's going on with journalists?"

Yes, what is going on indeed? For instance in France an ex-editor of prestigious newspaper Le Monde, an agitator who declared with a sinister emphasis that we are "all Americans" after the farce of the 9/11, continually argues in his editorials for a war against Russia. Will he get a Nobel Prize of Peace or of Literature to greet his delicate recommendations?

Anyone can avoid mainstream media and carefully pick his information elsewhere. He will be well-awarded, he will be sometimes confused, sometimes euphoric, sometimes disillusioned. But he will be a free mind. Truth will set him free.

'And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free' (John, 8, 32).

Unfortunately, such quest of knowledge is not easy job to the formal citizen. He is much more interested by Ronaldo CR7's thighs or Kardashian's butt. This is why Vladimir Putin is worse than renowned western star Adolf Hitler, according to our barbaric western doxology.

Seymour Hersh knows how Obama will have to act to get the public opinion ready for our next war; and that makes him not optimistic:

"But I don't know if it's going to mean anything in the long [run] because the polls I see in America - the president can still say to voters 'al-Qaida, al-Qaida' and the public will vote two to one for this kind of surveillance, which is so idiotic".

We know indeed that the world is a tale told by Bush, pardon, "a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, and signifying nothing". What signified the American Wars in Vietnam, in Afghanistan, in Syria, in Ukraine, anywhere?

At least, and thanks to Mr Hersh, a well-recommended voice labelled a terrorist by the insane Republican Party, we know that "the world is clearly run by total nincompoops more than ever ..."

Nicolas Bonnal

Source : english[dot]pravda[dot]ru

post from sitemap

Mr. John Kerry, freedom of expression and improving relations

It is reported that the United States Secretary of State Mr. John Kerry handed President Putin a list of quotes in the Russian media which were hostile to the position defended by Washington in international affairs, yet another clear display of pig-faced insolence from one who is supposed to be his country's leading diplomat.

If Mr. John Kerry has a problem with what I write in these lines, then I will wear that medal with pride. If some of my lines were in the dossier he presented to President Putin, then I thank him for proving that I have done my job. If Mr. John Kerry has a problem with freedom of expression, then I would suggest he restrict his idiosyncrasies to the corporate media in his own country and those which spend their time crawling round his legs as they spend two per cent of their GDP on the NATO military and administrative budget.

After all, by and large, to the media in the USA and UK in particular can be applied the "upside down" law, which is take anything they say, turn it inside out and upside down, stand it on its head and you will get something nearer to the truth than the original story.

Tweet

• Print version
• Font Size
• Send to friend

Let us take the piece in Britain's The Guardian newspaper, for instance. The Guardian? Yes you know, the one that reported on my reply to that Australian Abbott person when he threatened to "shirt-front" President Putin, quoting a biography of me without doing a shred of research, a drunken spoof bio written by a friend just before he engraved "PRINT SCREEN" onto his forehead by collapsing over his keyboard. Reporting on Kerry's meeting with President Putin, the same newspaper stated the following:

"Putin said the Russian people would already remember the solidarity of Britain, the US and other allies during the second world war, which in Russia is known as the great patriotic war and does not include the two years from 1939 to 1941 in which the Soviet Union was allied with Nazi Germany".

So Britain was "allied" with Nazi Germany, one supposes, when Neville Chamberlain came back from Berlin waving slips of paper claiming "peace in our time"? And since when does a Non-Aggression Pact become a Treaty of Alliance? The "Bugger the Research" Guardian, ladies and gentlemen, has been assimilated and has become a prime example of what John Kerry wants - a mouthpiece to vomit forth the vitriol of the lobbies which control the foreign policies of the USA and its Poodles in Europe, which represent in turn the corporate interests which close ranks around any Government elected from the two options presented in an election, center-right and center-left. And they spend, ladies and gentlemen, each and every single year, one point two trillion dollars on their military budget.

So if Mr. John Kerry has a problem with the truth, let him restrict his censorial fantasies to his own country, for in Russia there exists something called freedom of expression and anyway, who the hell is he to dictate anything to anyone?

If there were quotes in the Russian media against the policies of the United States of American, I wonder why? So let's start with Afghanistan, shall we, you know the country where the United States of America used bin Laden as a CIA asset fighting against the Soviet-backed progressive Governments which provided full human rights, women's rights and attempted to distribute the country's wealth among the people instead of seeing it clasped greedily in the hands of the ruling elites? And so if the USA has the duty to rush in and help the Putsch Government in Ukraine because they asked for help, then the USSR likewise had the duty to help the Afghan Government being assailed by western-backed terrorists pouring into the country from Northern Pakistan and aided and abetted by the West.

Or doesn't it work both ways?

Iraq

Let us move on to Iraq, you know the country which did not possess Weapons of Mass Destruction, the country which did not pose a direct threat to the USA and its allies, the country which was suffering the consequences of an inhumane blockade and whose children were dying in their hundreds of thousands as a result, while swathes of its territory were rendered wastelands by the deployment of Depleted Uranium. But what to expect from the country that deployed napalm against the kids back in Vietnam?

Nam

Mr. Kerry, as a Vietnam veteran, would know all about that of course, or shall we stand that story on its head as well? I know! How about the Americans were helping the Vietnamese farmers, their wives and children, to see the sunlight more clearly by blasting away the foliage on the trees and heck, if any kids were standing in the way then (chuckle) they shouldn't have been there, should they? A little bit of Agent Orange never did anyone any harm, eh what? Adds fiber to their character, makes a man out of them!

Twin Atomic terrorist strikes

Like those hundreds of thousands of "Japs" in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, eh Mr. Kerry? Specially those babies lying in their cots, specially the dogs lying in the yard, specially the old folk crippled with arthritis who couldn't move an inch to save themselves when some American coward blasted their lives away with an A-Bomb. Yeah, I guess we should all just stand back and applaud.

Libya

Not doing that well so far are we, Mr. Kerry? OK then let's move on to Africa. Libya was a nice one, eh Mr. Kerry? How to turn the country with the highest Human Development Index into abject and utter chaos where your country's own ambassador was lynched and burnt by the very terrorists your country used to oust the Jamahiriya Government and replace it with what?

Why don't you go there and see for yourself? And I am not saying crawl into Tobruk under the cloak of nightfall, I am saying that if your country intervened to make Libya a better place, which anyway is illegal unless certain legal provisions exist, which they didn't, then walk around and see for yourself. I said, walk around and see for yourself.

The actions of your country and its sickening Poodles in Europe has turned Libya into a haven of human traffickers and terrorists, making people yearn for the stability of the Gaddafi period. The instability in Libya has made the lives of millions of people a misery. God Bless America, eh?

So congratulations for destroying the African Union, the one dream Africa had for African solutions for African problems, solutions made by Africans for Africans to live in dignity. So much for Africa... back to square one, back to slavery.

F*** the EU

So how about we move on to the Old Continent, what was it your assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland said? "F*** the EU"? I said, "F*ck the EU", was that it? Or was it *uck the EU? Whoops, Fu*k the EU, oh I am sorry, fuc* the EU?

So let's move on to Ukraine, the country in which the good ol' US of A yet again interfered and where it yet again sowed chaos. Why is it that everything Washington touches turns to excrement? Ukraine, where the democratically elected President Yanukovich was ousted by thugs, Fascists and those boasting about their ties to terrorists, where death threats were made against Russians and Jews, where the same thugs were firing against the police to get a reaction, the same thugs were firing against their own fellow protesters to cause martyrs...

Ukraine, where multiple voting was used in Parliament rendering any decisions illegal under Ukrainian law; Ukraine, whose Republic of Crimea's Parliament became the legally empowered entity after the illegal removal of President Yanukovich and which organized the free and fair referendum in which its population voted to return to Russia. Or don't you believe in expressions of democracy either, Mr. Kerry given that you apparently have an issue with freedom of expression?

What was that about improving relations, Mr. Kerry? And er... what's this I hear about Islamist factions being prepared for action in Crimea? Or was that only a rumor? I mean, given that you're all hell-bent on "improving Russian-American relations", and all that?

Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey

Pravda.Ru  

(timothy.hinchey@gmail.com)

 

*Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey has worked as a correspondent, journalist, deputy editor, editor, chief editor, director, project manager, executive director, partner and owner of printed and online daily, weekly, monthly and yearly publications, TV stations and media groups printed, aired and distributed in Angola, Brazil, Cape Verde, East Timor, Guinea-Bissau, Portugal, Mozambique and São Tomé and Principe Isles; the Russian Foreign Ministry publication Dialog and the Cuban Foreign Ministry Official Publications. He has spent the last two decades in humanitarian projects, connecting communities, working to document and catalog disappearing languages, cultures, traditions, working to network with the LGBT communities helping to set up shelters for abused or frightened victims and as Media Partner with UN Women, working to foster the UN Women project to fight against gender violence and to strive for an end to sexism, racism and homophobia. He is also a Media Partner of Humane Society International, fighting for animal rights.

 

Source : english[dot]pravda[dot]ru

post from sitemap