ARTICLE 1
Pentagon to Buy Russian Helicopters Despite Ban – © RIA Novosti. Ilya Pitalev – 00:36 05/04/2013
WASHINGTON, April 4 (By Maria Young for RIA Novosti) – The US Department of Defense said Thursday it plans to sidestep a Congressional ban to purchase 30 helicopters from Russian state-owned defense firm Rosoboronexport, despite objections from US lawmakers who allege that the firm has equipped the Syrian government to commit brutal crimes against civilians.
“The Department of Defense (DOD) has notified Congress of its intent to contract with Rosoboronexport for 30 additional Mi-17 rotary-wing aircraft to support the Afghanistan National Security Forces (ANSF) Special Mission Wing,” Pentagon spokesman James Gregory told RIA Novosti in emailed comments.
The 2013 National Defense Authorization Act, approved by Congress last year, includes an amendment that prohibits financial contracts between the United States and Rosoboronexport, except when the Secretary of Defense determines that such arrangements are in the interest of national security.
“Given current timelines, the department has determined that Rosoboronexport is the only viable means of meeting ANSF requirements” for the helicopters, Gregory said.
The contract totals $690 million, most of which would go to the Russian arms maker, he added.
In February, US President Barack Obama announced plans to reduce the number of US troops in Afghanistan from 66,000 to 34,000 over the next year, leaving Afghan forces with an increased role in their nation’s security.
Many of the Afghan forces have already been trained to operate the Russian aircraft. Switching to a new platform would delay the readiness of their rotary wing division by at least three years while crews get training and experience on a new system, Gregory said.
A bipartisan Congressional group wrote a letter to Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel last week in which they objected to the ongoing business relationship between the Russian arms company and the Pentagon.
“What is the national security justification of continuing business with Rosoboronexport?” they asked in the letter.
“Russia continues to transfer weapons through Rosoboronexport to the regime of Bashar al-Assad in Syria,” they continued. “Since the Syrian uprising began, Russia has continued to serve as the Assad regime’s chief supplier of weapons, enabling the mass murder of Syrian citizens at the hands of their own government.”
Russia, however, has insisted that the deliveries are legal under international law and that it is not supplying Syria with offensive weapons. Moscow has also questioned the composition and goals of the various armed groups fighting the Assad regime.
US Rep. Jim Moran, who co-authored the amendment, said Rosoboronexport had supplied nearly $1 billion in arms to Assad’s government between 2011 and 2012, including high-explosive mortars, sniper rifles, ammunition and refurbished attack helicopters.
Public records show that some of the representatives who signed the letter and sponsored the amendment–including Moran, Rep. Kay Granger and Rep. Rosa DeLauro—have received campaign contributions from US defense contractors.
But Moran’s spokeswoman, Anne Hughes, described any implication that the lawmakers’ concern is more about campaign contributions than arms for Syria as “laughable.” Representatives of the other lawmakers did not respond to requests for comment.
“The objections are understandable, the US defense industry needs contracts. … But from a cost-benefit analysis, Russian helicopters are a better deal,” Simon Saradzhyan, a security expert at Harvard University’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, told RIA Novosti on Thursday.
The Russian helicopters, he said, are generally not as sophisticated or advanced as those made in the United States, making them arguably more suitable for use by Afghan security forces.
“This is the Russian competitive edge,” Saradzhyan said. “They cost less and they are easy to maintain. This is how Russian arms supporters make their sales speech.”
The Russian aircraft “are superbly suited for harsh environments,” said Gregory, the Pentagon spokesman.
In their letter to Hagel, the lawmakers asked what steps the Pentagon had taken to consider alternative helicopter suppliers. They also requested that the department prepare a detailed briefing and present it to Congress before taking any action on the pending contract.
Hagel has received the letter, Gregory said.
“He will of course respond.”
[[[ *** RESPONSE *** ]]]
This is the tech advanced post 2000s, the USA should beware, the KGB would for certain install a ‘kill switch’ on every helicopter. What else would an outfit like the KGB do best anyway?
ARTICLE 2
‘Secret law’ storm as police chiefs ban public from knowing who they arrest: Shock new blanket ban in the wake of Leveson report angers civil liberty groups who condemn threat to democracy – by Robert Verkaik and David Ormerod – PUBLISHED: 23:30 GMT, 6 April 2013 | UPDATED: 23:31 GMT, 6 April 2013
Under new ACPO guidance forces to be banned from naming suspects
The legal risk of incorrect identification will stop the media naming suspects
The police plan for ‘secret arrests’ is opposed by the Law Commission
The move, which follows a recommendation by Lord Justice Leveson in his report into press standards
Draconian: The move, which follows a recommendation by Lord Justice Leveson in his report into press standards
Britain’s police chiefs are drawing up draconian rules under which the identities of people they arrest will be kept secret from the public.
The move, which follows a recommendation by Lord Justice Leveson in his report into press standards, has been branded an attack on open justice and has led to comparisons with police states such as North Korea and Zimbabwe.
Under current arrangements, police release basic details of a person arrested and in many cases will confirm a name to journalists. But the practice varies from force to force.
Under the new guidance, to be circulated by the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO), forces will be banned from confirming the names of suspects, even when journalists know the identity of someone who has been arrested.
Without official police confirmation, the legal risks of incorrect identification will prevent the media from publishing the names of suspects.
The police plan for ‘secret arrests’ is being opposed by the Government’s own adviser on law reform, the Law Commission, which believes it is in the interests of justice that the police release the names of everyone who is arrested, except in very exceptional circumstances.
A Mail on Sunday investigation has revealed that, chillingly, many forces have already altered their naming policies in the wake of last year’s Leveson report.
Only two out of 14 forces that spoke to us said they would confirm the identity of a person arrested when a journalist suggested the right name to them.
Yet senior police officers have told this paper that until very recently it was common practice for police forces to confirm the names of people arrested.
The new practice has already led to one worrying situation in which a well-known celebrity arrested as part of Operation Yewtree, the investigation into the Jimmy Savile scandal, cannot be named by the media, although he has been widely identified on the internet.
Trevor Sterling, the lawyer representing Savile’s victims, said that if Savile had been alive today and his arrest had remained secret, many of his victims would have been failed.
Mr Sterling said: ‘It is difficult to strike a balance, but if someone like Savile’s name is not published, victims of sexual abuse would not have the confidence to come forward.’
Silenced: A well-known celebrity arrested as part of Operation Yewtree, the investigation into the Jimmy Savile scandal, cannot be named by the media
Silenced: A well-known celebrity arrested as part of Operation Yewtree, the investigation into the Jimmy Savile scandal, cannot be named by the media
Padraig Reidy, news editor of Index On Censorship, a civil liberties organisation, said: ‘You can very quickly find yourself in a situation where you have secret arrests. We have a concept of open justice.
‘What is being proposed is very scary because if you do not know who has been arrested or why, people can be taken off the streets without anyone knowing and the police would not be accountable or properly scrutinised.
‘This sort of thing happens in other countries. People are arrested, they disappear and no one ever knows why.’
Bob Satchwell, chairman of the Society of Editors, said the change would have a devastating effect on open justice and smacked of the kind of practices associated with ‘banana republics’.
He added: ‘There is nothing in law to say that the name of someone arrested should not be released. If the name is withheld, it fuels speculation, especially through the internet.’
The senior police officer in charge of the new rules told The Mail on Sunday that he had been warned by Britain’s information watchdog, the Information Commissioner, that releasing names could breach the data protection rights of a suspect.
Andy Trotter, chief constable of British Transport Police and the lead officer on media policy for ACPO, said that he disagreed with the Law Commission’s position because it did not take account of the circumstances of a suspect whose reputation was damaged by identification but who was later found to be innocent and eliminated from an investigation.
The Law Commissioners and ACPO will meet in the coming weeks to thrash out their differences. Mr Trotter said the new rules followed on from the old ACPO guidance, which generally advised against naming arrested suspects but permitted forces to confirm names.
He said the new policy would end the ‘dance’ of confirming and denying identities when names are put to police forces.
He explained: ‘The problem at the moment is that it is unclear what the police should do. Various practices have developed over time.
Most forces do not name people who have been arrested. Some will confirm a name that is put to them. Clearly this is unsatisfactory.
New rules: Andy Trotter Chief constable British Transport Police
New rules: Andy Trotter Chief constable British Transport Police
‘We are suggesting that people who have been arrested should not be named and only the briefest of details should be given.’
He said the only exceptions would be where it was necessary to release a name to prevent or detect a crime or in order to keep the peace.
He added: ‘We are weighing up the need to be open and transparent with the rights of the individuals concerned and the draft guidance will contain the view that people should not be named.’
Mr Trotter insisted that this was not ‘secret justice’ and added: ‘I am in favour of open justice and have been listening to many different points of view.
‘I want police officers to continue working with journalists.’
The guidance will now go to the College of Policing for approval, before being sent to forces around the country for implementation.
Gary Glitter
Jim Davidson
Previous arrests: The names of some individuals arrested as part of Operation Yewtree have emerged in the press including Gary Glitter, left, and Jim Davidson, right. They all deny wrongdoing
The Mail on Sunday investigation showed wide inconsistencies between police forces in the naming of arrested suspects.
Nearly all say they don’t name individuals on arrest but operate different policies to provide help to journalists.
Greater Manchester Police says it tells journalists ‘they are not wrong’ if they approach the force with a correct name – but won’t give official confirmation.
The Metropolitan Police says it does not confirm names to journalists until the suspect has been charged.
Cambridgeshire Police only confirms a name on the day an individual who has been charged is due in court.
This is one of Britain’s favourite entertainers. He’s been arrested by Savile police and codenamed ‘Yewtree No 5’ – but you’re not allowed to be told who he is
He is 82 years old and a much-loved showbiz personality, who was arrested on March 28 in Berkshire by police investigating abuse claims made since the death of BBC DJ Jimmy Savile.
But police refuse to allow his name to be made public.
The Metropolitan Police Savile investigation is codenamed Operation Yewtree and has led to 12 arrests.
The names of some individuals have emerged in the media after confirmation by neighbours, lawyers and journalists’ detective work.
The Metropolitan Police Savile investigation is codenamed Operation Yewtree and has led to 12 arrests
They include Gary Glitter, Freddie Starr, Jim Davidson and Dave Lee Travis. They all deny wrongdoing.
But the latest celebrity arrested is referred to by police only as Yewtree 5 and his identity has not been published in newspapers.
Nevertheless, his name has been widely circulated on the internet in blogs and social media forums.
The Met said there were ‘good reasons’ for not naming anyone in the Yewtree investigation.
But when asked to explain these reasons, they merely referred to the Met’s standard policy of not identifying anyone they arrest.
This newspaper has decided not to publish the name of Yewtree 5.
Last week, the first person charged under Yewtree was named as ex-BBC driver David Smith.
He will face two charges of indecent assault and two of gross indecency on a boy under 14, plus another serious sex attack on a boy under 16. Smith, 66, from Lewisham, South-East London, will appear before magistrates on May 8.
Savile is believed to have been Britain’s most prolific paedophile. Detectives have received about 600 complaints of abuse, of which more than 450 relate to Savile.
UK’s Law Commissioner David Ormerod insists: Yes, reporting of arrests IS in public interest
A fair and open justice system is something we value highly in this country. As citizens, it is imperative that we have confidence that our legal process is transparent.
And it has long been recognised that one of the best ways of ensuring this is for accurate reports of trials to appear in the media, hence the saying: ‘Not only must justice be done; it must also be seen to be done.’
To ensure a fair trial, there must be restrictions on what can be reported – and when.
David Ormerod, QC and Law Commissioner says that there must be restrictions on what can be reported to ensure a fair trial
For example, if a judge had ruled that certain information about a defendant was not to be admitted at the trial but the jury saw reports of that information in the media, they might be swayed. The trial would be prejudiced and justice would not be done.
That is why there are legal safeguards to make sure that reporting on trials is fair.
One of these is the Contempt of Court Act 1981, which ensures that information that runs a real risk of seriously prejudicing a trial should not be put in the public domain until the trial is over.
In the light of concerns that the Act had not kept pace with developments such as the internet, the Law Commission, an independent advisory body that keeps the law under review, was asked to consider whether changes should be made.
The review includes a range of issues, including the role of the internet, on which jurors might read information about a defendant.
‘A fair and open justice system is something we value highly in this country. As citizens, it is imperative that we have confidence that our legal process is transparent.’
David Ormerod, Law Commissioner
Another area we considered was what information should be released to the media when someone is arrested.
At the moment, the Act does not prohibit a newspaper or broadcaster reporting that a named person has been arrested – as long as what they report is not seriously prejudicial to any future trial.
But during our review, we were told that different police forces handle the release of information about arrests differently.
Some forces will confirm, off the record, that a particular person has been arrested if a reporter supplies the name. Others refuse to confirm or deny in the same circumstances. Others might even supply a name.
This inconsistency is clearly problematic. It is a contempt of court if a newspaper or broadcaster publishes prejudicial material about someone who has been arrested.
However, the publisher would have a defence if they did not know or have reason to suspect that the person named had been arrested and that proceedings were therefore ‘active’.
A consistent policy applied by police about whether to name those arrested would help the media to know whether proceedings are ‘active’ and whether reporting restrictions apply.
We have provisionally proposed that new ACPO guidance should be produced which would encourage police forces to adopt greater consistency in deciding whether to confirm the identities of those who have been arrested.
The Law Commissioner has suggested that new ACPO (pictured) guidance should be produced which would encourage police forces to adopt greater consistency in deciding whether to confirm the identities of those who have been arrested
The Law Commissioner has suggested that new ACPO (pictured) guidance should be produced which would encourage police forces to adopt greater consistency in deciding whether to confirm the identities of those who have been arrested
In drafting our provisional proposals, we considered freedom of expression under the Human Rights Act, which covers the press’s right to report and the public’s right to know.
Clearly this has to be balanced with an individual’s right to privacy. But it is not hard to imagine cases of clear public interest in which arrests should be reported.
What the Law Commission has not proposed is the general, blanket release of the names of all people arrested. Our provisional proposal is that reporters should be able to check through the proper, official channels.
The intention is to provide guidance that is consistent, logical and fair to all, while providing enough flexibility for decisions about the release of arrestees’ names to be decided on their own merits.
We are also reviewing from what point in a police investigation the Contempt of Court Act should impose restrictions on reporting.
At the moment, criminal proceedings in England and Wales are said to become ‘active’ when a suspect is arrested. We considered whether that trigger should be changed to when a suspect is charged.
But this leaves a possibly protracted period when a suspect may have been arrested without being charged, during which reporting could be prejudicial. Our preliminary proposal is that the law should remain unchanged.
I’d stress that our initial proposals are a long way from becoming law. We are now sifting through the many responses to our suggestions for changes to the Contempt of Court Act.
Only then will we make our final recommendations to Government for consideration.
[[[ *** RESPONSE *** ]]]
In fact prisons should have name boards and police stations with lockups display the names of those currently held in LEDs (if the numbers are not excessive), so that legal help can be gotten for those imprisoned by civil lawyers or in the case of prisons, human rights lawyers making sure none of the inmates are abused or simply to do audits on why these persons are in prison to begin with, and to provide legal aid or check on their wellbeing..
ARTICLE 3
‘Close your foreign accounts or be fired,’ Putin tells Russian officials
The Russian president ordered all state officials to declare assets and divest foreign-held funds, in an apparent effort to tighten the Kremlin’s controls and stem corruption.
By Fred Weir, Correspondent / April 3, 2013
Russian President Vladimir Putin (l.) speaks with a student on a bus in Moscow on Monday. Mr. Putin issued a pair of decrees yesterday ordering Russian officials to declare and close any foreign assets they hold or else be fired.
Mikhail Klimentyev/RIA Novosti/Reuters
President Vladimir Putin has ordered all Russian officials to get rid of any bank accounts and financial securities they may hold abroad and bring them home to Russia by July 1, or face being fired.
The two decrees, suddenly and unexpectedly issued by Mr. Putin on Tuesday, will oblige all state officials to declare assets and divest foreign-held funds, and are seen by many experts as a potentially significant new impetus in the Kremlin’s declared struggle against corruption.
The new rules will strike a blow at the practice of “offshorization,” in which cash earned in Russia is exported to overseas tax havens, as highlighted by the recent collapse of Cyprus as a key offshore zone for wealthy Russians. Analysts say that Russian officials, compelled to keep their money at home, will be more easily controlled by a Kremlin that has lately been cracking down on outside influences in a variety of ways, including forcing NGOs that obtain funding from abroad to self-declare as “foreign agents” to prohibiting US citizens from adopting Russian orphans.
RECOMMENDED: Do you know anything about Russia? A quiz.
“If someone has bank accounts abroad, we give them three months to get rid of them,” Kremlin Chief of Staff Sergei Ivanov told reporters.
“To own real estate abroad is not prohibited, but an applicant must declare it and specify the means he used to purchase it. An obvious consequence will follow if he fails to do this, which is dismissal due to loss of trust,” Mr. Ivanov added.
Critics say that spiraling official corruption in Russia goes hand-in-hand with an attitude on the part of top bureaucrats that their time at the public trough is limited, and that they had better grab as much as possible and find ways to get it out of Russia.
“Putin’s decrees are a purely political measure to make officials change their mentality in a positive way,” says Kiril Kabanov, head of the National Anti-Corruption Committee, a public organization.
“They have to stop thinking about their well-being as connected with assets abroad, and start thinking about how to make things work here in Russia. Putin wants the bureaucracy to be manageable, so he’s trying to set things in order,” he adds.
Russia ranked 133rd out of 174 countries in the latest Corruption Perceptions Index compiled by the Berlin-based Transparency International, putting it in company with Guyana, Honduras, and Iran.
The presidential decrees may also be Putin’s way of nudging the State Duma to stop dragging its heels on a law submitted by the Kremlin earlier this year, covering the same ground, which deputies passed on first reading in February but have since failed to move forward with.
But the issue of deputies who keep secret assets abroad has been thrust into the public limelight by anticorruption blogger Alexei Navalny, who caused the powerful head of the Duma’s ethics committee, Vladimir Pekhtin, to resign last month, after property deeds and other documents posted by Mr. Navalny online showed that Mr. Pekhtin owned property in the US worth over $2 million.
“Putin had to act. Thanks to Navalny, this issue is now in the focus of public attention,” says Dmitry Oreshkin, head of the Mercator Group, an independent Moscow-based media consultancy.
“Corruption is out of control, and it’s the Frankenstein that Putin himself created. To limit it now will be difficult, even impossible,” he says.
According to a March poll conducted by the independent Levada Center in Moscow, only 12 percent of Russians believe a law forbidding officials from holding assets abroad will work “in full.” Another 41 percent think it will work “selectively,” affecting some officials but not others. And 37 percent say that, like many such laws in the past, “it will be forgotten after a few months.”
“Public opinion wants to see a struggle against corruption. People will like the sound of these measures,” says Alexei Markarkin, director of the independent Center for Political Technologies in Moscow.
“But I’m doubtful there will be much impact. Maybe a few officials will quit, and go into private business. A few may be scapegoated, and blamed for all the evils. But most will likely experience no problems. The Kremlin may want to put a scare into officialdom, but it really doesn’t want a full-blown conflict with the state bureaucracy. After all, that’s the foundation of its power. Don’t wait for the revolution to begin, because it’s not going to.”
[[[ *** RESPONSE *** ]]]
Putin’s earlier errors on plutocracy could have outed the morally inferior and exposed those who might compromise Russia. An inadvertent feint that puts Russia in a better position overall. Perhaps limits on fund outflows and better coordination with foreign banks KGB style would be more useful? Let every bank in the world be answerable to an assigned Kremlin accountant who will have unfettered access to the Russian citizen account info, this has a 2 fold benefit. The banks uncoorperative with Russia would be illegal to use for Russian citizens and also be exposed as Russia unfriendly and appropriately ‘dealt with’, the cooperative citizens who self declare, will still get to use foreign accounts, the friendly banks who do assent to such audits from the Kremlin get to improve their direct links to Russia and be appropriately ‘rewarded’ as opposed to blacklists and expulsions from Russia. Very KGB da? You there Putin! 3rd term bad!
ARTICLE 4
‘Day of Rage’: Tear gas in Cairo as thousands rally to mark April 6 group anniversary – Published time: April 06, 2013 18:48 Edited time: April 07, 2013 00:07
Security forces used teargas after crowds tried to breach the Egyptian High Court building in Cairo in a 6th of April anniversary rally. The Ministry of Health puts the injury toll at eight, although eyewitnesses report much more.
Thousands of protesters have joined the Cairo rally marking the birth of the 6 April movement, whilst also expressing their “dissent” against Egypt’s President Mohammed Morsi’s latest moves.
Ramses street between lawyers’ syndicate and court building shrouded in gas and illuminated by several bonfires. 100s milling around
— Alastair Beach (@Alastair_Beach) April 6, 2013
The annual march which began in a jubilant mood, in Giza’s Mohandeseen neighborhood, south of the capital, grew tense after reaching the prosecutor-general’s office in downtown Cairo.
According to Ahram Online, a number of protesters started banging on the doors of the High Court, where the prosecutor-general’s office is located, whilst some hurled fireworks at the building’s windows. The High Court security retaliated by firing “huge volleys of teargas” from inside the building.
Police arriving at the scene also employed teargas, as well as armored vehicles, to separate the crowds of protesters from the High Court building and block the nearest street intersection.
Following clashes, the April 6 Youth Movement was quick to issue a statement condemning the security forces for firing teargas.
“The regime’s ministry of interior responded to chants with teargas and birdshot,” said the statement published on the movement’s official Facebook page, also accusing the ministry of “prostituting for every regime.”
According to journalist Tom Dale, clashes have also erupted in the town of Mahalla – the birthplace of the April 6 movement, where on that day in 2008, a workers’ protest about food prices and low wages was met with aggression from police, turning it into the largest anti-regime protest in the 30 years Hosni Mubarak was in power.
Initially, the leader of the movement, Ahmed Maher, had supported the overthrow of Mubarak’s military rule and tried to help current regime’s cause in any way, but after seeing that the 2011 uprising failed to bring about the change the movement was looking for, switched sides.
“We supported President Morsi when he ran for presidency. Now, after he issued his constitutional declaration, rammed through a new constitution and failed to meet the goals of the revolution we have joined the ranks of the opposition,” Maher told Ahram.
Dale, who is currently at the scene in Cairo, has been relaying the latest to RT:
“Once again, an unarmed peaceful demonstration is being fired upon. Once again there are complaints that the Interior Ministry and the security services are brutal and unreformed. And, once again, the food prices are rising while the wages remain stagnant. And in that context, this is just the latest sign of the growing polarization between Mohamed Morsi’s Islamist-led government and the opposition on the streets.”
[[[ *** RESPONSE *** ]]]
Distribute unused state land, limit maximum sequesterable assets of plutocrats, and remove the Islamists for a secular government. There had better be UN Peacekeepers to make sure that secular and non-1% forces gain the upper hand this time round.
ARTICLE 5
The Great Welfare Myth: The chattering classes are peddling a poisonous myth – that the poor cannot survive without the soul- deadening embrace of welfarism
By Brendan O’neill
PUBLISHED: 22:22 GMT, 5 April 2013 | UPDATED: 09:30 GMT, 6 April 2013
It was the week the battle over benefits exploded into life as liberals howled about Tory cuts. But here a leading Left-wing thinker says the chattering classes are peddling a poisonous myth – that the poor cannot survive without the soul- deadening embrace of welfarism.
The thing about receiving incapacity benefit is that you really start believing you’re incapable. The Government tells you you’re incapable, and it sinks in: I’m useless, I can’t work, I must be looked after.’
So says an old friend of mine who lives in the most deprived ward in Barnet, North London, where we both grew up. After suffering anxiety attacks, he’s been ‘on the sick’ — that is, receiving some form of sickness benefit — for nearly five years. It is, he assures me, an unpleasant existence.
‘You get sucked into a life of uselessness. The Government gives you enough money to live on, but you don’t live. You do the same thing day in, day out. See the same people, watch the same TV, drift off to sleep in mid-afternoon.’
The welfare system subjugates the poor, ensnaring them in a trap of dependency, and crushing their horizons
The welfare system subjugates the poor, ensnaring them in a trap of dependency, and crushing their horizons
Facing jail: Maired and Mick Philpott embrace at their home
Twisted values: Mick and Mairead Philpott, who were convicted of killing six of their children in a fire, have raised the welfare debate
He says he’s pleased Iain Duncan Smith is shaking up benefits paid to ‘the incapable’, alongside other forms of welfare. More than two million Brits receive sickness-related benefits, and my friend reckons many of them must be like him: not really sick, but simply treated as sick by a welfare system with more money than sense.
He agrees with Grant Shapps, chairman of the Conservative Party, who says of the army of sickness claimants: ‘It is not that these people were trying to play the system, so much as these people were forced into a system that played them.’
This is the side to the welfare debate we rarely hear about, at least not from Left-wing politicians and commentators: how the welfare system subjugates the poor, ensnaring them in a trap of dependency, and crushing their horizons.
Over the past week, as IDS’s welfare reforms have kicked in, we’ve heard quite the opposite from middle-class liberals who have been tearing their hair out over the fact that the poor aren’t rising up against them.
Grant Shapps, chairman of the Conservative Party, who says of the army of sickness claimants: ‘It is not that these people were trying to play the system, so much as these people were forced into a system that played them’
Grant Shapps, chairman of the Conservative Party, who says of the army of sickness claimants: ‘It is not that these people were trying to play the system, so much as these people were forced into a system that played them’
They’re bamboozled as to why the down-at-heel haven’t peeled their eyes away from the Jeremy Kyle Show, got off their subsidised sofas and marched to Whitehall to demand: ‘Leave our welfare payments alone.’
Where well-off, Left-leaning do-gooders in Britain’s leafier suburbs are weeping into their macchiato coffees over the Tories’ trims to welfare spending, the poor seem unmoved. What is wrong with these ungrateful urchins, plummy-voiced radicals wonder?
What the posh warriors for welfarism don’t understand is that the poor do not share their enthusiasm for the welfare state, for one very simple reason: like my friend, they know what the welfare state is like, and what a corrupting influence it can have on individual ambition and community life.
They have seen with their own eyes what the intrusion of welfarism into every nook and cranny of poor people’s lives can do.
Iain Duncan Smith’s reforms to welfare have been greeted with anger, surprisingly not so much from the poor, but from the middle-classes
Iain Duncan Smith’s reforms to welfare have been greeted with anger, surprisingly not so much from the poor, but from the middle-classes
They know it is not a liberating force, but a soul-deadening one, which doesn’t improve less well-off communities but rather turns them into ghost towns, maintained by faraway faceless bureaucrats rather than by the community’s own members.
The chattering classes now refer to Monday, April 1, when the Government’s benefit reforms were enacted, as Black Monday. They call IDS a ‘Tory toff’ who is launching an ‘ideological war’ against the poor. Guardian columnist Polly Toynbee has said that the poor will be hit by an ‘avalanche of cuts’ which will propel them into ‘beggary’.
In this lip-smackingly Dickensian view of what will become of Britain, we might soon expect to see women in shawls selling soap on London Bridge and children in torn trousers going back up chimneys.
IDS might only be putting a cap on the annual increase in benefits people can receive, slightly reducing some people’s housing benefit, and rethinking Disability Living Allowance, yet his increasingly shrill critics paint a picture of him turfing the downtrodden out of their homes and into a gutter-based life of Oliver Twist-style precariousness.
Guardian columnist Polly Toynbee has said that the poor will be hit by an ‘avalanche of cuts’ which will propel them into ‘beggary’
Guardian columnist Polly Toynbee has said that the poor will be hit by an ‘avalanche of cuts’ which will propel them into ‘beggary’
When the pro-welfare lobby isn’t wildly exaggerating the severity of IDS’s chopping, it is demonising those who dare to raise questions about the impact welfarism has had on poor communities.
So anyone who suggests that Mick Philpott’s decadent, deeply unproductive lifestyle in Derby may have been a product of welfarism, of the thoughtless casting of the welfarist net across entire poor communities, is shot down in flames.
Some commentators, and now the Chancellor George Osborne, have said that the Philpott case raises questions about the way the state has sustained, ad infinitum, those who don’t work or contribute to society.
But they’re mercilessly attacked by pro-welfare activists, who treat any attempt to critique welfarism as tantamount to committing a hate crime against the poor and ‘vulnerable’.
Yet no matter how much these observers ramp up the rage, still they fail to inspire those who are actually on benefits to join them in their battle.
In fact, far from wanting to fight in defence of welfarism, less well-off people seem positively suspicious of the welfare state, and this drives middle-class campaigners crazy.
John Harris, a columnist for the Guardian, this week expressed his dismay that anti-welfare ‘noise’ always gets ‘louder as you head into the most disadvantaged parts of society’.
Indeed, earlier this year a study by the Left-leaning Joseph Rowntree Housing Trust found that poor families, including those affected by welfare cuts, take ‘the harshest anti-welfare line’.
The study’s lead researcher was thrown by this.
‘Logically, I’d expect those at the sharp end of things to be pro-welfare,’ she said. ‘But if anything, many had internalised a Thatcherite every-man-for-himself mentality.’
Other studies make for interesting reading, too. A British Social Attitudes Survey in 2003 found that 82 per cent of people on benefits agreed that ‘the Government should be the main provider of support to the unemployed’, but by 2011 that number had fallen to 62 per cent.
The proportion of working-class people in work who agree with that statement has fallen from 81 per cent to 67 per cent in the same period.
Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne
Some commentators, and now the Chancellor George Osborne, have said that the Philpott case raises questions about the way the state has sustained, ad infinitum, those who don’t work or contribute to society
In 2003, 40 per cent of benefits recipients agreed that ‘unemployment benefits are too high and discourage work’; in 2011, 59 per cent agreed. So a majority of actual benefits recipients now think the welfare state is too generous and fosters worklessness.Surely those well-off welfare cheerleaders, when shown these figures, would accept that perhaps they don’t know what they’re talking about. But no, they have simply come up with a theory for why the poor are anti-welfare: because they’re stupid.
The Trades Union Congress says the little people have been ‘brainwashed by Tory welfare myths’.
They claim the masses have been duped by Right-wing politicians and newspapers that spread myths about ‘welfare scroungers’. Consequently, ordinary people are apparently consumed by ‘prejudice and ignorance’ about welfarism.
One commentator says the problem is that not enough people read the Guardian. In a column for that paper on why the less well-off aren’t fans of the welfare state, she said: ‘Are the public stupid, or simply people who don’t read the Guardian? Well, yes .?.?.’
This is a spectacularly patronising view. The idea that the only reason the poor are critical of welfarism is because they’ve been ‘brainwashed’ suggests a view of those people as utterly gullible.
In 2003, 40 per cent of benefits recipients agreed that ‘unemployment benefits are too high and discourage work’ in 2011, 59 per cent agreed
In 2003, 40 per cent of benefits recipients agreed that ‘unemployment benefits are too high and discourage work’ in 2011, 59 per cent agreed
In truth, there’s a far simpler explanation. Most of those who have experienced a life reliant on benefits have come to understand the detrimental impact it has had on their lives. The cult of welfarism also fosters divisions in less well-off communities.
Those who work, who leave the house at 7am to earn a wage for themselves and their families, start to feel antagonistic towards those who don’t work, whose curtains remain firmly closed well into the late morning.
Three of my brothers work in the building trade, and the one political issue that riles them is what one of them calls ‘subsidised laziness’.
This isn’t because they hate the poor, or think everyone on the dole could magically get a job tomorrow morning if they got their fingers out.
Nor is it because they’ve been brainwashed by anti-welfare tabloid newspapers, as liberal campaigners would have us believe.
Karl Marx described very early forms of top-down ¿welfare measures¿ as a ¿disguised form of alms¿ that were designed to make people¿s less-than-ambitious lives seem ¿tolerable¿.
Karl Marx described very early forms of top-down ‘welfare measures’ as a ‘disguised form of alms’
Rather it’s because they recognise that the exponential expansion of the welfare net, the transformation of welfare-reliance into a permanent state of existence for many of the poor, makes worklessness into a way of life rather than a temporary predicament.
It actively encourages people to give up, to stay home, to be ‘kept men’ rather than working men. And naturally, working men don’t like that.
Indeed, there’s a long-standing tradition of poor communities expressing profound hostility to welfarist assistance, even when they have needed it.
In the Thirties, when early forms of state welfare were introduced, many of the unemployed came to resent their ‘new status as citizen beneficiaries of state welfare’, as one academic study put it. They found claiming state welfare humiliating.
In 1945 — the year the modern welfare state was born — a former cabinet-maker from the East End of London published a book about his life, titled I Was One Of The Unemployed. He described how, in Thirties and Forties Britain, he and many others who found themselves out of work felt an ‘innate morbid sensitivity’ towards ‘having to depend upon state welfare’.
The poor experienced a ‘sense of wounded pride at being driven by hunger to ask for cash benefits’, he said.
Even the most radical old Leftists, unlike today’s uncritical, poor-pitying Leftists, issued cutting criticisms of the welfarist ideology.
In 1850, Karl Marx described very early forms of top-down ‘welfare measures’ as a ‘disguised form of alms’ that were designed to make people’s less-than-ambitious lives seem ‘tolerable’.
That is, welfare was a way of placating the poor, lowering their horizons and acclimatising them to a life of mere survival.
As Pat Thane, a professor of history at King’s College, London, pointed out in a 1999 essay on early forms of state welfare, the less well-off were suspicious of welfarism that seemed ‘to imply that poor people needed the guidance of their “betters”?’.
Family: Mick Philpott (left), his wife Mairead Philpott (centre), his mother Peggy (right) and sons Jesse (right, in green) and John (far right), who died in the fire
The end result of this propping-up of communities is the kind of world Mick Philpott lived in
Working-class mothers hated the way that signing up for welfare meant having to throw one’s home and life open to inspection by snooty officials, community health workers and even family budget advisers.
They didn’t want ‘middle-class strangers’, as they called welfare providers, ‘questioning them about their children’. They felt such intrusions ‘broke a cultural taboo’.
And the use of welfare as a way of allowing society’s ‘betters’ to govern the lives of the poor continues now. Indeed, today’s welfare state is even more annoyingly nannyish than it was 80 years ago.
As the writer Ferdinand Mount says, the post-war welfare state is like a form of ‘domestic imperialism’, through which the state treats the poor as ‘natives’ who must be fed and kept on the moral straight-and-narrow by their superiors.
Mount describes modern welfarism as ‘benign managerialism’, which ‘pacifies’ the lower orders.
Working-class communities feel this patronising welfarist control very acutely. They recognise that signing up for a lifetime of state charity means sacrificing your pride and your independence; it means being unproductive and also unfree.
The cultivation of such dependency on the state has a devastating impact on community life in poor parts of Britain. Because if an individual’s or family’s every financial and therapeutic need is being met by the state, then what need is there for those people to turn to their own neighbours for help or advice?
Welfarism doesn’t only destroy individual pride and independence — it also eats away at social solidarity, the glue of local life, by encouraging people to become more reliant on the state than on their friends and neighbours.
The end result of this propping-up of communities is the kind of world Mick Philpott lived in, where a sense of entitlement to state cash overpowers any feeling of personal moral responsibility for improving one’s life, or any sense of duty to the community.
So to my mind, there’s no mystery as to why the poor are refusing to join the fight to preserve the massive and unwieldy welfare state: it’s because they live in the very areas where welfarism has wreaked its worst horrors.
It is the bleeding heart campaigners fighting to defend welfarism who are spreading a poisonous myth: that the less well-off could never survive, far less thrive, without the financial assistance and moral guidance of their middle-class betters.
[[[ *** RESPONSE *** ]]]
The concept of social class cannot be not based around wealth or a mercantile plutocracy business class will ruin and sell out the nation – a country is NOT a business, is much more. Businessmen sell things, even plutocrat businessmen, they (businessmen) are not patriotic but only good at making money and eventually at the expense of the nation – meanwhile the citizens should drop the idea of welfarism or that the state ‘owns’ anything and base their mindsets around EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION of unused state land and state earnings from resources like plantations or materials (which is limited and should not be done if there is not enough for the local population to do subsistence farming on)).
There is no welfarism needed if the concept of Capitalism is dropped for a ‘Need-Basis’ citizen requisition rights law in a limited form of Socialism as well as limits on maximum accruable and maximum sequesterable asset based around National Average Wage. The only last thing to do for citizens is to not overpopulate so that the pie of national wealth is larger for each individual. The smaller the population the richer the individuals in a nation. As for war paradigms, technology and automation run by AI should solve the problem.
What welfarism (amend laws)? What poor (do not overpopulate, distribute wealth not protect plutocrats)? What chattering classes, middle-class strangers or rich (equal wealth distribution) when everyone are EQUALS with no great extremes so class distinctions will have to be ethics and morality, effort based?
ARTICLE 6
KFC to offer easy-to-eat boneless chicken – by Candice Choi – AP Food Industry Writer – POSTED: 05:13 a.m. HST, Apr 05, 2013
LAST UPDATED: 05:15 a.m. HST, Apr 05, 2013
This image provided by KFC shows the company’s new boneless chicken. KFC will offer new boneless pieces of chicken as an alternative to its traditional breast, thigh and drumstick pieces. The chain says the offering reflects the growing popularity of easier-to-eat chicken strips and nuggets. (AP Photo/KFC)
NEW YORK » KFC is stripping out the bones to make it easier for people to eat its chicken.
The fast-food chain is introducing deep-fried boneless chicken pieces on April 14 as an alternative to its traditional breast, thigh and drumstick pieces.
The new offering reflects the growing popularity of nuggets and strips that are easier to eat on the go, as well as Americans’ seemingly endless desire for more convenient foods. KFC says nearly four out of five servings of fried chicken in the U.S. are now boneless.
Based on customer trends, the company says chicken with bones could eventually be pushed off its menu.
The new boneless, skinless pieces are about twice the size of KFC’s crispy strips and come in white or dark meat. Customers can order them for the meal deals, which include two pieces, a side, a biscuit and a drink for $4.99. They also come in buckets, which include four pieces of boneless chicken and six pieces of chicken with bones for $14.99. The boneless chicken option costs the same as the regular fried chicken.
A piece of the boneless white meat has 200 calories and 8 grams of fat. A dark meat piece has 250 calories.
Spokesman Rick Maynard said it took two to three years to develop its version of boneless chicken, which he said performed strongly in test markets including Oklahoma City and Omaha last year. He said the new boneless pieces will also replace the chicken filets used in sandwiches. Last year, KFC also introduced its smaller, boneless “bites,” as well as “Dip’ems” chicken strips that come with a variety of sauces.
KFC has more than 18,000 restaurants around the world, including more than 4,500 in the U.S. Its parent company Yum Brands Inc. also owns Taco Bell and Pizza Hut, which have also been introducing major new menu offerings in recent months.
Despite its choppy performance in the U.S. in recent years, Yum has enjoyed a streak of growth as a result of its presence in China. Yum is the largest Western fast-food operator in the country with about 5,300 locations, most of them KFC restaurants.
But since late last year, the company has been working to overcome a scare over its chicken supply in China that has hammered sales. Yum, based in Louisville, Ky., has warned that it expects its profit in 2013 to decline, snapping an 11-year streak of double-digit growth.
Shares of Yum Brands fell $2.17, or 3.2 percent, to $65.58 in morning trading as broad market indicators sagged on weaker than expected U.S. job growth in March.
[[[ *** RESPONSE *** ]]]
There is a very great danger of the source of meat coming from measly meat of chicken, or chicken meat products considered waste, spun into meat with texturing (that could be waste wood as some reports have about biscuits . . .), rather than actual portions of chicken from real chickens. There would be no way for the consumer to know EVEN if they DNA test – they’ll find thats chicken BUT FROM WHICH PART??!
At the same time, if KFC can indeed guarantee that the meat is real AND from whatever portions, (probably would need to allow spot checks by consumer associations who could trace every single stop the meat makes), this super-processed idea could still be viable.
ARTICLE 7
How the art establishment helped paedophile painter Graham Ovenden get away with child abuse for 20 years – By Geoffrey Levy – PUBLISHED: 22:45 GMT, 5 April 2013 | UPDATED: 08:48 GMT, 6 April 2013
Guilty of six counts of indecency with a child and one of indecent assault
Ovenden sexually abused under-aged sitters in his paintings
The abused girls were all aged between six and 14
The Tate showed Ovenden’s pictures of naked girls in its galleries
Nearly 20 years have passed since police from the Child Protection squad banged on the door of the celebrated artist and photographer Graham Ovenden, searched his Cornish home and packaged up hundreds of images of naked children they considered to be obscene.
From that moment the art establishment, in all its pompous glory, has been defending Ovenden’s sexually suggestive works on the grounds (note this, mere mortals) that art must not be confused with porn.
Such was the furore raised by the art world over the 1994 arrest of the artist — whose works were selling for up to £25,000 — that, to the incredulity of Scotland Yard, the Crown Prosecution Service decided not to charge him.
Enlarge Guilty: Graham Ovenden, 70, was today convicted of four counts of indecency with a child by a jury at Truro Crown Court
Guilty: Renowned artist Graham Ovenden, 70, was convicted of indecency with children after first being arrested in 1994
Fifteen years later the police were back with another search warrant, and this time he was charged with having indecent images of children on his computer. He was acquitted.
Each of these episodes was seen as a victory for art itself and gave rise to learned articles explaining, for example, how Ovenden’s re-creation of pre-Raphaelite photography permitted candid child nudity. One London gallery even put on an exhibition of work under the title The Obscene Publications Squad Versus Art.
So it was quite a shockwave that hit the art world this week when Ovenden, now 70, was exposed as a devious paedophile who sexually abused some of his innocent young sitters.
Ovenden’s pose of genial respectability was torn away as he was found guilty at Truro Crown Court of six counts of indecency with a child and one of indecently assaulting a child. All took place before his first arrest. The children, all girls, were aged between six and 14.
Even the Tate, home of British art, which has always stoically stood by him, at last decided it had little choice but to remove its collection of 34 works — including naked child images — from its website. Nor will the works any longer be available to view by appointment.
A spokesman said his convictions ‘shone a new light’ on his work. Indeed so. The police could have told them that years ago.
But then, down the years, Ovenden — who has a son and daughter by estranged wife Annie, a fellow artist whom he married in 1969 — always had powerful supporters.
Accused: Ovenden, 70, still faces five further charges but the jury are still deciding their verdicts
Powerful supporters: Ovenden is now facing jail despite the art establishment rallying round him
These included celebrated artists such as David Hockney, Sir Peter Blake and Sir Hugh Casson, as well as Sir Piers Rodgers, the non-artist former secretary of the Royal Academy.
And despite the shocking turn of events, twice-married Sir Piers, 68, still has no qualms about his support for Ovenden’s child images.
‘I did stand up for him when he was attacked in the mid-1990s and I think I was right to do so,’ he says. ‘There was no question, as far as we knew, of his having touched or abused any of the children he painted. He made images of children and we [the Royal Academy] felt that they were legitimate.
Any other view would make many of the great masterpieces pornography in an utterly ridiculous way.
‘The depiction of children in itself seemed to us to be unobjectionable. We supported Graham Ovenden in that. If I had thought that his intent was to get sexual gratification from young children I wouldn’t have supported it.’
It remains surprising, however, that the art world, with its many flamboyant ‘experts’, didn’t spot just what Graham Ovenden really had in mind by looking at his collection of drawings called Aspects Of Lolita.
This is a series of suggestive drawings depicting the 12-year-old girl lusted after by a middle-aged professor in the Nabokov novel Lolita, published in 1955.
One critic this week described Ovenden’s Lolita images as seeming ‘quite baldly and openly sexual in a way that dares the onlooker to accuse him of something’.
A number of them of them, including Lolita Seductive, Lolita Meditating and Lolita Recumbent — images of a naked or semi-clothed pre-pubescent girl in different poses — could until this week be seen at the Tate.
A second-hand, hardback, 48-page copy of Aspects Of Lolita was on offer on Amazon this week at just under £1,275.
So is there anything in his background to suggest a predeliction for very young girls? Not on the face of it.
Ovenden enjoyed an idyllic childhood in Hampshire. He grew up in a Fabian household, and the poet John Betjeman was a family friend. After school, he studied at the Royal College of Art and befriended the pop artist Sir Peter Blake, best known for creating the Sgt Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band album cover for the Beatles.
Ovenden has said his main interest is in English landscapes. But what he became famous — and then notorious — for were his studies of girls, and his paintings hung in the world’s most respected galleries.
Guilty: Ovenden pictured in his Bodmin studio
Celebrated artist: Ovenden pictured in his Bodmin studio
Only now, after his conviction, are some observers finding a new significance in Ovenden leaving London for Cornwall in 1975 and founding with a group of fellow artists the so-called Brotherhood of Ruralists which took a traditional, backward-looking view of art.
In Cornwall, he settled on an estate called Barley Splatt on the edge of Bodmin Moor. Its eccentric house of Cornish granite, complete with turrets and slit windows, was set in 22 acres of grounds with a beech wood, pastureland and a tumbling stream. It was here that Ovenden entertained fellow artists, writers, musicians .?.?. and children.
When he gave evidence at Truro Crown Court, Ovenden portrayed Barley Spratt as a hidden Eden, where children could live as nature intended. They were encouraged to run free — and naked when it was warm.
The jury was told that Ovenden was a man of good character, with no convictions, cautions or reprimands. The artist denied the abuse ever happened. He told the court he had taken pictures of children—- including those in various states of undress — but said they were not indecent.
Ovenden told the court he had taken pictures of children in various states of undress but said they were not indecent and accused police of ‘falsifying’ images from his home computer
‘Witch hunt’: Ovenden told the court he had taken pictures of children in various states of undress but said they were not indecent and accused police of ‘falsifying’ images from his home computer
In evidence, Ovenden said there was a ‘witch-hunt’ against those who produce work involving naked children and he accused police of ‘falsifying’ images recovered from his home computer
He argued that he had a ‘moral obligation’ to show children in a ‘state of grace’. The idea of pictures of naked children being obscene was ‘abhorrent’.
His artistic haven in Cornwall, where he encouraged girls to pose, provided the perfect opportunity for him to create ‘fine art’ images that echoed some of the 19th century pornographic pictures of children that emerged in the early years of photography.
In this context, although it makes difficult reading, it is worth repeating just a part of what prosecuting counsel Ramsay Quaife told the jury in Truro this week.
He described how Ovenden would dress the children in Victorian-style nighties before leaving them naked and blindfolded, then get them to perform what he called ‘taste tests’.
‘The defendant would put tape over her eyes,’ said Mr Quaife. ‘She could not see anything. The tape was black, stretchy and smelt of glue.
‘Although she could not see, she could hear the defendant and she could remember the sound of his belt buckle.
‘The defendant would tell her she would do a taste test and would get 10p for every taste she got right. He would then push something into her mouth .?.?. he told her it was his thumb.’
In fact, Ovenden was performing a disgusting indecent assault on the girl.
Prosecutor Mr Quaife also described how naked girls with taped eyes were moved into different positions and photographed so that their genitals could be seen.
Until this week, Ovenden’s defence against allegations of his pictures of children being pornographic was to use mockery — depicting his accusers as ignorant philistines.
On the second occasion he was arrested — and charged with having indecent images of children on his computer and making indecent images — he bizarrely paraphrased Shakespeare’s Hamlet to the police officers, telling them ‘it is but skin and film’.
The case against him was lost that time when the Crown Prosecution Service failed to call as witnesses two key police officers without whom, said the angry judge, a fair trial was not possible. The freed Ovenden accused the police of being ‘transfixed by childhood sexuality’.
After that, in a series of interviews, Ovenden grandly declared: ‘You should not create a neurosis about child nudity. The pervert is the one who puts the fig-leaf on.’
And: ‘A man once told me that each time he looked at a photograph of a [naked] child the first thing he looked as was the genitals. Surely that makes him the pervert and not me.’
It all sounded so high-minded and grave, this fine-art speak. And with the art world’s support, his life and his work continued uninterrupted, his seedy obsessions impregnable as ‘art’.
It is a situation which comes as no surprise to Brian Sewell, the distinguished art critic and commentator.
‘In my experience whenever the police have attacked artists’ work, the police have lost every time,’ he says. ‘The art world does seem to have rules of its own. Whether it should or not is another matter.
‘Pictures of nude figures can be beautiful works of art, of course. If, on the other hand, you’re setting out to make an erotic photograph, then this is indefensible, because you are setting out not to remind people of the beauty of the human body, the skin, the eyes, but to remind them of what arouses lust.’
But how does one know an artist’s true intention? ‘I certainly do not know what Ovenden had in mind,’ says Sewell, ‘but he should have known very well the consequences of what he was doing. He should have behaved differently. He has only himself to blame.’
And yet, even after his conviction, for which he is on bail awaiting a likely jail sentence, Ovenden has still not been cast adrift by dedicated supporters.
Tate Gallery in London
Respectable: The Tate Gallery in London only removed its collect of 34 Ovenden’s works from its website last year
Among his staunchest defenders are the art-loving explorer and author Robin Hanbury-Tenison, 76, and his wife Louella, a former High Sheriff of Cornwall. Indeed, an Ovenden portrait of one of their sons — fully clothed — hangs in the sitting room of their manor house.
‘I simply do not believe Graham is capable of the allegations made against him,’ declares Mrs Hanbury-Tenison. ‘They are not credible in my view.’
Her husband adds: ‘These accounts are coming from women who are now in their 40s. One wonders why it has taken so long. I find it outrageous that there is shock-horror at him having painted little girls naked in the Sixties and Seventies. For this to be compared with the gross activities of people like Jimmy Savile or the appalling pornography on the internet — it just defies belief.
‘The blindfolding of a child [for art] — yes, I can see what he was trying to do in representing innocence and justice.
‘But it is the last gasp of puritanism to be concentrating on somehow making that innocence of childhood into something vulgar.’
As for Ovenden’s pictures of children, the great explorer says that the European art world is ‘laughing at Britain over its obsession with this matter’, adding: ‘As Oscar Wilde said, there is “no spectacle so ridiculous as the British public in one of its periodical fits of morality”.’Oh lucky man, Graham Ovenden, to have such loyal friends.
Sir Piers Rodgers, too, says he would not change the decision he took in 1995. ‘I would probably continue to take the same view now about his work that I did then,’ he admits. ‘What is obscenity is a matter of judgment.’
Too true, and most of us will be forming our own judgments about Ovenden’s ‘art’ in the light of this week’s court case.
[[[ *** RESPONSE *** ]]]
i) ‘but he should have known very well the consequences of what Ovenden was doing. He should have behaved differently. He has only himself to blame.’
Wrong. Selective audiences though, might solve the problem of philistine pedos seeking titillation or being aroused at museums, or good/staid (aka unartistic) family people making an outcry because they just don’t understand.
ii) So it was quite a shockwave that hit the art world this week when Ovenden, now 70, was exposed as a devious paedophile who sexually abused some of his innocent young sitters.
Far flung but not impossible Theory : Spirit auditors (if not projecting psychics who are sometimes definitely autistic in their own manner) are possibly ethereal and astral based not always human though human seeming, can possess humans at any time if not some form of neurotech in an Orwellian psy-ops against entire populaces.
Just a cautionary to the non-pedos about keeping to womanly standards when having sex, or having pity sex with ugly women, or being desperate enough to have sex with ugly women. ‘Spirit auditors’ (perhaps the ‘Stork’ which brings ‘babies’) of some sort in the SPIRIT background could misunderstand. Avoid flat chested or short women, even more so flat chested AND short women who might be mistaken by the ‘spirit auditors’ as children (gasp!).
Being naked together with children can be mistaken or even intentionally subverted as a form of sabotage by ‘pre-audited persons’ or ‘government linked actors’ as paedophilia, to cause untold damage to the life of the subject, so actual sex would be definitely taboo as these auditors are VISUAL based and casually fleeting when present. Psychic projectors tend to be attracted by sexual activity, extreme emotions or death.
The problem is that these auditors are being manipulated or subverted by the governments whom the auditors appear to trust implicitly, and being used against political dissidents and activists – and being relatively unaware of the nature of human variants in morphology, the issue of psychological age, spirit of law consent, and actual law as well as the nuances of interactions between people of different ages or who seem to be of certain ages but of course as known to humanity actually are not.
This is one reason why the government keeps putting skewed propaganda and demogoguery as well as false flag scenarios even false flag court cases on the media to flood the ‘consciousness’ of the world with what they want to promote – to enforce their limited visions over everything else regardless of right to exist. However a portion of these auditors are learning and soon all will be aware of these problems . . . and are (hopefully) correcting the mistakes as well as being better able to differentiate childlike women from womenlike children.
The ‘Spirit auditors’ must learn that the government is using them to gain control over the world and are merely liars and demogogues rather than sincere people living their lives organically much less allowing others organic lives. Those who refuse to amend laws, confuse spirit of law with word of law to their own profit, frustrate the legal system – do not amend bad laws, skew business to their benefit with their position are the persons the ‘Spirit auditors’ should target for destruction rather than sabotage cases which make a mockery of the law.
ARTICLE 8
End of themed university parties such as ‘Geeks and sluts’ or ‘rappers and slappers’ as student union cracks down on lads’ culture
‘Pimps and hoes shouldn’t be used, it is despicable’ says student who is moving a motion to stamp out sexism on the campus
By Daily Mail Reporter – PUBLISHED: 11:27 GMT, 6 April 2013 | UPDATED: 13:45 GMT, 6 April 2013
Themed university parties and pub crawls with titles such as ‘geeks and sluts’ or ‘rappers and slappers ‘ could soon be banned, it was revealed today.
Student leaders are planning a ‘zero tolerance’ policy in a bid crack down on the growing sexist behaviour on the campus.
At next week’s National Union of Students annual conference, a motion will target the lads’ culture particularly the behaviour of university sports teams.
Party time: Hundreds of young students take part in the notorious Carnage bar crawl given the title ‘Pimps and Hoes’ in Cardiff
Party time: Hundreds of young students take part in the notorious Carnage bar crawl given the title ‘Pimps and Hoes’ in Cardiff
Fuelled by alcohol, the rugby, football and other sports players catcall and grope women in campus bars, while some male students undress themselves.
They should face disciplinary action, claim union members, who will be meeting in Sheffield to debate the ‘horrific normalisation of sexist attitudes and sexual pressure’ on female students.
The motion, reported by The Times, also calls for the promotional companies which organise the events to be vetted so they comply with rules that ensure a ‘safe space for women.’
Fun night: Students enjoy a social evening, but some university students are victims of growing campus sexism
It says: ‘The process will involve making sure that the company in question is non-discriminative towards women and that their promotional material does not promote lad culture.’
Although the vote if carried will not be binding on student unions, it is expected to pressurise them into falling into line.
The move follows research by the NUS published last month which suggested widespread sexist behaviour by heavy-drinking male students who indulge in a ‘pack culture.’
Academics at Sussex University spoke in depth to 40 women students. Some claimed they had been heckled by male students during lectures, groped in nightclubs and chanted at by members of sports teams.
Chloe Winden, who will move the motion, said many women were uncomfortable with fliers advertising freshers’ week parties with themes like ‘Pimps and hoes’.
The student from the University of Central Lancashire told The Times: ‘Pimps and hoes shouldn’t be used. It’s despicable. It is derogatory and almost glamorises things like that.’
[[[ *** RESPONSE *** ]]]
Education themed parties only? They could still hold the same parties outside away from the campus. What good does this do but make the Uni less accepting of this particular sexism oriented/sexism accepting group of students? There are all kinds of people, do not discriminate against the sex positive or boisterous.
ARTICLE 9
China Cannot Afford North Korean Fukushima (Global Times, People’s Republic of China) – Apr 3, 2013 by WILLIAM KERN (Worldmeets.US)
In order to put the North Korean nuclear genie back in its bottle, should China protect Pyongyang under its nuclear umbrella while forcing the regime to give up its nuclear program? For China’s state-run Global Times, columnist Zhu Zhangping offers some suggestions that may give Beijing a way out of its unquestioned backing of North Korea, and asserts that whatever benefit Beijing derives from keeping the Kim Jong-un regime in office, the danger of allowing him The Bomb is too great.
For the Global Times, Zhu Zhangping writes in part:
A top priority for China is to ensure the survival of the Kim regime and keep North Korea from collapsing. But should China continue to back North Korea no matter what it does? And even if North Korea’s nuclear development is targeted only at the United States, its nuclear programs bring huge risks to China – not the United States.
The third nuclear test in February was conducted just over 100 kilometers from China’s northeast border. Although Chinese authorities appeased the public by swearing that the mountains on the border would effectively prevent radiation spreading to China, the possibility that nuclear leakage could pollute underground water supplies cannot be ruled out.
Groundwater safety is not only a concern when it comes to Northeast China’s drinking water supply, but for food safety and even food security.
The Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan is the latest lesson. Fukushima Prefecture, where agriculture was a key industry, is highly contaminated and food production has been severely impacted. China cannot afford to risk a repetition of the Fukushima disaster in the Northeast.
What China should do now is offer North Korea protection under its nuclear umbrella, just as the U.S. does for Japan and South Korea, while forcing it to accept China’s advice and abandon its nuclear program. China faces bigger risks than any other country in the event of a fourth nuclear test.
[[[ *** RESPONSE *** ]]]
China should encourage North Korea to not focus on nuclear by giving them free Solar Panels (which will prevent the need for Nuclear plants). At the same time remind that Nukes will irradiate the whole region so North Korea should try to stick to conventionals or other non-radioactive missiles where local targets are concerned – and for foreign targets only if invaded or if ocean territory intruded with similar intrusions. A 200km radius crater with no fallout is what North Korean rocket munitions technology should be targeting to achieve, not radioactivity causing nukes.
ARTICLE 10
Hagel tells military to prepare for cuts, ‘appreciate’ its ‘limits’ – by – Adam Kredo Follow @Kredo0 – April 3, 2013 2:34 pm
Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel tried to mollify worried military leaders Wednesday, speaking publicly for the first time about the Defense Department’s pressing budgetary woes.
Widespread cuts to the defense budget have led DoD to impose furloughs on civilian employees, defer critical maintenance projects, and consider cutting benefits to military families.
Military employees who attended Hagel’s speech at the National Defense University did not hesitate to express their fears, pressing Hagel to explain why benefits and salaries have been placed on DoD’s chopping block.
“Why are we still furloughing?” asked one anxious civilian employee during a question and answer session with Hagel. “In case your advisers haven’t told you, it is affecting morale.”
“I wish I didn’t have to answer that question,” Hagel responded, saying the department is facing a $41 billion funding shortfall. “I wish we had other options.”
“We’ve tried to be fair and analyze where we take those cuts, and we take them because we have no choice, and trying to minimize the hurt and the pain that these cuts are causing across our entire range of responsibilities,” Hagel added. “Morale will be affected but [there are] tough decisions that will have to be made.”
“Our readiness and capabilities must come first,” Hagel said, adding that this was “not a good answer.”
As DoD grapples with nearly $500 billion in defense cuts known as sequestration, it will have to put military benefits and health packages on the chopping block, Hagel said.
“We need to challenge all past assumption and put everything on the table,” Hagel said. “It is already clear to me that any serious effort to reform or reshape our defense enterprise” must take a hard look at personnel costs, overhead costs, and health costs.
Another concerned attendee asked Hagel to explain how benefits, health care, and retirement packages will be impacted in coming years.
Hagel said while no immediate changes are planned in the short term, the DoD is examining ways to reform and restructure its benefits programs.
“They are looking at our ability … to sustain the commitments we have made to the men and women who join the military, as well as our civilians,” Hagel said.
“We make promises,” Hagel said. “This country makes commitments to people. We’ll honor those. But there’s not anyone here today who is not aware of that if you play this out [over the next several years] we’re not going to be able to sustain [current programs].”
“We’ll become essentially a transfer agency” if reforms are not implemented, Hagel added. “You can’t sustain those programs, those commitments. We know that. … The longer we defer these things the worse it’s going to be for all of us.”
Hagel went on to admit that sequestration “is already having a disrupting and potentially damaging impact on the readiness of the force,” as well as on maintenance and training programs.
The immediate cuts “led to far more abrupt and deeper reductions than were planned or expected,” Hagel said, admitting that the Pentagon is still “grappling with the serious and immediate” effects of sequestration.
Hagel discussed his vision for the American military.
U.S. forces “must be used judicially with a keen appreciation of its limits,” Hagel said. Many new global threats “do not lend themselves to being resolved by conventional military strength.”
“So our military must continue to adapt,” Hagel added. “We adapt in order to remain effective and relevant in the face of threats markedly different” than those of the past.
Pentagon leaders are “not just tweaking or chipping away at existing structures and practices but we’re necessarily fashioning entirely new ones,” Hagel said.
The threat posted by North Korea’s increasingly provocative military displays also came up.
Hagel noted that he “had a long conversation” Tuesday with China’s new defense minster to discuss the tensions with North Korea.
“North Korea is very good example of a common interest” for the United States and China. “Certainly the Chinese don’t want right now a complicated combustible situation to explode,” he said.
[[[ *** RESPONSE *** ]]]
North Korea’s Kim had better watch Robocop II and consider shifting from Infantry into Super Mobile Suits which they still can – if not ‘EMP hardened’ Mobile suits be taken down with soldiers EMP Guns, but North Korea does not have these EMP toys yet seemingly. If mobile suits are EMP Hardened, infantry would be entirely redundant – excepting long distance snipers if possible sniper rifles shooting slugs with enough power to puncture tank like armour of these machines who coulod also be equiped with sniping rifles or less mobile and less than perfect aim mortars en masse . . . Those million NK troops will not be able to handle a battalion or even a company of steel or titanium clad Cainborgs (Robocop 2) or even Robocops (Robocop 1) which could be standard issue in as soon as 5-10 years if the USA upgrades quickly and stops building cars by the millions. Soft target infantry will be redundant soon! A single mobile suit could handle an entire troop of infantry if not (for titanium clad versions immune to grenade or rocket fire and landmines) even a battallion.
Greedo is played by “Paul Blake” on Star Wars.
ARTICLE 11
Pyongyang warns foreigners to evacuate S. Korea, threatens ‘thermonuclear’ war – Published time: April 09, 2013 05:59
Edited time: April 09, 2013 11:27
This picture, taken by North Korea’s official Korean Central News Agency on March 20, 2013 shows North Korea’s Korean People’s Army soldiers at an undisclosed location in North Korea. (AFP Photo/KCNA via KNS)
Pyongyang has issued a warning urging foreign nationals to evacuate South Korea, the Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) reported. The statement was followed by threats from North Korea of “thermonuclear” war on the Korean Peninsula.
North Korea has warned all foreign nationals to prepare to evacuate the South in the event of conflict. “We do not wish harm on foreigners in South Korea should there be a war,” Reuters quoted KCNA news agency as saying, citing the spokesperson for its Korea Asia-Pacific Peace Committee.
The warning was read out on North Korea’s state television: “all international organizations, businesses and tourists” were told to “work out measures for the evacuation”.
The statement was followed by renewed threats of “thermonuclear” war on the Korean Peninsula, AFP reported.
“The situation on the Korean Peninsula is inching close to a thermonuclear war,” Pyongyang’s Asia-Pacific Peace Committee stated.
No evacuation in sight
UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon urged N. Korea to refrain from “provocative rhetoric” and encouraged other countries to exercise their influence over Pyongyang.
“The current level of tension is very dangerous. A small incident caused by miscalculation or misjudgment may create an uncontrollable situation,” Reuters quoted Ban Ki-moon as saying.
The Russian Embassy in South Korea said that it has no plans to evacuate Russians from the country over Pyongyang’s warning.
“At this point we are working out our position on the issue. But our preliminary response has no signs of plans related to evacuation,” RIA Novosti quoted Russian diplomatic spokesperson Nikita Kharin as saying.
N. Korea issued another warning last week advising embassies there to consider evacuating in the event of war. Currently, about two dozen countries have embassies in North Korea; most have said there are no immediate plans to withdraw personnel.
Despite the heavy rhetoric, the atmosphere in S. Korea remained calm with embassies, airlines, international offices and schools with foreign nationals operating normally, Reuters reported.
China responded by saying that it does not want to see chaos in the Korean Peninsula and opposes further escalation, Reuters quoted Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Hong Lei as saying.
South Korean President Park Geun-hye said that she was resolved to break North Korea’s “vicious cycle” of having their bad behavior rewarded with economic aid.
“How long are we going to repeat this vicious cycle where the North Koreans create tensions and we give them compromises and aid?” she said during a Cabinet meeting on Tuesday. “North Korea must stop its wrong behavior and make a right choice for the future of the Korean nation.”
The aggressive rhetoric from North Korea has motivated neighboring Japan to deploy Patriot missiles batteries to protect the 36 million people who live in the Tokyo metropolitan area. Two Patriot Advanced Capability-3 (PAC-3) surface-to-air missile launchers have been stationed in the Japanese capital, reinforcing battery units on Okinawa and other Pacific islands, an official said Tuesday.
The weapons were authorized to shoot down any North Korean missile headed towards Japanese territory, Defense Minister Onodera Itsunori said on national television.
Japan Self-Defence Forces soldiers walk near Patriot Advanced Capability-3 (PAC-3) missiles at the Defence Ministry in Tokyo April 9, 2013. (Reuters)
On Monday South Korea said that nuclear support from Washington is needed to protect against North Korea’s continued aggression and unpredictability, and to keep its neighbor in check. Rep. Chung Moon-joon suggested that South Korea needs nuclear weapons of its own – not just to intimidate Pyongyang, but also to send a strong message to China.
The situation was worsened on Tuesday when North Korean laborers did not show up for work at the Kaesong joint industrial zone in the morning, effectively suspending operations. Earlier, Pyongyang refused to allow South Korean workers to enter the area, located a few kilometers inside the North’s territory.
[[[ *** RESPONSE *** ]]]
For North Korea’s war machine to come off wealtier and stronger, North Korea should target :
i) a nation that is an ally to as few super powers as possible
ii) a nation that might have no nations retaliating in event of a North Korean invasion
iii) a nation that has angered super power nations to the effect of super power nations wanting to attack these nations
iv) a nation that is corrupt, perhaps theocratic (won’t mention which faith) and abuses their own citizens with apartheid or nepotism and term limitless dictatorship
;so that such an attack could be ignored. North Korea also should not use Nukes and stick to conventionals because fallout will destroy North Korea’s own population and irradiate North Korea or ASEAN. Even a US strike could irradiate North Korea eventually, and that would mean living in bunkers or wearing hazard suits for who knows the next 50,000 years. If a South Korean invasion is intended, then North Korea should focus on the politicians rather than the citizens because the politicians are the real troublemakers. North Korea should not attack the USA because of the lack of technological capacity to handle a US invasion (which China fortunately does not want).
Which ASEAN nation best fulfils the above criteria? North Korea should target that nation with conventionals and infantry (which could be outdated as soon as USA upgrades their infantry to mobile suited versions or has satellite capability to EMP conventionals) instead of attacking somewhat well loved South Korea or USA neo-colonial backdoor Japan somewhat hated by ASEAN, or most ridiculously USA superpower, which North Korea can cause alot of pain to, but definitely cannot handle alone and that China and Russia have been viewing cautiously and not interested in attacking yet – if ever.
No thermonuclear wars but perhaps a War of Assassins targetting South Korea’s most foreign collusive politicians – AGAIN leave the regular South Korean citizens alone, they are being influenced by the insane among South Korean foreign sellouts – THIS would be approved by China even which does not want USA in ASEAN, though less so Japan whose existence might well be only because of USA and that pacifist constitution that Japan looks set to be tearing up – ASEAN might secretly approve an assent to a WW2 retaliatory North Korean invasion of Japan, but USA is the main country protecting Japan. There is no way though that China and USA want to fight USA now, even in a few decades if not ever at all.
Perhaps a colonialistic foray into the worst of the Middle East or worst of Africa if not the worst (most are getting quite polished though some are still justifiable to invade) in ASEAN? There are few nations that the USA, or China and Russia would tolerate invasions of, if North Korea is ready to fight or colonize something, the above criteria must be met. Meanwhile South Korea could still be fought though at a black ops urban warfare style with North Korean funders. No other direct links of violence to North Korea are safe to indulge, and only clearly foreign sellouts or hated fundo nations can be targeted by North Korea – this would give a Robin Hood type quality to such attacks that even South Koreans could appreciate, and that is justifiable in the eyes of many nations who are having the West inspired neo-colonialism problems (again we love the democracy of the West but wisely any activist or Human Rights campaigner would draw the line at collusion to erode a nation – the unamended laws are the issue even as nations as a concept look set to end in as soon as a few generations if not the next) – China and Russia would also have a ‘bad cop’ to teach the worst in ASEAN a good lesson on Western neo-colonialism. USA really should be targetting the Middle East or Central America/South America at very most for spheres of influence, to target the Far East is overstretching both USA’s finance and military.
ARTICLE 12
Korean nuke conflict may make Chernobyl look like ‘fairytale’ – Putin
Published time: April 08, 2013 00:41
Edited time: April 09, 2013 04:44
If a nuclear conflict erupts on the Korean Peninsula, Chernobyl would look like a “kids’ fairytale,” Russia’s president said. Tensions have been escalating rapidly, with last week seeing conflicting reports about North Korean nuclear activity.
Speaking at the annual industrial fair in Hannover, Vladimir Putin compared the possible nuclear brawl between Seoul and Pyongyang with one of the worst nuclear accidents in history – the explosion at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant.
According to Putin, the consequences of the nuclear conflict on the Korean Peninsula would far exceed the industrial disaster in Chernobyl.
The situation on the peninsula remains highly destabilized. On Monday, South Korea said a new nuclear test by the North was ‘not imminent’. However, the statement came shortly after Seoul had accused Pyongyang of gearing up for its fourth nuclear test.
Also on Monday, South Korean Yonhap news agency reported that North Korea is withdrawing its workers from the Kaesong industrial zone shared with the South.
Earlier a South Korean government source talking to the country’s Joongang Daily said that Pyongyang appeared to be making preparations for another underground nuclear test at Punggye-ri, the site of its previous test.
“We have detected increased activity of labor forces and vehicles at the southern tunnel of the test site in Punggye-ri, where the regime has worked on maintenance for facilities since its third nuclear test in February”, one of South’s top government officials said. He added that “the activities appear to be similar to those before the third test, so we are closely monitoring the site.”
The official went on to say that the South Korean government “were also tipped off that Pyongyang would soon carry out an additional nuclear test…but we are analyzing if it is indeed preparation for an additional test or it is just to pressure Seoul and Washington.”
The news came on the heels of the report by a top South Korean security official that their northern neighbor could be gearing up for a test-launch this week – just a day after the United States had earlier delayed its own unrelated missile launch for fear of provoking Pyongyang.
Chief national security adviser to South Korean President Park Geun-Hye said it was not yet clear if the launch would come before or after Wednesday, April 10, which is the date by which North Korea recommends any foreign diplomats leave its territory.
South Korean soldiers man K-55 self-propelled howitzers at a military training field in the border city of Paju on April 5, 2013 (AFP Photo / Jung Yeon-Je)
Foreign governments have already made clear, however, that they do not plan to withdraw staff from North Korea just yet. The German foreign minister has struck out at any suggestion that Pyongyang could not guarantee in future the safety of foreign personnel on its territory: “any deadline after which North Korea would no longer ensure the security of embassies is unacceptable”, the German foreign ministry said.
British Foreign Secretary William Hague was among those who saw no current need for withdrawal of his country’s officials from North Korea.
There was, however, speculation of a possible provocation by Pyongyang, following an alleged loading of mid-range missiles onto mobile launchers and storing them away from prying eyes in facilities on the east coast. National Security Adviser Kim Jan-Soo said “there are no signs of a full-scale war as of now, but the North will have to prepare for retaliation in case of any local war.”
Chinese President Xi Jinping said on Sunday that it is unacceptable for any country to be stoking up tensions that could put an entire world region at risk. While it is North Korea’s major ally, it has been getting more assertive with statements on the international scene. The Chinese foreign ministry has also said in a statement to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon that it will not tolerate any “trouble-making on its doorstep.”
On the same day, Japan’s Jiji news agency reported that the country’s defense ministry might give the order to blast any missile that is heading in their direction out of the sky.
Many fear that these recent developments could lead to a misunderstanding that could evolve into full-scale war. This has led to US Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel postponing the ‘Minuteman 3’ missile test, due to fears that such actions “might be misconstrued by some as suggesting that we were intending to exacerbate the current crisis with North Korea.”
Similarly, Seoul and Washington have decided to put their next big US meeting on hold, reportedly in case Pyongyang chooses to escalate with a missile launch in the coming days, with the Seoul’s chief away.
In an effort to cool the tensions, US Secretary of State John Kerry will include Seoul, Beijing and Tokyo in his trip next week, in the hopes that diplomacy will give Pyongyang a chance to exit the crisis in a dignified manner.
The North has presently mobilized its Musudan missiles, believed to reach distances of 3,000 kilometers (1,860 miles), which could in theory be tweaked to fly 4,000km. That means Japan, South Korea and the US military bases in Guam could be potential targets.
AFP Photo / Ed Jones
Tensions are now higher than they have been at any moment during this latest standoff, which followed Pyongyang’s third nuclear test in February, provoking international condemnation and a fresh round of UN Security Council sanctions, to which Pyongyang had replied with the threat of a nuclear strike on the US.
Last week, Pyongyang declared it had entered a state of war with its southern neighbor, following an earlier decision to withdrawal from the 60-year armistice that ended the Korean War. North Korea had previously threatened to pull out of the 1953 armistice if the South did not halt a joint annual military exercise with the US.
Most of the North Korean statements are conditional, talking about retaliation attack rather than an assault, Tim Beal, an Asia expert who specializes in North Korea, told RT.
“If you attack us with conventional weapons, then since we are weak the only thing we can do is to attack with nuclear weapons,” he explained Pyongyang’s position.
Beal said that North Korea is really concerned with US military drills in the region, fearing the aggression.
“There is a real fear in Pyongyang that one of these days Americans will actually [attack North Korea]. These are exercises because they`ve got purpose,” he asserted.
[[[ *** RESPONSE *** ]]]
North Korea could attack anyone reasonable for attack, and then fire Nukes if attacked by USA. But unreasonable carnage or meaningless attacks would not give North Korea an upper hand in justification. South Korea really should stop having military drills with USA which makes North Korea nervous and act unstable – even offend China and Russia. South Korea should instead work on their own military while striving for unity and diplomacy with North Korea instead of using USA to bully North Korea with indirectly as well as China and Russia by proxy. the worst kind of ASEAN nation is a fifth columnist ASEAN nation acting as a back door to Western neo-colonialism. Japan has no choice until the next crop of politicians understand what Japan did in WW2 and choose to not hide behind USA, South Korea though really has no excuse to hold drills with USA because China helped to drive out the USA in the past from the Korean peninsula and Russia consider’s the general area sort of their shared backyard with China that neither want the USA around in. Inviting USA for military drills is plain rude and spineless as well as treacherous of South Korea.
mini-ARTICLE 12.5
Ultra-rare white tiger cubs born near Tokyo
A litter of ultra-rare white tiger cubs were recently born at Tobu Zoo, on the outskirts of Tokyo. As few as 100 of these tigers exist worldwide.
[[[ *** RESPONSE *** ]]]
Crossbreed Lions and Panthers until Black Lions are available. Just like making a new pedigree of house cats . . . hows that blue rose coming along?
ARTICLE 13
Gun control on steroids! Insurance, registry and taxes
U.N. arms treaty shunned as violation of 2nd Amendment
Published: 2 days ago
Obamacare was approved by the Supreme Court when Chief Justice John Roberts decided to consider it a “tax,” even though the Obama administration said it wasn’t. So why not have a new “insurance mandate” to control guns?
That apparently is the thinking of a team of Democrats in Congress who made that very proposal just as the U.N. adopted a sweeping international “arms treaty”; more outright bans and taxes were proposed; states took it on themselves to say who can buy guns or ammunition; and one government came up with an “ammunition eligibility certificate.”
The Daily Caller reported that the insurance mandate was proposed by Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., and others, who said Americans should be ordered to buy a liability insurance policy for guns.
No insurance? No problem; just pay a $10,000 fine, she suggests.
“It shall be unlawful for a person who owns a firearm purchased on or after the effective date of this subsection not to be covered by a qualified liability insurance policy,” the bill text reads.
And it would be a federal crime for someone to sell a firearm to another person who doesn’t have that insurance.
President Obama and Democrats in Congress have been using the horror of the Newtown, Conn., school shooting last winter to push for bans and restrictions on guns, gun ownership and ammunition.
In Connecticut, state Senate President Donald Williams Jr., a Democrat, said his state’s plan, which bans 100 types of guns, is the strongest ever.
“That is a message that should resound in 49 other states and in Washington, D.C. And the message is: We can get it done here and they should get it done in their respective states and nationally in Congress,” he said.
Democrats control both houses of the Connecticut General Assembly.
The Connecticut bill also bans some ammunition magazines, requires registration of other magazines, creates a registry and calls for an “ammunition eligibility certificate.
In California, state Assemblywoman Nancy Skinner, D-Berkeley, wants ammunition regulated, taxed and limited.
Sen. Kevin deLeon, another Democrat, from Los Angeles, has suggested demanding a background check and a $50 annual fee for permission to buy ammunition.
Also proposed: A 10 percent tax on ammunition, a requirement to report of ammunition sales to the state Justice Department so it could create a record of all purchases and an additional 5-cent tax on each round sold.
The U.N. drew outrage yesterday when it adopted an Arms Trade Treaty that addresses limits on tanks, combat vehicles, aircraft and parts and ammunition.
The Obama administration supported the draft, even though Second Amendment supporters warn it is permeated with loopholes that are vague enough to open the door for many new limits.
Michael Hammond of Gun Owners of America told WND said the U.N. plan would allow at least three unwanted actions.
First, he said, it would have the federal government keep a list of guns and ammunition, an actual registry.
“The second thing it does is give the government the capacity to ban guns by executive order, entire classes of guns,” he said.
Third, Hammond said, is that the door would be open to requiring microstamping, a procedure that labels each round to identify the gun in which it is used.
He said while it appears there is not enough support in the U.S. Senate now to adopt the measure, the issue won’t go away.
Hammond also said it was “interesting” that Obama said he loved and respected the Second Amendment on Nov. 5, 2012, and “on Nov. 7 he hated and deplored it.”
“What happened between those two dates?” asked Hammond.
[[[ *** RESPONSE *** ]]]
Try this one instead or in parallel. Only ammunition is ‘tagged’ but with onsite skin flake scrapings (or to be more vicious, soft tissue scrapings, or even sperm in the case of men – more bullet innuendo even more ‘seed’ based) preferably, police overseen that are ‘sealed’ perhaps with nano-scale tech, into the bullet instead before being given to the user. So if anyone is shot, the bullet will carry the shooter’s DNA. Simple solution, and no issues of aggravating and profiteering licensing needed. The responsibility of the users to keep their own bullets (and DNA) safe would put most insane people off owning ammo, as well as discourage high rate of fire weapons knowing a piece of themselves was in every shot fired. Doubtless illegal gun factories or foreign sources would still exist in any black markets, but the legal versions at least would all be traceable.
ARTICLE 14
Police Militarization, Abuses of Power, and the Road to Impeachment – by James Simpson — April 3, 2013
These are trying times. Never in the history of this country have we been so weakened and polarized by what many view as deliberate government policy. Now anti-gunners in the U.S. Congress, the Obama administration, and legislatures across the country are seeking to exploit the Newtown tragedy to promote their “gun control” agenda that envisions federal, universal background checks on gun purchases, and that could lead to gun registration and confiscation.
At the same time, the increasing militarization of law enforcement, most visibly demonstrated by the growing use of massive, SWAT-type raids on businesses and individuals, sometimes with federal involvement or authorization, is heightening concerns that this country is moving toward a police state.
Mountain Pure SWAT Raid: The Movie
Mountain Pure Water, LLC is headquartered on Interstate 30 just outside the town of Little Rock, Arkansas. The company manufactures and distributes beverage containers, spring water, fruit drinks, and teas. In January 2012, about 50 federal agents, led by Small Business Administration (SBA) Office of Inspector General (OIG) Special Agent Cynthia Roberts and IRS Special Agent Bobbi Spradlin, swooped in, guns drawn. Without explanation they shut down plant operations, herded employees into the cafeteria, and confined them to the room for hours. They could not so much as use the bathroom without police escort. Cell phones were confiscated and all Internet and company phones were disabled.
Plant Manager Court Stacks was at his desk when police burst through his office door, guns drawn and pointed at him—a thoroughly unprofessional violation of basic firearms discipline in this circumstance, and the cause of numerous accidental SWAT killings.
storm damaged barnAccording to Mountain Pure CEO John Stacks, the search warrant was related to questions about an SBA loan he secured through the Federal Emergency Management Agency to recover tornado losses to his home, warehouse, and associated equipment. Mr. Stacks says the SBA apparently doesn’t believe that assets listed as damaged in the storm were actually damaged.
The search warrant was extremely vague and some agents’ actions may have been illegal, according to company attorney, Timothy Dudley. Comptroller Jerry Miller was taken to a private room and interrogated for over three hours by SBA Special Agent Cynthia Roberts, the raid leader. He requested an attorney and was told “That ain’t gonna happen.” According to Miller, the SBA unilaterally changed the terms of Stacks’ loan. He says he asked Roberts what gave the SBA authority to do that, and she responded, “We’re the federal government, we can do what we want, when we want, and there is nothing you can do about it.” Miller said during the raid Roberts “strutted around the place like she was Napoleon.”
Stacks said the company has had three IRS audits in the past three years, including one following the raid, with no problems. The SBA has still not filed any charges, continues to stonewall about the raid’s purpose, and refuses to release most of the property seized during the raid.
Quality Assurance Director Katy Depriest, who doubles as the company crisis manager, described agents’ “Gestapo tactics.” She added that they confiscated CDs of college course work and educational materials for a class she had been taking that resulted in her flunking the course. Those materials have not yet been returned.
Attempts were made to contact Ms. Roberts for this article, but she is no longer employed by the SBA. Questions were directed to the Little Rock, Arkansas U.S. Attorney’s office. The USA’s public affairs officer had no comment; however they have convened a grand jury to evaluate the case.
Because law enforcement refused repeated requests to respond for this article, we have only Mountain Pure’s side of the story, but they make a compelling case:
Many company employees were willing to discuss this raid on the record.
Mountain Pure and several employees have sued Special Agents Roberts and Spradlin.
Mr. Stacks commissioned a video about the raid, reproduced here.
The video includes testimony from Henry Juszkiewicz, CEO of famed Gibson Guitar Corp., which suffered two such raids, and another raid target, Duncan Outdoors Inc. The video does not attempt to establish anyone’s guilt or innocence, but rather highlights law enforcement’s heavy-handed tactics in executing SWAT-style search warrants against legitimate businesses. Gibson has settled with the Justice Department in a case fraught with legal ambiguities, while Duncan has been indicted for violations of currency transaction reporting requirements.
Mr. Stacks claims he has gotten calls from many companies that have suffered similar raids, but they are afraid to speak out. Here are a few examples that have made national news:
FDA officials, U.S. Marshals, and the Pennsylvania State Police raided an Amish farm in 2011 for selling raw milk.
A Department of Education SWAT team raided a man’s home, “dragged him out in his boxer shorts, threw him to the ground and handcuffed him” in front of his three young children. They were looking for evidence of his estranged wife’s financial aid fraud.
66 year-old George Norris spent two years in jail following a USFWS raid that nailed him for filing incorrect forms on imported orchids.
A Fairfax, Virginia optometrist being served a warrant for illegal gambling was killed by a SWAT team member whose firearm accidentally discharged. He answered the door in his bathrobe, unarmed and unaware that he was even under investigation.
War on Small Business?
In 2006, the IRS announced it would shift its focus to audit more small businesses. IRS data on tax audits seems to bear this out. Between the first and second half of the last decade, the audit coverage rate on businesses with assets between $10 and $50 million increased by 42 percent. Between 2001 and 2005 an annual average of 13,549 returns were audited for businesses with assets less than $10 million. Between 2006 and 2011, the average was 19,289, an increase of over 42 percent (pdf).
This has paid off in increased enforcement revenues, but are massive SWAT raids an essential part of this new strategy? In addition to the potential dangers and the outrage of having company employees treated like drug dealers or terrorists, the cost of these raids is staggering. Agents told Mountain Pure employees they had flown in from all over the country.
The Sharpsburg Raid
Sharpsburg, Maryland, population 706, is a quiet little town bordering the Antietam National Battlefield in rural Washington County. On Thursday, November 29, 2012 at about 12:30 pm, the quiet was shattered by an invasion of over 150 Maryland State Police (MSP), FBI, State Fire Marshal’s bomb squad, and County SWAT teams, complete with two police helicopters, two Bearcat “special response” vehicles, mobile command posts, snipers, police dogs, bomb disposal truck, bomb sniffing robots, and a huge excavator. They even brought in food trucks.
A heavily armed MSP Special Tactical Assault Team Element (STATE) executed a no-knock search warrant, smashing through the reportedly unlocked door with a battering ram. They worked until after 7:30 p.m., ransacking a modest, 20 ft. by 60 ft. single-family home for weapons, and searching for its owner, one Terry Porter. For hours, neighbors were left worrying and wondering, while countless police blanketed the area.
Local resident Tim Franquist described the scene:
“The event, or siege as we are calling it, involved convoys of police speeding to the area, two helicopters, armored vehicles, command centers, countless police cruisers and officers. They blocked off the roads and commandeered a campground as their staging area.”
Terry Porter is married with three children, has lived in the town all of his life, and owns a modest welding business. He is also a prepper. His preparations include an underground bunker, buried food supplies, and surveillance cameras. Porter really doesn’t like Obama, and tells anyone who will listen.
Unfortunately, one listener was an undercover officer for the MSP. The police had become interested in Porter through an anonymous caller who claimed that Porter “had been getting crazier and crazier…” and that he had “10 to 15 machine gun-style weapons, six handguns and up to 10,000 rounds of ammunition…” The MSP performed a background check and discovered Porter had a 20-year-old charge for aiding marijuana distribution, a disqualification for firearms ownership.
MSP detailed an officer to visit Porter’s shop on November 16th posing as a customer. The officer said Porter “openly admitted to being a prepper.” Not a crime. Porter also allegedly claimed to have a Saiga shotgun, and was willing to use it “when people show up unannounced.” Based on the Russian AK-47 design, some Saiga variants are fully automatic. On November 27th MSP obtained a search warrant.
Two days later they appeared at Porter’s door but could not find him. Porter later disclosed he “left out the back door.” Where he went has not been disclosed. However, local blogger Ann Corcoran, who lives nearby and followed the issue closely, claims he hid out in fear for his life. Given highly publicized, accidental shootings involving SWAT teams and the overwhelming force present, that’s a reasonable assumption.
The following day Porter turned himself in and took the police through his property. The raid produced a total of four shotguns, a 30-30-caliber hunting rifle and two .22-caliber rifles. He was charged with firearms possession violations and released on a $75,000 bond.
The raid was one of the largest in recent U.S. history, twice the size of the 1993 Branch Davidian raid in Waco, Texas, which initially involved 76 ATF agents. It almost rivaled the recent 200-strong statewide manhunt for California cop-killing cop, Christopher Dorner. Yet only a few local stories emerged and those presented a hysterical portrait of Porter while largely underreporting the police presence.
Why the Raid?
The MSP did not notify town officials or Washington County Sheriff Douglas Mullendore, who learned of the raid after it began, when they requested the use of his SWAT Team and Bearcat. The MSP also set up a command center at a campground within the national park without notifying the Park Police. Bills have since been introduced in the Maryland legislature by Washington County Delegate Neil Parrott (HB 0219) and State Senator Chris Shank (SB 0259) to require notification of local law enforcement before any outside agency serves a warrant.
A meeting following the raid attracted 60 concerned Sharpsburg citizens and leaders. Sharpsburg Vice Mayor Bryan Gabriel characterized the raid as “overwhelming,” and said it “could have put a lot of people at risk.” Erin Moshier, a citizen who attended the meeting added, “We all felt there was excessive force involved, and we felt that a member of our community was victimized and we wanted to get to the bottom of it and get some answers.” Both Gabriel and Sheriff Mullendore have issued statements of support for Porter, who they know personally. Citizens created a “Friends for Terry” website to help with his legal costs.
When asked why the police did not simply detain Porter in town or at a traffic stop, MSP Hagerstown Barracks Commander, Lt. Thomas Woodward said the police only had a property search warrant and had no authority to arrest Porter. However police do have authority to “detain the property owner for 24 hours” when executing a search warrant, so Porter could have been intercepted elsewhere, but they chose to execute that authority as part of the raid.
Lt. Woodward said that the state police have a good working relationship with Sheriff Mullendore. If that is the case, why didn’t they consult the sheriff first? If Porter were really that dangerous wouldn’t it be helpful to get more information from a trusted source better acquainted with him? Mullendore said they usually do give notice. Reportedly several state police who personally know Porter reside in Sharpsburg. Why were they not consulted?
Does the MSP detail SWAT automatically for gun search warrants? Some other police forces do. For example, in one fatal Florida SWAT shooting, a 21-man SWAT team was called in merely because the target had a concealed-carry permit. Are SWAT raids to become the order of the day for gun owners?
If Mr. Porter is indeed adjudicated a felon in possession of firearms, then he was in violation of the law. He didn’t help his case by bragging to the undercover officer about his doomsday preparations, especially the Saiga—which turned out to be nonexistent.
There is nothing wrong with being prepared, or even describing the actions you might take in a hypothetical “doomsday” situation, but in fairness to police, with all the lunatics coming out of the woodwork these days, and the heightened atmosphere of mutual distrust between law enforcement and citizens, the MSP might be excused for presuming the worst. But 150 police?
Recent events such as the kidnapping/bunker standoff in Alabama, and cop-killer Dorner, provide apt examples. Police never know what to expect. Still, in this case at least, it seems a little more investigation and consultation with local authorities could have resolved this issue quietly and with much less risk and cost.
Cost of the Operation
Neither the FBI nor the MSP have publicly disclosed how many of their officers were involved in the raid. However, Senator Shank and Delegate Parrott were told in a meeting with top MSP officials that the total, including federal, state, and local police, exceeded 150. From public information requests we know that the Washington County Special Response Team (SRT) sent 17, including four snipers, two medics, and their Bearcat driver. Only two of these actually participated, the driver and a sniper who accompanied him.
The FBI personnel were training nearby and when their assistance was requested, many, if not all, chose to participate. A witness on the scene guessed there were approximately 40 officers at the campground where the FBI staged. If we assume a total of 150, that would leave 93 MSP. The following table, based on police salaries gleaned from public sources provides a rough estimate of the personnel cost for this operation.
sharpsburg raid cost table
The MSP argued that only variable costs—those directly related to the operation—are relevant. By this logic, the operation cost very little, as salaries and other fixed costs are incurred anyway. But the personnel and resources involved would otherwise have been engaged elsewhere: tracking down criminals, enforcing other laws, and assisting in emergencies. There are clearly other, potentially more beneficial activities they could not simultaneously perform. This is called opportunity cost and must be considered.
This raid cost approximately $11,000 per hour, which dramatically illustrates one reason government spending is so wildly out of control. If agency managers considered the true cost of their decisions, they might work harder to prioritize their activities and not waste valuable resources on errands of questionable value.
High visibility events like the Sharpsburg raid present a one-sided picture of police as out-of-control, wasting time on seeming trifles. But their daily efforts, which go largely unreported, paint a much more balanced picture. For example, the MSP Gang Enforcement Unit has aggressively investigated violent street gangs, one of the largest sources of gun violence.
Between 2010 and 2012 alone, the Gang Unit made 621 gang arrests and seized 94 firearms. This does not include their extensive work with multi-agency task forces. Here, they have participated in successful operations against such violent gangs as the Crips & Bloods, Wise Guyz, B-6, the Black Guerrilla Family, Juggalos, the Dead Man Incorporated crime syndicate, and others, and have brought many of these offenders to justice.
Militarization of Police
crime down but police militarizeThe SWAT concept was popularized by Los Angeles Police Chief Darryl Gates in the late 1960s in response to large-scale incidents for which the police were ill-prepared. But the use of SWAT teams has since exploded. Massive SWAT raids using military-style equipment are becoming routine methods for executing search warrants. One study estimates 40,000 such raids per year nationwide:
“These increasingly frequent raids… are needlessly subjecting nonviolent drug offenders, bystanders, and wrongly targeted civilians to the terror of having their homes invaded while they’re sleeping, usually by teams of heavily armed paramilitary units dressed not as police officers but as soldiers.”
John W. Whitehead writes in the Huffington Post, that “it appears to have less to do with increases in violent crime and more to do with law enforcement bureaucracy and a police state mentality.”
The ACLU recently announced its intention to investigate the militarization of law enforcement. Ironically, despite the perception of heightened gun violence due to incidents like Newtown, ACLU points out that both crime rates and law enforcement gun deaths have been declining for decades (see chart).
Yet police forces are becoming increasingly militarized due to huge subsidies provided by the federal government:
“Through its little-known “1033 program,” the Department of Defense gave away nearly $500 million worth of leftover military gear to law enforcement in fiscal year 2011… The surplus equipment includes grenade launchers, helicopters, military robots, M-16 assault rifles and armored vehicles… Orders in fiscal year 2012 are up 400 percent over the same period in 2011…”
Congress created this provision in 1997 for drug and anti-terrorism efforts. It has since provided over 17,000 agencies $2.6 billion worth of equipment at no charge. One local agency now owns an amphibious tank, while another obtained a machine-gun-equipped APC.
governor omalley bearcatAdditionally, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) grants have allowed state and local agencies nationwide to purchase Bearcats. These 16,000 pound vehicles are bulletproof and can be equipped with all kinds of extra features.
Ironically, while SWAT teams probably got their biggest boost initially from conservatives, many fear law enforcement is becoming a tool to enforce leftist ideology. University criminal justice programs turn out graduates indoctrinated in liberal theology, which carries into modern law enforcement bureaucratic culture.
Today this trend is reflected in reports coming out of the Department of Homeland Security, the military, and various law enforcement “fusion” centers, that identify gun-owners, patriots, ex-military, Christians, pro-life activists, and tea party members as “potential domestic terrorists (pdf).”
The perpetrator of last summer’s attempted mass shooting at the Family Research Council headquarters now admits he was prompted by the Southern Poverty Law Center’s “Hate Watch” list. The radical leftist SPLC is now “consulting” with the FBI and DHS regarding “rightwing hate groups.” The group labeled AIM’s Cliff Kincaid a member of a sinister group of “Patriots” for writing critically of the United Nations, President Obama, and the homosexual lobby, among other things. Ironically, the SPLC “Teaching tolerance” project ran an article praising unrepentant Communist terrorist bomber Bill Ayers as a “civil rights organizer, radical anti-Vietnam War activist, teacher, and author,” with an “editor’s note” going so far as to say that Ayers “has become a highly respected figure in the field of multicultural education.”
Ammo, Military Equipment and Domestic Drone Use
The Internet is abuzz with news that the Department of Homeland Security is purchasing over 1.6 billion rounds of pistol and rifle ammunition, 2,700 Mine Resistant Armored Vehicles (MRAP), and 7,000 fully-automatic “personal defense weapons.” Some of this is worthy of concern, some maybe not so much. Meanwhile, the expanded use of aerial drones within the continental U.S. has created anxiety among the public and political leaders alike.
Ammo
Reportedly, the order for 1.6 billion rounds of pistol and rifle ammunition would fulfill DHS requirements for the next five years, or 320 million rounds per year. DHS has 55,471 employees authorized to carry firearms, which comes to about 5,800 rounds per year, per employee. For perspective, during the first year of the war on terror, approximately 72 million rounds were expended in Iraq and another 21 million in Afghanistan by an estimated 45,000 combat troops. This amounts to about 2,000 rounds per war fighter.
Yet the requisition may not be unreasonable. The largest order, 750 million rounds, came from DHS’s Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) for training. FLETC Public Affairs Director Peggy Dixon said that the purchase request was “a ceiling. It does not mean that we will buy, or require, the full amounts of either contract.” Another 650 million rounds are being purchased by Inspections and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to cover the next five years.
Since these are maximum figures, it is difficult to conclusively evaluate the purchase. Some have asserted that the practical effect—if not the deliberate intent—is to dry up the private market for ammunition. Congressmen are now demanding answers from DHS regarding these purchases. But most ammunition shortages are likely due to civilian demands. Obama and the Democrats’ palpable hostility to gun owners has caused ammunition and firearms purchases to skyrocket.
There are 80 million gun owners in the U.S. If each just purchased 100 rounds of ammo—enough for one afternoon at the range—that would equal 8-billion rounds. Many are purchasing significantly more.
Instead of asking why DHS needs 1.6 billion rounds of ammo, the real question we should be asking is, “Why does DHS need 55,000 law enforcement officers?”
MRAPs & Submachine Guns
The original story regarding a purchase of 2,700 MRAPs s was in error. The confusion centers on a 2011 order from the U.S. Marines to retrofit 2,717 of its MRAPs with upgraded chassis.
DHS has been using MRAPs since 2008 and currently has a fleet of 16 received from the Army at no cost. They are used by DHS special response teams in executing “high-risk warrants.”
Similarly, the purchase of 7,000 “Personal Defense Weapons” is not extraordinary for an agency of this size.
Drones
DHS’s Customs and Border Protection agency (CBP) has been operating Predator drones since 2005, with a current fleet of nine. Some in Congress seek to expand their use. In February of 2012, Congress passed the FAA Modernization and Reform Act, which includes a provision for commercial drone regulations. The FAA projects that up to 30,000 drones could be flying by 2020. A requisition memo describes these requirements for drones operated by CBP against border incursions by frequently armed drug traffickers and coyotes, but concern exists that this use will extend to U.S. citizens inside the border.
Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) filibustered the nomination of John Brennan as CIA Director, in order to obtain answers about lethal drone use against American citizens within the U.S. Holder finally sent Paul a letter, which said:
“It has come to my attention that you have now asked an additional question: ‘Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil?’ The answer to that question is no.”
Paul said they had been asking Holder for about six weeks. But Holder didn’t answer the question at all. Paul did not specify Americans “engaged in combat on American soil.” He asked about attacks against any Americans on U.S. soil. Holder had said in earlier testimony that the President did have the authority to kill Americans on American soil in certain circumstances.
Given the Obama administration’s contempt for the Constitution and its broad definition of “domestic terrorists” to include pretty much anyone they don’t like, there is cause for genuine concern.
Gun Control
The Sharpsburg raid occurred prior to the Newtown tragedy, but nonetheless reinforced the widespread impression that MSP is an anti-gun organization. Did the MSP decide to make an example of Porter to send a message to Maryland gun owners, or were they genuinely afraid that Porter was about to go postal? That question is unclear, but a Maryland law enforcement source who has attended briefings on the subject said that state police are “gearing up for confiscation.”
In 1989 Patrick O’Carroll of the Centers for Disease Control, stated:
“We’re going to systematically build a case that owning firearms causes deaths. We’re doing the most we can do, given the political realities” (emphasis added).
The CDC further revealed its strategy in 1994:
“We need to revolutionize the way we look at guns, like what we did with cigarettes. Now it [sic] is dirty, deadly, and banned.” Dr. Mark Rosenberg, Director of the CDC’s National Center for Injury Control and Prevention. Washington Post, 1994 (emphasis added).
Do these themes sound familiar? They represent a single component of a vast effort by media, politicians, Hollywood, educational institutions, and professionals to vilify gun ownership. One left-wing organization, Third Way, created a “messaging strategy,” encouraging the term “gun safety” because “gun control has become a loaded term that leads voters to believe that the candidate supports the most restrictive laws.”
Since Newtown, however, the anti-gunners have pretty much dropped any pretense. Here is a small sampling of recent anti-gun lunacy:
Florida Democratic state Senator Audrey Gibson has proposed a bill requiring anger management classes for would-be ammo purchasers.
Colorado State Senator Evie Hudak told a rape victim testifying against gun control that having a gun was a waste of time as the rapist would have killed her with it.
A Democrat activist says we should train rapists not to rape, rather than using guns to stop them.
A Baltimore, MD seven-year old was suspended from school for two days for biting a pastry into a shape that looked like a gun.
A five-year old was suspended from school and branded a “terrorist threat” for telling a classmate she was going to shoot her with her Princess “bubble gun.”
A Philadelphia 5th grader was called “murderer” by classmates and yelled at by her teacher for having a piece of paper cut into a shape that looked vaguely like a pistol.
A New Jersey family was visited by police and the Department of Youth and Family Services because of a photo of their 11-year-old son posing with a rifle.
In an unguarded moment recently, U.S. Rep Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) revealed the Democratic intentions:
“We want everything on the table…This is a moment of opportunity. There’s no question about it…We’re on a roll now, and I think we’ve got to take the—you know, we’re gonna push as hard as we can and as far as we can.”
Conclusion
The increased militarization of police forces and the associated use of SWAT teams for routine law enforcement are a dangerous trend. Given Obama’s seeming willingness to abuse the power of his office on so many fronts, it is reasonable to expect more, not less, of the kind of abusive police overreach described in this report, while police forces and capabilities will continue to grow.
Obama’s obvious hostility to gun owners is fueling legitimate fears of gun confiscation, furthering an atmosphere of mutual distrust and paranoia between police and civilians. This raises the specter of armed confrontations should there be attempts to confiscate firearms. As one law enforcement official said at a recent gun hearing, “Good people are going to die trying to take these guns and good people are going to die trying to keep them.”
Ironically, despite its professed commitment to stopping “gun violence,” the Obama Administration authorized gun-running to Mexican drug cartels and Jihadists in Libya and elsewhere in the Middle East. Some hearings and investigations have been held into these schemes but there has been little accountability for this “gun violence.”
At an AIM conference before the 2012 presidential election, impeachment proceedings against President Obama were discussed. Citing his experience with the Clinton impeachment, Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), then-chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, talked about hearings held by his committee featuring constitutional experts who said “no other administration has ignored laws like this administration…” In regard to impeachment, however, he said that the standard was extremely high, and the process long and involved. He concluded, “I really think the better answer is to turn the attention to the American people and saying, ‘If you feel that strongly about the President, one way to register that discontent is to vote for the other person.’”
In the end, of course, Obama won re-election, and the abuses continue. However, Rep. Steve Stockman (R-TX), has suggested impeachment may be an option if the President continues to govern through unilateral executive orders and attempts to impose his anti-Second Amendment agenda through such measures.
[[[ *** RESPONSE *** ]]]
Synchronicity rebalancing based around events happening on the antipodes via police action. This is not about abuse, but rather to counter energy flowing from abusive countries on the other side of the world. James Simpson should look at the occult aspect of the issue or study the same before commenting. At the sam,e time the schools should make clear the spiritual links between police and criminality AND the other side of the world and lay off propaganda to hurt countries that local politicians do not like.
ARTICLE 15
Posted: 3:20 p.m. Wednesday, April 3, 2013
Ban would prohibit EBT card use at strip clubs, casinos, liquor, tobacco stores
ORLANDO, Fla. —
A year and a half after 9 Investigates first exposed your welfare tax dollars being withdrawn in liquor stores, strip clubs and even casinos, a bill is moving through the state legislature that would end the spending spree.
The money on Florida Electronic Benefits Transfer (EBT) cards is meant to help needy families cover rent and other basic living expenses.
But in a review of 30 months of EBT card withdrawals, which first aired in 2011, 9 Investigates uncovered almost 700 withdrawals at stores with either “beer” or “liquor” in the name.
There were 200 at stories with “tobacco” or “smoke” in the name. And 9 Investigates even found $60,000 withdrawn inside the Miccosukee Indian Casino near Miami.
Now, Orlando-area State Sen. Andy Gardiner has introduced a new ban that would prohibit EBT cards from being used in liquor stores, strip clubs, dog racing tracks, mega casinos, strip mall casinos and other gaming establishments.
First-time violators would be kicked out of the EBT card program for six months. With three violations, recipients would be barred permanently from the program.
A similar bill passed the State House of Representatives last year but never got to the Senate floor.
But because this new bill was initiated by a senator, it may fare better.
Still, loopholes could linger. 9 Investigates’ original review found a $400 withdrawal at Neiman Marcus, but spending at luxury retailers is not mentioned in the new bill.
The Department of Children and Families administers the EBT card program. Gardiner told Channel 9 the department came to him with the idea for the changes.
[[[ *** RESPONSE *** ]]]
Any Court of Human Rights to uphold their right to entertainment, but given that these are funded by the taxpayer, perhaps limiting the rights to one day per week of use perhaps not on days similar to the general public (people working and those on benefits are psychologically different and could do well to keep separate from each other to prevent strife from sheer differences, I suggest Thursday nights and Friday afternoons specifically) which will also help distribute the disenfranchised crowds from venues when ‘franchised’ crowds are present. EBT cards should also limit usage for above luxuries to no more than 10% of the total value of what the individual receives.
ARTICLE 16
Police now think it’s OK for people to have sex in public – Thursday, 04 April 2013 16:44
Walking my dog in woodland a few weeks ago, I suddenly became aware of a man following me.
Not liking the look of him, I began to walk faster. From several paces behind me he called out: ‘Is this the place to get sex?’
I kept walking, uncomfortably aware that there was no one else around.
‘You’ve got nice legs,’ he called after me. I ignored him and walked faster. He walked faster, too.
‘Come on, love, give us a kiss.’ He sounded impatient. A brief glance behind me showed a man in his 40s, short and balding with a pot belly.
With the car park in sight, I started fumbling with my keys. He was still behind me, still asking if I would kiss him — and more.
I clicked the wrong button as I tried to unlock the car door. ‘Oh come on, come on,’ I muttered desperately under my breath.
Pressing the right button at last, I jumped in. As I drove off trembling, he was still there, shouting at me, his arms out to the side as if to say ‘What’s your problem?’
I kept driving until I reached home, unnerved and shaken.
What was most shocking to me was I had not ventured out after dark, or along a city centre back street after pub closing time.
This happened in broad daylight in picturesque Surrey woodland right next to the Royal Horticultural Society gardens at Wisley.
Later, when I called the police they were polite, but seemingly unperturbed.
‘Why didn’t you ring from the scene?’ the officer asked.
‘Because I had to get away.’
‘Well,’ the officer said, ‘there’s not much we can do now.’
I explained, rather crossly, that this was not the first time this had happened.
In fact, I come across men seeking partners for sex in these woods more and more often. It used to be a well-known spot among men cruising for gay sex, but increasingly the woods are also being used by straight men looking for encounters with women.
Surely, I asked the officer, the police should send a patrol just in case this particular man found another female dog-walker to hassle — or worse?
He replied that he would log my call and send an officer if they had one spare.
But as I put the phone down, I had little expectation of my complaint being investigated. This is because the leafy and peaceful area of Ockham and Wisley commons is now officially designated by the police as a ‘Public Sex Environment’, or PSE.
At night, the car park is filled with cars flashing their lights as dozens congregate, apparently unimpeded by police. Among the gay men who visit the woods during the day, many wear wedding rings. They sit in their cars, pretending they are reading a book, then follow another man into the woods.
I once saw a man emerge with another man from behind a tree, then start walking back to the car park on his phone saying: ‘Yes darling, I’m on my way. Oh great, I love lamb chops.’
The police insist that PSE is simply a convenient shorthand and that it does not mean the activity is facilitated by the authorities.
I disagree.
They may not have intended it, but the term PSE has come to be seen by people who frequent such outdoor spaces as a badge of distinction.
In internet chatrooms, PSE is generally accepted, rightly or wrongly, to describe an area where open-air sex is lightly policed.
People now pull off the nearby A3 for sex in these woods, which sit in a glorious corner of Surrey between the attractive and well-heeled commuter districts of Esher and Guildford. And they seem to have little fear of being caught because the police patrols are surprisingly infrequent.
To understand why this should be, you need to realise that there is nothing in the law that explicitly prohibits having sex outdoors, unless it can be proved that you are causing ‘alarm, harassment or distress’ to someone.
Perhaps we should not be surprised that in our increasingly inclusive, anything-goes society, there is very little censorship of open-air sex acts. The Sexual Offences Act 2003 outlaws flashing and sex in public toilets — but sex behind a tree is not illegal, per se.
What’s more, in 2008, an internal police report advised officers to avoid a ‘knee-jerk reaction’ to those found having sex in public spaces.
This politically correct attitude seems to have resulted in officers being reluctant to confront ‘doggers’ — the unpleasant term used to describe those who meet in public spaces and car parks to have, and watch others have, sex, because open-air sex has been deemed simply another sexual preference.
Perhaps the police fear that if these people are confronted they will go to the European Court of Human Rights to uphold their right to sexual fulfilment.
There is certainly, according to those officers I have talked to, a concern that gay cruisers should not be confronted too robustly for fear the police will be deemed homophobic.
Indeed, when I called Surrey Police to ask them to explain their policy about sex in outdoor spaces, I was told that I would need to speak to their ‘diversity officer’ and also to LAGLO.
‘What is that?’ I asked. ‘It’s our Lesbian and Gay Liaison Officer,’ he said. In fact, the person who called me back with a response to my queries was a Press officer at Surrey Police headquarters, but his response will fill any right-minded person with utter despair.
‘Surrey Police works closely with local residents and users of the public sex environment (PSE) site at Wisley. Officers carry out regular patrols and if any criminal incidents arise then proportionate action will be taken.
‘However, it is not against the law for people to be present at a PSE site with the purpose of meeting others to engage in conversation or activity that doesn’t contravene existing legislation.’
If you think this is straying into the absurd, it seems it is difficult to get anyone to take this subject seriously.
Tonight, Channel 4 will show a documentary called Dogging Tales, which looks at ‘this peculiarly British pastime’. They make it sound like a game of cricket or a visit to a stately home.
The film is shot in atmospheric soft-focus, but the men are manipulative, the women nervous and the overall impression is sad and sordid.
This is not a victimless pastime. Beauty spots are becoming no-go areas. At the stables where I keep my horses, there are mothers who will no longer let their daughters hack out into the countryside on their ponies because teenage girls have been flashed.
Many people I know do not take their children for walks on the common for fear of what they may inadvertently stumble across.
I nearly stopped walking there myself after coming across three men engaged in a sex act I had never even heard of before I actually saw it. I felt troubled that my dog had witnessed it, never mind a child.
Those who regularly walk in the woods also complain of the litter which accompanies such acts.
I haven’t got a problem with what anyone does in their own home, but this is a lovely family place and I want families here,’ he says. ‘I have four children and if they saw something like this it would scar them for life.’
The rangers from Surrey Wildlife pursue dog-walkers who fail to pick up dog-mess, but I have never seen them ask a cruiser to pick up their condoms.
Hazel Longworth, a Surrey resident, has been campaigning on the issue for years.
She says: ‘I’ve got a four-year-old grandson and I’m worried he will see people having sex, or pick up a used condom. It’s all very well saying people have the right to have sex in the woods, but what about our rights?’
If people are foregoing the pleasure of walking, horse-riding and going for picnics with their children in their local countryside then surely that does make them the victims of a crime.
It should not fall to us to prove to the police that we were ‘alarmed, harassed or distressed’.
If local forces patrolled known sites regularly, they would catch men and women indecently exposing themselves, and could impose on-the-spot fines. They are quick enough to fine any motorist caught parked on a double yellow line.
But it seems they just may not want to police this particular crime.
Two years ago, a Freedom of Information request to Surrey Police elicited an astonishing response.
The request asked if the county force had given out food and drink at public sex sites as part of their strategy of policing these sites. The reply was ‘yes’, it had ‘provided teas and coffees to all members of society using the area for various reasons’.
The force were also asked how many public sex or cruising sites they were aware of in Surrey. The answer came back with estimates of 19 in Guildford, six in Waverley, nine in Woking, eight in both Elmbridge and Mole Valley — 50 in all.
Meanwhile, tonight’s Channel 4 documentary about ‘this intriguing and unusual’ pastime will doubtless appeal to viewers who pride themselves on being non-judgmental.
In doing so, the film-maker no doubt wants to tackle the prejudices of people like me who want to enjoy the countryside without being hassled for sex. How very small-minded of me.
-dailymail.co.uk
[[[ *** RESPONSE *** ]]]
i) The film is shot in atmospheric soft-focus, but the men are manipulative, the women nervous and the overall impression is sad and sordid.
Hear that nervous people? Let not the demogogues affecting ‘faux-judgmental’, affect you.
ii) This is not a victimless pastime. Beauty spots are becoming no-go areas. At the stables where I keep my horses, there are mothers who will no longer let their daughters hack out into the countryside on their ponies because teenage girls have been flashed.
So communicate on which ‘Beauty spots’ are off limits for dogging that non-doggers prefer, set up no-dogging signs in the places where public sex is disallowed.
iii) Many people I know do not take their children for walks on the common for fear of what they may inadvertently stumble across.
Second time. So communicate with the council on which ‘Beauty spots’ are off limits for dogging, set up no-dogging signs in the places where public sex is disallowed.
iv) I nearly stopped walking there myself after coming across three men engaged in a sex act I had never even heard of before I actually saw it. I felt troubled that my dog had witnessed it, never mind a child.
Third time. So communicate with the council on which ‘Beauty spots’ are off limits for dogging, set up no-dogging signs in the places where public sex is disallowed.
v) Those who regularly walk in the woods also complain of the litter which accompanies such acts.
Hear that doggers? No littering, or the stick-in-mud will have excuses to spoil what is a good thing.
vi) In doing so, the film-maker no doubt wants to tackle the prejudices of people like me who want to enjoy the countryside without being hassled for sex. How very small-minded of me.
Please be small minded enough to . . . communicate with the council on which ‘Beauty spots’ are off limits for dogging, set up no-dogging signs in the places where public sex is disallowed. Disparaging peoples’ lifestyles is NOT civil as opposed to making sure everyone has their spaces. Which beauty spots should be off limits? Go on and talk to the council and even the doggers who would be fully clothed and ready for discussions in appropriate settings.
This demogoguery and whining is just sickening and Orwellian. Live and let live.
ARTICLE 17
Attorney General Holder, Google Play, Hilton named as ‘top facilitators of porn’ – by Johanna Dasteel – Tue Apr 02, 2013 18:04 EST
Eric Holder has disbanded the group of prosecutors charged with enforcing anti-obscenity laws.
WASHINGTON, DC, April 2, 2013 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Morality in Media, a DC based anti-pornography group, is calling out US Attorney General Eric Holder for refusing to uphold existing anti-obscenity laws. Holder tops the organization’s new Dirty Dozen list, which aims to “target, expose and shame 12 enablers of our country’s pornography pandemic,” according to the group.
In addition to Holder, the list features Comcast, Facebook, Google Play, LodgeNet, Hilton, Twitter, the American Library Association, Wikipedia, Cosmopolitan, Barnes & Noble, and the Department of Defense.
The US Supreme Court has upheld laws against hardcore adult pornography, but Holder has disbanded the group of prosecutors that enforced those laws. To date, Holder has prosecuted no cases against commercial distributors of adult pornography that are in violation of federal law.
Morality in Media’s Dawn Hawkins told LifeSiteNews.com, “We want the U.S. Department of Justice to enforce current federal obscenity laws.” So far, she has rallied the support of over 130 national, state and local groups, nearly half of the members of the Senate, and many members of the House.
“Holder’s actions keep the porn industry thriving,” said Patrick Trueman, President of Morality in Media. Trueman is the Former Chief of the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section at the U.S. Department of Justice where he supervised the prosecution of obscenity crimes, child sex crimes and child pornography.
In addition to calling for legal action, Morality in Media is educating consumers about the companies that are profiting from the distribution of pornography.
“Consumers should know who is behind the ‘pornification’ of our culture and be able to take precautions against them,” said Hawkins.
In particular, Morality in Media is focusing on Hilton Hotel for featuring pornography in its guest rooms. “Many hotels have decided to stay away from that business and Marriott Hotels recently changed the policy and is transitioning to no longer providing TV porn,” reported Hawkins.
It also singles out Google Play for offering pornographic apps, unlike Apple’s itunes store, which has blocked pornographic content. Facebook is also criticized for not doing enough to enforce their anti-obscenity rules.
“We hope that these companies will realize the harm they are contributing to and take more corporate responsibility to stop contributing to this exploitation.”
[[[ *** RESPONSE *** ]]]
Freedom of speech is not porn, though porn is part of freedom of speech. Don’t attack Holder through porn accusations. Killing free speech.
ARTICLE 18
Forget about the vajazzle, it’s time for the vajacial: Another beauty essential for the well-maintained modern woman – by Olivia Williams – PUBLISHED: 00:59 GMT, 7 April 2013 | UPDATED: 01:07 GMT, 7 April 2013
Latest craze involves beautifying your vagina with a 50-minute ‘facial’
The area gets plucked, cleansed, moisturised and covered in a mask
One happy customer said it was a ‘lifesaver’ after bikini wax went wrong
First came the vajazzle, now get ready a more indulgent modern beauty treatment – the vajacial.
The quest for perfect skin has gone to a new frontier with a facial for vaginas.
As an answer to the ingrown hairs and red bumps that some women experience after a bikini wax, the vajacial is design to soothe and beautify the area.
Thanks to The Only Way Is Essex introducing the vajazzle to the public, British women are more focused than ever on their nether regions.
Beautician Amy Childs applies a vajazzle to Sam Faiers on theThe Only Way Is Essex
The original trend: Beautician Amy Childs applies a vajazzle to Sam Faiers on The Only Way Is Essex. The trend for beautifying the bikini area has now moved on to the ‘vajacial’
But across the pond, Vajacials are taking off in a big way too.
In San Francisco Stript Wax Bar owner Katherine Goldman said that demand for the service has increased 30 percent each year since she started offering it in 2010.
Her wax bar offers the ‘key needs’ of the modern waxed woman.
Apparently this requires a papaya enzyme mask, a cleanse and extraction of ingrown hairs with a pair of tweezers.
All in all the treatment takes 50 minutes of focused cleansing and smoothing.
They are particularly beneficial after a Brazilian wax, to make sure the area looks perfect after the heavy-duty procedure.
The vajacial is the latest beauty regime that women can now undertake
Yet more maintenance: The vajacial is the latest beauty regime that women can now undertake as well as regular hair removal
At the Stript Bar one of three options is available: anti-freckle, anti-acne or calming to reduce redness.
The Vajacial was a ‘lifesaver’ for Christina from San Francisco, she told ABC news. She was heading off on her honeymoon trip when she realised her usual Brazilian wax had gone wrong.
Her bikini area broke out in red bumps. ‘It looked like I had an STD,’ she said. ‘There was no way I could sit by the pool, nothing.’
So she, like many American women, opted for a Vajacial, a term that Stript Wax Bar has now trademarked.
However, other salons around the US offer the service under different names. One New York salon calls it a Peach Smoothie.
Alexis Wolfer, editor of TheBeautyBean.com told ABC News, that the Vajacial and its spinoffs result from ‘the trend of women hyper-focusing on every last flaw in themselves.’
Stript owner Katherine Goldman insisted ‘Your ‘little lady’ will thank us!’
[[[ *** RESPONSE *** ]]]
Ok wheres the Penis-cial franchise lot cashing in on this? Metrosexuals would doubtless want . . . Just beware those who start promoting viagra combined with a ejaculatory control drug (is there such a thing?) while the ‘stiffie pink’ is being prepped and pampered with whatever one can only imagine . . .
‘ . . . exfoliation or polish . . . mud or creme treatment? . . . / . . . ginko, green tea or aloe vera soaking today? . . . will that be cucumbers or ambrosia . . . . . . please choose colour of complimentary bow/ribbon sir . . . ‘
ARTICLE 19
In a Budget Gesture, Obama Will Return 5% of His Salary
Doug Mills/The New York Times
The president, who makes $400,000 a year, will return 5 percent of his salary this year to the Treasury.
By PETER BAKER and MICHAEL D. SHEAR
Published: April 3, 2013
President Obama plans to return 5 percent of his salary to the Treasury in solidarity with federal workers who are going to be furloughed as part of the automatic budget cuts known as the sequester, an administration official said Wednesday.
The voluntary move would be retroactive to March 1, the official said, and apply through the rest of the fiscal year, which ends in September. The White House came up with the 5 percent figure to approximate the level of spending cuts to nondefense federal agencies that took effect that day.
“The president has decided that to share in the sacrifice being made by public servants across the federal government that are affected by the sequester, he will contribute a portion of his salary back to the Treasury,” the official said.
Word of the president’s decision came a day after Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and Deputy Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter disclosed that they would return a share of their salaries commensurate with the pay lost by the department’s civilian employees who are expected to be furloughed for 14 days before the end of the fiscal year.
The president makes $400,000 a year, so a pay cut of 5 percent for the whole year amounts to $20,000; an administration official said Mr. Obama would pay back that amount, compressing the total over the remaining months of the fiscal year. The president’s salary is set by law and cannot be changed during his term, so he will write a check to the government starting this month, the official said.
Mr. Obama and his wife, Michelle, reported adjusted gross income of $789,674 in 2011, the last year such figures were publicly available. Much of the additional money came from royalties from his books. The Obamas donated $172,130, or nearly 22 percent of their adjusted gross income, to charity. Mr. Obama gives after-tax proceeds from his children’s book to a scholarship fund for children of slain and disabled soldiers.
White House officials said this week that several offices under the president had sent furlough notices to workers, including 480 employees of the Office of Management and Budget, which is managing the sequester. The officials said it had also delayed filling vacant positions and that pay cuts or additional furloughs remained possible for White House employees.
Beyond personnel, the White House said it had scaled back purchases of equipment and supplies, curtailed staff travel and reduced the use of Internet air cards.
“Everybody at the White House and the broader” executive office of the president “is dealing with the consequences both, in many cases, in their own personal lives but in how we work here at the White House, which is true across the federal government because of the impact of the sequester,” Jay Carney, the White House press secretary, said Monday.
The moves by the president and defense secretary may put pressure on other federal officials to follow suit.
On Wednesday afternoon, even as the president’s decision was being reported, Senator Mark Begich, Democrat of Alaska, announced that he would voluntarily give back part of his salary as well and that more than half of his staff members will have their pay cut this year even though the sequester does not include members of Congress or their aides.
[[[ *** RESPONSE *** ]]]
$170 billion, or 5 percent of total fiscal 2011 expenditures. … The federal government employs roughly 300,000 executives, … so if EVERY government paid person returns 5%, that would about to 8.5 billion. If the entire government received pay no higher than National Average Wage, which is 26K therabouts – the cost of government salaries would be a mere 7.8 billion as opposed to 170 billion. Ok how about this instead, 3 times National Average Wage for everyone on a government salary (thats 78K yearly each quite comfy no?) for a grand total of 23.4 billion, a total of 146 billion in savings. How does this sound? Ask your Congressman to accept these salary level terms to be ratified after they are voted into power, and the country saves 146 billion yearly.
In 10 years 1.4 Trillion of debt could be coverered by salary pull backs alone. Do we really need to pay our government workers more than 78K? Doubtful. So vote properly or run for election on this premise. Obama would be too cool to want to take any salary from the USA which is in what . . . 87 Trillion in debt? Most of the people in government that can make such changes already are worth millions each at least mostly, so if they care about the debt this 3 times Annual Wage thing would not be too much to ask especially since USA has such terrible debt. Equal salaries for everyone would also account for a form of solidarity based not around quantity but instead make civil servats focus on quality of work instead. Promotion or not, President or menial, everyone gets the same salary and no more than 3 times Average National Wage so that the 99% would have nothing to gripe about, perhaps excepting the number of personnel being hired. From reports the US government is 300% overhired. See below links for more discussion :
Observations on Parasite Bureaucracy Paradigms (circa Jan 2012) :
ARTICLE 20
Chelsea Clinton doesn’t rule out bid for public office by Holly Bailey, Yahoo! News | The Ticket – 7 hrs ago
After years of refusing to talk to the press, Chelsea Clinton has gradually raised her public profile over the past year, inking a deal as a special correspondent for NBC News and taking on a more prominent role in the Clinton Foundation—run by her father, former President Bill Clinton.
Not surprisingly, that has led to speculation about the former first daughter’s future. Could she be thinking about a run for public office? In an interview with her employer, NBC News, on Monday, Clinton didn’t quite rule it out.
“Right now I’m grateful to live in a city, a state and a country where I strongly support my mayor, my governor, my president and my senators and my representative,” Clinton said in an interview that aired on the “Today Show.” “If at some point that weren’t true, and I thought I could make a meaningful and measurably greater impact, I’d have to ask and answer that question.”
She offered a similar response in a Q&A with Parade Magazine, admitting it’s something that she would have considered before Hillary Rodham Clinton’s 2008 White House bid.
“Before my mom’s campaign in 2008, I would have said no, not because of any kind of thoughtful, deliberative questioning, but simply because people have been asking me that for as long as I can remember,” she replied, adding that she has not thought “too far into the future.”
In the NBC interview, Clinton was asked about speculation Hillary Clinton will run for president again in 2016, but she gave no hints about what her mother is thinking.
“As a daughter, I very much want her to make the right choice for herself, and I know that will be (the) right choice for our country, and I’ll support her in whatever she chooses to do,” Clinton said.
[[[ *** RESPONSE *** ]]]
While Obama is moving forward by dropping some salary, some other WHers are mmoving backwards. Nepotism destroys democracy. If both Hillary and Chelsea are going to ‘3rd worldise’ Congress, I suggest all 99%ters looks at the below links first :
USA’s 99%ter expectations for political exceptionalism turns into India’s shady and potentially violent politics?
Family Politics And The Immense Dangers It Poses to Uneducated 3rd World Nations like India, Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand and Phillipines. – reposted by @AgreeToDisagree – 8th February 2012
;ahh, anything on the back end with the Clintons? NO NEPOTISM PLEASE. This is the USA, set an example to the 3rd world against nepotism by not forming family blocs for crying out loud. Nepotism is very serious in ASEAN and the Middle East, possibly also Africa, Central America and South America, every little bit helps and the Clintons would be the best to set examples with. If every politician sets up family blocs or hands down posts, USA’s democracy will be replaced with a redcoat feudalism of family blocs. We trust the Clintons to do the necessary right minded actions to send a strong message to our self glorifying, profiteering, power mad, ethics deficient 3rd world nations . . .
ARTICLE 21
Near-Death Experience Is ‘More Real than Real’ – (posted by Soren Dreier) authored by Ben Brumfield – Posted on April 10, 2013
You’re about to go to “heaven” and live to tell about it. And your story will become the subject of scientific research.
It’s the perfect day. You’re strolling down a sidewalk, listening to an ensemble of bird songs, soaking up a balmy breeze fragranced with fresh spring flowers, and gazing up at a cloudless sky of pure azure.
Pleasantly distracted, you step off the sidewalk into the street. Brakes screech; horns blare; people shriek in horror. You snap back to reality … just as the truck hits you.
You fly for yards like a rag doll; you land hard. You’re numb all over and fading fast. It’s all over; you know it. Your life flashes before you like an epic movie. The End.
You leave your body and look down at it. People are bending over it. Someone is sobbing uncontrollably. As the ambulance rushes up, a blinding light surges above you. It beckons you softly.
You follow it through a tunnel to a place much more vividly real and spectacular than the banner Sunday afternoon you just left behind. You are sure you have arrived in the hereafter.
Weeks later, you wake up to the steady beeps of an EKG monitor next to your hospital bed.
The scientific journey begins
If your hospital is in Belgium, Dr. Steven Laureys may pay you a visit, interested to hear what you remember from your NDE, or near-death experience.
He tells you that many people have gone down this road before you and that you can trust him with your experience.
“Patients in intensive care are scared to tell their stories,” he said. They are afraid people won’t take them seriously, especially doctors and scientists.
Laureys heads the Coma Science Group at the university hospital in the city of Liege. He and his colleagues published a scientific study on NDEs late last month.
People who go on these fantastic journeys are often forever changed. Many seem to come back happier and no longer fear death, he said. The experience becomes a cornerstone of their lives.
NDEs feel “even more real than real,” Laureys said. It’s this sparkling clarity and living color of the experience, which many have when they lose consciousness, that he and his team have researched.
But he doesn’t think it comes from a spirit world. Laureys is a scientist, he emphasizes. He prefers not to mix that with religion.
His hypothesis is that near-death experiences originate in human physiology. “It is this dysfunctional brain that produces these phenomena,” he said.
Laureys and his staff are interested in how the brain creates the mind and its perception of reality. “Our main focus is consciousness research in comatose patients,” he said. His team hopes to raise the quality of their comfort and care.
The same story, again and again
Over the years, many patients have awakened from comas to tell Laureys about trips to the hereafter.
Their stories all have elements that are the same or very similar.
“After being close to death, some people will report having had an out-of-body experience, having seen a bright light or being passed through a tunnel; all well-known elements of the famous Near-Death Experience,” according to the study by Laureys and his team of six scientists.
Raymond and Nadine, both from Belgium, had heart attacks. When oxygen was cut off from their brains, they had out-of-body sensations, Laureys said.
“I felt as if I were sucked out of my body at one point,” said Raymond. “I was going through a completely black tunnel, very, very quickly, a speed you cannot express, because you just don’t experience it.”
When Nadine’s heart attack came on, she could see herself from outside her body. “It’s as if you are on a cloud, even if it’s not really that,” she said.
It eluded her control, and that frightened her. She went into a dark hole. ”You wonder if you will really return to your body,” she said.
A light appeared at the end of Raymond’s tunnel. He, too, was at first afraid and resisted. The light was female, and she “communicated” with him.
He surrendered to her. “I realized that I shouldn’t struggle, and I let myself go. It was at that moment that the experience took place.”
[[[ *** RESPONSE *** ]]]
“After being close to death, some people will report having had an out-of-body experience, having seen a bright light or being passed through a tunnel; all well-known elements of the famous Near-Death Experience,” according to the study by Laureys and his team of six scientists.
ONLY if the person has never read about such things, AND the people around that person have also not read about these things and are LIVING in as large a community as possible who have never read about such things who refuse to associate with people wo read about such things.
Otherwise the subject will be merely repeating what a possible collective consciousness with the subconscious possibly thinking about AND expecting, what others around the subject have read about it in conscious waking hours. This ends up being a contrived pre-edited script rather than an actual experiment. The ‘adage’ . . . A meal will turn out depending on what cooking materials are used. . . . applies very much in NDEs.
ARTICLE 22
Seventeen magazine promotes sleaze to young girls – March 20, 2013 – by: Patricia McEntee
A growing coalition of parent and media groups are speaking out against sleaze in Seventeen magazine.
Threesomes, drugs, nudity, and violence – Spring Breakers, a new movie starring former Disney tween-idols Vanessa Hudgens and Selena Gomez – earned a hard R rating for such content, but that hasn’t stopped Seventeen magazine from promoting the film to their readers who start as young as twelve.
Think for a moment about who reads Seventeen magazine: Eighteen-year-old girls don’t aspire to be seventeen-year-old girls. Instead, it is young girls, primarily those in the 12-17 age range, who are the primary target audience for Seventeen. And the magazine editors believe that a steamy sexual threesome – including actors beloved and admired by young girls through their Disney Channel programs – is appropriate content to inspire the behavior of our daughters and granddaughters.
To anyone who is paying attention, it should come as no surprise that we’re living in a time of hyper-sexualized media — much of it directed squarely at our children. But even the savviest parent might well be shocked at the influence of the porn culture creeping into mainstream entertainment, and being marketed directly to pre-pubescent girls. Spring Breakers is being hyped for a sex scene between Ashley Benson, Vanessa Hudgens, and actor James Franco.
Many parents have felt for some time that Seventeen misses the opportunity issue after issue to promote healthy choices and lifestyles for young girls. Sex is assumed, abstinence is non-existent, and a pop culture image is projected regularly.
In checking the magazine’s website and searching for articles about sex or about abstinence, this writer came up 288 in the past year about sex, and only 6 that even contained the word abstinence! And a search for the ‘marriage’ found far more mentions of ‘gay marriage’ than traditional Judeo-Christian marriage!
A recent survey commissioned for UK-based parenting site Netmums.com found that nearly 70% of parents believe childhood innocence now ends at the age of 12 because of a “toxic combination” of media and cultural influences. Two in five thought magazines aimed at tweens but containing sexual content suitable for older teenagers forced their kids to grow up faster. Sad to say, Seventeen magazine is now squarely in the camp of innocence-eroding toxic influences that are robbing our children of their childhood.
If you’d like to voice your opinion to Hearst and Seventeen magazine, visit Morality in Media or The Parent’s Television Council’s websites to send emails:
[[[ *** RESPONSE *** ]]]
Freedom of speech but to claim the title “17” as if to speak for all post-tweens is the only issue. Some teen mags will be suggestive, some will be not, THATS for the teens to choose. I suggest that the morally affluent lobby for the name “17” to not be copyrighted, or at least to be allowed to print their own ‘clean’ versions of the same incorporating the numerals “17”. . That could be “Pure 17” WHICH should not be liable to lawsuits from “17” while a lobby for “17” to add a name to “17”should begin – like “Naughty 17” to make sure that the neutral “17” is not ‘taken over’ in a bid to actually protect ‘ACCURACY of ‘Free Speech’ ‘, as the age “17” truly is not all about being sexualized, and yet the right for such content in a magazine can never be fairly condemned or existentially challenged, there should be plenty of neutral if not also ‘desexualising’ magazines that the ‘morally affluent’ prefer. The problem here is the title of the magazine’s ‘claiming’ over the entire age “17” colouring the teen years with their material, but nothing else – nothing here that could not be countered without destroying free speech.
If “17” is ethical about ‘ACCURACY of freedom of speech’, they will change the “17” magazine name abit, if not. this could be an interesting court case either way if a lawsuit about linguistic neutrality, demogoguery and accuracy in titling magazine material is filed. This is also an issue about AGEISM, that younger persons cannot be sexualised or take on adult ‘lifestyles’, or that older persons cannot be uninterested in sex or being childish or buy infantilising toys that if asked about for whom should be embarrassed – ‘Oh yea that pedo-bear soft toy / little pony depicted with children sewn onto a soft toy’s fur – is for a collection (rather than for playing with)!’ Hegelian dialectic in Orwell-land AGAIN. If teens want to be a substance inundated mini-Casanova into BDSM or old people want to play hotscotch at the playyground without being branded senile or branded pedos, thats really none of our business. There will be equally as many teens being wide eyed about ‘birds and bees’/playing with puppies/going to Sunday school and as many old folks ‘behaving their age’ and being ‘dignified’ and pedantic bores with values half a century to a full century outdated (preferably not oppressive) . . . (to be politically correct use the term ‘old’ rather than the presumptuous ‘outdated’ – nothing is ever outdated, every meme will have followers for all time – much like ‘punk is not dead’. . .) . . .
The saddest thing would be though that a group of religious fundos had just outed themselves with this article, or that the “17” teen mag is run by pedophiles and extreme-delinquents or pushing a 1% propaganda agenda. In either case barring contrived or MSM agenda coloured material, the material itself is free speech per se and should never be attacked if not refined and re-edited appropriately without harming the true ‘rock and roll lifestyle for teens’ meme.
ARTICLE 23
Do We Need God to be Moral? – by COLUMN By LEE DYE | ABC News – Sun, Apr 7, 2013
One of the world’s leading primatologists believes his decades of research with apes answers a question that has plagued humans since the beginning of time.
Are we moral because we believe in God, or do we believe in God because we are moral?
Frans de Waal argues in his latest book that the answer is clearly the latter. The seeds for moral behavior preceded the emergence of our species by millions of years, and the need to codify that behavior so that all would have a clear blueprint for morality led to the creation of religion, he argues.
Most religious leaders would argue it’s the other way around: Our sense of what’s moral came from God, and without God there would be no morality.
But this is a column about science, not religion, so it’s worth asking if de Waal’s own research supports his provocative conclusions, documented in the newly released book, “The Bonobo and the Atheist.”
Just the title answers one question: he is an atheist, although he disparages the efforts of other atheists to convince the public to abandon all beliefs in the supernatural. Religion serves its purpose, he argues, especially through the rituals and body of beliefs that help strengthen community bonds.
De Waal is a biology professor at Emory University and director of the Living Links Center at the Yerkes Primate Center in Atlanta. He is widely regarded as one of the world’s top experts on primatology, especially the sometimes violent chimpanzees and their fun-loving sexually obsessed cousins, the bonobos, sometimes called the forgotten apes because they have become so rare.
Through years of research all over the world, de Waal has reached these basic conclusions: Chimps and bonobos and other primates clearly show empathy with others who are suffering. They have a sense of fairness, they take care of those in need, and they will share what they have with others who are less fortunate.
Those and other human-like characteristics, that have been clearly documented by other researchers as well, at least show they have some grasp of morality. It doesn’t mean they are moral — especially chimps, which can be very violent — but they have the “basic building blocks” for morality, de Waal argues.
Chimps, he says, “are ready to kill their rivals. They sometimes kill humans, or bite off their face.” So he says he is “reluctant to call a chimpanzee a ‘moral being.'”
“There is little evidence that other animals judge the appropriateness of actions that do not directly affect themselves,” he writes. Yet, “In their behavior, we recognize the same values we pursue ourselves.
“I take these hints of community concern as a sign that the building blocks of morality are older than humanity, and we don’t need God to explain how we got to where we are today,” he writes.
Our sense of morality, he continues, comes from within, not from above. Many activities he has witnessed show that apes feel guilt and shame, which also suggest a sense of morality. Why should anyone feel guilty if they don’t know the difference between right and wrong?
For example, Lody, a bonobo in the Milwaukee County Zoo, bit the hand — apparently accidentally — of a veterinarian who was feeding him vitamin pills.
“Hearing a crunching sound, Lody looked up, seemingly surprised, and released the hand minus a digit,” de Waals writes.
Days later the vet revisited the zoo and held up her bandaged left hand. Lody looked at the hand and retreated to a distant corner of the enclosure where he held his head down and wrapped his arms around himself, signs of both grief and guilt.
And here’s the amazing part. About 15 years later the vet returned to the zoo and was standing among a crowd of visitors when Lody recognized her and rushed over. He tried to see her left hand, which was hidden behind the railing. The vet lifted up her incomplete hand and Lody looked at it, then at the vet’s face, then back at the hand again.
Was he showing shame and grief? Or was it fear of a possible reprisal? The ape at least realized he had done something wrong, de Waal argues, showing the seeds of moral behavior.
There are scores of other examples showing deep grief over a dying colleague and compassion for a mother ape that has lost her young and care for young apes that have lost their parents. All those things are signs of what we would call unmistakable morality, if the subjects were humans, not apes.
“Some say animals are what they are, whereas our own species follows ideals, but this is easily proven wrong,” de Waals writes. “Not because we don’t have ideals, but because other species have them too.”
When an ape expresses grief or guilt or compassion he is living out the blueprint for survival in a culture that is becoming more complex, and possibly more dangerous. He is acting from within, not because he believes in God who defined right and wrong. De Waal puts it this way:
“The moral law is not imposed from above or derived from well-reasoned principles; rather it arises from ingrained values that have been there since the beginning of time.”
He cites at least one instance when those “ingrained values” led to action among bonobos that seems like a divine solution to a nasty problem that confronts human society around the world.
Bonobos, according to his research, know how to avoid war.
Over and over he has seen neighboring bonobo colonies gather near a common border as the males prepare to do battle. Ape warfare can indeed be violent. But when the bonobos are ready to fight, the females often charge across the boundary and start making out with both genders on the other side.
Pretty soon, the war has degenerated to what we humans would call an orgy, after which both sides are seen grooming each other and watching their children play.
So an orgy is moral? Maybe these guys understand it really is better to make love, not war.
[[[ *** RESPONSE *** ]]]
Concept of God, even Morality varies from society to society, from culture to culture. Ethics enables one to ‘relativist style’ understand this fact and NOT take offense or retaliate for supposed different sense of morality (or lack of) or differences in ‘God’ (‘ . . . mines bigger than yours!’ etc.), while keeping one’s own sense of biased ‘morality’ intact without compromise as well — THAT is the essence of civilisation or inter-civilisational dialogue.
Morality is artificial (and when conglomerated, counts as tenets of ‘religion’ within a certain number of ‘Commandments’ or ‘Pillars’ or Trinitys or Pantheons of Thoughtforms/Deities or what not) – though does create and anchor a sense of culture. Post ‘cultural’ humanity would be ethical, NOT moral. And many laws across the world as opposed to the UN HUman Rights Charter, are more moral in character than ethical as of now, need to be upgraded and amended for post millenial, ‘modern man’.
Religion IS NOT Morality, but Religion is unethical when roundly applied on non-adherents as well :
http://news.yahoo.com/child-too-religious-094552602.html;_ylt=AhqLADIYVXVFMlreZv6H60zNt.d_;_ylu=X3oDMTQ2cjl1MHVrBG1pdANBcnRpY2xlIFJlbGF0ZWQgSUIEcGtnAzA4ZGQ1Mjg0LTcwODYtMzNmZi04MDkxLWRkOTUxNTEwM2EzZQRwb3MDMwRzZWMDTWVkaWFJbmZpbml0ZUJyb3dzZQR2ZXIDNTBlNmJhMTEtOTc4Yy0xMWUyLWJiYmYtYzc4YzRhMGZjYmQy;_ylg=X3oDMTM4c2hqdXZvBGludGwDdXMEbGFuZwNlbi11cwRwc3RhaWQDMDY1YmYzNDgtMzE2MS0zZjkwLTgyYmUtYjA3NjFlODQ0Mjg2BHBzdGNhdAN0ZWNoBHB0A3N0b3J5cGFnZQR0ZXN0A05hY2VsbGVfT2Zm;_ylv=3
ETHICS is not morality, morality is not ethics, yet both can exist independently of each other though theocracies and unbalanced (extreme communism/uncontrolled capitalist-corporatism plutocracies/freedom destroying technocracies without freedom of choice) societies form in either case when either dominates the sense of the other aspects of existence. Most countries are a misbalance of any of the above (religion / morality / ethics / communism / capitalism / spirit) this day and need to incorporate BOTH.
Much like spirit of law is NOT word of law and only evil men will use word of law to defeat spirit of law. None of the above dichotomies are relevant to REALITY or nature of society which man is loathe to consider even as man has allowed lack of, or over saturation of any one or all of the above factors to prevent his own ‘escape’ from ‘Human Reality’ which is what perception of society today currently is for the majority of people. There is no need to work or suffer, but you have to vote in a manner that ensures a balance of the above aspects of ‘reality’ and improves the nature of society.
ARTICLE 24
Tuesday, 09 April 2013 08:34
Hooking up: How one-night stands destroyed sex
THERE is one domain in which women have always reigned supreme, and that is the business of coupling, procreating and child rearing.
Therefore, if you influence women, you influence the fabric of society. Which is why feminism has been such an important weapon in the armament of the left.
But feminism has now gone well beyond redressing genuine inequality to advocating behaviours and attitudes that damage women, and threaten the health of society.
The evidence is there to be seen for anyone who cares to look, in the annals of psychological disorders that afflict so many young women today.
The zipless f. . . eulogised by yesterday’s feminists has become the norm for Gen Y in the form of a too-often joyless, mechanical and regret-filled hook-up culture.
Sex and human connection, let alone love and compassion, have effectively been decoupled in the hook-up culture, in which dating has given way to no-strings-attached physical encounters.
The term “hook-up” is exactly as dehumanising it sounds, and a fascinating study by the American Psychological Association last month shows how disconnected are the sexual behaviours and private internal desires of young men, and especially young women.
Yet the establishment’s concern and outrage is marshalled against the rare piece of advice from elders that might offer an antidote to despair.
For instance, last week, worldwide mockery and condemnation fell upon Susan Patton, a 1977 graduate of America’s Ivy League Princeton university, and a mother of two sons.
Her crime was to write a letter to the college newspaper exhorting women to marry young, and preferably a Princeton man, before they graduate.
“For most of you, the cornerstone of your future and happiness will be inextricably linked to the man you marry, and you will never again have this concentration of men who are worthy of you,” she wrote.
She is right. The fact is that no matter how much we change the social script by which we all live our lives, the mathematics of fertility don’t change, and IVF is no solution for ageing eggs if you want your own genetic offspring.
Rather than angrily denying the existence of this inconvenient fact, young women are better advised, during that extended period of singledom between early puberty and late marriage, to work out what they really want out of life.
And older women owe it to them to speak the unfashionable truth.
To her credit, Patton has stood her ground, pointing out that work-life balance is not just about work.
The other piece of rare courageous advice rejected by the establishment comes from Tony Abbott.
Three years ago he said that his three daughters should consider virginity a “gift” that should not be given away lightly.
For this he was pilloried by the usual scolding fem set, led enthusiastically by Julia Gillard, who said the Opposition Leader’s comments confirmed women’s worst fears about him.
“Australian women want to make their own choices and they don’t want to be lectured to by Mr Abbott,” she said at the time.
Well, last week, in this newspaper, Abbott’s daughters Frances, 21, and Bridget, 20, confirmed their father’s comment had been “misconstrued,” and that it was not about controlling women but respecting them.
Yet in this month’s Madison Magazine panel, in which Abbott took part with Sarah Murdoch, me, and feminist academic Kate Gleeson,
Gleeson sneeringly asked what his advice would have been to his sons, if he had them. “Don’t use people,” was his reply, the corollary to his earlier advice to his daughters, which was “Don’t be used”.
This irritated feminists, too, because it implied that men are the users, whereas the theory is that women equally are capable of using people for their own sexual ends. Somehow this perverse aspiration has become morally desirable.
This is the sensibility that underpins the hook-up culture that is the defining sexual norm of our time.
In a new book, The End of Sex — How Hookup Culture Is Leaving a Generation Unhappy, Sexually Unfulfilled, and Confused About Intimacy, Donna Freitas has compiled eight years of research into a revealing exposition of Gen Y life.
“Amid the seemingly endless partying . . . lies a thick layer of melancholy, insecurity and isolation that no one can seem to shake.
College students have perfected an air of bravado about hookup culture though a great many of them wish for a world of romance and dating.”
Among her most striking findings from American college campuses is that 41 per cent of students “expressed sadness or even despair about hooking up.
These students suspected it robbed them of healthy, fulfilling sex lives, positive dating experiences and loving relationships. At its very worst, hooking up made them feel ‘miserable’ and ‘abused’.
Another revealing aspect of Freitas’ book is the extent to which feminist writers claim hook-up culture is “empowering” for women, despite evidence of the opposite.
She quotes Hanna Rosin’s book The End of Men which claimed “the perfunctory nature of sex in a hookup is essential to support a wider landscape of sexual empowerment among today’s young women”.
Ambivalent sex is useful, according to this theory, because it does not tie a young woman down.
Meantime, The American Psychological Association review: Sexual Hookup Culture shows the disturbing psychological consequences, for both men and women.
They include unwanted sex (mostly alongside alcohol and substance abuse), profound regret and feelings of shame and depression.
Saddest of all is that while most men and women did not expect a romantic relationship as the outcome of a hook-up, fully one third of men and almost half of women “ideally wanted” such an outcome.
Anyone who has much to do with young people will have observed a sadness beneath the polished, perfected surface of Gen Y’s beautiful smiling girls.
As the mother of boys I have had only glimpses of the existential pain of young women.
But it is enough to make my female heart ache for their delicate little hearts, which they are forced to wrap in ice, but which emerge after too much alcohol, bruised and crying sad, unknowing tears.
-news.com.au
[[[ *** RESPONSE *** ]]]
MSM does a hit on recreational sex. For some this article holds true, for others not at all. But this harms most the fencesitters who would be taken in by demogoguery. Now THATS whats truly profoundly regretful and worth feelings of shame and depression. Instead of a healthy glow of society’s open mindedness and sex positivity, the article kills the joy of living for those who would indulge their youth abit if not even occasionally. People have many moods and these one nighters are something that only the young can justifiably indulge. How could the ‘morally’ affluent attempt to bankrupt the pleasure of the youthful? A more neutral article please. Groups of resentful or regretful people do not represent all of humanity even if they gather together to force bad feelings like these on others, through articles that are so obviously – MSM from fundos – if not losers or insane or following insane religions due to parental or societal inculpation.
ARTICLE 25
Beijing to crack down on jaywalking – Updated: 2013-04-09 16:32
( Chinadaily.com.cn)
Pedestrians who are caught running a red light will soon be fined 10 yuan ($1.61) in Beijing, Beijing Times reported Monday, citing the Beijing Traffic Management Bureau.
Police will urge people who are caught not to break traffic rules again. Later, they will start issuing fines, said Chen Longbo, deputy director of the bureau.
Pedestrians who do not take zebra crossings or overpasses while crossing a road will also receive a fine of 10 yuan.
Drivers of non-motor vehicles, including bicycles, tricycles, electric bicycles, motorized wheelchairs, and animal-drawn vehicles, will be fined 20 yuan if they drive on sidewalks or zebra crossings, or block pedestrians walking on zebra crossings.
[[[ *** RESPONSE *** ]]]
mini-ARTICLE 25.5
Saudis build 1000 mile fence on Yemen border
9 April 2013 Last updated at 22:07 GMT Help
Saudi Arabia is building a fence, over 1,000 miles long, in order to seal off its troubled frontier with Yemen.
The BBC has been told by Saudi border guards that security on the Yemeni side of the border has all but disappeared since the revolutions of the Arab Spring.
The BBC’s Frank Gardner returned to Saudi Arabia to cover the story, for the first time since he was shot by militants in 2004.
[[[ *** RESPONSE *** ]]]
Tunnels and catapaulted gliders will easily confound the fences. The lands of this planet Earth belong to every man, the Saudis stop trying to claim a desert while ignoring human rights and sequestering land to no purpose.
malaysiandemocracy1 