Anthony McIntyre's Blog, page 1128
July 20, 2018
Robocop: Prime Suspect
Christopher Owens
reviews a world that is rapidly becoming a reality.
With the 1987 classic turning 31 this month, and news of a new film being in the pipeline, it's time to revisit one of the finer tales involving the man/machine hybrid.
First published as a four part comic book series in 1992, Robocop: Prime Suspect is a very traditional "whodunit" in it's construction. But the writing, characterisation and setting makes this tale come alive.
Insane Izzy, a guy running an electronics store in Old Detroit, sees his business totalled as a gang of hoods drive a lorry through the shop so they can claim to be the ones who have destroyed Robocop. Although Robo saves Izzy and kills the hoods, Izzy blames Robo and immediately launches a campaign to have him scrapped "before Robocop scraps Detroit."
Although he is considered somewhat of a screwball, opinion is swayed when Izzy is shot dead. Quickly determining that the ballistics match Robo's Auto 9 (a weapon only he can fire), the authorities (Detroit Police and businessman Matthew Zieske) find Robo guilty, which leads to him going on the run. Zieske reveals his latest invention, ZED 309, designed to hunt down Robo. However, it quickly becomes apparent that Zieske is involved in a conspiracy, one that could swallow him whole.
This relatively taunt tale in terms of plotting and action has a much wider reach. The framing an innocent for corporate needs will always be a compelling storyline, but the motifs of mistrust and self doubt run through the tale, as Robo feels he cannot trust anyone, either the people he's programmed to protect, (as they turn on him despite saving their lives) nor himself (especially when he discovers his memory of the murder period has been blanked).
There's one image where Robo is lurking in the sewer, looking up at the grate that's letting light in. While it's an obvious image in many ways (the notion of the ultimate misfit in the gutter but looking up at the stars), it works well in the context of the tale, and is actually quite poignant, despite its obviousness. Perhaps this is down to the art, which captures a Robo with no expression. Stoicism or programmed duty. You can decide.
What I've always loved about the world that the character inhabits is that it's a society that has deliberately been run down by mega corporations in order to further their own gains. This Reaganite/Thatcherite wet dream turns the already mean streets of Old Detroit into a place of unfettered nihilism, where life means nothing and those struggling to survive are living on borrowed time.
Albert Schweitzer once said ‘humanitarianism consists in never sacrificing a human being to a purpose.’ Bear that in mind when reading the panels where sadistic thugs drive an articulated lorry through a store in order to earn bragging rights about destroying Robo. Or nuclear plant protesters using an RPG on him, also taking out unemployed people desperate for work. This isn't just Tex Avery style comic book violence thrown in for the OTT factor, this is violence carried out by characters for whom freedom means the freedom to destroy, without any thought as to why they want to.
Indeed, this notion of uncaring humans comes through in the character of Insane Izzy. The irony of a man who makes a living persuading people that his electrical goods will improve their life, subsequently mouthing off about Robo being a monster who can't care about human life (despite saving his) is quite rich. His hatred of Robo seems to awaken a primal instinct in him (he is shown with an office dedicated to his cause, with no mention of his business), and his final walk seems to suggest someone who has come to terms with his unpopularity, but feels he must continue his mission.
In a certain way, it reminds me of the following quote from Chuck Palahniuk's Fight Club where, after a convenience store worker is nearly killed and then let go, the narrator says "...your dinner is going to taste better than any meal you've ever eaten, and tomorrow will be the most beautiful day of your life."
The same thing undoubtedly happened to Insane Izzy. After losing his livelihood, but retaining his life, both characters have re-evaluated the directions they are heading in and have now tapped into their true selves. Which, in the case of Insane Izzy, is hatred for the person who saved him.
Where standards drop, however, is the artwork. Although it does the job by and large, certain sections are so blandly coloured that the reader would be forgiven for ignoring them (this is especially noticeable in panels with no action and lots of dialogue). Maybe a rejig of the art and colouring for an anniversary edition would amend this issue?
For a character who hasn't been well served in comics over the last number of years, Robocop: Prime Suspect stands tall as a thriller and an insight into a world that is rapidly coming to reality.
John Arcudi, John Paul Leon and Jeff Albrecht, Robocop: Prime Suspect 1993 Dark Horse Books ISBN-13: 978-1878574879
➽ Christopher Owens reviews for Metal Ireland and finds time to study the history and inherent contradictions of Ireland.Follow Christopher Owens on Twitter @MrOwens212
With the 1987 classic turning 31 this month, and news of a new film being in the pipeline, it's time to revisit one of the finer tales involving the man/machine hybrid.First published as a four part comic book series in 1992, Robocop: Prime Suspect is a very traditional "whodunit" in it's construction. But the writing, characterisation and setting makes this tale come alive.
Insane Izzy, a guy running an electronics store in Old Detroit, sees his business totalled as a gang of hoods drive a lorry through the shop so they can claim to be the ones who have destroyed Robocop. Although Robo saves Izzy and kills the hoods, Izzy blames Robo and immediately launches a campaign to have him scrapped "before Robocop scraps Detroit."
Although he is considered somewhat of a screwball, opinion is swayed when Izzy is shot dead. Quickly determining that the ballistics match Robo's Auto 9 (a weapon only he can fire), the authorities (Detroit Police and businessman Matthew Zieske) find Robo guilty, which leads to him going on the run. Zieske reveals his latest invention, ZED 309, designed to hunt down Robo. However, it quickly becomes apparent that Zieske is involved in a conspiracy, one that could swallow him whole.
This relatively taunt tale in terms of plotting and action has a much wider reach. The framing an innocent for corporate needs will always be a compelling storyline, but the motifs of mistrust and self doubt run through the tale, as Robo feels he cannot trust anyone, either the people he's programmed to protect, (as they turn on him despite saving their lives) nor himself (especially when he discovers his memory of the murder period has been blanked).
There's one image where Robo is lurking in the sewer, looking up at the grate that's letting light in. While it's an obvious image in many ways (the notion of the ultimate misfit in the gutter but looking up at the stars), it works well in the context of the tale, and is actually quite poignant, despite its obviousness. Perhaps this is down to the art, which captures a Robo with no expression. Stoicism or programmed duty. You can decide.
What I've always loved about the world that the character inhabits is that it's a society that has deliberately been run down by mega corporations in order to further their own gains. This Reaganite/Thatcherite wet dream turns the already mean streets of Old Detroit into a place of unfettered nihilism, where life means nothing and those struggling to survive are living on borrowed time.
Albert Schweitzer once said ‘humanitarianism consists in never sacrificing a human being to a purpose.’ Bear that in mind when reading the panels where sadistic thugs drive an articulated lorry through a store in order to earn bragging rights about destroying Robo. Or nuclear plant protesters using an RPG on him, also taking out unemployed people desperate for work. This isn't just Tex Avery style comic book violence thrown in for the OTT factor, this is violence carried out by characters for whom freedom means the freedom to destroy, without any thought as to why they want to.
Indeed, this notion of uncaring humans comes through in the character of Insane Izzy. The irony of a man who makes a living persuading people that his electrical goods will improve their life, subsequently mouthing off about Robo being a monster who can't care about human life (despite saving his) is quite rich. His hatred of Robo seems to awaken a primal instinct in him (he is shown with an office dedicated to his cause, with no mention of his business), and his final walk seems to suggest someone who has come to terms with his unpopularity, but feels he must continue his mission.
In a certain way, it reminds me of the following quote from Chuck Palahniuk's Fight Club where, after a convenience store worker is nearly killed and then let go, the narrator says "...your dinner is going to taste better than any meal you've ever eaten, and tomorrow will be the most beautiful day of your life."
The same thing undoubtedly happened to Insane Izzy. After losing his livelihood, but retaining his life, both characters have re-evaluated the directions they are heading in and have now tapped into their true selves. Which, in the case of Insane Izzy, is hatred for the person who saved him.
Where standards drop, however, is the artwork. Although it does the job by and large, certain sections are so blandly coloured that the reader would be forgiven for ignoring them (this is especially noticeable in panels with no action and lots of dialogue). Maybe a rejig of the art and colouring for an anniversary edition would amend this issue?
For a character who hasn't been well served in comics over the last number of years, Robocop: Prime Suspect stands tall as a thriller and an insight into a world that is rapidly coming to reality.
John Arcudi, John Paul Leon and Jeff Albrecht, Robocop: Prime Suspect 1993 Dark Horse Books ISBN-13: 978-1878574879
➽ Christopher Owens reviews for Metal Ireland and finds time to study the history and inherent contradictions of Ireland.Follow Christopher Owens on Twitter @MrOwens212
July 19, 2018
Ex-Muslims: A Community In Protest
Maryam Namazie with a piece published in sister-hood on 2 July 2018.
When the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain (CEMB) started 11 years ago, in June 2007, we were hard pressed to find 25 people who would come out publicly to break the apostasy taboo. Today, we are witnessing an international ex-Muslim ‘community’ – a tsunami of atheism.
But for me, this has never been about building a community as it is understood within identity politics, which implies people being boxed into homogenised, segregated communities with culturally-relative rights managed by ‘community leaders.’ Rather, I see ex-Muslims as a community in protest: insisting on freedom from religion, and freedom of conscience. For the right to apostasy and blasphemy, without fear.
Like the LGBT, anti-slavery, anti-colonialist, anti-apartheid, suffragette or civil rights movements, it’s a movement which insists upon our common humanity and equality – not upon difference or superiority. It’s a movement of people who refuse to live in fear and in the shadows, and who are speaking out for social change in unprecedented ways.
This movement matters because thirteen states punish atheism with the death penalty and all of them Islamic. Because a series of laws in Saudi Arabia define atheism as terrorism, where Ahmad Al-Shamri has been sentenced to death for atheism. Because Sina Dehghan has been sentenced to death in Iran for ‘insulting Islam.’ Because a Pakistani High Court Judge has said that blasphemers are terrorists and Ayaz Nizami and Rana Noman face the death penalty there. Because even in countries without the death penalty, such as Bangladesh, Islamists kill atheists whilst the government turns a blind eye. Because in Bangladesh, the atheist poet and publisher Shahzahan Bachchu was dragged out of a shop and shot dead mid-June this year. Because the Egyptian government is producing a national plan to ‘confront and eliminate’ atheism. Because in Egypt, the atheist blogger Sherif Gaber has not been seen in public since his arrest at Cairo airport on 2 May. Because a Malaysian government minister has said that atheists should be ‘hunted down’ and ‘re-educated.’ Because even in secular societies, ex-Muslims can be shunned, ostracised, and face ‘honour’-related violence.
This movement matters because you can be killed for leaving or criticising Islam. Full stop. Reason enough.
The Saudi UN Ambassador Abdallah Al-Mouallimi says that advocating for atheism is a terrorist offence; that it leads to chaos. Absurdly, the Guardian’s David Shariatmadari agrees that ‘criticism of religion, Islam especially, can be antisocial, even dangerous.’ These accusations are not new. The Suffragettes, for example, were considered dangerous, subversive, as destroying the natural order of things. They were labelled anti-male and traitors for demanding the right to vote. Similarly, ex-Muslims are often labelled traitors or ‘native informants.’ After all, when one homogenises a ‘community,’ anyone who steps outside of their assigned place may be deemed dangerous, subversive; as destroying the natural order of things.
Like other social and political movements which fight for equality, the ex-Muslim movement is considered ‘dangerous’ because it subverts the status quo, not because of some paternalistic concern for minorities. After all, don’t minorities also have the right to dissent, to equality, to civil rights and freedoms? And why is blasphemy or apostasy considered ‘Muslim-bashing?’ Is promoting LGBT rights ‘straight-bashing’, or promoting women’s right to vote ‘male-bashing’?
Yet when CEMB took to the streets of London Pride last year, the East London Mosque filed a complaint against our ‘Islamophobic’ placards. It took Pride London eight long months to meet with CEMB and to allow us to return this year. (Imagine if the Westboro Baptist Church had filed a complaint with Pride against a group that was critical of Christianity and the Christian Right. Would it have taken eight months for them to decide whose side they were on?)
When the hashtag #ExMuslimBecause became viral overnight, with over 120,000 Tweets from 65 countries, many people realised they were not alone in their rejection of Islam – maybe for the first time in their lives. Yet BBC Trending described it as an excuse for ‘Muslim-bashing’ and ‘Islamophobia.’ Or when we showed our solidarity with those persecuted in Saudi Arabia for eating during Ramadan, armed police came to the Saudi Embassy’s rescue, telling us our eat-in and fast-defying solidarity action was offending those in the embassy.
In my opinion, accusations of ‘Islamophobia’ are less about opposing bigotry and more about defending religious privilege but you cannot stop racism by outlawing blasphemy and apostasy. These accusations are used to scaremonger ex-Muslims into silence and to impose de facto apostasy and blasphemy laws where none exist. Where these laws do exist, we are accused of these ‘crimes’ and persecuted without any niceties.
The charge of ‘Islamophobia’ protects religion and the religious Right, not believers. There is a clear difference between the term xenophobia, for example, which describes how migrants are targeted by bigotry, or homophobia, where people are targeted for their sexuality, versus Islamophobia, which describes the criticism of an idea. Religion is an idea; Islamism and the religious-Right are political movements. They must be open to criticism. Conflating criticism of Islam and Islamism with ‘Muslim-bashing’ misrepresents dissent as bigotry.
That doesn’t mean that bigotry against Muslims, migrants and minorities doesn’t exist. Of course it does! We live in class-based societies which profit from racism. Ex-Muslims and their families (many of whom are still Muslim) understand this better than most; we also face closed borders, travel bans, hate, violence and discrimination. And, yes of course, there are ex-Muslims who are bigoted against Muslims, just as there are Muslims who are bigoted against ex-Muslims; just as there are women who are misogynists and men who are feminists and so forth. But individuals – not a ‘community’ – must be held accountable for their choices. We are not extensions of our communities to be defended or condemned depending upon which ‘tribe’ we belong to.
Victim blaming is the natural outcome of an unconditional defence of the ‘community’ – if only we had not been so offensive; if only we had minded our manners, well, then there would be no need to threaten, kill or silence us. Ironically, collective blame is a natural outcome of identity politics, which moreover legitimises white identity politics. The argument that cultures are homogenous and need protection has aided the rise of xenophobia and anti-migrant sentiment. Trump uses this narrative all the time, as do far-Right groups like Pegida, the Five Star Movement, For Britain and the English Defence League.
Letting migrants drown in waters and separating toddlers from their parents at borders is the height of defending one’s ‘culture’ – as is murdering apostates. Whilst touted as progressive, identity politics is a politics of difference and superiority. These are two edges of the same sword. The politics of difference has always been a fundamental principle of a supremacist agenda – whether it is Nazism, the biological theory of racial superiority or expressions of difference couched in cultural and religious terms. Identity politics is the corruption of the fight for social justice. It degrades it to a mere defence of culture and the homogenous ‘community.’
This is why, when Goldsmiths Islamic Society tried to cancel and disrupt my talk, the LGBTQ+ and Feminist Societies sided with the ISOC against my apparent ‘Islamophobia’ – even after the ISOC President’s homophobic tweets came to light and he was forced to resign. This is why the Muslim LGBTQ charity Imaan has asserted our presence at Pride last year served only to “deepen divisions between communities” and why a Guardian piece by a gay Muslim accuses us of “Islamophobia” whilst defending the East London Mosque which is itself a centre for homophobia. From the point of view of identity politics, it is better to defend the East London Mosque with its preachers, who call for the death penalty for LGBT and apostates, than to be seen to side with ‘those ex-Muslims’ who defend the rights of Muslim and ex-Muslim LGBT. Identity politics fails to see allies and enemies within and outside the ‘community.’ It fails to mobilise real solidarity and see how our lives and rights are interlinked across ‘communities,’ borders and boundaries.
In an age of regressive identity politics and cultural relativism, an ex-Muslim community in protest matters, because it reaffirms universal values, anti-racism, secularism, the fight for equality, social justice and our common humanity. A movement that is about equality not privilege. Rights without permission. No apologies.
Maryam Namazie is a political activist and writer She is also spokesperson for the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain.
Follow Maryam Namazie on Twitter@MaryamNamazie
When the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain (CEMB) started 11 years ago, in June 2007, we were hard pressed to find 25 people who would come out publicly to break the apostasy taboo. Today, we are witnessing an international ex-Muslim ‘community’ – a tsunami of atheism.
But for me, this has never been about building a community as it is understood within identity politics, which implies people being boxed into homogenised, segregated communities with culturally-relative rights managed by ‘community leaders.’ Rather, I see ex-Muslims as a community in protest: insisting on freedom from religion, and freedom of conscience. For the right to apostasy and blasphemy, without fear.
Like the LGBT, anti-slavery, anti-colonialist, anti-apartheid, suffragette or civil rights movements, it’s a movement which insists upon our common humanity and equality – not upon difference or superiority. It’s a movement of people who refuse to live in fear and in the shadows, and who are speaking out for social change in unprecedented ways.
This movement matters because thirteen states punish atheism with the death penalty and all of them Islamic. Because a series of laws in Saudi Arabia define atheism as terrorism, where Ahmad Al-Shamri has been sentenced to death for atheism. Because Sina Dehghan has been sentenced to death in Iran for ‘insulting Islam.’ Because a Pakistani High Court Judge has said that blasphemers are terrorists and Ayaz Nizami and Rana Noman face the death penalty there. Because even in countries without the death penalty, such as Bangladesh, Islamists kill atheists whilst the government turns a blind eye. Because in Bangladesh, the atheist poet and publisher Shahzahan Bachchu was dragged out of a shop and shot dead mid-June this year. Because the Egyptian government is producing a national plan to ‘confront and eliminate’ atheism. Because in Egypt, the atheist blogger Sherif Gaber has not been seen in public since his arrest at Cairo airport on 2 May. Because a Malaysian government minister has said that atheists should be ‘hunted down’ and ‘re-educated.’ Because even in secular societies, ex-Muslims can be shunned, ostracised, and face ‘honour’-related violence.
This movement matters because you can be killed for leaving or criticising Islam. Full stop. Reason enough.
The Saudi UN Ambassador Abdallah Al-Mouallimi says that advocating for atheism is a terrorist offence; that it leads to chaos. Absurdly, the Guardian’s David Shariatmadari agrees that ‘criticism of religion, Islam especially, can be antisocial, even dangerous.’ These accusations are not new. The Suffragettes, for example, were considered dangerous, subversive, as destroying the natural order of things. They were labelled anti-male and traitors for demanding the right to vote. Similarly, ex-Muslims are often labelled traitors or ‘native informants.’ After all, when one homogenises a ‘community,’ anyone who steps outside of their assigned place may be deemed dangerous, subversive; as destroying the natural order of things.
Like other social and political movements which fight for equality, the ex-Muslim movement is considered ‘dangerous’ because it subverts the status quo, not because of some paternalistic concern for minorities. After all, don’t minorities also have the right to dissent, to equality, to civil rights and freedoms? And why is blasphemy or apostasy considered ‘Muslim-bashing?’ Is promoting LGBT rights ‘straight-bashing’, or promoting women’s right to vote ‘male-bashing’?
Yet when CEMB took to the streets of London Pride last year, the East London Mosque filed a complaint against our ‘Islamophobic’ placards. It took Pride London eight long months to meet with CEMB and to allow us to return this year. (Imagine if the Westboro Baptist Church had filed a complaint with Pride against a group that was critical of Christianity and the Christian Right. Would it have taken eight months for them to decide whose side they were on?)
When the hashtag #ExMuslimBecause became viral overnight, with over 120,000 Tweets from 65 countries, many people realised they were not alone in their rejection of Islam – maybe for the first time in their lives. Yet BBC Trending described it as an excuse for ‘Muslim-bashing’ and ‘Islamophobia.’ Or when we showed our solidarity with those persecuted in Saudi Arabia for eating during Ramadan, armed police came to the Saudi Embassy’s rescue, telling us our eat-in and fast-defying solidarity action was offending those in the embassy.
In my opinion, accusations of ‘Islamophobia’ are less about opposing bigotry and more about defending religious privilege but you cannot stop racism by outlawing blasphemy and apostasy. These accusations are used to scaremonger ex-Muslims into silence and to impose de facto apostasy and blasphemy laws where none exist. Where these laws do exist, we are accused of these ‘crimes’ and persecuted without any niceties.
The charge of ‘Islamophobia’ protects religion and the religious Right, not believers. There is a clear difference between the term xenophobia, for example, which describes how migrants are targeted by bigotry, or homophobia, where people are targeted for their sexuality, versus Islamophobia, which describes the criticism of an idea. Religion is an idea; Islamism and the religious-Right are political movements. They must be open to criticism. Conflating criticism of Islam and Islamism with ‘Muslim-bashing’ misrepresents dissent as bigotry.
That doesn’t mean that bigotry against Muslims, migrants and minorities doesn’t exist. Of course it does! We live in class-based societies which profit from racism. Ex-Muslims and their families (many of whom are still Muslim) understand this better than most; we also face closed borders, travel bans, hate, violence and discrimination. And, yes of course, there are ex-Muslims who are bigoted against Muslims, just as there are Muslims who are bigoted against ex-Muslims; just as there are women who are misogynists and men who are feminists and so forth. But individuals – not a ‘community’ – must be held accountable for their choices. We are not extensions of our communities to be defended or condemned depending upon which ‘tribe’ we belong to.
Victim blaming is the natural outcome of an unconditional defence of the ‘community’ – if only we had not been so offensive; if only we had minded our manners, well, then there would be no need to threaten, kill or silence us. Ironically, collective blame is a natural outcome of identity politics, which moreover legitimises white identity politics. The argument that cultures are homogenous and need protection has aided the rise of xenophobia and anti-migrant sentiment. Trump uses this narrative all the time, as do far-Right groups like Pegida, the Five Star Movement, For Britain and the English Defence League.
Letting migrants drown in waters and separating toddlers from their parents at borders is the height of defending one’s ‘culture’ – as is murdering apostates. Whilst touted as progressive, identity politics is a politics of difference and superiority. These are two edges of the same sword. The politics of difference has always been a fundamental principle of a supremacist agenda – whether it is Nazism, the biological theory of racial superiority or expressions of difference couched in cultural and religious terms. Identity politics is the corruption of the fight for social justice. It degrades it to a mere defence of culture and the homogenous ‘community.’
This is why, when Goldsmiths Islamic Society tried to cancel and disrupt my talk, the LGBTQ+ and Feminist Societies sided with the ISOC against my apparent ‘Islamophobia’ – even after the ISOC President’s homophobic tweets came to light and he was forced to resign. This is why the Muslim LGBTQ charity Imaan has asserted our presence at Pride last year served only to “deepen divisions between communities” and why a Guardian piece by a gay Muslim accuses us of “Islamophobia” whilst defending the East London Mosque which is itself a centre for homophobia. From the point of view of identity politics, it is better to defend the East London Mosque with its preachers, who call for the death penalty for LGBT and apostates, than to be seen to side with ‘those ex-Muslims’ who defend the rights of Muslim and ex-Muslim LGBT. Identity politics fails to see allies and enemies within and outside the ‘community.’ It fails to mobilise real solidarity and see how our lives and rights are interlinked across ‘communities,’ borders and boundaries.
In an age of regressive identity politics and cultural relativism, an ex-Muslim community in protest matters, because it reaffirms universal values, anti-racism, secularism, the fight for equality, social justice and our common humanity. A movement that is about equality not privilege. Rights without permission. No apologies.
Maryam Namazie is a political activist and writer She is also spokesperson for the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain.Follow Maryam Namazie on Twitter@MaryamNamazie
July 18, 2018
A Very Intelligent Person
The Uri Avnery Column appraises Ehud Barak.
That was rather surprising. The army command was not on friendly terms with my paper, Haolam Hazeh. For dozens of years we had been officially boycotted by the army, after publishing a story which the then Chief of Staff considered insulting.
So I was curious when I entered the Deputy's room. His name was Ehud Barak, and I had never met him before.
Our conversation turned quickly toward European military history. I was quite surprised. In general, Israeli military chiefs are technicians, not theoreticians. But, since military history happens to be a hobby of mine, I was glad to discover that Barak was quite an expert on the subject.
Thus, conversing happily about the 30-years war, I was waiting for him to bring up the matter for which he had invited me. But the time passed and no other matter emerged. There was no other matter.
Ehud Barak was an unlikely soldier. Once his brother told me how Ehud became a commando soldier: he was short and fat as a boy, so his brother had to pull strings very hard to get him accepted by the elite unit.
The results were phenomenal. Barak was a daring commando soldier. He received several citations for personal bravery, commanded audacious exploits in enemy territory, advanced quickly in rank and in the end had filled almost every senior command post, including chief of intelligence, until he became Chief of Staff (the Commander in Chief of the armed forces).
After that it was natural in Israel for him to go into politics. In 1999, after joining the Labor Party and becoming its chief, he won the national elections against Binyamin Netanyahu.
Oh, joy! When the results were announced on the radio, there was a tremendous spontaneous outburst. Masses of people, overcome with emotion, converged on Tel Aviv's central square, the place where Yitzhak Rabin had been murdered four years earlier. I was there when Barak announced from the tribune: "This is the dawn of a new day!"
The joy was justified. Years before, Barak had told Gideon Levy that if he had been a young Palestinian, he would have joined a terrorist organization. Here was a new spirit.
But something went wrong. President Bill Clinton called for a peace conference at the Camp David resort. There the three of them – Clinton, Arafat and Barak - were to give birth to a historic peace agreement.
It did not happen. Instead of seeking the company of Arafat and airing the problems in private, Barak remained isolated in his cabin. When seated at dinner between Arafat and the young daughter of the President, Barak devoted himself exclusively to her.
True, at Camp David Barak offered peace terms which went further than those of earlier Prime Ministers, but they still fell far short of the minimum the Palestinians could accept. The conference broke up without results.
A real statesman would have declared something like this: "We had a fruitful discussion. It would have been a miracle if, after a hundred years of conflict, we had reached an agreement at the first attempt. There will be more conferences, until we reach agreement."
Instead Barak made an incredible announcement:
When An ordinary Israeli is asked these days "Who do you think can replace Bibi?" the almost automatic answer is: "Nobody". The voter sees no possible successor, neither in the Likud nor in the opposition.
The members of the present cabinet – male and female – are nobodies. Little politicians who are good at creating scandals and attracting public attention, but not much else. If there ever were talented leaders in the Likud, they have been removed by Netanyahu long ago.
Half the Israelis believe that "Bibi" is an excellent leader. And indeed, He looks good, is a very clever politician, a wizard of public relations. He makes a good impression abroad and manages the country's daily affairs in a passable way.
The most exact judgment about Bibi was passed by his own father, the history professor. He said: "Bibi can be an excellent Foreign Minister. But he cannot be Prime Minister!"
Nothing could be more true. Netanyahu has all the qualifications of a Foreign Minister, but he has none of the qualifications necessary for a Prime Minister. He has no vision. No answers for Israel's historic problems. No wish to overcome Israel's many internal divisions. Many Israelis hate his guts.
So who can replace him, even in theory?
The Political field looks like a human desert. Politicians appear and disappear. The Labor Party (in its different guises) changes leaders regularly like clothes. The glamorous new boy, Ya'ir Lapid, the creator and sole chief of the "There is a Future" party, is losing his luster rapidly.
When somebody asks in a small voice: "What about….Ehud Barak?" a silence ensues. There is no easy answer.
Since leaving public life, Barak has become very rich. His main occupation seems to be advising foreign governments. He lives in the most luxurious building in the center of Tel Aviv. He has no political party. Perhaps he is waiting for The Call.
As a personality, there is no doubt that Barak stands out. He is far better qualified than any other Israeli politician. If a new young leader does not emerge from nowhere, Barak is the only person who could take Netanyahu on.
But one feels in the air a palpable hesitation. He has no following. People admire him, but do not love him. He does not inspire trust, as Rabin did. He has open contempt for people who are less talented than he, and that is a great disadvantage for a politician.
And then there is his record of past failures.
In Goethe's Faust, the outstanding work of German literature, Mephisto, the devil, introduces himself as "the force which always desires the bad and always creates the good." Similarly, Barak is an arch-angel who always desires the good and always creates the bad.
There is Camp David, of course. There was his hatred for Yasser Arafat, the only Palestinian who could have made peace with Israel.
His very superiority causes a problem. It does create suspicion.
One of Israel's two most pernicious problems is the deep-seated feeling of the immigrants from Eastern countries of having been discriminated against. (The second problem is the relationship between the Orthodox and the atheists.)
When he was Prime Minister, Barak did something unique: on behalf of the government he asked the forgiveness of the Easterners for the discrimination they had suffered. Somehow, it fell flat. No one even remembers the gesture. For Easterners, Barak looks like the typical overbearing Ashkenazi (Westerner).
Bibi Netanyahu, in contrast, is adored by most Easterners, though he is and looks as Ashkenazi as anyone can.
Why? God alone knows.
So, Come next election, would I vote for Barak?
The opportunity would arise only if Barak decides to accept the challenge and succeeds in uniting behind him all the opposition parties, which hate each other. That by itself would be a Herculean task.
If that happens, I would recommend voting for him. To be honest, I would recommend voting for anybody who seriously challenges Bibi. I believe that Bibi is leading Israel toward an abyss – an eternal war against the Palestinians, a war nobody can win.
Would I vote for Barak in spite of his record? Intelligent people can learn from experience (though few do).
Ehud Barak is a very intelligent person.
Uri Avnery is a veteran Israeli peace activist.
He writes @ Gush Shalom
That was rather surprising. The army command was not on friendly terms with my paper, Haolam Hazeh. For dozens of years we had been officially boycotted by the army, after publishing a story which the then Chief of Staff considered insulting.
So I was curious when I entered the Deputy's room. His name was Ehud Barak, and I had never met him before.
Our conversation turned quickly toward European military history. I was quite surprised. In general, Israeli military chiefs are technicians, not theoreticians. But, since military history happens to be a hobby of mine, I was glad to discover that Barak was quite an expert on the subject.
Thus, conversing happily about the 30-years war, I was waiting for him to bring up the matter for which he had invited me. But the time passed and no other matter emerged. There was no other matter.
Ehud Barak was an unlikely soldier. Once his brother told me how Ehud became a commando soldier: he was short and fat as a boy, so his brother had to pull strings very hard to get him accepted by the elite unit.
The results were phenomenal. Barak was a daring commando soldier. He received several citations for personal bravery, commanded audacious exploits in enemy territory, advanced quickly in rank and in the end had filled almost every senior command post, including chief of intelligence, until he became Chief of Staff (the Commander in Chief of the armed forces).
After that it was natural in Israel for him to go into politics. In 1999, after joining the Labor Party and becoming its chief, he won the national elections against Binyamin Netanyahu.
Oh, joy! When the results were announced on the radio, there was a tremendous spontaneous outburst. Masses of people, overcome with emotion, converged on Tel Aviv's central square, the place where Yitzhak Rabin had been murdered four years earlier. I was there when Barak announced from the tribune: "This is the dawn of a new day!"
The joy was justified. Years before, Barak had told Gideon Levy that if he had been a young Palestinian, he would have joined a terrorist organization. Here was a new spirit.
But something went wrong. President Bill Clinton called for a peace conference at the Camp David resort. There the three of them – Clinton, Arafat and Barak - were to give birth to a historic peace agreement.
It did not happen. Instead of seeking the company of Arafat and airing the problems in private, Barak remained isolated in his cabin. When seated at dinner between Arafat and the young daughter of the President, Barak devoted himself exclusively to her.
True, at Camp David Barak offered peace terms which went further than those of earlier Prime Ministers, but they still fell far short of the minimum the Palestinians could accept. The conference broke up without results.
A real statesman would have declared something like this: "We had a fruitful discussion. It would have been a miracle if, after a hundred years of conflict, we had reached an agreement at the first attempt. There will be more conferences, until we reach agreement."
Instead Barak made an incredible announcement:
I have offered concessions which went further than anything Israel has offered before. The Palestinians have refused everything. They want to throw us into the sea. There is no chance of peace.Coming from the mouth of the "Leader of the Peace Camp", this turned failure into catastrophe. The Israeli peace camp collapsed. It has not recovered since. After Barak, Ariel Sharon took over, then Ehud Olmert, followed by Binyamin Netanyahu – seemingly for good.
When An ordinary Israeli is asked these days "Who do you think can replace Bibi?" the almost automatic answer is: "Nobody". The voter sees no possible successor, neither in the Likud nor in the opposition.
The members of the present cabinet – male and female – are nobodies. Little politicians who are good at creating scandals and attracting public attention, but not much else. If there ever were talented leaders in the Likud, they have been removed by Netanyahu long ago.
Half the Israelis believe that "Bibi" is an excellent leader. And indeed, He looks good, is a very clever politician, a wizard of public relations. He makes a good impression abroad and manages the country's daily affairs in a passable way.
The most exact judgment about Bibi was passed by his own father, the history professor. He said: "Bibi can be an excellent Foreign Minister. But he cannot be Prime Minister!"
Nothing could be more true. Netanyahu has all the qualifications of a Foreign Minister, but he has none of the qualifications necessary for a Prime Minister. He has no vision. No answers for Israel's historic problems. No wish to overcome Israel's many internal divisions. Many Israelis hate his guts.
So who can replace him, even in theory?
The Political field looks like a human desert. Politicians appear and disappear. The Labor Party (in its different guises) changes leaders regularly like clothes. The glamorous new boy, Ya'ir Lapid, the creator and sole chief of the "There is a Future" party, is losing his luster rapidly.
When somebody asks in a small voice: "What about….Ehud Barak?" a silence ensues. There is no easy answer.
Since leaving public life, Barak has become very rich. His main occupation seems to be advising foreign governments. He lives in the most luxurious building in the center of Tel Aviv. He has no political party. Perhaps he is waiting for The Call.
As a personality, there is no doubt that Barak stands out. He is far better qualified than any other Israeli politician. If a new young leader does not emerge from nowhere, Barak is the only person who could take Netanyahu on.
But one feels in the air a palpable hesitation. He has no following. People admire him, but do not love him. He does not inspire trust, as Rabin did. He has open contempt for people who are less talented than he, and that is a great disadvantage for a politician.
And then there is his record of past failures.
In Goethe's Faust, the outstanding work of German literature, Mephisto, the devil, introduces himself as "the force which always desires the bad and always creates the good." Similarly, Barak is an arch-angel who always desires the good and always creates the bad.
There is Camp David, of course. There was his hatred for Yasser Arafat, the only Palestinian who could have made peace with Israel.
His very superiority causes a problem. It does create suspicion.
One of Israel's two most pernicious problems is the deep-seated feeling of the immigrants from Eastern countries of having been discriminated against. (The second problem is the relationship between the Orthodox and the atheists.)
When he was Prime Minister, Barak did something unique: on behalf of the government he asked the forgiveness of the Easterners for the discrimination they had suffered. Somehow, it fell flat. No one even remembers the gesture. For Easterners, Barak looks like the typical overbearing Ashkenazi (Westerner).
Bibi Netanyahu, in contrast, is adored by most Easterners, though he is and looks as Ashkenazi as anyone can.
Why? God alone knows.
So, Come next election, would I vote for Barak?
The opportunity would arise only if Barak decides to accept the challenge and succeeds in uniting behind him all the opposition parties, which hate each other. That by itself would be a Herculean task.
If that happens, I would recommend voting for him. To be honest, I would recommend voting for anybody who seriously challenges Bibi. I believe that Bibi is leading Israel toward an abyss – an eternal war against the Palestinians, a war nobody can win.
Would I vote for Barak in spite of his record? Intelligent people can learn from experience (though few do).
Ehud Barak is a very intelligent person.
Uri Avnery is a veteran Israeli peace activist.
He writes @ Gush Shalom
Cape Town Water Crisis – An Inspirational Response
Joe Dalton believes the response to the Cape Town water crisis can be an inspiration to the World (and especially to Ireland).
It was most appropriate that the biannual International Water Association conference on Water Losses was held in Cape Town, South Africa in early May 2018. I was there to give a talk on a water loss project in Bahrain in the Middle East, where I am currently based.
Cape Town has been subjected to a severe drought such that the city was at serious risk of running out of water. Earlier this year it was announced that “Day Zero” would be reached in April 2018. This was the point at which water levels would be so low that the city’s Water and Sanitation Department would be forced to shut off the water supply, forcing residents to collect water at communal collection points.
A lively session heard from the city’s water utility about the ongoing journey they have been on. The initial Day Zero announcement led to a slightly panicked reaction. Water consumption and sales of bottled water immediately shot up as people started hoarding water. While the utility did come in for some public criticism initially, the realisation that everyone was in this together led to a swift changing of attitudes.
What was most impressive was how Cape Town society responded. The conference was itself held in the Century City Conference Centre, which is one of the most water efficient in the World. Recycled water is used for toilet flushing and all showers have timers. As I explored the city and interacted with the people, it was obvious that knowledge of the problem was universal. I met a number of taxi drivers who were quite animated on the issue. Everywhere you went there were signs up saying to conserve water. I witnessed an artist complete a poignant and eye-catching mural on the pier of the Victoria and Alfred Waterfront.
The latest Cape Town water conservation guidelines aim to limit consumption to 50 litres per person per day. By and large the people have responded accordingly. Water consumption has dropped by 400 million litres per day from 820 (March 2017) to 520 (March 2018). This compares with peak demand back in May 2015 of 1,200 million litres per day.
Keeping daily per capita consumption below 50 litres per person is no mean feat. Speaking to one of the staff in the Asoka restaurant in Kloof Street, which I would definitely recommend by the way, he told me that he tries to get his family to aim for 25 litres per person per day. Cape Town aims to reach and sustain an overall usage level of 450 million litres per day.
Along with demand management, the utility has embarked on pressure management, leak detection and repair, promotion of the use of recycled water and augmentation of water sources combined with effective communication campaigns. Commendably, they have managed to maintain continuous 24×7 water supply, thus avoiding the many pitfalls of intermittent supply such as contamination and damage to the integrity of the network.
One challenge the utility is facing is the reduced revenue from tariffs. The public utility receives its revenue based on metered water bills. The tariff combines a fixed charge, which has to be paid regardless of usage, with rising block tariffs with charges increasing with higher usage. As consumption has dropped, so have utility revenues. Yet there has been no reduction in operating costs. In fact, more expenditure is needed to increase availability of water.
South Africa was one of the only countries in the world to have a universal free water allowance to all households. An allowance of 6,000 litres per household per month was introduced in 2001 by the African National Congress Government following a cholera outbreak. Since then, in Cape Town and elsewhere in South Africa, the “universal” allowance has been largely abandoned for most customers while it has been increased for poor households. The Cape Town Water and Sanitation Department is currently working on revising their tariffs to ensure that they cover their operating costs, while incentivising conservation and maintaining access to the poor.
These combined measures have enabled Cape Town to postpone Day Zero indefinitely. This led some to question whether Day Zero was in fact a hoax all along. Transparency with the public was the key here. “Day Zero” was indeed an excellent marketing ploy to focus minds, conjuring up as it did an apocalyptic image of an arid city. What it meant in figurative terms was water levels below 13.5% in the city’s water supply dams. Current levels are at around 20% and do not allow for any complacency.
Even though Day Zero has been avoided for now, there is a widespread acceptance in Cape Town that attitudes to water had to change. The people of Cape Town have effectively embraced a new way of life that regards every drop as precious.
My home country of Ireland is currently (June/July 2018) undergoing a heat wave with the national water utility, Irish Water, imposing a hosepipe ban in the Dublin area. Northern Ireland Water have done the same across the six counties. When I think of the strained relationship that has existed between Irish Water and the Irish public, I am struck by the comparison with Cape Town. The utility there, while not immune from criticism, are working very hard to deal with the situation. The public response has been as good as could have been hoped for. In truth, I think that the response of Cape Town to their water crisis is quite inspirational and can be an example to the World.
Joe Dalton blogs @ Joe's Water Blog
Follow Joe Dalton on Twitter @JoeEmmetDalton
It was most appropriate that the biannual International Water Association conference on Water Losses was held in Cape Town, South Africa in early May 2018. I was there to give a talk on a water loss project in Bahrain in the Middle East, where I am currently based.
Cape Town has been subjected to a severe drought such that the city was at serious risk of running out of water. Earlier this year it was announced that “Day Zero” would be reached in April 2018. This was the point at which water levels would be so low that the city’s Water and Sanitation Department would be forced to shut off the water supply, forcing residents to collect water at communal collection points.
A lively session heard from the city’s water utility about the ongoing journey they have been on. The initial Day Zero announcement led to a slightly panicked reaction. Water consumption and sales of bottled water immediately shot up as people started hoarding water. While the utility did come in for some public criticism initially, the realisation that everyone was in this together led to a swift changing of attitudes.
What was most impressive was how Cape Town society responded. The conference was itself held in the Century City Conference Centre, which is one of the most water efficient in the World. Recycled water is used for toilet flushing and all showers have timers. As I explored the city and interacted with the people, it was obvious that knowledge of the problem was universal. I met a number of taxi drivers who were quite animated on the issue. Everywhere you went there were signs up saying to conserve water. I witnessed an artist complete a poignant and eye-catching mural on the pier of the Victoria and Alfred Waterfront.
The latest Cape Town water conservation guidelines aim to limit consumption to 50 litres per person per day. By and large the people have responded accordingly. Water consumption has dropped by 400 million litres per day from 820 (March 2017) to 520 (March 2018). This compares with peak demand back in May 2015 of 1,200 million litres per day.
Keeping daily per capita consumption below 50 litres per person is no mean feat. Speaking to one of the staff in the Asoka restaurant in Kloof Street, which I would definitely recommend by the way, he told me that he tries to get his family to aim for 25 litres per person per day. Cape Town aims to reach and sustain an overall usage level of 450 million litres per day.
Along with demand management, the utility has embarked on pressure management, leak detection and repair, promotion of the use of recycled water and augmentation of water sources combined with effective communication campaigns. Commendably, they have managed to maintain continuous 24×7 water supply, thus avoiding the many pitfalls of intermittent supply such as contamination and damage to the integrity of the network.
One challenge the utility is facing is the reduced revenue from tariffs. The public utility receives its revenue based on metered water bills. The tariff combines a fixed charge, which has to be paid regardless of usage, with rising block tariffs with charges increasing with higher usage. As consumption has dropped, so have utility revenues. Yet there has been no reduction in operating costs. In fact, more expenditure is needed to increase availability of water.
South Africa was one of the only countries in the world to have a universal free water allowance to all households. An allowance of 6,000 litres per household per month was introduced in 2001 by the African National Congress Government following a cholera outbreak. Since then, in Cape Town and elsewhere in South Africa, the “universal” allowance has been largely abandoned for most customers while it has been increased for poor households. The Cape Town Water and Sanitation Department is currently working on revising their tariffs to ensure that they cover their operating costs, while incentivising conservation and maintaining access to the poor.
These combined measures have enabled Cape Town to postpone Day Zero indefinitely. This led some to question whether Day Zero was in fact a hoax all along. Transparency with the public was the key here. “Day Zero” was indeed an excellent marketing ploy to focus minds, conjuring up as it did an apocalyptic image of an arid city. What it meant in figurative terms was water levels below 13.5% in the city’s water supply dams. Current levels are at around 20% and do not allow for any complacency.
Even though Day Zero has been avoided for now, there is a widespread acceptance in Cape Town that attitudes to water had to change. The people of Cape Town have effectively embraced a new way of life that regards every drop as precious.
My home country of Ireland is currently (June/July 2018) undergoing a heat wave with the national water utility, Irish Water, imposing a hosepipe ban in the Dublin area. Northern Ireland Water have done the same across the six counties. When I think of the strained relationship that has existed between Irish Water and the Irish public, I am struck by the comparison with Cape Town. The utility there, while not immune from criticism, are working very hard to deal with the situation. The public response has been as good as could have been hoped for. In truth, I think that the response of Cape Town to their water crisis is quite inspirational and can be an example to the World.
Joe Dalton blogs @ Joe's Water Blog Follow Joe Dalton on Twitter @JoeEmmetDalton
Never A Straight Answer
Frankie McKillen muses on some of the things taken for true.
Apart from death and taxes the only other two sure bets in life are 1 + 1 = 2 and the earth is a spheroid. At least thats what I believed until two years ago when I came across a video called Under the dome. Apart from the last 20mins when God came into the equation, I enjoyed it and the maths made sense in my head for the most part. Then I started to question the things I obvesrved around me, watching endless videos explaining what happens in deepest darkest space to finding out Jean-Luc Picard from Star Trek was based on a real person called Auguste Piccard, who in 1931 went 51,000 ft up into the stratosphere, planes cruise at 32,000 tops. Anyhow when Auguste looked out the port hole of his capsule his impression was the earth looked like a disk with up turned sides. Picard brought me to another 20th century explorer who I wasn't taught about in school either called Richard E Byrd, who in 1953 gave an interview stating there is land after Antarctic, un-touched by humans, bigger than the United States with enough minerals to fuel the world forever. Here is the interview he gave. Scroll to 1min 17seconds ends 2mins, listen to his words not mine.
Now between 1946-47, Rear Admiral Richard E. Byrd was also part of the command structure involved in a scientific expedition to Antartic called Operation High jump. What exactly happened there and why the US military got spanked so soon after maybe nuking two Japanese cities at the end of WW2 no ones knows. All we know is the US miilitary got spanked and Rear Admiral Richard E. Byrd says there is land after Antarctic bigger than the United States. Now to keep things in context, Operation High Jump was a few months after Operation Paper Clip when Nazi scientists who previously worked on everything from human experiements, V2 rockets and whatever Tesla secrets they stole went on to form NASA or were given high ranking US military positions.
In 1958 James Van Allen confirmed the discovery of two layers of deadly radiation covering this rock we live on and a few years after the discovery of the Van Allen belts the US military made their own radiation belt during Operation Fishbowl, when in 1962 bombs filled with tons of uranium, plutonium and who only knows what else were fired into the sky as far as possible and simply detonated. So now we have three layers of deadly radiation surrounding us. Two natural and one man made.
Now inbetween James Van Allens discovery in 1958 and Fishbowl in 1962, the same nations that today are starting proxy wars across the Middle East, going for land grabs in the South China Seas, screwing the island we live on with Brexit, carrying out politically motivated assination attemps, on the 1st December 1959 all signed The Antarctic Treaty System, no matter how many threats, non threats have been fired from The White House to the The Kremlin or vice-versa during the Cuban Missel crisis up the present day, no one has thought about breaking it, violating it or undermining it. Why do the the most powerful nations think it is ok to bomb children and families all over the Middle East with impunity, turn blind eyes to human trafficking....Yet feel the need to protect a few walruses and a half dozen penguines who live on a giant ice berg in the south Atlantic Ocean with more military muscel than went to D Day ....? Try obtaining for a permit to do a privately funded scientific expedition below 60* South. Also tell them you will be flying the same route as Byrd flew during High Jump.
Fast forward a few years until The Apollo moon missions. Why did NASA feel the need to stage anything about the biggest adventure mankind is meant to have taken? Here is some unseen footage that proves the photos said to have been taken unboard The Eagle on the way to the moon are fake. Was the real reason they faked pictures in 1969 no more than to slap one up the Russians in the middle of the cold war and a propaganda dream come true? NASA's Robert Simmons is on record saying even though he has never been to space, he is employed by NASA to take lots of compisites and photoshoot them into what he thinks the earth looks like. I know I can't rely on any of the Astronauts who went to space to tell me what this rock looks like. When they can't even agree if you can see stars from space or not. Alan Bean who is alledged to have landed on the moon with the Apollo 12 mission, ins't even sure if they went high enough to pass through the Van Allen belts. Think about that for a minute. An Astronaut, with degrees in maths and physics doesn't know if they passed through three layers of deadly radition on the way to the moon which is meant to be, give or take, 250,000 miles away.
In 1988 NASA's Scientific and Technical Information Division released a paper...Ref N* 1207 and after all the equations that no one really understands and double talk it says this.....
16. Abstract This report documents the derivation and definition of a linear aircraft model for a rigid aircraft of constant mass flying over a flat, nonrotating earth. The derivation makes no assumptions of reference trajectory or vehicle symmetry. The linear system equations are derived and evaluated along a general trajectory and include both aircraft dynamics and observation variables.
Why did NASA not use the globe earth model for their experiements? Why a flat earth model?
The coriolis effect in simple laymans terms is bollicks. The ship doesn't go over any horizon. It simply goes out of view. Get a decent pair of binoculars, telescope stand on a shore line and watch the ship come back into view until it again go out of view. It is all about your eyes perception. If I am to believe the earth is round and spinning just over 1,000 mph at the equator and gravity (not desitity and mass) is keeping everything rooted, then Newton and his laws of motion don't add up. A helicopter sitting stationary on its helipad is on the ground spinning like the rest of us. Then it flies up 100 ft in the air in a straight line and hovers for 30mins and then descends in a straight line, surely by the laws of the spinning rock theory and anyones definition of motion, the helicopter has to come down in a different spot And a plane taking off would either reach it's desination very quickly flying east to west or a good chance never if the plane flies west to east....the earth is meant to be spinning in a clock wise direction at least twice as fast as a 747 goes, do the maths yourself.
What I have shown is Picard in 1931 said the earth looks like a disk with up turned edges, when observed fron 51,00ft and that sometime during Operation High Jump Rear Admiral Richard E Byrd after a flight over Antartic is on record saying after Antartic, there is land bigger than the United States. Was the Antartic peace treaty really all about watching how a few seals and penguine's avoid being being a greats whites Sunday brunch.....NASA employee Robert Simmons who has never flown higher than a 747 freely admits to photo-shooting images of the earth so the blue marble image is the picture every ones comes to associate with this rock. NASA have said they can only fly in lower earth orbit, partly due to the two Van Allen radition belts and the third man made layer of radition caused largely by Operation Fishbowl, which blows any moon landing theories out of the water ( unless you go along with Don Pettits line about destroying the Apollo moon landing data and technology). None of the Astronaunts who went to space can agree what they could see when they looked out the window of the rocket/ISS they were in. Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins said you can't see a thing, describing space a a void and a blackness that they have never experienced. While both Mike Massimino and Don Pettit have said they see stars all the time from the ISS and Alan Bean doesn't know where he flew to.... I could go on but don't take my word for it. Do you own research.
Personally I believe there are rocks of all shapes and sizes floating about space. Some more flatter than others. Next time you walk on a mountain, along a beach or a quarry, are all the rocks the same shape? Aren't some flatter than others.
➽Frankie McKillen is a North Belfast Rockabilly and free spirit who for many years lived in Paris.
Apart from death and taxes the only other two sure bets in life are 1 + 1 = 2 and the earth is a spheroid. At least thats what I believed until two years ago when I came across a video called Under the dome. Apart from the last 20mins when God came into the equation, I enjoyed it and the maths made sense in my head for the most part. Then I started to question the things I obvesrved around me, watching endless videos explaining what happens in deepest darkest space to finding out Jean-Luc Picard from Star Trek was based on a real person called Auguste Piccard, who in 1931 went 51,000 ft up into the stratosphere, planes cruise at 32,000 tops. Anyhow when Auguste looked out the port hole of his capsule his impression was the earth looked like a disk with up turned sides. Picard brought me to another 20th century explorer who I wasn't taught about in school either called Richard E Byrd, who in 1953 gave an interview stating there is land after Antarctic, un-touched by humans, bigger than the United States with enough minerals to fuel the world forever. Here is the interview he gave. Scroll to 1min 17seconds ends 2mins, listen to his words not mine.
Now between 1946-47, Rear Admiral Richard E. Byrd was also part of the command structure involved in a scientific expedition to Antartic called Operation High jump. What exactly happened there and why the US military got spanked so soon after maybe nuking two Japanese cities at the end of WW2 no ones knows. All we know is the US miilitary got spanked and Rear Admiral Richard E. Byrd says there is land after Antarctic bigger than the United States. Now to keep things in context, Operation High Jump was a few months after Operation Paper Clip when Nazi scientists who previously worked on everything from human experiements, V2 rockets and whatever Tesla secrets they stole went on to form NASA or were given high ranking US military positions.
In 1958 James Van Allen confirmed the discovery of two layers of deadly radiation covering this rock we live on and a few years after the discovery of the Van Allen belts the US military made their own radiation belt during Operation Fishbowl, when in 1962 bombs filled with tons of uranium, plutonium and who only knows what else were fired into the sky as far as possible and simply detonated. So now we have three layers of deadly radiation surrounding us. Two natural and one man made.
Now inbetween James Van Allens discovery in 1958 and Fishbowl in 1962, the same nations that today are starting proxy wars across the Middle East, going for land grabs in the South China Seas, screwing the island we live on with Brexit, carrying out politically motivated assination attemps, on the 1st December 1959 all signed The Antarctic Treaty System, no matter how many threats, non threats have been fired from The White House to the The Kremlin or vice-versa during the Cuban Missel crisis up the present day, no one has thought about breaking it, violating it or undermining it. Why do the the most powerful nations think it is ok to bomb children and families all over the Middle East with impunity, turn blind eyes to human trafficking....Yet feel the need to protect a few walruses and a half dozen penguines who live on a giant ice berg in the south Atlantic Ocean with more military muscel than went to D Day ....? Try obtaining for a permit to do a privately funded scientific expedition below 60* South. Also tell them you will be flying the same route as Byrd flew during High Jump.
Fast forward a few years until The Apollo moon missions. Why did NASA feel the need to stage anything about the biggest adventure mankind is meant to have taken? Here is some unseen footage that proves the photos said to have been taken unboard The Eagle on the way to the moon are fake. Was the real reason they faked pictures in 1969 no more than to slap one up the Russians in the middle of the cold war and a propaganda dream come true? NASA's Robert Simmons is on record saying even though he has never been to space, he is employed by NASA to take lots of compisites and photoshoot them into what he thinks the earth looks like. I know I can't rely on any of the Astronauts who went to space to tell me what this rock looks like. When they can't even agree if you can see stars from space or not. Alan Bean who is alledged to have landed on the moon with the Apollo 12 mission, ins't even sure if they went high enough to pass through the Van Allen belts. Think about that for a minute. An Astronaut, with degrees in maths and physics doesn't know if they passed through three layers of deadly radition on the way to the moon which is meant to be, give or take, 250,000 miles away.
In 1988 NASA's Scientific and Technical Information Division released a paper...Ref N* 1207 and after all the equations that no one really understands and double talk it says this.....
16. Abstract This report documents the derivation and definition of a linear aircraft model for a rigid aircraft of constant mass flying over a flat, nonrotating earth. The derivation makes no assumptions of reference trajectory or vehicle symmetry. The linear system equations are derived and evaluated along a general trajectory and include both aircraft dynamics and observation variables.
Why did NASA not use the globe earth model for their experiements? Why a flat earth model?
The coriolis effect in simple laymans terms is bollicks. The ship doesn't go over any horizon. It simply goes out of view. Get a decent pair of binoculars, telescope stand on a shore line and watch the ship come back into view until it again go out of view. It is all about your eyes perception. If I am to believe the earth is round and spinning just over 1,000 mph at the equator and gravity (not desitity and mass) is keeping everything rooted, then Newton and his laws of motion don't add up. A helicopter sitting stationary on its helipad is on the ground spinning like the rest of us. Then it flies up 100 ft in the air in a straight line and hovers for 30mins and then descends in a straight line, surely by the laws of the spinning rock theory and anyones definition of motion, the helicopter has to come down in a different spot And a plane taking off would either reach it's desination very quickly flying east to west or a good chance never if the plane flies west to east....the earth is meant to be spinning in a clock wise direction at least twice as fast as a 747 goes, do the maths yourself.
What I have shown is Picard in 1931 said the earth looks like a disk with up turned edges, when observed fron 51,00ft and that sometime during Operation High Jump Rear Admiral Richard E Byrd after a flight over Antartic is on record saying after Antartic, there is land bigger than the United States. Was the Antartic peace treaty really all about watching how a few seals and penguine's avoid being being a greats whites Sunday brunch.....NASA employee Robert Simmons who has never flown higher than a 747 freely admits to photo-shooting images of the earth so the blue marble image is the picture every ones comes to associate with this rock. NASA have said they can only fly in lower earth orbit, partly due to the two Van Allen radition belts and the third man made layer of radition caused largely by Operation Fishbowl, which blows any moon landing theories out of the water ( unless you go along with Don Pettits line about destroying the Apollo moon landing data and technology). None of the Astronaunts who went to space can agree what they could see when they looked out the window of the rocket/ISS they were in. Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins said you can't see a thing, describing space a a void and a blackness that they have never experienced. While both Mike Massimino and Don Pettit have said they see stars all the time from the ISS and Alan Bean doesn't know where he flew to.... I could go on but don't take my word for it. Do you own research.
Personally I believe there are rocks of all shapes and sizes floating about space. Some more flatter than others. Next time you walk on a mountain, along a beach or a quarry, are all the rocks the same shape? Aren't some flatter than others.
➽Frankie McKillen is a North Belfast Rockabilly and free spirit who for many years lived in Paris.
July 17, 2018
Hamas’ Bombing Of An Israeli Kindergarten Is Also Outrageous!
Michael Lerner writing in Tikkun magazine criticises Hamas for bombing an Israeli kindergarten.
There is no ethical excuse for Hamas bombing a school yard, thankfully a short while before the kindergarten children and staff arrived, as they did on Wednesday May 30. It is no excuse to say that Israel has done far worse toward Gaza. Yes, it has–but that doesn’t provide an argument for why Hamas should target civilians. Israel’s evil deeds in killing unarmed demonstrators last week at the Gaza fence does not make Hamas’ activity legitimate.
What we have de facto is a perfect alliance between Netanyahu and the even more extreme elements in Israel on the one hand, and Hamas and other Islamic extremists on the other hand. Both act in ways that reinforce the arguments of the other side that there is no solution to the legitimate needs of each side except more violence.
Hamas continues to make it clear that it does not want Palestinians to live in peace with Israel, but rather to destroy Israel entirely. Though this desire is pure fantasy, it gives the Israeli right-wing the justification to ignore the suffering that Israel imposes on the Palestinian people, and particularly those living in Gaza. Israel’s blockade is not a legitimate self-defense tactic, and causes immense suffering. Not only do Gazans have almost no electricity to run their own refrigerators and hospitals, and no clean water (causing sickness and death to many children), but they will not let Gazans out of this open-air prison. Not even to get medical help. So, the day before Hamas’ attack, some Gazans wounded by Israeli sharpshooters the week before tried to launch a flotilla to take them to a hospital in Cyprus for badly needed treatment.
This is inhumane and a violation of international laws. But aiming bombs at kindergarten students is no legitimate response–it only reinforces the Israeli right’s disgusting and racist claim that the Palestinians are “animals.” It is this kind of thinking on both sides that makes peace and reconciliation impossible to achieve in the foreseeable future. Hamas is Netanyahu’s best ally and Netanyahu is Hamas’ best ally. And the people who suffer are mostly the Palestinians, because Israel has the far superior military capabilities whereas Hamas has some bombs that (thankfully) miss their targets or are shot down by the Israeli defense shield. Yet Hamas’ attacks remind Israelis that there are people on their border who want to see them dead, so many respond by saying that in self-defense they must keep those people in an open-air prison.
Oy. It may take a new generation in both Israel and Gaza before this cycle of violence and inhumanity can be transcended. But in the meantime, it is important for people of conscience to challenge every immoral act so that the ethical sensibilities of the world are not drowned in cynicism and the vision of peace and reconciliation is totally abandoned.
Rabbi Michael Lerner is editor of Tikkun magazine.
He is rabbi of Beyt Tikkun Synagogue-without-walls based in Berkeley, California.
There is no ethical excuse for Hamas bombing a school yard, thankfully a short while before the kindergarten children and staff arrived, as they did on Wednesday May 30. It is no excuse to say that Israel has done far worse toward Gaza. Yes, it has–but that doesn’t provide an argument for why Hamas should target civilians. Israel’s evil deeds in killing unarmed demonstrators last week at the Gaza fence does not make Hamas’ activity legitimate.
What we have de facto is a perfect alliance between Netanyahu and the even more extreme elements in Israel on the one hand, and Hamas and other Islamic extremists on the other hand. Both act in ways that reinforce the arguments of the other side that there is no solution to the legitimate needs of each side except more violence.
Hamas continues to make it clear that it does not want Palestinians to live in peace with Israel, but rather to destroy Israel entirely. Though this desire is pure fantasy, it gives the Israeli right-wing the justification to ignore the suffering that Israel imposes on the Palestinian people, and particularly those living in Gaza. Israel’s blockade is not a legitimate self-defense tactic, and causes immense suffering. Not only do Gazans have almost no electricity to run their own refrigerators and hospitals, and no clean water (causing sickness and death to many children), but they will not let Gazans out of this open-air prison. Not even to get medical help. So, the day before Hamas’ attack, some Gazans wounded by Israeli sharpshooters the week before tried to launch a flotilla to take them to a hospital in Cyprus for badly needed treatment.
This is inhumane and a violation of international laws. But aiming bombs at kindergarten students is no legitimate response–it only reinforces the Israeli right’s disgusting and racist claim that the Palestinians are “animals.” It is this kind of thinking on both sides that makes peace and reconciliation impossible to achieve in the foreseeable future. Hamas is Netanyahu’s best ally and Netanyahu is Hamas’ best ally. And the people who suffer are mostly the Palestinians, because Israel has the far superior military capabilities whereas Hamas has some bombs that (thankfully) miss their targets or are shot down by the Israeli defense shield. Yet Hamas’ attacks remind Israelis that there are people on their border who want to see them dead, so many respond by saying that in self-defense they must keep those people in an open-air prison.
Oy. It may take a new generation in both Israel and Gaza before this cycle of violence and inhumanity can be transcended. But in the meantime, it is important for people of conscience to challenge every immoral act so that the ethical sensibilities of the world are not drowned in cynicism and the vision of peace and reconciliation is totally abandoned.
Rabbi Michael Lerner is editor of Tikkun magazine.
He is rabbi of Beyt Tikkun Synagogue-without-walls based in Berkeley, California.
Stoking The Flames Of Sectarianism - Where Does Responsibility Lie?
Gabhann Mac Cathmhaoil challenges the established about what underlies recent street confrontations in Derry.
Only one of these fires in the heart of Derry on the middle of a busy road is illegal.
This is how you ensure division and undermine the potential of the working class. I wont join the chorus degrading young working class people.
What's taking place in Derry and across the North happens every summer and has been happening for as long as I can remember.
It is much more complicated than the narrative constructed by the political establishment and peddled by the media.
I don't condone sectarianism. Far from it. I don't want to see our communities flooded with smoke and toxins from burning wood, plastics and rubber. It's sad to see the working class use violence on each other. It genuinely concerns me that vulnerable people in our community feel frightened and intimidated.
Listening to the commentary though, it seems no one seriously wants to tackle the issue.
The usual talking heads want to scream about 'poor parenting' or condemn our youth as 'off the rails'. They want us to believe all this happens in a vacuum. They seem focused on narrowing and limiting the discussion to how we can 'control' young people. Yet none seem concerned in discussing how we can begin to provide opportunities for our young people to lead.
It's obvious when listening to this commentary on bonfires and attacks at peace walls that the political establishment is only too happy to talk of the 'lawlessness' of 'these' youth. Not one of them recognise that they spend year in, year out, disenfranchising young working class people and their families. Not one of them want to recognise the legacy that they've left for our young people and unfortunately there is not a journalist with the principle or back bone to put this to the so called leaders of working class areas.
When you spend election after election stoking sectarian tension, drawing tribal lines and peddling the lie that you're unemployed, have no access to further education or that homelessness is a real possibility in your future, because 'them' on the 'other side' are to blame then you have no right to act surprised or outraged when tensions rise and anger is directed at the "other" . It is your doing, when you mock and misrepresent those of us who speak of solidarity over sectarianism you encourage exactly what you're now feigning an outrage about.
Let's be honest: young working class men and woman of all communities continuously fall victim from all quarters. Seen as expendable and preyed upon by the state. Exploited and forced to work zero hour contracts, failed by the education system, demonised by the media and dictated to and abused at the hands of the church.
Since when have these Cllrs, MLAs, social/political commentators ever given a shit about the working class people of The Bog or The Fountain? I don't remember them lending their voices or commentary to the resistance, or in defence against public housing to be sold off to private associations in our communities. In fact I remember well these politicians attempt to deploy sectarian tactics when "consulting" on a proposal to cut either a residential care home in the Waterside or The City side of Derry, the people of Derry refused to be divide and neither were cut.
When you alienate any group you really shouldn't be surprised when they stick two fingers up to you.
When our communities are filled with smoke tonight, flags are burnt and if anti-social behaviour occurs I blame the establishment that has been using the working class of all sides as fodder for generations.
Provide opportunities. Make education, housing, and employment a priority. Not only a priority but make homes, employment and education a reality. Resist drawing tribal lines, get off the backs of working people, allow them to love whoever they want and have control over their own bodies and you'll see a dramatic decline in sectarianism and anti social behaviour. Truth is, the establishment understands exactly that bonfires and tensions are a direct result of the divisions they sow and the rights they deny. They believe it a price worth paying though. The solution won't ever be found with them.
I cant wait for the time when working class people of all 'sides' recognise their worth and strength, move far beyond bonfires and attacks on each other and realise that they'll continue to wait generation after generation for equality until they abandon the fostered divisions by those intent on exploiting them.
Unite, reject sectarianism embrace solidarity and take what is ours!!
#UpTheWorkers #SolidarityNotSectarianism #FuckTheEstablisment #FodderNoMore
➽Gabhann Mac Cathmhaoil is a Derry branch activist with People Before Profit.
Only one of these fires in the heart of Derry on the middle of a busy road is illegal. This is how you ensure division and undermine the potential of the working class. I wont join the chorus degrading young working class people.
What's taking place in Derry and across the North happens every summer and has been happening for as long as I can remember.
It is much more complicated than the narrative constructed by the political establishment and peddled by the media.
I don't condone sectarianism. Far from it. I don't want to see our communities flooded with smoke and toxins from burning wood, plastics and rubber. It's sad to see the working class use violence on each other. It genuinely concerns me that vulnerable people in our community feel frightened and intimidated.
Listening to the commentary though, it seems no one seriously wants to tackle the issue.
The usual talking heads want to scream about 'poor parenting' or condemn our youth as 'off the rails'. They want us to believe all this happens in a vacuum. They seem focused on narrowing and limiting the discussion to how we can 'control' young people. Yet none seem concerned in discussing how we can begin to provide opportunities for our young people to lead.
It's obvious when listening to this commentary on bonfires and attacks at peace walls that the political establishment is only too happy to talk of the 'lawlessness' of 'these' youth. Not one of them recognise that they spend year in, year out, disenfranchising young working class people and their families. Not one of them want to recognise the legacy that they've left for our young people and unfortunately there is not a journalist with the principle or back bone to put this to the so called leaders of working class areas.
When you spend election after election stoking sectarian tension, drawing tribal lines and peddling the lie that you're unemployed, have no access to further education or that homelessness is a real possibility in your future, because 'them' on the 'other side' are to blame then you have no right to act surprised or outraged when tensions rise and anger is directed at the "other" . It is your doing, when you mock and misrepresent those of us who speak of solidarity over sectarianism you encourage exactly what you're now feigning an outrage about.
Let's be honest: young working class men and woman of all communities continuously fall victim from all quarters. Seen as expendable and preyed upon by the state. Exploited and forced to work zero hour contracts, failed by the education system, demonised by the media and dictated to and abused at the hands of the church.
Since when have these Cllrs, MLAs, social/political commentators ever given a shit about the working class people of The Bog or The Fountain? I don't remember them lending their voices or commentary to the resistance, or in defence against public housing to be sold off to private associations in our communities. In fact I remember well these politicians attempt to deploy sectarian tactics when "consulting" on a proposal to cut either a residential care home in the Waterside or The City side of Derry, the people of Derry refused to be divide and neither were cut.
When you alienate any group you really shouldn't be surprised when they stick two fingers up to you.
When our communities are filled with smoke tonight, flags are burnt and if anti-social behaviour occurs I blame the establishment that has been using the working class of all sides as fodder for generations.
Provide opportunities. Make education, housing, and employment a priority. Not only a priority but make homes, employment and education a reality. Resist drawing tribal lines, get off the backs of working people, allow them to love whoever they want and have control over their own bodies and you'll see a dramatic decline in sectarianism and anti social behaviour. Truth is, the establishment understands exactly that bonfires and tensions are a direct result of the divisions they sow and the rights they deny. They believe it a price worth paying though. The solution won't ever be found with them.
I cant wait for the time when working class people of all 'sides' recognise their worth and strength, move far beyond bonfires and attacks on each other and realise that they'll continue to wait generation after generation for equality until they abandon the fostered divisions by those intent on exploiting them.
Unite, reject sectarianism embrace solidarity and take what is ours!!
#UpTheWorkers #SolidarityNotSectarianism #FuckTheEstablisment #FodderNoMore
➽Gabhann Mac Cathmhaoil is a Derry branch activist with People Before Profit.
Anthony McIntyre's Blog
- Anthony McIntyre's profile
- 2 followers
Anthony McIntyre isn't a Goodreads Author
(yet),
but they
do have a blog,
so here are some recent posts imported from
their feed.
