Focused on providing independent journalism.

Sunday, 21 December 2014

The blackmail 'reparations' continue: Germany to finance Israeli military





Your ancestors killed some of our ancestors: therefore give us weapons so we can kill other people.



Germany plans to finance part of the cost of four new corvette warships for the Israeli navy made by German firm Thyssen Krupp under a deal struck with the Jewish state in November, the government said on Monday.

Following approval by German parliament's budget committee the contract could be finalised before the end of this year, government spokesman Steffen Seibert said.


As part of its atonement for the Nazi Holocaust, Germany is committed to Israel's security and has often helped pay for the cost of military equipment such as submarines.


The mass-circulation Bild am Sonntag newspaper reported on Sunday that Berlin had earmarked up to 115 million euros for the warships -- which would cost around 1 billion euros in total.


Seibert declined comment on the size of the German contribution.





Comment: The Holocaust was 70 years ago. Just as the U.S. keeps EU countries in line via blackmail, so does the Mossad. That's the only rational explanation for this ludicrous policy. It's only a matter of time before the world turns on the psychopathic nation of Israel for its gangster tactics and genocidal mentality.

Want something else to read? How about 'Grievous Censorship' By The Guardian: Israel, Gaza And The Termination Of Nafeez Ahmed's Blog


Can psychopaths' brains be 'rewired' to make them less psychopathic?



© Shutterstock



A clinical psychologist at Yale is attempting to improve the cognitive functioning of psychopaths using computer games, Vox reports.

Arielle Baskin-Sommers claims that psychopaths are not, as is commonly believed, incapable of feeling emotion - and therefore unable to empathize with their victims. They suffer, she believes, from a cognitive deficit that prevents them from focusing on more than one subject at time, such that they pay attention to a goal (stealing money) without thinking about the consequences of attaining it (hurting their victim or being incarcerated).


Baskin-Sommers tells Vox that "[t]here's an attention bottleneck that essentially has the psychopath narrow the focus of their attention on something that's their goal."


Because her computer games enhance a psychopath's ability to attend to more than one matter at a time, Baskin-Sommers believes that they will be less likely to return to jail upon their release.


The psychopaths who participated in her trials, she says, not only improved their cognitive function - they also became more normative on an entire range of psychological tests.




"That was a big step for cognitive remediation," she says. "They not only improved on the task [performed in the computer games], we're seeing generalizability of the skills that they were learning."

While her results are still preliminary, she believes that further training could have an even stronger positive effect upon a segment of the criminal population that psychology once considered a hopeless cause.


"It definitely suggests there's more work to be done in how to make these effects stronger," she says. "It might be more training, or combining with existing treatments. There are lots of exciting possibilities."





Comment: Where's a face-palm when you need one? Yes, psychopaths have a type of 'attention bottleneck' when it comes to attending to consequences, others' suffering, and anything that isn't getting them what they want. That does not mean training them to attend to various things at the same time will allow them to grow a conscience. If anything, such treatment will make them slightly smarter, able to attend to more data, which they will then use to become better at getting what they want. Psychopathy is not a 'cognitive' disorder, at least not exclusively. It is an disorder. The general emotional deficit in modern psychologists can probably be blamed for these ridiculous, dead-end theories.

Want something else to read? How about 'Grievous Censorship' By The Guardian: Israel, Gaza And The Termination Of Nafeez Ahmed's Blog


Good Samaritan in Georgia pays electricity bills of strangers

Good samaritan Georgia

A Good Samaritan in Jonesboro, Georgia decided to help the people in his small community by showing up at the electric company's officer, approaching random people, and asking if he can pay their power bills.

The Good Samaritan, known only as Steve, told CBS46 News that he wanted to give to people in person rather than donating through a charity because he thought a lot of people in his community could use financial assistance around Christmas time.


"I've had a couple of people who are so shocked - they think I'm trying to scam them - so they look over at the police officer who is sitting there. He nods his head and smiles and tells them 'it's OK,'" Steve said. "Then I've had a couple of people who still don't want to do it."


Steve says his desire to give back to others comes from losing his wife Lou right before Christmas last year.


"She's a great person, we had a lot of fun together," Steve said of his late wife. "I was in the Army, so we traveled together. We got married when I was a lieutenant, and we moved 22 times in 27 years, so we did a lot of moving."


Reports say that Steve and Lou spent 11 years in the heat of Saudi Arabia, where he was stationed, and both he and his deceased wife didn't like being cold, so he thought helping people pay to keep their heat on this winter would be a great way to honor her.


"She hated the cold as much as I did," Steve admitted. "If you can help people stay warm, that seems like a good thing, and I think she would appreciate that."


Georgia Power representative Travis Bell says that Steve's generosity has inspired others to pay it forward.


"You've got to love it," Bell said. "It's the spirit of generosity; it's contagious."


Want something else to read? How about 'Grievous Censorship' By The Guardian: Israel, Gaza And The Termination Of Nafeez Ahmed's Blog


Cannabis for kids: Medicinal marijuana could treat children with epilepsy

cannibus

© Reuters / Alessandro Bianchi



Children with a severe form of epilepsy could be treated with a new drug derived from the cannabis plant. The element of the plant used is non-psychoactive, meaning patients would not receive the usual cannabis high.

The medicine, called Epidiolex, has been trialed in the US, where early studies showed promising results, reducing the frequency and severity of seizures.


Trials of the drug, which contains the compound Cannabidiol (CBD), will begin at Edinburgh University's Muir Maxwell Epilepsy Centre, based at the Royal Hospital for Sick Children in Edinburgh, and London's Great Ormond Street Hospital.


The tests will currently only take place upon children whose seizures cannot currently be controlled by other types of medicine, primarily those with Dravet Syndrome, an incredibly rare form of epilepsy.


epilepsy child

© Reuters / Maxim Shemetov



Some children will receive doses of Epidiolex, while others will be administered a placebo.

If the tests are successful, further trials will study the effects of the drug on children with Lennox-Gastaut Syndrome, which typically occurs in between one and five per 100 children with epilepsy.


There are further test centers in the US, France and Poland.


Dr Richard Chin, director of the Muir Maxwell Epilepsy Centre, said that a new treatment for children with rare forms of epilepsy was essential.


"Many children with serious forms of epilepsy do not respond to the medications that we currently have available," he said. "We need new means of treating these conditions so that we can give back some quality of life to these children and their families."


Dravet Syndrome frequently becomes noticeable in children under the age of one. It can cause prolonged and multiple kinds of seizure, and in extreme cases can be fatal.


The syndrome also has a severe impact on children's development in formative years.


The drug has been developed by GW Pharmaceuticals, a British company, which is also sponsoring the trial.


News of the pioneering treatment follows the passing of a federal spending measure which effectively ends the government's prohibition of medicinal cannabis in the US.


The new legislation signals a huge shift in current drug policy and global perceptions of cannabis use.


Want something else to read? How about 'Grievous Censorship' By The Guardian: Israel, Gaza And The Termination Of Nafeez Ahmed's Blog


NSA and Electronic Frontier Foundation to square off in court over internet surveillance

Electronic frontier Foundation

© Reuters/Kai Pfaffenbach



A digital rights group in the United States plans to argue in federal court this week that the National Security Agency's internet surveillance operations violate the US Constitution's ban against unlawful searches and seizures.

Six years after the Electronic Frontier Foundation brought suit against the NSA on behalf of a former AT&T customer, Carolyn Jewel, US District Court Judge Jeffrey White for the Northern District of California will hear an EFF attorney argue on Friday for summary judgment and attest that the intelligence agency's data collection methods breach the Constitution's Fourth Amendment clauses intended to protect private information.


Filed back in 2008, the EFF's fight against the NSA long predates the public's awareness of Edward Snowden, the former intelligence contractor who leaked classified documents about the agency's surveillance operations in 2013 and has since been charged with espionage and theft by the US Department of Justice. The disclosures attributed to Snowden and subsequent admissions from the intelligence community have in the past year provided the EFF and others with ample fodder to plead their cases against the government, however, and on Friday, Judge White is expected to be told by the group that the operations of the NSA as they're known today are unconstitutional.


In the EFF's original 2008 complaint against AT&T, the California-based legal group alleged that the major telecommunication provider has since 2003 participated in a program with the NSA that allowed the government to receive huge swaths of communications sent over the telecom's network under the guise of national security.


"The NSA in cooperation with AT&T has installed and is operating a nationwide system of Surveillance Configurations in AT&T facilities across the country," the EFF said, citing earlier, unauthorized but pre-Snowden disclosures. "This network of Surveillance Configurations indiscriminately acquires domestic communications as well as international and foreign communications," the complaint continued, amounting to dragnet collection of communication records from AT&T databases undertaken by the NSA.


In July of this year, the EFF filed a motion for summary judgment in which its attorneys asked to rule AT&T's now decade-old activities as a violation of the Fourth Amendment because those operations are, according to the plaintiffs, absence probable cause and "fail to keep the government within constitutional bounds." Attorney Richard Wiebe, a special counsel for the EFF, plans on putting forth those arguments against a government attorney at Friday's hearing.


"Under the government's legal theory, it can copy virtually all Internet communications and then search them from top to bottom for specific 'identifiers' - all without a warrant or individualized suspicion - as long as it does so quickly using only automated processes," the EFF said in a statement on Tuesday this week. "Wiebe will argue before the court that the Fourth Amendment definitively bars this type of dragnet. As EFF presented in its motion, enough information now exists on the record for the court to rule that the government's technique represents an unconstitutional search and seizure."


According to the July motion filed by the EFF, the NSA's reach of electronic communications, such as with AT&T, constitutes "a technological surveillance system that makes it impossible for ordinary Americans not suspected of any wrongdoing to engage in a fully private online conversation, to privately read online or to privately access any online service."


"Millions of innocent Americans have their communications seized and searched as part of this dragnet even when the government is not targeting them or those with whom they communicate," EFF's attorneys wrote, adding that scooping up such communications constitutes two separate Fourth Amendment violations.


"First, the government unconstitutionally seizes plaintiffs' Internet communications. Technology at plaintiffs' Internet service provider, AT&T, automatically creates and delivers to the government a copy of plaintiffs' online activities, along with those of millions of other innocent Americans - including email, live chat, reading and interacting with websites, Internet searching, and social networking," the EFF wrote. "Second, the government unconstitutionally searches the content of much of the communications stream it has seized. The government admits that it searches the content of the online communications that it has seized if it believes there is some indication that the origin or destination of the communication is outside the United States."


"In truth, no valid warrant could authorize the government's admitted practices here. The government's targeting and minimization procedures are no substitute for the fundamental protections that the Constitution guarantees to all Americans. The ongoing dragnet seizure and search of innocent Americans' Internet activities violates the Fourth Amendment," the motion continues.


Since the first Snowden revelations appeared in June 2013, the Obama administration has been hit with an array of lawsuits concerning previously unconfirmed intelligence gathering operations, including the vacuuming of dialing records from phone companies and the dragnet surveillance of domestic data. The EFF notes that, with respect to internet surveillance, the "government claims the content searches are justified under Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act and do not violate the Fourth Amendment."


Want something else to read? How about 'Grievous Censorship' By The Guardian: Israel, Gaza And The Termination Of Nafeez Ahmed's Blog


Jon Stewart: Dick Cheney, a righteous warrior or psychopath?

DailyShow

© Unknown





On Sunday's "Meet The Press," former Vice President Dick Cheney stubbornly - and, many would argue, illogically - defended the controversial CIA interrogation techniques that were the subject of a recent horrifying report. In part, he seemed to insist that they should not be labeled torture, despite the Senate Intelligence Committee's conclusions, because only the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on the United States deserve that label.

Jon Stewart wasn't convinced. Okay, that's an understatement. The flabbergasted "Daily Show" host slammed a series of clips from the Cheny interview, accusing him at one point of "setting the nation's moral bar at anything incrementally better the most despicable thing that has ever been done to us," and calling his mind "the scariest place in the [redacted] universe."


The segment wrapped up with a more upbeat message from Stewart: an expression of appreciation for the fact that Cheney never became president. "I'm going to end on a note of gratitude - something I never thought that I would say," Stewart said. "George W. Bush, thank you for not dying while you were in office."


Want something else to read? How about 'Grievous Censorship' By The Guardian: Israel, Gaza And The Termination Of Nafeez Ahmed's Blog


Documentary: 'Unacceptable Levels' - The chemicals in our bodies; how they got there and what to do about it



Study after study reveals the negative health impact of the chemical concoction that we encounter daily in our foods, in our environment, and in consumer products.

is a feature-length documentary which examines the results of the chemical revolution of the 1940s through the eyes of affable filmmaker Ed Brown, a father seeking to understand the world in which he and his wife are raising their children.


To create this debut documentary, one man and his camera traveled extensively to find and interview top minds in the fields of science, advocacy, and law. Weaving their testimonies into a compelling narrative, Brown presents us with the story of how the chemical revolution brought us to where we are, and of where, if we're not vigilant, it may take us.


A diverse group of voices are offered, which should spur debate from many sectors of those who have become concerned about everything from pesticides to BPA to GMO to fluoride and any one of the other 80,000 synthetic chemicals known to have been released. Now the question is what do we do about it? The environmental movement and particularly the "sustainable" agenda is a minefield of controlled opposition, infiltrators and everything in between. First, all of us should become as informed as possible on all fronts so that we can properly tackle real solutions to a crisis that only continues to get worse as the fusion between government and corporate interests intensifies.


As stated in the film, "To be healthy requires an effort." This internationally acclaimed documentary is a step toward making that effort and reclaiming health. Please view the trailer below:


[embedded content]





Comment: The great American experiment

These studies recognize that we're all being used as human guinea pigs.


We know darn well that over 1,000 chemicals harm the brains of animals - and animals' bodies are not all that different from ours. About half of the chemicals on this list are chemicals that are in our industrial solvents, pesticides, flame retardants, and other common products.


What's our current approach? Just keep using them. Move along, everyone, until scientists can prove beyond a doubt that a specific chemical made a specific person sick.


Trying to steer clear of dangerous chemicals can drive you crazy. Just try to discover which products in your life contain chemicals that are toxic to you or your kids, and how you can find non-toxic replacements for them. It's hard not to grow exasperated and give up.


And as a society, we should theoretically have more control over the process of identifying and banning toxic chemicals. But the federal law that regulates them, theToxic Substances Control Act of 1976, has no teeth.


Corporations don't even have to test their products for toxicity before putting them on the market. And the government has a very limited ability to prevent toxic chemicals from being sold.




Want something else to read? How about 'Grievous Censorship' By The Guardian: Israel, Gaza And The Termination Of Nafeez Ahmed's Blog