US Senators & state lawmakers put Israel first!

Placing a foreign country, Israel, above their own country “USA”. And they are the “lawmakers” that the American voters have chosen under their so-called “democratic” constitution.

‘Boycott Israel, we’ll boycott you’: How US Senators & state lawmakers put foreign power first
RT : 7 Jan, 2019



With the US Senate opening 2019 with a bill aimed at protecting Israel from boycott, similar state-level laws are facing opposition. One newspaper in Arkansas is suing the state, calling the boycott ban unconstitutional.

Given that the government is still partially shut down over President Trump’s plans to build a wall at the Mexican border, one would imagine the first piece of legislation rolled out by the Senate this year would prioritize breaking the impasse and ending the shutdown. Not so.

Instead, S.1 is a collection of foreign policy measures aimed at strengthening military cooperation between the US and Jordan, reiterating opposition to Syrian leader Bashar Assad, appropriating foreign aid money for Israel, and – most controversially – giving state and local government the authority to refuse to do business with firms that boycott Israel.

The bill is sponsored by Florida Republican Senator Marco Rubio, a longtime opponent of the BDS (Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions) movement and ally of AIPAC, the powerful pro-Israel lobby. Aside from Rubio, the bill is expected to receive the bipartisan support necessary to muster a Senate majority. A similar bill introduced by Rubio last year was cosponsored by several Democrats, and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-New York) is expected to support this latest effort, the Intercept reported.

While Rubio’s bill is a watered-down version of a hardcore piece of legislation introduced by Democrat Ben Cardin (Maryland) in 2017 that would have actually criminalized boycotting Israel, the American Civil Liberties Union has still sounded the alarm.

“The legislation...sends a message to Americans that they will be penalized if they dare to disagree with their government,” ACLU Senior Legislative Counsel Kathleen Ruane told the Intercept. “We therefore urge senators to vote no on the Combating BDS Act next week.”

State efforts

State-level legislation offers a glimpse of what Rubio’s bill might look like in action. Anti-BDS legislation has already been enacted in 26 states, where it has already cost some employees their jobs, and has been met with legal challenges.

Bahia Amawi, a speech pathologist working for the Pflugerville Independent School District in Texas, lost her job last August when she refused to sign a contract promising to refrain from any action “that is intended to penalize, inflict economic harm on, or limit commercial relations with Israel, or with a person or entity doing business in Israel or in an Israel-controlled territory.”

Amawi, a US citizen who believes Israel is illegally occupying Palestinian territory and boycotts Israeli products, filed a lawsuit alleging a violation of her First Amendment right to free speech. The lawsuit is currently in the works, but the Texas anti-BDS legislation has the full support of Governor Greg Abbott (R), who said that “any anti-Israel policy is an anti-Texas policy.”

Similar lawsuits have been filed in Arizona and Kansas, on behalf of two state contractors who, like Amawi, refused to sign an oath pledging not to boycott the Jewish state.

The latest challenge to anti-BDS laws comes from Arkansas, where a newspaper has decided to fight the oath on principle. The Arkansas Times has never published an op-ed critical of Israel, but when the University of Arkansas refused to advertise with the newspaper unless the Times signed the oath, the paper’s staff decided to sue.

“Why should an American citizen have to take a position in favor of the foreign policy of a foreign government just so he can do business with its own government,” Arkansas Times publisher Jan Everett told MSNBC. “What kind of thinking is that?”

The first state-level anti-BDS law was passed by Tennessee in 2015. In all 26 states that have enacted anti-BDS legislation since then, the legislations’ provisions are broadly the same, prohibiting companies or individuals who boycott Israel from doing business with the government. In some states, like Louisiana, the law only targets large contractors. Otherwise the bills have all been almost identical.

Despite the party allegiances of those responsible for the legislation, the language used to support it has been the same. New York’s Democratic Governor, Andrew Cuomo, echoed Texas Republican Greg Abbott when he described BDS as an “economic attack” on Israel and stated “If you boycott against Israel, New York will boycott you.”

‘Ultimately harmful to the Jewish community’

With both parties trying to come out more pro-Israel than each other in recent years, even some pro-Israel voices have realized that forcing Americans to place support for a foreign power ahead of their own constitutional rights probably isn’t a great public relations move for Israel.

As the first round of states began passing anti-BDS legislation in 2016, internal documents from the Anti-Defamation League reveal that despite publicly supporting such laws, the Jewish advocacy group’s staff actually thought they were a bad idea.

“Simply put, ADL does not believe that anti-BDS legislation is a strategic way to combat the BDS movement or defend Israel and is ultimately harmful to the Jewish community,” one memo obtained by Forward stated.

The bills, it continued, raise the profile of the BDS movement while giving “the appearance that the Jewish community exercises undue influence in government,” an age-old trope of anti-Semitic conspiracy theories.

In addition, journalist Max Brantley wrote in the Arkansas Times last Friday that while he had never considered boycotting Israel before, he might now to prove a point.

“I was thinking this morning,” he wrote, “that perhaps I should advocate boycotts of Israel as a protest against Arkansas legislators who don't respect the First Amendment.”

Selected Comments:

* Israel, the country that attacked the USS Liberty, on purpose, killing 34 American Sailors and wounding many more. We should have done more than boycott. I have the constitutional right to like or dislike and express those without punishment by any government agency in the US.

* The US is the larger part of the Rothschild neocolony concentrating the dumber part of the population, those that pay taxes to prop up the Pentagon business. It's hilarious how Americans think that wearing MAGA hats makes them "nationalist".

* So its true that the Jews are running America.

* It is sickening. Although they will have a hard time ramming the holo stuff down the throats of future generations. At that point they hope to have a full police state in place with them at the top exempt from critique. Frankly , the level of j fatigue everywhere is reaching fever pitch. They should be worried by now.

* People gave capital the power to set the rules of socioeconomic development. Now we pay Hollywood to produce mass-consumption indoctrination disguised as "culture" or entertainment while the Pentagon "misplaces" $25 trillion taxpayer dollars and foreign entities receive billions more every year as "aid".

* Traitors all of them, putting another country before their own. Conflict of interest too all these dual citizenship politicians etc.

* The worst enemy of Americans is the US Congress.

* Every senator must sign a pledge to israel. those that dont find their campaign contributions diminished and their characters assassinated by the zio-corporate media and their careers in politics terminated. they are literally bent over a barrel.

* The US government is bought and paid for by Jewish syndicate !!!!

* The US congress clearly could care less about the US citizens they are supposed to represent, why are they so focused on protecting Israel.

* Synagogue of Satan. They all use religion as a crutch for their image, while in secret they all worship satan!

* United Slaves for Israel. Quiet sheepie, obey your iFruit and pay your taxes.

* At least this bill makes it clear know, that it's not just 'appearance' or 'conspiracy theories' but REALITY all along. The Jewish community does exercises undue influence in US' government through AIPAC, but heck, lets accuse the Russians of meddling!

* If Americans are too stupid to see who controls their media, finance and politics and is stealing their tax dollars and lives, why the Zios should care? The id-iots deserve what they have.

* The American people have no voices on the levers of power, they've mostly been hijacked by men in dark suits who rule America.

* To know who rules over you, find out who you are not allowed to criticize.

* U.S. Senators and State lawmakers accuse and attack other countries over alleged influencing of our government and our elections while another country has actually infiltrated our government. If any other foreign entity had used such insideous and extensive control in attempting to take over the U.S. government as Isreal has, we would already be at war with them. They waste so much time trying to prove some connection to Moscow. Why doesn't Mueller and his deep state cronies investigate Israeli influence in US elections?

* Are the CNN and Foxnews telling their viewers this story? No. The Zio terrorist media in the U.S have actually censored this important news.

* American government does not allow free thinkers to succeed at questioning the obvious. Free thinkers usually can critically think. They cannot have anyone thinking for themselves. They must hook in the puppet strings.

* These corrupt and treasonous bums and twats in the US senate should be declared foreign agents and dismissed for obvious reasons! Boycott all this garbage!

* AIPAC and other Jewish political organizations own the US Government. Their campaign funds can make a candidate successful. And no one wants them working against their election with their anti-semitism rhetoric at full throat.

Why does Africa prefer China over the imperialist West?

Contrary to what the West spreads propagandises, Africans do not see themselves as victims of Chinese economic exploitation.

Why Africa loves China
by Mehari Taddele Maru
6 Jan 2019

At the September 2018 Forum on China-Africa Cooperation (FOCAC) in Beijing, African Union Chairperson and Rwandan President Paul Kagame lauded the Chinese aid and investment strategy in Africa as a source of "deep transformation". Kagame argued that the cooperation between China and Africa is based on mutual respect and is for the benefit of both partners. This sentiment is perhaps shared by most African heads of states and governments if their attendance of the summit is anything to go by.

However, despite the African leadership's embrace of China as a valued partner, the view that Beijing is a "predatory" actor in Africa, attempting to recolonise the continent is also ubiquitous in foreign policy circles, media narratives and academia.

Africa sees China differently than the West

The China-Africa relationship is currently being interpreted through two diametrically opposed perceptions.

The first of the two is a Sino-phobic one, mostly adopted in the West. For instance, in a recent policy briefing at the Heritage Foundation, US National Security Adviser John Bolton criticised China's actions in Africa and claimed the continent has fallen victim to Beijing's new colonialism. "China uses bribes, opaque agreements, and the strategic use of debt to hold states in Africa captive to Beijing's wishes and demands," Bolton said.

"Such predatory actions are sub-components of broader Chinese strategic initiatives, including 'One Belt, One Road' - a plan to develop a series of trade routes leading to and from China with the ultimate goal of advancing Chinese global dominance."

Just like the US, other western governments, such as the UK and France, also see China's engagement in Africa as a cause for concern. For them, China is a spoiler of peace in oil-rich countries such as South Sudan and Sudan, and a supporter of despots in African countries, such as Gabon. Moreover, they perceive China as a resource and energy-hungry giant, an exploiter of corrupt and incompetent governments, a trade opportunist, and a massive polluter of the African environment.

The second and opposing perception of the partnership between Beijing and Africa is a pro-China one. This view is adopted mostly in Africa.

According to the proponents of this narrative, China is a saviour - a trustworthy ally of Africa. They view China, a country that does not have a history of colonial aspirations in Africa, as a partner which could provide much-needed funding without any strings attached. They also believe Beijing understands and respects Africa's priorities.

Moreover, China has a reputation among African countries for being an actor that respects other cultures and states. This view is widely held by many African heads of state.

Much of the academic literature on the China-Africa partnership unjustifiably perpetuates the Sino-phobic narrative. The media also wrongly portrays China as a predatory actor in Africa. For instance, while it is widely reported that China invests more in the extractive industry than in other sectors, the fact that the extractive industry amounts only to one-third of the total Chinese investment in Africa is barely mentioned.

The other two-thirds of China's investment in Africa is in infrastructure, construction, electricity production, manufacturing and finance. In fact, compared with the US and other developed countries, China's share in extractive investments in Africa, in the form of mining, for example, is lower.
Africa is not a victim of Chinese 'colonisation'

The Sino-phobic narrative championed by the West portrays African nations as passive collaborators, as mere victims of a second "colonisation" wave. However, this is not the case.

Africans are well aware of the shortcomings of Chinese assistance and business in Africa - from an imbalance in trade to hefty debt, from poor quality goods to corrupt practices. Africans also know that many Chinese investors lack considerations of sustainability and that some business dealings are in some instances incompatible with the national interests of African countries. Furthermore, Africans recognise that Chinese businesses rarely fight corrupt practices and seek to avoid accountability. 

Africans expect China to take some responsibility for some of these shortcomings, but also acknowledge that the weaknesses of African regulatory and enforcement mechanisms, as well as self-serving governments, are the main culprits. They know that Chinese companies, like many others, exploit the weaknesses of African states for their advantage. They believe it is their own governments, and not China, that need to make sure Africa is not exploited.

As a result, Africans see the Western criticisms of the China-Africa cooperation with serious reservations. At the FOCAC meeting in September, South African President Cyril Ramaphosa summarised the African position by saying that Africa "refutes the view that a new colonialism is taking hold in Africa as our detractors would have us believe."

Why Africa loves China

The debt trap is not an inevitable outcome of loans: As President Kagame said, the outcome "depends on us Africans". The key factor that determines the success of Chinese loans to Africa is whether or not African governments use such loans for productive capital investment. For these investments to succeed, African governments need to be accountable to the people of Africa. This is not the responsibility of China or any other non-African country, for that matter; rather it is Africans who are responsible to ensure accountability.

There are some obvious reasons that make China a preferred partner for Africa. For Africans, China has four major attractions: Unconditional soft loans and access to capital; quick delivery of services and cheap goods; funding of peacekeeping; and an alternative development model.

First, China's unconditional cooperation has allowed African governments to enjoy access to finance, expertise and development aid. In 2016, the trade between China and Africa reached $128bn, a drastic surge from $1bn in 1980.

At FOCAC in Beijing this year, China offered $60bn for development financing until 2021. While the financial crises in the US and EU limited their investments in Africa, China committed to investing more in the continent.

Chinese soft loans have enabled many African governments to avoid pressure from global governance institutions such as IMF and World Bank to meet Western norms of accountability and conditionality related to political and economic reforms, such as the infamous structural adjustment that does not always serve the interest of Africans.

Second, China has aided African governments to meet their people's rapidly growing demands for services and infrastructure more quickly. Many people in Africa are now used to quick delivery of services - such as transportation, education, health and telecommunication - by Chinese companies. This has created, and will continue to create, more appetite for Chinese business in Africa.

Third, China is now also engaged in peace and security projects in Africa. Chinese troops participate in eight UN peacekeeping missions of which five are in Africa. Moreover, China is the second largest financial contributor to UN peacekeeping missions and it also contributed funding to the African Union Mission in Somalia (AMISOM) and the IGAD South Sudan mediation.

Fourth, China's history of fast and successful economic growth is a model from which many lessons could be learned in Africa. China's capacity to ensure policy sovereignty remains relevant, and highly attractive to African leaders and scholars. According to the World Bank, in about 40 years, China has lifted about 800 million people out of poverty through its untraditional path of development. Notably, it has achieved many of the Millennium Development Goals.

Africans should take a page from China's playbook on development and sovereignty. They can keep their home in order and also make the best out of the competition between great powers and regional players whether they are from the West, Far East or the Middle East.

As things stand, China is already winning the hearts and the minds of Africans. The West will have to either change tact or forever play catch up.

The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial stance.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Mehari Taddele Maru
Dr Mehari Taddele Maru is a scholar of peace and security, law and governance, and human rights and migration issues.

A Look back on Trump’s Unpredictable Behavior in 2018

Certainly a man with bi-polar disorder, eccentricities and restlessness...

Looking Backward (2018) and Forward (2019). Trump’s Unpredictable Behavior
By James J. Zogby
Arab American Institute 29 December 2018

Many years ago, I came across a pre-Islamic Arabic poem describing a camel running across the desert. Suddenly, the camel freezes in mid-stride. First, it looks backward in fear of what it was running from, and then it turns its glance forward – also in fear – toward the unknown that is its destination. It was this image that came to mind as 2018 came to an end and I sat down to write about the year that was and what we expect might unfold in the new year.

By any measure, 2018 was a tumultuous year, in no small way owing to President Trump’s unpredictable behavior. He has been, in a word, exhausting.

We began and ended 2018 with a short government shutdown owing to Trump’s insistence that Congress agree to fund the wall on the Mexican border, despite opposition from Democrats and some leaders in his own party. When Democrats offered the White House partial funding of the wall in an effort to secure a compromise on immigration reform, Trump balked and upped the ante demanding, in addition to his wall, an end to the diversity lottery and family unification – making disparaging remarks about immigrants from the African continent in the process. He also dramatically reduced the number of refugees admitted to the US and imposed new hardships on those seeking asylum. Added to this has been the Administration’s “family separation” policy which produced the nightmarish result of thousands of little children being taken from their parents at the border and sent to far-away locations. At year’s end, we once again have a government shutdown, no wall, and no indication that the White House is willing to compromise.

In 2018, Trump also repeatedly upset international relations alienating allies both East and West. He frustrated Europe by unilaterally walking away from the Iran nuclear deal; outraged Arabs by moving the US Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem; imposed stiff new tariffs on imported steel and aluminum; once again acted unilaterally with a bizarre “love fests” with North Korean leader, Kim Jong-un and Russian President Vladimir Putin causing unease with NATO and South Korea and Japan; and then, at year’s end, surprised everyone by announcing that he was pulling all US forces out of Syria and drawing down US forces in Afghanistan.

2018 also witnessed upheaval within the Administration, itself. Trump lost or fired his Secretaries of State, Defense, Health and Human Services, Veterans Affairs, and Interior, the Attorney General, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Security Advisor, the United Nations Ambassador, the White House Chief of Staff, Legal Counsel, and Director of Communications, and a dozen other senior White House officials.

During all this time, Trump spent the year besieged by the growing threat to his presidency posed by the investigation being conducted by Special Counsel Robert Mueller. The Mueller probe and ancillary investigations have thus far taken a hefty toll. Five individuals who worked with the Trump campaign have been found guilty of crimes ranging from conspiracy to making false statements under oath. Add to this, Trump’s long-time personal attorney pleaded guilty to a number of financial crimes in which he implicated Trump. And the investigation is still underway.

If this were not enough, the President has compounded the exhaustion with his incessant tweeting. Each morning a wary public awakens to see what outrageous charges, defamatory rants or insults Trump has to offer. The news networks have unfortunately been accommodating since they spend the better part of each day amplifying his tweets discussing them as if they were “Breaking News.”

In the midst of this chaos, Trump has been successful in pursuing his agenda of undoing much of President Obama’s accomplishments. There was: a tax cut that resulted in a massive upward redistribution of wealth; a dismantling of regulations that protected consumers, the environment, natural resources, air and water, health and safety; an end to Obama-era education-related policies; and the gutting of Obama’s signature legislation reforming health insurance – which is now in danger of completely unraveling.

Not everything has been bad news. Trump did lend his support to a significant criminal justice reform bill that passed with bipartisan support. And he did renegotiate a new trade agreement with Mexico and Canada.

Despite these accomplishments, some good, mostly bad, it is the chaos that has dominated the news – and for this, the President can only blame himself. I am reminded of a line in T.S. Eliot’s “Four Quartets” where he describes the faces of passengers on the London Underground being “distracted from distractions, by distractions.” This has been our fate in 2018. We are almost unable to focus on one crisis before our attention is diverted by yet another: a mass shooting (once again in 2018, there has been almost one a day); upheaval in the White House; new Mueller indictments; or an incendiary Trump tweet. The result has been a near perpetual state of nervous anxiety.

So much for looking backward at the year we are leaving behind. The problem, of course, is that, like that camel in the poem, we can only feel apprehension as we now run head-long into the year that awaits us – 2019.

I learned a long time ago, that the true test we face in life is not how we accomplish the goals we set for ourselves, but how we confront the unexpected challenges that lay before us. We can only predict some of what 2019 will bring.

Democrats will be in control of the House of Representatives and they will not give Trump an easy time. They will begin the year with an inherited government shutdown and a president still insisting that they find $5 billion in the budget to build his wall (the one he had insisted would be paid for by Mexico). Any compromise they may reach with the White House will still need to be approved by the Republican-controlled Senate.

The New Year will also bring forward the results of Mueller’s investigation into Trump campaign collusion with the Russians during the 2016 election and whether or not Trump attempted to obstruct justice by impeding the investigation. Whether or not Democrats want to hold hearings on White House activities related to these or other matters, the Congress will, of necessity, have to react to the Mueller findings or to the Administration’s reactions to it (for example, by firing Mueller or attempting to bury his report).

The immigration crisis on our southern border will not let up, nor will the challenges to health care reform resulting from a number of court decisions which have put the stability of the current system in limbo.

Then there are crises in the world with which we’ll have contend. These we can’t predict. Will Turkey take advantage of the US departure to attack Kurdish forces in Syria? Will Israel attack Lebanon? Will the unconscionable behavior of the Iranian-backed militias in recently “liberated” areas of Iraq provoke a resurgence of Daesh2.0? Will the Taliban see the US draw-down as an opportunity and launch a Spring offensive? Will Netanyahu win again, will he be indicted, and will Palestinians react to the unbearable pressure they face at the hands of the Israeli occupation? Will the “Deal of the Century” ever see the light of day? And will Congress, as expected, continue to apply pressure Saudi Arabia, and what impact will that have on the continuing devastating war in Yemen? And then there’s China’s expansionist moves, Iran’s regional meddling, Russia’s continuing aggression in Ukraine, and what about Brexit?

The list of challenges is by no means complete, but it’s enough to cause us to know that we are hurtling into an uncertain future with good reason to be filled with apprehension.

Along the way, there will be distractions aplently. We’ll have the expected announcements of what may as many as three dozen Democratic presidential aspirants – each announcement will provide “Breaking News” for the networks. And, yes, there will be the endless stream of Trumpian tweets.

I understand the camel and I’m nervous and not a little exhausted.

10 Things You Never Knew About Orwell's 1984

George Orwell’s novel 1984 was incredibly popular at the time it was published, and it remains incredibly popular to this day.

10 Things You Never Knew About Orwell's 1984
Intellectual Takeout, July 13, 2017


George Orwell’s novel 1984 was incredibly popular at the time it was published, and it remains incredibly popular to this day. With multiple stars citing the book as one of their favorites – including Stephen King, David Bowie, Mel Gibson, and Kit Harrington – 1984 has been growing in popularity in recent years. The book reappeared on best-seller lists in early 2017, as some argued Orwell’s dystopian vision had finally arrived.

Below are 10 facts you might not know about Orwell’s dark novel.

1. Before he wrote 1984, Orwell worked for the British government during World War II as a propagandist at the BBC. (Perhaps seeing the propaganda industry up close led to his critical portrait in 1984.)

2. Orwell initially named the novel 1980, and then 1982 before settling on 1984. Since it was written in 1948, some think that Orwell devised the title by inverting the year the book was written. Additionally, he thought about naming the novel The Last Man in Europe.

3. While writing the novel, Orwell fought tuberculosis. The disease ultimately consumed him and he died seven months after 1984 was published, with tuberculosis as the sole cause of death. 

4. In addition to fighting tuberculosis, Orwell almost died while writing the novel. On a recreational boating trip with his children, he went overboard. Fortunately, neither this episode nor the tuberculosis prevented him from finishing his novel.

5. On an ironic note, Orwell himself was under government surveillance while writing his novel warning about government surveillance. The British government was watching Orwell because they believed he held socialist opinions. This surveillance started after he published The Road to Wigan Pier, a true story about poverty and the lower class in England. 

6. The slogan “2 + 2 = 5” originated from Russia, where the Communist regime used it as a motto of sorts in an effort to help them accomplish the goals of their five-year plan in only four years. Though the slogan is still used to point out the ills of totalitarian brainwashing today, it was not coined by Orwell.

7. In addition to borrowing a piece of Russian propaganda, Orwell also borrowed some Japanese propaganda for his novel. The “Thought Police” are based on the Japanese wartime secret police who literally arrested Japanese citizens for having “unpatriotic thoughts.” Their official name was the Kempeitai, and they officially named their pursuit the “Thought War.”

8. When Orwell worked as a propagandist for the BBC, there was a conference room there numbered 101. This room was the room of which he based the location for some of his more horrifying scenes, making the scenes themselves all the more horrifying.

9. According to Orwell’s friends and families, his second wife Sonia Brownell was the model off of which he based the love interest (Julia) of the book’s main character, Winston Smith.

10. Though his book may be popular, Orwell’s novel also makes the list of the world’s top ten most frequently banned books. Some ban it for what they claim are pro-communist points of view, and others have banned it because it is anti-communist. Regardless, it is ironic that a book warning against totalitarianism is often an item for censorship.

Why Does Rebooting Fix Computer Problems?

This first remedy is often ignored...

Why Does Rebooting Fix Computer Problems?
Rob Miles
The Conversation, December 27, 2018

It's the most common answer to our computing woes: when your PC or smartphone is acting up, try turning it off and on again. Or, alternatively, rebooting.

To understand the concept of a "reboot", it's helpful to first understand what a boot means as far as computers are concerned. The word comes from the expression "pull yourself up by your own bootstraps", which I've never fully understood, but apparently means "improve yourself by your own efforts."

In a computer, the only program physically built into the computer hardware is a tiny one, called the "bootloader." When the computer starts up, this program gets control and loads, or "boots" another, much larger, program which serves as the "operating system" for the computer. We know these systems by such names as Unix, Mac OS, Android, and Windows 10.

The operating system does for your computer what your parents did for you during the first five years of your life. It organizes the allocation of resources, fetches things, and puts them away — and controls what the programs can and can't do. However, sometimes the operating system can get itself into a bit of a state — like your mom or dad did when the doorbell rang just as the washing machine sprang a leak and your pet rabbit escaped.

A Clean Slate

If we give the computer too many tasks to run — or a set of physical events occur in a sequence that the software writers weren't expecting — then tasks can get "stuck" in memory. Computer scientists talk about a "deadly embrace" that occurs when task A is waiting for task B to do something, and task B is waiting for task A to do something, causing them both to get stuck.

In addition, as tasks run, they fetch and use resources such as computer memory and, over time, the arrangement of these resources will become fragmented and harder to manage, just like it is difficult to find things in an untidy bedroom (which is probably why your parents made such a fuss about it). A reboot may also be a temporary fix for problems caused by hardware that is becoming unreliable, particularly if things start to go wrong when components get hot.

Modern operating systems are very adept at spotting and removing stuck processes and also work very hard to keep things tidy, but sometimes a computer can reach a state where the best thing to do is start again from scratch. A reboot removes every task and then restarts with a clean slate.

As a computer scientist, I'm always looking for the easiest way to solve a problem and rebooting a computer is a good thing to try first, before looking for more complicated reasons why a system is running poorly.
Fix-All?

There are two flavours of reboot, which are often called "warm" and "cold". You do a "cold" reboot by actually turning the computer off and on again. A "warm" reboot, meanwhile, just reloads the operating system. Sometimes a warm reboot will fix your problems, but if some of your hardware has got itself into a state where it is not responding to any signals from the outside world, you might need to reach for the power switch.

One thing reboots cannot fix, however, is malicious software such as viruses. These horrid bits of program usually insert themselves into the boot process so that they get control next time the computer starts up. The only way to get rid of these pesky intruders is to scan your system, find them, and remove them.

In my experience the need for reboots is decreasing over time. These days I find that the main reason why I have to reboot my machine is to install updates. This is because it is very hard for an operating system to update parts of itself while it is running – rather like trying to repair an aircraft in flight.

Some systems are never rebooted. Things like air traffic control systems and the programs that run our nuclear reactors are left running continuously. These systems have the advantage that they only run one particular program and their operating system can be built around this code. However, for general purpose machines like the ones on our desks and in our pockets, the need for reboots will remain for a while. For me, it's just a necessary consequence of having such a powerful and flexible device at my fingertips.

Oymyakon - the Coldest Place on Earth!

Life goes on even at that coldest place...

Oymyakon Is One of the Coldest Places on Earth, But People Live There
Reuben Westmaas
February 26, 2018

Oymyakon is located deep in the heart of Siberia, and it's not a place you visit on a whim. Ttheir average winter temperature is less than 50 degrees below zero Fahrenheit (46 degrees below zero Celsius), but there's a difference between seeing the numbers and learning the effects. So here are some quick facts:

Your eyelashes freeze over. Your saliva turns into icicles in your mouth. You have to run your car 24 hours a day or the battery will die. It's pretty much impossible to dig into the ground at all, so you don't have plumbing either. If you ever do have to dig a hole in the ground, say, to perform a funeral, you have to first light a giant bonfire to soften the first few inches of soil, dig it away, then light another one, and so on. It's not for the faint of heart.

And Oymyakonians are anything but faint of heart. That's right, people actually live here all year-round. The city has a population of about 500, and they've adapted to their surroundings in some pretty unusual ways. For one thing, there's the diet. There's no such thing as fresh veggies in Oymyakon because you sure can't grow anything. Almost every meal consists only of meat, and a lot of times, that meat is uncooked and frozen. Frozen cubes of horse or reindeer blood are considered a delicacy, as is stroganina, a type of frozen fish cut into long, thin slices. But that's just for a special treat — everyday dinners consist of meat stew, emphasis on the meat.

As if the temperature wasn't enough, the seasonal sunlight is also extreme. The city gets only about three hours of sunlight per day during the winter, and 21 in the summer. Honestly, we're not sure which one is worse. Its residents are doing okay, but you'd be forgiven for thinking that it sounds like a pretty miserable place to live — you certainly wouldn't be the first to think so. Although Oymyakon was originally a waystation for traveling reindeer herders, the region grew in notoriety in the mid-20th century when it became known as "Stalin's Death Ring."

Fake Democracy in America!

What exists in imperial, warmongering AmeroKKKa is basically subtle fascism in disguise!

Down with Dictators! Fake Democracy in America
By Philip A Farruggio

This writer just loves it when our USA mainstream (embedded in empire) media, and of course our Two Party/One Party politicians, rant and rave about dictators. They lash out at the preposterous comical assertions by the leaders of many countries, who win re-elections with 90% to 100% of the vote, that those nations are democracies. Shame on them! Shame on our nation’s corporate and political entities who keep trading (and financially aiding) those countries. These men (not too often women) who are quite honestly dictators, always make sure that there is little or no opposition to them. What cracks this writer up is when (so called) Socialist Bernie Sanders said “Hugo Chavez is just a dead Communist dictator.” Yet, Chavez won election and two re-elections as Venezuela’s president against formidable candidates. The last time being in 2012 when he won 55% to 45%. Is that what our empire’s lemmings would call a dictatorship?

Here’s the skinny on our so called democracy and ‘free elections’ in Amerika. The Fat Cats who are the wizards behind the OZ sure are shrewd. For close to a century they have made sure that their concoction AKA Two Party System stayed intact. Folks, anyone else just could not get through the door. The powerful money behind both of the empire’s parties just keeps on splashing out of the spigot! Any semblance of a third party movement is squashed before it can get legs! Or… one of the two parties (usually today’s Democrats) just co opts the new movement, and places it under its Big Tent. Finally, most elections, for president especially, sees a majority of the voting public (which is usually around 50% of eligible voters… why is that?) not voting for one candidate, but in reality voting against the other! Trump, to this writer’s way of thinking and logic, won because of the powerful backlash against Hillary Clinton. My joke has been that if the Democrats ran Donald Duck against Donald Trump they would have won!
Money (Always) Talks…

So, bottom line is that we do have a dictatorship right here in good ole Amerika. It is a much more sophisticated one whereupon the suckers (we who actually vote) get to choose from as Ralph Nader labeled it: Twiddle Dum and Twiddle Dee! The Two Party/One Party con job will differ on certain issues like abortion, gay rights, Medicaid funding… gee I’m having difficulty finding more key issues… but never on what really matters to our survival as a republic: obscene military spending, overseas wars and occupations, Big Banks controlling everything, Amerikan corporations running roughshod on workers at home and abroad… and the piece de resistance: The notion that this corporate capitalist ‘free enterprise’ system really works for all. Mr. Trump may think of himself as a semi- dictator, but he is not! The powerful forces who even allowed someone with his ‘closet filled with skeletons’ to achieve our highest office, they call the shots. The last time someone stood up to them, or thought he surely had the ‘will of the masses’ behind him, wound up in a deadly ‘triangular crossfire’ in Dallas Texas.

*
Philip A Farruggio is a son and grandson of Brooklyn, NYC longshoremen. He has been a free lance columnist since 2001, with over 400 of his work posted on sites like Global Research, Off Guardian, Consortium News, Information Clearing House, Nation of Change, World News Trust, Op Ed News, Dissident Voice, Activist Post, Sleuth Journal, Truthout and many others. His blog can be read in full on World News Trust, whereupon he writes a great deal on the need to cut military spending drastically and send the savings back to save our cities. Philip has a internet interview show, ‘It’s the Empire… Stupid’ with producer Chuck Gregory, and can be reached at paf1222@bellsouth.net

10 Irrefutable, Devastating 9/11 Facts

Scholars who attempt to elucidate the crime perpetrated on 9/11 – who are commonly referred to as 9/11 truthers – are often criticized for relying on conjecture and speculation in support of their claims. Such criticism may at times be justified, though often made in bad faith. There is actually no need to resort to speculative arguments that the official account of 9/11 is a fraud since there are hard facts that support this conclusion.

Here are 10 such undisputed facts:

 1. U.S. authorities have failed to trace, arrest, try (prosecute), and punish anyone responsible for the crime against humanity committed on 9/11.

The mass murder committed on September 11, 2001 represents, under international law, a crime against humanity. The State where it was committed – in this case the United States of America – bears the obligation to the international community to trace, arrest, try, and punish individuals responsible for that crime.

Since 2002, U.S. authorities admit they have detained a handful of persons at Guantánamo Bay who are accused of helping to orchestrate 9/11. Their identities remain in doubt; their alleged confessions were made behind closed doors; and their trial by a military court does not fulfill minimal international norms of due process.

U.S. authorities claim to have sentenced Zacarias Moussaoui to life imprisonment for not having warned the FBI about the preparations for 9/11, an allegation he denied. No evidence was presented that he was involved in the preparations for 9/11 or knew anything about these preparations. No evidence was presented that he even knew the alleged hijackers. U.S. authorities also claim to hold, since 2003, a man by the name of Khalid Sheikh Mohamed (KSM) in Guantánamo who allegedly confessed to have masterminded 9/11 and more than 30 other terrorist operations. He also allegedly confessed to having planned an attack on a bank in Washington State that did not exist until after he was already in Guantánamo. The man, whose identity remains murky and whose connection to 9/11 is limited to what he said in his ludicrous confession, has not been prosecuted, let alone sentenced. No one seriously expects him to be ever brought to trial, let alone a trial fulfilling international norms.

2. When announcing to the United Nations their decision to attack Afghanistan, U.S. authorities failed to provide evidence that the crime of 9/11 was in any way connected to Afghanistan. In fact, such evidence has still not been produced.
See the letter from U.S. Representative John Negroponte to the President of the UN Security Council, October 7, 2001 (mirrored here).

3. The United States government did not authorize an investigation of the events of 9/11 that could have fulfilled minimal international standards: The 9/11 Commission was neither independent nor impartial, and its investigation was neither thorough nor transparent.

Regarding minimal standards of investigation, see Elias Davidsson, “The Events of 11 September 2001 and the Right to the Truth.” (See this or this)

4. Despite vilifying Osama bin Laden as a terrorist leader, judicial authorities in the United States have failed to charge him in connection with 9/11. He was not even wanted in connection with this crime.

The FBI admitted in June 2006 that it possesses no concrete evidence linking Osama bin Laden to 9/11. (See: Ed Haas, “FBI says, it has no ‘hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11,” Information Clearing House, June 18, 2006, mirrored here)

5. Authorities in the United States have failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that the 19 persons named by the FBI as 9/11 hijackers even boarded aircraft that they are alleged to have subsequently hijacked. 

To be precise: U.S. authorities have failed to produce authenticated passenger lists that would include the names of the alleged hijackers; witnesses who saw these alleged hijackers in the airports or boarding the aircraft; authenticated security-camera videos proving their presence in the airports of departure; and DNA identification of these individuals’ bodily remains (see detailed analysis in Elias Davidsson, Hijacking America’s Mind on 9/11 [Algora Publishers, New York, 2013], Chapter 2).

6. U.S. authorities have failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that passenger airliners crashed at the known landmarks on 9/11.

The FBI admitted in a letter to the Nevada District U.S. Court on March 14, 2008, signed by Assistant U.S. Attorney Patrick A. Rose, that records detailing the collection and positive identification of the wreckage of the crashed aircraft do not exist (Letter mirrored here). He thus admitted that the FBI failed to formally identify the wreckage found at the various crash sites as belonging to the allegedly hijacked aircraft. It is, therefore, not established that the allegedly hijacked aircraft crashed at these locations.

7. U.S. authorities have failed to explain why more than 1,100 persons, who were present at the World Trade Center on 9/11, vanished into thin air.

Vast parts of the Twin Towers were literally pulverized as can be seen from video recordings, photos, and testimonies. Of more than 1,100 missing persons, not a single tooth, nail, or bone has been found as of 2011 (See, inter alia, Anemona Hartocollis, “Connecting with lost loved ones, if only by the tips of fingers,” The New York Times, September 11, 2011 [mirrored here]). U.S. authorities have never explained what could have caused more than 1,100 persons to vanish without leaving a trace. They bear the obligation, under human rights law, to determine the reason for such disappearances.

8. U.S. authorities compensated families of 9/11 victims that agreed to waive their right to further court action. The compensation exceeded by at least seven times what was paid to the families of firefighters who died in rescue operations on 9/11.

The families of 9/11 victims received from the U.S. Compensation Fund, established in October 2001, an average of $2.1 million if they agreed to waive their right to engage in civil proceedings (see, inter alia, Brian Bernbaum, “9/11 Fund Chief Faults Payments,” CBS News, 4.9.2003 [mirrored here]). As of 2013, spouses of firefighters who die in line of duty can obtain $333,605 under the Public Safety Officers’ Benefits (PSOB) Act (42 U.S.C. 3796). The figure for 2001 was undoubtedly lower. The 95 families, who did not apply to the Compensation Fund and preferred to let courts determine their rights, obtained an average of $5.5 million in out-of-court settlements (see, Ashby Jones, “The 9/11 Victim Settlements: A Chat with Skadden’s Sheila Birnbaum,” The Wall Street Journal, 13.3.2009 [mirrored here]).

9. U.S. authorities have failed to explain the effect of numerous military drills conducted on the morning of 9/11 – including the simulation of aircraft hijackings – on the commission of the mass murder.

Military drills caused confusion and surprised military and civilian personnel responsible for air traffic, as reported in U.S. media. For example, NORAD Major General Larry Arnold said that, “By the end of the day, we had twenty-one aircraft identified as possible hijackings.” (See, Eric Hehs, “Conversation with Major General Larry Arnold,” One Magazine, January 2002 [mirrored here]). Colonel Robert Marr, NEADS battle commander, said he had been told that across the nation there were “29 different reports of hijackings.” (See, Robert A. Baker, “Commander of 9/11 Air Defenses Retires,” Newhouse News Service, March 31, 2005 [mirrored here]). U.S. authorities failed to explain how these drills affected the commission of the crime, including the apparent failure to intercept hijacked aircraft.

10. U.S. authorities promoted numerous officials who, according to the official account on 9/11, had failed to carry out their duties with regard to 9/11. Not a single person has been held accountable anywhere in government for what went wrong on or prior to 9/11.

Here are few examples: Richard Myers, in charge of the Pentagon on 9/11, was promoted to Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on October 1, 2001; Ralph Eberhart, in charge of NORAD on 9/11, was promoted to head the new “Northern Command” a year after 9/11; Captain Charles J. Leidig, acting NMCC Director on 9/11, was promoted in 2004 to the rank of admiral; Brigadier General Montague Winfield, who on 9/11 was in charge of the National Military Command Center (NMCC), was promoted in May 2003 to the two-star rank of major general; Marion (Spike) Bowman, who blocked FBI investigations into the alleged hijackers before 9/11, was given an award for “exceptional performance” after a 9/11 Congressional Inquiry report claimed that his unit gave Minneapolis FBI agents “inexcusably confused and inaccurate information” that was “patently false.”

Conclusion

The above facts are sufficient to reject the official account of 9/11 and consider the administration of President George W. Bush as the main suspect for this crime against humanity. While the facts are not sufficient for leveling criminal charges against specific individuals, they permit general conclusions to be drawn regarding the dangerous nature of the U.S. regime and the complicity of the political class, mainstream media, academia, and the justice system of NATO member states in covering-up the crime of 9/11 and shielding those responsible for that crime.