Thursday, June 9, 2011

UK and France seek UN action on Syrian Dictator Assad

UK and France seek UN action on Syria as thousands flee

Troops and tanks mass outside 'ghost town' after massacre amid mounting fears of slip towards Libyan-style

CIVIL WAR

Ian Black and Nidaa Hassan

guardian.co.uk

Thousands of residents have fled the northern Syrian town of Jisr al-Shughour in fear of an imminent onslaught by government troops ordered to take vengeance on one of the centres of the uprising against President Bashar al-Assad.

Anticipation of a violent response by the regime galvanised international diplomatic action, led by France and Britain at the UN, and fuelled a sense that a turning point may be approaching as disorder spreads and Syria slips closer to a Libyan-style civil war.

The local co-ordinating committees, a network of activist groups, reported that 40 tanks and 50 troop carriers were 2½ miles (4km) from Jisr al-Shughour, and soldiers were in Idleb, the provincial capital. Amateur video also showed armoured units moving into the area.

An independent activist in Damascus said that he had seen tanks leaving the capital. The forces are thought to be under the command of the president's brother, Maher, who commands the Republican Guard and other units, and is widely believed to be the man leading Syria's violent crackdown.

"We believe they may send the 4th Division to attack, as they can be relied on to be loyal," said an activist who runs a Facebook page on the protests. "The conscripts, people like me, can't be relied upon when asked to be so brutal."

Although more than 1,110 Syrians have reportedly been killed in nearly three months of unprecedented unrest, it is clear the crackdown has failed to crush the opposition – even without the sort of high-level defections suffered by Muammar Gaddafi, the Libyan leader.

Video clips showed Jisr al-Shughour deserted, nothing moving in the streets, and the market shuttered. Residents described it as a ghost town as people streamed towards the border with Turkey, which the government in Ankara said would remain open. "We are monitoring developments in Syria with concern," said Turkey's prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan. "Syria should change its attitude towards civilians and should take its attitude to a more tolerant level." The Turkish news agency said about 170 Syrians had crossed the border, and some wounded had been taken to local hospitals.

The government in Damascus claims 120 troops and security personnel were killed in an ambush in Jisr al-Shughour on Sunday, but there is no independent confirmation of this, as no foreign journalists are allowed to operate in Syria.

Speculation is rife that the incident may have been a mutiny by some security forces who refused to fire on protesters, and were themselves killed by loyalists. Syrian state TV reported that "armed terrorist organisations" used government vehicles and uniforms to commit "a brutal massacre". They "filmed themselves … to manipulate the photos and videos and distort the reputation of the army," according to Syrian state TV. It showed pictures from the funerals of eight security personnel.

Syria Comment, an influential blog based in the US, said: "Syria is slipping towards civil war. The government has met with no success in quelling the revolt despite an escalating death rate and an ever more ruthless crackdown."

At the UN, European nations seeking to increase pressure on Assad's regime presented a revised resolution condemning Syria for its deadly crackdown on peaceful protesters. Britain, France, Germany and Portugal introduced the text at a closed Security Council meeting. UN diplomats said the new draft, which has strong US backing, is aimed at winning more support for the resolution in the council and avoiding a Russian veto.

"We will be on the right side of history if and when this comes to a vote," said Susan Rice, US ambassador to the UN. "If others are unable to, or unwilling to, then that will be their responsibility to bear."

Russia's UN ambassador Vitaly Churkin reiterated that Moscow would not support the resolution, on the grounds that it would not promote dialogue. But he declined to say if Russia would veto it.

"If anyone votes against that resolution or tries to veto it, that should be on their conscience," David Cameron told MPs in London.

Diplomats admit privately that they are far less able to influence Syria than Libya, and that there is no prospect of military action against the Assad regime.

In Paris the Syrian ambassador was forced to deny she had resigned in protest at attacks on civilians. Lamia Shakkour claimed she was the victim of a hoax to embarrass her country. She called the announcement "misinformation" and "identity theft".

A woman identifying herself as the ambassador announced her resignation by phone on the TV news channel France 24 on Tuesday. "I can no longer continue to support the cycle of extreme violence against unarmed civilians," she said. "I recognise the legitimacy of the people's demands for more democracy and freedom."

France 24 said it had called a phone number on which it had spoken to Shakkour previously. After the broadcast Reuters said it had received an email that came via the Syrian embassy website in Paris, confirming the resignation. But this step was immediately denied by news agencies in Syria.

Shakkour appeared on another French television station, BFM TV, to deny she had resigned. France 24 said it did not rule out a "manipulation or a provocation" and promised to investigate the alleged hoax.

Wednesday, June 8, 2011

Overcoming Fear

Image via Wikipedia

HOW TO OVERCOME FEAR

Fear is a disease that destroys our self confidence, belief, and personality. It arises from deception and hate. It is true that we fear what we hate and hate what we fear. If not properly checked, fear can develop to the point of totally destroying our life. One of the results of fear is low self esteem. What are best ways to fight this monster disease?

Fear is a problem of the mind, and the best solution lies within rather than outside.

Learn to view things in their true, actual, and factual state; this is the process of simply understanding and accepting the truth. Remember, the biblical saying, “Seek the truth in and it shall set you free”. When you have armed yourself with the truth, nothing can deceive you. Truth is a universally accepted knowledge and knowledge is power that leads one to self confidence.

Practice makes perfect; practice more of those things that make you fear, at the end you will discover that it was only a deception created and allowed to develop by you. In addition, learn to draw strength from your past successes. “Yes you can”. Build up your confidence and improve on it daily.

Be positive in everything. Positive thinking pilots a positive action and positive thinking attracts help, courage, and wisdom. Avoid doubts, and excuses. Act right and have it in mind that nothing can harm you unless you give way for it. Surround yourself with creative energy. And remember that, you are a child of the Almighty and he is always watching you.

Note, the best form of protection is prevention, avoid activities that will bring harm to you. Fears are negative and of the dark, so learn how to develop love and affection for others. Love is light and positive, and where there is light there can never be darkness.

No Freedom of Choice

There Is No Freedom of Choice in America

by Don Cooper
by Don CooperRecently by Don Cooper: The Broken Logic of Statism

We have no freedom of choice in America; it's an illusion. The federal and state governments regulate every single market in this country which means that everything any American thinks he is freely choosing is something that in fact has been “approved” by the state for American consumption and Americans may only “choose” from that list. Choosing something not on the “approved” list is considered criminal and can result in one losing their freedoms altogether. That's not freedom of choice, that's state control of people's lives. If the last two sentences were said in the context of a communist regime, no one would hesitate to nod acceptingly, but when uttered in the context of the U.S. government, they are considered to be conspiratorial and paranoid, but are true just the same.

How many people have been arrested and imprisoned for selling goods and services that are not “approved” by the federal government? Our prisons are full of such people who have harmed no one socially, economically or physically but whose freedom has been taken away by the state for giving people real choice. If one were to see such a scene in a movie about communist Russia, no doubt Americans would cringe and utter something about the abusive nature of communism. When it happens in the U.S. then Americans assume the person in question must have deserved it otherwise why would he be in prison.

A lot of people don't realize that during communism in countries like Romania, they held presidential elections as well every so many years and the people were told that they could “choose” the president. Thing was: all the candidates belonged to the communist party so there would always be a communist president and communism would persist. In order for someone from the communist party not to be elected, a second party would somehow have to get on the ballot and in 1990 this finally happened.

The sad, disappointing and frustrating thing is that we have the same situation here in America but the pixy-dust-sniffing majority in this country doesn't realize it. Last presidential election I voted for the candidate of my choice, Ron Paul, and the state of Georgia threw my vote away because Ron Paul was not an official state-approved candidate. He had not done what the state decided he would need to do to be on the ballot so therefore he was not considered an “official” candidate and was not on the ballot. If you chose to vote for him as a write-in, then they simply did not count your vote.

How is having only two major parties who are always on the ballot and an election system designed by the state to keep those two parties in power and which makes it almost financially and logistically impossible for other parties to get on the ballot so much different from the communist system of having only one party on the ballot and an election system that makes it financially and logistically impossible for other parties? There's no freedom of choice in selecting our government. We as Americans are constantly voting for the lesser of two evils and seem to be content to do so.

Well how about in the market place then? Surely we must have freedom of choice in the market place. Look at all the choices we have to choose from. Unfortunately, this is a big negative as well. Just because there are a hundred different types of food or drugs, for example, from which to choose, in reality you can only choose from the ones that the state has approved for you.

The FDA is a federal agency with an annual budget in 2010 of $3.2 billion and is planning on hiring another 1,200 new employees to help construct the list of state-approved food and drugs (see, the government can create new jobs).

Now I've heard the argument a thousand times: sure the FDA is a government agency and it's not perfect but without an agency like the FDA there would be harmful foods and drugs on the market that people would voluntarily choose to purchase and people could be maimed, sickened and even die. We need the FDA. Regulating food and drugs is too big a job, only the federal government has the resources to do it. Thank God for the FDA!

This argument assumes a couple of things. First, that the FDA has found the gold at the end of rainbow so the government already has the financial resources necessary to pay for their activities and so that money doesn't have to come from the people. Secondly, that the FDA is in fact not staffed with people from the same social pool that says the federal government already has the necessary resources to regulate food and drugs but rather with wizards that posses special magical powers that the rest of us don't and can somehow determine the “goodness” of foods and drugs for human consumption. It assumes the FDA doesn't even need humans to determine the human effects of foods and drugs. They can simply dip a piece of litmus paper into a sample and if it turns red then it is not state approved.

Of course this is not the case. The FDA has only the resources that they take from the private sector in the way of taxes, debt, inflation and manpower. Furthermore, it conducts clinical trials on humans who volunteer to participate. Basically, that means that the FDA gets volunteers to try new foods and drugs and then they sit back and watch what happens. If the volunteers have bad side effects, like their heads turn purple, their hair falls out, they are maimed, sickened or die, then the FDA disseminates this information to the public and the food or drug is not approved for sale in the U.S. and so people have no choice: they cannot buy it even if they wanted to.

Compare this to a new food or drug appearing in the market place and people voluntarily choosing to buy it and consume it. If people have adverse side effects to the new good then this information will be disseminated naturally by the market and people will choose to stop buying it.

A famous example of this was the Tylenol poisoning case of 1982 in which someone went into stores in the Chicago area and laced extra strength Tylenol capsules with potassium-cyanide. The first death occurred on September 29, 1982. Within 6 days, and completely of its own accord, Johnson & Johnson had recalled all its bottles of extra strength Tylenol with a retail market value of some $100 million. By November of the same year, Johnson & Johnson had already re-engineered its pill bottle packaging — a new triple-sealed package — and within a year Tylenol was once again a major competitor in the market place.

What was the FDA doing during this time? Sitting on its hands trying to figure out who to blame and seeing what kind of new packaging Johnson & Johnson came up with so they could copy it and modify their food and drug packaging regulations accordingly and take the credit for keeping Americans safe. As with any government agency, the FDA didn't want this crisis to go to waste so they also used it to expand their budget and payroll. After all, with the new regulations they would need more people and money to enforce them.

In the end the FDA cannot do anymore than the market can do in identifying harmful foods and drugs. In fact, historical evidence shows that the market does a better, faster and more efficient job of identifying these things than the FDA. The FDA is always one step behind the markets. Reacting and taking the credit at a cost of $3.2 billion to the tax payer and limiting real freedom of choice in America.

January 23, 2010

Don Cooper [send him mail] is a Florida native, Navy veteran, economist, and editor of the daily non-partisan column Qaoss.com.

Don Cooper Archives

Friday, June 3, 2011

Truths About our Inherited Debt

Image via Wikipedia

10 Inconvenient Truths About our Debt Ceiling

by Avenging Angel

Bolstered by new polls and fresh off their vote to bar an increase in the nation's $14.3 trillion debt ceiling, House Republicans swaggered into the White House for the latest negotiation to end their economic hostage taking. One, Rep. Jeff Landry of Louisiana, refused to attend and be "lectured to by a president whose failed policies have put our children and grandchildren in a huge burden of debt."

Sadly for Rep. Landry, the nation's mounting debt is largely attributable to wars, a recession and tax policies President Obama inherited from his predecessor. Worse still, the Ryan 2012 budget proposal backed by almost every Republican in both houses of Congress would not only drain another $4 trillion in tax revenue from the Treasury, but fail all of the spending and balanced budget targets they themselves propose. Nevertheless, Republicans who voted seven times to double the debt ceiling under George W. Bush would risk the national economic suicide they admit would come to pass if their demands are not met.

Here, then, are 10 Inconvenient Truths About the Debt Ceiling:

(Click a link to jump to the data and details for each.)

1. Republican Leaders Agree U.S. Default Would Be a "Financial Disaster"

2. Ronald Reagan Tripled the National Debt

3. George W. Bush Doubled the National Debt

4. Republicans Voted Seven Times to Raise Debt Ceiling for President Bush

5. Federal Taxes Are Now at a 60 Year Low

6. Bush Tax Cuts Didn't Pay for Themselves or Spur "Job Creators"

7. Ryan Budget Delivers Another Tax Cut Windfall for Wealthy

8. Ryan Budget Will Require Raising Debt Ceiling - Repeatedly

9. Tax Cuts Drive the Next Decade of Debt

10. $3 Trillion Tab for Unfunded Wars Remains Unpaid

Thursday, June 2, 2011

Tom Scott returns to Choice America Network

TOM SCOTT RETURNS

We are pleased to announce that Tom Scott has returned to Choice America Network. Mr. Scott is one of the finest Investigative Reporters on the Net and his media hero is still none other than Greg Palast. He has returned state side after spending time in the Middle East and Southeast Asia.

Mr. Scott served with the United States Army Special Forces (MACV-SOG) during the Vietnam War. He joined Choice America Network shortly after it's conception in 2003.

Welcome Home Tom!!

De oppresso liber

Wednesday, June 1, 2011

Cyber Combat

Cyber Combat: Act of War

Pentagon Sets Stage for U.S. to Respond to Computer Sabotage With Military Force
By SIOBHAN GORMAN And JULIAN E. BARNES

WASHINGTON—The Pentagon has concluded that computer sabotage coming from another country can constitute an act of war, a finding that for the first time opens the door for the U.S. to respond using traditional military force.

The Pentagon's first formal cyber strategy, unclassified portions of which are expected to become public next month, represents an early attempt to grapple with a changing world in which a hacker could pose as significant a threat to U.S. nuclear reactors, subways or pipelines as a hostile country's military.

The report will also spark a debate over a range of sensitive issues the Pentagon left unaddressed, including whether the U.S. can ever be certain about an attack's origin, and how to define when computer sabotage is serious enough to constitute an act of war. These questions have already been a topic of dispute within the military.

One idea gaining momentum at the Pentagon is the notion of "equivalence." If a cyber attack produces the death, damage, destruction or high-level disruption that a traditional military attack would cause, then it would be a candidate for a "use of force" consideration, which could merit retaliation.

The Pentagon's document runs about 30 pages in its classified version and 12 pages in the unclassified one. It concludes that the Laws of Armed Conflict—derived from various treaties and customs that, over the years, have come to guide the conduct of war and proportionality of response—apply in cyberspace as in traditional warfare, according to three defense officials who have read the document. The document goes on to describe the Defense Department's dependence on information technology and why it must forge partnerships with other nations and private industry to protect infrastructure.

The strategy will also state the importance of synchronizing U.S. cyber-war doctrine with that of its allies, and will set out principles for new security policies. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization took an initial step last year when it decided that, in the event of a cyber attack on an ally, it would convene a group to "consult together" on the attacks, but they wouldn't be required to help each other respond. The group hasn't yet met to confer on a cyber incident.

Pentagon officials believe the most-sophisticated computer attacks require the resources of a government. For instance, the weapons used in a major technological assault, such as taking down a power grid, would likely have been developed with state support, Pentagon officials say.

The move to formalize the Pentagon's thinking was borne of the military's realization the U.S. has been slow to build up defenses against these kinds of attacks, even as civilian and military infrastructure has grown more dependent on the Internet. The military established a new command last year, headed by the director of the National Security Agency, to consolidate military network security and attack efforts.

The Pentagon itself was rattled by the 2008 attack, a breach significant enough that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs briefed then-President George W. Bush. At the time, Pentagon officials said they believed the attack originated in Russia, although didn't say whether they believed the attacks were connected to the government. Russia has denied involvement.

The Rules of Armed Conflict that guide traditional wars are derived from a series of international treaties, such as the Geneva Conventions, as well as practices that the U.S. and other nations consider customary international law. But cyber warfare isn't covered by existing treaties. So military officials say they want to seek a consensus among allies about how to proceed.

"Act of war" is a political phrase, not a legal term, said Charles Dunlap, a retired Air Force Major General and professor at Duke University law school. Gen. Dunlap argues cyber attacks that have a violent effect are the legal equivalent of armed attacks, or what the military calls a "use of force."

"A cyber attack is governed by basically the same rules as any other kind of attack if the effects of it are essentially the same," Gen. Dunlap said Monday. The U.S. would need to show that the cyber weapon used had an effect that was the equivalent of a conventional attack.

James Lewis, a computer-security specialist at the Center for Strategic and International Studies who has advised the Obama administration, said Pentagon officials are currently figuring out what kind of cyber attack would constitute a use of force. Many military planners believe the trigger for retaliation should be the amount of damage—actual or attempted—caused by the attack.

For instance, if computer sabotage shut down as much commerce as would a naval blockade, it could be considered an act of war that justifies retaliation, Mr. Lewis said. Gauges would include "death, damage, destruction or a high level of disruption" he said.

Culpability, military planners argue in internal Pentagon debates, depends on the degree to which the attack, or the weapons themselves, can be linked to a foreign government. That's a tricky prospect at the best of times.

The brief 2008 war between Russia and Georgia included a cyber attack that disrupted the websites of Georgian government agencies and financial institutions. The damage wasn't permanent but did disrupt communication early in the war.

A subsequent NATO study said it was too hard to apply the laws of armed conflict to that cyber attack because both the perpetrator and impact were unclear. At the time, Georgia blamed its neighbor, Russia, which denied any involvement.

Much also remains unknown about one of the best-known cyber weapons, the Stuxnet computer virus that sabotaged some of Iran's nuclear centrifuges. While some experts suspect it was an Israeli attack, because of coding characteristics, possibly with American assistance, that hasn't been proven. Iran was the location of only 60% of the infections, according to a study by the computer security firm Symantec. Other locations included Indonesia, India, Pakistan and the U.S.

Officials from Israel and the U.S. have declined to comment on the allegations.

Defense officials refuse to discuss potential cyber adversaries, although military and intelligence officials say they have identified previous attacks originating in Russia and China. A 2009 government-sponsored report from the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission said that China's People's Liberation Army has its own computer warriors, the equivalent of the American National Security Agency.

That's why military planners believe the best way to deter major attacks is to hold countries that build cyber weapons responsible for their use. A parallel, outside experts say, is the George W. Bush administration's policy of holding foreign governments accountable for harboring terrorist organizations, a policy that led to the U.S. military campaign to oust the Taliban from power in Afghanistan.

Tuesday, May 31, 2011

Chantix Suicides

High suicide rates related to anti-smoking drug Chantix were 'left out of crucial safety review'

Hundreds of reports of suicides and violent reactions tied to the stop-smoking drug Chantix were left out of a crucial government safety review.

The reports were missing because the drug’s manufacturer Pfizer Inc. submitted years of data through 'improper channels', according to the Food and Drug Administration.

Serious problems — such as people killing themselves, trying to kill themselves, depression and unprovoked attacks on others — were mixed among 26,000 records of non-serious side effects such as nausea and rashes dating back to 2006, the year Chantix, or varenicline, was approved.

Controversial chemicals: Chantix is regarded as one of the 'riskiest' drugs by some scientists

Cases of 150 suicides, more than doubling those previously known, were among 589 delayed reports of severe issues uncovered in new analysis by the Institute for Safe Medication Practices (ISMP).

Thomas J Moore, the senior scientist who analysed the data for the non-profit ISMP, said: 'It’s really chilling. This seems to unleash something in people. It can be violence to anything around. We’ve had a major breakdown in safety surveillance.'

His analysis echoes previous horror stories that Chantix can induce extreme reactions in people trying to quit cigarettes, including vivid nightmares, crippling depression and violent outbursts.

Federal Food and Drug Administration officials said that they asked Pfizer to resubmit thousands of records after realising that the company was sending required reports in an inappropriate format that could not be added to the agency’s Adverse Events Reporting System, or AERS.

The agency said: 'Last year, the FDA became aware that a few manufacturers were submitting adverse events reports to FDA through improper channels.'

Pfizer officials said they were submitting reports as required and that when the FDA asked them to change, they did so immediately. But they added that there's no proof that Chantix causes suicide or other serious side effects.

Mr Moore, who has served as an expert witness in court cases related to Chantix, said it is the riskiest drug among those analysed from the FDA's adverse event reports, msnbc.com reports.

In the third quarter of 2010, it ranked first in reported deaths, with twice as many fatalities logged as any other drug, he said.

Moore, who has served as an expert witness in court regarding Chantix, said it's the riskiest drug among those analysed from the FDA's adverse event reports.

In the third quarter of 2010, it ranked first in reported deaths, with twice as many fatalities logged as any other drug, he said.

FDA officials said the new reports did not change the agency’s position on the risks and benefits of the controversial drug, which received a black box warning that included suicide — the strongest caution possible — in 2009.

Agency officials said they are continuing to review Chantix in clinical trials.

But Mr Moore said the new data should raise immediate alarms about the drug that was prescribed 3.2 million times last year to people trying to stop smoking — and 1.1 million times already this year.

He said: 'To us, it raises questions about whether this drug is safe for widespread clinical use.'

Pfizer officials said that the firm was following the FDA's rules and changed their reporting process once the agency asked for clarification.

The company said: 'All post-marketing reports of adverse events are reviewed by Pfizer and reported to regulators, including FDA, in accordance with regulatory guidelines.

'Pfizer takes patient safety and regulatory reporting obligations very seriously.'

The FDA requires drugmakers to submit adverse events in two ways.
There’s an 'expedited' system that requires companies to report serious and unexpected adverse events into the AERS system within 15 days.

Then there's the less-serious and expected adverse events to be submitted quarterly in so-called 'periodic reports.'

In those cases, problems previously included on drug labels — including suicide and suicide attempts — are considered to be expected events.

In Pfizer’s case, the firm was submitting the periodic reports as required, but combining summaries and individual case reports in a single text file, the FDA said.
That meant that the individual reports of injury were not logged in the FDA’s AERS system, drastically reducing known reports of suicides and other psychiatric problems tied to Chantix, Mr Moore said.

He said: 'It’s very clear the suicide risk of this drug was higher than we knew.'
Overall, there were 1,055 reports of serious problems with Chantix reported in the third quarter of 2010, more than any other prescription medication regularly monitored by the drug safety agency, Mr Moore added.

Before last July, the FDA had logged 122 reports of suicides linked to Chantix, including 37 reported by Pfizer and 85 reported by health professionals or consumers.

After the 150 new Pfizer reports were added, the total jumped to 272.
In addition, the 589 new reports of severe problems included 102 cases of possible hostility and aggression, 156 cases of depression and 56 cases of possible psychosis.

Those were mixed among the 26,000 reports of less-serious problems.

Mr Moore has asked the FDA to investigate the 150 new suicide reports, particularly if the events occurred before the 2009 black box warning listed suicide as a possible side effect.

FDA officials said they are considering changing regulations to allow expedited reports of suicides and other serious problems, even if they’ve previously been identified as expected.

Thursday, June 9, 2011

UK and France seek UN action on Syrian Dictator Assad

UK and France seek UN action on Syria as thousands flee