http://www.liveleak.com/browse?q=lost Wed, 19 Jun 2013 13:00:15 -0400 Liveleak http://edge.liveleak.com/80281E/u/u/ll2/logo.gif http://www.liveleak.com/browse?q=lost Wed, 19 Jun 2013 08:54:46 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=23f_1371645976 jimbo469 The vast majority of Americans, regardless of their opinions on the increasing scope of international law, agree with the proposition that children should not be used as soldiers. Accordingly, much of the United Nations literature that addresses children and guns deals with this military-related issue. However, a second theme is quickly found in virtually all UN pronouncements about child soldiers and weapons. UN child's rights advocates believe, teach, and promote the idea that all private gun ownership is dangerous for children, and that children have the right to grow up in a gun-free community. As the campaign to seek ratification of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) intensifies, it is important for all Americans to understand the application of this children's rights treaty to the issue of private gun ownership by American citizens. Limiting the rights of gun ownership is not some secret agenda of the UN, but is open for all to see. UNICEF, the official UN agency charged with the worldwide advancement of children's rights, has published a four-color brochure entitled No Guns, Please: We Are Children. The quotation given at the opening of this article is taken from the front cover of this UNICEF brochure. Inside this brochure, we find the following assertions about guns and children: "Small arms* and light weapons kill and disable more children and adults than any other instrument of violence, in conflict and post-conflict situations and on the streets of cities worldwide. Deaths linked to small arms and light weapons every year run into the hundreds of thousands, with those injured exceeding 1 million." "Small arms and light weapons cause profound physical and emotional damage, particularly to children, and affect their welfare." "In societies destabilized by the use of small arms and light weapons, children are denied many of their human rights, including their rights to freedom from violence and exploitation, survival and development, health care, education and care within a family environment. As a result, hard-won developmental gains are often lost and may even be reversed." "In communities enjoying relative peace, children witness and are traumatized by the use of small arms and light weapons in domestic violence and in disputes. Children also become accidental victims because adults fail to keep the weapons out of their reach." Two crucial conclusions can be drawn from these assertions: First, the UN intends to address far more than children in war; its object is to eliminate the "threat" posed by guns from the lives of all children whether their community is characterized as "in conflict," "post-conflict," "destabilized," or "enjoying relative peace." Guns are a threat "on the streets of cities worldwide." Second, the UN contends that the threat posed by guns violates the "human rights" of children. There can be no doubt that the UN believes that the CRC is applicable to this issue. In this same pamphlet it declares: "The Convention on the Rights of the Child sets out comprehensive principles and standards to guide all actions and attitudes towards children." Thus, a nation that willingly accepts this treaty has made a legally binding agreement of international law to regulate its public policy towards all issues in a manner that is consistent with the UN vision on children's human rights. If this statement were made in some other context, there might be some room for argument that the UN doesn't really mean to include gun ownership within the sweep of comprehensive "standards to guide all actions and attitudes towards children." But this statement was made in an official brochure entitled No Guns, Please: We Are Children. This official UN brochure then clarifies the kind of public policy required towards firearms based upon these human rights of children: "Efforts must be ongoing to overcome the destructive messages that small arms and light weapons are essential instruments for survival and protection in daily life." "Governments must support communities in eliminating the insecurity, fear and instability that often lead people to acquire and keep guns." "Regulations are needed to ensure that small arms and light weapons are not easy to acquire and are never accessible to children." The UN believes that the idea that small arms are "essential instruments for survival and protection" is destructive. Remember that the CRC purports to govern all actions and attitudes. The very belief that guns are necessary for protection is therefore considered a destructive attitude that violates the "respect for human rights" required by the CRC.* There can be no doubt of the meaning of the statement: "Regulations are needed to ensure that small arms and light weapons are not easy to acquire and are never accessible to children." The official UN pamphlet makes it plain that nations need to "implement laws to protect children ... from having access to small arms." Moreover, the UN says that states should "collect and destroy small arms ... through community programs in which civil society plays a key role." The UN actively promotes the idea that small arms conflict with the human rights of children protected by the CRC. Yet another UN publication, the Small Arms and Children: UNICEF Fact Sheet, states: UNICEF, together with the United Nations Department for Disarmament Affairs, has designed an exhibit, shown around the world, called "Taking Aim at Small Arms: Defending Child Rights". The exhibit documents the scourge of small arms and light weapons, emphasizing their prevalence worldwide and the toll they take on human lives-especially children. Thus, it is clear that UNICEF believes that in order to comply with the principles of children's rights contained in the CRC, the United States would need to adopt regulations to make it difficult for adults to acquire small arms and light weapons. Moreover, we would need to adopt regulations that prohibit weapons from ever being accessible to children. In another UN official publication, Guide to the Implementation of the World Program of Action for Youth, the following laws are advocated as necessary for the protection of children's rights: "Explore enacting bans on all handguns to civilians or certain cheap models that are attractive to youth." "Call for restrictions on the number of guns that can be purchased in a one-month or one-year period." It is essential to understand the interplay between treaties and state laws. Article VI of the United States Constitution provides: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. In Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416 (1920), the state of Missouri challenged the constitutionality of federal interference with the state hunting laws concerning migratory birds. Federal game officials had intervened in Missouri based upon a treaty with Canada. The United States Supreme Court ruled that the treaty, and not Missouri's state laws on hunting, was supreme. State law-including state hunting laws-must give way to treaties. Thus, even if current state laws permit children to obtain hunting licenses and possess and discharge firearms for these purposes, such laws would have to give way to a treaty that contends that firearms should "never be accessible to children." The UN agenda for children does not stop with the direct disarming of individuals. Article 29 of the CRC imposes educational standards on nations who become parties to the treaty. This includes "peace education," which in other UN contexts means disarmament education. The UN World Congress on Disarmament Education adopted the following statements: Definition of disarmament: "For the purposes of disarmament education, disarmament may be understood as any form of action aimed at limiting, controlling or reducing arms, including unilateral disarmament initiatives, and, ultimately, general and complete disarmament under effective international control. It may also be understood as a process aimed at transforming the current system of armed nation States into a new world order of planned unarmed peace in which war is no longer an instrument of national policy and peoples determine their own future and live in security based on justice and solidarity." Links with human rights and development: "As an integral part of peace education, disarmament education has essential links with human rights education and development education, in so far as each of the three terms peace, human rights and development must be defined in relation to the other two. Moreover, disarmament education offers an occasion to elucidate emerging concepts such as the individual and collective rights to peace and to development, based on the satisfaction of material and non-material human needs." If the U.S. Senate ratifies the CRC, we will have become willing parties in a regime that obligates us to disarm our citizens, keep guns from children, and indoctrinate American children to believe in the utopia of world disarmament. This will cause our nation to surrender our own defenses and rest in the "security" of a world based on "individual and collective rights." * The UN pamphlet defines small arms as follows: "Small arms are designed for personal use. They include revolvers and self-loading pistols, assault rifles, sub-machine guns, rifles and carbines and light machine-guns." * Read the full text of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child at http://www.parentalrights.org. In no way would I ever support this or UNICEF. Resolution adopted by the General Assembly 67/234. The arms trade treaty The General Assembly , Guided by the purposes and principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, and reaffirming its respect for and commitment to international law, Recalling its resolutions 46/36 L of 9 December 1991, 51/45 N of 10 December 1996, 51/47 B of 10 December 1996, 56/24 V of 24 December 2001, 60/69 and 60/82 of 8 December 2005, 61/89 of 6 December 2006, 63/240 of 24 December 2008 and 64/48 of 2 December 2009, and its decision 66/518 of 2 December 2011, Expressing disappointment that the United Nations Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty, convened from 2 to 27 July 2012, was unable to conclude its work to elaborate a legally binding instrument on the highest possible common international standards for the international transfer of conventional arms, Noting that the draft text of the Arms Trade Treaty submitted by the President of the Conference on 26 July 2012 in conference room paper A/CONF.217/CRP.1 reflects progress in the negotiations, while being mindful of requests by some States for further time to consider that document, Determined to build on the progress made to date towards the adoption of a strong, balanced and effective Arms Trade Treaty, 1. Notes the report of the United Nations Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty as contained in document A/CONF.217/4; 2. Decides to convene in New York, from 18 to 28 March 2013, the Final United Nations Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty, to be governed by the rules of procedure adopted on 3 July 2012 and contained in document A/CONF.217/L.1, in order to finalize the elaboration of the Arms Trade Treaty, in an open and transparent manner, utilizing the modalities, applied mutatis mutandis, under which the United Nations Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty operated; A/RES/67/234 2 3. Also decides that the draft text of the Arms Trade Treaty submitted by the President of the United Nations Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty on 26 July 2012 in conference room paper A/CONF.217/CRP.1 shall be the basis for future work on the Arms Trade Treaty, without prejudice to the right of delegations to put forward additional proposals on that text; 4. Requests the Secretary-General to undertake consultations for the nomination of the President-designate of the Final United Nations Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty; 5. Requests the President-designate to undertake prior to the Conference in 2013 consultations on the basis of the draft text of the Arms Trade Treaty submitted by the President of the United Nations Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty in conference room paper A/CONF.217/CRP.1; 6. Requests the Secretary-General to render the Final United Nations Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty all necessary assistance, including the provision of essential background information and relevant documents, bearing in mind those made available to the United Nations Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty; 7. Decides to remain seized of the matter during its sixty-seventh session, and in doing so calls upon the President of the Final United Nations Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty to report on the outcome of the Conference to the General Assembly at a meeting to be held as soon as possible after 28 March 2013; 8. Also decides to include in the provisional agenda of its sixty-eighth session an item entitled "The Arms Trade Treaty". 62nd plenary meeting 24 December 2012 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=23f_1371645976 jimbo469 International Law - Child Soldiers UNICEF, disarming, child soldiers Wed, 19 Jun 2013 03:53:03 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b8e_1371627822 Curious_George June 18, 2013 President Bashar al-Assad gave the following interview to the German Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung newspaper: Interviewer: Mr President, how do you view the situation in your country? The Syrian Army has lost control over large parts of Syria, in other words those areas are outside the control of central government. What's your take on the situation? President Assad: Your question requires us to put things into their proper context: this is not a conventional war with two armies fighting to control or liberate particular areas or parts of land. What we are in fact dealing with is a form of guerrilla warfare. As for the Syrian Army, there has not been any instance where our Armed Forces have planned to enter a particular location and have not succeeded. Having said this, the Army is not present - and should not be present - in every corner of Syria. What is more significant than controlling areas of land, is striking terrorists. We are confident that we can successfully fight terrorism in Syria, but the bigger issue is the ensuing damage and its cost. The crisis has already had a heavy toll but our biggest challenges will come once the crisis is over. Foreign element seeks politically and militarily to prolong crisis Interviewer: In your recent interview with Al-Manar it appeared as though you were preparing the Syrian public for a protracted struggle. Was that your intention? President Assad: No, this was not specific to Al-Manar. From the early days of the crisis, whenever I was asked, I have stated that this crisis is likely to be prolonged due to foreign interference. Any internal crisis can go in one of two ways: either it is resolved or it escalates into a civil war. Neither has been the case for Syria because of the foreign component, which seeks to extend the duration of the crisis both politically and militarily; I think its fair to say that my predictions were right. Genuine re-construction is reconstructing mentalities, ideologies and conceptions Interview: Mr President, how do you expect to overcome the large-scale destruction that has been inflicted in Syria? President Assad: In the same way you, in Germany, overcame the devastation after World War II, and in the same way many other nations have progressed and been rebuilt after their wars. I am confident Syria will follow the same path. As long as we have resilient people, we can rebuild the country. We have done this before and we can do it again, learning from all we have been through. In terms of funding, we have been a self-sufficient country for a very long time. Of course we will need to be more productive than before as a result of the situation. Friendly countries have helped us in the past and continue to offer their support, maybe in the form of loans in the future. It may take a long time, but with our determination, our strength and our solidarity, we can rebuild the country. However, the more arduous challenge lies in rebuilding, socially and psychologically, those who have been affected by the crisis. It will not be easy to eliminate the social effects of the crisis, especially extremist ideologies. Real reconstruction is about developing minds, ideologies and values. Infrastructure is valuable, but not as valuable as human beings; reconstruction is about perpetuating both. Interviewer: Mr President, during the crisis some areas of the country have become either more self-reliant or more reliant on external support. Do you think this could potentially lead to the re-drawing of borders? President Assad : Do you mean within Syria or the region in general? Interviewer: The region - one hundred years after the Sykes-Picot Agreement. President Assad: One hundred years after Sykes-Picot, when we talk about re-drawing the borders in our region, we can use an analogy from architecture. Syria is like the keystone in the old architectural arches; by removing or tampering with the keystone, the arch will collapse. If we apply this to the region, to the world, - any tampering with the borders of this region will result in re-drawing the maps of distant regions because this will have a domino effect which nobody can control. One of the superpowers may be able to initiate the process, but nobody - including that superpower, will be able to stop it; particularly since there are new social borders in the Middle East today that didn't exist during Sykes-Picot. These new sectarian, ethnic and political borders make the situation much more complicated. Nobody can know what the Middle East will look like should there be an attempt to re-draw the map of the region. However, most likely that map will be one of multiple wars, which would transcend the Middle East spanning the Atlantic to the Pacific, which nobody can stop. Interviewer: Mr President, in your opinion what will the region look like in the future? President Assad: If we rule out the destructive scenario of division in your last question, I can envisage a completely different and more positive future, but it will depend on how we act as nations and societies. This scenario involves a number of challenges, first of which is restoring security and stability; our second challenge is the rebuilding process. However, our biggest and most important challenge lies in facing extremism. It has become extremely clear that there has been a shift in the societies of our region away from moderation, especially religious moderation. The question is: can we restore these societies to their natural order? Can our diverse societies still coexist together as one natural whole? On this point allow me to clarify certain terms. The words tolerance and coexistence are often used to define our societies. However, the more precise and appropriate definition, of how our societies used to be - and how they should be, is harmonious. Contrary to perception, the issue is neither about tolerance - since there will come a day when you are not tolerant, nor is the issue about coexistence - since you co-exist with your adversaries, but rather it is about harmony. What used to characterize us in the region was our harmony. You cannot say that your hand will coexist with or tolerate your foot because one compliments the other and both are a part of a harmonious whole. Another challenge is political reform and the question of which political system would keep our society coherent: be it presidential, semi-presidential or parliamentary, as well as deciding the most appropriate legislation to govern political parties. In Germany, for example, you have the Christian Democratic Party. In Syria we could not have religious parties, neither Christian nor Muslim, because for us religion is for preaching and not for political practice. There are many other details, but the essence is in accepting others. If we cannot accept each other we cannot be democratic, even with the best constitution or the best legislation's. we are a secular state that essentially treats its citizens equally Interviewer: Mr President, where do you see secularism in the midst of the rising Islamic current in the region? President Assad: This is a very important question; many in the region do not understand this relationship. The Middle East is a hub of different ideologies. Arab society is primarily based on two pillars: Pan-Arabism and Islam. Other ideologies do exist, such as communism, liberalism, Syrian nationalism, but these are not nearly as popular. Many people understand secularism as synonymous with communism in the past, in that it is against religion. In fact it is the complete opposite; for us in Syria secularism is about the freedom of confession including Christianity, Islam and Judaism, and the multiple diverse sects within these religions. Secularism is crucial to our national unity and sense of belonging. Therefore we have no choice but to strengthen secularism because religion is already strong in our region, and I stress here that this is very healthy. What is not healthy is extremism because it ultimately leads to terrorism; not every extremist is a terrorist, but every terrorist is definitely an extremist. So in response to your question, we are a secular state that essentially treats its citizens equally, irrespective of religion, sect or ethnicity. All our citizens enjoy equal opportunities regardless of religious belief. Syria is passing through most difficult circumstances, definitely not a spring Interviewer: Mr President, how do you view the two-and-a-half years since the so-called 'Arab Spring?' President Assad: This is a misconception. Spring does not include bloodshed, killing, extremism, destroying schools or preventing children from going to their schools, or preventing women from choosing what to wear and what is appropriate for them. Spring is the most beautiful season whilst we are going through the direst circumstances; it is definitely not Spring. Is Spring compatible with what is happening in Syria - the killing, the slaughtering, the beheading, the cannibalism, I leave it to you to decide. Interviewer: What are the issues that the so-called "Arab Spring" is supposed to resolve? President Assad: The solution doesn't lie in the 'Spring' or in anything else, the solution lies in us. We are the ones who should provide the solutions, by being proactive instead of reactive. When we address our problems proactively we ensure that we get the right solutions. Solutions imposed re-actively by the 'Spring' will only lead to deformed results. Like many countries in the Middle East, we have numerous problems that we are aware of and view objectively. This is how these problems should be solved, in that the solutions are internally manufactured and not externally administered, as the latter would produce a distorted or stillborn solution. It is for this very reason that when we call for dialogue or solutions, they need to be home-grown in order to ensure that they lead to the Syria we aspire to. what is happening in Iraq now, and in Lebanon previously, are repercussions of the situation in Syria Interviewer: Mr President, you have rejected any form of foreign intervention and have warned that this would extend the battle to wider areas, have you reached this? President Assad: Let's be clear about this, there are two types of foreign intervention: indirect through proxies or agent s, and direct intervention through a conventional war. We are experiencing the former. At the beginning of the crisis I warned that intervention in Syria - even indirectly, is similar to tampering with a fault line, it would lead to shockwaves throughout the region. At the time, many people - especially in the media, understood this as President Assad threatening to extend the crisis beyond Syria's borders. Clearly they did not understand what I meant at the time, but this is exactly what is happening now. If we look at the reality in front of us, we can see clearly that what is happening in Iraq now, and in Lebanon previously, are repercussions of the situation in Syria, and this will only extend further and further. We are seeing these ramifications and the intervention is still indirect, so imagine the consequences of military intervention? The situation will, of course, be much worse and then we will witness the domino effect of widespread extremism, chaos and fragmentation. Relations with Russia and Iran are cooperation guaranteed by international law Interviewer : You criticize countries including Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey and Britain for their interference in the Syria crisis, isn't it true that Russia and Iran are also involved? President Assad: There is a significant difference between the co-cooperation of states as opposed to the destabilization of a certain country and interference in its internal affairs. Cooperation between countries is conceived on the concept of mutual will, in a way that preserves their sovereignty, independence, stability and self-determination. Our relationship with Russia, Iran and other countries that support Syria are cooperative relations certified under international law. The countries you mentioned, have adopted policies that meddle in Syria's internal affairs, which is a flagrant violation of international law and our national sovereignty. The difference therefore, is that cooperation between countries is intended to preserve stability and perpetuate the prosperity of these nations, whilst foreign interference seeks to destabilize countries, spread chaos and perpetuate ignorance. Interviewer: Sir, you have discussed the repercussions of the Syrian crisis on Iraq and Lebanon whose societies are based on what one might call a sectarian system. Do you think that such a system with Sunni and Shiite pillars could be established in Syria? President Assad: Undoubtedly, sectarian systems in neighboring countries, sectarian unrest or civil wars - as in Lebanon 30 years ago, will inevitably affect Syria. That is why Syria intervened in Lebanon in 1976 - to protect itself and to safeguard Lebanon. It is for this reason that we are observing carefully the unfolding events in Iraq - they will affect us directly. This was also for this reason that we adamantly opposed the war on Iraq, despite a mixture of American temptations and threats at the time. We rejected losing our stability in return for appeasing the Americans. Sectarian systems are dangerous and that is why we insist on the secular model where all citizens are equal regardless of religion. Jabhat al-Nusra is a branch of al-Qaeda, they uphold same ideology Interviewer : Mr President, you are fighting Jabhat Al-Nusra." Can you tell us about it, what is this organization, who supports them, who supplies them with money and weapons? President Assad : Jabhat Al-Nusra is an Al-Qaeda affiliated group with an identical ideology whose members live in Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and Jordan as well as other Arab and Muslim countries; they are very well financed and have plenty of arms. It is difficult to trace their sources due to the fact that their support resides in a covert manner through wealthy individuals and organisations that adopt the same ideology. Their primary aim is to establish an Islamic State in accordance to their interpretation of Islam. Central to their political thought is the Wahhabi doctrine - comparable to Al-Qaeda's in Afghanistan. This ideology is administered wherever they are present, especially on women. They claim to be applying Sharia Law and the Islamic Religion; however, in reality their actions are a complete distortion of the real religion of Islam. We have seen examples of their brutality on our satellite channels taken from footage they publish on purpose on YouTube in order to spread their ideology; a recent example was the beheading of an innocent man, which was aired on Belgian TV. Interviewer: What is the motivation for Saudi Arabia and Qatar to assist and arm the terrorists against you, what do they seek to achieve? President Assad: Firstly, I believe that this is a question they should be answering. I will respond by raising a few questions. Do they support the armed gangs because of their vehement belief in freedom and democracy as they claim in their media outlets? Do they harbor any form of democracy in their own countries, in order to properly support democracy in Syria. Do they have elected parliaments or constitutions voted on by their people? Have their populations decided at any time during the previous decades on what type of governing system they want - be it monarchy, presidency, principality or any other form? So, things are clear: they should first pay attention to their own nations and then answer your question. France and Britain look for puppets to carry out their interests Interviewer: In this quagmire, why do Britain and France delegate leadership to Saudi Arabia and Qatar? What do they hope to achieve? President Assad: I also cannot answer on behalf of Britain or France, but I can give you the general impression here. I believe that France and Britain have an issue with the 'annoying' Syrian role in the region - as they see it. These countries, like the United States, are looking for puppets and dummies to do their bidding and serve their interests without question. We have consistently rejected this; we will always be independent and free. It seems as though France and Britain have not forgotten their colonial history and persist in attempting to manipulate the region albeit through proxies. Indeed, Britain and France can direct Saudi Arabia and Qatar on what they should do, but we must also not forget that the policies and economies of France and Britain are also dependent on petrodollars. What happened in Syria was an opportunity for all these countries to get rid of Syria - this insubordinate state, and replace the president with a "yes man." This will never happen neither now nor in the future. Interviewer: The European Union has not renewed the arms embargo imposed on Syria and yet it has not approved arming the opposition. What is your assessment of this step? President Assad: Clearly there is a split within the European Union on this issue. I cannot state that the EU is supportive of the Syrian government; there are countries, especially Britain and France, who are particularly hostile to Syria. On the other hand, there are countries - Germany in particular, which are raising logical questions about the future consequences of arming the terrorists. Well firstly, that would perpetuate the destruction in Syria, forcing the Syrian people to pay an even heavier price. Secondly, by supplying arms, they are effectively arming terrorists, and the Europeans are well informed that these are terrorists groups. Some are repeating the American rhetoric of "good fighters and bad fighters," exactly as they did a few years ago with the "good Taliban and bad Taliban, good Al-Qaeda and bad Al-Qaeda." Today there is a new term of "good terrorists and bad terrorists" being promoted. Is this logical? When terrorism prevails, it will spread towards Europe They are aware that weapons sent to the region will end up in the hands of terrorists, which will have two consequences. First, Europe's back garden will become a hub for terrorism and chaos, which leads to deprivation and poverty; Europe will pay the price and forfeit an important market. Second, terrorism will not stop here - it will spread to your countries. It will export itself through illegal immigration or through the same terrorists who returned to their original countries after being indoctrinated and trained more potently. These pressing issues in my opinion are creating a considerable split or disagreement within the European Union; they may not like it, but they have no other choice than to cooperate with the Syrian government, even if they disagree with it. Interviewer: Your Excellency has stated that if European countries were to send weapons to Syria, they would effectively be arming terrorists. Do you consider all armed militants as terrorists? President Assad: As a European or German citizen I will pose the following question: does your country allow you to carry arms, intimidate or kill innocent people, vandalize and loot? Any individual or group excluding the army and police who carries arms, kills people, threatens and intimidates public safety are by definition terrorists, this is a norm in every country. Regardless of their background, be it extremists, criminals or convicted felons, those who are carrying weapons in Syria are essentially committing these acts. Therefore, they are terrorists. We differentiate between terrorists and conventional opposition groups, since the latter is a political entity and has a political agenda. Killing and slaughtering is terrorism and plunges the country back years into regression. Interviewer: So Mr President, you see the future as being against terrorism? President Assad: This is the logical conclusion; however in Europe you have many illogical, unrealistic and irresponsible politicians who are applying their negative sentiments instead of their reason. Politics should not be fueled by love or hatred, but by interests. As a German citizen, you should ask yourself what do you stand to gain from what is happening in our region? Basically, what is happening now is against your national interests, your genuine interest lies in fighting terrorism. Interviewer: Some view Hezbollah as a terrorist organization; we know that it has fought alongside Syrian troops in al-Quseir. We have also heard that there are fighters from the Iranian Revolutionary Guard fighting with you. Do you really need these forces? President Assad: The media is trying to portray Hezbollah as the main fighting force on the ground and the Syrian Army as weak and unable to achieve victory. In reality, over the last months we have achieved significant victories on the ground in different parts of Syria; in all of these victories, some of which were more important than al-Quseir, the Syrian army fought alone. None of this is highlighted in the media. One of the reasons for these victories is the National Defence Forces - local citizens fighting alongside the army to defend their communities and regions. Al-Quseir received more international attention because of statements by western officials projecting it as a strategic town, to the extent that even some United Nation's officials claim to understand the situation in al-Quseir! There was a lot of exaggeration, but there were also a large number of arms and militants. These terrorists started attacking the bordering towns loyal to Hezbollah, which warranted their intervention alongside the Syrian army in order to restore stability. The Syrian Army is a large army capable of accomplishing its missions across Syria, with the support of the local communities. If we were in need of such assistance, why not use these forces in the rural parts of Damascus, close to the capital? Damascus is certainly more important than al-Quseir, as is Aleppo and all the other major cities; it doesn't make any sense. But as I said at the beginning, the aim of this frenzy is to reflect an image of Hezbollah as the main fighting force and to provoke Western and International public opinion against Hezbollah. Interviewer: How strong and large are the Hezbollah brigades currently in Syria? President Assad: There are no brigades. They have sent fighters who have aided the Syrian army in cleaning areas on the Lebanese borders that were infiltrated by terrorists. They did not deploy forces into Syria. As you are aware, Hezbollah forces are positioned towards Israel and cannot depart Southern Lebanon. Additionally, if Hezbollah wanted to send fighters into Syria, how many could they send? A few hundred? The Syrian Army has deployed hundreds of thousands of troops across the country. Several hundred would make a difference in one area, but it would not conceivably constitute enough to tip the balance across all of Syria. Interviewer: Mr President, Britain and France claim to have clear evidence that chemical weapons have bee n used. The White House has stated that it possess information to ascertain this claim, which consequently led to the death of 100 to 150 people in one year, in addition to that you have denied the UN investigators access to areas in Syria except for Aleppo. How do you explain the situation? President Assad: Let's begin with the statement from the White House regarding the 150 casualties. Militarily speaking, it is a well-understood notion that during wars, conventional weapons can cause these number of deaths, or even higher, in a single day, not in a year. Weapons of mass destruction generally kill thousands of people at one given time; this high death toll is a primary reason for its use. It is counter-intuitive to use chemical weapons to create a death toll that you could potentially reach by using conventional weapons. America, France, Britain and some European officials claimed that we have used chemical weapons in a number of areas. Regardless of whether such weapons exist or not, we have never confirmed or denied the possession of these weapons. Had they obtained a single strand of evidence that we had used chemical weapons, do you not think they would have made a song and dance about it to the whole world?, then where is the chain of custody that led them to a such result? These allegations are ludicrous. The terrorist groups used chemical weapons in Aleppo; subsequently we sent an official letter to the United Nations requesting a formal investigation into the incident. Britain and France blocked this investigation because it would have proven the chemical attacks were carried out by terrorist groups and hence provided conclusive evidence that they (Britain and France) were lying. We invited them to investigate the incident, but instead they wanted the inspectors to have unconditional access to locations across Syria, parallel to what inspectors did in Iraq and delved into other unrelated issues. We are a sovereign state; we have an army and all matters considered classified will never be accessible neither to the UN, nor Britain, nor France. They will only be allowed access to investigate the incident that occurred in Aleppo. Therefore, all the claims relating to the use of chemical weapons is an extension of the continuous American and Western fabrication of the actual situation in Syria. Its sole aim is to justify their policies to their public opinion and use the claim as a pretext for more military intervention and bloodshed in Syria. Interviewer: The protests started in Syria peacefully before they turned into an armed struggle. Your critics claim that you could have dealt with the protests through political reforms, which makes you partly responsible for the destruction in Syria . What is your take on this? President Assad : We started the reforms from the first days of the crisis and, perhaps even to your surprise, they were initiated years before the crisis. We issued a number of new legislation's, lifted the emergency law and even changed the constitution through a referendum. This is a well-known fact to the West; yet what the West refuses to see is that from the first weeks of the protests we had policemen killed, so how could such protests have been peaceful? How could those who claim that the protests were peaceful explain the death of these policemen in the first week? Could the chants of protesters actually kill a policeman? From the beginning of the crisis, we have always reiterated that there were armed militants infiltrating protesters and shooting at the police. On other occasions, these armed militants were in areas close to the protests and shot at both protesters and police forces to lead each side into-believing that they were shot at by the other. This was proven through investigations and confessions, which were publicized on a large scale in the media. Interviewer: Mr President, it is reported that the Syrian Army has bombarded certain areas. Was there no other option? President Assad : We are pursuing terrorists who repeatedly infiltrate populated areas. If we take Al-Qseir as an example, there was a western media frenzy claiming that there were 50,000 civilians, which is more than the town's original population. In fact, when the terrorists entered the area, the inhabitants consequently fled; when we entered we did not find civilians. Usually wherever the terrorists infiltrate, civilians flee and battles occur afterwards. The evidence clearly shows that most of the casualties in Syria are from the armed forces. Civilians mostly die in suicide bombings. They also die when terrorists enter an area, proceed to carry out executions and use them as human shields. The rest of the causalities are either foreign or Syrian terrorists. Interviewer: After the momentum you have achieved in Al-Qseir, do you feel it is now time to extend a hand to the opposition and consider reconciliation? President Assad: From day one we have extended a hand to all those who believe in dialogue; this position has not changed. At the start of the crisis, we held a national dialogue conference whilst simultaneously fighting terrorists. But when we talk about the opposition, we should not put them all into one basket; it is imperative to differentiate between terrorists and politicians. In Germany, you have an opposition but they are not armed. Opposition is a political act, and so when we refer to the opposition, we mean the politicians to whom we are always committed to dialogue, regardless of what happened in Al-Qseir. As to national reconciliation, I do not think that it can be accurately applied to Syria. It implies a scenario of civil war, as was the case in Lebanon, or the conflict between black and white in South Africa. In our case it is about a national dialogue to determine a way out of the crisis and for the terrorists to put down their weapons. In any case, we are awaiting the Geneva conference, which essentially aims at the same political solution. However there are external impediments; Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, France and Britain, continue to exert all their efforts at sabotaging dialogue in order to prolong the Syrian crisis and prevent a political resolution. Interviewer: How would you define the legitimate political opposition? President Assad: Essentially, any opposition party that does not support terrorism, does not carry weapons, and has a clear political agenda. But opposition groups are also linked to elections; their clout will depend on how well they fare in local administration elections and more importantly, in parliamentary elections. We are dealing with many groups who call themselves opposition, their success will be determined by two important questions: what is their popular base? And what is their political manifesto? We will then act accordingly. Interviewer: Segments of the opposition claim that you have not taken steps to form a united front with them against foreign intervention. Is this true Mr President? President Assad: On the contrary, in the national dialogue conference in 2011, there was an open invitation to all those who considered themselves in the opposition to come forward. Some chose to participate whilst others chose to boycott and blame us for not taking steps towards a solution. But we must ask ourselves, what do they mean by making advances towards them? What should we be offering? Ministerial positions in the government? The opposition in the current government has won hard-fought seats in parliament. When an opposition, made up of hundreds, does not have any seats in parliament how does one ascertain who deserves to be part of the government? We need clear criteria; it should not be haphazard. To put it another way, the government is not owned by the President for him to bestow gifts upon others in the form of ministries. It requires national dialogue and a political process through which the electorate can choose among other things their government an d the constitution. Interviewer: What are your set criteria for dialogue between you and the opposition, could this include foreign-based opposition? President Assad: We have no issues with autonomous opposition groups who serve a national agenda. With regards to the foreign-based opposition, we need to be very clear; its members live abroad and report to western foreign ministries and intelligence agencies. They are based outside their country and are in essence manipulated by the states that provide their flow of finance. They are best described as a "proxy opposition." As far was we are concerned, genuine Syrian opposition means representing the Syrian people - not foreign countries, it means being based in Syria and sharing the burdens and concerns of the Syrian people. Such an opposition would inevitably be pa rt of any political process. Interviewer: Fighting terrorism has become the priority now. In reference to your recent interview most probably on Al-Manar television, you stated that if you were to engage in a dialogue, you would rather do so with the master than the slave. To what extent are you prepared for dialogue with these entities in the future once you have effectively fought terrorism? President Assad: It is for this precise reason that we will attend the Geneva conference. I used the notion of the master and the slave to explain what we know will happen in reality. Negotiating with those who have no autonomy over their own decisions essentially means that you are in fact negotiating with the decision makers who dictate to them how to act, what to accept and what to reject. You will have seen on television recently footage o f the French Ambassador to Syria giving the external opposition orders and insulting them, or the American Ambassador to Syria shouting and insulting them. Therefore in reality, we are negotiating with the United States, Britain, France and their regional instruments, Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia. Those groups who call themselves external opposition are mere employees; hence the masters and the slaves. We hope Geneva conference will push forward the dialogue process in Syria Interviewer: What are your expectations from the conference? Will it be followed by progress or a continued stalemate? President Assad: We hope that the Geneva conference will push forward the dialogue process in Syria especially since, earlier this year we presented a vision for a political solution based on the Geneva I communiqu'e. However, even though we will attend the conference with this understanding, we should be clear on the facts. First, the same countries I mentioned earlier that are supporting the terrorists in Syria have a vested interest in the talks failing. The logical question is: what is the relationship between the Geneva conference and terrorism on the ground? Simply, if the Geneva conference is successful - as is our hope, in preventing the smuggling of weapons and terrorists - there are over 29 different nationalities documented to be in Syria, then this would be a catalyst for resolving the Syrian crisis. However if the smuggling of weapons and terrorists continues, there is no value for any political solution. We hope that the Geneva conference will make this its starting point; it is the single most important element in the Geneva talks, which would ultimately determine its success or failure. Interviewer: If Geneva II fails, what are the consequences? President Assad: The countries I mentioned previously would continue to support the terrorists. Failing to solve the Syrian crisis will make it spread to other countries and things will only get worse. Logically speaking therefore, all parties have a vested interest in its success. As to the external opposition, if Geneva succeeds they will lose their funding; if you don't have money and you don't have popular support, you end up with nothing. Interviewer: Could Geneva II propose a government from different political entities? President Assad: This is what we have suggested in our political initiative. We proposed the formation of an extended government from diverse political entities that would prepare for parliamentary elections; the winners of these elections would have a role in the future. This is an approach that we have been open to from the beginning. Interviewer: Mr President, some of your critics claim that much blood has been shed in Syria; they blame the leadership and see it as an obstacle standing in the way of Syria's future. Would you consider stepping down in order to bring about a new Syria? President Assad: The president has a mandate in accordance with the constitution; my current term ends in 2014. When the country is in a crisis, the president is expected to shoulder the burden of responsibility and resolve the situation, not abandon his duties and leave. I often use the analogy of a captain navigating a ship hit by a storm; just imagine the captain jumping ship and escaping in the lifeboat! If I decide to leave now, I would be committing treason. If on the other hand, the public decided I should step down, that would be another issue. And this can only be determined through elections or a referendum. As an example, in the previous referendum on the constitution, there was a 58% turnout - which is pretty good in the circumstances, and the constitution was approved by 89.4%. The issue was never about the president, however they tried to project it as such in order to force the president to sell out to those countries backing the opposition, in order to install a puppet president. Interviewer: Mr President, you live with your family in Damascus. How much public support do you and your family enjoy? President Assad: When numerous neighboring and regional countries as well as the West are all opposing you, you couldn't possibly continue without popular public support. The Syrian people are highly aware of what is happening and have understood the dynamics of the crisis early on; hence their support for their government and their army. Interviewer: Next year there will be presidential elections, how do you see these elections playing out? President Assad: They will follow the new constitution, in other words multi-candidate elections. It will be a new experience, which we cannot predict at this point. Interviewer: Mr President, what is your vision for Syria in the next five years? President Assad: I reiterate that our biggest challenge is extremism. If we can fight it, with better education, new ideas and culture, then we can move towards a healthy democratic state. Democracy, as we see it in Syria, is not an objective in itself, but rather a means to an end - to stability and to prosperity. Legislations and constitutions are also only tools, necessary tools to develop and advance societies. However, for democracy to thrive, it needs to become a way of life - a part of our culture, and this cannot happen when so many social taboos are imposed by extremist ideologies. In addition to this, there is of course the reconstruction process, reinvigorating our national industries and restoring and opening up our economy. We will continue to be open in Syria, continue to learn and benefit from the lessons of this crisis. One of these lessons is that ignorance is the worst enemy of societies and forms the basis for extremism; we hope that Europe has also learned from these lessons. Interviewer: Mr President, thank you very much. I have been greatly influenced by your personality and your vision; I hope Europe and the West will benefit from this interview and look at you and your country differently. President Assad: Thank you very much and welcome again to Syria. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b8e_1371627822 Curious_George President Assad Interview 18 June 2013, long read Assad, Interview, June 2013, Germany, Terrorists, Regional Conflict Wed, 19 Jun 2013 03:35:38 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a61_1371626600 AnotherDayInAustin While walking to a concert I passed this lady who lost a game of chicken with a city bus. NO WORRIES - she ended up walking away after a lawyer and medics arrived. Morale of the story? Make sure the street is not a one-way street if you're only going to look to one side before crossing! SUBSCRIBE here on LiveLeak for more raw videos of Austin! -AnotherDayInAustin http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a61_1371626600 AnotherDayInAustin Random lady hit by city bus in downtown Austin, Texas Hit, Bus, Austin, Texas, Lady, City, Lawyer, Medic, Lawsuit, Police, Street, Pedestrian, Driver Wed, 19 Jun 2013 03:26:18 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=7fc_1371626458 travisjhake http://www.huffingtonpost.com/justin-guay/us-taxpayers--the-great-b_b_3461659.html A scathing new report out today outlines just how risky some of the world's largest coal export projects are. Funnily enough, they're not the risks environmentalists care about - the fact that they're going to be built inside the great barrier reef for instance. No, what the report is concerned with are the risks to the billions in investment at stake if the projects go sideways. If I had my money on the line (which I might if US Ex Im Bank President Fred Hochberg uses US taxpayer dollars to subsidize this boondoggle ) I'd pay attention because the report doesn't come from just anyone, but from financial industry heavyweights Tom Sanzillo (former New York State Comptroller) and Tim Buckley (former head of Australasian equity research at Citigroup). Before we get into the risks outlined in the report let's start with the project as the developer (GVK) sees it: India has 300 million people without electricity, the country is facing a supply crunch of epic proportions ), and the government is hell bent on building a massive pipeline of projects. GVK is well suited to help fuel this pipeline and alleviate the supply crunch by developing one of the world's largest integrated coal mine, rail, and export project in nearby Australia. Seems pretty cut and dry, what exactly has these analysts so worried? Leverage, leverage, leverage. It turns out GVK is trying to pull a fast one on Australian investors by getting them to pony up the cash for the project to cover the holes in their own balance sheets - which are enormous. Check out the graph below comparing the projects costs ($10 billion) with the current market capitalization of GVK ($243 million). That combined with net deb t of ~$2.7 Billion and GVK faces a whopping 1,149% debt to market ratio. For the financially illiterate - it's a financial crisis waiting to happen. One of the biggest reasons for the crash is likely the fact that despite claiming to be a "leading global infrastructure owner, manager and operator" GVKPIL (a shell company created to hide the company's debt - more on that later) has no experience operating any business outside of India. Worse, it has never successfully built and operated a coal mine - ever. That's right, the company planning to develop the world's largest vertically integrated coal export project smack dab in the middle of the Great Barrier Reef has no experience doing anything like this. This should turn out well. But there's a coal supercycle, never ending demand shall save this from catastrophe right? Not quite. Under existing financial assumptions, the Alpha Project's cost of coal production is likely to render the project uneconomic. The Newcastle FOB thermal coal price is currently around US$88/t, 30% below the peak seen in 2008. This leaves little headroom to move against a largely debt-funded US$10bn project proposal with a cash cost of production estimated to be at least US$70/t. Why does this matter? Because GVK is claiming production costs of US$55/t. Add to that Australian mining history which suggests capital cost blowouts of over 20% are likely, and you have a lot of lost cash. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=7fc_1371626458 travisjhake Crown eco management jakarta-US Taxpayers &amp; The Great Barrier Reef Coal Scam Crown eco management jakarta, US Taxpayers &amp; The Great Barrier Reef Coal Scam Wed, 19 Jun 2013 03:12:16 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=fa0_1371625343 socialism-rocks Is it advisable for one who is not an expert on economic and social issues to express views on the subject of socialism? I believe for a number of reasons that it is. Let us first consider the question from the point of view of scientific knowledge. It might appear that there are no essential methodological differences between astronomy and economics: scientists in both fields attempt to discover laws of general acceptability for a circumscribed group of phenomena in order to make the interconnection of these phenomena as clearly understandable as possible. But in reality such methodological differences do exist. The discovery of general laws in the field of economics is made difficult by the circumstance that observed economic phenomena are often affected by many factors which are very hard to evaluate separately. In addition, the experience which has accumulated since the beginning of the so-called civilized period of human history has -- as is well known -- been largely influenced and limited by causes which are by no means exclusively economic in nature. For example, most of the major states of history owed their existence to conquest. The conquering peoples established themselves, legally and economically, as the privileged class of the conquered country. They seized for themselves a monopoly of the land ownership and appointed a priesthood from among their own ranks. The priests, in control of education, made the class division of society into a permanent institution and created a system of values by which the people were thenceforth, to a large extent unconsciously, guided in their social behavior. But historic tradition is, so to speak, of yesterday; nowhere have we really overcome what Thorstein Veblen called "the predatory phase" of human development. The observable economic facts belong to that phase and even such laws as we can derive from them are not applicable to other phases. Since the real purpose of socialism is precisely to overcome and advance beyond the predatory phase of human development, economic science in its present state can throw little light on the socialist society of the future. Second, socialism is directed toward a social-ethical end. Science, however, cannot create ends and, even less, instill them in human beings; science, at most, can supply the means by which to attain certain ends. But the ends themselves are conceived by personalities with lofty ethical ideals and -- if these ends are not stillborn, but vital and vigorous -- are adopted and carried forward by those many human beings who, half-unconsciously, determine the slow evolution of society. For these reasons, we should be on our guard not to overestimate science and scientific methods when it is a question of human problems; and we should not assume that experts are the only ones who have a right to express themselves on questions affecting the organization of society. Innumerable voices have been asserting for some time now that human society is passing through a crisis, that its stability has been gravely shattered. It is characteristic of such a situation that individuals feel indifferent or even hostile toward the group, small or large, to which they belong. In order to illustrate my meaning, let me record here a personal experience. I recently discussed with an intelligent and well-disposed man the threat of another war, which in my opinion would seriously endanger the existence of mankind, and I remarked that only a supranational organization would offer protection from that danger. Thereupon my visitor, very calmly and coolly, said to me: "Why are you so deeply opposed to the disappearance of the human race?" I am sure that as little as a century ago no one would have so lightly made a statement of this kind. It is the statement of a man who has striven in vain to attain an equilibrium within himself and has more or less lost hope of succeeding. It is the expression of a painful solitude and isolation from which so many people are suffering in these days. What is the cause? Is there a way out? It is easy to raise such questions, but difficult to answer them with any degree of assurance. I must try, however, as best I can, although I am very conscious of the fact that our feelings and strivings are often contradictory and obscure and that they cannot be expressed in easy and simple formulas. Man is, at one and the same time, a solitary being and a social being. As a solitary being, he attempts to protect his own existence and that of those who are closest to him, to satisfy his personal desires, and to develop his innate abilities. As a social being, he seeks to gain the recognition and affection of his fellow human beings, to share in their pleasures, to comfort them in their sorrows, and to improve their conditions of life. Only the existence of these varied, frequently conflicting strivings accounts for the special character of a man, and their specific combination determines the extent to which an individual can achieve an inner equilibrium and can contribute to the well-being of society. It is quite possible that the relative strength of these two drives is, in the main, fixed by inheritance. But the personality that finally emerges is largely formed by the environment in which a man happens to find himself during his development, by the structure of the society in which he grows up, by the tradition of that society, and by its appraisal of particular types of behavior. The abstract concept "society" means to the individual human being the sum total of his direct and indirect relations to his contemporaries and to all the people of earlier generations. The individual is able to think, feel, strive, and work by himself; but he depends so much upon society -- in his physical, intellectual, and emotional existence -- that it is impossible to think of him, or to understand him, outside the framework of society. It is "society" which provides man with food, clothing, a home, the tools of work, language, the forms of thought, and most of the content of thought; his life is made possible through the labor and the accomplishments of the many millions past and present who are all hidden behind the small word "society." It is evident, therefore, that the dependence of the individual upon society is a fact of nature which cannot be abolished -- just as in the case of ants and bees. However, while the whole life process of ants and bees is fixed down to the smallest detail by rigid, hereditary instincts, the social pattern and interrelationships of human beings are very variable and susceptible to change. Memory, the capacity to make new combinations, the gift of oral communication have made possible developments among human beings which are not dictated by biological necessities. Such developments manifest themselves in traditions, institutions, and organizations; in literature; in scientific and engineering accomplishments; in works of art. This explains how it happens that, in a certain sense, man can influence his life through his own conduct, and that in this process conscious thinking and wanting can play a part. Man acquires at birth, through heredity, a biological constitution which we must consider fixed and unalterable, including the natural urges which are characteristic of the human species. In addition, during his lifetime, he acquires a cultural constitution which he adopts from society through communication and through many other types of influences. It is this cultural constitution which, with the passage of time, is subject to change and which determines to a very large extent the relationship between the individual and society Modern anthropology has taught us, through comparative investigation of so-called primitive cultures, that the social behavior of human beings may differ greatly, depending upon prevailing cultural patterns and the types of organization which predominate in society. It is on this that those who are striving to improve the lot of man may ground their hopes: human beings are not condemned, because of their biological constitution, to annihilate each other or to be at the mercy of a cruel, self-inflicted fate. If we ask ourselves how the structure of society and the cultural attitude of man should be changed in order to make human life as satisfying as possible, we should constantly be conscious of the fact that there are certain conditions which we are unable to modify. As mentioned before, the biological nature of man is, for all practical purposes, not subject to change. Furthermore, technological and demographic developments of the last few centuries have created conditions which are here to stay. In relatively densely settled populations with the goods which are indispensable to their continued existence, an extreme division of labor and a highly centralized productive apparatus are absolutely necessary. The time -- which, looking back, seems so idyllic -- is gone forever when individuals or relatively small groups could be completely self-sufficient. It is only a slight exaggeration to say that mankind constitutes even now a planetary community of production and consumption. I have now reached the point where I may indicate briefly what to me constitutes the essence of the crisis of our time. It concerns the relationship of the individual to society. The individual has become more conscious than ever of his dependence upon society. But he does not experience this dependence as a positive asset, as an organic tie, as a protective force, but rather as a threat to his natural rights, or even to his economic existence. Moreover, his position in society is such that the egotistical drives of his make-up are constantly being accentuated, while his social drives, which are by nature weaker, progressively deteriorate. All human beings, whatever their position in society, are suffering from this process of deterioration. Unknowingly prisoners of their own egotism, they feel insecure, lonely, and deprived of the naive, simple, and unsophisticated enjoyment of life. Man can find meaning in life, short and perilous as it is, only through devoting himself to society. The economic anarchy of capitalist society as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of the evil. We see before us a huge community of producers the members of which are unceasingly striving to deprive each other of the fruits of their collective labor -- not by force, but on the whole in faithful compliance with legally established rules. In this respect, it is important to realize that the means of production -- that is to say, the entire productive capacity that is needed for producing consumer goods as well as additional capital goods -- may legally be, and for the most part are, the private property of individuals. For the sake of simplicity, in the discussion that follows I shall call "workers" all those who do not share in the ownership of the means of production -- although this does not quite correspond to the customary use of the term. The owner of the means of production is in a position to purchase the labor power of the worker. By using the means of production, the worker produces new goods which become the property of the capitalist. The essential point about this process is the relation between what the worker produces and what he is paid, both measured in terms of real value. In so far as the labor contract is "free," what the worker receives is determined not by the real value of the goods he produces, but by his minimum needs and by the capitalists' requirements for labor power in relation to the number of workers competing for jobs. It is important to understand that even in theory the payment of the worker is not determined by the value of his product. Private capital tends to become concentrated in few hands, partly because of competition among the capitalists, and partly because technological development and the increasing division of labor encourage the formation of larger units of production at the expense of the smaller ones. The result of these developments is an oligarchy of private capital the enormous power of which cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society. This is true since the members of legislative bodies are selected by political parties, largely financed or otherwise influenced by private capitalists who, for all practical purposes, separate the electorate from the legislature. The consequence is that the representatives of the people do not in fact sufficiently protect the interests of the underprivileged sections of the population. Moreover, under existing conditions, private capitalists inevitably control, directly or indirectly, the main sources of information (press, radio, education). It is thus extremely difficult, and indeed in most cases quite impossible, for the individual citizen to come to objective conclusions and to make intelligent use of his political rights. The situation prevailing in an economy based on the private ownership of capital is thus characterized main principles: first, means of production (capital) are privately owned and the owners dispose of them as they see fit; second, the labor contract is free. Of course, there is no such thing as a pure capitalist society in this sense. In particular, it should be noted that the workers, through long and bitter political struggles, have succeeded in securing a somewhat improved form of the "free labor contract" for certain categories of workers. But taken as a whole, the present-day economy does not differ much from "pure" capitalism. Production is carried on for profit, not for use. There is no provision that all those able and willing to work will always be in a position to find employment; an "army of unemployed" almost always exists. The worker is constantly in fear of losing his job. Since unemployed and poorly paid workers do not provide a profitable market, the production of consumers' goods is restricted, and great hardship is the consequence. Technological progress frequently results in more unemployment rather than in an easing of the burden of work for all. The profit motive, in conjunction with competition among capitalists, is responsible for an instability in the accumulation and utilization of capital which leads to increasingly severe depressions. Unlimited competition leads to a huge waste of labor, and to that crippling of the social consciousness of individuals which I mentioned before. This crippling of individuals I consider the worst evil of capitalism. Our whole educational system suffers from this evil. An exaggerated competitive attitude is inculcated into the student, who is trained to worship acquisitive success as a preparation for his future career. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals. In such an economy, the means of production are owned by society itself and are utilized in a planned fashion. A planned economy, which adjusts production to the needs of the community, would distribute the work to be done among all those able to work and would guarantee a livelihood to every man, woman, and child. The education of the individual, in addition to promoting his own innate abilities, would attempt to develop in him a sense of responsibility for his fellow-men in place of the glorification of power and success in our present society. Nevertheless, it is necessary to remember that a planned economy is not yet socialism. A planned economy as such may be accompanied by the complete enslavement of the individual. The achievement of socialism requires the solution of some extremely difficult socio-political problems: how is it possible, in view of the far-reaching centralization of political and economic power, to prevent bureaucracy from becoming all-powerful and overweening? How can the rights of the individual be protected and therewith a democratic counterweight to the power of bureaucracy be assured? http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=fa0_1371625343 socialism-rocks Why Socialism? By Albert Einstein socialism einstien Tue, 18 Jun 2013 20:59:37 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=8a1_1371603400 Detroit Iron By JOHN FLESHER FAIRPORT, Mich.- A wooden beam embedded at the bottom of northern Lake Michigan appears to have been there for centuries,underwater archaeologists announced Tuesday, a crucial finding as crews dig toward what they hope is the carcass of a French ship that disappeared while exploring the Great Lakes in the 17th century. Expedition leaders still weren't ready to declare they had found a shipwreck or the long-lost Griffin. The ship, commanded by the French explorer Rene Robert Cavelier de la Salle, was never seen again after setting sail in September 1679 from an island near the entrance of Green Bay, in what is now northern Wisconsin, with a crew of a six and a cargo of furs. But Michel L'Hour, director of France's Department of Underwater Archaeological Research and a shipwreck expert, said the timber appears to be a bowsprit, which is a spur or pole that extends from a vessel's stem. It also seems to be attached to another structure below the lake bed, he said. "All the details could be interpreted as part of a bowsprit and there's no details which contract this hypothesis," said L'Hour, who dove to inspect the beam with two French colleagues Monday and Tuesday. "It's why it's the main hypothesis now. A bowsprit which has been buried in the sediment of the lake for many centuries." Commercial divers overseen by scientists last week began excavating at the base of the wooden beam, hoping to determine whether it is part of the Griffin. Steve Libert, a diver and shipwreck enthusiast who has searched three decades for the Griffin, discovered the timber in 2001 and recently obtained state and federal permits to probe beneath the surface. The beam extends 10.5 feet above the lake bed, and underwater excavators were opening a pit at the base of the post to determine whether it's affixed to anything beneath. In another key development Tuesday, they reported that a probing device had detected a hard surface 18 to 20 feet below the lake bed. It could be a ship's hull or deck. "In essence, we have found a floor under that exposed wooden timber," said Ken Vrana, the project manager. "We have more excavation to do before verifying what that surface is." L'Hour said the French archaeologists drew their conclusion about the beam's age after observing differences between the section above the lake floor and the portion below the surface that the pit has exposed. The aboveground section is narrower because of erosion that must have happened over hundreds of years, he said. Libert said he was excited by the reports and had "no doubt" the beam was part of a ship. But it remained uncertain when the team might be able to positively identify the presumed vessel. "I think that maybe Steve found the Griffin," L'Hour said at a briefing for reporters. "I can't be sure, which is why I'm waiting and waiting and waiting for the proof." Although visibly optimistic, the searchers cautioned against expecting quick resolution of a mystery that has thrown numerous hurdles in Libert's path. After years of research led him to an area near Poverty Island a few miles off Michigan's Upper Peninsula, he literally bumped into the timber during a dive. That touched off years of legal battles between his Great Lakes Exploration Group and the state over access to the presumed shipwreck. When the excavation finally got underway last Friday, divers expected to find an object similar to the Griffin's reputed size a couple of feet below the surface, based on sonar readings. It's now believed to be perhaps 10 times farther down. Libert, who says he has spent more than $1 million on his long quest and put the excavation's price tag at "six figures," scrambled to obtain equipment that can dig deeper and is better able to break through the hard-packed mud. It probably will take another day or two to widen the hole and reach the hard surface, Vrana said. The excavation permits expire Friday, although the group could seek extensions. But with the French team scheduled to leave by then, the divers were working faster in hopes of confirming at least the presence of a shipwreck. State officials and Libert's group agree if the Griffin is found, it will belong to France because it was operating under authority of King Louis XIV. Graham Paul, a French consul general based in Chicago, visited the team over the weekend and said his government would favor attempting to recover the vessel. "It would be a major excavation and very costly," Vrana said. But the wreckage could be in surprisingly good condition after being encased in cold mud for 334 years because it wouldn't have been exposed to oxygen, which causes wood and metals to deteriorate, said Dave Miller, an archaeologist with Great Lakes Exploration Group. "That's the best way of conservation for all the artifacts and for the hull," L'Hour said. "One can't imagine something better than this kind of clay and mud." http://news.yahoo.com/scientists-timber-lake-michigan-centuries-old-150750034.html http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=8a1_1371603400 Detroit Iron Scientists: Timber in Lake Michigan centuries old Griffin, Rene Robert Cavelier de la Salle, Green Bay Tue, 18 Jun 2013 19:07:55 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ff4_1371595419 Flashovr Sen. Guillory reminds us who championed Civil Liberties and Equal Rights since the American Civil War. I offer an opinion as to how this political party lost credit for leading the way in this incredible issue. *Correction* Teddy Roosevelt was a Republican, but created the 'Progressive' movement. "Bull Moose". http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ff4_1371595419 Flashovr Civil Liberties Say civil, liberties, equal, rights, civil, war Tue, 18 Jun 2013 16:16:21 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=53e_1371586106 snoopAhLoop A DOLPHIN has died in China after tourists hoisted it out of the water to pose with it for photographs, state media said Tuesday, provoking outrage online. Images posted online showed a group of tourists manhandling the grey creature, which washed ashore on a beach Sunday in the southern Chinese province of Hainan, the state-run Shanghai Daily reported, adding that it later died of "excessive bleeding.'' The dolphin might have collided with a fishing boat before it became stranded, the paper quoted an expert as saying. But instead of trying to help the distressed animal, a crowd of bathers gathered in the water to pose with it, images posted online showed. Several men lifted the dolphin above the water as one of them flexed his muscles for the camera. Users of China's Twitter-like social media service Sina Weibo reacted with outrage at the photographs. "When even the basic respect of life is lost, I just want to say, how can I be proud of you, China?'' one user said in a typical comment. "Chinese style tourism is not about relaxation, but for showing off where one has been...Only by posting the pictures and getting praise and compliments, can the tourist feel he didn't spend the money in vain,'' another said. "Dolphins, as highly evolved mammals, have an IQ only a little lower than humans. But those people in the pictures are worse than pigs,'' wrote another. China, which has a growing animal rights movement, does not currently have any laws to protect non-endangered animals. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=53e_1371586106 snoopAhLoop Dolphin dies while tourists pose for photos China, Tourists, Pictures, Dolphin, Dead Sun, 16 Jun 2013 06:14:55 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=466_1371377390 KLM35AboveUK A mist-covered mountain in Cambodia gives up its treasure. Full Story : http://www.smh.com.au/world/revealed-a-lost-city-and-a-holy-temple-20130614-2o9ds.html#ixzz2WNAPhHHU http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=466_1371377390 KLM35AboveUK Revealed : a <span class="highlight">lost</span> city and a holy temple. Cambodia lost city discovered temple treasure Mon, 17 Jun 2013 13:07:10 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=66b_1371488775 helle as title http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=66b_1371488775 helle #Short Film | ''THE <span class="highlight">LOST</span> POEM'' the lost poem,poetry,amazing video Fri, 14 Jun 2013 22:42:51 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e49_1371263892 Detroit Iron By Garrett Bruno Jun 14, 2013 4:49pm The Democratic National Convention may be long over, but its organizers have not forgotten the almost half a million dollars worth of electronics they seem to have lost. Organizers of the Charlotte, N.C., convention have filed a police report for lost and stolen electronics, some of which they appear to have valued at as much as 62 times the listed market prices. A reportedly stolen 13-inch MacBook Pro laptop? $75,537. The price listed on the Apple website is $1,199. A lost iPhone? $30,503. A lost Blackberry? $54,250. The DNC did not respond to a request for comment. Calls to the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department for elaboration on the report were not returned. Other items reported to have gone missing at the convention included two iPads worth around $15,000 each, laptops listed at $40,000, $34,000 and $25,000 each, and other miscellaneous items worth far more than their list price. The report claimed that 40 items were reported lost and one item - the most highly valued one, the $75,000 MacBook Pro - was stolen. The apparently inflated prices were reported in May with the Charlotte Police Department by Kenneth Hardy, deputy in-house counsel for the Democratic National Convention Committee, on behalf of the DNCC Host Committee. The report was filed almost eight months after the convention, when the losses supposedly took place. The cost of the 41 missing electronics totaled $465,142.97, according to the police report. That averaged $11,344 per item. Attended by thousands, the convention is held every four years to nominate the presidential and vice presidential candidates and establish a party platform. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/06/democratic-convention-organizers-inflate-prices-of-lost-electronics-claim-500k/ http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e49_1371263892 Detroit Iron Democratic Convention Organizers Claim $500K of <span class="highlight">Lost</span> Electronics Democratic National Convention, Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department Fri, 14 Jun 2013 19:13:26 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=de6_1371251554 cajunmojo Democratic National Convention organizers claim they lost roughly half a million dollars worth of electronics during last year's convention in Charlotte, N.C., ABC News reports. "Organizers of the Charlotte, N.C., convention have filed an eyebrow-raising police report for lost and stolen electronics, some of which they have valued at as much as 62 times the listed market prices," the report adds. The value of an allegedly stolen 13-inch MacBook ? $75,537. An iPhone ? $30,503. A Blackberry ? $54,250. "Other items reported to have gone missing at the convention included two iPads worth around $15,000 each, laptops listed at $40,000, $34,000 and $25,000 each, and other miscellaneous items worth far more than their list price," ABC News adds. "The report claims that 40 items were reported lost and one item - the most highly valued one, the $75,000 MacBook Pro - was stolen," the report adds. All in all, roughly $465,000 worth of electronics have been reported as stolen or missing. That's an average of $11,344 per item. The police report was filed in May (nearly eight months after the alleged thefts occurred) by Kenneth Hardy, deputy in-house counsel for the Democratic National Convention Committee. Follow Becket Adams ( @BecketAdams ) on Twitter http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/06/14/54k-for-a-lost-blackberry-read-the-suspicious-police-report-filed-by-dnc-organizers/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- democrats just cannot help themselves, stealing &amp; lying is what they do. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=de6_1371251554 cajunmojo $54K FOR A <span class="highlight">LOST</span> BLACKBERRY? READ THE SUSPICIOUS POLICE REPORT FILED BY DNC ORGANIZERS democrats , liberals , thieves