SNOWDEN

SNOWDEN stars Joseph Gordon-Levitt and is written and directed by Academy Award-Winning Director Oliver Stone. The script is based on the books The Snowden Files: The Inside Story of the World’s Most Wanted Man by Luke Harding and Time of the Octopus by Anatoly Kucherena. Published on Apr 27, 2016.

Annalee Newitz writes that “it’s no surprise that Oliver Stone, a master of political thrillers, is turning the real-life version of Snowden’s experiences into a movie that feels—at least in the trailer—as tense and exciting as the latest Mission Impossible installment. Which is good but also means that you’ll need to forgive this movie for its unrealistic tech tropes. Joseph Gordon-Levitt (Inception, Looper) does a pitch-perfect impression of Snowden as a patriotic geek with smartass tendencies. Injured during military training, he sets his sights on intelligence work, where he scores off the charts on every task the government throws at him. And then one night, one of his fellow intelligence geeks shows him a tool that they can use to spy on everyone in the country. As Snowden has a crisis of conscience, we’re treated to one of those classic ‘hacking scene’ moments where a nonexistent piece of software behaves in ways that make no sense, swirling around and showing us random pieces of private data from all the social networks ever. I know, I know. This is not how it happened. Just go with it. Probably the best part of the trailer, which captures both the serious and mischievous sides of Snowden, is when we see him sneaking data out of the NSA contractor where he works by hiding it on an SD card inside a Rubik’s Cube. Then we see a rapid-fire series of scenes where the stakes get higher, Snowden meets with Glenn Greenwald (played by Zachary Quinto, AKA Spock), and the tension mounts as blinky lights illuminate everybody’s faces. It’s satisfying to see events that aroused so much passion around the world translated into an emotionally gripping story. But ‘story’ is the operative term here. Stone, who co-wrote the film, has taken a lot of liberties to turn this tale of people typing and talking into a suspenseful drama”.[1]

[1] Annalee Newitz, ” Oliver Stone’s Snowden looks like the greatest techno-thriller ever” ars technica (27 April 2016). http://arstechnica.com/the-multiverse/2016/04/oliver-stones-snowden-looks-like-the-greatest-techno-thriller-ever/.

Feeling the Bern: Hilary 2016

The American progressive writer John Stauber (cfr. THE BEST WAR EVER)[1] appears to have predicted what would happen to Bernie the moment the latter stepped on to the stage, “(as could any objective fool)” have . . . and now that the dice has finally been cast, he opines that this is “the Democrat’s political equivalent of the Bill Murray movie classic Groundhog Day, except the progressive candidate never wins the girlfriend, er, nomination, in the end. Instead, the Sanders, Deans, Browns, and Jacksons, the progressive champions of their election cycle, only change themselves from watchdogs and guard dogs to lap dogs, ensuring that cynical and outraged progressives follow their champion-cum-Pied Piper to become advocates for defeating the Republicans in November”.[2]

Stauber goes on to say that “Bernie is an old man. He has lived a fine and worthy public life, but unfortunately he will fade into the sunset without taking the brave step of leading his supporters into finally forming a viable left party in the United States. That would be a true legacy and accomplishment. Even the right wing oligarchs of the Republican Party have realized that the shared monopoly both corporate parties wield over the political process makes a viable third party almost impossible. Yet, for all the noble tirades of the Progressives from Bill Moyers to Bernie Sanders about the power of money and how it must be removed from the process, it is the process itself that is the problem. Two parties, both pro Wall Street and pro military-industrial complex, control the political system. A majority of voters opted out of this farce democracy long ago, so only a minority votes for these parties. Big money has ensured ever tighter domination by the super rich, but even with the dream of meaningful finance reform, the shared monopoly that corporate oligarchs control with their phony two-party system is the real problem”.[3]

‘Sanders on Whether He Would Tell Supporters to Back Hillary: ‘Make These Decisions Yourself’ . . . A young man at the Bernie Sanders–Chris Hayes MSNBC town hall tonight told him about how he and a lot of other Democrats just can’t see themselves voting for Hillary Clinton in the fall. He asked, “Will you encourage your supporters to vote for Secretary Clinton?” . . . “We’re not a movement,” Sanders said, “where I can snap my fingers and say to you or to anybody else what you should do, that you should all listen to me. You shouldn’t. You make these decisions yourself.” So basically, as far as Sanders is concerned, it’s incumbent upon Clinton to earn the votes of his supporters by speaking to the issues that they care about (posted 25 April 2016)’.

The inimitable Pepe Escobar puts it like this: “[s]o it’s a go for Zeus to launch the thunderbolt. Neo-Athena – minus the wisdom – Hillary Clinton, Queen of Chaos, Goddess of War, Empress of the Perma-Smirk, will finally have her shot at the U.S. presidency. After the Battle of New York, she’s on top on number of votes; number of states; number of pledged delegates; number of superdelegates. It seems as inevitable as death and offshore accounts. ‘I don’t think she’s going to be indicted’; thus spoke Donald Trump to Fox News in relation to Servergate. ‘The Democratic Party is going to protect her.’ And yet, assuming he clinches the presidency, Trump said he would pursue charges against Hillary concerning her subterranean email server. Charles Koch, for his part, now admits Hillary might make a better President than, well, Trump or any other Republican (‘It’s possible, it’s possible’) – as much as, in some respects, he considers Bill was a better President than George W. Bush. So would Koch’s billions support Hillary? ‘We would have to believe her actions would be quite different from her rhetoric.’ Which brings us to Hillary as Queen of Turbo-Charged Casino Neoliberalism. And once again, the evidence insists to suggest that her actions do not exactly match her rhetoric”.[4] Oh yes, here we go again. The Empress of Chaos as the Queen of Turbo-Charged Casino Neoliberalism on the domestic and globalist front, while talking nice and giggling uncontrollably, as the next Gaddafi dies screaming . . . or, as put by the always eloquent John Pilger, “Hillary Clinton leaves a trail of blood and suffering around the world and a clear record of exploitation and greed in her own country”.[5] Does this now mean that the only hope for a better world is . . . Trump, I mean Drumpf?!??? There are those who hold this opinion: “Trump is a media hate figure. That alone should arouse our scepticism. Trump’s views on migration are grotesque, but no more grotesque than David Cameron. It is not Trump who is the Great Deporter from the United States, but the Nobel Peace Prize winner Barack Obama . . . The danger to the rest of us is not Trump, but Hillary Clinton. She is no maverick. She embodies the resilience and violence of a system . . . As presidential election day draws near, Clinton will be hailed as the first female president, regardless of her crimes and lies – just as Barack Obama was lauded as the first black president and liberals swallowed his nonsense about hope”.[6]

[1] “THE BEST WAR EVER — by John Stauber & Sheldon Rampton” The Erimtan Angle (08 Oct 2011). https://sitanbul.wordpress.com/2011/10/08/the-best-war-ever-by-john-stauber-sheldon-rampton/.

[2] John Stauber, “#FeelTheBern Goes #UpInSmoke” CounterPunch (27 April 2016). http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/04/27/feelthebern-goes-upinsmoke/.

[3] John Stauber, “#FeelTheBern Goes #UpInSmoke”.

[4] Pepe Escobar, “Hillary: Wall Street’s Golden Girl” CounterPunch (27 April 2016). http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/04/27/hillary-wall-streets-golden-girl/.

[5] John Pilger, “Trump and Clinton: Censoring the unpalatable” RT Op-Edge (29 March 2016). https://www.rt.com/op-edge/337590-trump-clinton-censoring-pilger/.

[6] John Pilger, “Trump and Clinton: Censoring the unpalatable”.

Chernobyl and Nuclear Power: 30 Years of Fallout

’30 years ago today, a botched safety test led to the world’s worst nuclear disaster at Chernobyl in eastern Ukraine. France, with its 58 nuclear reactors, is particularly sensitive to this story. François Hollande reiterated a promise to close the oldest one at Fessenheim but no firm date is set. What future for atomic energy? And could the next Chernobyl be on purpose? It’s a serious question since Belgian authorities revealed that the Brussels attackers had considered targeting nuclear plants. (26 April 2016)’.

 

On a dedicated website, the IAEA presents this potted history of the impact of the Chernobyl disaster: “On 26 April 1986, the most serious accident in the history of the nuclear industry occurred at Unit 4 of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in the former Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic. Since that time there has been much confusion about the real consequences of the accident, including implications for health, the environment, nuclear safety, society and the economies of countries affected by the accident. In 1996 at the time of the tenth anniversary there were major reviews of the information available in an attempt to clarify and synthesise a consensus on the actual consequences of the accident. In 2000-2001, by the fifteenth anniversary, several articles books, and important publications on the topic were issued, and international reviews were prepared on lessons learned. The most comprehensive analysis on human exposures and health consequences of the Chernobyl accident, both for workers of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant, rescue and clean-up workers and for the population of Belarusian, Ukrainian and Russian areas contaminated with radionuclides, was provided by the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR), in its 2 000 Report to the General Assembly . . . In 2001, on the occasion of the fifteenth anniversary of the Chernobyl accident, two international scientific conferences were held in Kiev, Ukraine. The first of them, called ‘Fifteen Years after the Chernobyl Accident. Lessons Learned’ held April 18-20, 2001, discussed lessons learned from the accident in areas of nuclear and radiation safety, emergency preparedness and response, status and future of the Shelter and the exclusion zone, radiation health and environmental effects. The second conference entitled ‘Health Effects of the Chernobyl Accident: Results of the 15-year follow-up Studies’, was held 4-8 June 2001, only considered the health effects of the accident, presented medical lessons learnt and developed recommendations for public health services and for future research. conclusions. During 2001-2002, the UN family organizations UNDP, WHO, OCHA, and UNICEF prepared and published, with the IAEA’s support, the UN report on The Human Consequences of the Chernobyl Accident – a Strategy of Recovery. After a proposal made by Belarus, the IAEA initiated a project in 1995 to convene an international group of high level experts who would review the information drawn from the long term environmental and social studies of the Chernobyl accident and its consequences. The study had been monitored by an International Advisory Committee under the project management of the Institut de protection et de sûreté nucléaire (IPSN), France. The project report, based mainly on the studies carried out by experts from Belarus, the Russian Federation and Ukraine during the period 1986-1995, was published as an IAEA TECDOC, Present and future environmental impact of the Chernobyl accident – IAEA-TECDOC-1240 (3MB). Two further projects were initiated by the IAEA in its follow-up actions designed to mitigate the impact of the accident’s consequences. The first of these was to establish the Chernobyl Forum, through which the relevant organizations within the UN system the governments of the primarily affected countries (Belarus, Russia and Ukraine) and other relevant international organisations could discuss their views on the consequences of the accident and implement, jointly or individually. The Forum was launched in February 2003, and the first Organizational Meeting was convened at the Agency headquarters in Vienna on 3-5 February 2003. The second project is the new series of Chernobyl-related technical co-operation (TC) projects with the affected countries. Through the TC Programme over US $10 million have already been disbursed since 1990 within the frame of 31 completed and ongoing projects aiming to reduce the impact of the Chernobyl accident. During 2003 the IAEA launched its new topical regional TC project (RER/9/074) on the long-term rehabilitation strategies and monitoring of human exposure in the rural areas affected by the Chernobyl accident. The IAEA will continue to support activities aiming to overcome the adverse radiological effects of the largest nuclear accident in human history as long as they are internationally recognized to be justified”.[1]

The above-quoted verbiage appears to consist of a lot of words that indicate that the ultimate impact of Chernobyl is still hard to determine and that the process is still ongoing . . . or a project in progress, if you will.

[1] “Consequences of the Chernobyl Accident” IAEA. http://www-ns.iaea.org/appraisals/chernobyl.asp.

Yeni Hayat

 

#YeniHayatİlkReklam

‘Yeni Hayat’ın her rengine dokunalım istedik. Haliç’ten Sarayburnu’na, Sultanahmet’ten İstiklal’e, Edirne’den Hakkari’ye . . . Siyasetten ekonomiye, kültürden spora, mültecilerden insan haklarına, Türkiye’den dünyaya . . . Demokrasiden özgürlüklere, insan haklarından inanç hürriyetine . . . Türk’e, Kürd’e, Laz’a, Çerkez’e, Ermeni’ye, Rum’a . . . (26 Nisan 2016)’.

 

“Yeni Hayat, evrensel kriterlere bağlı kalmayı, adil olmayı, mazlum ve mağdurların sesi olmayı vadediyor”.[1]

 

[1] https://www.yenihayatgazetesi.com/.

Tayyip Erdoğan Animasyonu

‘Erdoğan Gönüllüleri tarafından 7 Ağustos 2014 tarihinde YouTube web sitesine yüklenmiştir’.

 

Those 28 Pages: Saudi Arabia and its Role in 9/11

‘US President Barack Obama has said the classified pages of the 9/11 Commission report that do not “compromise major national security interests” may “hopefully” be soon released, but argued against any potential legal action against Saudi citizens. Published on Apr 20, 2016’.

‘Finally there is renewed effort to declassify 28 pages of a 838-page congressional report on the events of 9/11. It is all about the role some Saudi officials and others may have played. We have been repeatedly told that the pages are damaging. Should we be surprised? After all, it is said Riyadh supports radical ideologies and groups around the world. CrossTalking with Larry Johnson, Oliver Miles, and Eric Zuesse. Published on Apr 20, 2016’.

Conspiracy Theory Update: Sibel Edmonds Shines A Light on the Brussels Attacks

‘Sibel Edmonds of Newsbud.com joins us to discuss the Brussels attacks. We discuss Belgium’s central role as the base of NATO/EU/Gladio headquarters and how the script of this event follows the script of previous false flags almost precisely. We also talk about the public’s reaction to these events and how both the mainstream and alternative media are being divided and conquered to keep people from questioning the true roots of these events. Published on Mar 25, 2016’.

 

 

The Opium Convention and Drug Control

“On 23 January 1912, the International Opium Convention was signed in the Hague by representatives from China, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Persia (Iran), Portugal, Russia, Siam (Thailand), the UK and the British oversees territories (including British India). Three years later, it entered into force in five countries. The Convention gained, however, near-universal adherence after 1919 when all the countries signing the Peace Treaties of Versailles, St. Germain-en-Laye etc. also became party to the International Opium Convention. Thus by the mid 1920s close to 60 countries had – de jure – signed and ratified the Hague treaty and this number increased to 67 by 1949. The International Opium convention consisted of six chapters and 25 articles. In addition to opium and morphine, which were already under extensive international discussion, the Hague Convention also included two new substances that had become problematic: cocaine and heroin. Cocaine was first isolated by the German chemist Albert Niemann in 1860, and rapidly gained popularity for both medical and recreational use. Heroin was a relatively new drug at the time of the Hague Convention, as it had only become available as a pharmaceutical product in 1898. Ironically, it was originally marketed as a non-addictive alternative to morphine, which was proving problematic in many areas. The 1912 Convention was far from perfect, but it contained many elements of a comprehensive drug control treaty. Moreover, as an official declaration on the dangerous practices of opium smoking and the non-medical trade in opium and other drugs, it had value as an advocacy tool. It also inspired national drug control legislation, such as the 1913 Harrison Act in the United States, the foundation of U.S. drug law in the 20th century”.[1]

In 1925, an upgraded International Opium Convention is passed, extending its scope to cannabis. In 1931, the Convention for Limiting the Manufacture and Regulating the Distribution of Narcotic Drugs aims to restrict the supply of narcotic drugs to amounts needed for medical and scientific purposes. In 1936, the Convention for the Suppression of the Illicit Traffic in Dangerous Drugs becomes the first international instrument to make certain drug offences international crimes. Ten years later, in 1946, International drug control transferred from the League of Nations to the newly created United Nations (UN). The UN Economic and Social Council establishes the Commission on Narcotic Drugs (CND) as the central policy-making body of the UN in drug-related matters. In 1948, the Synthetic Narcotics Protocol comes into force, placing a series of new substances under international control. In 1953, the Opium Protocol is signed, limiting opium production and trade to medical and scientific needs. In 1961, the cornerstone of today’s international drug control regime, the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs is adopted, merging existing drug control agreements. The Single Convention lists all controlled substances and creates the International Narcotics Control Board (INCB). Another ten years later, in 1971, the Convention on Psychotropic Substances is passed in response to increased use of these drugs in several countries. In 1972, the Single Convention is amended by a Protocol to underscore the need to provide adequate prevention, treatment and rehabilitation services. In 1988, the Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances is passed to cope with the security threat posed by drug trafficking in a number of regions. In 1991, the United Nations International Drug Control Programme (UNDCP) is established in Vienna. In 1998, Special Session of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGASS) to strengthen Member States’ efforts to reduce demand and supply of drugs. In 2002, the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) adopts its current name. In 2003, the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime comes into force, strengthening international capacity to counter organized crime, including drug trafficking.[2]

[1] “The 1912 Hague International Opium Convention” UNODC. https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/frontpage/the-1912-hague-international-opium-convention.html.

[2] “Chronology:100 years of drug control” UNODC. https://www.unodc.org/documents/wdr/WDR_2008/timeline_E_PRINT.pdf.

Atatürk Dönemi Daha Yeni Başlıyor?!??

10 Nısan 2016 tarihinde yayımlanan Hakan Aygün’le Analiz: “Gardrop Atatürkçülüğü”nden kurtulduk, asıl şimdi Atatürk zamanı!”.

Orwellian Google: Assange Talks Afshin Rattansi

‘Afshin Rattansi goes underground on when WikiLeaks met Google. Julian Assange discusses the meeting he had in 2011 with Eric Schmidt, then a top executive and now chairman of Google, and 3 others. He says the meeting was nominally over a book that was being written, which was published and had pre-publication endorsements from the likes of Tony Blair and Henry Kissinger, but the question he wanted to know was why was this book being written? He examines the networks behind Google, and their ‘in-house state department’ Google ideas, and reveals that they are pushing the position that the State should control what is and is not published, to the extent of a state body overseeing whistleblowers that they have to go through before they can release any material. He says that Google is in bed with the state department, citing as an example that the girlfriend of Eric Schmidt contacted him regarding arranging a meeting with Hilary Clinton. He also points out that the argument the US military use against WikiLeaks, that the publication of cables could theoretically cause harm, was undermined when the general charged with investigating any harm caused by WikiLeaks testified under oath at the trial of Chelsea Manning that they couldn’t find a single person that had been harmed. He also talks about the mistakes he believe the Guardian made, and how HBGary tendered $2 million a month to attack WikiLeaks and Glen Greenwald. He talks about some of the more recent publications he has made, such as FinFisher, a cyberweapon which can hijack mobile phones and turn on the microphone, and can infect massive amounts of computers by putting itself in the major gateway of a country or ISP. He warns whilst people may be suspicious of the intentions of the NSA and the like regarding the internet, associations you may perceive to be working the other way are funded by the same players. He also points out that the amount of people with security clearances in the US has more than doubled since 2010, with 6 million people now part of this ‘state within a state’ who are subject to extra laws and requirements that are classified – ‘an extremely alarming phenomenon’. Published on Sep 22, 2014′.