Friday, June 11, 2010

Departure Time For Pier Head In Liverpool

Summertime & Saint-Pol-Roussines festivities Camaret

Monday, June 7, 2010

What Colour Is Terrasil For Warts

The fleet and the retraction of the nuclear issue

According to a principle enunciated by Chomsky, the facts are not "hidden" in the sense that in seeking, they are found in the international press. However, they are reduced by their place in the media space: the comment is either totally directed and / or wacky or, for really important issue, the commentary is completely absent. The idea is that policy makers (political and especially economic) need to be informed to make the "right" decisions (by their own standards), the info is public and widely accessible. However, to deter people from decisions that affect them But directly, this information must be diluted and treated as if it had no interest.

Regarding the attack by Israel of the international fleet, it is interesting to focus on brute fact and, importantly, look for subjects that are totally obscured. Search for facts with a report that appeared in the press, but are not discussed and are not reappeared since.

can help in identifying the aberrant appearance of certain comments, which address the subject from a certain axis delusional. Wonder why the topic is discussed under this heading, but why the treatment and conclusion are also crazy. The overall focus detects that there is indeed a serious concern of the author, and look ridiculous to suspect they are trying to move away from the bottom of the problem (effect "cloud of smoke").

Among the comments "bizarre" of the moment, there is the regular claim that the Israeli action "benefits the extremists on both sides, Hamas and the Israeli government are alliers objectives in this case, in order it away as much as possible the opportunity to achieve peace.

is exactly the purpose of the release of phonies of JCall : "Arrest of the fleet in Gaza: a crisis that benefits only the extremists on both sides." It is the frequent subject of many comments at this time.

Yet it is clear that the logic of this assertion is nonsense. It is not my subject here, I'm not going to develop what seems to be obvious. What is interesting

  • why approach the subject from the perspective of "negotiations" (which in this area are lacking and would be based on assumptions Israeli illegal and unacceptable - including, notably, the continued blockade Gaza and colonization),
  • why have this idea that any "process" has been interrupted or compromised by the Israeli action against the fleet?

And then, if we look on the side of "process" and "negotiations" concerning Israel and concern and the basis of its "national security" were just two events that occurred just days before the decision to transform the boat arraissonnement civilian bloodshed in international waters. Two huge events, vital to the consequences, but have known events now completely disappeared from all the comments. If I were the "pro-Palestinian movement" (see my previous post ), I am currently focusing on these topics.

The first event is huge, and we have already seen the deployment of Western bad faith to attempt to evade the consequences. May 21, Alain Gresh analysis on his blog: " Iran to" an international community "post-Western? "
" Ultimately, it all came together: Mr. Recep Erdogan made the trip to Tehran and was sealed May 17, its agreement with President Lula da Silva and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on a ten-point text that sets a course for resolving the Iranian nuclear crisis. "
Alain Gresh describes the Western maneuvers to bury an agreement which, however, is point by point requirements IAEA formalized in October 2009, an agreement which would then mark off the sanctions process and allow the opening of new negotiations:
"What does the text signed under their auspices? First, pursuant to the NPT, Iran has a right to enrichment, after which the country agrees that the exchange of 1 200 kilograms of low enriched uranium (LEU) against 120 pounds of enriched uranium (EU) to 20%, essential to the operation of its research reactor, that the 1200 kilograms of LEU would be stored in Turkey, the time for Iran to receive the 120 kilos of EU that Iran would send to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), within one week of May 17, an official letter formalizing the agreement. By forgoing a significant portion of its uranium, Tehran seriously limits its ability to produce a bomb. "
Ban Ki-moon welcomed the agreement:

" The secretary general of the UN "welcomes the initiative of Brazilian President Lula and Prime Minister of Turkey (Recep Tayyip Erdogan), "said the spokesman of Mr. Ban, Martin Nesirky.
"This underlines that transparency and openness are the keys to addressing the concerns aroused by the great Iranian nuclear program," he added.
"The agreement can be a positive step (...) if followed by more extensive cooperation of Tehran with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the international community," said spokesman.

The official letter in the agreement has been given by Iran to the IAEA next week:
"On Monday, Iran handed the letter of notification of the tripartite agreement signed by the head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (IAEA ), Ali Akbar Salehi, in a meeting at the residence of the Director General of the IAEA in Vienna. "
We have an agreement on the initiative of Turkey and Brazil, signed by Iran, corresponding the requirements of last October. He is greeted by the secretary general of the UN, and Iran formally reported to the IAEA agreement.

But before yesterday, we joyfully announces that following the meeting between Angela Merkel and Dmitry Medvedev, santions could be taken against Iran. This AP dispatch from , like all the media comments on this story, makes no reference to the agreement signed two weeks ago.

And there is barely an hour, the World informs us of the findings of a new IAEA meeting . The agreement Brazilian-Turkish-Iranian is totally hidden, and only the subject of "sanctions is discussed. We will not know why the agreement has no "significant" and does absolutely nothing for the reader to ask.

Another international agreement must be recalled. May 28 (three days before the attack against the fleet), NPT agreement calls for a Middle East nuclear-free .
"This is a landmark agreement which arrived Friday, May 28, the 189 countries that signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) by adopting by consensus a document that proposes to discuss a total ban on weapons of destruction mass throughout the Middle East. This is the first revision of the NPT agreement in a decade. He also mentioned other aspects of non-proliferation, such as disarmament, verification of nuclear programs nationals to ensure they are peaceful, and peaceful use of atomic energy. "
[...]" This conference therefore implies the presence of Iran and Israel. A "nuclear free zone" in the Middle East would have several consequences, first make Israel sign the NPT, which dates from 1970, and to abandon its atomic arsenal, which he never admitted nor denied the existence. Israel would also be required to place its nuclear facilities under supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency. "
A questioning of the Israeli nuclear in a big international forum, That is not common. Moreover, the unilateral breaking of the "nuclear Iran" by linking this to the whole region, we feel the danger to Israel (no doubt, of course, that the Iranians would use this argument, this time with the legitimacy of a declaration of the NPT).

Finally, to truly realize the danger American friend has not vetoed, or made any statement suggesting that the machines would be quickly buried. On the contrary
"Washington is committed to work for the success of such a conference by" creating the conditions "necessary under Ellen Tauscher, Deputy Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security. Shortly after the agreement, Obama welcomed this development. "This agreement includes balanced and realistic steps that will advance non-proliferation, nuclear disarmament and peaceful uses of nuclear energy, which are important pillars of the global non-proliferation". However, Obama said he "strongly" disagreed with the fact that the conference has singled out Israel. "
And three days later, the heroic action of the Israeli army in international waters had the effect, not to delay non-existent "peace process" between Israel and Palestine, but to completely disappear from the international agenda and public comments on these two events on the Iranian nuclear issue and the Israeli nuclear.

We read many comments about the disastrous effects of the attack on a hypothetical process. Totally absurd question. However, the dramatic effect of the Israeli intervention is pure and simple retraction of the political agenda and media progress on the Iranian nuclear issue and putting it in perspective with the official nuclear Israel.

Really, if I was the "movement", I devote all possible energy to put these two events at the center of public comment. For beyond intolerable martyrdom of Gaza, is the overall security of the region and the possibility of a new regional war are at stake

Saturday, June 5, 2010

Invite Friends To First Death Anniversary

The "pro-Palestinian movement"

Yesterday, Gilles Paris, associate editor of International Service world responded to this serious issue (no one raises yet): "Who are the French pro-Palestinian? .

pose the question, is to introduce the idea of an oxymoron, as if "French" and "pro-Palestinian" were two contradictory terms. The picture accompanying the article also shows a young woman with very dull complexion and black hair, his face hidden by her sign, which we see only very eyes makeup. Eastern kind. And summary of the article, as happened in the RSS, said:
"The pro-Palestinian movement in France is based mainly on the left, extreme left and the environmentalists, as well as a network dense associations and organizations. "
This summary is detailed in the article and ends with the mention of an association "Prohibited in the United States'
" The political component of the pro-Palestinian movement is accompanied by a dense network of associations and organizations, whether human rights movements of the man (League of Human Rights), associations of local authorities (Association of French cities twinned with Palestinian refugee camps) and NGOs such as the Committee of charitable and relief to Palestinians (CBSP), which are the majority of members present in the French fleet in Gaza. The CBSP, which has its headquarters in France, was banned in the United States for his alleged links with Hamas. "
" Shifting "is obviously not a neutral term, since it means an ultra-minority splinter group suspected of hazardous activities on the basis of political extremists. I've never heard of, for example, "pro-Israel movement". Yet those are the "pro-Israeli" who are ultra-minority (what we will see later), engaged in dangerous activities and are motivated by political extremists.

motivations of political parties' pro-Palestinian, "as they are laid, are quite distressing:
" On this issue, the position of the extreme left (Workers' Struggle and the New Anti-Capitalist Party) is quite similar, with the denunciation of the diplomatic line between Israel and the United States. "
As for the Greens, it's even worse:
"This is largely due to their historical roots to the left, at least for part of them, the Greens are also in favor of the Palestinian national movement."
To recover only happened very recently, the destruction of Lebanon and Gaza in 2006 and their share of crimes, constant violations of international resolutions, Israeli racism (right-wing government, polls showing the rise of racist views ...), the bombing in Syria in 2007, War Crimes in Gaza in 2009, the assassination in Dubai with European passports in 2010 and the recent murder of activists of the fleet of international humanitarian while it has no reason to be grounds. No, what motivates the "movement" is the denunciation of the Israeli-American axis for ideological reasons (archaic), and for the Greens, it's tied to their tail-positioning "left."

More generally, it refers to the many articles that questioned the degradation of the "image" Israel. When it does not directly concern the West, the articles are concerned about the "anger" in the Arab world (way of defusing the issue: Israel assassinates in Dubai with European passports, but the only consequence would be a decrease in image in the Arab world, as if the Western citizens had no reason to be angry).

These numerous articles on the "image" of Israel are themselves, in reality, communication operations. They suggest that it is only after some specific episodes, and only within a very restricted "pro-Palestinian movement," or the "Arab street", there would be a "bad image" of Israel.

This allows then to pursue our policy of economic partnership, political and military ties with Israel, and never do anything to force Israel to respect international law minimum.

At that point, every time we talk with friends of the "movement" (heh heh), there is always someone to ask "how could we tell people," "understanding the situation" .. . That is to say that even within the "movement" people tend to believe / feel minority. This, in my opinion, produced the loss of time, inefficiency and a large "timidity".

yet and it seems important to me, the only legitimate questions are now:
  • Who are (still, despite all the Israeli crimes) the French pro-Israel?
  • What is the movement pro-Israel? What are his motives?
  • Why do so many European politicians support Israel and they proclaim their "friendship" for that state, while the people who elect them are also mostly critical of Israel? Because
is the blind spot of all this communication: to obscure the fact that all statistics show consistently that the "image" of Israel is a catastrophe for years in Western public opinion.

All these statistics show that Western governments adopt on Israel, opposing views to their publics. She also explains that the "war of communication" by Israel, which may seem bewildering to a nullity, is not really Western public opinion, but above all the Israeli public. Because Western public opinion, despite the belief many pro-Palestinian, are widely know, and especially skeptical about the great "democracy" and the morality of Israeli army.

could always take them back, but I'll just a few examples which point out that the "pro-Palestinian movement" means in reality the majority of Western citizens, and that it is the "pro-Israel movement" that is a specific minority and isolated, but active, effective and valued-on media and politics.

An investigation two days after the attack against humanitarian fleet indicates that 40% of Norwegians are in favor of a boycott of Israeli products . It is not a "negative opinion" is a willingness to act: gold, mobilize public opinion to bring them to "act", even at the very least, is something very difficult to obtain.

Gilles Paris, which speculates on the identity of the "pro-Palestinian movement, had however reported few weeks earlier (before the Israeli attack), a survey by the BBC :
" A BBC poll released April 19 shows the negative image of Israel in the world. In a sample of 28 countries, the Jewish state is stored in the group of countries unpopular with North Korea, Pakistan and Iran, the lowest score. "
In France, only 20% of respondents have a image "mostly positive" of Israel, and 57% image "mostly negative" influence of Israel. In Germany, it goes up to 13% positive and 68% negative. In Britain, 17% positive, 50% negative. Really, we should ask ourselves the question: "Who is this movement pro-Israeli ultra-minority struggling to reach 20% in European countries?" When many of our politicians proclaim their "friendship" for Israel, they speak for whom?

Even the United States, the only country where Israel's image is more positive than negative (and where political discourse is oriented one way in amazing ways), the figures are not so good: Although 40 % of positive image, but still 31% negative. In Canada, only 23% positive and 38% negative.

One of the most dramatic poll was published at the initiative of the European Commission (not to my knowledge, member of the "pro-Palestinian movement) in October 2003. That is to say long before the wars of 2006 and the massacres that have occurred since.

To the question: "For each country, please tell me whether you believe or not it represents a threat to world peace?" Is Israel who received the worst score: 59% Europeans surveyed (55% of French people) believe that Israel represents a threat to world peace. No other country offered such a poor score obtained (even Iran, even North Korea, even the United States of Bush).

Specifically, Israel is there a threat to world peace?
  • 18% Yes, absolutely
  • 41% Yes, somewhat
  • 24% No, not really
  • 13% Not at all.
I repeat: the question is very specific. She does not ask whether people have an image "rather negative" of Israel, but if Israel is a "threat to world peace." So it's a spectacular result in an extremely strong.

Note:
  • Even among those who at the time, are justified intervention in Iraq, 57% believe that Israel is a threat, little difference with those who find the intervention is not justified.
  • higher the education level increases, the more Israel is viewed as a threat (from 50% to 66%).
These points are quite remarkable . Contrary to the widespread image of a "elite" pro-Israel, representing the majority, against a "movement" and playing on a populist anti-Semitism ulterior, more educated people are, the more they believe that Israel is a danger to peace.

Moreover, contrary to the presentation of Gilles Paris (a political movement motivated against the American-Israeli axis) gives almost the same negative opinion against Israel among those who support the intervention in Iraq and those opposed. If the "French pro-Palestinian" were well described that this movement (axis leftist anti-American), it would be a strong match between distrust of Israel and condemning American intervention in Iraq; match found only marginally in the figures.

I know, Gilles Paris, if these 59% of Europeans consider Israel a threat to world peace (no country gets such a bad score) are what you call "the movement pro-Palestinian"? Could you investigate the reasons for the minority of only 37% of Europeans believe Israel is not a threat against peace, only 20% of those who have an opinion "fairly positive"? Are they a movement, they have a political agenda shameful, how they intersect and Islamophobic racist views in Europe?

Tuesday, June 1, 2010

How To Hide My Sink Pedestal And Toilet System

road to publishing?

I raised the editor contacted three months ago and begun to look elsewhere to find a publisher. I sent several emails to publishers in the region to ask them how it is to be published by them.
But as I am under no illusions anyway, I also surveyed for self-publishing, namely to find a printer who does all this for me and not too expensive.
Ben is not won, but there's way to do something.

So I put, as usual, the cart before the horse: while I have no answer, Of course, publishers contacted today (again, the answer will come in two or three months), I made a simulation model for a book format 11 * 18 (paperback wholesale). And finally, I wrote what I thought I had 170 pages A4 in Word, with a font size 14. And my simulation, it gives a novel of 289 pages, including 8 pages of introduction (cover pages, title, copyright, etc..).
So I'll try to let it rest a bit now (especially since I am still waiting for proofreading!), And I'll keep you posted.

In a future post: either the obstacle course for editing, either obstacle course for self-publishing. It's strong!
(and thank you Katie, if you're ever here for explanations, news, pipes, and the time you're willing to spend to answer my questions!)