text:
Home » Uncategorized » Mainstream Media Wakes Up
Mainstream Media Wakes Up 162
October 16, 2011 in Uncategorized by craig
A week late, but the mainstream media has finally learnt (not least through my telling them) that it was the Mossad link that was really worrying Whitehall about Fox.
And I have an article in the Mail on Sunday.
The Indie on Sunday story of a Fox-Israel plot against Iran is a great deal more credible than Obama's announcement of a plot by Iranian used car salesmen to employ the Canadian Mounties to assassinate Justin Timberlake outside the Won-Ton Chinese restaurant in Champaign-Urbana (I may have got some of the details of Obama's fantasy wrong, but what's the difference?)
It is now absolutely essential that Matthew Gould. British Ambassador to Israel, answers the questions I have put to him.
162 thoughts on "Mainstream Media Wakes Up"
Komodo October 17, 2011 at 18:11
Cosmetic adjustments to lobbying rules will take a while to invent, says Camoron:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/oct/17/new-rules-lobbyists-not-rushed?newsfeed=true
Jon October 17, 2011 at 18:34
@Stephen:
I don't agree with you on the "usual anti-Americanism" point – we come, I expect, from different parts of the ideological spectrum. Is there such a thing as racism against Americans? Yes. Should this fact be used to deflect legitimate criticism of an obviously unilateralist and militarist superpower? No. My tuppence worth!
So, what to do? Good question. I'm in favour of the UN. The headquarters should be moved forthwith to a neutral country, so as to reduce US influence and surveillance. A mechanism to abandon the veto at the UNSC should be made a top priority.
In terms of the Fox/Werrity story, firstly a mandatory register of lobbyists made publicly available. This could be instituted in the UK at first but genuine efforts should be made to broker similar agreements in other countries (some already exist). Jail terms would be appropriate for undeclared lobbying, if it is reasonably thought to be deliberate.
I support the call for Werrity et al to be investigated and prosecuted for fraud. We need to see that conspiracy against the public interest, involving secret deals and acting against the spirit of democracy, will be met with reasonable punishment.
Importantly, anyone who becomes a Member of Parliament must relinquish all of their other business interests. This is often scoffed at by those it would most affect – but it is not such a bitter pill to swallow. MPs are paid around £65K/annum and could quite comfortably live on this figure without extra income. I would also be inclined to permit existing parliamentarians the remainder of their term of office, after implementing this law, to dispose of their assets. I would generally agree with blind trusts for pensions and other reasonable savings, if they are properly policed.
No Cabinet or Shadow Cabinet MP may take any paid employment with an organisation relating to the area in which their held posts until five years have elapsed. (If ordinary members of the public would be in agreement, I'd make this ten years.) Ex-members would then have to find work based on their management skills, rather than their contacts or influence.
I am incidentally unsympathetic to the suggestion that some of the above ideas would chase 'talent' out of Parliament. I think it would chase money-grubbers out, which would suit the public interest just fine.
OK, let's have a public no-confidence mechanism for MPs (the recall system). If enough members of a constituency decide that their MP is rubbish/greedy/dishonest/whatever they can petition for a local referendum. I am not au fait with the various proposals on how this would work, but there are various organisations that have been clamouring for this for a while.
Lastly I think I would take a good look at the defence industry. I'm not specifically a pacifist but I don't see how profiting from the sale of weapons can possibly reduce conflict – in fact I think it has the opposite effect. I don't think it is a coincidence that people who run or invest in arms companies are hawks generally, even if the linkage is subconscious. War on Iran/Iraq/Palestine/whoever is good business! I would therefore start with forcing all defence companies headquartered in the UK to open their books – everything they do will henceforth be run on Open Book Accounting. (They could be nationalised instead, but I am not sure that will have as much of a useful effect. Even public institutions sometimes grow the need they were set out for.)
There are loads of extra things I'd support to democratise our political system – voting reform, workplace democracy, a decent independent media regulator etc. but the above will do for now!
Clark October 17, 2011 at 18:58
Protests in China. Isn't this what Marx predicted? All the ordinary folk Vs. all the ruling classes:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-china-protests-20111009,0,7542516,full.story
On Mondoweiss, "the Emergency Committee for Israel [try] to paint the entire Occupy Wall Street movement as anti-Semitic". So the Occupy campaign has responded with a rather nice video of the similar protests in Israel:
http://mondoweiss.net/2011/10/is-occupy-wall-street-anti-semitic.html
Suhayl Saadi October 17, 2011 at 19:02
Jon – brilliant! You're on a roll, man! Big wheel keep on turnin'!
mary October 17, 2011 at 19:09
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23997366-thieves-steal-dostoevsky-unabridged-from-michael-goves-car.do
The wife sounds pretentious. When I last read her stuff before the paywall came in, it was all about domestic bliss in the Gove household, labradors on the bedm waiting for Michael to arrive home, etc.
Apparently according to Ian Bone's blog, the car is still there. A K reg Skoda – a man of the people. No shiny black 4×4 like most of the rest of Surrey. Another pretence.
Heh, cheers Suhayl 🙂
I did wonder about how to deal with the issue of MPs being members of "Friends of Israel" groups. If it is true that 80% of Conservative members belong to such a group (see Wikipedia for reference) then that is of substantial concern, in my view. I understand "Israel's interests", in the way that such groups would define them, as prolonging the occupation, dismissing concerns about Palestinian human rights, obfuscating the details of Israeli war crimes, subverting attempts to establish Palestinian statehood, etc. (Of course these things are antithetical to Israel's long-term security, but that doesn't usually get mentioned.)
So, this 80% sets out specifically to prioritise Israel's needs before Palestinian ones. That should be bad enough, but (as in the Fox/Werrity case) what about the politicians who are prepared to prioritise Israel's interests before British ones?
I should admit to a major bias, however. I regard memberships of "Friends of Palestine" groupings in the opposite way – those members are opposed to the status quo, and would like to bring both sides to the negotiating table without preconditions, so that repeated attempts at agreement can be made. (I should clarify that there are probably members in both groups who in practise oppose justice for the opposite side, but I stick with my formulation in general.)
This presents a dilemma: in what way can a rule be written that prohibits membership of groups that are opposed to Palestinian justice whilst at the same time permitting members their democratic right to join whatever group they choose? If a particular grouping is made illegal according to Commons rules, would that not force such groupings underground?
(This is a stream of consciousness question, since I am afraid I don't think there is an answer!)
Jon, as you suggested, these interests need to be openly declared and also open to scrutiny. Elites will tend to support one another – nothing new there – and so one might almost expect many MPs to gravitate to the prevailing node of power. Imperium has a vested interest in maintaining Israel as a colonial settler-state and preventing real integration into the Levantine area. Like many states, Israel also seems to make it a cornerstone of its foreign policy to cultivate maximal political leverage in key groupings. Israel just seems so much better at it than almost every other state in the world. Perhaps this is partly to do with its positioning as central node in the military-industrial-techonological complex, partly to do with its influential and active constituency within the political apparatus of the USA and partly to do with it assiduous cultivation of European guilt transference.
stephen October 17, 2011 at 22:06
Well I'm sure we do come from different parts of the spectrum – but I certainly wouldn't regard my self as being on the Right but just as a social democrat who is able to see out of both eyes. Yes the US has it faults but in terms of respecting the human rights of its citizens and in its democratic institutions it is light years ahead of what goes on in Iran (or many other Middle Eastern states). The UN whatever you might think is there to defend UNIVERSAL human rights – and I hear very little from you as to what it should be doing beyond Israel and the US and how it might be strngthened in those aims. I'm afraid Ahmenjinabad did not win the last Iranian election and is responsible for a wave of repression against his own population – and is the case with all fascists he is not above playing the racist card (against Israel and the US) in order to support his position. Being on the real Left I believe that steps should be taken against all fascists – and I would prefer to use international institutions rather than bilateral military action, but I do not see ignoring the problem and letting it go away as a viable alternative however. I also believe that action and pressure should be taken against Israel fro its abuses – but you should see how the failure to adopt an even handed approach actaully means that you end up doing nothing to resolve the situation until it blows up in your face.
I also think that some of the things you propose e.g. taking away the veto at the UN Security Council, moving the UN from New York really are just not grounded in reality and what is possible.
I have no problem with transparency re lobbying – but you need to guard against lobbying being stopped and driven into secret – because it is pretty essential that lobbying does occur in a democracy and is seen as listening to everyone regardless of the ability to pay (not much lobbying in Iran other than from one particular viewpoint you will note). I'm not sure about a £65k limit on MPs salaries – some parties would struggle to find qualified resent their views at that salary (much as I dislike Tories I do still feel that they have a right to be represented)
And on the Iran-Saudi Ambassador tale, well, anything's possible, but it does sound suspicioously like entrapment to me. A very convenient entrapment. Watch out for those car dealers – can one believe anything they say?!
Roderick Russell October 17, 2011 at 22:47
Some quotes from the Daily Mirror of 1/10/2011 – "He [Fox} blamed commanders for a "complete breakdown of trust" between the Ministry of Defence and the rest of Whitehall." "Tory Dr Fox said: "The MoD consistently dug a hole for itself that it eventually couldn't climb out of." "Dr Fox has threatened to shed even more jobs unless the MoD's finances are brought under control." Ten days after these comments the scandal broke. Could it be that Fox preempted the attacks on himself by criticizing his own MoD civil servants so publicly?
Stephen, what some people are looking for is simply that, an even-handed approach. That has never been the case, as you well know. There's much more than that, of course, but it would be a start. It's not going to happen, and so the 'blowing up in one's face' – actually, usually in the faces of the people of the Middle East is more or less guaranteed. The USA et al – and indeed all states in the world – absolutely do not premise their foreign policy on universal human rights, they premise it on the acquisition and sustainment of power and wealth, access to resources, etc. I agree of course that domestically, the USA, UK, etc. are by far more preferable places to live in than Iran. Why would you suggest that Jon believes otherwise?
Stephen, earlier on this site – you are the same Stephen, aren't you? – you indicated that you had supported the invasion of Iraq in 2003 even though it was conducted on completely false premises.
Did you – since you are a social democrat – support the invasion of, or sanctions on, Pinochet's Fascist Chile, one wonders?
Hi Stephen, thanks for the reply 🙂
Couple of issues first: we all believe we see out of both eyes, I guess, and I am not sure there is anything I've said that shows I am entirely biased against Israel, or the US, or against MPs. More on that in a bit!
> Being on the real Left I believe…
Ah… (tongue in cheek!): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
> I hear very little from you as to what it should be doing beyond Israel
> and the US and how it might be strngthened in those aims
Well, it would be a mistake here to assume that everyone here (or everyone on the progressive/socialist Left) is reflexively pro-Iran. Opinions vary wildly, in my experience, and on this very forum we have plenty of voices supporting your position – that Ahmadinejad could be dangerous and needs to be considered with caution. My views on the balance of opposing Western imperialism with the need to consider international responses to appalling regimes have, I think, been modified by posting here over the long term.
My dilemma is that no humanitarian intervention undertaken by the UN or NATO will have human rights at its core, mainly because the military-energy-financial complex informs most of the political decisions (the Fox/Werrity farrago is a good example of how that happens). It is (mostly) about power projection and profit, in my view, and how much these motivations can be hidden in propaganda from a lazy and xenophobic media. The question we need to ask ourselves in each case of military action is "Would attacking country X and occupying it, rewriting its laws, neo-liberalising its economy and killing some civilians be better that atrocious dictator Y?" In Iraq, as was predicted, definitely not. In Libya, it is more difficult to say.
So, it's complicated. One could say that "doing nothing is not an option", but as good as that sounds in a speech, sometimes it *is* the right thing to do. Or, sometimes there are good ideas that require patience, like sending neutral weapons inspectors in. I am sure a middle ground was possible in Iraq and in Libya, but aggressive militarists in the US and elsewhere are often not amenable to dialogue/careful solutions.
I agree entirely that "international institutions [are better] than bilateral military action" which is why people were so angry over Iraq. Clearly faked documents (the Niger connection) and a fake informant (Curveball) plus a failure to get international agreement (the second resolution) – bilateralism *and* deliberate, malicious misinformation!
> Yes the US has it faults but in terms of respecting the human rights of its citizens
> and in its democratic institutions it is light years ahead of what goes on in Iran (or
> many other Middle Eastern states).
This is more complicated than that, I think. I agree that Saudia Arabia, Iraq, Iran, and most of the Middle East has had an appalling human rights record and an open contempt for democracy. I also acknowledge that the US and the Western powers have a history of democratic rights, a matured judicial system and a relatively free press. But I suspect the US and its coterie (i.e. the UK in particular) has been responsible for more unjust deaths and suffering in the last fifty years than most of the rest of the world's atrocities put together during that time.
This is of course a paradox. How can a democratic country kill more people than an authoritarian one? Partly the answer is that democratic countries are not as democratic as we like to think they (we) are. We also (as mentioned earlier) cloak the injustices we perpetrate in misinformation, lies and spin.
This is an unfair comparison, since every superpower will kill to achieve its greedy aims – history teaches us that plenty of countries have tasted Imperialism, spilt blood, and enjoyed the spoils. We find it difficult to see the modern superpowers in that light because the history books have not yet judged them, and also – as you quite rightly say – those powers in theory have laws to check their behaviour. But a corollary of this position is that it is preferable (on balance) to have a religious nutter leading an imperialist and nuclear United States than it would be to have a religious nutter leading an imperialist and nuclear Iran. Obviously it would be nice to have had neither, but one of them has already happened (the other one could too, if one argues that a nuclear Iran would become imperialist).
On MPs salaries – I think they could get by on £30K, frankly. It is above the mean wage in the UK (which sits around £26K last I checked, and that is much higher than the median wage). But if we could have a Parliament of people whose only income is from the government and whose only priority was their constituents, then yeah, they can have a big fat raise. I'm not comfortable with it, as I think big fat wages give rise to negative social consequences, but if that is what it takes to clean up Parliament…
> I also think that some of the things you propose e.g. taking away the veto at
> the UN Security Council, moving the UN from New York really are just not
> grounded in reality and what is possible.
I would say that, as things stand, a permanent peace accord in the Middle East looks exactly as likely as either of these. But you won't catch me dismissing the possibility of peace as "not grounded in reality". We have to hope that it is possible 🙂
How about some "even-handedness" wrt Saudi Arabia or Bahrain? And you make thee comments, Stephen, in the face of a UK Govt Minister supposedly having been caught with his pants down, making backroom deals with a foreign power to destabilise and/or attack other countries.
And we are supposed to beleive that Fox did not have the blessing of the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister? If he did not have the blessing of the FS and PM, the FS and PM are grossly incompetant and if he did, the FS and PM are also deeply involved in destablising other countries and possibly of putting the intersts of the MIC above those of the UK.
Of course, we know fine well – recent history tells us – that the UK has destablised countries/regimes when it sees its interests being contingent with that dynamic. Trying to pour a human rights gloss over that granite simply won't work any more, Stephen.
No-one would be the least bit interested in human rights in Iran if all Iran sold was caviar from the Caspian. The USA/UK are after Iran's oil and gas. The regime in Iran is a shit regime. I know people in Iran – who are no friends of the CIA/MI6, btw as they know full well what those organisations have done to their country/their people – who, esp. since July 2009, have been in fear of their lives. But even if the regime were a model one in relation to human rights in that country, the geopolitical dynamic would remain the same. I don't know why you imagine that people are so stupid as to not to be able to see all of this clearly. With both eyes wide open.
Absolutely, Jon. The Islamists in Iran massacred the Left in Iran during the 1980s. But the 'choice' now facing the people of Iran seems to be b/w the Islamists – torture, repression and death – or dismemberment, mass death and re-colonisation by the West, in other words, having an 'Iraq' done them.
Let's focus back on Liam Fox and the hard work he – and possibly others – may have done for the Israeli MIC and weapons dealers in general, work which makes Mark Thatcher's alleged crooked exploits look like playground games.
Totally pathetic as was expected. The BBC give us a preliminary.
October 2011 Last updated at 22:43
Liam Fox broke ministerial code, official report to say
Mr Fox resigned on Friday after a week of allegations relating to his friendship
Q&A: Liam Fox row
Profile: Liam Fox
Timeline: Fox and Werritty meetings
Former Defence Secretary Liam Fox broke the ministerial code in his dealings with his friend Adam Werritty, an official report is expected to say.
Mr Fox resigned on Friday after a week of allegations over his working relationship with Mr Werritty, a lobbyist and former flatmate.
The BBC understands a report by Cabinet Secretary Sir Gus O'Donnell will find Mr Fox broke the rules.
!!+++++!!
But it will conclude Mr Fox did not gain financially from the arrangement.
In resigning, the defence secretary said he had allowed his personal loyalties and professional responsibilities to become "blurred".
He had been criticised for his conduct in relation to Mr Werritty, who had claimed to be Mr Fox's adviser, joined him on 18 foreign trips and arranged meetings for him despite having no official government or Conservative Party role.
Fedup October 17, 2011 at 23:51
Another Iran "Expert", pray tell, how did you adduce; "people of Iran seems to be b/w the Islamists – torture, repression and death – or dismemberment, mass death and re-colonisation by the West, in other words, having an 'Iraq' done them"
Further, you seem to have not understood; there already exists an Algerian "National Transitional council" in exile, crack addicts and money junkies always go after little old ladies and not strapping brutes, whom are likely to kick their arse to hell.
If the neocon could have attacked Iran, they would not spend a single minute to bitch and moan, coming up with B movie plots.
The unbelievable chauvinism on display on this borad discounts people whom want to lead their lives based on their religious beliefs.
PS Take a look at the Mediterranean map and then tell me what you see سهیل?
@Fedup – sorry, I didn't follow much of that at all.
Most people here, it should be said, strongly support religious freedom. I do to, even though I tend to disapprove of religion. My formulation to permit freedom but to trammel the harm of evangelism, though in jest, is "permit religion, ban churches"!
Maidhc Ó Cathail October 18, 2011 at 04:47
There appears to be a curious silence in the Iranian media about a Mossad-linked plot to overthrow President Ahmadinejad. Might it have something to do with this
little-analysed point?
"In May 2009, Mr Werritty arranged a meeting in Portcullis House between Mr Fox and an Iranian lobbyist with close links to President Ahmadinejad's regime."
Has anyone seen any discussion of this aspect of the affair, anywhere?
According to the Mail's coverage, sensitive defence information was passed to Werrity – and then to Luke Coffey – by Boulter, in the belief that it would go to Fox. Did it? Have either Werrity or Coffey so much as signed the OSA, ever? Who the hell is Coffey anyway?
http://hotterthanapileofcurry.wordpress.com/2011/10/10/liam-fox-adam-werrity-but-no-mention-of-luke-coffey-cia-agent-with-access-all-areas-pass-at-the-mod/
Incidentally, the commentator "Komo" on this site has no connection with me. He has C&P'd a quote which I earlier C&P'd here, which is cool.
And another one bites the dust –
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/oct/17/jonathan-djanogly-stripped-power-ambulance-chasers
As for who cares about the Iranian Government for reasons other than oil – well I think many Iranians do, I do and Is suspect most decent human beings do as well. It should also be noted that many Israelis – both ordinary citizens and those in government do as well. And indeed it could be said that given the noxious statements of the Iranian leadership with regards to Jews and the Holocaust that the Israelis have not a little justification in portraying Iran as the bogey man.
As for who is responsible for the most deaths in wars and conflicts in the last 50 years – might I suggest that you go back and look at the statistics – you may find that the 11m deaths which occurred during the Cultural Revolution rather disprove your argument. And in that regard perhaps it is worth noting how almost without fail the current Chinese Government can be seen as standing behind most of the world's remaining dictatorship and is among the first to argue against any action being taken against the same.
Suhayl – human rights are not a gloss – it is not for no reason that they are at the heart of what the UN is meant to stand for. I have no problem whatsoever in criticising the human rights abuses which occur in Saudi Arabia and Bahrain or anywhere else for that matter.
As for the Liam Fox thing – I'm afraid it really doesn't tell us anything new about the world – there are those which to see the whole Arab Israeli conflict as a continuation of the Crusades. I for one never doubted their existence within the ranks of the Tory Party or that they will continue to exist. But there is another side to the same grubby coin.
Yes democracies do things in the rest of the world that they should be ashamed of – the one fundamental difference is that the citizens in those democracies can do something about should they wish and their citizens can also stand up for those in the rest of the world whose human rights are being denied. We have the freedom to say a plague on both of your houses without endorsing one or the other.
The other thing that you don't realise that once you appease the fascists and dictators you are actually weakening your own moral legitimacy to use your democratic rights to stand up and point out where your rulers are often abusing the self same rights
Sunflower October 18, 2011 at 14:02
@Komodo "Who the hell is Coffey anyway?"
Obviously, he is the CIA-op in this plot. The acronym for Council for Emerging National Security Affairs is CIA, as far as I understand.
Seems wherever there are Ziocon interests you always find both Mossad and CIA.
Stephen, on the 11m figure – is that from the Great Chinese Famine? Wikipedia puts various estimates as much higher. I don't know that history well enough to analyse it unfortunately – so my ability to independently determine how much of figure X was deliberate and how much was due to natural disaster is somewhat limited. Says WP: "In 1960, an estimated 60% of agricultural land received no rain at all".
But, your general point is taken. Let us assume that the 11m figure is correct, and is wholly attributable to the malice of the Chinese government at the time. I would not be the first to refute it – there have been plenty of malicious governments in these last fifty years! But in Iraq, the sanctions cost around 1M lives (half of them children, as acknowledged by Madeline Albright). The second invasion and occupation has cost somewhere between 100K and 1.2M lives, depending on which report one reads. Vietnam, easily 1M. East Timor, 200K. Guatemala, 100K. Indonesia, 500K-1M. Afghanistan in 1979, 1M dead, 3M disabled, 5M displaced.
And so it goes on. This is just a sample, and doesn't include those who were deliberately tortured, raped, shot, dismembered and all the rest of it. As I say, all superpowers throughout history have had their chance at depravity on this scale, and now it is the turn of the US. Is there another nation in these past fifty years that has sown so much international discord and suffering?
Still, we can agree to disagree. Perhaps my leftism is idealistic – the basic structures we have (particularly the UN) are okay but they need to democratise. In fact, everything needs to democratise more; as has been discussed on this site many times, if we can inject some real democracy into our national (UK, US) structures, that would build a much better set of international groups whose intent was genuinely human rights, rather than the conflicting mix of justice, propaganda and brutality we carry out now.
@Jon,
Taking a look at Mediterranean basin map, would clarify the mindset that belies the slow push towards Supremacy/Total Domination or bust attitudes of the psychotics assigned the task of holding the US empire together, and ensuring its longevity. In fact Mediterranean is gradually being transformed to an exclusive lake for the US, and her satellites in Europe. Securing this area from any potential intrusions of Chinese or Russian naval assets, in anticipation of potential confrontation, and military clashes in the area. Furthermore, stationing military assets throughout the lands surrounding Mediterranean basin, in further enforcement of isolation of the basin. These steps are in complement to the control of ingress and egress routes through the natural choke points; Strait of Gibraltar, and the Suez Canal.
The project was kick started with destruction of Yugoslavia (Milosevic's representatives hinted at this in early stages of his trial in Hague), and its dismemberment to the current political geographic arrangements in the Balkans, Furthermore, this has been followed by insertion of National Transitional Councils, into various victim countries, which happen to share the topography of the isolation strategy, as in the case of Libya. That is to be followed, by Algeria (NTC has already been cobbled together), followed by perhaps Syria (NTC has been formed, and introduced in Istanbul), Tunisia sandwiched between the land masses of Libya and Algeria is most likely to escape this fate, however Morocco in all probability will be somewhat pruned to fit the scheme.
Support for this line of thinking is found in Qaddafi's demise. We all knew he was a complaint vassal, yet he has been deposed, and Libya is currently under the occupation of NATO albeit a small force, nonetheless a bridgehead put in place for future rapid deployment scenarios. For domination of the area, there exists a need for contiguous and uninterrupted topography of deployed forces stationed in the area. Therefore, the formulae applied, itself is a variation of Gene Sharp doctrine; "how to start a revolution" as applied in the case of the colour revolutions in the former Warsaw pact countries.
, and then and as well as through insertion into the beaches sounding the basin. This step is complimentary to introduction of the missile defence shield which in theory would secure the survival, after a engaging in a first strike scenario.
To this end "National Transitional Councils" have come to play an important part. The various NTC are manned by the West friendly dissidents, whom in turn legitimize the subsequent waves of aggression on the target country. Furthermore these client states mostly armed by the West, find their supplied military equipment ineffective due to the identification friend or foe systems that stops these kit from functioning, in any confrontation with the US, or NATO forces. This is apparent from the lack of any retaliation against the invading NATO and US forces, by any of the air forces of the victim countries, or lack of use of any sophisticated weapons systems, despite heavy investments made by these various countries in such weapon systems. These seem to only use the rudimentary and established low-tech weapon systems, and find their high tech stuff to be very bulky and expensive paper weights
However, the above contention is lost in the reportage of the events, and passed as the triumph of integrated battle systems in the fight to invade these victim countries. That is despite the propensity of the high-tech to break down and frequent malfunctions. Yet this is glossed over with great adverts that are aired as news programs, accompanied with glitzy packages aired to convey the overwhelming force application that paralyses the enemy. However, in the words of Vladimir Putin in 2003 we find the truth; "America cannot be defeated at this stage, world needs America" aired during the period which American forces were at a halt during the dust storm in the Iraqi deserts.
Without boring you too, much, the plans drawn up by the US generals whom fought the last war, call for domination of the topography, whilst discounting space born (protection umbrella of MDS), and intercontinental missiles , which are developing too. As with the multiple war head weapons, armed with war heads, and decoy heads to confuse the Missile Defence Shield, as well as introduction of intricate trajectories, that will evade the MDS. Not mentioning anything about space born devices, which have come a long way from the days of the cannons stationed in space ( Soviet Almaz Craft, US. MOL).
Fact is for US to remain dominant, its supremacy can only be through application of force, and destruction of any potential competitors, without either of which US will surely fail. Therefore, the only course of action for US is to be found in first strike doctrine (nuke them first) and then reliant on Missile Defence Shield, survive any potential retaliation. Furthermore, by dominant control of the resources; raw material, hydrocarbons, etc. US can set the index of growth of any potential competitor, avoiding any potential competition.
Therefore before war on Iran US has to cover many bases, because war with Iran is not going to be the cake walk to Baghdad, and or bouncing rubble in Afghanistan. Iran is not a push over, and furthermore is the red line that will invoke Chinese and Russia wrath. Althea their current strategy of easement are in fact is fishing in muddy waters. This can be seen in Russian navy's anchorage in Syrian ports, and the Chinese Persian Gulf Fleet already formed and ready, only awaiting a nod from Iranians.
Hence my incredulity in the face of regurgitation of the usual info bytes fed to public. It is to be found on various discussion boards. It is tiring to see thinking contracted out to various media, without scrutiny of why the information has been made available in the first place, given the fact that any information of any value has always been tagged with "secret, top secret, etc".
Finally, in the face of onslaught of the lunatics bent on destruction of all things, by misinterpretation of the doctrine "Creative Destruction". The firs target proves to be any means of organisation of the masses; political, religious, tribal, etc. Hence the almost non stop Islam bashing, and the constant torrent of anti Islam propaganda, because the only obstacle to all of the convoluted plans afoot; prove to be organisational capabilities, and cohesion of the target people/masses. With this in mind, we witness the frequently regular, coordinated two minutes hate rituals directed at Iran, which somehow have come to be presented as accepted facts. Fact that Iranians, and others wish to live their lives based on their religious beliefs, is somewhat misconstrued as they are being forced/coerced to live under such circumstances. The plethora of assumptions, assertions, followed by customary denunciations, all traits of primitives lacking intellectual capacities, somehow has come to be accepted as the main stream modes of thought. This is so evident in the material available in public domain, which have no roots in fact, for anyone whom remotely is familiar with Iran, Iranian and their culture. Ever seen a missionary from Iran anywhere on the planet, who is busy civilising the ungodly heathens, and converting the to Islam? Islam does not work on evangelism, it is a way of life, hence the almost phobic response to this un Wall Street system of beliefs, and political constructs.
I ought to have tidied up before pressing submit, alas I am tired, and exhausted, hence apologies for the spelling mistakes and untidy grammar, etc. However, I hope I have clarified my contentions.
I agree with just about everything Fed Up wrote in the long post above. I know that Fed Up will ignore this. I do not agree with this, however:
"Fact that Iranians, and others wish to live their lives based on their religious beliefs, is somewhat misconstrued as they are being forced/coerced to live under such circumstances." Fed Up.
I personally know Iranians in Iran (and who recently have left) who are very much being forced to live under such circumstances. These include people who lost family in the various wars and who are against US foreign policy and want Iran to remain independent. Your comment in an earlier post that the blog "discounts people whom want to lead their lives based on their religious beliefs" actually is an illustration of part of the problem. The problem in relation to this specific matter – which in my view has nothing to do with the geopolitics around Iran – that too often such Islamist cadres, whether in the majority or minority, demand maximum tolerance and the right to do whatever they want to do in the name of religion but when they get into positions of power and influence they then deny others the right to do the same and oppress others to the point of death. They have proved this on numerous occasions and in a wide variety of places: Pakistan, Iran, Afghanistan, Egypt…
Now, as I said, Iran would be under threat from the USA/NATO even if, politically, it were 'Switzerland' or 'Sweden'. Indeed, possibly even more so, as then, like Nicaragua in the 1980s, it would provide an example to other Muslim countries which would need to be destroyed. The West instrumentalises Human Rights – we all know this. That does not make the consistent abuse of human rights a good thing.
Stephen, thanks. Yet your support for military intervention (i.e. war) sees to coincide almost wholly with Western military intervention. So why not simply say, "I support Western military intervention, regardless, in support of Western economic and strategic interests". Why this need for gloss and redemption? 'Human rights' in this context is simply instrumentalised to serve US/NATO goals; a re-run (or rather, the ongoing imperial saga of) Lord Palmerston wrt Europe, C19th. And who, actually, "appeased" (much more than appeased in fact!) the dictators, set up many of the dictators, in Latin America, South Asia, the Middle East, etc.? Uhm, the West. Yes, well.
@suhayl
So why not simply say, "I support Western military intervention, regardless, in support of Western economic and strategic interests".
Because that is not what I believe as you well know. I do believe, however, that the best way of dealing with facists and other totalitarians is for interenational institutions to come down on them extremely hard and treat them as pariahs at an early stage. Such a course of action will often remove the need for war and protect human rights. If this action is postponed and the totalitarian state then becomes stronger and abuses human rights further then military action is likely to be necessary if it has a practical chance of success. Whether it is Western or otehr military intervention isn't really the point – the Soviet Union acted against the NAzis in WW2, the Kurds acted against Saddam (without western support for many years), Tanzania acted against Amin.
Suhayl
From your standpoint do you believe that it was coreect for the Allies to wage war against Nazi Germany and its allies? If you do – you must accept that there is some line where military intervention is appropriate to defend human rights even if it also coincides with defending Western strategic and economic interests. You may place the line in a different place from me – but there is still a line.
Yes, I agree, Stephen, there is a line – and it was right that the Allies fought Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, but Iran and Iraq were/are not Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan. Nor did/do either of them have any possibility of becoming like Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan in terms of power, threat to the world, etc. That parallel, constantly pulled up by proponents of the invasion of Iraq, for example, holds no water whatsoever.
Re. your previous post wrt tolalitarians, Stephen, if that rule were applied even-handedly across the board, then fine. But clearly, it's not. Quite the opposite, in fact. That was one of my points actually. Everyone can see that the West actively supports Saudi Arabia and Israel (and Pinochet's Chile, and the Brazilian Fascist junta, and Ian Smith's Rhodesia, and the death squads in El Salvador, and when it mattered, apartheid South Africa, and on on and so on) and so long as it serves perceived Western interest to not do so, applies zero real pressure for these countries to change their domestic and foreign policies. Yes, there are shifts and rivalries within imperium. But in essence, So then, everyone can see that whatever the West says is couched in such fundamental hypocrisies. This ongoing colonial/neocolonial dynamic (the "forked tongue", one might say) – as well as much else systemically wrong in many majority Muslim countries – allows the Islamist military/paramilitary cadres, for example, to gain a real constituency.
← Radio 4 on Fox
Tilda Swinton →
That Leaked Labour Party Report
The Philip Cross Affair
Point of Order
SARSCoV2 "outbreak" on isle of Barra in Scotland
Clark on SARSCoV2 "outbreak" on isle of Barra in Scotland 1 hour, 15 minutes ago


MAP6, a five-member K-pop male idol group that debuted in November of 2015 with the album "Storm," will be making their debut in Japan in January of 2016.
According to Dream Tea Entertainment, their management agency, they will be releasing the Japanese version of their debut album "Storm" in January, and will have a showcase and a fan meeting. They seem quite popular already, as 6,000 copies have been pre-ordered.
MAP6 will promote themselves in Japan for 17 days, between January 9 and 25. Their showcase will take place in Tokyo, and other promotional events are scheduled in Tokyo and Osaka.
Are you excited to see MAP6 cross over to Japan?


ROUNDUP, MUSSELSHELL COUNTY, MONTAN. FRIDAY. NOVEMBER 1, 1912.
DATES GIVEN ENTHUSIASTIC RECEPTION ALL OVER COUNTY.
them again. W. R. ALLEN."
first time this season on that night.
fifth column on the ballot.
bad for the man on the platform. Mr.
tical capital out of that statement No.
case In a manner that received Mr.
rlitlcs as well as in other matters.
use this as an argument against Mr.
and making an active campaign.
for him by electing him as Mussel-!
and he hag not failed to Impress the !
voters that he is fully qualified to look !
G. J. Jeffries, our next county attor- !
to receive, is an absolute certainty.
until the day after election.
in the nature of a smoker.
er«ti column on the ballot.
t j on j s considered a certainty.
fully considered. The board decided!
heating plant in the school building.
eu percent of them will go to the polls.
Co. at Camp Three and Klein.
t m , f ..
waged by the Lavina Commercial Club.
received here Thursday, Hon. Dan W.
never have been used against Mr.
i ? all I have heard of.
the fifth colum n on the ballot.
PAIGN THINKING THAT QUESTION WOULD BE SUBMITTED.
and other points nij which l.avina.
those placcg the necessaries of life.
that there was six inches of snow and !
tening to some of the local candi ' ''es..
Roundup, Mont., Nov. 1, 1912.
Hie laws of the State of Montana.
on the last day of October.
DESMOND. J. O'NEIL, Co Atty.
fifth column on tlie* ballot.


INTRODUCTION – Welcome to Our Site's User Agreement (hereinafter "Agreement" or "Terms and Conditions.") The provisions of this Agreement will govern Your use of, or access to, Our Site(s), and You should therefore take some time to read the Agreement carefully. We hope that You thoroughly enjoy Our services, and anticipate that You will find Our Site useful and informative. Should You have any questions or comments regarding Our Site, or its policies, please feel free to contact Us at: Support@VaporKiss.com.
1.3.1 Niche Design, LLC is the operator of VaporKiss.com. Hereinafter, Niche Design, LLC shall be referred to as "Company." When first-person pronouns are used in this Agreement, (Us, We, Our, Ours, etc.) these provisions are referring to Company as publisher of this Site and/or any other site that we may choose to operate in the future. Additionally, when the terms "the Site" or "Site" are used, these terms refer to any website published by Us, unless a site is specifically exempt from this Agreement. Our Site(s), and the Services the Site provides ("Services"), may contain images and content, including but not limited to text, software, images, graphics, data, messages, or any other information, and any other website content owned, operated, licensed, or controlled by the Company (collectively, "Materials").
2.6.1 You may cancel Your membership at any time by deleting your account through the "My Account" page. Please understand that if you delete your account, you will lose all credits. If you need help or have any questions, please contact us at support Support@VaporKiss.com and we will be happy to assist you.
3.2.3 3.2.3.	In order to further Our zero-tolerance policy, You agree that You will report any images, real or simulated, that appear to depict minors on Our Site. If You see any images or other depictions that are questionable, You agree to report these images by emailing Us at Support@VaporKiss.com.
11.1. The name of the Site, VaporKiss.com, is considered a service mark owned by Us. We aggressively defend Our intellectual property rights.


text:
View Johnson Controls Brands
DISTRIBUTED ENERGY STORAGE
BUILDING AUTOMATION AND CONTROLS
RESIDENTIAL AND SMART HOME
Thermal Illustra
India Global
ACCESS CONTROL + EVENT MANAGEMENT VIDEO SECURITY INTRUSION SECURITY SOFTWARE DOWNLOAD
Aviation Commercial / Industrial Education Financial / Banking Gaming, Sports & Leisure Government Healthcare IT / Telecom / Professional Services Oil & Gas Ports / Maritime / Transportation Residential Retail
bts-india-tspmarketing@jci.com
Access Control + Event Management
Video Security
Intrusion Security
Gaming, Sports & Leisure
IT / Telecom / Professional Services
Ports / Maritime / Transportation
Solution /
The security issues facing the Aviation industry are both specific and demanding. Airports are a hub for the movement of a large number of passengers and for the handling of high volumes of baggage and cargo. Even in the light of the global recession and the fact that the aviation industry lost about $9billion in 2009 and is forecast to lose about $3billion in 2010, it is likely that airports and airlines will have to maintain a double digit growth in security spend over the next 3 to 5 years to meet the increasing threats from terrorists.
As the Aviation industry continues to evolve, it faces a unique set of challenges that are set to test the ingenuity and resilience of the sector. From the tough economic climate to the increasing overheads required to meet the ever changing security standards and the pressure to significantly reduce carbon footprints, airports and airlines increasingly have to use technology to help them meet their business goals.
Common issues associated with airports include passenger and staff safety, managing access levels and cargo theft. All these challenges can be met with an integrated solution from Tyco Security Products.
Passenger/Staff Safety
Passenger safety is paramount to the carriers as their reputation depends on it and the ever present potential threat to staff of aggressive passengers must also be managed effectively. With large open public areas to monitor and issues such as unattended bags to track, having cameras positioned effectively and recording high quality images is an essential deterrent. It gives peace of mind knowing that any incidents will be seen on cameras and then recorded onto the Digital Video Management System. Video clips can be quickly exported to DVD/USB for any ensuing police investigation.
Tyco Security Products can provide a range of solutions from standalone access control, CCTV, intruder and Fire systems to a customized single screen solution that will integrate not only those platforms but will link to other airport systems to produce a centralized control system that can address not only the needs of the security department but can provide crucial information to other areas of the business. Historically the security systems within airports were typically standalone systems, but increasingly airports are integrating systems to provide a more business centric focus.
Total Integration with External Agencies
Cargo Theft
In today's climate of volatile threat levels it is vital to ensure that only authorized personnel have access to restricted areas. Electronic security can help achieve this. Our access control products have specific features designed to meet the needs of an aviation environment from the advanced monitoring of doors to reduce false alarms to the ability to have a portable reader that can be used to validate staff at remote areas of the airport where cabling infrastructure does not exist. If the identified threat level increases, the operation of the system can be changed to reflect this, meaning individual access levels can be automatically amended and security levels heightened. Beyond the security environment the access control system can be used to help in areas from Health and Safety by allowing only trained operators to use certain equipment to "green" initiatives such as "car pooling" where staff share cars to get to work and the access control system can monitor this to provide reports which can be used to help meet the airports carbon footprint target.
The CCTV products have been developed not only to be used to address the normal security requirements of monitoring terminal buildings, baggage movement, car parks, and perimeter boundaries which are paramount, but also to meet more operational requirements. The Tyco solutions can monitor maintenance crews as they perform aircraft repairs and maintenance to help meet the operational guidelines issued by control authorities.
Not only is it vital for personnel to be monitored the same applies to vehicles. Our software seamlessly integrates with both APNR and Video Analytics applications which in turn integrates with external agencies software to quickly identify the illegal movement of vehicles.
Effective remote monitoring of ground logistics such as the handling of cargo, baggage offload, refuelling etc are all crucial to smooth operations. With an integrated video and access control system all these are monitored and alarms and events are captured 24/7 so high value cargo can be tracked, and incidents such as accidents, injury or theft can be reviewed on recorded video footage.
With experience in over 130 airports worldwide an integrated solution from Tyco can provide systems that will meet the current needs of the security department and be flexible enough to grow and adapt as the business changes.
Please view our "Special Applications" for the Aviation sector on our website.
Izmir Adnan Menderes International Airport, Turkey
London Heathrow Terminal 5
British Airport Authority
Keflavik International Airport
Tallahassee Regional Airport
Cougar Helicopters
Indira Gandhi Airport
Little Rock National Airport
Saudia Aerospace Engineering Industries (SAEI)
Vancouver International Airport
Subscribe to Security Products Communications
@2020 Tyco Security Products All Rights Reserved

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Gavin opened his mouth to speak when Antonio called out from across the restaurant.
Emily unwillingly tore her attention from Gavin. She sauntered over to the host station where Fallon stood with a curious look molding her face.
"Well, what did he say?" Fallon asked.
After a wave to bid Fallon goodbye, Emily reached for the phone and found it was Dillon calling to make plans for the evening. After they hung up, she was glad that he called. It brought her thoughts back to where she knew they should be. Drawing in a deep breath, she strolled over to the computer and entered Gavin's order. She greeted a family of three and completed her side work for the day.
Eventually, she risked a glance over to Gavin when she took a seat at the coffee bar to wait for his order. She felt inordinately overwhelmed as their eyes met and locked. She was confused. She didn't know why she was shaken by his gaze and hated the fact that she actually liked the way he stared at her. Emily suddenly snapped from her coma-like daze when she heard one of the cooks call for her. She went into the kitchen, picked up Gavin's food, and grabbed a coffee pot.
"Thank you." Gavin's eyes flicked to her neck as she leaned over to pour the coffee, the sweet scent of her body teasing his nose. Picturing his lips sliding against her beautiful skin, he brought his attention back to her face and gave her a smile. He cleared his throat, trying to rid himself of the vision.
Emily turned away, striding toward the kitchen door.
Gavin took out a business card and two $100 bills. He wrapped them around the card and covered it up with a $5 bill.
Emily returned with the box and handed it to him. "Again, I'm sorry it took so long," she said, staring into his eyes. Her senses automatically became heated again.
Emily froze as her breathing became as ragged as her heartbeat. His warm breath so close to her body almost sent her over the edge. He radiated a palpable, sexual energy that she couldn't deny—and she was pretty damn sure that no other warm-blooded female would be able to resist either. Unable to form a sentence, she didn't answer as she looked up into his eyes.
With that, he turned and walked out the door while the eyes of every woman in the restaurant followed him.
Emily let out a breath she didn't know she was holding. She thumbed through the cash not only shocked to see how much he'd tipped her, but that he'd left his card, too. Blank side up, she fought with herself to not turn it over. She let out a sigh, inwardly furious at herself, as she tried to brush thoughts about this man out of her head. It was no use. He was invading every corner of her mind.
She couldn't deny that she found him beyond attractive; she'd been startled into staring the first time she saw him. There was something mysterious about his eyes, which were a shade of blue so light they almost begged her to submit to him, obey him, and do some of the naughtiest things with him that her mind could conjure up. Maybe it was the curve of his cheekbones, which fell slightly short of being too high. Possibly, it was the smooth, raspy tone of his voice, which basically disarmed her every cognitive thought the first time he talked to her.
Of course he has a bedroom voice to go with those bedroom eyes.
He was definitely a fuckable, bedroom-voice-and-eyes-bearing specimen. Fuckable or not, Emily knew she'd have to resist as long as her sanity ruled over her subconscious mind. It took everything she had in her to make her way into the kitchen without looking at his name and contact number. Against every sexual demon in her head that screamed at her to go for it, she threw the card into the garbage, her fingers tingling from its absence.


text:
Former British PM Thatcher leaves hospital
Published Saturday, March 08, 2008
Former British prime minister Margaret Thatcher left hospital Saturday after undergoing precautionary tests, her spokesman said.
Baroness Thatcher, 82, spent the night at St Thomas' Hospital in London where she was driven from her home in the capital late Friday after she fell ill while dining with friends.
"She's very comfortable and she had a comfortable night. She's feeling a lot better, much revived," said Mark Worthington, Thatcher's private secretary, outside the hospital.
He said the former leader of the Conservative Party - who was prime minister throughout the 1980s - was dining at the House of Lords, the upper house of parliament, when she started feeling "slightly nauseous and faint".
"Her legs gave way a little bit under her," he said, although he denied she had collapsed.
"We thought it safest to be sure about these things," he said.
Television images showed Thatcher, wearing a deep red dress, walking to her chauffeur-driven car outside the hospital and pausing to wave to photographers, before being driven away.
Britain's first female prime minister, nicknamed "the Iron Lady" for her uncompromising style, appears increasingly rarely in public since doctors banned her from addressing large audiences in 2002 for health reasons.
She has suffered a series of minor strokes which friends say have affected her short-term memory, leading her to occasionally lose track mid-conversation.
Thatcher's daughter, Carol Thatcher, said her mother had been taken to the hospital as a precautionary measure.
"They decided to err on the side of caution," she said. "But it's good news today. She is doing well."
Sporting her trademark bouffant hairstyle and handbag, Thatcher forced through sweeping changes during her premiership between 1979 and 1990, advocating individualism and the breakdown of Britain's class system.
At home, she remains a divisive figure, hailed by the right who say she revived the economy by clamping down on trade unions and crushing a major strike by coal miners protesting against pit closures in 1985.
But the left say her reforms helped to unpick the fabric of society, particularly in traditional manufacturing heartlands such as northern England.
Abroad, she forged a close relationship with US president Ronald Reagan in the Cold War stand-off with the Soviet Union.
Her popularity soared when she sent troops to the Falklands in 1982 after Argentina's invasion of the far-away islands in the South Atlantic Ocean. Britain secured victory in two months.
Thatcher narrowly escaped injury from a bomb planted by the Irish Republican Army (IRA) at her hotel during the Conservatives' annual conference in Brighton, southern England, in 1984. Four people were killed.
She was eventually toppled from within her own party when her resistance to closer European ties triggered a revolt which led to John Major taking over in 1990.
She spent longer in Downing Street than any other British prime minister in the 20th century and remains an icon for the right wing of the Conservatives, now Britain's main opposition party.
After leaving the top job, Thatcher was appointed to the House of Lords as Baroness Thatcher of Kesteven. She wrote best-selling memoirs and gave lucrative lecture tours.
Her husband of 52 years, businessman Denis Thatcher, died in 2003. (AFP)


text:
Highlights from the Senate Intelligence hearing with Facebook and Twitter – TechCrunch
Another day, another political grilling for social media platform giants.
The Senate Intelligence Committee's fourth hearing took place this morning, with Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg and Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey present to take questions as U.S. lawmakers continue to probe how foreign influence operations are playing out on Internet platforms — and eye up potential future policy interventions.
During the session US lawmakers voiced concerns about "who owns" data they couched as "rapidly becoming me". An uncomfortable conflation for platforms whose business is human surveillance.
They also flagged the risk of more episodes of data manipulation intended to incite violence, such as has been seen in Myanmar — and Facebook especially was pressed to commit to having both a legal and moral obligation towards its users.
The value of consumer data was also raised, with committee vice chair, Sen. Mark Warner, suggesting platforms should actively convey that value to their users, rather than trying to obfuscate the extent and utility of their data holdings. A level of transparency that will clearly require regulatory intervention.
Here's our round-up of some of the other highlights from this morning's session.
Google not showing up
Today's hearing was a high profile event largely on account of two senior bums sitting on the seats before lawmakers — and one empty chair.
Facebook sent its COO Sheryl Sandberg. Twitter sent its bearded wiseman CEO Jack Dorsey (whose experimental word of the month appears to be "cadence" — as in he frequently said he would like a greater "cadence" of meetings with intelligence tips from law enforcement).
But Google sent the offer of its legal chief in place of Larry Page or Sundar Pichai, who the committee had actually asked for.
Which meant the company instantly became the politicians' favored punchbag, with senator after senator laying into Alphabet for empty chairing them at the top exec level.
Whatever Page and Pichai were too busy doing to answer awkward questions about its business activity and ambitions in China the move looks like a major open goal for Alphabet as it was open season for senators to slam it.
Page staying away also made Facebook and Twitter look the very model of besuited civic responsibility and patriotism just for bothering to show up.
We got "Jack" and "Sheryl" first name terms from some of the senators, and plenty of "thanks for turning up" heaped on them from all corners — with some very particular barbs reserved for Google.
"I want to commend both of you for your appearance here today for what was no doubt going to be some uncomfortable questions. And I want to commend your companies for making you available. I wish I could say the same about Google," said Senator Tom Cotton, addressing those in the room. "Both of you should wear it as a badge of honor that the Chinese Communist Party has blocked you from operating in their country."
"Perhaps Google didn't send a senior executive today because they've recently taken actions such as terminating a co-operation they had with the American military on programs like artificial intelligence that are designed not just to protect our troops and help them fight in our country's wars but to protect civilians as well," he continued, warming to his theme. "This is at the very same time that they continue to co-operate with the Chinese Communist Party on matters like artificial intelligence or partner with Huawei and other Chinese telecom companies who are effectively arms of the Chinese Communist Party.
"And credible reports suggest that they are working to develop a new search engine that would satisfy the Chinese Communist Party's censorship standards after having disclaimed any intent to do so eight years ago. Perhaps they did not send a witness to answer these questions because there is no answer to these questions. And the silence we would hear right now from the Google chair would be reminiscent of the silence that that witness would provide."
Even Sandberg seemed to cringe when offered the home-run opportunity to stick the knife in to Google — when Cotton asked both witnesses whether their companies would consider taking these kinds of actions?
But after a split second's hesitation her media training kicked in — and she found her way of diplomatically giving Google the asked for kicking. "I'm not familiar with the specifics of this at all but based on how you're asking the question I don't believe so," was her reply.
After his own small pause, Dorsey, the man of fewer words, added: "Also no."
Dorsey repeat apologizing
'We haven't done a good job of that' was the most common refrain falling from Dorsey's bearded lips this morning as senators asked why the company hasn't managed to suck less from all sorts of angles — whether that's by failing to provide external researchers with better access to data to help them help it with malicious interference; or failing to informing individual users who've been the targeted victims of Twitter fakery that that abuse has been happening to them; or just failing to offer any kind of contextual signal to its users that some piece of content they're seeing is (or might be) maliciously fake.
But then this is the man who has defended providing a platform to people who make a living selling lies, so…
"We haven't done a good job of that in the past," was certainly phrase of the morning for a contrite Dorsey. And while admitting failure is at least better than denying you're failing, it's still just that: Failure.
And continued failure has been a Twitter theme for so long now, when it comes to things like harassment and abuse, it's starting to feel intentional. (As if, were you able to cut Twitter you'd find the words 'feed the trolls' running all the way through its business.)
Sadly the committee seemed to be placated by Dorsey's repeat confessions of inadequacy. And he really wasn't pressed enough. We'd have liked to see a lot more grilling of him over short term business incentives that tie his hands on fighting abuse.
Amusingly, one senator rechristened Dorsey "Mr Darcey", after somehow tripping over the two syllables of his name. But actually, thinking about it, 'pride and prejudice' might be a good theme for the Twitter CEO to explore during one of his regular meditation sessions.
Y'know, as he ploughs through a second turgid decade of journeying towards self-awareness — while continuing to be paralyzed, on the business, civic and, well, human being, front, by rank indecision about which people and points of view to listen to (Pro-Tip: If someone makes money selling lies and/or spreading hate you really shouldn't be letting them yank your operational chain) — leaving his platform (the would be "digital public square", as he kept referring to it today), incapable of upholding the healthy standards it claims to want to have. (Or daubed with all manner of filthy graffiti, if you want a visual metaphor.)
The problem is Twitter's stated position/mission, in Dorsey's prepared statements to the committee, of keeping "all voices on the platform" is hubris. It's a flawed ideology that results in massive damage to the free speech and healthy conversation he professes to want to champion because nazis are great at silencing people they hate and harass.
Unfortunately Dorsey still hasn't had that eureka moment yet. And there was no sign of any imminent awakening judging by this morning's performance.
Sandberg's oh-so-smooth operation — but also an exchange that rattled her
The Facebook COO isn't chief operating officer for nothing. She's the queen of the polished, non-committal soundbite. And today she almost always had one to hand — smoothly projecting the impression that the company is always doing something. Whether that's on combating hate speech, hoaxes and "inauthentic" content, or IDing and blocking state-level disinformation campaigns — thereby shifting attention off the deeper question of whether Facebook is doing enough. (Or even whether its platform might not be the problem itself.)
Albeit the bar looks very low indeed when your efforts are being set against Twitter and an empty chair. (Aka the "invisible witness" as one senator sniped at Google.)
Very many of her answers courteously informed senators that Facebook would 'follow up' with answers and/or by providing some hazily non-specific 'collaborative work' at some undated future time — which is the most professional way to kick awkward questions into the long grass.
Though do it long enough and the grass can turn on you and start to bite back because it's got so long and unkempt it now contains some very angry snakes.
Senator, Kamala Harris, very clearly seething at this point — having had her questions to Facebook knocked about since November 2017, when its general council had first testified to the committee on the disinformation topic — was determined to get under Sandberg's skin. And she did.
The exchange that rattled the Facebook COO started off around how much money it makes off of ads run by fake accounts — such as the Kremlin-backed Internet Research Agency.
Sandberg slickly reframed "inauthentic content" to an even more boring sound "inorganic content" — now several psychologic steps removed from the shockingly outrageous Kremlin propaganda that the company eventually disclosed.
She added it was equivalent to .004% of content in News Feed (hence Facebook's earlier contention to Harris that it's "immaterial to earnings").
It's not so much the specific substance of the question that's the problem here for Facebook — with Sandberg also smoothly reiterating that the IRA had spent about $100k (which is petty cash in ad terms) — it's the implication that Facebook's business model profits off of fakes and hates, and is therefore amorously entwined in bed with fakes and hates.
"From our point of view, Senator Harris, any amount is too much," continued Sandberg after she rolled out the $100k figure, and now beginning to thickly layer on the emulsion.
Harris cut her off, interjecting: "So are you saying that the revenue generated was .004% of your annual revenue", before adding the pointed observation: "Because of course that would not be immaterial" — which drew a rare stuttered double "so" from Sandberg.
"So what metric are you using to calculate the revenue that was generated associated with those ads, and what is the dollar amount that is associated then with that metric?" pressed Harris.
Sandberg couldn't provide the straight answer being sought, she said, because "ads don't run with inorganic content on our service" — claiming: "There is actually no way to firmly ascertain how much ads are attached to how much organic content; it's not how it works."
"But what percentage of the content on Facebook is organic," rejoined Harris.
That elicited a micro-pause from Sandberg, before she fell back on the usual: "I don't have that specific answer but we can come back to you with that."
Harris pushed her again, wondering if it's "the majority of content"?
"No, no," said Sandberg, sounding almost flustered.
"Your company's business model is complex but it benefits from increased user engagement… so, simply put, the more people that use your platform the more they are exposed to third party ads, the more revenue you generate — would you agree with that," continued Harris, starting to sound boring but only to try to reel her in.
After another pause Sandberg asked her to repeat this hardly complex question — before affirming "yes, yes" and then hastily qualifying it with: "But only I think when they see really authentic content because I think in the short run and over the long run it doesn't benefit us to have anything inauthentic on our platform."
Harris continued to hammer on how Facebook's business model benefits from greater user engagement as more ads are viewed via its platform — linking it to "a concern that many have is how you can reconcile an incentive to create and increase your user engagement with the content that generates a lot of engagement is often inflammatory and hateful".
She then skewered Sandberg with a specific example of Facebook's hate speech moderation failure — and by suggestive implication a financially incentivized policy and moral failure — referencing a ProPublica report from June 2017 which revealed the company had told moderators to delete hate speech targeting white men but not black children — because the latter were not considered a "protected class".
Sandberg, sounding uncomfortable now, said this was "a bad policy that has been changed". "We fixed it," she added.
"But isn't that a concern with hate period, that not everyone is looked at the same way," wondered Harris?
Facebook "cares tremendously about civil rights" said Sandberg, trying to regain the PR initiative. But she was again interrupted by Harris — wondering when exactly Facebook had "addressed" that specific policy failure.
Sandberg was unable to put a date on when the policy change had been made. Which obviously now looked bad.
"Was the policy changed after that report? Or before that report from ProPublica?" pressed Harris.
"I can get back to you on the specifics of when that would have happened," said Sandberg.
"You're not aware of when it happened?"
"I don't remember the exact date."
"Do you remember the year?"
"Well you just said it was 2017."
"So do you believe it was 2017 when the policy changed?"
"Sounds like it was."
The awkward exchange ended with Sandberg being asked whether or not Facebook had changed its hate speech policies to protect not just those people who have been designated legally protected classes of people.
"I know that our hate speech policies go beyond the legal classifications, and they are all public, and we can get back to that on that," she said, falling back on yet another pledge to follow up.
Twitter agreeing to bot labelling in principle
We flagged this earlier but Senator Warner managed to extract from Dorsey a quasi-agreement to labelling automation on the platform in future — or at least providing more context to help users navigate what they're being exposed to in tweet form.
He said Twitter has been "definitely" considering doing this — "especially this past year".
Although, as we noted earlier, he had plenty of caveats about the limits of its powers of bot detection.
"It's really up to the implementation at this point," he added.
How exactly 'bot or not' labelling will come to Twitter isn't clear. Nor was there any timeframe.
But it's at least possible to imagine the company could add some sort of suggestive percentage of automated content to accounts in future — assuming Dorsey can find his first, second and third gears.
Lawmakers worried about the impact of deepfakes
Deepfakes, aka AI-powered manipulation of video to create fake footage of people doing things they never did is, perhaps unsurprisingly, already on the radar of reputation-sensitive U.S. lawmakers — even though the technology itself is hardly in widespread, volume usage.
Several senators asked whether (and how comprehensively) the social media companies archive suspended or deleted accounts.
Clearly politicians are concerned. No senator wants to be 'filmed in bed with an intern' — especially one they never actually went to bed with.
The response they got back was a qualified yes — with both Sandberg and Dorsey saying they keep such content if they have any suspicions.
Which is perhaps rather cold comfort when you consider that Facebook had — apparently — zero suspicious about all the Kremlin propaganda violently coursing across its platform in 2016 and generating hundreds of millions of views.
Since that massive fuck-up the company has certainly seemed more proactive on the state-sponsored fakes front — recently removing a swathe of accounts linked to Iran which were pushing fake content, for example.
Although unless lawmakers regulate for transparency and audits of platforms there's no real way for anyone outside these commercially walled gardens to be 110% sure.
Sandberg's clumsy affirmation of WhatsApp encryption
Since the WhatsApp founders left Facebook, earlier this year and in fall last, there have been rumors that the company might be considering dropping the flagship end-to-end encryption that the messaging platform boasts — specifically to help with its monetization plans around linking businesses with users.
And Sandberg was today asked directly if WhatsApp still uses e2e encryption. She replied by affirming Facebook's commitment to encryption generally — saying it's good for user security.
"We are strong believers in encryption," she told lawmakers. "Encryption helps keep people safe, it's what secures our banking system, it's what secures the security of private messages, and consumers rely on it and depend on it."
Yet on the specific substance of the question, which had asked whether WhatsApp is still using end-to-end encryption, she pulled out another of her professionally caveated responses — telling the senator who had asked: "We'll get back to you on any technical details but to my knowledge it is."
Most probably this was just her habit of professional caveating kicking in. But it was an odd way to reaffirm something as fundamental as the e2e encrypted architecture of a product used by billions of people on a daily basis. And whose e2e encryption has caused plenty of political headaches for Facebook — which in turn is something Sandberg has been personally involved in trying to fix.
Should we be worried that the Facebook COO couldn't swear under oath that WhatsApp is still e2e encrypted? Let's hope not. Presumably the day job has just become so fettered with fixes she just momentarily forgot what she could swear she knows to be true and what she couldn't.
Rick and Morty Comic-Con exclusive toy unboxing
No technical reason to exclude Huawei as 5G supplier, says UK committee – TechCrunch


We are able to remove above ground pools and in ground pools with a vinyl liner or gunite. Call us today to schedule an estimate. We also provide the finish landscaping after the pool has been filled in, such as loam and hydroseed to complete your project!


text:
Q: Dropdown.SelectedItem.Text isnt setting value properly I have the following dropdown
<asp:dropdownlist id="ddlCardStatus" runat="server" Width="150px">
  <asp:ListItem Value="E0" Text="Active" ></asp:ListItem>
  <asp:ListItem Value="E1" Text="Block"></asp:ListItem>
</asp:dropdownlist>

My dropdown default selected text always remains Active even when I get Block in my dataset.
I guess I'm setting it wrong
Here's the code of setting value recieved from dataset
ddlCardStatus.SelectedItem.Text = ddlCardStatus.Items.FindByValue(
     IIf(IsDBNull(ds.Tables(0).Rows(0).Item("Status")), 0,
                 ds.Tables(0).Rows(0).Item("Status"))).Value

EDITED This is the part of the stored procedure that is selecting Status
Select ID,case status when 'E0' then 'Active' when 'E1' then 'Block' end as 'Status' from temp

A: You should set the value directly if you have one, rather then text:-
ddlCardStatus.SelectedValue = ds.Tables(0).Rows(0).Item("Status").Value

You can check for Null, but setting it to 0 doesn't makes sense as you don't have any such ListItem in your dropdown.
Update:
Since you are passing text from DB, you can either find that text in the dropdown collection and select it:-
String cardStatus = ds.Tables(0).Rows(0).Item("Status")
ddlCardStatus.Items.FindByText(cardStatus).Selected = True

Or you can find the value from dropdown collection and set the selected value:-
String cardStatus = ds.Tables(0).Rows(0).Item("Status")
ddlCardStatus.SelectedValue = ddItems.Items.FindByText(cardStatus).Value

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


Radical changes in digital photography!
There is a drastic change in digital photography over the past two decades. The clunky DSLR has given a path to sleek smartphones. So it would not be wrong for expecting a similar evolution over the next ten years, as the science behind the art changes.
Most of the technology in use today presents the breakthroughs of the first generation of digital cameras. Though the films were stripped away and digital image sensors took its place, much of the rest camera stuff like lenses and autofocus systems of mainly remained the same.
In contemporary time, two significant trends are reshaping our expectations of digital photography.
Computational Photography– To improve photos, overcome the limits of smartphone camera hardware and to produce impressive shots, recent technology uses computing technology.
Mirrorless Movement– It leaves hardware which used to be compulsory for film and then enhances the image sensor's importance, which overhauls the mechanics of the traditional camera. As computer processing takes over, the old assumptions about optics are being reconsidered or discarded.
The Lau Norgaard, Vice President of Research and Development at Phase One of a Danish Company which makes ultra-premium 151-megapixel medium format cameras said that cameras would be changing more in the next ten years than it has in the past decade.
Not just for professional photographers at fashion shoot but also the changes will matter to all of us. New technology will mean better everyday pictures and much more creative possibilities for photo enthusiasts. Everything from selfies, landscapes and to family portraits will merely start looking better.
A few years ago, the iPhone 7 begin using two cameras side by side which enables the phone judge just exactly how far away each of the elements of the scene is located.
The computing hardware makes a 3D-infused layer of information which is called a 'depth map' in its every pixel of a picture that holds both color and information of the phone.
Nikon and Canon embrace mirrorless models!
Mirrorless cameras have been gaining our attention for years and here is recently what has been changed in 2018: Canon and Nikon.
Among the two DSLR heavy hitters, begin selling high-end mirrorless models- Nikon Z7 and Z6 and also Canon's EOS R. Following, Sony's lead, they arrived with large 'full frame sensors' that are best at taking color and light data.
Nikon and Canon aren't leaving out their traditional SLRs, rather their mirrorless models will be its peers.
In the meantime, with plans for two full-frame models debuting in 2019 the mirrorless pioneer Panasonic has also joined in.
One of the remarkable features of the Z7 is like the Sony and Panasonic full frame mirrorless models;it will also be able to move its image sensor so that they can compensate for shaky hands something which is utterly impossible with film.
Hope, this blog would have been helpful for you.
Charlie Noah is a Microsoft Office expert and has been working in the technical industry since 2002. As a technical expert, David Smith has written technical blogs, manuals, white papers, and reviews for many websites such as office.com/setup.


The color #A36C14 is one of 16,777,216 (16^6) hexadecimal colors. It is closest to the websafe color #996600.
The CSS property style="color: #A36C14" can be used to change the color of text.
To change the background color use style="background-color: #A36C14".


Bresse JesicaDavis livejasmin. raisaarose. Cellebra. AmazngPinayQUEEN.
cum2urMISTRESSTOMEVERHARDLolBoy90SiennaBel .TeacherAmandaXAlisonDestinyx2BrownHotCaptainSenusal .hotbicouplexblacktreasurescum2urMISTRESScum2urMISTRESS .SheidlinaAimeeMargotMake1tNastyBigGill .00A1Just4Vickydiamondz699cum2urMISTRESSAliaMoonX .Make1tNastySiennaBelAlexisVelvetAnabelleC .ClaraBellcum2urMISTRESSBelAmiGuySuzanneBloom .SweetMarinaKissArya18LuckyCharmansweeteva18 .AnnaNKendrazsomokaCaptainSenusalcum2urMISTRESS .ClaraBellGingerLittleSubSweetMarinaKissLuckyCharman .asianpride01Make1tNastyAlexisVelvetLolBoy90 .
twistedthoughtsYourBoobiesasteelKenyaTSxx .cutemodel88xYourBoobiestwistedthoughtsAimeeMargot .RickZolyShanthelleKenyaTSxxhotbicouplex .RickZolyMaargiSuzsomokaDiegoHotXxx .sweeteva18ScarlettDoll23AminaLunaCaptainSenusal .zsomokaAngelRoseForYouPrettyzarah123Lorenzoxxx18 .GeishadepravataPOVcamLoveGeishadepravataEmpressOfCOCK .ScarlettDoll23ScarlettDoll23asdphonesEmpressOfCOCK .AlisonDestinyxblacktreasuresTOMEVERHARDMaddieCandy .CuteBabeSofiaSHYNESsssssFallonWestLuckyCharman .AnnaNKendrajustme2014EmpressOfCOCKBlackkWidow .


In this crime drama, two Seattle police detectives work to solve the murder of a young girl in the gloomy, rainy atmosphere of the Pacific Northwest. Everyone involved, including the victim and the investigators, has a sordid past, and all the history eventually spills out into the open.
Linden and Holder's partnership spirals into chaos as they are confronted with the shocking truth behind the Stansbury murders.
Information about the family murders comes to light as Kyle's memory returns. Holder's loyalty is tested when confronted about Skinner's death.
Linden and Holder target a student with a sordid past, and a tip from an informant leads Reddick to a shocking discovery.
Reddick digs deeper into Skinner's disappearance. Linden and Holder try to keep their crime under wraps while preventing it from going cold.
A neighbor's knowledge leads to a revelation about one of the victims. Meanwhile, Reddick begins to investigate the disappearance of Lt. Skinner.
While covering up Skinner's disappearance, Linden and Holder investigate the brutal murder of a family with ties to a military academy.
Sarah risks her life after someone dear to her suddenly goes missing. Meanwhile, Holder's past is used against him.
As the dust settles, the detectives pick up a new unnerving case. Lyric is tempted by her old life. Danette says goodbye.
Seward divulges the truth, Holder deals with personal issues, and Sarah pays the consequences of former choices in her life.
The hunt for the pornographer leads to a disturbing discovery, and Holder seeks someone to blame. Sarah deals with the consequences of her past transgressions.
Sarah disappears. Meanwhile, Bullet decides to save Lyric and happens a dark secret.
Sarah and Holder finally get a lead in the case. Seward fights against his own mortality.
Sarah and Holder catch up to the latest victim. Seward's past catches up with him. Out in The Jungle, Bullet has a difficult time with the truth.
Bullet bloodhounds for Sarah and Holder, racing to find a victim on the run before someone else does. Seward is an unkind host to surprise visitors.
Sarah has a hidden agenda when she joins the task force. Holder finds a new street informant; Seward ignites an old rivalry.
Sarah's past leads her in a cruel direction.
In the third season premiere, Sarah's past creeps up on her. Holder catches a disquieting case. Prisoner Ray Seward's personality comes out.
Netflix announces it alone will be streaming "The Killing" after season three wraps, due largely to its influence being a major boost in returning the cancelled show to television.
Could "The Killing" be un-killed? It looks as though the AMC show might find a second life on DirecTV or Netflix, as digital outlets are showing interest.
Would you want the writer of "Cars 2" to adapt the movie version of "50 Shades of Grey?" Well, that might happen, as the studio is now in the process of finding a writer... which includes the writer of "Cars 2."
Fate doesn't afford all failed shows the luxury of dying early. Not often, but sometimes, a show makes a fatal error, then bleeds out over a fair length. "The Killing" was wounded by one bad decision at its first season's end, and with the second wrapped up, AMC has passed on giving it a third.
The Killing is currently available to watch and stream on AMC. You can also buy, rent The Killing on demand at Amazon Prime, Amazon, Hulu, Vudu, FandangoNow, Google Play, iTunes online.


The beginning of another national election season has provoked increasing comment on our polarized country. The rhetoric between the Left and Right has become alarmingly aggressive over the last several decades, fueled by media outlets eager to retain viewers and attract listeners.
It's common for evangelicals to turn to biblical rhetoric of spiritual warfare to express anxiety about a culture that seems out of control. During a recent election, I visited a friend's church. At the end of the service a leader strode to the pulpit and intoned solemnly that we were involved in a spiritual battle for the soul of America. The announcement invited loud "amens." To engage that battle, he had set up a table in the back with a petition to include a measure supporting traditional marriage on the upcoming ballot.
The article's author does note that this ideology belongs to a fringe group of evangelicals (see this response in the L.A. Times). Relatively few evangelicals believe that overt tactics of spiritual warfare are appropriate for a national election. Many, however, resonate with the rhetoric of spiritual warfare because our conflicted national climate seems to involve a spiritual dimension. We have the sense that larger dynamics are out of control and are perhaps subject to the manipulation of darker forces.
Is it appropriate to speak of spiritual warfare in relation to national politics?
So, I guess that's the distinction I'm making. It seems to me that there are indeed many more sensible evangelicals who might resonate with the rhetoric, but would object to more speculative forms of engaging spiritual entities that have caused unfavorable gerrymandering, for example.
If not quantitatively, at the least there has been significantly more organization over the years by James Dobson on the parachurch side, by George W. Bush on the government side, now culminating in figures such as Sarah Palin and Rick Perry.
If people would actually read what the Bible says about spiritual warfare, I am sure we could respond far more graciously to the ills we face in our culture. As it stands, we can hardly stand against the ills that rage in our own hearts and our churches.
I think the concepts of 'Spiritual Warfare" differ's between the variety of flavour's / practices of evangelicalism. I could be wrong; but it seems to me that instead of binding and loosing every kind of stronghold, which seems to be practised within the real praying people…. we should be praying for all in authority that we have the right to live and practice our faith in peace.
Within this framework of living and practising our faith in peace – we should be active in transforming our respective communities. I believe that if we (The church ) tackles the problems of greed within our own ranks…it will have an overflow into society…and that is the beginning of real spiritual warfare. …for me anyway.


Fridge No Freezer Valuable Haier 220 Ltr 4 Star Hrd 2204bs R Single Door Refrigerator Silver is a part of 24 Briliant Fridge No Freezer pictures gallery.
, we all choices the very best selections using ideal resolution just for you, and this photographs is actually one among pictures collections in this finest pictures gallery with regards to Trending Fridge No Freezer. I'm hoping you can like it.
placed by gos on 2019-01-05 16:00:30. To view all images in Trending Fridge No Freezer images gallery you need to adhere to this hyperlink.


text:
Entertainment » Celebrities
Watch: Out 'SNL' Comic Bowen Yang Opens Up About Historic Emmy Nom
Back in April, "Saturday Night Live" comic Bowen Yang co-wrote and starred in a skit that featured him as the iceberg that sank the Titanic. This week, it was announced Yang earned an Emmy nomination for the skit — a first for an "SNL" featured player, Variety noted.
The nom is in the category for Outstanding Supporting Actor in a Comedy Series.
According to Variety, "Yang originally considered nominating an episode in which he appeared in many sketches across the course of an evening." Though, in the end, he went with the iceberg sketch — an instant classic that sends up celebrity entitlement as well as having marked the anniversary of the great ship's sinking on April 15, 1912, a tragedy that cut the maiden voyage short.
Calling his nomination "nice," Yang recalled how the idea had been suggested by the show's head writer, Anna Drezen. As EDGE previously reported, Yang had been unsure at first about the idea, but once it was greenlit, he and Drezen worked feverishly to bring it to fruition.
As Variety recalled, during a "Tonight Show" appearance, Yang said he and Drezen "wondered right up until the broadcast of the show if the audience would like the sketch, because of its quirkiness."
Indeed they did. The sketch not only delighted audiences who tuned in but also took Twitter by storm after its initial airing. What's more, the out comic's piece, which characterized the iceberg as gay, fit right in with an episode that had a heavy LGBTQ vibe overall.
Yang's Emmy nomination is an extraordinary one considering he is in his second year as an "SNL" cast member after having spent a year as a writer on the show. With that, he is still considered a "featured player." Entertainment Weekly explained the distinction, saying that "a featured player is different than a regular cast member. Jokesters like Yang are generally considered featured players for their first two seasons. If they make it to a third season, they usually get promoted to regular cast members."
Moreover, Yang is the first Chinese American cast member on "SNL" and the first openly gay man to ever survive past one season on the NBC variety show," the outlet detailed.
The Huffington Post noted that a win for Yang would mean "he'll become the third Asian actor to win in an acting category in general, following Riz Ahmed in 2017 for 'The Night Of' and Archie Panjabi in 2010 for 'The Good Wife.'"
The Huffington Post also noted that, in March, Yang drew accolades for "speaking out against Asian American hate as part of a 'Weekend Update' segment," which is also where his iceberg made its appearance.
Variety wondered whether "Yang and the 'SNL' team" might "bring the iceberg back" for a subsequent outing, to which the comic replied: "I really don't know yet. It's up to Anna, for sure. She really shepherded that whole piece."
Watch the sketch below:
'SNL' Star Bowen Yang & Comedian Joel Kim Booster to Star in 'Fire Island' Rom-Com
Watch: 'SNL' Star Bowen Yang Says Being 'Gay & Asian Made My Skin a Little Thicker'
As He Pushes the Envelope on 'SNL,' Bowen Yang Recalls his Gayest Skit
Top 5: Celebs Dominate EDGE's PopUps in 2021
Check out EDGE's top 5 most-read PopUps from 2021.
Tom of Finland Store Celebrates 5-Year Anniversary With Blow-Out Sale


text:
You are here: Home Remote Weapon Station Market size by top leading players, opportunities, revenue growth, trends, outlook and forecasts to 2023
Remote Weapon Station Market size by top leading players, opportunities, revenue growth, trends, outlook and forecasts to 2023
The Global report on "Remote Weapon Station Market" delivering key insights and providing a competitive advantage to clients through a detailed report. The report also details the information about the global market status, growth rate, future trends, market drivers, challenges, opportunities and porter's forces analysis with respect to these elements. An exclusive data offered in this report is collected by research and industry experts team.
Get Free Sample Research Report @ https://www.reportsnreports.com/contacts/requestsample.aspx?name=898778
Rising incidences of asymmetric warfare and increasing demand for a safe and highly maneuverable gun system on a warfare platform are the major factors driving the remote weapon station market globally
The remote weapon station market is projected to grow from USD 8.48 billion in 2018 to USD 14.42 billion by 2023 at a CAGR of 11.20% from 2018 to 2023. The market for remote weapon stations is driven by several factors, such as rising number of wars and cross-border disputes, rise in asymmetric warfare, and increasing military use of offensive weapons for tactical operations. The growth of the remote weapon station market could, however, be affected by certain major challenging factors in the coming years, such as the complexity involved in the integration of the remote weapon station with a wide range of platforms.
Based on technology, the close-in weapon system segment is expected to grow at the highest CAGR during the forecast period
Based on technology, the remote weapon station market has been segmented into close-in weapon system, remote controlled gun system, and others. The close-in weapon system segment of the remote weapon station market is projected to grow at the highest CAGR during the forecast period. The growth of the close-in weapon system segment can be attributed to increasing research &development activities worldwide for the development of advanced technologies and the enhanced reliability and unmanned operations of weapon systems.
Europe is estimated to lead the remote weapon station market during the forecast period
Europe is estimated to lead, while the Asia Pacific region is projected to grow at a higher rate in the remote weapon station market during the forecast period. The UK, France, Russia, Italy, and Germany are the key markets for the remote weapon station in Europe. The growth of the market in the European countries is primarily attributed to technological advancements and rising incidences of armed conflicts or war against terrorism and also recent geopolitical events triggered by Russia that have led many Eastern Europe countries to enhance their defense capabilities.
Break-up of profile of primary participants of the remote weapon station market
By Company Type – Tier 1 – 55 %, Tier 2 – 20% and Tier 3 – 25%
By Designation – C level – 45%, Director level – 25%, Others – 30%
By Region – North America – 25%, Europe – 20%, APAC – 40%, RoW – 15%
Major companies profiled in the report are Elbit Systems (Israel), Kongsberg Gruppen (Norway), Raytheon Company (US), Saab AB (Sweden), Leonardo S.p.A (Italy),Electro Optic Systems (Australia), ASELSAN A.S. (Turkey), MOOG (US), Rafael Advanced Defense Systems (Israel), F N Herstal (Belgium),and Rheinmetall AG (Germany), among others.
Research Coverage:
This report presents a complete analysis of the remote weapon station market during the forecast period. The remote weapon station market has been broadly classified on the basis of application (military, homeland security), platform (land, airborne, naval), component (sensors, human machine interface, weapons& armaments), weapon type (lethal, non-lethal), mobility (stationary, moving), technology (close-in weapon systems, remote controlled gun systems, and others), and region.
Reasons to buy the report:
From an insight perspective, this research report has focused on various levels of analyses—industry analysis (industry trends and technology trend), market rank analysis of top players, and company profiles, which together comprise and discuss basic views on the competitive landscape, emerging, and high-growth segments of the remote weapon station market, high-growth regions and countries, and their respective regulatory policies, government initiatives, and market drivers, restraints, and opportunities.
The report provides insights into the following pointers:
Market Penetration: Comprehensive information on remote weapon stations offered by the top 15 players in the remote weapon station market
Product Development/Innovation: Detailed insights on upcoming technologies, research &development activities, and new product launches in the remote weapon station market
Market Development: Comprehensive information about lucrative markets -the report analyses markets for remote weapon stations across regions
Market Diversification: Exhaustive information about new products, untapped geographies, recent developments, and investments in the remote weapon station market
Competitive Assessment: In-depth assessment of market shares, strategies, products, and manufacturing capabilities of the leading players in the remote weapon station market
More information about Discount offers (20% or More) @ https://www.reportsnreports.com/contacts/discount.aspx?name=898778
Filed in: Public Sector Tags: Remote Weapon Station Market
Through Wall Radar Market in US by 2026 | Global Forecast, Trends, Opportunity and Industry Analysis
Military Drone Market in France Size Estimation, Industry Demand, Growth Trend, Chain Structure, Supply and Demand Forecast (2021-2026)
Military Drone Market in Italy Analysis | By Company Profiles | Size | Share | Industry Growth | Trends and Forecast To 2026
Military Drone Market in UK by 2026 | Global Forecast, Trends, Opportunity and Industry Analysis