Showing posts with label US. Show all posts
Showing posts with label US. Show all posts
Monday, November 4, 2013
Sunday, November 3, 2013
Thursday, October 31, 2013
Tuesday, October 15, 2013
Friday, September 6, 2013
Wednesday, August 28, 2013
Wednesday, July 31, 2013
Monday, July 29, 2013
Wednesday, July 24, 2013
Friday, July 5, 2013
Wednesday, July 3, 2013
Jesse Owens : “Hitler didn’t snub me – it was FDR who snubbed me.
From Quora : http://www.quora.com/Olympic-Games/What-is-the-most-phenomenal-moment-in-Olympics-history.
I definitely think at school I learned of the Hitler snub, but definitely also never learned of the FDR one.
I definitely think at school I learned of the Hitler snub, but definitely also never learned of the FDR one.
Andy Lee Chaisiri, Writer. Artist. History fan.
1886 votes by Shirley Lu, Hongwan Liu, Viki Saigal, (more)
1936, Berlin.
'A Black American athlete defies Adolf Hitler's propaganda of the Aryan ideal'
Jesse crosses the finish line in first. Arch-racist Hitler is so infuriated that he storms out the stadium, refusing to greet him. A bold tale of personal heroism triumphing over hatred, Freedom overcoming Tyranny.
That is what the newspapers reported.
But... that is not the account Jesse gave:
In recognition of his gold medal performance, Hitler sent Jesse Owens a commemorative photograph of ... himself (I guess narcissism comes with being a ruthless dictator)
'A Black American athlete defies Adolf Hitler's propaganda of the Aryan ideal'
Jesse crosses the finish line in first. Arch-racist Hitler is so infuriated that he storms out the stadium, refusing to greet him. A bold tale of personal heroism triumphing over hatred, Freedom overcoming Tyranny.
That is what the newspapers reported.
But... that is not the account Jesse gave:
"Hitler had a certain time to come to the stadium and a certain time to leave". "It happened he had to leave before the victory ceremony after the 100 meters. But before he left I was on my way to a broadcast and passed near his box. He waved at me and I waved back. I think it was 'bad taste' to criticize the man of the hour in another country".
"When I came back to my native country, after all the stories about Hitler, I couldn't ride in the front of the bus. I had to go to the back door. I couldn't live where I wanted. I wasn't invited to shake hands with Hitler, but I wasn't invited to the White House to shake hands with the President, either."
“Hitler didn’t snub me – it was FDR who snubbed me. The president didn’t even send me a telegram.”
In recognition of his gold medal performance, Hitler sent Jesse Owens a commemorative photograph of ... himself (I guess narcissism comes with being a ruthless dictator)
Wednesday, April 17, 2013
Wednesday, April 3, 2013
Sunday, March 31, 2013
Eugene Jarecki and the campaign to end America's war on drugs
The US war on drugs has cost one trillion dollars and resulted in 45m arrests. And yet nothing has changed, argues film-maker Eugene Jarecki, a polemical campaigner to reform America's drugs laws. So what did the prisoners in a New York jail think when he showed them his documentary?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/mar/30/eugene-jarecki-war-on-drugs
Tuesday, September 25, 2012
Drone attacks in Pakistan are counterproductive, says report | World news | The Guardian
Drone attacks in Pakistan are counterproductive, says report | World news | The Guardian
- The CIA's programme of "targeted" drone killings in Pakistan's tribal heartlands is politically counterproductive, kills large numbers of civilians and undermines respect for international law, according to a report by US academics.
- The study by Stanford and New York Universities' law schools, based on interviews with victims, witnesses and experts, blames the US president, Barack Obama, for the escalation of "signature strikes" where groups are selected merely through remote "pattern of life" analysis.
- "The dominant narrative about the use of drones in Pakistan is of a surgically precise and effective tool that makes the US safer by enabling 'targeted killings' of terrorists, with minimal downsides or collateral impacts. This narrative is false," the report, entitled Living Under Drones, states.
- The "best available information", they say, is that between 2,562 and 3,325 people have been killed in Pakistan between June 2004 and mid-September this year ? of whom between 474 and 881 were civilians, including 176 children. The figures have been assembled by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism which, estimated that a further 1,300 individuals were injured in drone strikes over that period.
- The study goes on to say: "Publicly available evidence that the strikes have made the US safer overall is ambiguous at best ? The number of 'high-level' militants killed as a percentage of total casualties is extremely low ? estimated at just 2% [of deaths]. Evidence suggests that US strikes have facilitated recruitment to violent non-state armed groups, and motivated further violent attacks ? One major study shows that 74% of Pakistanis now consider the US an enemy."
- "US practices may also facilitate recourse to lethal force around the globe by establishing dangerous precedents for other governments. As drone manufacturers and officials successfully reduce export control barriers, and as more countries develop lethal drone technologies, these risks increase."
Friday, August 3, 2012
The philosopher making the moral case for US drones: 'There's no downside' | World news | guardian.co.uk
It's one of the US's most controversial policies; one that
resulted in large numbers of civilian deaths overseas. So why does
Bradley Strawser see targeted killing as a moral obligation?
The philosopher making the moral case for US drones: 'There's no downside' | World news | guardian.co.uk
My own views are that if the assault itself is justified, than drones are probably a better moral option than normal methods, since reduce heat of the moment passion or error, can be recorded to help accountability, and have should be more accurate given the supporting techonology.
But - this is very easily confused with the morality of the attack, and in particular 'kill lists' of unconventional enemies, which is another matter entirely.
Perhaps the most worrying fact about drones per se, is that the ease, dispassionate, and removed nature of their use, might mean they are over used, without proper consideration or analysis. if the stakes are high for the aggressor, then more justification, including moral justification, is generally sought.
Extracts from the article :
The philosopher making the moral case for US drones: 'There's no downside' | World news | guardian.co.uk
My own views are that if the assault itself is justified, than drones are probably a better moral option than normal methods, since reduce heat of the moment passion or error, can be recorded to help accountability, and have should be more accurate given the supporting techonology.
But - this is very easily confused with the morality of the attack, and in particular 'kill lists' of unconventional enemies, which is another matter entirely.
Perhaps the most worrying fact about drones per se, is that the ease, dispassionate, and removed nature of their use, might mean they are over used, without proper consideration or analysis. if the stakes are high for the aggressor, then more justification, including moral justification, is generally sought.
Extracts from the article :
- One objection sometimes posited is that there is something wrong or ignoble in killing through such lopsided asymmetry. "I share the kind of gut feeling that there's something odd about that. But I don't see the ethical problem. What matters to me is whether the cause itself is justified. Because if the operation is justified and is the right thing to do ? and by the way I'm not claiming all US military strikes are ? then asymmetry doesn't matter."
- Strawser said a third objection, that drones encouraged unjust operations by reducing the financial and political cost to the US, was serious but surmountable
- Strawser says cases where drone strikes allegedly killed innocents would be unjustified, but did not render the technology illegitimate. "If the policy to begin with is wrong then of course we shouldn't do it. It's irrelevant if we use drones, a sniper rifle or a crossbow." He says he considers poison gas and nuclear weapons inherently wrong because they did not discriminate ? unlike drones.
- "The question is whether drones will tempt us to do wrong things. But it doesn't seem so because we have cases where drones were used justly and it seems they actually improve our ability to behave justly. Literally every action they do is recorded. For a difficult decision (operators) can even wait and bring other people into the room. There's more room for checks and oversights. That to me seems a normative gain."
- Straswer says he understands why many shuddered over revelations of the so-called White House "kill lists" but believes it, in fact, shows accountability at the highest level, unlike Abu Ghraib, when authorities pinned blame on lower ranks
Thursday, July 5, 2012
Sunday, June 10, 2012
Stuxnet and Obama
Stuxnet: the worm that turned Obama into a hypocrite? | Technology | The Observer
"revelations raise some thorny issues, of which two immediately spring to mind. One: does Obama's duplicity – publicly espousing the internet as a space that is unpolluted by cyberwar and cyberespionage while covertly sponsoring a cyberweapon like Stuxnet – fatally undermine America's credibility as a defender of internet freedoms?
Or should it be seen as a defensible exercise in realpolitik – on the grounds that using software to sabotage Iran's nuclear ambitions would cause less collateral damage than an Israeli airstrike? And two: given that (a) software like Stuxnet could bring our entire industrial infrastructure to a halt, and (b) the likelihood that any piece of malware will escape into the wild, should we treat cyberweapons like biological weapons and ban their use entirely?"
"revelations raise some thorny issues, of which two immediately spring to mind. One: does Obama's duplicity – publicly espousing the internet as a space that is unpolluted by cyberwar and cyberespionage while covertly sponsoring a cyberweapon like Stuxnet – fatally undermine America's credibility as a defender of internet freedoms?
Or should it be seen as a defensible exercise in realpolitik – on the grounds that using software to sabotage Iran's nuclear ambitions would cause less collateral damage than an Israeli airstrike? And two: given that (a) software like Stuxnet could bring our entire industrial infrastructure to a halt, and (b) the likelihood that any piece of malware will escape into the wild, should we treat cyberweapons like biological weapons and ban their use entirely?"
Tuesday, June 5, 2012
Sunday, June 3, 2012
Drone wars and state secrecy – how Barack Obama became a hardliner
Drone wars and state secrecy – how Barack Obama became a hardliner | World news | The Observer
" He was once a liberal law professor who campaigned against the Iraq war. Now, according to revelations last week, the US president personally oversees a 'kill list' for drone strikes in Yemen and Pakistan. Then there's the CIA renditions, increased surveillance and a crackdown on whistleblowers. No wonder Washington insiders are likening him to 'George W Bush on steroids'"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)