De oppresso liber is the motto of the United States Army Special Forces. It is United States Army tradition that this phrase in Latin is considered to mean “to free from oppression” or “to liberate the oppressed”, in English.
Plan X will let soldiers fight cyberwars without a keyboard in 2017
DARPA is using the Oculus Rift to send troops into cyberspace
Plan X is an ambitious scheme, designed by DARPA, to allow all branches of the US military to fight back against electronic attacks. Now DARPA has announced the plan, which aims to allow soldiers to enter a visualized version of cyberspace to repel enemy attacks, will start being rolled out to the Department of Defense and US military’s Cyber Command in October 2017.
The campaign’s finance plan draws attention to the “tremendous financial opportunity” in the Jewish community and identifies Jews as key fundraisers. It notes, however, that “Michelle’s position on Israel will largely determine the level of support here.” That’s a position she has yet to articulate — her message on the subject is marked “TBD” in the document — and Israel goes unmentioned on her campaign website.Asians are also identified as key fundraisers. The community is described as “very tight,” one in which people work to “become citizens quickly.” Nunn’s strategists also say there is a “huge opportunity” to raise money from gays, bisexuals, and transgender individuals, who are described as having “substantial resources.”
Turnout modeling applies a probability of voting to every individual on the file, and can include those who are not registered as well whose names and addresses are available through commercial data. The procedure uses vote history and demographics to estimate the probability of each individual turning out. The resulting scores make mobilization efforts more efficient by targeting those who, for example, have a 40-60 percent chance of participating. Such modeling also adds a level of detail to analyses. By using the turnout scores in polling, the results show where we stand depending on the number of voters who turn out. Thus, if we are not winning among those who have an 80 percent plus chance of voting but are winning among those who have a 60-80 percent chance of voting - and we know how many voters are in each category - we can say how high the turnout needs to be to win.Support Scores and Persuasion modeling will help us find the white voters on the file who are more likely to support Michelle Nunn. The procedure begins with field IDs people our field staff have identified as supporting Nunn generally supplemented by a very short telephone survey with a large sample size. It is not a regular poll but basically a large pool of IDs. Commercial data supplies demographics and other behaviors linked to individuals and an analytics firm uses the data to figure out the best formula to predict Nunn support in the universe of IDs. A score designating probability of supporting Nunn is then applied to each individual on the file. For example, we may know that a young, urban white woman who is part of an international frequent flyer program is more likely to support Nunn than an older white man in North Georgia who does not travel. The support scores assigns a more exact probability to each using these data like that in the example. The process helps refine vote goals by demographics and geography. Persuasion modeling follows a similar procedure for messaging or advertising.
Every one of the 112 pages in the booklet is marked “not for distribution or publication” and it is easy to see why. The Luntz report, officially entitled “The Israel project’s 2009 Global Language Dictionary, was leaked almost immediately to Newsweek Online, but its true importance has seldom been appreciated. It should be required reading for everybody, especially journalists, interested in any aspect of Israeli policy because of its “dos and don’ts” for Israeli spokesmen.
These are highly illuminating about the gap between what Israeli officials and politicians really believe, and what they say, the latter shaped in minute detail by polling to determine what Americans want to hear. Certainly, no journalist interviewing an Israeli spokesman should do so without reading this preview of many of the themes and phrases employed by Mr Regev and his colleagues.
The booklet is full of meaty advice about how they should shape their answers for different audiences. For example, the study says that “Americans agree that Israel ‘has a right to defensible borders’. But it does you no good to define exactly what those borders should be. Avoid talking about borders in terms of pre- or post-1967, because it only serves to remind Americans of Israel’s military history. Particularly on the left this does you harm. For instance, support for Israel’s right to defensible borders drops from a heady 89 per cent to under 60 per cent when you talk about it in terms of 1967.”
How about the right of return for Palestinian refugees who were expelled or fled in 1948 and in the following years, and who are not allowed to go back to their homes? Here Dr Luntz has subtle advice for spokesmen, saying that “the right of return is a tough issue for Israelis to communicate effectively because much of Israeli language sounds like the ‘separate but equal’ words of the 1950s segregationists and the 1980s advocates of Apartheid. The fact is, Americans don’t like, don’t believe and don’t accept the concept of ‘separate but equal’.”
So how should spokesmen deal with what the booklet admits is a tough question? They should call it a “demand”, on the grounds that Americans don’t like people who make demands. “Then say ‘Palestinians aren’t content with their own state. Now they’re demanding territory inside Israel’.” Other suggestions for an effective Israeli response include saying that the right of return might become part of a final settlement “at some point in the future”.
Dr Luntz notes that Americans as a whole are fearful of mass immigration into the US, so mention of “mass Palestinian immigration” into Israel will not go down well with them. If nothing else works, say that the return of Palestinians would “derail the effort to achieve peace”.
The study admits that the Israeli government does not really want a two-state solution, but says this should be masked because 78 per cent of Americans do. Hopes for the economic betterment of Palestinians should be emphasised.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is quoted with approval for saying that it is “time for someone to ask Hamas: what exactly are YOU doing to bring prosperity to your people”. The hypocrisy of this beggars belief: it is the seven-year-old Israeli economic siege that has reduced the Gaza to poverty and misery.
red-trans said: mind elaborating on that al-jazeera comment?
Al Jazeera has always toed a fine line between being an instrument of Qatari foreign policy and maintaining popular respectability. It could champion the Egyptian opposition, for example, because Qatar supported the Muslim Brotherhood. Meanwhile, behind the scenes, it was trying to get a deal done with Mubarak for better coverage on Al Jazeera in exchange for political concessions:
"HBJ had told Mubarak ‘we would stop al-Jazeera for a year’ if he agreed in that span of time to deliver a lasting settlement for the Palestinians," according to a confidential cable from the US embassy in Doha in February. "Mubarak said nothing in response, according to HBJ."
Qatar is what’s known as a “moderate”, maintaining a subservient relationship with America while using its positive relations with Syria and Iran and its virtual control over the Muslim Brotherhood (Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, the guiding light of the Ikhwan, broadcasts on Al Jazeera) to jockey with Saudi Arabia for greater power. That allows it to spend much of its time attacking Israel and the Saudis, both heavily unpopular and yet something that’s not done often in Middle Eastern media (Syrian media, for instance, refrained from naming Saudi Arabia as the nation financing the Syrian opposition until relatively recently because it still wanted a deal). During the Arab Spring, however, things changed. When focus shifted to Bahrain, Al Jazeera could feel its owners quaking in their own boots. Meanwhile, to enhance the power of the Muslim Brotherhood in the Syrian opposition, it went full force reporting everything and anything on the situation there, no matter how unreliable. On any average day in 2012 you could turn on Al Jazeera and find out the Syrian regime was only hours from falling and high ranking members were defecting en masse. This dealt a heavy blow to its credibility. Behind the scenes, starting with the Iraq War and attacks from America, the Qatari government has exercised its hand more and more in replacing dissident figures. Dutch cartoons began to figure more prominently than Hamas speeches, and terminology was softened to be nicer to America. The show “Opposite Direction” was cancelled in 2011, and Waddah Khanfar, the media genius who pushed the editorial direction towards popular rebel groups like Hamas, resigned. In 2012, there was a mass resignation in the Beirut bureau, with figures citing coverage of Bahrain and Syria. At home, experienced foreign figures were replaced with Qataris hired on patronage, and foreign bureaus came to be staffed by branches of the Muslim Brotherhood in each country. Today, viewership figures are down across the Middle East, and the station is saddled with the failure of its Syria gambit as it attempts to repair relations with traditional allies like Iran while keeping its work docile and acceptable.
america has a voice of america-type news station for the middle east specifically, al-hurra, but even american officials like petraeus and obama go on al-arabiya instead because they know nobody watches it. rusiya al-youm, in contrast, is becoming the new al jazeera since al jazeera went to shit a few years back.
Searching for the Holy Grail of Fail? U.S. foreign policy’s got you covered. Here are five U.S.-backed regimes that failed so hard, they totally won.
In Commercial Surrogate Motherhood and the Alleged
Commodification of Children: A Defense of Legally Enforceable Contracts, McLachlan and Swales defend the legal enforceability of surrogacy contracts, as well as their prior work on commercial surrogacy, against criticisms by others, including Elizabeth S. Anderson, Eric Blyth, and Claire Potter. McLachlan and Swales tackle conventional objections to commercial surrogacy, including arguments based on the best interests of the child and improper commodification, concluding that these objections to commercial surrogate motherhood are “based on an irrational prejudice against monetary transactions and a groundless general preference for services that are offered without a financial fee.” Instead, McLachlan and Swales contend, rational prospective parents may consider that there are advantages and disadvantages to both altruistic and commercial surrogacy, and should be allowed to freely choose which system best suits their preferences.
Meanwhile, in Surrogacy and the Politics of Commodification, Scott examines the history of commercial surrogacy, from the moral panic seeking to stamp out commercial surrogacy that ensued after the Baby M decision, to the more sanguine view evidenced today by many courts and legislatures, which seek primarily to ensure certainty of parentage and address other policy concerns arising from commercial surrogacy. Scott attributes the changed legal environment to the changed social environment, which eventually repackaged commercial surrogacy from a harmful, destabilizing force that coerced women and commodified children, into an altruistic gift freely offered to sympathetic deserving infertile couples unable to reproduce without the surrogate’s help. Although Scott traces this change in social norms to a variety of factors, including the advent of gestational surrogacy and the fact that many of the predicted harms attributed to commercial surrogacy markets failed to materialize, of particular interest is her analysis of the evolving views of feminists and liberals to the commercial surrogacy question, and the resulting demise of the unstable coalition formed among feminists, liberals, and social conservatives in the wake of Baby M.
Scott’s analysis is particularly salient today: will the more pragmatic contemporary approach to commercial surrogacy continue, or are we potentially poised for a second wave of moral panic? As Scott notes, the recent growth in the “outsourcing” of surrogacy to developing nations, particularly India, seems to have struck a nerve with an American public largely content to support or ignore commercial surrogacy arrangements within the United States. And, even as this volume goes to press, debate surges over Alex Kuczynski’s recent first-hand account of her own commercial surrogacy arrangement in the New York Times magazine.
In The Debt Financing of Parenthood, Melissa B. Jacoby considers a vitally important, yet frequently overlooked, aspect of making markets in traditionally forbidden exchange: how such exchange will be financed and the potential policy implications of those financing choices. Jacoby notes that, although discussions of consumer credit as a means to smooth mismatches between income and consumption are standard fare in the context of other commercial markets, discussion of the roles of either debt or credit in the parenthood market rarely rise above the level of anecdote raised in passing, with most observers assuming that cash or insurance are the only viable options for financing infertility.
Jacoby notes that major lenders have begun to enter the parenthood market, offering separately-tailored credit products to those seeking either infertility treatments or adoption, often at high interest rates. Although non-profits offer a cheaper alternative in the adoption market, their savings often come with their own price-tag: credit may be conditioned on the characteristics of the adopted child (disabled, non-white, or older) or of the intended parents (such as marital status, sexual orientation, religious affiliation, or the observance of traditional gender roles). Jacoby predicts that the entrance of repeat-player lenders offering specialized fertility credit products is likely to both increase the size of the parenthood market and to alter the market’s structure and political economy.
here’s your post about neoliberals. hope it’s horrifying enough for you.
Anonymous said: It's been at least a month since the last time you mentioned neoliberals. Have you been abducted and replaced by a pod person?
i’ve got like 200 drafts i save for emergencies like this. it’s just cause i haven’t really dug into any of the books i picked to read next. after i get this chibber book done though, i’ll probably go into a plehweh and walpen or a van der pijl book, and both of those authors primarily write about neoliberalism.
Despite Human Rights Watch and others claiming Hamas fires rockets indiscriminately, they actually call out their targets ahead of time. It just never gets in the western press, so it effectively doesn’t exist. Their targets are always of some military value, like the Dimona facility where Israel does nuclear weapons research. Of course, the odd time it can be used for fear, like when they targeted Dimona, western press will report on it and say “Oh no, look at what these terrible people are doing, targeting a civilian nuclear reactor!”
"In recent weeks I was on the border of Gaza and getting reports from soldiers in the Gaza Strip who leak information out to me. I am in the process of publication of two big stories in major U.S. newspapers, but there are some things I can share with you right now: Soldiers in two different units inside Gaza leaked information about the murdering of Palestinians by sniper fire in Shuja’iyya neighborhood as punishment for the death of soldiers in their units. After the shooting on the Israeli armored personnel carriers, which killed seven soldiers of the Golani Brigade, the Israeli army carried out a massacre in Shuja’iyya neighborhood. A day after the massacre, many Palestinians came to search for their relatives and their families in the rubble. In one of the videos uploaded to YouTube, a young Palestinian man calls the names of his family and looking for them between the ruins when he is suddenly shot at in his chest and falls down. A few seconds after that, there are two additional shootings from snipers into his body, killing him instantly. Since the video was released, there was no official response from the IDF spokesperson. Today I can report that the official command that was handed down to the soldiers in Shujaiyya was to capture Palestinian homes as outposts. From these posts, the soldiers drew an imaginary red line, and amongst themselves decided to shoot to death anyone who crosses it. Anyone crossing the line was defined as a threat to their outposts, and was thus deemed a legitimate target. This was the official reasoning inside the units. I was told that the unofficial reason was to enable the soldiers to take out their frustrations and pain at losing their fellow soldiers (something that for years the IDF has not faced during its operations in Gaza and the West Bank), out on the Palestinian refugees in the neighborhood. Under the pretext of the so-called “security threat” soldiers were directed to carry out a pre-planned attack of revenge on Palestinian civilians. These stories join many other similar ones that Amira Hass and I investigated in Operation Cast Lead. The death toll that continues to rise is steadily reaching the numbers of the massacre of 2009.
More than 1,100 have been killed in Gaza, at least 80 percent of them civilians. Today it is cleared for publication that at least 4 soldiers were killed by a rocket in a gathering area outside of Gaza, and another soldier was killed in Gaza. They join 43 soldiers that have already been killed. We know that more acts of revenge will come soon and it is important that we not stay silent. This is the time to take to the streets and to social media. Demand from your representative wherever you are to stop supporting this massacre and to immediately boycott the state of Israel until the occupation ends, the blockade is lifted and Palestinians will be free. We all want to be in the right place at the right time when history knocks on our door, and history is knocking in Gaza right now. You need to decide on which side you want to go down in history."