Wednesday, 2 November 2011
Netanyahu trying to persuade cabinet to support attack on Iran
Netanyahu and Barak recently persuaded Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, who previously objected to attacking Iran, to support such a move.
Although more than a million Israelis have had to seek shelter during a week of rockets raining down on the south, political leaders have diverted their attention to arguing over a possible war with Iran. Leading ministers were publicly dropping hints on Tuesday that Israeli could attack Iran, although a member of the forum of eight senior ministers said no such decision had been taken.
Senior ministers and diplomats said the International Atomic Energy Agency's report, due to be released on November 8, will have a decisive effect on the decisions Israel makes.
The commotion regarding Iran was sparked by journalist Nahum Barnea's column in Yedioth Ahronoth last Friday. Barnea's concerned tone and his editors' decision to run the column under the main headline ("Atomic Pressure" ) repositioned the debate on Iran from closed rooms to the media's front pages.
Reporters could suddenly ask the prime minister and defense minister whether they intend to attack Iran in the near future and the political scene went haywire.
Western intelligence officials agree that Iran is forging ahead with its nuclear program. Intelligence services now say it will take Iran two or three years to get the bomb once it decides to (it hasn't made the decision yet ).
According to Western experts' analyses, an attack on Iran in winter is almost impossible, because the thick clouds would obstruct the Israel Air Force's performance.
Netanyahu did not rule out the possibility of the need for a military action on Iran this week. During his Knesset address on Monday, Netanyahu warned of Iran's increased power and influence. "One of those regional powers is Iran, which is continuing its efforts to obtain nuclear weapons. A nuclear Iran would constitute a grave threat to the Middle East and the entire world, and of course it is a direct and grave threat on us," he said.
Barak said Israel should not be intimidated but did not rule out the possibility that Israel would launch a military attack on Iran's nuclear facilities. "I object to intimidation and saying Israel could be destroyed by Iran," he said.
"We're not hiding our thoughts. However there are issues we don't discuss in public ... We have to act in every way possible and no options should be taken off the table ... I believe diplomatic pressure and sanctions must be brought to bear against Iran," he said.
Strategic Affairs Minister Moshe Ya'alon said he preferred an American military attack on Iran to an Israeli one. "A military move is the last resort," he said.
Interior Minister Eli Yishai has not made his mind up yet on the issue. In a speech to Shas activists in the north on Monday Yishai said "this is a complicated time and it's better not to talk about how complicated it is. This possible action is keeping me awake at night. Imagine we're [attacked] from the north, south and center. They have short-range and long-range missiles - we believe they have about 100,000 rockets and missiles."
Intelligence and Atomic Energy Minister Dan Meridor said he supports an American move against Iran. In an interview to the Walla! website some two weeks ago Meridor said "It's clear to all that a nuclear Iran is a grave danger and the whole world, led by the United States, must make constant efforts to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. The Iranians already have more than four tons of 3-4 percent enriched uranium and 70 kgs. of 20 percent enriched uranium. It's clear to us they are continuing to make missiles. Iran's nuclearization is not only a threat to Israel but to several other Western states, and the international interest must unite here."
Former Defense Minister Benjamin Ben-Eliezer said he feared a "horror scenario" in which Netanyahu and Barak decide to attack Iran. He warned of a "rash act" and said he hoped "common sense will prevail."
On Tuesday, Barak said at the Knesset's Finance Committee that the state budget must be increased by NIS 7-8 a year for five years to fulfill Israel's security needs and answer the social protest. "The situation requires expanding the budget to enable us to act in a responsible way regarding the defense budget considering the challenges, as well as fulfill some of the demands coming from the Trajtenberg committee," he said.
Zvi Zrahiya, Jonathan Lis, Barak Ravid and Amos Harel @'Haaretz'
adrianblomfield adrianblomfield
Worth remembering that US officials in Sept admitted supplying #Israel with bunker buster bombs. Might be useful for an #Iran strike
Schizophrenia: 100 years of bad treatment
Imagine for a minute what life might have been like if you'd been diagnosed with schizophrenia in 1911. Shunned by society, you would have been treated with fear and suspicion by many.
With no known cure, you would be subjected to treatment by trial and error, some of which would have gruesome side-effects. Detained by the state, you could expect to be monitored by overworked, underpaid staff and going to church might have been suggested as a way to calm your chaotic mind.
A lot has changed in the 100 years since the term "schizophrenia" was first coined, but perhaps not quite as much as you might think. People living with schizophrenia still experience many of the same problems today.
In 1910, Winston Churchill summed up contemporary attitudes when he wrote to the prime minister, Herbert Asquith, arguing for the mass sterilisation of people with severe mental illness.
Churchill warned that the "feeble-minded and insane classes" constituted a "danger which it is impossible to exaggerate", and that "the source from which the stream of madness is fed should be cut off and sealed up before another year has passed."
While views like these are no longer part of mainstream debate, the stigma and discrimination people with schizophrenia still face can be worse than the symptoms of the illness itself. Sensationalist media reporting has helped paint a picture of "schizos" who are wild, dangerous and need to be controlled.
In truth, violence is not a symptom of schizophrenia and people who have it are far more likely to harm themselves than anybody else. The vast majority of those affected live very ordinary lives, managing their symptoms through a combination of medication and, if they're lucky, talking therapies.
While huge advances in treatment have been made since the early 1900s when "cures" included raising patients' body temperature by injecting them with sulphur and oil, things haven't progressed anywhere near as fast as they have for physical illnesses such as cancer and heart disease.
Treatment today can still be a long and draining process of trial and error to find the right medication, which can last for years. While the drugs may dull symptoms, the side effects can include rapid weight gain, heart problems, loss of sex drive and a greater risk of developing diabetes. The effects of medication, along with lifestyle factors, mean people with schizophrenia die up to 20 years earlier than the rest of us, mostly from preventable physical illness.
Too often, people with severe mental illnesses are fobbed off with drugs alone. There are plenty of other treatments proven to work, but a poll by my organisation, Rethink Mental Illness, found just 16% of people who have schizophrenia and bipolar disorder are getting access to all the treatment recommended by Nice for their diagnosis.
One of our activists, David Strange – who developed paranoid schizophrenia while completing his doctorate at Oxford – was offered nothing but medication for 10 years after first being diagnosed. When he finally made it to the top of the waiting list for cognitive behavioural therapy last year, it changed his life. He still experiences frightening auditory and visual hallucinations, but it has helped him learn to engage with them and challenge what they say.
Although the conditions found in the old "lunatic asylums" are a far cry from inpatient care today, there are some striking similarities.
In 1908, manic-depressive Clifford Beers published an account of his experiences of institutionalisation. In it he describes crowded wards staffed by staff too busy and stressed to properly communicate with patients. For many who have experienced inpatient care in 2011, his observations will be depressingly familiar.
As for the suggestion that church might be the answer to mental illness, this advice was recently given to one of our supporters by a nurse and it wasn't an isolated incident. Our members have told us countless similar stories of inconsiderate or ignorant comments. These words reveal the stigma and misunderstanding that still surrounds mental illness, sometimes even among health professionals.
To mark the unhappy 100th birthday of the term "schizophrenia", Rethink Mental illness will be launching a campaign on Tuesday asking people to send a clear message to government that people with schizophrenia deserve a better deal in every area of their lives.
Rachel Whitehead @'The Guardian'
With no known cure, you would be subjected to treatment by trial and error, some of which would have gruesome side-effects. Detained by the state, you could expect to be monitored by overworked, underpaid staff and going to church might have been suggested as a way to calm your chaotic mind.
A lot has changed in the 100 years since the term "schizophrenia" was first coined, but perhaps not quite as much as you might think. People living with schizophrenia still experience many of the same problems today.
In 1910, Winston Churchill summed up contemporary attitudes when he wrote to the prime minister, Herbert Asquith, arguing for the mass sterilisation of people with severe mental illness.
Churchill warned that the "feeble-minded and insane classes" constituted a "danger which it is impossible to exaggerate", and that "the source from which the stream of madness is fed should be cut off and sealed up before another year has passed."
While views like these are no longer part of mainstream debate, the stigma and discrimination people with schizophrenia still face can be worse than the symptoms of the illness itself. Sensationalist media reporting has helped paint a picture of "schizos" who are wild, dangerous and need to be controlled.
In truth, violence is not a symptom of schizophrenia and people who have it are far more likely to harm themselves than anybody else. The vast majority of those affected live very ordinary lives, managing their symptoms through a combination of medication and, if they're lucky, talking therapies.
While huge advances in treatment have been made since the early 1900s when "cures" included raising patients' body temperature by injecting them with sulphur and oil, things haven't progressed anywhere near as fast as they have for physical illnesses such as cancer and heart disease.
Treatment today can still be a long and draining process of trial and error to find the right medication, which can last for years. While the drugs may dull symptoms, the side effects can include rapid weight gain, heart problems, loss of sex drive and a greater risk of developing diabetes. The effects of medication, along with lifestyle factors, mean people with schizophrenia die up to 20 years earlier than the rest of us, mostly from preventable physical illness.
Too often, people with severe mental illnesses are fobbed off with drugs alone. There are plenty of other treatments proven to work, but a poll by my organisation, Rethink Mental Illness, found just 16% of people who have schizophrenia and bipolar disorder are getting access to all the treatment recommended by Nice for their diagnosis.
One of our activists, David Strange – who developed paranoid schizophrenia while completing his doctorate at Oxford – was offered nothing but medication for 10 years after first being diagnosed. When he finally made it to the top of the waiting list for cognitive behavioural therapy last year, it changed his life. He still experiences frightening auditory and visual hallucinations, but it has helped him learn to engage with them and challenge what they say.
Although the conditions found in the old "lunatic asylums" are a far cry from inpatient care today, there are some striking similarities.
In 1908, manic-depressive Clifford Beers published an account of his experiences of institutionalisation. In it he describes crowded wards staffed by staff too busy and stressed to properly communicate with patients. For many who have experienced inpatient care in 2011, his observations will be depressingly familiar.
As for the suggestion that church might be the answer to mental illness, this advice was recently given to one of our supporters by a nurse and it wasn't an isolated incident. Our members have told us countless similar stories of inconsiderate or ignorant comments. These words reveal the stigma and misunderstanding that still surrounds mental illness, sometimes even among health professionals.
To mark the unhappy 100th birthday of the term "schizophrenia", Rethink Mental illness will be launching a campaign on Tuesday asking people to send a clear message to government that people with schizophrenia deserve a better deal in every area of their lives.
Rachel Whitehead @'The Guardian'
SOPA: Hollywood Finally Gets A Chance to Break the Internet
As promised, here’s the first installment of our closer review of the massive piece of job-killing Internet regulation that is the Stop Online Piracy Act. We’ll start with how it could impact Twitter, Tumblr, and the next innovative social network, cloud computing, or web hosting service that some smart kid is designing in her garage right now.
Let’s make one thing clear from the get-go: despite all the talk about this bill being directed only toward “rogue” foreign sites, there is no question that it targets US companies as well. The bill sets up a system to punish sites allegedly “dedicated to the theft of US property.” How do you get that label? Doesn’t take much: Some portion of your site (even a single page) must
- be directed toward the US, and either
- allegedly “engage in, enable or facilitate” infringement or
- allegedly be taking or have taken steps to “avoid confirming a high probability” of infringement.
If an IP rightsholder (vaguely defined – could be Justin Bieber worried about his publicity rights) thinks you meet the criteria and that it is in some way harmed, it can send a notice claiming as much to the payment processors (Visa, Mastercard, Paypal etc.) and ad services you rely on.
Once they get it, they have 5 days to choke off your financial support. Of course, the payment processors and ad networks won’t be able to fine-tune their response so that only the allegedly infringing portion of your site is affected, which means your whole site will be under assault. And, it makes no difference that no judge has found you guilty of anything or that the DMCA safe harbors would shelter your conduct if the matter ever went to court. Indeed, services that have been specifically found legal, like Rapidshare, could be economically strangled via SOPA. You can file a counter-notice, but you’ve only got 5 days to do it (good luck getting solid legal advice in time) and the payment processors and ad networks have no obligation to respect it in any event. That’s because there are vigilante provisions that grant them immunity for choking off a site if they have a “reasonable belief” that some portion of the site enables infringement.
At a minimum, this means that any service that hosts user generated content is going to be under enormous pressure to actively monitor and filter that content. That’s a huge burden, and worse for services that are just getting started – the YouTubes of tomorrow that are generating jobs today. And no matter what they do, we’re going to see a flurry of notices anyway – as we’ve learned from the DMCA takedown process, content owners are more than happy to send bogus complaints. What happened to Wikileaks via voluntary censorship will now be systematized and streamlined – as long as someone, somewhere, thinks they’ve got an IP right that’s being harmed.
In essence, Hollywood is tired of those pesky laws that help protect innovation, economic growth, and creativity rather than outmoded business models. So they are trying to rewrite the rules, regulate the Internet, and damn the consequences for the rest of us.
Watch this space for more analysis, but don’t wait to act. This bill cannot be fixed; it must be killed. The bill’s sponsors (and their corporate backers) want to push this thing through quickly, before ordinary citizens get wind of the harm it is going to cause. If you don’t want to let big media control the future of innovation and online expression, act now, and urge everyone you know to do the same.
Corynne McSherry @'EFF'
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
