Posted by addisethiopia / አዲስ ኢትዮጵያ on August 4, 2018
This is what happens when Britain doesn’t stop from intervening in internal affairs of Ethiopian sociopolitical, cultural and religious communities. This is what’s occurring when they bring two Pakistani Muslims to key political power; Sadiq as Mayor of London, and Sajid as Home Secretory.
Watch the Sajid and Sadiq show:
Tommy Robinson Was Abused And Tortured With The Complicity Of The British State
Unless Robinson is lying – which I doubt – this is the only logical conclusion to be drawn from the accounts he gave to Rebel Media’s Ezra Levantand Fox News’s Tucker Carlson.
How else do you explain the perverse decision to move this outspoken critic of Islam into the Category C prison with the highest proportion of Muslim inmates in Britain?
Why was he put in a ground floor cell, opposite the prison mosque, which enabled the inmates to spit and throw excrement through his window – to the point where his only option was to keep it shut and suffer in the stifling heat?
And why was his food allowed to be prepared and served by Muslim prisoners when the authorities would undoubtedly have known that it would be deliberately contaminated with excrement and heaven knows what else?
No one is suggesting that Tommy Robinson should have been given special treatment by the prison authorities. Just the same rights as any other prisoner serving a short sentence for a non-violent crime.
The right, for example, not to have to spend your sentence in solitary confinement so as to protect you from all the prisoners on a mission to kill you.
The right not to be half-starved – as Robinson was because the only safe food he was able to eat on his limited personal allowance (which the prison refused to increase) was one tin of tuna and a piece of fresh fruit a day.
Whatever happened to the duty of care the state owes to prisoners in its custody?
If this kind of abuse were handed out to any other kind of prisoner – be he a child-murderer or a terrorist – can you imagine the fuss that would be made by all the civil rights groups, all the activist lawyers, all the left-leaning newspapers, the BBC?
“A society is only as good as the treatment it gives to its lowliest citizens,” they’d argue – or some such virtue-signalling piety.
But apparently when you’re a white working-class bloke who rocks the multicultural boat and embarrasses the Establishment’s bury-your-head-in-the-sand appeasement policy, you lose all right to fair treatment and a fair hearing.
SHAMEFUL GREAT BRITAIN YOU HAVE DAMAGED THE COUNTRY , MAYBE FOREVER.
Hard to believe it’s GB. What ever happened to that beautiful country with it’s green rolling hills? Globalism, greed, and scumbag politicians.
The Home Secretary, who is in charge of the entire prison system, is a Muslim. That explains Tommy’s transfer. And these people are appointed by Labour in all strategic places, they are everywhere, they run our country. But their allegiance is not with our country, it is with their political ideology called Islamism. Like putting a shark in charge of a swimming pool!
The UK government run by satanic pedophiles, Starting with the Royal” family
And the Left EVERYWHERE is the same. Closet totalitarians until they gain full power, then they “transform” into murdering totalitarians.
Scumbag human rights lawyers. They are quite happy to see those they don’t like being tortured. They will bend over backwards for islamists and child killers but when it’s a political prisoner on the right they actually support the mistreatment. Absolute hypocrites.
I hope the Government realise what they have done here, this is not justice or the sort of thing we expect in a free democratic society, it is tyranny and there is no exuse for this, Theresa May is guilty of tyranny. What is his crime, telling the truth, that is now a crime in the UK, this will not end well and if there is no justice anymore then we will have anarchy.
Posted by addisethiopia / አዲስ ኢትዮጵያ on July 13, 2016
January 22, 2016
Over the course of 228 years since the ratification of the United States Constitution every presidential election cycle has been identified in history by an overriding issue or movement. In 2016 the underlying theme is the anger and disgust directed toward the political establishment. Per the polls, an overwhelming majority of the American people see their family’s’ and the nation’s future as extremely bleak, and the current political leaders in Washington as being megalomaniacal, avaricious, narcissistic or feckless. Not since the early days of the Great Depression has the citizenry, regardless of political affiliation, been so fearful of the future and so infuriated with the nation’s governing class.
There are, at present, 14 declared candidates running for their party’s presidential nomination — 3 in the Democratic Party and 11 in the Republican Party. Considering the general mood of the country where do these hopefuls fit into the overall framework of the political establishment?
On these pages in January of 2012 I defined the political establishment as being made up of the following:
A preponderance of current and retired national office holders whose livelihoods (re-election for current office holders and lobbying or consulting for retired politicians) requires fealty to the Party in order to maintain financial backing as well as access to government largess;
The majority of the media elite, including pundits, editors, writers and television news personalities based in Washington and New York, whose proximity to power and access is vital in order to gratify their self-esteem and to sustain their standard of living;
Academia, numerous think-tanks, so called non-government organizations, and lobbyists who fasten onto those in any administration and Congress for employment, grants, favorable legislation and ego-gratification;
The reliable deep pocket political contributors and political consultants whose future is irrevocably tied to the political machinery of the Party; and
The crony capitalists, i.e. leaders of the corporate and financial community as well as unions, whose entities are dependent on or subject to government oversight and/or benevolence and whose political contributions assure political cooperation.
On the Democratic side of the aisle, there is no one currently in the race for president that exemplifies the current governing class more than Hillary Clinton. Bernie Sanders, an avowed socialist and the antithesis of the establishment as defined above, is doing extraordinarily well against Hillary notwithstanding her overwhelming starting advantage in fundraising and having the weight of the Democratic Party behind her. Among the factors contributing to Sanders’s showing is that Hillary is unlikeable and untrustworthy, but more importantly a large percentage of the base in the Democratic Party is also fed up with the political establishment, as well as the paucity of choices foisted on them by the Democratic Party hierarchy, and is venting that frustration in their backing of Bernie Sanders. Nonetheless, the Democrat wing of the establishment will make certain he will not win the nomination regardless of what may happen to Hillary Clinton.
Posted by addisethiopia / አዲስ ኢትዮጵያ on July 2, 2016
Democracy no longer exists in the West. In the US powerful private interest groups, such as the military-security complex, Wall Street, the Israel Lobby, agribusiness and the extractive industries of energy, timber and mining, have long exercised more control over government than the people. But now even the semblance of democracy has been abandoned.
In the US Donald Trump has won the Republican presidential nomination. However, Republican convention delegates are plotting to deny Trump the nomination that the people have voted him. The Republican political establishment is showing an unwillingness to accept democratic outcomes.
The people chose, but their choice is unacceptable to the establishment which intends to substitute its choice for the people’s choice.
Do you remember Dominic Strauss-Kahn? Strauss-Kahn is the Frenchman who was head of the IMF and, according to polls, the likely next president of France. He said something that sounded too favorable toward the Greek people. This concerned powerful banking interests who worried that he might get in the way of their plunder of Greece, Portugal, Spain, and Italy. A hotel maid appeared who accused him of rape. He was arrested and held without bail. After the police and prosecutors had made fools of themselves, he was released with all charges dropped. But the goal was achieved. Strauss-Kahn had to resign as IMF director and kiss goodbye his chance for the presidency of France.
Curious, isn’t it, that a woman has now appeared who claims Trump raped her when she was 13 years old.
Consider the political establishment’s response to the Brexit vote. Members of Parliament are saying that the vote is unacceptable and that Parliament has the right and responsibility to ignore the voice of the people.
The view now established in the West is that the people are not qualified to make political decisions. The position of the opponents of Brexit is clear: it simply is not a matter for the British people whether their sovereignty is given away to an unaccountable commission in Brussels.
Martin Schultz, President of the EU Parliament, puts it clearly: “It is not the EU philosophy that the crowd can decide its fate.”
The Western media have made it clear that they do not accept the people’s decision either. The vote is said to be “racist” and therefore can be disregarded as illegitimate.
Washington has no intention of permitting the British to exit the European Union. Washington did not work for 60 years to put all of Europe in the EU bag that Washington can control only to let democracy undo its achievement.
The Federal Reserve, its Wall Street allies, and its Bank of Japan and European Central Bank vassals will short the UK pound and equities, and the presstitutes will explain the decline in values as “the market’s” pronouncement that the British vote was a mistake. If Britain is actually permitted to leave, the two-year long negotiations will be used to tie the British into the EU so firmly that Britain leaves in name only.
No one with a brain believes that Europeans are happy that Washington and NATO are driving them into conflict with Russia. Yet their protests have no effect on their governments.
Consider the French protests of what the neoliberal French government, masquerading as socialist, calls “labor law reforms.” What the “reform” does is to take away the reforms that the French people achieved over decades of struggle. The French made employment more stable and less uncertain, thereby reducing stress and contributing to the happiness of life. But the corporations want more profit and regard regulations and laws that benefit people as barriers to higher profitability. Neoliberal economists backed the takeback of French labor rights with the false argument that a humane society causes unemployment. The neoliberal economists call it “liberating the employment market” from reforms achieved by the French people.
The French government, of course, represents corporations, not the French people.
The neoliberal economists and politicians have no qualms about sacrificing the quality of French life in order to clear the way for global corporations to make more profits. What is the value in “the global market” when the result is to worsen the fate of peoples?
Consider the Germans. They are being overrun with refugees from Washington’s wars, wars that the stupid German government enabled. The German people are experiencing increases in crime and sexual attacks. They protest, but their government does not hear them. The German government is more concerned about the refugees than it is about the German people.
Consider the Greeks and the Portuguese forced by their governments to accept personal financial ruin in order to boost the profits of foreign banks. These governments represent foreign bankers, not the Greek and Portuguese people.
One wonders how long before all Western peoples conclude that only a French Revolution complete with guillotine can set them free.
Posted by addisethiopia / አዲስ ኢትዮጵያ on May 7, 2015
My Note: Whenever I see, hear and observe David Cameron, Ed Miliband, Nick Clegg and Nigel Farage, I ask myself, “Woow, are these the best a country that prides itself as ‘Great’ Britain has to offer? God willing, on the other side of the Atlantic, we shall observe the same theater between Clinton and Bush next year. Turnout at general elections are getting lower and lower, yet these politicians and their controlled medias are more and more desperate to get the easily manipulable sheeple to vote without having the necessary leadership integrity and dignity. The truth is that many people are now seeing through this fake democracy. Tory, Labor or Lib-Dem, the political parties and their representatives are all the same and they have one common aim: consolidation of the society into a single liberal anti-Christ unit – whatever the choice the notorious dictatorship of liberal democracy rules – instead of rule by the people for the people there is a rule for the liberal elite. Don’t they, at least, have some sense of shame and humility when they dispatch their supremacist ‘election observers?’ to some of our “undemocratic” countries?
It is often said that we get the politicians we deserve. But throughout this election I have kept wondering, ‘Are we really as bad as all this?’ The answer must be ‘yes’. This bland and empty ‘campaign’ has not only been the fault of the main parties competing to govern the UK – it has also been a reflection of what they believe we, the general public, now expect from our politics.
Of course the result is aggravating, in part because we keep trying to enjoy contradictory things. For instance at some point in recent years it was decided that any statement outside a vague centre-left orthodoxy constituted a ‘gaffe’. Such ‘gaffes’ get highlighted by the media who then seek denunciations of the ‘gaffe’ from any member of the public. The result is that politicians now treat words like landmines and try to speak only in the bland language of political orthodoxy. We are obviously not entirely happy with this arrangement because at the same time as having created this type of politics we complain that our politicians are all similar, dull identikit figures.
Or take the striking reluctance of the major party leaders to meet any ordinary voters. There was a time, not long ago, when even a Prime Minister could get up on a stage at election time, address an audience and take the risk that the audience might include doubters, hecklers and even political opponents. But then the cameras began to flock to anyone who challenged the politicians and presented them not as one person with an opinion, but as the authentic voice of the people and a possible game-changer in an election. After several rounds of this, the parties clearly recognised that the negatives associated with meeting the general public vastly outweighed any positives. This isn’t so much the case for the small parties, who have less to lose, but for the main parties, meeting just one angry member of the public can now derail a whole campaign.
So now it has proved possible to have an entire election campaign with only stage-managed events. The major party leaders need almost never meet the general public. And why would they when they can bus around ambitious, thrusting young party loyalists to form a pretend-public backdrop at their fake events? Whose fault is this? Well it is the media’s of course. But it is also the fault of us, the public, for pushing politicians away even as we complain that they are ignoring us. In the same way that it is our fault for wishing for impossible things from our leaders while giving them a pass for failing at possible things.
Consider the last week of stories. First there was the alleged ‘misspeak’ by David Cameron where he described as ‘career-defining’ what he quickly added was a ‘country-defining’ election. Cue a vast concentration of media attention. Was it a slip of the tongue? Or was it, to use one of the most idiotic motifs of political punditry, the mask slipping? Who knows? And how could anyone know? In any case it matters not a jot either way. But amid all the chatter, we forgot to recall that David Cameron is a human being, not an automaton.
Our insistence that our politicians must be ‘more human’ and yet not make any human slip-ups is literal in the case of Ed Miliband. On his way off-stage last week after an unusual orchestrated grilling on the BBC by invited members of the public, one of Miliband’s feet ever so slightly stumbled as he left the stage. Thank goodness for him that he didn’t actually fall. If he had done it would all be over by now. But this wasn’t even a stumble, it was an almost-stumble – a micro-stumble. Yet there was a story. What did this tell us about Ed Miliband asked the Conservatives, who hate it when this is done to them? In truth it told us no more than the endless, tedious obsession over how Ed Miliband once ate a bacon sandwich or the fascinating story of what Ed Miliband or David Cameron’s kitchens say about their ability to govern.
It is no coincidence that during this campaign of frippery the real stories were not even touched upon. There has been absolutely no debate over foreign policy in this election. It is as though the world is not there. While we concentrate on micro-stumbles and peoples’ kitchens we have become unsurprisingly small-minded and insular as a nation. The only time that defence came up as an issue during this campaign was when Michael Fallon slipped something about Ed Miliband’s relationship with his brother into a story about Trident. Inevitably the story became not about our nuclear deterrent but about whether this was a mean thing to do and whether Fallon should apologise to Ed Miliband.
You could argue that the British public no longer care about defence, security and foreign policy. But what about the issues we are thought to care about – for instance the issue which poll after poll consistently shows is the general public’s number one issue: immigration. The last Labour government oversaw a period of mass immigration unparalleled in our country’s history, the fall-out from which will pose challenges to this country for generations to come. Yet there was next to no debate when Ed Miliband had the temerity to attack the coalition government for failing to meet its own targets on immigration.
The gall of the Labour leader in saying this can hardly be believed. But he has a point. Because despite campaigning before the last election to bring migration into the UK down from hundreds of thousands a year to tens of thousands, the post-2010 government failed magnificently in this aim, with net migration close to 300,000 last year. True they managed to successfully bring down non-EU migration, and of course they are in a coalition, and of course we are in the EU, but the Conservative party completely and wholly failed in their pledge. Perhaps it is because both main parties know how abysmally they have failed in this area – and how unpopular they are for having failed – that they ensured this subject wasn’t seriously debated. But we the public still allow them to get away with this.
It’s like the NHS, perhaps the one issue of substance which politicians feel any confidence about. As others have pointed out, if the NHS is so good it is odd that our politicians spend so much time trying to fix it, or pretending that their political opponents either have destroyed it, or are in the process of destroying it. They must know this isn’t true. But they say it because they believe that it is the only thing the general public care about and that they have us so long as they say at some point in any statement, ‘Our NHS is the envy of the world and we have to do everything in our power to protect it’. We have had no serious discussion about the NHS or its failings because the public don’t seem to want to hear it.
Even these things might be small-fry of course. Because our country may not even exist at the next general election if the Scottish Nationalists do as well as predicted – a fact that barely registers outside the ever more insular and rank politics north of the border. It is also possible – depending on who comes out as the biggest party after Thursday – that after this election this country might finally have a say in what our relationship should be with the European Union. Neither of these considerable issues has been seriously discussed in this campaign.
When I say we the general public are ‘unhappy’ about what we have helped create some people will say I am exaggerating. So let me put it another way. Can anybody think of any sane person who is actually looking forward to the prospect of voting tomorrow? I can think of no election in recent memory in which people from across the political spectrum have seemed so un-eager. Is any Labour voter seriously pumped-up at the prospect of a Miliband premiership? Are any Conservatives actually looking forward to a second term of Cameron government, as opposed to just thinking it would be better than Ed Miliband being in Number 10? The minor parties have had their surges but the inevitable pre-election squeeze means that very few of their voters can be going to the polls believing that their vote will make much of a difference.
I could go on. But in short, this campaign has shown a democracy in a horrible state of disrepair, particularly gruesomely in hoc to the shallows. It has shown a democratic process resolutely failing to engage people or show why politics matters. At some point the political parties should try to address this. But they will not be able to do it alone. The weeks and months ahead will also require us, the public, to work out what we want from our media and what we expect from our politics.
Posted by addisethiopia / አዲስ ኢትዮጵያ on April 9, 2010
During flight, pigeons in a flock follow the leader
Pigeons wearing miniature backpacks containing tracking devices have revealed that the birds rapidly shift direction during flight in response to cues from the leading members of their group.
“It is the first study demonstrating hierarchical decision-making in a group of free-flying birds,” says Tamás Vicsek, a biophysicist at Eötvös Loránd University in Budapest who led the study, which is published today in Nature1.
The discovery became possible only recently with the introduction of Global Positioning System (GPS) devices that can collect data at a high rate: five times per second. Vicsek’s team strapped lightweight GPS devices to individual pigeons and tracked flocks of up to 10 birds during free flights lasting around 12 minutes and 15-kilometre homing flights. In total, the GPS logged 32 hours of data and captured 15 group flights. The researchers couldn’t pinpoint individuals’ exact positions within a flock, but were able to accurately compare birds’ directions of motion.
Within flocks, the authors looked first at the behaviour of pairs of birds. For each possible pairing, the team identified a leader — the bird that changed direction first — and a follower, which copied the leader’s motion. Followers reacted very quickly, within a fraction of a second.
Next, the scientists constructed a network of relationships among birds in the group during each flight. They uncovered a robust pecking order: birds higher up the ranks had more influence over the group’s movements, and each individual’s level of influence was consistent across specific free and homing flights.
However, this influence was not always consistent between flights, with some rearrangement occurring among birds at the head of the flock. Vicsek speculates that this may have occurred because an original leader had tired. Co-author Dora Biro, an animal behaviour expert at the University of Oxford, UK, says, “This kind of group decision-making is more complicated than previous models suggested.”
Follow the leader
Although pigeons have an almost 340º field of view, the researchers found that the birds at the front of a flock tended to make the navigational decisions. Moreover, birds responded more readily to a leader’s movements if the leader was on their left side. These findings concur with previous work that indicated that social cues entering a bird’s left eye receive preferential processing in the brain.
“No other study has contributed more to our understanding of collective decision-making in actively homing animals, not by a long shot,” says Todd Dennis, an expert in pigeon navigation at the University of Auckland in New Zealand. He likens the birds’ group behaviour to that of a cabaret dance troupe, in which less-experienced dancers towards the rear correct themselves by watching experts at the front. “The study provides a very important model for how collective behaviour and leadership can be assessed in a range of animal groups,” he says.
The authors say that a hierarchical arrangement may foster more flexible and efficient decision-making compared with that of singly led or egalitarian groups. In future studies, the scientists plan to investigate whether leaders are better navigators, and whether hierarchies persist in larger groups and in other types of social animal. “If it’s true that there’s an evolutionary advantage to making decisions in this way, then there’s absolutely a reason to assume that it could have evolved in other species too,” Biro says.
Addis Ethiopia Weblog 