Peace for the World

Peace for the World
First democratic leader of Justice the Godfather of the Sri Lankan Tamil Struggle: Honourable Samuel James Veluppillai Chelvanayakam

Monday, December 5, 2016

Israel close to legalising nearly 4,000 settler homes

Israeli government minister says legislation moves 'from the path leading to the creation of a Palestinian state'

A general view of caravans in the settlement outpost of Amona, which was established in 1997 on Palestinian land (AFP)

Monday 5 December 2016
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has closed in on a controversial bill with a key rival on Monday that could legalise nearly 4,000 settler homes in the occupied West Bank.
The bill, which is named the Regulation Law, has drawn harsh criticism internationally. Its main backer, Education Minister Naftali Bennett, called it the start of Israel's eventual annexation of most of the West Bank. Netanyahu had originally opposed the controversial legislation.
It would still need preliminary approval and three full votes at Israel's Knesset, but an agreement between Netanyahu and Bennett would likely assure passage.
The bill has severely tested Netanyahu's coalition, seen as the most right-wing in Israeli history. A previous version was given preliminary approval last month.
"With this law, the state of Israel has moved from the path leading to the creation of a Palestinian state to the path leading to (Israeli) sovereignty" over most of the West Bank, Bennett told army radio.
In October, Bennett called on supporters to give up their lives to ensure the entire West Bank is a part of the state of Israel.
Netanyahu told a meeting of members of his Likud party that "we have worked very hard to find a solution", while Israeli media reported that a compromise was at hand.
The international community considers all settlements in Israeli-annexed east Jerusalem and the West Bank to be illegal, whether they are authorised by the government or not.
The West Bank, occupied by Israel in 1967, is supposed to be, along with the Gaza Strip, home to the Palestinian state. World powers, including the United States, see the two-state solution as the solution to end the 68-year-old conflict.
The agreement would see a wildcat Jewish outpost in the West Bank, known as Amona, removed from the bill.
Amona, where around 40 families live, is under a court order to be evacuated by 25 December since it was built on Palestinian land.
Some members of Netanyahu's coalition had previously said they could not support the bill if Amona remained part of it because of the court ruling against it.
The agreement will instead see Amona residents temporarily moved to nearby land that Israeli officials describe as abandoned until a permanent solution is found.
Rights groups, however, say that land is also owned by Palestinians and that the move would violate international law.
The bill's progress so far has alarmed many in the international community.
The UN envoy for the Middle East peace process, Nickolay Mladenov, said the legislation "has the objective of protecting illegal settlements built on private Palestinian property in the West Bank.
"It is a very worrying initiative. I encourage Israeli legislators to reconsider such a move that would have far-reaching legal consequences across the occupied West Bank."
According to settlement watchdog Peace Now, the bill, if Amona is removed, would legalise some 3,881 housing units.
Most of the homes are located in Israeli-approved settlements but were built on Palestinian land. Around 750 are located in outposts which Israel has not yet approved, Peace Now says.

The Profound Disappointment of Angela Merkel

angela_markel
Mass killing, mass destruction of old societies and cities, induced-coups, threats, fears, torture, the creation of huge and desperate human movements, promotion and reward of terror as a covert policy tool, the decline everywhere in the rule of law, extra-judicial killing on an organized scale, a huge erosion in respect for international institutions like the now much-debased UN, an endless and confusing patchwork of lies told about terrible events – all while ignoring genuinely terrible situations like those in Palestine or in Saudi Arabia or in Turkey.

cropped-guardian_english_logo-1.pngby John Chuckman-Dec 6, 2016

( December 6, 2016, Boston, Sri Lanka Guardian) Anyone who says she admires Hillary Clinton, as Angela Merkel has said, plainly invites revulsion if not contempt. The lack of judgment broadcast by such words strikes the mind like a grating noise. Clinton’s record of behavior literally stinks to high heaven, much as a pile of corpses left to rot in the hot sun, and, as it happens, there are a great many rotting corpses in Clinton’s history.

What an immense disappointment Merkel is. Intelligent and well educated with an appealing, fairly benign face, but, wait, am I describing Merkel or, in fact, Obama? It turns out not to matter. They are a pair of malignant soul mates born thousands of miles apart who conspired later in life to bring the world a great deal of unhappiness.

Merkel has been de facto leader of Europe during an extremely challenging period, one demanding real statesmanship. Instead, she has provided attitudes and short-term fixes married to complete acceptance of the most destructive American policies possible. Her policies have alienated large numbers of her own people and, almost more importantly, contributed mightily to the weakening of loyalties in Europe – not a record of which to be proud.

Unfortunately, during the period of her Chancellorship, there have been no other European leaders of stature and ability to balance or oppose her. Absolutely none. Britain had the flabby joke of David Cameron who collapsed his own house of cards through sheer political incompetence. France had the absurd Francois Hollande, an impossibly pompous man with not a single achievement to his credit, a parody of a French President, certainly the worst leader in modern French history.

So, Europe at a time when America put great new stresses and demands upon it for its own selfish reasons had no leadership worth mentioning. All the major figures were content with accommodating America’s harsh and destructive initiatives. Well, I do think there is something to be said for the dictum that history is biography.

Everyone involved has suffered for Merkel’s attitudes and whims. Europe simply could not have done much worse. The press so glibly speaks of the rise of the political Right in Europe and in America, but what we really see on both continents is public reaction to years of blundering policies causing vast misery in many places.

You cannot support America’s destruction of the Middle East without accepting its direct consequences both in massive migrations of terrified people and in the rise of terror by relatively powerless young men wanting revenge for what has been done to them, their families and homes. Yet this is precisely what Angela Merkel has tried to do, trying to avoid inevitable, destructive consequences of stupid acts she has supported. Having never raised her voice against what America was doing, Merkel decided to deal with some of the consequences by playing the grandmotherly figure who welcomes an avalanche of refugees, seemingly not appreciating for a second what that means on the streets of her own country.

No decent person is against organized, peaceful immigration or against giving assistance to desperate refugees. There is an ethical obligation for both as well as some sound economic reasons. But if a truck, set to deliver two hundred gallons of fuel oil to your home’s heating system, pumps instead two thousand gallons, you suddenly have a disturbing, costly, and dangerous situation. The analogy is actually quite inadequate for what has happened in some places with armies of terrified people fleeing America’s imposed-horrors.

Merkel, realizing what her support of America’s destruction in Libya, Syria, and other places has wrought, tried setting the example of a benign figure ready to help everyone, a kind of bonhomie approach to what was a totally-avoidable catastrophe. The impossibility of this should have been seen, but it was not. Too many extremely-different refugees – different in language, customs, religion, wealth, and politics – cannot be absorbed quickly or peacefully by any country, and perhaps that is even more true of relatively old and homogeneous societies such as Germany.

We like to speak of xenophobia with contempt, but in the gritty real lives of vast populations everywhere on the planet, it is a reality just as much as backward religious practices, which cannot be wished away. True xenophobia, indeed, much resembles fundamentalist religion in that it is an expression of superstitious instincts, deeply-rooted instincts whose origins go beyond mere learned behaviors. Just try asking highly religious people to set aside their feelings for completely different newcomers, the example coming to mind of the Ultra-Orthodox in Israel and their “take” on others. It is possible only in the imagination.

But xenophobia is only part of the mix, despite the claims of a superficial mainstream press, and I am not just speaking of it. We promote nationalism and national unity in every Western country with flags, anthems, pledges, holiday customs, uniforms, speeches, parades, even laws, and then some leaders seem to expect their people, almost on command, to turn their backs on all the lifelong indoctrination and embrace sudden, great change? It simply cannot be done.

As with anything else you may care to discuss, the time to act is before a great problem or crisis has been created. Preventative health care is no less valuable for nations than it is for individuals. The leaders of Europe should have seen what America’s fanatical crusade was going to do and opposed it, forcefully, before it was started. In doing so, Europe would have been strengthened instead of diminished as it has been., to say nothing of preventing the death and maiming of millions in the Middle East. Instead they quietly supported it and even donated resources to the insane efforts of America’s Grande Armée in the Middle East.

Merkel’s contribution to disaster goes further, to her relations with one of the planet’s genuine madman-leaders, Netanyahu. She has been selling him sophisticated submarines at knock-down prices for years. Only recently they agreed to three more of them in a deal which has Netanyahu being examined in Israel for criminal activity. I think it fair to ask, too, why a sardine-sized country needs a fleet of sophisticated submarines, some or all of which are widely rumored to be outfitted with nuclear-armed cruise missiles? Does that make sense to anyone other than Merkel, Netanyahu, Clinton, and Obama? Does that contribute to stability in the Middle East? And why doesn’t the excruciating injustice of Israel’s occupation and regular theft of land enter into considerations?

Germany’s taking a million refugees is roughly equivalent to America’s taking four million. It does not take a great imagination to see what the results of such a massive, short-term influx would be. Moreover, never mind Donald Trump, there has been no American government, ever, willing to accept such numbers at one time. Indeed, had America’s recent governments demonstrated the slightest sense of responsibility for what they had caused, they would have taken extraordinary steps for the refugees, but they did not. Instead, they encouraged measures like Merkel’s response, which, in terms of total numbers involved in the human catastrophe, is necessarily pathetic.

But, if you read enough history, you will know it has always been part of the American government’s character to do what as it pleases in the world with little or no regard for the consequences, so long as those consequences are on foreign shores. It is an attitude bred in a people who too often feel they can have it all and have it now and a people who have the illusion, generated both in commercial advertising and in fundamentalist Christianity, of endless youth with all its happy irresponsibility. It is something which actually marks America as especially unsuitable for enlightened world leadership, while it is the very quality demonic figures such as Kissinger or Brzezinski regarded as useful to their twisted international purposes.

Merkel quickly learned what she had done was a terrible political mistake. Consequences were quick, so she backtracked, never a dignified behavior for a national leader. But more than that, Merkel, realizing what the consequences might be of a few million more refugees temporarily encamped in Turkey continuing on into Europe, was quick to strike a deal with another of our planet’s most unscrupulous and dangerous leaders, the madman who rules Turkey, Erdogan. She agreed to pay him several billion Euros to keep the refugees in their massive Turkish camps.

This was not just a highly unethical deal, it should have been seen for the ongoing danger it represented, especially in view of Europe’s general relations with Erdogan and its confused efforts to deal with his many demands, ranging from visa-free travel in Europe for Turks to full membership in the EU. Again, American policy had created a huge problem by treating Turkey, an undemocratic country with limited respect for human rights and one for some years ruled by a madman, as an indispensable ally against Russia, so the EU to this day feels it must accommodate that ugly reality in all its policies.

Obviously, a country in the state we see in Turkey – constant war and terror against the Kurds, serious government suppression of free speech and activities, assassinations, widespread Muslim fundamentalism, and now new waves of repression following a failed coup – is in no shape to qualify for EU membership under the EU’s own requirements, which at least struggle to be faithful to Enlightenment principles.

Erdogan, never one to be shy about what he wants, has already threatened publicly to “open the gates” if the EU does not proceed in treating his demands appropriately. So, Merkel’s dirty deal with the devil is seriously threatened and becomes just one more source of uncertainty and instability. It is not a promising situation.

I believe Merkel was permanently scarred by growing up in East Germany and likely harbors both inordinate fear of Russia and slavish admiration for America, neither attitude being warranted in the least today. Her mental landscape possibly includes images of Andropov versus Jimmy Stewart, but policy built on fantasy and fears is bad policy, always.

The Bush-Obama years have been, in so far as foreign policy goes, about as stupidly and blunderingly destructive as Lyndon Johnson’s bull-headed insistence on fighting a major war in Vietnam. Johnson ended by killing about 3 million people, generating instability and misery, dividing America itself, and achieving nothing worth achieving. Bush-Obama have killed at least a couple of million, generated instability and misery, divided the countries of Europe, also achieving nothing worth achieving. There is not one part of the vast sphere America has arrogantly viewed as its area of influence that has not been made worse by Bush-Obama policies.

Mass killing, mass destruction of old societies and cities, induced-coups, threats, fears, torture, the creation of huge and desperate human movements, promotion and reward of terror as a covert policy tool, the decline everywhere in the rule of law, extra-judicial killing on an organized scale, a huge erosion in respect for international institutions like the now much-debased UN, an endless and confusing patchwork of lies told about terrible events – all while ignoring genuinely terrible situations like those in Palestine or in Saudi Arabia or in Turkey.

Apart from the horrors Merkel has implicitly or explicitly embraced and apart from the anger and disruptions and economic hardship her embrace has meant for Europe – America’s arbitrary and unwarranted sanctions against Russia have cost the German and French economies literally billions which America smilingly allows them to pay – one look at a map of Europe tells you just part of the reason why her views are so utterly counter-productive.

For scores of reasons, the future of Europe is in a cooperative and close relationship with Russia. It just cannot be otherwise, although, if you are determined to waste enough resources, impoverishing to some degree your own people through decreased trade and increased military waste, you can hold the inevitable off for quite a while. Look at America’s ten years of sheer insanity in Vietnam if you doubt for a moment that it is possible for a great country to do absolutely pointless and insanely costly things. Well, another insane and costly crusade is exactly the course America has been on in recent years, and leaders like Merkel have served as the most willing helpers in the task.

Obama and his political associate, Hillary Clinton, are total failures as figures of principle and as leaders, and Merkel very much resembles them, even down to the pathetic recent appeal she is using with German voters in anticipation of 2017 elections. She has imported wholesale Hillary’s squalid, 1950s-style claim that Russia threatens the integrity of elections, her empty claims being just an effort to stoke-up fears to get what she wants.

And then there are the remarkably empty and pretentious words she wrote in her official letter to President-elect Trump:

“Germany and America are united by shared values: through democracy, freedom, respect for the right and dignity of every individual, irrespective of origin, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation or political attitude. On the basis of these values, I would like to offer you a close cooperation between the governments of our countries.”

No clear-thinking person can accept such words as anything but hypocritical establishment claptrap – the kind of phony stuff just rejected by the American people. There is not a sincere phrase contained in the paragraph, just an arrogant assumption of moral loftiness and a presumption of setting standards for future relations. Can any thoughtful reader not sense almost an insult in the words? Insufferable stuff coming, as it does, from someone who never lifted a finger, except to assist, in the killing of tens of thousands of women and their families in half a dozen lands.

Trump will not do everything right, I know, but Merkel has done almost nothing right, much as her admired friends, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

China Really Isn’t Joking About Taiwan

Beneath Beijing’s seemingly mild criticism of Trump’s phone call are currents of raw, public nationalism the government can’t control.
China Really Isn’t Joking About Taiwan

BY JAMES PALMER-DECEMBER 5, 2016

There’s a reason Donald Trump’s impetuous conversation with Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen has left foreign-policy experts tearing their hair out by the roots. The fussy diplomatic protocols Trump flouted, in this case, are not a mere formality. They are a finely honed coping strategy for Chinese emotions that are very raw and potentially explosive. Although the Chinese reaction has been surprisingly — perhaps hopefully — muted, there is no more sincerely sensitive issue in China, among politicians and the public, than Taiwan.

Taiwan, or the Republic of China, was founded by the fleeing Kuomintang (KMT or “Nationalist Party”), the modernizing but corrupt, authoritarian, and incompetent rulers of China in the 1930s, after they lost the mainland to the Communist Party, the modernizing but corrupt, authoritarian, and incompetent rulers of China from 1949 to the present. They fled to the conveniently defensible island on China’s southern margins, once famous as a haven for pirates and later a Japanese colony.

The republic still claims to be the legitimate successor to the Chinese state, as does — with considerably more force behind it nowadays — Beijing. Both are publicly committed to the idea of a single China; they merely disagree vehemently about which one it is. (That’s the public position, anyway; millions of Taiwanese, especially the young, are willing to acknowledge the possibility of full independence.) In the past, Taiwan was even more revanchist about the borders of China than Beijing; it refused to acknowledge the existence of Mongolia until 2002 — 91 years after Mongolia broke away from the flailing corpse of the Manchu-ruled Qing dynasty that also controlled China.

The whole thing is a giant mess of political fictions and competing histories. China’s historical claim to the island is far sketchier than its own propaganda makes out, as with vast stretches of the country’s border regions elsewhere; its argument that a democratic state should surrender its sovereignty to a distant and unloved tyranny is deeply unconvincing. A forcible invasion would be a publicity disaster for China and maybe also a military one; its plan has always been to push for long-term political reconciliation, which seemed to be on course until the upstart Democratic Progressive Party in Taiwan disturbed the comfortable relationship that the Chinese Communist Party and KMT had developed in recent years. But that doesn’t make the divide any less painful or the feelings of most Chinese any less real.

In China, it’s not an avoidable issue. When I worked in English-language Chinese state media, the importance of using the “correct” vocabulary for Taiwan was hammered into staff on a regular basis. The reasoning behind some decisions about the correct form, made decades ago, was opaque; “mainland China” was verboten, for instance, but “the Chinese mainland” was fine, and it was the “Taiwan question,” not the “Taiwan issue.” It was more obvious why Taiwan couldn’t have a president, although “leader” was acceptable.

A little before I arrived at one newspaper, there had been a small witch hunt to find who was responsible for this sentence: “The paper factory is the largest in China and the second-largest in the world.” After two days of investigations, the guilty Chinese reporter was fined about a third of her monthly salary, had to write a self-criticism letter, and strict protocols were put in place to make sure such a disaster was avoided in the future. Why the problem? The largest paper factory was in Taiwan, and so the sentence — copied unthinkingly from a foreign source that didn’t suffer from such sensibilities — was dangerously splittist.
In moments of particular stress, “Taiwanese” was forbidden, the adjectival form believed to imply unacceptable separatism. I would strenuously point out that “Californian” implied no allegiance to the Bear Flag Republic and that our many references to Sichuanese, Henanese, and Yunnanese had not yet meant a return to the Warring States, and eventually sanity would usually prevail.

Like a puritan’s sexual fears, the obsession with belittling Taiwan’s status actually ends up drawing constant attention to it. Sentences such as “Taiwan’s so-called ‘president,’ Tsai Ing-wen, addressed the so-called ‘legislature’ of the Chinese island of Chinese Taiwan, a province of China, yesterday” regularly deface articles in Chinese newspapers. The fixation isn’t limited to the media. Chinese customs confiscates globes and atlases that have the effrontery to show Taiwan in a different color from the mainland. Chinese education officials tear Taiwanese adverts out of conference booklets. Chinese students throw hissy fits at Taiwan being listed as a country at Model U.N. events.

And there’s the real problem. This isn’t just a set of political restrictions imposed by a paranoid party — one that has always been obsessed with controlling and contorting language. It’s bone deep in mainland Chinese, a conviction drummed into them by childhood and constantly reasserted. Plenty of elements of party propaganda are inconsequential to most Chinese or even mocked. Taiwan isn’t one of them.

I have lived in China for 13 years, and in that time I have talked with perhaps three mainlanders who thought that Taiwan had the right to determine its own future. Everyone else with whom I’ve discussed the issue, from ardent liberals to hardcore Marxists to the politically apathetic, has been fervently against the idea that Taiwan could ever be considered a country. It’s an idea as weird, taboo, and offensive to the majority of Chinese as proposing the restitution of slavery would be to Americans — not for its moral value but for going against everything they hold dear about their country.

Most of the time, when Beijing says something has “hurt the feelings of 1.3 billion Chinese,” it’s petulant bullshit; on Taiwanese issues it comes closer to the truth. On the WeChat Moments feed of a former student, a bright and intellectually curious teenager, I saw her rage at finding the Taiwanese flag on the wall of a dorm at her new American university. “IT’S NOT A COUNTRY!” she indignantly declared, her anger echoed by her (Chinese) schoolmates follow-up comments.

This is, of course, a deeply unthinking attitude. It’s a product of decades of propaganda about China’s (real but century-old) humiliations at the hands of foreign powers. It arises, too, from a complex of neuroticisms and resentments about Taiwan’s wealth and success in the past, now mixed with smugness at the mainland’s new power. And for ordinary Chinese, it’s a result of the constant lessons — beginning with kindergarten rhymes and reinforced every week by their parents, peers, and teachers — about China’s supposed oneness and the evil of those who would split the country.

It’s an unhappy and bitter part of Chinese nationalism, one that denies both the six-decade reality on the ground and the agency of Taiwanese to decide their own future. But it’s not going to disappear overnight.

If the Communist Party vanished into smoke tomorrow, Chinese would still be contemptuous of Taiwanese aspirations and furious with anyone who suggested otherwise.

On America’s part, the issue needs to be handled carefully, respectfully, and with a certain allegiance to diplomatic fictions. Anything else risks stirring not just Beijing’s ire but genuine public anger — a force that Beijing itself might sometimes manipulate but may also not be able to entirely control.

Photo credit: LINTAO ZHANG/Getty Images

US Coast Guard seeking bigger role in South China Sea patrol

South China Sea
This aerial photo taken through a glass window of a military plane shows China's alleged on-going reclamation of Mischief Reef in the Spratly Islands in the South China Sea. Pic: AP.

5th December 2016

THE United States Coast Guard wants to expand its role in patrolling the waters of the South China Sea, which is home to a longstanding maritime dispute between several Asian countries and China, and a major source of tension between the U.S. and Beijing.

According to the Associated Press (via Washington Post), the Coast guard believes it could play the role of being the face of U.S. military presence in the troubled waters in a nonthreatening way under incoming U.S. President, Donald Trump’s administration.

Beijing has also been assigning its coast guard to the area to protect its interests, which includes a man-made island and Chinese-fishing boats.

“When you look at the East and South China seas, look at China’s Coast Guard, it is really the first face of China,” Coast Guard Commandant Admiral Paul Zukunft, told the Voice of America in an interview last week.

“So I’ve proposed to the Department of Defence that if they were to leverage the U.S. Coast Guard, I would look at providing resources to provide the face of the United States behind a Coast Guard ship, and should that be a consideration for our approach to the East and South China seas with the next administration.”

Zukunft claims the U.S. Coast Guard and its Chinese counterpart have a very good relationship, with both sides “frequently boarding the other’s ships to carry out joint maritime law enforcement activities.”


China and the U.S. are not the only countries locked in a battle of wills over the disputed waters. The list includes, Malaysia, the Philippines, Brunei and Vietnam.

Vietnam, which has long disputed China’s historic account on the territory, claims Beijing had never claimed sovereignty over the islands before the 1940’s.

According to the BBC, Hanoi also alleges it has documents to prove it governed the Paracels and the Spratlys since the 17th Century.

Washington’s Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative, a U.S Think Tank, claimed back in November that satellite images showed Vietnam was extending a runway on the Spratly Island in the South China Sea.

Reuters reported the institute as saying continued reclamation work would likely mean the runway could mean the runway was extended by over 1.2 kilometers. It believes the upgraded runway could mean Vietnam could accommodate maritime surveillance aircraft and transport planes.

Vietnam, however, is not the only country to build military-length runways. China has built them on three artificial islands in the South China Sea since 2013. The U.S. in a move of protest against China’s reclamation work responded by stepping up cooperation with Vietnam.


The Permanent Court of Arbitration in the Hague back in July ruled in a landmark case brought by the Philippines against China, saying Beijing breached Manila’s sovereign rights by exploring resources in the South China.  The Chinese government, however, rejected the ruling, saying Beijing does not accept the jurisdiction of the panel.

Additional reporting from Associated Press and Reuters.

Nicole Kirby looks over results during a statewide presidential election recount on Thursday in Milwaukee. (Morry Gash/AP)


Thanks to the efforts of Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein, a recount is underway in Wisconsin. It is highly unlikely to change the outcome — as Hillary Clinton’s campaign has stated — but it is much more likely to overturn some conventional wisdom about counting votes. In particular, we may learn, yet again, that computers are better than humans at counting ballots.

Wisconsin’s most recent experience with a statewide recount provides some useful background for the current recount. In 2011, David Prosser ran against JoAnne Kloppenburg for a seat on the state supreme court. After the initial count, Prosser was 7,316 votes ahead of Kloppenburg, out of 1.5 million votes cast. Kloppenburg demanded and received a recount. The recount added votes to both candidate’s total, although more to Kloppenburg’s. Ultimately, Prosser won by 7,004 votes. This is a tiny change.

Another way to think about it is to take the absolute difference between the number of votes for a candidate in the original count and in the recount. The absolute difference means it didn’t matter whether the candidate gained or lost votes in the recount. For instance, if Candidate Smith received 100 votes in the original count and 102 votes in the recount, the discrepancy would be 2 percent. It would also be 2 percent if the candidate had 98 votes in the recount.

Based on that calculation, the discrepancy between the initial count and the recount in the 2011 race was 0.18 percent. It would take a much larger discrepancy — at least 0.80 percent in Clinton’s favor, and more likely greater than 7 percent — to change the outcome in Wisconsin and award its electoral votes to her. (Below we show the basis of this calculation.) Even still, winning Wisconsin would not be enough for her to win the electoral college.

For many advocating a recount in Wisconsin, a primary concern is that computers were involved in counting at least some of the ballots. In 2016, 90 percent of all votes were cast in municipalities that used computerized optical scanners to count votes. It seems obvious that we should be more skeptical of machines that count ballots than humans who count ballots. But the evidence suggests that machines actually do a better job.

Republicans and Democrats react to the announcement that Hillary Clinton’s campaign plans to join a vote recount in Wisconsin initiated by former Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein. (Bastien Inzaurralde/The Washington Post)

Recounts help us study the accuracy of the methods that provided the initial — and often only — vote count in an election. If the recount is a fully accurate vote count, then we can use it to gauge the accuracy of the original count. Better yet, if we have one set of ballots that were originally counted by hand and another set of paper ballots counted by computer scanners, then we can assess the accuracy of the two methods.

In the only study we know of, political scientists Stephen Ansolabehere and Andrew Reeves examined every recount in New Hampshire from 1946 to 2002. From 1946 to 1962, when New Hampshire had only hand-counted paper ballots, the average discrepancy between the original count and recount was 0.83 percent. In 2002, when there were recounts in six New Hampshire races, the discrepancy was 2.5 percent in races in which the ballots were originally hand-counted, but only 0.6 percent in races in which they were machine-counted.

Closer scrutiny revealed a race in one town, Bradford, where the hand-counting had gone terribly wrong. According to an interview with a state official, the team that was hand-counting votes in Bradford for one particular state legislative race decided to knock off for the night and never resumed counting the next day. Removing Bradford’s data reduced the average discrepancy in hand-counted jurisdictions to 0.87 percent, but this is still higher than the discrepancy in races with machine-counted ballots.

The same finding emerges in Wisconsin. When we analyzed the 2011 Wisconsin recount, we found that the average discrepancy for scanner-counted paper ballots was 0.17 percent, compared with 0.28 percent for hand-counted paper. In other words, both methods are highly accurate, but scanners are slightly more so.

Why would scanners be superior? As the Bradford story illustrates, scanners don’t get tired or bored as easily as humans do. Human counters also feel pressure to get the job done quickly and accurately, which creates stress that machines do not feel.

Of course, even if scanners are more accurate on average, this won’t always be true. A machine that malfunctions could cause a big discrepancy.

Human error can also occur when scanners are used. In the 2011 Wisconsin recount, the jurisdiction with the greatest discrepancy between the original count and the recount was the town of Larrabee, which recorded 322 total votes on election night and 391 (69 more) in the recount. The reason is that on election night the results from one of the town’s scanners were not written down on the tally sheet that was sent to the county clerk. Thus, the problem was not with the scanner but with the procedure to transfer the results from the scanner to the paper report form.

Of course, past patterns may not apply to this recount. And regardless of the recount’s outcome, we believe it is valuable to scrutinize the accuracy of vote-counting. The big downside in Wisconsin is that a full recount takes a lot of time and resources. This is actually a good reason to favor what are called “risk-limiting audits” rather than statewide recounts to verify election results when there is no hard evidence of widespread fraud or malfeasance. Risk-limiting audits, advocated by mathematicians such as Philip Stark and Ron Rivest, use a small number of randomly selected ballots to test whether the original vote count most probably called the correct winner.

Leaders of the Green Party in Wisconsin and Hillary Clinton's campaaign said that it will participate in the recount, exploring whether there was any “outside interference” in the election results. (Reuters)

But with a full recount underway regardless, all eyes will be focused on Wisconsin for the next few weeks. We should expect three things: the recount will discover only small discrepancies between the election night totals; both methods of counting ballots — hand and scanners — will prove highly accurate; and scanners will be more accurate than humans.

Stephen Ansolabehere is professor of government at Harvard University.  Barry C. Burden is the Lyons Family Chair in Electoral Politics at the University of Wisconsin at Madison and director of its Elections Research Center.  Kenneth R. Mayer is professor of political science at the University of Wisconsin at Madison. Charles Stewart III is Kenan Sahin Distinguished Professor of Political Science at MIT and co-director of the Caltech/MIT Voting Technology Project.

[Our estimates of how large of a discrepancy is needed to change the Wisconsin outcome are based on the following. Clinton currently trails Trump by 22,177 votes.  If the recount revealed only 22,178 new votes for Clinton and none for Trump, she would win by one vote. There are currently 1,404,000 votes for Trump and 1,381,823 for Clinton. The calculation then is (22,178 + 0)/(1,404,000+1,381,823) = 0.80 percent.  More likely, however, both Trump and Clinton would gain votes. Let’s say that Clinton got 55 percent of the new votes uncovered in the recount. Then, to get a net 22,178 new votes for Clinton, Wisconsin would have to uncover 199,594 new votes — for 110,886 for Clinton and 88,708 for Trump.  This works out to a discrepancy of 7.2 percent.]

Crack a password

encrypting-data
Try to be one step ahead of the game. Try and use different and hard to guess passwords and pin numbers for each account, or credit card, or transaction, so that no one can have easy access to any or all of them.

cropped-guardian_english_logo-1.pngby Victor Cherubim-Dec 5, 2016

( December 6, 2016, London, Sri Lanka Guardian) The British during the war were best at cracking codes and according to some continue to be the best at encryption today.

But having your email account hacked is a nightmare many have gone through. When you have been exposed to hackers, who are masters of cyber crime, you wonder whether stealing your password is any different to cracking codes.

Hackers can steal your passwords in many different ways. It is easier than you think. With every attempt at cracking your password, their techniques become more and more sophisticated. The more it is difficult the more it becomes enticing, the more it is
enticing, the more it becomes a pastime, like cracking codes.

Many, who have been hacked, think it is not funny, but they are unable to do much more than change their password, or appeal to their internet providers to come up with safer and more secure measures to protect and verify authentication. It is a hard act.

Identity theft

The theft of identity is a lucrative business. Criminals with access to your personal information can open false bank accounts, order fake credit cards, and get personal loans and even state benefits. Worse scenario they may be able to get false passports and driving licences in your name.

Have you ever connected to a public Wi-Fi and logged into any accounts? Your password could already have been stolen.

“A common attack is Wi-Fi monitoring, where a hacker uses a simple application that can easily be downloaded from the internet for free to watch all traffic on a public Wi-Fi network. Once you enter your username and password, the software notifies them and the hacker intercepts the information.”

Wi-Fi is like a communicable disease, you can access all the Wi-Fi service providers in the neighbourhood on your mobile or your internet. It is as easy as that. It only takes a few more minutes to use a programme, sometimes sophisticated, most often not, to
access your password and login combination.

Who are the people most at risk?

We are told to apply for a credit rating check when we ask for credit or for many ordinary day to day activities. Ironically, applying for a credit report can sometimes increase your chances of becoming a victim to one of these crimes.

You have scammers who think outside the box, who create websites they charge for credit reports. 

Identity thieves are in on the act using these nefarious methods to extract personal information and financial data in order to commit the very crimes against you that you on your own are trying hard to prevent.

Thus the people at most risk are the very people who are doing everything to prevent identity theft. Isn’t it strange? But strange things happen all the time?

Can you do anything to stop this thriving business?

Try to be one step ahead of the game. Try and use different and hard to guess passwords and pin numbers for each account, or credit card, or transaction, so that no one can have easy access to any or all of them.

You are your ONLY firewall. Using the same password for all websites is not an option. It is too risky.
But you may say that you cannot remember a dozen or more complex passwords in your head, let alone figure out the right password for the right account transaction.

Besides, it is easy to forget your password, or even to retrieve a correct password?

Blame those who created passwords and pin numbers as identity authenticators? Soon I guess passwords will be a thing of the past, as too many cyber criminals have got in on the act.
What will replace passwords in future?

The very people who created the password as a security check are now discovering new ways of identification.

There are a number of different methods of authentication mechanism. They are putting to shame password and pin verification process.

Voice recognition, biometric “iris” recognition, fingerprint authentication are some.
The problem of replacement of passwords is the management and protection is becoming increasingly problematic.

The whole idea of authentication revolves round cost of implementation of verification infrastructure. When and what will replace passwords and pin numbers is your guess.

Do you really think that the internet is a safe place anymore?

Al Gore: climate change threat leaves 'no time to despair' over Trump victory

Former vice-president expects backlash from environmentalists against Trump and hopes Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton will join fight
Al Gore said during an interview with the Guardian: ‘My message would be that despair is just another form of denial. We don’t hvae time to lick our wounds.’ Photograph: Lucy Nicholson/Reuters

-Monday 5 December 2016 

The urgent threat of climate change means there is “no time to despair” over the election of Donald Trump, according to former vice-president Al Gore, who hopes that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton will join an escalated climate campaign against the president-elect.

Gore told the Guardian he remained hopeful Trump would reverse some of his positions on climate change but predicted an unprecedented backlash from environmentalists over the next four years.

Trump, who has called climate change a hoax, has pledged to withdraw the US from the Paris climate accord, dismantle the Clean Power Plan, slash renewable energy funding and somehow prop up the ailing US coal industry.


Gore said such threats mean there will “likely be a huge upsurge in climate activism. I’m encouraged that there are groups that are digging in to work even harder. Those groups working in the courts are even more important now; those organizing on campuses are even more important now.

“My message would be that despair is just another form of denial. There is no time to despair. We don’t have time to lick our wounds, to hope for a different election outcome.

“We have to win this struggle and we will win it; the only question is how fast we win. But more damaged is baked into the climate system every day, so it’s a race against time.”

On Monday, Gore spent around an hour meeting with Trump and his daughter Ivanka, who reportedly plans to speak out on climate change despite her father’s skepticism of the issue.

“I had a lengthy and very productive session with the president-elect,” Gore said, after emerging from the meeting at Trump Tower in New York City.

“It was a sincere search for areas of common ground. I had a meeting beforehand with Ivanka Trump. The bulk of the time was with the president-elect, Donald Trump. I found it an extremely interesting conversation, and to be continued, and I’m just going to leave it at that.”

Gore said he hoped Obama and Clinton, who was defeated by Trump in the 8 November 8 despite winning the popular vote by more than 2.6m ballots, will join in the effort to call for action to combat dangerous climate change.

“I would hope they do get involved. They both have the right positions on climate change and in his second term president Obama did a really excellent job in highlighting the climate crisis,” he said.
Gore has devoted himself to the climate issue since his failed presidential bid in 2000 – in which he won 500,000 more votes than George W Bush – most notably through the film An Inconvenient Truth and more recently via his advocacy group the Climate Reality Project.

He said he was “very concerned” by how pro-fossil fuel interests surround Trump but remained optimistic that the president-elect could be engaged with on climate change.

“Presidents can be vulnerable to the headstrong opinions of appointees and a few appointees can take the ball and run with it before a new president can undo the damage,” Gore said. “So that concerns me, of course.

“But it’s still premature. It’s not naive or Pollyanna-ish to express hope that some of his statements won’t turn into policies after the inauguration.

“Trump has said that he has an open mind to the Paris agreement. I frankly don’t know how open his mind is. Until hope is foreclosed, it’s worthwhile to see if there’s an opportunity to build green infrastructure, for example, or eliminate fossil fuel subsidies based on market-based competition.

“Regardless of what he does, a sustainable energy revolution is under way.”

Despite an abrupt end to the El Niño climate event, which causes warm temperatures across much of the world, 2016 is still on track to be the hottest year on record. Arctic ice retreated to its second smallest extent on record during the summer, with winter regrowth occurring at an unusually sluggish rate.

The United Nations has warned that global greenhouse gas emissions must be radically cut within the next four years if the world is to avoid disastrous heatwaves, sea level rise and displacement caused by runaway climate change.

Gore’s Climate Reality Project is hosting its sixth annual 24 Hours of Realitybroadcast, starting on Monday evening. Each hour of the 24-hour live event will focus on climate change in one of the 24 largest national emitters of carbon dioxide in the world.

Broadcast across various TV channels and Facebook, the event will feature politicians and celebrities including Ryan Reynolds, Jon Bon Jovi and Gisele Bundchen.

UK pushes ahead with sugar tax


Sugary drinks
BBC
5 December 2016
The UK government has published draft legislation for a tax on sugar-sweetened drinks, which is set to begin from April 2018.
There will be two bands - one for soft drinks with more than 5g of sugar per 100ml and a higher one for drinks with more than 8g per 100ml.
Ministers hope it will help tackle the nation's obesity problem.
Many companies have already begun cutting the amount of sugar in their drinks.
Pure fruit juices will be exempt - but health officials stress people should limit consumption of these beverages to no more than 150ml per day.
Likewise, sugary milkshake and yogurt drinks will also be excluded.
Ministers were concerned that teenagers, particularly girls, were not getting enough calcium and so taxing these drinks might be counterproductive.
The government has said it expects the levy to raise £520m in the first year.
The Office for Budget Responsibility estimates the levy could add 18p to 24p to the price of a litre of fizzy drink if the full cost is passed on to the consumer.
This amounts to an extra 6p on a regular can of Fanta and Sprite, and an extra 8p on a regular can of Coca-Cola, Pepsi and Irn-Bru.
Health campaigners have broadly welcomed the initiative.
Dr Max Davie, of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, said: "We are very pleased to see government moving forward with this draft legislation.
"The sugary drinks that will be affected by this tax have no nutritional benefit and often contain levels of sugar that are above a child's daily recommended limit.
"These drinks are a major contributor to the high sugar intakes of children, particularly teenagers, and we are in no doubt that they are, in part, contributing to this country's obesity crisis."

Sugar in fizzy drinks

35g
The amount of sugar in a 330ml can of Coca-Cola (7 teaspoons)
30g
The recommended max. intake of sugar per day for those aged 11+
  • £520m The amount George Osborne expects the sugar tax to raise
PA
Cancer Research UK estimates a 20% tax on sugary drinks could prevent 3.7 million cases of obesity over the next decade - something the soft drinks industry rejects.
Gavin Partington, of the British Soft Drinks Association, said: "There is no evidence worldwide that taxes of this sort reduce obesity, and it is ironic that soft drinks are being singled out for tax when we've led the way in reducing sugar intake, down over 17% since 2012.
"We're also the only category to have set a 20% calorie reduction target for 2020."