Pentagon’s new military strategy calls for preserving US dominion of the world

So, basically, US wants to keep increasing its military power & prowess, & keep projecting it on to the world. If you are one of those "rogue" nations, who think there might be another way of living life than what the Hollywood is teaching the world, then you will be branded a "terrorist nation," & will be forced, through deathly sanctions, into submission. You better kneel before your 21st Century American gods OR we will make you kneel & prostrate before us.

When people of other countries don't go along with what the US wants, the international media comes along & helps US in achieving its objectives of making others believe its false opinions & lies about other "rogue" nations. American military action is then taken, unilaterally or with allies, resulting in millions of unnecessary innocent deaths. Then, those people of that nation want to retaliate & want justice for what has been done to them; only for not going along with what America wanted them to do in the first place.

That retaliation & call for justice result in guerilla war tactics & so-called "terrorism". Innocent, albeit completely clueless & ignorant, people die in those attacks, too, except not only they are mourned on the international stage, since they were killed in a Western developed country, & an ally of US, but their deaths are exploited for more punishment through wars.

The end result for all this "my-manhood-is-bigger-than-thou" competition is innocents die on multiple fronts, while the powerful elites in military, weapons manufacturing industry, military-industrial complex, governments, lobbyists, financial services etc. enjoy ever-more wealth & power.

Besides, all of the innocent people suffering due to deaths & injuries on both sides, countries who are actively waging wars (US & its allies) also suffer the economic & social breakdown in their own societies. Reason being is that governments start cutting social spending & divert that money towards military & its related industries. Since, the governments become more financially conservative, more people starts falling into social problems like homelessness, poverty, unemployment, health, illiteracy, discrimination etc. Case in point is that since US got engaged in ever more wars around the world (Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Ukraine, Somalia etc.), homelessness & poverty has increased multiple folds in all major cities of US; from New York to Chicago to Los Angeles.

End result for all this preservation of American dominion of the world is more misery, death, destruction, chaos & problems for everyone living on this tiny dot in the vast universe; regardless of one's active or inactive or voluntarily or involuntarily. The world will suffer & no one will be the winner; not even the powerful rich elites.

The world is entering into a very volatile period & the saddest part of all this is that people are not learning from their pasts & still continuing to forge ahead to wield their powers on others. Remember that famous quote that nations (& people) who forget their pasts are doomed to repeat it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

https://www.rt.com/usa/271099-pentagon-new-military-strategy/

The US military needs to remain engaged around the world against both rival states & non-state actors, while nurturing regional allies & promoting American values, declares the Pentagon’s new National Military Strategy 2015.

That the US is “the world’s strongest nation, enjoying unique advantages in technology, energy, alliances and partnerships, and demographics,” is the underlying assumption in the document. “However, these advantages are being challenged.”

The main challengers are the state actors of Russia, Iran & North Korea, & non-state groups – particularly the “violent extremist organizations” (VEO) such as Islamic State & the Taliban. The strategy attempts to create a unified approach to dealing with both, seeking to “deter, deny, and defeat” the states & “disrupt and degrade” the non-state groups.

The document blames Russia for violating “numerous agreements” with its “military actions.” This list of agreements includes a number of pacts that US has been also violating such as the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty.

Iran & North Korea, on the other hand, are accused of seeking nuclear weapons. The document explains that the US would like to see China, which is not listed as a rival, as part of the international order, rather than a regional power challenging Washington’s dominance.

“None of these nations are believed to be seeking direct military conflict with the United States or our allies,” the document summarizes. “Nonetheless, they each pose serious security concerns which the international community is working to collectively address by way of common policies, shared messages, and coordinated action.”

The Pentagon aims to address the conflicts against “VEOs” by addressing the “root causes” of conflicts in failed states, with the military helping providing security while governments & international agencies provide economic opportunities & humanitarian assistance.
...

Technological frontier

"We now face multiple, simultaneous security challenges from traditional state actors and transregional networks of sub-state groups — all taking advantage of rapid technological change," Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey wrote in the introduction. "We are more likely to face prolonged campaigns than conflicts that are resolved quickly."

Driven by globalization, technology is enabling other states & groups around the world to challenge the advantages long enjoyed by the US, such as early warning & precision strike capability, the document notes. This requires the US to embrace “greater agility, innovation, and integration” to meet these challenges, & “reinforces the need for the US military to remain globally engaged to shape the security environment and to preserve our network of alliances.”

Brian Becker, director of the ‘Answer’ anti-war coalition, says that complaints about losing technological advantages are largely targeted at the domestic public. “American are being told that there is no money for hospitals, schools and many other vitally needed social programs, but suddenly we will have a clarion call that the United States must catchup, it must not let its adversaries Russia or China become superior to America, this is precisely what triggered the arms race in the 1950s,” he said to RT.

Global presence

US military presence around the world is explained as key to the security of allies & partners, a factor of stability in promoting “economic growth and regional integration” and giving Washington the capability to react swiftly in case of a crisis.

“We are prepared to project power across all domains to stop aggression and win our Nation’s wars by decisively defeating adversaries,” the document states. “While we prefer to act in concert with others, we will act unilaterally if the situation demands.”

The strategy says that the US “will press forward with the rebalance to the Asia-Pacific region, placing our most advanced capabilities and greater capacity in that vital theater.” It also remains committed to NATO allies & Israel’s security.

“If you look at what the US is doing, not to what it says in the document, the pivot towards Asia is a pivot of containment,” Becker says. “The new military strategy, which is to take all of the non-Chinese republics and nations in the region and forge them into a US-led military alliance, cannot be perceived in China as anything else but a threat to its national interest.”

In addition to safeguarding the survival of the US & prevention of a “catastrophic attack,” the national security interests articulated in the strategy include the “security of the global economic system,” the “security, confidence, and reliability of our allies,” & the “preservation and extension of universal values.”
...

How British weapons may have been used during Israel's 2014 attack on Gaza

One of the major roots / causes of these "terrorism" related incidents, if not the sole reason, is this direct & indirect supply of arms & weapons, by developed countries (US, UK, France, Germany, Sweden, Canada, Russia & China) to developing & autocratically-ruled countries.

Now, this article has been published in a major newspaper from Britain & must be shared by thousands, thanks to social media, nowadays. Even if we assume that a Syrian or an Iraqi or an Afghani or a Yemeni or a Libyan or a Somalian or a Palestinian from Gaza or West Bank didn't have a clue about that rocket was made that killed all his family members, he may come to know about it through this article or through word of mouth or perhaps, even an "extremist" preacher, that that rocket, which wiped out my family & left me homeless was made in UK or US or Germany or France etc., then you can imagine how he would feel about that country.

As I have blogged previously that whenever this supply of arms & weapons around the world by developed countries would stop, the peace in the world would come about by itself. Spending billions of dollars on bombing campaigns in a far off land, against an enemy, which is radicalized due to these supply of weapons of death & destruction, is useless & completely fruitless.

The hypocrisy of European nations is laudable that they would arm Israel with their weapon technology on one hand, & then ban consumer products made in Occupied Territories under Israel.

Frankly, I think BDS movement (Boycotts, Divestment & Sanctions) is a useless move. What is a more effective move against Israel, against its illegal occupation? Banning a few consumer products & divesting out of a few investment portfolios or not supplying billion worth of arms & ammunition to Israel? Anyway, I digressed.

Essentially, business deals trump everything. GDP & exports from death & destruction is far more valuable than the life of a human being in Iraq, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Afghanistan, Yemen & Palestine (Gaza & West Bank). Life of a human being is also as much important in France, US, UK, & other developed countries, but whenever "terrorists" strike in these countries, we need to think why some people, albeit "extremists", took this step. What we, ourselves, are doing, which might or might not be, radicalizing & pushing a few twisted individuals to take this drastic step? Are we involved somehow in hurting someone in their own countries? Are we, directly or indirectly, killing innocent people? Are we turning people, who may have never thought of taking up arms against us, into so-called "terrorists"?

The answers are actually very simple, lie bare & in the open. Us people in the West just have to look & examine our own actions without any predetermined bias to find the real roots of the problem & then we can end this problem of "terrorism" very easily & cheaply; by stopping the supply of all arms & weapons by developed countries to developing countries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/britain-still-arming-israel-despite-fear-weapons-will-be-used-against-gaza-10357621.html

The Government has been accused of ignoring its own evidence that British weaponry may have been used by Israel in its assault on Gaza last year after fresh arms deals worth £4m were approved by Britain within weeks of the conflict.

Figures seen by The Independent reveal that the UK gave the go-ahead for dozens of military exports to Israel, including components for drones & air-to-surface missiles, in the immediate aftermath of Operation Protective Edge, which claimed more than 2,000 lives, including those of hundreds of Palestinian civilians.

Campaigners said the exports showed that the Government was conducting “business as usual” in its arms sales to Israel & turning a “blind eye” to the risk that UK-made weaponry could be used in any fresh clashes between the Israelis & the Palestinians.

Last year’s bombardment provoked calls for Britain to halt all arms exports to Israel after ministers admitted they had found 12 instances where weapons containing British components may have been used in the Occupied Territory by Israeli forces.

The refusal of the Government to suspend these licences caused a split in the Coalition & led to the resignation of Foreign Office minister Baroness Warsi, who said Britain’s stance during the air & sea assault had been “morally indefensible”. She said all arms sales should be stopped with immediate effect.

Ministers pledged last year to review all existing licences to Israel to assess the risk of British weaponry being used in the Occupied Territories & publish the results.

But new figures published ... in a report on arms exports show that Britain has in the meantime continued to sell weaponry worth millions to Israel, both directly & via third party countries including Germany, America & Italy.

Andrew Smith, spokesman for Campaign Against Arms Trade, said: “More than 2,000 people died in Israel’s bombardment of Gaza, & yet in the months immediately following the conflict it was business as usual for the UK Government & the arms companies it supports.

“Even the government has admitted it’s highly likely that UK weapons were used against Gaza last year. Now it is turning a blind eye to its own evidence. These arms sales send a message that arms company profits & military contracts are more important than the human rights of Palestinians.”

In the three months between the end of hostilities in Gaza in August last year & the end of December, the Department for Business, Innovation & Skills (BIS) approved 32 military exports from Britain to Israel worth £3.97m. The first licence was granted on 1 September - just 6 days after the announcement of an Israeli ceasefire.

Some £2.5m of that total was for items going directly to Israel, including components for military radars, submarines & jet engines.

The remainder was for the incorporation of UK-made weaponry, including components for military pilots’ head-up displays & military combat vehicles, into products to then be re-exported to other destinations, including Thailand & United Arab Emirates.

The data, based on the Government’s own quarterly arms export statistics, also details 36 further licences granted for British components sent to destinations including Germany, Italy & United States for incorporation into weaponry which was then to be sold to Israel.

The material included parts for air-to-surface & surface-to-surface missiles, components for combat helicopters & tank turrets, & material used for the command & control of drones.

At least two of the 12 pre-existing arms licences which the Government now admits were for weaponry which may have been used in Gaza were sent to Israel via Germany & the US.

Campaigners argue that the latest exports contain similar material which could also be used by the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) if hostilities recommence in the Occupied Territories.

The Independent revealed earlier this year that the Government also approved arms exports worth nearly £7m to Israel in the 6 months prior to Operation Protective Edge, which Tel Aviv said was necessary to halt rocket attacks from Gaza by Hamas fighters.

Ministers have previously defended Britain’s exports to Israel by saying the country has a right to self-defence & the UK only grants licences where it is satisfied material will not be used for “internal repression” or to “aggravate existing tensions or conflicts”.

But the report by CAAT, War on Want & the Palestine Solidarity Campaign alleges that Britain is flouting its own rules by continuing to allow the export of material which carries the risk of being used in any future Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

David Wearing, the author of the report & a researcher at London University, said: “Ministers’ claims that the UK enforces stringent controls on arms exports simply do not stand up to scrutiny.

“Aside from the question of how individual pieces of UK-made kit are used, the approval of £4 million of military exports in the wake of Operation Protective Edge demonstrates a strong preference to maintain business as usual irrespective of what message this sends to Israel about its behaviour.”

Critics of Britain’s arms exports control system argue there are now repeated examples of the use of British-made weaponry in the Occupied Territories over the last 13 years, including the deployment of armoured personnel carriers & the use of F-16 fighters & Apache helicopters containing UK components.

The IDF’s Hermes drone was also deployed last year over Gaza. A version of the drone, used to pinpoint targets, contains components made by British companies but it is claimed this version was not used in Gaza.
...

The Government said its review of arms export licences to Israel, ordered last year, was "due to complete shortly" & insisted its monitoring of the situation in the Occupied Territories was taken into consideration when granting licences.

A spokeswoman said: "We will only approve equipment which is for Israel’s legitimate self defence & where we are satisfied it would be consistent with our human rights commitments & other international obligations.”

Paranoia quote 3

A great line from the movie, "Paranoia," highlighting the cold hard truth of our modern times.

IMDB          RottenTomatoes          Wikipedia

Why do people wrestle over cheap food? Because we’re desperate !!

The video in this article & the article itself is common in urban cities in all the so-called Western developed world, but we don't normally see it. The world sees the tall shiny business towers of downtown cities of New York, Paris, London, Toronto, & Chicago etc. The world doesn't see how the general public is making much more frequent rounds to the food bank & trying to get cheap food, which is also unhealthy, from supermarkets.

Although, I have personally never seen people scrambling & grabbing cut-price food in supermarkets, I do believe that day is not far. The way capitalism has gone greedy & thanks of continued automation of jobs, people are forced to work for minimum wages, which of course, will force you to fight your neighbour for that last piece of meat & fish.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/22/cheap-food-desperate-supermarket-bargains-tesco

People in Britain are battling each other for cut-price food. This is what desperation & poverty does. Video has emerged of customers at a Tesco store in Weston Favell, Northampton, scrabbling around on the floor to reach discounted essential groceries – indicative of increasing & entrenched food poverty.

It might come as a shock to anyone who imagines that writers fly to work in their own helicopter with truffle sandwiches for lunch, but I survive on food found in the supermarket reduced aisle. Occasionally dealings around the cut-price food can turn ugly.

Every day, I see shoppers who desperately need these bargains, since for many, it’s the only possibility of eating properly. After all, a huge pack of reduced mince or chicken is a good source of protein lasting across several days if cooked & eked-out properly. But this level of thriftiness is exhausting, which might explain the frayed tempers of the Northampton food-scrum.

I order my day around the rhythms of the discount hour, which is different at each of the three shops on my circuit. Food is first reduced mid-morning, then again later in the day. Bargain hunters benefit from holding their nerve, as the real reductions are made later on.

There can be a sense of camaraderie, & my fellow bargain seekers acknowledge each other with wry smiles. We even share recipes – I hear familiar voices discussing how to turn slabs of cheap smoked fish into a nutritious & inexpensive chowder. We sometimes help each other out – I reach food for shorter or older customers & in return, they help me read the labels (I have some sight problems).

The Northampton all-in, food wrestle-mania occurred, I suspect, when informal protocols which bring order to the demeaning experience of hanging around trying to look busy while waiting for the soup to be reduced, were ignored. Personally, one vital guideline, & a rule which makes me furious whenever I see it being ignored, is don’t be greedy. If you see massive packs of organic vintage cheddar for 20p (this has happened) please don’t hog them all. I’ve witnessed people loading stacks of gourmet pizzas into the boot of a new BMW, which if owned by the loader seemed to me a little unfair.

The etiquette of poverty-induced budget food-hunting decrees that you don’t barge in & grab stuff over the heads of those too polite to let go of their manners. Around the appointed hour of food reduction, a vague, straggly queue forms. When it’s just one remaining pack of prime steak, then who dares wins, but don’t knock other people over.
...

The main (unwritten) rule of food-bargain club is this: be nice to supermarket workers – they are your friend, & will occasionally give you a sly nod to indicate when they will brandish their supermarket price label guns. Besides, they are doing a hard job for low pay. Some are even on work-for-benefits schemes & privately admit they would appreciate the chance to buy cheap food themselves. So be kind not just to them, but all your fellow bargain hunters.

"Education Cuts" by David Fitzsimmons

 "Education Cuts" - David Fitzsimmons, Arizona Star, Phoenix, Arizona, US

Civilian death toll from explosive weapons soars

What to comment on this news article than to say that the human blood has become very cheap now. Killing another human being has become extremely easy with the proliferation of small arms to large weapons. Be it armed gangs or law enforcement agencies or military, access to a weapon is easy, & the mentality of "shoot first, think later" has spread everywhere. 

Killing indiscriminately another human being carries no adverse consequences. Legal & illegal sales of arms & weapons is a huge lucrative business for both smuggling groups & such developed nations as US, Canada, Russia, China, Germany, France, UK, Sweden etc.

So, when one of the most profitable industries around the world is in making weapons, then how can we not expect a constant increase in civilian deaths. It would be a bit foolish & naïve to expect a decline in human deaths with the developed countries actively subsidizing their weapons industries & actively hawking their military wares on the international stage. And then everyone wants to innocently proclaim that they are only working for peace around the world.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/jun/22/civilian-death-toll-explosive-weapons-soars-syria-gaza

The global civilian death toll from explosive weapons has increased dramatically in recent years, driven in part by the greater use of aerial bombs on populated areas, often by governments including Syria & Israel, according to a report.

Although the international community has taken concerted action to curb the use of chemical weapons, the report by advocacy group Action on Armed Violence (AOAV) confirms that conventional explosives, can be just as devastating & indiscriminate when used against towns & cities.

AOAV’s report, Explosive States, which examines data for 2014, found that when explosive weapons were used in urban areas, 92% of the casualties were civilians, compared with 34% in rural areas. In 2014, there were 32,662 civilian casualties from weapons including aerial bombs, mortars & car bombs, an increase of 5% on 2013, & 52% higher than 2011, when AOAV started collecting data.

“This is the third consecutive year that we have seen an increase in civilian deaths & injuries from explosive weapons,” Iain Overton, the director of investigations at AOAV, said. “With civilians bearing the brunt of explosive weapon harm in Gaza, Ukraine, Nigeria, Iraq, Syria & Afghanistan, the question has to be: how many more will have to die before states agree to end the use of explosive weapons in populated areas?”

More than half the civilian casualties in 2014 were caused by improvised explosive devices (IEDs) such as car bombs & suicide vests. The prevalence of such weapons in Iraq has helped make it the most dangerous place in the world for civilians, in terms of explosive weapons, with more than 10,000 casualties for the second year running. Syria was second with 6,245 recorded civilian casualties (though AOAV acknowledges that it is likely to be gross underestimate due to reporting difficulties).

Deaths by IED increased dramatically in Nigeria over the course of 2014, as Boko Haram targeted markets, bus stops & places of worship. Almost all the 2,407 casualties in the country were caused by car bombs, suicide bomb attacks or other IEDs.

The most striking and lethal development in 2014 was the increased use of aerial bombs by governments on densely populated areas. The number of civilian casualties from such weapons almost trebled from the previous year. The overwhelming majority of the casualties by aerial bombardment were caused by Syria (46% of the total) & Israel (35%).

In Syria, government forces made dramatically increased use of barrel bombs – containers filled with fuel, explosives & chunks of jagged metal typically pushed out of helicopters by hand, killing people & destroying buildings over a wide areas. In 2013, barrel bombs accounted for 20% of aerial attacks. In 2014, that proportion had doubled. The bulk of barrel bomb attacks (85%) were on urban areas.

Israeli air attacks accounted for more than half the civilian casualties in Gaza in 2014. According to UN figures, there were 2,131 deaths from Israel’s Operation Protective Edge in July & August, 69% of which were civilian. But Israel also used high explosive ground-launched & naval shells during that campaign against built-up targets. As a result, Israel outdid even Syria as the state responsible for the most civilian casualties from explosive weapons in 2014, according to the AOAV report.

“Our data shows that states were far more willing to carry out aerial bombings in populated areas, bucking a recent trend. It’s a deeply worrying development,” Overton said. “It’s almost no surprise to see Israel was the state force behind the most civilian casualties from explosive weapons. The weapons used in Gaza last year included thousands of unguided artillery shells, as well as massive aircraft bombs, which, even if guided to a target, can still impact a wide area. AOAV’s research suggests, that for artillery at least, Israel had relaxed the rules, making it easier for troops to use these weapons in or near populated areas. You simply can’t do that on such a large scale without increasing risk of death, injury & damage to civilians & civilian areas.”

Criminal Minds, S1E14 (quote 2)

World's refugee population hits all-time high of 60 million, half of them children – UN

Unsurprisingly, what else to expect from the report. To help these refugees, peace has to be instituted in the developing countries, but then that would mean that developed countries of the West (US, Canada, UK, Germany, France) and even new economic powers like China & Russia have to stop selling arms & weapons to these developing countries. These developing countries where these refugees are coming from don't have any resources of their own to manufacture these deadly arms & weapons.

Secondly, developed countries of the West have to stop installing their own puppet governments in these developing countries. They need to stop interfering with the negative development of the countries. It's well known how US constantly interfered in the internal affairs of Latin American & Middle Eastern countries. US interfered with Japan to the point that Japanese PM Shinzo Abe changed the constitution to make the country more militaristic. That's not exactly a positive step towards creating peace in the world.

Thirdly, aside from covert & political interference by the developed West, the West also needs to stop with the military interference in the shape of active invasions. Recent examples of Iraq, Syria, Libya, Afghanistan & some old examples of Cambodia, Vietnam, Philippines etc. by the American, British, French, & other forces would provide ample evidence of this interference.

In one of my prior blog posts, I mentioned that one of the primary reasons the developed countries of the West do all these interferences in the developing world is to create active chaos in developing countries. This chaos & anarchy helps developed countries to keep a strong control over financial, mineral, energy, & human resources of the developing countries.

Developing countries keep themselves embroiled in these messes, & spend their valuable resources in resolving these matters. Developed countries provide loans to developing countries, take out resources from the grounds of developing countries for their own use, & let the bright minds of the developing countries move to developed countries, where they are mostly used for menial labour.

Developing countries, which are embroiled in wars or not, are left to shoulder all the burden of either suffering from internally displaced refugees or provide for refugees who have sought refuge in their lands from foreign lands. Developed countries, on the other hand, cause the problem & then get out of the picture.

The primary reason this problem of refugees is keep getting worse with no sign of any improvement is that developed countries actually want more chaos & anarchy in developing countries. Hey, it's not happening in their corner of the world, so why bother resolving it. They actively cause it & prefer to keep it that way. When there is a problem in their corner of the world (problems arising from the dissolution of former Yugoslavia), then they are on the mission of resolving it asap & actually successfully achieve it, too. After all, when there's a will (to resolve a problem), there's always a way.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

https://www.rt.com/news/268144-un-report-refugee-increase/

The annual “Global Trends Report: World at War” was released ... by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR).

It stated that worldwide displacement is at the highest level ever recorded, adding that the number of people forcibly displaced at the end of last year had reached 59.5 million – compared to 51.2 million a year earlier, & 37.5 million a decade ago. 14 million people were displaced in 2014 alone.

According to figures detailed in the report, over half of those refugees are children.

The year 2014 also hit a 31-year low for the number of refugees who were able to return to their home countries, at just 126,800.

"We are witnessing a paradigm change, an unchecked slide into an era in which the scale of global forced displacement as well as the response required is now clearly dwarfing anything seen before," said UN High Commissioner for Refugees António Guterres.

The figures show that one in every 122 people on the planet is now either a refugee, internally displaced or seeking asylum. If these people had a country of their own, it would be the world's 24th largest.

Every day last year, approximately 42,500 people became refugees, asylum seekers or internally displaced, the report said.

And those numbers – which represent the biggest leap ever seen in a single year – are likely to worsen, according to the agency.

Causes of displacement

Since 2011, the main reason for the surge has been the war in Syria – now the world's largest driver of displacement, surpassing Afghanistan for the first time. A total of 7.6 million Syrians are internally displaced, & 3.9 million are outside the country.

The report noted that at least 15 conflicts have erupted or reignited worldwide in the past 5 years: 8 in Africa, 3 in the Middle East, one in Europe & 3 in Asia.

"Few of these crises have been resolved & most still generate new displacement," the report stated.

Meanwhile, continuous instability & conflict in Afghanistan, Somalia & other areas has led millions to be constantly on the move, stranded as long-term internally displaced or refugees.

The report also drew attention to the current Mediterranean refugee crisis – the result of instability in North Africa.

It added that countries housing the majority of refugees are part of the global poor. Almost 9 out of every 10 refugees were in regions or countries considered less economically developed. One-quarter were in nations among the UN's list of least developed nations.

In the face of the rising displacement numbers, Guterres warned that people in need of “compassion, aid & refuge are being abandoned.”

"For an age of unprecedented mass displacement, we need an unprecedented humanitarian response & a renewed global commitment to tolerance & protection for people fleeing conflict & persecution,” he said.

The UNHCR report comes just 3 days after an Amnesty International report said the world is facing the “worst refugee crisis since World War II.”

The report, called 'The Global Refugee Crisis: A Conspiracy of Neglect, accused governments of effectively letting thousands of people die by failing to provide them with basic human protection.

It paid particular attention to the situation in Syria, Mediterranean, Africa & Southeast Asia.

Amnesty is urging world leaders to call an international summit on tackling the refugee crisis, & for all countries to ratify the UN Refugee Convention. This gives displaced persons legal rights & status in the nations where they have sought refuge.

"Distribution of Wealth" by Dario Castillejos

"Distribution of Wealth" - Dario Castillejos, Mexico

The dark side of on-demand work

Another one of those opinion pieces highlighting the latest work trend, which everyone is so getting fond of ... flexible work.

Only problem with on-demand, freelance work is the low pay & the exploitation of the worker. Yes, it frees an individual from a strict 9-5 schedule & perhaps, even long commutes, but then that individual is tied to a computer for long times, because each work is paying low enough that individual has to string together a series of enough jobs to make it worth his/her time.

Companies are of course loving this on-demand work trend because they can offload all the "menial" / insignificant / time-consuming work on to the freelancer, while reducing their number of employees. Those reductions in manpower means a huge reduction in labour costs. Those freelancers, on the other hand, are responsible for their own health insurance, saving up on pension, & of course, any vacations mean no earning power during those times (so, in effect, unpaid vacations).

Although, the author ends the piece with a great advice that devaluing the work what people do makes the whole society lose its humanity & values, & make the humans nothing more than being treated like mere machines, the end result will still be exploitation of the average human. Because, after all, nobody gets rich by paying more money, & everyone dreams to be rich. So, a few will indeed get rich, at the expense of turning millions into poor souls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/careers/career-advice/life-at-work/the-dark-side-of-on-demand-work/article24822808/

Work how you want, when you want & for whom you want.

Sounds like employment paradise – & the rise of the on-demand work force, seems to suggest that this vision can be turned into reality.
...

While Uber is a prime example of an on-demand work force – where workers are matched with employers for the duration of a project – it’s just the tip of the iceberg when discussing the benefits & perils of such a labour market. We are entering an era in which will see the Uberfication of everything, & while the sharing economy brings tremendous value to cost-conscious companies & can provide employees flexibility & extra cash, it comes with inherent risks that ethical companies will need to manage.

A few months ago, a New York Magazine piece detailed how several house cleaners provided by San Francisco startup Homejoy were homeless themselves, despite the fact that the company raised $40-million in venture capital.

These stories will surface closer to home, too. In Ontario, 41% of work is now conducted outside of the traditional scenario, where an employee works full time for a single employer, according to a recent survey. Those involved in such precarious employment – where workers patch together several part-time positions – are typically paid lower wages & have few opportunities for growth, according to a recent OECD report that observed that non-standard work is rarely a stepping stone to a better job.

So, who are these new on-demand workers who source roles from mobile technology platforms, & why do they do it? According to a recent US survey, they are predominantly white, male & between the ages of 18 & 34. They are educated, with almost 30% possessing a college degree. Their motives primarily are making money & controlling their schedule but their inability to make enough remains their most pressing issue, according to a Rutgers study.

The concept of flexibility in these roles is also misguided, according to Kristy Milland, who spent more than 9 years as a Toronto-based on-demand worker for Amazon’s Mechanical Turk, a platform that crowdsources human labour for tasks that computers can’t do as well.

Ms. Milland, who wrote articles & product descriptions, transcribed audio & video files, handled translations, graphic design, Web design, market research, database creation, programming, & other projects, said that work opportunities are posted sporadically & pay below an acceptable rate. Full-time “Turkers,” explained Ms. Milland, are chained to their computers at all times of the day just to be able to make enough to get by, & often accept lower compensation to pay their bills.

Ms. Milland made “Turking” her primary job in 2010 when her husband lost his full-time role at a Fortune 500 company. She earned about $50,000 a year, sometimes working 17 hours at a stretch, seven days a week, & taking full weeks off when she generated enough income. She never worked for less than $20 an hour & often took weekends off but usually spent the rest of the day at her computer in case work appeared.

While she lauds the benefits of working when you want, the risk for exploitation quickly surfaces. The company assigning the project can reject your work, forcing you to go without pay – & with no recourse. Amazon can also suspend you without reason & there is no way to appeal, she said. You cannot move up the platform or create lasting relationships with those requesting the work, to open the door to better opportunities.

“Generally, it’s a stagnant job where your income ebbs & flows based on what work happens to have been posted,” Ms. Milland said.

“We are sold as ‘artificial’ artificial intelligence, not live humans with skills & intelligence, & that hurts our chance of ever being respected as a talented, high-quality work force deserving of respect,” she added.

Until now, new & disruptive companies have fuelled the sharing economy but traditional companies will start to join, said Alexander Shashou, president & co-founder of Alice, a New York-based technology platform that enables services-on-demand for the hospitality industry.
...

While there may be no way to put this on-demand work force genie back in its bottle, as the practice becomes more popular & ingrained, the workers’ experience needs to be taken into account. As an entrepreneur, I’ve benefited from working with contractors I’ve found on Upwork, paying industry standard wages & often speaking on the phone or even in person.

Increasingly devaluing work done by humans helps some companies in the short term, but none of us in the long term, & without taking precautions, we run the risk of racing to the bottom.


Leah Eichler is founder & CEO of r/ally, a machine-learning, human capital search engine for enterprises. Twitter: @LeahEichler

The flip side of free choice? Responsibility.

Great article. We all want maximum freedoms to make any choice we want to make but when those choices, unfortunately, blow back in our faces, we all blame others for the consequences. Now, in some cases, it's indeed the society's fault, but in many cases, it's our own fault.

For instance, we love popping pills. Something small happens to our bodies, & we are crying the world to the doctor. We are happy at getting a prescription. But when those pills start causing harmful side effects, the whole medical profession gets the blame. Question should be asked to those people that who told you to run to your doctor for every small ailment & why not try taking better care of your body & health by yourself.

Another case is people immigrating to foreign countries. Before immigration, those people have a nice picture of their future home. After moving to that place, when they are having difficulties in securing a certain level & kind of job, reaching a certain social status (preferably, the same one they had back home), & overall, securing the same kind of life they had back home, those immigrants don't blame themselves for moving themselves & their whole families to another country, all based on a little ideal picture they had in their mind, but they blame the host country. Perhaps, those immigrants should've verified their rosy mental picture of their future home against the reality.

Similarly, people choosing to eat sugary, fatty junk foods & then not taking responsibility for its consequences. People choose to smoke but blame the cigarette companies after getting cancer. Americans want to have their "rights to guns" but when people are killed for no reason, whatsoever, guns get the blame. Nobody is forcing anyone to smoke, drink alcohol, eat sugary & fatty junk foods, or buy & use guns in the public, become an immigrant, or become an addict of popping pharma pills, but when the outcome is unpleasant from those choices, don't blame the society for your ills.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/we-must-remember-the-flip-side-of-free-choice-is-responsibility/

We live in an era of unprecedented choice & personal autonomy.

Beyond the massive range of options in food, merchandise & entertainment that are made possible by a global marketplace, of even greater significance is the freedom we now possess to make independent decisions about our own personal identities & lifestyles.

It has become an indispensable component of modern Canadian life that neither law nor society should have anything to say about an individual’s choice when it comes to such once-controversial topics as sex, abortion, gender, marriage, parenthood, divorce or any other manifestation of life as it is lived. ...

Our range of choices is continually expanding, pushing far past the limits of old taboos. The Supreme Court of Canada recently ruled, for example, that we now have the right to choose the manner & timing of our own deaths, in cases of terminal illness & with the assistance of a physician. Given events in the US, as well as recent policy discussions in Canada, our laws on marijuana may soon be shifting toward greater choice, as well.

This sanctification of personal choice above all else has become so deeply ingrained that, when a high school student in Toronto was told by her principal that she couldn’t wear a sports bra to school, she organized “Crop Top Day” to give voice to scantily clad teenaged girls demanding the right to wear whatever they want, whenever they feel like it, school dress codes be damned.

By & large, all this choice is a good thing. While there may still be sound reasons to require appropriate attire in certain circumstances, the notion that adult Canadians ought to be given wide latitude to live their lives however they wish is to be applauded. Indeed, with many of these issues, such as sexual orientation & gender identity, the matter is not a choice at all; rather, society is simply recognizing & respecting personal destiny. As it should.

Yet there’s another important, but little discussed, aspect to this veneration of choice that requires recognition. At some point, we need to acknowledge that behind all these choices we’re making lie heightened expectations for personal responsibility & liability. It is clearly inappropriate to demand maximum choice, then blame others when the outcome proves unpleasant or unexpected.

That’s not what happened last week, when the Quebec Superior Court awarded smokers $15.5 billion as compensation for the consequences of their own decisions.

At issue in the class-action lawsuit was the degree to which smokers themselves should be held responsible for choosing to smoke in the face of ample evidence, some of it dating back to the 1950s & 1960s, that smoking was a dangerous & addictive habit. The individual decision to start smoking, according to Justice Brian Riordan, is “essentially stupidity, too often fuelled by the delusion of invincibility that marks our teenage years.” Yet, remarkably, the judge held that “we do not attribute any fault to dependent smokers who did not quit for whatever reason” later in life. The court ruling thus absolves individual smokers from culpability for their own continuing situation. Instead, the burden of guilt falls squarely upon cigarette companies for knowingly selling a deadly product. That said, as nasty as tobacco may be, it still requires willing buyers & a permissive government to complete the market. In defending his massive award, Justice Riordan asked: “If the companies are allowed to walk away unscathed now, what would be the message to other industries that, today or tomorrow, find themselves in a similar moral conflict?”

This is not a rhetorical question. In fact, there are numerous other products—some of which are marketed & sold by government — that today pose identical moral conflicts. Alcohol is an obvious comparison. Fatty, salty or sugary foods are other examples of legal products with potentially unwelcome consequences. Yet, in the face of a constant barrage of public health announcements, media campaigns, & political statements on obesity & healthy living, people continue to consume these products. And while we properly celebrate the right to be able to make such choices, what happens when some of these folks later come to regret the exercise of their personal autonomy? Based on the cigarette ruling, decisions of these kinds will be sloughed off as mere “stupidity,” & given official forgiveness. But why should the ultimate responsibility for bad outcomes always lie with someone else, preferably, a corporation that can afford multi-billion-dollar payouts & that’s made to play the scapegoat?

In an age of unlimited choice, we must learn to accept greater responsibility for the consequences of the many choices we make, even if the courts are eager to let us off the hook.

Paranoia (movie line 1)

IMDB          RottenTomatoes          Wikipedia

Especially true for our "modern" age of smartphones & social media.

Criminal Minds, S1E14 (quote 1)

Pretty clear what it is saying; essentially, an eye for an eye.

Ontario allowing employers to fire workers without cause

Another one of those stories shining a bright light on millions of Ontarians precariously employed & how they are exploited by employers in Ontario. This story is not telling about people working in some far off developing country in Africa or Asia but right here in Canada.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2015/05/17/ontario-allowing-employers-to-fire-workers-without-cause.html

Show up to work one day & get fired for no reason?

Sorry about your luck.

In Ontario, not a single worker is protected from wrongful dismissal under the Employment Standards Act.

Hit with the flu & can’t make it into the office?

Consider sucking it up, because chances are you won’t get paid. You’ll be lucky to keep your job, in fact.

Have to put in extra hours one week to get the job done?

Whatever you do, don’t expect overtime pay. Or even to get paid at all.

Ontario’s outdated employment laws, currently under review, were designed to create basic protections for the majority of the province’s non-unionized workers.

Instead, millions are falling through the gaps created by a dizzying array of loopholes, from the dangerous to the downright bizarre.

Construction workers have no right to take breaks on the job.

Care workers aren’t entitled to time off between shifts.

Vets aren’t entitled to vacation pay.

Janitors have no right to minimum wage.

Cab drivers aren’t entitled to overtime pay.

And dozens of occupations, some that you’ve never even heard of, are exempt from basic rights entirely.

“Keepers of fur-bearing mammals” have no right to minimum wage.

Sod layers have no limits on their daily hours of work.

Shrub growers don’t get a lunch break.

The system is so complicated that the Ministry of Labour has developed a special online tool to help decipher who’s entitled to what.

But as the province reviews its antiquated Employment Standards Act, critics argue that its confusing web of exemptions makes it harder for the so-called precariously employed to defend their rights — & easier for bosses to ignore them.

“When you distil it down to what these exemptions are seeking to achieve, really they are to give employers more control over work & more control over wages,” says Mary Gellatly of Parkdale Community Legal Services.

“It sends the message to employers that they can get away without complying.”

The Act was first introduced in Ontario in 1968 to set basic work standards, especially for non-unionized employees who don’t have a collective agreement to provide extra protections.

But there are at least 45 occupations in Ontario that are exempt from a variety of its fundamental entitlements, many of them low-wage jobs in industries where precarious work is rife.

The Ministry of Labour says many of the exemptions are “long standing” & related to “the nature of the work performed.”

But York University professor Leah Vosko, who is leading research into employment standards protections for the precariously employed, says exemptions have come at least in part from industry pressure, leaving the Act a “complex patchwork that is difficult for workers & even officials to comprehend.”

Even when there are clear violations, speaking out can come at a cost.

Reprisal is illegal under the Act, meaning bosses can’t penalize employees for exercising their workplace rights. But the Act gives workers no protection against wrongful dismissal. Employers do not have to give cause for firing someone.

Unionized employees are generally protected by their collective agreements, & workers can sue employers if they think they have been unfairly terminated.

But most precarious, low-income employees are not unionized, & most do not have the money to take legal action against an employer, says Parkdale’s Gellatly.

“It’s the big reason why many people can’t do anything if they’re in a workplace with substandard conditions, because they can get fired without cause.”

Linda Wang, who worked at a Toronto cosmetics manufacturer for 4 years, was fired less than 2 weeks after she asked her employer for the extra pay she was owed for working a public holiday. She says no reason was given for her termination.

Wang, a mother of two, claims her employer repeatedly bullied her & her colleagues, & that she believes she was dismissed for asking for the wages.

She has filed a reprisal complaint with the Ministry of Labour, but Wang cannot afford to take her employer to court.

“I feel the system is against workers,” she says. “It’s in favour of employers.”

“Whatever job you have you put so much of yourself into it,” adds Gellatly. “The fact that employers can just fire you without a reason is incredibly devastating for folks.”

The Act also contains significant gaps when it comes to sick leave & overtime.

The legislation provides most workers with 10 unpaid days of job-protected emergency leave, which means they can’t be fired for taking a day off due to illness or family crisis.

Critics call this measure subpar by most standards, since it still causes many workers to lose a day’s income for being ill. An estimated 145 countries give employees some form of paid sick leave.

“Unfortunately, we stand out for our inadequacy,” says Brock University professor Kendra Coulter.

But the 10-day protected leave doesn’t apply to almost one in three of the province’s most vulnerable workers. An exemption that excludes employees in workplaces of less than 50 people from that right means 1.6 million workers in Ontario are not even entitled to a single, unpaid, job-protected sick day.

Fast-growing, low-wage sectors such as retail, food services & health care are most likely to be exempt according to a recent report by the Workers’ Action Centre.

While many small businesses voluntarily give their employees paid sick days, the loophole leaves many workers — especially the precariously employed — exposed.

Toronto resident Gordon Butler asked his employer, a small construction company in Markham, for one day off work after he sliced his thumb open on the job. He says his boss told him not to come back.

“I didn’t believe him,” says Butler, 44, who has an 8-month-old child. “I tried to plead with him, & he said ‘No, too bad.’ ”

“The way it’s stacked up right now is there are very few options for people who are in low-wage & precarious work to actually take sick leave when they’re sick,” says Steve Barnes, director of policy at Toronto’s Wellesley Institute, a health-policy think tank.

“They not only have to worry about lost income, but the potential for losing their jobs,” adds Brock’s Coulter. “It’s unkind & unnecessary.”

The stress caused by the province’s meagre sick leave provisions are compounded by exemptions surrounding overtime pay, to which around 1.5 million don’t have full access.

As a rule, employees should get paid time & a half after 44 hours a week on the job, according to the Employment Standards Act.

But in 2014, more than one million people in the province worked overtime, & 59% of them did not get any pay whatsoever for it, Statistics Canada data shows.

This, experts say, is partly because enforcement is poor. But in Ontario, a variety of occupations don’t even have the right to overtime pay, including farmworkers, flower growers, IT workers, fishers & accountants. Managers are also not entitled to overtime.

Vladimir Sanchez Rivera, a 45-year-old seasonal farmworker in the Niagara region, says he has worked 96-hour weeks doing back-breaking labour picking cucumbers & other produce.

“We don’t have access to protections when we are working in agriculture,” he says. “And our employers tell us that.”

Low-wage workers are even more likely to be excluded from full overtime pay coverage, according to the Workers’ Action Centre’s research. Less than one third of low-income employees are fully covered by the Act’s overtime provisions, compared to around 70% of higher earners, because they are more likely to work in jobs that aren’t eligible.

Workplaces can also sign so-called “averaging provisions” with their employees, which allow bosses to average a worker’s overtime over a period of up to 4 weeks.

That means an employee could work 60 hours one week & 50 the next, but not receive any overtime as long as they don’t work more than a total of 176 hours a month.

Critics say the measure means more work for less pay, & paves the way to erratic, unpredictable schedules.

“That’s a huge impact on workers & their families in terms of lost income & having to work extra hours,” says Parkdale’s Gellatly.

“It’s certainly not good for workers, for their families, & it’s not good for creating decent jobs in terms of rebooting our economy,” she adds.

For many of the precariously employed, falling through the gaps ruins lives.
...


Proposed solutions

A recent report by the Workers’ Action Centre makes a number of recommendations to rebuild the basic floor of rights for workers. The proposed reforms include:

• Amending the ESA to include protection from wrongful dismissal

• Eliminating all occupational exemptions to ESA rights

• Repealing overtime exemptions & special rules

• Repealing overtime averaging provisions

• Repealing the emergency leave exemption for workplaces with less than 50 people

• Requiring employers to provide up to 7 days of paid sick leave

Crowe's 'whitewashing' sparks criticism from advocates

While, I was reading this news article, I was thinking, "but this happens in every industry in North America & Europe." Every race is stereotyped in the labour market, & hence, all, or at least, most, of the jobs in a particular industry goes to people of certain skin colour or ethnicity.

For instance, South Asians are hired mostly for computer-related work, whereas, sales & marketing roles, even in the same company (e.g. IBM) go to "white" people. Check out most of the sales & marketing jobs in any industry & you will find majority of those are filled by "white" people.

Another thing this story highlights is how much racism there is in North American & European labour market, esp. in such lucrative industries as movie & film industry. Even those roles which require ethnic & non-white actors are filled by white actors. The general public thinks that there is no or minimal racism in Western labour markets & people are hired on talent & competency.

These actors are obviously not being hired on the basis of talent, but what would the customer want. Using same logic, it is then understandable that sales & marketing, or even any customer-facing but lucrative, jobs mostly go to white people, since, the employer is thinking that that the customer would want. Although, most, if not all, employers advertise the fact to the world that they hire people on their competencies & try to reflect the diversity in the general public.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-33017006

In Aloha, Cameron Crowe's latest film, Emma Stone, a American actress with blonde hair & green eyes, was cast as Allison Ng - a junior fighter pilot who was part-Chinese, part-Hawaiian & part-Swedish.

Soon after the release, there was an uproar of criticism from social media against Crowe's casting choice.

Both Asians & non-Asians asked why they didn't pick an Asian actress to play a character who is part-Asian.

One advocacy group called Aloha "a whitewashed film" that failed to portray the ethnical diversity of Hawaii.

The Media Action Network for Asian Americans (MANAA) noted 60% of Hawaii's population is Asian-American Pacific Islanders & 30% Caucasian, a fact not reflected in the film.

Crowe apologised on his website but said he based the Ng character on a real-life redheaded Hawaiian who felt compelled to constantly over-explain her unlikely ethnicity.

"I can understand what Crowe said about his intention that he based his character on someone that didn't look Asian but identified with the culture but you could have casted someone who was part Hawaiian," Guy Aoki, the founding president of MANAA, said.
...

Hollywood has been accused of whitewashing Asians for decades.

In the early days of big budget film, directors put eye & cheek prosthetics on actors to approximate Asian facial features. This is how Marlon Brando filled the role of a Japanese interpreter in The Teahouse of the August Moon, John Wayne became Genghis Khan in The Conquerors, & Mickey Rooney was cast as Mr. Yunioshi in Breakfast at Tiffany's.

There was a lack of Asian actors in Hollywood in the 1950s, Lisa Nakamura, a professor of American culture at the University of Michigan said, but it is not an excuse today.

There are a multitude of Asian actresses who could have played Ng in Aloha, she said, including Kristin Kreuk, a bi-racial actress seen in the US TV show Smallville.

But Hollywood continues to cast popular white actors for economic reasons.

"They need to have names that most Americans recognise above the title," Nakamura said.

"Taking a risk on an actor that is not famous but fits the character's ethnicity is not a sound strategy to make money."

And so Hollywood casts famous white actors to attract the crowds, such as George Clooney who played Hawaiian lawyer in The Descendants, or director Ridley Scott who said he chose Christian Bale to play Moses in Exodus: Gods and Kings to get his movie financed.

But even if this strategy is profitable, Nakamura said that white actors playing Asian roles are not convincing, effectively breaking the movie's "fourth wall".

It's not only odd, Aoki said, it's also insulting to Asian actors, who struggle to find roles in a predominately white Hollywood.

"A white actor does not need to play an Asian person to survive in this industry," Aoki said.

He added the outrage over Emma Stone's casting might mark the beginning of a change in the industry but he believes white people need to speak up & "say that this is not right, this is ridiculous".

But whitewashing still appears to be prevalent in today's Hollywood.

When Scarlett Johansson was cast as Motoko Kusanagi, a Japanese character in Ghost in the Shell, angry fans launched a petition calling for the actress to be dismissed from the role. And Tilda Swinton's negotiation to play the role of the Ancient One, a male Tibetan mystic, in Dr. Strange has also been criticised on social media.

Nakamura said the industry will start changing when casting decisions are made based on talent & character's accuracy, but for now Hollywood will continue to cast famous white actors to bring in the audience.

"I think in the US this strikes a sensitive subject," Nakamura said. "But casting is important as it represents how viewers see themselves & that still matters."