AIPAC as (another) left-wing conspiracy

In a post on his Facebook page, Netanyahu slammed what he called the Left's "double moral standards."
"They criticize an alliance on the Right with right-wing parties while the Left is working to bring radical Islamists into the Knesset to set up its own alliance," the prime minister wrote.

Interesting.

P.S. And just to make clear where I stand on this issue: here is where.

US Defense Department or Radio Hezbollah?

I am totally unsure that I understand where US international politics is going. If CNN is to be believed (and no MSM source is to be believed these days), the shameful act of withdrawal from Syria occurred just so:

Erdogan was explaining all the problems with the US presence in Iraq and Syria and was irritating Trump, according to a senior administration official who received a detailed readout of the phone call between both presidents.
"OK, it's all yours. We are done," Trump said, according to the source.

Kurds, who played a major role in the defeat of Daesh, sacrificing thousands lives in the process, are left to the predictable fate in the hands of the Turkish dictator. That because Trump was irritated?

And there is another, relatively new quirk in the US mandarins' behavior. After each Israeli strike in Syria (real or imagined), some "anonymous sources in the US Defense Department" sees it as her/his/... duty to produce a statement of this kind:

US Defense Department official claims alleged Israeli attack occurred shortly after several senior Hezbollah officials boarded a plane bound for Tehran, according to a report by Newsweek.

Sources in the US Defense Department claim that several senior Hezbollah officials had been hit in an alleged Israeli airstrike near Damascus, according to a report Wednesday by Newsweek.

If there is an agreement between IDF and US Defense Department, engaging the "anonymous sources" there as our spokesperson?

Confused and discombobulated here...

Mohammad Zarif speaks - about Soros. We better listen.

To start with a disclaimer: the man (Soros) is highly distasteful to me for many reasons, not the least of those is his own confession about his years as a youth under the Nazi rule being his happiest. There are other reasons, of course, but this will suffice for now.

The recent story started (for me) with an article in Israel today:

Iran admits to having 'worked closely' with George Soros network

Iran admitted on Sunday that it had worked closely with the Open Society Foundation, a grant-making network founded by American billionaire George Soros, which has often been accused of promoting an anti-Israeli agenda through left-wing NGOs.

Israel Today, being a somewhat funky source, chiefly dedicated to promoting the current government and its glorious achievements, didn't bother to provide any substantial proof of the matter.

Another article, from David Harris JR's site, provided essentially the same information:

Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Zarif commented on Sunday that his government is working closely with George Soros’ Open Society.

The article, however, supplied a link to the recording of Zarif's speech, at least the relevant part of it:

Here, @JZarif admits that he had a close relationship with the George Soros’ @OpenSociety Foundation. Now if that is not evidence that @NIACouncil is a concoction of the regime, I don’t know what is. @georgesoros
pic.twitter.com/Faw6EgrSf0

— Andi Frouzèche 👑✡️ (@Persogladiat) September 3, 2018

My Farsi being somewhat rusty, I have asked Potkin Azarmehr to translate it, and here is the result (with Potkin's kind permission):

Basically Zarif is saying that while he was Iran’s UN envoy there was already a working relationship with Open Society and [other] Soros funded bodies but what he did was to make sure the relationship was better managed and monitored so nothing against national interest would take place. He adds he didn’t like doing this but in NY you have to build a working relationship and not just a hello/goodbye with all kinds of groups there.

In short, the story checks out, at least the part of the Zarif's speech.

Now I have to add a disclaimer (another one). The Ayatollahs are nothing if not crafty, and it would be naive to dismiss the possibility of another disinformation operation by Mr Zarif, who by himself is nothing if not crafty. Just a year ago Ayatollah Ali Khamenei mentioned "a “wealthy American Zionist merchant” trying to interfere in Iran’s 2009 election in his comments, likely referring to liberal billionaire George Soros". So there is no love lost between the two sides.

But, on the other hand, it is quite possible that a common interest helped the sides to overcome the other grudges...

So there. Watch out for Uncle George.

Update: Finally from BBC (Farsi edition):

Mr. Zarif defended the relationship with the staff of the Open Society Foundation, affiliated with George Soros, an American investor, and said that through this relationship he was able to "restrict and regulate" the activities of this foundation in Iran.

And more on this Twitter thread.

The real collusion with Russia

Consider this post to be a free gift* to the Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller and his tireless investigation of the above mentioned collusion. Which investigation, after a year of tireless digging in all possible directions, seems to have strayed far away from its original target.

The matter at hand is Russian supply of natural gas to European countries. To remind you:

Russia provides approximately a quarter of the natural gas consumed in the European Union; approximately 80% of those exports travel through pipelines across Ukrainian soil prior to arriving in the EU.

So far so good (for Kremlin, that is): being a provider of the essential substance gives Russia, beside a significant income, a valuable addition to their stranglehold on the European behavior in other aspects.

Read more »

The proper progressive response to Iranian people

People are dying on the streets of Iranian cities. Not people with rifles or stones in their hands: just people who are unhappy with the extremist regime of Ayatollahs. Regime that prefers to spend their people's money on fomenting terror over the globe and producing more and more weaponry to become a regional superpower.

Accidentally, that same regime that the last POTUS, Barack Hussein Obama II, decided to befriend from the start of his first presidency. We all know how it ended: with a nuclear agreement hardly worth the paper it was written upon and with "Death to America" demos continuing and even increasing in frequency on the streets of Tehran.

And how do the Western progressive liberals respond to the unrest in Iran? My first jaw-dropping experience with that response was via an article in NYT:

How Can Trump Help Iran’s Protesters? Be Quiet.

The headline is quite sufficient to understand the trend, but here is what is probably the main passage of that (frankly revolting) opus:

One reason to worry that Mr. Trump may try to seize the moment by championing the protesters is that it has become an article of faith among President Barack Obama’s critics than in 2009 he missed a golden opportunity to do just that, when many Iranians took to the streets after a disputed election result. But it was never clear what difference American rhetorical support would have made then, other than allowing the Iranian government to depict the protesters as American lackeys, giving the security services more of a pretext to crack down violently.

Of course, this bit of circular logic (or poisonous wisdom, you name it) is applicable to any tyranny in this here world. And, if you learn a bit about the author of this dreck, one Philip Gordon, who appears to be "a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and an assistant secretary of state and White House coordinator for the Middle East during the Obama administration", you shall understand better the roots. You shall also understand better what kind of "assistants" the last POTUS has chosen - to sing hosannas to his international politicking...

But this is not about the POTUS, it is about people dying in the streets, to remind you. Something that should be protested and fought against. And I guess it will be vociferously protested if it were to happen on the streets of, say, San Francisco or London or Buda... no, it is too Eastern for the true progressives, let's say Berlin instead , OK?

Tehran is where all these brown people live, after all. They have their own customs and their own culture, they have that Religion of Peace thing that we are obliged to respect, so it is not our business to stick our noses where our noses definitely don't belong, right?

And speaking about the right: Mr Gordon here is a living proof, among many others, of how the modern progressive left has made the successful voyage to the place where the ultra-conservative paleocons with their non-involvement motto lay in wait for their victory. Now these two, ostensibly mutually exclusive gangs, could lay down together in the same bed.

Of course, Mr Gordon is only a single example. Here are more, from different (oh well...) media giants (headlines only, you can imagine the contents):

Iran: By supporting protests, Donald Trump may inadvertently be helping the government's cause

Trump's backing of Iranian protesters could backfire as Tehran cracks down

The progressive echo chamber at its full glory. And bless the fact that you can't smell the said glory as well...

And here is a slightly different source, one Iranian-British citizen, Aaron Bastani, a Labor activist:

Imploring y'all to desist with your wishes for a change (Remember, the CHANGE?), because the results will be frightful, not to mention the usual suspects fomenting unrest... sweet, ain't it?

Oh well, so what can we all learn from this progressive thing? Only this, I am afraid:

Bibi on Kurdish referendum: zigging and zagging

Politics is a tough business, crossing a minefield is nothing compared to it. It was barely ten days ago when Bibi, ahead of everyone else, declared his unequivocal support for the Kurdish independence.

Israel supports the establishment of a Kurdish state, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Wednesday, as Kurds in Iraq gear up for a referendum on independence that lawmakers in Baghdad oppose.

Israel has maintained discreet military, intelligence and business ties with the Kurds since the 1960s, viewing the minority ethnic group -- whose indigenous population is split between Iraq, Turkey, Syria and Iran -- as a buffer against shared Arab adversaries.

Well, it didn't take long for another zig (or zag, whatever).

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu barred the Israeli government from commenting on Monday's Kurdish independence referendum in Iraq, two officials said, after his September 13 endorsement of Kurdish statehood irked Turkey.

Of course, there were a few developments since the Bibi's rush to support the Kurds. First of all, no one else joined the sentiment. The opposite is rather true: powers that be, of all kinds, including the countries that are rather on the opposing ends of the political globe, unanimously rejected the Kurds' plea for independence. It is not only the parties directly threatened by the outcome of the referendum (Iraq first of all, but also Turkey and Iran, having in mind their own Kurds possibly joining the exodus).

And then there was Bibi's latest visit of USA, which included a meeting with the POTUS and, most probably, with other VIPs. I bet that Bibi was told off regarding his hasty declaration of support, seeing as how US State dept doesn't share this enthusiasm at all.

Thus the sudden change of direction. Of course, the precarious existence of people oppressed for hundreds of years isn't a big factor in the political calculations. To be fair to Bibi, this consideration wasn't weighing too heavily on the minds of all other world politicians who refused to support the referendum and to promise assistance to Kurds.

To be even more fair to Bibi (!), there might be another consideration that the Ynet article mentioned:

But Kurdish officials said such rhetoric is unsolicited and damaging. ”Our adversaries attack us as a ‘second Israel in the region’ and this kind of Israeli talk contributes to that,” one Kurdish official said.

Indeed, the wave of conspiracy theories, ridiculous as they are, isn't very helpful to the Kurds. But then, why didn't Bibi take this into account before rushing forward with his initial declaration of support?

We know, don't we?

On cognitive privilege and other animals

Don't even try to look for the definition of cognitive privilege in the dictionaries, it is too new. There is a definition of cognitive elite, though, that brings us close to the subject.

The cognitive elite of a society, according to Richard J. Herrnstein and Charles Murray, are those having higher intelligence levels and thus better prospects for success in life.

This definition brings you close to the steps needed for definition of cognitive privilege. Once defined, you can start happily operating this excellent tool for naming and shaming a new category of the privileged people.

The story started for me a few weeks ago, when the parents of my grandson met the teacher of his first school year. It so happened that the youngster was sent to a few private lessons to prepare him to school, for reasons not having to do with the story. He has some rudimentary reading and writing skills, nothing to brag about, but still. When the teacher heard about it, she went kind of pale. The reason, as she explained, was that she is used to receiving a bunch of schoolchildren from one single kindergarten, uniformly unable to read or write, so there was no need for her to treat anyone differently...

Of course, in this case the advantage of the boy is temporary, to disappear in a few weeks with the other kids learning and catching up. And, of course, as it is customary in schools, applying the famous peer pressure to those who dare to be different. Anyhow, the lesson here is that our schools are built for uniformity, one size fits all is the motto.

It so happened that in a few days after this meeting with the schoolteacher, I have stumbled on this disturbing discovery, made, most probably, by a millennial:

WHAT IS PRIVILEGE AND WHAT DO WE DO WITH IT?

There are many kinds of privilege besides white privilege: cognitive privilege, for example. We now know that intelligence is not something we have significant control over but is something we are born with. We are living in a society in which success is increasingly linked to one’s intelligence. This is not to say that intelligence is the only factor that is important. All that is implied is that below a certain threshold of intelligence, there are fewer and fewer opportunities. These opportunities are being shifted upward to jobs that require heavier cognitive lifting or else are being replaced by robots. Thus, the accident of having been born smart enough to be able to be successful is a great benefit that you did absolutely nothing to earn. Consequently, you have nothing to be proud of for being smart.

Of course, the author, Dan Williams, doesn't have in mind any malevolent actions against the cognitively privileged folks. His goals are, for now, somewhat more relaxed:

But when doing so, we must also bear in mind the purpose of drawing attention to privileges. The purpose is not to instill a sort of Catholic guilt in someone’s psyche, nor is it an excuse to make oneself feel better by demonizing another. The purpose of pointing out someone’s privilege is to remind them of the infinite number of experiences that are possible and the very large number of experiences that are actual that they know very little about. The purpose is to enlarge their moral consciousness, to make them more sympathetic to people who are less fortunate than they are.

Not that I understand the items listed under "the purpose", but at least there is no reason for alarm. I think so. The whole "cognitive privilege" idea so far hasn't put roots among the other "privileges", like "white privilege", "cis gender privilege", "male privilege" etc. Hopefully it will remain dormant, at least for a while.

Taken together, the case of my grandson and the (so far) abortive attempt on raising the specter of "cognitive privilege" brought me to check the situation in schools with regard of treatment the bright children receive.

Canada, United Kingdom, Sweden: the results are similar and disturbing. A few quotes from the three sources sum up the situation pretty well:

For ordinary families with academically able children in the inner city or small town Canada, the everyday reality is bored kids seeking outside outlets for their creative or higher intellectual pursuits.

"The attitude at the moment is that you either fit in or go," says Clare Lorenz, the chairman of the support society, Children of High Intelligence (CHI). "It isn't how things should be."

Results show cause for concern. In particular, primary school appeared to be a hostile environment [for gifted kids].

It definitely doesn't look like the school system, at least the public one, is geared and ready to foster excellence and provide the necessary support to gifted kids, who are our hope and our future.

The only ray of light so far comes from Finland:

“Whatever it takes” is an attitude that drives not just Kirkkojarvi’s 30 teachers, but most of Finland’s 62,000 educators in 3,500 schools from Lapland to Turku—professionals selected from the top 10 percent of the nation’s graduates to earn a required master’s degree in education.

Otherwise it is no surprise that private schools, that promise all kinds of special education treats (and frequently don't deliver), tend to proliferate and take the money off many credulous parents. Some are, of course, quite good, but why shouldn't the respective states invest more in their most precious resource?

Instead we are facing the rising waves of idiotic identity politics nitpicking and creation of harmful buzzwords like "cognitive privilege" and similar. Like this product of some festering minds*:

Standing Up to Pee Gives Boys an Unfair Advantage in Physics

In the latest example of identity politics taken to its absurd end, three Australian college professors believe that "playful urination practices – from seeing how high you can pee to games such as Peeball (where men compete using their urine to destroy a ball placed in a urinal) – may give boys an advantage over girls when it comes to physics."

Mind boggling? Not nowadays, I am afraid.

And, meanwhile, we are inexorably moving to the era of The Marching Morons.

Too bad.

(*) I am still willing to learn that the peeing advantage story is an elaborate spoof, but after reading the original article I am not so sure.

Update: A not insignificant cause for alarm:

A New York professor has sparked a debate among educators over whether or not algebra is too hard and should be dropped from the high school curriculum.

Andrew Hacker, a political science professor at Queens College, insists the difficulty of learning algebra is responsible for the United States' high dropout rate.

Sure, buddy. Let's all switch to nursery rhymes. Or political science, whatever.

BDS real face - lest we forget.

Nothing new in this, but bears refreshing from time to time. Omar Barghouti, in his past a student at Tel Aviv University and founding member of the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI):

A Jewish state in Palestine in any shape or form cannot but contravene the basic rights of the indigenous Palestinian population and perpetuate a system of racial discrimination that ought to be opposed categorically….Definitely, most definitely we oppose a Jewish state in any part of Palestine. No Palestinian, rational Palestinian, not a sell-out Palestinian, will ever accept a Jewish state in Palestine.

For doubters, check the text at 5:50 in this link.

Putin and Netanyahu or journeys of a bibliophile

Netanyahu's trip to Sochi to meet Putin and to persuade him that Iranian corridor to Mediterranean is not a good idea, doesn't seem to be a great success story.

The Russian version of that same article in Pravda is titled: "Netanyahu's Fiasco in Sochi...". For the English version the Pravda's editors have chosen a softer version:

Benjamin Netanyahu’s nightmare comes true as Putin crushes his plans

The author of that article is slightly derisive of our Bibi, as could be seen in the opening paragraph:

Benjamin Netanyahu's nightmare is coming true. The guards of the Islamic Revolution of Iran and Hezbollah fighters prepare to attack Israel by using Syria as a springboard. The Israeli Prime Minister shared the "terrible news" on August 23, 2017 during a meeting with Vladimir Putin in Sochi (the meeting lasted for almost 2.5 hours). Despite Netanyahu's emotional state, the Russian leader remained calm.

The article, however, is not wholly unsympathetic to Israel's stand on Iranian expansion:

According to experts, Netanyahu does not exaggerate too much when he talks about Tehran's plans to expand its influence throughout the Middle East.

Putin, as usual, displayed his majestic indifference:

"Iran is Russia's strategic ally in the Middle East," Putin said. "But Israel is also an important partner for Russia in the region," he added.

In other words: nothing doing, Bibi. As a matter of fact, Russia is not as neutral as the above quote might make you think. The article doesn't mince words:

The truth is that Tehran is the only counterbalance for Moscow to the powerful alliance of wealthy Arabian monarchies that try to establish an Arab analogue of NATO in the endeavor to impose Washington's rules in the entire Middle East.

Therefore, the Kremlin is interested to further strengthen Tehran's influence in the region. The question of accepting Iran into the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) has almost been resolved. It is Russia that advocates the early adoption of Iran at the SCO. When it happens, the fact itself will remove US plans for air strikes on the Iranian territory.

And the conclusion is quite unequivocal:

Benjamin Netanyahu failed to convince Russian President Putin of the need "to stop Iran's expansion in the Middle East." Israel is a friendly country for Russia, but it is not up to Tel Aviv to teach the Kremlin how to structure Russia's policy in the Middle East.

Makes sense if you sit in Kremlin, of course.

The uncharacteristically brief statement by Bibi, after he emerged from the meeting, seems to confirm the Pravda's points. Very unlike the usually bombastic overwhelming success reports from same source.



Jerusalem Post, which in most cases is sympathetic to Bibi, has a completely different view of the meeting and its purpose(s). In the article What Netanyahu hoped to gain from meetings with Putin, its author, Herb Keinon, explains:

So why did Netanyahu go? Because the objective is less to try to convince Putin of Israel’s position, and more to look him in the eyes and tell him squarely what Israel will do if Iran begins to militarily entrench itself in Syria.

Israel’s message to Putin, which is the same message that was conveyed to the Americans last week via a blue-ribbon security delegation headed by Mossad chief Yossi Cohen, is that Israel will act militarily.

Netanyahu wants this to be a factor in Putin’s decision-making process.

That, of course, puts the visit in a totally different light - if you believe it.

Whatever. In any case, Bibi might (deservedly) claim that he didn't return from Sochi empty-handed. Because:

At their meeting in Sochi on Wednesday, Russian President Vladimir Putin gave Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu a copy of the first-ever Bible printed with Rashi’s commentary.

Putin certainly knows how to sweeten the bitter medicine, after all it is not the first time:

Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu received a special gift from Russian President Vladimir Putin during his visit to Moscow on Thursday — a nearly 500-year-old copy of Roman-Jewish historian Josephus’ book The Jewish War.

Well, at least there is a beginning of a library, if not much else.

Cool.

Update: Apparently there is a third version of the meeting coverage and its results. By Environmental Minister Ze’ev Elkin, a Russian speaker who was present at the meeting:

While refusing to comment on whether Netanyahu was able to convince Putin to rein in Iran’s regional military ambitions, Elkin said the meeting would have “very important implications.”

So, which version is your preferred one?

Natalia Veselnitskaya, Magnitsky Act, Russian hackers, Putin's tentacles, you name it...

It is a long time since this here blog dabbed in the pictures of nice ladies, so... no, this is not really the reason for this picture at all. It is simply that the person in the picture is being presented as one of the more powerful tentacles of the Kremlin in general and Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin in particular. When even our provincial Times of Israel opens its main page with a huge font headline:

Moscow denies knowledge of Trump Jr.’s meeting with Putin-linked lawyer

How can one be not thrilled by that? The point of the (slightly poisoned) arrow is, of course, this "Putin-linked lawyer" bit. How sharp it is? So I let my fingers do some surfing in the murky waters of the 'net, with assistance from the kind Google, may his/her name be blessed.

But first a look back, several days ago, when an allegedly explosive news appeared first in that august bastion of progressive thought, NYT:

Trump’s Son Met With Russian Lawyer After Being Promised Damaging Information on Clinton

Aha, I said to myself, with another few million surfers: finally the Pandora box is getting opened, and the mills of justice are going to start milling much faster. That is, till I have encountered the following pathetic sentence in this "explosive" article:

The accounts of the meeting represent the first public indication that at least some in the campaign were willing to accept Russian help.

What? If anything, this is not an accelerator of the said mills of justice - rather a wrench in the works.

Nevertheless, this kind of the James Bond story, with a nice looking Russian lady thrown in for thrills (the infamous KGB Swallows come to mind, surely), couldn't leave one indifferent. So one googles.

Ms Natalia Veselnitskaya isn't, apparently, hiding in some inaccessible corners of the fast FSB/SVR empire, being at beck and call of Vladimir Vladimirovich. No, she is quite openly active on Facebook, where she presents herself as a managing partner in a Moscow firm of lawyers and quite openly tells all about her fight against Magnitsky Act. More about her in English here and here. While the Magnitsky Act by itself was a good deed of the US government and the fight against it was definitely approved and, most probably, financed by the Russian government, to derive from this a link to Vladimir Vladimirovich is more than just reaching. It is a kind of hyperbole good only for cheap headlines and cheap journalists... but wait, we are talking about progressive press here... oops.

So what could we learn from the whole brouhaha? Nope, it ain't a Pandora box, that's for sure. By the way, the real Pandora box seems to have been a sealed pottery vase. In our case it turned out to be a crock of crapola.

And the only man that is still laughing is the one in Kremlin. Watching the travesty of the ongoing witch hunts and the administration busy at counterattacking the media, instead of doing what the government is meant to do - how could the man not laugh? At least, from all that we know about his habits, he is not laughing out loud.

Just cackling from time to time.

Benjamin Netanyahu at his best: zigging and zagging

Whatever they say about Bibi, in one aspect of his behavior he is consistent: he will switch direction at the merest sign of trouble for his ruling coalition, i.e. to his seat of power.

His sudden change of heart regarding the plan to establish a pluralistic prayer pavilion at Jerusalem’s Western Wall is just another example of his all consuming passion for that chair.

The cabinet on Sunday suspended a government-approved plan to establish a pluralistic prayer pavilion at Jerusalem’s Western Wall, following calls by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s ultra-Orthodox coalition allies to scrap the deal. The announcement was swiftly condemned by Israel’s Reform Movement and the Jewish Agency.

But, Bibi being Bibi, even this decision was half-hearted:

In a statement, the Prime Minister’s Office said that Netanyahu instructed Cabinet Secretary Tzachi Braverman and Likud Minister Tzachi Hanegbi to formulate a new plan for the site.

It also said construction work on the southern edge of the Western Wall plaza — where the pluralistic prayer pavilion was slated to be built — would continue uninterrupted.

Just in case Bibi detects that the damage caused by his sudden about-turn might outweigh the threat of not turning about. But of course.

Still, I tend to think that the ToI headline on David Horovitz' op-ed is a bit of exaggeration:

Netanyahu to millions of Jews: We don’t really want you

First of all, I seriously doubt that there are literally millions of conservative and reform Jews hurt by this zigzag. Besides, there are more young American Jews being indoctrinated by J-Street, JVP and extreme left - the writing is on the wall*. Not that the two cases are completely unrelated.

As a side note: I would dare guess that the case of pluralistic prayer pavilion is quite closely related to the recent brouhaha with the work performed on the railroad during Shabbat. Political horse trading in its typical naked glory.

Yep. As it was said, politicians and diapers should both be changed regularly, and for the same reason.

Quite the time.

(*) This statement of mine must be amended. Apparently the report used and several other articles using it as a base for alarm were quite significantly exaggerated. Not that there isn't a reason to worry, but on the other hand panic doesn't help too. Here it is:

Vast majority’ of Jewish students are connected to Israel, insists Brandeis prof

Hat tip: Elise Ronan.

Trump and how to beat him, according to the Guardian

Not being a supporter of Trump and not being an expert in the internal US politics, I simply enjoy (kind of) the current political game in Washington. Which is mainly a hodge-podge of frenzied attacks on the POTUS, coming from all directions: from his alleged complicity in a bevy of alleged Russian conspiracies to his ice-cream preferences.

A good example of the "let's try it all" approach is this article in The Guardian by one Rebecca Solnit, "a Guardian US contributing opinion writer, an historian, activist and contributing editor at Harper's magazine":

Victories against Trump are mounting. Here's how we deal the final blow

Proclaims the author:

I believe we have the capacity to limit the damage or even bring down the Trump administration through nonviolent resistance and good organizing, and I see extraordinary things happening in this moment. We are off to a good start.

The article is a litany of the various lines of attack I've mentioned above. Some of them are more serious, although in many cases wishful thinking is the main factual material in support of these attacks. A lot of the rest are so pitiful that it makes me wonder about the sanity - either of the author or the originators of the attacks. Here are some choice quotes:

Democrats in the legislative branch of government have been mocking Trump, from the proposed Covfefe Act (it’s an acronym for Communications Over Various Feeds Electronically For Engagement, but also a joke about a peculiar tweet of Trump’s including that word, or nonword) that would ban him from deleting tweets on the grounds that they’re presidential records, to Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer’s videotaped parody of Trump’s cabinet meeting in which all members dutifully praised him.

Earthshaking indeed. On the other hand, laughing is good for you, physicians say.

Senator Kamala Harris has gone after attorney general Jeff Sessions hard (despite male senators who keep trying to hush her up). Congresswoman Maxine Waters is demanding impeachment.

Now, Congresswoman Maxine Waters is, of course, a bombshell argument no matter what the subject is. Trump better seek a shelter asap...

Last week fired FBI director James Comey ripped the president to shreds as a liar, a creep, and an incompetent manipulator of truth and staff, and since then things have gotten worse for the administration.

In the eye of the beholder, certainly, otherwise the harm caused to the POTUS was negligible, not to mention the dirt Comey thoroughly covered himself with.

In the media, Rachel Maddow of liberal MSNBC has beat Fox to the number one spot in cable-news prime time.

This Rachel Maddow? Spare me, please - from what I hear even many of the left are feeling fed up with this overbearing know-it-all.

There is more, much more in that article. But, filtered by slight skepticism, it boils down to a lot of fervent desire and rage that doesn't really have an outlet, not so far.

You don't go against an elephant with a peashooter, ladies and gentlemen. To wipe that smirk from the POTUS' face requires something more substantial than this gibberish.

Final blow? Good luck.

Putin as the big bad wolf of XXI century

This post is a sequel to previous one on the mayhem caused to the 2016 elections in US of A. It is inspired by the article:

U.S. Officials: Putin Personally Involved in U.S. Election Hack

I don't see any reason to disbelieve that claim. Putin has the necessary mentality of a mid level KGB officer, which was his last rank, and of course he would have wanted to be a part of this specific bit of nefarious dealings. And, as already mentioned previously, CIA does have a gift of perfect hindsight vision.

What bothers me somewhat is the storm of indignation coming out from all directions of American political spectrum. It is as if the incessant scandals related to NSA and its various tentacles eavesdropping on everything that goes on around the globe, be it a phone call, an e-mail or an Internet site, never happened. And if you are trying to tell me that no US secret outfit ever performed a B&E on any foreign computer, please pull my other leg.

And of course, the spooks in other countries, friendly or not, are quite busy doing the same to their allies, enemies and everyone in between, so let's stop playing that injured innocence drama, it just doesn't wash. This was re indignation.

About this analysis of Russian motives:

Putin's objectives were multifaceted, a high-level intelligence source told NBC News. What began as a "vendetta" against Hillary Clinton morphed into an effort to show corruption in American politics and to "split off key American allies by creating the image that [other countries] couldn't depend on the U.S. to be a credible global leader anymore," the official said.

I don't have any problems with the "vendetta" point, nor with the "effort to show corruption in American politics" - the true DNC material that was publicly uncovered has done both quite well. Shouldn't all Americans be bipartisanly grateful to Putin for that disclosure? - is another question I've never succeeded to get a coherent answer to.

As for creating the image mentioned above: that objective is really funny: I was quite confident that the 8 years of the last administration accomplished it quite well. Why should Putin bother?

In short: the outfit that usually learns about many key events happening on this globe from TV should really restrict its collective imagination and leave the analysis like this to tea leaves readers.

The list of atrocities caused by the big bad wolf is growing, branching out to things like this one:

Labour MP claims it's 'highly probable' Russia interfered with Brexit

And, once an example of blaming one's problem on somebody else was given, there will be no end to it, obviously. You must check out this inanity as well.

Russia may organise migrant sex attacks in Europe to make Angela Merkel lose German elections, EU experts claim

These same experts who allowed NSA, CIA and, I bet, uncounted other secret services to listen to the phone conversations of their leaders, try to predict the future? Spare me, please.

And now to quote myself, to finish on an upbeat note:

Have you noticed the other positive thing that came out of the Moscow hacking scandal? Lately many transgressions that people were routinely ascribing to the Jooz are blamed on Kremlin.

Kinda breath of fresh air.

On the negative side, we are becoming much less fearsome. Hmm...

Service announcement: fellow Americans, you are certifiably mad!

Starting the post with a personal conclusion: I am so glad that I've decided a few months ago to sit out the whole US elections process on the fence. Only now I understand how any other move would have been dangerous for the puny remnants of my sanity. And how I would have been raving against my screen these days for or against this or other breach of elections' purity, popular vote, hacking, tampering, dark forces on this or another front etc. etc.

And even sitting on the fence, I have been somewhat swept by the wave of popular wrath directed at Moscow, who, according to so many pundits, swayed the result of the elections into that impossible direction. As a lot of other people, I have missed the point where the popular wrath against the popular and handy big bad wolf totally obscured the info that this bad wolf was (or wasn't, whatever) providing.

The penny dropped for me only after reading this article:

The Kremlin Didn’t Sink Hillary—Obama Did

The author, John Schindler "is a security expert and former National Security Agency analyst and counterintelligence officer"*. He is definitely a man with an agenda, good or bad is not for me to say. I am not even remotely interested (for now) in the main thrust of his peace, no matter whether he is right or wrong. Something else caught my attention. Namely the two following quotes:

To anybody acquainted with well-honed Moscow agitprop techniques, this was no more than old-style KGB Active Measures sped up for the Internet age. That said, the threat posed by this online disinformation offensive is real, as I and other experts counseled years ago (in my case, beginning with the defection of Edward Snowden to Moscow in June 2013). However, it was frankly difficult to get the mainstream media interested in this rising problem—at least until the Kremlin’s disinformation machine went after Hillary, as it did in 2016 with gusto.

Notice the repeat appearance of the word "disinformation". Here is the second quote:

By refusing to debunk noxious Russian lies, Obama encouraged Putin to tell more of them—including about Hillary Clinton. This culminated in the Russian intelligence operation which employed Wikileaks as a front to disseminate Democratic emails which had been intercepted by Moscow—as I told you months ago, and which the National Security Agency has recently admitted.

Notice the words "noxious Russian lies".

And here it clinched for me. Ladies and gentlemen: when the best and brightest among you, pro-Hillary or pro-Trump no matter, apply the term "disinformation" aka "noxious Russian lies" to a great deal of totally valid information that was delivered into your hands gratis, whether by a well-meaning whistleblower or a bad conniving bastard in Moscow (or both), you all are guilty not only of a crime against an English dictionary, but of monumental, certifiable madness.

Disinformation: Misinformation that is deliberately disseminated in order to influence or confuse rivals (foreign enemies or business competitors etc.)

Information: A collection of facts from which conclusions may be drawn.

So there. I feel much better now. And I continue my fence straddling meanwhile, not that we don't have our own elections looming. Get better soon, Americans, I have some vested interests in your sanity.

Yes: and read this indeed.

Hillary Clinton Lost. Get Over It And Stop Blaming Russia, WikiLeaks And ‘Fake’ News

A rare sign of sobriety in the witches cauldron of madness.

(*) Of course, it is not up to me to verify the pedigree of the man.

Russian hacking of US elections process: for Trump or against Hillary?

After several months of indecision, CIA came out swinging. The result is expressed in a WaPo headline:

Secret CIA assessment says Russia was trying to help Trump win White House

The article leaves at least one line of investigation untouched. It also puts the headline's conclusion (Russians rooting for Trump) as the final one. Of course, WaPo is not a PR branch of CIA, but if in that article WaPo faithfully reproduced the CIA findings, they (the findings) smell fishy. It is not unheard of that this mighty intelligence outfit fails to produce a correct assessment of the goings on. But in most cases it was related to predictions and not to the analysis of the past affairs - the hindsight so far worked OK. More or less.

I am not challenging the conclusion about the Russian involvement, far from it. After all, if European media, talking heads and others were so heavily involved in the US elections process, why would SVR/KGB stay away from the occasion to muddy the waters?

Nope, the point that I still can't agree with is the insistence that Russians rooted for Trump. Russian style of managing their international affairs always favored stable and predictable leaders in the seats of power abroad. Why would Russia work to help out a totally unpredictable and mercurial one like Trump and not Hillary, much more stable and predictable? Highly doubtful.

We have to look at the timing and the contents of the leaks to understand their purpose. That same WaPo has quite clearly stated at the time what was the intention of the leaks:

Many of the most damaging emails suggest the committee was actively trying to undermine Bernie Sanders's presidential campaign. Basically all of these examples came late in the primary -- after Hillary Clinton was clearly headed for victory -- but they belie the national party committee's stated neutrality in the race even at that late stage.

Lots of other leaks attacked Hillary directly, of course:

Long before Hillary Clinton called millions of Americans a “basket of deplorables,” her top campaign advisers and liberal allies openly mocked Catholics, Southerners and a host of other groups, according to newly released emails that offer a stunning window into the vitriol inside the Clinton world less than a month before Election Day.
The emails, published by WikiLeaks after a hack of Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta’s private account, also show Clinton campaign officials and Democratic leaders disparaging supporters of Sen. Bernard Sanders as “self-righteous” whiners, calling Hispanic party leaders such as Bill Richardson “needy Latinos,” labeling CNN anchor Jake Tapper “a d—k” and even lambasting longtime Clinton ally Sidney Blumenthal.

Yes, Hillary clearly was the target, but was the leaking campaign inspired by support for Trump? The timing doesn't figure. The leaks came when the main focus of Hillary's campaign was one Bernard Sanders.

I would say that if there was active SVR involvement, knowing the Russian penchant for predictability and deeply rooted sympathies for the left and far left, the goal was to help out Bern. And this is the line of inquiry totally neglected by the high and mighty in CIA. Why had CIA chosen to produce a conclusion that seems to be so detached from reality? Beats me. Consider me confused. Like this:

Now that scares the crap out of me

And how about yourself?

Update. I think I've found the source of that picture. The article says:

As reported IA "Tiras"* a billboard has appeared in the Montenegrin town of Danilovgrad and this billboard completely blew up the Internet. In it the Russian leader Vladimir Putin and US President-elect Donald Trump stand shoulder to shoulder against a background of flags of the two countries. But most of all Internet users were impressed by a slogan in Russian and English that reads: "Let's make the world great - again!".

Montenegro - the country. which is economically strongly connected with Russia, however it is committed to integration with NATO. Montenegrin hopes for mutual understanding between Washington and Moscow in this sense are not surprising.

(*) IA "Tiras", where "IA" stands for "Information Agency", the source of the news, is a media outfit that is located in the Transnistria, "a self-proclaimed republic on a strip of land between the River Dniester and the border with Ukraine, recognised only by three non-United Nations (UN) states". In other words, a Moscow puppet.

Dear EU bureaucrats: hack mir nicht in tchainick! And Telegraph: you too...

"Hack mir nicht in tchainic": this old Yiddish expression was the first thing that came to mind after reading the story about the EU plans to establish a legal limit to the wattage of electric kettles.

So first, I guess, I have to explain that expression. According to a dictionary, it means "Don't get on my nerves". However, the word "tchainick" deserves special attention. Yiddish being a liberal mix of Hebrew, German, Russian and whatnot, the word "tchainick" came from the Russian word "чайник", which, lo and behold, means "kettle" - yeah, that same kettle that The Telegraph put in the midst of that article. The Telegraph says:

The European Commission plans to unveil long-delayed ‘ecodesign’ restrictions on small household appliances in the autumn. They are expected to ban the most energy-inefficient devices from sale in order to cut carbon emissions.

The plans have been ready for many months, but were shelved for fear of undermining the referendum campaign if they were perceived as an assault on the British staples of tea and toast.

What with the Brexit deal that I am not qualified to comment on, British public is naturally irked by the sacrilegious attempts of EU mandarins to defile "the British staples of tea and toast", so I've decided to do some digging on the strange matter of kettles.

Why strange? Just because anyone with some basic knowledge of elementary school physics will tell you that lowering the wattage of a kettle will not save the total amount of energy required to get that liter of water to the boiling point. I would even dare say that the opposite will be true: the more time you spend on the boiling procedure, the more energy will dissipate into your already hot kitchen. And it is difficult to believe that the bozos in the EU command structure are as dumb as it is required to miss that point.

So, being a bit sceptical about the highly incensed Telegraph writer's veracity, I went and done some googling. One of the several EU documents available (some are not accessible due to glitches) doesn't, of course, mention the kettle directly. Bureaucrats are usually loath to name a spade a spade, preferring their own language. So one will have to do with a generic statement:

(a) implementing measures starting with those products which have been identified by the ECCP as offering a high potential for cost-effective reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, such as heating and water heating equipment, electric motor systems, lighting in both the domestic and tertiary sectors, domestic appliances, office equipment in both the domestic and tertiary sectors, consumer electronics and HVAC (heating ventilating air conditioning) systems...

Emphasis on "water heating equipment", aimed directly at our beloved electric kettle, is mine. So indeed, the mighty EU is having the kettle in its murderous sights. However, no one said so far that the EU initiative is about banning high powered kettles. The Guardian would like to calm down the incensed citizens:

The energy consumption of a kettle depends on:

• Thermal mass of materials that are heated while the water is heated.
• Heat loss from external surfaces.
• Ability to heat a small amount of water and no more than is needed.
• Heat input continues after the water reaches required temperature (boils) until the automatic cut-out actuates.
• Designs that heat to a pre-set temperature and then keep the water hot.

So it is rather about energy efficiency of the said kettle than about the power. And, speaking about efficiency, here comes a response by CECED (The European Committee of Domestic Equipment Manufacturers) to the EU far reaching initiative. I have taken the liberty to highlight especially delicious and/or hilarious parts. The quoted comes from part III. Product group 5: Electric kettles:

On page 58 the report refers to a measurement to boil one litre of water which resulted in a total energy consumption of 0.038kWh. This data cannot be correct as the theoretical minimum amount of energy required to boil one litre of water from the tap (15°C to 100°C) is ⌂ T * specific heat of water (expressed in kg) * specific weight of water. This gives 85 * 4186 joule/gram °C * 0.9798 kg = 348622 J = 349 kJ. Converting kJ in kWh this gives 0.097 kWh. This is more than twice as much as the measurement in the report and does not yet take into account potential heat losses. As the initial figure of 0.038kWh has been used to calculate the annual use phase electricity consumption we can deduce that the findings in terms of energy savings are likely flawed.
On page 62 the report also refers to energy saving options for kettles. In general it should be noted that electric kettles are already designed to be very energy efficient. The water in an electric kettle is in direct contact with the heating element and there is not pot to heat. Compared to for example a kettle on a stove (31% efficiency) or a micro wave (47% efficiency) the kettle achieves around 81%*. Referenced estimations of up to 20% energy efficiency improvement do not seem realistic. We would also like to highlight that the link (footnote 64) providing background data for the 20% does not work anymore.
According to the report “Thick film elements would therefore be regarded as Best Available Technology (BAT) due to the lower energy consumption and better durability” (page 63). Experiences from several manufacturers do not support this. Significant improvement of the energy efficiency has not been observed, and thick film even resulted in increased field call rates. Recent information received from a thick film manufacturer refers to an energy efficiency improvement of 10% for one specific component, not to the efficiency improvement of the whole kettle.

(*) To compare the 81% efficiency number: modern gasoline engines have a maximum thermal efficiency of about 25% to 30% [sic!] when used to power a car.

So the inevitable conclusions are two:

1. The EU mandarins have made a very poor job of investigating the kettle.
2. But they don't really intend to reduce its power, it certainly doesn't look like this.
3. The projected savings from a gargantuan and highly doubtful effort to make an already efficient appliance a bit more efficient are minuscule compared with, to take one example, a similar improvement in car engines.
4. There really are a few more serious problems than the darn kettle that EU has to deal with urgently.

So there.

Oh, and by the way: for the last few years we have been using one of the energy efficient European dishwashers. I shall refrain from mentioning the country of origin and the manufacturer.

Only one remark: it sucks.

Anti-Semitism row used to undermine Corbyn

A row about anti-Semitism is being used by Jeremy Corbyn's opponents within Labour to undermine his leadership, Unite chief Len McCluskey says. Mr McCluskey, whose union is Labour's biggest donor, attacked a "cynical attempt to manipulate anti-Semitism for political aims".

So they say. And they are absolutely right.

Corbyn's rivals inside the Labour are sharpening their knives, no doubt. Labour rivals and their media are sharpening their knives too, with vengeance. Just as Labour folks and their media were recently full of glee regarding David Cameron's link to Panama-based offshore trust set up by his late father.

So what?

Israel to Europe: can we be of assistance?

Update: the post below was published first here on April 13, 2016. On April 26, ToI published a news item that is very (but very) relevant to the post.

An alleged boycott of Israeli technology may have prevented an airport security deal offered to France after the deadly Charlie Hebdo and Hyper Cacher attacks last January, and which could possibly have thwarted the subsequent Islamic State terror attacks in Paris in November and Belgium several months later.

According to an Israeli security source who spoke to Fox News on Monday, an Israeli security company offered terrorist-tracking software to the Directorate-General for Internal Security, France’s main intelligence agency — software that could have helped flag the deadly IS terror cell that perpetrated the attacks in Paris late last year and those in Belgium last month — but was rebuffed allegedly after an official made clear that Israeli technology could not be purchased.

Well, enjoy the rest of the story.

This epic dialog came to my attention from a Russian source. Blame the Russians.

Israel: Belgium, Europe, we are sorry to hear about your troubles, please accept our condolences. What do you plan to do now?
Europe: Most probably, we'll decide to strengthen our boycott on the merchandise produced by Israel in the occupied Palestinian territories.
Israel: We understand. Do you require assistance? Surveillance systems? Face recognition software? Geolocation? Search algorithms? We have all of it.
Europe: Yes, the face recognition software, it is exactly what we need, thanks!
Israel: Glad to be of help... although there might be a slight problem. The company what developed this software is located in Jerusalem, and, according to the official maps by UN, two booths of their men's restroom are in East Jerusalem. But it's not a big deal, is it? Might save some of your people...
Europe: Hmm... OK, we'll recognize the faces by ourselves somehow. How about some fresh carrots, carrots are good for your eyes and memory? Could you ship, say, 20 tonnes?
Israel: Sure. Only, while the carrot is grown in a kibbutz, it is packed in an industrial zone in Samaria...
Europe: All right, we'll manage without the carrots. How about the geolocation gizmo?
Israel: It was tested on Golan Heights.
Europe: The digital surveillance system?
Israel: The same...
Europe: The airport security installation?
Israel: The CEO's house is beyond the Green Line.
Europe: The non-conventional explosives detector?
Israel: The chief engineer's brother's spouse comes from Jordan Valley.
Europe: Then maybe the software support system for our security services?
Israel: We have a lot of it, every schoolchild will write one for you, but the problem is that all these school kids are usually taken for a visit to the old city of Jerusalem.
Europe: Maybe some exchange of experience in your dealing with terrorism?
Israel: Sure, but all of it is gained in our years of fight against Palestinian terror...
Europe: But you must have something normal, something legal that doesn't fall under our sanctions. Which sanctions are meant to defend human rights and to stop the occupation. Something that might help us to defeat the terror?
Israel: Yes, there is that flower shop in Tel Aviv, right near the beach. They produce artificial flowers too, so you can have a wreath there, to place on the scene of terror.
Europe: Fine, let's have it!
Israel: If you buy 20 wreaths, a discount of 15% applies.
Europe: OK, we'll need them.

EU decision to mark settlement products and a less boring response

That decision* was a subject for concern, scorn and/or applause for quite some time, so I wouldn't waste your time on deriding (or lauding, deity forbid) the infinite wisdom of EU officials, blessed be their jobs. If you want to find this or other material on the subject - happy googling.

I am glad to introduce a less routine response that - verily life is full of surprises - comes from a Russian social site ВКонтакте ("In touch" - a Russian version of Facebook) and many other Russian sites. The author, Alexandr Lisovsky, is apparently located in Israel, though. So here it goes:

Regarding the marking by EU of products produced by Jews in Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria and Golan Heights: below is shown an example of a product produced by Jewish settlers in Bethlehem, Judea.

Already marked.

Start boycotting.

(*) Especially this part of that text:

Since the Golan Heights and the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) are not part of the Israeli territory according to international law, the indication ‘product from Israel’ is considered to be incorrect and misleading in the sense of the referenced legislation.