World today (Ni Srbija ni zemlje u okruženju)

[Meho Krljic]

Kao što smo onomad i predviđali, levičarski eksperiment u Grčkoj se završio prilično brzo, temeljitim odustajanjem od svega. Moja strepnja je tada, u vreme pobede Sirize na izborima bila najpre to da će dobronamerno pozivanje na ideje socijalne države i solidarnosti na kraju, suočeno sa neizbežnim daljim finansijskim propadanjem i ekonomskom kolonizacijom imati učinak da socijalističke i solidarne ideje u Evropi postanu proskribovane na duži vremenski period. Strah da će svaki put kada se neko podigne da ukaže na to šta se događa kada neoliberalni kapitalizam nema makar solidnu protivtezu u javnom diskursu, taj neko biti  potapšan po glavi, upućen da vidi kako je Grčka jadno završila i poslat natrag u klupu, taj strah je sad malo palpabilniji:



Ципрас поднео оставку, следе избори

Грчки премијер Алексис Ципрас поднео је оставку и предложио расписивање избора. Превремени парламентарни избори биће одржани највероватније 20. септембра, речено је раније у грчкој влади.



"Имам моралну одговорност да вашем суду изнесем оно што сам учинио", рекао је Ципрас у обраћању грађанима, које је преносила грчка телевизија.
Ципрас је нагласио да ће покушати да поново задобије поверење народа како би могао да настави да спроводи свој програм.
Према његовим речима, Грци морају да одлуче да ли их је адекватно представљао у "бици са међународним зајмодавцима" о мерама штедње и новом пакету помоћи за излазак из кризе.
Како каже, мандат који је добио 25. јануара дошао је до својих граница и сада грађани треба да одлуче о новом мандату.
Ципрас је, како наводи АНА, рекао још и да има чисту савест и да од бирача тражи чист мандат.
Како је и најавио, Ципрас је нешто касније оставку поднео председнику Прокопису Павлопулосу и затражио да се избори одрже што пре, вероватно 20. септембра.
Ципрас је претходно одржао консултације са истакнутим саветницима о томе да ли да распише ванредне изборе како би умирио побуну у редовима Сиризе.
Према медијима, у оптицају су била два термина – или да избори буду у периоду 15-20. септембра или у октобру.
Спекулације о одржавању превремених избора у Грчкој појачале су се последњих дана пошто су неки од саветника премијера, укључујући и министра енергетике Паноса Скурлетиса, отворено позвали на изборе.
Централни комитет Сиризе одлучио је пре три недеља да у септембру буде одржан ванредни конгрес странке на коме би се утврдила владина стратегија, што је раније затражио Ципрас.
Већина чланова Централног комитета гласала је за одржавање конгреса, чији је циљ утврђивање стратегије владе и очување јединства Сиризе пољуљаног због непопуларног пакета помоћи међународних кредитора.
Ципрас се налази под притиском значајне мањине у Сиризи која каже да споразум који је грчки премијер потписао са међународним кредиторима иде против владиних обећања против мера штедње.
Око 30 посланика Сиризе одбило је да у јулу гласа за реформе, а Ципрас је још тада рекао да су ванредни избори опција уколико се са таквим отпором настави.

[Anomander Rejk]

Evropa je na korak od otvorenog fašizma. Dovoljno je pogledati kako prevaljuju emigrantsku krizu na male, ucenjene, ekonomski osiromašene zemlje poput Grčke, Makedonije i Srbije, i kako žmire i ćute na fašizaciju Hrvatske. Ničim se to više ne može pravdati, i vreme je da se otvoreno kaže-vrednosti koje je (možda)EU nekad baštinila, više ne baštini.

[eddie coyle]

 


! No longer available

[Meho Krljic]

Taj ludi ludi svet:
Gadget 'allergy': French woman wins disability grant

A French woman has won a disability grant after telling a court she suffers from an allergy to electromagnetic radiation from gadgets.
Marine Richard, 39, was told she may claim €800 (£580) per month for three years as a result.
She said it was a "breakthrough" for people affected by electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS).
The condition is recognised by the World Health Organisation (WHO), though it says the causes are unclear.
Ms Richard had resorted to living in a remote area in the mountains of south-west France - in a barn that has no electricity.
She said she had been affected by everyday gadgets such as phones.
Typical symptoms reported by those who say they suffer from EHS include headaches, fatigue, nausea and palpitations.
The disability allowance was granted by a court in Toulouse, though the ruling did not formally recognise EHS as an illness.School sued                                                                                                     
In a case in the US, the parents of a 12-year-old boy who they say is hypersensitive to his boarding school's WiFi have decided to file a lawsuit against the establishment.
The parents say their son, a day pupil, has been diagnosed with EHS.
They say he began suffering from headaches, nosebleeds and nausea after the Fay School installed new WiFi in 2013.
The school asked the communications technology firm Isotrope to assess the electromagnetic emissions on campus.
"Isotrope found that the combined levels of access point emissions, broadcast radio and television signals, and other RFE emissions on campus comply with federal and state safety limits by a wide margin," the school said in a statement.
The statement also quoted from the Isotrope report, which said that levels of emissions both in the school and on the grounds "were substantially less than one ten-thousandth (1/10,000th) of the applicable safety limits (federal and state)".

Understanding electromagnetic fieldsBy Philippa Roxby, BBC News Health Reporter
Electromagnetic fields are all around us but most cannot be seen.
In recent years a lot of research has been carried out into man-made sources of these fields, such as electrical power supplies and appliances in the home.
X-ray machines, TV and radio transmitters, mobile phones, WiFi and microwave ovens are all everyday sources of electromagnetic waves.
Those who are sensitive to them talk of experiencing headaches, sleeplessness, ear pain when using a mobile phone, skin tingling and problems with concentration and memory.
For them, the only solution at present is to avoid objects that emit radiation in the home - not easy in the modern world.
In the UK, electromagnetic hypersensitivity is not a recognised condition.
That's because Public Health England says there is no scientific evidence that electromagnetic fields damage people's health.
The WHO agrees and believes more research on long-term health effects needs to be done.

Difficult caseAlthough some countries, notably Sweden and the US, have officially recognised EHS as a condition, there is still much debate over whether a legal case on the condition would be worthwhile in certain other states.
In the UK, for example, members of the public who are worried about exposure to mobile phone masts tend to challenge their construction on a planning basis, according to research group Powerwatch.
"The health issue is close to a no-win in this country at the moment," Graham Lamburn, its technical manager, told the BBC.
"You really need to win on things like 'it's devalued my property because it's outside my window' or 'there's an irregularity in the way it's been put through with planning'."
Electrosensitivty UK (ES-UK), a charity that campaigns for wider recognition of EHS, said it welcomed the French court's decision.
"Several people in the UK have been diagnosed with electrosensitivity and received help for the disability but any financial allowance usually refers to a different name for the condition or a related condition," it said in a statement.

[Meho Krljic]

E, pa da vidimo:
How Goldman Sachs Profited From The Greek Crisis

The Greek debt crisis offers another illustration of Wall Street's powers of persuasion and predation, although the Street is missing from most accounts.
The crisis was exacerbated years ago by a deal with Goldman Sachs, engineered by Goldman's current CEO, Lloyd Blankfein.
Blankfein and his Goldman team helped Greece hide the true extent of its debt, and in the process almost doubled it. And just as with the American subprime crisis, and the current plight of many American cities, Wall Street's predatory lending played an important although little-recognized role.
In 2001, Greece was looking for ways to disguise its mounting financial troubles. The Maastricht Treaty required all eurozone member states to show improvement in their public finances, but Greece was heading in the wrong direction.
Then Goldman Sachs came to the rescue, arranging a secret loan of 2.8 billion euros for Greece, disguised as an off-the-books "cross-currency swap"—a complicated transaction in which Greece's foreign-currency debt was converted into a domestic-currency obligation using a fictitious market exchange rate.
As a result, about 2 percent of Greece's debt magically disappeared from its national accounts. Christoforos Sardelis, then head of Greece's Public Debt Management Agency, later described the deal to Bloomberg Business as "a very sexy story between two sinners."
For its services, Goldman received a whopping 600 million euros ($793 million), according to Spyros Papanicolaou, who took over from Sardelis in 2005. That came to about 12 percent of Goldman's revenue from its giant trading and principal-investments unit in 2001—which posted record sales that year. The unit was run by Blankfein.
Then the deal turned sour. After the 9/11 attacks, bond yields plunged, resulting in a big loss for Greece because of the formula Goldman had used to compute the country's debt repayments under the swap. By 2005, Greece owed almost double what it had put into the deal, pushing its off-the-books debt from 2.8 billion euros to 5.1 billion.
   In 2005, the deal was restructured and that 5.1 billion euros in debt locked in. Perhaps not incidentally, Mario Draghi, now head of the European Central Bank and a major player in the current Greek drama, was then managing director of Goldman's international division.
Greece wasn't the only sinner. Until 2008, European Union accounting rules allowed member nations to manage their debt with so-called off-market rates in swaps, pushed by Goldman and other Wall Street banks. In the late 1990s, JPMorgan enabled Italy to hide its debt by swapping currency at a favorable exchange rate, thereby committing Italy to future payments that didn't appear on its national accounts as future liabilities.
But Greece was in the worst shape, and Goldman was the biggest enabler. Undoubtedly, Greece suffers from years of corruption and tax avoidance by its wealthy. But Goldman wasn't an innocent bystander: It padded its profits by leveraging Greece to the hilt—along with much of the rest of the global economy. Other Wall Street banks did the same. When the bubble burst, all that leveraging pulled the world economy to its knees.
Even with the global economy reeling from Wall Street's excesses, Goldman offered Greece another gimmick. In early November 2009, three months before the country's debt crisis became global news, a Goldman team proposed a financial instrument that would push the debt from Greece's healthcare system far into the future. This time, though, Greece didn't bite.
As we know, Wall Street got bailed out by American taxpayers. And in subsequent years, the banks became profitable again and repaid their bailout loans. Bank shares have gone through the roof. Goldman's were trading at $53 a share in November 2008; they're now worth over $200. Executives at Goldman and other Wall Street banks have enjoyed huge pay packages and promotions. Blankfein, now Goldman's CEO, raked in $24 million last year alone.
   Meanwhile, the people of Greece struggle to buy medicine and food.
There are analogies here in America, beginning with the predatory loans made by Goldman, other big banks, and the financial companies they were allied with in the years leading up to the bust. Today, even as the bankers vacation in the Hamptons, millions of Americans continue to struggle with the aftershock of the financial crisis in terms of lost jobs, savings, and homes.
Meanwhile, cities and states across America have been forced to cut essential services because they're trapped in similar deals sold to them by Wall Street banks. Many of these deals have involved swaps analogous to the ones Goldman sold the Greek government.
And much like the assurances it made to the Greek government, Goldman and other banks assured the municipalities that the swaps would let them borrow more cheaply than if they relied on traditional fixed-rate bonds—while downplaying the risks they faced. Then, as interest rates plunged and the swaps turned out to cost far more, Goldman and the other banks refused to let the municipalities refinance without paying hefty fees to terminate the deals.
Three years ago, the Detroit Water Department had to pay Goldman and other banks penalties totaling $547 million to terminate costly interest-rate swaps. Forty percent of Detroit's water bills still go to paying off the penalty. Residents of Detroit whose water has been shut off because they can't pay have no idea that Goldman and other big banks are responsible.
Likewise, the Chicago school system—whose budget is already cut to the bone—must pay over $200 million in termination penalties on a Wall Street deal that had Chicago schools paying $36 million a year in interest-rate swaps.
A deal involving interest-rate swaps that Goldman struck with Oakland, California, more than a decade ago has ended up costing the city about $4 million a year, but Goldman has refused to allow Oakland out of the contract unless it ponies up a $16 million termination fee—prompting the city council to pass a resolution to boycott Goldman. When confronted at a shareholder meeting about it, Blankfein explained that it was against shareholder interests to tear up a valid contract.
   Goldman Sachs and the other giant Wall Street banks are masterful at selling complex deals by exaggerating their benefits and minimizing their costs and risks. That's how they earn giant fees. When a client gets into trouble—whether that client is an American homeowner, a US city, or Greece—Goldman ducks and hides behind legal formalities and shareholder interests.
Borrowers that get into trouble are rarely blameless, of course: They spent too much, and were gullible or stupid enough to buy Goldman's pitches. Greece brought on its own problems, as did many American homeowners and municipalities.
But in all of these cases, Goldman knew very well what it was doing. It knew more about the real risks and costs of the deals it proposed than those who accepted them. "It is an issue of morality," said the shareholder at the Goldman meeting where Oakland came up. Exactly.
 

[Meho Krljic]

Heh, heh, sakrz.

Uber told drivers to take showers, and now it's being used against them in court

When you get in an Uber, you hope your driver has showered and the car is not a mess. However, the fact that Uber once told its drivers not to "forget to shower" is now part of a key legal battle that the ride-hailing company faces.

The ride-hailing company suffered a major legal setback on Tuesday when a San Francisco judge ruled that the jobs of Uber drivers in California are similar enough that workers can sue the company as a class.

In a decision granting class action status to the lawsuit, Judge Edward Chen of the U.S. District Court Northern District of California cited Uber's training materials, which included instructions on how to clean the car and how drivers should look, as one example of how Uber exercised a right to control its drivers.

Uber's original argument was that all drivers must attend an onboarding training, but that the content of each session varied widely so drivers could not be analyzed on a classwide basis.

In one San Francisco onboarding script cited in Chen's opinion, drivers are told to "make sure the radio is off or on soft jazz or NPR." Another Uber training manual recommended that there should be no papers in the visor, the front seat should be forward, the rims should be spotless, and drivers should not "forget to shower."

Chen agreed that the content of each training session may have varied, but the argument "misses the point."

"As the California Supreme Court has made clear, whether Uber 'varied in how it exercised control does not answer whether there were variations in its underlying right to exercise that control...'" Chen wrote.

When it comes to the lawsuit,  it didn't matter to Chen whether different drivers are told to play classical music or smooth jazz because it "does not determine whether Uber uniformly maintained the right and power to actually monitor and enforce its drivers' compliance with whatever 'requirements' or 'suggestions' Uber gave, regardless of their precise content."

In other words, there was no way Uber could uniformly check that its drivers had showered so it couldn't argue that its drivers were trained in different ways and couldn't be part of a similar class.

This might not be the last we hear about showering or Uber's driver suggestions. Chen only discredited the argument when it comes to class status so it will be up to a jury to decide whether or not their varied training had anything to do with their status as independent contractors. An Uber spokeswoman told Business Insider that the company plans to appeal today's decision on class action status.

[Anomander Rejk]

http://www.kurir.rs/planeta/evo-kako-se-zapravo-vodi-globalni-sukob-i-sta-nas-ceka-evropa-ce-krvariti-ruse-napadaju-terororisti-clanak-1923039

[Meho Krljic]

Mislim da je ovo već pominjano ali ne mari da se ponovi:



How immigration policy brutalises British children

For three years we've had a law banning people on low incomes from living with their husband or wife, if they're from outside the EU.
It's not called a ban, of course, it's called an income requirement. But that's what it is. Any Brit who earns less than £18,600 is not entitled to live in their home country with their wife or husband if they happen to be a non-EU citizen. The threshold rises to £22,400 if they have a child and again by another £2,400 for any additional children. The benchmark is 138% of the minimum wage. Almost half the adult UK population don't earn it.
It hits those couples who meet outside the UK hardest. In cases where they've been living for years in countries with much lower incomes than the UK, it's obviously hard for them to fulfil the requirement when, as they often do, they decide to come home to raise their kids. Usually they have to split up. The UK citizen comes home, starts work and after a year or so will have the evidence needed to convince the Home Office to grant the spousal visa.
Many will fail, simply by not being able to find a job which pays enough. Those that do, quickly find events slipping out of their control. Once the spousal visa has been rejected, their wife or husband is rarely granted a tourist visa. They are blocked from coming here at all.
Now a new report by the children's commissioner has revealed the full effect of this law: traumatised children separated from their parent, an increased reliance on benefits and a persistent contravention of British law by the Home Office. It is a damning assessment of what our immigration policy has done, a story of how government policies have directly brutalised British children.
"My son went from a bubbly little boy to very reserved in the first few months of the separation," a mum of a six year old boy told researchers. "He was angry at us both but couldn't understand why dad won't want to live with him. He would go from angry kicking out, to long periods of crying and thought dad didn't love him. They are still working at rebuilding their relationship and trust."
This type of reaction is fairly common. The report found that children separated from their parents suffer significant anxiety and distress. "Many believe this has a profound effect on their well-being and development," the children's commissioner report concluded."
Many families reported that the children had become clingy and dependant on one parent, or that they had developed separation anxiety and become socially withdrawn. Others said their child had started to have difficulty socialising at school. Some developed eating and sleeping problems, slow or poor language development and displayed anger and violence toward peers and family. Some children described feelings of guilt over the separation of their parents.
For some families, the strain of separation is too much and the parents split up. Here's what the Home Office policy did to one family:
"My husband and I are separating in part because we can't take the stress anymore. I have an elderly mother in England who needs me to be there. My children will hopefully see daddy once a month now if he continues living in Ireland. If he returns to America it will likely be once a year."


The policy was supposedly introduced to prevent low-income families relying on state funds. What this explanation misses is that spousal visas anyway do not permit the use of state funds. But it's worse than that. The policy is actually forcing people onto benefits, by a process well understood by any single parent – making it impossible for them to hold down full-time jobs.
"I can only work part-time, as I need to be able to do school runs at the beginning and end of each day," a mother of two children, aged six and nine, said. "So I am on a low wage and claiming benefits. I wouldn't need to claim benefits if my husband was here – we could both work, one of us full-time, and earn plenty to live off."
The children's commissioner found that "reliance on welfare is not reduced and sometimes families are forced to rely on benefits because they are single parents".
Occasionally the government will justify the policy by saying it encourages the 'integration of the non-EU partner. This is also given short shrift by the children's commissioner, who says there is evidence integration was actually reduced. It is also given short shrift by the Brits who married these foreign citizens, and for good reason. Someone married to a Brit looks pretty integrated. Who is the Home Office to come along and cast some judgement on whether they are British enough?
"As far as I'm concerned, if my wife has got British children and a British husband, she already is integrated in the British society," one husband said. "You cannot say to someone who is so deeply integrated into British society that she has got children - you cannot say to that person 'do not come in here'. She is already integrated. Already."
Not only is the policy immoral and self-defeating. It may also be illegal. UK governments are under a legal obligation to treat the best interests of children as a primary consideration when implementing rules and making individual decisions. That's legally actionable under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, but also in section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009.
But according to John Vine, former chief inspector of borders and immigration, the children's interests are only considered in one of 60 cases which he saw. It's hardly surprising. Under which conceivable definition of children's interests would we separate them from one of their parents?
The report's analysis of refusal decisions found a lack of detailed consideration of children's best interests. In eight out of eleven cases the existence of the children was ignored. In the remaining three it was a formulaic consideration with very little substantive analysis.
It's as if the Home Office was going for the full house with this one: morally abysmal, economically counter-productive, politically toxic and probably illegal.

[Meho Krljic]

Moderne firme, lučonoše budućnosti u sukobu sa zastarelim zakonodavstvom ili pobeda zdravog razuma? Istorija će pokazati:

Former Uber driver was an employee, rules California department

 
Uber has lost another legal round in the dispute over whether its drivers are independent contractors or employees, an issue that threatens the core of the ride-hailing company's business model.
The California Employment Development Department (EDD) determined that a former Uber driver in Southern California was an employee, not an independent contractor as the company has claimed, and the decision was upheld twice after Uber appealed by both an administrative law judge and the California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board.The board's ruling came from its Inglewood office in August. The case came to light when a lawyer suing Uber on behalf of other drivers posted documents to her website.The EDD decision is one of several rulings that appear to undercut how San Francisco-based Uber operates, relying on independent contractors to transport passengers.Among the others were rulings by a Florida regulatory agency in May, the California Labor Commissioner in June, and another case earlier this year in which a Los Angeles-area Uber driver was classified by the EDD as an employee and given unemployment benefits.

But significantly, the ruling from Inglewood is among the first of these cases to be appealed and to have those appeals denied, foreshadowing how other appeals may be handled, some legal experts say.In the Inglewood case, a former Uber driver, whose name was withheld from case documents, applied for unemployment benefits in April 2014.

After the EDD determined the driver had rights to unemployment benefits as an Uber employee, the company appealed the decision first in November and again in June, according to the EDD.According to the administrative law judge who heard the first appeal, Uber has sole discretion over fares, and can charge drivers a cancellation fee if they choose not to take a ride, prohibit drivers from picking up passengers not using the app and suspend or deactivate drivers' accounts.Based on that, "there was in fact an employer/employee relationship", according to the decision.

The company argues that drivers want independent contractor status because they value the chance to be their own boss.The decision, an Uber spokeswoman said, "does not have any wider impact or set any formal or binding precedent".Eight states have issued rulings that classify Uber drivers as independent contractors: Georgia, Pennsylvania, Colorado, Indiana, Texas, New York, Illinois, and California, which made such a ruling in 2012 that applied to only a specific case.But a federal judge in San Francisco ruled last week that drivers are entitled to class-action status in litigation over whether they are independent contractors or employees.

[Meho Krljic]

I Krekd je tu da pojasni zašto Uber ne valja:

http://youtu.be/Og3PjvcR1Pc

[Meho Krljic]

Corbyn Sweeps To Victory With 59.5% Of Vote

Jeremy Corbyn has been elected the new leader of the Labour Party in one of the biggest political shocks of recent times.
The veteran left-wing MP stormed to victory in the first round, taking 59.5% of the 422,664 votes cast.

He left his closest rival, Andy Burnham, trailing on 19%, with Yvette Cooper winning 17% and Liz Kendall 4.5%.

:: Live Updates - Corbyn Is New Labour Leader

The result of the ballot of party members, trade unionists and people who paid £3 to sign up as Labour supporters was revealed at the QEII conference centre in Westminster.

Tom Watson was earlier announced as the party's new deputy leader .

As Mr Corbyn's landslide win was announced, his supporters cheered loudly and chanted: "Jez we did!"

In his acceptance speech, he called repeatedly for "unity" and announced his ambition to lead a Labour "fightback".

The anti-austerity Islington North MP told the crowd: "During these amazing three months, our party has changed.

"We have grown enormously, because of the hopes of so many ordinary people for a different Britain, a better Britain, a more equal Britain, a more decent Britain.

"They are fed up with the inequality, the injustice, the unnecessary poverty. All those issues have brought people in in a spirit of hope and optimism."

He said it was time to end "grotesque levels of inequality".

"The Tories have used the economic crisis of 2008 to impose a terrible burden on the poorest people of this country," he said.

"It's not right, it's not necessary and it's got to change."

He said the party is going to become more "inclusive, more involved, more democratic" and will "shape the future of everyone in this country".

:: Profile - Jeremy Corbyn, The Anti-Establishment Leader

As the result was read out, Mr Corbyn hugged his fellow leadership candidates and then praised them in his victory speech.

"It has been a fascinating experience for all of us and I want to thank them for the way the debates were conducted, the way that we were able to put forward political debate and political differences and still come out of the end of it with a group hug," he said.

"We are going to reform ourselves as an ABBA tribute band and continue this work in the future."

He also thanked the party's interim leader, Harriet Harman, for "her absolute commitment and passion for decency, equality and the rights of women in our society".

Complimenting his new deputy, Mr Corbyn said: "Tom is passionate about communication, passionate about holding the state, and unaccountable people who don't wish to be accountable, to account."

:: Labour Frontbench Exodus After Corbyn Win

He also had praise for his predecessor, Ed Miliband, who he said "stood up to the abuse of the media".

"I had a very long conversation with Ed a couple of days ago and I thanked him for his work as leader of the party.

"But I also thanked him for the way in which he stood up to the abuse that he received by much of our media.

"And the dignity he showed when his late father, the great Ralph Miliband, was so brutally abused by some of our media. So, Ed, thank you for all of that."

Mr Miliband in turn offered his congratulations, saying: "Jeremy has won a very clear victory. He has won a victory in all sections of the party.

"I believe we should respect that mandate. At the same time I believe he has a big responsibility... to use the talents of people who didn't vote for him, who may have said things about him in the leadership election that weren't particularly complimentary."

:: Could Jeremy Corbyn Win A General Election?

One of Mr Corbyn's first acts as leader was to address the Refugees Welcome Here rally in London's Parliament Square.

He told the Government: "Recognise your obligations in law, that would be good. Recognise your obligations to help people which you're required to do by law, that would be good.

"But above all, open your hearts and open your minds and open your attitude towards supporting people who are desperate, who need somewhere safe to live, want to contribute to our society, and are human beings just like all of us."

Mr Corbyn was a last-minute entry to the race and had initially been viewed as 500-1 outsider to succeed Mr Miliband, who quit after the party's disastrous election defeat.

The three-month leadership campaign - and Mr Corbyn's popularity - revealed deep divisions in the party and the new leader is now tasked with uniting it.

Within moments of victory, he had his first frontbench resignation: shadow health minister Jamie Reed tweeted his congratulations to Mr Corbyn - along with his resignation letter.

Since then,  several senior Labour figures  have ruled out serving on the opposition frontbench, including Ms Cooper, Ms Kendall, Chuka Umunna and Tristram Hunt.

But Rosie Winterton is staying on as Labour's chief whip in a boost for the leader.

After giving his victory speech, Mr Corbyn, who does not drink, headed to a nearby pub, which was packed with members of his team and other supporters.

He held up a tea towel bearing the words of left-wing icon Tony Benn: "Hope is the fuel of progress and fear is the prison in which you put yourself."

Prime Minister David Cameron has spoken to Mr Corbyn on the phone to congratulate him on his win.

But Defence Secretary Michael Fallon warned: "Labour are now a serious risk to our nation's security, our economy's security and your family's security.

"Whether it's weakening our defences, raising taxes on jobs and earnings, racking up more debt and welfare or driving up the cost of living by printing money - Jeremy Corbyn's Labour Party will hurt working people.

"This is a very serious moment for our country - the Conservatives will continue to deliver stability, security and opportunity for working people."

[Meho Krljic]

Flash from the past: Why an apparent Israeli nuclear test in 1979 matters today

At a time when the Iran agreement is in the headlines and other Middle Eastern countries—notably Saudi Arabia—are making noises about establishing their own programs for nuclear energy and nuclear weapons, it is worth giving renewed scrutiny to an event that occurred 36 years ago: a likely Israeli-South African nuclear test over the ocean between the southern part of Africa and the Antarctic. Sometimes referred to in the popular press as the "Vela Incident" or the "Vela Event of 1979," the circumstantial and scientific evidence for a nuclear test is compelling but as long as many items related tothe test are still classified, all the questions surrounding it cannot be resolved definitively. Those questions allow wiggle room for some observers (a shrinking number) to still doubt whether the event was of nuclear origin. But more and more information revealed in various publications over the years strongly supports the premise that a mysterious double flash detected by a US satellite in 1979 was indeed a nuclear test performed by Israel with South African cooperation, in violation of the Limited Test Ban Treaty. The US government, however, found it expedient to brush important evidence under the carpet and pretend the test did not occur.
The technical evidence—evidence that has been reviewed in earlier publications—led scientists at US national laboratories to conclude that a test took place. But to this should be added more recent information of Israeli-South African nuclear cooperation in the 1970s, and at least two instances—so far unverified—of individuals claiming direct knowledge of, or participation in, the nuclear event, one from the Israeli side and one from the South African. And information provided by national laboratory scientists regarding the state of the satellite's detectors challenges the view given by a government panel that the flash was likely not that of a nuclear test.
The US government's use of classification and other means to suppress public information about the event, in the face of the totality of technical and non-technical evidence supporting a nuclear test, could be characterized as a cover-up to avoid the difficult international political problems that a recognized nuclear test was assumed to trigger.
This cover-up is all the more troubling because it runs contrary to President Obama's speech in Prague in 2009, in which he stated: "To achieve a global ban on nuclear testing, my administration will immediately and aggressively pursue US ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. After more than five decades of talks, it is time for the testing of nuclear weapons to finally be banned." Later, in the same speech, he said: "We go forward with no illusions. Some will break the rules, but that is we need a structure in place that ensures that when any nation does, they will face consequences."
Yet Israel and South Africa broke the rules, but they did not face consequences. All of this is more than "ancient history;" there is no statute of limitations on nuclear arms agreement violations.
What happened. On September 22, 1979, a US satellite code-named Vela 6911, which was designed to look for clandestine atmospheric nuclear tests and had been in operation for more than 10 years, recorded a double flash in an area where the South Atlantic meets the Indian Ocean, off the coast of South Africa. The detection immediately triggered a series of steps in which analysts at national labs in the United States informed their superiors that the recorded signal had all the earmarks of a nuclear test. (Some details about exactly what the analysts did has been written about in Jeffrey Richelson's 2007 book, Spying on the Bomb.) The event has been a subject of controversy ever since, but is now recognized by most analysts as the detection of an Israeli nuclear test with South African logistical cooperation.
The Air Force Technical Analysis Center gave the event the formal designation of Alert (A) 747. Shortly afterward, President Jimmy Carter and his national security team were informed. In his diary entry of September 22, later published in 2010 as White House Diary, the former president wrote, "There was indication of a nuclear explosion in the region of South Africa—either South Africa, Israel using a ship at sea, or nothing."
Already, a process of elimination based on intelligence information had quickly narrowed the possible perpetrators to two: South Africa and Israel. An effort was immediately launched to seek corroborative evidence. No radioactive fallout was detected, but hydro-acoustic and wave data collected by ocean sensors and later analyzed by the Naval Research Laboratory showed that an unusual and unmistakable event had taken place. In addition, a new, highly sensitive radio-telescope at the Arecibo Laboratory—home of the world's largest single radio-telescope—reported the detection of an anomalous ionospheric travelling wave at about the same time as the Vela recordings. "Almost certainly, there was a large influx of energy somewhere over South Africa at about the time the Vela satellite saw its flash," concluded Arecibo physicist Richard Behnke.
The initial opinions of the scientists at the national labs that a test had occurred and that Israel was a prime suspect unnerved the White House and the State Department. ("Sheer panic," then-Assistant Secretary of State Hodding Carter was reported as saying in investigative reporter Seymour Hersh's 1991 book, The Samson Option). Announcing the detection of a nuclear test without knowing and naming the perpetrator would be a serious political and national security problem for the White House. It would mean that the system for detecting violations of the 1962 Limited Test Ban Treaty by the Soviets or others was seriously flawed, which could jeopardize the ratification of the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty II, then lying before the Senate. It could also undermine the administration's claims of success in its nonproliferation policies if it was unable to identify a clandestine test by a proliferating state.
Moreover, if Israel was involved, the administration feared serious negative effects on the prospects for peace in the Middle East, including the possible unraveling of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and the accompanying diminishment of Carter's efforts in brokering a peace settlement between Israel and Egypt. In addition, the administration had recently punished Pakistan with an aid cutoff for pursuing a clandestine nuclear program in violation of US law. Thus, if Israel was the known nuclear perpetrator, ignoring an Israeli nuclear test would make for a glaring case of a double standard in US non-proliferation policy.
Imposing sanctions on Israel, on the other hand, would be a political disaster, involving a major loss of support for the administration among the Jewish diaspora in the United States, an important political constituency for Carter and the Democratic Party. For all these reasons, the administration was highly motivated to offer some explanation other than a nuclear test for the Vela event and to hide, suppress, or otherwise soft-pedal information and evidence to the contrary—in other words, to engage in a cover-up. In this case, a cover-up would not involve criminality, as in the Watergate affair of the Nixon Administration, but rather offer a way of avoiding a difficult political decision with potentially serious international ramifications for US policy on arms control, non-proliferation, and the Middle East generally. This cover-up would also protect existing policy regarding Israel's nuclear weapons program, which federal officials are routinely admonished not to discuss publicly.
The Ruina panel. Finding a credible alternative, if possible, to the prevailing scientific consensus already formed within the national labs that a test had occurred required time and a broadening of the range of scientific opinion. Both requirements were met by the expedient of creating an eight-member, blue-ribbon scientific panel to review the data and the reports collected up to that point. Spurgeon Keeny—then the deputy director of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency—told me in an interview on July 30, 2004 that the idea for the outside panel was his. (Although the panel was to officially take its mandate from and report to Frank Press, the president's science adviser and head of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy.)
The panel contained a Nobel Prize-winner, Luis Alvarez, and seven other notable scientists, including Richard Garwin—who had been deeply involved in national security scientific affairs and would become one of the most active panel members. The designated chair was Jack Ruina, a well-connected professor of electrical engineering at MIT and a friend of Press. Ruina became the public face of the panel, although the panel would never hold a public hearing of any kind. The Ruina panel began work on November 1, 1979, five days after Carter wrote in his diary: "At the foreign affairs breakfast we went over the South Africa nuclear explosion, we still don't know who did it." Carter kept receiving briefings on the Vela event as the Ruina panel performed its task, and, referring to the prevailing opinion at the national labs, on February 27, 1980 he wrote in his diary: "We have a growing belief among our scientists that the Israelis did indeed conduct a nuclear test explosion in the ocean near the southern end of South Africa." Nonetheless, the Ruina panel issued a classified report in the spring of 1980, concluding that the Vela event was likely not a nuclear event, although they could not rule out a nuclear explosion. (An unclassified version was released in May that same year.)
The Ruina panel conclusion generates skepticism and disagreement at the national labs. In a 2011 paper for the Middle East Policy Council, I laid out the case for concluding that the Vela event was an Israeli nuclear test assisted logistically by the South African navy. The evidence included technical reports or statements concluding that (A) 747 was likely a nuclear test, issued by scientists at the Los Alamos and Sandia national laboratories, the Naval Research Laboratory (NRL), and the Nuclear Intelligence Panel headed by Donald Kerr, who was famously quoted as saying, "We had no doubt it was a bomb."
According to the former director of NRL, Alan Berman, his lab produced a 300-page report which he said was unequivocal in concluding that (A) 747 was a nuclear test. This report has never been declassified, and the White House subsequently ignored it—over the protests of Berman. In addition, the Carter Administration made sure that the Ruina panel report—containing the result that the White House was looking for, that the Vela incident was probably not a nuclear event—was released a month ahead of the delivery to the White House of the Naval Research Laboratory report. By thus cherry-picking reports and manipulating the classification procedure, the strategists on the issue at the White House could get the results they wanted, and then publicize them.
As a result of information I received in my capacity as the staff director of a Senate subcommittee on nuclear nonproliferation issues, I had concluded that the Vela event was a nuclear test and said so in private meetings. I had been warned by a Carter administration official that my reputation would suffer if I were to express my opinion publicly. Nonetheless I was willing to do so, and I agreed to give an on-camera interview at the request of CBS News on March 6, 1981. Somehow, the White House (now in the hands of the Reagan administration) learned of the scheduled interview and intervened with my then-boss, Sen. John Glenn, to prevent me from uttering my opinion that a test had occurred. This evidence of bi-partisan political panic on the issue made me realize that not only was (A) 747 a nuclear test, but that Israel was the likely perpetrator with South African support. Not being able to say what I really thought in the interview, but being required to go through with it, I simply expressed skepticism that the Ruina panel report should be considered the last word on the Vela event.
The Ruina panel's narrow mandate and the bhangmeter phase anomaly issue. To this day, the Ruina panel report has been controversial and the subject of much comment and speculation.
Part of the problem: Although the panel was asked to determine whether a nuclear test had occurred, it was charged with examining only the scientific evidence and was not allowed to enter into the intelligence realm. That is, some of the most pertinent intelligence information—information that could have shed light on the motivation and capability for an Israeli test with South African assistance—was not within the panel's realm to examine and analyze. (A subset of members did receive an intelligence briefing of some kind.)
There was plenty of such information to be examined. For example, in his 2010 book, The Unspoken Alliance, Sasha Polakow-Suransky revealed that in a meeting on March 31, 1975, Israel offered to sell nuclear-capable missiles to South Africa. In that same book, Polakow-Suransky wrote that in another meeting, on June 4, 1975, Israel's Shimon Peres told South African Defense Minister P.W. Botha that the "correct" (meaning nuclear) payloads for those missiles were available in three sizes. That transfer never occurred because South Africa was still in its early stage of nuclear development. Whether the US government knew of this at the time of the Ruina panel deliberations is currently unknown.
In any case, the panel stuck to its narrower mandate, reviewing only the available technical information regarding the recorded double flash to see if the data enabled concluding that the double flash was or was not a nuclear test, and also whether there was an alternative explanation. The panel disagreed with the opinion of the scientific director of the Naval Research Laboratory and dismissed the 300-page report by the laboratory as being insufficiently complete to conclude that a test took place.
As part of its search, the Ruina panel had a detailed examination performed on the signals recorded by the satellite's two light detectors, called "bhangmeters." Since the bhangmeters were designed to be identical except for sensitivity, the two signals would have been expected to be in synch chronologically (i.e., in phase) and consistent in terms of amplitude comparison. But it turned out that, although the two bhangmeter signals showed the classic shape of a nuclear double flash when graphed, there were anomalous phase differences that translated into inconsistent amplitudes between the two signals at certain times.
Two possible explanations were given by scientists who examined the data and were convinced that a test had taken place. One possibility was that the motion of the satellite itself would have enhanced the recorded strength of one of the bhangmeter signals. Another was a malfunction of one of the bhangmeters.
If neither explanation held, then it would be hard to explain the phase anomaly if the signal was that of a nuclear explosion—which is what the Ruina panel report seized on as a reason for skepticism that a nuclear test had occurred. The rejection by the panel of alternative explanations for the phase anomaly was bolstered by the claim that the anomaly was unique in the 10-year history of the satellite and that, in calibration tests of the bhangmeters, no malfunction was detected. The clear implication of the latter was that there was never any history of a malfunction of the bhangmeters when detecting a nuclear signal. This, however, is disputed by scientists at Los Alamos.
Did a malfunction cause the phase anomaly? According to researchers at Los Alamos, one of the bhangmeters began showing a malfunction as a result of aging. Referred to as a "timing tick," it showed up whenever a nuclear flash was detected and recorded. In an email to me on July 27, 2012, Houston T. Hawkins, a senior fellow and the chief scientist in the Principal Associate Directorate for Global Security at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, wrote: "The two bhangmeters were purposeful [sic] designed to cover the entire range of yield possibilities. The 'more sensitive' one would detect very low level events but could be saturated at multi-megaton shots. The other 'less sensitive' bhangmeter would cover the higher levels but might not see very low (<1kt) level explosions. The magnitudes of the two bhangmeter signals in the 1979 event show these designed and expected differences.
"The Ruina Panel focused on a 'timing tick' that was seen in the 1979 event. However, this minor timing difference was a result of the aging of the sensors and electronics and had been seen on all of the more recent nuclear explosions that had occurred in Vela 6911's field of view. Indeed, an absence of this Vela 6911 'timing tick' in the case of the 1979 event would have been difficult to explain. Ironically, the 'tic' to our analysts was like a hallmark of authenticity." (Emphasis in original.)
Thus the phase anomaly, according to Los Alamos, appeared to be the result of a malfunction that would not alter the signal's double flash character. And although the Ruina panel claimed that the phase anomaly was a unique event, this has been challenged by at least one individual involved in the Vela incident. In any case, the tight correlation between the appearance of a "timing tick" and the detection of a real nuclear event is compelling.
The evident disagreement between the Ruina panel and Los Alamos on the state of the bhangmeters and on the cause of the phase anomaly is interesting but does not invalidate the claim by the lab that the (A) 747 signal from Vela 6911 was in keeping with all the previous signals generated by nuclear explosions detected by the satellite. It should be noted that the Vela satellites had detected all the known nuclear explosions that had occurred during their operation.
The Ruina panel went on to satisfy its mandate to provide an alternative non-nuclear explanation for the double flash. Its report offered a highly improbable scenario by which a double flash could have been produced through sunlight glinting off debris from a collision of the Vela satellite with a micrometeoroid.
On the other hand: No evidence that overt external political pressure affected the Ruina panel's conclusions. As far as I know, no one in the scientific community within the labs had his opinion changed by the Ruina panel's report or its subsequent defense by some panel members. Indeed, skepticism of the Ruina panel conclusion began as soon as the report was released, with questions raised as to whether the conclusion was the result of pressure generated by the intense desire of the Carter White House to deflect a finding of a nuclear test.
This should not have been a surprise to the panel members. They must have understood that by accepting and completing the task of finding an alternative explanation for the double flash regardless of its extremely low probability—and in the face of the existing consensus among the scientists within the US national nuclear security apparatus that a test had taken place—would result in the raising of questions about political influence or interference.
Certainly, the panelists would have been aware of the political consequences that would likely have ensued from a conclusion by them that a nuclear test had taken place. These were sophisticated men with great experience in national security policy matters, and needed no reminder of what was at stake.
But it strains credulity to believe that such well-known scientists would risk jeopardizing their credibility and reputations by committing an unnecessary political act that history would not judge kindly. Moreover, panel member Richard Garwin has continued over the years to defend the report and its conclusion, based mainly on the bhangmeter phase anomaly argument.
Consequently, internal or external pressure notwithstanding, there is no evidence that the panel members did anything other than give their genuine scientific opinion. The narrowness of their mandate, however, meant that their conclusion could not be definitive as to whether a test took place. Indeed, the panel recognized that deficiency by explicitly basing their conclusion in terms of probabilities and leaving open the possibility that a test did take place. A former colleague of Ruina at MIT, Marvin Miller, told me that Ruina worried about the perception of political influence when the panel's report came out and was received with skepticism among scientists at the labs who had worked on the Vela event. It didn't help when—in one of the few public statements he made about the panel's report—he undermined the authority of its finding by stating that "two people looking at the same data could come to opposite conclusions."
None of the scientists at Los Alamos backed up this statement.
The curious case of Ruina's Israeli post-graduate student. After the Ruina panel closed up shop, Ruina continued to play a role in the history of the Vela event, which was illustrated via a story he told in writing to Spurgeon Keeny; the story has since become public. Keeny, who died in 2012, gave at least three interviews over several years beginning in 1989—to Seymour Hersh, Jeffrey Richelson, and myself—in which he related the story of an Israeli post-graduate student at MIT who had been deeply involved with Israel's nuclear missile systems. The student indicated strongly to Ruina that the Vela event was an Israeli operation that the student had personal knowledge of. Keeny told Seymour Hersh that he and his colleagues in the Carter White House dismissed the student's story as Israeli disinformation, and Hersh wrote that the information was not made known to the intelligence community or to other members of the Ruina panel. In his interview with me, however, Keeny said that Ruina passed this information to then-CIA Director Stansfield Turner. He did not know what Turner did with the information and did not know if Press or any other members of the Ruina panel had been informed. If there is a record of this, it is not publicly available.
It is important to note that while the Ruina panel's conclusion was probably not the result of a political calculation by the panel, there is no denying that from the viewpoint of the Carter Administration, the panel had done just what was needed politically in coming up with an alternative explanation for the double flash. It inserted a note of uncertainty into the claim that (A) 747 was a nuclear event, enabling the administration to sidestep the issue.
It strains belief to think that this aim was unforeseen, when the idea for the Ruina panel was first  floated. There is also no denying that the Carter White House and its immediate successor were anything but benign, impartial observers. The White House refused to declassify the NRL report and did not allow the Ruina panel to explore or consider extensive intelligence information regarding Israeli-South African nuclear and missile cooperation. It apparently suppressed the results of any investigation of Ruina's Israeli post-graduate student. And in my own case, a Carter administration holdover working for the Reagan Administration apparently got my boss to order me to suppress my conclusion that the Vela event was a nuclear test. 
Did the Israeli arsenal require a test? The Israelis are known to have developed boosted, miniaturized nuclear weapons; Israeli nuclear technician Mordecai Vanunu provided evidence of this to the British press in 1986. The Israelis are undoubtedly working on the design and development of thermonuclear weapons—if they have not already constructed one. None of the known weapons states has developed such advanced weapons without nuclear testing. That would have provided the motivation for Israel to carry out one or more nuclear tests (three, according to Hersh's book), unless Israel received advanced nuclear weapon design codes and test data from a nuclear weapons state in violation of the NPT. (French assistance to Israel's early nuclear weapon program in the 1950s came prior to the advent of the NPT and ended during the presidency of Charles de Gaulle).
There is no public evidence that Israel has been given or has stolen computer codes for advanced weapon design or associated test data that would make Israeli testing unnecessary. The Vela event could have been a test of the fission trigger for a thermonuclear weapon of Israeli design. Seymour Hersh was told by "former Israeli government officials" that it was a test of a low-yield, nuclear artillery shell, he wrote in The Samson Option. Thus, given what we now know about Israel's nuclear capabilities, it is no surprise that believers in the Ruina panel's alternative explanation of the Vela event constitute an increasingly small minority within the national security scientific community.
South Africa's role: The saga of Lindsey Rooke. The last refuge of those who deny that a test took place is the failure so far to find and name an eyewitness or whistleblower.
The shield around this refuge, however, is developing cracks that suggest it is only a matter of time before a credible personal account surfaces. Besides Ruina's post-graduate student, there is the curious case of a so-called "Lindsey Rooke," a deceased female South African naval officer who ostensibly witnessed the test from a participating ship and described it in a diary she kept of the voyage to the test site. Portions of that diary were transcribed by a South African writer, Stacy Hardy, who is reluctant to reveal its whereabouts or the real name of Lindsey Rooke, because of fears of running afoul of South Africa's stringent national security laws. (Hardy's transcription is notable because it inspired Victor Gama, a well-known composer and musical instrument maker, to compose a multimedia work entitled "Vela 6911," commissioned by the Chicago Symphony Orchestra and performed at Stanford University. The work involves film, music, and a narration that describes the nuclear test, based on Hardy's transcription.)
Attempts to elicit more information from Hardy about the Rooke diary have thus far not been successful.
Consequences of the long nuclear dance between Israel and the United States. Despite the US government's silence on the issue, circumstantial evidence that Israel detonated a nuclear explosive device off the coast of South Africa on September 22, 1979, with the assistance of South Africa, keeps building. Such a test means that Israel and South Africa are in violation of the Limited Test Ban Treaty. 
Israel's nuclear program has vexed the diplomats of a number of presidential administrations over the years, beginning with that of John F. Kennedy, the last American president to attempt to stop Israel from obtaining nuclear weapons. The history of Israeli subterfuge and American indulgence that enabled Israel to sidestep what was ostensibly American nonproliferation policy in the 1960s and '70s has been well told. The current US policy of silence on Israel's nuclear capabilities has its roots in an unwritten agreement made during Richard Nixon's presidency, under which the United States would not pressure Israel to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), and Israel would keep quiet about testing or otherwise publicly declaring its nuclear weapons. This fed into the Israeli mantra that it "will not be the first country to introduce nuclear weapons into the Middle East."
Over the decades since that formulation was first uttered, Israel's public silence about its nuclear capabilities has taken on the status of a sacred obligation, backed up by stringent domestic law that guarantees harsh punishment for those who willfully transgress it. After revealing some of Israel's nuclear secrets to the British press, Vanunu was captured by Israeli agents and spent 17 years in an Israeli prison, 13 of them in solitary confinement. He was released in 1993 and later re-arrested.
Israeli sensitivity about its nuclear program has been transferred, so that American officials show deference to Israel's desire for silence. Not only has no American president answered questions in public regarding Israel's nuclear capability; the US government regularly admonishes federal employees holding clearances not to discuss Israel's nuclear status—and backs this admonishment with the threat of punishment. This reticence to publicly discuss the Israeli nuclear program has spread to our NATO partners as well, though not to as great an extent.
The rationale for US silence on Israeli violations was established when the NPT was negotiated and close to being opened for signature. Arab country signatures were obtained under an assumption: The United States would induce Israel to carry out a public statement made by its prime minister and sign the treaty. In fact, Israel did not sign and already possessed its first nuclear weapons—something that US officials knew. But they thought they had an Israeli commitment not to test nuclear weapons, so the Limited Test Ban Treaty (LTBT) violation in 1979 was also a violation of an understanding, in place for more than a decade, between Israel and the United States.
This duplicity had no effect; the United States government apparently deems the political problems stemming from an admission of Israel's possession of nuclear weapons and test ban violations to override other considerations—including its oft-stated support for international rules of law established by nuclear arms control treaties. Concerns about Israeli nuclear weapons were not always so easily shoved aside.
The thought that Israeli nuclear weapons could be a catalyst for a proliferation breakout in the region induced the UN General Assembly, on December 11, 1979, to adopt a resolution entitled "Israeli Nuclear Armament" in which it said that "the development of nuclear capability by Israel would further aggravate the already dangerous situation in the region and further threaten international peace and security." The General Assembly then requested the Secretary-General, with the assistance of qualified experts, to prepare a study on Israeli nuclear armament. Accordingly, the Secretary-General appointed an international group of five scholars, denoted the "Group of Experts," who completed and submitted their results on June 19, 1981. The study concluded that "the possession of nuclear weapons by Israel would be a seriously destabilizing factor in the already tense situation prevailing in the Middle East, in addition to being a serious danger to the cause of non-proliferation in general." The study added that adherence by Israel to a nuclear-weapon free zone in the Middle East with accession to the NPT would "avoid the danger of a nuclear arms race in the Middle East."
The report was completed less than two weeks after Israel's attack on an Iraqi nuclear reactor. Still to come was an Israeli attack on a fledgling secret reactor site in Syria in 2007 and the Iran situation, showing that proliferation in the region was proceeding apace. The United States took no action in response to the UN report, which was about the dangers of nuclear weapons in the hands of an ally in the Middle East.
The report did not envision how Middle East politics would change in the following years—mainly because of the rise of Iran's influence and power, aided by the ill-conceived US war with Iraq. The Arab monarchies, particularly the Saudis, are now more afraid of Iran and its nuclear potential than they are of Israel's nuclear weapons. The core arguments for stopping Iran's nuclear program could be said to be encapsulated in the quoted statements from the report of the Group of Experts, with "Israel" replaced by "Iran."
The US response to those statements as applied to Israel was a virtual yawn, even though Israel had already violated the Limited Test Ban Treaty. Applying those statements to Iran, however—especially when coupled to Israel's perception of an existential Iranian nuclear threat—galvanized the United States into organizing for action. The result was the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action—popularly referred to as "the Iran agreement"—a time-limited agreement significantly curtailing Iran's nuclear program and its ability to quickly develop nuclear weapons. This agreement, which does not have the status of a treaty, will be backed up by the threat of the return of any sanctions on Iran that will have been removed via implementation of the agreement. The threat of military action also hovers in the background.
Why the United States should admit that Israel and South Africa violated the Limited Test Ban Treaty. The US dilemma is understandable. Israel's half-century of refusing to publicly admit the existence of its nuclear arsenal would present difficulties for the bilateral relationship, if the United States were to unilaterally declare not only its knowledge of Israel's weapons, but its knowledge of Israel's violation of the Limited Test Ban Treaty.
But must the United States accept forever a position of silence—one that diminishes US credibility as a champion of international arms control agreements? It may be that admitting the existence of Israel's nuclear arsenal would present some additional problems for regional peace and politics in the Middle East today, but would they be as dire as suggested by the Group of Experts in 1981? Thirty-six years have passed since the (A) 747 event, and there is widespread understanding—including among Israel's adversaries in the Middle East—that Israel has amassed a significant nuclear arsenal (believed to range from 80-200 warheads). So it isn't the case that an admission of the arsenal by Israel or the United States would be treated as a revelation of heretofore-unknown facts. Arab leaders understand that their security is enhanced by the NPT and would suffer were they to abandon the treaty. And the lesson of sanctions for Iran is now out there for potential proliferators to see. Thus, rhetoric aside, the admission by Israel or the United States of Israel's nuclear weapons status is unlikely to cause a political tsunami in the United Nations, or sweep aside the NPT, or otherwise cause a move by a group of countries to leave that treaty.
Continuing to hide Israel's testing violation is a direct counter to the US claim that it stands for the rule of law and implies that the United States cannot be counted on to defend treaties if they are violated by Israel. This failure fosters cynicism about the seriousness of the United States and its allies on the restraining of nuclear weapons. In the wake of the Iran agreement, it underscores concerns that the United States has double standards on arms control when Israel is involved.
Just as it is appropriate to demand that Iran be transparent about its nuclear history in relation to its NPT violations, it is appropriate to demand that Israel and South Africa be transparent regarding their activities surrounding the violation of the Limited Test Ban Treaty. An investigation by the United Nations (via the International Atomic Energy Agency) of the Vela event with the full cooperation of its members would be an appropriate step toward resolving this issue. Surely, a credible claim of a violation of the LTBT deserves no less, especially at a time when nuclear sensitivities in the Middle East and elsewhere have reached such a high level.
The question is: What should the international community do about Israel's and South Africa's violation? Perhaps some would argue that a violation of a nuclear arms control treaty occurring decades ago should be treated as if a statute of limitations applies. But that violation has undoubtedly aided the development of sophisticated nuclear weapons that can murder millions. There should be no statute of limitations for any violation of international law that has resulted or can result in a holocaust. The ultimate decision on sanctions for the violation should be left to the United Nations.
In any case, if the US government's silence and cover-up of Israel's violation of the Limited Test Ban Treaty continues, and the arms control and nonproliferation community acquiesces in it, what shall we make of all the grand-sounding rhetoric we have heard for more than four decades about the importance of international nuclear arms control treaties?

[varvarin]

Svi smo mi Charlie ???


http://balkans.aljazeera.net/vijesti/charlie-hebdo-kritikovan-zbog-karikature-alana-kurdija

[Meho Krljic]

Da, stvarno gnusno.

[mac]

Nije gnusnije od onog što se uživo dešava. Ako se osećamo neugodno dok gledamo ovaj loš "vic" onda je poruka dobro preneta.

[Meho Krljic]

Naravno da satira i humor nikada nisu gnusniji od onog što satirišu, meni više smeta ideja da ovakav humor ne kaže ništa pametno, čak ni provokativno o temi pa time jedva da se kvalifikuje za satiru, a bogami i za humor. Dakle, u Evropi vole decu a eto, deca koja bi da stignu u Evropu se dave. To je totalitet stejtmenta koji ja ovde vidim i pošto mu fali tvist, veoma smrdi na eksploataciju.

[varvarin]

Ja sam malo staromodan.
Mislim da, jednostavno, postoje stvari sa kojima se ne sprdamo.  I crni humor ima granice.
Ne smejemo se na groblju. Bar ljudi ne bi to trebali da rade.

[varvarin]

Mada, prihvatam onu drugu karikaturu, valjda zato što se udaljila od scene smrti na plaži.
To je ono ludilo po kome je Charlie ranije bio poznat, i to ima poruku o kojoj govori Mac, karikatura na kojoj Isus hoda po vodi, i piše, otprilike: "... Dokaz da je Evropa hrišćanska: Hrišćani hodaju po vodi. Muslimanska deca se dave!"

[mac]

Uzgred, imamo li konsenzus na forumu u vezi sa postavljanjem slika poput ove gore? Jevtropijevićka je digla glas svojevremeno, kad je Stipan postavio slike utopljene dece. Kako se sad ovo računa, kad je na odgovarajućoj temi, i kad imamo i (neukusnu) karikaturu pride?

[varvarin]

Jel treba da uvedemo i polno neutralno obraćanje sagovornicima ??

[Meho Krljic]

Samo kada nismo sigurno kog su pola/ kako se sami rodno identifikuju.

[Mme Chauchat]

Jel treba da uvedemo i polno neutralno obraćanje sagovornicima ??

A kakve to ima veze sa macovim pitanjem?

Kačenje ovakvih slika je etički neprihvatljivo. Tačka. Apsolutno me ne zanimaju pravdanja u stilu "takav je život" ili "treba da vidite šta se dešava" jer hej, ti argumenti to i dalje ne pokrivaju, ja znam šta se dešava i bez fotografija. Nije se neko *više* udavio zbog toga što je iks miliona ljudi videlo sliku njegovog leša u visokoj rezoluciji, niti će iko od tih ljudi sutra da se seća kako se dete zvalo, niti će ijedan život biti spasen zbog toga što su ljudi sa nasladom šerovali slike malih naplavljenih leševa uz dušebrižničke komentare.

I ne, nije opravdanje ni izjava u stilu "ali svi su to preneli, evo i Politika", hej, radila je Politika razne nemoralne stvari, nije ovo ni prva ni poslednja.
Razmislite malo vi što kačite i što pokušavate da odbranite šerovanje slika leševa: sutra će neko tako uz komentar "ju, strašno" šerovati sliku ne utopljenog deteta na hiljade kilometara odavde, nego vaše sredovečne komšinice ili koleginice koju je pokupio kamion i razmazao je po autoputu, sve uz opravdanje "ljudi treba da znaju šta se dešava! Podignimo svest o oprezu u saobraćaju!"
Pa, ono: zašto se to zapravo radi? Da se šokira narod po Internetu? Da se pokupi nekoliko poena akonto "angažmana" i "dizanja svesti"? Da se smejete onima što se zgražavaju kako su zaostali? Ne, sve plemeniti ciljevi, a?
Rezimiram: Ok, zaostala sam, jebite se, na ignor ide *svako* ko kači ovako nešto, ne zanimate me, vi imate pravo da kačite? e ja imam pravo da se gnušam.

[varvarin]

Ako se ne varam, tema je bila kako karikaturista uzme  sliku leša, pa od nje napravi još goru karikaturu.
Što je po meni još grđe od slike leša samog.
A moje pitanje Macu upućeno je jer mi u poslednje vreme idu na nerve dušebrižnici na društvenim mrežama, iako  ja posećujem mreže malo.  Vidim, neki u Americi predlažu i nove, polno neutralne  lične zamenice na mreži.
POLITIKU niko nije pominjao.
Ako je to razlog za ignore, u redu.

[mac]

Šta bi s onim "budite promena koju želite da vidite u svetu"? To je rekao Gandi, a njega valjda cenimo i poštujemo. Jevtra bi samo želela (a ja se u načelu slažem) da se slike ne stavljaju ovde, a ako se postavi link ka neukusnom sadržaju, onda da uz link ide i upozorenje.

Problem je mozak. Na kraju se navikne na svakakve droge, nasilja, i sve što ne želimo. Potreban je svestan napor "celog sela" da sačuvamo unutrašnji mir.

[tomat]

Može li neko da mi u kratkim crtama objasni šta se dešava sa Kameronom i svinjom?

Vidim da tviter bruji o tome, a nemam vremena da detaljno istražim.

[Dybuk]

Tomat

British ISIS fighter calls D. Cameron 'Despicable Swine' in Online Video

Meh, nothing to see here.

[tomat]

hm, nisam na to mislio. u vestima okje sam ja imao prilike da vidim se pominje neka interakcija između Kamerovonog spolovila i svinjske glave.

neka inicijacija je u pitanju šta li je.

edit:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/sep/21/david-cameron-pig-head-lord-ashcroft-unofficial-biography-drug-taking-claims

[Mme Chauchat]

To je vest iz Dejli Mejla iliti Blica, pa... uzeti sa zrnom soli (danas je, kažu, Dejli Mejl PRVI PUT izostavljen iz Bibisijevog pregleda dnevne štampe, muahaha).


EDIT: uuu, stiglo do Gardijana.

[tomat]

stiglo je svuda, vidim da pišu Dejli mejl, Miror, Indipendent, ...

[Dybuk]

Aha, okej. Tvoja vest je interesantnija

ed. ono kao, to mu je jedini greh iz mladosti.

[дејан]

а нико ни блек мирор да помене...ццц


едит. мирор је поменуо блек мирор...е јебем ти гардијан

[tomat]

ko je na tviteru neka overi #piggate neki komentari su halerijus

[Albedo 0]

niti će ijedan život biti spasen zbog toga što su ljudi sa nasladom šerovali slike malih naplavljenih leševa

actually, kognitivna neuronauka kaže da hoće

strah i gađenje su važniji elementi prilikom donošenja političkih odluka, nego što je to razum

to ne znači ni da podržavam postavljanje slika, ali nije tačno da izbjegavanje istih nešto pomaže

[Dybuk]

Zapravo, kad se radi o politickim odlukama, izgleda je svejedno. Ne vidim da su okolne zemlje i bez obzira na ovo osetljivije prema migrantima nego su to bile pre nego sto je ova i sl slike preplavila internet, stavise.
Medjutim, njihovi postupci ipak govore u prilog tvojoj tezi da strah i gadjenje determinisu odluke, ali ne od slika nevinih zrtava nego pred najezdom zivih ljudi.

[Albedo 0]

koliko vidim, niko nije ni vidio te slike, i još odbijaju da ih gledaju, posebno preko masovnih medija u evropskim zemljama

jedino što masmediji trpaju u vugla jeste ta druga vrsta straha koji spominješ, što rađa ksenofobiju i slične pojave

realno, samo ukazujem da nisu stvari crno-bijele

ne, nećemo biti srećniji ako ne budemo gledali slike, biti srećan u ovoj situaciji uopšte nije opcija

[Dybuk]

Nije crno belo, sigurno.

Stvar je u tome sto ne moram da gledam scenu smrti ili pogubljenja da bih shvatila tragicnost i realnost date situacije. I kad sam nailazila na komentare oko onih ID pogubljenja, sokirala sam se kad sam shvatila da oni koji su spremni da odgledaju takav video nisu zgadjeni nego jos i komentarisu kvalitet snimka i montazu. Ili kad je onaj policajac poginuo kod Carli Ebdoa, neki komentatori na b92 (citaoci) su se, npr, bavili balistikom.
Meni je u najvecem broju slucajeva kacenje slika preminulih osoba i raznih real death klipova tabloidni senzacionalizam koji morbidno kapitalizuje na necijoj smrti i porodicnoj nesreci, demonstrira nepostovanje prema preminulom, njegovim bliznjima i prosto objektivizuje zrtvu pretvarajuci celu stvar u neku vrstu morbidnog 'entertejmenta', pa makar to i ne bila prvobitna namera.

Cela ta stvar je duboko licemerna i ako hoces voajerska. Meni je to bolesno.
Naravno da nisam srecnija ako to ne gledam, ali makar nisam uznemirena prizorom koji grubo povredjuje privatnost i dostojanstvo preminule osobe.

[Albedo 0]

možda, ali fali jedna pouka: ko ne želi da bude uznemiren prizorom osuđen je da ponovi neželju

ovdje uopšte nije izbor da li hoćemo da gledamo ili ne gledamo mrtvo dijete, već da li hoćemo da gledamo skinhede/bodljikavu žicu/vojsku na granici... ili mrtvo dijete

[Dybuk]

A ja opet mislim da je taj izbor nepostojeci jer evo 'gledamo' obe stvari.

I mada ne znam jesu li Madjari, Hrvati, Slovenci itd gledali ovu sliku, onako na nacionalnom nivou (kako ti znas da nisu ili jesu), ta tragedija cini se nema velikog uticaja in d grand skim of tings.

[Albedo 0]

ne kažem da nisu, već da je na to potrošeno možda 3% medijskog vremena, čak i u Srbiji, dok neke druge perspektive dominiraju

pa to dijete nije dominantna tema čak ni na ovom forumu

i da preformulišem: naravno da ne možeš izbjeći gledanje bodljikave žice, ali opozicija tome NAŽALOST MORA da insistira na smrti djeteta, i to je jedina kontrapozicija koja možda može da promijeni nešto

kome se ne sviđa šta mu ja mogu, nisam ja pravio i vaspitao milione ljudi u Evropi i svijetu

uostalom, da li neko ozbiljno misli da npr ekološki aktivisti ne čine apsolutno isto, dakle, zastrašivanje određenim posljedicama, ili čak i slikama preminulih životinja zarobljenih u naftnim i inim zagađenim sredinama

ne nego je razum prevladao ili su se vezivali na drvo i ljudi se sažalili, malo morgen...

isto važi i za LGBT i bilo koji drugi pokret

[Dybuk]

Pa da ja smatram da su to radikalni nacini za postizanje odredjenih ciljeva, dakle nisu norma. Danas samo sokom mozes da privuces paznju javnosti pa ni to ne urodi plodom. Jer svaka vest je interesantna dok je ne smeni druga, jos sokantnija i vecih razmera.
Ono sto ostaje je osecaj da smo prisustvovali jos jednoj medijskoj eksploataciji tragedije. E to je problem.

[Albedo 0]

zašto bi to bio problem, i razapinjanje Isusa je medijska eksploatacija tragedije

[Dybuk]

Medijska?

Posto to nismo imali prilike videti uzivo, dogadjaj ostaje u domenu umetnosti i filma te je tako fikcija a ne realnost. Ja s fikcijom nemam problem, kao sto mozes pretpostaviti.

[Albedo 0]

i knjiga je medij, i film je medij, nema to nikakve veze da li je uživo, samo da li zastrašuje i šokira

[Dybuk]

Ah znala sam da cemo preci na semantiku

Ne, ja jasno razgranicavam stvarno od fiktivnog, sto bi ti rekao razlika stoji kano klisurine.

[Albedo 0]

naprotiv, stvarno i fiktivno su toliko ispleteni da postoji samo razlika da li rade ili ne rade, utiču ili ne utiču

da li je npr Vučić stvaran ili fiktivan? i slično...

[Dybuk]

da li je npr Vučić stvaran ili fiktivan?

Saznacemo posle 14 h.

[mac]

What the British are really laughing about

http://theleveller.org/2015/09/british-really-laughing/

Nama je smešno što je Kameron opštio sa svinjskom glavom, ali Britanci vide više slojeva u toj piti od mesa.

(ukrao od Crippla na FB i ne gledajući od koga je. Možda će okačiti i ovde kad stigne)

[tomat]

Jebanje svinjske glave je smešno, a druge stvari koje je, navodno, radio su strašne.

Tviter je tog dana bio urnebesan.

[Father Jape]

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/09/22/teenager-sentenced-to-death-by-crucifixion-in-saudi-arabia_n_8177584.html?1442939262&ncid=tweetlnkushpmg00000067

[varvarin]

Veselje se širi na sve strane.


http://www.rts.rs/page/stories/ci/story/2/%D0%A1%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%82/2052971/%D0%9F%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%BE%D1%9B+%D0%9A%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B5+%D1%83+%D0%B1%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B1%D0%B8+%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%B2+%D0%98%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%BC%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B5+%D0%B4%D1%80%D0%B6%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%B5+%D1%83+%D0%A1%D0%B8%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%98%D0%B8.html


Кина ће сиријској влади помоћи у борби против Исламске државе слањем војних саветника, саопштили су сиријски војни званичници...

Doduše, tu je i jedan nosač aviona, i oko hiljadu kineskih marinaca...