Tuesday, January 13, 2009
off to play with my brother at bondi beach, i'm chatting to his girl friend about the church and who should i see walking around the corner but the wizard of oz himself with his wonderful family, we break out into a smile at that moment of recognition, apparently they were just talking about me as they had passed a huge san pedro in the street. i display my fin and say i'll call by later. down on the beach it's throbbing with to many people but we find a nice spot and some good but small surf. two hours later i head back to the wizards place but no one seems home so i leave a real estate paper on the door step and make my way back to my brothers around the corner. it's stinking hot, everything radiates with excess heat, the girls look good, the ocean looks amazing, the trees sway with the breeze that come's through, i check out the san pedro, its magnificent. everything is perfect at this time of the evening. at bondi junction there's a meeting to support israel and i go. i get grilled by the security, my terrorist beard probably didn't help. inside i listen to a short fat jewish man talking about peace and hoping for peace and a palestinian state. i hear him ask us to hope that Gilad Shalit be returned in good health. people there all were quiet and introspective, listening to various people talk and an isreali version of simon and garfunkel.
later i went for dinner at some place in bondi, ate salad and generally watched a storm over the ocean while some lady tried vainly to flirt with me.
later i went for dinner at some place in bondi, ate salad and generally watched a storm over the ocean while some lady tried vainly to flirt with me.
Monday, January 12, 2009
Dateline: January 3rd 1944
Fury continues to mount worldwide about the senseless loss of civilian life in Germany caused by England`s callous bombing of German cities including Berlin, Hamburg and Dresden.
As of today many innocent German women and children have died in these utterly brutal bombing missions. And now there are ground offensives starting on mainland Europe.
The English have claimed that they are merely retaliating against the V-1 flying bombs being launched indiscriminately by Nazis at their civilian population in London, Manchester, Liverpool, Birmingham, Coventry and other cities. The English point out that their enemy is sworn to its utter destruction and has used the missiles and flying bombs against its civilians without any regard to English loss of life. Moreover it makes the case that their own bombing missions are specifically directed to military targets that the German army has intentionally planted in the heart of civilian populations to try and deter English counter-attacks.
These points may of course be true - but they are utterly besides the point.
Of course England has a right to exist. Of course England has a right to defend itself. But it should ensure that its responses are PROPORTIONATE.
Since many more Germans are dying than English - the English should either tone down the success and accuracy of their bombing - or allow the Germans to catch up on the death count.
To be honest - if more English women and children were dying - we wouldn`t feel quite so bad about the number of Germans dying. But it`s just so UNFAIR that more Germans are dying...
Perhaps some English people could arrange to kill themselves to match the number of Germans dying as a result of the English retaliation bombing? It would be so considerate - and it might help England`s critics feel less miserable about the number of Nazis dying. Something that is causing them so much concern.
It would also put paid to that wretched proportionality argument.
Alternatively, perhaps the English could arrange to be less effective in their bombing? Or only bomb military targets that are nowhere near civilians - even though the vast majority of the V-1 rockets are intentionally being launched from the heart of civilian population centers.
Now the English will argue that the Germans have INTENTIONALLY positioned all their launch pads for the V-1 rockets in the middle of civilian populations to inhibit the English from bombing those launch sites. Well - tough noogies to the Brits! Sorry - but if the Germans are smarter or more skillful at cynically using their civilians as human shields than you - tough luck!
You can`t have it both ways. If you truly wish to save your nation from being annihilated by Nazi missiles you`d better stop looking to win a popularity contest. The Nazis are waging this war to win and to utterly destroy England. If all you Brits care about is popularity - then you may as well resign yourself to speaking German...
It`s about time that little nations who wish to defend themselves wised up to their responsibilities.
Otherwise the same stupid complaints will be made at some point in the 21st Century when some little nation finds itself under constant attack from rockets fired at its civilian population by a terrorizing enemy that has sworn to destroy it....
Fury continues to mount worldwide about the senseless loss of civilian life in Germany caused by England`s callous bombing of German cities including Berlin, Hamburg and Dresden.
As of today many innocent German women and children have died in these utterly brutal bombing missions. And now there are ground offensives starting on mainland Europe.
The English have claimed that they are merely retaliating against the V-1 flying bombs being launched indiscriminately by Nazis at their civilian population in London, Manchester, Liverpool, Birmingham, Coventry and other cities. The English point out that their enemy is sworn to its utter destruction and has used the missiles and flying bombs against its civilians without any regard to English loss of life. Moreover it makes the case that their own bombing missions are specifically directed to military targets that the German army has intentionally planted in the heart of civilian populations to try and deter English counter-attacks.
These points may of course be true - but they are utterly besides the point.
Of course England has a right to exist. Of course England has a right to defend itself. But it should ensure that its responses are PROPORTIONATE.
Since many more Germans are dying than English - the English should either tone down the success and accuracy of their bombing - or allow the Germans to catch up on the death count.
To be honest - if more English women and children were dying - we wouldn`t feel quite so bad about the number of Germans dying. But it`s just so UNFAIR that more Germans are dying...
Perhaps some English people could arrange to kill themselves to match the number of Germans dying as a result of the English retaliation bombing? It would be so considerate - and it might help England`s critics feel less miserable about the number of Nazis dying. Something that is causing them so much concern.
It would also put paid to that wretched proportionality argument.
Alternatively, perhaps the English could arrange to be less effective in their bombing? Or only bomb military targets that are nowhere near civilians - even though the vast majority of the V-1 rockets are intentionally being launched from the heart of civilian population centers.
Now the English will argue that the Germans have INTENTIONALLY positioned all their launch pads for the V-1 rockets in the middle of civilian populations to inhibit the English from bombing those launch sites. Well - tough noogies to the Brits! Sorry - but if the Germans are smarter or more skillful at cynically using their civilians as human shields than you - tough luck!
You can`t have it both ways. If you truly wish to save your nation from being annihilated by Nazi missiles you`d better stop looking to win a popularity contest. The Nazis are waging this war to win and to utterly destroy England. If all you Brits care about is popularity - then you may as well resign yourself to speaking German...
It`s about time that little nations who wish to defend themselves wised up to their responsibilities.
Otherwise the same stupid complaints will be made at some point in the 21st Century when some little nation finds itself under constant attack from rockets fired at its civilian population by a terrorizing enemy that has sworn to destroy it....
Saturday, January 10, 2009
i was already packed an ready to go, just checking my passport was safe and the visa details were all correct when i noticed the strange bug crawling across my ceiling, it was grasshopper green, mantis like but not quite as threatening, it seemed to be plodding along purposely on some sort of insect mission. i didn't really have time to deal with it, i don't like bugs but i'm also loath to kill them and over the years have developed various non lethal trapping devices to contain them. this bug was quite different from the usual cockroaches and spiders that i normally evict, it was well it appeared to be, quite harmless exude a kind of benevolence. anyways the taxi was here, so i locked up and left. two weeks away relaxing in italy, here we come.
on return i shuffled up the staircase, my bags heavy with the usual gifts and souvenirs, people generally expect all this nonsense and my sense of obligation was tested when i wandered along the amalfi coastline looking at trinkets and various tourist junk.
i stuck my key in the lock and pushed open the door, a waft of stale air hit me and i threw the bags on the floor and rushed to the windows. but as i walked through the rooms there was a fine layer of silk over everything. it was as if a spider web had fallen from the ceiling over the furniture, the chairs, my bed, the stereo almost everything was covered in this misty delicate substance.
jesus i thought, i'm going to have to vacuum the whole place and call the carpet cleaners in. i bent over to inspect the stuff, it was sticky and slimy, it was heavier than i first thought, not quite the silky weight.
i wandered from room the room, it was no different, this strange material was everywhere, even my bathroom was filled with it. there was one room left to check. the library. before i even opened the door i knew something was wrong, i could feel it in my guts. i turned the handle slowly and threw open the door fast.
there sitting in my leather reading chair was the green coloured bug. only it was huge, almost man size. 'fucking hell.' i said reacting to the impossible.
the bug just looked at me and in perfect english said, 'excuse me?'
i froze, rubbed my eyes, pinched myself and froze again. was this a dream, have i gone nuts?
the bug started to speak again. 'look you can't just come barging in here using that kind of language, it's quite unnecessary.'
putting down his book he said, 'now what seems to be the problem.'
i noticed he was reading martin amis. 'well,' i said self conciously, 'you are in my home.'
'no. you are in my home.' the bug retorted.
'look you're a talking bug, it's just impossible for you to even exist.'
'how dare you insult me like that.' the big gave me a fierce stare.
'what are you anyway?'
'i could ask the same thing of you.'
oh my god i thought as i noticed the bug had a cup of tea sitting on the armrest of the chair.
the bug continued, 'my name is chartuse, we may as well be civil to one another.'
'im captain mission. i'm kinda bewildered at your presence here. i mean i've never noticed you before.'
'you saw me as you were about to leave for holiday, i even waved at you.'
'that's ridiculous, you have grown so much. you were just a bug now your almost a human type bug, reading, drinking bloody tea and talking like a retired librarian.'
'and, your point...?'
'you can't stay here.'
'i live here. i've lived here all my life.'
'but these are my books, i pay the rent, i own all this stuff,' i waved my arms around.
'i have no problem with you being here, i can share.'
'i don't want to share. i want you out.'
'what are you going to do?'
i walked out of the room slamming it shut and headed to the phone. on the way i stopped at the fridge and noticed that it was filled with cacti. there were rows and rows of fat cylindrical bodies all recognisable as being from my sun room. chartuse had been feasting on my mescal supply.
i made my call and went back to him. he was half asleep, martin amis resting in his lap. 'okay chartuse, i'm giving you one last warning, leave now or face the consequences.'
'why can't you just leave me alone, we can share this space, i've enjoyed reading your books, i'm planning to listen to your music soon.'
'you also chopped up my cacti.'
'yes, and...?'
'but it's mine, for my use.'
'share?'
'jeez i didn't think there were communist bugs.'
'i'm no commie. i follow a spiritual path, political constructs can only lead to chaos and unhappiness.'
'yeah i agree.'
'see we have some things in common, plus i've enjoyed reading your books.'
'you read all these?'
'almost. i enjoyed the chaos magick books especially raw and peter carroll.'
'you read the peter carroll stuff?'
'yes although i think he needs to accept the universe is an just one of many all within the realm of a supreme being.'
'you believe in god?'
'yes. how can i not. carroll seems at war with the transcendentalists whereas i think he needs to recognise he is a splinter of god himself. it's like he just can't make that leap.
'mmm, yes i think that to. have you practiced any magick? i ask.
'yes i am immersed in a magickal realm of humanity at the moment. that will explain my presence here perhaps.'
'so you are from....?'
'a different dimension maybe. physics dosn't really explain it. let's say i exist in one of the 22 aethers.'
'so did i summon you?'
'no i summoned you. really captain mission, you do need to think about this differently from your usual egocentric framework.'
'why did you summon me.'
'i was invoking our version of kali, the destroyer. it's a stage of my magickal evolution to face my fear.'
'but my fear is bugs so it's part of my evolution to.'
'mmm, that's interesting, maybe it is.'
'besides i'm hardly kali like am i?'
that's when the exterminator arrived.
on return i shuffled up the staircase, my bags heavy with the usual gifts and souvenirs, people generally expect all this nonsense and my sense of obligation was tested when i wandered along the amalfi coastline looking at trinkets and various tourist junk.
i stuck my key in the lock and pushed open the door, a waft of stale air hit me and i threw the bags on the floor and rushed to the windows. but as i walked through the rooms there was a fine layer of silk over everything. it was as if a spider web had fallen from the ceiling over the furniture, the chairs, my bed, the stereo almost everything was covered in this misty delicate substance.
jesus i thought, i'm going to have to vacuum the whole place and call the carpet cleaners in. i bent over to inspect the stuff, it was sticky and slimy, it was heavier than i first thought, not quite the silky weight.
i wandered from room the room, it was no different, this strange material was everywhere, even my bathroom was filled with it. there was one room left to check. the library. before i even opened the door i knew something was wrong, i could feel it in my guts. i turned the handle slowly and threw open the door fast.
there sitting in my leather reading chair was the green coloured bug. only it was huge, almost man size. 'fucking hell.' i said reacting to the impossible.
the bug just looked at me and in perfect english said, 'excuse me?'
i froze, rubbed my eyes, pinched myself and froze again. was this a dream, have i gone nuts?
the bug started to speak again. 'look you can't just come barging in here using that kind of language, it's quite unnecessary.'
putting down his book he said, 'now what seems to be the problem.'
i noticed he was reading martin amis. 'well,' i said self conciously, 'you are in my home.'
'no. you are in my home.' the bug retorted.
'look you're a talking bug, it's just impossible for you to even exist.'
'how dare you insult me like that.' the big gave me a fierce stare.
'what are you anyway?'
'i could ask the same thing of you.'
oh my god i thought as i noticed the bug had a cup of tea sitting on the armrest of the chair.
the bug continued, 'my name is chartuse, we may as well be civil to one another.'
'im captain mission. i'm kinda bewildered at your presence here. i mean i've never noticed you before.'
'you saw me as you were about to leave for holiday, i even waved at you.'
'that's ridiculous, you have grown so much. you were just a bug now your almost a human type bug, reading, drinking bloody tea and talking like a retired librarian.'
'and, your point...?'
'you can't stay here.'
'i live here. i've lived here all my life.'
'but these are my books, i pay the rent, i own all this stuff,' i waved my arms around.
'i have no problem with you being here, i can share.'
'i don't want to share. i want you out.'
'what are you going to do?'
i walked out of the room slamming it shut and headed to the phone. on the way i stopped at the fridge and noticed that it was filled with cacti. there were rows and rows of fat cylindrical bodies all recognisable as being from my sun room. chartuse had been feasting on my mescal supply.
i made my call and went back to him. he was half asleep, martin amis resting in his lap. 'okay chartuse, i'm giving you one last warning, leave now or face the consequences.'
'why can't you just leave me alone, we can share this space, i've enjoyed reading your books, i'm planning to listen to your music soon.'
'you also chopped up my cacti.'
'yes, and...?'
'but it's mine, for my use.'
'share?'
'jeez i didn't think there were communist bugs.'
'i'm no commie. i follow a spiritual path, political constructs can only lead to chaos and unhappiness.'
'yeah i agree.'
'see we have some things in common, plus i've enjoyed reading your books.'
'you read all these?'
'almost. i enjoyed the chaos magick books especially raw and peter carroll.'
'you read the peter carroll stuff?'
'yes although i think he needs to accept the universe is an just one of many all within the realm of a supreme being.'
'you believe in god?'
'yes. how can i not. carroll seems at war with the transcendentalists whereas i think he needs to recognise he is a splinter of god himself. it's like he just can't make that leap.
'mmm, yes i think that to. have you practiced any magick? i ask.
'yes i am immersed in a magickal realm of humanity at the moment. that will explain my presence here perhaps.'
'so you are from....?'
'a different dimension maybe. physics dosn't really explain it. let's say i exist in one of the 22 aethers.'
'so did i summon you?'
'no i summoned you. really captain mission, you do need to think about this differently from your usual egocentric framework.'
'why did you summon me.'
'i was invoking our version of kali, the destroyer. it's a stage of my magickal evolution to face my fear.'
'but my fear is bugs so it's part of my evolution to.'
'mmm, that's interesting, maybe it is.'
'besides i'm hardly kali like am i?'
that's when the exterminator arrived.
Wednesday, January 07, 2009
the captain is sluggish in the heat of the morning, it slows him down as his rampant thoughts start to melt like molasses dripping into salvidor dali clocks over a frying pan of hot butter. even time is slow today, dragged down by the weight of humidity and the current state of humanity. i'm immersed in a dream, it's so real i feel i lived it yet now i can't even recal any detail. it blends into the phone ringing and i'm summoned to autistic central where the heat seems even more oppressive and my time is spent slothing around avoiding any movement or work, until i take my little friend for a drive. we head of for an ice cream. it's the only reasonable thing to do and we find ourselves in a huge mass of people thinking the same thing.
malls are strange places, i don't like them, they make me uncomfortable because i stand out, i look like i don't belong there, i don't fit in at all. everyone else knows that as well.
while im wandering around looking for a decent ice cream place i notice that there's a sale on in the dvd shop and i pick up the introductory short film, the pilot to the new battlestar galactica. okay battlestar galactica is an old cheesy 80's series that i saw one episode of and gave up on. this however is a new re imagined series. it's mind blowingly good. everything about this is different, it's gritty, unpredictable, morally ambigious. it's the second best show i've seen ever. it's got robots, sex, drugs, politics, war, sex, inter species relationships, mental illness, myth, gods, humanity and space ships. but don't take my word for it, check it out on dvd.
malls are strange places, i don't like them, they make me uncomfortable because i stand out, i look like i don't belong there, i don't fit in at all. everyone else knows that as well.
while im wandering around looking for a decent ice cream place i notice that there's a sale on in the dvd shop and i pick up the introductory short film, the pilot to the new battlestar galactica. okay battlestar galactica is an old cheesy 80's series that i saw one episode of and gave up on. this however is a new re imagined series. it's mind blowingly good. everything about this is different, it's gritty, unpredictable, morally ambigious. it's the second best show i've seen ever. it's got robots, sex, drugs, politics, war, sex, inter species relationships, mental illness, myth, gods, humanity and space ships. but don't take my word for it, check it out on dvd.
Sunday, January 04, 2009
sun day and the sun burst forth outta blue skies and through the treetops, in golden amber liquid light, pouring into my neo cortex and diffusing the several million things into it's beautiful chaos of people and circumstance. im thinking about liberating a massive cactus plant that lives in a friends old garden, it's huge a multi fronded monument, church like in it's magnificent stance, hailing the sun, the moon like a giant tuning fork sticking from the soil, waiting for us to tune in.
saturday afternoon and i visit my friend, she takes me to a large garden center and introduces me to a friend of hers called charlie a rather aggressive and loud cockatoo who imitates people and sneezes while displaying his yellow crest. i don't like birds in cages whereas i don't mind fish in tanks. is that hypocritical, how does that work?
im thinking a lot about obtaining more cacti and enter a little daydream...
somewhere up the coast me and my mysterious girlfriend own a large farm house on a huge block of land, with a private beach. we grow hemp and ayahuscia and masses amounts of san pedro. we work together, mostly we sleep a lot, take plant medicine and have sex or make slow love. there's no one else disturbing us, it's perfect. one day a few friends come to visit and we all drink the vine, healing occurs, and there's a lot of positive energy being generated. in the mornings i write my book, a novel and semi autobiography, it's called 'revelation' and in it's pages are secrets. the secrets of life, the hidden schools, the mystery schools.
a hollywood director is interested in making a movie, i say that's okay as long as i get to play myself.
saturday afternoon and i visit my friend, she takes me to a large garden center and introduces me to a friend of hers called charlie a rather aggressive and loud cockatoo who imitates people and sneezes while displaying his yellow crest. i don't like birds in cages whereas i don't mind fish in tanks. is that hypocritical, how does that work?
im thinking a lot about obtaining more cacti and enter a little daydream...
somewhere up the coast me and my mysterious girlfriend own a large farm house on a huge block of land, with a private beach. we grow hemp and ayahuscia and masses amounts of san pedro. we work together, mostly we sleep a lot, take plant medicine and have sex or make slow love. there's no one else disturbing us, it's perfect. one day a few friends come to visit and we all drink the vine, healing occurs, and there's a lot of positive energy being generated. in the mornings i write my book, a novel and semi autobiography, it's called 'revelation' and in it's pages are secrets. the secrets of life, the hidden schools, the mystery schools.
a hollywood director is interested in making a movie, i say that's okay as long as i get to play myself.
Thursday, January 01, 2009
im watching fireworks from a balcony of a luxury apartment in potts point, surrounded by my brother and his friends and our lovely host who has laid on some beautiful food and lots of drinks, everyone is smashed, there's a strange energy in the air and suddenly these amazing fireworks start lighting up the sky.
i've never really liked fireworks, i hate the noise and i hate the idea that money should be wasted like that when we could build a hospital etc but as i watched this strange ritual i realized there is a up side, millions of people watching something beautiful is a good thing, the mass reflection on the years past and the one looming is like a meditation, the release of a city of spectators just being happy for a few seconds and kissing complete strangers has to be good and the general good behaviour and mood of those who attend. i had fun. the display was like a dmt trip, patterns forming, ever changing, cascading and suddenly the skies were filled with information. but it was chaos with meaning, the pyrotechnics were re creating the creation myth of the aboriginals. thunder, lightning, rain, waterfalls, it was all there in the sky, fire reigning down on us all, like a huge mas wedding sydney was reborn into 2009.
strangely amongst all the people there i found a man who was interested in ayahuscia, he was from colombia and had a beautiful girlfriend. We spoke a bit about fear, ego, architecture and women, his name was Andreas.
Free sydney transport through the night made it easy for me to return home, safe and sound and feeling good about the future despite the fact humanity is heading for the comedown.
i've never really liked fireworks, i hate the noise and i hate the idea that money should be wasted like that when we could build a hospital etc but as i watched this strange ritual i realized there is a up side, millions of people watching something beautiful is a good thing, the mass reflection on the years past and the one looming is like a meditation, the release of a city of spectators just being happy for a few seconds and kissing complete strangers has to be good and the general good behaviour and mood of those who attend. i had fun. the display was like a dmt trip, patterns forming, ever changing, cascading and suddenly the skies were filled with information. but it was chaos with meaning, the pyrotechnics were re creating the creation myth of the aboriginals. thunder, lightning, rain, waterfalls, it was all there in the sky, fire reigning down on us all, like a huge mas wedding sydney was reborn into 2009.
strangely amongst all the people there i found a man who was interested in ayahuscia, he was from colombia and had a beautiful girlfriend. We spoke a bit about fear, ego, architecture and women, his name was Andreas.
Free sydney transport through the night made it easy for me to return home, safe and sound and feeling good about the future despite the fact humanity is heading for the comedown.
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
end of the year sale
what have i done?
list achievements here
list new years resolutions there
i resolute to spend less time working for the man
i will record another cd
i will launch 'adventures' with my band
i will write new songs and a few new short stories
i will go to the amazon and drink ayahuscia with the cat people
i will get myself a giant robot like gort
i will get healthy and slim
i will learn new skills
i will learn old ones i have forgotten
i will increase my social network
i will save the planet (with assistance from gort)
i will tell people i love them and i am happy that they are my friend
i will meditate
i will do yoga
i will surf
i will go to gym
i will write blogs better
i will dream more
i will love better
i will not live in fear
i will fix my bathroom
i will attempt to be friendly to the people downstairs
i will attempt to be kinder
i will attempt to be less grumpy
i will take more plant medicines
i will get up early
i will enjoy the wind
i will walk in rain
i will feed the ducks
i will stop and smell the flowers
i will take much more dmt
i will dance on the head of a needle
i will attempt to push a camel through its eye
i will eat all the food on my plate unless it is animal
i will drink from the fountain of truth and youth
i will dance
i will trance
i will bring back gifts
i will travel light
i will lighten my load
ok
tonight i have to meet my brother to watch fireworks from a luxury apartment in the city. i have never even been in a luxury apartment before so im kinda nervous. what do i wear. do i have to bring anything. do i need to mind my ps and qs?
i'll report in tomorrow with the answers
have a safe and wonderful night.
what have i done?
list achievements here
list new years resolutions there
i resolute to spend less time working for the man
i will record another cd
i will launch 'adventures' with my band
i will write new songs and a few new short stories
i will go to the amazon and drink ayahuscia with the cat people
i will get myself a giant robot like gort
i will get healthy and slim
i will learn new skills
i will learn old ones i have forgotten
i will increase my social network
i will save the planet (with assistance from gort)
i will tell people i love them and i am happy that they are my friend
i will meditate
i will do yoga
i will surf
i will go to gym
i will write blogs better
i will dream more
i will love better
i will not live in fear
i will fix my bathroom
i will attempt to be friendly to the people downstairs
i will attempt to be kinder
i will attempt to be less grumpy
i will take more plant medicines
i will get up early
i will enjoy the wind
i will walk in rain
i will feed the ducks
i will stop and smell the flowers
i will take much more dmt
i will dance on the head of a needle
i will attempt to push a camel through its eye
i will eat all the food on my plate unless it is animal
i will drink from the fountain of truth and youth
i will dance
i will trance
i will bring back gifts
i will travel light
i will lighten my load
ok
tonight i have to meet my brother to watch fireworks from a luxury apartment in the city. i have never even been in a luxury apartment before so im kinda nervous. what do i wear. do i have to bring anything. do i need to mind my ps and qs?
i'll report in tomorrow with the answers
have a safe and wonderful night.
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
and another poor attempt at reverse propaganda here's melanie philips post
Groundhog Day For The Fifth Column Of Malice
MONDAY, 29TH DECEMBER 2008
So there is indeed now a war. In Gaza. Actually, there are two wars going on: one involving rockets and warplanes, and the other involving the media, as Barry Rubin notes:
Nothing is clearer than Hamas’s strategy. It gives Israel the choice between rockets and media, and Hamas thinks it is a situation of, ‘We win or you lose.’...The smug smiles are wiped off the faces of Hamas leaders. Yet they have one more weapon, their reserves, they call up the media. Those arrogant, heroic, macho victors of yesterday--literally yesterday as the process takes only a few hours--are transformed into pitiful victims. Casualty figures are announced by Hamas, and accepted by reporters who are not on the spot. Everyone hit is, of course, a civilian. No soldiers here. And the casualties are disproportionate: Hamas has arranged it that way. If necessary, sympathetic photographers take pictures of children who pretend to be injured, and once they are published in Western newspapers these claims become fact.
All too predictable – and going to plan, with assistance from the Club of Terror UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon who condemned ‘excessive use of force leading to the killing and injuring of civilians’, and Navi Pillay, the ludicrous UN High Commissioner for ‘Human Rights’, who ‘strongly condemned Israel’s disproportionate use of force.’ Of course, the Club of Terror UN has been silent about the actual violations of international law by the Palestinians, as pointed out here by Justus Reid Weiner and Avi Bell:
The Palestinian attacks violate one of the most basic rules of international humanitarian law: the rule of distinction, which requires combatants to aim all their attacks at legitimate targets - enemy combatants or objects that contribute to enemy military actions. Violations of the rule of distinction - attacks deliberately aimed at civilians or protected objects as such - are war crimes.
Furthermore, say Weiner and Bell, Israel actually has a legal duty to take action against Hamas under the Genocide Convention:
In carrying out their attacks on Israeli Jews as part of a larger aim to kill Jews, as demonstrated by the Hamas Covenant, many of the Palestinian terrorists are also violating the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide. Under Article 1 of the Genocide Convention, Israel and other signatories are required to ‘prevent and punish’ not only persons who carry out such genocidal acts, but those who conspire with them, incite them to kill and are complicit with their actions. The Convention thus requires Israel to prevent and punish the terrorists themselves, as well as leading figures that have publicly supported the Palestinian attacks. Article 2 of the Convention defines any killing with intent ‘to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such’ as an act of genocide.
But for exercising its legal duty in accordance with international law, Israel is condemned and told to stop by politicians such as French President Nicolas Sarkozy and Britain’s Foreign Secretary David Miliband. The moral inversion is staggering. Miliband has called for an immediate ceasefire by Israel. The implication is that Israel should suffer the Palestinian rockets attacks indefinitely.
If anything has been ‘disproportionate’, it’s been Israel’s refusal to take such action during the years when its southern citizens have been terrorised by rockets and other missiles raining down on them from Gaza. No other country in the world would have sat on its hands for so long in such circumstances. But whenever Israel defends itself militarily, its response is said to be ‘disproportionate’. The malice, ignorance and sheer idiocy of this claim is refuted here comprehensively by Dore Gold, who points out that Israel’s actions in Gaza are wholly in accordance with international law. This permits Israel to launch such an operation to prevent itself from being further attacked. Moreover, it defines ‘disproportionate’ force as when
force becomes excessive if it is employed for another purpose, like causing unnecessary harm to civilians.
But Israel has demonstrably not been targeting civilians but Hamas terrorists. Despite the wicked impression given by the media, most of the casualties in this operation have been Hamas operatives. Even Hamas itself has admitted that the vast majority of sites Israel has hit were part of their military infrastructure. UNRWA officials in the Gaza Strip have put the number of deaths at 310, of whom 51 were civilians. The rest were Hamas terrorists.
Certainly, some civilian casualties are regrettably inevitable in any such situation – but particularly so in Gaza, since Hamas has deliberately sited its terrorist infrastructure amongst the civilian population.
Those who scream ‘disproportionate’ think – grotesquely -- that not enough Israelis have been killed. But that’s in part because Israel cares enough about human life to construct air raid shelters where its beleaguered civilians take cover; Hamas deliberately stores its rockets and other apparatus of mass murder below apartment blocks and in centres of population in order to get as many of its own people killed as possible as a propaganda weapon. Hamas is thus guilty of war crimes not just against Israelis but against the Palestinian people. Yet on this there is – fantastically, surreally – almost total silence in the west, which blames Israel instead. Historical resonances, anyone?
In any event, if by ‘disproportionate’ is meant merely an imbalance in the numbers who are killed on either side, this is actually inescapable if the infrastructure of aggression is to be defeated. Many more died in Afghanistan than in the 9/11 attacks; yet that war was necessary to destroy the Taleban. Many more died in Nazi Germany or Japan than in Britain or America during World War Two. Yet the scale of the Allied offensive was necessary to defeat Nazism and prevent yet more carnage amongst its designated victims.
The disgusting fifth column in the Gaza conflict, however, is – as ever – the western media. It was telling to witness the sight of British TV camera crews heading out to Israel on Saturday night. The point was that they weren’t already there – because their editors had not thought it necessary to send them to cover the resumed rocket attacks on southern Israel. Indeed, hardly anyone in Britain is aware that Israel is only now finally responding to some 6000 rocket attacks since 2001, with a fifty per cent increase after Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005. British journalists were only dispatched to the battle zone when Israel finally retaliated – because, appallingly, it is only Jewish violence that is ever the story.
As a result, Israel is painted – wholly unjustly and untruthfully -- as the aggressor. The ineffable BBC reported in radio bulletins on Saturday that Israel’s attack had ‘put back the chance of peace in the region’. Most sane people would think that the reason peace in the region had been put back was that Hamas was continuing to wage aggressive war. And indeed, even now it is still firing rockets at Israel, including Katyushas and Iranian Grads which are reaching as far as Ashkelon and Ashdod. Today they killed another Israeli in Ashkelon and injured many more -- including several Israeli Arabs.
If the media have mentioned the attacks on Israel at all, they have done so as an afterthought. The main story is ‘disproportionate’ Israeli violence. As far as I can see, there has been no mention of the extraordinary fact that on the day prior to the start of the Israeli operation, a Palestinian from the Gaza Strip was admitted to hospital in Israel for medical treatment for a severe wound -- inflicted upon him by a stray Hamas rocket which had been fired at Israel.
What other country would treat its enemies in its own hospitals – which Israel does routinely with Palestinians from Gaza -- even when they are wounded as a direct consequence of their own side trying to murder yet more Israelis? What other country would provide or enable the supply of electricity, gas and other essentials to people who use such facilities to continue trying to murder as many of its cititzens as possible? On Sunday, for instance, as Ha’aretz reported, the Kerem Shalom crossing was opened to let through 26 trucks carrying food and medical equipment. Today it was opened again and about 40 trucks had entered with food and medical supplies by midday. Yet organizations such as Amnesty International have condemned Israel's imposition of all ‘blockades’ on the Gaza Strip as ‘collective punishment’, and Jeremy Hobbs, Director of Oxfam International, has called on Israel ‘immediately [to] lift its inhumane and illegal siege’.
Yet it is Hamas that is refusing wounded Gazans access into Egypt for treatment -- and indeed the Egyptians even opened fire on them. So where are the screams about Egyptian and Hamas brutality? Where are Amnesty and Oxfam’s condemnation of Hamas and Egypt? And might all those from the Foreign Secretary down screaming about a ‘humanitarian disaster’ in Gaza pause for one second and look at the well-fed, healthy Gazans parading across their TV screens? If that’s a ‘humanitarian disaster’ – with supplies constantly pouring through the illegal tunnels from Egypt, along with billions of dollars-worth of missiles with which to commit mass murder -- what do they call what’s happening in Zimbabwe, which for some unaccountable reason inspires among the high-minded merely indifference?
Such bigotry and malice are not confined to British media and NGOs. On Salon, Glenn Greenwald whines about
America’s one-sided support for whatever Israel does from our political class, and one-sided condemnation of Israel's enemies (who are, ipso facto, American enemies) -- all of it, as usual, sharply divergent from the consensus in much of the rest of the world.
Oh really? Well, Hamas has been blamed for this war by Mahmoud Abbas, who said Hamas could have avoided this attack if it had prolonged its ‘cease-fire’. It has been blamed for this war by Egypt; and Arab states which are terrified of Islamism in general and Iran in particular are privately rooting for Israel to wipe Hamas out. Even the Israeli left is supporting this operation. The only people taking the side of the genocidal terrorists of Hamas are the western media, parroting their propaganda and thus inciting yet more to join the murderous rampage against Israel as well as ratcheting up the pressure on world leaders to force Israel to stop before Hamas is destroyed.
Isn’t there a case for legal action against these media outlets on account of their blood libels, for indirectly aiding the perpetrators of attempted genocide
Groundhog Day For The Fifth Column Of Malice
MONDAY, 29TH DECEMBER 2008
So there is indeed now a war. In Gaza. Actually, there are two wars going on: one involving rockets and warplanes, and the other involving the media, as Barry Rubin notes:
Nothing is clearer than Hamas’s strategy. It gives Israel the choice between rockets and media, and Hamas thinks it is a situation of, ‘We win or you lose.’...The smug smiles are wiped off the faces of Hamas leaders. Yet they have one more weapon, their reserves, they call up the media. Those arrogant, heroic, macho victors of yesterday--literally yesterday as the process takes only a few hours--are transformed into pitiful victims. Casualty figures are announced by Hamas, and accepted by reporters who are not on the spot. Everyone hit is, of course, a civilian. No soldiers here. And the casualties are disproportionate: Hamas has arranged it that way. If necessary, sympathetic photographers take pictures of children who pretend to be injured, and once they are published in Western newspapers these claims become fact.
All too predictable – and going to plan, with assistance from the Club of Terror UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon who condemned ‘excessive use of force leading to the killing and injuring of civilians’, and Navi Pillay, the ludicrous UN High Commissioner for ‘Human Rights’, who ‘strongly condemned Israel’s disproportionate use of force.’ Of course, the Club of Terror UN has been silent about the actual violations of international law by the Palestinians, as pointed out here by Justus Reid Weiner and Avi Bell:
The Palestinian attacks violate one of the most basic rules of international humanitarian law: the rule of distinction, which requires combatants to aim all their attacks at legitimate targets - enemy combatants or objects that contribute to enemy military actions. Violations of the rule of distinction - attacks deliberately aimed at civilians or protected objects as such - are war crimes.
Furthermore, say Weiner and Bell, Israel actually has a legal duty to take action against Hamas under the Genocide Convention:
In carrying out their attacks on Israeli Jews as part of a larger aim to kill Jews, as demonstrated by the Hamas Covenant, many of the Palestinian terrorists are also violating the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide. Under Article 1 of the Genocide Convention, Israel and other signatories are required to ‘prevent and punish’ not only persons who carry out such genocidal acts, but those who conspire with them, incite them to kill and are complicit with their actions. The Convention thus requires Israel to prevent and punish the terrorists themselves, as well as leading figures that have publicly supported the Palestinian attacks. Article 2 of the Convention defines any killing with intent ‘to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such’ as an act of genocide.
But for exercising its legal duty in accordance with international law, Israel is condemned and told to stop by politicians such as French President Nicolas Sarkozy and Britain’s Foreign Secretary David Miliband. The moral inversion is staggering. Miliband has called for an immediate ceasefire by Israel. The implication is that Israel should suffer the Palestinian rockets attacks indefinitely.
If anything has been ‘disproportionate’, it’s been Israel’s refusal to take such action during the years when its southern citizens have been terrorised by rockets and other missiles raining down on them from Gaza. No other country in the world would have sat on its hands for so long in such circumstances. But whenever Israel defends itself militarily, its response is said to be ‘disproportionate’. The malice, ignorance and sheer idiocy of this claim is refuted here comprehensively by Dore Gold, who points out that Israel’s actions in Gaza are wholly in accordance with international law. This permits Israel to launch such an operation to prevent itself from being further attacked. Moreover, it defines ‘disproportionate’ force as when
force becomes excessive if it is employed for another purpose, like causing unnecessary harm to civilians.
But Israel has demonstrably not been targeting civilians but Hamas terrorists. Despite the wicked impression given by the media, most of the casualties in this operation have been Hamas operatives. Even Hamas itself has admitted that the vast majority of sites Israel has hit were part of their military infrastructure. UNRWA officials in the Gaza Strip have put the number of deaths at 310, of whom 51 were civilians. The rest were Hamas terrorists.
Certainly, some civilian casualties are regrettably inevitable in any such situation – but particularly so in Gaza, since Hamas has deliberately sited its terrorist infrastructure amongst the civilian population.
Those who scream ‘disproportionate’ think – grotesquely -- that not enough Israelis have been killed. But that’s in part because Israel cares enough about human life to construct air raid shelters where its beleaguered civilians take cover; Hamas deliberately stores its rockets and other apparatus of mass murder below apartment blocks and in centres of population in order to get as many of its own people killed as possible as a propaganda weapon. Hamas is thus guilty of war crimes not just against Israelis but against the Palestinian people. Yet on this there is – fantastically, surreally – almost total silence in the west, which blames Israel instead. Historical resonances, anyone?
In any event, if by ‘disproportionate’ is meant merely an imbalance in the numbers who are killed on either side, this is actually inescapable if the infrastructure of aggression is to be defeated. Many more died in Afghanistan than in the 9/11 attacks; yet that war was necessary to destroy the Taleban. Many more died in Nazi Germany or Japan than in Britain or America during World War Two. Yet the scale of the Allied offensive was necessary to defeat Nazism and prevent yet more carnage amongst its designated victims.
The disgusting fifth column in the Gaza conflict, however, is – as ever – the western media. It was telling to witness the sight of British TV camera crews heading out to Israel on Saturday night. The point was that they weren’t already there – because their editors had not thought it necessary to send them to cover the resumed rocket attacks on southern Israel. Indeed, hardly anyone in Britain is aware that Israel is only now finally responding to some 6000 rocket attacks since 2001, with a fifty per cent increase after Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005. British journalists were only dispatched to the battle zone when Israel finally retaliated – because, appallingly, it is only Jewish violence that is ever the story.
As a result, Israel is painted – wholly unjustly and untruthfully -- as the aggressor. The ineffable BBC reported in radio bulletins on Saturday that Israel’s attack had ‘put back the chance of peace in the region’. Most sane people would think that the reason peace in the region had been put back was that Hamas was continuing to wage aggressive war. And indeed, even now it is still firing rockets at Israel, including Katyushas and Iranian Grads which are reaching as far as Ashkelon and Ashdod. Today they killed another Israeli in Ashkelon and injured many more -- including several Israeli Arabs.
If the media have mentioned the attacks on Israel at all, they have done so as an afterthought. The main story is ‘disproportionate’ Israeli violence. As far as I can see, there has been no mention of the extraordinary fact that on the day prior to the start of the Israeli operation, a Palestinian from the Gaza Strip was admitted to hospital in Israel for medical treatment for a severe wound -- inflicted upon him by a stray Hamas rocket which had been fired at Israel.
What other country would treat its enemies in its own hospitals – which Israel does routinely with Palestinians from Gaza -- even when they are wounded as a direct consequence of their own side trying to murder yet more Israelis? What other country would provide or enable the supply of electricity, gas and other essentials to people who use such facilities to continue trying to murder as many of its cititzens as possible? On Sunday, for instance, as Ha’aretz reported, the Kerem Shalom crossing was opened to let through 26 trucks carrying food and medical equipment. Today it was opened again and about 40 trucks had entered with food and medical supplies by midday. Yet organizations such as Amnesty International have condemned Israel's imposition of all ‘blockades’ on the Gaza Strip as ‘collective punishment’, and Jeremy Hobbs, Director of Oxfam International, has called on Israel ‘immediately [to] lift its inhumane and illegal siege’.
Yet it is Hamas that is refusing wounded Gazans access into Egypt for treatment -- and indeed the Egyptians even opened fire on them. So where are the screams about Egyptian and Hamas brutality? Where are Amnesty and Oxfam’s condemnation of Hamas and Egypt? And might all those from the Foreign Secretary down screaming about a ‘humanitarian disaster’ in Gaza pause for one second and look at the well-fed, healthy Gazans parading across their TV screens? If that’s a ‘humanitarian disaster’ – with supplies constantly pouring through the illegal tunnels from Egypt, along with billions of dollars-worth of missiles with which to commit mass murder -- what do they call what’s happening in Zimbabwe, which for some unaccountable reason inspires among the high-minded merely indifference?
Such bigotry and malice are not confined to British media and NGOs. On Salon, Glenn Greenwald whines about
America’s one-sided support for whatever Israel does from our political class, and one-sided condemnation of Israel's enemies (who are, ipso facto, American enemies) -- all of it, as usual, sharply divergent from the consensus in much of the rest of the world.
Oh really? Well, Hamas has been blamed for this war by Mahmoud Abbas, who said Hamas could have avoided this attack if it had prolonged its ‘cease-fire’. It has been blamed for this war by Egypt; and Arab states which are terrified of Islamism in general and Iran in particular are privately rooting for Israel to wipe Hamas out. Even the Israeli left is supporting this operation. The only people taking the side of the genocidal terrorists of Hamas are the western media, parroting their propaganda and thus inciting yet more to join the murderous rampage against Israel as well as ratcheting up the pressure on world leaders to force Israel to stop before Hamas is destroyed.
Isn’t there a case for legal action against these media outlets on account of their blood libels, for indirectly aiding the perpetrators of attempted genocide
i know political and legal stuff is boring and i know that i'm the minority, i also know that no one will read this and change their mind about anything because the world hates jews and wants israel wiped off the planet but i'm gonna post it anyway, not to change your mind but just to prove to myself that i tried to educate people as to the other side of the usual media crazed left wing hatred for us. this is an article i found online.
Did Israel Use "Disproportionate Force" in Gaza?
By Dore Gold
Israeli population centers in southern Israel have been the target of over 4,000 rockets, as well as thousands of mortar shells, fired by Hamas and other organizations since 2001. Rocket attacks increased by 500 percent after Israel withdrew completely from the Gaza Strip in August 2005. During an informal six-month lull, some 215 rockets were launched at Israel.
The charge that Israel uses disproportionate force keeps resurfacing whenever it has to defend its citizens from non-state terrorist organizations and the rocket attacks they perpetrate. From a purely legal perspective, Israel's current military actions in Gaza are on solid ground. According to international law, Israel is not required to calibrate its use of force precisely according to the size and range of the weaponry used against it.
Ibrahim Barzak and Amy Teibel wrote for the Associated Press on December 28 that most of the 230 Palestinians who were reportedly killed were "security forces," and Palestinian officials said "at least 15 civilians were among the dead." The numbers reported indicate that there was no clear intent to inflict disproportionate collateral civilian casualties. What is critical from the standpoint of international law is that if the attempt has been made "to minimize civilian damage, then even a strike that causes large amounts of damage - but is directed at a target with very large military value - would be lawful."
Luis Moreno-Orampo, the Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, explained that international humanitarian law and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court "permit belligerents to carry out proportionate attacks against military objectives, even when it is known that some civilian deaths or injuries will occur." The attack becomes a war crime when it is directed against civilians (which is precisely what Hamas does).
After 9/11, when the Western alliance united to collectively topple the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, no one compared Afghan casualties in 2001 to the actual numbers that died from al-Qaeda's attack. There clearly is no international expectation that military losses in war should be on a one-to-one basis. To expect Israel to hold back in its use of decisive force against legitimate military targets in Gaza is to condemn it to a long war of attrition with Hamas.
Israel is currently benefiting from a limited degree of understanding in international diplomatic and media circles for launching a major military operation against Hamas on December 27. Yet there are significant international voices that are prepared to argue that Israel is using disproportionate force in its struggle against Hamas.
Israeli Population Centers Under Rocket Attack
There are good reasons why initial criticism of Israel has been muted. After all, Israeli population centers in southern Israel have been the target of over 4,000 rockets, as well as thousands of mortar shells, fired by Hamas and other organizations since 2001.1 The majority of those attacks were launched after Israel withdrew completely from the Gaza Strip in August 2005. Indeed, rocket attacks increased by 500 percent (from 179 to 946) from 2005 to 2006.
Moreover, lately Hamas has been extending the range of its striking capability even further with new rockets supplied by Iran. Hamas used a 20.4-kilometer-range Grad/Katyusha for the first time on March 28, 2006, bringing the Israeli city of Ashkelon into range of its rockets for the first time. That change increased the number of Israelis under threat from 200,000 to half a million.2 Moreover, on December 21, 2008, Yuval Diskin, Head of the Israel Security Agency, informed the Israeli government that Hamas had acquired rockets that could reach Ashdod, Kiryat Gat, and even the outskirts of Beersheba.3 The first Grad/Katyusha strike on Ashdod, in fact, took place on December 28. There had been no formal cease-fire between Israel and Hamas, but only an informal six-month tahadiya (lull), during which 215 rockets were launched at Israel.4 On December 21, Hamas unilaterally announced that the tahadiya had ended.
Critical Voices
On December 27, 2008, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's spokesmen issued a statement saying that while the Secretary-General recognized "Israel's security concerns regarding the continued firing of rockets from Gaza," he reiterated "Israel's obligation to uphold international humanitarian and human rights law." The statement specifically noted that he "condemns excessive use of force leading to the killing and injuring of civilians [emphasis added]."5
A day later, Navi Pillay, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights "strongly condemned Israel's disproportionate use of force." French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who holds the rotating presidency of the European Union, also condemned Israel's "disproportionate use of force," while demanding an end to rocket attacks on Israel.6 Brazil also joined this chorus, criticizing Israel's "disproportionate response."7 Undoubtedly, a powerful impression has been created by large Western newspaper headlines that describe massive Israeli airstrikes in Gaza, without any up-front explanation for their cause.
Proportionality and International Law: The Protection of Innocent Civilians
The charge that Israel uses disproportionate force keeps resurfacing whenever it has to defend its citizens from non-state terrorist organizations and the rocket attacks they perpetrate. From a purely legal perspective, Israel's current military actions in Gaza are on solid ground. According to international law, Israel is not required to calibrate its use of force precisely according to the size and range of the weaponry used against it (Israel is not expected to make Kassam rockets and lob them back into Gaza).
When international legal experts use the term "disproportionate use of force," they have a very precise meaning in mind. As the President of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague, Rosalyn Higgins, has noted, proportionality "cannot be in relation to any specific prior injury - it has to be in relation to the overall legitimate objective of ending the aggression."8 In other words, if a state, like Israel, is facing aggression, then proportionality addresses whether force was specifically used by Israel to bring an end to the armed attack against it. By implication, force becomes excessive if it is employed for another purpose, like causing unnecessary harm to civilians. The pivotal factor determining whether force is excessive is the intent of the military commander. In particular, one has to assess what was the commander's intent regarding collateral civilian damage.9
What about reports concerning civilian casualties? Some international news agencies have stressed that the vast majority of those killed in the first phase of the current Gaza operation were Hamas operatives. Ibrahim Barzak and Amy Teibel wrote for the Associated Press on December 28 that most of the 230 Palestinians who were reportedly killed were "security forces," and Palestinian officials said "at least 15 civilians were among the dead."10 It is far too early to definitely assess Palestinian casualties, but even if they increase, the numbers reported indicate that there was no clear intent to inflict disproportionate collateral civilian casualties.
During the Second Lebanon War, Professor Michael Newton of Vanderbilt University was in email communication with William Safire of the New York Times about the issue of proportionality and international law. Newton had been quoted by the Council on Foreign Relations as explaining proportionality by proposing a test: "If someone punches you in the nose, you don't burn down their house." He was serving as an international criminal law expert in Baghdad and sought to correct the impression given by his quote. According to Newton, no responsible military commander intentionally targets civilians, and he accepted that this was Israeli practice.
What was critical from the standpoint of international law was that if the attempt had been made "to minimize civilian damage, then even a strike that causes large amounts of damage - but is directed at a target with very large military value - would be lawful."11 Numbers matter less than the purpose of the use of force. Israel has argued that it is specifically targeting facilities serving the Hamas regime and its determined effort to continue its rocket assault on Israel: headquarters, training bases, weapons depots, command and control networks, and weapons-smuggling tunnels. This way Israel is respecting the international legal concept of proportionality.
Alternatively, disproportionality would occur if the military sought to attack even if the value of a target selected was minimal in comparison with the enormous risk of civilian collateral damage. This point was made by Luis Moreno-Orampo, the Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, on February 9, 2006, in analyzing the Iraq War. He explained that international humanitarian law and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court "permit belligerents to carry out proportionate attacks [emphasis added] against military objectives, even when it is known that some civilian deaths or injuries will occur." The attack becomes a war crime when it is directed against civilians (which is precisely what Hamas does) or when "the incidental civilian injuries would be clearly excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage."12 In fact, Israeli legal experts right up the chain of command within the IDF make this calculation before all military operations of this sort.
Proportionality as a Strategic Issue
Moving beyond the question of international law, the charge that Israel is using a disproportionate amount of force in the Gaza Strip because of reports of Palestinian casualties has to be looked at critically. Israelis have often said among themselves over the last seven years that when a Hamas rocket makes a direct strike on a crowded school, killing many children, then Israel will finally act.
This scenario raises the question of whether the doctrine of proportionality requires that Israel wait for this horror to occur, or whether Israel could act on the basis of the destructive capability of the arsenal Hamas already possesses, the hostile declarations of intent of its leaders, and its readiness to use its rocket forces already. Alan Dershowitz noted two years ago: "Proportion must be defined by reference to the threat proposed by an enemy and not by the harm it has produced." Waiting for a Hamas rocket to fall on an Israeli school, he rightly notes, would put Israel in the position of allowing "its enemies to play Russian Roulette with its children."13
The fundamental fact is that in fighting terrorism, no state is willing to play Russian Roulette. After the U.S. was attacked on 9/11, the Western alliance united to collectively topple the Taliban regime in Afghanistan; no one compared Afghan casualties in 2001 to the actual numbers that died from al-Qaeda's attack. Given that al-Qaeda was seeking non-conventional capabilities, it was essential to wage a campaign to deny it the sanctuary it had enjoyed in Afghanistan, even though that struggle continues right up to the present.
Is There Proportionality Against Military Forces?
And in fighting counterinsurgency wars, most armies seek to achieve military victory by defeating the military capacity of an adversary, as efficiently as possible. There clearly is no international expectation that military losses in war should be on a one-to-one basis; most armies seek to decisively eliminate as many enemy forces as possible while minimizing their own losses of troops. There are NATO members who have been critical of "Israel's disproportionate use of force," while NATO armies take pride in their "kill ratios" against the Taliban in Afghanistan. Moreover, decisive military action against an aggressor has another effect: it increases deterrence.14 To expect Israel to hold back in its use of decisive force against legitimate military targets in Gaza is to condemn it to a long war of attrition with Hamas.
The loss of any civilian lives is truly regrettable. Israel has cancelled many military operations because of its concern with civilian casualties. But should civilian losses occur despite the best efforts of Israel to avoid them, it is ultimately not Israel's responsibility. As political philosopher Michael Walzer noted in 2006: "When Palestinian militants launch rocket attacks from civilian areas, they are themselves responsible - and no one else is - for the civilian deaths caused by Israeli counterfire."15
International critics of Israel may be looking to craft balanced statements that spread the blame for the present conflict to both sides. But they would be better served if they did not engage in this artificial exercise, and clearly distinguish the side that is the aggressor in this conflict - Hamas - and the side that is trying to defeat the aggression - Israel.
Did Israel Use "Disproportionate Force" in Gaza?
By Dore Gold
Israeli population centers in southern Israel have been the target of over 4,000 rockets, as well as thousands of mortar shells, fired by Hamas and other organizations since 2001. Rocket attacks increased by 500 percent after Israel withdrew completely from the Gaza Strip in August 2005. During an informal six-month lull, some 215 rockets were launched at Israel.
The charge that Israel uses disproportionate force keeps resurfacing whenever it has to defend its citizens from non-state terrorist organizations and the rocket attacks they perpetrate. From a purely legal perspective, Israel's current military actions in Gaza are on solid ground. According to international law, Israel is not required to calibrate its use of force precisely according to the size and range of the weaponry used against it.
Ibrahim Barzak and Amy Teibel wrote for the Associated Press on December 28 that most of the 230 Palestinians who were reportedly killed were "security forces," and Palestinian officials said "at least 15 civilians were among the dead." The numbers reported indicate that there was no clear intent to inflict disproportionate collateral civilian casualties. What is critical from the standpoint of international law is that if the attempt has been made "to minimize civilian damage, then even a strike that causes large amounts of damage - but is directed at a target with very large military value - would be lawful."
Luis Moreno-Orampo, the Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, explained that international humanitarian law and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court "permit belligerents to carry out proportionate attacks against military objectives, even when it is known that some civilian deaths or injuries will occur." The attack becomes a war crime when it is directed against civilians (which is precisely what Hamas does).
After 9/11, when the Western alliance united to collectively topple the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, no one compared Afghan casualties in 2001 to the actual numbers that died from al-Qaeda's attack. There clearly is no international expectation that military losses in war should be on a one-to-one basis. To expect Israel to hold back in its use of decisive force against legitimate military targets in Gaza is to condemn it to a long war of attrition with Hamas.
Israel is currently benefiting from a limited degree of understanding in international diplomatic and media circles for launching a major military operation against Hamas on December 27. Yet there are significant international voices that are prepared to argue that Israel is using disproportionate force in its struggle against Hamas.
Israeli Population Centers Under Rocket Attack
There are good reasons why initial criticism of Israel has been muted. After all, Israeli population centers in southern Israel have been the target of over 4,000 rockets, as well as thousands of mortar shells, fired by Hamas and other organizations since 2001.1 The majority of those attacks were launched after Israel withdrew completely from the Gaza Strip in August 2005. Indeed, rocket attacks increased by 500 percent (from 179 to 946) from 2005 to 2006.
Moreover, lately Hamas has been extending the range of its striking capability even further with new rockets supplied by Iran. Hamas used a 20.4-kilometer-range Grad/Katyusha for the first time on March 28, 2006, bringing the Israeli city of Ashkelon into range of its rockets for the first time. That change increased the number of Israelis under threat from 200,000 to half a million.2 Moreover, on December 21, 2008, Yuval Diskin, Head of the Israel Security Agency, informed the Israeli government that Hamas had acquired rockets that could reach Ashdod, Kiryat Gat, and even the outskirts of Beersheba.3 The first Grad/Katyusha strike on Ashdod, in fact, took place on December 28. There had been no formal cease-fire between Israel and Hamas, but only an informal six-month tahadiya (lull), during which 215 rockets were launched at Israel.4 On December 21, Hamas unilaterally announced that the tahadiya had ended.
Critical Voices
On December 27, 2008, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's spokesmen issued a statement saying that while the Secretary-General recognized "Israel's security concerns regarding the continued firing of rockets from Gaza," he reiterated "Israel's obligation to uphold international humanitarian and human rights law." The statement specifically noted that he "condemns excessive use of force leading to the killing and injuring of civilians [emphasis added]."5
A day later, Navi Pillay, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights "strongly condemned Israel's disproportionate use of force." French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who holds the rotating presidency of the European Union, also condemned Israel's "disproportionate use of force," while demanding an end to rocket attacks on Israel.6 Brazil also joined this chorus, criticizing Israel's "disproportionate response."7 Undoubtedly, a powerful impression has been created by large Western newspaper headlines that describe massive Israeli airstrikes in Gaza, without any up-front explanation for their cause.
Proportionality and International Law: The Protection of Innocent Civilians
The charge that Israel uses disproportionate force keeps resurfacing whenever it has to defend its citizens from non-state terrorist organizations and the rocket attacks they perpetrate. From a purely legal perspective, Israel's current military actions in Gaza are on solid ground. According to international law, Israel is not required to calibrate its use of force precisely according to the size and range of the weaponry used against it (Israel is not expected to make Kassam rockets and lob them back into Gaza).
When international legal experts use the term "disproportionate use of force," they have a very precise meaning in mind. As the President of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague, Rosalyn Higgins, has noted, proportionality "cannot be in relation to any specific prior injury - it has to be in relation to the overall legitimate objective of ending the aggression."8 In other words, if a state, like Israel, is facing aggression, then proportionality addresses whether force was specifically used by Israel to bring an end to the armed attack against it. By implication, force becomes excessive if it is employed for another purpose, like causing unnecessary harm to civilians. The pivotal factor determining whether force is excessive is the intent of the military commander. In particular, one has to assess what was the commander's intent regarding collateral civilian damage.9
What about reports concerning civilian casualties? Some international news agencies have stressed that the vast majority of those killed in the first phase of the current Gaza operation were Hamas operatives. Ibrahim Barzak and Amy Teibel wrote for the Associated Press on December 28 that most of the 230 Palestinians who were reportedly killed were "security forces," and Palestinian officials said "at least 15 civilians were among the dead."10 It is far too early to definitely assess Palestinian casualties, but even if they increase, the numbers reported indicate that there was no clear intent to inflict disproportionate collateral civilian casualties.
During the Second Lebanon War, Professor Michael Newton of Vanderbilt University was in email communication with William Safire of the New York Times about the issue of proportionality and international law. Newton had been quoted by the Council on Foreign Relations as explaining proportionality by proposing a test: "If someone punches you in the nose, you don't burn down their house." He was serving as an international criminal law expert in Baghdad and sought to correct the impression given by his quote. According to Newton, no responsible military commander intentionally targets civilians, and he accepted that this was Israeli practice.
What was critical from the standpoint of international law was that if the attempt had been made "to minimize civilian damage, then even a strike that causes large amounts of damage - but is directed at a target with very large military value - would be lawful."11 Numbers matter less than the purpose of the use of force. Israel has argued that it is specifically targeting facilities serving the Hamas regime and its determined effort to continue its rocket assault on Israel: headquarters, training bases, weapons depots, command and control networks, and weapons-smuggling tunnels. This way Israel is respecting the international legal concept of proportionality.
Alternatively, disproportionality would occur if the military sought to attack even if the value of a target selected was minimal in comparison with the enormous risk of civilian collateral damage. This point was made by Luis Moreno-Orampo, the Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, on February 9, 2006, in analyzing the Iraq War. He explained that international humanitarian law and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court "permit belligerents to carry out proportionate attacks [emphasis added] against military objectives, even when it is known that some civilian deaths or injuries will occur." The attack becomes a war crime when it is directed against civilians (which is precisely what Hamas does) or when "the incidental civilian injuries would be clearly excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage."12 In fact, Israeli legal experts right up the chain of command within the IDF make this calculation before all military operations of this sort.
Proportionality as a Strategic Issue
Moving beyond the question of international law, the charge that Israel is using a disproportionate amount of force in the Gaza Strip because of reports of Palestinian casualties has to be looked at critically. Israelis have often said among themselves over the last seven years that when a Hamas rocket makes a direct strike on a crowded school, killing many children, then Israel will finally act.
This scenario raises the question of whether the doctrine of proportionality requires that Israel wait for this horror to occur, or whether Israel could act on the basis of the destructive capability of the arsenal Hamas already possesses, the hostile declarations of intent of its leaders, and its readiness to use its rocket forces already. Alan Dershowitz noted two years ago: "Proportion must be defined by reference to the threat proposed by an enemy and not by the harm it has produced." Waiting for a Hamas rocket to fall on an Israeli school, he rightly notes, would put Israel in the position of allowing "its enemies to play Russian Roulette with its children."13
The fundamental fact is that in fighting terrorism, no state is willing to play Russian Roulette. After the U.S. was attacked on 9/11, the Western alliance united to collectively topple the Taliban regime in Afghanistan; no one compared Afghan casualties in 2001 to the actual numbers that died from al-Qaeda's attack. Given that al-Qaeda was seeking non-conventional capabilities, it was essential to wage a campaign to deny it the sanctuary it had enjoyed in Afghanistan, even though that struggle continues right up to the present.
Is There Proportionality Against Military Forces?
And in fighting counterinsurgency wars, most armies seek to achieve military victory by defeating the military capacity of an adversary, as efficiently as possible. There clearly is no international expectation that military losses in war should be on a one-to-one basis; most armies seek to decisively eliminate as many enemy forces as possible while minimizing their own losses of troops. There are NATO members who have been critical of "Israel's disproportionate use of force," while NATO armies take pride in their "kill ratios" against the Taliban in Afghanistan. Moreover, decisive military action against an aggressor has another effect: it increases deterrence.14 To expect Israel to hold back in its use of decisive force against legitimate military targets in Gaza is to condemn it to a long war of attrition with Hamas.
The loss of any civilian lives is truly regrettable. Israel has cancelled many military operations because of its concern with civilian casualties. But should civilian losses occur despite the best efforts of Israel to avoid them, it is ultimately not Israel's responsibility. As political philosopher Michael Walzer noted in 2006: "When Palestinian militants launch rocket attacks from civilian areas, they are themselves responsible - and no one else is - for the civilian deaths caused by Israeli counterfire."15
International critics of Israel may be looking to craft balanced statements that spread the blame for the present conflict to both sides. But they would be better served if they did not engage in this artificial exercise, and clearly distinguish the side that is the aggressor in this conflict - Hamas - and the side that is trying to defeat the aggression - Israel.
Sunday, December 28, 2008
good grief. i'm older and none the wiser. for a moment there i thought i was but i was deluding myself. this of course effects my entry into the blog as i have nothing really of any significance to say. i spent the day with my little autistic friend. he phases out quite a lot, just starts waving his arms like a humming bird and his head fixates on something above him. he is obviously very happy when he does this and it's usually cued by some trigger like the knowledge of an ice cream or cake. people have spent years trying to understand this gesture but i have a feeling he's in an ecstatic state when he is doing this. he quite literally leaves his body. travels down the astral highways and it takes a while for him to return. i usually bring him back by joining in. im not sure if this is right or wrong but if i didn't intervene the hours would fly by and the day would pass. anyways i love it when he goes into that state, it makes me feel ecstatic myself.
Wednesday, December 24, 2008
painkiller gig
music transmuted down to it's raw purest form, as an energy. an energy with the power to assist travel into different realms. an energy with the power to do what rock and roll is designed to do, move you. with music and words steve and the band took a small but privileged few on a journey into a place where the transcendental meets the cosmos. all you have to do is surrender and follow the flow. amazing sounds astounding music.
Monday, December 22, 2008
travel over the harbour bridge or was it the under the tunnel, either way i;m heading south, to bondi where my firstly i pop in on the wonderful wizard of oz who greets me and the sun with yoga poses and a smile. he wears a hat and a priest = aura t shirt and it feels really good to see him. i hand over some interdimensional plant life and my two faveroute movies 'smoke' the brilliant story of a strange bunch of charachters who inhabit a cigar shop in broklyn. and the other is the poetic beauty of my fave film 'dead man' we eat stolen pears and talk about strange things from the future, stuff i don't want to hear but already know, then it's of to my brothers, we wander through the markets, i buy him a book on girls, and then we go for a swim at the famous bondi beach, water warm, crowded and filled with seaweed.
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
i often imagine my expansive vision of the universe in a similar way to that last shot in that silly men in black movie. there's two dimensions that i have to think about at first, the microscopic and macroscopic, so for example i start on the end of my nose, or my 3rd eye. taking the macroscopic imagine a camera focused on the end of my nose pulling back, as if getting further away, the nose becoming part of a face, the face recognisably me, the me in an environment, the environment being a garden, the me in the garden sitting in a street, the st in a suburb the suburb a county the county a state the state a country the country a continent, etc until we are out past the further reaches of the galaxy, ultimate black or white. then using the same process i imagine the end of my nose but the camera zooms into the microscopic, until we travel along the same kind of white or blackness we perceived in the macroscopic. okay now that's a weird thing to do, but i'm sure it's something that crosses people's minds once in a lifetime.
now what separates the weird from the eccentric is to imagine the process with the other dimensions, so start by using length, breath and then depth but now apply time, so the same process is happening along the time lines, then the other dimensions, the one's i cannot express without resorting to pure maths (to be honest i can hardly conceive them really but for the sake of this post lets say i can), there's an infinite amount of probability's and possibilities including the one we create. now when you look at all these dimensions as one, do you see god?
or does god see you?
i seem to be good at manifesting reality to suit me but it's a power that i think once learnt is best to put aside and just enjoy the simple things. the ego less need to desire or create. the need just to be. even gods have their days off. i imagine the gods at play, and what they choose to make is our existence. and we underneath it all are the gods at play. while i want to play with art and design and live like the characters from the legends at the end of time, everyone else wants to play war games or build financial structures . we need to play more people, we need to just let it all go and relax.
relax
now what separates the weird from the eccentric is to imagine the process with the other dimensions, so start by using length, breath and then depth but now apply time, so the same process is happening along the time lines, then the other dimensions, the one's i cannot express without resorting to pure maths (to be honest i can hardly conceive them really but for the sake of this post lets say i can), there's an infinite amount of probability's and possibilities including the one we create. now when you look at all these dimensions as one, do you see god?
or does god see you?
i seem to be good at manifesting reality to suit me but it's a power that i think once learnt is best to put aside and just enjoy the simple things. the ego less need to desire or create. the need just to be. even gods have their days off. i imagine the gods at play, and what they choose to make is our existence. and we underneath it all are the gods at play. while i want to play with art and design and live like the characters from the legends at the end of time, everyone else wants to play war games or build financial structures . we need to play more people, we need to just let it all go and relax.
relax
my autistic friend loves kylie, his mother whom i have known for 7 years bought me tickets to take him along to see the concert. i took with me timothy leary's 'the psychedelic experience' a book i read when i was in my early teens, i figured i'd read a few pages while kylie did her stuff. on the way we stopped at mcdonalds in ryde. pretty obscure for a vegetarian, and anti mcdonalds man like myself but i figured that i should let my friend make his own choices and mcdonalds has been programmed into all institutionalized people at an early age, besides it's his big night. so im waiting for him to eat his burger when some one yells out my name, it's my son jakob who is also a vegetarian. he has stopped with his three girlfriends on the way to see kylie as well. so we all sit together and then depart. at the dome by pure fate and chance i see jake and his friends are sitting in the row in front, i'm sitting in the wheelchair section.
kylie comes onstage and puts on a show. it's bright and energetic, dancing singing and i find myself actually enjoying it. she preforms one of my fave songs, 'can't get you outta my head' which i believe to be the perfect pop song. it is after all everything a pop song should have plus the added advantage of once heard impossible to get out off your head. it's what i call a mind bomb.
i notice as the show progresses there's a high level of esoteric symbolic used, giant crystal skulls, oriental mysticism, some references to death and rebirth. in the interval i read a few pages of leary where these themes are mentioned and am reminded the 'the psychedelic experience' is his interpretation of the tibetan book of the dead.
kylie was entertaining. the maya in all it's glory.
'the psychedelic experience' is brilliant. i'm amazed at how far ahead of his time leary was. even now a formidable explorer, i see why he thought he was crowley reincarnated. he must have written 'the psychedelic experience' as part of his initiation in to the upper realms of magus. he has served humanity.
i'm watching the new version of battle star galactica on dvd, despite the fact i don't have a tv i am able to watch it on my computer. it's great, almost as good as deadwood. the themes this series covers are amazing, it's gritty, realistic and had brilliant characters and the whole show bears little resemblance to the original tv show. i guess like all things the test will be in it's conclusion but i have to say i'm enjoying the journey with this one.
kylie comes onstage and puts on a show. it's bright and energetic, dancing singing and i find myself actually enjoying it. she preforms one of my fave songs, 'can't get you outta my head' which i believe to be the perfect pop song. it is after all everything a pop song should have plus the added advantage of once heard impossible to get out off your head. it's what i call a mind bomb.
i notice as the show progresses there's a high level of esoteric symbolic used, giant crystal skulls, oriental mysticism, some references to death and rebirth. in the interval i read a few pages of leary where these themes are mentioned and am reminded the 'the psychedelic experience' is his interpretation of the tibetan book of the dead.
kylie was entertaining. the maya in all it's glory.
'the psychedelic experience' is brilliant. i'm amazed at how far ahead of his time leary was. even now a formidable explorer, i see why he thought he was crowley reincarnated. he must have written 'the psychedelic experience' as part of his initiation in to the upper realms of magus. he has served humanity.
i'm watching the new version of battle star galactica on dvd, despite the fact i don't have a tv i am able to watch it on my computer. it's great, almost as good as deadwood. the themes this series covers are amazing, it's gritty, realistic and had brilliant characters and the whole show bears little resemblance to the original tv show. i guess like all things the test will be in it's conclusion but i have to say i'm enjoying the journey with this one.
Tuesday, December 09, 2008
i noticed that the newspapers say that support for the rudd govt. is at an all time high after his stimulus plan (giving everyone $1000 to spend. the idea being that people would go out and buy stuff thus saving us all from recession) now im no expert but isn't this the same as buying votes.
rupert mudoch says in an address to a bunch of people australia has grown lazy and complacent and does not have the means to compete with the upcoming global economy. apparently he got paid a huge amount of cash to say that whereas i've been saying it for years while everyone runs around proclaiming idiots like andrew denton and david marr the greatest intellectuals australia has produced. there's absolutely nothing intellectual about them, they are champagne socialists who promote their dumb agendas without any bearing on truth or progressive thinking what so ever. the left is dead as is the right. any self respecting individual would acknowledge this. politics is an old mans game, it has nothing to do with reality.
the big thing australia needs to do is start getting environmental concerns prioritized. stop meat production, grow hemp, invest in alternative fuels and start turning industry green. australia is in a great position to lead the world in this area. it has to, no other country will do it. i read that the writer of the govts. environmental report, the whitewash that says we need to cut emissions by a few % is now saying unless we turn around now, and india and china are included in what he describes as, a new kyoto then we are all doomed. this is exactly what bush and howard said. i know it's unpopular but it's true. kevin dudd has led us all up a wrong path of false hope, disillusionment and abandonment. instead of smart leadership we get money to buy plasma tvs.
in the argument of climate change most people seem to think it's human beings fault, some will argue it's nature, some say it's god. i personally think it's just a natural process which is gods will, humanity is so egotistical it's really thinks it is of some significance here. the process is working and the earth is just waking up. it's the vast majority off us that are still sleeping in two dimensional reality. wake up! because before you know it you will have sold your soul to fight the new enemy which is just an old friend. nature.
rupert mudoch says in an address to a bunch of people australia has grown lazy and complacent and does not have the means to compete with the upcoming global economy. apparently he got paid a huge amount of cash to say that whereas i've been saying it for years while everyone runs around proclaiming idiots like andrew denton and david marr the greatest intellectuals australia has produced. there's absolutely nothing intellectual about them, they are champagne socialists who promote their dumb agendas without any bearing on truth or progressive thinking what so ever. the left is dead as is the right. any self respecting individual would acknowledge this. politics is an old mans game, it has nothing to do with reality.
the big thing australia needs to do is start getting environmental concerns prioritized. stop meat production, grow hemp, invest in alternative fuels and start turning industry green. australia is in a great position to lead the world in this area. it has to, no other country will do it. i read that the writer of the govts. environmental report, the whitewash that says we need to cut emissions by a few % is now saying unless we turn around now, and india and china are included in what he describes as, a new kyoto then we are all doomed. this is exactly what bush and howard said. i know it's unpopular but it's true. kevin dudd has led us all up a wrong path of false hope, disillusionment and abandonment. instead of smart leadership we get money to buy plasma tvs.
in the argument of climate change most people seem to think it's human beings fault, some will argue it's nature, some say it's god. i personally think it's just a natural process which is gods will, humanity is so egotistical it's really thinks it is of some significance here. the process is working and the earth is just waking up. it's the vast majority off us that are still sleeping in two dimensional reality. wake up! because before you know it you will have sold your soul to fight the new enemy which is just an old friend. nature.
Monday, December 08, 2008
unmarked cars were following me as i made my way cross town
my satellite jamming device was playing up, so i configured a stealth spell and watched the cars behind slow down in confusion. the rest of the road looked clear. instinct told me to keep the spell switched on and protect the car with an aural shield, i picked up my bowl and stuck it, then created the sound wave. perfect. now i was invisible to their technology.
i drove to kat's house and parked the car off road. her dog was laying in the sun under the porch. there was a big crow sitting on the post box, looking kinda strange and out of place. it's eye was gazing at me as i walked up the drive, could be a surveillance device, the new ones looked very realistic. i knocked on the door, the dog looked up at me and then went back to it's sleeping position.
there was no answer, i took a look around the back, pulling my gun out, ready for trouble. kat was passed out on her lounge, a bottle of half full whiskey lay beside her just outta her reach. there were magazines and newspapers in piles on the floor and a few worn and torn books.
i let myself in and made some coffee.
she wasn't happy to see me. i'd let her sleep for three hours then attempted to wake her up. she was gone man, in deep sleep. i tried turning the tv up, nudging her, pushing her on one side and then i slapped her face, hard. she opened one eye and said,
' do it again and i'll strangle you, chop you up and feed you to the dog.'
i knew her well enough to know she was not kidding.
'kat, i need help.'
'it'll cost you.'
i threw the wad of cash down on her lap.
'pour me some coffee.'
i explained to her i needed her to cast a spell for me, my magick was limited by technology, i needed non local magick, something kat specialized in. she nodded as i explained my predicament.
'on the run from a drug corparation and you come here, smart thinking,' she said.
'i have nowhere else to go kat. there's only so far you can run.'
'yes straight to the kat. now i'll need some blood. yours as a matter of fact,' she passed me a knife.
'shit.' i mumbled.
'i need something of theirs as well, anything really, preferably with their label or emblem on it.'
'i don't have anything like that. my girlfriend, make that ex girlfriend may have something. she works for the bastards.'
'do you have her photograph?'
'yeah.'
the blood mixed into the bowl where the photograph burned, blue flames danced and crimson dripped down into them. kat made several hand signals, a lesser banishing ritual, there were some weird words muttered, words that sounded alien and strange. kat held the bowl and its burning contents over her head and then turned it upside down, some ash floated to the floor and then there was a sound that ripped open the world, it was a huge vast sound drowning out all other senses, i watched in horror as the swarm shot out of the bowl, millions of flies, billions, a thick black cloud ejected from the bowl and created a huge cloud above us. kat waited until the bowl seemed empty, she gestured me to stay within the circle she had drawn around herself.
'Lord Accaron.'
the noise from the swarm was unbearable, but gradually i began to make out words amongst the din. 'I bind you to thee Lord Accaron, Baal, Beelzebub. I wear the ring of solomon and my will commands you to serve it's bidding, and then i set you free amongst your kin, Lucifer and Leviathan. In return you may have many souls.'
the swarm started to take a shape, three dimensional sculpture towered above us, a face not of this word. it suddenly moved out through the window and within a few seconds was gone, leaving no clue of it's presence whatsoever.
'what the fuck was that?'
'an old demon.' kat picked up the bowl and started to clean it with her shirt.
'where's it gone.'
'to wreak havoc, spread decease and kill your enemies.'
'well let's have a drink.' i reached for the bottle.
my satellite jamming device was playing up, so i configured a stealth spell and watched the cars behind slow down in confusion. the rest of the road looked clear. instinct told me to keep the spell switched on and protect the car with an aural shield, i picked up my bowl and stuck it, then created the sound wave. perfect. now i was invisible to their technology.
i drove to kat's house and parked the car off road. her dog was laying in the sun under the porch. there was a big crow sitting on the post box, looking kinda strange and out of place. it's eye was gazing at me as i walked up the drive, could be a surveillance device, the new ones looked very realistic. i knocked on the door, the dog looked up at me and then went back to it's sleeping position.
there was no answer, i took a look around the back, pulling my gun out, ready for trouble. kat was passed out on her lounge, a bottle of half full whiskey lay beside her just outta her reach. there were magazines and newspapers in piles on the floor and a few worn and torn books.
i let myself in and made some coffee.
she wasn't happy to see me. i'd let her sleep for three hours then attempted to wake her up. she was gone man, in deep sleep. i tried turning the tv up, nudging her, pushing her on one side and then i slapped her face, hard. she opened one eye and said,
' do it again and i'll strangle you, chop you up and feed you to the dog.'
i knew her well enough to know she was not kidding.
'kat, i need help.'
'it'll cost you.'
i threw the wad of cash down on her lap.
'pour me some coffee.'
i explained to her i needed her to cast a spell for me, my magick was limited by technology, i needed non local magick, something kat specialized in. she nodded as i explained my predicament.
'on the run from a drug corparation and you come here, smart thinking,' she said.
'i have nowhere else to go kat. there's only so far you can run.'
'yes straight to the kat. now i'll need some blood. yours as a matter of fact,' she passed me a knife.
'shit.' i mumbled.
'i need something of theirs as well, anything really, preferably with their label or emblem on it.'
'i don't have anything like that. my girlfriend, make that ex girlfriend may have something. she works for the bastards.'
'do you have her photograph?'
'yeah.'
the blood mixed into the bowl where the photograph burned, blue flames danced and crimson dripped down into them. kat made several hand signals, a lesser banishing ritual, there were some weird words muttered, words that sounded alien and strange. kat held the bowl and its burning contents over her head and then turned it upside down, some ash floated to the floor and then there was a sound that ripped open the world, it was a huge vast sound drowning out all other senses, i watched in horror as the swarm shot out of the bowl, millions of flies, billions, a thick black cloud ejected from the bowl and created a huge cloud above us. kat waited until the bowl seemed empty, she gestured me to stay within the circle she had drawn around herself.
'Lord Accaron.'
the noise from the swarm was unbearable, but gradually i began to make out words amongst the din. 'I bind you to thee Lord Accaron, Baal, Beelzebub. I wear the ring of solomon and my will commands you to serve it's bidding, and then i set you free amongst your kin, Lucifer and Leviathan. In return you may have many souls.'
the swarm started to take a shape, three dimensional sculpture towered above us, a face not of this word. it suddenly moved out through the window and within a few seconds was gone, leaving no clue of it's presence whatsoever.
'what the fuck was that?'
'an old demon.' kat picked up the bowl and started to clean it with her shirt.
'where's it gone.'
'to wreak havoc, spread decease and kill your enemies.'
'well let's have a drink.' i reached for the bottle.
Sunday, December 07, 2008
From New Scientist
THE quest to understand the most complex object in the known universe has been a long and fruitful one. These days we know a good deal about how the human brain works - how our senses translate into electrical signals, how different parts of the brain process these signals, how memories form and how muscles are controlled. We know which brain regions are active when we listen to speech, look at paintings or barter over money. We are even starting to understand the deeper neural processes behind learning and decision-making.
What we still don't have, though, is a way to bring all these pieces together to create an overarching theory of how the brain works. Despite decades of research, neuroscientists have never been able to produce their own equivalent of Schrödinger's equation in quantum mechanics or Einstein's E=mc2 - a powerful, concise, mathematical law that encapsulates how the brain works. Nor do they have a plausible road map towards a "theory of everything", like string theory in physics. Surely if we can get so close to explaining the universe, the human brain can't be that hard to crack?
Perhaps it is. The brain is much messier than a physical system. It is the product of half a billion years of evolution. It performs myriad functions - reasoning, memory, perception, learning, attention and emotion to name just a few - and uses a staggering number of different types of cells, connections and receptors. So it does not lend itself to being easily described by simple mathematical laws.
That hasn't stopped researchers in the growing field of computational neuroscience from trying. In recent years, they have sought to develop unifying ideas about how the brain processes information so that they can apply them to the design of intelligent machines.
Until now none of their ideas has been general or testable enough to arouse much excitement in straight neuroscience. But a group from University College London (UCL) may have broken the deadlock. Neuroscientist Karl Friston and his colleagues have proposed a mathematical law that some are claiming is the nearest thing yet to a grand unified theory of the brain. From this single law, Friston's group claims to be able to explain almost everything about our grey matter.
It's a controversial claim, but one that's starting to make people sit up and take notice. Friston's work has made Stanislas Dehaene, a noted neuroscientist and psychologist at the College of France in Paris, change his mind about whether a Schrödinger equation for the brain might exist. Like most neuroscientists, Dehaene had been pessimistic - but not any more. "It is the first time that we have had a theory of this strength, breadth and depth in cognitive neuroscience," he says.
1 million Number of new neuronal connections formed every second
(in instructions per second)
Friston's ideas build on an existing theory known as the "Bayesian brain", which conceptualises the brain as a probability machine that constantly makes predictions about the world and then updates them based on what it senses.
The idea was born in 1983, when Geoffrey Hinton of the University of Toronto in Canada and Terry Sejnowski, then at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland, suggested that the brain could be seen as a machine that makes decisions based on the uncertainties of the outside world. In the 1990s, other researchers proposed that the brain represents knowledge of the world in terms of probabilities. Instead of estimating the distance to an object as a number, for instance, the brain would treat it as a range of possible values, some more likely than others.
100 billion Estimated number of nerve cells in your brain
(in instructions per second)
A crucial element of the approach is that the probabilities are based on experience, but they change when relevant new information, such as visual information about the object's location, becomes available. "The brain is an inferential agent, optimising its models of what's going on at this moment and in the future," says Friston. In other words, the brain runs on Bayesian probability. Named after the 18th-century mathematician Thomas Bayes, this is a systematic way of calculating how the likelihood of an event changes as new information comes to light (see New Scientist, 10 May, p 44, for more on Bayesian theory).
Over the past decade, neuroscientists have found that real brains seem to work in this way. In perception and learning experiments, for example, people tend to make estimates - of the location or speed of a moving object, say - in a way that fits with Bayesian probability theory. There's also evidence that the brain makes internal predictions and updates them in a Bayesian manner. When you listen to someone talking, for example, your brain isn't simply receiving information, it also predicts what it expects to hear and constantly revises its predictions based on what information comes next. These predictions strongly influence what you actually hear, allowing you, for instance, to make sense of distorted or partially obscured speech.
In fact, making predictions and re-evaluating them seems to be a universal feature of the brain. At all times your brain is weighing its inputs and comparing them with internal predictions in order to make sense of the world. "It's a general computational principle that can explain how the brain handles problems ranging from low-level perception to high-level cognition," says Alex Pouget, a computational neuroscientist at the University of Rochester in New York (Trends in Neurosciences, vol 27, p 712).
However, the Bayesian brain is not quite a general law. It is a collection of related approaches that each use Bayesian probability theory to understand one aspect of brain function, such as parsing speech, recognising objects or learning words. No one has been able to pull all these disparate approaches together, nor explain why the brain works like this in the first place. An overarching law, if one exists, should attempt to do this.
This is where Friston's work comes in. In the 1990s he was working next door to Hinton at UCL. At that time Hinton was beginning to explore the concept of "free energy" as it applies to artificial neural networks. Free energy originates from thermodynamics and statistical mechanics, where it is defined as the amount of useful work that can be extracted from a system, such as a steam engine. It is roughly equivalent to the difference between the total energy in the system and its "useless energy", or entropy.
Hinton realised that free energy was mathematically equivalent to a problem he was familiar with: the difference between the predictions made by an artificial neural network and what it actually senses. He showed that you could solve some tough problems in machine learning by treating this "prediction error" as free energy, and then minimising it.
25 billion Processing capacity of a typical desktop computer
(in instructions per second)
Friston spent the next few years working out whether the same concept could underlie the workings of real brains. His insight was that the constant updating of the brain's probabilities could also be expressed in terms of minimising free energy. Around 2005 he proposed that a "free energy principle" explains at least one aspect of brain function - sensory perception.
As a simple example, take what happens when you glimpse an object in your peripheral vision. At first it is not clear what it is - or, as Friston would put it, there's a big error between your brain's prediction and what it senses. To reduce this prediction error, Friston reasoned that one of two things can happen: the brain can either change its prediction or change the way it gathers data from the environment (Journal of Physiology - Paris, vol 100, p 70). If your brain takes the second option you will instinctively turn your head and centre the object in your field of view. "It's about minimising surprise," he explains. "Mathematically, free energy is always bigger than surprise, therefore if you can minimise free energy you can avoid surprising encounters with the world."
Friston developed the free-energy principle to explain perception, but he now thinks it can be generalised to other kinds of brain processes as well. He claims that everything the brain does is designed to minimise free energy or prediction error (Synthese, vol 159, p 417). "In short, everything that can change in the brain will change to suppress prediction errors, from the firing of neurons to the wiring between them, and from the movements of our eyes to the choices we make in daily life," he says.
Take neural plasticity, the well-established idea that the brain alters its internal pathways and connections with experience. First proposed by Canadian psychologist Donald Hebb in the 1940s, it is thought to be the basic mechanism behind learning and memory.
Friston's principle accounts for the process by describing how individual neurons interact after encountering a novel stimulus. Neuron A "predicts" that neuron B will respond to the stimulus in a certain way. If the prediction is wrong, neuron A changes the strength of its connection to neuron B to decrease the prediction error. In this case the brain changes its internal predictions until it minimises its error, and learning or memory forming is the result.
All well and good in theory, but how can we know whether real brains actually work this way? To answer this question, Friston and others have focused on the cortex, the 3-millimetre-thick mass of convoluted folds that forms the brain's outer surface. This is the seat of "higher" functions such as cognition, learning, perception and language. It has a distinctive anatomy: a hierarchy of neuronal layers, each of which has connections to neurons in the other levels.
100 trillion Processing capacity of the human brain
(in instructions per second)
Friston created a computer simulation of the cortex with layers of "neurons" passing signals back and forth. Signals going from higher to lower levels represent the brain's internal predictions, while signals going the other way represent sensory input. As new information comes in, the higher neurons adjust their predictions according to Bayesian theory. This may seem awfully abstract, but there's a concrete reason for doing it: it tells Friston what patterns of activity to look for in real brains.
Last year Friston's group used functional magnetic resonance imaging to examine what is going on in the cortex during a visual task (NeuroImage, vol 34, p 1199). Volunteers watched two sets of moving dots, which sometimes moved in synchrony and at others more randomly, to change the predictability of the stimulus. The patterns of brain activity matched Friston's model of the visual cortex reasonably well. He argues that this supports the idea that top-down signals are indeed sent downstream to reduce prediction errors.
More recently, Friston's team has shown that signals from higher levels of the auditory cortex are responsible for modifying brain activity in lower levels as people listen to repeated and predictable sounds (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol 104, p 20961). This, too, fits with Friston's model of top-down minimisation of prediction error.
Despite these successes, some in the Bayesian brain camp aren't buying the grand theory just yet. They say it is hard to know whether Friston's results are ground-breaking or just repackaged old concepts - but they don't say he's wrong. Others say the free-energy principle is not falsifiable. "I do not think it is testable, and I am pretty sure it does not tell you how to build a machine which emulates some aspect of intelligence," says theoretical neuroscientist Tomaso Poggio of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Friston disagrees, pointing out that there are experiments that would definitively test whether or not a given population of neurons is minimising prediction error. He proposes knocking out a higher region of the cortex - using transcranial magnetic stimulation, say - and seeing whether free-energy models can predict how the activity of a lower region of neurons would change in response.
Several groups are planning experiments along these lines, but they need to work out exactly which neurons to target. "This would, I think, be an aspect of the theory that could be proved or falsified," says Thomas Wennekers, a computational neuroscientist at the University of Plymouth in the UK.
500 trillion Estimated number of synaptic connections in an adult brain
(in instructions per second)
Meanwhile, Friston claims that the free-energy principle also gives plausible explanations for other important features of the cortex. These include "adaptation" effects, in which neurons stop firing after prolonged exposure to a stimulus like a rattling fan, so after a while you don't hear it. It also explains other phenomena: patterns of mirror-neuron activation that reflect the brain's responses to watching someone else make a movement; basic communication patterns between neurons that might underlie how we think; and even the hierarchical anatomy of the cortex itself.
Friston's results have earned praise for bringing together so many disparate strands of neuroscience. "It is quite certainly the most advanced conceptual framework regarding an application of these ideas to brain function in general," says Wennekers. Marsel Mesulam, a cognitive neurologist from Northwestern University in Chicago, adds: "Friston's work is pivotal. It resonates entirely with the sort of model that I would like to see emerge."
So where will the search for a unified theory of the brain go from here? Friston's free-energy principle clearly isn't the ultimate theory yet it remains to be tested fully and needs to produce more predictions of how real brains behave. If all goes well, though, the outcome will be a concise mathematical law of brain function, perhaps something as brief and iconic as E=mc2. "The final equation you write on a T-shirt will be quite simple," Friston predicts.
On a more practical level, he says the approach will change our concepts of how the brain works and could help us understand the deeper mechanisms of psychological disorders, especially those thought to be caused by faulty connections in the cortex, such as schizophrenia. It could also shine a light on bigger questions such as the nature of human consciousness.
There's work still to be done, but for now Friston's is the most promising approach we've got. "It will take time to spin off all of the consequences of the theory - but I take that property as a sure sign that this is a very important theory," says Dehaene. "Most other models, including mine, are just models of one small aspect of the brain, very limited in their scope. This one falls much closer to a grand theory."
THE quest to understand the most complex object in the known universe has been a long and fruitful one. These days we know a good deal about how the human brain works - how our senses translate into electrical signals, how different parts of the brain process these signals, how memories form and how muscles are controlled. We know which brain regions are active when we listen to speech, look at paintings or barter over money. We are even starting to understand the deeper neural processes behind learning and decision-making.
What we still don't have, though, is a way to bring all these pieces together to create an overarching theory of how the brain works. Despite decades of research, neuroscientists have never been able to produce their own equivalent of Schrödinger's equation in quantum mechanics or Einstein's E=mc2 - a powerful, concise, mathematical law that encapsulates how the brain works. Nor do they have a plausible road map towards a "theory of everything", like string theory in physics. Surely if we can get so close to explaining the universe, the human brain can't be that hard to crack?
Perhaps it is. The brain is much messier than a physical system. It is the product of half a billion years of evolution. It performs myriad functions - reasoning, memory, perception, learning, attention and emotion to name just a few - and uses a staggering number of different types of cells, connections and receptors. So it does not lend itself to being easily described by simple mathematical laws.
That hasn't stopped researchers in the growing field of computational neuroscience from trying. In recent years, they have sought to develop unifying ideas about how the brain processes information so that they can apply them to the design of intelligent machines.
Until now none of their ideas has been general or testable enough to arouse much excitement in straight neuroscience. But a group from University College London (UCL) may have broken the deadlock. Neuroscientist Karl Friston and his colleagues have proposed a mathematical law that some are claiming is the nearest thing yet to a grand unified theory of the brain. From this single law, Friston's group claims to be able to explain almost everything about our grey matter.
It's a controversial claim, but one that's starting to make people sit up and take notice. Friston's work has made Stanislas Dehaene, a noted neuroscientist and psychologist at the College of France in Paris, change his mind about whether a Schrödinger equation for the brain might exist. Like most neuroscientists, Dehaene had been pessimistic - but not any more. "It is the first time that we have had a theory of this strength, breadth and depth in cognitive neuroscience," he says.
1 million Number of new neuronal connections formed every second
(in instructions per second)
Friston's ideas build on an existing theory known as the "Bayesian brain", which conceptualises the brain as a probability machine that constantly makes predictions about the world and then updates them based on what it senses.
The idea was born in 1983, when Geoffrey Hinton of the University of Toronto in Canada and Terry Sejnowski, then at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland, suggested that the brain could be seen as a machine that makes decisions based on the uncertainties of the outside world. In the 1990s, other researchers proposed that the brain represents knowledge of the world in terms of probabilities. Instead of estimating the distance to an object as a number, for instance, the brain would treat it as a range of possible values, some more likely than others.
100 billion Estimated number of nerve cells in your brain
(in instructions per second)
A crucial element of the approach is that the probabilities are based on experience, but they change when relevant new information, such as visual information about the object's location, becomes available. "The brain is an inferential agent, optimising its models of what's going on at this moment and in the future," says Friston. In other words, the brain runs on Bayesian probability. Named after the 18th-century mathematician Thomas Bayes, this is a systematic way of calculating how the likelihood of an event changes as new information comes to light (see New Scientist, 10 May, p 44, for more on Bayesian theory).
Over the past decade, neuroscientists have found that real brains seem to work in this way. In perception and learning experiments, for example, people tend to make estimates - of the location or speed of a moving object, say - in a way that fits with Bayesian probability theory. There's also evidence that the brain makes internal predictions and updates them in a Bayesian manner. When you listen to someone talking, for example, your brain isn't simply receiving information, it also predicts what it expects to hear and constantly revises its predictions based on what information comes next. These predictions strongly influence what you actually hear, allowing you, for instance, to make sense of distorted or partially obscured speech.
In fact, making predictions and re-evaluating them seems to be a universal feature of the brain. At all times your brain is weighing its inputs and comparing them with internal predictions in order to make sense of the world. "It's a general computational principle that can explain how the brain handles problems ranging from low-level perception to high-level cognition," says Alex Pouget, a computational neuroscientist at the University of Rochester in New York (Trends in Neurosciences, vol 27, p 712).
However, the Bayesian brain is not quite a general law. It is a collection of related approaches that each use Bayesian probability theory to understand one aspect of brain function, such as parsing speech, recognising objects or learning words. No one has been able to pull all these disparate approaches together, nor explain why the brain works like this in the first place. An overarching law, if one exists, should attempt to do this.
This is where Friston's work comes in. In the 1990s he was working next door to Hinton at UCL. At that time Hinton was beginning to explore the concept of "free energy" as it applies to artificial neural networks. Free energy originates from thermodynamics and statistical mechanics, where it is defined as the amount of useful work that can be extracted from a system, such as a steam engine. It is roughly equivalent to the difference between the total energy in the system and its "useless energy", or entropy.
Hinton realised that free energy was mathematically equivalent to a problem he was familiar with: the difference between the predictions made by an artificial neural network and what it actually senses. He showed that you could solve some tough problems in machine learning by treating this "prediction error" as free energy, and then minimising it.
25 billion Processing capacity of a typical desktop computer
(in instructions per second)
Friston spent the next few years working out whether the same concept could underlie the workings of real brains. His insight was that the constant updating of the brain's probabilities could also be expressed in terms of minimising free energy. Around 2005 he proposed that a "free energy principle" explains at least one aspect of brain function - sensory perception.
As a simple example, take what happens when you glimpse an object in your peripheral vision. At first it is not clear what it is - or, as Friston would put it, there's a big error between your brain's prediction and what it senses. To reduce this prediction error, Friston reasoned that one of two things can happen: the brain can either change its prediction or change the way it gathers data from the environment (Journal of Physiology - Paris, vol 100, p 70). If your brain takes the second option you will instinctively turn your head and centre the object in your field of view. "It's about minimising surprise," he explains. "Mathematically, free energy is always bigger than surprise, therefore if you can minimise free energy you can avoid surprising encounters with the world."
Friston developed the free-energy principle to explain perception, but he now thinks it can be generalised to other kinds of brain processes as well. He claims that everything the brain does is designed to minimise free energy or prediction error (Synthese, vol 159, p 417). "In short, everything that can change in the brain will change to suppress prediction errors, from the firing of neurons to the wiring between them, and from the movements of our eyes to the choices we make in daily life," he says.
Take neural plasticity, the well-established idea that the brain alters its internal pathways and connections with experience. First proposed by Canadian psychologist Donald Hebb in the 1940s, it is thought to be the basic mechanism behind learning and memory.
Friston's principle accounts for the process by describing how individual neurons interact after encountering a novel stimulus. Neuron A "predicts" that neuron B will respond to the stimulus in a certain way. If the prediction is wrong, neuron A changes the strength of its connection to neuron B to decrease the prediction error. In this case the brain changes its internal predictions until it minimises its error, and learning or memory forming is the result.
All well and good in theory, but how can we know whether real brains actually work this way? To answer this question, Friston and others have focused on the cortex, the 3-millimetre-thick mass of convoluted folds that forms the brain's outer surface. This is the seat of "higher" functions such as cognition, learning, perception and language. It has a distinctive anatomy: a hierarchy of neuronal layers, each of which has connections to neurons in the other levels.
100 trillion Processing capacity of the human brain
(in instructions per second)
Friston created a computer simulation of the cortex with layers of "neurons" passing signals back and forth. Signals going from higher to lower levels represent the brain's internal predictions, while signals going the other way represent sensory input. As new information comes in, the higher neurons adjust their predictions according to Bayesian theory. This may seem awfully abstract, but there's a concrete reason for doing it: it tells Friston what patterns of activity to look for in real brains.
Last year Friston's group used functional magnetic resonance imaging to examine what is going on in the cortex during a visual task (NeuroImage, vol 34, p 1199). Volunteers watched two sets of moving dots, which sometimes moved in synchrony and at others more randomly, to change the predictability of the stimulus. The patterns of brain activity matched Friston's model of the visual cortex reasonably well. He argues that this supports the idea that top-down signals are indeed sent downstream to reduce prediction errors.
More recently, Friston's team has shown that signals from higher levels of the auditory cortex are responsible for modifying brain activity in lower levels as people listen to repeated and predictable sounds (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol 104, p 20961). This, too, fits with Friston's model of top-down minimisation of prediction error.
Despite these successes, some in the Bayesian brain camp aren't buying the grand theory just yet. They say it is hard to know whether Friston's results are ground-breaking or just repackaged old concepts - but they don't say he's wrong. Others say the free-energy principle is not falsifiable. "I do not think it is testable, and I am pretty sure it does not tell you how to build a machine which emulates some aspect of intelligence," says theoretical neuroscientist Tomaso Poggio of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Friston disagrees, pointing out that there are experiments that would definitively test whether or not a given population of neurons is minimising prediction error. He proposes knocking out a higher region of the cortex - using transcranial magnetic stimulation, say - and seeing whether free-energy models can predict how the activity of a lower region of neurons would change in response.
Several groups are planning experiments along these lines, but they need to work out exactly which neurons to target. "This would, I think, be an aspect of the theory that could be proved or falsified," says Thomas Wennekers, a computational neuroscientist at the University of Plymouth in the UK.
500 trillion Estimated number of synaptic connections in an adult brain
(in instructions per second)
Meanwhile, Friston claims that the free-energy principle also gives plausible explanations for other important features of the cortex. These include "adaptation" effects, in which neurons stop firing after prolonged exposure to a stimulus like a rattling fan, so after a while you don't hear it. It also explains other phenomena: patterns of mirror-neuron activation that reflect the brain's responses to watching someone else make a movement; basic communication patterns between neurons that might underlie how we think; and even the hierarchical anatomy of the cortex itself.
Friston's results have earned praise for bringing together so many disparate strands of neuroscience. "It is quite certainly the most advanced conceptual framework regarding an application of these ideas to brain function in general," says Wennekers. Marsel Mesulam, a cognitive neurologist from Northwestern University in Chicago, adds: "Friston's work is pivotal. It resonates entirely with the sort of model that I would like to see emerge."
So where will the search for a unified theory of the brain go from here? Friston's free-energy principle clearly isn't the ultimate theory yet it remains to be tested fully and needs to produce more predictions of how real brains behave. If all goes well, though, the outcome will be a concise mathematical law of brain function, perhaps something as brief and iconic as E=mc2. "The final equation you write on a T-shirt will be quite simple," Friston predicts.
On a more practical level, he says the approach will change our concepts of how the brain works and could help us understand the deeper mechanisms of psychological disorders, especially those thought to be caused by faulty connections in the cortex, such as schizophrenia. It could also shine a light on bigger questions such as the nature of human consciousness.
There's work still to be done, but for now Friston's is the most promising approach we've got. "It will take time to spin off all of the consequences of the theory - but I take that property as a sure sign that this is a very important theory," says Dehaene. "Most other models, including mine, are just models of one small aspect of the brain, very limited in their scope. This one falls much closer to a grand theory."
Saturday, December 06, 2008
two friend’s of mine were watching tv together, i happened to be sitting between them enjoying their company i guess. one of them flicked the channel to the news where we saw the middle off a report from an item talking about some attacks in israel. there were no details just that some palestinians had been killed, to which one of my friends said, ‘fucking jews. you would have thought the holocaust didn’t happen.’
i’ve heard this comment several times, in several different environments and it no longer hurts me or offends me, i mean i can’t expect everyone to share my perspectives. however what i find somewhat strange is their reactions when i make one of two comments.
comment one – yes it was much better for everyone when they didn’t fight back or defend themselves.
comment two – i guess if israel gives back the land to the arabs, australia can give back the land to the aboriginals etc.
silence.
last night i tried to explain that israel had given land back captured in wars it never started, for some kind of peace deal but in return were never given the security they traded it for. i also tried to explain that israel existed because the united nations created it but right now in europe, jews are targeted as much now as during the build up to the second world war and many of them escape to israel to get away from being harassed. like my parents who decided that the level of anti semitism in england had reached such a high level it had become unsafe. apparently france is even worse. it’s not something you would hear about in the media because its not good copy, but the facts are out there. jewish people all over the world are going to israel because of peoples attitudes towards them. just like any tribe they want to survive, if it means defending themselves then they should and critisism is very easy from the safe comfort of the northern beaches of sydney where the levels of danger my friends are subjected to are a double dose of caffine in their lattes and maybe the occasional comment in a blog.
so here i am sitting between two people who are my racist friends.
i’ve heard this comment several times, in several different environments and it no longer hurts me or offends me, i mean i can’t expect everyone to share my perspectives. however what i find somewhat strange is their reactions when i make one of two comments.
comment one – yes it was much better for everyone when they didn’t fight back or defend themselves.
comment two – i guess if israel gives back the land to the arabs, australia can give back the land to the aboriginals etc.
silence.
last night i tried to explain that israel had given land back captured in wars it never started, for some kind of peace deal but in return were never given the security they traded it for. i also tried to explain that israel existed because the united nations created it but right now in europe, jews are targeted as much now as during the build up to the second world war and many of them escape to israel to get away from being harassed. like my parents who decided that the level of anti semitism in england had reached such a high level it had become unsafe. apparently france is even worse. it’s not something you would hear about in the media because its not good copy, but the facts are out there. jewish people all over the world are going to israel because of peoples attitudes towards them. just like any tribe they want to survive, if it means defending themselves then they should and critisism is very easy from the safe comfort of the northern beaches of sydney where the levels of danger my friends are subjected to are a double dose of caffine in their lattes and maybe the occasional comment in a blog.
so here i am sitting between two people who are my racist friends.
Thursday, December 04, 2008
mecalito is good to me, he cruises through my thoughts at the right speed, my brain fills with his presence and warmth, i'm sorry man i say, i'm a fucked up piece of work at the moment, my lifes a fucking weird mess of fines and crap that don't mean anything anymore, how does that happen? one day a whole heap of shit means something the next it means less. i don't know, time i guess and perspective. im somewhat irresponsible about the details, i don't get it, i live righteous, pay my way, do the right thing and all the way there's the man, ripping me off taking his cut while fucking me over, it's not my society anymore, it's not my fucking world. i didn't ever want resources to run out, i recall running around skool telling everyone, the earth needs us to look after it not rape it, and get this, my teachers taunted me and humiliated me.
ahead of my time, always. behind enemy lines, always, that's me a freakazoid with a good heart and a sense of humour, the worst kind. the man hates me. yet ironically he pays my wage.
so i drunk me some mescal and it's awful, i gotta say, i wanted to vomit but i held on, and then i lay down. i could feel the world dissipate as i closed me eyes, the oblivion that came was beautiful, warm and protective, caring and healthy, i felt loved and healed so that i can love and heal. i see know that is the true state to be in, healing. fucking imagine if the world just went into healing mode, everyone did their bit to heal everyone, the trees, the sky, animals, one another, the rifts, the distance the fucking sad loneliness between souls. i wake up, play with pan, do some work on the computer my brain working at a million miles an hour, everything in there, all coming together. im an angel dancing on a pin.
ahead of my time, always. behind enemy lines, always, that's me a freakazoid with a good heart and a sense of humour, the worst kind. the man hates me. yet ironically he pays my wage.
so i drunk me some mescal and it's awful, i gotta say, i wanted to vomit but i held on, and then i lay down. i could feel the world dissipate as i closed me eyes, the oblivion that came was beautiful, warm and protective, caring and healthy, i felt loved and healed so that i can love and heal. i see know that is the true state to be in, healing. fucking imagine if the world just went into healing mode, everyone did their bit to heal everyone, the trees, the sky, animals, one another, the rifts, the distance the fucking sad loneliness between souls. i wake up, play with pan, do some work on the computer my brain working at a million miles an hour, everything in there, all coming together. im an angel dancing on a pin.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)