How a far-right Tory, the media & Blairites ambushed Corbyn re #AntiSemiticGate

“We ignore history at our peril. Anti-semitism is vile, but no government – including the Israeli government – is immune from criticism (see video below). The press have a duty to tell the truth, to be honest and to be ethical. Politicians rarely live up to these standards.”


paul-staines-guido-fawkes-2011 Paul Staines (aka Guido Fawkes)

AntiSemiticGate was engineered by a loose alliance of tabloid media, Blairites and, primarily, a far-right blogger who tends to support Tory extremism. Below we examine the timelines, expose the main player who stage-managed the ‘crisis’ (and on the way show just how ignorant politicians and elements of the media are on history – ignore it to our peril).

Paul Staines is otherwise known as the blogger Guido Fawkes. He also has a fascinating history. Staines, worked as “foreign policy analyst” for the Committee for a Free Britain, a right-wing Conservative pressure group, alongside David Hart. Staines also acted as editor of British Briefing, a long-standing publication by the group that was a “monthly intelligence analysis of the activities of the extreme left” that sought to “smear Labour MPs and left-leaning lawyers and writers”. British Briefing was originally called The Background…

View original post 1,643 more words

The Muslim Question (4): Trevor Phillips’ and the Forging of a Closed Society

“These subversive ideas are forming the basis for the new nationalism being forged by neocons. It is for broader society to recognise the tyranny and totalitarianism present in the espoused ideas of neocons, and confront the threat that they pose.

There is also cause for apprehension in the core message of the documentary; that Muslims are separate from the “rest of society”. What does this mean for Muslims? And what is the trajectory of this rhetoric?”


Trevor PhillipsClosedSOciety.pngA series of blogs analysing the recent Channel 4 documentary titled, “What British Muslims Really Think”

Part 1: An Orchestrated Attack on Islam

Part 2: Brief Profile of Trevor Phillips

Part 3: Trevor Phillips’ Propaganda and Normalisation of Muslim Minority Discrimination

In the last article, we saw how Phillips used spin and dubious extrapolations to conclude, in an expressly discriminatory fashion, that the survey on Muslim opinion showed “a nation within the nation.”  What the implications are in specifically the Muslim context will be the subject of my next and final piece.  Here the focus will on the ramifications resulting from Phillips’ proclamations and accompanying neoconservative chorus.

Phillips, based off his exclusionary conclusion, moves to providing a (semi-final?) “solution” to this artificially constructed “Muslim problem” saturated in hypocrisy:

“It’s clear to me that we have to discourage the many Muslims who want to live a separate life according to values…

View original post 1,787 more words

Undue influence: New thoughts on high conflict in families

In contract law, the narrow scope of the common law doctrine of duress led to the development of the doctrine of undue influence in equity. Historically this doctrine applied wherever improper pressure – not capable of amounting to duress at common law – was brought to bear on a party to enter a contract. At present the way some children are manipulated and alienated from their natural parents in some public law cases by the state in the guise of its social workers should be also be remediable arguably using the doctrine of undue influence as prima facie causing a breach of the social contract.

the alienation experience

Screen Shot 2016-04-02 at 16.05.45 The Open Minds Foundation – click image for the OMF website

The recent focus on undue influence here on the alienation experience blog was inspired by local and global events. There’ve been three new government initiatives in the UK and the global launch of the Open Minds Foundation.

This new framework creates a new way to approach high family conflict – even about how to prevent it. It helps common purpose to bind together the opposing armies of the endless gender-based war.

The three UK initiatives that tackle aspects of undue influence or coercive persuasion or control are :

View original post 809 more words

Jury Concludes Hillsborough Inquests With Verdict Of Unlawful Killing By Natasha Holcroft-Emmess 26th April 2016

Jury Concludes Hillsborough Inquests With Verdict Of Unlawful Killing
~ Natasha Holcroft-Emmess, RightsInfo, 26th April 2016

An inquest jury has concluded that football fans killed in a crush at Hillsborough Stadium were unlawfully killed. The Human Rights Act played a key part in ensuring that the investigation int the 96 deaths was independent and effective. The human right to life ensures that disasters such as this are properly investigated.

The Hillsborough Disaster was a human crush that caused the deaths of 96 people and injured 766 others, at a football match between Liverpool and Nottingham Forest at Hillsborough Stadium, Sheffield on 15 April 1989.

An inquest is a judicial inquiry to determine causes of death. Inquests are not criminal proceedings and an inquest jury cannot find anyone guilty of a criminal offence.

A former judge of the Court of Appeal, Sir John Goldring was appointed as Assistant Coroner for South Yorkshire (East) and West Yorkshire (West) to conduct the Hillsborough inquests. A jury was appointed to answer 14 questions about the cause of the disaster.

To conclude that fans were unlawfully killed, coroner Sir John Goldring told the jury that it had to be sure match commander Chief Superintendent David Duckenfield was responsible for their manslaughter. To answer “yes” to that question, the jury had to agree with four points:

1. Ch Supt Duckenfield owed a duty of care to the 96
2. He was in breach of that duty of care
3. The breach of his duty of care caused the deaths and
4. The breach which caused the deaths amounted to “gross negligence”.

The question to the jury in relation to unlawful killing (question 6) was worded: “Are you satisfied, so that you are sure, that those who died in the disaster were unlawfully killed? Yes or no.” The jury answered “Yes”. The jury also ruled, in its answer to question 7, that the Liverpool fans’ behaviour did not contribute to the disaster.

The questions and the jury’s answers are set out in full below:

Do you agree with the following statement which is intended to summarise the basic facts of the disaster: “On 15 April, 1989, 96 people died in the disaster at Hillsborough stadium as a result of crushing in the central pens of the Leppings Lane terrace, following the admission of a large number of supporters to the stadium through exit gates. Yes.
Was there any error or omission in the police planning and preparation for the semi-final match on 15 April, 1989 which caused or contributed to the dangerous situation that developed on the day of the match? Yes.

Was there any error or omission in policing on the day of the match which caused or contributed to a dangerous situation developing at the Leppings Lane turnstiles? Yes.

Was there any error or omission by commanding officers which caused or contributed to the crush on the terrace? Yes.

When the order was given to open the exit gates at the Leppings Lane end of the stadium, was there any error or omission by the commanding officers in the control box which caused or contributed to the crush on the terrace? Yes.

Are you satisfied, so that you are sure, that those who died in the disaster were unlawfully killed? Yes.

Was there any behaviour on the part of football supporters which caused or contributed to the dangerous situation at the Leppings Lane turnstiles? No.

Were there any features of the design, construction and layout of the stadium which you consider were dangerous or defective and which caused or contributed to the disaster? Yes.

Was there any error or omission in the safety certification and oversight of Hillsborough stadium that caused or contributed to the disaster? Yes.

Was there any error or omission by Sheffield Wednesday FC (and its staff) in the management of the stadium and/or preparation for the semi-final match on 15 April, 1989 which caused or contributed to the dangerous situation that developed on the day of the match? Yes.

Was there any error or omission by Sheffield Wednesday FC (and its staff) on 15 April, 1989 which caused or contributed to the dangerous situation that developed on the day of the match? Yes.

12. Should Eastwood & Partners [the club’s consultant engineers] have done more to detect and advise on any unsafe or unsatisfactory features of Hillsborough stadium which caused or contributed to the disaster? Yes.

After the crush in the west terrace had begun to develop, was there any error or omission by the police which caused or contributed to the loss of lives in the disaster? Yes.
After the crush in the west terrace had begun to develop, was there any error or omission by Symas [the South Yorkshire Metropolitan Ambulance Service] which caused or contributed to the loss of lives in the disaster? Yes.

The right to life is perhaps the most important human right. It is protected by Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which takes effect in UK law through the Human Rights Act. It means that deaths which take place where people are meant to be in care of the sate must be properly investigated.

The inquest was an investigation into police failures, with police being representatives of the state. The jury found that errors or omissions of the police “caused or contributed to’’ the loss of life in the Hillsborough Disaster.

Read our explainer on the right to life and why it matters here.

#JudicialReview #Unlawfulness #HousingLaw You’ve lost that loving Ealing! (Sorry)

You’ve lost that loving Ealing. (Sorry)
~ Giles Peaker, 27/04/2016

H & Ors, R (On the Application Of) v Ealing London Borough Council [2016] EWHC 841 (Admin)

Ealing’s allocation policy has already had lawfulness problems, compounded by Ealing’s unlawful refusal to do anything about that unlawfulness. But this judicial review of the policy was on a different basis and confirms a whole fresh ground of unlawfulness.

The issue was that Ealing’s 2013 allocation policy set out that 20% of properties becoming available to let would be reserved for “(a) “Working Households” and (b) “Model Tenants”. In brief, a working household was one where the applicant or another member of the household worked for at least 24 hours per week. A model tenant was an applicant for transfer who already had a Council secure tenancy but who was seeking more appropriate accommodation and who had complied with the terms of the tenancy.”

Given that a transfer would free up another property, the main concern was the reservation of properties for working households (of at least 24 hours per week for 12 of the last 18 months).

The claimants were members of two households on Ealing’s housing register, both with various disabled members, including the prospective tenants who were unable to work through their disabilities and disabled children requiring extensive care. The claim was that the allocation scheme was unlawful because:

(1) It indirectly discriminates against women, disabled and elderly persons within the meaning of s19 (2) of the Act and such discrimination is not justified;

(2) It is in breach of Article 14 of the ECHR because the Scheme falls within the ambit of Article 8 and discriminates against women, children, disabled persons, the elderly and tenants who do not hold Council tenancies; all of these groups have “status” for the purpose of Article 14 and again, the discrimination is not justified;

(3) In adopting and maintaining the Scheme, the Council was in breach of its public sector equality duty (“PSED”) under s149 of the Act; and

(4) In adopting and maintaining the Scheme, the Council is also in breach of its obligations in respect of the welfare of children imposed by s11 of the Children Act 2004.

In adopting the scheme, Ealing had purportedly carried out an Equalities Impact Assessment. This, rather bewilderingly, said in relation to disability:

As to disability, the effect was said to be positive: “data on the housing register is not broken down against traditional definitions of disability as the main criteria is housing need. This automatically ensures that those with a disability or medical condition or long-term limiting illness will be given an appropriate level of housing if they are not suitably housed at the point of application.

On gender, the effect of the new scheme was said to be neutral. And the elderly were said to be given an overall preference.

The trouble for Ealing, who introduced the scheme after a 6 month pilot for which they couldn’t find the end figures, was that their own figures seemed to show something else.

For some reason, of three bedroom properties,39% were reserved for working households/model tenants, not 20%. Ealing never explained why.

More crucially, on the operation of the scheme overall, the percentage of successful applicants for allocations who are disabled was 13.5% in 2012, but 10.6% in 2015, despite the proportion of disabled application being virtually the same in each year.

On the specific arguments:

1. Indirect discrimination. Section 19 Equality Act

“(1) A person (A) discriminates against another (B) if A applies to B a provision, criterion or practice which is discriminatory in relation to a relevant protected characteristic of B’s.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), a provision, criterion or practice is discriminatory in relation to a relevant protected characteristic of B’s if—
(a) A applies, or would apply, it to persons with whom B does not share the characteristic,
(b) it puts, or would put, persons with whom B shares the characteristic at a particular disadvantage when compared with persons with whom B does not share it,
(c) it puts, or would put, B at that disadvantage, and
(d) A cannot show it to be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.”

Ealing conceded that the provision in question was the ‘working household’ reservation. The Claimants argued that this discriminated against the disabled who were considerably less likely to be employed.

Ealing argued it was

incorrect to view the Scheme in isolation when considering its effect. Due account must be taken of the other 80% of housing stock in respect of which single parent carers who are women, the disabled and the elderly are likely in practice to be given higher priority banding than others who do not form part of such groups. Therefore, in effect, this cancels out or should be taken to cancel out any negative effects of the Scheme which after all only concerns 20% of the stock.

The Claimants deny that this is the right approach and argue that the discriminatory effects must be considered in relation to the provision in question and only that provision. The effect of other aspects of the policy is relevant, if at all, only at the stage of justification.

Overall, in addressing the principle of looking at the scheme, the court found:

It is true, by way of example, that disabled people may often be eligible for bands C or B because of their medical condition, but the reason for that priority is because their needs are perceived to be greater than able-bodied people in the first place. But that does not mean that where a significant proportion of housing stock (20% and more for certain types of house) is taken out of circulation in circumstances where they are less likely than others to be eligible, that discriminatory effect can be ignored.

Of course if the Council had introduced a “safety valve” measure in the form of an exceptionality provision, for example, so as to admit to the working household group some people who simply could not work even if they wanted to, to address this potential problem, that might be different. But it did not do so.

Mr Hutchings also argued that if it was correct to look at the Scheme in isolation from other parts of the allocation policy, it would mean that unless each and every part of the policy was itself equality-neutral, they could all be struck down as discriminatory. This is in my judgment a reductio ad absurdum. If one part of the policy gives priority to people with a certain level of medical need it would obviously discriminate against those without such need-but that goes nowhere because the latter are not protected group. Nor could it result in indirect discrimination against such a group. And so on.

And then, on the council’s own figures, it really wasn’t open to Ealing to argue that there had not been some disadvantageous effect, it was at the last not de minimis. (And of course, if the effect of the policy was de minimis, why have it?). So there was indirect discrimination.

Ealing’s attempts at justification did not go well. While encouraging tenants to work was legitimate aim, and the policy a rational means of achieving it, it could not be said to be proportionate as ‘the least intrusive’ way of achieving that aim.

The court took into account allocation policies from Barnet, Bexley and Hammersmith and Fulham which variously gave preference (without a specific reserved percentage of properties) to ‘community contribution’, which included: employment, but also voluntary work (with a discretion on elderly and disabled) – Barnet and H&F; or ‘community contribution’ by “working, taking education or training or doing voluntary work or who provide full-time care to a disabled child or elderly person and to a disabled person whose disability prevents them from participating in work related activity” – Bexley.

In that context, it was hard for Ealing to argue, as they did, that their policy measures were necessary to achieve the encouragement of employment that was the aim, as anything else would ‘dilute’ the aim. Ahmad v Newham [2009] PTSR 632 was not relevant where the issue was discrimination, rather than relative allocation of preference.

This was not ‘judicial tinkering’, as there was a solid body of evidence from these other authorities to suggest that similar policy ends could be set out while still taking into account the needs of the protected groups. Ealing had not made any form of mitigation.

While the figures on disadvantage might not be conclusive, that didn’t matter, as the policy was clearly not designed with the ‘least intrusive measure’ in mind.

Ground 1 – unjustified indirect discrimination upheld.

Ground 2 – Article 14 discrimination. This was mostly upheld on pretty the same grounds, disparate treatment under article 14 of disabled and elderly people and women. Further, there was direct discrimination against ‘non council tenants’ as they could not be model tenants. There was also disparate treatment of children of single carer parents.

There was no justification of the discrimination, whether on the usual proportionality test or the ‘manifestly without reasonable foundation test’ (without deciding which applied).

I appreciate, as Mr Hutchings points out, that the model tenant element of the Scheme is narrow and specific because it deals only with transfers and not new lettings to those who may simply be in temporary accommodation. I also appreciate that with any transfer, the property left behind will go into the general pool so the overall amount of housing stock is not reduced. But I do not accept these as answers to the challenge. The point remains that there is a class of well-behaved tenant outside this group who cannot take advantage of the Scheme and who are otherwise equally in need of better accommodation. And secondly, while other housing stock becomes available, almost by definition, it is likely to be significantly worse or smaller or less appropriate than that transferred to the moving tenants.

Mr Hutchings submits that the Court should be wary of intruding upon areas of allocation of scarce resources like housing and where there may be more than one way of achieving a legitimate aim. I agree that the mere fact of different approaches taken by other councils, does not mean that without more, the Council is bound to follow them. But the point here is a simple evidential one and goes to the critical question of the least intrusive method and fair balance. On this question it would be absurd if the Court did not have real regard to how other councils in more or less the same situation as Ealing have tackled the allocation challenges facing them where they have the same broad aims of incentivising tenants.

In my view, it cannot be said that as against the aim of encouraging tenants to work and incentivising good tenant behaviour, the Scheme is the least intrusive method without unacceptable results or that a fair balance has been achieved.

Article 14 discrimination found.

3. Breach of Public Sector Equality Duty

Well, you can guess where this will go…

As for the original Equalities Analysis, first there was no proper consideration of how the Scheme might affect the protected groups, which is surprising in the light of the earlier references to the risk of disadvantage in the 2012 documents. Its overall impact in relation to disabilities was said to be positive but it is not explained how. Also the Equalities Analysis says that gender alone is not relevant to access to social housing but it plainly it is, as far as the Scheme itself is concerned because of the likelihood that women who are carers will not be able to qualify. […]

It is true that Ms Parsonage says that she has had training in the PSED but that is no substitute for explaining what she actually did in order to ensure that the Council complied with it. This is all the more surprising given that in paragraph 24 of her WS, she says that the position of some households within the groups of women, the elderly and disabled, would undoubtedly be better if the working households priority did not exist, that the allocations policy would do more to advance equality of opportunity and that the working households priority fails to do this. She did go on to say in paragraph 28 that to remove the discriminatory effect “altogether” would seriously compromise the achievement of the aim of encouraging tenants to work; but that does not follow at all if a more nuanced approach was taken, as suggested above.

What is missing in my judgment is any real enquiry into and consideration of the potential discriminatory effects of the working households element of the Scheme in particular.

Thus, breach of the PSED.

4. Breach of section 11 Children Act 2004

Section 11 (2) of the Children Act 2004 is imposes an obligation on the Council to ensure that in discharging its functions, regard must be had to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children.

Unsurprisingly, the court held that:

Not all children may be adversely affected by the Scheme but those with single-parent carers who cannot work, will be.

(…) there appears to have been no actual consideration of the interests of children in this context.

Breach of the Act upheld

Relief to be determined, but arguments from Ealing about delay rejected, not least in the light of their recent ‘review’ of the scheme.


Oh dear. Oh dear again. Still, at least this judgment landed while Ealing are still reconsidering their allocation policy from the last JRs.

In response to Inside Housing, Ealing rather plaintively stated that they were ‘seeking legal advice’ on the judgment. With the benefit of hindsight, perhaps they should have sought it before implementing the scheme.

I have heard that people responsible for drafting the scheme are shocked and upset by the judgment because they believe that they had express permission from the government in the Localism Act and the CLG guidance to the Act to offer preference to working households.

So they did, so they very much did, but the question is – and this is one that other councils should pay due regard to – at whose expense? While a scheme offering a preference to working households could be entirely legitimate, this can’t be simply by reducing the chances of the disabled, or on a gender basis, or with an undue impact upon children.

Is it possible to devise such a scheme without a significant discriminatory effect, or at least with discretionary adjustments? Yes. Should serious consideration be paid to the possible direct or indirect effects on people with protected characteristics, and to duties under the Children Act, when devising a scheme? Yes. Because those are statutory obligations. As the court put it in relation to the evidence of Ms Parsonage, the Council’s Director of Safer Communities and Housing:

It is true that Ms Parsonage says that she has had training in the PSED but that is no substitute for explaining what she actually did in order to ensure that the Council complied with it.

For heaven’s sake, even Barnet’s allocation scheme was looked on by the court as being less crudely discriminatory in effect than Ealing’s.

What is more, there are these unexplained oddities, like 39% of 3 bed properties being ‘reserved’ for working household, not the 20% that the scheme would suggest.

Given this and the recent run of them, it seems like judicial reviews of allocation policies are back. While Ahmad v Newham in 2009 might have ended the previous run of successful judicial reviews, and then the apparent flexibility given by the Localism Act 2012 made further challenges difficult, it would seem that some local authorities have mistaken flexibility for ‘do what you will’, and proceeded to ignore, or pay lip service, to their equality duties and their duties to give reasonable preference to the statutory groups.

The Muslim Question (3): Trevor Phillips’ Propaganda for Neocon Policies and Normalisation of Muslim Minority Discrimination

“Note that it is not “Islamist extremism”, but extremist adherence to Islam itself which is the problem. In other words, an increase in Muslim religiosity is made by Phillips to be a problematic cause of societal demarcation. Later on in the documentary he notes that the “problematic views” which Muslims hold is because, for Muslims, “it is all about religion”. “



A series of blogs analysing the recent Channel 4 documentary titled, “What British Muslims Really Think”

Part 1: An Orchestrated Attack on Islam

Part 2: Brief Profile of Trevor Phillips

We now turn our attention to the Channel 4 documentary.

There has been much discussion on the survey from the perspective of methodological issues, with some commentators even edging on the patronising as the insinuation is made that “conservative views” are the preserve of “deprived areas” that house “Pakistani or Bangladeshi” people.

More troubling criticisms relate to the loaded question fallacies inherent in the survey, the applicability of questions to the control group, and the subsequent spin which Trevor Phillips applies. These aspects will be will be touched upon through this piece.

Accompanying the neocon propaganda documentary was a piece authored by Trevor Phillips himself in the Daily Mail. Both were a master class in spin constituted of a…

View original post 2,529 more words

10 Common Money Mistakes Successful People Never Make — TIME

Everyone dreams of being rich. Understanding what it means to be truly rich, however, eludes a large majority of the population. If you’re hoping to substantially increase your financial portfolio, check out these 10 financial mistakes rich people never make.

1. Rich people don’t forget to invest in themselves.

They understand the importance of continuing education, certifications, and even vacations, and they’re willing to make the upfront investment for the long-term rewards.

2. Rich people don’t forget to save for the future.

They don’t live completely in the now; instead, they consider what they’re going to need tomorrow, and they make that a priority, too. 30 Easy Ways to Make Money on the Side This Year

3. Rich people don’t just choose the cheapest option.

Which is better: to spend $300 on a cheap appliance every five years, or to spend $600 on one that will last for decades? Rich people invest in the more expensive option for the long-term savings.

4. Rich people don’t live outside their means.

They might spend plenty of money on a fun night out when they have it, but if their income decreases, they decrease their spending to meet it.

5. Rich people don’t spend money they don’t have.

Borrowing money just means that they’re going to end up paying more for items in the long run, so they save up for big purchases before they make them. Want to Become Rich? Cultivate These 7 Habits

6. Rich people don’t have financial secrets within the family.

Financial resources are an open discussion, and they certainly don’t “hide” purchases from a spouse. It’s the family’s money, not money that belongs to a single person.

7. Rich people don’t over-complicate things.

From an investment portfolio that is filled with different types of investments that “might” make money, in spite of their high risk, to a home that is filled with all the latest and greatest “stuff,” rich people avoid over-complication. Instead, they keep it as simple as possible.

8. Rich people don’t ignore their passions.

Work is just that: work. When it’s backed by passion, however, it stops taking quite so much effort–and that makes it easier to keep bringing in that income.

9. Rich people aren’t ashamed of budget options.

From riding a bike or taking a bus to shopping at overstock stores instead of needing a name brand label, rich people are willing to take those extra steps to save money. Labels are just labels, and they aren’t worth wasting money on. 12 Business Ideas You Can Start Working on Right Now

10. Rich people do their research.

They don’t invest in shoddy property or shady ventures. Instead, they take the time to find out what they’re investing their money in, and they only commit when they’re sure of what lies ahead.

Developing a “rich” mindset takes time. You might struggle with some of those ideas at first. After all, learning to use your wealth wisely can be a challenge! With time, however, you’ll learn to use your money to its greatest advantage and enjoy it, all at the same time.

This post is in partnership with Inc., which offers useful advice, resources and insights to entrepreneurs and business owners. The article above was originally published at

via 10 Common Money Mistakes Successful People Never Make — TIME

10 Ways to Boost Your Emotional Resilience, Backed by Research — TIME

Sum Up

Here’s how to increase your emotional resilience:

  • Foster optimism: Don’t be in denial. See the world clearly but believe in your abilities.
  • Face your fears: Hiding from fear makes it worse. Face it and you overcome it.
  • Have a moral compass: A strong feeling of right and wrong tells us we must when we feel we can’t.
  • Practice spirituality: Be a part of a group that has strong beliefs.
  • Give and receive social support: Tapping on the wall of your cell can keep you going.
  • Imitate resilient role models: Or have people you know you do not want to be.
  • Physical fitness: Exercise adapts your body to stress.
  • Be a lifelong learner: Keep your brain sharp and it will give you solutions when you need them most.
  • Have a number of ways to cope: Be like Navy SEALs and Special Forces operators — and laugh.
  • Have meaning in your life: Don’t just do a job; have a calling and a purpose.

Ever dealt with a really difficult situation? We’ve all had our emotional resilience tested. Sometimes it feels like you just want to give up. How do the toughest people summon the will to keep going? Steven Southwick and Dennis Charney have studied resilient people for over 20 years. They spoke with Vietnam prisoners of war,…

via 10 Ways to Boost Your Emotional Resilience, Backed by Research — TIME

How the Israelis Hoodwinked JFK on Going Nuclear — Foreign Policy

Newly declassified documents reveal how David Ben-Gurion’s mumbles and a trick sightseeing tour helped Israeli officials pull the wool over Washington’s eyes on the weaponization of the Dimona reactor.

via How the Israelis Hoodwinked JFK on Going Nuclear — Foreign Policy

Chivalry: A learned deathwish

“When I look at what Jason’s story turned into, all I see is a devastated family, a grieving friend, and a decent young man with a life cut short on behalf of someone who in no way warranted that kind of sacrifice – not that any stranger ever does.

Perhaps there is a better social message we can send all people, young and old. It’s on you.

It’s on you to forge the ability to protect yourself. It’s on you to make sound decisions about people with whom you choose to get involved.

It is not the responsibility of strangers, and it is not a burden for another class of human beings to bear.

No one outside you, your family and the police have any obligation to take risks for your safety. If women don’t know this, the parents of young men certainly should.”

Justice for Men & Boys

Another insightful piece from Paul Elam.

View original post