Select Page ::

NYC park conservancies make progress with Community Parks Initiative – amNY

Posted on February 27, 2017 by Danzig

The groups behind the citys largest parks are lending their much smaller city cousins a lot of green thumbs.

The parks department said eight conservancies, such as the Central Parks Conservancy, Friends of the Highline and the Prospect Park Alliance, have met or exceeded their combined $15 million commitments to the citys Community Parks Initiative, which launched in 2014 to provide funding and resources to improve smaller parks in the city.

Kate Spellman, a senior adviser for the parks department, said in addition to providing extra funding, the nonprofits have provided landscape experts and training that will benefit all the open-space locations in the five boroughs.

Theyre not just going in and completing an improvement and disappearing. Theyre improving with our staff so they are teaching, she said.

State Sen. Daniel Squadron, who proposed the initiative, predicted that this partnership will grow.

Our system of parks is strengthened by its conservancies, he said in a statement.

Some of the improvements made by the conservancies since 2015:

At home with the Saviors: Recapping ‘The Walking Dead’ Season 7 Episode 11 – Chicago Tribune

Posted on February 27, 2017 by Danzig

Instead of taking a week off while the Oscars aired on another channel, The Walking Dead went ahead and showed a new episode Sunday. So it was power vs. power, the worlds most glamorous movie stars vs. its scruffiest cast, TV entertainment reporters patrolling the red carpet vs. soulless bloodsucking zombies.

I was not able to see enough of the Academy Awards to proclaim a winner, but I can say that this weeks TWD was potent for a slice-of-life episode and did not include Justin Timberlake making me eager to go back to Bill Withers original recording of Lovely Day.

It was -- spoiler alert -- a simple Walking Dead, a look at life inside the Saviors camp after hostage Daryl escaped, evidently with help from inside. Eugene, hostage No. 2 from Ricks crew, had to prove his worth to the Saviors. Dwight had to prove he wasnt complicit in Daryls getaway. And at no point did AMC's post-apocalyptic serial drama abruptly change its mind about who the week's winners and losers were.

Outcry over Dalai Lama threatens free speech | The Daily Cardinal – The Daily Cardinal

Posted on February 27, 2017 by Danzig

The Dalai Lama has been criticized by the Chinese government and Chinese students in the United States.

University of California-San Diegos decision to invite Dalai Lama for commencement is troubling, while the Chinese protesters opposed Free Speech and branded their blind patriotism

On Feb. 2, UC-San Diego made the official announcement that His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama, a well-known advocate of Tibetan independence from the Peoples Republic of China, will be speaking at the commencement ceremony. Waves of shock and anger swept through the Chinese international student communities in UCSD, and soon, Chinese international student communities across the US. A fierce debate ensued between the supporters and critics of the Dalai Lama, with much vitriol. As a Chinese international student myself, I feel obliged to share some of my thoughts on the controversy. But before that, I want to clarify that this article does not concern itself with the historical aspects of the legitimacy of Peoples Republic of Chinas territorial claim in Tibet, the complexity of which is only to be resolved through collective efforts.

The Dalai Lama has been a well-respected person across the political spectrum in the west, though he is not without critics. Christopher Hichens, in his 1998 article on the Dalai Lama His Material Holiness, wrote Chinas foul conduct in an occupied land, combined with a Hollywood cult that almost exceeds the power of Scientology, has fused with weightless Maharishi and Bhagwan-type babble to create an image of an idealized Tibet and of a saintly god-king. Indeed, the Dalai Lama, and the people who met with him and praise him, have been in a decades-long, cynical and opportunistic symbiosis of realpolitik, with a distinctive flavor of orientalism.

The Dalai Lama has been supportive of the assembling of thermonuclear arsenal by India in the 1990s, he has made the remark that any women successor to him has to be attractive, and he has not only stayed silent on former President Bushs illegitimate invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, but said that he loved Bush. Countless incidents have lead people who had faith in liberal principles to doubt the Dalai Lamas commitment to his ideals, let alone his recent statement that he had no worries about thenpPresident-elect Donald Trump.

Maybe its my poor grasp of the Buddhist doctrine of inner peace, but I am very worried, as a foreigner in the US, about Trump (though that is another story). That is why the decision of UCSD to invite the Dalai Lama for a commencement speech is troubling. As a renowned institution in public education, UCSD should cherish genuine secular and liberal values, inviting people who are sincerely devoted to making the world a better place rather than shrewd political opportunists.

Even though UCSDs decision raised questions, the reaction by Chinese international student communities is a shameful one. One day after the announcement by UCSD, the Chinese Students and Scholars Association at UCSD published a statement on WeChat denouncing the decision, and on its thumbnail it reads Whoever tries to sever my motherland must be destroyed regardless of propinquity (the original is in Chinese, and the translation is literal). The article tells the Chinese international students at UCSD to remain calm, and wait for and listen to the unified directives issued by the Chinese Embassy. The article also described the Dalai Lama as devoted to sabotaging the territorial integrity and ethnic solidarity of our mother country. In the end, the article expresses the determination of CSSA to take strong measures to protest the speech by the Dalai Lama.

This incident is just an add-on to a series of anti-free speech outbursts on UC campuses. Two years ago, students at Berkeley tried to remove the political polemicist Bill Maher from the commencement speech, and in early February prevented right-wing political commentator Milo Yiannopoulos from giving a speech. However, this time the protesters are motivated by a far more invidious sentiment than political correctnessblind patriotism.

The claim of the Dalai Lamas intention to sabotage racial harmony is highly dubious. It makes the strong assumption that there is an already established racial harmony, which requires strong evidence. But this is irrelevant here, as what is at stake is the core of liberal democracy: free speech. Free speech, in its broad sense, consists of both the tolerance for the right of others to speak, and the independence with which we think and speak. The whims of the Chinese Embassy and government should not dictate what Chinese international students think, and what Chinese international students think should not interfere with whether or not the Dalai Lama speaks at commencement.

Philosopher Karl Popper wrote in his famous The Open Society and its Enemies the conflict between rationalism and irrationalism has become the most important intellectual, and perhaps even moral, issue of our time. Unfortunately, what Popper has said during the carnage of the Second World War is still true, if not truer, today. The most efficient way to promote rational thinking is by exchanging ideas, and the best way to expose lies is by having people utter them. To my fellow Chinese students: think independently whether you agree with the Dalai Lama or not, and most importantly, let him talk!

Fact is that to which there is no alternative. And facts can only be respected if we continue to champion secular and liberal values in university campuses, be open to new ideas, and dare to be challenged.

Runkun is a junior majoring in philosophy. Please send all comments, questions and concerns to opinion@dailycardinal.com.

Outcry over Dalai Lama threatens free speech | The Daily Cardinal - The Daily Cardinal

Rioting bill about censorship – Arizona Daily Sun

Posted on February 27, 2017 by Danzig

Once again our elected state representatives are attempting to nail a lid on the constitutional right to protest, assemble, and express contrasting ideas. The recent bill passed by the state Senate to ostensibly protect businesses from property damage perpetrated by so-called professional anarchists is a thinly veiled attempt to intimidate and punish citizens who get off the couch and activate their right to protest.

Laws that punish violence and mob rule are already on the books and have been so for generations. I suggest that these elected officials see themselves as police rather than representatives of the people. Controls and censorship seem to be the prevailing philosophies driving many folks in the Arizona government and feeding on peoples fear of the what ifs is their tactic to nail down the commonweal to a prescribed set of behaviors they deem acceptable.

No responsible citizen supports violence or mob rule, but this bill assumes that there is a demon lurking in every shadow and every living room and so will punish citizens for even discussing the possibility of expressing their right to protest. What are they afraid of a broken window or an open society?

See the original post here:

Rioting bill about censorship - Arizona Daily Sun

Censorship concerns as European Parliament introduces ‘kill switch’ to cut racist speeches – Telegraph.co.uk

Posted on February 27, 2017 by Danzig

The EuropeanParliamentis often the stage for political and sometimes nationalist theater.

Beyond routine shouting matches, members occasionally wear T-shirts splashed with slogans or unfurl banners. Flags adorn some lawmakers' desks.

But some MEPs say nationalist rhetoric has recently crossed the line of what is acceptable.

"There have been a growing number of cases of politicians saying things that are beyond the pale of normal parliamentary discussion and debate," said Richard Corbett, a British MEP who backedthe new rule.

"What if this became not isolated incidents, but specific, where people could say: 'Hey, this is a fantastic platform. It's broad, it's live-streamed. It can be recorded and repeated. Let's use it for something more vociferous, more spectacular,'" he told The Associated Press.

Rule 165 of the parliament's rules of procedure allows the chair of debates to halt the live broadcast "in the case of defamatory, racist or xenophobic language or behavior by a member." The maximum fine for offenders would be around 9,000 euros ($9,500).

The new rule, which was not made public by the assemble until it was reported by Spain's La Vanguardia newspaper, offending material could be "deleted from the audiovisual record of proceedings," meaning citizens would never know it happened unless reporters were in the room.

Mr Weingaertner said the IPA was never consulted on that.

A technical note seen by the AP outlines a procedure for manually cutting off the video feed, stopping transmission on in-house TV monitors and breaking the satellite link to halt broadcast to the outside world.

A videotape in four languages would be kept running to serve as a legal record during the blackout. A more effective and permanent system was being sought.

It is also technically possible to introduce a safe-guard time delay so broadcasts appear a few seconds later. This means they could be interrupted before offending material is aired.

Critics say the system would be unwieldy and possibly ineffective.

See original here:

Censorship concerns as European Parliament introduces 'kill switch' to cut racist speeches - Telegraph.co.uk

Wall Street Journal editor endorses boycott of Trump White House over media censorship – AMERICAblog (blog)

Posted on February 27, 2017 by Danzig

On CNNs Reliable Sources this morning, Bret Stephens, the deputy editorial page editor of the Wall Street Journal, suggested that the media should boycott the Trump White House in retaliation for Trumps censoring of the media.

Stephens also added that what Trump was doing was worse than Nixon.

Stephens comments came during a discussion of Trumps decision to ban the NYT, CNN, Los Angeles Times, BuzzFeed and Politico from a press gaggle, or informalbriefing, at the White House on Friday.

It is thought that Trumps censorship of these outlets was in response totheir reports a day earlier on the White Houses growing efforts to obstruct the Russia investigation.

It was particularly surprising to hear the notion of a boycott come from the editorial page editor of the Wall Street Journal, a conservative publication. Heres Stephens:

I would call it Nixonian, except I think that would be unfair to the memory of President Nixon. This is an attempt to bully the press by using access as a weapon to manipulate coverage. The Wall Street Journal put out a statement that I thought was very clear, if we had known what was happening we wouldnt have participated in that meeting with Mr. Spicer. And I think thats the right attitude for the rest of the press to take. That if the administration is going to boycott certain news outlets, then perhaps we should as news organizations return the favor to this administration.

Add your name to the thousands who aredemandingthe Justice Department appointa special counselto investigate Trumps ties to Russia.

With the election of Donald Trump, AMERICAblogs independent journalism and activism is more needed than ever.

Please support our work with a generous donation.(If you prefer PayPal, use this link.) We dont make much on advertising,we need your support to continue our work. Thanks. Also, check out our Trump Swag store, where you can get your Illegitimate t-shirts and more. Allthe proceeds go to supporting our independent journalismat AMERICAblog.

John Aravosis Follow me on Twitter: @aravosis | @americablog | @americabloggay | Facebook | Instagram | Google+ | LinkedIn. John Aravosis is the Executive Editor of AMERICAblog, which he founded in 2004. He has a joint law degree (JD) and masters in Foreign Service from Georgetown; and has worked in the US Senate, World Bank, Children's Defense Fund, the United Nations Development Programme, and as a stringer for the Economist. He is a frequent TV pundit, having appeared on the O'Reilly Factor, Hardball, World News Tonight, Nightline, AM Joy & Reliable Sources, among others. John lives in New York City, and is the cofounder of TimeToResign.com. Bio, article archive.

Originally posted here:

Wall Street Journal editor endorses boycott of Trump White House over media censorship - AMERICAblog (blog)

Free Speech Smackdown – FrontPage Magazine

Posted on February 27, 2017 by Danzig

FrontPage Magazine

Free Speech Smackdown
FrontPage Magazine
On Tuesday, February 21, California's senate Democrats memorialized the late Tom Hayden, a former state senator, husband of Jane Fonda, and leading figure in the New Left. On Thursday, February 23, southern California Republican Janet Nguyen rose to ...

and more »

Originally posted here:

Free Speech Smackdown - FrontPage Magazine

Survey: Fraud-free elections, free speech, key to democracy – Concord Monitor

Posted on February 27, 2017 by Danzig

A survey of U.S. political science professors a month into Donald Trumps presidency shows that fraud-free elections tops a list of 19 principles as most essential to democracy, as do free speech and a free press.

Political scientists at Dartmouth College, the University of Rochester and Yale University collaborated on the survey as part of an initiative they called Bright Line Watch. They wanted to get the experts reading on the status of democratic practices and potential threats to American democracy.

Dartmouth professor John Carey said the groups motivation was impatience with many news articles saying the sky is falling with regard to the status of American democracy since Trumps victory. He added: What were doing is not motivated by a partisan agenda; its really an intellectual agenda.

Participants were asked to rank principles on how important they are for a democratic government, and then rate them on how well they describe the United States now. Clean elections and equal voting rights were ranked as high priorities for democracy.

One principle, that elections be free from foreign influence, was regarded by the vast majority as essential or important. But less than half thought the U.S. mostly or fully meets this standard, and a number said they werent sure if it did. The results probably speak to how new and unsettling the prospect of foreign interference is for many political scientists, said Yale University professor Susan Stokes, who co-organized the survey.

My own hunch is that anxiety about this issue is related not just to reporting that there was Russian influence (in the November presidential election), but also to reports of the insidious nature of that influence that it was carried out in a highly clandestine manner through hacking, and that its true nature may never be revealed, she said.

U.S. agencies, including the FBI, have been probing Russian interference in the 2016 election. Three congressional committees are conducting separate investigations into the issue, including contacts between Russian officials and members of the Trump campaign and administration.

The principle of all votes having equal impact on election results ranked low on the priority list for democracy, probably reflecting long-standing institutions of electoral exclusion and wide socioeconomics inequalities that have been matters of concern for many years, the study said.

Rated as least essential is that politicians campaign without criticism of their opponents loyalty or patriotism.

The group surveyed 9,820 professors at 511 U.S. institutions by email Feb. 13 through 19, and received 1,571 responses. The survey sample was compiled from a list of U.S. institutions represented in the online program of the 2016 meeting of the American Political Science Association conference.

Visit link:

Survey: Fraud-free elections, free speech, key to democracy - Concord Monitor

How Free Is Free Speech? – Santa Barbara Independent

Posted on February 27, 2017 by Danzig

Those who do not support free speech for those they despise do not support free speech at all. NoamChomsky

A scheduled appearance by controversial self-described radical anti-Christian feminist Mila Ziannopolous at UC Berkeley was canceled when campus police were unable to quell demonstrators bent upon blocking her appearance. Student demonstrators were joined by 100-150 ninja-clad members of an Oakland-based anti-Communist brigade who smashed windows and set fires. Stephen Jones, one of the leaders of the conservative student protesters, stated, I believe in free speech, but purveyors of hate speech have no right to speak on this campus or anywhereelse.

This incident followed cancellation of an appearance by Ziannapolous at UC Davis two weeks ago due to threats of violence. She had been invited by campus Democrats who emphasized that they did not necessarily agree with her views but felt she had a right to express them. For the First Amendment to have real meaning, Sheila Jackson, president of the campus Democrats stated, it must be extended to those whose views many may find offensive. A writer for a radical left website, Ziannapolous has asserted that all males, by virtue of their gender dominance, are complicit in a rape culture and that Christianity is a religion that subjugates women andminorities.

On the same day as the UC Berkeley riot, a performance by an outspoken liberal comedian at New York University was ended when conservative students stormed the auditorium and pepper-sprayed him. In 2014 a conservative pro-life professor at UC Santa Barbara harassed a pro-choice demonstrator and seized her sign. Other incidents in which liberal speakers have been blocked from appearing on college campuses have occurred in recent years. Conservative students have claimed that offensive views held by these speakers about race, religion, and gender violate their right to a safezone.

Of course, the stories above are fake news of my creation. I flipped the script of events that have occurred recently on college campuses involving incendiary conservative speakers. But if conservative students did engage in the suppression of speech described. students on the left surely would be invoking Voltaire, John Milton, John Stuart Mill, and Martin Luther King in a robust defense of free expression and with justification. Thus it is dismaying to me as a liberal that so many students and, even more disturbingly, so many faculty members on university campuses appear unclear on the concept of free expression when it applies to those they strongly disagree with. Also dismaying is the silence of the many on the left who do understand the concept but decline to speak out in defense of freespeech.

Brietbart writer Milo Yiannopolous, whose appearances were blocked at Davis and Berkeley, is a provocateur, whose stock and trade is baiting the left. He is a gay man who feels gays should stay in the closet. He ridicules the transgendered and immigrants. He accuses feminists of wallowing in victimhood and calls the rape culture a fantasy. Yiannopolous also went too far when he condoned pedophilia in a 2013 video, recently released, which got him disinvited as a speaker at a CPAC conference and ended up with his resignation from Breitbart onTuesday.

Those of us old enough to remember the 60s recall that provocateurs on the left like Eldridge Cleaver, a convicted rapist whose views on race were condemned by many civil rights leaders, were not merely tolerated but frequently welcomed on college campuses precisely because they were controversial. Those who objected to inviting such figures were dismissed with What part of Voltaire dont you understand? and rightly so. Even George Lincoln Rockwell, then leader of the American Nazi Party, was allowed to speak at UCSB in 1966. He was picketed by protesters, an exercise in their First Amendment rights, but there was no organized effort to block hisappearance.

Since that period, a view has taken root on college campuses that freedom of speech can be applied selectively and that some students and faculty members can appoint themselves guardians of what is permissible speech. The arbitrary result: Yiannapoulos encountered mass resistance while Louis Farrakhan, with a deserved reputation as an anti-Semite and misogynist, spoke at Berkeley in 2012 without getting the Black Bloctreatment.

Some who have participated in efforts to block not just outspoken conservatives but even speakers like Madeleine Albright and Laura Bush (!) among many others, have advanced the Orwellian argument that prohibiting speech is, in fact, an act of free speech (Newspeak: Suppression of speech equals freedom of speech). A number of demonstrators even condoned the storm trooper tactics of the Black Bloc anarchists who assaulted supporters of Yiannapolous at Berkeley. Yvette Felarca, a leader of the group Any Means Necessary, declared, Everyone cheered. Everyone was there with us in political agreement of the necessity of shutting it down, whatever it was going totake.

Anyone who is invited by a student group to speak at a public university has an absolute right to do so under the First Amendment. This right is not conditional or situational or debatable. Advocacy of any idea in the abstract is protected; only that narrow range of speech directly linked to specific illegal activity can be prohibited under the Constitution. The Supreme Court has ruled that even hate speech is protected and for good reason. There is no consensus on where the line is between offensive or controversial speech and hate speech. Empowering any entity to draw that line creates a dangerous slippery slope. The antidote to hate speech, as the American Civil Liberties Union has long argued, is not suppression of speech, but morespeech.

In a class on the First Amendment, Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean of the UC Irvine Law School. and an ACLU liberal in the best tradition, is addressing this declining understanding in academia of what free speech means. He notes that the views of students on this subject evolve during the course as they are exposed to the history of speech and repression. They learn that the same arguments currently being used to rationalize suppression of speech have been used for centuries, often to repress movements on the left. They learn that whenever a group has asserted itself as an arbiter of permissible speech, it has abused thatpower.

The Free Speech Movement that emerged on the Berkeley campus in 1964 rejected the notion that college administrators had the right to restrict political advocacy. The irony now is that it is administrators who are resisting calls by students and faculty to restrict speech. Recent UC presidents are to be lauded for a full- throated defense of all types of advocacy, whether by a Farrakhan or a Yiannopolous. Preserving the free marketplace of ideas is an existential priority for academia. Sadly, survival of that free marketplace may require that students and faculty consider taking RemedialVoltaire.

The ‘free speech debate’ is nothing of the sort, whatever the far right says – The Guardian

Posted on February 27, 2017 by Danzig

Milo Yiannopouloss demise reveals that at the end of the day we all believe there should be limits to freedom of speech. The only difference between us is where we draw the line. Photograph: Jason Szenes/EPA

Its not been a good week for the unassailable principle of free speech, thats for sure. First Milo Yiannopoulos, the pied piper of the alt-right (theyre a bunch of white supremacist Pee-wee Hermans, in case you were wondering), lost his job, his book deal and the chance to give a keynote speech at CPAC conference for the American Conservative Union, after a recording emerged of him apparently condoning paedophilia, noting: You can get quite hung up on this child abuse thing.

This came as a surprise to me, I have to say. Given so many on the right and indeed, mainstream liberals defended Yiannopouloss incessant public appearances using free speech arguments, I expected him to turn up on another late-night chat show to debate the merits of paedophilia via the Socratic method. Why didnt this happen? Do we want a free marketplace of ideas or not?

A little closer to home, the University of Sussex has been embroiled in a strange and ultimately meaningless brouhaha. A week and a half ago, the Sussex Centre for Conflict and Security Research (SCSR) held an hour-long informal meeting called Dealing with rightwing attitudes and politics in the classroom. Despite the fact that this meeting quietly passed without consequence, and was attended by just 10 or 12 junior faculty members and PhD students, it somehow found its way into no fewer than three articles in national newspapers as an example of free speech under threat.

One self-described rightwing Sussex student breathlessly recounted his incandescence in the Daily Telegraph that a poster (a poster!) had been affixed to a door for all to see, leading to an embarrassingly craven statement from the SCSR that silencing student voices is never what we aspire to as a department.

Lets debate what kind of society and what kind of values we want. Lets be clear that bigotry is intolerable

Quite how the mere act of discussing rightwing attitudes amounts to silencing is unclear; nevertheless, someone who was actually at the meeting tells me that the few gathered participants spent most of the hour sharing their experiences of misogyny and xenophobia, not coming up with a Machiavellian scheme to introduce censorship. In fact, the meeting was only held after tutors requested it at an earlier meeting because they were worried about how to talk to their students about political shocks such as Brexit and the election of Donald Trump (these informal meetings happen once a week at SCSR and cover a variety of topics; this is the first that has led to any baffling hysteria).

What do these two incidences tell us about the infernal free speech debate? They tell us that it isnt really a debate about free speech at all; its a debate about acceptable speech. Apparently Yiannopoulos could go on to have a glittering career after calling an ex-employee a common prostitute and threatening to blackmail her after she complained about unpaid wages. Apparently its fine for someone like him to occupy a considerable public platform after he encouraged the racist and misogynistic targeting of actor Leslie Jones.

Public figures who insisted on Yiannopouloss right to free speech after all these incidences, but not after he appeared to condone paedophilia, arent making a statement about liberal values; they are simply revealing what they themselves are willing to tolerate. His demise reveals that at the end of the day we all believe there should be limits to freedom of speech. The only difference between us is where we draw the line.

Moreover, the pint-sized moral panic over a single seminar at the University of Sussex suggests that for the right freedom of speech only travels in one direction. As soon as anyone dissents from their enforced values and behaviour, all hell breaks loose. Remember when the right lost its mind because Jeremy Corbyns bow on Remembrance Day was deemed insufficiently dramatic? Or consider the traditional national angst over the possibility that some local authorities might use the word Winterval instead of Christmas.

If we were genuinely debating freedom of speech, and not in fact having an ideological battle over the values that define our public sphere, quite a few of Yiannopouloss defenders would probably have defended Corbyn and Winterval too. They certainly wouldnt now be reaching for the smelling salts because 10 people at the University of Sussex decided to talk about rightwing views one lunchtime.

What is happening here is threefold: first, the right is so accustomed to its values dominating public discourse that many people within it have become grown-up babies who cant bear to live in a society that isnt constantly pandering to their sensitivities (what the writer Arwa Mahdawi describes as populist correctness). Second, others on the right are shrewdly exploiting the important principle of freedom of speech to ensure their ideas are the prevailing ones in society, by claiming any challenge to them as oppression. And finally, these groups are being aided and abetted by liberal dupes and cowardly university institutions, both of which are convinced that theyre engaged in an impartial debate about enlightenment values that isnt actually taking place.

Enough is enough. The insistence that we exist in some kind of neutral marketplace of ideas has led to a situation where deeply ideological positions can be put forward without any moral value being ascribed to them. The most marginalised position in public discourse today is good things are good and bad things are bad, as academic philosopher Tom Whyman puts it.

Sexism and racism are, in fact, worse than equality and public figures and institutions should not retreat into the belief that acknowledging as much amounts to some sort of discrimination. If we are going to have a debate, lets debate what kind of society we want to build and what kind of values we want to live by. Lets be clear that bigotry is intolerable. Because the Milo Yiannopouloses of this world know exactly what theyre doing the only ones equivocating are us.

See more here:

The 'free speech debate' is nothing of the sort, whatever the far right says - The Guardian

Atheism’s Dark Side Aiding the Trump Agenda – Religion Dispatches

Posted on February 27, 2017 by Danzig

Sam Harris recently appeared in a one-on-one segment on Real Time With Bill Maher to discuss Donald Trumps immigration ban, which he criticized for being poorly executed and too sweeping, though he approves of the goal of keeping radicals out. Harris leviedhis familiar chargethat the Left is an ally of Islamism because of its mindless commitment to multiculturalism and tolerance, which hes been repeating since his 2004 book The End of Faith launched his career as an anti-religious crusader. These views were the basis of his highly publicized dust-up with Ben Affleck on the show in 2014.

Its telling that the alt-Right (read: white nationalist) website Breitbart posted an approving summary of Harris comments fromthisReal Time appearance. Long before Trumps travel ban, Harris was arguing that America should ethnically profile Muslims, or anyone who looks like he or she could conceivably be Muslim at airport security. Recent events should compel atheists to assess the impact of these views, proudly promoted by their exalted public representatives. I, like many other atheists who were optimistic about this movements prospects when it came alive about ten years ago, have been dismayed by how willingly some of its members subordinate reason to blind ideology.

Soon after Alexandre Bissonnette murdered six people at a mosque in Quebec City it was reported that likes on his Facebook page included Donald Trump, French far-right politician Marine Le Pen, and atheist scientist Richard Dawkins. The immediate reaction was to point to the toxic effect nationalists like Trump and Le Pen are having on our political culture, now materialized to tragic effect in what appears to be an ethnically motivated act of violence.

But these defenders of a white Christian vision of nationhood have found curious allies in celebrity atheists like Dawkins and Harris, who echo their paranoid views of Muslims to their ostensibly liberal supporters. Bissonnettes actions and personal likes highlight the weird entanglement of atheists, Christian neoconservatives and theocrats, and far-Right white nationalists, which is something reasonable atheists should reflect on very seriously.

Given the trajectory of their intensifying assault on Islamwhich is singled out as a uniquely barbaric religionit should not surprise us whenDawkins and Harris share admirers with the likes of Trump, Le Pen, and other nationalists who are leading a crescendo of ethnic tension. While Dawkins, Harris, and other New Atheists (most famously the late Christopher Hitchens, also one of Bissonnettes likes) have preached a secular gospel of scientific rationality and hostility toward religion, their harshest criticism has been reserved for Islam.

The ideological purity and relentlessly unthinking approach of people like Dawkins and Harris has resulted in disillusionment within the atheist community. Younger atheists who are intolerant of bigotry with respect to culture and identity have found Dawkins criticisms of feminism and his stereotypical depictions of Muslims as deranged religious fanatics unpalatable.

In January 2016, Dawkins was dropped (though eventually re-invited) as keynote speaker for the Northeast Conference on Science and Skepticism after backlash to his tweet promoting a proudly misogynistic and embarrassingly stupid YouTube video called Feminists Love Islamists. The incident highlighted the polarizing effect he has within the atheist community, which is struggling to stem a decline related to internal political tensions. The disappointing turnout for the 2016 Reason Rally in Washington, which failed to match the success of its 2012 predecessor, could only be considered a step backward for a movement with high aspirations.

But if atheists want to avoid fading back into irrelevance they would do well to consider what role they and their anointed leaders have played in the rise of a new global neo-fascist movement, which now countsthe President of the United States among its leaders. The escalating tensions reflected in Alexandre Bissonnettes terrorist attack show no signs of dissipating in a political climate where current and aspiring world leaders openly advocate racial discrimination. Atheists like Harris and Dawkins seem blissfully ignorant of the fact that the mass hysteria they have contributed to is precisely the effect that groups like ISIS are aiming for.

Harris and Dawkins claim that their issue is with the doctrines of Islam rather than with Muslims as people, but in practice they take little care to make a distinction, perhaps reflecting their general view that religion is a kind of mental parasite that takes control of its host. Whether intended or not, they have granted a veneer of intellectual legitimacy to ethnic nationalism and xenophobia. Harris has explicitly said that, in Europe, it is fascists who have the correct vision of how to deal with Muslims.

His general neoconservative position, like that of Christopher Hitchens, is representative of a wing of the movement that I call the atheist Rightthe mirror image of the Christian Rights militaristic nationalism and libertarianism. Atheists must consider whether the views of Muslims promoted by their most prominent representatives are helping or hurting the cause of secularism, given that anti-Muslim hysteria was so effectively harnessed by the Christian dominionists who have seized control of the American government through an uneasy alliance with a secular billionaire sociopath.

Thoughtful atheists have been pointing to the dangers of slipping into Islamophobia for some time, but the issue has reached a critical point in light of recent events. Many atheists see the likes of Dawkins and Harris as principled crusaders for science, reason, and a secular worldview. But to others their words can easily be heard as affirmations of intolerance and bigotry.

Theres no way to be certain of Alexandre Bissonnettes beliefs regarding religionashis Facebook likes included philosopher and Christian apologist William Lane Craig, along witha book entitled The Amorality of Atheism, in addition to the New Atheists. Its reasonable to suspect that Dawkins and Hitchens appealed to Bissonnette not because of their atheism per se, but more specifically, because of their hostility toward Islama possibility that should not inspire sighs of atheist relief.

Just as Pew Research Center reports that, in a little over 2 years, weve moved from cool to neutral on its scale of Americans feelings, atheists are faced with a stark moral and strategic imperative: they must confront the darkness within their midst and recognize that demonizing a group that constitutes over a billion individuals is a path to chaos. Trump and Bissonnette are both agents and effects of this chaos. No one would claim that Bissonnette was motivated to murder specifically by Dawkins words, but the persistence with which he and other New Atheists have uttered these words has contributed to the dismal present condition.

Advocating for reason and respect for science is a worthy cause in a world being torn apart by racism, nativism, and a corporate power structure that will destroy anything that stands in itsway. Its entirely reasonable to be concerned about religious extremism, but the most visible spokesmen of atheism are throwing fuel on the fire. The narrative of secularism must be rescued from those who would allow it to serve asa tool of fascism.

Continue reading here:

Atheism's Dark Side Aiding the Trump Agenda - Religion Dispatches

Important to preserve the essence of yoga: PM Narendra Modi – Economic Times

Posted on February 27, 2017 by Danzig

COIMBATORE: Calling people to embrace the age-old practice of Yoga, Prime Minister Narendra Modi has said rejecting an idea because it is ancient could be "potentially harmful".

The Prime Minister, who recently unveiled a 112-foot statue of Adiyogi, Lord Shiva, on the occasion of Mahashivratri at the Isha foundation here, said Yoga is constantly evolving.

As a tribute to Adiyogi, he lit the sacred fire to commence the Maha Yoga Yagna across the world, under which he said,"1 million people will take an oath to teach a simple form of yoga to at least 100 people each in the coming year, and touch at least 100 million people before the next Mahashivaratri".

"Yoga is ancient yet modern, constant yet evolving, but the essence of yoga has not changed. It is important to preserve this essence," Modi said.

A brainchild of spiritual leader Jaggi Vasudev Sadhguru, the statue showcases Shiva's contribution as Adiyogi.

"It is essential that the next generations of people on this planet are seekers, not believers. As philosophies, ideology, belief systems that don't stand the test of logic and the scientific verification will naturally collapse in coming decades, you will see the longing for liberation will rise. When that longing rises, Adiyogi and the science of Yoga will become very important," Sadhguru said.

The Prime Minister also took stock of the sprawling precincts of the Isha Foundation's ashram, as he visited the 22-feet underground water body at the Suryakund that aims at the physical cleansing and balancing of the human body.

He participated in the Pancha Bhuta Aradhana by Sadhguru - a yogic process of cleansing the five elements of the human system - at the Dhyanalinga, a multi religious meditation shrine, followed by a visit to the Linga Bhairavi, a feminine shrine for physical, material and spiritual wellbeing.

The tallest bust of its kind, the height of Adiyogi's face is symbolic of the 112 possibilities he explored for human beings to reach their ultimate potential, besides scientifically representing the 112 chakras of the human system.

"For the first time in the history of humanity, Adiyogi introduced the idea that the simple laws of nature are not permanent restrictions. If one is willing to strive, one can go beyond all limitations and attain liberation, moving humanity from assumed stagnation to conscious evolution.

"But, it also has a scientific significance -- there are 112 chakras in the human system, with which you can work, to explore 112 dimensions of life. In pursuit of the divine, you don't have to look up because it is not somewhere else. Each of the 112 possibilities is a method to experience the divine within you. You just have to pick one," Sadhguru said.

The statue was designed by Sadhguru over a period of two-and-a-half years, and built over the next eight months by the foundation's in-house team, right in time for celebrating Shivratri.

Sadhguru also expressed a desire to place similar statues of Adiyogi in the other three corners of the country, "The eastern one will most likely be in Varanasi. For the north, it will be somewhere north of Delhi and for the western one, will be in Mumbai."

Visit link:

Important to preserve the essence of yoga: PM Narendra Modi - Economic Times

YOGA-PM 2 LAST : PTI feed, News – India Today – India Today

Posted on February 27, 2017 by Danzig

The tallest bust of its kind, the height of Adiyogis face

The tallest bust of its kind, the height of Adiyogis face is symbolic of the 112 possibilities he explored for human beings to reach their ultimate potential, besides scientifically representing the 112 chakras of the human system.

"But, it also has a scientific significance -- there are 112 chakras in the human system, with which you can work, to explore 112 dimensions of life. In pursuit of the divine, you dont have to look up because it is not somewhere else. Each of the 112 possibilities is a method to experience the divine within you. You just have to pick one," Sadhguru said.

The statue was designed by Sadhguru over a period of two-and-a-half years, and built over the next eight months by the foundations in-house team, right in time for celebrating Shivratri.

Here is the original post:

YOGA-PM 2 LAST : PTI feed, News - India Today - India Today

3 Changes NATO Must Make To Remain A True Alliance – Forbes

Posted on February 27, 2017 by Danzig

Forbes

3 Changes NATO Must Make To Remain A True Alliance
Forbes
US Secretary of Defense James Mattis met with defense ministers from other NATO member countries in Brussels on Feb. 15. He had a message to deliver from the Trump White House. The meeting was closed, but some of Mattis's comments were released ...
Reshaping NATO?FrontPage Magazine
NATO Revamped: Why the Alliance Needs to ChangeThe National Interest Online
Only 5 of 28 NATO member countries meet their defense spending requirementsAmeriForce Publishing, Inc.
NUjournal
all 6 news articles »

Read the original post:

3 Changes NATO Must Make To Remain A True Alliance - Forbes

Facing Russia and Terrorism, a NATO Outsider Urges EU to Step Up – Bloomberg

Posted on February 27, 2017 by Danzig

February 26, 2017, 5:00 PM EST February 27, 2017, 1:56 AM EST

Finland is urging Europe to increase NATO contributions and focus more on security as the continent grapples with political turmoil from all sides, including from within.

Once the U.K. has quit the European Union, the 27 nations left behind need to double down on the blocs founding principle and give the remaining 444 million citizens what they most crave: security,Finnish President Sauli Niinisto said in an interview at his seaside residence in Helsinki on Friday. The 68-year-old is head of state of the nation that shares the EUs longest border with Russia, a country with which Finland has regular contact for security and practical reasons.

Sauli Niinisto on Friday, Feb. 24.

Photographer: Roni Rekomaa/Bloomberg

The discussion dealing with security is one of those elements where we have the possibility to ensure European citizens that Brussels can take care of your security and that would be a huge message these days, Niinisto said.

The comments come as a spate of elections threatens to deepen the EUs biggest existential crisis in its 60-year history.The bloc is also being challenged in the east by Russia and in the west by a new U.S. administration that has predicted its disintegration, just over four years after it won the Nobel Peace Prize.

Finnish president urges Europe to increase NATO contributions

Source: Bloomberg)

As it struggles to regain the legitimacy it lost in the eyes of many of its citizens following the debt crisis, the EU now faces a populist swell that threatens to undo many of the blocs founding principles.

Niinisto said a shift away from the center in French politics in connection with elections starting in April wouldnt be a minor issue. He also stated his belief that National Front candidate Marine Le Pen wont win the presidency on May 7. She has said she wants to take the euro zones second-biggest economy out of the single currency bloc.

Niinisto warns that, after a generation of peace, theres a risk the EU has grown too complacent to the security risks it faces. Terrorist attacks in the heart of the EU -- in Paris, Brussels and Berlin -- underscore the need for safeguards.

In Europe we have been living in very peaceful decades and during that time very many countries have actually a bit forgotten the security details and policy, he said. Now its coming back.

He also says that decades of U.S. demands, reiterated by the new administration, that European members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization foot their share of the security bill are understandable.

If theres an agreement, surely it should be fulfilled, he said.

Finland, which has stayed out of NATO largely due to its proximity to Russia, is building closer military ties with neighboring Sweden, which is also militarily non-aligned.

The most important business stories of the day.

Get Bloomberg's daily newsletter.

Germany, Europes biggest economy, is working toward raising its military budget to reach NATOs target of 2 percent of gross domestic product, Chancellor Angela Merkel said this month. If Germany and France alone were to meet that target by 2024, it could add more than $40 billion to their defense spending, almost two-thirds the amount Russia spends. But European nations have so far refused to consolidate their defense industries or procurement, meaning the euros they do spend dont have as much clout as each dollar spent by the U.S. or every ruble spent by Russia.

Im sure that individuals, families around Europe, feel a bit unsafe, Niinisto said. My thinking is that maybe the main task that the union has is to make sure for everybody that they can live in peace, that they can work in peace, that they can develop their society in peace.

Niinisto said he is in contact with Moscow, Berlin and Washington -- though is put off by self-declared peace mediators not appointed to such roles. Finlands contacts with Russia are maybe a bit more frequent, thats because were close to Russia, he said. Its one of the main pillars of our security policy to keep up the dialogue.

Read the rest here:

Facing Russia and Terrorism, a NATO Outsider Urges EU to Step Up - Bloomberg

A stronger NATO for a safer world – The Hill (blog)

Posted on February 27, 2017 by Danzig

At NATO headquarters in Brussels, Belgium, Secretary James Mattis, at a joint press conference on Feb. 15 with NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg, stated: America will meet its responsibilities, but if your nations do not want to see America moderate its commitment to the alliance, each of your capitals needs to show its support for our common defense. This statement is significant, not only for its content but for its context.

In just the last week, it was reported that a Russian intelligence collection ship was operating off the east coast of the United States; Russia had deployed a new missile system to NATOs borders that may violate the Intermediate Nuclear Forces treaty; and Russian military aircraft had conducted high-speed passes over U.S. Navy ships operating in the Black Sea.

While an intelligence ship operating near the coast and aircraft buzzing U.S. Navy ships are not necessarily new, particularly in recent years, the deployment of a new missile system that violates a long-standing treaty is certainly something new, and further reveals Vladimir Putins strategic intentions to undermine the West and its institutions.

Within this context, it was reassuring to many at home, and certainly to our allies in Europe, that during appearances at the Munich Security Conference and the NATO ministerial respectively, Mattis and Vice President Pence reaffirmed the United Statess commitment to NATO, and also made it clear that Russia would be held accountable for its actions.

Mattis went a bit further in noting that any cooperation would be contingent on Russia first taking positive steps to meet its obligations. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, in his first face-to-face meeting with Lavrov, insisted that Russia live up to the terms of the Minsk agreement and limit its involvement in the internal affairs of Ukraine.

Given the assertions about potential divisions in the Trump administration, could these statements from Mattis and Tillerson reveal some kind of good cop, bad cop routine, with the president playing the good cop in an otherwise hard-line administration?

Or is it, as our European allies worry, just a symptom of a dysfunctional administration?

Only time will tell. But what is needed now is not good cop, bad cop. What is needed is clarity of purpose and resolve.

If Winston Churchill were with us today, he may have reiterated one of his well-known statements from the WWI period: It is no use saying, 'We are doing our best.' You have got to succeed in doing what is necessary. Churchills point is as insightful today as it was in his time.

Sen. John McCainJohn McCainFather of slain Navy SEAL wants investigation A stronger NATO for a safer world Drug importation won't save dollars or lives MORE (R-Ariz.) clearly took on that mantle of leadership and resolve in his speech at the Munich conference, closely echoing Churchills words: The unprecedented period of security and prosperity that we have enjoyed for the past seven decades did not happen by accident. It happened not only because of the appeal of our values, but because we backed them with our power and persevered in their defense. Our predecessors did not believe in the end of history or that it bends, inevitably, toward justice. That is up to us. That requires our persistent, painstaking effort.

Given the level of effort that the United States has put into reinvigorating its involvement in European security, it is understandable that the president and the American people expect our allies to meet their treaty requirements. This is nothing new; the last three administrations have pushed our NATO allies to step up their funding for defense. However, the events of today require a renewed and unambiguous call for NATO member countries to meet their obligations.

From our time on Capitol Hill and in various other meetings and conferences, we have met with U.S. and allied military commanders. There is a clear commitment among the uniformed services of our alliance partners to increase joint training and improve our force structure in Europe. What is needed now is a political commitment to providing the resources required to enable that cooperation.

The Obama administration took some small steps in that direction, though Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges, the commander of U.S. Army Forces in Europe, must be given a great deal of credit. He seized the initiative and pushed for more forward deployed U.S. equipment and personnel in Europe. Hodges's leadership is commendable, but the full commitment to the alliance, the security of Europe, and Western interests cannot rest with one generals ingenuity and sheer will.

Nor can any of this be protected with only a portion of the NATO alliance meeting their full commitment. In the words of the NATO secretary-general: The challenges we face are the most complex and demanding in a generation. Neither Europe nor North America can tackle them alone. A strong NATO is good for Europe, a strong Europe is good for North America.

The events of today require a renewed and unambiguous call for NATO member countries to meet their obligations. However, building the public awareness and the political will to meet those obligations is unlikely to be accomplished solely through the holding of joint press conferences on the margins of a ministerial meetings or international conferences. The leaders of NATO, European thought leaders, influencers and activists must commit to visiting the member states who are not currently meeting the funding threshold and taking the case to the people.

This outreach should be accompanied by a media campaign that takes advantage of the various social networks to bring a new generation of supports to the NATO cause. The message must be clear and unequivocal: The threats of the past are re-emerging, the threat of terrorism grows with each passing day, and we need to be more, not less, involved in the conflicts in North Africa and the Middle East so that we can meet the threat of terrorism before it reaches the shores of Europe or North America. No one country, no matter how powerful, can protect us.

We, in the West, must heed the words of Churchill, in another time and McCain, in our time and be in this together.

Joseph Whited is the former Intelligence Lead for the House Armed Services Committee. He spent over 18 years serving in the intelligence community.

Alex Gallo is senior associate at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and served as a professional staff member on the House Armed Services Committee.

The views of contributors are their own and are not the views of The Hill.

Visit link:

A stronger NATO for a safer world - The Hill (blog)

An Alternative to NATO Expansion That Won’t Antagonize Russia – Wall Street Journal (subscription)

Posted on February 27, 2017 by Danzig

An Alternative to NATO Expansion That Won't Antagonize Russia
Wall Street Journal (subscription)
Lost in the brouhaha over whether President Trump and his team are too friendly toward Russian President Vladimir Putin is a more important question. If the Trump administration is serious about its worthy goal of improving U.S. relations with Russia ...

and more »

See more here:

An Alternative to NATO Expansion That Won't Antagonize Russia - Wall Street Journal (subscription)

EU, NATO urge Macedonian leader to allow new government – POLITICO.eu

Posted on February 27, 2017 by Danzig

Zoran Zaev, leader of the Social Democratic Union of Macedonia (SDSM), greets supporters in front of the government building after parliamentary elections in Skopje on December 11, 2016 | Robert Atanasovski/AFP via Getty Images

The Social Democratic Union of Macedonia said it has secured a coalition.

By David M. Herszenhorn

2/27/17, 2:09 AM CET

The European Commission and NATO urged the president of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Gjorge Ivanov, Sunday to abide by the countrys constitution and allow the formation of an opposition-led government, as the tiny Balkan country faced a crucial test of democratic norms.

Ivanovs party, VMRO-DPMNE, has controlled the government since 2006 and has largely dominated the countrys politics since 1990. But while thecenter-right VMRO-DPMNE finished first in parliamentary elections in December, winning51 seats, it failed to form a government, which requires a coalition of at least 61 MPs.

TheSocial Democratic Union of Macedonia (SDSM), which finished second in the elections with 49 seats, says it has secured a coalition and is demanding a mandate from Ivanov to form a government and install the partysleader, Zoran Zaev, as prime minister.

Zaev said he had clinched the needed votes byforging a deal withthe countrys largest Albanian party, the Democratic Union for Integration (DUI), and smaller Albanian parties.

After nearly 11 years of living under a regime, we have the chance to form a new democratic government of Macedonia, Zaev said in a statement, according to the Macedonian Information Agency, the official news service. Ivanvov has said he would give a mandate to form a government to a coalition with 61 votes, provided it would not violate the unitary character of Macedonia.

Zaevs deal apparently includes support for a law that would give Albanian status as an official language, a move that could give Ivanov a basis for trying to block the new government.

In what appeared to be a last-ditch power play, Nikola Gruevski, the leader of VMRO-DPMNE, issued a statement late Sunday night offering to back a Zaev-led government, but only if Zaev abandoned the language law and other proposals Gruevski insisted would splinter the country along ethnic lines.

If Zaev insists so badly to be prime minister, we will let him implement his program so long as he doesnt attack the state and national interests, Gruevski said, according to the MIA news service.

In an angry statement that bordered on a rant, Gruevski offered to be arrested, imprisoned, harassed, if needed to protect the country, and alleged that foreign meddlers including an unnamed foreign ambassador and George Soros, the billionaire civil-society activist, were trying to weaken Macedonia and have Zaev enthroned as prime minister.

In a statement on Sunday, Johannes Hahn, the European commissioner for neighborhood policy and enlargement negotiations, urgedIvanov to allow the formation of the SDSM-led government.

As enough signatures of MPs have been collected, Hahn said, We now expect the president to give the mandate to form the next government to the candidate from the parties which have the majority in the assembly, in line with the constitution.

In a pointed warning, Hahn continued, Change in democratic societies is natural and should be embraced, whenit is a result of credible elections. Accepting and respecting the election result and the right of leaders to try to form a government is a sign of a mature democracy. Obstructing and undermining such efforts has no place in a democratic process.

He added, We call on all relevant actors, including the president and the parliament, to act fully in line with the constitutions letter and spirit and in a responsible manner, to enable a swift formation of a government that will address overdue reforms.

In astatement, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg noted that the December parliamentary elections were well-administered and also called for Ivanov to let the process move forward.

Following one attempt to form a government, it has been announced that, in line with the requirement specified by the president, enough MPs signatures have now been collected, Stoltenberg said. I look to the authorities in Skopje to fulfill the next step in the democratic process. I call on all parties to exercise restraint in statements and actions, and take decisions for the benefit of all citizens.

See the original post here:

EU, NATO urge Macedonian leader to allow new government - POLITICO.eu

Letter: NATO more important than ever – The Sudbury Star

Posted on February 27, 2017 by Danzig

Re: Tell PM, Merkel Cold War is over, Feb. 22.

Au contraire Mr. Petricevic. The Cold War is not over, in fact these are the most dangerous times in 25 years. There is a Russian army threatening Europe, that has already annexed Crimea, is occupying Eastern Ukraine, has shot down a commercial airliner, is menacing the Baltic states of Estonia and Latvia, and is putting missiles aimed at Europe in Kaliningrad between Poland and Lithuania.

Russian President Vladimir Putin aided Bashir Al Assad against the rebels rather than ISIS and every once in a while threatens to cut off gas supplies to Europe. Putin has allied his military with Iran. He has hacked into the U.S. elections, threatening elections in Germany and France.

NATO is needed now more than ever. Trump is way off base suggesting NATO is obsolete. He has coddled Russia for whatever reason, although one can hazard a guess. Fortunately, Gen. Mattis understands the threat that Russia poses and will counter Trumps non-expertise in military matters.

Arne Suutari

Levack

Read the original:

Letter: NATO more important than ever - The Sudbury Star

NATO’s Crazy Plan to Find Russian Submarines Was a Total ‘Flop’ – The National Interest Online (blog)

Posted on February 27, 2017 by Danzig

At the height of the Cold War, the Soviet Union had so many hundreds of deadly submarines at sea that Western war planners willing to try almost any possible countermeasure, however goofy sounding.

Some seemingly crazy ideas proved actually worthwhile, such as the underwater Sound Surveillance Systema vast chain of seafloor microphones that patiently listened for Soviet subs and remains in use today.

Other less elegant anti-submarine tools survive only as anecdotes. In his book Hunter Killers, naval writer Iain Ballantyne recalls one of the zanier ideasair-dropped floppy-magnets meant to foul up Soviet undersea boats, making them noisier and easier to detect.

From the late 1940s on, captured German technology boosted Soviet postwar submarine design. Soviet shipyards delivered subs good enoughand numerous enoughto pose a huge danger to Western shipping.

By the time of the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, the USSR controlled the largest submarine force in the worldsome 300 diesel-electric submarines and a handful of nuclear-propelled models. NATO navies couldnt keep up. We simply do not have enough forces, Vice Adm. R.M. Smeeton stated.

NATO war planners feared only nuclear escalation could check the Soviet submarine wolf packsthat is, atomic strikes on sub bases along the Russian coast.

But the nuclear solution was worse than the problem. We can take steps to make sure the enemy is fully aware of where his course of action is leading him without nuclear weapons, Smeeton said, but we cannot go to war that way.

Desperate planners sought ways of making Soviet subs easier to hunt. Any technology that could speed up an undersea search was worth considering. A submarines best defense is of course stealth, remaining quiet and undetected in the ocean deep, Ballantyne notes. Something that could rob the Soviets of that cloak of silence must have seemed irresistible and, at least initially, a stroke of genius.

A Canadian scientist figured some kind of sticky undersea noisemaker would make a Soviet sub more detectable. He designed a simple hinged cluster of magnets that could attach to a submarines metal hull.

Movement would cause the flopping magnets to bang against the hull like a loose screen door, giving away the subs location to anyone listening. The simple devices would take time and effort to remove, thus also impairing the Soviet undersea fleets readiness.

At least that was the idea.

GodawfulRacket:

In late 1962, the British Admiralty dispatched the A-class diesel submarine HMS Auriga to Nova Scotia for joint anti-submarine training with the Canadian navy. The British were helping Canada establish a submarine force, s0 Royal Navy subs routinely exercised with Canadian vessels.

Auriga had just returned to the submarine base at Faslane, Scotland after a combat patrol as part of the Cuban Missile Crisis. Other subs of the joint Canadian-British Submarine Squadron Six at Halifax had seen action during the Crisis.

The 1945-vintage Auriga spent much of her time in Nova Scotia simulating Soviet diesel subs during hazardous under-ice ASW practice with U.S. and Canadian forces. During a typical three-week exercise, Auriga would be subject to the attentions of surface vessels, aircraft and other subs, including the U.S. Navys new nuke boats.

During one open-ocean exercise, Auriga was given the floppy-magnet treatment. A Canadian patrol plane flew over Aurigas submerged position and dropped a full load of the widgets into the sea.

As weird as it sounded, the magnet concept proved a resounding success. Enough magnets fell on or near Aurigas hull to stick and flop. Banging and clanking with a godawful racket, the magnets gave sonar operators tracking the sub a field day. Then the trouble started.

As Auriga surfaced at the end of the exercise, the magnets made their way into holes and slots in the subs outer hull designed to let water flow. They basically slid down the hull, Ballantyne says of the magnets, and remained firmly fixed inside the casing, on top of the ballast tanks, in various nooks and crannies.

The floppy-magnets couldnt be removed at sea. In fact, they couldnt be removed at all until the submarine dry-docked back in Halifax weeks later.

In the meantime, one of Her Majesty's submarines was about as stealthy as a mariachi band. No fighting, no training, no nothing until all those floppy little magnets were dug out of her skin at a cost of time, money and frustration.

The magnets worked on the Soviets with the same maddening results. The crews of several Foxtrots were driven bonkers by the noise and returned to port rather than complete their cruises.

Now, the Soviet navy could afford to furlough a sub or two, but NATO could not. Anti-submarine crews couldnt practice with floppy-magnets attached to their exercise targets.

The floppy-magnets worked exactly as intended, but they were simply too messy to train with to be practical on a large scale. It seems NATO deployed them only a few times.

The submarine-fouling floppy-magnet turned out to be, well, a flop.

This first appeared in WarIsBoring here.

Image: Creative Commons.

Follow this link:

NATO's Crazy Plan to Find Russian Submarines Was a Total 'Flop' - The National Interest Online (blog)

Select Page ::