This is what we are fighting on Facebook today. Reblogged

Standard
Reblogged This is a Facebook Post by  Anna Berg
This is what we are fighting on Facebook today. Please get involved (by clicking on Anna’s “going”) and SHSRE, SHARE, SHARE and get your friends to click as well. We need to help ourselves if we are to receive help. I don’t think Zuckerberg, (despite his Jewish background) gets how awful this is and how damaging allowing it is.. I don’t know why he doesn’t, but I hope we don’t et sidetracked in our conversation about this. Instead, I hope we can think of additional strategies to deal with the problem itself..
Anna Berg's photo.
Anna Berg's photo.
Anna Berg's photo.
Anna Berg's photo.
Anna Berg's photo.
Anna Berg's photo.
Anna Berg's photo.
Anna Berg's photo.
Anna Berg's photo.
I’m reposting these pics into one post so it’s easier for you to share. I think it’s difficult for people to believe that this is allowed on FB since Mark Zuckerberg is Jewish. Nevertheless, as you all know, it is, and we need to get that sad fact out! If you have any other photos/pages that you have reported but are still up, please post them here and I will update this collection when needed.Also, if you see anti-Semitic comments, please take a screen shot and post here (just look for a Hate Israel page and you’ll find plenty).

Thanks! Keep up the good work!

Like ·  · Share · 3 hours ago

Why they don’t want you to know Arabic

Standard

Education Minister Shay Piron doesn’t want school kids to learn Arabic. Of course, he doesn’t say this out loud, and if he is asked about it, not only would he not deny it, but he would also pratter on about how important it is to speak Arabic and how learning the language would serve as a cultural bridge and blah, blah, blah, just like the minister knows how to do.

In practice, though, he doesn’t want us to learn Arabic. He wants Arabic studies to last no longer than three years so that he could slash the budgets allocated to teaching the language.

Could this reform be part of the new policy introduced recently by the Education Ministry, which seems to be encouraging kids towards ignorance while teaching them a whole lot of nothing? At the same time, it is worth wondering whether there is anything special about learning Arabic.

It appears that there is. Whoever knows Arabic is likely to listen to Arab news media, surf Palestinian websites, and read Arabic newspapers. Then they are likely to discover the truth: the other side is awash with such a virulent stream of anti-Semitic racism that all talk of peace here is delusional.

The party to which the education minister belongs is entrenched firmly in what is inexplicably referred to as “the peace camp.” Knowing the Arabic language is anathema to this camp. The more Arab-language speakers there are, the less supporters.

Thus spake Abu Mazen

“The woman known as ‘the Maiden of Ludmir,’ Hannah Rachel Verbermacher, who became famous because of her outstanding studiousness and her becoming the only female rebbe in the history of the Hasidic movement, was, of course, a Palestinian.”

(Mahmoud Abbas, a doctor in history, from his book “How the Palestinians Created the World”)

Segmenting society

Polls in Israel consistently show that most Mizrahi Jews are on the Right side of the political spectrum, while a large chunk of Ashkenazim lean toward the Left. There are sociologists who have nurtured ridiculous theories in order to explain this state of affairs. The only thing they overlook is the most basic fact: a large chunk of Mizrahim speak Arabic.

Now, perhaps, just perhaps, that this is what lies beneath one of John Kerry’s bluffs, the one that says that a peace deal with the Palestinians would include monetary compensation for Jews kicked out of Muslim countries.

This is a bold-faced lie, and Kerry knows it. The agreement on which he is working, if it is ever signed, will be between Israel and the Palestinians. It won’t be with Iraq. It won’t be with Egypt. it won’t be with Syria or with Yemen. They won’t be party to the agreement, and they won’t pay billions. This conflict isn’t theirs.

Let us assume for a moment that they persuaded Syria to pay compensation. Where would the money come from? From hemorrhaging Yemen? An Iraq in ruins? Will it come from Egypt, where tens of millions of their citizens don’t know from where they’re going to get their next dry slice of bread?

Kerry knows that in the best case scenario, it’s a media fabrication for purposes of spin. In the worst case scenario, it’s a bluff. So why did he say it? Here’s a wild guess, which is certainly not true but in any case is worth mentioning just so that it’s clear what didn’t happen.

One day, one of Kerry’s advisers walked into his room and explained to him how Israeli society was structured and which of our various groupings are on the political right. “Jews love money. Should we try to buy them?” he asked one of his aides.

Again, we should emphasize that it is inconceivable for this to be a motivating factor in creating this compensation bluff.

Abu Mazen strikes again

“Three-thousand years prior to the Israelis, the Palestinians had already given the world the Patrick Kim pulp fiction series of books and they had documented the first-ever prescription for a congealed leg.”

(Abu Mazen, from his book “The Dawn of Humanity”)

Questions that will never be asked

Achinoam Nini, if you refuse to go on stage alongside a person who can’t stand homosexuals, then how is it that you performed in front of the pope?

Yisrael Shiran and Esti Brand, two individuals who were fired from the Education Ministry because of harboring right-wing views, will you agree to have your photo taken for the front-page of Haaretz and Yedioth Ahronoth?

Dear Sudanese migrant, if Israel is such a racist country, why are you fighting to stay here?

John Kerry, could you ask Mr. Obama what he would think about a proposal that would ban blacks from living in eastern Washington, DC? What about Jews in east Jerusalem?

Dear justice minister, as part of the campaign pushed by your ministry against racism and discrimination, will you also demand that Jews be permitted to pray on Temple Mount?

A reminder from Abu Mazen

“The Palestinian immigrants drained the swamps by planting eucalyptus trees. In short time, clashes erupted between the Palestinian pioneers and the clerks of Hebron.”

(Abu Mazen, from his book, “The Palestinian Pioneers”)

Trouble at home

On the order of the grand rebbe of Satmar, this Hassidic dynasty has begun a campaign against the Whatsapp application. They have a catchy slogan for their campaign: Press 1 for destroying the house.

It’s interesting to note that until now I was certain that Ariel Sharon destroyed more houses.

Just a minute, Abu Mazen is talking

“The Palestinians sat alone in the dark for at least 1800 years before the Poles.”

(Abu Mazen, from his book, “The Palestinians in the Krakow Ghetto”)

On the other hand

A photographer from another newspaper told me that Achinoam Nini asked him one time not to photograph her from the left, but to only get her right side. That’s because her left is the less photogenic side.

By chance, Achinoam Nini showed off her left side this week. She’s right. It really doesn’t look all that great.

Abu Mazen is just getting started

“Even Mordechai the Jew, Rabbi Shalom Shabazi, Hershele Ostropoler, and The Flying Matchmaker were all Palestinians.”

(Dr. Abu Mazen, from his book, “Gideon Levy Reveals”)

What do they want?

Last year, two ultra-Orthodox members of Knesset threatened that if this “wicked government” continued in its ways, they will not agree to accept budgets from the state. This week, the High Court of Justice took them up on their offer. What exactly is wrong with this?

One more

“The Palestinians arrived on the scene 2,000 years before the Palestinians.”

(Abu Mazen, from his book, “Conversations with Ilan Lukach”)

The battle for cloud market share is just beginning

Standard

The battle for cloud market share is just beginning

Cloud market will be dominated by “mega-vendors” Amazon, Microsoft, Google and VMware, researcher predicts

 

If you think the uber-competitive cloud computing market is hot right now, you haven’t seen anything yet.

That’s the prediction from one of the cloud industry’s leading pundits. Lydia Leong tracks the cloud market for Gartner and recently authored the IaaS Magic Quadrant, in which she found that Amazon Web Services is by far the market-share leader, with five times the amount of use than all its other competitors. That caused some in the industry, like Bernard Golden, director of enterprise solutions at Dell’s Enstratius, to ask, “why hasn’t a credible competitor emerged to challenge AWS??”

[THE CHALLENGERS: 10 Challengers who could take on Amazon in the cloud]

In a post on her personal blog, Leong responded:

“I think there’s a critical shift happening in the market right now. Three very dangerous competitors are just now entering the market — Microsoft, Google, and VMware. I think the real war for market share is just beginning.

Amazon got a head start on all the competitors and then built up a massive engineering team to quickly develop software to create differentiating features in its cloud. It has focused on building products and services that customers will actually use, which has allowed the company to keep its lead in the cloud market.

But while AWS has a strong lead, these three other vendors (Microsoft, Google and VMware) are catching up. Each have strong brand name presence to launch a market challenge to AWS, Leong notes. Microsoft has the cash and standing within the enterprise market to compete in the cloud, but its biggest strength, which is offering customers products that are all within the Microsoft ecosystem, could also be its greatest downfall. Google has the engineering talent to out-innovate anyone in the tech market, Leong notes, but it will struggle to position itself as a true enterprise-company (a stigma AWS has been fighting as well). VMware, meanwhile, has a strong hybrid cloud play and respect in the enterprise market, but has a tough balancing act to play with its service provider partners.

“If I were to place my bets, it would be on those four at the top of market share, five years from now,” Leong wrote. “They know that this is a software business. They know that innovative capabilities are vitally necessary. And they know that this has turned into a market fixated on developer productivity and business benefits. At least for now, that view is dominating the actual spending in this market.”

When Entrepreneurs Sacrifice Too Much

Standard

When Entrepreneurs Sacrifice Too Much

How much would you give up to start a company? A car? Your own apartment or house? Heat? From prized possessions like a classic motorcycle to priceless things like time with friends and family, it’s clear that many entrepreneurs are willing to make extreme sacrifices.For these intrepid bootstrappers, however, these entrepreneurial sacrifices can also affect family members.

As with many companies founded by passionate entrepreneurs, Stonyfield Farm’s road to becoming one of the top U.S. sellers of organic yogurt was paved with personal sacrifices—in this case, it included giving up some creature comforts and adopting a spartan lifestyle, such as living in a wood-heated New Hampshire farmhouse (pictured above).

The wife of Stonyfield Farm co-founder Gary Hirshberg, Meg Hirshberg drew on these early experiences when writing “For Better or For Work: A Survival Guide for Entrepreneurs and Their Families.”

When reflecting on aspects of their 27-year marriage, Meg Hirshberg describes her journey as the passenger along for the ride: “The entrepreneur is the driver; the spouse, having no control, sways nauseatingly with all the curves the business takes. With respect to the business, the spouse inevitably confronts the question: ‘Are you in or are you out?‘ That question is usually not verbalized but it hangs in the air. And if the spouse isn’t in, the relationship will suffer.”

Meg Hirshberg details some of the sacrifices that she made along the way:

LINKEDIN: It took nine years for Stonyfield Farm to have a profitable year. As you look back on those nine years, what were some of the biggest sacrifices that you made?

MEG HIRSHBERG: I’d have to say we didn’t look at it as a sacrifice, but rather as a set of choices we were presented with. Entrepreneurs do whatever it takes to try to make the business work. In our case, we lived in a pretty primitive environment—a freezing wood-heated farmhouse—and we shared the space with the business so we had no privacy. Of course we would have preferred our own home, but we couldn’t afford it, and we had to stay near the yogurt factory. Virtually all startups involve the sacrifice of financial security (and of free time), but in the case of home-based businesses like ours, you also sacrifice privacy.

The Hirshberg Family, 2009

LINKEDIN: Sacrificing time with family and friends often comes up as one of the bigger things that entrepreneurs give up. What would you say to someone who might resent the frequent absences (both emotional and physical) of the entrepreneur? Any tips on what you or Gary would have done differently in hindsight?

MEG HIRSHBERG: The extreme demands on the entrepreneur can make the spouse feel ignored, neglected, and low on the priority list. The entrepreneur needs to show the spouse that s/he is important. It really doesn’t take much—often it comes down to genuinely inquiring about the spouse’s day (since businesses can suck up all the conversational oxygen) or taking a little tech-free time with the spouse on a regular basis. Even a walk down the block (sans smartphone) can make the couple feel connected.

As with most startups, the business demanded that Gary be absent a lot (he was on the road seeing buyers, etc…) But on top of this, he also had a lot of volunteer commitments. I think that’s one thing he would have done differently—pared down on any outside commitments that were not essential to the business, at least during the crazy startup years.

LINKEDIN: Any other lessons you’d like to pass along?

MEG HIRSHBERG: The most important thing for couples living the startup life is to make every effort to communicate and stay in touch. That’s of course true of any couple, but a business can expand relationship fault lines into yawning chasms.

How Fake 2nd Amendment History Kills

Standard

How Fake 2nd Amendment History Kills

Friday, September 20, 2013 7:56

 

0

 

False history can kill, as the American people have seen again in the slaughter of 12 people working at the Navy Yard in Washington D.C. on Monday, when an emotionally disturbed gunman gained access to the military facility and opened fire, adding the site to a long list of mass-murder scenes across the United States.

Though the focus after the latest rampage has been on the need for better mental health detection and for better security at bases, the underlying story is again how easy it is for people in the United States, like the troubled Aaron Alexis, to obtain lethal weaponry – and how hard it is to keep guns away from dangerous individuals.

In that sense, the Navy Yard narrative is just one more bloody patch in the grim tapestry that stretches from Virginia Tech to Aurora to Newtown to hundreds of other locations where thousands upon thousands of innocent lives have been taken by gun violence in America.

But a key reason why the nation is frozen in a shocking paralysis, unable to protect even little children, is that the American Right has sold much of the country on a false history regarding the Second Amendment. Right-wingers and other gun-rights advocates insist that the carnage can’t be stopped because it is part of what the Framers designed.

Yet that is not and never was the actual history. When the First Congress passed the Second Amendment in 1789, the goal was to promote state militias for the maintenance of order in a time of political violence, potential slave revolts and simmering hostilities with both European powers and Native Americans on the frontiers.

The amendment was never intended as a blank check for some unstable person to massacre fellow Americans. Indeed, it defined its purpose as achieving “security” against disruptions to the country’s new republican form of government. The Second Amendment read:

“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” In other words, if read in context, you would see that the Second Amendment was enacted so each state would have the specific right to form “a well-regulated militia” to maintain “security,” i.e. to put down armed disorder.

In the late Eighteenth Century, the meaning of “bearing” arms also referred to a citizen being part of a militia or army. It didn’t mean that an individual had the right to possess whatever number of high-capacity killing machines that he or she might want. Indeed, the most lethal weapon that early Americans owned was a slow-loading, single-fired musket or rifle.

No Anarchists

And, the Framers of the Constitution were not some anarchists who wanted an armed population so people could overthrow the government if they weren’t happy with something. Indeed, one of the crises that led to the Constitution was the inability of the old system under the Articles of Confederation to put down the Shays’s Rebellion in western Massachusetts in 1786-87.

The Framers – people like George Washington, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and Gouverneur Morris – were the Establishment of the day. They also recognized how fragile the nation’s independence was and how novel was the idea of a constitutional republic with democratic elections. They were seeking a system that took political action that reflected the will of the people, yet within a framework that constrained the passions of democracy.

The whole idea of the Constitution – with its mix of voting, elected representatives and checks and balances – was to create a political structure that made violence unnecessary. As the Preamble states, two key goals were to “promote the general Welfare” and to “insure domestic Tranquility.” So, the Framers weren’t encouraging violent uprisings against the republic that they were founding. To the contrary, they characterized violence against the constitutional system as “treason” in Article IV, Section 4.

And one of the first uses of the new state militias formed under the Second Amendment and the Militia Acts was for President Washington to lead a federalized force of militiamen against the Whiskey Rebellion, a tax revolt, in western Pennsylvania in 1794.

Though it’s true that many Americans owned a musket or rifle in those early years especially on the frontier, regulations on munitions were still common in cities where storing of gunpowder, for instance, represented a threat to the public safety. As the nation spread westward, so did common-sense restrictions on gun violence. Sheriffs in some of the wildest of Wild West towns enforced gun bans that today would prompt a recall election financed by the National Rifle Association.

This history was well understood both by citizens and courts. For generations, the U.S. Supreme Court interpreted the Second Amendment as a collective right, allowing Americans to participate in a “well-regulated Militia,” not as an individual right to buy the latest weaponry at a gun show or stockpile a military-style arsenal in the basement.

False Narrative

However, in recent decades – understanding the power of narrative on the human imagination – a resurgent American Right rewrote the history of the Founding era, dispatching “researchers” to cherry-pick or fabricate quotes from Revolutionary War leaders to create politically convenient illusions. [See, for instance, Steven Krulik’s compilation of apocryphal gun quotes.]

Among the false narratives was the one about the Second Amendment, which the Right (and some on the Left) transformed into a supposed device by which the Framers authorized armed rebellion against the constitutional Republic. Rather than people who believed in the rule of law and social order, the Framers were contorted into mad radicals who wanted citizens to be empowered to shoot police, soldiers, elected representatives and government officials.

These “scholars” love to cite provocative comments by Thomas Jefferson, who was not even a participant in drafting the Constitution and the Bill of Rights because he was the U.S. representative in France at the time. But these revisionists still will quote Jefferson in a 1787 letter criticizing the Constitution for its commander-in-chief provisions. Jefferson argued that violence, like the Shays’s Rebellion, was to be welcomed. He declared that “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.”

It is ironic, however, that Jefferson was never willing to risk his own blood as that “natural manure.” During the Revolutionary War when traitor Benedict Arnold led a force of Loyalists against Richmond, Jefferson, who was then Virginia’s governor, declined to rally the state militia in defense of the capital but rather fled for his life. Later, when British cavalry approached Charlottesville and his home of Monticello, Gov. Jefferson again took flight.

Despite his personal cowardice, Jefferson had a lust when it came to others shedding blood. He also was eager for Virginia to have a state militia of armed whites to crush possible black slave rebellions, another prospect that terrified him.

As a slaveholder and a pseudo-scientific racist, Jefferson surely did not envision blacks as having any individual right to own guns themselves or to fight for their own liberty. Reflecting on blacks who fought bravely in the Revolution, Jefferson concluded that their courage was an illusion resulting from their intellectual inability to recognize danger.

Yet, whatever one thinks of Jefferson’s racism and cowardice, it’s a historical error to cite Jefferson in any way as speaking definitively about what the Framers intended with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. He was not directly involved in either.

Still, this false history was advanced by the American Right in the last half of the Twentieth Century as a kind of neo-Confederate call to arms, with the goal of rallying whites into a near-insurrectionary fury particularly in the South but also in rural areas of the North and West. Many fancied themselves an armed resistance against the tyrannical federal government.

Southern whites brandished guns and engaged in violence to resist the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s, when the federal government finally stepped in to end Jim Crow laws and racial segregation. In the 1990s, “citizens militias” began to pop up in reaction to the election of Democrat Bill Clinton, culminating in the Oklahoma City bombing of 1994.

Winning the Court

While designed primarily for the weak-minded, the Right’s faux Founding history also had an impact on right-wing “intellectuals” including Republican lawyers who worked their way up through the federal judiciary under Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush.

By 2008, these right-wing jurists held a majority on the U.S. Supreme Court and could thus overturn generations of legal precedents and declare that the Second Amendment established an individual right for Americans to own guns. Though even these five right-wing justices accepted society’s right to protect the general welfare of the population through some gun control, the Supreme Court’s ruling effectively “validated” the Right’s made-up history.

The ruling created a political dynamic in which even liberals in national politics, the likes of Barack Obama and Joe Biden, had to genuflect to the supposed Second Amendment right of Americans to parade around in public with guns on their hips and high-powered semi-automatic rifles slung over their shoulders.

As guns-right activists struck down gun regulations in Congress and in statehouses across the nation, their dominant argument was that the Second Amendment offered no leeway for restrictions on gun ownership; it’s what the Framers wanted.

So, pretty much any unstable person could load up with a vast killing capacity and slouch off to a bar, a work place, a church or a school – even an elementary school – and treat fellow Americans as targets in a violent video game. Somehow, the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness was overtaken by the “right” to own an AR-15 with a 30-or-100-bullet magazine.

 

When right-wing politicians talk about the Second Amendment now, they don’t even bother to include the preamble that explains the point of the amendment. The entire amendment is only 26 words. But the likes of Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, apparently find the preamble inconvenient because it would undercut the false storyline that they foist on uneducated Americans. So they just lop off the first 12 words.

Nor do Cruz and his fellow Tea Partiers explain to their followers what the Framers meant by “bear arms.” The phrase reflected the reasoning in the preamble that the whole point was to create “well-regulated” state militias to maintain “security,” not to free up anybody with a beef to kill government representatives.

This bogus narrative of the Framers seeking to encourage violence to subvert the peaceful and orderly process that they had painstakingly created in Philadelphia in 1787 also has been pushed by prominent right-wingers, such as radio host Rush Limbaugh and Fox News personality Andrew Napolitano

After last December’s massacre of 20 children and six educators in Newtown, Connecticut, Napolitanodeclared: “The historical reality of the Second Amendment’s protection of the right to keep and bear arms is not that it protects the right to shoot deer. It protects the right to shoot tyrants, and it protects the right to shoot at them effectively, with the same instruments they would use upon us.”

The clear message from the Right has been that armed Americans must confront the “tyrannical” Barack Obama – the twice-elected President of the United States (and the first African-American to hold that office) – especially if he presses ahead seeking commonsense gun restrictions.

Which brings us back to the Navy Yard massacre in Washington D.C. It has quickly and quietly taken its place among the other mass slaughters that can’t be stopped because the Right’s powerful propaganda apparatus has sold millions of Americans on the dangerous – and false – notion that the Framers of the U.S. Constitution wanted it this way.

These modern “revolutionaries” have been persuaded that they are channeling the intent of the Framers who supposedly saw armed uprisings against the legally constituted U.S. government as an important element of “liberty.” But that belief is not the historical reality. Indeed, the reality is almost the opposite.

Reply to the Troll Internet Blog losersonlinkedin Stephen Darori AKA Stephen Drus Posted on September 14, 2013by stephendarori

Standard

Reply to the Troll Internet Blog losersonlinkedin Stephen Darori AKA Stephen Drus

An absurd situation … I did not write any of the incredibly long and incomprehensible gmails on which theInternet Troll MDraeper has “based” his Blog … one of two in his blogspot . Google Inc have received legal representation to suppress the Blogs and have done so with the second of this troll’s blogs but left the longer and more ridiculous blog. Google In are in the most ideal position to access all my gmail received and sent since the account was opened when gmail was still at Beta and determine whether or not the lengthy correspondence took place often in the early hours of the morning but according to Google inc they are overwhelmed with 10 -12 million new requests per week to remove content from Google Inc’s properties which increase almost weekly with new purchases. Not really relevant but an interesting statistic …according to an xoogler ( exGoogler) on Quora … in every Google Chrome Research , over 8% of search results that are generated never before have been Googled by its Chrome Browser and contrary to te often cited illusion , the Google Crawler does not take 3 days to search the Internet … it does so now instantaneously ( technology and microprocessors have developed far faster than exponentially) as has Google Chrome’s Search algorithm.
The Internet is the largest experiment involving anarchy in history and the largest ungoverned space without any real legal recourse.It is worth noting that the term “troll” is one of the most frequently cited insults in the online environment. It is often used to brand, silence or scapegoat a member with a dissenting or outright false impression. MDraeper has written a malicious false blog devoid of any fact or truth using his talent ( well some talent) as a South African Johannesburg based movie script writer. It would appear that the real person behind the MDraeper pseudonym had his application for finance of a movie turned down. He has deleted and reposted this Blog a number of times since 2009.
Unmoderated or poorly moderated environments like Blospots are not only more susceptible to malicious or damaging trolls, they are also more likely to create the conditions that invite them. This is because the members themselves have very little in the way of actual power. With few other options at their disposal they will often resort to intimidation tactics and personal attack with the hope of verbally overpowering the offender. If the offender is a true troll, this will only reinforce the troll’s sense of purpose, inflames his/her ire, and let him or her know who the target is.Blogspot is a Google Incasset however every week Google Inc according to Quora they get 6-8 million complaints and even employing 50 thousand lawyers will not clear the backlog in the next century.
1. “MDraeper” ( Mike Draeper) is fictitious and spurious. .MDraeper is a Internet Troll who has posted an inflammatory, provocative and intrusive harassment Blog about Stephen Darori . A Google search for “MDraeper” ( and /or Mike Draeper)produces no results except for this Blog with one entry dating from 2009 and a a shorter second from 2012. The Blog from 2009 was deleted and reposted in 2012. MDraeper appears to be a an exceedingly imaginative South African movie script writer with an attribute for writing fiction with the typical impunity of a bogus internet troll. It probably is not a good reflection of his true writing skills or ability to spell .

2.Stephen Darori did not have a PhD from Wits University or any other degree from that University. He never actually set foot on the latter University Campus. In 2009 “Helpmekaar” did not have a website, let alone a Wikipedia Article about it. It is an expensive private academically very successful Afrikaans High School. Quite obviously the basis for one of Draeper’s incorrect assertions would not exist had their website existed in 2009.

3.Stephen Darori gmail account has has no record of any correspondence with the fallacious and deleterious troll MDraeper dating back to 2009 ( on which this entire Blog has been contrived). This Blog was deleted by MDraeper and reposted in 2012. The Gmails dating back to 2009 are the connived creations of MDraeper . There is no basis of truth in any of the correspondence related to Stephen Darori. It was never Stephen Darori’s style or nature to write long, rambling, time consuming emails that have little basis of fact. “AK European Investments” was the nickname given to a very discrete Investment Group ( he was once associated with) that never ever invested in movies or films.

4. Stephen Darori was not a serial scammer. Neither was he a criminal and was never ever subjected to any form of questioning , in any country , regarding any on line presence he may have had , by any law biding body. Stephen Darori valued his privacy and could be relied on for discretion and honesty.
Related articles

Reply to Losers on Linkedin Stephen Darori AKA (replytolosersoflinkedin.wordpress.com)
Reply to Losers on Linkedin : Stephen Darori AKA……. (replytolosersoflinkedin.wordpress.com)
Reply to to the Interenet Troll Blog MDraeper on Losers on Linkedin Stephen Darori AKA (replytolosersoflinkedin.wordpress.com)
Reply to the Internet Troll Blog losersonlinkedin aka Stephen Darori (replytolosersoflinkedin.wordpress.com)
Rely To Interenet Blog Losersonlinkedin AKA Stephen Darori (replytolosersoflinkedin.wordpress.com)
Related articles

Reply to Losers on Linkedin : Stephen Darori AKA…….(replytolosersoflinkedin.wordpress.com)
Reply to to the Interenet Troll Blog MDraeper on Losers on Linkedin Stephen Darori AKA (replytolosersoflinkedin.wordpress.com)
Reply to the Internet Troll Blog losersonlinkedin aka Stephen Darori(replytolosersoflinkedin.wordpress.com)
Rely To Interenet Blog Losersonlinkedin AKA Stephen Darori(replytolosersoflinkedin.wordpress.com)
Reply to Losers on Linkedin Stephen Darori AKA(replytolosersoflinkedin.wordpress.com)
Cutting Internet trolls down to size (philly.com)
Stephen Darori (stephendarori2013.wordpress.com)
Stephen Darori (replytolosersoflinkedin.wordpress.com)
REPLY to MDRaeper Troll Blog Losers of LinkedIn: Stephen Darori (A.K.A. Stephen Drus A.K.A (replytolosersoflinkedin.wordpress.com)
Reply to the Troll Blog losersonlinkedin AKA Stephen Darori AKA Stephen Drus(replytolosersoflinkedin.wordpress.com)
Related articles

Reply to to the Interenet Troll Blog MDraeper on Losers on Linkedin Stephen Darori AKA (replytolosersoflinkedin.wordpress.com)
Reply to the Internet Troll Blog losersonlinkedin aka Stephen Darori(replytolosersoflinkedin.wordpress.com)
Rely To Interenet Blog Losersonlinkedin AKA Stephen Darori(replytolosersoflinkedin.wordpress.com)
Reply to the Troll Blog losersonlinkedin AKA Stephen Darori AKA Stephen Drus(replytolosersoflinkedin.wordpress.com)
Reply to the Troll Internet Blog losersonlinkedin Stephen Darori AKA Stephen Drus(replytolosersoflinkedin.wordpress.com)
Internet troll ordered to pay $500 (stuff.co.nz)
Cutting Internet trolls down to size (philly.com)
Reply to Losers on Linkedin Stephen Darori AKA(replytolosersoflinkedin.wordpress.com)
REPLY to MDRaeper Troll Blog Losers of LinkedIn: Stephen Darori (A.K.A. Stephen Drus A.K.A (replytolosersoflinkedin.wordpress.com)
Reply to Losers on Linkedin : Stephen Darori AKA…….(replytolosersoflinkedin.wordpress.com)
About these ads
Occasionally, some of your visitors may see an advertisement here.
Tell me more | Dismiss this message
Share this:Facebook
Press This
Twitter
Facebook
Tumblr
Pinterest
Google
StumbleUpon
Reddit
Digg
Google+
Stephen Darori

Like this:

The capital takes the strain in times of austerity

Link

The capital takes the strain in times of austerity

For all its reliance on financial services, London’s economy has shown remarkable strength in the years following the banking crisis. It has put more distance between itself and the other regions of the UK in terms of output, and extended its lead against the national average in household income, employment rates and productivity. With a broad-based economy and highly skilled labour force, the capital has cemented its status as the engine of the UK economy.

This has not left it unaffected by cuts in government spending designed to reduce a daunting budget deficit. But the impact has revealed itself in ways that reinforce the contrasts between the capital’s economy and that of the regions. This has led to calls for London to be treated differently by national policy makers – not least from its Conservative mayor, Boris Johnson.

If deficit reduction has exacerbated the tensions in London politics, friction has been greatest between boroughs and the government. Cuts to local authority budgets have left councillors facing invidious choices on funding, including that for activities they are statutorily obliged to provide, such as rubbish collection and adult social care.

London Councils, the umbrella organisation for the city’s 33 local authorities, says a funding gap of £907m will open by 2018 because of the rising cost of adult care. One-third of councils’ funds are spent on adult social care, and this is expected to grow as the population ages during the next decade. The organisation has also warned that the capital’s local authorities would face further costs of £877m by 2019-20 to accommodate government reforms to the care system. Under the plans, any care costs above a lifetime limit of £72,000 are expected to be carried by councils.

But the costs of residential care are highest in the capital. This means the proportion of people paying for residential care in London could reach 27 per cent, compared with 3 per cent in areas of the UK where it is far cheaper, the report said.

Ravi Govindia, London Councils’ executive member for adult services, says: “While we support the [Care] Bill, we are concerned that councils will have to pick up the tab if it goes ahead as planned without first taking into account London’s circumstances – particularly the high cost of residential care.”

The application of UK-wide policies to London’s distinctive economy creates other difficulties. The government is introducing changes to the benefits system, capping the total amount that a household can receive at £500 a week. Londoners pay about £1,400 a month for a two-bed property, against a national average of £665, so more capital dwellers will be caught by the cap.

Concerns have surfaced that the policy is pushing low-income groups out of central London to the outer boroughs, which in turn puts pressure on their provision of essential services. Islington, Camden, Kensington & Chelsea and Westminster have seen the number of housing benefit claimants decline since April 2011. But Barnet’s claimant levels went up by 45 per cent, and Newham and Haringey showed rises of 41 per cent and 21 per cent.

Private rented property has become more expensive over the period, and research by the Centre for London think-tank shows that rental costs as a proportion of household income have increased from 21 per cent in 2001-02 to 27 per cent in 2010-11. The proportion of people renting privately in the capital has risen to 25 per cent, up from 18 per cent two years ago.

The government says that London’s local authorities received an extra £50m to help those affected by the housing benefit cap. But the councils would like to see the capital treated as a special case, with a higher cap to offset its greater housing costs.

While councils have largely directed their criticism of public spending cuts at central government rather than City Hall, Mr Johnson has not escaped the effects of tighter funding.

Local authorities have attacked the mayor over his plan to cut £28.8m from the fire service budget over two years, with the closure of 10 fire stations and the loss of 14 fire engines and 552 firefighting jobs in the capital.

Eight Labour-led councils have written to Eric Pickles, communities secretary, to try to overturn it, and said they would seek a judicial review if the decision went ahead. It has even prompted objections from Tory-run councils, such as Westminster and Kensington & Chelsea, where fire stations are to close.

Londoners are not behind Mr Johnson: a YouGov poll in July showed 61 per cent against the cuts, and 69 per cent believed they would threaten public safety.

On infrastructure and spending – City Hall’s biggest budgetary responsibility – the mayor has fared better. In its comprehensive spending review in June, the government cut Transport for London’s grant by 12.5 per cent, to £1.6bn in 2015-16. But fears of threats to Tube upgrades, road safety improvements and an ambitious cycle scheme proved false after ministers pledged to hold capital investment at £1bn a year in 2015-21.

Tony Travers, a local government expert at the London School of Economics, says: “Transport has not been subject to anything like the pressures imposed on local government.”

These questions will be brought to the fore in two big tests of public opinion for London politics over the next two years: borough elections in 2014 and the general election in 2015.

Mr Travers says the Labour party was likely to make “small gains” in the borough elections, but questioned the view that London was a city that habitually votes Labour in national polls. The party has seen big increases in its London vote share since 1997. But the “London Labour lead” is relatively new in historic terms, and by no means guaranteed. “The big challenge for Labour in 2015 is to hold on to those people,” he says.

Tensions over spending – and arguments over the capital as a “special case” – are unlikely to recede soon from London’s political debate.