Wednesday, April 04, 2007

Shouting Big Brother Cameras To Use Child Voices

Psychological warfare to shame dissenters into obedience
infowars
another article on bbc's website
A previously localized trial of CCTV cameras that allow local government officials to monitor people in the streets and shout orders at anyone they deem to be acting in an anti-social manner is to be enforced nationwide across the UK. In a bizarre psychological move the cameras will speak in a child's voice.

In an incredibly Orwellian move, loudspeakers are to be fitted to surveillance cameras throughout major cities, allowing CCTV operators to bark commands at people who drop litter, act in an aggressive manner or loiter.

Last October we reported on the trial scheme of these cameras in Middlesbrough. At the time we predicted "The voice of Big Brother has already echoed across several major cities and the program will no doubt be unfolded nationwide once the salivating control freaks in council offices have their way." Now this has indeed come to pass.

Council workers in a control centre can monitor pictures from 12 talking cameras in the town, and communicate directly with people on the street at the flick of a switch.

Communities are being coerced into adapting existing cameras with the offer of nearly £500,000 in grants.

Home Secretary John Reid has denied that the plans were "Big Brother gone mad", stating "This is a hugely popular scheme in Middlesbrough and the vast majority of the people here are right behind it."

Sadly it seems Reid is right as once again the simpering jellyfish-like people of the UK have not reacted in protest to a control freak's dream come true scheme that surpasses any methods that were ever employed by the state in the Soviet Union or currently in Communist China.

The BBC has put out a new report on this loving scheme:



Note the terroristic "skater boy" who will soon have cease and desist orders barked at him. No longer are skate boards cool and fun, Bart Simpson may still have one, but now they are the tools of evil and must be clamped down upon by the state.

The shouting cameras have been on the table for a long time and were spotted in London, along with large black megaphone apendages, up to one year ago:

In an even more frightening and conniving move it has today been revealed that the bureaucrats behind the cameras will use recordings of children's voices to discourage any adult they target from dissenting and shouting back at the cameras.

As tech web site The Register today put it:

Using recordings of children's voices will make it harder for those in opposition to the surveillance society to be defiant of the talking cameras. Moonies and rude gestures will most definitely be a no-no.

Children will be recruited from schools to take part in the scheme and will be shown round CCTV operating rooms on school trips, learning how wonderful the big brother state is and how forcing people to behave in a certain way in public is the essence of a free society.

The use of children's voices to control adult behaviour is all out psychological warfare when you consider that it constitutes a total reversal of social norms. The government knows this full well and justifies it by suggesting that some people in the UK are now so devoid of morality that there is no way of setting that right other than by ritualistic public isolation and humiliation.

What does it say about the state of a society in general that the government has given up on a portion of people and has decided that the best course of action is to extradite them and label them as fair game for methods of control that wouldn't look out of place in a horrific dystopian science fiction film?

The current divisions within society are frightening. We have reached the point where the general public is willing to accept massive invasions of their own privacy in order to deal with people they consider to be a bit of a nuisance from time to time.

It would not be surprising at all to see some people reveling in the control, egging on the shouting cameras and engaging in a proverbial "two minutes hate" against those they no longer dare stand up to themselves because they, quite rightly, fear for their own safety if they were to do so.

The most dangerous form of tyranny is one that has the consent of the people.

At the other end of the social divide the "louts" and "yobs" that are the primary target of such control mechanisms feel so divorced from society that their only means of articulation is to resort to acts of violence and vandalism.

How is it possible that further alienating these people, and almost rubbing their faces in the fact, is going to solve the problem?

Because modern day government is so obsessed with short term appearance over long term reality we are witnessing the literal unraveling of society as each problem is provided a solution that in turn engenders an even worse set of problems.

In short, such surveillance state methods are greasing the skids for the police state. As the general public cry out for more and more state intervention in society, and the dropouts become more and more alienated and reactionary, there is only one place we are all going to end up.

In a culture where people are not instilled with internal limiters on their behaviors, increasing external limiters is demanded and thus must be provided. Welcome totalitarianism.

Behind Winston's back the voice from the telescreen was still babbling away about pig-iron and the overfulfilment of the Ninth Three-Year Plan. The telescreen received and transmitted simultaneously. Any sound that Winston made, above the level of a very low whisper, would be picked up by it, moreover, so long as he remained within the field of vision which the metal plaque commanded, he could be seen as well as heard. There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment. How often, or on what system, the Thought Police plugged in on any individual wire was guesswork. It was even conceivable that they watched everybody all the time. But at any rate they could plug in your wire whenever they wanted to. You had to live -- did live, from habit that became instinct -- in the assumption that every sound you made was overheard, and, except in darkness, every movement scrutinized.

"Smith!" screamed the shrewish voice from the telescreen. "6079 Smith W.! Yes, you! Bend lower, please! You can do better than that. You're not trying. Lower, please! That's better, comrade. Now stand at ease, the whole squad, and watch me."


- George Orwell, 1984.

Anti-Flu Drugs Losing Punch

Flu Fighters Tamiflu, Relenza Could Be Less Effective Against Certain Viral Strains, Study Finds
abcnews

April 3, 2007 — Tamiflu and Relenza, two anti-viral drugs commonly used to treat influenza, may be losing their effectiveness as the flu virus adapts, Japanese scientists report in a new study.

The study, published in the current issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), reports yet another obstacle in the fight against the flu.

The research suggests that scientists may have to find new ways to combat growing resistance to current flu treatments — and possibly rethink the strategy for preventing a global flu pandemic.

There are three types of viruses that cause the flu: influenza types A, B and C. Drugs like Tamiflu, manufactured by Roche, and Relenza, manufactured by GlaxoSmithKline, are designed to fight the A and B types — the two most responsible for yearly flu outbreaks.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), about 36,000 people in the United States die every year from the flu.

Influenza A viruses — among which is the H5N1 virus responsible for bird flu — cause regular outbreaks of flu and can infect animals. Influenza B viruses are responsible for sporadic outbreaks of flu, while influenza C viruses rarely cause symptoms.

When an infectious agent such as a virus changes, or mutates, in such a way as to render a drug against it less effective, the virus is said to be drug-resistant.

The concept of flu resistance to anti-viral drugs is not new. While some influenza A viruses have already been found to be resistant to anti-viral agents, this report is the first to identify resistant strains of influenza B.

Approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 1999, Tamiflu and Relenza are relatively new additions to our armaments against the flu. They work by reducing the number of viruses released by infected cells. Fewer viruses means a lower chance of viral spread — and a higher chance of survival for the infected individual.

Tamiflu is by far the more frequently used of the two anti-viral drugs, with more than 50 million patient treatments worldwide since its approval. Japan is the greatest user of medicines like Tamiflu, and more than 90 percent of all such prescriptions are for Tamiflu.

Researchers had previously found some evidence that the mutations that make the flu virus resistant to drugs also lessens its ability to infect humans. The current study's findings suggest, however, that this is not always the case.

The resistant strains of influenza B identified in this study "cause infections with no difference in duration of symptoms, level of viral shedding, or clinical outcome," Dr. Anne Moscona, vice chair of research for pediatrics at New York Weill Cornell Medical Center, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

In other words, these resistant viruses make people just as sick. Furthermore, the resistant viruses seem to be passed readily from person to person — not only within families, but also among community members.

Does this mean we can expect a pandemic of drug-resistant influenza B in the near future? Not necessarily.

While flu resistance is a concern, unlike influenza A, influenza B is "not likely to be spread pandemically," said Robert Garry, professor of microbiology and immunology at the Tulane University School of Medicine.

This is because influenza B viruses are not inherently programmed to result in pandemic spread in the same manner as influenza A viruses — so it is unlikely that we need to prepare for a bird flu-like scare caused by influenza B.

Additionally, since this study was conducted in Japan, where Tamiflu use is much more common, "There are no immediate implications for anti-viral treatment in the U.S., but this is a yellow caution light," said Dr. William Schaffner, chair of the department of preventative medicine at the Vanderbilt University School of Medicine.

Resistance Still Rare, but Monitored

Though resistant strains of flu are being reported, resistance to Tamiflu is generally rare and is "continually and very closely monitored," according to Roche spokesperson Terry Hurley. He adds that anti-viral drugs such as Tamiflu are still "an essential part of any pandemic flu plan," and maintain their position as heavyweight fighters against flu.

Most importantly, the results of this study emphasize that anti-viral agents such as Tamiflu, Relenza and any other anti-viral drugs to be developed in the future should be used carefully in order to limit resistance.

And preventative measures, such as getting regular yearly flu shots, remain particularly important.

"The study reminds us that the treatment of influenza, although important, is not as effective as its prevention," Shaffner said. "We need to continue, indeed increase, research to create more effective influenza vaccines and improve methods of rapid vaccine production and delivery."

Authorities Collect, Bury Corpses in Mogadishu

voanews
Residents of Somalia's capital are collecting corpses that are still scattered on the streets after last week's fighting between insurgents and Ethiopian forces.

Medics and clan leaders began gathering up bodies Wednesday as a lull in the violence continued.

A top official with Somalia's doctor's association says infectious diseases could break out if the decaying bodies are not buried. However, the World Health Organization (WHO) says dead bodies do not generally pose a health hazard, unless they pollute sources of drinking water with human waste.

Aid organizations say last week's fighting was the worst violence to strike Mogadishu in 15 years. More than 380 civilians were killed.

On Tuesday, African, European and U.S. diplomats called for a full stop to fighting in Somalia. The diplomats were meeting in Cairo under the umbrella of the International Contact Group on Somalia.

International concern about the country is running high as the interim government struggles to establish authority in the capital.

Last week's fighting broke out when the government and its Ethiopian allies mounted an offensive against insurgents. The Ethiopian entered Somalia in December to help the government push a rival Islamist movement from power.

Somalia has not had an effective central government since 1991.

Iranian president announces release of British naval personnel

INTERNATIONAL HERALD
LONDON: President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran said Wednesday that he would immediately release 15 British sailors and marines who have been held captive in Iran since March 23.

Ahmadinejad said at a news conference in Tehran that he was giving the British military personnel amnesty and a pardon.

"I announce their freedom and their return to their people," he said. "They will be free after our meeting. They will go to the airport and will join their families."

The Iranian president said the decision to release the prisoners was not part of a swap with Iranian prisoners in Iraq.

"Our government has pardoned them, it is a gift from our people" he said. "It has nothing to do with this analysis. If we were to move forward on that basis things would have looked different. We approached the subject on a humanitarian basis. It was a unilateral decision on our end."

The announcement came after Ahmadinejad had taken the opportunity to pin a medal on the uniform of an Iranian naval commander who had captured the British sailors and marines.

The Britons were seized at gunpoint in disputed waters in the northern Persian Gulf. Iran contended that they illegally entered Iranian territorial waters. Britain argued that they were in Iraqi waters on a routine anti-smuggling patrol at the invitation of the Iraqi government and the United Nations.

Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain had said Tuesday that the next 48 hours would be "fairly critical" in resolving the dispute.

"All the way through this, we've had two tracks on this," Blair said in an interview with Real Radio in Glasgow. "One is to make sure Iran understands that the pressure is there available to us if this thing has to be hard and tough and long."

The other option is a peaceful resolution, the prime minister said. "We're not looking for confrontation over this," he had said. "Actually, the most important thing is to get the people back safe and sound, and if they want to resolve this in a diplomatic way, the door is open."

Blair had said that comments made by Ali Larijani, a top Iranian security official, on British television on Monday that "there is no need for a trial" and that "this issue should be resolved bilaterally" offered some prospect of a way to proceed. "But we need to hear from them direct," the prime minister had said, referring to the Iranians.

Iran had promised on Monday not to broadcast additional images of the British captives, but on Tuesday released photographs of several of them, looking relaxed and smiling, through the state news agency.

Some of the British captives, possibly under duress, have admitted to trespassing, and it appears that Iran has made such an admission a condition of their release.

Iran had demanded an admission of guilt from Britain and an apology, but Ahmadinejad appeared to have dropped that demand on Wednesday.

The Iranian president said Wednesday that he asks that Blair not put the captive sailors and marines on trial for admitting in the videotaped statements that they had trespassed in Iranian waters.

Other countries "must recognize that Iran will protect its right and its land and as it did in the past it will in the future," Ahmadinejad said. "We are sorry that the British troops remain in Iraq and their sailors are being arrested in Iran. We are sorry of this event."

He also questioned why one of the sailors was a mother. "Why is it that the most difficult missions, naval inspections, be given to a mother, who is carrying out a mission thousands of miles away from her child?" he said.

While remarks from Iran seemed softer in recent days, throughout the dispute its statements veered between conciliatory and angry, and it was hard to get a clear sense of what the government was thinking - or indeed whether the government was speaking with one voice.

Ahmadinejad's news conference on Wednesday came after he had postponed one on Tuesday.

In Washington, President Bush had described the Iranian seizure of British military personnel as "indefensible" and said that he, too, hoped to see the situation resolved peacefully. But he said Britain should not bargain for the captives' release.

"We are in close consultation with the British government," he said at a news conference at the White House. "I also strongly support the prime minister's declaration there should be no quid pro quos when it comes to the hostages."