Gungor - We will run
Thursday, September 15, 2016
Militia Seizes Libyan Oil Terminals in Challenge to Government
BERLIN–Fighting erupted in Libya’s oil crescent on Sunday when forces loyal to the dominant militia commander in eastern Libya attacked and seized as many as three major oil terminals, military and civilian officials said.
The sudden offensive from the commander, Gen. Khalifa Hifter, adds a new layer to Libya’s multifaceted civil war, and presents a fresh challenge to the authority of the already weak unity government backed by the United Nations.
General Hifter’s forces attacked the oil ports of Ras Lanuf, Es Sider and Zueitina early Sunday, said Ahmed al-Mismari, a spokesman for General Hifter’s Libyan National Army. Since 2013, the ports have been held by a smaller militia known as the Petroleum Facilities Guard, led by Ibrahim Jathran.
In July, Mr. Jathran signed an agreement with the unity government to resume oil exports from Libya, ending a three-year-old embargo. But on Sunday, his soldiers had been expelled from Ras Lanuf and Es Sider, though there were reports of continuing fighting at Zueitina.
General Hifter’s military gambit puts him on a collision course with the unity government even as international scrutiny of Libya intensifies. The contested oil region lies 50 miles east of Surt, the coastal city where Western-allied militias backed by American airstrikes are laying siege to the main Islamic State base in Libya.
Oil, Libya’s main source of wealth, has always been a central factor in the complex civil conflict that erupted after the ouster of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi in 2011.
The country’s central bank reserves, drawn from oil income, have rapidly been depleted this year, causing a plunge in the Libyan currency and economic pain. But political and factional rivalries have thwarted efforts to resume oil production.
General Hifter, who is based in the eastern city of Benghazi, has long resisted joining the unity government that established itself in Tripoli in March. He has also opposed efforts by other groups to resume oil exports.
Record new U.S. military aid deal for Israel to be signed in days
The United States and Israel have reached final agreement on a record new package of at least $38 billion in U.S. military aid and the 10-year pact is expected to be signed within days, sources close to the matter told Reuters on Tuesday.
The deal will represent the biggest pledge of U.S. military assistance ever made to any country but also includes major concessions granted by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, according to officials on both sides.
Those include Israel’s agreement not to seek additional funds from Congress beyond what will be guaranteed annually in the new package, and also to phase out a special arrangement that has allowed Israel to spend part of its U.S. aid on its own defense industry instead of on American-made weapons, the officials said.
Drawn-out aid negotiations have underscored continuing friction between U.S. President Barack Obama and Netanyahu over last year’s U.S.-led nuclear deal with Iran, Israel’s arch-foe. The United States and Israel have also been at odds over the Palestinians.
But the right-wing Israeli leader decided it would be best to forge a new arrangement with Obama, who leaves office in January, rather than hoping for better terms from the next U.S. administration, according to officials on both sides.
A deal now allows him to avoid uncertainties surrounding the next president, whether Democrat Hillary Clinton or Republican Donald Trump, and to give Israel’s defense establishment the ability to plan ahead.
Obama’s aides want a new deal before his presidency ends, seeing it as an important part of his legacy. Republican critics accuse him of not being attentive enough to Israel’s security, which the White House strongly denies.
The deal, known as a memorandum of understanding, or MOU, calls for at least $3.8 billion a year in aid, up from $3.1 billion annually under the current pact, which expires in 2018, officials say. Netanyahu had originally sought upwards of $4.5 billion a year.
The new package for the first time will incorporate money for Israeli missile defense, which until now has been funded ad hoc by Congress. U.S. lawmakers have in recent years given Israel up to $600 million in annual discretionary funds for this purpose.
Officials say Israel has agreed not to lobby Congress for additional missile defense funds during the life of the new MOU, a pledge expected to be made in a side letter or annex to the agreement. But the wording is likely to be flexible enough to allow exceptions in case of a war or other major crisis.
Barring a last-minute snag, the new agreement is expected to be officially rolled out within days, possibly as early as this week, one source close to the matter said.
Another source familiar with the negotiations confirmed that the signing would be “in the coming days”.
It will not be signed by Obama and Netanyahu, who have had a fraught relationship, but instead by lower-ranking officials, in keeping with the way the two governments have formally sealed previous deals of this type.
The sugar industry funded one of the biggest misconceptions in modern nutrition
New research reveals that a dangerous cornerstone of American nutrition in the 20th century was funded by the sugar industry.
The sugar industry worked with scientists in the 1950s and 1960s to downplay sucrose’s role in causing coronary heart disease and other nutritional risks, according to a paper by UC San Francisco researchers published in JAMA Internal Medicine on Monday.
In other words, the move to single out fat and cholesterol as the biggest problems in American diets was a coordinated effort by trade association Sugar Research Foundation, intended to increase the consumption of sucrose.
The crux of the new research is a 1965 paper that played a major role in making low-fat diets the nutritional norm in the US. The Sugar Research Foundation paid the modern equivalent of $50,000 to fund the project, which argued cholesterol–not sucrose–was the sole relevant factor in studying and preventing coronary heart disease.
However, this funding was not disclosed when the literature review was published in 1967, despite the fact that the sugar industry set the review’s objective, contributed articles, and read drafts prior to publication.
“The literature review helped shape not only public opinion on what causes heart problems but also the scientific community’s view of how to evaluate dietary risk factors for heart disease,” lead author Cristin Kearns said in a statement.
UCSF researchers concluded that the sugar industry had a hand in guiding researchers to recommend low-fat diets after analyzing more than 340 documents between the sugar industry and two scientists, Roger Adams and D. Mark Hegsted.
Last year, it was revealed that the Sugar Research Foundation similarly downplayed the role of sugar in cavity prevention and tooth decay.
As the low-fat diet trend took hold of the US, the sugar industry thrived. Food makers began replacing fat with sugar–which is exactly what the industry had wanted.
“This change would mean an increase in the per capita consumption of sugar more than a third with tremendous improvement in general health,” Sugar Research Foundation president Henry Hass said in 1954, addressing nutritional research that could encourage Americans to eat less fat.
Coca-Cola has been similarly accused of funding research that downplays the role of sugar-sweetened drinks in the modern obesity crisis.
However, the research that condemned fat while ignoring the role of sugar is now widely seen as misguided.
Americans consume 30% more sugar daily now than three decades ago, according to the Obesity Society. American children eat three times as much added sugar as they should.
While the paper studied the sugar industry’s influence on nutritional research in the 1950s and 60s, concerns that food makers still play an oversized role in scientific research remains today.
“We have to ask ourselves how many lives and dollars could have been saved, and how different today’s health picture would be, if the industry were not manipulating science in this way,” Jim Krieger, executive director of Health Food America, said in a comment about the paper. “Only 50 years later are we waking up to the true harm from sugar. Yet industry continues to use its time-honored tactics of creating doubt about valid science they deem damaging to its bottom line and deflecting blame from their products.”
Wednesday, September 14, 2016
How 'Information' Disproves Atheism and Evolution
Dr Werner Gitt, now retired, was a director and professor at the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology, as well as being Head of the Department of Information Technology. In order for the German Ministerium to award the title ‘Director and Professor’ at a German research institute, there has to be a recommendation of the Praesidium. The person concerned must always be:
* A scientist. for this is clearly an academic title.
* One who has published a significant number of original research papers in the technical literature.
* One who has headed a department in his area of expertise, in which several working scientists are employed.
Dr Gitt often lectures on the subject of the information in the universe. By the application of the laws of science alone he reveals that there is no sensible alternative to the belief in an all-powerful God, for 'information' is clearly divine in origin.
I have, for quite some while, considered why it is that in their arguments with evolutionists, creationists don't talk much more about 'information.' Why do I ask this? Simply because it is generally known and understood that information is not part of matter and this would seem to be an area in which the Christian Creationist holds several trump cards.
Evolutionists have developed some smart views on what matter is and it's potentialities (although they always assume it's presence at the beginning of time and will never be able to tell you where it came from), but many of them will agree, yes even now, that information and consciousness are not really part of matter. Yet, truthfully, they will tend to avoid the subject. The subject is a little tricky for them for they must assume that there is no God nor superior intelligence in the universe, yet 'information' obviously exists. Evolutionary astronomers, for instance, will want to say that at the time of the so-called 'big bang' there was only mass and energy - nothing else, but we are going to see that they cannot possibly be correct and we will arrive at that conclusion, and other conclusions, through using scientific laws alone.
Think about 'information' in this way: Suppose you had a super new computer but, for some reason, no operating system has been installed. So it has nothing like Windows or Linux which can render it useable for the average person. You would not be able to do much with that. But now let us assume that you go out and purchase a Windows operating system. You install that so the computer now has a program, or, 'intelligence' which effectively 'tells it' how to perform various tasks for you. So now it is supremely useable. A Windows O.S. is very large. I think that XP was about 3 gigabytes - that's big! I mean, that's a lot of information. But Vista is much bigger, I think that Vista Premium is closer to 15 gigabytes! I think they have made the very new Windows Seven a bit smaller. But those are huge programs of information. But if you weigh your computer after installing Windows XP or Vista, it won't even be a tiny bit heavier (as long as you remember to take out the CD after installation)! You have just installed a huge amount of information which, as we have noted, is very large in measure, yet you can't record any weight for it on the weighing scale. Ever wondered about that? Moreover, if after a week you delete the entire operating system program, you will not be able to make your computer even the tiniest bit lighter, it will still be the same weight. Why is this? It is because information itself is not matter and therefore it has no weight. No evolutionary scientist has an entirely adequate explanation for how 'information' arrives on the scene, or even for just what it is. Don't forget: these people must work within a 'closed' materialistic universe without any God, or superior intelligence, therefore 'information' is problematic for them. A very clever German scientist/geneticist, who is also a Christian creationist, Dr Werner Gitt, has explained much about 'information' for the purposes of Christians in a series of lectures. Since I know by experience that most Christians will not sit down and watch a series of lectures, in this article I plan to bring you the gist of Dr Gitt's explanation, although I certainly do not claim that my understanding of the subject goes to the depth of this brilliant German geneticist. I intend to simplify this in order to furnish Christians with a tool which can be used against macro-evolution.
1. Fundamentals in Science
We all know some of the basic laws of science even if we could not write their mathematical formulations down on paper. For instance, we all know that you will never find a river, or a stream, which flows uphill for a few miles before descending in a waterfall. Okay, the waterfall is no problem, we all know about those, but you could not have a river running uphill for several miles in order to reach that point. Why? Because it breaks the law of gravity! Rivers, all on their own, don't run uphill, you would need some sort of pumping system. Commonly a river will rise in a mountainous area and will gradually meander it's way down to the sea, so it works with the law of gravity.
We all know some of the basic laws of science even if we could not write their mathematical formulations down on paper. For instance, we all know that you will never find a river, or a stream, which flows uphill for a few miles before descending in a waterfall. Okay, the waterfall is no problem, we all know about those, but you could not have a river running uphill for several miles in order to reach that point. Why? Because it breaks the law of gravity! Rivers, all on their own, don't run uphill, you would need some sort of pumping system. Commonly a river will rise in a mountainous area and will gradually meander it's way down to the sea, so it works with the law of gravity.
To say that Man has evolved through a gradual process of evolution is incorrect because a law of science is being violated (just as 'the law of gravity' was violated in our river running uphill model), we will see the connection later.
We must remember that science only works through theories, speculations and hypotheses. You can always test these against the laws of nature where that is possible.
In our world, there are three realities for scientists to ponder over. They are:
1. Life.
2. Matter.
3. Information.
To take the second of those first, the laws of matter are well understood, but the understanding on information is very very new. Little has been written by evolutionists because they are always struggling not to acknowledge a superior intelligence in the universe. So there is much which is not understood by scientists. Regarding 'life,' the only law of nature here which we are aware of is this: Life can only come from life. Nobody doubts that, it is a well-established law. To digress for just one moment, the evolutionist is just as aware of that law as anybody else; they fully agree that life can only come from life. Despite this, because of the materialist foundation of evolution, they will nevertheless insist that - right at the beginning - life did come from non-life. It's amazing really to consider that fact.
If, for a moment, you can imagine somebody constructing a walking robot, it would have to have some clever working parts; legs, for instance, which could move back and forth and which could bend, maybe you could even make it clever enough to climb a few steps all on it's own. But it would need a small computer with it's 'walking program' to be installed on it. With a good program it might work fine, after a certain fashion. But if you deleted the program on the walking robot's mini computer it could not move any more. Again, after deleting the information on the program, the walking robot would be no lighter in weight - you have deleted information, not matter. But if you stumbled over it as you went to make a cup of coffee and broke one of it's legs and you then decide to throw the 'leg' away until you make a new one, you will reduce it's weight since the 'leg' is matter. So it will then be lighter in weight.
In like manner, if you could delete a person's DNA, it is doubtful you would even make that person a few ounces lighter because the DNA is just solid information, yet there is so much of it that if unraveled it, it could stretch from earth to the moon! So it always helps to keep the distinction between matter and information clear. Again, science pretty much understands matter but it has very little understanding on 'information,' because evolution restricts it to a material, godless universe.
When Dr Werner Gitt discusses information and the Creation, he also demonstrates his point with the walking stick insect. That too is a walking machine with a program installed - no program and there can be no walking. Thus we see the affect of information on matter. The development of a human embryo is probably the most complex information system of all.
If you are wondering where we are going with this, just 'hang in there,' and you will soon see.
2. Laws of Nature
We now need to say something about the laws of nature. There are two kinds of laws of nature:
a. Material Entities.
Energy, power, electricity.
b. Non-material Entities.
Consciousness, information.
Laws of Nature are universally valid, whether in Europe, America, Africa or on the moon - it makes no difference where you are.
Laws of Nature do not vary in time.
Laws of Nature are simple.
There are no exceptions.
Laws of Nature help us to determine beforehand whether a process is, or is not, possible. This is why, when we look again at our earlier suggestion that a river could run uphill for several miles, we see that it is impossible because these laws of nature are 'constants.'
3. Searching for a Scientific Definition of Information
"Information is information; neither matter nor energy." (Norbert Wiener). That's fine, as far as it goes, but Wiener does not tell us what it is. Okay, now let us see what it is.
Imagine this: You are looking at a chart of hieroglyphic symbols before the discovery of the Rosetta Stone. You would have had no interpretation, you would be hopelessly confused. In fact, this was the way it was until the 1799 discovery of the Rosetta Stone. The discovery of that stone tablet enabled us to be able to interpret hieroglyphics. But before then if we were shown a chart of those symbols we would not know whether or not that chart was 'information.' Since that point we can now say that it is information, causing us to interpret a previously hidden language. Before then, you would be unsure, one might apply a very loose label of 'information' to it but it would not be information in the sense of imparting real understanding regarding what the writer of those ancient symbols had in mind.
Any definition in science must be very precise and very clear. It must have sharp, distinct borders that includes the subjects of the definition and excludes everything else. For example the definition of energy in physics is stated very carefully. In the same manner, information is carefully defined in science.
Within natural law, information includes five levels:
a. Statistics (signal, number of symbols).
b. Syntax (set of symbols, grammar).
c. Semantics (meaning).
d. Pragmatics (action).
e. Apobetics (purpose, result, the highest level of information).
With Apobetics, full understanding has been imparted from the information sender to the information recipient.
If you have those five points then you have an entire information system.
If we find all these five levels in an unknown system (as with the Rosetta Stone illumination of Egyptian hieroglyphics), then we can be absolutely sure that this is a true information system. This is then no longer a matter of speculation but the case is proved. When 'information' is established, intelligence comes with it; that is the bit that evolutionists don't like, and worry about, of course.
There are other, lesser, definitions of information but this is the strongest one.
Some people may look at the stars and say that looking through a strong telescope at the Milky Way, for example, gives us "much information." but according to our high definition standard it gives us no real information at all. This high standard of the definition of 'information' demands real letters and real syntax accompanied by understanding. If it passes this strict test, then it is information indeed, no further debate being necessary.
4. The Laws of Nature About Information
So there are ten laws of nature about information:
a. Anything material, such as physical processes, cannot create anything non-material.
b. Information is a non-material fundamental entity and not a property of matter.
(The idea is creeping into many books that information is a part of matter but that is totally incorrect, it is completely separate from matter).
c. Information requires a material medium for storage and transmission.
(Your mind, 'spirit,' intellect and consciousness need your brain).
d. Information cannot originate in statistical processes.
e. There can be no information without a code.
f. All codes result from an intentional choice and agreement between sender and recipient.
g. The determination of meaning for and from a set of symbols is a mental process that requires information.
h. There can be no new information without an intelligent, purposeful sender.
i. Any given chain of information can be traced back to an intelligent source.
(Interestingly, in most cases we cannot see the information sender. In a library you will see thousands of books but not the writers of those books! When you listen to music, you do not see the composer).
j. Information comprises the non-material foundation for all technological systems, works of art or biological systems.
There are, of course, other definitions of information. Some say that "there is information in everything." Hmmm. That is really very vague and 'information' is not defined. Shannon has said that information is simply "systems with a code." Not bad, but Shannon is not interested in the meaning of the code. This only works within 'statistics' - it cannot take you further. Demski has written of information as "specified complexity." Problem is there are no strong conclusions possible from this and no clear definition of the domain of the information. So creationist lecturer Dr Werner Gitt, defends the Law of Nature Theory of Information. It is strong and sound. Certainly, no mathematical formulations are possible from this and yet strong conclusions may still be drawn.
5. Searching for Information in Biological Systems
Does the code found within DNA fit into the definition domain of information? Yes, in quite a major way, unfortunately, much of the detail here would be to enter a realm which can only be properly accessed by the highly-studied biologist/geneticist so we will not attempt to include it in this general article. Suffice to say, to state that our human DNA is rich in information cannot be anything but a huge understatement: in fact, it is the highest density of information which it is ever possible to find anywhere on earth, and - as already suggested - if unravelled, a person's human DNA would stretch right the way to the moon. This is the 'information system' which every single human being has - without it, we could not 'work' or function in any way. (Do you want to go a little deeper in how we know that DNA is a language? Go here.)
6. Drawing Seven Strong Conclusions.
Let us remind ourselves of where we are:
Definition Domain:
All Five Levels of Information Must be Present:
a. Statistics (signal, number of symbols).
b. Syntax (set of symbols, grammar).
c. Semantics (meaning).
d. Pragmatics (action).
e. Apobetics (purpose, result, the highest level of information).
Again, these are scientific laws. From this we can draw not weak, but strong conclusions!
1. There Must be a Sender.
Since the DNA code of all life forms is clearly within the definition domain of information, we conclude that there must be a sender! If somebody should claim that life comes without a sender, we can say that this is a totally wrong idea! Conclusion? Atheism is a wrong idea. Again, the law of nature is the highest level of science!
From the conclusions about the laws of nature and about information, what can we say about the sender? Psalm 14:1.
2. The Sender is Omniscient.
Since the density and complexity of the dna information is billions of times greater than man's present technology, we must conclude that the sender is supremely intelligent and has all knowledge. John 16:30.
3. The Sender Must be Purposeful and All-Powerful (Omnipotent).
Since the sender must have:
a. encoded (stored) the information into the DNA molecules,
b. constructed the molecular bio machines required for the encoding, decoding and synthesising processes, and,
c. designed all the features for the original life forms, then we can say that the sender must be purposeful and omnipotent. This isn't negotiable - it is obvious! Revelation 1:8.
4. The Sender Must be Eternal.
That supreme sender must have infinite information. He knows everything at the moment, but He must also know everything about the past and the future too. So He must be eternal in existence. Psalm 90:2.
5. The Sender Must be a Spirit Being.
Since information is a non-material fundamental entity and cannot originate from the material, the Sender must be a Spirit. John 4:24.
Let us again remind ourselves that we have arrived at this point by using scientific laws! Who is the Sender? Science can reveal God but cannot go beyond that, but the Bible does. Ten times it says, 'And God said...' in Genesis 1. Also see Psalm 33:9. John 1:1,3.
We can now use the laws of nature to go further:
6. The 'Mass and Energy Alone' Theories About the Origin of the Universe Must Be Wrong!
Since information is a Non-Material Entity, we must conclude that the universe itself is not composed solely of mass and energy! From this we can say that the 'big bang' model is erroneous. They say that at the beginning there was only matter and energy. That cannot be correct. Energy and matter are only material entities, and the laws of nature state that matter cannot create a non-material entity. This world is full of information, just consider the millions of books which have been written, but matter cannot produce information (as we have seen), so the idea that there was only matter and energy at the beginning is bound to be a flawed idea, there must also have been a non-material source of information! This is a very quick and scientific way to refute the 'big bang' model.
7. All Theories and Concepts About Biological and Chemical Macro-Evolution Are Erroneous!
Since biological information originates only from an Intelligent Sender, and all theories of biological and chemical evolution require that the information must originate solely from mass and energy, it therefore follows that all theories or concepts of biolological and chemical evolution are incorrect!
Evolution is an impossible process because well-established laws of nature must be broken in order for it to happen. We can state this from the highest level of science. It is for the evolutionist to falsify us by proving the initial origin of information from the non-material. It cannot be done!
So all concepts of chemical and biological evolution are refuted - yes, refuted - by the laws of nature on information and these same laws uphold the belief that the universe and all life has an origin through a Creator God! So all purely materialistic concepts about life and the universe are falsified by the Laws of Nature about information. Interestingly the five levels of information from syntax to apobetics (which we considered earlier) are clearly depicted in Acts 8:27-39. It would be an interesting exercise to read the account carefully.
In conclusion, I am much indebted to Dr Werner Gitt for the masterly way in which he demonstrates that both atheism and macro-evolution are false ideas which violate well-established laws of science. This article is constructed with much reliance upon the good Doctor's approach to the plainly divine origin of information.
Robin A. Brace, January 10th, 2010. But much indebted to the work of Dr Werner Gitt.
Saudia Arabia: Can’t Pay Its Bills, Yet Funds War on Yemen
Almost exactly a year after Salman bin Albdulaziz Al Saud, king of Saudi Arabia, Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques and head of the House of Saud, left his millionaire’s mansion near Cannes with his 1,000 servants to continue his vacation in Morocco, the kingdom’s cash is not flowing so smoothly for the tens of thousands of sub-continental expatriates sweating away on his great building sites.
Almost unreported outside the Kingdom, the country’s big construction magnates–including that of the Binladen group–have not been paid by the Saudi government for major construction projects, and a portion of the army of Indian, Pakistani, Sri Lankan and other workers have received no wages, some of them for up to seven months.
Indian and Pakistani embassies approached the Saudi government, pleading that their workers should be paid. Economists point out that the authorities have been overwhelmed by the collapse of oil prices. They usually prefer not to mention something at which the rest of the world remains aghast: deputy crown prince and defence minister Mohamed bin Salman’s wasteful and hopeless war in Yemen. Since the king’s favourite son launched this preposterous campaign against the Houthis last year, supporting the internationally recognized Yemeni president against Shia Muslim rebels, aircraft flown by Saudi and Emirati pilots (aided by British technical “experts” on the ground) have bombed even more hospitals, clinics and medical warehouses than America has destroyed in Serbia and Afghanistan combined since 1999.
The result? A country with 16 per cent of the world’s proven oil reserves, whose Aramco oil company makes more than $1bn a day and now records a budget deficit of $100bn, cannot pay its bills. At first, the Yemen fiasco was called “Operation Decisive Storm”, which–once it proved the longest and least decisive Arab “storm” in the Middle East’s recent history–was changed to “Operation Restore Hope”. And the bombing went on, just as it did in the pre-”hope” “storm”, along with the help of the UK’s “experts”. No wonder the very same deputy crown prince Mohamed announced this year that state spending on salaries would be lowered, yet individual earnings would rise.
In Pakistan, whose soldiers make up a large number of the “Saudi” armed forces, there has been outrage, parliamentarians are asking why three Saudi companies have not paid salaries for eight months, refusing even to provide food for their employees. In some cases, the Pakistanis have paid their own nationals for food supplies.
In Saudi Arabia itself, the government seems unable to cope with the crisis. The Arab News says that 31,000 Saudi and other foreign workers have lodged complaints with the government’s labour ministry over unpaid wages. On one occasion, the Indian consulate and local Indian expatriates brought food to the workers so that their people should not starve. The overall figure that the government debt to the construction companies may be billions of dollars.
Embassy staff from the Philippines, France and many countries in the Middle East, have raised the problems with the Saudi government. Typical of their responses has been that of Saudi Oger which said it had been “affected by current circumstances [sic] which resulted in some delays in delays in fulfilling our commitments to our employees”.
The Saudi government insisted the company paid its employees. An official of the company made the extraordinary statement that “the company’s situation is unstable due to the scrapping [sic] of many of its projects it was to execute,” Meanwhile, workers at United Seemac construction company are complaining they have not been paid for months–or even granted permission to leave the country. Some had apparently not been paid for more than a year and a half. Unlike the big companies such as Binladen and Oger, these men–and they are indeed mostly men–are consumed into the smaller employees. “All the attention is on the big companies–it’s easy to ignore us because we are not so many people.”
All in all, a dodgy scenario in our beloved monarchy-dictatorship, whose war against the Shia Houthis–and the Shia Hezbollah, the Shia/Alawite regime in Damascus and Iran–is unending.
A 350-year-old method to get people to change their minds
The 17th century philosopher Blaise Pascal is perhaps best known for Pascal’s Wager which, in the first formal use of decision theory, argued that believing in God is the most pragmatic decision. But it seems the French thinker also had a knack for psychology. As Brain Pickings points out, Pascal set out the most effective way to get someone to change their mind, centuries before there was any formal study of persuasion:
When we wish to correct with advantage, and to show another that he errs, we must notice from what side he views the matter, for on that side it is usually true, and admit that truth to him, but reveal to him the side on which it is false. He is satisfied with that, for he sees that he was not mistaken, and that he only failed to see all sides. Now, no one is offended at not seeing everything; but one does not like to be mistaken, and that perhaps arises from the fact that man naturally cannot see everything, and that naturally he cannot err in the side he looks at, since the perceptions of our senses are always true.
Pascal added:
People are generally better persuaded by the reasons which they have themselves discovered than by those which have come into the mind of others.
Put simply, Pascal suggests that before disagreeing with someone, first point out the ways in which they’re right. And to effectively persuade someone to change their mind, lead them to discover a counter-point of their own accord. Arthur Markman, psychology professor at The University of Texas at Austin, says both these points hold true.
“One of the first things you have to do to give someone permission to change their mind is to lower their defenses and prevent them from digging their heels in to the position they already staked out,” he says. “If I immediately start to tell you all the ways in which you’re wrong, there’s no incentive for you to co-operate. But if I start by saying, ‘Ah yeah, you made a couple of really good points here, I think these are important issues,’ now you’re giving the other party a reason to want to co-operate as part of the exchange. And that gives you a chance to give voice your own concerns about their position in a way that allows co-operation.”
Markman also supports Pascal’s second persuasive suggestion. “If I have an idea myself, I feel I can claim ownership over that idea, as opposed to having to take your idea, which means I have to explicitly say, ‘I’m going to defer to you as the authority on this.’ Not everybody wants to do that,” he adds.
