Sunday, 8 December 2013

Obama's 12 Days of Christmas



---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Daniel B. Rego
Date: Sunday, December 8, 2013
Subject: [W-H] Obama's 12 Days of Christmas
To: warped-humor@yahoogroups.com



--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Fwd: Cuts, Not Compromise



---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Matt Kibbe - FreedomWorks
Date: Sunday, December 8, 2013
Subject: Cuts, Not Compromise
To: majors.bruce@gmail.com


 

FreedomWorks

Activist Update

Are You an ObamaCare Victim?
Tell Your Congressmen now! Demand a change
Send a Message

Check Out FreedomCast
Catch up on important news with leaders in the freedom movement
Listen Here

Shop at the FreedomWorks Online Store
Show off your passion for liberty
Shop Now

Join FreedomConnector:
Find activists in YOUR local area!
Get Connected

Real Spending Cuts or No Deal

Rumors are swirling that Republicans and Democrats may come to a budget "deal" next week that actually INCREASES spending and ADDS to the national debt next year.

If the rumored deal is reached, current sequester spending constraints will be a thing of the past.

While modest even by Washington standards, these cuts are the only spending reforms we have achieved under the Obama Administration. Unless real, long-term entitlement reform happens, the sequester must remain in place.

For years, D.C. has talked of reforming entitlement programs. But few politicians are willing to do what it takes to preserve America's future. The sequester was a necessary first step to restore some measure of fiscal sanity in our nation's capital. We simply cannot afford any budget deal that doesn't at least preserve them.

demand spending cuts.jpg

If enough Americans stand up, we can stop this deal. Tell Congressional Republicans to stand strong and oppose any budget deal that increases spending.

It's not a secret, if we don't balance our nation's checkbook, our future will be at risk.

Send a message to Congress right now. Make sure any budget deal contains significant spending cuts.

Farm Bill May Be Coming Back

Congress may reintroduce the Farm Bill next week. D.C. lobbyists want to pass the Farm Bill against the will of the people. They don't want to afford you the opportunity to stop them.

Earlier this year, patriots like you lit up Congress' phones. You sent thousands of calls to your representatives, and in the end you defeated this horrible corporate welfare bill.

But, the battle isn't over. 

The Farm Bill is a sham. Food stamps are being used to unite Democrats and Republicans behind bad policy. It's an unholy alliance – one that pits the Washington Establishment against main street Americans.

And, what's worse, the pork-packed Farm bill doesn't even help small farmers. The benefits go to the large agri-corporations that are pushing for the law. The same corporate interests who use their political clout to crush competition in the marketplace.

You defeated the Farm Bill before – and you can certainly do it again.

Learn more about the Farm Bill.

farm bill image.jpg

Get Active for 2014

2014 is just around the corner…that means we have to start organizing now!

We've come too far to let our guard down now. We stopped the Farm Bill and we'll do it again. We prevented a costly and unnecessary war with Syria. We defeated ObamaCare health exchanges in states across America and forced members of Congress to stand their ground in opposition to the Big government scheme. Activists like you accomplished all of this and more.

Your activism is important. It's making a real difference. But now more than ever we must keep fighting. The Big Government Establishment isn't happy with the progress we've made. They're fighting back. And in 2014, we need to show them that we aren't going away. That We The People are just getting started.

FreedomWorks has all the tools you need to learn the latest and greatest in grassroots strategies – including our social network FreedomConnector!

Right now, FreedomWorks University is offering courses that teach you how to get connected and get active on FreedomConnector.  Don't miss out on the opportunity to connect with patriots in your area and maximize your impact.

Get ready for 2014 today by joining the grassroots community on FreedomConnector!

fc newsletter.jpg

Video_image.jpg

fwot freedomreport.jpgThis week's video features the "Freedom Report" with an in-depth look at what FreedomWorks has been doing for the grassroots community across America and news on the fight to stop ObamaCare.

FreedomConnectorFacebookTwitterForward to a friend

 

Like what you're reading? Donate to FreedomWorks today to fight for lower taxes, less government and more freedom.

Not interested? Click here to change your email preferences.

 


--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Fwd: An effective eye drug is available for $50. But many doctors choose a $2,000 alternative






http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/an-effective-eye-drug-is-available-for-50-but-many-doctors-choose-a-2000-alternative/2013/12/07/1a96628e-55e7-11e3-8304-caf30787c0a9_story.html

An effective eye drug is available for $50. But many doctors choose a $2,000 alternative.

The two drugs have been declared equivalently miraculous. Tested side by side in six major trials, both prevent blindness in a common old-age affliction. Biologically, they are cousins. They're even made by the same company.

Avastin costs about $50 per injection.

Lucentis costs about $2,000 per injection.

Doctors choose the more expensive drug more than half a million times every year, a choice that costs the Medicare program, the largest single customer, an extra $1 billion or more annually.

Spending that much may make little sense for a country burdened by ever-
rising health bills, but as is often the case in American health care, there is a certain economic logic: Doctors and drugmakers profit when more-costly treatments are adopted.

Genentech, a division of the Roche Group, makes both products but reaps far more profit when it sells the more expensive drug. Although Lucentis is about 40 times as expensive as Avastin to buy, the cost of producing the two drugs is similar, according to scientists familiar with the drugs and the industry.

Doctors, meanwhile, may benefit when they choose the more expensive drug. Under Medicare repayment rules for drugs given by physicians, they are reimbursed for the average price of the drug plus 6 percent. That means a drug with a higher price may be easier to sell to doctors than a cheaper one. In addition, Genentech offers rebates to doctors who use large volumes of the more expensive drug.

"Genentech continues to maintain that Lucentis is the most appropriate medicine," the company said in a statement, adding that it costs "significantly" more to make and is tailored for use in the eye. The drug "has made an immense impact."

Many ophthalmologists, however, are skeptical that it provides any added value over the cheaper alternative.

"Lucentis is Avastin — it's the same damn molecule with a few cosmetic changes," said J. Gregory Rosenthal, a Toledo ophthalmologist who, outraged by the price, co-founded a group called Physicians for Clinical Responsibility to protest its use. "Yet Americans are paying a billion dollars every year for no good reason — unless you count making Genentech rich."

The story of Genentech's two drugs, Lucentis and Avastin, began with a scientific marvel — a breakthrough in biology that, thanks to the vast budgets of U.S. entitlement programs, has produced enormous financial returns.

Those profits have yielded benefits. By paying for such drugs without regard to cost, the Medicare system has helped stimulate investment in medical research that contributes to the development of more lifesaving technologies.

But the flow of cash also pushes up the health-care costs that are projected to deplete federal budgets. For while Genentech has aggressively marketed the more expensive drug and sought to restrict the use of the cheaper one, critics say, Medicare has been powerless to do anything but pay up.

That's because over the past seven years, despite pleas from the Food and Drug Administration and doctors groups, Genentech has maintained the barriers that make it harder for doctors to use the cheaper drug.

Avastin was not originally intended for use in the eye, and the company has refused encouragement from the FDA to seek official approval for using it to treat eye ailments, according to unpublished internal FDA documents. This forces doctors to use it "off-
label," or in ways not specified on the medicine's label.

The company also packages the drug, which was approved for cancer in 2004, in doses far too big for use in ophthalmology, meaning that the drugs must be repackaged by other companies for use in the eye, raising the risk of contamination.

Genentech has argued that Avastin may pose a greater danger of severe side effects than does Lucentis, although independent scientists say such worries are unsupported by the six trials that have been conducted.

In a statement, the company said that it has not sought FDA approval of the cheaper drug for use in the eye because it has already developed one drug for the ailment known as wet age-
related macular degeneration, or wet AMD.

"Genentech continues to maintain that Lucentis is the most appropriate medicine for wet AMD as supported by clinical and other scientific data," the statement said.

"We specifically designed Lucentis for use in the eye and to clear quickly from the bloodstream after leaving the eye to potentially minimize side effects," the statement said. "The two medicines were designed for different purposes and, we believe, may have different systemic and ocular safety profiles when used in the eye."

Genentech defended its pricing by noting that the Roche Group spends $9 billion annually on research and development.

"The price of Lucentis supports the research and development of new potential medicines, including the 92 percent of drugs that never make it to patients," the company said. "We re-invest a larger portion of our revenue into clinical research than most pharmaceutical companies. Genentech believes it is in the best interest of patients to continue to focus our efforts in ophthalmology on discovering and developing new potential medicines for other serious diseases of the eye."

Most doctors, however, prefer to use the cheaper drug. Despite the company's position, U.S. doctors have been using Avastin in about 56 percent of such cases, according to Medicare data analyzed by The Washington Post. In the most recent survey by the American Society of Retinal Specialists, about 61 percent of doctors preferred using Avastin for macular degeneration, with the rest of the market split between Lucentis and Eylea, a new drug made by Regeneron that is almost as expensive as Lucentis.

Because so many doctors continue to use Lucentis, Genentech has rung up more than $1 billion in U.S. sales of the drug for four years running. Roughly 80 percent of U.S. sales are paid for by Medicare and its beneficiaries.

The rising cost of U.S. entitlement programs such as Medicare has prompted outrage in Congress, but it is Congress that has made it difficult in this case and others for Medicare to limit such expenses.

To begin with, the Medicare agency is blocked from seeking better drug prices by negotiating directly with the drug companies, as health agencies in other countries do. Authorities in Britain, for example, have negotiated a price of about $1,100 per dose of Lucentis, and in the Netherlands a dose sells for about $1,300.

Moreover, in cases in which two equivalent options are available, such as Lucentis and Avastin, Medicare is forbidden from restricting payment to the amount of the less costly alternative. After it sought to do so in 2009, a federal appeals court said it lacked that authority.

It's often difficult, of course, to know when two drugs are equivalent. When the debate over the two drugs and their pricing erupted more than six years ago, Genentech asserted that its more expensive new drug was superior. At the time, it was hard to show otherwise. No one had tested them in side-by-side comparisons.

Since then, the six randomized clinical trials involving more than 3,000 patients have found the drugs to be largely equivalent.

Yet in 2012, the Medicare program and its beneficiaries spent $1.2 billion on Lucentis, according to The Post's analysis of Medicare data.

Medicare officials said they have no choice but to pay the bill when a doctor prefers to use Lucentis.

"We do not have the authority to dictate treatment based on cost," Tami Holzman, a spokeswoman for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, said in a statement. "Under current law, Medicare must cover treatment that is deemed reasonable and medically necessary by a physician or other provider."

Pharmaceutical firms argue that this is the way it should be.

The industry's main lobbying group, known as PhRMA, opposes allowing the government to negotiate prices with companies — a process it calls "price controls" — and similarly opposes attempts by Medicare to pursue a policy of paying only for the least costly alternative.

The industry has spent more than any other in the United States to have its voice heard in Washington. Over the past 15 years, the pharmaceutical industry has far outstripped any other in the money it has devoted to lobbying, according to data from the Center for Responsive Politics. Drug companies spent a total of $2.7 billion over that time.

"Proposals to change this system by imposing price controls or only giving patients access to treatments deemed the 'least costly alternative' by Medicare would have severe unintended consequences," Matthew Bennett, a senior vice president at PhRMA, said in a statement.

Such proposals could discourage medical progress, he said. Moreover, because every patient responds differently to a treatment, it may be difficult for the government to set rules for coverage.

"The cheapest option on average is not always the best option for many patients," he said.

What's the right price for a miracle?

Every year, about 200,000 people in North America are diagnosed with wet age-related macular degeneration, a chronic disease characterized by abnormal blood vessels that leak blood or fluid into the retina.

Sufferers lose clarity in the center of their field of vision, and among older people it has long been the leading cause of blindness.

Then came Avastin and Lucentis.

Both are the outgrowth of pioneering work done by Napoleone Ferrara, a Sicily-born molecular biologist.

Ferrara studied at the University of California at San Francisco and joined Genentech in 1988. First assigned to the company's efforts to develop a hormone called Relaxin, Ferrara devoted his discretionary research to a theory that blood vessel growth could cause cancer and other illnesses.

Over several years, Ferrara and his collaborators identified a protein called VEGF that causes blood vessel growth. They then linked that protein to cancer and macular degeneration. Finally, they developed an "anti-VEGF" drug that would attack VEGF, halting the harmful blood vessel growth.

The first anti-VEGF drug was Avastin, which won approval from the FDA in 2004 for the treatment of colorectal cancer.

Lucentis followed. It is a stripped-down version of the same molecule, and it can likewise attack VEGF and bind more closely to it. It won FDA approval in 2006.

"People weren't sure that VEGF would prove particularly important, but sometimes in science, you just follow your own ideas," said Ferrara, now a distinguished professor at the University of California at San Diego School of Medicine. "The magnitude of the benefit of these drugs far exceeded our expectations."

The company spent almost $1.4 billion on the development of Lucentis, which included 18 clinical trials, a Genentech vice president testified to Congress in 2011.

The company appears to have recovered those costs and quite a bit more.

In the first 2 1/2 years, it sold $2.1 billion worth of Lucentis in the United States alone. Another Swiss company, Novartis, in partnership with Genentech, sells billions more overseas.

Much of that is profit.

The company will not disclose how much it costs to manufacture a dose of Lucentis, saying only that it costs "significantly" more to make than Avastin. But scientists knowledgeable about manufacturing drugs of this kind say that the costs of making Lucentis are not much different from those of making Avastin.

Indeed, some scientists said that some aspects of Lucentis make it cheaper to produce.

The Avastin process begins with growing a culture from mammalian cells taken from the ovary of the Chinese hamster.

The Lucentis process begins with growing cultures of the common bacteria E. coli, and these are easier to produce.

The subsequent purification process with bacteria may be more complicated, but "production in bacteria is cheaper than in mammalian cells for several reasons," said Hervé Watier, a medical professor at the University of Tours in France who has studied the drugs.

While there are some "drawbacks" to the bacteria production method, Watier said, "the financial result still remains in favor of bacteria."

"I think the difference in cost in producing them is very modest. They cost almost the same, from what I can tell," Ferrara said.

"Lucentis and Avastin are not the same medicine and should not be treated, nor represented, as if they are," the company said in a statement.

After the development of Lucentis in the early 2000s, it was the only drug known to have such effects.

It seemed to be in a class by itself and seemed poised to win even more in sales than it gathers today.

But then Philip J. Rosenfeld, a Miami ophthalmologist, made a discovery.

Rosenfeld was lead investigator on some of the Lucentis trials that Genentech had conducted, and he recognized how effective it could be.

After reading the research that some Genentech scientists had published, he realized that Avastin and Lucentis were derived from the same antibody and thus were functionally equivalent.

"I realized they would perform in the same way," he said.

Under a university-approved research program, he'd also learned that Avastin, injected into a patient's arm as is done with cancer patients, had the same effects as Lucentis. The trouble was, since the Avastin was going into the entire body, a large dose was needed, and that could produce dangerous side effects. He calculated that a much smaller dose injected into the eye would be just as effective as Lucentis.

In May 2005, Rosenfeld had a patient who was quickly losing her vision. A retired nurse in her 60s, she'd lost the use of one eye already, and none of the available remedies could slow the disease's progression.

Rosenfeld knew that Lucentis could help her, but it would be another year or more before the FDA would approve it.

With the patient's permission, he injected her eye with a small dose of Avastin — one milligram — and ordered her back the next week.

"We were astounded by the results," he said.

The billion-dollar drug Lucentis was about to be beaten to market, and by one of Genentech's own products.

In July 2005, Genentech held what amounted to a coming-out party for its new drug.

At the annual meeting of the American Society of Retinal Specialists, the company presented several detailed studies showing how effective it was in treating macular degeneration. With hundreds of ophthalmologists crowded into the room, speakers for Genentech described the marvel of Lucentis.

"Our jaws were on the floor," recalled Daniel F. Martin, chairman of the Cole Eye Institute at the Cleveland Clinic.

Right after, Rosenfeld presented his Avastin experiment on one patient.

"Phil showed one case report — no animal studies, no randomized trials," Martin said. "But after this meeting, every ophthalmologist on the planet was injecting it. The therapeutic effect was so powerful."

Because Lucentis had yet to win FDA approval and couldn't be sold, ophthalmologists quickly embraced Avastin, which had been approved the year before, albeit as a cancer remedy.

When Lucentis did go on sale, Genentech's blockbuster drug already had a competitor. How could the company convince doctors and hospitals that Lucentis had any major advantage over Avastin?

Over and over again, it sought to discourage the use of Avastin by raising concerns about its safety.

They told doctors that Avastin was not approved by the FDA for use in the eye — Lucentis was. They reminded doctors that if the repackaging firms cutting Avastin into smaller doses were careless, infection could be introduced. And despite the lack of conclusive evidence on the point, they said that Avastin patients might suffer more adverse events than Lucentis patients.

Sometimes, senior FDA officials said, these warnings stretched the truth.

In October 2007, the company announced a move that would severely restrict the supply of Avastin for ophthalmology: It would no longer sell the drug to the repackaging firms that were cutting it into eye-appropriate doses.

The company's president of product development at that time, Susan Desmond-Hellmann, explained in a letter that Lucentis was already available. Moreover, she said that during a routine FDA inspection of the company's Avastin manufacturing facility, "concerns were raised by inspectors related to the ongoing ocular use of Avastin because it is not designed, manufactured or approved for this use."

An FDA ophthalmology official, Wiley A. Chambers, told colleagues that the company had misconstrued the agency's position.

That routine FDA inspection at a Genentech plant, Chambers told his colleagues, was unrelated to the intrinsic safety of Avastin in ophthalmology. Instead, it showed that Avastin had been contaminated by glass particles, a danger that could have harmed cancer patients or eye patients.

"Genentech has found a way to blame FDA for their decision to limit the distribution of Avastin," Wiley wrote to colleagues in an e-mail. "The manufacturing problem at their facility that resulted in glass in their product would be an issue for either the on-label oncology indications or the off-label ophthalmology indications."

Genentech said in a statement: "We have never sought to restrict the ability of physicians to prescribe Avastin as they see fit for their patients. . . . Genentech did not blame the FDA and took the decision independently."

Eventually, after ophthalmologists and their professional societies strenuously objected to Genentech's move to limit Avastin sales — they even threatened lawsuits to make sure the flow of Avastin continued — Genentech backed down and continued to provide the drug to the repackaging firms.

About the same time, Genentech asked the FDA for permission to change the Avastin label to instruct doctors that it was not to be used for eyes. The FDA said there was no evidence to support such a change to the label.

The FDA believed "there was no safety-related basis adequately justifying that labeling change," according to an internal agency e-mail, and the label was not changed.

Today, millions of doses of Avastin have been administered successfully. Six randomized clinical trials around the world, beginning with one called Comparison of AMD Treatments Trials, have found its effectiveness equivalent to that of Lucentis. After the CATT study, the National Institutes of Health issued a news release headlined, "Study finds Avastin and Lucentis are equally effective in treating age-related macular degeneration."

The effort was funded by the NIH because Genentech had refused to test the drugs itself and, in a break from industry custom, had refused to provide the drugs to government researchers. An internal company document described the strategy of not performing a test or contributing the drugs as "in the interests of shareholders and the interests of patients," according to a Senate Aging Committee investigation memo from 2008.

Because it had developed Lucentis, the company said, "there was no need to invest substantial resources and years of clinical development to explore the safety and efficacy of another medicine."

Since the CATT study, five more head-to-head trials have been conducted. They also found Avastin just as effective as Lucentis.

"There have now been six randomized clinical studies that show no difference in the major areas of safety concern — deaths, heart attacks and stroke," said Martin, the Cleveland Clinic doctor who also led the CATT trial.

Indeed, Genentech has acknowledged that the drugs are similarly effective. But the company has argued that Avastin may be dangerous when used in eyes.

"The emerging data consistently show differences in safety — particularly in systemic serious adverse events — between Lucentis and Avastin," Anthony P. Adamis, global head of ophthalmology at Genentech, said in an interview.

These differences are "biologically plausible," Adamis said, because studies have shown that Avastin remains in the blood longer.

The main basis for Genentech's safety argument is a finding in the CATT trial that has not reappeared in any of the following five trials and that some scientists involved regard mainly as a curiosity.

The incidence of what are known as serious adverse events — a catchall category that includes hospitalizations for any reason — was slightly higher in the Avastin group: 40 percent vs. 32 percent. The adverse events included broken bones and urinary tract infections.

"The majority of the adverse events would be difficult to imagine being caused by the drug," Martin said. Martin noted that while small, probably random effects favored Lucentis in some cases and in others they favored Avastin. Neither should be viewed as conclusively related to the drug, he said.

It is very difficult for such trials to detect differences in rare safety events. To do so, a trial might need more than 10,000 patients. Running a trial of that size could cost billions of dollars.

To look for effects in large numbers of patients, researchers often turn to Medicare claims records, examining how patients fared on the treatments in question. It is this kind of review that Lesley H. Curtis, a Duke University medical professor, performed, looking at 146,000 patient claims.

After fully adjusting for patient and provider characteristics, Curtis and her colleagues found that there was no difference in the safety profiles in the drugs.

"In conclusion, we found no evidence of increased risks of mortality, myocardial infarction, bleeding, or stroke," their research paper said.

The other danger to using Avastin, however, has attracted a lot of publicity in recent years.

The fact that the drug needs to be repackaged into smaller doses introduces an element of risk because it opens the possibility that the drug could be tainted during the repackaging process. (Genentech says because the FDA has not approved it for use in the eye, the company cannot legally distribute Avastin in doses appropriate for the eye.

Indeed, in three cases that made the news — in South Florida, Nashville and Los Angeles — just such a problem has arisen. Several patients reportedly suffered vision loss as a result.

"I've never used Avastin because of the potential for contamination," Warren L. Herron Jr., a Pensacola, Fla., ophthalmologist, said after a morning in which he did 11 eye injections. "Is it a rare thing? Yes, it's a rare thing. But I can't stand the idea of ever telling my patients that they can no longer see because I used a tainted drug.

"Besides," he said, "I don't think the extra money being spent for Lucentis is totally wasted because it's going into research and development."

But as Herron noted, the likelihood of contamination is negligible. Globally, hundreds of thousands of injections are doled out every year without trouble, making the risk of contamination in repackaging smaller than the risks that doctors routinely ignore when deciding on a treatment.

Whether a patient gets Avastin, Lucentis or the new drug Eylea depends on an array of factors. Some doctors use only one of the drugs; some let their patients choose; many decisions are guided by whether the patient's insurance covers the entire cost or just a portion; and some doctors may consider how much they earn with each drug.

John Thompson, a Baltimore ophthalmologist who is president of the American Society of Retinal Specialists, noted that most doctors use Avastin and that even more would do so if the company sought FDA approval for using it in eyes and packaged it in appropriate doses.

"If Genentech decided to get FDA approval and make Avastin available in small quantities for the eye," he said, "the American Society of Retinal Specialists would applaud."



__._,_.___



           

__,_._,___


--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Fwd: November 2013 Cyber Attacks Statistics







http://hackmageddon.com/2013/12/08/november-2013-cyber-attacks-statistics/

 

November 2013 Cyber Attacks Statistics

December 8, 2013Paolo Passeri

 

It's time to summarize the Cyber Landscape of November, extracting the corresponding statistics from the two two timelines of November (part I and part II).

Let us begin with the Attack Trend. From this point of view November has been quite active and stable (despite some breaks in the trend).

The attacks executed by Pakistani hackers against India and Indonesian hackers against Australia influence the Country Distribution Chart, which is led, as usual, by the US, well above these two countries.

Cyber Crime leads the Motivations Behind Attacks chart (53%), even if the spread with hacktivism (45%) is much smaller in comparison with the previous month when the two were respectively at 63% and 33%. For the second consecutive month, apparently, I have recorded no operations related to Cyber Warfare.

The Distribution of Attack Techniques Chart sees Defacement at number one for the third consecutive month with 29.7%. DDoS ranks at number three with 15.4%, more than five points above Account Hijacking, which ranks at number four with 9.9. SQLi is constantly decreasing and this month ranks at number six with 4.4%.

The Distribution of Targets chart confirms governments at number one with 29.3% and industries at number two with 25%. What is also interesting to notice in this month is the presence into the chart of Bitcoin Wallets, an increasingly interesting prey for Cyber Criminals, at rank number seven with 3.3%. Entertainment and Software lead the drill-down chart for Industries, while Political Parties (quite obviously) lead the one for Organizations.

As usual, please bear in mind that the sample must be taken very carefully since it refers only to discovered attacks, published in the news, and included in my timelines. The sample cannot be exhaustive but only aims to provide an high level overview of the "cyber landscape".

If you want to have an idea of how fragile our data are inside the cyberspace, have a look at the timelines of the main Cyber Attacks in 2011, 2012 and now 2013 (regularly updated). You may also want to have a look at the Cyber Attack Statistics, and follow @paulsparrows on Twitter for the latest updates.

Also, feel free to submit remarkable incidents that in your opinion deserve to be included in the timelines (and charts).

Related articles

 



__._,_.___
 


           

__,_._,___


--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Fwd: [New post] Mohammed Had Sex With Dead Woman




burkasrugly posted: "Fellow infidels, More evidence that Islam is from the pit of Hell....from the blog Sex and Sexuality in Islam, which states that Mohammed had sex with a dead woman.  And it is ok for Muslims to have sex with animals.   Here is an excerpt: Muhammad had"
Respond to this post by replying above this line

New post on actjonesboroar

Mohammed Had Sex With Dead Woman

by burkasrugly

Fellow infidels,

More evidence that Islam is from the pit of Hell....from the blog Sex and Sexuality in Islam, which states that Mohammed had sex with a dead woman.  And it is ok for Muslims to have sex with animals.   Here is an excerpt:

Muhammad had sex with a dead woman to qualify her for the perks of a prophetic wife.

According to Hadiths and Sayings of Prophet on issues of women in "Al-Jami Al-Saghir" written by Jalal ul-Din Al-Suyuti.

Narrated by Ibn Abbas: "I (Muhammad) put on her my shirt that she may wear the clothes of heaven, and SLEPT with her in her coffin."

The prophet was referring to Fatima, the mother of Ali, his son-in-law. Commentators have offered differing views about the significance of Muhammad's sleeping with the dead-body of Fatimah in her coffin, some emphasizing that it had no sexual side. But Arabic scholar Demetrius explains that to express Muhammad sleeping inside Fatima's coffin with her dead-body, "The Arabic word used here is "Id'tajat", which literally means "lay down to have sex."

Perhaps no other woman wanted to have relations with him.  At least this one was compliant.

Read the entire passage HERE.

Until next time,

Burkasrugly

Comment    See all comments

Unsubscribe to no longer receive posts from actjonesboroar.
Change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions.

Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:
http://actjonesboroar.wordpress.com/2013/12/08/mohammed-had-sex-with-dead-woman/

Thanks for flying with WordPress.com



--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Fwd: [New post] An Open Letter to His Holiness Pope Francis




burkasrugly posted: "This pope HAS to know the truth...he is too wimpy to proclaim it."
Respond to this post by replying above this line

New post on actjonesboroar

An Open Letter to His Holiness Pope Francis

by burkasrugly

Reblogged from sharia unveiled:

Click to visit the original post

by, Geert Wilders - Dutch Parliamentarian | h/t Baron Bodissey - Gates of Vienna

The following open letter to Pope Francis was written today by Geert Wilders, the leader of the PVV (Partij voor de Vrijheid, Party for Freedom) in the Netherlands.

Open letter to his Holiness Pope Francis

Your Holiness,
In your recent exhortation Evangelii Gaudium

Read more… 739 more words

This pope HAS to know the truth...he is too wimpy to proclaim it.
burkasrugly | December 8, 2013 at 4:15 pm | Categories: Radical Islam | URL: http://wp.me/p1t1Gt-1q3

Comment    See all comments

Unsubscribe to no longer receive posts from actjonesboroar.
Change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions.

Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:
http://actjonesboroar.wordpress.com/2013/12/08/an-open-letter-to-his-holiness-pope-francis/

Thanks for flying with WordPress.com



--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Fwd: Politics and the Persian Language







 

 

Politics and the Persian Language

The 'Shahnameh,' or 'Book of Kings,' has for centuries been used to lend legitimacy to Persian politics.

By Lee Lawrence

Abu'l Qasim Firdausi's 'Book of Kings'

 Zina Saunders

Whether recounted in sweet-smelling tea shops or presented in illustrated manuscripts, the "Shahnameh" has entertained and inspired Iranians for more than 1,000 years. Of all their artistic treasures, Abu'l Qasim Firdausi's "Book of Kings" is the one Iranians most prize. They may not have its 50,000 verses memorized, but they are all familiar with this blend of myth and history filled with tales of heroes slaying demons, portents so fierce that kings fear "their liver will split in terror," and maidens—oh, what maidens—"as elegant as cypress" and as pure as smokeless candles.

From the start, however, the epic has also repeatedly served as a political tool. When Firdausi was penning his verses in 1007-10, Muslim Arab dynasties had ruled Persia for more than 31/2 centuries. Yet he avoided using Arabic words almost entirely and incorporated no elements of Islamic thought. His motive? To stir national pride and resistance to foreign rule by celebrating Persian culture.

In the short run, Firdausi's gambit failed. For some 200 years the epic lay dormant, gaining traction only after the Mongols invaded in 1219. Scholars posit that courtiers advised the new rulers to win their subjects' hearts by commissioning sumptuous, illustrated copies of the "Book of Kings" or, as it is sometimes translated, the "King of Books."

Over the coming centuries, rulers gave manuscripts to dazzle, curry favor or, as happened in 1829, avoid war. Two months after the Russian ambassador was murdered in Tehran, the shah sent a lavish gift package to the czar. Its most precious offerings, says Firuza Abdullaeva, head of the Shahnama Centre at Pembroke College, included Arab horses, gold, an 88.8-carat diamond and a 1651 "Shahnameh" with 192 miniatures. The shah hoped his largesse would so appease the czar that Russia would not only refrain from retaliation but forgive some of the indemnity Iran owed as part of a recent treaty. It worked.

More subtly, illustrated manuscripts also offered an opportunity to layer in a subtext through the paintings. Dick Davis, professor emeritus at Ohio State University and author of several translations of the "Shahnameh," notes that the poem sometimes draws on contradictory sources. At first, a royal adviser, Mazdak, is praised for redistributing goods to the poor, like Robin Hood. Later, though, he is described as treasonous. His followers are punished, "planted, head down, with their feet in the air, like trees," and Mazdak himself is "strung up alive and head down. He was killed with a shower of arrows," and the nobility "were once more assured of their wealth…and splendid gardens." (These and all other quotes are from Mr. Davis's engaging 2006 Viking edition of "Shahnameh: The Persian Book of Kings.")

Rarely, Mr. Davis explains in an email exchange, did artists depict Mazdak as the wise counselor, opting instead for his gruesome execution. This, he believes, suggests that "the illustration agenda of the manuscript is going along with the condemnation of Mazdak as seditious and foolish, ignoring the initial characterization." Not surprising that royal patrons would condemn Mazdak's egalitarianism, he adds.

Equally unsurprising, heroes look Asian in Mongol-period manuscripts while in 17th-century Safavid illustrations they sport long mustaches then fashionable among nobles. At one level, this made the scenes more current. At another, says Charles Melville, founding director of the Cambridge Shahnama Project, it allowed rulers to "people the myth," inserting themselves into Persian history, thereby claiming legitimacy.

Some royal patrons, says collector and historian Abolala Soudavar, went further. He argues that in a manuscript commissioned by the last Mongol ruler—dubbed the Great Mongol Shahnameh (c. 1330s)—every illustration does double duty, simultaneously referring to episodes in the epic and in Mongol history. One of Mr. Soudavar's more compelling examples is a painting showing a horse, its body pierced by spears and blades, writhing at the bottom of a pit. To his right, a bleeding man has leapt up and shot an arrow through a tree, killing the man hiding behind it. This is the last scene in the story of Rostam, who has fallen into a trap set by his brother. With a final surge of strength and cunning, the beloved hero kills the traitor.

Elsewhere, Rostam wears a tiger pelt, but here both brothers don Chinese robes. The painting, Mr. Soudavar concludes, is also evoking an incident in which Mongol emperor Kublai Khan took revenge against a treacherous sibling. By fusing both stories, the book becomes a "political manifesto in support of the legitimacy of the Mongols," Mr. Soudavar contends.

Not everyone agrees with this interpretation. Nobody, however, doubts the motives behind a set of 1942 postcards inspired by the "Shahnameh" that Ian Cooke, social-science curator at the British Library, stumbled on in the library's archives. Commissioned by the British Ministry of Information and painted by Kimon Evan "Kem" Marengo, the cards illustrate the story of Zahhak. Brave but "turbulent in his moods, and of an evil disposition," Zahhak falls under the sway of a demon and kills his father to gain the throne. Later, disguised as a cook, that same demon pays him homage, kissing his shoulders. Each immediately sprouts a snake.

Imitating Persian painting, Kem depicted this scene giving Zahhak the face of Adolf Hitler, the snakes the heads of Italy's Benito Mussolini and Japan's prime minister, Hideki Tōjō, and the demon-cook the likeness of Joseph Goebbels.

It gets better. In the "Shahnameh," Zahhak rules ferociously for 1,000 years, and in a prescient nightmare three warriors advance toward him, the youngest of which "smote him on the head with his ox-headed mace." In Kem's version, Winston Churchill (complete with cigar), Franklin Roosevelt and Joseph Stalin are the warriors. In another postcard, they escort the defeated Zahhak/Hitler, who is led away by a man wearing a blacksmith's apron: He is Kaveh, the icon of Iranian liberation. While it seems unlikely that Kem's propaganda worked, it certainly confirms the enduring role of the "Shahnameh" in politics.

–Ms. Lawrence writes about Asian and Islamic art for the Journal.



 



__._,_.___



           

__,_._,___


--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.