Site Review

..Oh the Bokeh
(This is a review of the site lenshero.com)

I am often opined by friends and colleagues when they are planning to buy a new camera. With many sites that have performed reviews and comparisons, its quite easy to look up, perform comparisons and finally give my judgment based on their requirements and budget. That's the case with DSLR cameras – just the cameras. When it comes to lenses, I'm pretty much dumb founded.

Its not because I don't have an idea about lenses, but because it is hard to find the lens you are looking for that matches your requirements- model, budget, compatibility, purpose etc..

Just when you think you have found the right lens you find out that your camera does not support it, in worst cases you find out when you buy it. I myself had a tough time trying to figure out whether a particular lens was compatible with my DSLR. After an hour of endless searching, I finally got my result, that too from discussion forums.

It was an hour later that I came across this site and was amazed at the simplicity in its design and usage.

KISS

The site is developed around the principle of KISS- Keep it simple and stupid.

All you have to do is enter in some values – camera model, your price range and the main purpose of the lens. Thats it! The site does the rest of the searching and sorting for you. The currency can be changed by selecting the appropriate (flag) one from the top right of the page.


The results are displayed with detailed info about each lens including its price. Additional sorting has been done based on the manufacturer, price, focus motor, wide angle, tele. More details about a lens can be viewed upon clicking the link on each lens.

Detailed information includes the compatibility with the model selected and how it will work on it, and explaining it in detail.


Any additional changes in your search criteria can be easily made from the side menu. You can make changes as per your budget requirements, change the camera model, narrow your lens search as per your requirements.


Another feature is the option for customers and owners to comment on a particular lens and hence gives the buyer every possible info he/she should know before buying one – a manufacturer never gives out the negative aspects of their product.

For any of you looking to buy a new lens, this is your destination.

WikiLeaks and US diplomatic cables

Spy Games

This must be really embarrassing for the US. Backbreaking too. A nation that has always been on the offensive suddenly finds itself in the midst of a 'diplomatic' predicament.

The US broke all rules of engagement (not that it cared) when it invaded Iraq in 2003 on the pretext of WMDs, finds it acceptable to detain suspects on the pretext of risk to national security, violation of human rights, Guantanamo bay etc... In all these instances its stance was not questioned by the foreign governments (except Iran), and in most cases it was supported and sometimes legalized by the judiciary.

This is something different- espionage. No country likes it when they are at the receiving end of the bargain. And getting spied upon will not go too well with its leaders and politicians. It's something like this: you enjoy watching a good fight, but tortuous if you the one in it and getting beaten up.

A cable sent by Hilary Clinton, Secretary of State, in July 2009 asks diplomats to spy on state officials as well as UN officials. Information were to be passed over containing

Office, organizational titles; names, position titles and other information on business cards; numbers of telephones, cell phones, pagers and faxes; compendia of contact information, such as telephone directories (in compact disc or electronic format if available) and e-mail listings; internet and intranet "handles", internet e-mail addresses, web site identification-URLs; credit card account numbers; frequent flyer account numbers; work schedules, and other relevant biographical information.

Apart from the above information requested, Ms Clinton also requested other sensitive information from UN offices.

Since these documents cannot be refuted by the State department, they have turned their offensive against their biggest headache- Julian Assange and WikiLeaks.

A senior US defence official said lawyers from across US government agencies are studying whether it might be possible to prosecute Assange under the Espionage Act.

He said lawyers are trying to determine whether the Espionage Act applies in this case, what individuals it might apply to and whether it's possible to use it against the WikiLeaks organisation.

Eric Holder, the US Attorney General, said on Monday that there is an "active and ongoing criminal investigation," and that the website's chief would be pursued if he were found to have broken the law.

The White House branded those who released the documents "criminals, first and foremost," but so far US authorities have publicly filed no charges against Assange.

Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, called the release by WikiLeaks "an attack on the international community", adding that WikiLeaks acted illegally in posting the material. Rather, it was a revelation to the world – The dirty games US plays on other nations and the bully that it is.

Meanwhile, Assange from an undisclosed location said that Clinton must resign if it were to be proved she had asked to carry out espionage activities.

Wikileaks and US Diplomatic cables

The one that got away

The current cache of US diplomatic cables released by Wikileaks has put the US govt. on a diplomatic marathon to mend any potential damages done with its allies. Its PR department has been working round the clock to divert attention from damning pieces in the leaks. The US govt. had even tried to prevent the site from uploading the cables by hacking their site.

Media Coverage

Saudi Arabia requesting to attack Iran, Iran and its nuclear programme, more doubts on Iran, Doubts in Mahmoud Abbas's leadership by the Israeli leaders, Germany's Chancellor Ms. Angela Merkel as "risk averse and rarely creative", Vladimir Putin as the "Alpha-dog" etc. These were the ones that the media chose to cover prominently.

In the current socio-political environment the current selection might be helpful in pushing forward certain agendas. For example, it may be helpful for Iran's detractors apply more pressure with the support of the Arab nations, not that they (Arab nations) have an opinion other than the ones dictated by the US. And then there is Israel, as always.

When there's Israel, the media prefers to turn a blind eye to its evil ways.

Negotiating Peace

Middle East peace quartet or The US peace envoy to the Middle East is not something new. Neither would be Israel's blatant violation of international law- building in occupied Palestinian territories, attack on a foreign soil and civilians, war crimes and so on. Or the way the media calls occupied territories in Palestine as 'settlements.'
But new to everyone out there would be Netanyahu's non-commitment to the peace negotiations- in writing. That too from the US. In a cable sent from Tel-Aviv detailing a meeting between Ackerman and Netanyahu,

Netanyahu said he would not agree to such a withdrawal since the 1967 lines were indefensible, but he added that the "right of return" was the real acid test of Arab intentions. Instead of Israel making more step-by-step concessions, Israel should insist that further concessions be linked to reciprocal steps toward peace

....
Netanyahu insisted not one refugee could ever return

....Netanyahu said UNSCR 242 was not a bad formula since it did not specify precisely from which territories Israel would withdraw.

The main issue that has been derailing the current 'peace talks' is the settlements and illegal constructions in Palestine by Israel. There has been partial construction freeze (s) which only prevented giving new permits during the freeze period, but allowed construction work on the ones already approved by the authorities concerned.

The above transcript sheds light on the current impasse over the Israel-Palestine negotiations. Netanyahu was never serious over the settlement issues; rather he is buying time and bullying Palestinians into expanding the territorial reach of Israel. He is wasting time to make sure that the existence of a Palestinian state will be a fraction of its former self by including terms like "security of its people" and "the right to self exist". From the onset, Israel has stated that it is entitled to any area it controls but is ready to make some "territorial concessions" that suits its needs and interests.

The ongoing peace process has been stalled over the same issue, over and over again, and Israel is not interested in giving back Palestinians their rightful, rather using it as a bargaining chip to pressurise Palestinians into giving up more, in the process legitimising their occupation.

Yasser Arafat had called the Oslo peace process "the peace of the brave" and the world around called it a moment in history. But we seemed to have missed the irony- 'The peace of the brave' was originally used by General de Gaulle about the end of the Algerian war. The French lost the war in Algeria.

Down with my team

In any political system there are disagreements and exchange of words. And in a democratic system, there is always friction between the ruling party and the opposition, if there is one. This is essential in ensuring that there is someone to keep checks on the government from crossing the line. And the media has a role of conveying to the people of these developments, both good and bad. This is a part of achieving good governance.

The working of a democratic government requires the opposition support the policies that are in favour of the people and be against the ones that run contrary to will and expectations of the people. But never should they act as an agent for a foreign nation. Never.

"I'm with you, not my president"- these were the words of the soon to be house majority leader Eric Cantor (Republican - VA) to the Israeli PM Benyamin Netanyahu. This was just before Hilary Clinton's meeting with the PM assure their commitment to the peace negotiations and opposition to illegal Israeli constructions.

Cantor's office later tried to recant his statement and construed his remarks as "a check on the Administration and what has been, up until this point, one party rule in Washington." But from the context it is clear that he meant otherwise.

Even more shocking or disappointing is the way the media has covered the whole event – or let's say, not covering the event. Remember the time when Helen Thomas, a White House journalist, was crucified for making remarks about Israel. Or when Octavia Nasr, a senior Middle East editor at CNN, was fired over her tweet revealing her respect for the Late Shiite cleric Ayatollah Fadlallah.

This may not be something new as many may not have even heard of New York Senator Chuck Schumer supporting 'economic strangulation' of Gaza, even when its economy is reeling under Israeli policies. Because the people of Gaza had elected Hamas to power, Israel was in its right to "to strangle them economically until they see that's not the way to go," and the US was morally obliged to stand by them, according to Schumer.

Coming back to Cantor and his remarks, if it had been said by any democrat (or Muslim in the current social environment) he/she would have been subjected to immense scrutiny and might even be said to have committed treason or sedition.

Arundhati Roy's statements on Kashmir were termed to be seditious by TIMES NOW which went on to become a huge debate in the country. It dint stop with TIMES NOW, but other media outlets joined the bandwagon and upped their rhetoric against her. All this in the race for TRP ratings and viewership.

With the republicans set to regain control of the house in the 112^th congress after the 2010 elections it is worrisome to know that people like him, are against human rights and freedoms, are still able to be elected by the people by toying with their fears. And even more worrisome is the state of media that are misinforming the public by not giving the complete picture, when all along they should have remained balanced and fair– not biased and opportunistic.

The Runaway General

Veni, Vidi, Vici

 

Gen. Stanley McChrystal, four-star general, in service since 1976. A four-star general is the highest rank any army personnel can attain in the US Army. He's held a lot of positions within the army and is not someone new to this job and he definitely knows the politics that revolves around this job, especially that of not upsetting the chain of command. The question why did the general give such an interview ? Why now?

Let's take a trip down memory lane. During the Bush era, he was the Pentagon spokesperson at the time of the Iraq invasion, in 2003. On multiple occasions he supported the White House, even when they were clearly in the wrong. McChrystal backed the then Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's infamous "Stuff happens" remark, even tried to cover up the accidental death of a US soldier by his own troops.

Clearly, he knew how to handle the chain of command, and play along and please them. He knew very well what was expected of him and most importantly how to execute it.

One of Obama's key electoral manifestos was to reduce and bring back US troops from Afghanistan and Iraq. Hence any policy contrary to the promises he made would draw strong criticism. Thus he required some kind of miracle to sail past this hurdle.

And help sure did arrive, in the form of McChrystal's assessment report on Afghanistan in which the General states- "We are going to win" and the need for an additional 30,000-40,000 troops. It was too much of a coincidence that the report went public as well as the sanctioning of 30,000 troops to Afghanistan, just what the General requested. This way everyone was happy- The White House, The General and… the people of America- If we can win, then send in more troops. The media had been managed well, just as the time when Bush alleged Iraq to possess WMDs.

The question now is why an article like this. One that mocks the government and everyone incharge. And why would a person who does not like too much public attention go ahead and give an interview with Rolling Stone (The Runaway General)? And furthermore give permission to publish it? Why?

The answer might be one of the two. One might be McChrystal knowing that the mission in Afghanistan is in on a slippery slope, victory a mirage. A recently released independent report by the Special Inspector-General for Afghanistan Reconstruction found big failings in the methods US and multinational forces have used since 2005 to assess the readiness of Afghan army and police who will be left behind. This completely contradicts the recent upbeat assessment of foreign commanders in the region.

Or it could be Washington's disapproval of McChrystal's strategies. An army with a policy of shoot first talk next might find it hard to fight with tactics that involves ensuring safety of civilians as a priority even if it means putting at risk the life of soldiers. And mind you, America does not like to apologize either (Stuff happens). They needed someone who would execute their style especially at a time when they are drawing heavy criticism from within their nation over the war and the demand to bring back their soldiers.

Despite the tragedies and miscues, McChrystal has issued some of the strictest directives to avoid civilian casualties that the U.S. military has ever encountered in a war zone. It's "insurgent math," as he calls it – for every innocent person you kill, you create 10 new enemies. He has ordered convoys to curtail their reckless driving, put restrictions on the use of air power and severely limited night raids. He regularly apologizes to Hamid Karzai when civilians are killed, and berates commanders responsible for civilian deaths. "For a while," says one U.S. official, "the most dangerous place to be in Afghanistan was in front of McChrystal after a 'civ cas' incident." The ISAF command has even discussed ways to make not killing into something you can win an award for: There's talk of creating a new medal for "courageous restraint," a buzzword that's unlikely to gain much traction in the gung-ho culture of the U.S. military.

But however strategic they may be, McChrystal's new marching orders have caused an intense backlash among his own troops. Being told to hold their fire, soldiers complain, puts them in greater danger. "Bottom line?" says a former Special Forces operator who has spent years in Iraq and Afghanistan. "I would love to kick McChrystal in the nuts. His rules of engagement put soldiers' lives in even greater danger. Every real soldier will tell you the same thing."

- excerpts from The Runaway General

If he were to resign his command in the region, it would send in wrong signals across both nationally and internationally. Therefore a more shrewd approach was required. And that's where the public-relations (PR) skills of the US government kicks in.

If an occupation can be converted to a settlement or a neighborhood or a disputed region, and if you can convince the masses that Iraq possesses WMDs then it would require no rocket science to divert the attention of the public from the real issue, case in point.

Micheal Hastings brings to light a lot of difficulties faced by the General and the state of affairs in the region. It questions the real motive of the US army in the region and their long term goals. But the media decided to discuss the more sensational aspects of the article, like his remarks on Biden, and left out the sections that ought to have been discussed and debated in public.

The timing couldn't have been more perfect either. With BP pouring out millions into PR campaigns (50 million to be precise)- to improve it brand image against plummeting share prices and directing the blame at the president, the Obama administration needed space, to prove that he is still the leader of the pack. And what better way to deflect attention towards something else that would see him emerges out as the Alpha-male. By firing McChrystal the president clearly showed who's in charge.

Just as Julius César commented on his short war with Pharnaces II of Pontus- veni, vidi, vici (I came, I saw, I conquered), the government called the shots, the media spoke and the people followed. Rather than discuss the political aspect and the far reaching consequences of the piece, journalists and media organisations were attacking the author (Micheal Hastings), calling him unprofessional and unethical, one journalist even went so far to call him unpatriotic. Eventually the gist of the story was skipped by the media(s) all together, just another successful media campaign by the US government.

In a time when sensationalism and embedded journalism is the order of the day, media organizations will not complain or dare to, rather be partners in crime. And people say crime does not pay.

All in all, it was just another day in US politics.

Helen and Journalism

Media and the use of words

Helen Thomas, a long time White House journalist, retired on June 7 following 'controversial' remarks about Israel and Palestine. Thomas' response was to a question by Rabbi David Nesenoff about the seizure of the Gaza aid flotilla and the killing of nine activists on the ship by Israeli commandos.

The question was: "Any comments on Israel? We're arresting everyone today. Any comments..." But, before the questioner could finish, she looked straight at the camera and said: "Tell them to get the hell out of Palestine."

"Ooooh," he replied, in shock. "Any better comments on Israel?" Now it is not clear what he meant by 'better', but could either mean something more favourable to Israel or something more spicy that would stack up popularity on youtube. Whatever his intention, Thomas took the latter path.

Laughing at his response, she continued: "Remember, these people are occupied, and it's their land. It's not German, it's not Poland..."

"Where should they go?" Nesenoff asked. "They should go home ... Poland, Germany ... and America. And everywhere else."

Robert Fisk, The Independent newspaper's Middle-East correspondent, had said once "More and more today, we journalists have become prisoners of the language of power... this isn't just about clichés - this is preposterous journalism.  There is no battle between power and the media. Through language, we have become them... Yes, when it comes to history, we journalists really do let the presidents and prime ministers take us for a ride. "

Often we are told in many anlysis features to deal with Middle-East's competing narratives. He adds "There's no justice, no injustice, just a couple of people who tell different history stories." It was Goerge W. Bush's secretary of state, Colin Powell, who told U.S. diplomats in the Middle-East to refer the occupied Palestinian land as 'Disputed land' and now it is more commonly known as 'settlements'.

When the Oslo accords were signed at the White House, it was referred to as a "moment in history". This was how the term 'peace process' came into existence, and now Tony Blair, "in an obscenity of history" as Fisk put it, is referred to as the peace envoy. Mr Arafat had called it (Oslo accords) "The peace of the brave". But I don't remember any of us pointing out that "the peace of the brave" was used originally by General de Gaulle about the end of the Algerian war. The French lost the war in Algeria. We did not spot this extraordinary irony.

Coming back to to Helen Thomas' remarks. If viewed contextualy and factualy, it is not factualy incorrect or 'controversial'. It is a known fact that Israel was created on occupied Palestine with the help of Britain, the U.S. and the UN. It also a known fact that the Palestinians have been severely oppressed under the Israelis and the West have been turning a blind eye to it all these years.

Most media organizations have left out the part where she says 'these people are occupied', and directly went to 'Germany..', and gave the whole incident a different angle. The whole picture of Palestinians as the ones sufferring was completely neglected, as we often see with Israel's PR campaign.

What might be considered controversial could be the fact that a journalist has been asked to apologize and quit over airing an opinion that is factually right. Secondly, it seriously questions the freedom of the press- has the media turned into mouthpieces for the governments?

Breast Cancer Vaccine

No. Not There Yet. Ain't sure either.

The media seems to be going into a frenzy after a recent publication over a paper in Nature Medicine, in which US-based researchers described a series of experiments they had carried out with specially bred mice. Let's be clear here- mice. Although most media clearly pointed this out, some were complacent in showing the actual progress of the study.

The tests carried out involved introduction of a new vaccine that prompts the immune system to attack cells containing a protein called Alpha-lactalbumin (LALBA), which is found in most breast cancer cells. This protein is an important protein in milk and is found in breast tissues of lactating mothers. For their potential BC vaccine, the researchers selected LALBA as the protein to be targeted. Further tests needs to be done to confirm whether this protein is the main cause of BC. This point has been left out in most mainstream media outlets and covered in detail in the new media. Similarly most of the negative aspects of the research has been omitted from the reports which raises flags here about the impartiality and fairness of the reports.

Tests were conducted on two sets (six each) of mice: one set of mice that were normal and the second set injected with the breast cancer (BC) virus or tumor cells. The researchers first assessed the immune response that occurred when mice were vaccinated with a-lactalbumin. They found that mice did mount an immune response against this protein, and that this caused inflammation of breast tissue in lactating mice but not in non-lactating mice (a-lactalbumin is found in breast tissue that is producing milk).

They then tested the effect of the a-lactalbumin vaccine in a strain of mice that have a high risk (a 50% chance) of spontaneously developing breast tumors by the age of 205 days. Injections were given either 13 days before, or 5, 13 or 21 days after the mice were injected with the tumor cells. The researchers also found that the a-lactalbumin vaccine given either 5 or 13 days after, or 13 days before injection with breast tumor cells reduced the growth of tumors in the mice. The tumors of mice injected with a-lactalbumin vaccine had been infiltrated by 'immune' system cells. But the injection of mice with a-lactalbumin vaccine 21 days after the tumor cells injection did not reduce the growth of the tumors.

Alpha-lactalbumin is type of protein found in the breast milk of all mammals. It is a source of essential amino acids (building blocks for protein) to support baby's growth, easy to digest, helps to support healthy kidney functioning, a rich source of the essential amino acid trytophan which involves in sleep etc.

The study hasn't come towards any definite finding, as in, they haven't unearthed the root cause of the problem- what causes breast cancer? The study revolves around the fact that LALBA is found in the breast cancer tissues and hence attacking that will kill all cancer cells. Its like saying terrorists have guns, and all with guns are terrorists. The converse is not always true.

Vaccination is a preventive measure, i.e. the immunization is taken before the visibility of any real symptoms. In such a scenario women would be required to take the vaccine at a young age and this might affect their child bearing capabilities or motherhood. The current results only shows the discovery of a potential cure for an ailment- not a vaccine for breast cancer, with side effects that are yet to be discovered.

The current research is in a very premature state and any definite or concrete solution towards breast cancer is not likely in the near future, especially for trials on humans. The fact that the vaccine did cause the immune system to respond to lactating breast tissue means that (should this type of vaccination ever reach human testing) it would probably be appropriate only for women unlikely or unable to become pregnant.

Indeed, no vaccine against cancer has successfully been developed so far. Gardasil and other 'cervical cancer vaccine' has been tested and approved by the US department of Health and Human services, its side effects include epileptic fits, blood disorders, arthritis, neurological problems and seizures. Furthermore, the well-known 'cervical cancer vaccine' isn't actually a cancer vaccine in this sense – it protects against a virus, HPV, that can lead to cancer in certain women. These researchers are very much in uncharted territory.