Post Cards - drop us a card Log Out | Topics | Search
Moderators | Edit Profile

The Peoples' Book Forum » Post Scripts » Post Cards - drop us a card « Previous Next »

Author Message
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Humancafe
Posted on Wednesday, October 29, 2008 - 07:22 pm:   

This is a continuation of Post Scripts, so let us know what you think, or where you're from if just visiting. This page will remain open when forums are archived. Of if shy, send an email: humancafe@aol.com

Cheers.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Crusoe's island
Posted From: 69.228.34.8
Posted on Saturday, November 01, 2008 - 11:24 am:   

Postcard from Robinson Crusoe's island:

Dig finds camp of 'real Crusoe'

crusoe.jpg
My favorite story as a child first learning to read... in French.

:-)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Cairo's Al-Azhar Park
Posted From: 69.228.46.9
Posted on Tuesday, November 04, 2008 - 12:03 am:   

Old Cairo's Darb al Ahmar coming back to life.

aldarb5.jpgaldarb2.jpg

Scenes from Old Cairo, Darb al Ahmar

I visited this area of Old Cario with a friend back twenty years ago, where we got one of those famous Egyptian haircuts, very short, finished off with a razor sharp string treatment to remove facial hairs... Ouch! It hurt! But I have a fond memory of it all, and am so glad to see it being restored from what once was the poorest section of Cairo into an area of rehabilitation, thanks in part to the Aga Khan Trust for Culture, which was instrumental by Lord Aga Khan in creating a beautiful green People's Park over what once was a 500 year old dump for the city, the 74 acre Al-Azhar Park. Here are some more street scenes in Darb al Ahmar:
darb-ahmar-street-scenes06mini.jpg,azharpark4.jpg
(interactive)

The People's Park, for a small fee, is available for all visitors from Cairo, or outside. Along its western boundary is an important archeological site, the ancient 13th century wall, now restored, as part of the Citadel.

quote:

Located on the western side of the park are the old Fatimid city and its extension Darb Al Ahmar, with their wealth of mosques, madrasas and mausolea, signaled by a long line of minarets. To the south are the Sultan Hassan Mosque and its surroundings, as well as the Ayyubid Citadel. On the eastern side is the City of the Dead with its many social welfare complexes sponsored by the Mamluk Sultans and dignitaries, which became an area that developed into a dense neighborhood of its own. This area was indeed in great need of an open green space. The hilly topography of the site, formed by debris accumulated over centuries, now provides elevated view points dominating the city and offers a spectacular 360° panorama over the townscape of historic Cairo.



citadel35.jpg (interactive - Al Maridani mosque)
The Citadel of Cairo

In a city that today is home to some 17 million people, this green park and revitalization going on is an important development for Egypt and its people.

[A note of caution: Crime is not generally a problem in Cairo, but western women may be molested, which is annoying and disrespectful, as was our experience; also radical extremists have their own evil agenda, so be careful when visiting this fascinating city.]

Salaam aleikom
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Merry Christmas 2008
Posted on Wednesday, December 24, 2008 - 12:13 pm:   

Beautiful Earthrise, 40 years ago on Christmas Eve of 1968.

_45324094_as08-13-2329hr.jpg (interactive - BBC)
The first Earthrise to be witnessed by a human


quote:

Back in 1948, the British astrophysicist Sir Fred Hoyle predicted that when spaceflight enabled us to see the whole Earth from space, the view would change us forever.



He was right. When we see the whole Earth from space, she is beautiful and only filled with light and peace.

Merry Christmas 2008, in Peace.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Freedom wins
Posted on Saturday, January 03, 2009 - 01:39 pm:   

We are at war with those who would coerce us against our freedoms:

"Freedom of thought, freedom over our bodies, freedom of sexual orientation, freedom of belief; all these must be put aside as issues (in my opinion they shouldn't even be issues, anymore than teaching evolution in schools), because fighting over these inherently innate freedoms interfere with the war into which we had been suddenly cast. There should be no question these freedoms are to exist. Freedom to coerce, on the other hand, must not be allowed anywhere, stopped completely, so those who would stop us in our beliefs, and our civil liberties, who would even kill us, must be stopped."


Resist coercions with all your strength, fight all coercions against your human rights, for the right to fight coercions is your God given right. This war the Islamo-Barbarians cannot win.

This is war they cannot win, and may not win, but this final war against the barbarians we must win for Freedom.

Also see: Faithfreedom.org

anon
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Fraud Test
Posted on Saturday, January 17, 2009 - 12:28 pm:   

ENRON - how markets failed the Fraud Test.

See the whole of it, but here are the trailer videos:

Enron the smartest guys in the room - Trailer
default-1.jpg

Enron traders conversation recorder
default-2.jpg

Markets fail two tests for Fraud if these two rules are violated:

1. Fraud when trust is broken through coercive collusion destroying the normal price function of exchange.

2. Criminal behaviors which coerce and deceive the markets are deregulated or otherwise not restricted by law.

In the chapter on market exchange of Habeas Mentum, it says:

quote:

"Through time, the reality that defines the then value of exchange also changes to suit the subjective and constantly shifting tastes and desires of demand, and the existing and changing ability to satisfy these demands. These changes, which result in constantly shifting market prices, are difficult to appraise without the entry of competitors eager and able to gain an advantage from the opportunities created by them. Thus, the advantage of a competitive exchange over one that is always decided upon by two individuals is that it allows other individuals to enter into the constantly shifting state of exchange and improve upon it to, in effect, contribute additional individual assessments of market conditions as they are then. The reward of this introduction of competitive assessments is that those assessments, which are most correct in relation to demand and how that demand can be most realistically and profitably satisfied, are those that will result in exchange. The price at which this exchange will take place is, consequently, that price that is most competitive and that cannot be improved upon, as assessed by all the participants involved and reduced from their individual decisions. Because it is the best possible price, or at least because it tends that way though it may not be perfect, it is also the most efficient price in relation to how things were then and to how the mind assessed them to be. An exchange is always a subjective human act judged by those individuals directly involved in it either by virtue of their demand or their ability to satisfy this demand; it is a price arrived at that is most relevant and correct then and there, to them. As in the case of our original two traders, because our knowledge is not always perfect, the competitive market environment tends to fill in those gaps that result from our failure to perceive all in our individual assessments. What we cannot see can be seen by another, as seen in another way or from a more advantageous perspective, and acted upon to correct our unintentional omission. That other, either through being more clever or better positioned, then contributes a price of exchange that is more advantageous and, thus, more an expression of real market value. Thus, without the need for superhuman intelligence, the competitive market is able to improve upon our individual shortcomings and arrive at a comparably efficient price at all times. Its constantly changing price then reflects the constantly changing aggregate of human decisions as these are made in response to their individual realities and to how these realities seek each other in agreement. The result is an agreed upon and correct state of exchange.
...
So, for markets to be efficient, they do not have to be composed of many participants, but they do have to be free from coercion. A market in which exchange is restricted, because entry is prohibited or because the costs of exchange are too great, is a market in which will not be reflected the greatest price efficiency. When free from this coercion, whether or not the price then reflected is optimum will be determined by whether or not the conditions of exchange are then optimum. If there is undue risk, such as from theft or currency instability or from confiscatory measures, then the price will also reflect the concern for this risk; the price mark up will be higher as insurance compensating for this risk. Then, if the price so arrived at appears to be less than optimum, it is only a reflection of conditions as they then are; the market cannot be improved upon if the conditions of exchange are negative. Exchange by agreement, when free from coercion, only reflects the state of things as they are between individuals. It is the property of free markets that, when allowed to work efficiently, they always reflect things as they are; if these conditions are constructive and unrestrictive, then they reflect efficiently our human effort and productivity; if they are negative and coercive, plagued by undue risk and by disregard for the rights of the individual, then they reflect human inefficiency as forced from coerced labor. If we are not pleased with our results, the blame does not rest with the exchange mechanism; a free market reflects only human agreements. The correction of those conditions lies in correcting what the market is reflecting and not in correcting the market itself. If, however, it is the market that is being hindered from its free function as a reflection of agreements, then it fails as an efficient tool of interhuman exchange and as a reflection of things as they are; individuals must be free to form agreements. Coerced, it expresses reality only darkly and the myth that forces it to work poorly then becomes the new reflection of our social reality. That myth is then the attempt to change the reality of our human condition by forcing that which describes it for us; it is a form of social camouflage which masks what the aggregate of our human agreements is telling us. Then, through our social error, the market ceases to be an efficient social tool. A market not free cannot be efficient.



That includes a market "not free" from criminal behaviors and fraud. Once a market fails the Fraud Test, as happened in the Enron electricity market manipulations in California, then the market price is no longer reflecting the reality of the supply and demands of the market place. In the end, the whole market fails, and when the fraud is exposed, the participants behind the deceits and manipulations, or mythical profits, fail with the whole structure built up on fraud crashing down into bankruptcy. Why have we not learned our lessons from Enron in the recent banking crisis meltdowns? It was financialization run amok. The market in the end will always win.

Criminal fraud can never be deregulated.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Born believers?
Posted on Friday, February 06, 2009 - 01:46 pm:   

Natural born believers?

Is it any wonder Earth's pantheistic religions are universal?

Here is the NewScientist article: Born believers: How your brain creates God


quote:

WHILE many institutions collapsed during the Great Depression that began in 1929, one kind did rather well. During this leanest of times, the strictest, most authoritarian churches saw a surge in attendance.

This anomaly was documented in the early 1970s, but only now is science beginning to tell us why. It turns out that human beings have a natural inclination for religious belief, especially during hard times. Our brains effortlessly conjure up an imaginary world of spirits, gods and monsters, and the more insecure we feel, the harder it is to resist the pull of this supernatural world. It seems that our minds are finely tuned to believe in gods.

Religious ideas are common to all cultures: like language and music, they seem to be part of what it is to be human. Until recently, science has largely shied away from asking why. "It's not that religion is not important," says Paul Bloom, a psychologist at Yale University, "it's that the taboo nature of the topic has meant there has been little progress."...



Read it all, very interesting. We are born believers?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Universal Logos
Posted on Saturday, February 07, 2009 - 02:23 pm:   

Universe thinking itself as the Logos?

Is Habeas Mentem's "interrelationship" the same as the ancient Heraclitean "Logos"?

200px-Heraclitus,_Johannes_Moreelse.jpg
The weeping philosopher, Heraclitus

Logos need not be the "word of God" in the modern Judeo-Christian sense, nor does it mean necessarily "divine animating principle" of the Stoic philosophers; it fits better as a modern western philosophical idea first proposed by Heraclitus, "as meaning both the source and fundamental order of the cosmos." Take another look at "What is the form of interrelationship", Ch.3, and you will see that any totality of interrelationship forms a definition for its internal parts in terms of the totality image, so nothing can be defined as a "fundamental source and order" other than its place in time within that totality interrelationship image, that which defines its particular things within it. (This is better explained in Ch. 2, "Let us created an idea" of Habeas Mentem.) So if an idea such as interrelationship can from its totality image define, or "think" itself, then it becomes the "Logos" as sought after through the ages. What was missing was an ancients understanding that philosophically the Logos was not in our reason alone, nor some mystical universal principle, but already existed independently of us as a universal principle of "interrelationship": a self sustained mechanism that we in time were able to identify in our minds as the Logos, the source and fundamental order of the universe, and all in it.

Taking the Logos out of the pantheism of religions and placing it back in the fundamental principles of the universe, "one true belief system based upon real evidential proofs" that are verifiable, is what the basic concept of Interrelationship does. That it is then also an "animating principle" of all life, or the Totality that is the "word of God" follows naturally, of course. Does that make sense?

Also see: Universe is natural computer
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Woo-woo universe
Posted on Wednesday, February 18, 2009 - 01:16 pm:   

More Woo-woo Universe Big Bang stuff.

090217-scit-universe-01.jpg
New Model of the Early Universe (Space.com -interactive)


quote:

New computer simulations reveal how the early universe would have appeared 500 million years after the theoretical Big Bang.

According to the standard Big Bang model, the universe was born about 13.7 billion years ago in a burst of inflation, growing from something smaller than the size of an electron to about golf-ball size within a fraction of a second. In its early stages, the universe was flooded with energy, which congealed into particles and the lighter atoms. Over time, as the cosmos continued to expand on a vastly greater scale, these atoms clumped together into stars and galaxies.



Helloo? Dr. Who? Are we there yet?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

non-expanding U
Posted on Thursday, February 19, 2009 - 06:30 pm:   

Totally different take, on a non-expanding Universe can be found here, at Mining Deep Space Gravity:

http://www.humancafe.com/discus/messages/88/185.html#POST3594

No woo-woo here?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Plasma axial jets
Posted on Monday, February 23, 2009 - 12:27 pm:   

Follow up on Matsumoto simulation where axial jets were recreated with rotating plasma, 2000

dn7623-1_250.jpg (interactive)
Single jet recreated in a lab, 2005

quote:

Operating in a vacuum chamber, Bellan's group was able to make jets up to a third of a metre long that travelled at between 10 and 50 kilometres per second. Bigger jets would require a bigger power supply.



A different approach was used here, 2009, to recreate plasma 'burping' astrophysical jets:

quote:

Jets of charged particles have been created in successive bursts for the first time in the laboratory. The work could shed light on the behaviour of astrophysical jets from stars and galaxies.
Astrophysical jets are among the largest and most energetic objects in the universe. The matter inside them travels at nearly the speed of light from colossal black holes at the centres of galaxies. Smaller jets spew at lower speeds from young stars surrounded by discs of gas and dust.



However, we are still a very long way from understanding galactic black hole axial jets, or how this newly released plasma energy can be used in the future, such as suggested by applying the Axiomatic Equation (SMBH):
Any hot rotating plasma, or star energy, will result in a vortex center where all electromagnetic energy lambda cancels on a point, which per Axiomatic, is where this canceled electromagnetic hot energy will re-release primordial extreme gravity, where G=c, such as witnessed in a black hole.

The above article does not make it clear these plasma jets are from the same phenomenon first simulated by Matsumoto, however, so they may not be same genre.

If this is a modifiable event that can be re-created artificially, then it may be a usable future source of energy, or in effect, "gravity in a bottle" type energy. Stay tuned for further research, especially in plasma physics.

No woo-woo here either? :-O
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Spacetime spin?
Posted on Tuesday, February 24, 2009 - 12:03 pm:   

Gravity Probe B (GP-B) Relativity Mission - latest update, maybe last.

GPB-Concept-Dgrm-sm.jpg (interactive)
Science Results -- NASA Final Report
(image: Spacetime warped and twisted by the mass and spin of the earth)


quote:

Abstract
This is the first of five connected papers giving details of progress on the Gravity Probe B (GP-B)
Relativity Mission. GP-B, launched on 20 April 2004, is a landmark physics experiment in space to test
two fundamental predictions of Einstein’s theory of general relativity, the geodetic and frame-dragging
effects, by means of ultra-precise cryogenic gyroscopes in Earth orbit. Data collection began 28 August
2004 and science operations were completed 29 September 2005. The data analysis has proven deeper
than expected. Patch effect anomalies on the gyro rotor and housing have given rise to two mutually
reinforcing complications:
1) A changing polhode path affecting the calibration of the gyroscope scale factor Cg against the
aberration of starlight
2) Two larger than expected manifestations of a Newtonian gyro torque due to patch potentials on
the rotor and housing.
In earlier papers, we reported two distinct methods, ‘geometric’ and ‘algebraic’, for identifying and
removing the first Newtonian effect (‘misalignment torque’) and also a preliminary method of treating
the second (‘roll-polhode resonance torque’). Central to the progress in both torque modeling and Cg
determination has been an extended effort from January 2007 on “Trapped Flux Mapping”. A new
turning point came in August 2008 when it became possible to include a detailed history of the roll-
polhode resonance torques into the computation. The frame-dragging effect is now plainly visible in the
processed data. The current statistical uncertainty from an analysis of 154 days of data by the algebraic
method is 6 marcsec/yr (~15% of the frame-dragging effect). The systematic error will be added to this
statistical uncertainty using the methods discussed in an accompanying paper by Muhlfelder et al. A
covariance analysis, incorporating the impact of patch effect anomalies, indicates that a 3 to 5%
determination of frame-dragging is possible with a more complete, but computationally intensive data
analysis approach.




Did they find what they were looking for? Was Einstein right (again)? The report seems to indicate the 'frame-dragging' was visible but still inconclusive, so an additional layer of measurement parameters need to be explored and analyzed.


quote:

6 Conclusion
A “simple” strategy of the GP-B data analysis has evolved in the complex two-floor structure after on-
orbit discoveries of the changes in the rotor’s polhode period and path, and of patch effect torques. Direct
modeling of the readout scale factor at the 1st Floor, and the misalignment and roll-resonance torque
modeling at the 2nd Floor, allowed us to separate the relativistic drift from the drift induced by classical
torques. A cascade of four interconnected estimators applied to the GP-B science data has demonstrated a
consistent determination of the geodetic and frame-dragging effects for all GP-B gyroscopes, as well as
fidelity of the physical models used.



Time to put it to bed... Relativistic drift may be no more than classical momentum transfer, same as Mercury's precession?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

space time question/BAUT
Posted on Thursday, February 26, 2009 - 01:49 pm:   

Some questions of space-time expansion discussed at BAUT ATM thread. Not part of discussion, just posted for your info.

Modern Cosmology: Science or Folktale?
http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainstream/85219-modern-cosmology-science-folkt ale.html

Read it all, and add your comment to question.

____________________________________________________________________________
Editor's note: the above questions were posed on Humancafe in the Modern Universe in G-flat pages, Sept. 1, 2007, same referenced article; above is post on universal Logos as interrelationship.) - FYI

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Whose time 2?
Posted on Wednesday, March 04, 2009 - 12:08 pm:   


quote:

Who's Time are we talking about?


- and GPS

This was asked on the "Who's time" entry (that thread closed due to spam attacks). But Whose Time are we really talking about? Obviously it is Einstein's Relativity, which has been such an alluringly paradoxical idea that we cannot stop talking about it. Is it really true for more than the observer?

8e8943fcbf5e131710d8d04571f428e5.png (Wiki-interactive)
Time-dilation equation

This is all it is, just a time-dilation equation, as seen by the observer. So if t or t', it is all up to the observer whose measurement of light c based observations will be modified by time-dilation 'proper time'. From whose point of view is all.

It's just time-dilations :-O


Also see: Also see: Basics of the GPS Technique: Observation Equations by Geoffrey Blewitt

quote:

This model is simplified; for example, it assumes the speed of light in the atmosphere is c, and it ignores the theory of relativity; but this simplified model is useful to gain insight into the principles of GPS. From Pythagoras Theorem, we can write... (p.14, italics mine)




There seems to be a general assumption that Einstein’s Special Relativity is used in our GPS systems to correct for time variances. However, the truth is much simpler, as atmospheric interference to v=c in SR throw off the numbers. Instead, engineers worked out an ingenious method of netting out clock-drift errors in the results. As per math in Global PositioningSystem: The Mathematics of GPS Receivers:

quote:

“The very ingenious idea of leaving clock error as a variable allows a GPS receiver to display our position on the Earth at any location and at any time, using nothing more than simple algebra. The variationsin computed positions are almost entirely due to inherent limitations on precision within the system. A second clever plan allows the use of two radio frequencies to eliminate much of the variabilitycaused by the passage of signalsthroughthe Earth'satmosphere.”



Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mars 2
Posted on Friday, March 06, 2009 - 12:12 pm:   

Mars Opportunity rover update.

This is a follow-up to Mars density post earlier, Feb. 4, 2009, where Mars Rover Opportunity had descended into Victoria Crater (see photo), where it had spent over a year exploring. Since then this hardy little robot rover has climbed out by retracing its tracks, and about to engage Endeavour Crater, some 12 km away.

080829-opp-victoria-02.jpg (interactive)
NASA's Mars Exploration Rover Opportunity climbed out of Victoria Crater following the tracks it had made when it descended into the 800-meter-diameter (half-mile-diameter) bowl nearly a year earlier. Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech

This journey to Endeavour Crater, traveling about 100 meters per day, could take two years:

quote:

The Endeavour crater, a bowl 13.7 miles (22 km) across, should offer the chance to study a much deeper stack of rock layers than those Opportunity saw in Victoria Crater.
"I would love to see that view from the rim," Squyres said. "But even if we never get there, as we move southward we expect to be getting to younger and younger layers of rock on the surface. Also, there are large craters to the south that we think are sources of cobbles that we want to examine out on the plain. Some of the cobbles are samples of layers deeper than Opportunity will ever see, and we expect to find more cobbles as we head toward the south."


Let's hope this trusty little robot with a troubling forward wheel will make its hazardous journey intact.

Also see: Curiosity Mars Rover, incredible panorama scan (interactive)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

GR modified?
Posted on Monday, March 09, 2009 - 01:11 pm:   

A couple of good GR papers, FYI

General Theory of Relativity: Will it survive
the next decade? (2006)

Expanding Confusion:
common misconceptions of cosmological horizons and the superluminal expansion of the universe (2003)

Are we about to see Einstein's GR modified or unseated as the basis for our understanding of cosmology and astrophysics?

Read it all.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Modified gravity?
Posted on Monday, March 16, 2009 - 12:13 pm:   

Modified Gravity? Maybe 'variable G' too?

_44979323_gravity_spaceship_466.jpg (BBC - interactive)
1. Goce senses tiny variations in the pull of gravity over Earth
2. The data is used to construct an idealised surface, or geoid
3. It traces gravity of equal 'potential'; balls won't roll on its 'slopes'
4. It is the shape the oceans would take without winds and currents
5. So, comparing sea level and geoid data reveals ocean behaviour
6. Gravity changes can betray magma movements under volcanoes
7. A precise geoid underpins a universal height system for the world
8. Gravity data can also reveal how much mass is lost by ice sheets

There is an exotic re-interpretation taking place in the mysterious world of infinite scale gravity, though not as simple as to say a variable gravity G is simply an electro-magnetically modifiable force with distance from a hot star. But it, like MOND, is a start.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0812.2244
Observational Evidence for Cosmological-Scale Extra Dimensions

quote:

We present a case that current observations may already indicate new gravitational physics on cosmological scales. The excess of power seen in the Lyman-alpha forest and small-scale CMB experiments, the anomalously large bulk flows seen both in peculiar velocity surveys and in kinetic SZ, and the higher ISW cross-correlation all indicate that structure may be more evolved than expected from LCDM. We argue that these observations find a natural explanation in models with infinite-volume (or, at least, cosmological-size) extra dimensions, where the graviton is a resonance with a tiny width. The longitudinal mode of the graviton mediates an extra scalar force which speeds up structure formation at late times, thereby accounting for the above anomalies. The required graviton Compton wavelength is relatively small compared to the present Hubble radius, of order 300-600 Mpc. Moreover, with certain assumptions about the behavior of the longitudinal mode on super-Hubble scales, our modified gravity framework can also alleviate the tension with the low quadrupole and the peculiar vanishing of the CMB correlation function on large angular scales, seen both in COBE and WMAP. This relies on a novel mechanism that cancels a late-time ISW contribution against the primordial Sachs-Wolfe amplitude.



The full NewScientist article dealing with the above physics paper can be found at: Gravity may venture where matter fears to tread

Another on 'dark matter' is on Space.com: Galaxies Protected by Dark Matter

It gets odder yet: Telescope Captures Grouping of Oddball Galaxy and Supernova

Another 'variable gravity' potentials? Experimental Tests of General Relativity: Recent Progress and Future Directions, by Slava G. Turyshev , Jan.18, 2009.


quote:

Considering gravitation and fundamental physics, our solar system is the laboratory that offers many opportunities to improve the tests of relativistic gravity. A carefully designed gravitational experiment has the advantage to conduct tests in a controlled and well-understood environment and can achieve accuracies superior to its ground- based counterpart. Existing technologies allow one to take advantage of the unique environments found only in space, including variable gravity potentials, large distances,...



Read it all.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Life on Mars
Posted on Friday, March 20, 2009 - 12:53 pm:   

Not if, but when, Life is found on Mars.

If these three articles are correct, then subsurface mud pools will harbor microbial life on Mars. Here is the lineup:

1. Is life bubbling up in Mars mud? (NewScientist) If this is correct, then the warm water mud pools may be the base for bacterial life.

2. Scientists find new bacteria species (CNN) If so, then ultraviolet light resistant bacteria high in Earth's atmosphere may be distant cousins of Martian bacteria.

3. Life's Crystal Code (Space) If this is true, then we are made of 'clay' after all, and Life is universal wherever it can find a foothold. Mars now offers very good odds that there is life in our neighborhood.

090319-crystal-quartz-02.jpg
Quartz crystals that grew out of mineral-rich solutions in large rock cavities

Think of 'interrelationship' as the basic building blocks of Life... and Mind.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan/simple
Posted on Sunday, March 22, 2009 - 12:02 pm:   

The Universe is Simple, et al.

Universum.jpg (interactive)
Universum - C. Flammarion, Woodcut, Paris 1888

Welcome to Humancafe forums! An anthology of thinkers who brought together a vast pantheon of ideas into logical simplicity.
Watch this space for future paper on the absolute economy of the Universe, which is simplicity itself, so even I understand it. :-)

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

RELATIVITY+ book
Posted on Friday, March 27, 2009 - 12:45 pm:   

RELATIVITY+ by John Duffield - now available at Amazon.com

get-attachment.aspx.jpeg (interactive)
Visit this page for details on book

This is a followup of an earlier post, October 11, 2008, on the forum.

Very fine book review.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sum, ergo sum
Posted on Thursday, April 02, 2009 - 12:59 am:   

"Cogito, ergo sum."

"I think, therefore I am," is Rene' Descartes.

In neo-Descartes "I Am, therefore I am."

"Sum, ergo sum."
Descartes-moncornet.jpg

Is this the post-Cartesian world of the universe according to the Universe is Simple?
___________________________________________________________________________
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

The Hand
Posted on Saturday, April 04, 2009 - 11:24 am:   

Here's a postcard from space "The Hand" - NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory

b1509_420.jpg (interactive)
Red represents low-energy X-rays, the medium range is green, and the most energetic ones are colored blue. The blue hand-like structure was created by energy emanating from the nebula around they dying star PSR B1509-58. The red areas are from a neighboring gas cloud called RCW 89. Credit: NASA/CXC/SAO/P.Slane, et al.


quote:

Tiny and dying but still-powerful stars called pulsars spin like crazy and light up their surroundings, often with ghostly glows. So it is with PSR B1509-58, which long ago collapsed into a sphere just 12 miles in diameter after running out of fuel.
...
The star now spins around at the dizzying pace of seven times every second -- as pulsars do -- spewing energy into space that creates the scene...



How does a twelve mile diameter star spinning seven rotations per second hold together? Extreme G, of course. :-)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

The Eye
Posted on Sunday, April 05, 2009 - 01:19 pm:   

THE EYE

IvansEye3.jpg

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

infrared galaxy
Posted on Wednesday, April 08, 2009 - 12:54 pm:   

Expanding-space-contraction of galaxies?

This is a follow up on an earlier post on expanding space by Aladim and successive posts on how the universe is expanding, though with colliding galaxies it is also 'contracting'. Now comes this 'postcard' from space:

Nearby Galaxy Looks Bigger in Infrared -Space.com

090407-m33-spitzer-02.jpg
The Spitzer Space Telescope image of M33. Stars are blue, and in the image several are actually foreground stars in our own galaxy. Dust rich in organic molecules glows green. Diffuse orange-red glowing areas indicate regions where stars are forming. Small red flecks outside the spiral disk of M33 are most likely distant background galaxies, astronomers figure. NASA/JPL-Caltech/Univ. of Ariz.


quote:

A new infrared image from NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope reveals the colorful M33 to be surprising large -- bigger than its visible-light appearance would suggest, astronomers said in a recent statement.
With its ability to detect cold, dark dust, Spitzer sees emission from cooler material well beyond the visible range of M33's disk. Exactly how this cold material moved outward from the galaxy is still a mystery, but winds from giant stars or supernovas may be responsible, Spitzer astronomers said.



What is intriguing is that the cold dark dust surrounding this M33 galaxy is in fact 'visible' in the infrared band. Could this be the Cold Dark Matter sought after, only cold dust in higher G per Axiomatic Equation? If so, there is no space expansion, and galaxies are free to collide gravitationally as expected.

quote:

M33, the third largest galaxy in our group, is also moving toward the Milky Way (which is about 100,000 light-years in diameter). Nothing to worry about, however. This galactic cousin is presently some 2.9 million light-years away in the constellation Triangulum.


Not to worry, a light-year is 10 trillion kilometers, so it may take a while.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Cosmo-constant, which one?
Posted on Friday, April 10, 2009 - 11:04 am:   

The Cosmological Constant in an 'Expanding' Universe. where 'empty' space itself is filled with this vacuum energy.

"The cyclic universe model is a simple mechanism for solving the cosmological constant problem" - 19 Sep, 2006


quote:

The cosmological constant is a surname for what we call vacuum energy, the energy of empty space. What we mean by empty is without particle, radiation, or any object. There can still be energy, there can still be fields, like electric or magnetic fields, in it but all particles or objects are missing from it. 
Even though it’s empty, there can still be energy, and that’s what we call the cosmological constant.
Based on the observation, what have we learned about this cosmological constant?
The cosmological constant, because the value is so small, because it doesn’t change with time, has almost no observable consequences, except for one thing: it affects the expansion of the Universe. If the vacuum energy is greater than all the other forms of energy, like the energy of the matter or radiation, then it causes the expansion of the Universe to speed up. This effect has been observed. When we look at the motion of distant galaxies compared to more nearby galaxies, we can observe that the expansion of the Universe has been speeding up the last 4 or 5 billion years. That’s the sign that there is a small and positive vacuum energy. ....



This above is how the universe is understood today. Contrast it with the Simple Universe idea here: http://www.humancafe.com/discus/messages/1177/1872.html - March 26, 2009


quote:

Energy in modern physics is always Energy [6], which means E=E in all its forms, such as kinetic energy, work energy, heat energy, or electromagnetic energy. This Energy equivalence also applies to the famous de Broglie E=hf equation, where Energy equals Planck's constant times electromagnetic frequency, the basis of Quantum physics. However, where all mechanical and electromagnetic energy may be interchangeable, gravity stands out as something different. Gravity may have more to do with inertial mass than electromagnetic energy [7], and in fact may prove to be inversely proportional. In effect, where today's Cosmology is based on Gravity as a universal constant, taken from Newton's gravitational constant G, and enhanced relativistically with Einstein's General Relativity mathematics; this universal constant may not be as now postulated, but is likely a variable constant, a constant on a curve [8].

This means some universal constants, which are measured and true in our region of space, may be variable elsewhere; in particular gravity's Newton G, which may be “constant” on a curve [9] with distance from our Sun or any hot star. Per force, this means the interaction within Quantum theory's E=hf and gravity theory [10] become paradoxical because they are both constants and variables. What this means in the end is that gravity is not a "universal constant" as now believed, but dependent inversely upon the Energy density where G is measured, so the universe may be "isotropic and homogenous" at gravity levels far greater than now assumed [11]....



Is there a Dark Energy pushing all the galaxies apart? Or is there a gravitational redshift in deep space causing all distant light to appear as if it were Doppler-space-expanding? Which is it?

86644-049-A6942127.jpg
Universe is this 'simple'?

How will history remember this? How close are we to learning the truth?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Galileo's legacy
Posted on Sunday, April 12, 2009 - 12:10 pm:   

Galileo's Legacy, 400th anniversary


galileo scope.jpg (interactive- NewScientist)
Galileo's Telescope (1610)


quote:

WITH all the attention on Darwin this year, one could almost overlook the 400th anniversary of one of the most significant events in the history of science: the first time Galileo peered through his telescope and provided conclusive evidence that the Earth circles the sun. Two exhibitions are marking the occasion, though, both in conjunction with the Institute and Museum of the History of Science (IMSS) in Florence, Italy.
...
The impressive section on Islamic cosmology includes a small, stunning 15th-century spherical astrolabe - the only known example of its kind. From there we see the Christianisation of astronomy: the addition of more complex epicycles to the Ptolemaic system in order to maintain Earth's centrality and regular, circular movements of the heavens.
...
Galileo famously came into conflict with the Church: his Dialogo was placed on the Vatican's Index of Prohibited Books and he was called before the Inquisition and forced to abjure his views - a scene depicted in Cristiano Banti's 1857 painting Galileo Before the Inquisition.

Whether Galileo ever uttered the apocryphal E pur si muove ("And yet it moves"), he was, of course, proved right. The power of his observations in supplanting religious ideology is best captured in a single arresting image: Galileo's finger, detached from his remains in 1737, encased in glass and gilt and pointing heavenward. It is a scientific reliquary for a secular saint.



Four centuries later, Galileo continues to impress, proven right again for our age of religious ideology conflicts and reconciliations; or secular resolutions.

Also see: Galileo almost right?

Galileo's complaint - a short (fiction) story
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

More Galileo's
Posted on Friday, April 17, 2009 - 12:15 pm:   

More on Galileo's legacy postcard, go tell it on the mountain.

One of the most famous 'Wacky Ideas'..? - by Seth Shostak


quote:

But even an unrefereed publication – indeed even that icon of immodesty, a self-published book – will buff your idea to a better gloss. Consider: When Galileo made his telescopic discoveries of the moons of Jupiter and a few other important things, he felt the need to get them typeset and bound ASAP (he was worried about being scooped by competitors). Rather than wait around 285 years for the Astrophysical Journal, Galileo rushed into print with his own, small book. Smooth move.
...
Data are valuable. Ideas, on the other hand – like phone calls and e-mail – are cheap. Your creative genius may have hatched a truly revolutionary idea. Indeed, you probably think so. But no matter what your opinion of your hypothesis might be, if you hope for someone to fly you to Stockholm and hand you a check, don't just call me up and lay out your case. Do something better: write it up and tell the world.




photo1797.jpeg photo409.jpeg
SETI call Home - interactive

Or just write it up, kick up your heels, and sit back. Who cares? :-)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

New gravity physics?
Posted on Monday, April 20, 2009 - 12:21 pm:   

New gravity physics called?

http://arxiv.org/pdf/0809.3730v2
Experimental Tests of General Relativity: Recent Progress and Future Directions


quote:

Given the magnitude of this problem, a number of authors have considered the possibility that cosmic acceleration is not due to a particular substance, but rather that it arises from new gravitational physics (see discussion in [112, 113, 114]). In particular, certain extensions to general relativity in a low energy regime [114, 115, 116] were shown to predict an experimentally consistent universe evolution without the need for dark energy [117]. These dynamical models are expected to explain the observed acceleration of the universe without dark energy, but may produce measurable gravitational effects on the scales of the solar system.


- pg 13

Getting there, metric millimeter by tensor metric?
_______________________________________________________________
Cosmo-constant reexamined?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

SEP violation
Posted on Tuesday, April 21, 2009 - 11:26 am:   

RE http://arxiv.org/pdf/0809.3730v2

I think the mistake in Slava Turyshev's paper is here, pg. 18:

[mG/mI]SEP = 1 + n(E/mc2)

where E is gravitational self-energy, mc2 is total mass-energy, and n is a dimensionless (variable?) constant for SEP violation.

The answer will always be =1, regardless if E and G are directly or inversely proportional. This is a null result equation.

___________________________________________________________________________________

Editor's note: The reason behind "This is a null result equation" in the above is most simply explained, per email exchanges, as follows:

On the right side (E/mc2), there is a modifier kg'/kg which corresponds with E and G as either fixed or variables; this modifier may then be expressed as n on the right side,

I.e., (E/mc2) kg'/kg, will reflect either:

1) E and G are fixed, so m is fixed within the parameters of the equation, so E and m are not affected by G, and kg'/kg remains constant = 1, or

2) E and G are variables, so m per equivalence is G proportional to some variable value of E, so in kg'/kg there is an inverse relation, whereby:

3) If kg' is greater due to greater G, which would happen per Axiomatic in lower E, then the kg'/kg value is greater in proportion to kg, but where the G-local-units of kg' is < than m in kg.

4. E/mc2 must always equal to =1, by definition.


For example, on Mars where G is about 1.5 times that of Earth's, hypothetically per Axiomatic, then its kg' locally is higher than Earth's kg, which means it would take fewer kg' on Mars to equal one kg on Earth (not yet clear by how much, until empirically tested), so lower E and higher G would balance out on the right side of above equation with kg'/kg adjusted. The end result is null, so mG/mI remains =1 in all cases, where n=kg'/kg.

(Note: Nordvedt's equation (1968) in Equivalence Principle for Massive Bodies, II is predicated on the assumptions that mg/mi=1.)

The only way to adequately prove a variable G, given that the above equation will yield null results of =1, is to check for local densities of known chemical compositions. If we know the density of water on Mars, based on local gravity (which is known), we can then calculate based on this density the local G-units (which are unknown) by the relative variable density of water on Earth (which is known). This would apply to any other substance, including water ice, or gases, including the atmosphere; as also found in Martian 'clumpy' soil.

See Anisotropy of kg/kg mass, posted Mar. 2, 2008, on "The Modern Universe in G -flat" thread, for further explanation and linked references.

SEP violation, or violation of Strong Equivalence Principle, per Einstein's, is best reflected in local chemical densities, thermal ice and vapor densities, and atmospheric densities, per the above. -- Eds.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Nordvedt's eq.
Posted on Saturday, April 25, 2009 - 10:11 am:   

At first glance, I can't say Nordvedt's equation (1968) makes sense to me, as used by Turyshev, because it seems to assume G is a universal constant; so the [mG/mI]SEP side of the equation assumes gravity G constant and Inertial mass variable. That makes no sense, since they are always proportional, so =1 per Einstein's proof. If G is a variable, there is only one way i can imagine, just intuitive gut feeling, how the equation should read:

n[mG/mI]SEP = (E/mc2)kg'/kg

where 1+ drops out (redundant) and n as a representation of kg'/kg moves to the left. Does this really mean anything? Only if we find G is variable, IMHO. Thanks.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

In the dark about dark energy
Posted on Monday, April 27, 2009 - 12:36 pm:   

And the fantastic theories continue...

We are so in the dark about 'dark energy' that it borderlines absurd.

quote:

As if the discovery of dark energy weren't bizarre enough, it has stirred up a whole host other issues. For example, dark energy adds fuel to the fire of believers in multiple universes, or the idea that our own existence is just one of countless worlds in which the constants and conditions are different. There might be other universes in which dark energy doesn't exist, and the universe does slow in its expansion, cosmologists say.



Heavy local concentrations of 'invisible' gases followed by more distant concentrations yield different gravitational redshifted densities of space dust and gas (very high G), which leads to an 'accelerating' space-expansion [sic], as now believed. Any dissenters, or are all lulled by the same fantastic story?

What is Dark Energy?

dark_energy_2.jpg (interactive)
Impact Lab - Dark Energy site
_____________________________________________________________________________________

Addendum: And it gets bigger yet...

Space Explosion Is Farthest Thing Ever Seen By SPACE.com Staff


quote:

A stellar explosion has smashed the record for most distant object in the known universe.
The gamma-ray burst came from about 13 billion light-years away, and represents a relic from when the universe was just 630 million years old.
...
Astronomers in the U.S. and UK quickly scrambled to follow up on the stunning discovery. They found that the infrared light of the afterglow had the highest redshift ever measured, meaning that the wavelengths had been very stretched out during their long journey.
...
Swift's new find may indicate an active early universe, even as scientists still try to understand what existed so close to the start of it all.
"We now have the first direct proof that the young universe was teeming with exploding stars and newly-born black holes only a few hundred million years after the Big Bang," Berger said. ...



How big is the universe? The next deep redshift coming above z~9 will let the cosmic cat out of the bag. It's much much bigger than 13.7 billion light years 'old'... How big is 'infinity'?

--Eds.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

'She's too beautiful'
Posted on Wednesday, May 20, 2009 - 12:41 am:   

She's so beautiful, a post card from space.

Earth seen from space is a beautiful thing.

090518-earth-02.jpg (interactive -Space.com article)
Sinai Peninsula and the Mediterranean Sea. The Red Sea is just out of frame at bottom right.

We humans are blessed. Let's not turn a blessing into a curse.

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

UFO or 'Klingons'?
Posted on Saturday, October 03, 2009 - 12:19 pm:   

UFO - or Kllingon vessel? See the video, weird sound with it.

ISD_STS088_STS088-724-70.jpg (interactive -video)
Picture of strange orbiting object taken from space

It doesn't looks like space junk, has three clear lights on one end, maybe windows on the other, so what was it? I had seen strange UFOs in the past, but this one really is weird. Who is 'watching' our beautiful planet?

Are they friendly? (click image for more details in 5 min video) Just visiting?

See more UFOs on this page at PostScripts.

More Planetary Society news and blog.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Shuttle image from space
Posted on Wednesday, February 17, 2010 - 01:17 pm:   

Nope, not Klingons - just our Space Shuttle.

shuttle-silhouette2-100213-02.jpg (interactive)
Stunning Space Photo Shows Shuttle in Silhouette - Space.com

This one's ours :-)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

What Aliens would see
Posted on Wednesday, September 29, 2010 - 09:31 pm:   

Our Solar System a 'dust ball'?

Space.com: What Aliens Would See When Spying On Our Solar System - article

dust-models-alien-planets-100929-02
Computer simulations of Kuiper Belt dust

Is this what Aliens would see looking down on us?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Comet coma gassing
Posted on Monday, November 08, 2010 - 01:55 pm:   

Long Period Comet Ikeya-Murakami "gassing out" at Saturn's cold region?

It seems too early to be "gassing out" at such cold regions as Saturn's orbit, but this is what is happening for this long-period comet, as seen in this photograph.

elenin1_strip.jpg
Comet Ikeya-Murakami (click image for more)

However, if this comet comes in from the deep cold of the far outer solar system where Newton's gravity G is orders of magnitudes greater than on Earth, and its 'compacted' accumulated dust and matter is now 'decompacting' closer into the Sun where G is lower, then this Saturn regional 'coma' is totally natural and 'expected'.

Stay tuned... until they check for Variable G in outer solar system.

This more recent Space.com article on Comet Hartley-2 seems to support, without stating so, the hypothesis presented here, that comets are 'compacted' far out in the solar system where gravity-G is greater than for the inner solar system, and then 'de-compact' when swinging closer in to lower G. This accumulation-sublimation cycle would result in a 'layering' of the comet, as the accumulated dust and gas molecules at aphelion would sublimate closer in to perihelion, likely losing the lighter more volatile elements; hence resulting in a 'layered' comet interior structure, as heavier elements accumulate with each orbit cycle.(*)

Comet Pelted NASA Probe with Bits of Ice During Flyby (Nov. 18, 2010).

More than just 'passing gas' at Hartley-2 flyby: Comet caught throwing basketball-sized snowballs.

More on 'long distance comets' coming from the Oort Cloud regions: Giant Stealth Planet May Explain Rain of Comets from Solar System's Edge By Charles Q. Choi. However, rather than a 4X Jupiter sized planet there, it is more likely to be a smaller body with much higher gravity-G making mass appear 'as if' it were so much larger, if it in fact exists.

This just in: Philae's Comet May Host Alien 'Life': Astronomers

(*) Rosetta's 67P comet layered like an onion and
Rosetta's 'rubber duck' comet was once two objects - where comet was layered like an onion, both lobes separately

67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko comet -Wiki

’Extinct comets’ of inner solar system
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

You' lost boy!
Posted on Saturday, November 27, 2010 - 01:54 pm:   

Is this pre-Big Bang-theory now 'Mainstream' science?

Concentric circles in WMAP data may provide evidence of violent pre-Big-Bang activity:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1011.3706

_50169535_50169534.jpg (interactive -BBC article)

Could all these "circles" observed on specific points of the CMB be no more than "gravitational lensing" artefacts?

Also see: New look at microwave background may cast doubts on big bang theory (2005)

"You' lost boy!"
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Is Earth's G seasonal?
Posted on Sunday, May 01, 2011 - 01:24 pm:   

What if gravity-G changes with the seasons?

ssss.jpg (interactive)

quote:

As the Earth orbits the sun, the strength of its gravity could vary because of interactions with an undiscovered force, nicknamed the "X-field".



Echoes of seasonal planetary spin?

(See: http://www.humancafe.com/discus/messages/88/185.html#POST4580 for earlier discussions.)


Okay, here is the line-up as how this 'seasonal-G' should play out:

1. In a variable-G environment where gravity 'constant' grows at the rate of 1G per 1 AU, it should register slightly greater at planet's aphelion, and slightly smaller at perihelion in its orbit around the Sun.

2. This (slightly) variable-G phenomenon should register in a Cavendish type gravity experiment; it should show these (very small) seasonal variations, where G will be slightly greater at aphelion and slightly smaller at perihelion.

3. As a phenomenon of variable planetary spin, this same variation should show up as slightly faster spin (shorter day) at aphelion (northern hemisphere summer), and slightly slower spin (longer day) at perihelion (northern winter).

4. As a 'seasonal-G' variable, these slight differences at perihelion and aphelion should be measurable consistently, and annually.

This is only a slightly variable phenomenon because the Earth-Sun system of gravity and spin equal out nearly totally: Orbital velocity accelerates slightly at perihelion, but slows at aphelion; counter to where spin accelerates slightly in (higher G aphelion), and slows slightly in (lower G) perihelion.

But these things are all measurable, and if Newton's G is a variable as hypothesized (and perhaps confirmed by Pioneer Anomaly), it should show up in our measuring instruments when clocking both gravity-G and planetary spin, seasonally. If so, then we have one more chink in the search for understanding gravity, that it is not a 'universal constant' (as Einstein, Newton, Strings Quantum-G, et al thought), but a variable G, which changes our understanding the universe totally... We're inching closer on this mysterious "X-field". :-)

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Postcard Yosemite
Posted on Wednesday, June 01, 2011 - 12:23 pm:   

Postcard from Yosemite National Park

I got 'blessed' by this large waterfall at Yosemite Valley, reminiscing on 'Adam's original sin' on Memorial Day visit to the park, May 2011, when I took this short video clip from under the falls.

IMG_0216_090550558.gif
Bridalveil Fall, Yosemite

The wind shifted and the waterfall came on top of me! Was I wet, cold, but happy. :-)

I.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Post card Gobi
Posted on Wednesday, November 16, 2011 - 07:47 pm:   

Copy and paste these coordinates into Google Maps: 40.458679,93.31314

Then zoom in as much as you can. Here is the article that describes this pattern in China's Gobi Desert:
http://www.space.com/13646-mystery-structures-china-desert-spy-satellite.html

china-target3-02.jpg
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Did Neanderthals hibernate?
Posted on Sunday, February 26, 2012 - 01:35 pm:   

Was "human hibernation" partial cause in Neanderthal man's extinction?

Neander-profile-714.jpg (interactive)
Profile of Neanderthal woman, reconstruction

It seems that bears become torpid in winter and slow down their metabolism, but are not true hibernators, since their body temperature remains more constant than dropping as in other hibernators.


quote:

Physicians already are using temperature cool-downs to reduce their patients' metabolic rate, and most researchers assumed that bears naturally operated under the same principle for their winter hibernation. Past studies with other species, such as ground squirrels, have shown that metabolic rates are typically reduced by 50 percent when body temperature drops 18 degrees Fahrenheit (10 degrees Celsius).
But when researchers conducted their experiment with five black bears who were captured in Alaska as nuisance animals, they were surprised by the results. The bears' temperatures fluctuated over the course of two- to seven-day cycles, between nearly the normal level (about 98.6 degrees F or 37 degrees C) and a minimum of 86 degrees F (30 degrees C). And yet their metabolism rate still fell to just 25 percent of the norm. The bears typically hibernated for five to seven months without eating, drinking, urinating or defecating, and roused themselves in the spring with no ill effects.



Could something like this been part of Neanderthal winter survival during the last Ice Age, where they largely became torpid during their winter months? Were Neanderthals quietly 'hibernating' in their caves, same as the (then) extinct Ice Age cave bears? Interesting how the depth of the last Ice Age seems to coincide with Neanderthal extinction, about the same time as Homo Sapiens were populating their regions. Could a hibernating Neanderthal be easy pickings for the Cro-Magnon of the area? And if so, what happened to their bodies? Could saw and cut marks on their bones give clue? Not theirs but ours? Did we 'eat' the competition during the last Ice Age? Sobering thought, though gruesome if so.

Neanderthal or Neanderthal 'hybrids'?

Clue to Neanderthal breeding barrier - BBC
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Habeas Mentem evolution
Posted on Sunday, February 10, 2013 - 02:14 pm:   

HABEAS MENTEM evolution

EVOLUTION.GIF
Evolution (interactive)

These may have been the first use of this term meaning "man has a right to his own mind" :

"Creative Health and the Principle of Habeas Mentem" by FILLMORE H. SANFORD, Ph.D. (1955)
http://www.ajph.org/cgi/reprint/46/2/139

Aldous Huxley used the term in his Brave New World Revisited, 1958
http://www.huxley.net/bnw-revisited/index.html


More follow up posts:
Man in All that Is (Habeas Mentem),1986 (PE Randall Publisher)

Conscious vs. Unconscious-ness -Humancafe dialogue, 2002

Having a Mind, We have a Right - Chapter 7, Habeas Mentem text

A Letter to My Students by Frank Trujillo, teacher (1987)

Is there proof of universal consciousness (other than human) - references to examined Humancafe dialogue (2001) by Paul Haseman

Humanitarian fundamentalism by Danilo Zolo (2007)

quote:

The juridical guarantee of the fundamental rights to liberty for citizens with uncertain identities and little autonomy risks being devoid of meaning: this is particularly true in today's high-tech societies. In such societies the exercise of fundamental rights is necessarily linked to what could be called the fundamental "new right" upon which the effectiveness of all other fundamental rights increasingly depends: habeas mentem, that is an individual's capacity to manage, screen and rationally interpret the growing flow of multimedia information inundating him or her.



12 Keys to Understanding Habeas Mentem (1998)

Habeas Mentem is a total all encompassing, universal system held together by 'interrelationship' as the unifying principle. Its full spectrum defines Who we are personally at the micro level, and manifests as Agreement in interpersonal exchange at the macro level. The more conscious humanity, the more universal this principle becomes in our reality, because we 'have the mind'. It is inherent in our human evolution that the more conscious we become, the more natural this mind awareness will be, someday as common as a smile on our face.

As Aldous Huxley and other pioneers undoubtedly understood, habeas mentem disempowers all totalitarian regimes both present and future. But we are still in the very early stages of that natural evolution.

Also see: HABEAS MENTEM applied

HABEAS MENTEM, revisited

Habeas Menten evolution, continued

FULL TEXT of Habeas Mentem - the Given Word
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Where Labor Unions?
Posted on Tuesday, April 16, 2013 - 03:01 am:   

Where to Labor Unions:  Public good or Private interest? 

Implicitly the Public good is served by the political process, especially within a democratic, constitutional framework of laws and regulatory bodies to protect the public good. Conversely, Private or corporate public interests are best served by the market mechanism, provided the markets are free of coercions and fraud; albeit this insurance per force falls into the 'public good' sector of laws and regulations. Consequently, we cannot 'deregulate' markets to the point where fraud and market manipulations go unchecked; by same reason we cannot 'privatize' government functions serving the public good. But the lines between public good and private interest are often blurred in the popular mind. 

This distinction is especially blurred as it concerns Labor Unions. Are unions in the private interest sector, or for the public good? Are they a Capitalism function, or a Socialism function? If private interest, then unions fall under the same rules governing market systems, which includes globalization of capital and labor (where money and jobs go to most efficient producers, at loss to less efficient), and answer to the impersonal forces of market mechanism determining price and distribution. But if unions fall under public good label, then they are made to answer to the same rules and regulations that concern the public good (including social restrictions on market forces affecting price and labor distribution), so Unions become a quasi government function. But this had never been adequately addressed in the public mind, the result of which confuses what role unions play in the economy (with consequent confusions over globalization, communism, capitalism, etc.), so no meaningful dialogue and debate between labor and capital can evolve. But if better defined, as to whether Labor Unionism is a Public good or Private interest, then some of this confusion can clear up, and the role of Unions be better defined. Very likely, in the end, Unionism will fall into the government category for the 'public good' as opposed to 'private interests', so market functions are suspended for the public good rather than for market efficiencies on a global scale.  And if so, then Labor Unions are a political process rather than market dominated one, which means they must  be structured within constitutional and democratic principles to be fair and effective, for the Public good.

Rome
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Lost Coast Review essays
Posted on Thursday, August 08, 2013 - 01:28 pm:   

Lost Coast Review - culture, philosophy and literature from the left coast (by Casey Dorman and editorial staff)

This periodical offers interesting insights into the state of our social world and mind, including psychology. Read the essays and short stories, poems and other commentary. Very nicely put together by thoughtful minds. For example:

An Encounter with Moral Relativism by Casey Dorman

quote:

Even restriction of speech based upon the value of sanctity is not uncommon in many parts of the world. In nearly all countries with a Muslim majority, including such disparate nations as Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan and Indonesia, blasphemy against Islam is forbidden by law. Furthermore, this pattern is not confined to Muslim countries. Greece prohibits blasphemy against God, the Greek Orthodox Church and “other tolerated religions.” Malta forbids blasphemy against the Roman Catholic Church and Italy forbids “vilification of religion.” The guarantee of nearly absolute freedom of speech is a unique position taken by the United States.
I could not convince myself to approve of violence as the method of protesting violation of one’s moral values (although there are several moral outrages that routinely provoke violence in the United States). But I could no longer condemn the Middle Easterners for their reaction to the insulting video.
The final test of my newfound tolerance and understanding came with the infamous statement by Republican Senate candidate Richard Mourdock, that, “life is that gift from God. And, I think, even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen." I had to wade through the onslaught of  hype by my fellow liberals who deliberately distorted Mourdock’s remarks to imply that he was saying that  a rape itself was intended by God when he clearly was referring to the pregnancy resulting from the rape.
But could I give credence to someone’s opinion that a fetus conceived as a result of a rape was a “gift from God?” Mourdock’s premise was that, as a religious person, he believed that all human life was created by God. A significant proportion of the world’s population would probably agree with him. I doubt if most of them would view God as capable of making a mistake and creating a child by accident or believe that unborn babies fell into two groups: those created by God and those not created by God. So Mourdock’s point of view made sense, given his assumptions.

I had become a moral relativist.
But is moral relativism really desirable or even possible? Aren’t there some absolute values, which shouldn’t be forsaken no matter what? Haidt listed six moral dimensions. Which of these is mandatory? An argument can be made that liberty, fairness, loyalty, authority and sanctity can each be interpreted so differently by different cultures (or even by different factions within the same culture) that none of them can be considered a bottom line value that cannot be overridden by another. But what about the harm/care dimension? Nearly every culture subscribes to the idea that an innocent person should not be harmed, that an injured person should be helped. Are these values often overridden in the name of other values? Certainly, cruelty exists. Certainly, innocents are often slaughtered in the name of some other value (authority, liberty, sanctity, loyalty, even fairness when it is defined as revenge. It’s not hard to think of examples). Certainly, “do not harm another,” is violated in practice everyday, in every society.
A country such as the United States is built upon a philosophy which holds some values higher than others. I think it is fair to say that liberty and fairness are at the heart of the American value system and I believe that even a cursory reading of either the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution would support my claim. But that doesn’t make such values a universal priority to which everyone else in the world must subscribe. Even within our American system there is ample room for argument regarding the limits of liberty. When does it conflict with the value of not harming others? When does it conflict with loyalty or obedience to authority? And, as we have seen in the argument over Romney’s 47%, fairness may be in the eye of the beholder and may come in conflict with the moral dimension of caring.



Read it all. Lost Coast Review, Vol 4 No 4, August 2013, including Short Stories (The Day the Seagulls Flew by Ivan D. Alexander)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Can Putin win Ukraine?
Posted on Wednesday, March 05, 2014 - 03:24 pm:   

Can Putin win on Ukraine?

Putin's Russia is not a Western state, so his unfolding maneuvers in Ukraine's Crimea cannot be viewed in the same light as would any modern, democratic Western nation handle the perceived problem in Ukraine. Putin's response to Ukraine's popular uprising against their corrupt President Yanukovych, who has since fled seeking Russian protection (with some $70 billion missing Ukrainian public funds) was to send in troops to guard key Russian interests in Crimea and (unfolding) in the predominantly Russian speaking Eastern Ukraine. The situation is further complicated by Ukraine's below average performance for former Soviet Republics, where economic interests had sided more with Russia and its natural resources; like natural gas for Europe passing through Ukraine, its 'leased' air and naval bases in Crimea, and the large Russian speaking, and largely Russian leaning, population within the country, especially south and eastern regions like Crimea; rather than siding with the economies of the West. So sending in Russian troops (unmarked, like a private army of Mafia boss goons) to protect what Putin felt was Russia's interests within Ukraine can be understood more in 19th century Czarist Russia terms more than in modern 21st century European Geopolitics. Putin sees Ukraine as a 'client state' to be protected from its own anarchic developments, so feels justified in his military actions.

_73383205_rusputinafp3mar.jpg (interactive -Ukraine crisis)
Putin observing military control of Crimea

However, Ukraine is a separate nation, not a client state of Russia, no matter how deep the cultural, historic, and economic ties with Russia. The rest of the world sees it this way, that Putin's maneuver is a military invasion of a sovereign state, so there is little world sympathy for what Russia is doing at present. Western nations and the American administration clearly condemn Putin's actions. Ukrainians had strongly voiced their preference for siding with Europe's economic developments than Russia's, as the demonstrations since last November, when Mr. Yanukvych canceled Ukraine's efforts to join the European Union and accepted Russian financial aid instead. This would have costs, mainly that Ukraine's economic and political independence would be compromised by Russian interests there. Now that Ukraine's Treasury is broke, these economic interests have become even more pressing. Europe and the US have pledged aid of some $17 billion to relieve the financial stress of Mr. Yanukovych's corrupt government (Russia's promised $15 billion aid had been stopped), but this does not solve the problem of Putin's troops in Crimea. And the problem runs deeper, as the country has not yet proven able to rid itself of politicians of graft and corruption, as the public funds stolen attest. So whether or not Putin was justified in sending in troops to protect Russian interests in Ukraine, the other real problem is whether or not Ukraine is able to muster the strength to rid itself of such corrupt, oligarchic practices and define itself as one Ukrainian whole and democratic western nation, and not one divided by oligarchic pro-Russian sentiments. In this latter, the West is largely exempt from Ukraine's future developments, except to offer financial aid and watch. A military response, by either Ukraine or the West, to Putin's military troops is not really an option as this time. Rather, better a solution diplomatically, as it would be in both Russia's and Europe's best interests.

_73094671_ukraine_divide_2.gif (interactive)
Ukraine's language divide, all East Slavs

Putin cannot win militarily in Ukraine. He and Russia would lose too much. Not only economic and financial sanctions, but loss of all other cooperation with the West, military cooperation, visa and travel cooperations, technological cooperations, political cooperations, intellectual and scientific, medical cooperations, etc. All these would be put on hold, with as much pain for Russians as it would generate for the West, perhaps more. The Russian Ruble has already suffered loss, and this may be but the tip of it all. From history, we know Russia can stand a lot of pain, but is it necessary to repeat such past in the present? Probably not in the long run, and that is Putin's weakest hand here: they need us more than we need them. So even if Russian troops were able to take control of Ukrainian military bases by force, they would lose in the end by Russia paying a too high political price for their hollow victory. Economic sanctions against Ukraine makes no sense, so not even considered here. Nor is Ukraine Russia's Chechnya, where a religious led fanaticism feeds separatism to form an Islamic state. Ukraine and Russia share a common religious heritage, so while Russian military actions make sense in the Caucasus, they are senseless in Ukraine. Not the cost of lives at stake, but the costs at all levels in a modern world interconnected by instant communications, social networks, instant news and Tweets, and international financial flows. Russia would have too much to lose, so it cannot win militarily. Putin made a bad move.

_73320526_021368248.jpg
Protests outside Russian embassy, Washington DC

Internationally, Ukraine has a right to its nationhood unmolested by a large overbearing neighbor. It is not size or military might that calls this, but a right of nations to exist as self determined by their people. The solution must fall within those parameters, that Ukraine has a right to exist. Whether it will be truly Ukrainian or quasi-Russian as a nation will be determined by its people and future, not by Russia. So the only open road ahead for resolving the issues at hand in Crimea, and Eastern Ukraine, is diplomatic, where all parties at risk sit together and work it out. The naval and air bases of Crimea are first priorities for Russia, if troop deployment priority considered, so they should be resolved first. Strengthen the leases, make better and clearer agreements on how the Russians are to use the bases, and what compensations are to be paid for them. For example, a 99 year lease like Britain had with China in Hong Kong could be a model. Next, work out whether Crimea is a Russian protectorate or a Ukrainian state; the same must be resolved on Eastern Ukraine with large Russian speaking populations. Which interests are better served there, by Russia or Ukraine, to secure the livelihood and safety and well being of the people, regardless of nationality, language, or religion? These are basic fundamental human rights, and it is the duty of government to protect those rights for its people. Whose people are they? Who do they wish to be? The diplomatic resolve must not shy away from offending historical Russian sentiments of Empire; we live in a different world now, and 'czar' Putin cannot enter another nation, whether Ukraine or Poland or Estonia or Lithuania, guns blazing. The world will not accept that and will isolate Russia, to her loss. There is much to be gained diplomatically, if good agreements are made between nations, better than by pushing troops within their borders. Treaties of friendship between Russia and her neighbors will have far greater positive effects in the long run, if not in the short. It would behoove Ukraine to follow through on its desire to lean West, negotiate peace with Russia, and join the EU. It would behoove the Russians to let her do so, and in time even join themselves. All benefit, and for another reason: China is watching.

IDA

Also see: Analysis: Why Russia's Crimea move fails legal test - BBC News, 7 March 2014.

quote:

According to a UN definition of 1974, the use of foreign armed forces on the territory of a state in contravention of the agreement governing that presence amounts to aggression. Still, under present conditions an "armed attack", which is the trigger point in the UN Charter for the application of the right to self-defence, has probably not yet occurred.



Ukraine crisis: EU signs association deal -BBC

Update, 60 days later:
Putin may have taken a bishop, Crimea, but he lost the queen, Ukraine. If he loses his knights, and his oligarchs turn against him, then it is game. 'Checkmate.'

The Russian banditry in eastern Ukraine, whether or not complicit with Moscow, should be cleaned up. Same for Ukraine's internal corruption. Those are Ukrainian internal affairs. Putin played a good hand at the start, an easy win, but it cost him the game. Gaining Crimea cost him world prestige. It isolated Russia, which means it now becomes a second rate power; and the economic sanctions from the West, the EU and USA, are working. It also means Ukraine will gravitate towards Europe to enjoy same benefits seen in other former Soviet Eastern European republics, outside Russia's orbit. In time Ukraine will also become part of NATO. 'Check.'


What's Russia's alternative? War with First World? ...Time to call his bluff.

Also see: Why we have to win in Ukraine -Kiev News

Ukraine, 120 days later

Bloomberg: Ukraine Army Advances as EU Plans Tougher Putin Sanctions


Since Putin took control of Crimea, the incursions of Russia separatist rebels into Eastern Ukraine are ongoing. The missile downing of Malaysian flight MH17 has galvanized the world's negative opinion of these events, with addition sanctions by EU and US further isolating Russia's economy and its key oligarchic players. The Russian currency is down, inflation up, and the central bank has ratcheted up interest rates. This will hurt, but the fighting supported by Moscow continues, perhaps intensified with increased clandestine support for the separatists in Eastern Ukraine. Russia's response has been weak, complaining of the West 'slandering' Russia, while weapons and military activity moves closer the the border and missiles are fired from Russia on Ukrainian military. Overall this signals weakness on the Russian side. The sanctions hurt, especially now that oil exports are being targeted. At some point the oligarchic structure around Putin will be frightened, they have a lot to lose. To what end? What will they gain from invading Eastern Ukraine and supporting their separatists? Do they even have control of events, or is this anti-Ukraine rebellion taking on a life of its own? How much Russian treasure and world prestige must be sacrificed? And for what elusive gain? These are question still left unanswered as any perceived gains are overshadowed by the costs.
Crimea was a cake-walk. Eastern Ukraine, with Poroshenko's military defenses to secure Ukraine's territorial integrity, has proven problematic for Russia. No clear gains in Moscow's support of the separatists, or gangs, seem evident. Donetsk is now the key focus of operations, where Ukrainian forces are about to take control. For Russia, short of a full invasion of Eastern Ukraine, there is no possible victory. Ukraine's ambitions are to join with the West, with which they are already allied psychologically and culturally, as it wants to become more a part of Europe. This leaves Russia's empire with the East, cementing relations with China and Iran, the Caucasus and possibly North Korea, further turning Russia away from Europe. The world of Pushkin, Dostoevsky, and Tchaikovsky is being pushed away from Europe. To their loss as Ukraine, after centuries of Russian association, most of it uneasy, is finally able to break free. Russia moves East, while Ukraine heads West.


Update, 22 August, 2014:
Russia could have chosen transparency and peace in eastern Ukraine, instead it chose duplicity and pain. The white trucks allegedly used to delivery aid have now entered Ukrainian territory, so have trespassed into a sovereign state without approval from Ukrainian authorities, raising the question of 'invasion', and without cooperation with international oversight of the Red Cross. Earlier inspections by reporters showed some of the trucks arrived near empty, which is puzzling. Why would half empty trucks, without bills of lading, be sent to the breakaway rebel held part of the country, except perhaps to evacuate personnel and equipment? In effect, these white trucks are now rogue, their contents still unknown, so may get caught in the cross-fire as Ukrainian military fights to regain control in the region. Also, why hasn't Ukraine sent in humanitarian aid to reconquered areas affected?
Further condemnation of this rogue action may mean added punishing sanctions adding to the pain Russians already feel from frozen bank accounts, travel restrictions, and economic embargo. This pain will especially be felt by the Russian oligarchs who are most affected by the sanctions. How much pain can they, and the people affected, stand in isolation as the West tightens sanctions? What will Moscow have gained from its duplicity, except further scorn proving Russia is an unreliable partner, both to its friends and trading partners? It's not a positive development, unless Russia decided to cut its losses and use the white trucks to evacuate. But at this time the breakaway rebels are unlikely to comply, which further raises the question of who is in charge. Perhaps Russia's support of the rebels in eastern Ukraine was a bet on the wrong horse? Sending in decoy white trucks may be a stalling tactic, hoping they get fired on so Russia can intervene militarily? Duplicity is thick in this cynical maneuver.
Russia's Putin would have gained more from a stable Ukraine, both politically and economically, so to have a viable partner. But he chose duplicity instead, and now the world will watch Russia's next moves with cold narrowed eyes. How much pain can they stand? Nobody wins, as Russia drifts further east into deeper isolation.

Also see: We Need To Tell The Truth About What Russia Is Doing In Ukraine

quote:

As the Ukraine crisis has intensified over the past six months, Russia has been developing a new form of warfare – inserting special forces, provoking, and slowly, deliberately escalating the conflict.
Russian actions flout international law and the agreements that have assured stability in the post-cold war world.
...
The NATO summit in Wales this week offers the best, and perhaps last, opportunity to halt aggression in Europe without major commitments of NATO forces.
But to do so requires a deeper understanding of the situation and much more resolute allied action.
First, Vladimir Putin’s actions against Ukraine haven’t been “provoked”.
They are part of a long-term plan to recreate a greater Russia by regaining control of Ukraine and other states in the “near abroad”....




22 November 2014: Steady as she goes... One year since Maidan revolution.
West seeks 'regime change' in Russia? Not realistic, sounds like cracks of panic.
* * *

5 December, 2014, Nearly a year has gone by since Yanukovych's Russia-backed government fell, then followed by separatist unrest in eastern Ukraine... And this is what we see, that it is the West's fault that eastern Ukraine is occupied by pro-Russian separatists? Have Russia's ambitions on Ukraine gone delusional?

Russia’s Putin Accuses West Of Provoking Ukraine Crisis

The next step is NATO's.
________________________________________________________

A year later, the West is still confused on Putin's imperial ambitions: UK and Europe 'badly misread Russia' - BBC


quote:

The report claimed that for too long the EU's relationship with Moscow had been based on the "optimistic premise" that Russia was on a trajectory to becoming a democratic country.
The result, it said, was a failure to appreciate the depth of Russian hostility when the EU opened talks aimed at establishing an "association agreement" with Ukraine in 2013.
Mr Cameron rejected claims Britain "sleepwalked" into the crisis in Ukraine.




JUNE 05, 2015
Ukraine Crisis: Ukraine's War Is Back
... And so it goes like a festering wound as more die...

Also see: One Hundred Years War - Putin’s war on Ukraine may be a continuation of this century old war?

Jus Gentium - The Law of Nations

Why personal freedom in universal Mind, interactive universe is so important - Humancafe (Discuss)


This just in: President Putin: West must give us guarantees over Ukraine - BBC Video (Dec 2021)

Russia’s GDP lower than New York state? The LilliPutian power that roared: https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=new+york+gdp%2C+california+gdp%2C+russia+gdp

Russia has surrounded Ukraine on three sides CNN (Feb 12, 2022)

………………………………………………………………………………………………….

UKRAINIAN RED CROSS - Ukraine Emergency appeal - Червоний Хрест України

…………………………………………………………………….……………………………

RED ALERT: Updated news Putin on Ukraine, this just in:

Putin recognizes two breakaway provinces in eastern Ukraine and moves into Donbas, on US President’s day, February 21, 2022.

Putin orders troops into eastern Ukraine

Ukraine President Zelenskyy delivers impassioned speech at MSC 2022 - Munich Security Council (video, February 19, 2022)

Former US ambassador to Russia, Michael McFaul’s analysis of Putin’s move on eastern Ukraine (video)

Biden announces Russia sanctions, troop movements in response to Ukraine invasion


Security Council on Ukraine | United Nations - video streamed live on Feb 17 2022.
______________________________________________________
February 24, 2022: Now that Putin’s military invasion has started is this a new Cold War with the West?

Ukraine invasion: Is this a new Cold War, asks John Simpson - BBC

===============================================

RESISTANCE! February 26, 2022.

Ukrainians take up arms against Putin’s Russian invasion. Monuments around the world light up with Ukrainian colors in support of their resistance to attack by Russian forces. Three days after the start of invasion Kyiv still stands, President Zelensky and his leadership are able to lead with courage and statesmanship, refusing to run. US and EU are levying more sanctions against Putin and his entourage. NATO mobilized for the first time since WW II, and nations offering more arms support. To the condemnation of the whole world, including the United Nations, Putin is being isolated and constricted. The whole world is praying for Ukraine.
Pictures: Landmarks Light Up in Support of Ukraine

3 years ago Zelenskyy was a TV comedian. Now he’s standing up to Putin’s army

Ukraine praises marine for sacrificing his life to blow up bridge to try to choke off Russian tanks


How will this end for Ukraine? Will negotiations in Warsaw or Israel put an end to Putin’s madness? Will the will of a free people in a Western democratic country prevail over an autocrat’s nefarious ambitious to reestablish the Russian empire? At this time it appears the Ukrainian people are proving fierce in their resistance to tyranny, fighting for their homeland and their freedom. Freedom is a fragile gift they are wiling to fight for. God Bless Ukraina.


Zelensky makes dramatic plea to European Parliament (video, March 1, 2022)

===============================================

INTERIM REPORT ON PUTIN’s WAR IN UKRAINE, March 7, 2022:

What has Putin accomplished in his invasion of Ukraine? Has he gained strategic advantage? Has he proved to the world the power of his feared military might? Has he won the hearts and minds of the Ukrainian people? No, he has won the condemnation of the whole world (except China) and regressed his Russian Federation to a medieval fiefdom autocracy, with him as czar of a failing state; his country progressively cut off economically and socially from the world, financially sanctioned, and soon to be deprived of his needed oil revenue to fund his ill begotten war. How are the Russian people served by his horrific attacks on Ukraine’s sovereignty, his blitzkriegs on civilian and non-military targets? Does Putin think he can bludgeon Ukraine into submission with his conscripted army of disillusioned soldiers, ill equipped, poorly trained, badly led, with Soviet era equipment that malfunctions in battle? Will his hiring ruthless Syrian and Chechen mercenaries turn the tide? Is Putin winning? No. Putin has lost far more than he gained in his Ukrainian misadventure.

As US Secretary of State, Anthony Blinken, said: “I think we have to be prepared for this to last for some time. But just winning a battle is not winning the war. Taking a city does not mean he's taking the hearts and minds of the Ukrainian people," Blinken said. "On the contrary, he is destined to lose. The Ukrainian people have demonstrated that they will not allow themselves to be subjugated to Vladimir Putin or to Russia's rule."

Putin is “destined to lose”, and may have lost already. The Ukrainian people, a European democratic nation fighting for its freedom from dictatorial autocracy, have proven brave and valiant in their resistance to invasion by a tyranny. Though Ukraine’s military is overwhelmingly outnumbered, both with men and equipment, he has found himself mired in a country that does not want him. Videos showing Russian soldiers crying and disoriented, looting stores for food, abandoning equipment and surrendering, not understanding why they are there fighting against their alleged ‘Russian kin’ have circled the world to everyone’s horror, as have images of more than a million refugees fleeing Russian bombardment, hundreds if not thousands of civilian deaths, destroyed villages of no strategic value. All for what, the ambitions of an aging autocrat holed up in his Covid safe bunker, with dreams of reestablishing the Russian empire? The cost is proving too high, the enmity of the world too great, and resistance of his own people, with massive demonstrations, a cost he had not figured in his calculus of war. What of his entourage of oligarchs? How much are they willing to lose? Properties and estates abroad, and yachts, confiscated, banks cut off from their kleptowealth, even their credit cards shut off. Will they protest too, and call for his removal from office of power? Lastly, what of his generals in this failed war? As the oldest surviving Nuremberg prosecutor had said, “Putin should be behind bars.” If the generals around him cannot convince Putin to drop this nefarious war on a free sovereign people, who can?

NATO and the US, and allied world, can supply arms and treasure to Ukraine, offer humanitarian aid to a battered nation, but they cannot stop this war, even with all the sanctions in place. Perhaps with additional armaments, in particular with fighter aircraft, Ukraine could win this. Or Putin has to come to an enlightened decision, that he cannot win on Ukraine. Or he be deposed. He still holds one trump card, his nuclear weapons of mass destruction. But if he cannot win, and he choses madness over reason, it will be for the world to stop him… or it will be (China included) a new World War.

Ukraine must win this.

UPDATE: FOURTH WEEK OF PUTIN’s WAR ON UKRAINE: (March 22, 2022)

It appears Russian troops are at a stalemate in Ukraine, no longer advancing, hampered by poor equipment, badly led without a centralized leadership (except Putin), and may be demoralized by poor conditions on the ground and heavy casualty losses both in human lives and equipment; this war is going nowhere. Surprisingly, Kyiv is still standing, Zelensky is in command with deep respect from around the world; more surprisingly at this point of obvious failure is that Putin is still standing. Why haven’t his generals put him under house arrest, his oligarchs not deposed him, nor the Russian people revolt against his ghastly inept leadership, a nation condemned by the whole world? That aside, if Ukrainians can turn the tide on this disastrous war, how will they settle it? With enough captured equipment and motivated army, Zelensky can move to retake the breakaway republics in Donbas, and reclaim Ukraine’s territorial integrity. That leaves Crimea. Can he negotiate a 99 year lease with Russia, them leasing Crimea from Ukraine in the way Britain leased Hong Kong from China, or US leased Guantanamo from Cuba? It could be a workable solution if Russia wants to keep its access to the sea with its naval bases. But the game is not there yet, Putin still stands, and may yet be demented enough to scale up his war to weapons of mass destruction, or tactical nuclear with radioactive fallout over surrounding nations. How will Russia deal with him at this point is still the big unknown, but at this time Putin cannot win in Ukraine.

Ivan


Biden's strategy with Putin is decades in the making - CNN - Biden is inside Putin’s mind

Journalist holdouts in Mariupol say Russians were hunting them down

Stunning aerial footage shows Ukrainian city 'reduced to ashes' (video 01:00)

SIX WEEKS OF PUTIN’s WAR IN UKRAINE: THE MOVIE.

Putin’s vindictive war grinds on, cities devastated by artillery and missiles, thousands of citizens killed or wounded, hospitals, schools, apartment buildings and villages bombed; but the country still stands. Kyiv is not taken, Russia’s military deadlocked, repositioning troops east or resupplied, their command in disarray, soldiers refusing to fight. This is a bad movie of Putin’s claims to ‘de-Nazify’ Ukraine, a film noir with horrors… (film spoiler)… Nazis they were none. Nor were his claimed ‘genocide’ of Russians in Ukraine, all lies. Putin’s invert world sees truth as weakness, with lies as strength, where the ’given word’ has no traction.

Ukraine will continue a free country, democratic and European, and Putin’s claims it is all his are pathetic ravings of a failed dictator out to crush a free people. Millions of war refugees taken in by neighboring countries, families spilt by war, civilian volunteers bravely fighting alongside their military, tremendous support with weapons and humanitarian aid from the world, sanctions crippling Russias ability to function. The great Russian people, who gave us world class literature, music, opera, ballet, intellect and science, are being beaten into a Stalinist regression. This reputed steely grey-eyed chess player is failing on a world stage. What will Putin’s poisonous legacy leave his people? It is turning daily into a grim bad movie staged by Hitler, but played out by a small failing man. How will it end?


* * * * *

UKRAINIAN RED CROSS - Ukraine Emergency appeal - Червоний Хрест України

* * * * *


(Continued below, see March 31, 2022 posts.)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jus Gentium - Law of Nations
Posted on Thursday, July 31, 2014 - 02:51 pm:   

Jus Gentium - The Law of Nations

Roman law - Jus Gentium

In classical antiquity, the ius gentium was regarded as an aspect of natural law (ius naturale), as distinguished from civil law (ius civile).The jurist Gaius defined the ius gentium as what "natural reason has established among all peoples":
"Every people (populus) that is governed by statutes and customs (leges et mores) observes partly its own peculiar law and partly the common law of all mankind. That law which a people established for itself is peculiar to it and is called ius civile (civil law) as being the special law of that civitas (state), while the law that natural reason establishes among all mankind is followed by all peoples alike, and is called ius gentium (law of nations, or law of the world) as being the law observed by all mankind. Thus the Roman people observes partly its own peculiar law and partly the common law of all mankind."

The idea of a Universal Law carried over from the Roman period into Europe's Medieval legal theory based on canon law, later adopted by the West, as the international Law of Nations. The ideas originating in Classical times were further codified by Emmerich de Vattel in his Law of Nations, which led to modern ideas of International Law, here summarized as:

quote:

International law is the set of rules generally regarded and accepted as binding in relations between states and between nations. It serves as a framework for the practice of stable and organized international relations. International law differs from state-based legal systems in that it is primarily applicable to countries rather than to private citizens. National law may become international law when treaties delegate national jurisdiction to supranational tribunals such as the European Court of Human Rights or the International Criminal Court. Treaties such as the Geneva Conventions may require national law to conform.




As in American philosopher and historian Will Durant's "The Story of Civilization: Part III, Caesar and Christ, A History of Roman Civilization and of Christianity from their beginnings to A.D. 325":

quote:

Non-citizens in Rome were not entitled to the privileges and protections afforded to the citizen under Roman Law. The institution of citizenship placed the individual on a status coequal with the state. The alien or "denizen" was placed on a different level. The ius Civile, or Roman Civil Law, absolutely excluded non-citizens from the "nexum" or mode of contract and conveyance, rendering the foreigner incapable of dominium. He could not have the benefit of Quiritarian law. He could not sue by the Sacramental Action, (a mode of litigation.) Necessity in adjudicating conflicts involving foreigners required the creation of a separate body of law.



The concept of Universal Law is that it applies equally to all people of the world, according to their status as citizens of a state, or alien visitors to that state. Though both have equal access to just laws, they are treated as separate entities regarding their respective rights according to the laws of the land. Where citizens are placed as co-equal with the state, non citizens are treated as subjects of the state. Both have rights of protecting their persons and property, including their natural human rights, but the obligations of the state towards either must differ. Citizens may sue the state, for example, whereas alien visitors may not.* This same principles carries over to international affairs, in principle, where nations may sue each other as equals, but they may not violate the right of the state to exist. Violation of this principle would necessitate for states to presuppose the rights of some states to be greater than that of others. Same as an alien visitor cannot sue the state, nor can a foreign state challenge its right to being a state. All this carries over into modern inter-state conflicts, such as now witnessed in Ukraine or Israel.

The origins of nations in Earth's turbulent history are complex. Though some are formed by treaty, most had been formed by war and conquest, where the victors defined their boundaries. What holds nations together, besides political will, are the commonalities of language and culture. These may include ethnicity and religions, where the people of a nation feel part of a common weal. If diverse cultures and languages are brought together, as witnessed in the Americas, then a common ethos and legal governance will bond the people into a nation. Either way, whether by treaty or conflict, the people will feel themselves better served as a common nation by its resulting structure and governance, than by being subject to a foreign power. This is especially true of Ukrainians who prefer to preserve their union as a common people, without interference from foreign power, in particular of its powerful neighbor, Russia. The same exists in Israel, though its history be very different, as the nation was formed by mandate of the United Nations, that they now feel themselves a common people. Their Arab state neighbors, most also formed by mandate, do not feel inclined to accept Israel's nationhood or territorial integrity, especially territory lost to them through war. It matters not that the original Arab lands were conquered by them in Islam's early gains through expansion by war; this is conveniently forgotten, that all these lands were once Christian states fallen to Mohammed and his armies. Arabs now feel themselves a common Umma bonded by language, culture and religion, the nation states being a recent post-Ottoman creation; the exception is the Palestinian Arab territories, which were left pending in limbo, so no natural state emerged. Today's Palestinian refugees are essentially a people without a nation, belonging to neither Egypt, Jordan, nor Syria, so they are citizens of no state.

Under a natural Law of Nations, Ukraine and Israel have international legitimacy as states; the Palestinian Arabs kept in perpetuity as refugees do not. There is the crux of the problem in the Middle East, where warring factions, including in Iraq and Syria, have not accepted the sovereignty of nations as formed. The newly self-declare Caliphate, the Islamic State, feel themselves subject to no law, nor International Law, as they have declared their own law dictated by the Koran and Sharia, so do not respond to any benefits perceived as being part of an established state. They instead envision an international state without borders, where their laws dominate throughout the world, though such is untenable, as it has no common bond with the people's of the world. None would feel themselves better served, in a Jus Gentium sense, neither is there a common weal that would serve humanity except in the very narrow interest of imposing a Medieval brand of Islam on its subjects. The gains perceived would be illusory, and the peoples of the world would feel themselves ill served if it were imposed on them by force. Modern human rights would be systematically violated, as there would be no freedom of speech, freedom of belief, freedom of conscience, equality before the law, gender equality, nor protection for minorities. In effect, the Islamic Caliphate, as now envisioned, is impossible. It violates every principle of the Law of Nations.

This leaves resolution of Middle Eastern conflicts to force, as there can be no treaties amongst unequals, so the victors will decide the boundaries of future states. Were there a Palestinian state, systematically rejected by the leaders of the refugees at Gaza and West Bank, there might have been a possibility of resolving the conflicts by mandate. But as the existence of Israel is consistently rejected by the Arab states, especially by Hamas, which has in its constitution the mandate to destroy Israel's Jewish state, so no such treaty of co-existence is forthcoming. This is the tragic failure of all efforts to bring the warring sides to negotiations, as the natural Law of Nations does not exist for them. Israel will not negotiate with those who would seek its destruction and not recognize it a state; Palestinians will not negotiate because they refuse to exist as a natural state. Tragically, there is no possible outcome that would lead to optimism.

In the case of Ukraine there is prospect for peace, though it would require Russia abandoning its ambitions of making it a client state, that Ukraine is not a 'foreign visitor' state within Russia. Peace is possible if, and only if, the Ukrainian people feel themselves better served by their union as a common nation rather than subject to a foreign interest. This demands reforms from within, economic and political stability, and observance of natural human rights. It also means making peace with its more domineering neighbor. Or in the words of de Vattel:

quote:

Nations being composed of men naturally free and independent, and who, before the establishment of civil societies, lived together in the state of nature, — Nations, or sovereign states, are to be considered as so many free persons living together in the state of nature.
It is a settled point with writers on the natural law, that all men inherit from nature a perfect liberty and independence, of which they cannot be deprived without their own consent. In a State, the individual citizens do not enjoy them fully and absolutely, because they have made a partial surrender of them to the sovereign. But the body of the nation, the State, remains absolutely free and independent with respect to all other men, and all other Nations, as long as it has not voluntarily submitted to them.



The same is true for Israel, that it exists not as a 'foreign state' within Arabia, but as its own nation. It would also apply, if it ever abandons belligerence to become a state, for the existence of the nation of Palestine. Then both can be part of the Universal Law of nations.

IDA

Also see: Opus Rex - HumanCafe, on Universal Principles
Thinking with Reason rather than Emotion

*(Jus Gentium applied) this just in: US Justice Department defends 'lawful' Trump travel ban
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Winning war on terror
Posted on Thursday, August 28, 2014 - 03:24 pm:   

The modern war on guerrilla insurgencies, world wide terrorism; and cancer - how it can be won.

This is a fight to win, not to contain. The war on so-called 'popular' wars involving rebel insurgencies, guerrilla war, and fanatical religious terrorism, is to fight it as if it were a War on Cancer. Quote Wikipedia:

quote:

The War on Cancer refers to the effort to find a cure for cancer by increased research to improve the understanding of cancer biology and the development of more effective cancer treatments, such as targeted drug therapies.



This approach to fighting cancer, or insurgencies, can be compared to a pincer strategy, where they are attacked on two fronts simultaneously. One fight is from above, where the source of fuel is suppressed. For cancer, this normally means to restrict blood flow to the cancer affected area; for insurgencies it means suppressing financial and material support. This strategy aims to stop the spread of cancer, or insurgency, by starving it. The lower pincer is at the grass roots, where cancer cells are targeted specifically with medication, or the 'popular' support for insurgency is quelled at its source. The cancer is fought with radiation, chemotherapy, and genetic pre targeted therapy; for insurgencies, it is to monitor and suppress preaching that inflames the passions of the insurgents, to combat propaganda. Both pincer approaches must be further supported by research (as in quote above), where the causes and reasons for the disease are understood in depth, and where this understanding is used with intelligence to prevent its spread, or stop it at its source. These three methods combined in a concerted effort to combat the pathology must be pursued consistently until all traces of its development are halted.

On a world stage, the guerrilla insurgencies find root in poorly functioning societies. The rebels in eastern Ukraine, or Boko Haram in Nigeria, or the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq, or Al Shabab, Al Qaeda, Taliban, Hezbollah, etc., are all made possible by weaknesses exploited in the host societies. Poorly led government, confused national policy, and economic failures all give fertile soil in which these insurgencies can take root and grow; in cancer, the host body's immune system is compromised, so cancer can develop. These pathologies exist with us all the time, where the body's immune system eliminates cancerous cells continually; in healthy societies, there are checks and balances in government, market economies, and intellectual debate that keep such pathologies at bay. Without a strong underlying system in place, whether biological or societal, the host is at risk. For this reason, intelligence and research are paramount to combat these pathologies.

The commonality of fighting both cancer and insurgencies is that both need support from outside sources as well as 'popular' acceptance from the local source. Governments must focus their attention on what is brewing beneath the surface, whether from preachings at the mosque to inflame insurgents, or 'popular' sentiments to aid and abet them (such as seen in present day recruitment of jihadis in Europe and the West); doctors must identify when patient lifestyles, such as obesity or unhealthy diets, lack of exercise (especially in an aging population), puts persons at risk for cancer. Intelligence is key, if these pathologies are to not take root. Outside sources in cancer may include environmental pollutants; in insurgencies it usually involves foreign powers. Clearly in Ukraine, Russia is the source. In North Africa or the Middle East, the foreign support is more shadowy, most likely stemming from Iran, the United Arab Emirate, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia. These foreign supports must be confronted if the insurgencies be prevented. Stopping of funding and transfer of weapons is paramount in combating the rebels and their guerrilla wars. Funding of hostile minorities in host countries, whether from financial support for rebel groups or funding mosques preaching religious war, is the other root cause that must be addressed. Both pincers must be proactive at the start, if guerrilla styled insurgencies are to be stopped.

When nations fight nations and armies are mobilized, the enemy is clearly identified. Not so when fighting guerrilla insurgencies, or cancer, as the enemy is shadowy without clear markings or borders. Therefore, diplomatic solutions are limited, containment only temporary. This war is fought to win.

In sum, there are 6 key weapons against such war fronts, both social and medical, which must be met if there is hope of conquering these worldwide pathologies:

1. Stop all outside sourcing and empowerment of conditions.
2. Address underlying grievances or pathological conditions.
3. Monitor conditions at their basic root source.
4. Intelligent understanding of underlying causes, what fuels them.
5. Quarantine or isolate conditions when necessary.
6. Persistence and continuance.

With persistence and consistent pressure the world can win against these modern pathologies. The rest of the solution is military.

See also: Islam needs a 'Council of Nicea'

Massacre at French 'Charlie Hebdo' Magazine Office
BBC News: Latest updates on Charlie Hebdo attack - condemnations from around the world, including Egypt.

Also see:
It’s Not Just Islam, It’s the Tribal Mentality

'Islamic State': Raqqa's loss seals rapid rise and fall - BBC - October 2017
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Well, that's Africa
Posted on Wednesday, February 04, 2015 - 01:53 pm:   

Well, that's Africa...

Slaves_ruvuma.jpg

Whenever horrible news rises out of Africa, like the desperate survival from Islamic militants attacking villagers and killing all they could find, the helpless and children, men killed while their daughters and wives are taken as slaves, this is in modern times, there is a temptation to shrug and think "well, this is Africa". The Arab African slave trade goes back centuries, so what is different now? Hasn't sectarian and tribal fighting always been part of Africa's history? So when Boko Haram attack villagers in Baga in Nigeria, at the Chad border, and slaughter them or take the women as captive slaves, is it really still stirring news, or have we grown inured to it, and just say that this is Africa? The horrors continue, the media faithfully reports it, but the reading audience is growing cold. Ebola is making a come back, but we shrug. Even back in European Colonial days there was not the wholesale slaughter we see almost daily today. Why Africa?

There are many other attacks on Christians and other religions around the world today, such as written in Winter of Slaughter. This is not mere tribalism between pastoralists, who often are Muslim, and farmers, who are mostly Christians. This is ethnic cleansing at its worst, where the followers of the most violent tenets of Islam attack all they deem 'non-believers', including each other if deemed not believing enough. When in history, not only African history, had such savagery been unleashed? When Arab slavers captured and sold to other slave traders some 12 million Black African? Probably not, as they were a valuable commodity. Was it during the European occupation in Heart of Darkness? At least European colonials left a legacy of building, charitable works, churches and hospitals, schools and infrastructure, much of which is being ground down into dust. Railroads gave way to corrupt officialdom, bridges to petty tyranny. A world where an advanced European civilization rubs elbows with a tribal survivalist society, separated by 10,000 years, and their meeting creates all the disfunctions and displacements such mutation of cultures displays. And what of the millions of Black Africans who are decent human beings, loving and caring of their families, of each other, who wish to do good, to see their world improve? Are they to be banished to a fatalism, that this is Africa?

Africa should not be the abandoned continent. It is, after all, the birthplace of the whole of humanity. And what of the devastation of wildlife to poachers? Should we not preserve the greatest legacy of life this continent has to offer? It deserves better than a shrug, "Oh well, this is Africa."

Also see: The Dark World of the Arab Child Slave Trade

Born to fly in South Sudan - BBC News

What about Africa? - how will they feed themselves?

quote:

The population of sub-Saharan Africa is expected to treble in size to more than three billion people by 2100.



How diversified are we?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

'Out of Context' paradox
Posted on Friday, April 24, 2015 - 06:16 pm:   

When "out of context" is out of context.

The usual interpretation of "out of context" is that a particular statement or quote is disassociated from a larger written or spoken context of what was being expressed. This usually means that the quote misrepresents the true intent of what was being said, so it skews the message in some biased manner to benefit a particular point of view, itself not necessarily shared by the author's message. However, there may be other ways to use "out of context" where the purpose for claiming this is itself skewed to deceive or obfuscate rather than clarify what is being said. This form of claiming a quote or statement 'out of context' may be a clever way to shroud in subtle ways the message to confuse and conceal its true meaning.

One way is to construct an argumentation-logic fallacy, where what is being said, intentionally or unintentionally, promotes a meaning other than what the full context aims to express. This in effect is a way to construct a lie from the truth as it would otherwise be understood, hence it is a misquote. Another way is to claim something is "out of context" so the true meaning remains hidden from our understanding of what is being said. The two are different, where one is simply a false argument or misquote, while the other hides the argument in a kind of paradox, where our understanding is cloaked in what we perceive it to mean while meaning something else. An example of this is where the P5+1 are negotiating with Iran over its developments of nuclear energy, where Iran claims its nuclear program is for "peaceful" purposes while the world thinks it is for development of nuclear weapons. This claim could be taken "out of context" in that what Iran describes as 'peaceful' may not agree with how the rest of the world understands it. For example, is making the bomb to eliminate what they deem a threat, like Israel, so their region will be rid of their perceived enemy a form of "peace" in their thinking? That's a subterfuge with intent to deceive if so. To annihilate a perceived enemy is not peaceful as we understand it; but it may be 'peaceful' for them. This term "peaceful" is therefore "taken out of context" of how Iran sees its actions. The same can be said of Russia's involvement in eastern Ukraine, where they deny involvement. But denial of clear involvement is 'out of context' if Russia's intent with "volunteers" and armaments is meant to subvert Ukraine's stability. In effect, such denial is a lie.

It can also be said that quoting religious text, such as Koranic verses advocating warfare against "non-believers", as often claimed by Islamic clerics, can be out of context. But the 'context' in this case is the audience being addressed, where non-believers are not meant to understand the true nature of what is being said; it is not for their ears. The "out of context" claim is not that the text is missing the full meaning of the Koranic quote, but rather that the quote is addressed to a select audience of "true believers", and not to infidels, i.e., the rest of us 'non-believers'. This is a sinister use of terms, where what means one thing in our common understanding means something entirely different in theirs. Even the narrow context of "there is no compulsion in religion" can become a delicate balancing act between interpreting it as true non-coercion on the one hand, and as 'necessary' coercions (to advance the jihad cause, for example) on the other; though conversely, the 'out of context clause' can also be used to justify a "true non-coercion" interpretation of sacred texts by their religious jurisprudence, if they choose to do so. Such interpretation would invalidate coercion for a cause because it too would be 'out of context'. Therefore, out-of-context can be a double edged sword, where on the one hand it is meant to confuse, while on the other hand it is to interpret within clearer context what was confused: viz., "no compulsion" vis-a-vis "war on the infidels", can either mean what it says, or its opposite. In the end, if the out-of-context clause is itself "out of context", that it means to confuse rather than clarify, then it is simply a distortion of the truth, a lie.

Whenever anyone claims something said or written is "out of context", warning bells should go off. Is it truly misquoted, or incomplete, or is it to throw off the scent and distort its true meaning? When "out of context" is itself out of context, beware. The truth may be the lie twisted in subtle ways, obscured to keep our understanding off balance. Then, in that context, it is paradox, that the lie itself becomes the truth.

Also see: The Messiah Paradox

Also see: Hiding behind an Invisibility Cloak
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Large Scale Human Dysfunctions
Posted on Friday, July 10, 2015 - 01:34 pm:   

Large Scale Human Dysfunctions, from massive debt to mass murder.

sl_solon.jpg

Debt is a useful tool, it had been present since ancient times, but it had always been a two edged sword. When used prudently, debt is a dynamic engine of economic human activity; but when debt is abused, it becomes a Damocles sword that mercilessly cuts at our achievements. There is a balance to debt that must be carefully observed, or the whole sinks of its own weight, and in the end it often turns to violence. Same as on a personal scale, large scale debt must observe certain truths: if it can be repaid with increased human productivity, it leads to economic growth; but if it overwhelms economic productivity, it leads to economic collapse. If a person assumes consumer debt, say to buy a house or car, the evaluation of debt sustainability is determined by their level of income, which is either sufficient to service debt repayment, both principle and interest, or the consumer goes underwater, is unable to repay the debt. This latter necessitates to either extend the debt or renegotiate the terms. On a national or international scale, the viability of the debt is determined by the economy's ability to generate enough income, hence its economic productivity, as to whether or not the debt is viable. If it is not, as has been the case with some countries, presently the Greek debt crisis for example, rather than debt enhancing economic activity, it begins to shrink it, where the repayments exceed economic productivity. Then we are faced either with economic catastrophe or, as was done in biblical, ancient times during a proclaimed Debt Jubilee, debt is relieved in part or in full with amnesty. This may be a situation faced today by many world governments as their debts have reached unsustainable levels.

When debt on a large economic scale is created, usually by 'inflating' the bank assets via creating money credit backed by bank deposits, e.g., savings, there is a substantial increase in 'capital' to employ and invest in future economic activity. This had been used since antiquity, where major public works, or wars, were financed either through private wealth or debt. Usually this debt is financed with obligation instruments, promissory notes or bonds, so the terms of debt repayment are formalized. But this 'new money' is in fact fictional, since it adds to the national stock of money only in an illusory manner; which unlike private wealth, it has to be repaid. If the ensuing economic activity leads to increased production and productivity, then the investment is successful; if not, then it results in economic and personal loss. This loss, of necessity, is borne by the savings of those who invested in the debt bonds, so such loss impacts their capital directly. It follows that such loss of savings leads to economic shrinkage, capital is destroyed, and the whole economy suffers. This sequence of events is unyielding, had been true throughout history, where nations fell into economic decline, weakened to the point where whole civilizations collapsed. The first to suffer such capital collapse are the savers, by extension those who saved for their future years, e.g., pensioners, so it leads to social discontent. If serious enough, it ultimately leads to mass violence, and society goes into an economic down spiral.

In modern times, such economic shrinkage usually leads to equities market collapse, where the market exchange senses increased risk, lower productivity, and higher interest rates as savers and financial institutions seek compensation for increased risk. This then leads to further economic instabilities as the whole suffers from the burdensome costs of increased risk, and economic activity slows, perhaps leading to economic depression. This is the reality faced today with the high leverage of national debt in the industrialized nations, which spills further into lesser developed nations. This then becomes a vicious cycle, where the weaker nations suffer social instability, combined with desperate economic measures or dictatorial rule rife with theft and corruption, which leads to mass migrations; all of which relates back to the more developed nations, now engulfed with alien immigrants, which ultimately leads to social dysfunctions there. As the cycle progresses, violence becomes an 'end game', so all suffer. We are witnessing this today in Europe, Australia and New Zealand, and North America. Throw in aggressive religious fanaticism, and we have the mass murder carnage witnessed in the Islamic world today, persecution of 'infidel' peoples, especially Christians in the Middle East and Africa, as well as religious persecutions of Christians, Hindus and Buddhists, and secterian Muslims in Asia. It has become a world phenomenon of social instability, in some countries of total governmental and social collapse, such as Somalia, Libya, and Syria, which then spills over into adjacent countries. This is the unhappy ending of massive, unbridled world debt.

In effect, a world debt bondage leads to a resurgence of what had been institutionally abolished, a modern day slavery. The violence against universal human rights leads to further social discontent, and the vicious cycle continues. In the past, such cycles were often broken with massive public works to once again harness the power of human productivity, which if mandated by the state often demanded public sacrifice; these demands, if failed, may in turn lead to wars, which themselves demand more sacrifice in blood and treasure. At the end, when the violence subsides, or is exhausted, a new cycle of reconstruction once more engages the world economies. This inevitably revives the use of institutionalized debt, which if handled in a prudent manner resumes the cycle of economic gains, productivity, formation of capital, and a general sense of economic well being. But if the lessons of history are forgotten, and debt creation becomes imprudent, the inevitable cycle repeats itself, until it once more ends in mass violence. This is the bitter truth of debt, that if used well, it offers economic benefits; but if abused, it ends in consuming capital, and civilizations come crashing down. Then, the only salvation from this vicious cycle, as kings of old discovered, is debt amnesty, a modern day version of Debt Jubilee.

IDA

This just in: Ukraine 'secures 20% debt write-off' - Greece to get 50% write off on private debt
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Death on our Oceans
Posted on Monday, August 17, 2015 - 01:58 pm:   

Death on our Oceans, and global warming.


photo.GIF (interactive)
Phytoplankton in the ocean produce dimethyl sulfide (DMS) that is converted to sulfate aerosols (SO4), which influence the amount of sunlight reflected by clouds.

Life as we know it would not exist on Earth were it not for the planet's oceans. From the beginning, microbial life in the oceans had 'terra formed' our world into the life forms we know today, from microorganism to complex multi-celled evolved life, including us humans. Per link:

quote:

The evolution of photosynthesis remade the Archaean Earth. Before photosynthesis, the air and oceans were anoxic. Now the air is a biological construction, a fifth of which is free molecular oxygen, and the ocean can sustain animal life even in the depths. The evolution, first of anoxygenic [not producing oxygen] and then of oxygenic [producing oxygen] photosynthesis, sharply increased the productivity of the biosphere. Oxygenic photosynthesis sustains free oxygen in the atmosphere. In the oceans, the beneficiaries of the first photosynthetic prokaryotes [bacteria and archaea] today range from cyanobacterial and algal plankton to large kelp. Wearing plants as landsuits, from tiny mosses to giant redwoods, cyanobacteria as chloroplasts have occupied the land. The oxygen emitted has allowed the evolution of animal life, to browse the plants and, in turn, to respire the CO2 that sustains photosynthesis.


This means that were such oceanic life forms destroyed, particularly oxygenic life forms, such as plankton and other oxygen producing plants, our atmosphere would be compromised, reverting back to anoxygenic life forms unable to produce life sustaining oxygen. But before such a natural calamity occurs, there could be intermediary events that would likely compromise complex life's ability to sustain itself. It may be happening already.

There is prevalence today's discussions on global warming as climate change having adverse effects on our environment and planet welfare of human societies. It has been projected our ocean levels will rise over the next century inundating coastal cities, forcing populations to move higher inland, adversely affecting food production, causing mass human migrations, and perhaps causing chaotic weather conditions on the planet, all of which have high cost and negative future implications. But there may be a parallel development that had not gotten as much attention, that the oceanic flora may be getting degraded by a slow choking of reduced oxygen producing plankton, which may also be affecting future climate. This pollution related ocean life degradation is resulting from ocean dumping of waste, plastic debris breakdown into micro-plastic waste worldwide, untreated sewage discharge, overfishing destabilizing natural balances in the oceans, oil spills and other large scale industrial pollution; all of which are killing off oxygen producing life in the world's oceans. If these mass die offs are also impacting our planet's terra-forming activity, then there will be the inevitable degradation of life's sustainability on the planet. We may have already have hints of what that means.

First cause and effect of such die offs is an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide as the planet's oceans falter in their ability to absorb excess carbon dioxide, which leads to global warming. From Oceanography in the 21st Century by Robert Steward:

quote:

Earth has a surface temperature that is just right for life. Water vapor from the ocean is essential for setting the earth's temperature.
The tropical ocean supplies almost all the water that falls on land.
The ocean absorbs half of the carbon dioxide released by our burning of fossil fuels. This reduces global warming caused by carbon dioxide.
So much heat is absorbed by the oceans, that the the warming of earth's surface by greenhouse gases is slowed down. 84% of the energy available to warm earth's surface has gone into the ocean during the 48 years from 1955 to 2003; 5% has gone into the land; 4% has gone into the atmosphere; and the remainder has gone into melting ice. (Levitus, 2005).



Second effect is the planet's oceans warming and the natural balances are disturbed, leading to weather extremes already experienced: colder winters and hotter summers, combined with more violent hurricane and typhoon storms, tornadoes, and flooding. Once these microbial 'terra-forming' balances are lost, our climates lose their ability to self-regulate and weather activity goes into more chaotic modes, with obvious adverse impact on human society. With over 7 billion human beings on the planet, massive food production shortages, mass and uncontrollable migrations, and likely resulting wars, the future century will face seriously disturbing challenges. The key issue being that global warming is not merely from fossil fuel generating green house gases, but also to an increasingly large extent from human pollution of our oceans. Kill plankton's ability to generate oxygen and our carbon dioxide footprint can grow exponentially.

We are all breathing and polluting, burning fires, using fossil fuel for energy, including producing vital electricity worldwide, and thus all are contributing to the world's environmental degradation by merely being here. If these human activities are also killing off terra-forming microbial life in our oceans, and all life from mollusks to whales, we are risking increasingly unbalanced climatic conditions, so our planet goes into a spiral of massive weather instability. This is tragic and perhaps not easily reversible, so the strains in human societies, and all life, may take decades to reverse the degradation. But it is doable, if we take a concerted world view of how to stem further mass die offs of oxygenic life in the ocean.

Human society had always worshipped its heroes, though the past half century seems to have been overshadowed with self pity, so the heroes lost their importance. But when crisis happens, and this death on our oceans is a slowly unfolding crisis, then our heroes must once more be publicly honored. There is much to be done to reverse global warming, not just cutting emission of green house gases, but also stemming the pollution gradually killing off life on our oceans. These oceans are the natural life support of our living biosphere and terra-formed global weather, so they are pivotal to life's survival on the planet. Turning to renewable resources energy production, especially solar energy, is upmost in future strategy, as is the leadership necessary for the global effort to do this. It is equally paramount to once more restore the natural microbial and biological health of our ocean environment, starting with cleaning up the megatons of plastic waste choking it. These will demand our heroes to save our planet, for without them our human societies will regress into mass chaos, which will lead to mass die offs. Perhaps this will happen regardless, as the deleterious effects of our planet's overpopulation had already begun, but with effort and intelligent action we can limit the damage done. In time, perhaps in the next century, a reversal will show itself to have begun. Death on our oceans is not just global warming and mass extinction, but the death of our civilization, and us with it.

photo.JPG

IDA

Also see: Microbial life may be the key to macro-multicellular life

How glass is recycled
How metal is recycled
How plastic is recycled
How paper is recycled
What should not be recycled

Just in: 'Zero tolerance' eyed for ocean plastic waste - BBC

Oxygen Is Disappearing From the World's Oceans at an Alarmingly Rapid Pace

Navigating our way through a toxic world
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Hiding behind an Invisibility Cloak
Posted on Sunday, September 06, 2015 - 04:23 pm:   

Hiding behind an Invisibility Cloak.


Imagine an ideology that forbids searching deeper into itself except for reading the basic tenets of such ideology. So in principle, any questions seeking answers outside the ideology are strictly discouraged, if not forbidden. Is this not a basic definition of 'dogma'? To ask questions outside the ideological tenets (to show contradictions, for example), is then considered inappropriate or disrespectful, even rude, and possibly punished severely for heretics who dare venture out. From the outside, such questions are met with silence or condemnation, or answers vague, so any who dare venture in are met with a cloak of 'invisibility', and no answers forthcoming, except those to convince the acolyte enshrined in dogma. In the secular world, such ideology challenge is usually political, challenging the politically correct, or where dissenters are punished; in religion it is heresy, or apostasy, often punished; and in the scientific world, such uncomfortable questions are usually shunned, demanding mathematical proof, or branded 'pseudoscientific', so no dialogue ensues. This is the cloak of invisibility often assumed when dogma is questioned, where conversation stops. In all cases further questioning is met with 'out of context' rebuttals, meaning it is not even a question worth asking.

Now imagine further that rather than subscribing to the ideology's indoctrination of accepted dogma, there is reasonable cause to doubt their faith in it. If ideology is accepted on faith, no reasonable argument can be heard; it is simply forbidden. But if real evidence is discovered that could shake such faith, what is the outcome? Then there is usually a 'circling of wagons', where those in authority, or accepted mainstream, combine their forces to either refute or silence the intruders into their closed world. They might refer back to their scriptures, challenging to refute what they say; usually, this is a futile enterprise, as it falls on closed ears and minds. Worst case it leads to conflict and personal ad hominem attacks. Dogma is not to be argued with. In the religious world such argument can lead to circular reasoning, where it all doubles back to what scripture says. In the scientific world, unshakable tenets are extremely difficult to dislodge. So once again one is met with an invisibility cloak, and no new light can enter or escape. To persist is to invite wrath of the true believers, leading to derision or punishment.

In extreme cases, this cloak of invisibility keeps the population of believers in a somnambulist state of submission, where any who ask uncomfortable questions are immediately checked and confronted. To go against these self appointed 'authorities' is equivalent to going against their Deity. If the holy scriptures were revealed to appoint them to speak for the Deity, then no argument can win against them, as such arguments are now against the Deity. To push further merely pushes further into the Deity's domain, so the end result is punishment by the representatives of the Deity who are there to guard it. Deeper challenges merely engenders deeper retreat into the holy scriptures, if not punished outright. The ultimate fall back is 'death' to the apostate or infidel heretics,* so no dialogue is possible.

Dogma is not to be challenged by those who are not qualified to challenge, meaning they are not well enough versed in it. That is the closed circle of invisibility that none can penetrate. The circle tightens completely onto a point when the final decree is that 'God wills it', or that it is 'predetermined', and though there may be historical, ontological, and circumstantial evidence to doubt this, the argument is closed. No matter how deep one digs, one comes up against the shadowy, reclusive and mythical, infinitely silent Deity, which absorbs all light of inquiry into an unfathomable black hole, itself the ultimate invisibility. If so, then God becomes the ultimate 'cloak of invisibility', the same hiding behind all clerics of dogma. And there is no argument with them, for it is like arguing the circumference of a point, which is beyond understanding. In short, one submits to an invisible, ideological black hole totally, and one which must be accepted on faith. Failure to submit to this is failure to believe in the ultimate invisibility cloak, for which there can be no winning argument, and therefore it becomes punishable, sometimes with death.

IDA

*(Death threats and executions for questioning or offending a particular belief or religion is already ‘cruel and unusual’ punishment, even against its own believers. But it becomes especially onerous and odious when this punishment is directed against persons who are not part of their belief system, e.g., ‘infidels’, as then it oversteps the boundaries of their religion into universal punishment of anyone, anywhere, which is universally unacceptable and wrong, to be forcefully condemned.)

ADDENDUM: Caveat. It is unfortunate that Islam's holy scriptures command Taqiyya (lying) to the Infidels. By this same religious command, it is impossible to fully believe when Muslims address infidels, as it is pre-loaded with deceit, and the intent to deceive. Therefore, by their holy writ, infidels cannot accept anything said to them, as it is commanded by Allah. In effect, their word cannot ever be their bond, the worth of a man, as their commandments condemns them a priori.


quote:

Quran

Quran (16:106) - Establishes that there are circumstances that can "compel" a Muslim to tell a lie.
Quran (3:28) - This verse tells Muslims not to take those outside the faith as friends, unless it is to "guard themselves" against danger, meaning that there are times when a Muslim should appear friendly to non-Muslims, even though they should not feel that way..

Quran (9:3) - "...Allah and His Messenger are free from liability to the idolaters..." The dissolution of oaths with the pagans who remained at Mecca following its capture. They did nothing wrong, but were evicted anyway. (The next verse refers only to those who have a personal agreement with Muhammad as individuals - see Ibn Kathir (vol 4, p 49)

Quran (40:28) - A man is introduced as a believer, but one who had to "hide his faith" among those who are not believers.

Quran (2:225) - "Allah will not call you to account for thoughtlessness in your oaths, but for the intention in your hearts" The context of this remark is marriage, which explains why Sharia allows spouses to lie to each other for the greater good.

Quran (3:54) - "And they (the disbelievers) schemed, and Allah schemed (against them): and Allah is the best of schemers." The Arabic word used here for scheme (or plot) is makara, which literally means 'deceit'. If Allah is supremely deceitful toward unbelievers, then there is little basis for denying that Muslims are allowed to do the same. (See also 8:30 and 10:21)

Taken collectively these verses are interpreted to mean that there are circumstances when a Muslim may be "compelled" to deceive others for a greater purpose.

Hadith and Sira

Bukhari (52:269) - "The Prophet said, 'War is deceit.'" The context of this is thought to be the murder of Usayr ibn Zarim and his thirty unarmed men by Muhammad's men after he "guaranteed" them safe passage (see Additional Notes below).

Bukhari (49:857) - "He who makes peace between the people by inventing good information or saying good things, is not a liar." Lying is permitted when the end justifies the means.

Bukhari (84:64-65) - Speaking from a position of power at the time, Ali confirms that lying is permitted in order to deceive an "enemy."

Muslim (32:6303) - "...he did not hear that exemption was granted in anything what the people speak as lie but in three cases: in battle, for bringing reconciliation amongst persons and the narration of the words of the husband to his wife, and the narration of the words of a wife to her husband (in a twisted form in order to bring reconciliation between them)."
.....

Finally, the circumstances by which Muhammad allowed a believer to lie to a non-spouse are limited to those that either advance the cause of Islam or enable a Muslim to avoid harm to his well-being (and presumably that of other Muslims as well). Although this should be kept very much in mind when dealing with matters of global security, such as Iran's nuclear intentions, it is not grounds for assuming that the Muslim one might personally encounter on the street or in the workplace is any less honest than anyone else.



The Taqiyya issue brings up an un-intended conundrum, such as occurred in the swearing in of London's new mayor, Sadiq Khan. An observant Muslim, Khan asked to place his hand on the Koran rather than the Bible in his swearing in ceremony. On the surface this is an innocent enough request, which in the spirit of all inclusive cultural and religious tolerance was accepted without reserve. However, underneath lurked a more sinister issue, one likely not held by Khan, that to swear on a holy book which endorses lying (Taqiyya at any level) prejudices the meaning of the oath sworn. This issue applies to any Muslim sworn to office in a country where the Christian Bible is the cultural norm for swearing allegiance to the office. Would this request be reciprocated? To swear an oath on a book other than the traditional Bible redefines the meaning of the oath, especially if the original swearing in is replaced with a book commanding (at times) lying. This may be genuinely unintentional, but in principle, how valid is the oath when there is this element of doubt?

Also see: Lying to protect
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

IRAN AFTER THE DEAL: the road ahead, addendum
Posted on Tuesday, November 03, 2015 - 03:59 am:   

IRAN AFTER THE DEAL: the road ahead.
(Papers by ISPI, edited by Paolo Magri et al, 2015)

(Addendum notes - by Ivan D. Alexander)

Reference, book 4: In Search of a New Balance by Rouzbeh Parsi

Mr. Parsi writes:

quote:

Realities and realignments after the nuclear accord. (p. 71)
"In this regard, what the discussion of Syria and Yemen above show us is that Iranian foreign and security policy is reactive and, in a sense, opportunistic rather than strategic. There is a basic security doctrine: confront potential enemies in foreign theatres rather than at home, insist on global actors like the US staying out of the region and thus accentuate Iran’s geopolitical weight. But beyond this general approach the actual behaviour is much more pragmatic and reactive than the accompanying rhetoric would let on. Syria, for instance, has its own relevance for Iran, but Bashar al-Assad’s place within it is more of an open question than the rhetoric from Tehran would let on. The more hardline and security related Iranian officials are the most vociferous in explicitly equalising Iran’s support for Syria with standing by Assad. And they do so partly in reaction to Western insistence on Assad having to go. In short this is also part of the Iran-West dynamic within the security and ideological framework of Iranian domestic politics."




Another position paper by the ISPI think tank, same issue, different author, book 6. The Iran-Russia Entente: Marriage of Convenience or Strategic Partnership? by Clément Therme, (p.95) states:

quote:

Since the election of Hassan Rouhani to the Iranian presidency in 2013, Tehran’s policy towards Moscow has remained focused on the search for a ‘strategic partnership’. This was also the objective of the Ahmadinejad administration between 2005 and 2013. Nevertheless, given the critical discourse of Iranian reformist and so- called ‘moderate’ media during the conservative rule on this specific issue, one could argue that there is a lack of conviction of Iranian moderate and reformist factions regarding what should be the optimal Iranian strategy towards Moscow. While criticizing the Ahmadinejad administration, the reformist discourse targeted the ideological tenet driving Iranian strategy towards Moscow, namely antiwesternism, which contradicts Iranian national interests. Despite these critics, since his election Hasan Rouhani has pursued almost the same policy towards Russia as the Ahmadinejad administration. The use of the détente with the West in gen- eral and the European Union in particular to reinforce Iran’s position towards Russia in their asymmetric relationship, appears to be the main innovation of the Rouhani administration.



Bringing these two statements together, the common theme is that Iran wooing Russian interest in their regional affairs is more an opportunistic maneuver to keep foreign powers, particularly the US and Europe, off balance in their interests for the region, rather than a genuine interest of courting Russian support for the Islamic Republic. But the reality is more complicated when we consider how many players are involved in the region. Key players are Iran, Russia, the EU and US; next players are Turkey, Lebanon's Hezbollah (Iran proxy), Kurds, and the currently dysfunctional states of Iraq and Syria, Yemen; then are the Gulf Arab states, UAE, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia; finally there is Israel. All these players have an interest in developments vis-a-vis Iran, which are not necessarily in common, and their geo-political needs being perhaps divergent, but all would like to have an interest in post nuclear deal Iran's unfolding economic potential. This is the one area common to all players, including Iran itself. While their geo-political interests tend to pull in opposite directions to create, as self perceived, external balances of power, commercial trade benefits all parties. That seems to be the fundamental condition surrounding Iran today, and now that it is being released from the grip of sanctions, all players seem eager to take part in their future commercial and geo-political developments.

If we place Iran at the center of this schematic map, with the EU and US (the West) folded to one side and Russia folded to the other side, these then surrounded by Arab states and other players (Afghanistan, Central Asia nations), balanced by Israel, we get a rough map of how the counterbalanced powers hold each other in check, with Iran the centerpiece in this balance of power. In fact, Iran's Islamic Republic seems to relish its position as the center of world attention, as if highlighting the glory of its 1979 revolution; the sanctions were negative attention, but now the nuclear deal puts them (though they may yet run afoul of the agreement, and cheat) in a more positive light as a key player in the region. Russia is for now considered an expedient economic and political partner, but their vastly different ideological camps leaves this alliance open to amendment at any time; while Iran's opposition to the US and EU, mainly on ideological grounds (threatening 'death' to their nations, especially Israel), puts them ill at ease in courting their political alliance. Iran seems to prefer a more even balance of powers, pitting the West against Russia, with themselves the central fulcrum to lean whichever way favors their interests. And now that Russia had earned enmity from the West over its invasion (undeclared, and denied) into eastern Ukraine, this power instability between East and West plays perfectly into the Iranian viewpoint of the world, that with the world divided in its opposition to their Islamic ideology, they feel themselves superior. But underlying all this geo-political posturing remains the one common binding interest for all parties involved, their commercial interests. This is sought as eagerly by Iran, and its power oligarchs, as it is sought by Russia's, and by the commercial interests of the West, especially Europe. Opening up markets, gaining access to natural resources of oil and gas, as well as developing banking and consumer links; all these play out as a win-win for all parties involved. So all are motivated by this business common interest, though balanced out by their counter-leaning geo-political and ideological interests, to create the schematic map we have around Iran today, what gives it confidence that it is a key player on the world scene, certainly in the Middle East arena.

Now, what would happen if we slightly shifted this schematic map, where the counter-balanced powers of Russia and the West are shifted away from their mistrust and antagonism towards each other; imagine the sanctions against Russia, imposed after the Ukrainian adventure (with minimal gains except Crimea), are lifted and instead of antagonism, Russia and the West come closer together in their commercial and geo-political interests. Of course, this could only happen if Russia abandons its Ukrainian ambitions (of keeping Ukraine tightly in its sphere of influence) and let it drift naturally to the West (which it will do anyway, it already feeling itself a part of Europe). How would the map around Iran look then? Would Iran not feel themselves imbalanced in their geo-political posturing, more isolated from their secure counter-balanced interests, and more drifting on their ideological moorings? Would the Arab states, and Turkey, feel themselves allied with a fundamentalist Shia Iran, while they are ideologically Sunni? Though all may share common commercial interests, not so the geo-political, where they all tend to pull in different directions; hence the Iranian sought after balance of powers would be shifted. Syria and Iraq, and Yemen, are battlefields for power, so they are a separate category from these counterbalances. Then there is Israel, which having been threatened repeatedly with annihilation by Iran (a threat voiced must be taken seriously), will likewise see a West-Russia alliance more in its favor. That leaves Iran without the benefit of playing parties against each other, what gave it a privileged position in the region, and thus degrades it in status as a world player. All that is needed to unhinge the power balance, therefore, is for Russia and the West to revive economic and geo-political cooperation (easily done if Ukraine is resolved). And if done, Iran is then divested of its central power role in the region.

That new schematic map has the West and Russia on one side of Iran, folded against the Arab states, Afghanistan and Turkey on the other side, so a new balance of power now dominates the region. The nuclear deal now takes on a different perspective. It becomes a second fiddle to the main thrust of Iran's balance of power play. That power play will be resolved in Syria, and secondarily in Iraq. Whatever destabilization is taking place there, what is a fertile ground for the Islamic State, so called, with all its brutality, mass population displacement, human suffering brought by ISIS, the real play is assumption of regional domination. Russia seems to understand this, so Assad is supported; America and Europe seem more confused, not meaningful players, as they appear naive of the forces, both cultural and religious, at play. Same with Yemen, which is another power play, where Iran wants to wrest control from Arab States, especially Saudi Arabia, in its 'balancing of powers' scenario. None of these states trust each other, least of all Iran, so they all jockey for positions of balanced destabilization, something American interest seem to fail to grasp; but it is not lost on the Russians, who play the same Byzantine game. So in the murky geo-politics of the Middle East, those who best understand the nuances of double deceit, in word and deed, and how these counterbalances against each mistrusted power play out, are the best suited to destabilize their counter off-balances against each other. And there lies the plot for undoing the ISIS, by working within these regional counter-balances to bear force on the Islamic State in unison. The nuclear Treaty, for all its promises and dialogue, serves in only one way: Iran is allowed central place on the schematic map of the Middle East, at least for now; but the counter balances of mistrust are fluid. So now it must be shifted off center with a tighter Western alliance, which works best if it includes Russia.

That leaves the nuclear question, what had been in the background all along. First, we must assume Iran will cheat, almost a given.* All statements to the contrary, they will develop nuclear weapons capability. But so had North Korea and Pakistan, neither reliable players regarding nuclear agreements, and both with near fanatical agendas. We have learned to tolerate this, same as we will learn to tolerate Iran's nuclear arsenal. The main difference is Iran's religious Apocalyptic ideology, which calls for a return of their hidden imam in the 'end of times' mythology (return of the Twelfth Imam, a Mahdi like figure), which makes them unpredictably dangerous. Verbalized threats to Israel calling for its annihilation also plays into their 'end of times' prophecy, so they must be taken seriously; they are a real threat to Israel, and likely all Europe. The best defense is technological, like the Iron Dome over Israel, with immediate response. That should keep the Iranian power oligarchy in check. But their religious clerics are a wild card. The other end of the spectrum is that their commercial interests outvote their ideologues, in which case trade with Iran is important by all parties, especially if they feel themselves put off balance in their world view of themselves. Give their people a chance for change, something the Obama administration seems to understand (and why the sanctions had been lifted), and change may happen. The nuclear question will works itself out best if Russia is on our side, and the battle grounds in Syria, Iraq, and Yemen play out their sordid destinies, that they are the proving grounds for major power plays in the Middle East. Who will win? Saudi Arabia? Or Iran? Does Europe care? Do Americans? Only if their commercial interests, vis-a-vis oil, are threatened. The reality is really no one cares for what happens in these countries, so the mass suffering there continues; ISIS is a commercial threat to all parties, and so they will be addressed likewise. In the end, once ISIS is subdued, the balance of powers, and counter- powers, will resume as before. No one trusts the other, and in an environment of 'mutual deceit' this is the only possible solution. Likely, the central role of Saudi Arabia will shift somewhat towards a greater role assumed by Iran, with oil geo-politics at play, their religious ideologies aside. But the key is how Russia plays its hand. Drop Ukraine, and the all the pieces fall in place, with Iran held in check.

Longer term we must consider the Iranian people. What are their ambitions, which way will they lean culturally? Will the young people of Iran lean towards Russia, learn the language, embrace their conservative style of power politics? Or will they lean West, learn English, and explore Western ideals of secular rule of law, gender and social equality, democracy and human rights? These are long term considerations, as the current theocratic power base will not relinquish power easily. No doubt they will be watching these developments warily, so one should not expect an easy transition, even if the populace demands it, which likely will initially be suppressed. But over time change in the modern world is inevitable, best if without bloodshed. China may be a viable model of change, where orthodox Communism gave way to a more market based economy . Once again, commercial interests will drive the change, over time, where autocratic coercion becomes a less reliable modus operandi. If the transition is bloodless and patient, Iran could again resume its central role in Middle Eastern geo-politics, this time in a positive mode. I vote English.

IDA

This just in:
*(Iran breaks nuclear deal enrichment targets: This is not the first time it threatens the EU and world with its nuclear ambitions, with fear by all parties they are seeking the bomb. Coming from a culture of kidnappings for ransom, it is not a stretch to use the same tactic with threats to make Europe and America pay up. In a typically Iranian fashion, the threat has a 60 day deadline to force remaining signatories to comply with their (ransom) demands. How will Europe respond?)


Also see:
THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN: AT WAR WITH THE U.S.

End of War - Will Alexander once again rout Darius?

The Hundred Years War
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

'Encryption law'
Posted on Saturday, November 21, 2015 - 03:09 am:   

Can Encrypted secret messaging be unlocked?

The recent discovery that ISIS operatives may have used an encrypted messaging service to coordinate terror attacks, such as recently witnessed in Paris, has called into question whether totally secret encryption services, like Telegraph and others, have the right to create encryption without a 'back door key' to crack the encoded messages. In the article, Silicon Valley faces backlash over attacks, one is left with the feeling that totally secret encryption, where they "throw away the key" to decoding creates a regulatory and policing dilemma, since authorities cannot access the messages used by the Jihad terrorists or other criminals. From the article:

quote:

The "problem" is to do with encryption.
Without encryption, all of the things we do online would be insecure, be it emailing, or shopping, or banking. They all rely on the principle that if you encrypt data using complex mathematics it is nigh-on impossible to crack.
If you're using communication apps such as WhatsApp, Apple's iMessage, WeChat and so on, your messages are encrypted by default.
It means that even if those companies wanted to hand over your messages to law enforcement, they couldn't.



This creates a dilemma that may appear insurmountable for law enforcement. It therefore fans an encryption debate, as to whether criminals and terrorists can exploit Internet secrecy to their own malignant ends, leaving authorities powerless to stop them. But this dilemma can be solved if the problem is broken down to its basic factors of what 'encryption ' represents.

In this new age of instant world wide information, there are three basic factors to be considered in encoded messaging: public information, open to view; private messaging, hidden from public view; and secrecy, where it is encrypted and totally hidden. But except for when used for military or police enforcement, all fall within the 'public domain'. If criminal elements and terrorists are using these 'public domain' encrypted services to coordinate activities, using private messaging with encrypted secrecy, then they are abusing the public trust by acting within the parameters of an otherwise restricted military domain. Therefore, there must be a way of making 'private and secret' messaging open for public access when there is criminal intent. This is achievable, without violating privacy laws, if two out of three factors are invoked in judging their intent within the public domain.

In effect, if the message is of 'secrecy', such as found in espionage or military applications, where secrecy is demanded and necessary, then it is not the same venue as for public information, in public domain where it free to all, and privacy laws apply; so secrecy as such is not strictly 'private' and must be restricted in the public domain. But if it is 'private', in the public domain but hidden from viewing, then it cannot also be 'encrypted' for secrecy, of necessity, as it is not in the military domain. To not have the 'right to privacy' be violated by secrecy intent, it must be in public domain, not military or governmental venues. Privacy is protected only in a free environment, not one where secrecy empowers those who would take that freedom away, which is self negating. We might call it an "encryption law", whereby it is legislated as a condition of encrypted messaging activity; viz., if it is secret, it cannot be 'private', in the sense that law enforcement must have a back key to access it, given the usual privacy safeguards of court order, probable cause, public safety, etc.; but if it is private, it cannot be 'secret', if there is legitimate cause to suspect criminal activity, meaning a priory the message must be accessible for viewing in the public domain for law enforcement. Of course, if it is 'public', then it is neither secrecy nor privacy, except for 'anonymity', and the usual safeguards of copyright, libel, incitement, fraud, etc., are invoked to protect the public, so the 'encryption law' does not apply.

Such legislative action for the "encryption law" can safeguard the public from malicious and dangerous activity on the public Web. The responsibility for creating conditions where the 'encryption law' applies rests with the authors of the messaging services, where first defense is their 'self-policing'. A fully encrypted, unbreakable messaging service can only be used for secret military or law enforcement. Otherwise, corporations and companies failing to encode 'secret' messaging with access to private content are acting illegally, and can be restrained or shut down from public access; conversely, if the messaging is 'private', then it cannot be without a back key to access it if necessary, to protect the public. In short, one cannot have a messaging service that is both private and secret, without violating the encryption law. But it must be a legislated law for this to be valid.

To make this law workable will demand a wide debate on what is categorized as "secret" and what is "private". In a free information society, such as we have in the Free World, it must be regulated with rules of law that both protect public interest and safety, as well as insure our personal rights to privacy and free expression, so they are not violated. By breaking down the encryption phenomenon into three factors helps better focus the debate. Otherwise, the free access to private or secret communications is conflated, and confused it remains unregulated, where criminal elements take control; or quasi-military-terrorist groups access to our public domain internet, which violates its freedom of information. We cannot deregulate criminality, for it must be addressed with the rule of law where illegal, coercive, and dangerous activity is involved, to protect the public good. Anything less is lawless anarchy, which does not belong in a free society on any level, including the Web.

Also see: IS propaganda kicked off Telegram - BBC
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Gun control debate
Posted on Tuesday, June 21, 2016 - 12:53 pm:   

Gun control and firearms related deaths debate.

photo.jpg

Though in principle we generally eschew political discussions, the recent US Senate debate over gun control involves principles of good governance and the right of individuals to own weapons for self protection and other purposes. The consideration is wether limiting the Second Amendment, our Constitutional right to own guns, will help reduce crime rates in the US. As can be seen from the above link on firearms related deaths, the highest homicide rates are in South American countries, Venezuela, Columbia, Honduras, Brazil, El Salvador, Guatemala, Jamaica, US Virgin Islands, or Africa, Swaziland, Lesotho, South Africa, many African nations; while the lowest rates are Bahrain, Japan, Bolivia, India, South Korea, Hong Kong, Poland, UK, Iceland, most European countries. It seems no clear pattern emerges from these, as to whether or not control of gun ownership reduces gun related deaths. Some countries with near universal gun ownership, such as Israel and Switzerland, have low homicide rates, for example, as opposed to Washington DC, the Nation's capital, with an exceptionally high homicide rate. So perhaps 'guns' is not the problem. People are.

See: Gun control laws by nation

Guns do not kill, people do. It's what's behind the trigger that causes deaths. If the culture of the people is violent, including firearms, as well as knives, bats, box cutters, explosives, then the society will have a high murder rate. Making it more difficult or impossible to own guns will not change the murder rate significantly, except to leave citizens exposed to ambient violence without the ability to protect themselves. Where society functions and policing is reliable, there is less dependence on personal weapons, but where it is not, that extra level of self protection is necessary. The intent of the American Second Amendment was to give citizens that extra layer of protection that social governance might fail to fill, not only as a legal right of the collective, hence government, but as an individual right to protect that right from government infringement. Therefore, both considerations are necessary, what is right for the collective society as a whole, as well as what is right for the individual. Taken together, the Second Amendment, in our opinion, would allow for some restrictions on gun ownership, especially in the hands of violent individuals with the intent to kill, as well as restricting certain types of weapons, such as used for mass killings, machine guns, military assault rifles, explosives, nuclear materials, viz. weapons of ‘mass destruction’. It should be the right thing for Congress to pass such restrictions while at the same time insure Americans have the right to own arms to protect themselves. In principle, the two are not mutually exclusive.

What needs to be addresses socially is the culture of violence. Why is it some nations are violent while others are not? The debate should be about that, not whether Americans have the right to own arms.

Addendum: “As president, Ronald Reagan didn’t need studies or statistics to prove that, in the hands of law-abiding citizens, guns stop crime. He knew it because he himself had used a gun to stop a crime. He had seen the wisdom of the Second Amendment in action, and that kind of experience shaped his belief in a sensible gun policy, which trusts law-abiding citizens with the right to keep and bear arms.” -pg. 83, The City on a Hill (1997) by Michael Reagan

Also see: Lost streets of Chicago, young Black males and guns - BBC (You Tube video)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Crime and punishment
Posted on Wednesday, July 27, 2016 - 09:39 pm:   

Crime and Punishment: rehabilitate or punish?


photo.jpg

In Ancient Rome, criminals were often sent to the arena. One form of execution was to strap criminals to a large see-saw, where fierce predatory animals were then released on them. Another was to make criminals fight to the death against trained gladiators. Either way, the punishment was fatal. Justice was swift and summary, and cruel, with no chance for appeal. Every man, woman, and child knew the consequences of crime, and were forewarned. Criminal activity was a dangerous game.

The level of cruelty and summary justice see-sawed through the ages, often brutal and damned, prisoners left to die in dark cold dungeons, starved and beaten, or brought out for public executions to the entertainment, and warning, of the general public. Such was the criminal justice until recent times. Sometime during the Age of Enlightenment criminals were given rights. They could seek defense in court, appeal rulings, and demand more humane prison conditions. Though still incarcerated, as today, criminals are treated vastly better than the unfortunates of ancient times. Today's punishments for crime are relatively mild, prisons operated as large, if unpleasant, holding centers until the court ordered sentence is served. In effect, the culture of 'crime and punishment' had changed.

Central to 18th century Enlightenment 'crime and unishment' reform can be summed as:

quote:

Enlightened reformers moved away from corporal punishment, seeking to design a penal system that would make punishment more useful, edifying the prisoner while simultaneously repairing the damage the prisoner had inflicted upon society.


This was a more pragmatic approach to punishing crime, that 'repairing' the crime, not only punishing it but retributive penalty, became an operative philosophy, one adopted in most of the Western world. (For example, philosopher Emmanuel Kant argued that a mother killing her illegitimate child was not murder but an act of nature.) Criminals were still prosecuted and imprisoned, but with a different intent. The death penalty in many progressive countries was abolished, a long way from how punishment was administered in Ancient Rome.

The progressive movement of the 19th and 20th centuries further redefined 'retributive' punishments of criminals to involve them in 'rehabilitation' into society. For example:

quote:

The concept of rehabilitation rests on the assumption that criminal behavior is caused by some factor. This perspective does not deny that people make choices to break the law, but it does assert that these choices are not a matter of pure "free will." Instead, the decision to commit a crime is held to be determined, or at least heavily influenced, by a person's social surroundings, psychological development, or biological makeup.


This current operative philosophy, employed to varying degrees in progressive prison systems, assumes there are other qualifying factors that militate against purely 'free will' causing crime; and if so, then rehabilitating the criminal as a functioning member of society becomes doable. This is partly based on criminals having lost control of their senses in committing a crime, perhaps due to temporary insanity, or crime of passion, or of weak ethics and moral character, which in theory can be cured or corrected. (Crimes of bestial religious fanaticism, lately virtually daily news in their cruel and murderous deeds, may be corrected as to their understanding of their religion, in theory, with a kind of 'deprogramming' reeducation, but that is problematic, as recidivism may be high.) So the theory of modern, progressive 'crime and punishment' has shifted from swift and summary punishment, or execution, still practiced in many parts of the world, to a retributive correctional imprisonment and reeducation to rehabilitate the person guilty of crime, rather than simply punishing them.

But nothing is a hundred percent, and crime in terms of severity comes in varying degrees of social damage and danger. Some crimes are irredeemable, where brutal murder and torture of victims premeditated, driven by hatred and fanaticism, are unconscionable to civilized people. In effect, some percent of criminals are likewise irremediable. How do we separate the truly bad from those bad in degrees? Historically, when there was no effort to rehabilitate criminals, it was not a question; today we must ask it. Are there some criminals so monstrous that rehabilitation is impossible, even undesirable and pointless? Likely "yes." That is the red line jurisprudence must draw between those who are to be punished, and those potentially rehabilitated. The level of mercy for those who are irredeemable is then a matter of public conscience and level of humanitarian concern for the incarcerated, whether in solitary confinement (so fellow prisoners don't kill them), or in a correctional facility where they are put to work. That is how society must address those who cannot be rehabilitated, and in time one hopes their numbers will fall, and with good education and wise jurisprudence, and policing, they will ultimately disappear. But it cannot come about without cause and effect. Same as ancient Romans executed their prisoners without pity, so must we reparably retribute certain crimes without pity; but where the criminal is humanely rehabilitatable, we must make every effort as a civilized society to make it so.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Responsible Journalism
Posted on Wednesday, October 19, 2016 - 12:50 pm:   

On Responsible Journalism.

photo.jpg (Latin news - interactive)
Who really leads the polls?

While there are many challenges for 'truth in reporting' in modern journalism, our present age appears to have lost its keel. This is especially true in the present presidential race, where reporting has found itself floundering , mired in acrimonious personal attacks. Have we lost our way in Journalism Ethics?

For example, regarding Ethics in journalism:

quote:

While various existing codes have some differences, most share common elements including the principles of—truthfulness, accuracy, objectivity, impartiality, fairness and public accountability—as these apply to the acquisition of newsworthy information and its subsequent dissemination to the public.


These principles are a basic policy statement, the bedrock of responsible journalism. But these basic principles seem forgotten in the current presidential debate and reporting, where rather than focussing on critical national and world issues, the race has devolved to ad hominem attacks. Has media failed us in its responsibilities?

Would it not better serve the electorate were the critical issues at hand more a priority in reporting than personal attacks? Hillary's mismanagement of personal emails may have been of possible importance as a national security failure, but does it need to be hammered to death? While groping may be a personal failure in Trump, does it demand such intense scrutiny at the expense of greater issues of America's future? It would serve far better to have media reporting, instead of these side shows, on real issues facing the nation. Key issues such as taxation, especially repatriated hundreds of billions corporate overseas income held abroad due to punitive domestic tax rates; or issues of universal healthcare, righting what had passed under Obama's office, essentially a giveaway for the insurance industry; or critical racial issues in America, what has turned into a Black on White acrimonious blame game; or education, addressing failure in the public school system, especially in inner cities; or criminality, and treating drug addiction as a disease; or illegal immigration, or cyber security; and what of defense, against creeping Russian aggression, 'land' grab by China in the South Seas, jihad terrorist attacks both domestic and international? Are these not more pressing issues journalists should be tackling than both candidates' obvious personal faults? Surely both candidates have policy statements to be made on this. So they're not morally perfect... Move on. What are the priorities? Where are these policy issues? Buried somewhere in the back pages, or dissected on the blogal Internet? Shouldn't that be front page?

Responsible journalism starts at the editor's desk, as to what is real news and what is theater. The focus of mainstream media has been in sensationalism, and the public is revolting in disgust. If Trump wins, it will be for media having failed its basic principles of good reporting, and gave us circus rather than facts. And all the mainstream political power interests will be left out in the cold January. If the voting public is fed up, the revolt against 'business as usual' in Washington will have come to this: The news media lost its bearings, and the people had enough.

This just in: Trump victory in maps - 2016
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

World Taxation
Posted on Friday, October 21, 2016 - 09:24 am:   

World Tax - is it viable?

photo.jpg

A World Tax system, also known as the 'Tobin tax', had been proposed by some economists as a way to fund global concerns, such as underdeveloped nations' poverty, development of green energy to combat global warming, minimizing environmental degradation and deforestation in developing countries, fighting world pandemic disease, hunger and malnourishment, wildlife conservation issues, an international defense system, and more. On the surface, these seem viable ideas, that we need to address these issues on a global scale. However, upon closer examination, a world tax system, whether levied on sales, financial transactions, or personal and corporate income, would need certain tests on its viability. Who levies the tax, and how is it used?

In a Capitalist, market exchange based economic system, taxation is seen a confiscation of wealth and capital. In a Socialist system, taxes are used for economic management and redistribution of income. At bottom, taxation exists to fund the government and its activities. This is never a popular payment, which most parties will seek ways of avoiding or minimizing, so it is fundamentally a coercive activity. Taking people's money for activities they had not chosen to pay for is largely unpopular with both business and individuals, who try to conserve their income, to save it for the future or build capital, so there is a built in resistance to taxation in general. Nevertheless, government must be funded, if it is to govern effectively, so taxes are as sure as death, that we must pay our share.

So taxation is a political issue, since it involves government a priori. In a democracy, the taxes levied are decided upon by elected representatives (no taxation without representation), so it is agreed upon by Social Contract. The governed had authorized revenue through taxation for the government to perform its duties to the public. In an autocracy or theocracy, the tax is dictated by those in power, or by bureaucratic authorities deemed best suited to manage it. This is done at the national level, as well as by local jurisdictions, to pay for maintaining infrastructure, social and policing services, and of course defense. But in the past century, largely due to Marxist-Socialist ideology, economic theory has also relegated taxation to a form of economic 'management', where taxes are levied at the national level to redirect economic activity to better redistribute personal income and business activity, usually to ameliorate economic downturns and redress poverty issues. This has become basic economic theory for most modern economies, and to a greater or lesser extent, it works favorably provided the taxes are not onerous to the point where they restrict economic activity; then such overburdening taxes become counterproductive and fail in their economic purpose. Generally, those in favor of such income redistribution are those who have less, and pay less or no taxes, so reap the benefits; those opposed are the wealthy who pay a larger share with fewer returns. In a democracy, this income redistribution, a Socialist ideal, is favored by the poorer majority, so socially acceptable with broad based support as most people are not wealthy. So the politics favor a populist appeal to taxation (without commensurate representation), as a minority is forced by a majority to pay a larger share. And if so, what happens on a world scale if we introduce a World Tax scenario?

The same political principle would play out, where the majority of poor countries would politically coerce the minority of rich countries to pay a disproportional levy, which would be redistributed to the poorer countries. This in principle would benefit the whole, as the world's populations would be on more equal footing to participate in global economic activity. However, in reality it may not work as expected, as those who pay more are economically more productive than those who receive, which makes it at bottom counterproductive. If all economies internationally were equal, supposedly what we would hope to find on a more national level, then such redistribution might prove effective to better everyone's welfare; but as these economies are largely unequal, some unproductive for political reasons (North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Somalia, Libya, etc.), or for socio-geographic reasons, then the failed states become a productivity drain on the successful states. And same as those who most support 'income redistribution' are those who are least likely to pay taxes for it, so would poorer countries lobby for it, without contributing their equal share. In the end, the world's economic system would tilt towards lower productivity as taxation drains capital from richer countries to be spent on poorer countries, making 'taxation without representation' a counterproductive system economically (though desired politically). Without capital formation, economies regress into spending more than they produce, taking on unsupportable debt, so over time the end result is everyone gets impoverished.

But this scenario is only one aspect of World Taxation, that of eliminating poverty, a paramount concern. But what of the other issues facing the world that need to be addressed internationally? There is a case to be made that some world issues cannot be handled domestically by nations, but need supranational policy administration, something like the United Nations to address them. Indeed this is the case for environmental issues as well as international defense issues. However, rather than levying a World Tax on the populations, what would be unpopular and in violation of national sovereignty, these issues should be paid for collectively by national governments rather than taxing personal and corporate incomes. The government officials elected by the people have the responsibility of addressing both national and international issues, and if there is a tax to be levied internationally, it would be paid nationally how these elected representatives deemed proper and productive. Otherwise, if raised by an international body unrepresentative of the democratically elected officials, there is too much room for mismanagement, graft and corruption, so the funds levied would be wasted or abused. Such abuse is better checked nationally, where representatives answer to the people, rather than internationally, where decisions are made bureaucratically. In fact, this alone is a serious case on why an international taxation is unproductive, and not viable, that it would fail to ameliorate conditions, and degrade them instead. A far more viable policy for raising poor countries and people out of poverty is responsible investing in their infrastructure and enterprises, education and health, so the people can raise themselves up from their unhappy state.

Finally there is the issue of taxation itself. Who is in favor of a tax? It is not the corporate bodies running businesses, as they see this tax levied against their treasury confiscatory, which inhibits their ability of future investments. It is not retired workers who had paid into a retirement fund all their working years, and now are tapping into those funds. Nor is it the working man and woman who are trying to build a life, ultimately an estate with their savings, putting children through better education, saving for their future years. So who wants to pay the necessary taxes for running government? Virtually no one (except perhaps those who would voluntarily pay) wants to pay into the nation's treasury to keep the government functioning. Taxation is a necessary coercion. This is made worse at the international level, where resistance to taxation would be even stronger than domestically. Therefore, it would require serious coercions to make individuals and corporations pay an international tax; where there is excessive coercion, there are the seeds of failure. So in effect, a World Tax scenario is unrealistic, naive and disengenuous, poorly accountable, and ultimately unworkable. If there are issues that need to be paid for internationally, then it is the domain of governments to form (acceptable to their electorates) agreements to pay for them. That is the bottom line.

IDA

Also see: A New World Confederation
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Expanded 'public health' plan
Posted on Sunday, November 27, 2016 - 12:10 pm:   

Expanded 'Public Health Facilities' as a new universal American healthcare plan?


photo.jpg

During the Franklin D. Roosevelt years of the New Deal, along with establishing the Social Security Act of 1935 (covering benefits for the unemployed, for dependent children, the blind, and for old age retirement), there was an expansion of public health facilities. Today the expansion has manifest into Medicare and Medicaid, but it only covers people over 65 years of age, or the disabled, bypassing a large portion of the working population. Why not extend these same benefits, perhaps in reduced services, as a basic lifeline safety net for the healthcare of all Americans who cannot afford private health care, such as now provided by Obama's Affordable Health Care program, by expanding 'public health facilities' universally to all, both young and old? This would per force create a competitive pressure on both medical insurance premiums (and high deductibles) as well as on the cost of medical treatments and pharmaceuticals, to operate in a more competitive market place than we have today.

Medicines and treatments, both public and private, are far less expensive in countries where there is a choice between public and private healthcare; costs of both healthcare services are a fraction of American prices for same in Europe, for example, including dentistry. So why not break the strangle hold of high medical costs in America's private health insurance and medical care markets, which now have grown to monopoly like structures insulated from market competition (in effect a protected market place with up-spiraling costs), and bring real competition back into the healthcare market by providing a basic floor of healthcare.

This could be accomplished most easily by expanding the Social Security Act to having more basic 'public health facilities' universally for all, which could be staffed by trained medical technicians, doctors and interns (on a reduced pay, public service basis), and trained volunteer staffing; these basic services can focus on wide ranging health issues, including flu season, under nutrition (common 'junk food' related) Type-2 diabetes, hypertension and depression, minor injuries and sexual diseases, and other easily treatable conditions affecting the mass population. Patients who have medical conditions graver than those easily treatable would be referred to more specialized medical treatments. The expanded public health service could be overseen by professional organizations, both private and government institutions, like the AMA and FDA, etc. This program of universal healthcare may not be of the same high end standard afforded at expensive private hospitals available to those who wish to pay 'boutique prices' for it, but it would provide at least a foundation of basic minimum healthcare services for those who could least afford it. Even if the wait time for some healthcare services may be longer (a common experience in countries with national health services), its dual public and private availability gives those needing care some flexibility as to which service they would realistically choose: either pay more for faster service in private care, or wait for lower cost care.

All this can be run efficiently at a lower cost borne by public funds redirected from private and public insurance premiums (and insurance companies' excessive profits, especially where insurance industry gets de facto Federal subsidies), to manage the basic public health operations. Cheaper basic public healthcare may not prove as sophisticated and medically advanced as private healthcare, but it would overall and overtime prove itself a pragmatic solution to delivering basic health services at minimum cost to all. As a dividend, it would also bring down competitively the cost of healthcare and medicines in all markets, both low end and high end, universally for all Americans. In fact, the money saved by insurers on not having to pay for medical issues that would have otherwise been claimed (against them) in private healthcare, these savings could be redirected towards funding the low cost alternative care in public health facilities. The Social Security programs can be expanded to accommodate the overall management of these basic healthcare services and, on a negotiated basis with the pharmaceutical companies, to better distribute essential medicines to the population at large. In essence, this basic public healthcare would be but an extension of existing public health services already provided, but now available universally.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Oligarchy, Tyranny, and Constitutional Government
Posted on Saturday, January 14, 2017 - 02:12 pm:   

Oligarchy, Tyranny, and Constitutional Government.


photo.jpg
We the Peo...

Can America become an oligarchy? It can be shown that wealthy individuals and families in recent history rose to power in government to influence American politics. Names like Rockefeller, Kennedy, come to mind, as well as J. P. Morgan, Carnegie, Vanderbilt in the past, and perhaps Donald Trump at present. These are individuals whose wealth led to influencing power in government. But can modern powerful and wealthy individuals also lead to a resurgence in oligarchy, or plutocracy, in the United States?

The historic distrust of oligarchy is that it is government by a small minority controlling large wealth to maintain their power, usually for personal benefit, and that such power leads to tyranny. An example of such self serving oligarchy is Putin's Russia, where the fall of Soviet Communism concentrated economic power in the hands of a few who control government. Their power is seen by the populace as a means of preserving Russian prestige in the world, so has popular support for those in favor. Those opposed are usually politically and economically persecuted, imprisoned, and if vocal enough are eliminated. So the basic idea of a Russian democracy is undermined by a tyrannical oligarchic structure of Russian politics. Something like it is the Ayatollahs' theocratic Iran. Play along with the powerful, and you coexist; resist and you get imprisoned, stripped of rights, or die. To an American point of view, this is simply tyranny.

The fear expressed after the last American presidential election, where a financially powerful Trump won against a progressive populist Hillary Clinton, is that America will slide into oligarchy as Trump's wealthy entourage take control of government for their benefit. But is this realistic? In the past large trusts were broken, railroad trusts, oil trusts, banking trusts, and others who benefitted from powerful government contacts, so there were put brakes in place to restrict their power. Monopoly power was broken by anti-trust laws, with the effect of encouraging greater competition. This had become precedence in American politics, that the powerful wealthy were checked in their self serving ambitions. Should the Trump camp seek similar power, they too could be forestalled from their greater control of government. His campaign rhetoric gives pause to his intentions in government. Will Trump seek to lead a nation for the benefit of general welfare of the people, or to serve his economic interests? This will be an open question in the next four years of his presidency.

There are those who, in the extreme, fear a Trump presidency could echo Hitler's rise to power. He took command of Germany's government through democratic means, but once in power he consolidated this power into a dictatorship. Could it happen here? The quick answer is this is unlikely, as we have a constitutional form of government that would, at least in principle, stop him. However, if there was enough support from the general populace, for economic reasons or national prestige, then there could be a move towards a Putin like plutocracy as seen in post Soviet Russia. The rich and powerful take control, and government falls into their hands. So the long answer is it depends. Will Trump's gang seek oligarchic powers, given a chance?

We must remember that America is a republic built on a 'rule of law' defined by our Constitution, as established by the Founding Fathers of the American Revolution. It was a constitutional government founded on principles of checks and balances to avert concentration of power in the hands of a few that would lead to tyranny. If such checks on power were in the Russian constitution, if not in the people's collective psyche, they proved ineffectual. Trump has voiced admiration for Putin, so there is potential for his tenure in office leaning towards an oligarchy. However, we as a nation have precedence of trust busting to prevent it from happening. It may be natural for the wealthy to preserve their power, but it cannot be endorsed by a people if the Republic would lose its natural sense of economic and political competition, why it is a democracy, to abrogate citizens' equality and rule of law. Both the US constitution and government's checks and balances were established to prevent such concentration of power from abrogating our natural human rights: freedom of expression, of assembly, freedom of belief, equal opportunity, and equality before the law. We have three competing branches of government, the executive, legislative, and judicial with constitutionally defined powers to check on concentration of power. So for an oligarchy to succeed in American politics, all three branches would have to come together in collusion. Is this likely? Most likely it is not.

Furthermore, we are a nation of states, so any change to our constitution, such as seen in Erdogan's Turkey, to concentrate power in the executive branch would need states' ratification. This too is unlikely. Finally, there is the voting public. Even if Trump's popularity, ala Putin, were to be endorsed by a large populace, bought off with government largess, and even if congress were behind it, the democratic voting system, including the electoral college, would be checked by Constitutional law to prevent it.

Americans have a history as a people of distrusting large government, where our political complacency is only skin deep. And though in recent decades we have seen a burgeoning Federal government, this distrust puts democratic brakes on our loss of liberty. Only if we were to lose our sense of liberty could an oligarchy form of government take hold in America. There are many grass roots organizations, including their army of lawyers, ready to resist exaggerated powers in government, why the American Republic survived as a democracy, so it becomes highly unlikely any one group can marshal sufficient power at the expense of other groups. This in the end may be America's greatest defense against the tyranny of oligarchic plutocracy, that we are by nature a freedom loving, rebellious people. We are always on watch, and when government gets too comfortable with power, we become uncomfortable with government.*

This just in: Whose Oligarchy?
The War against Trump - Is it real or imagined?

America vs. Anti-America

Full text of Trump speech to Arab leaders in Riyadh, 2017

*(If society ran on sound principles of agreements, versus coercions, and politicians knew how to write competent laws honoring those principles, there would be no need for ‘politics’. Then it would be only a matter of voting in governments and officials who understood those principles to run government smoothly and least obstructively. The problem today, as it has been since the days of empire, kings and theocratic rule, is that government tries to rule us and legislate our behaviors to suit its agendas with social engineering and morality based laws. When that happens our freedoms are debased to servitude to that rule, enforced only with coercions. That is why we avoided politics, as we had on these boards.)

Also see: Are we losing our sense of ‘liberty’?

President Trump's speech to United Nations 2017 - full Transcript
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Why US pull out of Paris
Posted on Thursday, June 01, 2017 - 12:07 pm:   

Why would US pull out of the Paris Climate Agreement?


photo.jpg

It usually not the first item listed on the Paris Climate Agreement, and usually it shows last. The issues are global temperature reduction, carbon emissions, and compliance by signatory nations to achieve the climate agreement's objective. On the surface it seems a straightforward win-win for everyone involved, and of course for global humanity. Do we really want coastal cities and island nations disappearing below the waves? Naturally not.
But the sticky point, one not discussed in any meaningful detail by the press, is that this climate deal will cost money. It will require gradual phasing out of fossil fuels to be replaced with naturally renewable, non greenhouse gas generating, alternative energy. This takes time, which we may not have for economic markets take us there, so need to push it through at a faster rate. But that takes money, to retool, to build new renewable energy infrastructure, and to monitor compliance. Who will pay for it? The capital markets? If they could see a positive return. But probably not fast enough. So this leaves government. Whose government? This is where it gets tricky, because as in any socially agreed government program for the public good, which is definitely what the Paris accord is, it is usually paid out of a common public pool of funds, e.g., taxes.

What the Vox 'moral failure' article fails to mention, regardless of what drives climate change, it is 'finance' that may be the bottleneck of this agreement (last item listed in Paris agreement).* Who will 'finance' the poorer developing countries to upscale their energy production, including cleaning up their diesel and gas engine exhaust emissions, to bring them down to compliance? They can't afford it, so the 'richer' countries have to chip in. But how much? The American position, as perhaps the wealthiest member of this Climate Agreement, would most likely be the biggest payer into the common trust. And this is where they balk.
The Obama administration is not known for being shrewd negotiators, as Iran showed. America gave Iran everything they wanted and got virtually nothing in return. It may be that Trump sees the Paris deal the same way: America got nothing out of it but some ephemeral 'good will' and a pat on the back. What compliance on the member nations are demanded? How enforced? Who gets penalized by non-compliance, and how? None of this is questioned in self righteous America's 'moral failure' articles on the Paris agreement. Why not? And who will pay for failure?

This may be why the US will fail to ratify the Paris agreement (never ratified by US Senate). If it were re-negotiated so that only partial funds are redistributed by richer countries to poor ones, with stipulation that they reach agreed upon goals; and if they fail, they pay penalties; then perhaps this agreement would be more viable. Was this arranged in the Paris deal? Hard to say, very little coverage in mass media except for temperature targets. Should not the 'finance' part be first, and not last, in press coverage?
America is afraid that in this climate deal, same as in their participation in UN activities, and other world aid activities, it will have to foot the bill, big time. Maybe it is time for the US to reconsider its role as the world's Sugar Daddy, since they can't afford it anymore. The alarming growth of Americans going homeless is one indicator that shows America can't afford it. The rest of the world can continue with their income 'redistribution' schemes to pay for their social climate agreement and other UN programs, but in this case, America will have to sit it out and go it alone. The world will not end, and the Statue of Liberty will not sink to her waist in the sea. Earth has ways to rebalance, in time, and it all works out. But a new more meaningful and financially transparent treaty would be better for all.

*(Countries agreed to:

Keep global temperatures "well below" the level of 2C (3.6F) above pre-industrial times and "endeavour to limit" them even more, to 1.5C

Limit the amount of greenhouse gases emitted by human activity to the same levels that trees, soil and oceans can absorb naturally, beginning at some point between 2050 and 2100

Review each country's contribution to cutting emissions every five years so they scale up to the challenge

Enable rich countries to help poorer nations by providing "climate finance" to adapt to climate change and switch to renewable energy) - BBC

Also see:
Clean coal technology

Thorium could power next generation of nuclear reactors - New Scientist
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Electric jet technology
Posted on Friday, December 01, 2017 - 09:25 am:   

Electric Jet technology - taking future flight to a new level.


photo.jpg
Lilium electric jet designed for noiseless, clean, and safe flights (Interactive)


quote:

At Lilium, we have invented a completely new aircraft concept for the modern age. While vertical take-off and landing (VTOL) itself is not new – after all, quadcopters, tilt rotors and tilt wings are well-known concepts – we did not want to accept the compromises inherent to these configurations.



This is a new concept in jet engines, that electric turbines suck in air and compress it, then expel it at high pressure for jet propulsion. These electric jet engines can operate either full battery or hybridized, where the batteries are recharged in flight using another onboard fuel.

quote:

A key objective for the Lilium Jet is to bring a new safety paradigm into general aviation. As we develop vertical takeoff flights for everyone, we had to develop a safety concept compatible with a consumer product: it has to be foolproof. ...




photo-3.jpg


quote:

In case all precautions won’t help and a regular landing is impossible, there is still a safety net. Every Lilium Jet is equipped with a full aircraft parachute – bringing the jet safely down to the ground if necessary...



This is a truly revolutionary paradigm shift in aviation! The future of flight is now.

Also see: Musk electric jet - Wikipedia
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan Alexander
Username: Humancafe

Registered: 12-2017
Posted on Wednesday, May 30, 2018 - 04:29 am:   

Not religion but culture.


photo.jpg

It’s in the news daily, of knife attacks, cars and trucks ramming pedestrians, honor killings and rape of Western women, abduction for ransom, sex slave grooming. Crimes committed against unsuspecting human beings by followers of Islam, nearly daily in the news, unmatched by any other religions. But is it really religion? An enlightened imam teaching how to live a compassionate and virtuous life is not the same as one preaching hate of the other, whether Jew or Christian, Hindu or Buddhist, or secular non believer. A pedophile priest is not the same as a disciple of Christ’s teachings of universal love. Neither is a holy book written more than a millenium ago the same as enlightened teachings of tolerance and compassion for others. These are elements of religion, to better humanity with a universal morality showing right from wrong, not to spread ill will and attack. But when religion and culture are commingled, they can be a tangled mess. That is why in the West we have separation of religion and state, to keep our cultural ideals in perspective. Equality of cultures is a myth. You cannot have compassion and killing at the same time. No, the answer to this horrific daily news syndrome is culture, not religion.

Islam is in the news in a most appalling light. But it is the culture of tribalism, gang culture, drug lords and their victims, killing who disagrees with them, and the culture of hate and violence that are to blame. The culture of captive and abused women, children sold into slavery, villagers attacked with machetes, torture and killings by self proclaimed cultists of caliphate, these are the real culprits in the horror. Not their religion they claim but the underlying primitivism of their cult of violence. We should watch for these signs in the news of random attacks, knifings and gun murders, not the religion but the culture. Give their cult’s claims no quarter, they lie. The truth is not religion but a bad and idiotic culture that has forsaken humanity to its primitive violence. Blame not the religion, blame the culture.

See Discussion topic


Imagine a culture which for centuries glorified warfare and conquest promising its fighters loot and captured women, where the strongest among them became their leader with the most booty and women, who then sent his troops on to conquer again, all for the glory of their god’s “religion.” Is this not the culture of war, where to use “religion” as its justum is to insult the lives of hundreds of millions killed and enslaved in their holy wars? Imagine the suffering they caused over the centuries.


Also see: Retro back to the Primitive

A Former Peace Corps Volunteer Responds to News from Afghanistan by Danusha V. Goska - Is cultural relativism helping or hurting?

GANG RELIGION OF ISLAM by Daniel Greenfield

This just in: Why America Failed to ‘Win Hearts and Minds’ in Afghanistan by Raymond Ibrahim
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan Alexander
Username: Humancafe

Registered: 12-2017
Posted on Sunday, September 23, 2018 - 07:13 am:   

Not my Enemy.


photo.jpg

It is common to think of hostiles as the ‘enemy’. Ever since homo sapiens formed into clans, and then tribes, we had been at war fighting opposing clans. This has been the reality for hundreds of thousands years, and we had not progressed much beyond such inter-tribal wars. We still kill the enemy today as we had always done, except now our tribalism has morphed into nations; and in the minds of some who kill their enemy, the tribe has morphed into a vast imperial religious movement, so killing the enemy is no longer members of an opposing clan or tribe but is anyone not belonging to their mega-imperial religiously defined clan. Is this not an atavistic regression back to the earliest primitive inter-tribal warfare? It appears humanity has not progressed.

If some cultures have progressed beyond tribalism, though not all have, and we believe in human equality in principle, should we not also have progressed to accepting the sanctity of each human life? If this is what defines our present civilization, then we need to embrace a new way to understand our human being, where our natural freedoms are part of our global consciousness. Each one of us has a right to being Who we are, and how we manifest our reality. So ‘killing the enemy’ should already be a strange and outdated philosophy for us, something more suited to our primitive barbaric past than acceptable today. But this not so, and so we kill.

It should be that simple, as the Ten Commandments remind us, “thou shalt not kill.” But it is not always so, because there are times when killing is necessary. To protect the lives of loved ones, and oneself, there are times we need to kill. Predatory animals threatening life are killed, same as human predators. When impossible to avert by other means, to frighten away or capture and relocate, for example, the life of a predator is taken. In the human realm, since we are endowed with intelligence, averting confrontation through dialogue is always favored over violence. But there are times when all efforts to avert violence are exhausted, the situation has no other solution, then killing the other is the only option. If the predator does not understand the aggression committed, or is unmoved by reason, or had deceived us into entrapment so we are forced to free ourselves with violence, then we are in a condition not of our doing, and thus are forced into violence. This is not to engage the other in anger, nor to be hostile of the other, but to diffuse predation, both animal and human, to safeguard ourselves and others from their error. We do this impassively, without hostility, to stop the aggression, and do not see the other as the ‘enemy’, but rather as an erroneous condition of aggression, both of physical and existential coercions. Labeling the aggressor as the ‘enemy’ only confuses the situation at hand, so it is a redundant label for what is clearly a state of aggression. And in that case, the Commandment to not kill is nullified. Killing when posed with an unredeemable aggression must result. If that is the only option, the predator must be stopped, with death if necessary.

This is a regrettable condition to find oneself in, and it should be avoided with awareness whenever we can; avoid any possible conflict; but if the innocent are to be protected, extreme force is justified. Likewise our police actions, and military actions where killing is necessary, it is not the ‘enemy’ one kills but the errant predator who must be stopped. It is far better to understand this in the framework of a social imperative, that predators cannot be free to terrorize us and do harm. If the social contract calls for execution of extreme criminals, they are not the enemy but deviant and irredeemable predators in society. If all other possible efforts of redemption fail, killing is then the last resort. People who attack and murder with any weapon, rapists and pedophile predators, as are extra-territorial aggressors who attack us and who cannot be rehabilitated, are subject to judicial killing. The universe does not judge, and it is in our hands to safeguard society and its members from aggression. They are not the ‘enemy’ anymore than a hostile animal is the enemy. But they must be stopped if we are to honor the sanctity of each human life.

IDA
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan Alexander
Username: Humancafe

Registered: 12-2017
Posted on Monday, June 07, 2021 - 03:38 pm:   

Inventory of the ‘oppressors’ and the ‘oppressed’.


photo.gif

Is the oppressor-oppressed construct real? Or is it merely a label, no more real than the human construct of ”race”?*

The common denominator of the oppressor-oppressed paradigm is that one feels oppressed by the other. Some common, or historical, examples are:
1. Under Marxist theory, the bourgeoisie or aristocracy, the capitalist class, oppress the common workers and peasant classes.
2. In race theory, White supremacist racism oppresses people of color.
3. Under labor theory, the managerial class oppresses their workers.
4. In liberal government theory, big government oppresses the people by taking away their individual rights.
5. In post-modern family theory, the two parent, male and female, mother and father, oppress alternative family gender structures. Etc.


Are these not the common parlance of ‘oppression’ heard today, that some groups feel oppressed by another group and vent their grievances? The natural result is one where those who perceive themselves ‘oppressed’ identify themselves with a ‘victim’ class, and act out upon their self perceived image as the oppressed.

But if we examine this more deeply than merely labeling one the ‘oppressor’ and the other ‘oppressed’ a different image appears. At bottom, these are political labels that we then either identify with, or at least recognize as reality for others, or not. But labels are merely labels that may not fully define the conditions of such labeling describe. For example, if the peasants and workers of 19th century Europe, or 20th century China and Africa, were to asses their oppressed conditions after their political, Marxist revolutions, would they still feel oppressed? Were they now not liberated of such oppressions by the ruling classes? In part, of course. But the grim reality is that now they are oppressed by a new political class that pressures them to obey the new diktats, which may give the formerly oppressed class new powers over their former oppressors. In effect, now it is the bourgeoisie and aristocrats who find themselves oppressed by their new masters, the power of the people’s republic dictating to them, and stripping them of their power and wealth. So who is the ‘oppressor’ and who the ‘oppressed’?
It is the same in critical race theory, where the people of color, largely of African descent, have felt themselves oppressed by systemic racism for centuries. But when they turn on their White neighbors in riot and looting, burning down their places of business and homes, who is the ‘oppressor’ and who the ‘oppressed’? Do those old labels still hold? Are the Palestinians caught in a vice of Israeli control oppressed by the failure of a “two state solution”? Are the Israelis oppressed by Palestinian bombings and rockets launched at their populations? Could either side adopt the label of oppressor or oppressed?

We use labels because they are expedient, but they may not be factually relevant. In all such labels, the argument can go either way, because they are just ‘labels’. Such labels can be instrumental to arouse passions, slogans sending people off to war, but they are only labels underscoring a real grievance felt, what arouses one’s passions, and not the coercions that each person had experienced subjectively, wronged in their heart. As to who are oppressed or oppressors is relative, reference frame dependent on one’s point of view, but not all reference frames are equivalent. The reality of their hurt is that they had been coerced unjustly, and this is the real grievance felt, not the labels assigned to them. All of us can be oppressors and oppressed at the same time, it is a human condition we feel in ourselves. And to give it a superficial, politicized label, is to belittle the underlying cause of our grief, not the solution. The real condition of oppression is when one is coerced or attacked, because then they are the truly oppressed. This the reality, that we are all oppressors and oppressed if confronted with such coercions, and with violence. The true victims of oppression are those who are forced out of their agreement of being in themselves, their Who they are. Then in the greater scheme of things, whether or not politicized with labels, we who are wronged are torn from our center of existence, and for this we suffer. The labels are confusing and spurious, and only add to the suffering until the coercions end.

*(‘Race’ is a pseudoscientific label based on physical characteristics such as skin color, face and body morphology, sociological and cultural characteristics. In fact all humans today are of the same subspecies, Homo sapiens.)

Also see: Universal Conflict vs Agreement

Reverse racism

Levin talks rise of ‘American Marxism’
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan Alexander
Username: Humancafe

Registered: 12-2017
Posted on Sunday, November 14, 2021 - 12:40 pm:   

“The Children of Shiny Mountain”

Novel by David Dvorkin (1977)

photo.jpg

This simple sci-fi yarn comes with high expectations, but the intriguing story weakens on some levels where the developments of the story leaves a reader thinking incredulously, “oh, come on”, at the rushed evolution of it all…. Stone age culture gains futuristic, with the help of technology found inside Shiny Mountain, space traveling technology in a couple of years? Even for science fiction, it defied credibility.
The love story developments were pleasing, but the sex not overly engaging. Overall, the story of a future space faring, ex-pat culture from ancient Earth encountering their present ancestors, who had reverted back to the Stone Age on home planet, was interesting but perhaps too ambitious for its effort.

That said, there was one paragraph in the Epilogue that was interesting, in that the message was carried into the future by the now once again evolved Earth denizens:


quote:

“You have heard of these messengers. The nature of their mission and their dedication insure against that. They are a quiet, rather elitist group, and they recruit very carefully and very subtly. They have never tried to publicize themselves or to make anyone respect them. To them, it is their message that counts, a message in which they all believe deeply and passionately. They have been extraordinarily successful, beyond my own hopes for them…”



Perhaps this is the image the author had in mind while writing this book. Like a cosmic graffiti, the whole story is a metaphor of the message carried by these new Earth people: that though rapid technological evolution may be revolutionary, it is the slow maturation of culture and mind that evolves into a common consciousness of the greater Cosmic message. A good message.

IDA
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan Alexander
Username: Humancafe

Registered: 12-2017
Posted on Monday, February 07, 2022 - 01:13 pm:   

REPRINT: This post, ‘when coercion is necessity’, is a reprint of archived (vault) entries that are permanently closed. The issues of coercion vs. agreement were discussed on:

http://www.humancafe.com/discus/messages/70/144.html

In today’s world we are posed with the same questions: when is coercion a necessity? But in retrospect it may be more apropos to ask: which societies founded on principles of agreement, constitutional rule of law, versus societies based on foundations of coercion, are more humane and successful for their members? Is it the North Koreas or Cubas, the Irans, Soviet Russias and Chinas, demanding obedience that have shone with valor and success? Or is it those who protected us from coercions with our liberties, the American United States, the Australias, Canadas, and European westernized nations with a legacy of human rights? These are questions of the 21st century: Who will design our future world, Coercions or Agreements?

By Ivan A. on Saturday, June 26, 2004 - 12:14 am:
When is Coercion a Necessity? (as posted on the Examined Life Discussion Forums: Philosophy Discussion June 25, 2004). We all experienced being coerced at some point in our lives, whether spanked or made to feel uncomfortable before some authority, like our boss. From our internal perspective, this coercion is the result of being forced to do something against our will, or an embarrassment, or offensive to us. In our minds, we find coercive anything that is done to us with which we do not agree at some level. Mostly, being coerced is an unpleasant or painful experience, which most of us will seek to avoid.
……
Humanity has always know coercions, whether from conquest, slavery, or from a lord oppressing his subjects, or from banditry, or social and religious taboos, or parents abusing their children, husbands their wives, etc. Coercion seems to run our affairs almost exclusively, with only an occasional glimmer of freedom for some of us. What made the Anglo-American experiment different from most other nations is that we institutionalized the right to be free from coercions, which are our basic human rights, our presumed innocence until proven guilty. We pride ourselves as a free nation in support of liberty. Yet, in the list above can be seen we are subject to many coercions anyway. So, is Coercion the way of the world, that we cannot live without it? Or is it perhaps a condition that only re-enforces itself: to be coercive is to be powerful, and the powerful coerce, and those who do not coerce are its victims? Can a person be powerful without coercing? Is there a right way to be, virtuous or legally correct, to live with dignity without being coerced, or having to coerce?

The philosophical question I wish to explore is thus: Is it possible to have a social, legal, authoritarian, and personally satisfying form of human interaction where it is by agreement, without coercion, or is coercion a philosophical necessity? A secondary question then comes of necessity: Can society exist without coercions, where everyone interacts only by agreements, where the responsibility of agreement is their individual choice?

I think this is a very difficult question, one that perhaps was wrestled with by the founders of our American nation, or the thinkers of the Enlightenment, and before. Is there an answer to this paradox, that we wish to be free, want to be a nation of liberty, but at the same time find it necessary to coerce? What did Locke or Hobbes think of it? What would Jefferson make of our present democracy, or Emerson or Thoreau? I have my answer, in my own head, but I do not know what other think of this. Thus, I post it here.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan Alexander
Username: Humancafe

Registered: 12-2017
Posted on Tuesday, February 08, 2022 - 01:00 pm:   

REPRINT: ONE, UNITY, INFINITY

By Al'Iskander on Saturday, November 18, 2000

http://www.humancafe.com/discus/messages/1/24.html?SaturdayDecember1120040828pm

HABEAS MENTEM INVERSUM: On the right to being who we are.
A short treatise.


One. Unity. Infinity. The greatest number, the least number. A single digit that represents the beginning, and the end, which calls for a totality where all is understood within itself. This is the formula of all philosophy, to formulate the greatest dimensions in terms of relations that offer the least resistance. It is to bring simplicity to chaos, order where there is a multitude of disorder. When this is done, the world we live in, the universe that so totally envelopes us, begins to make sense. Each one of us is the single digit at the center of an infinity, a mind and being and body, who seeks to find meaning in terms of ourselves. This understanding, this search for our identity is a fight for life. We search for who we are, and when we find it, it is as if we can breathe again. It is great.

I am. That is the beginning of any search. But like a storm tossed ship lost in a deleterious fog, I am is battered constantly by forces we can hardly understand, much less dominate. Our known history is a continuous string of violence and abuses we survived with intermittent moments of calm and creative successes that have laboriously elevated our civilization to heights never dreamed of by our ancestors. Witness the cellular phone, or the ability to travel to all parts of the globe in a matter of hours. Think of space, and how we will soon launch ourselves into the planets of our solar system from the space station we as a world had just begun building. How do we reconcile war with space travel? They seem an oxymoron. We cannot face the intricate and immense demands of cooperation and technical perfection if launched from a world of distrust, violence, and outright intolerance of our fellow human beings. To achieve greatness, we need peace. And peace cannot come to us without an understanding of ourselves, each other, and respect for all the inherent differences of each human being on this planet. Like the strands of DNA that twist together, we must learn to respect each other even if we cannot understand each other. From the blistering dysfunctions of our social worlds on Earth, we must come to that resting place on the periphery from which we can step forth into a new future, one that is rich in all the beauty and promise which I believe is our common goal. I am is what can do it.

We are held together as a planet by a worldwide organization. We have a network of power, military, governmental, bureaucratic, organizational, a near infinity of laws, commercial exchange, and religious beliefs. These define for us the limits of our behavior, our public and private conduct, how we are allowed to be in society and the world. Power defines for us our boundaries, and thus also define for us, in allowing us what we may or may not do, who we may or may not be. It is a complex and cumbersome system within which we have adapted and learned to live with, power balanced against power at all levels of command, which demands our full obedience. But the inverse is also true. We have, each one of us, within ourselves an already predefined structure of power to which we are only now awakening. We are subjects of another chain of command, one that is balanced in terms of what we may or may not do. It is called reality, our being, our universe. We live within the embodiment of an organizational structure which has allowed us to manifest within it a body, a life, and a conscious mind. This other power is as close to us as the air we breath, the oxygen that flows through our blood. And now it is a power we can become aware of. In our mind, we can now become aware of it as intimately as our need for food, or water, or sex. It is a universal force buried in us at the most microscopic level, while simultaneously converging on us from the most macroscopic dimensions. We live and breath and are within a universe that lives with us, and within which in the end we must die. This power is in effect far greater than any Earthly man made power. And to this power, with a conscious mind, we now turn our attention, and awaken.

In fact, we are little aware of this greater organization, and thus live in a state of universal confusion which keeps us tied to a lesser world. By contrast, some things have become so innate to us that we have ceased to marvel at them. We all have the power of language. Every human being throughout the planet can smile, or laugh. We think nothing of our ability to use tools, or even to read and write, or to think. Yet, how wonderful these are. Then why is it so difficult to trust, to agree, to cooperate, and to not live in fear? Why do we not trust in our being to carry us through life, to deliver us from hardships, to hear our prayers in times of need? We survive, we live, we procreate, we create beautiful things. Surely these do not come from a vacuum. Yet we struggle with our ability to believe, and turn away from our natural mysticism in the name of science. Or is this too part of the plan, to keep us grounded to a lesser world? But our vision can now rise to a higher level. Imagine if we suddenly were confronted with beings from a civilization far advanced from ours. Would they respect our world order organization, or would they respect us first as individual human beings? Would they worship our military might and cower before it? Or would they worship the man and woman who could speak the truth, and keep to his or her word? Really, which is more powerful? But to us this is a strange question, because we can easily see the power of force, having been forced to obey and abused all through history, and prehistory. This is all we know. If we failed to obey, we were punished, forced into slavery, or killed. Coercion is the essence of life we had always known. But now rise, and think of life not through coercion but through agreement, where each one of us is respected, and in turn it is now demanded of us that we respect the other. How strange, and yet how wonderful, how powerful. Speak the truth and respect your fellow beings, and you are powerful in ways only the universe can make you powerful. This is Habeas Mentem.

I am is the essence of our being. We know this in our hearts, each and every one of us knows this. Now, dare to say no. Resist coercion. You are more than subjects to a master, to anyone who would force you from being who you are. Be true. Your universe has made you powerful by giving you a conscious mind that can choose this. Choose to be true to who you are. Of the multitudes of laws that force you into submission, there is only one that is really true to who you are: Do not coerce another. This is the law that stands behind all laws. Do not lie, do not cheat, do not steal, do not confuse reality. And if you err in this, then make amends, be humble, tolerant, and accept that none of us are perfect. We do not define ourselves in competition with each other, but rather through how we can work together in a spirit of agreement and goodwill. Learn to forgive. We need this for the right to be who we are. Then we have something much bigger working with us, though we are but dimly aware of it. Believe, and you will find a universe that works with you. Dream of a better world, and it will happen. Same as we no longer cower before our ancient gods, we need not cower before those forces that have kept us in ignorance through all time. Who in truth cowers today before Amen-Ra of ancient Egypt? Those gods are forgotten as ancient superstitions. Now we can drop the superstitions of modern times. We do not need to kill one another. We do not need war. We do not need to hate one another, nor distrust because someone is different in appearance, thinks differently, or does not agree with us. Let them be who they are. There is only one rule that they must obey, as we, and that is to let you be who you are, and respect you as a human being. You are a very great being and, in I am, you are the most wonderful thing that life, the universe, has created thus far. We do not know of other worlds, and perhaps life has manifested beings far greater than us. But that does not negate the rule. Be true. This we all must obey.

The universe is true with itself. It cannot work otherwise. All the laws of physics, all the forces of our physical reality, are intricately interrelated to give us the manifested reality we perceive as existence. Everything works together constantly at every moment of time. Push on any part of existence, and all the rest of it responds. There is margin for error, and existence does not collapse because we are unconscious of our actions. But pushed hard enough, it does begin to fail. Think of the abuses we have heaped on our planet, and how life is being extinguished throughout the globe in a chain reaction of extinction. We can destroy ourselves, and all living things with us. And yet, this is the beauty of our world, that we are so intricately tied into existence that we must obey. Our minds already know this, though we still cannot feel this in our soul. It has not yet entered into the I am of our awareness. We still do not know at that deeper level that all things are totally tied to each other, completely. There is no gap between what we do, and what the universe does with us, or to us. Though we know it at the level of reason, this knowledge has not yet entered into the intimacy of our being: I am as I do. Now we must enter it at a deeper level, where all of being is tied together as one. We are an intricate piece of our existence, and because we have the power to change this existence, with it comes the responsibility to be conscious of it. The universe works totally with existence, and so must we. Each one of us is as intimately interrelated into the existence of who we are as the universe is intimately interrelated to itself. This is an infinite force which is true to itself, and so must we be. It cannot be otherwise, though we scarcely know it. This is the awareness we must reach for, and to know it in I am is to earn the right to be who we are.

Why is this so? Where is the proof? It is because we have a mind. But it can work only if we are conscious of it. An unconscious mind is like a ship without a rudder. It strays, it believes, and then forgets, goes forwards in its evolution, and then regresses back into confusion. We are beings who help the universe know itself through us. But if we become confused, then this knowledge is of little value. The universe from which we spring is true to itself, and so must we be to ourselves. If we wander in our consciousness and fail in this, then we fail in the knowledge we communicate back into our reality. Reality falters around us, and our existence manifests our confusion. So we must have a mind, and then grasp that mind to keep it from running away from itself, from who we are, and from the order that is our existence. Through the evolution of our being, we had been connected to the totality of the interrelationship of all the forces of existence for a very long time. This connection has given us the time to evolve a mind that can approximate the mind of the existence around us. Even without our awareness, we had been interacting with reality for a very long time, since first life. Now this interaction has given us the power to look back upon itself, and wonder. We have a mind. We can think, we can feel, we can believe, we can love. Truly it is a wonderful gift. But what is the good of this gift if we squander it on trivial pursuits, on personal gain at the expense of being true to ourselves, and undo who we are? Where is the gain, then? If our world crashes around us as we pursue it unconsciously, then what is the good? Again, if we are presented with an opportunity to travel into the cosmos and encounter more advanced beings, who do we wish to present to them? If we are to command respect in the community of higher civilizations, to be arbiters and arbitered in a higher world, then we need the foundation on which we can stand and be recognized. Only as free and conscious human beings can this happen. To be taken seriously, we must become serious ourselves. We must show a conscious mind.

I believe there is a community, a unity of worlds, to which we had not been invited, yet. It is not so much our technical lack, as it is our lack as an advanced species. We can think, we can reason and grasp order from disorder. We can see a universe that stretches beyond our mind's comprehension, and call it infinity, or God, and understand its components down to the sub atomic level. We can reason how three elements can interrelate themselves into an infinity. And we can take that infinity to redefine itself within itself, and call it life. We can define the identity of our being, the who of our existence, in terms of space and time. We can take all of our understanding and interrelate it into One. We are now on the threshold of becoming conscious human beings. But just as we are about to step into a new reality, we keep breaking down. It is not yet germane for us to believe what we know. We forget, and then struggle to remember. We are not perfect, and so may be forgiven, but not forgotten. It is a painful step in our species' evolution, to falter, unless we catch ourselves in those first steps we had taken to being called human beings. Our world is almost there, and it is exciting to watch our progress. But it would be regrettable if those who forget succeed in convincing all the rest that it is better to not remember. Habeas Mentem was written for this, to remember. And when we do, we will walk erect and proudly with a unity this world had never yet seen. It will be then that the community of the universe will know us as Earth, or Terra or Gaia, home to the new human beings, who are welcome into the unity of worlds.

In the end, we need to love ourselves, so that we can love those around us, and let them love us. In truth, this is the beginning.


HABEAS MENTEM

Also see: Can an idea know itself?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan Alexander
Username: Humancafe

Registered: 12-2017
Posted on Wednesday, March 16, 2022 - 02:31 pm:   

REPRINT: War or not war? (March 7, 2003)

In a time when an autocratic dictator, Russia’s Vladimir Putin, invades to force into submission a free democratic nation, Ukraine, it is timely to review what had been written nearly twenty years ago on war. - Ivan

http://www.humancafe.com/discus/messages/1/95.html?SaturdayDecember1120040830pm

By Anonymous on Friday, March 7, 2003 - 05:14 pm:

When is WAR not "war"? 

It can be said without exaggeration that every society must rid itself of its predators. Whether it is a farm village in India or Africa attacked by tigers and lions, or major cities where people are attacked by gangs or criminals, society must address this predation. For this to work, however, there must be an awareness that in place of power and predation exists a rule of law, so that rulers are representative of social interests as opposed to being merely masters who must obeyed. So representative governments have gradually replaced kings, and in the more advanced societies they have also replaced petty dictatorships. This has become a mark of our success, that we live in a socially successful human environment that prospers under the rule of law which ensures certain freedoms and inalienable human rights. On the other end of the spectrum exist social systems where such freedoms are lacking, and where the people who live under such oppressive rule languish in poverty and fear. 

This the world is now faced with, often on many fronts, such as North Korea, certain African states such as Zimbabwe and the Congo, and other states quickly sliding into regressive governments, such as Liberia, or characterized by an anarchy of competing war lords, such as Somalia. Of these repressive regimes were also Afghanistan under Al-Qaeda, and most evidently in the present, Iraq. As the world struggles with rules of legitimacy, there are some nations, and perhaps some social cultures, that are either mired or backsliding towards repressive regimes and modes of government. Again, these regimes are most often characterized by grinding poverty and repression, often controlling its population through a clever tactic of fear, in particular fear of a foreign enemy, or fear of their internal security forces. But when such regimes gain sufficient power to be able to export their fear and repression outside their borders, in particular if they possess the power to wreak great havoc on societies where the rule of law has dominated over repression, then such regimes must now be identified as predators. It is unfortunate for their peoples that of these repressive regimes there are many, but fortunate for the rest of the civilized world that they are largely powerless. When one of these regimes rises in military might, however, so that they can attack a neighboring country, or through its agents of terror attack deep into the heart of other nations, as happened on 9/11, then we have a problem with a predator. Such a predator behavior has been identified most currently in the nation of Iraq and its leader Saddam Hussein, and his Baathist Party. The result most often is that the other nations rally together to defend themselves against a predatory nation, one that acts outside the rule of law for its citizens, so that domestically they live in fear, a fear which must not be exported to others. Alas, this is also to be understood that we are then faced with a state of war. 

War is never to be seen as being of popular appeal, for there is no glory in dying. But nor should it be avoided if it is for the purpose of controlling a predator to society. In the same vein, it might be more accurate to not call it "war", but rather give it a name that better defines what it is that needs to be done: predator control, or the arrest of criminal activities, or the dismantling of a socially oppressive regime. These labels fit more accurately what it is the US and Britain and their allies have set out to do in Iraq. In a war, it is in the interest of one party to fight another for the purpose of gain, whether it be territory, or wealth, or enslavement of its population. The parties who are allied against Iraq's present regime are not seeking such gains, though they had been accused of hungering for Iraqi oil. In fact, it would be more economically advantageous to deal with Iraq as an equal nation so that they could sell their oil into the world markets, if that is their wish, rather than taking it by force by enslaving the population to do so. It is too costly to do the latter, as all the late imperial powers discovered, and more advantageous to trade for goods than to take them by force. Then, it is also a matter of rule of law, so that a predatory regime is replaced with a government where human rights are respected and the nation's population can live within rules that guarantee their freedoms and dignity as human beings, so they no longer live in fear. This is the large task ahead of the US-British led coalition, which is meeting with a stiff resistance from nations and peoples, all well intentioned, who do not appreciate the need to control predatory behavior. The difference between Iraq attacking a nation versus the coalition attacking Iraq is that one is a predator, which does not respect human rights and has the power to spread destruction outside its borders; whereas the other is a coalition of nations under the rule of law, who ensure the dignity and human rights of its peoples. The two are not the same, nor are their actions, though some would claim they are. Same as it is in the nature of rule of law to call on a third party to resolve disputes, to render judgements, so has it been the efforts of the coalitions to seek such third party judgement from the United Nations. However, the fact that the participants in this judgement had rendered themselves incapable of opposing a predator nation calls into question their effectiveness as a third party body, same as it calls into question whether or not theirs is a clear understanding of the nature of the threat. Because of possible conflicts of interests, such as lucrative contracts with the predatory nation, there has been hesitancy to exercise a clear mandate against the offending regime. But a predator does not respect weakness, rather is fed by it so that it becomes emboldened. And if this is so, then the weak position of the present United Nations body merely encourages the scepter of war, not by the coalition against Iraq, but by all predatory nations against the world. The United States and their allies acted decisively in Afghanistan, and social change has already occurred there, though this will not be an easy task to change the life habits of a people who had fought amongst themselves for centuries. It is a start, and rule of law will gradually assert itself there. However, this rule of law has no chance of coming into fruition in Iraq, such as it now stands. 

So this is not "war" against Iraq that is called upon, that which now faces the decision to be made in the United Nations, but rather the removal or control of a predator. Let us pray that the leaders and delegates of the undecided nations can come together for this ugly and unpleasant task, of removing Iraq's oppressive regime and incapacitating its ability of exporting fear and destruction on the world community. And in the process, let us pray that the people of Iraq, when this mission is done, will breathe the free air of a nation once again ruled by law, so they too can become part of the world community where this is so. 

A WorldCitizen.

Also see: Putin’s war on Ukraine?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan Alexander
Username: Humancafe

Registered: 12-2017
Posted on Thursday, March 31, 2022 - 01:13 pm:   

SIX WEEKS OF PUTIN’s WAR IN UKRAINE: THE MOVIE.

Putin’s vindictive war grinds on, cities devastated by artillery and missiles, thousands of citizens killed or wounded, hospitals, schools, apartment buildings and villages bombed; but the country still stands. Kyiv is not taken, Russia’s military deadlocked, repositioning troops east or resupplied, their command in disarray, soldiers refusing to fight. This is a bad movie of Putin’s claims to ‘de-Nazify’ Ukraine, a film noir with horrors… (film spoiler)… Nazis they were none. Nor were his claimed ‘genocide’ of Russians in Ukraine, all lies. Putin’s invert world sees truth as weakness, with lies as strength, where the ’given word’ has no traction.

photo
Putin’s alt ego

Ukraine will continue a free country, democratic and European, and Putin’s claims it is all his are pathetic ravings of a failed dictator out to crush a free people. Millions of war refugees taken in by neighboring countries, families spilt by war, civilian volunteers bravely fighting alongside their military, tremendous support with weapons and humanitarian aid from the world, sanctions crippling Russias ability to function. The great Russian people, who gave us world class literature, music, opera, ballet, intellect and science, are being beaten into a Stalinist regression. This reputed steely grey-eyed chess player is failing on a world stage. What will Putin’s poisonous legacy leave his people? It is turning daily into a grim bad movie staged by Hitler, but played out by a small failing man. How will it end?


Aleksandr Dugin is the political theoretician whose Ruscism (aka Rashism) validates Putin’s war on Ukraine. This is a battle between an ideology of existential coercion dictating our existence versus democratic principles of our freedoms, between Ruscism and Western ideals of representative constitutional government protecting our human rights. Ukraine by default has become the bitter testing ground for which ideology will win. Slava Ukraini!

Also see: Putin is making the same mistakes that doomed Hitler

‘Yes, He Would’: Fiona Hill on Putin and Nukes - Politico (2/28/2022)

The horrors of war: 'Kill them all, for f**k sake': Shocking intercepted audio reveals conversation between Russian soldiers - CNN video

EXPLAINER: What to expect from the Battle of Donbas, Russia’s new offensive - Kyiv Independent (April 21, 2022)

Putin may soon officially declare war on Ukraine, US and Western officials say - CNN (May 2, 2022)
Having massive losses of men and equipment in his “special military operation” in Ukraine, killing thousands of civilians and destroying $Billions of infrastructure and homes, Putin may now declare his war on Ukraine a ‘victory’ while declaring “war on Ukraine”*? He failed to make Ukrainians submit to his invasion, so now turns to desperate measures. Russia will regress back to the Dark Ages if he persists with this madness. Then the Russian empire will be broken up into European Russia, the Far East, and Siberia, losing the Caucasus, much like the Ottoman empire ended.

*(Can the UN Security Council use its ‘veto’ power to stop Russia from attacking another UN member?)

This just in:
Leading experts accuse Russia of inciting genocide in Ukraine and intending to 'destroy' Ukrainian people - CNN

Russia's Vladimir Putin will hold a signing ceremony on Friday (29 Sept. 2022) -BBC

We all know what happened with Hitler’s land grab in the Saar, Austria and Sudetenland, then Poland. This Ukrainian land grab by Putin, with same false propaganda and mock plebiscite will have same deleterious results. Putin is no Hitler, nor his military of high standard, so this will end badly for him, as is deserved for all his war crimes and murder. Russia’s appeasement will not happen this time because of all the nations’ support and aid for Ukraine (unlike when Czechoslovakia stood alone). History will not repeat, despite Putin’s slavish following Hitler’s playbook.

Russian Nobel Peace laureate slams Putin's 'insane and criminal war' on Ukraine - CNN (10 December 2022)

quote:

Rachinsky, from Russia's human rights organization Memorial, claimed resistance to Russia is known as "fascism" under Putin, adding this has become "the ideological justification for the insane and criminal war of aggression against Ukraine."




[Serious question: If Hitler had the atom bomb at the end, would he have used it?… Would Putin?]

Did Russia Suffer a Strategic Defeat? Global Concerns and Security Outlook - Twitter, now X, Dec. 31, 2023
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan Alexander
Username: Humancafe

Registered: 12-2017
Posted on Saturday, May 14, 2022 - 02:04 am:   

What is Putin truly afraid of?


photo.jpg

Why did Vladimir Putin attack Ukraine? It was because he was seriously afraid, afraid of a bordering free and democratic nation of citizens who also speak Russian. Think how threatening this must have been for him. A native speaking population that has leaned West, towards democratic values, towards self rule and laws to guarantee people’s freedoms, and away from the all reaching power of a dictatorship dedicated to regulating the lives of its people. What if this idea were to infect the Russian people, as it had influenced Ukrainians, with a new national awareness of themselves as a free people?

In the Time article (2017), ”What Does Vladimir Putin Fear? His Own People”, it says:


quote:

“Ukraine surged again in ’14, so Putin—concerned that the Ukrainians’ embrace of freedom and independence might spread to the Russian people—took military action. He occupied Crimea, and soon thereafter moved into southeast Ukraine, which still smolders.”



This may be a quick thumb sketch of what actually drove Putin to brutally attack Ukraine; he is afraid of his own people. If Ukraine represents a rapprochement with the West, Europe and America, and their democratic ideals of freedom and human rights, then this shift away from Russia still anchored in its Medieval past is dangerous to him. Freedom is dangerous to any megalomaniac dictator, but it is especially dangerous to Putin for coming from a closely related people who, more or less, share a common history and language. This is dangerous as this Ukrainian love of freedom could now spill over to Russia. If so, it would be dragged out of its ancient 15th century anchorage, both religious and cultural, into the modern 21st century ideology. This was unacceptable to Putin, he feared popular revolt at home, so he felt he had to invade Ukraine.

Ukrainians’ love of freedom and their homeland is a separate people from Russia, a separate mentality from Russian and Putin’s Medievalism, and in fact they are a separate culture and history, including a separate language. So Putin’s fear is unfounded, they are two peoples. But where his fear is well founded is in the bloodshed, the deaths and rapes, the tortures and executions of innocent Ukrainian civilians, that will haunt him throughout history as a failed dictator who murdered thousands for his own atavistic fears. The whole world had turned against his war.

Putin was afraid of his own people, like China, that they might embrace freedom, and for this he had to attack a people who in fact had embraced freedom. But Ukrainians are not afraid of freedom, instead they are willing to fight and die for it. This is where Putin failed in his war calculations, that a people would be so ready for freedom they would die for it. It is the classic miscalculations of oppressive dictators and tyrants going back to Persia’s Xerxes. And it was proven how powerful by the Spartan “300” who fought his army against overwhelming odds, and Persia lost. Putin’s ill advised war against the free people of Ukraine will come to the same end. The world has turned against Putin’s Russia. He is destined to lose this war.

Ivan

Also see: Tracking the main idea

Reality Check: Russia's 'fire hose of falsehood' propaganda - CNN

When image is more important than substance
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan Alexander
Username: Humancafe

Registered: 12-2017
Posted on Friday, June 03, 2022 - 12:35 pm:   

FINAL CONCLUSION, 100 DAYS: PUTIN DID NOT WIN ON UKRAINE.

It will come to this. The whole world turned against Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, with severe sanctions against Russia, and humanitarian and logistical and weapons support for Ukraine. Such invasions are no longer done in the 21st century, brutal imperial maneuvers of past centuries having been left behind. Putin’s Soviet styled military ambitions had no place in our modern world. As President Zelensky said, the world cannot be ruled by brute force. Even with all the lies and propaganda, Putin could not overrule the truth.

Ukraine’s love of independence and human freedoms, the right to one’s own destiny in agreement with others without coercions, proved too strong for Russia’s military. They remain free.

photo.jpg
Ukrainian soldier under Azovstal steel plant in Mariupol

Putin lost, his conscripted troops could not fight, command was in disarray, many senior Russian officers killed; generals turned against his war on an innocent population, dead soldiers left behind, top diplomats resigned. Though up against a large and powerful enemy, Western firepower proved successful in the hands of capable, valiant Ukrainian fighters. The price of war had been thousands of killed and injured civilians, or raped, including women, children, and elderly in a barbaric destruction of civilian infrastructure, schools, hospitals, homes and villages, apartment blocks shelled, civilians shot at random, all war crimes; as well municipal services, roads and bridges, agricultural lands destroyed or mined, with severe environmental damage. What meaningful peace negotiations can be agreed upon under such deleterious conditions? These are Vladimir Putin’s legacy, the sheer cruelty, and the world was sickened by it. As the world’s food supply, much of it to the poorest countries fed by grain from Ukraine, was disrupted by Russian blockade of key ports, the United Nations food program become severely impacted, so the world watched in horror at Russia’s new Holodomor of the world’s poor. War criminals must be brought to justice.

The great task ahead will be the reconstruction and rehabilitation of Ukraine. Millions of Ukrainians displaced, psychologically traumatized. But with Russia broken financially by Putin’s ill advised war (Russia’s GDP was smaller than New York state’s) there will not be much left, beyond oligarchs’ frozen assets, to pay for war reparations. Investments will have to come from the West to rebuilt a new free Ukraine into a modern, educated, and technologically sophisticated European nation.

Ukraine is fighting for Western civilization. The Kyiv Independent said it well (24 May, 2022): The Kyiv Independent’s response to the New York Times editorial board, when they said:

quote:

Ukraine is fighting this war on behalf of the free world – to make sure it remains free. The free world must at least try to match the Ukrainians’ bravery.


Unlike President Volodymyr Zelensky who is a leader of the 21st century, Vladimir Putin is a crude Medieval man, more akin to a czar of the late Middle Ages, a Machiavellian ‘dodge’ who broached no dissent and who felt he could attack another nation at will. But this is not the Middle Ages where nations and kingdoms lived in relative isolation; this is a century of interconnectedness, of instant communications and jet travel, of a philosophical understanding of the value and power of freedom. Putin had to learn this lesson yet, that universal freedom is a far more powerful force in human development than the regressive authoritarianism of one man who would think himself czar. This is the mark of modern civilization, that in our freedoms we are strong, and the world’s petty tyrants, no matter how large their nation or vast their populations, must see that their Medieval powers are now proscribed under democratic rule. Putin had no place in the 21st century, so he lost; because he is wrong he cannot win.

In closure, there will still be loose ends to tie up after Putin’s disastrous war. Donbas, and all destroyed areas of Ukraine, will have to be re-integrated into normalcy, rejoining Ukrainian rail and road networks, grid infrastructure, and rehabilitation of people after the traumas of this brutal war. That will take time to heal, to rebuild. But the real crux of re-integration will be Crimea. Perhaps, like the Russian speaking Ukrainians of the ‘breakaways’ of Donbas, they may now be less eager to remain under Russia’s neo-imperialist domination. This will demand that Crimeans hold a popular, and genuine, referendum under the supervision of neutral third party observers, to establish whether they wish to remain Russian, to their cost, or rather prefer to re-integrate into a free and European Ukraine. Russia will have to accept their vote. How will they vote? [*] Regardless, there will be a herculean effort to rebuild a country needlessly devastated by war, of which they were innocent, but for which they fought fiercely.

Putin has been the real villain in this tragic, brutal and murderous war. Shouldn’t he now be deposed?

*[If Putin calls for a cease fire, this internationally administered referendum held in all Russian occupied Ukrainian territories, including Crimea (without guns at polling), should be applied in the event Russia chooses to cease hostilities, bombings of civilians and infrastructure, but come to the negotiation table, negotiated between Zelensky and Putin. If fair and verified referendums show Ukrainians (and Russians) vote in favor of Ukraine, then all Russian troops and armaments must leave, and the settlements must include financial reparations by Russia to Ukraine. War crimes tribunals will hold those responsible for the destructions and murders of Ukrainians in Russia’s war as determined by an international tribunal. If any occupied territories vote for Russia, these are areas of future negotiations, of fair exchange and freedom of movement for those citizens who wish to relocate, both ways. All costs of rebuilding damages done in Ukraine should be paid for by Russia, and overseen by international tribunals.]


Ivan


This just in (19 July 2022):

An article by the Federal Chancellor, Olaf Scholz, Germany.


quote:

If we do not counter Putin’s aggression now, he could go further. We have already seen it: he marched into Georgia in 2008, annexed Crimea in 2014, then attacked eastern Ukraine and finally, in February this year, extended the war against the whole country. Letting Putin get away with it would mean that violence can break the law practically without any consequences. In the end our own freedom and security, too, would be in jeopardy.

In the past few years, there have been calls, and rightly so, for the EU to become a geopolitical actor. An ambitious goal, but a correct one! With the historic decisions of recent months, the European Union has taken a big step in this direction. We have said, with unprecedented resolve and unity, that Putin’s neo-imperialism must not be allowed to succeed. But we must not be content with that. Our aim must be to reach unity in all areas where we in Europe have been struggling for too long to find solutions: migration policy, for example, or the evolution of European defence, or technological sovereignty and democratic resilience.

The world’s autocrats are watching very closely to see whether he succeeds. What holds sway in the 21st century – the law of the strong or the strength of the law? In our multipolar world, is a multilateral global order being replaced by lawlessness? These are questions directly facing us.



(29 July 2022)

Russia and Ukraine accuse each other of attacking prison housing POWs
In the sinister Russian war on Ukraine, where clearly Russia is the aggressor in an unprovoked attack on the Ukrainian people, the truth becomes a post-modern interpretation of reality on the ground, where Russian propaganda is not to inform but to ignore and obfuscate the truth, to confuse the world. This blatant Russian lying should be universally condemned as a war crime.


(9 September 2022)

Ukraine war: The head of the UN nuclear agency has warned that the situation at the Russian-held Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant in Ukraine is increasingly precarious. - BBC

Russian hawks criticize regime's war effort as Putin raises stakes - Kyiv Independent (21 Sept. 2022)

Opinion: How Putin came unstuck by small acts of courage by Amed Khan, CNN

quote:

We are watching an extraordinary story play out before our eyes, and we have a chance to influence the ending. Imagine, for a moment, 40 million people waking up every morning and thinking, "What can I do today to save lives and save my country?"


(29 Nov 2022)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan Alexander
Username: Humancafe

Registered: 12-2017
Posted on Sunday, September 18, 2022 - 01:32 pm:   

Putin just fought the ‘last’ war, and lost.


photo.jpg
Ukrainian soldier

When Putin invaded Ukraine, 24 February 2022, after repeated denials they had any intentions to do so, a shocked world expected a quick march on Kiev and Zelensky’s capitulation. Three days later, Kiev was still unconquered. When on the first day of Russia’s attack Zelensky was offered by NATO and US President Biden a clean retreat, he responded with a now iconic quip: “The fight is here; I need ammunition, not a ride.” This was a defining moment in Ukraine’s resistance to Russia’s unprovoked invasion. Seven months later, the tables have turned and Ukraine is pushing back, and though Russian propaganda still calls their war on Ukraine a “special military operation”, it is the last war fought in historic terms, when one nation invade another. This ‘last’ war has shown the determination and valor of a people to fight off unprovoked aggression, a colonial aggression against a free people, despite the odds of a small nation fighting off a, so called, large nuclear world power, greatly outnumbered and outgunned, that the will to freedom is a far greater force than the self delusional ambitions of a failing empire. Freedom wins.

On this Ukrainian battlefield history was made. The free and democratic values of a European nation, ruled by law and constitutional government, the forces of coercive power, of war, were checked by a determined people and military who would not succumb to oppression. At great sacrifice to themselves, massive bombings with much loss of life, victims of Russian crimes against humanity, killing and torturing civilians, denying prisoners their rights of protection under the Geneva Convention, hideous torture of captured soldiers, the people of Ukraine united against this historic travesty, an anachronism in the 21st century, of a barbaric invasion against a peaceful people. The people held together, Ukraine did not lose its humanity in the face of such a cruel foe, soldiers even saved pets and animals, or sang and played classical violin on the battlefield, a splendid display of what real human beings should be. Ukrainians proved themselves true modern, progressive human beings with one soul, one culture, one nation. Their victory against a barbaric invasion led by a delusional dictator proved to the world that the old order of war is finished. Putin lost on Ukraine, and he may have fought the last historic war of our world. The victory went to a people who loved their homeland and their free way of life. The last war was fought, and freedom won.

Thank you to the whole world who stood with aid and solidarity with Ukraine against this war. Slava Ukraini.


Also see: Irredeemable and unrepentant, Russia is breaking itself apart

US warnings against Putin's nuclear threats mark a sobering moment for the world - CNN (25 Sept. 2022)

What causes armies to lose the will to fight? Here's what history tells us — and what Putin may soon find out - CNN (28 Oct. 2022)

Kherson biggest Russian loss since withdrawal from outside Kyiv - BBC (11 November 2022)
This may be the most important victory for Ukraine to reclaim its southern regions from Russian occupation, with now prospects to recapture Crimea and the rest of southern Ukraine. Great danger still lies ahead as Putin’s unpredictable maneuvers may still pose horrific consequences for the people there. May this never happen, but if his vindictiveness is suicidal, he may clear his Russian army from the areas to not be exposed to his use of tactical nuclear weapons, trapping Ukrainian citizens, and army, under a radioactive cloud with great loss of innocent lives. Kherson and other possible targets should seriously review their shelters against such attack. This use of nukes would be suicidal for him because the West’s military response would be devastating to Russia and the Kremlin, and to Putin. Once he unleashes Armageddon there is no retreat, NATO would be engaged, and it would spell the end of Russia.
IDA

This just in:
Ukraine Launches Assault to Oust Russia From Key Black Sea Peninsula - WSJ (22 November 2022) - Taking out Russia’s Black Sea naval fleet (with tactical EMP bursts?) will be a meaningful win, may change the course of Putin’s war on Ukraine.

Slava Ukraini!

This just in: Burkovsky, Zolkina: How Ukraine and the West can stop Putin’s nuclear blackmail (April 1, 2023)

Putin Is Fighting, and Losing, His Last War (May 2023)

Ukraine war: The lethal minefields holding up Kyiv's counter-offensive - BBC (3 July 2023}

Ukraine war: Russian strikes on Odesa damage Orthodox cathedral - BBC (23 July 2023) - attacks of a desperate man.

quote:

Ukraine's Ministry of Foreign Affairs accused Russia of "destroying" the Cathedral, which belongs to the Moscow-linked Ukrainian Orthodox Church.
"A war crime that will never be forgotten and forgiven.”




This just in: opinion: Putin's dead-end (19 Dec 2023)


[ADDENDUM: 13 December 2023:

“Can Putin win on Ukraine?” was asked March 05, 2014, shortly before Russia’s ‘referendum’ officially declared Ukrainian Crimea part of the Russian Federation. Nearly ten years later Russia’s attempted conquest of Ukraine still persists, at very high costs of death and destruction, Ukrainians valiantly resisting Putin’s aggression, while inflicting horrific massive casualties on the Russian forces. Still, the war grinds on nearly two years after Putin’s declared invasion of Ukraine 24 February 2022.
With massive financial, military, and humanitarian aid from the West, especially massive amounts from USA, Ukraine has been able to push back Russia’s invasion and reconquer some 50% of Russian occupied territory after invasion. Whether by happenstance or by design, the war has reached a seeming ‘stalemate’, where neither the Ukrainians nor the Russians are able to breakthrough defensive positions, a standoff that could have been very much skewed in Ukraine’s favor had the much needed, and asked for, superior American fighter jets for air support been delivered earlier in the war. However, that did not happen.
We are faced with a real possibility that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine will be frozen into a ‘demilitarized’ zone standoff, bristling with weapons on both sides. Modeled after past negotiated standoffs, Korea, Vietnam, Palestine, some brokered by the United Nations, the real possibility exists that this will be Ukraine’s fate, a frozen conflict in perpetuity, much to their loss. Like Korea, the South became highly economically developed, while the North languished in underdevelopment. Something like this will happen in Western Ukraine, west of Dnipro river, Kyiv, Lviv, with development from international investments, while the East (and Crimea if not given back to Ukraine) will languish in a third world like model, as do parts of Siberia now. So this could be the sad, tragic end of a war that has claimed hundreds of thousands of lives, billions of dollars of destruction, all to satisfy the craven appetite of a small man who dreams of being a great dictator of the Russian empire.
Putin did not win this war, but neither did he lose it, if he is able to cow American aid, and the West (he has nukes!) into submission to his will by freezing this war in Ukraine. A dictator scores, while freedom loses. Whether by happenstance or design, this seems to be the grim regrettable ending on this unprovoked war by Russia on Ukraine. Neither side wins, and neither side loses, except for all the lives crushed by Putin’s horrible, stupid war.]

IDA
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan Alexander
Username: Humancafe

Registered: 12-2017
Posted on Friday, October 14, 2022 - 02:09 pm:   

WHY WAR?

This quote was entered in Peoples Book 2000 on 8 December 1999 (anonymous) on the eve of the new millennium.


photo.jpg


quote:

War is, because those who need to change and cannot, do so by force to punish those who have, and become punished themselves, to change. This is true of all violence, until we change.



It is a curious synopsis of human warfare going back to pre-history, that humans fought against the ‘other’. Whether tribe or nation, one felt somehow superior and had to prove to the other his superiority, and used force to make his point. However, oftentimes it was the opposite, that the inferior was attacking the superior because he felt threatened by them, and envious. This was as true of the Visigoths attacking ancient Rome as it is of Putin’s Russia attacking Ukraine today. One is threatened by the other’s superiority over one’s own perceived inferiority, that the superior must be punished, because the inferior cannot measure up to them.

Ukrainians are proving themselves a capable western leaning European country embracing cooperative individualism modeled after American and European freedoms, protected by their democratic constitutional governments; while Russia, despite 75 years of Communism, has remained a Medieval leaning society demanding strict obedience, something they share with traditional Islam. In that they felt threatened, and envious, of Ukraine’s superior freedoms and societal successes, contrasted with Russia’s inferior socio-economic failures. Ukraine was moving forward while Russia was falling behind, and for this Putin felt he had to attack. Yet, Russia was the larger power, a nuclear power with a large army, while Ukraine had neither nuclear arsenal nor large army. Surely Putin felt he was the superior, so he had to attack to prove his ‘superiority’, while in fact he was compensating for his weakness, and his nation’s inferiority. Russia had not, could not change, while its weaker and smaller neighbor had changed, and by declaring its wish to join the European Union it was making evident that it wanted to become a freedom loving country and change away from its larger neighbor’s recidivism. This was threatening to Putin, why he embarked on a vast campaign of denigrating Ukraine, declaring it had no right to exist, and launched a genocidal war of their extermination. It was because Putin, and Russia under his control, could not change. So they had to make war.

What will change? If Russia is soundly beaten, and with Western help it appears it will be, and punished for its war crimes, it will be forced to change. This may be the ‘last war’. Never again would Ukraine or any nation be challenged on the battlefield as nations (including China, Iran, North Korea, and ISIS) will no longer attack another out of their inferiority, but strive for their own superiority in all aspects of their cultures, to embrace the power of freedom, and change. This is the dawning of a new age, one where neighbor does not resort to arms against neighbor to prove their inferiority as superior. Whoever penned that enigmatic entry on ‘Why War?’ nearly a quarter century ago, may have stated a truism of what the future holds for our world. And if so, it will usher in something never known before, a thousand years of peace. Ukraine’s valiant victory is that important.

Ivan

Also see: Russia failed to colonize Ukraine
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan Alexander
Username: Humancafe

Registered: 12-2017
Posted on Wednesday, December 14, 2022 - 03:26 pm:   

Report from the eastern front, Bakhmut.

photo.jpg
WW I vs Bakhmut

Understanding Russia’s relentless assault on Bakhmut - Kyiv Independent (13 Dec 2022)

quote:

“For the Russians, the losses they suffer in doing this is not an important factor,” said Cherevatyi. “The first people that Wagner sends in, for example, are always the convicts and other poorly-trained men, and only behind them come the more professional soldiers.”



This is how Russia fights its war of attrition, of their own.

Also see: Fighting Wagner is like a 'zombie movie' says Ukrainian soldier
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan Alexander
Username: Humancafe

Registered: 12-2017
Posted on Thursday, December 22, 2022 - 02:28 pm:   

Volodymyr Zelensky’s speech to Congress

photo.jpg

READ: Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s remarks to Congress - CNN (22 Dec 2022)

quote:

Dear Americans in all states, cities, and communities, all those who value freedom and justice, who cheer us as strongly as we Ukrainians in our cities, in each and every family, I hope my words of respect and gratitude resonate in each American heart.

Madam vice president, I thank you for your efforts in helping Ukraine. Madam speaker, you bravely visited Ukraine during the full-fledged war. Thank you very much. Great honor. Thank you.

Very privileged to be here. Dear members of the Congress, representatives of both parties who also visited Kyiv, esteemed congressmen and senators from both parties who will visit Ukraine, I am sure in the future, dear representatives of diaspora – present in this chamber and spread throughout the country – dear journalists, it’s a great honor for me to be at the US Congress and speak to you and all Americans.

Against all odds and doom and gloom scenarios, Ukraine didn’t fall. Ukraine is alive and kicking.

And it gives me good reason to share with you our first, first joint victory. We defeated Russia in the battle for minds of the world.
We have no fear, nor should anyone in the world have it. Ukraine gained this victory, and it gives us courage, which inspires the entire world.

Americans gained this victory and that’s why you have succeeded in uniting the global community to protect freedom and international law.

Europeans gained this victory, and that’s why Europe is now stronger and more independent than ever. The Russian tyranny has lost control over us.

And it will never influence our minds again. Yet, we have to do whatever it takes to ensure that Congress of the global south also gains such victory.

I know one more, I think, very important thing. The Russians will stand a chance to be free only when they defeat the Kremlin, in their minds.

Yet, the battle continues, and we have to defeat the Kremlin on the battlefield, yes. These battles not only for the territory for this or in other part of Europe. The battle is not only for life, freedom, and security of Ukrainians or any other nation which Russia attempts to conquer.

This struggle will define in what world our children and grandchildren will live, and then their children and grandchildren. It will define whether it will be a democracy of Ukrainians and for Americans, for all.

This battle cannot be frozen or postponed. It cannot be ignored hoping that the ocean or something else will provide a protection. From the United States to China, from Europe to Latin America and from Africa to Australia, the world is too interconnected and interdependent to allow someone to stay aside and at the same time to feel safe when such a battle continues.

Our two nations are allies in this battle. And next year will be a turning point. I know it. The point when Ukrainian courage and American resolve must guarantee the future of our common freedom, the freedom of people who stand for their values.

Ladies and gentlemen, Americans, yesterday before coming here to Washington, DC, I was at the front line in our Bakhmut, in our stronghold in the east of Ukraine in the Donbas.

The Russian military and machiners(sic) have been taking Bakhmut nonstop since May. They have been taking it day and night, but Bakhmut stands.
Last year, last year, 70,000 people lived there in Bakhmut, in this city, and now only a few civilians stay. Every inch of that land is soaked in blood. Roaring guns sound every hour. Trenches in the Donbas changed hands several times a day in fierce combat, and even hand-fighting. But the Ukrainian Donbas stands.

Russians, Russians use everything, everything they have against Bakhmut and other of our beautiful cities. The occupiers have a significant advantage in artillery. They have an advantage in ammunition. They have much more missiles and planes than we ever had. And it’s true, but our defense forces stand.

And we, and we all are proud of them. The Russians’ tactic is primitive. They burn down and destroy everything they see. They sent thugs to the front lines, they sent convicts to the war. They threw everything against us, similar to the other tyranny, which is in the Battle of the Bulge.

Threw everything it had against the free world, just like the brave American soldiers, which held their lines and fought back Hitler’s forces during the Christmas of 1944, brave Ukrainian soldiers are doing the same to Putin’s forces this Christmas.

Ukraine, Ukraine holds its lines and will never surrender. So, so, here the front line, the tyranny which has no lack of cruelty against the lives of free people, and your support is crucial not just to stand in such fight, but to get to the turning point to win on the battlefield.

We have artillery, yes. Thank you. we have it. Is it enough? Honestly, not really. To ensure Bakhmut is not just a stronghold, that it holds back the Russian army, but for the Russian army to completely pull out, more cannons and shells are needed.
It’s true. Just like the Battle of Saratoga, the fight for Bakhmut will change the trajectory of our war for independence and for freedom. If your patriots stop the Russian terror against our cities, it will let Ukrainian patriots work to the full to defend our freedom.
When Russia, when Russia cannot reach our cities by its artillery, it tries to destroy them with missile attacks. More than that, Russia found an ally in this, in this genocidal policy: Iran. Iranian deadly drones sent to Russia in hundreds and hundreds became a threat to our critical infrastructure. That is how one terrorist has found the other. It is just a matter of time when they will strike against your other allies if we do not stop them now. We must do it.

I believe, I believe there should be no taboos between us in our alliance. Ukraine never asked the American soldiers to fight on our land instead of us. I assure you that Ukrainian soldiers can perfectly operate American tanks and planes themselves.
Financial assistance is also critically important and I would like to thank you, thank you very much. Thank you for both financial packages you have already provided us with and the ones you may be willing to decide on. Your money is not charity. It’s an investment in the global security and democracy that we handle in the most responsible way.

Russia, Russia could stop its aggression, really, if it wanted to, but you can speed up our victory. I know it. And it will prove to any potential aggressor that no one can succeed in breaking national borders, no one committing atrocities and reigning over people against their will, it would be naive to wait for steps towards peace from Russia, which enjoys being a terrorist state.

Russians are still poisoned by the Kremlin. The restoration of international legal order is our joint task. We need peace, yes. Ukraine has already offered proposals which I just discussed with President Biden, our peace formula, 10 points which should and must be implemented for our joint security, guaranteed for decades ahead and the summit which can be held.

I’m glad to share that President Biden supported our peace initiative today. Each of you, ladies and gentlemen, can assist in the implementation to ensure that Americans’ leadership remains solid, bicameral and bipartisan. Thank you.

You can strengthen sanctions to make Russia feel how ruinous its aggression truly is. It is in your power, really, to help us bring to justice everyone who started this unprovoked and criminal war. Let’s do it.

Let terrorists – let the terrorist state be held responsible for its terror and aggression and compensate all losses done by this war. Let the world see that the United States are here.

Ladies and gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen, Americans, in two days we will celebrate Christmas. Maybe candlelit. Not because it’s more romantic, no, but because there will not be – there will be no electricity. Millions won’t have neither heating nor running water. All of these will be the result of Russian missile and drone attacks on our energy infrastructure. But we do not complain. We do not judge and compare whose life is easier. Your well-being is the product of your national security, the result of your struggle for independence and your many victories. We, Ukrainians, will also go through our war of independence and freedom with dignity and success.

We’ll celebrate Christmas, celebrate Christmas and even if there is no electricity, the light of our faith in ourselves will not be put out. If Russian – if Russian missiles attack us, we’ll do our best to protect ourselves. If they attack us with Iranian drones and our people will have to go to bomb shelters on Christmas Eve, Ukrainians will still sit down at the holiday table and cheer up each other. And we don’t, don’t have to know everyone’s wish as we know that all of us, millions of Ukrainians, wish the same: Victory. only victory.

We already built strong Ukraine with strong people, strong army, strong institutions together with you. We developed strong security guarantees for our country and for entire Europe and the world together with you and also together with you, we’ll put in place everyone who will defy(sic) freedom. Putin. This will be the basis to protect democracy in Europe and the world over.

Now, on this special Christmas time, I want to thank you. All of you. I thank every American family, which cherishes the warmth of its home and wishes the same warmth to other people. I thank President Biden and both parties, at the Senate and the House, for your invaluable assistance. I thank your cities and your citizens who supported Ukraine this year, who hosted our Ukrainians, our people, who waved our national flags, who acted to help us, thank, thank you all, from everyone who is now at the front line from everyone who is evading(sic) victory.

Standing here today, I recall the words of the President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, which I think so good for this moment: “The American people, in their righteous might, will win through – to absolute victory.” The Ukrainian people will win too. Absolutely.
I know that everything depends on us, on the Ukrainian armed forces, yet so much depends on the world. So much in the world depends on you.

When I was in Bakhmut yesterday, our heroes gave me the flag, the battle flag, the flag of those who defend Ukraine, Europe and the world at the cost of their lives. They ask me to bring this flag to you, to the US Congress to members of the House of Representatives and senators whose decisions can save millions of people. So, let this decisions be taken. Let this flag stay with you, ladies and gentlemen. This flag is a symbol of our victory in this war. We stand, we fight and we will win because we are united – Ukraine, America and the entire free world.

(Zelensky presents House Speaker Nancy Pelosi with battle flag signed by Ukrainian troops.)

Just one thing, if I can, the last thing, thank you so much, may God protect our brave troops and citizens. May God forever bless the United States of America. Merry Christmas and happy, victorious New Year.



photo2.jpg

Volodymyr Zelensky

This just in: Biden visits Zelensky in Kyiv (20 February 2023) - BBC

Don’t Fear Putin’s Demise - Victory for Ukraine, Democracy for Russia - By Garry Kasparov and Mikhail Khodorkovsky (20 January 2023)

BBC News: Putin to Xi: We will discuss your plan to end the war in Ukraine (March 20, 2023)
The China ‘peace plan’ is largely irrelevant, serving only their own interests in association with Russia and its resources. To be relevant, the Peace Plan must remove all Russian troops from Ukraine and return its occupied territories, including Crimea and Sevastopol. Also, the Russian naval fleet should be closed off entirely from the Black Sea, allowing only commercial vessels, verified as such, free of munitions, missiles, and weapons. Then the Peace Plan can have a meaningful and sustainable future. -IDA

Volodymyr Zelensky’s Easter message (video, 16 April 2023) - Twitter
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan Alexander
Username: Humancafe

Registered: 12-2017
Posted on Monday, May 22, 2023 - 01:34 pm:   

Inching toward a new world consciousness.

photo.jpg

The confluence of Free World leaders at the G7 meeting in Hiroshima, May 2023, is a major statement of solidarity in support of international law and preservation of democratic values against imperial and dictatorial ambitions. It is to endorse a world where coercive and violent means of nation against nation is negated by a rule of law and democratic order to protect our natural rights, to choose our own destiny as free people. At the center of this summit is the future of Ukraine as a nation free to chose its destiny, free of Russian imperial domination and invasion to erase a Ukrainian culture and way of life. Moscow’s brutal invasion of Ukraine and nuclear threats are being challenged by world leaders, led by US President Biden, France’s Macron, UK’s Sunak, Canada’s Trudeau, Italy’s Meloni, Germany’s Scholz, Japan’s Prime Minister Fumio Kishida, EU’s Von der Leyen, and Ukraine’s Zelensky; attended also by India, Brazil, South Korea, Australia, Indonesia, African Union, South Pacific’s Cook Islands, and Vietnam; also attending are United Nations, World Bank, OECD, WTO, WHO, and International Energy Agency.
This 49th meeting of G7 may be their most important meeting to date, as it confronts Russia’s attack on Ukraine, and China’s economic and territorial expansionism. This is a historic meeting of the world’s heads of state to present a united front against the former imperial ambitions of belligerent nations who seek to coerce their way to power. This meeting may be pivotal in human history, centered on help for Ukraine, to unite the world towards a new universal consciousness, that a free people are more powerful and able to form agreements beneficial to them, as opposed to the old world order of force and intimidation. It may be an important first step, one that ushers a new era in world events, that freedom is greater.

IDA
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan Alexander
Username: Humancafe

Registered: 12-2017
Posted on Sunday, June 11, 2023 - 09:41 pm:   

SLAVA UKRAINI!

photo.jpg

This is Ukraine’s unique moment, a time they had been dreaming of freedom for three-four hundred years. It is something they feel n their hearts, a strength only they can have, a dream of independence from the oppressive, coercive ways of the Russian empire. This was Italy two centuries ago freeing itself from the Austrian-Hungarian empire; and it was France ridding itself of a useless, parasitic aristocracy; it was Americans casting off the oppressive shackles of King George’s British rule of the colonies, leaving in their wake a blueprint for freedom, of democratic constitutional law, for the whole world to follow. Now it is Ukraine’s turn, as they bravely face their future, their warriors valiantly standing up to the recidivist corruption of a failing Russian empire. This is a fight to the finish, and a free people will win. God be with them.

Slava Ukraini!

photo2.gif
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan Alexander
Username: Humancafe

Registered: 12-2017
Posted on Tuesday, September 19, 2023 - 09:09 pm:   

President Volodymyr Zelensky’s speech to the UN General Assembly, 19 September 2023:


photo.jpg

You can’t negotiate with evil, it cannot be trusted, he says. Ukraine is fighting Russia to end the world’s ‘final war’, make the world a safer place. Quote excerpt:

quote:

Look – for the first time in modern history, we have the chance to end the aggression on the terms of the nation which was attacked.




The full text of Zelensky’s speech:

Ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Secretary General! Fellow leaders!

This hall saw many wars but not as active defender against the aggressions.
In many cases, the fear of war, the final war, was the loudest here – the war after which no one would gather in the General Assembly Hall again.
The Third World War was seen as a nuclear war. A conflict between states on the highway to nukes.
Other wars seemed less scary compared to a threat of the so-called “great powers” firing their nuclear stockpiles.
So, the 20th century taught the world to restrain from the use of the weapons of mass destruction – not to deploy, not to proliferate, not to threaten with, and not to test, but to promote a complete nuclear disarmament.
Frankly, this is a good strategy.
But it should not be the only strategy to protect the world from this final war.
Ukraine gave up its third largest nuclear arsenal. The world then decided Russia should become a keeper of such power. Yet, history shows it was Russia who deserved nuclear disarmament the most, back in 1990s. And Russia deserves it now – terrorists have no right to hold nuclear weapons.
But truly not the nukes are the scariest now.
While nukes remain in place, the mass destruction is gaining its momentum. The aggressor is weaponizing many other things and those things are used not only against our country but against all of yours as well.

Fellow leaders!

There are many conventions that restrict weapons but there are no real restrictions on weaponization.
First, let me give you an example – the food.
Since the start of the full-scale war, the Ukrainian ports in the Black and Azov Seas have been blocked by Russia. Until now, our ports on the
Danube River remain the target for missiles and drones. And it is a clear Russia’s attempt to weaponize the food shortage on the global market in exchange for recognition for some, if not all, of the captured territories.
Russia is launching the food prices as weapons. The impact spans from the Atlantic coast of Africa to the Southeast Asia. This is the threat scale.
I would like to thank those leaders who supported our Black Sea Grain Initiative, and program “Grain from Ukraine”. United, we made weapons turn back into food again. More than 45 nations saw how important it is to make Ukrainian food products available on the market… from Algeria and Spain to Indonesia and China.
Even now when Russia has undermined the Black Sea Grain Initiative, we are working to ensure food stability. And I hope that many of you will join us in these efforts. We launched a temporary sea export corridor from our ports. And we are working hard to preserve the land routes for grain exports. And it is alarming to see how some in Europe play out solidarity in a political theatre – making thriller from the grain. They may seem to play their own role but in fact they are helping set the stage to a Moscow actor.
Second, weaponization of energy.
Many times, the world has witnessed Russia using energy as a weapon. Kremlin weaponized oil and gas to weaken the leaders of other countries.
Now the threat is even greater.
Russia is weaponizing nuclear energy. Not only it is spreading its unreliable nuclear-power-plant-construction-technologies, but it is also turning other countries’ power plants into real dirty bombs.
Look what Russia did to our Zaporizhzhia power plant – shelled it, occupied it and now blackmails others with radiation leaks.
Is there any sense to reduce nUclear weapons when Russia is weaponizing nuclear power plants? Scary question.
The global security architecture offers no response or protection against such a treacherous radiation threat… And there is no accountability for radiation blackmailers so far.
The third example is children.
Unfortunately, various terrorist groups abduct children to put pressure on their families and societies. But never before the mass kidnapping and deportation would become a part of the government policy. Not until now.
We know the names of tens of thousands of children and have evidence on hundreds of thousands of others kidnapped by Russia in the occupied territories of Ukraine and later deported. The International Criminal Court issued arrest warrant for Putin for this crime.
We are trying to get children back home but time goes by. What will happen to them?
Those children in Russia are taught to hate Ukraine, and all ties with their families are broken… This is clearly a genocide.
When hatred is weaponized against one nation, it never stops there. Each decade Russia starts a new war. Parts of Moldova and Georgia remain occupied. Russia turned Syria into ruins. And if not Russia, the chemical weapons would have never been used there in Syria. Russia has almost swallowed Belarus. It is obviously threatening Kazakhstan and the Baltic states… And the goal of the present war against Ukraine is to turn our land, our people, our resources into a weapon against you – against the international rules-based order. Many seats in the General Assembly Hall may become empty if Russia succeeds with its
treachery and aggression.

Ladies and gentlemen!

The aggressor scatters death and brings ruins even without nukes but the outcomes are alike.
We see towns and villages in Ukraine wiped out by Russian artillery. Levelled to the ground completely! We see the war of drones. We know the possible effects of spreading the war into the cyberspace. The artificial intelligence could be trained to combat well – before it would learn to help the humanity. Thank God, people have not yet learned to use climate as a weapon. Even though humanity is failing on its climate policy objectives – this means that extreme weather will still impact the normal global life and some evil state will also weaponize its outcomes. And when people in the streets of New York and other cities of the world went out on climate protest – we all have seen them… And when people in Morocco and Libya and other countries die as a result of natural disasters… And when islands and countries disappear under water… And when tornados and deserts are spreading into new territories… And when all of this is happening one unnatural disaster in Moscow decided to launch a big war and kill tens of thousands of people.

We must act united – to defeat the aggressor and focus all our capabilities and energy on addressing these challenges.
As nukes are restrained, likewise the aggressor must be restrained and all its tools and methods of war. Each war now can become final, but it takes our unity to make sure that aggression will not break in again.
And it is not a dialog between the so-called “great powers” somewhere behind the closed doors that can guarantee us all the new no-wars-era, but open work of all nations for peace.
Last year, I presented the outlines of the Ukrainian peace formula at the UN General Assembly. Later in Indonesia, I presented the full Formula. And over the past year the Peace Formula became the basis to update the existing security architecture – now we can
bring back to life the UN Charter and guarantee the full power of the rules-based world order.
Tomorrow I will present the details at a special meeting of the UN Security Council.

The main thing is that it is not only about Ukraine.
More than 140 states and international organizations have supported the Ukrainian Peace Formula fully or in part. The Ukrainian Peace Formula is becoming global. Its points offer solutions and steps that will stop all forms of weaponization that Russia used against Ukraine and other countries and may be used by other aggressors. Look – for the first time in modern history, we have the chance to end the aggression on the terms of the nation which was attacked. This is a real chance for every nation – to ensure that aggression against your state, if it happens, God forbid, will end not because your land will be divided and you will be forced to submit to military or political pressure, but because your territory and sovereignty will be fully restored.

We launched the format of meetings between national security advisors and diplomatic representatives. Important talks and consultations were held in Hiroshima, in Copenhagen, and in Jeddah on the implementation of the Peace Formula. And we are preparing a Global Peace Summit. I invite all of you – all of you who do not tolerate any aggression – to jointly prepare the Summit.
I am aware of the attempts to make some
shady dealings behind the scenes. Evil cannot be trusted – ask Prigozhin if one bets on Putin’s promises. Please, hear me. Let unity decide everything openly.
While Russia is pushing the world to the final war, Ukraine is doing everything to ensure that after Russian aggression no one in the world will dare to attack any nation. Weaponization must be restrained. War crimes must be punished. Deported people must come back home. And the occupier must return to their own land. We must be united to make it.

Slava Ukraini!


photo2.jpg
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan Alexander
Username: Humancafe

Registered: 12-2017
Posted on Sunday, October 08, 2023 - 03:08 pm:   

Hamas attack on Israel has Russia-Iran fingerprints on it

photo.jpg

Hamas Attack on Israel: Role of Iran, Russia & China; Failure of Allies

quote:

Russia, China and Iran have played a major role in the massive attack on Israel by the Palestinian group Hamas on Saturday, according to the assessment by intelligence agencies. The assessment states that while Iran provides open training and political backing to Hamas, Russia is known for its proximity to Hamas, and the Chinese technology was key to the attack.



Hostages taken: Hamas Attacks Spark State of War: Israel Responds to Hostage Crisis (8 Oct 2023)

Savagery: Civilization and savagery are fundamentally at war by Daniel Greenfield (Frontpage Magazine)

WHY WAR?

This just in:
Exclusive: Found document suggests Iran sought to help Hamas make its own weapons ahead of attack, sources say -CNN (14 November 2023)

I reported on Hamas in Gaza for over a decade. Here are the questions I’m asking myself now (7 Dec 2023) - On the ‘political left hand of Hamas, and military right hand’ duplicity.


US officials discuss post-war Gaza governance plans with Palestinian Authority and Arab nations - CNN (8 Dec 2023)
Why not roll back the clock on Palestine UN mandated partition 1947? Admit it was an international policy mistake, so that Gaza now goes back to Egypt, West Bank back to Jordan, incorporating ‘Palestinians’ as citizens of their respective countries. After Gaza and Hamas, reset the policy clock to right what had been a colossal error, that Palestinians have a “right to return” to their respective Arab countries. -IDA


UNRWA, the Greatest Welfare Scam - Frontpage (9 Feb 2024)

quote:

In history, so-called Gaza City until 1948 had never been a city as civilized peoples know them. It was an overgrown caravansary when suddenly invaded by 200,000 foreign workers arriving in expectation that soon the Egyptians and other Arab armies would kill all the Jews, and they could return to loot what the Jews had built.
Following the war, the Arab Muslim states who launched it refused to take any responsibility for these now homeless co-religionists. Their position was that the war was the responsibility of the United Nations that had licensed the Jews to live free of Muslim domination as they had for fourteen centuries, and in the wake of their refusal, the UN established UNRWA to look after these migrant workers whom everyone in the world, including all Muslims and Arabs, called “the Arab refugees” and would for the next decade and beyond. Nobody called them “Palestinian refugees” because there was nothing Palestinian about them having come from Morocco, Yemen, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, etc.



Add Your Message Here
Post:
Username: Posting Information:
This is a private posting area. Only registered users and moderators may post messages here.
Password:
Options: Enable HTML code in message
Automatically activate URLs in message
Action:

Topics | Last Day | Last Week | Tree View | Search | Help/Instructions | Program Credits Administration