Quote of the day will go here!
Home | GNP Articles | The O'Really Factor | The Duke | Mspencer | Forums | World Map | Links
» Did you know about the TPP? From GNP Duke_Qa
Posted May 5, 2012. By duke_Qa
http://www.huffingto...ml?ref=politics

I sure didn't, and it certainly is relevant for us westerners(mostly). It stands for "Trans-Pacific Partnership Free Trade Agreement", and is basically a bunch of pacific nations organizing free trade agreements between themselves.

Quote

(TPP) is being negotiated as a nine country FTA between the U.S., Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Chile, Malaysia, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam. Canada, Japan and Mexico are all expected to join talks, and many see more Pacific Rim countries including China and Russia eventually signing on. With floundering WTO talks, the TPP could very well establish U.S. trade policy for the next generation, yet all talks are happening behind closed doors and public influence has been increasingly suppressed.

The problem isn't that they are going about creating trade agreements, but that they are being as opaque as humanly possible about it. These sort of agreements make or break nations, and here we sit not knowing anything about them.

Here are some examples what this TPP is about(probably some good things about it too, but one step forward and two back is usually negative):

Quote

Secret No. 1: The TPP is covertly attacking the same internet freedom rights that spurred online protests over ACTA and SOPA.
No. 2: The TPP would make it more enticing for corporations to offshore jobs by opening our market to Vietnamese labor, which has significantly lower average wages than China.
No. 3: The TPP could be a death sentence to patients with AIDS, tuberculosis, and other treatable diseases around the world.
No. 4: The TPP would ban capital controls and impose limits on financial regulation, including post-recession checks on firm size and risky investments.
No. 5: Americans hate FTAs! Recent polls have found more than twice as many Americans think FTAs hurt than help, and 69 percent of Americans think they cost jobs, which they do.

I'm glad we are living in times where you can find this sort of information online. If I wrote about this sort of stuff in the 70s I'd probably be put on a list and hear clicking sounds on my phone. Safety in numbers and ease of access I guess :)

3 Comments


» The river of steel From GNP Duke_Qa
Posted March 26, 2012. By duke_Qa
As this article mentions, there is a river of steel over the Mexican border from the USA, a flow of semi-automatic weaponry that are killing people in much greater numbers than other conflicts around the world.

To be honest, it is quite surprising to me that this isn't more mainstream news than it is.
In the period of 2008-2011, 2000 Palestinians were killed in conflict between Israel/Palestine.
The Libyan revolution cost around 15 000 - 25 000 lives.
The official numbers of Syrian deaths are around 10 000 in a year.

In Mexico, the number for the last five years is around 40 000 - 55 000. That is pretty brutal IMO. And the worst part of it is that its because American weapon-producers are making good money on these weapons being sold to Mexicans.

If I was a Marketing guy, I'd make a poster of an Mexican hitman pointing an American assault rifle in your face with the text "This is where your 'rights to carry arms' will get you" under it. Or "Sponsored by your friendly local NRA affiliates" or "Made in America" or "This guy bought this gun off your kid" or "Trade: Americans get drugs, Mexicans get guns: Who will be the better shooter? Probably not you".


Anyway, I thought this was a bit of an interesting tidbit of information. If its purely corporate interest or indirectly caused by war on drugs I don't know, but it is certainly a symptom of something that is not right.

6 Comments


» The game of bureaucracy From GNP Duke_Qa
Posted March 11, 2012. By duke_Qa
So, since this is pretty local news that no english newspaper has taken interest in, but a very fascinating story about abuse of tax-payer money and ideology-before-law, I'd thought I'd try to explain it.

It is the tale of the rise and fall of SOS-Racism, a group that was seen as a positive anti-racism organization since 1985 up until the mid 00s. They organized school conferences where they talked about racism and handed out bumper-stickers and whatnot. They were a presence hen I was in school and I guess they did some good back then.

But in 2006, as one of the major newspapers in Norway started digging into their paperwork and leaders, they discovered that practically the entire leadership of this organization were from the communist-leninist-marxist group "Tjen Folket"/Serve the people(a group that goes for the "revolution for communism" ideology, about one step away from physical terrorism I'd say). And not only that, they claimed that the number of members SOS had were inflated, which is a bit of a legal problem since organizations get funding depending on the amount of members they have.

After a few more years of back-and-forth and the bureaucracy finally starting to investigate SOS-racism. In 2010 the government funding were withdrawn and the government now demands that they pay back the money(g-translated) that they've gotten on false premises, about two million dollars. They had to calculate the member numbers themselves by double-checking the names in three major cities, finding that over half of the members were not real and many of the real ones couldn't apply(1-year olds and the likes).

One of the former inner circle members of SOS racism/Tjen folket went public to a newspaper recently(g-translated), where he spoke specifically about what happened when the law came down upon them. The moment the judge demanded that they hand over their paperwork, they went into scorched earth mode, burning and destroying (forged) membership papers. They took out as much money as they could from organization accounts, filled up bags and briefcases and hid them where the government couldn't find it.

Right now, the public have, at best, given up on SOS-racism. Some of the TF communist leaders in SOS racism are rebooting a new organization called "New SOS Racism". But I have extreme doubts that this is nothing more than another attempt at starting the scam once more or to whitewash the money they've stolen from the government through donations.

But this isn't all, because today something even more fascinating has come up in the news: Norwegian Defense League, an extreme right-wing group closely related to English Defense League, was practically built from the ground up by the same communists leadership that control SOS racism, from "Tjen Folket".
Imagine, Anti-racists joining a extreme right-wing anti-Muslim group, creating and building a false enemy that would increase their membership numbers. NDL have commented that they've removed these inflitrators, but if that is the case the biggest irony is that "anti-racists" have created the very thing they're there to destroy. No light without darkness it would seem.



So, TLDR: Local anti-racism group created in 1985, hijacked late 90s by Communists/leninist/marxist revolutionary organization named "Tjen Folket"/serve the people. TF starts inflating the membership numbers of SOS racism to get more money from the government, having at a point 50 000 members in a nation of 5 million. "Pretty high number for such a specific non-political organization", the media and eventually the government thought , which then promptly started investigating around 2006. in 2010 the government demanded their money back for the last 5-6 years and all the paperwork for membership: SOS racism's(TF communist) leadership started burning documents and taking the money out of the banks in cash for a rainy day. Since then, the backlash and cleanup has been roilin along, discovering such horrors such as these communists actually sponsoring racist organizations such as NDL, so they'd have an enemy to give them more relevance.


Pretty nice conspiracy I'd say, and the main reason I'm sharing this is because it shows us what people can do within the rules if they feel their cause is "just". This is just some minor group of clever people knowing the tricks of the bureaucracy. Imagine all the corrupt things being done by other larger organizations around the world: Lobbyism for unnecessary tax loopholes, government support to oil-business in the US. All of these are typic examples of the manipulation we allow people to get away with.

0 Comments


» British plan to privatize police From GNP Duke_Qa
Posted March 3, 2012. By duke_Qa
Well, someone didn't read their compulsory dose of future dystopia fiction, and went ahead and came up with an idea for privatized police.

Quote

The programme has the potential to become the main vehicle for outsourcing police services in England and Wales. It has been pioneered by the West Midlands chief constable, Chris Sims, and Mark Rowley, who has just moved to the Metropolitan police from the post of Surrey chief constable. The pair lead on these matters for the Association of Chief Police Officers.
The breathtaking list of policing activities up for grabs includes investigating crimes, detaining suspects, developing cases, responding to and investigating incidents, supporting victims and witnesses, managing high-risk individuals, patrolling neighbourhoods, managing intelligence, managing engagement with the public, as well as more traditional back-office functions, such as managing forensics, providing legal services, managing the vehicle fleet, finance and human resources.

I just can't say how bad this looks. a private police force would be a corporation's wet dream. "Drug-dealers? meh, I got this factory-prison I need to fill with pirates and dissenters, they are much easier to put to work and it gets me cash from the RIAA and the gang."

4 Comments


» Fears grow of Israel-Iran missile shootout From GNP The O'Really Factor
Posted February 29, 2012. By Hostile
By Robert Windrem
NBC News
With tensions between Israel and Iran running sky high over the latter’s nuclear program, U.S. officials and military analysts are growing increasingly concerned that Israel will launch a multi-phase air and missile attack that could trigger waves of retaliatory missile strikes from Tehran.
Such a shootout could quickly spiral into a regional conflict that would potentially force the U.S. to intervene to protect its interests.
The emerging consensus among current and former U.S. officials and other experts interviewed by NBC News is that that an Israeli attack would be a multi-faceted assault on key Iranian nuclear installations, involving strikes by both warplanes and missiles. It could also include targeted attacks by Israeli special operations forces and possibly even the use of massive explosives-laden drones, they say.

Posted Image

Iran's Revolutionary Guards test fire a missile during military maneuvers at an undisclosed location Sept. 27, 2009. The maneuvers were aimed at "increasing the country's defensive capability in case of a long-lasting foreign invasion," state-run media reports said.

The Iranian response to such an attack is uncertain, but many experts and officials believe it is likely to include retaliatory missile strikes. Iran has more missiles in its arsenal than Israel, according to some estimates, and has the capability of striking targets in most Israeli population centers.
“I think that it would strike Iran as a reasonable response, an eye for an eye,” said Christopher J Ferrero, a professor of diplomacy at Seton Hall University in New Jersey and an expert on Middle East missile forces.
He also said Iran would likely attack major cities with its Shahab 3 missiles, which he said are not as accurate as the Israeli missiles, but would be an effective “instrument of terror … that could certainly cause significant damage to heavily populated suburban and urban areas.”



Israel possesses advanced anti-missile defenses, but those systems could be overwhelmed if Tehran launched large numbers of missiles, as Ferrero expects.
Given the immense difficulties in carrying out successful air strikes on the four key Iranian installations using its warplanes alone -- as laid out last week by the New York Times, U.S. officials say Israel would be likely to coordinate such airstrikes with waves of missiles. This would greatly increase the chances of penetrating fortifications that Iran has built to protect some of its key installations and overwhelm Iran’s air defenses, said the former and current U.S. officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity.
“Two words: Jericho missiles,” said one former White House and Pentagon official, speaking on condition of anonymity, when asked how Israel would attack Iranian targets at great distances. “They are conventionally armed, have a very small CEP (circular error of probability, meaning they are highly accurate) and can be used in conjunction with a strike fighter operation.”
Israel has as many as 100 Jericho ballistic missiles – both short- and medium-range – as well as submarine-launched cruise missiles, though the officials say they believe the latter are unlikely to be used. The short-range Jericho I missiles would be of no use in an attack on Iran, because the targets are far beyond its 300-mile range. However, the medium-range Jericho II’s are capable of hitting targets as far as 900 miles away – or as far east as Tehran. Israel also tested a Jericho III intercontinental ballistic missile in 2008 and Israeli media have reported that it may have deployed one or more of the weapons, which would put all of Iran within reach.
The missiles would most likely be launched from the Hirbat Zekharyah missile range, midway between Israel and the Mediterranean Coast, according to "Critical Mass: the Dangerous Race for Superweapons in a Fragmenting World," by William E. Burrows and Robert Windrem, and various Israeli press reports.
Although designed to be part of Israel’s nuclear deterrent force, the Jerichos can be equipped with high explosives as well as nuclear warheads. U.S. officials have said that an Israeli attack, if it happens, would be intended to surgically take out the nuclear facilities, not inflict the mass casualties that would result from a nuclear attack.

Iran has no capability to defend against a missile strike, said Ferrero, the expert on Middle East missile arsenals.
“If the Jerichos are accurate enough to get to their targets, they will get to their targets,” he said.

What Iran does have is hundreds of Shahab 3 medium range ballistic missiles, according to U.S. estimates. The Shahab 3 also has a range of roughly 900 miles.
Israel, possibly supplemented by U.S. shipborne anti-missile systems – the Aegis Standard Missile-2 -- could intercept and destroy some of the incoming Iranian missiles, said Ferrero. But the numbers favor Iran, he said.
“I believe that (the Iranians) have a sufficient inventory that they could overwhelm those missile defenses and still get enough missiles through to cause damage,” he said.
The critical factor may be the number of missile launchers in Iran’s inventory, Ferrero said, because penetrating Israel’s defenses would require numerous missiles, but also enough launchers to be able to fire them off simultaneously. That number is a closely guarded secret, he said.
Additionally, U.S. intelligence estimates say Iran has supplied Hezbollah with more than 40,000 short-range rockets and missiles since 2006. However, U.S. officials are uncertain whether Hezbollah would follow Iranian orders, and risk Israeli retaliation or, if they did, how many they would fire. The majority of the rockets and missiles are unguided. Israel and the U.S. have worked on a short-range missile defense system called Iron Dome, but there are concerns that waves of attacks could overwhelm the system.
Also open to question in U.S. and Israeli military circles is whether an Israeli attack would meet its objective: setting back the Iranian nuclear program anywhere from two to five years.
U.S. officials say Israel would be likely to concentrate its attacks on four key Iranian nuclear complexes. Key facilities within those complexes – the Natanz and Fordo centrifuge facilities, both south of Tehran; the Arak research reactor, southwest of Tehran; and a uranium hexafloride production and research facility near the city of Isfahan – are protected by heavy fortifications, they said.
The Jerichos are stored in tunnels in limestone formations around Hirbat Zekharyah and rolled out for firing. They would likely be used as part of a one-two punch, the officials say. The first attack would be carried out by Israeli strike fighters and would be intended to breach the heavily fortified outer ceilings of the facilities. The second (and possibly even third) wave would be missile attacks aimed at destroying the facilities within, the officials said.
Asked if Jerichos would have the accuracy and the explosive power to take out hardened bunkers or fortifications believed to be protecting Iran’s most-sensitive underground nuclear facilities, a current U.S. official replied, “You would be surprised at their accuracy.” The official added that the missiles’ warheads would contain a special mix of explosives that could penetrate the Iranian defenses.
U.S. officials also say Israel may have learned the location of facilities that fabricate centrifuge components. These, too, could be targeted.
A 2010 book on the possibility of an Israeli attack laid out the difficulties Israel would face if it attempted to use only its strike fighters on those targets.
“Attacks against the sites at Natanz, Isfahan and Arak alone would stretch Israel’s capability and planners might be reluctant to enlarge the raid further,” wrote authors Steven Simon and Dana H. Allin, in “The Sixth Crisis – Iran, Israel and the Rumors of War.” Simon, then a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, now heads the Middle East Desk at the National Security Council.
The biggest problem is the fortification of the two centrifuge facilities. Simon and Allin describe the challenge using aircraft only.
“Natanz is the only one of the … likely targets that is largely underground, sheltered by up to 23 meters (75 feet) of soil and concrete,” they wrote. “… Bombs used in a ‘burrowing’ mode, however, could penetrate deeply enough to fragment the inner surface of the ceiling structures above the highly fragile centrifuge arrays and even precipitate the collapse of the entire structure.”

But for the attack to have high odds of success, they argue, aircraft would have to drop additional bombs into the cavities created by the first bombs. That would require “time on target” -- a luxury that the Israeli jets at the outermost limits of their 1,100-mile range would likely not have. While they estimate the success rate of such a plan at “better than 70 percent,” they call it “complicated and highly risky.”
Another difficulty for attacking Israeli aircraft would be finding a route to the targets that could be flown covertly or with the tacit approval of Sunni Arab states, who are at least as frightened of an Iranian nuclear capability as the Israelis.
Simon and Allin (and others) have written that there are three “plausible routes” that Israeli warplanes would take to attack Iran: a northern approach, likely along the Syrian-Turkish border; a central path that would take them over Jordan and Iraq; and a southern route that would transit the lower end of Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. The southern route is the most likely, U.S. officials suggest, because the Saudis and other Sunni-dominated Gulf states are eager for someone to take out the Iranian threat. They prefer the U.S. do it, but have reportedly shared intelligence on the Iranian program with the Israelis, if only on a limited basis, according to the U.S. officials.
No matter what route the fighter bombers take, they would use what one U.S. official described as “high-low, low-high” flight paths – flying high first to increase fuel efficiency, then low for most of the trip to evade radar, then climbing high again as the bombs are released in what is known as a “flip toss” from as far as 10 miles from the target.
The Israelis would be prepared to lose aircraft if necessary, the officials said.
Although Simon and Allin do not discuss adding a missile component, other experts, including many current and former U.S. officials, believe the Israelis already have made a decision to have them in the attack menu.
Missile attacks would be coordinated with fighter-bomber attacks (presumably, the Israelis’ F-16, F-18 and extended-range F-15I Strike Eagle). The missiles would have to be launched so that warheads strike targets following the strike fighter attacks. Because of the short flight time, minutes rather than hours in the case of the aircraft, the missile launch would almost certainly take place at the last possible moment to ensure the secrecy of the overall attack.
The Israelis are not planning to use their submarine-launched cruise missile force -- “not enough of them,” one official said of the subs. (The Israelis have long had nuclear tipped sub-launched cruise missiles as part of their deterrent force.)
Beyond the strike fighters and the missile force, U.S. officials suggest the Israelis could use two other “weapons” against Iran.
The first is special operations forces that would be secretly inserted into the country. At the least, they could be employed to illuminate aim points for laser-guided bunker-busting bombs. At the most, they could launch their own attacks on facilities, particularly those believed to contain enriched uranium.
The other is a new generation of large drones with wingspans approaching those of a Boeing 777 (almost 200 feet). Costing $30 million each, the Heron drones are capable of remaining airborne for 40 hours at a time and have a range of 4,600 miles. While they can be equipped with surveillance and electronic warfare equipment, some officials call them “strike drones,” meaning they could be loaded with explosives and used to attack Iranian targets.
While the initial days of an Israeli-Iranian conflict would probably be bloody, most experts say that the open warfare would be expected to wind down within days or weeks, since neither side has the ability to occupy the other’s territory or enough missiles to sustain attacks.
But that would bring with it its own set of problems, as the conflict would be likely to continue on a lower level, involving covert operations and terrorism.

2 Comments


» Difference between right wing and conservative From GNP Duke_Qa
Posted February 16, 2012. By duke_Qa
This is an article written by the same guy that left the GOP and gave us an inside look at that system. Its named "the right wing Id unzipped", and it defines pretty well the difference between a conservative and a right-winger.

I specifically liked this quote that defined the fundamentalists way of life, which account for 40% of the GOP.

Quote

[indent]They are highly submissive to established authority, aggressive in the name of that authority and conventional to the point of insisting everyone should behave as their authorities decide. They are fearful and self-righteous and have a lot of hostility in them that they readily direct toward various out-groups. They are easily incited, easily led, rather un-inclined to think for themselves, largely impervious to facts and reason and rely instead on social support to maintain their beliefs. They bring strong loyalty to their in-groups, have thick-walled, highly compartmentalized minds, use a lot of double standards in their judgments, are surprisingly unprincipled at times and are often hypocrites.

[/indent]There are tens of millions of Americans who, although personally lacking the self-confidence, ambition and leadership qualities of authoritarian dominators like Gingrich or Sarah Palin, nevertheless empower the latter to achieve their goals while finding psychological fulfillment in subordination to a cause. Altemeyer describes these persons as authoritarian followers. They are socially rigid, highly conventional and strongly intolerant personalities, who, absent any self-directed goals, seek achievement and satisfaction by losing themselves in a movement greater than themselves. One finds them overrepresented in reactionary political movements, fundamentalist sects and leader cults like scientology. They are the people who responded on cue when Bush's press secretary said after the 9/11 attacks that people had better "watch what they say;" or who approved of illegal surveillance because "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear;" or who, after months of news stories saying that no weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq, nevertheless believed the weapons were found.


Another good one on fascism:

Quote

Fascist mentality is the mentality of the subjugated "little man" who craves authority and rebels against it at the same time. It is not by accident that all fascist dictators stem from the milieu of the little reactionary man. The captains of industry and the feudal militarist make use of this social fact for their own purposes. A mechanistic authoritarian civilization only reaps, in the form of fascism, from the little, suppressed man what for hundreds of years it has sown in the masses of little, suppressed individuals in the form of mysticism, top-sergeant mentality and automatism.

I guess this answers why the right-wingers has a much easier time bringing the guns to the battle. It also points out some of our biggest problems with maintaining a functioning democracy instead of having it collapse into a "fascist"/authoritarian regime. People like being pawns... up to the point it gets them killed in a war for Europe.

Oh well, I thought this was an interesting read. Not because of the American angle on it, but because it shows us what many right-wingers actually think and how they act.

0 Comments


» Obama taking a stand on taxes? From GNP Duke_Qa
Posted February 14, 2012. By duke_Qa

Quote

Barack Obama has set out the battles lines over the economy in this year's presidential election by proposing a budget that favours stimulus spending over austerity, and commits to the increasingly popular demand to raise taxes on the rich.

The president laid out $4tn in cuts to the deficit over the next decade as he seeks to reassure the large number of swing voters and conservative Democrats that he is serious about reining in government spending – a primary source of attack by Republican presidential contenders.

But, in a speech in Virginia in support of the proposals on Monday, Obama said a fresh wave of cuts should be delayed until the economy is in better shape to absorb them. In the meantime he proposes new investment in education, jobs and infrastructure, in part paid for by cuts to military spending with the end of the war in Iraq.

"The main idea in the budget is this: at a time when our economy is growing and creating jobs at a faster clip, we've got to do everything in our power to keep this recovery on track. Part of our job is to bring down our deficit and if Congress adopts this budget then along with the cuts we've already made then we'll be able to reduce out deficit by $4tn by the year 2022," he said. "By reducing our deficit in the long term, what that allows us to do is to invest in the things that will help grow our economy right now. We can't cut back on those things that are important for us to grow. We can't just cut our way in to growth."

I personally think its about time that the democrats stopped compromising and started pulling back, so the news that Obama is going for higher taxes on the rich and funding more infrastructure sounds good to me. We've been seeing the signs for a while though, so it shouldn't be a surprise for many that it happens now. It is more a campaign trick than a real budget, as the chances of it being passed right off the bat are minimal.

Hopefully this will turn the focus back on economic politics instead of red herrings like gay marriage, abortion, immigration and all the other things that makes "conservatives" froth around the mouth.

25 Comments


» [GNP]China's Growing Fascism From GNP Duke_Qa
Posted February 6, 2012. By duke_Qa
Figured this is relevant for the games nations playeth: The continuing expansion of Fascism combined with capitalism in China.
Based primarily on the this Truthout article:

Quote

There was a time when China was referred to as a society which was Communist or Post-Communist; today, the terms Authoritarian Capitalist or Capitalist with Asian/Chinese Characteristics are more common. However, there is a new term that appears to be increasingly applicable to the operation of the Chinese state and its impact on the lives of Chinese people and, above all, the education of Chinese youth born in the 1990s. It is increasingly clear that China is the most powerful, mature and internationally accepted fascist state in global history and its status as such should cause us all a great deal of concern.
[...]
While Chinese rarely express an open desire for imperialist expansion, an ideological sense of the inevitability of such expansion is a hidden part of national political consciousness. Rather than being self-admitted expansionists, Chinese expansion is instead expressed by characterizing foreign nations as "part of China" which must one day be reconquered and brought into the fold of the motherland to redress the historic injustices of foreign domination by restoring territorial integrity. The fact that these Asian nations are not part of the People's Republic of China (PRC), as they are supposed to be, is yet further ammunition for a sense of national grievance and humiliation. Press university students on the matter and one will quite easily be told that not only Taiwan and Tibet, but Mongolia, the Koreas, much or all of South-East Asia, Japan and most of the Philippines are somehow "part of China." The argument relies on obscure racial and cultural connections that somehow make these independent nations part of a larger Han empire that - while never having existed in the past as a national entity and, even on a cultural level, has no basis in linguistic and genetic links - must one day be re-established for Chinese dignity and territorial integrity.
[...]
If the Chinese fascist regime is permitted by the international community to continue its rise to prominence, then the consequences will be borne by the people of democratic nations and we have already seen the early stages of this global trend. A powerful fascist state of such maturity and size in the world will increasingly come to determine political debate in nominally democratic countries as the economic advantages of such a regime draws more and more financial resources away from less "efficient" political systems. If China continues to be able to use its fascist state apparatus to attract investment at the cost of liberal democratic nations, then the characteristics of these nations will tend toward increasing fascism in an imitative defensive response. This trend is already far advanced and if it remains unchecked by the active engagement and protest of constituent peoples in the form of actively entrenching our essential social and political norms of individual rights and egalitarian application of the rule of law, then we will witness the slow erosion of the democratic freedoms that were fought for nearly 70 years ago. It is no longer adequate to harp on about "human rights." The necessity of economically isolating regimes which fail to meet certain normative political and legal standards is of paramount importance to the long-term survival of the idea of pluralist government which protects a measure of individual freedom.

So, Chinese fascism combined with a high-functioning economy is not only going to be a big problem for us in case of war, it will be a bigger problem in case of prolonged peace, because the efficiency of such a system will indirectly and directly taint our own rich and powerful to compete. Either out of greed for equal opportunity of money, or out of fear and avarice in an attempt to avoid marginalization, bankruptcy and being directly bought up.


If we were to battle fascism today, I dunno if we'd have the politicians or willpower to actually do it.

10 Comments


» [GNP]The inevitable war on Iran? From GNP Duke_Qa
Posted February 3, 2012. By duke_Qa
This article is more critical of Obama than the topic itself, but I figure its good for a quick summary of today's situation.

For me, these days I get a feeling that I had the winter of 2002-spring of 2003, before the invasion of Iraq started. There are too many signs in both media and in major western powers, that our elected and unelected leaders are actively interested in provoking a war with Iran.

I guess this could be motivated by 2-3 major groups, which might overlap:
1. The military industrial complex of the USA and western Europe, who see their cash-flow drying out as we leave Iraq and start removing our forces from Afghanistan. Both directly through weapon sales, and indirectly through mercenary companies, who lose jobs the western businesses they protect bail out.
2. The western power-people with ties to rich Saudis, who are none too pleased about the massive influx of power we indirectly gave Iran as we neutralized Iraq.
3. neo-conservative American politicians with no scruples, who would love nothing more than to force a democratic peace-oriented president, into a war that could ruin his re-election chances.

"Starting a new war to make money on military sales which siphons cash from the taxpayers to our pockets? Check... Make Saudi friends happy and more willing to throw stolen oil and money after you? Check... Force President into war that will annihilate his re-election chances and get us a president we control 100%? CHECK".

I think that pretty much sums up my opinion on the topic. I was planning to write something more, but I think I've hit all the points that needs hitting... and my soul died a little as I wrote this, and its lunch.

12 Comments


» Spider-goats, the future of civilization From GNP Duke_Qa
Posted January 15, 2012. By duke_Qa
Thought this article was hilarious enough to bring up here. Synthetic biology and the rise of 'spider-goats'. synthetic biology sounds better than genetic manipulation too, so that's a good thing imo :)

To sum it up, they took the genes from silk-producing spiders that creates silk, and put it into the milk producing genes of a goat. Separate the proteins and you have home-made silk without the icky spiders.

It also brings up the topic of bio-bricks, which is the growing field of putting different genes into components which can easily be mixed and matched to create new lifeforms that produce different products. 9th-graders have been able to use this to make glowing bacteria within an hour, and I suspect there are better articles out there about the use of it.

Also, it has been used to create bacteria that produce biodiesel, which is fancy enough in its own right. although environmental organizations are worried that this will reduce the amount of farmland for food... Well, if we ignore the fact that poor people will be the victim of such land-grabs, Mankind needs a good excuse to stop its breeders. And finding a solution to the energy crisis at the cost of a certain percentage of farmland sounds to me as a small price to pay to avoid the apocalypse. Most nations should be interested in becoming independent of oil, and if people are able to create synthetic bacterias that replace fossile fuel, we would be in a much better position than we currently are, food or not.

13 Comments