I really hate it when I repeat myself.
But sometimes I just can't help it. I know I have posted about this
before, but I felt this deserved some attention. Just recently Dr.
James Hansen, and a number of other scientists, published a paper
regarding sea level rise. He has written about it at the Huffington Post blog.
And here is a link to the paper. I will warn you that it is rather long.
What they are saying is that “2°C global warming above the preindustrial level, which would
spur more ice shelf melt, is highly dangerous”. Highly dangerous
as in the human life on earth altering type of dangerous. I know
it's something that is hard to even imagine. After all life goes on,
right? And all of this is sometime way off in the future. But it may be best to try to look at this a little
more in depth, because it is our future and our children's future we
are gambling with.
So I'm here again to bring this to your attention.
So I'm here again to bring this to your attention.
160 comments:
Are the Chinese building their new islands high enough and tough enough to stand up to this, what with an expected increase in number and severity of typhoons in the region?
I have read some articles describing this as imminent and serious, and others describing it as serious but not so imminent. I have no idea who's right. I have also read articles suggesting that the sun will enter a phase with less solar energy reaching earth which will produce cooling and a soon to come mini ice-age. What is one to believe?
My basic gut feeling is that human activities that disturb natural patterns and have a dramatic impact on the environment are bad. And there are ample evidence that we are having a serious impact on mother nature and have had for quite some time now.
The problem for me is understanding how to reach a less intrusive way of human living when we are locked into a system of endless growth, in population numbers and in our economy. If mining output is decreasing it's a problem for our economic growth and the number of jobs, at the same time as it's arguably good for our environment. The same goes for many sectors of our economy.
Increased consumption = needed and desirable in economic terms = bad for the environment.
I'd like to shoot this m*therfu*ing Minnesotan dentist with a bow and arrow myself:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/zimbabwe/11767119/Cecil-the-lions-killer-revealed-as-American-dentist.html
Don't that this to mean I believe neither Minnesotans nor Americans are over represented in these kind of criminal affairs, but this time it apparently was one. Some shameful shit.
"And there are ample evidence that we are having a serious impact
on mother nature and have had for quite some time now."
For hundreds of thousands of years there was an average human world-wide population of around 5-10 million people. There was a practical limit on both the size and density of hunter/gatherer bands.
Around 12,000 years ago mankind discovered agriculture and the average population soon jumped to around 300-500 million people world-wide. Cities generally topped out at a little less than a million people as an upper limit. There was a practical limit on getting food into the cities and refuse out of the cities.
Around 250 years ago we discovered steam engines; we now had machine power. Cities (megalopolises) now run to 25,000,000 people. This is more people in one gathering than existed world-wide for hundreds of thousands of years. And the practical upper limit has not been discovered yet.
Are the Chinese building their new islands high enough and tough enough to stand up to this, what with an expected increase in number and severity of typhoons in the region?
I somehow doubt it.
Lee, if you want to, you can bring the Chinese discussion up here. Although I did leave a comment in the last comment section in response to your article link.
Lee: "Around 250 years ago we discovered steam engines"
Of course that was a precursor, like all science before also is. But it wasn't really until the age of oil things started to really change. Even the early industrialisation fuelled by coal pales in comparision with the age of oil.
http://www.paulchefurka.ca/World%20Population%20and%20Oil%201900.JPG
My basic gut feeling is that human activities that disturb natural patterns and have a dramatic impact on the environment are bad. And there are ample evidence that we are having a serious impact on mother nature and have had for quite some time now.
I think so as well.
I have no idea who's right. I have also read articles suggesting that the sun will enter a phase with less solar energy reaching earth which will produce cooling and a soon to come mini ice-age.
If this were to occur it would depend on timing whether or not it is helpful or even more hurtful. A large infusion of fresh water into the ocean can cause the same type of effect.
The problem for me is understanding how to reach a less intrusive way of human living when we are locked into a system of endless growth, in population numbers and in our economy.
I think that is the problem for many people, including businesses. How do you attempt to pull back when human civilization is built on consumption? I wonder what solar panels cost...?
I'd like to shoot this m*therfu*ing Minnesotan dentist with a bow and arrow myself:
I saw that. Horrible. It looks like the landowner and hunting guide have been arrested for poaching, as they apparently lured the lion out of the safe area it had been living in. They don't know where the dentist is.
Even the early industrialisation fuelled by coal pales in comparision with the age of oil.
Except on balance coal is dirtier than oil. In itself it has helped produce a large portion of the CO2 that is blanketing the earth.
"But it wasn't really until the age of oil things started to really
change."
Piston, cylinder, rings, valves, crankshaft, flywheel. All there for a reciprocating steam engine; turns out they work equally well with an IC engine. So, we set about figuring out how to get at the oil. We already knew bout the oil; we just didn't know how to get at it. (That was figured out here in the United States--drill instead of dig--case the well to get past the ground water). We had the engines first--we went after the oil to supply the engines. If there were not oil, we'd still have the engines; it'd just take 20 minutes to warm up your vehicle to operating temps, which would make mass transit much more ubiquitous, but, otherwise we'd still be where we are.
"How does that affect the recovering housing market in the US?"
Should actually give it a boost. Cheaper supplies. Other than that, it'll almost certainly accelerate the consolidation of capital among the >1%.
Some analysts are thinking there will be a crash in oil prices. To the point that we will be seeing under $2 a gallon gas here in the States. Hmmm...I wonder if it would then be a good time to redo an asphalt driveway?
3,500 migrants try to enter the UK through the Chunnel.
Apparently there was some confusion regarding safe zones in Syria when the deal with Turkey was struck.
Lee: "We had the engines first--we went after the oil to supply the engines. If there were not oil, we'd still have the engines; it'd just take 20 minutes to warm up your vehicle to operating temps, which would make mass transit much more ubiquitous, but, otherwise we'd still be where we are."
Point taken. But I still believe the oil-economy meant a faster pace of "progress" than we would've had sans oil. We probably agree on that and we probably agree that once oil was discovered its massive use was inevitable so I don't really see an argument to be had over that.
My opinion is that the most interesting aspects are the following:
Can we sustain the same economic system that we use today but be sufficiently more friendly towards the environment (by putting a price/cost on CO2 emmissions for instance)? Or are we destined to run the gauntlet to its very end and then collectively crash and burn - or drown as it might be?
Or will/can we come up with a new economic paradigm that does away with the wear and tear society we now live in?
Example: When I was a kid which was not THAT long ago a TV was a major purchase for our family and when we made it we kept that TV for its full lifespan - maybe even repaired it when it broke if that was possible. Today I could, if I wanted to, buy a new TV every month when I get my salary. And today TVs are scrapped not because they no longer function but too make room for a new and improved version.
Also will population control ever become a priority and if so can it be brought about in a humane way?
"3,500 migrants try to enter the UK through the Chunnel."
That's the second attempt a crossing en mass probably intended to overwhelm the security. About three weeks ago around 500-600 tried it.
" Apparently there was some confusion regarding safe zones in
Syria…"
Most likely the Turks doing some aggressive post-negotiations negotiating here. Quite possible they think they didn't get enough in the agreement and are attempting to re-open negotiations with an eye towards either getting more by simply claiming more, or backing out.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
"Can we sustain the same economic system that we use today but
be sufficiently more friendly towards the environment (by putting a
price/cost on CO2 emmissions for instance)?"
Yeah, we can do that.
"Or are we destined to run the gauntlet to its very end and then
collectively crash and burn - or drown as it might be?"
Yeah, we will probably do that instead. I am no longer optimistic we will deal with the problem before it deals with us.
"Also will population control ever become a priority and if so can it
be brought about in a humane way?"
What I consider the most reliable predictions on population are that world population will top out at around 9 billion or maybe a little less and then drop back some from there. I expect the orange or green lines on this graph reflect the most likely outcomes.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Post Script:
Henry Ford's Model T was designed to run on alcohol (methanol or ethanol), kerosene (coal oil), or gasoline. Ford thought the fuel of the future would be methanol; he wasn't thinking about wasting corn crop acreage for ethanol; he was thinking hemp methanol; hemp grows in poorer soils. (slightly distilled hemp oil could substitute as gasoline, non-distilled hemp oil could power a ‘diesel’ version, and this from ground not then considered suitable for traditional food crops.) Diesel engines were, by the way, originally conceived with the eye towards running them on ‘vegetable oils’ (rapeseed, corn oil, peanut oil, like that--works too).
Post Script:
"I expect the orange or green lines on this graph reflect the most likely outcomes."
That's assuming that the inevitable revenge of Mother Nature is largely delayed until after 2100 AD.
@ Lynnette,
Teabaggers just upped the ante on the ‘establishment’ Republicans.
Can we sustain the same economic system that we use today but be sufficiently more friendly towards the environment (by putting a price/cost on CO2 emmissions for instance)?
I think getting business on board is a critical aspect to finding a solution. There was a recent pledge by various companies to reduce carbon emissions.
If we are to believe the paper written by Dr. Hansen and his colleagues the problem though may be the speed in which this would occur. Cargill is saying a reduction of 5% over 5 years.
The task of achieving a reduction of atmospheric CO2 is formidable, but not impossible. Rapid transition to abundant affordable carbon-free electricity is the core requirement, as that would also permit production of net-zero-carbon liquid fuels from electricity. The rate at which CO2 emissions must be reduced is about 6%/year to reach 350 ppm atmospheric CO2 by about 2100, under the assumption that improved agricultural and forestry practices could sequester 100 GtC (Hansen et al., 2013a). The amount of CO2 fossil fuel emissions taken up by the ocean, soil and biosphere has continued to increase (Fig. S23), thus providing hope that it may be possible to sequester more than 100 GtC. Improved understanding of the carbon cycle and non-CO2 forcings are needed, but it is clear that the essential requirement is to begin to phase down fossil
fuel CO2 emissions rapidly. It is also clear that continued high emissions are likely to lock-in continued global energy imbalance, ocean warming, ice sheet disintegration, and large sea level rise, which young people and future generations would not be able to avoid. Given the inertia of the climate and energy systems, and the grave threat posed by continued high emissions, the
matter is urgent and calls for emergency cooperation among nations. Dr. James Hansen et al
That's the second attempt a crossing en mass probably intended to overwhelm the security.
Some ended up dead or injured. Not exactly smart. But as the reporter mentioned they have faced greater risks to get here, so the tunnel and its contents don't seem as dangerous.
Most likely the Turks doing some aggressive post-negotiations negotiating here.
Sounds a bit like the Iranians. Must be related.
More bad news on the sea level thing.
"…so the tunnel and its contents don't seem as dangerous."
But they are effective. Neither attempt at a break through has succeeded, or even come close.
Diesel engines were, by the way, originally conceived with the eye towards running them on ‘vegetable oils’ (rapeseed, corn oil, peanut oil, like that--works too).
I heard about one guy who modified his engine to run on old cooking oil. He'd pick up used oil at places like McDonalds. The only problem was his car smelled a lot like french fries. :)
"I heard about one guy who modified his engine to run on old
cooking oil…"
A diesel engine will run on ‘new’ cooking oil without modification. ‘Old’ cooking oil has almost always been scorched, heated to point it tries to solidify when it cools down, so it has to be re-heated to flow, but that's pretty much the only modification needed.new
The two-degree goal offered in the Copenhagen Accord is more a reflection of what seemed politically feasible than what is scientifically advisable.
That's really the whole point of the the paper. Politicians can set whatever limits they think are doable, but as you pointed out above, Mother Nature doesn't give a crap about politicians.
I slogged through that paper yesterday. Most of it is technical scientific descriptions of how they came up with their conclusions meant for, as they said, peer review. But if you scroll down to around page 42 and read section 8, Summary Implications, you will get the gist of what they are saying.
It will make the migrations today look like child's play.
It states that Boehner tried to “consolidate power and centralize decision-making, bypassing the majority of the 435 members of Congress and the people they represent.”
I'm starting to feel sorry for Boehner. It looks like just another witch hunt. He and Hillary could form a club...
Btw, almost forgot, I heard that the snow that fell in Boston last winter has not all melted yet. Something for the east coast to look forward to in the future? Year round snow.
"I'm starting to feel sorry for Boehner."
The Republican Party is looking increasingly inept. They can't agree with one another. I still look for the Republican Party to disintegrate within my lifetime. The blessings of the late great Saint Ronald come to fruition. (The Democrats will come apart immediately thereafter, but will likely re-organize and survive as a much different entity than it is today--major political re-ordering the likes of which has not been seen since the Whig Party collapsed just prior to our Civil War.)
"…likes of which has not been seen since the Whig Party collapsed
just prior to our Civil War"
Or maybe the re-ordering that saw the old Confederacy switch from being conservative Democrats to conservative Republicans. But, that took a number of years; this one'll be quicker.
Headline: Donald Trump Surges
The headline is a bit misleading. What they're trumpeting is that Donald Trump has gained some support in the newest Quinnipiac University national poll. He's pulling down 20%, which is more than the last Quinnipiac poll showed for him, but less than the 24% Trump showed in one recent poll (may very well have been an outlier). However, it does show that Trump's most recent outrageousness hasn't hurt him a bit in the Republican primary. ‘Establishment’ Republicans had been falling all over themselves this past week, explaining how Trump was killing himself, but that don't seem to be happenin’.
Here is another argument against the Iran nuclear deal, presented by no less a conservative icon than George Will. He says we should not make a deal with Iran regarding their nuclear ambitions because we need to punish Obama for being an arrogant bastard.
I don't often find George Will saying utterly stupid things, but this certainly qualifies as an utterly stupid thing.
Lee: "What I consider the most reliable predictions on population are that world population will top out at around 9 billion or maybe a little less and then drop back some from there."
That's still about 2 billion more people on earth. And another major initiative we've got going is the fight against poverty. So we're gonna move a pretty large portion of people out of poverty and add 2 billion (about a 30% increase) new people that we presumably will also want to keep out of poverty. More food, more goods, more transports, more recourses comsumed. Aggregated depletion of top soil, the oceans, fossil fuels and more toxins released.
I am not so sure this will be an easy task to combine with less impact on our collective environment. You'd need some seriously "smart growth", which I have heard about but not seen just like Unicorns or the Loch Ness monster, for that to happen.
You have any ideas about this Lee?
Trump has been pushing the "make America great again" button. I have to wonder if that isn't what people have been hearing and ignoring all the other inconvenient ranting he's been doing?
I know he's not stupid. He hasn't become a billionaire by missing opportunities. There may be some logic in his madness.
I saw the other day that most Americans seem to be opposed to the Iran deal. Perhaps the "death to America' chanting is still just ringing too loudly in their ears?
Has anyone read "Lawrence in Arabia"? I have been managing to squeeze in a few pages each night. It's excellent. It's not just about T.E. Lawrence, although he is the focus, but about the whole environment of that era, including the roles played by various people from other countries. The author has dovetailed the puzzle pieces together quite nicely.
The book is written in such a way that it reads like more of an adventure tale than a dry history book. It also gives nice historical details of how the modern Middle East has come to be.
Hmmm...apparently in the run up and beginning days of WWI Germany was intent on fomenting Islamic insurrection in various territories controlled by the British. They planned to use sabotage and subversion throughout the Muslim World.
"You have any ideas about this Lee?"
Perhaps I wasn't clear before. I'm no longer optimistic that we will deal with the coming ecological crisis before it deals with us. I don't expect it wipe out the human race, but I do think there'll eventually be a fairly large die-off. Civilization will probably do better on its second try. But I expect the first try will end in disaster and collapse.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
"I saw the other day that most Americans seem to be opposed to
the Iran deal."
The ‘anti-’ forces are much more active on the PR front. But, polling results seem to me to depend on who's take the polls.
"Has anyone read "Lawrence in Arabia"?"
No, haven't read that one. I am familiar with the character.
There has been a public petition circulated for extradition of the dentist who shot Cecil the lion to Zimbabwe. The White House is going to be reviewing it. Zimbabwe is still investigating and hasn't made a formal extradition request, apparently.
He's getting a lot of flak here, with protesters outside his dental practice, which is closed. Not a popular guy.
I'm no longer optimistic that we will deal with the coming ecological crisis before it deals with us.
I have started to look at anyone under the age of 30 with a certain measure of pity.
I am familiar with the character.
Well, to a certain extent I am too. What I am less familiar with is the environment; the political and the economic machinations of various people, companies and countries of the time period.
"There has been a public petition circulated for extradition of the
dentist who shot Cecil the lion…"
If it's true that he paid $54,000 to a couple of locals to find him a lion, then I might believe the folks who say he paid them enough that it'd be reasonable for him to assume they'd at least have found him a wild lion.
"…companies and countries…"
My level of knowledge doesn't get down to the companies involved (other than the oil companies), but I think I've got a fair overview of the situation.
Post Script:
"…most Americans seem to be opposed to the Iran deal."
At this point Obama merely has to hold a ⅓ minority in either the House or the Senate to sustain his inevitable veto of any Congressional attempts to kill the deal. He's got that in the bag. So, he's not wasting a whole lot of capital on that fight. His reputation, his legacy if you will, depends on how it works out over the ten years, not on how close was the vote.
If it's true that he paid $54,000 to a couple of locals to find him a lion, then I might believe the folks who say he paid them enough that it'd be reasonable for him to assume they'd at least have found him a wild lion.
Yes, as horrible as this thing is I do have to think the guy might have been a little snookered in the deal. But because he's the one that shot the gun he's getting the worst of the flak in public opinion. That might be why the Zimbabwe authorities haven't charged him with anything yet.
My level of knowledge doesn't get down to the companies involved (other than the oil companies),...
I was thinking of Standard Oil when I wrote that.
Lynnette: "because he's the one that shot the gun"
Walter hunts with a bow and arrow. Which is why he wounded the lion and it took 40 hours before they could eventually kill it. That's one of the reasons people are so pissed off with him. That and the fact that the lion was a famous one and it had cubs that will now most likely be killed when another Alpha lion takes over the pride.
But a lot of the rage is aimed at trophy hunting period. And even if I can understand that to some degree there's often more than one side to any story. Check this out:
http://indefinitelywild.gizmodo.com/lion-murderer-walt-palmer-has-done-more-for-conservatio-1720901473
The Iraqi government has declared a manditory four-day holiday from work on account of a killer heat wave.
Something I learned first time this past weekend: The very first atomic bomb, code named ‘Little Boy’, the one dropped on Hiroshima, was never tested before it was used. The concept and design are so simple that they merely assumed it would work (an assumption they were confident enough in, that they used it first).
We've probably all heard the story about how Harry Truman received word of the successful nuclear test (‘Trinity test’) during the Potsdam conference with Churchill and Stalin, but that was a test of the other design, the one known as ‘Fat Man’, which used plutonium rather than uranium. They never bothered with a test of simpler, uranium-based bomb.
Something to think about when considering the difficulties that will be encountered in preventing Iran from making nukes if they insist on making nukes.
Walter hunts with a bow and arrow. Which is why he wounded the lion and it took 40 hours before they could eventually kill it.
Yes, you're right. I mis-typed when I used the term gun. Although I think that was what finally killed the lion in the end.
But just wounding and then having to stalk the lion for 40 hours is what is upsetting. It appears a cruel end to a magnificent animal.
But no issue is black or white, even this one. Your article made some good points. We may condemn Palmer but he, and his kind, have probably done more to preserve wild animals than those who are so outraged on Facebook and Twitter.
I know people who hunt and take trophies, although they usually are hunting deer. So they also use the meat. They either eat it themselves or give it away.
Not all hunting is a bad thing. In this case the hunting guide and the landowner on which the hunt took place are, in my book, guilty of poaching. They knew what they were doing and willfully broke the law to pocket $55,000. Whether or not Palmer knew what they did is what is up in the air.
Oops, I'm out of time, gotta run my parents somewhere. Be back later...
Lee: "Something I learned first time this past weekend: The very first atomic bomb, code named ‘Little Boy’, the one dropped on Hiroshima, was never tested before it was used."
Funny, because I learned the very same thing just last week. I bought a DVD-box called "Americas unknown history" by Oliver Stone (because it was 10 hours long and priced at about $12). And although you have to watch it with his political bias in mind there was still some interesting stuff there.
One thing I also learned was that during the Cuban missile crisis there was a nuclear armed Soviet sub that got completely cut off from their communications and they believed the war was on. They were debating wether to launch and it was the political officer on board who prevented a launch of missiles. If that's true, as Oliver Stone claims, it was a closer call than I previously believed and that political officer is a largely unknown individual who we might owe some serious gratitude.
Lynnette: "But no issue is black or white, even this one. Your article made some good points. We may condemn Palmer but he, and his kind, have probably done more to preserve wild animals than those who are so outraged on Facebook and Twitter."
In this case he clearly shot the wrong animal. But the shit storm is a bit unreal really. I know I started out saying I'd like to "shoot him with a bow and arrow" but that was mostly BS bluster and I didn't actually mean it.
Also, the story in that article I posted about the Rhino population being saved by the "hunting industry" was news to me and made me re-think my initial gut felt opposition to big game hunting.
I still can't understand the desire to kill an animal such as a lion for sport. In my mind it seems like a sick thing to do. But it might not be as bad as I first thought, given that the correct and permitted lion is the one actually killed - which was not the case here.
"If that's true, as Oliver Stone claims…"
It is partly true, mostly true. Stone can make some outrageous claims at times, but that one happens to be mostly true. The sub was equipped with a nuclear tipped torpedoes. PBS did an hour-long on it last year, or the year before, entitled "The Man who Saved the World". The officer in question was "chief of the fleet", or some such designation, not the sub's political officer. The fleet in question was the Soviet diesel sub fleet. His name was Vasili Alexandrovich Arkhipov
Post Script:
Something else Kennedy did not know at the time--the Russians on the island were equipped with tactical (battlefield) nukes, and had standing authority to use them if Americans tried to land on the island. Like the Russian sub commander, they already had the authority to fire their nukes in case of an American invasion of Cuba, and did not have to check with Moscow first.
Yup, that's the guy I had in mind. We'll never know the importance of his action but it seems like it could have been of great importance.
Lee: "Stone can make some outrageous claims at times"
I looked at that "documentary" with that in mind.
For one thing I knew already that he had the Kennedy assassination pegged as a Coup Détat performed most likely by the "military industrial complex".
And when we're on that topic, what's your stance on the Kennedy assassination Lee?
It appears that Washington D.C. is sinking. I wonder if anyone there will even notice?
A mandatory holiday from work for four days? Huh! That beats our snow days here.
But just another sign of what will be.
"The Man who Saved the World".
It's things like that that make you realize how slim the margin for error can be and that sometimes our lives are in the hands of fate.
In this case he clearly shot the wrong animal. But the shit storm is a bit unreal really. I know I started out saying I'd like to "shoot him with a bow and arrow" but that was mostly BS bluster and I didn't actually mean it.
I understand. My first feeling was outrage as well. In a world where we are stewards of the land, in effect, to see a wild animal put down for sport doesn't always play well. But it does pay to cool off before making any snap judgments. There is always another side to the story.
I don't really understand trophy hunting myself either. I understand hunting for meat and for survival.
"We'll never know the importance of his action…"
We know he single-handedly overruled the Captain and the Political Officer and blocked them from firing a nuclear tipped torpedo at the ship which was bedeviling them with depth charges (practice charges--fired in a pattern that was supposed to signal a demand that the sub surface--no shooting at the sub if the sub surfaced and didn't start shooting itself). The Russians didn't recognize the American signal--Russian signal for that was different.
The Captain and the Political Officer each wore ½ of key around their necks on a chain--put the two together and have the complete key and fire the nuclear-tipped torpedo. They agreed to nuke the Navy ship; Arkhipov refused to go along with it. He didn't have a key, but he was already considered a hero in the Russian sub fleet, so he managed to overrule them. You should look up the PBS thing on YouTube if you do that. He deserves a lot of credit for keeping his head in a tough situation, which is how he got to be already a hero of the Russian sub fleet in the first place. He was on the K-19.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
"…what's your stance on the Kennedy assassination…"
Probably Lee Harvey Oswald going solo. Nowadays guys like him shoot up theaters or churches or the like and shoot multiple people. But, back then, Oswald only had to take out the one guy to become famous.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
"I don't really understand trophy hunting myself either."
I understand it. I am not impressed; do not approve. But, they do get a lot of money out of those guys for species preservation, so some good comes of it. I like venison, so I will hunt deer or elk. Nothing else in the game meat division I enjoy enough to skip a steak for, so I don't bother to hunt rabbits or squirrels or like that anymore.
Post Script:
If I could buy venison on the open market I'd probably do that instead of going out to look for it myself.
Analyses I've been reading about Turkey's recent moves against ISIS suggest that Erdoğan is still mostly concerned with Kurds under the bed, specifically, with Kurdish successes against ISIS and that he is hoping to slide alternate Sunni Arab Islamist groups (anybody not ISIS and not Kurdish) into new ‘safe zones’ which Erdogan intends to see carved out of what are presently Kurdish held areas along the border.
The Kurds were (are?) on the verge of taking total control of the border from Iraqi Kurdistan to Afrin in the west, and Erdoğan is concerned that he will soon be facing a functionally autonomous Syrian Kurdistan to go along with the one in Iraq. (And which could give Kurds an outlet to the sea.)
(And which could give Kurds an outlet to the sea.)
That has always been a critical issue for a (potential) country.
Perhaps then it was that Erdogan recognized that events were moving on without him which caused him to attempt to jump on the anti-ISIL bandwagon. Better to remain in an alliance where you may be able to influence events.
Turkey was an important ally of Germany's in the run up to WWI, and after its start, in fomenting Islamic insurrection against the British, even though there was some question as to which side they would eventually choose to side with.
It looks like the Syrian commander of the fighters we have been training was kidnapped by al-Nusra.
I just finished watching the PBS documentary on YouTube. I have to say that Russian submariner was a true hero. It's too bad his fellow countrymen didn't see it that way.
"That has always been a critical issue for a (potential) country."
It has been a consideration for Erdoğan because access to the sea for Iraqi Kurdistan has been one of his major cards. It's helped make him more comfortable with their semi-independence from Baghdad to date, that Turkey controls their access, that their oil ships through Turkey at his pleasure. It's thought that he can, maybe, get comfortable with a Syrian Kurdistan if he can be assured that Turkey can somehow exert control and dominion over them too. Right now, he's not at all comfortable with the idea of a Syrian Kurdistan, but there are those who think he can be brought around on that, if the Syrian Kurds accept a Turkish veto on their supposed autonomy because they've their genuflecting to Turkey as do the Iraqi Kurds.
Meantime though, it does seem that we may have agreed to accept some crackdown on more militant elements of the PKK in return for Erdoğan's cooperation finally against ISIS, but Erdoğan seems to be interpreting ‘some crackdown on the more militant elements’ as meaning he cracks down on only those members of the PKK whom he can find, or those whom he suspects, which is not what thought we agreed to. And, he's also trying to re-negotiate the ‘safe zones’ thing to mean bringing Arab Sunni Islamists in to control parts of the Syrian Kurdistan areas. (Which I sure as hell hope we didn't agree to.)
Did you ever read MIG Pilot: The Final Escape of Lt. Belenko? I read it ages ago, but I still have it. Great book.
"It's too bad his fellow countrymen didn't see it that way."
It crippled his military career, but didn't kill it. He did manage to make Rear Admiral rank before he died.
"Did you ever read…"
Nope, haven't read that one either.
And, he's also trying to re-negotiate the ‘safe zones’ thing to mean bringing Arab Sunni Islamists in to control parts of the Syrian Kurdistan areas. (Which I sure as hell hope we didn't agree to.)
Agreed.
I did wonder if there hadn't been some kind of agreement. I'm not surprised that it may have been misinterpreted on someone's part.
Well, off to spend a little time with Lawrence...night. :)
These folks say that Cecil the Lion is still alive. I am personally dubious of that claim.
Looks suspicious to me too. The last lion looked like it had a lighter mane anyway. The first video could have been Cecil in an earlier video. Anyway if he was a research lion he would be tagged, and they'd be able to tell.
So it looks like they may have found at least a piece of the missing MH370.
It also sounds like some American analysts had quietly come to the conclusion that the plane had been deliberately crashed. We will see what they determine from the part the washed up on the beach.
It sounds like there were some demonstrations in Baghdad the other day because of the heat. I have to presume it was because of spotty electricity supply and therefore no a/c.
A state of emergency has been called due to wild fires in California. There are 23 fires burning. They've had drought for over 4 years.
Lee: "If I could buy venison on the open market I'd probably do that instead of going out to look for it myself."
I can buy it on the open market. In fact I have a store just a few hundred meters away that specialise in just that.
But if I could I'd rather go shoot it myself. I imagine there would be a certain primeval satisfaction with cooking what you hunted for yourself. Well, I could but I can't be bothered with getting a hunters license (which is needed here) and buying a rifle and actually go look for one. But I would have no problem at all with baggin' a deer or boar or moose. They are so plentiful here anyway and make good eating.
Lee: " You should look up the PBS thing on YouTube if you do that."
Checked it out. Pretty scary stuff. It seems it really was one mans decision that made the difference.
"But I would have no problem at all with baggin' a deer or boar or
moose."
We don't have wild boar around here anymore; never were moose. Used to be some buffalo (bison); they came in a woodland variety as well as the great herds on the Great Plains. Buffalo is good; I forgot about it. It can be bought locally, but it's farmed buffalo from out west; USDA inspected and all that; and it's way too expensive; it's not that good.
I rather enjoy the finding and stalking; I do not so much enjoy the killing. If somebody else was willing to doing the killing for not too high a price, then I'd let them do it.
"Pretty scary stuff."
The scary stuff is that the Soviets gave the sub's captain launch authority in the first place, without parameters. That was stupid; the captain was stupid. They had conventional torpedoes; there was no need to go to nukes; nor any strategic benefit to be had. As I said before Arkhipov was already something of a hero in the Soviet sub fleet for having kept his head on straight during the K-19 disaster. He kept his head on straight the second time too.
Also stupid that they gave launch authority to battlefield commanders in Cuba, to launch on their own authority, without checking with Moscow, if they thought they saw American ground troops.
Post Script:
No way Kennedy would have concluded that the local commanders had launch authority on their own. He'd have assumed that was orders from Moscow, and the big ones would be in the air in just a minute or so, and would have launched a major retaliation.
Lee: "I rather enjoy the finding and stalking; I do not so much enjoy the killing. If somebody else was willing to doing the killing for not too high a price, then I'd let them do it."
I imagine also that the finding and stalking would be the most pleasant part. Sort of like a nature hike with an additional and exciting purpose. But, and I speak with no experience, I can't see that doing the actual killing would be any problem for me.
Well, it kind of depends. A boar, which is close to vermin here and really needs to be shot off in greater numbers, would be easy. Killing "Bambi" the deer might prove harder, psychologically.
Lee: "We don't have wild boar around here anymore"
Did you use to have them? And if so how on earth did you get rid of them? They are reclusive and hard to hunt yet breed like rabbits, at least over here.
We have a problem with way too many of them and they cause serious damage to agriculture. But given that they are sometimes infested with parasites each one shot has to be tested before sold for meat consumption, and not that many butchers are keen to take them on. And there's too little demand for their meat for hunting for food to keep the population in check.
Which is good for me, because it means their meat is cheap and it's actually really good, especially in a stew I think.
Love moose meat too. We don't have moose here in the south but they are plentiful up north. We have certain quotas in certain areas and a time period every year when moose hunting is permitted. About 100.000 moose are shot every year but the population is stable. About 200.000 deer are also shot every year, but they are by some accounts becoming too many and there are opinions of extending the deer hunting season with one more week.
My favorite is a casserole with lean moose meat. Some mushroom and onions and just a little broiled bacon for the taste and let that simmer in a beef stock for several hours. Then top it off with cream to get that rich gravy and serve with boiled potatoes. Yummy!
"And if so how on earth did you get rid of them?"
Hunting. Eating. Coyotes and wolves helped although the wolves are mostly cleared out now too.
"I can't see that doing the actual killing would be any problem for me."
Not a problem; just not the fun part; I don't enjoy the killing. But, somebody's gotta do it, otherwise no meat.
Cecil's brother has been killed by an illegal hunter just today. :(
Texas has a large wild hog problem too, Marcus. They do a lot of hunting down there.
I suspect we have here one of the fruits of our recent negotiations with Turkey.
Huh! Fareed Zakaria is starting to sound like you, Lee. He is just doing a piece about the lack of participation by countries in the Middle East in the fight against ISIL. His point being, like yours, that ISIL is a bigger danger to the Middle Eastern countries and they should be doing a little more of the fighting. Denmark has apparently flown just as many sorties as the various countries in the Middle East combined.
I must correct an erroneous report that I left here yesterday. Apparently Cecil's brother is still alive. :) It was just a case of mistaken identity.
I suspect we have here one of the fruits of our recent negotiations with Turkey.
Now we know where we stand. Assuming that Turkey is backing al-Nusra, I actually thought it was the Saudis, but they are apparently well financed so it could be both. So much easier to fight a war by proxy rather than do it themselves.
At least we came to their support with air power. Hopefully they managed to give as good as they got. Al-Nusra, and others, will have to be sent a message that they will be subject to coalition air strikes just as much as ISIL is.
"Assuming that Turkey is backing al-Nusra, I actually thought it was the Saudis…"
It was the Saudi; Turkey was backing ISIS (under the table). However, that's resulted in too much sympathy and support, not to mention too much success, for the Kurds, and so now Turkey is looking to supplant ISIS along the border with any Sunni Islamist group who's Arab rather than Kurd (my point in my post of Fri Jul 31, 06:10:00 p.m., above). I believe this may be Turkey and the House of Saud gangin’ up to take out our guys (or maybe even just a Turkish move working solo, without the cooperation of the Saudi). Our guys weren't much of threat anyway, so it's not much of loss there, but it's the thought that counts.
"Huh! Fareed Zakaria is starting to sound like you, Lee."
I keep reading pieces whining about how ISIS isn't getting any weaker, and I keep thinking that they're not getting stronger either. Long as it stays that way it should be okay with us. The Kurds can handle ‘em where they cross paths with the Kurds (with appropriate air support from us the Kurds can handle ‘em). That should demonstrate to the locals what they gotta do. Put their own blood on the line, and we'll back ‘em up, but we don't havta carry the load here.
...it's the thought that counts.
As in we don't want you meddling in our neighborhood. Well if they didn't want that, then they should be handling this themselves instead of letting it spill over into the rest of the world. ISIL's active recruitment of followers in other countries, and their call for attacks in other countries, makes it other people's business.
That should demonstrate to the locals what they gotta do.
It looks like Turkey has decided to close its border to ISIL fighters. Or so it would seem.
I keep reading pieces whining about how ISIS isn't getting any weaker...
Perhaps this may change.
"Turkey has decided to close its border to ISIL fighters. Or so it
would seem."
I'll wait and see. Could be they're just makin’ the appropriate noises and show for the time bein’; go back to business as usual soon as the show's over.
The Kurds will most likely end up gettin' fucked over once again. Useful they've been and loyal they've been too - because of converging interests in past fights. But in the end Turkey won't allow them a state and Turkey, NATO-member with 100M people and the strongest army in the ME, will matter more to the US than the fractioned Kurds do. They'll be sold out or at best kept in some sort of quasi autonomy to perhaps be used later on. A kurdish nation state, which was always their aim, forget about that.
As if the US went into any of the ME wars to help the Kurds. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Big powers don't launch big power plays for the benefit of small players.
"A kurdish nation state, which was always their aim, forget about
that."
Just ‘cause now is too soon don't mean it won't happen. Turkey itself is unsteady; its future not clear. For now it seems that Erdoğan is concentrating on setting up Sunni Arab Islamists on the western edges of its border with Syria--put a stop to any connection by Kurds to the Mediterranean. But the Kurds' prospects for dominion there were ‘iffy’ at best anyway. They're better established further east.
So far they've been fairly good at extending themselves slowly enough to not attract too much push-back. (Turkey has accepted Iraqi Kurdistan for the time being, could maybe be brought to accept a Syrian Kurdistan before too long, and the Kurds have gained a place in the Turkish parliament. Erdoğan won't form a government now, but is hoping his party does better in the soon-to-be-held second go at elections; that hope may not realized; he may have to deal.)
And, just by the way… Obama has made no secret of his support for a unified Iraq and his lack of support for a Kurdish nation/state. And yet we still back ‘em up from that air when they need it.
…that air…? "…the air…"
And we manage to get ‘em some guns and ammo now and again, even though Baghdad objects to such assistance not going the Kurds through Tehran instead.
It looks like Puerto Rico is about to default.
And yet we still back ‘em up from that air when they need it.
Yes, while we may not be ready to get on board a separate Kurdish state we have helped in other ways. ISIL seems to be a threat to the Kurds on their own. So helping the Kurds fight them is in both our interests.
Marcus,
Have you upgraded to Windows 10 yet? I just did so yesterday.
Lynnette,
I'm reading it's working very well. But am also reading about troubling privacy issues and about intrusive data gathering. I'm waiting to find out more about this before I upgrade. Quite possibly it's being exaggerated but I'm waiting for more conclusive reviews from more serious/trustworthy sources and/or a MS reply in the debate. I'm not in any rush so no harm in waiting.
The reason is that I find the "I have nothing to hide" argument stupid and naive, even if I really do have nothing much to hide myself. It's more a matter of principle.
Thoughts about this?, Lynnette & Lee:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/08/04/fox-news-poll-new-high-for-trump-new-low-for-clinton/
"Trump receives the backing of 26 percent of self-identified Republican primary voters -- up from 18 percent in mid-July and 11 percent a month ago. That’s not only the highest level of support for Trump, but it’s also the highest any GOP candidate has received since the Fox poll began asking the question in December 2013.
[...]
And the number who would “never” support Trump dropped 26 percentage points: it was 59 percent in June and 33 percent now. Graham (40 percent), Christie (34 percent) and Pataki (34 percent) now have more voters than the Donald saying they would never vote for them."
Fox News Polls should be taken with a grain of salt (at least a grain). The NBC/Wall Street Journal poll is probably one of the best news organizations polls. Last one had Trump at 20%, but it's gettin’ on towards old now; he'll probably be higher in the new one. Trump is rising in the Republican Primary race, not playing out.
The upgrade to Windows 10 itself went smoothly. I wasn't sure about the Cortana feature so did not opt for that, I think. lol! Sometimes I wonder what I signed on for. Yes, the data tracking sounds intrusive, but I guess I've always assumed they could do that anyway, to a certain extent. It's just like the cookies thing, if you want total anonymity you shouldn't be on the internet. Even the original Anonymous group of computer geeks wasn't able to keep total anonymity. For the average person data tracking will probably be just annoying, in the sense that they will find ads, unless you block them, popping up on their screen. For someone who is actively using the internet for criminal purposes I have no real concern over their privacy. As for me, personally, I just have never wanted to share personal info with people I don't really know. Hopefully any info Microsoft has about my computer usage will not be shared with the criminal element out there. :)
It's more a matter of principle.
I understand. It's one reason I've never signed up for Facebook. I didn't like the thought that they could track or use my info. Nor did I like the idea of pop up ads showing up on family or friends sites just because they were connected to me.
But I am hoping that despite the intrusive sounding nature of Windows 10 that there will be some advantages, especially security wise, to the upgrade. I will have to pick Petes' brain about how he feels about it. :)
I have noticed little messages popping up once in a while. But so far they have been mostly about running scans, a survey on the upgrade, and features that they are just letting me know about.
Trump receives the backing of 26 percent of self-identified Republican primary voters -- up from 18 percent in mid-July and 11 percent a month ago.
He's saying what the base wants to hear.
Last I heard he was going to get Mexico to pay for a fence between our countries. :)
Lynnette:
"For the average person data tracking will probably be just annoying, in the sense that they will find ads, unless you block them, popping up on their screen. For someone who is actively using the internet for criminal purposes I have no real concern over their privacy."
I'm sure the people pre the Russian Revolution thought it was safe to express their love for the Tsar in their personal correspondence. A few years later it might have gotten em' tortured to death. And those people probably saw the Bolsjevic revolution as imposssible to imagine that you today imagin a totalitarian state i the US. Doesn't mean it can't happen.
Then there's the question of Billions of people already living under represssive regimes. How will MS to a 100% level guarantee that their gathered intel cannot ever be hacked/leaked?
And third: I read (I read, as I'm not sure it's the case just yet) that MS will gather a database of every webpage visited and every keystroke stricken by any user of MS10.
Now, granted there's probably a commercial gain to be had with owning and controlling such mass information about users. But do you really believe a private coorporation should have that sort of informational powers?
I have just heard that Biden is seriously considering running. *sigh*
The White House has said they will remain neutral when it comes to endorsing either Hillary or Biden.
But do you really believe a private coorporation should have that sort of informational powers?
It does sound a bit like Big Brother doesn't it?
Then there's the question of Billions of people already living under represssive regimes. How will MS to a 100% level guarantee that their gathered intel cannot ever be hacked/leaked?
They can't guarantee it now. At least not in the case of emails. So if you are in a position like that perhaps having a presence on the internet needs to be considered very carefully before you do it.
I'm sure the people pre the Russian Revolution thought it was safe to express their love for the Tsar in their personal correspondence.
I don't think I've ever expressed a love for any of our representatives. I may have agreed with some at times, but not 100%. And what I write is what I speak so there is nothing secret about my views. I am willing to take the risk that we will continue to allow free speech without threat of torture.
Doesn't mean it can't happen.
Honestly, I fear climate change more.
"I have just heard that Biden is seriously considering running. *sigh*"
That's mostly a popular thought among political writers who want something to write about on the Democratic side (something not Donald Trump). It's a function of Hillary not making enough news to suit ‘em. But, she doesn't need to make news for them, which is why Biden isn't seriously considering running.
President Obama has unveiled his climate change proposals. Of all the critical issues he has dealt with I think what happens with this one will be his most important lasting legacy.
...Biden isn't seriously considering running.
Thank God. I had this horrible thought of a Trump vs Biden race.
I have a rather more favorable opinion of Biden than you do.
Yes, I know. I just can't get my mind around his tendency to talk too much.
P.S.
Who would you prefer Hillary or Biden?
I think Biden understands what's going on in the world as well as anybody. Unfortunately, he has a tendency to say whatever crosses his mind when it crosses his mind, even those passing thoughts that ought not be voiced. Bluntly put; he talks way too much and too freely. But I think he comes to the right conclusions more often than not.
He's not a great fund raiser; which is required these days to run a successful national campaign. Nor is he a great campaigner; fair enough to keep his Senate seat all these years, but not a great campaigner. If he ran against Hillary he'd almost certainly lose. I don't know that she'd be a better president though. She's rather too quick to play interventionist for my preferences. If Biden could control his tongue, which he can't, I'd favor having Biden making the decisions.
Hillary does at times appear to be more of an interventionist when it comes to foreign affairs, yes.
I was just reading about the influx of Puerto Ricans into Florida. Many people have pulled up stakes and headed there looking for better work opportunities. They are a potential untapped voter pool that is apparently already attempting to be mined. So Florida may be an interesting state to watch this election.
Jeb Bush may have a touch of Biden's gaffe propensity. Politico.com
Rick Perry didn't make the cut for the Fox Debates.
Guess Jeb isn't too worried about the women's vote...
Yeah, I saw that about Rick Perry. They say if you aren't at that debate it's unlikely you'll get the nomination.
I don't usually watch the debates this early on. But with Trump and his, well, blunt way of putting things it may be rather entertaining.
I suspect I'll get along fine without watching the Republican primary debates (at least at this stage).
New poll from Monmouth University agrees with Fox Poll; Trump at 26%. (PDF) Bush at 12%.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Der Spiegel article on Erdoğan's move against the Kurds under the guise of taking on ISIS./a
Lee directed me to Stratfor so now I get their emails. I'm not about to jump on board as a subscriber (since there's so much out there for free) but apparently they do publish some articles free of charge. Here's one about Syria I found interesting:
https://www.stratfor.com/weekly/geopolitics-syrian-civil-war?utm_source=freelist-f&utm_medium=email&utm_term=Gweekly&utm_campaign=20150804&utm_content=readmoretext&mc_cid=d98770da07&mc_eid=0db4db6bc0
It seems AQ in Yemen is intent on being heard.
I suspect I'll get along fine without watching the Republican primary debates (at least at this stage)
It kind of depends on when it is and what I'm doing. Also if I can stay awake...lol!
I was watching a documentary last night on the Anasazi and kind of zoned out right at the end.
Here's the hard part where the US is concerned.
From Lee's Spiegle article:
"The US State Department declared that while PKK is a terrorist organization, improved cooperation with Turkey would now make it possible to offer the Syrian group YPG improved air support. In doing so, it created a separation between the two closely cooperating organizations, a distinction that apparently only exists in the minds of Washington politicians."
Like I said before there are so many enemies in the region and so many "the enemy of my enemy is my friend while remaining my enemy" it will be close to impossible not to end up in these sorts of situations if you get involved at all.
My own opinion is that the US involvment looks better today than in a long time. It seems, to me, the main focus is on striking down on IS these days. While yesteryear it was more on providing help to anti-Assad forces, which it turned out only strengthened IS and did little for any "moderates".
Marcus,
I am finding the switching between web sites a little clunky at times. I don't know if it is that data tracking or just a flaky internet connection. If it is the data tracking I wish they would do it faster. *sigh*
Although I did lose internet connectivity last night, so maybe that was it. WiFi sense found it again though. I like that feature, usually I have to do a cold start to get it back.
Sorry, no time to check out the articles and the rest of the comments. I'm going on a boat trip today and have to do an errand before my ride comes.
Later...
Lynnette:
"It seems AQ in Yemen is intent on being heard."
Well the reasons behind the orginal AQ was as such:
The near enemy are the regimes in power especially in Riyadh but really the regimes in all muslim lands. They are not ruling according to Islam and are instead unholy oppressors of the muslim masses. But they are defended by the Great Satan (USA) and his minions (the rest of the West) so they are hard to conquor.
The aim of AQ was always to draw the Great Satan (meaning ya'll) into wars in muslim lands and bleed it so much that it had no strength left to defend the Unholy Rulers and Despots IN muslim lands, who could then be dealt with swiftly and the Caliphate could be estabilshed.
The only real difference between AQ and IS is (apart from a leadership issue) wether the time is ripe just yet. IS thinks it has a Caliphate that it can expand. AQ believes it's not time for that yet since the "far enemy" (ya'll) have not yet been defeated or at least sufficiently depleated. And without the "far enemy" on it's knees the near enemy (the sheiks et. al.) are not yet weak enough to be taken on.
Of course they are both insane, but at least AQ have a vison that's not completely at odds with reality. IS seems to be so insane I really do believe the remaining Baathists are just using it for more local purposes in their fight against Shias/Iran.
"It kind of depends on when it is and what I'm doing."
Donald Trump, Dr. Ben Carson, Ted Cruz, Rand Paul (that last one a much diminished commodity now that there's sufficient crazies in the mix to make him look reasonably sane), Mike Huckabee: I think I'll wait until they get serious. (Although, they may be serious ‘bout Trump.)
Did you know the three front runners, Trump, Bush, and Walker don't even have policy pages on their websites?
That article on Syria is a year and a half old; January 2014.
In return for providing support to the international coalition against IS, the Turkish government has long called for the establishment of a "protective zone" in northern Syria, and now the Americans have agreed. It will extend about 100 kilometers from the border town of Azaz north of Aleppo to Jarabulus, and about 50 kilometers into Syria -- in the areas that IS still controls.
Well, it seems everyone believes we are agreeable to a safe zone in Syria.
It sounds like Erdogan isn't too concerned about a civil war in Turkey. If that is the case it will only give ISIL an opportunity to make more trouble in another country. Instability is a breeding ground for their type.
That's it for tonight...it's been a long day.
"Well, it seems everyone believes we are agreeable to a safe zone
in Syria."
It looks like Turkey is going to move in there and take the ground themselves--if and as necessary. Then they'll hand it over to their handpicked Islamist friends. This seems to have taken the Obama administration and the boys at the Pentagon by initial surprise, but it looks like the decision has been made, and we can either get on board with it or get left behind. I'd say Erdoğan's aggressive re-negotiations have paid off for him. Or, I guess it is perhaps possible that Obama knew it was going down that way, and just didn't mention it to anybody, but I think he got maneuvered.
Gulf News says Syria will now be partitioned, and that Turkey made pretty much the only move it could considering how the Kurds were expanding westward, unchecked by just ‘bout anybody
Thursday means it's Trump in the middle. It wasn't supposed to be this way. "This time was supposed to be different" Vox
When Daesh are trading sex-slaves the highest bids are for children aged 1-9:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-08-03/sex-slaves-sold-by-islamic-state-the-younger-the-better
Women over the age of 40 bring in just about $40, which probably mean they not much in demand. Well, maybe a group of "fighters" could throw in $5 each and buy one just for kicks.
Better a 2 YO who's guaranteed to be a virgin, unless it's a handover from another brave Jihadi and fighter for the great realm of Islam. Then $165 might be warranted unless a wealthy customer from the Gulf can be found to outbid local true believers.
Makes me f-ing sick!
The aim of AQ was always to draw the Great Satan (meaning ya'll) into wars in muslim lands and bleed it so much that it had no strength left to defend the Unholy Rulers and Despots IN muslim lands, who could then be dealt with swiftly and the Caliphate could be estabilshed.
But have we been defending the "Unholy Rulers" or simply trying to maintain some stability to prevent economic turmoil due to fluctuations in oil supply?
Is it likely, given our own oil resources that are now available, that we will run to the aid of those who do not even like us?
Or will we continue to involve ourselves only to try to regain some stability to prevent nuclear war?
I think AQ is just trying to make headlines to compete with ISIL. However, that's not to say they wouldn't like to attack us and that we shouldn't be wary of them. I do agree that ISIL's behavior is insanity. But I suspect the ex-Baath members who are involved with that group are not.
"Or will we continue to involve ourselves…"
I'm afraid that we will continue to try to shape the future there, primarily out of habit. We got in the habit of looking over the horizon and of thinking we had to keep things manageable. That may have made sense at one time; we were about the only force that was going to stop the Soviet Union.
However, there's damn little reason to prefer fundie Sunni over fundie Shia or vice versa, and damn little reason to think it makes sense for us to worry ‘bout which of them prevails in a local conflict, or even to worry overmuch ‘bout them engaging in a local conflict. Keeping the Soviets out of the Middle East was a wholly different and more sensible goal than is keeping the Middle East out of the Middle East.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
More thoughts on Turkey…
Seems to me Erdoğan is taking a gamble. This could be considered ‘bold and decisive’ in the near future, or maybe bold but indecisive if it works out that way instead, which it could…
Or, it may instead be looked back on as a desperate grasp after rapidly slipping control. It sorta depends on how things work out for Erdoğan. As I mentioned in a previous thread:
""The Turkish problem is this: There are no low-risk moves."
Stratfor ― The Turkish Enigma
If it works out well, he was bold. But I can think of a half dozen ways it could go bad for Erdoğan, just off the top of my head, without any effort.
Let's just start with… Erdoğan badly misjudged his electorate just a little while ago. He was looking for a ⅔'s majority for his party, to enable him enact constitutional changes making himself even more powerful. He lost his majority instead. Suppose he's misjudged his electorate again?
And then there's the military thing… Erdoğan has spent several years replacing his generals with political appointees who are loyal to him personally and on-board with his new Islamist inclinations for Turkey. We've seen in Iraq how badly the practice of replacing professional, competent, but potentially hostile generals with loyalists who may not be such good generals has worked out for the Iraqi Army. Suppose the Turkish Army turns out to be not so eager or even not prepared to fight on Arab soil to settle an Arab sectarian conflict?
And I'm just gettin’ started on the list.
Lots of ways this could go bad for Erdoğan.
And if it goes bad then we'll be looking back at today's moves as acts of desperation and panic.
Or, it could click for him and then he's bold and decisive.
Lee: "Erdoğan has spent several years replacing his generals with political appointees who are loyal to him personally and on-board with his new Islamist inclinations for Turkey. We've seen in Iraq how badly the practice of replacing professional, competent, but potentially hostile generals with loyalists who may not be such good generals has worked out for the Iraqi Army. Suppose the Turkish Army turns out to be not so eager or even not prepared to fight on Arab soil to settle an Arab sectarian conflict?"
Interesting thoughts. And it's not only about the military. The previous "deep state" in Turkey was secular and fashioned on Attaturk and his turkish nationslism. It was vehemently against Erdogans Islamism and quite possibly also tried to overthrow him - but did not succeed.
Fact is that even though Erdogan was swept into power by Islamist forces the real "deep state" in turkey has always been quite secular and nationalist.
The one thing these factions have in common is they both distrust, maybe even hate, the Kurds who are seen as would be secessioists.
Did you know the three front runners, Trump, Bush, and Walker don't even have policy pages on their websites?
I'm not surprised at Trump but I am at Bush & Walker.
Thursday means it's Trump in the middle. It wasn't supposed to be this way.
That's why I don't like to even think about elections until we get closer. The pundits can predict all they want, but the reality is is that the American public doesn't always fall into lock step with them. Trump is making the most waves at the moment. Possibly just to get the attention and put him more in the public eye. But some of what he says resonates with some people on the Republican right. But that doesn't mean he can win in the general election. It has to be giving establishment Republicans nightmares.
Putin may eventually give up on Al Assad although what is uncertain was whether Ankara forced Moscow’s hand, either to accept the country’s partition (presumably to protect Turkey from Kurds), or preserve Syria’s unity under a different system of rule.
If Putin abandons Assad that will be the end. It would be interesting to know the backstory on this.
Turkey has always seemed to play a pivotal role.
"The one thing these factions have in common is they both distrust,
maybe even hate, the Kurds…"
If they can't handle ISIS, they may find the Kurds even more of a challenge.
And Erdoğan has pretty much pissed off everybody as far as I can tell. He doesn't really have any friends left.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
"If Putin abandons Assad…"
There's still the Ayatollah.
South Korea, Australia, India, Indonesia, Japan, China, Great Britain, France, Russia, Germany; lobbying congressmen to accept the deal with Iran on their nukes.
The Republican crazies have now become a public embarrassment to us before the entire world.
Under one of the links within Marcus' article on ISIS and sexual slavery I found this article. It's worth a read. It's also rather long.
"It's also rather long."
It is long.
"But for now, we should admit that we are not only horrified but
baffled."
I, for one, am not baffled. He will remain baffled forever. I hope he's not leading anybody's response.
I hope he's not leading anybody's response.
lol! Well, they did say he was a former official from a NATO country.
I've been listening to a bit of the GOP debate. I was right, Trump is certainly entertaining. Right off the bat he offended everyone by saying he wouldn't pledge not to run independently if he didn't win the Republican nomination.
First read appears to hold that it was mostly The Donald Trump Show for 2 hours.
1. Morning reviews are full of Republican operatives and professional advisers and the like who're full of claims that Trump bombed and will now proceed to start tanking in the polls.
2. Other than that they couldn't seem to agree on much except that Carly Fiorina impressed the hell outta the FoxNews Hosts at the earlier Happy Hour Show (I don't think anybody else was watching).
So, we'll have to wait to see if claims in ¶ 1 are correct, and if the claims in ¶ 2 matter at all.
I looked at a whole bunch of Trump clips on youtube and you can't deny he's entertaining. He's got an ego the size of a planet, but he's also a slick operator who will turn hard questions into something else and it's hard to follow how he got away from the initial hard question.
... he's also a slick operator who will turn hard questions into something else and it's hard to follow how he got away from the initial hard question.
Sounds just like a politician. ;)
Post a Comment