Whenever there are multiple
deaths caused by a psycho with a gun there are speculations as to why
this would have occurred. What was the motive?
The reality is that US culture, past and present, is permeated with violence. The most popular team sport in the country is supposedly NFL football, whose schedule on Sunday afternoons changed that of church services to Sunday mornings exclusively. Now the NFL practices its trade on at least 3 different days each week. One of the foremost attractions of the professional model and lesser examples is the physical violence involved. This begins in high school and earlier where a significant percentage of growing boys suffer injuries that will plague them for the rest of their lives. As has been pointed out by others, if high school football was a disease, billions would be spent in search of a cure. The same is true of other team sports.
Many
American motion pictures and television productions contain strong
elements of violence, particularly gun fire. Cinematic soft-core sex
is considered pornography. Murder is entertainment.
Video
games allow the player to fire at and kill computer creations,
satisfying an urge forbidden in reality.
If this is a sad state of
affairs that leads weaker souls to mayhem, does it have a solution?
Probably not. Maybe we’ll have to accept that humans are somewhat
more intelligent than monkeys, even more violent, and actually enjoy
it as long as it doesn’t affect them and those that they love.
The Wall Street Journal has seen fit to publish a letter they received from a Washington, D.C. attorney describing his experience sending through the USPS a check for a substantial amount of money to the District of Columbia taxing authority. The check was stolen, altered, and cashed at his own bank. After dealing with government officials, law enforcement, and his bank for months the bank reluctantly returned his funds. Although the identity of the thief is known, the D.C. Metropolitan Police have yet to make an arrest.
Utility companies and internet service providers handle billing and receipts through businesses. One is listed only by post office box numbers at Carol Stream, Illinois, in DuPage County. Felony Center Chicago is well known for crime of every description. A payment sent through the mail is easily identified by a thief simply through the address. USPS employees are very much aware of this. The real problem seems to be banks accepting altered checks.
But the issue is, in a way, bigger than monetary theft. A collateral and contributing phenomenon is election fraud. If it's unsafe to send money through the mails how can the integrity of mail-in electoral ballots be assured? Evidently it can't be. Ballots in the mail can be easily determined, just as payments made to a Carol Stream, Illinois, post office box. If a stolen check can be easily cashed how hard would it be to cast a fake ballot?
Among the many problems of the USPS, electrification of their truck fleet, employee retention, email antiquating first class service, etc., now added is brazen and ignored theft. The US tries to tell third world nations how to operate when it can't manage its own affairs.
The Illinois Board of Education submitted a grant application to the EPA and received an award of $19.9 million for the purchase and implementation of 70 new "zero emission" school buses for use in eleven districts in the Prairie State. The funding is meant to also cover the expense of two employees that will assist in their adoption.
The concept of hauling students to school and back isn't necessarily legitimate in itself so electrifying the process doesn't make as much sense as eliminating it in its entirety. The warped belief in economy of scale seems to mean that building gigantic schools through district consolidation is a more effective methodology than the once common rural one-room school house. Perhaps neither makes for the best education.
Already public schools have accepted the role of lunch providers. Ostensibly this is meant to assure that children in poverty get at least one square meal a day. Suspicions could be that school cafeterias are meant to save Mommy or Daddy a few minutes in the morning turmoil. Or that positions in the school cafeteria workforce are an important economic benefit to a small town. Now many school cafeterias serve lunch year around.
What is the logical endpoint of this line of thinking? Should public schools be responsible for adequate clothing of students? If little Johnny shows up with a ragged hoodie should he be called into the office of the Clothing Monitor and be fitted with a new North Face jacket so he won't be shunned by his more affluent classmates? Cleanliness is one of the most cherished attributes of post-Puritan culture. Maybe students should be examined for dirty fingernails or worse before being admitted to the classroom. Or simply run them all through a shower.
A translation from German of an Apollo News interview with China hawk Elbridge Colby:
Elbridge
Colby will become the US's chief military strategist and political
number two in the Pentagon under Trump. This spring, he explained in an
Apollo News interview why Asia is now the "decisive theater" for the US,
which must be prioritized over Europe.
In
Germany, people are only too happy to show a caricature of US foreign
policy - especially when it comes to Trump. They are all Putin friends
who want to leave Ukraine and Europe to the Russians, they say. But even
during his time in office from 2017 to 2021, there was often a gap
between Trump's impulsive, often scandalous statements and the actual
actions of his government, which often have a much deeper motivation
than Trump's appearances make it seem.
The
implementation of the geopolitical lines of the USA takes place in the
apparatus of political officials (ministers, heads of agencies, etc.),
who are replaced every four to eight years with each new president. They
do not make headlines here, but they formulate government policy and
thus change the course of world history. In the run-up to the 2024 US
election, Apollo News
therefore spoke to those who will really direct government policy on
key issues. One of them will now be Trump's No. 2 in the Pentagon:
Elbridge
Colby was not only one of the most prominent and important conservative
military strategists in the USA - he is now officially one: As Trump
announced on Sunday evening, Colby is to be given the top job of "Under
Secretary of Defense for Policy", which puts him at the highest
strategic level in the Pentagon - in the view of many observers, the
number two job in the US Department of Defense - and will therefore have
a decisive influence on the military strategy and security policy of
the USA, including towards Germany.
In
the first Trump administration, Colby was still Deputy Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Strategy and Force Development, but was already
responsible for drafting the United States
' groundbreaking 2018 National Defense Strategy, which prioritized the
historic threat posed by China. Since leaving government service, he has
written, among other things, the book "The Strategy of Denial: American
Defense in an Age of Great Power Conflict," named one of the ten best books of 2021 by the Wall Street Journal In an exclusive interview with Apollo News
this spring, Colby spoke about why China is the "biggest rival" the
United States has "ever faced" - which is why it is imperative that the
USA, no matter which government is in power, will shift its resources
fully to China and East Asia. Europe must quickly recognize this reality
- because it must be able to manage the continent's defense essentially
on its own. He also makes this clear with drastic words to German
politicians. He sees Germany as the still dormant but crucial
"cornerstone" of European defense policy.
Apollo
News: You defined the "Strategy of Denial" in your book. Based on
everything we hear, it is very likely that these ideas will be
implemented in the next Republican administration. What would that mean
in concrete terms?
Elbridge
Colby: First of all, I wouldn't claim any personal influence. What I
will say is that I think my strategy is most consistent with the
"America first" agenda. But America first doesn't mean America alone.
It's
not America burying its head in the sand, but it's not the same old
policy either. It's not George W. Bush's foreign policy. That is, you
can't pretend that we're still in 1989, that China is a tenth of our
economic size, that we can bomb around without worrying or throw money
around like nobody's business.
Our
arms industry is in a bad state. US Federal Reserve Chairman Jay Powell
recently said that debt is becoming a really serious problem here. We
have border problems. We have recruitment problems in our military.
The
middle way between isolation and intervention everywhere is for me the
strategy of denial, or whatever you want to call it, which goes back to a
core of American foreign policy that is similar to traditional British
foreign policy with regard to the European continent; which is to deny any state the opportunity to dominate a key region of the world.
And
of course the most important region is Asia, followed by Europe. That
was different 70 years ago when all the major economies were in Europe,
then Europe was the most important region. Now Asia is what Winston
Churchill would call the "decisive theatre". A concept that is very
common in strategic thinking, namely that Asia today has the largest
share of global economic productivity, measured by GDP or something
similar. That share is approaching 50 percent, and in the future it will
be over 50 percent.
And
China, in turn, accounts for about 50 percent of Asia's GDP. China is
the biggest rival we have ever faced. Much bigger than the Nazis or
Imperial Germany or the Soviet Union compared to the United States. That
is a completely different dimension. Anyone who doesn't see that is
living in the past.
The
biggest question in your book is probably the Chinese-American war over
Taiwan. Can you explain why a small country like Taiwan is so
important? In Europe, people like to say that it's about democracy or
their semiconductor industry...
Taiwan
is critical, from a military and geopolitical perspective, to the
successful functioning of what I call the anti-hegemonic coalition. You
have to understand that coalitions are essentially defined not by their
shared values but by their shared opposition to this emerging hegemon.
So the United States made common cause with Stalin in World War II, and
Republican France and Tsarist Russia in World War I. And so on and so
forth.
That's
the basic idea. And the fact that Taiwan is a democracy is commendable.
But I don't think many Americans should risk their lives just to defend
someone else's democracy. The reason Taiwan is so important is because
if China were able to conquer Taiwan, it could break out of the first
Pacific island chain militarily, which would allow it to project further
power.
And
it would raise significant, reasonable doubts among regional Asian
states about the reliability and strength of the United States relative
to the threat posed by China, which could lead to their subjugation [to
China]. If the United States did not play the role of what I call the
external cornerstone balancer in my book, there is a very good chance
that this coalition would fail and China would achieve its hegemonic
goals.
Meanwhile,
in Europe, Russia is not even the largest economy and the EU or NATO,
depending on how you define it, far surpasses the Russian economy, even a
Russian war economy. If the Europeans really wanted to, they could
easily counterbalance Russian military power. And what makes my rhetoric
a little bit sharper toward Europe are two things. First, I want to
convey a sense of urgency, because obviously the Europeans have ignored
the Americans for decades, right?
I
mean, obviously. [US Secretary of Defense] Robert Gates gave a speech
ten years ago that was politely listened to - and completely ignored.
Barack Obama said something once. Basically, Donald Trump got results on
European defense spending, but we're nowhere near where we need to be.
Joe Biden went back to the old way of being nice.
And
the fact is: Both the Trump administration and the Biden administration
have the same Department of Defense Force Planning Construct. That
tells you what kind of military you want to build. That plan focuses on
being able to beat the Chinese in a potential war - which we don't have
the confidence to do right now because we don't have the ability to
fight two wars at the same time. So if a war breaks out in Asia, the US
will have to focus on that. That will make Europe even more vulnerable.
If a war breaks out on the European continent first, that's even more
true: In a war over Europe, including over NATO, the US would have to
hold back its resources.
Because
if we didn't, we would use them up and use them, and then the Chinese
would be mad not to get Taiwan. And the historical analogy I'm using
here is that in 1940, when the Anglo-French forces were collapsing in
the Battle of France, the French were begging for more help from
Britain. Churchill wanted to send more Spitfires and Hurricanes
[aircraft in World War II] to help, but the Royal Air Force said, "If
you do that, we're not going to be able to defend Britain ourselves."
And he did, and in the end nobody doubted Churchill's determination to
defeat the Nazis, but you have to make a thoughtful decision.
So
part of all this is the urgency and the second part is particularly
about Germany. And I'm a great admirer of German culture and so on and
Germany and its history - most of it anyway.
But
the thing is, you and I know you can do better. I know it's hard, but
we all [here in America] pay 3 percent of our GDP. Sorry, 3 percent of
my income doesn't go to my kids or whatever, or my health care, it goes
to defense! To our allies. We're not worried about a Russian invasion of
North Dakota.
During
the Cold War, after World War II, after the Nazi atrocities and
aggression, West Germany still had an incredibly strong military. It had
12 active divisions and three in reserve in 1988. It had a huge
tactical air force. It was the backbone of NATO's military presence.
That was 35 years ago!
In your book you also speak very enthusiastically about German defense strategy and policy in the 1980s. Can you explain that?
Yes,
one of the best strategic documents I've ever seen is the German
Defense White Paper of 1983. I mean, I've only read it in English, but
I'm sure it's even better in German. It deals not only with the military
threat from the Soviet Union, but also with how that threat affects
politics. Of course, there was a realization that war could break out,
but there was also a fear that the Soviets would try to "Finlandize"
West Germany and forcibly take it over to support their model and their
Soviet empire.
Germany
reduced its military after the Cold War because of the peace dividend,
for reasons I can understand. But that's over! That's an explanation,
not an excuse. Everyone has difficult challenges. We, the United States,
are facing a match for the first time in our history, at least in the
last hundred-plus years, with China.
And
Germany's and Europe's defense policy has not responded to that when we
tried to explain it nicely. Now we have to try something tougher. And
those who are not pushing you in that direction [the Biden
administration] are doing you a disservice, because the realities I'm
talking about are structural and they will exist no matter who wins the
election in 2024 or 2028 or 2032.
And
if you are not prepared, you will be unprotected. And I don't want you
to be exposed [to Russia], but as a famous Italian novel says, things
must change to remain the same. For me, Germany's moral obligation is
not pacifism, that is clear.
I
mean, Heiko Maas always went around talking about "people power" - all
well and good, but at the end of the day the Soviets saw a front of
German and American troops and a lot of nuclear weapons and decided it
wasn't worth trying to attack.
Nobody
has benefited more from NATO's collective defense than West Germany,
while other countries like Poland have suffered under Soviet occupation.
And, you know, I'm trying not to make too much of a fuss, but of all
the NATO countries, Germany shouldn't have some sense of collective
obligation, should it?
For
a country that prides itself on being a moral leader, Angela Merkel
literally came to our country and said she was the leader of the free
world. OK, let's see you follow through on that militarily.
In your opinion, what should a modern German army look like in terms of size?
The
exact composition of brigades, divisions, corps can be discussed by
military specialists. Essentially, European NATO armies are needed that
will deprive the Russians of the opportunity to penetrate NATO territory
and take and hold important areas. Defending Poland and Finland is
quite feasible. I think it is more difficult with the Baltic states, but
I think it would be feasible with a significant German effort.
I
guess it would take a lot less than what the Federal Republic, which
was then two-thirds the size of today's Germany, did in 1988. So it's
all about getting back into the game. You know, the Germans say, "Oh, we
need more time." We don't have time! We, the United States, have wasted
time in Asia and you have wasted time when it comes to Europe!
The
main problem is that NATO is still too dependent on the Americans. If
it does that, it is a big mistake for the reasons I have mentioned. So
they are building a sandcastle. Germany should be the cornerstone of
European defense. America should, in my opinion, remain involved in some
ways, for example in nuclear weapons. But Europe should take the main
responsibility for its own defense.
Eisenhower
would have a heart attack at the current situation. Eisenhower said it
would be a great failure if there were any American troops left in
Europe, I think that's his quote. So, you know, this is supposed to be a
partnership.
NATO
Secretary General Anders Rasmussen comes to Washington to lecture us
about the Ukraine package and so on, and then I ask myself: how did the
defense spending of European countries develop when you were Secretary
General of NATO, Mr. Rasmussen? How about a lot less of this
high-sounding rhetoric and saying how important the Americans are - that
benefits the people here in Washington, but it doesn't help ordinary
Americans.
In
Germany, on the one hand, there are centre-left and centre-right
parties in the political spectrum who support the transatlantic alliance
but do little to specifically rearm the Bundeswehr. On the other hand,
there are those on the far left and right who see America as a kind of
imperial threat and who themselves seek proximity to Moscow. What would
you say to them?
Well, I think it's the Germans who have to decide this among themselves. I'm for democracy.
But
if you want to save the transatlantic system, then you have to do more.
The way all these people make big statements about NATO and then do
nothing - that's not how it works. So if you want to save it, then you
really have to make this "turning point". I mean, what AKK said in a big
speech when she was defense minister, I think in 2020. All well and
good, that would be great. But then just do it!
Germany
is a safe country, has recognized borders, low military spending over
the last 30 years. It seems to me that you want to maintain the system,
but you have to do your part. I mean, we're all adults. We all spend
over 3 percent of GDP. You spend about one and a half percent. I mean,
come on. Let's get down to earth here.
Politicians
in Europe are currently often arguing that supporting Ukraine is also
about preventing Xi in China from invading Taiwan. What do you think
about that?
I
can understand the argument about the Ukraine-Taiwan connection because
it helps European interests. I just don't think it's true. Credibility
certainly plays a role in human affairs and in war and peace. I just
don't think that for Taiwan, Ukraine is the primary or even secondary
factor. The main factor will be the military balance on the ground. The
degree of American resolve and Japanese and Taiwanese resolve to defend
themselves.
That's not to say that the mission in Ukraine isn't important. It is important and it's a just cause. That's not the problem.But
if Taiwan's fate were really to be decided in Ukraine, then China would
be much more directly involved - it would probably send military
forces. After all, Taiwan is of vital importance to China.
But
of course you don't see that at all. Rather, the Chinese are behaving
as I would expect: trying to continue the war, supporting the Russians
without paying the full price, trying to shift the balance of power and
the balance of determination on the ground in their favor.
I
think we have damaged our position in the Pacific by our overemphasis
on Ukraine: some weapons, direct compromises on weapons that could go to
Taiwan, but more so the money we sent and the political will of the
American people. I mean, right now we have a big discussion in the
United States about the big package on U.S. border security, Ukraine,
and more. $60 billion of that is going to Ukraine, a very small part of
that may go to Asia. We don't even know exactly how much. If you want to
prevent a Chinese attack on Taiwan, you should focus on preventing a
Chinese attack on Taiwan. Period.
One
final, somewhat speculative question: When do you think an invasion of
Taiwan might occur? Before Xi Jinping's 2027 deadline for military
readiness?
I
don't think any of us know what Xi Jinping really thinks. I think their
military has improved significantly in the last few years, so if you
were Xi, you might decide to wait until the military is in better shape.
On the other hand, in 1939, the German high command was against going
to war, but Hitler said, well, you know, you'll never be better
prepared, the economy will never be better, in fact, the Allies will be
better armed. So we're going to do it now. Unfortunately, he was right.
Admiral
Paparo was recently at his Senate confirmation hearing for the post of
commander of the U.S. Pacific Command. And he pointed out that 2027 is
just a timeline for the development of forces, but that doesn't mean
they're only going to attack after that, they could attack before that,
we don't know. So we have to be ready, as he said, today, tomorrow, a
year from now, and five years from now. So the realities that I'm
talking about are going to endure.
Thank you for the interview!
For better readability, the interview has been shortened, linguistically adapted and structurally optimized.
Colby says: "a
core of American foreign policy that is similar to traditional British
foreign policy with regard to the European continent; which is to deny any state the opportunity to dominate a key region of the world."
What does that actually mean? He doesn't define what "dominate" means in this context. Does it mean philosophically, economically, militarily, scientifically, theologically or something else? And "key region of the world"? Isn't it the case that theoretically sovereign states are expected to dominate their own particular region of the world, which is "key" to them, unless they are colonies or subjects of some other state, which would mean that they aren't sovereign in reality. How does one state "deny" something to another? The two most apparent ways are blockades and war.
A key aspect in the Apollo interview is one that seems to be a major concern of US foreign policy, Taiwan, the relocated Republic of China. While Taiwan and the People's Republic or Communist China have managed to spend 75 years with separate governments and locations but extensive trade relations, Colby and others have basically scheduled an immanent mainland China invasion of their island cousin. This means that the US must prevent this by greatly expanding its available military posture in East Asia, which also means that billions of dollars must go to US defense contractors, a shrinking pool of specialized corporations that depend on international enmity and distrust for their own survival.
A demonstration of US capabilities was carried out with Pacific Skies 24 along the east Asian coasts. The many other countries involved need the project to exercise their equipment.
"Parker Solar Probe was developed as a part of NASA’s Living With a Star
program to explore aspects of the Sun-Earth system that directly affect
life and society."
Great. There are, of course aspects of the Sun-Earth system that directly affect life and society. The Sun-Earth system provides the heat that makes life of any kind on the blue planet possible. The third rock from the sun would simply be a big asteroid careening through space without the presence of the sun.
We'd all be pretty surprised not to see the sun rising above the eastern horizon on a morning or to see it stationary in the sky, as it was said to have done in Joshua 10:13 :
“So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, till the nation
avenged itself on its enemies, as it is written in the Book of Jashar.
The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a
full day.”
We know that such an event would be the result of the earth failing to rotate in space rather than the sun coming to a halt, which would be a catastrophe for everyone, not just the enemies of the Israelites and is in reality a myth.
Be that as it may, no matter what information that can be gleaned through any conceivable scientific investigation of the sun, regardless of the expense, the denizens of earth are helpless in affecting the relationship. While it's interesting that the Parker Solar Probe probably has cost what amounts to a couple of days of US finance of a gang war between two eastern European kleptocracies, it's still money that could be spent on more important problems right here.
In his book, The Mechanical Bride, Folklore of Industrial Man, Marshall McLuhan writes about crime:
________________________
"One hundred police working on a case can make a thousand mistakes before they strike on the right solution, but the criminal, working against these hundred police, cannot afford to make a single error.
________________________
So far as human daring and courage go, this stacking of cards is a challenge. And the kids feel it as such. The criminal is the hero because he is fighting against hopeless odds. Against this kind of daredevil there is no use in talking up the mealy-mouthed righteousness of the respectable businessman. Not so far as adolescent generosity is concerned. The public heart goes with the criminal just because the official head is against him. Therefore, until some sort of moral heroism returns to the scenes of ordinary life, the kids will want to shoot it out with the cops."
_______________________
This observation from seventy-five years ago could easily be applied to the Luigi Mangione affair. Much of the nation has been engrossed in the motives involved but, as might be expected, to the consternation of the proles, the suspect was captured more quickly than they wished. The story continues in a much more uninteresting vein.
A similar event occurred on the evening of Friday, June 17, 1994 on a 60-mile chase along California's Santa Ana Freeway (5), Artesia Freeway (91)
and San Diego Freeway (405), which began at 5:56 p.m. until he reached
his Brentwood home at 7:57 p.m., he being O.J. Simpson in the back seat of his white Ford Bronco. Over 95 million viewers watched this live pursuit, switching the channel from an NBA playoff game between the Knicks and Rockets.
Since it took place on a Friday after work, the saloons were full of enthusiastic witnesses to a live television broadcast of a police chase that lasted two hours. They were all cheering wildly for the celebrated gridiron star accused of killing his wife and another man. This and the following legalities made "The Juice" the most famous football star of all time and he remains so today, at least in part because of his impossible attempt at escape, if such it was.
Sadly, McLuhan was no longer with us on the evening of Simpson's adventure but it's interesting to speculate what his reaction to it might have been.
And what might those be? As described in this article from the Smithsonian Magazine, they are pulsating stars in far away galaxies used to measure distances and speeds of travel. Apparently astronomers are concerned that their investigations seem to show that the universe is expanding at a speed even faster than was previously believed.
So what? Who, except for a few cloistered academics, can possibly care about the movement of celestial bodies millions of light years away. Knowing their exact speed and direction has zero to do with anything happening or likely to happen here on earth, even if they could actually prove their measurements. Let's find out where the body of super Thoroughbred race horse Shergar ended up. Not that it's wrong to seek out answers to esoteric questions. It's just that public funding shouldn't be used to finance it. That's a role for people like Bill Gates or Juan Soto.
The aesthetic satisfaction derived from an elegant mathematical demonstration, a cosmological theory, a map of the human brain, or an ingenious chess problem, may equal that of any artistic experience--given a certain connoisseurship. But connoisseurship is equally required for the true appreciation of any but the most vulgar forms of art; and particularly for ancient, alien, and 'modern' art. However, the absurd division of our society into 'two cultures' produced the paradoxical phenomenon that the average educated person will be reluctant to admit that a work of art is beyond the level of his comprehension; but he will in the same breath and with a certain pride confess his complete ignorance of the principles which make his radio work, the forces which make the stars go round, the facts which determine the heredity of his children, and the location of his own viscera and glands.
One of the consequences of this attitude is that he utilizes the products of science and technology in a purely possessive, exploitative manner without comprehension or feeling. His relationship to the objects of his daily use, the tap which supplies his bath, the pipes which keep him warm, the switch which turns on the light--in a word, to the environment in which he lives, is impersonal and possessive--like the capitalist's attitude to his bank account, not the art collector's to his treasures which he cherishes because he 'understands' them, because he has a participatory relationship to them. Modern man lives isolated in his artificial environment, not because artificial is evil as such, but because of his lack of comprehension of the forces which make it work--of the principles which relate his gadgets to the forces of nature, to the universal order. It is not central heating which makes his existence 'unnatural', but his refusal to take an interest in the principles behind it. By being entirely dependent on science, yet closing his mind to it, he leads the life of an urban barbarian.
Arthur Koestler, The Act of Creation, Arkana, Penguin Group, London, England, 1989, pg. 264.
The Pioneer has before declared that our only safety depends upon the
total extermination of the Indians. Having wronged them for centuries,
we had better, in order to protect our civilization, follow it up by one
more wrong and wipe these untamed and untamable creatures from the face
of the earth. In this lies future safety for our settlers and the
soldiers who are under incompetent commands. Otherwise, we may expect
future years to be as full of trouble with the redskins as those have
been in the past.
The incredibly useful $10 billion+ infrared James Webb Space Telescope, launched on Dec. 25, 2021 from the Guiana Space Center in French Guiana was then parked near the second Lagrange point (L2) of the Sun–Earth system, which is 1,500,000km (930,000mi) farther from the Sun than the Earth's orbit, and about four times farther than the Moon's orbit.
A number of important discoveries in the vast reaches of space have occurred since the telescope has been put in operation but the latest is what has become known as the "Firefly Sparkle". Discovered by a team of astronomers from Wellesley College in Massachusetts, USA, the galaxy seems to share many of the characteristics of "our own" Milky Way, at the same stage of its presumed development 600 million years after the Big Bang.
As interesting as this might be to astronomy buffs and academics doing the research, there doesn't seem to be much use of this information to literally anyone else on earth. What we know or surmise about celestial bodies millions of light years away from earth can have no effect, positive or negative, on anyone living on this planet in the past, present or forseeable future. Ergo, how would the hyper-Whigs that have confiscated public money to finance this and similar projects justify them?
According to the Wiki on the telescope:
The James Webb Space Telescope has four key goals:
to search for light from the first stars and galaxies that formed in the universe after the Big Bang
How does reaching these goals, even if possible, make life better for those who's confiscated assets were used? And how is it realistically possible to "understand star formation and the origins of life" by looking at infra-red images of a single point in time that have traveled over millions of light years.
Well, sure it would perhaps improve the life of the researchers at Wellesley College and others. Most of all it would lead to more and better paid positions at NASA. But even better yet, a huge proportion of the investment in the project would greatly improve the prospects of the stockholders, management and employees of Northrop Grumman Aerospace Systems, Ball Aerospace & Technologies and several thousand scientists, engineers, and technicians spanning 15
countries that have contributed to the build, test and integration of Webb.
A total of 258 companies, government agencies, and academic
institutions that participated in the pre-launch project; 142 from the United
States, 104 from 12 European countries (including 21 from the U.K., 16
from France, 12 from Germany and 7 international), and 12 from Canada. Other countries as NASA partners, such as Australia, were involved in post-launch operation.(See "Institutional Partners Webb/NASA". jwst.nasa.gov. Retrieved 2 August 2023.)
While the design, construction, deployment and operation of the James Webb Space Telescope are marvels of technology, are the projects performed by it really science since there are no practical applications that can even be envisioned for its results? An innocent bystander might think that a few billion dollars devoted to this enterprise really doesn't harm anyone. If that were true the draconian IRS wouldn't be all over the schleps that fail to make tax payments. The reality is that it's one of the great Whig enterprises of all time. Public funds being directed to government cronies for ephemeral and unneeded programs wandering around the cosmos. "Science" run amok.
For some years "preppers" and survivalists have promoted the idea that wise individuals would assemble a collection of necessary items that would help insure their continued life in the event of some wide-spread and serious tragedy. These items would be kept in a backpack always close at hand so as to be immediately available when the event occurred and the individual would find it necessary to leave his current surroundings for a safer spot. This implies that whatever the circumstances, nuclear attack, for instance, dangerous social upheaval and violence would be the aftermath.
Obviously, the issue isn't surviving a megaton blast, falling trees or a giant fissure opening in the earth. It's living through a breakdown in society, or more of a breakdown than seems to be going on presently. If that's true, "bugging out" isn't the solution. Leaving your accustomed surroundings and lugging your bag to a new, less-known location wouldn't be the best option.
If you believe in preparing for such a disaster, it doesn't involve filling a pack sack with candy bars, bottled water, band aids and a .357. What you need to do is gather more information about your present surroundings, especially your neighbors and their capacities. Find out who among them, if any, share your concerns and discuss the most effective responses. A major calamity will mean that, at least for a time, no civil order will be enforced. You and your neighbors won't want individuals or groups wandering around your streets. Someone will need to take the lead in organizing security. In a dire and wide-spread situation no one will be going to work anyway. Determine what local spots are most secure and defensible.
The reality is that even if only a minority buy into such a plan at first, eventually it will be necessary. Why wait until its too late?
It's been over 50 years since Americans have walked on the moon and it looks like it's going to be a few years more before it happens again. In a post-modern display of incompetence the current schedule of rocketing fragile humans to the lunar surface and back is being postponed until 2027. The ideas behind NASA's super project are here.
While those of us standing in the yard looking at a full moon on the evening of July 20, 1969 were amazed and proud that Americans had safely reached a place outside the earth's atmosphere, the novelty has worn off. It would have been nice if a large flare or strobe light had been made visible but we took their word for it.
There's really no connection between moon landings and the launching and use of satellites for communication and scientific research. People like Elon Musk, with a desire to move on to Mars are welcome to do so on their own dime but the rest of us are unlikely to enjoy any real benefits from their efforts. Of course, the Neo-Whigs enthusiastically point out the many benefits from the publicly financed space program trickle down to the consumer but those advantages could just as easily be produced more cheaply by directed research and development. There are genuine problems here on earth that need to be solved. Perhaps, since this is a "democratic" society, a vote needs to be taken to determine if the population wants vacations on Mars at some time in the distant future more than they do research on Alzheimer's disease, cancer and teen crime.
The Inflation Reduction Act. That's the Orwellian moniker of legislation signed into law by President Joe Biden on August 16th, 2022. It hasn't reduced inflation.
It's actual goal was authorizing $783 billion in federal money to combat climate change. Evidently there wasn't enough money for the congressional Whigs to finance the fake efforts of their cronies, off-shore wind turbines, solar panels, direct capture CO2 pipelines and sequestration, hydrogen research and carefully orchestrated propaganda. Funds were also needed to gain the support of academia and the media to create the anxious atmosphere necessary for public acceptance.
greencarreports.com
A large share of the general population, if they thought about the "problem" at all, felt that the issue was an example of Marxist thinking intruding on the US capitalist system. They were wrong. The climate crisis was a great opportunity for both existing energy providers and an entreprenurial capitalist class looking for entry level openings with huge subsidies.
The election of 2024 may have changed that. The president-elect has made known his skepticism of the climate emergency and his plan to roll back provisions of the IRA. If successful this will create financial negatives that will compromise the survival of the new entrepreneurs and disappoint the existing energy structure. Since there have already been deals and commitments based on the IRA, all of which involve big money, there will be much conversation between business moguls, their congressional allies, the relevant bureaucrats and the involved researchers. Modifying legislation once enacted is even more difficult than initially creating it because dependencies have been created.
anker.com
Ultimately, the situation is an example of the failure of the democratic process and government in general that ends when all the money isn't gone but redistributed among the oligarchs.
German Chancellor Olaf Scholz has pledged additional military support
worth $680m to Ukraine in an unannounced visit to Kyiv after President
Volodymyr Zelenskyy sought security guarantees from NATO against steady Russian advances.
The Russian invasion itself has been a response to the Ukrainian desire to be protected by NATO. Like all things German, the US has been and remains the author of this German policy.
At the same time, the Prosecutor's General Office of Ukraine says that 100,000 soldiers have deserted since the Russian invasion in February 2022. Some Ukraine military authorities claim the number may be as high as 200,000. Apparently, many of these deserters have made their way to Germany, where they intend to stay. It's estimated that as many as 60,000 Ukrainians are living in Berlin. The status of Ukrainian refugees differs from other asylum seekers in that they are permitted to work and receive benefits such as health care and language courses.
In Austria: Since April 21, 2023, persons who have an "Ausweis für Vertriebene" are
exempt from the Alien Employment Act. This means that you have free access to the Austrian labour market
and can be employed by an Austrian employer in the same way as he/she
would employ an Austrian or EU citizen. In particular, the employer does
not have to apply for a work permit ("Beschäftigungsbewilligung") for
you.
The US has announced $725 million in military aid for Ukraine drawn from Pentagon stockpiles.
According to the US State Department:
"Uniting for Ukraine provides a parole pathway for Ukrainian
citizens forced to flee their homes as a result of Russia’s ongoing
invasion of Ukraine. Individuals granted parole through Uniting for Ukraine will be able to travel to and stay in the United States for up to two years.
Uniting for Ukraine (U4U) opened for registration on April 25,
2022, and is managed by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). As
of December 2023, over 170,000 Ukrainians have been granted parole
through U4U for up to two years. We refer you to DHS and the Uniting for Ukraine website for more information on the requirements and benefits of this program."
Evidently, racism is such a big problem that it's intruded into the decor of professional athletic attire.
In fact, it's such a problem that it's a major topic of conversation in the mastodon media at all times. But what is racism? In reality there is only one race of humans, the human raceitself. Since there doesn't seem to be any evidence of living Neanderthals or Australopithecans we'll just have to assume that those races of primates aren't around and the only race of advanced primates are humans. Thus racism on the part of humans must be directed against themselves. So much for grammatical pedantry.
Racism is actually used to describe the disdain of one breeding population for another on the basis of cultural factors and perhaps history. Part of being a member of a given culture is accepting its tenets and beliefs and refusing to accept conflicting ones of other cultures. A group of people held in low esteem by those nearby will have difficulty in being accepted as equals, perhaps for an extended period of time, maybe centuries or ever.
The cultural differences are most apparent in things like food, sanitary practices, male-female relationships, religion and many other things.
The consumption of dogs in South Korea is being legally phased out because it doesn't comply with the idea of the proper treatment of man's best friend in the West. Pork is forbidden to Muslims and Jews. Hindus in India and elsewhere revere cows and protect rather than eat them.
Westerners are outraged by child brides, a child being anyone under 16, and polygyny, men with multiple wives. Utah was refused statehood until the Mormon church forbid the practice. Oddly, parts of the West are OK with multiple wives. The Emir of Qatar has three wives and 13 children but only his senior wife has accompanied him on his trip to the UK. No one seems to be too upset.
Evidence of "racism" consists of conjecture of cultural difference by appearance. An Anglo male with three wives won't be a victim of "racism" if the strangers around him are unaware of his harem. If they are, he'll legally be a bigamist, a criminal, not a race problem.
Published in the on-line "Daily Reckoning" on Nov. 11, James Rickards, a well-known authority on money matters, speculates on the financial implications of the US election results for investors. He talks about Trump's fixation with tariffs as an example of the "American System" but doesn't mention that this system was the product of the Whig party led by Henry Clay until it was converted to the Republican Party of Abraham Lincoln that has maintained Whig theories of economics and government until this day.
The Whigs were a different and more complex group of gangsters than those leading other governments, who simply confiscate the wealth of the citizenry. Having no income tax available the Whigs used tariffs and land sales to finance their infrastructure projects. Of course the reality is that tariffs are a tax on the general population, not those supplying the imports. The infrastructure projects, canals, roads, railroads, battleships, ICBMs, etc., were built by cronies of the Whigs. It wasn't a free market and it isn't today.
One would think that the goal of a free market democracy would be to lower the cost of everything, from peanuts to legal billings, from housing to medical care. Isn't that what "efficiency" is all about? When someone needs the shingles on his roof replaced he probably doesn't pick the most expensive bidder to do the job.
Getting back to Trump's theories of trade and their effect on the economy, it should be understood that the policies he favors can work both ways. While the US is now described more as a "service provider" than a manufacturer, the services that the Yankees might seek to export are also vulnerable to trade restrictions. It would be easy for some small, developing country to kick McKinzie or some other consultant out the door.
One might wonder why the Philippines, a country with a long but tortured relationship with the US and a well-educated population, much of which is fluent in English, doesn't have a more prominent place in the US economic scheme compared to Taiwan, Japan or even Viet Nam. It's because the Philippine constitution requires majority domestic ownership of business and property. Imports are heavily regulated. This fact may have worked in their favor or not.
