The prize, to be awarded to free market capitalism / or as others would say, of winning an election…

And as always, nobody really wants to ask whether the market capitalism being loosely endorsed here is still functional at all (or whether states should embrace the Chinese version – which has lifted hundreds of millions out of poverty).

To me, it’s also interesting to note that the blame game didn’t quite hit full-throttle last time around. It sounded like it had done, but no, I assure you, better days lie ahead.

More blaming, and shaming and finger-pointing is around the corner…with those at the bottom being the easiest target (as are muslims, immigrants, people on welfare, people with disabilities, ‘ domestic terrorists’…please add your own). What a pity?!?

True to my form, here is the anti-thesis…

Objectivity means just that.

“Human rights are not only violated by terrorism, repression or assassination, but also by unfair economic structures that creates huge inequalities.” – Pope Francis

“Everybody’s worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there’s a really easy way: stop participating in it.” -Noam Chomsky

“When terrorism strikes, divisive anger is a natural response.” – Mohsin Hamid

“The Gulf War is responsible for the huge and horrifying rise in Islamic terrorism.” – Pierre Salinger

“I’m not afraid of terrorism at all. I’m afraid of loss of our freedom, loss of mobility, loss of global comradeship.” – Patti Smith

“Democracy is necessary to peace and to undermining the forces of terrorism.”  – Benazir Bhutto

“If terrorism is to be defeated, the world of Islam must take on board the secularist-humanist principles on which the modern is based, and without which Muslim countries’ freedom will remain a distant dream.” – Salman Rushdie

“Palestinian terrorism has to be rejected and condemned, yes. But it should not be translated defacto into a policy of support for a really increasingly brutal repression, colonial settlements and a new wall.” – Zbigniew Brzezinski

“Asymmetrical warfare is a euphemism for terrorism, just like collateral damage is a euphemism for killing innocent civilians.” – Alan Dershowitz

“The war against terrorism is terrorism.” – Woody Harrelson

“Bathtub falls and police officers kill more Americans than terrorism, yet we’ve been asked to sacrifice our most sacred rights for fear of falling victim to it.” – Edward Snowden

“Terrorism is a significant threat to peace and security, prosperity and people.” – Ban Ki-moon

“An honest observer of the evolution of conditions in Egypt would discover that terrorism is an alien phenomenon, strange to our values and heritage.” – Hosni Mubarak

“I admire President Chavez for his strength to resist the United States. Instead, Bush is waging a war of terrorism against the world.”  – Cindy Sheehan

“The core distortion of the War on Terror under both Bush and Obama is the Orwellian practice of equating government accusations of terrorism with proof of guilt. One constantly hears U.S. government defenders referring to ‘terrorists’ when what they actually mean is: those accused by the government of terrorism.” – Glenn Greenwald

“Together with international unity and resolve we can meet the challenge of this global scourge and work to bring about an international law of zero tolerance for terrorism.” – Manmohan Singh

“I believe terrorism cannot be won over by military action. Terrorism must be condemned in the strongest language. We must stand solidly against it, and find all the means to end it. We must address the root causes of terrorism to end it for all time to come.” – Muhammad Yunus

“Fanaticism and terrorism have no place in Islam.” – Feisal Abdul Rauf

“You’re always going to have terrorism.” – Abdallah II of Jordan

“The British don’t runaway from terrorism. We have had 30-odd years of terrorism in our own country from the Irish Republican Army. We’re used to it.” – John Major

“Before September 11, terrorism was viewed as something ugly but you lived with it.” – Paul Wolfowitz

‘War on terror’ is a misnomer. It would be like calling America’s involvement in World War II a ‘war on kamikazism.’ Terrorism, like kamikazism, is a tactic. – Dinesh D’Souza

Source of quotes: BrainyQuote

But I wonder; do you think there is a chance that some officials in the security agencies in Britain are secretly pleased when their US counterparts get their underwear in a twist within what is clearly illegal deeds international law prohibits them from doing?

Before the Scandal

“Yankee 123, Greenfly Iraq 25, zulu 0300, fully behind. Awaiting debriefing report. Out” (Aside and far from any recording device – Let them get on with it, do whatever they need to do to get information from the suspects, after all its a classified operation, their facility doesn’t exist, so highly unlikely that anybody will ever find out. And in any case, somebody has got to get it done. Good job)

The Transportation

“Yankee 123, Squaddies and Bootnecks on alert, assistance ready. Destination Charleston AFB. Jumping, but how high? Out.” (Aside: Let’s fly the ‘cargo’ to Gitmo, as usual no record of our involvement, or of the exact nature of our ‘cargo’ on any documents – if anybody asks it’s a routine military flight)

After it all blows apart

Memo in the lines of:

…In view of our special relationship, we should be grateful if certain minor changes are made to the draft investigation report on the Agency. In particular, We are certain of your appreciation that it is  critical (in as far as international security is concerned) for …. and …. and ……….. ….. …..  to be redacted from the final Investigation report, before the report is made public.

As you know, such sensitive information could be mistaken for being inflammatory and minimally will only play into the hands of extremist groups, making your job and our job  more difficult if not somewhat impossible.

Please confirm when the changes have been made. ….

You hear of top US secret service oficials resigning, but their UK counterparts are either so slippery, you can’t easily pin anything on them, or they really are that good at covering their tracks.

“When I look at a person, I see a person – not a rank, not a class, not a title.” ― Criss Jami

“Reducing a group to a slur or stereotype reduces us all.” ― DaShanne Stokes

“Some people can’t fit the mould that’s made for them…They get squashed in. And it’s hard for them to leave, but it’s harder for them to stay. They have to find other ways to be.” ― C.J. Flood, Infinite Sky

People who define others in stereotypical terms reveal more about their attitude than about anything else.

Sometimes I wonder how it would have been if I had been born as a different person. Lets say I woke up and found myself as a Chinese young man in Chongqing.

Seriously, what would I think of my country’s history? Of Mandarin or Cantonese, of my people the Chinese people, our food our culture? What version of events that have shaped history would I subscribe to? The version of events I was taught or the power structures uncovered through private study. What would I think of the Yuan, of chairman Mao and comrade Xiaoping, the current squabbles around the South China Sea. Of Russia and Iran? What would I think of China’s current economic success? Of the recently relaxed one-child policy; of the smog over Beijing?

Would I think Vietnam was a threat now that they were becoming as entrepreneurial as China was in the 70’s and 80’s through to the 90’s? Have they always been a threat, or does the threat they pose depend on who I talk to? If this sense of a threat is subjective, is it real? Is Vietnam really a threat, or are my fears based on an illusion (or at least a false sense of reality that constantly evolves). Isn’t this threat driven by greed and selfishness? That just because China wants the pie only for itself, anybody else who dares match up is a threat…

I wonder, whether I would dislike the Japanese, primarily because I find myself in a Chinese body, and have been told thoughout my upbringing of their hostility towards Chinese people… how they became our enemies. Are they really that bad? Do I hate them because there really is something wrong with them, or because there is something wrong with my people – who keep planting stereotypical poison into their children about how bad the Japanese are? Clinging to old hurts…decade after decade….for centuries to come.

Never mind the Americans, but what would I really think of the British? Or the Arabs? Or of Taiwan? What would I base my opinions and thoughts about them on? Would how I perceive them be based on concrete facts, heresay, or unsubstantiated illusions? Would it be based on a truth that is static, or on a continuously changing ‘reality’ (if we can call it that for a moment)?

says I’m beautiful and kind

thoughtfully created

in God’s own mind

The man in the mirror

says I’m hardworking

And strong. Capable of

taking, anything on

The man in the mirror

says I’m bold

driven, with a heart full of gold

The man in the mirror

says I’m smart

sharpened

can recite a thousand verses

all by heart

The man in the mirror

knows the world

has secrets

time will reveal

The man in the mirror

knows there are many others

just like him.

2. Hey, Step Back with the Riot Shaming – Mask Magazine

Now, Google as a company has achieved a hell of a lot and they must be commended for their ingenuity and great effort.

But this time, I can’t believe how wide off the mark their techies are. There’s so much wrong with their approach, its not even funny.

For the following reasons:

• I think the premise from which the Engineers began this research was flawed. If you begin research with a goal for an overnight transformation, an attempt to change everything, everywhere immediately, of course you will run into unspeakable problems. Of course that approach will require huge amounts of resources, and you will get the runaway cycle the engineers describe. It’s obvious that there will be huge amounts of resources required to achieve that overnight switch, which in the real world is unworkable, as they have concluded….But what about a phased or gradual switch? One industry at a time:- Okay, we’ll start with public transport, in particular buses, replace the current ones in one city with electric ones. Then after buses, a years later – after we’ve studied the impact, we’ll gradually replace buses in other cities aswell, then begin to change half of our street lighting into solar-powered street lights, then, 2 years later, we’ll install some of those electric generators which operate using waste material in half the hospitals across a region, say the North West of England, hand-in hand with replacing all the roofing on all the public car-parks in the region with solar, and study the impact. In about 4 years, we’ll begin installing Geothermal harvesting systems to power the heating in our primary schools and colleges, again in specified regions, say the South East and South West of England. As that initiative is rolled out across parts of the country, we’ll increase our investment in LPG engines and technologies and give subsidies / tax breaks to motorists who switch, hand in hand with encouraging the development of wind power technologies made from recycled materials. If the Scottish environmentalists oppose increasing offshore wind farms, how about tidal energy technology? Oh, and what about a law that says that solar roads must be installed in all new residential and industrial road development sites across the South East and South West? One other thing, we’ll reduce your council tax by a third and halve your TV-licence if you commute to work by bicycle…a fact that will not only make people healthier (and save the National Health Service millions in the long run), but it will reduce congestion and lower your carbon emissions. If this kind of approach is replicated across other countries, and gradually increased in scale and scope, there will be savings achieved, and in my view it is these savings that must be compared with the equivalent spend had we remained on fossil fuels. That kind of gradual approach is precisely what is going to reduce our reliance on petroleum… NOT a theoretical overnight switch, when most building are still powered by inefficient lightbulbs…why not begin the small changes first, and measure the impacy, before you go all out? Switching from fossil fuels to eco-friendly sources must not take 20 hurried and egoistic filled years, instead it must take 40 – 100+ years of careful phased transformation, for it to be practical and truly successful. Any research on the matter must take that in consideration, if it is to be believable.
• Secondly, the Google model on the face of it appears to assume that you will be operating with currently known materials. Now, I know you probably ‘currently’ can’t get away with NOT USING copper, glass, carbon fibre or neodymium to construct your solar cells, but what about finding alternatives of these. Or of steel? In an age, where 3-D printing is opening up new possibilities, in a world of Graphene, maybe in future not only can I print my turbine blades(which will be much more efficient than current ones), but I can probably use some blades carved out of recycled wood, covered with layers of nanomaterials and that includes some Graphene composite….or some other composite materials that’s yet to be developed. Or some other material that is currently being tested, but has not yet achieved widespread use. In other words, Google engineers are assuming that cheaper or perhaps natural alternatives will, or cannot be found in the future.  That’s a dangerous, if not arrogant assumption to make.
• Their approach appears to be geared towards a centralised and industrial led transformation, and that’s one of the problems. Instead of having this massive centralised approach to move everything away from petroleum, what about small individual increments, by individuals. So to give a small example, a Local council in an area, say the South East (or if in the US, a US State) can decide  to grow bamboo (which has some admirable advantages)  in a suitable area, and in 4- 5 years time begin to build houses with sections that make widespread use of that bamboo (treated of course) as part of the raw materials, saving them money on using conventional more expensive, but less ecofriendly materials. As the project develops they can incorporate other recycled items which are readily available, like used tyres, composite materials, etc…which although not exactly sexy, are cheaper and cleaner on the environment.
• It may be Google Engineers who have undertaken the research, but it doesn’t mean that they are always right. How many things have Google got wrong in the past? Weren’t these inventions made or led by the same engineers who are now telling us to give up on green tech? There are other tech companies out there, including Tesla, with more cred, and guess what, unlike Google, they think Clean tech is better for economic growth than fossil fuels.
• There are countries out there that are experiencing desertification, and very little appears to be done to curb the loss. Illegal logging is rife in most poor countries, and more often than not, the timber finally finds its way to western much richer countries where the likes of Google make their vast profits. Why can’t a government led movement in one of these countries begin to curb illegal logging and encourage wood recycling and reclamation of wooden products, than letting manufacturers bring in more and more timber, whose origins are extremely doubtful if not outright questionable? Google with its weight can help here, they can go as far as offer incentives to small timber companies operating in such countries where illegal logging is an issue, to encourage them to plant more trees, and forests, and as the forests mature, the owners would receive more incentives, be they financial incentives, or technology (computers, mobile phones etc) to supplement their incomes and also help them and their communities integrate easily into the global village. Further, why not encourage initiatives such as these which are designed to reverse dessertification (also see here)?

Feel free to reblog this if you have a blog.