cnbc | Dreams of lengthy cruises and beach life may be just that, with 20 of
the world's biggest countries facing a pension shortfall worth $78
trillion, Citi said in a report sent on Wednesday.
"Social security systems, national pension plans, private sector
pensions, and individual retirement accounts are unfunded or
underfunded across the globe," pensions and insurance analysts at the
bank said in the report.
"Government services, corporate profits, or retirement benefits
themselves will have to be reduced to make any part of the system work.
This poses an enormous challenge to employers, employees, and
policymakers all over the world."
The total value of unfunded or underfunded government pension
liabilities for 20 countries belonging to the Organisation for Economic
Co-operation and Development (OECD) — a group of largely wealthy
countries — is $78 trillion, Citi said. (The countries studied include
the U.K., France and Germany, plus several others in western and
central Europe, the U.S., Japan, Canada, and Australia.)
The bank added that corporates also failed to consistently meet their
pension obligations, with most U.S. and U.K. corporate pensions plans
underfunded.
zerohedge | Following their apparently delusional belief in the "success" of Tuesday
night's violent protests, anti-Trump groups are plotting "Democracy Spring" threatening "drama in Washington" with the "largest civil disobedience action of the century." The operation, backed by Soros-funded MoveOn.org among others, warns on its website that "We
will demand that Congress listen to the People and take immediate
action to save our democracy. And we won’t leave until they do - or
until they send thousands of us to jail."
With little fanfare and almost no news media attention, some of the
same radical groups involved in shutting down Donald Trump’s Chicago
rally last week are plotting a mass civil disobedience movement to begin
next month. As Breitbart.com reports,
They intend to march across the East Coast in order to spark a “fire that transforms the political climate in America.”
The group is backed by numerous organizations, including the George
Soros-funded groups MoveOn.org, the Institute for Policy Studies, and
Demos.
Next month’s Democracy Spring chaos is set to begin with a meetup on April 2 at the Liberty Bell in Philadelphia.
“Then, in the spirit of Granny D, the Selma to Montgomery marchers,
Cesar Chavez and the farmworker pilgrimage, and others who walked for
freedom, we will set out on a 10 day, 140-mile march from Philadelphia
to the Nation’s Capitol,” states the website.
In Washington DC, Democracy Spring expects “thousands
of Americans” to engage in a “sit-in on the Capitol building in
Washington DC in what will be the largest civil disobedience action of
the century.”
What do they want?
Despite the fact that many of the main groups endorsing
Democracy Spring are funded by billionaire Soros, the group complains
that “American elections are dominated by billionaires and big money
interests who can spend unlimited sums of money on political campaigns
to protect their special interests at the general expense.”
But
if the status quo goes unchallenged, the 2016 election — already set to
be the most billionaire-dominated, secret money-drenched, voter
suppression-marred contest in modern American history — will likely
yield a President and a Congress more bound to the masters of big money
than ever before.
The stage is set for a bold intervention to turn the tinder of
passive public frustration into a fire that transforms the political
climate in America, that sparks a popular movement that can’t be
stopped.
The leaders of the group have already held training sessions, the website says.
Democracy Spring states it is requiring “mandatory nonviolent civil
disobedience trainings twice a day for those risking arrest from April
11th-16th.”
newyorker | The big donors in
the Republican Party are reportedly flummoxed by the toxic rhetoric of
Donald Trump. The billionaire political industrialist Charles Koch has
warned that Trump’s proposed registry of Muslims in the U.S. would
“destroy our free society.” After pouring hundreds of millions of
dollars into promoting their right-wing libertarian views over the past
four decades, and budgeting some eight hundred and eighty-nine million
dollars to spend in the 2016 election cycle, he and his brother David
Koch, and their donor circle, are apparently disappointed that they have
bought so little control over the Republican Presidential candidates.
“You’d think we could have more influence,” he lamented to the Financial Times.
But, in fact, the influence of the Kochs and their fellow big donors is
manifest in Trump’s use of incendiary and irresponsibly divisive
rhetoric. Only a few years ago, it was they who were sponsoring the
hate.
Over the July 4th weekend of
2010, I attended the fourth annual Defending the American Dream Summit,
in Austin, Texas, which served in part as a training session for local
Tea Party activists. The summit was sponsored by Americans for
Prosperity, which purported to be a nonpartisan grass-roots
political-advocacy group devoted to the cause of small government, free
markets, and liberty. It was in fact an organization that had been
founded and heavily funded by the Kochs, whose early activism was
entwined in fearmongering and racial intolerance.
The
Kochs’ father, Fred Koch, the founder of Koch Industries, the hugely
profitable private oil-and-chemical company that his sons inherited, was
one of the original members of the John Birch Society, the
ultra-conservative group that accused political opponents of treason and
was at its core segregationist. After the Supreme Court ruled in favor
of desegregating America’s public schools, in 1954, the Birchers
launched a nationwide crusade to impeach Chief Justice Earl Warren. In
1960, Fred Koch wrote a self-published book describing welfare programs
as a secret government plot to lure rural blacks into cities so that
they could foment “a vicious race war.” Before George Wallace declared
his Presidential candidacy in 1968, Fred Koch also supported an
unsuccessful effort to recruit Ezra Taft Benson, the former Secretary of Agriculture and a leader of the Mormon Church,
and Strom Thurmond, the South Carolina senator, to run on a platform
calling for the restoration of segregation. The Birchers’ radicalism was
so extreme, and delusional, they claimed that Republican President
Dwight Eisenhower was a communist agent.
It’s
not fair to visit the sins of the father on the sons, but Charles and
David have their own dubious record of involvement with racist
institutions. They themselves belonged to the John Birch Society, and,
in the late sixties, Charles was a trustee at a place called the Freedom
School, outside Colorado Springs, which had no black students because,
its director explained to the Times, “it might present a
housing problem because some of his students are segregationists.” The
Freedom School was a font of extreme anti-government ideology, teaching a
revisionist version of American history in which it was argued that the
Civil War should not have been fought, the South should have been
allowed to secede, and slavery was a lesser evil than military
conscription. Charles Koch was so enthralled with the Freedom School
that he got his three brothers and many friends to attend. He had hoped
to expand it into an accredited university, but instead it ran aground
financially. It was, however, the first step in the Kochs’ lifelong
crusade to use their vast fortune to reshape American academia and
politics along the lines of their own ideology.
tomdispatch | General Lloyd Austin, the outgoing head of U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM), recently testified before Congress,suggestingthat Washington needed to up its troop levels in Iraq and Syria. Meanwhile, in his own congressional testimony, still-to-be-confirmed incoming CENTCOM chief General Joseph Votel, formerly head of U.S. Special Operations Command, seconded that recommendation and said he would reevaluate the American stance across the Greater Middle East with an eye, as theGuardian’s Spencer Ackermanput it, to launching “a more aggressive fight against the Islamic State.” In this light, both generals called for reviving adismally failed$500 million program to train “moderate” Syrian rebels to support the U.S. fight against the Islamic State (IS). They both swear, of course, that they'll do itdifferentlythis time, and what could possibly go wrong?
Meanwhile, General David Rodriguez, head of U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM), pressed by Senator John McCain incongressional testimony, called on the U.S. to “do more” to deal with IS supporters in Libya. And lo and behold, theNew York Timesreportedthat Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter had only recently presented an AFRICOM and Joint Special Operations Command plan to the president’s “top national security advisers.” They were evidently “surprised” to discover that it involved potentially wide-ranging air strikes against 30 to 40 IS targets across that country. Meanwhile, in Afghanistan -- U.S. Special Operations units and regular troops having recently beenrushedonce again into embattled Helmand Province in the heartland of that country’sopium poppy trade--General Austen and others arecallingfor a reconsideration of future American drawdowns and possibly the dispatch ofmore troopsto that country.
Do you sense a trend here? In the war against the Islamic State, the Obama administration and the Pentagon have been engaged in the drip, drip, drip of what, in classic Vietnam terms, might be called “mission creep.” They have been upping American troop levels a few hundred at a time in Iraq and Syria, along with air power, and loosing Special Operations forces in combat-like operations inboth countries. Now, it looks like top military commanders are calling for mission speed-up across the region. (InLibya,Somalia, Iraq, and Afghanistan, it already seems to have begun.)
And keep in mind, watching campaign 2016, that however militaristic the solutions of the Pentagon and our generals, they are regularly put in the shade by civilians, especially the Republican candidates for president, who can barely restrain their eagerness to let mission leap loose. As Donald Trump put it in thelast Republican debate, calling for up to 30,000 U.S. boots on the ground in Syria and Iraq, “I would listen to the generals.” That might now be the refrain all American politicians are obliged to sing. Similarly, John Kasich called for a new “shock and awe” campaign in the Middle East to “wipe them out.” And that’s the way it’s been in debate season -- including proposals to put boots on the ground big time from Libya and possibly eventhe Sinai peninsulato Afghanistan,bombthe region back to the stone age, andtortureterror suspects in a fashion that would have embarrassed Stone Age peoples.
Put another way, almost 15 years after America’s global war on terror was launched, we face a deeply embedded (and remarkably unsuccessful) American version of militarism and, as Gregory Foster writes today, a massive crisis in civil-military relations that is seldom recognized, no less discussed or debated. TomDispatchhopes to rectify that with a monumental post from a man who knows something about the realities of both the U.S. military and changing civilian relations to it. Gregory Foster, who teaches atNational Defense Universityand is a decorated Vietnam veteran, suggests that it’s time we finally ask: Whatever happened to old-fashioned civilian control over the U.S. military? Implicitly, he also asks a second question: These days, who controls the civilians?
FP | At first glance, the story of
Accenture reads like the archetype of the American dream. One of the
world’s biggest consulting companies, which commands tens of billions of
dollars in annual revenues, was born in the 1950s as a small division
of accounting firm Arthur Andersen. Its first major project was advising
General Electric to install a computer at a Kentucky facility in order
to automate payment processing. Several decades of growth followed, and
by 1989, the division was successful enough to become its own
organization: Andersen Consulting.
Yet a deeper look at the business shows its ascent veering off the
American track. This wasn’t because it opened foreign offices in
Mexico, Japan, and other countries; international expansion is pro forma
for many U.S. companies. Rather, Andersen Consulting saw benefits—fewer
taxes, cheaper labor, less onerous regulations — beyond borders and
restructured internally to take advantage of them. By 2001, when it went
public after adopting the name Accenture, it had morphed into a network
of franchises loosely coordinated out of a Swiss holding company. It
incorporated in Bermuda and stayed there until 2009, when it redomiciled
in Ireland, another low-tax jurisdiction.
Today, Accenture’s roughly
373,000 employees are scattered across more than 200 cities in 55
countries. Consultants parachute into locations for commissioned work
but often report to offices in regional hubs, such as Prague and Dubai,
with lower tax rates. To avoid pesky residency status, the human
resources department ensures that employees don’t spend too much time at
their project sites.
ExxonMobil, Unilever, BlackRock, HSBC, DHL, Visa—these companies
all choose locations for personnel, factories, executive suites, or bank
accounts based on where regulations are friendly, resources abundant,
and connectivity seamless. Clever metanationals often have legal
domicile in one country, corporate management in another, financial
assets in a third, and administrative staff spread over several more.
Some of the largest American-born firms — GE, IBM, Microsoft, to name a
few — collectively are holding trillions of dollars tax-free offshore by
having revenues from overseas markets paid to holding companies
incorporated in Switzerland, Luxembourg, the Cayman Islands, or
Singapore. In a nice illustration of the tension this trend creates with
policymakers, some observers have dubbed the money “stateless income,”
while U.S. President Barack Obama has called the companies hoarding it
America’s “corporate deserters.”
It isn’t surprising, of course, when companies find new ways to
act in their own interest; it’s surprising when they don’t. The rise of
metanationals, however, isn’t just about new ways of making money. It
also unsettles the definition of “global superpower.”
zerohedge | Two days ago, courtesy of Bloomberg, we outlined
how the (extremely perturbed and after Tuesday completely decimated)
GOP establishment would go about stealing the Republican nomination from
Donald Trump.
“Although everyone now jokes about just how unstoppable the
Trump ‘juggernaut’ has become, the establishment isn’t called ‘the
establishment,’ for nothing,” we said. “Trump may have proven remarkably
adept at whipping certain sectors of the electorate into a veritable
frenzy, but he himself will tell you that he’s no politician.” The
bottom line: he may be a wily, braggadocious, billionaire but he doesn’t
know all of the tricks of the political trade. That could - and likely
does - mean that Republicans are already working behind the scenes to
figure out how to rob him at the last minute.
There’s all sorts of ways for crafty, career politicians to
rig the delegates and use procedural maneuvers at the convention to
undercut Trump and you can read the full account here,
but suffice to say, a Trump nomination is far from a sure thing and the
more he attacks the establishment the more willing they’ll be to use
any means at their disposal to stop him.
But Trump has a ...er... trump card.
He has an army (and that’s probably a more accurate
characterization than any at this point) of supporters that would
literally take to the streets if they feel as though the popular will
has been subverted by the very same establishment politics that
compelled them to vote for Trump in the first place. As Ted Cruz put it
in Maine (although he was probably talking about himself, not Trump),
“If the Washington deal-makers try to steal the nomination from the
people, I think it would be a disaster. It would cause a revolt.”
Trump agrees.
Asked by CNN what would happen if he can’t muster the 1,237
delegates he needs to lock up the nomination and ends up getting robbed
at the convention in Cleveland, Trump said this:
declineoftheempire | George Carlin thought religion was the greatest bullshit story of
all time, and that's probably true. But in contemporary times, I think
National "Public" Radio is the greatest bullshit story.
Get this — Not only does NPR consistently represent
"establishment" interests while pretending to serve public interests,
but it also gets the public (through its local affiliates) to pay for
it! My local affiliate tells me every single day just how great "public"
radio is. How could I possibly live without it?
These earnest local boosters know of course that some time soon now
they will be begging for their jobs, and at that time they will
repeatedly remind me that the outstanding, in-depth NPR programming they provide to the Pittsburgh area is very, very expensive.
And you know what? People do pay for it. I think that's a great bullshit story.
Today I will deconstruct some "free trade" bullshit from National "Public" Radio. I enjoy doing this kind of thing and it passes the time. This story is ostensibly
about those Carrier air conditioning layoffs which made a political
splash in February. I've included the video in the deconstruction.
Over the past month, millions of YouTube viewers have watched what happens when a U.S. manufacturer announces a move to Mexico.
Click on the unsteady cellphone video,
shot at a factory that makes air conditioning, heating and related
equipment in Indianapolis, and you will see workers listening to a man
in a suit.
Watch it now.
He's telling them that their paychecks are headed to Mexico. "I want
to be clear, this is strictly a business decision," the man says. An
agonized, collective cry goes up. People swear, shout and look away.
Turns out, moving manufacturing jobs to Monterrey, Mexico, is more
than strictly business. It's also very personal, painful — and
political.
enenews |Globe and Mail, Nov 1, 2015 (emphasis added): After the Japanese nuclear reactor melted down… fears arose that radiation would pollute the Pacific and spread to Canada’s West Coast. To address those concerns… Dr. [Jay] Cullen started a radionuclide-monitoring program… “The goal and motivation … was that people were asking me, family and friends and the public at large, what the impact of the disaster was on B.C. on the North Pacific and on Canada,” he said… Shortly after he began blogging about the findings… [Cullen] was not only called a “shill for the nuclear industry” and a “sham scientist” but he was told he and other researchers who were reporting that the Fukushima radiation wasn’t a threat deserved to be executed…Even in Japan, he says, the [U.N.] determined the doses of ionizing radiation “are low enough that there will be no discernible increased incidence of radiation-related illnessin them or their descendants.”… Dr. Cullen said he frequently hears from people that his science simply can’t be right because the Pacific Ocean is dying… Dr. Cullen saidhe understands that people are afraid of radiation, that they distrust governments and are wary of scientists… “I feel that the education system has failed these individualsin certain respects,” he said…
Globe and Mail, Nov 6, 2015: A British Columbia man who posted a video calling for the death of scientists whose research shows the Fukushima nuclear accident is not destroying the Pacific has beencharged with two counts of criminal harassment. The charges were laid against Dana Durnford… In a video posted on Thursday, he said he had just been charged, and that many of his past videos had been taken down… “I was arrested… I was in court and I was charged with criminal harassment of nuclear industry PR people,” he said… he was charged under Section 264 of the Canadian Criminal Code, which makes itillegal to engage in conduct that causes someone to fear for their safety… “It’s new territory for me, and I certainly don’t want to jeopardize [the prosecution] by speaking out of turn,” [Cullen] said…
Durnford is not alone in voicing concern about the impact of the Fukushima disaster on North America. Here are a few examples from officials, professors, and other experts:
Former US Gov’t Official: “The elephant in the room is Fukushima radiation” when it comes to Pacific Ocean animal die-offs -Source
Experts: Fukushima radioactive contamination a “major concern for public health of coastal communities” on west coast -Source
US Gov’t: Alaska island “appears to show impacts from Fukushima”; Scientists anticipate more marine life to be impacted as ocean plume arrives -Source
AP: Unprecedented deaths along U.S. Pacific coast; Samples “being tested for radionuclides from Fukushima”-Source
Professor: “Fukushima emerged as a global threat to the conservation of the Pacific Ocean, human health, and marine biodiversity” -Source
Gov’t conducts more tests on sick animals to look for Fukushima radionuclides -Source
Scientists predict west coast killer whales will exceed 1,000 Bq/kg of radioactive cesium; Over 10 times gov’t limit in Japan -Source
Professors: Seafood off west coast predicted to exceed gov’t radioactivity limit -Source
Scientist expects Fukushima radiation will cause marine bacteria in US to mutate -Source
Boat Captain: Fishermen “talking about Fukushima… convinced it has something to do with” poor condition of marine life -Source
Professor: Fukushima a suspected factor in ‘unusual mortality’ of seals, walruses -Source
Scientists present links between Alaska seal deaths and Fukushima fallout -Source
“Many researchers initially believed radiation from the Fukushima nuclear disaster could be at the heart of the [sea star wasting] disease” -Source
“Fish along the Orange County coast may have been affected by [Fukushima] radioactivity… researchers say” -Source
US gov’t experts looking into whether Fukushima is cause of sea lion strandings in California; NOAA: “Radiation epidemic could be potential cause” -Source
technologyreview | TheFukushima Daiichi nuclear accident, which began on March 11, 2011, uprooted thousands of Japanese people, set the worldwide nuclear power industry back a decade, and caused a run on potassium iodide (said to help ward off thyroid cancer). What it didn’t do was kill anyone from radioactive fallout.
That was the conclusion of the six-volumeReport on the Fukushima Daiichi Accident, released in August 2015 by the International Atomic Energy Agency. About1,600 people died in the evacuation of the surrounding area, however—many of them elderly and infirm hospital patients and residents of nursing homes. That would seem to indicate that the response to the accident was more deadly than the accident itself.
A Greenpeace report released this week,“Nuclear Scars: The Lasting Legacies of Chernobyl and Fukushima,”takes a harsher view, saying that “the health consequences of the Chernobyl and Fukushima catastrophes are extensive.” But most of the report dwells on Chernobyl, and it notes that the primary effects of Fukushima were “mental health disorders, such as depression, anxiety and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.” Put another way: fear and panic resulting from the accident (and from the loss of homes and livelihoods) were more dangerous than the radiation.
mintpressnews |A former CIA analyst believes the CIA
and National Security Agency have become so powerful that the president
is afraid to act against them when they break the law.
Ray McGovern retired from the CIA in
1990, following nearly 30 years of service to the agency. He was awarded
the Intelligence Commendation Medal, which is given to agents who offer
“especially commendable service” to the agency.
Outraged over the CIA’s open use of torture, he returned the medal in 2006 and became an antiwar activist. He was arrested in 2011 for a silent protest against a speech by then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
foxnews | When MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow says she’s practically concluded that Trump wanted the confrontation in Chicago, where he canceled the rally, it’s clear that some in the media are making this all about the candidate and not those who would silence him.
Imagine how different the coverage might be if protestors were shouting down Hillary Clinton, as they briefly did to Bernie Sanders earlier in the season.
Everyone has the right to peacefully demonstration, something that’s deeply embedded in our country’s DNA. But nobody has the right to stop someone else from speaking. That is an assault on free speech—and one that’s been too prevalent on college campuses in recent years, where some liberals have tried to block speakers whose views they don’t like.
In the short term, this probably helps Trump in the Republican primaries, where voters will see him taking on mostly minority protestors who they don’t have much sympathy for. The danger in the long run is that the outbreaks of violence will come to be seen as a metaphor for a campaign that critics will say is tearing the country apart.
Joe Scarborough,in his Washington Post column, continues his turn against Trump, insisting that “a political campaign whose security has been so stifling as to draw angry comparisons to fascist regimes would plan a key rally for Trump in the middle of a racially diverse urban campus. The fact that this campus sits in the middle of a city that is so Democratic that it has not elected a Republican mayor since before Franklin Roosevelt was sworn in as president makes the venue’s selection even more bizarre.”
I have to disagree on that point. Why shouldn’t a presidential candidate—especially one who hopes to attract Democratic votes in the fall--be able to campaign anywhere he wants?
National Review, which detests Trump and is backing Ted Cruz, faults the protestors,but adds this:
“Trump — Saddam Hussein to the ayatollahs of political correctness on the other side — is of course far from blameless in all this. That is not to say that Trump’s irresponsible, wild-eyed, and meat-headed rhetoric, which has included explicit calls for violence against his critics, is responsible for having provoked the protests. Rather, Trump’s rhetoric has been unworthy of a presidential candidate — and unworthy of an American — in and of itself.”
But in this particular case, Microsoft plans to open its platform to researchers and AI enthusiasts with an aim to move closer to having AI achieve the coveted "general intelligence" capabilities.
General intelligence is on par with the way a baby learns by taking in their environment via sight, sound, smell, touch, discomfort, pleasure, and other information to make decisions effortlessly. But AI researchers to date have only been able to take small slices of that total awareness to build tools that do just one thing, such as recognize words, but have not been able to combine all the slices in a way that humans do without effort, said Katja Hofmann, a researcher at Microsoft's Cambridge, UK, lab who helped develop the AIX platform with her colleagues, in a blog post.
That's partly due to the lack in understanding how people combine those senses, said Hofmann adding, "We don't understand ourselves well enough."
Enter Minecraft, which Microsoft acquired through its $2.5 billion purchase of Swedish game developer Mojang in 2014. Minecraft allows users to build their worlds however they wish. Because it affords users endless possibilities in the way they create their worlds, from scouring for treasures to erecting a building alone or with teammates, Hofmann said it made sense to use the open world of Minecraft when creating the AIX platform.
Hofmann and her team are trying to train an AI agent, similar to one used in Minecraft, to climb to the highest point in the virtual world without knowing how to do it or what needs to be accomplished.
"We're trying to program it to learn, as opposed to programming it to accomplish specific tasks," Fernando Diaz, senior researcher in Microsoft's New York research lab, said in the blog post.
Brian Blau, a research director for Gartner, agrees that games have a benefit for AI researchers.
"Games are a natural platform for test-bedding AI technology. They are rich and diverse simulations of worlds, which could be similar to what we humans experience, or not. That openness makes game worlds and virtual reality worlds well suited for AI, as they can deliver a clear visual picture and one that can be experienced personally," Blau told InformationWeek.
wikipedia |Transhumanism (abbreviated as H+ or h+) is an international and intellectual movement that aims to transform the human condition by developing and creating widely available sophisticated technologies to greatly enhance human intellectual, physical, and psychological capacities.[1][1][2] Transhumanist thinkers study the potential benefits and dangers of emerging technologies that could overcome fundamental human limitations, as well as the ethics[3] of using such technologies.[4]
The most common thesis is that human beings may eventually be able to
transform themselves into different beings with abilities so greatly
expanded from the natural condition as to merit the label of posthumanbeings.[2]
The contemporary meaning of the term transhumanism was foreshadowed by one of the first professors of futurology, FM-2030, who taught "new concepts of the human" at The New School in the 1960s, when he began to identify people who adopt technologies, lifestyles and worldviews "transitional" to posthumanity as "transhuman".[5]
This hypothesis would lay the intellectual groundwork for the British philosopher Max More to begin articulating the principles of transhumanism as a futurist philosophy in 1990 and organizing in California an intelligentsia that has since grown into the worldwide transhumanist movement.[5][6][7]
The year 1990 is seen as a "fundamental shift" in human existence by the transhuman community, as the first gene therapy trial,[8] the first designer babies,[9] as well as the mind-augmenting World Wide Web all emerged in that year. In many ways, one could argue the conditions that will eventually lead to the Singularity were set in place by these events in 1990.[original research?]
Influenced by seminal works of science fiction,
the transhumanist vision of a transformed future humanity has attracted
many supporters and detractors from a wide range of perspectives
including philosophy and religion.[5] Transhumanism has been characterized by one critic, Francis Fukuyama, as among the world's most dangerous ideas,[10] to which Ronald Bailey
countered that it is rather the "movement that epitomizes the most
daring, courageous, imaginative and idealistic aspirations of humanity".[11]
NYTimes |Donald J. Trump
arrived at the White House Correspondents’ Association Dinner in April
2011, reveling in the moment as he mingled with the political luminaries
who gathered at the Washington Hilton. He made his way to his seat
beside his host, Lally Weymouth, the journalist and socialite daughter
of Katharine Graham, longtime publisher of The Washington Post.
A short while later, the humiliation started.
The
annual dinner features a lighthearted speech from the president; that
year, President Obama chose Mr. Trump, then flirting with his own
presidential bid, as a punch line.
Mr.
Trump at first offered a drawn smile, then a game wave of the hand. But
as the president’s mocking of him continued and people at other tables
craned their necks to gauge his reaction, Mr. Trump hunched forward with
a frozen grimace.
After
the dinner ended, Mr. Trump quickly left, appearing bruised. He was
“incredibly gracious and engaged on the way in,” recalled Marcus
Brauchli, then the executive editor of The Washington Post, but departed
“with maximum efficiency.”
That
evening of public abasement, rather than sending Mr. Trump away,
accelerated his ferocious efforts to gain stature within the political
world. And it captured the degree to which Mr. Trump’s campaign is
driven by a deep yearning sometimes obscured by his bluster and
bragging: a desire to be taken seriously.
That
desire has played out over the last several years within a Republican
Party that placated and indulged him, and accepted his money and
support, seemingly not grasping how fervently determined he was to
become a major force in American politics. In the process, the party
bestowed upon Mr. Trump the kind of legitimacy that he craved, which has
helped him pursue a credible bid for the presidency.
“Everybody has a little regret there, and everybody read it wrong,” said David Keene, a former chairman of the American Conservative Union,
an activist group Mr. Trump cultivated. Of Mr. Trump’s rise, Mr. Keene
said, “It’s almost comical, except it’s liable to end up with him as the
nominee.”
unz | If I were a self-conscious American Muslim, one who cares for Islam,
I’d say to myself: which candidate, if elected, will do less harm to the
Ummah, to the Muslim world? Should I support the lady who was so
beastly joyous at watching the horrible brutal death of a Muslim ruler,
Muammar Gadhafi? Should I support the lady who will do this week her
star appearance at AIPAC conference, pledging to do Israel’s bidding for
the next four years? Or, for that matter, should I support Ted Cruz who
takes his orders in Tel Aviv, or should I rather support the man whom
Cruz accused of being an enemy of Israel?
Surely this was a wrongful accusation; Trump has Jewish sons-in-law;
but still, nobody yet accused other candidates of ever failing to do
Israel’s will.
In my view, the faults usually ascribed to Mr Trump are really minor.
Buffoon? Narcissus? Bigot? Who cares. The next you’ll say his personal
hygiene is nor perfect. That he farts in public. Such accusations would
be of value while picking a guest to stay over weekend.
We are in front of two huge trials of totally different magnitude.
Dirty nails and loud farting do not come close to that. And the next US
president will have to deal with that.
The Pentagon asks for a cool trillion dollars to create a brand new
generation of nuclear weapons. They call it “upgrading”, but experts say
these are new weapon systems, more deadly, more precise and more likely
to be used. This is a new Hiroshima in making, and this time perhaps
the Russian bodies will flay in the nuclear heat, while the Americans
will be incinerated by the new generation of Russian missiles. President
Obama, God bless him, did not authorise it yet. We – and I mean the
world, not the squeamish scribes – need to stop this program dead.
Donald Trump is likely to avoid this folly. For this price, he can call
me a kike all day long, if it suits him.
The US administration initiated three programs: TISA, TPP, TTIP;
if completed, they will enslave mankind and kill the vestiges of
democracy we enjoy. Obama’s Democrats are pushing for it. This is really
even more dangerous than the nuclear weapons of new generation. This
monster has to be stopped. Donald Trump is likely to do it, for these
programs are the epitome of whatever he fought against.
These two items are most urgent and more important than any complaint
against Trump. He does not like obese women? Who cares? Let the obese
women manage without Mr. Trump’s adoration, if he will stop these evil
designs.
President Trump is not likely to continue with the manoeuvres in
South Korea, this touchy trigger of a nuclear war. Now tens of thousands
of US troops are exercising in South Korea how to kill the president of
North Korea. I do not joke and I do not exaggerate. This is the
described aim of the manoeuvres, and they drive the North Korea
president mad. Coming after the Sony-made and the State Department
influenced film describing assassination of him, this is not surprising.
If Trump will forget about North Korea, he will be the president I
like.
Trump said he will not tear up the Iran nuclear agreement; he will
not fight till the last Syrian to remove Bashar Assad. If he will, let
him say what he wants about fat women, even the most upsetting things.
My aunt, a doctor, used to say there were no fat women in concentration
camps, so it can’t be a disease. This is probably sufficiently bad
taste.
I am not sure whether any argument will work against billions of
dollars the US super-rich spend on their ads against Trump. However,
give it a thought: these nasty super-rich are not known for their
benevolence. If they are ready to spend so much money to stop Trump,
perhaps we need to support Trump?
In any case, we shall be disappointed. Marry, and you will regret it;
do not marry, you will regret it, – said the Danish philosopher
Kierkegaard. So you can marry, and yes, you can vote for Trump – even if
you will be disappointed. Because if you vote for Clinton (or God
preserve us, Cruz) you will head into nuclear disaster and enslavement
of mankind. Trump is a long shot for sanity, but it is better than a
sure disaster.
globalguerillas | The surprise of this victory isn't that it occurred. Most expected it would, eventually...
Instead, the surprise
is how fast it happened. How fast AlphaGo was able to bootstrap itself
to a mastery of the game. It was fast. Unreasonably fast.
However, this victory
goes way beyond the game of Go. It is important because AlphaGo uses a
generic technique for learning. A technique that can be used to master
a HUGE range of activities, quickly. Activities that people get paid
for today.
This implies the following:
This technology is
going to cut through the global economy like a hot knife through butter.
It learns fast and largely on its own. It's widely applicable. It
doesn't only master what it has seen, it can innovate. For example:
some of the unheard of moves made by AlphaGo were considered "beautiful"
by the Grandmaster it beat.
Limited AGI (deep
learning in particular) will have the ability to do nearly any job
currently being done by human beings -- from lawyers to judges, nurses
to doctors, driving to construction -- potentially at a grandmaster's
level of capability. This makes it a buzzsaw.
Very few people (and I
mean very few) will be able to stay ahead of the limited AGI buzzsaw.
It learns so quickly, the fate of people stranded in former factory
towns gutted by "free trade" is likely to be the fate of the highest
paid technorati. They simply don't have the capacity to learn fast enough or be creative enough to stay ahead of it.
quora | If millions of Americans are clearly fed up with something, it's time to
analyze what that something is; thinking that Trump is the problem is
childish to say the least. Trump is an actor reading a script written
by millions of American authors and he is willing to turn it into a
movie. If I was American and anti-Trump, I would like to read that
script in full and understand what inspired it, rather than stopping at
the title. Because Trump might not make it through the elections,
politically speaking, but those millions of Americans will try to get
someone else to produce the movie, after him, if their concerns don't
get addressed.
As an external spectator
I'm more troubled by Trump's detractors and adversaries' lack of
analysis over the discontent of a big chunk of American voters than by
the tycoon's political success. I have the unpleasant feeling that some
people have forgotten what a democracy is and how it works and that
rather than addressing people's problems they are more busy addressing
their adversaries' unfitness. This attitude, in history, has never led
to victory.
williamblum | If the American presidential election winds up with Hillary Clinton
vs. Donald Trump, and my passport is confiscated, and I’m somehow FORCED
to choose one or the other, or I’m PAID to do so, paid well … I would
vote for Trump.
My main concern is foreign policy. American foreign policy is the
greatest threat to world peace, prosperity, and the environment. And
when it comes to foreign policy, Hillary Clinton is an unholy disaster.
From Iraq and Syria to Libya and Honduras the world is a much worse
place because of her; so much so that I’d call her a war criminal who
should be prosecuted. And not much better can be expected on domestic
issues from this woman who was paid $675,000 by Goldman Sachs – one of
the most reactionary, anti-social corporations in this sad world – for
four speeches and even more than that in political donations in recent
years. Add to that Hillary’s willingness to serve for six years on the
board of Walmart while her husband was governor of Arkansas. Can we
expect to change corporate behavior by taking their money?
The Los Angeles Times ran an editorial the day after the
multiple primary elections of March 1 which began: “Donald Trump is not
fit to be president of the United States,” and then declared: “The
reality is that Trump has no experience whatsoever in government.”
When I need to have my car fixed I look for a mechanic with
experience with my type of auto. When I have a medical problem I prefer a
doctor who specializes in the part of my body that’s ill. But when it
comes to politicians, experience means nothing. The only thing that
counts is the person’s ideology. Who would you sooner vote for, a person
with 30 years in Congress who doesn’t share your political and social
views at all, is even hostile to them, or someone who has never held
public office before but is an ideological comrade on every important
issue? Clinton’s 12 years in high government positions carries no weight
with me.
The Times continued about Trump: “He has shamefully little knowledge of the issues facing the country and the world.”
Again, knowledge is trumped (no pun intended) by ideology. As
Secretary of State (January 2009-February 2013), with great access to
knowledge, Clinton played a key role in the 2011 destruction of Libya’s
modern and secular welfare state, sending it crashing in utter chaos
into a failed state, leading to the widespread dispersal throughout
North African and Middle East hotspots of the gigantic arsenal of
weaponry that Libyan leader Moammar Gaddafi had accumulated. Libya is
now a haven for terrorists, from al Qaeda to ISIS, whereas Gaddafi had
been a leading foe of terrorists.
What good did Secretary of State Clinton’s knowledge do? It was
enough for her to know that Gaddafi’s Libya, for several reasons, would
never be a properly obedient client state of Washington. Thus it was
that the United States, along with NATO, bombed the people of Libya
almost daily for more than six months, giving as an excuse that Gaddafi
was about to invade Benghazi, the Libyan center of his opponents, and so
the United States was thus saving the people of that city from a
massacre. The American people and the American media of course swallowed
this story, though no convincing evidence of the alleged impending
massacre has ever been presented. (The nearest thing to an official US
government account of the matter – a Congressional Research Service
report on events in Libya for the period – makes no mention at all of
the threatened massacre.)
The Western intervention in Libya was one that the New York Times
said Clinton had “championed”, convincing Obama in “what was arguably
her moment of greatest influence as secretary of state.”
All the knowledge she was privy to did not keep her from this
disastrous mistake in Libya. And the same can be said about her support
of placing regime change in Syria ahead of supporting the Syrian
government in its struggle against ISIS and other terrorist groups. Even
more disastrous was the 2003 US invasion of Iraq which she as a senator
supported. Both policies were of course clear violations of
international law and the UN Charter.
libertyblitzkrieg | The United States is in the final stages of negotiating the
Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a massive free-trade agreement with
Mexico, Canada, Japan, Singapore and seven other countries. Who will
benefit from the TPP? American workers? Consumers? Small businesses?
Taxpayers? Or the biggest multinational corporations in the world?
One strong hint is buried in the fine print of the closely guarded
draft. The provision, an increasingly common feature of trade
agreements, is called “Investor-State Dispute Settlement,” or ISDS. The
name may sound mild, but don’t be fooled. Agreeing to ISDS in this
enormous new treaty would tilt the playing field in the United States
further in favor of big multinational corporations. Worse, it would
undermine U.S. sovereignty.
ISDS would allow foreign companies to challenge U.S. laws – and
potentially to pick up huge payouts from taxpayers – without ever
stepping foot in a U.S. court. Here’s how it would work. Imagine that
the United States bans a toxic chemical that is often added to gasoline
because of its health and environmental consequences. If a foreign
company that makes the toxic chemical opposes the law, it would
normally have to challenge it in a U.S. court. But with ISDS, the
company could skip the U.S. courts and go before an international panel
of arbitrators. If the company won, the ruling couldn’t be challenged
in U.S. courts, and the arbitration panel could require American
taxpayers to cough up millions – and even billions – of dollars in
damages.
If that seems shocking, buckle your seat belt. ISDS could lead to
gigantic fines, but it wouldn’t employ independent judges. Instead,
highly paid corporate lawyers would go back and forth between
representing corporations one day and sitting in judgment the next.
Maybe that makes sense in an arbitration between two corporations, but
not in cases between corporations and governments. If you’re a lawyer
looking to maintain or attract high-paying corporate clients, how
likely are you to rule against those corporations when it’s your turn
in the judge’s seat?
unz | But there is one significant difference between Trump and the
“establishment,” be they Democrats or Republicans that has not been
highlighted. I would suggest that quite a lot of the depth and intensity
of what we are experiencing is actually about Israel. Trump is the
first high level politician aspirant within living memory to challenge
the notion that the United States must stand by Israel no matter what
Israel does. Even while affirming his affection for Israel, he has said
that Washington must be even handed in its efforts to bring about peace between Israelis and Palestinians, implying that Tel Aviv might have to make concessions.
Trump has also added insult to injury by delinking himself from the
blandishments of Jewish political mega-donors, who largely call the tune
for many in the GOP and among the Democrats, by telling them he doesn’t
need their money and can’t be bought.
His comments have challenged conventional interest group politicking in
American and have predictably produced a firestorm reaction in the
usual circles. Robert Kagan announced
that he would be supporting Hillary, who famously has declared that she
would immediately call Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu upon
taking office as a first step in moving the relationship with Tel Aviv to “the next level.” It is to be presumed that Kagan and his fellow neocons will be experiencing a welcoming vibe
from at least some of the Democrats as the neoconservatives have always
been liberals at heart on nearly all issues except foreign policy,
rooted by them in the “unshakable and bipartisan bond” with Israel.
It is my opinion that the “I” word should be banned from American
political discourse. Ironically, many American Jews are themselves
uneasy about the place occupied by Israel in ongoing political debates,
recognizing that it is both unhealthy in a democracy and reflective only
of the extreme views of the hardline members of their own diaspora
community. It is also unpleasantly all about Jews and money since the
Republicans and other mouthpieces now piling on Trump are motivated
largely by their own sinecures and the Sheldon Adelson type donations
that might be forthcoming to the politically savvy candidates who say
the right things about the conflict in the Middle East.
Slate’s Isaac Chotiner has noted
a particularly odd speech by Senator Marco Rubio in which he spoke of
his single electoral triumph in Minnesota before immediately jumping to
the issue of Israel, as if on cue or by rote. It is a tendency that is
not unique to him. I read through the transcript
of the GOP debate that preceded Rubio’s sole victory, which in part
reflected a competition to see who could promise to do most for Israel.
Senator Ted Cruz stated that he “would stand unapologetically with the
nation of Israel…and the alliance with Israel.” Governor John Kasich
declared that he’s “been a supporter of Israel – a strong supporter of
Israel longer than anyone on this stage.” Senator Marco Rubio indicated
that “I will be on Israel’s side every single day because they are the
only pro-American, free enterprise democracy in the entire Middle East.”
Ben Carson called Israel not only a strategic partner but also an
element in America’s “Judeo Christian foundation” that can never be
rejected.
Quite a few assertions about Israel made by politicians are, of
course, nonsense. It is not in alliance with the United States and is
not a democracy for starters, but the real question becomes why is
Israel part of the debate at all? It is because of concerns that the
deep pocketed donors like Sheldon Adelson will join his good friend Haim
Saban in funding Hillary if candidates do not say what he expects to
hear. Saban has referred to Trump as a “clown” and attacked him because he would be “dangerous for Israel.”
Citizenship, Criticism, and Communism
-
In the 1940s and ’50s, Americans engaged in an intense debate over the
content of school textbooks, particularly social studies texts. Fears of
communism a...
A Foundation of Joy
-
Two years and I've lost count of how many times my eye has been operated
on, either beating the fuck out of the tumor, or reattaching that slippery
eel ...
April Three
-
4/3
43
When 1 = A and 26 = Z
March = 43
What day?
4 to the power of 3 is 64
64th day is March 5
My birthday
March also has 5 letters.
4 x 3 = 12
...
Return of the Magi
-
Lately, the Holy Spirit is in the air. Emotional energy is swirling out of
the earth.I can feel it bubbling up, effervescing and evaporating around
us, s...
New Travels
-
Haven’t published on the Blog in quite a while. I at least part have been
immersed in the area of writing books. My focus is on Science Fiction an
Historic...
Covid-19 Preys Upon The Elderly And The Obese
-
sciencemag | This spring, after days of flulike symptoms and fever, a man
arrived at the emergency room at the University of Vermont Medical Center.
He ...