close
dysviz

Last seen: 15 hours ago

daviz is a 62 year old guy from Okanagan, British Columbia, Canada

Nothing much to say about me. I'm just a boring idiot and a naive man who still believes in out-of-fashion values like peace, freedom, democracy, love and respect. Nothing more, nothing less. http://friendfeed.com/daviz http://flickr.com/photos/vizpix/ http://picasaweb.google.com/vizpix/EcodesignAndCommentary solarcomfort.wikispaces.com http://groups.google.com/group/ecodesignlowimpact?hl=en

  • SPIEGEL ONLINE - Druckversion - Reluctant Partners:...

    Rated Nov 13 2 reviews economics, china, politics, worldpolitics spiegel.de

    From the page: "SPIEGEL ONLINE
    SPIEGEL ONLINE
    11/11/2009 04:17 PM
    Reluctant Partners
    Global Crisis Makes US More Dependent on China than Ever

    By Gabor Steingart and Wieland Wagner

    When US President Barack Obama visits China this weekend, he will encounter a rival that sees the financial crisis as more of an opportunity than a threat. America, on the other hand, has been fundamentally weakened by the global crunch -- and is more dependent on the goodwill of the rising superpower than ever.

    The scientists at the National University of Defense Technology in Changsha, China, had plenty to celebrate: They had developed a supercomputer that could perform more than a quadrillion calculations per second.

    The announcement, released just in time for US President Barack Obama's visit to China this weekend, had symbolic value: With their new computer, dubbed "Tianhe" ("Milky Way"), the Chinese claim they will be the first country to become a direct rival to the superpower.

    China is bursting with self-confidence. The new world power sees itself as a winner in the financial crisis, with its economy growing by an impressive 9 percent in the third quarter, while the economies of the West struggle to recover from a deep recession. And while the Americans are focused on their own problems, China is expanding its influence, both in Asia and among resource-rich African countries.

    China's leaders are challenging the Americans more and more aggressively, not least to demonstrate to their own population of 1.3 billion how far the country has progressed under their leadership.

    In an article in the party organ of the People's Liberation Army, Air Force General Xu Qiliang announced China's plans to expense its defense capabilities deep into space in the future. By the mid-21st century, the general predicted, the People's Republic will have become a world power, and its air force will be required to defend the country against many kinds of threats.

    Shifting Balance

    Thirty years after the two major powers established diplomatic relations, the bilateral balance is now shifting in China's favor. When Obama arrives in Beijing this weekend as part of his first Asian tour since taking office, the Chinese will expect him to behave far more modestly than his predecessor. The president is unlikely to disappoint his hosts.

    Judging by what his advisors have indicated in recent weeks, Obama will not inundate the Chinese with demands. The vision of a nuclear weapons-free world will have to wait. The calls for binding climate protection goals will only be mentioned quietly, if they are mentioned at all. The American will continue to press Beijing to revalue its currency, the yuan, but only at the expert level. Rarely has the superpower been this mild-mannered.

    Obama describes his foreign policy as a new age of cooperation. He is seeking to develop a relationship with a Chinese leadership that he needs more than it needs him. About two-thirds of China's foreign currency reserves are denominated in dollars. Any abrupt shift on the part of Beijing would threaten the stability of the US currency. Cheap imported Chinese goods help push up the American standard of living and minimize the risks of inflation.

    Washington has been particularly enthusiastic about China's economic stimulus programs: the Chinese launched the world's biggest investment program after the start of the financial crisis. Without their spirited course of action, the world economy could very well have imploded. Beijing's stimulus program amounted to about 13 percent of Chinese gross domestic product, making it almost twice as large as the US program and close to five times the size of its German equivalent. Obama's economic team has been deeply impressed by the success of China's stimulus policy.

    The discussion that has begun in China over curbing government spending and tightening liquidity is happening too early for Obama's taste. When he visits Beijing, he will try to encourage the Chinese to continue playing their role as the principal driver of the world economy.

    Meanwhile, the Americans see Europe moving from the passenger's seat to the back seat in terms of the US's international partners. It was former President George W. Bush who upgraded the Chinese by launching a G-20 summit process to combat the financial crisis, rather than leaving it up to the G-8 member states, as the German Chancellery would have liked him to do.

    'Peace, Progress and Prosperity'

    Obama is continuing this course of realignment. If, from the American perspective, there is anything resembling a tentative world government, it does not consist of either the United Nations in New York or the G-8. In Obama's opinion, the G-20 is the key forum.

    Next to the United States, China is the most important G-20 member, and the Americans are treating it with appropriate deference. When she became US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton's first foreign trip was to As
    SPIEGEL ONLINE - Druckversion - Reluctant Partners: Global Crisis Makes US More Dependent on China than Ever - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News - International
  • Asia Times Online :: South Asia news, business and...

    Rated Nov 12 1 review politics, neocons, afghanistan, thegreatgame atimes.com

    From the page: "Washington's rationale for occupying Afghanistan - never spelled out behind the cover story of "fighting Islamic extremism" - is pure Pentagon full spectrum dominance: to better spy on both China and Russia with forward outposts of the empire of bases; to engage in Pipelineistan, via the Trans-Afghan (TAPI) pipeline, if it ever gets built; and to have a controlling hand in the Afghan narco-trade via assorted warlords. Cheap heroin is literally flooding Russia, Iran and Eastern Europe. Not by accident, Moscow regards opium/heroin as the key issue to be tackled in Afghanistan, not Islamic fundamentalism.

    As for those think-tankers, they do remain incorrigible. Last week at a Rand-sponsored Afghanistan bash in the Russell Senate Office Building in Washington, former president Jimmy Carter's national security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, the man who gave the Soviets their Vietnam in Afghanistan, announced that he had advised the George W Bush administration to invade Afghanistan in 2001; but he also told then Pentagon supremo, Donald Rumsfeld, that the Pentagon should not stay on "as an alien force". That's exactly what the Pentagon is right now.

    And yet, Zbigniew believes the US should not leave Afghanistan; it should "use all our leverage" to force NATO to fulfill the mission - whatever that is. Not surprisingly, Zbigniew couldn't help revealing what the heart of the "mission" really is: Pipelineistan, that is, to build TAPI by any means necessary.

    China, India and Russia may agree that a regional - and not an American - solution to Afghanistan may be the only way to go, but still can't agree on how to formalize a proposal which would be offered in the cadre of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. Li Qinggong, the number two at the China Council for National Security Policy Studies, has been a key voice of this proposal. Washington, not surprisingly, wants to remain unilateral.

    It all harks back to a 1997 Brookings Institution publication by Geoffrey Kemp and Robert Harkavy, Strategic Geography and the Changing Middle East, in which they identify an "energy strategic ellipse" with a key node in the Caspian and another in the Persian Gulf, concentrating over 70% of global oil reserves and over 40% of natural gas reserves. The study stressed that the resources in these zones of "low demographic pressure" would be "threatened" by the pressure of billions living in the poor regions of South Asia. Thus the control of the Muslim Central Asian "stans" as well as Afghanistan would be essential as a wall against both China and India.

    So all along the watchtower, the princes of war keep their view. That spells balkanization all along. It's full spectrum dominance against the Asian energy security grid. The Pentagon well knows that AfPak is the key land bridge between Iran to the west and China and India to the east; and that Iran has all the energy that both China and India need. The last thing full spectrum dominance wants is to have the AfPak theater subjected to more influence from Russia, China and Iran.

    There could not be a more graphic illustration of empire of chaos logic in action than the AfPak theater. While the McChrystal show amuses the galleries, what's really at stake for Washington is how to orchestrate a progressive encirclement of Russia, China and Iran. And the name of the game is not really AfPak - even with all the breaking up and balkanization it may entail. It's all about the New Great Game for the control of Eurasia. "
    Asia Times Online :: South Asia news, business and economy from India and    Pakistan
  • Why Was a Lightweight Montana Senator on the Finance...

    Rated Oct 11 2 reviews health, us, baucus, politics, healthcare alternet.org

    From the page: "Entrusting Baucus with the heavy job of shepherding health care reform through the upper chamber is like asking Tweety Bird to lift a bowling ball.

    America's shouting match over health care reform has turned completely goofy -- and I'm not talking about confused seniors at teabag rallies getting red-faced with anger after being told by the right-wing scare machine that "government is trying to taker over Medicare." No, I'm talking about our United States senators.

    Take Max Baucus. Please! He's the lightweight Montana Democrat to whom President Obama entrusted the heavy job of shepherding health care reform through the upper chamber. It was like asking Tweety Bird to lift a bowling ball.

    Baucus is chairman of the finance committee. The what? Excuse me, but why wouldn't the health committee be the appropriate venue for taking the lead on, you know, health reform? I mean, we don't submit banking legislation to the health panel, so ...

    Nonetheless, there it was, and Baucus rather goofily began the process by cheerfully chirping that he was discarding any consideration of the one straightforward and popular reform that would actually work: the single-payer system of insurance, which more appropriately should be called "Medicare for all."

    This easy-to-grasp approach would be a boon to us patients, doctors and taxpayers, with only the greed-fueled insurance companies and rip-off drug companies getting a comeuppance. But, no go from the chairman -- who, coincidentally, has received nearly $600,000 from insurance drug companies and hospitals in the past two years and has gleefully continued to collect beaucoup bucks from them this year, even as he has been writing legislation that bases "reform" on their selfish profit interests.

    Baucus, backed by unanimous and enthusiastic support from Republicans on his committee, has merrily jettisoned reform after reform that the
    Why Was a Lightweight Montana Senator on the Finance Committee Tasked to Take on Health Care Reform? | Health and Wellness | AlterNet
  • ATTACKERMAN & Galbraith, In His Own Words, On...

    Rated Oct 07 1 review politics, afghanistan, un firedoglake.com

    Galbraith, In His Own Words, On The Afghan Election And The U.N. Complicity
    By: Spencer Ackerman Sunday October 4, 2009 9:37 am
    Those who've followed Peter Galbraith's career won't be surprised by his pained, scathing and impassioned op-ed in the Washington Post indicting the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan -- which fired him last week -- for effectively siding with Hamid Karzai in the theft of the Afghan presidential election. This is a guy who snuck into Iraq to document Saddam Hussein's genocide of the Kurds against the wishes of his bosses on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (fun fact: Galbraith's ally and deputy at the time was Chris Van Hollen) and tried to force the Reagan administration to cut off arms sales; and who, as ambassador to Croatia, secretly helped break the arms embargo to Bosnia that ensured the vulnerability of Bosnian Muslims for the Serb onslaught. Assessments like this are simply par for the course:

    The fraud has handed the Taliban its greatest strategic victory in eight years of fighting the United States and its Afghan partners.

    So the Taliban win the election by default, with U.N. complicity. Nice little parting fuck-you-too there, huh?

    Outside the realm of biography, two points remain. First, to play devil's advocate for a moment, it's actually unclear from Galbraith's piece whether that assessment is true. The greatest danger he identifies is that the election results in a Tajik refusal to support the government, and since the Tajiks are rather unlikely to make common cause with the Taliban they've been fighting for over ten years, it's a bit puzzling. I suppose I'm overthinking this, as the general taint of illegitimacy of the election is assured to have widespread consequences, most of which benefit the Taliban, even if not all of the benefits are direct ones. But it's still worth putting a bit of stress on the idea.

    Second, and relatedly, check out Dave Kilcullen's prescription for Afghanistan in the New York Times:

    COUNTERINSURGENCY is only as good as the government it supports. NATO could do everything right -- it isn't -- but will still fail unless Afghans trust their government. Without essential reform, merely making the government more efficient or extending its reach will just make things worse.

    Only a legitimately elected Afghan president can enact reforms, so at the very least we need to see a genuine run-off election or an emergency national council, called a loya jirga, before winter. Once a legitimate president emerges, we need to see immediate action from him on a publicly announced reform program, developed in consultation with Afghan society and enforced by international monitors.

    I endorse the diagnosis and I see no reason to reject the prescription. But the constituency for what Dave proposes is... where? There needs to be a genuine Afghan appetite for a constitutional deviation out of this crisis, otherwise the result will perpetuate the illegitimacy that the election exposed. (I say "exposed" and not "created" because the act of stealing an election is merely a symptom -- albeit a dire one -- of a broader disease consuming the thief.) The international community cannot force this solution on Afghanistan, and Galbraith's experience calls into question whether it would support such a solution even if an Afghan constituency for it materialized.

    I want to find a pony, too, but we may be left with Kilcullen's conclusion:

    If we see no genuine progress on such steps toward government responsibility, the United States should "Afghanize," draw down troops and prepare to mitigate the inevitable humanitarian disaster that will come when the Kabul government falls to the Taliban -- which, in the absence of reform, it eventually and deservedly will.

    Galbraith and Kilcullen would make great drinking buddies.
               ATTACKERMAN  & Galbraith, In His Own Words, On The Afghan Election And The U.N. Complicity
  • Informed Comment: Gross: Massive Fraud in Afghanistan...

    Rated Oct 07 3 reviews politics, corruption juancole.com

    Report from the Abdullah campaign in Afghanistan:
    Finally, since one day after the election, droves of people from each province of Afghanistan have been coming to Kabul to present evidence of fraud, report their eyewitness and meet with Dr. Abdullah regarding a course of action to redress the wrong that has been done to them. Sometimes they come in tens, but most often they come in hundreds. Usually, they hold press conferences. Dr. Abdullah keeps asking these disgruntled voters to keep calm, to wait for the ICC to complete its work, to have faith.

    A few days ago, more than six thousand of these people coming from 33 provinces of Afghanistan (for the 34th province, Kabul, people were already there) met with Dr. Abdullah at Kabul's Uranus Hotel. Together they passed a resolution. I have translated it and am sending it to you as well. You will see that these people are reasonable, rational and intent on success for Afghanistan and its friends and allies.


    I hope that this documentation will shed better light not only on the extent of fraud and the premeditated and planned nature of it but also on the desire of Afghan people to see their voice recognized, and to help the international community make the right choice - - for Afghanistan and for the world at large. My people want that we must not discard the real votes; that we must not sanction fraud; that we must honor the right of the people to choose. This is the sure way to building security, stability and peace!

    I know it is my right I am talking about; but make no mistake, it is also the path for peace and success for all our friends around the world, not the least of whom are the men and women of the Armed Forces of the United States and other countries fighting the Taliban, Al Qaida and who knows who else in Afghanistan!
    Informed Comment: Gross:  Massive Fraud in Afghanistan Election
  • Muammar Gaddafi w gorgeous amazon guard, and , that berlusconi crook on Flickr - Photo Sharing!
  • close encounter with a sunflower  on Flickr - Photo Sharing!
  • Flickr: Discussing Whats wrong with libertarianism in...

    Rated Sep 06 1 review history, politics, theory, libertarians flickr.com

    From the page: "Second, and more importantly, many people who call themselves libertarians didn't recognize themselves in the description. There are libertarians and libertarians, and sometimes different camps despise each other-- or don't seem to be aware of each other.

    If you--

    have never heard of (or don't think much of) Rothbard, Rockwell, Rand, and von Mises
    accept that the FDIC is a pretty good idea
    want a leaner, more efficient government, but don't dream of getting rid of it
    ...then this page isn't really addressed to you. You're probably more of what I'd call a small-government conservative; and if you voted against Bush, we can probably get along just fine.

    On the other hand, you might want to stick around to see what your more fundamentalist colleagues are saying.

    ************************************************************
    The Un-Communism

    Libertarianism strikes me as if someone (let's call her "Ayn Rand") sat down to create the Un-Communism. Thus:

    Communism Libertarianism
    Property is theft Property is sacred
    Totalitarianism Any government is bad
    Capitalists are baby-eating villains Capitalists are noble Nietzchean heroes
    Workers should rule Worker activism is evil
    The poor are oppressed The poor are pampered good-for-nothings

    Does this sound exaggerated? Let's listen to Murray Rothbard:

    We contend here, however, that the model of government is akin, not to the business firm, but to the criminal organization, and indeed that the State is the organization of robbery systematized and writ large.
    Or here's Lew Rockwell on Rothbard (emphasis mine):

    He was also the architect of the body of thought known around the world as libertarianism. This radically anti-state political philosophy unites free-market economics, a no-exceptions attachment to private property rights, a profound concern for human liberty, and a love of peace, with the conclusion that society should be completely free to develop absent any interference from the state, which can and should be eliminated.
    Thomas DiLorenzo on worker activism: "[L]abor unions [pursue] policies which impede the very institutions of capitalism that are the cause of their own prosperity." Or Ludwig von Mises: "What is today euphemistically called the right to strike is in fact the right of striking workers, by recourse to violence, to prevent people who want to work from working." (Employer violence is apparently acceptable.) The Libertarian Party platform explains that workers have no right to protest drug tests, and supports the return of child labor.

    On Nietzsche, as one of my correspondents puts it, some libertarians love Nietzsche; others have read him. (Though I would respond that some people idolize executives; others have worked for them.) Nonetheless, I think the Nietzschean atmosphere of burning rejection of conventional morality, exaltation of the will to power, and scorn for womanish Christian compassion for the masses, is part of the roots of libertarianism. It's unmistakable in Ayn Rand.

    The more important point, however, is that the capitalist is the über-villain for communists, and a glorious hero for libertarians; that property is "theft" for the communists, and a "natural right" for libertarians. These dovetail a little too closely for coincidence. It's natural enough, when a basic element of society is attacked as an evil, for its defenders to counter-attack by elevating it into a principle.

    As we should have learned from the history of communism and fascism, however, contradiction is no guarantee of truth; it can lead one into an opposite error instead. And many who rejected communism nonetheless remained zealots. People who leave one ideological extreme usually end up at the other, either quickly (David Horowitz) or slowly (Mario Vargas Llosa). If you're the sort of person who likes absolutes, you want them even if all your other convictions change.

    *************************************************
    Who needs facts?

    The methodology isn't much different either: oppose the obvious evils of the world with a fairy tale. The communist of 1910 couldn't point to a single real-world instance of his utopia; neither can the present-day libertarian. Yet they're unshakeable in their conviction that it can and must happen.

    Academic libertarians love abstract, fact-free arguments-- often, justifications for why property is an absolute right. As a random example, from one James Craig Green:

    This concept of property originated in some of those primitive tribes when individuals claimed possessions for themselves as against the collective ownership of their groups. Based on individual initiative, labor, and innovation, some were successful at establishing a separate, private ownership role for themselves. [...]

    Examples of natural property in land and water resources have already been given, but deserve more detail. An illustration of how this would be accomplished is a farm with irrigation di
    Flickr: Discussing Whats wrong with libertarianism in U.S. Politics and the World; Political Debate & Discussion Blog
  • The BRAD BLOG :  SIBEL EDMONDS DEPOSITION: VIDEO AND TRANSCRIPT RELEASED
  • http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009...

    Rated Aug 17 3 reviews counterculture, culture war, decrim, drugs, politics washingtonpost.com

    From the page: "Drug users generally aren't violent. Most simply want to be left alone to enjoy their high. It's the corner slinger who terrifies neighbors and invites rivals to attack. Public drug dealing creates an environment where disputes about money or respect are settled with guns.

    In high-crime areas, police spend much of their time answering drug-related calls for service, clearing dealers off corners, responding to shootings and homicides, and making lots of drug-related arrests.

    One of us (Franklin) was the commanding officer at the police academy when Arthur (as well as Moskos) graduated. We all learned similar lessons. Police officers are taught about the evils of the drug trade and given the knowledge and tools to inflict as much damage as possible upon the people who constitute the drug community. Policymakers tell us to fight this unwinnable war.

    Only after years of witnessing the ineffectiveness of drug policies -- and the disproportionate impact the drug war has on young black men -- have we and other police officers begun to question the system.

    Cities and states license beer and tobacco sellers to control where, when and to whom drugs are sold. Ending Prohibition saved lives because it took gangsters out of the game. Regulated alcohol doesn't work perfectly, but it works well enough. Prescription drugs are regulated, and while there is a huge problem with abuse, at least a system of distribution involving doctors and pharmacists works without violence and high-volume incarceration. Regulating drugs would work similarly: not a cure-all, but a vast improvement on the status quo.

    Legalization would not create a drug free-for-all. In fact, regulation reins in the mess we already have. If prohibition decreased drug use and drug arrests acted as a deterrent, America would not lead the world in illegal drug use and incarceration for drug crimes.

    Drug manufacturing and distribution is too dangerous to remain in the hands of unregulated criminals. Drug distribution needs to be the combined responsibility of doctors, the government, and a legal and regulated free market. This simple step would quickly eliminate the greatest threat of violence: street-corner drug dealing.

    We simply urge the federal government to retreat. Let cities and states (and, while we're at it, other countries) decide their own drug policies. Many would continue prohibition, but some would try something new. California and its medical marijuana dispensaries provide a good working example, warts and all, that legalized drug distribution does not cause the sky to fall.

    Having fought the war on drugs, we know that ending the drug war is the right thing to do -- for all of us, especially taxpayers. While the financial benefits of drug legalization are not our main concern, they are substantial. In a July referendum, Oakland, Calif., voted to tax drug sales by a 4-to-1 margin. Harvard economist Jeffrey Miron estimates that ending the drug war would save $44 billion annually, with taxes bringing in an additional $33 billion.

    Without the drug war, America's most decimated neighborhoods would have a chance to recover. Working people could sit on stoops, misguided youths wouldn't look up to criminals as role models, our overflowing prisons could hold real criminals, and -- most important to us -- more police officers wouldn't have to die.

    Peter Moskos is a professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice and the author of "Cop in the Hood." Neill Franklin is a 32-year law enforcement veteran. Both served as Baltimore City police officers and are members of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition."
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/16/AR2009081601758.html?referrer=digg