I think Noam does a good job here. He stays calm and explains everything he wants to say in detail. He also makes sure to point out that WE ARE at fault in a lot of areas. He also explains why and when we should get involved and reasons why we should not.

The interviewer is a putz ("Why haven't you mellowed out?" WTF is he even asking that?). However, on the Pakistan/Afghanistan issues... I don't think Noam is very useful here. He says we're doing the wrong thing and possibly promoting the disturbance in Pakistan; which is true in many ways. But, I have to point out has been there a long time and the biggest spark came from the initial time we went into Afghanistan and we were linked with their president by having their government work with us (this was A spark, but the "instability" was already there). Just look at Pakistan with India.

I know exactly what he is talking about in Afghanistan, as I see it happening as well. However, pulling out won't change it (maybe lightening the situation for a decade or so--with a large human death toll) and may eventually make it worse. Pulling those troops into northern Iraq makes slightly more sense, while leaving "hit crews" in Afghanistan just to throttle down any power that will form in the vacuum.

Or we just saturate the hell out of it (like we should have done in Iraq; that, or never have gone there--I'll change my mind on this if the region, from Egypt to Iraq forms fairly stable democracies). But, that won't happen until a second term, as usual...

Great video.

It should be noted that the compatibility of software across all versions of Windows is the primary reason the operating system has always been so buggy as compared to Apple's, who has had no qualms about losing compatibility in favor of an improved OS. Each paradigm has its obvious benefits and drawbacks.

I'm just glad with Windows 7 they finally were able to overcome a lot of the instability inherent in the DNA of the OS.

>> ^rebuilder:

Indeed. What's the worst-case scenario for the more hawkish US policymakers here? Perhaps that the Egyptian people actually manage to create something resembling a stable democracy without US military intervention...
>> ^Fusionaut:
It's amazing that they got results without the United States invading their country. I guess the Americans are just too busy elsewhere.



The worst case scenario is that the Hamas end of the Muslim Brotherhood ends up seizing control of Egypt, eventually leading to another large scale war between Egypt and Israel. I suppose worst case would also mean the Egyptian scenario emboldening the Sudanese North into starting the civil war all over again too.

A more likely scenario though is a lot of instability leading to more woes for the Egyptian people than anyone else.

Point is that despite how good it is to be rid of a dictatorship, the end result is yet to be seen. More often than not dictators that are chased out are replaced by another one within a decade, and generally that dictator is even more brutal and harsh than the one before him. After all, even Al Jazeera openly observes that it was the relative tolerance of Mubarak's regime that allowed the protests to succeed where those in Syria and Iran have faltered under much more brutal suppression.

Note: I am not spell checking--I had surgery recently and am not in right mind. But here is input.

@ Netrunner and Jigga; this is not so much about one or two or five-hundred people. This is about societal rhetoric. Here is a post I placed elsewhere.

Sara Palin is just a woman on a path to wealth and power---not any different than most men and women out there. How she does it isn't even unique either. I am speaking of society here, of us all.

Many just lay blame at this guy's mental instability, but here is a truth, or barring that, here is a statement that is not incorrect. "You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make it drink. However, if the horse does drink, then you are the one that led him to the water."

My wife and I were talking the old schoolyard days. She mentioned a girl who always treated everyone nice. I listened and asked "Why is she nice?" My wife responded, "Because she never made fun of anyone or hurt anyone." I replied, "That is not nice, that is indifferent because she also never helped anyone but herself. And who did she hang out with?" And I answered for my wife. "She hung out with the bullies, the preps, and the kind of guys who would violate the weak with hockey sticks. Although I was never bullied, I know they were merciless. Now,dear, how can they be merciless? Because its popular. Because without this girl's attention, and every other "nice" girl's attention, their attitudes would change. But she encourages it, facilitates it, and does that make her a nice girl? It is just the same reason there are no "nice" guys left, because they finish last."

The "nice" girl in this story never realized she actively, unconsciously supported the Tards in school---but personal responsibility says she did. So I blame her for the punches and kicks others received? Not directly, but she had a part.

This nut job could have easily been offended by Gifford's "conservative" side, and took Alan Grayson's argument, and other left's too, and decided Gifford must die.

The problem was/is, the mentally ill are very easily manipulated, even when one does not know they are manipulating them. All he hears is "truthful" banter. He cannot see rhetoric. He believes. It is like giving a 20 dollar bill to a blind man. And so his actions are based on our lies. Of course "we" can tell which statements are lies---but as the years progress, less and less are able to because the truth is told less and less. Then, even the sane (Like nowadays) start believing the hype.

While the yuan is tentatively pegged to the dollar, it's hard to argue anything has changed.

A currency needs years, decades even to gain reserve currency status. With the current debt instability in the Euro area, this has become a very unlikely proposition. The yuan is even less likely, partly because currently it is still essentially pegged to the dollar and partly because it still far, far from being the pre-eminent power with massive income disparity comparing the cities to the countryside, unstable regions, and even purely festering structural issues like water shortage and pollution. What's more likely is it being replaced also in the medium to long term by the IMF Special Drawing Rights (SDR), basically an amalgamated currency with proportionate representations by major economic world power currencies.

The thing is though if the US were gradually replaced by other (or combination of) currencies it would be quite beneficial to the US economy.

The main effect would be a depreciation of the US dollar. The US dollar is in excessive demand because it is used in trade internationally, something that hurts US export competitiveness. A currency depreciation would make imports less competitive and exports more competitive. Less incentive to overconsume Chinese manufacturing, more incentive to export products thus improving the US trade balance and foreign debt.

Slight inflationary pressure. Currently deflation is a bigger worry, especially if it becomes entrenched as in Japan.

Public debt? Largely wouldn't be affected because it is predominantly denominated in US currency (Treasury bills) thus currency value does not play into the equation.

Point is, it's largely a good thing.

I'm not a nationalist at all, and I'm ever more inclined to consider patriotism and nationalism a damn mental disorder than anything else. Feeling all proud and somehow better than others because you fell out of your mother's vagina in a particular geographic location is completely stupid.

I'm all for unification of mankind, not the other way around. Unfortunately, very few people seem to think like that. Hell, I wouldn't mind if Spain and Portugal united as one country called Iberia. We have europe's oldest borders. That says a lot about your relationship with the neighbours.



>> ^radx:

>> ^EMPIRE:
Can Portugal and Spain's situation really be compared to Ireland and Greece's? I mean, yes we are also in a bit of trouble, but I truly believe the whole situation has been amplified by fucking speculators, messing with our credit ratings.

It certainly is amplified by speculations, for which the blame primarily rests with Merkel, if you ask me.
At current interest and growth rates, Portugal's national debt is noticably less threatening than Ireland's, but considering the agenda of cuts and savings, growth will remain abysmal or even turn negative, as is the case of Greece. Add the account deficit of 11.6% of GDP in the first half of 2010 and I'd say Portugal is quietly insolvent.
Spain on the other hand with its national debt of mere ~57% of GDP looks somewhat more stable, but look at the foreign exposure of the private sector. That's up to a cool €700B once the lid is taken off. And that would stretch the European Financial Stability Facility (EFSF) budget to the limit, a budget of only €750B. Which is why some argued that it should have been closer to €2T from the start.
And that's when a haircut is inevitable. Folks around Europe won't just accept massive cutbacks, causing massive unemployment and the following nightmares, just so investors can cash in on their situation. There's going to be some serious debt restructuring, including haircuts.
The real shit would begin if Italy, due to national debt and political instability, got sucked down as well. That'd be fun, yap.
So I'd say let's take Jean-Claude Juncker's advice and finally make it a proper union, not just a shared currency with opposing interests. Unfortunatly, my own bloody government won't play along with that.

>> ^EMPIRE:

Can Portugal and Spain's situation really be compared to Ireland and Greece's? I mean, yes we are also in a bit of trouble, but I truly believe the whole situation has been amplified by fucking speculators, messing with our credit ratings.

It certainly is amplified by speculations, for which the blame primarily rests with Merkel, if you ask me.

At current interest and growth rates, Portugal's national debt is noticably less threatening than Ireland's, but considering the agenda of cuts and savings, growth will remain abysmal or even turn negative, as is the case of Greece. Add the account deficit of 11.6% of GDP in the first half of 2010 and I'd say Portugal is quietly insolvent.

Spain on the other hand with its national debt of mere ~57% of GDP looks somewhat more stable, but look at the foreign exposure of the private sector. That's up to a cool €700B once the lid is taken off. And that would stretch the European Financial Stability Facility (EFSF) budget to the limit, a budget of only €750B. Which is why some argued that it should have been closer to €2T from the start.

And that's when a haircut is inevitable. Folks around Europe won't just accept massive cutbacks, causing massive unemployment and the following nightmares, just so investors can cash in on their situation. There's going to be some serious debt restructuring, including haircuts.

The real shit would begin if Italy, due to national debt and political instability, got sucked down as well. That'd be fun, yap.

So I'd say let's take Jean-Claude Juncker's advice and finally make it a proper union, not just a shared currency with opposing interests. Unfortunatly, my own bloody government won't play along with that.

Video evidence that all those unbelievable stories you hear from your parents or relatives how someone in their school died so they knocked down, closed, fixed something to prevent it from happening again.

Like swimming at quarries and kids drowning because the quarries have undertow due to instability....

Or kids getting killed by a car when they used to have traffic lights on the interstate they had to cross to get to school.

[redacted]

They don't face jump off because of the support cables. The run extensively down the sides of the towers and for miles outward. They are needed because of the instability of a skinny, yet heavy structure. The sway in the wind would knock it down without a second thought. If they tried to jump and a gust of wind took a hold of them, they would get caught in the support wires and be literally hanging hundreds of feet in the air with no way down.

The government wants you to be afraid, because you will focus your attention on the threat of a perceived vague shadowy 'enemy' rather than what your own government is doing under your nose. Be afraid, vote for candidate X. Nothing motivates a voting body than an insecure voter. Notice how the enemies are always ill defined constructions. A "them" vs "us" concept. We will defeat "them", when the very definition of 'win' cannot be defined.

Terrorists are everywhere. They are all over. They want to get you and your family. We quickly forget that far more people die every year from common disease, cancer, car accidents, food poisoning, starvation, and even genocide.. than terrorism. Sure terrorism is horrific. But so is neglect of the now parent-less child starving in a ditch as our war machines drive by to claim a stockpile of oil from the 'enemy'.

The governments of the world tell you that the nuclear threat is always 'the other guy', they neglect to mention their own huge arsenal contributing to global instability. The governments pat themselves on the back for reducing nuclear stockpiles. Meanwhile they don't tell you that the stockpile reduction was from old/defunct stock. The 5000 nukes of last decade, have been replaced by 100 devices, with each single new device holding enough firepower to eclipse the entire stockpile of the last decade. So much for disarmament. So much for peace. So much for supporting a nuclear weapon free world.

The greatest threat to a peaceful and just world is ourselves. Greed and power rules us. Our human nature. Our tribal nationalistic xenophobic tendencies. To forget that we are all human at the core. The same. No matter what language we speak or what clothes we wear.

This would be like fighting Italy after WWII... just because Italy had been allied with Germany.

I'd quite simply argue it is instead like fighting Italy during WWII because Italy was allied with Germany.

The entire problem is because everything has been spun into unrecognizable gibberish by the time it gets near the media, let alone the public. The advocates for staying in Afghanistan use Al Qaeda as shorthand for Islamic jihadists, because that makes it easier for the ignorant masses to follow. Further still, at the "Great Game" level nobody cares over much about a safe haven in Afghanistan for Islamic jihadists. The real concern is a safe haven for jihadists along Pakistan's border. The former head of Paksitan's ISI, that the US and nearly all muslim countries paid to form the jihadist armies that ousted the Soviets is Hamid Gul. He currently is an outspoken supporter of the Taliban's jihad, and formerly said the following in response to concerns about their formation "We are fighting a jihad and this is the first Islamic international brigade in the modem era. The communists have their international brigades, the West has NATO, why can't the Muslims unite and form a common front?" He's still very influential in Pakistan, and he is hardly alone. The jihadist's campaign prior to 9/11 had been garnering support within Pakistan's government, and they had made big strides. Since 9/11, when Pakistan's government responded to western pressures to reverse course, the jihadists have begun efforts to destabilize Pakistan instead. If they can't gain absolute control of the nations nuclear arsenal, instability and civil war within a nuclear state they hold tremendous sway in will also serve their needs.

And there you have the problem. Actually talking about the REAL situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan is simply far beyond the attention span of the people. They don't have the time to even hear the basic facts, let alone form any kind of opinion. So instead, the media provides them with unrecognizable pablum. It's like choosing between the steak and the lobster, but the only taste test you get is baby food jars of pureed steak and potates, or pureed lobster and spinach.

>> ^conan:

difference is: a human can be prosecuted. but whose fault is it if this thing goes bananas? operator? creator / engineer? manufacturer? they'll all say "nono, this other part is faulty, not ours".


I would say the people that deployed it would own the lion's share of the responsibility in your hypothetical situation.

Situation A: Whack-job soldier takes his government issued rifle, his military-instilled proficiency with that weapon/tool, and either an inborn but latent mental instability OR a poor reaction to an extremely stressful situation, and goes nuts and shoots some civilians / kids / baby bunnies.

Who was at fault for him going bananas? The gun manufacturer? I would say no, but would accept that they have a *very* tertiary share. The soldier's parents? Gonna have to go with no. The soldier himself? Quite possibly. The military that trained him? Certainly in a sense, but it would be very difficult to hold them accountable. His commanding officers? Definitely a possibility, but "I was ordered to do it" only gets you so far (see Nuremberg).


Situation B: Autonomous robot sentry is enabled and placed into a live-fire environment by a commissioned military officer. It suffers from either a computer-bug "glitch" that results in it incorrectly identifying enemy combatants versus civilians while in the field or a complete lack of any system to differentiate the two, and goes out and mows down civilians / kids / baby bunnies.

How about this time? The development team of engineers, programmers, designers, etc.? Again I would say no, but if they were provably negligible in either fully testing and implementing good, working threat / non-threat identification OR clearly conveying the limitations of the system to the military they are selling it to, then sure they share in the responsibility. The assembly line workers that put the machine together? Nah. The robot sentry itself? Not unless you blame the gun in situation A. The officer that turned the thing on and turned it loose? I figure this is most analogous to the soldier in situation A. This person should know their tool, whether it be a firearm or an automated sentry robot, and is most directly responsible for what happens as a result of its use. The military itself? Certainly for a share, particularly if they failed to train the deploying officer and inform them of the limitations of the tool / weapon / platform.


It is never black and white and arguments could be made for any assignment of blame in either situation, but to me I don't feel that situation B is particularly more gray than A.

They're in an area where no government exists. And the areas of Somalia where the government is the main controlling faction, it's still just a faction. I'm all for people to own their own guns. But you've got an uncontrolled area selling rpgs and automatic weapons to anyone with money. That kind of activity destabalizes their government and the region.>> ^QuadraPixel:

Fun to watch, but when the dude in the white shirt (Kaj Larsen) says that the proliferation small arms creates instability in countries it really boils my blood. That is totally false, it is a fact that countries that allow their citizens to own firearms are safer (with the exception of violent militia ruled countries such as Somalia). He's making a senseless comparison between countries in totally different situations.

Fun to watch, but when the dude in the white shirt (Kaj Larsen) says that the proliferation small arms creates instability in countries it really boils my blood. That is totally false, it is a fact that countries that allow their citizens to own firearms are safer (with the exception of violent militia ruled countries such as Somalia). He's making a senseless comparison between countries in totally different situations.