Slashdot Mirror

Let's hope other countries do the same thing too.

Remember, agencies of the US government regularly attempt to influence elections overseas, and, oppose the natural desires of their electorate

Below are a selection of links about the same, from across the political spectrum that are quite well-documented.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/0...

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

https://www.channel4.com/news/...

https://www.straitstimes.com/w...

https://www.telesurtv.net/engl...

http://www.latimes.com/nation/...

https://www.wnyc.org/story/his...

http://www.truth-out.org/opini...

https://www.foreignaffairs.com...

https://www.thenewamerican.com...

https://www.npr.org/2016/12/22...

https://www.politico.eu/articl...

https://www.strategic-culture....

That is not true. Under Obama there were even cases where the Democrats ridiculed Republicans who demonized Russia. Obama certainly was not enthusiastic about escalating tensions with Russia until the end.
Clinton herself supported the 'let's not degrade relations too much' reset initiative in 2009 and she's on the far hawkish side of the spectrum. Afterwards she went all out though and I'm certain that's out of self interest.
If there's one article I'd recommend on the deterioration of ties iwth Russia it would be Mearsheimer in Foreign Policy. He's a hardcore realist.
https://www.foreignaffairs.com...
One of his most remarkable claims(and I believe it) is that much of the expansion of the Nato was not driven by anti-Russia paranoia.

No, the biggest threat to world peace is American nativsim and isolationism

The world has been demanding an end to American meddling for quite some time. Maybe you've been watching fake news?

Fifteen years ago, the prominent political analyst Samuel Huntington, professor of the science of government at Harvard, warned in the establishment journal Foreign Affairs that for much of the world the U.S. was "becoming the rogue superpower... the single greatest external threat to their societies." Shortly after, his words were echoed by Robert Jervis, the president of the American Political Science Association: "In the eyes of much of the world, in fact, the prime rogue state today is the United States." As we have seen, global opinion supports this judgment by a substantial margin.

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/reviews/review-essay/2001-07-01/weapons-without-purpose-nuclear-strategy-post-cold-war-era

'Invasion' is indeed not appropriate because you could just as well call the addition of troops 'reinforcement''. 'Annexation' is a lot more appropriate and hey, Hitler annexed a few territories in 1938/1939 with full approval of the population (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Areas_annexed_by_Nazi_Germany) before invading Poland. Always a difficult issue, annexing territory with approval of the population.
John Mearsheimer explains why despite the aggressive , or at least much more assertive posture of Russia we can still talk to them and respect them on the international stage https://www.foreignaffairs.com...

If we get more Muslims in over time, we'll also be getting some of the US-born ones to adopt US culture, which doesn't include pushing Sharia law

A noble, but unsubstantiated hope. Tsarnayev brothers grew up in America. And not in some "hateful" fly-over country, but in Boston, of all places. Omar Mateen — the Orlando-shooter — was born in New York.

And what did we, the US, get in exchange for the scores killed by these people? Are there numerous American-born Muslim scientists, inventors, engineers offsetting the carnage the listed assholes have caused? Not especially — should have been accepting more immigrants from Eastern Europe instead (like Asimov, Sikorsky, Brin, and Torvalds to name a few).

In Europe — so often used as an example for the unwashed Yanks to follow — the situation is, apparently, even worse.

You're confusing having a state church with the possibility of giving it a lot of influence in lawmaking.

I'm not — merlinokos is. The survey he referred to asked the question: "Would you like Christianity to become an official religion of the US". There was nothing in there about "giving it a lot of influence".

We're not talking about a general Christian movement in politics, but one generally rooted in fundamentalism, like Iran and Saudi Arabia to some extent

As I wrote, 300 years ago Christian White men thought up our nation. Most of them would've been considered "fundamentalists" by today's standards — their stance on women voting, or same-sex marriage would be most appalling. And yet, they've created the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, which neither Iran, nor Saudi Arabia, nor any other Islam-dominated society can come close to replicating. Because the Prophet made the mistake of officially bundling secular law into religious dogma.

Even if we do, somehow, go back to the opinions of those "fundamentalists" prevailing nation-wide again, we'd still be a much healthier and freer society, than what our Muslim immigrants are used to. That a large number of them, foolishly, wish to replicate theirs here — while we nod understandingly and purr about the "wonderful tapestry of diversity" — should worry you much more, than any Christian thought.

The reason I do not care about Muslims wanting Sharia law in the US is that there are too few of them to effectively push it.

Islam is the fastest-growing religion in the US and the world. Though it is an Individual's right to choose any faith (or none at all), it is also the State's right (duty!) to keep track of people choosing, what's likely to make them hostile to and oppressive of the rest of the country.

If Brendan Eich could be fired from Mozilla for privately opposing homosexual marriage, how could supporters of the firing be welcoming towards people, whose preferred legal system calls for killing of homosexuals, married or not?

More issues.

I think the idea of Russia dreaming of old glory is misleading and it ignores the driving factor. In that respect I think this article by John Mearsheimer has it right : https://www.foreignaffairs.com...
The russians have been warning us all along, but we didn't consider them worth paying attention to. The problem is that we still feel safe so we can threaten the Russians all we want. Military they don't amount to much outside their own territory but they have nukes, they don't have much conventional power they can use before switching to nukes, and they're nervous. Meanwhile we're all casual and confident and careless. That's like the Cuba crisis but with one side still not realizing there's a problem.

I see you didn't click any of the links. For starters, the this one clearly explains that these "drive-bys" are not, in any way, shape or form, mutually exclusive with traditional diplomacy. They're a tool for enhancing traditional diplomacy. This link explains the legal nuances of the freedom of navigation operation in much greater detail, and describes the legal and diplomatic needle the operation was threading. Sailing a single destroyer past an island is hardly a flexing of military muscle. Flexing muscle is when you sail an aircraft carrier battle group through the strait of Taiwan. As for the hacking, please note the lede paragraph of this story:

Chinese state-backed hackers have carried out a string of cyber espionage attacks on U.S. companies, violating a pact signed by the two countries to stop carrying out this kind of activity, according to a cybersecurity company.

The two-way street you suggest has already been attempted, and it has sadly resulted in jack diddly. Attempts to bridge these gaps by inviting China to participate in the major US-and-allies annual pacific naval exercises were similarly undermined by the Chinese sending an uninvited spy ship.

You see, there is no lack of diplomatic effort being made regarding American-Chinese relations - but time and again the Chinese have declined to reign in their aggressive efforts to enrich themselves at the cost of others. It is only natural that the United States has been taking measures to re-assert their commitments; (diplomatic, economic, and defense-wise) to their many regional allies in the face of ever-more-bold Chinese demonstrations of military power and diplomatic hardball.

It is pretty idiotic that our foreign policy and military establishment seem intent on picking periodic fights with China over stupid little things rather than trying to elevate the relationship to become close allies.

Have you been living under a rock for the last several years? The Chinese have been using dredgers to build artificial islands atop coral reefs in the South China Sea, and these islands are now equipped with huge runways for operating military craft from fighters to patrol aircraft to medium bombers; all so they can project firepower over the entire South China Sea. To simply claim the entire Sea right up to the coasts of their regional neighbors as their own is one thing, but China has invested in a massive military build-up to back up their claims with raw force. Many of those nations are our regional allies, especially the Philippines. And if that's not enough, the Chinese have long engaged in hostile cybercrimes against the United States, not only hacking critical military defense information (like the information on the F-35 they stole) but also an ongoing government-ran campaign to steal American commercial trade secrets that mirrors their complete and utter disdain for Western Intellectual Property rights.

And you're going to tell me that America is the one "picking fights" because we dared sail a ship too close to a few of their sand-castles? Freedom of Navigation exercises are run frequently, all over the globe, and are NOT mutually exclusive with traditional diplomacy.

I understand that some people are deeply suspicious or even disdainful of America's role in world politics; but when you try to make out the 800 pound gorilla of Asia - who's busy mugging everyone it can get its hairy paws on - as the poor victim here, you just come across as a moron.

Trotskyite neocons. I can't parse that one. could you explain. (yes I know about trotsky).

Here's a little bit to start you off:

https://www.foreignaffairs.com... The neocon movement was named during the 70's, but existed beforehand. Largely founded by a refugee from Nazi Germany, Leo Strauss. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Best thing to do is read the entire Strauss article.

One thing that many do not know is that the neoconservatives had roots in liberalism. In the 50's and early 60's they endorsed the American Civil Rights movement, racial integration, and Martin Luther King Jr. Amazingly enough, neoconservatives of that time thought that American modern Liberalism had become too conservative. Holy cannoli!

Many Neoconservatives were moderate socialists who were associated with the Socialist party of America, and it's successor, the Social Democrats, and had many members who were devotees of Max Schactman, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... A Marxist theorist. Also good reading.

So they split away during the 1970's, and started moving to a sort of faux conservatism.

Then came the 1990's. The neocons were seriously pissed off at the First George Bush. They really wanted to take out Saddam Hussein, and run the country

Then we had the Wolfowitz Doctrine written in 1992 by Paul Wolfowitz and Dick Cheney. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

The outcry was pretty loud, with the doctrine sounding like a new American Imperialism - it was rewritten, but still had the basics of the neocon's pre-emptive war and global outlook.

Interestingly and oddly enough, in the late 90's Irving Kristol, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... named the "Godfather of NeoConservatism, and member of the so called "New York Intellectuals" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/..., yup a Trotskyist group, started rejecting evolution and Darwinism. Weird. And oddly enough so did the Stalinist Soviets, who preferred Lysenkoism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/....

Some folks think that their war on evolution might have just been a lie to attract fundamentalist Christians - who knows?

In 1998 They published an open letter to Bill Clinton urging an Iraq war. They finally got their way in 2002, with the "Bush Doctrine" after which we promptly went in and invaded a country that didn't have a thing to do with 9/11.

But the NeoCons, prevailed in getting Bush to adopt much of the Wolfowitz Doctrine. An important part of the Bush Doctrine was that they used the word "pre-emptive" rather than preventative, which would be in direct violation of Geneva conventions.

But as the 1992 Wolfowitz report Defense Planning Guidance puts it:

"Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power."

Whoa, that's a tad nasty. Sounds like everlasting war. Sounds like making the entire world your enemy. That really hasn't worked out too well in the past. Anyhow, I've given you a shitload to read. As a moderate to paleoconservative, I do believe that Trotskyites had grabbed power in the Republican party, that they have major underpinni

NZ is one of the Five Eyes countries. Their focus (see what I'm doing there) totally ignores the importance of soft power. https://www.foreignaffairs.com...
It's a bit like the USA dumbing down it's Middle East expertise by removing Arabic speakers and experts from the State Department.

Last time I checked, the Netherlands was in Europe. (See article)

Europe may have excellent social welfare programs, but when it comes to multiculturalism, Europe is a patent failure (not my view only; see below). Perhaps this has something to do with the limits on open speech and dialogue?

https://www.foreignaffairs.com...
http://realtruth.org/articles/...
http://www.economist.com/blogs...
http://www.abc.net.au/radionat...

Its quality-of-life index links the results of subjective life-satisfaction surveys—how happy people say they are—to objective determinants of the quality of life across countries. Being rich helps more than anything else, but it is not all that counts; things like crime, trust in public institutions and the health of family life matter too. In all, the index takes 11 statistically significant indicators into account. They are a mixed bunch: some are fixed factors, such as geography; others change only very slowly over time (demography, many social and cultural characteristics); and some factors depend on policies and the state of the world economy.

Now, what's left is to determine, that the 7.38 vs. 8.02 difference is thanks to, rather than despite of their taxes being higher — rather than, say, those demography, social and cultural characteristics. They do "celebrate diversity" there too nowadays, but the bulk of the population remains of "original" stock.

There is an interesting article from the respected Council on Foreign Relations that is a little of an eye-opener in trying to understand the Russian side to this whole situation.

You still don't have to agree with the Russian side (as a matter of fact, I don't), but after reading it, I have to agree it makes sense and it makes Putin much less of an irrational nutjob.

These, and their documents, are promptly collected and stored in safe yet at Rostov base.

There must have be someone smart enough to stick a phone up his ass or something.
You know what I mean. No one runs away, no one throws a paper plane with a message to those mothers waiting in front of the gates, ...

Why you emphasize something unimportant and rather distracting as "gallery dealer and art-manager"?

I generally check the information I process. Why should I trust an art dealer working for a Kiev-based newspaper with either his analysis (last paragraph), or even that he didn't make all of it up? The "Putin surrounding insider" could be his maid, for all I know.

Can't get how it turns into "told him everything he knew"

You wrote in another reply that you're from the former USSR or Poland, so you know what "Desa" is. Especially since it's an ominous, anonymous source that talks to a Kiev based newspaper and is friends with an ex-Yabloko guy. Sure thing!
It's an interesting take, but it fits too nicely with the Ukrainian narrative.

So, you didn't see no satellite images with troops moving?

No, did you? If so, please do send me the links to the images, because all I saw was some blurry shit without geo-location or anything conclusive marked on it from a civilian company in the best, and some photoshop jobs in the worst case.

Are you able in general to envision what those borders are, and surrounding situation is?

Quite well, actually.

Where are you lacking tunnels?

Oh, so there are tunnels there and nobody reports that the tanks and thousands of troops get to Lugansk and Donetsk through the tunnels...

Have you looked at the map, that separatists concentrate along the border with Russia?

Donetsk is quite a march from the border.

Putin himself explained, when caught, that his troopers "got somewhat lost" (in Ukraine by coincidence).

Yeah, those 10 paratroopers are a formidable force. Really. They took on a whole division bare-handed! What about the 400+ Ukrainian soldiers that were fed and taken care of by Russia?

Did you know, key figures of separatists were actually Russian citizen

Did you know that there are *a lot* of Ukrainians with Russian passports and the other way around. There are also quite a few with both passports.

If you still did not get, that you are observing principally new kind of hybrid war

Yes I am observing a hybrid war in the form of destabilizing intervention from all sides: US, EU and RF. An Economo-Ideolo-Info-Cyber-Military war.

You missed Crimea action

No I didn't, but I understand the reaction. As pointed out in the article I suggested to read in the other branch of this discussion, imagine China (or Russia for that matter) has a formidable military alliance and makes moves to have Canada and Mexico join. There was virtually no blood spilled on Crimea, the constituency was 60+% Russian-speaking or ethnic Russian population and a few other facts like them being able to vote (and it was not a gunpoint as some keep insisting. There's enough proof for that.)

Then mister Putin has got your balls very well

Restating something a thousand times don't make it become more or less true. And the fact of the matter is that there. is. no. evidence. At least not for us common folk.

Oh, in addition to the other post, regarding the "expansionist policy" of the "evil Putin" I'd highly recommend reading: this articles published by the CFR (Council on Foreign Relations, one of the leading think tanks specializing in FR in the western world http://www.cfr.org/about/).
The article is behind a registration or paywall (that's nice of them), but you may use a2072188@trbvm.com as login and slashdot as password to access it.

Actually, even voices in the west that are certainly not aligned with Russia claim that the whole crises is the West's fault:.

The taproot of the trouble is NATO enlargement, the central element of a larger strategy to move Ukraine out of Russia’s orbit and integrate it into the West. At the same time, the EU’s expansion eastward and the West’s backing of the pro-democracy movement in Ukraine -- beginning with the Orange Revolution in 2004 -- were critical elements, too. Since the mid-1990s, Russian leaders have adamantly opposed NATO enlargement, and in recent years, they have made it clear that they would not stand by while their strategically important neighbor turned into a Western bastion. For Putin, the illegal overthrow of Ukraine’s democratically elected and pro-Russian president -- which he rightly labeled a “coup” -- was the final straw. He responded by taking Crimea, a peninsula he feared would host a NATO naval base, and working to destabilize Ukraine until it abandoned its efforts to join the West.

What about this?
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/...

Funnily enough, ABC was exactly the network I had in mind as I wrote my previous comments. We get the ABC nightly news bulletin shown on our own BBC News channel, and sometimes the degree of dumbing down, "patriotic" chest-thumping, and overtly biased commentary literally makes my cringe. It's awful. Maybe that's just the main bulletin and some of its other content is better?

ABC has a few good shows. For example: http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek... is considered one of the cornerstone shows for official pronouncements of policy. Very official, but more in depth similar to the more bland shows on the BBC. Martha Raddatz who is the Senior Foreign Affairs Correspondent for ABCNews was considered so good that people joked she won the Vice Presidential debate in 2012 (she was the moderator and did a fantastic job cutting through the BS with two very seasoned politicians). But no, what you see is pretty reflective of the ABCNews.

As for the BBC I agreed with you above the BBC is better. We have something like the BBC, PBS NewsHour.

Out of genuine curiosity, what would you consider to be "good" and reasonably neutral news media in the US?

Those two tend to negatively correlate in the USA media. The better the source the more likely it is funded by an organization with an agenda or appeals to a narrow segment of the electorate. PBS NewsHour (TV), that I mentioned above or the Washington Post. The two newswires Reuters and AP are both good and neutral. http://www.nationaljournal.com... But mostly the better sources aren't neutral. The Wall Street Journal does some fantastic coverage but it represents the Republican establishment it isn't neutral. http://www.foreignaffairs.com/ represents the opinions of the State Department. Stratfor is terrific but tends to represent the CIA. On the left the Nation is very good but they only claim to represent the most progressive 10%...

but I can't imagine that anyone I know who takes an interests in these kinds of political issues wouldn't be aware that not everyone in the world uses a parliamentary system of government. I expect most who have had any significant discussions about the US at least understand the general separation of powers idea at the executive/legislature/judiciary level, even if they don't necessarily know the intricacies of your legislative structure and so on.

They don't. It is frankly amazing. Though the UK may be better than the rest of Europe. But for example I was discussing legal stuff with a UK guy who was quite knowledgeable who was shocked that Presidents regularly used their power to pardon. They also didn't understand state vs. federal law and how few and specific federal crimes are. That just about everybody in jail is in jail at the country and state level and this has nothing to do with Obama. Try and keep your ears open for this as you listen to critiques of the USA over the next year. You'll frequently hear people upset with Obama about issues that are state issues, or things that come from congress...

For example, it's taken until the Obama administration for anyone to even try implementing universal healthcare. That is something many (though of course not all) in Europe would consider a basic requirement for any civilised society in the 21st century.

That's not true. Harry Truman tried and failed, Lyndon Johnson tried and failed. Richard Nixon tried and failed. Bill Clinton tried and failed. And that's just presidents. In congress there were probably several dozen important attempts.

But who in mainstream US politics is arguing for, say, reform of working conditions?

The minority leader in the US House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi argues fo

The communist governments of the "Red/Commie Boogyman Bucket," as you refer to it, used to rule a major portion of earth, and managed to kill 100,000,000 people in the last century. Normally bogeymen are considered to be imaginary and don't manage to kill anyone. You may be confused.

The trailer for The Soviet Story may help you understand, as will this book, The Black Book of Communism reviewed here .

I am happy to pay for these publications because they are well written, well edited, and have content that is not easily available elsewhere.

Sure, except that they're all available online or in a digital format (e.g. eBook).

The Economist's
National Geographic
Harper's
Paris Review
The New York Review of Books
Granta
Foreign Affairs

Granta and The Paris Review appear to only have digital versions available, but the rest provide logins and a means to access the full content of each article online, from what I can gather. And, honestly, if you're interested in supporting these magazines, shouldn't you be reading them on a screen anyway, since the printing and distribution account for some of their largest costs?

I do believe something is lost in the experience when we switch to screens from paper, but I also believe that it is largely outweighed by the convenience of easier access, the availability of more content at any given moment, and the lower costs for content creators. And for someone like you, who seems to believe that content is king, I'm surprised you wouldn't agree.

"Your post sounds more ignorant than the post you are responding to."

Nonsense, how bout you go read something by someone at least educated enough to speak on the matter:

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/136782/francis-fukuyama/the-future-of-history

"Yet despite widespread anger at Wall Street bailouts, there has been no great upsurge of left-wing American populism in response. It is conceivable that the Occupy Wall Street movement will gain traction, but the most dynamic recent populist movement to date has been the right-wing Tea Party, whose main target is the regulatory state that seeks to protect ordinary people from financial speculators. Something similar is true in Europe as well, where the left is anemic and right-wing populist parties are on the move."

We're only 'underfunded' and 'unsupported' in the viewpoint of a country that needs a huge army to bully every one with.

Don't worry, the Soviet Army is gone now. Thankfully NATO was able to outlast the whole rotten system of militant, milatarized, oppressive Soviet Communism.

And what a nasty giant they were back in the day too.

Soviet Military Doctrine

Soviet ground forces are composed of more than two hundred divisions, all mechanized, and organized under army, front and high commands in at least five theaters of military operations. They possess more than 53,000 main battle tanks, 48,000 tubes of artillery, mortars and multiple-rocket launchers, 4,600 surface-to-air missiles and 4,500 helicopters.

The air forces include more than 4,900 tactical aircraft. Air defense forces have an additional 1,760 interceptor aircraft, 9,000 surface-to-air missile launchers, and 10,000 warning systems including satellites, radars and air surveillance systems. Under the terms of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, the worldâ(TM)s only ABM system has been deployed around Moscow.

The Soviet navy has 360 attack and cruise missile submarines, 274 principal surface combatants, and its own air arm of 390 bombers and 195 fighter aircraft.

After the Soviet Union fell, the US was able to cut its defense spending, which had been falling over time anyway. Even with the cuts, the US was subsidizing Western Europe's defense.

NATO BURDENSHARING AFTER ENLARGEMENT

Or were you thinking of someone else? If so, could you be more specific? It is a little hard to reconcile international relations with playground rhetoric. It is made even more difficult by the tendency of some people to forget who their friends are.

Wow... some very suspicious modding on the informative threads in this article.
Parent is NOT a troll. Has good sites.
You may or may not agree with his opinion but modding him down is chickenshit and cowardly. Post why he's wrong with your own links. Fight speech with speech- not with censorship. Save the troll mod for real trolls.

Parent Poster said:

"The idea that our government could plan anything this complex and succeed is preposterous."

Just like the Koch brothers and big corporations never convinced america to vote against it's own interests? Corporations have been COMPLETELY successful at turning capitalism into a damn near religion in many western countries. If you're a right winger or a libertarian you're not going to solve poverty.

Prof. Francis Fukuyama (pol sci) in Foreign policy magazine says you're voting against your own interest if you vote for the corporate parties (repub and dem).

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/136782/francis-fukuyama/the-future-of-history

When even neocon cheerleaders like fukuyama are wishing there was a real left wing movement in america, you know corporations have succeeded in brainwashing many of the worlds electorates.

http://www.fpif.org/articles/the_next_marx

Americans (and people generally) aren't a politically literate bunch, they know a few bits and pieces of information about politics related to issues they personally care about and that's about it.

"The idea that our government could plan anything this complex and succeed is preposterous."

Just like the Koch brothers and big corporations never convinced america to vote against it's own interests? Corporations have been COMPLETELY successful at turning capitalism into a damn near religion in many western countries. If you're a right winger or a libertarian you're not going to solve poverty.

Prof. Francis Fukuyama (pol sci) in Foreign policy magazine says you're voting against your own interest if you vote for the corporate parties (repub and dem).

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/136782/francis-fukuyama/the-future-of-history

When even neocon cheerleaders like fukuyama are wishing there was a real left wing movement in america, you know corporations have succeeded in brainwashing many of the worlds electorates.

http://www.fpif.org/articles/the_next_marx

Americans (and people generally) aren't a politically literate bunch, they know a few bits and pieces of information about politics related to issues they personally care about and that's about it.

Within -- "An amateur gunsmith has already used a 3-D printer to make the lower receiver of a semiautomatic rifle, the AR-15. This heavily regulated part holds the bullets and carries the gun’s serial number. A German hacker made 3-D copies of tightly controlled police handcuff keys. Two of my own students, Will Langford and Matt Keeter, made master keys, without access to the originals, for luggage padlocks approved by the U.S. Transportation Security Administration."

The lower receiver is heavily regulated because it is the piece that can convert a semiautomatic rifle to a full automatic if you are able to manipulate it properly. A 3D printer could circumvent what was previously an extremely difficult task to convert the receiver from semi-auto to full auto.

And in the latter half of the paragraph, yet another reference to the TSA. How ironic.

They can't work with metal, never mind electronics.

Not so my friend... http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/138154/neil-gershenfeld/how-to-make-almost-anything?page=show

You'll people are already making parts to guns and master keys that can unlock anything from baggage padlocks to police handcuffs. Yes, these are probably laboratory grade 3D printers, but it won't be long before the public can get their hands on something similar.

Saudi Arabia stands for tyrannic despotic dictators with no legitimate right to rule who enforce intolerance and oppression over a people who deserve far better.

You are correct; were it not for the billions that they make every year selling oil, and the fact that they are a U.S. client state propped up by U.S. industry and military support, then it is likely the House of Saud would have been overthrown a long time ago. The alliance between the United States and the House of Saud is purely one of convenience and money - as soon as one no longer needs the other, it will go bad.

if there was a moment of the Arab revolt that sounded the death knell for a broad and rapid transition to representative government across the Middle East, it came on the last day of February, when Saudi tanks rolled across the border to help put down the mass uprising that threatened the powers that be in neighboring Bahrain. http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/136473/john-r-bradley/saudi-arabias-invisible-hand-in-the-arab-spring

In foreign policy the Saudis are leading other monarchies in the region in the counterattack against political change. They backed the Tunisian and Egyptian dictators until the last minute. They gave Jordan $1.4bn in aid and took both it and Morocco into the Saudi-dominated Gulf Co-operation Council (GCC). Along with other Gulf states, Saudi Arabia sent troops into Bahrain to quash the Shia-dominated protest. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/sep/30/editorial-saudi-arabia-arab-spring

See this article for example. And Sri Lankan Buddhist violence is only the most recent example. Buddhist monks have traditionally been quite powerful all over East and South East Asia, and history is full of power struggles between them, with monks recruiting armies of followers to fight for their "cause".

Martin Hellman at Stanford has made a consistent, logical, and compelling counter-argument to this for many years. Purely from a statistical point of view, the longer one waits, the higher the probability of a (possibly accidental) trigger.

To my mind, the assertion that nukes are in any way useful is short-sighted and likely a result of inexperience. The author (Keck) in the OP was a student a couple of years ago, whereas Hellman has had a long and distinguished career at Stanford and elsewhere.

I know who I'm going to listen to first.

It is absolutely stunning that Neal deGrass Tyson hasn't been quoted here yet.

Here is a good 5 minute video by him:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQhNZENMG1o

On Innovation while under file by people like you:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJBC5rHxYcA

Tyson testifying in front of Congress:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xhc25v0DpJc
Pointing out you didn't have to have speical programs trying to convince students to be scientists and engineers "it was self evident."
"Will reboot America's ability to innovate"
"How much would you pay to launch our economy? ... How much would you pay for the Universe?"

If you can spend more than 5 minutes reading you can read his case for space here:
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/137277/neil-degrasse-tyson/the-case-for-space

You will have to read through to the end. In this article he only cites one specific cross pollination technology that has saved countless lives of Breast cancer victims. But in other places you can see him citing example after example. Just go down to your local hospital. Check out the MACHINES in the hospital. Which one was made via targeted spending by people with the attitude of "Why spend money up there (or over there in physics) when we could be spending money on health science?" I'll give you a clue: NONE. MRI, Xray machines etc.

Space exploration taps ALL science subjects. They bring everything together.

You ask why should we be spending money up there instead of down here? WE ARE SPENDING MONEY DOWN HERE. How much are we spending "up there?" Do you really know? Most people think it is 5 or 10 cents on every tax dollar. During the space race it was 4 pennies. Today it is less than HALF a penny. Are you really telling me you are unwilling to spend even a penny for the Universe?

The situation is a bit more complex than that. Saudi Arabia is run by the House of Saud, a monarchistic dictatorship, who have backed the dictators in the Arab Spring including the sending of troops and tanks to Bahrain to brutally suppress protests there. They are also accused of assassinating the leaders of their own protests. And some of the upper parts of the monarchy, and parts of Saudi Intelligence, are accused of backing terrorism, see The Kingdom and the Towers:

In support of his claim that Saudi Arabia supported terrorism, Khilewi spoke of an episode relevant to the first, 1993, attempt to bring down the World Trade Center’s Twin Towers. “A Saudi citizen carrying a Saudi diplomatic passport,” he said, “gave money to Ramzi Yousef, the mastermind behind the World Trade Center bombing,” when the al-Qaeda terrorist was in the Philippines. The Saudi relationship with Yousef, the defector claimed, “is secret and goes through Saudi intelligence.”

When Khalifa returned to Saudi Arabia, in 1995—following detention in the United States and subsequent acquittal on terrorism charges in Jordan—he was, according to C.I.A. bin Laden chief Michael Scheuer, met by a limousine and a welcome home from “a high-ranking official.” A Philippine newspaper would suggest that the official had been Prince Sultan, then a deputy prime minister and minister of defense and aviation, today the heir to the Saudi throne.

In sworn statements after 9/11, former Taliban intelligence chief Mohammed Khaksar said that in 1998 Prince Turki, chief of Saudi Arabia’s General Intelligence Department (G.I.D.), sealed a deal under which bin Laden agreed not to attack Saudi targets. In return, Saudi Arabia would provide funds and material assistance to the Taliban, not demand bin Laden’s extradition, and not bring pressure to close down al-Qaeda training camps. Saudi businesses, meanwhile, would ensure that money also flowed directly to bin Laden.

...the war in South Ossetia, which, may I remind, was started by a Georgian attack on the area of responsibility of Russian UN peacekeeping force, and specifically on said peacekeeping force (10 people KIA from hostile fire - artillery and tanks shelled peacekeepers' barracks).

Well......

On Thursday of last week, South Ossetian separatists, supported by Moscow, escalated their machine gun and mortar fire attacks against neighboring Georgian villages. This past Thursday and Friday, Georgia attacked the separatist capital Tskhinvali with artillery to suppress fire. Tskhinvali suffered severe damage, thus providing the pretext for Moscow's long-planned invasion of Georgia.

As Russia responded with overwhelming force, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin flew from the Beijing Olympics to Vladikavkaz, taking control of the military operations. Putin sidelined his successor, Dmitry Medvedev, thereby leaving no doubt as to who is in charge. The 58th Russian Army of the North Caucasus Military District rolled into South Ossetia, reinforced by the 76th Airborne "Pskov" Division. Cossacks from the neighboring Russian territories moved in to combat the Georgians as well.

Russia is engaged in a classic combined arms operation. The Black Sea Fleet is blockading Georgia from the sea and likely preparing a landing, while Russian ballistic missiles and its air force are attacking Georgian military bases and cities. At the time of this writing, it looks as if Russian troops will not stop at the South Ossetian-Georgian border but may press their advantage further. -- The Russian-Georgian War: A Challenge for the U.S. and the World

The war has fundamentally transformed the realities on the ground in and around the conflict zones. Russia’s military intervention in support of South Ossetians and its peacekeeping forces has transformed its role from a mediator into a party of the conflict. Furthermore, Russia’s recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia as independent states and its decision to veto the extension of the UN and OSCE missions operating in these conflict zones have led to a collapse of the peace process. This has led to the emergence of a dangerous security vacuum. A new security system has emerged on the ground with the establishment of Russian military bases and border guard units in Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Georgia sees this as evidence of Russian occupation of its territories which are still recognised as part of Georgia by the absolute majority of the UN member states. Moreover, the presence of unarmed EU monitors on the Georgian side of the administrative border line with Abkhazia and South Ossetia, has not been effective in helping to resolve humanitarian problems associated with the war nor to prevent or minimise the violent incidents within the conflict zone. The Geneva discussions co-chaired by the EU, OSCE and UN offer the only platform for political dialogue between representatives from Russia, Georgia, US, as well as experts from Abkhazia and South Ossetia, in regard to post-war challenges. - Analysis of the Russian-Georgian war

More: The Five-Day War

I think it would require a fair amount of cheek to imply that Georgia constituted an actual threat to Russia. On the other hand, Russia almost managed to repeat the Soviet "success" of Finland in the war with Georgia.

First, if you're interested in magazines, find a good newspaper/magazine shop, as bookstores — even those with seemingly largish "magazine sections" — can't compare in terms of either selection or knowledge.

As far as subscribing to foreign magazines, have you tried contacting the publisher? If they can't help you, then you're unlikely to find a significantly better price than the news shop.

With few exceptions, widely distributed US technology magazines tend to be very "advertiser friendly," and, consequently, even non-review feature articles in US technology magazines tend to be overwhelmingly "slanted" towards tools and technologies over, e.g., techniques and non-product-related news. As this has basically turned me off the genre, it's nice to hear that the situation might be better elsewhere.

Even outside technology, there seems to be a similar negative correlation between "commercialism" and quality in the magazine industry. Off the top of my head, examples of generally interesting and "not unabashedly commercial" magazines include Harpers , Foreign Affairs , and the Skeptical Inquirer .

The UN is supposed to promote peace, not war. More about promoting dialogue. In either case it is not supposed to become a world government in itself. Read this paper on the matter which pretty much reflects a huge chunk of US Foreign Policy: http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/52425/jesse-helms/saving-the-un-a-challenge-to-the-next-secretary-general So if interfering in other people's affairs is necessary why is the international community supporting the fight in Bahrain AGAINST the rebels and doing nothing in Yemen, just like they did in Rwanda not so long ago. Besides even the Lybian issue is starting to get messy, as this Arab League recent statement shows: "What is happening in Libya differs from the aim of imposing a no-fly zone, and what we want is the protection of civilians and not the bombardment of more civilians," This is regime change disguised under humanitarian action. Crimes against the civilian population is just the excuse to get in. Hell, there are crimes against the civilian population in Palestine and nobody gives a damn, and it's not only Israel, Egypt is also blocking their side of the frontier. So try to come up with something better than "war crimes are comitted against civilians". Read this if you are still not convinced: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article5470047.ece

"They did all this... twice... in the span of a single century, with no natural resources to speak of, save one: the Japanese people themselves."

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/53050/milton-ezrati/japans-aging-economics

Thisis another yellowcake tale -- ginned up to scare Congress into giving DoD the Internet "kill switch" in case of "national emergency" -- like Wikileaks. Most of this is in response to the less-than-credible story in Foreign Affairs: http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/66552/william-j-lynn-iii/defending-a-new-domain. Now our own government wishes they could do what China and Iran can -- shut down the Internet at will when there's something on there that they don't like. Does the military even read the Constitution they swear to uphold?

There is no shortage of examples of times when outside intervention is not only warranted, but should actually be mandatory.

Yes, that's why I told you to fuck off. The Iraq civil war might have been prevented if bullies like you were convinced to fuck off instead of invading it for Windmills of Mass Destruction.

Because totalitarian governments have such a good record in environmental matters.

China is not, nor has ever been, a major nuclear power. It has a nuclear arsenal about the same size as France and Britain – not even close to the same league as the U.S. and Russia. China practices "minimum deterrence" against the U.S., which means they target about two dozen or less strategic nuclear warheads at the U.S. The essence of deterrence is having a survivable second strike force. Since the Chinese are targeting so few, and they are land-based nuclear warheads (which are fairly easy to track compared to submarine-launched warheads), they are essentially not practicing deterrence against the United States. The U.S. is for all practical purposes capable of a disarming first strike against China.

For further reading, check out the article "The Rise of U.S. Nuclear Primacy" by Lieber and Press in Foreign Affairs 2006.

The fact ACTA is secret and isn't concerned with matters vital to national security is all we need to know that this shouldn't be allowed. I am thinking such secrecy is intended for things like agreements over nuclear weapons and wars. Though those do not have to be and shouldn't be secret either, it's more along the lines that if the other parties to negotiations insist on secrecy, the US can agree to that for the sake of getting them to negotiate at all. So those questions about whether ACTA has 3 strikes provisions, or really is within the bounds of existing law are academic.

Now, how to stop it? A preemptive law might do it. Congress could pass a law that clarifies acceptable use of executive secrecy. If lives are not at stake, then the executive may not negotiate in secret. But, I can just see them making the ridiculous claim that lives are at stake, or even tossing in a minor missile or bomb agreement the way movie producers throw in a four letter word solely to upgrade a rating from G to PG. So, perhaps require some proof of such an assertion, and non biased and independent judgment of that proof.

Also, persuade Obama that it's not worth it. Why is he even thinking about this ACTA garbage? And why won't he lift the secrecy? What possible hold could these ACTA backers have over the President to both keep him mum and get him to even look at it and spend time on it? Let the President know that this is not a minor matter and that he can't just blithely allow and do things in unjustified secrecy while everyone else is focused on other matters. If a group of Congressmen told him to forget this heinous secrecy or else face opposition over those other matters, or something like the above bill becoming law, especially with enough support to override a veto, I expect he'd cave. He may even want to be "forced" in this matter, and needs Congress to show a little life and give him the excuses he needs to tell these ACTA backers that he tried but was thwarted. When the Republicans ran Congress, they pretty much gave Bush carte blanche, and the result was poorer governance, as explained here: http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/62091/norman-j-ornstein-and-thomas-e-mann/when-congress-checks-out . I hope the Democrats are a little smarter, and don't make that same mistake.

... It seems someone should enlighten Italian jurists about technology.

Err... Italy has worse problems to deal with than petty piracy:

• Gomorra
• Silvio Berlusconi
• a never ending story summarized in the teaser to Italy's malaise which was written 30+ years ago

I don't really give a rat's ass for Torrents of craptacular films that just watching them is a waste of lifetime anyway...

Saluti & Baci

Did said think tank read this?

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/65499/wesley-k-clark-and-peter-l-levin/securing-the-information-highway

This little tidbit is available in the full version of the article text:

In 1982, a three-kiloton explosion tore apart a natural gas pipeline in Siberia; the detonation was so large it was visible from outer space. Two decades later, the New York Times columnist William Safire reported that the blast was caused by a cyber-operation planned and executed by the CIA. Safire's insider sources claimed that the United States carefully placed faulty chips and tainted software into the Soviet supply chain, causing the chips to fail in the field. More recently, unconfirmed reports in IEEE Spectrum, a mainstream technical magazine, attributed the success of Israel's September 2007 bombing raid on a suspected Syrian nuclear facility to a carefully planted "kill switch" that remotely turned off Syrian surveillance radar.

Yup. No Cyberterrorism to see here. Riiiight.

And see this instead. Lieber/press are way wrong. Not just on assumptions, but on facts. Lieber's argument is that while the number of LV and warheads have dropped dramatically, their capabilities have been improved. He also claims that subsonic stealth bombers are a first strike nuclear system. Yet, these are never likely to deliver nukes. They are used in conventional warfare for the first strike of enemies who do not have the capabilities to see it. Russia can track the B2 and we have known that since before the break-up. In the end, the 2 ONLY measures against a weakened Russia. They made the assumption that many of Russa's systems are gone, which we know to not be the case. Russia is not a first strike threat to us or we to them. Even now, Obama is working with Russia on a new set of warhead and LV drops. That shows that we are about not having Nuclear first strike. and disproves your premise as well (which is several years old and ignores the current actions).

The real issue should be us looking at China. It is possible that Russia would join forces with China, but I doubt it.

Personally, I want to see MAD remain. The absolute WORST thing that can happen is for the west OR russia to drop to too few nukes. That would allow another country like China to think of winning a nuclear war with their neutron bombs. When looking at China's emphasis (remove our communications, remove our ppl but leave the equipment, etc), it should be obvious where first strike is sought and not sought.

Are you still reading newpapers? On the Web? Do you prefer watching news?

Personally, I m only reading newspaper on the web (http://www.lemonde.fr http://www.liberation.fr/ http://www.lalibre.be/ http://www.lesoir.be/ and less http://www.lefigaro.fr/ http://www.letemps.ch./ Even if people describes me to be more on the right (for Belgium, translate as communist in the USA :) ), i prefer leftish newspaper. But I like to be able to read different point of view and then make an opinion about myself. Still i find the quality of the writing to be weaker than before. If you now a subject well, you see obvious errors.

Now, i still buy 2 papers every month : "le monde diplomatique" (in http://mondediplo.com/) and "foreign affairs" ( http://www.foreignaffairs.com/) both are very interessing and they are following high standard, I also read the Economist from time to time. I wouldnt want to read them on the web because each article is quite dense and asl myself to focus on it. I would like to have the same depth into classical newpaper but alas :(.

I think Democracy needs Journalism. In democracy, voters must vote for the best candidate. And how would you do without knowing? I think that both Education and Information need to be analyse in the light of how good they are to Democracy

To come back to the proposition, I think is not neccesaraly wrong, this could allow some smaller publication to exist and that will bring more diversity where before the News Conglomerate were tending to uniformity.