ISIS and the end of history; Poverty

Chaos Manor View, Monday, June 22, 2015

I note that the FCC now is contemplating high speed internet for subsidy for the poor: the rest would pay. A new idea of rights? Providing it for all makes sense as a public utility although that would be inefficient; and after all, don’t we have a right?

F.C.C. Votes to Move Forward With Plan to Subsidize Broadband for Poor Americans   (nyt)

By Rebecca R. Ruiz

June 18, 2015 1:03 pm June 18, 2015 1:03 pm

The Federal Communications Commission on Thursday voted along party lines to approve a proposal to explore subsidizing broadband Internet for poor Americans. The plan, introduced last month by the agency’s Democratic chairman, Tom Wheeler, helps pave the way for sweeping changes to a $1.7 billion phone subsidy program.

Republicans have opposed extending the phone subsidy — known as Lifeline and initiated in 1985 under President Reagan — pointing to past instances of fraud in the program and suggesting that any expansion would generate more fraud. On Thursday, the two Republican commissioners delivered strongly-worded dissents.

“Adequate controls and deterrents against waste, fraud and abuse should be in place before considering expanding the program to broadband,” said Michael O’Rielly, a Republican commissioner.

Part of Mr. Wheeler’s plan approved on Thursday was an effort to allay those concerns. In its vote, the commission adopted stricter measures to ensure eligible households claim only one subsidy of $9.25 a month. Those antifraud measures — including new record-keeping requirements for service providers, who are charged with verifying a person’s income — are expected to take effect this summer.

“I am befuddled at how this Republican program has suddenly become so partisan,” Mr. Wheeler said in responding to the dissents on Thursday. “But I am proud to cast my vote with the majority.”

The commission will now begin to discuss the logistics of how exactly to incorporate broadband into the program and write specific rules. Those changes would need to be approved by a separate vote, one not expected for at least several months.

A principal question that regulators must address is how far, exactly, the current subsidy, $9.25 a month, can go in financing broadband.

Republicans and Democrats alike have wondered about the economic feasibility of offering a mix of phone service and broadband at the same price, which Mr. Wheeler has suggested would be possible. On Thursday, both Mr. O’Rielly and his fellow Republican commissioner, Ajit Pai, said they wanted to establish a firm budget and spending cap on the program to keep its cost from multiplying. Mr. Wheeler called those concerns “a rhetorical snowstorm to distract” from the basic premise of the proposal.

Still, Democrats celebrated the significance of taking aim at the so-called digital divide, the social and economic gap between those with access to technology and those without it. Jessica Rosenworcel, a Democratic commissioner, on Thursday called a broadband subsidy essential to bridging the “homework gap” in particular, pointing to children’s increasing need for Internet access.

“Students who lack regular broadband access are struggling to keep up,” she said, noting that as many as 7 in 10 teachers assign homework that requires online connectivity. “Now is not a moment too soon, because this is about the future.”

The proposal, Mr. Wheeler said, was about attacking problems in America that the commission should be united against.

“Both political parties now engaged in serious campaigning as to who’s going to be responsible for the country and the commission in a few years,” he said. “But both political parties are in violent agreement that our country is challenged by economic inequality.”

The End of History and the Last Man: Francis Fukuyama: 9780743284554: Amazon.com: Books

Jerry:

In your last View you published or republished some commentary that you
wrote while you were coping with your stroke. Your comments were unusually
benign towards Bush II and the neocons. I thought that I would offer some
comments.

In the wake of the 9-11 attacks, Bush was presented with two alternatives.
He could effectively surrender by treating these attacks with near nuclear weapons ( that generated casualties that would have been near nuclear if fortuitous circumstances hadn’t enable the evacuation of nearly everyone before the twin towers collapsed) as merely criminal attacks by prosecuting
the actual perpetrators. Alternatively; Bush could have responded with
punitive attacks on a proportionate but escalated scale.

An example of an effective, punitive response would be to use bombers to destroy the transportation and irrigation infrastructure of Afghanistan in
retaliation for harboring Bin Laden and Al Qaida. Such an attack would
ultimately have resulted in a famine that would kill millions of people.
Afghanistan would never by our friend, but they would have learned to fear
us.

Since the Taliban were effectively Pakistan’s puppet regime and the 9-11 attacks WERE an attack by Pakistan using the Taliban and Al Quid as surrogates, we also would have needed to conduct punitive attacks against
Pakistan. Since Pakistan already possessed nuclear weapons, such a
punitive expedition would have been dangerous unless prosecuted on a massive
scale. The US would have needed to destroy not only Pakistan’s nuclear
weapons but the production infrastructure. Even people who favor nuclear
power understand that destroying an operating nuclear reactor that has a full fuel load with a Gigawatt-year’s worth of fission products is going to result in unimaginable carnage.

Bush sought and found an alternative strategy as presented by the neocons.
That strategy is suggested by Fukuyama’s view that democracy is the ultimate
evolution of human governance. While Paleoconservatives such as yourself
rejected this premiss, it was widely accepted a year ago. All of the many
errors that Bush made, including disbanding the Iraqi army because of it’s genocidal history, are understandable if you support the ultimate goal of
creating a stable, secular democracy in the Middle East.

http://www.amazon.com/The-End-History-Last-Man/dp/0743284550/ref=pd_sim_14_3/190-1935410-9747627?ie=UTF8&refRID=033JE850E0GQ4SXDPEWZ

In retrospect, almost everyone understands that Fukuyama and the majority of
political scientist were naive or even delusional. It might have been
possible to nurture Iraq into a quasi-stable democracy if and only if Obama and subsequent administrations has been willing to occupy Iraq for half a
century as we did Germany and Japan. (it should be noted that these
occupations might not have been so successful if they hadn’t been preceded by the extermination of a large fraction of the male population.). The Fukuyama doctrine was taken to full fallacy by Obama and Hillary Clinton when they incited and supported the Arab Spring idiocy that overthrew Gaddaffy who had surrendered his WMD and Mubarak who had been a reliable US ally for three decades.

The End of History and the Last Man: Francis Fukuyama: 9780743284554: Amazon.com: Books

Jerry:

In your last View you published or republished some commentary that you
wrote while you were coping with your stroke. Your comments were unusually
benign towards Bush II and the neocons. I thought that I would offer some
comments.

In the wake of the 9-11 attacks, Bush was presented with two alternatives.
He could effectively surrender by treating these attacks with near nuclear weapons ( that generated casualties that would have been near nuclear if fortuitous circumstances hadn’t enable the evacuation of nearly everyone before the twin towers collapsed) as merely criminal attacks by prosecuting
the actual perpetrators. Alternatively; Bush could have responded with
punitive attacks on a proportionate but escalated scale.

An example of an effective, punitive response would be to use bombers to destroy the transportation and irrigation infrastructure of Afghanistan in
retaliation for harboring Bin Laden and Al Quid. Such an attack would
ultimately have resulted in a famine that would kill millions of people.
Afghanistan would never by our friend, but they would have learned to fear
us.

Since the Taliban were effectively Pakistan’s puppet regime and the 9-11 attacks WERE an attack by Pakistan using the Taliban and Al Quid as surrogates, we also would have needed to conduct punitive attacks against
Pakistan. Since Pakistan already possessed nuclear weapons, such a
punitive expedition would have been dangerous unless prosecuted on a massive
scale. The US would have needed to destroy not only Pakistan’s nuclear
weapons but the production infrastructure. Even people who favor nuclear
power understand that destroying an operating nuclear reactor that has a full fuel load with a Gigawatt-year’s worth of fission products is going to result in unimaginable carnage.

Bush sought and found an alternative strategy as presented by the neocons.
That strategy is suggested by Fukuyama’s view that democracy is the ultimate
evolution of human governance. While Paleoconservatives such as yourself
rejected this premiss, it was widely accepted a year ago. All of the many
errors that Bush made, including disbanding the Iraqi army because of it’s genocidal history, are understandable if you support the ultimate goal of
creating a stable, secular democracy in the Middle East.

http://www.amazon.com/The-End-History-Last-Man/dp/0743284550/ref=pd_sim_14_3

/190-1935410-9747627?ie=UTF8&refRID=033JE850E0GQ4SXDPEWZ

In retrospect, almost everyone understands that Fukuyama and the majority of
political scientist were naive or even delusional. It might have been
possible to nurture Iraq into a quasi-stable democracy if and only if Obama and subsequent administrations has been willing to occupy Iraq for half a
century as we did Germany and Japan. (it should be noted that these
occupations might not have been so successful if they hadn’t been preceded by the extermination of a large fraction of the male population.). The Fukuyama doctrine was taken to full fallacy by Obama and Hillary Clinton when they incited and supported the Arab Spring idiocy that overthrew Gaddaffy who had surrendered his WMD and Mubarak who had been a reliable US ally for three decades.

This brings us to the question of what do we do now. All of the talk about
sending in one or a few divisions backed by A-10 Warthogs to destroy Isis are at best just as delusional as Bush’s crusade to spread democracy at the
point of a bayonet. The seemingly pragmatic strategy of partitioning Iraq
between the Kurds, the “moderate” Sunnis and the Shia ignores the probable
consequence. The region and population dominated by the Shia would
immediately become a de facto province of a resurgent, Persian Empire that
will soon have nuclear weapons. I can’t imagine the Iranians resisting the
temptation to quickly conquer the remainder of Iraq. They already have
troops in Iraq with Obama’s blessing. For their own reasons, Turkey would eagerly invade from the North to conquer or even exterminate the Kurds.
Once a nuclear armed Iran has control of Iraq and Yemen, Kuwait and Saudi
Arabia will not last long. All of this will occur in the context of
massive, nuclear proliferation with Saudi Arabia, Turkey and perhaps Egypt acquiring nukes.

To make the future even more interesting, the ongoing destabilization of the ME is occurring in the context of the demographic implosion of America’s traditional allies. The much derided hysteria of Mark Stein as outlined in America Alone have been prophetic. Native Europeans are determined to embrace their extinction. If they could isolate themselves as the Japanese have done, they might survive the diminishment of their populations and economies, but they are being invaded by Africans and Arabs. Consider how the emergence of Eurabia will make nuclear proliferation a nightmare.

It is tempting to embrace isolationism. The only alternative that might be viable would be a profoundly pragmatic strategy of alliances with traditional enemies or non aligned, Russia, China and India.

Right now I favor isolationism. Get the Hell out of the Middle east and Afghanistan. Wish the Israelis well and gift them a squadron of B-1 bombers. Tell the Europeans to enjoy their demise. Drill here, drill now for oil and gas. Sell coal to the Chines at exorbitant prices. May be even sell Taiwan and South Korea to the Chinese. Use the money to build nuclear power plants, massively modernize our strategic nuclear forces and build factories to mass produce neutron bombs. Find out whoever launched the biowarfare attack that has caused the STD epidemic that will eventually exterminate the Iranians and give them a meddle.

James Crawford=

At best delusional regarding ISIS is simply not true. The Caliphate demands an actual state which they can govern as an illustration of conforming to the will of Allah, not just in intention but actuality; without a state they are only pretenders.

At the moment it would take only two divisions — one more than required when I first proposed this — to eliminate ISIS. Having conquered their territory — they are or claim to be a state — we could dispose of it at will; in the case of Iraq, partition seems the best way. It does not require a long term commitment. The result would not be optimum, but it is better than allowing an implacable enemy to thrive and grow.

It is not impossible that this is not true: that the Caliphate is no greater danger than Persia. I do not believe so; I think a dynamic and growing ISIS is a greater threat to our interests — and possibly survival — than Persia, which is, after all, surrounded by Sunni states. I think the existence of ISIS is the greater threat. It is growing; it may be the junior varsity now but it will not long remain so; and there is no foreseeable mechanism for transforming it into anything acceptable.

Eliminating it would establish the limits the US can allow, and leave a vivid memory of the consequences of stepping beyond those limits.

I see no way to bring about a permanent solution to the contradictions in the Near East; I think we can only muddle through. Had we handled the original invasion of Kuwait in a more realistic way, it might be different.

I am convinced that simple isolationism is not a viable action; nor is long term Imperial conquest. We simply must make an example of our most vehement enemies, while making it clear that being our friend is greatly safer than proclaiming unrelentless hostility.

Jerry Pournelle

Chaos Manor

Jerry:

You make a cogent argument.

My preference for neo-isolationism is driven as much by dismay over domestic political realities as geopolitical realities. It might be debatable that a country that would elect Obama to be President and even reelect him then probably elect Hillary Clinton to be his successor is still worth fighting for. However; I would not trust Obama, Hillary, or any of his other possible Democrat successors to competently prosecute a war against ISIS then manage the aftermath even if the operation was successful. Do we even have any competent Generals and Admirals who have survived Obama’s political purges?

The field of probable Republican contenders is not much more encouraging. Senator McCain and his POTUS preference Senator Lindsey Graham eagerly supported the Arab Spring lunacy that effectively resurrected ISIS after Bush II defeated them with the surge. McCain even managed to do a photo op with future leaders of ISIS whom he described as “muslim moderates.”. The other Viagra wing Republicans are just as bad. Aside from neoisolationists such as Senators Ron Paul and Rand Paul, almost everyone in the political establishment favored the Arab Spring which nurtured and armed ISIS. The lone exception is Governor Palin whose famous comment about “let Allah sort them out” was profoundly insightful.

While allowing ISIS to control enough territory to become a recognized State, given the existence of a nuclear armed Pakistan that is now ruled by the same, fundamentalist Islamic party that General Musharif launched a coup against, a nuclear armed North Korea, and a soon to be nuclear Persia, ISIS will at worst be no more of a threat. Given the influence that former Baathists have over ISIS, a state controlled by ISIS might not be any more of a threat than a nuclear armed Iraq ruled by Saddam or his sons would have been.

The worst case outcome from allowing ISIS to have a state is that they will launch a nuclear 9-11. Would that be any more damaging to the US economically and demographically than eight years of Obama’s rule? Such an attack would be targeted against densely populated areas that are dominated by liberals, so it would have the effect of culling the gene pool and purging the voter registration roles of useless idiots. Just think of it as evolution in action? A nuclear 9-11 would be profoundly educational to the vast majority of Americans who survived the event and would forever discredit the political class that enabled it.

James Crawford

I see but do not concede your point: I am not convinced that the next election will go that badly. The American people have not become that corrupt. And yes: I can categorically state that a nuclear 9/11 would be far more damaging to the United States, financially, demographically, and morally than Mr. Obama could accomplish even were he to turn from an ideologue into something more evil during his twilight in office.

I concede that I may have overestimated the threat of the Caliphate, but I do not think so: it is not at present a lethal threat, but it feeds on success, and that allows exponential growth.

And I think the aftermath of a nuclear 9/11 would be the rise of an avenging America dominated a party I would not prefer; not by realists, but the traditional American in arms, a sight terrible to behold but we would have to support. That price for national unity is very high. We would be fortunate to find a Charlemagne or an Akbar to lead it.

One remedy is competent Empire; but have we any competent Imperators? Washington refused the Crown; have any realistic competent candidates emerged since him?

Nunes says “Highest Threat Level”

We can’t find U.S. Navy ships for our Marines

(http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2015/06/21/marines-amphibious/28935549/)

and OPM can’t seem to secure it’s computers (http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/22/politics/opm-hack-18-milliion/index.html),

or directly answer questions from Congress about their failures.

We’re getting rid of the A-10s, and we’re — allegedly — at the “highest threat level we have ever faced in this country”.

<.>

The chairman of the House Intelligence Committee warns that America is dealing with “the highest threat level we have ever faced in this country.”

Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., told CBS’ “Face the Nation” on Sunday that the threat is coming from the radicalization of young people and foreign fighters heading to Iraq and Syria to join terror groups.

</>

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2015/06/22/devin-nunes-us-threat-level/

While I think that’s an exaggeration, I believe the situation is disgustingly out of control.

If you watch this interview, the interviewer actually asks the Congressman if we can defeat ISIS with “better tweets” through our efforts on social media… So, we’ll just solve this problem with some Twitter and Facebook posts? This is ridiculous. I understand the social media effort has it’s place, but our focus should be on physically dealing with this. Of course, as I pointed out, we lack the men and materiel to make that happen so I guess — like teenage boys — we’ll troll the internet and be keyboard warriors…

◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊

Most Respectfully,

Joshua Jordan, KSC

“We overreact to everything. That’s the American way and I’m a victim of that overreaction.”

<http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-popular-teacher-rafe-esquith-20150622-story.html>

Of course, the ‘concerned’ teacher likely hasn’t read _Huckleberry Finn_, as it isn’t considered politically correct, anymore.

—————————————

Roland Dobbins

Your iPhone 6 has a barometric sensor and this weather app wants to use it (ZD)

One of the most accurate weather apps for iOS has a chance to get even more precise; if you let it use the barometer in your iPhone 6 or 6 Plus, that is.

By Kevin Tofel for Mobile Platforms | June 22, 2015 — 19:26 GMT (12:26 PDT) |

One of the sensors Apple added to its newest iPhones measures barometric pressure. That’s handy to watch for local weather changes but it’s even handier when the data from thousands of iPhone 6 and 6 Plus handsets are crowd-sourced, says Dark Sky.

The company makes what is one of my favorite weather apps due to its very accurate hyper-local weather information. Using various sources and user-reported weather conditions, Dark Sky is often correct in prediction to the exact minute when precipitation will start or stop.

With the latest software upgrade, Dark Sky gains a few visual features — such as a 24-hour weather timeline for your specific location — a daily weather summary option and the ability for newer iPhones to send in barometric pressure data.

The company says if you opt in, pressure readings will be periodically submitted to Dark Sky to help in creating even more accurate weather forecasts. Prior to this, Dark Sky relied heavily on what it says are “government run” weather stations as well as user-provided details.

The problem with the former is that there simply aren’t enough locations for the hyper-local service to use and the latter required a manual process.

That still exists in the app; at any time, you can report weather for your location but it takes a little effort. By allowing your iPhone 6 or 6 Plus to submit pressure information, it happens automatically.

Dark Sky costs $4.99 on the iTunes App Store and I had no hesitation paying for it once I heard how accurate it was.

I’ve lost track of how many times I’ve checked it to see just how much time I have for a run before the rain will start falling. Most times, the app is spot on. Adding data from the barometer in a large number of iPhones will only add to the accuracy, so count me in.

Freedom is not free. Free men are not equal. Equal men are not free.