Voyager I Enters Interstellar Space--and how we know it. [Click] This is the first story that explains it in a way that seems basically understandable to me. I had gathered that the magnetic field vectors had not changed as expected after the heliopause.
I have long thought that the Tea Partiers in particular, and others as well, who are nowadays called "conservatives," ought rightly to be called anarchists. And even though their philosophical undergirding (to the extent that it exists) is quite different from that of the anarchists of a century ago, they are facing exactly the same conundrum: in order to be effective they must organize, but being anarchists they are incapable of organization. That leaves them with two (not mutually exclusive) paths forward: futility and being hijacked by someone like the bolsheviki. And just like the anarchists of a century ago, they can induce terrific problems through "the propaganda of the deed." Just sayin'.
Re Alan's comment on the previous thread about Israel's chemical weapons: There is evidence that Syria has actually used chemical weapons. That puts it in a different category than Israel, the US, Russia, or many other countries that have chemical weapons but have not used them.
Although I'm not clear why any country would want weapons that international law will not allow it to use.
Actually, Bill, the USA, Israel, and Britain apparently have used chemical weapons. I guess it depends on whether actions in WWI count, and whether you consider White Phosphorus (which causes birth defects among other things) a chemical.
The definition of "chemical weapon" is complicated. But the international organization that regulated chemical weapons says, "The first part of the definition states that all toxic chemicals and their precursors, except when used for purposes permitted by the CWC in specified quantities, are chemical weapons. Toxic chemicals are defined as “any chemical which through its chemical action on life processes can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm to humans or animals.” http://www.opcw.org/about-chemical-weapons/what-is-a-chemical-weapon The thing about "life processes seems to exclude things such as white phosphorous and napalm, which also fail to fit into any of the categories the organization describes.
Ask any Vietnam vet. Napalm is a chemical weapon. And White Phosphorus must be as well, since it causes birth defects. I'd call both of those toxic, wouldn't you? Are these considered okay only because the USA wants to use them? Gosh, we're the ones who dropped the atomic bombs.
I would certainly classify white phosphorus and napalm as horrible weapons, but wouldn't confuse them with mustard gas, sarin, or chlorine. One would say that bullets are chemical weapons because people can die of both chronic and acute lead poisoning (including high-velocity lead poisoning).
I figure that Obama was presented with the results of W's ill-conceived attempts to interpolate the United States into Russia's "near abroad" and disregard for US relations with our own "near abroad." And I will grant that the ship of state is not turned easily or quickly. But I see no reason why we couldn't have steered better. Which reminds me that the Costa Concordia is supposed to be pulled upright on Monday, although it won't be towed away until some time next year.
A Verd Mont, surely; a blessing for the people, just like Howard Dean.
ReplyDeleteMaking School Better for Boys [Click]
Voyager I Enters Interstellar Space--and how we know it. [Click] This is the first story that explains it in a way that seems basically understandable to me. I had gathered that the magnetic field vectors had not changed as expected after the heliopause.
--Alan
I have long thought that the Tea Partiers in particular, and others as well, who are nowadays called "conservatives," ought rightly to be called anarchists. And even though their philosophical undergirding (to the extent that it exists) is quite different from that of the anarchists of a century ago, they are facing exactly the same conundrum: in order to be effective they must organize, but being anarchists they are incapable of organization. That leaves them with two (not mutually exclusive) paths forward: futility and being hijacked by someone like the bolsheviki. And just like the anarchists of a century ago, they can induce terrific problems through "the propaganda of the deed." Just sayin'.
ReplyDeleteAlan
Re Alan's comment on the previous thread about Israel's chemical weapons: There is evidence that Syria has actually used chemical weapons. That puts it in a different category than Israel, the US, Russia, or many other countries that have chemical weapons but have not used them.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I'm not clear why any country would want weapons that international law will not allow it to use.
Actually, Bill, the USA, Israel, and Britain apparently have used chemical weapons. I guess it depends on whether actions in WWI count, and whether you consider White Phosphorus (which causes birth defects among other things) a chemical.
Deletehttp://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/08/the-u-s-and-israel-have-used-chemical-weapons-within-the-last-8-years.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/army-to-be-sued-for-war-crimes-over-its-role-in-fallujah-attacks-1961475.html
PS: Bush & cronies, Fallujah 2004.
DeleteBut! That said, here's an article truly worth reading, about our current situation. I first saw it thanks to Dean Blogger Jo*in*Vermont.
Deletehttp://www.politicususa.com/2013/09/14/u-n-chief-very-troubled-failure-security-council-syria.html
The definition of "chemical weapon" is complicated. But the international organization that regulated chemical weapons says, "The first part of the definition states that all toxic chemicals and their precursors, except when used for purposes permitted by the CWC in specified quantities, are chemical weapons. Toxic chemicals are defined as “any chemical which through its chemical action on life processes can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm to humans or animals.” http://www.opcw.org/about-chemical-weapons/what-is-a-chemical-weapon The thing about "life processes seems to exclude things such as white phosphorous and napalm, which also fail to fit into any of the categories the organization describes.
DeleteAsk any Vietnam vet. Napalm is a chemical weapon. And White Phosphorus must be as well, since it causes birth defects. I'd call both of those toxic, wouldn't you? Are these considered okay only because the USA wants to use them? Gosh, we're the ones who dropped the atomic bombs.
DeleteI would certainly classify white phosphorus and napalm as horrible weapons, but wouldn't confuse them with mustard gas, sarin, or chlorine. One would say that bullets are chemical weapons because people can die of both chronic and acute lead poisoning (including high-velocity lead poisoning).
DeleteI figure that Obama was presented with the results of W's ill-conceived attempts to interpolate the United States into Russia's "near abroad" and disregard for US relations with our own "near abroad." And I will grant that the ship of state is not turned easily or quickly. But I see no reason why we couldn't have steered better. Which reminds me that the Costa Concordia is supposed to be pulled upright on Monday, although it won't be towed away until some time next year.
--Alan
General information:
ReplyDeleteTop Ten things Americans need to Know about Syria if they’re going to Threaten to Bomb It
Posted on 09/12/2013 by Juan Cole [Click]
--Alan