Ask any question about geopolitics, broadly defined. We’ll attempt to answer it in the comments. Links to other episodes appear below. Like Jeopardy, your comments must be in the form of a question!
But first, our quote of the week (no hints as to what current event this also applies to):
War guilt {can lead to} ever more militant acts of self-justification. Once blood has been shed in dubious circumstances, those involved often try to brazen it out: first, through blaming the injured party for forcing them to act thus; and second, through affirming the validity of their violence by persisting with it.
— From Julia Lovell’s new book The Opium War: Drugs, Dreams and the Making of China
Questions received so far (click on the link to go directly to that thread):
- Do you foresee a military intervention against Sryia? As I recall both Syria and the U.S. recalled their ambassadors recently.
- What was the most important news story of the week? {Answer: this Reuters story about the approach of peak oil}
- You’ve written about the break-down of our criminal justice system. What about attorneys? Don’t they defend our rights?
- What ever happened to Mr. Manning? Did solitary turn his mind to mush? It’s been a long time.
- Have you seen “Power Of Nightmares”, about the rise of jihadism and neo-conservatism?
- Do you believe that the American social safety net, as it currently exists, works?
- What was the most enlightening news of the week? {Answer: climate scientists explaining that their models do not accurately forecast climate}
- What was the most disturbing news story of the week? {Answer: police publicly demonstrating their contempt for the law}
Do you foresee a military intervention against Sryia? As I recall both Syria and the U.S. recalled their ambassadors recently.
No. We’re drunk with military power, filled with the hubris of running our costly and profitless empire.
(1) Western powers intervene usually only where there is potential geopolitical or economic gain. Libya and Iraq have oil. Yemen is close to oil. Afghanistan is both geographically critical and has vast mineral wealth. Syria is irrelevant.
(2) Western nations prefer to attack only the weak. Even better, incompetent and defenseless prey.
The most important news story of the week: “BP, rivals signal rising oil prices over long term“, Reuters, 27 October 2011 — “An increasing number of oil companies are likely to see $100-a-barrel oil as the new norm, a sign the price floor is moving up over the long run”
The experts I rely upon believe that peak oil is likely within the next three years, probably within five. What happens then might change the course of history. Much depends on length of the production plateau and the rate of decline after peaking. A long plateau (5 – 10 years) and a slow decline rate (3%) would allow a relatively easy adjustment. A short plateau and rapid decline rate (6-10%) would have catastrophic effects.
The giant fields that have peaked during the past decade (eg, North Sea, Cantarell) have short plateaus and steep (10-13%) decline rates. Global peaking may differ, of course.
For more about this see One of the top questions for our time: how will Peak Oil affect the economy?
Well I guess industrial civilization is going to collapse then. Maybe Mike Ruppert and the doomers are right. COURSE REVIEW (or why Daniel Yergin needs to do his homework), Richard Heinberg, Post-carbon Institute, 21 October 2011
You are easily impressed. This is an almost content-less series of assertions. There is almost nothing there to respond to.
(1) “Here we have complex, costly technology being applied to the production of a resource that is otherwise getting scarce”
This is wrong in many ways. To mention just two.
(2) “There are immense quantities of low-grade fossil fuels in Earth’s crust. Until recently, these were inaccessible for practical reasons.”
This is the basic rule of geology. Ore quality has an inverse relationship to ore quantity. High prices drive engineering to tap lower quality ores. For details see Recovering lost knowledge about exhaustion of the Earth’s resources (such as Peak Oil).
This lowers EROI over the short-term; the result over longer periods depends on scientific progress which cannot be forecast. However, there is no reason to doubt that this age-old process will end. Time and economics may force a peak in production, as demand increases faster than capex can increase production to offset declines in conventional production. Economic prosperty will depend on how well we manage this process.
But this over longer time horizons (several generations at least) our current sources will become as obsolete as buring cow dung. Many new sources are under development in laboratories around the world. Only one need work.
For more about the economic effects of peaking see One of the top questions for our time: how will Peak Oil affect the economy?
But I think the question is can we run our industrial civilization on increasingly expensive in the long term energy? I mean I keep hearing reports of power rationing in India and China due to coal shortages for whatever reason.
We have been running our global economy on increasingly expensive energy since 1972. Despite this, the past decade has seen some of the fastest global growth since the invention of agriculture.
There are always areas that have underinvested or otherwise distorted aspects of their economy, so they have shortages of critical goods. Famines, energy shortages. Extrapolating those to a global problem is a favorite tactic of doomsters, but has no analytical basis.
Note that India and China are growing quite nicely — China especially so — despite the coal shortages.
http://www.planbeconomics.com/2011/01/31/peak-oil-and-the-new-boom-bust-cycle/
Will Middle Class society contiune to surive in the wake of ever increasing energy costs?
Question: You’ve written about the break-down of our criminal justice system. What about attorneys? Don’t they defend our rights?
A few. Most don’t care in any significant fashion. Many support the government’s efforts to destroy our rights. Needless to say, our judges are choosen from the last group. They are an appreciative audience for specious explanations of why the Constitution’s words mean nothing. Many of both groups pretend to be conservatives and libertarians.
(1) “Anwar al-Aulaqi Apparently Killed by Drone in Yemen“, Kenneth Anderson, 30 September 2011 — Excerpt:
The first of this list is priceless. The government’s accusations are fact, so he must die. The last is equally sad, tame judges passivity legitimize the government’s executions without warrant or trial.
(2) “Who May Be Killed? Anwar al-Awlaki as a Case Study in the International Legal Regulation of Lethal Force“, Robert Chesney (U of Texas School of Law), Yearbook of International Humanitarian (2010) — Abstract:
What ever happened to Mr. Manning? Did solitary turn his mind to mush? It’s sure been a long time.
The Manning episode clearly shows the collapse of the criminal justice system in America — and the cause of its collapse: we no longer care about Constitution. It’s dead in our hearts and minds.
Like a third world tinpot dictatorship, we refuse to allow a UN investigator access to our prisons — the kind of inspections the NAZIs allowed of POW camps during WWII. It’s worse, as the POWs were legally held. Manning has had no trial, let alone been convicted.
The invaluable FireDogLake has a timeline of this shameful affair. Manning war arrested on 29 May 2010. They filed charges on 6 July 2010. They have announced no trial date, so he rots in solitary confinement.
For more about this see The long-term consequences to America of torturing Bradley Manning.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOlwbaPe2os
The first part of the series explains the origins of Islamism and Neo-Conservatism. It shows Egyptian civil servant Sayyid Qutb, depicted as the founder of modern Islamist thought, visiting America to learn about the education system, but becoming disgusted with what he saw as a corruption of morals and virtues in western society through individualism.
When he returns to Egypt, he is disturbed by westernization under President Nasser and becomes convinced that in order to save society it must be completely restructured along the lines of Islamic law while still using western technology. He also becomes convinced that this can only be accomplished through the use of an elite “vanguard” to lead a revolution against the established order. Qutb becomes a leader of the Muslim Brotherhood and, after being tortured in one of Nasser’s jails, comes to believe that western-influenced leaders can justly be killed for the sake of removing their corruption.
Qutb is executed in 1966, but he inspires the future mentor of Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, to start his own secret Islamist group. Inspired by the 1979 Iranian revolution, Zawahiri and his allies assassinate Egyptian president Anwar Al Sadat, in 1981, in hopes of starting their own revolution. The revolution does not materialise, and Zawahiri comes to believe that the majority of Muslims have been corrupted by their western-inspired leaders and thus may be legitimate targets of violence if they do not join him.
At the same time in the United States, a group of disillusioned liberals, including Irving Kristol and Paul Wolfowitz, look to the political thinking of Leo Strauss after the general failure of President Johnson’s “Great Society”. They come to the conclusion that the emphasis on individual liberty was the undoing of the plan. They envisioned restructuring America by uniting the American people against a common evil, and set about creating a mythical enemy.
These factions, the Neo-Conservatives, came to power under the Reagan administration, with their allies Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, and work to unite the United States in fear of the Soviet Union. The Neo-Conservatives allege the Soviet Union is not following the terms of disarmament between the two countries, and, with the investigation of “Team B”, they accumulate a case to prove this with dubious evidence and methods. President Reagan is convinced nonetheless.
No, I don’t watch videos (unless they have pretty girls in them). Thank you for submitting this; it looks interesting. It’s a subject discussed often on the FM website.
I’ve been watching the “chinese cyberwar” threat be over-hyped, just like the “soviet menace” and “osama bin laden” – the Adam Curtis documentaries seem to me to be making a pretty good case. But here’s the problem I’ve got: how can I tell “our” propaganda from “their” propaganda? What if Curtis is just spouting half-truths intended to make me disbelieve their spouted half-truths?
I have spent years studying nukes and the cold war and conclude that the soviet menace was not merely over-hyped, it was vastly over-hyped. I know the “chinese cyberwar” story is over-hyped. My inclination is to believe Curtis. But I know that the way propagandists win is by pitching their story so that it’s aimed for the tiniest crack of belief.
As you explain, we cannot know these things. We can only ask “What is truth” and wash our hands.
But we can make reliable guesses.
(1) Consider the source of the information. How often have our national security experts lied to us? About the missile gap, the bomber gap, about the Tonkien Gulf incident, about Saddam’s WMDs, about the events on 9-11 (as the members of the 9-11 Commission repeated complained). It’s a very long list.
(2) What is the relevant history? Propaganda about Islam and Jews has been deployed by western rulers for a thousand years, to justify foreign wars and channel domestic discontent. Perhaps this round of stories is true. On the other hand, casinos and racetrack owners make good money betting on the odds — not against them.
Do you believe that the American social safety net, as it currently exists, works? What do you think of workfare? How does it compare with the more socialist systems used in Europe?
Yes the US safety net “works”, in the usual sense of the word. It provides some protection to the ill, the unemployed, the disabled, etc. People argue that it provides too much or too little, especially vs. the much stronger systems used in Europe. The answer depends on one’s values — and on long-term results which only our descendents will know.
By most metric the “social net” systems used in the Nordic nations work better than those in the US. But their circumstance differ greatly from ours, making comparisons complex to interpret.
I have no opinion on workfare.
Answer: climate scientists explaining that their models do not accurately forecast climate. Please read these two articles. They are brief, clear, and enlightening to laypeople who have followed the global warming debate through the news media and blogs.
(1) “Discussion of ‘A comparison of local and aggregated climate model outputs with observed data’ – A black eye for the Hydrological Sciences Journal“, David Huard, Hydrological Sciences Journal, 29 October 2011 — Excerpt:
(2) “Scientific dialogue on climate: is it giving black eyes or opening closed eyes?“, D. Koutsoyiannis et al, Hydrological Sciences Journal, 29 October 2011 — Excerpt:
Police publicly demonstrating to show their contempt for the law. If our rulers don’t follow the law, why should the Police?
“Policemen Show Up in Force to Support Officers Arrested for Ticket-Fixing“, New York magazine, 28 October 2011 — Excerpt:
For more about this topic see: