Gates Buys Honorary Doctorate

Here is a picture of Bill Gates and his wife getting honorary doctorates

Cambridge no doubt felt compelled to give Bill Gates an honorary doctorate as he had contributed up to $165 million to scholarships to Cambridge over past decade. Does no one care what a despicable human Bill Gates is? Does the fact that he lied and cheated his way to success and massively mistreated his customers along the way? Even now, many internet services “require” Internet Explorer, for no technical reason other than Microsoft wants other browsers disabled. In its existence, Microsoft came up with nothing new, and borrowed, bought or stole its innovation. This demonstrates that like everything else at universities, everything is for sale. George W Bush can go to Harvard, pharmaceutical studies can be faked, and Bill, along with his wife – can get honorary degrees for cold hard cash.

What is Illegal?

Much has been made of the association of Obama with Bill Ayers. Bill Ayers was part of the Weather Underground, which was a lightweight terrorist organization back during the Vietnam war. We rightly call them lightweight because they called ahead of time to evacuate the buildings they set bombs in, and were more about raising awareness through extreme methods rather than killing. They were of greatest threat to themselves as a bomb creation mishap did kill several of the members of the Weather Underground. A detailed account of them can be seen at Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weatherman_(organization)

However, what is not discussed is what Ayers and the Weather Underground was protesting. They were protesting the Vietnam War. During the Vietnam War the US illegally bombed at least three countries (Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia), generally accepted estimates are that this lead to the death of 3.5 million people, the dissolution of civil society in Cambodia allowing the Khmer Rouge to come to power and other negative outcomes that have left these countries in an extremely bad state. This bad state extends to the present day, and will extend to the future. A huge amount of unexploded bombs has made amputees of many in the areas that were bombed. The invasion of Vietnam was illegal, as were the bombings of Laos and Cambodia. Strange it is that Bill Ayers, who killed no one, but was responsible for property damage is considered a terrorist by conservatives, yet one of the main architects of Vietnam and a person directly responsible for taking the bombing to Laos and Cambodia is considered a lauded specialist in international relations. That would be Henry Kissinger. This brings up the question of what really is illegal. Is something illegal if it is done by a powerful country against a weaker country? What Bill Ayers did could certainly be considered justified as a way of increasing the costs of the Vietnam War to America. What else were his options? In an only slightly democratic society (notice how long a majority of the population opposed the war and how long it continued) like the US, there is little but violent action that will change its course. This is the root of terrorism of the weak against the strong, an inability to change policy through rational and peaceful means. As much as large power centers complain about terrorism, they are really referring to the very minor terror of citizens against them The US had no excuse of self protection against the Vietnamese. There was no Soviet threat, and Vietnam posed zero risk to the US. There Vietnamese were not coming to invade Peoria. This was a colonial war prosecuted after the power vaccum left when the French, who had their own illegal Vietnam War with 40,000 casualties withdrew from the area. Furthermore there was no South Vietnam and elections in Vietnam were on course until the Kennedy Administration manipulated by the CIA decided to assasinate Diem.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrest_and_assassination_of_Ngo_Dinh_Diem

The entire basis for the war, that the US was protecting South Vietnamese independence was pure fiction. (See below for support for these contentions. Its long, but worth it. If you respond to this post without watching this in its entirety, you won’t have a good basis for a response and I will delete the reply.)

US education and media has done its job, so not only do most Americans not know these facts, they can not interpret them properly when they are explained in even the most serene environment with all the facts place on the table. But their lack of acceptance does not change the illegality of the war. An objective view would certainly say that a war which killed 3.5 million people, which was not in any way defensive (in addition to other massive societal damage which is difficult to measure) is far more of a terrorist action. In fact it was infinitely more of a terrorist action than the Weather Underground’s activities. Kissinger, Nixon, Kennedy Johnson and the 1000s of Americans, both military and civilian, responsible for the hell on earth that was brought down upon the people of SouthEast Asia, and that continues to deeply hamper their development are the terrorists par excellance. Bill Ayers can’t be uttered in the same breath as them.

http://www.worldfreeinternet.net/news/nws125.htm

Discrimination and Life’s Blessings

Discrimination is a big feature of social life and social discourse. While discrimination conjures images of the civil rights movement and of race riots, discrimination is common in and the norm in all of human activity. For instance, if you help an elderly person to lift something, without being prompted, you have just discriminated for them on the basis of their age. The selection of a mate is nothing but the discrimination against many other possible suitors and the discrimination for your one true love. Discrimination is a curious concept in terms of when people tend to bring up the topic. While nearly ever person can all point out to times when they have personally been discriminated against, its much harder for people to point out when we discriminated against others. In fact there is little interest in discussing this side of the equation at all. Furthermore many groups that rail against discrimination and against the larger homogeneous society frequently discriminate in equal measure within their group and against the larger group as well. Thus the term discrimination actually means is..

“what others have done to me or to my group,”

…and it is more generally a plea for extra benefit based on an extremely hazy notion of fairness. Fairness being whatever improve’s the condition of the person pointing out the discrimination.

Meritocracies

Selecting for more talented people is called a a merit system and for those societies who practice it, it is called a meritocracy. People are in general in favor of a meritocracy, at least when asked their views. However, they generally work against meritocracies by attempting to use their personal connections to enhance their job prospects…this being the opposite of a meritocracy also known as a the “old boys network” and when preference is given for family members it is referred to as nepotism. How much individuals give out benefits based upon meritocracy and how much by personal connection often has to do with how competitive their own personal situation is. If they control a monopoly then there is a tendency to hire family members, if they work in a more competitive situation, then they will tend towards hiring based upon merit.

Limited Benefits

The point we want to bring up, which is very rarely brought up with regards to discrimination, is that there are a limited number of high paying jobs and a limited number of resources in general. Some type of discrimination will be used and will always be used in order to limit the access to “life’s blessings.” Improvements in the lack of discrimination for certain groups of people means fewer benefits for those that were previously the beneficiaries of discrimination. Even under the “expanding pie” fallacy, that is often employed by those that propose that there are no economic or other limitations to a society, there is is still the limit imposed by relative good. In well off societies the well off compete for benefits such as status, living location and life partners, therefore even if the pie continually expands (which it does not of course, and the environmental disaster that is happening in slow motion around us is showing the limitations of growth) there will always be a relative competition for the good things. The better and more valued something is, the less there is to go around.

How Politically Incorrect

No doubt this post will bring up a number of disagreements and form cognitive dissonance with many readers. Its extremely important to mirror the illogical way that society defines discrimination and to think of discrimination in terms of how it is often explained in US society. The author will no doubt be accused of being indifferent to the past discrimination of this group or that group. This is an expected response from those that have immediate emotional reactions to arguments. Actually this post is about the concept of discrimination and how it used to ask for more benefits, but never used to provide more benefits. If one wants to use the argument of discrimination in an unbiased way than one will spend as much time admitting one’s own discrimination against others and offering full benefits to everyone who asks, as they spend using the argument of discrimination in order to get more for oneself.

Logical Fallacies

One of the common ways that people mislead others is through the use of logical fallacies. These are arguments which are inherently flawed due to their structure. Wikipedia has a great listing of logical fallacies. Its good to refer to them when faced with interpreting arguments:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

The Fake Debate on Clean Power

Most anyone reading this post is familiar with the debate over alternative fuels. The debate includes the usual suspects:

1. Hydro-electric
2. Solar
3. Hydrogen
4. Nuclear
5. Biofuels

The concept presented is that each power alternative is a viable option. We recently learned that most of these alternatives are not real alternatives. For instance, hydro-electric can only be a very minor contributor to overall power needs, further most of the rivers that could have been damned have been damed, to great environmental damage. Hydrogen is not a real alternative because using hydrogen breaks the 2nd law of thermodynamics, that is there is not much fuel (liquid hydrogen) and it takes more energy to break the bonds of hydrogen than can be recouped by combining the hydrogen with oxygen. Nuclear, is highly problematic and will also never be able to produce enough to be a major energy source. There would need to be 10,000 nuclear plants to power the US and you would eventually run out of the necessary Uranium 235. Biofuels provide low energy output considering the inputs of land, energy and conversion of biomass into biofuel. Again, it can never meet a significant source of the national energy needs.

The Solar Solution

Finally Solar, is far and away the most sustainable and best overall solution. For the US it is perfect, it has huge tracks of desert in Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico and Texas which are very little used. It is estimated that a 100 x 100 square mile solar array would provide all the energy needs for the US. A landmass the size 1/2 of California would provide the energy need for the world. However while these facts are undisputed, solar is presented as just one of a number of equally possible alternatives. Our question here are

1. Why is a clearly superior solution is considered equally among other alternatives that are not real?
2. Why does solar energy get far less research budget than the ludicrous hydrogen research budget?

Do Companies With Current Investment Want an Alternative?

We consider it most likely that the present approach is design by the current energy power structure in order to confuse the issue. As long was we try to develop an energy future by co-opting and placating the current energy monopolists, its going to be a problem getting anywhere. The last thing the oil companies want is a legitimate alternative to arise so they will fight it tooth and nail. Most energy company innovation seems to go into more and more crafty ways to delude the public. See our post on Chevron:

http://onhumannature.wordpress.com/2008/02/17/is-chevron-an-environmental-company

References

Here is the DVD where the contention regarding the 100 mile x 100 mile solar grid power the US is made. As I said, I will stand on my head if you both watch this and don’t come away convinced solar is the answer and we should begin a massive government investment project into this.

http://www.amazon.com/Crude-Awakening-Oil-Crash/dp/B000PY52IG

BTW, netflix has this, which is where I rented it.

http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/03/solar-company-s.html

Also, this 100 square mile solar panel farm concept is supported by the Dept of Energy website:

Myth 1: Solar electricity cannot serve any significant fraction of U.S. or world electricity needs.

PV technology can meet electricity demand on any scale. The solar energy resource in a 100-mile-square area of Nevada could supply the United States with all its electricity (about 800 gigawatts) using modestly efficient (10%) commercial PV modules.

A more realistic scenario involves distributing these same PV systems throughout the 50 states. Currently available sites—such as vacant land, parking lots, and rooftops—could be used. The land requirement to produce 800 gigawatts would average out to be about 17 x 17 miles per state. Alternatively, PV systems built in the “brownfields”—the estimated 5 million acres of abandoned industrial sites in our nation’s cities—could supply 90% of America’s current electricity.

These hypothetical cases emphasize that PV is not “area-impaired” in delivering electricity. The critical point is that PV does not have to compete with baseload power. Its strength is in providing electricity when and where energy is most limited and most expensive. It does not simply replace some fraction of generation. Rather, it displaces the right portion of the load, shaving peak demand during periods when energy is most constrained and expensive.

In the long run, the U.S. PV Industry Roadmap does expect PV to provide a “significant fraction of U.S. electricity needs.” This adds up to at least 15% of new added electricity capacity in 2020, and then 10 years later, at least 10% of the nation’s total electricity (PDF 674 KB). Download Adobe Reader

Powered by ScribeFire.

Everyone Wants a Slave

The Official Story

There is this bizarre conception that slavery was a brief part of history. The conventional view goes something like this.

“Slavery was horrible, it was promoted by evil slave holders, however it was abolished and we can all celebrate now.”

The question regarding why slavery was accepted for so long is somewhat papered over. However, how slavery worked and works is only infrequently discussed. Thus we thought we would outline slavery in this post.

History of Slavery and It’s Current Manifestations

Slavery is an ancient method of organizing labor and property rights. It is not entirely known, but thought likely that the first slaves were captured enemies. In the US, slavery is considered primarily a white vs. black institution, however, this is historically inaccurate, but in a way is an idea reinforced by institutions that seek to explain slavery within a far more narrow context than it historically occurred.

History Then and Now

Far from an aberration, slavery is a an extremely common work relationship…

….and it has stood the test of time…

..and has had a global reach. Slavery began local, but with the introduction of international shipping became an international phenomena, and this was not simply for a short period of time. For roughly 30o years the number one way in Britain to become wealthy was to be a slaver.

..it is the central organizing structure of all of Latin America which always has been setup as a system of privileged European descendents surrounded masses of mostly illiterate Indian and mestizo peasants.

“Nuevo” Slavery

Not to be outdone, America uses subcontract slaves in overseas factories. Almost all garments we wear are made by people mistreated in sweatshops. These people make on average 9 cents for shirts that sell for $30 dollars. Definitive statistics are hard to come by, but that number was taken from Nike’s own documentation. Republicans like to cover this over with the statement that “9 cents per hour is better than what  they were getting before.” This is why they are the party of “God.”

However, sometimes the US bring in slaves, though in a less direct manner than in the Antebellum South. They do this when they find that US citizens ask for a living wage.

Slavery and continues to this day under different names (illegal aliens, H2 visas, guest workers, garment workers, etc…). And with new names and philosophies like the free market or free trade or the right to work, and supported by the largest companies….

…..there is very little stopping it from continuing its long march.

Our Ideas About Slavery

The idea that slavery is gone from our planet is completely inaccurate. In fact it is not remotely supportable. Yet most people nod in agreement when slavery is discussed as a historical institution. The reality of slavery is quite a bit different. To begin, slavery was not some short term aberration. It goes back to the beginning of human history. The bible has passages that discuss how to be a good slaveholder and the ethics of managing slaves and slave prisoners of war. Secondly, slavery still occurs in even the supposedly “free societies.” Globalization is most certainly a form internationally slavery where the poor work in manufacturing jobs for subsistence wages for the benefit of those in wealthy countries. Workers in these sweatshops are controlled, given bad health conditions, they have no freedom, have their travel documents controlled, are isolated from their families, are physically intimated and beaten and can be sexually assaulted by the sweatshop guards. Why we shy away from calling this slavery tells you something about our intellectual culture. The logic is that even if they are paid cents per hour, that is cents they would not ordinarily get.

Common Areas of Slavery

Rather than being out of fashion, slavery is common an in effect and not going anywhere. The only thing that is unfashionable about slavery is the word “slavery.” Slavery has a new name now. Some of the most liberal people in the nicest neighborhoods would be surprised to find they have a number of people working for them as slaves. While reading a book on the abolition of slavery to their children, they may exclaim:

“where is my Honduran gardener? why is he late again.”

References

http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/15-worldwide-slavery/

http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/7-guest-workers-inc-fraud-and-human-trafficking/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antebellum