Friday 25th of May 2018

fried dereliction of ideas...


No-no... Thomas does not really subscribe to the flat earth theory... But he is the Frank Burns who believes that anyone with bucks can flatten your lovely petunias. His major work is " The World Is Flat" which is wholly embracing of globalisation. Anyone with a brain knows that "globalisation" is a euphemism for "empire" -- the US empire. His more recent book is "Hot, Flat and Crowded: : Why We Need a Green Revolution--and How It Can Renew America" which is based not on the understanding of "global warming" but of economic opportunities of alternative technologies for America's businesses in order to swamp the world with US made green technologies. He got some Pulitzer prizes for writing shit for the New York times I believe. But he is a smart bad thinker, a bit like a smart bomb. Who cares about the damage as long as the bomb is smart...

And he wrote a shit piece in The New York Time who should of course sack him...

the new frank burns on the war against decency...


Thomas Friedman appears to become aroused by the prospect of war. It’d be more appropriate for The New York Times to let him manage this affliction from the safety of his private space than on the pages of the newspaper.

Especially when the Pulitzer Prize winner is calling for America to effectively ally itself with ISIS in Syria.

The definition of a “chicken hawk” is relatively straightforward. It’s a person “who strongly supports war or other military action, yet who actively avoids or avoided military service when of age.” And, according to Wikipedia, “generally the implication is that chicken hawks lack the moral character to participate in war themselves, preferring to ask others to support, fight and perhaps die in an armed conflict.


read more:


For the second time in as many years, Thomas Friedman has explicitly advocated that the United States use the so-called Islamic State in Iraq and Syria as a proxy force against Syria, Russia, Iran and Hezbollah. The New York Times foreign affairs columnist made this suggestion in his Wednesday column, “Why Is Trump Fighting ISIS in Syria?” 



According to one 2015 poll by Virginia-based research firm ORB International, 82 percent of Syrians and 85 percent of Iraqis believe ISIS to be a creation of the United States. Indeed, the New York Times has spent considerable incheshand-wringing about why these type of “conspiracy theories” are so widespread in the Muslim world.

Perhaps, one can imagine, they would be less so if Western columnists weren’t casually cheerleading for using the extremist group as a bludgeon against America’s enemies.



read more:


Friedman does not care about the dead or the injured in wars... Being like the modern times Frank Burns, he does not rise above being in charge of the rubbish dump and making a nonsense of himself with military pompish rectitude while fleeing under the table when the first bomb falls a kilometre away.

Thomas Friedman does not care if globalisation destroys people as long as there is a MacDonald in every towns, big and small, of the world. He can't see that globalisation is not for everyone. He can't see that globalisation is a system designed by the rich, by which the rich can suck the poor of the world dry and maintain worldwide supremacy. And anyone in the road of "globalisation" has to be "flattened", destroyed, removed, but then the Thomas moron has the gall to align himself with Green technology as the flavour of the month... Piss off man, you are a disgrace to your newspaper which is a disgrace to itself anyway for having supported the war on Saddam for which it "apologised" but never ever fully explained the deceit of the Bush Government, nor will it explain the deceit of the Obama administration (and Hillary's), and that of Trump the idiot.  Friedman is a great populist writer of fiction, but a dangerous dreadful thinker. 

Actually, he could be right... The US should get out of the Middle East and let Syria deal with Daesh... Knowing the Russians very well, Gus can assure you that they would win this war within the next three weeks should the US not be in the way. Would this be acceptable to Mr Frank Burns? I don't think so...


social and economic impacts of climate...


social and economic impacts of climate

Structured AbstractBACKGROUND

For centuries, thinkers have considered whether and how climatic conditions influence the nature of societies and the performance of economies. A multidisciplinary renaissance of quantitative empirical research has begun to illuminate key linkages in the coupling of these complex natural and human systems, uncovering notable effects of climate on health, agriculture, economics, conflict, migration, and demographics.


Past scholars of climate-society interactions were limited to theorizing on the basis of anecdotal evidence; advances in computing, data availability, and study design now allow researchers to draw generalizable causal inferences tying climatic events to social outcomes. This endeavor has demonstrated that a range of climate factors have substantial influence on societies and economies, both past and present, with important implications for the future.

Temperature, in particular, exerts remarkable influence over human systems at many social scales; heat induces mortality, has lasting impact on fetuses and infants, and incites aggression and violence while lowering human productivity. High temperatures also damage crops, inflate electricity demand, and may trigger population movements within and across national borders. Tropical cyclones cause mortality, damage assets, and reduce economic output for long periods. Precipitation extremes harm economies and populations predominately in agriculturally dependent settings. These effects are often quantitatively substantial; for example, we compute that temperature depresses current U.S. maize yields roughly 48%, warming trends since 1980 elevated conflict risk in Africa by 11%, and future warming may slow global economic growth rates by 0.28 percentage points year−1.

Much research aims to forecast impacts of future climate change, but we point out that society may also benefit from attending to ongoing impacts of climate in the present, because current climatic conditions impose economic and social burdens on populations today that rival in magnitude the projected end-of-century impacts of climate change. For instance, we calculate that current temperature climatologies slow global economic growth roughly 0.25 percentage points year−1, comparable to the additional slowing of 0.28 percentage points year−1 projected from future warming.

Both current and future losses can theoretically be avoided if populations adapt to fully insulate themselves from the climate—why this has not already occurred everywhere remains a critical open question. For example, clear patterns of adaptation in health impacts and in response to tropical cyclones contrast strongly with limited adaptation in agricultural and macroeconomic responses to temperature. Although some theories suggest these various levels of adaptation ought to be economically optimal, in the sense that costs of additional adaptive actions should exactly balance the benefits of avoided climate-related losses, there is no evidence that allows us to determine how closely observed “adaptation gaps” reflect optimal investments or constrained suboptimal adaptation that should be addressed through policy.


Recent findings provide insight into the historical evolution of the global economy; they should inform how we respond to modern climatic conditions, and they can guide how we understand the consequences of future climate changes. Although climate is clearly not the only factor that affects social and economic outcomes, new quantitative measurements reveal that it is a major factor, often with first-order consequences. Research over the coming decade will seek to understand the numerous mechanisms that drive these effects, with the hope that policy may interfere with the most damaging pathways of influence.

Both current and future generations will benefit from near-term investigations. “Cracking the code” on when, where, and why adaptation is or is not successful will generate major social benefits today and in the future. In addition, calculations used to design global climate change policies require as input “damage functions” that describe how social and economic losses accrue under different climatic conditions, essential elements that now can (and should) be calibrated to real-world relationships. Designing effective, efficient, and fair policies to manage anthropogenic climate change requires that we possess a quantitative grasp of how different investments today may affect economic and social possibilities in the future.

read more:


not deplorable, but desperate...

No matter how hard White House officials try, they cannot construct a coherent ‘Trump doctrine’ that would make sense amid the chaos that has afflicted US foreign policy in recent months.

However, this chaos is not entirely the making of President Donald Trump alone.

Since 1945, the United States has vied for total global leadership. The 1991 dissolution of the Soviet Union, and the subsequent disintegration of the Eastern Bloc, gave it complete global hegemony.

The US became the force that stabilized and destabilized any region in the world, as it saw fit – which always served the interests of the US and its allies.

Political opinions and ideological strands in the US, but also globally, were formulated around this reality. Often unwittingly, we are all pushed into one of two categories: pro- or anti-American.

For decades, many critical voices warned of an uncontested unipolar world. Conformists fought back against the ‘un-American’, and ‘unpatriotic’ few, who dared break rank.

In the late 1980’s, Francis Fukuyama declared ‘the end of history’, now that the US and its western allies managed to defeat communism. He prophesized the end of ‘sociocultural evolution’, where a new form of a single human government can be formed.

It appeared, however fleetingly, that all the obstacles before the American vision of total domination have been subdued. Thomas Friedman of the ‘New York Times’ imagined such a world in his bestselling book, ‘The World is Flat’.

He wrote, with the wisdom of a sage and the triumphalism of a victorious war general, “Communism was a great system for making people equally poor – in fact, there was no better system in the world for that than communism. Capitalism made people unequally rich.”

But history never ended. It just went through a new cycle of conflicts, problems and alliances of enemies and foes. Unchecked consumerism was hardly a triumph for the neoliberal order, but a defeat of a delicately balanced planet, where global warming emerged as the world’s greatest enemy. American military power could hardly wait to rearrange the Arab world, as once promised, by former US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

Since then, the so-called ‘New Middle East’, has become a horrifying nightmare that traversed many countries and destabilized the entire region.

Worse still, the US economy has crashed, taking down with it the global economy and reducing some of the smallest, most vulnerable countries into abject poverty.

The rise of Donald Trump to power is, in fact, an outcome of the chaotic years that preceded his advent.

By the end of his second term, former President Barack Obama spoke of his success in stabilizing the economy and creating more jobs in a process of swift recovery, contrary to real evidence.

A US Federal Reserve survey last year concluded that nearly half of all Americans “did not have enough money to cover a $400 emergency expense.”

Americans did not elect Trump simply because they are ‘racist’, as some have presumed, but because they are desperate.

read more:

the crisis facing yamerika is much bigger than Trump...



The title of Friedman’s piece takes the form of a directive: “General Mattis, Stand Up to Trump or He’ll Drag You Down.” Friedman begins, as he so often does, by quoting himself at length. In an earlier column, he had instructed Trump’s generals—Mattis, Kelly, and McMaster—to “stand up and reverse the moral rot that has infected the Trump administration from the top.” They failed to comply.

Now desperate, Friedman summons Mattis as “the last man standing—the only one who has not been infected by Trump’s metastasizing ethical cancer, the only one who has not visibly lied on Trump’s behalf, and who can still put some fear into Trump”—to seize control of the situation and save the Republic from the individual elected to the presidency less than a year ago.

“Secretary Mattis,” Friedman writes, “we don’t need any more diagnosis of the problem. We need action.” The necessary action is this: Along with Kelly and McMaster, Mattis should tell Trump “that if he does not change his ways you will all quit, en masse.”

“Trump needs to know that it is now your way or the highway—not his,” Friedman writes, certain that the threat of collective resignation will bring Trump to heel. In effect, he is urging Trump’s generals to coerce their commander-in-chief into relinquishing the authority that is rightly his according to the Constitution. They will make the decisions. Trump will sign the necessary paperwork.

Friedman insists that he is “not talking about a coup.” This, too, is sheer, indeed contemptible, dishonesty. He is, in fact, not only “talking about” a coup but using the nation’s newspaper of record to advocate a coup. Friedman wants our civilian commander-in-chief to take his marching orders from the generals. Well, welcome to the junta.

What does it say about the state of public discourse that views such as these appear in what is ostensibly the nation’s most influential publication? You decide. But I think it says that the crisis facing our country is much bigger than Trump.

Andrew J. Bacevich is The American Conservative’s writer-at-large.

Read more:


Read from top. Trump is still laughing his head off...


friedman spreads rubbish about putin...

President Trump’s steadfast reluctance to say anything negative about Russia is so striking that a former director of national intelligence, James Clapper, once observed that Vladimir Putin manages Trump as if he we were a Russian intelligence “asset.” He may be. But if I were a Russian citizen, I’d be asking this question: Is Putin a U.S. agent?

Why? Because Putin has undertaken so many actions in recent years that contributed to the weakening of Russia’s economy and human capital base that you have to wonder whether he’s secretly on the C.I.A.’s payroll.

Beginning around 2007 or 2008, Putin appears to have decided that rebuilding Russia by nurturing its tremendous human talent and strengthening the rule of law was just too hard — it would have required sharing power, holding real, competitive elections and building a truly diverse, innovation-based economy.

Instead, Putin decided to look for dignity for Russia in all the wrong places: by tapping his oil and gas wells, not his people; by strengthening the Russian military, instead of the rule of law; and by enriching himself and his circle of oligarchs while wrapping himself in a cloak of Russian Orthodoxy and Russian nationalism that appealed to his base.


Read more:


Yep, and Donald Trump is Jesus Christ of the second serve — or last resurrection coming... That's why 70 per cent of Russians love Putin because he neglects "his" people... Friedman you're a dork...

Read from top.

friedman does another con job...

Tom Friedman repeats an oft-recited canard in a recent column:

The [IRGC] Quds Force now more or less controls — through proxies — four Arab capitals: Damascus, Beirut, Baghdad and Sana.

Indeed, Iran has become the biggest “occupying power” in the Arab world today.

This is wrong or misleading on pretty much every count, but it is probably most obnoxious with respect to Yemen because it echoes Saudi propaganda used to justify their atrocious war on that suffering country. The problem with these statements is that they completely ignore local actors and interests and mistakenly treat indigenous groups as mere puppets of Tehran. 

As for supposedly being an “occupying power,” Iran is supporting the Iraqi and Syrian governments at their request. We may not like that support, but that is not what occupation looks like. The Saudis and the UAE and their allies are the ones occupying parts of Yemen, and Yemen’s “legitimate” government is run out of Riyadh because it has no backing at home. Iran doesn’t occupy any part of Yemen. Friedman’s statements may be good for fear-mongering and stoking hostility, but it is garbage analysis of the sort we have come to expect from him. Unfortunately, this gross exaggeration of Iranian “control” over other countries’ capitals is a commonly-held view that misinforms policymakers in the U.S. and elsewhere.

Iran’s influence in Yemen has modestly increased since the Saudi-led intervention started three years ago, and the relationship between Tehran and the Houthis is closer than it was, but that is a measure of how stupid and pointless the Saudi-led war has been. The Houthis were not Iranian proxies before the coalition intervention started, and they still are not. Iran does not control Sanaa through proxies or in any other way. That doesn’t fit the story that supporters of the Saudi-led war want to tell, but it happens to be true. In point of fact, the Iranian government advised the Houthis not to take the capital back in 2014, which was an odd thing for a supposedly “expansionist” government “on the march” to do. Maybe some hard-liners in Iran wished they had the sort of extensive influence and control ascribed to them, but it is just a wish.

This matters because Friedman is using his high-profile position to spread bad analysis and misinformation about conflicts that Americans already understand poorly or not at all. He already wrote an embarrassing love letter to the Saudi war criminal Mohammed bin Salman, and now he is echoing the Saudi government’s talking points about Iran and the war on Yemen. The war on Yemen is already so rarely covered and poorly understood in the U.S. that every piece of misinformation about the conflict there does much greater damage than usual. Anyone that makes the mistake of reading his columns would come away with a worse and more distorted understanding of this part of the world than he had before he started.


Read more:


Read from top...