George Stephanopoulos awkwardly corrects Donald Trump when he says Putin ‘is not going into Ukraine’

“Well, he’s there in a certain way, but I’m not there. You have Obama there,” Trump said. “And frankly that part of the world is mess, under Obama. With all the strength that you’re talking about, and with all the power of NATO, and all of this, in the mean time, [Putin] takes Crimea.”

So our choices are Putin in the Crimea without Obama, or Putin in Crimea with Trump?

Because from what I have read about Trump’s policy in regards to Russian, if Trump is in Crimea alongside Putin, then the US (under a Trump administration) is onboard with Putin’s policy in regards to the Ukraine.

In other words, Trump would not support Obama’s policy towards the Crimea, but would support, as any good Republican would, Putin’s policy towards the Crimea.

Very interesting.

Considering his daughter’s speech, I wonder if Trump has talked with any Republicans lately, which, as any Democrat would find, is a very hard thing to do?

Source: George Stephanopoulos awkwardly corrects Donald Trump when he says Putin ‘is not going into Ukraine’

Turkey Coup: Rebel F-16s Had Erdogan’s Jet in Sights, Reuters Source Says – NBC News

“At least two F-16s harassed Erdogan’s plane while it was in the air and en route to Istanbul. They locked their radars on his plane and on two other F-16s protecting him,” a former military officer with knowledge of the events told Reuters. “Why they didn’t fire is a mystery.”

Really, a mystery? I seems all F-16s have the same orientation, i.e. advantage.

Source: Turkey Coup: Rebel F-16s Had Erdogan’s Jet in Sights, Reuters Source Says – NBC News

Why the British said no to Europe

The pith helmets may have long gone, but the blood has never dried. A nineteenth century contempt for countries and peoples, depending on their degree of colonial usefulness, remains a centrepiece of modern “globalisation”, with its perverse socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor: its freedom for capital and denial of freedom to labour; its perfidious politicians and politicised civil servants.

Bill Maher had, as his guest panel member, a Conservative Leaver from Britain. Her position on the Brexit vote was similar to those of the above quote. From her position, she viewed the vote to leave the EU as a vote for Globalization, i.e. anti colonialism. But I have to wonder does she, and those of the above quote, really know what they are talking about?

The EU’s position in the world is that of a Center of Mass (CM), of Globalization. Similarly, the USA (and soon China) is in a position representing the Center of Gravity (CG), of Globalization. We all know, or at least to the Leavers in Britain, that Brexit changes the position of Britain in the world. What about the EU’s position and will it change?

Without getting into what the position of CG or CM means, other than each position represents some type of an advantage in the world’s Globalization, Britain’s leaving one position doesn’t mean the position of the EU changes, unless the EU is broken up into so many parts and its mass disappears into so many separate parts as to make itself irrelevant in the global economy.

If this happens (all the parts of the EU becomes weaker than the whole) then there is a chance that China will become, not only in time the CG (the most powerful economy), the center of mass (the largest economy) of Globalization. Of course others; such as a brotherhood or coalition of Muslim, Arab, BRAC, American, or African nations;  could gather enough mass to hold that position, but I am betting on China, because of the way the Chinese overseas have massed.

I am not sure having China in both positions will do anything to expand Democracy. While China, in its process of building its economy doesn’t interfere with how each country it deals with globally governs its people, China does inject its mass into global countries, in the form of Oversea Chinese. Which means China does exert power politically, with each country it deals with in the global market. Take Pakistan as an example and how Pakistan dealt with its people when the oversea Chinese were attacked in Pakistan (see Red Mosque Massacre).

While China does have its own brand of Capitalism that seemingly is successful, it doesn’t seem to have a brand of Democracy that works. So maybe Britain’s leaving the EU isn’t striking a blow for Globalization as Bill Maher’s guest suggested, if the Center of Mass changes away from where it is today and that center is less democratic.

I would also like to understand what mechanism for Globalization is in place in Britain that would help the free world, by maintaining a force for democratic ideals and to maintain democracy’s place as the globalization Center of Mass.

Does Brexit mean the UK is going all out in building up its military? Nothing I have read about the Leavers suggest this, so how?

Pith helmets anyone?

Source: Why the British said no to Europe

Thoughts on Brexit and Persistent Complex Systems

The United Kingdom has made history by voting for their independence, and taking a step in reaffirming their functional boundaries. We will see more of this in the coming weeks, months, and years. Despite those who cite fragile economic predictions as reasons to ‘remain’ subject to centralized bureaucratic actors, there are much more basic reasons to ‘leave’, and the economists don’t have them in their equations.

You mean like being independent from the Colonies of America, Asia, and the Middle East, or wherever the sun actually sets, or is that just reaffirming their functional boundaries?

In that context, I think the USA also likes being independent.

And now Trump is going to build a wall (or “The Wall”) at their functional boundaries?

Source: Thoughts on Brexit and Persistent Complex Systems | Joseph W Norman

Ethics and Teaching

The riddle, koan or potential paradox posed in the upper panel alludes to the matter of Yale’s professor Thomas Pogge, a noted ethicist, and some unbecoming behavior of which he has been accused — but as professor Judith Stark writing at Conversation suggests, there’s further interest beyond the case of Pogge and his accusers.

Quote via: Pof Pogge teaches ethics at Yale, but does he shave himself.

In order to teach ethics, one must know physics and logic. The three domains go hand and hand together, but at times, together, they can be seen as a three-headed snake trying to swallow its own tail, a position which many one-headed snakes in this feed find themselves in, from time to time.

Structure gives the three-headed snake one tail and multiple heads in the domain of physics; an orientation of culture gives the three-headed snake the logic needed to move its structure into a position; and ethics positions the three-headed snake for the bite. Biting is one thing that snakes do.

Perhaps the instructor taught his pupils to take the correct position, at least in the context of biting, i.e. don’t bite your own tail or shave, unless you know which domain to use first. To shave yourself you need to first put yourself in the position, then ask why?

After all he wasn’t trying to teach physic nor logic, which pretty much answers what and how.

As Orientation begins in the workspace, perhaps there was something about his environment or culture that affected his position, but, on the other hand, the ethics he taught were those needed and wanted, by  his students, to put them in a position of advantage in any workspace they found themselves in, after graduation.

So he earned his money at his job, but may have been, as a human, a scumbag. Something that could happen in any workspace.

The Orlando Transcript and a Renewed Terrorist Threat – Global Guerrillas

Enemies innovate, particularly open source networks like ISIS.

ISIS is not a open source network. ISIS is a closed network and the shooter in Orlando was not a source within its network. The Orlando shooter was a source within  a network that was outside of ISIS.

ISIS had not command nor control over the source, the shooter was, in fact, outside ISIS’s orientation.

So, while the shooter may represent a renewed terrorist threat, the threat comes from within and not from a closed source, such as an ISIS network.

In other words, we don’t need to profile muslims, we need to profile the mentally disturbed in the USA, many  of which, in this time in history, will be muslim and of other faiths and orientations. We need to profile these disturbed people until at least ISIS find a solution to the civil war they are fighting, and Sunni and Shia come together.

But mostly our law enforcement structures will need to find those of this renewed terrorist threat that have a brain that will be unable to function in today’s world.

Which must, as it seems, to number in the thousands, but not millions.

Source: The Orlando Transcript and a Renewed Terrorist Threat – Global Guerrillas

Mark Safranski

 They will target our shopping malls, movie theaters, elementary schools, our churches, synagogues, mosques and sidewalk cafes with car bombs and AK-47’s while tweeting and instagramming their kills.

But can ISIS actually target anyone? I mean they can play on the feeble minded individuals like the Orlando shooter, and those like him, but, as for targeting, they only have the targets they have, not necessarily the targets they need.

ISIS is basically fighting a civil war and I don’t understand how targets, like the Orlando gay bar, get the organisation of ISIS any advantage in the civil war they are fighting, unless, of course, they can get Trump elected.

Another BushII (ignorance at the top-down) in the White House would be a feather in their cap, so to speak, as ignorance, in the leader of the free world, of the basics of world power, would most likely open up a religious war again in Iraq, and that is a war ISIS believes history (of the Iraq war) says that it will win.

Trump is either against the government of the USA or with it. So far he has shown, by his ignorance, that he is against it.

Not a poistion I would like to be in, if I was he.

Source: Mark Safranski