Editorial: US Coast Guard Continues Oppression of Innocent Civilian Submersibles

Global Wahrman wishes to protest yet another example of the US Coast Guard oppressing the innocent and civilian use of submersibles and semi-submersibles.

Yes, this unfortunate oppression by our out of control, drug-obsessed Coast Guard, eager as always to restrict the use of the oceans by the people of the world has seized what they say is a SPSS, self-propelled semi-submersible, minding its own business in the Pacific Ocean off the coast of Central America with what they say is an 8 foot hold filled with tons of cocaine. Of course we have to take their word for it as the SPSS sank before they could remove the so-called evidence.  Before it sank, the USCG removed a mere 2.8 tons of cocaine.

“Cocaine? What cocaine?” said Raul Rodriguez of Columbia. “We thought we were bringing talcum powder to our relatives in Guatemala. This is clearly unwarrented oppressiion by the US Coast Guard attacking innocent native peoples”.

The private use of semi-submersibles, something we want to encourage, is being held back by this outrageous behavior on the part of our Coast Guard and we hope that the Government will take note of our protests and restrain this kind of attacks on innocent neighborly talcum-haulers in the future.

See here for more information.

Rumors of War October 2016

Lets now move beyond the grim reality of the collapse of our political system, and lighten things up around here by considering whether or not we are on the brink of another serious regional or world war. Not only is this a very reasonable time to ask such questions, it also leads into the larger blog theme of “predicting the future”. In this case, no esoteric knowledge is necessary, we can rely on our own knowledge of history and what we can see of world events.

Whenever a war happens, there are always people who say that there were clear signs that the war was obviously going to happen and that either we should have been better prepared, or should have avoided it, or that the government knew it was going to happen and wanted it to happen, or any of a number of other opinions, some of them interesting, many of them completely out-of-their-mind crazy.

Hindsight is 20/20 but in the real world there are always tensions and conflicts that could explode into a major war. But it also the case that there are a variety of “indicators” that a war may be on the horizon. Here are a few drawn from recent history: (a) a nation is pursuing what it sees to be a goal of critical national importance and another nation executes economic sanctions (war) against it, (b) a nation is executing a rearmament of their armed forces as fast as they possibly can, (c) a nation executes an intense intelligence attack on another nation with whom they are at peace of a size that is unparalled in peacetime, (d) a nation insists that it controls another nation's territory or that a formerly public right-of-way is declared to be their sovereign territory, and always has been.

Do we see any of these four situations in the world today? In fact, we see all four of these.

Russia has a centuries long relationship with Ukraine and Crimea. They see that relationship differently than we do. For them, Crimea is the ice-free port that Russia strategically requires. For them, Ukraine is a slavic territory that has been part of Russia for centuries. The very origins of Moscow and Russia can be traced to Kievan Rus in what we might now call Ukraine. The west has imposed sanctions on Russia for the events in that part of the world. Right or wrong, these sanctions are certainly hurting Russia.

Both Russia and China are extensively rearming and reconfiguring their armed forces. The Russian army, navy and air force seem to be rebuilding at a vastly increased rate. China is doing something similar.

For the last decade, China has executed a cyber-attack against the United States of unprecedented scope. The only people who do not know it at this point are people who are really not paying attention (or don't want to know). The US Government has given every indication that it knows and that it wants it to stop. We know that something has been going on in part because our country has begun an immense investment in offensive and defensive cyberwar.

China's actions in the South China Sea are about as aggressive as a nation can be in times of peace. It is a setup for a hot war, and they are arming for it. They want it, they need it, they have to have it. And if we don't like it, we have to fight for it. The problem is not what we want, the problem is what all China's neighbors want and we are in a mutual defense alliance with those neighbors. Probability of war? High, about as high as war between India and Pakistan, for example.

Oh, did I forget to mention India and Pakistan?  Or India and China?  Or Vietnam and China? Or Pakistan's financing of terrorist groups? The war in Syria and the refugee crisis? Russia's blatant cyberwar against America? N. Korea and its nuclear weapons? Russia and Chechnya (what's left of it)? Or the Congo? Or Somalia? Or Sudan? Or Libya?

So are we headed to world war? Not necessarily. After all, even a hot regional war does not imply a world war.  But if we do end up in a major world war, there will be people who say that there was plenty of evidence that it was on the horizon.

This topic continues here.

Three Cold War Intelligence Stories

When the Cold War ended, or at least morphed into another form, many people claimed to expect a peace dividend. I never did, I thought that was the most egregious wishful thinking as clearly the world was leaving one set of perils and diving right into another. (To be fair, the people calling for a "peace dividend" knew this very well, they were merely arguing for more money for such things as education after years of being told there was no money for it, we had to spend the money on the Cold War). 

On the other hand, I did expect and we are slowly receiving an “intelligence voyeur dividend” as events that happened during the Cold War became explained, or partially explained, or revealed, or whatever. What is the value of such exposure? I think that there is value in telling the history of that time, or at least some of that history, and there is also value in having a better educated citizenry, one which will have some understanding of the way the world works and what has been happening around them in the recent historical past. 

We have here three essays, all published in The Guardian in the UK about three different people who were involved in intelligence matters in the Cold War and whose story, what is known about them at least, is worth reading if you care about this sort of stuff.

The first is an article on Ashraf Marwan who was killed in London in 2007. He died a very rich man. He may have been assassinated, he may have committed suicide. He was certainly a spy for Israel, or was he a double agent under the control of Egypt? Its a wonderful story that suggests an answer to one of the mysteries, but by no means all.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/15/who-killed-20th-centurys-greatest-spy-ashraf-marwan

The second is about a Czech / Soviet spy who penetrated the CIA and was the last prisoner traded to the Soviet Union in the cold war. 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jun/30/how-a-czech-super-spy-infiltrated-cia-karel-koecher

The final story is about a dyslexic member of the US Intelligence community (possibly the National Reconnaissance Office) who collected material and tried to sell it to interested parties and how they caught him.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/26/spy-couldnt-spell-how-biggest-heists-us-espionage-history-foiled

Spy vs Spy from Mad Magazine

Are Young People Too Impatient With the Political Process?

I have often heard it said that youth, callow youth, are too impatient with our political process. That they expect the great ship of state to change direction on a dime, not realizing the immense momentum that must be overcome and that many parties must be appeased in our collaborative political process before change can occur.

I have also heard it said that people with experience know how hard it is to change the system and are here for the long haul. They know its a marathon not a sprint, and that only by applying steady pressure over a long period of time and building coalitions can we achieve a more worthwhile polity.

Well, as some wit said, “all generalizations are wrong”. In my case, at least, the exact opposite is true. I used to be patient with the process until I realized how cynical and disingenuous the process was. How often the political process simply lied to steal the money, or to get their way.

And in the last 30 years I have seen our government fail to implement the voting rights laws, even go backwards on this critical issue.  I have seen public education continue to get low priority. I have seen the Dept of Justice fail to implement the law when it involved the murder of citizens for their political beliefs and even straightforward racism.  I have seen the worst criminal abuses of corporations and the rich go unpunished and worse, the hypocrisy of a congress that pretends to disapprove but does not actually enact the legislation that would permit criminal penalties to be applied (assuming the Dept of Justice would act against the rich which is not likely).

I have seen the lip service paid to the poor and disenfranchised which is not backed up by legislation and positive action.  I have seen the tax burden shifted to the middle class and the reality of the corporate tax code. I have seen the appalling "war on drugs" and the lives it has destroyed, every bit as destructive as the drug use it so hypocritically fails to prevent.  Leonard Peltier is still in jail and the FBI goes nuts whenever they think that a president might pardon him and therefore permit justice to exist in the land.

Henceforth, dear political leaders, the new rule is as follows. Fix it now, or we will assume that you are just lying or ineffective.

No more patience, no more slack.

Fix it now or go away.

HRC On the Issues Part 1

In a recent Facebook (FB) brouhaha, I started a shitstorm by (a) advocating that Donald Trump must not be allowed to have the nuclear codes but at the same time stating that (b) I find HRC to be at best a middle-of-the-road American politician whose stated policies, designed to be non-controversial, seem far too tame to me and insufficient for the situation that 30 years of "kicking the can down the road" has caused.. Because of the controversy this caused, I recommended two things.

The first was that we adjourn the discussion from FB which is more appropriate for slinging insults and take the discussion to my blog where I can actually have a paragraph without being offensive to someone's bad reading skills. And second was that I would examine HRCs positions based on what I believe, not what you believe, but what I believe and give her a score.

What would that achieve? Not much beyond a better statement about whether HRC holds positions that I support, or not. You are perfectly welcome to have your own beliefs, I mean, like, WTF. Duh.

In the following scores, a positive score means that it is a good thing, a negative score means that it is a bad thing, and a zero means that it is neither good nor bad overall. At worst we would hope that a candidate for political office that we supported would have a positive score, even if only a tiny positive score. A zero would be disappointing of course. But a negative score would be a very bad idea. Values range from -1 to 1. 

HRC's positions were found by searching for "Hillarys position on <x>" where "<x>" might be "health care reform" or what have you.  Then from the results, I picked those that looked official and tried to avoid political third parties whenever possible.

1. Health Care Reform

"Defend the Affordable Care Act and fix it."  No thanks, what we need is for the US Government to cover health care costs for everyone, and control the greed of the doctors, hospitals, and pharmaceutical companies with legislation. We need to criminalize price gouging in drug costs. Score 0. What she advocates is not bad, but neither is it likely to make a significant difference.

2. Education Loan Reform

Some of the reform ideas are pretty good. Of course, they should have been there to begin with if this country was serious about helping people get an education, which it isn't. I do not see anything here on increasing the total amount one can get for education and the issue (which may be a non-issue, it is just impossible to tell) of to what extent these loans can pay for living expenses while attending college/grad school. Without this ability, it is all just pretentious bullshit. The poor have to live you know. Score 1/2. What she advocates is good and will make a difference. Not enough of a difference IMHO, but a difference nevertheless.

3. Welfare Reform

HRC was a force in favor of the destruction of the welfare system under the Clinton administration. This reform was a complete disaster and you can read more about that on this blog, if you care. She has never disavowed her role in this egregious republican attack on the poor. I can expect no improvement in that area under Hillary. I have been reminded since I first wrote this that HRC and Bill Clinton were not exactly responsible for this reform, the Republicans were.  Bill did sign it however.  Ok, I am going from a -1 to a -.5.  Score -.5. 

4. Visa Reform

HRC supports increasing the H1B, H2B visas in order to help corporations destroy American employment. Score -1. 

5. TTP

HRC backed off of her support of the TTP after assessing the rage that egregious trade treaty provoked. But what does she really believe. I have no doubt that she supports the TTP in her heart and will see to it that the important provisions are put into law one way or another. To an extent this ties in to the HRC credibility problem. Do I believe her or not? In general, no I don't. Furthermore, we know her inclinations based on her initial support and role as Secretary of State in creating this abomination. Score -1/2 

6. Globalization

HRC supports it of course. Anything to destroy American jobs and impoverish as many Americans as possible. Score -1. 

Conclusion

Our subtotal comes to 0 + .5 - .5 -1 - .5 -1 = -2.5.

Oh a score of -2.5 is terrible. Well, we will just have to examine more issues and see if we can not make this more positive. What shall we examine? How about where HRC stands on criminalizing corporate crime, on eliminating statute of limitations on corporate crime, on civic asset forfeiture for the poor and middle class, on civic asset forfeiture for rich and corporate criminals, on having the DOJ enforce the law even as it applies to local police departments.

Whatever this means, and I do not think it means much, we have a clear responsibility to vote for the candidate most capable of defeating Donald Trump at the polls. This is not my favorite approach to a political process, but we do not seem to have any choice.

The Superiority of the Marvel Universe over the DC Universe Explained

Any all-encompassing theory that attempts to explain why the Marvel CInematic Universe is in fact a valid metaphor and framework for expressing the nuances of our civilization must also explain why the MCU appears to be so much better than the DC Extended Universe. I believe that there are three fundamental reasons why this is so and will expound on this today.

But first lets discuss where the differences do not lie. Films in both universes have to contend with world-threatening villains who plan to destroy all humanity, that goes without saying. Films in both universes also have to balance these terrifying cataclysms with threats that are closer to home, thus we see cruel intergalactic forces threatening school buses filled with innocent children or civilians in both movies, in which the occupants are saved in the nick of time. No cheap exploitation of the emotions of the audience here.

Nor does the difference lie in a sometimes bewildering network of plotlines of various meta-human, mutated and/or intergalactic good or bad guys or gals. This sort of thing naturally comes with the territory and both of these universes deal with the narrative implications in an adequate fashion.

And it is not in the quantity or quality of the visual effects per se that we see our major differences. Both of these universes have their share of chair gripping, physics defying, perfectly conceived and choreographed disasters that involve entire cities and thousands of innocents in a narrative of alien hatred or world dominating conspiracy.

Wherein lies the differences between the two cinematic universes?

1. The DC Universe is grim and the Marvel Universe is not.

In the latest Superman and Superman vs Batman films, I counted exactly two jokes in both films. Let me go over that again in case I was vague. There were only two jokes in the entire second film and none in the first, although it is possible that there was a 1/2 joke in the first film. Whereas in the Marvel films, there actually is some humor in the dialogue, and some of it is actually quite funny. For example, doing this from memory.

Dr. Banner: (referring to Loki) You can smell crazy on him.

Thor: Be careful how you speak, he is my brother.

Natasha: He killed 80 people in two days.

Thor: He is adopted.

2. The sheer mayhem of the visual effects in the Marvel Universe is without equal.

Sure DC has a huge quantity of stupid visual effects, like everyone does today. But I felt that these effects, although well designed, and sometimes even innovative (see for example the krypton / machine interface in the first Superman movie) they lacked the sheer exuberant madness of the visual effects of the Marvel films, or at least some of them. Consider these frames from one of the fight climaxes of the Age of Ultron monstrosity. I bet you can not even figure out how many good or bad characters are fighting, let alone who is decapitating whom. I think that it is this out of control mayhem combined with the humor mentioned above that lends a certain quality to the Marvel films.

3. We have seen the DC films before and we will see them again.

The greed obsessed studios behind the DC films have made it clear that sequels and reboots of previously examined properties will continue into the future over and over again. How many times will we see a reboot of Batman and Superman? They will be endless, they will be infinite. We will see Superman's father explain to Superman that he is not from Earth again. We will see the young Bruce Wayne witness his parents getting murdered and be horrified, again.

Whereas the Marvel films give the impression that they are actually going somewhere with their different phases and do not plan to revisit the same old material repeatedly.  At least not yet.

_____________________________________

Notes

1. In Batman v Superman: The Dawn of Justice (2016) there may be two jokes.  One, when Batman rescues "Martha", Superman's mom, he says "I'm a friend of your son".  She says: "I could tell by the cape.". Not too bad. Better still is when Batman, Superman and Wonder Woman are preparing to take on the horrible monster at the end, there is some references to this critter being from another world. Wonder Woman says, "I have killed creatures from other worlds". Batman looks at Superman and says, "Is she with you?" Superman says, "I thought she was with you." I may have this backwards, I am doing this from memory.  These are both pretty reasonable moments of humor but that is it, that is all there is.  Its not enough, IMHO, to alleviate the endless grimness. Yes, comic book superhero movies are important, God knows, but important does not have to mean unrelieved grimness. We are not talking about genocide here, you know.

Oh wait, in the first movie, Man of Steel (2013), we are talking about genocide.  Ok, maybe they should be grim.

The Standard Disclaimer

At various times when I write about topics far outside my recognized areas of expertise, such as the decline of the American Republic, I will make reference to this post, the idea being that it is a "standard disclaimer". Your mileage may differ.  CAVEAT EMPTOR.  That sort of thing.

One of the purposes of this blog is to express my opinion on a variety of topics, many of which are outside my formal areas of expertise. I recommend that you see these comments as the sincere, if sarcastic, statements either of belief, or disbelief, or anger, or dismay, and consider it warmup for a standup comedy routine that will probably never exist. Standup comedy, it would seem, is one profession where a layperson can express their rage about events in the world far beyond their ability to control or influence and far outside their recognized area of formal expertise.

Readers may notice that I fail to adhere to the rules of Standard Marketing and Self-Promotion in early twenty-first century America. I am somewhat self-deprecating on occasion. What I say about myself, my self-deprecating sense of humor, is certain to be used against me by some friends and acquaintances. It is a nasty world we live in.

I am a college educated (BS and some graduate work) American from the South, a third-generation agnostic Reform Jewish Democrat from Virginia, who has a (some will think) inflated opinion of himself. I have some credibility in the areas of visualization, synthetic imagery, computer animation both real time and otherwise, digital production, photography (computational or analog), simulation, visual effects, the history of computing and the Internet, and certain aspects about the history and circumstances of the Southern United States. I worked at the RAND Corporation when I was too young to know any better. I started using computers when I was very young long before that was common. I also come from that period when people did not have formal training in their field because very often the field was still being invented.

I had something to do with the invention of computer animation and its applications in the motion picture industry.  I have a technical achievement award from the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences. There will be some primary source material scattered in these pages for those who are interested in the history of computer animation and the history of Los Angeles in the 1970s and 1980s.

This is my standard disclaimer, or one of them. I hope you find whatever I write here to be entertaining, humorous, whatever.

Thank you.

Is the US Government Stupid, Corrupt or Incompetent?

draft

When I review my own thinking about Globalization, using that term very loosely, and the various issues that it raises, I keep coming back to the same question.

It goes something like this. There is no doubt to anyone who has studied economics that many of the negative issues of Globalization, as discussed in other posts on this blog, were predictable in broad outline. And there is no doubt to anyone who examines the evidence that our government enabled Globalization but did not put in place any of the sorts of programs that would help Americans who were likely to be impoverished by these policies find a new way to make a living. Nor was there any attempt by our government to address the increasing income inequality that would be the natural result of their policies. Furthermore, the record is clear that while many economists went public with the likely implications of these policies, they were apparently ignored, but even more important, our leaders did not discuss these implications with the American people. We also have to contend with the evidence that Washington is (maybe was) completely unaware of the vast anger and distress that these policies caused until it was shoved in their face, and even then I think they were blindsided and do not really acknowledge the issues even today. (See for example the incredibly stupid and egregious defense of the deceptive undemployment index in the New Yorker, reference to be provided eventually).

So I propose to you that this leads us to ask the following questions.

Was our government completely stupid, incompetent, and unaware of the implications of their policies? Or were they deliberately following a policy that was going to destroy the lives of millions of Americans to increase the profits of the rich? A third possibility might be that they were aware of the implications, but simply failed to take the corrective actions that would be necessary to attempt to ameliorate the distress caused.

The reason I keep coming back to this question is as follows. If they were merely stupid, then they are not competent to be running our government, and we should have no hope for the future. If they were cavalier about the well-being of so many Americans, then we should not expect that to change and should have no hope for the future.

Either way, the conclusion is that our government is fucked, is dangerous to the people, and that there is no hope for the future.

None of this will make the least bit of sense to you unless you understand how well understood the issues and controversies of “free trade” aka “globalization” are. None of this is new. It goes back to the 19^th century and the dawn of modern economics as we know it.

Hillary Clinton and the Welfare Reform Disaster

My little personal review of the systems of support for the poor in America (really in California) has been unexpectedly interesting.

It turns out that if you are poor, you can be quite sure that the US and California State governments will not help you have shelter or keep the power on. It will help you eat and get medical care, as long as you dont mind being homeless and completely impoverished.

Furthermore, it may be that there was never really any support except for women with children, anyway. I am not sure about that, but whatever there may have been, was destroyed by the Republicans with the help of none other than Pres. Bill Clinton with the so called Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act, which you can read about at the link below.

One of the worst aspects of this so-called "reform" is that welfare is now run by the states, which allows the Republicans to further demean and attack the poor.  In many states, drug tests are required and only counseling is provided, when what is needed is money, pure and simple. What arrogant swine the politicians of America are.

And how little respect I have for the Democratic party for their role in this abomination. When I refer to the Democrats as being "compromised", their participation in this sort of thing is what I am referring to.

What this means is that if you are poor in America, you are fucked. Thats the way people seem to want it, but it is not the way I want it. The government has gone out of its way to destroy employment in this country, and to see that their rich friends do well. They can damn well provide a basic subsistance amount without limitation to those of us who did not happen to benefit from their corrupt and egregious economic policies.

Oh yes, not only did Hillary round up votes for this offensive bill in Congress, but she also allegedly encouraged her husband to vote for it. And she has never disavowed her support for this so-called "reform".

Remind me again why the presidency of  Hillary Clinton is going to be heaven on earth?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_Responsibility_and_Work_Opportunity_Act

The Insanity of Software in 2016

draft

Whether or not I was having a fabulous career today, I would still have to work hard, like everyone else, to keep up to date and learn new skills.

Since it is a part of my self-image to be very knowledgable about the nuts and bolts of doing things with computers, then that certainly means being up to date on how we implement things on the Internet, and that means learning how to write Javascript for various browsers (and in some language, possibly Javascript, for the server side).

Some of this technology is good, some of it is lousy, some of it is very good, it is all over the map. But the real problem is that it is total chaos, total insanity, and there is no rhyme or reason.

I am going to let someone else make this argument for me, and you are directed to a wonderful little article called How it Feels to Learn Javascript in 2016.