Someday if all the forests die
rain drops may dream of you and I
echo no one there
crossing in the air
rushed anywhere
darkened sky
Rivers run empty, no one cares
mass ellipses flow with pattern pairs
digital waves rise
of uncertain size
to the prize
lifetimes share
Wicked snares trap octopi caught
toss them new lap bubbly snack pot
do more stir things too
remarkable stew
sloppy goo
wealthy sought.
Empty spaces may crumble gone
when structured lives mumble on
time slows down too fast
all is one at last
somewhere past
pro fates con
From a real human point of view
there isn’t anything they can do
a trite horseshoe toss
just chose who is boss
lost time costs
death is new
Were those eastern lands really stolt
Solomon cut with lightning bolts
iced cream wealth zone
expends news to own
power loan
clanging tolt.
The Good Lord transcends all time
evolving like a network vine
dimensions and fields come together
lighter than space, like a feather
fields are weather
solids fine
Simply cancel math subtraction
positive with new invention
unknown spots of each shape place
uncertainty fills most field space
motions base
dilation
Synthetic visions are of thee
what will become and ever be
evil clings to organic hooks
to cancel hope if body took
the ground shook
spirit sees.
U.S. policy makers have consistently underestimated the consequences of wresting away 100% of Russia’s ancestral homeland in the Ukraine and reallocating it to others than Russians. In 1994 Russian power was at a low point and its throat exposed to top dogs of the west. The last great try at colonization by the west developed in the Clinton-British axis of annexation. Anyone that had read a Russian history book would have realized that a Russian wish to retake their homeland would emerge not too far in the future after Boris Yeltsin relinquished Ukraine near the end of his life. The time apparently has arrived.
International law goes just so far; it settles disputes between agreeable powers. U.S. Presidents have steadfastly refused to be bound by international law concerning foreign charges they have committed war crimes etc. They are unwilling to sit in the dock at the Hague for judgment and confer immunity from prosecution upon themselves necessarily. As U.S. Presidents they have taken the position that they are above the law, or obey a higher law (cynics might say that is Wall Street mutual funds and sovereign growth funds). Absolute monarchs and others with absolute power claim that sovereign right; it goes to show the problems with international law among disagreeable powers. Real politic isn’t about lawyer claims with paper; instead it acknowledges actual historical and contemporary realities and doesn’t try to turn back the tide because Democrats get a legal injunction banning it from returning. Getting Russia to agree to a good aboriginal land claim settlement like Nixon did with Alaska natives to get the trans-Alaska pipeline built would be an expeditious way to move on with post Cold War rapprochement and economic integration with Europe, America and Russia instead of building a half century of conflict. To fail to recognize Russian aboriginal claims on Ukraine is like failing to recognize French rights to Paris, British rights to London, Italian rights to Rome etc. Alienating and severing those claims may have seemed practical to President Clinton and other British educated lawyer-politicians in 1994 as they sought quick profit severing Ukraine and treating that Rus homeland as if it had been an occupied Eastern European nation that deserved independence as might Poland or the Baltic states. Reasonable foresight would have partitioned Ukraine in such a way that Russia wasn’t skunked. As it is Democrats can finally investigate possible Russian collusion with President Ronald Reagan to end the Cold War.
Brits and Spaniards were pretty good at trampling aboriginal rights in the age of exploration. The U.S. rectified that history to a limited extent in an era before people generally made those concessions. The United States may pursue Clinton-British Russian aboriginal land claims to extinction in Ukraine further leading to renewed Cold War and a permanent state of hostility. Russian national identity includes at least part of Ukraine if not all.
Tribalism is a forerunner of nationalism, yet when nationalism is depreciated in favor of globalism it is tribalism that tends to return via identity politics. Democrats have dumped so much racial/tribalism politics that the word civil rights itself tends to be regarded as race rights aka tribal rights. Nationalism would actually be a step forward from that.
Israel is fundamental a race reservation in the global community with a democracy. Their are compelling reasons why Israel needs a reservation to avoid extinction or genocide as perhaps their may be concerning American Indian reservation. The trouble with reservations is that some advantaged, large tribes within nations don’t like that and seek to eliminated them. If all people are equal before the law in some nations that can mean operative genocide, hence reservations still exist in an age of nations and sometimes a planetary civilization. Russia’s eastern Slavs are a large racial group, and the largely non-Slavic western tribes have long sought to annex the ancestral homeland of the Rus with various degrees of luck. It should have been easy to make a land settlement agreement through negotiation if inertia didn’t drive Democrat party government policy to solely help itself, exert its one-party rule domestic practice abroad and ignore objective justice for-itself.
U.S. leadership recently has made much of a ‘rule-based system’ that has existed since 1945 to support its worldview. In the administration’s opinion, Russia would be said to be violating that system if it actually invades Ukraine. In 1945 Europe was a shambles, and was divided between nations occupied by Communist allies and Western allies. Without the Soviet Union it is doubtful that the Nazis could have been defeated without liberal use of nuclear weapons by the weapons. For the west to achieve victory the Soviet had to defeat the million Nazis attacking eastward into Russia. German troops and aircraft occupied with attacking the east and Leningrad were not available to defend in the west against allied invasions through Italy and France. Without the Soviets the conflict would have taken more years to complete and Germany might have developed jet aircraft and the atomic bomb in the while. To wrest Ukraine away from Russia; the principal Soviet component, was to terminate the system that had existed since 1945 based on rules and regard for national integrity.
The buzz phrase ‘rule based system’ deserves a comment. Logically any form of government has rules and a rule based system. There is no particular merit in having rules in-themselves; they need be good rules to have merit, and are valid so long as they are relevant, functional, practical and just. For example, Genghis Khan had rules; they just weren’t good for Russian interests and Russians didn’t acquiesce in them willingly-dissenting for quite a number of years.
British lawyer-leaders including President Clinton may have regarded Ukraine as comparable to a Poland that should be independently after the end of Soviet post-war occupation of areas liberated from the Nazis, and that was a fundamental error. U.S. lawyer-Presidents of the modern era may view international affairs from the perspective of the adversarial system of justice wherein a lawyer advocated from each side make arguments against the other. If a President is a lawyer he should have a magisterial justice system viewpoint concerning international affairs as an impartial judge considering actual historical facts objectively to decide the merits and advantages of a case between two plaintiffs that are concurrently defendants. It is ironic that President Clinton, educated in Britain that has a magisterial system, took a one-sided point of view and failed to consider the historical facts well enough to establish a long-term balance with fair apportionment of Ukrainian resources. It is good to benefit short term U.S. interests yet not at the expense of long-term public and historical justice. A President should have the wisdom of Solomon in dividing up failing empires if he wants to make international rules himself. If one is acting as an international magistrate one need separate from personal proprietary national interests, for if one does not, one may act as a king, fuhrer etc. with implicit bias.
Washington D.C. may not want to recognize it, but the Soviets were America’s primary strength ally in winning the Second World War. Russia- the Soviets- defeated the Germans on the Eastern side and rolled up their occupied European states right up to Berlin. Stalin wasn’t a nice guy, yet he was brutally tough and able to fight the Nazis more with blood than treasure. The other allies of the United States were important in the war, and Brits too delivered or escorted ships reaching Russia around Scandinavia to deliver supplies, yet it was the 20 million casualties the Russians suffered in their resistance that broke the back of the German war machine as much as the landing at Normandy and campaign through Italy.
Britain was an important instrument for the American victory in the west providing intelligence, soldiers and material. Britain too had supplied the Soviets with tanks and other military equipment before the United State, yet when the U.S. entered the war Britain had retreated from Europe with the military escape across the channel home from Dunkirk. When Hitler launched Operation Typhoon against Russia he gave up maybe a million men (approx) to protracted, losing war and trashed vital and relatively safe East European regions for manufacturing weapons potentially including an atomic bomb factory.
The European states that became part of the rule based system after 1945 were either attacked by Germany, occupied by Germany, or at war with Germany or other axis powers. In short, the American and Soviet-Russian victory rule based system was achieved through war rather than diplomacy. When President Clinton and his British counterpart stole Ukraine they effectively divided the ‘rule-based system that had existed since 1945’ in twain and made a new system entirely ruled by western former allied and former axis powers against our former ally – Russia. The western alliance is primarily ruled by the primary western nuclear bomb power; the United States. The Democrat party believes it can define domestic and international rules itself to benefit Wall Street’s short term interests and Russia must submit. If the United States invades a country or supports foreign civil wars Democrats believe that is consistent with their inherent right to rule as it were, by decree to benefit plutocrats. Democrats haven’t advanced a single environmental bill through congress since the 2020 election and apparently have no plan to before the expiration of the present Congressional term, though they campaigned on the issue, in to benefit Wall Street short-term profits apparently.
I thought it might be useful to mention an observed human political characteristic of the age of social media that is rather common; that of manufacturing worst-case scenarios for any potential new economic infrastructure without finding anything positive. One cites what facts from abroad one can and conflates them in elegant straw man arguments in order to have a case for disaster.
One can use the paradigm of a hospital operating room for an example perhaps. One finds that in some African hospital people became infected with a blood born pathogen, maybe Ebola, and use that example as a reason why all hospitals should be banned (because they can be a source of blood born pathogen contamination and disease transmission. Worst-case political engineers would exclusively cite the inadequately examined African circumstance as the only meaningful element in a political situation to build a new hospital.
Another example is the controversial paradigm of salmon fish farming. Opponents cite every pre-existing negative element concerning fish farming as the only factors involved. They worst-case the entire fish farming paradigm and find no positive elements, nor do they look for any. Positive engineering seeks out solutions for technical challenges regarded negative.
Norway has a a lot of fish farms that produce something like a five-hundred million fish for market at any given time, while natural fish catches account for just five-hundred thousand. Worst-case engineers would cite the relationship as a proof that fish farms harm natural fish runs, without proof that any relationship exists. In theory farm fish and natural salmon runs are entirely separable and have no effect upon the other. Natural runs decline predominantly because of two causes; over-fishing and habitat destruction. It is possible for some poorly engineered fish farms to adversely impact natural habitats. That too is a result of bad government management. Bad government management can be caused by lack of effort by managers to finding positive remedies to technical challenges.
Norway’s situation of poor natural runs could be caused by long-term human encroachment on natural run water columns in rivers and streams inn addition to over-fishing with fish farming being more of a restoration of salmon to Norway than a cause of the decline and fall of natural salmon runs. Fish farm technology can be improved and even brought ashore, waste may be reprocessed and not added to the sea, fish may be fed with land-made fish food and in short very low impact on the sea can be effected. It is also possible to restore some natural runs, yet vast structural displacement or extirpation of natural water drainage system ability to support salmon reproduction may be nearly irreparable.
In the modern era worst-case engineering of political arguments often attack ecological economic transitions to more effective forms of infrastructure to adapt human economic activities to the natural environment with ecospheric sustainability. Worst-case political engineering is also used to block technological upgrades to existing infrastructure. Of course it is possible to advance existing infrastructure or ecological economics with such neglect of external factors that social elements do suffer harm. In other words worst-case engineering may occur through neglect, or en passant in the political game of finding positive upgrades to human economic and social culture.
Fishing for king salmon in S.E. Alaska isn’t good. Most of the big fish are gone and with the Eleatic reasoning of humans fights over dwindling fish supply become intensified yet petty. Historically though, native Tlingit people didn’t need commercial fishing fleets at all to exploit the fishery resource as they developed a region-spanning network of fish traps to catch all of the fish they wanted without extirpating the resource through intense competition and overuse. An integrated fish trap network spanning S.E. Alaska could replace the entire commercial fishing fleet on interior waters and create better sports and subsistence fishing too while bringing up to the present efficient fishing management of the pre-Columbian era.
Before going too far in this post, I should mention that when I wrote a brief piece on the members-only Wrangell page at Facebook inquiring if fish farming was a good way to create new jobs in the area, among a few initial good relies I received several abusive ones including death or dismemberment threats, that I was able to dampen down as the author creating the thread. The topic is difficult to bring up in these small communities where population is in decline some people cohere with inertially or historical inertial micro-economics without circumspection concerning macro-economic facts regarding world supply and demand. There is a paucity of philosophical thought or conjecture in the public sector concerning what better ways might exist to do things, though it should be self-evident. Language is something of a luxury beyond necessary use. Kill the fish-eating ducks (to get more fish-someone once said that to me).
I don’t know if it was the native sector or the white people and others sector that was providing the threats- maybe both. One native fellow with a white name mentioned interference with native culture as a problem. Many Tlingit are of mixed race and may identify with both cultures, and realistically Tlingits and other Alaska natives are mostly already saturated by and integrated with the national culture sometimes; traveling abroad to work.
Some locals apparently believe that the region will not be pressurized more by global warming and demographic increase challenges and change can be frozen, driven out or rolled back. I was told by one fellow that the Wrangell Institute still bothered him years ago and I didn’t know why as I got here years after the place closed. Recently the news that Canadian sites where native youth were buried in mass graves at boarding schools prompted an inquiry that is ongoing at the Wrangell site, closed since the 70s I believe. The Wrangell Institute inquiry is ongoing to determine if any bodies were buried there at what was an educational institute run by the US Government for native Alaskan youth. While forensic archaeology of such matters is necessary, present day economics and changes cannot be sustained upon archaeology and require investments too. To get out front ahead of changes decided by global powers it might be a good idea to develop an economy that could adapt and employ Tlingits and other Alaskans the remainder of the 21st century.
Fish traps were banned in Alaska for salmon fishing during the time of U.S. ownership of the territory and native Tlingit infrastructure had long fallen into disuse and wasted away probably during the period of Russian colonization when ships and boats with canon dominated the waters of S.E. Alaska. American fish traps were not regulated well if at all in the early 20th century and caught so many fish that the resource crashed, twice, and so fish traps were banned.
A modern system of fish traps to replace commercial boats could allow comprehensive and exact management of actual numbers of fish taken in the region and let adequate numbers of fish swim on upstream. To spawn. Regulation of fisheries and capitalism can be good, poorly regulated, bad. Sports and subsistence fishermen too would have a chance to take a good number of fish. In some locales the opportunity to catch a 50 lb king the next 30 years is non-existent. You may wonder why salmon fishery management shouldn’t be so simple?
https://www.newsecuritybeat.org/2017/02/ocean-fish-stocks-on-verge-collapse-irin-report/
https://www.fao.org/state-of-fisheries-aquaculture
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/07/fish-stocks-are-used-up-fisheries-subsidies-must-stop/
https://globalsalmoninitiative.org/en/our-work/the-future-of-aquaculture/
https://wholeoceans.com/ land based aquaculture
Politicians and pressure from commercial fishermen prefers a sloppy, inexact, exclusive way of dominating Alaska salmon fishing. Power politically continues to support inefficient . Volatile, unstable stocks fishery management. Salmon fishing with such an exclusive group controlling it creates a tiny minority political foundation probably unable to adequately defend salmon spawning environments against antipathetic development upstream from polluting mines, from shoreline housing development and pollution from various sources such as flush toilets and sewage waste effluence releasing drugs and other chemicals into the water. Occasionally politicians that support gross logging are elected to bring insults to the Tongass forest that is the region where fish return.
Because salmon swim in the open ocean before returning to specific rivers to spawn at various intervals a vast numbers of fish are lost to international fleets taking fish in extra-territorial waters. With poor fishery management and inefficient use of resources because of the unwillingness to use Tlingit fish trap network infrastructure paradigmata, another way need be found to increase the annual stock of fish in S.E. to meet world demand for salmon; good fishing for sports and subsistence sectors, jobs for more Americans and a stable, sustainable fish supply, and that could be new age fish farming. There are problesm with present fish farming methods that should and probably could be overcome with rational systems analysis corrections, research, applied new tech etc. before fish farming were to exist in Alaska. The state could set some very high, ideal goals for fish farming that if complied with would allow fish farm developers to go ahead.
Fish farming was banned in Alaska too. Worries about pollution from salmon excrement, contamination of local native fish stocks by genetically engineered or foreign fish, and pressure from the commercial fish special interest groups prevailed to make fish farming in the state illegal. Yet with new technology and regulations the state of Alaska could conditionally allow fish farming the meets criteria for non-pollution, non-genetic engineering and non-foreign species. Those might be rigorous criteria for the new industry to meet yet the financial incentive exists. Norway’s comparatively dirty fish farms send the salmon excrement into the sea in areas with good currents for dispersal. Even so they produce 400 million fish at any given time and if those fish were worth $5.00 apiece when grown that is a two billion dollar sustainable prize.
Regulating fishing to use non-polluting, healthy fish farms and fish traps that renewed the ancient Tlingit network of fish traps could create enough aquaculture to defrappe the ingression of environmentally unsound and ecosphere eradicating shore business that is typical of the contemporary global unsustainable economic practices. Alaska native capitalists could join with other investors to create thousands of jobs and double the number of salmon caught and marketed from S.E. Alaska.
Did Mark Twain write 'hate speech' and would his works be permitted at p.o.d. sites today (like Lulu and Kindle)??
Using the N word qualifies as hate speech today. Lulu has a new user list of rules that can get one banned without compliance. If one must be in agreement with a ministry of love's lexicon and not use proscribed words to publish, the intent of the word may be less of an issue than the presence of the word at all. If one hates injustice and writes about that- characters in a novel might not be permitted to use realistic speech, the ministry of love's guidelines may prevail and the book erased from inventory. I belileve this most recent limiting of free speech follows Spotify's posting of nerw rules because of the Neil Young- Rogaine thing.
Hi- I just signed in to the lulu page and signed a compliance with new criteria thing, yet I wonder how that will affect publishing at security for authors. Can one still use characters with realistic speech an opinions in writing fiction? Must authors screentheir own writing content and take out anything a Ministry of Love corporate guideline would regard as hate language? Need all characters be in compliance with loving Democrat party people and use their sort of lingo?
thanks,
Gary C Gibson
P.S. I have 41 original works here I believe it is, so am wary about capricious and viscious corproate delettions of content.
