Re: NASA TRIES, FAILS TO WITHHOLD PLANETARY DEFENSE REPORT

On 25 May, 21:40, Eric Chomko <pne.cho...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

There is also no parallel with the lies told by the CIA. The East
India Company (I am using this as India was the brightest jewel of
British Imperialism) did not specifically lie and create a climate of
lack of credibility. It is this lack of credibility that I was really
arguing about. It was simply a long way away, and in the absense of
rapid communications you can get away with anything.

Right that is why the coup in Iran worked in 1953 but won't work in
2007.

If you are asking - Can Iran be bombed out of its nuclear program or
is war an option, the answer must be a firm NO. Iranians want more
democracy themselves but are suspicios of the West.


Again we have to look at how we are to behave in the modern and
perhaps post modern world. I would like to say one or two things about
the US constitution. The Founding Fathers did a fairly good job of
separating the powers of the legislature and executive. They never
anticipated the power of the press. The Declaration of Independence
was in 1776. In 1789 there was the French Revolution and the famous
three estates of Nobility, Clergy and Commoners. Someone a little bit
later observed that there was a fourth estate, more powerful than any
of the other 3 - The Press. We are now moving into a world where AI at
least in some form is going to select what we view and the information
we receive. Google and Yahoo have search engines which are constantly
being improved. It is Google/Yahoo that are potentially able to
destroy freedom of speech - not any military or intelligence
organization. So far they have acted very responsibly, but I am
beginning to think their position should be guaranteed by actual
constitutional amendments.

How is that done?

Well there are a number of possibilities. An elected internationally
based ethics committee might be one possibility. Google is not just
American, it is international. Certainly it would be a disaster of the
first magnitude if the military of indeed any branch of government got
hold of Google. Google is watching you, google as an international
player is more acceptable than as an American. There should however be
hard provisions. Google should have some priviledges under law, in
return for supervision by an ethics committee. This partial immunity
for Google would to some extent parallel the Vienna convention for
diplmats. Google would be regarded as a country under international
law, and some Google officials would have diplomatic immunity.
Diplomatic immunity BTW should cover such things as political offenses
and offenses under official secrets acts. It should not cover parking
or speeding.

The second BTW leads to 12,000+ deaths a year and is not really
relevant to the problems of the near future.

You lost me here. What leads to 12,000 deaths per year?

The deaths from homicides and accidents with privately owned firearms.

My point is that both George Bush and Tony Blair get into power via
elections and then end up serving the rich few that profit off of
things like war and the high price of oil. The People, for the most
part, are clueless and just go along with their lives while the Power
Elite takes what it wants. I guess as long as life is good enough
they'll continue to do so.

George Bush and Tony Blair are different individuals. You are right in
supposing that nobody (either in Britain or America) voted for Iraq.
This is why secret services need lies and dirty tricks, to peruade
democracy to to their bidding. George Bush was known to be an
evangelical fundamentalist Christian BEFORE he was elected. 6 days
creation and a pledge for teenagers is therefore a democratic choice,
but NOT Iraq. Iraq was conjured up in the back rooms of the CIA. How
far GWB new that the dossier was dodgy I don't know.

Blair is a little bit different. I am prepared to give him the benefit
of the doubt. He was genuinely taken in. The basic fact is we do not
have true democracy. There seems to be no democratic way of
controlling the secrat world that is appearing to rule us. The House
of Commons made it clear that even a large and heavily whipped Labor
majority would not sanction war without WMD.

To me the basic problem for democracy in how we control the uunelected
holders of secret information (or disinformation). How can we
independently verify claims?

What bugs me about America is that we need competition from another
country to get us off our dead asses to get things done. The Apollo
missions based upon the Space Race with the Russians is a case in
point. Now we have international cooperation and ISS is deemed a while
elephant and an albatross. Where is the can-do spirit in the face of
no competition? It seems silly that we need the competition in order
to do great things.

I don't think that is entirely true. Lets take a look at the most
vibrant sector of the economy - IT. Chips are now 0.15 micron (as I
think I said when I said that a Martian colony would need 0.15 micron
for a long time, in fact you would have a full VN capability when you
could make 0.15 micron on Mars). IT has been produced in response to a
market. AI is being developed in response to an opportunity not
because of any external competition.

This is of course touching on an important point - what is national
purpose? Should there be one? Is our purpose simply to live our lives
and make money? I must say I am rather suspicious of national purpose.
I must confess I have a tendency to view a human purpose as being in
terms of the advance of science and understanding. Oh yeh! What about
the creation of the world in 6 days and the beloved President. The
spreading of ignorance seems to be a national purpose.

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/google-translate/browse_frm/thread/fd588c0a88e2415?hl=en

Evangelical groups are targeting Latin America. The prospectus they
are giving is false. You can have peace and appeciate the beauty of
the world without joining an evangelical group. I could not resist my
quip or the single star I gave it.

You can see from this my intrinsic reasons for distrusting a "national
purpose". Who defines what this is?


- Ian Parker

.