Nuland Phone Gaff Gets No Comment

b2ap3_thumbnail_Nuland.jpg

US Diplomat Phone Remarks On YouTube Dis the EU

http://HamiltonFinanceServices.com

Victoria Nuland, a senior US diplomat, has nothing more to say about a leak, allegedly from Russian secret services, on her internal telephone conversation.  Her expletive dismissal of the European Union piqued anger from the German Chancellor Angela Merkel, but to Nuland the YouTube post of her private diplomatic discussion demonstrated good spy tradecraft.   (http://www.voanews.com/content/us-diplomat-no-comment-on-alleged-eu-statement/1846448.html)  She took an opportunity in today’s press conference to note that the US does not train or supply Ukrainian protestors, contrary to President Putin’s advisors’ allegations.  (http://www.usnews.com/news/newsgram/articles/2014/02/06/putin-adviser-threatens-russian-intervention-in-ukraine)

To me, Nuland’s flippant lack of awareness of how every telephone conversation, but especially those of US high ranking diplomats, has become fair game for all spy organizations, not to mention high tech vigilantes, since the Snowden disclosures about rampant US spying under the PRISM program orchestrated by the US National Security Agency across more than 100 other US spy agencies.

In other words, what goes around comes around.  What do you think?

Israel Demolitions Peak As Middle East Talks To Start

b2ap3_thumbnail_WestBankDemolitions.jpg

West Bank Demolition At 5-Year High

http://HamiltonfinanceServices.com

 

As US-backed peace negotiations start up, so do demolitions by Israeli military operations. In fact, the number of demolitions hit a 5-year high today with 663 houses in rubble over the past twelve months. Aid organizations such as Red Cross, Oxfam, and Christian Aid now complain about obstruction and confiscation of their aid at the same time. (http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/07/us-israel-palestinians-demolitions-idUSBREA160N620140207)

 

No one on the Israeli side will comment, leaving observers to wonder whether tensions in Egypt, Syria, and Iraq have emboldened Israel to revisit the 1979 Camp David accords. As demonstrated in the 1967 Six-Day War, preemptive operations by Israel tend to mark their strategies. Even when Israel rules out preemptive strikes, as in the 1973 October War begun on Yom Kippur by Arab forces, it remains a key to most Israel operations. Leading up to such strikes, fomenting civilian actions have historically suggested mounting tensions with potential military ramifications.

 

Here at HamiltonFinanceServices.com, we have reviewed the 1967 and 1973 war histories plus the activities culminating in the 1979 Camp David accords, to understand what current demolitions signify. Ever since the 1973 October War, a strong political faction in Israel has pressed the agenda of military and intelligence services’ vigilance. The 2009 election of former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to a second term illustrates the slight leadership control of the right over contemporary Israeli politics. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yom_Kippur_War) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_David_Accords)

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Netanyahu) (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/22/us-israel-election-idUSBRE90K0FP20130122)

More importantly, tensions across the Middle East may leave open military opportunities for hawkish factions, both within Israel and in the region. Recall that Egypt, Syria, and Iraq were key to Arab war efforts in both the 1967 route by Israel of those Arab forces and the 1973 stalemate imposed by Kissinger shuttle diplomacy. In particular the 1973 October War illustrates how Israel, ready to trounce Arab forces it had surrounded just before peace negotiations halted that war, learned to never again let down its guard. The preemptive nature of Israeli defense from June 5th though the 10th of 1967 remains predominant in war doctrine among Israeli commanders. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War)

 

Last months’ announcement of Israel’s Iron Beam (http://www.infowars.com/israel-plans-laser-interceptor-iron-beam-for-short-range-rockets/) leaves some observers wondering about how the Spring of 2014 might blossom on the Sinai and along the Gaza. What do you think?

 

 

 

Vatican Need Not Defend Against UN Committee Allegations

b2ap3_thumbnail_VaticanCity.jpg

Vatican Defense Should Be Unnecessary

 

Though not a Catholic, I sympathize with the Vatican in its contest of wills against the UN Human Rights Committee.  That committee represents no single nation but instead hires staff sympathetic to a political agenda and relies exclusively on the allegations of people claiming wrong-doing.  The wrong-doing underlying current disagreement between the Vatican and the UN focuses particularly on pedophilia by predator priests, a horrible crime if true.  Yet, Vatican law presumes innocence until guilt is firmly proven, as most other nations do.

 

The Church’s moral position has never faltered in its abhorrence of child victimization.  However, the Church also strongly opposes homosexuality, abortion, and contraception, none of which bother the UN committee members or staff to any significant degree.  Indeed, some committee staffers carry reputations as political advocates for those positions opposed by the Church.

 

More significant than the ideological lines clearly distinguishing the Church and the UN, the sovereignty of each varies markedly.  The Vatican has been recognized for centuries as a sovereign entity entitled to legislate, execute, and adjudicate its own ecclesiastical laws over its citizens, including its priests, with the same legal force and effect employed by nation-states such as the United States, China, or Russia when they guard their legal procedures, laws, and sovereignty.  In contrast, the UN is a voluntary amalgamation with no sovereign authority whatsoever.  So when a UN committee alleges concealment of crime, it speaks with no legal authority.  In contrast, under Church law silence is demanded.  Granted, much of the world favors transparency, but openness and candor have never been part of the Vatican culture or its laws.  Further, no amount of protest by UN committees will affect Vatican policies or doctrines, no matter how much committee members and staffers disagree with the Vatican.

 

No excuses can or should be made for pedophiles.  However, in a significant majority of cases raised by the UN committee, no adjudication by a legal body supports labeling the priests so accused as convicted pedophiles.  Perhaps the Church moves too slowly and too quietly to comfort actual victims of sexual assault by priests, yet the need for improvement in the Church’s legal procedures has been admitted and that improvement is underway, not because of UN clamoring but because the Vatican has heard reports of its members’ pain.  Nonetheless, the Church through its Vatican government has every right to its own legal authority.  It should not be expected to defend itself to a UN committee fundamentally opposed to Vatican principles.

 

That’s my view.  What do you think?

 

 

http://www.voanews.com/content/scathing-un-report-demands-vatican-act-against-sex-abuse/1844754.html

Nye-Ham Debate Over Religion and Science

b2ap3_thumbnail_Nye-Ham.jpg

Bill Nye Debates Ken Ham Over Telling the Truth

 

When news hit that Bill Nye, the popular US science commentator, would debate Ken Ham, a Christian minister from Kentucky who runs a museum about creationism, I rolled my eyes. It sounded like another publicity scam for the far right Christians. Who cares whether religionists’ assertions based on personal belief or scientists’ attempts at more objective observations form the basis of what a society decides are its laws and mores? The stadium hosting that debate sold out quickly. It also fulfilled thet publicity expectation; loads of sympathizers clicked onto Ham’s museum website. Maybe I should leave the tempest in its teapot, but the old debate, science v. religion, still troubles me in the context of contemporary news about wars around the globe.

 

On my blog I have commented about war already. http://hamiltonfinanceservices.com/?p=1503 The troubles in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Egypt, Thailand, South Sudan, Ukraine, Venezuela, and Mali highlight one over-arching theme: War, particularly about who is in charge, plagues this planet almost continually. That theme sounds like the second law of thermodynamics writ large in human history. You know the law, however you word it: Disorder increases. In terms of human history, war persists.

 

The Nye-Ham debate caused no war although the same cannot be said of similar debates between Sunnis and Shiites. Why don’t Nye and Ham resolve their differences with an agreement such as, “Some prefer to see with their imaginations without further testing and others prefer to see with their imaginations but only if confirmed by testing.” That impresses me as a resolution of the religion-science tension: Individuals choose to believe whatever comforts them more, simple fantasy or apparently verifiable fantasy.

 

That resolution solves nothing. People build societies based on their beliefs about reality and goodness. Without implicit agreement on how to form a worthy belief, society will shake itself into oblivion. Observe how the United States has fared since its realization that it has no shared soul, that is, no shared belief in God or secularism or materialism or … anything. I wonder when the US will descend into civil war. Will it happen soon after it falls into servitude due to indebtedness?

 

Nye and Ham won the approval of their established followers and from what can be gleaned from news coverage no one moved towards one view or the other as a result of the debate. Does that mean the wars, even if won or lost, will never change the beliefs of those who communicate through violence?

 

What do you think?

 

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/02/04/271648691/watch-the-creationism-vs-evolution-debate-bill-nye-and-ken-ham

 

http://news.yahoo.com/bill-nye-bible-doesn-39-t-tell-earth-093334127.html?vp=1

 

 

 

 

Arctic Melt Alarm Sounds

b2ap3_thumbnail_global-warm.jpg

Global warming means arctic melting.

 

In the State of Wisconsin, USA, where much of my extended family still lives, winter temperatures have sunk as they did 50 years ago when I grew up there. A stretch of 20 degrees Fahrenheit below zero for a few weeks in January seemed normal. We have seen fewer stretches like that in recent decades, that is, until this winter, 2013-2014.

 

Pipes froze in the oldest of my family’s Wisconsin properties a few weeks ago, causing a small crisis team to descend upon La Crosse for an emergency plumbing party. Talk of global warming filled the conversations more often than usual as we replaced galvanized with pex, and those conversations persist even now in my mind.

 

So news in the past week of Arctic warming caught my attention. A large crisis now shakes the far north as melting ice and snow push ice flows out faster than ever before. How does my home state, Wisconsin, freeze while just a thousand miles north the pole smothers in relative heat?

 

One article caught my searching attention today that explains how Arctic air structures resemble a layered cake. Unlike the jungles in tropical parts, the north and south poles retain their heat with layers of different temperature and density air, and some of the layers invert by putting hotter layers above colder ones. In contrast, tropical hot air launches miles high during frequent rain storms, dissipating heat into space.

 

No one else appears to piece together cold Midwestern winters, hot tropics, and warming poles, but here’s my take on it nonetheless. As a pole warms, layers of heavy air press cold air away from the pole and out towards the mid latitudes including Midwestern America, Europe, and Russia. Perhaps the planet’s spin or magnetism compresses its polar layers. Those layers retain heat that melts polar ice and sends warmer water to the ocean. The tropics, on the other hand, warm with the extra energy in the oceans as well as more direct sun exposure.

 

Human influence on weather from fossil fuel burning, cement making, and jungle deforestation has produced and will likely produce future ocean warming. However, since the poles will not send warmth away to outer space, they will heat up faster than the rest of the world. Rising shore lines might create larger crises that attract the world’s collective attention in the coming decade. But what about today? What about contemporary policies on human influences on global weather? Despite my scientific skepticism over lack of long term data to assess those human influences, the last 25 years of political clamor on the topic consistently and with increasing supporting data suggest changes to human activities on a large scale should be a priority topic of conversation among us all.

 

Why don’t all building codes require priority attention to solar, wind, and similar renewable tech for new construction, for example? Why don’t car makers sell existing battery tech to offer more electric vehicles for emission control? Why aren’t we all taking control of what we can control to improve the environment of our world? What do you think?

 

http://www.livescience.com/43045-arctic-warming-linked-stratified-air.html

http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/arctic-meteorology/climate_change.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

http://www.weather.com/news/science/environment/arctic-blast-linked-global-warming-20140106

http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/st321.pdf

 

 

 

 

Web Giants Disclose How Much They Must Bend To US Spy Court

b2ap3_thumbnail_BigBro.jpg

US Spy Orders Disclosed By Web Giants

 

Remember how Google sued to reveal its role in the US spy program called PRISM brought to light through Edward Snowden’s disclosures. That was in June 2013.

 

With pressure from Google and other web giants like Yahoo, Facebook, and Microsoft, the US relaxed rules about their disclosures, permitting reports at least six months past in increments of 1000 or more.

 

Today those web giants reported somewhat concrete data. It shows less support by the big web companies than many suspected. Here’s a summary of their reports in reply to orders from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court for content of customers.

 

Facebook 5000 to 5999 content orders answered

Google 9000 to 9999 content orders answered

Microsoft 15000 to 15999 content orders answered

Yahoo 30000 to 30999 content orders answered

 

Despite the financial capacity to litigate head to head with the US government, the web giants bent to the will of the US to answer thousands of requests. The number of requests implies how active the FISA court must be, although no reports clarify how many other records US agencies such as the NSA simply stole through wire taps, satellite signal capture, and microwave decryption.

 

Is this enough disclosure? No, not nearly enough, according to Senator Patrick Leahy, chair of the US Senate Judiciary Committee, a Democrat from the State of Vermont. Six members of Congress have demanded more disclosure by filing a brief with the US Supreme Court last July 2013.

 

Some patriotic souls undoubtedly support any action by the US government that might have even a remote chance of improving national security. Other equally patriotic souls grow increasingly concerned with erosion of US citizen privacy over the past ten years. It is time for a national conversation about how far our government should be permitted to go to erode our historic freedoms in order to build walls of security around us. More specifically, HamiltonFinanceServices.com (HFS) calls for much more action by the US congress, the web giants, and citizens of the US alarmed by government spying in the name of national security. HFS believes the majority should speak out on this issue. Do you agree? What do you think?

 

http://www.nationaljournal.com/technology/internet-giants-amid-grumbling-release-new-data-on-government-spying-20140203

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/03/us-internet-nsa-idUSBREA121H920140203

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/28/business/government-to-allow-technology-companies-to-disclose-more-data-on-surveillance-requests.html?_r=0

 

http://www.techradar.com/us/news/world-of-tech/google-challenges-fisa-court-s-gag-order-over-prism-1159977

 

http://amash.house.gov/press-release/bipartisan-coalition-urges-fisa-court-release-opinions

 

 

Marijuana Pros and Cons

b2ap3_thumbnail_MJ_20140203-112132_1.jpg

The 2014 Super Bowl, nicknamed after various references to marijuana (mj) because the two competing teams come from the states of Washington and Colorado where mj recreational use is legal, has raised to a higher level than ever the national debate on mj legalization.  For the US, a list of states where use is now legal illustrates how controversial the topic remains.

To begin what HamiltonFinanceServices (HFS) hopes can be a robust conversation, we offer our analysts’ first impressions on pros and cons of mj legalization.  Our HFS list distils 1.5 hours of discussion among the seven members of our staff.

The advantages of legalized mj include quality control and tax base expansion by governments, destigmatization of mj smoking, reduced costs in the justice system, potential health benefits, and improved economic opportunities.  The disadvantages include potential health risks, cascading effects of more intoxication (potentially increased number of auto crashes, etc.), potential to lead to other drug use or abuse, and an over-arching concern for moral issues associated with self intoxication.  This list merely begins a larger examination, and each point might involve many aspects.

What insights and arguments do you have to share on legalization of marijuana in your region?

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/01/29/from-dry-to-high-your-guide-to-state-pot-laws.html

http://swampland.time.com/2014/01/29/marijuana-legalization-holder-colorado-washington/

http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2014/01/27/22470647-poll-majority-of-americans-support-efforts-to-legalize-marijuana?lite

http://www.drugpolicy.org/marijuana-legalization-and-regulation

http://www.whitehouse.gov/ondcp/ondcp-fact-sheets/marijuana-legalization

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_cannabis

http://norml.org/

http://www.livescience.com/24554-medical-marijuana.html