Arnaud De Borchgrave’s column of June 14 in Newsmax (http://www.newsmax.com/blogs/deBorchgrave/id-80?s=al&promo_code=A44C-1) is too encouraging of military intervention by far. He also notably offers that the U.S. military would be the one who plans and carries out the strike(s), rather than say, a coalition of NATO/UN or even Pan-Arabic forces(Saudi Arabia? Hint, hint). A military strike, however, must not only take out multiple nuclear facilities, it must neutralize Iran’s military counter-measures, and it’s retaliatory capabilities.
Iran has the capacity to strike in and across the Gulf of Hormuz, and throughout the Middle East at U.S. and friendly country military installations and energy structures, to say nothing of Israel proper, their declared target. Nuclear weapon capability magnifies the threat capability a million-fold.
U.S. action would be a Declaration of War; everybody knows it.
De Borchgrave’s analysis is compelling however, and the refusal of influential Arab states to mutually condemn Iran and assert strategic leadership defines part of the problem. On one hand Arab states respect strong leadership and want the respect of the world community at large. By only paying lip service, if that, to nuclear non-proliferation, even though it is in their best interest not to be placed in a position of being bullied by Iran, they will wind up being led to revolution and destruction.When, not if, Iran asserts it’s leadership through the threat potential of nuclear weapons, energy resources will then become serious weapons in the Islamic Fundamentalist threat to the West. Iran could insist that Saudi Arabia, under threat of a nuclear attack, cut off any dealing with the West. Similarly, Qatar, Yemen, the Emirates, in fact any energy supplier to Western or non-Muslim countries could be faced with no-win choices.
Were Iran facing a unified Pan-Arabic coalition of condemnation and sanctions, we might have a different story.
Factionalism and tribal traditions including religion, are still the underlying dynamic in the Middle East.
Continually painting the West and other religions as the feared outsider intent on destroying Islamic values and Muslim society, unifies Middle East overt and hidden opposition to any Western strategic efforts to contain Iran.We must understand that Iran’s religious leadership, Ayatollah Khomeni in particular, sees Iran as the seat of Pan-Arabic history and culture, with Islam as it’s unifying political”glue, ” leading to a potential new Islamic Caliphate, reminiscent of the glory-day eras that have occurred multiple times in thousands of years.
It would be a mistake to underestimate the control Khomeni exerts through his religious leadership, which in turn defines the difference between Iran and representative governments of the non-Muslim countries.With religion the unifying and driving force of the political structures of the Middle East, it is unlikely that we can find a solution to any problems, absent a real effort to help create and support a Pan-Arabic strong coalition, willing to see the modern world in secular terms, and not in either/or religious terms.
Religion sacrifices itself to logic, faith not being subject to reason. That dynamic alone prevents satisfying religiously-driven policy with rationality.It seems the only long term solution is to assist the Islamic-motivated and controlled governments in transitioning to secular governments, where reason and rationality have a least a chance to prevail.
So long as religious values drive governments and subvert secular values, there is little chance that existing conflicts within, and external to, the region can be managed to successful conclusions.
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Iran Becoming Middle East Leader by Default | Socyberty
Thursday, July 8, 2010
FDA Stands for Foolish Drug Authorization?
I have begun to wonder-actually for years now-why the FDA continues to approve drugs whose side effects are worse that the symptoms they are offered to relieve. Or worse, have fatal side effects potential for even treating allergies, or hives, or even minor discomforts.
The labeling required and the Disclaimers in advertising are designed to put the public on notice of side effects, but beg the question of why in the first place. I seem to remember a time when drugs were developed as cures.
When was the last time you saw a cure offered?Ninety-nine percent plus of FDA approved drugs offered today are for symptomatic relief, not cures.
And yet the number of life-threatening diseases and the millions affected by them continues to grow. The drug companies have sidelined and under-emphasized most of their research into cures, preferring instead to work on high-profit drug development for relief of symptoms.
Erectile Dysfunction?– a wonderful series of products, multiple drugs from multiple manufacturers, helping millions of men have satisfying sex. All came out within a year or so of each other, virtually same day in FDA approval terms.
Sleeplessness? Same story, multiple drugs. Ever wonder how they all show up at the same time?
I do.
Do the drug companies get together and sit around a table and say. “Let’s try to do something about insomnia. Or, how about Erectile Dysfunction? My wife wants more sex.”Cancer? Oops, sorry nothing yet. That is, we have chemotherapy, radiation. But the underlying cause, discovery and prevention is just not there, and it looks like forever will come first.
Arthritis? Many billions for symptomatic relief, no cure on horizon.
Alzheimer’s? Some symptom relief drugs being offered or in trials, no cure yet.
Drug companies emphasize that high drug prices are required to provide money for research and development of new drugs. If that were true, wouldn’t there be years when R&D costs would cause losses? Yet for most drug companies, their Return on Equity, Return On Investment, Gross Profits and Net Profits remain higher than any other industry, when viewed over a consistent period for the last twenty years.
Tax policies, using your tax dollars, help immensely.Why is most cancer research being conducted or sponsored by the National Cancer Institute, instead of at drug companies on their own dime? A cure would mean Billions, even Trillions in sales.
Here’s what really gets me. Causes are pretty well known for most diseases, some cancers.
Is it more profitable for drug companies to treat symptoms over a lifelong period as in Arthritis, or develop a cure for which the period of usage and profitability are much shorter?
Here’s something else I wonder. Would we have all these diseases without modern technology and the chemicals and accouterments that go with our standard of living?
If X-Rays can cause cancer and radiation from many things can cause cancer, why is there no discussion about the proliferation of radio waves and TV frequencies, which are just a shorter form of X-Ray waves?
How? Radiation causes cell mutations and free radicals to interact negatively with your cells. When it happens often enough, you get the big “C” Cancer. Sunlight is just another form of radiation, ergo Melanoma, skin cancer.
Since it’s unlikely that radio and TV stations and satellites will stop broadcasting, the need for a cure becomes all the more pressing.
What do you think?
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
Friday, July 2, 2010
Energy Independence at Home Now Possible at Reasonable Cost
What’s the “right” cost for home-based energy independence?
I don’t think anyone has a “number” that’s more than an educated guess, based on myriad assumptions. Mine are that a new home can be built energy-independent for an additional $40,000. An existing home can be retrofitted independent for $50-60,000. These estimates are based on quoted design packages and LEED U.S.government estimates.
As Solar prices continue to decline and technology improves, prices will decline further.
The new Fusion power technology already developed, but currently cost prohibitive for residential use, promised a “self-contained, discrete unit-based” tech that uses a wide variety of fuels for extended use and would allow a package installation just about anywhere for $25-30,000, able to oversupply household peak needs under the worst weather and usage conditions, at kWh costs competitive with grid-supplied power.
Commercial independence or green retrofits using solar will be expensive but decline in cost of operation over time; same with, and a better advantage for, the Fusion-based cells. $20-25.00 per sq foot would cover the cost of most commercial “green” energy independence. Independence refitter’s will also develop Independence leases that will provide the security of long-term maintenance and management Agreements to provide homeowners and commercial interests with “partner security” so that they feel comfortable with the investment, knowing there is reliable service when needed.
Somewhere along the line, people will have to evaluate the “tiering” of power costs, meaning paying more for highest peak-time value uses, like computing or air-conditioning, through peak-usage metering. This will actually happen for Internet usage in the near future, and for power over a generation.
Many, many vested interests have financial reasons for a Luddite and NIMBY mentality to resist change.
I might also use this opportunity to point out the need for starting to consider “end-to-end” recycling from ALL intake of goods and service to ALL output of goods, and water, and waste discharges.
Only when business and government are held to “zero-based” standards (everything you take in-air,water, resources- is used in your processes, and whatever is discharged is treated to Zero pollution contribution to the environment) can we claim to be responsible stewards of our environment.
No license should allow anything but zero-based operation in relation to pollution and contamination. There is no license that gives business, government, or institutions the right to negatively impact the environment. To do so is just a hidden tax on us, our children and grandchildren for generations.
Energy grid independence will happen gradually over time, starting mostly with new home builds in the $300,000 and up category, and retrofits of older more expensive, ecology-minded homes and owners.
Whether leased or included in the build price, alternative energy systems promise to achieve price competitiveness with grid-produced energy in the near future. Builder partnerships with local power grids that allow for recapturing energy values into the grid from independent owners, primarily through government-sponsored tax incentives, will help to create a momentum for this approach.
If the end goal is to reduce dependence on foreign sources of energy and develop U.S. based energy independence, even starting at the individual home level, alternative energy packages promise at least one way to “get off the grid.”