DNews Energy and Atmospheric Carbonization Report
I'll feed myself and provide other necessary resources so that
I may continue to write.
A G Kaiser
The Conservatives in the Senate [all the Republicans and most of the Democrats] are trying to open parts of the Gulf Coast to oil exploration, at a time when thinking people say weíd better start utilizing non carbon based fuels. There are still a few glaciers outside the arctic regions that havenít completely melted yet. If the Republicans are aware of global warming they are on the side of global suicide because they block anything meaningful in order to bolster the profits of the oil companies and those of the deadly parasitic investors in general. They do look favorably on the eventual (after the last penny has been extracted from the last drop of oil) conversion of food to fuel [alcohol] to run their SUVs. That, nuclear energy and the conversion of coal or oil to hydrogen are the primary "alternatives" they support. They also falsely claim that natural gas is clean burning. Itís cleaner than coal or oil but it still burns carbon.
The generation of real alternative energy is accomplished by solar, wind or the burning of other than carbon based fuels. Alcohols, including ethanol, [C2H5OH] are carbon based. They still put carbon in the atmosphere when theyíre burned. Hydrogen is an other than carbon based fuel but, if its made from coal or oil, then we get the carbon byproducts anyway. Nukes are dirty in a whole new and potentially more dangerous way than carbon fuels. Only solar, water and wind power, all of which are derived from the sunlight that enters our Planetís atmosphere, are truly, alternative, sustainable and non polluting. Hydrogen made by electrolysis, from alternatively generated electricity, is the only clean burning renewable fuel of which I know. Since most batteries are made of hazardous materials, storage of electricity as hydrogen for use in genuinely clean burning fuel cells, is optimal. Donít let them lie to you. Even high pressure hydrogen, stored in a thick walled steel gas bottle, is safer than gasoline in a sheet metal or plastic automobile gas tank. And instead of gathering under your vehicle in the case of a rupture, the H2 quickly dissipates in the atmosphere.
Two kinds of people spout the neo- con line. One is a moron that actually believes it. The other thinks, "I got mine. Screw the world I took it from so I can get more!" The latter are so stupid they donít know theyíre destroying the economy that made them rich. The idiots say, "I got mine screw everyone else." They arenít fully conscious of the fact that they got theirs by screwing everybody else and that when everyone else is sufficiently screwed the source of the wealth of the phlebotomizers will disappear. A final fact: conservatives arenít merely those with a different opinion than decent people. Conservatives are conscienceless parasites that afflict the human race. They are insincere and lack good will towards anything but their own greed and selfishness. Therefore, honest discussion and compromise with a conservative is impossible.
DNews Empirical Analysis by Carlos Marques
On July 4, 1776 thirteen British Colonies in North America declared our independence from the common marketplace ruled by the English Aristocracy. The King, first among the peers, undoubtedly sold a great deal of goods to the captive consumers in the colonies. We were forbidden to do business with competitors or to manufacture or otherwise produce many of the things we needed or wanted. We were forced to pay a percentage on all of our transactions in the form of taxes that went to the Crown, instead of being used, as they should, to provide for the common needs and well being of the community. That tribute, of course, was over and above any usuries we had to pay in order to finance and operate our business. Since the King and/or the peers were also the central banker at the time, this was probably perceived by the more alert colonists as double dipping. In general, we took exception to the domination of the [free] market by non-productive parasites. We reacted violently. We attacked British troops stationed in the colonies. We interfered with Kingís and Peerís commerce. If terrorist had been a recognized identity at that time, we would undoubtedly have been labeled so by the King and the Peers.
Iíve said we a few times but we werenít all that unified in 1776. There were many of the landed aristocracy in America who remained loyal to the Crown. Having been made well off by the Kingís economy, they liked things as they were. They were the conservatives of the day. As we all know, the liberals prevailed and the United States of America, our constitutional republic, emerged from the conflict. It wasnít until it became time to write the fundamental constitution and reorder the economy under the new rule that the conservatives reasserted their dominance. They say the more things change the more they remain the same. But that doesnít allow for the period of grace after a revolution. In Americaís case, it took about a hundred years for the conservative plutocrats to regain almost complete control of the economy. With some minor and short lived reversals, they have gradually forced the rest of US to work for their further enrichment, while they paid US an ever smaller share of the profits. The past thirty years clearly demonstrate the continuation of the trend. Itís now been 230 years since the Declaration of Independence. As it had under the British Crown before them, our economy has devolved to the point where no one succeeds without paying tribute to or without the permission of the conservative American plutocrats who have undone our revolution. The useless rich parasites who rule US have even formed corporations called government contractors whose only function is to loot the treasury of our tax monies plus everything that can be borrowed in our name.
Today in America there is little resistance to the plutocrats who rule US both economically and politically. Most of US are too busy trying to survive from paycheck to paycheck to even notice our decline. As the Empire expands beyond our borders, it has left US behind to succumb to lower paying jobs and the inevitable reduction of living standard that the higher profits of a few rich investors dictate. Ironically, they call this system of servitude to corporate plutocracy a free market. George Orwell would have had much to say about the thought and language of the 21rst century. Our rulers abandon the people here who made them rich, in order, they say, to "spread freedom and democracy" abroad. While we remain docile, some of their overseas conquests do react violently to investorís rapacity and parasitization of their indigenous economy by the imposition of superstructures of usury that realize the subjugation. We donít see resistance to empire as a fight for freedom. Our media are so controlled by the rich investorís corporations that most of US donít even see The Empire. Thatís the most studiously ignored elephant that ever dominated a room. Resistance to economic domination is reported as anything but the desire to be free and independent. Is this what our founding fathers envisioned over 200 years ago?
Perhaps if we better understood the cultures and histories of the peoples whose conquests are being consolidated today and the strategies and tactics used, we would be better able to see what happened to US. The contrasts and similarities might highlight the parts of the procedure that we missed as our own freedom and independence were eroded by the Global Corporate Empire, while it was still a smaller domestic operation. The conflicts in the Middle East are a good place to start. The media commits many words and pictures to reporting on activities there. Somehow I doubt that much real information or understanding is conveyed by them.
About a hundred years ago the British began creating the various Arab nationalities, in order to have convenient leaders whom the invaders could more easily handle. Before that there were many autonomous tribes and clans with councils of elders that led each one. The various folk were loosely unified by Islam. To do business, like, for instance, the extraction of the regionís petroleum, itís much easier to create a single leader to buy off than to deal with an entire population piecemeal, as one must in the case of a real democracy. It often occurs that the fraudulent theft of land, goods or resources in the guise of bringing peace and/or freedom and democracy to a region is resisted by a population, in spite of the cooperation of the puppet leaders whoíve been installed. In such a case, itís much more profitable to use the media one owns to demonize resistance to empire than it is to answer peopleís objections or to treat them fairly and with economic justice. Itís always easier to fix the blame than it is to fix the problem. And in time, if the press is used to point up actions of the resistance as atrocious, while ignoring or covering up any acts of terrorism by the invading state, general populations everywhere can be deluded with regard to the righteousness and integrity of leaders, who conquer others for material gain. And that sentence does a good job of spanning the past 85 years or so of Western policy towards the Mid East and the U.S. enthrallment and stupidification of its own people with lies..
Almost in an aside I must say this. I know that Americans and assume people the world over become easily caught up in judging situations to identify the moral high ground and who stands there. Some say itís impossible for both sides to be right. I say it merely requires separate and complicated rationalizations. Whatís certain though, is that itís easy for both sides to be wrong. In the end its merely difficult for one person to see that both sides are right in their own eyes. But itís unthinkable for most that both sides, including their own, are nearly always wrong.
Donít be obtuse like a neo-con! To say that there is a basis and an ongoing provocation to terrorism, in the Middle East and elsewhere, is not to say that terrorism isnít evil. But it does indicate the need for a measure of evil unrelated to the standards propagated by Western media. Arundhati Roy, author of "An Ordinary Personís Guide to Empire" and many others, like Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn, have noted the pain and suffering caused around the world by investorís profits, through the imperial facilities of the World Bank and IMF etc. If we measure evil by the pain and suffering it causes, then the terrorists and tyrants since the beginning of time come in a distant second (or further back) to the reign of the capitalists, the royal aristocrats and patrons of the past 2000 years. As we came up to the present in the Middle East, many other things went down elsewhere.
By the way, does anyone know what happened to the union power that brought so much progress in the way of increased living standards to the American people between the late 1930's and about 1970? Pretend that outsourcing, stage two of general impoverishment in the service of investorís profit that followed "Right to Work Laws," did no harm. With all the conservative propaganda about a booming economy, itís hard to believe that, for the vast majority, two incomes are required to have 75% of the buying power of one in 1970.
The conservatives complain that much domestic disorder is due to a lack of family values. They donít note that most of US serve the convenience of corporations and investorís profits. In that service, extended families have been scattered and both parents, if they are still together, are forced to work to feed the kids. If theyíre not together both households are more prone to poverty or the pressure to avoid it by forming another bad relationship to secure more income. The neo-cons also ignore the 45 million Americans who canít afford health care. The number of jobless and underpaid working poor is even greater than that. And unemployment is only 4.6 percent. Didnít Ronald Reagan do magic with statistics, when he changed the way we count the unemployed, to only include those whose unemployment insurance hadnít run out yet?
An American Bar Associations panel, with representatives of left and right, has agreed that the signing statements of George W. Bush that declare his intention to ignore the law and the courts in enforcement and constitutional interpretation are a threat to the separation of powers outlined in the constitution. There was also agreement that this can pose a serious threat to democracy and freedom in America.. Verify for yourself what Iíve just said here. Then compare and contrast Bushís signing statements with the Enabling Act decreed by Adolf Hitler.
Law to remedy the need of the people and the Reich
The Reichstag has enacted the following law, which has the agreement of the Reichsrat and meets the requirements for a constitutional amendment, which is hereby announced:
In addition to the procedure prescribed by the constitution [i.e. decision by the Reichstag], laws of the Reich may also be enacted by the government of the Reich. This includes laws as referred to by Articles 85 sentence 2 and Article 87 of the constitution.
Laws enacted by the government of the Reich may deviate from the constitution as long as they do not affect the institutions of the Reichstag and the Reichsrat. The rights of the President remain undisturbed.
Laws enacted by the government of the 'Reich' shall be issued by the Chancellor and announced in the Reich Law Gazette. They shall take effect on the day following the announcement, unless they prescribe a different date. Articles 68 to 77 of the constitution do not apply to laws enacted by the Reich government.
Reich treaties with foreign states which affect matters of Reich legislation shall not require the approval of the bodies concerned with legislation. The government of the Reich shall issue the regulations required for the execution of such treaties.
This law takes effect with the day of its proclamation. It loses force on April 1, 1937 or if the present Reich government is replaced by another.
What many people call thinking, mostly conservatives who perceive themselves as strong individuals, is really alignment of their thought and mind with a group mind. What the group thinks is usually what a subset of demagogic leaders have agreed the group should think. Conventions of thought are arrived at by maximizing the profit of the rulers. The fact that rulers lead for their own benefit rather than the well being of the community is evidence of abomination of Human Nature through corruption of social instinct. While such abomination is not quite universal in the Human Race, weíre definitely headed in the wrong direction.
DNews Editorial I have no respect for someone who gives up all their power. Thatís the definition of a slave. Many find it easier to let a master make the decisions for them. They have more time for television and other mindless entertainment. Itís like automatic debits. You donít have to bother to write the check or even remember it. Just make the deposit and youíre all taken care of. But you also lose power over when and if an account is paid. In case of a dispute with a creditor, they already have your money. They have no incentive to deal with your complaint or even correct their own mistakes. The master merely takes your money from you when they will. And you deserve no more respect than any willing slave.
I have even less respect for one who would allow a slave, by passing on the masters order, to dominate them in turn. This passing on the domination of the master inflicted upon the slave is how slavery is perpetuated. A free person who is nice to a slave by allowing them to pass on the masters dominion, even if that slave is a politician or CEO, becomes themselves a traitor to the human race. Giving respect to slaves and allowing them to assert a sense of dignity helps to perpetuate slavery. Dis every bourgeois at every opportunity.
I'll feed myself and provide other necessary resources so that I may continue to write.
A G Kaiser
archive of Delusanews issues