When Tintin’s Captain Haddock Favorite Interjection “Bashi-Bazouk” Becomes News – 06/25/2014

“A bashi-bazouk or bashibazouk (Turkish başıbozuk, or delibaş, literally “damaged head”, meaning “free headed”, “leaderless”, “disorderly”) was an irregular soldier of the Ottoman army. They were particularly noted for their lack of discipline.”

“Although Turkish armies always contained bashi-bazouk adventurers as well as regular soldiers, the strain on the Ottoman feudal system caused mainly by the Empire’s wide expanse required heavier reliance on irregular soldiers. They were armed and maintained by the government, but did not receive pay and did not wear uniforms or distinctive badges. They were motivated to fight mostly by expectations of plunder.Though the majority of troops fought on foot, some troops (called akinci) rode on horseback. Because of their lack of discipline, they were incapable of undertaking major military operations, but were useful for other tasks such as reconnaissance and outpost duty. However, their uncertain temper occasionally made it necessary for the Turkish regular troops to disarm them by force.

“The bashi-bazouk were notorious for being brutal and undisciplined, thus giving the term its second, colloquial meaning of “undisciplined bandit” in many languages. A notable example of this use is in the comic series The Adventures of Tintin, where the word is often used as an expletive by Captain Haddock.
Their use was abandoned by the end of the 19th century. However, self-organized bashi-bazouk troops still appeared later.”
“The term “bashibozouk” has also been used for a mounted force, existing in peacetime in various provinces of the Ottoman empire, which performed the duties of gendarmerie.”



The Worldwide Eugenics Rebirth and the American Individual Destiny Control Hubris – 06/20/2014

We should know better, coming from a Depression Era country and FDR New Deal and having fought Eugenics in Nazi Europe……..

Some people will never be self-sufficient……

Should we eliminate them?????

Handicaps are mostly recognized as “physical”and/or “mental”……..

While unrecognized, handicaps can be “chromosomic” and often in “DNiAl” leading them, inexorably, to become “economical”……

We don’t see it yet, but we are very close to “economics eugenics” and “economics cleansing”……

Maybe we need to enforce the American Disabilities Act (ADA) and extend it to accept people who, like handicapped newborns, children, teenagers and elderlies, will be incapable to sustain themselves, for the rest of their lives…..

“The ADA is a wide-ranging civil rights law that prohibits, under certain circumstances, discrimination based on disability. It affords similar protections against discrimination to Americans with disabilities as the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which made discrimination based on racereligionsex, national origin, and other (i.e., age)characteristics illegal. Disability is defined by the ADA as “…a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits a major life activity.” ”

“Disability is the consequence of an impairment that may be physical, cognitive, mental, sensory, emotional, developmental, or some combination of these. A disability may be present from birth, or occur during a person’s lifetime.”

“Disabilities is an umbrella term, covering impairments, activity limitations, and participation restrictions. Animpairment is a problem in body function or structure; an activity limitation is a difficulty encountered by an individual in executing a task or action; while a participation restriction is a problem experienced by an individual in involvement in life situations. Thus, disability is a complex phenomenon, reflecting an interaction between features of a person’s body and features of the society in which he or she lives.”

“An individual may also qualify as disabled if they have had an impairment in the past or is seen as disabled based on a personal or group standard or norm. Such impairments may include physical, sensory, and cognitive or developmental disabilitiesMental disorders (also known as psychiatric or psychosocial disability) and various types of chronic disease may also qualify as disabilities.”

“Eugenics is the belief and practice of improving the genetic quality of the human population. It is a social philosophyadvocating the improvement of human genetic traits through the promotion of higher reproduction of people with desired traits (positive eugenics), and reduced reproduction of people with less-desired or undesired traits (negative eugenics).

“The methods of implementing eugenics varied by country; however, some of the early 20th century methods involved identifying and classifying individuals and their families, including the poor, mentally ill, blind, deaf, developmentally disabled, promiscuous womenhomosexuals, and racial groups (such as the Roma and Jews in Nazi Germany) as “degenerate” or “unfit”, the segregation or institutionalization of such individuals and groups, their sterilization, euthanasia, and their mass murder. The practice of euthanasia was carried out on hospital patients in the Aktion T4 centers such asHartheim Castle.
Eugenics became an academic discipline at many colleges and universities, and received funding from many sources. Three
International Eugenics Conferences presented a global venue for eugenists with meetings in 1912 in London, and in 1921 and 1932 in New York. Eugenic policies were first implemented in the early 1900s in the United States. Later, in the 1920s and 30s, the eugenic policy of sterilizing certain mental patients was implemented in other countries, including Belgium,  BrazilCanada]Japan, and Sweden. The scientific reputation of eugenics started to decline in the 1930s, a time when Ernst Rüdinused eugenics as a justification for the racial policies of Nazi Germany. Nevertheless, in Sweden the eugenics program continued until 1975.
In addition to being practiced in a number of countries, eugenics was internationally organized through the International Federation of Eugenic Organizations.  Its scientific aspects were carried on through research bodies such as the 
Kaiser Wilhelm Institute of Anthropology, Human Heredity, and Eugenics, the Cold Spring Harbour Carnegie Institution forExperimental Evolution,  and the Eugenics Record Office. Its political aspects involved advocating laws allowing the pursuit of eugenic objectives, such as sterilization laws.  Its moral aspects included rejection of the doctrine that all human beings are born equal, and redefining morality purely in terms of genetic fitness. Its racist elements included pursuit of a pure “Nordic race” or “Aryan” genetic pool and the eventual elimination of “less fit” races.
By the end of 
World War II, eugenics by means of coerced sexual sterilization had been largely abandoned, having become associated with Nazi Germany; their approach to genetics and eugenics was focused on Eugen Fischer‘s concept ofphenogenetics and the Nazi twin study methods of Fischer and Otmar Freiherr von Verschuer. Both the public and some of the scientific community have associated eugenics with Nazi abuses, such as enforced “racial hygiene“, human experimentation, and the extermination of “undesired” population groups. However, developments in geneticgenomic, andreproductive technologies at the end of the 20th century are raising for some persons numerous new questions regarding the ethical status of eugenics, effectively creating a resurgence of interest in the subject.
The practice of negative racial aspects of eugenics, after World War II, fell within the definition of the new international crime of genocide, set out in the 
Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.
Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union also proclaims “the prohibition of eugenic practices, in particular those aiming at selection of persons”.
The sequencing and mapping of the human genome and its medical implications has caused some, such as 
UC Berkeleysociologist Troy Duster, to claim that modern genetics is a back door to eugenics. This view is shared by White House Assistant Director for Forensic Sciences, Tania Simoncelli, who claimed in a 2003 publication by the Population and Development Program at Hampshire College, that advances in preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) are moving society to a “new era of eugenics”, and unlike the Nazi eugenics, modern eugenics is consumer driven and market based, “where children are increasingly regarded as made-to-order consumer products.” In a 2006 newspaper article, Richard Dawkins said that discussion was inhibited by the shadow of Nazi misuse, to the extent that some scientists would not admit that breeding humans for abilities was at all possible, but in his view this was not physically different from breeding domestic animals for traits such as speed or herding skill. He felt that enough time had elapsed to at least ask just what the ethical differences were between breeding for ability versus training athletes or forcing children to take music lessons, though he could think of persuasive reasons to draw the distinction. Some such as Nathaniel C. Comfort from Johns Hopkins University, claim that the change from state-led reproductive-genetic decision-making to individual choice has moderated the worst abuses of eugenics by transferring the decision-making from the state to the patient and their family. Dr. Comfort suggests that “[t]he eugenic impulse drives us to eliminate disease, live longer and healthier, with greater intelligence, and a better adjustment to the conditions of society; and the health benefits, the intellectual thrill and the profits of genetic biomedicine are too great for us to do otherwise.”  Others, such as bio-ethicist Stephen Wilkinson of Keele University and Honorary Research Fellow Eve Garrard at the University of Manchester, claim that some aspects of modern genetics can be classified as eugenics, but this classification does not inherently make modern genetics immoral. In a co-authored publication by Keele University, they stated that “[e]ugenics doesn’t seem always to be immoral, and so the fact that PGD, and other forms of selective reproduction, might sometimes technically be eugenic, isn’t sufficient to show that they’re wrong.” “

“Genocide is the systematic destruction of all or part of a racialethnicreligious or national group via the (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; or (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. Genocide entails also the Conspiracy to commit genocide; Direct and public incitement to commit genocide; Attempt to commit genocide; and Complicity in genocide. .What constitutes enough of a “part” to qualify as genocide has been subject to much debate by legal scholars. While a precise definition varies among genocide scholars, a legal definition is found in the 1948 United NationsConvention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG). Article 2 of this convention defines genocide as “any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a nationalethnicalracial orreligious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.”

“A survey released last week by the Pew Center for People and the Press finds that Americans are now significantly more likely than they were in the mid-90s to say that life is hard for the poor because government benefits do not go far enough to help people live a decent life.”

““Concerns about inequality, or poverty, are not associated with an increase in support for traditional forms of safety net like welfare,” McCall says. “But they do associate with increased support for spending in education, increased earnings for people at the bottom or the middle, and access to jobs. People look around and see that conditions are not a result of individuals, but of structural problems.””

““If you are born into a social economic group, you pretty much maintain that.” Myers says part of the problem comes from low-wage jobs that don’t pay enough to support workers.”


“Agitprop”, the Influential New Old Generation of “SoothSayers” – 06/19/2014

“The main theme is how the American administrations of the next ten years will need to create regional power balances, some of which have been disturbed. Friedman conceptualizes America’s successful management of world affairs not by directly enforcing countries, but by creating competing relationships, which offset one another, in the world’s different regions. For example, in the past, Iraq balanced Iran, and currently Japan balances China. Friedman asserts this is the decade where the US as a power must mature to manage its power and balance as an unintended empire and republic.”

“In the mid-21st century, around the year 2050, a Third World War will take place, between the United States, the “Polish Bloc,” Britain, India, and China on one side, and Turkey and Japan on the other. Germany and France will enter the war in its late stages on the side of Turkey and Japan. According to the book, the war will probably be started by a coordinated Turkish-Japanese sneak attack against the United States and its allies. In the book, Friedman hypothesizes the attack will place on November 24, 2050, at 5:00 p.m, duringThanksgiving Day.

“The Turkish-Japanese alliance’s initial strike will cripple the military capabilities of the United States and its allies. The Turkish-Japanese alliance will then attempt to enter negotiations, demanding the United States accept the Turkish-Japanese’s alliance’s status as a fellow Superpower. However, the United States will probably react viscerally and emotionally to the attack, and will not accept Turkish and Japanese hegemony over Eurasia. It will therefore decide to go to war. The Turkish-Japanese alliance will initially possess a military advantage after crippling the United States’ military during its first strike. However, as the war progresses, the balance of power will begin to shift as the United States rebuilds and increases its military capabilities, and pioneers the use of new military technologies. The war will ultimately end with a victory by the United States and its allies.”

“The primary weapons of the war will be long-range hypersonic aircraft and infantrymen with highly sophisticated, powered body-armorControl of space will be crucial over the course of the conflict, with space-based weapons systems and military bases on the Moon playing a significant role. The war will last about two or three years. According to Friedman, the war will be a limited war, very different in its conduct than a total war, such as World War II of the 20th century. Friedman asserts that this will be due to the fact that all major powers involved in the conflict will possess nuclear weaponry, and that use of Precision Guided Munitions will minimize collateral damage. Friedman estimates that the war will cost somewhere around 50,000 lives.”

“Following the war, the United States will enjoy a new post-war boom that will begin in the 2050s following the war and last throughout the 2060s. The economic boom will come as a result of increased defense expenditures that lead to the development of new technologies, which will foster dramatic economic growth and increase American influence worldwide. In addition, the economic problems imposed by mass retirement of the baby boomers will fade away as the last of the boomers die.”

“The United States will continue to be militarily and politically dominant over the world, and will also cement its hegemony over space. In particular, it will work to keep other powers from developing military capabilities in space. Meanwhile, Turkey will retain the bulk of its sphere of influence, although its de facto empire will become increasingly restive as a result of defeat, while Japan will lose its own sphere of influence. Under the US-dictated treaty that will end World War III, military restrictions will be imposed on both Japan and Turkey, although in practice they will be unenforceable and “merely a gratuitous humiliation victors enjoy imposing on the vanquished”.”

“Meanwhile, Poland’s power will grow due to the expanded size of the Polish Bloc as a result of the war. Although its infrastructure and economy will have been shattered and its casualties in the tens of thousands as a result of having been directly invaded during the war, Poland will exploit the Polish Bloc’s increased sphere of influence to rebuild its economy. The United States will begin to look at the Polish Bloc’s growing strength as a potential future threat. To prevent Polish hegemony in Europe, the United States will ally with its former enemy Turkey, encourage Britain to increase its economic and political influence in Europe, and prevent Poland from making use of space for military purposes.”

North America will remain the center of gravity for the global economic and political system for at least a few more centuries following the 21st century. However, this does not guarantee that the United States will always dominate North America. In the decades following the war, starting in the 2070s, tensions between Mexico and the United States will rise. By this time, after decades of massive immigration, many parts of the United States, especially the South West, will become predominantly ethnically, culturally, and socially Mexican. During this period, many ethnic Mexicans living in the Southwestern United States, especially those living in the Mexican Cession, will increasingly shun assimilation into American culture, due to the fact that they will live in a predominantly Mexican region, as well as the close proximity of Mexico. These demographic changes will be irreversible. Most Mexicans in the US Southwest will identify as Mexicans rather than Americans, and their national loyalty will be to Mexico and not the United States. During this period, Mexico will experience substantial economic and population growth. By the end of the 21st century, Mexico will be in a position to militarily and geopolitically challenge the United States for dominance of North America. In addition to an insurgency by Mexican separatists, political, cultural, and military tensions between the United States and Mexico will rise, and generate into a full-blown confrontation.”

“An extended crisis between the United States and Mexico will ensue, one that the United States will be unable to resolve through the use of military force. Most of the world, wary of American dominance, will secretly hope for a Mexican victory, especially Poland and Brazil, but no other nation will directly interfere. Friedman’s final prediction is that the conflict will continue into the 22nd century.”

“Igor Nikolaevich Panarin (born 30 October 1958) is a Russian professor and political scientist. He is best known for his hypothesis of possible disintegration of the USA into six parts in 2010, conceived by him as early as 1998 but only gaining world attention ten years later.

“Igor Panarin has written 15 books and a number of articles on information warfarepsychology, andgeopolitics. He is often interviewed by Russian and foreign (Wall Street JournalFinancial TimesCNNBBC,Sky News) media on issues of Russian policy, development of relationships with the USA, etc. Panarin also has his own weekly radio programme.

“He has led electoral campaigns in Russia and abroad, and his students have included parliamentary deputies, regional leaders, Kremlin officials, and Foreign Ministry spokespeople. His interests include history, philosophy, psychology, computer science, communication, election technology, conceptual problems of globalisation, and the theory and practice of information warfare.


Sitting Brings You Cancer-These Gadgets are for Walking, Not Sitting Around-The New Promotion for Wearables – 06/17/2014


Maybe the future of work is in “goofing around”, “laying on your back and/or your stomach”, to avoid “work cancer”, instead of sitting all day playing games on the Internet and/or trading “BS” on Social Networks????……….;+)

What about graduating to a Star Trek NG experience where “work” doesn’t exist anymore, and where everyone “boldly goes where no one has gone before”……like a planet where “BS” stops……..;+)

Why Banning “Fracking” to Be an Alternative to “Nuclear” and Russian and Middle East Gas & Oil Sourcing Issues? Something Seems Wrong with That Picture! Maybe Not! – 06-16-14

We need energy, unless we change our way of life, drastically, and we cannot satisfy it at a sustainable, reasonable, acceptable cost, with the Russian and Middle East Gas & Oil Sourcing “Turmoils”…..

We still are reeling from the Japanese Fukushima nuclear incident and it makes people think twice about nuclear energy…..

Why are we “muddling through” (no pun intended) the “fracking ” solution which could give the western world “wiggling” room in the energy market blackmails ?????…….

Maybe “fracking” has its own “environmental” issues that still need to be resolved……….


The Confusion between “Fast Food” and “Dog Food” – 06-16-14

This is definitely not an environment for “Lassie” and “Rin Tin Tin”……..;+)

New World War Contingency Planning for Individuals – 06-15-14

Viet Minh and Viet Cong Guerillas, like most Guerillas Worldwide, had it right!   ;+)

You need to “blend” into the “occupiers”, but, before “coming back” and “blending”, you need to “get out” of “concentrated areas”, mostly cities, primary and secondary, that are the “first wave targets” to “destabilization” and later “occupation”, without making yourselves “noticeable” in the countryside…….;+)

Some people are already working on it…….;+)

“In the 1960s, the Marxist revolutionary Che Guevara developed the foco (Spanishfoquismo) theory ofrevolution in his book Guerrilla Warfare, based on his experiences during the 1959 Cuban Revolution. This theory was later formalized as “focalism” by Régis Debray. Its central principle is that vanguardism by cadresof small, fast-moving paramilitary groups can provide a focus for popular discontent against a sitting regime, and thereby lead a general insurrection. Although the original approach was to mobilize and launch attacks from rural areas, many foco ideas were adapted into urban guerrilla warfare movements.”

Mao Zedong, during the Chinese Civil War, summarized the People’s Liberation Army‘s principles ofRevolutionary Warfare in the following points for his troops: The enemy advances, we retreat. The enemy camps, we harass. The enemy tires, we attack. The enemy retreats, we pursue. A common slogan of the time went “Draw back your fist before you strike.” This referred to the tactic of baiting the enemy, “drawing back the fist,” before “striking” at the critical moment where they are overstretched and vulnerable. Mao made a distinction between Mobile Warfare (yundong zhan) and Guerrilla Warfare (youji zhan), but they were part of an integrated continuum aiming towards a final objective. Mao’s seminal work, On Guerrilla Warfare, has been widely distributed and applied, successfully in Vietnam, under military leader and theorist Vo Nguyen Giap. Giap’s “Peoples War, Peoples Army” closely follows the Maoist three-stage approach.”

“However, Insurgents may not be seeking to overthrow the state, may have no coherent strategy or may pursue a faith-based approach difficult to counter with traditional methods. There may be numerous competing insurgencies in one theater, meaning that the counterinsurgent must control the overall environment rather than defeat a specific enemy. The actions of individuals and the propaganda effect of a subjective “single narrative” may far outweigh practical progress, rendering counterinsurgency even more non-linear and unpredictable than before. The counterinsurgent, not the insurgent, may initiate the conflict and represent the forces of revolutionary change. The economic relationship between insurgent and population may be diametrically opposed to classical theory. And insurgent tactics, based on exploiting the propaganda effects of urban bombing, may invalidate some classical tactics and render others, like patrolling, counterproductive under some circumstances. Thus, field evidence suggests, classical theory is necessary but not sufficient for success against contemporary insurgencies…””