Blog Catalog

Showing posts with label The Christian Science Monitor. Show all posts
Showing posts with label The Christian Science Monitor. Show all posts

Thursday, May 15, 2014

America, don't let these happen


There are two purchases that have been proposed, that are pending, that absolutely, without question, should not happen and that will only end up hurting you, hurting us, hurting America. These two purchases will do nothing but make extremely large, already-powerful companies even larger and do nothing but hurt competition here in the country and hurt you and me, hurt our pocketbooks.  They are:





There is already far too little competition for internet and TV services. These purchases, if allowed to occur, will shrink it down even further.

The only winners are the large corporations and the executives at them.

Fight these America.

If you know what's good for you.


For more information, read this:



Tuesday, March 1, 2011

More big stupidity in defense spending

This time the stupidity comes from Russia.  It seems they are increasing, greatly, the amount they're spending on defense and their military.  This out today:

With Russia's $650 billion rearmament plan, the bear sharpens its teeth

Moscow – The graying bear is getting a make-over. Russia's military is launching its biggest rearmament effort since Soviet times, including a $650 billion program to procure 1,000 new helicopters, 600 combat planes, 100 warships, and 8 nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines.
How sad.

How stupid.

How unfortunate.

It seems humankind will never learn.

The former Soviet Union spent itself into bankruptcy (like the US is doing now, frankly, but they were just ahead of us), instead of taking real care of its people and now this.  More weapons.  More guns.  More bombs.

And for what?  So they can fight WWII?

So they can keep the French at bay?

Check this out--what the top 10 countries spend in "defense spending" annually, around the world in billions of dollars according to the Christian Science Monitor as of June, 2010:

10.  Italy  35.8B
  9.  India  36.3B
  8.  Saudi Arabia  41.2B
  7.  Germany  45.6B
  6.  Japan  51B
  5.  Russia  53.3B
  4.  England  58.1B
  3.  France  63.9B
A big leap here--
  2.  China  100B
And then the biggest, stupidest leap in this spending of all--
  1.  US  $661B

And the total?

One trillion, One hundred forty six billion, two hundred million dollars on weapons, missiles, warplanes, warships and various bombs, just so we can be prepared to kill each other.

Imagine if each country spent this money, instead, on the well-being of their own people.

It would be a vastly different and far-improved world, to be sure.

I'm reminded of a few quotes:

"Man is the only kind of varmint sets his own trap, baits it, then steps in it."  --John Steinbeck, Sweet Thursday


"We are perverse creatures and never satisfied.   --Nan Fairbrother


"Men!  The only animal in the world to fear."  --D.H. Lawrence

Links:  http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20110228/wl_csm/366331
http://www.csmonitor.com/CSM-Photo-Galleries/Lists/World-s-top-10-military-spenders
http://www.quotegarden.com/human.html

Wednesday, September 22, 2010

Will the final WWIII we've always feared be without bombs?

It's a good question. The next phase of international war may have just become a little bit more clear and possible, what with a new "Stuxnet malware" that recently became known internationally. Well, sort of known, anyway. There is a fascinating story out today on this new Stuxnet malware and what it may portend for the future of international warfare--wars that are done on countries by, at and on computers and not with bombs, planes and guns: Stuxnet malware is 'weapon' out to destroy ... Iran's Bushehr nuclear plant? Cyber security experts say they have identified the world's first known cyber super weapon designed specifically to destroy a real-world target – a factory, a refinery, or just maybe a nuclear power plant. The cyber worm, called Stuxnet, has been the object of intense study since its detection in June. As more has become known about it, alarm about its capabilities and purpose have grown. Some top cyber security experts now say Stuxnet's arrival heralds something blindingly new: a cyber weapon created to cross from the digital realm to the physical world – to destroy something. The ways in which this is fascinating are numerous. First, it's likely not known the source--who, exactly created and released it. It used to be, in humankind's wars to date, you knew who was attacking you, where they were coming from, what they were doing and you could, hopefully, react. Not so with this new, still-debilitating type weapon. We won't know who's attacking us, where they're attacking us--at least not for a while--the extent of the damage they will do to us, etc., for some time, at least. The appearance of Stuxnet created a ripple of amazement among computer security experts. Too large, too encrypted, too complex to be immediately understood, it employed amazing new tricks, like taking control of a computer system without the user taking any action or clicking any button other than inserting an infected memory stick. Experts say it took a massive expenditure of time, money, and software engineering talent to identify and exploit such vulnerabilities in industrial control software systems. Unlike most malware, Stuxnet is not intended to help someone make money or steal proprietary data. Industrial control systems experts now have concluded, after nearly four months spent reverse engineering Stuxnet, that the world faces a new breed of malware that could become a template for attackers wishing to launch digital strikes at physical targets worldwide. And here's an additional rather big "kicker" to the whole thing: Internet link not required. "Until a few days ago, people did not believe a directed attack like this was possible," Ralph Langner, a German cyber-security researcher, told the Monitor in an interview. He was slated to present his findings at a conference of industrial control system security experts Tuesday in Rockville, Md. "What Stuxnet represents is a future in which people with the funds will be able to buy an attack like this on the black market. This is now a valid concern." By August, researchers had found something more disturbing: Stuxnet appeared to be able to take control of the automated factory control systems it had infected – and do whatever it was programmed to do with them. That was mischievous and dangerous. But it gets worse. Since reverse engineering chunks of Stuxnet's massive code, senior US cyber security experts confirm what Mr. Langner, the German researcher, told the Monitor: Stuxnet is essentially a precision, military-grade cyber missile deployed early last year to seek out and destroy one real-world target of high importance – a target still unknown. "Stuxnet is a 100-percent-directed cyber attack aimed at destroying an industrial process in the physical world," says Langner, who last week became the first to publicly detail Stuxnet's destructive purpose and its authors' malicious intent. "This is not about espionage, as some have said. This is a 100 percent sabotage attack." For those worried about a future cyber attack that takes control of critical computerized infrastructure – in a nuclear power plant, for instance – Stuxnet is a big, loud warning shot across the bow, especially for the utility industry and government overseers of the US power grid. "The implications of Stuxnet are very large, a lot larger than some thought at first," says Mr. Assante, who until recently was security chief for the North American Electric Reliability Corp. "Stuxnet is a directed attack. It's the type of threat we've been worried about for a long time. It means we have to move more quickly with our defenses – much more quickly." There are so many things to be said--and asked about this, it's nearly overwhelming. First, who made it? Second, why? Third, was it created--as looks entirely possible--by a country, in order to shut down Iran's nuclear facility? Fourth, could it have been done by formal agreement between two or more nations? Third, was it China? That would have huge implications for what, exactly, they're capable of, regarding computers and cyber warfare and we believe they've been busy with their computer homework, so to speak. Fourth, was it the US and we're acting dumb and innocent? Fifth, what's next in cyber warfare, since this is only, clearly the "next phase" of international war, cyber warfare and sabotage. Sixth, how does the world address this/these issue(s)? What do you do about this kind of attack? As pointed out on NPR, purely coincidentally, this morning, there is no international law regarding cyber warfare. That means there are no rules. What's lawful? What's unlawful? What shouldn't be accepted? For instance, shouldn't attacking another country's water infrastructure be unlawful and unacceptable? I could go on and on but won't. The last question I'll ask is, will mankind end in a bang or, like this, in a nearly silent, possibly starving and/or freezing whimper? Better start planting a garden and canning, folks, along with making your own clothes, etc. Links: http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/327178; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuxnet

Sunday, September 19, 2010

The fraud that is Afghanistan and their President Hamid Karzai

Just out from The Christian Science Monitor: Ballot-stuffing witnessed amid troubled Afghanistan vote "As Afghans voted Saturday, a reporter in Wardak Province spoke to an election worker about how his team had set out to stuff ballot boxes. The widescale fraud in Wardak may speak to troubles in the broader Afghanistan vote." Years from now, folks, sadly, years from now, there will be reports citing how many millions of dollars, at least, Hamid Karzai took from the US and his people--his own country. But he'll be gone by then, living very peacefully and very nicely, immune from it all. Mark my word. It won't come out for years. Enjoy your Sunday. Links to original post: http://www.csmonitor.com/layout/set/print/content/view/print/326696; http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/afghanistan/article7131270.ece