Thursday, August 3, 2017

Q&A - 3/8


Extreme heatwaves that kill even healthy people within hours will strike parts of the Indian subcontinent unless global carbon emissions are cut sharply and soon, according to new research. [..] The new analysis assesses the impact of climate change on the deadly combination of heat and humidity, measured as the “wet bulb” temperature (WBT). Once this reaches 35C, the human body cannot cool itself by sweating and even fit people sitting in the shade will die within six hours.

Sounds bad

Lee Atwater

[Campaign Operative for the Reagan Campaign, shortly after Reagan's first election, talking to an author] you're going to hear a lot in the days to come about the Reagan revolution. Don't believe a word of it. If we Republicans are lucky, by dint of heroic effort we may push the system 5 degrees in one direction to compensate for the 5 degrees that President Carter pushed it in the other direction.


What really happened was Carter tried to change 5 degrees, and failed, Reagan pushed 180 degrees, and succeeded. According to this excerpt, changes made by Reagan were both necessary and unavoidable. Carter could go into that direction but he was probably, institutionally, not able to do so. A Democrat President could not have made them. A sad result of this is Democrats were bulldozed over, both electorally and more importantly, ideologically. They still did not recover from the Reagan Revolution. Changes during 80s were about unshackling the enterpreneual energy [great] but since "the other side" had no hand in these changes, their ideological chops atropied, they became pansy-ass pencil-dick small-time modifiers, merely trying to change some little stuff around the edges, always trying to work through the existing structures. 80s gave companies more power, so pansy-ass modifiers try to introduce their changes through companies, like healthcare through employers, trying to force the insurance companies to do this little different that little different. It is unfathomable to them to pull out health insurance outside the market structure.


But Democrats had memorable politicians since the 80s, like Clinton.

He was a Southern Conservative 

.. or a Conservative Democrat. Here's an excerpt from All Too Human, by George Stepehanappololooopoololololuluuluoulpoopoololoous "Most liberals [he means left] understood that Clinton wasn't really one of us. But it felt good to get lost in the partisan reverie [..] It felt good, again, to think about winning."


Relations between the United States and China have reached “a pivot point”, Rex Tillerson has warned, calling for efforts to avoid “open conflict” between the world’s two largest economies.


G. Friedman

[From The Next 100 Years] Having achieved the unprecedented feat of dominating all of the world's oceans, the United States obviously wanted to continue to hold them. The simplest way to do this was to prevent other nations from building navies, and this could be done by making certain that no one was motivated to build navies—or had the resources to do so. One strategy, “the carrot,” is to make sure that everyone has access to the sea without needing to build a navy. The other strategy, “the stick,” is to tie down potential enemies in land-based confrontations so that they are forced to exhaust their military dollars on troops and tanks, with little left over for navies.

The United States emerged from the Cold War with both an ongoing interest and a fixed strategy. The ongoing interest was preventing any Eurasian power from becoming sufficiently secure to divert resources to navy building. Since there was no longer a single threat of Eurasian hegemony, the United States focused on the emergence of secondary, regional hegemons who might develop enough regional security to allow them to begin probing out to sea. The United States therefore worked to create a continually shifting series of alliances designed to tie down any potential regional hegemon.

Budding regional powers watch out

If a country wants to have a huge oceanic naval presence, they need to be ready to be disrupted by US. The Friedman strategy is such a power is disrupted an tied down by land wars [so they cannot divert enough resources to naval power]. It is not China's rising economy that worries the US, it is its activities in the South China sea and ship building.

For the Chinese IMO it does not make sense to antagonize the US. Unless you are loaded for bear, u best tread carefully. Like, Chinks are investing in submarine technology thinking that'll give them a leg-up with a possible carrier encounter, but are they sure, like 100% sure, US is not ready for that? A career never moves alone BTW, there is a career group - with destroyers, subs of its own, etc. If the outcome of a war were to hinge on that, could the Chinese be absolutely sure they have a good solution?