The political forces in Iran work in harmony and unison to provide for rapid capture of three terrorists that bombed a Shiite mosque killing and injuring about 120 people. If they have hanged the actual evil three that did the attempted killing, then under their law, it is a justified action.

Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei said on Saturday “political plotters and intelligence services of certain bullying powers are responsible for the recent terrorist attack in Iran’s southeastern city of Zahedan”.

“Sparking sedition, riot and fratricide among Muslims of the regional countries and in our dear country has always been an everlasting goal of the enemies of the Islamic Republic,” Ayatollah Khamenei adds.

No disrespect, but to essentially accuse the West of infiltrating Iran to sew tension between Sunni and Shiite is pointing at a general direction to make an accusation, while the local lawmakers made an example of these spys and execute them? Why destroy the proof?

The factional war inflamed between Muslim brothers in Iraq – that Bush tried to shove back under the carpet – in a country where Shiite is in the minority. Borders do not constrain this ancient feud – and it would affect Iran also, as it became all the more evident that the reasons Bush went into Iraq was the wrong medicine for regional peace, as well as being based on false evidence.

In the war in Iraq – I think the West may have to plead guilty, yes it was a mistake to remove the tyrant Saddam Hussein without a regional plan and alliance with Iran, but the US and Iran were not on good speaking terms.

Iran, by executing the terrorists without international trial, have eradicated any chance of a legal defeat which, as a victory, would be far more damaging to the implied Americans, British or Israeli causes.

What advantage does the West gain by conflict in Iran? If anything, a strong and stable government in Iran is definitely preferred. Stability and secular government seem to be interdependent. Religion and politics do not address the same needs. If anything only hawks in Iran have anything to gain by this bombing, and the instant justice appears to confirm that analysis. It seems like political theater.

Secular Muslim led nations are like secular led Christian nations. They must take the time to react – the time it takes to avoid going to war on false pretexts.

That is the terrible mistake Bush made. He convinced himself to go to war when that was not the correct medicine to bring peace to the region. Hanging terrorists is justified so long as they are criminal agents from your own country, and not foreign agents. If the Supreme Leader’s implication they were foreign agent is true, the government should have proven a case and thus righted the wrong, and then hanged them.

French agents famously infiltrated New Zealand’s borders and planted a bomb on a Greenpeace boat that killed a photographer and sunk the Rainbow Warrior. It does happen, but our police caught the French spys who organised it and they were charged in court and eventually returned to France – but we have no death penalty – and they were imprisoned for years and years. New Zealand won the battle and the war as atomic testing in the Pacific was eventually stopped.

There is a Stratfor article going around the the mainstream media covered it here in New Zealand with this article in the NZ Herald.

Disturbing Trends does not agree with a primary assumption that military dominance will maintain relevance, as the future all rather depends upon what individuals do. “Disturbing Trends” represent a few of those decisions – as they start to show their ugly signs. Predicting the future is not so much a science, as an art and if one is to be very good at it then there is a need to consider more than one side of the coin.

Military dominance only has so much value. The age of military dominance will eventually fade – like the human crime of pollution of the natural environment will be corrected by a burp by nature eventually, and in a few billion years – we really will be forgotten history as no evidence of our existence or crimes could remain unchanged.

Once military dominance is established then trade competition replaces war, so goes the conventional or political wisdom. But eventually, can “dominance” be the successful way for humanity to survive? War is no longer survival of the fittest. It is the random death of people. Anyone will do.

My prediction is that the current climate in our thinking will thaw, that we as humanity will be forced to stop thinking that we can damage our environment without destroying ourselves.

Humans are tough enough for a few to survive the worst effects of climate change and after a few million years to climb back into dominance. Distopian fiction seems to be about that hope, for example we used to fear authority (before 9/11) now we fear the disruption of authority (the mad king syndrome).

If Barack Obama were elected in ten years either side of when he was, then he would not have been expected to be a “saviour”. What does it mean? Some want to give him super powers so that he can be seen to fail even if he is merely successful. That is an old trick. Politics.

China’s rise to power is not in itself a new thing. It being able to dominate the world militarily is a Western fear. Look at this politically, here we have an authoritarian government of a successfully exporting nation, huge diversity and the same problems of poverty that other nations (USA, Russia, Eastern Europe, the UK) suffer as well.

There is definitely a set of priorities where much of the national spending (i.e. collective effort) of major economies is military potential far beyond the necessary. Not in so much in successful societies like Norway, Sweden or Switzerland where national wealth is not squandered on military display.

The US fall from its “superpower” status is fiction. It maintains military dominance. Yes, China is restricted by conventional issues like the shape of the land. It does not have military dominance except over its own people.

Something unexpected (alien invasion, plague, another flood, etc.) could disrupt things and make military dominance less of a survival tactic (for example, strong earthquakes could corrupt the US military).

For humanity to survive its own folly, it must rise above greed for the sake it self. The only way it could ever evolve is for its very existence to be threatened.

Humanity blinds itself to self created threats that evolutionarily proves to itself it can exercise power like that a God may wield.

The world of the future depends upon more individuals evolving beyond greed, acting as humanity for the cause of the common good. Our economic traps are designed to enable governments to finance conflict, the purposes of which are often remote to the humans living within the geopolitical borders being argued over.

If governments were not thus funded – if that were the product of the UN – it could only be due to a matter of more urgent concern. The trouble is that our military might is the junior cousin to the fact that we appear to be blind to the inevitable.

Over population is a strategy that has consequences that are impossible to avoid. No matter how many bloggers say “overpopulation”, no matter when the media talk about it, even if world leaders talk about it, it will not stop the human instinct and religious imperatives that have produced – the most successful of breeding instincts – look how much cleverer we are compared to just 3 thousand years ago. Or just 300 years ago. Or even three years ago.

The long term trend that we have to solve for a happy future for our great great grandchildren would mean an end to growth and competition as a way of measuring progress. Sustainability means we stop consuming natural resources.

It simply is not going to happen with our growth religion. Humanity is not going to sacrifice progress willingly until the select few have their DNA launched into space as a last wild attempt to avoid the final chapter of our story.

A dystopian future is likely to be the disruptor as we threaten the ground we walk on, their air we breath, and the food chain we rely upon.

Real civilization means living in accord with nature, not in competition with it. Real civilization means appreciating other human beings, not wreaking each others time on Earth with missiles and threats. War is not progress. It indiscriminate destruction is not natural selection.

Human nature exists. But there are two human natures – the clawing for survival – that can result in a humble nest and garden, or the murder of competitors that results in a freezer full of high protein snacks.

There are choices and there are ways that individuals think. The choice is easier to make now, than it ever will be again. There is an unusual combination of intellectually capable individuals on the world stage. More talk, less action. That is pretty good medicine.

North Korea rattled the sabre at South Korea saying that if it was to join with the US in search and seize operations of its shipping it would be considered an act of war with immediate consequences.

North Korea has also restarted its main nuclear reactor. The rest of the world may consider that an infringement upon international peace and security.

Despite there being a Democrat in the White House, history has shown that those who have the most to lose are most able to take on the risks of war. North Korea must be hungrily looking at the relative wealth of the South in dismay, unable to feed its own people due to their military programmes including supporting a huge army. It can only really have one consequence.

An unfortunate and terrible consequence for the populace of the North, or a relatively minor one. The state of aggression by the North does seem to be a reflection of the state of mind of the North Korean leadership. The personality cult of its leadership is not viewed with much credence by the public in the West. Any country that threatens its neighbors or enemies with use of nuclear weapons is out of step with reality.

No country has a right to use a nuclear weapon. No legal, moral or military purpose is served by destroying cities and injuring nature. It is disgusting that the USA, Russia, China, France, the UK and now North Korea, Israel, Pakistan and India have been added to the list with Iran and probably a few other countries waiting in the closet.

Nuclear armed nations do not make the world safer for anybody. All humans have language and all humans are vulnerable to the effects of too many nuclear explosions.

North Korea could try bombing South Korea, but it makes no economic sense even it were a perceived success for the North Korean “dear leader”; it makes little military sense to destroy assets and then try and take them over.

If North Korea continues along its current path, human tragedy seems inevitable. To think that Barack Obama would react like GW Bush is foolish. I would expect him to look to his personal heroes – JFK for examples of how to act against a definite nuclear military threat.

I do not think anyone in the rest of the world, including China, would support a state that used nuclear weapons in a war of aggression, even if sufficient justification could account for such. But restarting war with South Korea would be a fatal mistake.

North Korea has tested a nuclear explosion in an underground facility. Their reasoning is explained by an intermediator:

“North Korea doesn’t need any talks with America. America is tricky and undesirable,” he said. “It does not implement its own agreements.

“We are not going to worry about sanctions. If they sanction us, we will become more powerful. Sanctions never help America; they are counter-productive … We don’t care about America and what they say.”

Disturbing Trends enjoys a freedom to criticise American foreign policy precisely due to its wisdom in respecting Freedom of Speech. That right does not exist in North Korea. Being able to examine and criticise the most powerful governments allows democracy to work. If we do not examine the acts of our governments, we have found they tend to go out of control. GW Bush is an example of wrong headed government. Barack Obama we all hope can do far better.

The world of foreign relationships is always more complex that can be easily interpreted by any one point of view. But a view in such isolation as North Korea maintains of complete separation from negotiation with neighbours is the path to decay and destruction for the Government of North Korea. If they arm themselves, China may have difficulty in trusting them. They are not going to invade Japan.

South Korea is a different question. No doubt NK believes it has a right to South Korea and is arming itself to the teeth in preparation for another war. China has the most to worry about here, as NK could easily bring the US back to Asia but with Japan as a base and ally. Let alone environmental damage if NK do start lobbing nuclear bombs erratically beyond their borders.

South Korea has the most to lose as its enemy is nuclear capable even if its missile launches are haphazard, if an exchange exists with Iran who can deliver warheads then the West may have to worry about North Korea now, instead of when military actions unfold.

Madness.

Dick Cheney re-eneters American politics to give voice to the defense of the Bush Administration need to torture and imprison people. In a truly bizarre appeal, Cheney argues for the practice of torture. The very depths of depravity – the belief that it is only right to behave worse than the enemy so your enemy fears you; to use threats and inevitable force to control political opinion and the use of extra-legal “exceptional methods” to extract information and prevent a multitude of terror attacks against the “home land”.

Would someone get this exceptionalist, this self important but mediocre man off the stage? The American voter resoundingly reject his philosophy. Only very recently has there been any official acknowledgement of the scale of civilian deaths in Iraq is known to be a hundred thousand, and have only recently discovered how many civilian deaths Cheney has contributed to with policies carefully hidden from the view of international justice.

Oh, that’s right. The world’s greatest democracy ignores the primary goal of democracy – not just finding great leaders – but being able to move into a new sphere especially when the old administration has been so heavily discredited.

So, Obama maintains a holding pattern with policy allowing the military time to repair itself from being extended for some long in a false direction. Gross injustice like the invasion of Iraq does not protect the “homeland”. Indeed it has magnified the terrorist threat many fold.

Closing Guantánamo is a necessary part of American recovery of its democratic leadership. The world thought China is the despotic and unforgiving side of the world but the brittle battle that the Cheney model offers no solace, the only perceived protection is to embrace Sharia Law as only God could defeat the wicked West with its bombs of doom. Or obtain bombs of doom. And thus the logic of what we now call “terrorism” was grown, not by nation states but eight years of Bush/Cheney style of negotiation with bombs and invasions – the zealots learn that “America is evil” and this is confirmed when their villages are wreaked and they see the death of civilians.

I am not saying that Bush/Cheney intended to increase the incidence of terrorism but their actions polarised Iran into pursuit of the weapons of retaliation.

The problem with Cheney’s outbursts is that it confines the debate to “is it right to torture?” when it should be “how do we win?”. Torture is not a way to protect anyone as it has no merit. Those protected by evil become party to it. Look at how the victors treated the Germans after WWII – these were not the criminals but the people who benefited from the actions of criminal government.

Instead of covert measures to fight a war against a terrorists a very different approach is required. Being seen historically to be in the right affects progress and how people will act in the future. Bush proved this by invading Iraq and losing the world’s support for American military causes.

An alternative to Guantanamo is to try the “terrorists” for specific crimes in military courts. If terrorism activity is proven, the life imprisonment is a definite result. If not, then freedom is the only fair result with compensation for improper imprisonment.

The New Zealand Government has budgeted 10 million dollars to arm and support the issue of Taser weapons for frontline police officers.

The UN has expressed concern that the NZ justice system is racist as Maori and Pacific Islanders are disproportionately represented, it does not elevate the Bill of Rights above other law, and now it arms its police with a weapon that inflicts extreme pain.

The NZ Government has thus endorsed random torture.

It may be intended to defuse violent situations but it can not be successfully used against a gun, so will only be used when a criminal is unarmed. This makes criminals into victims. That makes convicting them a malfeasance of justice, since the Taser shock is essentially the death penalty combined with a morbid lottery. The accused has already faced death. It makes the frontline officer judge, jury and in some cases executioner.

The 1 year “review” of Tasers for NZ police resulted in a police recommendation that the weapon be used.

When an innocent person is hit by a Taser, the resulting physical risk and damage to the person is clearly unacceptable.

It also makes every casual use of the weapon into an act of torture and since the National zealots have decided to budget 10 million dollars for them – and we have our fair share of stupid reactive angry people as police – with 720 units of torture now to menace the streets – it is only a matter of time before an officer uses one for reasons other than to quell a violent offender.

All this and what increasingly looks like another miscarriage of justice due to police acting on prejudice and biased convicting based only on circumstantial evidence plays itself out. If we had the death penalty, it would ensure the silencing of all opposition.

Our police are over zealous in policing downtown Auckland on a Friday night. Not arresting violent criminals but drunk kids. When they start carrying Tasers, the streets will be too unsafe for human beings.

This is not policing, it is stupid jackbooted behaviour to “set an example”. Fascism is once again rearing its very ugly head.

NZ Herald article on Taser budget

UN Concerned at NZ Justice System

P – the drug – its use and manufacture is criminal in most democracies as it should be. The Western meme, “The War on Drugs” is a poor model of how to combat what is a contagion of deliberate disease that quickly spirals into addiction. Catching it early is not as good as prevention but if prevention fails, then catching it early is vital.

There are market forces and financial relationships a drug of extreme dependence enforces, which with P is pressured by the fact it kills most of its clients whom are increasingly isolated from help.

If law only incriminated those involved in the manufacture and distribution of P, then its enslaved victims would not clog the courts but seek medical help (before it destroys their brain).

Parental response to P is guided by horror. Compare this to parental reaction to STDs and how that has changed from 30 years ago as factual information was understood.

Incriminating P users is like jailing victims of child abuse.

Walking through the city, one is easily approached by the inevitable clipboarded young turk with their political agenda, this one was a dred laden waif who could have been in school; she could have been me at 18 years old doing the same thing, imposing my view upon the world with enthusiasm and drive; and instead of the usual limp left wing cloyish appeal for donation: she asks “what is your favourite unsustainable act”. Intrigued by the notion that we, as humanity, should simulataneously lop off our indulgences by degree of sustainability, as it were, in a simultaneous acts to gauge down consumption and increase “sustainability” by a quantum multipled by many – pull the lever to cure the planet as it were – this simplistic formulaic medicine has irrefutable logic.

Not about to fall into the supermarket plastic bag trap, I launched into a more ancient fear. “Having babies is the most unsustainable act. Mainly because humans are eradicating all other species.” A dystopian flight, a nice riposte, I thought, appealing to her inner right wing fears. It may have worked as she drifted about oceans of dying whales, cutting back logic and economic consequences of being a polluter. All those evil corporations.

No, humanity is more like a total organism that infected the Earth, and She (Earth is female, apparently) is about to strike back, big time. There was Lovelock’s Gaia theory (and all that stuff Disturbing Trends has rabbited on about for years against the hum drum of stupid wars). The distraction of downtown demolition, emotional election drama and fighting the Taleban are all very good and all, but what good old gunslingers seem to forget is that aura of fate that arises when doom talk starts.

God, I think I miss Sarah Palin. She was less logical than Thatcher at her most odious. That insane logic that gets us through wars, the ability to use gravitas and effect – that is really the quality that we look for in leaders. Nixon had it. NZ’s own Robert Muldoon was popular even as he lunged at our economy with 70s era economic malaise madness. Tawdry effect with no ammo. Blair had it. Palin fills the heart with that confidence that Mummy will come home with a bear in her teeth. Joan of Arc had it. That glare that made you realise that it did not matter, you were their enemy anyway, no matter what you did, they would attack you. Snakes that only exist to menace in nightmares briefly have it too, but the thought of Palin’s America still looms on some tattered horizon.

The future is no longer in our own hands, we are inevitably doomed by our own denial and inevitable love of a leader who can frighten others. This possibly brief period of “rational” leadership is only real change if our behaviour changes with it. One is perpetually hopeful as each generation of activist becomes more authentic than the last. The same mistakes will be made over and over again but if inspiration can guide us to radically change our approach to ecology and sustainability, humanity has more than a chance.

It is not whippin’ nature with a few shots of the ol’ shotgun that will solve humanities problems. It is not a whole lot of handshakes, either. It is the replacement of oil as our primary source of energy. It is the replacement of economic growth as our primary religion and replacement with a policy of decadent heroics as: a) we may as well enjoy our inevitable decline and b) we like to believe in something, especially unlikely heroes.

Not pouring smoke into the atmosphere; not hunting other life forms for fun; not raping the environment for “growth”; not using oil for energy – we have to do all these things and today. Of course humans are unable to adapt, it is an inner values we have – to outdo the previous generation. The Greenpeace girl gave up on trying to argue with me; the model of the “sustainable green economy” was shattered and we started to discuss the meaning of “anarchy”. Now that is a real sustainable model, just let the kids run about wild like animals. Maybe that is the future.

Politicians unravel our future based on relative knowledge of history – such is the nature of national days, patriotism and greed. To abide by misery is to effect its consequence. History happened, but to then displace memory into fact is the nature of political denial. Relational connections are based in history, family connection is based in history, but history is only what we are told to remember.

In the silence of the aftermath of unprecedented financial disaster we reflect upon how things were, how things could be but are we making ourselves vulnerable to a negative philosophy?

Consider that after Hitler saved Germany economically they were bound to his will. The evil of despotism is that only the fundamentally stupid exist for such power. Real intelligence prefers to rest safety upon balance, progress and fairness.

America may have a “savior” mentality. But it does not want a “fix it” leadership. Joe the Plumber may see the current unemployment figures as some kind of vindication of his view, and so we see the BBC finding an out of work plumber with a 30 year work history. Plumbers are the perceived “Average American”, (the McCain failed meme). It used to be truck drivers, maybe plumbers are loaded with less environmental threat. Plumbers are keeping the environment clean after-all making sure all our shit is safely piped away from our attention.

see:

BBC article

Allowing a combination virus to spread and evolve in the human blood stock is what the WHO was attempting to prevent – by the fairly harmless quarantine of passengers from Mexico who are manifesting symptoms.

If the virus was to combine with other viruses in “the wild” and gain the infection paths of bird flu in addition to swine flu – we could have a pandemic that is also highly pathogenic. The WHO are doing their job. The media frenzy is unbelievable.

Every time a fire alarm goes off in an office, people file out with a sigh of dismay, “another false alarm”. When these rehearsals for disaster result in saved lives we fail to look back at the wisdom of being careful enough.

What your article suggests is that we do not rehearse dealing with a virus we can not control. AIDS is an example of how drugs can not always save lives after the virus has gotten out of control. More correct information, credibility and far less hysteria could have saved millions of lives, but denial seems more important.

See: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/may/05/swine-flu-panic?commentpage=2&commentposted=1