Daily Archives: January 29, 2017

Libertarian Candidates Expose Themselves as Anti-Trump …

Posted: January 29, 2017 at 11:06 pm

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

Weld defended Hillary Clinton on her private email scandal and playedattack dog on Donald Trump.

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

Johnson seemed sleepy, but he answered a question at length about THC amounts in marijuana and another from a young man asking about legalized prostitution. Johnson onlylightly and perfunctorily criticized Clinton, instead focusing most of his low-energy attacks on Trump. He also revealed a personal gluten allergy and said that he himself would not patronize the services of prostitutes.

These two marginal politicians are clearly enjoying the spotlight that the pro-Clinton media arefinally giving them in their effort to stop Trump. (Something tells me the folks at CNN have not secretly been reading Reason magazine all these years.)

The Johnson-Weld team seems to think that libertarianism is mostly about admitting as many immigrants to the United States as possible. This is a far cry from Ron Pauls pro-borders libertarian movement of a few years ago. The libertarian movement has shifted to the progressive globalist Left.

Bill Weld has called Clinton by and large a good secretary of state, and Johnson has called her a wonderful public servant.

When Johnson criticizes Clinton, he often goes after her for big government spending in a bald-faced attempt to sound conservative and to peel off Trumps support with the #NeverTrump crowd.

A top Clinton-supporting official at the libertarian Niskanen Center think tank (which advocates for more Syrian refugee settlement in America) spelled out the strategy in no uncertain terms: the Libertarians need to adopt a Right-sounding platform so they can take some of Trumps support and prop up Clinton.

Did you notice that the mainstream networks began touting a Clinton lead in a new 3-Way Poll.

But what about Jill Stein? Will CNN give Green Party candidate Jill Stein the same primetime platform?

Libertarian insiders, by their own admission, went into their convention in Orlando with one modest goal: to nominate Gary Johnson against various insurgent challengers, including Gonzo software recluse John McAfee, and then to get fivepercent of the popular vote in November to get the party on future state ballots. This could be the year, the insiders said. The fivepercent year!

Everyone who gets paid by the Kochs says so, longtime Libertarian insider Tim Cavanaugh quipped when the Johnson-Weld ticket was taking shape.

See, Gary Johnson does not just have a weed habit. He also has a Koch problem. As Breitbart News first reported, the Kochs secret Beltway bank pulled out of the race as soon as it became clear Trump was going to be the nominee, but they left the door open to supporting Clinton.

Indeed, a source within the Johnson campaign wanted people to think that Johnsonhad a Koch connection, leaking to the Daily Caller that tens of millions were heading Johnsonsway. They were not hiding it. The Libertarian party chairman begged like a dog for Koch money in a press conference in Orlando.

The Libertarians are finally showing their hand: theyre globalist Clintonites.

This is what happens when Koch-funded activists straight out of liberal arts college join Koch-funded Washington advocacy groups that throw happy hours aimed at Conservatariansbecause Libertarian Koch-funded people are totally friendly to the tea party!

The Kochs run the tea party, dont they? Thats certainly how the Kochs made it seem in the mainstream media after they started funding, funding, funding things attached to what was once a leaderless tea party revolution in this country that aimed to disrupt the power of the elites.

And then when the chips are down and Hillary Clinton goes for the White House, the Kochs roll over. And William Weld defends Clintonon the emails.

Congratulations, Libertarian movement. You guys finally went Left enough on immigration to make it onto CNN in primetime!

Maybe Don Lemon will come to the next happy hour. Just tell him not to bring gluten.

Read the rest here:

Libertarian Candidates Expose Themselves as Anti-Trump ...

Posted in Libertarian | Comments Off on Libertarian Candidates Expose Themselves as Anti-Trump …

Ascension (TV Mini-Series 2014 ) – IMDb

Posted: at 11:01 pm

Trivia

A major character is named "James Toback" and is frequently called by his full name rather than first name like the other characters; presumably this is the series writers' in-joke homage to writer/director James Toback.

Throughout the series we see the occupants of Ascension apparently experiencing normal Earth gravity. In deep space there are only two ways to simulate the effects of gravity; either you build a ship that rotates around a central axis, where centrifugal force gives the appearance of gravity at the rim, or you rely upon thrust from the engines. Since Ascension is clearly not cylindrical (all through the series we see flat floors and a deck layout along the axis), the apparent force of gravity must therefore be provided by thrust from the engines.

To approximate the gravity of Earth, the engines would need to provide a constant acceleration of 9.81m/s2. At this acceleration, the ship would reach 97% of the speed of light in just 2 years and the journey to Proxima Centauri (Ascension's quoted destination) would take roughly 5.2 years. In the show, the ship has apparently been en route for over 50 years, almost 10 times as long as the journey should take.

Such a speed would not be possible for a ship of this type in any case, as it would need a huge shield against interstellar material and an impossibly large fuel load.

All of this is simple math and physics and could be questioned by any reasonably well-educated person in the 1960s; it's inconceivable that none of the crew or other people on board would not have questioned this inconsistency.

Visit link:

Ascension (TV Mini-Series 2014 ) - IMDb

Posted in Ascension | Comments Off on Ascension (TV Mini-Series 2014 ) – IMDb

50 Years of Presidential Visions for Space Exploration

Posted: at 11:01 pm

By Mike Wall, Space.com Senior Writer | February 18, 2013 07:00am ET

Credit: NASA

Kennedy's speech, which came just six weeks after cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin became the first person to reach outer space, had a huge impact on NASA and space exploration. It jump-started the agency's Apollo program, a full-bore race to the moon that succeeded on July 20, 1969, when Neil Armstrong's boot crunched down into the gray lunar dirt.

Kennedy, of course, isn't the only leader who had a vision for the nation's space program. Since NASA's founding in 1958, every president from Eisenhower to Obama has left his mark. Take a look at how each U.S. commander-in-chief helped shape and steer American activities in space.

Credit: NASA

However, Eisenhower didn't get too swept up the short-term goals of the space race. He valued the measured development of unmanned, scientific missions that could have big commercial or military payoffs down the road.

For example, even before Sputnik, Eisenhower had authorized a ballistic missile and scientific satellite program to be developed as part of the International Geophysical Year project of 1957-58. The United States' first successful satellite, Explorer I, blasted off Jan. 31, 1958. By 1960, the nation had launched and retrieved film from a spy satellite called Discoverer 14.

Credit: NASA

The Soviets had launched Sputnik I in 1957, and cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin had become the first person in space on April 12, 1961, just six weeks before the speech. On top of those space race defeats, the U.S. plan to topple the Soviet-backed regime of Cuban leader Fidel Castro the so-called Bay of Pigs invasion had failed miserably in April 1961.

Kennedy and his advisers figured they needed a way to beat the Soviets, to re-establish American prestige and demonstrate the country's international leadership. So they came up with an ambitious plan to land an astronaut on the moon by the end of the 1960s, which Kennedy laid out in his speech.

The Apollo program roared to life as a result, and NASA embarked on a crash mission to put a man on the moon. The agency succeeded, of course, in 1969. By the end of Apollo in 1972, the United States had spent about $25 billion on the program well over $100 billion in today's dollars.

Credit: NASA

As Senate majority leader in the late 1950s, he had helped raise the alarm regarding Sputnik, stressing that the satellite launch had intiated a race for "control of space." Later, Kennedy put Johnson, his vice president, in personal charge of the nation's space program. When Johnson became commander-in-chief after Kennedy's assassination, he continued to support the goals of the Apollo program.

However, the high costs of Johnson's Great Society programs and the Vietnam War forced the president to cut NASA's budget. To avoid ceding control of space to the Soviets (as some historians have argued), his administration proposed a treaty that would outlaw nuclear weapons in space and bar national sovereignty over celestial objects.

The result was 1967's Outer Space Treaty (OST), which forms the basis of international space law to this day. The OST has been ratified by all of the major space-faring nations, including Russia and its forerunner, the Soviet Union.

Credit: NASA.

By the late 1960s, NASA managers had begun drawing up ambitious plans to set up a manned moon base by 1980 and to send astronauts to Mars by 1983. Nixon nixed these ideas, however. In 1972, he approved the development of the space shuttle, which would be NASA's workhorse space vehicle for three decades, starting in 1981.

Also in 1972, Nixon signed off on a five-year cooperative program between NASA and the Soviet space agency. This deal resulted in 1975's Apollo-Soyuz Test Project, a joint space mission between the two superpowers.

Credit: NASA

Ford also signed off on the creation of the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) in 1976. The OSTP advises the president about how science and technology may affect domestic and international affairs.

Credit: NASA

While Carter wanted to restrict the use of space weapons, he signed a 1978 directive that stressed the importance of space systems to national survival, as well as the administration's willingness to keep developing an antisatellite capability.

The 1978 document helped establish a key plank of American space policy: the right of self-defense in space. And it helped the United States military view space as an arena in which wars could be fought, not just a place to put hardware that could coordinate and enhance actions on the ground.

Credit: NASA

Consistent with his belief in the power of the free market, Reagan wanted to increase and streamline private-sector involvement in space. He issued a policy statement to that effect in 1982. And two years later, his administration set up the Office of Commercial Space Transportation, which to this day regulates commercial launch and re-entry operations.

Reagan also believed strongly in ramping up the nation's space-defense capabilities. In 1983, he proposed the ambitious Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), which would have used a network of missiles and lasers in space and on the ground to protect the United States against nuclear ballistic missile attacks.

Many observers at the time viewed SDI as unrealistic, famously branding the program "Star Wars" to emphasize its supposed sci-fi nature. SDI was never fully developed or deployed, though pieces of it have helped pave the way for some current missile-defense technology and strategies.

Credit: NASA

Bush had big dreams for the American space program. On July 20, 1989 the 20th anniversary of the first manned moon landing he announced a bold plan called the Space Exploration Initiative. SEI called for the construction of a space station called Freedom, an eventual permanent presence on the moon and, by 2019, a manned mission to Mars.

These ambitious goals were estimated to cost at least $500 billion over the ensuing 20 to 30 years. Many in Congress balked at the high price tag, and the initiative was never implemented.

Credit: NASA

According to the policy, the United States' chief space goals going forward were to "enhance knowledge of the Earth, the solar system and the universe through human and robotic exploration" and to "strengthen and maintain the national security of the United States."

This latter sentiment was consistent with other space policy statements from previous administrations. However, some scholars argue that the 1996 document opened the door to the development of space weapons by the United States, though the policy states that any potential "control" actions would be "consistent with treaty obligations."

Credit: NASA

Bush also dramatically shaped NASA's direction and future, laying out a new Vision for Space Exploration in 2004. The Vision was a bold plan, calling for a manned return to the moon by 2020 to help prepare for future human trips to Mars and beyond. It also instructed NASA to complete the International Space Station and retire the space shuttle fleet by 2010.

To help achieve these goals, NASA embarked upon the Constellation program, which sought to develop a new crewed spacecraft called Orion, a lunar lander named Altair and two new rockets: the Ares I for manned missions and the Ares V for cargo. But it was not to be; Bush's successor, President Barack Obama, axed Constellation in 2010.

Credit: NASA/Bill Ingalls

A year later, Obama announced his administration's space policy, which represented a radical departure from the path NASA had been on. The new policy canceled George W. Bush's Constellation program, which the Augustine Commission had found to be significantly behind schedule and over budget. (Obama did support continued development of the Orion spacecraft for use as a possible escape vehicle at the space station, however.)

In place of Constellation, Obama's policy directed NASA to focus on getting humans to an asteroid by 2025 and then on to Mars by the mid-2030s. This entails, in part, developing a new heavy-lift rocket, with design completion desired by 2015.

The new policy also seeks to jump-start commercial spaceflight capabilitites. Obama's plan relies on Russian Soyuz vehicles to ferry NASA astronauts to the space station in the short term after the space shuttles retire in 2011.

But over the long haul, Obama wants this burden shouldered by private American spaceships that have yet to be built. So Obama promised NASA an extra $6 billion over five years, which the agency would use to help companies develop these new craft.

1 of 13

2 of 13

3 of 13

4 of 13

5 of 13

6 of 13

7 of 13

8 of 13

9 of 13

10 of 13

11 of 13

12 of 13

13 of 13

Michael was a science writer for the Idaho National Laboratory and has been an intern at Wired.com, The Salinas Californian newspaper, and the SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory. He has also worked as a herpetologist and wildlife biologist. He has a Ph.D. in evolutionary biology from the University of Sydney, Australia, a bachelor's degree from the University of Arizona, and a graduate certificate in science writing from the University of California, Santa Cruz. To find out what his latest project is, you can follow Mike on Google+.

See more here:

50 Years of Presidential Visions for Space Exploration

Posted in Space Exploration | Comments Off on 50 Years of Presidential Visions for Space Exploration

Psychedelics | Pharmacological Reviews

Posted: at 11:00 pm

Abstract

Psychedelics (serotonergic hallucinogens) are powerful psychoactive substances that alter perception and mood and affect numerous cognitive processes. They are generally considered physiologically safe and do not lead to dependence or addiction. Their origin predates written history, and they were employed by early cultures in many sociocultural and ritual contexts. After the virtually contemporaneous discovery of (5R,8R)-(+)-lysergic acid-N,N-diethylamide (LSD)-25 and the identification of serotonin in the brain, early research focused intensively on the possibility that LSD and other psychedelics had a serotonergic basis for their action. Today there is a consensus that psychedelics are agonists or partial agonists at brain serotonin 5-hydroxytryptamine 2A receptors, with particular importance on those expressed on apical dendrites of neocortical pyramidal cells in layer V. Several useful rodent models have been developed over the years to help unravel the neurochemical correlates of serotonin 5-hydroxytryptamine 2A receptor activation in the brain, and a variety of imaging techniques have been employed to identify key brain areas that are directly affected by psychedelics. Recent and exciting developments in the field have occurred in clinical research, where several double-blind placebo-controlled phase 2 studies of psilocybin-assisted psychotherapy in patients with cancer-related psychosocial distress have demonstrated unprecedented positive relief of anxiety and depression. Two small pilot studies of psilocybin-assisted psychotherapy also have shown positive benefit in treating both alcohol and nicotine addiction. Recently, blood oxygen leveldependent functional magnetic resonance imaging and magnetoencephalography have been employed for in vivo brain imaging in humans after administration of a psychedelic, and results indicate that intravenously administered psilocybin and LSD produce decreases in oscillatory power in areas of the brains default mode network.

This research was supported by the National Institutes of Health National Institute on Drug Abuse [Grant R01DA-02189] and the Robert C. and Charlotte P. Anderson endowment.

dx.doi.org/10.1124/pr.115.011478.

The rest is here:

Psychedelics | Pharmacological Reviews

Posted in Psychedelics | Comments Off on Psychedelics | Pharmacological Reviews

Immortal but Damned to Hell on Earth – The Atlantic

Posted: at 10:56 pm

Imagine a supercomputer so advanced that it could hold the contents of a human brain. The Google engineer Ray Kurzweil famously believes that this will be possible by 2045. Organized technologists are seeking to transfer human personalities to non-biological carriers, extending life, including to the point of immortality. My gut says that theyll never get there. But say Im wrong. Were it possible, would you upload the contents of your brain to a computer before death, extending your conscious moments on this earth indefinitely? Or would you die as your ancestors did, passing into nothingness or an unknown beyond human comprehension?

The promise of a radically extended lifespan, or even immortality, would tempt many. But it seems to me that theyd be risking something very much like hell on earth.

Their descendants might damn them to it.

* * *

Let us begin by noticing that justice, as most people presently conceive it, permits or even requires that at least some crimes be punished as far after the fact as is now possible. Take Hans Lipschis, who had far-exceeded his life expectancy by 2013, when the 93-year-old made headlines. He was living in southwestern Germany at the time. Police arrested him there. Prosecutors wanted to charge him with murders perpetrated seven decades prior. He had served as a guard at Auschwitz.

Now imagine an alternative scenario. Technology advances more quickly than expected; an elderly Holocaust perpetrator uploads his consciousness next year, before being found out; then, five or six years from now, evidence of his crimes comes to light. I suspect that a strong majority would favor punishing him for his mass-murdering, and would quickly settle on some alternative to physical incarceration. Perhaps the consciousness would be denied new information, or the ability to interact with others; or perhaps there would be some degree of torment inflicted.

For how long?

With the consciousness of Adolf Hitler in our possession, 6 million years of disembodied punishment would still constitute just one year for every murdered Jew.

Yet Ghengis Khan, who perpetrated all manner of atrocity less than a millenia ago, would inspire some sympathy, I think, if it were discovered that his contemporaries had imprisoned his consciousness upon his death as punishment for mass murder. Were he discovered in mental chains after eight centuries of suffering, there would be demands for his release and debates about applying morality across time. And utilitarians would debate the consequences of his military victories across the centuries. Perhaps hed be freed due to his unfathomably long punishment and the fact that his victims seem so remote to us. Or maybe hed be forgotten in prison, as is done to so many individuals in our existing system.

These are wild thought experiments, but with them I only mean to illustrate a narrow point: Radical life extension would so scramble and confound our normal notions of justice that theres no telling how future Americans would react to the new reality. Historic monsters might be punished for 6 million years or just three or four times longer than a 150-year sentence a U.S. court imposed on this obscure money-launderer. Its hard to speculate even when confining ourselves to descendants of ours, in this country, with moral codes closely resembling our own.

In fact, it isnt clear how wed react right now.

If todays Americans magically took custody of servers containing the disembodied consciousnesses of every figure ever mentioned in the countrys newspapers, going back to the beginning, would we stop at punishing former Nazi leaders? Would there be a protest movement to hold Native American killers and slaveholders accountable? What about the folks behind the Tuskegee syphilis experiment? Or the city leaders of towns in the Jim Crow South that subjugated blacks?

Answering as a thought experiment is comparatively easy.

Future Americans will face countless actual controversies just like those if whole generations start uploading themselves. And it isnt outlandish to imagine futures where the masses look at us with the disdain that we have for Bull Connor and his analogs. Perhaps the Americans of 2215, with their laboratory-grown synthetic meat, will look in horror at those of us who had animals killed throughout our lives in order to eat them. Maybe theyll regard a years punishment per animal killed to be fair, with a 10-year enhancement for animals kept in cruel conditions before death.

Maybe everyone in the fossil-fuel era will be condemned to punishments corresponding in length to the years of destruction that we wrought on a fragile planet.

Perhaps people who had abortions, or people who bore more than two children, will find themselves in disfavor. Perhaps an ISIS-like brand of sharia law will prevail, and most everyone who uploaded their consciousness in the West will be tortured for a millennia, until the course of history changes and new rulers take control.

Of course, its possible that future generations will be less punitive than I imagine. But will that last forever? In any case, humans will be forced to make a decision about whether to upload their consciousnesses before knowing what the far future holds.

Admittedly, the living dont know the near future even today.

Nuclear war could come tomorrow. Those of us who survive it might spend the rest of our days in misery. But that misery would be relatively short. Radical life extension via mind uploads would seem to risk inconceivably long, possibly endless misery. And this holds even if no future generation deliberately inflicts that misery.

Its hard to imagine a civilization of highly adept network administrators who manage, century after century, to maintain uncorrupted data and functioning equipment.

But maybe theyll excel.

So let us imagine inconceivably durable hardware that holds a human consciousness. This computer is attached to a generator that runs off of nuclear waste as it decays. Thus it is deep in a vault in the earth, but attached to the rest of humanity via cables. For 100 years, the disembodied mind revels in all she can explore: the sum of human knowledge; every other uploaded consciousness; and this universe of diverting data just keeps expanding with every day.

Then a super-volcano explodes.

All embodied human life is extinguished. Most disembodied life is destroyed too. But not the computer deep in the bunker of nuclear waste. Its connections to other computers have been severed. But the consciousness endures with nothing stored locally save the original upload and McAfee anti-virus software that no one could figure out how to uninstall. As time wears on, this human endures the long twilight of the species on earth: 15.7 million years imprisoned with herself until the Iodine-I29 powering her computer is exhausted. As they say, What a way to go!

Strange as it may seem, the most important hedge for those seeking immortality just might be declining radical life extension unless theyre assured a suicide switch.

Originally posted here:

Immortal but Damned to Hell on Earth - The Atlantic

Posted in Mind Uploading | Comments Off on Immortal but Damned to Hell on Earth – The Atlantic

A Resource Based Economy – worldsocialism.org

Posted: at 10:54 pm

This is the chapter by Kelly Mitchell omitted from his book Gold Wars, and we publish it here alongside his letter to us.

Economy means efficiency - a lack of waste Peter Joseph

Imagine a world without telemarketers, without advertising, without someone trying to sell you something constantly, without a propaganda industry trying to convince everyone their empty lives will be filled by the latest gadget/fragrance/object, without logos, and without soulless consumption. Imagine a world without money. Money is useful as a medium of exchange, but a world where all human needs (and most reasonable desires) are readily fulfilled is only possible without money. We are the sole species that pays to live on this planet. This society would simply terminate private property as an arcane, useless and even wasteful fixation. The age of ownership would recede into memory a necessary, but immature phase in our societal growth. Sounds insane, right? But if all human needs can be met, if most non-harmful and physically possible desires can be universally met, then property would be pointless - merely a pathetic, failed means to bolster the self-worth of adult children. Such a world moves through purpose, not paper. It is sustainable. Its called a Resource Based Economy (RBE). The ethic of the resource based economy is to align with natural law. We cannot consume past the earths ability to provide. An RBE catalogs and utilizes planetary resources in the most efficient method we can create for the good of all humanity. Money is not necessary and everyone has access to all goods and services. Planetary resources cannot be claimed by individuals, but are publicly owned. Many proponents of the system now exist, most notably the Zeitgeist Movement.

Conceptual cities have been detailed with full energy independence, complete food self-sufficiency, and awesomely convenient public transportation. Designed cities can have immensely higher efficiencies than the ad hoc ones currently in use. They can maximize human satisfaction through good planning, clean air, water, and organic food. This would not restrict anyone living in the country and fully utilizing technology, either. All choices are voluntary - there is no coercion. If someone is using property, it is not available for others, of course. But no one could own immense tracts of land, letting them lie fallow with no public access.

Certain mandatory measures toward a more sustainable direction must be met the economy must change from a growth to a steady state economy. 1) The monetary system must be eliminated - it creates scarcity. 2) We must move from a competitive to a collaborative model. This will eliminate redundant products, just for monetary competition. It will also eliminate inferior products because all players have full knowledge access and there is no financial incentive to build junk. In a collaborative world, every innovation can draw on all knowledge - nothing is proprietary or withheld. 3) Total open source knowledge. Centralization of knowledge requires distribution of production, but in a coordinated manner. Locally produced goods would be available for all needs. Earth could be catalogued and inventoried as per resources and energy supplies. Action could be taken well ahead of time to avert crisis. A simple form of this is feasible right now, but knowledge is proprietary and resources are owned by elites. Open-source knowledge would eliminate duplication of efforts and mass resource wasting. It would allow for the best understanding and processes to emerge without the current artificial constraints. Global collaboration would overcome the barriers of competition and proprietary knowledge. Humanity would experience an explosion of progress in knowledge, ideas, ideologies, and technology. Eliminating the monetary system would remove the need to suppress competitive technologies like alternative energy (which threatens big oil). Without the need to create energy scarcity for oil profits, those technologies would no longer be restricted.

4) Deliberate automation. The economy is headed to automation already. Artificial means of creating jobs exist (largely as public sector workers), just because the capitalist system demands work for pay. Virtually all factory workers could be replaced in a few years. All jobs with no social benefit (Wall street, finance, and so many public sector jobs) would be pointless. 65% of all jobs could be eliminated with current knowledge right now. Productivity is inverse to employment. The higher the productivity, the lower the employment. Its a marketplace function - people are much more expensive than machines. They need a house, food, car, etc. Machines only need their raw energy inputs and maintenance. Some machines can even repair themselves.

5) Eliminate property rights in favor of universal access for all goods and services. If all goods and services are freely available, multiple problems are instantly eliminated. Shared resources create abundance nothing is owned by individuals without ever being used. Nothing sits idle, so all that idle time is now useful time, requiring only a tiny percentage of current material goods to fully satisfy all human needs. Hoarding uses an enormous amount of resources. A car in constant use takes care of 20 people instead of 1. The problem of theft is entirely eliminated - if no one owns anything (or everyone owns everything) theft is pointless. 98% of all crime would disappear overnight. We can provide an excellent quality of life for all humans many times over, while eliminating war, crime, poverty, destitution and displacement. There is no need for any of that.

Many people have the feeling that the idea of a resource based economy is actually quite good, but it could never work. Obviously, an unlimited list of tedious procedural problems can be drafted what about people wanting land to homestead, for example? Rural versus urban vehicle use? Vandalism? But such a list are merely wrinkles to iron out through human ingenuity. The most common significant objections are some variation of the following: 1) This is communism. 2) Its utopian. 3) Its dystopian - a machine governed, totalitarian prone society/ technocracy. 4) Owning private property is fundamental to human life and society. 5) People will not be motivated to do unpleasant and dangerous jobs. 6) Its overwhelming. 7) The powers will never let it happen.

Some of these are valid concerns; some are merely philosophical dislikes. Its difficult to give complete answers because we are talking about a total restructure of society on a global level. Lets take the objections one at a time.

1) This is Communism! An RBE is not communism. First, capitalism and communism are not mutually exclusive systems - they work in tandem within a society. If we call any socialized project a shade of communism (as some do), then the military is a perfect example. It performs, in theory, a societal benefit - it defends the country. All the people pay for it through taxes. The military is the ultimate socialist institution. Roads, schools, hospitals, courts, police - many of the things we take for granted are socialized - paid for by the public and there (ostensibly) for the public good. Most people drive, want clean air, land and water in their town, need to feel safe, and believe in education as a right. These are socialist values, and they can exist right alongside of capitalist values of earning a living, owning property, and engaging in the marketplace economy. In fact, every family is communist do children pay rent? Do they work? No in a family, the unspoken rule is from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs. One parent makes the money, the other takes care of the house, and the kids eat and live for free and go to school. Capitalism simply makes no sense for the internal operating structure of a family.

More to the point of the resource based economy, however it is not Communism because the labor supply side is totally missing. The labor is supplied primarily by machines. Certainly, some workers will be needed for planning and maintenance, but many, many people simply enjoy these activities. They will volunteer. People like work and they love to feel meaning in their work. Moreover, its not to each according to his needs. Each person has full access to anything they currently have - and a whole lot more. Because goods are well-made and communally owned, they are always available and far more durable.

2) Its utopian. This criticism stems from the fact that people do not have to work and have all needs provided. While true, there is far more needed for a utopian society. People will still have to deal with innate meaning, relationships, personal development and other social concerns. An RBE could never hope to solve such issues, but it can create far better opportunities for us to work on them, rather than being imprisoned in an increasingly senseless monetary system.

3) Its dystopian. This comes from the notion that it will be a centrally planned system, subject to political tyranny by controllers. While the need for central administration is obvious in terms of resource logistics, distribution and manufacturing, it need not translate into a political control. In any system, preventing dictators from seizing political control is incumbent on the population itself. People must remain aware. No economic system is immune. In fact, the monetary system of control allows for far easier dictatorial control because it creates an impossibly disproportionate distribution of wealth. A few people who control trillions of dollars and even the creation of currency exert so much control that the citizenry is rendered powerless. That is the current situation and it is a definition of oligarchical dictatorship. The people have no true voice, only the illusion.

4) Owning property is fundamental to humans. This is completely false. Ownership is largely an illusion - all you have is temporary possession and use. Even pre-historical societies were completely egalitarian all possessions were commonly owned. Societies exist now without individual property rights all resources are communally owned. They function on a tribal scale, so the challenge is to scale up. It is a formidable challenge, no doubt, but it is doable, if we all see the virtue and strive toward it. People do not need property or possessions, they need and desire the benefits of these things. If you always have access to a home and privacy within that, or to a sailboat, why would you want the individual expense of owning it? Even property taxes would cease - no one would complain about that. A limited ownership would still exist mainly the right to use something as long as needed. What other point is there to ownership?

5) Motivation. The basic problem is conceiving of an RBE through the lens of current reward system programming. As Dan Pinks book Drive showed, monetary incentives create a detrimental effect in terms of motivation and creativity. True motivators are autonomy, mastery and purpose. In an RBE, a sense of civic duty toward humanity would be easy to cultivate. Many people have such a desire already - its why we have philanthropy and volunteerism. Most difficult, dangerous and unpleasant jobs would be machine-doable anyway. All we would need is the technological push, which would come readily through complete open-source knowledge.

6) Its overwhelming. Very true - the project is inconceivably massive. Most people drop it initially but if they come across the ideas again, it seems more appealing. The concept is so alien to our current social programming that it feels a bit repugnant, strange, incomprehensible, or absurd. All I can do is encourage you to take an open mind and just ponder it dream a bit about the profound human potential. Any large task can seem overwhelming, but with many people, it becomes possible. And with enough people, it becomes inevitable. Even a total restructure of society can be done if we all wish it.

Now is the time for a change. As Barack Obama told the banking CEOs, My administration is the only thing between you and the pitchforks. People are angry. The system is teetering. Power is shifting. The world is almost ready for a major change. If a determined global movement pushes, a simple move of capitalist power from West to East can be diverted to a more fundamental paradigm shift.

7) The powers will prevent it. This assumes they can prevent it. They can certainly hinder it, but powerful ideas, when they take hold, live longer than people. The current leaders will die and be replaced. Eventually a more conciliatory group will emerge, subject to a nascent ideology. From that perspective, we make a better world not for ourselves, but our children. We will never see it, but it is worth all the more for that. On a more immediate frame - leaders cannot resist a truly determined, awakened populace. Our leaders have ruled by some assumption that they (or a persons chosen subset) have better insights into managing society. That illusion is failing fast. Politicians are almost universally despised and seen as corrupt. No one trusts them to make decisions that honestly benefit society. They are no better than the average person and often they are far, far worse. All it will take is the people to unify under a greater vision and thats the real challenge of a resource based economy. People have enormous resistance based on previous societal conditioning. However, in a very immediate sense (the next few years), a paradigm shift is happening. Political power is being drained from the corrupted West and headed to an East anxious to prove its integrity to gain the worlds trust so that it can take the mantle of leadership by popular approval. In such a power shift, ideological doctrines have a way of inserting themselves and gaining serious traction. At a deeper level, capitalism may be unsustainable for the reasons listed above, especially on a planet with a ballooning population. From that perspective, all that is needed is to wait for the real collapse, educating as many people as we can in the meantime.

It may sound too good to be possible, but that is just a thought. It may be the only rational solution to our current predicament - for all its power, the monetary system has become open failure, detrimental to humanity. We may be forced to develop an RBE just to maintain a decent standard of life. We have based our society on enlightened self-interest, only to find that is a chimera a totally self-interested society devolves into narcissism and vulgar consumption. Our choice may boil down to global abundance or global destruction. In the end, all that limits us is our ability to transcend our social programming. If we can see a better world, one where basic goodness is known to live in every being, one where global abundance exists by the simple generosity of sharing like we teach children to do, one where conservative means to not waste resources and destroy the place, one where we do not own the Earth because you cannot own your mother, one where hubris becomes humility and greed becomes gratitude if we can visualize such a world, we can make it real.

Comment:

Much of this of course, we can agree with. Except we would point out that the type of society described here has always accurately been referred to as socialism or communism, as they mean the same thing the social or common ownership of the means of living. That so-called Communist countries (really systems of state-run capitalism) like the former USSR, China, East Germany, etc abused the term is not in our view a reason to disassociate ourselves from it. After all, these states called themselves democratic too!

Regarding, the Zeitgeist Movement, we agree there are a number of positive features of this loosely structured organization, but there are sadly many problems with it too. Not the least of which is its lack of democratic internal attitudes and structures, as well as the fact a great many TZM members arguably the majority have views more focused on attempts to reform capitalism (and its banking system, etc) than on the only solution to the social and economic problems of our time real socialism.

Editors

Follow this link:

A Resource Based Economy - worldsocialism.org

Posted in Resource Based Economy | Comments Off on A Resource Based Economy – worldsocialism.org

Resource-based economy and pay-it-forward | The Moneyless …

Posted: at 10:54 pm

The resource-based economy (RBE)

Whilst the term resource-based economy could just as easily apply to the localised gift economy I advocate, its now more commonly understood to be a high-technology, globalised version of a non-monetary economy. Proponents of such an economy include Peter Joseph of the phenomenally popular The Zeitgeist Movement (TZM)(38) and Jacques Fresco of The Venus Project (TVP),(39) two projects which up until 2011 had been strongly associated with each other.

Their central premise is that in order to enjoy what these members perceive to be a high standard of living, people dont need money, but instead resources such as food, water, minerals and other materials. In fact, they claim that monetary economics actually prevents the fair distribution of such necessities of life. Advocates of such a system argue that the world is abundant, and that all of its resources could be utilised much more wisely and shared equally amongst all of humanity, not just those with financial prowess. Fresco advocates using the high levels of technology that humans are capable of creating, but within a resource-focused, economic model in which built-in obsolescence(40) makes zero sense. It is an economic model in which machines do any job that can be automated, and are used not to replace human labour in a way that leads to unemployment and all the social implications of that, but instead to shorten the working day for all, meaning much more leisure time and complete and free access to all the resources of the Earth and the technologies that are produced. It is a design where human ingenuity is tapped to collectively create the most efficient and sustainable technologies based on best practice and highest quality, and not reduced by the pressures of the competitive market where duplication and waste are inherent and rife. The monetary economy, they argue, and again I agree, is based on scarcity, whereas a resource-based economy is based on collective abundance.

Much of this I find admirable, especially the intentions behind it. Peter Joseph,(41) in particular, is a fascinating man whose analysis of many of the major problems we face today is insightful and his courage and dedication in raising awareness of the destructive consequences of monetary economics is exemplary. Yet I feel that by aiming for a high technology, highly complex version of a non-monetary economy, both TZM and TVP are making their vision almost impossible to realise.

Why? Aside from the fact that high technology has proven to be entirely counter-productive to our sense of happiness and connection to local place and community, a point Ill explain a little further on, for it to happen would require the entire worlds nations to get on board before we could even begin to think about achieving such a grand plan, as many of the minerals and materials that would be used (to make all the high technology products that RBE proponents want) come from all over the planet oil from the Middle East, copper from China, minerals from Africa, rubber from South America. Unless all of these diverse countries and regions signed up to such an economic model and philosophical perspective, it would be unworkable. Considering the complexities of the world and its nations, politics, cultures, laws and religions that I outlined earlier, this is highly unrealistic.

With a localised economy, anyone can start living in the non-monetary economy fairly immediately without having to wait for the political and corporate leaders of the US, Iran, Namibia and Mexico to relinquish their control and unite with their entire populations under a new moneyless world order. Not that I am suggesting that TZM or TVP are advocating that we ask permission from our governments to start enacting elements of their vision they certainly arent, and again on that I agree.

Even if a unification of world ideologies was possible, within this version of a resource-based economy there seems to lie the assumption that advanced technologies make us happy. If this were true, why is it that in easily the most technologically advanced period of human history, humankind has never been more depressed? Ive no doubt proponents of a globalised non-monetary economy would point out that the reasons for our current unhappiness are much more complex than that, and theyd be right, they are. At the same time, it is widely documented that those who live in low technology societies, past and present, express stronger feelings of happiness, contentment and connection to community and place than those of us in the global West, who survive on a collective diet of quick-fix antidepressants, escapism and self-help gurus.

Research such as The Happy Planet Index(42) by the New Economics Foundation (NEF)(43) backs up much anecdotal evidence to that effect. I and many people I know have travelled the length and breadth of undeveloped countries (the only thing developing about them is their debts to the International Monetary Fund and their cronies) and have encountered people in every village and town much happier, and more generous with their time, food and material possessions, than the vast majority of people I encounter in the advanced country I live in. A twenty year study by Helena Norberg-Hodge(44) of the modernisation of the Ladakhi people, as documented by her film Ancient Futures Learning from Ladakh,(45) powerfully demonstrates the effect of technology and its potent ability to destroy the very fabric of our communities. In their experience, after modernisation they had many more time-saving gadgets, yet somehow much less time. The story has been the same everywhere, and we all have experienced this to some extent.

Having lived both a high and low technology life myself, I can unequivocally state that my physical, mental, spiritual and emotional health increased as the role of high technology in my life decreased and the degree to which my life was localised increased. I dont want my table to be made by a machine, I want to make it with my own hands, or at least by the hands of my friend. Using our hands is crucial to our well-being, our sense of creativity, our relationship with the land. The only argument for a high technology non-monetary economy would be if it enabled us, and the rest of life on Earth, to live happier, more meaningful and freer lives. I have yet to see any evidence of that being the case, whilst our history is littered with examples of the opposite.

I would also argue that the separation from the rest of Nature that such high technology would inevitably cause would further diminish the lack of understanding of ecology and natural cycles, while simultaneously heightening the trauma that we endure from having no interaction with Nature in its wildest states. This disconnection would lead to the very same problems we have today and the deluded sense of self that gives rise to them. If humanity has no daily relationship and intimate connection with the Earth, how can it develop any sense of interdependence with it, or care or respect for it?

That said, there is still much we could learn from both the philosophy and practical solutions proposed by RBE advocates, and it all adds into the mixing pot of new ways of viewing economics and how we meet our needs in a more caring, sustainable and life-affirming manner. It is certainly not my intention to be unjustly critical of high technology RBEs (as I have nothing but the utmost respect for many of its intentions and efforts), but instead to help refine our collective thinking and unite us to some cause that we can actually achieve to some meaningful extent in our lifetimes.

Pay-it-forward

Pay-it-forward is a beautiful idea, popularised by a Hollywood film of the same title. It is a perspective that when you do something for somebody, and they ask you what they can do to help you in return, you tell them not to pay you back, but instead to look out for an opportunity to pay the favour forward by doing something useful for someone else, possibly someone theyve never even met before. Whilst there is still the tiniest element of conditionality about it (i.e. a request has still been made), its the most generous, loving form of conditionality I know of.

Regardless of whether you want to start applying some of these ideas, to various degrees, in the inner city or the woods, there will be both internal and external challenges to overcome, and Ill examine these, along with proposing transition strategies to navigate them successfully, in chapter four. These challenges will take time to overcome however, even if you do want to fully live beyond the need for money. To help you make the transition, or to simply incorporate degrees of moneylessness into your life, Ive co-created a tool to help you: the Progression of Principles (POP) model.

See more here:

Resource-based economy and pay-it-forward | The Moneyless ...

Posted in Resource Based Economy | Comments Off on Resource-based economy and pay-it-forward | The Moneyless …

NATO bombing of Yugoslavia – Wikipedia

Posted: at 10:48 pm

Operation Allied Force Part of the Kosovo War Novi Sad on fire, 1999 Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Belligerents

NATO

Wesley Clark (SACEUR) Rupert Smith Javier Solana

Over 1,031 aircraft[11][12]

Human Rights Watch verified that around 500 civilians died as a result of air attacks, nearly 60% of whom were in Kosovo.[16][17] Serbian sources estimated between 1,200 and 5,700 civilian deaths.[16]

The NATO bombing of Yugoslavia was the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation's (NATO) military operation against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) during the Kosovo War. The air strikes lasted from March 24, 1999 to June 10, 1999. The official NATO operation code name was Operation Allied Force; the United States called it Operation Noble Anvil,[18] while in Yugoslavia the operation was incorrectly called "Merciful Angel" (Serbian Cyrillic: ), as a result of a misunderstanding or mistranslation.[19] The bombings continued until an agreement was reached that led to the withdrawal of Yugoslav armed forces from Kosovo and the establishment of United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK), a UN peacekeeping mission in Kosovo.

NATO claimed that the Albanian population in Kosovo were being persecuted by FRY forces, Serbian police, and Serb paramilitary forces, and that military action was needed to force the FRY to stop. NATO countries attempted to gain authorization from the United Nations Security Council for military action, but were opposed by China and Russia that indicated they would veto such a proposal. NATO launched a campaign without UN authorization, which it described as a humanitarian intervention. The FRY described the NATO campaign as an illegal war of aggression against a sovereign country that was in violation of international law because it did not have UN Security Council support.

The bombing killed between 489 and 528 civilians, and destroyed bridges, industrial plants, public buildings, private businesses, as well as barracks and military installations.

The NATO bombing marked the second major combat operation in its history, following the 1995 NATO bombing campaign in Bosnia and Herzegovina. It was the first time that NATO had used military force without the approval of the UN Security Council.[20]

After its autonomy was quashed, Kosovo was faced with state organized oppression: from the early 1990s, Albanian language radio and television were restricted and newspapers shut down. Kosovar Albanians were fired in large numbers from public enterprises and institutions, including banks, hospitals, the post office and schools.[21] In June 1991 the University of Pritina assembly and several faculty councils were dissolved and replaced by Serbs. Kosovar Albanian teachers were prevented from entering school premises for the new school year beginning in September 1991, forcing students to study at home.[21]

Later, Kosovar Albanians started an insurgency against Belgrade when the Kosovo Liberation Army was founded in 1996. Armed clashes between two sides broke out in early 1998. A NATO-facilitated ceasefire was signed on 15 October, but both sides broke it two months later and fighting resumed. When the killing of 45 Kosovar Albanians in the Raak massacre was reported in January 1999, NATO decided that the conflict could only be settled by introducing a military peacekeeping force to forcibly restrain the two sides. After the Rambouillet Accords broke down on 23 March with Yugoslav rejection of an external peacekeeping force, NATO prepared to install the peacekeepers by force.

NATO's objectives in the Kosovo conflict were stated at the North Atlantic Council meeting held at NATO headquarters in Brussels on April 12, 1999:[22]

Operation Allied Force predominantly used a large-scale air campaign to destroy Yugoslav military infrastructure from high altitudes. After the third day of aerial bombing, NATO had destroyed almost all of its strategic military targets in Yugoslavia. Despite this, the Yugoslav Army continued to function and to attack Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) insurgents inside Kosovo, mostly in the regions of Northern and Southwest Kosovo. NATO bombed strategic economic and societal targets, such as bridges, military facilities, official government facilities, and factories, using long-range cruise missiles to hit heavily defended targets, such as strategic installations in Belgrade and Pristina. The NATO air forces also targeted infrastructure, such as power plants (using the BLU-114/B "Soft-Bomb"), water-processing plants and the state-owned broadcaster, causing much environmental and economic damage throughout Yugoslavia.[citation needed]

Commentators[who?] have debated whether the capitulation of Yugoslavia in the Kosovo War of 1999 resulted solely from the use of air power, or whether other factors contributed.[clarification needed][citation needed]

Due to restrictive media laws, media in Yugoslavia carried little coverage of what its forces were doing in Kosovo, or of other countries' attitudes to the humanitarian crisis; so, few members of the public expected bombing, instead thinking that a diplomatic deal would be made.[23]

According to John Keegan, the capitulation of Yugoslavia in the Kosovo War marked a turning point in the history of warfare. It "proved that a war can be won by air power alone". By comparison, diplomacy had failed before the war, and the deployment of a large NATO ground force was still weeks away when Slobodan Miloevi agreed to a peace deal.[24]

As for why air power should have been capable of acting alone, it has been argued[by whom?] that there are several factors required. These normally come together only rarely, but all occurred during the Kosovo War:[25]

On 20 March 1999 OSCE Kosovo Verification Mission monitors withdrew from Kosovo citing a "steady deterioration in the security situation",[37][38] and on 23 March 1999 Richard Holbrooke returned to Brussels and announced that peace talks had failed.[39] Hours before the announcement, Yugoslavia announced on national television it had declared a state of emergency citing an "imminent threat of war ... against Yugoslavia by Nato" and began a huge mobilization of troops and resources.[39][40] On 23 March 1999 at 22:17 UTC the Secretary General of NATO, Javier Solana, announced he had directed the Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR), General Wesley Clark, to "initiate air operations in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia."[40][41] On 24 March at 19:00 UTC NATO started the bombing campaign against Yugoslavia.[42][43]

NATO's bombing campaign involved 1,000 aircraft operating from air bases in Italy and Germany, and the aircraft carrier USSTheodore Roosevelt stationed in the Adriatic Sea. At dusk,[when?]F/A-18 Hornets of the Spanish Air Force were the first NATO planes to bomb Belgrade and perform SEAD operations. BGM-109 Tomahawk cruise missiles were fired from ships and submarines. The U.S. was the dominant member of the coalition against Yugoslavia, although other NATO members were involved. During the ten weeks of the conflict, NATO aircraft flew over 38,000 combat missions. For the German Air Force, this mission was its first conflict participation since World War II. In addition to air power, one battalion of Apache helicopters from the U.S. Army's 11th Aviation Regiment was deployed to help combat missions. The regiment was augmented by pilots from Fort Bragg's 82nd Airborne Attack Helicopter Battalion. The battalion secured AH-64 Apache attack helicopter refueling sites, and a small team forward deployed to the Albania Kosovo border to identify targets for NATO air strikes.

The campaign was initially designed to destroy Yugoslavian air defences and high-value military targets.[citation needed]

NATO military operations increasingly attacked Yugoslavian units on the ground; as well as continuing the strategic bombardment. Montenegro was bombed several times, and NATO refused to prop up the precarious position of its anti-Miloevi leader, Milo ukanovi. "Dual-use" targets, used by civilians and military, were attacked; the targets included bridges across the Danube, factories, power stations, telecommunications facilities, headquarters of Yugoslavian Leftists, a political party led by Miloevi's wife, and the Avala TV Tower. Some protested that these actions were violations of international law and the Geneva Conventions. NATO argued these facilities were potentially useful to the Yugoslavian military and that their bombing was justified.

On April 14, NATO planes bombed ethnic Albanians near Koria who had been used by Yugoslav forces as human shields.[44][45] Yugoslav troops took TV crews to the scene shortly after the bombing.[46] The Yugoslav government insisted that NATO had targeted civilians.[47][48][49]

On May 7, NATO bombed the Chinese embassy in Belgrade, killing three Chinese journalists. NATO had aimed at a Yugoslav military target, but navigational errors led to the wrong building being targeted.[50] The United States and NATO apologized for the bombing, saying it occurred because of an outdated map provided by the Central Intelligence Agency. The bombing strained relations between the People's Republic of China and NATO, provoking angry demonstrations outside Western embassies in Beijing.[51]

Solana directed Clark to "initiate air operations in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia." Clark then delegated responsibility for the conduct of Operation Allied Force to the Commander-in-Chief of Allied Forces Southern Europe who in turn delegated control to the Commander of Allied Air Forces Southern Europe, Lieutenant-General Michael C. Short USAF.[52] Operationally, the day-to-day for responsibility for executing missions was delegated to the Commander of the 5th Allied Tactical Air Force.[53]

The Hague Tribunal ruled that over 700,000 Kosovo Albanians were forcibly displaced by Yugoslav forces into neighbouring Albania and Macedonia, with many thousands displaced within Kosovo.[54] By April, the United Nations reported 850,000 refugees had left Kosovo.[55] Another 230,000 were listed as internally displaced persons (IDPs): driven from their homes, but still inside Kosovo. German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer claimed the refugee crisis was produced by a Yugoslav plan codenamed "Operation Horseshoe".

Serbian Television claimed that huge columns of refugees were fleeing Kosovo because of NATOs bombing, not Yugoslav military operations.[56][57] The Yugoslav side and its Western supporters claimed the refugee outflows were caused by a mass panic in the Kosovo Albanian population, and the exodus was generated principally by fear of NATO bombs.

The United Nations and international human rights organizations were convinced the crisis resulted from a policy of ethnic cleansing. Many accounts from both Serbs and Albanians identified Yugoslav security forces and paramilitaries as the culprits, responsible for systematically emptying towns and villages of their Albanian inhabitants by forcing them to flee.[58]

Atrocities against civilians in Kosovo were the basis of United Nations war crimes charges against Miloevi and other officials responsible for directing the Kosovo conflict.

An important portion of the war involved combat between the Yugoslav Air Force and the opposing air forces. United States Air Force F-15s and F-16s flying mainly from Italian air force bases attacked the defending Yugoslav fighters; mainly MiG-29s, which were in poor condition, due to lack of spare parts and maintenance. Other NATO forces also contributed to the air war.

Air combat incidents:

By the start of April, the conflict seemed closer to resolution. NATO countries began to deliberate about invading Kosovo with ground units. U.S. President Bill Clinton was reluctant to commit US forces for a ground offensive. At the same time, Finnish and Russian negotiators continued to try to persuade Miloevi to back down. Faced with little alternative, Miloevi accepted the conditions offered by a Finnish-Russian mediation team and agreed to a military presence within Kosovo headed by the UN, but incorporating NATO troops.

On June 12, after Miloevi accepted the conditions, KFOR began entering Kosovo. KFOR, a NATO force, had been preparing to conduct combat operations, but in the end, its mission was only peacekeeping. It was based upon the Allied Rapid Reaction Corps headquarters commanded by then Lieutenant General Mike Jackson of the British Army. It consisted of British forces (a brigade built from 4th Armored and 5th Airborne Brigades), a French Army Brigade, a German Army brigade, which entered from the west while all the other forces advanced from the south, and Italian Army and US Army brigades. The U.S. contribution, known as the Initial Entry Force, was led by the U.S. 1st Armored Division. Subordinate units included TF 135 Armor from Baumholder, Germany, the 2nd Battalion, 505th Parachute Infantry Regiment from Fort Bragg, North Carolina, the 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit from Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, the 1st Battalion, 26th Infantry Regiment from Schweinfurt, Germany, and Echo Troop, 4th Cavalry Regiment, also from Schweinfurt, Germany. Also attached to the U.S. force was the Greek Army's 501st Mechanized Infantry Battalion. The initial U.S. forces established their area of operation around the towns of Uroevac, the future Camp Bondsteel, and Gnjilane, at Camp Monteith, and spent four months the start of a stay which continues to date establishing order in the southeast sector of Kosovo.

The first NATO troops to enter Pristina on the 12th of June 1999 were Norwegian special forces from FSK Forsvarets Spesialkommando and soldiers from the British Special Air Service 22 S.A.S, although to NATO's diplomatic embarrassment Russian troops arrived first at the airport. The Norwegian soldiers from FSK Forsvarets Spesialkommando were the first to come in contact with the Russian troops at the airport. FSK's mission was to level the negotiating field between the belligerent parties, and to fine-tune the detailed, local deals needed to implement the peace deal between the Serbians and the Kosovo Albanians.[76][77][78][79]

During the initial incursion, the U.S. soldiers were greeted by Albanians cheering and throwing flowers as U.S. soldiers and KFOR rolled through their villages.[citation needed] Although no resistance was met, three U.S. soldiers from the Initial Entry Force lost their lives in accidents.[80]

Following the military campaign, the involvement of Russian peacekeepers proved to be tense and challenging to the NATO Kosovo force. The Russians expected to have an independent sector of Kosovo, only to be unhappily surprised with the prospect of operating under NATO command. Without prior communication or coordination with NATO, Russian peacekeeping forces entered Kosovo from Bosnia and seized Pristina International Airport.

In 2010 James Blunt in an interview described how his unit was given the assignment of securing the Pristina in advance of the 30,000-strong peacekeeping force and the Russian army had moved in and taken control of the airport before his unit's arrival. As the first officer on the scene, Blunt shared a part in the difficult task of addressing the potentially violent international incident. His own account tells of how he refused to follow orders from NATO command to attack the Russians.[81]

Outpost Gunner was established on a high point in the Preevo Valley by Echo Battery 1/161 Field Artillery in an attempt to monitor and assist with peacekeeping efforts in the Russian Sector. Operating under the support of 2/3 Field Artillery, 1st Armored Division, the Battery was able to successfully deploy and continuously operate a Firefinder Radar which allowed the NATO forces to keep a closer watch on activities in the Sector and the Preevo Valley. Eventually a deal was struck whereby Russian forces operated as a unit of KFOR but not under the NATO command structure.[82]

While not directly related to the hostilities, on 12 March 1999 the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland joined NATO by depositing instruments of accession in accordance with Article 10 of the North Atlantic Treaty at a ceremony in Independence, Missouri.[83] These nations did not participate directly in hostilities.

A large element of the operation was the air forces of NATO, relying heavily on the US Air Force and Navy. The French Navy and Air Force operated the Super Etendard and the Mirage 2000. The Italian Air Force operated with 34 Tornado, 12 F-104, 12 AMX, 2 B-707, the Italian Navy operated with Harrier II. The British Royal Air Force operated the Harrier GR7 and Tornado ground attack jets as well as an array of support aircraft. Belgian, Danish, Dutch, Norwegian and Turkish Air Forces operated F-16s. The Spanish Air Force deployed EF-18s and KC-130s. The Canadian Air Force deployed a total of 18 CF-18s, enabling them to be responsible for 10% of all bombs dropped in the operation. The fighters were armed with both guided and unguided "dumb" munitions, including the Paveway series of laser-guided bombs.[citation needed] The bombing campaign marked the first time the German Air Force actively participated in combat operations since the end of World War II.[84]

However, NATO forces relied mostly upon the Americans and the proven effectiveness of its air power by using the F-16, F-15, F-117, F-14, F/A-18, EA-6B, B-52, KC-135, KC-10, AWACS, and JSTARS from bases throughout Europe and from aircraft carriers in the region. The American B-2 Spirit stealth bomber also saw its first successful combat role in Operation Allied Force, all while striking from its home base in the continental United States.

Even with this air power, noted a RAND Corporation study, "NATO never fully succeeded in neutralizing the enemy's radar-guided SAM threat".[85]

Operation Allied Force incorporated the first large-scale use of satellites as a direct method of weapon guidance. The collective bombing was the first combat use of the Joint Direct Attack Munition JDAM kit, which uses an inertial-guidance and GPS-guided tail fin to increase the accuracy of conventional gravity munitions up to 95%. The JDAM kits were outfitted on the B-2s. The AGM-154 Joint Standoff Weapon (JSOW) had been previously used in Operation Southern Watch earlier in 1999.

NATO naval forces operated in the Adriatic Sea. The Royal Navy sent a substantial task force that included the aircraft carrier HMSInvincible, which operated Sea Harrier FA2 fighter jets. The RN also deployed destroyers and frigates, and the Royal Fleet Auxiliary (RFA) provided support vessels, including the aviation training/primary casualty receiving ship RFAArgus. It was the first time the RN used cruise missiles in combat, operated from the nuclear fleet submarine HMSSplendid. The Italian Navy provided a naval task force that included the aircraft carrier Giuseppe Garibaldi, a frigate (Maestrale) and a submarine (Sauro-class). The United States Navy provided a naval task force that included the aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt, USSVella Gulf, and the amphibious assault ship USSKearsarge. The French Navy provided the aircraft carrier Foch and escorts. The German Navy deployed the frigate Rheinland-Pfalz and Oker, an Oste-classfleet service ship, in the naval operations.

U.S. ground forces included a battalion from the 505th Parachute Infantry Regiment, 82nd Airborne Division. The unit was deployed in March 1999 to Albania in support of the bombing campaign where the battalion secured the Tirana airfield, Apache helicopter refueling sites, established a forward-operating base to prepare for Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS) strikes and offensive ground operations, and deployed a small team with an AN/TPQ-36 Firefinder radar system to the Albania/Kosovo border where it acquired targets for allied/NATO air strikes. Immediately after the bombing campaign, the battalion was refitted back at Tirana airfield and issued orders to move into Kosovo as the initial entry force in support of Operation Joint Guardian. Task Force Hawk was also deployed.

Human Rights Watch "concludes that as few as 489 and as many as 528 Yugoslav civilians were killed in the ninety separate incidents in Operation Allied Force". Refugees were among the victims. Between 278 and 317 of the dead, between 56 and 60 percent of the total number of deaths, were in Kosovo. In Serbia, 201 civilians were killed (five in Vojvodina) and eight died in Montenegro. Almost two thirds (303 to 352) of the total registered civilian deaths occurred in twelve incidents where ten or more civilian deaths were confirmed.[86]

Military casualties on the NATO side were limited. According to official reports, the alliance suffered no fatalities from combat operations. However, on May 5, an American AH-64 Apache crashed and exploded during a night-time mission in Albania.[87][88] The Yugoslavs claimed they shot it down, but NATO claimed it crashed due to a technical malfunction. It crashed 40miles from Tirana,[89] killing the two crewmen, Army Chief Warrant Officers David Gibbs and Kevin Reichert.[90] It was one of two Apache helicopters lost in the war.[91] A further three American soldiers were taken as prisoners of war by Yugoslav special forces while riding on a Humvee on a surveillance mission along the Macedonian border.[92] A study of the campaign reports that Yugoslav air defenses may have fired up to 700 missiles at NATO aircraft, and that the B-1 bomber crews counted at least 20 surface-to-air missiles fired at them during their first 50 missions.[90] Despite this, only two NATO aircraft (one F-16C[93][94][95] and one F-117A Nighthawk[96][97]) were shot down.[98] A further F-117A Nighthawk was damaged[69][70] as were two A-10 Thunderbolt IIs.[99][100] One AV-8B Harrier crashed due to technical failure.[101] NATO also lost 25 UAVs, either due to enemy action or mechanical failure.[102]

In 2013, Serbia's then-Defence Minister Aleksandar Vui announced that Yugoslavia's military and police losses during the air campaign amounted to 956 killed and 52 missing. Vui stated that 631 soldiers were killed and a further 28 went missing, and that 325 police officers were also among the dead with a further 24 listed as missing.[103] The Government of Serbia also lists 5,173 combatants as having been wounded.[104][105] In early June 1999, while the bombing was still in progress, NATO officials claimed that 5,000 Yugoslav troops had been killed in the bombing and a further 10,000 wounded.[106][107][108] NATO later revised this estimation to 1,200 soldiers and policemen killed.[109]

Throughout the war; 181 NATO strikes were reported against tanks, 317 against armored personnel vehicles, 800 against other military vehicles, and 857 against artillery and mortars,[110] after a total of 38,000 sorties, or 200 sorties per day at the beginning of the conflict and over 1,000 at the end of the conflict.[111] When it came to alleged hits, 93 tanks, 153 APCs, 339 other vehicles, and 389 artillery systems were believed to have been disabled or destroyed with certainty.[112] The Department of Defense and Joint Chief of Staff had earlier provided a figure of 120 tanks, 220 APCs, and 450 artillery systems, and a Newsweek piece published around a year later stated that only 14 tanks, 18 APCs, and 20 artillery systems had actually been obliterated,[112] not that far from the Serbs own estimates of 13 tanks, 6 APCs, and 6 artillery pieces.[113] However, this reporting was heavily criticised, as it was based on the number of vehicles found during the assessment of the Munitions Effectiveness Assessment Team, which wasnt interested in the effectiveness of anything but the ordnance, and surveyed sites that hadnt been visited in nearly three-months, at a time when the most recent of strikes were four-weeks old.[113] The Yugoslav Air Force also sustained serious damage, with 121 aircraft destroyed.[114]

Operation Allied Force inflicted less damage on the Yugoslav military than originally thought due to the use of camouflage. Other misdirection techniques were used to disguise military targets. It was only in the later stages of the campaign that strategic targets such as bridges and buildings were attacked in any systematic way, causing significant disruption and economic damage. This stage of the campaign led to controversial incidents, most notably the bombing of the People's Republic of China embassy in Belgrade where three Chinese reporters were killed and twenty injured, which NATO claimed was a mistake.[50]

Relatives of Italian soldiers believe 50 of them have died since the war due to their exposure to depleted uranium weapons.[115]UNEP tests found no evidence of harm by depleted uranium weapons, even among cleanup workers,[116] but those tests and UNEPs report were questioned in an article in Le Monde diplomatique.[117]

In April 1999, during the NATO bombing, officials in Yugoslavia said the damage from the bombing campaign has cost around $100 billion up to that time.[118]

In 2000, a year after the bombing ended, Group 17 published a survey dealing with damage and economic restoration. The report concluded that direct damage from the bombing totalled $3.8 billion, not including Kosovo, of which only 5% had been repaired at that time.[119]

In 2006, a group of economists from the G17 Plus party estimated the total economic losses resulting from the bombing were about $29.6 billion.[120] This figure included indirect economic damage, loss of human capital, and loss of GDP.[citation needed]

When NATO agreed Kosovo would be politically supervised by the United Nations, and that there would be no independence referendum for three years, the Yugoslav government agreed to withdraw its forces from Kosovo, under strong diplomatic pressure from Russia, and the bombing was suspended on June 10. The war ended June 11, and Russian paratroopers seized Slatina airport to become the first peacekeeping force in the war zone.[121] As British troops were still massed on the Macedonian border, planning to enter Kosovo at 5am, the Serbs were hailing the Russian arrival as proof the war was a UN operation, not a NATO operation. After hostilities ended, on June 12 the U.S. Army's 82nd Airborne, 2505th Parachute Infantry Regiment entered war-torn Kosovo as part of Operation Joint Guardian.

Yugoslav President Miloevi survived the conflict and declared its outcome a major victory for Yugoslavia. He was, however, indicted for war crimes by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia along with a number of other senior Yugoslav political and military figures. His indictment led to Yugoslavia as a whole being treated as a pariah by much of the international community because Miloevi was subject to arrest if he left Yugoslavia. The country's economy was badly affected by the conflict, and in addition to electoral fraud, this was a factor in the overthrow of Miloevi.

Thousands were killed during the conflict, and hundreds of thousands more fled from the province to other parts of the country and to the surrounding countries. Most of the Albanian refugees returned home within a few weeks or months. However, much of the non-Albanian population again fled to other parts of Serbia or to protected enclaves within Kosovo following the operation.[122][123][124][125][126] Albanian guerrilla activity spread into other parts of Serbia and to neighbouring Republic of Macedonia, but subsided in 2001. The non-Albanian population has since diminished further following fresh outbreaks of inter-communal conflict and harassment.[citation needed]

In December 2002, Elizabeth II approved the awarding of the Battle Honour "Kosovo" to squadrons of the RAF that participated in the conflict. These were: Nos 1, 7, 8, 9, 14, 23, 31, 51, 101, and 216 squadrons. This was also extended to the Canadian squadrons deployed to the operation, 425 and 441.

Ten years after the operation, the Republic of Kosovo declared independence with a new Republic of Kosovo government.

Those who were involved in the NATO airstrikes have stood by the decision to take such action. U.S President Bill Clinton's Secretary of Defense, William Cohen, said, "The appalling accounts of mass killing in Kosovo and the pictures of refugees fleeing Serb oppression for their lives makes it clear that this is a fight for justice over genocide."[127] On CBS' Face the Nation Cohen claimed, "We've now seen about 100,000 military-aged men missing. ... They may have been murdered."[128] Clinton, citing the same figure, spoke of "at least 100,000 (Kosovar Albanians) missing".[129] Later, Clinton said about Yugoslav elections, "they're going to have to come to grips with what Mr. Miloevi ordered in Kosovo. ... They're going to have to decide whether they support his leadership or not; whether they think it's OK that all those tens of thousands of people were killed. ..."[130] In the same press conference, Clinton also claimed "NATO stopped deliberate, systematic efforts at ethnic cleansing and genocide."[130] Clinton compared the events of Kosovo to the Holocaust. CNN reported, "Accusing Serbia of 'ethnic cleansing' in Kosovo similar to the genocide of Jews in World War II, an impassioned Clinton sought Tuesday to rally public support for his decision to send U.S. forces into combat against Yugoslavia, a prospect that seemed increasingly likely with the breakdown of a diplomatic peace effort."[131] President Clinton's State Department also claimed Serbian troops had committed genocide. The New York Times reported, "the Administration said evidence of 'genocide' by Serbian forces was growing to include 'abhorrent and criminal action' on a vast scale. The language was the State Department's strongest up to that time in denouncing Yugoslav President Slobodan Miloevi."[132] The State Department also gave the highest estimate of dead Albanians. In May 1996, Defense Secretary William Cohen suggested that there might be up to 100,000 Albanian fatalities."[133]

Five months after the conclusion of NATO bombing, when around one third of reported gravesites had been visited thus far, 2,108 bodies had been found, with a estimated total of between 5,000 and 12,000 at that time;[134] Serb forces had systematically concealed grave sites and moved bodies.[135][136]

The United States House of Representatives passed a non-binding resolution on March 11, 1999 by a vote of 219191 conditionally approving of President Clinton's plan to commit 4000 troops to the NATO peacekeeping mission.[137] In late April the House Appropriations Committee approved $13billion in emergency spending to cover the cost of the air war, but a second non-binding resolution approving of the mission failed in the full House by a vote of 213213.[138] The Senate had passed the second resolution in late March by a vote of 5841.[139]

There has also been criticism of the campaign. Joseph Farah accused the coalition of exaggerating the casualty numbers to make a claim of potential genocide to justify the bombings.[140] The Clinton administration were accused of inflating the number of Kosovar Albanians killed by Serbians.[141]

In an interview with Radio-Television Serbia journalist Danilo Mandic on April 25, 2006, Noam Chomsky claimed that Strobe Talbott, the Deputy Secretary of State under President Clinton and the leading U.S. negotiator during the war, had written in his foreword to John Norris' 2005 book Collision Course: NATO, Russia, and Kosovo that "the real purpose of the war had nothing to do with concern for Kosovar Albanians", but rather "It was because Serbia was not carrying out the required social and economic reforms, meaning it was the last corner of Europe which had not subordinated itself to the US-run neoliberal programs, so therefore it had to be eliminated".[142] On May 31, 2006, Brad DeLong rebutted Chomsky's allegation and noted that in the original passage which Chomsky had cited,[143] Talbott claimed that "the Kosovo crisis was fueled by frustration with Milosevic and the legitimate fear that instability and conflict might spread further in the region" and also that "Only a decade of death, destruction, and Milosevic brinkmanship pushed NATO to act when the Rambouillet talks collapsed. Most of the leaders of NATO's major powers were proponents of 'third way' politics and headed socially progressive, economically centrist governments. None of these men were particularly hawkish, and Milosevic did not allow them the political breathing room to look past his abuses."[143][144]

The United Nations Charter does not allow military interventions in other sovereign countries with few exceptions which, in general, need to be decided upon by the United Nations Security Council. The issue was brought before the UNSC by Russia, in a draft resolution which, inter-alia, would affirm "that such unilateral use of force constitutes a flagrant violation of the United Nations Charter". China, Namibia and Russia voted for the resolution, the other members against, thus it failed to pass.[145][146][dead link]

Israeli Minister of Foreign Affairs Ariel Sharon criticized the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia as an act of "brutal interventionism".[147] Sharon said both Serbia and Kosovo have been victims of violence. He said prior to the current Yugoslav campaign against Kosovo Albanians, Serbians were the targets of attacks in the Kosovo province. "Israel has a clear policy. We are against aggressive actions. We are against hurting innocent people. I hope that the sides will return to the negotiating table as soon as possible." During the crisis, Elyakim Haetzni said the Serbs should be the first to receive Israeli aid. "There are our traditional friends," he told Israel Radio."[148] It was suggested[who?] that Israel's pro-Serbian position may have been a result of the Serbian population's history of saving Jews during the holocaust, personal memories of which were still present among many older Israeli politicians serving in government at the time such as Tommy Lapid.[149]

On April 29, 1999, Yugoslavia filed a complaint at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) at The Hague against ten NATO member countries (Belgium, Germany, France, United Kingdom, Italy, Canada, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, and the United States) and alleged that the military operation had violated Article 9 of the 1948 Genocide Convention and that Yugoslavia had jurisdiction to sue through Article 38, para. 5 of Rules of Court.[150] On June 2, the ICJ ruled in an 84 vote that Yugoslavia had no such jurisdiction.[151] Four of the ten nations (the United States, France, Italy and Germany) had withdrawn entirely from the court's optional clause. Because Yugoslavia filed its complaint only three days after accepting the terms of the court's optional clause, the ICJ ruled that there was no jurisdiction to sue either Britain or Spain, as the two nations had only agreed to submit to ICJ lawsuits if a suing party had filed their complaint a year or more after accepting the terms of the optional clause.[151] Despite objections that Yugoslavia had legal jurisdiction to sue Belgium, the Netherlands, Canada and Portugal,[151] the ICJ majority vote also determined that the NATO bombing was an instance of humanitarian intervention" and thus did not violate Article 9 of the Genocide Convention.[151]

Amnesty International released a report which stated that NATO forces had deliberately targeted a civilian object (NATO bombing of the Radio Television of Serbia headquarters), and had bombed targets at which civilians were certain to be killed.[152][153] The report was rejected by NATO as "baseless and ill-founded". A week before the report was released, Carla Del Ponte, the chief prosecutor for the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia had told the United Nations Security Council that her investigation into NATO actions found no basis for charging NATO or its leaders with war crimes.[154]

A majority of U.S. House Republicans voted against two resolutions, both of which expressed approval for American involvement in the NATO mission.[155][156]

Moscow criticised the bombing as a breach of international law and a challenge to Russia's status.[157]

More here:
NATO bombing of Yugoslavia - Wikipedia

Posted in NATO | Comments Off on NATO bombing of Yugoslavia – Wikipedia

The First Amendment Doesn’t Protect The Federal Workers …

Posted: at 10:45 pm

The Constitution can be heartbreaking sometimes.

The free speech protections enshrined in the First Amendment do not apply to the rogue National Park Service employees who have been tweeting out facts about climate change, courageously defying the Trump administrations stance on the environment.

Many people have rallied around these government workers, whose social media postings on climate science and research could very well land them in trouble, according to First Amendment experts.

Federal agencies, not individual employees, control messaging on their official accounts,explained Eugene Volokh, a law professor at UCLA who specializes on free-speech issues.

The First Amendment doesnt protect [these employees] right to speak on the employers Twitter feed in a way that the employer disapproves of, he said, pointing to an important Supreme Court case dealing with the speech of government workers.

Esha Bhandari, a staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Unions Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project,more or less concurred with that assessment.

The new administration is entitled to use the official channels of government whether they be press briefings or websites or social media accounts to put out its own messages, and it can decide what federal employees are allowed to communicate when they are on the job, Bhandari wrote in a blog post.

This means that these brave employees couldnt raise the First Amendment defense if they get in trouble at their jobs for these tweets, although there may be other civil service protections available to them.

In addition, nothing prevents these workers from using their personal Twitter accounts to speak out about issues of public concern but even there, Bhandari cautions that First Amendment protections are strongest when they are speaking about issues that do not relate to their job duties.

There are also whistleblower protections for federal workers who would like to sound the alarm about unethical or otherwise illegal activity occurring at their agencies.

The federal government must foster an environment where employee disclosures are welcomed, Carolyn Lerner, the head of theU.S. Office of Special Counsel, said Wednesday in a statement.This makes our government work better and protects taxpayer dollars through disclosures of waste, fraud, and abuse.

But on the broader realm of freedom of speech, things are more complicated. Ken White, a longtime criminal defense attorney and First Amendment lawyer, wrote acheat sheet on these issues for people who would like to learn more, which may come handy in the Donald Trump era.

Those limitations aside,public outcry may ultimately play a role.

Heidi Kitrosser, a law professor at the University of Minnesota, told Reuters that the Bush administration caused an outcry in 2006 after The New York Timesreported that a public affairs appointee at NASA was essentially placing a gag order on a climate scientist who wanted to speak freely to the press. Things changed at the agency after a congressional investigation.

Bad press and public pressure help,Kitrosser said. The main thing right now is screaming.

Continue reading here:
The First Amendment Doesn't Protect The Federal Workers ...

Posted in First Amendment | Comments Off on The First Amendment Doesn’t Protect The Federal Workers …

Genetic Engineering – News – Science – The New York Times

Posted: at 10:43 pm

Latest Articles

University of Florida scientists say they have found a recipe that would return flavor that has been lost through breeding of modern hybrids.

By KENNETH CHANG

Daniel Kronauers transgenic ants offer scientists the chance to explore the evolution of animal societies and, perhaps, our own.

By NATALIE ANGIER

Gene editing, which does not add genes from other organisms into plants, is done with new tools that snip and tweak DNA at precise locations.

By KENNETH CHANG

The genetic engineering start-ups round includes the participation of Jennifer A. Doudna, who helped pioneer a technique that made altering DNA easier.

By MICHAEL J. de la MERCED

A California start-up that genetically engineers yeast to produce an acid for fragrances is at the forefront of efforts to reignite a market that fell short of earlier expectations.

By QUENTIN HARDY

The technique, discovered by a team at the Salk Institute and tested in mice, cannot be applied directly to people, but it points toward better understanding of human aging.

By NICHOLAS WADE

Why scientists and startups are tinkering with our most popular legume.

By ROXANNE KHAMSI

With inaugurations on everyones mind, heres another one: our new, weekly sampling of readers views.

By LIZ SPAYD with EVAN GERSHKOVICH

Monsanto writes that these crops are a very important and productive tool for modern and sustainable agriculture.

A cotton farmer in India says they have greatly increased his yield. The Union of Concerned Scientists urges better crop management methods instead.

Higher yields with less pesticides was the sales pitch for genetically modified seeds. But that has not proved to be the outcome in the United States.

By DANNY HAKIM

A Chinese firms $43 billion effort to buy Syngenta could upend the industry, but it faces widespread fears at home over modified food.

By AMIE TSANG and CAO LI

A bioethicist says research on a controversial procedure should be permitted with proper monitoring.

Officials want to test genetically modified mosquitoes built to blunt the spread of dengue and Zika, but many Key Haven residents fear the experiment more than the viruses.

By LIZETTE ALVAREZ

A new survey shows distrust of scientists, a suspicion about claims of progress and discomfort with the idea of meddling with human abilities.

By GINA KOLATA

The bill would require companies to indicate that foods have genetically engineered ingredients, but disagreement remains over how that would be done.

By STEPHANIE STROM

The study was testing the use of genetically engineered cells as a treatment for cancer, which had shown promising earlier results.

The bill would set a national standard for labeling G.M.O. foods, though critics say the system would not be tough enough.

By STEPHANIE STROM

A proposed law would make it unnecessarily difficult to check a label, by requiring the scanning of electronic codes in the store.

By THE EDITORIAL BOARD

As of Friday, nearly all food labels in the state must disclose when products include genetically engineered ingredients.

By STEPHANIE STROM

University of Florida scientists say they have found a recipe that would return flavor that has been lost through breeding of modern hybrids.

By KENNETH CHANG

Daniel Kronauers transgenic ants offer scientists the chance to explore the evolution of animal societies and, perhaps, our own.

By NATALIE ANGIER

Gene editing, which does not add genes from other organisms into plants, is done with new tools that snip and tweak DNA at precise locations.

By KENNETH CHANG

The genetic engineering start-ups round includes the participation of Jennifer A. Doudna, who helped pioneer a technique that made altering DNA easier.

By MICHAEL J. de la MERCED

A California start-up that genetically engineers yeast to produce an acid for fragrances is at the forefront of efforts to reignite a market that fell short of earlier expectations.

By QUENTIN HARDY

The technique, discovered by a team at the Salk Institute and tested in mice, cannot be applied directly to people, but it points toward better understanding of human aging.

By NICHOLAS WADE

Why scientists and startups are tinkering with our most popular legume.

By ROXANNE KHAMSI

With inaugurations on everyones mind, heres another one: our new, weekly sampling of readers views.

By LIZ SPAYD with EVAN GERSHKOVICH

Monsanto writes that these crops are a very important and productive tool for modern and sustainable agriculture.

A cotton farmer in India says they have greatly increased his yield. The Union of Concerned Scientists urges better crop management methods instead.

Higher yields with less pesticides was the sales pitch for genetically modified seeds. But that has not proved to be the outcome in the United States.

By DANNY HAKIM

A Chinese firms $43 billion effort to buy Syngenta could upend the industry, but it faces widespread fears at home over modified food.

By AMIE TSANG and CAO LI

A bioethicist says research on a controversial procedure should be permitted with proper monitoring.

Officials want to test genetically modified mosquitoes built to blunt the spread of dengue and Zika, but many Key Haven residents fear the experiment more than the viruses.

By LIZETTE ALVAREZ

A new survey shows distrust of scientists, a suspicion about claims of progress and discomfort with the idea of meddling with human abilities.

By GINA KOLATA

The bill would require companies to indicate that foods have genetically engineered ingredients, but disagreement remains over how that would be done.

By STEPHANIE STROM

The study was testing the use of genetically engineered cells as a treatment for cancer, which had shown promising earlier results.

The bill would set a national standard for labeling G.M.O. foods, though critics say the system would not be tough enough.

By STEPHANIE STROM

A proposed law would make it unnecessarily difficult to check a label, by requiring the scanning of electronic codes in the store.

By THE EDITORIAL BOARD

As of Friday, nearly all food labels in the state must disclose when products include genetically engineered ingredients.

By STEPHANIE STROM

Read the original here:
Genetic Engineering - News - Science - The New York Times

Posted in Genetic Engineering | Comments Off on Genetic Engineering – News – Science – The New York Times