Jaduguda illustrates the way that India moves into the future: this is the style of its progress. When the state wants to do something it just does it. Land is requisitioned, the earthmovers arrive. If there are rules to be followed - and, according to the Indian Constitution, land f held by tribal people in tribal areas subject to the Constitution's Fifth Schedule cannot by any means be transferred to non-tribals - it is a sound bet that they will be ignored.After all the recent bashing of members of the Islamic faith (on many sides of the political spectrum in the U.S.), this second article focuses on inventions that have changed the world developed by people loyal to Islam.
12 The technique of inoculation was not invented by Jenner and Pasteur but was devised in the Muslim world and brought to Europe from Turkey by the wife of the English ambassador to Istanbul in 1724. Children in Turkey were vaccinated with cowpox to fight the deadly smallpox at least 50 years before the West discovered it.Bubble Generation turned me on to the Dealing with Darwin blog. Warning, we're talking emerging economic models. Both are interesting reads if you like that sort of thing.
Mark Russinovich published an interesting article over a week ago, but I finally got around to it today. He demonstrates how to run IE and/or Outlook (or any other Internet interface) as a limited account using either his Process Explorer or PsExec tools. Doing this is a way to help prevent malware from sneaking onto your PC and becoming more destructive than if you were logged in as an administrator; a functionality Microsoft will provide users in the next version of Windows.
3 comments:
Nice post, B.D. This Indian nuclear deal of Bush is an utter, absolute catastrophe of gargantuan proportions if it goes through Congress. I didn't realize it initially, but if the deal is approved it causes the whole nuclear nonproliferation treaty apparatus to come crumbling down, since India is not only actively constructing the nukes but testing them, which not even the Russians or French are doing. If the US supplies nuclear fuel to India, then the fuel instantly gets diverted into enrichment for nuclear bombs since the Bush deal would place India's weapons reactors off limits to international inspections. So what we get is a big, nasty arms race in the region with Pakistan naturally following suit, along with the spread of nuclear weapons on the black market (you can't stop it if that region becomes a nuclear hot zone), followed by an Indo-Pak nuclear war as things heat up. They're neighbors to each other-- you can't prevent a nuke Holocaust if they build up against each other like that.
HAS BUSH GONE COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY NUTS, or is he just an idiot at heart? I have to embarrassingly admit-- I voted for Bush in both 2000 and 2004. I'm a longtime Republican and he seemed like the sensible choice. (He'd be much better than Hillary Clinton at least-- arrgh, I don't even wanna think of how the country would go down the tubes with her running for national office.) But I despise Bush with a passion now.
In fact, it's gotten to the point where I'm angrier at Bush than I was even at Jimmy Carter during his most embarrassing screwed-up periods. Jimmy was a naive fool at times, but there was a limit to the damage that he'd do, and he'd certainly never push a treaty with India that would basically turn the whole world into one big nuclear sh*thole. Bush is, far and away, the worst President we've had in the past 30-40 years.
I'm waiting to see what Congress does with the nuclear deal, to see if I'll still support the Republican Party. If the Republicans maintain their senses and reject the India nuclear deal, I'll continue to identify myself with them, vote for them and support them financially. If they support this disastrous nuclear deal, though, I will actively campaign against every single one of them who votes in favor of it. Even if this means that the Dems rule Congress for the next 20 years. And in my conversations with my other very Republican friends (we're mostly small business owners), we agree on this. The nuclear deal is a red line for us, and we won't support the Republicans anymore if they capitulate to this sort of stupidity.
Greg, thanks for the compliment and the thoughts. You make a good point about Bush needing Congress' approval to go forward with this plan. However, seeing as Congress has basically rubber stamped all foreign policy initiatives for Bush while he has returned the favor by rubber stamping all expenditures by Congress, it's likely to go forward.
Which really means that Bush would not be the only idiot. We'd have several hundred members of Congress that are also idiots or incompetent. Seeing their incredible hypocrisy regarding port security (they voted against it before they voted for it), I'll say they are incompetent - the lot of them - and that we need a real change in the make up for government.
Listen, I'm a liberal with libertarian tendencies. Ms. Clinton is not my favorite person in the world and neither was her husband. One of my Senators, Cantwell, drives me up the wall with her attempts to have it both ways with her votes. It's obvious that we need a change in both parties.
With the Indian proposal, Bush, under the guise of developing a strong counterbalance to China in the region, risks destabilizing the whole area. First, he allows India to sit out of the nonproliferation treaty. Second, the Iranians and most of the thinking world will see that this is hypocritical considering his stand with Iran. Third, by shunning the Pakistanis he almost ensures that there will be an arms race (as you pointed out). Fourth, by shunning the Pakistanis, he adds gasoline to the inflamatory rhetoric of those who would try and convince the world that we're anti-Islam (right after he chided members of his own party regarding the ports deal). In short, the whole thing stinks - and bad.
One other thought: though many papers reported it, the issue seems to not have traction. The French struck the same deal with India before Bush did. So, was this also a business deal that prevents the French from gaining too much of a foothold in the region? This from a man whose party made silly symbolic gestures like renaming food items to Freedom Fries and the like. (The silly sort of stunt one might recall from radical student leftists of the 60s and 70s).
Post a Comment