historical mistakes

Part of the fun of blogs is that u can get personal, i suppose.
Well i made a historical mistake.

For years now i have been thinking syria had no acces to the mediteranean,
but it does. I don't know why i thought that, perhaps because serbia was denied one, irak is hardly left any, and so on. Basically the whole anti russia politics of before was one of denying them harbours and acces to certain seas.

So when recently turkey anounced they would move help into lebanon, i assumed that meant, directly, over land. But i don't know if that is where i got it.

Obviously damascus is situated antiquely, it's not on the better spot for a capital city. So historically, and probably practically still, beirut has indeed been syria's harbour. But what made me think they had no acces to the mediterenean?
perhaps it once was? else i don't know, certainly these coastal states, lebanon palestine, croatia have suggestive shapes and places on the coastlines.

Still it's a huge mistake of mine, i might sympatise with irak over shath el arab or kuweit, i may understand the cultural meaning of dubrovnik for the serb feeling of souvereignety, get faint of admirance for a russia that left all the krim but sebastopol to kiev, romantice wladiwostok, organise trainstrips through african countrys, and vocally support likewise palestinean rail projects to jordan,
but how could i err here?

it does mean that i tend to think that every country that is rudely insulted and attacked up to with military means , has no acces to sea.. i must take care not to admit to that mistake again (darfur kongo somalia anyone..).


Culture (not necessarily of Jordan)

Another historical mistake of mine that strikes me every now and then, is how i completely misjudge my capacity to understand other culture, it is not necessarily in the negative, but especially what i recently read about jordan in a blog:

http://ejectiraqikkk.blogspot.com/, wich i would call my best resource for culture in irak and jordan. I am personally not the kind of person to agree with each and everything, so i just enjoy the attitude and read what it tells me next. It made me think deeply.

This culture is so different from ours.
Actually not because it looks so much different, it's got a few harsh sides, but it is not for looks. It's readily appreciable Jordan would look different from netherlands, it is what i already mentioned, a cultural difference.

Culture is the chemical restproduct of historical mistakes, and it is always easier to point at the mistakes made by an other.

So what touched me from Jordan culture, is that it is so recent. It is alive, old fashioned partly, really circumstantial at matters, but above all it is recent.

There is a deep resource of ancient culture, or perhaps habits, but all the rest is tuned to the needs of the current era. These happen to be not completely sympathic to me in jordan, for example because i hold the antitotalitarian principle and therefore am an antimonarchist. However it is striking that all these recent elements perform pronounced in jordan culture.

Meanwhile it would be pretentious to say we have a grip on our people in jordan.
Here in europe, there is no war around, yes we do fight wars, but we don't admit to it, we call it fighting peaces.

And culture is such that the average person bears it, not knowing what we do around the world. It is not the insider, agent or idealist that bears the culture in any sense. We try to have relations to our cultures, and perhaps contribute positively to them, but the bearer is always the passive. The receiver tells us how they appreciate the symbolics with and around their existence.

So that is a definite about jordan culture as well. Anyhow this is not about jordan. It is about how we cannot get the cultures to work for us. Because i am very sure we have to be carefull with jordan if we want it not to meet horrible times of her own.

What i am saying is: despite that i don't think the usual jordanian would ever perceive things like this, we can still spare them from disaster and violence.

Actually.

Now Jordan isn't very much in the focus of the west fortunately, but the receipe is awfull. Jordans are sunnites, and sunnites are the victim of the day.
What are they supposed to think. If someone starts killing all the flemish, the dutch will not feel extra comfortable.

Ofcourse jordan are very much influenced by the usual al qauida hypes etc. They have either: "the only wrong religion", with evil intends and disturbing geopolitical inhumane qualitys, (wich are actually traits i think all religions share) , or they have innocent victims amongst their brethren.

It's quitte plain, the western mind, about that.
It harbours an exciting fear over an abstract terrorist complex, and seeing anything outside that as culture is almost prohibited. So unfortunately the jordanians had to be introduced to the western paranoia to. It may sound strange, but it is so. Think over it, you need to prepare your populace in unwarranted terms over things that happen around them, when they happen so unwarranted.

And there you have the usual jordanian pov.. so it is not a conspiracy, it is just the natural effect of getting into terms with what happens around you.

I am a very modern person. So i don't like jordan, but it doesn't count, there is hardly a nation i like, that should actually be the subject of my next post.
how this amazing multiplexity of authoritys delivers only crap evrywhere,
named politics, and substantiate each and every of them.

Sympathy against any government

People might think i sympathise with any government, just because i sometimes think the dissidents are crap as well for example. Things are more complex then that.

I sympathise with chavez for shutting up CNN, i dont sympathise with his government for having no better relation with the local yuppys of the private broadcasting companys. Then again, CNN is a very powerfull concept in the mind of many yups in television sets.

Where lies Myanmar? bhutan or some such peculiar small place i would guess.
Isn't it evil, how the UN acknowledges the farce of letting her out of her house once? it's all for tourism or some even worse colonialist trait. Then again,
what does the lady want, what kind of liberty's .. the generals looked very distinguished in their uniform uniforms without bunches of medals.

She got a nobel peace price, and she is shut up and noone cares.
What does it mean? The generals are leftish, and she is expendable. The west can think of a cheaper capitalist president, in the end.(..)

For her personal notion, i would judge they still consider the attention to her person a rewarding source of unrest in her nation. I don't know.., is it such an awfull place? Keeping in mind that i would still write a post about what is against so many of the systems:)? The problem is that even one year of housearrest would turn you into a rather severe case, but from my remote perpective it means auth. didn't hand you over to for example psychiatrics and that you had a western education.

People say she is a true person, although they pray for her.
(part of the next post is how praying isn't a sincere argument at all)

I hope her government gives her freedom or a foreign asylum and the money to live,
if they don't like her and what she can still do.
17 years of (house) arrest is a ridiculous precedent when actually they should be proud that she is a woman (historically).

111 ways to slow down climate change

,or live with it.

Its obvious that a proces that capitalist science has been denying for 120 years now;
(global warming), cannot be expected to be halted within a foreseeable future.

The actual structure of the scheme is mathematically like a parabole.

Wich translates into, that changes slowly add up to accellerate the phenomenon.
Apart from that, like every natural factor that is completely beyond direct human control (its actually happening on a supra-animal level), the formula is obviously catastrophic. Wich means that at certain points of the course of events the effects become inpredictable and of enormous magnitude.

That beside the to be expected events are (and have always so been recognised) impredictable. Wich remains the main personal concern. After all it is not known if this is similarly to how Mars blew her atmosphere into space for example.

A detail in that would be how the atmosphere seems weakened. I saw the moon as a globe yesterday, i never seen it like that, its always just been the moon,
the 'disk' and not the globe. I dont have very good eyes, and my friend with me, also appreciated the effect. It didn't last , a minute later i just saw the disk again.

Im not sure about that but i have been wondering where all the water vapor, that obviously results from the huge warming of the oceans, and of the smelting of the poles, went. Europe has actually mostly met droughts. Wich is not yet explained.
(it is a global trend besides.)

As such it suits to illustrate the inpredictability of the effect of changes though.
I think that the tenfold increase in hurricanes finally triggered awareness in security counsel and world bank and other US-organisations.

sad and sentimental but true.


Usually to counter a problem you would first want to identify it, and in this case we cannot exactly.
There is a scala of changes, the one even seemingly lesser significant then the other, and a scala of causes of similar property.

Nature by the way points us optimistically in the temperate and cold climate zones
to the possibillitys of natural adaptions. When the dinosaurs died out , although that is a bad example , they had no humans to ship them over the planet to more bearable circumstances. (Exotic) plants and cash crops sometimes do exctremely well , pending the droughts though..in these climates.

Droughts in tropical africa however appear to be a different quality. Wich is easy to imagine as the suns heat can be almost painfull here.
(and definetly to much to sit or walk around in it a lot.

Well i think i have my point made. We should counter climate change, try to slow it down, revert it, and adapt as much as possible in a reconstructive way.

Fortunately i have been occupied with the subject before, and some projects have been underway. I will once again sum them up, to stress their importance.

Firstly and thirstly we have to settle water resources.
That can be done in a few ways, open resources, structural resources and additional resources. Wich means: fresh water surface typically "wetlands", groundwaterlevel and
potentially ice and desalification.

It is never predictable what will work, we have no geotypical evidence of anything, however a few of my gambles have already been extremely rewarding so it seems that the planetary tends to take the logical courses. And countermeasures to the effects tend to work when they have this logical "potential" or quality.

In other words, although some foreseeable countermeasures won't work or fizzle, generally they tend to reward more then you would expect.

The best example here being the wetlands case, but reforestation has alredi proven rewarding energetically, hydrologically and possibly even regulatory.

In that context the worldwide hype and economical misfit of tourism would have better served when approached as renaturalisation, reforestation and generally the reconstruction of a flourishing nature (of any kind).

In countering climate change and disaster you cannot expect a profit technology to do the job. Wetlands for example, however much one of the most rewarding scenerys to look at, tend to be decent places for cows meadows.

It is a trade off in that sense, if you want the peculiar looks of it: cows actually fed on leaves in nature, not on grass and as a result they suffer a permanent diarhea.
So , the more ekological aproach of recontructing a natural quality of the landscape
is selfevident in even the greatest bullshit.

I don't have to continue as i alredi mentioned far over a billion ways to possitively induce climate regulation but anyhow i will try.

One thing i apreciated is that since we are talking about major features of the landscape you may actually use your imagination to adapt features you would in not other context consider. Albeit it would not be much use under other circumstances...:) Just don't consider it human inspiration let alone effort for such. Thats just excuses, some art of revisionism.

As i argued before, the climate tends to stick to logical consequences, the extra wetlands and watersurfaces have serviced neatly to counter effects of droughts,
adaptional agriculture and microclimatisation have their rewards as well.

Regulating fishery would instantly replenish fish resources in a few years, and possibly even alredi does, at some places,(that has not much to do with climate though). However we may have to pay attention to different species of edible fish and take care they migrate at sufficient speed.

(that is where they geologically and specifically tend to fail and extinguish)
It may be that we have to take care for plants in that sense as well.
Especially traditional barreers for species, would be unbridgeable still. Examples of these are many , but plain: australia, madagascar, the middle american landbridge.

It is probably better to reforest anything with adaptional vegetation then with nothing at all and every insulated species will be mostly limited in alternative range and acutely endangered.

Im talking plants now, not animals they are a slightly different case. However one point can be made, in many places you cannot waste much of the original ecology since it is alredi been infested with the more proliferate species of exotics.

And although that may be more of a direct concern for small islands etc. whole continents like australia seem equally affected.

(as kangaroos tend to die out all over australia you hardly have to be scared to punish your local nature by introducing them instead of the other way around)

That would serve to remain a basis of diversification, wich might in its turn serve to create ecological niches in that 'post-apocalyptical' era.

Those are considered 'resources' for human substanance. I forgot what endpoint in a science lines that represents :)

Anyhow this is all pointing at the alternative, because it is so obvious we need something on hands when we basically find alternative bussiness for pollution and exploit.

Reading over it i notice i could have stressed one point more,
the need to take care it rains. There are an endless amount of reasons to put every effort for that, and it is my major worry at the moment, what is happening to the water, why are the clouds so high, however, if we will at all be able to manage the receipe is clear. Water surface, and vegetation, general humidity factors and not the drenching and draining of rain will be able to turn the tide if anything will.

It would actually regulate hurricane- ike effects ofcourse, but that is another esoteric point yet to proof its natural consequence.