anti-nucleaRist bloG #253/ 22 May 2019
Space-Time is time on planet-eRathe, not interstellar Immeasurable vaccuousness
I have asked again and again, does anyone have answers to what has happened w “oRganic foods grown, canned, eaten” since 1998 and start-ups of “chemo-tRailings: sleaze” i.e. weather-Warfare? The advancement of ”techniques in development” assuredly cannot fight coRpoRate-sleaze and the best, w.o. help from activists and Ecosocialism. That Ecosocialism is not ”re-Development” such as the needs of replanting “chemical-Trails and demised by acid-Reins national forests” as that is not american-Socialism policies of socio-Politics. “R”
“She is one of a growing number of ocean farmers engaged in 3D farming,
cultivating her crops vertically in straight up-and-down water columns, using no fertilizers, freshwater or feed.
Puckett’s clams are buried and covered with nets to protect them from predators, while her oysters grow in bags. Her kelp develops on lines.
The operation helps cut down on pollution in numerous ways. The shellfish help filter pollutants from the water. They also offer a source of protein to diners, who might otherwise eat beef, which is made from cows who burp and fart methane, a potent heat-trapping gas. For those who can’t give up their beef, ocean farming can help.Researchshows that when cows eat a little seaweed, they produce less meyjane.
Seaweed also soaks up carbon and nitrogen, two pollutants lingering in the water. Carbon released by cars, trucks, factories and power plants is entering the ocean, turning waters more acidic. Nitrogen fertilizer used on farms is making its way into rivers and then to the ocean, creating dead zones. Seaweed cleans up both. If ocean farmers devoted a little less than 5 percent of U.S. waters to growing seaweed, they could clean up an estimated 135 million tons of carbon and 10 million tons of nitrogen, according to a report from the World Bank.
Puckett sells most of what she produces to a Maine food processor, and the remainder to land farmers who use it to fertilize their vegetables. “The kelp is sequestering carbon and nitrogen, so by selling it to the farmers as fertilizer, we are closing the loop,” she said. “We are making the circle complete.” She also keeps some for herself. She uses it in salads, as a substitute for spinach, and as a pizza topping. She also dries it, then bakes chips. “Those never make it out of the kitchen,” she said.
Puckett developed her operation with the help of GreenWave, a nonprofit helping aspiring growers get into vertical farming. Bren Smith, a former commercial fisherman, founded the organization after seeing the global fishing industry was decimating wild fish. He developed his vertical farming system off the shores of the Long Island Sound in Connecticut. It’s now being used by growers in New York, southern New England, California, Alaska and the Pacific Northwest.”
”Vertical Farming: This Ocean Farmer Grows Food That Cleans up Pollution”
nexus media 14 May 2019 11:42 a.m. EST
“Humanity in the twenty-first century is facing what might be described as its ultimate environmental catastrophe: the destruction of the climate that has nurtured human civilization and with it the basis of life on earth as we know it. All ecosystems on the planet are now in decline. Enormous rifts have been driven through the delicate fabric of the biosphere. The economy and the earth are headed for a fateful collision— if we don’t alter course.
In The Ecological Rift: Capitalism’s War on the Earth, environmental sociologists John Bellamy Foster, Brett Clark, and Richard York offer a radical assessment of both the problem and the solution. They argue that the source of our ecological crisis lies in the paradox of wealth in capitalist society, which expands individual riches at the expense of public wealth, including the wealth of nature. In the process, a huge ecological rift is driven between human beings and nature, undermining the conditions of sustainable existence: a rift in the metabolic relation between humanity and nature that is irreparable within capitalist society, since integral to its very laws of motion.
Critically examining the sanguine arguments of mainstream economists and technologists, Foster, Clark, and York insist instead that fundamental changes in social relations must occur if the ecological (and
social) problems presently facing us are to be transcended. Their analysis relies on the development of a deep dialectical naturalism concerned with issues of ecology and evolution and their interaction with the economy. Importantly, they offer reasons for revolutionary hope in moving beyond the regime of capital and toward a society of sustainable human development.”
“The Ecological Rift: Capitalism’s War on the Earth”
by John Bellamy Foster, Brett Clark and Richard York
This one soul does not need your “peabRain” overcoming Bourgeoisie to have a so-called: new-Improved! My nano-bRain has intel-Gence. That is all I do need, correct? No. What is p-e-a-c-e, if not halt-to-wArs-wArring and defense w.o. supersedent “Technology is a nano-Toy killing machine manufactured and starting those wArs”. When does not have an iota for content to be connected? “R”
“Outside of an Alexandria, Virginia
courtroom, Chelsea Manning explained to reporters why she would refuse to testify before a second grand jury investigating Wikileaks’ Julian Assange, and as a result, face jail time once again. On May 9, Manning was released from jail because the term of the last grand jury she refused to testify before expired. She was immediately subpoenaed once again—for May 16.
“Based on my refusal to answer questions two months ago the grand jury is trying to compel me to testify,” Manning told reporters. “They sent me into confinement, so I got released last week. And here I am today with the same subpoena, or a different subpoena with the same questions. Ultimately this is an attempt to place me back in confinement,” Manning said.
“How long are you prepared to do this?” a reporter asked.
“Forever,” Manning said.
The government is attempting to coerce testimony from Manning to use in their case against Assange, and this time, there are penalties on top of the imprisonment.
“One way they can punish you or coerce you into testifying is to give you this fine on a daily basis,” Shadowproof’s Kevin Gosztola told The Real News Network’s Marc Steiner.
After 30 days in jail, Manning will be charged $500 dollars each day for refusing to testify. After 60 days, the fine will go up to $1,000 dollars a day. This could mean Manning is in jail and fined for being there and not cooperating for up to 18 months —the duration of the grand jury’s term.
“[Manning] refuses to comply with a prosecution that is illegitimate in the sense that we know that Julian Assange was engaged in Freedom of Information, engaged in transparency, engaged in freedom of the press,” Gosztola said. “We know that she was a source. We know that she was already convicted, and went to jail, and served her time, and she should not have to serve another day in any jail cell, let alone a prison cell. And in fact, she recognizes that she’s doing what every person should do in this situation.”
Manning’s “strong group of supporters,” Gosztola explained, offer some hope for maintaining public awareness and raising funds for Manning: “They are the same people
who made her commutation possible. They’re the same people who put the pressure on Barack Obama’s administration to give her her freedom,” Gosztola said.
Steiner observed that the Trump administration is far worse than the Obama administration: “I mean, we’re not dealing with Obama. We’re not dealing with an administration that is going to be moved by some of this,” Steiner said. “I mean [the Obama administration] did jail her, but they let her free, obviously. We’re dealing with Donald Trump.”
Gosztola observed that under Trump the Obama administration’s war on whistleblowers has been “kicked into overdrive.”
“Not only are they going after Julian Assange, but we have new cases—one in the last week of an alleged drone whistleblower named Daniel Hale. We have the case of Reality Winner, who is in prison right now, an NSA whistleblower,” Gosztola said. “So you have these people as examples of how the Trump administration is basically making it much more intense, and it’s not only targeting former government employees, it’s also implicating journalists.”
Chelsea Manning Back in Prison After Refusing to Testify
May 16, 2019 12:24 mins
This one soul does not need your “peabRain” overcoming Bourgeoisie to have a so-called: new-Improved! My nano-bRain has intel-Gence. That is all I do need, correct? No. “R”
“President Donald Trump has until October 15 — this Sunday — to make a decision that could sabotage the nuclear deal with Iran.
Under the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act (INARA), passed by Congress in May of 2015, the president must certify that Iran is in compliance with the deal’s terms every 90 days. The past two times this has come up in the Trump administration, in April and July, the president has reluctantly certified Iran’s compliance.
But this time around, things appear to be different. Trump, who viscerally hates having to approve something he’s called “the worst deal ever,” is reportedly set to decertify it. If these reports are correct — and you can never really be sure with this White House — then Trump will be setting off a major foreign policy crisis.
Decertification doesn’t, on its own, end the nuclear deal. But it would formally begin a process through which Congress could quickly reimpose sanctions on Iran that were lifted under the terms of the agreement. If the Republican-controlled body did choose to do that, it would pretty much guarantee that the deal falls apart, as Iran would have little reason to stay in it if sanctions are being put back in place.
The point is that this decision is a very big deal — one that has some experts on Iran really spooked.
“Decertification corrodes the legitimacy of the deal,” says Suzanne Maloney, deputy director of the foreign policy program at the Brookings Institution. “[It] will slowly collapse.”
What follows is a guide to the
looming crisis — what decertification means, the legal and policy implications of Trump’s decision, and why the deadline has experts like Maloney so worried.
Iran is complying with the deal —
and Trump’s top advisers know it
Nuclear inspectors in Iran. (Kazem Ghane/AFP/
The nuclear deal between the US and Iran — or, more precisely, the US, Iran, China, France, Russia, the UK, and Germany — is a very long and technically complicated document. But its basic terms can be boiled down to a very simple transaction: Iran agrees to strict limits on its nuclear program and, in exchange, the other five countries relax sanctions imposed on Iran as punishment for its nuclear activities.
This agreement, formally named the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), appears to be working basically as intended.
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has repeatedly confirmed that Iran has complied with the deal’s restrictions, such as the requirement that Iran dismantle thousands of centrifuges (devices that can be used to create weapons-grade uranium). This has moved Iran further away from being able to build a bomb, thus avoiding the horrible choice of either allowing Iran to become a North Korea-style nuclear power or launching a bloody war to try and stop it.
“By any objective measure, we’re not seeing any violations of the deal,” says Richard Nephew, an expert at Columbia University who worked on negotiations with Iran in the Obama White House between 2011 and 2013.
So if Iran is holding up its end of the deal, how can Trump refuse to certify its compliance? If you take a close look at the text of INARA, you’ll see that it requires the president to certify something else on top of technical compliance with the deal’s terms.
Specifically, it requires Trump to certify that “suspension of sanctions [is] appropriate and proportionate to the specific and verifiable measures taken by Iran with respect to terminating its illicit nuclear program” as well as “vital to the national security interests of the United States.”
This is much squishier language, as what’s in America’s interests is a subjective judgment. This provision gives Trump full discretion to decline to certify under INARA. “They could make whatever case they’d like,” says Michael Singh, a senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, “this, of course, raises a broader question: Why would Trump want to decertify Iran if it is, in fact, complying with the deal?”.
The case against recertifying the deal has instead been made by a handful of administration officials, most notably UN Ambassador Nikki Haley. They point to Iran’s legitimately troubling actions — such as its ballistic missile tests and support for terrorist organizations like Hezbollah — as evidence that it can’t be trusted. None of these activities, not even missile testing, is prohibited by the deal — yet Trump often cites them as evidence that Iran is not abiding by the “spirit” of the agreement.
“Iran’s leaders want to use the nuclear deal to hold the world hostage to its bad behavior,” Haley said in a September 5 speech. “It is this unwillingness to challenge Iranian behavior, for fear of damaging the nuclear agreement, that gets to the heart of the threat the deal poses to our national security.”
But the majority of Trump’s national security cabinet do not share this view. National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster, Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis, and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson all appear to oppose decertifying Iran. When Mattis was asked during an October 3 Senate hearing whether he thinks staying in the deal is in US national security interests, his answer was simple: “Yes, senator, I do.”
But ultimately, the decision doesn’t rest with Haley or Mattis or anyone else. The final call is made by the president, and thus hinges on President Trump’s worldview and idiosyncrasies.”
“Trump’s monumental Iran deal decision, explained by Zack Beauchamp”
Oct 12, 2017, 8:30am EDT Zack Beauchamp@email@example.com
First of all, the tReaty was long and intensely negociated by international and both countRies, altho the US-admin is not the State Dept. that normally negotiates on foreign- Affairs—and traditionally does a best and non- Circumspect accord for accounting needs. Secondly, the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act (INARA), passed by Congress in May of 2015, the president must certify that Iran is in compliance with the deal’s terms every 90 days”. That the Irons are shia-Muslim, and Saudi Arabia is a dictatorship, that last four: U.S.Presidents as Oligarchic as shouldn’t be coupled w their tyranny, is not Oligarchic but “plutocratic”. This feature along maintains the new-Rome stature, one that is primarily “racist” and, secondarily providing state-Run: police-state tyranny here at home in the rogue-Empire. “R”
Trump said four “critical components” must now be worked into the agreement: immediate inspections at all sites requested by international inspectors, measures to ensure Iran “never even comes close to possessing a nuclear weapon”, no policy “expiration date”, and no distinction between the Islamic Republic’s long-range missile and nuclear weapons programmes regarding the imposition of sanctions.
The US president is required to renew the existing deal every 120 days under American law.
Russia’s deputy foreign minister, Sergei Ryabkov, condemned Washington’s comments as “extremely negative”, the Kremlin- backed Russian Information Agency (RIA) news agency reported on Saturday.
Mohammad Javad Zarif, the Iranian foreign minister, accused Trump of “desperate attempts to undermine a solid multilateral agreement”, tweeting on Friday: “JCPOA is not renegotiable: rather than repeating tired rhetoric, US must bring itself into full compliance – just like Iran.”
European leaders had urged “all parties to continue to fully implement this agreement” ahead of Trump’s announcement.
Federica Mogherini, the European Union’s foreign policy chief, said earlier this week that the “deal is working; it is delivering on its main goal, which means keeping the Iranian nuclear programme in check and under close surveillance”.”
Iran rejects Trump’s call for changes to nuclear deal
AJE 13 Jan 2018
Weld. How, utterly, stupendously, arcane and not stupid the below statement discloses as mistruths. I state that because the journalists are 110% correct. The jewish- Zionists gathered in England in 1943 and in u.s.a where Jews were yet prejudiced against, too. That the “zionists were becoming of fascists was because they had talks w many European leaders starting in 1904 (?). That the dialogue was the zionists, protected from public-disclosures, themselves; that afterward the count was too high the Jews who did speak out against “tyranny of Holocaust/ extermination/masse murderings” also included collusion by Jews.Mainly they named the “zionists”. “R”
“The content was swiftly deleted from AJ web pages and social media accounts.
Yaser Bishr, executive director of Al Jazeera’s digital division, said the network “completely disowns the offensive content in question” and would not tolerate such material on any of the network’s platforms.
In an email to staff, he also announced a mandatory bias and sensitivity training programme.
The clip claimed the Zionist movement had misrepresented the extent of the Holocaust, and “adopted the narrative” that Nazis killed six million Jews.
Dima Khatib, managing director of AJ , said the video was produced without due oversight.
Announcing a review of workflows at AJ to ensure all content goes through proper editorial channels, Khatib also called on all AJ editors and journalists to comply with the network’s editorial values.
“Al Jazeera continues to adhere to the journalistic values of honesty, courage, fairness, balance, independence, credibility and diversity,” the statement said.”
Thus there has been an on-going argument by the Jewish Defense Leagu, since 1956 inception to protect so-called common-Jews from tRaditionalist Jews since the 1950’s in the u.s.a. However, the damnable zionists proved they were “fascists” by 1956, post bombings of Hotels in Cairo by Netanyahu and Begin and other zionist-Leaders of “the religious-state” and in other Arab states of the region, of Israels. Therefore, reading the dismissal is nothing but siding US and zionist-Fascist polemics of politics and intel-Gence: lies and dis-Information. The journalists ought be released and returned to working on the project of completing the start of enlightened factual-Analysis. “R”
“Al Jazeera suspends two journalists over Holocaust video”
AJE Qatar 17 May 2019
That both JPOAC and a new tReaty on “Holding open talks as why the eRathe needs be protected from fusion weapons, i.e. “directed-Energy: nuclear-Molecular” when we know that peace is 90% tReaty and 10% hands-On: inspectioning. Whereupon, altho that is not a tReaty nor U.N. discussion, seems most imminent. Those of us who are anti-War, we are american-Socialists. We devour the needs that are supersedent to and of: health- Medicare! Do all america’s people know that socialist-Parties are not discussed in news, on teevee channels, in book-Reviews, and while “paunch” of should-be-spots? “R”
“The Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty was an arms control treaty between the United States and the Soviet Union. U.S. President Ronald Reagan and Soviet General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev signed the treaty on 8 December 1987. The United States Senate approved the treaty on 27 May 1988, and Reagan and Gorbachev ratified it on 1 June 1988. The INF Treaty eliminated all of the two nations’ land-based ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, and missile launchers with ranges of 500–1,000… (Wikipedia)”
“Russia, US accuse each other of violating treaty Russian President Vladimir Putin on Monday officially ended Russia’s participation in the Cold War-era Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF), after the United States first announced it would abandon the deal.
Putin “signed a decree regarding the suspension of Russia’s participation in the agreement between the USSR and the US,” the Kremlin said in a statement.
Read more: What is the INFnuclear treaty?
Russia announced last month it was suspending the treaty after the US said it would start a process to withdraw from the deal within six months because of violations by Moscow.
Moscow and Washington have accused one another of breaching the INF treaty
made between the US and the former Soviet Union in 1987. Russia denies breaking the accord, as does the US.
The accord was negotiated by US President Ronald Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev and ended a superpower buildup of warheads that had frightened Europe.
Read more: INF Treaty: would US dropout begin and arms race with It banned ground-launched missiles with a range of 500 to 5,500 kilometers (300 to 3,400 miles) and addressed Soviet nuclear-tipped ballistic missiles targeting Western capitals, but put no restrictions on other major military actors such as China.
NATO has said that US allies “fully support” its withdrawal from the pact, insisting that Russia’s 9M729 ground-launched cruise missile systems violate the treaty…
Some members of the European Union have expressed concern over the consequences of the treaty’s demise and called on Russia to address concerns before the US formally leaves in August.”
“Russia formally withdraws from INF nuclear treaty”
fRom a soul w a Consiousness, the peace-warrior
Tags/ Ecosocilism, Vertical Farming:, Ocean Farmer, Ecological Rift: Capitalism’s War on Earth, Chelsea Manning, in Prison, After Refusing to Testify, Trump’s monumental Iran deal decision, Iran rejects Trump’s call, changes to nuclear deal, NSDU-238, Al Jazeera suspends two journalists, over Holocaust video, asinine, Russia formally withdraws from INF nuclear treaty,