Where I stand

It is a questionnaire and is probably not all that scientific as it thinks I am nearly 100% for the Green Party. I am not a 100% anything. Changing one’s views is important unless one is running for office, when I guess it is not. In this case, I nearly agree with the opinion of the questionnaire as to my current world view. Nature is rather high on my priority list as is scientific logical thinking. I think my percentages for each would be closer to 55 / 80 / 75 / 50 / 3 – but here is the result of my answering the questionnaire. Cut and paste your link into a comment. I am looking for people with different views (pro Ron Paul or Romney most welcome) who want to publish stuff on Disturbing Trends… to balance a bit with my incredibly left wing leanings. I do not find “conspiracy theories” that convincing – more interested in discussing economic ideas and novel political ideas.

I side with results

I took the test on ISideWith.com.

99% Jill Stein – on science, social, environmental, economic, domestic policy, foreign policy, immigration, and healthcare issues
90% Barack Obama – on science, social, immigration, economic, environmental, and foreign policy issues
86% Stewart Alexander – on social, science, economic, immigration, foreign policy, environmental, and healthcare issues
30% Ron Paul on domestic policy, healthcare, and foreign policy issues
5% Mitt Romney no major issues

Libya

While President Obama was rebuked by Congress for the American involvement in the war in Libya, the International Criminal Court in The Hague have indicted Muammar-el-Qaddafi for war crimes alongside his son Seif-el-Islam and his chief of intelligence, Abdullah Senussi.

New York Times

Economic Maladies

The Greek Tragedy threatens to engulf Europe in a contagion of defaults, resulting in loans from other countries / investors not being repaid.

Does economic isolation logically follow a default? Would you lend to someone who never repaid their debts? Moreover, when a default occurs the overseas assets of the nation could be repossessed or nationalised by the creditor nation. Unable to borrow funds to finance Government spending could only be financed by printing money. And economies that inflate in this way render their currency meaningless. Like Zimbabwe.

The problem is that the trade between nations is the driver of economic wealth. The sudden cessation of the ability to import would hamper the capabilities for business growth as well as indulgence in the luxuries we can import. Exporting would also be limited as one could not expect payment from an erstwhile business partner to whom billions are not repaid.

Unemployment and criminal activity would follow.

So how can spiraling economies like Greece recover? When the bulk of Government spending is an ingrained bureaucracy without inherent value that can be exported, it does not provide much scope for a means to recover. And how does the unprecedented levels of imbalance become rebalanced?

The inherent force by which China forces its human economy to produce exportable goods for little pay has enabled it to outdo the West through sheer economic force. It is a flaw in values that money is a relativistic means of exchange, that economic prosperity can be distorted by risk to the degree it has and that greed should be the rationale over which economic decisions are reached.

Gambling produces nothing except increased risk. The only path out of this mess is to confront what is real, not what is imagined.

Solar Energy

To claim that solar power is too weak to power the world is simply wrong. We use so little of the solar power that arrives for free from the sun and investment in using more of it efficiently will not have the potential cost or nightmare consequences of a nuclear meltdown.

Climate change denial does not stop irreversible extinctions and “being real” by building nuclear plants on or near fault lines or population centres is plainly daft.

What commercial imperative is there for free energy? Free energy is the most efficient form of energy. It would mean we can spend more on the very real problems we face from polluting the seas.

[comment post on the Guardian.co.uk CIF talkboards]