What A Pretty Cloud.

Conditions: Warmer.


Georgia On My Mind.

War! In Russia! This week, the newswaves have been filled with tanks and soldiers. But, no sand! Russia and Georgia have been fighting over territory.

Exactly what happened in South Ossetia last week is unclear. Each side will argue its own version. But we know, without doubt, that Georgia was responding to repeated provocative attacks by South Ossetian separatists controlled and funded by Moscow. This is a not a war Georgia wanted; it believed that it was slowly gaining ground in South Ossetia through a strategy of soft power.

Whatever mistakes Tbilisi has made, they cannot justify Russia's actions. Moscow has invaded a neighbor, an illegal act of aggression that violates the U.N. Charter and fundamental principles of cooperation and security in Europe. Beginning a well-planned war (including cyber-warfare) as the Olympics were opening violates the ancient tradition of a truce to conflict during the Games. And Russia's willingness to create a war zone 25 miles from the Black Sea city of Sochi, where it is to host the Winter Games in 2014, hardly demonstrates its commitment to Olympic ideals. In contrast, Moscow's timing suggests that Putin seeks to overthrow Saakashvili well ahead of our elections, and thus avoid beginning relations with the next president on an overtly confrontational note.

Does anyone else's eyes water when they hear talk of Russia being 'bad' because they've illegally invaded a sovereign nation? Hasn't America already proven that illegal acts of aggression aren't actually illegal? Don't bring the Olympics into this. The spin here is that Russia is the bad guy, knocking over poor little Georgia.

Russia's goal is not simply, as it claims, restoring the status quo in South Ossetia. It wants regime change in Georgia. It has opened a second front in the other disputed Georgian territory, Abkhazia, just south of Sochi. But its greatest goal is to replace Saakashvili -- a man Vladimir Putin despises -- with a president who would be more subject to Moscow's influence. As Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt pointed out Saturday, Moscow's rationale for invading has parallels to the darkest chapters of Europe's history. Having issued passports to tens of thousands of Abkhazians and South Ossetians, Moscow now claims it must intervene to protect them -- a tactic reminiscent of one used by Nazi Germany at the start of World War II.

Moscow seeks to roll back democratic breakthroughs on its borders, to destroy any chance of further NATO or E.U. enlargement and to reestablish a sphere of hegemony over its neighbors. By trying to destroy a democratic, pro-Western Georgia, Moscow is sending a message that, in its part of the world, being close to Washington and the West does not pay.

- washingtonpost.com/

But is Georgia really just the victim in all this? Or is there more going on than we are being told?

South Ossetia is a little apple-shaped blob dangling from Russian territory down into Georgia, and most of it has been under control of South Ossetian irregulars backed by Russian "peacekeepers" for the last few years.
[...]

The Georgians bided their time, then went on the offensive, Caucasian style, by pretending to make peace and all the time planning a sneak attack on South Ossetia. They just signed a treaty granting autonomy to South Ossetia this week, and then they attacked. Georgian MLRS units barraged Tskhinvali, the capital city of South Ossetia; Georgian troops swarmed over Ossetian roadblocks; and all in all, it was a great, whiz-bang start, but like Petraeus asked about Iraq way back in 2003, what's the ending to this story? As in: How do you invade territory that the Russians have staked out for protection without thinking about how they'll react?
[...]

Most likely the Georgians just thought the Russians wouldn't react. They were doing something they learned from Bush and Cheney: sticking to best-case scenarios, positive thinking. The Georgian plan was classic shock and awe with no hard, grown-up thinking about the long term. Their shiny new army would go in, zap the South Ossetians while they were on a peace hangover (the worst kind), and then, uh, they'd be welcomed as liberators? Sure, just like we were in Iraq. Man, you pay a price for believing in Bush. The Georgians did. They thought he'd help.

Considering the state of the American economy and armed forces right now, I doubt they could react to Cuba being invaded by the Russians, let alone some tiny satellite near the black sea. Georgia sending 2,000 troops to help in Iraq has been appreciated, but it's still not enough investment to prompt Bush to face up to the Russian bear.

The American military's response so far has been all talk, and pretty damn stupid talk at that. A Pentagon spokesperson called Russia's response "disproportionate." What the hell are they talking about? They've been watching too many cop shows. Cops have this doctrine of "minimum necessary force," not that they actually operate that way unless there are video cameras around. Armies never, ever had that policy, because it's a good way to get your troops killed needlessly. The whole idea in war is to fight as unfairly and disproportionately as possible. If you've got it, you use it.

- alternet.org/

Not to mention the sheer head slapping chutzpah of watching American officials criticizing Russia for illegally invading another nation and using disproportionate force. I mean, are you kidding me? Of course, any war is a failure of humankind. And so we watch yet another tragic failure unfold on our TV screens. And it looks as though another border conflict is going to escalate into yet another stupid little war, and the folk who could do something about it are too wrapped up in their own stupid wars to help. Thank your father, kids.

More Interpretation: What's this war really all about?



Spoils Of War.

So with Russia throwing it's weight around, Poland has decided to effectively point a gun at them. I'm sure that'll calm things down.

Poland and the US have signed a deal to build a controversial missile defense shield in Eastern Europe, the Polish prime minister said.

The agreement highlights how Russia's invasion of Georgia has prompted a swift reappraisal of the region's security and alliances.

The US and Poland have been talking about the missile shield for a year but rushed to cement their alliance in the wake of this week's conflict.

Donald Tusk, the prime minister, said that talks had been completed on a preliminary agreement and "technical questions remained".

Washington plans to site a silo of 10 interceptor missiles at the Brdy army base in northern Poland to accompany a radar installation in the Czech Republic. The radar station, probably to be sited at Gorsko, has already been agreed by Prague and is awaiting parliamentary ratification.

"We feel at the moment a greater concern for our safety," said Bogdan Klich, the Polish defence minister, evoking fears of a resurgent Russia, widespread in the former Eastern Bloc. "That's why every installation of the Western world on the Polish territory has its meaning, because it anchors Poland more deeply to the West."

While America says the shield is designed to destroy lone missiles from "rogue states" such as Iran, Russia considers it a strategic encirclement that undermines its nuclear deterrent. If fully agreed now, the system would be ready by around 2012.

- truthout.org/

Is anybody buying this? Are there any parts of Poland stuck inside Russian, or vice versa? Has Russia threatened Poland at all recently? Are they even close to any kind of antagonism? You know, call me paranoid but I can't help but see the Americans in the middle of this. They desperately want Poland to site their missiles, and so with this Georgia thing going on, it's the perfect time for Americans to whisper to Poland about how dangerous and unpredictable Russia is. And that maybe now that whole missile shield thing makes even more sense than it did before. And furthermore, if this missile shield is supposed to be for the "evil muslim countries" that may have nuclear weapons (read: Iran), then how is using the current Georgian conflict a proper reason for rushing the missiles in? I thought it was clear that this wasn't a threat to Russia? Or, like I always said, was that hogwash, and these are simply missiles that can be used in any way the operators see fit, including as offensive weapons that can be fired at anyone within range.


Iraq To America: I Want A Ring.

The continuing maneuvering in Iraq over how and when the Americans are to leave boils down to an issue of dates. The Iraqis, in the role of the anxious bride, want to set one, while the Americans, in the role of the reluctant groom, want to keep it open.

Iraq's foreign minister insisted Sunday that any security deal with the United States must contain a "very clear timeline" for the departure of U.S. troops. A suicide bomber struck north of Baghdad, killing at least five people including an American soldier.

Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari told reporters that American and Iraqi negotiators were "very close" to reaching a long-term security agreement that will set the rules for U.S. troops in Iraq after the U.N. mandate expires at the end of the year.

Zebari said the Iraqis were insisting that the agreement include a "very clear timeline" for the withdrawal of U.S.-led forces, but he refused to talk about specific dates.

"We have said that this is a condition-driven process," he added, suggesting that the departure schedule could be modified if the security situation changed.

But Zebari made clear that the Iraqis would not accept a deal that lacks a timeline for the end of the U.S. military presence.

"No, no definitely there has to be a very clear timeline," Zebari replied when asked if the Iraqis would accept an agreement that did not mention dates.

- truthout.org/

See, if there is no date, or 'general time horizon' as the groom would put it, then it's not really a marriage, it's just an ongoing unfulfilled promise. How many brides would accept that?



Making It Easy.

The wisdom is that it is the truly lazy who discover the shortcuts that propel the human race onward. From bicycles to traction engines to trains to cars to motorcycles to segways, the need to put in less effort has always led to the breakthroughs that allow us to go further for less. And now we've learned of a scientist who has invented a new drug that could potentially mimic exercise without us needing to do anything at all.

In an article in the journal Cell titled AMPK and PPAR Agonists Are Exercise Mimetics, Evans, a professor at the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, and 12 colleagues write that they have identified the "muscle endurance gene signature" and "molecular crosstalk" of two drugs that can actually reprogram muscle, in some cases, without exercise.

One drug, GW1516, developed but abandoned by GlaxoSmithKline because of toxic side effects, improved the endurance of mice that exercised by 77 percent and increased fat-burning "slow twitch" muscle fibers by 38 percent.

The other drug, AICAR, similar to the body's food energy nucleotide, adenosine monophosphate (AMP), and licensed by Schering-Plough Corp. for prevention of a surgical complication (at least until this month's stock bounce anticipating new "uses"), improved endurance in mice that did not exercise by 44 percent.

The changes seen in the lab were not "cosmetic," like the muscle building of steroids.

Rather, both drugs alter metabolism at the genetic level by acting upon PPAR-delta, a gene-controlling protein that produces the slow-twitch, fat-burning muscle fibers associated with endurance athletes, versus fast-twitch, sugar-burning fibers.

- alternet.org/

Tempting stuff. Exercise, frankly, sucks. It takes up precious TV-watching time. It's difficult, it's unpleasant, and it's dangerous. If the traffic doesn't get to you, their pollution almost certainly is, and there's always the overhanging fear of a sudden heart attack. The opportunity to do away with the whole thing and use pills to stay in shape is, basically, brilliant. This is what the human race is made of. But, assuming it's safe, there's certain caveats to consider. The first is the eventual loss of all our parks. Green spaces are a welcome attraction and relief in every city, but once people don't need them any more, how long do you think it will take for the property developers to get their teeth in? Prime location for another set of apartment buildings or retail development. Think of how awfully depressing cities would become once the green spaces are lost. A city made up of nothing but buildings and streets? How long until it's denizens start freaking out, feeling they're trapped in a drab gray prison, with no relief to be seen. Oh sure, we'll all be brilliantly fit and trim, but it'll be more like prison-fit than natural-fit. Lean, edgy, twitchy fitness. Fit, like fighters. Fit, like soldiers. Fit, like animals, in our gray, endless jungle.



Recorder Update.

Just a personal note. For those of you who remember, after waiting over a year I have decided to quit waiting for Panasonic to repair my old VCR, and have instead bought a shiny new VCR/DVD combo, that I have dubbed "The Recorder." Yes, it too is a Panasonic. No, I don't see that as rewarding incompetence so much as finally being able to tape and watch shit properly again.



Around Again.

The Hubble Space Telescope celebrates it's 100,000th orbit around this island Earth over it's 18 year career. To celebrate, a group of astronomers led by Mario Livio of the Space Telescope Science Institute took a special picture of the swirling clouds of starbirth in a nearby galaxy known as the Large Magellanic Cloud.

Bright newborn stars shape a nebula -- a glowing cloud of dust and gas -- through their luminous energy, while the nebula keeps the energy from dissipating into the galaxy. This star forming region, N90, is located near the center of the Small Magellanic Cloud, a satellite galaxy of the Milky Way located 200,000 light-years from the Earth.

- NYTimes

Mmm, pretty.




- Peace out.