Fresh drinking water will be to the 21st century what oil was to the 20th century; a commodity that people and nations will kill each other for.

Published on Saturday, October 4, 2008 by the Washington Post

EPA Makes No Rule on Chemical in Water

Perchlorate Levels Deemed Acceptable

by Juliet Eilperin

The Environmental Protection Agency formally refused yesterday to set a drinking-water safety standard for perchlorate, a chemical in rocket fuel that has been linked to thyroid problems in pregnant women, newborns and young children.

With little fanfare, the agency issued a news release yesterday afternoon saying that it had “conducted extensive review of scientific data related to the health effects of exposure to perchlorate from drinking water and other sources and found that in more than 99 percent of public drinking water systems, perchlorate was not at levels of public health concern. Therefore, based on the Safe Water Drinking Act criteria, the agency determined there is not a ‘meaningful opportunity for health risk reduction’ through a national drinking water regulation.”

Last month, The Washington Post reported that White House officials had extensively edited the EPA’s perchlorate rule-making documentation to remove scientific data highlighting some of the risks associated with the chemical, which has been found in water in 35 states. The Defense Department and Pentagon contractors who face legal liability stemming from rocket fuel contamination have lobbied for six years to avoid a federal drinking-water standard for perchlorate.

In the document released yesterday, the EPA assumes that the maximum safe perchlorate contamination level is 15 times higher than what the agency suggested in 2002.

By that standard, the EPA estimates that more than 16 million Americans are exposed to the chemical at a level that is unsafe.

Congressional Democrats and environmentalists blasted the administration’s decision.

“Once again on a Friday, when nobody is paying attention, the Bush administration announces a policy that will harm the American people,” Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), who chairs the Environment and Public Works Committee, said in a statement.

“The Bush EPA’s failure to set a standard for perchlorate, a dangerous contaminant found in drinking water, is outrageous, and I will do everything in my power to reverse it. Perchlorate contamination endangers the health of our families, especially pregnant women and children, and to simply allow it to remain in our drinking water is immoral,” Boxer said.

The EPA statement said that its regulatory determination will be open for public comment for 30 days and that once the rule is final, the agency will issue a health advisory to guide state and local officials.

Only two states — Massachusetts and California — set limits on the allowable amount of perchlorate in drinking water, both at levels far below what the EPA deemed permissible.

“States have the right to establish and enforce drinking water standards, and EPA encourages state-specific situations to be addressed at the local level,” the agency document read.

The environmental law firm Earthjustice said it will file suit in federal court on behalf of several environmental organizations to try to overturn the decision.

“EPA’s decision has industry’s fingerprints all over it,” said Earthjustice attorney George Torgun. “Weapons makers will benefit at the expense of millions of Americans drinking water spiked with rocket fuel.”

Pentagon spokeswoman Cheryl Irwin did not comment on the ruling’s substance but wrote in an e-mail: “This decision is not needed by DoD to undertake a cleanup, as we use EPA’s established health risk assessment to conduct our clean-up decisions. DoD has, in fact, been cleaning up perchlorate from military facilities for ten years now.”

© 2008 The Washington Post Company

Does America still have a free press? Why did the Washington Post edit Nader?

from http://www.votenader.org/issues/foreign-policy/peace/

Below is the complete letter Ralph Nader sent to the Washington Post in response to an editorial criticizing his comment that Israel is a puppeteer of the US government. When it published the letter on August 21st, the Post edited out the 4th to 6th paragraphs. These are important paragraphs illustrating that Nader’s positions are consistent with those of many Israelis and American Jews. These paragraphs highlighted the views of the Refuseniks, members of the Israeli Defense Force who refuse to participate in the occupation of Palestinian territory; and the views of over 400 rabbis who criticize the demolition of homes of hundreds of Palestinians. They also highlighted Senator John Kerry’s failure to face up to the human rights abuses of Israel.

Below that is another letter the Post refused to publish that highlights how charges of anti-semitism are used to stifle debate on Israel-Palestine in the United States.

Nader Continues to Urge Peace in Middle East

Dear Editor

Your editorial’s (Aug. 14th) juxtaposition of my words, taken from my statement which was rooted in an advocacy for an Israeli-Palestinian peace, with a passage from a domestic group, rooted in prejudice, was shameful and unsavory, at the very least. Suffice it to say that your objection to my description of the need to replace the Washington puppet show with the Washington Peace Show serves to reinforce the censorious climate against open and free discussion this conflict in the U.S., as there has been among the Israeli people. When Israelis joke about the United States being “the second state of Israel,” it sounds like they are describing a puppeteer-puppet relationship. Or, would The Post prefer using the descriptor “dominant-subordinate?”

The New York Times columnist and Middle Eastern Specialist, Tom Friedman, used stronger words than “puppet” when on February 9th, he wrote: “Mr. Sharon has the Palestinian leader Yasir Arafat under house arrest in his office in Ramallah, and he’s had George Bush under house arrest in the Oval office. Mr. Sharon has Mr. Arafat surrounded by tanks, and Mr. Bush surrounded by Jewish and Christian pro-Israel lobbyists, by a vice president, Dick Cheney, who’s ready to do whatever Mr. Sharon dictates . . . all conspiring to make sure the president does nothing.”

When AIPAC works to obtain a recent 407-9 vote for a House of Representatives’ resolution which supported the latest Sharon strategy and rejected any mention of an independent Palestinian state, how would you describe such a surrender of the privately held positions of many Representatives, favoring a two-state solution?

Half of the Israeli people and over two-thirds of Americans of the Jewish faith believe the conflict can only be settled by allowing an independent Palestinian state together with a secure Israel.

Four hundred American rabbis, including leaders of some of the largest congregations in the country, protested the Israeli government’s house demolition policy. Hundreds of Israeli reserve combat officers and soldiers signed a declaration refusing, in their words, “to fight beyond the 1967 borders in order to dominate, expel, starve and humiliate an entire people.” http://www.seruv.org.il

That these and many other Israeli and American peace advocates with impressive political, business, academic, military and intelligence experience, receive no hearing in official Washington is further indication of a serious bias inside both political parties. George W. Bush is a messianic militarist with a tin ear toward these courageous collaborators in peace. And what is John Kerry’s problem? He told us he has “many friends” in the broad and deep Israeli peace movement. Yet, Mr. Kerry issues a pro-Sharon statement that in its obeisance goes to the right of Bush.

Given that your editorial did not have any problem with these views, why do you object to a description of AIPAC as an awesome lobby on Capitol Hill, labeling it “poisonous stuff?” AIPAC has worked hard over the years to enlist the support of both Christians and Jews. Its organizing skills are the envy of the NRA and other citizen groups. Muslim-Americans are trying to learn from its lobbying skills to produce a more balanced Congressional debate on Middle Eastern policies. How does acknowledging such an achievement “play on age-old stereotypes?” The bias may be in your own mind.

Sincerely,
Ralph Nader

Debating Israel

August 19, 2004

To the Editor:

It is difficult to find an acceptable language with which to criticize the hard-line policies of successive Israeli governments.

Ralph Nader is charged (Washington Post Editorial, August 14, 2004) with anti-Semitism for speaking of the Israeli government and the Israeli Jewish lobby as “puppeteers” and American politicians as the “puppets” by the same people who charge Arafat and the Palestinians of being the “puppeteers” who mastermind votes critical of Israel in the General Assembly and in the Security Council of the United Nations.

The danger of anti-Semitism is a red-herring in a country in which the two major parties and their presidential candidates – cheered on by Christian Zionists — are competing for first prize in championing the cause of Sharon.

It is an open secret that the Israeli-Jewish lobby is among the most influential lobbies in Washington and beyond. Indeed, the leaders AIPAC and of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Organizations would be the first to make this claim. What is so distressing is that these leaders arrogate to themselves the right to be more Catholic than the Pope in their support of Israeli hard-liners but also far more hard-line than most American and Israeli Jews. Indeed, the likes of Ronald Lauder and Malcolm Hoenlein never accepted Oslo and the principle of “land for peace.”

The American supporters of the Peace Now and affiliated peace organizations in Israel are frozen out of these Jewish-American organizations.

In any case, the accusation of anti-Semitism is a tried and effective tactic for silencing criticism or opposition to the policies of Israeli governments and of American administrations.

The Nader campaign is a natural home for American Jews committed to the peace process who are appalled at Kerry’s efforts at out-Bushing Bush on the Israeli question and many others. It is neither Jewish nor Democratic to stifle debate with false charges of anti-Semitism.

Arno J. Mayer

Arno J. Mayer is professor emeritus of history at Princeton University and the author of “Why Did Not the Heavens Darken?: The ‘Final Solution’ in History.”

Notes from Susan E. Cozzens’s article: Distributive Justice in S & T Policy

 

Last year, 2007, I was first taught the widespread view (misbelief?) that economic growth benefits everyone through “Trickle Down” dynamics and “the Rising Tide that Lifts All Boats,” cited by Fields (2001). I was skeptical, actually more of a total disbeliever. But it was taught by someone whose credentials were much greater than mine, and I was tested on the “Knowledge” I had learned. Recently I’ve heard Barack Obama say the “Trickle Down” method hasn’t worked. My feelings have been validated that the theory is used, knowingly by some, perhaps unknowingly by others (though I doubt it), as a political trick.

 

In some countries, those with strong safety nets like Europe and Australia, a few rich get richer, but then are taxed to provide resources to help the poor. Yet there is no sure case like this in the United States where there is no national health-care system, minimum wages are so low, unemployment insurance is minimal, …  Even in Europe, the argument is wearing thin as some countries run out of resources and begin taking apart the welfare state by such things a moving up the retirement ages. What’s more, many developing countries are required by international lending organizations such as World Bank to dismantle those safety nets. World Bank’s strictures against subsidies for water supply is one example. Unbelievable! Water – the most basic necessity to support life after air.

 

There is no global welfare state, and the countries of the global North are not even living up to their very modest pledges of assistance to developing countries. There are even those in the U.S. who demand why this country is obligated to foreign aid at all. They speak of ‘Us’ vs. ‘They’. As if ‘Us’ had never been guilty of any atrocities upon ‘They’ and might need to compensate for it. And what assistance is provided, is filtered through the same elites who benefit from open market policies.

 

Science and Technology Policy consists of four sub-areas:

1. Research policies
2. Innovation policies
3. Human Resource policies
4. Regulatory policies

 

Globally – different countries make different choices from Science & Technology policy instruments.

 

There are four traditions in the political philosophy in Principles of Distributive Justice:

1. Libertarian engine: In libertarian thought, collecting taxes to pay for any other function is an unjust violation of rights and liberties, so tax-supported funding for research and development is out, and with it, most of what contemporary science and technology policies involve.
2. Utilitarian accelerator: As social cohesion declines, the re-distributive mechanisms that utilitarians think are operating ‘over there somewhere’ can no longer be counted on: S&T policy must consider its own intrinsic contributions to distributive dynamics.
3. Contractarian distributor: John Rawls in his “Theory of Justice (1971) states under contract theory, a fair system of distribution is one that rational individuals would agree to after deliberation. However if your starting point at negotiation is affluent – one set of rules will look good, and if you are poor, another set will look good. So he adds to the hypothetical moment of negotiating: the moral system is one that individuals would agree to behind a “veil of ignorance,” – they would not know what their starting position is. On this basis, nobody would agree to utilitarian moral principles because it’s possible that while total well-being increases, someone’s well-being might decrease. But behind the veil of ignorance, the rational individual would also not know whether he or she was male or female, black or white, Tutsi or Hutu, Chinese or Thai. So they would never agree to a set of distributive principles that distributed rewards unequally based on ascriptive characteristics that are outside individual control. So justice as fairness holds no tolerance for ‘culture’-based patterns of unequal distribution. This is in complete contrast with utilitarianism which is quiet on such differences. The empirical evidence showing growth pays off for the poor, does not demonstrate that growth pays off for all ethnic groups, nor that it pays off equally for women and men, girls and boys. Income inequality is growing in most U.S. states, and this is fairness under this justice principle. These first three approaches do nothing to improve a world with growing inequality. Neither Libertarian, Utilitarian, or Contractarian principles of Distributive Justice expect it to do otherwise. Does this matter to you? Example: China. In the past decade, they have raised hundreds of millions above the U.S. $1/day poverty level, but is not straining with fast-growing gaps between rich and poor, urban and rural. Paul Farmer’s work on health in poor communities demonstrates inequality makes poverty more dangerous. Like the polarized world Marx predicted, such a society does not appear to be sustainable. (Reminds me of a scary movie I saw as a young girl painting a situation like this where women were considered to be “furniture” because of the huge inequality gap.) (James Galbraith 1999: … A high degree of inequality causes the comfortable to disavow the needy. It increases the social and the psychological distance separating the have from the have-nots, transforming the U.S. from a middle-class democracy … into something that more closely resembles an authoritarian quasi-democracy with an over-class, and an under-class, and a hidden politics driven by money.” He describes our current nation perfectly – bailout and all.

For those who use religion to sanction their motives:

The moral codes of most societies caution against polarization in wealth (Bellah et al 1988): Both Old and New testaments make it clear that societies sharply divided between rich and poor are not in accord with the will of God. Classic republican theory from Aristotle to the American founders rested on the assumption that free institutions could survive in a society only if there were a rough equality of condition, that extremes of wealth and poverty are incompatible with a republic.

Asian societies have combined economic growth, technological innovation and broadly-shared prosperity under strongly communitarian political philosophies (Bell 2000). European commitment to ‘social cohesion’ is seen in its social policies and also its innovation strategies.

 

 

Some Americans are injudicious about re-distributive mechanisms. But the safety they value is threatened by growing inequality. Communitarians find fault with the welfare state for bureaucratizes distribution of benefits, shifts power away from communities and loosens family social ties. They are also critical of the political right under which Unregulated Free-Market Capitalism undermines families, local communities and the political process. Look at what just happened in the U.S. There could not be much more extreme example of this than the current bailout (Paulson Plunder). There was a higher sense of civil obligations among university scientists before the emergence of market-oriented policies – before “the valorization of greed in the Thatcher/Reagan era…” The example given is the shock the biomedical research community expressed that parts of the human genome could be patented. The previous value was that scientific knowledge was public. The new value was that it could be made private. Are you shocked? I am.

 

PROPAGANDA FOLLOWS TECHNOLOGY

Topic

U.S. Government Propaganda in Foreign & Domestic Affairs

Thesis

• How political propaganda has adapted to new media technology

Introduction

This paper will contrast forms of U.S. propaganda in foreign/domestic political affairs since the advent of television and the Internet

Body

U.S. government propaganda as a concept, history, and reality in media technology

• Technology determines outcomes
• Technological strategy as rational and planned
• Technology as a political tool of control (Marx)
• Technology as capitalist control, fits with capitalist consumerism of new things
• Change occurs through power struggles
• Technology causes unintended consequences: intended results come quicker, unintended results show up over time

Literature Review

Concept, Origin, & Theories of Propaganda in Domestic & Foreign Affairs

Historical Review

Propaganda in the ICA

Examples  

Reality of Media News Technology since 1960

Case Studies 

Analyzing the Conclusion

Political propaganda has always been around. However, since 1960, the use of TV/Internet has provided more channels and outlets for manipulation and deception, but also new ways of verifying information, an unintended secondary effect.

Thesis Reworded

Concluding statement

 

Possible References

 

Abrams, Joseph. Critics Demand Resignation of U.N. Official Who Wants Probe of 9/11 ‘Inside Job’ Theories.  Fox News Online. June 19, 2008

 

Agence France-Presse. Timeline of Russia-Georgia tensions over separatists. 8/8/2008

http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/world/view/20080808-153525/Timeline-of-Russia-Georgia-tensions-over-separatists

 

Barstow, David. “Message Machine: Behind TV Analysts, Pentagon’s Hidden Hand” NYTimes.com. 20 April 2008. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9501E7DF103CF933A15757C0A96E9C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print

 

Billion, Beaurenaut & Yves, The Epic of Black Gold, (2004)

http://www.zarafa-films.com/  History of oil, corruption, violence, unimaginable profits and human suffering in the 20th century.

 

Corbin, Jane. Daylight Robbery: What Happened to the $23 billion? (2008)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/7438372.stm

The U.S. Justice Dept. has imposed gag orders which prevent public knowledge of the real problem.

Cowell, Alan. “Iran Won’t Relent on Nuclear Program” NYTimes.com. 24 July 2008. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/24/world/middleeast/24iran.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print

 

Garrison, William Lloyd. Declaration of Sentiments. Boston Peace Conference, 1838

 

Gelken, Chris. “US lawyer seeks to sue US over Iran threats” Press TV, Tehran. 22 Jul 2008.

http://www.presstv.com/Detail.aspx?id=64435&sectionid=3510302

 

Gonn, Adam. 2 US aircraft carriers headed for Gulf. Media Line News Agency , THE JERUSALEM POST. 8/7/2008.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1218104233164&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull

 

Haaretz service. Jewish Georgian minister: Thanks to Israeli training, we’re fending off Russia.. Haaretz.com. http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1010187.html 8/11/2008.

 

Hodge, Nathan. Did the U.S. Prep Georgia for War with Russia? Wired.com.

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/08/did-us-military.html 8/8/2008

 

Information Clearing House. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/

 

Inside Iraq: Oil Law. http://www.thedossier.ukonline.co.uk/video_files/iraqi_oil-law.jpg

Aljazeera. June 2008.        

http://www.thedossier.ukonline.co.uk/video_iraqwar.htm

 

Jarecki, Eugene. Why We Fight. Sony Pictures Classics, Charlotte Street film in association with BBC Storyville/Arte/CBC. SonyPictures.com/SonyClassics.com

 

Klein, Naomi. The Shock Doctrine

 

Moyers, Bill. Big Oil and Iraq. Bill Moyers Journal. PBS http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/06272008/watch3.html

 

Parry, Robert, Commercial Media Let McCain Get Away with Claims that the “Surge” has Worked, Consortium News, 10 September 2008

 

Posen, Barry R. The Security Dilemma and the Ethnic Conflict. Essential Readings of World Politics, 3rd edition. WW Norton & Company: New York 2008.

Press TV. Israel ‘has a hand in S. Ossetia war’ http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=66203&sectionid=351020202. 8/10/2008

 

Real Reason Why USA & Israel Will Attack Iran http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEpp9E6aJGw&eurl=http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article20210.htm

 

Skarbo, Svetlana & Jonathan Petre. The Pipeline War: Russian bear goes for West’s jugular
Daily Mail. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article20476.htm. 8/10/2008

 

Snow, Jon, Jon Snow’s Hidden Iraq (2008) http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/dispatches/jon+snows+hidden+iraq/1753147

 

The Dossier.  http://www.thedossier.ukonline.co.uk/video_iraqwar.htm

 

War is funny to some: let’s sing Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran

Election 2008

Jesting, McCain Sings: ‘Bomb, Bomb, Bomb’ Iran

by Don Gonyea

Listen Now [3 min 35 sec] add to playlist

 

Watch the Video:

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) broke into song this week during a campaign stop in South Carolina. YouTube.com

 

 

Day to Day, April 20, 2007 · Republican presidential contender Sen. John McCain (AZ) joked about bombing Iran this week during a campaign appearance in Murrells Inlet, S.C.

McCain was asked by an audience member about possible U.S. military action in Iran.

“How many times do we have to prove that these people are blowing up people now, never mind if they get a nuclear weapon. When do we send them an airmail message to Tehran?” a man in the crowd asked.

In response, McCain said, “That old, eh, that old Beach Boys song, Bomb Iran” — which elicited laughter from the crowd. McCain then chuckled before briefly singing — to the tune of the chorus of the Beach Boys’ classic “Barbara Ann” — “Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, anyway, ah ….”

The audience responded with more laughter.

Iran leader says ‘American empire’ near collapse

By SLOBODAN LEKIC, Associated Press Writer 41 minutes ago

Iran’s president accused “a few bullying powers” of trying to thwart his country’s peaceful nuclear program and declared in a speech Tuesday before the U.N. General Assembly that “the American empire” is nearing collapse.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad sharply attacked the United States and NATO, accusing them of acting as aggressors in Iraq and Afghanistan, and of starting those wars “in order to win votes in elections.”

“American empire in the world is reaching the end of its road, and its next rulers must limit their interference to their own borders,” Ahmadinejad said.

In a highly rhetorical speech, the Iranian leader again criticized archenemy Israel and showed no sign of reaching out to Western powers at the U.N., where the United States and its European allies are seeking a new round of sanctions if no agreement is reached on limiting Iran’s nuclear capabilities.

Some worry that Israel or the U.S. might resort to military strikes if they believe all diplomatic options have been exhausted.

While the U.S. and its allies allege Iran wants to develop its uranium enrichment program to make nuclear weapons, Tehran insists it is designed to produce electricity for civilian use — a position Ahmadinejad reiterated Tuesday.

“A few bullying powers have sought to put hurdles in the way of the peaceful nuclear activities of the Iranian nation by exerting political and economic pressures against Iran and also through threatening and pressuring the IAEA,” the U.N. nuclear watchdog.

Iran already is under three sets of sanctions by the U.N. Security Council for refusing to suspend uranium enrichment. Washington and its Western allies are pushing for quick passage of a fourth set of sanctions to underline the international community’s resolve, but are likely to face opposition from Russia.

As in past years, the United States only had a low-level note-taker sitting in a rear seat reserved for the U.S. delegation, said Richard Grenell, spokesman for the U.S. Mission to the United Nations.

On Tuesday, Ahmadinejad also lashed out at Israel, saying “the Zionist regime is on a definite slope to collapse, and there is no way for it to get out of the cesspool created by itself and its supporters.”

The Iranian president is feared and reviled in Israel because of his repeated calls to wipe the Jewish state off the map, and his aggressive pursuit of nuclear technology has only fueled Israel’s fears.

He said that six years after Saddam Hussein’s regime was ousted in Iraq, “the occupiers are still there.”

“Millions have been killed or displaced, and the occupiers, without a sense of shame, are still seeking to solidify their position in the … region and to dominate oil resources,” Ahmadinejad said.

In Afghanistan, terrorism is spreading quickly and the presence of NATO forces has contributed to a huge increase in the production of narcotics, Ahmadinejad said.

Ahmadinejad’s speech came just hours after President Bush made his eighth and final speech to the U.N. General Assembly, urging the international community to stand firm against the nuclear ambitions of Iran and North Korea.

“A few nations, regimes like Syria and Iran, continue to sponsor terror,” Bush said. “Yet their numbers are growing fewer, and they’re growing more isolated from the world. As the 21st century unfolds, some may be tempted to assume that the threat has receded. This would be comforting. It would be wrong. The terrorists believe time is on their side, so they’ve made waiting out civilized nations part of their strategy. We must not allow them to succeed.”

At one point during Bush’s 22-minute speech, Ahmadinejad turned to Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki and gave a thumb’s down.

During interviews ahead of his speech Tuesday, Ahmadinejad blamed U.S. military interventions around the world in part for the collapse of global financial markets. He said the campaign against his country’s nuclear program was solely due to the Bush administration “and a couple of their European friends.”

“The U.S. government has made a series of mistakes in the past few decades,” Ahmadinejad said an interview with the Los Angeles Times. “The imposition on the U.S. economy of the years of heavy military engagement and involvement around the world … the war in Iraq, for example. These are heavy costs imposed on the U.S. economy.

“The world economy can no longer tolerate the budgetary deficit and the financial pressures occurring from markets here in the United States, and by the U.S. government,” he added.

In a separate interview with National Public Radio, Ahmadinejad claimed vast international support for his position and said the campaign consisted “of only three or four countries, led by the United States and with a couple of their European friends.”

___

Associated Press Writer Edith M. Lederer contributed to this report.

Path Dependence, Technological Momentum, Social Construction

Technological Frame: Technological inventions are created within society and cannot be viewed distinctly. The definition of an artifact is according to the relevant user group.

Each relevant social group has own technological frame. It builds when relevant social groups interact around an artifact. It provides the goals, ideas and tools needed for problem-solving. The social group constrains the outcome.

Degree of Inclusion: As actors can be members of more than one relevant social group, they can also be influenced by more than one technological frame. Degree of Inclusion in a technological frame depends on extent to which an actor’s interactions are structured by that frame.

Innovation often comes from inclusion in more than one technological frame (Bijker). Innovation is the only things that is going to save us now for this oil-dependency crisis we are in. Those in power better get the message quick.

Power is the transitive capacity to harness the agency of others to comply with one’s ends. It is exercised, not possessed. Previously economists would talk of technology without mentioning social power. Sociologists would not discuss technological power.

Path Dependence & Technological Momentum (Thomas Hughes 1969)

We can’t really go back to change technology. Example is how Google creates a type of dependency and certain inequality.

Technological Determinism: belief that Technical forces determine social and cultural changes. 

Social Construction: belief that Social and Cultural forces determine technical change. Maybe we could adapt water problem-solving in Africa to the same method Apple used to involve the whole market using iPod culture which is embedded and which is fitted to the youth culture which drives its technicalities. Younger developing systems tend to be more open to socio-cultural influences while older systems prove to be more independent of outside influence, and therefore more deterministic in nature.” (Thomas Hughes)

Technological Momentum: Progression of technology over time, it is a combination of technological determinism and social constructivism. Social development shapes and is shaped by technology.

Example of Technological Momentum: the use of oil.

The automobile industry actually originated in France, not the U.S., and the gas-powered engine was one factor that created a dependency on oil in much of the developed world. The people least connected to society are the least affected by technology. Different civilizations like The Bronze Age, The Iron Age, the Roman Empire, The Oil Age, contributed to their downfall by their dependence on a certain technology. That is what is happening to the U.S. as the federal government attempts to seize the oil resources of other nations. Iran is soon to be next. The easy solution to the problem, rather than killing many innocent people, is Innovation, the only way out of this mess. Does America still have the ingenuity it believes gave it the edge in the past? Or have Americans gotten hypnotized by their iPods, cell phones and laptops? I believe the ingenuity is out there, but it seems politics has gotten in the way. The power of Big Oil corporations combining with Big Government. Instead of putting our money on development of new technology to take our dependence off oil, our government just keeps putting more money and lives into the military-industrial complex. See my prior blog. New policies and new technology need to address this dependency.

Interpretive Flexibility: an example is the legal issues right now involving DNA and stem cells.

Social Constructivism is a tool not “good” or “evil” in and of itself, but is just a framework for understanding. It can be used to show things hidden inside another tool – used to analyze the relationship(s) between certain technologies and society.

HOW THE WEST IS WON (or) AMERICA THE EMPIRE

            “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact, non-Westerners never do (Samuel P. Huntington).” Moheet, the Arabic news agency reported in July that an American destroyer and two Israeli naval vessels passed through the Suez Canal from the Mediterranean, and a U.S. nuclear submarine, destroyer and supply ship moved into the Mediterranean. Kuwait finalized its “emergency war plan” after receiving that information. There are two U.S. battle groups in the Gulf – the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln with 65 fighter aircraft and USS Peleliu. The U.S. Fifth Fleet is housed by Bahrain, and there is a large American base in Qatar (Gonn). Does it look like the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are expanding to include Iran and Georgia? Realists monitoring recent events see Iran’s security dilemma growing stronger every day.

            The first U.S. aid to Georgia (the Georgia Train and Equip Program) was supposedly to counter alleged Al Qaeda influence. Georgia reciprocated by sending thousands of troops to Iraq becoming the third largest contributor after the U.S. and Britain, a considerable number as they are such a small nation. According to a U.S. military trainer, “We’re giving them the knife. Will they use it (Hodge)?” Georgian soldiers were already being transported to Georgia from Iraq weeks ago. “Israel should be proud of its military which trained Georgian soldiers,” Jewish Georgian Minister Yakobashvili told Army Radio in Hebrew, referring to a private Israeli group Georgia had hired. “The entire world is beginning to understand that what is occurring there will determine the future of the region, the future price of crude oil, the future of central Asia, and the future of NATO (Haaretz Service).” The Israeli website reported that last year that Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili hired up to 1,000 military strategists from Israel to train his country in military intelligence. Georgia purchased weapons, intelligence and electronic warfare systems from Israel. The site quoted “its military experts” that the project to pump Caspian oil and gas to the Turkish terminal of Ceyhan, instead of the Russian pipeline network, is in the interest of Tel Aviv. Moscow had ordered Tel Aviv halt its military assistance to Georgia, warning of diplomatic dispute. Nevertheless, Georgia captured the capital of South Ossetia Friday morning, triggering a response from Russia later in the day during the opening of the Olympics in Beijing (Press TV). Some Realists and Liberals will interpret that this war is expanding due to the personal characteristics of major leaders (Have the U.S. and Israel masterminded this conflict by offering NATO membership and other incentives to Georgia in exchange to access to this pipeline?) Were there diplomatic misperceptions? Almost 40,000 refugees from S. Ossetia have fled to Russia for their protection. (Skarbo & Petre).

            Liberal and radical explanations suggest wars occur because of the internal structure of states. But Radical theorists are most critical of liberalism and its economic counterpart – Capitalism. The state dominated by the bourgeoisie is driven to expand capitalism, but capitalist systems will stagnate and slowly collapse in the absence of external stimulation as 1) internal demand for goods slows down leading to pressures for imperialist expansion to find external markets to sustain economic growth. 2) To Lenin and others, the problem is not one of under-demand, but one of declining rates of return on capital. 3) Lenin and some 20th century radicals pointed to the need for raw materials to sustain capitalist growth – external suppliers are needed to obtain such resources. One possible link to explaining war is that capitalist states spend not only for consumer goods, but for the military, leading to arms races, and eventually war. Kenneth Organski explains the power transition theory – that it is not just the inequality of capabilities among states that leads to war – it is changes in state capabilities that lead to war such as the challenger (Georgia) will launch a war to solidify its new position.

            The security dilemma and realist international relations theory are the best methods to explain and predict the probability and intensity of military conflict among groups emerging from the rubble of empires. The security dilemma suggests the risks are quite high. Settlement patterns along with unequal and shifting power often produce incentives for preventive war. To analyze the situation, ask which groups fear for their physical security and why? (The South Ossetians) What military options are open to them? (None, they are a rural village people relying on Russia for 80% of their support. They are escaping to North Ossetia in Russia for protection from the Georgians. This problem has been simmering since the collapse of the Soviet Union. See attachment A timeline.) Competing versions of history should be reconciled if possible. Outside powers can threaten not to act – this would discourage some kinds of aggressive behavior – such as if a new state abuses a minority, then gets itself into a war with the allies of that minority, the abuser will find little sympathy abroad if it begins to lose. In certain cases, it may be reasonable for outside powers to provide material resources, including armaments, to help groups protect themselves. Considerable diplomatic leverage may be attained by the threat to supply armaments to one side of the other. (Israel has been supplying armaments the past several years to Georgia.) Brutality will tempt outsiders to intervene, but peace efforts originating from the outside will be unsuccessful if they do not realistically address the fears that triggered the conflicts initially. (Posen  389-397)

WORKS CITED

 

Gonn, Adam. 2 US aircraft carriers headed for Gulf. Media Line News Agency , THE JERUSALEM POST. 8/7/2008.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1218104233164&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull

 

Haaretz service. Jewish Georgian minister: Thanks to Israeli training, we’re fending off Russia.. Haaretz.com. http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1010187.html 8/11/2008.

 

Hodge, Nathan. Did the U.S. Prep Georgia for War with Russia? Wired.com.

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/08/did-us-military.html 8/8/2008

 

Press TV. Israel ‘has a hand in S. Ossetia war’ http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=66203&sectionid=351020202. 8/10/2008

 

Skarbo, Svetlana & Jonathan Petre. The Pipeline War: Russian bear goes for West’s jugular
Daily Mail. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article20476.htm

. 8/10/2008

 

 

Agence France-Presse. Timeline of Russia-Georgia tensions over separatists. 8/8/2008

http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/world/view/20080808-153525/Timeline-of-Russia-Georgia-tensions-over-separatists

 

 

Posen, Barry R. The Security Dilemma and the Ethnic Conflict. Essential Readings of World Politics, 3rd edition. WW Norton & Company: New York 2008.

 

ATTACHMENT A   Timeline of Russia-Georgia tensions over separatists This is a timeline of Russian-Georgian tensions, which have spiraled with Georgia attacking the capital of breakaway South Ossetia and Russia reportedly bombing Georgian territory. 1991 The Soviet Union collapses and Georgia, which was absorbed into the Russian empire in the 19th century, then taken over by the Soviet Bolsheviks in the next century, becomes independent. 1992-4 Minority ethnic groups in the provinces of South Ossetia and Abkhazia fight separatist wars to end Georgian rule, resulting in thousands of deaths. Both rebel statelets have significant Russian financial and political backing, but have not been recognized by any foreign government and officially remain part of Georgia. 1994 Under a shaky ceasefire agreement, a mainly Russian peacekeeping force is deployed in Abkhazia. Russian troops also lead a joint peacekeeping force in South Ossetia. 2000 Russia’s new president, Vladimir Putin, imposes visa requirements on Georgians going to Russia, unlike citizens from other countries in the 12-member Commonwealth of Independent States. 2002 After repeated accusations by Russia that Georgia is sheltering Chechen rebels, an air raid takes place on the Pankisi Gorge just inside Georgia. Russia denies being behind the attack, which killed one person. Georgia applies to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, angering Russia. Georgia also becomes a key US ally after agreeing to host oil and gas pipelines from the Caspian Sea to Turkey, avoiding Russia. 2003 The peaceful “Rose Revolution” ousts Eduard Shevarnadze and brings to power Mikheil Saakashvili, who immediately launches a strongly pro-Western policy aiming at NATO membership and economic and governmental reforms. 2005 Despite growing tensions with Saakashvili’s government, Moscow agrees to remove Soviet-era military bases from Georgian territory by the end of 2008. 2006 Georgia is briefly left with severe gas shortages after a pipeline explosion inside Russia destroys a key export route. Those behind the bombing are never discovered. Georgia arrests four Russian military personnel on spying charges. Moscow responds with sweeping economic sanctions, cutting all travel links, deporting hundreds of ethnic-Georgians from Russia, and stopping Georgian imports. August 8, 2008 After weeks of tension and low-level clashes Georgia says it has taken control of the South Ossetian capital of Tskhinvali. Russia sends reinforcements into the territory, saying Georgian attacks killed more than 10 of its peacekeepers. Russian warplanes also reportedly bomb Georgian targets.

 

 

Efficient vs. Entrenched Technology

What does the Dvorak keyboard, the American standard measuring system and oil including all of its byproducts have in common?

 

Persons committed to the Dvorak Simplified Keyboard have held most of the world’s records for speed typing. In the 1940’s, U.S. Navy experiments demonstrated increased efficiency with DSK that would amortize the cost of retraining a group of typists within the first ten days of employment. If you want to switch, it is easy. Randy Cassingham speed went from 50 wpm on the QWERTY keyboard to over 100 on the Dvorak Keyboard. Why continue to teach kids the inefficient way (just because it became entrenched in society’s tradition) when they could learn Dvorak in 2-3 weeks and move on to writing, programming, and creating which are so much more important. Just about the time the switch was to be made, World War II broke out, and the War Department ordered all typewriter keyboards be set to the common standard. The Dvorak has the most-used consonants on the right side of the home row and vowels on the left side of the home row which helps creates back and forth movement between the right and left hand. It is less likely to result in carpal tunnel syndrome and other repetitive motion injuries. If DSK lets you type 20 40% faster, why don’t we use start using it now?

 

Perhaps for the same reason we have never fully implemented the metric system.

 

It makes sense that we use technology which is most efficient, and resist the social or politically-motivated entrenchment that holds less efficiency or value for us all.

 

So tell me, where does this place our dependence on oil?

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IS VERY IMPORTANT

          The darkest uses of technology are Coercion & Slaughter. Some examples of political artifacts are Robert Moses’ low bridges of Long Island and McCormick’s molding machines used to weed out skilled workers who had unionized in Chicago. Technological history and U.S. political history have been deeply intertwined. (The Internet was initially developed for military use.) If our moral and political language for evaluating technology categorizes only tools and uses, and doesn’t include scrutiny of the meaning and arrangement of the designs, we will be blind to much that is important.

          An important point made in class was that technology could now used to overcome Distortions of our Electoral College, to make our republic more democratic. Who is working on that Transformation? Technologies include Information, Exploration, Warfare, Industry, and Entertainment, but the one that will probably have the most effect on human life will be Biotechnology. This includes expectation of better Health and longer Life, but also Fear of Destruction and Dehumanization, of Agents that Kill or Powers that Corrupt. Biotechnology will change how we live, what we value, and who we are.

          Science/Technology should be biased toward eliminating Inequality. Technologies are ways we build Order in our world. Consciously or unconsciously, deliberately or inadvertently, societies choose Structures for technologies that influence how people are going to work, communicate, travel, consume and more for a very long time. The Process in which structuring decisions are made situates people differently, gives them unequal degrees of power and awareness. Choices become fixed in material equipment, economic investment, and social habits. Original flexibility is gone after initial commitments are made. Technological innovations are like legislative acts or political founding where the framework for public order will last many generations. The attention we give to rules, roles, and relationships of politics must be given to the building of highways, creation of TV networks, and design of new machines, especially on seemingly insignificant features (think of Voting Machines). Issues that Divide or Unite people are not only settled in institutions and politics, but in designs of steel/concrete, wires/semiconductors.

          Politics is the relationship between modern science and liberal democracy. The fathers of modern science envisioned their projects as a partial remedy for the problems of politics. They were not blind to human passions, human evil, or man’s lack of innocence – the very things that make politics necessary. Modern man is healthier, happier, and more peaceful than his ancestors yet science has not eliminated the need for politics. Liberal democracy could not flourish without modern science and technology.

          Technologies are flexible in their design/arrangement, and variable in their effects. A similar device or system could have been built with very different political consequences. Certain kinds of technology do not allow flexibility. To choose it is to choose an unalterable, particular form of political life.    

          Karl Marx tried to show in Capital that increasing mechanization will make hierarchical division of labor obsolete, and the relationships of subordination swept away by technical means where each person is bound hand and foot for life to a single detail operation. The Capitalist form of that industry reproduces this same division of labor in a more horrific way by converting the worker into a living appendage of the machine. Marx’s idea is that conditions will eventually dissolve the capitalist division of labor, and facilitate proletarian revolution are conditions concealed in industrial technology itself. Engels said “The automatic machinery of a big factory is much more despotic than the small capitalists who employ workers ever have been. The differences between Marx’ and Engels position brings up an important question for Socialism: What does modern technology make possible or necessary in political life? Adopting a certain technical system requires creation and maintenance of a particular set of social conditions as the operating environment of that system. (Engels) If you accept nuclear power plants, you also accept a techno-scientific-industrial-military elite. Without these people in charge, you could not have nuclear power.

          A given kind of technology is strongly compatible with, but does not strictly require social and political relationships of a particular kind. Solar energy activists argue that technology is more compatible with a democratic, egalitarian society than energy systems based on coal, oil, and nuclear power. Yet they do not believe anything about solar energy requires democracy. Solar energy is decentralizing in both a technical and political sense. Technically-speaking, it is more reasonable to build solar systems in a disaggregated, widely distributed manner than in large-scale centralized plants. Politically-speaking, solar energy is a more accessible system. Solar energy is good not only for its economic and environmental benefits, but also for the beneficial institutions it allows in other areas of public life. Just the opposite, the atom bomb is an inherently political artifact. As long as it exists at all, its lethal properties demand that it be controlled by a centralized, rigidly hierarchical chain of command closed to all influences that might make its workings unpredictable. The internal social system of the bomb must be authoritarian – there is no other way.

          It is misguided to believe that lost worlds have nothing to teach us, or that our world is in reality the finest human achievement yet or that even politically necessary and morally justified uses of technological power (drilling, drugging, dissecting, destroying) are innocent – because they usually are not.

          Questioning new technology we might ask what kinds of weapons should we build? But continuing to build weapons further ensures their use. Does anyone question “Whether” we should continue to build weapons or just how much money can be made off new military technology? Politicians will say “access for everybody,” then give minimum information, try to sound diplomatic, but not always sound logical. Their political intention is decided way ahead of time as to what they want, and for that reason, public participation is very important.