duty now for the future

09.25.09

Duty Now For The Future — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 16:17:26 GMT

Click Here

09.14.09

Duty Now For The Future — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 06:16:49 GMT

http-equiv="refresh" content="5;url=http://dutynowforthefuture.wordpress.com">Because the formatting was reset on my podomatic site, I have almost given up on it. Still, go to my blog site for links to all the articles I discussed on the show.

09.05.09

Duty Now For The Future — Sun, 06 Sep 2009 02:31:44 GMT

Links will be up later or visit the new blog.

Duty Now For The Future Blog

Duty Now For The Future — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 03:38:16 GMT

The "Duty Now For The Future" blog is now up and running. Since I'm having a hard time getting podcasts together on a regular basis, check back regularly for updates, links, commentary and news.

08.09.09

Duty Now For The Future — Sun, 09 Aug 2009 05:07:55 GMT

INTRO: GENERAL BOY / TWIN PEAKS
A wrap-up discussion regarding President Obama's recent trip to Africa. Disconcerting is Obama's duplicity in advocating "hope and change" while continuing the Bush/DOD policies of "securing the global commons and access to markets and resources." Obama's plan of sacrifice and austerity for the third world, no longer able to blame colonialism of the past or economic warfare of the present, leaves African nations forced to acquiesce to the desires of the Western establishment for even the most meager of aid and assistance. The credo is now, "no excuses!"
Obama's Three Misdeeds in Africa
Obama snubs Africa, then African-Americans
Google map of U.S/Africom interests
SONG: DEVO- BEAUTIFUL WORLD
Discussion regarding the latest points of conflict around the world.
DOD 2008 National Defense Strategy
Panic in North Waziristan Over 'Huge' US Build-up Along Border
Russian Subs Patrolling Off East Coast of U.S.
Arctic Grab: Something Rotten in Denmark, Norway, Russia, US, Canada
SONG: MC5- KICK OUT THE JAMS
Discussion regarding the rejection of Western-mandated carbon emission standards which hope to be enacted internationally by the Obama administration at the upcoming Copenhagen Conference. These plans signal nothing but de-development, de-industrialization, continued subjugation and economic degradation for the Third World.
Arctic: Canada Leads NATO Confrontation With Russia
"Western Mandated Carbon Emission Standards: Economic Warfare and Corporate Enrichment" by Josh Deaver
link coming soon
OUTRO: LAURA PALMER'S THEME / SYCAMORE TREES

Mandated Carbon Emission Limits: Economic Warfare and Corporate Enrichment

Duty Now For The Future — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 03:45:37 GMT
MANDATED CARBON EMISSION LIMITS: ECONOMIC WARFARE AND CORPORATE ENRICHMENT
The world’s fastest rising economies say ‘no’ to cap and trade as counter intuitive to economic growth.
By Josh Deaver
Duty Now for the Future
Recent statements from the governments of the world’s fastest developing economies—the BRIC nations—Brazil, Russia, India and China respectively, have signaled that each have no intention of following the agenda of an Obama administration plan to drastically reduce the carbon footprint of industrial production around the world.
Due to the increasing wave of social acceptance towards anthropogenic global warming in the West, the vociferous calls for global carbon emission limits have increased dramatically.
Recently HR 2454, titled “American Clean Energy and Security Act“ passed the House of Representatives, while Australia and Britain have developed similar domestic measures.
The proposals of HR 2454, set to replace the Kyoto Protocols in an international capacity at the upcoming Copenhagen Conference, include a 17% general cut in carbon emissions of 2005 levels by 2020, with graduated goals to be met in subsequent years. Additional proposals have been discussed in which “carbon tariffs” would be placed on coal, fertilizers and other exports produced in carbon intensive industries—the kind which make up a majority of a developing nations’ industrial economy.
Because of this, the developing world has been skeptical and quick to summarily reject proposals with any long-term carbon emission limits.
The main thread of opposition from the developing world centers on the mandatory cuts in production that would stem from cuts in carbon emissions. Their argument is augmented by the inherent inequality in the role of the developed nations and the developing nations in the current state of the environment and the imposed mandates that each will be responsible for.
The wave of opposing sentiment from developing economies is summarized in a statement by an Indian delegation member at an early 2009 United Nations conference in Bonn, Germany stating, "If the question is whether India will take on binding emission reduction commitments, the answer is no. It is morally wrong for us to agree to reduce when 40 percent of Indians do not have access to electricity.”
This statement reveals the fundamental differences in the economies of the developed and the developing world. For the BRIC nations, acting in this case as a vanguard for the developing world, carbon limits will fundamentally trigger industrial production limits on already ravaged economies. For these nations often their only recourse in the global economy is to exploit carbon intensive methods of production.
At the recent G20 and G8 meetings in Paris and L’Aquila, as well as in subsequent correspondence, representatives of the BRIC and other developing nations have continued to steadfastly declare their opposition to any legally binding carbon emission legislation.
Additionally, the way in which Washington has dictated its demands to developing countries have factored negatively into cooperation over carbon emissions as many see a spearheading by the West as a cover for imperialistic economic controls under the veiled guise of egalitarianism.
Yao Jian, spokesman for China's Ministry of Commerce commented that, “the proposal of some developed countries to slap a carbon tariff on some imported products violates the WTO's basic principles and is trade protectionism in the disguise of environmental protection.”
Indian environment minister Jairam Ramesh, who has described carbon tariffs as "pernicious", added “there is no way India is going to accept any emission reduction target, period, between now and the Copenhagen meeting and thereafter.”
“We won’t sacrifice economic growth for the sake of emission reduction,” added top Russian economic advisor Arkady Dvorkovich.
While Brazil has been less vocal in opposition compared to India, China and Russia still President Lula has demonstrated reservations on agreed-upon limits in the long term, favoring tempered short term goals, and also calling on developed nations to absorb a majority of the responsibility.
The United States has more responsibility than China; Europe has more responsibility than South America or Africa," Lula said.
CARBON EMISSION LIMITS: ECONOMIC WARFARE?
In the view of many developing nations, because the developed world has been outputting large amounts of carbon for nearly a century, they have an increased responsibility to retroactively deal with problem.
Proponents for an international version of HR 2454 may argue that because the BRIC economies are presently among the greatest emitters of CO2 that they should be required to cut emissions as well, or else cuts will have little effect toward the intended outcome of reducing climate change.
But is the drive for cuts in carbon emissions really about saving the environment from the ravages of human induced climate change?
At work within the confines of this debate, the U.S/NATO-based oligarchic ruling class has reached a crossroads. The seemingly invincible global hegemonic power of the US/NATO-centered economy is weakening, with the BRIC nations leading the way with hearty economic growth. In addition, Western military supremacy has been stretched and challenged to deal with asymmetric warfare in Afghanistan and Iraq, and as a result appear weaker than ever. Concurrently, hotbeds of anti-Western sentiment continue to rise in South America, Central Asia and the Middle East and new areas of resource conflict have emerged with global implications. And with regional partnerships forming between Russia and China (as well as Russia and Iran) that include participation in joint military maneuvers, defense agreements, arms sales and economic cooperation; international competition against an Anglo-American dominated geopolitical system is beginning to take shape.
The result of this tidal storm of consequence is the need by the West to prematurely impede the development of the fastest rising economies in the world, which if aligned, could topple the global supremacy of the U.S/NATO in multiple fronts. To achieve this goal, U.S military doctrine must be examined as a possible driver for a carbon emissions policy.
From the DOD 2008 National Defense Strategy,
U.S. interests include protecting the nation and our allies from attack or coercion, promoting international security to reduce conflict and foster economic growth, and securing the global commons and with them access to world markets and resources. To pursue these interests, the U.S. has developed military capabilities and alliances and coalitions, participated in and supported international security and economic institutions, used diplomacy and soft power to shape the behavior of individual states and the international system, and using force when necessary. These tools help inform the strategic framework with which the United States plans for the future, and help us achieve our ends.
Carbon emissions limits enacted through “diplomacy and soft power”, in this light, are certainly pursuant to securing the “global commons…and access to world markets and resources” as well as shaping the behavior and internal composition of domestic economies. However, more enlightening is the admission that the Defense Department actively engages in operations aimed specifically at gaining influence or outright control of natural resources and world markets, goals which in certain situations may require military force as a last resort.
By hindering the international influence and economic progress of potential rivals through these tactics, especially during a time that has seen Western economic power and political capital wane, Western oligarchs hope that the hegemony held by the Anglo-American establishment can be continued indefinitely.
For most developing countries, economic growth contra posed with a focus on carbon emissions and the obsession with negative man-made effects remains a contradiction, one which does not compel these nations to go along with Washington’s best-laid plans. For populations living in abject poverty, cuts on carbon emissions work diametrically opposed to economic growth and acts to artificially freeze any future expansion of industrial capabilities. The question then becomes an easier matter; a choice between cutting carbon emissions globally or fostering economic growth domestically.
CARBON TRADING BENEFITS CORPORATE PARTICIPANTS, “CARBON OFFENDERS”
What other effects could be felt through regulation of carbon emission standards?
Besides the possibility of economic degradation for the developing world, the creation of a new market can be observed. In this new market, the carbon market, a gas central to the human life cycle becomes monetized and acts as an instrument of speculation, trading and general enrichment for corporate participants.
A cursory examination of the proponents for HR 2454 and similar global proposals will reveal an interesting catalog of rapacious private corporations like Dow Chemical, DuPont, General Electric, Ford and questionable environmental foundations like the World Resources Institute, Natural Resource Defense Fund, The Nature Conservancy and the Environmental Defense Fund. These sort of strange bedfellows usually signal corporate participation in the concept of “carbon trading”.
The idea of carbon trading is based around the concept that businesses and corporations that release excess carbon emissions during operation be required to purchase “carbon offsets” in order the make up for their environmental misdeeds. These “offsets” can be classified in a variety of demagogic endeavors like planting trees or financing solar and wind energy projects. However, more importantly, carbon trading creates a new speculative market on a gas central to the human life cycle.
Of the carbon trading firms that exist the largest in the U.S in the Chicago Climate Exchange, the CCX.
The Chicago Climate Exchange members include the same suspicious list of supporters of HR 2454 and multi-million dollar benefactors of environmental foundations—Amtrak, Citigroup, International Paper, Motorola, Cargill, Monsanto, Baxter, Bayer, Honeywell, Bank of America and many more.
The European counterpart, the ECX or European Climate Exchange, includes such members as Barclay’s, Morgan Stanley, Shell and Goldman Sachs. In fact, Goldman Sachs owns 10% of the CCX and stands to gain handsomely from investment, compulsory or otherwise, in the new carbon market.
While membership is voluntary, CCX and ECX members are cashing in on the ground floor. In the event of mandated carbon emissions imposed by international treaty or domestic laws like HR 2454, carbon trading firms whose connections reach into the highest stratum of the government and multi-national corporations will be able to control the outcome of such mandates—profiting greatly in the process.
Secondarily, if heavy tariffs are levied on carbon intensive industries only those corporations who participate in the CCX or ECX will have the ability to lessen the financial burden on themselves.
Due the possibility for incredible profit, the participation of perhaps the most egregious carbon emitters and the purpose of carbon emission mandates altogether have to be viewed as suspect; either as a tool for economic warfare, collusion for corporate enrichment, or both.
Are the largest corporations in the world, usually identified as being complicit in environmental degradation, truly concerned about the environment? Working through corporate-funded NGO’s and foundations that lobby for carbon emission limits; corporations, banks, and brokerage houses are now at the forefront of the supposed solution for the problem many would blame them for creating. With this sort of blatant hypocrisy the basis of claims that anthropogenic global warming is radically deteriorating the earth’s ecosystem should also be examined much more closely.
CONCLUSIONS
Regardless of the contentious debate over the severity of human-induced environmental problems, the calls for globally regulated carbon emission standards have given corporate interests the ability to steer the direction of policy through lobbying organizations and foundations.
In terms of foreign policy, proposals have created a divisive opposition from developing nations, led by the BRIC nations, who reject such proposals as economic hari-kari and counter intuitive to ending endemic poverty and fostering economic growth.
President Obama has already stated that in order for the developing world to receive even the most meager of aid from the United States, nations must display characteristics of “good governance”—that is, working for the behest of American interests. Neither conditionality’s nor a plan which signals a radical limit to growth acts as a solution for the social, economic, political and medical problems effecting billions of people far away from the lens of the Western media.
Rather then simply being ineffective, the “de-development“ agenda which comes as a result of carbon emission limits seems more cynically directed at strangling the economic progress of those developing nations. When observing the United States operational military doctrine of “full spectrum dominance” and soft power to control markets and resources, this agenda seems logical and more pragmatic for the Western elites then armed conflict.
The power of the BRIC nations is increasing, and with increased partnership aligned against Western interests, the BRIC nations seemingly hold the cards of the future of global economy. Their unwillingness to bend to the will of Washington underlines the divisions of a potential sea change in the evolving geopolitical landscape.
In all, the Obama administration appears to have underestimated the worldwide commitment to the policies surrounding cap and trade, as well as the deference paid to its wishes for cooperation.

07.18.09

Duty Now For The Future — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 19:34:18 GMT

NO NEW SHOW THIS WEEK, SO I'LL JUST DUMP SOME LINKS...
This weeks stories will focus on...
-Uighur uprising: Recent conflicts in China's Xinjiang province and the uprising of Chinese Muslims, known as Uighurs. Specifically of note is the funding of these groups through the CIA/NED front-woman Rebiya Kadeer.
Global Times: Rebiya Kadeer's funding sources
YOUTUBE: Swindler, Rebiya Kadeer, the CIA and the Bloody Hands Behind the Xinjiang Riots
-Nabucco Pipeline: Turkey has agreed to a large portion of the U.S/NATO backed Nabucco pipeline which travels from Italy, and will theoretically allow contact between Western Europe and the Caucuses in the from of natural gas exchanges in the crucial strategic area between the Black Sea and Caspian Sea. However, questions still remain regarding participants in filling the pipeline and Turkey continues to play it's cat-and-mouse game with Moscow and Washington with simultaneous participation Moscow's South Stream II.
Turkey, EU states sign intergovernmental pact on Nabuccogas pipeline
Turkey 'got what it wanted' on Nabucco, minister reiterates
F. William Engdahl: US Strategy of Total Energy Control over the European Union and Eurasia -Obama and Putin: The recent meeting of Putin and Obama over breakfast highlights the lack of Russian affinity and reverence for the "magic" of Obama commonly received in Western Europe. Lavrov blasts Polish missile shield as "counter productive" and Medvedev also hints at a potential retribution for continuation of Obama's confrontational policies.
Indifferent or Confused?
For Politicians and Pundits, Barack Obama’s Visit to Moscow is a Breakthrough, But Most Russians Remain Unconvinced that It Will Change Anything
Russia may still reply to U.S. shield with Baltic missiles
Russia's Lavrov says U.S. missile shield plans counterproductive
NEXT WEEK WE WILL DISCUSS CAP AND TRADE, UNTIL THEN...

07.09.09

Duty Now For The Future — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 22:40:10 GMT

INTRO: GENERAL BOY / TWIN PEAKS
Discussion regarding the geo-political importance of Africa, conflicts in the Horn of Africa and the recent inflammation of international competition for African resources. Also, how and for what purpose a U.S/NATO occupation could enter Africa under the guise of "armed re-stabilization."
Obama to push Africa democracy on landmark visit
Attacks cut Shell Nigeria onshore oil output by half
Google map of U.S/Africom interests
SONG: OPERATION IVY- BIG CITY
Discussion regarding Western/NATO interests in Africa revolving around natural resources and access to strategic military positions.
Obama Says Africa Leaders Must Take Responsibility for Failures
Zimbabwe’s Mugabe Calls Obama’s Africa Envoy an Idiot
US gives Somalia about 40 tons of arms, ammunition
Eritrea slams US for providing weapons to Somalia
Military contractors eye Africa again
SONG: FEAR- FOREIGN POLICY
...we don't need no hands across the seas...
Discussion of the strategic location and importance of the "The World Island" or "the axial super-continent" of Eurasia- centered in this discussion around Turkey, Georgia and Azerbaijan- in which access to these regions will lead to a measured advantage in global oil and natural gas production and shipment. A decisive theater in the expanding "global race for resources".
F. William Engdahl: Ankara in Calculus
Turkey's Constitutional Crisis Escalates
Here is some quick news points regarding the Honduran coup, the Argentinian mid-term election, Arctic strategy and more...
Zelaya out of step with Honduran elite
The U.S and the Honduran coup
U.S Special Forces admit presence in 19 Latin American countries
Fernandez Loses Congress Power in Argentina Election
Policy scenarios following Argentina elections
Arctic could be next hotspot for NORAD
Big Brother is Watching You: Pervasive Surveillance Under Obama
OUTRO: LAURA PALMER'S THEME / SYCAMORE TREES

06.25.09

Duty Now For The Future — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 23:39:57 GMT
Sorry about the sound issues at the beginning of the show. Fast-forward to about 1:50 and you should be good.
INTRO: GENERAL BOY / TWIN PEAKS
Discussion regarding the obvious role of Western intelligence in the aftermath of the Iranian election, regardless of what Obama says. The actions of protest groups, NGO's and intelligence agencies are aimed at installing a pro-West leader in Iran and destabilizing Russia.
Iran minister says CIA funding "rioters"
CIA Discovered Planning “Soft Revolution” in Early 2009
The propaganda war against Iran
SONG: THEY MIGHT BE GIANTS- ONE MORE PARADE / CAGE AND AQUARIUM
Discussion regarding Western/NATO provocations in Eastern Europe and Central Asia against Russia, holding implications of World War III
Russia accuses Kyrgystan of treachery over U.S military base
Russian agreement on U.S missile site unlikely
UPDATE: U.S.-Kyrgyz Deal Allows Military Cargo Shipment
SONG: SMOG- I FEEL LIKE THE MOTHER OF THE WORLD
With vast mineral resources and increased Chinese partnership, Africa is emerging as a geo-political hotspot. This has culminated in the operation of Africom and an attempt by Western power to gain control of this vital region in the ongoing, global "race for resources".
U.S. Sends Weapons to Help Somali Government Repel Rebels Tied to Al-Qaeda
Google map of U.S/Africom interests
F. William Engdahl: AFRICOM, China and Congo Resource Wars
Military contractors eye Africa again
SONG: firestARTer- COMPUTER WORLD
Discussion of the recent "Strategic Implications of Emerging Technologies" conference. By highlighting some of the more interesting presentations, a clear institutional and symbiotic dynamic of military technological evolution and the development military doctrine can be observed. Many technologies viewed as part of a distant future are rapidly approaching deployment with little or no opposing discussion.
David Bishop - Lucent Technolgies:
MEMS, Nano-microphones and "superhuman" augmentation
Harry Fair - UT Institute of Advanced Technology:
Railguns, disassociative rays, and nuclear reactors
Robert Finkelstein - Robotic Technologies Inc.:
FCS and the DOD "Path Towards Autonomy"
SONG: DEVO- CLOCKOUT
James Murday - USC, NRI:
Nano-bubble, biotic interfaces and "cyborg-like" functionality
John Parmentola - Army Lab Management:
Mimicking insects, multi-functional arrays, virtual humans and more.
Check out some of these random articles...
Raytheon's Blimp
Can DARPA teach machines to read?
Google analyzes your vacation snaps
OUTRO: LAURA PALMER'S THEME / SYCAMORE TREES

06.18.09

Duty Now For The Future — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 21:35:23 GMT
Intro: General Boy/Twin Peaks
Time for a "new world order": Brazilian president
There is a clear separation and great economic and political divides between the two dominant power spheres of the world. One, based around the U.S/NATO and the other group working conversely to bring about a multi-polar 'new world order' based around groups like the SCO and the CSTO. As there is no contiguous agenda that exists between these two groups, their actions can be demonstrated as largely adversarial.
Twitter responds on Iranian role
The State Department has put pressure on the instant messaging company in order to delayed scheduled maintainence to keep lines of communication open in Iran, post-election. This of course is a tactic being used to promote destabilization of the largely anti-U.S Iran regime. Also, the hypocrisy of the U.S government which promotes 'citizen journalists' abroad and derides them domestically.
SONG: MDC- I Remember
The New Balance: Limited Armed Stabilization and the Future of U.S. Landpower
A discussion of the shift of military doctrine towards supposed "left-cover", humanitarian and egalitarian aims for future armed engagements. Also Defensive Department directive 3000.05, which officially shifts focus away from traditional land conflicts and occupation towards "limited armed stabilization". This is nothing more than a change of terms to lessen criticism of illegal wars.
SONG: Mastodon- Crystal Skulls
New NATO Members: Security Consumers or Producers?
Discussion of the new battle lines and areas of nearly certain future conflict influenced by the race for resources between two conflicted spheres of power.
NATO's War Plans for the High North
The Conquest of Eurasia: NATO's War For The World's Heartland
The Eurasian Pipeline Calculus
The Tale of Two Diverging Economic Worlds
SONG: Polaris- Hey Sandy
Stay tuned next week for discussion regarding the recent conference
"Strategic Implications of Emerging Technologies"

06.10.09

Duty Now For The Future — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 20:55:43 GMT
Intro: Devo- General Boy visits Apocalypse Now / Twin Peaks Main Title Theme
Discussion of American foreign policy objectives under Barack Obama. These include: to maintain supremacy in international decision making, retaining nuclear supremacy, preventing 3rd world development, "Human rights" wars, preventing Chinese expansion into Africa and S.E Asia, no land based pipeline for Russia, NATO expansion, Micro-state destabilization etc...
Fear- Let's Have A War
The Prospects of a New Cold War? Towards the Consolidation of the Russian-led CSTO Military Alliance
They Might Be Giants- No One Knows My Plan
NATO of the South
This article expertly details the issues at hand concerning the race for the natural resources in the Arctic Circle and Antarctica.
U.S Black Budget tops 50 billion
The Fugees- The Beast
...the rest of the links will be up later...