It is a difficult time in the world. I support Secretary Kerry in taking proper precautions.

We are involved in very difficult circumstances. We are in diplomatic circles with delicate issues. This doesn't surprise me. The USA does not need a hostage situation while trying to negotiate peace accords. I am quite confident this is the right thing to do.

We don't need to be dropping bombs. Quite the contrary. The peoples involved with hate of the USA can't be right or correct in their politics anymore. We cannot enter a country with guns blazing and expect those nation's people to trust us or even seek to be at peace with us. Lacking an aggressive stance IS a matter of national defense.

There are regions on this planet that do not need to be destabilized any further. The countries have to protect their sovereignty against those that want to see them changed to serve their own purposes. As long as the USA gives al Qaeda a reason to believe we are the most imposing force on the globe, this will continue. Nation's leaders have to lead. They have to have the trust of their people. People don't trust the USA. It is time we stood down.

By Michelle Jamrisko and Nicole Gaouette

August 05, 2013

At least 19 U.S. embassies and consulates (click here) in predominantly Muslim countries will remain closed through this week as the Obama administration tied terror threats to the Yemen-based offshoot of al-Qaeda.

That branch “has been the most operationally active affiliate of al-Qaeda core,” State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf told reporters today in Washington, in the government’s most specific description of the source of the terror threats disclosed last week.

The U.S. closed 22 outposts yesterday after the State Department’s issued a worldwide travel alert warning of attacks in the Middle East, North Africa and South Asia by al-Qaeda or its affiliates. The decision to extend the shutdown for 19 of the facilities through Aug. 10 “is not an indication of a new threat,” Jen Psaki, a department spokeswoman, said yesterday in an e-mail...

Sad, but, true.

Jonathan Ernst/Reuters - A view of the lobby of The Washington Post Company headquarters in Washington, D.C.

By Paul Farhi, Monday, August 5, 4:33 PM

The Washington Post Co. (click here) has agreed to sell its flagship newspaper to Amazon.com founder and chief executive Jeffrey P. Bezos, ending the Graham family’s stewardship of one of America’s leading news organizations after four generations.
Bezos, whose entrepreneurship has made him one of the world’s richest men, will pay $250 million in cash for The Post and affiliated publications to the Washington Post Co., which owns the newspaper and other businesses.... 

Mr. Bezos got a real deal. The archives alone are worth plenty. I wish him well. 

This is always sad when traditions disappear, but, the Boston Globe has a hometown owner now and this is real opportunity for Mr. Bezos who might find minority management a pleasure.  I look forward to his new paper, it's name and much success. 

No movie plot. Real adventure.

I loved this film. I had no idea Greenland was this sad already. 

Greenland has always been an excellent indicator of climate. It's icesheet was among the most studied of all of the ice structures on Earth. It showed the profound impact of the Climate Crisis at very early stages. There are records by NASA in excellent satellite pictures and highly thought out contrast and compare. There was absolutely no reason for anyone in the USA government to have missed this disaster in the making. No excuse government responsibility. Why don't the Republicans just admit they wanted this for Wall Street profits and used their politics for that purpose?

The very real aspect of this filming is the petroleum industry and how irreverent they are to the land. Scientists haven't even had a chance to study the oldest rocks on Earth and the biotic content of the region before the petroleum industry is there to cause damage that will destroy the evidence of Earth's history. It is disgusting to realize how lousy Wall Street sincerely is when it comes to destroying evidence of Climate and Earth's history to carry out their profiteering. 

The film provides moments of beauty unlike those ever seen before. The 'adventure style' of this group of scientists is more than compelling. They sail a tall ship into Greenland's now intermittently exposed fjords and use state of the art technology to carry out their research. To say these folks are romantic about their work is an understatement. I really liked all of them and their music. 

The one sign of hope humans can carry away from this film, is there still exists a healthy permafrost in Greenland. It is not completely too late.

Believable plot with great martial arts.

If anyone is into martial arts this is a very exciting ride.

Just a great and entertaining movie.

Adventure better than war. Real courage for no reason at all, except, to prove a theory. Imagine that. A world where adventure imposes emotional highs and lows with a heroic end that defines manhood with curiosity, determination and science. A reverence for nature, the world and it's incredible power. An adventure of Earth's limits.

The USA has a problem with JSOC.

Jeremy Scahill is very worried about the new 'Techno Wars." My words, not his. It is an important film, but, I have to temper that a bit. He is an important journalist. He chased down a war no one was willing to cover otherwise. This film was made at his and his crew's own peril. No one can turn their back on that.

There is a book he wrote accompanying this film which also includes his notes. That tells me he is sincerely earnest in his objection to this jump in Techno Wars. I wish he had brought some copies for sale when he came to the festival. I have to get a copy and look through all this information before I can provide a good review of the film. I don't want to dismiss this as a this or that film. It is far to important to not seek a complete picture.

Dirty Wars: The World Is a Battlefield (click here)

There is something that sincerely bothered me as soon as I heard it. One of the understandings the American people have about their military is that the USA is never a battlefield. President Clinton changed that and I would like to hear from  him about why he turned JSOC's focus on the citizens of the USA. JSOC was involved in Waco.

By PHILIP SHENON
Published: September 05, 1999

The Pentagon's elite Special Operations Command (click here) sent observers to the siege of the Branch Davidian compound in Texas more than a month before the final assault on the compound, suggesting that military commandos had a far longer and closer involvement in the disastrous 1993 operation than previously divulged, according to declassified Government documents....

Bush is no angel here. He maintained that change and even used it during the Olympics. I don't like it. It is unconstitutional. It will become an objection when Former Secretary Clinton runs for President. Count on it.

This film carries the brevity journalists feel for people and not just American citizens. The reason journalists are becoming so focused on these dynamics is because they are unable to protect the people of this country and others from a dynamic that is believed to be out of control. I congratulate them for that. In all sincerity, they are correct. This is a huge issue, hence, I need to get the book.

The film carries the subject of 'the other' in regard to this methodology of JSOC. It is not tempered with the deaths of those in Fort Hood, but, in all fairness Mr. Scahill was focusing on foreign impacts of a USA policy. The film maintains that focus throughout and has created a very intense concern for the people effected. The footage with the family of Anwar al-Awlaki is pricelist. It is necessary. The father is the primary speaker for the family and that is very Muslim, but, he is very articulate. 

The methodology of JSOC is draconian when seeking to intervene with targeting from drones. Those are my words. It is what I discerned from the film and the Q&A afterward. They try and sentence the subject of the drone's intervention as guilty, but, they take it a step further and it is why there are so many civilian casualties. 

The drones find the target and then a commander within the computer room of Techno Soldiers operating the drones give the order when to fire at the target. The methodology recognizes they are losing the ability to interrogate the target. Once the target is dead there is no going back. In compensation for that reality, the commanders are not giving the order to fire the weapon until the target is among other operatives, even their families and village. Those people are considered "Not Specifically Targeted." The targets to these strikes can be from the ages of 15 to 70 years old, but, "the others" are all ages including children. 

Anwar al-Awlaki's son was stated to believed to be 21 years old. He was 16. Unfortunately, he was not with his father when he was killed, otherwise, the collateral damage would have been complete. But, since he was alive after his father was dead, JSOC went back to complete their planned targeting. Anwar al-Awlaki's son was listed at "Not Specifically Targeted." Bullshit. They killed him because of his POTENTIAL to continue to carry out his father's agenda. 

I also did not know Anwar al-Awlaki was a detainee in an American prison without representation after September 11, 2001. That is what radicalized him. Anwar al-Awlaki had a sincere grudge with the USA military, it's capacity, scope and power of the USA military, but, he never was so radical to turn citizens against their own military as he did at Fort Hood. Anwar al-Awlaki was mistreated and considered to be a danger to the USA. He was used as an example to the American Muslim by the Bush White House. This occurred instead of another internment camp.

The methodology by JSOC is very dangerous. It is to 'handle' an American considered to be trouble to the Psyops love affair with 'the good American.' We have a problem in the USA. Combine that reality with surveillance and we have a really big problem. 

This film is no joke, however, there were dead soldiers in Fort Hood. But, the argument can be made the dead soldiers was due to the radicalization by Bush of a Muslim cleric. Anwar al-Awlaki was not that radical before he was held as a detainee without legal representation for something like 18 months. He had not broken any laws and only practiced his First Amendment Rights. Bush was scared to death of that man. I mean you've got to be joking.

Anwar al-Awlaki's ranting about the USA miltiary abroad was no different than many other Americans. The difference was his religion and his status within that religion and he scared the guy in the Oval Office. Think about it. I have a book to read. 

The justification in the Oval Office of JSOC for it's actions lies in understanding the Muslim Cleric in Great Britain. He was just extradited to Jordan. Believe me, Bush was scared of Anwar al-Awlaki and his potential. The operations of JSOC is out of control. Just that simple. The reality is that JSOC is scared more than anyone else.

Here is one for those still awake this time of night.

To begin with, "The Girl Ain't All That." She discriminates in inches? Why was she dating you at all? Money and good time? 

Inches? Really? How many did she know about?

The best title to this film is "The Neater and Sweeter the Smaller the Peter."

Good night.

There was something that profoundly bothered me about his demands to renew nuclear as a safe fuel.

Robert Stone downplayed the Chernobyl disaster and showcased it as a safer form of reactor. He pointed to the idea that Chernobyl was actually housed safely in a quonset hut.

The truth is there is a lot in common between Russia's Chernobyl and Japan's Fukushima when the incident first occurred. But, to clarify, the Chernobyl reactor was not a Breeder Reactor, but, a Channel-type Reactor. The Channel-type reactor is exclusive to the old Soviet Union.

That said, this video from NASA clearly illustrates the problems in the beginning of these disasters. The Russians at first laid down sand around the entire reactor to attempt to access it somewhat more safely and at first they restarted the reactor. But, the radiation was extremely significant. The reaction never just 'shut down' because something went wrong. It continued to be radioactive after the accident.

It was after the events in this video by NASA which was possible due to LandSat Satellite, it was decided to build the sarcophagus. It was only a year or so ago that the sarcophagus was leaking and the Russians had to send in the robots to evaluate the old nuclear plant. I mean if Chernobyl isn't enough to scare the willies out of anyone, I don't know what will.

The lake at Chernobyl was man made. I think the scientist in the film loop mentions that as well as the fact the radioactive water in that lake migrated to the river and contaminated the supply of water all the way to Kiev. This was no minor accident. At the time and next to Fukushima this was the worst disaster in history. The entire concept of throwing in with the nuclear industry with a Breeder Uranium Reactor as a safe answer to the Climate Crisis is quicksand to any political agenda. I don't see it. I really don't.

When Fukushima first occurred the Japanese did basically the same thing; they attempted to save the reactors. When I first heard about the tsunami and it's location I knew what was transpiring there while the Japanese government, no different than Russia, existed in denial. An earthquake and tidal wave that size with such power was going to destroy infrastructure. The nuclear reactors never had a chance in remaining intact or the back up generators. I new those reactors were going to heat up quick and there wasn't going to be any backup because it was destroyed and flooded. 

These accidents are nightmares. They don't away. There is absolutely no minimizing this mess. I haven't got a clue what someone so dedicated to environmental safety is doing by simply giving up. To think the USA should return to these technologies is pure foolishness. It is quicksand and Democrats will pay a price if they try to use this as a political strategy. At the very least it is counter intuitive.

I would not give up my country to anyone. I will not give up on what I know will deliver the USA from certain disaster due to a dangerous climate. I don't know how anyone else could either unless they were so exhausted of the fight it is easier to simply relinquish to Wall Street Money. 

I personally continue to believe the People of the USA are good, decent, honest people that want to do the right thing. This is not the right thing. 

If France already made the mistake they did it under a conservative president that isn't there anymore. And they too, built it right on the ocean.