Россия готова вести переговоры о ядерном разоружении, но только после того, как действующие договоренности выполнят США, заявил помощник президента по международным делам Юрий Ушаков в программе &laqu…
|Feeling mobile? Get the Feedly app and read on the go|
The FBI News Review
Blogs from Michael_Novakhov (21 sites)
|Feeling mobile? Get the Feedly app and read on the go|
The FBI News Review
FBI from Michael_Novakhov (27 sites)
Lenta.ru : Новости
РБК – Все материалы
По данным портала, над проектом работают Warner Bros. Television и канал TV Asahi.
Как отмечается, события сериала будут …
Газета.Ru – Новости дня
A court-ordered sign has been erected at a bed and breakfast in Blaine, Wash. informing guests it’s illegal to enter Canada through the property. CTV News …
“political criminology” – Google News
One month after racist graffiti was found at the scene of a mysterious fire that engulfed the historic Highlander Research and Education Center’s main office in …
“fbi” – Google News
“elections 2016 russian ads on social media” – Google News
Trump Investigations from Michael_Novakhov (85 sites)
Washington: The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has issued a *fresh* warning over Russian interference in the 2020 presidential election, calling it a …
“counterintelligence” – Google News
Facebook has revealed it expects US FTC fines of up to US$5 billion after investigations that the platform violated user privacy.
“cambridge analytica” – Google News
Cambridge Analytica from Michael_Novakhov (4 sites)
J.D. Gordon, a retired Navy commander and former Trump campaign official, thought he had finally escaped Russia fever by winter 2019. Little did he know how …
“Russia investigations” – Google News
Trump Investigations from Michael_Novakhov (85 sites)
President Donald Trump’s national security adviser on Sunday said that the U.S. has little interest in joining other countries in a multi-nation effort to get North …
“trump putin” – Google News
Trump Investigations from Michael_Novakhov (85 sites)
What happened to the group of bright Sarah Lawrence College students who fell under the sway of Larry Ray, a classmate’s father?
“Conspiracy Against US” – Google News
Trump Investigations from Michael_Novakhov (85 sites)
Об этом говорится в докладе Стокгольмского международного института исследований проблем мира.
Согласно документу, в прошлом году …
Газета.Ru – Новости часа
The World Bank analytically divides the world’s economies into four income groups: high, upper-middle, lower-middle and low. Countries that are categorized as upper-middle income are the ones with income per capita ranging from US$3,896 to $12,055.
With income per capita at $3,846 as of 2017, Indonesia is moving closer to attain upper-middle income country (UMIC) status and is expected to join the group in less than five years. This new status would convey a discerning signal that Indonesia manages to gradually develop. Indonesia has been in the lower-middle income country (LMIC) group since 2003.
Previously, between 1998 to 2002, Indonesia had been relegated to the low income country (LIC) group after joining the LMIC group for the first time since 1993. In total, Indonesia has had LMIC status for 21 years.
The forecast seems to convey positive prospects. With the current growth rate, Indonesia’s economy would double in size in the next 20 years. However, the conjecture needs to be taken with a pinch of salt. Recent literature highlights the progress and quality of development beyond calculation of income or economic size.
Countries labeled as upper-middle income undeniably reflect an improvement in governance and economic development and it is indeed considered a stepping stone to upgrade into high income status.
Meanwhile, economic characteristics among the UMIC is fairly diverse. The deviation of national income per capita is large. The average gross national product (GNP) per capita for UMIC is about $6,510, but the jarring gap between the highest (Costa Rica at $11,120) and the lowest (Algeria at $3,940) is distinct.
Reaching UMIC status does not really guarantee a country’s economic robustness and stability; some countries had at least once fallen into lower-middle income or low income status.
For instance, Angola had lost UMIC status in 2016; Brazil had UMIC status for 27 years but it somehow fell to LMIC between 2002 and 2005. Belarus was relegated from UMIC to LMIC in 1994 before regaining UMIC status in 2007. Russia seems to be trapped in UMIC status after losing high income country (HIC) status in 2015. A similar fate also awaits Venezuela, which could only retain HIC status for a year (in 2014).
With the benefit of hindsight, it seems that being in the UMIC group clearly does not translate into a clear development path. However, there are several important lessons learned in this regard. For example, we might refer to success stories like Bahrain’s, which managed to upgrade its economy from UMIC to high income country (HIC) status in 2001. Chile upgraded into the HIC group in 2012. South Korea in the 1950s was in a similar economic state as Indonesia, but it could finally join the HIC group in 2001. For the last five years, we only see Argentina, Hungary, Palau, Panama and the Seychelles.
In contrast to the experience of the Four Asian Tigers (Hong Kong, South Korea, Singapore and Taiwan) in the early 1990s, many developing countries currently are stuck in middle income status, indicated by a growth slowdown after a period of rapid sustained economic growth, as according to the World Bank in 2016. In the early 1990s, it was widely believed that Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand would make successful transitions to high income status with different trajectories.
Between the 1950s and early 1990s, the three countries had growth rates that were among the highest in the world, driven in large part by the rapid growth of an export-oriented manufacturing sector. This growth acceleration phase was accompanied by significant structural transformation, as measured by value-added manufacturing as a share of gross domestic product (GDP) and the product complexity of exports.
Outside the Asian miracle economies, there were few other countries in this period that had such impressive rates of structural transformation.
Research by Kunal Sen and Matthew Tyce in 2019 explains why only a few developing countries have made the transition from middle income to high income status. They argue that the nature of the political settlement determined a growth strategy. Meanwhile, researchers on middle income status such as Homi Kharas and Harinder Kohli in 2011 almost invariably point toward deindustrialization and inappropriate growth strategies as the main factors.
The above cross-country comparison is mainly purposed to put Indonesia into a global context. Arguably, the prospect is clear and substantiated by many studies. E.g. prof. Anis H. Bajrektarevic says ‘as much as Asia today is an economic promisland so is also the brewing social vulcano and the politico-military windward side’.
A report from the Asian Development Bank even considered Indonesia would become one of seven Asian powerhouses of growth within next few decades. However, more importantly, there are more problems to solve within Indonesia itself. In fact, variations between regions are more persistent. For instance, regional GDP per capita in Jakarta ($13,000) currently equals Poland, but North Kalimantan ($6,700) has a similar income per capita as China, while East Nusa Tenggara ($950) is only on par with Cambodia.
Within the scope of development status, the diversity among provinces is equally evident. Poverty rates in Papua and West Papua provinces are manyfold of those on Java. Trends of inter-island disparity have been widening during the last decade. Therefore, heterogeneity and complexity at the local level are pivotal to unpack development problems before embarking into a higher economic status.
*Dharendra Wardhana recently completed his PhD on development studies with reference to emerging economies at the Department of International Development, King’s College London, is an official of the National Development Planning Agency (Bappenas) of the Republic of Indonesia. This article reflects his personal opinion.
Several observers, journalists and critics of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi have been pointing out that the ongoing Indian parliament election looks like Presidential election, focusing on one man and not really the election of people’s representatives as intended in the Indian parliamentary system.
They have been blaming Mr. Narendra Modi for this scenario. In support of their view point, they point out that while Modi’s political party BJP has formed alliance with a few other parties under the banner National Democratic Alliance (NDA), campaign is being done amongst the people by the ruling party not in the name of BJP or NDA but in the name of Mr. Narendra Modi. People are being “brain washed” to vote for Mr. Modi rather than being appealed to vote for BJP government or NDA government. The critics further say that this has been deliberately done by Prime Minister Modi, bringing the focus on himself. According to them, this is Mr. Modi’s disservice to Indian system of parliamentary democracy.
While it is true that the parliamentary election is taking place like the Presidential form of election focusing entirely on Mr. Narendra Modi, the question is whether Mr. Modi is responsible for this.
The fact is that the opposition parties in India are largely responsible for this situation and Mr. Modi is only responding to the scenario.
The ground reality is that there is no leader in the opposition political parties (most of whom are really leaders in the state level with their influence restricted to one or two states ) to match Mr. Modi in charisma, oratory skill , personal integrity and leadership qualities.
When Jawharlal Nehru and Indira Gandhi were the Prime Ministers and parliamentary election took place at their time too, there were several stalwarts in the opposition parties like Rajaji,. Jayprakash Narain, Lohia,Acharya Kripalani and others . People had a definite choice . It appears that such a situation is not the case now.
Aware of their limitations, leaders of several political parties, most of whom are regional leaders, have joined together to oppose one man Mr. Modi.
In the process, they all seem to have concluded that Mr. Modi’s fair image amongst people has to be effectively demolished and that is the only way that BJP or NDA can be defeated in the election. Therefore, in all their speeches ,the opposition leaders of various parties started personally targeting Mr. Modi and abusive language were liberally used calling Mr. Modi a thief and even going to the extent of stating that even Mr. Modi’s claim of belonging to a backward community is false. Mr. Modi was personally blamed for every development that took place in the last five years of his governance and no other leader of BJP and NDA was criticized with such vehemence. The net result of this situation is that Mr. Modi became the single and sole target for the opposition parties and obviously Mr. Modi has to fight back and explain his stand and view point.
The fact remains that Modi government has initiated many proactive and imaginative schemes in multiple directions in the last five years, keeping the complex requirements of India in view. Of course, some of such measures have not yet yielded the expected results in a way that people could feel and benefit. However, most of his actions are work in progress stage as of now. Opposition parties know this and they cannot take him on such issues like clean India campaign, opening millions of bank accounts for poor people , skill development programmes, digitalization etc. Therefore, to paint Mr. Modi in black , an attempt has been made to call him corrupt and using words such as thief.
Now, voters in India are left with no alternative other than viewing parliamentary election as decision to vote for Mr. Modi or not to vote for Mr. Modi. As the process of elections are going on, nobody else is being discussed and the merits and demerits of individual candidates are not being analysed and evaluated. Every candidate representing Modi’s party are being evaluated as Mr. Modi himself and merits and demerits of Mr. Modi as seen by the voters is the only factor in exercising the franchise by the people in favour of one candidate of other. Candidates belonging to opposition parties are being evaluated as representing anti Modi force.
The opposition parties with no coordinated principles or policy programmes and with considerable mistrust between themselves have no alternate leadership to highlight against Mr. Modi.
At this state, while the media projects that Mr. Modi is well ahead in the election contest, 2019 parliamentary election in India will go down in history as a contest regarding the acceptance or otherwise of one man Mr. Narendra Modi. This has never been so in the history of parliamentary election in India so far.
The North Korean leader Kim Jong Un met Russian President Vladimir Putin on 25 April. This was the first meeting between the two leaders in Russia. It is hailed as an important event. Its significance can be because of the following factors:
Moscow and Pyongyang are Cold War allies and this meeting has taken place as Russia steps up efforts to increase its influence in the region.
While the meeting between President Putin and North Korean leader Kim took place, military drills between US-South Korea also took place which outraged Pyongyang. This military drill between America and Seoul was in small scale in comparison to their annual Key Resolve and Foal Eagle joint military drills. Both sides in March decided to cancel this large scale exercise as part of steps to support the diplomatic efforts to achieve the complete denuclearization of the peninsula.
Criticizing this decision of South Korea as a violation of the Panmunjom Declaration and the subsequent joint declaration in Pyongyang, where the both the divided Koreas committed to work towards demilitarization, ending of hostilities and eventual reunification. “In March also, the south Korean authorities held a joint military drill under the codename of Alliance.”
The negotiations between North Korea and the US have met with another stalemate.
Fresh sanctions were imposed on Pyongyang in March by America.
The US accuses North Korea of not abiding to the negotiations on Pyongyang’s denuclearization program which would lead to the uplifting of all sanctions being imposed on the country while Pyongyang says that it is willing to give up the nuclear weapons but based on strong security and sovereignty guarantees as well as lifting of all sanctions. Both America and Pyongyang accuses each other for the derailment of negotiations.
Russia, since the Soviet Union time, has been an ally to Pyongyang (though the relationship has experienced its ups and downs because of Moscow’s balancing relations with South Korea). Moscow along with China has been supported Pyongyang regime. Moscow at the same time also supports US’ policy of denuclearization in the Korean Peninsula. However, Russia supports dialogue rather than unilateral actions such as sanctions and use of force for negotiations. Last year, Moscow called for a phased lifting of sanctions in exchange for North Korea’s denuclearization.
Meanwhile, the agenda of the meeting was to discuss issues of resolving the situation on the Korean Peninsula and developing the bilateral relations between Russia and North Korea. During a press conference after their meeting, President Putin said that the North Korean leader is interested in denuclearization, but first and foremost wants guarantee of the country’s national interest and ensure Pyongyang’s security. He said that Mr. Kim understands that this is achievable only if the partners of North Korea – primarily the US – are ready to engage in constructive dialogue.
Putin also urged South Korea to be more independent of the US in its dealings with North Korea. Russia somewhere thinks that in the last few months the situation around the peninsula has stabilized somewhat because of Pyongyang’s efforts, including by engaging in talks with US and South Korea and reaching out to Russia and China, and initiatives of stopping rocket testing and closing its nuclear test site. Hence, it becomes important for America and Seoul to carefully and sensitively handle the situation. It is because North Korea believes that the impasse in the peninsula is because of America and Seoul’s actions and policies.
In fact, after his meeting with President Putin, Mr. Kim said that the situation in the peninsula has come to a standstill after the positive developments since 2018 because of US’ policies. He said that peace and security on the peninsula will ‘entirely depend’ upon the US’s future attitude. He also said that North Korea will till then guard itself from any event that might put the country’s security at stake.
The two leaders did not sign any documents or agreements after their meetings. The Kremlin described the talks between the two leaders as constructive. US President Donald Trump also praised President Putin’s efforts.
For Moscow, this meeting was important as it helps to build its image as a pragmatic power who understands the geopolitics involved in this kind of conflicts. It also helps in protecting Moscow’s national interests in the region as Pyongyang’s closeness to America threatens Russia’s stakes, including the repossession of the Noktundo Island and the installation of the US missile defence system named THAAD.
Pyongyang on the other hand might have wanted to take advantage of the tensed relationship between Russia and the US by trying to have concessions from Moscow, especially in the economic sector (though nothing was made public on this aspect after the meeting). Cooperation with Russia also helps Pyongyang to lessen its dependence on China.
Overall, the meeting for Russia and North Korea was successful as both the countries have sent respective signals to the international community especially to the US and China.
Pyongyang, despite the unsuccessful attempts to relieve the sanctions, has been able to manage to court Russia who in recent times has been able to reassert its power as well as stand against US unilateral actions.
*Dr. Indrani Talukdar is a Research Fellow at Indian Council of World Affairs, New Delhi.
Disclaimer: The views are of that author’s and not the Council’s.
The multi-colored placard in front of a $2-million
home in North Center Chicago proudly proclaimed, “In this house we
believe: No human is illegal” – and “Science is real” (plus a few other
I knew right away where the
owners stood on climate change, and other hot-button political issues.
They would likely tolerate no dissension or debate on “settled” climate
science or any of the other topics.
But they have it exactly backward on the science issue. Real science is not belief – or consensus, 97% or otherwise. Real
science constantly asks questions, expresses skepticism, reexamines
hypotheses and evidence. If debate, skepticism and empirical evidence
are prohibited – it’s pseudo-science, at best.
science – and real scientists – seek to understand natural phenomena
and processes. They pose hypotheses that they think best explain what
they have witnessed, then test them against actual evidence,
observations and experimental data. If the hypotheses (and predictions
based on them) are borne out by their subsequent findings, the
hypotheses become theories, rules, laws of nature – at least until
someone finds new evidence that pokes holes in their assessments, or
devises better explanations.
Real science does
not involve simply declaring that you “believe” something, It’s not
immutable doctrine. It doesn’t claim “science is real” – or demand that a
particular scientific explanation be carved in stone. Earth-centric
concepts gave way to a sun-centered solar system. Miasma disease beliefs
surrendered to the germ theory. The certainty that continents are
locked in place was replaced by plate tectonics (and the realization
that you can’t stop continental drift, any more than you stop climate
Real scientists often employ computers
to analyze data more quickly and accurately, depict or model complex
natural systems, or forecast future events or conditions. But they test
their models against real-world evidence. If the models, observations
and predictions don’t match up, real scientists modify or discard the
models, and the hypotheses behind them. They engage in robust discussion
They don’t let models or hypotheses become substitutes for real-world evidence and observations. They don’t alter or “homogenize” raw or historic data
to make it look like the models actually work. They don’t hide their
data and computer algorithms (AlGoreRythms?), restrict peer review to
closed circles of like-minded colleagues who protect one another’s
reputations and funding, claim “the debate is over,” or try to silence
anyone who dares to ask inconvenient questions or find fault with their
claims and models. They don’t concoct hockey stick temperature graphs
that can be replicated by plugging in random numbers.
In the realm contemplated by the Chicago yard sign, we ought to be doing all we can to understand Earth’s highly complex, largely chaotic, frequently changing climate system
– all we can to figure out how the sun and other powerful forces
interact with each other. Only in that way can we accurately predict
future climate changes, prepare for them, and not waste money and
resources chasing goblins.
But instead, we have
people in white lab coats masquerading as real scientists. They’re
doing what I just explained true scientists don’t do. They also ignore
fluctuations in solar energy output and numerous other powerful,
interconnected natural forces that have driven climate change throughout
Earth’s history. They look only (or 97% of the time) at carbon dioxide
as the principle or sole driving force behind current and future climate
changes – and blame every weather event, fire and walrus death on manmade CO2.
worse, they let their biases drive their research and use their
pseudo-science to justify demands that we eliminate all fossil fuel use,
and all carbon dioxide and methane emissions, by little more than a
decade from now. Otherwise, they claim, we will bring unprecedented
cataclysms to people and planet.
surprisingly, their bad behavior is applauded, funded and employed by
politicians, environmentalists, journalists, celebrities, corporate
executives, billionaires and others who have their own axes to grind,
their own egos to inflate – and their intense desire to profit from climate alarmism and pseudo-science.
Worst of all, while they get rich and famous, their immoral actions impoverish billions and kill millions, by depriving them of the affordable, reliable fossil fuel energy that powers modern societies.
still these slippery characters endlessly repeat the tired trope that
they “believe in science” – and anyone who doesn’t agree to “keep fossil
fuels in the ground” to stop climate change is a “science denier.”
When these folks and the yard sign crowd brandish the term “science,” political analyst Robert Tracinski
suggests, it is primarily to “provide a badge of tribal identity” –
while ironically demonstrating that they have no real understanding of
or interest in “the guiding principles of actual science.”
climate scientist (and former chair of the School of Earth and
Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology) Dr. Judith Curry
echoes Tracinski. Politicians like Senator Elizabeth Warren use
“science” as a way of “declaring belief in a proposition which is
outside their knowledge and which they do not understand…. The purpose
of the trope is to bypass any meaningful discussion of these separate
questions, rolling them all into one package deal – and one political
party ticket,” she explains.
purpose of all this, of course, is to silence the dissenting voices of
evidence- and reality-based climate science, block creation of a Presidential Committee on Climate Science, and ensure that the only debate is over which actions to take first to end fossil fuel use … and upend modern economies.
last thing fake/alarmist climate scientists want is a full-throated
debate with real climate scientists – a debate that forces them to
defend their doomsday assertions, methodologies, data manipulation … and
claims that solar and other powerful natural forces are minuscule or
irrelevant compared to manmade carbon dioxide that constitutes less that
0.02% of Earth’s atmosphere (natural CO2 adds another 0.02%).
Thankfully, there are many reasons for hope.
For recognizing that we do not face a climate crisis, much less threats
to our very existence. For realizing there is no need to subject
ourselves to punitive carbon taxes or the misery, poverty, deprivation, disease and death that banning fossil fuels would cause.
the peak of the great global cooling scare in 1975 until around 1998,
atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and temperatures did rise in rough
conjunction. But then temperatures mostly flat-lined, while CO2 levels
kept climbing. Now actual average global temperatures are already 1
degree F below the Garbage In-Garbage Out computer model predictions. Other alarmist forecasts are also out of touch with reality.
of fearing rising CO2, we should thank it for making crop, forest and
grassland plants grow faster and better, benefitting nature and humanity
– especially in conjunction with slightly warmer temperatures that
extend growing seasons, expand arable land and increase crop production.
The rate of sea level rise has not changed for
over a century – and much of what alarmists attribute to climate change
and rising seas is actually due to land subsidence and other factors.
is not becoming more extreme. In fact, Harvey was the first Category
3-5 hurricane to make US landfall in a record 12 years – and the number
of violent F3 to F5 tornadoes has fallen from an average of 56 per year
from 1950 to 1985 to only 34 per year since then.
ingenuity and adaptability have enabled humans to survive and thrive in
all sorts of climates, even during our far more primitive past. Allowed
to use our brains, fossil fuels and technologies, we will deal just
fine with whatever climate changes might confront us in the future. (Of
course, another nature-driven Pleistocene-style glacier pulling 400 feet
of water out of our oceans and crushing Northern Hemisphere forests and
cities under mile-high walls of ice truly would be an existential
threat to life as we know it.)
So if NYC Mayor Bill De Blasio and other egotistical grand-standing politicians and fake climate scientists want to ban fossil fuels, glass-and-steel buildings, cows and even hotdogs
– in the name of preventing “dangerous manmade climate change” – let
them impose their schemes on themselves and their own families. The rest
of us are tired of being made guinea pigs in their fake-science