US space policy

A place to engage extended discussions of things that come up on the ttbrown.com website. Anything goes here, as long as it's somehow pertinent to the subject(s) at hand.
Mikado14
Mr. Nice Guy
Posts: 2343
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2006 1:49 pm
Location: Somewhere in Pennsy

Re: US space policy

Post by Mikado14 »

amalie wrote:Dear Mikado,

Although I risk exhausting your patience ,

I would add to the fairly fundamental agricultural development theory I have put forward, a couple of asides.

That ISST or a similar institution would fulfill several specific functions for all the civil society conditions, developmental, corporate or economic, educational and even crisis and security (which might be considered together as they are both extreme conditions).

Because of the many dimensions to the information age utilities platform, information process for agricultural implementations can also be viewed within the context of informing international economic flows, monetary adjustments and export/import ratios. Therefore a country that finds it can grow a lot of soy beans but does not have many phone technicians can trade in a few food exports for a few good communications professors. A silly analogy I know but the argument is the same, to each his own, from each to all, such a system works both ways and both directions are useful.
Amalie, I abbreviated your quote to save space.

Again, I reiterate that the information that you mention mostly exists. It would be a fundamental mistake to legislate a private company to release information that they own, from their system, without some type of renumeration. Likewise, the same with the military. Please don't use the old catch phrase that the military systems are paid for by the taxpayers ergo, we have the right to use them. It doesn't work. If I wanted to "borrow" a Bradley tank to take care of a certain neighbor, it would have been history by now but it doesn't work that way.

However, if you are referring to the purchase of time to utilize these satellites for the acquisition of data, as you suggested, then there is no problem with private rights. Who pays?

Mikado
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy
Mikado14
Mr. Nice Guy
Posts: 2343
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2006 1:49 pm
Location: Somewhere in Pennsy

Re: US space policy

Post by Mikado14 »

amalie wrote: At least if we have ISST, we will be able to use rations properly (and with informed consent) . Would you really keep six cats if you knew that two children in Mexico would get malnutrition because of your choice ... for the worst possible example...ever ...
The parents of those cats should have been neutered, which all my pets were, including Neva (search the forum). Everything has a right to life, the cats and the two children and your example is really bad.

Mikado
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy
amalie
Junior Birdman
Posts: 208
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 7:36 pm

Re: US space policy

Post by amalie »

Dear Mikado ,

That was very bad , I know ... I am looking carefully at your response .
Although we are looking from different perspectives ,
there may be some meeting ground , at least I will try and clarify from your further inquiries .

I will be able to write some more tomorrow , many thanks for the stimulating input.

Amalie
Mikado14
Mr. Nice Guy
Posts: 2343
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2006 1:49 pm
Location: Somewhere in Pennsy

Re: US space policy

Post by Mikado14 »

amalie wrote:Dear Mikado ,

That was very bad , I know ... I am looking carefully at your response .
Although we are looking from different perspectives ,
there may be some meeting ground , at least I will try and clarify from your further inquiries .

I will be able to write some more tomorrow , many thanks for the stimulating input.

Amalie
Amalie,

I do await your response and remember, I don't disagree with the concept, it is the context and the scope. Any treaty has to be policed and/or enforced and this is where is gets touchy but for now, how about we look at what you are saying, one thing at a time.

Mikado
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy
amalie
Junior Birdman
Posts: 208
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 7:36 pm

Re: US space policy

Post by amalie »

Mikado,
To try and answer a few of the important questions you have raise. I have answered the first one below, should I include my further answers in another format, as a link perhaps, or send them to you privately? Like you I do not wish to use up overmuch room on the space policy thread, especially not to bring my particular and what is unfortunately my personal point of view forward. I do very much appreciate having the opportunity to engage for discussion in this way, this is the first time in four years that I have found anyone or anywhere for such , my gratitude, to Linda, Paul and all the forum is extensive.

Question
"Infringement of Human Rights" - that is a very broad meaning group of words. One must be aware of cultural standards as well and what we may interpret as a violation may be of the norm for a group of people. Who defines "Human Rights"?

Answer
"Infringement of Human Rights " - in this context, would mean some very universal and very acceptable basic international norms, which I do not feel are exceptional in any way, and which would be readily subscribed to by all parties seeking current ratification of space policy dimensions. So for inclusion within a treaty level compilations, " human rights " would perhaps be defined as ; "the right of all peoples to the basics necessities of life, the right to education and the right to self determination within the terms of the existing and established national and constitutional provisions."

The right to self-determination is of course the more difficult one because the first two are very obvious objectives and do not pose any threat to established rules of law. The "right to self determination " is a very complex issue and it is as you say it is subjected to "cultural standards" as well. However as we do not wish to see a human society where more and more become disenfranchised from political process, because of the one sided positioning of power within governmental technological structures, now would be a good moment to open out the e-government potentials within the international arena through treaty level implementations. At this time I do not think that currently any opposition to furtherance of styles of representational enablements such as e-government facilities, would be vociferous, not if those additional facilities and resources were to be implemented via the existing UN observer status for e-government and representational abilities.

Yet in a few years such open and democratic public policy resources might well become far more difficult to obtain and distribute , because as the identity, location and attributes of the civil society become more closely defined within data base collations, the availability of representations can also be brought into question through the simple process of sifting out within the software programs those who "qualify" and those who "do not qualify " for political representation. You might see a situation where "qualification" for representation is obtained through ownership of land, by an income above a certain level, by a university degree or by other types of clauses. In this case an exclusionary political representation would be carried through by the technologically enabled national elites who set the parameters and the democratic stylistics would simply fall by the wayside.

There is nothing adequate in place to prevent such exploitation from occurring at present. There is no way that the UN would be able to provide proper coverage to ensure against such eventualities. The only way to shore up the profound weakness is through the prospect of getting a comprehensive legislation in place ahead of the curve and therefore creating a policy condition that would give international (space based) oversight into such an insidious usage of technological capacities.

The disenfranchisement of populations is much like "climate change " an unknown possibility. But this does not mean it is an unobtainable one. If such a kind of process does occur eventually within various and highly vulnerable locations, it will be directly linked to the creation of "slave societies " segments of populations without adequate representation who are held in bondage against powerful technocratic, industrial and political organisms. Again I would say we have not got there yet, so now is a very good moment to absolutely ensure we do not. Seeing what was made possible within the second world war, by the technologically based identification of a population, I would suppose that although the more overt attributes of such failures are no longer fashionable, the more hidden and highly secretive factors underlying data based population collations have yet to come into play and we should do our utmost to prevent those sorts of occurrences ahead of time.

ISST is too some extent like preventative medicine, it knows what could happen to the patient if things go badly and it puts remediation in place to avoid a serious breakdown. The cost for this at this time is very small and there is no reason for international objection to what is a very reasonable proposal to expedite governmental outreach into a basic and generally accepted human rights status. A treaty platform would not point the finger or exclude anyone here, although as we know the circumstances and interpretations of human rights are very different, those specifics are not what ISST clauses are directly concerned with, as these clauses are trans- cultural and trans-political in nature. What these original clauses do address and this is key and needs to be properly provided for, is human rights abuses, disenfranchisement, exploitation and so on within the veritable particulars and conditions of information based and communications attributes.

One should also remember that the cost for remediation against technological misuse is also very small at this time, as it can be achieved by simply pulling the plug on the abuser, something the allies could not do because they did not have microsoft operating systems or access to proper cyberspace dimensions. Such oversites for forthcoming implementations would be an excellent and obvious usage for US and internationalized high ground space capacities, ensuring the advancement of authentic and trans-political democratic process, and disallowing for the prospect of far more expensive clean up operations once the inevitable technological rot has set in.

Amalie
Trickfox
The Magician
Posts: 1461
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 7:06 am
Location: Quebec or Montreal
Contact:

Re: US space policy

Post by Trickfox »

ISST is too some extent like preventative medicine, it knows what could happen to the patient if things go badly and it puts remediation in place to avoid a serious breakdown.
Amalie

Can you explain how "ISST" is able to make decisions? Are you talking about an entity or a treaty?

trickfox
The psychopropulsier (as pointed out in the book The Good-bye man by Linda Brown and Jan Lofton) is a Quantum entanglement project under development using Quantum Junctions. Join us at http://www.Peeteelab.com
amalie
Junior Birdman
Posts: 208
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 7:36 pm

Re: US space policy

Post by amalie »

Dear Trickfox ,

ISST is not an "entity ", it is only a legislation.
Perhaps the international community, of peoples and nations is an "entity", a sum total of collective expertise and good will.

I wish for the people of American to invite this "entity", which is the "international community" to the great American scientific debate, invite them in for the formal implementation of the "information age' within an innovative "space treaty" that will advance better and more democratic future and global outcomes.

There is no other nation that can do this work, which offers the most significant prospect for American leadership , however a lot do not wish to see that role become any sort of actual reality.

I hate to see America fall back into the outdated political attributes of cold war marginalizations and still be expected to carry the tremendous burden of global development without being given proper acknowledgment or appreciation.

If something innovative like ISST is not undertaken soon, something that gives real scope for American expertise and ingenuity, I fear that America may become a fortress nation, unavailable and unconcerned with the destructive forces that have been unleashed by an early industrialization and by the creation of anonymous and amoral information based identities.

Amalie
Trickfox
The Magician
Posts: 1461
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 7:06 am
Location: Quebec or Montreal
Contact:

international space policy

Post by Trickfox »

There is no other nation that can do this work,
I OBJECT HERE.....
Canada has been well known as a peaceful nation which has almost allways supported American values. (except for the scenario in Irak just recently of course).

England and Autralia has always been there also.

France is a good partner in many ways.... in fact there are several nations that have participated in tying to establish peaceful advantageous future ventures such as your desired "ISST" project....

Your LEGISLATION is what is being questioned. From what authority does your legislation begin with?

and what about the decisions..... who will make the decisions?

Are the decisions being made top-down from a pyramid structure?

What if there were intercepting decision being made both top-down and upwards accountable?

This amounts to transparent cooperative "responsibility-sharing" decisions...

Now we are gitting into an interesting possibility which needs a lot more explanation.

I would suggest the "ASERT prcocess" as just such a possibility.

I have already spoken about this in another thread so if you want to search the term ASERT in past threads you will get a better idea of my vision. Amalie, Perhaps your vision and mine has a common root here. Others may have ideas to bring forth.

Let's explore this further.

Trickfox
The psychopropulsier (as pointed out in the book The Good-bye man by Linda Brown and Jan Lofton) is a Quantum entanglement project under development using Quantum Junctions. Join us at http://www.Peeteelab.com
amalie
Junior Birdman
Posts: 208
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 7:36 pm

Re: US space policy

Post by amalie »

Dear Trickfox,

Strong objection noted
Trickfox wrote:
There is no other nation that can do this work,
I OBJECT HERE.....
FOX . Canada has been well known as a peaceful nation which has almost allways supported American values. (except for the scenario in Irak just recently of course).

England and Autralia has always been there also.

France is a good partner in many ways.... in fact there are several nations that have participated in tying to establish peaceful advantageous future ventures such as your desired "ISST" project....

AM. Yes I think all nations actually want ISST , they certainly do not want an arms race in space

FOX. Your LEGISLATION is what is being questioned. From what authority does your legislation begin with?

AM. The authority began July 22nd 2004, Canon Congressional Caucus Room Washington DC .
Present for the panel forum was US Ambassador Jonathan Dean , so I think the follow up "ISST proposal" has provision as being a verified background "materiels" under UN treaty authorization procedures . ( I could be wrong , but so far that particular question has not been raised ) . ISST process and investigation must now continue for a discussion within US House and Senate , then formal compilation of ISST should obtain within US. US Presidential ratification will be required, before ISST can be established for inclusion amongst the many hundreds ( possibilly thousands ) of treaties now awaiting international ratification at the UN.

FOX. and what about the decisions..... who will make the decisions?

AM. International community makes the decisions , according to interest and participation.

FOX. Are the decisions being made top-down from a pyramid structure?

AM. No they should be made from a bottom up representational process , however as that is is very difficult to obtain , owing to no's of participants, decisions would probably be made by governmental and agency representatives, with an
e- government process included for popular advisement and referendum . Certainly the principles of ISST would encourage better representation for decision making .

FOX. What if there were intercepting decision being made both top-down and upwards accountable?

AM. Such dillema's would be controversial ones and also destructive , but might be unavoidable . At least ISST would bring several sorts of policy perspectives into the open . One would hope that more availability of alternatives and discussion for those would be preferable to the more discrete mechanisms of power now in place . Perhaps not if fragmentation, anarchy and dissociation became a typical outcome ?

FOX. This amounts to transparent cooperative "responsibility-sharing" decisions...

AM. Yes that sounds like a good idea .

FOX. Now we are gitting into an interesting possibility which needs a lot more explanation.

AM. Please explain some more

FOX.I would suggest the "ASERT prcocess" as just such a possibility.

AM. I will look up ASERT

FOX. I have already spoken about this in another thread so if you want to search the term ASERT in past threads you will get a better idea of my vision. Amalie, Perhaps your vision and mine has a common root here. Others may have ideas to bring forth.

AM. Hope so, can't stand the soapbox thingy.

Let's explore this further.

FOX. Good idea

Trickfox
amalie
Junior Birdman
Posts: 208
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 7:36 pm

Re: US space policy

Post by amalie »

Mikado,

I have three more responses for you, each of similar length .

Shall I post them here?

I can try and include the pages as links if you prefer, links would take up less room on the forum.

I would have to ask Alan about the source mailing address, probably Google documents which he encouraged me to use because it is not cached on my computer .

Many Thanks
Amalie
amalie
Junior Birdman
Posts: 208
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 7:36 pm

Re: US space policy

Post by amalie »

Trickfox,

Here is a message I got today from Ambassador Jonathan Dean's organization

http://ucsaction.org/campaign/9_04_08_m ... 59h7mmw56m?

Here is another message I got today about Hangar One, you know what I want that for
( first US ISST operational location )

I think I have used up all my forum bandwidth now for a while , so I had better go back and start attending to the backlogs .

Love Amalie

NASA ready to help save Hangar One
City Council set to discuss reuse of Moffett's historic structure on Tuesday

by Daniel DeBolt
Mountain View Voice
September 4, 2008

City officials say they came away from a meeting with NASA Ames on
Tuesday confident that the space agency is eager to save Hangar One.

The Navy, which left the base to NASA in 1994, doesn't want to spend an
extra $15 million to re-skin the hangar after it removes its 70-year-old
toxic siding. But NASA doesn't want to see the hangar sit around as a
bare skeleton, Mayor Tom Means said.

"Their approach would be to do uncovering and recovering at the same
time," said Means. "Putting up all that scaffolding is going to cost
money. What they are saying is, 'Why don't we put a new covering back on
while that scaffolding is in place?'"

The full City Council will discuss the hangar at next week's Tuesday
night meeting, and decide whether to approve a letter to the Navy
commenting on the plan for Hangar One.

For the entire article, see
http://www.mv-voice.com/news/show_story.php?id=828

Lenny Siegel
Executive Director, Center for Public Environmental Oversight
a project of the Pacific Studies Center
278-A Hope St., Mountain View, CA 94041
Voice: 650/961-8918 or 650/969-1545
Fax: 650/961-8918
<[email protected]>
http://www.cpeo.org
Last edited by amalie on Fri Sep 05, 2008 4:13 am, edited 1 time in total.
Mikado14
Mr. Nice Guy
Posts: 2343
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2006 1:49 pm
Location: Somewhere in Pennsy

Re: US space policy

Post by Mikado14 »

amalie wrote:Mikado,

I have three more responses for you, each of similar length .

Shall I post them here?

I can try and include the pages as links if you prefer, links would take up less room on the forum.

I would have to ask Alan about the source mailing address, probably Google documents which he encouraged me to use because it is not cached on my computer .

Many Thanks
Amalie
Amalie, let us do one at a time. I see no reason why it shouldn't be posted here provided there is ample time in between the postings for individual forum members to peruse your answers to my questions. I know that I am still thinking in regard to your first post on Human Rights.

Sound fair?

Mikado
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy
amalie
Junior Birdman
Posts: 208
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 7:36 pm

Re: US space policy

Post by amalie »

Dear Mikado,

Yes, that sounds like an extremely fair proposal, please let me know when you are ready for another bout .

There might be a few "weasel words" in here, "perhaps" and "possibly" might be allowed but not in conjunction with "thereby", "however" or "hence". I will vet the rest to make sure nothing else escapes my notice.

PS. I don't actually think anyone else is reading this thread apart from us two , Trickfox , MagicBill and FM No Static at All .

I have posted some current forum statistics at the "Notepad for Random Ideas".
US space policy gets a prize for the most boring topic ever.

Onward, into the fray...

Love Amalie
amalie
Junior Birdman
Posts: 208
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 7:36 pm

Re: US space policy

Post by amalie »

An important correction

Seeing what was made possible within the second world war, by the technologically based identification of a population, I would suppose that although the more overt attributes of such failures are no longer fashionable, the more hidden and highly secretive factors underlying data based population collations have yet to come into play and we should do our utmost to prevent those sorts of occurrences ahead of time.

For the above please do not read " the more overt attributes of such failures are no longer fashionable..... "

But " the more overt attributes of such failures are inconceivable ...... "

Fascism is of course not a fashionable or an unfashionable attribute , it is a matter of what and how the human mind conceives of as a plausible reality , in particular with regard to the cultural and sociological contexts of human society .

Please accept my sincere apologies for the inexcusable linguistic lapse , which certainly indicates my superficial level of
both intention and experience .

Amalie
FM No Static At All
Senior Officer
Posts: 558
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2008 4:34 pm
Location: Pacific Northwest
Contact:

Re: US space policy

Post by FM No Static At All »

amalie wrote: Fascism is of course not a fashionable or an unfashionable attribute , it is a matter of what and how the human mind conceives of as a plausible reality , in particular with regard to the cultural and sociological contexts of human society .

Please accept my sincere apologies for the inexcusable linguistic lapse , which certainly indicates my superficial level of
both intention and experience .

Amalie
My dear lady, It's appeal may not be to the masses, but it was not intended to be such. It is a oppression of the masses, and the control over them by subverting the government to abide by the wishes of the "corporate state." The current paradigm is very much in line with the same policies that made National Socialism and the Fascist movement so powerful.

First by introducing social programs which benefit the populace but also creates dependence upon them. Then by introducing "gun control" legislation in the guise of protecting the public from armed criminals. Finally, by confiscating all weapons so that only "law enforcement" has the right to own and bear arms. I can very well understand Mr. Mikado's disdain for politics and his arguments regarding fixing what is broken first.

Space policy is a good place to look at how the corporate structure will benefit from global treaties, but it will not benefit the average citizen at all. As I have stated many times here in the forum and elsewhere, we need to create a new paradigm, in which we can take responsibility for being compassionate, kind, and loving toward all forms of life. Respectful of the rights of others to do as they feel is best for them, and accepting they have that right so long as their culture in not imposed on, not infringes on the rights of others who do not feel the same way.

In the history of humanity, at least as it has been written thus far, we have never had such a free will society, and until we do, there will always be a divisiveness among us, where one philosophical view (or political, religious, etc.) wants to rule all others. The only true commonality that we all need to align with is that we are all more similar than different, and that we should celebrate both commonalities as well as differences. We may each by unique in how we view the universe through our own eyes, but we all are the same in that we must breathe the air and share the resources that this planet has to offer. And we must take care of those resources and nurture the environment, so that generations to come will have its benefits. We must also teach the next generation to be grateful and appreciate what nature is offering, and to take care of nature so that it will be available to others.

We have been far too long, tyrants of the planet, feeling that we have divine rights to do as we please. We are also experiencing the repercussions of our exploitations, in regards to the environment and towards one another. Continuing as we are, we will have not achieved the guarantee of survival for subsequent generations yet unborn.

Perhaps I may be viewed as negative, but I really want to make a difference that is bigger than self. As the Vulcan philosophy taught, "the sacrifice of the one, to the benefit of the many" is not one necessarily of a martyr, but of one who has vision beyond the self-serving. If one is to lead, it must be by example, not by decree.

Fred a.k.a.
FM - No Static At All
'The only reason some people get lost in thought is because its unfamiliar territory.'

http://fixamerica-fredmars.blogspot.com/
Locked