Scientists
mapping the total mass of organisms on the entire planet have
discovered humans make up just 0.01 percent—dwarfed by the mass of
bacteria, fungi, earthworms and
plants.
Barely
a sliver of the planetary pie, humans have nevertheless driven the
extinction of ancient megafauna, countless modern animals and even
plants, the researchers report in
the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
If
you add up all the carbon in all the living organisms on Earth, you can
estimate the planet's total "biomass." The researchers think Earth has
a biomass of about 550 gigatons—that's
550 billion tons of carbon.
Grasp
how we are a part of that but we are such a small part of life on this
planet. Now let’s note the really bad news, we do the most damage.
Peter Dockrill reports:
Humankind
is pathetically lightweight in comparison to the mass of almost all
other living things on Earth, but while our bodies (and thinking) may be
tiny, our crushing
footprint is not.
The
most comprehensive study ever of the weight of all living biomass on
the planet has discovered humans account for only about 0.01 percent of
life on Earth – but
despite our physical insignificance compared to the teeming masses
around us, history shows there's no doubt over whose dominion this is.
"I would hope this gives people a perspective on the very dominant role that humanity now plays on
Earth," biologist Ron Milo from the Weizmann Institute of Science in Israel told
The Guardian.
[. . .]
The researchers acknowledge it is difficult to accurately estimate the pre-human biomass of animals, but their analysis
suggests human civilisation has slashed the total biomass of wild mammals by as much as 85 per cent, and has cut plant biomass in half.
This
inadvertent culling has had a massive effect on the overall biosphere,
leading to a situation where scientists say we're now in the midst of a
mass extinction event that is
almost without precedent.
While entirely regrettable, our actions also constitute a frighteningly outsized effort for a delicate species
of bipeds that only makes up a hundredth of a percent of the world's living things.
We
leave a foot print – humans. Not a good foot print but we leave one.
Sometimes I wonder if we start over. Was it Spinoza who felt the
history of life could be seen in
one day’s start and end? I can’t remember. I’d ask C.I. if she
weren’t on the road, she’d know. But I wonder sometimes if, like in the
film PLANET OF THE APES (the original), civilization destroys itself
and restarts over and over? If so, I hope we learn
to do less damage to our world. We seem to have so little appreciation
for our planet.
"Iraq snapshot" (THE COMMON ILLS):
Tuesday, May 22, 2018. Who created ISIS, will Turkey be allowed on the
ground in Iraq under the next prime minister and other questions.
Consider the following.
Consider the following.
Who created ISIS?
1. ISIS commander, Gulmurod Khalimov, former US-trained special forces commander from Tajikistan
timesofisrael.com/russia-claims-…
2. ISIS commander, Abu Omar al-Shishani, trained by US special-forces in Georgia
seattletimes.com/nation-world/t… #Syria #Iraq pic.twitter.com/X9QASDE9Ew
Strange, isn't it? Tommy Vietor, Ben Rhodes, Susan Rice and Samantha Powers -- among so many others -- don't address that Tweet but they're online constantly. They're the former administration that can't shut the f**k up -- though goodness knows they should. Corrupt and known for lying, they just keep going, pretending that someone needs them, that they're of the people when the truth is, they work the basement of the bordello.
From way down below to the air space above Iraq, WORLD BULLETIN reports Turkish war planes bombed three areas of northern Iraq yesterday. As always, they claimed they only targeted the PKK.
The PKK?
The PKK has headquarters in the mountains of northern Iraq which had created problems for the KRG and Turkey. Aaron Hess (International Socialist Review) described the PKK in 2008, "The PKK emerged in 1984 as a major force in response to Turkey's oppression of its Kurdish population. Since the late 1970s, Turkey has waged a relentless war of attrition that has killed tens of thousands of Kurds and driven millions from their homes. The Kurds are the world's largest stateless population -- whose main population concentration straddles Turkey, Iraq, Iran, and Syria -- and have been the victims of imperialist wars and manipulation since the colonial period. While Turkey has granted limited rights to the Kurds in recent years in order to accommodate the European Union, which it seeks to join, even these are now at risk."
Turkish war planes tend to bomb farms in northern Iraq -- killing farmers and animals -- which the Turkish government later claims were terrorists.
They apparently finally found some terrorists (or at least some fighters) when they finally left their war planes. ANADOLU AGENCY reports, "Two Turkish soldiers were killed during an attack by outlawed Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) militants in northern Iraq, the Turkish army said on May 21. In a written statement, the Turkish General Staff said two soldiers were also wounded in the attack."
The PKK and Turkey have been fighting for decades. Nouri al-Maliki, in 2012, when he was prime minister, promised to end the PKK but he didn't. When does this end?
Maybe this year?
Moqtada al-Sadr, as we've noted repeatedly, does not want foreign forces in Iraq. The western press portrays that as US troops. But it's not just the US troops he objects to. Turkish troops have been very controversial in Iraq with most Iraqis feeling their country's sovereignty is violated by having Turkish troops on the ground (or even bombing the country from war planes). In a new Iraq, Turkey could find itself expelled.
Nationalist Sadr’s Iraq election wins surprises regional rivals
“Under Sadr, Turkey will be forced to pack up and leave. He wants Iran and Turkey out.” @D_abdulkader told @ahval_en By @vvanwilgenburg
Unexpected shifting #geopolitics 
#IraqElections
shar.es/anoJkK
#IraqElections
shar.es/anoJkK
Meanwhile, justice in Iraq. Corey Charlton (THE SUN) notes:
DOZENS of foreign
ISIS brides are being sentenced to death in Iraq as the country exacts
its revenge after three years of jihadi occupation.
Begging that they themselves are victims, the women were given 10
minutes to plead for their lives before judges decide their sentence.Martin Chulov and Nadia al-Faour (GUARDIAN) add:
Up to 1,000 women accused of belonging to Isis were rounded up from the ruins of Iraq’s towns and cities and are now being held in Baghdad to face a reckoning from a society and government that remains deeply scarred by the past four years, with much of their anger directed at foreign fighters and their families. Up to 820 infants accompany the women, with some others yet to be born.
The proceedings had a sense of urgency, and so did the 10-minute hearings in Baghdad’s central criminal court that have summarily dispensed with the accused foreign women, sentencing more than 40 to death, and dozens more to life in prison since the so-called caliphate crumbled.
Who is Moqtada al-Sadr? The Shi'ite cleric and movement leader has been a public fixture since the start of the Iraq War but that doesn't stop the western press from treating him like a riddle after this month's election. In an otherwise worthless piece for TIME, James Muldoon and Yasamin Alttahir offer:
The average Iraqi living outside
Baghdad still can’t reliably switch on a light or run a shower, let
alone find a job with a living wage paid on time or attend a decent school.
Al-Sadr’s electoral victory is indicative of the Iraqi people’s rejection of self-serving Western intervention in
the country. While the West has been preoccupied with gaining political
influence, a real opportunity has been squandered to foster a culture
of democracy and respect for human rights. The Iraqi people are now fed up with a lack of progress on addressing poverty, corruption and the need for essential services.
A better analysis is offered at the US Congress funded US Institute of Peace by Sarhang Hamasaeed:
What does Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr’s surprise showing mean in terms of the future of the Iraqi parliament?
Al-Sadr’s lead, should he be able to maintain it, will give him a strong position in the Council of Representatives (Iraq’s parliament), which in turn will give him a chance at building the biggest block for choosing the prime minister and forming the new government. In most scenarios, he could play a role as kingmaker. He will continue to push for reforms, as he is has increasingly done in recent years, and is supported by an active constituency that he has shown he can bring to the street for public support. In Iraq, coalitions always change after the elections, so al-Sadr’s coalition could grow stronger or fragment.It is worth noting that al-Sadr’s strong showing is relative to the poor performance of other leading figures, among other factors. For example, incumbent Prime Minister Haidar al-Abadi and his immediate predecessor, Nouri al-Maliki, had their votes split within their al-Dawa party.
What does al-Sadr’s electoral victory say about anti-Iran sentiment in Iraq? Has Tehran lost influence?
It is true that al-Sadr has grown unpredictable and distanced himself from Iran, but he still maintains a relationship although his pre-election alliance represented a more cross-sectarian Iraqi sentiment. However, Iran-backed parties and coalitions also fared well. For example, the Fatih coalition that represents the interests of the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF) and is supported and favored by Tehran, secured the second highest number in many provinces according to the preliminary results, a significant increase that will allow them to provide legal, political and economic aid to the PMF. However, it is still too early to determine the net effect of the elections on Iran’s influence.How will the United States deal with Moqtada al-Sadr, as he will likely play a key role in choosing the next Iraqi prime minister?
Should al-Sadr’s coalition be able to form a government it will create complex dynamics for him and the United States. The joint history of hostility looms large and will make it difficult for both sides to work with each other. Even if they may not state that publicly, there is mutual benefit to both sides to find a way to work with each other even if indirectly. If al-Sadr can pull Iraq away from Iran (not necessarily toward the U.S. or Sunni countries) to stand on its own, it is good news for the U.S. and the Gulf countries. In the same way, security and political support from the U.S. to Iraq and its institutions will increase the chances of the next government of Iraq succeeding and relying less on influential neighbors who seek to compensate their support with influence inside the country.The U.S. has indicated that they have a good relationship with the government of Iraq and hope to continue that even if a new prime minister is chosen. Al-Sadr has been increasingly open to international support to Iraq in the past few years. It is possible both sides can have their interests served.
The Institute also notes:
Iraqis are increasingly resolving their differences nonviolently, says @sarhangsalar. Moqtada al-Sadr and others have gone from leading militias to organizing sit-ins, and that's a positive sign, he says. #IraqsNextStep
Moqtada wants an inclusive Iraq -- but that doesn't mean everyone's invited.
Sadr’s tweet excluded mention of Former Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s State of Law Coalition, al-Fatih led by Shia militia leader Hadi al-Amiri, and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK), all known for having close ties to Iran.
Nouri al-Maliki, former prime minister and forever thug. Things didn't work out very well for him, did it?
He is responsible for the rise of the Islamic State in Iraq -- the Sunni group got its standing from Nouri's non-stop persecution of Sunnis.
Obama long supported Nouri Al-Maliki which is in fact the strongest Iranian man in Iraq and covered all his crimes against the Iraq sunnis#IranRegimeChange #IranRegimeChange
Yes, Barack was Nouri's friend.
To her credit, Hillary Clinton publicly labeled Nouri a thug in a 2008 Senate hearing.
But Barack played footsie with Nouri. Mainly because Samantha Power assured Barack that Iraq needed a "strong man" and that the man was Nouri. So, in 2010, when Nouri lost in the elections, Barack overturned the results with The Erbil Agreement in order to give Nouri the second term that the Iraqi people didn't want him to have.
He was already a known thug -- again, Hillary publicly labeled him such in a 2008 Senate hearing -- and he only got worse. Secret jails and prison, kidnapping journalists who dared to cover protests, arresting people who had committed no crimes (and were not accused of committing any), disappearing them and so much more.
But Barack stood by him.
Finally, in 2012, there was a falling out.
They had a falling out.
Nouri was caught unaware. It was after the 2012 US presidential election, the day after, and Nouri called the White House to congratulate Barack.
Barack refused to take the call and pushed him off on Joe Biden.
Even so, Barack did nothing to help the Iraqis suffering.
In March of 2013, they directly appealed to Barack.
He ignored them before finally, over a year later, informed Nouri there
would be no third term. Barack then made Hayder al-Abadi the prime
minister of Iraq.
Having done the bidding of the US government for so long, Nouri was hurt. He's still hurting. And he's still out of power.
New content at THIRD:
- Truest statement of the week
- Truest statement of the week II
- A note to our readers
- Editorial: Are we ever going to end the Iraq War?
- TV: SNL goes out on a sad and sour note
- Laughable Robert Mueller and his ridiculous invest...
- Bill Cosby's conviction does not mean you can lie ...
- Fish is good for you
- Tweet of the week
- Read a book?
- This edition's playlist
- Highlights
The following community sites updated:
The wealth is obscene
7 hours ago
R Kelly
7 hours ago
Stand with Julian
7 hours ago
BOOK CLUB
7 hours ago
Box Office Poison
7 hours ago
Sexist in the City
8 hours ago
