It's interesting that the pdf link from bc doesn't mention Greenland at all and does not mention China in terms of geography, merely in production. It also fails to mention that the USGS, which maps mineral deposits (my dad worked for it before he went into the Navy Oceanographic department) was subject to the DOGE cuts, with about 20% being let go or taking early retirement.
While there is supposed to be a pivot, investigations into bioextraction, because they were linked to ecosystem research, have been halted, despite the fact that they are already proven, From Gemini Proven Success: It is already used for roughly 15–20% of global gold and copper production. Current Efficiency: For Rare Earth Elements (REEs), bioleaching (using microbes like Gluconobacter) now reaches extraction efficiencies of 65–80% in controlled environments. Specific Mineral Focus: As of early 2026, researchers have successfully used biological systems to selectively capture Cobalt and Neodymium from complex mixtures like old EV batteries and coal tailings.
This suggests that looking at this as geography might be Sweet Summer Child status if I understood what that meant.
I thought this NYT daily podcast on rare earths and how they are extracted was good, and the part that discusses the difference in Japanese and US industrial policy quite interesting to me.
3 weeks ago
Gerardus Mercator has a lot to answer for...
3 weeks ago
“Historically”, however, meaning as recently as 2023, Denmark was below the NATO 2% standard. And a low of 1.11% in 2015. Slid below 2% in 1990 down to that low in 2015. So yes, historically.
Yes, 2015 was when Trump was in the GOP debate and praising Putin's intelligence and desire for a stable world. My point is that it's cherry picking of the first order and doing that to argue for Orange shitstain's latest fantasy is pretty weak.
3 weeks ago
A bit late with this reply and a bit out of order
bc wrote And while I am reluctant to respond to what appears to be another litmus test of some sort,
This is a bit off. The reason we are asking these questions of you isn't to 'test' your TrumPh, it's to try and understand what is going on outside this bubble. I'm not sure why you think you aren't going to get questions.
Setting that aside, saying that Noriega had all his arguments knocked down is not what I was interested in. If we are entering an era of show trials, it matters not one bit what arguments are given. I'm wondering how parallel Noriega and Maduro are.
Refreshing my memory, Noriega was captured after a full-scale invasion (Reminding us that shit rises to the top, it was Bill Barr who wrote the legal justifcation for the invasion) The US did not recognize the election of Noriega and the Panamanian government declared a state of war between the US and Panama, so Noriega was technically a POW. It was also in the middle of the 20 year process of returning the Panama Canal to Panama, with a huge US military presence and a neutrality treaty that allowed the US to intervene militarily if the Canal was closed or transit was interfered with. I don't know how much I would agree with that, but that was negotiated during the Carter admin,
I also note this comment by bc Denmark has historically been way behind on NATO commitments.
Using the word 'historically' is pretty interesting, especially since Denmark is one of the top bilateral donors to Ukraine, last year agreed to 2% and will reach 3% this year. But if your gripes are 'historical', like Maduro, it doesn't matter for shit what you do now, the administration can simply resurrect something they didn't like from the past and use it to justify whatever.
3 weeks ago
bc, just a short note to thank you for answering. I'm getting most of my information from podcasts as opposed to written pieces, (which I think is a bad thing for everyone, it's difficult to nail down particular points), and most of them are talking about the precedent of Panama and Noriega, but the information is so scattered that, coupled with the inability to accept anything that comes out of admin mouths as being true or not makes it difficult to follow, which makes me think parsing all this is baasically a fool's errand.
3 weeks ago
I don't think it is real worthwhile to try and figure out where Trump gets his ideas. I suppose that everything is similar to something, until it is not. I'm thinking that bc is a lawyer, so I have to wonder if he sees everything that is going on as simply an extension of previous trends or something that is actually different?
3 weeks ago
Two articles about the relationship to my neighborhood
It's interesting that the pdf link from bc doesn't mention Greenland at all and does not mention China in terms of geography, merely in production. It also fails to mention that the USGS, which maps mineral deposits (my dad worked for it before he went into the Navy Oceanographic department) was subject to the DOGE cuts, with about 20% being let go or taking early retirement.
While there is supposed to be a pivot, investigations into bioextraction, because they were linked to ecosystem research, have been halted, despite the fact that they are already proven, From Gemini
Proven Success: It is already used for roughly 15–20% of global gold and copper production.
Current Efficiency: For Rare Earth Elements (REEs), bioleaching (using microbes like Gluconobacter) now reaches extraction efficiencies of 65–80% in controlled environments.
Specific Mineral Focus: As of early 2026, researchers have successfully used biological systems to selectively capture Cobalt and Neodymium from complex mixtures like old EV batteries and coal tailings.
This suggests that looking at this as geography might be Sweet Summer Child status if I understood what that meant.
I thought this NYT daily podcast on rare earths and how they are extracted was good, and the part that discusses the difference in Japanese and US industrial policy quite interesting to me.
Gerardus Mercator has a lot to answer for...
“Historically”, however, meaning as recently as 2023, Denmark was below the NATO 2% standard. And a low of 1.11% in 2015. Slid below 2% in 1990 down to that low in 2015. So yes, historically.
Yes, 2015 was when Trump was in the GOP debate and praising Putin's intelligence and desire for a stable world. My point is that it's cherry picking of the first order and doing that to argue for Orange shitstain's latest fantasy is pretty weak.
A bit late with this reply and a bit out of order
bc wrote
And while I am reluctant to respond to what appears to be another litmus test of some sort,
This is a bit off. The reason we are asking these questions of you isn't to 'test' your TrumPh, it's to try and understand what is going on outside this bubble. I'm not sure why you think you aren't going to get questions.
Setting that aside, saying that Noriega had all his arguments knocked down is not what I was interested in. If we are entering an era of show trials, it matters not one bit what arguments are given. I'm wondering how parallel Noriega and Maduro are.
Refreshing my memory, Noriega was captured after a full-scale invasion (Reminding us that shit rises to the top, it was Bill Barr who wrote the legal justifcation for the invasion) The US did not recognize the election of Noriega and the Panamanian government declared a state of war between the US and Panama, so Noriega was technically a POW. It was also in the middle of the 20 year process of returning the Panama Canal to Panama, with a huge US military presence and a neutrality treaty that allowed the US to intervene militarily if the Canal was closed or transit was interfered with. I don't know how much I would agree with that, but that was negotiated during the Carter admin,
I also note this comment by bc
Denmark has historically been way behind on NATO commitments.
Using the word 'historically' is pretty interesting, especially since Denmark is one of the top bilateral donors to Ukraine, last year agreed to 2% and will reach 3% this year. But if your gripes are 'historical', like Maduro, it doesn't matter for shit what you do now, the administration can simply resurrect something they didn't like from the past and use it to justify whatever.
bc, just a short note to thank you for answering. I'm getting most of my information from podcasts as opposed to written pieces, (which I think is a bad thing for everyone, it's difficult to nail down particular points), and most of them are talking about the precedent of Panama and Noriega, but the information is so scattered that, coupled with the inability to accept anything that comes out of admin mouths as being true or not makes it difficult to follow, which makes me think parsing all this is baasically a fool's errand.
I don't think it is real worthwhile to try and figure out where Trump gets his ideas. I suppose that everything is similar to something, until it is not. I'm thinking that bc is a lawyer, so I have to wonder if he sees everything that is going on as simply an extension of previous trends or something that is actually different?
Two articles about the relationship to my neighborhood
https://moderndiplomacy.eu/2026/01/04/u-s-action-in-venezuela-risks-encouraging-chinas-claims-taiwan-still-not-the-target/
https://www.firstpost.com/world/venezuela-today-taiwan-tomorrow-trumps-maduro-move-hands-china-cheap-ammunition-for-taipei-strike-13965411.html
And this very interesting recollection by Greg Palast. A bit heavy on the conspiracy theory stuff, but one wonders.
https://www.gregpalast.com/when-venezuelas-president-delcy-rodriguez-banged-on-my-door-at-2am/