Via Lance Roberts of Street Talk Live,

There have been several articles as of late discussing that the next great secular bull market has arrived. Historically, secular bear markets have averaged about 14 years, and considering that we began writing about the current secular bear market cycle in early 2000, that would put the current cycle about 2 years away from it historic average. However, the reality is that this cycle is currently unlike anything that we have potentially witnessed in the past. With massive central bank interventions, artificially suppressed interest rates, sub-par economic growth, high unemployment and elevated stock market prices it is likely that the current secular bear market may be longer than the historical average. In either event we are likely closer to the end than the beginning and the next major stock market correction will likely be the last for this cycle.

There are several fundamental reasons from valuations to the current level of interest rates that support this viewpoint.  The first chart shows the inflation adjusted, or “real”, ratio of the stock market to the economy as measured by GDP. With the economic recovery, such as it is, currently in its fourth year, the market to GDP ratio is beginning to push levels that are normally consistent with cyclical bull market peaks rather than where secular bear markets have ended.

Furthermore, secular bull markets do not begin when prices are already stretched well above their long term growth trend. I often use the “rubber ball” analogy to express the movement of prices relative to their trends. Like throwing a rubber ball into the air — the momentum of the throw can make it seem like it is temporarily defying the laws of gravity. However, the effect of momentum will fade as the pull from gravity increases on the ball until it reaches its maximum height. The ball will then quickly revert back to earth. The same goes for the financial markets.

The chart below shows, very importantly, that secular BULL markets do not begin when prices are already trading well above their long term growth trend. Very much like past secular bear markets — prices can remain above their long term growth trend for quite some time until they eventually “mean revert.”

These reversions take prices to a position that is an equal distance below the long term growth trend. As the chart shows — if you had moved out of the market in early 2000 and gone into bonds you will still be well ahead of those that had stayed in the stock market.

Not surprisingly, when prices are elevated well beyond their long term trends, valuations are at levels that are normally associated with secular bull market peaks rather than the troughs where secular bull markets are usually born.

The chart below uses the Shiller Cyclically Adjusted P/E (price to earnings) ratio which has been inflation adjusted. The immediate argument to this analysis is that some analyst on television stated the “valuations are cheap based on ‘forward earnings expectations’ which are below the long term average.” There are two huge flaws in that statement:

1) The long term median P/E as shown below is based on TRAILING REPORTED earnings. Not forward operating earnings which are full of accounting issues. This is an “apples to oranges” comparison.

2) More importantly, forward earnings are ALWAYS overly optimistic by as much as 33% historically. Therefore, the valuation argument is generally wrong at the outset.

This brings us to the “stocks are cheap based on interest rates” argument. Despite the fact that prices and valuations are stretched well above their historic norms this does not deter the media from finding some other flawed argument to try and lure “suckers”… um…I mean…investors into the Wall Street casino.

The chart below is the “Fed Model” which is the basis for the “stocks are cheap because earnings yield is higher than bond yields.”

Following this model would have kept you out of stocks primarily when you should have been in and vice versa. This is due to the intervention by the Fed to suppress interest rates to support economic growth. These suppressions have driven interest rates consistently lower over time and have been the primary factor in the creation of one bubble after the next. Subsequently, when the Fed raises interest rates, it causes a dislocation in the markets.

The fallacy of the model is quite simple. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS EARNINGS YIELD. The earnings yield is simply the inverse of the P/E ratio whereby corporate earnings are divided by the price of the market. However, as an investor in a stock you do not receive the earnings yield in the form of a cash payment.  However, YOU DO receive the interest yield from bonds.

This is a very, very flawed analysis and one that should be forever stricken from your investment valuation models.

Nothing Organic About It

No matter how you slice the data – the simple fact is that we are still years away from the end of the current secular bear market. The mistake that analysts, economists and the media continue to make is that the current ebbs and flows of the economy are part of a natural, and organic, economic cycle. If this was the case then there would be no need for continued injections of liquidity into the system in an ongoing attempt to artificially suppress interest rates, boost housing or inflate asset markets.

Nothing shows this more clearly than the amount of excess bank reserves, which is the direct byproduct of QE programs, which exploded higher last week by $46.4 billion.

These liquidity pushes directly correlate with market ramp ups — not improving economics or fundamentals.

Of course, this is also why each time these programs come to an end the financial markets face steep corrections and economic growth plunges.

Into The Danger Zone

It is with this background that we continue to harp upon the dangers that are currently building in the markets. While no two market cycles are ever the same – they generally behave similarly over time. I have posted the following chart several times lately showing the high degree of correlation between the market bubble prior to 2007 and currently.

I expect that the chart will begin to decouple somewhat in the months ahead as there is not a relative crisis immediately available.  However, come May when the debt ceiling issue resurfaces, or there is a resurgence of the Eurozone crisis, or some other exogenous event crops up — stock prices are likely to correct very sharply.

Using a weekly analysis, to slow down the day to day volatility of the market — the market currently cannot achieve a higher level of its overbought status. It is “pegged out”, “maxed,” or whatever other term you want to use to describe the extreme nature of the overbought condition that currently exists.

The chart on the next page overlays this overbought/oversold long term weekly indicator with a weekly chart of the S&P 500.

See the potential problem here?

The next chart shows the STA Risk Ratio indicator which is a composite index of the rate of change in the S&P 500, bullish versus bearish sentiment, the volatility index, and a ratio of new highs to new lows.  Currently, that index is approaching levels normally only seen at very significant market tops.

I could show you chart after chart after chart. They all say the same thing — the market is extremely overbought and is currently pushing the limits of the current upside advance.

What I Am NOT Saying

The bulk of the mainstream media’s, and analyst’s, blathering is more akin to a parade of idiots rather than something you should actually spend your time paying attention to. Pay attention to the data.

While I have spilled an exorbitant amount of ink this week on all the reasons why the market is getting extremely overbought and into very dangerous territory — I am not saying that you should sell everything and hide in cash.

This may sound very counter-intuitive but the markets are being driven by the expansion of the Fed’s balance sheet. Therefore, due to this artificial influence, the market can move higher, for longer, than you can possibly fathom. It will end, eventually, and it will end badly.

However, in the meantime, this is how to approach the current market.

1) Do not add to equity exposure at this time no matter how emotionally conflicted you become. Emotions lead to bad investment decisions – always.

2) Sell some, not all, of positions that are speculative in nature and have a lot of volatility. When the correction comes these will be hit the hardest.

3) Increasing stock markets suppress bond prices. Therefore, rotate some money into bonds which will benefit from a stock market correction — “Buy where the money ain’t goin’.”

4) Hoard cash — you can’t be a buyer when things get “cheap” when you don’t have any cash to buy with.

5) Rotate from very aggressive equity exposure to more defensive positions that have an income stream. (ie utilities, staples, and healthcare) However, these positions WILL lose money when the market corrects — just not as much.

6) Beware of high-dividend plays particularly REITS and MLP’s. The majority of these positions are GROSSLY overbought and overvalued and a correction of magnitude will lead to larger losses than you can currently comprehend.

7) Fundamental valuations HAVE NO bearing on a stock market correction. No matter how fundamentally strong you think your investments are they will generally correct as much, or more, than the market. Fundamental value is only effective for eliminating bankruptcy risk. In a market environment driven primarily by programmed trading it is only PRICE ANALYSIS that matters.

8) Did I mention hoarding cash?

9) Pay attention to the trend. The trend is currently positive and we want to mindful of that. It will require a VERY substantial price correction at this point before a SELL signal is issued. This is why profit taking, and keeping new savings in cash, is the best way to stay invested but reduce overall portfolio risk.

10) Just because you take profits, or sell a position today, DOES NOT mean that you can’t buy it back after it corrects.  That is just a good portfolio management practice. There IS NO successful investor — ever in history — that only “bought and held.”

There will be corrections which are buying opportunities and there will be corrections that aren’t. Unfortunately, you will never know which is which until it is too late. This is why employing rudimentary rebalancing processes, or even basic risk management tools, to your investment portfolio will work to protect your investment principal overtime. Are you going to get out at the tops and in at the bottoms? No. Are you going to be the next great market timer? No. Will you keep from setting yourself back years from reaching your retirement goals? Definitely.

Two Shia Muslims have been sentenced to prison on charges of attending demonstrations in the eastern Saudi city of Qatif.

The sentences, which were issued by a court in Eastern Province on Wednesday, were among verdicts in the case of five men accused of holding anti-government protest rallies, AFP reported.

A Saudi source, speaking on condition of anonymity, said one of the defendants was sentenced to four months, and was released afterwards as he had already spent the time in custody.

Another defendant, who had been out of custody on bail, was imprisoned for two months, and the cases of two others were adjourned to February 10.

The fifth was acquitted for lack of evidence, the source added.

“The prosecution protested the sentences and demanded they be toughened,” the source noted.

On Saturday, the court began the trials of an unspecified number of Shias on similar charges.

There have been numerous demonstrations in Saudi Arabia’s Eastern Province since February 2011, with protestors calling for political reform.

Anti-government protests have intensified since November 2011, when security forces opened fire on protestors in Qatif, killing five people and leaving scores more injured.

Activists say there are over 30,000 political prisoners in Saudi Arabia.

In October 2012, Amnesty International called on the Saudi authorities to stop using excessive force against pro-democracy protestors.

“The Saudi authorities must end their repeated moves to stifle people’s attempts to protest against the widespread use of arbitrary detention in the country,” Philip Luther, Amnesty International’s director for the Middle East and North Africa, said on October 16.

“The right of people to peaceful protest must be respected and the security forces must refrain from detaining or using excessive force against people who exercise it,” he added.

NT/MHB

Brendon Ayanbadejo and ‘The Other Team’

Email   Print   Share

Posted on Feb 6, 2013

AP/Nick Wass

By Mark O’Connell

This piece first appeared on The Huffington Post.

Brendon Ayanbadejo holds rank as LGBT hero-of the-moment. His post-Super Bowl, interview with CNN’s Don Lemon showcased his well informed, well-spoken, worldliness, as he declared equality for all, regardless of sexuality or gender expression. Ayanbadejo’s advocacy touches down with more impact than many advocates who are gay themselves (including Lemon, who came out in 2010 and has been a strong advocate for the community ever since), and not just because of his NFL platform, his obvious intelligence, looks, and charisma, but because he’s authentically not gay. His very straightness sends the message, “You’re allowed to be different. Different from me, and different from each other”.

We need even more passionate battle cries in this vein, on behalf of those who are different from ourselves–in general, not just in the LGBT communities–especially for those who have less power than we do.

Now, I’m ambivalent about power, and therefore about top-down advocacy. But as much as it makes me cringe, I also recognize that I benefit from power, and that it’s so tangled up into our systems that to completely extricate ourselves would be impossible. Top-down advocacy seems to imply paternalism, a patronizing of the “weaker”, and one could argue that paternalism is an inherent problem when we rely on straight public figures for effective LGBT advocacy. But we can also see this advocacy as maternalism, or using power to be nurturing, a necessary process in child development and identity formation; we gain confidence to express ourselves freely, and form a sense of self that is separate from our parents though this process. But as a man planning to raise children with another man, these gender labels don’t really work either. In fact, let’s remove the “parental” dynamic from this equation altogether and simply call what Ayanbabadejo is doing social caretaking–authentically claiming a position of social power, attuning to the differences of those who are less powerful, and encouraging them to claim their equally authentic but distinctly different identities, and forms of expression.

“Wouldn’t it be nice if powerful LGBTers could inhabit this role of social caretaker”?, you might ask. Indeed. For example, great as it is that straight movie stars like Sean Penn, James Franco, Michael Douglas, and Matt Damon show the world that kissing other men, and inhabiting feminine clothes and gestures, really doesn’t make the sky fall, we would certainly benefit from more of the likes of Jane Lynch, Sean Hayes, Wanda Sykes, Heather Matarazzo, Dennis O’Hare and Chris Colfer in that hot seat.

The problem here is that of the LGBT figures in the limelight, the ones identified as heroes (in the vein of Mr. Ayanbadejo) and the ones we tend to attach ourselves to as such, are the conformers, ie. those who are “straight acting,” suggesting that it’s OK to be gay, as long as you act “straight”. (We should take a moment to consider novelist Christopher Rice’s observation about the conundrum of the term “straight acting,” that it “implies an ignorance of the mechanics of gay sex”). Public figures like Dan Savage and Rosie O’Donnell are (tragically) often considered to be too non-conforming (too “gay acting”?) though they have both made phenomenal contributions in the way of LGBT youth and families in particular. By contrast, consider what actor Neil Patrick Harris once told Out magaizne:

“The first face that empowered me was Danny Roberts from The Real World: New Orleans. I think before him I’d never seen anyone wear [homosexuality] so comfortably… I could look to him as a role model… He represented a way that I could behave and stand tall comfortably without being an overt advocate and without being someone hiding in the shadows. I liked that.”

For those unfamiliar with the stone age of reality TV, Danny Roberts was considered to be the most “All American”/“straight acting” gay cast member on The Real World as of 1999. (The show had featured approximately one gay character per season since 1991).

It’s wonderful to know that not all queer people are created equal (that some are highly sexual, and some are not, some are outspoken, and some are not, some conform to traditional gender stereotypes and and some do not), but when those who conform are the only ones offering us hope, hope begins to look pretty limiting, and therefore pretty grim.

Perhaps the time will come when a variety of queer people will be as highly influential as Brendan Ayanbadejo, and I hope it’s soon. The more people leading authentic lives–authentically negotiating between conformity, and nonconformity, power, and vulnerability, freedom and limitations–the more we’ll all feel entitled to do so in our own way. However, while people continue to bravely live their truth, we also need those on top, those holding the trophy of social power, to authentically reflect on their own identities, their own status, and to pave the way for those who are different from them to do the same. Like an attuned caretaker to one less powerful, this process provides safety and permission to be authentically separate but equal.

Editor’s note: Brendon Ayanbadejo is Truthdig’s current Truthdigger of the Week. Read more about him here.

New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus.

The following is a excerpt from a recent client letter.

The house of cards that is Europe is close to collapsing as those widely held responsible for solving the Crisis (Prime Ministers, Treasurers and ECB head Mario Draghi) have all been recently implicated in corruption scandals.

Those EU leaders who have yet to be implicated in scandals are not faring much better than their more corrupt counterparts. In France, socialist Prime Minister Francois Hollande, has proven yet again that socialism doesn’t work by chasing after the wealthy and trying to grow France’s public sector… when the public sector already accounts for 56% of French employment.

France was already suffering from a lack of competitiveness. Now that wealthy businesspeople are fleeing the country (meaning investment will dry up), the economy has begun to positively implode.

The first sign of this came actually came from Germany. As we noted a few months ago, Germany had prepared a working group to examine the impact of an economic collapse in France.

German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble has asked a panel of advisers to look into reform proposals for France, concerned that weakness in the euro zone’s second largest economy could come back to haunt Germany and the broader currency bloc.

Two officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, told Reuters this week that Schaeuble asked the council of economic advisers to the German government, known as the “wise men”, to consider drafting a report on what France should do…

“The biggest problem at the moment in the euro zone is no longer Greece, Spain or Italy, instead it is France, because it has not undertaken anything in order to truly re-establish its competitiveness, and is even heading in the opposite direction,” Feld said on Wednesday.

“France needs labour market reforms, it is the country among euro zone countries that works the least each year, so how do you expect any results from that? Things won’t work unless more efforts are made.”

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/11/09/uk-germany-france-economy-idUKBRE8A80MN20121109

This German concern has proven to be well founded, as the recent spate of French economic data has been truly horrific.

Auto sales for 2012 fell 13% from those of 2011. Sales of existing homes outside of Paris fell 20% year over year for the third quarter of 2012. New home sales fell 25%. Even the high-end real estate markets are collapsing with sales for apartments in Paris that cost over €2 million collapsing an incredible 42% in 2012.

Since the EU Crisis began in 2008, France and Germany have been the two key countries backstopping the implosion. The fact that France is now facing an economic implosion does not bode well for the future of the Euro or the EU.

The other sovereign backdrop for the EU, Germany, is also experiencing an economic slowdown.

The German economy was hit hard by the euro zone crisis in the final quarter of last year, shrinking more than at any point in nearly three years as traditionally strong exports and investment slowed, the Statistics Office said on Tuesday…

Gross domestic product shrank by 0.5 percent in the final three months of 2012, the worst quarterly performance since Germany fell into a recession during the global financial crisis in 2008/2009 and only the second contraction since it ended.

The parlous fourth quarter pushed overall growth for the year down to 0.7 percent, a sharp slowdown from the 3.0 percent registered in 2011 and a post-reunification record of 4.2 percent in 2010. The 2012 figure was a tad below a Reuters consensus forecast for growth of 0.8 percent.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/15/us-germany-gdp-idUSBRE90E09Q20130115

Thus, we find that Europe’s primary political market props (EU leaders including ECB head Mario Draghi) are coming unraveled at the precise time that EU banks are showing warning signs and the most important EU economies are heading sharply south.

2013 is going to be a very interesting year for Europe.

We have produced a FREE Special Report available to all investors titled What Europe’s Collapse Means For You and Your Savings.

This report features ten pages of material outlining our independent analysis real debt situation in Europe (numbers far worse than is publicly admitted), the true nature of the EU banking system, and the systemic risks Europe poses to investors around the world.

It also outlines a number of investments to profit from this; investments that anyone can use to take advantage of the European Debt Crisis.

Best of all, this report is 100% FREE. You can pick up a copy today at:

http://gainspainscapital.com/eu-report/

Best

Phoenix Capital Research

Rubio Not Convinced on Climate Change, Fox News Goes After Hillary, and More

Email   Print   Share

Posted on Feb 6, 2013

Change He Should Believe In: Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, a potential 2016 GOP presidential candidate, contends that there’s still “reasonable debate” on the cause of climate change (there’s not) and that he doesn’t see global warming as a threat to his home state. “The climate is always changing, that’s not the question,” Rubio told BuzzFeed. “The question is if man made activity is what’s contributing the most to it. I know people said there’s a significant scientific consensus on that issue, but I’ve actually seen reasonable debate on that principle.” Evidently Rubio is not aware of the study that shows that climate change could cost Florida up to $345 billion–not exactly chump change–by the end of the 21st century. (Read more)

Dirty Tricks Denied: Surprise redistricting changes in Virginia that were narrowly pushed through by the state’s GOP-controlled Senate while a Democrat was absent have been dealt a major blow by–shocker–someone in the party. Republican House Speaker William Howell used a procedural move to effectively kill the controversial plan, which would have given the GOP control of the Senate for “decades to come.” Said Howell: “House Bill 259 has been modified to stray dramatically, in my opinion, from the original legislative proposal.” (Read more)

Body Blow: Following Virginia’s lead, Michigan Republicans are pushing for legislation that would effectively require women who want to get an abortion to undergo an invasive transvaginal ultrasound first. The dubious rationale for the procedure is to “protect” the woman. The irony, as pointed out by Eclectablog, is that “Republicans are fighting the practical, most effective steps we can take to actually prevent abortions.” (Read more)

Dystopian Desire: A Republican lawmaker in Idaho has put forth a proposal that would require every high school student in the state to read Ayn Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged” in order to graduate. State Sen. John Goedde, who introduced the bill, wants all students to read the book because he said it “made my son a Republican.” Rand’s novel, written in 1967, has become a favorite among libertarians and the tea party in recent years. Goedde said he didn’t actually “plan on moving this forward,” however, and that it was merely meant to be “a statement.” (Read more)

Mixed Signals: Fox News is the most and least trusted news network, according to Public Policy Polling’s 4th Annual TV News Trust Poll. The survey revealed that the conservative cable news channel’s credibility is at an all-time low; however, Fox also won distinction as the single news outlet viewers trust the most. Go figure. (Read more)

Video of the Day: “Fox & Friends” may have hit another new low (and that’s saying a lot) Wednesday when host Steve Doocy suggested that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had had a face-lift. “Days after retiring as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, somebody has launched a new website for her showing off this glamorous new face. Face-lift, perhaps?” Doocy said. He later tried to play it off as if he was referring to the website, and not Clinton.

–Posted by Tracy Bloom.

More Below the Ad

New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus.

Citi’s Willem Buiter sums it all up: “…the improvement in sentiment appears to have long overshot its fundamental basis and was driven in part by unrealistic policy and growth expectations, an abundance of liquidity and an increasingly frantic search for yield. The key word in the recovery globally, and in particular in Europe, growth is fragile. To us the key word about the post summer 2012 Euro Area asset boom is that most of it is a bubble, and one which will burst at a time of its own choosing, even though we concede that ample liquidity can often keep bubbles afloat for a long time.” His conclusion is self-evident, “markets materially underestimate these risks,” and the post-Draghi european performance has “gone well beyond the point of possible self-validation and therefore looks fragile.”

Excerpted from ‘New and Old Risks in the Euro Area’, Citi’s Willem Buiter

Then Buiter rips apart the Central Banker’s meme of ‘markets’ as policy tools...

We recognise that, in a decentralised market economy where expectations of the future, moods, hopes and fears drive private (and sometimes also government) behaviour directly and through their effect on the prices of real and financial assets, today’s subjective expectations and other psychological characteristics in part determine what tomorrow’s fundamentals will be.

Irreversible or costly-to-reverse decisions like capital expenditure, human capital formation, resource extraction etc, are driven by subjective expectations and moods, making the distinction between a fundamentally warranted asset boom and a bubble slightly fuzzy at the edges.

But this indeterminacy, bootstrapping, self-validating characteristic of complex dynamic economic systems inhabited by partially forward-looking households, firms and policy makers — called reflexivity by George Soros — can be taken too far.

Mere optimism and confidence will not permit the authors of this note to bootstrap themselves into winning the men’s doubles at Wimbledon 2013. The fact that financial markets have radically reduced their implied estimates of the likelihood of sovereign default in the periphery of the EA (other than in Greece) and of senior unsecured bank debt restructuring throughout the EA, core as well as periphery, should not stop us from continuing to analyse carefully the fundamental drivers of both sovereign credit risk and senior unsecured bank debt credit risk. When we do this, the conclusion that the markets materially underestimate these risks is, in our view, unavoidable.

Eliminating or mitigating some risks of disaster does not create an engine for sustained growth…

Let us recall the major headwinds for the world economy and Europe in particular. Private sector debt has hardly fallen in many EA countries to date and remains much above the levels at the beginning of the last decade (Figure 4).

Fiscal deficits have fallen in most EA countries, but general government gross debt continues to rise and remain close to all-time highs outside of war periods for many advanced economies (AEs, Figure 5).

Continued fiscal austerity thus remains all but certain in many AEs.

Many banks (both in the core and the periphery of the EA) remain weak despite a substantial amount of operational restructuring and selective recapitalizations and deleveraging. In many EA and in a number of non-EA member states of the EU, the entire national banking systems remain weak, fragile and unable or unwilling to provide funding to the real economy on a scale sufficient to support a sustained recovery.

The path to economic recovery, let alone sustained growth at an attractive growth rate of potential output remains an arduous and long one.

Euro area policy actions or announcements have also been misinterpreted or at best over-interpreted.

The ECB now provides a selective safety net for the banking sector through the LTROs (ring-fencing banking activity against a systemic collapse) and through the OMT. The OMT ring-fences sovereigns against convertibility or break-up risk, but not against the risk of sovereign debt restructuring through official sector involvement, OSI, through concessions by official creditors, or through private sector involvement, PSI, through concessions by private creditors. These measures effectively rule out the key tail risk of a break-up of the Eurozone through an involuntary forced exit of the fiscally and competitively weak member states.

It is key to recognise the fact that neither the ECB nor the ESM, nor any foreseeable evolution in their scope and resources, eliminate the risk of bail-in of unsecured bank creditors (including senior unsecured creditors, up to unsecured bank bondholders and non-guaranteed/uninsured depositors) in Cyprus, Portugal, Spain, Italy, Slovenia and indeed, unless the sovereigns in the core really are willing and able to open their pockets to support their own banks’ unsecured creditors, in Belgium, France, the Netherlands and Germany.

In addition, a number of risks have in fact increased recently.

1) Political risks in Italy and Spain

First, there are renewed political risks. In Italy, the Monte dei Paschi di Siena (MPS) bail-out is providing further support to the growing momentum former PM Berlusconi‘s party enjoys in the most recent polls, raising risks of a hung parliament in the upcoming election on February 24. The fact that ECB President Draghi was Governor of the Bank of Italy at the time when it was the supervisor of MPS when MPS is alleged to have engaged in a number of dubious financial operations creates the risk of reputational damage for the ECB President.

More significant than the individual reputations at risk is the risk that the MPS issue reinforces concerns about the potential for reputational damage to the ECB once it takes on the role of the main EA bank supervisor under the new Single Supervisory Mechanism (SSM), a concern voiced in general (rather than specific to the MPS issue) by ECB Executive Board Member Constancio recently.

Even before the MPS issue, the near-term prospects for further near-progress on banking union were dimmed by two other factors. First, the German general election, due to be held in September 2013, has reduced Chancellor Merkel’s appetite for policy actions that could be controversial domestically. This might preclude any major concessions to Germany’s EA neighbours as regards the timing and phasing of fiscal austerity, and the early introduction of key elements of banking union.

Meanwhile, in Spain, allegations about financial malpractice in the ruling Partido Popular party have further hurt the party’s popularity. They are likely to limit government effectiveness in taking unpopular further reform measures and have increased — otherwise modest — risks of government instability, should these allegations be found to be true.

These developments will in particular make it harder for the Spanish government to impose substantial additional fiscal austerity. Additional fiscal tightening would be needed to meet deficit targets following a likely diagnosis of deficit overshoots in the spring. This is despite the new, softer (and IMF-induced) conventional wisdom towards fiscal tightening in response to deficit overshoots: make up bad faith deficit overshoots within the original time frame but permit bad luck deficit overshoots to be corrected over a longer horizon. Unless there is a Keynesian Laffer curve (fiscal tightening depresses activity to such an extent that the deficit increases) the new conventional wisdom will raise the risk of future debt unsustainability.

In Greece, the government announced a primary surplus for 2012 on the basis of preliminary budget figures, but government officials also noted that the final figure is likely to be revised to a deficit of 1.2-1.3% of GDP. The domestic political situation remains tense, as evidenced by the civil mobilization orders that the Greek government has issued to metro and maritime workers. Political tensions and the risk of political instability translate in a direct and somewhat disconcerting manner into economic and financial uncertainty, the likelihood of an earlier recourse to further sovereign debt restructuring and the risk of dysfunctional politics leading to Grexit.

2) Excessive contagious optimism among policymakers

Second, the rally in asset prices and in particular the reduction in funding stress for both sovereigns and banks in the EA periphery has also lessened the perception of many policymakers of the need for major further support measures in the near-term, a perception that is evident by various remarks to the effect that ‘the worst of the crisis is over’ (see e.g. Euro Area: Sovereign Debt Crisis Update 23 Jan 2013).

Notably, ECB President Draghi neglected these dynamics when he spoke of ‘positive contagion’ at the last ECB policy meeting. In our view, there is no such thing as ‘positive contagion’ if the term ‘positive’ refers to the real economic impact of the contagion. Excessive contagious optimism, detached from fundamentals, usually ends up hurting more than it helps, even though the improvement in financial conditions that resulted from the recent rally has probably eased some of the pain in fiscally and financially weak EA countries.

3) Bail-ins of bank creditors (junior and senior) are undoubtedly coming closer.

The combination of the likely further capital needs of EA banks, the limited financial resources of the EA sovereigns (even in the core) and political opposition to bailing in tax payers to avoid bailing in senior unsecured bond creditors make it likely that bail-ins of senior unsecured bank creditors in the EA will start before 2015.

The economic and financial risks facing the EA are not only driven by governments and politics.

4) The recent appreciation of the euro and the effective monetary tightening implied by the increase in money market rates (driven by the large repayments of the first 3Y-LTRO on Jan 30) are most unwelcome from the point of view of EA domestic demand.

Summing up, in our view, the EA sovereign debt and banking crisis is far from over. If anything, recent developments, notably policy complacency bred by market complacency, combined with higher political risks in a number of EA countries highlight the risks of sovereign debt restructuring and bank debt restructuring in the EA down the line.

Source: Citi

Scott Horton talks about the drone white paper with Sam Seder.

Can I say for the record that I hate the US reliance of drone strikes, especially on US citizens. The fact that we went in with Seal Team Six to get Bin Laden makes it clear that we don’t have to rely on this technology to capture or if you will kill—very bad people. It will only fuel more hatred of Americans. Didn’t we learn that with the coup of Iran and many of our other CIA led foreign invasions?

And it’s very telling that only Democrats will question John Brennan over their use at all. Congress better not support the use of drones on US soil—ever!!!!

NY Times:

Still, it was disturbing to see the twisted logic of the administration’s lawyers laid out in black and white. It had the air of a legal justification written after the fact for a policy decision that had already been made, and it brought back unwelcome memories of memos written for President George W. Bush to justify illegal wiretapping, indefinite detention, kidnapping, abuse and torture.

The document, obtained and made public by NBC News, was written by the Justice Department and coyly describes another, classified document (which has been described in The Times) that actually provided the legal justification for ordering the killing of American citizens.

That document still has not been provided to Congress, despite repeated demands from lawmakers. The white paper was sent to Capitol Hill seven months after the military carried out President Obama’s orders to kill Anwar al-Awlaki, an American who moved to Yemen and became an advocate of jihad against the United States.
—

According to the white paper, the Constitution and the Congressional authorization for the use of force after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, gave Mr. Obama the right to kill any American citizen that an “informed, high-level official” decides is a “senior operational leader of Al Qaeda or an associated force” and presents an “imminent threat of violent attack.”

It never tries to define what an “informed, high-level official” might be, and the authors of the memo seem to have redefined the word “imminent” in a way that diverges sharply from its customary meaning. It talks about “due process” and the need to balance a person’s life “against the United States’ interest in forestalling the threat of violence and death to other Americans.”

But it takes the position that the only “oversight” needed for such a decision resides within the executive branch, and there is no need to explain the judgment to Congress, the courts or the public – or, indeed, to even acknowledge that the killing took place.

Scott Lemieux writes: License to Kill

Much of the coverage of the memo, including Isikoff’s story, focuses on the justifications offered by the Obama administration for killing American citizens, including Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan (two alleged Al Qaeda operatives killed by a 2011 airstrike in Yemen.) In some respects, this focus is misplaced. If military action is truly justified, then it can be exercised against American citizens (an American fighting for the Nazis on the battlefield would not have been entitled to due process.) Conversely, if military action is not justified, extrajudicial killings of non-Americans should hardly be less disturbing than the extrajudicial killing of an American citizen. The crucial question is whether the safeguards that determine when military action is justified are adequate.

On this crucial point, the framework laid out by the memo is very much inadequate. Several of the key terms laying out the conditions–what counts as an “informed” official? What levels of evidence are necessary?–are frustratingly vague. Particularly crucial is the question of what constitutes an “imminent threat.” If a threat is genuinely “imminent,” military action is more justifiable. If it isn’t, however, it becomes less plausible to argue that capture is “infeasible,” and treating a suspected terrorist as a police operation would be more important. It is damning, then, that the definition of what constitutes an “imminent threat” has very little bite.

February 6, 2013  |  

When abortion was illegal, women had no choice but to seek out back-alley butchers for what should have been a medical procedure in a sterile environment. If there was a botched surgery and the victim went to a hospital, the police were called and they wouldn’t allow the doctor to provide a painkiller until the patient gave them the information they sought.

In 1962, there was an article in Look magazine that stated, “There is no such thing as a ‘good’ abortionist. All of them are in business strictly for money.” But in an issue of my magazine, The Realist, I published an anonymous interview with Dr. Robert Spencer, a truly humane abortionist, promising that I would go to prison sooner than reveal his identify.

Spencer had served as an Army doctor in World War I, then became a pathologist at a hospital in Ashland, Pennsylvania. He went down into the shafts after a mine accident, and aided miners to obtain Workmen’s Compensation for lung disease. At a time when 5,000 women were killed each year by criminal abortionists who charged as much as $1,500, Spencer’s reputation had spread by word-of-mouth, and he was known as the “Saint.” Patients came to his clinic in Ashland from around the country.

I took the five-hour bus trip from New York to Ashland with my gigantic Webcor tape recorder. Dr. Spencer was the cheerful personification of an old-fashioned physician. He wore a red beret and used folksy expressions like “by golly.” He had been performing abortions for 40 years. He started out charging $5, and never more than $100. He rarely used the word “pregnant.” Rather, he would say, “She was that way, and she came to me for help.”

Ashland was a small town, and Dr. Spencer’s work was not merely tolerated; the community depended on it — the hotel, the restaurant, the dress shop — all thrived on the extra business that came from his out-of-town patients. However, he built facilities at his clinic for African-American patients who weren’t allowed to obtain overnight lodgings elsewhere. The walls of his office were decorated with those little wooden signs that tourists like to buy. A sign on the ceiling over his operating table said “Keep Calm.”

Here’s an excerpt from our dialogue:

Q. Do you have any idea how many actual abortions you’re performed during all these years?

A. To be accurate, it’s 27,006

Q. Have medical people come to you, who would otherwise shun you?

A. Oh, yes, I’ve had medical people who bring me their wives, and I’ve had quite a few medical people send me patients.

Q. But they wouldn’t perform the operation themselves?

A. No, they’d never perform it, and just exactly what their attitude would be, I don’t really know. Some of them, I presume, were absolutely against it, because I’ve had ministers, and they’d bring me their daughters or their nieces.

Q. Have police come to you for professional services?

A. Oh, yes, I’ve had police in here, too. I’ve helped them out. I’ve helped a hell of a lot police out. I’ve helped a lot of FBI men out. They would be here, and they had me a little bit scared–I didn’t know whether they were just in to get me or not.

Q. What would you say is the most significant lesson you’ve learned in all your years as a practicing abortion doctor?

A. You’ve got to be careful. That’s the most important thing. And you’ve got to be cocksure that everything’s removed. And even the uterus speaks to you and tells you. I could be blind. You see, this is an operation no eye sees. You go by the sense of feel and touch. The voice of the uterus. But the only thing I can see is hypocrisy, hypocrisy. Everywhere I look is hypocrisy, Because the politicians–and I’ve had politicians in here–they still keep those laws in existence, but yet, if some friend of theirs is in trouble….

Just as markets can stay irrational longer than traders can stay solvent, so Byron Wien warns all the market-watching self-confirming bulls that “markets slough off bad news until they don’t.” Blackstone’s top-man fears the “oblivious markets” are missing the point that nothing has been solved and that a “big battle between entitlement cuts and raising the debt ceiling” is coming. Shrugging off the anchor’s insistence that earnings have been ‘pretty good’, Wien states reality as expectations are rolling over and performance following. With people complacent and investors euphoric (ignoring European risk re-emergence and depression and Middle East tensions), Wien’s brief clip concludes with his expectation of a 200 point correction in the S&P 500 in H1 2013.

Brennan and Kiriakou, Drones and Torture

Email   Print   Share

Posted on Feb 6, 2013

By Amy Goodman

John Brennan and John Kiriakou worked together years ago, but their careers have dramatically diverged. Brennan is now on track to head the CIA, while Kiriakou is headed off to prison. Each of their fates is tied to the so-called war on terror, which under President George W. Bush provoked worldwide condemnation. President Barack Obama rebranded the war on terror innocuously as “overseas contingency operations,” but, rather than retrench from the odious practices of his predecessor, Obama instead escalated. His promotion of Brennan, and his prosecution of Kiriakou, demonstrate how the recent excesses of U.S. presidential power are not transient aberrations, but the creation of a frightening new normal, where drone strikes, warrantless surveillance, assassination and indefinite detention are conducted with arrogance and impunity, shielded by secrecy and beyond the reach of law.
 
John Kiriakou spent 14 years at the CIA as an analyst and a case officer. In 2002, he led the team that found Abu Zubaydah, alleged to be a high-ranking member of al-Qaida. Kiriakou was the first to publicly confirm the use of waterboarding by the CIA, in a 2007 interview with ABC’s Brian Ross. He told Ross: “At the time, I felt that waterboarding was something that we needed to do. … I think I’ve changed my mind, and I think that waterboarding is probably something that we shouldn’t be in the business of doing.” Kiriakou says he found the “enhanced interrogation techniques” immoral, and declined to be trained to use them.
 
Since the interview, it has become known that Zubaydah was waterboarded at least 83 times, and that he provided no useful information as a result. He remains imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay, without charge. Kiriakou will soon start serving his 30-month prison sentence, but not for disclosing anything about waterboarding. He pled guilty to disclosing the name of a former CIA interrogator to a journalist, with information that the interrogator himself had posted to a publicly available website.
 
Meanwhile, John Brennan, longtime counterterrorism advisor to Obama, is expected to receive Senate confirmation as the new director of central intelligence. I recently asked Kiriakou what he thought of Brennan:
 
“I’ve known John Brennan since 1990. I worked directly for John Brennan twice. I think that he is a terrible choice to lead the CIA. I think that it’s time for the CIA to move beyond the ugliness of the post-September 11th regime, and we need someone who is going to respect the Constitution and to not be bogged down by a legacy of torture. I think that President Obama’s appointment of John Brennan sends the wrong message to all Americans.”
 
Obama has once already considered Brennan for the top CIA job, back in 2008. Brennan withdrew his nomination then under a hail of criticism for supporting the Bush-era torture policies in his various top-level intelligence positions, including head of the National Counterterrorism Center.
 
What a difference four years makes. With the killing of Osama bin Laden notched in his belt, Obama seems immune from counterterror criticism. John Brennan is said to manage the notorious “kill list” of people that Obama believes he has the right to kill anytime, anywhere on the planet, as part of his “overseas contingency operations.” This includes the killing of U.S. citizens, without any charge, trial or due process whatsoever. Drone strikes are one way these assassinations are carried out. U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaki was killed in Yemen by a drone strike, then, two weeks later, his 16-year-old son, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, was killed the same way.
 
I asked Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, who served as chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell from 2002 to 2005, what he thought of Brennan. He told me: “What’s happening with drone strikes around the world right now is, in my opinion, as bad a development as many of the things we now condemn so readily, with 20/20 hindsight, in the George W. Bush administration. We are creating more enemies than we’re killing. We are doing things that violate international law. We are even killing American citizens without due process and have an attorney general who has said that due process does not necessarily include the legal process. Those are really scary words.”
 
While Kiriakou goes to prison for revealing a name, the U.K.-based Bureau of Investigative Journalism is launching a project called “Naming the Dead,” hoping “to identify as many as possible of those killed in U.S. covert drone strikes in Pakistan, whether civilian or militant.” The BIJ reports a “minimum 2,629 people who appear to have so far died in CIA drone strikes in Pakistan.” John Brennan should be asked about each of them.

Denis Moynihan contributed research to this column.

Amy Goodman is the host of “Democracy Now!,” a daily international TV/radio news hour airing on more than 1,000 stations in North America. She is the co-author of “The Silenced Majority,” a New York Times best-seller.

© 2013 Amy Goodman

Distributed by King Features Syndicate

Get truth delivered to
your inbox every week.

Previous item: Drone Strikes Test Legal Grounds for War on Terror

New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus.

The M23 rebels and the government of Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) have inked a “preliminary” peace deal after the failure of a 2009 agreement, a Ugandan mediator says.

Crispus Kiyonga, the Ugandan minister who is mediating the talks, said on Wednesday that the deal reached “in the spirit of reconciliation.”

He praised both sides as highly committed to the peace negotiations held in the Ugandan capital Kampala.

Kiyonga said both parties accepted responsibility for the failure of the March 23, 2009 agreement reached between the government and a now-defunct group known as the National Congress for the Defense of the People (CNDP), a precursor to M23.

He described the agreement as “significant” because it established the goodwill necessary for the talks to continue.

The M23 rebels defected from the Congolese army in April 2012 in protest over alleged mistreatment in the Armed Forces of the Democratic Republic of Congo (FARDC). They had previously been integrated into the Congolese army under the peace deal signed in 2009.

The rebels seized the eastern city of Goma on November 20, 2012, after UN peacekeepers gave up the battle for the frontier city, which is home to about one million people. The rebels withdrew from the city on December 1 under a ceasefire accord.

Since early May 2012, nearly 3 million people have fled their homes in the eastern Congo. About 2.4 million have resettled in Congo, but more than 460,000 have crossed into neighboring Rwanda and Uganda.

Congo has faced numerous problems over the past few decades, such as grinding poverty, crumbling infrastructure, and a war in the east of the country that has dragged on since 1998 and left over 5.5 million people dead.

DB/MHB

A Bahraini opposition group has called for the establishment of a transitional government as a first step to resolve the crisis in the Persian Gulf country.

Al-Wefaq National Islamic Society, the major opposition bloc in Bahrain, made the appeal during a demonstration in the country on Wednesday.

“The solution to end the crisis starts with the establishment of a transitional government, which represents different national factions in the Bahraini society,” a spokesperson of the group said.

The group also called on the ruling Al Khalifa regime to put an end to the “ongoing crackdowns and media campaigns against dissidents.”

The opposition group’s demands come ahead of the second round of the National Consensus Dialogue, which is scheduled to be held on February 10.

Six members from the opposition and eight from pro-government groups will attend the talks.

In late January, Bahraini King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa invited all political parties to a national dialogue.

Al-Wefaq quit the first talks, arguing that since the beginning of the negotiations, the government tried to silence the opposition.

Since mid-February 2011, thousands of pro-democracy protesters have staged numerous demonstrations in the streets of Bahrain, calling for the Al Khalifa royal family to relinquish power.

On March 14, 2011, troops from Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates invaded the country to assist the Bahraini government in its crackdown on the peaceful protesters.

According to local sources, scores of people have been killed and hundreds arrested.

Physicians for Human Rights says doctors and nurses have been detained, tortured, or disappeared because they have “evidence of atrocities committed by the authorities, security forces, and riot police” in the crackdown on anti-government protesters.

NT/MHB

Assad Eats Syria

Email   Print   Share

Posted on Feb 6, 2013

Osama Hajjaj, Cagle Cartoons, Abu Mahjoob Creative Productions

More Below the Ad

New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus.

Pollution in China

Email   Print   Share

Posted on Feb 6, 2013

Daryl Cagle, CagleCartoons.com

More Below the Ad

New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus.

Remember when the Kelleys were all over the news?

And you thought that when David Petraeus quit his job, all the players in that drama would just fade away. Not so fast, the Jill Kelley saga continues to go down a very freaky path.

Just when it appeared the Jill Kelley-David Petraeus mess was behind us, along comes society magazine Town & Country with a profile of Kelley and her twin sister, Natalie Khawam.

And surprise: It’s not flattering, focusing on the twins’ alleged desire for riches and doing whatever is necessary to be among people of power.

Writer Vicky Ward doesn’t talk to Kelley or Khawam, instead getting information from a “distant cousin” — weeks after Kelley was cleared of wrongdoing in a scandal involving Petraeus, the former CIA director whose paramour sent Kelley threatening emails.

“They made up their minds they were going to use men to get money, and they discussed this quite openly in front of the family,” cousin Tony Khawam said in the article, “A Four-Star Scandal,” in the March issue.

Among the men in their sights, according to Tony Khawam: Hal and Hank Steinbrenner, sons of the late George Steinbrenner, Yankees owner and Tampa philanthropist.

“They’d take trips on the Steinbrenners’ plane and brag about how they would split Hal up from his then-wife, Christina – and then the plane would be theirs,” he told Ward.

Hal Steinbrenner and his wife at the time did break up, but not because of the Tampa twins.

As a Yankee fan I have to say that George Steinbrenner (if he were alive today) would detest how his sons are running the Yankees since they took over the reins, but apparently they weren’t dumb enough to be duped by these con-girl twins. Part of me almost wishes that it happened, but not while the sons were still with their original families.

Power Outage

Email   Print   Share

Posted on Feb 6, 2013

Nate Beeler, Cagle Cartoons, The Columbus Dispatch

More Below the Ad

New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus.

Oil prices have jumped following new US sanctions against Iran, with Europe’s benchmark Brent rising to $116.73 per barrel.

Oil prices rallied on Wednesday after the United States imposed new sanctions on Iran’s energy sector in a new attempt to force the Islamic Republic to halt its nuclear energy program.

In London, the price of a barrel of European benchmark Brent closed at $116.73, up 21 cents from Tuesday.

New York’s main contract, West Texas Intermediate (WTI) for delivery in March, closed at $96.62 on the New York Mercantile Exchange.

“The main mover this morning was the new US sanctions,” said Rich Ilczyszyn at iiTrader.

“The market sold off pretty good this [Wednesday] morning and, on that story, came all the way back,” the analyst added.

On Wednesday, the US Treasury Department announced new sanctions targeting Iranian oil revenue. The sanctions prevent Iran from gaining access to earnings garnered from its crude exports.

The sanctions require the importing countries to keep their payments at home and only release them in return for purchases of goods from them by Iran, to effectively lock up Iranian oil revenue overseas.

Iran responded by condemning the measures as yet another act of hostility from the US government.

The US has spearheaded several rounds of Western sanctions against Iran in recent years, based on the unfounded accusation that Iran is pursuing non-civilian objectives in its nuclear energy program.

Iran rejects the allegations, arguing that as a committed signatory to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and a member of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), it has the right to use nuclear technology for peaceful purposes.

In addition, the IAEA has conducted numerous inspections of Iran’s nuclear facilities but has never found any evidence showing that Iran’s civilian nuclear program has been diverted to nuclear weapons production.

MN/MHB

While Japan’s recent attempt to massively reflate and break out of its “liquidity trap” – an artificial construct to explain what happens when an artificial model, created by a flawed and artificial economic theory explodes in a singularity of Econ PhD idiocy leaving billions of impoverished people in its wake, is nothing new, there are those who are rather skeptical this latest attempt to achieve what Japan has not been able to do in over 30 years will work. And while one can come up with complicated, expansive, verbose theories based on Keynesian DSGE models and other such gibberish, why this time will be different for Japan, there is a very quick and simple argument why it won’t.

The simple counter-argument to this time being different is summarized in the two charts below, which show the relative asset and liability composition of the various key players in the Japanese and US market, split between the Household, Investment Trust, Pension Fund, and Insurance sectors, amounting to some $54 trillion in the US and 1.5 quadrillion yen.

The key differences are highlighted in red.

What the charts above clearly show is how vastly lower the allocation to equities is in Japan relative to the US: this means that the ‘wealth effect‘ generated in Japan as a result of the recent 20%+ surge in the Nikkei has only one fifth the impact it has had in the US. More importantly the equity asset boost resulting from perceived, if not actual, future inflation, will be woefully insufficient to offset the concurrent surge in the marginal cost of living, i.e. real inflation.

As we wrote previously, not even three full months into Abe’s latest and greatest reflation experiment the prices of gas and various other non-staple products has soared. This will only get worse as energy import costs explode in the coming weeks and months, putting the Japanese consumer – now with just one (and almost zero today) nuclear power plant and thus entirely reliant on outside sources of energy – into a spending vice, where the rise in costs far outweighs the “wealth effect” from the stock market. 

The primary reason for this is that unlike the US, Japan has traditionally, culturally and historically been a nation of savers: whether this meant allocating capital into the bond market (a phenomenon which had spared the Japanese bond market from complete annihilation so far even as its debt/GDP has exploded to over 230%), or keeping it planted firmly in the bank (where it gladly collected zero percent interest).

This epic difference is best seen in the top chart, which shows that some 55.6% of all Japanese assets are in currency and deposits, compared to just 14.3% in the US.

And this is where it all begins and ends.

Prudent readers can guess where we are going from here: assuming that a few months of currency collapse manage to undo decades and generations of ingrained habits and behavioral patterns, which they most certainly can’t, assuming Abe is successful in generating his own great rotation into stocks, the question is where will the money comes from.

The answer: from the appropriate liability which matches the various “savings” tranches in the household balance sheet, namely Japanese government bonds.

That’s right: what Abe wants to do in Japan is nothing short of what Bernanke wants to do in the US – force everyone out of money markets (so far he has succeeded here – as the “great” inflow into equities, if only for the past four weeks, has not come from bonds but from money markets, which should also explain the steadfast desire of everyone from Volcker, to Geithner to the SEC to crush the $3 trillion money market industry) and out of bonds into stocks.

The problem is that in Japan a great outflow of bonds means game over. Because while in the US Bernanke just may monetize every single bond issued by the Fed without causing hyperinflation, or at least not while the shadow banking sector continues to deleverage at a pace of some $150 billion per quarter as we have shown continues to happen, Japan has no such luxury. In fact, the biggest holder by far of JGBs are various domestic pension and retirement funds, which have already indicated they may soon rotate out of bonds.

The problem is what happens once said rotation begins?

Well, the clock begins ticking. Because with a debt load of some 230% of GDP, and with debt that is 2000% of government revenue, about five times more than the second highest (Greece), a simple doubling of average interest rates means half of all government revenues goes to pay interest. Double rates again, and it’s game over for the funding side of the Japanese P&L statement, as all inbound cash will have to pay down interest, pushing Japan into the long-delayed hyperinflationary spiral.

And, by the way, none of the above is new! In fact, everything said previously has been well-known to every Japanese PM, and central banker for the past 30 years. It is also the reason why nobody has attempted the kind of ultimately suicidal move that Abe is now trying.

The good news is that it will ultimately be the bond market which puts an end to this latest bout of insanity before it is too late. Unless of course, we get bad news, which in Japan will means 2% inflation… then 12%… then 22%…. then 222% and so on.

By that point every central bank will be openly monetizing not only its own but everyone else’s debt too, as the full 1930s rerun, which most certainly included full-blown currency war just before full-blown trade war erupted, unfolds.

And as everyone knows from history, both of the above metaphoric wars in the 1930s culminated with a different war. A real one.

Source: Bank of Japan December 2012, Flow of Funds

The Iranian Foreign Ministry says Ahmed Moaz al-Khatib, the head of the Syrian National Coalition, has called for Iran to help restore stability in the Arab country.

Foreign Ministry Spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast told IRNA on Wednesday that Khatib had met with Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi on the sidelines of the 49th annual Munich Security Conference on February 3, IRNA reported.

“In his meeting with Mr. Salehi, Khatib called for the use of the Islamic Republic’s capacities for the establishment of a stable situation in Syria,” Mehmanparast said.

The Syrian opposition figure wanted these talks to help realize the demands of the Syrian people through peaceful and democratic channels, and by holding elections, Mehmanparast added.

The Iranian official hailed Khatib’s call for talks with the Syrian government as a positive step forward, saying Tehran would welcome representatives from any Syrian opposition groups seeking proximity of views.

Mehmanparast criticized the West’s support for militants fighting the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, as the root of instability, insecurity and civilian losses in the country.

Syria has been experiencing unrest since March 2011. Many people, including large numbers of security forces, have been killed in the turmoil that Damascus says is being orchestrated from outside the country.

In December 2012, the Islamic Republic released the details of a long-awaited plan, which urges talks between the Syrian government and representatives of all Syrian groups regardless of their political and social tendencies in order to form a national reconciliation committee.

The plan also calls for an immediate end to all violent and military action under the supervision of the United Nations, an end to all economic sanctions imposed against the country, and the return of displaced civilians to their homes.

MRS/MHB

Gosh, the Republican Party is succeeding so much with their “rebranding effort” that they can’t seem to find anyone to run against Ed Markey for John Kerry’s Senate seat. Well, I take that back. There’s this guy, the Blowhard named Dr. Keith Ablow, who makes a career out of offering bogus, junk-filled Freudian analyses on Fox News.

You might remember him from other posts here on C&L, like the one where he offers ridiculous explanations for President Obama’s normal, even mainstream policy choices by suggesting the president is working out his frustrations at being abandoned by his father. Or this one, where he profiled Media Matters’ David Brock, calling him a self-hating narcissist. There’s this one, too, where he calls for Vice President Biden to be examined for dementia. Or, you might make a judgment just on the basis of one single fact:

He actually co-wrote a self-help book with Glenn Beck.

Yes, this is the guy who has expressed an interest in running for John Kerry’s seat.

But wait! There’s more!

In Georgia, Rep. Paul Broun is widely expected to announce his candidacy to replace Senator Saxby Chambliss. Yes, THAT Paul Broun. The one who laughed off a constituent’s comment about who would shoot the president. The same Paul Broun who boycotted and trolled the president’s State of the Union address in 2011 after saying he wouldn’t attend because President Obama would “spew venom,” who compared progressives to Al Qaeda, who wanted to lower, not raise the debt ceiling in 2011, who wanted a in order to school the nation on President Obama’s sins, and the very same one who gets star billing on Jon Perr’s Republican Confederacy of Dunces.

Listen to Paul Broun for ten minutes or so and the only point of confusion will be whether he is a Bircher or a Klansman. It’s possible he’s both. Yes, he is preparing to run for Saxby Chambliss’ Senate seat.

In Iowa, wingnut Steve King is gearing up for a run at Tom Harkin’s Senate seat. Yes, once again, THAT Steve King. The same guy who thinks workers are commodities, who empathized with the guy who flew his plane into the Austin, Texas IRS office, who considered the Hate Crimes Act a “pedophile protection act“, who had no problem with the idea of a revolution similar to the one in Czechoslovakia in 1989 here in the United States, and who defends his racist remarks by admitting he just wants to see “if the pot comes to a boil.“

Yes, these three are leading off the parade of wingnuts for open Senate seats in 2014. They do seem to have one thing in common: they’re all spewing the Birch Society nonsense theories and mixing it with some serious race-baiting and hate.

On the wingnut but not a complete hater side, Geraldo Rivera is snuffling around a run for the Senate in New Jersey. Gee, Rivera and The Wingnuts would make for some interesting times on the Senate floor, but the country would be a shambles by the closing act.

However, Rachel Maddow has one thing wrong in her report above, where she maintains that Karl Rove wants to push these people out. As Jed Lewison points out, the Rove organization poured $400,000 into Steve King’s race against Christie Vilsack in 2012 and bragged about it, not that they had much to brag about overall in 2012. Rove doesn’t reject these candidates; he embraces them.

It looks like Eric Cantor and the TeaBirchers just got a fresh supply of lipstick, and they’re smearing it all over that same old pig.

The ten things you need to know on Thursday 7 February 2013…

1) EBACC-TRACKED

Oh look, yet another dramatic and embarrassing coalition U-turn – this time it’s being executed by ministerial golden boy and media darling, Michael Gove. The education secretary will announce today that he’s dropping his controversial plan to scrap GCSEs in key subjects in England and replace them with an English Baccalaureate Certificate (or ‘Ebacc’).

Both the Independent (“Gove forced into humiliating U-turn over exam reform”) and the Telegraph (“Gove abandons plan to scrap GCSE amid opposition from Lib Dems”) splash on the story.

The Independent reports: “In a surprise statement in the Commons, Mr Gove will reveal that he is abandoning plans to introduce the new qualification in 2015.

“GCSEs will remain, although they will be reformed in an attempt to restore confidence in them as an internationally respected qualification.”

Labour says this is a “humiliating climbdown” from Gove – which, let’s be clear, it is – but Her Majesty’s opposition might not be able to take the credit for it – the Telegraph says the plan was shelved “because of significant opposition from the Liberal Democrats”:

“The Lib Dems are believed to have blocked the move because of high-profile criticism that it would marginalise other disciplines such as the arts and sport.”

In fact, as the Indy notes, it is “the second time the Liberal Democrats have forced a retreat by Mr Gove… Last year, Mr Clegg blocked Mr Gove’s plans to replace GCSEs with a two-tier exam system that was criticised as a return to O-levels and CSEs.”

I guess that’s Clegg 2, Gove 0.

2) THE GREAT IRAQ DEBATE

As we approach the tenth anniversary of the historic February 2003 demonstrations against the invasion of Iraq, the Huffington Post UK is hosting a public debate tonight at Goldsmiths, University of London, to ask: “Was It Worth It?” Speakers include former cabinet minister Clare Short, Times columnist David Aaronovitch, the Independent’s Owen Jones and, er, yours truly. Free tickets here.

HuffPost UK has also commissioned a series of special Iraq features to coincide with the impending anniversary and, of course, tonight’s debate:

– “Were You There? Revisiting The Iraq Demonstration, A Decade On,” reports HuffPost new boy Tom Moseley
– “We Had No Idea How Massive This Would Be,” reports Jessica Elgot
– “How Tony Blair and Iraq Robbed a Generation of Their Faith in Politics,” blogs Sam Parker
– “My Uncles Were Executed, My Parents Tortured,” Lucy Shepherd speaks to Iraqi student Mohamed Ali al-Badri

By the way, the Twitter hashtag for tonight’s debate is #hpiraq10

3) HERE COMES THE ‘MANSION TAX’. AGAIN.

Having defeated Gove over GCSEs, an increasingly confident Clegg is now going after the chancellor of the exchequer – from the Telegraph:

“The Liberal Democrats want to introduce either a one per cent levy on properties worth more than £2 million, or new council tax bands on expensive homes, the Deputy Prime Minister will say. He suggests the money raised could be used to cut income tax.

“The policy of higher taxes on property is set to become a key issue in the Eastleigh by-election caused by the resignation of former Cabinet minister Chris Huhne. George Osborne, the Chancellor, has already stated his opposition to new property taxes and Mr Clegg’s decision to go public with his demands suggests that Coalition relations will become acrimonious during the by-election campaign.”

Indeed they will! Incidentally, the by-election date has been set for 28 February.

4) BRUSSELS BELT-TIGHTENING?

David Cameron can tick gay marriage off his to-do list but today he’ll turn his attention back to that other big ‘divisive’ Tory issue: Europe. From the BBC:

“European Union leaders are due to begin a two-day summit in Brussels to try to strike a deal on the next seven years of EU spending.

“… They failed to reach a compromise at a similar summit last November.

“… Downing Street said on Wednesday that Prime Minister David Cameron was intent on seeking an agreement to lower EU spending.”

If he doesn’t secure such an agreement, the gay marriage rebels will probably morph back into EU rebels. Good luck, Dave!

5) CUTS, CUTS, CUTS

Tory austerity policies have failed and Ed Balls has been vindicated but some senior Labour figures still aren’t happy.

The Sun reports:

“Ed Miliband’s policy chief last night warned Labour must come up with an alternative policy to cut the country’s deficit – or face the ‘despair’ of voters.

“Jon Cruddas said simply opposing the Government’s plans ‘is no good’ and ‘fails to offer reasonable hope’ to ordinary people.

“The Dagenham MP added: ‘The stakes are high because when hope is not reasonable, despair becomes real.’

“Mr Cruddas said Labour faces a ‘daunting’ task to win back power after their defeat in 2010.

“His speech will be seen as a criticism of Ed Balls’ economic strategy.”

Oh yes…

BECAUSE YOU’VE READ THIS FAR…

Watch the trailer for the latest Bond movie, ‘Skyfall’, get the ‘Honest’ treatment. Very, very amusing…

6) ‘ON MANOEUVRES’

The Evening Standard’s Joe Murphy had a rather good story last night about how Tory “ministers and backbenchers” remain “on manoeuvres” in the wake of Tuesday night’s deeply divisive gay marriage vote:

“One backbencher told the Evening Standard he was approached within minutes of last night’s crunch vote by backers of a potential successor to the Prime Minister.

“‘There are both ministers and backbenchers on manoeuvres,’ said the MP. ‘They are not trying to oust Cameron now, but positioning for a vacancy after the next election. But that could change if things go badly wrong for him.’

“Another MP said: ‘Cameron is not under immediate threat but there is no leadership and no narrative. Kids are running Downing Street.'”

7) DRONED OUT

Who needs Lord Justice Leveson, eh? From the Telegraph:

“The revelation that the US has been operating a drone base in Saudi Arabia was kept secret by American media organisations for two years.

“… The revelation that the US has been operating a secret drone base in Saudi Arabia for the past two years came after a blackout on reporting agreed by American media and the Obama administration was broken by two US newspapers.”

As a result of these reports, says the Guardian, “the pressure on John Brennan, Barack Obama’s nominee for CIA director and the architect of the White House strategy on drones, intensified” ahead of his confirmation hearings in the Senate later today.

My view is pretty simple: if you’re going to violate basic human rights, and kill your own citizens via remote control, why not use the secret facilities of one of the world’s worst violators of human rights, especially when it happens to be a close ally?

8) ‘DONE, FOR YOU BIG BOY’

RBS is back in the headlines again – and, again, for all the wrong reasons. It isn’t just the £390m fine for Libor rate-rigging – it’s the banker banter, too. Can the guys and gals at the Royal Bank of Scotland get nothing right? From the Huffington Post UK:

“Following the news of the Royal Bank of Scotland’s £400m fine for its role in the London inter bank offer rate (scandal), much laughter has been heard around the city after the regulator published some of the more amusing exchanges between traders.

“…From 15 September 2007:

“Yen Trader 1: can we lower our fixings today please

“Primary Submitter: make your mind up haha , yes no probs

“Yen Trader 1: im like a whores drawers”

But it wasn’t just RBS:

“Barclays, which was also hit with a £290 million fine because of its involvement in the Libor scandal, also had its emails investigated…

“In one request for a change to the Libor, a trader said: “Please feel free to say ‘no’. Coffees will be coming your way either way, just to say thank you for your help in the past few weeks”.

“To which the Barclays submitter responded: ‘Done, for you big boy.'”

And to think: some people were saying not long ago that it was time to stop the banker bashing. Oh puh-lease. It’s barely begun…

9) JEMIMA KHAN VS JULIAN ASSANGE

My former New Statesman colleague Jemima Khan has launched what the Times calls a “blistering attack” on WikiLeaks founder (and ex-ally) Julian Assange, in this week’s NS.

From the Times:

“Ms Khan, who has defended Mr Assange through his battles with democracies, dictatorships and judges, said that his organisation had gone from speaking truth to power to expecting ‘blinkered, cultish devotion’.

“She said that WikiLeaks was now as ‘guilty of the same obfuscation and misinformation as it sought to expose’.

“She had, she wrote in the New Statesman, gone on a journey of ‘admiration to demoralisation’ with Assange.”

My favourite part of Jemima’s must-read piece is this bit:

“When I told Assange I was part of the We Steal Secrets team, I suggested that he view it not in terms of being pro- or anti-him, but rather as a film that would be fair and would represent the truth… He replied: ‘If it’s a fair film, it will be pro-Julian Assange.’ Beware the celebrity who refers to himself in the third person.”

Hear, hear!

10) THATCHER STATUE

Oh dear. From a story on the front of the Telegraph:

“She is Grantham’s most famous daughter, but when a statue of Baroness Thatcher was offered to the local museum, it was considered by some to be a dubious honour.

“The £150,000 white marble work was famously decapitated by a protester in 2002 but has since been restored.

“Not everyone in her home town is sure they want to honour Britain’s first female prime minister, however, and Grantham Museum is yet to welcome the statue with open arms.

“… One Labour councillor went further, suggesting that displaying a monument to Lady Thatcher in a prominent place could actually be “asking for trouble” and invite further attacks.”

Poor Maggie..

QUOTE UNQUOTE

“I say to the Prime Minister that he should not get so het up. After all, he has got nearly half his parliamentary party behind him.” – Ed Miliband mocks David Cameron at PMQs yesterday.

PUBLIC OPINION WATCH

From the Sun/YouGov poll:

Labour 42
Conservatives 31
Lib Dems 12
Ukip 9

That would give Labour a majority of 110.

140 CHARACTERS OR LESS

@sandsstandard Good news that Michael Gove is ditching the E-Bac. London thrives on art, music and design creativity, why cut if off at source?

@rupertmurdoch @CalebRapoport what do I know about hacking? Nothing until about two years ago. One newspaper guilty several years ago. Nothing since.

@afneil Should not the traders at RBS who so clearly fiddled libor not face criminal charges? And the bosses who conspired

900 WORDS OR MORE

Peter Oborne, writing in the Telegraph, says: “David Cameron is trashing his own party, and it’s not a pretty sight.”

David Aaronovitch, writing in the Times, says: “Fractious Tories fight their leader and each other, while docile Labour is devoid of a plan. The old politics is dying.”

Steve Richards, writing in the Independent, about the Mid Staffordshire NHS scandal, says: “Sometimes money not reform really is the answer.”

Got something you want to share? Please send any stories/tips/quotes/pix/plugs/gossip to Mehdi Hasan (mehdi.hasan@huffingtonpost.com) or Ned Simons (ned.simons@huffingtonpost.com). You can also follow us on Twitter: @mehdirhasan, @nedsimons and @huffpostukpol

The United States has imposed new sanctions on Iran’s energy sector in a new attempt to force the Islamic Republic to halt its nuclear energy program.

The sanctions, which took effect on Wednesday, prevent Iran from gaining access to earnings garnered from its crude exports.

The sanctions require the importing countries to keep their payments at home and only release them in return for purchases of goods from them by Iran, to effectively lock up Iranian oil revenue overseas.

Washington has also imposed sanctions against Iranian media organizations and the Iranian Cyber Police, AFP reported.

Iran responded by condemning the measures as yet another act of hostility from the US government.

The latest anti-Iran measures come at a time when Washington has expressed willingness to hold talks with Tehran.

The US has spearheaded several rounds of Western sanctions against Iran in recent years, based on the unfounded accusation that Iran is pursuing non-civilian objectives in its nuclear energy program.

Iran rejects the allegations, arguing that as a committed signatory to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and a member of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), it has the right to use nuclear technology for peaceful purposes.

In addition, the IAEA has conducted numerous inspections of Iran’s nuclear facilities but has never found any evidence showing that Iran’s civilian nuclear program has been diverted to nuclear weapons production.

MRS/MHB

February 6, 2013  |  

If you truly care about economic justice, then you’ve got to worry about the precipitous decline of labor unions in the United States. Just take a look at these two charts. The first shows the rise and decline of union membership in the private sector from the depths of the Great Depression to today. You can clearly see that unions were a very big deal from the mid-1930s to the early 1980s. By 1953, more than one out of three American workers were members of private sector unions. That means there was a union member in nearly every family.

Through the late 1950s and 1960s, the percentage of union members declined, but the absolute number continued to increase, peaking at nearly 21 million members in 1979, (largely due to the influx of public sector workers during the 1960s and 70s). Then the decline accelerated as the share of union members fell by half between the mid-1970s and the early 1990s. (If we include public employee union members, the current rate is 11.3 percent.)

The second chart traces the share of our national income grabbed by the top one percent of U.S. households. It’s basically the inverse of the unionization chart. When unions were at their strongest, inequality was the lowest. In 1928, the top one percent hauled off 23.94 percent of all U.S. income. As unions grew, the income share for the richest dropped to less than 10 percent. And as unions declined, the income share going to the wealthiest shot right back up to 1928 levels.

It’s not a coincidence. When unions are strong, they bargain for higher wages and benefits. At the same time, non-union employers increase wages and benefits to attract qualified workers and prevent unions from coming in. Also, unions work for legislation that benefits middle- and low-income people (unemployment benefits, minimum wage, progressive taxation, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security etc.). Overall, those efforts shift income from the top to the middle and bottom of the income ladder. (For more information on inequality, please see my new book, How to Make a Million Dollars an Hour: Why Hedge Funds Get Away with Siphoning Off America’s Wealth ).

What Happened to Unions?

While working with the labor movement over the past 35 years, I’ve heard myriad explanations for the decline: unions are not democratic enough; they don’t know how to organize the community; they’re victims of globalization; they are too bureaucratic; they don’t work hard enough in politics; they don’t embrace young people and minorities…and so on. While many of these problems are real, I don’t believe they explain what’s really going on — namely that unions and the rest of us are on the losing side of a gigantic class war.

The top one percent understands that unions are the only institution in America that stands in the way of the rich getting richer. As a result, the assault on unions has been deliberate and merciless. Step by step, labor laws have been weakened so that organizing new members has become nearly impossible. For example, employees get fired right and left for organizing activities in violation of labor law. But, employers are rarely charged by the National Labor Relations Board. And when they are, the only penalty is that the discharged workers get back their jobs and back-wages — minus what they earned in the meantime.

Republican-dominated state governments are attacking public employee unions and further weakening labor protections. Almost every day we see laws proposed that would weaken the ability of unions to engage in political action. The goal is clear — zero percent unionization.

Compared to previous V-shaped recoveries, this one is not looking too rosy. From consumption to GDP, and from retail sales to consumer sentiment, the following charts show how we are doing in context. So, the next time someone on TV tells you how great we are doing, perhaps a glance at these charts will flush some of the recency bias away. There is one bright shining ‘better than any other recovery’ segment though… one that is dominated by record levels of stuffed channels – can you guess?

Charts: Barclays

Critics of an Internet censorship bill introduced in the Arizona House fear that proposed legislation could chill First Amendment-protected rights.

­If HB 2004 passes, it’ll be a crime punishable by prison to lie on the Internet. Administrators of Twitter parody accounts and other online impersonators will be forced to throw in the towel, or else face as much as one-and-a-half years in prison for violating a law expected to soon go up for debate.

Rep. Michelle Ugenti, a Republican lawmaker that represents the state’s District 8, proposed her parody ban bill back in December, citing complaints from a constituent that claimed to have been harassed on the Web. Her bill is among the latest that attempt to thwart cyberbullying, and she says it won’t be last. It might, though, be the most extreme.

“It’s an issue that’s only going to get bigger,” Ugenti told the Arizona Republic last month. “The Internet has gone from a novelty to having a position of credibility, and it’s appropriate to have statutes that address it specifically.”

Rep. Ugenti thinks she can help achieve that in Arizona, and strives to do as much through HB 2004, an amendment to the state’s impersonation law. HB 2004 would add verbiage to the law that’s aimed at making sure no one has to worry about any online imposters making fake posts in an attempt to wreak havoc. For the conservative lawmaker, it’s legislation that will limit just how far computer users can go with certain conduct online. Others, though, say it could be the start of much larger censorship problems.

“The bill has a high standard,” Rep. Ugenti told the Republic. “It’s the impersonation without the individual’s consent and with the intent to harm, defraud, intimidate and threaten.”

Indeed, Rep. Ugenti’s proposal would make it illegal to, without permission, create a webpage or social media account using another’s likeness with any of those intents. To what degree those desires exist is a question that isn’t touched yet in her bill, though, and that has some skeptics worried over what HB 2004 could do for free speech.

“The concern is whether overzealous prosecutors would use this language to intimidate somebody,” Kurt Opsahl, a senior staff attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, told the Los Angeles Times last month. “The concern is that this would have a chilling effect.”

Touching on the topic of what exactly constitutes a degree of intent, Opsahl said certain prosecutors and judges might interpret an approved HB 2004 to their unique specifications. Even if the bill’s author insists it will only more responsibility to the Web, Opsahl fears it would make illegal even innocent mocking. And with a joke gone awry carrying an 18-month prison sentence, some people may become too scared to even see what fake Twitter accounts are available.

“The key is the ‘intent to harm,’” he said. “You can imagine someone saying, ‘Well, if you are making a parody of someone else and you are trying to make fun of them and hold them up to ridicule, that would be an attempt to harm them and thus would be within the coverage of the bill. That is the concern.”

Marie-Andree Weiss, an intellectual property, privacy, and social media attorney from New York, writes in her own commentary that HB 2004 really could be taken either of two ways.

“If the law is interpreted in an overbroad manner there is a risk that it may chill free expression,” Weiss writes in a recent post on Citizen Media Law Project. “As the Supreme Court stated in Gooding v. Wilson, ‘persons whose expression is constitutionally protected may well refrain from exercising their rights for fear of criminal sanctions provided by a statute susceptible of application to protected expression.’”

“There is a particular concern with HB 2004 that it would be applied to constitutionally protected parodies or caricatures of public officials and figures. Protection for parody, even crude parody that causes emotional injury, is clearly within the protection of the First Amendment,” she adds.

Since drafting the bill, Rep. Ugenti may have more reason than ever to worry about crude jokes blasted from computerchair quarterbacks. After introducing HB 2004, a Twitter account was registered under the username @RepMUgenti.

“I hate the internet, it always wants to make fun of me, oh and I’m a politician,” the bio of the account reads, along with a disclaimer: *This is a Parody*

Registered on January 3, 2013, the parody account has only dispatched a handful of tweets, most of which commentary that could easily be considered by many to be obscene.

“Legislative sessions are so fun, especially if you have a water bottle full of vodka,” reads one post. “I’d fuck #JamesHolmes #Aurora,” reads another. At least two other Rep. Ugenti parody accounts exist on Twitter as of this writing.

In her legal critique, Ms. Weiss writes that it doesn’t appear that HB 2004 could constitutionally apply to the parody account.

“It would be much simpler to amend HB 2004 before its passage rather than hope that the courts solve any constitutional issues,” she adds. “If it appears that the statute is actually intended to reach parodies and other protected speech, a court, bound to follow the intent of the legislature, is likely to strike the statute entirely as unconstitutionally overbroad rather than impose a judicial construction that is inconsistent with legislative intent.”

According to the most recent info on the Arizona Legiscan page, HB 2004 was referred to the State House Judiciary Committee on January 15. Meanwhile, this week Rep. Ugenti weighed in another matter in Legislature. On Tuesday, she voted in favor of advancing a bill that will forbid state agencies from publishing anything in a language other than English. Critics of HB 2283 have already warned that an approval in the full House could lead to a Civil Rights Act lawsuit, but Rep. Ugenti told the Republic this week that she was confident it would prevail.

“There’s already a precedent for it, so I don’t think we’ll have another lawsuit,” she told the paper. That law, passed in 2006, made English the official language of Arizona.

Russia’s Vladimir Bystrov controls the ball in the friendly against Iceland (RIA Novosti / Alexey Danichev)

Russia’s football team took their first win of 2013, beating Iceland 2-0 in a friendly game in Marbella, Spain.

­The Russian line-up was somewhat blighted as many squad members prepared for the restart of their football season in March.

The Russians were in control in the first half, but could only create their first real scoring chance during the 43rd minute, which was still enough to take the lead.

Iceland sprung an unsuccessful offside trap and unmarked Roman Shirokov beat keeper Hannes Thor Halldorsson, with a low shot after a good pass from Vladimir Bysrov, 1-0.

In the second half, Russia’s coach, Fabio Capello, introduced a group of younger players into the game, who added pace and emotion into the team’s play.

And it was one of the substitutes, Oleg Shatov, who doubled the teams advantage on the 66th minute.

The 22-year-old marked his national debut with a goal as his powerful blast from inside the box nearly tore the net, 2-0.

The Iceland friendly is Russia’s final test ahead of the crucial World Cup 2014 qualifier away to Northern Ireland on March 13.

Capello’s men currently sit will top of Group F, with 12 points and a comfortable 5-point gap from nearest rivals, Portugal.

Submitted by Jim Quinn of The Burning Platform blog,

“Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.” — Aldous Huxley

I woke up this past Saturday morning and opened my local paper to find out that all was well. An Associated Press article declared a healthy jobs market, fantastic auto sales, a surging housing market, and a stock market rocketing to new all-time highs. What’s not to love? If the mainstream media says the economy is as good as new, it must be so. Why should we let facts get in the way of a good storyline? The stock market has surged to 2007 highs, so the country’s employment situation must be strong.

The chart above tells a slightly different story. The S&P 500 has regained almost all its losses since October 2007 as Bernanke and Washington politicians chose to save Wall Street and screw over Main Street. The working age population has risen by 12.8 million since 2007 and there are 4 million less Americans employed. The December Household Survey from the BLS being touted by the mainstream media as proof of a jobs recovery told a slightly different story:  

• The number of unemployed Americans went up by 126,000 in one month
• Another 169,000 Americans left the workforce evidently because their stock market gains made them wealthy.
• There are 250,000 more Americans unemployed than there were in September 2012.
• There are 6,000 less Americans employed than there were in October 2012.
• The unemployment rate reported to the masses went up to 7.9% (the true rate reached 23%).

This is just the picture over the last few months. The picture since 2007 is beyond horrific, as more than 10 million Americans have left the workforce. Everyone knows people willingly leave the labor force when the economy crashes and their net worth is reduced by 30%. Who needs a paying job then? Just because there are 101 million working age Americans not working and the labor participation rate of 63.6% is at a three decade low, certainly doesn’t mean we aren’t experiencing a tremendous jobs recovery, according to the mainstream media.   

The deep thinkers at CNBC, Fox, CNN and the rest of the captured corporate status quo mouthpieces, propagate the false storyline that the reason for Americans leaving the workforce is Baby Boomers retiring. Considering the average Boomer has $90,000 of total savings and 28% of them have less than $1,000 saved, I suspect there are few willingly leaving the workforce. The Boomers have taken on 4 million additional jobs since the low point in 2009, while the 16 to 54 year olds have lost an additional 2.9 million jobs. Does this reflect a strengthening jobs market? Does the fact that real hourly wages have fallen for the last two years reflect an improving labor market?  

Inquiring minds might wonder how auto sales could be booming when there are 4 million less employed Americans and real wages are falling. Of course, mainstream media faux journalists aren’t paid to inquire, think critically, or even think at all. They are paid to regurgitate propaganda designed to keep the masses sedated and ignorant. The “fabulous” rebound in auto sales has been buoyed by the return of easy money lending, even to deadbeat borrowers with lousy credit histories. There is a reason the Federal government hasn’t attempted to spin off their 80% control of Ally Financial (aka GMAC, Ditech, Rescap). The Feds are attempting to manufacture a recovery by doling out subprime auto loans to anyone who can scratch an X on a loan document and offering 0% loans over 7 years to good credits. How exactly does a finance company generate a profit by making 0% loans for seven years and approving loans to people with no means of paying them back? Experian recently noted that 44% of ALL auto loans have been to subprime borrowers over the last year. When a financing company doesn’t have to worry about profits or loan losses, everyone gets a Cadillac Escalade. The losses on these subprime loans will be in the billions when the next leg down in this Crisis hits. The taxpayer will unknowingly pick up the tab, just as they have been doing for the last five years. The trend in this chart is nothing but a Federal government induced fraud.

PhD in Stupidity

The Federal government induced sham auto recovery is small peanuts compared to the bubble they are blowing in the higher education realm. Since the Federal government took over 85% of the student loan market in 2009, the debt outstanding has surged to over $1 trillion from below $600 billion. The Feds don’t care about credit risk or loan losses. You’re on the hook for the losses. The purpose for doubling the amount of student loans was to artificially lower the unemployment rate by removing as many people from the labor force as possible. The 600,000 University of Phoenix enrollees getting their on-line master’s degrees in basket weaving while sitting in their mother’s basement, subsidized with $20,000 loans from the taxpayer, didn’t count as unemployed.

Enrollment in these diploma mills has begun to plunge, as the scam has been revealed. The New York Times reported that:

“Enrollments at the University of Phoenix and in the for-profit sector over all have been declining in the last two years, partly because of growing competition from other online providers, including nonprofit and public universities, and a steady drumroll of negative publicity about the sector’s recruiting abuses, low graduation rates and high default rates … including many charges that the schools enrolled students who had almost no chance of succeeding, to get their federal student aid.”

Enrolling students who have no chance of graduating is exactly what the Obama Administration and the status quo want.

Based upon the chart below you would think the United States is producing the brightest bunch of young people in U.S. history. Nothing could be further from the truth. Only 43% of the 1.66 million private and public school students who took the college-entrance exam posted scores showing they are prepared to do well in college, according to data released by the College Board, the nonprofit group that administers the SAT. The SAT data mirror scores from the ACT college-entrance exam which showed about 75% of students failed to meet college-readiness standards. If SAT scores are at decade lows, how could college enrollment be at record highs? Our government controlled public school system is graduating functionally illiterate dullards and the government is then subsidizing these subprime students as they matriculate into substandard colleges across the land. Approximately 3.4 million seniors are graduating from our high schools every year. The 1.66 million seniors who took the SAT exam are the cream of the crop. If the 50% of students who took the SAT exam could score so pitifully, imagine how dimwitted the 50% of students who didn’t even take the exam must be.  The upshot of these tests are that only 700,000 of all the graduating high school seniors (21%) are capable of getting a B minus or above in college.

Think about that for one second. Only 21% of all graduating high school seniors are intelligent enough to get a B minus in college, but 70% of them are enrolling in college. Of course enrolling in college and graduating college are two different things. Only 30% actually graduate college. The other 40% get drunk, fornicate, sleep late, fail, rack up gobs of debt, and then drop out. There are approximately 13 million 18 to 24 year olds enrolled in college today and at least 6 million of them have little to no chance of graduating. If the Federal government was not subsidizing them with loans, they would rightfully be looking for jobs geared to their intellectual capabilities. Would tuition rates be soaring if there were 6 million less drones matriculating into one of the 4,000 mostly mediocre higher learning institutions in this country?

The Federal government bureaucrats who think they can control the levers of finance to steer our economy to greater heights are creating a new subprime bubble. The absolute implosion of the for profit diploma mills, that have fed like bloated pigs at the Federal loan trough, is the Bear Stearns moment for the massive student loan losses that will be foisted on the shoulders of the American taxpayer. The deceptive schemes, fraud, and financial aid manipulation practices of the publicly traded diploma mills — Corinthian Colleges (down 90%), ITT (down 90%), Apollo Group (down 80%) and DeVry (down 60%) have been revealed, as their ill- gotten profits have evaporated and their stock prices have crashed. Enrollment at the king of worthless online degrees, the University of Phoenix, has plunged from 600,000 to 400,000 and they are closing 115 of their 227 campuses. The proof that much of the student loan bubble has been created by these for-profit shysters can be seen by the fact that 60% of all student loans are owed by people over 30 years old, with 33% owed by people over 40 years old. These people bought into the re-training fallacy perpetuated by government drones and mainstream media mouthpieces.

But still the Federal government continues to blow the bubble bigger and bigger as non-revolving consumer debt has reached all-time highs. Peter Thiel recently compared this bubble to the housing bubble we are still dealing with:

“We have a bubble in education, like we had a bubble in housing…everybody believed you had to have a house, they’d pay whatever it took. Today, everybody believes that we need to go to college, and people will pay— whatever it takes. There are all sorts of vocational careers that pay extremely well today, so the average plumber makes as much as the average doctor. I did not realize how screwed up the education system is. We now have $1 trillion in student debt in the U.S. Cynically you can say it’s paid for $1 trillion of lies about how good education is.”

Delinquency rates have already begun to skyrocket as the diploma mill scam implodes, dropouts can’t make loan payments with their EBT cards and even graduates from legitimate colleges are stuck waitressing at TGI Fridays and can’t make their payments. Millions of millenials are ensnared in the chains of debt servitude, with no chance of escape. 

Delinquency rates on student loans made in the past two years stand at 15%, according to FICO, versus 12.4% for loans made from 2005 to 2007. This is proof that loans doled out since the Federal government took control of the market have been distributed willy-nilly in a frantic effort to artificially reduce the unemployment rate. Average student- loan debt last year rose to $27,253 from $17,233 in 2005, with almost 605 of bank managers surveyed in December expecting delinquencies to worsen in six months, according to FICO. Andrew Jennings, chief analytics officer of Fair Issac, said in a statement:

“This situation is simply unsustainable and we’re already suffering the consequences. When wage growth is slow and jobs are not as plentiful as they once were, it is impossible for individuals to continue taking out ever-larger student loans without greatly increasing the risk of default.”

When subprime mortgages blew up, at least there was collateral to alleviate some of the losses. When the subprime auto loans blow up, at least there will be vehicles to repossess. Student loan debts are the ultimate in subprime, with no collateral and millions of jobless debtors. The situation is much worse than the delinquency numbers reveal. More than half of the student loans are in deferment, grace periods, or forbearance, meaning they are not currently requiring repayment. This means the true delinquency rates are twice as high as the reported figure of 15%. What happens next can be succinctly summed up by the esteemed economist John Kenneth Galbraith:

 “Then the shit hit the fan.” — John Kenneth Galbraith

The involuntary taxpayer bailout for this Federal Government created disaster will exceed $200 billion after the shit is done hitting the fan.

Do You Want Pepperoni on that Housing Recovery?

Everywhere I turn I’m hearing about the strong housing recovery that is propelling our economy, generating jobs and spurring a resurgence in retail spending by the millions of deleveraged consumers. Wall Street paid economists on CNBC, NYT economic “journalists”, and even the Fox News blond bimbo brigade all assure me the housing market is in a strong recovery and it’s the best time to buy. There are just two small problems with the story. None of the propaganda spouted by the mouthpieces of the kleptocracy is supported by the facts. And what little uptick in sales and prices that has occurred is due to collusion, fraud and manipulation by Wall Street, the Federal Reserve, the Treasury Department, and connected crony corporate interests.

I challenge anyone to show me the tremendous housing recovery on the new home sales chart below. New homes sales have “surged” to an annual pace of 369,000, only 74% below the 2006 peak and about 50% below the long term average. New home sales fell in December at the fastest rate since February 2011. Existing home sales also fell in December, are pacing at 1999 levels, and are still 30% below 2006 levels. In a country of 115 million households, with mortgage rates at all-time lows, there were a total of 26,000 new homes sold in December, and only 10,000 of them were actually built. For some perspective, new home sales are at the same level as they were in 1967 when the U.S. population was 200 million.  

The kleptocrats’ master plan has multiple dimensions designed to lure unsuspecting dupes back into the market. The Federal Reserve has bought over $1 trillion of toxic mortgage debt, freeing the criminal Wall Street banks to start raping the American public again. Bernanke has driven mortgage rates to near all-time lows by tripling his balance sheet, with promises to quadruple it before the end of the year. By driving real interest rates below zero Bernanke has the dual purpose of driving people into the stock market for a positive return and luring “investors” into the housing market.

The Wall Street part of this grand scheme has been to delay the foreclosure process on millions of homes, thereby restricting the amount of inventory on the market. By artificially creating an inventory “shortage”, they have been able to drive prices higher, with the purpose of trying to get the 25% of underwater homeowners back to breakeven. The Treasury Department, through their captured entities (Fannie, Freddie, FHA) are guaranteeing 95% of all mortgages, with the FHA requiring only 3.5% down payments, with the hundreds of billions in  present and future losses being incurred by the American taxpayer. You’ve heard of the cycle of life. This is the government cycle of fraud.

The last part of the plan has been to lure investors into the market. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have sold huge blocks of foreclosed homes to connected friends of Wall Street at below market rates so they could convert them to rental properties. This has further artificially reduced inventory available for sale, and jacked up prices by as much as 20% in the former bubble markets of Phoenix, Las Vegas and California. Investors and flippers account for 30% of all home sales, with another 24% of home sales listed as distressed sales. Sure sounds like a healthy market to me. With this full court press by the powers that be to produce a housing recovery, the chart below reveals the utter ineptitude of their effort. Real home prices, even using the fake government manipulated CPI, have barely budged from their lows and sit at 1990 levels. Real home prices are still down 40% from their 2006 highs.    

If a true housing recovery was underway how could mortgage purchase applications be at 1997 levels? If housing was recovering there would be more mortgage applications. It really is that simple. Do supposed journalists have any critical thinking skills or are they just playing their assigned role in this kleptocracy?

Essentially, the kleptocrats’ primary purpose has been to protect and enhance the wealth of the oligarchs that control Wall Street, Washington DC, and corporate America. They have achieved their goal, while destroying the middle class and sentencing unborn generations to a life sentence of debt servitude.

If we have been experiencing a solid jobs recovery, strong automobile sales, a resurgence of consumer spending, and rising home sales and home prices, how could GDP be negative in the 4^th quarter? The mainstream media immediately declared it the best negative GDP of all-time. They pompously declared that GDP would have been positive if government defense spending hadn’t plummeted. These disgraceful excuses for journalists failed to mention the huge surge in government and defense spending in the 3^rd quarter just prior to the presidential election that accounted for a 3.1% GDP and helped get Obama re-elected. A less trusting person than myself might question why the surge in government spending prior to the election.

Did the mainstream media government mouthpieces question the absolutely laughable 0.60% inflation rate used to calculate the 4^th quarter GDP? No they didn’t. That wouldn’t support their storyline of recovery. Using even the bastardized CPI figure of 2.0% would have produced a -1.5% GDP figure. Using real inflation figures over time reveals what every middle class family in America knows in their bones — the economy has essentially been in recession since the early 2000s. The massive dose of debt issued by the government has masked the true nature of our economic decline.   

All is not well. Any awake and aware citizen knows the economic, financial, societal and social fabric of this country is in tatters, and is getting progressively worse by the day. Since this supposed economic recovery began in mid-2009, the country has added 4 million jobs, more than 100% of which went to workers over the age of 55, forced into the workforce by Bernanke’s zero interest rate policy. Over this same time frame of economic recovery, 16 million Americans went on food stamps. How could this possibly happen if the economy has been recovering? Either the government and mainstream media are lying about the economic recovery or the Obama administration has been fraudulently encouraging people to go on food stamps to win votes in elections. Which of these truths is more palatable to your sensibilities?     

It comes down to this. The monied interests, high financiers, corporate interests, captured politicians, government apparatchiks, and corporate media have a vested interest in maintaining the corrupt and destructive status quo. They have become rich and powerful through their manipulation of the currency, ravenous sacking of the national wealth, destruction of the working middle class, and ability to use mass media propaganda to convince the willfully ignorant masses to learn to love their debt servitude. Our once proud, liberty minded, self-sufficient nation of freedom loving individuals has devolved into a kleptocracy,  where a small cadre of powerful men run the show solely to increase the personal wealth and political power of officials and the ruling class at the expense of the wider population. They are essentially running a state sponsored embezzlement and Ponzi scheme to pillage the wealth of the dumbed down, sedated, technologically distracted masses. Our entire system has been captured and we are entering the final stages of decay and ultimately a day of reckoning where the guilty and innocent alike will suffer the awful consequences of currency collapse, death and destruction on a wide scale, and likely civil and world war.

 “The Fed is now engaged in a control fraud, and what appears to be racketeering in conjunction with a few big investment banks. They may have entered into it with good intentions, but they seem to have been turned towards deceit and corruption. This is not an historical event, but an ongoing theft in conjunction with a number of Wall Street banks, and politicians whom they have paid off through a corrupt system of campaign financing and influence peddling. This is nothing new in history if one reads the un-sanitized version. But people never think it can happen today, that somehow yesterday things were different, as if one is looking at some distant, foreign land. This is a facet of the illusion of general progress.

We are now in the cover-up stage of a scandal, similar to Watergate when the White House was stone-walling. The difference is that the corruption and capture of the government is much more pervasive now, and includes a significant portion of the mainstream media, so meaningful reform is difficult. Most of what has transpired so far has been designed to distract and placate the people in their righteous anger. The Fed deceives the Congress and the public, turns a blind eye to glaring conflicts of interest, and is essentially debasing the currency while transferring the wealth of the nation to their cronies. And still the regulators do not enforce the laws they have, and Washington drags its feet while accepting buckets of cash from the perpetrators.” — Jesse

The entire system is corrupt to its core. Both political parties, regulatory agencies, Wall Street, the Federal Reserve, and mainstream media are participants in this enormous fraud. They grow more desperate and bold by the day. The lies, misinformation and propaganda being spewed on a daily basis become more outrageous and audacious. They are using the Big Lie method on a grand scale. They frantically need to lure the muppets into the stock market and the housing market to keep the game going a little longer. You can sense we are reaching a tipping point. The system they have created is mathematically unsustainable. Therefore, it will not be sustained. The world is going mad. Governments across the globe are all trying to out debase each other. Austerity and inflation for the peasants and caviar and champagne for the Davos class is the chosen path. All is not well. Ben Bernanke and the oligarchs running the show will be immortalized in history books forever when this farce comes to a spectacular conclusion.   

 “If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.” — John Kenneth Galbraith

Gunmen have killed nine police officers and wounded another in an ambush in the southwestern Mexican state of Guerrero, officials say.

The state prosecutor’s office announced the deaths on Wednesday, saying that the policemen were killed while on duty, AFP reported.

The identity of the attackers was not immediately known.

The attack occurred in the town of Apaxtla de Castrejon, located in a region known as “Tierra Caliente”.

Guerrero has long been plagued by drug gang violence. The Knights Templar and La Familia Michoacana are fighting each other for the control of criminal activity, including drug trafficking, kidnapping, and extortion in the state.

At least 70,000 people have been killed in drug-related violence in Mexico since former President Felipe Calderon launched an offensive against Mexico’s drug cartels in December 2006.

Current Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto has vowed to reduce the crime rate as he continues the campaign against drug cartels.

MN/MHB

Iran’s Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi (2nd R) talks with other attendees before the start of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) summit in Cairo February 6, 2013.(Reuters / Asmaa Waguih)

The Assad government could be ready to sit down with leaders of Syria’s opposition, Iran’s foreign minister said Wednesday on the sidelines of an Islamic summit that saw Egypt host Iranian and Turkish delegates in Cairo.

­“I think that the Syrian government is ready to negotiate with the opposition,” Ali Akbar Salehi told Egyptian state news agency MENA.

It follows Syrian opposition leader Moaz Al-Khatib’s Monday offer to speak to a deputy of President Bashar Assad about finding a solution to the now nearly two-year-long conflict that’s seen more than 60,000 people killed.

Salehi made the statement while in Cairo as part of a three-way Islamic summit between Egypt, Iran and Turkey. Delegates from the countries held a meeting on the sidelines to address the Syrian crisis. 

“There was a three-way summit of Egypt, Turkey and Iran about the crisis and we look forward to it leading to the resolution of this crisis. We are optimistic,” Salehi said, adding that Iran’s leadership welcomed Al-Khatib’s offer.

“In the end, the government and the opposition must sit together to negotiate,” he said.

Shiite Iran is Syria’s main ally in the region, while other Sunni-majority countries have been calling for Assad to leave power, with many of them supporting the country’s insurgency directly or indirectly.

Reuters / Yannis Behrakis

Ever wished you could travel back in time? Idaho might soon provide a glimpse into the past: a group of survivalists are planning to build a giant medieval-style fortress in which residents would carry their own weapons and defend against invaders.

The walled city would be built in the woods of the Idaho Panhandle, 70 miles southeast of Spokane, Wash. Few people live in Benewah County, and the population 9,000 would be more than doubled if the survivalists most into the region.

Coined the “Citadel”, the fortress would house 7,000 people and include houses, a school, and a gun factory. The people of Idaho are well-known for their love of guns and panic about proposed federal gun rules has only spurred a rush to purchase more of them out of fear of having their Second Amendment rights being taken away.

But those who are proposing the establishment of the Citadel say that all of the city’s residents would have to own an AR-15 rifle, 1,000 rounds of ammunition and enough supplies to withstand a collapse of society. And since AR-15s have become difficult to obtain and would be outlawed if Congress reinstates the 1994 ban on assault weapons, the fortress would have its own factory to produce them.

Residents would also be required by law to carry a side arm — a small weapon worn in a holster — whenever visiting the town center.

“Marxists, Socialists, Liberals, and Establishment Republicans will likely find that life in our community is incompatible with their existing ideology and preferred lifestyles,” states the proposal’s website.

Organizers refer to their proposed city as “a community of liberty”, which has no leader and instead hosts “a significant group of equals… each bringing their own professional skills and life experiences to the group,” Christian Kerodin, a convicted felon who is a promoter of the project, told the Associated Press.

“It is very much a ‘grass-roots’ endeavor,” he added.

Such proposals are more common among groups who have a stark opposition to mainstream society and politics in the US. Right-wing television host Glenn Beck last month revealed his plans to build a self-sustaining community named “Independence, USA”. Beck’s utopian city would remain cut off from the rest of the US and thereby isolate its residents from the propaganda that Beck believes Americans are exposed to in their current society, as well as provide them with freedom that he believes the US is lacking. 

And the number of ‘patriot groups’ desiring their own utopias has only grown since President Obama was first elected, according to spokesman for the Southern Poverty Law Center Mark Potok. But Potok said these ideas rarely generate into action and that the Citadel’s organizers are unlikely to actually build their fortress.

“The people behind the Citadel are like 12-year-old boys talking about the tree house, or the secret underground city they’re going to build some day,” he told AP. 

But the Citadel’s organizers are already making money off of their proposal: several hundred people have already paid the $208 application fee to live in the Citadel if it is developed.

Although no construction has begun on the fortress, organizers have already purchased 20 aces of land. Eventually, they hope to acquire the entire 2,000-3,000-acre compound.

And while organizers already have at least several hundred supporters, some Idaho residents are skeptical about the idea — especially the requirement for future residents to carry arms and defend themselves against invaders.

“This is Podunk, Idaho,” resident Wanda Wemhoff told AP. “What are they defending themselves against?”

The US equity market continues to boldly go where no other market is willing to go (Dow outperforming EuroStoxx by 850bps this year). European stocks and bonds (+30-45bps) are down notably on the week (and year in some cases); Treasury yields are 4-6bps lower on the week; the USD is up 0.6% (as EUR bleeds a little lower into tomorrow’s ECB); and Gold is up 0.6% (oddly with the USD) on the week; but US equities are unchanged with Staples and Industrials holding gains on the week. Today saw credit markets and treasuries pushing notably risk-off as stocks oscillated around unch on the week – pushing to the day’s highs into the close on the back of yet another vol-selling ramp. Equity volume was average and trade size was lower than average as cash S&P and Dow managed small gains and Nasdaq a small loss as AAPL gave back its ‘buyback rumor’ gains.

Treasuries and Credit notably more risk-off vs Stocks and Vol…

leaving the S&P 500 unch for the week…

though breadth was weak once again…

but the USD is up for the week…

and Gold is up on the week…

and Treasury yields down for the week…

as stocks certainly seem on their own from shortly after the European close once again today… as Capital Context (@CapitalContext) LLC’s ETF SPY Arb model (left) indicates, today saw US equities notably more exuberant than the rest of the market capital structure and while CONTEXT (right) was more correlated – overall, risk-assets are less excited than US equities in general. The tactical asset allocation model remains market-neutral (based on credit’s divergence).

This inexorable rise in stocks to start the year is not unusual – though this is now the best in years…

AND the most disconnected from other asset classes…(HY notably divergent from previous years)

Source: Bloomberg and Capital Context

Bonus Chart: We’ve seen this disconnect before…

Bonus Bonus Chart: In case you had any question as to this market’s schizophrenia… favorable rulings in the ongoing MBIA/AGO vs BAC court battle smashed MBI’s share price up over 15% – but BofA’s also rose!! Teflon market…

TUNIS (Reuters) – Tunisia’s ruling Islamists dissolved the government on Wednesday and promised rapid elections in a bid to calm the biggest street protests since the revolution two years ago, sparked by the killing of an opposition leader.

The prime minister’s announcement that an interim cabinet of technocrats would replace his Islamist-led coalition came at the end of a day which had begun with the gunning down of Chokri Belaid, a left-wing lawyer with a modest political following but who spoke for many who fear religious radicals are stifling freedoms won in the first of the Arab Spring uprisings.

During the day, protesters battled police in the streets of the capital and other cities, including Sidi Bouzid, the birthplace of the Jasmine Revolution that toppled Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali in January 2011.

In Tunis, the crowd set fire to the headquarters of Ennahda, the moderate Islamist party which won the most seats in an legislative election 16 months ago.

Prime Minister Hamdi Jebali of Ennahda spoke on television in the evening to declare that weeks of talks among the various political parties on reshaping the government had failed and that he would replace his entire cabinet with non-partisan technocrats until elections could be held as soon as possible.

It followed weeks of deadlock in the three-party coalition. The small, secular Congress for the Republic, whose leader Moncef Marzouki has served as Tunisia’s president, threatened to withdraw unless Ennahda replaced some of its ministers.

Wednesday’s events, in which the Interior Ministry said one police officer was killed, appeared to have moved Jebali, who will stay on as premier, to take action.

“After the failure of negotiations between parties on a cabinet reshuffle, I have decided to form a small technocrat government,” he said.

“The murder of Belaid is a political assassination and the assassination of the Tunisian revolution,” he said earlier.

It was not clear whom he might appoint but the move seemed to be widely welcomed and streets were mostly calm after dark.

A leader in the secular Republican Party gave Jebali’s move a cautious welcome.

“The prime minister’s decision is a response to the opposition’s aspirations,” Mouldi Fahem told Reuters. “We welcome it principle. We are waiting for details.”

Beji Caid Essebsi, leader of the secular party Nida Touns, who was premier after the uprising, told Reuters: “The decision to form a small cabinet is a belated move but an important one.”

DIVISIONS

The widespread protests following Belaid’s assassination showed the depth of division between Islamists and secular movements fearful that freedoms of expression, cultural liberty and women’s rights were under threat just two years after the popular uprising ended decades of Western-backed dictatorship.

“This is a black day in the history of modern Tunisia. Today we say to the Islamists, ‘get out’, enough is enough,” said Souad, a 40-year-old schoolteacher outside the ministry.

“Tunisia will sink in the blood if you stay in power.”

Calls for a general strike on Thursday could bring more trouble though Belaid’s family said his funeral, another possible flashpoint, might not be held until Friday.

Ennahda, like its fellow Islamists in Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood, benefited from a solid organisation that survived repression by the old regime, to win 42 of seats in the assembly elected in October 2011 to draft a new constitution.

And as in Egypt, the Islamists have faced criticism from secular leaders that they are trying to entrench religious ideas in the new state. A constitution is still due to be agreed before a parliamentary election which had been expected by June.

Belaid, 48, was shot at close range as he left for work by a gunmen who fled on the back of a motorcycle. Within hours, crowds were battling police, hurling rocks amid volleys of teargas in scenes reminiscent of clashes in Egypt last month.

World powers, increasingly alarmed at the extent of radical Islamist influence and the bitterness of the political stalemate, urged Tunisians to reject violence and see through the move to democracy they began two years ago, when their revolution ended decades of dictatorship and inspired fellow Arabs in Egypt and across North Africa and the Middle East.

As in Egypt, the rise to power of political Islam through the ballot box has prompted a backlash among less organised, more secular political movements in Tunisia. Belaid, who made a name for himself by criticising Ben Ali, led a party with little electoral support but his vocal opinions had a wide audience.

The day before his death he was publicly lambasting a “climate of systematic violence”. He had blamed tolerance shown by Ennahda and its two, smaller secularist allies in the coalition government toward hardline Salafists for allowing the spread of groups hostile to modern culture and liberal ideas.

On Wednesday, thousands demonstrated in cities including Mahdia, Sousse, Monastir and Sidi Bouzid, the cradle of the revolution, where police fired teargas and warning shots at protesters who set cars and a police station on fire.

While Belaid’s nine-party Popular Front bloc has only three seats in the constituent assembly, the opposition jointly agreed to pull its 90 or so members out of the body, which is acting as parliament and writing the new post-revolution charter. Ennahda and its fellow ruling parties have some 120 seats.

Since the uprising, Tunisia’s new leaders have faced many protests over economic hardship and political ideas; many have complained that hardline Salafists may hijack the revolution.

Last year, Salafist groups prevented several concerts and plays from taking place in Tunisian cities, saying they violated Islamic principles. Salafists also ransacked the U.S. Embassy in September, during international protests over an Internet video.

The embassy issued a statement condemning Belaid’s killing and urging justice for his killers: “There is no justification for this heinous and cowardly act,” it said. “Political violence has no place in the democratic transition in Tunisia.”

ECONOMIC TROUBLES

Declining trade with the crisis-hit euro zone has left the 11 million Tunisians struggling to achieve the better living standards many had hoped for following Ben Ali’s departure.

Its compact size, relatively skilled workforce and close ties with former colonial power France and other European neighbours across the Mediterranean has raised hopes that Tunisia can set an example of economic progress for the region.

Lacking the huge oil and gas resources of North African neighbours Libya and Algeria, Tunisia counts tourism as a major currency earner and further unrest could scare off visitors vital to an industry only just recovering from the revolution.

Jobless graduate Mohamed Bouazizi set himself on fire in December 2010 in the city, 300 km (180 miles) southwest of Tunis, after police confiscated his unlicensed fruit cart, triggering the uprising that forced Ben Ali to flee to Saudi Arabia less than a month later, on January 14, 2011.

President Moncef Marzouki, who last month warned the tension between secularists and Islamists might lead to “civil war”, cancelled a visit to Egypt scheduled for Thursday and cut short a trip to France, where he addressed the European Parliament.

“There are political forces inside Tunisia that don’t want this transition to succeed,” Marzouki said in Strasbourg. “When one has a revolution, the counter revolution immediately sets in because those who lose power – it’s not only Ben Ali and his family – are the hundreds of thousands of people with many interests who see themselves threatened by this revolution.”

Belaid, who died in hospital, said this week dozens of people close to the government had attacked a Popular Front group meeting in Kef, northern Tunisia, on Sunday. He had been a constant critic of the government, accusing it of being a puppet of the rulers of wealthy Gulf emirate Qatar.

DENIES INVOLVEMENT

Human Rights Watch called his murder “the gravest incident yet in a climate of mounting violence”.

Ennahda leader Rached Ghannouchi denied any involvement by his party in the killing.

“Is it possible that the ruling party could carry out this assassination when it would disrupt investment and tourism?” Ghannouchi told Reuters.

He blamed those seeking to derail Tunisia’s democratic transition: “Tunisia today is in the biggest political stalemate since the revolution. We should be quiet and not fall into a spiral of violence. We need unity more than ever,” he said.

He accused opponents of stirring up sentiment against his party following Belaid’s death. “The result is burning and attacking the headquarters of our party in many areas,” he said.

Witnesses said crowds had also attacked Ennahda offices in Sousse, Monastir, Mahdia and Sfax.

French President Francois Hollande said he was concerned by the rise of violence in Paris’s former dominion, where the government says al Qaeda-linked militants linked to those in neighbouring countries have been accumulating weapons with the aim of creating an Islamic state across North Africa.

“This murder deprives Tunisia of one of its most courageous and free voices,” Hollande’s office said in a statement.

(Additional reporting by John Irish in Paris; Writing by Alison Williams and Alastair Macdonald; Editing by Giles Elgood)

Karl Rove blasted some of the “grassroots” Tea Party groups who have declared war on his newest effort to repackage the conservative crap sandwich in a prettier package that “can win elections.” This is the purpose of Rove’s new group, he claims, though Hannity contended he was really protecting incumbents from being primaried by more conservative candidates.

Rove had unkind words for some of the groups who have criticized him for his new Conservative Victory Project, saying that most of them use issues like this to raise funds for their websites, “sucking up the majority of funds on overhead.” Not that he’s wrong about that, but it certainly seems to be evidence of a deep breach inside the Republican party. Malkin was ballistic over Rove’s move, as were others.

Dana Loesch reacted to Rove in real time, tweeting up a storm about how wrong, wrong, wrong Rove was about Todd Akin.

Erick Erickson’s head must have exploded when he saw this, given his rant yesterday about Rove’s new group. Erickson seems to be playing all sides of the debate, since he didn’t spare the Tea Party anything either when he called their brand a “cancer.”

All Rove is doing is repackaging the same damaged merchandise in shinier paper. He’s fine with their crummy message, but his billionaires want candidates who will actually win with that message. On the other hand, Freedomworks, Tea Party Nation and others really want to simply put out the unvarnished goods because they’re deluded enough to think people will buy it.

Either way, they’re all missing the point, which is that what they’re selling smells very bad to most people- rotten, even. It doesn’t matter what packaging they put around it, it still stinks. But it sure is fun to watch them chew on each other. Pop the popcorn and sit back for the fireworks.

Virgin Media has confirmed it will merge with Liberty Global, as it reports a hike in profit in 2012.

The cash and stock deal – which Liberty Global said is valued at \$23.3bn (£15bn) – is subject to approval by shareholders.

The transaction is equal to \$47.87 (£30.57) per Virgin Media share, the companies said.

It comes as Virgin Media, which is listed in New York but has a secondary listing in London, said its operating income for the year to the end of December was £699m – up from £540m in 2011.

The company – in which Sir Richard Branson owns a 3% stake – said its cable customers had increased by 88,700 over the last year.

Liberty Global is owned by billionaire media mogul John Malone, and already has a strong presence in Europe.

The US cable group said the merged company would have 25 million customers in 14 countries.

Mr Malone had previously said he would like to enter the UK market and had looked into buying Virgin Media before.

Following news of the deal, Liberty Global’s chief executive Mike Fries said it would keep Virgin Media’s current strategy and content, and would continue to invest in its broadband network.

He added: “Virgin Media will add significant scale and a first-class management team in Europe’s largest and most dynamic media and communications market.

“After the deal, roughly 80% of Liberty Global’s revenue will come from just five attractive and strong countries – the UK, Germany, Belgium, Switzerland and the Netherlands.”

Virgin Media, whose chief executive Neil Berkett said he would step down if the merger goes through, will continue to operate under this brand in the UK,

Almost five million households in the UK subscribe to Virgin’s broadband, television and landline services, and it has around three million mobile phone customers in Britain.

It is the second largest pay-TV group in Britain behind BSkyB, the parent company of Sky News, and has been valued at around \$20bn (£13bn).

MINNEAPOLIS, MN – February 6 – An annual survey has found that independent businesses experienced solid revenue growth in 2012, buoyed in part by “buy local first” initiatives and growing public interest in supporting locally owned businesses.

But the survey also documented significant challenges facing independent businesses, most notably an increase in “showrooming” and competition from online retailers, tax and subsidy policies that favor their big competitors, difficulty obtaining loans, and a customer base still reeling from the recession.

The 2013 Independent Business Survey, which was conducted by the Institute for Local Self-Reliance in partnership with several business associations, gathered data from 2,377 independent businesses across 50 states and the District of Columbia. Among its findings:

• Survey respondents reported revenue growth of 6.8% on average. More than two-thirds experienced revenue growth in 2012 – a larger share than in our 2011 and 2010 surveys.
• Independent businesses in communities with an active “buy local first” initiative run by a local business organization reported average revenue growth of 8.6% in 2012, compared to 3.4% for those in areas without such an initiative.
• Among survey respondents in cities with a “buy local first” initiative, 75% reported that the initiative had had a positive impact on their business.
• “Showrooming” – i.e., customers examining products and seeking information in local stores and then buying online – was identified by independent retailers as one of their biggest challenges. More than 80% said showrooming was affecting their business, with 47% describing the impact as “moderate” or “significant.”
• Lack of financing was another top challenge, with 23% businesses surveyed reporting that they had been unable to secure a needed bank loan for their business in the last two years.

Download the 2013 Independent Business Survey. View the findings of previous surveys conducted over the last five years here.

“Independent businesses are making huge strides when it comes to communicating their value and building community support, but they are still struggling in an environment in which public policy often gives major advantages to their big competitors,” said Stacy Mitchell, Senior Researcher with the Institute for Local Self-Reliance.

“This study – and the outstanding results of the Small Business Saturday last November – make clear that we have reached an important tipping point, as shoppers are showing through both their purchases and their direct feedback to indie businesses that they value the diversity, creativity, and unique services of their hometown businesses,” said American Booksellers Association CEO Oren Teicher. “For indie businesses in communities that don’t yet have a local business alliance, the time to realize the potential of working together is now.”

“These findings show the value of collaboration among local businesses, from improving sales and community support to fostering creativity and shared action in addressing the challenges facing independent entrepreneurs,” said Alissa Barron-Menza, Managing Director of the Business Alliance for Local Living Economies.

“This data supports what we are hearing from our local groups – that their work is influencing people’s choices and driving more business to local independents,” said Jeff Milchen, Co-Director of the American Independent Business Alliance.

“As this survey shows, public awareness of the benefits of independent businesses is growing, but there are new challenges,” said Kathleen McHugh, President of the American Specialty Toy Retailing Association. “Showrooming is the number one issue facing toy stores today. If consumers value that store visit and the investment local retailers make in their community, they should also want to keep those brick-and-mortar stores in business by making their purchases with them.”

“TriMega, and our independent office supply dealer members, are very encouraged by the growing impact of buy local first initiatives. We believe that ongoing education to consumers on the benefits of supporting local businesses — such as keeping dollars in the community — is gaining traction and driving positive sales results in today’s economy,” said Michael Morris, Vice President of Marketing for TriMega Purchasing Association.

“ILSR’s survey demonstrates that active ‘buy local’ initiatives are not just feel good marketing campaigns, but can in fact build a small businesses bottom line,” said Bill Brunelle, co-founder of Independent We Stand.

ADDITIONAL CONTACTS:
Dan Cullen, American Booksellers Association, 914-406-7560
Jeff Milchen, American Independent Business Alliance, 406-582-1255
Katheleen McHugh, American Specialty Toy Retailing Association, 312-222-0984
Alissa Barron-Menza, Business Alliance for Local Living Economies, 360-746-0840 x109
Parker Karnan, Independent Running Retailers Association, 206-601-7019
Corinne Shindelar, Independent Natural Food Retailers Association, 612-724-1530 x 102
Kate Lewis, Independent We Stand, 757-340-7425.
Fred Clements, National Bicycle Dealers Association, 949-722-6909
Michael Morris, TriMega, 847-961-3118

MINNEAPOLIS, MN – February 6 – An annual survey has found that independent businesses experienced solid revenue growth in 2012, buoyed in part by “buy local first” initiatives and growing public interest in supporting locally owned businesses.

But the survey also documented significant challenges facing independent businesses, most notably an increase in “showrooming” and competition from online retailers, tax and subsidy policies that favor their big competitors, difficulty obtaining loans, and a customer base still reeling from the recession.

The 2013 Independent Business Survey, which was conducted by the Institute for Local Self-Reliance in partnership with several business associations, gathered data from 2,377 independent businesses across 50 states and the District of Columbia. Among its findings:

• Survey respondents reported revenue growth of 6.8% on average. More than two-thirds experienced revenue growth in 2012 – a larger share than in our 2011 and 2010 surveys.
• Independent businesses in communities with an active “buy local first” initiative run by a local business organization reported average revenue growth of 8.6% in 2012, compared to 3.4% for those in areas without such an initiative.
• Among survey respondents in cities with a “buy local first” initiative, 75% reported that the initiative had had a positive impact on their business.
• “Showrooming” – i.e., customers examining products and seeking information in local stores and then buying online – was identified by independent retailers as one of their biggest challenges. More than 80% said showrooming was affecting their business, with 47% describing the impact as “moderate” or “significant.”
• Lack of financing was another top challenge, with 23% businesses surveyed reporting that they had been unable to secure a needed bank loan for their business in the last two years.

Download the 2013 Independent Business Survey. View the findings of previous surveys conducted over the last five years here.

“Independent businesses are making huge strides when it comes to communicating their value and building community support, but they are still struggling in an environment in which public policy often gives major advantages to their big competitors,” said Stacy Mitchell, Senior Researcher with the Institute for Local Self-Reliance.

“This study – and the outstanding results of the Small Business Saturday last November – make clear that we have reached an important tipping point, as shoppers are showing through both their purchases and their direct feedback to indie businesses that they value the diversity, creativity, and unique services of their hometown businesses,” said American Booksellers Association CEO Oren Teicher. “For indie businesses in communities that don’t yet have a local business alliance, the time to realize the potential of working together is now.”

“These findings show the value of collaboration among local businesses, from improving sales and community support to fostering creativity and shared action in addressing the challenges facing independent entrepreneurs,” said Alissa Barron-Menza, Managing Director of the Business Alliance for Local Living Economies.

“This data supports what we are hearing from our local groups – that their work is influencing people’s choices and driving more business to local independents,” said Jeff Milchen, Co-Director of the American Independent Business Alliance.

“As this survey shows, public awareness of the benefits of independent businesses is growing, but there are new challenges,” said Kathleen McHugh, President of the American Specialty Toy Retailing Association. “Showrooming is the number one issue facing toy stores today. If consumers value that store visit and the investment local retailers make in their community, they should also want to keep those brick-and-mortar stores in business by making their purchases with them.”

“TriMega, and our independent office supply dealer members, are very encouraged by the growing impact of buy local first initiatives. We believe that ongoing education to consumers on the benefits of supporting local businesses — such as keeping dollars in the community — is gaining traction and driving positive sales results in today’s economy,” said Michael Morris, Vice President of Marketing for TriMega Purchasing Association.

“ILSR’s survey demonstrates that active ‘buy local’ initiatives are not just feel good marketing campaigns, but can in fact build a small businesses bottom line,” said Bill Brunelle, co-founder of Independent We Stand.

ADDITIONAL CONTACTS:
Dan Cullen, American Booksellers Association, 914-406-7560
Jeff Milchen, American Independent Business Alliance, 406-582-1255
Katheleen McHugh, American Specialty Toy Retailing Association, 312-222-0984
Alissa Barron-Menza, Business Alliance for Local Living Economies, 360-746-0840 x109
Parker Karnan, Independent Running Retailers Association, 206-601-7019
Corinne Shindelar, Independent Natural Food Retailers Association, 612-724-1530 x 102
Kate Lewis, Independent We Stand, 757-340-7425.
Fred Clements, National Bicycle Dealers Association, 949-722-6909
Michael Morris, TriMega, 847-961-3118

Activist Zach Wahls Slams Boy Scouts’ Decision Delay on Gay Members

Email   Print   Share

Posted on Feb 6, 2013

Screenshot

Zach Wahls, right, debates Ed Whelan.

Lifting the discriminatory policy of banning gay members from joining its organization should have been a no-brainer for the Boy Scouts of America. Instead, the youth group Wednesday postponed an expected announcement, saying in a statement that it needed “more time for a deliberate review” because of the “complexity” of the issue.

Noted LGBT rights activist and Eagle Scout Zach Wahls–you may remember him as the Iowa student whose impassioned speech for marriage equality in front of state lawmakers was captured in a video that went viral in 2011–slammed the move. “By postponing this decision, the BSA has caved to those who argue that their anti-gay attitudes trump basic Scouting values of kindness, courtesy and bravery. Scouting was built on a foundation of respect and dignity. Today, the BSA cracked that foundation,” he said.

Perhaps the organization missed this stirring CNN segment over the weekend in which Wahls eviscerated the homophobic arguments presented by Ed Whelan, the Scout father who penned an op-ed in the New York Post asking the group to keep its policy in place.

“There’s a vast difference between being opposed to gay marriage and opposing the enrichment and development of young men because they happen to be not straight,” Wahls said. “I think [Whelan] should understand that the Scouts is about respecting the opinions of all the people who want to be members, not just some.”

(h/t Towleroad)

–Posted by Tracy Bloom.

New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus.

Five hospital trusts are to be investigated over their mortality rates following the publication of the inquiry into mistreatment and neglect of patients at Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust.

An immediate probe is to be launched into Colchester Hospital University NHS Foundation Trust, Tameside Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Blackpool Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Basildon and Thurrock University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and East Lancashire Hospitals NHS Trust.

The news follows the publication of Robert Francis QC’s landmark report into events at Stafford Hospital between 2005 and 2009, which called for a “zero tolerance” approach to poor standards in the health system.

The Department of Health put cash over patient care, the report into the unnecessary deaths of up to 1,200 patients concluded.

A total of 290 recommendations were made in the report which found the hospital trust tolerated or sought to explain away bad news.

In it, Mr Francis attacked local health authorities and the trust board – but did not blame any one individual or organisation for the “disaster” at the hospital.

The report called for a “zero tolerance” approach to poor standards of care and said hospitals which failed to comply with a “fundamental standard” should be forced to close.

It also called for greater emphasis on compassion across the health service – and said healthcare providers should be liable for prosecution if they failed to meet standards.

Mr Francis said the NHS had a series of checks and balances which should have prevented “serious systematic failure of this sort”.

But he said the system failed in its primary duty of protecting patients and that “numerous” warning signs were missed which should have alerted authorities to problems at the trust.

Speaking as the report was published, Mr Francis said: “This is a story of appalling and unnecessary suffering of hundreds of people.

“They were failed by a system which ignored the warning signs and put corporate self-interest and cost control ahead of patients and their safety.

“We need a patient-centred culture, no tolerance of non-compliance with fundamental standards, openness and transparency, candour to patients, strong cultural leadership, caring compassionate nursing, and useful and accurate information about services.

“In short, the trust that the public should be able to place in the NHS was betrayed.”

Mr Francis said whistleblowers reported failings in care, reports painted a picture of a hospital that was severely stretched and there were indications of dysfunctional management.

But he said consultants “kept their heads down” and that staff who spoke out were bullied and the truth suppressed.

Managers had “no culture” for listening to patients, who he said were excluded, along with their families, from their own care.

The report said poor leadership and staffing policies led to a “completely inadequate” standard of nursing on some wards at Stafford Hospital.

His failure to name any individual comes despite many calls for NHS Commissioning Board chief executive Sir David Nicholson to resign over the scandal.

“This is not a case where it was ever going to be possible or permissible to find an individual or a group of individuals was to blame for this,” he said.

An increased culture of compassion and caring in nursing is called for in the report, which recommended there should be a legal obligation for healthcare providers and medics to observe a “duty of candour”.

Responding to the report’s publication, Prime Minister David Cameron said: “What happened at Mid Staffordshire Hospital NHS Trust was not just wrong. It was truly dreadful.”

He also apologised on behalf of the government and country for the way the system had allowed “horrific abuse to go unchecked and unchallenged”, saying: “I am truly sorry.”

Mr Cameron said the report’s evidence of systemic failure means “we cannot say with confidence that failings of care are limited to one hospital”.

The scandal at the hospital emerged in 2009, when it was revealed between 400 to 1,200 more people died than would have been expected between 2005 and 2008.

The NHS Commissioning Board, which announced a probe into five further trusts, said the investigation would to be carried out by medical director Sir Bruce Keogh.

It said the five trusts have been “outliers” on the Summary Hospital-level Mortality Indicator (SHMI) for two successive years to 2012.

A report into the case of abducted schoolgirl Shannon Matthews will not be published in full because it could put her and her siblings at risk.

An executive summary of the Serious Case Review into the run-up to Shannon’s disappearance in Dewsbury, West Yorkshire, in 2008 was published two years ago.

The Kirklees Safeguarding Children Board has been under pressure to publish the full report, especially after the Government made a commitment to getting full Serious Case Reviews into the public domain wherever possible. But the board has now finally said it will not be publishing the full overview report.

Board chairman Bron Sanders said the Serious Case Review overview report, no matter how it was redacted, would allow specific children to be identified and would place details of their private lives into the public domain.

Mrs Sanders said: “The children in this family are all vulnerable and there is no doubt whatsoever that it would be wrong for us to knowingly cause them harm. The board always made it clear that we would do our utmost to publish the overview report for this Serious Case Review.”

Mrs Sanders said the board was, at one stage, almost ready to proceed with full publication.

She said: “On that occasion the decision on whether the board should publish was finely balanced. However, vital new information has now been considered and it is clear that we cannot publish without putting the children at risk.”

Mrs Sanders said the Government has acknowledged that there will be cases where full publication of a Serious Case Review is not appropriate. The board’s original intention to publish the full report was fought in the High Court by Shannon’s father, Leon Rose.

In October, his action was adjourned after “powerful” new “welfare material” was produced and the safeguarding board decided to reconsider its position.

Shannon disappeared from her home in Dewsbury Moor in February 2008. After a massive police operation she was discovered 24 days later at her stepfather’s uncle’s home less than a mile away. In January 2009 her mother, Karen was jailed for eight years for what a judge described as a “truly despicable” plot to abduct the nine-year-old Shannon. Michael Donovan, in whose flat the youngster was found in the base of a bed, was also jailed for eight years. Both have now been released from prison.

Presented with little comment aside from noting that the only time stocks have been this ‘euphoric’ was right before the collapse in 2000 and right before the collapse in 2008.

Equity Euphoric…

and Credit Risk Appetite rolling over…

as Global Risk Appetite heads for Euphoria…

Source: Citi and Credit Suisse

Report Finds Global Collaboration in Torture Scheme

Email   Print   Share

Posted on Feb 6, 2013

Open Society Foundations

The U.S. counterterrorism practice known as extraordinary rendition, in which officials quietly transport suspects to secret prisons around the globe for detention that can lead to torture, involved the participation of more than 50 national governments–or more than one-quarter of all countries in the world–an Open Society Foundations report released Tuesday says.

The report, which constitutes the most comprehensive accounting of the top-secret program to date, says 54 nations did the United States’ dirty work, either hosting CIA “black sites,” questioning or torturing prisoners, or otherwise collaborating in the effort. The document also identifies by name 136 prisoners who were subject to extraordinary rendition.

Officials in the George W. Bush administration claimed they never intended for terrorism suspects to be tortured abroad, but some of the countries where prisoners were sent–Egypt, Libya and Syria among them–were known practitioners of violent interrogation methods.

When he arrived in office, President Obama pledged to end the U.S. government’s use of torture and ordered the closing of the CIA’s secret prisons around the world. But Obama retained the practice of rendition, which allows U.S. officials to circumvent due process requirements for suspects.

The Obama administration claimed it was relying on “diplomatic assurances” that host nations would not torture suspects in their custody who were awaiting trial or other action.

Absent the benefit of government records, the OSF’s top legal analyst for national security and counterterrorism and the report’s author, Amrit Singh, surveyed news reports, the investigations of human rights groups worldwide and notes on a handful of proceedings by foreign courts that have investigated their own countries’ involvement.

“What Singh saw was a hasty global effort, spearheaded by the United States in the months after 9/11, to bypass longstanding legal structures in order to confront the emerging threat of international terrorism,” Joshua Hersh reports at The Huffington Post.

–Posted by Alexander Reed Kelly.

Joshua Hersh at The Huffington Post:

Singh condemned the consequences of that effort in the report’s introduction. “By enlisting the participation of dozens of foreign governments in these violations, the United States further undermined longstanding human rights protections enshrined in international law–including, in particular, the norm against torture,” she wrote.

“Responsibility for this damage does not lie solely with the United States,” Singh added, “but also with the numerous foreign governments without whose participation secret detention and extraordinary rendition operations could not have been carried out.”

The list of those nations includes a range of American allies (Canada, the United Kingdom, Germany) and familiar Middle Eastern partners in the messy fight against radical Islam (Jordan, Yemen, the United Arab Emirates). Their alleged levels of participation vary widely, from countries like Poland, which agreed to host CIA black-site prisons, to nations like Portugal and Finland, which merely allowed their airspace and airports to be used for rendition flights.

Read more

More Below the Ad

New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus.

People reach out for a bag of oranges during a free distribution of fruit and vegetables by Greek farmers outside the Agriculture Ministry in Athens, on February 6, 2013. (AFP Photo / Louisa Gouliamaki)

A fruit and vegetable handout in Greece led to one man being trampled on Wednesday, calling attention to the desperate conditions in the crisis-hit country. Some 55 tons of produce was given away by farmers who were protesting high production costs.

The person was injured when he was pushed by a crowd trying to grab the goods and fell and hit his head.

The chaos was sparked when food stalls ran out of fruits and vegetables, prompting dozens of people to rush to a nearby truck.

It was an “every man for himself” situation as the Greeks shoved their way to the front of the truck, competing for the food that was left. The 55 tons of food was completely gone in under two hours.

A Reuters employee at the scene was hit on the head with cauliflower heads as he attempted to photograph the situation.

People reach out for a bag of oranges during a free distribution of fruit and vegetables by Greek farmers outside the Agriculture Ministry in Athens part a farmers protest against high production costs, including petrol, on February 6, 2013. (AFP Photo / Louisa Gouliamaki)

“These images make me angry. Angry for a proud people who have no food to eat, who can’t afford to keep warm, who can’t make ends meet,”

Kostas Barkas, a lawmaker from the leftist Syriza party, told Reuters.

Other Greek lawmakers said the situation showed images “of people on the brink of despair” and the sense of “sadness for a proud people who have ended up like this.”

It’s a reality that many Greek citizens find hard to comprehend.

“It’s difficult. I never imagined that I would end up here,” 65-year-old Panagiota Petropoulos said.

“I can’t afford anything, not even at the fruit market. Everything is expensive, prices of everything are going up while our income is going down and there are no jobs,” she continued.

People line up for fruits and vegetables freely distributed by farmers during a protest against high production costs outside the Agriculture Ministry in Athens February 6, 2013. (Reuters / John Kolesidis)

Greece, which is currently in its sixth year of recession, is experiencing record high unemployment rates. Citizens have been forced to endure wage and pension cuts to satisfy European Union and International Monetary Fund demands.

The handout was an attempt by farmers to persuade the government to give them a 50 per cent price reduction on diesel-powered farm equipment, abolish the obligatory declaration for cultivation and cut Value Added Tax from 23 per cent to 6 per cent on their products and agricultural machinery and equipment.

Strikes continue to take place in various sectors, as workers protest the government’s austerity plan

On Wednesday, Greece’s ruling coalition forced striking seamen to return to work after a six-day action that suspended ferry services to dozens of Greek Islands. The strike led to food and medical shortages.

But when one strike ends, others continue.

Farmers throughout the country are in their ninth day of demonstrations, staging roadblocks with their tractors on highways across Greece on Wednesday.

Journalists working for state broadcasters went into a third day of strikes on Wednesday, protesting against the government’s policies regulating the sector. The strike is scheduled to continue until Thursday.

Various Greek Unions have held a wave of strikes over the past three years to protest the harsh austerity measures taken to secure international rescue loans.

People reach out for a bag of vegetables during a free distribution of fruit and vegetables on February 6, 2013. (AFP Photo / Louisa Gouliamaki)

People reach out to take fruits and vegetables distributed for free by farmers during a protest against high production costs outside the Agriculture Ministry in Athens February 6, 2013. (Reuters / John Kolesidis)

People reach out to take fruits and vegetables distributed for free by farmers during a protest against high production costs outside the Agriculture Ministry in Athens February 6, 2013. (Reuters / John Kolesidis)

People reach out for vegetables during a free distribution of fruit and vegetables on February 6, 2013. (AFP Photo / Louisa Gouliamaki)

Yesterday we had our 15 minutes of fun with the CBO’s latest budget forecast, which, while wrong as always, provided the mainstream media with its dose of propaganda optimism, by “forecasting” that the baseline 2013 budget deficit will be some $845 billion, well below the $1+ trillion deficit in 2012 (and quite a bit above the CBO’s last year 2013 deficit forecast of $585 billion). It will be higher. And we know that not only because the CBO is a complete and utter failure when it comes to predicting the future (which as Rajoy would say would be “just as forecast, except for everything that does happen”), but because earlier today the Primary Dealers that make up the Treasury Borrowing Advisory Committee (a topic we have written extensively about in the past), released their own 2013 budget deficit forecast. The picture there is far less optimistic: the median estimate is some $929 billion, however it is the upside range that is where reality lies, and this number is, according to the likes of Goldman and JPM (who head the TBAC) as well as the 18 other Primary Dealers, as high as $1.037 trillion.

Needless to say, when fiscal 2013 closes on September 30, 2013, this number too will be an optimistic estimate of reality.

Source: US Treasury

In today’s On the News segment: The nation’s largest nurses union – National Nurses United – has joined the fight against the Keystone XL pipeline; the Progressive Caucus announced it will introduce legislation known at the “Balancing Act” to reduce the deficit and stimulate the economy; Republicans are promising to block the next nominee to head up the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB); and more.

TRANSCRIPT:

Thom Hartmann here — on the news…

You need to know this. On Tuesday, President Obama urged Congress to put off the looming sequester of nearly a trillion dollars in spending cuts. But if he wants to find a suitable replacement to reduce the deficit and stimulate the economy — he should look to the left-wing of his own party: the Congressional Progressive Caucus. On Tuesday, the Progressive Caucus announced it will introduce legislation known at the “Balancing Act”, that will scrap the sequester — raise new revenue from the rich who aren’t paying their fair share — and make critical investments in our economy and infrastructure. To begin with, the Progressive Caucus’ proposal will raise $960 billion in revenue to replace the sequester, by closing tax loopholes for the billionaire hedge fund managers, closing loopholes for corporations that ship American jobs overseas, and by cutting off billions in taxpayer subsidies to Big Oil. The plan also cuts our war budget by $300 billion. With the extra revenue, the Caucus proposes new investments in education, in infrastructure, and in the middle class, with new tax cuts that actually help working people. Altogether — the proposal will slash the deficit by $3.3 trillion — and at the same time create more than a million jobs. Voters spoke loud and clear last November, when they re-elected President Obama, and elected a more progressive Congress. Now it’s time to give the American people what they want: policies that revive the middle class, and make the rich and corporate American pay their fair share in taxes again. Call your Member of Congress and tell them to support the Congressional Progressive Caucus’ Balancing Act.

In screwed news… An institution as old as America itself is in its death throes. Today — the United States Postal Service announced that it’s cutting back its delivery of mail on Saturdays — and will instead go to a five-day-delivery schedule of mail. This change is set to go into effect in August — and will reportedly save the post office $2 billion a year. This could be the first of a long series of cutbacks for the Oost Office, which is hemorrhaging billions of dollars every year, as a result of poison pill legislation passed by Republicans in Congress, and signed by President Bush in 2006. That law required the Post Office to pre-fund its retiree health benefits 75 years out into the future — for workers who aren’t even born yet. This requirement sucks five billion dollars of revenue out of the Post Office every year — and is a burden that no other business or government agency has ever had to bear. Without this requirement, the Post Office would be running surpluses. But Republicans knew exactly what they were doing when they passed the law — they were killing the Post Office and its half-million unionized workers. And today — with the announcement that the Post Office is cutting Saturday mail delivery, Republicans are patting themselves on the back, because everything is going according to plan. Ben Franklin himself started the Post Office — and it’s one of America’s most successful traditions. It’s in the Constitution! Unfortunately — unless we pressure our lawmakers to take bold steps to save the Post Office, it will just be the latest casualty in the Republicans war on unions.

In the best of the rest of the news…

Why are Republicans promising to block the next nominee to head up the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which gives working people numerous protections from bankster fraud? Well, because banksters are paying them to do it! Last week, 43 Republican Senators signed a letter to the President, saying they would block any new nominee to the CFPB, unless the agency is weakened so it has less oversight of Wall Street. Turns out, those 43 Senators have received over $143 million from the financial industry. The six Republican Senators, who were elected in 2012, received more than $7 million from Wall Street just in the last election cycle. Those weren’t contributions — those were investments — and now Wall Street wants their return on their investments, by having their Republicans kill the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

Those battling the Keystone XL pipeline just received some much-needed reinforcements. The nation’s largest nurses union — National Nurses United — has joined the fight against that toxic pipeline. As people who understand first-hand the health effects of a hotter, more polluted planet, National Nurses United is in a unique position to highlight health concerns related to the pipeline. National Nurses United Co-President Deborah Burger said, “Nurses care for patients every day who struggle with health crises aggravated by environmental pollution in its many forms… As a society, we need to reduce the effects of environmental factors, including climate change, that are making people sick, and endangering the future for our children. That’s why we oppose the Keystone XL pipeline.” As with any fight against entrenched, well-funded special interests like Big Oil — organized people need as much help as they can get to take on organized money. Kudos to National Nurses United for getting involved in the fight to save the planet.

And finally…if you’re a Member of Congress — you might want to think twice about vying for that “prized” NRA endorsement. A new Public Policy Polling survey found that an NRA endorsement will actually hurt most political candidates. The poll surveyed voters around the nation — asking them if an NRA endorsement would make them more or less likely to support a particular candidate. According to the results, 26% of voters said the NRA’s endorsement makes them more likely to support a candidate. BUT, a much higher 39% said it would make them less likely to support a candidate. Among independents, 41% said an NRA endorsement will diminish their support for a candidate. Remember, this is the same organization that spent millions in 2012, to elect pro-gun lawmakers — yet fewer than 1% of its contributions went to winning candidates. This is not an organization to be feared. If anything, it should be put in a museum.

And that’s the way it is today — Wednesday, February 6th, 2013. I’m Thom Hartmann — on the news.

Teachers, parents, students and other supporters cross-country declared “enough is enough” Wednesday as they joined in the National Day of Action and the growing tide of support for the Seattle teachers’ standardized test boycott.

(Photo: via Twicsy.com) The Day of Action is the culmination of a growing protest begun at Seattle’s Garfield High School against the district-mandated Measure of Academic Progress, known as the MAP test, which the teachers say is deeply flawed and hijacks essential classroom time and resources. The MAP test is not exclusive to Seattle as it is annually administered to millions of students across the country.

Calling Wednesday’s demonstrations–and the greater boycott–”the new face of teacher unionism,” National Education Association President, Dennis Van Roekel, writes in an op-ed that the Garfield teachers’ “brave” boycott has “focused attention on a long-simmering national issue.” He adds:

A growing number of teacher evaluation systems are focused exclusively on using tests to measure student growth or achievement. Even worse, administrators and education officials nationwide are employing evaluation systems with little input from educators or teacher organizations[…]

Educators are fed up with flawed accountability measures, and the new face of teacher unionism has its eyes fixed on changing the current culture of standardized testing mania. In a dramatic way, Seattle teachers and others are driving the national conversation on professional issues and school reform.

“This could be a critical moment in education, with the reform movement facing a serious challenge,” added Seattle Weekly blogger Nina Shapiro.

Ahead of the day’s demonstrations, solidarity group Scrap the Map called on supporters to “hold meetings, rallies, take photos and wear red to show support.”

Across the country, groups took action. The Berkeley, Calif. teachers union held a rally and speak out at Berkeley High and in Chicago, anti high-stakes testing coalition More Than A Score petitioned at 30 local schools.

Rochester, NY supporters are rallying at the “State of the Schools” address that is taking place on the same day. “We hope to reach out to others in the community who support the Garfield High Teachers [to] build local allies” they write, in the fight to “sustain the struggle against the standardization and privatization of our children’s education.”

Fellow educators, parents, students and other supporters joined in the chorus online. The California Teachers Association wrote on twitter (#scrapthemap), “We share deep concerns about the overemphasis on standardized tests as an indicator of student achievement,” adding:

A number shared pictures of themselves holding signs or wearing red in solidarity with the boycotting teachers.

Alaskan Climate Team Hasn’t Met in Years

Email   Print   Share

Posted on Feb 6, 2013

Alaskan Dude (CC BY 2.0)

Icebergs that have broken off drift in Portage Lake south of Anchorage, Alaska, in 2009.

A rapid-response task force set up by former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin with the stated intent to protect the state from the worst effects of climate change hasn’t convened since March 2011, newly released documents show.

The Immediate Action Work Group’s supervisory body, the Sub-Cabinet on Climate Change, has gone even longer without gathering–since February 2010. The inactivity was discovered via a freedom of information request made by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility.

Meanwhile, Alaska and other Arctic regions continue to warm at a much faster rate than much of the rest of the world.

In a letter dated Feb. 1, the state government said the sub-cabinet produced three strategy documents since the 2010 meeting, but would not release them.

–Posted by Alexander Reed Kelly.

The Guardian:

Both bodies were set up by Palin, who appointed the sub-cabinet in 2007 to begin work on a strategic climate change plan for Alaska. Two years later, the immediate action work group set out a detailed report, outlining the risks to dozens of Alaskan communities.

Under [Gov.] Parnell, however, the groups fell into a state of limbo, leaving Alaska dangerously exposed to climate change, Peer said.

“On issues ranging from village relocation, to growing wildfire vulnerability and high erosion and flooding dangers, to sea ice loss, to impacts to infrastructure (ironically, including the Alaska pipeline), the state has abandoned a pro-active posture,” the organisation said in a statement.

Read more

More Below the Ad

New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus.

Tunisian Prime Minister Hamadi Jebali says he will dissolve the government after protests held in the country over the murder of the leading opposition leader Chokri Belaid.

TNP/SS

USPS Seeks to Cut Saturday Mail Delivery

Email   Print   Share

Posted on Feb 6, 2013

quinn.anya (CC BY-SA 2.0)

Struggling under the weight of mandatory future retiree benefit payments, the U.S. Postal Service said it would move to a five-day schedule in August to save $2 billion a year.

It would still drop off packages on Saturdays and mail would be deposited in post office boxes. The agency contends that it has the authority to reduce service, but some in Congress argue that legislators should make the decision.

In November, the agency reported a record annual loss of $15.9 billion for the last budget year and forecast more shortages in 2013. Since 2006, the USPS has cut annual costs by about $15 billion and reduced the size of its career workforce by 28 percent, or 193,000 employees, officials say.

–Posted by Alexander Reed Kelly.

The Guardian:

The agency’s biggest problem was not due to reduced mail flow but rather to mounting mandatory costs for future retiree health benefits, which made up $11.1bn of the losses. Without that and other related labor expenses, the mail agency sustained an operating loss of $2.4bn, lower than the previous year.

The health payments are a requirement imposed by Congress in 2006 that the post office set aside $55b in an account to cover future medical costs for retirees. The idea was to put $5.5bn a year into the account for 10 years — $5.5bn the post office doesn’t have.

No other government agency is required to make such a payment for future medical benefits. Postal authorities wanted Congress to address the issue last year, but lawmakers finished their session without getting it done. So officials are moving ahead to accelerate their own plan for cost-cutting.

Read more

More Below the Ad

New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus.

Submitted by Brandon Smith of Alt-Market blog,

Some phrases are endowed with immediately recognizable symbolism. When we hear them, we instantly know who and what the phrases are referring to, and can even gain a greater depth of understanding to a particular situation just by applying them. They cause us to step outside our environment and look at it in an entirely different way. They might make us laugh, they might make us cry, but we are not indifferent to these affecting words.

Throughout history there have always been people who were right, and usually a “majority” that were wrong, on any single issue. Defenders of institutionalized ignorance argue constantly that truth is “relative”, and that they should not be criticized for having their own “opinions”. They use this relativism as a cover for their unwillingness to admit a lack of knowledge. I would ask them if they believe that they are always right? That they have nothing to learn? If the truth is “relative”, if morality and principle are “gray”, then who in their mind has ever been wrong? It would seem that the only people they view as absolutely amiss are those who confront the establishment. Those that question the system they are so addicted to.

What they fail to understand is that their “opinions” were never theirs to hold. What they believe has merely been conditioned into them. They are willing to embrace the system no matter how unjust, because their entire identity is predicated on its continued existence. We do not admonish people necessarily because they are unaware (all of us were unaware at one time or another), but we do admonish them for denying the blatant facts in order to avoid admitting that they are wrong, and that they have perhaps been duped by the establishment. So, what do we call those people who remain willfully ignorant (or comfortably oblivious) in the face of the facts and follow along with the herd (the mainstream) to the detriment of the truth?

We call them sheeple…

The term “sheeple” has quickly become a word that defines an era. It is not just a tool for ridicule, though it does indeed seem to hurt the feelings of the ignorant and unaware, which to my mind, is a good thing (If they can feel shame over their factual inadequacies, then perhaps one day they can be redeemed). No, there is much more going on here… 

When one is surrounded by blatant absurdity and total loss; loss of freedom, loss of compassion, loss of humanity, that person needs a way to describe the horror. A way to shed light on the dark insanity of it. A way to remove the barriers of confusion and build a clear path to reason. He needs to quantify the threat, so that he can move beyond it, and towards understanding. 

In our modern age, we are absolutely stricken with an epidemic of willful idiocy that bears no rational excuse. A century ago, such behavior in a culture could have been chocked up to a bottleneck in the flow of concrete information. But today, mankind has a veritable buffet of data at his fingertips at any given moment. The fact of a thing, the truth of a thing, can be arrived at with a mere modicum of effort and a remedial passion for learning. We can plead “lack of access” no longer. The only obstacle left is us…

Yes, our government and our society have become corrupt to the core. Yes, the traditional sources of information in the mainstream media are utterly useless and dishonest. Yes, our public educational system is completely federalized, and our schools have been warped into lemming factories where young minds are bled dry of all creative power and individuality. Yes, the system we are born into is designed to make us stupid. However, the establishment has not yet been able to extinguish our ability to walk away. We ALL have a choice: to be taught by others, or, to learn for ourselves.

At the end of the day, sheeple are sheeple not because they have to be, but because they want to be…

It is the greatest and most exploitable weakness of man; our willingness to sacrifice anything in order to avoid admitting we know nothing. This is the philosophical slum of the common “sheeple”. It is pathetic, and it is ugly, and it is a rampant plague upon the world in the year of 2013. 

The time is coming, very soon I believe, when the sub-populous of sheeple will be used as cannon fodder to institute change in America on an unprecedented scale. It has happened many times throughout history. The establishment, seeking unlimited power, brandishes the dimmer subsections of the citizenry like a political Louisville Slugger, swinging them about wildly in an attempt to smash the ideological enemies of the state. Often, the sheeple are oblivious to the fact that they are being used as a weapon against liberty, and against truth. They only know that they must participate to “survive”, even if that survival ends up being a hollow and meaningless life.

Now more than ever it is important for the Liberty Movement to understand and identify who these people are, and what makes them tick. Time grows short, and it is easy for us to become mired in the haze of a glassy-eyed herd. Sheeple can be saved from themselves, but only if they can be made to recognize these particular behaviors as part and parcel of their own folly… 

Institutionalized Laziness

Some sheeple are not ignorant because they are unintelligent. Rather, they are ignorant because they refuse to expend any energy in discovering the facts of their world. They have become used to the idea of being “taught”, rather than going out to learn for themselves. It is easier to be told what to think than it is to develop one’s own world view. Sheeple often state that they “just want to be left alone”, and “don’t want to think about the troubles of the world”, yet nearly all of them at the same time want to feel as though they have an effect on the future. They want the benefits of a sound and balanced society but don’t want to put in the work to make such a society possible. They want “other people” to make the system work, and “other people” are certainly willing to take advantage of sheeple inaction. Tyranny cannot exist unless people willingly hand over their personal responsibilities to the system. Sheeple make oligarchy and dictatorship possible.

Arrogance Without Merit

I have met many people in my life that are not fully aware of how their world works or why terrible things happen to them. This by itself is not necessarily bad. If one is able to accept that he needs to learn more, then he has far surpassed most of society in the strength of his character. Unfortunately, sheeple do not share this attitude. They not only lack remedial knowledge on most issues, they are also unwilling to admit it, and, even viciously attack those who DO have substantial information. 

Is this due to an inferiority complex? Possibly. They are so invested in the mainstream world view as presented by media entities and government that they take it as gospel. They live the mainstream ideal, but, secretly, they harbor doubts. They know that they do not have the capacity to defend the system if confronted by an intelligent and well-versed opponent, and so, they develop a demeanor of arrogance and contempt for those who question it. This uppity manner is a defense mechanism meant to hide the weakness of their arguments. Combined with Ad hominem attacks, distraction, and physical threats, sheeple try to ward off critics so they do not have to engage in a legitimate debate they know they will lose.

Always Worried What The “Majority” Thinks

Sheeple are steeped in the realm of the mainstream. So much so that they have become nothing but a cog in the machine of the collective mind (or hive mind). Their entire existence is predicated on blind faith in the system. If the system is proven to be flawed, then THEY are proven to be flawed by extension. They will ignore all reason and defend the system wildly, as if trapped by some cult, because their fragile identity is dependent upon the continued prosperity of the establishment.     

Sheeple are in most cases motivated by nothing but fear. In their early years they likely either caved to the force of peer pressure and learned to diminish their personal pain by constantly conforming to the majority view. Or, they sought inclusion in the majority very early on and became addicted to the power that the collective is able to wield over others. In either case, they never actually questioned whether or not the “majority” was right in its behavior. Instead, they decided at some point in their life that the majority is ALWAYS right simply because it is the majority. 

Never Questions The Professional Class

Sheeple are easily impressed by anyone with a nice suit, uniform, lab coat, or an embossed diploma or title. They see and revere the costume, regardless of the man inside it. For sheeple, titles and positions of arbitrary authority make the opinions of a man more than opinion; his opinions suddenly become law.

While a Liberty Movement activist looks for the legitimacy within the individual professional, the sheeple places all faith within the institution that professional represents. His personal character is of no consequence to them, and the idea that he may have no clue what he is talking about does not occur to them. 

Obsession With The State

Because the average sheeple hasn’t the slightest inkling of how to be independent or self sufficient, they attach their survival to the success of the state. They see the word of the state as sacrosanct, and have no concept of government by the people. They will sing the praises of democratic elections and the will of the public in general participation, but, when the state goes against that will and does what it pleases, they will seek to rationalize this criminality. 

For them, government as a construct might be fallible (or not), but this fallibility does not change the finality of state authority. The government is not to be interfered with and certainly not to be opposed. To stand against the state is to stand against law, and the law, in their minds, is god. Questions of morality are irrelevant. They have become so far detached from their conscience that there is nothing left but a pitch black void, waiting to be filled with the demands of oligarchy. 

When confronted by men who are willing to fight and die to interfere with the abuse of state authority, they respond with shock and revulsion. How could anyone possibly stand against the will of the mainstream and its government champions? How dare they defy the establishment!

Blind Commitment To The False Left/Right Paradigm

When confronted, sheeple almost always move immediately to meaningless party labels. They will attack you as a “Democrat”. They will attack you as a “Republican”. But their presumptions of what makes a Democrat or a Republican are entirely skewed and inaccurate. This is, of course, not really a problem for them.

They will not acknowledge the vast similarities of corruption between both major parties because this does not serve their interests. They do not WANT to know what Liberalism is versus Neo-Liberalism. They do not WANT to know what true Conservatism is versus Neo-Conservatism. They only want an easy way to dismiss you and the information you present without having to think. The false left/right paradigm makes this possible.

Predictable Responses

Sheeple are highly predictable two-dimensional creatures. When confronted with their own failings, they will follow a pre-programmed list of responses meant to divert and confuse discussion.

They will claim that “everyone thinks they are smarter than everyone else”, and that really, the “truth is relative”. History does not support this twisted view, however. There are always moments in which some people are morally and intellectually correct, while many others are dangerously misguided. Some people make decisions that lead to chaos and destruction while others make decisions that lead to prosperity and creation. The truth, the cold hard truth, is NOT relative. It is unyielding, it is uncompromising, and it is final. To be successful as human beings requires us to be on the right side of truth more often than we are not. To assume that the truth is “malleable” to our particular desires of the moment is to always be on the wrong side.

Sheeple rely primarily on character assassination and belligerent disregard for logic in order to derail debate. They do not attack your position so much as they attack you personally. They scoff, they giggle, they taunt like children, but when it’s all over they usually say very little of any substance. 

Finally, they will use the weapon of majority opinion as a get out of jail free card, and in most cases this is not a ploy. They really do believe that if the larger percentage of the public accepts a conviction, then that conviction automatically becomes fact. Their goal, therefore, is to constantly ride the wave of majority opinion so that they will always be in a position of “righteousness”. Of course, this way of thinking has in the past led to some of the worst atrocities in recent memory. The collective mind has no concern for individual freedom, including the freedom to live in peace. Physical and psychological violence in the name of conformity is very common in such cultures. 

Sheeple are puppets in the game of political reconstruction, and their job is to cheerlead the establishment and to drown out all honest voices.  They are generally remorseless as long as they never have to face tangible consequences for their blind support of the system. They seek to strengthen the bars of the prison because the outside world of free thought and expression intimidates and paralyzes them. In an environment where survival is dependent on individual merit and principle, sheeple hold no currency. No capital. This might explain their overt hatred of individualists. For when we in the Liberty Movement seek to unchain and decentralize the world, we indirectly cut the umbilical cord between them and the nanny state. They see our fight for freedom as a threat to their ease of existence, and their very lives. Sadly, their “comfort” is derived entirely from our enslavement.

Argentine Foreign Minister Hector Timerman has said that there is no such thing as Falkland islanders, but they are British citizens living in the disputed territory.

Speaking at a press conference in London on Wednesday, Timerman said “The Falklands islanders do not exist. What exists is British citizens who live in the Islas Malvinas.”

Moreover, he said the United Nations only recognizes two parties in disputes over the Malvinas Islands, Argentine and the UK.

“The United Nations does not recognize a third party in the conflict,” Timerman said.

The Argentinean Foreign Minister refused to attend a London meeting to discuss the Malvinas as his British counterpart William Hague admitted previously that the Falkland government representatives will also be present.

Argentina has repeatedly announced that the islander’s vote does not count as they believe the Royal Navy has expelled the Argentineans who originally lived on the territory and has replaced them with British settlers.

Britain illegally occupied the Malvinas Islands in 1833 and has since refused to leave the territory.

MOS/MOL/HE

People without health insurance receive dental care on the first day of the fourth annual free health clinic at the Los Angeles Sports Arena in downtown Los Angeles September 27, 2012.(AFP Photo / Robyn Beck)

Most of US President Barack Obama’s hallmark health care reform law will go into place next year, but a new bipartisan review suggests it will be a slow start for the program.

In an analysis released this week, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) writes that last-minute tax changes enacted to avoid the looming fiscal cliff dilemma will largely impact who is covered and how they will be insured under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the president’s highly touted bill that has been renamed ‘Obamacare’ by its critics.

According to the CBO, maneuvers made last month to avoid a financial meltdown are likely to have made significant changes to how the president’s health care bill will work. Perhaps most significant, tax cut revisions made last month could move as many as 7 million Americans out of their job-based insurance coverage and leave them to either remain uninsured or attempt to navigate a system still ripe with kinks.

Tax cuts that were went into effect just this year alter the incentives for employers who offer health insurance, the Washington Times reports, creating a “less attractive” model that is likely to lead to fewer companies extending health care to employees.

“Instead, they’ll choose to pay a penalty to the government, totaling $13 billion in higher fees over the next decade,” Stephen Dinan writes for the Times.

Previous estimates had suggested that only around 4 million Americans would be displaced of their insurance through Obamacare.

It won’t end with just more workers being driven out of insurance plans than expected, though. According to the CBO’s analysis, not only will more companies be likely to stop extending insurance coverage to workers, but also the number of already uninsured persons who will be able to receive assistance is expected to dwindle. But while some reviews of the CBO’s findings single out the fact that millions of more Americans will become uninsured than last thought as the biggest take away from the report, others say it’s just the tip of the iceberg: additionally, those seeking coverage are expected to have a harder time securing health care thanks to a series of snafus that will complicate matters for the uninsured.

“[T]he report suggests that the new health insurance marketplaces set to launch later this year are unlikely to be completely ready in time,” Margot Sanger-Katz writes for the National Journal.

The marketplace, explains that report, “will be the place where individuals, families and small businesses can shop for insurance using tax credits.” If the marketplace isn’t ready to roll out in time, though, millions of Americans without health care will be left with little opportunity at first to purchase coverage. That, of course, on top of the prediction that fewer employers will offer coverage and millions of additional employees will be told to find insurance on their own. The CBO predicts that instead of 32 million to 34 million new people getting insurance by 2017, only around 27 million people will be covered by that point in time.

“They view the odds of success as diminishing sharply,” Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a former CBO director, adds to the National Journal.

Fox News Drops Bad Election Predictor Dick Morris

Email   Print   Share

Posted on Feb 6, 2013

Screenshot

Dick Morris’ forecasts failed to come true.

Fox News, perhaps finally aware that Dick Morris is no Nate Silver, has reportedly revoked the Republican cheerleader’s conservative pollster’s right to spew nonsense on its airwaves. Morris’ contract expired, and the right-wing news channel is reportedly not renewing it.

“No single human made as many wrong, botched, bogus, and stupid predictions about the 2012 election as Dick Morris,” Dave Weigel writes at Slate. “Making fun of them, by campaign’s end, hardly seemed fair.”

It appears that assuring viewers that Mitt Romney would most certainly, definitely, absolutely win the last presidential election–among the handful of sham predictions that earned him Politico’s title of “The Worst Pundit of 2012”–had consequences after all.

More from Weigel:

But let’s kick Dick Morris while he’s down. He wasn’t merely an inaccurate pundit. He was a con artist. He used his Fox News hits and Hill columns (he still has the columns!) to pitch candidates that he would concurrently schlep to people who signed up on his mailing list. Hey, did you listen to me on TV and hear about my web site? Great! Donate to the Super PAC for America, which will plow money back into list-building and completely fail to elect any of these candidates.

Fox News elevated Morris from a pundit to a Republican activist, a speaker at Tea Party rallies and Republican events. Eleven months ago–ie, with plenty of time to go before the election–Morris spoke at a Lake County, Florida GOP meeting and tried to auction off a visit to the Fox News studios. Fox News suspended him, briefly, but the scandal should have been even more embarrassing than that. Morris was presenting his employer not as a news organization, but as a helpful part of the struggle. At the same time he was undermining the news organization’s utility to conservatives, by using it as a forum to profitably, baselessly promise that everything was gonna work out.

Read more

–Posted by Tracy Bloom.

More Below the Ad

New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus.

The protests of hundreds of steelworkers have broken out into scuffles with the police outside the European Parliament (EP) in France’s eastern city Strasbourg.

On Wednesday, workers of the world’s largest steelmaker, ArcelorMittal, came from factories across Europe to demonstrate against the company’s job cuts and restructuring plans.

The workers who were throwing buckets and breaking glass on the roadside, faced tear gas and batons flung from squads of riot police dressed in full protective armor.

Management of ArcelorMittal in January announced the planned closures of plants in Europe, leading to thousands of job cuts across the continent.

The angry protesters flocked in from plants in neighboring countries Luxembourg and Belgium as well as from Lorraine’s northeastern commune of Florange in France.

The protest comes on the day the Luxembourg-based company said global steel consumption would top last year’s two percent with a rise to three percent in 2013.

The French Democratic Confederation of Labor (CFDT) union backed the rally.

CFDT union member Edouard Martin said the company “has shutdown around ten factories in Europe,” allowing the steelmaker to slash “nearly 60,000 jobs.”

The company says the decision was made due to the weak European demand for steel in the wake of the eurozone debt-crisis.

The workers call on Members of EP to protect them and accuse ArcelorMittal of targeting European employees saying, “they want Europe to collapse.”

ArcelorMittal has promised there will be no forced layoffs in France after the French government threatened to nationalize the Florange plant.

The steel giant posted over 200 million euros in losses in the first three quarters of 2012 and has forecasted major setbacks in the market this year.

GVN/JR

LONDON (Reuters) – Tesco said on Wednesday it had pulled its own-brand frozen spaghetti bolognese from its stores as a precaution after the manufacturer Findus withdrew a beef product on the advice of its supplier.

The product withdrawals follow revelations that beef products sold at some of Britain’s major supermarkets and chain Burger King contained horsemeat. This has prompted investigations into suppliers.

Findus removed its beef lasagne on the advice of its supplier, which also produces Tesco’s Everyday Value spaghetti bolognese. It did not name the supplier, which Tesco said was France’s Comigel.

“Following the withdrawal of Findus beef lasagne, which is produced by Comigel, we have decided to withdraw our frozen Everyday Value Spaghetti Bolognese, which is produced at the same site, as a precautionary measure,” a Tesco spokesman said.

“There is no evidence that our product has been contaminated and the meat used in the Findus product is not used in our product,” he said. “However, we have decided to withdraw the product pending the results of our own tests.”

Findus said it had removed its beef lasagne after the supplier said it had a labelling issue with the item.

Food retailer Aldi also said it had withdrawn two frozen beef products that were also supplied by Comigel from its stores after it was told that the products did not “conform to specification.”

Last week, Tesco, the Co-operative group and Aldi fired Silvercrest Foods, a supplier owned by Ireland’s most powerful beef baron, for selling them burgers shown to contain horsemeat.

(Reporting by Brenda Goh. Editing by Jane Merriman)

WASHINGTON – February 6 – The Center for American Progress today released “Speed Trap: Big Oil Profits from High Gasoline Prices,” which shows that in 2012 BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, and Shell made a combined $118 billion in profits–and used billions of these dollars to buy back their own stock and lobby Congress–while collecting on special tax breaks and producing less oil. Meanwhile, American households spend nearly 4 percent of their pre-tax income for gas.

This column digs deeper into the big five’s latest earnings–including how they spent them–and explains why companies this profitable should not be receiving billions of dollars in special tax breaks–especially while conservatives plan severe cuts in vital middle-class programs such as Medicare and those devoted to education and cancer research.

The big five oil companies invested nearly $50 million of their abundant bounty in lobbying Congress in 2012. They spent nearly $8 million on federal campaign contributions, with Republican candidates receiving $4 for every $1 Democrats received. A major goal of these political efforts was to retain Big Oil’s special tax breaks, which are worth $2.4 billion annually, according to the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation. Last March Big Oil successfully lobbied against a Senate bill to eliminate the special tax breaks. The bill was defeated by a vote of 51 to 47, with 60 votes needed for passage.

Maintaining the existing special tax breaks for the big five oil companies makes little sense. In essence, the policy allows Big Oil to force Americans to pay them twice: first at the pump through high gasoline prices and then again by robbing the U.S. Treasury of $2.4 billion annually–money that is replaced with tax revenue from the middle class. After posting enormous profits in 2012, elimination of these unnecessary special tax breaks for the five largest oil companies is long overdue.

Read the full column here.

Download full data on Big Oil’s profits and activities in 2012 (.xls)

To speak with Daniel J. Weiss, please contact Christina DiPasquale at 202.481.8181 or cdipasquale@americanprogress.org.

WASHINGTON – February 6 – The Center for American Progress today released “Speed Trap: Big Oil Profits from High Gasoline Prices,” which shows that in 2012 BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, and Shell made a combined $118 billion in profits–and used billions of these dollars to buy back their own stock and lobby Congress–while collecting on special tax breaks and producing less oil. Meanwhile, American households spend nearly 4 percent of their pre-tax income for gas.

This column digs deeper into the big five’s latest earnings–including how they spent them–and explains why companies this profitable should not be receiving billions of dollars in special tax breaks–especially while conservatives plan severe cuts in vital middle-class programs such as Medicare and those devoted to education and cancer research.

The big five oil companies invested nearly $50 million of their abundant bounty in lobbying Congress in 2012. They spent nearly $8 million on federal campaign contributions, with Republican candidates receiving $4 for every $1 Democrats received. A major goal of these political efforts was to retain Big Oil’s special tax breaks, which are worth $2.4 billion annually, according to the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation. Last March Big Oil successfully lobbied against a Senate bill to eliminate the special tax breaks. The bill was defeated by a vote of 51 to 47, with 60 votes needed for passage.

Maintaining the existing special tax breaks for the big five oil companies makes little sense. In essence, the policy allows Big Oil to force Americans to pay them twice: first at the pump through high gasoline prices and then again by robbing the U.S. Treasury of $2.4 billion annually–money that is replaced with tax revenue from the middle class. After posting enormous profits in 2012, elimination of these unnecessary special tax breaks for the five largest oil companies is long overdue.

Read the full column here.

Download full data on Big Oil’s profits and activities in 2012 (.xls)

To speak with Daniel J. Weiss, please contact Christina DiPasquale at 202.481.8181 or cdipasquale@americanprogress.org.

The logo of the Royal Bank of Scotland is seen at an office in London.(Reuters / Neil Hall)

US and UK authorities have fined Royal Bank of Scotland more than $610 mln for participating in a major fraud, after RBS leadership admitted the wrongdoings. The bank was of accusing a key global interest rate.

­“There were serious shortcomings in our systems and controls and also in the integrity of a small group of our employees,” Sir Philip Hampton, RBS Chairman said in a statement.

An investigation into the case uncovered that 21 employees of RBS’s staff were caught up in the rigging of London interbank offered rate, or Libor — the rate at which banks land to each other throughout the world. It provides the basis for trillions of dollars in contracts, including mortgages, bonds and consumer loans.

The UK’s Financial Services Authority issued a fine of around $140 million, while another $470 million were issued by the US regulators and the US Department of Justice. The bank stated it will make the rate-riggers cover the bill and will also cooperate in the probe.

“Libor manipulation is an extreme example of a selfish and self-serving culture that took hold in parts of the banking industry during the financial boom,” RBS Chief Executive, Stephen Hester said in a statement. 

RBS is the third major bank to be caught in a series of international rate-fixing fraud cases since the financial crisis in 2008. Another British bank, Barclays has lost several executives in the Libor scandal, including chief executive, Bob Diamond, and was issued a $453 million fine. In another episode the rate-rigging scandal cost Switzerland’s UBS Bank $1.5 billion.

Meanwhile Japanese banks have also been accused of collectively keeping the Tokyo interbank lending rate, or Tibor, intentionally high to boost profits on domestic products such as mortgages, the Financial Times reports. The accusations come from Hideto Takata, a former derivatives trader in his self-published book, coming out later this month.

Tibor rates are used for deals within Japan and have been much higher compared to yen Libor rates since early 2009. Theoretically, the two should be relatively similar since both are used for borrowings in the same currency.

Explaining how Japanese banks have profited from the spread between Tibor and yen Libor, Mr Takata said: “If Japanese banks need to borrow, they use Libor. If lending, they use Tibor. No other country has a double standard like this,” the Financial Times reported.

WASHINGTON – February 6 – The compromise that EU leaders are set to reach on the European Union’s long term budget this week will put millions of people on the line, Oxfam warned today ahead of the European Council.

Oxfam estimates that the proposed €6.1 billion cuts to EU humanitarian and development aid could be enough to have lifted more than 4.6 million people in the poorest countries out of extreme poverty. The proposed cuts to emergency aid alone would mean the EU is turning a blind eye on the plight of 150 million people affected by disasters or conflicts.

Cuts target aid disproportionately

Oxfam is calling on EU leaders to protect EU aid from the hard bargaining over the next seven-year budget and reverse the proposed cuts that are disproportionately targeting aid, because proposed cuts to other sectors of the budget are marginal in comparison.

The call comes ahead of the meeting of EU Heads of States and Governments on the 7-8 February in Brussels where leaders are expected to strike a deal on a budget of ‘moderation’. Oxfam fears they will use development and humanitarian aid as a bargaining chip to protect other parts of the budget, for their own national interests.

“The proposed downsizing of the EU’s aid budget actually means a frozen budget at current levels, if not a real terms cut. This is a strange signal for the EU to send in its first budget under the Lisbon treaty. At a time when our growing global interdependence is increasingly obvious and additional political and financial commitments are required to promote a sustainable and equitable future for all, this is a breach of faith,” said Natalia Alonso, Head of Oxfam’s EU Office.

Negotiations behind closed doors

“It is grossly unfair to balance the books on the backs of the world’s poor who are being worst hit by financial and economic crises they did not cause. EU leaders should look for smarter options to find their way out of the current crisis, like tackling tax havens.

“When they negotiate behind closed doors this week, EU leaders should think about the human faces behind the budgets they intend to slash. EU aid is not only a sound investment in our common future but also an act of solidarity that delivers lifesaving aid and lifts millions of people out of poverty around the globe. And all this costs less than a weekly cup of coffee for each European citizen.”

WASHINGTON – February 6 – The compromise that EU leaders are set to reach on the European Union’s long term budget this week will put millions of people on the line, Oxfam warned today ahead of the European Council.

Oxfam estimates that the proposed €6.1 billion cuts to EU humanitarian and development aid could be enough to have lifted more than 4.6 million people in the poorest countries out of extreme poverty. The proposed cuts to emergency aid alone would mean the EU is turning a blind eye on the plight of 150 million people affected by disasters or conflicts.

Cuts target aid disproportionately

Oxfam is calling on EU leaders to protect EU aid from the hard bargaining over the next seven-year budget and reverse the proposed cuts that are disproportionately targeting aid, because proposed cuts to other sectors of the budget are marginal in comparison.

The call comes ahead of the meeting of EU Heads of States and Governments on the 7-8 February in Brussels where leaders are expected to strike a deal on a budget of ‘moderation’. Oxfam fears they will use development and humanitarian aid as a bargaining chip to protect other parts of the budget, for their own national interests.

“The proposed downsizing of the EU’s aid budget actually means a frozen budget at current levels, if not a real terms cut. This is a strange signal for the EU to send in its first budget under the Lisbon treaty. At a time when our growing global interdependence is increasingly obvious and additional political and financial commitments are required to promote a sustainable and equitable future for all, this is a breach of faith,” said Natalia Alonso, Head of Oxfam’s EU Office.

Negotiations behind closed doors

“It is grossly unfair to balance the books on the backs of the world’s poor who are being worst hit by financial and economic crises they did not cause. EU leaders should look for smarter options to find their way out of the current crisis, like tackling tax havens.

“When they negotiate behind closed doors this week, EU leaders should think about the human faces behind the budgets they intend to slash. EU aid is not only a sound investment in our common future but also an act of solidarity that delivers lifesaving aid and lifts millions of people out of poverty around the globe. And all this costs less than a weekly cup of coffee for each European citizen.”

WASHINGTON – February 6 – Today U.S. Representatives John Yarmuth (D-KY) and Louise Slaughter (D-NY) introduced the Appalachian Community Health Emergency Act (H.R. 526) in an effort to protect families and people across Appalachia from harmful impacts of an extreme form of coal mining called mountaintop removal mining. In mountaintop removal mining, explosives are used to blast apart mountaintops and extract coal, and the remaining rubble and waste is dumped into the streams and valleys below.

More than 20 recent peer-reviewed scientific studies have revealed shocking correlations between this extreme form of mining and the poor health of the people living closest to it. People in areas closest to mountaintop removal have significantly higher rates of birth defects, major diseases, cancer, and early mortality than people living elsewhere in Appalachia. The Appalachian Community Health Emergency Act would require comprehensive studies on the health impacts of mountaintop removal coal mining on the surrounding communities, and freeze new mountaintop removal permits until those studies are conducted.

“We commend Representatives Yarmuth and Slaughter for standing up for the people living near mountaintop removal mining sites in Appalachia who have been pleading for help, and for leading this effort to protect the lives and health of Appalachian communities,” said Earthjustice Vice President of Policy and Legislation Marty Hayden. “It is time to put public health ahead of King Coal’s greed and pass this common-sense measure. We also applaud our Appalachian partners, the mountain heroes who have been tirelessly advocating for their communities and families in Washington even while suffering the impacts of mountaintop removal back at home in Appalachia.”

“With increasing evidence of health damage for those who live near mountaintop removal mining sites, people living in Appalachia desperately need Representatives Yarmuth and Slaughter’s bill to pass,” said Sierra Club environmental quality director Ed Hopkins. “It’s long past time for Congress to take action to protect Appalachian families. We thank all the sponsors of this bill for working for the well-being of the people at a time when far too many of their colleagues would rather protect powerful corporate special interests.”

Earthjustice is a non-profit public interest law firm dedicated to protecting the magnificent places, natural resources, and wildlife of this earth, and to defending the right of all people to a healthy environment. We bring about far-reaching change by enforcing and strengthening environmental laws on behalf of hundreds of organizations, coalitions and communities.

Finland’s goaltender Atte Engren, left, against Russia’s Yevgeny Kuznetsov in the 2012-13 Euro Hockey Tour’s Oddset Hockey Games rescheduled match.(RIA Novosti / Konstantin Chalabov)

Euro Hockey tour leaders, Russia, needed a penalty shootout to top Finland in the opening game of the Swedish Games on home ice in Saint Petersburg.

­It was all Finland in the opening period, with Juhamatti Aaltonen scoring a brace to give the visitors a 0-2 lead.

The packed St Pete’s Ice Palace sent Russia forward in the second 20 minutes as Anton Belov got a goal back.

The Russians put Finland under even more pressure in the third period, equalizing through Aleksandr Perezhogin in the 45th minute.

And five minutes later the hosts, finally went in front, with Vadim Shipachev capitalizing on a great pass from Aleksandr Radulov, 3-2.  

Zinetula Bilyaletdinov’s charges looked heading for the win, but the Finns came up with a shock equalizer with 36 seconds left on the clock.

Russia were on powerplay when one of the defenders gifted the puck to Aaltonen, who completed his hat-trick, 3-3.

The hosts were the better side in overtime, but Finish keeper, Atte Engren, stood firm in goal.

The game went to shootout, in which luck favored the Russian, with Viktor Tikhonov scoring his team’s winner.

Team Russia remain on top of Euro Tour standings, with 15 points after seven games.

The other three participants of the competition — Finland, Sweden and Czech Republic — are level on 9 points, with the Swedes and Czechs having a game in hand.

Next on the Russian players minds will be the clashes against Sweden on Saturday, followed by the Czech Republic on Sunday.

TOKYO – February 6 – The value of Japan’s energy utilities, which slumped in the aftermath of the Fukushima nuclear disaster, will fall further if the companies continue to ignore major changes in market forces and regulations, a new Greenpeace report warns.

“The Fukushima disaster has broken the back of the traditional energy industry in Japan. The combination of the three main challenges our report highlights, aggravated by shrinking electricity demand and volatile coal, oil and LNG prices can stifle recovery if the utilities don’t quickly adapt their business models,” said Gyorgy Dallos, Greenpeace International energy investments advisor.

Published today, the Greenpeace report notes that the share prices of Japan’s 10 major utilities plummeted after the Fukushima disaster and have not recovered. Fukushima nuclear plant owner TEPCO lead the decline, while the shares of non-nuclear Okinawa Electric Power fell the least.

Despite the victory of the pro-nuclear LDP party at the national election in December, utility share prices were still 22-89% below March 2011 levels on February 1, 2013, significantly underperforming Japan’s benchmark Nikkei 225 Index, which has recovered to above pre-Fukushima levels.

.

.

Holder is Too Big To Jail

As DOJ Head – He’s a Fail

Watch Lanny Breuer

Emerge from his sewer

The air was undoubtedly stale

The Limerick King

.

Anonymous Said to Breach Federal Reserve

Email   Print   Share

Posted on Feb 6, 2013

alexander amatosi (CC BY-ND 2.0)

The Federal Reserve confirmed Wednesday that one of its internal websites was accessed after the hacktivist group Anonymous claimed to have stolen information on more than 4,000 banking executives.

“The Federal Reserve system is aware that information was obtained by exploiting a temporary vulnerability in a website vendor product,” a spokeswoman for the U.S. central bank said.

“Exposure was fixed shortly after discovery and is no longer an issue. This incident did not affect critical operations of the Federal Reserve system,” the spokeswoman added, saying that everyone impacted by the breach had been contacted.

The acknowledgement came after a message posted via the Twitter account OpLastResort, which is linked to Anonymous, said the group hacked the bank Saturday. “The technology news site ZDNet separately reported that Anonymous appeared to have published information said to [contain] the login information, credentials, internet protocol addresses and contact information of more than 4,000 US bankers,” The Guardian reported.

The bank would not say which site was attacked, but information provided to the bankers showed that it was a nonpublic database of contacts for use by banks during a natural disaster.

OpLastResort is a campaign that hackers associated with Anonymous started to protest against the government prosecution of Internet freedom activist Aaron Swartz, who killed himself last month to avoid a possible 31 years in jail for stealing more than 4 million articles from JSTOR, an online scholarly journal distribution and archive service.

–Posted by Alexander Reed Kelly.

The Guardian:

A copy of the message sent by the bank to members of its Emergency Communication System (ECS) and obtained by Reuters warned that mailing address, business phone, mobile phone, business email and fax numbers had been published. “Some registrants also included optional information consisting of home phone and personal email. Despite claims to the contrary, passwords were not compromised,” the bank said.

The website’s purpose is to allow bank executives to update the Fed if their operations have been flooded or otherwise damaged in a storm or other disaster. That helps the bank assess the overall impact of the event on the banking system.

Read more

More Below the Ad

New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus.

Here’s Ed Schultz, raging about this situation last year.

No, it’s not your imagination. The Washington Post far too frequently slants their “news” stories in service of a pro-conservative, pro-corporate, pro-privatization agenda – whether on purpose or through sheer carelessness, it’s hard to say. But this is only the latest example:

The financially struggling U.S. Postal Service plans to stop delivering mail on Saturdays starting Aug. 1, the agency is set to announce Wednesday.

This means that for the first time Americans will receive mail only five days a week, a significant shift for the storied mail agency that has suffered tens of billions of dollars in losses in recent years with the advent of the Internet and e-commerce.

Gee, that sounds right. There couldn’t possibly be anything more to the story! After all, everyone you know uses email, so the internet killed it. I mean, those things you buy from eBay (another thriving internet business) must arrive by magic, right?

USPS plans to continue Saturday delivery of packages, which remain a profitable and growing part of the delivery business. Canceling Saturday mail deliveries will save USPS $2 billion annually, according to congressional and postal officials, who confirmed the news ahead of a formal announcement later Wednesday.

[…] The Postal Service said that it suffered a $15.9 billion net loss for fiscal 2012, which ended Sept. 30. That’s three times the loss recorded a year earlier.

As a former editor, I can tell you for a fact: As a group, reporters are some of the laziest people in the world. So if they get a press release about something like this, it is highly unlikely the reporter will engage his or her brain enough to probe into the reasons behind the story, because (as I said), reporters are lazy. (The pre-written narrative is “the internet killed the post office.”) So the copy editor is supposed to corral the staffer and either get them to fill in those gaps, or do it themselves.

Except that with massive layoffs in the newspaper industry, it is also likely that unqualified, inexperienced staffers are now working the copy desk.

Here’s what the story is missing:

The problem lies elsewhere: the 2006 congressional mandate that the USPS pre-fund future retiree health benefits for the next 75 years, and do so within a decade, an obligation no other public agency or private firm faces. The roughly $5.5 billion annual payments since 2007 – $21 billion total – are the difference between a positive and negative ledger.

Why would the Republican-controlled Congress pass such an absurd requirement? Why, it’s almost as if they were trying to put the Postal Service out of business!

Well, it’s really a twofer. First, they want to break up the federal unions. And second, they want to privatize the post office and give those plum contracts to their good buddies at FedEx and UPS.

But you’re not going to read that in the Washington Post. And to be fair, you probably won’t get that context in the Times, either. That librul media!

WASHINGTON – February 6 – Sixty leading environmental, conservation, development, faith-based, and social justice organizations are congratulating Secretary of State John Kerry for his commitment to fight climate change and urging him to “spur bold and immediate action” to reduce its worsening impacts on American families and communities. 

The groups sent a letter today to Kerry, the former senator newly confirmed as secretary of state, calling on him to push for strong action against climate change and to take three specific steps: to help secure a global agreement to deal with the climate crisis; to reject any new or expanded infrastructure for tar sands oil, starting with the Keystone XL pipeline; and to secure funding for international climate action, particularly in developing countries and the most vulnerable communities.

“American leadership is essential to heading off deeper climate disruption,” said Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) International Program Director Susan Casey-Lefkowitz. “Secretary Kerry has an opportunity to supercharge his already strong climate record by rejecting dirty fuels, starting with the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline, which would dramatically boost carbon pollution and worsen our climate.”

The State department will soon release an environmental review of the controversial Keystone XL tar sands pipeline. An earlier review assumed that even if Keystone XL were not built, other pipelines would enable tar sands expansion to occur. However, mounting evidence now shows that the tar sands industry’s plan to triple production by 2030 will not be possible without the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline.

“It must be a relief for John Kerry to leave the talk shop of the US Senate and take a post where his convictions will translate directly into policy,” said Bill McKibben, founder of350.org. “It’s hard to imagine that one of his first stands won’t be to nix the Keystone pipeline, a 1,700-mile fuse to one of the planet’s largest carbon bombs.”

On February 17, President’s Day, more than 20,000 Americans will gather in Washington, D.C., for a “Forward on Climate” rally, calling for the Obama Administration to take strong action on climate change, leading with rejecting the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline and reducing carbon pollution from the nation’s power plants–the largest source of carbon pollution today.

If approved, the Keystone XL pipeline would boost carbon pollution tomorrow by triggering a boom of growth in the tar sands industry in Canada, and greatly increasing greenhousegas emissions.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has estimated that this tar sands pipeline will boost annual U.S. carbon pollution emissions by up to 27.6 million metric tons — the impact of adding nearly 6 million cars on the road.

However, new research by Oil Change International (OCI) shows that the government’s estimates of the carbon emissions associated with Keystone XL underestimates the full impact of tar sands because a barrel of tar sands produces significantly more petroleum coke than conventional crude, which is more carbon-intensive than coal. It’s also being sold today as a cheaper substitute to it both in the U.S. and internationally. Here is the link to the research: http://priceofoil.org/2013/01/17/petroleum-coke-the-coal-hiding-in-the-tar-sands/

OCI’s research shows that Keystone XL will produce enough petcoke to fuel 5 U.S. coal plants. The emissions from this petcoke have not yet been included in climate-impact analysis of the pipeline or the tar sands industry and OCI shows that it will raise total emissions by at least 13 percent.

In addition to addressing the pipeline, Kerry has an opportunity to help lead international work to reduce climate change. Countries have agreed to negotiate a new international agreement by 2015 that will include commitments to reduce pollution by key countries. The United States can play an important role shaping that agreement and putting the world on course to reduce the threat of climate change. At the same time, the United States has joined a large number of countries seeking to mobilize significant investments in developing countries that will promote clean energy deployment, adaptation, and deforestation reductions.

350 is the red line for human beings, the most important number on the planet. The most recent science tells us that unless we can reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to 350 parts per million, we will cause huge and irreversible damage to the earth. But solutions exist. All around the world, a movement is building to take on the climate crisis, to get humanity out of the danger zone and below 350. This movement is massive, it is diverse, and it is visionary. We are activists, scholars, and scientists. We are leaders in our businesses, our churches, our governments, and our schools. We are clean energy advocates, forward-thinking politicians, and fearless revolutionaries. And we are united around the world, driven to make our planet livable for all who come after us.

British Prime Minister and Tory leader David Cameron has weakened his position within his party by pushing through gay marriage bill, Conservatives MPs warned.

UK lawmakers approved same sex marriage bill in the House of Commons last night, tearing the Conservative party in half with 136 Tory MPs voting against the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill, compared with just 127 backing it, and 35 abstaining.

British MPs warned that Cameron’s defending gay marriage despite oppositions from most of his Tory Party members could jeopardize his position as the party’s leader.

“I think it weakens his position, and given the task that he’s got on his hands at the moment… that’s not good news,” said Sir Roger Gale, a Conservative MP who opposed the proposed legislation.

“Cameron is not under immediate threat but there is no leadership and no narrative. Kids are running Downing Street,” the quoted an anonymous backbencher as a saying.

Most Conservatives hope they could water down the legislation at later stages the bill has to pass through committee in the Commons and a vote in the House of Lords.

MOS/MOL/HE

February 5, 2013

In part 2 of an interview with the Voice of Russia, Agneta Norberg, Vice Chair of the Swedish Peace Council, Member of Steering Committee of the International Peace Bureau and a member of the board of directors of Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space discusses the facts surrounding Sweden’s non-neutrality and the country’ s involvement in NATO and Western military expansion. Ms. Norberg gives her views on drones which she calls “murder machines” and the development and testing of drones in Sweden, including a new drone being developed in a joint European project.

Part 1 of the interview:

http://english. ruvr.ru/2013_ 01_30/Militariza tion-of-the- Arctic-We- have-to-rethink- how-war-is- fought-Nordberg/

Robles: How does Sweden officially explain that they allow these installations? And do you think all these maneuvers are designed to intimidate Russia or to try to exercise sovereignty on the Arctic?

Norberg: Well, when we drift to the Arctic, I think there are two things going on here. When they are interviewed, those who are in charge of these maneuvers, they always answer that this is for the Arctic, they openly express this — these maneuvers are for the Arctic and the resources which will be available when the ice is melting.

But the NATO maneuvers are so seldom covered in the news, in media, specifically not here in the south — I live in Stockholm; up in the north, in the local newspapers they are covered rather extensively. And they used to send quotes from the newspapers for me, otherwise I wouldn’t have known of it, because the media don’t cover it in the south, in Stockholm, where most of the people live.

So, it is sort of secretly hidden from the public to understand what is really going on. But when they are asked, they say: this is for the Arctic.

And also one thing I think you’ve mentioned is that Sweden is neutral. Forget that! We are not neutral! We have for long ago abolished neutrality. We are not non-aligned; we are nothing, because we are openly conducting war games with NATO.

But there is one difficulty, because the people in Sweden and in Finland are against. It is only about 19% of the Swedish population that accept NATO; the others don’t. So, they have that problem here.

But I can see the lust, how they try to form an enemy out of Russia, and you should understand this: how Russia now is demonized, again. And I’m so old, so I remember how they were demonizing the former Soviet Union, always, and almost on a daily basis. And now we are there again.

So, we have here in one of the latest (Names Swedish newspaper in Swedish) a picture of Putin and Russia is arming, here, and how the Russian bear now starts showing its muscles. So, at the same time, as you have these military maneuvers and military flexing of muscles, you seldom get information to the public here.

I was speaking in Norway last summer and they didn’t know about these things. I’m very often on speaking tours in the north. I was in Finland last autumn and they didn’t know about these military maneuvers either. They were really shocked when I told them.

So, here we are again, from the Cold War days, gradually Russia is the threat. And when I talk to Russian people they are not aware of this. It is like when I was travelling in the former Soviet Union, they were not aware of how you were depicted and described as a big, big threat. And I think we are there again, hiding what NATO is doing in our country and in the north, and describing the threat of Russia coming. There we are again.

Robles: Would you say it is worse than it was in the Soviet times?

Norberg: It is about the same now. We are at square one, we are back in the Cold War sentiment in a way. But it is even worse now because during the Cold War, at least Sweden had a posture that we are non-aligned and neutral. Not anymore! We have left our neutrality, we have left our non-aligned posture.

Not openly, the neutrality we have left openly, but not the non-aligned posture. I can give you an example: they are now training in North America (for) war in Nevada.

They were training together with the US in 2006 in Alaska. They went with 6 or 7 warplanes to Alaska and made a huge maneuver outside North Korea together with the US.

So, we are actively joining in different parts of the world. Of course we are in Afghanistan now.

And so I think you have to start to understand that Sweden has quite another position now and we are a NATO country. It is only a document that is left to be done. That’s the situation now in Sweden.

Robles: Can you tell us a little bit about what you think the US and NATO’s plans are for the Arctic?

Norberg: I can see that they are making a lot of war games together up in the north.

And I also know that the US and Canada are the same; I mean they are in the same organization. Canada has lost much of what they had before. I have a map in front of me where I have all the installations, and the North American-Canada Command had merged together.

So, up in the north you have a very strong militarization from Canada’s point of view and they are building up their military as never before.

And one thing that I think is important to mention is the drones. Canada is planning for a huge drone fleet, and so is Sweden. Now we have one of the world’s biggest drones which is ready in the North European Airspace Test Range which is one of the biggest in Europe for training drones.

Robles: What’s your opinion on drones?

Norberg: They should be banished, abolished or banned because they are terrible murder…we call them “murder machines”. They are conducted from a Nevada test site. They sit there in front of computers and kill people in Yemen, in Pakistan and many places.

We have a huge training area, big as Macedonia, called the North European Airspace Test Range in the northern part of Sweden where they train these drones. So, we are in this arms buildup, it’s rather dangerous I think.

The newest one is Neuron. It is a cooperation between Sweden, France, Italy, Germany, Switzerland on one of the world’s biggest drones, Neuron. That is a prototype that is now ready this year.

Robles: What is your opinion on the legality of drones because the users face no risk?

Norberg: They are totally illegal. You sit in a bunker, you don’t see anything, you just sit in front of a screen and see the target. We call them “murder machines” because these are murders. They say they kill Al-Qaeda?

Agneta Norberg is the Vice Chair of the Swedish Peace Council, a member of the Steering Committee in International Peace Bureau and on the board of directors of the Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space.

Denver Police Department.(AFP Photo / Doug Pensinger)

Two young children and one woman have been killed in an apparent shooting at a house in the US state of Colorado. Another child was critically wounded. All of the children were under the age of ten.

­Denver’s WGRZ news has reported that the injured child has been taken to the hospital and is undergoing surgery.

The bodies were found inside a house in the northern section of Denver around 6:55am local time.

The shooting appears to have been an isolated incident and there’s no indication that a shooter is on the loose, police Major Crimes Cmdr. Ron Saunier told AP.

“Is there a mass killer or someone running around? At this time we don’t believe so,” he said.

The area has been blocked off by police as they investigate the situation.

The shooting comes in the midst of a heated national debate on gun control following the December Sandy Hook massacre which killed 20 young children and six adults in Newtown, Connecticut.

Both the recent increase in interest rates and renewed questions about the duration of QE3, sparked by the release of the December FOMC minutes, have raised concerns about a ‘Great Rotation’ out of credit and into stocks. Barclays notes that the story goes something like this: negative total returns in fixed income and increasing equity prices will drive investors to sell the fixed income assets they have accumulated over the past several years and buy stocks. This “Great Rotation” will force investment grade corporate spreads wider. However, in nearly 100 years of data, Barclays finds no evidence of a period when rates rose, spreads widened, and equity returns were positive.

Risky assets are generally correlated, and when interest rates increase, this is usually because of an improving fundamental backdrop that drives risky asset prices higher. Sharp increases in interest rates have happened many times, including several instances post-crisis. In almost all of these periods, credit spreads tightened, as the moves were driven by improving macroeconomic fundamentals.

The few times that higher rates were accompanied by wider spreads happened in the 1970s and early 1980s, when inflation was accelerating. In each of these periods, equity prices fell sharply. As we have been warning, credit spread deterioration has tended to front-run equity weakness (with some false positives) but never with the divergence remaining consistent as a ‘rotation’ would suggest.

The only outflows associated with higher rates have been small, short-lived, and offset by buying from other large holders, such as insurance companies, which receive stronger inflows when rates are high as their product pricing improves.

Via Barclays,

Seemingly predicated on the FOMC Minutes, rates began to rise (and underperform stocks):

• Several market participants and commentators interpreted the FOMC minutes as indicating a shortening of the duration of QE programs
• The Summary of Economic Projections revealed that those participants who had factored a continuation of asset purchases into their projections “were approximately equally divided” between those who expected a completion of purchases around the middle of 2013 and those who judged that purchases would be required to persist for longer
• Although we view the rise in rates following the release of the minutes as overdone, the treasury selloff has stoked concerns about the effect of rising rates on the US credit market

However, looking back at around 20 years of Barclays data, we find that spreads have never widened as rates rose

This relationship also generally holds over a longer time span. The only counterexamples occurred during periods of high inflation where equities sold off as well

Spreads Widen During Inflationary Risk-Offs

The 1970s-early 1980s was the only period in the past 90 years when credit spreads widened during interest rate increases

During that time, the U.S. economy went through several recessions, and inflation was at record highs

• Credit spreads spiked during the 1974-75 recession and the 1980-82 recessions, periods that corresponded with sharp increases in interest rates
• However, during each of those periods, equities sold off and underperformed credit dramatically, indicating that the credit sell-offs were reflective of generic risk-off sentiment and not a result of a rotation into equities and out of credit

Furthermore, any mutual fund outflows would likely be balanced by increased demand from insurance and pension funds

With the Fed buying, we find it hard to see how flows into credit could reverse course. And even when the Fed eventually stops, the continuing pattern of flows into credit during the current rising rate environment seem to make a “Great Rotation” unlikely

as outflows have tended to be short in duration and small in magnitude…

The historical analysis provides no example of a large-scale reallocation away from credit during periods of rising rates.

Source: Barclays

Frozen spaghetti bolognese and lasagne meals have been pulled from the shelves of two supermarket chains as fears over contaminated meat products spread.

Tesco and Aldi revealed they have withdrawn a range of ready meals produced by French food supplier Comigel as “a precautionary measure”.

The move follows concern over contamination of products with horsemeat.

Tesco has pulled its frozen Everyday Value Spaghetti Bolognese, while Aldi withdrew two products called Today’s Special Frozen Spaghetti Bolognese and Today’s Special Frozen Beef Lasagne.

A Tesco spokesman said it took the step after Findus beef lasagne was removed from sale.

“Following the withdrawal of Findus beef lasagne, which is produced by Comigel, we have decided to withdraw our frozen Everyday Value Spaghetti Bolognese, which is produced at the same site, as a precautionary measure,” the spokesman said.

“There is no evidence that our product has been contaminated and the meat used in the Findus product is not used in our product.

“However, we have decided to withdraw the product pending the results of our own tests.”

Findus UK said it withdrew its 320g, 360g and 500g lasagne meals as a precautionary measure after a labelling issue with its supplier was uncovered. The company insisted it was not a food safety issue.

“Deserving consumers’ trust is a key priority for us,” said a Findus UK spokesman. “As part of that commitment, we have been constantly reviewing our supply chain.”

Aldi has withdrawn two frozen products but would not confirm if the dishes may have been contaminated or mislabelled.

“Following an alert from our French supplier, Comigel, Aldi immediately withdrew its Today’s Special Frozen Beef Lasagne and Today’s Special Frozen Spaghetti Bolognese from stores as a precautionary measure,” it said.

“Comigel has flagged concerns that the products do not conform to specification. They have been withdrawn immediately so that Aldi can conduct its own investigations into the factory concerned.

“These investigations are continuing. We will continue to maintain active scrutiny across our supply lines and will always put the quality of our products and safety of our customers first.”

The latest development comes a day after Asda withdrew products supplied by a Northern Ireland company that was storing meat found to contain a high proportion of horse DNA.

Newry-based Freeza Meats had been storing the consignment of meat, which was labelled as beef, on behalf of a supplier in the Irish Republic – Co Monaghan-based meat trader McAdam Foods. Two tested samples were found to contain 80% horsemeat.

McAdam Foods has insisted it had no knowledge that any of its meat contained horse DNA. It claimed the contaminated produce originated in Poland.

The meat had not entered the food chain and was not destined for Asda stores.

Last month, Tesco and a number of other supermarkets removed certain brands of beef burgers from its shelves after they were found to contain horsemeat.

Experts from Britain’s Food Standards Agency (FSA) told the Commons Environment Committee they could not be sure if contaminated burgers were being sold for more than a year.

At least 10 million burgers were put into storage to be dumped following the debacle.

Image from facebook.com/ImaginationAtMaryBlair

A 7-year-old Colorado boy has been suspended for pretending to throw an imaginary grenade, even though the child claims he was just trying to save the world from evil.

Second grader Alex Evans was spending last Friday’s recess on the school playground when he threw a pretend grenade at an imaginary box that he said had something evil inside it. The boy imagined saving the earth this way, by killing the “evil forces” that the imaginary box contained. When the made-up grenade detonated inside the box, Evans pretended that it exploded.

But even though the boy was just letting his imagination run wild, administrators at the Mary Blair Elementary School in Loveland, Colo., suspended him for breaking a school rule: “No weapons, real or play.”

Even the school principal seemed to understand the fictitious nature of the boy’s imagination — indicating that there is nothing more serious to the story — he proceeded to send the boy home.

“He threw the pretend grenade at an imaginary box that had something evil inside,” read the principal’s account of the story.

“I pretended the box, there’s something shaking in it, and I go pshhh,” the boy told Fox 31 Denver.

When the boy’s mother, Mandie Watkins, received the call about her son’s suspension, she disagreed with the administration’s actions and both her and her son expressed confusion about the ordeal.

“He is very confused. I’m confused as well, so it makes it hard for me to enforce these rules when I don’t even understand them,” she said.

“Honestly I don’t think the rule is very realistic for kids this age,” she added, explaining that punishing kids for trying to save the world will just cause further bewilderment.

Watkins said her son will stay home from school until the disagreement can be worked out. She is meeting with administrators on Wednesday to argue for the removal of the suspension, as well as a revision of the rule. The school district’s policy does not prohibit students from exercising their imaginations to use pretend-weapons, but individual schools are permitted to add their own rules to the student code of conduct. But psychologists argue that the rule goes against the healthy, imaginative nature that is common for a young boy.

“Since the beginning of recorded time, little boys have enjoyed games in which they project their power into the world, and that means playing with weapons,” Michael Thompson, coauthor of the book “Raising Cane: Protecting the Emotional Life of Boys”, told the San Francisco Chronicle. “I have no doubt that ‘cave’ boys pointed sticks at each other in threatening ways, or chucked rocks at one another, or imitated the spear-throwing actions of their fathers.”

But this isn’t the first time an Elementary School child was punished for pretending to use an imaginary weapon. A number of incidents have occurred since the Newtown massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School left 26 people dead, 20 of which were children. As schools continue to fear for the safety of their own children and mourn the lives that were lost, some administrators’ tolerance for imaginary weapons has been reduced.

In December, a 6-year-old Maryland boy was suspended for forming a gun with his hands, pointing it at a student and saying ‘pow’. In January, a 5-year-old Pennsylvania-based Kindergarten student was suspended for 10 days for telling another girl that she would use her pink toy gun to shoot her. The gun blows soapy bubbles, but administrators claim the 5-year-old presented a “terrorist threat”.

“This little girl is the least terroristic person in Pennsylvania,” said attorney Robin Ficker, who was hired by the family to fight the suspension.

But new cases continue to arise and the 7-year-old Colorado student is the latest to face suspension for letting his imagination run wild.

A woman and two children have been killed with a third child in critical condition after a shooting in the US city of Denver.

A woman and at least two children under the age of 10 were among the dead with one critically injured child taken to a hospital after a shooting incident was reported at around 6:55 a.m. local time (1355 GMT) in the US state of Colorado on Wednesday.

A neighbor said she heard gunshots around 5:00 a.m. (1200 GMT) and then “right after that a truck took off really fast.”

“It’s just scary because we all know each other around here, and we’ve been here several years,” the neighbor said, adding that “this has never happened around here and I thought it never would.”

The shooting comes amid growing calls across the US for legislative action to control free access to guns, especially assault weapons.

On December 14, 2012, a 20-year-old man, identified as Adam Lanza, killed twenty children and six adults at an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut.

The United States experienced several mass killings in 2012, including the Colorado cinema shooting in July that killed 12 people and injured nearly 60 others. In August, a killing spree at a Sikh temple left seven people dead.

Every year, more than 30,000 people are shot and killed in the US.

GMA/JR/SS

A £13 million inquiry into the causes of 1,200 of preventable deaths at Stafford Hospital found failings at “every level” of Britain’s National Health Service (NHS).

The two-year inquiry which was chaired by Robert Francis QC has been set up to assess unnecessary deaths of hundreds of patients at Mid Staffordshire Trust.

“Regrettably, there was a failure of the NHS system at every level to detect and take the action patients and the public were entitled to expect,” Francis said.

In his 1,782-page report, Francis called for a shake-up of health watchdogs and criminal charges for those who cause patients’ deaths by poor care and negligence.

He also made clear that there should be a “zero tolerance” approach to poor standards of care in the NHS system.

Describing the disastrous failings of Stafford Hospital, Prime Minister David Cameron claimed that such “appalling neglect and mistreatment” could never happen again.

The scandal was “not just wrong, it was truly dreadful,” said the Prime Minister.

No one has yet been blamed over the findings as the report refused to name any failing bosses.

However, angry campaigners have called for resignation of NHS chief Sir David Nicholson, as well as Royal College of Nursing chief executive Peter Carter.

MOS/MOL/HE

Spanish students in nearly one hundred cities have rallied against Premier Mariano Rajoy government’s severe cuts to the education sector.

The Wednesday demonstration comes as the second of three days of strikes that the Students’ Union (SE) called to protest against the law of Education Minister Jose Ignacio Wert.

The SE says almost 1.6 million students have joined the rally from institutes spanning the country, including Spain’s major cities Madrid and Valencia, as well as autonomous communities Andalusia, Extremadura, Aragon and Asturias.

Protesters have called for the resignation of Wert, saying his policies are ruining the public education system.

The harsh spending cuts are leaving students without a future and the government has given them “no support. They [government officials] are destroying the country,” a secondary student said.

Many students who managed to get into a university or higher education off the back of their parent’s funding are unable to continue their studies with the increasing jobless rate.

“In my circle there are practically 95 percent of jobless people. There are just a few of them who work. They get one or two-day jobs sometimes but this is impossible,” an unemployed former student at the protest said.

Madrid has slashed some 6.5 billion euros from education funding since 2010, leading to an increase in university tuition fees and class sizes while scholarships and subsidies disappear.

The 2013 budget of the country will freeze public sector salaries for the third year in a row and cut ministerial spending by an average of 8.9 percent.

Spain’s economy collapsed into recession in the second half of 2008. Millions of jobs have been lost ever since.

GVN/JR

The austerity agenda that would cut services for working Americans in order to maintain tax breaks for the wealthy–and promote the privatization of public services–has many faces.

(Photo: Ben Brophy via Flickr)Most Americans recognize the threats to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid as pieces of the austerity plan advanced by House Budget Committee chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI), and the rest of the Ayn Rand—reading wrecking crew that has taken over the Republican Party. But it is important to recognize that the austerity agenda extends in every direction: from threats to Food Stamps and Pell Grants, to education cuts, to the squeezing of transportation funding.

But the current frontline of the austerity agenda is the assault on the US Postal Service, a vital public service that is older than the country. And it is advancing rapidly. On Wednesday, the Postal Service announced that Saturday first-class mail delivery is scheduled for elimination at the beginning of August–the latest and deepest in a series of cuts that threatens to so undermine the service that it will be ripe for bartering off to the private delivery corporations that have long coveted high-end components of the service.

“The postmaster general cannot save the Postal Service by ending one of its major competitive advantages. Cutting six-day delivery is not a viable plan for the future. It will lead to a death spiral that will harm rural America while doing very little to improve the financial condition of the Postal Service,” says U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders, who has worked with some success in the Senate to avert deep cuts to the Postal Service. “Providing fewer services and less quality will cause more customers to seek other options. Rural Americans, businesses, senior citizens and veterans will be hurt by ending Saturday mail.”

Congress can save Saturday service. And it must.

Unfortunately, while the Senate has endorsed smart reforms that benefit the service and its customers, the House has resisted action.

The House will only act if Americans raise an outcry.

And they should. Because if this austerity fight is lost, it will not be the last defeat for public services and public workers.

The damage that come from ending Saturday delivery will be most severe in rural areas and inner cities, where small businesses and working families rely on local post offices that are already targeted for shuttering. It will, as well, be particularly harmful to the elderly, the disabled and others who rely on regular delivery and the human connection provided by letter carriers and rural delivery drivers.

The plan to end key Saturday services, which has been correctly described by the National Association of Letter Carriers as “a disastrous idea that would have a profoundly negative effect on the Postal Service and on millions of customers,” is not necessary. Ryan and his fellow proponents of austerity manufactured the current crisis in USPS funding, when they enacted the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2006 (PAEA). The PAEA forced the Postal Service to prefund its future healthcare benefit payments to retirees for the next seventy-five years. That’s something no major corporation could or would do, as it required the service to divert more than $5 billion annually to pre-pay the health benefits of retirees who have not yet been hired.

“Slowing mail service and degrading our unmatchable last-mile delivery network are not the answers to the Postal Service’s financial problems,” says National Association of Letter Carriers President Fredric Rolando. “If the Postmaster General is unwilling or unable to develop a smart growth strategy that serves the nearly 50 percent of business mailers that want to keep six-day service, and if he arrogantly thinks he is above the law or has the right to decide policy matters that should be left to Congress, it is time for him to step down.”

Rolando is right. Congress can and should intervene to preserve Saturday delivery, to provide bridge funding for the service and to develop a plan that undoes the damage done by the PAEA and reforms rules so that the Postal Service can compete in the digital era.

This is doable. The Postal Service needs to make changes. No one argues with that. But the changes should — along the lines outlined by Sanders and his allies in the Senate — allow the service to compete with private delivery firms, and they should capitalize on a rural infrastructure that can play an key role in broadband buildout and the development of new financial and community services.

The current leadership of the Postal Service will not save it; they have bought into the austerity lie. Indeed, with the Saturday delivery cut, they are promoting austerity on steroids.

Any move to save the Postal Service requires members of Congress, not just Democrats but responsible Republicans, to reject austerity and get serious about maintaining vital public services.

This is not an option. It is a constitutional responsibility.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 7 of the United States Constitution directs Congress “To establish Post Offices and post Roads.”

If Congress will not follow a constitutional charge to protect the Postal Service, should we really expect that it will defend Social Secuity, Medicare, Medicaid and other public services? The question should tell us that the work of preserving and expanding the Postal Service is an essential battle in the fight against the austerity lie.

© 2013 The Nation

The austerity agenda that would cut services for working Americans in order to maintain tax breaks for the wealthy–and promote the privatization of public services–has many faces.

(Photo: Ben Brophy via Flickr)Most Americans recognize the threats to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid as pieces of the austerity plan advanced by House Budget Committee chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI), and the rest of the Ayn Rand—reading wrecking crew that has taken over the Republican Party. But it is important to recognize that the austerity agenda extends in every direction: from threats to Food Stamps and Pell Grants, to education cuts, to the squeezing of transportation funding.

But the current frontline of the austerity agenda is the assault on the US Postal Service, a vital public service that is older than the country. And it is advancing rapidly. On Wednesday, the Postal Service announced that Saturday first-class mail delivery is scheduled for elimination at the beginning of August–the latest and deepest in a series of cuts that threatens to so undermine the service that it will be ripe for bartering off to the private delivery corporations that have long coveted high-end components of the service.

“The postmaster general cannot save the Postal Service by ending one of its major competitive advantages. Cutting six-day delivery is not a viable plan for the future. It will lead to a death spiral that will harm rural America while doing very little to improve the financial condition of the Postal Service,” says U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders, who has worked with some success in the Senate to avert deep cuts to the Postal Service. “Providing fewer services and less quality will cause more customers to seek other options. Rural Americans, businesses, senior citizens and veterans will be hurt by ending Saturday mail.”

Congress can save Saturday service. And it must.

Unfortunately, while the Senate has endorsed smart reforms that benefit the service and its customers, the House has resisted action.

The House will only act if Americans raise an outcry.

And they should. Because if this austerity fight is lost, it will not be the last defeat for public services and public workers.

The damage that come from ending Saturday delivery will be most severe in rural areas and inner cities, where small businesses and working families rely on local post offices that are already targeted for shuttering. It will, as well, be particularly harmful to the elderly, the disabled and others who rely on regular delivery and the human connection provided by letter carriers and rural delivery drivers.

The plan to end key Saturday services, which has been correctly described by the National Association of Letter Carriers as “a disastrous idea that would have a profoundly negative effect on the Postal Service and on millions of customers,” is not necessary. Ryan and his fellow proponents of austerity manufactured the current crisis in USPS funding, when they enacted the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2006 (PAEA). The PAEA forced the Postal Service to prefund its future healthcare benefit payments to retirees for the next seventy-five years. That’s something no major corporation could or would do, as it required the service to divert more than $5 billion annually to pre-pay the health benefits of retirees who have not yet been hired.

“Slowing mail service and degrading our unmatchable last-mile delivery network are not the answers to the Postal Service’s financial problems,” says National Association of Letter Carriers President Fredric Rolando. “If the Postmaster General is unwilling or unable to develop a smart growth strategy that serves the nearly 50 percent of business mailers that want to keep six-day service, and if he arrogantly thinks he is above the law or has the right to decide policy matters that should be left to Congress, it is time for him to step down.”

Rolando is right. Congress can and should intervene to preserve Saturday delivery, to provide bridge funding for the service and to develop a plan that undoes the damage done by the PAEA and reforms rules so that the Postal Service can compete in the digital era.

This is doable. The Postal Service needs to make changes. No one argues with that. But the changes should — along the lines outlined by Sanders and his allies in the Senate — allow the service to compete with private delivery firms, and they should capitalize on a rural infrastructure that can play an key role in broadband buildout and the development of new financial and community services.

The current leadership of the Postal Service will not save it; they have bought into the austerity lie. Indeed, with the Saturday delivery cut, they are promoting austerity on steroids.

Any move to save the Postal Service requires members of Congress, not just Democrats but responsible Republicans, to reject austerity and get serious about maintaining vital public services.

This is not an option. It is a constitutional responsibility.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 7 of the United States Constitution directs Congress “To establish Post Offices and post Roads.”

If Congress will not follow a constitutional charge to protect the Postal Service, should we really expect that it will defend Social Secuity, Medicare, Medicaid and other public services? The question should tell us that the work of preserving and expanding the Postal Service is an essential battle in the fight against the austerity lie.

© 2013 The Nation

The years march on as we slip further and further from the World Trade Center attacks of September 11, 2001. Mainstream media won’t touch it, unless it’s in shameless defense of the neverending War on Terrorism that is used even today to “justify” attacks on countries around the globe.

9/11 and the media disinformation that has plagued it have set into motion over a decade of war, and there are still many unanswered questions surrounding that fateful day. But if we really want to understand why the world is at war, we must not let these important events slip into obscurity. After years of repeated lies, the truth is still out there.

In 2011, experts and scientists from around the world gathered in Toronto, Canada to present new and established evidence that questions the official story of 9/11. This evidence was presented to a distinguished panel of experts over a 4 day period.

Through their analysis and scientific investigations, they hope to spark a new investigation into the attacks of September 11, 2001.

As Dr. Paul Craig Roberts wrote:

“In the US on September 11, 2011, the tenth anniversary of 9/11, politicians and their presstitute media presented Americans with “A Day of Remembrance,” a propaganda exercise that hardened the 9/11 lies into dogma. Meanwhile, in Toronto, Canada, at Ryerson University the four-day International Hearings on the Events of September 11, 2001, came to a close at 5pm.

During the four days of hearings, distinguished scientists and scholars and professional architects and engineers presented the results of years of their independent research into all aspects of 9/11 to a distinguished panel consisting of the honorary president of the Italian Supreme Court who was an investigative judge who presided over terrorism cases and three distinguished scholars of high renown and judgment. The distinguished panel’s task is to produce a report with their judgment of the evidence presented by the expert witnesses.

The Toronto Hearings were streamed live over the Internet. I was able to watch many of the presentations over the four days. I was impressed that the extremely high level of intelligence and scientific competence of the witnesses was matched by a high level of integrity, a quality rare in US politics and totally absent in the American media…

Press For Truth and The International Center for 9/11 Studies Present:

The Toronto Hearings on 9/11: Uncovering Ten Years of Deception

AVAILABLE TO ORDER FROM GLOBAL RESEARCH!

Price: $22.95 (+ S&H)

CLICK HERE TO ORDER YOUR COPY!

Click here to view the TRAILER on GlobalResearchTV

Produced by:
Steven Davies
Dan Dicks
Bryan Law

An over 5 hour DVD, with comprehensive coverage of the 4 day Toronto Hearings from September 2011.

Featuring expert witness testimony from:

David Ray Griffin
Richard Gage
David Chandler
Michel Chossudovsky
Kevin Ryan
Niels Harrit
Barbara Honegger
Peter Dale Scott
Graeme MacQueen
Jonathan Cole
Cynthia McKinney
…and many more!

The Toronto Hearings on 9/11: Uncovering Ten Years of Deception

Produced By: Press for Truth
Runtime: Over 5 hours!
Release Date: April 2012
Price: $22.95 (+ S&H)

ORDER YOUR COPY TODAY!

US President Barack Obama has asked Congress to pass a short-term package designed to postpone the automatic spending cuts and tax hikes scheduled for March 1.

Obama pitched the proposal on Tuesday, urging Congress to consider a smaller package of spending cuts and tax reforms in order to delay the larger cuts automatically scheduled to take place next month.

“So if Congress can’t act immediately on a bigger package…then I believe that they should at least pass a smaller package of spending cuts and tax reforms that would delay the economically damaging effects of the [cuts] for a few more months until Congress finds a way to replace these cuts with a smarter solution,” Obama said.

The president added that looming cuts do not “have to happen” and must be avoided in order to prevent further cuts into military and domestic programs.

“At the very least, we should give them the chance to come up with this budget, instead of making indiscriminate cuts now that will cost us jobs and significantly slow down our recovery,” Obama said.

He went on to blame lawmakers for the “self-inflicted wounds” due to their failure to reform government spending and address problems in the income tax laws.

Conservative Republicans in Congress are poised to let automatic cuts follow through — a move experts say would create another recession.

This comes as Obama signed into law on Monday a bill aimed at postponing the USD 16.4 trillion limit on federal borrowing until May 18 and allowing the government to have access to approximately USD 450 billion to avert a default.

As lawmakers avoided the fiscal cliff about a month ago, deep spending cuts are expected to hit the Pentagon and federal agencies next month.

GMA/JR

Three-time champion Iran kick-starts its 2015 Asian Cup qualifying campaign with a crushing 5-0 victory over Lebanon, with captain Javad Nekounam starring a hat-trick.

Nekounam, an ex-Osasuna player, slotted penalties either side of half-time and added the hosts’ fifth and final goal in Tehran’s Azadi Stadium in front of 10,000 fans on Wednesday.

Mojtaba Jabbari slotted a pass to striker Reza Qouchannejad who scored the first goal in the 26th minute to put the Iranians in front.

Qouchannejad made it 4-0 in the 62nd from close range off a pass from midfielder Ashkan Dejagah. Nekounam scored his third in the 80th.

The win makes Iran an early favorite to join Japan, host nation Australia and South Korea, who finished first, second and third in 2011, at the Asian Cup’s next edition in early 2015.

The top two teams from each of the five qualifying groups go through, along with the best third-placed team, with Iran already well placed at the top of Group B.

Earlier, the United Arab Emirates defeated Vietnam 2-1, and 10-man Hong Kong held Uzbekistan 0-0 in Tashkent, while Kuwait made Southeast Asian runners-up Thailand suffer in front of their own fans with a 3-1 victory in Bangkok.

Later on Wednesday, Jose Antonio Camacho’s China plays three-time champions Saudi Arabia, and 2007 champions Iraq host Indonesia.

PG/HGH

Some thought the irony of a Treasury Secretary who cheated on his taxes was extreme but Germany has gone one better as the nation’s Education Minister has just been stripped of her PhD due to plagiarism. As Spiegel Online reports, the University of Düsseldorf has revoked German Education Minister Annette Schavan’s degree because “she systematically and deliberately presented intellectual efforts throughout her entire dissertation that were not her own.” As such, she was guilty of “intentional deception through plagiarism.” Allegations that parts of her dissertation were not consistent with academic standards were first raised last spring and were hardened in October when a blogger released detailed findings of citation shortcomings he had found in the education minister’s dissertation. Of course, she has taken the political route to this problem – denial – admitting merely to “oversights,” and adding that “There was no cheating involved.” The university voted 12 to 2 to revoke her degree and invalidate her academic title. Schavan is yet to resign from Merkel’s Cabinet. What next? A skeet-shooting gun tzar, a job tzar responsible for thousands of jobs losses while in the private sector, or a Nobel Peace Prize winner building a drone army.

Via Spiegel Online,

Merkel’s Education Minister Has Ph.D. Title Revoked

German Education Minister Annette Schavan has long been dogged by accusations that she had plagiarized parts of her Ph.D. thesis. Now, the University of Düsseldorf has revoked her degree. She may be forced to resign from Chancellor Angela Merkel’s cabinet.

It was shortly after 8:15 p.m. on Tuesday evening when Bruno Bleckmann, a professor of ancient history at the University of Düsseldorf, stepped in front of the waiting journalists. He quickly strode up to the microphone to deliver his statement. A faculty board, Bleckmann said, had arrived at the decision to declare German Education Minister Annette Schavan’s Ph.D. thesis “invalid and to revoke her doctor title.”

Based on an internal university analysis of Schavan’s doctoral thesis, which she submitted in 1980, and on her own statement regarding her work, the committee voted 12 to 2 to invalidate her academic title, Bleckmann said. There was one abstention. “As a doctoral candidate, she systematically and deliberately presented intellectual efforts throughout her entire dissertation that were not her own,” Bleckmann said. Large sections of the work, he continued, had been taken from elsewhere without adequate attribution. As such, she was guilty of “intentional deception through plagiarism.”

The announcement is the worst possible outcome for Schavan. The very suspicion that she had plagiarized parts of her dissertation had “hit her hard,” as she said last year. Allegations that parts of her dissertation were not consistent with academic standards were first raised last spring and were hardened in October when a blogger released detailed findings of citation shortcomings he had found in the education minister’s dissertation. She has consistently denied the charges, admitting merely to “oversights.” Immediately after Bleckmann finished delivering his statement, Schavan’s lawyer released a statement indicating that the minister planned to file a legal challenge to the revocation of her dissertation at a Düsseldorf court. “There was no cheating involved,” the statement read.

…

‘Accepted Guidelines’

Bleckmann also rejected Schavan’s argument that conventions regarding citations were different at the time when she wrote her dissertation. He said that the board’s decision was not a “projection of today’s standards back in time.” He pointed out that even at the time there were “accepted guidelines” that explained how to correctly cite passages taken from secondary sources. One version of those guidelines had even been published by her Ph.D. advisor, it was recently revealed.

…

Schavan is now faced with the prospect of losing her position on Chancellor Angela Merkel’s cabinet. It wouldn’t be the first time that a German cabinet minister was forced to resign after losing a doctor title. Defense Minister Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg stepped down in the spring of 2011 after it was determined that he had plagiarized large sections of his Ph.D. thesis. Already, demands have been made for Schavan to resign from her party by the Greens, the Left Party and the Pirate Party.

…

Commander of Iran’s Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) says the enemies have no choice but to retreat when faced with Islamic Republic’s growing power.

“Ahead of the 34th anniversary of the Islamic Revolution, we are more prepared and more powerful than any time before; our enemies have been disappointed and have no choice but to gradually retreat,” Major General Mohammad Ali Jafari said on Wednesday.

“The realities of the Islamic Revolution and establishment have been recognized by the enemies. They have been forced to accept these realities,” the general added.

He went on to note that the IRGC has drawn up a comprehensive defense strategy to repel potential threats, adding, “We have identified all possible strategies [devised] by the enemies and we have comprehensive defense solutions for every possibility, and our power on the ground, in the air and at sea…[can] effectively respond to all threats.”

Israel has frequently threatened to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities based on the unfounded allegation that Iran’s nuclear energy program has been diverted towards military purposes.

Iran rejects the allegation, arguing that as a committed signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty and a member of the International Atomic Energy Agency, it has the right to use nuclear technology for peaceful purposes.

Iranian officials have also vowed a crushing response to any military strike against the country, warning that any such measure could result in a war that would spread beyond the Middle East.

KA/HGH/SS

A breaking investigation by EnergyWire appears to connect the dots between shadowy lobbying efforts by shale gas fracking company Range Resources, and the Obama EPA’s decision to shut down its high-profile lawsuit against Range for allegedly contaminating groundwater in Weatherford, TX.

Ed Rendell At the center of the scandal sits former Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell, the former Chairman of the Democratic National Committee and the National Governors’ Association.

Just weeks ago, the Associated Press (AP) broke news that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) shut down the high-profile Texas lawsuit and buried an accompanying scientific report obtained during the lawsuit’s discovery phase in March 2012.

That confidential report, contracted out to hydrogeologist Geoffrey Thyne by the Obama EPA, concluded that methane found in the drinking water of a nearby resident could have originated from Range Resources’ nearby shale gas fracking operation. 

Range Resources – which admitted at an industry conference that it utilizes psychological warfare (PSYOPs) tactics on U.S. citizens – launched an aggressive defense against the EPA’s allegations that the company might be responsible for contaminating resident Steve Lipsky’s groundwater.

AP explained in its investigation that resident Steve Lipsky, who has a wife and three young children, had “reported his family’s drinking water had begun ‘bubbling’ like champagne” and that his “well…contains so much methane that the…water [is] pouring out of a garden hose [that] can be ignited.”

In response, the Obama EPA ordered Range to halt fracking. Range was non-cooperative every step of the way, refusing to comply with the legal dictates of the discovery phase and not complying with the censored water sample study implicating the company with groundwater contamination.

The new twist exposed by EnergyWire‘s Mike Soraghan is that Ed Rendell, acting “as a spokesman for Range” Resources, “proposed certain terms” to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson. Exactly what was said remains unclear, but the EPA ultimately dropped its case against Range.  

Over a thousand pages of emails obtained by EnergyWire “offer behind-the-scenes insights in a case that has come to be seen as a major retreat by the agency amid aggressive industry push-back and support for natural gas drilling by President Obama.”

Rendell: Range’s Chosen One or Rogue Lobbyist?

The emails obtained by EnergyWire reveal that Rendell intervened directly with Administrator Jackson at some point in 2011, presumably after his term as Pennsylvania’s governor came to a close on Jan 18, 2011. An EPA attorney’s email indicated that Rendell said he was there “as a spokesman for Range.” 

According to the National Institute on Money in State Politics, Rendell took almost $200,000 from the oil and gas industry in the run-up to his 2006 electoral victory and while governor, he described himself as the industry’s “best ally.”

Upon completion of his gubernatorial stint, Rendell immediately fled to the private sector. He currently works both as an Operating Partner at Element Partners and as a Senior Advisor at Greenhill & Co., Inc.

Element Partners describes itself as a firm that, among other things, provides “services to the energy, industrial, and environmental markets” and “capital for growth, acquisitions, shareholder liquidity, recapitalizations, and buyouts.” It provides investment capital for numerous oil and gas industry clients. 

Greenhill is a similar firm, describing itself as a “leading independent investment bank focused on providing financial advice on significant mergers, acquisitions, restructurings, financings and capital raisings to corporations, partnerships, institutions and governments.” Like Element, Greenhall also provides investment capital for numerous oil and gas corporations.

Prior to the completion of Rendell’s final term as governor, three of his former aides abruptly left their jobs to work as shale gas industry lobbyists. Their names: Kenneth Scott Roy, Barbara Sexton, and Sarah Battisti. 

Sexton, Rendell’s former Executive Deputy Secretary of the PA Department Environmental Protection (DEP), transitioned into a gig working as a lobbyist for industry giant Chesapeake Energy. Battisti, another of Rendell’s cadre of Deputy Chiefs-of-Staff, became a lobbyist for BG (British Gas) Group. 

The third, K. Scott Roy, wound up as a lobbyist for Range Resources as Vice President for Government Relations and Regulatory Affairs.

Is Scott Roy the Bridge Between Ridge, Rendell, Range and MSC?

In his Range Resources bio, K. Scott Roy describes his former position as Ed Rendell’s “top advisor.” His official title was Executive Deputy Chief of Staff in the Office of the Governor. Roy also serves on the Executive Board of the Marcellus Shale Coalition, the gas industry’s aggressive lobbying arm in statehouses located within the Marcellus Shale basin. Prior to serving in the Rendell administration, Roy worked in the office of former PA Governor Tom Ridge, who went on to serve as  in 2012.  

It is as yet unclear what role Scott Roy played as one of Range’s hired guns to fend off the EPA lawsuit. Might he have contacted his old boss Ed Rendell for help pressuring the Obama administration to lay off Range? It seems a reasonable question to ask. 

Range Denies Rendell Worked on its Behalf

Range Resources spokesman Matt Pitzarella (of PSYOPs revelation notoriety) denied any connection between the company and Rendell.

“I don’t know the extent of the governor’s involvement in energy-related matters, but he never functioned as a spokesperson of Range,” Pitzarella told EnergyWire.

Given the ties that bind Rendell to Range, though, the words “plausible deniability” come to mind.

Coming full circle, it’s important to remember the human side of this story. Lipsky’s family now pays $1,000 per month for water deliveries, with life for them changed forever. 

“This has been total hell,” Lipsky told the AP. “It’s been taking a huge toll on my family and on our life.” 

Determining the truth of what happened with the EPA’s failed investigation and lawsuit against Range Resources won’t change the Lipskys’ predicament, but it would go a long way towards identifying the grasp of the oil industry’s tentacles on Washington.

A nine-year-old Mexican girl has given birth in what authorities have called a rape or sexual abuse case.

The baby girl was born on January 27 in Zoquipan Hospital in Jalisco state, weighing 5lbs 7oz.

The youngster, who is identified only as Dafne, was eight when she got pregnant by a teenager who has since run away, her mother told local officials.

She said: “The father is a boy who is 17, but we have not found him, since he ran away.

“We are looking for the young man to get his story because she does not understand what has happened. This is a rape or child sex abuse case,” said Jorge Villasenor with the state prosecutors’ office.

Both girls were released from the hospital over the weekend, apparently doing well.

But the hospital said it would have to do extensive follow-up work due to the new mother’s age.

How quickly best laid plans become passé. New world orders come, it seems, as frequently as eclipses.

The old world order (ancien régime), along with 16 million people, died during the Great European War which began on June 28, 1914 when the Austrian heir to the throne, Archduke Franz Ferdinand, was assassinated by a Serb nationalist, Gavrilo Princip, in Sarajevo. (Today he would be called a terrorist.) This assassination sent nations that had no desire to go to war into the most destructive war the world had yet experienced.

Europe at the beginning of 1914 consisted of six major empires and an assortment of minor states that the major empires didn’t care much about. The six major empires, (the Austro-Hungarian, French, German, British, Ottoman, and Russian) were ensnared in military alliances (much like the US is today) which were formed to keep the peace. The diplomats, like those today, believed that forming alliances that balanced the powers of different groups would keep them from attacking each other. The Central Powers consisted of Austro-Hungary, Germany, and the Ottoman Empire; the Triple Entente consisted of the other three. Peace, the diplomats thought was assured. What happened?

When the archduke was assassinated, the Austrians, confident in their military prowess (as Americans are today), decided to punish Serbia which was attacked on July 28. But the Serbs ambushed the Austrians at the battles of Cer and Kolubara. The Austrians were thrown back with heavy losses. Russia came to the aid of its ethnically related Serbs, and Germany invaded France through Belgium and Luxembourg. Britain came to the defense of France and the Ottoman Empire joined the war in the Balkans on the side of the Central Powers. The alliances that were to ensure the peace changed a single assassination into a massive war. When it was over, the Austro-Hungarian, the German, the Ottoman, and the Russian Empires had vanished and the United States, which joined the war late on the side of the Triple Entente had become a world player. The old world order was gone!

Woodrow Wilson, the American President, sought to create a new old world order by proposing his Fourteen Points. Wilson wanted to create separate nations out of former colonies and ensure the peace by creating a League of Nations (another peace by treaty scheme). Territorial reductions were made to Germany and Austria, a slew of new and revived nations were created in Eastern Europe, while France and Britain carved up the Ottoman Empire to suit themselves. The new old world order was just a reconfigured old world order. It didn’t last and it didn’t ensure the peace. So much for the best laid plans of diplomats.

Germany was reborn in 1933 when Adolph Hitler became Chancellor. He, too, sought to create a new world order, one dominated by a Thousand Year Reich (Empire). To that end, his policies were aimed at seizing Lebensraum (living space) for the German people by extending Germany’s borders. Austria and parts of Czechoslovakia were annexed and Poland was invaded. But alas, Poland had a mutual defense treaty (another alliance formed to ensure the peach) with Great Britain and France, so the invasion of Poland started World War II.

When it was over, Germany again was destroyed and Great Britain and France, for the most part, had had their empires diminished. The United States and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (Russia) found themselves at the top of another new old world order.

The victorious powers, the US, the USSR, China, Great Britain, and France tried again to ensure the peace by creating the United Nations which they attempted to keep firmly in their control by making themselves rulers of the Security Council which had a veto on all UN Activities all five nations didn’t give unanimous approval to. That was to be the new old world order. But it began to come unglued immediately. China was not represented by mainland China which had become Communist but by “Nationalist” China whose government had fled to Taiwan. Communist China soon took the Chinese seat and the two Communist nations formed a bloc while the remaining three Capitalist nations formed another. The United Nations became the Disunited Nations and has remained so to this day. This new old world order was stillborn.

Sometime after 1950 (because of secrecy, the exact date is unknown) the Bilderbergers, realizing that the old world ancient régime and all of these new old world orders were founded on nation states that kept going to war with each other, began an attempt to create a truly new world order. David Rockefeller writes,

“We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. . . . It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries.”

“For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure — one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it”

If there were no nation states, no wars could erupt between them!

Some believe that these international bankers have succeeded in taking over the world, but it has never succeeded in abolishing nation states. In fact, there is some evidence that nation states may be disintegrating into smaller ones. Scotland is going to hold a referendum on withdrawing from England, Catalonia is talking about withdrawing from Spain, Czechoslovakia has broken up into the Czech and Slovak republics, there is talk again of secession in the US, and no one quite knows what is really happening in the Arab world. A new world order ruled by one government? Not hardly!

But things began to break down in the 1950s. Until then, wars were fought between armies supported by nation states, and their endings were foreseeable. A war ended when one army, either voluntarily or on command, surrendered. That era appears to have ended. Old world order warfare appears to have become passé.

When the second world war ended, the Korean Peninsula was partitioned into Northern and Southern sections occupied by the Russians and Americans respectively. Elections for unification were to be held in 1948 but were not; the Americans were unsure the result would favor the South. Open warfare broke out when North Korean forces invaded South Korea in June, 1950. Because the Soviet Union was boycotting the United Nations Security Council at the time, the United States and other countries passed a Security Council resolution authorizing military intervention. The war’s progress favored each side from time to time and continued until July, 1953 when an armistice was signed. Officially, the war still goes on today. The US provided 88% of the 341,000 international soldiers which aided South Korea. The Russians and the People’s Republic of China aided North Korea. The West’s army was international, and the era of never ending, wars may have begun.

After a short pause, the American hubris led the US to play one-upmanship with France. Since the end of World War II, the French had been trying to maintain its hold on its Southeastern Asian colony of Vietnam. But at the Battle of Dien Bien Phu, the French were soundly defeated and decided to give up the fight. American hubris about its military prowess made American diplomats believe that the US could do what the French could not and began to use American military resources to keep South Vietnam from being united with the North.

The Pentagon’s military minds viewed this conflict as a traditional two-nation-state one and believed that America’s military only had to defeat a primitive North Vietnamese army to succeed. They were wrong, and after twenty years of fighting, 58,000 Americans, millions of Vietnamese had died, and the Americans fled. But this war marked another first: the army that won all the battles lost the war. That had never before happened in history. Today, winning battles does not win wars. Truly a new era in warfare has begun. What the Pentagon’s commanders failed to realize was that the war was not a two state war. It was a war between an invading army and an indigenous people who could only be defeated by total annihilation. No possible way existed for Americans (or any other nation-state) to “win” this war.

But Americans are hard learners and they learned nothing from Korea and Vietnam, so after two misadventures that appeared to be successful (Grenada and the 1^st Gulf War), the US led another multinational force into Iraq and Afghanistan. After eight years in Iraq and the installation of a new government, the US withdrew without achieving its goals, leaving Iraq in disarray. And after more than a decade in Afghanistan a similar outcome seems to be imminent. Like Vietnam, these wars too are not two-state wars.

They amount to invading armies battling indigenous peoples who themselves are not united and not under the control of any government, group, or commander. No surrendering army in either country will ever be found. But now there’s a new twist. The forces facing the invaders do not merely consist of local peoples. Those peoples are assisted by non-state but similarly minded multi-state actors. The people opposing the West in Afghanistan are the same groups opposing the West in Libya, Algeria, Syria, Yemen, Mali, Somalia, the Sudan, and elsewhere. People who have been subjugated and exploited by the West have begun an undeclared war on the West and westerners everywhere, and winning this war will require not their defeat but their annihilation. The West cannot do that without annihilating itself in the process.

The real new world order has emerged—the world’s downtrodden against the West and its puppet, surrogate colonial governments. These non-state but similarly minded actors will determine the course of future world history. There is now a new world order that the West cannot control, that military force cannot subdue, and that concessions cannot placate. Ancien régimes relied on military power to influence events. The true new world order renders military power effete. All it can now accomplish is kill for killing’s sake. Pure barbarity is what the promise of Western Civilization has been reduced to. What a wonderful world we have made!

Federal Reserve building.(AFP Photo / Saul Loeb)

Days after the personal information of over 4,000 banking executives was leaked to the Web by a group affiliated with the hacktivist movement Anonymous, the Federal Reserve admits to having suffered an online security breach.

Spokespeople for the Fed alerted customers on Tuesday that private information stored online was compromised during a weekend hack, all but confirming the source for a trove of data published two days earlier by the loose-knit Anonymous collective.

“The Federal Reserve system is aware that information was obtained by exploiting a temporary vulnerability in a website vendor product,” a spokeswoman for the bank tells Reuters.

Currently, the Fed maintains that the incident was mild in nature, “did not affect critical operations” of the bank and has been resolved. An admission from the Fed does suggest, however, that hackers are capable of compromising data that is presumably well protected.

During Sunday’s Super Bowl, the Twitter account @OpLastResort announced that personal info pertaining to thousands of banking executives had been obtained, and a tweet directing followers to a hacked Alabama Criminal Justice Information Center website linked to the data. Now the Fed says that an emergency notification system was indeed breached, thus compromising private but not necessarily secret user names, phone numbers and other credentials stored on the server.

The exploit, admits the Fed, allowed for the release of user contact data stored within its Emergency Communications System, or ECS, “a system used by the Federal Reserve and state banking departments to notify depository institutions of operational status in the event of natural or other disasters.”

“Information obtained from the registrants consisted of mailing address, business phone, mobile phone, business email and fax. Some registrants also included optional information consisting of home phone and personal email. Despite claims to the contrary, passwords were not compromised, but nonetheless, have been reset as a precautionary measure,” continues a spokesperson for the St. Louis Fed in a statement first obtained by ZDNet.

A source speaking to ZDNet on condition of anonymity adds, “The banks on the list were not compromised.” On the website Reddit, however, one user claims to have called some of the phone numbers published on the Alabama CJIC site and adds some insight into the severity of the breach.

“What must be so problematic for the Federal Reserve is not the information so much as this file was stolen from their computers at all. The ramifications of that kind of loss of control is severe,” Reddit user PericlesMortimer writes.

OpLastResort is an Anonymous faction of sorts that was spawned after last month’s untimely death of Reddit co-founder and computer whiz Aaron Swartz, who committed suicide at age 26 while awaiting trial. The US government was charging Swartz with violating the Computed Fraud and Abuse Act because he allegedly accessed millions of academic and scholarly articles from the website JSTOR without explicit authorization. Swartz was facing decades in prison if convicted, but OpLastResort and similar campaigns have strived in recent weeks to make progress in reforming the CFAA.

Regulators have fined the taxpayer-owned bank RBS a total of more than £390m for rigging the Libor inter-bank rate.

Around £300m of this will be clawed back from the Royal Bank of Scotland’s (RBS) bonus pool after the Government insisted the taxpayer should not pay for bankers’ mistakes.

The Financial Services Authority (FSA) in the UK fined the bank a total of £87.5m for fixing Libor, and said at least 21 individuals and one manager were involved in inappropriate conduct at the bank.

The City watchdog, which said RBS bankers worked with traders at other banks to try to manipulate Libor, found almost 220 requests for inappropriate Libor submissions.

In the US, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) ordered the bank to pay a penalty of more than £207m and the Department of Justice (DoJ) fined the bank £96m.

The CFTC said RBS, which is 82%-taxpayer owned, was attempting to manipulate the inter-bank lending rate as late as 2010 – with instances dating back to 2006.

It also published the content of messages between bank employees discussing fixing Libor.

One senior Yen trader wrote: “this libor setting is getting nutss (sic).”

Another message said: “its (sic) just amazing how libor fixing can make you that much money.”

RBS also confirmed that the head of its investment bank will step down, as revealed by Sky News.

John Hourican, who was brought in to rescue the business after it was bailed out in 2008, will forfeit around £4m in share options awarded to him based on past performance, but leaves with 12 months pay worth £775,000.

In a memo to staff at the bank he said he bore “some responsibility” for misconduct , despite having no involvement in or knowledge of efforts to rig Libor submissions by RBS staff.

The bank’s chief executive, Stephen Hester, told Sky News those involved in manipulating were “disgraceful”.

“They are wrongdoers – there is no place in our industry for that kind of behaviour,” he said.

“The issues … are an extreme example of a selfish and self-serving culture which – while being unrepresentative of much of banking – has too many echos in what has gone wrong in the legacy of the financial boom and which we must all be clear needs to be stamped out.”

Speaking at a Treasury news conference, Chancellor George Osborne, said: “What happened at RBS and other banks is totally unacceptable. At my insistence, the bankers, not the tax payers, will pick up the bill.”

He added: “Those people who did wrong will face the full force of the law. It is right that the senior management at RBS have taken action today.”

The bank’s chairman, Sir Philip Hampton, added that it was a “sad day for RBS”, but vowed to “put right the mistakes of the past”.

The FSA said its portion of the penalty would be donated to military charities.

As part of its settlement, RBS agreed a deferred prosecution agreement with the DoJ, as revealed by Sky’s City Editor .

The deal means that if RBS commits any form of criminal offence during the two-year period, it could have grave consequences for the bank’s ability to operate in the US.

RBS’ Japanese arm pleaded guilty to wire fraud.

The bank is one of about 20 organisations being investigated for manipulating Libor, the rate banks charge to lend one another.

It governs the price of more than $500trn (£320trn) worth of loans and transactions around the world, including mortgages.

The bank’s fine is significantly higher than Barclays’ £290m penalty, but less than UBS’ settlement with regulators, worth almost £1bn.

The French-led military offensive in its former colony of Mali has pushed back radical Islamists and allied militias from some of the country’s northern cities, freeing the local population from repressive Taliban-style totalitarian rule. The United States has backed the French military effort by transporting French troops and equipment and providing reconnaissance through its satellites and drones. However, despite these initial victories, it raises concerns as to what unforeseen consequences may lay down the road.

Indeed, it was such Western intervention–also ostensibly on humanitarian grounds–that was largely responsible for the Malian crisis in the first place.

The 2011 NATO military intervention in Libya effort went well beyond the UN Security Council mandate to protect civilian lives, as the French, British and U.S. air forces–along with ground support by the Saudi and Qatari dictatorships–essentially allied themselves with the rebel armies. The African Union–while highly-critical of Qaddafi’s repression–condemned the intervention, fearing that the resulting chaos would result in the Libya’s vast storehouse of arms might fueling local and regional conflicts elsewhere in Africa and destabilize the region.

This is exactly what happened.

Whereas the nonviolent revolution against the neighboring Tunisian dictatorship resulted in a positive contagion of unarmed pro-democracy civil insurrections, the violent intervention in Libya resulted in a negative contagion of armed rebellions.

This is particularly tragic since Mali was seen, until recently, as one of the more hopeful political stories in Africa.

In 1991, more than two decades prior to similar pro-democracy uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt, Malians engaged in a massive nonviolent resistance campaign that brought down the dictatorship of Moussa Traoré. A broad mobilization of trade unionists, peasants, students, teachers, and others created a mass pro-democracy movement throughout the country. Despite the absence of Facebook or the Internet, virtually no international media coverage, and the massacre of hundreds of peaceful protesters, this popular civil insurrection succeeded not only in ousting a repressive and corrupt regime, but ushered in more than two decades of democratic rule.

Though–like most states in the region–the country struggled with corruption, poverty, and a weak infrastructure, Mali was widely considered to be the most democratic country in West Africa. In order to educate and promote the rights and duties of its citizens, the government implemented a program called the “Decentralization Mission” in 1993 to encourage popular participation in local and regional elections. Independent radio stations and newspapers emerged and the country experienced lively and open political debate.

The events surrounding the nonviolent revolution of 1991 were regularly commemorated, with the anniversary of the March 26 massacre a national holiday. A series of monuments in the capital of Bamako also commemorate the pro-democracy struggle.

In the years since the 1991 revolution, even contentious politics was expressed largely nonviolently. There were several periods of student-led protests in the 1990s against high unemployment and other negative effects of structural adjustment programs imposed by international financial institutions, contributing to the fall of one government through a “no-confidence” vote in parliament. The tradition of nonviolent resistance against authoritarianism came to the fore in 2001 when a proposed constitutional referendum put forward by President Alpha Oumar Konaré was called off after a series of protests by those fearing it would have threatened the country’s independent judiciary and effectively made the president immune to prosecution. Additional protests against neoliberal economic policies erupted in 2005. Hundreds peacefully demonstrated against the 2006 visit by then-French Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy in protest at his tough policies against immigrants. That same year, Mali hosted the World Social Forum, a mass gathering of thousands of activists from hundreds of civil society organizations.

History has shown that dictatorships overthrown through largely nonviolent civil insurrections are far more likely to evolve into stable democracies than dictatorships ousted through armed revolution or foreign intervention. Mali appeared to be a prime example of this phenomenon.

Indeed, soon after the March Revolution of 1991, the Malian government negotiated a peace agreement with armed rebels from the Tuareg minority in the north of the country, in which they agreed to end their rebellion in return for a degree of autonomy. In March 1996, there was a massive ceremonial burning of the rebels’ surrendered weapons in the capital of Bamako.

By 2012, the Malian government, led by President Amadou Toumani Touré, was becoming increasingly unpopular, failing to address and even exacerbating structural inequalities reinforced by neoliberal edicts from international financial institutions and increasingly corrupt and self-serving political leaders, local business elites, and the civil service. However, the aging president was scheduled to retire immediately following elections later in the year and it was hoped that a growing civil society movement and new leadership could more adequately address these problems.

These concerns, however, were quickly overshadowed by a renewed rebellion in the north. When last year’s initially nonviolent uprising in Libya against the Gaddafi regime turned to armed struggle, resulting in even greater government repression and thereby prompting NATO intervention, disparate armed groups–including Tuareg tribesmen– ended up liberating major stores of armaments. These vast caches of weapons were passed on to Tuaregs in Mali who, now having the means to effectively challenge the Malian government militarily, dramatically escalated their long-dormant rebellion under the leadership of the National Movement for the Liberation of Azawad (MNLA).

Elements of the Malian army believed that Touré’s government–in part because of its concern that responding too harshly might create a backlash among the Tuaregs and in part because of its corruption and ineptitude–was not adequately supporting their resistance to the rebels. On March 22, U.S.-trained Army Captain Amadou Sanogo and other officers staged a coup and called for U.S. intervention along the lines of Afghanistan and the “war on terror.”

Sanogo’s training in the United States is just one small part of a decade of growing U.S. military involvement with allied armies in the Sahel, increasing the militarization of this impoverished region and the influence of armed forces relative to civilian leaders. Gregory Mann, writing in Foreign Policy, notes how “a decade of American investment in special forces training, co-operation between Sahalien armies and the United States and counter-terrorism programs of all sorts run by both the State Department and the Pentagon has, at best, failed to prevent a new disaster in the desert and, at worst, sowed its seeds.”

With supporters of the ousted democratic government protesting in the capital and the army divided by the coup, Tuareg rebels took advantage of the chaos in the south and quickly consolidated their hold on the northern part of the country, declaring an independent state.

Then, with the Malian army routed and Tuareg forces stretched thin, radical Islamist groups–also flushed with new arms resulting from the Libya war–seized most of the towns and cities in the north. These extremists also overran additional U.S.-supplied Malian army posts, seizing 87 Land Cruisers, satellite phones, navigation aids, and other equipment provided by the American taxpayer.

Already, the Western intervention in Mali has prompted a retaliatory attack on a BP natural gas facility in neighboring Algeria, resulting in the deaths of 38 foreign hostages. The blowback could just be beginning.

The savage repression perpetrated by Mali’s Islamists, along with the potential threat from an Al Qaeda-affiliated regime, loss of access to the region’s resource wealth, and indications that the Islamists were moving south prompted direct French military intervention in January. Under such dire circumstances, even many people normally critical of Western neocolonialism argue that such military intervention may have been the least bad option. However, given that it was Western intervention and militarization of the region that largely created this mess in the first place, it inevitably raises the question as to whether it will actually end up making matters worse.

Koch-kissing, ALEC-loving PA Gov.Tom Corbett had the advantage of a weak opponent and that “vote for me, I was a prosecutor who was tough on crime!” routine the first time he ran for governor. But he’s pissed off just about everyone since then by following in the wing-nuttiest footsteps of Wisconsin’s Gov. Scott Walker.

Just like Scott Walker, Gov. Corbett will be getting much closer scrutiny. The newly-elected Attorney General Kathleen Kane has appointed a special prosecutor to look into how Corbett handled (or mishandled) the investigation of Jerry Sandusky, and I suspect that will rough him up when he runs for reelection. We’re going to have to work hard to defeat this jackass, who just turned down the Medicaid expansion offered by the Affordable Care Act.

In the meantime, if you’re a PA resident, call the Governor’s office at 800-515-8134. (or email him) and ask him what you’re expected to do without affordable insurance. Call your state senator and state representative, too:

Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Corbett (R) announced Tuesday that his state will turn down the Medicaid expansion, becoming the first governor of a blue state to officially say no to the coverage provision of the Affordable Care Act that the Supreme Court made optional.

The decision will please conservative advocates who are urging leaders to stonewall Obamacare implementation. But it’s a blow to the many thousands of uninsured Pennsylvanians who would have received coverage through the program, which extends Medicaid eligibility to Americans up to 133 percent of the poverty line for participating states.

The Medicaid expansion is a financially enticing offer for states: the federal government would pay the full cost for the first few years and 90 percent after 2020. Conservative opponents fret that the federal government won’t come through with the funds. Top Democrats in Pennsylvania are already demanding that Corbett reverse course.

“Governor Corbett chose to pander to the far right and willfully inflict damage on Pennsylvania’s economy – he has undermined any promises he makes about jobs,” said State Rep. Dan Frankel, the chair of the Democratic Caucus. “The federally funded Medicaid expansion would be a win-win for Pennsylvania. … Governor Corbett should reverse his job-killing decision.”

DUBLIN (Reuters) – Irish Prime Minister Enda Kenny was criticised by members of his own government on Wednesday for not issuing the state apology sought by ex-inmates of the notorious Magdalene Laundries following a damning report.

More than a quarter of the women and girls subjected to harsh discipline and unpaid work at the 10 laundries, run by Catholic nuns, were sent there by the Irish state, an official report that ran to almost 1,000 pages said on Tuesday.

The laundries have been accused of treating inmates like “slaves” for decades of the 20th century, imposing a regime of fear and prayer on girls sometimes put in their care for simply falling pregnant outside wedlock. One in 10 inmates died in care, the youngest at 15.

Kenny said on Wednesday that he was sorry for the women who had to live in such conditions but again stopped short of a full state apology, further angering groups representing women who were housed in laundries as recently as 1996.

He said the government needed time to consider the report before it was debated in parliament in two weeks’ time – but members of Kenny’s junior coalition partner Labour, including a junior minister, said an apology was needed far sooner.

“The government will make that decision and I don’t sit around the cabinet table, but my personal opinion is that there should be an apology,” Kathleen Lynch, junior minister with responsibility for the elderly, told Today FM radio.

“The stigma that has been attached to these women, the blight it has been on their lives, there’s nothing to be proud of here. You can say that everyone suffered in the 50s, yeah, but some suffered more than others.”

Lynch was referring to Kenny’s comments in parliament on Tuesday when he said the laundries, described in the report as lonely and frightening places, had to be seen in the context of an Ireland that was an uncompromising and authoritarian place.

“STUFF YOUR APOLOGY”

Criticism of Kenny also dominated the front pages of Wednesday’s newspapers alongside details from the report. The Irish Sun’s headline read “Stuff Your Apology”, while the Irish Daily Mail simply asked “Why Can’t You Say Sorry?”

Irish governments had in the past denied blame, emphasising the laundries were private institutions, but the report concluded there was “significant state involvement”.

The matter of an apology was raised by Labour lawmakers at the parliamentary party’s weekly meeting on Wednesday. One Labour member of parliament, Dominic Hannigan, said the government needed to be seen to take responsibility.

“I think it’s time for an apology, people have been waiting a long, long time for this,” he told national broadcaster RTE.

Labour leader and Deputy Prime Minister Eamon Gilmore is likely to come under pressure to apologise in parliament when he takes leaders’ questions on Thursday, with opposition parties also calling on the government to meet survivors’ appeals for compensation for their treatment in the laundries.

Unlike other harrowing reports where priests were found to have beaten and raped children in Catholic-run institutions, no allegations of sexual or physical abuse were made against the nuns at the laundries, Tuesday’s report said.

But former inmates spoke of an uncompromising regime of physically demanding work and prayer enforced by scoldings and humiliations.

The report’s findings follow investigations into clerical sex abuse and state-abetted cover-ups that have shattered the authority of the church in Ireland and rocked the Catholic Church’s reputation worldwide.

(Reporting by Padraic Halpin; Editing by Pravin Char)

Annapolis, MD – February 6 – U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said today he will oppose a U.S. Postal Service plan to end Saturday mail delivery.

“The postmaster general cannot save the Postal Service by ending one of its major competitive advantages. Cutting six-day delivery is not a viable plan for the future. It will lead to a death spiral that will harm rural America while doing very little to improve the financial condition of the Postal Service,” Sanders said. “Providing fewer services and less quality will cause more customers to seek other options. Rural Americans, businesses, senior citizens and veterans will be hurt by ending Saturday mail,” Sanders added.

The House last year refused to consider a Senate-passed postal reform bill that Sanders helped draft.

The Senate measure to modernize the Postal Service would have changed a 2006 congressional requirement that the mail service pre-fund 75 years’ worth of future retiree health benefits over a 10-year period. That pre-funding requirement is responsible for about 80 percent of the Postal Service’s financial losses since 2007. “No other government agency, no other corporation in America is burdened with this mandate. This mandate must be lifted,” Sanders said.

Current federal law makes it illegal to end Saturday mail delivery. The Senate-passed bill would have reinforced the ban for two more years.

“It is time for Republican leadership in the House to work with the Senate to reform the Postal Service in a way that will not harm rural America and allows the Postal Service to adjust to the digital age without ending Saturday mail delivery,” Sanders said.

Annapolis, MD – February 6 – U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said today he will oppose a U.S. Postal Service plan to end Saturday mail delivery.

“The postmaster general cannot save the Postal Service by ending one of its major competitive advantages. Cutting six-day delivery is not a viable plan for the future. It will lead to a death spiral that will harm rural America while doing very little to improve the financial condition of the Postal Service,” Sanders said. “Providing fewer services and less quality will cause more customers to seek other options. Rural Americans, businesses, senior citizens and veterans will be hurt by ending Saturday mail,” Sanders added.

The House last year refused to consider a Senate-passed postal reform bill that Sanders helped draft.

The Senate measure to modernize the Postal Service would have changed a 2006 congressional requirement that the mail service pre-fund 75 years’ worth of future retiree health benefits over a 10-year period. That pre-funding requirement is responsible for about 80 percent of the Postal Service’s financial losses since 2007. “No other government agency, no other corporation in America is burdened with this mandate. This mandate must be lifted,” Sanders said.

Current federal law makes it illegal to end Saturday mail delivery. The Senate-passed bill would have reinforced the ban for two more years.

“It is time for Republican leadership in the House to work with the Senate to reform the Postal Service in a way that will not harm rural America and allows the Postal Service to adjust to the digital age without ending Saturday mail delivery,” Sanders said.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at Al-Azhar headquarters in Cairo on February 5, 2013. (AFP Photo / Khaled Desouki)

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says that Tehran has no intention of attacking Israel and that the world needs to cooperate with Iran. The comments came as the leader marked a historical visit to Cairo for the 12th Islamic Summit Conference.

“[Israel] wants to attack Iran, but we’re not preparing any attack against them because the purpose of our program is defense,” Ahmadinejad told Al-Ahram newspaper in an interview before his trip to Egypt. 

The leader also reiterated that Zionists were trying to take over global power and wealth throughout the world, and that the best solution was for the world to cooperate with Iran.

“[The world] wants Iran to go back to what it was in the past, but they won’t succeed. They assume we’ll give in to pressure, but such thoughts are misguided. We’re already an industrial and nuclear country…we must ensure development and growth and bring them to pass, and the world must acknowledge our progress,” he said.

Ahmadinejad’s comments came just days after new equipment at Iran’s Natanz nuclear plant stirred condemnation from Israel and the US.

The US and its allies have long accused Iran of seeking to develop a nuclear weapons capability — a claim which Tehran has repeatedly denied.

Talks between Iran and world powers are due to take place later this month in Kazakhstan.

Russia has put pressure on Iran by saying that it expected to see “serious progress” made at this month’s nuclear talks.

Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov said Iran and world powers had made no progress since the last round of negotiations were held in Moscow in June 2012.

Meanwhile, Iran says the ball is in Washington’s court.

“If [the United States] demonstrates genuine goodwill and honesty, we’ll have the best possible talks,” Iran’s ambassador to Russia, Mahmoud Reza Sajjadi, told a news conference in Moscow.

A deal on the meeting, which is scheduled to take place on February 26, is being seen as a success in itself. It comes after months of haggling over possible venues and dates.

­

A historical visit to Egypt

Ahmadinejad is currently in Egypt for the 12th Islamic Summit Conference. His presence marks the first visit to Cairo by an Iranian leader in more than three decades.

Speaking at the conference, Ahmadinejad said that outside forces were trying to prevent a rapprochement between Egypt and Iran.

“There are those striving to prevent these two great countries from coming together despite the fact that the region’s problems require this meeting, especially the Palestinian question,” Ahmadinejad said, as quoted by MENA news agency.

The relationship between the two countries has been tense since Iran’s 1979 Islamic revolution and Egypt’s signing of a peace treaty with Israel the same year.

The leader went on to call for a strategic alliance with Egypt.

“We must all understand that the only option is to set up this alliance because it is in the interests of the Egyptian and Iranian peoples and other nations of the region,” he said.

Although Cairo gave Ahmadinejad a red-carpet welcome when he arrived on Tuesday, Egypt’s foreign minister downplayed the significance of the visit, saying the leader was purely in Cairo for the summit.

“It’s just a normal procedure. That’s all,” he said.

In his interview, Ahmadinejad said that Iran had offered to lend money to Egypt despite being under international economic sanctions over its nuclear program.

“I have said previously that we can offer a big credit line to the Egyptian brothers, and many services,” he said.

He did not say if there had been any response. Egypt’s current financial situation has led the country to seek aid from other countries.

On Tuesday, Cairo disclosed that its foreign reserves had fallen below the $15 billion level that covers three months’ imports.

The country is currently in talks for a $900 million loan from the EU, a $500 million loan from the African Development Bank, and a $450 million loan from the US. It is also in talks for a $1 billion loan from Turkey.

While it remains unclear whether the Egyptian government will snub Iran’s offer of financial assistance, the feelings of several Egyptian citizens regarding Ahmadinejad’s visit were a bit more clear cut.

Three Egyptians and a Syrian were detained on suspicion of trying to attack the Iranian President at a mosque, security sources told Reuters.

Video footage shows a bearded man trying twice to throw a shoe at the leader as he was surrounded by well-wishers leaving the Hussein mosque.

Washington – The Postal Service is expected to announce on Wednesday morning that it will stop delivering letters and other mail on Saturdays, but continue to handle packages, a move the financially struggling agency said would save about $2 billion annually as it looks for ways to cut cost.

The agency has long sought Congressional approval to end mail delivery on Saturdays. But Congress, which continues to work on legislation to reform the agency, has resisted. It is unclear how the agency will be able to end the six-day delivery of mail without Congressional approval.

News of the move was first reported by CBS News.

The announcement, which is expected at a Wednesday morning news conference, comes as the agency continues to lose money, mainly due to a 2006 law which requires it to pay about $5.5 billion a year into a future retiree health benefit fund. Last year, for the first time, the agency defaulted on two payments after it had reached its borrowing limit from the Treasury Department. The Postal Service also continues to see a decline in mail volume as more people shift to electronic forms of communication like e-mail and online bill paying services. Packaging is one of the few areas where the agency is seeing growth.

While many business and postal unions have generally opposed ending Saturday delivery, most Americans support the move.

A New York Times/CBS News poll last year found that about 7 in 10 Americans say they would favor the change as a way to help the post office deal with billions of dollars in debt. The Postal Service continues to suffer losses of $36 million a day and is headed for projected losses of about $21 billion a year by 2016. Last year, the Postal Service had a net loss of $15.6 billion.

The American Postal Workers Union, which represents about 220,000 workers and retirees, said the plan to end six-day delivery will add to the agency’s financial problems.

“The A.P.W.U. condemns the Postal Service’s decision to eliminate Saturday mail delivery, which will only deepen the agency’s congressionally manufactured financial crisis,” said Cliff Guffey, president of the union.

In February 2003, London was consumed by a huge demonstration against the invasion of Iraq. A decade on, the Huffington Post joined one of the organisers of the march on a walk along its route.

On a freezing February morning, commuters are emerging from London’s Embankment Tube Station.

It was a very different scene a decade earlier, when as many as two million people took to the capital’s streets to try to stop the invasion of Iraq.

February 15, 2003 was one of the biggest ever days of public protest in the UK, with similar marches taking place around the world.

Chief steward in London that day was Chris Nineham, of the Stop the War Coalition.

Looking down the Embankment towards Waterloo Bridge, he recalls the day when the roads were closed and crowds stretched as far as he could see.

“We had realised about 10 days before it was going to be epic,” he says.

“I remember standing on this bridge, looking back along the Embankment, and the sea of people coming over Waterloo Bridge. It was just wall to wall people, and the noise was just unbelievable.”

Protesters march down Piccadilly in central London

Two meeting points had been arranged, with similar numbers gathering at Euston.

Nineham, who led the march from Embankment, set off at 1pm on the bright winter’s day, heading towards the Houses of Parliament and down Whitehall to Downing Street.

“It was not one of those demonstrations where people are just going through the motions – there was kind of a feeling of both anger and a sense that we could maybe make a difference.

“There was chanting, drumming, lots of banners. You can tell when a demonstration is more than the left, the trade unions, when people bring banners they’ve made themselves.“

The organisers had woken to the news that a huge demonstration had already taken place in Australia, with more planned across the world later in the day.

Estimates of the true turnout vary — the police put it at 750,000 — but Nineham stands by the organisers’ claim of two million.

They stopped outside Downing Street, although Prime Minister Tony Blair was not at home, and continued up towards Piccadilly Circus.

It was there, at around 2pm, that they spotted the rest of the protesters who had made their way from Euston. “There was the most unbelievable cheer, absolute pandemonium,” says Nineham.

“It was very moving. People were amazed at the size of this demonstration, but this was only half of it. We were euphoric.

“It’s so different today, it feels like a different reality. In a sense it is, because the whole dynamic of the city had changed.”

Striding down Piccadilly towards Hyde Park, the noise reached deafening levels, with baffled foreign shoppers coming face-to-face with a sea of angry protesters.

Nineham was at the front, alongside trade unionists, MPs and other activists.

“Even when we arrived at Hyde Park, there were hundreds of thousands of people on the Embankment who had still not moved.

“We got to Hyde Park at about 2.30pm, and it was absolutely rammed. People had just turned up here, set up stalls, and there was music playing.”

Two giant screens had been set up with speakers from Tony Benn to Miss Dynamite addressing the crowds.

“It started to get dark about 5pm, but people were still coming in. they started to light fires, there was such a sense of occasion that they did not want to leave.”

Despite the protests, Iraq was invaded March weeks later, and Tony Blair went on to win the 2005 Election.

So what did it all achieve?

“Obviously we didn’t stop the war, but we made it very difficult for governments to fight future wars,” he says. “What developed on February 15 was a kind of anti-war block that has been very obstinate.

“The government is continuing to conduct these wars, but public opinion is very much against them.”

The steward insists the former Prime Minister was eventually “hounded out” of office because of Iraq. “He tried to move it on, but the fact was that it was Iraq that did for him.”

In the decade that followed, he admits the surge in public support for the military has made his job more difficult, and says much of the protest movement is now fighting against public spending cuts.

Has the anti-war movement lost its way?

“In a certain sense the issue isn’t so centre stage given the austerity cuts, and a lot of the activism associated with the war has moved on,” Nineham says.

“But we don’t think that is a perennial thing. People will be marching again in very very large numbers, I am absolutely convinced.”

“The Gatekeepers,” a new documentary, records the views of the Israeli security officials most responsible for suppressing Palestinian resistance and their growing doubts about the strategy of endless repression. But even this criticism glosses over the depth of the problem.

There is a new documentary movie about Israel called “The Gatekeepers,” directed by Dror Moreh and featuring interviews with all the former leaders of the Shin Bet, the country’s internal security organization.

The Shin Bet is assigned the job of preventing Palestinian retaliatory attacks on Israel and, as described by Moreh, the film “is the story of Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian territories as told by the people at the crossroads of some of the most crucial moments in the security history of the country.” Along the way it touches on such particular topics as targeted assassinations, the use of torture, and “collateral damage.”

“The Gatekeepers” has garnered a lot of acclaim, playing at film festivals in Jerusalem, Amsterdam, New York, Toronto, Venice and elsewhere. It has won the Los Angeles Film Critics Association’s Best Documentary Award. It has been nominated for an Oscar.

In order to promote “The Gatekeepers,” Moreh has been doing interviews and recently appeared on CNN with Christiana Amanpour. He made a number of salient points, as did the Shin Bet leaders in the clips featured during the interview.

—Moreh says, “if there is someone who understands the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it’s these guys,” the Shin Bet leaders. Actually, this not necessarily true. One might more accurately claim that these men, who led Israel’s most secretive government institution, were and are so deeply buried inside their country’s security dilemma that they see it in a distorted fashion (with only occasional glimmers of clarity).

For instance, Avraham Shalom, head of the Shin Bet from 1981-1986, tells us that “Israel lost touch with how to coexist with the Palestinians as far back as the aftermath of the Six Day War in 1967 … when the country started doubling down on terrorism.”

But is this really the case? One might more accurately assert that Israel had no touch to lose. Most of its Jewish population and leadership have never had an interest in coexistence with Palestinians in any egalitarian and humane sense of the term. The interviewed security chiefs focus on the Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza because they are the ones who offered the most resistance to conquest. But what of the 20 percent of the population of Israel who are also Palestinian and who actually lived under martial law until 1966? You may call the discriminatory regime under which these people live “coexistence,” but it is the coexistence of superior over the inferior secured largely by intimidation.

—Moreh insists that it is the “Jewish extremists inside Israel” who have been the “major impediment” to resolving issues between Israel and the Palestinians. The film looks at the cabal of religious fanatics who, in 1980, planned to blow up the Muslim shrine of the Dome of the Rock on Jerusalem’s Temple Mount, as well as the assassination of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin in 1995. Yet, as dangerous as Israel’s right-wing extremists and settler fanatics are, focusing exclusively on them obscures the full history of the occupation.

By 1977, when Menachem Begin and Israel’s right-wing fanatics fully took power, the process of occupation and ethnic cleansing was well under way. It had been conducted against both the Arab Israelis from 1948 onward, and against the Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza after 1967. In both cases, it was initiated by the so-called Israeli Left: the Labor Party led by such people as David Ben-Gurion, Golda Meir, Shimon Peres, and Yitzhak Rabin himself. Amongst the Israeli leadership, there were no clean hands.

—Finally, Dror Moreh repeatedly pushes another message: “a central theme of the documentary is the idea that Israel has incredible tactics, but it lacks long-term strategy … if [security] operations do not support a move toward a peace settlement, then they are meaningless.”

Again, this assessment reflects Moreh being so deeply situated inside of the problem that he cannot perceive it clearly. Moreh assumes that achieving peace with the Palestinians is the only “long-term strategy” Israel could possibly have and, in its absence, Israel pursues no strategy at all.

However, an objective assessment of Israeli history tells us that there has been another strategy in place. The Zionist leaders have, in fact, always had a long-term strategy to avoid any meaningful peace settlement, so as to allow: 1. occupation of all “Eretz Israel,” 2. the ethnic cleansing or cantonization of the native population, and 3. settlement of the cleansed territory with Jews.

It is because of this same naivete that Moreh confesses himself “shocked” when Avraham Shalom compares the occupation of the Palestinian territories to “Germany’s occupation of Europe.” It is to Shalom’s credit that he made the statement on camera, and to Morah’s credit that he kept the statement in the final version of the film. But then Moreh spoils this act of bravery when he tells Amanpour: “Only Jews can say these kind of words. And only they can have the justification to speak as they spoke in the film.”

Well, I can think of one other group of people who has every right to make the same comparison Shalom makes — the Palestinians.

Retired Official’s Confession Syndrome 

For all its shortcomings, the film is a step forward in the ongoing effort to deny the idealized Zionist storyline a monopoly in the West. Indeed, that “The Gatekeepers” was made at all, and was received so positively at major film venues, is a sign that this skewed Israeli storyline is finally breaking down. Certainly, this deconstruction still has a long way to go, but the process is picking up speed.

On the other hand, there is something troubling about the belated nature of the insights given in these interviews.  They are examples of what I like to call the “retired official’s confession syndrome.” Quite often those who, in retirement, make these sorts of confessions were well aware of the muddled or murderous situation while in office. But, apparently, they lacked the courage to publicize it at the time. It would have meant risking their careers, their popularity, and perhaps relations with their friends and family.

One is reminded of the fate of Professor Ilan Pappe, who has stood up and lived his principles, and eventually lost his position at Haifa University and was, in the end, forced into exile. For most, however, including these leaders of the Shin Bet, their understanding was clouded and their actions skewed by a time-honored, but deeply flawed, notion of “duty” to carry on like good soldiers.

To date, Israel’s leaders and Zionist supporters have shown an amazing capacity to ignore all criticism. The newly re-elected Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has let it be known that he has no intention of watching “The Gatekeepers.” It is also questionable how many of those who voted for him, or other right-wing politicians, will bother to seek the documentary out.

Israel’s government has recently made the decision to ignore the country’s obligations under the United Nations Human Rights Charter, a decision signaled by its representatives refusal to show up for the country’s “universal periodic review” before the Human Rights Council. Nor is there any sign that any new right-wing led government coalition will stop the ethnic cleansing and illegal colonial repopulation of East Jerusalem.

The only reasonable conclusion one can come to is that it will take increasing outside pressure on Israel, in the form of boycotts, divestment and sanctions, to convince a sufficient number of that country’s Jewish population that they must change their ways. To not change is to acquiesce in Israel’s evolving status as a pariah state.

The irony of it all is that that status will have little to do with most of Israel being Jewish (that is, it will not be a function of anti-Semitism). Yet, it will have everything to do with the fact that, in this day and age, not even the Jews, who have been subjected to some of history’s worst acts of racism, have the right to maintain a racist state.

Lawrence Davidson is a history professor at West Chester University in Pennsylvania. He is the author ofForeign Policy Inc.: Privatizing America’s National Interest; America’s Palestine: Popular and Official Perceptions from Balfour to Israeli Statehood; and Islamic Fundamentalism.

An investigation into Miami police officers’ on-duty conduct found six officers were ignoring 911 calls while instead kissing their girlfriends, shopping, and drinking coffee.

One 911 call involved an unconscious five-month-old baby. Video footage shows Miami police officer Dario Socarras ignoring dispatch orders to save the child, while drinking coffee for nine minutes and lying to the dispatcher about being “en route”. Paramedics eventually reached the unconscious child, while Socarras never went — but still, the officer wrote in his daily report that he attended the scene.

And Socarras is only one of six officers caught neglecting their duties: after being followed and caught on surveillance video by Internal Affairs, two officers and a sergeant were fired and three were suspended without pay for dereliction of duty from the Miami Dade Police Department.

The footage of the incidents documents the department’s worst case of delinquency in its history.

Aside from ignoring the dispatch orders to save the unconscious baby, Socarras was also found to have ignored armed robbery and residential burglary calls. Instead, the officer was found kissing and cuddling with his girlfriend in the parking lot of a shopping mall on two different occasions.

Socarras was also caught misleading a crime victim, promising to fill out a police report about items that were stolen form her, while telling dispatchers that no crime had occurred. The officer proceeded to give the victim a phony case number.

“We’re talking about falsification of official records, stealing time that doesn’t belong to you, because they are supposed to be available for service or duty and they are not,” former Miami Police Chief Ken Harms told CBS4.

And the officer’s supervisor was no better: Sgt. Jennifer Gonzalez was drinking coffee with Socorras while he ignored a dispatch order and was separately recorded shopping while on duty at stores including Target, Lowes and Kohl’s. In one incident, Gonzalez bought so many items at a department store that she even requested a store clerk to help her carry and load her goods into her police car.

Investigators also found that Gonzalez would spend hours visiting her parents in an area that was outside of the district she was employed to be working in. The sergeant has been accused of letting her own neglectful work habits affect others in her department, since all of the officers accused of dereliction of duty were working for her.

Officer Jose Huerta was found repeatedly lying about his availability, claiming he was stuck on a call involving a traffic incident when in fact he was free to respond to calls that the dispatcher had waiting for him. In one incident, he failed to immediately respond to a call about a five-year-old child being locked inside a vehicle — an incident that can quickly turn deadly in the heat under the Miami sun.

Internal Affairs discovered many other incidents of neglectful duties among officers and sergeants in the Miami Dade Police Department. Even though the investigation was conducted in 2010, the delinquent sergeant and officers were not penalized until late 2012.

While this is the Miami police department’s worst case of delinquency, its officers have repeatedly come under scrutiny for illegal and negligent actions. Last week, a Miami officer was fired for shooting an unarmed motorist. In September, police officer Fausto Lopez was fired for driving more than 120 miles per hour and was found to have driven more than 90 miles per hour more than 80 times.

Cases of police neglecting their duties and violating the law are not unusual in Miami, and the video surveillance acquired by the Internal Affairs investigation shows just how dire the situation is.

Protests are growing after Tunisian opposition politician Chokri Belaid was shot dead outside his home in what some have called an “act of terrorism”.

Thousands of Tunisians took to the streets outside the interior ministry, shouting “Shame, shame Chokri died”, “Where is the government?”, and “The government should fall”. Security forces cordoned off the area.

In Sidi Bouzid, birthplace of the Arab Spring uprisings, police fired into the air and used tear gas to disperse demonstrators.

The family of Mr Belaid, who headed the opposition Democratic Patriots party and was a harsh critic of Tunisia’s Islamist-led government, accused the ruling Ennahda party of being behind the murder.

“My brother was assassinated. I am desperate and depressed,” said his brother Abdelmajid.

“I accuse (Ennahda leader) Rached Ghannouchi of assassinating my brother,” he said.

Tunisian Prime Minister Hamadi Jebali denounced Belaid’s murder as an “act of terrorism” against the country.

“The murder of Belaid is a political assassination and the assassination of the Tunisian revolution.

“By killing him they wanted to silence his voice,” said Mr Jebali, who heads the coalition government, formed after Tunisia’s first post-Arab Spring election in 2011.

He said Belaid was shot dead with three bullets fired from close range by a man wearing a traditional long garment with a pointed hood.

Mr Belaid was a high-profile member of the opposition Popular Front party.

The party’s leader Ziad Lakhader said: “Chokri Belaid was killed today by four bullets to the head and chest … doctors told us that he has died. This is a sad day for Tunisia.”

Tunisia was the first Arab country to oust its leader and hold free elections as uprisings spread around the region two years ago, and has made a relatively smooth transition to democracy.

However, the government has faced many protests over economic hardship.

Declining trade with the crisis-hit euro zone means it has struggled to deliver the improved living standards that many Tunisians had hoped for.

Several opposition parties and trade unions have accused pro-Islamist groups of orchestrating clashes or attacks against them.

Originally posted at GoldSilver.com,

16 point 7 trillion dollars. That is our current national debt. 12 point 8 trillion dollars. That is the amount households carry in mortgage and consumer debt. We are now addicted to debt to lubricate the wheels of our financial system. There is nothing wrong with debt per se, but it is safe to say that too much debt relative to how much revenue is being produced is a sign of economic problems. At the core of our current financial mess is how we use debt as a parachute for any problem.  We’ve been masking the shrinking of the middle class by allowing households to take on too much debt for a couple of decades. The results were not positive. Too this degree, we have now created a massive moral hazard economy where savings are punished into oblivion. There is very little incentive to put your money in a bank account yielding zero percent interest when real inflation is eating away at your money like a hungry wolf. So what do people do? Well many simply cannot save and therefore choose to go into debt to finance cars, housing, and education with very little down. Where does this debt addiction lead us?

A little bit of deleveraging

US households have deleveraged from the peak in the crisis. However, much of this deleveraging has been forced via the 5 million foreclosures that have occurred:

I’m not sure if we can interpret that as some sign of a healthy and growing economy. Households have had their access to debt limited in many sectors. Yet one sector that never retreated was that in higher education. There is little doubt that there is a major bubble in higher education. Instead of addressing the problems head on we now have more access to debt as the solution. In order to compete in our service driven economy, having a skill is very important. Most will make the investment to pursue a college degree but the issue is that with easy access to debt, prices have soared. It is no surprise that college prices are following the trajectory of what happened in housing.

If you look at the above chart, a big part of the contraction has come from deleveraging from mortgages and credit card debt. Yet we are now once again loading up on auto debt and college debt. The system is now setup to punish any type of savings. Good luck trying to stash your money in a bank account and outrun even the steady pace of inflation.

Take a look at the current savings rate for Bank of America:

Of course the Fed has a hand in all of this. The Fed realizing that our system for over a decade has been juiced by debt spending, had to step in and make it unattractive to save to the point that people are willing to dive into risky investments yet again. Because of this however, you create moral hazard. For example, with housing you have many government backed loans that are now accessible with very little down. In fact, this has been the path of ownership for most Americans since many are without savings. One out of three Americans has no savings and nearly half are one or two paychecks away from being out on the streets.

This is why we have seen such a dramatic rise in food stamp usage:

Why save to buy anything when you can simply go into debt for it? That seems to be the course we are treading on. We have reached a critical point where our national debt is now higher than our annual GDP. This crossing of the Rubicon is seen as a major financial tipping point. We have also mastered how to hide certain employment figures:  

If we look at the U7b measure, the unemployed + underemployed + discouraged workers are nearly up to 25 percent. We were discussing how many younger Americans are simply riding out the weak economy by going to college.        

People think that this recovery has come from organic forces when in reality, it has come because of number games and also the Fed injecting trillions of dollars into the banking industry. Ironically these banks are using this money to speculate in markets like stocks and housing where they are now crowding out working and middle class Americans. When you have access to a printing press with no restraints, it becomes too tempting to spend into oblivion. Instead of confronting the core problems of the crisis, we are simply repeating them yet again; easy access to low down payment mortgages, easy access to student debt, consumer credit slowly expanding, and major Wall Street speculation. Addictions are never easily cured and we have yet to come to terms with our insatiable appetite for debt.

Wolf Richter  www.testosteronepit.com  www.amazon.com/author/wolfrichter

The daily drumbeat of layoff and plant-closure announcements in France has been riling up desperate workers who stand to lose their livelihood without much hope of finding a job elsewhere as unemployment has hit 10.5%. But now the government is worried about a “radicalization” of these angry workers. A major quandary: on one hand, the Socialists promised during the election to side with the workers; but on the other hand, they must somehow figure out how to create an environment where the private sector can survive.

And the private sector is gasping for air. The Services Purchasing Managers’ Index fell to 43.6 in January, from 45.2 in December (below 50 = contraction), the fastest rate of contraction since March 2009. Particularly worrisome was the steep decline in employment. Manufacturing was even worse. Its index fell to 42.9 in January. New orders plunged at the fastest rate since March 2009, with domestic demand the primary culprit. Employment skidded as excess capacity led companies to slash their headcount.

That these references to March 2009, the dark days of the financial crisis, keep cropping up in economic data is troubling. The report speaks of a “deepening malaise” and “a broad-based deterioration in the private sector” with “significant headwinds,” “accelerated job cutting,” and “heightened levels of uncertainty.” President François Hollande and his government should be in panic mode.

The private sector is anemic in France. Based on the 2013 budget, the central government will contribute 56.3% to the economy. The remaining 43.7% is spread over local and regional governments and finally the private sector–that is shriveling with the relentless de-industrialization of France.

Plant shut-downs and layoffs, or merely the announcement of these events often months or even years down the road, make bold headlines. Video clips of protests associated with them show up on TV, with angry men and women blocking the site. There are images of fires and mayhem. Managers are taken hostage. Politicians weigh in gravely and speak of “dialogue.” Layoffs and plant closures don’t go down smoothly in France.

A series of big-name companies, some of them part-owned by the state, has become part of the nightly layoff blues: Air France, steelmaker ArcelorMittal, Texas Instruments, Goodyear, refiner Petroplus, or automakers PSA PeugeotCitroën and Renault, whose unit sales in France had plunged 17% and 20% respectively last year. But it doesn’t stop there. Now home sales are grinding to a halt [read… The Next Shoe To Drop In France].

The numbers are adding up: in 2012, according to Trendeo, which tracks the creation and destruction of jobs in France, 266 industrial plants were closed last year, a 42% jump from 2011! Since 2009, a total of 1,087 old factories were shuttered while only 703 new ones were brought to life, for a net loss of 384 plants. And these new factories have on average 8.5% fewer employees than factories that are being shut down.

Just how deeply the government is worried about the growing labor unrest emerged during an interview on BFMTV on Tuesday. And not in a propitious location: Interior Minister Manuel Valls was discussing the hunt for Islamist terrorists in France–efforts that the government has redoubled since its military involvement in Mali–when suddenly the topic shifted to the government’s fear of “excesses and violence” during the next labor-related demonstrations.

“Social anger”–meaning, anger by unionized workers–“as a consequence of the financial and economic crisis, job insecurity, unemployment, and layoffs is here and has been rumbling for years,” admitted Valls. “But what we’re seeing today are less social movements but social implosions or explosions.”

Turns out, the government is already preparing for them. A memo to that effect, dated January 30, bubbled to the surface. Sent to regional directors of the police intelligence service, it underlines “the risks of incidents” or possible “threats to production equipment in case of radicalization of the conflict.” To get a handle on the situation, the government has instructed its police intelligence apparatus to gather information on the movements and to follow teetering companies “very closely” in order to anticipate a possible “radicalization” of the labor unrest.

Valls confirmed the police surveillance. “You have to carefully analyze it,” he said about the social anger. And that was the job specifically of the intelligence services of the police, he added. Ever the likeable Socialist, he found the right words. “We have to try to understand the reasons that push men and women into desperation,” he said. “Men and women who are in the process of losing their jobs.”

What about vandalism and destruction of production equipment often associated with these movements? “We have to try to understand them, but we cannot permit them,” he said firmly, as the interview drifted to the next topic: rising violence and property crimes against individuals.

The heightened police presence at these sites during times of labor unrest, often in unmarked cars, has the unions worried. And Bernard Thibault, Secretary General of the CGT, warned that it would be seen as a “provocation.” And so the second largest economy of the Eurozone enters into a phase where fear of a labor revolt hangs over every economic decision the government makes.

The unemployment rate in particular has become treacherous. While all countries use inscrutable statistical systems to make unemployment look better, France also has an administrative tool: removing tens of thousands of people every month from the unemployment rolls for spurious reasons. Read…. “The Politics of Removal”: Dressing Up French Unemployment

The coincidental resurrection of Bunga Bunga boy Berlusconi, amid financial and political fraud allegations (and facts), appears to have struck fear into the heart of European investors. The Draghi ‘promise’ seems to be getting ready to be tested as ‘populist’ Berlusconi closes the gap on his adversaries in Italy’s election – and with it brings the threat of an end to austerity and any sense of stability in the new normal fiscal and political calmness that has ‘apparently’ existed for a few months. As the chart below indicates, via Bloomberg, as interest has risen in Berlusconi, so stocks (and Italian credit markets) have plunged at their fastest pace in five months. Recent polls by Sky Italia show the gap narrowing every week as the Monti Paschi debacle drags more and more of Europe’s elite into its quagmire. The critical aspect of this renewed ‘fear’ is the thesis supporting much of the world’s risk-assets is predicated on a few fulcrum securities in Europe indicating a cessation of tail risk – with Italian bond yields at six-week highs, concerns are starting to show.

Italian stocks collapsing as Berlusconi’s popularity rises…

and Berlusconi’s poll results show his popularity is rising consistently…

As Bloomberg notes:

Prime Minister Mario Monti replaced Berlusconi in November 2011, leading a government of non-party political figures in an attempt to convince investors that the country could manage its debt. Berlusconi has pinned his comeback attempt on a pledge to reverse Monti’s budget rigor and on Feb. 3 the former premier promised to abolish a property tax and give cash back to voters.

and from now until the elections, opinion polls go dark.

With Italy (and Spain) as seemingly fulcrum risk securities – will we see a repeat of September’s resync?

Charts: Bloomberg

With Britain facing the prospect of a triple-dip recession America is examining its own austerity policies and looking to us to see what lessons can be learned.

The Huffington Post UK’s political director, Mehdi Hasan, was joined on Monday by Zach Carter, HuffPost’s senior political economy reporter and Robert Shapiro, economist and chairman of Sonencon to discuss Britain’s and the USA’s situations.

The debate took part on HuffPost Live and was hosted by Alicia Menendez.

GOP’s Foreign Policy Unfit for a World Power

Email   Print   Share

Posted on Feb 6, 2013

Chuck Hagel’s confirmation hearings to become secretary of defense have raised questions about the Republican Party’s ability to conduct U.S. foreign policy worthy of a major international player; Hillary Clinton may be responsible for the decline in the use of “Hillary” as a baby name; meanwhile, although President Obama is quite adept at Internet use, his tendency toward waging a “cyber war” is a deficient approach to online security.These discoveries and more below.

On a regular basis, Truthdig brings you the news items and odds and ends that have found their way to Larry Gross, director of the USC Annenberg School for Communication. A specialist in media and culture, art and communication, visual communication and media portrayals of minorities, Gross helped found the field of gay and lesbian studies.

The Republican Obsession
If last week’s hearing for Chuck Hagel raised questions about his capacity to be secretary of defense, the show trial conducted by his inquisitors on the tribunal raised questions about the GOP.

‘Ex-Gay’ Blogger for the ‘Christian Post’ Caught on Grindr, Admits His ‘Disobedience to Christ’
Activist Zinnia Jones, via one of her readers, revealed a Grindr profile yesterday belonging to someone who appeared to be Matt Moore, an “ex-gay” blogger for the Christian Post, who has written much about his departure from the “gay lifestyle”.

NYC Officials Threaten Funding of Brooklyn College Over Israel Event
In defense of Israel, liberal officials are copying Giuliani’s 1999 termination of funding for a museum exhibiting “offensive” art.

Watching Fish Thoughts Form
Scientists record the neuronal activity of a fish brain as the animal watches its prey.

Russian Government Now Views Internet as Main Threat to Its Position
The growth in Internet use in the Russian Federation over the last year has meant that “for the first time, the Internet began to be considered by the Russian government as the main source of threat to its well-being and stability,” according to the annual report of the Agora Inter-Regional Human Rights Organization.

Hilary: The Most Poisoned Baby Name in US History
The root word for Hilary is the Latin word “hilarius” meaning cheerful and merry, which is the same root word for “hilarious” and “exhilarating.” It’s a great name.

Why We Took Cocaine Out of Soda
When cocaine and alcohol meet inside a person, they create a third unique drug called cocaethylene.

The Problem with Tweeting a Revolution
During the most heated days of the Tahrir Square protests, Andy Carvin sent more than 1,000 tweets per day.

Six Israeli Security Chiefs Stun World
Six former heads of the Shin Bet, Israel’s secretive internal security service, have spoken out as a group for the first time and are making stunning revelations.

Geeks are the New Guardians of Our Civil Liberties
Recent events have highlighted the fact that hackers, coders, and geeks are behind a vibrant political culture.

Israeli and Palestinian Researchers Reveal that Both Sides Need to Take a Closer Look at the Books They Teach
In the Israeli-Palestinian public relations wars, it’s conventional wisdom that the textbooks used in schools in the West Bank and Gaza breed hatred for Israel.

The Pernicious Persistence of the ‘Language Shapes Thought’ Theory
Did you know that thinking in Korean makes you process life differently than thinking in English?

The Obama Administration’s Lousy Record on Cyber Security
Barack Obama is probably America’s most web-savvy president ever.

GOP to Reid: Thanks for Caving on Filibuster Reform
It was very fitting that pretty much immediately after Harry Reid ended the possibility of filibuster reform in the more-sclerotic-than-ever U.S. Senate, a Republican appointee-run court effectively killed the recess appointment.

MOOC Mess
Maybe it was inevitable that one of the new massive open online courses would crash.

More Below the Ad

New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus.

AMY GOODMAN: A lawsuit challenging a controversial statute that gives the government the power to indefinitely detain U.S. citizens is back in federal court this week. On Wednesday, a group of academics, journalists, and activists will present oral arguments in court against a provision in the National Defense Authorization Act, or NDAA, authorizing the military to jail anyone it considers a terrorism suspect anywhere in the world without charge or trial.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: In a landmark ruling last September, Judge Katherine Forrest of the Southern District of New York struck down the indefinite detention provision, saying it likely violates the First and Fifth Amendments of U.S. citizens. The judge rejected the Obama administration’s argument that the NDAA merely reaffirmed an existing law recognizing the military’s right to perform certain routine duties. However, President Obama quickly appealed Judge Forrest’s ruling and sought an emergency stay on the injunction.

Well, for more, we’re joined now by Daniel Ellsberg, one of the plantiffs in the NDAA lawsuit who will be attending Wednesday’s hearings. He’s perhaps the country’s most famous whistleblower, who leaked the Pentagon Papers in 1971, the secret history of the U.S. involvement in Vietnam.

Daniel Ellsberg, welcome to Democracy Now!

DANIEL ELLSBERG: Thank you.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: So, can you talk about this case?

DANIEL ELLSBERG: Yes. Well, as an American citizen, I’m really almost whipsawed by emotions this morning. On the one hand, I’m here to attend the court hearing at the circuit court on Wednesday at the Federal Court Building, where I expect to see the Obama administration color itself with shame in arguing that an American citizen can be detained indefinitely in military custody without charges, indefinitely, violating really the core principles of law that go back to the Magna Carta. On the other hand, I was up late last night reading the 112-page document of Katherine B. Forrest, and I have to say, at the end of that–

AMY GOODMAN: The judge.

DANIEL ELLSBERG: The judgment, again, granting an injunction, saying that these provisions of the law that will be argued and defended by–shamefully, by the Obama administration and by three U.S. senators, who will be claiming that the detention is constitutional and legal–her argument was that it was facially unconstitutional. And when I read her detailed argument, 112, taking each point of the prosecution over a period now of nearly a year–their evidence, their lack of evidence, their argument–taking each argument that this was constitutional and smashing it on this, I felt pride as an American. I thought, this is the American citizen that I fought for as a marine. This is a constitutional order, a rule of law, a judge, appointed by Obama, who’s willing to say that her boss was mistaken in claiming that this rule is compatible with our rule of law.

It really says to me, at last, I think, that President Obama, who was a constitutional teacher, like Professor John Yoo, Y-O-O, of Berkeley, who authored most of these torture memos in the first place–I think that, like Yoo, Obama has to be seen as either a rotten constitutional lawyer or a man who, like Yoo, believes that the Constitution simply does not bound an American prisoner in any way in an indefinite law of torture. And either way, I believe we have here impeachable offenses by all of the people arguing this case, including the three senators–McCain, others–who will be arguing today on this. We should be looking at Brennan and the other people connected with the torture program not in terms of confirmation hearings, but in terms of impeachment hearings and convictions.

AMY GOODMAN: The case is called Hedges v. Obama. A number of people are involved–Chris Hedges, the writer, who says if–you know, he’s one of the–part of a team at The New York Times who won a Pulitzer Prize–

DANIEL ELLSBERG: He’s pressed this case, to his great credit. I have great admiration for Hedges.

AMY GOODMAN: –says that if he is talking to someone who the United States deems terrorist, he could end up in jail himself, as a journalist. Noam Chomsky, Cornel West, you yourself, Dan Ellsberg, the premier whistleblower of this country.

DANIEL ELLSBERG: For talking to Jake Appelbaum, right here, who has been identified at one point, an earlier point, as a spokesperson from WikiLeaks. Bradley Manning right now is on trial in military court with the absurd and unconstitutional charge of aiding the enemy without any element of intent, merely that his information would get to Obama–I’m sorry, to Osama bin Laden or to al-Qaeda eventually, thus making it, in effect, a terrorist organization. But giving it to WikiLeaks is very like saying that WikiLeaks is the enemy he’s aiding and affecting.

Now, simply by associating with Jake, whom I’m proud to do and I’m learning from, or supporting WikiLeaks or Manning as I do, it’s very clear that my speech, my First Amendment activities in support of their activities, can be interpreted by the vague, broad terms of this unconstitutional 1021(b)(2) section of the National Defense Authorization Act as, quote, “substantial support to an organization associated with terrorism.” These vague terms make it possible–really there’s no one at this table who could be exempt from some informed official, who we’ve now learned has the power to defend–to condemn us to death. And, of course, if you can do that, I’m sure they can feel quite easy about simply putting us in military custody like Bradley Manning, even though we’re not in the military.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: Well, this law is unprecedented in U.S. history. Can you talk about what–

DANIEL ELLSBERG: Well, as a law, it’s unprecedented, but as a practice–what we’ve seen for the last 10 years is a systematic assault on the Constitution of the United States in every aspect–in the aspects of the illegal surveillance, the warrantless surveillance, which was conducted against me 40 years ago by President Nixon and then led to his impeachment proceedings, but is now regarded as legal. That’s the way the law has changed. Efforts to assault me or kill me on the steps of the Capitol on May 3rd, 1972, a presidential hit squad of the kind that the president now takes pride in proclaiming that he runs all over the world.

AMY GOODMAN: But explain, for people who don’t know your story, how was it 40 years ago that you’re saying you could have been–

DANIEL ELLSBERG: Well, 40 years ago, I was on trial for the same offense, essentially, as Bradley Manning, though he was in the military. As a former civilian official, I released 7,000 pages of top-secret documents demonstrating lies, crimes, treaty violations by the American government that had lied us into a wrongful and hopeless war and were killing Americans and others at a great rate as it went on. For that, I was facing 115 years in prison, just as Bradley Manning is now facing life charges, essentially the same. In my case, the crime–the then-crimes against me of illegal surveillance, warrantless surveillance, the use of the CIA against me, now legal under the PATRIOT Act, and a hit squad against me, now allegedly legal by the president, all those things figured in impeachment proceedings against President Nixon.

AMY GOODMAN: We have 10 seconds.

DANIEL ELLSBERG: And it led to his resignation. They should lead, right now–we’ve seen this assault. The time has come–and Katherine Forrest has shown the way, I think–to defend the Constitution and try to restore it to the rights of Americans.

AMY GOODMAN: Dan Ellsberg and Jacob Appelbaum, I want to thank you for being with us. We’re going to do part two right after the show, and we’ll put it on the website at democracynow.org. Pentagon Papers whistleblower Dan Ellsberg and Jacob Appelbaum, computer security researcher.

Nearly a month ago, the first expose on a previously secret money-losing derivative at Italy’s Banca dei Monte Paschi emerged and nobody took notice. A few days later a second derivative emerged, and the market finally paid attention sending the stock plunging and political spirits in Italy stirring due to the repeatedly bailed out bank’s close ties to the leading Italian Democratic Party. Then a third and a fourth derivative emerged. This, of course was just after Italy’s Finance Minister Grilli assured everyone that Monte Paschi is “solid“, that oversight of the bank was “continuous and thorough“, that “aid was not to help an insolvent bank” and most hilariously, that “the Italian banking system is unique for no bailouts” (except for all the bailouts as Rajoy might add).

It was also after various assurances that the first two derivatives were all there was, that Mario Draghi did not know about any of this, until it was revealed he knew years ago, and that no other banks would be impaired. Well, while we still don’t know how deep the derivative rot has spread in Italy, but it is guaranteed it does not stop at BMPS, we have now learned of yet another derivative, this time with JPM, that the bank had lied even more, and also that the previously loss estimates for Monte Paschi were, naturally, optimistic and that the final loss may be up to (or over) €1 billion.

Reuters reports:

Monte dei Paschi lied to the Bank of Italy about the terms of the so-called FRESH 2008 hybrid instrument, worth around 1 billion euros, which it used to partly fund its acquisition of Antonveneta, a judicial document showed on Wednesday.

The document, obtained by Reuters, said Monte dei Paschi’s then chief financial officer Marco Morelli had signed an indemnity document in favour of J.P. Morgan which was hidden from the regulator. J.P. Morgan in 2008 underwrote a 1 billion euro capital increase in Monte dei Paschi, and then structured the Fresh 2008 hybrid instrument, convertible in Monte dei Paschi’s shares, and sold it to a number of investors.

J.P. Morgan in Milan declined to comment.

According to the prosecutors’ document, Morelli also gave a so-called indemnity side letter to Bank of New York, which acted as an intermediary in the FRESH 2008 deal, “at the time of a meeting of the FRESH investors”, which was also hidden from the regulator.

Prosecutors suspect that the indemnity side letter violated requirements set by the Bank of Italy by making the FRESH 2008 work like a bond rather than an hybrid equity instrument.

At this point the latest bailout of BMPS, which the Bank of Italy has already pre-cleared, appears assured, as does the emergence of even more money-losing derivative transactions.

The only unknown is how many other banks will be dragged down once Silvio, in an attempt to discredit the Democratic party and gain even more popularity, reveals all the dirty laundry that only he knows as he was the Prime Minister until November 2011 when Goldman’s new head of the ECB, Mario Draghi forced him to resign by sending Italian bonds plunging.

The market appears unwilling to wait to find out, sending Italian bonds sliding, and yields spiking to 4.583% or the highest since December 14.

Revenge may well be a dish best served uncollateralized for Bunga Bunga, as Silvio exposes just enough dirt to get none other than the man who was responsible for his ouster to step down, this time from his role as ECB head as even more humiliation is piled upon the former Bank of Italy head.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: The Obama administration’s internal legal justification for assassinating U.S. citizens without charge has been revealed for the first time. According to a secret Justice Department document obtained by NBC News, the Obama administration claims it has the legal authority to target citizens who are, quote, “senior operational leaders,” of al-Qaeda or “an associated force” – even if there’s no intelligence indicating they are engaged in an active plot to attack the U.S.

In September 2011, a U.S. drone strike in Yemen killed two American citizens: Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan. The following month, another U.S. drone strike killed al-Awlaki’s 16-year-old son Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, who was born in Denver.

AMY GOODMAN: The document obtained by NBC News is described as a “white memo” that was provided to members of the Senate Intelligence and Judiciary Committees as a summary of a classified memo prepared by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel. Last month, a federal judge denied a request by the American Civil Liberties Union and The New York Times for the Justice Department to disclose its legal justification for the targeted killing of Americans.

The Obama administration’s secrecy around the drone program is expected to be a top issue at this week’s confirmation hearing of White House counterterrorism adviser John Brennan to be director of the CIA. Brennan has been dubbed by critics to be Obama’s “assassination czar.”

Joining us now is Jameel Jaffer, deputy legal director of the ACLU and director of the ACLU’s Center for Democracy.

You’ve looked at the white memo. This is something you’ve been asking for for quite some time, Jameel. Talk about its significance. Go through it with us point by point.

JAMEEL JAFFER: Sure. Well, it’s a very significant document, and it’s a remarkable document, and it’s something that everybody really ought to read, in the same way that everybody ought to read the torture memos from the last administration. It sets out, or professes to set out, the power that the government has to carry out the targeted killing of American citizens who are located far away from any battlefield, even when they have not been charged with a crime, even when they do not present any imminent threat in any ordinary meaning of that word. So it’s a pretty sweeping power that’s been set out. And the memo purports to provide a legal justification for that power and explain why the limits on that power can’t be enforced in any court.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: The confidential Justice Department white paper that you’re talking about, Jameel Jaffer, introduces a more expansive definition of “self-defense” or “imminent attack” than any articulated by the U.S. government before. It reads, quote: “The condition that an operational leader present an ‘imminent’ threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future.” Can you talk about the significance of that and how exactly “imminent” is defined in this document–

JAMEEL JAFFER: Sure.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: –or not defined?

JAMEEL JAFFER: Yeah, well, I mean, I think you–you know, you have to start with the acknowledgment that there are circumstances in which the government has the authority, and maybe even the responsibility, to use lethal force. Even if you think about it domestically–somebody is running down the street, waving a gun around, threatening civilians–the government doesn’t have to go to a judge beforehand to seek a warrant to carry out that use of lethal force. But that’s a situation in which the threat is imminent, in the ordinary meaning of the term: There’s not time to go to a judge; there’s not time for deliberation.

But the kind of imminence that the government is defining here, or the way that the government has defined the term here, is much, much broader. They’re talking about situations in which the person presents no immediate threat, there’s no known plot. These people are located far away from any actual battlefield, so you’re not talking about a situation in which there are battlefield exigencies that the government has to worry about. You’re really talking about something that looks a lot more like a law enforcement context. And in that context, the traditional rule is the government has the authority to use lethal force only in very narrow circumstances. And this memo really redefines those circumstances entirely.

AMY GOODMAN: Let’s turn to Attorney General Eric Holder, a comment he made last March when he outlined what the White House billed as the legal rationale for its claimed right to kill U.S. citizens who belong to al-Qaeda or associated forces.

ATTORNEY GENERAL ERIC HOLDER: It is an unfortunate but undeniable fact that some of the threats that we face come from a small number of United States citizens who have decided to commit violent attacks against their own country from abroad. Based on generations-old legal principles and Supreme Court decisions handed down during World War II, as well as during this current conflict, it’s clear that United States citizenship alone does not make–does not make such individuals immune from being targeted.

AMY GOODMAN: Jameel Jaffer, respond to Attorney General Eric Holder.

JAMEEL JAFFER: Well, it’s not a question of immunity. This is kind of a straw man. Nobody is arguing that Americans are entirely immune from the government’s use of lethal force. The question is: Under what circumstances can the government use lethal force? And again, for a very good reason, those circumstances have traditionally been defined very narrowly. Now what the government is doing is creating an extremely broad category of people who can be targeted without judicial review before the fact, without judicial assessment of the evidence after the fact. It’s a very dangerous thing that the government is doing.

And I think that at some level, I think the people who have written this memo and the people who are exercising this authority in the Obama administration must be convinced of their own trustworthiness. But even if you accept that the people who are now in office are trustworthy in this sense, this power is going to be available to the next administration and the one after that, and it’s going to be available in every future conflict, not just the conflict against al-Qaeda. And according to the administration, the power is available all over the world, not just on geographically cabined battlefields. So it really is a sweeping proposition.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: But what does it mean, though, that it’s not an official legal memo, it’s a white paper? Does that have any legal significance or implications?

JAMEEL JAFFER: Well, you know, some people have been saying that this is a kind of transparency that the administration, through these kinds of leaks, is giving the public the ability to assess the strength of the administration’s legal arguments. And the truth is that this is really just a briefing document, it’s not a legal memo. It does tell us a little bit about the authority that the government is claiming, but the actual legal memos are still secret. We’ve been litigating for those memos now for 18 months or two years. The administration has refused to release them. We have just appealed one case to the 2nd Circuit here in New York, to the appeals court here in New York.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: Can you explain the case? What is the case that your organization, the ACLU, is–

JAMEEL JAFFER: So, there are two–there are two Freedom of Information Act cases that we’re litigating right now. One is–one is here in New York, and the other one is in D.C. One of them is an effort to get the legal memos. We’re litigating that case with The New York Times; they have a parallel request. The other case, which is in D.C., is about, principally, civilian casualties, the question of who has been killed in these–in these drone strikes, because the administration has not released numbers. And we’re reliant on the work of very good organizations outside the administration to do that kind of work. We think that the administration should release its own numbers. So–

NERMEEN SHAIKH: And “who has been killed,” you mean U.S. citizens and non-U.S. citizen who have been killed.

JAMEEL JAFFER: Right, absolutely. So, most of the people who are being killed in these drone strikes aren’t U.S. citizens, right? There have only been four U.S. citizens–three in 2011, one in 2002. The rest have been noncitizens killed, some of them in Pakistan, some of them in Yemen, some of them in Somalia. According to the figures of the Bureau of Investigative Journalism in the U.K., we’re now talking about somewhere on the order of 4,000 people who have been killed with these drones.

And the administration still hasn’t released the legal memos that purport to justify that program. So, one of the cases that we’re litigating, the one here in New York, is the effort to get that justification. This memo, this briefing paper, provides us a little more information about that justification, but it’s not the justification itself. For the same reasons that the government was right in 2009 to release the torture memos, we think the government should release the targeted killing memo.

AMY GOODMAN: Let’s get specific. I saw you in Sundance at one of the premieres of Jeremy Scahill and Rick Rowley’s film called Dirty Wars: The World is a Battlefield. And it tells the story, among others, of Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, 16-year-old kid born in Denver, killed in a drone strike two weeks after his father was killed in a drone strike in Yemen. Talk about his case and how this relates.

JAMEEL JAFFER: Right.

AMY GOODMAN: When does the U.S. stop? What is the justification for killing this 16-year-old boy?

JAMEEL JAFFER: Well, so two things about that. First, I think one of the most chilling aspects of the power that the government is claiming here is that they’re claiming the authority to do all of this in secret, not just keep it secret from the courts or keep their justification secret from the courts, but keep the exercise of this power secret, so they can carry out these killings of American citizens, among many others, without even acknowledging to the public or to any court that they have exercised that authority. And that really is a chilling proposition. But that’s one thing, and that’s one of the things that they’ve done in the Abdulrahman case: They have failed to acknowledge that they actually carried out this killing, although everybody knows it to be true.

But we have other litigation which we’re doing with the Center for Constitutional Rights. It’s a constitutional case on behalf of the three U.S. citizens who were killed in 2011, including Abdulrahman, the 16-year-old. And that’s a case in which we are raising claims under the Fourth Amendment and the Fifth Amendment, the due process clause, arguing that the government does not have the right, again, except in these extremely narrow circumstances, to carry out targeted killings without judicial review. And the government’s response to that lawsuit has not been to defend their authority on the merits. They’re not actually saying, “We have the right to do this.” They haven’t actually filed any of those arguments in court. Instead what they’re arguing is: This question of whether the government acted lawfully or not is a political question committed to the political branches, and the judges have no role to play, no role whatsoever to play, in assessing whether the killing of an American citizen was lawful or not.

AMY GOODMAN: How does it stop? Where does it stop? You kill them in Yemen, American citizens and others–no trial, no charge. What about in the United States?

JAMEEL JAFFER: There’s no line. You know, if you look at the memo, the briefing paper that was released yesterday, there’s no geographic line. And you can remember how most of the country reacted when President Bush declared the authority to hold American citizens detained in the United States: Most of the country said, “You can’t be serious. You’re going to treat the United States as part of the battlefield. You’re going to detain American citizens inside the United States as enemy combatants.” And now, the Obama administration–you know, if you accept the memo on its face, you accept the briefing paper on its face, the Obama administration is making, in some ways, a greater claim of authority. They’re arguing that the authority to kill American citizens has no geographic limit.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: I want to turn to comments made by John Brennan, John Brennan who is Obama’s counterterrorism adviser and now his pick for CIA director. He made these comments last May and publicly confirmed that the United States has used drones to conduct targeted killings overseas.

JOHN BRENNAN: President Obama believes that, done carefully, deliberately and responsibly, we can be more transparent and still ensure our nation’s security. So let me say it as simply as I can: Yes, in full accordance with the law, and in order to prevent terrorist attacks on the United States and to save American lives, the United States government conducts targeted strikes against specific al-Qaeda terrorists, sometimes using remotely piloted aircraft often referred to publicly as “drones.” And I’m here today because President Obama has instructed us to be more open with the American people about these efforts.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: That was Obama’s nominee for CIA director, John Brennan, speaking last May. Jameel Jaffer, your comments on what he said about drone attacks?

JAMEEL JAFFER: Well, this is–this is, I think, you know, in some ways, good timing for the release of this briefing paper, because, you know, as you mentioned, John Brennan has been nominated to head the CIA. There’s going to be a vote on his nomination later this week. And some senators have said that the nomination should not go forward unless the administration is more forthcoming with its legal analysis, unless they release the OLC memo. And I think that’s exactly right. The administration should release that memo. There are also open questions about the role that Brennan played in the torture program, and those questions, too, ought to be answered before the vote goes forward. So, you know, I think it’s good timing. There are some very serious questions that ought to be asked by–

AMY GOODMAN: Do you think the Democrats will be asking these questions of a Democratic administration?

JAMEEL JAFFER: Well, you know, there were a group of senators yesterday that wrote to the administration asking for the release of the legal memo and seeming to connect the release of the legal memo to–to these votes, to the Hagel vote and to the Brennan vote. And I think that that’s an important thing. And it was a group led by Senator Wyden. So I think that there–you know, there are definitely senators who think this is important. And if people can make it known to their senators that they think it’s important, I think that would be a very good thing.

AMY GOODMAN: And your thoughts on John Brennan being the CIA pick? Already, four years ago, when President Obama wanted to do it the first time around, he was forced to withdraw his name because there was such outcry.

JAMEEL JAFFER: Well, right. I mean, I definitely have reservations about it. I think that there are these questions, these important questions about his role in the torture program. And also, you know, people have said that John Brennan is an advocate for transparency about the drone program. If that’s true, now is the right time to release the OLC memo, the legal counsel memo. And I think that the debate about his nomination should be informed by whatever’s in that memo.

AMY GOODMAN: We had a report in headlines about Open Society Justice Initiative–and you’re a fellow at the Open Society right now, on leave from the ACLU–putting out a new report that’s revealed a detailed look at global involvement in the CIA’s secret program of prisons, rendition and torture since 9/11. The initiative says 54 countries aided the CIA until President Obama stopped the program in 2009. It’s called “Globalizing Torture,” also reveals at least 136 people were held by the CIA during those years–the largest tally to date. How significant is this?

JAMEEL JAFFER: I think it’s a hugely significant report. I think it’s the most comprehensive report thus far about the people who are held by the CIA and what happened to them, and also the complicity of other countries in the CIA’s program. Some of those other countries have begun to grapple with the question of accountability for their role in that program. As you know, the United States has not. The Obama administration has interfered with civil suits that seek to hold officials accountable for their role in that program, and it has failed to bring criminal charges against senior officials who supervised the program. But I think it’s a very important thing, what the Open Society Justice Initiative has done here, and I think that it will create pressure not just on other countries to begin to grapple with that question of accountability, but on the United States, as well.

AMY GOODMAN: Final question on this issue of targeted killings: Is this President Obama’s answer to attempting to close Guantánamo? You don’t need prisons if you kill people before they go to prison.

JAMEEL JAFFER: I hope not. You know, without more information about who it is that the administration is killing and on what basis, it’s difficult to make–to draw a conclusion on that question. But I think when you see the kinds of authority that the government is claiming in briefing papers like this, it certainly raises the question about to what extent this program, the drone program, is in fact a substitute for detention.

AMY GOODMAN: And as you said, don’t they say–don’t the documents say that they will kill someone if it puts U.S. personnel at risk?

JAMEEL JAFFER: That’s right. I mean, I think that one of the–you know, one of the really troubling things about the document is the way that it defines this phrase, “Capture is infeasible,” because once you see that phrase in the first paragraph, “Capture is infeasible,” it sounds like a real restriction on the government’s authority to use lethal force. But halfway through the memo, they redefine the phrase, “Capture is infeasible,” to mean something more like: “Capture is inconvenient.” And once you redefine the phrase in that way, then you’ve opened up the possibility of the use of lethal force much more broadly. And again, it does raise the question of whether they are using the use of lethal force as a substitute for detention, and even if they’re not, whether that possibility is open for another administration in the future.

AMY GOODMAN: Jameel Jaffer, I want to thank you for being with us, deputy legal director of the ACLU, director of the ACLU’s Center for Democracy. Coming up later in the broadcast, we’ll speak with Dan Ellsberg, famous whistleblower for the Pentagon Papers. We’ll also speak with Jacob Appelbaum, who just lost a case. He does not have the right, says a federal court, to know when the government is taking his Twitter information or email information. But next up, the controversy in the Boy Scouts. Will the Boy Scouts of America allow gay leaders, gay members? Stay with us.

The Bureau of Investigative Journalism is launching an ambitious new investigation, which will seek to identify as many as possible of those killed in US covert drone strikes in Pakistan, whether civilian or militant.

The Bureau is raising some of the money for this project through a crowd-funding appeal.

As part of our ongoing monitoring and reporting of CIA and Pentagon drone strikes, the Bureau has already recorded the names of hundreds of people killed in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia.

At the end of January 2013, the Bureau was able to identify by name 213 people killed by drones in Pakistan who were reported to be middle- or senior-ranking militants.

A further 331 civilians have also now been named, 87 of them children.

But this is a small proportion of the minimum 2,629 people who appear to have so far died in CIA drone strikes in Pakistan. The Bureau’s work suggests 475 of them were likely to have been civilians.

‘At the moment we know the names of fewer than 20% of those killed in Pakistan’s tribal areas. At least 2,000 deaths still remain publicly anonymous,’ said Chris Woods, who leads the Bureau’s covert drone war team.

‘Our aim will be to identify by name many hundreds more of those killed. A significant number of those identities will be known by local communities, by US and Pakistani officials, and by militant groups. We hope to convince them to share that information.’

Related story — Analysis: Why we must name all drone attack victims

A February 15 2009 drone strike killed at least 26. Few have so far been named. (Getty Images)

The project has already secured substantial funding from a UK foundation — but it still needs more funds.

Today the US-based Freedom of the Press Foundation, a crowd-funding organisation aimed at raising money for public interest journalism, announced it is backing the Bureau’s Naming the Dead project. The Bureau’s new investigation will be one of four recipients of Freedom of the Press Foundation’s latest campaign.

Crowd-funding is an established way of supporting journalism in the US and it is increasingly being used in the UK as a way of funding projects, which established organisations ignore or will not fund.

Using the reach of the web, many people (the crowd) are able to give small amounts of money to back a cause or project in which they believe.

‘In the face of official secrecy, having the full facts about who is killed is essential for an informed debate about the effectiveness and ethics of the drone campaign,’  said Christopher Hird, managing editor of the Bureau. ‘And it is exciting to be able to give all of our supporters worldwide the chance to be part of our first venture in this democratic form of funding.’

A challenging task

Government officials, media organisations and even militant groups are often quick to identify senior militants such as Yahya al-Libi and Ilyas Kashmiri when they are killed.

Yet little is said of the hundreds more alleged militants and civilians among at least 2,629 deaths in Pakistan drone strikes.

Both the US and Pakistani governments are likely to keep detailed records. A recent case at the Peshawar High Court heard that officials in the tribal agencies had prepared a confidential report which ‘included details of each and every drone attack and the number, names and ages of the people killed’.

Anonymous US intelligence officials have also revealed details of CIA video surveillance on particular strikes. And the ‘Terror Tuesday’ process — in which hundreds of named alleged militants have been selected by US agencies for targeted killing — has been widely reported.

Photographs and other documents also occasionally surface. When a civilian family was killed in the first drone strike of Barack Obama’s presidency, local officials issued formal paperwork (see right) that was later obtained by the campaign group Center for Civilians in Conflict.

ID cards, family photographs and eyewitness testimony of attacks can all provide useful corroborating evidence. The graves of militants killed in drone strikes can also name them as ‘martyrs’ and give details of the strikes in which they died.

Drawing on information from a wide array of sources, the Bureau’s team will seek to build a detailed understanding of those killed.

Focus on Pakistan

While the Bureau will seek to extend the project to Yemen and Somalia in the near future, the initial focus will be on the nation where most US covert drone strikes have taken place.

Researchers based in Pakistan and the UK will seek to build up biographical information for all of those killed, whether civilian or militant — their name, age, gender, tribe, and village, for example. Where possible, photographs, witness statements and official documentation will also be published.

The team will seek assistance from the Pakistan and US governments in identifying those killed. And researchers will also call on Taliban factions and other militant groups to release information on the many hundreds of fighters killed in more than 360 US drone strikes since 2004.

Egypt still reeling from January 25th anniversary violence, as police brutality moves some revolutionaries to abandon peaceful protests. Over 60 people have been killed across country, hundreds more injured, detained and still missing. Police torture leaves multiple detainees fighting for their lives in hospitals, while one activist died Monday morning after subjected to savage police torture. Attacks on police stations and government institutions are on the rise.

Throughout his tenure, Obama governed lawlessly for the monied interests that own him. He’s waged no-holds-barred war on humanity.

Strategy includes homeland tyranny, fear-mongering, saber rattling, hot wars, proxy ones, drone ones, domestic political ones, geopolitical ones, financial ones, anti-populist ones, sanctions, subversion, sabotage, targeted assassinations, mass murder, cyberwar, and more.

In May 2009, Obama prioritized cybersecurity. He called cyber-threats “one of the most serious economic and national security challenges we face as a nation.”

“America’s economic prosperity in the 21st century will depend on cybersecurity.”

He ordered a top-to-bottom review. A Cyberspace Policy Review report followed. He waged cyberwar on Iran. He did so cooperatively with Israel.

In spring 2010, Iranian intelligence discovered Stuxnet malware contamination. The computer virus infected its Bushehr nuclear facility. At the time, operations were halted indefinitely.

Israel was blamed. Washington was involved. Had the facility gone online infected, Iran’s entire electrical power grid could have been shut down.

A more destructive virus called Flame malware is known. Internet security experts say it’s 20 times more harmful than Stuxnet. Iran’s military-industrial complex is targeted. So is its nuclear program. Maximum disruption is planned.

Obama supports draconian cybersecurity bills. Passage threatens constitutional freedoms.

Targeted assassinations eliminate America’s enemies. Lawless domestic spying is policy. So is warrantless wiretapping. Americans are as vulnerable as others.

Obama’s waging war on humanity. He’s doing it multiple ways. Last October, he signed an executive order. It expanded military authority. It authorized cyberattacks. It redefined defense. Doing so lawlessly legitimizes aggression.

In November, Presidential Policy Directive 20 followed. It’s secret. It set guidelines for confronting cyberspace threats.

Last fall, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta warned of a “cyber Pearl Harbor.” It could “cause physical destruction and loss of life,” he said. It could “paralyze and shock the nation and create a new profound sense of vulnerability.”

US officials never lack for hyperbole. Fear-mongering is longstanding policy. So are Big Lies, false flags, and other pretexts for wars, other military actions, and disruptive ones.

Cyberwar capability adds to America’s arsenal. Preemption adds another dirty tactic.

In early February, US media reports headlined stepped-up cyberwar. Preemption is prioritized. Nation states, organizations, and individuals are fair game.

US Cyber Command (USCYBERCOM) has full operational control. It’s a cyber hit squad. It’s part of the US Strategic Command.

It’s based at Fort Meade, MD. General Keith Alexander serves as National Security Agency (NSA) director and US Cyber Command head.

The New York Times cited a secret legal review. It affords Obama sweeping preemptive cyberattack powers.

It permits him “to order a preemptive strike if the United States detects (allegedly) credible evidence of a major digital attack looming from abroad.”

His word alone is policy. Corroborating evidence isn’t needed. Efforts to protect classified and proprietary information are increasing.

The Washington Post said wireless and technology giants are battling over a plan to create super Wi-Fi networks.

The Wall Street Journal said Google, Microsoft and Amazon are competing to control cloud computing business.

The Christian Science Monitor said preemptive cyberwar entered America’s arsenal. It “nugded up along side other” approved tactics and techniques.

New policies govern how intelligence agencies work. They’ve been unrestrained before. They’ll have greater powers now.

The New York Times said they’ll be able to “carry out searches of faraway computer networks for signs of potential attacks on the United States and, if the president approves, attack adversaries by injecting them with destructive code — even if there is no declared war.”

Rules of engagement are classified. Effectively there are none. Cyber-warriors are freewheeling. They’re unrestrained.

They’ll operate anywhere globally. China is a target of choice. It’s America’s main economic and geopolitical competitor.

An unnamed US official said new cyberwar strategy is “far more aggressive than anything” used or recommended before. The gloves are off. Anything goes.

Major disruptions can occur without firing a shot. Military and/or civilian power grids can be crippled. So can financial systems and communications networks.

Another unnamed US official said cyberweapons are so powerful that “they should be unleashed only by” presidential order. Exceptions would be tactical strikes.

Examples include disabling command and control as well as ground radar ahead of conventional strikes. At the same time, most cyberoperations are presidential prerogatives.

Expect Obama to take full advantage. Extrajudicial operations are prioritized. Rule of law principles are spurned. Operational procedures have been in development for over two years.

They’re headlined now. They coming out when cyberattacks more often target US companies and critical infrastructure. An unnamed US power station was crippled for weeks.

The New York Times, Washington Post, and Wall Street Journal reported cyberattacks. Obama prioritizes preemption. Doing so has no legal standing. Self-defense alone is justified. Acting on suspicions without evidence is aggression.

New rules serve Washington. Lawyers get marching orders. They’re well paid to subvert accepted legal standards. Doing so doesn’t change them.

What constitutes “reasonable and proportionate force” resides in the eye of the aggressor. New guidelines exclude the Pentagon from defending US companies or individuals without presidential authority.

Doing so is Homeland Security’s prerogative. The FBI has investigatory authority. Cybersecurity legislation remains stalled in Congress. Expect stepped up efforts for passage.

Doing so will more greatly comprise freedom. Full-blown tyranny approaches. It’s a hair’s breadth away. Whistleblowers are targeted. Dissent is endangered.

There’s no place to hide. Big Brother’s expanding exponentially. Cyber-preemption adds greater police state power.

On February 3, a Washington Post editorial headlined “Cyberwar, out of the shadows,” saying:

US Cyber Command is expanding exponentially. Doing so “is indicative of how conflict is moving toward center stage for the military, a domain similar to land, sea, air and outer space.”

It’s heading America toward unchallenged dominance.

In May 2000, the Pentagon’s Joint Vision 2020 called for “full spectrum dominance” over all land, surface and sub-surface sea, air, space, electromagnetic spectrum and information systems with enough overwhelming power to fight and win global wars against any adversary.

Doing so includes nuclear weapons use preemptively. Non-nuclear countries and adversaries are fair game.

Cyber Command includes:

(1) “Combat mission forces” cooperatively with military units.

(2) “Protection forces” to defend Pentagon networks.

(3) “National mission forces” to head off threats to critical infrastructure. They’ll operate outside America. They’ll function anywhere if authorized. They’ll strike US adversaries preemptively.

Targeting cuts both ways. Incoming attacks can precede or follow US ones. Secrecy is prioritized but compromised. Spies have clever ways of doing it.

Rules of engagement aren’t clear. Public information is limited. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. Policy need generous doses.

“If conflict in cyberspace is underway,” said the Post, “then it is important to sustain support for the resources and decisions to fight it, and that will require more candor.”

Expect little forthcoming from the most secretive administration in US history. Obama’s first term prioritized homeland repression and lawless aggression. Imagine what he has in mind for term two.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. 

His new book is titled “Banker Occupation: Waging Financial War on Humanity.”

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour

http://www.dailycensored.com/obama-declares-global-cyberwar/

The Paranoia of the Superrich and Superpowerful

Email   Print   Share

Posted on Feb 6, 2013

Desmond Kavanagh (CC BY-ND 2.0)

By Noam Chomsky, TomDispatch

This article first appeared at TomDispatch. Read Tom Engelhardt’s introduction here.

[This piece is adapted from “Uprisings,” a chapter in “Power Systems: Conversations on Global Democratic Uprisings and the New Challenges to U.S. Empire,” Noam Chomsky’s new interview book with David Barsamian (with thanks to the publisher, Metropolitan Books). The questions are Barsamian’s, the answers Chomsky’s.]

Does the United States still have the same level of control over the energy resources of the Middle East as it once had?

The major energy-producing countries are still firmly under the control of the Western-backed dictatorships. So, actually, the progress made by the Arab Spring is limited, but it’s not insignificant. The Western-controlled dictatorial system is eroding. In fact, it’s been eroding for some time. So, for example, if you go back 50 years, the energy resources–the main concern of U.S. planners–have been mostly nationalized. There are constantly attempts to reverse that, but they have not succeeded.

Take the U.S. invasion of Iraq, for example. To everyone except a dedicated ideologue, it was pretty obvious that we invaded Iraq not because of our love of democracy but because it’s maybe the second- or third-largest source of oil in the world, and is right in the middle of the major energy-producing region. You’re not supposed to say this. It’s considered a conspiracy theory.

The United States was seriously defeated in Iraq by Iraqi nationalism –mostly by nonviolent resistance. The United States could kill the insurgents, but they couldn’t deal with half a million people demonstrating in the streets. Step by step, Iraq was able to dismantle the controls put in place by the occupying forces. By November 2007, it was becoming pretty clear that it was going to be very hard to reach U.S. goals. And at that point, interestingly, those goals were explicitly stated. So in November 2007 the Bush II administration came out with an official declaration about what any future arrangement with Iraq would have to be. It had two major requirements: one, that the United States must be free to carry out combat operations from its military bases, which it will retain; and two, “encouraging the flow of foreign investments to Iraq, especially American investments.” In January 2008, Bush made this clear in one of his signing statements. A couple of months later, in the face of Iraqi resistance, the United States had to give that up. Control of Iraq is now disappearing before their eyes.

Iraq was an attempt to reinstitute by force something like the old system of control, but it was beaten back. In general, I think, U.S. policies remain constant, going back to the Second World War. But the capacity to implement them is declining.

Declining because of economic weakness?

Partly because the world is just becoming more diverse. It has more diverse power centers. At the end of the Second World War, the United States was absolutely at the peak of its power. It had half the world’s wealth and every one of its competitors was seriously damaged or destroyed. It had a position of unimaginable security and developed plans to essentially run the world–not unrealistically at the time.

This was called “Grand Area” planning?

Yes. Right after the Second World War, George Kennan, head of the U.S. State Department policy planning staff, and others sketched out the details, and then they were implemented. What’s happening now in the Middle East and North Africa, to an extent, and in South America substantially goes all the way back to the late 1940s. The first major successful resistance to U.S. hegemony was in 1949. That’s when an event took place, which, interestingly, is called “the loss of China.” It’s a very interesting phrase, never challenged. There was a lot of discussion about who is responsible for the loss of China. It became a huge domestic issue. But it’s a very interesting phrase. You can only lose something if you own it. It was just taken for granted: we possess China–and if they move toward independence, we’ve lost China. Later came concerns about “the loss of Latin America,” “the loss of the Middle East,” “the loss of” certain countries, all based on the premise that we own the world and anything that weakens our control is a loss to us and we wonder how to recover it.

Today, if you read, say, foreign policy journals or, in a farcical form, listen to the Republican debates, they’re asking, “How do we prevent further losses?”

On the other hand, the capacity to preserve control has sharply declined. By 1970, the world was already what was called tripolar economically, with a U.S.-based North American industrial center, a German-based European center, roughly comparable in size, and a Japan-based East Asian center, which was then the most dynamic growth region in the world. Since then, the global economic order has become much more diverse. So it’s harder to carry out our policies, but the underlying principles have not changed much.

Take the Clinton doctrine. The Clinton doctrine was that the United States is entitled to resort to unilateral force to ensure “uninhibited access to key markets, energy supplies, and strategic resources.” That goes beyond anything that George W. Bush said. But it was quiet and it wasn’t arrogant and abrasive, so it didn’t cause much of an uproar. The belief in that entitlement continues right to the present. It’s also part of the intellectual culture.

Right after the assassination of Osama bin Laden, amid all the cheers and applause, there were a few critical comments questioning the legality of the act. Centuries ago, there used to be something called presumption of innocence. If you apprehend a suspect, he’s a suspect until proven guilty. He should be brought to trial. It’s a core part of American law. You can trace it back to Magna Carta. So there were a couple of voices saying maybe we shouldn’t throw out the whole basis of Anglo-American law. That led to a lot of very angry and infuriated reactions, but the most interesting ones were, as usual, on the left liberal end of the spectrum. Matthew Yglesias, a well-known and highly respected left liberal commentator, wrote an article in which he ridiculed these views. He said they’re “amazingly naive,” silly. Then he expressed the reason. He said that “one of the main functions of the international institutional order is precisely to legitimate the use of deadly military force by western powers.” Of course, he didn’t mean Norway. He meant the United States. So the principle on which the international system is based is that the United States is entitled to use force at will. To talk about the United States violating international law or something like that is amazingly naive, completely silly. Incidentally, I was the target of those remarks, and I’m happy to confess my guilt. I do think that Magna Carta and international law are worth paying some attention to.

New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus.

When Secretary of State Colin Powell spoke to the U.N. Security Council on February 5, 2003, countless journalists in the United States extolled him for a masterful performance — making the case that Saddam Hussein’s Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. The fact that the speech later became notorious should not obscure how easily truth becomes irrelevant in the process of going to war.

Ten years later — with Powell’s speech a historic testament of shameless deception leading to vast carnage — we may not remember the extent of the fervent accolades. At the time, fawning praise was profuse across the USA’s mainline media spectrum, including the nation’s reputedly great newspapers.

The New York Times editorialized that Powell “was all the more convincing because he dispensed with apocalyptic invocations of a struggle of good and evil and focused on shaping a sober, factual case against Mr. Hussein’s regime.” The Washington Post was more war-crazed, headlining its editorial “Irrefutable” and declaring that after Powell’s U.N. presentation “it is hard to imagine how anyone could doubt that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction.”

Yet basic flaws in Powell’s U.N. speech were abundant. Slanted translations of phone intercepts rendered them sinister. Interpretations of unclear surveillance photos stretched to concoct the worst. Summaries of cherry-picked intelligence detoured around evidence that Iraq no longer had WMDs. Ballyhooed documents about an Iraqi quest for uranium were forgeries.

Assumptions about U.S. prerogatives also went largely unquestioned. In response to Powell’s warning that the U.N. Security Council would place itself “in danger of irrelevance” by failing to endorse a U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, the adulation from U.S. media embraced the notion that the United Nations could only be “relevant” by bending to Washington’s wishes. A combination of cooked intelligence and geopolitical arrogance, served up to rapturous reviews at home, set the stage for what was to come.

The invasion began six weeks after Powell’s tour de force at the United Nations. Soon, a search for Iraqi weapons of mass destruction was in full swing. None turned up. In January 2004 — 11 months after Powell’s U.N. speech — the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace released a report concluding that top officials in the Bush administration “systematically misrepresented the threat from Iraq’s WMD and ballistic missile programs.”

Left twisting in the wind was Powell’s speech to the U.N. Security Council, where he’d issued a “conservative estimate” that Iraq “has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent.” The secretary of state had declared: “There can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein has biological weapons and the capability to rapidly produce more, many more.”

Nineteen months after the speech, in mid-September 2004, Powell made a terse public acknowledgment. “I think it’s unlikely that we will find any stockpiles,” he said. But no gingerly climb-down could mitigate the bloodshed that continued in Iraq.

A decade ago, Colin Powell played a starring role in a recurring type of political dramaturgy. Scripts vary, while similar dramas play out on a variety of scales. Behind a gauzy curtain, top officials engage in decision-making on war that gives democracy short shrift. For the public, crucial information that bears on the wisdom of warfare remains opaque or out of sight.

Among the powerful and not-so-powerful, in mass media and on Capitol Hill, the default position is still to defer to presidential momentum for war. Public candor and policy introspection remain in short supply.

The new secretary of state, John Kerry — like the one he just replaced, Hillary Clinton — voted for the Iraq war resolution in the Senate, nearly four months before Powell went to the U.N. Security Council. During the crucial lead-up months, Senator Kerry was at pains to show his avid support for an invasion. In early October 2002, appearing for an hour on MSNBC’s “Hardball” program live from The Citadel as an audience of young cadets filled the screen, Kerry said: “I’m prepared to go. I think people understand that Saddam Hussein is a danger.”

Since then, Kerry has publicly said that he would have voted for the war resolution even if he’d known that Iraq actually had no weapons of mass destruction. But on the Senate floor, Kerry prefaced his vote for war by rhetorically demanding to know why Saddam Hussein was “attempting to develop nuclear weapons when most nations don’t even try.” The senator emphasized that “according to intelligence, Iraq has chemical and biological weapons.”

Months later, when Powell trumpeted that theme at the United Nations, the landslide of testimonials included this one from a future U.S. ambassador to the U.N., Susan Rice: “I think he has proved that Iraq has these weapons and is hiding them, and I don’t think many informed people doubted that.”

Meanwhile, the Washington Post edition with the editorial headlined “Irrefutable” also included unanimous agreement from each of the opinion columns on the facing page.

Longtime Post columnist Richard Cohen attested to Powell’s unquestionable veracity with these words: “The evidence he presented to the United Nations — some of it circumstantial, some of it absolutely bone-chilling in its detail — had to prove to anyone that Iraq not only hasn’t accounted for its weapons of mass destruction but without a doubt still retains them. Only a fool — or possibly a Frenchman — could conclude otherwise.”

Inches away, another venerable pundit held forth. Powell managed to “present the world with a convincing and detailed X-ray of Iraq’s secret weapons and terrorism programs yesterday,” wrote Jim Hoagland, a Post foreign-policy specialist. He concluded: “To continue to say that the Bush administration has not made its case, you must now believe that Colin Powell lied in the most serious statement he will ever make, or was taken in by manufactured evidence. I don’t believe that. Today, neither should you.”

Fast forward to the current era. What are Richard Cohen and Jim Hoagland writing — about Iran?

On February 6, 2012, exactly nine years after proclaiming that “only a fool” could doubt Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, Cohen’s column declared flatly: “The ultimate remedy is Iranian regime change.” Four months ago, Cohen wrapped up a column by observing “there is still time for Iran to back down before President Obama’s red line — no nuclear weapon — is crossed. This is a war whose time has not yet come.” Not yet.

Hoagland — a decade after telling readers they should put their trust in Colin Powell’s “convincing and detailed X-ray of Iraq’s secret weapons” — is now making clear that his patience with Iran is wearing thin. “Until recently,” Hoagland wrote five weeks ago, “I had been relatively comfortable with Obama’s assertions that there is time to reach a peaceful resolution with Iran.” Hoagland’s column went on to say that military strikes on Iran “threaten disastrous political and economic consequences for the world,” so diplomatic efforts should try to avert the need for such strikes — before they become necessary.

So goes the dominant spectrum of opinionating and policymaking for war, from eagerness to reluctance. Propaganda lead-ups to warfare are as varied as wars themselves; and yet every style of such propaganda relies on deception, and every war is unspeakable horror.

After jumping onto ghastly bandwagons for one war after another, the nation’s media establishment is available to do it again. So is the current U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. So is the new secretary of state. They’re old hands, dripping with blood. They have not had enough.

The Suicide Shop, an animated film from the director of My Best Friend, caused a stir when local censors in Italy accused Patrice Leconte of promoting suicide. The director told RT why his film is unlikely to be released in America.

­“It’s too politically incorrect. A father who makes his son smoke a cigarette; a boy who orchestrates his sister’s strip-tease? No, this film isn’t for Americans. For the moment, no company has acquired the rights to screen it in America, and I don’t think they will. Shame,” Leconte told RT.

The Suicide Shop is set in a “city where life has become so sad that people have no taste for living”. Suicides become common practice, with people falling from skyscrapers like dead pigeons.

Public suicide is forbidden, but residents turn for help from the Tuvache family who run their Suicide Shop and sell everything to take your life the way you want to; from ropes and poison, to knives and guns.

(Image fThe Suicide Shop (image from kinopoisk.ru)

­The entire family works in the store. Gloomy Father Mishima shows off the evil goods, his wife Lucrezia is behind the register, and children Marilyn and Vincent to ‘pep up’ customers to end their lives.

A ‘ray of hope’ comes when an unusual baby is born into the family. Alan’s optimism is infectious, but he freaks out all the family members, even his angry father. While the kid is supposed to encourage customers to buy rope and soap, he smiles at them and says life is beautiful.

(IThe Suicide Shop (image from kinopoisk.ru)

­“The film was recently released in Italy so I went there to take part in the publicity campaign. On the eve of the release we learned that Italy has censored it so only those aged 18 and above were allowed to watch it. The pretext was that The Suicide Shop film allegedly instigated suicide, promoting people to commit suicides. While in reality, this film was just the opposite. Fortunately, the ban was lifted and the film has been released without any age restrictions. But I was very disappointed that things were misinterpreted to such a degree. The film focuses on dark and sad things only to say, C’mon, look at children and their energy; adults are too gloomy. This pep-up film was meant to prevent people from jumping out the window. I’m in no way pushing anybody to commit suicide. Life is not merry per se. I’m not an idiot, I’m a realist. I look at people around me and know perfectly well what real life is like. But even when life isn’t all roses, it’s still a little more beautiful than a suicide. If you’ve come to the point where you’ve decided to take your life means you have reached an extreme point of despair. This freaks me out. All of us have known people who ended their lives by committing suicide. It’s horrible, because we never imagined they would do it. Suicide is something very painful, and I had no intention to mock at it in my film. The only thing I wanted to say was: We often think it takes courage to take one’s life, but I think it’s coward. It’s only to escape things, to refuse to confront the circumstances. In any case, this film is by no way an excuse for suicide,” Leconte explained.

(ImaThe Suicide Shop (image from kinopoisk.ru)

­The 63-year-old French director said working on The Suicide Shop, spiced up with musical numbers, was a dream come true.

“Making an animation gave me complete freedom, in terms of inspiration to write the script and in terms of the mise en scene. I adore making ‘normal’, real films, I adore shooting with the actors, and it’s my passion. Of course, in this film I missed it — in animation you don’t shoot. However, there was an element of serene freedom instead. Nothing bad could happen to you, you had total control of everything all the time, and this feeling appealed to me a great deal. I feared it could be frustrating to return to normal films afterwards. But since the Suicide Shop I’ve made a feature film and was happy again. So, The Suicide Shop wasn’t a bad experience.”

Lecontesaid the idea of turning The Suicide Shop into an animated film wasn’t his idea.

“The project was born very quickly. I read the book by Jean Teulé and thought it couldn’t be adapted for screen because it’s too dark. But when a young producer came up to me saying he acquired the rights and suggested making an animation, I said, great! I realized that the darkness and pessimism which were too realistic, and scared me if we shot a normal film, could be brightened up in an animation film, to express very dark things with lightness,” the director told RT.

The creator of such dramas as Girl on the Bridge and Man on the Train, both box office hits in America, says he has long been tempted by the bright lights of Hollywood.

“When my films are well received in America, I regularly receive proposals to work there. I’ve always been tempted. But here, in France, I take the advantage of the freedom of inspiration and the trust of the producers, which is an amazing thing. If I have to make a film for a US major film studio, will it be the same? I’m not sure. At one point I thought I’d agree to make a film there so that when I come back I’d be bilingual at least. But you don’t make a film to practice your language skills, it’s silly. So I’ve always replied, no thanks,” Leconte explained.

­Valeria Paikova, RT

The long-threatened dismantling of the United States Postal Service has begun in piecemeal fashion as the agency announced on Wednesday plans to end Saturday mail deliveries cutting a deeper path for privatized delivery and inciting the “death spiral” of an American institution.

(Photo: *hajee via Flickr) Confirming earlier reports, Postmaster General Patrick Donahue said that the Saturday mail cutback will begin the week of August 5. The Associated Press reports that “under the new plan, mail would be delivered to homes and businesses only from Monday through Friday, but would still be delivered to post office boxes on Saturdays. Post offices now open on Saturdays would remain open on Saturdays.”

“The postmaster general cannot save the Postal Service by ending one of its major competitive advantages. Cutting six-day delivery is not a viable plan for the future. It will lead to a death spiral that will harm rural America while doing very little to improve the financial condition of the Postal Service,” said Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) in a press release denouncing the plan.

Fredric Rolando, president of the National Association of Letter Carriers, called the move “a disastrous idea that would have a profoundly negative effect on the Postal Service and on millions of customers.”