Some things are unforgivable in a democracy. A bill moving through Congress, authorizing the military to imprison American citizens indefinitely, without a trial or hearing, ranks right at the top of that list.
I know—I lived through it on the Patriot Act. When Congress decided to squelch the truth about the CIA's advance warnings about 9/11 and the existence of a comprehensive peace option with Iraq, as the CIA's chief Asset covering Iraq, I became an overnight threat. To protect their cover-up scheme, I got locked in federal prison inside Carswell Air Force Base, while the Justice Department battled to detain me “indefinitely” up to 10 years, without a hearing or guilty plea. Worst yet, they demanded the right to forcibly drug me with Haldol, Ativan and Prozac, in a violent effort to chemically lobotomize the truth about 9/11 and Iraqi Pre-War Intelligence.
Received via email: I noticed some serious discrepancies between the NDAA as written and the understanding at large surrounding it, as well as widespread gross misunderstandings of events that have transpired in relation to it, such as the Feinstein amendment, widely assumed to reign in its power. Moreover, by using obfuscatory language in the official Whitehouse Statement and playing a verbal shell game with sections 1031 and 1032, the Administration has given the convenient and clever appearance of opposing the offensive provision, which has had the effect of lulling journalists and the public into complacent ignorance which may explain the virtual mainstream media blackout on this issue. The C-SPAN video clip of Levin belies this apparently engineered misperception.
Change.org petition (click on the “About This Petition Tab” to see his explanation of the issues)
Due to the complexities of the issue and parlor tricks being used, unfortunately most journalists appear to fallen for the trap as intended, writing up articles that propagate serious misinformation including that Obama plans to veto the bill expressly to preserve citizens’ rights. While it’s possible he could veto the bill, my understanding is that the actual reason he would do so is that the bill does not go far enough in granting executive power. See these links if interested in reading more on this: http://www.sott.net/articles/show/238665-Why-Obama-Wants-to-Veto-S-1867
The below report by Patrick Cockburn, one of the best reporters now covering the Middle East, describes the growing tensions in Iraq over the question of sharing its oil wealth among its constituent regions. Although his report is important in its own right, its contents become even more ominous when they viewed in a larger historical context:
The long view of history is likely to record the greatest ‘sins' of Iraq, Iran, and Libya prompting interventions by the West have been related to the control of oil — not nuclear weapons; not any communist leanings during the Cold War; not support of worldwide terrorism.
Each country committed the unforgivable sin of being governed at one time by nationalistic leaders who believed the oil under each country belonged to that country and should be controlled by the government of that country — therefore, these leaders had to be removed:
Iran – Mohammed Mosaddegh, a popularly elected Prime Minister of Iran and social reformer, removed by a CIA/MI6 coup in August 1953.
Iraq – Saddam Hussein, a murderous neo-Stalinist dictator and social reformer (e.g., major achievements in women's rights and education), removed by military force in 2003.
Libya – Muammar Qaddafy, a quirky tribal dictator and social reformer (e.g., major achievements in women's rights and education) removed by military force in 2011.
Click on Image to Enlarge
One short-term common denominator in these imposed regime changes was that the nationalist leader was replaced by a more compliant government that agreed to an opening of that country's oil fields to exploitation by privately owned western oil companies.
While history does not repeat itself, memories of the past condition events in the future. Over the longer term, perceived wrongs are not forgotten, and such interventions can provoke blowbacks, which in turn provoke counteractions that enmesh the intervener in a welter of increasingly complicated conflicts. In the case of Iran, for example, the 1953 coup eventually backfired in 1979, when Reza Shah Pahlavi was overthrown by the Islamic revolution led by the Ayatollah Khomeini. Khomeini then established a regime retook control of Iran's oil fields, among other things. But the Iranian game is not over, and the historical pattern of move and countermove is in play, with the nationalist (Islamic) regime of Iran again in the West's crosshairs, allegedly because of its nuclear ambitions and support of international terror. Nevertheless, the glittering temptations of re-privatizing Persian oilfields are lurking in the background, attracting the private oil capitalists of the West like flies to honey.
Finish long comment from Spinney, plus reference, plus See Also.
Where the crypto rubber meets the Road of Finance…
December 11, 2011
Why (my, all) financial systems fail — information complexity
I spent over a decade building the snappiest financial system around. In that time I pursued one goal of efficiency: reduction of complexity. This wasn't only goodness in an angelic sense, it was a pragmatic goal to reduce my own costs in building systems.
The result was pretty spectacular: we were settling trades in seconds and doing so with every leg firmly fastened to the ground. That is, the whole thing was running with direct concrete ties to assets.
But, the big players weren't interested. Indeed they were more than uninterested, they were highly interested in making sure this would never ever happen. Time after time, the message was delivered: Never. Other companies received the same message, so after a few years, I started to take it seriously.
At the time I hypothesised that the reason for this was insider fraud, or at least profits capture. The complexities were endemic and there were very few people who could see the whole picture. So, I theorised that those who could understand the complexities were cashing in on their advantage; from the inside. And some very few who cashed in were also driving the information agenda, as their success made them both wealthy and influential: more complexity.
Of course such a hypothesis is unlikely to find proof. By its very nature, how do you prove such a tendency towards chaos? Here comes an alternate perspective from ZeroHedge, citing two papers (1, 2):
And the punchline: “Liquidity requires symmetric information, which is easiest to achieve when everyone is ignorant. This determines the design of many securities, including the design of debt and securitization.” Reread the last statement as it explains perhaps better than anything, the true functioning of modern capital markets and why they are terminally broken: in order to preserve the system, the banking cartel need to make everything of virtually infinite complexity so that no one has a clear understanding of what is going on!
Phi Beta Iota: In brief, finance is fraud. As William Greider documents in his book, The Soul of Capitalism, financial instruments (incomprehensible to their own vendors) appreciated seventeen times while real assets appreciated five times. Twelve is the fraud-complexity-corruption delta.
The question has to be asked: “Why shouldn't we default and let the banks fry?”
What possible benefit it there to the people of a nation whose previous leaders “sold out” the entire country on the basis of lies from the banks, notably Goldman Sachs?
Why not default and focus on full employment and resilience at home? Why rescue German banks?
If a new financial system is emerging, anchored by the BRICS [Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa], why not focus on being attractive that that new ethical financial system instead of giving up what is left in the way of seed corn to the old predatory unethical system?
Many European Lenders Have Sold Sovereign-Default Protection to One Another
EXTRACT:
Of the total protection that European banks have written on government bonds in Europe's five most-stressed countries, nearly one-third originated from German banks.
Here's a scenario from William Buiter (the chief economist at Citi) on what could happen if the EU collapses:
Disorderly sovereign defaults and eurozone exits by all five periphery states would drag down not just the European banking system but also the north Atlantic financial system and the internationally exposed parts of the rest of the global banking system. The resulting financial crisis would trigger a global depression that would last for years, with GDP likely falling by more than 10 per cent and unemployment in the West reaching 20 per cent or more. Emerging markets would be dragged down too.
I have a couple of additions to William's scenario:
We are seeing crisis and depression scenarios like this with regularity now. They are all presented as being on the cusp of occurring. It should be very clear to everyone by now, that something fundamental is wrong with the global system and the crisis de jour is just its symptom. Nobody “in charge” seems to be able to diagnose the real problems with our system.
The solutions being proposed are either a) more confidence (through bailouts) and b) more confidence (through more deficit spending). In other words: the problem is merely psychological and all you and I need to do is take some anti-depressants to eradicate any lingering pessimism (why worry, let's party!). In short: there aren't any real solutions being offered.
None of the bad actors that profit from the behavior that led us into this crisis, either in government or in the financial sector, are held to account. The moral hazard here is so vast, it can (and likely will) swallow the current economic system.
WIM: What does it Mean?
It's very simple. It is almost a certainty that a global economic depression is on its way and there is absolutely nothing you or I can do to stop it (a ballot box solution now would be as effective as replacing the Captain of the Titanic after the ship hit the iceberg). So, what can you and I do? We can take control of our environment. Our objective is to build or buy access to a community that has the resilience to not only help us survive a global depression, but thrive during it. A resilient community that:
Negates the impact of inevitable supply disruptions, rationing, and price spikes.
Protects you from the political violence that will erupt (mobs and police states).
Has a functional local economy that has the potential to network with other functional local economies.
