The science says that the real world response is not necessarily like what you're taught in economics. Check it out.
Monday, February 28, 2011
Friday, February 25, 2011
Cause For Concern-Raymond Davis in Pakistan
Have you heard of Raymond Davis? This is some scary crap. He's an American that shot two Pakistani individuals that he claims were trying to rob him. After he shot them he called friends who rushed to his aid. Those two friends crushed and killed a motorcyclist on their way to assist Davis. Davis was taken into custody by Pakistani officials. The two friends flew the coop and escaped to America.
Immediately the Obama administration demanded that he be released, claiming he's entitled to immunity as a diplomat working for the State Department. They even sent John Kerry to Pakistan to get him back. But Pakistan, fearing a public uprising such as what has been happening throughout the Middle East and other regions including, shockingly, North Korea, have refused saying he must be tried under Pakistani law.
It turns out Davis doesn't work for State. In fact he works for the CIA. Establishment media knew the Obama claims were lies, but they were directed by Obama to keep quiet about it. When foreign press revealed that he was CIA the NY Times dutifully checked with Obama to see if they were now free to report truth to Americans. Obama gave them the green light.
What's Davis up to over there? According to the Hindustan Times (I don't know how credible they are) he is "working on a plan to give credence to the American notion that Pakistan's nuclear weapons are not safe." What the hell does that mean?
I have no idea, but it can't be good. But I can tell you what they think in Pakistan. Just Google "Raymond Davis nuclear" and you'll immediately see reports, all foreign as far as I can tell, that according to Russian intelligence Davis is attempting to smuggle nuclear material to Al Qaeda. Do I believe that's true? I cannot find a credible source for it. Much of it appears to stem from here. The site itself doesn't seem very credible and sources for the claim are not provided.
But I think it's newsworthy that this belief is widely held in Pakistan, a nuclear armed country. I don't see that it's being discussed in US news sources. And I'm rather pissed that the CIA is running around in Pakistan shooting people, increasing the likelihood of retaliatory terrorism directed against Americans. It would be nice if our government regarded reducing terrorism as a priority. They should start by ending their participation in it.
Immediately the Obama administration demanded that he be released, claiming he's entitled to immunity as a diplomat working for the State Department. They even sent John Kerry to Pakistan to get him back. But Pakistan, fearing a public uprising such as what has been happening throughout the Middle East and other regions including, shockingly, North Korea, have refused saying he must be tried under Pakistani law.
It turns out Davis doesn't work for State. In fact he works for the CIA. Establishment media knew the Obama claims were lies, but they were directed by Obama to keep quiet about it. When foreign press revealed that he was CIA the NY Times dutifully checked with Obama to see if they were now free to report truth to Americans. Obama gave them the green light.
What's Davis up to over there? According to the Hindustan Times (I don't know how credible they are) he is "working on a plan to give credence to the American notion that Pakistan's nuclear weapons are not safe." What the hell does that mean?
I have no idea, but it can't be good. But I can tell you what they think in Pakistan. Just Google "Raymond Davis nuclear" and you'll immediately see reports, all foreign as far as I can tell, that according to Russian intelligence Davis is attempting to smuggle nuclear material to Al Qaeda. Do I believe that's true? I cannot find a credible source for it. Much of it appears to stem from here. The site itself doesn't seem very credible and sources for the claim are not provided.
But I think it's newsworthy that this belief is widely held in Pakistan, a nuclear armed country. I don't see that it's being discussed in US news sources. And I'm rather pissed that the CIA is running around in Pakistan shooting people, increasing the likelihood of retaliatory terrorism directed against Americans. It would be nice if our government regarded reducing terrorism as a priority. They should start by ending their participation in it.
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Optimism on Climate Change
As a counter to my constant pessimism, a case can be made that solar power really can dramatically reduce fossil fuel consumption. The technology is improving so rapidly that it should become so cheap that people will naturally make the switch in the coming years.
Free market types will pretend this is some sort of victory for laissez faire economic theories. But it's another example of important nature of public subsidy for high tech industry. Not every element associated with the development of solar technology occurred with public subsidy, but key costly ones were. Bell Laboratories as a government sanctioned monopoly, was able to engage in the kind of R&D that isn't concerned only with short term profits. In 1954 they developed the first solar cell capable of powering electrical equipment. This was then exploited by NASA, first with Vangaurd I in 1958 and then with subsequent satellites during a time when it was simply too costly for commercial use.
Obviously today the technological advancements come about with the aid of computers and the internet, both developed with public subsidy. This is not to discount the importance of private individuals exploiting the technology because it is profitable. So for instance in the mid 50's Bridgers and Paxton, an engineering firm, created an office building heated by solar power which is still in use today. Private individuals exploiting the technology helps advance the technology as well. But the public subsidy is key. I would suggest that without it this wouldn't be happening. And it could go a long way towards increasing the chances of survival for our species.
Climate change is a long term problem and cannot easily be addressed by corporations that can only consider relatively short term profitability.
Free market types will pretend this is some sort of victory for laissez faire economic theories. But it's another example of important nature of public subsidy for high tech industry. Not every element associated with the development of solar technology occurred with public subsidy, but key costly ones were. Bell Laboratories as a government sanctioned monopoly, was able to engage in the kind of R&D that isn't concerned only with short term profits. In 1954 they developed the first solar cell capable of powering electrical equipment. This was then exploited by NASA, first with Vangaurd I in 1958 and then with subsequent satellites during a time when it was simply too costly for commercial use.
Obviously today the technological advancements come about with the aid of computers and the internet, both developed with public subsidy. This is not to discount the importance of private individuals exploiting the technology because it is profitable. So for instance in the mid 50's Bridgers and Paxton, an engineering firm, created an office building heated by solar power which is still in use today. Private individuals exploiting the technology helps advance the technology as well. But the public subsidy is key. I would suggest that without it this wouldn't be happening. And it could go a long way towards increasing the chances of survival for our species.
Climate change is a long term problem and cannot easily be addressed by corporations that can only consider relatively short term profitability.
Monday, February 21, 2011
Stills of Young Girl Driven From Her Home At The Point of a Gun in Iraq
From the movie War Made Easy.
Friday, February 18, 2011
Because It's Profitable
The internet is a great place to exchange ideas and learn. I learn a lot arguing with people. But here's something to consider. If you are involved in a debate about a political issue, what if the person you are interacting with is nothing but a corporate stooge that has created multiple fictional accounts in order to create the illusion of a consensus against union activity or progressive change?
This is not just a theoretical possibility. Thanks to the hackers known as anonymous we now know that corporations are talking about the implementation of this scheme. Additionally the government has solicited for the development of software that will create the fake personas, complete with independent Facebook and Linked-In accounts, etc. The details of this specific operation are explained at Daily Kos and Glenn Greenwald has the details about how the leak came about. But here's a brief summary.
Due to government pressure companies such as Amazon.com, Paypal, Master Card, and Visa stopped providing service to Wikileaks, though Wikileaks has done nothing illegal. In response a group of loosely grouped hackers referred to as "Anonymous" disrupted service for Amazon and the rest briefly. Despite the fact that these hacks were minor as contrasted with major internet assaults directed towards Wikileaks, several individuals that are alleged to be associated with "Anonymous" were arrested. Nobody that attacked Wikileaks was arrested of course. A security firm by the name of HB Gary boasted that they had helped expose some of the members of "Anonymous". In response these hackers hacked HB Gary and published thousands of internal emails.
These emails revealed that HB Gary is working with Bank of America in efforts to undermine Wikileaks. This involves planting false stories and going after journalistic supporters like Glenn Greenwald. It is this same set of emails that has exposed the scheme described above to generate fake personalities.
It's not about Republican vs Democrat. It's corporations vs people. Corporations must engage in this sort of behavior by design. Profits first, forgetting all else. If that means deception and subverting of democracy then that's what will be done.
This is not just a theoretical possibility. Thanks to the hackers known as anonymous we now know that corporations are talking about the implementation of this scheme. Additionally the government has solicited for the development of software that will create the fake personas, complete with independent Facebook and Linked-In accounts, etc. The details of this specific operation are explained at Daily Kos and Glenn Greenwald has the details about how the leak came about. But here's a brief summary.
Due to government pressure companies such as Amazon.com, Paypal, Master Card, and Visa stopped providing service to Wikileaks, though Wikileaks has done nothing illegal. In response a group of loosely grouped hackers referred to as "Anonymous" disrupted service for Amazon and the rest briefly. Despite the fact that these hacks were minor as contrasted with major internet assaults directed towards Wikileaks, several individuals that are alleged to be associated with "Anonymous" were arrested. Nobody that attacked Wikileaks was arrested of course. A security firm by the name of HB Gary boasted that they had helped expose some of the members of "Anonymous". In response these hackers hacked HB Gary and published thousands of internal emails.
These emails revealed that HB Gary is working with Bank of America in efforts to undermine Wikileaks. This involves planting false stories and going after journalistic supporters like Glenn Greenwald. It is this same set of emails that has exposed the scheme described above to generate fake personalities.
It's not about Republican vs Democrat. It's corporations vs people. Corporations must engage in this sort of behavior by design. Profits first, forgetting all else. If that means deception and subverting of democracy then that's what will be done.
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Iraq War Propaganda Involved Crimes
I'm really not a big fan of conspiracy theories. But sometimes conspiracies occur. A concocted crime would naturally occur in secret, right? That's all a conspiracy is.
It's one thing for people in government that favor a certain policy to spin things in their favor. But it's quite another for them to knowingly attempt to deceive or fabricate material to form a basis for a favored policy. Important disclosures, including recent disclosures, do seem to suggest that this is what has happened with regards to the war in Iraq.
We've known about a key fraud for a long time. Saddam was supposedly suspected of having a nuclear weapons program. The key evidence was certain documents coming out of Niger which suggested Saddam was attempting to acquire uranium. The IAEA was able to dismiss them as crude forgeries in a matter of hours using nothing more than a google search. Still, Bush presented this in his State of the Union address to the American people as if it was a reasonable basis for a conclusion about Saddam's nuclear program. Cheney just prior to the invasion in an interview with Tim Russert still sustained his claim about the nuclear program despite the IAEA. Now that the fraud is acknowledged by all our Justice Department doesn't seem interested in figuring out who was responsible? Even Congressman Henry Waxman has requested an explanation. Why was this evidence presented to me when you would had to have known it was a fraud? This was the basis for my vote authorizing war. This is a big deal. Bush wasn't interested. Why? This is a crime of huge consequence.
This week we learned of another fraud. The defector referred to as Curveball has admitted that he lied about all kinds of things, including this claim about roving biological weapons vans, a claim that made it into Collin Powell's speech at the UN presenting the case for war. It was also used by Bush in his State of the Union. And he tells us that they knew he was making it all up back in 2000.
The third is the anthrax scare. This was linked to Saddam in the media after 9/11 and it was used to induce fear and support for war. After the invasion we learned that Saddam was not involved. The crime was attributed to an American, but that turned out to be false and the suspect was awarded millions in damages due to the FBI's efforts to pursue him. The FBI then directed our attention to another American, now deceased. Recent revelations from the National Academy of Sciences now suggest that attributing the crime to this now deceased individual has no basis in fact. See the details here.
Why is the FBI going after innocent people so aggressively but resisting calls for an independent investigation that could lead to the real perpetrators? And oh by the way this crime, falsely attributed to Saddam in an effort to create public support for war, served the interests of the same war mongering crowd that perpetuated the two above frauds.
We already have the documentation showing that intelligence was being fixed around the war policy. That's a virtual admission to a crime. Does "fixing the intelligence" mean sending anthrax or crafting crude forgeries? Could be. We would need an investigation though to know. But our government seems unwilling to pursue that investigation. What does that tell you?
It's one thing for people in government that favor a certain policy to spin things in their favor. But it's quite another for them to knowingly attempt to deceive or fabricate material to form a basis for a favored policy. Important disclosures, including recent disclosures, do seem to suggest that this is what has happened with regards to the war in Iraq.
We've known about a key fraud for a long time. Saddam was supposedly suspected of having a nuclear weapons program. The key evidence was certain documents coming out of Niger which suggested Saddam was attempting to acquire uranium. The IAEA was able to dismiss them as crude forgeries in a matter of hours using nothing more than a google search. Still, Bush presented this in his State of the Union address to the American people as if it was a reasonable basis for a conclusion about Saddam's nuclear program. Cheney just prior to the invasion in an interview with Tim Russert still sustained his claim about the nuclear program despite the IAEA. Now that the fraud is acknowledged by all our Justice Department doesn't seem interested in figuring out who was responsible? Even Congressman Henry Waxman has requested an explanation. Why was this evidence presented to me when you would had to have known it was a fraud? This was the basis for my vote authorizing war. This is a big deal. Bush wasn't interested. Why? This is a crime of huge consequence.
This week we learned of another fraud. The defector referred to as Curveball has admitted that he lied about all kinds of things, including this claim about roving biological weapons vans, a claim that made it into Collin Powell's speech at the UN presenting the case for war. It was also used by Bush in his State of the Union. And he tells us that they knew he was making it all up back in 2000.
The third is the anthrax scare. This was linked to Saddam in the media after 9/11 and it was used to induce fear and support for war. After the invasion we learned that Saddam was not involved. The crime was attributed to an American, but that turned out to be false and the suspect was awarded millions in damages due to the FBI's efforts to pursue him. The FBI then directed our attention to another American, now deceased. Recent revelations from the National Academy of Sciences now suggest that attributing the crime to this now deceased individual has no basis in fact. See the details here.
Why is the FBI going after innocent people so aggressively but resisting calls for an independent investigation that could lead to the real perpetrators? And oh by the way this crime, falsely attributed to Saddam in an effort to create public support for war, served the interests of the same war mongering crowd that perpetuated the two above frauds.
We already have the documentation showing that intelligence was being fixed around the war policy. That's a virtual admission to a crime. Does "fixing the intelligence" mean sending anthrax or crafting crude forgeries? Could be. We would need an investigation though to know. But our government seems unwilling to pursue that investigation. What does that tell you?
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)