Varied and sundry topics of the day, week, hour, month. We go where no other blog...Well, not really. But you will leave better off than when you arrived.
So many visual anomalies have been spotted on Mars--not just by amateur astronomers and "conspiracy theorists," but also by the scientific community. From the huge ejection of incandescent gas identified in 1894 to the "floating spoon" rock formation seen recently, Mars has sparked the curiosity of enthusiasts and skeptics alike over the centuries.
There has always been a soft and cool debate about whether life once existed, or in fact, currently exists on the red planet. Now, with confirmation that there is running water there, a silence falls over both factions of the debate. There is a collective holding of the breath in anticipation of what will be discovered next.
Over a month ago, I had posted a picture on Facebook, from NASA's raw image files, of a rock with what looked like an ankh carved on its flat upper surface. For those of you who are unfamiliar with this ancient Egyptian symbol, the ankh was often depicted being carried by the Egyptian gods. It was also called the "breath of life" and was the Egyptian hieroglyphic symbol for "Life."
We should really get used to the idea that we are not alone. We have never been.
Thursday, May 24, 2012
Allow me to re-introduce myself. I've been gone for almost (gulp) three years. I can hardly believe how fast the time has passed. For those of you who had the expectation that, as I promised in my first post, this would be a weekly blog, I apologize. For those of you who had no expectation that I would fulfill my commitment to post new and wonderful insights, anecdotes, wimsical musings and such, thanks for being you. Afterall, where there's no expectation, there is no disappointment--only pleasant surprises. But wait...pleasant surprises imply that there existed an expectation. Hmm. So, where there is no expectation at all, there is...apathy? I wonder if it's possible to live a meaningful life without expectations. Is it possible to purge ourselves of expectations, or do we merely manage them?
UPDATE Oct. 6, 2009: See Pepe Escobar's excellent article of October 1 in the Asia Times Online. This kind of critical analysis is sorely missed in much of the Western press. I hate seeing people get duped into supporting a war based on lies and innuendos.
# # #
UPDATE Oct. 1, 2009: Congressman Ron Paul presents a clear and balanced analysis of the misleading and increasingly vitriolic rhetoric regarding Iran. You can watch it in this Youtube clip:
Why are we so hard-pressed to find an analysis like this in the major newspapers or networks?
# # #
UPDATE Sept. 30, 2009: A New York Times article on msnbc.nbc.com, as if responding to my post (for the record, I think that this is unlikely), attempts to quell fears that the same pattern of rhetoric leading up to the war in Iraq is being duplicated with Iran now. The article credits the mainstream media with restraint in reporting the story, compared to its reportage of the war in Iraq six years ago. The Obama administration was also lauded for its more prudent approach where Iran is concerned. But is this true? A lack of analysis or context, innuendos and biased language can have a similar effect as the most hawkish and aggressive rhetoric.
# # #
Check out the president's recent comments on Iran, excerpted from Associated Press. Note the language. I've placed emphasis on key words and phrases.
"'Iran's leaders must now choose — they can live up to their responsibilities and achieve integration with the community of nations. Or they will face increased pressure and isolation, and deny opportunity to their own people,' Obama said in his radio and Internet address Saturday."
This ultimatum is really an assault on the sovereignty of that nation--whether or not you agree with the policies of the Iranian government, sovereignty is the primary issue here. So, this is not about whether or not Iran is seeking nuclear capability. It's about integration into the New World Order.
Some of the most educated and moderate people in the Muslim world are Iranians.
The only nuclear power in the Middle East is Israel. In Central Asia, both Pakistan and India possess nuclear capability.
The U.S. has implemented some of the most radical policies of the Western Hemisphere in the history of the 21st century, post 9/11. Yet, I have not seen the United Nations speak of sanctions or any strong mandate from the Security Council on the war crimes committed in Iraq, Afghanistan, and even Pakistan. This is why I often believe that the U,N.--for the most part--is a sham, and the Security Council weak and corrupt.
The news article is eerily reminiscent of the rhetoric we saw in most of the Western press leading up to "Shock and Awe" in Iraq. And guess what. There were no weapons of mass destruction.
It is no secret that Central Asia and the Middle East have been in the crosshairs of the global elites for a long time. You can read about the grand strategy in Zbigniew Brzezinski's book, The Grand Chessboard, and the white paper entitled, Rebuilding America's Defenses, written by the neoconservative Project For a New American Century.
Is Iran a threat? I don't think so. Launching a nuclear attack against Israel is clearly not within the best interest of Iran--not only because of the retaliation from Israel, but the recrimination that would be felt from the united response of the global community. The Iranians are not stupid.
Is Iran developing nuclear capability for weapons. I really don't know. But I know something else: The U.S. hit a record for global arms sales before the end of fiscal 2009, leading the rest of the world in foreign weapons sales, according to Reuters.
Okay, is this an anti-U.S. rant? No. It's an anti-policy opinion. I'm against a hypocritical and unjust foreign policy. People die, lives are destroyed, and countries bombed back "to the Stone Age" as a result. This radicalizes otherwise moderate populations. I guess the policymakers forgot or are ignoring the historical fact, that it was U.S. policy in Iran that moved the country to the far right, and that put the imams in power--a grip that they maintain to this day.
But Ahmadinejad is a holocaust denier and made threatening statements against Israel, you say. Did he say that Israel should be wiped off the face of the map? This is where my faith in the corporate media completely disintegrates. Actually, it has been disintegrating for a long time. But I will refrain from digression here.
American journalist Robert Parry examines the Western media's irresponsible and, arguably, intentional lack of context when reporting on Ahmadinejad's Quds Day speech, from which the infamous claim was attributed.
Arash Norouzi, in an article on globalresearch.ca, examines the literal translation and the context of Ahmadinejad's speech. After reading Norouzi's article, one has to question the journalistic integrity of much of the mainstream Western news organizations.
A flag-waving, team-cheering press is no different than a "minister of information" or William Randolf Hearst who famously (or infamously) guaranteed, "you furnish the pictures, soundbites or stories lacking context [bold text inserted by author]and I'll furnish the war."
Nothing is more insidious than the slow, creeping deleterious accommodation of complacency.
It's been four years since I posted or updated this blog. To be honest, I was experiencing fatigue from the barrage of incredibly audacious acts by all three branches of the federal government. Of course, state governments have been no less than accommodating to the ongoing encroachments of the feds.
Several years after this post was first published, a Marine colonel emphatically sums up what I and others have been warning of for quite some time. What exists in the U.S. is undeclared martial law. The citizens and residents are, for the most part, completely oblivious to this. It is with urgency and alarm that Colonel Peter Martino tries to bring this to the attention of participants at a town council in Concord, New Hampshire recently. As reported on BusinessInsider.com, Colonel Martino called out what he saw as an end-run around Posse Comitatus.
The implications are quite chilling, if history is to teach us any lesson about the centralization of government around threats to national security. Although the city council erupted in applause after the colonel's dire explanation and implicit warning, one wonders if they really got it--I mean, really got it.
Among the the bizarre spiral into oblivion that American society is now experiencing, a story from the New York Times further cements, I think, facts that can no longer be dismissed as paranoid hysteria. Anyone who reads the May 13, 2009 article, Explorer-Scouts Train to Fight Terrorists, and More, should be appalled. Is this part of the Civilian National Security Force that President Obama spoke of when he was presidential candidate Obama? It's strange. Maybe I missed it, but I don't recall anyone asking what he meant by "Civilian National Security Force." What are the "national security objectives that we have set?" What specifically would be the mission of the civilian national security force? Is it domestic, foreign, or both? What will a civilian national security force that is "just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded" as the military look like? Interestingly enough, the story opens with the training of some scouts in Imperial, California, a border town with Mexico. This particular training scenario involved taking down a "disgruntled Iraq war veteran" who had already killed two people. One reader of the article posted a comment that was particularly poignant:
"It would be more authentic if the simulated gunman were a Mexican drug lord rather than a disgruntled Iraq war vet, given the part of the country they're in."
June 16, 2009 - Update: AFP reports that Brazil finds new strain of H1N1 Virus. The discovered variant is called A/Sao Paulo/1454/H1N1 and is being studied to determine whether this mutation is more aggressive than the current A/H1N1 virus.
June 11, 2009 - Update: WHO declares phase 6 Swine Flu pandemic, first in 41 years. The pharmaceutical companies now have the green light to ramp up vaccine production. There are other implications to this declaration. Read the blog posts below to see what they are.
June 6, 2009 - Update: WHO to raise swine flu pandemic alert to highest level in 41 years, according to Bloomberg. A reading of my previous updates on the subject matter should beg the question: Why? After all, even in this article, it is admitted that the H1N1 flu is no more severe or widespread than previous influenza strains. So, why raise the alert to level 6? Even the WHO's own internal advisory committee is questioning this move. Travel restrictions, enforced quarantines, possible mandatory vaccinations, and a host of martial powers that can and may be activated by governments in order to enforce the WHO's alert, are all implications of this pending action. What is happening here?
May 18, 2009 - Update: Reuters reports that H1N1 is the cause of death of NYC principal. To the conspicuous consumer of news, the article is murky and vague. According to the article, Dr. Andrew Rubin, a spokesman at Flushing Hospital Medical Center, only stated that Mitchell Wiener, 55, died after being admitted with H1N1. The article was non-specific regarding whether Wiener's death was a direct result of the flu or stemming from complications due to pre-existing medical conditions. The article also states that Wiener was in and out of consciousness, that he was being treated with an experimental drug, and that his family thought he was making progress.
Questions: Why was Wiener being treated with an experimental drug? Was the experimental drug being administered to treat the flu, or was it for another medical condition? If, according to the World Health Organization (see May 13 post below), most people do not need drugs to recover from H1N1, that it is similar to most flu strains from which many people recover(see May 17 post below), why was an "experimental" drug indicated?
Reading that buy line, you would justifiably have cause for concern or maybe alarm. But here is the problem: H1N1 was not identified as the CAUSE of death. As a matter of fact, according to the article, the four U.S. deaths that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention linked to the virus, were of people with pre-existing medical conditions.
The article concludes with the context and probity that the buy line lacked. Referring to how H1N1 compares with previous strains of the flu, the last sentence of the article states, "But it has so far acted similar to typical seasonal influenza--which usually can be treated successfully but can be deadly among the very old, very young and people with pre-existing health problems."
My question is: Why is this flu being hyped as if it is an E.L.E.(Extinction Level Event)?
May 5, 2009-Update: Barbara Loe Fisher writes a compelling article on Mercola.com, further elucidating the current Swine Flu panic. In the article, Fisher explores the correlation between the proliferation of largely untested vaccines and the immunity (no pun intended) from product liability granted to the pharmaceutical companies by U.S. courts. Fisher also documents the apparent conflict of interest between the World Health Organization, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the largest makers of flu vaccines.
It never ceases to amaze me how the disinformation--some subtle and some audacious--that circulates in the mainstream media hardly gets challenged by institutional gatekeepers. It just goes to show that nothing shuts down reason and calm rational thinking more than fear and panic. As I read the accounts of "suspected" versus "confirmed" cases of Swine Flu, I couldn't help but ask myself some vexing questions. For example: Why are suspected cases conflated with confirmed cases? What is the rate of infection for "confirmed" cases? What is the actual morbidity rate for confirmed cases (how sick are people getting from this)? What is the actual mortality rate for confirmed cases (how many cases of Swine Flu result in fatalities)? How do these rates compare with the same rates for non-Swine Flu strains of previous flu seasons? How did the most advanced public health surveilance system in the world miss this? Why is it being referred to as a pandemic? Professor Michel Chossudovsky addresses these same questions in his article featured on globalresearch.ca.
Some doctors are beginning to wonder if the response to the reported threat may not be disproportional and overhyped while other practitioners outright imply malfeasance or irresponsibility on the part of news organizations and the institutions charged with protecting the public health and safety. It appears that more and more practioners are presenting a case that challenges the overwhelming reportage that depicts this flu as the New Black Plague. As I watch the terrorized public wear masks and wince everytime someone coughs or sneezes, I couldn't help but wonder if this might not be some cruel hoax.
After 911, and the subsequent mysterious anthrax attacks, a Congress that had before been prepared to debate the then nascient Patriot Act, rushed it through the legislative process and made it the law of the land without so much as reading the bill. While the world economy unravelled as a result of the derivatives bubble bursting, former treasury secretary Henry Paulson threatened that the country would experience its second Great Depression and that there would be martial law if Congress did not approve the first stimulus package. A cowed and nervous Congress quickly approved a bill that gave the treasury secretary near-dictatoral powers over the nation's financial system--without challenge or review. Now enter the Swine Flu. The allusion to mandatory vaccinations and enforced quarantines made by the current secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano is reminiscent of the inappropriately made comment by former president George W. Bush regarding possible military enforced quarantines during the height of the Avian (Bird Flu) Virus scare. The question must be asked: Why is the corporate media merely reporting the talking points of officials and institutions rather than analysing and giving context to an issue that is filled with logical holes?
June 24, 2012 - Update: Well, they're finally calling it as it really is. The analyst are saying what used to be considered the parlance of tin foil hat-wearing conspiracy theorists. They are actually saying "we're slaves to the central bankers..."
April 28, 2009-Update: Events are moving at the speed of warp factor eight. Read Martin D. Weiss's piece, dated April 26, 2009, in Money and Markets. This is so sick.
So much has transpired since I last posted that I hardly know where to begin. Okay, so the bailouts have gone forward and AIG gave back some of the money after Congress imposed a ninety-percent tax on the loot. It turns out that AIG was a funnel--a conduit for pass-through money that would benefit some foreign banks and domestic institutions that had already received TARP money, one of the biggest beneficiaries being Goldman Sachs. The IMF has already proposed a world "super currency" to replace the U.S. dollar as the world reserve currency. The G20 Summit has come and gone, with Gordon Brown and other heads of state calling for a new world order. This is old news now. The raping of the taxpayers continues. A friend of mine had scoffed at the idea that the global financial economic meltdown was intentional on the highest levels. He doesn't think that idea is preposterous any more. He had a change of heart after reading Paul B. Farrell's piece on MarketWatch. A growing number of analysts, academics and former government officials are calling this financial crisis by its rightful name--a coup. This is a hostile takeover of the U.S. government by the global banking cartel, spearheaded by Goldman Sachs. Sounds preposterous? Just remember, when you have lived an entirely fictitious life, reality is what appears absurd.
"'Come, let us go down and confuse their language,
so they will not understand each other.'
That is why it was called Babel--because there the Lord
confused the language of the whole world..."
Genesis 12:7,9 NIV
How gut-wrenchingly ironic it is that almost nine years ago, we witnessed the symbols of economic might implode after two commercial jetliners deliberately crashed into them, and now, more recently, we saw a repeat of what occurred on 9/11. But this time, no buildings were collapsed and no airplanes were used as missiles. Instead, new security instruments called derivatives were the projectiles that collapsed--and continues to collapse--the entire world economy and financial system. If you're saying to yourself, "Yeah, I've heard of derivatives; I hear that word thrown around all the time but I don't know what they are," you're not alone. A whole slew of strange and complex new security instruments appeared that the general public, and even some very smart people in government and on Wall Street, didn't understand. It seemed that only a relatively small circle in the banking and finance industry truly understood what they were. Reason: they created these dubious, high-risk investment vehicles.
But what are derivatives? In the simpliest terms, they are very high-risk bets, contracts based on the value of underlying assets, and/or which direction those assets will go. Will they increase in value or decline in value? The underlying assets could be anything--but that was the problem. These underlying assets were collateralized debts--bits and pieces of good debts and bad ones, mixed and matched, diced and sliced until they were indistinguishable one from another. This mish-mash of rotten and good assets were packaged together, chopped up into particular slices, and sold to investors. The various types of derivatives floating around were enough to make most people's heads swim. Here are a few abbreviations for them: CDO, CMO, CMBS, RMBS (investopedia.com is a great resource for simple yet comprehensive definitions of these financial instruments). Everyone wanted a piece of the action. All this activity was driving up the value of these dodgy securities, creating a derivative bubble. Everyone was doing it and making these kinds of bets. But what made things worse was that these investments were highly leveraged--that is, the bets were largely financed by other institutions and investors. But wait, there's more. To insure against credit default, investors bought credit default swaps (CDS) from insurance companies such as AIG. These insurance companies received monthly premium payments, with the expectation that, should their contract holders default, they would be covered. AIG did not have the money to cover the mountain of defaults that were coming down like an avalanche in the Alps. The whole thing stunk from the top down.
Alan Greenspan, the former chairman of the Federal Reserve, had said that it was all good, and that these kinds of high-risk bets were actually good for the market. Peter S. Goodman filed an excellent and comprehensive report in the October 8, 2008 edition of the International Herald Tribune that covered Greenspan's role in the current crisis. Since Greenspan was considered the Moses of the American economy, his thumbs-up on this extremely high-risk activity in the market was a signal to Wall Street to party on. Greenspan's monetary policy, by the way, encouraged an orgy of borrowing and spending, since he countinued to raise the credit discount window, thereby lowering the rate (the cost of borrowing money) during his tenure. This was like pouring gasoline on fire. When you include the fact that regulation (Glass-Steagall Act) that was made to prevent this disaster--regulation that was created in the wake of the first Great Depression, by the way--had been systematically dismantled since the 1980s, along with the relaxation of lending standards, which lead to the proliferation of subprime lenders, one begins to see the making of a perfect storm. As the subprime tsunami picked up speed as it was moving toward shore, the attorney generals from all 50 states were sounding the alarm. They saw what was coming and attempted to protect their citizens by exercising their regulatory powers within their jurisdictions. Their cries to the federal government fell on deaf ears. As a matter of fact, they were actively opposed by an arm of the federal government called the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC). See the video below:
Let me be clear. I don't believe that this is a partisan issue, because upon honest inspection, I think that we will see that both parties (or members thereof) were culpable in aiding and abetting the criminals who pulled off this epic fraud on the American people.
Side bar: Although this is no laughing matter, there has been a humorous cartoon stick figure slide show circulating the Web called The Subprime Primer that accurately depicts how the subprime and derivatives Ponzi scheme worked.
So, Bernie Madoff gets trotted off to jail--alone. He pulled that multi billion dollar scam off all by his lonesome. He scammed hundreds of millionaires and some billionaires with no help from anyone, and without raising any red flags to regulatory bodies that something foul was afoot. Really? The whole world was scammed to the tune of trillions of dollars, and while Congress gives the culprits a good tongue-lashing, our legislators are, at the same time, giving them trillions more of our money in order that the miscreants may recover their losses--rewarding criminally reckless behavior. It's like being robbed at gunpoint. The robber flees and loses the money while making a get-away. Realizing his loss, he files a report to the police. The police then comes to you and demand that you compensate the robber for his loss of your money. Welcome to Babylon.
UPDATE: April 1, 2009
Sean Brodick of Money and Markets takes the gloves off in his viscerally scathing analysis of the current global economic/financial crisis. The anger is really building out there.
