|
|
Post by jonnygemini on Dec 21, 2005 11:20:02 GMT -5
Bruce Schneier's op-ed on unchecked presidential power following up on last week's New York Times story on domestic spying by the NSA: Bruce Schneier: Unchecked presidential power December 21, 2005 This past Thursday, the New York Times exposed the most significant violation of federal surveillance law in the post-Watergate era. President Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to engage in domestic spying, wiretapping thousands of Americans and bypassing the legal procedures regulating this activity. This isn't about the spying, although that's a major issue in itself. This is about the Fourth Amendment protections against illegal search. This is about circumventing a teeny tiny check by the judicial branch, placed there by the legislative branch, placed there 27 years ago -- on the last occasion that the executive branch abused its power so broadly. In defending this secret spying on Americans, Bush said that he relied on his constitutional powers (Article 2) and the joint resolution passed by Congress after 9/11 that led to the war in Iraq. This rationale was spelled out in a memo written by John Yoo, a White House attorney, less than two weeks after the attacks of 9/11. It's a dense read and a terrifying piece of legal contortionism, but it basically says that the president has unlimited powers to fight terrorism. He can spy on anyone, arrest anyone, and kidnap anyone and ship him to another country ... merely on the suspicion that he might be a terrorist. And according to the memo, this power lasts until there is no more terrorism in the world. Yoo starts by arguing that the Constitution gives the president total power during wartime. He also notes that Congress has recently been quiescent when the president takes some military action on his own, citing President Clinton's 1998 strike against Sudan and Afghanistan. Yoo then says: "The terrorist incidents of September 11, 2001, were surely far graver a threat to the national security of the United States than the 1998 attacks. ... The President's power to respond militarily to the later attacks must be correspondingly broader." This is novel reasoning. It's as if the police would have greater powers when investigating a murder than a burglary. More to the point, the congressional resolution of Sept. 14, 2001, specifically refused the White House's initial attempt to seek authority to preempt any future acts of terrorism, and narrowly gave Bush permission to go after those responsible for the attacks on the Pentagon and World Trade Center. Yoo's memo ignored this. Written 11 days after Congress refused to grant the president wide-ranging powers, it admitted that "the Joint Resolution is somewhat narrower than the President's constitutional authority," but argued "the President's broad constitutional power to use military force ... would allow the President to ... [take] whatever actions he deems appropriate ... to pre-empt or respond to terrorist threats from new quarters." Even if Congress specifically says no. The result is that the president's wartime powers, with its armies, battles, victories, and congressional declarations, now extend to the rhetorical "War on Terror": a war with no fronts, no boundaries, no opposing army, and -- most ominously -- no knowable "victory." Investigations, arrests and trials are not tools of war. But according to the Yoo memo, the president can define war however he chooses, and remain "at war" for as long as he chooses. This is indefinite dictatorial power. And I don't use that term lightly; the very definition of a dictatorship is a system that puts a ruler above the law. In the weeks after 9/11, while America and the world were grieving, Bush built a legal rationale for a dictatorship. Then he immediately started using it to avoid the law. This is, fundamentally, why this issue crossed political lines in Congress. If the president can ignore laws regulating surveillance and wiretapping, why is Congress bothering to debate reauthorizing certain provisions of the Patriot Act? Any debate over laws is predicated on the belief that the executive branch will follow the law. This is not a partisan issue between Democrats and Republicans; it's a president unilaterally overriding the Fourth Amendment, Congress and the Supreme Court. Unchecked presidential power has nothing to do with how much you either love or hate George W. Bush. You have to imagine this power in the hands of the person you most don't want to see as president, whether it be Dick Cheney or Hillary Rodham Clinton, Michael Moore or Ann Coulter. Laws are what give us security against the actions of the majority and the powerful. If we discard our constitutional protections against tyranny in an attempt to protect us from terrorism, we're all less safe as a result. Bruce Schneier is chief technology officer of Counterpane Internet Security and the author of "Beyond Fear: Thinking Sensibly About Security in an Uncertain World." www.startribune.com/dynamic/mobile_story.php?story=5793639 |
|
|
|
Post by UniverseSeven on Dec 21, 2005 12:23:50 GMT -5
Link please
|
|
|
|
Post by jonnygemini on Dec 21, 2005 12:29:48 GMT -5
U.S. judge on spy court resigns post Letter follows reports on Bush wiretap OKs www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0512210324dec21,1,2680201,print.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed By Carol D. Leonnig and Dafna Linzer, The Washington Post. Post writers Jonathan Weisman and Charles Babington and researcher Julie Tate contributed to this report, as did Tribune news services December 21, 2005 WASHINGTON -- A federal judge has resigned from the court that oversees government surveillance in intelligence cases in protest of President Bush's secret authorization of a domestic spying program, according to two sources. U.S. District Judge James Robertson, one of 11 members of the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, sent a letter to Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. late Monday notifying him of his resignation without providing an explanation. Two associates familiar with his decision said Tuesday that Robertson privately expressed deep concern that the warrantless surveillance program authorized by the president in 2001 was legally questionable and may have tainted the work of the FISA court, established under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Robertson, appointed to the federal bench by President Bill Clinton in 1994 and later was selected by Chief Justice William Rehnquist to serve on the foreign intelligence court, declined to comment Tuesday. Word of Robertson's resignation came as two Senate Republicans joined the call for congressional investigations into the National Security Agency's warrantless interception of telephone calls and e-mails to overseas locations by U.S. citizens suspected of links to terrorist groups. Sens. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and Olympia Snowe of Maine echoed concerns raised by Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, who has promised hearings in the new year. At the White House, spokesman Scott McClellan was asked to explain why Bush last year said that surveillance required court approval. "Any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires--a wiretap requires a court order," Bush said at the time. "Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so." McClellan said the quote referred only to the USA Patriot Act. Vice President Dick Cheney on Tuesday defended the secret wiretaps. "You know, it's not an accident that we haven't been hit in four years," the vice president said, speaking with reporters on Air Force Two en route from Pakistan to Oman. Revelation of the program last week by The New York Times also spurred considerable debate among federal judges, including some who serve on the FISA court. For more than a quarter-century, that court had been seen as the only body that could legally authorize secret surveillance of espionage and terrorism suspects, and only when the Justice Department could show probable cause that its targets were foreign governments or their agents. Robertson indicated privately to colleagues in recent conversations he was concerned that information gained from warrantless NSA surveillance could have then been used to obtain foreign intelligence warrants. FISA court Presiding Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who had been briefed on the spying program by the administration, raised the same concern in 2004, and insisted that the Justice Department certify in writing that it was not occurring. "They just don't know if the product of wiretaps were used for FISA warrants--to kind of cleanse the information," said one source, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the classified nature of the FISA warrants. "What I've heard some of the judges say is they feel they've participated in a Potemkin court." Copyright © 2005, Chicago Tribune |
|
|
|
Post by UniverseSeven on Dec 21, 2005 12:37:12 GMT -5
Thanks!
|
|
|
|
Post by jonnygemini on Dec 24, 2005 18:59:10 GMT -5
(Total411.info) -- In light of the extension of the USA PATRIOT Act's expiring police-state provisions for only five weeks, this website is issuing a CODE RED SYNTHETIC TERROR ALERT through Feb. 3. Concerned citizens should be on the lookout for suspicious activities by government operatives over the next five weeks. An attack at this time would provide the necessary impetus to hammer through an expansion of PATRIOT's Orwellian provisions. Bush will likely push for these provisions during his Jan. 31 State of the Union address to Congress. Of particular concern in the New York subway system. The recent transit workers strike, provoked by unreasonable intransigence of management, left the entire system closed to the public for three days. That means black-ops teams had free reign to plant explosives and/or bioweapons to be released at a later time. Also vulnerable is the Washington DC subway system, called the Metro. Metro recently finished placing hundreds of new "blast-proof" trash cans throughout the systems. These would be the perfect conduit for an inside job -- explosives where the "blast-proof" shielding should be. Additionally, the Metro system shuts down each night, leaving several windows for insiders to plant terror devices. Some, including this editor, have noticed abnormal activity on the system as it closes down at midnight; such as clearing the entire platform at the Metro Center station even though more trains were still scheduled to arrive. Concerned Americans should look for abnormal activity by "authorities," particularly "drills" over the next few weeks. Subway systems, particularly those in New York and Washington, should be monitored closely. You can call your Congressman and Senators' offices through the Congressional switchboard at 202-225-3121 and tell them not to let a synthetic terror attack again terrorize them into passing PATRIOT. Even better, tell them as they visit their home districts over the holidays. Americans can also call the White House at 202-456-1414 and tell the alleged President you won't be fooled or scared by any upcoming false-flag terror attack.  |
|
|
|
Post by UniverseSeven on Dec 25, 2005 0:02:24 GMT -5
Ohio Patriot Act goes too far
Loss of liberty just a goose step awayBy Jeff Bruce Dayton Daily News OK, for this to work, you have to summon a stern, Teutonic Colonel Klink voice. For those of you too young to remember Hogan's Heroes, just conjure your best Nazi SS officer impersonation from those old World War II movies. Got it? Good. Now — with feeling — I want you to bark these words: "HALT! You vill show me your papers." Oh, very good. I can practically see the swastika on your arm. Get used to that phrase. If Gov. Bob Taft follows the will of the Ohio General Assembly and signs Senate Bill 9, which is now on his desk, you might be hearing those words any time you traverse a "transportation infrastructure site," meaning an airport, train station, bus terminal or, hey — at the rate we keep handing our civil liberties over to Big Brother — when you pull out of your garage. Just kidding about that last bit, of course; a touch of hyperbole. After all, before they start checking your ID in the driveway, they'll first want to mount cameras at red lights and such. Smack! Sorry, had to drive my Inner Libertarian back into his cave. I was getting a visual of the guv in jodhpurs, brown shirt, armband and jackboots. Got to stop reading those American Civil Liberties Union press releases. And release they did: "Despite mounting pressure from the public," the ACLU e-mail said, the Legislature passed Dayton Sen. Jeff Jacobson's "much amended" Ohio Patriot Act, which would give the police the right to check your bona fides before you could enter an airport terminal — let alone board a plane — or whenever the cops suspect that you either committed a crime or witnessed a crime or just looked suspicious. "It's fundamentally at odds with whom we are as a people that we have to carry our papers and show them routinely," said Jeff Gamso, the ACLU's legal director. You might think the General Assembly was in virtual lockstep on this since it passed out of the Senate on a vote of 29-2, but the bill gives even some Republicans a case of the vapors. Supporters, like Rep. Bill Seitz of Cincinnati, argue that "the police need to manage these sites when there is a credible terrorism threat." But Rep. Ron Hood of Ashville worries about that. "I do not want to see these Gestapo tactics get even a foothold in the United States of America, much less the state of Ohio," he says. Hmmm. We've got conservative Republicans like Hood and the ACLU on the same page. What does this tell us? Maybe that civil liberties aren't the exclusive province of the left or the right? Besides all that, if you can't keep the president's daughters from flashing fake IDs to knock back margaritas in Austin, what makes Jeff Jacobson think showing a driver's license in Vandalia will stop the next Abu Musab al-Zarqawi? Perhaps at birth every Buckeye-born child should be tattooed — preferably in a visible place, say the forehead — with a unique number and an image distinctly Ohioan, say, a flying pig taken straight from the Cincinnati street art collection. That way we won't have to fumble for our papers every time we're challenged by the ATF, the FBI, the CIA, the TSA, the NSA, the DIA or whichever three-letter acronym accosts us. This technology is not beyond our reach. After all, the fundamentals were mastered decades ago. In places like Auschwitz, Dachau and the like. (Yes, I know, the president of Iran said this week the Holocaust was a myth, but you know what, I think he could be wrong.) Or maybe the governor should, to quote a former first lady, just say no. We live in scary times. We want to feel safe. But we need to remember that liberty entails an element of risk. Downtown Moscow, which I visited many years ago, used to be crime-free. There was a soldier on every street corner with an AK-47. It discouraged muggers big time. But it didn't eliminate fear. Instead of criminals, the people were terrified of their own government. We don't want to go there. This is a slippery slope we should not descend. Taft should veto this bill. Jeff Bruce is the editor of the Dayton Daily News. Write to him at jbruce@DaytonDailyNews.com or drop him a line on his blog at daytondailynews.com/jblog www.daytondailynews.com/opinion/content/opinion/daily/1218jeff.html
|
|
|
|
Post by jonnygemini on Dec 30, 2005 18:59:51 GMT -5
12/30/2005 Russia Prepares to Turn Off Gas to Ukraine :. Russia was on Friday night preparing to turn off gas to Ukraine on Sunday for the first time since the collapse of the Soviet Union, posing a threat to the stability of supplies to western Europe. Moscow stuck to demands on Friday for a nearly five-fold increase in the price Ukraine pays for Russian natural gas in a move to eradicate subsidies. But Ukraine insisted it needed a period of transition to market prices to avoid huge damage to its industry and economy. It was expected to present a new proposal on Friday night in an attempt to defuse the acrimonious row between the former Soviet neighbours. The dispute has demonstrated Russia's increasing self-confidence as one of the world's biggest energy suppliers, but provoked alarm in western Europe, which gets 25 per cent of its gas from Russia - most of it through the massive Brotherhood pipeline across Ukraine. The European Commission said it would host an emergency meeting on Wednesday of energy officials from the 25 European Union states to discuss possible sharing of gas reserves and other contingency measures, should Russia carry out its threat. cryptogon.com/index.html |
|
|
|
Post by UniverseSeven on Jan 3, 2006 12:47:02 GMT -5
Floods and fires mar start of year in US
Jan 3, 2006, 16:03 GMT
Los Angeles - If the weather at the start of the new year is an omen, the U.S. is likely to be in for a tough 2006, as residents throughout California battled torrential downpours while wildfires threatened towns in Texas, Oklahoma and New Mexico.
Authorities reported four fire-related deaths and one from the California flooding. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger declared a state of emergency in the seven California counties and called on the federal disaster agency FEMA to come to California's aid.
'I proclaim a state of emergency because the magnitude of this disaster exceeds the capabilities of the services, personnel, equipment and facilities of these counties,' Schwarzenegger said.
Oklahoma officials on Sunday night ordered the evacuation of dozens of homes on the northeastern edge of Oklahoma City, as prairie fires there threatened to engulf dozens of homes.
The fire was brought under control by Monday morning, but tinder dry conditions and strong winds meant that 35 new fires ignited Monday.
Since November 1, Oklahoma wildfires have covered more than 285,000 acres and destroyed 200 buildings, said Michelle Finch- Walker, a spokeswoman for the state Agriculture Department's forestry division.
'This has been an unprecedented year for fires,' Finch-Walker said. Fire season in Oklahoma usually begins around Feb. 15 and lasts until April 15, but this past year the fires began in June and have worsened, Finch said.
Fires continued to burn out of control in northern and western Texas, where reports said that the two villages of Ringgold and Kokoma, with combined populations of 125, had been razed to the ground. On Monday 58 new fires were reported to have started.
Just across the Texas state line in New Mexico, 170 elderly residents were moved out of two nursing homes in Hobbs on Sunday, and a casino and community college in the town of 29,000 were evacuated.
In California the a series of storms that caused widespread flooding in the north of the state moved south to dump heavy rain on the traditional Rose Bowl parade in the Los Angeles suburb of Pasadena.
Lavishly costumed participants were forced to cover themselves with plastic sheets and stomp through puddles in the parade, which according to local reports has only been rained on once in the last 18 years.
State officials said they remained on high alert for possible breaches in the 1,760 kilometres of levees in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta that protects hundreds of square kilometres from flooding.
The storms had left some 500,000 residents without power over the New Year weekend, causing widespread flooding in the wine country north of San Francisco.
Deutsche Presse-Agentur
|
|
|
|
Post by UniverseSeven on Jan 3, 2006 13:25:01 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by jonnygemini on Jan 4, 2006 16:02:38 GMT -5
via: deconsumtion blog deconsumption.typepad.com/deconsumption/Ah, What the Hell...Here's My Predictions for 2006 It's customary in the investment world to ring in the New Year by offering up one's predictions for the coming year. Granted it's just an exercise in onanism, but at the same time people really seem to like reading predictions, so it's kind of a crowd pleaser. Anyway, I thought I'd throw my own hat into the ring in that respect. The below speculations are a bit of a jumble, but I don't see any reason to clean them up since I'll be wrong on all but the most obvious predictions. Still, I rest easy knowing that all our attention spans have become so crippled that nobody one will remember this post by even the middle of next week. The general image I have in my mind for 2006 is the opening tip-off in a basketball game. Certainly 2005 was a year of transition in a great many ways, but most of those ways were internalized. Because despite several obvious and striking "events" which served to bring critical problems and issues into the public consciousness, still for the majority of Americans those issues more or less only happened "in TV Land". Or in keeping with the basketball analogy, 2005 to me was the year the players finally got off the benches and began to line-up in their respective sides on the playing court, but no game had really started, per se. Still, the anticipation and tension is steadily mounting as we approach the official whistle-blow.... In this light I have to believe that very quickly into 2006 the tip-off is going to happen and the ball(s) will be in play. In other words, all these mounting tensions will start to become more "externalized", and the TV show will start to seem a lot more real to a whole lot more people. At the expense of sounding more dramatic than I really want to--because the game is only just getting started after all--I think 2006 is going to reveal an event of Katrina-like emotional impact, but one affecting the entire country. And ultimately, my guess is that 2006 will be labelled either the "Year of Peak Oil" or the "Year the U.S. Faltered as a Superpower". Probably both. But first I want to point out that in the political sphere it's now make-or-break time. The major questions for 2006 will revolve around how the present administration can pursue an escalated war abroad while under intense political attack at home. For instance, there is a steadily mounting clamour for change at the top, whether it's real or illusory (by that I'm referring to my own subjective opinion that any 'change' that happens will likely only be a pretend shifting of players to appease public and world opinion, but ultimately only a superficial concession aimed at allowing the over-arching gameplan of globalization to continue for a little while longer). Yet at the same time there is really no time to be wasted in such diplomatic pandering--too many critical issues are teetering in the balance (which I'll outline in a moment). Now one "easy way out" that many other pundits are bandying about would be another major "terrorist" event on the homeland, but I'm leery of jumping to that conclusion just because it's such an obvious gambit. The door has been left wide-open to terrorism for years now and yet nothing has happened, which leads me to believe that the people who have the resolve to commit such an act are well-aware that it would only hurt their cause at this point. In fact the anti-American factions are actually holding the high-cards right now. With world opinion soundly turned against the NeoCon agenda, with the country teetering on bankruptcy trying to fund a war on the far side of the world, with American domestic opinion turning fiercely against that war, with the occupation of Iraq being lost even in the face of a heightened sabre-rattling against Iran, with the growing riches that oil-producing countries are raking in as oil prices rise while they enjoy a greatly increased status on the world stage via the increasingly urgent demand for those resources....well, all said, it would be ludicrous at this point for quote/unquote "the terrorists" to go and hand the NeoCons an ideological rifle to shoot them with. And I should add that I just don't buy the idea that such an "event" might be entirely engineered by the NeoCons--because while I suspect they've effectively been allowing for such and event to occur (and probably getting mightily irked that the fish aren't biting), I don't think they could orchestrate it--there's too much political in-fighting going on between them and the intelligence and special forces. But anyway, to return to the original question....the globalist agenda is at a critical loggerhead: they're losing the oil-wars and they're losing popular support globally, but what else can they do? They have find an excuse to escalate things, and find one quickly. So my guess is that somehow in 2006 they're going to dig deep into their playbook for the imperialistic version of the Hail Mary (sorry for mixing sports metaphors). In fact I'll go way out on a limb--since nobody likes to read predictions that don't offer concrete statements of events--and say that before 2006 is out the ever-changing "War Agenda" will have shifted over to the frank announcement that "Alright folks...Peak Oil is coming up fast. And if we don't draft troops right now to secure those overseas reserves in our own name our country is going to collapse and you'll lose everything you have." I mean, think about it. It's honest enough, it's simple enough, and it would undoubtedly convince a lot of people. But regardless of whether any such "official statement" is issued, there are other reasons 2006 will go down in history as the "Year of Peak Oil". But more on that below.... In the economic sphere 2006 just has to be the year when the mainstream media finally runs out of things to cheerlead and has to suck it up and acknowledge that the U.S. is in fact in a recession. As I see things shaping up, the economic theme for 2006 will likely be: "Hey, Where Did All the Bull Markets Go?". Aside from watching the major currencies suck wind in 2005, and the housing downturn progressing along it's painfully glacial path, money has of late been flowing into the U.S. bond markets solely for want of anywhere else to go. So perhaps with the currency and real estate markets failing you'd logically assume the bond market would become the de facto last man standing. However in the investment world (unlike real estate) the obvious opportunity is always a suckers bet (just ask all those Euro-bulls of last year...). All in all, if I was a still a player I'd be net short U.S. bonds in 2006. But the far more important question--what with currencies, real estate and bond markets all in decline--is "then what the hell do you buy?" Sure some of the money will flow into gold (the asset of last resort) but the gold market is like a drop of rain when compared to oceanic markets like bonds and real estate, and it can't even begin to contain all this liquidity the Fed has been producing the last few years. I have no idea where all that money can go, but if I'm right and the bond market finally begins to falter, there's going to be a global sea-change in store as the rich stop getting richer and start wondering how they're even going to stay afloat. But those concerns fall under the category of "Problems You Wish You Had"....for all of us little people, I still like modest gold investments for the long term, a decent supply of cash on hand for the short term, and good rural real estate for an all around "investment in your future" (although it may dip in value along with the rest of the real estate market over the short term). On the entertainment front I see 2006 as a real breakthrough year for Vince Vaughn...his "star" is truly on the rise. Johnny Depp, however, is looking sooooo 2005. And Owen Wilson...? Why he spells Charisma with a capitol "NOT". Start looking for him on the bottom shelf of your local movie rental store. But on the lighter side, what's all this about "The Year of Peak Oil"..."The Year the U.S. Faltered as a Superpower"? Well this arena is where I think the basketball game is going to be the most dramatic, and there are a couple of central reasons I believe this. The first is that, judging by how quickly the thought-meme of Peak Oil moved into the mainstream during 2005, I have to believe it's about to erupt into a certified household subject during the next few months. I mean let's face it, Peak Oil--regardless whether you accept or deny it--is a godsend of a topic for the media. It's like "Lacy Peterson" x "missing girl in Aruba" x "Hurricane Katrina" x, like, infinity dude! And it's a story you can spin in any direction you choose, so it never gets old. The only drawback is that it isn't just happening to poor people in New Orleans and Mississippi....it's happening to poor people everywhere, which means any pretense to objectivity goes out the window as fear and sensationalism take root. And that's undoubtedly why it's been treated with kid gloves until now. But they simply won't be able to avoid the story for much longer, because we'll soon start seeing the countless domestic stories about natural gas shortages and delinquent energy bill payments, and the great oil grab is going to be the only obvious explanation for unfolding events on the world stage. In short, in 2006 it will become abundantly clear that present demand has outstripped present supply, and that situation will present so many issues that it will become the story in and of itself. I should also note that once the media launches the issue into public consciousness--when the cat is finally out of the bag as they say--our future will become much more uncertain than it is even now. Peak Oil will be the cause du jour for anyone and everyone with an agenda to push. Politicians will tie it into every bill they sponsor and every issue they espouse. Corporations will blame all their troubles on it, while identifying whole new markets around it. The religions will proselytize around it, scholars will pontificate about it, self-proclaimed experts will magically spring up out of nowhere, and virtually everyone will begin to reconsider what their hopes and dreams have been based on up until now. But then again, these developments will probably extend further out, into 2007 and beyond.... So as I mentioned, power-plays on the global stage--which are already starting to get a little hairy--are only going to get hairier. For the past several years there has been this delicately balanced diplomatic and economic tug-of-war between the U.S. vs. China / East Asia (which, if I may toot my own horn, I was talking about here at deconsumption long before it became popularly recognized). What has kept that tug-of-war in the proverbial Mexican Standoff is simply that no significant "third force" has come along to upset the balance. But I believe that third force is coming in 2006, and it's the second reason that I believe this will be the Year of Peak Oil. A lot of attention has been given to the massive profits that oil companies have been making over the past couple years, but the real story is the massive profits the oil producing nations have been making. Almost across the board they're sitting on rapidly growing piles of cash, and that cash has to be invested somewhere. However (unlike China) these countries aren't interested in buying U.S. bonds. They're selling their oil dollars as fast as they can to concentrate on infrastructure investments, arms deals, negotiating trade agreements, and (as with Venezuela) paying off their national debts. In short, they've gotten hip to the tricks of globalism, they know they're literally sitting on a "black-gold mine", and they're getting lean and mean and eager to begin flexing their muscles on the global chess board. Oh, and did I mention they really, really don't like America? Well as the old saying goes, common enemies make for common friends. And these friends--undoubtedly including China--will be working together to exclude U.S. interests from their lives. So all in all the U.S. is very rapidly losing it's clout with these oil producing nations as they become financially independent and morally indignant against Western imperialism, and most of the rest of the world is scrambling to take advantage of this. No, they can't just shut off the taps altogether. But even if oil prices do no more than hold steady in 2006 they're going to be in a damn good position to hold the U.S. hostage to their demands. So my biggest prediction for the coming year is that we'll experience a new version of the Cuban Missile Crisis in that some collusion of oil producing countries will issue the U.S. a blackmail ultimatum: do what we want or we'll start squeezing your oil tube. Of course such an ultimatum might be difficult to recognize because it may not happen in the public media, perhaps just through a few phone calls to the White House. But nevertheless the timing for this type of gambit is soon, since U.S. will be over a(n oil) barrel as winter draws on because of our already greatly depleted strategic reserves in the wake of Katrina, not to mention our hyper-precarious economic situation and the failing occupation of Iraq. And it's more than abundantly clear that there is no longer any margin of error in the supply pipeline. So in closing, I no longer believe that this administration is going to be able to launch an attack against Iran because that will undoubtedly be one of the demands that will be thrown down. However at the same time the parallel to the Cuban Missile Crisis is apt, because the danger in this kind of face-down is that the NeoCons may in fact be every bit the egocentric control freaks they appear, and might not hesitate to call their nuclear bluff. But at this point my crystal ball gets a little fuzzy, so I'd do better to just leave off for now. Posted by Steven Lagavulin on January 03, 2006 |
|
|
|
Post by jonnygemini on Jan 13, 2006 14:30:56 GMT -5
via: deconsumption
They're Heeeeere....Recession and Secession
Thing 1 and Thing 2 are out of the Box!
I originally posted these in the deconsumption news room but I'm moving them to the front page because these are by far the two most important stories of the year (so far):
Fast food steps up value menus
"After two years of touting better-for-you foods and premium pricier products, the $120 billion fast-food world is entering 2006 with a new message: value. Wendy's is pushing its Super Value Menu with new ads and steeper discounts. Burger King is testing a new value menu. Even McDonald's is running more value-menu ads. This is more than a winter response to slow sales. It's also about their customers' economic stress.
"When folks have to pay more than $2 a gallon for gas, the money has to come from somewhere," says Keith Sirois, CEO of Checkers Drive-In Restaurants...."High energy prices are stretching consumers thin," says Sherri Daye Scott, editor of QSR, a fast-food trade publication. There's a "negative consumer perception" about the economy, she says."
The article actually references new promotions by 8 or 9 major fast food chains, so this isn't just an "advertisement in news clothing". The fast food industry is responding to the real economic situation in America. And the fast food industry, without a doubt, reflects the real-time pulse of America. This story, in and of itself, trumps everything that's come out of every government economic agency all year.
The fat lady is singing, folks. Stick a fork in it, it's now official--recession is here.
Venezuela donates more heating oil to U.S. poor
"Venezuela expanded a controversial program on Thursday of subsidizing costly home-heating oil for the U.S. poor with a pact in Maine, upping the ante in a political brawl with President George W. Bush....Donations to the U.S. poor by Citgo, Venezuela's state-owned oil company's U.S. division, now total an estimated $38 million in three states -- Maine, Massachusetts and New York. Rhode Island will receive a similar donation on Friday....Maine Gov. John Baldacci signed Thursday's pact with Citgo's chief executive Felix Rodriguez..."
Did you catch that last line? What it's telling us is that INDIVIDUAL STATES are signing oil agreements with state-owned foreign oil companies! You know what they call that, right? It's called the beginning of a secessionary movement.
Here's another clue...
"...Citgo was the only major oil company to respond to an appeal by 12 U.S. senators for assistance this winter. "It's a year when big oil companies have record profits. We encourage other companies also to come forward."
Basically the Federal government--itself only an extension of Big American Oil since it's leaders straddle both boardrooms--refuses to provide for it's own. So the states begin to look outside their Federal borders for aid. Put another way, what the general populace discovered in the wake of Katrina is now being recognized by State administrators: No One Will Be Coming To Help You...You Are On Your Own.
Strangely enough, even USA Today warned us to watch for this in 2006. And I'll bet dollars to donuts we'll be seeing more hints in this direction throughout the year.
|
|
|
|
Post by Healthy Merking on Jan 13, 2006 15:10:44 GMT -5
via: deconsumption They're Heeeeere....Recession and Secession Thing 1 and Thing 2 are out of the Box! I originally posted these in the deconsumption news room but I'm moving them to the front page because these are by far the two most important stories of the year (so far): Fast food steps up value menus "After two years of touting better-for-you foods and premium pricier products, the $120 billion fast-food world is entering 2006 with a new message: value. Wendy's is pushing its Super Value Menu with new ads and steeper discounts. Burger King is testing a new value menu. Even McDonald's is running more value-menu ads. This is more than a winter response to slow sales. It's also about their customers' economic stress. "When folks have to pay more than $2 a gallon for gas, the money has to come from somewhere," says Keith Sirois, CEO of Checkers Drive-In Restaurants...."High energy prices are stretching consumers thin," says Sherri Daye Scott, editor of QSR, a fast-food trade publication. There's a "negative consumer perception" about the economy, she says." The article actually references new promotions by 8 or 9 major fast food chains, so this isn't just an "advertisement in news clothing". The fast food industry is responding to the real economic situation in America. And the fast food industry, without a doubt, reflects the real-time pulse of America. This story, in and of itself, trumps everything that's come out of every government economic agency all year. The fat lady is singing, folks. Stick a fork in it, it's now official--recession is here. Venezuela donates more heating oil to U.S. poor "Venezuela expanded a controversial program on Thursday of subsidizing costly home-heating oil for the U.S. poor with a pact in Maine, upping the ante in a political brawl with President George W. Bush....Donations to the U.S. poor by Citgo, Venezuela's state-owned oil company's U.S. division, now total an estimated $38 million in three states -- Maine, Massachusetts and New York. Rhode Island will receive a similar donation on Friday....Maine Gov. John Baldacci signed Thursday's pact with Citgo's chief executive Felix Rodriguez..." Did you catch that last line? What it's telling us is that INDIVIDUAL STATES are signing oil agreements with state-owned foreign oil companies! You know what they call that, right? It's called the beginning of a secessionary movement. Here's another clue... "...Citgo was the only major oil company to respond to an appeal by 12 U.S. senators for assistance this winter. "It's a year when big oil companies have record profits. We encourage other companies also to come forward." Basically the Federal government--itself only an extension of Big American Oil since it's leaders straddle both boardrooms--refuses to provide for it's own. So the states begin to look outside their Federal borders for aid. Put another way, what the general populace discovered in the wake of Katrina is now being recognized by State administrators: No One Will Be Coming To Help You...You Are On Your Own. Strangely enough, even USA Today warned us to watch for this in 2006. And I'll bet dollars to donuts we'll be seeing more hints in this direction throughout the year. this kind of stuff is really starting to feel like good news |
|
|
|
Post by jonnygemini on Jan 18, 2006 16:56:12 GMT -5
via: Godlike Productions Board
|
|
|
|
Post by jonnygemini on Jan 22, 2006 13:07:02 GMT -5
Iran on Sunday said Israel would be making a "fatal mistake" should it resort to military action against Tehran's nuclear program and dismissed veiled threats from the Jewish state as a "childish game."
On Saturday, Israel repeated its stand on the issue, saying it would not accept a nuclear Iran under any circumstances and was preparing for the possible failure of diplomatic efforts.
While Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz stopped short of an outright threat of military action, he said Israel "must have the capability to defend itself...and this we are preparing."
Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi said Israel was only trying to add to Western pressure on Iran to give up its nuclear program.
"We consider Mofaz's comments a form of psychological warfare. Israel knows just how much of a fatal mistake it would be (to attack Iran)," Asefi told reporters. "This is just a childish game by Israel."
|
|
|
|
Post by jonnygemini on Jan 23, 2006 14:40:00 GMT -5
Israeli commander on trial for orders to shoot 3-year-olds who enter forbidden zone Harpers has a chilling excerpt from a radio communication transcript between an Israeli company commander and his subordinates. The commander is facing a three-year sentence in prison. SENTRY: We spotted an Arab female about 100 meters below our emplacement, near the light armored vehicle gate. HEADQUARTERS: Observation post “Spain,” do you see it? OBSERVATION POST: Affirmative, it’s a young girl. She’s now running east. ... HQ: Are you talking about a girl under ten? OP: Approximately a ten-year-old girl. ... cc [to HQ]: We fired and killed her. She has . . . wearing pants . . . jeans and a vest, shirt. Also she had a kaffiyeh on her head. I also confirmed the kill. Over. HQ: Roger. CC [on general communications band]: Any motion, anyone who moves in the zone, even if it’s a three-year-old, should be killed. Over. harpers.org/InTheZone.html |
|
