Important case in CDS debacle

Tripped across this article noting a case decided last year that very well may be cited during future civil action related to the credit default swap market collapse. Lots of work for lawyers as this mess unwinds! It's a good read.


http://overhedged.blogspot.com/2008/01/little-noted...

SEC bails out mortgage crooks.

Methinks this isn't going to help foster an environment of accountability.

Subprime Lenders Get Big Accounting Break at SEC: Jonathan Weil

Commentary by Jonathan Weil

Jan. 30 (Bloomberg) -- Just when it seemed as if the mortgage mess had hit a new low, now comes this: The Securities and Exchange Commission's staff has granted the subprime-lending industry a huge exemption from the normal rules for off-balance- sheet accounting.

In effect, the move will let home lenders keep their balance sheets looking much smaller and less leveraged, even while the off-the-books loans they made get a makeover.

For months, banking regulators and politicians have been pressing lenders to freeze the interest rates on many adjustable-rate subprime mortgages that are scheduled to reset soon at higher interest rates. The idea is to minimize defaults and foreclosures.

While that's a noble objective, all good deeds must be accounted for, and that's been a sticking point for many banks. Through September, just 3.5 percent of subprime mortgages that reset in the first eight months of 2007 had been modified, according to Moody's Investors Service. Even lenders inclined to help don't want to hurt their financial results. And now they might not have to, thanks to a Jan. 8 letter from the SEC's chief accountant, Conrad Hewitt.

Here's the background: Many lenders recorded upfront profits by selling loans in bulk to off-balance-sheet trusts -- known as qualified special purpose entities, or QSPEs -- which then repackaged the loan pools into mortgage-backed securities. The trusts are supposed to be beyond the lenders' control. And if the companies servicing the loans tinker with them in ways that aren't spelled out in the trusts' charters, the sales must be reversed, and the trusts must come onto the lenders' books, under the Financial Accounting Standards Board's rules.

Financial Constraints

That would mean much more assets and debt, possibly limiting banks' ability to make new loans. Not surprisingly, some of the biggest mortgage lenders, including Washington Mutual Inc., Countrywide Financial Corp. and Wells Fargo & Co., had been pushing regulators for a break.

By following new guidelines issued last month by a banking- industry group called the American Securitization Forum, Hewitt said servicers will be allowed to modify subprime mortgages where defaults are ``reasonably foreseeable,'' without jeopardizing the trusts' off-balance-sheet treatment.

Hewitt's letter came in response to requests by the ASF, as well as the Treasury Department and others. On Dec. 6, the ASF published a ``streamlined'' framework for evaluating subprime mortgages issued from January 2005 to July 2007, where the initial rates are scheduled to reset before August 2010.

Loans that meet certain criteria -- based on things such as low credit scores, the number of days delinquent, and high loan- to-value ratios -- are eligible for ``fast-track'' modifications, on the basis that it's foreseeable they'll default, the ASF said.

Losing Status

The wholesale approach includes lots of room for discretion. For instance, if a borrower's credit score is too high, mortgage servicers can use an ``alternate analysis'' and consider a ``tailored modification for a borrower.''

Hewitt said such modifications wouldn't cause the QSPEs to lose their off-the-books status, though he did call for more disclosures by lenders about QSPEs' activities.

Hewitt said he realized there's no way to know how accurate the ASF criteria might be at predicting actual defaults, because there ``is a lack of relevant, observable market data that can be used to perform an objective statistical analysis of the correlation.'' Still, he said the group's criteria looked reasonable, ``based upon a qualitative consideration of the expectation of defaults.''

Hewitt declined to be interviewed, as did FASB officials.

Little Discretion

The accounting standard at issue is FASB Statement No. 140. Its rules had envisioned QSPEs as brain-dead vehicles, akin to wind-up toys. Their actions are supposed to be automatic responses that ``were entirely specified in the legal documents that established'' the trusts. When servicers do exercise discretion, it must be ``significantly limited.''

``I do not believe mortgage modification in such a wholesale and proactive fashion can be reasonably viewed as significantly limited,'' says Stephen Ryan, an accounting professor at New York University, who specializes in financial instruments and institutions.

According to the ASF, many QSPEs' legal documents say loan modifications are permitted where default is ``reasonably foreseeable.'' However, the ASF framework wasn't published until last month. So there's no way the activities it describes could be fully specified in the charters at any of the affected QSPEs.

While it may be a good thing under current circumstances to give servicers incentives to modify lots of subprime mortgages, Ryan says, ``I think the chief accountant should have indicated he was providing an exemption to, rather than interpreting a vague area in, FAS 140.''

Changed Rules

The ASF's executive director, George Miller, says that ``the framework itself cannot be specified in trust documents that existed before the framework was issued.'' However, he says ``it does not need to be'' and that Hewitt's letter is ``not an exemption, just an interpretation'' of whether applying the group's criteria would comply with Statement 140.

This might be a slippery slope. Perhaps the auto industry could be saved, for example, if only we devise new accounting ``interpretations'' of the rules governing their massive pension liabilities.

Hewitt couldn't call his Jan. 8 letter an outright exemption, of course. Unlike the SEC itself, he doesn't have the authority to overturn the FASB's rules. Practically speaking, however, that's what he did.

The SEC and the FASB at least should acknowledge this subterfuge for what it is. Don't count on it, though.

(Jonathan Weil is a Bloomberg News columnist. The opinions expressed are his own.)

To contact the writer of this column: Jonathan Weil in Boulder, Colorado, at jweil6@bloomberg.net
Last Updated: January 30, 2008 00:06 EST

Chaos in Iraq

Wow, how was this allowed to go so completely wrong?!?!

The state of the (Iraqi) union
By Pepe Escobar

I say this to the evil Bush - leave my country.
We do not need you and your army of darkness.
We don't need your planes and tanks.
We don't need your policy and your interference.
We don't want your democracy and fake freedom.
Get out of our land.
- Muqtada al-Sadr, Iraqi Shi'ite leader

The George W Bush-sponsored Iraqi "surge" is now one year old. The US$11 billion-a-month (and counting) Iraqi/Afghan joint quagmire keeps adding to the US government's staggering over $9 trillion debt (it was "only" $5.6 trillion when Bush took power in



early 2001).

On the ground in Iraq, the state of the union - Bush's legacy - translates into a completely shattered nation with up to 70% unemployment, a 70% inflation rate, less than six hours of electricity a day and virtually no reconstruction, although White House-connected multinationals have bagged more than $50 billion in competition-free contracts so far. The gleaming reconstruction success stories of course are the Vatican-sized US Embassy in Baghdad - the largest in the world - and the scores of US military bases.

Facts on the ground also attest the "surge" achieved no "political reconciliation" whatsoever in Iraq - regardless of a relentless US corporate media propaganda drive, fed by the Pentagon, to proclaim it a success. The new law to reverse de-Ba'athification - approved by a half-empty Parliament and immediately condemned by Sunni and secular parties as well as former Ba'athists themselves - will only exacerbate sectarian hatred.

What the "surge" has facilitated instead is the total balkanization of Baghdad – as well as the whole of Iraq. There are now at least 5 million Iraqis among refugees and the internally displaced - apart from competing statistics numbering what certainly amounts to hundreds of thousands of dead civilians. So of course there is less violence; there's hardly any people left to be ethnically cleansed.

Everywhere in Iraq there are myriad signs of balkanization - not only in blast wall/partitioned Baghdad. In the Shi'ite south, the big prize is Basra, disputed by at least three militias. The Sadrists - the voice of the streets - are against regional autonomy; the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council (SIIC)- which controls security - wants Basra as the key node of a southern Shi'iteistan; and the Fadhila party - which control the governorate - wants an autonomous Basra.

In the north, the big prize is oil-rich Kirkuk province, disputed by Kurds, Sunni Arabs and Turkmen; the referendum on Kirkuk has been postponed indefinitely, as everyone knows it will unleash a bloodbath. In al-Anbar province, Sunni Arab tribes bide their time collaborating with the US and controlling the exits to Syria and Jordan while preparing for the inevitable settling of scores with Shi'ites in Baghdad.

Obama and Hillary vs Iraqis
Meanwhile, in the Democratic party presidential race, Hillary Clinton, who voted for the war on Iraq, viciously battles Kennedy clan-supported Barack Obama, who opposed the war, followed at a distance by John "can a white man be president" Edwards, who apologized for his initial support for the war. Obama, Edwards and Clinton basically agree, with some nuance, the "surge" was a fluke.

They have all pledged to end the war if elected. But Edwards is the only pre-candidate who has explicitly called for an immediate US troop withdrawal - up to 50,000, with nearly all of the remaining out within a maximum of 10 months. Edwards insisted Iraqi troops would be trained "outside of Iraq" and no troops would be left to "guard US bases".

For their part, both Clinton and Obama believe substantial numbers of troops must remain in Iraq to "protect US bases" and "to fight al-Qaeda in Iraq". This essentially means the occupation grinding on. Both never said exactly how many troops would be needed: they could be as many as 75,000. Both have steadfastly refused to end the "mission" before 2013.

It's hard to envision an "occupation out" Obama when among his chief advisers one finds former president Jimmy Carter's national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski - the "grand chessboard" ideologue who always preached American domination of Eurasia - and former Middle East negotiator Dennis Ross, who always fought for Israel's dominance of the "mini-chessboard", the Middle East.

So far Obama has not given any signs he would try to counter the logic of global US military hegemony conditioned by control of oil; that's why the US is in Iraq and Africa, that's the reason for so much hostility towards Venezuela, Iran and Russia. As for Clinton - with the constant references to "vital national security interests" - there's no evidence this twin-headed presidency would differ from Bush in wanting to install a puppet, pliable, perennial, anti-Iranian, peppered-with-US-military-bases regime in Iraq.

But more than US presidential candidates stumbling on how to position themselves about Iraq, what really matters is what Iraqis themselves think. According to Asia Times Online sources in Baghdad, apart from the three provinces in Iraqi Kurdistan, more than 75% of Sunnis and Shi'ites alike are certain Washington wants to set up permanent military bases; this roughly equals the bulk of the population in favor of continued attacks against US troops.

Furthermore, Sunni Arabs as a whole as well as the Sadrists are united in infinite suspicion of the key Bush-mandated "benchmark": the eventual approval by the Iraqi Parliament of a new oil law which would in fact de-nationalize the Iraqi oil industry and open it to Big Oil. Iraqi public opinion as a whole is also suspicious of what the Bush administration wants to extract from the cornered, battered Nuri al-Maliki government: full immunity from Iraqi law not only for US troops but for US civilian contractors as well. The empire seems to be oblivious to history: that was exactly one of ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini's most popular reasons to dethrone the Shah of Iran in 1979.

Too many fish in the sea
It's impossible to overestimate the widespread anger in Baghdad, among Sunnis and Shi'ites alike, for what has essentially been the balkanization of the city as negotiated by US commanders with a rash of militias; the occupiers after all are only one more militia among many, although better equipped. Now there are insistent rumors - again - in Baghdad that the occupation, allied with the government-sanctioned Badr Organization - is preparing an anti-Sadrist blitzkrieg in oil-rich Basra.

The daily horror in Iraq has all but been erased from US corporate media narrative. But in Baghdad, now virtually a Shi'ite city like Shiraz, Salafi-jihadi suicide bombers continue to attack Shi'ite markets or funerals - especially in mixed neighborhoods, even those only across the Tigris from the Green Zone. Sectarian militias - although theoretical allies of the occupation, paid in US dollars in cash - continue to pursue their own ethnic cleansing agenda. And the "surge" continues to privilege air strikes which inevitably produce scores of civilian "collateral damage".

The Sunni Arab resistance continues to be the "fish" offered protection by the "sea" of the civilian population. All during the "surge", the Sunni Arab guerrillas always kept moving - from west Baghdad to Diyala, Salahuddin, Nineveh and Kirkuk provinces and even to the northern part of Babil province. After the collapse of fuel imports from Turkey used to drive the Iraqi power grid, Baghdad and other Iraqi major cities are most of the time mired in darkness. Fuel shortages are the norm. In addition, the Sunni Arab resistance makes sure sabotage of electricity towers and stations remains endemic.

Contrary to Iraqi government propaganda, only very few among the at least 1 million Iraqis exiled in Syria since the beginning of the "surge" - mostly white-collar middle class - have come back. They are Sunni and Shi'ite alike. People - mostly Sunni - are still fleeing the country. The Shi'ite urban middle class fears there will inevitably be a push by the Sunni Arab resistance - supported and financed by the ultra-wealthy Sunni Gulf monarchies - to "recapture" Baghdad. This includes of course the hundreds of thousands of Baghdad Sunnis forced to abandon their city because of the "surge".

As for the Sadrists, they are convinced the 80,000-strong Sunni Arab "Awakening Councils" - al-Sahwah, in Arabic - gathered in Anbar province are de facto militias biding their time and practicing for the big push. It's fair to assume thousands still keep tight connections with the Salafi-jihadis (including most of all al-Qaeda in the Land of the Two Rivers) they are now supposedly fighting.

Considering the sectarian record of the US-backed Maliki government - which, as well as the Sadrists, considers the Awakening Councils as US-financed Sunni militias - there's no chance they will be incorporated into the Iraqi army or police.

One of the Awakening Council leaders, Abu Marouf, a Saddam Hussein "security officer" before the 2003 invasion and then a commander of the influential Sunni Arab guerrilla group the 1920 Revolutionary Brigades, all but admitted to The Independent's Patrick Cockburn the consequences will be dire if they are not seen to be part of the so-called "reconciliation" process. All this amounts to a certainty: a new battle of Baghdad is all but inevitable, and could happen in 2008.

Occupied of the world, unite
As the occupation/quagmire slouches towards its fifth year, it's obvious the US cannot possibly "win" the Iraqi war - either on a military or political level - as Republican presidential pre-candidate John McCain insists. Sources in Baghdad tell Asia Times Online if not in 2008, by 2009 the post-"surge" Sunni Arab resistance is set to unleash a new national, anti-sectarian, anti-religion-linked-to-politics offensive bound to seal what an overwhelming majority of Iraqis consider the "ideological and cultural" US defeat.

Already now a crucial Sunni-Shi'ite nationalist 12-party coalition is emerging - oblivious to US designs and divorced from the US-backed parties in power (the Shi'ite SIIC and Da'wa and the two main Kurdish parties - the Kurdish Patriotic Union of Kurdistan and the Kurdistan Democratic Party ). They have already established a consensus in three key themes: no privatization of the Iraqi oil industry, either via the new oil law or via dodgy deals signed by the Kurds; no breakup of Iraq via a Kurdish state (which implies no Kurdish takeover of Kirkuk); and an end to the civil war.
The 12-party coalition includes almost all Sunni parties, the Sadrists, the Fadhila party, a dissidence of Da'awa and the independents in the Iraqi Parliament. And they want as many factions as possible of the Sunni Arab resistance on board - including the crucial tribal leaders of Awakening.

The ultimate success of this coalition in great measure should be attributed to negotiations led by Muqtada al-Sadr. The Sadrists are betting on parliamentary elections in 2009, when they sense they may reach a non-sectarian, nationalist-based majority to form a government. This would definitely bury Iraq's Defense Minister Abdul Qader Mohammed Jassim's recent estimate that a "significant" number of US troops would have to remain in Iraq at least for another 10 years, until 2018.

Even barring a possible Dr Strangelove-like attack on Iran, Bush is set to leave to Obama or Clinton, apart from a nearly $10 trillion black hole, a lost war in Afghanistan, total chaos in Pakistan, an open wound in Gaza, a virtual civil war in Lebanon and the heart of darkness of Iraq.

Both Obama - still unwilling to defend progressive ideas on progressive grounds - and drowning-in-platitudes Clinton owe it to US and world public opinion to start detailing, in "the fierce urgency of now", how they realistically plan to confront such a state of (dis)union.

Pepe Escobar is the author of Globalistan: How the Globalized World is Dissolving into Liquid War (Nimble Books, 2007). He may be reached at pepeasia@yahoo.com.

(Copyright 2008 Asia Times Online Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact us about sales, syndication and republishing.)

No marx tonite.

Hey, I'm staying in tonight, Tuesday night. Be back in force next week fo sure.

Meanwhile, check out some crazy videos on the web. I mean like anything, it's all good. Try youtube, or metacafe. that's the stuff.

Medically unfit troops sent into battle

Is our military in such bad shape that we really need to be sending soldiers who are medically unfit to carry out their missions into a war-zone? This is despicable.

Report: Troops to war despite broken leg, torn rotator cuffs

The Associated Press
Posted : Thursday Jan 17, 2008 11:45:49 EST

DENVER — Soldiers who were medically unfit or considered borderline have been sent to the Middle East to meet Army goals for “deployable strength,” The Denver Post reported Thursday.

Quoting internal Army e-mails and a Fort Carson soldier, the newspaper said that more than 50 troops were deployed to Kuwait en route to Iraq while they were still getting medical treatment for various conditions. At least two have been sent home.

Capt. Scot Tebo, the surgeon for Fort Carson’s 3rd Brigade Combat Team, wrote in an e-mail obtained by the newspaper that “We have been having issues reaching deployable strength, and thus have been taking along some borderline soldiers who we would otherwise have left behind for continued treatment.”

Master Sgt. Denny Nelson said he was sent to Kuwait last month despite a severe foot injury. He was sent back to Fort Carson after a military doctor in Kuwait wrote that he never should have been shipped out.

Maj. Harvinder Singh, the 3rd Brigade Combat Team’s rear detachment commander, said he did not believe medically unfit soldiers have been sent to Iraq. He said soldiers with medical problems are deployed only if they can be assigned to light-duty jobs and if medical services are available at their destinations.

Fort Carson spokeswoman Dee McNutt said she knew of no Army policy defining “deployable strength” levels that Army commanders must meet.

Singh said commanders have goals, “but there is no repercussion if you don’t hit that goal.”

Nelson, a 19-year Army veteran who was given the Bronze Star, said he fractured his leg and destroyed tendons in his feet while jumping on his daughter’s trampoline.

He said he was sent to Kuwait last month even though Fort Carson doctors ordered that he not run, jump or carry more than 20 pounds for three months.

Nelson said two other soldiers were deployed with torn rotator cuffs, another was deployed even though he was taking morphine for nerve damage and another had mental health issues.

Nelson said the soldier with nerve damage was sent home after medical staff at a clinic in Iraq turned down his request for more pain medication.

Nelson said that while he was in Kuwait he was told by superiors he would be in charge of 52 soldiers who were receiving medical treatment.

“I expected to find a whole bunch of people, but when I got there, they were all gone. They were already all in Iraq,” Nelson said.

Singh said those soldiers would have received medical treatment in Iraq.

Nelson was sent back to the U.S. after a physician in Kuwait, Maj. Thomas Schymanski, sent Fort Carson officials an e-mail saying, “This soldier should NOT have even left [the continental United States] ... In his current state, he is not full mission capable and in his current condition is a risk to further injury to himself, others and his unit.”

Nelson said he feared he would be a liability to fellow soldiers because of his inability to carry full combat gear.

“I’m not going to Iraq not being able to wear any of my gear, not carry a weapon,” he said. “I become a liability to everybody around me because if they get mortared, they’re going to have to look out for me because obviously, I can’t run. I can’t look out for myself. Now I’ve got soldiers worrying about my welfare, instead of their own.”

Tell Bill O'Reilly he's wrong about homeless veterans

Bill claims the Department of Veterans Affairs is wrong to say there are 200,000 homeless veterans on any given night in the USA. Submit the letter and let him know how these people have been overlooked and discarded by the country they so selflessly served. Thank You!

read more | digg story

Sir Edmund Hillary RIP 1919-2008

Wow, rip aged explorer dude. Are there any explorers left in the world any more? Is that still a viable profession these days? Where can I buy a pith helmet?

Sir Edmund Hillary dies
Stuff.co.nz | Friday, 11 January 2008

Sir Edmund Hillary, who was born in Auckland on July 20, 1919, died aged 88 at Auckland City Hospital at 9am today, the Auckland District Health Board said.

The New Zealand flag will be flown at half-mast on all Government and public buildings from today until midnight Saturday to mark Sir Ed's death. Flags will also be flown at half-mast on the day of his funeral, the date of which is to be confirmed.

Announcing Sir Ed's death, Prime Minister Helen Clark said his passing was a profound loss to New Zealand.

"My thoughts are with Lady Hillary, Sir Edmund's children, wider family, and close friends at this sad time," Miss Clark said.

Miss Clark said Sir Ed always described himself as an average New Zealander.

"In reality, he was a colossus. He was an heroic figure who not only knocked off Everest but lived a life of determination, humility, and generosity."

Sir Ed's 1953 ascent of Mt Everest brought him world-wide fame and Miss Clark said the legendary mountaineer was the best-known New Zealander ever to have lived.

"But most of all he was a quintessential Kiwi. He was ours - from his craggy appearance and laconic style to his directness and honesty. All New Zealanders will deeply mourn his passing."

Miss Clark said Sir Ed had not basked idly in celebrity, drawing on his international prestige to highlight issues and values which he held dear.

She paid tribute to Sir Ed's humanitarian work with the Sherpa people of the Himalayas.

He established the Himalayan Trust in the early 1960s and worked tirelessly until his death to raise funds and build schools and hospitals in the mountains.

" The legacy of Sir Edmund Hillary will live on. His exploits continue to inspire new generations of New Zealanders, as they have for more than half a century already," Miss Clark said.

New Zealand's cricket team will wear black arm bands and observe a minute's silence along with the crowd before play starts on day one of the second test against Bangladesh at the Basin Reserve in Wellington tomorrow.

- with NZPA

Guitar hero turntable?!?

HAPPY NEW YEAR

hey All,

I'll be at Marx cafe tonight, don't know if I'm playing. The owner gave every other Tuesday to a pair of BritPop dj's, and I'm not sure if this is an on tuesday or an off tuesday as it were. I'm not to happy about that, but we'll see how long they last.

So, I'll be there around 9 either way. Seeya!

-Matt

Nuclear site breached

Oh, great!

A Nuclear Site Is Breached
South African Attack Should Sound Alarms

By Micah Zenko
Thursday, December 20, 2007; Page A29

An underreported attack on a South African nuclear facility last month demonstrates the high risk of theft of nuclear materials by terrorists or criminals. Such a crime could have grave national security implications for the United States or any of the dozens of countries where nuclear materials are held in various states of security.

Shortly after midnight on Nov. 8, four armed men broke into the Pelindaba nuclear facility 18 miles west of Pretoria, a site where hundreds of kilograms of weapons-grade uranium are stored. According to the South African Nuclear Energy Corp., the state-owned entity that runs the Pelindaba facility, these four "technically sophisticated criminals" deactivated several layers of security, including a 10,000-volt electrical fence, suggesting insider knowledge of the system. Though their images were captured on closed-circuit television, they were not detected by security officers because nobody was monitoring the cameras at the time.

So, undetected, the four men spent 45 minutes inside one of South Africa's most heavily guarded "national key points" -- defined by the government as "any place or area that is so important that its loss, damage, disruption or immobilization may prejudice the Republic."

Eventually, the attackers broke into the emergency control center in the middle of the facility, stole a computer (which was ultimately left behind) and breached an electronically sealed control room. After a brief struggle, they shot Anton Gerber, an off-duty emergency services officer. Gerber later explained that he was hanging around because he believed (reasonably, in retrospect) that his fiancée -- a site supervisor -- was not safe at work. Although badly injured, Gerber triggered the alarm, setting off sirens and lights and alerting police stationed a few miles away.

Nevertheless, the four escaped, leaving the facility the same way they broke in.

Amazingly, at the same time those four men entered Pelindaba from its eastern perimeter, a separate group of intruders failed in an attempt to break in from the west. The timing suggests a coordinated attack against a facility that contains an estimated 25 bombs' worth of weapons-grade nuclear material. On Nov. 16, local police arrested three suspects, ranging in age from 17 to 28, in connection with this incident.
ad_icon

In response to the successful attack, the South African Nuclear Energy Corp. suspended six Pelindaba security personnel, including the general manager of security, and promised an "internal investigation which will cover culpability, negligence and improvements of Security Systems." It should be noted that Pelindaba's security was considered to have been upgraded after a break-in there two years ago (one individual was detained shortly after breaching the security fence).

It is still unclear why the two groups of intruders sought to break into this particular facility. More important, however, is that had the armed attackers succeeded in penetrating the site's highly enriched uranium storage vault, where the weapons-grade nuclear material is believed to be held, they could have carried away the ingredients for the world's first terrorist nuclear bomb.

As this incident shows, nuclear terrorism is a global issue, extending far beyond the familiar policy talking points of U.S. cooperation with Russia over its nuclear stockpiles, the security of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal in the face of threats from Islamic extremists, and concerns that if Iran acquires nuclear capabilities it could provide a bomb to sympathetic terrorist organizations.

Indeed, the essential ingredients required for making a nuclear weapon exist in more than 40 countries, in facilities with differing levels of security. Unfortunately, there are still no binding global standards on how to secure nuclear weapons and weapons-grade nuclear material. In the absence of sustained political leadership from the world's nuclear powers to develop, agree to and implement effective nuclear security standards, armed attacks such as the one at Pelindaba could become commonplace.

Micah Zenko is a research associate in the project on Managing the Atom at Harvard University's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs. The views expressed here are solely those of the author.

tourniquet clothes could save lives

This is something so simple it's really hard to understand why this hasn't been built into every uniform since the first world war, I really hope this simple improvement is put into every service members BDUs. It could save many lives.

RICHMOND, Virginia (AP) -- As an Army surgeon in the Middle East, Dr. Keith Rose watched a colleague bleed to death when a truck in his convoy was hit with a rocket-propelled grenade.

Rose could not get his comrade a tourniquet, which could have helped control the bleeding on his wounded leg, and sat along the mangled wreckage and talked with him as he took his last breath.

"It really kind of frustrated me," Rose said.

Once he returned to the U.S., Rose approached BlackHawk, a provider of military and law enforcement gear, with an idea to create clothes with built-in tourniquets.

The system being tested for use in military uniforms, called Warrior Wear, has eight tourniquets -- two in each sleeve and pant leg.

"No matter how good the tourniquet is, if you can't get it on the person at the right time, it doesn't work," said Rose, who does tactical medicine consultation and medical work overseas.

"It's something that is so basic, so cost effective and so overwhelmingly life changing," he said.

The Norfolk-based company said the clothing should be available for retail around the end of March. It is expected to retail for less than $200, but the cost to the military would depend on things like volume.

Military officials agree having readily accessible tourniquets is important.

"Tourniquets have allowed many people with devastating injuries to come back that in another time and another place would have died," said Col. Patricia R. Hastings, director of the Army's Department of Combat Medic Training based at Fort Sam Houston in Texas.

"If you can save a medic a few minutes of time so he can concentrate on saving your life ... it has great possibilities," Hastings said.

And with the concept of battlefields changing, Rose said the system is more vital than ever.

"The way wars are fought now ... there's no defined lines of engagement," Rose said. "The average cook could be hit with a rocket attack while he's carrying potatoes to the mess hall."

Advances in body armor have made protecting the core of a body easier, but more than 60 percent of injuries in military and law enforcement conflicts today are to the extremities, said Terry Naughton, director of industrial security at BlackHawk.

Naughton said 10 percent of deaths are from injuries where blood loss was uncontrollable.

"We are confident that the day that this hits the field, that lives will be saved," Naughton said. "And if we save one person, we've done our job."

BlackHawk was founded in 1993 by Mike Noell, a former Navy SEAL who fought in the first Gulf War.

The company, which has developed more than 2,500 products for military, law enforcement and the outdoor sporting community, has grown to about 250 employees and is expected to add 100 more within the next year.

HA ha ha ha!

Who is John Larson? I have never heard of him until now, but I like his style.

doom and gloom to follow Ron Paul presidency

This danish bank sees a grim out look for the future.

Bank predicts Ron Paul win, US slump
Thu, 27 Dec 2007 06:08:48

Denmark-based Saxo Bank predicts Ron Paul presidency in 2008, saying US economy will plunge into a depression prior to the election.

The Bank predicted that Ron Paul, US congressman and Republican presidential candidate, will win the US 2008 presidential election.

Saxo Bank says the US economy will shrink by 25% and the Chinese economy will decrease by 40%. The economic downturn will come about as a result of the housing crash.

Ron Paul has been critical of the Federal Reserve and has blamed the Federal Reserve for causing the real estate bubble and crash. Paul has said that the loose monetary policy of the Fed had artificially inflated real estate prices which lead to the collapse.

Paul supports 'Sound Money' and opposes the Federal Reserve's 'Inflation Tax' and says that he wants to prevent a dollar collapse.

Saxo Bank also predicts $175 a barrel for oil and the price of grain will double. Some have predicted that oil will climb to $250 a barrel if the US attacks Iran. The bank also predicts that 30% of large building companies will go bankrupt.

MRI/RA

Dave letterman endorses ron paul

Well, kind of.

Ron Paul breaks previous fundraising record!

Ron Paul just broke the record for one day fundraising by a candidate for office in the united states of America. Ever. and that's any office, dog catcher, senator, mayor. no other person in united states history has ever been able to muster so much monetary support for their campaign within a 24 hour period. This is going to herald a cataclysmic shift in the political landscape when it comes to fundraising. No longer will extensive donor networks and bundling of contributions be what creates traction and ensures primary longevity. In the future the massing of donors through the internet will swamp favorite possibly unsuspecting campaigns with the cash required to create turnout on election day. Back in the day the local community coordinator was the most indispensable piece of any campaign, local or federal. From distributing sample ballots to arranging for transportation of the voters to the polls, these volunteers served as the long arm of their respective campaigns. No more! The internet has upended these previous arrangements. 2008 may have been the last year for the “old style” campaign.

update: This is the single largest one day fund raising total for any political candidate in the history of the world. that's a rather big deal I should say.

December 17, 2007 12:45 AM Eastern Time
Ron Paul Campaign Iowa Announces Press Conference in Wake of Record Fundraising

DES MOINES, Iowa--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul has raised more money in one day than any other candidate in U.S. election history. The Ron Paul campaign took in more than $6 million on December 16th, 2007, breaking the one-day record formerly held by John Kerry.

Dr. Paul will speak at a press conference at 12:45 pm on Monday at the Des Moines Marriott in the Des Moines Room. Members of the press are strongly encouraged to attend, as the candidate will not be immediately available throughout the day.

Contacts

Ron Paul 2008 Presidential Campaign Committee
John Zambenini, 937-554-4583

Energy bill; congress caves.

It's sad they couldn't have left the tax incentives in the bill. Do you know that the Japanese government has been installing reduced rate solar equipment to their citizens at the rate of 1 million units a year? We are loosing our edge as a nation in favor of profits to big business. Pathetic.

Our efforts failed… A new “scaled down” energy bill was passed through the senate last night and three of the most important items in the bill were taken out to appease oil funded republicans. Unfortunately our senators, democrats and republicans alike, failed our country and environment yet again by bowing to big oil and removing the most influential provisions and tax incentives this country has ever seen.

The tax incentives now set to expire in 2008 will end all federal tax credits on solar, wind and other alternative energy installations. No other tax incentive or provision has brought the solar industry closer to grid parity than this one and now it is gone. Grid parity is the point in which it will actually be cheaper to generate your own electricity on your roof than to buy from your local utility company. Now this idea is great for us, but bad for big business, (oil and coal) so of course, the lobbyist went to work on our republican senators and were apparently very affective at getting that tax break completely removed from the energy bill.

Second major blow to the renewable energy industry was the removal of the $22 billion dollar tax package designed to cut tax breaks for big oil companies and funnel the money towards the renewable energy industry. Of course this is bad for Big Oil considering how poor their financials are currently, (sarcasm: Big Oil showed record highs this year) so yet again the lobbyist went to work on our senators and “poof” the tax package is gone. Not only that, but Bush himself threatened to veto the entire bill if this tax package was not removed, showing yet again, a clear alliance with Big Oil and an unwillingness to do what is right.

Another major blow, was the removal of the alternative energy mandate which would have required all investor owned utility companies to get at least 15% of their electricity from alternative energy sources. Many utility companies complained that this would increase cost and again, “poof” another very influential and beneficial provision was removed from the energy bill.

Now many environmentalist (not me) are praising this bill because of the increase in the average MPG standard for automakers. However this small push for a 35 MPG standard by 2020 is nothing compared to the three provisions mentioned above. Not only that, but the bulk of this energy bill was aimed at increasing domestic biofuel production (like ethanol) by 36 billion gallons by 2022. Some people may think this is a good thing, but if you read some of my previous posts, you will find that ethanol and most other commercial biofuels are actually worse for the environment than gasoline. And although the 35 MPG is good, it is like putting a bandaid on a gaping wound.

On a positive note, the senate did increase energy efficiency standards for government buildings and consumer products and appliances. This provision will help to reduce phantom loads of typical electronics which are responsible for about two thirds of household energy usage. This efficiency provisions could potentially save about 40,000 megawatts of electricity and is in my opinion the most significant provision in the entire bill.

In the end, the original bill, prior to the removal of the truly beneficial tax packages and mandates, was one vote short of being passed. I believe senator Richard Durbin sumed up the evening best when he said:

“The future just failed by one vote, the past was preserved … the oil companies are now celebrating in their boardrooms. Not only do they have the highest profits in history, they continue to have a death grip on this Senate.”

Go buy a gun, before it's too late!

Good for that brave woman!

Buy A Gun
by Chuck Baldwin
December 14, 2007

"He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." (Luke 22:36 KJV)

Most of us are aware that the heroic actions of a brave woman at the New Life Church in Colorado Springs, Colorado a few days ago saved the lives of perhaps scores, or even hundreds, of people. However, her bravery would not have counted for much had she not been armed.

On that fateful December Sunday, a man by the name of Matthew Murray entered the church armed to the teeth. According to press reports, he was armed with a semi-automatic rifle, two handguns, some smoke grenades, and more than 1,000 rounds of ammunition.

By the time Murray arrived in the Colorado Springs church, he had already killed four people: two at a missionary training center miles away, and two in the church parking lot. He had wounded several others. No one realized it at the time, but the man was a serial killer in the midst of a rampage. He doubtless planned to kill as many people as he could, as there were thousands of people inside the church. Had there not been an armed citizen in the church house, the death toll would have been massive.

According to church spokesmen, the congregation has over a dozen members who volunteered to serve as security personnel for the church. Jeanne Assam was one of those volunteers.

A former police officer, Assam said, "I saw him [Murray] coming through the doors, and I took cover, and I waited for him to get closer. I came out of cover, I identified myself and engaged him and took him down." Murray died in the exchange. Although Assam shot him several times with her 9mm pistol, the coroner's office said that Murray actually succumbed to a self-inflicted gunshot wound. After being incapacitated by Assam's gunfire, Murray apparently turned one of his weapons on himself.

Chalk one up for the good guys, or in this case, good gals.

Have you noticed how the media dropped the Colorado story as soon as it was discovered that a lawfully armed citizen ended the potential massacre by using her own handgun? Had the killer been successful in murdering scores of people, however, it would have been at the top of the news for weeks. As it is, the story is already buried in the dungeon section of the news, if it is in the news at all.

One thing the national news media will always ignore is the practice of lawful self-defense. For example, most people are probably not aware of the fact that American citizens use a firearm to defend themselves more than 2.4 million times EVERY YEAR. That is more than 6,500 times EVERY DAY. This means that, each year, firearms are used 60 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives. Furthermore, of the 2.4 million self-defense cases, more than 192,000 are by women defending themselves against sexual assault. And in less than eight percent of those occasions is a shot actually fired. The vast majority of the time (92%), the mere presence of a firearm helps to avert a major crime from occurring. That is what Congressman Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD) concluded after extensive research. According to Rep. Bartlett, the number of defensive uses is four times the number of crimes reported committed with guns.

John Lott, senior research scientist at the University of Maryland, agrees with Bartlett. His book "More Guns, Less Crime" documents the fact that--instead of being a cause of crime--firearms in the hands of private citizens are actually a major deterrent to crime.

Another fact conveniently ignored by the major media is the connection between wanton killings and so-called "gun-free" zones. For an example of this, look no further than the Virginia Tech massacre. In spite of Virginia state laws that allow citizens to carry concealed weapons for self-defense, Virginia Tech forbade its students and faculty from carrying weapons for self-defense on campus. Had a student or faculty member been armed--as was Ms. Assam in the Colorado Springs attack--no doubt many, if not most, of the Virginia Tech victims would not have died. Obviously, bad guys do not pay any attention to "gun-free" zones, except to note that such zones create a free-killing environment.

Is it any wonder that those states and cities with the most restrictive gun control laws tend to also be home to the highest crime rates? The old saying is still true. "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns." There is another saying I like even better. "When guns are outlawed, I will be an outlaw."

Even our Lord understood and validated the right of every person to arm themselves for personal self-defense. He said, "He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." (Luke 22:36 KJV) The old Roman sword was the First Century equivalent of a modern handgun. It was the most practical and convenient form of self-defense available at that time. Also, please note that at least two of Jesus' disciples (one of whom was Simon Peter) were in the habit of carrying their own personal swords, and Jesus never rebuked them. (See Luke 22:38.)

Jesus also acknowledged, "When a strong man ARMED [emphasis added] keepeth his palace, his goods are in peace." (Luke 11:21)

Furthermore, the Apostle Paul said, emphatically, "But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel." (I Tim. 5:8) Does "not providing for his own" include not providing protection? Of course it does.

The right and, yes, obligation of personal self-defense is entrenched in both Christian and American tradition. People who would deny citizens the right to arm themselves are either naïvely ignorant or deliberately duplicitous. As Robert Heinlein said, "An armed society is a polite society."

America's Founding Fathers agreed with Heinlein. Thomas Jefferson said, "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." He also said, "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."

Samuel Adams said, "[T]he said Constitution [shall] be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms."

James Madison said, "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms."

Thomas Paine said, "[A]rms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property . . . Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them."

George Washington called the private collections of arms "the people's liberty's teeth."

America must always preserve the right to keep and bear arms. To do any less is to invite oppression and tyranny, not to mention acts of violence.

Some years back, Alan Rice of the Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO) wrote, "Since 1900 at least seven major genocides have occurred resulting in the murder of 50-60 million people:

*Ottoman Turkey, 1915-17; 1-1.5 million Armenians murdered;
*Soviet Union, 1929-53; 20 million anti-Communists and anti-Stalinists murdered;
*Nazi Germany & Occupied Europe, 1933-45; 13 million Jews, Gypsies, and Anti-Nazi murdered;
*China, 1949-52, 1957-60 & 1966-1976; 20 million anti-Communists murdered;
*Guatemala, 1960-1981; 100,000 Mayan Indians murdered;
*Uganda, 1971-1979; 300,000 Christians and Political Rivals of Idi Amin murdered;
*Cambodia, 1975-1979; 1 million murdered."

Rice continued to say, "In all seven of the genocides summarized above, gun control laws were in force before the genocide occurred, in some cases decades before. In five of the seven genocides, the lethal law, the gun control law was in force before the genocide regime took power."

Rice also said, "Gun control laws are usually enacted during a crisis or a perceived crisis." He then said, "Government officials, not hate groups or common criminals, were responsible for these seven genocides. In most of these cases the murder victims outnumbered their murderers; yet they were powerless to defend themselves because they were disarmed."

Do the math yourself. Absent an armed citizen, 32 innocent people lost their lives at Virginia Tech, while the presence of 1 armed citizen resulted in 2 innocent deaths in Colorado Springs. Furthermore, the presence of over 200 million firearms in the possession of the American people has done more to keep America free than any other human element--bar none!

Therefore, to help keep your family safe and your country free, go buy a gun.

© Chuck Baldwin

This column is archived as http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2007/cbarchive_20071214.html

congressional gridlock

hmm.. I wonder if this will end up effecting earnings for these guys.

U.S. Army To Lay-Off 200,000 Civilians, Contractors

December 12, 2007 9:46 p.m. EST

Paul Icamina - AHN News Writer

Washington, D.C. (AHN) - The U.S. Army will run out of money for operations and maintenance by mid-February, and the Marine Corps will run out of funds a month later, according to a Congressional Research Service (CRS) report, confirming Defense Department projections.

The Army and Marine Corps may delay the inevitable for only a couple of weeks by transferring funds and slowing down spending, according to CRS, a part of the Library of Congress.

President George Bush has requested $189.3 billion in supplemental funds for war on terror, however Congress has so far only approved about $17 billion for mine-resistant, ambush-protected vehicles. The rest of the funds are tied up in a disagreement between Congress and the White House over a timetable for withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq.

The Army will be forced to curtail training, close several bases, furlough about 100,000 civilian employees and lay-off about 100,000 contractors, the defense department said in a statement, adding that furlough notification letters will be sent to unions and employees beginning next week.

Congress is scheduled to adjourn on Dec. 21. If it does not reach an agreement on funding, the legislation will not be considered until after Congress reconvenes, tentatively scheduled for Jan. 15.

Copyright © AHN Media Corp - All rights reserved.
Redistribution, republication. syndication, rewriting or broadcast is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of AHN.

Putin, set against the globalists

This explains much!

Why the Council on Foreign Relations Hates Putin
Why Murdoch's Journal Loves Kasparov

By MIKE WHITNEY

On Sunday, Putin's party, United Russia, stormed to victory in the country's parliamentary elections with 63 per cent of the vote. It was a romp. United Russia now controls 306 of the 450 seats in the Duma, an overwhelming majority. The balloting was a referendum on Putin's leadership and it passed in a landslide. Now it's certain, that even if Putin steps down as president next year as expected, he will be the dominant player in Russian politics for the foreseeable future.

Vladamir Putin is arguably the most popular leader in Russian history, although you'd never know it by reading the western media. According to a recent survey conducted by the Wall Street Journal, Putin's personal approval rating in November 2007 was 85 per cent, making him the most popular head of state in the world today. Putin's popularity derives from many factors. He is personally clever and charismatic. He is fiercely nationalistic and has worked tirelessly to improve the lives of ordinary Russians and restore the country to its former greatness. He has raised over 20 million Russians out of grinding poverty, improved education, health care and the pension system, (partially) nationalized critical industries, lowered unemployment, increased manufacturing and exports, invigorated Russian markets, strengthened the ruble, raised the overall standard of living, reduced government corruption, jailed or exiled the venal oligarchs, and amassed capital reserves of $450 billion.

Russia is no longer up for grabs like it was after the fall of the Soviet Union. Putin put an end to all of that. He reasserted control over the country's vast resources and he's using them to improve the lives of his own people. This is a real departure from the 1990s, when the drunken Yeltsin steered Russia into economic disaster by following Washington's neoliberal edicts and by selling Russia's Crown Jewels to the vulturous oligarchs. Putin put Russia's house back in order; stabilized the ruble, strengthened economic/military alliances in the region, and removed the corporate gangsters who had stolen Russia's national assets for pennies on the dollar. The oligarchs are now all either in jail or have fled the country. Russia is no longer for sale.

Russia is, once again, a major world power and a vital source of hydrocarbons. It's star is steadily rising just as America's has begun to wane. This may explain why Putin is loathed by the West. Freud might call it petroleum envy, but it's deeper than that. Putin has charted a course for social change that conflicts with basic tenets of neoliberalism, which are the principles which govern US foreign policy. He is not a member of the corporate-banking brotherhood which believes the wealth of the world should be divided among themselves regardless of the suffering or destruction it may cause. Putin's primary focus is Russia; Russia's welfare, Russia's sovereignty and Russia's place in the world. He is not a globalist.

That is why the Bush administration has encircled Russia with military bases, toppled neighboring regimes with its color-coded revolutions, (which were organized by US NGOs and intelligence services) intervened in Russian elections, and threatened to deploy an (allegedly defensive) nuclear weapons system in Eastern Europe. Russia is seen as a potential rival to US imperial ambitions and must be contained or subverted.

In the early years of his presidency, it was believed that Putin would comply with western demands and accept a subordinate role in the US-EU-Israel centric system. But that hasn't happened. Putin has stubbornly defended Russian independence and resisted integration into the prevailing system. .

The triumphalism which swept through Washington after the fall of the Berlin Wall has been replaced with a palpable fear that Russia's power will grow as oil prices continue to soar. The tectonic plates of geopolitical power are gradually shifting eastward. That's why the US has joined in The Great Game and is trying to put down roots in Eurasia. Still, it's easy to imagine a scenario in which America's access to the last great oil and natural gas reserves on the planet--the three trillion barrels of oil and natural gas located in the Caspian Basin---could be completely blocked by a resurgent Russian superpower.

The most powerful of the Washington think tanks, the Council on Foreign Relations, recognized this problem early on and decided that US policy towards Russia had to be reworked entirely.

* * *

John Edwards and Jack Kemp were appointed to lead a CFR task force which concocted the pretext for an all-out assault on the Putin. This is where the idea that Putin is "rolling back democracy" began. In their article "Russia's Wrong Direction", Edwards and Kemp state that a "strategic partnership" with Russia is no longer possible. They claim that the government has become increasingly authoritarian and that the society is growing less "open and pluralistic".

Kemp and Edwards provided the ideological foundation upon which the entire public relations campaign against Putin has been built. And it is quite an impressive campaign. A Google News search shows roughly 1,400 articles from the various news services on Putin. Virtually all of them contain exactly the same rhetoric, the same buzzwords, the same spurious claims, the same slanders. It is impossible to find even one article out of 1,400 that diverges the slightest bit from the talking points which originated at the Council on foreign Relations.

It's interesting to see to what extent the media has become a propaganda bullhorn for the national security state. Putin's personal approval ratings confirm his enormous popularity, and yet, the media continues to treat him like he's a tyrant. It is utterly incongruous.

In most articles, Putin is disparaged as "anti democratic"; a charge that is never leveled at the Saudi Royal family even though women are forbidden to drive, they must be fully-covered at all times, and can be stoned to death if they are found to be unfaithful. Also, in Saudi Arabia, beheading is still the punishment of choice for capital crimes.

When Saudi King Abdullah visits the US, he is not heaped with scorn for his regimes' repressive treatment of his people. Instead he's rewarded with flattering photos of he and George Bush strolling arm-n-arm through the Crawford sage.

Why is Putin blasted for "rolling back democracy" when American client, Mikhail Saakashvili, arbitrarily declares martial law and deploys his truncheon-wielding Robo-cops to beat protesters senseless before dragging them off to the Georgia gulag? The pictures of Saakashvili's bloody crackdown appeared in the foreign press, but not in the US. Rather, the media had all its cameras focused on Garry Kasparov (contributing editor to the Wall Street Journal and right-wing loony) as he was led off to the Moscow hoosegow in handcuffs for protesting without a permit.

* * *

Putin's real crime is that he serves Russia's national interests rather than the interests of global Capital. He also rejects Washington's "unipolar" world model. As he said in Munich:

"The unipolar world refers to a world in which there is one master, one sovereign; one center of authority, one center of force, one center of decision-making. At the end of the day this is pernicious not only for all those within this system, but also for the sovereign itself because it destroys itself from within.

"What is even more important is that the model itself is flawed because at its basis there is and can be no moral foundations for modern civilization."

He added:

"We are seeing a greater and greater disdain for the basic principles of international law....We are witnessing an almost uncontained hyper use of force -- military force -- in international relations, force that is plunging the world into an abyss of permanent conflicts. I am convinced that we have reached that decisive moment when we must seriously think about the architecture of global security."

Well said, Vladimir.

Putin's no saint, but he doesn't deserve the thrashing he gets from the western media.

And a final word on Garry Kasparov

On Sunday, while Putin's party "United Russia" was screeching to a landslide victory, Reuters News was busy taking mug-shots of the stony-faced Kasparov holding up Florida-style ballots claiming the voting was rigged. "They are not just rigging the vote," Kasparov moaned, "They are raping the whole electoral system. These elections are a reminder of Soviet elections when there was no choice.....Putin is going to have a hard time trying to rule like Stalin."

Stalin? So now Putin is Stalin? First of all, when did Reuters begin to take such a keen interest in voting irregularities? It must be a recent development, becuase they were nowhere to be found in the 2000 presidential election. And when did they start to pay attention to "political dissent"? They certainly never wasted any video-footage on the antiwar rallies in the US. Are we to believe that they are more interested in democracy in Russia than America?

And why is Reuters so eager to provide valuable column-space to a washed-up chessmaster who's only interested in making a nuisance of himself by bellyaching about voter fraud? That's not news; it's propaganda.

As for Kasparov and his silly accusations; he should be glad that he lives in Putin's Russia rather than Stalin's or he'd be in leg-irons right now boarding a northbound train to the Siberian outback.

What is Kasparov doing in Moscow anyway? And why is this little man --with virtually no political base -- such a big part of the western media narrative? Is he only there to discredit the election and throw a little more muck on Putin or is there more to it than that?

Garry Kasparov should give up politics and do what he does best; stand-up comedy. Watching Kasparov traipse around Moscow with his basket of sour grapes and his entourage of western media-stooges is like watching "Mr. Bean's Excellent Kremlin Adventure", a particularly lame performance in a dismal B-rated burlesque. It's painful to watch.

Kasparov's party, the "Other Russia" couldn't manage even a 2 per cent rating in the polls. The party is a complete dud. In fact, Reuters even (reluctantly) admits as much in its article.

Here's the clip. Reuters: "Kasparov and his "Other Russia" dissident movement are not standing in Sunday's parliamentary election because they could not get registered as a party. THEY ENJOY LITTLE PUBLIC SUPPORT AMONG RUSSIANS BUT HAVE A BIG FOLLOWING IN THE WEST." (Reuters) "Big following in the West"? Why doesn't that surprise me?

So, in other words, Kasparov has no base of support in Russia, and yet he gets his own camera crew and media team to follow him around recording every silly he says. That's just great. Who do they think he is; Nelson Mandela?

Kasparov is a contributing editor of Murdoch's Wall Street Journal; so he already has a regular platform for launching his tirades on the "tyrannical" Mr. Putin. Normally, one doesn't get a spot on the op-ed page of the WSJ unless their politics are somewhere to the right of Augusto Pinochet. That's probably the case with Kasparov, too. In Saturday's edition of the WSJ, Kasparov delivered his latest absurd soliloquy disparaging Putin and recounting his agonizing 5 day ordeal in the Moscow poky.

Although Kasparov has garnered little public support in Russia, he appears to have a loyal following among the Washington elite. According to Wikipedia: "In 1991, Kasparov received the Keeper of the Flame award from the Center for Security Policy (a US think tank), for anti-Communist resistance and the propagation of democracy. Kasparov was an exceptional recipient since the award is given to "individuals for devoting their public careers to the defense of the United States and American values around the world". Hmmmm...."For devoting their public careers to the defense of the United States and American values around the world"? Isn't that a definition of an American agent?

Again, according to Wikipedia: In April, 2007 it was asserted that Kasparov was a board member of the National Security Advisory Council of the Center for Security Policy, a non-profit, non-partisan national security organization that specializes in identifying policies, actions, and resource needs that are vital to American security". Kasparov confirmed this and added that he was removed shortly after he became aware of it. He noted that HE DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT THE MEMBERSHIP and suggested he was included in the board by an accident because he received the 1991 Keeper of the Flame award from this organization. But Kasparov maintained his association with the neoconservative leadership by giving speeches at think tanks such as the Hoover Institute."

Here's a list of some of the other fellow travelers who've been given the "Keeper of the Flame Award": 2007-Senator Joe Lieberman. 2004-General Peter Pace. 2003- Paul Wolfowitz. 2002- General Richard Meyers. 1998-Donald Rumsfeld. 1996-Newt Gingrich. 1995-Ronald Reagan. 1990-Casper Weinberger.

Is Kasparov an anomaly or does he fit right in with this coven of far-right loonies? And who are some of the prominent members of the Center for Security Policy? Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, Frank Gaffney, James Roche and Laura Ingraham. Oh, boy. The whole front office of the neocon's cuckoo's nest. Now tell me, dear reader, with friends like that; what should we really think about Kasparov's performance in Moscow? Is he really interested in "democracy promotion" as he claims or is their acting out a script that was prepared in Washington?

In the US, Kasparov has become the focal point of the Russian elections - the primary source of "unbiased" analysis. NPR reiterates his spurious claims every half hour. The other news agencies are no better. He has become the distorted lens through which Americans view Russian democracy. This says a lot more about the choke-hold the neocons still have on the media rather than anything objective about Russia. The Kasparov fiasco gives us a chance to see the inner-workings of the establishment media. It's nothing more than a propaganda bullhorn for far-right organizations executing their bloody imperial strategy. Fidel Castro summed it up best just days ago when he said: "It is the most sophisticated media ever developed by technology, employed to kill human beings and to subjugate or exterminate peoples".

Amen to that, Fidel.

Mike Whitney lives in Washington state. He can be reached at: fergiewhitney@msn.com

Marx Cafe tonight!

Hey All, I'm playing at Marx Cafe tonight, 9-11. Seeya there!

3203 Mt. Pleasant St. NW