The Batshit Crazies and US Foreign Policy: Michele Bachmann God and Israel

Handed down by God, that is some statement to make by anybody's standard, and then it goes downhill from there.

You will excuse me if I keep it short, I'm a bit stuck for words on this one.

February 08, 2011 "Minnesota Independent" -- At a Republican Jewish Coalition event in Los Angeles last week, Rep. Michele Bachmann offered a candid view of her positions on Israel: Support for Israel is handed down by God and if the United States pulls back its support, America will cease to exist.

The Republican Jewish Coalition is the same organization that recently hired former Sen. Norm Coleman. Bachmann’s appearance on Feb.1 is part of a whirlwind of national events for Bachmann in February. Next up: she’s keynoting the Take Back Washington North Dakota event in Bismarck this Friday night.

Here’s a transcript of some of her remarks at the RJC event:

I am convinced in my heart and in my mind that if the United States fails to stand with Israel, that is the end of the United States . . . [W]e have to show that we are inextricably entwined, that as a nation we have been blessed because of our relationship with Israel, and if we reject Israel, then there is a curse that comes into play. And my husband and I are both Christians, and we believe very strongly the verse from Genesis [Genesis 12:3], we believe very strongly that nations also receive blessings as they bless Israel. It is a strong and beautiful principle.

Right now in my own private Bible time, I am working through Isaiah . . . and there is continually a coming back to what God gave to Israel initially, which was the Torah and the Ten Commandments, and I have a wonderful quote from John Adams that if you will indulge me [while I find it] . . . [from his February 16, 1809 letter to François Adriaan van der Kemp]:

I will insist that the Hebrews have done more to civilize men than any other nation. If I were an atheist, and believed in blind eternal fate, I should still believe that fate had ordained the Jews to be the most essential instrument for civilizing the nations. If I were an atheist of the other sect, who believe or pretend to believe that all is ordered by chance, I should believe that chance had ordered the Jews to preserve and propagate to all mankind the doctrine of a supreme, intelligent, wise, almighty sovereign of the universe, which I believe to be the great essential principle of all morality, and consequently of all civilization.

. . . So that is a very long way to answer your question, but I believe that an explicit statement from us about our support for Israel as tied to American security, we would do well to do that. minnesotaindependent

Previous: The Asylum Gates Are Open Again; Christians United For Israel

UK Plans to Exploit Iraq's Oil Reserves Were Discussed a Year Before Invasion

How's the humanitarian mission going in Libya?

Secret memos expose link between oil firms and invasion of Iraq
By Paul Bignell
19 April 2011

Plans to exploit Iraq's oil reserves were discussed by government ministers and the world's largest oil companies the year before Britain took a leading role in invading Iraq, government documents show.

The papers, revealed here for the first time, raise new questions over Britain's involvement in the war, which had divided Tony Blair's cabinet and was voted through only after his claims that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.

The minutes of a series of meetings between ministers and senior oil executives are at odds with the public denials of self-interest from oil companies and Western governments at the time.

The documents were not offered as evidence in the ongoing Chilcot Inquiry into the UK's involvement in the Iraq war. In March 2003, just before Britain went to war, Shell denounced reports that it had held talks with Downing Street about Iraqi oil as "highly inaccurate". BP denied that it had any "strategic interest" in Iraq, while Tony Blair described "the oil conspiracy theory" as "the most absurd".

But documents from October and November the previous year paint a very different picture.

Five months before the March 2003 invasion, Baroness Symons, then the Trade Minister, told BP that the Government believed British energy firms should be given a share of Iraq's enormous oil and gas reserves as a reward for Tony Blair's military commitment to US plans for regime change.

The papers show that Lady Symons agreed to lobby the Bush administration on BP's behalf because the oil giant feared it was being "locked out" of deals that Washington was quietly striking with US, French and Russian governments and their energy firms.

Minutes of a meeting with BP, Shell and BG (formerly British Gas) on 31 October 2002 read: "Baroness Symons agreed that it would be difficult to justify British companies losing out in Iraq in that way if the UK had itself been a conspicuous supporter of the US government throughout the crisis."

The minister then promised to "report back to the companies before Christmas" on her lobbying efforts.

The Foreign Office invited BP in on 6 November 2002 to talk about opportunities in Iraq "post regime change". Its minutes state: "Iraq is the big oil prospect. BP is desperate to get in there and anxious that political deals should not deny them the opportunity."

After another meeting, this one in October 2002, the Foreign Office's Middle East director at the time, Edward Chaplin, noted: "Shell and BP could not afford not to have a stake in [Iraq] for the sake of their long-term future... We were determined to get a fair slice of the action for UK companies in a post-Saddam Iraq."

Whereas BP was insisting in public that it had "no strategic interest" in Iraq, in private it told the Foreign Office that Iraq was "more important than anything we've seen for a long time".

BP was concerned that if Washington allowed TotalFinaElf's existing contact with Saddam Hussein to stand after the invasion it would make the French conglomerate the world's leading oil company. BP told the Government it was willing to take "big risks" to get a share of the Iraqi reserves, the second largest in the world.

Over 1,000 documents were obtained under Freedom of Information over five years by the oil campaigner Greg Muttitt. They reveal that at least five meetings were held between civil servants, ministers and BP and Shell in late 2002.

The 20-year contracts signed in the wake of the invasion were the largest in the history of the oil industry. They covered half of Iraq's reserves – 60 billion barrels of oil, bought up by companies such as BP and CNPC (China National Petroleum Company), whose joint consortium alone stands to make £403m ($658m) profit per year from the Rumaila field in southern Iraq.

Last week, Iraq raised its oil output to the highest level for almost decade, 2.7 million barrels a day – seen as especially important at the moment given the regional volatility and loss of Libyan output. Many opponents of the war suspected that one of Washington's main ambitions in invading Iraq was to secure a cheap and plentiful source of oil.

Mr Muttitt, whose book Fuel on Fire is published next week, said: "Before the war, the Government went to great lengths to insist it had no interest in Iraq's oil. These documents provide the evidence that give the lie to those claims.

"We see that oil was in fact one of the Government's most important strategic considerations, and it secretly colluded with oil companies to give them access to that huge prize."

Lady Symons, 59, later took up an advisory post with a UK merchant bank that cashed in on post-war Iraq reconstruction contracts. Last month she severed links as an unpaid adviser to Libya's National Economic Development Board after Colonel Gaddafi started firing on protesters. Last night, BP and Shell declined to comment.

Not about oil? what they said before the invasion

* Foreign Office memorandum, 13 November 2002, following meeting with BP: "Iraq is the big oil prospect. BP are desperate to get in there and anxious that political deals should not deny them the opportunity to compete. The long-term potential is enormous..."

* Tony Blair, 6 February 2003: "Let me just deal with the oil thing because... the oil conspiracy theory is honestly one of the most absurd when you analyse it. The fact is that, if the oil that Iraq has were our concern, I mean we could probably cut a deal with Saddam tomorrow in relation to the oil. It's not the oil that is the issue, it is the weapons..."

* BP, 12 March 2003: "We have no strategic interest in Iraq. If whoever comes to power wants Western involvement post the war, if there is a war, all we have ever said is that it should be on a level playing field. We are certainly not pushing for involvement."

* Lord Browne, the then-BP chief executive, 12 March 2003: "It is not in my or BP's opinion, a war about oil. Iraq is an important producer, but it must decide what to do with its patrimony and oil."

* Shell, 12 March 2003, said reports that it had discussed oil opportunities with Downing Street were 'highly inaccurate', adding: "We have neither sought nor attended meetings with officials in the UK Government on the subject of Iraq. The subject has only come up during conversations during normal meetings we attend from time to time with officials... We have never asked for 'contracts'." Independent

If We Take TEPCO at Their Word: Fairewinds Update

Update: Arnie Gundersen talks to Democracy Now.

AMY GOODMAN: Today, workers at the crippled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant in Japan started to pump radioactive water from a leaking reactor into a makeshift storage area, an effort they say is a crucial step toward easing the nuclear crisis. About 25,000 tons of contaminated water has collected in the basement of Unit 2. Moving it will help restore the vital cooling systems knocked out in the March 11th tsunami.

The Tokyo Electric Power Company, TEPCO, remained optimistic Sunday it can bring down radiation at the damaged plant in three months and achieve what it called a "cold shutdown" of the facility in six to nine months. A cold shutdown would core temperatures under 100 degrees. TEPCO officials acknowledged setbacks, such as another power outage, could delay a plant shutdown.

Meanwhile, here in the United States, owners of the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant have filed a federal lawsuit against a state law in Vermont that gives the Vermont legislature veto power over operation of the reactor when its current license expires next March. We’ll speak with the chief whistleblower now, from Vermont Yankee, Arnie Gundersen. He says Vermont Yankee, which went into operation in 1972, is exactly like ones in Japan. He’s a nuclear engineer who coordinated projects at 70 nuclear power plants around the United States. He’s joining us from Burlington, Vermont.

Arnie Gundersen, thanks for coming back to Democracy Now! Can you assess the situation in Japan? We don’t have much time. And talk about what’s happening in Vermont right now, because even as this nuclear crisis unfolds in Japan, President Obama is pushing for nuclear power plants to be built in this country after decades of them not being built here.

ARNIE GUNDERSEN: Well, the plants at Fukushima are identical to Vermont Yankee, Oyster Creek, Pilgrim. There’s about 20 different plants here in the States that are identical to Fukushima. And they—and, of course, President Obama basically said that they’re different than we are, and our plants are safe. Here in Vermont, the day after Fukushima, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission gave Vermont Yankee a 20-year license extension, despite the fact that Fukushima had just had an accident. On top of that, though, there’s an issue where here in Vermont we have the legislative approval for Vermont Yankee to move forward beyond its end of life, which is 2012. And the legislature said no last year. And just yesterday, the owner of Vermont Yankee, Entergy, sued the state of Vermont, saying that we had no right to make that decision. more and video

Gundersen Discusses Current Condition of Reactors, TEPCO Claim of "No Fission" in Fuel Pool, and Lack of Radiation Monitoring in from Fairewinds Associates on Vimeo.

Obama Too Much Betrayal

Obama Settles on 2012 Campaign Slogan

"I'm Not as Bad as Palin"

By Mike Whitney

April 18, 2011 "Information Clearing House" -- Barack Obama's prospects for reelection are much worse than his handlers think. There's a big opening for the GOP to retake the White House in 2012 and implement the final phase of their nightmarish vision for America. Let's not kid ourselves, we could be facing a very dark period ahead. A Republican president would increase the repression at home while expanding wars abroad. He would claim that his authority could not be challenged due to the ongoing the threat of terrorism. He would strong-arm the congress to rubber-stamp his economic agenda that would push the country back into deep recession. He would use his power to eliminate his enemies and silence his critics. It would be G.W. Bush all over again, only worse.

All of this could have been avoided if Obama had just followed through on a few of his campaign promises. But now it's too late. He may think that he can win-back his former supporters by throwing them a bone in the last year of his term, but it will work. The damage is done. No amount of posturing or grandiloquence will close Guantanamo, stop the killing of women and children in Afghanistan, bring the troops home from Iraq, provide due process for terror suspects, or end the spying on American citizens. I'm not saying Obama is a bad man, but he is thoroughly unprincipled. And because that matters to many of his supporters, his chances for reelection are pretty slim.

Of the many people I know who voted for Obama, every one of them is disappointed, disgusted or angry. My wife--who was an enthusiastic supporter during the campaign and who cried on the day he was elected--now rushes to turn off the television whenever he appears on the screen. She won't listen to him on the radio either. Just the sound of his voice drives her crazy. Can you blame her? She says she won't make the same mistake again and I believe her.

So, how many other people feel the same way?

Just about everyone I know. They're crushed, but they're also mad; real mad. No one likes being duped.

So, no matter what Obama does, he won't be able to wheedle his way back into their hearts again. It's over. "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice...." Well, you get the picture.

Of course, Democrat party leaders will point to Gingrich or Palin and try to scare the faithful into casting their ballots for the president. But it won't work. Not this time. The sense of betrayal is too deep. What about Bradley Manning, habeas corpus, or the fact that not one executive from a Wall Street bank has faced indictment, prosecution, arrest, or jailtime? Not one!

14 million workers can't find a job and Obama talks about cutting deficits. Even Reagan wasn't that brazen.

41 million Americans are scraping by on food stamps, but Obama won't support more fiscal stimulus.

2 million people will face foreclosure in 2012, but Obama won't force the banks to lower the principle so they can stay in their homes.

So, what has he accomplished? What has Obama done that his supporters can point to and say, "That's why I voted for him, because he shares my values, my vision for the country, and my commitment to treating people with decency and justice?"

Nothing.

The fact that Obama is "not as bad" as Sarah Palin is not a good enough reason to vote for him. He needs to prove that he can keep his word and work for change. He hasn't done that. He's never even tried. ICH

Moving The Nuclear Goal Posts Japanese Gov

This article comes under the header:

"To Work at Fukushima, You Have to Be Ready to Die"

But it was this bit that caught my eye.

Why has the Japanese minister of health decided to raise the legal dose to be received by workers?

Paul Jobin. Since 2002, the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) recommends that an annual dose for nuclear workers not exceed 20 millisieverts (mSv) per year. But even in normal times, workers receive large doses, with consequences that are systematically denied or minimized.

In Japan, legislation has accommodated the standard of 20 mSv per year for workers, stipulating that the dose can be calculated as an average over a five year period, with a maximum of 100 mSv during any two years. But as of March 19, probably because they can not recruit enough people to intervene, TEPCO asked to boost the maximum dose to 150 mSv, and the Ministry of Health went further, raising it to 250 mSv — this perhaps to limit the number of possible applications for recognition of occupational disease.

On Thursday, March 31, the Nuclear Safety Agency (Nisa) announced that 21 workers had received doses above 100 mSv, but that none had exceeded 250, as if this meant they could escape without too much damage, when even the International Atomic Energy Agency believes that the situation remains "very serious" in Fukushima. And in fact, dose rates are now such (up to 1000 mSv per hour on Saturday, April 2) that intervention near the reactor seems impossible. more

A Survey of the World's Radioactive No-Go Zones

Spiegel has a twenty page round-up, here are just two examples.

A Deadly Legacy

The lion's share of the plutonium used for the US nuclear arsenal during the Cold War came from the Hanford plant on the Columbia River in the US state of Washington. The plutonium used in the first atomic bomb test in July 1945 came from Hanford as did the material used in "Fat Man," the bomb which destroyed Nagasaki on Aug. 9, 1945.

Fifty-two buildings at Hanford remain contaminated to this day, and 240 square miles are uninhabitable due to the radioactivity that has seeped into the soil and ground water: uranium, cesium, strontium, plutonium and other deadly radio-nuclides. Altogether, more than 204,000 cubic meters of highly radioactive waste remain on site -- two-thirds of the total for the entire US. In one area, discharges of more than 216 million liters of radioactive, liquid waste and cooling water have flowed out of leaky tanks. More than 100,000 spent fuel rods -- 2,300 tons of them -- still sit in leaky basins close to the Columbia River.

The plant is also notorious for the so-called "Green Run" -- the deliberate release of a highly radioactive cloud from the T-plant, the world's largest plutonium factory at the time. The radiation was almost 1,000 times worse than that released during the 1979 meltdown at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania, the worst nuclear accident in American history. Fallout from the experiment drifted all the way to California. People wondered why they suddenly got sick. Studies would eventually show that some babies at Hanford were radiated twice as much as the children of Chernobyl.

The First Big Accident

The first large nuclear power plant accident -- and the largest until Chernobyl -- took place at Windscale, now Sellafield, in October 1957. There, by the Irish Sea, the British had hurriedly built two atomic reactors after World War II for power production and to make weapons-grade plutonium.

The speed of construction carried a great cost. In 1955, 251 workers were exposed to radiation during repair work. Then, on Oct. 10 1957, a reactor core began to burn. In an attempt to extinguish the fire, a radioactive cloud was released, followed by a second one the next day. The radiation reached as far as Switzerland. The fires were only brought under control after two days.

The authorities attempted to cover up the accident, initially saying only that there had been an incident, but that the workers involved had been able to scrub away the radiation with soap and water. The only warning was that cow's milk in a radius of 200 miles from the reactor should not be consumed. In reality, the population surrounding the reactor received radiation doses 10 times higher than that seen as permissible for a lifetime.

According to official figures, 33 people were killed by the after-effects of the disaster, with more than 200 diagnosed with thyroid cancer. To this day, 15 tons of damage fuel rods are still stored on site as is radioactive ash and mud, leftover from the fire. The reactor is now to be dismantled using a robot built exclusively for the project. In all, it is set to cost some 500 million pounds.

A Survey of the World's Radioactive No-Go Zones

A Brief History of Tony Blair's Skeletons: Part Two

Part two, loadsa skeletons and includes some great third party quotes.

"He wasn't very good" says a retired commercial lawyer who hired him at the time through Derry Irvine's Chambers. "Frankly he didn't listen to the brief, and he caved in to the Judge...to the fury of my clients. So I fired him. I told Derry, 'Don't ever send that twat to me again'".

Assassinating a Prime Minister's Reputation: Ten Ways to Blackmail Blair

Part Two of the Blair/Brown Succession Story

Like John F. Kennedy thirty-seven years earlier, Tony Blair came to power with a clean-cut, charismatic image that promised 'safe' change, more social justice, and a strong head on his shoulders. But also like JFK, the youthful leader of 'New' Labour had more than a few skeletons trailing behind him. True or not, they remain the subject of intense gossip - and a number of incontrovertible facts - to this day.

They cover not only his early years as a barrister and MP, but also key moments when he was at the height of his power and reputation as an international statesman and warlord.

The wayward lawyer

Anthony Charles Lynton Blair married Cherie Booth on 29th March 1980. Just four years out of University, Blair was trying to establish himself as a barrister - but not with much success.

"He wasn't very good" says a retired commercial lawyer who hired him at the time through Derry Irvine's Chambers. "Frankly he didn't listen to the brief, and he caved in to the Judge...to the fury of my clients. So I fired him. I told Derry, 'Don't ever send that twat to me again'".

The solicitor was appalled at the ease with which Blair betrayed his clients "for a quiet life". Betrayal (as we shall see) is an amoral spine running through Teflon Tony's life-story.

We interviewed the lawyer at some length. "When I watched him give in to the EU about the eight billion quid" he said, "I thought of that day in Court".

Close friends of the Blairs agree that Tony was a washout as a barrister....and that Cherie was without doubt the superstar. But in turn, while specialising in wealthy and commercial clients, for a young man supposedly interested in left-wing ideas Blair defended some odd people.

Famouspeople.com notes that

'In the case of Nethermere v. Gardiner, Blair acted for employers that had refused holiday pay to employees at a trouser factory. He unsuccessfully defended the employers.'

Election to Parliament in 1983 provided a more promising career path.

Ugly Rumours

While researching Blair's early Parliamentary career, The Slog (or Not Born Yesterday as it then was) received the following email content:

'In the autumn of 1983, a young well-dressed man presented himself to Bow St Magistrates' Court on a morals charge. He was given a conditional discharge and bound over to keep the peace. The young man gave his name as Charles Lynton. He is now among the highest in the land.'

Blair's middle names are Charles and Lynton. I have asked for the records of the period (the Court no longer exists) but failed to trace any mention there of the 'case' - if indeed it ever existed. Although I found the general attitude of information suppliers to be obstructive, there wasn't any strong feeling of hiding stuff; frankly, I'd be amazed anyway if something incriminating about Tony Blair hadn't been removed by now. Another source wrote to us as follows:

'He was caught importuning in a Westminster toilet. It was all covered up.'

Two things are, however, relevant. Gossip did abound about Blair's sexuality during his time in the rock band Ugly Rumours at Oxford. And while nobody has ever stood them up, it is widely accepted that Derry Irvine (Blair's boss in Chambers) regularly referred to him as "the star closest to Uranus".

Would an indiscretion relating to bisexuality have worried Blair enough to do anything to cover it up? Perhaps it would in 1983....but probably not by 2006. A great many people have teen-and-twenties doubts about the side for which they bat. Thankfully, in the Twenty-first century such things are rarely if ever a matter for blackmail.

Editor's Note: For those who find this far-fetched, it is worth noting that Edward Heath was saved from homosexual importuning charges no less than four times by MI6 in the late 1950s.

The Rising Star

Blair networked among Labour's soft-Left to get the Sedgefield seat that remained his throughout a long Parliamentary career. Using his father-in-law Tony Booth's Labour contacts (and Booth's girfriend Pat Phoenix as a star performer during the campaign) he was selected for and won it in 1983, after boundary changes had changed its makeup.

Once in the Commons, he rose quickly, giving himself a brief to depict City types as incompetent, overpaid and "morally dubious" - an ironic way to start, given what came later. more

h/t Steel Magnolia

Lots of related stuff here. http://operationorethegambleconnection.blogspot.com/

A Brief History of Tony Blair's Skeletons: Introduction

Or part one if you will, but for no other reason than the follow up is billed as part two. Which I have to say is a tad more entertaining.

Exclusive: Why didn’t Brown bring down Blair until September 2006?

The Slogger pounces on a piece of murky illogic in the Brown/Blair succession story


The Sequence of events

Following the 2005 General Election, New Labour is desperately short of money. The Party is £26.2 million in debt, and Treasurer Jack Dromey is desperately worried. He becomes even more worried when told that a further £13M of debt has been dissolved thanks to illegal donations.

As a Brown supporter, in March 2006 he goes on TV without warning and says it’s outrageous….without permission, and clearly to stab Blair. Essentially, he points the finger at the Blair entourage of fundraisers.

We can assume that Brown has pushed Dromey towards this act of brazen politicking. (Tony Blair did).

Gordon expects this to be enough to force Blair out. But the PM rides it out: he decides the Chancellor has nothing but innuendo. In a rage, Gordon screams at the PM “I’ll bring you down with sleaze!”

But he doesn’t. This is a key point: it means that, effectively, Blair did not go in order to avoid facing donation-sleaze charges.

Chancellor Gordon Brown continues in pursuit of his ambition to oust the PM. Blair has on the one hand given his word long ago to Gordon that he will hand over power after two terms as PM; but on the other, Tony has told the media he will see out three terms. This is not unusual behaviour for Tony Blair: were human beings to have further upper-body limbs, there would be other hands all being promised exclusively to various interest groups.

As August progresses, Brown the self-proclaimed Greatest Ever Chancellor becomes more demanding: how is Operation Cake (the code-name for handover) proceeding, he keeps asking. The answers are vague. There are confrontations with the Prime Minister.

But a month later on September 1st, Blair is at an EU conference, refusing to discuss departure dates, making long-term summit plans – and still showing no signs of going. Government PPS Mahmoud resigns and junior defence minister Tom Watson does the same: both are doing so at Brown’s behest, to put further pressure on Blair.

Then, something happens. Nobody is really sure what, but it happens. Within days, Brown is in good form at a Party Conference planning meeting. Others are dismayed at what new Opposition Leader David Cameron is calling ‘a Government in meltdown’. But Brown smiles, asserting calmly, “Don’t worry – it won’t last long”.

A brooding pessimist by nature, here we are in early September with the Chancellor facing a seemingly immovable rival on the Throne. But he says only “it won’t last long”.

On September 6th, author Peter Watt finds Blair looking ‘old, grey and drained….it was obvious he was shell-shocked’.

The next day – to a staggered public – Prime Minister Tony Blair confirms that he is to stand down within twelve months. This will, he says, be his last Party Conference. more

Murdoch Super-Injunctions and Other Stuff

We used to call it treason when I was younger. Now the bright young things call it lobbying.

HACKGATE DAY 92: Murdoch’s head on block says lawyer…

….but beware the double-edged sword.

Rupert Murdoch’s past behaviour suggests that he prizes monopoly ownership far higher than press freedoms. Indeed, it is the horrible reality of having so much of the press in the hands of shadowy characters that brings with it the danger of censorship. The Newscorp/Murdoch mentality has always been ‘do what it takes to get the story’. You can’t have off-limits press freedoms with that kind of ‘no limits’ ethic: that’s why we need to get Roop and other unelected exiles out of our media lives. The cruel irony is that failure to do this will give an excuse to the elite – both political and judicial – to introduce draconian publication limits with the cheery admonition, “Remember Newscorp”.

As The Slog has posted previously, the elite that stood by looking the other way while liberal journalists and right-wing blog writers nailed this scandal would not even blink at the hypocrisy of doing such a thing. So top marks to The Guardian (and in Slogger’s Roost, we don’t say that very often) for starting right now to highlight the danger. Given Britain already has disgraceful restrictions on Court reporting in some sectors – a disgrace compounded by New Labour’s unwillingness to change that state of affairs – the last thing we need is grubby ambulance chasers with yet more flimsy excuses to protect their powerful clients.

The Guardian’s piece looks at the super-injunction trend, and gets LibDem MP John Hemming (who is launching an inquiry into possibly unlawful secrecy) to go on the record about a new type of super-dooper injunction designed to gag investigative journalists.

Hemming said the new breed of gagging order – used in relation to a case in the high court in London last week…anyone know which one? – meant journalists could face jail simply for questioning innocent victims of illegality. “It has the effect of preventing journalists from speaking to people subject to this injunction without a risk of the journalist going to jail. That is a recipe for hiding miscarriages of justice,” said the MP, “It puts any investigative journalist at risk if they ask any questions of a victim of a potential miscarriage of justice … I don’t think this should be allowed in English courts.” more

Gordon Brown is a practising paedophile whose activities are known not only to the British, American and Israeli intelligence services, but also by Rupert Murdoch and his senior editor at the Sunday Times.

Cluster Bombs: The Home Office Said What!?

This isn't exactly fresh of the press, being from December 2010, but if for no other reason, other than to highlight this bizarre bit of Sir Humphrey-speak, I have to post it.

Tonight, a Foreign Office spokesman said: "We reject any allegation that the Foreign Office deliberately misled parliament or failed in our obligation to inform parliament. We cannot go into specifics of any leaked documents because we condemn any unauthorised release of classified information."

What's a suitable analogy for that little pearl I ask myself? I have a few ''close but no cigar'' contenders, but nothing as yet that hits the nail firmly on the head. Not as I write I don't, but give it time.

But that's not the only piece of Humphreyesque gibber in the article.

Nicholas Pickard, head of the Foreign Office's security policy unit, is quoted as saying: "It would be better for the US government and HMG [the British government] not to reach final agreement on this temporary agreement understanding until after the [treaty] ratification process is completed in parliament, so that they can tell parliamentarians that they have requested the US government to remove its cluster munitions by 2013, without complicating/muddying the debate by having to indicate that this request is open to exceptions."

Que?

WikiLeaks cables: Secret deal let Americans sidestep cluster bomb ban

Officials concealed from parliament how US is allowed to bring weapons on to British soil in defiance of treaty

British and American officials colluded in a plan to hoodwink parliament over a proposed ban on cluster bombs, the Guardian can disclose.

According to leaked US embassy dispatches, David Miliband, who was Britain's foreign secretary under Labour, approved the use of a loophole to manoeuvre around the ban and allow the US to keep the munitions on British territory.

Unlike Britain, the US had refused to sign up to an international convention that bans the weapons because of the widespread injury they cause to civilians.

The US military asserted that cluster bombs were "legitimate weapons that provide a vital military capability" and wanted to carry on using British bases regardless of the ban.

Whitehall officials proposed that a specially created loophole to grant the US a free hand should be concealed from parliament in case it "complicated or muddied" the MPs' debate.

Gordon Brown, as prime minister, had swung his political weight in 2008 behind the treaty to ban the use and stockpiling of cluster bombs. Britain therefore signed it, contrary to earlier assurances made by British officials to their US counterparts.

The US had stockpiles of cluster munitions at bases on British soil and intended to keep them, regardless of the treaty.

When the bill to ratify the treaty was going through parliament this year, the then Labour foreign ministers Glenys Kinnock and Chris Bryant repeatedly proclaimed that US cluster munition arsenals would be removed from British territory by the declared deadline of 2013.

But a different picture emerges from a confidential account of a meeting between UK and US officials in May last year.

It shows that the two governments concocted the "concept" of allowing US forces to store their cluster weapons as "temporary exceptions" and on a "case-by-case" basis for specific military operations.

Foreign Office officials "confirmed that the concept was accepted at highest levels of the government, as that idea had been included in the draft letter from minister [David] Miliband to secretary [of state Hillary] Clinton".

US cluster munitions are permanently stored on ships off the coast of the Diego Garcia airbase in the Indian Ocean, the cables reveal. The base is crucial for US military missions in the Middle East. Diego Garcia, still deemed British territory, has been occupied by the US military since its inhabitants were expelled in the 1960s and 1970s. The British concept of a "temporary exception" to oblige the US does not appear to be envisaged in the treaty. But the British arranged that "any movement of cluster munitions from ships at Diego Garcia to planes there, temporary transit, or use from British territory ... would require the temporary exception".

Nicholas Pickard, head of the Foreign Office's security policy unit, is quoted as saying: "It would be better for the US government and HMG [the British government] not to reach final agreement on this temporary agreement understanding until after the [treaty] ratification process is completed in parliament, so that they can tell parliamentarians that they have requested the US government to remove its cluster munitions by 2013, without complicating/muddying the debate by having to indicate that this request is open to exceptions."

Lady Kinnock subsequently promised parliament that there would be no "permanent stockpiles of cluster munitions on UK territory" after the treaty as the US had decided it no longer needed them on British soil.

There is no suggestion that Kinnock or Bryant were aware of a plan to mislead parliament.

Tonight, a Foreign Office spokesman said: "We reject any allegation that the Foreign Office deliberately misled parliament or failed in our obligation to inform parliament. We cannot go into specifics of any leaked documents because we condemn any unauthorised release of classified information."

David Miliband declined to comment.

Cluster bombs drop large numbers of "bomblets" over a wide area. Many do not explode at the time but can kill long afterwards. The Americans dropped thousands of cluster bombs in Afghanistan and Iraq. Civilians in Vietnam still die from cluster bombs dropped by the US in the 1960s.

The leaked US state department documents reveal American displeasure at the international project launched by Norway to outlaw cluster munitions. An American arms control diplomat, John Rood, privately told the Foreign Office in 2008 that the US disliked this initiative, called the Oslo process. The Americans denounced it as "impractical and unconstructive" and were urging countries not to sign up.

Mariot Leslie, then director general of defence and intelligence in the Foreign Office, reassured him that the British were only taking part as a "tactical manoeuvre" and cluster bombs were "essential to its arsenal". "The UK is concerned about the impact of the Oslo process on the aftermath of a conflict, foreseeing 'astronomical bills' handed out to those who used cluster munitions in the past," Leslie is recorded as saying.

But two weeks later Brown defied military opposition and went ahead in banning British cluster munitions.

Afghanistan, which had suffered grievous civilian casualties from the continuing war on its territory, also unexpectedly signed up to the treaty in December 2008 "without prior consultation with the US government" and "despite assurances to the contrary from President Karzai".

Washington's reaction was to seek to convince the Kabul government that the US could still legally use cluster munitions on Afghan territory under the treaty, even if the Afghan regime itself could not.

Diplomats recommended a "low-profile approach" at "sub-ministerial level ... given the political sensitivities in Afghanistan surrounding cluster munitions, as well as air and artillery strikes in general". Gruniad

Paul Craig Roberts: Libya, The Whys and Wherefores. Syria Next?

Русские посетители, новая ссылка для вас. К сожалению нет стенограммы.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article28105.htm

Приветствие Русиа.

Пол Крейг Робертс является одним из немногих американцев, что я беру touble, чтобы слушать. (я английский) небольшой архив избранных статей Робертса можно найти здесь, на этом блоге.

Для пива, более полный перечень, Ли Rockwell - Пол Крэйг Томас Архив.

Мир, товарищ граждан.

Himself

Google перевод.

'US to recoup Libya oil from China'


Libyan ruler Muammar Qaddafi has made two mistakes: It blocked the US Africa Command by not joining it and let China into Libya with major energy investments instead, says a former US official.


Press TV has interviewed Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, former assistant secretary of US Treasury from Panama City, who gives his insight on the revolution in Libya and why US President Barack Obama needs to overthrow Qaddafi when no other US presidents did.

Press TV: Russia has criticized NATO for going far beyond its UN mandate. In other news a joint Op Ed is going to be written by Obama, Cameron and Sarkozy who have said that “leaving Qaddafi in power would be an unconscionable betrayal to the Libyan people”.

We do know that the mandate does not call for regime change; the Obama administration has been saying they are not in there for regime change; but things seem a little different now don't they?

Roberts: Yes they do. First of all, notice that the protests in Libya are different from the ones in Egypt or Yemen or Bahrain or Tunisia and the difference is that this is an armed rebellion.

There are more differences: another is that these protests originated in the eastern part of Libya where the oil is - they did not originate in the capital cities. And we have heard from the beginning, credible reports that the CIA is involved in the protests and there have been a large number of press reports that the CIA has sent back to Libya its Libyan asset to head up the Libyan rebellion.

In my opinion, what this is about is to eliminate China from the Mediterranean. China has extensive energy investments and construction investments in Libya. They are looking to Africa as a future energy source.

The US is countering this by organizing the United States African Command (USAC), which Qaddafi refused to join. So that's the second reason for the Americans to want Qaddafi out.

And the third reason is that Libya controls part of the Mediterranean coast and it's not in American hands.

Press TV: Who are the revolutionaries. The US say they don't know who they're dealing with, but considering the CIA is on the ground in contact with revolutionaries - Who are the people under whom Libya will function in any post-Qaddafi era?

Roberts: Whether or not Libya functions under revolutionaries depends if the CIA wins - we don't know that yet. As you said earlier, the UN resolution puts constraints on what the European and American forces can achieve in Libya. They can have a no fly zone, but they are not supposed to be in there fighting together with the rebels.

But of course the CIA is. So we do have these violations of the UN resolution. If NATO, which is now the cover for the world community, succeeds in overthrowing Qaddafi the next target will be Syria because Syria has already been demonized.

Why are they targeting Syria? - Because the Russians have a very large naval base in Syria. And it gives the Russian navy a presence in the Mediterranean; the US and NATO do not want that. If there is success in overthrowing Qaddafi, Syria is next.

Already, they are blaming Iran for Syria and Libya. Iran is a major target because it is an independent state that is not a puppet of the Western colonialists.

Press TV: With regards to the expansionist agenda of the West, when the UN mandate on Libya was debated in the UN Security Council, Russia did not veto it. Surely Russia must see this expansionist policy of the US, France and Britain.

Roberts: Yes they must see that; and the same for China. It's a much greater threat to China because it has 50 major investment projects in eastern Libya. So the question is why did Russia and China abstain rather than veto and block? We don't know the answer.

Possibly the countries are thinking let the Americans get further over extended or they may not have wanted to confront them with a military or diplomatic position and have an onslaught of Western propaganda against them. We don't know the reasons, but we know they did abstain because they did not agree with the policy and they continue to criticize it.

Press TV: A sizeable portion of Qaddafi's assets have been frozen in the US as well as some other countries. We also know that the Libyan revolutionaries have set up a central bank and that they have started limited production of oil and they are dealing with American and other Western firms. It begs the question that we've never seen something like this happen in the middle of a revolution. Don't you find that bizarre?

Roberts: Yes it's very bizarre and very suggestive. It brings back the fact of all the reports that the CIA is the originator of this so-called revolt and protest and is fomenting it and controlling it in a way that excludes China from its own Libyan oil investments.

In my opinion, what is going on is comparable to what the US and Britain did to Japan in the 1930s. When they cut Japan off from oil, from rubber, from minerals like ore; that was the origin of World War II in the pacific. And now the Americans and the British are doing the same thing to China.

The difference is that China has nuclear weapons and it also has a stronger economy than do the Americans. And so the Americans are taking a very high risk not only with themselves, but with the rest of the world. The entire world is now at stake on American over-reach; American huberus - the drive for American hegemony over the world is driving the rest of the world into a World War.

Press TV: In the context of America's expansionist policies, how far do you think the US will stretch beyond the UN mandate? Are we going to see boots on the ground?

Roberts: Most likely - unless they can find some way of defeating Qaddafi without that. Ever since we've had Bill Clinton, George W Bush and now Obama, what we've learned is law means nothing to the executive branch in the US. They don't obey our own laws; they don't obey international law; they violate all the civil liberties and buried the principal of habeas corpus - no crime without intent; of the ability for a defendant to be legally represented.

They don't pay any attention to law so they're not going to pay any attention to the UN. The UN is an American puppet organization and they will use it as a cover. So yes if they cannot run Qaddafi out they will put troops on the ground - that's why we have the French and the British involved. We're using the French elsewhere in Africa also; we use the British in Afghanistan - they're puppets.

These countries are not independent. Sarkozy doesn't report to the French people - he reports to Washington. The British PM doesn't report to the English people he reports to Washington. These are puppet rulers of an empire; they have nothing to do with their own people and we put them in office.

Press TV: So these other countries would welcome having NATO troops on the ground?

Roberts: Of course. They are in the CIAs pocket. It's a CIA operation, not a legitimate protest of the Libyan people. It's an armed rebellion that has no support in the capital city. It's taking place in the east where the oil is and is directed at China.

Press TV: Where do you see the situation headed? There seems to be a rift between NATO countries with Britain and France wanting to increase the momentum of these air strikes, but the US saying no, there is no need.

Roberts: The rift is not real. The rift is just part of the cover, just part of the propaganda. Qaddafi has been ruling for 40 years - he goes back to Gamal Abdel Nasser (before Anwar Sadat) who wanted to give independence to Egypt.

He (Qaddafi) was never before called a brutal dictator that has to be removed. No other president has ever said Qaddafi has to go. Not even Ronald Reagan who actually bombed Qaddafi's compound and tried to kill him. But all of a sudden he has to go. Why?

Because he's blocking the US African Command, he controls part of the Mediterranean and he has let China in to find its energy needs for the future. We (the US) are trying to cripple our main rival, China by denying it energy. That's what this is really about; a reaction by the US.

If the US was concerned about humanitarianism, it wouldn't be killing all these people in Afghanistan and Pakistan with their drones and military strikes. Almost always it's civilians that are killed. And the US is reluctant to issue apologies about any of it. They say we thought we were killing Taliban or some other made-up enemy.

Press TV: Who will benefit from all of this other than the US? The other countries that comply with US wishes- What do they stand to gain from this?

Roberts: We are only talking about NATO countries, the American puppet states. Britain, France, Italy, Germany, all belong to the American empire. We've had troops stationed in Germany since 1945. You're talking about 66 years of American occupation of Germany. The Americans have military bases in Italy - how is that an independent country? France was somewhat independent until we put Sarkozy in power. So they all do what they're told.

America wants to rule Russia, China, Iran, and Africa, all of South America. They want hegemony over the world. That's what the word hegemony means. And they will pursue it at all costs. Press TV

Destination Titan: Video

This really is a remarkable program, documenting some remarkable people and their even more remarkable achievement. Tasked with building a probe that would be required to travel two billion miles over a period of seven years, descend through Titan's atmosphere, to land and then gather and transmit data while operating at a temperature of minus 200C, was no small order of the day. And made all the more remarkable that the team gathered to achieve this were, for want of a better description, a bunch of amateurs.

One of the defining moments for me was the launch aboard the Titan IV-B rocket, nothing but nothing brought home more, the pressure that the team must have been under and the expectation of a successful mission that hinged on this tiny module actually working when it arrived at Titan, than watching this truly enormous rocket, with all its associated costs and technical achievements, take off from the launch pad. The filming of that launch alone is quite remarkable, poetic even. Needless to say, highly recommended.

The Titan IV-B is the Nation's largest and most powerful expendable launch vehicle. It also is the Nation's newest model heavy-lift launch vehicle. This mammoth rocket is as tall as a 20-story building and weighs about 940,000 kg (2 million lbs.) with the solid rocket boosters and fuel. more NASA Glenn Research Center

I had intended just to give you the BBC's intro, but far better than that, this from the Open University, explains far better.

Destination Titan tells moving story of one man’s personal space odyssey

The landing of the Huygens probe on Titan, Saturn’s largest moon, in January 2005 was one small step for The Open University’s Professor John Zarnecki and a giant leap for the history of space exploration. Not only was Huygens the most distant probe to land anywhere in our solar system, but the stunning images and data sent back by the probe have helped to paint a picture of an exotic new world. With its methane seas, volcanoes and cliffs of ice, Titan bears a striking resemblance to our own early Earth.

For Professor John Zarnecki, one of Huygen’s six principal scientists, the landing on Titan was a moment he had been building towards since his inspirational boyhood encounter with the first man in space, Yuri Gagarin, 50 years ago.

Destination Titan, a BBC / Open University co-production, follows Zarnecki’s journey through the twists and turns of a distinguished career in space academia, to the surface of the world over a billion miles from Earth. First at the University of Kent and latterly at The Open University, Professor Zarnecki devoted years to the Titan project without any guarantee that would have a happy outcome – a terrific and inspiring combination of hard science and calculated risk taking.

In charge of the probe’s ‘Surface Science Package’, Professor Zarnecki’s team was faced with the task of designing the first contact with the surface of Saturn’s mysterious moon. The first-ever pictures from Titan adorned the front pages of newspapers around the world, but the inside story of this extraordinary mission remains largely untold.

John Zarnecki said: “The images from the surface of Titan, and the data from our own instrument, easily made the 15 years of hard work, occasional frustration and sometimes blind panic immediately worthwhile.

“That day, back in 1988, when we first toyed with the idea of putting in a bid to build an instrument to land on Titan, it was beyond my wildest dreams that the day would come to pass when it would all come true.”

Featuring previously unseen footage and exclusive interviews with those involved, Destination Titan tells the moving story of one man’s personal space odyssey, and of the small team of scientists who made this mission happen. Drawing on unprecedented access and detailed research, the programme will tell the warts and all inside story of this major planetary mission, and discover just what it takes to be a successful space scientist. Destination Titan offers a real insight into the team-work that goes into such a complex and ambitious scientific endeavour – not just the magical, revelatory moments but the daily slog, the frustrations and the need to make-do-and-mend with available resources. Open University

Video pulled due to copyright.

Bradley Manning and The Not So Secret World of Intel

Manning peer sheds light on WikiLeaks: Former military intel analyst shares his thoughts on the motive of alleged leaks
by Will Graff
15 April 2011


The alleged leaker, intelligence specialist Private First Class Bradley Manning, is now in Quantico military prison in Virginia, where he has been held in solitary confinement since his arrest in July 2010. On April 10, nearly 300 top legal scholars, authors and experts signed a letter condemning his treatment as torture.

Evan Knappenberger, an Iraq War veteran and former intelligence specialist in the Army, graduated from the same intelligence school as Bradley Manning in May 2004 and was given secret clearance.

Knappenberger is now a junior at Western majoring in mathematics.

He was interviewed last week for a PBS Frontline documentary about WikiLeaks, Manning and military information security.

The Western Front interviewed Knappenberger about his experience in the military and his connection to WikiLeaks.

What is your connection to Bradley Manning?

Well, I have a couple connections to Bradley. The first is that we both went to the same intelligence school. We went to the same basic training company, pretty much an identical track all the way through.

They have (Manning’s) chat logs with the guy who turned him in. He talks about why he (leaked the documents). He says on those chat logs that it’s out of principle. He didn’t like what he saw in Iraq. He talks about the collateral murder video, watching civilians get killed by American soldiers pretty much unprovoked. He had a change of heart, I think, that’s why he says he decided to release all these documents — if in fact, it was him that did it.

I was involved in torture in Iraq. Part of an intel analyst’s job is ‘targeting.’You take a human being and put him on a piece of paper, distill his life into one piece of paper. You’ve got a grid coordinate of where he lives and a little box that says what to do with him: kill, capture, detain, exploit, source — you know, there’s different things you can do with him. When I worked in targeting, it was having people killed.

The thing that gets me about that is I don’t think anybody who’s aware of what’s going on can do that work for very long without having a major problem come up. Most of the guys I went through intel school with, who went to Iraq with me, are either dead, killed themselves, are in a long-term care institution or completely disabled. I’m actually 50 percent disabled via PTSD (post traumatic stress disorder), mostly because of the stuff that happened.

What kind of access did you have here and in Iraq?

Army security is like a Band-Aid on a sunken chest wound. I remember when I was training, before I had my clearance even, they were talking about diplomatic cables. It was a big scandal at Fort Huachuca (Arizona), with all these kids from analyst school. Somebody said (in the cables) Sadaam wanted to negotiate and was willing to agree to peace terms before we invaded, and Bush said no. And this wasn’t very widely known. Somehow it came across on a cable at Fort Huachuca, and everybody at the fort knew about it.

It’s interesting the access we had. I did the briefing for a two-star general every morning for a year. So I had secret and top-secret information readily available. The funny thing is, Western’s password system they have here on all these computers is better security than the Army had on their secret computers.

There are 2 million people, many of them not U.S. citizens, with access to SIPRNet (Secret Internet Protocol Router Network, the Department of Defense’s largest network for the exchange of classified information and messages). There are 1,400 government agencies with SIPR websites. It’s not that secret.

Do you think private military contractors play a role in this?

Oh yeah. I worked in a place called a SCIF (Secret Compartmentalized Information Facility) and almost anybody, if they spoke English, could get in there. It wasn’t hard at all. more

How Not to Win Wars

How not to win wars
April 14, 2011

Ever wonder why the US military can’t win wars? Why a few ragtag guerillas could send it running out of Somalia (Black Hawk Down)? Why one guy with a truck bomb could chase the Marines out of Lebanon? Why the attempt to rescue the hostages in Iran was such a disaster? Why the world’s most expensive military can’t win its unending wars against peasants with rifles? How is this possible?

Different jobs attract different personalities. The Mike Tysons of the world do not go into ballet, nor do the Mother Teresas become tank commanders. The career military attracts people who run from the merely abnormal to the frankly weird. For example, they place extreme value on ritual and ceremony, on ribbons and medals and colored things more appropriate to a Christmas tree than to a human being. They are authoritarian by nature, comfortable in a rigid, hierarchical, and conformist society that most of us would find equally unbearable and absurd. Suppose your boss told everyone in the office that they had to wear exactly the same clothes and stand at attention in the morning to that he could determine whether they had dressed themselves correctly. Militaries start with odd material.

Then they inculcate in themselves an exaggerated sense of their own powers, a sort of Terminator complex. This is done calculatedly in basic training when men are in impressionable late or, in the case of officers, extended adolescence. They absorb the notion of invincibility and it persists into adulthood.

Examples abound. When I was at Parris Island in a previous geological epoch, a large sign in Third Battalion conspicuously said, “The Most Dangerous Weapon in the World: A Marine with his Rifle.” This didn’t rise to the level of nonsense. Few Marines are as dangerous as a hydrogen bomb, and Marines in general are just pretty good light infantry, well-equipped as an expeditionary forces.

But you can’t tell fresh young troops, “You’re maybe a bit above average, but the Afghans are much tougher people, having been raised fighting and living on dried goat-meat, and they know the terrain, whereas you will have no idea where you are and your equipment and tactics are badly unsuited for the region, so it’s going to be hard slogging.” Not optimal for recruiting. More profoundly, men in combat arms want to feel inexorable, deadly, the best. Whether they actually are doesn’t occur to them until the war starts. A satisfying state of mind is what is wanted.

This preference for mood over reality runs through their careers. Constantly they are told that they are “the best trained, best equipped, most powerful and effective fighting force the world has seen.” This is not a statement of fact but of mandatory enthusiasm. The Pentagon’s record since WW II has been a sorry one. Further, effectiveness, training, and so on are relative to a particular situation: a force well-equipped for desert war against aging Iraqi armor is not necessarily equipped to fight guerrillas in Quang Tri or Helmand.

But soldiers, romantics pretending to be realists, do not think in these terms. And so you hear from them unending expressions of fierceness. “Crush their skulls and eat their faces,” and “Oooo-rah!” The tee shirt of the 82nd Airborne said, “Death from above.” (I saw a Marine cook whose shirt said, “Death from Within.”) “The Marine Corps Builds Men,” or did until feminists put an end to that. Now they are “The Few, the Proud.” Well and good, but morale is no substitute for victory. (You can quote me on that.)

The relentless affirmation of their lethality leads to underestimation of the enemy.... more

History lesson: Battle of the Horns of Hattin 1178

Ex-CIA Officer: Obama is Fooling Himself, Muslims See US Bombing Libya: RT talks to former CIA counterterrorism analyst Michael

Network Round Up

All leads courtesy of The Register.

Do you ever wonder about internet based thingamabobs? I imagine you do, there are after all plenty to wonder about. Google for instance, where seemingly not a week goes by without it acquiring some new acquisition, often paying tens, if not hundreds of millions of dollars for some obscure company or other, and doing so with apparent ease. That ease and those telephone number acquisitions due in no small part to a eight and a half billion dollar turnover.

A more common wonder for myself, although until now I have never bothered to seek an answer, is the ''What's in it for them?'' when applied to suppliers of open-source software, Mozilla Firefox in particular.

Well Mozilla's mission statement (2 minute vid) seems noble enough, but it doesn't explain its funding or how it generates income that enables it to give us such free goodies. For an answer to that question we go to Wiki:

Funding

The Mozilla Foundation accepts donations as a source of funding. Along with AOL's initial $2 million donation, Mitch Kapor gave $300,000 to the organization at its launch. The group has tax-exempt status under IRC 501 of the U.S. tax code, though the Mozilla Corporation subsidiary is taxable.

In 2006 the Mozilla Foundation received $66.8 million in revenues, of which $61.5 million is attributed to "search royalties".
The foundation has an ongoing deal with Google to make Google search the default in the Firefox browser search bar and hence send it search referrals; a Firefox themed Google search site has also been made the default home page of Firefox. A footnote in Mozilla's 2006 financial report states "Mozilla has a contract with a search engine provider for royalties. The contract originally expired in November 2006, however Google renewed the contract until November 2008 and has now renewed the contract through 2011. Approximately 85% of Mozilla’s revenue for 2006 was derived from this contract." This amounts to approximately US$56.8 million. Wiki

That's how they do it, and with pretty impressive numbers to do it with, must be said.

How effective all that advertising is I don't really know, because personally speaking, I don't even see ads on the net. That part of my brain that is supposed to take there message in has shut down, or evolved even, that it sees straight past them without even registering. Although I will concede it's not the picture in your face type of add that is generating these enormous revenues.

Staying with funding, although of a somewhat different nature, self funding as it were, but at a cost of thirty seven million dollars to memory stick manufacturers Unigen. In order to fund a better lifestyle, it would appear that a bunch of villains had it away with 1.7 million flash memory chips, which were bound for none other than the behemoth, Google. Bringing I suppose, a whole new meaning to the term, memory hole.

But what did catch my eye about this story was this:

The value of the flash memory that was stolen is important because California has a statute called "excessive taking," which adds prison time when the value of stolen property is large. more

Now here in the UK, I don't suppose we have excessive taking as a statute, the severity of the crime or the theft being taken into account upon sentencing. But those Yanky prosecutors, boy do they like their pound of flesh. I have commented in the past on the differing systems; whereas here the norm seems to be to prosecute for the most serious offence and ignore the lesser ones. But not so in the land of retribution, if you've nicked a getaway mota for your blag, then it's tuck grand theft auto on the list, no matter the seriousness of the principal crime. Anything at all to add jail time in fact.

At the risk of sounding like a jail-house lawyer, believe me I'm not, I have just studied some of the more flagrant disparities in the systems. Let us take that term, ''Grand Theft Auto.'' Without going and looking it up, I think the definition for theft is, to take with the intention to permanently deprive, which is why in this country joy riders are normally charged with, taking without consent. That this ''taking without consent'' usually includes trashing the car and or torching the thing, is by the by. But what we do have, and the Yanks don't, is ''taken into account'' this is where you hold your hand up (for whatever reasons) and cop for a bunch of crimes you may or may not have committed. It does wonders for the ''crimes solved'' statistics you see.

Here's another wonder, not wonder as in wonder of the world, but wonder as in, I wonder how the fuck these stores survive, when you walk in some of the hanger-like buildings that have become synonymous with electrical super-stores? The answer is, they don't, well not in the case of Dixons at least, the writing is on the wall there.

Dixons' best chance? Quit the UK and move to Sweden
When rent is greater than profits...

Dixons' best chance of surviving is to close its UK business and concentrate on its Scandinavian business.

The cold-hearted claim comes from Morgan Stanley, which studied UK electrical retailing and found the whole sector is making losses. The analysts reckon there is more than 25 million square feet of selling space, but a serious shortage of customers.

This is the area where Morgan Stanley looked closely at Dixons. It noted that DSG has an annual rent bill of £220m, which is three times its annual underlying profits. more

And finally, if you've pulled a stunt, don't go on television and brag about it.

French hacker cuffed after bragging on telly
D'eau!

A French hacker who boasted of breaking into the systems of a government security contractor on national television has suffered some unsurprising consequences.

The alleged miscreant, identified only as Carl, appeared on a programme called Complément d'enquête (Further Investigation) to demonstrate how he broke into the network of the French Army and Thales, the information security group, at the start of April.

He was arrested in Paris six days later on 7 April, reportedly following a complaint by Thales. Investigating police reportedly recovered credit card and bank account data from his computer.

During the programme the hacker claimed to be a member of Anonymous. However, during the same programme, Anonymous issued a statement saying making "easy money" through cybercrime is not what it was about.

The Complément d'enquête producers stated they did not co-operate with French authorities in tracking down Carl and only learned of his arrest, like everyone else, when the story was covered by AFP source

Talking of stunts.




More stunts here.

The Planet Strikes Back

A bit of Earth philosophy.

The Planet Strikes Back
14 April 2011
by Michael T. Klare, TomDispatch

In his 2010 book, Eaarth: Making a Life on a Tough New Planet, environmental scholar and activist Bill McKibben writes of a planet so devastated by global warming that it's no longer recognizable as the Earth we once inhabited. This is a planet, he predicts, of "melting poles and dying forests and a heaving, corrosive sea, raked by winds, strafed by storms, scorched by heat." Altered as it is from the world in which human civilization was born and thrived, it needs a new name -- so he gave it that extra "a" in "Eaarth."

The Eaarth that McKibben describes is a victim, a casualty of humankind's unrestrained consumption of resources and its heedless emissions of climate-altering greenhouse gases. True, this Eaarth will cause pain and suffering to humans as sea levels rise and croplands wither, but as he portrays it, it is essentially a victim of human rapaciousness.

With all due respect to McKibben's vision, let me offer another perspective on his (and our) Eaarth: as a powerful actor in its own right and as an avenger, rather than simply victim.

It's not enough to think of Eaarth as an impotent casualty of humanity's predations. It is also a complex organic system with many potent defenses against alien intervention -- defenses it is already wielding to devastating effect when it comes to human societies. And keep this in mind: we are only at the beginning of this process.

To grasp our present situation, however, it's necessary to distinguish between naturally recurring planetary disturbances and the planetary responses to human intervention. Both need a fresh look, so let's start with what Earth has always been capable of before we turn to the responses of Eaarth, the avenger.

Overestimating Ourselves

Our planet is a complex natural system, and like all such systems, it is continually evolving. As that happens -- as continents drift apart, as mountain ranges rise and fall, as climate patterns shift -- earthquakes, volcanoes, tsunamis, typhoons, prolonged droughts, and other natural disturbances recur, even if on an irregular and unpredictable basis.

Our predecessors on the planet were deeply aware of this reality. After all, ancient civilizations were repeatedly shaken, and in some cases shattered, by such disturbances. For example, it is widely believed that the ancient Minoan civilization of the eastern Mediterranean collapsed following a powerful volcanic eruption on the island of Thera (also called Santorini) in the mid-second millennium BCE. Archaeological evidence suggests that many other ancient civilizations were weakened or destroyed by intense earthquake activity. In Apocalypse: Earthquakes, Archaeology, and the Wrath of God, Stanford geophysicist Amos Nur and his co-author Dawn Burgess argue that Troy, Mycenae, ancient Jericho, Tenochtitlan, and the Hittite empire may have fallen in this manner.

Faced with recurring threats of earthquakes and volcanoes, many ancient religions personified the forces of nature as gods and goddesses and called for elaborate human rituals and sacrificial offerings to appease these powerful deities. The ancient Greek sea-god Poseidon (Neptune to the Romans), also called "Earth-Shaker," was thought to cause earthquakes when provoked or angry.

In more recent times, thinkers have tended to scoff at such primitive notions and the gestures that went with them, suggesting instead that science and technology -- the fruits of civilization -- offer more than enough help to allow us to triumph over the Earth's destructive forces. This shift in consciousness has been impressively documented in Clive Ponting's 2007 volume, A New Green History of the World. Quoting from influential thinkers of the post-Medieval world, he shows how Europeans acquired a powerful conviction that humanity should and would rule nature, not the other way around. The seventeenth century French mathematician René Descartes, for example, wrote of employing science and human knowledge so that "we can… render ourselves the masters and possessors of nature."

Don't let the forces of regression dominate the media - support brave, independent reporting today by making a contribution to Truthout.
It’s possible that this growing sense of human control over nature was enhanced by a period of a few hundred years in which there may have been less than the usual number of civilization-threatening natural disturbances. Over those centuries, modern Europe and North America, the two centers of the Industrial Revolution, experienced nothing like the Thera eruption of the Minoan era -- or, for that matter, anything akin to the double whammy of the 9.0 earthquake and 50-foot-high tsunami that struck Japan on March 11th. This relative immunity from such perils was the context within which we created a highly complex, technologically sophisticated civilization that largely takes for granted human supremacy over nature on a seemingly quiescent planet.

But is this assessment accurate? more

Why Fallout Reminisce With Retro Radiation

This post was intended purely as gallows humour, it still is for that matter, but I have included some information on blast shelters and post apocalyptic living. It was the Vault Tec clips that appear down the page that prompted me to look into the history of Vault Tec Industries. I am going to be perfectly honest with you; researching Vault Tec was to say, in the least a tad confusing. There are so many results on Google under the search words vault tec, and the vast majority referring to a game of that name, that in truth I can't discern fact from fiction. So I shall follow sage advice and keep it shut, if only for fear of.























I found the use of footage from Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the context in which it was used, particularly repugnant.

Sales of luxe doomsday bunkers up 1,000%Sales of bomb shelters and doomsday bunkers are surging as Americans fear the disasters and chaos erupting abroad will soon spread to the United States.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) - A devastating earthquake strikes Japan. A massive tsunami kills thousands. Fears of a nuclear meltdown run rampant. Bloodshed and violence escalate in Libya.

And U.S. companies selling doomsday bunkers are seeing sales skyrocket anywhere from 20% to 1,000%.

Northwest Shelter Systems, which offers shelters ranging in price from $200,000 to $20 million, has seen sales surge 70% since the uprisings in the Middle East, with the Japanese earthquake only spurring further interest. In hard numbers, that's 12 shelters already booked when the company normally sells four shelters per year.

"Sales have gone through the roof, to the point where we are having trouble keeping up," said Northwest Shelter Systems owner Kevin Thompson.

UndergroundBombShelter.com, which sells portable shelters, bomb shelters and underground bunkers, has seen inquiries soar 400% since the Japanese earthquake. So far sales of its $9,500 nuclear biological chemical shelter tents are at an all-time high -- with four sold in California last week, compared to about one a month normally.

Hardened Structures said inquiries have shot up about 20% since the earthquake -- particularly for its apocalyptic 2012 shelters, radiation-protection tents, and nuclear, biological and chemical (NBC) air filters.

Vivos, a company that sells rooms in 200-person doomsday bunkers, has received thousands of applications since the massive earthquake in Japan, with reservations spiking nearly 1,000% last week. And people are backing their fear with cash: A reservation requires a minimum deposit of $5,000.

"People are afraid of the earth-changing events and ripple effects of the earthquake, which led to tsunamis, the nuclear meltdown, and which will lead to radiation and health concerns," said Vivos CEO Robert Vicino. "Where it ends, I don't know. Does it lead to economic collapse? A true economic collapse would lead to anarchy, which could lead to 90% of the population being killed off."

The last time people flocked to purchase bunkers in such droves was right before the Y2K scare, according to Stephen O'Leary, an associate professor at University of Southern California and an expert on apocalyptic thinking.

"Tens of millions of people believe in a literal apocalypse, which involves earthquakes, storms, disasters of global proportions and especially disasters related to the Middle East," O'Leary said.

But, he added, "Some believe that this is just a turbulent time and they have to go somewhere to ride it out."

Elan Yadan, a clothing store owner in Los Angeles, is one of the many customers who rushed to find a bunker last week. Yadan secured a spot for his family in a Vivos' shelter, putting down four deposits totaling $20,000 -- $20,000 that had been earmarked for a down payment on a new house.

"I honestly didn't want to do it, but unfortunately it looks like the worst expectations about the world are starting to come true," said Yadan, who had been reading about Mayan predictions of a global meltdown in 2012. "With the things happening this week, it's better to be safe than sorry. And what good is a house if you don't feel safe?"

Yadan will be riding out any apocalypse in Vivos' most ambitious project to date. The company has more than five 200-person shelters in the U.S. that are in various stages of construction, but this facility outshines them all.

The bunker, which is being built under the grasslands of Nebraska, is 137,000 square feet -- bigger than a Wal-Mart -- can house 950 people for up to one year, and can withstand a 50 megaton blast. Once completed, it will boast four levels of individual suites, a medical and dental center, kitchens, bakery, prayer room, computer area, pool tables, pet kennels, a fully stocked wine cellar and a detention center to place anyone who turns violent.

Plus, there will be a fortified 350-foot lookout tower for residents who want to see what's happening in the outside world.

Once Vivos collects deposits from at least half the number of residents needed to fill the bunker, it will take them on a tour of the near-completed site. At that point, they must pay the rest of the $25,000 reservation fee.

That's what Yadan intends to do.

"I'm not a psychic but I'm not a scientist either, so I'd rather err on the side of caution -- and I'd rather survive and live in a bunker for a year than be wiped out," he said. http://cnnmoney.mobi/primary/_aBM9D7-izZuVygcUH

http://www.terravivos.com/

Japanese PM Talks Bollocks - Criminaly Reckless: Video

Update: This is the latest from Arnie Gundesen, Fairewinds Associates, not a comprehensive report as usual but he does discuss a couple of things, the rhubarb syndrome (kept in the dark and fed the proverbial) being implemented by both the US and Japanese Governments regarding the release of accurate data, and the delaying evacuations until it is too late.

Fukushima Accident Severity Level Raised to '7': Gundersen Discusses Lack of US Radiation Monitoring Data from Fairewinds Associates on Vimeo.

- - -

There can't be any other words to describe what Prime Minster Naoto Kan had to say:

[translated] From now on, people should not fall into an extreme self-restraint mood, and they should live life as normal. To consume products from the areas that have been affected is also a way in which to support the area. We should enjoy the use of such products and support the areas that have been affected. I ask you to do this.

You might be forgiven for thinking it has lost something in translation, but I doubt very much that it has.

The exclusion zone around the stricken plant is still woefully inadequate, there must be hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people living in areas that should have been evacuated weeks ago. The government and TEPCO are lying through there teeth about the levels of contamination, and to top it all off, the bloke that is supposed to be leading the country, is saying tuck in, eat the produce, get it down your neck, she'll be right mate.

The Japanese government is trying to calm fears about radiation levels and food safety in the region around the heavily damaged Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power facility, even as it has raised the severity rating of the crisis to the highest possible level. "Radiation is continuing to leak out of the reactors. The situation is not stable at all," says Dr. Michio Kaku, professor of theoretical physics at the City University of New York and the City College of New York. "The slightest disturbance could set off a full-scale meltdown at three nuclear power stations, far beyond what we saw at Chernobyl."


AMY GOODMAN: Japanese Prime Minister Naoto Kan tried Tuesday to calm fears about radiation levels and food safety in the region around the heavily damaged Fukushima nuclear power plant. His comments came after Japan raised the severity rating of its nuclear crisis to the highest possible level, heightening concerns about the magnitude of the disaster.

Speaking at a news conference to mark one month since the massive earthquake and tsunami devastated the northeastern coast of the country, Japanese Prime Minister Kan said produce from the region around the Fukushima plant is safe to eat despite radiation leaks.

PRIME MINISTER NAOTO KAN: [translated] From now on, people should not fall into an extreme self-restraint mood, and they should live life as normal. To consume products from the areas that have been affected is also a way in which to support the area. We should enjoy the use of such products and support the areas that have been affected. I ask you to do this.

AMY GOODMAN: A spokesperson for the International Atomic Energy Agency said the latest food sample data indicates levels of contamination are below the limits set by domestic authorities. Denis Flory, IAEA spokesperson, also said yesterday Japan’s nuclear crisis was not comparable to Chernobyl.

DENIS FLORY: The mechanics of the accidents are totally different. One happened when a reactor was at power, and the reactor containment exploded. In Fukushima, the reactor was stopped, and the containment, even if it may be somehow leaking today—and we do not know—the containment is here. So this is a totally different accident.

AMY GOODMAN: Japanese officials said they raised the severity level to 7 because of the total release of radiation at the Fukushima Daiichi power plant, not because of a sudden deterioration in the situation. The 1986 Chernobyl disaster is the only other nuclear accident rated at the highest level, 7, on a scale developed by the International Atomic Energy Agency to assess nuclear accidents. But officials insist so far the power plant in Japan has released one-tenth as much radioactive material as Chernobyl.

To discuss the situation in Japan, as well as his latest book, we’re joined by Dr. Michio Kaku, a Japanese American physicist, a bestselling author, professor of theoretical physics at City University of New York and the City College of New York. His brand new book is Physics of the Future: How Science Will Change Daily Life by 2100.

Welcome to Democracy Now! It’s great to see you again.

DR. MICHIO KAKU: Glad to be on the show, Amy.

AMY GOODMAN: So, talk about this raising of the category level to 7, on a par with Chernobyl.

DR. MICHIO KAKU: Well, Tokyo Electric has been in denial, trying to downplay the full impact of this nuclear accident. However, there’s a formula, a mathematical formula, by which you can determine what level this accident is. This accident has already released something on the order of 50,000 trillion becquerels of radiation. You do the math. That puts it right smack in the middle of a level 7 nuclear accident. Still, less than Chernobyl. However, radiation is continuing to leak out of the reactors. The situation is not stable at all. So, you’re looking at basically a ticking time bomb. It appears stable, but the slightest disturbance—a secondary earthquake, a pipe break, evacuation of the crew at Fukushima—could set off a full-scale meltdown at three nuclear power stations, far beyond what we saw at Chernobyl. More and video.