Tuesday 27 May 2008

Carter urges 'supine' Europe to break with US over Gaza blockade

Ex-president says EU is colluding in a human rights crime
Former US President Jimmy Carter speaking at the 2008 Hay Festival

Former US President Jimmy Carter speaking at the 2008 Hay Festival. Photograph: Barry Batchelor/PA

Britain and other European governments should break from the US over the international embargo on Gaza, former US president Jimmy Carter told the Guardian yesterday. Carter, visiting the Welsh border town of Hay for the Guardian literary festival, described the EU's position on the Israeli-Palestinian dispute as "supine" and its failure to criticise the Israeli blockade of Gaza as "embarrassing".

Referring to the possibility of Europe breaking with the US in an interview with the Guardian, he said: "Why not? They're not our vassals. They occupy an equal position with the US."

The blockade on Hamas-ruled Gaza, imposed by the US, EU, UN and Russia - the so-called Quartet - after the organisation's election victory in 2006, was "one of the greatest human rights crimes on Earth," since it meant the "imprisonment of 1.6 million people, 1 million of whom are refugees". "Most families in Gaza are eating only one meal per day. To see Europeans going along with this is embarrassing," Carter said.

He called on the EU to reassess its stance if Hamas agreed to a ceasefire in Gaza. "Let the Europeans lift the embargo and say we will protect the rights of Palestinians in Gaza, and even send observers to Rafah gate [Gaza's crossing into Egypt] to ensure the Palestinians don't violate it."

Although it is 27 years since he left the White House, Carter recently met Hamas leaders in Damascus. He declared a breakthrough in persuading the organisation to offer a Gaza ceasefire and a halt to Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel if Israel stopped its air and ground strikes on the territory.

Carter described western governments' self-imposed ban on talking to Hamas as unrealistic and said everyone knew Israel was negotiating with the organisation through an Egyptian mediator, Omar Suleiman. Suleiman took the Hamas ceasefire offer to Jerusalem last week.

Israel was still hesitating over the ceasefire, Carter confirmed yesterday. "I talked to Mr Suleiman the day before yesterday. I hope the Israelis will accept," he said.

While being scrupulously polite to the Palestinian Authority president, Mahmoud Abbas, and prime minister, Salam Fayyad, who represent the Fatah movement, he was scathing about their exclusion of Hamas. He described the Fatah-only government as a "subterfuge" aimed at getting round Hamas's election victory two years ago. "The top opinion pollster in Ramallah told me the other day that opinion on the West Bank is shifting to Hamas, because people believe Fatah has sold out to Israel and the US," he said.

Carter said the Quartet's policy of not talking to Hamas unless it recognised Israel and fulfilled two other conditions had been drafted by Elliot Abrams, an official in the national security council at the White House. He called Abrams "a very militant supporter of Israel". The ex-president, whose election-monitoring Carter Centre had just certified Hamas's election victory as free and fair, addressed the Quartet for 12 minutes at its session in London in 2006. He urged it to talk to Hamas, which had offered to form a unity government with Fatah, the losers.

"The Quartet's final document had been drafted in Washington in advance, and not a line was changed," he said.

Earlier, Carter, told Sky News that Hillary Clinton should abandon her battle to become Democratic presidential candidate after the last round of primaries in early June. Like many superdelegates, he has yet to declare his support for either Clinton or Barack Obama, but he suggested the outcome of the race was a foregone conclusion. "I think that a lot of us superdelegates will make a decision ... quite rapidly, after the final primary on June 3," he said. "I think at that point it will be time for her to give it up."

Last night, before a packed crowd at Hay, Carter spoke of his "horror" at America's involvement in torturing prisoners, saying he wanted the next US president to promise never to do so again.

He left an intriguing hint that George Bush might even face prosecution on war crimes charges once he left office.

When pressed by Philippe Sands QC on Bush's recent admission that he had authorised interrogation procedures widely seen as amounting to torture, Carter replied that he was sure Bush would be able to live a peaceful, "productive life - in our country".

Sands, an international legal expert, said afterwards that he understood that to be "clear confirmation" that while Bush would face no challenge in his own country, "what happened outside the country was another matter entirely".

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News and Media Limited 2008 Full story/Permalink

MPs to Voters : "We Are Worth More Than You"

MPs to Voters : "We Are Worth More Than You"

The recommendation that MPs get a tax-free £23,000 lump sum payment is a piss-take. This is equivalent to an extra £40,000 on their salary, which together with the pay rise they want will bring their package up to £115,000 plus gold-plated non-contributory index-linked pensions. Their reasoning is that the expense fiddles have become too embarrassing and they realise they will no longer be able to get away with them now they are out in the open.Effectively they want the housing allowance fiddle to continue without the hassle of having to justify the expenses. No doubt some will say we have to pay them six-figure salaries if we want to attract candidates. Guido has never bought into that line of argument. The fact is that the supply of wannabee MPs is massive, hundreds apply for selection for safe seats when they become available. If there was a lack of wannabee greasy-pole climbers this would be plausible, there is however an abundant over-supply of those willing to join the parasitical political class. The reason? It is a cushy desirable, overly prestigious, over-paid job. Plenty of people do much harder, no prestige, lower paid jobs. MPs have a sense of self entitlement way out of line with their real worth.

Average earnings at £23,244 are less than a quarter what MPs propose to pay themselves. Most people can apparently run a household on a quarter of what MPs claim to need to run two households - which suggests they are overpaid for what need compared to the rest of us. They are supposed to be public servants, yet too many of them are like the husband and wife expense fiddling team Mr & Mrs Keen-on-expenses. In it to maximise their profit at the public's expense...

We have serving soldiers in war zones on the poverty line, their starting rate of tax just doubled. MPs award themselves £400 a month for groceries when they are in their cosy Westminster homes, those same MPs voted for soldiers to have to pay for their own rations. Children in state schools are fed on 50p per diem, MPs claim £20 per diem. MPs get their snouts deep into the public trough way ahead of more deserving children and soldiers. So much for politicians putting the public interest first... Full story/Permalink

Friday 23 May 2008

US 'Democracy': The choice...

Full story/Permalink

Thursday 22 May 2008

‘Perhaps 60% of today’s oil price is pure speculation’





The price of crude oil today is not made according to any traditional relation of supply to demand. It’s controlled by an elaborate financial market system as well as by the four major Anglo-American oil companies. As much as 60% of today’s crude oil price is pure speculation driven by large trader banks and hedge funds. It has nothing to do with the convenient myths of Peak Oil. It has to do with control of oil and its price. How?

First, the crucial role of the international oil exchanges in London and New York is crucial to the game. Nymex in New York and the ICE Futures in London today control global benchmark oil prices which in turn set most of the freely traded oil cargo. They do so via oil futures contracts on two grades of crude oil—West Texas Intermediate and North Sea Brent.

A third rather new oil exchange, the Dubai Mercantile Exchange (DME), trading Dubai crude, is more or less a daughter of Nymex, with Nymex President, James Newsome, sitting on the board of DME and most key personnel British or American citizens.

Brent is used in spot and long-term contracts to value as much of crude oil produced in global oil markets each day. The Brent price is published by a private oil industry publication, Platt’s. Major oil producers including Russia and Nigeria use Brent as a benchmark for pricing the crude they produce. Brent is a key crude blend for the European market and, to some extent, for Asia.

WTI has historically been more of a US crude oil basket. Not only is it used as the basis for US-traded oil futures, but it's also a key benchmark for US production.



‘The tail that wags the dog’

All this is well and official. But how today’s oil prices are really determined is done by a process so opaque only a handful of major oil trading banks such as Goldman Sachs or Morgan Stanley have any idea who is buying and who selling oil futures or derivative contracts that set physical oil prices in this strange new world of “paper oil.”

With the development of unregulated international derivatives trading in oil futures over the past decade or more, the way has opened for the present speculative bubble in oil prices.

Since the advent of oil futures trading and the two major London and New York oil futures contracts, control of oil prices has left OPEC and gone to Wall Street. It is a classic case of the “tail that wags the dog.”

A June 2006 US Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations report on “The Role of Market Speculation in rising oil and gas prices,” noted, “…there is substantial evidence supporting the conclusion that the large amount of speculation in the current market has significantly increased prices.”

What the Senate committee staff documented in the report was a gaping loophole in US Government regulation of oil derivatives trading so huge a herd of elephants could walk through it. That seems precisely what they have been doing in ramping oil prices through the roof in recent months.

The Senate report was ignored in the media and in the Congress.

The report pointed out that the Commodity Futures Trading Trading Commission, a financial futures regulator, had been mandated by Congress to ensure that prices on the futures market reflect the laws of supply and demand rather than manipulative practices or excessive speculation. The US Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) states, “Excessive speculation in any commodity under contracts of sale of such commodity for future delivery . . . causing sudden or unreasonable fluctuations or unwarranted changes in the price of such commodity, is an undue and unnecessary burden on interstate commerce in such commodity.”

Further, the CEA directs the CFTC to establish such trading limits “as the Commission finds are necessary to diminish, eliminate, or prevent such burden.” Where is the CFTC now that we need such limits?

They seem to have deliberately walked away from their mandated oversight responsibilities in the world’s most important traded commodity, oil.

Enron has the last laugh…

As that US Senate report noted:

Until recently, US energy futures were traded exclusively on regulated exchanges within the United States, like the NYMEX, which are subject to extensive oversight by the CFTC, including ongoing monitoring to detect and prevent price manipulation or fraud. In recent years, however, there has been a tremendous growth in the trading of contracts that look and are structured just like futures contracts, but which are traded on unregulated OTC electronic markets. Because of their similarity to futures contracts they are often called “futures look-alikes.”

The only practical difference between futures look-alike contracts and futures contracts is that the look-alikes are traded in unregulated markets whereas futures are traded on regulated exchanges. The trading of energy commodities by large firms on OTC electronic exchanges was exempted from CFTC oversight by a provision inserted at the behest of Enron and other large energy traders into the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 in the waning hours of the 106th Congress.

The impact on market oversight has been substantial. NYMEX traders, for example, are required to keep records of all trades and report large trades to the CFTC. These Large Trader Reports, together with daily trading data providing price and volume information, are the CFTC’s primary tools to gauge the extent of speculation in the markets and to detect, prevent, and prosecute price manipulation. CFTC Chairman Reuben Jeffrey recently stated: “The Commission’s Large Trader information system is one of the cornerstones of our surveillance program and enables detection of concentrated and coordinated positions that might be used by one or more traders to attempt manipulation.”

In contrast to trades conducted on the NYMEX, traders on unregulated OTC electronic exchanges are not required to keep records or file Large Trader Reports with the CFTC, and these trades are exempt from routine CFTC oversight. In contrast to trades conducted on regulated futures exchanges, there is no limit on the number of contracts a speculator may hold on an unregulated OTC electronic exchange, no monitoring of trading by the exchange itself, and no reporting of the amount of outstanding contracts (“open interest”) at the end of each day.” 1

Then, apparently to make sure the way was opened really wide to potential market oil price manipulation, in January 2006, the Bush Administration’s CFTC permitted the Intercontinental Exchange (ICE), the leading operator of electronic energy exchanges, to use its trading terminals in the United States for the trading of US crude oil futures on the ICE futures exchange in London – called “ICE Futures.”

Previously, the ICE Futures exchange in London had traded only in European energy commodities – Brent crude oil and United Kingdom natural gas. As a United Kingdom futures market, the ICE Futures exchange is regulated solely by the UK Financial Services Authority. In 1999, the London exchange obtained the CFTC’s permission to install computer terminals in the United States to permit traders in New York and other US cities to trade European energy commodities through the ICE exchange.

The CFTC opens the door

Then, in January 2006, ICE Futures in London began trading a futures contract for

West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude oil, a type of crude oil that is produced and delivered in

the United States. ICE Futures also notified the CFTC that it would be permitting traders in the United States to use ICE terminals in the United States to trade its new WTI contract on the ICE Futures London exchange. ICE Futures as well allowed traders in the United States to trade US gasoline and heating oil futures on the ICE Futures exchange in London.

Despite the use by US traders of trading terminals within the United States to trade US oil, gasoline, and heating oil futures contracts, the CFTC has until today refused to assert any jurisdiction over the trading of these contracts.


Persons within the United States seeking to trade key US energy commodities – US crude oil, gasoline, and heating oil futures – are able to avoid all US market oversight or reporting requirements by routing their trades through the ICE Futures exchange in London instead of the NYMEX in New York.

Is that not elegant? The US Government energy futures regulator, CFTC opened the way to the present unregulated and highly opaque oil futures speculation. It may just be coincidence that the present CEO of NYMEX, James Newsome, who also sits on the Dubai Exchange, is a former chairman of the US CFTC. In Washington doors revolve quite smoothly between private and public posts.

A glance at the price for Brent and WTI futures prices since January 2006 indicates the remarkable correlation between skyrocketing oil prices and the unregulated trade in ICE oil futures in US markets. Keep in mind that ICE Futures in London is owned and controlled by a USA company based in Atlanta Georgia.

In January 2006 when the CFTC allowed the ICE Futures the gaping exception, oil prices were trading in the range of $59-60 a barrel. Today some two years later we see prices tapping $120 and trend upwards. This is not an OPEC problem, it is a US Government regulatory problem of malign neglect.

By not requiring the ICE to file daily reports of large trades of energy commodities, it is not able to detect and deter price manipulation. As the Senate report noted, “The CFTC's ability to detect and deter energy price manipulation is suffering from critical information gaps, because traders on OTC electronic exchanges and the London ICE Futures are currently exempt from CFTC reporting requirements. Large trader reporting is also essential to analyze the effect of speculation on energy prices.”

The report added, “ICE's filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission and other evidence indicate that its over-the-counter electronic exchange performs a price discovery function -- and thereby affects US energy prices -- in the cash market for the energy commodities traded on that exchange.”

Hedge Funds and Banks driving oil prices

In the most recent sustained run-up in energy prices, large financial institutions, hedge funds, pension funds, and other investors have been pouring billions of dollars into the energy commodities markets to try to take advantage of price changes or hedge against them. Most of this additional investment has not come from producers or consumers of these commodities, but from speculators seeking to take advantage of these price changes. The CFTC defines a speculator as a person who “does not produce or use the commodity, but risks his or her own capital trading futures in that commodity in hopes of making a profit on price changes.”

The large purchases of crude oil futures contracts by speculators have, in effect, created an

additional demand for oil, driving up the price of oil for future delivery in the same manner that additional demand for contracts for the delivery of a physical barrel today drives up the price for oil on the spot market. As far as the market is concerned, the demand for a barrel of oil that results from the purchase of a futures contract by a speculator is just as real as the demand for a barrel that results from the purchase of a futures contract by a refiner or other user of petroleum.

Perhaps 60% of oil prices today pure speculation

Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley today are the two leading energy trading firms in the United States. Citigroup and JP Morgan Chase are major players and fund numerous hedge funds as well who speculate.

In June 2006, oil traded in futures markets at some $60 a barrel and the Senate investigation estimated that some $25 of that was due to pure financial speculation. One analyst estimated in August 2005 that US oil inventory levels suggested WTI crude prices should be around $25 a barrel, and not $60.

That would mean today that at least $50 to $60 or more of today’s $115 a barrel price is due to pure hedge fund and financial institution speculation. However, given the unchanged equilibrium in global oil supply and demand over recent months amid the explosive rise in oil futures prices traded on Nymex and ICE exchanges in New York and London it is more likely that as much as 60% of the today oil price is pure speculation. No one knows officially except the tiny handful of energy trading banks in New York and London and they certainly aren’t talking.

By purchasing large numbers of futures contracts, and thereby pushing up futures

prices to even higher levels than current prices, speculators have provided a financial incentive for oil companies to buy even more oil and place it in storage. A refiner will purchase extra oil today, even if it costs $115 per barrel, if the futures price is even higher.

As a result, over the past two years crude oil inventories have been steadily growing, resulting in US crude oil inventories that are now higher than at any time in the previous eight years. The large influx of speculative investment into oil futures has led to a situation where we have both high supplies of crude oil and high crude oil prices.

Compelling evidence also suggests that the oft-cited geopolitical, economic, and natural factors do not explain the recent rise in energy prices can be seen in the actual data on crude oil supply and demand. Although demand has significantly increased over the past few years, so have supplies.

Over the past couple of years global crude oil production has increased along with the increases in demand; in fact, during this period global supplies have exceeded demand, according to the US Department of Energy. The US Department of Energy’s Energy Information Administration (EIA) recently forecast that in the next few years global surplus production capacity will continue to grow to between 3 and 5 million barrels per day by 2010, thereby “substantially thickening the surplus capacity cushion.”

Dollar and oil link

A common speculation strategy amid a declining USA economy and a falling US dollar is for speculators and ordinary investment funds desperate for more profitable investments amid the US securitization disaster, to take futures positions selling the dollar “short” and oil “long.”

For huge US or EU pension funds or banks desperate to get profits following the collapse in earnings since August 2007 and the US real estate crisis, oil is one of the best ways to get huge speculative gains. The backdrop that supports the current oil price bubble is continued unrest in the Middle East, in Sudan, in Venezuela and Pakistan and firm oil demand in China and most of the world outside the US. Speculators trade on rumor, not fact.

In turn, once major oil companies and refiners in North America and EU countries begin to hoard oil, supplies appear even tighter lending background support to present prices.

Because the over-the-counter (OTC) and London ICE Futures energy markets are unregulated, there are no precise or reliable figures as to the total dollar value of recent spending on investments in energy commodities, but the estimates are consistently in the range of tens of billions of dollars.

The increased speculative interest in commodities is also seen in the increasing popularity of commodity index funds, which are funds whose price is tied to the price of a basket of various commodity futures. Goldman Sachs estimates that pension funds and mutual funds have invested a total of approximately $85 billion in commodity index funds, and that investments in its own index, the Goldman Sachs Commodity Index (GSCI), has tripled over the past few years. Notable is the fact that the US Treasury Secretary, Henry Paulson, is former Chairman of Goldman Sachs.

The hoax of Peak Oil—namely the argument that the oil production has hit the point where more than half all reserves have been used and the world is on the downslope of oil at cheap price and abundant quantity—has enabled this costly fraud to continue since the invasion of Iraq in 2003 with the help of key banks, oil traders and big oil majors. Washington is trying to shift blame, as always, to Arab OPEC producers. The problem is not a lack of crude oil supply. In fact the world is in over-supply now. Yet the price climbs relentlessly higher. Why? The answer lies in what are clearly deliberate US government policies that permit the unbridled oil price manipulations.

World Oil Demand Flat, Prices Boom…

The chief market strategist for one of the world’s leading oil industry banks, David Kelly, of J.P. Morgan Funds, recently admitted something telling to the Washington Post, “One of the things I think is very important to realize is that the growth in the world oil consumption is not that strong."

One of the stories used to support the oil futures speculators is the allegation that China’s oil import thirst is exploding out of control, driving shortages in the supply-demand equilibrium. The facts do not support the China demand thesis however.

The US Government’s Energy Information Administration (EIA) in its most recent monthly Short Term Energy Outlook report, concluded that US oil demand is expected to decline by 190,000 b/d in 2008. That is mainly owing to the deepening economic recession. Chinese consumption, the EIA says, far from exploding, is expected to rise this year by only 400,000 barrels a day. That is hardly the "surging oil demand" blamed on China in the media. Last year China imported 3.2 million barrels per day, and its estimated usage was around 7 million b/d total. The US, by contrast, consumes around 20.7 million b/d.

That means the key oil consuming nation, the USA, is experiencing a significant drop in demand. China, which consumes only a third of the oil the US does, will see a minor rise in import demand compared with the total daily world oil output of some 84 million barrels, less than half of a percent of the total demand.

The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) has its 2008 global oil demand growth forecast unchanged at 1.2 mm bpd, as slowing economic growth in the industrialised world is offset by slightly growing consumption in developing nations. OPEC predicts global oil demand in 2008 will average 87 million bpd -- largely unchanged from its previous estimate. Demand from China, the Middle East, India, and Latin America -- is forecast to be stronger but the EU and North American demand will be lower.

So the world’s largest oil consumer faces a sharp decline in consumption, a decline that will worsen as the housing and related economic effects of the US securitization crisis in finance de-leverages. The price in normal open or transparent markets would presumably be falling not rising. No supply crisis justifies the way the world's oil is being priced today.

Big new oil fields coming online

Not only is there no supply crisis to justify such a price bubble. There are several giant new oil fields due to begin production over the course of 2008 to further add to supply.

The world’s single largest oil producer, Saudi Arabia is finalizing plans to boost drilling activity by a third and increase investments by 40 %. Saudi Aramco's plan, which runs from 2009 to 2013, is expected to be approved by the company's board and the Oil Ministry this month. The Kingdom is in the midst of a $ 50 billion oil production expansion plan to meet growing demand in Asia and other emerging markets. The Kingdom is expected to boost its pumping capacity to a total of 12.5 mm bpd by next year, up about 11 % from current capacity of 11.3 mm bpd.

In April this year Saudi Arabia's Khursaniyah oilfield began pumping and will soon add another 500,000 bpd to world oil supply of high grade Arabian Light crude. As well, another Saudi expansion project, the Khurais oilfield development, is the largest of Saudi Aramco projects that will boost the production capacity of Saudi oilfields from 11.3 million bpd to 12.5 million bpd by 2009. Khurais is planned to add another 1.2 million bpd of high-quality Arabian light crude to Saudi Arabia's export capacity.

Brazil’s Petrobras is in the early phase of exploiting what it estimates are newly confirmed oil reserves offshore in its Tupi field that could be as great or greater than the North Sea. Petrobras, says the new ultra-deep Tupi field could hold as much as 8 billion barrels of recoverable light crude. When online in a few years it is expected to put Brazil among the world's "top 10" oil producers, between those of Nigeria and those of Venezuela.

In the United States, aside from rumors that the big oil companies have been deliberately sitting on vast new reserves in Alaska for fear that the prices of recent years would plunge on over-supply, the US Geological Survey (USGS) recently issued a report that confirmed major new oil reserves in an area called the Bakken, which stretches across North Dakota, Montana and south-eastern Saskatchewan. The USGS estimates up to 3.65 billion barrels of oil in the Bakken.

These are just several confirmations of large new oil reserves to be exploited. Iraq, where the Anglo-American Big Four oil majors are salivating to get their hands on the unexplored fields, is believed to hold oil reserves second only to Saudi Arabia. Much of the world has yet to be explored for oil. At prices above $60 a barrel huge new potentials become economic. The major problem faced by Big Oil is not finding replacement oil but keeping the lid on world oil finds in order to maintain present exorbitant prices. Here they have some help from Wall Street banks and the two major oil trade exchanges—NYMEX and London-Atlanta’s ICE and ICE Futures.

Then why do prices still rise?

There is growing evidence that the recent speculative bubble in oil which has gone asymptotic since January is about to pop.

Late last month in Dallas Texas, according to one participant, the American Association of Petroleum Geologists held its annual conference where all the major oil executives and geologists were present. According to one participant, knowledgeable oil industry CEOs reached the consensus that "oil prices will likely soon drop dramatically and the long-term price increases will be in natural gas."

Just a few days earlier, Lehman Brothers, a Wall Street investment bank had said that the current oil price bubble was coming to an end. Michael Waldron, the bank's chief oil strategist, was quoted in Britain's Daily Telegraph on Apr. 24 saying, "Oil supply is outpacing demand growth. Inventories have been building since the beginning of the year.”

In the US, stockpiles of oil climbed by almost 12 million barrels in April according to the May 7 EIA monthly report on inventory, up by nearly 33 million barrels since January. At the same time, MasterCard's May 7 US gasoline report showed that gas demand has fallen by 5.8%. And refiners are reducing their refining rates dramatically to adjust to the falling gasoline demand. They are now running at 85% of capacity, down from 89% a year ago, in a season when production is normally 95%. The refiners today are clearly trying to draw down gasoline inventories to bid gasoline prices up. ‘It’s the economy, stupid,’ to paraphrase Bill Clinton’s infamous 1992 election quip to daddy Bush. It’s called economic recession.

The May 8 report from Oil Movements, a British company that tracks oil shipments worldwide, shows that oil in transit on the high seas is also quite strong. Almost every category of shipment is running higher than it was a year ago. The report notes that, "In the West, a big share of any oil stock building done this year has happened offshore, out of sight." Some industry insiders say the global oil industry from the activities and stocks of the Big Four to the true state of tanker and storage and liftings, is the most secretive industry in the world with the possible exception of the narcotics trade.

Goldman Sachs again in the middle

The oil price today, unlike twenty years ago, is determined behind closed doors in the trading rooms of giant financial institutions like Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup, Deutsche Bank or UBS. The key exchange in the game is the London ICE Futures Exchange (formerly the International Petroleum Exchange). ICE Futures is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Atlanta Georgia International Commodities Exchange. ICE in Atlanta was founded in part by Goldman Sachs which also happens to run the world’s most widely used commodity price index, the GSCI, which is over-weighted to oil prices.

As I noted in my earlier article, (‘Perhaps 60% of today’s oil price is pure speculation’), ICE was focus of a recent congressional investigation. It was named both in the Senate's Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations' June 27, 2006, Staff Report and in the House Committee on Energy & Commerce's hearing in December 2007 which looked into unregulated trading in energy futures. Both studies concluded that energy prices' climb to $128 and perhaps beyond is driven by billions of dollars' worth of oil and natural gas futures contracts being placed on the ICE. Through a convenient regulation exception granted by the Bush Administration in January 2006, the ICE Futures trading of US energy futures is not regulated by the Commodities Futures Trading Commission, even though the ICE Futures US oil contracts are traded in ICE affiliates in the USA. And at Enron’s request, the CFTC exempted the Over-the-Counter oil futures trades in 2000.

So it is no surprise to see in a May 6 report from Reuters that Goldman Sachs announces oil could in fact be on the verge of another "super spike," possibly taking oil as high as $200 a barrel within the next six to 24 months. That headline, "$200 a barrel!" became the major news story on oil for the next two days. How many gullible lemmings followed behind with their money bets?

Arjun Murti, Goldman Sachs' energy strategist, blamed what he called "blistering" (sic) demand from China and the Middle East, combined with his assertion that the Middle East is nearing its maximum ability to produce more oil. Peak Oil mythology again helps Wall Street. The degree of unfounded hype reminds of the kind of self-serving Wall Street hype in 1999-2000 around dot.com stocks or Enron.

In 2001 just before the dot.com crash in the NASDAQ, some Wall Street firms were pushing sale to the gullible public of stocks that their companies were quietly dumping. Or they were pushing dubious stocks for companies where their affiliated banks had a financial interest. In short as later came out in Congressional investigations, companies with a vested interest in a certain financial outcome used the media to line their pockets and that of their companies, leaving the public investor holding the bag. It would be interesting for Congress to subpoena the records of the futures positions of Goldman Sachs and a handful of other major energy futures players to see if they are invested to gain from a further rise in oil to $200 or not.

Margin rules feed the frenzy

Another added turbo-charger to present speculation in oil prices is the margin rule governing what percent of cash a buyer of a futures contract in oil has to put up to bet on a rising oil price (or falling for that matter). The current NYMEX regulation allows a speculator to put up only 6% of the total value of his oil futures contract. That means a risk-taking hedge fund or bank can buy oil futures with a leverage of 16 to 1.

We are hit with an endless series of plausible arguments for the high price of oil: A "terrorism risk premium;" “blistering” rise in demand of China and India; unrest in the Nigerian oil region; oil pipelines' blown up in Iraq; possible war with Iran…And above all the hype about Peak Oil. Oil speculator T. Boone Pickens has reportedly raked in a huge profit on oil futures and argues, conveniently that the world is on the cusp of Peak Oil. So does the Houston investment banker and friend of Dick Cheney, Matt Simmons.

As the June 2006 US Senate report, The Role of Market Speculation in Rising Oil and Gas Prices, noted, "There's a few hedge fund managers out there who are masters at knowing how to exploit the peak oil theories and hot buttons of supply and demand, and by making bold predictions of shocking price advancements to come, they only add more fuel to the bullish fire in a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy."

Will a Democratic Congress act to change the carefully crafted opaque oil futures markets in an election year and risk bursting the bubble? On May 12 House Energy & Commerce Committee stated it will look at this issue into June. The world will be watching.

F. William Engdahl is an Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) and author of A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order. He may be contacted at info@engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net


1 United States Senate Premanent Subcommittee on Investigations, 109th Congress 2nd Session, The Role of Market speculation in Rising Oil and Gas Prices: A Need to Put the Cop Back on the Beat; Staff Report, prepared by the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, United States Senate, Washington D.C., June 27, 2006. p. 3.

Full story/Permalink

Pharmaceutical chief walks out on drug trial interview

(source)The chief executive of a pharmaceutical giant refused to continue a radio interview yesterday after he was repeatedly pressed on publishing data from drug trials.

Dr Jean-Pierre Garnier, the chief executive of GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), defended the transparency of the company when he was probed about the release of information on the antidepressant Seroxat by presenter James Naughtie on BBC Radio Four's Today programme.

However, as Mr Naughtie tried to seek further answers Dr Garnier terminated the discussion.

Seroxat is the most frequently prescribed antidepressant in the UK, but there have been complaints that it triggers suicidal feelings in some patients.

In May 2003, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), which ensures the safety of drugs in the UK, received data from GSK confirming that patients under 18 had a higher risk of suicidal behaviour if they were treated with Seroxat compared with a placebo.

Within weeks, the MHRA advised doctors not to prescribe the drug to under-18s and later launched an investigation.

Two months ago the agency said it remained concerned that GSK failed to raise the alarm earlier over its side-effects.

Yesterday, Mr Naughtie raised the issue after interviewing Dr Garnier about a pandemic bird flu vaccine.

Following a small series of exchanges, Mr Naughtie continued to press him about the openness of the company, whereupon Dr Garnier said: "Sir. I am not interested in answering this question. We have dealt with this subject. Thank you very much for taking the time to hear about pandemic and I wish you the best. Goodbye."

Yesterday, GSK said it did not wish to comment on the interview.

Full story/Permalink

Sunday 18 May 2008

MUTO a wall-painted animation by BLU


MUTO a wall-painted animation by BLU from blu on Vimeo. Full story/Permalink

Banks eye £90bn in mortgage asset swaps

The UK’s biggest banks are preparing to swap £80bn-£90bn of mortgage-backed assets for Treasury bills with the Bank of England – nearly twice as much as the central bank originally envisaged when it unveiled its scheme to unblock the frozen bank-lending market.

According to debt market sources, the banks have approached credit rating agencies about how to structure deals that will receive the triple A rating required for securities that lenders want to swap for Treasury bills that can then be used to raise cash. The move comes amid signs that lending in the interbank market is becoming particularly tight for banks that cannot post collateral to ensure their debt will be repaid.

When it set up the special liquidity scheme three weeks ago, the Bank set the level of funds available at £50bn after discussions with banks about the extent to which they are having difficulty raising cash for unsecured borrowing. However, it hinted it could increase that amount if needed.

It is not yet clear whether lenders intend to swap all their securitised mortgages for bills. But bond market participants believe that banks are looking to repackage £80bn-£90bn of mortgages into securities which will be eligible to swap under the Bank’s scheme.

The ratings agencies – Standard & Poor’s, Moody’s and Fitch – have declined to comment, saying that they do not disclose deals until they are finalised. But in recent weeks, HBOS has received triple A credit ratings for most of a £9.04bn deal while Alliance & Leicester has received similar ratings for most of a £10.37bn securitisation.

The Bank unveiled the liquidity scheme in April after it became apparent that banks were too nervous about each other’s financial position to lend cash without collateral. That has driven the interest rate for unsecured bank borrowing, known as Libor, up nearly a full percentage point above the Bank’s current 5 per cent rate. However, those with top-quality collateral can borrow much more cheaply.

There has been speculation that lenders would be reluctant to use the Bank’s liquidity facility because it has high fees attached and because of concerns that users will be marked as those who cannot borrow elsewhere. But the Bank has been encouraging all lenders to use its facility so that no one lender is singled out.

Separately, the European Central Bank on Thursday voiced its “high concern” at growing evidence that banks are exploiting its efforts to unblock the frozen funding markets by using its liquidity scheme to offload more risky assets than it envisaged.

Yves Mersch, a governing council member, said the ECB was now “looking very hard at whether there is not a specific deterioration of collateral” that the central bank is accepting in return for funds.

He was speaking amid signs of some banks creating low-rated assets specifically so they can be traded for Treasuries at the ECB.

However, this week, Glitnir, the Icelandic bank, is in the process of clearing the use of a €890m (£706m) collateralised loan obligation (CLO) for funding at the ECB. Similarly, Lehman Brothers recently structured a €1.1bn CLO, which it is expected to use for ECB funding.

Full story/Permalink

Crisis in Food Prices Threatens Worldwide Starvation: Is it Genocide?



Rising worldwide food prices are resulting in shortages, riots and protests, promises by governments to expand food aid, expressions of concern by international bodies like the World Bank, and stress on household budgets even in developed countries like the U.S. Did this just “happen” or is there a plan?

Plenty of commentators think they have it figured out and blame such factors as greater demand for high-end protein menus by the increasingly upscale populations of China and India , weather factors relating to global warming such as drought in Australia , and the diversion of animal feed crops such as corn and soybeans to ethanol production. L.H. Teslik of the Council on Foreign Relations speaks of “bubbling inflation and rising oil prices.”

There is also the question of whether a role is being played by commodity speculation. The idea is that faced with the global financial crisis and the collapse of mortgage-based securities, investors are flocking to resource-based tangibles as a hedge against recession and the decline of the U.S. dollar. Hence gold is at record levels with oil keeping the same pace. How else to explain, for instance, the doubling of the price of rice in Asian markets in less than two months? Standard Chartered Bank food commodities analyst Abah Ofon says, “Fund money flowing into agriculture has boosted prices. It’s fashionable. This is the year of agricultural commodities.”

But the idea that speculation is at fault is disputed by no less than New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, one of the world’s leading monetary economists, who writes:

“My problem with the speculative stories is that they all depend on something that holds production — or at least potential production — off the market. The key point is that the spot price equalizes the demand and supply of a commodity; speculation can drive up the futures price, but the spot price will only follow if the higher futures prices somehow reduce the quantity available for final consumers. The usual channel for this is an increase in inventories, as investors hoard the stuff in expectation of a higher price down the road. If this doesn’t happen — if the spot price doesn’t follow the futures price — then futures will presumably come down, as it turns out that buying futures produces losses.”

Solid data in this area is hard to come by. Probably the chief common denominator among commentators, especially those advocating a supply and demand or global warming perspective, is that they have so little solid information. Thus it is refreshing to find a study that contains meaningful statistics such as one appearing on the Executive Intelligence Report website entitled, “To Defeat Famine: Kill the WTO” by Marcia Merry Baker. One particularly telling item is that after global food supplies were boosted through the Green Revolution and related programs lasting into the 1970s, more recently, world food production has actually declined.

Baker writes, “World per-capita output of grains of all kinds (rice, wheat, corn, and others) has been falling for twenty years. Whereas in 1986 it was 338 kilograms per person, it went down to 303 by 2006. This decline in no way has been made up for by increasing amounts of other staple foodstuffs—tubers, legumes, or oil crops, which likewise are in insufficient supply.”

Further, “In twelve of the last twenty years, less grain has been produced than utilized that year (for all purposes—direct human consumption, livestock feed, industrial and energy uses, and reserves). Accordingly, the amount of carryover stocks of grain from year to year has been declining to extreme danger levels. The diversion of food crops into biofuels is the nail in the coffin. The latest estimate is that worldwide stockpiles of cereal crops of all kinds are expected to fall to a twenty-five-year low of 405 million tons in 2008. That is down twenty-one million tons, or five percent, from their already reduced level in 2007.”

Further, an increasing proportion of food crops is being produced by large multinational corporations whose power and reach has ballooned under the World Trade Organization and spin-offs like NAFTA even as small family-run farms have lost the protection of parity pricing and been priced out of business. But the data suggest that a) the output of agribusiness has failed to match the older, more diversified systems of farming; and b) as nations lose their ability to feed themselves, agricultural pricing becomes more subject to monopolization.

The loss of agricultural self-sufficiency has been exacerbated in much of the developing world by International Monetary Fund lending policies. Under the “ Washington consensus,” entire nations have been forced to give up agricultural self-sufficiency and convert farmland to export commodities while displaced rural populations migrate to the slums of large cities such as Lagos , Nigeria . Today those populations are the ones most grievously threatened with starvation.

Then what is really going on?

First of all, let’s get rid of the idea that we are seeing “impersonal market forces” at work. “Supply and demand” is not a “law”—it’s a policy. If a seller has an article in demand it’s a matter of choice whether he charges a premium when he offers it for sale. If he’s a decent, honest soul, maybe he won’t necessarily charge all the market will bear, particularly if the item is a necessity of life, such as food. Or maybe there will be a responsible public authority around that will prohibit price gouging or else subsidize the purchaser, as often happens in credit markets. Of course public spirited action like this is itself a declining commodity in a world afflicted with the kind of market fundamentalism and rampant privatization that has been the rage since the 1980s Reagan Revolution.

Second, let’s ask the question which any competent investigator should pose when starting out on the trail of a possible crime: “Who benefits?” Indeed we may be speaking of a crime on the scale of genocide if the events in question are a) avoidable; in which case the crime is one of negligent homicide; or b) planned, where we obviously have a conspiracy among the contributing parties.

Those who benefit are obviously the ones who finance agricultural operations, those who are charging monopoly prices for the commodities in demand, the various middlemen who bring the products to market after they leave the farm, and the owners or mortgagees of the land, retail space, and other assets required to conduct the production/consumption cycle.

In other words, it’s the financial elite of the world who have gained complete control of the most basic necessity of life. This includes not only the international financiers who provide capitalization, including the leveraging of trading in commodity futures up to the 97 percent level, but even organized crime groups which the U.S. Department of Justice says have penetrated world materials markets.

And is all this part of a long-term strategy by international finance to starve much of the world’s population in order to seize their land, control their natural resources, and enslave the rest who fear a similar fate? Already millions of people are losing their homes to housing inflation and foreclosure. Is actual or threatened physical starvation the next part of the scenario?

And where are the governmental authorities whose job it is to protect the public welfare both at the national and international levels? These authorities long ago allowed a situation to develop, including in developed nations like the U.S. , where people in localities no longer have the simple ability to feed themselves, even in emergencies. And not one of the candidates remaining in the U.S. presidential election—John McCain, Hillary Clinton, nor Barack Obama—has addressed the food pricing issue. Indeed, all three are part of a government that has gone so far as to exclude much of the rising cost of food from measurements of inflation, an innovation that took place on Bill Clinton’s watch.

It is now April. Already food has run out in some parts of the world. In a few months winter will come, at least in the Northern Hemisphere. What will happen then? Are you certain food will be on your table?

And suppose you wanted to make a contribution to your own well-being and to that of your family and community by going into farming. In most parts of North America you can look around and see plenty of underutilized land.

But could you do it? Could you buy or lease land and pay taxes on it after the galloping inflation of the real estate bubble? Could you get bank loans for equipment and operating expenses under today’s constrained credit conditions? Could you afford fuel for your equipment when petroleum costs over $115 a barrel? Is water readily available from developed supplies and is electricity available at regulated prices? Could you purchase anything other than genetically-modified seed? Would local supermarkets buy your produce when your prices are undercut by massive corporate distributorships importing food from abroad? Does the system even exist in your home town for marketing of local farm products?

And does anyone in power even care?

Well, whether they do or not, “We the People” should care. One of the worst aspects of the consumer society is the separation between the individual and the products of the earth we utilize. We always assume that whatever we need will be there so long as we have money in our bank account or the ability to charge on a credit card and pay later.

Such assumptions are losing their validity. Back in the 1960s people who were starting to understand these things began a modest “back to the land” movement. Today it is time to start one again. Except this time we need to do it right by demanding government policies that support it. This means low-cost credit, price supports, affordable utilities, favorable tax policies, and decisions by government and businesses to “buy local.” Food production cannot safely be left in the hands of agribusiness and international finance capitalism any longer.

Richard C. Cook is a former U.S. federal government analyst, whose career included service with the U.S. Civil Service Commission, the Food and Drug Administration, the Carter White House, NASA, and the U.S. Treasury Department. His articles on economics, politics, and space policy have appeared on numerous websites. His book on monetary reform entitled We Hold These Truths: The Promise of Monetary Reform is in preparation. He is also the author of Challenger Revealed: An Insider’s Account of How the Reagan Administration Caused the Greatest Tragedy of the Space Age, called by one reviewer, “the most important spaceflight book of the last twenty years.” His website is at www.richardccook.com.

Full story/Permalink

The World Bank, the IMF, and the Multinationals: Manufacturing the World Food Crisis

By Walden Bello
The Nation, June 2, 2008 edition

When tens of thousands of people staged demonstrations in Mexico last year to protest a 60 percent increase in the price of tortillas, many analysts pointed to biofuel as the culprit. Because of US government subsidies, American farmers were devoting more and more acreage to corn for ethanol than for food, which sparked a steep rise in corn prices. The diversion of corn from tortillas to biofuel was certainly one cause of skyrocketing prices, though speculation on biofuel demand by transnational middlemen may have played a bigger role. However, an intriguing question escaped many observers: how on earth did Mexicans, who live in the land where corn was domesticated, become dependent on US imports in the first place?
The Mexican food crisis cannot be fully understood without taking into account the fact that in the years preceding the tortilla crisis, the homeland of corn had been converted to a corn-importing economy by "free market" policies promoted by the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank and Washington. The process began with the early 1980s debt crisis. One of the two largest developing-country debtors, Mexico was forced to beg for money from the Bank and IMF to service its debt to international commercial banks. The quid pro quo for a multibillion-dollar bailout was what a member of the World Bank executive board described as "unprecedented thoroughgoing interventionism" designed to eliminate high tariffs, state regulations and government support institutions, which neoliberal doctrine identified as barriers to economic efficiency.

Interest payments rose from 19 percent of total government expenditures in 1982 to 57 percent in 1988, while capital expenditures dropped from an already low 19.3 percent to 4.4 percent. The contraction of government spending translated into the dismantling of state credit, government-subsidized agricultural inputs, price supports, state marketing boards and extension services. Unilateral liberalization of agricultural trade pushed by the IMF and World Bank also contributed to the destabilization of peasant producers.

This blow to peasant agriculture was followed by an even larger one in 1994, when the North American Free Trade Agreement went into effect. Although NAFTA had a fifteen-year phaseout of tariff protection for agricultural products, including corn, highly subsidized US corn quickly flooded in, reducing prices by half and plunging the corn sector into chronic crisis. Largely as a result of this agreement, Mexico's status as a net food importer has now been firmly established.

With the shutting down of the state marketing agency for corn, distribution of US corn imports and Mexican grain has come to be monopolized by a few transnational traders, like US-owned Cargill and partly US-owned Maseca, operating on both sides of the border. This has given them tremendous power to speculate on trade trends, so that movements in biofuel demand can be manipulated and magnified many times over. At the same time, monopoly control of domestic trade has ensured that a rise in international corn prices does not translate into significantly higher prices paid to small producers.

It has become increasingly difficult for Mexican corn farmers to avoid the fate of many of their fellow corn cultivators and other smallholders in sectors such as rice, beef, poultry and pork, who have gone under because of the advantages conferred by NAFTA on subsidized US producers. According to a 2003 Carnegie Endowment report, imports of US agricultural products threw at least 1.3 million farmers out of work--many of whom have since found their way to the United States.

Prospects are not good, since the Mexican government continues to be controlled by neoliberals who are systematically dismantling the peasant support system, a key legacy of the Mexican Revolution. As Food First executive director Eric Holt-Giménez sees it, "It will take time and effort to recover smallholder capacity, and there does not appear to be any political will for this--to say nothing of the fact that NAFTA would have to be renegotiated."

Full Story: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080602/bello

Full story/Permalink

Wednesday 7 May 2008

The Lord giveth… and the EU Charter of Rights taketh away

Wise Up Journal
By Greg O’Brien

“The European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights sets out in a single text, for the first time in the European Union’s history, the whole range of civil, political, economic and social rights of European citizens and all persons resident in the EU.

They are based, in particular, on the fundamental rights and freedoms recognised by the European Convention on Human Rights ECHR).”

- The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union

It all sounds wonderful doesn’t it, that is until you actually look at the details and see that just like the Patriot Act in America it does the exact opposite of what it’s supposed to do. To find out its true intent you have to essentially read it back-to-front. Just like the Lisbon Treaty all the wonderful stuff is put in at the beginning and all the real intent is saved for the end or masked in protocols, legal explanations etc. Most people won’t read it all (or even just read a summary text), and people who have only read the good parts trust the rest will be similar, they then go ahead voting without understanding the full implications. If you set a utopian tone at the beginning psychologically we assume that is how the entire text will read and we tend to block out conflicting messages later on, otherwise know as cognitive dissonance.

When you read it “back to front” you get some disturbing results. Here are a few examples from the ECHR to give you the real intent from the official EU Charter of Fundamental Rights website:

[bolded text is added by the author.]

www.eucharter.org/home.php?page_id=9

“Article 2. Right to Life

a) Article 2(2) of the ECHR:
Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this Article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary:

  • in defence of any person from lawful violence;
  • in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained;
  • in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.’ “

The EU says that if the state’s law enforcement officers can deprive you of your right of life, in other words murder you, while attempting to arrest you or during a riot, and legally your execution “shall not be regarded’ as breaking the law/article of the right to life. How many times do we have to be reminded that not reading slick lawyer “small print” can be perilous?

“b) Article 2 of the Protocol No 6 to the ECHR:
‘A State may make provision in its law for the death penalty in respect of acts committed in time of war or of imminent threat of war; such a penalty shall be applied only in the instances laid down in the law and in accordance with its provisions…”

That’s right the EU endorses the Death Penalty!!! You may have never heard that before when listening to the politicians or media glorifying the EU but there it is in black and white on their official website. Individuals can be given the death penalty for “acts committed” (who decides what these acts) in a time of war or of even the threat of war (war on terrorism).

Now here is the nice intro that politician’s can promote:

“1. Everyone has the right to life.

2. No one shall be condemned to the death penalty, or executed.”

Article 52 of the EU Charter of Fundamental rights also states the level/scope of them and that a “limitation on the exercise of the rights and freedoms” can be made “provided for by law” (those “small prints”). It also goes a step further by saying “limitations may be made” if it is in the EU’s ‘interest’ (define interest?).

www.eucharter.org/home.php?page_id=62

“Article 52

1. Any limitation on the exercise of the rights and freedoms recognised by this Charter must be provided for by law and respect the essence of those rights and freedoms. Subject to the principle of proportionality, limitations may be made only if they are necessary and genuinely meet objectives of general interest recognised by the Union or the need to protect the rights and freedoms of others.”

Next we look at liberty, you would think the EU would be all for personal freedom, after all it promotes itself as caring for the citizens and being an example for the rest of the world, but again we find more lies. Here is the “small print” for restrictions to be placed upon you:

www.eucharter.org/home.php?page_id=13

“Art 6. Right to liberty and security

(d) the detention of a minor by lawful order for the purpose of educational supervision or his lawful detention for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority;

(e) the lawful detention of persons for the prevention of the spreading of infectious diseases, of persons of unsound mind, alcoholics or drug addicts or vagrants;”

And here is the easy to read selling point for public consumption:

“1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law:”

Next comes free speech, of course the EU must be a guardian of free speech, after all we’re told that we in the west have levels of free speech unheard of in the rest of the world. That free speech is the cornerstone of a free and democratic society, but again if we look at the text we get a completely different picture:

www.eucharter.org/home.php?page_id=18

“Art 11. Freedom of expression and information

2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.”

Again the nice show piece intro:

“1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.”

The EU has documented in it’s protocols, legal explanations etc that it endorses the death penalty, not punishing law enforcers that kill a person during arrest, killing people for rioting, detaining alcoholics, detaining minors for educational supervision, and restricting speech for protection of disclosure of information, morals, maintaining the authority, reputation…

They say that in the former USSR people had a highly developed mistrust of the government and knew that most of the news they read in the papers or seen on the TV was a complete distortion of the truth. The public learned how to interpret the truth by reading between the lines and reversing what was being said. We in the EU have been asleep and naively trusting of politicians and the media for so long that we haven’t developed these skills of discernment. We have taken too much for granted but we cannot afford to do this any longer. We are sleepwalking into a nightmare and unless we start waking up very quickly it will be too late. A NO vote in Ireland to the Lisbon Treaty can actually stop the charter from becoming legally binding and save half a billion people from living under it.

Full story/Permalink

Monday 5 May 2008

Repealing Corporate Personhood: Taking Back The Republic, In Four Easy Steps

By Jon Faulkner
The Smirking Chimp

There are four areas in which congress and the next president could begin to reclaim the republic, restore the balance of power in government, and act in the interests of the public good.

The Supreme Court's ruling that gave corporations the same rights as people. In 1886, in Santa Clara County vs. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, the Supreme Court decided that corporations, under the 14th Amendment, are afforded the same constitutional rights as people. It was U.S. political histories most egregious example of the court reinterpreting the constitution. Aside from the fact that corporations can't possibly be construed as people, nowhere in the constitution does the word "corporation" appear. As if this decision weren't bad enough, the court accepted the ruling without argument.

Justice Morrison Remick Waite wrote, "The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of opinion that it does." The clerk of the court, in two sentences, opened the gate wide for corporations to become the powerful, multinational, and far too often destructive entities of the public good they have time and again, proven themselves to be. The clerk wrote, "The defendant Corporations are persons within the intent of the clause in section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, to the Constitution of the United States, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

This decision needs to be revisited. Republicans, corporate shareholders, and anyone who thinks dictatorships are better than democracy, will howl in outrage when it's determined, as it will inevitably be, that corporations are not people, and Justice Waite may have been imbibing the day he wrote his decision. Let them howl. Let them twist in the wind. The U.S. either lives under a constitution, or it does not. That is all that must be decided.

Deregulation is the second crippling blow directed against the U.S. public and the constitution that protects them. Deregulation has been sold to Americans as the answer to a meddling, bureaucratic government. It's been packaged as the magical force that broke the chains of communism and socialism. It's claim that competition is healthy and will bring lower prices and better quality service to all Americans if only government will get out of the market's way has been exposed as false time and time again. After each crushing, financial blow that deregulation visits upon the nation, the taxpayers must step in to bail out whichever industry has bitten the dust. Reagan pushed for the deregulation of industry as one of the major goals of his presidency, and the first casualty was the nation's S&L's. Before it was over 1,043 thrifts, with total assets of 500 billion, would fail. The new, "Depository Institutions Deregulation And Monetary Control Act" encouraged risks and speculative opportunities. The thrifts, once deregulated, were able to charter themselves as state, or federal institutions. Not surprisingly, they opted for federal charters, where they would be insured by the nation's taxpayers under the FDIC. Corporate thieves recognized that as long as the FDIC replaced the depositors stolen cash, the heat could be easily deflected. But the experiment in deregulation was only just beginning.

The most public outrage against American consumers was Enron's rip-off of California's energy ratepayers. Incredibly, California is once again considering the deregulation of their energy producing infrastructure. It never ceases to astonish how easily people are led to self immolation. But the damage of deregulation is insidious. It allowed corporations to speculate on illusory positions the various markets may occupy at a future date. Wall Street dreamed up lots of new financial instruments with which to hoodwink investors. Beginning with junk bonds, and continuing with credit derivatives, most of them have one essential purpose - to steal money from investors, most often through the inflated share values. By the time the first Bush was elected, deregulation was in full swing.

The high tech bubble burst when the startup companies began sprouting like mushrooms. They were traded for high dollars even though they had little or no assets, and couldn't show a profit on their books. But the greed driven market, with its carrot and stick, promised fantastic returns on comparatively minimal investments. After a pile of cash had accumulated, the overpriced shares would be sold by corporate managers, often for many millions of dollars. Then the startup would be left to languish, and eventually enter into bankruptcy.

Reagan was Mr. Sunnyside up to many Americans. "Well I've said it before and I'll say it again - America's best days are yet to come. Our proudest moments are yet to be. Our most glorious achievements are just ahead." He meant these words, undoubtedly, but he lacked the intellect to understand where his policies would take the nation. Twenty years went by and George W. Bush was appointed president by a fraudulent Supreme Court. After almost 8 years of disastrous policy decisions Bush said, "There is no magic wand to wave right now. It took us a while to get to this fix." Yes, it did, didn't it Junior? Reagan could not have foreseen Bush, or the 20 years of republican administrations that brought the nation to this "fix." Junior criticizes congress for dragging its feet and says he's open to "any ideas" to boost the sagging economy. Any ideas meaning he hasn't a clue except opening Alaska's wilderness to oil field development, and building more refineries. Einstein defined insanity as "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

Today's housing bubble is arguably the biggest economic threat against the nation's economy that has ever been. For years lenders presented home owners unrealistic loan proposals that depended on illusory speculations that property values would keep rising. Consumers borrowed against the rising value of their homes until reality intervened and property began reflecting its true value. The U.S. economy was driven by these loans as Americans went ever deeper into debt and today, the reverse is happening, as property values fall and interest rates rise.

Compounding the problem of unrealistic lending was the investment banks practice of packaging the loans and selling them to Wall Street as Collateralized Debt Obligations, or CDO's. The banks promised a steady positive income from the interest payments of the loans, but as greedy as ever, Wall Street wasn't thinking about the soundness of the loans. Standard and Poor's and Moody's were supposed to be assessing the loans for risk, but they were in bed with the banks that were packaging the CDO's. The net effect is now being seen with millions of foreclosures and a mind boggling 739 billion dollar taxpayer bailout of the financial industry. The SEC, so far, has found no evidence of wrongdoing! This is like walking into a chicken coup and finding only foxes, then contemplating the mystery of what could have happened to the chickens. If Americans don't wake up very soon they're going to find themselves barefoot and hungry and looking for somewhere to pitch their tents. There must be rules - regulations, if Americans desire civilization.

Between the war in Iraq and the thieves who run the nation's financial institutions, the American taxpayers are in for a very rough ride. Add the Bush Administrations huge tax breaks to the corporations that engineer these rip-offs, and economic disaster is here. It's being artificially postponed until a democrat is elected president. The few regulations that are left are administered by industry lobbyists and corporate fat cats - all pals of Junior's. In other words, there are no regulations. It's a free for all of who can get their hands into the nation's treasury and grab the most cash. The banks, before they begin falling like dominos, have rigged up a bailout package worth 739 billion dollars. Bear & Stearns was the first recipient of the taxpayers largess. But the banks don't want the public to know how much they'll be paying to pull the banks back from the brink. In this upside down, turned inside out nation, this is good news. It means that banks are still respectful enough of the public that they still feel it's necessary to lie.

One bank official puts it this way. "We believe that any intervention by the federal government will be acceptable only if it is not perceived as a bailout of the bond market." The twist of the knife will be when Bush runs the Fairy Tale of how the generous, compassionate banks helped struggling homeowners keep their homes.

The Fairness Doctrine is number three on the list of "Things to make right." The Fairness Doctrine must be brought back. The public owns the airwaves and the lies spread by conservative republicans must not go unchallenged. The Fairness Doctrine will bring contrasting points of view back into highly partisan and opinionated programs such as the Rush Limbaugh Show, and Fox News. Rupert Murdoch, a foreign national, would not be tolerated in any country except the U.S. His media empire consistently attacks democrats because Rupert knows that democrats, if they ever reclaim their courage, will bring back the Fairness Doctrine, and Fox News will be forced to adhere to some modicum of truth. It's a disgrace that someone as ignorant and intellectually weak as Limbaugh is in a position to sway public opinion. Imagine him attempting a debate with highly intelligent, well informed democrat. Limbaugh can't hold his own on the David Letterman Show.

Number four on the list is getting rid of the outrageously partisan justices that perch like vultures on the Supreme Court's bench. If Barrack Obama wins the general election and becomes the nation's 44th president, one of his first responsibilities must be in asking Scalia, Thomas and Kennedy for their resignations. These, of course, are the three justices who still befoul the court after handing the 2000 election to Bush. If they refuse to resign they should be impeached. For the first time in the nation's history the Supreme Court intervened in an election to decide its outcome. That the court was willing to sacrifice its legitimacy to get Bush into office is condemnation enough. The justices who argued for Bush should have the native intelligence to resign.

Rehnquist, being dead, can't resign. But when he was alive he went after Clinton. He wanted to see him impeached and he didn't try to disguise the fact. When Gore was elected, it was too much. How dare Americans vote for a man the court didn't approve of! In a split decision, the justices decided that states have no right to hold elections when it can result in Gore being elected. The court is still carrying on its mischief with its recent decision denying millions of Americans the right to vote if they can't show proper identification as determined by the court. They are the most disgusting examples of humanity to ever violate the public's trust. They pick the fleas from each other's backs, and they know perfectly well that it's the poor, the black, the homeless, who are most likely to lack drivers licenses, and to vote for democrats.

At some point there must be some accountability. The justices are supposed to be the best, the brightest legal minds in the country. But once again they've proven themselves to be nothing more than cheap, partisan hacks, who won't hesitate to manufacture law from convoluted reasonings. These arbitrarily, unelected and fraudulent imposters pose as interpreters of constitutional law and Obama, if elected, has a duty to get rid of them like the dangerous pests they are. They've demonstrated time and again that they are eminently unsuited for the high offices they consistently corrupt. How dare these disgusting old men presume upon themselves to impose Bush, a born loser by any account, upon the American people? They must be unceremoniously run out of office, preferably wearing tar and feathers. "In the United States at the present day, the reverence which the Greeks gave to the oracles and the Middle Ages to the Pope is given to the Supreme Court. Those who have studied the working of the American Constitution know that the Supreme Court is part of the forces engaged in the protection of the plutocracy." -- Bertrand Russell

The way in which campaigns are financed must end. There is not much to say on this topic, other than it is a terribly corrupting influence on public policy. Fixing it is simple. No more campaign donations from any private parties. Elections will be paid for with government tax dollars. If the public can be fleeced for 739 billion to bailout the nation's financial institutions, the money is damn sure available to pay for the candidate's campaigns. The public's airwaves will be used to broadcast the candidate's views. Debates will be regularly scheduled and once again, the public's airwaves will be used to broadcast them. If the airwaves can be used to visit the Rush Limbaugh Show upon Americans, its doesn't seem a lot to ask that television be used to familiarize Americans with congressional and presidential candidates. As Bush has so clearly demonstrated, it's of paramount importance who Americans choose as their president. The nation may not survive Bush, and another one like him, for instance John McCain, may hammer the final nail into what was once a free republic.

These problems are not hard to fix, but in a nation where roughly half of the population is ready to replace Bush with McCain, there doesn't seem much hope. How could so many Americans fail to recognize a buffoonish loser when they had months to watch Bush stumble over two syllable words? When they had months to hear him present ultimatums as if the world were black and white and as easy to understand as Bush perceives it to be. If Americans can only recognize what's been done to their great nation there is a chance they can put aside their differences and rise to the challenge of reclaiming their nation from the thieves, the rogues, the liars. Corporate television and other corporate media will fight bitterly against any changes, and unless Americans act to turn the quid quo pro around, they can expect to loose what remains of their free, democracy.

_______
Source URL http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/14408 Full story/Permalink

Saturday 3 May 2008

Mass Mind Control Through Network Television: Are Your Thoughts Your Own?

TV-Head
TV-Head


Why do countless American people go along with the War on Iraq? Why do so many people call for a police state control grid? A major component to a full understanding of why this kind of governmental and corporate corruption is to discover the modern science of mind control and social engineering. It's baffling to merely glance at the stacks of documentation that this world government isn't being constructed for the greater good of humanity. Although there are a growing number of people waking up the reality of our growing transparent soft cage, there seems to be just enough citizens who are choosing to remain asleep. Worse yet, there are even those who were at least partially awake at one time but found it necessary to return to the slumber of dreamland. more...
Full story/Permalink

Bank bail-outs to be kept secret

The Bank of England has imposed a permanent news blackout on its £50bn-plus plan to ease the credit crunch.

Bank of England
'Lesser of two evils': The Bank of England will guard the names of credit-crunch banks with unprecedented levels of secrecy.

Ferocious and unprecedented secrecy means taxpayers will never know the names of the banks that have been supported through the special liquidity scheme, which was unveiled by Bank Governor Mervyn King last week.

Requests under the Freedom of Information Act are to be denied. Details will be kept secret even after 30 years - the period after which all but the most sensitive state documents are released.

Any Bank of England employee leaking the names of institutions involved will face court action for breach of contract.

Even a figure for the overall amount advanced will not be published until October. Meanwhile the Bank is expected to issue at least £50bn of Treasury bills to banks in exchange for their mortgages - entirely in secret.

This hypersensitive official stance is thought to be a response to the events of last year when a huge stigma was attached to any lender suspected of going to the Bank for cash help.

The scheme is intended to steady the markets, but it is feared that reports of banks making widespread use of the facility could trigger further instability.

Barclays and HBoS have both confirmed they will use the Bank of England scheme. 'We welcome the Bank facility and we will participate in it,' confirmed Andy Hornby, chief executive of HBoS.

Other banks declined to comment, but it is expected that this week all of the leading banks, with the exception of Lloyds TSB, will tender some of their mortgages to the Bank of England.

HBoS confirmed last week it had packaged up £9bn of mortgages ready either for securitisation - in effect, selling them on in the wholesale financial markets - or to be offered to the Bank in return for Treasury bills.

The scheme, drawn up by King and approved by Chancellor Alistair Darling, aims to improve banks' liquidity by temporarily swapping bundles of mortgages and credit card debt for Treasury bills, which are short-dated Government debt that matures within nine months.

The scheme will run for three years so these bills will be replaced by new ones when required.

Under the plan, bills will be exchanged only for securities rated triple-A - the highest possible grade of security - by at least two of the three big ratings agencies, Fitch, Moody's and Standard & Poor's.

It would not normally be considered acceptable for big companies to arrange billions of pounds of financial support without telling their shareholders.

Banks in crisis

Bank branches on a High Street

But one source close to major institutional investors said: 'I can see why there may be a case for secrecy.

'It may be the lesser of two evils.'

The £50bn or more of Treasury bills involved will dwarf the £17.6bn currently in issue, but the authorities are adamant this will not destabilise the Government debt market.

Full story/Permalink

Former Shill for Big Pharma Tells the Truth About Drug Testing

(NaturalNews) Erick Turner, a psychiatry professor at the Oregon State Health and Sciences University, woke up one day and realized that he was acting as a shill for pharmaceutical Corporations. Worse, he was promoting drugs that not only provide very little benefit, but also do great harm. In spite of the benefits paid to him, including accommodations and thousands of dollars, and the ego satisfaction of being recognized as a "Very Important Person" by his fellow physicians, his conscience wouldn't let him continue.

So, Dr. Turner turned on his pharmaceutical masters. He spoke out against the products he'd been promoting. In the January 2008 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine, he published an article telling the truth about one class of drugs, SSRI antidepressants, such as Prozac and Paxil. In interviews, he has spoken even more broadly, stating that the lack of efficacy of SSRIs is the "dirty little secret" of the psychiatric world.

Dr. Turner's odyssey began in 2004, when he started selling his reputation by giving "doctor talks", as they're called in the industry. These lunches or dinners are lavish affairs, provided by pharmaceutical corporations. A doctor who is appealing, for either his or her background or appearance and style -- preferably both -- speaks about the wonders of a particular drug. Erick Turner's particular appeal was having been a researcher at the National Institute of Mental Health for seven years, and then a clinical trials reviewer at the FDA.

He was trained by Eli Lilly to give talks, which required that he use only the visuals provided by the pharmaceutical firm and stay with their talking points. Then, Turner was sent to do doctor talks. The money he made wasn't significant to him, $500-750 per talk, a small amount in terms of his total income. However, as he put it, "In the beginning, I think I got narcissistic gratification. They fly you somewhere else in the country and pick you up in a limo, and you stay in a nice hotel you could never afford otherwise."

Within 18 months, though, Turner began to feel pangs of conscience. As he put it, "I guess you could say I bit the hand that fed." He published a paper in PloS Medicine that argued for online publication of all clinical trials produced for the FDA. Although he went from drug company advocate to critic overnight with his argument against pharmaceutical hiding of data, the article was... well, it was ignored. His article was met with a big yawn in the medical world.

Turner quit giving the doctor talks and started to search for hidden drug trial data. At first, he found some in hidden-away parts of the FDA's website. He then looked to researchers for data, and got it from a Seattle researcher and one at the University of Nevada at Las Vegas. "I literally went down to a Kinko's," Turner stated, "and photocopied them."

The studies he'd found consisted of 74 clinical trials, with 51% showing results that were better than placebo and 49% with negative or mixed results. In other words, about half the trials, though they'd been produced for drug corporations and most likely were attempting to produce the desired results of showing benefits, did nothing of the sort.

Armed with the smoking gun proof of negative trials being hidden, Turner produced a paper, "Selective Publication of Antidepressant Trials and Its Influence on Apparent Efficacy" for the New England Journal of Medicine. This time, he wasn't ignored.

Daniel Carlat, assistant professor of psychiatry at Tufts University School of Medicine, himself once on the dole with Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, argues, "The fact that the negative trials can just be hidden away means that practicing doctors can get a very false notion of efficacy data for a drug. That's the real crisis here."

The question that must be answered is how pervasive the pharmaceutical firms' hiding of negative studies is. It's obvious from Erick Turner's exposé that SSRIs are generally useless. What about other drugs? History shows us that the same must be true.

Take, for example, Vioxx, an NSAID used for arthritis and other chronic pain. It causes heart attacks and has killed over 60,000 people in seven years. Could its manufacturer, Merck, have withheld information from doctors and the public?

Did Wyeth withhold information about Fenphen, two drugs combined to act as a single weight loss drug? It killed people by causing pulmonary hypertension.

What information was withheld by Hoechst Marion Roussel on Seldane? It was a wildly popular prescription antihistamine, which was withdrawn because it caused heart arrhythmia.

The number of drugs withdrawn because of their risks, which were likely known by the manufacturers, is stunning. The cat is now out of the bag regarding SSRIs. If they work, it's only
rarely. The known risks are extensive and appalling. Most, if not all, school shootings involved the use of SSRIs, or their next-generation offshoot, SNRIs. Suicide rates increase after starting them. Weight gain is often a problem, indicating a potential link to diabetes. Sleep disturbances and sexual dysfunction are fairly common. Many people have a great deal of difficulty withdrawing from these drugs. None of these problems were revealed during pre-approval clinical tests, but the fact that they're common begs the question. How many trials showing these dangers were suppressed?

Ultimately, the real question is how many people have died or suffered irreversible harm from ingesting the products of drug manufacturers? How much information is being hidden by the pharmaceutical manufacturers, all in the interest of obscenely high profits?

How innocent are doctors in all this? It's quite clear that they have been deeply involved in the cover-up. Whether they benefit from gifts or boosts to their egos from doing bogus doctor talks, or simply fall for the cute sales reps -- recruited primarily from the ranks of cheerleaders -- so that they close their eyes to pathetically weak statistics, how believable is it that they don't know? When thousands of people outside the medical profession can find out the truth about pharmaceutical poisons, why do the doctors seem to be largely unaware?

You might think that Dr. Erick Turner, the man who exposed the withholding of negative information by drug manufacturers, would have stopped prescribing the SSRI drugs that he focused on. But that's not the case. Although he says that he doesn't give patients false hope about their efficacy, he still prescribes them.

It's no wonder that doctors are so disconnected from reality. From the time they're in medical school, they're bombarded with pseudo-information from pharmaceutical manufacturers. They receive gifts to such a degree that a Lancet study found "approximately 50% of the items that residents carry have pharmaceutical company origins".

When doctors enter private practice, it's hardly surprising that they often become billboards and prescription machines for pharmaceuticals. As Dr. Jay S. Cohen wrote, "No wonder patients complain that many doctors look like walking advertisements for the drug industry."

Pharmaceutical corporations are so pervasive that, as described by the Washington Post in 2002, "In the days leading up to the American Psychiatric Association's meeting in Philadelphia [2002], pharmaceutical companies mailed attendees hundreds of free phone cards, as well as invitations to museums, jazz concerts and fancy dinners... And in several dozen symposiums during the week long meeting, companies paid the APA about $50,000 per session to control which scientists and papers were presented and to help shape the presentations."

Is it any wonder that doctors have become so utterly disconnected from their responsibility to protect their patients from harmful drugs? It's no wonder that they seem to be so unable and unwilling to look at drug company reports critically. It's no wonder that they have become little more than drug pushers, forever pressing the latest pills on their patients, without considering the risks and the obvious suppression of information about the products they prescribe. It's no wonder that when, finally, after a few years of prescribing a particular poison, they're informed that it's been recalled, they immediately jump on the bandwagon of yet another highly-promoted, research-suppressed so-called "wonder" drug. And then, they repeat the pattern yet again.

The pharmaceutical industry has so controlled the medical industry -- and with the doctors' full cooperation -- that even the doctor who blew the whistle seems to have no idea how to proceed without prescribing the very medications that he knows are ineffective in most cases.

About the author

Heidi Stevenson
Fellow, British Institute of Homeopathy
Gaia Therapy (http://www.gaia-therapy.com)
The author is a homeopath who became concerned with medically-induced harm as a result of her own experiences and those of family members. She says that allopathic medicine is the arena that best describes the motto, "Buyer beware." Iatrogenic disease is illness, disability, and death caused by medical practice. It is common, resulting in huge costs to society and individuals. It's possible - even common - to suffer an iatrogenic illness without realizing its source. Heidi Stevenson provides information about medically-induced disease and disability so members of the public can protect themselves.
Full story/Permalink