Putin Bitch Slaps Oligarch While American Billions Evaporate in Fraud

It's no secret that the Russian economy is in trouble these days and Russian workers are showing signs of unrest. This has not escaped the notice of Vladimir Putin who, in an unusual act of theater, publicly humiliated one of Russia's leading industrial oligarchs, Oleg Deripaska, for mismanagement and poor treatment of his workers as reported here:

"MOSCOW (AFP)--Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin Thursday launched a lacerating attack on oligarch Oleg Deripaska, describing one of his factories as a "rubbish dump" and saying workers had been held hostage by unpaid wages.

Putin's comments came as he visited the BaselCement factory in the town of Pikalevo in the Leningrad region of northern Russia, acquired by Deripaska's holding company Basic Element in 2007.

"Why has your factory been so neglected? They've turned it into a rubbish dump," Putin said as was given a guided tour of the factory in the town of Pikalevo in the Leningrad region of northern Russia.

The deputy chief of the Basic Element construction firm Glavstroi, Yevgeny Ivanov, had been telling Putin about the history of the facility when Putin interrupted him with the "rubbish dump" jibe.

Ivanov said the company had found the factory in such a state when it bought it, Russian news agencies reported.

Putin was speaking two days after angry protesters from the plant and two other cement factories in the town blocked a key highway, causing serious traffic jams, in a show of social unrest rare for Russia.

The prime minister - stony faced and dressed in a beige jacket - later held a meeting in which he ordered the oligarch to pay the factory's wages and ensured he signed a document to revive its operations.

"All the unpaid wages - amounting to 41.24 million rubles ($1.35 million) - must be paid. The deadline - today," said the tough talking prime minister in comments carried on state television.

Workers were protesting against the factory's failure to play their salaries for several months as Russian industry hits problems owing to a slump in demand amid the global economic crisis.

"They (the factory owners) have made thousands of people hostage to their ambitions, unprofessionalism and maybe simply greed," said Putin.

"This is simply unacceptable. Where is the social responsibility of business?" he added.

At the meeting, Putin then produced a contract with supplies for the delivery of raw materials to revive production at the town's languishing factory.

"Has Oleg Vladimirovich signed?" he asked in reference to Deripaska. "I don't see your signature. Come and sign," said Putin grimly.

Deripaska, head bowed, then hurried to sign the document, before returning to his seat. Putin granted him a nod in acknowledgment, television pictures showed.

Putin's tirade added to the woes of the heavily-indebted Deripaska, who is set to miss a June 11 deadline to restructure billions of dollars in debt with international creditors."

Quite frankly I think are more than a few Americans who would like to see our own plutocracy slapped around a bit instead of being given free reign to the public's funds. This is even more concerning as the FBI weighs in on the fraud potential of the various bailouts and stimulus packages:

"Earlier this month, FBI Director Robert Mueller warned the nation to brace for a potential crime wave involving fraud and corruption related to the economic stimulus package. "These funds are inherently vulnerable to bribery, fraud, conflicts of interest, and collusion. There is an old adage, that where there is money to be made, fraud is not far behind, like bees to honey," Mueller said.,,,,,,

"Williams suggested that the fraud and theft losses from the roughly $787 billion stimulus package approved earlier this year could reach about $50 billion.

Williams said firms would be well advised to beef up monitoring of their transaction systems, and that his firm is helping clients develop software and computer systems to predict and catch fraud before it gets started.

Williams acknowledged that the FBI has geared up its efforts to focus on financial scams. He said other agencies, including the Department of Justice and industry watchdogs, are also beefing up oversight.

"They are going to spend their time making sure that this money gets to being used in the way it's supposed to be used," Williams added.

After 9-11, counterterrorism became the FBI's top priority, even as the agency grappled with corporate crime such as the Enron and WorldCom scandals, said Mueller, who took the helm of the FBI on Sept. 4, 2001, just one week ahead of the terrorist attacks.

The 9-11 attacks prompted the FBI and other government agencies to divert resources from financial fraud and other corporate crimes to fighting terrorism, including the transfer of 2,000 agents tracking white-collar crime to counterterrorism, Mueller said.

But now the focus is returning to white-collar crime and fraud in a big way.

"These rules will come right back to haunt companies if they are not careful," Williams said. "So firms need to make sure that their organizations are ready to receive funds and protect those funds diligently as the potential for fraud surfaces."

As Michael Panzer at Financial Armageddon predicted:

"Newfound transparency in the wake of the unfolding financial crisis will expose a scale of prior fraud, corruption, and self-dealing that many will find almost impossible to comprehend. Day in and day out, reports will surface about hidden losses, false accounting, inflated appraisals, sizable off-balance-sheet obligations, valuation discrepancies, unregulated offshore entities, phantom profits, insider trading, and businesses bled dry to enrich a few individuals at the expense of employees, investors, bankers, and bondholders. Other revelations will reinforce the idea that companies, governments, and individuals are in far worse shape than people had assumed only a few years earlier."

One can only hope president Obama takes a few notes on the Putin approach.

Green Shoots or Free Fall?

The disconnect between economic reality and media spin continues unabated. Now even the flimsiest of information suggesting things are getting worse at a possibly slower rate is treated as a sign of impending recovery. Witness the attempt to put a positive spin on the latest unemployment figures:

"In its good news-bad news report, the Bureau of Labor Statistics said that employers shed 345,000 jobs in May, far fewer than the 500,000-plus expected in consensus forecasts. Statisticians also revised April's figures to indicate 504,000 jobs lost, not the 539,000 that first had been estimated.

The strong May numbers and the revision of April's suggest that the pace of job losses is moderating. They point to an easing of the recession that began in December 2007 and has destroyed more than 6 million jobs. In May, 14.5 million Americans were unemployed.

Alan Levenson, chief economist for investment manager T. Rowe Price Associates in Baltimore, said the labor market was showing the first signs of recovery but he cautioned that not all was good in Friday's report. For example, the length of the average workweek fell in May to 33.1 hours, the lowest it's been since recordkeeping began in 1964.

The "dip in weekly hours, meager gain in hourly earnings" suppress production and income and carry implications for the economic recovery, he said in a research note. Rather than fire workers, many employers are slashing hours, freezing pay and requiring employees to take unpaid leave, all of which affect the quality of work life.

"The slowing of employment losses is certainly welcomed news. Before we celebrate, however, note that unemployment at 9.4 percent is substantially higher than what was expected in even the most pessimistic forecasts a few months ago," said Lawrence Mishel, the president of the liberal Economic Policy Institute in Washington. "Moreover, the pace of wage growth is less than half of what it was last year. Together, these trends suggest we're heading for very high unemployment and a subdued recovery."

Meanwhile Financial Armageddon points out that Wall Street insiders continue to vote with their feet in an ongoing sell-off of their own companies stocks:

"Just as telling, why are investors buying shares in corporate America when corporate executives -- the individuals on the ground who actually know what is going on -- are on the other side of the trade, as the Pragmatic Capitalist reveals (below) in "Despite "Green Shoots" Insider Sales Spike"?

The latest data on insider selling shows little relief in the relentless unloading of company stock by corporate insiders. In the last two weeks insiders sold over $335MM in stock vs listed insider purchases of just over $12MM. As has been the trend over the course of the last few weeks the list of insider selling has been long and the amounts have been staggering. The buy side, on the other hand, is represented by low rated, low priced stocks whose insiders rarely purchase over $500K.

One might think that with all of these “green shoots” the insiders at major U.S. corporations would begin buying up their own shares voraciously. Especially after a nice little run like we’ve seen lately. After all, with stocks still 35% off their highs and a full blown economic recovery (supposedly) on the horizon it would make nothing but sense than to buy your own shares, right?

Although there were signs of life in early May the overall trend in buying remains very low. As we’ve noted before it’s not the mountain of selling that most concerns us, but the total lack of buying. Insiders sell for many reasons, but they only buy their own stock when they are confident that the price will rise. As of now, insider buying remains incredibly weak which is more than likely a vote of (no) confidence in future business operations."

For a truly disconcerting veiw of ongoing economic collapse check out the U.S. National Debt clock, though I must warn that prolonged viewing may cause light headedness and vertigo as well as precipitate panic attacks in those predisposed.

Elizabeth Warren - American Heroine

Elizabeth Warren continues her role as American heroine speaking truth in a world and area unaccustomed to truth. Her most recent declarartions about the so-called stress tests say much about what's going on as Marvin Gay would say:

"Transcript

FARAI CHIDEYA: And now we’ve got more from Elizabeth Warren. She’s the Chairwoman of the Congressional Oversight Panel, charged with following the billions of dollars the government is giving to financial institutions through the TARP program. The oversight panel issues a report today that looks at TARP, small business lending and credit available to families with credit cards. Elizabeth, you’ve tackled the credit issue before, in part in your work as a professor and as an author. Let’s listen to a real-life example from one of our listeners. Last April we heard from Philamena from upstate New York to tell us her credit card story.

Listener Philamena on tape: I was talking to Bank of America yesterday because of a letter we received. We have over a 700 credit score. Never paid a bill partially, always in full, and they decided to halve our credit availability.

FARAI CHIDEYA: Is that something that the companies should be held accountable for, restricting credit at a time when there is so much government funding going to try to loosen credit? And we’re talking here about people who have good or decent scores.

ELIZABETH WARREN: Right. So this is the big policy question that’s on the table right now: Should a condition of receiving taxpayer support be that you use a little more customer-friendly practices?

John Hockenberry
: Because in theory they’re getting almost free money from the Feds and they can jack up these fees and interest rates on the other side. That’s a huge business, I’d like to get into that.

ELIZABETH WARREN: No kidding. And it really boosts your profits and, you know, for the companies, that works out really well. It’s a way to boost up your profits and maybe you’ll be able to pay back your government money eventually, you’ll be able to weather this crisis. But it’s also, potentially, very destabilizing to a lot of families that budgeted close to the wire, they’re making their payments, they’re doing what they’re supposed to do. You jerk up those interest rates, you cut back on the credit line, and they’re in real trouble now.

FARAI CHIDEYA: Your book The Two Income Trap was something that you did with your daughter. Which I find, particularly as a woman, I find that fascinating. What was it like to team up to do that kind of important work with your own child?

ELIZABETH WARREN: Well, you know, we were looking at all this data that I had. I had a new study out on families that had filed for bankruptcy and I’m trying to figure out what I want to do with these date and my little baby granddaughter was born. This is Amelia, my daughter’s, baby. We kept having these conversations around when she was born and finally that became the frame to the book. We don’t really frame it that way in the book, but the truth is it’s about what happened in one generation. What it meant to start a family in the early 1970s, and how it worked on income, and housing, and schools, and costs, and budgets and savings. And what it’s been like to start a family in the early 2000s. And the world has changed profoundly in that one generation snapshot, and that’s what we ended up writing the book around.

FARAI CHIDEYA: So many people thought, “OK. This is great.” We’ve had second-wave feminism that has allowed women to go to work, and women are still having kids, and the guys are still working, what’s wrong with that equation of everything being cool?

ELIZABETH WARREN: The problem is I just keep looking at this from the economics. I’m just a straight forward… I’m just a money girl. I want to see at the end of the day what’s happening. And here’s the bottom line on what’s happening: The only way over one generation that families in one generation that families are making any increase in money is by putting a second person into the workforce. That is, the wages of a man, I hate to tell you this, adjusted for inflation, median earning male makes $800 less than he used to one generation back.

JOHN HOCKENBERRY
: She was looking at me, like, I just got a pay cut here.

ELIZABETH WARREN: Just wanted you to know, $800 down.

FARAI CHIDEYA: Get those kids out working.

ELIZABETH WARREN: So the only way we can continue to get some kind of rise in family income was by putting a second income in. But the problem is core expenses outstrip that — housing, health insurance, transportation, child care and taxes, because families are paying on these two salaries. At the end of the day, today’s two-income family has less money left over after those five basic expenses than the one-income family had a generation ago.

JOHN HOCKENBERRY
: So you’ve got your headphones on there?

ELIZABETH WARREN: I’ve got them on.

JOHN HOCKENBERRY
: Listen to this sound here.

Sound of credit card machine

JOHN HOCKENBERRY
: You know what that sound is?

ELIZABETH WARREN: Yeah, I know.

JOHN HOCKENBERRY
: That’s the sound of what?

ELIZABETH WARREN: That’s the sound of those credit card processing things.

JOHN HOCKENBERRY
: Not being declined.

ELIZABETH WARREN: Not being declined.

JOHN HOCKENBERRY
: Kind of a cliff-hanger for consumers for a long, long time. But in this environment, where we’re told every day there’s a credit crunch. What if these two-income families that you describe as more in debt now than ever before, fall of the edge as a result of the changes that have taken place even in the last few months of this economy?

ELIZABETH WARREN: This is the part that’s really scary. Because when Amelia and I wrote the book, it was still boom times. In fact, a lot of people we talked with laughed at us. You know, “Aw, what do you mean about the deteriorating situation of the American family? Times are great. Party on. Party on.” We are in such a weakened state going into this recession. People are not stopping to account for this, that we’re hitting unemployment, we’re hitting rises in costs, at a time when the American family was already staggering economically. The federal government said in their mortgage mitigation program, that if any bank was going to take TARP money, they had to be willing to participate in the mortgage program to try to help with foreclosures. The question on the table is, should they do the same things on credit cards and other practices? There are a lot of folks, even within my own panel, who said no.

JOHN HOCKENBERRY
: You say yes?

ELIZABETH WARREN: I’m one of the people who says yes.

FARAI CHIDEYA: Alright, I’m going to have to leave it right there. I’ve certainly have learned a lot from you Elizabeth Warren. Thank you.

ELIZABETH WARREN: Thank you."

Georgian NATO Deception or Can We Afford This Crap?

The Georgian -Russian conflict gets deeper and at the same time more difficult for the average American to understand. The most recent episode involves a mutiny of Georgian forces days before a NATO exercise of sorts followed by histrionic actions by president (nut case) Sakashvili.The really disturbing thing to me is that Obama cannot back off from the reflexively anti-Russian policies of the previous administration. This suggests that the same military-industrial fucks that we have had running the the country are still in charge. Questions to be asked include are why does NATO even exist? Can the U.S. even afford a fraction of the present military budget given the economic implosion we can all see?

Torture, Obama , and the Left

In case you missed it there was an anti-torture rally outside the White House last week in which over 100 participants were arrested, The above clip is from Russia Today of all places.
Meanwhile much discussion goes on in progressive-left circles as to what to think of President Obama. Andy Zee writes on the website of The Revolutionary Communist Party of the U.S.A. of a litany of shortcomings:

"A grievous, shameful and dangerous state of affairs permeates the movements of opposition in the U.S. Their outlook and politics have collapsed into passive acquiescence and even overt criminal complicity with the policies and actions of the ruling class, and are doing so by promoting the deadly illusion that the election of Barack Obama is bringing progressive change.

This is bullshit, it’s knowable, and it must change.

Some basic reality of Obama’s first 80 days:
Obama has escalated the illegal war in Afghanistan with an additional 21,000 troops.
Obama has expanded the war into Pakistan areas, using troops and unmanned drones.
Obama has extended the deadline for withdrawing troops from Iraq to 2010—and even that date may be extended by the Pentagon.
Obama said he plans to leave 35,000-50,000 troops plus 50,000-100,000 mercenaries in Iraq after that, effectively continuing the illegal occupation.
Obama said he would close Guantanamo within 1 year, yet prisoners there are still being force fed with tubes shoved down their throats.
Obama approved $60 million to double the size of Bagram prison in Afghanistan.
Obama’s Justice Department has defended the Bush policy of illegal warrantless wiretapping and asserted far broader claims of executive branch immunity than even the Bush regime."

Obviously not only Obama but the anti-war movement in general is not immune from criticism:

"In an act which concentrates the treachery of this collapse, United for Peace and Justice (UFPJ), the largest anti-war coalition, at their national meeting in December 2008, voted to oppose organizing demonstrations on the 6th Anniversary of the Iraq War on March 19 and 21, 2009. In opposition to mounting a determined struggle to end the wars and occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, and instead of calling people into the streets to stand with the people of the world, they decided “to mobilize a new base of people who have been inspired by Obama” in a four month campaign in commemoration of Martin Luther King titled, “Beyond War, A New Economy Is Possible: Yes We Can!”

The practical results: first, the protests that were actually held by others to coincide with the Iraq War’s Anniversary on March 19 and 21 were not as large as they needed to be—which mattered. Then, on Saturday April 4, UFPJ led a dull routine walk through the deserted financial district of NYC with a couple of thousand people revealing their capacity for sapping the life and spirit out of a movement—egregious, but not the heart of the matter."

While the RCPUSA has a few axes to grind other critics are making their thoughts known. John Stauber at the Center for Media and Demococracy takes on MoveOn.org for its apparent shifts in emphasis and policy. He too is disturbed with the now subdued approach to the Wars of America and the loss of focus on economic issues that matter to the vast majority of Americans:

"The main online activist efforts that elected Obama -- his own Organizing for America and the liberal lobby MoveOn -- have become cheerleaders and lobbyists for his legislative agenda, policies that in many instances betray his rhetoric of change. I am referring to Obama's refusal to quickly end the war in Iraq; his military escalation in Afghanistan; his support for Wall Street bailouts; his endorsement of tax subsidies for the coal industry ("clean coal") and the nuclear power industry (saving us from global warming). Obama is about to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on health care subsidies that cater to the insurance industry and undermine the only real solution to the current crisis, the adoption of a single payer health care system such as that enjoyed by the Canadians and most other western democracies.

Yet my email box is filled with missives from MoveOn and other liberal online campaigns that spin these dismal policies as "real change," or ignore them entirely to dampen criticism from the Left of the Obama Administration.

What are grassroots activist organizations to do to avoid marginalization? Peace and justice organizations at the local and state level need to learn and adopt the new media tools of MoveOn and Obama, but use them to give birth to fundamental change that empowers people rather than seeks accommodation with powerful corporate interests. Rather than organizing for an agenda determined by a handful of partisan Democrats at the top, this new organization should work to empower and represent people from the bottom up.......

"In early 2007, I began publicly criticizing MoveOn for co-opting the peace movement on behalf of the agenda of Congressional Democrats. The Democrats gained control of the U.S. Congress in the fall of 2006 based primarily on public revulsion over Bush's war in Iraq, a war that was endorsed from the start by leading Democrats including John Kerry, Tom Daschle, Hillary Clinton, and many others. In early 2007, the Democrats had an opportunity to cut off funding for the war, but blinked. MoveOn, an organization considered by the mainstream media the leader of the peace movement, sided with Speaker Nancy Pelosi in an effort that marginalized the Out of Iraq Congressional Caucus and gave Bush all the funding he wanted to continue the war.

The peace movement has never recovered. Although Obama was elected as the peace candidate, his Iraq withdrawal plan is anemic and would leave 50,000 troops in Iraq indefinitely, while he has ramped up the U.S. war in Afghanistan. MoveOn has declared Obama's Iraq strategy a success, even as the war continues, and is refusing to oppose Obama on Afghanistan. Meanwhile the grassroots peace movement that consists primarily of the hundreds of groups that make up the United for Peace and Justice (UFPJ) coalition are disorganized and dispirited and UFPJ is in danger of going broke.

It's likely that all these groups that comprise UFPJ have among their own existing email lists a total number of peace activists in the millions. Yet they have never figured out how to mobilize these lists to create the sort of mega-list that is wielded by MoveOn. Hopefully down the road a network of non-partisan, web-based local and state activists will come together and create state and national email lists of millions of mobilized activists. Until these grassroots local and state groups learn the tricks of online activism and marry it to powerful grassroots organizing campaigns, real change will be deferred."

Mr Stauber is quite right to suggest another level of organizing is needed in this country to actually reflect the the beliefs and aspirations of Americans who have tossed off Bush-Cheney and don't wish to be coopted by those who at heart have more in common with the usual centers of power in this country. Vigilance is eternal as Che Guevara once said.

What's New With Swine Flu?

So what is the latest word on what may be a potential pandemic ? The following give varied answers. Questions to be answered include is this the same virus in every country?, Is this susceptible to commonly used anti-virals?, And how bad may it get?

First its not clear if this has the same virulence or killing potential everywhere. The death rate in Mexico seems to be substantially higher than other countries and why this is so is not clear given the fact that so far this seems to be the same virus in the U.S. as Mexico.

Anecdotal reports from Mexico suggest that this disease is not as susceptible to commonly used anti-virals . The BBC has a number of concerning reports such as this:

"I'm a specialist doctor in respiratory diseases and intensive care at the Mexican National Institute of Health. There is a severe emergency over the swine flu here. More and more patients are being admitted to the intensive care unit. Despite the heroic efforts of all staff (doctors, nurses, specialists, etc) patients continue to inevitably die. The truth is that anti-viral treatments and vaccines are not expected to have any effect, even at high doses. It is a great fear among the staff. The infection risk is very high among the doctors and health staff.

There is a sense of chaos in the other hospitals and we do not know what to do. Staff are starting to leave and many are opting to retire or apply for holidays. The truth is that mortality is even higher than what is being reported by the authorities, at least in the hospital where I work it. It is killing three to four patients daily, and it has been going on for more than three weeks. It is a shame and there is great fear here. Increasingly younger patients aged 20 to 30 years are dying before our helpless eyes and there is great sadness among health professionals here.
Antonio Chavez, Mexico City "

As to the last question who knows? The unpredictability of these outbreaks makes prognostication difficult. CIDRAP sums it up:

" Unpredictability stressed
Schuchat stressed the unpredictability and fluidity of the swine flu situation. "We do think this virus is spreading from person to person, and we're taking steps aggressively to try to slow the spread," she said. "We are expecting things to change, and we want you to expect change as well."

In response to questions, she said it is "premature" to conclude that the disease in Mexico is different from the one in the United States, even though Mexico has had a number of deaths. "We don't have many infected people, and we don't have great information yet," she said. Though the United States has had no deaths attributed to the virus yet, "I do fear that we will have deaths here," she added.

In response to a question, Schuchat said the CDC believes that "person to person to person" (tertiary) transmission is going on. But the agency has not yet estimated how many additional cases can be expected to result from each case.

She said some of the US cases have involved US residents who traveled to Mexico, but she wasn't sure how many. The two case-patients in Kansas are a married couple, one of whom got sick after a trip to Mexico, and the spouse became ill 2 days later.

In reiterating CDC advice about self-protective steps people can take, Schuchat said, "If you're having symptoms after a trip to Mexico, that's a good time to go to the doctor and get tested." Symptoms that may suggest swine flu include a high fever, muscle aches, cough, sore throat, and possibly vomiting and diarrhea—though these could indicate many other possibilities as well, she noted.

She repeated earlier CDC assessments that the H1N1 strain in the seasonal flu vaccine is unlikely to offer protection against the new swine H1N1 strain. From the latest tests, "it doesn't look like there are cross-reacting antibodies from seasonal H1N1 to this particular strain," she said.

Commenting on the age distribution of swine flu cases, Schuchat said US patients range from about 7 years to 54 years. In Mexico, "What we know so far is that many of the patients are in their 20s, 30s, and 40s, but we're still lining up information about which have an illness actually caused by this virus." Tests have shown that some of the sick people in Mexico actually had a seasonal flu virus, she said.

Though it appears there have been few if any swine flu cases in older people, "It's really too soon for us to conclude that older persons are spared," Schuchat said.

International developments
Elsewhere, two Canadian provinces today reported a total of 6 confirmed swine flu cases, according to reports from Canwest News Service and Reuters. Nova Scotia health officials said that 2 of its 4 confirmed cases were students attending the same private school who recently visited Mexico. Robert Strang, Nova Scotia's chief public health officer, said the patients' illnesses were mild.

In British Columbia, a spokesman for the province's Centre for Disease Control told Reuters today that officials have confirmed 2 cases.

Israel's health ministry today reported its first swine flu case, in a man who had recently traveled to Mexico and returned with influenza symptoms, Kuwait News Agency (KUNA) reported. He is hospitalized and is in isolation, the report said.

According to media reports, health authorities in several countries, including France, Spain, and New Zealand, are testing several travelers who reported flu-like symptoms after traveling to Mexico.

Mexican officials have closed schools through May 6, though many schools were closed anyway during the lead-up to the Cinco de Mayo holiday. The US Embassy in Mexico City has suspended all visa and nonessential citizen services from Apr 27 until Apr 30 as a precautionary measure to protect clients and staff, according to an Apr 25 State Department warden message. "

My favorite resources include CIDRAP, PROMED and of course the CDC.

Drones Bombs and Immoral Slaughter

More and more the use of Drone aircraft has become a tool of the U.S. military and the political establishment that serves it. In Pakistan and Afghanistan these are now somehow seen as "humanitarian weapons" that reduce the loss of U.S. servicemen and supposedly civilians as well. In fact they follow an almost 100 year history of aerial war on civilians that has been justified from the outset as a better way of war that in reality seems to be more and more dehumanized.

As Yuki Tanaka and Marilyn Young in their book "Bombing Civlians" point out:

"The ability to destroy an entire city and annihilate its population in a single bombing campaign was not only far more effcient and less costly for the attacker than previous methods of warfare; it also sanitized slaughter.The bombardier never looks squarely into the eyes of the victim, never even sees the victim. The act of destruction has no physical immeadiacy for the perpetrator, as in decapitation by sword or even shooting with a machine gun. This may be particularly important when the principal targets are women, children, and the elderly."

TomDispatch gives a particularly chilling account of drones and their possible future:

"To those who know their air power history, that shouldn't be so surprising. Air power has had a remarkably stellar record when it comes to causing death and destruction, but a remarkably poor one when it comes to breaking the will of nations, peoples, or even modest-sized organizations. Our drone wars are destructive, but they are unlikely to achieve Washington's goals.

The Future Awaits Us

If you want to read the single most chilling line yet uttered about drone warfare American-style, it comes at the end of Christopher Drew's piece. He quotes Brookings Institution analyst Peter Singer saying of our Predators and Reapers: "[T]hese systems today are very much Model T Fords. These things will only get more advanced."

In other words, our drone wars are being fought with the airborne equivalent of cars with cranks, but the "race" to the horizon is already underway. By next year, some Reapers will have a far more sophisticated sensor system with 12 cameras capable of filming a two-and-a-half mile round area from 12 different angles. That program has been dubbed "Gorgon Stare", but it doesn't compare to the future 92-camera Argus program whose initial development is being funded by the Pentagon's blue-skies outfit, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency.

Soon enough, a single pilot may be capable of handling not one but perhaps three drones, and drone armaments will undoubtedly grow progressively more powerful and "precise." In the meantime, BAE Systems already has a drone four years into development, the Taranis, that should someday be "completely autonomous"; that is, it theoretically will do without human pilots. Initial trials of a prototype are scheduled for 2010.

By 2020, so claim UAV enthusiasts, drones could be engaging in aerial battle and choosing their victims themselves. As Robert S. Boyd of McClatchy reported recently, "The Defense Department is financing studies of autonomous, or self-governing, armed robots that could find and destroy targets on their own. On-board computer programs, not flesh-and-blood people, would decide whether to fire their weapons."

It's a particular sadness of our world that, in Washington, only the military can dream about the future in this way, and then fund the "arms race" of 2018 or 2035. Rest assured that no one with a governmental red cent is researching the health care system of 2018 or 2035, or the public education system of those years.

In the meantime, the skies of our world are filling with round-the-clock assassins. They will only evolve and proliferate. Of course, when we check ourselves out in the movies, we like to identify with John Connor, the human resister, the good guy of this planet, against the evil machines. Elsewhere, however, as we fight our drone wars ever more openly, as we field mechanical techno-terminators with all-seeing eyes and loose our missiles from thousands of miles away ("Hasta la Vista, Baby!"), we undoubtedly look like something other than a nation of John Connors to those living under the Predators. It may not matter if the joysticks and consoles on those advanced machines are somewhat antiquated; to others, we are now the terminators of the planet, implacable machine assassins.

True, we can't send our drones into the past to wipe out the young Ayman al-Zawahiri in Cairo or the teenage Osama bin Laden speeding down some Saudi road in his gray Mercedes sedan. True, the UAV enthusiasts, who are already imagining all-drone wars run by "ethical" machines, may never see anything like their fantasies come to pass. Still, the fact that without the help of a single advanced cyborg we are already in the process of creating a Terminator planet should give us pause for thought... or not. "

Eduard Liminov To Run For Russian Presidency 2012

I'll have to admit I missed the initial message but here it is and it could be as game changing, if not more than, Obama in the U.S. It may seem somewhat retarded now but I think there is a great unrepresented majority that can get behind Liminov if allowed to.

Dead Cats Bouncing

Nouriel Roubini, one of the few to get it, explains the latest stock "bounce":

"Mild signs that the rate of economic contraction is slowing in the United States, China, and other parts of the world have led many economists to forecast that positive growth will return to the US in the second half of the year, and that a similar recovery will occur in other advanced economies. The emerging consensus among economists is that growth next year will be close to the trend rate of 2.5 per cent.

Investors are talking of “green shoots” of recovery and of positive “second derivatives of economic activity” (continuing economic contraction is the first, negative, derivative, but the slower rate suggests that the bottom is near). As a result, stock markets have started to rally in the US and around the world. Markets seem to believe that there is light at the end of the tunnel for the economy and for the battered profits of corporations and financial firms.

This consensus optimism is, I believe, not supported by the facts. Indeed, I expect that while the rate of US contraction will slow from -6 per cent in the last two quarters, US growth will still be negative (around -1.5 to -2 per cent) in the second half of the year (compared to the bullish consensus of +2 per cent). Moreover, growth next year will be so weak (0.5 to 1 per cent, as opposed to the consensus of 2 per cent or more) and unemployment so high (above 10 per cent) that it will still feel like a recession.

In the euro zone and Japan, the outlook for 2009 and 2010 is even worse, with growth close to zero even next year. China will have a more rapid recovery later this year, but growth will reach only 5 per cent this year and 7 per cent in 2010, well below the average of 10 per cent over the last decade.

Given this weak outlook for the major economies, losses by banks and other financial institutions will continue to grow. My latest estimates are $3.6 trillion in losses for loans and securities issued by US institutions, and $1 trillion for the rest of the world.

It is said that the International Monetary Fund, which earlier this year revised upward its estimate of bank losses, from $1 trillion to $2.2 trillion, will announce a new estimate of $3.1 trillion for US assets and $0.9 trillion for foreign assets, figures very close to my own. By this standard, many US and foreign banks are effectively insolvent and will have to be taken over by governments. The credit crunch will last much longer if we keep zombie banks alive despite their massive and continuing losses.

Given this outlook for the real economy and financial institutions, the latest rally in US and global stock markets has to be interpreted as a bear-market rally. Economists usually joke that the stock market has predicted 12 out of the last nine recessions, as markets often fall sharply without an ensuing recession. But, in the last two years, the stock market has predicted six out of the last zero economic recoveries— that is, six bear market rallies that eventually fizzled and led to new lows.

The stock market's latest “dead cat bounce” may last a while longer, but three factors will, in due course, lead it to turn south again. First, macroeconomic indicators will be worse than expected, with growth failing to recover as fast as the consensus expects.

Second, the profits and earnings of corporations and financial institutions will not rebound as fast as the consensus predicts, as weak economic growth, deflationary pressures, and surging defaults on corporate bonds will limit firms’ pricing power and keep profit margins low.

Third, financial shocks will be worse than expected. At some point, investors will realise that bank losses are massive, and that some banks are insolvent. Deleveraging by highly leveraged firms— such as hedge funds— will lead them to sell illiquid assets in illiquid markets. And some emerging market economies— despite massive IMF support— will experience a severe financial crisis with contagious effects on other economies.

So, while this latest bear-market rally may continue for a bit longer, renewed downward pressure on stocks and other risky assets is inevitable.

To be sure, much more aggressive policy action (massive and unconventional monetary easing, larger fiscal-stimulus packages, bailouts of financial firms, individual mortgage-debt relief, and increased financial support for troubled emerging markets) in many countries in the last few months has reduced the risk of a near depression. That outcome seemed highly likely six months ago, when global financial markets nearly collapsed.

Still, this global recession will continue for a longer period than the consensus suggests. There may be light at the end of the tunnel— no depression and financial meltdown. But economic recovery everywhere will be weaker and will take longer than expected. The same is true for a sustained recovery of financial markets.

Nouriel Roubini is Professor of Economics at the Stern School of Business, New York University, and Chairman of RGE Monitor "

Putin as Talking Kielbasa

Грани-ТВ: Путина колбасит

If you had'nt heard there is a power struggle in Russia and this talking sausage clip shows Vladimir Putin with egg on his face. Wonder who's winning?

Banking Thievery

According to MSM accounts the economy is on the upswing and we should quit worrying about things. There are however voices who have been around for sometime to suggest otherwise, one of my favorites is Elizabeth Warren who has always told it as it is, especially as her current position head of the Congressional Oversight Panel adds a dose of reality lacking in current analysis.
This is reinforced by an article by Mike Whitney in Counterpunch that gives additional insight as seen in the following:

"That question was best answered by the former chief economist of the IMF, Simon Johnson, in an article which appeared in The Atlantic Monthly:

"The crash has laid bare many unpleasant truths about the United States. One of the most alarming... is that the finance industry has effectively captured our government - a state of affairs that more typically describes emerging markets, and is at the center of many emerging-market crises. If the IMF's staff could speak freely about the U.S., it would tell us what it tells all countries in this situation; recovery will fail unless we break the financial oligarchy that is blocking essential reform. And if we are to prevent a true depression we're running out of time." (The Atlantic Monthly, May 2009, by Simon Johnson)

The banks have a stranglehold on the political process. Many of their foot soldiers now occupy the highest offices in government. It's up to people like Elizabeth Warren to draw attention to the silent coup that has taken place and do whatever needs to be done to purge the moneylenders from the seat of power and restore representative government. It's a tall order and time is running out."

Climate Change Goes On

I keep running into climate change deniers who seem to feel that climate change is a political problem as opposed to something that involves scientific evidence and continuing evaluation. The latest news is not reassuring to them or anyone else as far as that goes as a hunk of ice the size of Connecticut peels off :

"Images from the NASA Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) sensors on the Terra and Aqua satellites showed the shattering of the ice bridge between March 31, 2009 and April 6, 2009. The loss of the ice bridge, which was bracing the remaining portions of the Wilkins ice shelf, will now allow a mass of broken ice and icebergs to drift into the Southern Ocean.

Scientists at NSIDC and around the world have been watching the ice bridge since last March, anticipating its collapse. Now that it has broken up, researchers are closely monitoring the remaining portion of the Wilkins Ice Shelf to see if the loss of the ice bridge allows the ice shelf to collapse further.

The Wilkins is following a pattern of instability and rapid collapse that many Antarctic Peninsula ice shelves have experienced in recent years. Scientists think that the dramatic loss of these ice shelves, which have existed for hundreds to thousands of years, is an important sign of climate change in the Southern Hemisphere. The loss of an ice shelf can also allow the glaciers that feed into it to start flowing ice into the ocean at an accelerated rate, contributing to a rise in global sea levels.

The Wilkins Ice Shelf first began to break up in the mid-1990s. Last March, the Wilkins lost another 400 square kilometers (160 square miles) in a rapid retreat, and the ice shelf continued to form new cracks over the winter.

The Wilkins Ice Shelf is located on the southwestern Antarctic Peninsula, the fastest-warming region of the Earth. In the past 50 years, the Antarctic Peninsula has warmed by 2.5 degrees Celsius (4 degrees Fahrenheit). In the early 1990s, the Wilkins Ice Shelf had a total area of 17,400 square kilometers (6,700 square miles). Events in 1998 and the early years of this decade reduced that to roughly 13,680 square kilometers (5,280 square miles). In 2008, a series of disintegrations (rapid repeated calvings in which the ice shelf pieces are small enough to topple over) and break-up events (rifting of large sections of the shelf, leading to large tabular iceberg calvings) shrunk the area of stable shelf to roughly 10,300 square kilometers (4,000 square miles), a net loss within a year of approximately 3,600 square kilometers (1,400 square miles)."

Meanwhile at the top of the Earth the disappearance of Arctic ice becomes even more apparent even if weather in your local situation is less than dramatic. And that's the point, this is global climate change, not Wisconsin or Minnesota or Iowa climate change, or around your block change.People can argue about the signifigance of minor points, reality trumps dogma any day.

Engdahl: American Bankers Like Russian 1990's Oligarchs

F. William Engdahl in the above clip from The Real News Network draws parallels between 1990 asset stripping Russian Oligarchs and the largest banks in the U.S. Meanwhile I still can't get over the creepy seperated at birth similarity between Tim Geithner and Eraserhead.

Arms Control, Another Kick At The Cat

I've got issues with the new administration but one thing I can get behind is any serious attempt to reduce nuclear weapons.President Obama meets President Medvedev tomorrow with the possibility of starting to limit world destroying weapons, here are a couple of perspectives, first Pavel Podvig of the Russian Strategic Nuclear Forces Blog:

"Presidents Medvedev and Obama will meet for the first time on April 1st, on the margins of the G-20 conference in London. One issue that will definitely be on the agenda is a new "legally binding" arms control agreement that is supposed to bring a new round of nuclear weapons reductions. It is too early, of course, for anything that would resemble an actual agreement, but we could probably expect a join statement with some an outline of the new arrangement.

As far as I can tell from various conversations with people in Moscow and elsewhere, we shouldn't expect a breakthrough of any kind. To begin with, the number that we will probably see in the new agreement is 1500 warheads - hardly a radical reduction from the "1700-2200 warheads" level of the Moscow treaty.

Then, to get to the level of 1500 warheads, the United States and Russia will have to come up with some creative accounting. One way to do that would be to accept the "operationally deployed nuclear warheads" count, which is referred to in the Moscow treaty and which the United States used unilaterally since then, but which Russia has never officially accepted. So far, that is - I was told that Russia will be ready to use the U.S. definition in the new treaty.

What about the "upload potential" then? One of the reasons Russia objected to accepting the "operationally deployed nuclear warheads" count was that it allows the United States to implement reductions by simply removing some warheads from missiles and bombers. As far as I understand, no final decision has been made yet in Russia on how to deal with that issue, but one possibility would be to have a separate ceiling on delivery systems - this would probably not limit the "upload potential" in any substantial way, but would allow Russian negotiators to claim that they got the limit on launchers that they wanted. Another possibility that was mentioned is an agreement that would limit the "upload potential" by a certain percentage of "operationally deployed nuclear warheads".

Whatever choice is made, it is hard to see how a limit on "upload potential" would be meaningful without significant changes in the U.S. strategic posture - right now the United States has about 6000 START-accountable warheads and about 2200 "operationally deployed nuclear" warheads. Even with some serious flexibility in counting rules it would be difficult for the United States to bring its forces to the 1500-warheads level (isn't this the good time for the United States to get rid of its ICBMs?).

As far as Russia is concerned, 1500 warheads would be a relatively easy number to achieve (although getting lower would take some tough decisions). Russia might even have an upload potential of its own - there will be a theoretical possibility to MIRV single-warhead Topol-M missiles and to increase the number of warheads on R-29RM Sineva missile to ten. Not that this would make any sense, but at least Russia could claim some parity with the United States.

I was told in no uncertain terms that Russia has made a firm decision not to extend the START treaty. This is very unfortunate - keeping START in force would be the best way of keeping that "upload potential" under control. As far as I can tell, many in Russia believe that they could get a better deal in a new treaty, but I'm sure this is not the case - once the provisions of START treaty are abandoned it would be very difficult to get them back. The issue of "offensive strategic arms" deployed outside of national territories that received a special place in a recent address from the president is an example of how this would work - I was told that the reason it was mentioned was precisely to ensure that this ban, which is part of START, will remain in place after the treaty expires. But I'm not sure that Russia will be able to get that formal commitment again.

Overall, although the "party line" is that the new treaty is expected to be ready by the end of the year, there is quite a bit of skepticism about that. I think this skepticism is justified - I don't see how the two countries could negotiate a meaningful new agreement in the time that's left. Of course, the United States and Russia could always sign a meaningless agreement, which I'm afraid they will most likely end up doing.

I still believe that the idea of having a new agreement is misguided - keeping START treaty in force would be a much better strategy."

The Global Security Newswire has a different perspective:

"The U.S. and Russian presidents plan to sign a statement Wednesday pledging to finish a new nuclear arms control agreement before the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty expires in December, Reuters reported (see GSN, March 27).
"We will seek to agree on the terms and time frame for working on an agreement to replace the START treaty so that at our next meeting we can reach our first concrete agreements and conclude all of our work by year's end," said Sergei Prikhodko, an aide to Russian President Dmitry Medvedev. The two leaders are scheduled to meet for the first time this week on the sidelines of a global economic summit in London.

The existing pact restricts the numbers of nuclear warheads and delivery vehicles each nation may deploy, but its limits and detailed verification provisions are set to lapse on Dec. 5. Another agreement, the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty, has spurred much deeper warhead cuts, but lacks any tools for the two sides to confirm those reductions.

Prikhodko said the Kremlin welcomed new U.S. overtures by President Barack Obama, but recognized that negotiations would not be easy.

"A shared understanding is now taking shape that bilateral relations are getting a second chance that must not be missed. We are confident that London will be an important milestone along that path," he said. However, "we fully understand the differences that divide us and harbor no illusions that they will be easily overcome" (Shuster/Shchedrov, Reuters, March 28).

One potentially large area of disagreement is whether Obama plans to continue a Bush administration initiative to deploy U.S. missile defenses in Europe. The plan has riled Russian officials, and Obama has not yet offered his opinion. He has, however, written to Medvedev suggesting that Russian help in curbing Iran's nuclear activities could reduce the rationale for the missile defenses in Poland and the Czech Republic.

Medvedev, however, appeared to rule out such a deal.

"I don't think you can just trade one thing for another; this is not serious talk," he said in a BBC interview aired yesterday.

He said a cooperative defense would be a better solution to protect against emerging missile threats.

"This should be done through common efforts rather than by deploying any missiles or radars along our borders which give rise to real doubt arises as to what lies behind all this? Is it done to make us nervous or in order to really prevent some threats?" Medvedev said (BBC News, March 29)."

At this point any dialogue is better than none. Given the American/World economic situation world wide reduction in military budgets would be a welcome relief to a world that needs health care,food,and education. Americans in particular need to ask themselves how much military spending is necessary to make them secure especially when the combined military spending of Russia and China is perhaps 20-30%(and I think I'm being generous with these numbers) of American spending.

Putin Attacks Canada, Saves Seals

In a move to clearly inflame Canadian opinion Russian PM Vladimir Putin has banned baby seal infantacide.According to the Polar Conservation Organization:

"Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin's usual tough-guy image has a soft spot after all. He condemned the hunting of baby Whitecoat / Harp seals. In a ban on seal hunting coming ?

During a meeting with his cabinet he was quoted saying "This is a bloody business and it clearly should have been banned long ago."

Following protests by environmental groups, many countries have banned the large-scale hunting of Whitecoat /Harp seals.

It is not the first time that Putin showed he has compassion for wildlife and nature. He had a controversial oil pipeline around Siberia's Lake Baikal re-routed in 2006 and was shown on tv with the tiger cub he had been given for his birthday."

Canadians were shocked by this unexpected Russian move, Russia Blog reports the following:

"Sheryl Fink, a researcher for the International Fund for Animal Welfare based in Guelph, Ont, was positively shocked by Putin’s decision. The Russian branch of the organization held rallies in cities across Russia last month, but after years of fruitless campaigning, Mr. Putin's support caught them off guard. "It highlights the fact that Canada is still in the Dark Ages on this issue. It's astounding when even the government of Russia is more willing to listen to its own people than ours is," Ms. Fink said.

Yury Trutnyev, the Russian Minister of Natural Resources, announced a ban on the hunting of all harp seals less than one year old. "This bloody hunting is from now on banned in our country, as in most developed countries. This is an important measure to preserve Russia's biodiversity," he said. The Russian ban effectively ends commercial seal hunting in that country, as most of the market for pelts comes from seals less than a year old, reported The National Post. A quota had previously allowed for the harvesting of up to 35,000 seals in the White Sea, near Russia's border with Finland."

Treausury International Capital Report or The Lifeboats Are Launched But No One Told the Passengers

While there is a certain catharsis fantasizing about arrest, flagellation, defenestration, and hanging from streetlights the members of the financial elite and their political accomplices who have, after two decades of unrestrained greed and rapacity brought us to our present state, the unfolding crisis takes on new, largely unappreciated dimensions with each passing day.
A good example of this is the story now unfolding in Treasury International Capital report released for January of this year.This shows that after years of influx of foreign capital the U.S. saw a loss of $150 billion.
Julian Delasantellis in AsianTimes Online lays it out:

"The first article I ever wrote for Asia Times Online, (US living on borrowed time - and money" March 28, 2006), introduced readers to the US Treasury's monthly Treasury International Capital (TIC) report, a compendium of how much investment or short-term capital the US receives from foreign sources every month. Back then, the US was quite the popular parking spot for foreign capital, frequently drawing in over $100 billion a month.

That worm has certainly turned; the US in January, the last month data is available, was actually net drained of foreign capital, to the tune of $150 billion. On his blog at the Council of Foreign Relations, economist Brad Setser interpreted the data this way.
Today's TIC January data was a disaster. $150 billion in (net) capital outflows (negative $148.9 billion to be precise) cannot sustain even a $40 billion trade deficit.
Obviously, the concern is that those with still the capital to lend to the US, primarily China, seeing the huge increase in US government demand for borrowed funds with its now huge and ever-burgeoning budget deficits being used to finance the economic crisis recovery programs, will fear that the US dollars they use to buy US debt will depreciate in value, devastating the value of their investments.

Previously, China has tried to give messages that slowly pulling out of its dollar positions was exactly what it wanted to do, but America's cherished habit of ignoring anything that foreigners say to it had it lending a stone-deaf ear to the warnings.

Last week, as detailed on this site with W Joseph Stroupe's three-part series (see Dollar crisis in the making Asia Times Online, March 14-18, 2009) and by Olivia Chung's article on Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao's warning to the US to maintain the value of its currency as a matter of national honor, (see Wen puts US honor on the debt line Asia Times Online, March 14, 2009) the message seemed to be being sent as loudly and clearly as possible. Still, the US stockmarket ran true to form - it ignored Wen's warnings, and continued its recent bounce off the lows."

Meanwhile the debate rages on regarding President Obama's NCAA picks and the signigance of possibly impugning the reputation of Special Olympics participants. Indeed, why should we worry knowing the steady hands of Geithner and Sommers are on the wheel and in the till.

Who Represents America in the Mideast?

In what appears to be a major setback to assertion of genuine American self-interest, Charles Freeman, nominee as Chair of the National Intelligence Council, has been forced to withdraw under the preassure of Israeli interests. In a message published by the Wall Street Journal he lays out a rather disturbing but familiar scenario :

"I have concluded that the barrage of libelous distortions of my record would not cease upon my entry into office. The effort to smear me and to destroy my credibility would instead continue. I do not believe the National Intelligence Council could function effectively while its chair was under constant attack by unscrupulous people with a passionate attachment to the views of a political faction in a foreign country. I agreed to chair the NIC to strengthen it and protect it against politicization, not to introduce it to efforts by a special interest group to assert control over it through a protracted political campaign.....

"The libels on me and their easily traceable email trails show conclusively that there is a powerful lobby determined to prevent any view other than its own from being aired, still less to factor in American understanding of trends and events in the Middle East. The tactics of the Israel Lobby plumb the depths of dishonor and indecency and include character assassination, selective misquotation, the willful distortion of the record, the fabrication of falsehoods, and an utter disregard for the truth. The aim of this Lobby is control of the policy process through the exercise of a veto over the appointment of people who dispute the wisdom of its views, the substitution of political correctness for analysis, and the exclusion of any and all options for decision by Americans and our government other than those that it favors."