Translate

Monday 15 June 2015

Edward Snowden: – 
Smashing the Narrative

[SPIESяUS]

Explanation

This article was first written on 31st May but withheld to facilitate the checking of certain facts – specifically whether Mr Snowden would have been able to travel on in safety to another country after his passport was [unwisely, in my view] revoked by the State Department on the orders of the President and his Cabinet.The conclusion was that it would not have been possible for Edward Snowden to travel on in safety after his passport was revoked and the likelihood is that he would have found it very difficult to have temporary U.N. documentation issued for safe passage which would have been valid and recognised under and within U.S. extradition treaty agreement and which could not have been rendered invalid before he reached a final destination (hence his interdiction by the FBI a likely outcome.)
The alternative documentation would simply have enabled him to travel – but not with safety (sic. without him being arrested, held in detention and rendered by extradition back to United States on theft of Government property and [or] espionage charges.)Indeed, traveling to any destination on his American passport was itself now a serious problem as he was now an international fugitive and pariah, an embarrassment for most allied countries worldwide.So, bizarrely, revoking Mr Snowden's passport provided him [and his 'handlers'] with the perfect narrative they would have found quite a challenge to otherwise manufacture.
Sometimes the truth is much much stranger than fiction.
Don't expect to read or see the above in your mainstream news media reports.



''Come Into My Parlour...........''
[Die Spinne]


Not too long ago I was invited to attend a function with a prominent Waffen SS Neo-Nazi supporter as guest speaker.
I was sent a glowing list of his titles, accomplishments and membership of the most prestigious organizations you could ever imagine. The list was as long as your arm. Other than the fact that this individual is a Neo-Nazi supporter his credentials could not have read any higher – and they would put even Dr. Goebbels and Dr Mengele's qualifications and memberships both to shame.
I was informally advised by email that my attendance would only be acceptable if I was prepared to say 'nice things' about the individual and his country. [This now seems to becoming a common feature as my reputation for plain speaking is not always welcome by politicians and diplomats living in their proverbial 'bubble'.]
Of course there would be the usual photo opportunity and my name listed as 'present' and 'supporting'. So not only would a photo opportunity exist for my presence to be recorded but the record would also show that I had (if I so 'choose' - with no other option available) made 'complimentary' statements about, for want of a better word, Neo-Nazism and of course everything would be available online.

GOTCHA!
It is a well known fact that the FSB and other intelligence agencies regularly use such 'Black Ops' as false flags or with intent to blackmail or subvert individuals whom it is believed may be open to 'influence'. Indeed sometimes, from a counter intelligence perspective, the only way to find out what is really going on is to 'follow' the 'intelligence trail' when they surface for a task or mission.
British intelligence has a long history of being compromised by the KGB during the era of the Cold War. I am not, however, here to discuss the weaknesses of Western intelligence agencies here but how the FSB pulled off a master stroke in recruiting Edward Snowden. The introduction was simply intended to portray a process of programming which starts with subservience and ends with reprogramming. Classic techniques which have [in some parts of the world] replaced the more 'traditional' methods of physical torture as they have been shown over the last century to be eminently more effective and longer-lasting in terms of results and objectives.

American Hero [Working Class Hero?]
The idea that Edward Snowden, depicted in the world media as true American hero, just happened to end up in Moscow through a chance encounter with Russian 'diplomats' in Hong Kong beggars belief – but it does show how sycophantic, 'brainwashed', politically naïve individuals in the world media are today after decades of being instructed by sub-editors not to ask 'awkward questions' and just be 'politically correct' or 'toe the line' without thinking for themselves for one second, to secure approval or perhaps promotion. Unfortunately the syndrome is only too well known: Nobody asks the awkward questions of a senior colleague – even when there are obvious anomalies such as, for example, security lapses or behavior which might call into question his or her judgement4.

Asset or Spy?
For the Western media to believe that Snowden was not approached by Russian intelligence before he arrived in Moscow and to ignore the fact that it was Julian Assange who encouraged him to head East almost gives truth to the statement that the media itself, as a whole, is remarkably naïve or has 'lost the plot' (sic. it no longer has the will to ask the hard questions preferring to just blind itself to the obvious.)

NSA Officer? Oh!; Just Hop On A Plane To Moscow!
The Russian Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) will simply not permit a U.S. Intelligence Officer to just hop on a plane to Moscow. It just does not happen this way.
In some respects the severing of informal intelligence contacts between government officers and the media since 9/11 is responsible for the situation where every State Department official is too frightened to make any contact with anyone from the media without authorization at a higher level. This also means that Officers who may have misgivings, but because of a climate of mistrust and mindful of their careers, are more likely to seek support and solace from a source well outside the system than was ever the case in the past.
The book is literally being thrown today at journalists who refuse to identify their intelligence sources of leaked classified information – making it even more difficult to find out what is really going on other than through spectacular leaks.  Enter Mr Edward Snowden and Mr Julian Assange as the knights in shining armor, protectors of democracy, the right to know, universal personal liberties and freedom for the ordinary man and woman in society.


Line KR
Line KR was the legendary foreign counter-intelligence arm of the KGB's First Intelligence Directorate. This Directorate was the elite section within the Soviet Union's overseas apparatus.
Retired KGB General Oleg Kalugin who was the youngest General in the KGB during the era of the Cold War was also head of the First Chief Directorate and was himself directly responsible for recruiting foreigners as Russian spies, is in no doubt about Edward Snowden:
''Back in Russia, according to Kalugin, Snowden is being handled by the FSB, the KGB’s successor. Kalugin claims that Snowden has shared much of his vast trove of secrets about the NSA with his Russian hosts, and in the process, has allegedly handed the FSB one of their biggest intelligence hauls and propaganda coups since the end of the Cold War 1.''
In Kalugin’s view, Snowden is guilty of treason: “Of course he is, by American standards. Snowden is a traitor,” Kalugin said. “When someone changes sides and goes over to the other side, it’s a victory,” he said.''Snowden’s value to his Russian handlers has not totally run its course, claims Kalugin, and the FSB will allegedly use him as a technical consultant and advisor on topics that interest them. His travel in the country also may be coordinated by the FSB'' Kalugin said2.

How Many Snowdens Are There In The U.S. and Amongst It's Allies?
As yesterday, the most important information for Russian spies today is military, scientific, political, technical, financial, industrial and trade intelligence. All persons engaged in such activities and their families are of standard interest to spy organisations.  Many factors will determine the level of priority or interest.
In the wake of the Snowden revelations about the National Security Agency spying on German firms to gain economic superiority in trade and negotiations, the concerns were sufficiently heightened that the Federal Office For the Protection Of the Constitution (BfV), Germany's counterintelligence agency, was instructed to investigate the Snowden claims.
The BfV concluded that
“There is currently no concrete evidence of potential involvement of U.S. intelligence services in espionage attacks on German companies,” adding, “the U.S. Government has assured the Federal Government several times that its services do not conduct economic espionage2.”
The damage has been done however and (potentially) tens of billions of dollars of trade, business and investment has been lost because of Edward Snowden's unproven revelations about the NSA spying on specific governments, politicians, diplomatic bodies, commercial, trade and scientific organisations worldwide.

The Spy [or Asset] Who Came In From the Cold: False Flag
''It cannot be ruled out that the SVR (or possibly GRU, Russian military intelligence, which is a formidable espionage service its own right) initially dealt with Ed in a false-flag operation, masking their true identity for a time, but experts who are acquainted with Russia’s “special services” understand that the Official Narrative, that Ed just up and moved to Moscow, cannot be true.
Getting to the bottom of this matter is critical to assessing the damage wrought by the Snowden Operation.''
To put it in a nutshell, too many media personalities, politicians and experts have invested too much of their reputations and future careers in promoting and portraying Edward Snowden as nothing other than a classic American hero to see such all ruined by the revelation of and his unmasking as a Russian spy.

Cover Your Ass [CYA]
''The U.S. Intelligence Community has senior people who, following in the long line of espionage bosses who really would rather not know the full story behind an epic traitor, seem to prefer to avert eyes from this issue, just as many journalists do. For them, as bad as the Snowden story is already, think how much worse it will look if Ed was really working for the Russians for years: that would be a truly epic counterintelligence fail, and careers and reputations will be ruined3.''


Anyone In The Intelligence Community (IC) Always Has A 'Backup' Or 'Fallback' Position-Just In Case Things Go Horribly Wrong
''We are expected to believe that Ed was clever enough to steal uncounted classified
NSA documents, the biggest such haul in all history, but did not remember to save
those few, critical emails that would establish that he really is a whistleblower, that he sought remedy through proper channels before he “went rogue.” Be aware that every NSA and IC (Intelligence Community) person I know keeps a file containing hard copies of all important (meaning Cover Your Ass or CYA) emails; I learned this in my first week on the job, and that file was literally the last thing I burn-bagged when I left Fort Meade for the last time. But Ed, you see, is different. At this point, it’s simple: he needs to cough up those emails – which NSA says do not exist – and provide the names of the supervisors he complained to, or pipe down4.''


SPIESяUS
If it turns out that Edward Snowden was indeed a carefully well-placed Russian spy (and there are tantalizing indications that such is in fact the case) this is undoubtedly the greatest intelligence coup by a superpower-Russia-of the 21st century to date. With Assange and Manning together they dwarf the compromise of the entire British intelligence services by the Soviet Union during the era of the Cold War making the latter pale into insignificance.
The damage to U.S. security and economic interests worldwide are incalculable (possibly in the tens of billions of dollars) and are likely to be very long lasting.
One cannot overestimate in the era of instant global interconnectivity the mortal damage which such revelations have inflicted on U.S. national security.
As with many things intelligence, where spectacular triumphs and monumental failures occur, the victors will never reveal the full facts (including the secret award of the rank of Colonel or higher in the FSB to Edward Snowden for loyal and valiant service) so as not to compromise future similar operations and likewise the vanquished are so embarrassed that CYA, at every level, is the order of the day.
Therefore the likelihood is that we will never discover the true and full disclosure details of all the facts in our lifetime, for the reasons given above.
The narrative on all sides will thus, never be shattered.


© Patrick Emek, 2015


[I would just like to add again for the record that I have always believed it serves no useful practical purpose to 'hold' Mr Assange as a 'prisoner' in London's Ecuador Embassy. Quite the opposite. Like 'The Man In the Iron Mask' he serves as an 'inspiration' for others to emulate rather than being seen as an example of future 'collective punishment' to all who would think of following. Locking the stable doors after the horse has bolted is however, sadly, the order of the day.]




References


The Snowden Operation:
Russia Against The Western Intelligence Community (John Schindler):


4.Replication of Milgram's 'Shocking' Experiments Proves 70 Percent of People will Torture Others if Ordered\;
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/025141_WHO_brain_authority.html#ixzz3bno5evTB









Idea for the subtitle SPIESяUS came to me from the movie 'Toys' - Baltimore Pictures Production; a Barry Levinson film, 1992 starring Robin Williams and LL Cool J]








Posted by at

Wednesday 10 June 2015

Summer Food Service Program (SFSP)

Raise Awareness




Last Published: 05/14/2015


Promoting summer feeding sites in your community is one of the most important things you can do to ensure no child goes hungry this summer.  The more parents, children, and teenagers know about where sites are located, the more children will come to eat.  Anyone can do outreach using the resources we have here.  Sites, sponsors, community advocates, and volunteers can use a variety of tools to draw attention to summer meals.
Summer flyer image Summer Meals Promotional Materials
Flyers, bookmarks, postcards and more in both English and Spanish to let families know about the availability of summer meals and how to find meal locations near them.
Radio PSAs Radio Public Service Announcements (PSAs)
Download any one of the summer meals PSAs and work with your favorite local radio station to get them played for free.  Click here to learn how to work with radio stations to play PSAs for free.
PSAs to Families:
 PSAs to Recruit More Sites and Sponsors
Transcripts (some radio DJs prefer to read the PSAs themselves)
Training Videos Training Videos
Watch summer meals sites, sponsors, state agencies, and community advocates talk about their innovative strategies and successful practices.  It would be even better if you hosted a viewing for your colleagues and other community organizations.
Team Up with 211 Team Up With 2-1-1
Reach out to the 2-1-1 call center in your area to have them list your summer feeding sites as a resource for families in need.  2-1-1 provides free and confidential information and referrals to services that provide help with food, housing, employment, health care, and more.  2-1-1 is currently in all 50 states and serves over 90% of the population.  Click here to find your local 2-1-1 call center and list your sites with them.
http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/sfsp/Summer_Flyer_En_508.pdf
Posted by at

Wednesday 3 June 2015


Historic U.S. Supreme Court Judgement

A historic decision was made in the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday 1st June.
It involved the case EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch.
It is historic not just for the majority decision or judgement but also for what is probably Justice Clarence Thomas' finest dissenting Opinion ever made as a Supreme Court Justice.

It is a case of enormous significance the reverberations of which will echo across America in the context of Civil Rights, Religious Freedom and the separation of Church and State.

I will admit that I have a personal interest in this judgement because many years ago I had knowledge of a similar situation along the lines of Abercrombie & Fitch which never reached the Courts.  The decision in the matter was not based on prejudice but on policy issues – but it likewise could (and perhaps was) perceived as based on personal prejudices. 
[Indeed for over two decades Ross Perot, the Founder of EDS, as a matter of company policy, would never hire any employee who wore a beard or moustache and it's Texas headquarters for new recruits was more akin to Boot Camp than induction training.]

This issue of headscarves also has a personal significance.   I grew up in a very traditional Christian community where women always covered themselves with a semi-veil or headscarf going into Church out of respect and tradition rather than because there were prohibitions against going uncovered.
For example, my mother and aunt would never think of going into a Church uncovered (without a headscarf) because such would be highly disrespectful.

The Case
centered around Samantha Elauf, a lady who wore a headscarf to her job interview with the firm Abercrombie & Fitch. They decided that while she ws qualified for the job, wearing a headscarf at work would be contrary to their 'appearance' policy.  On this basis they refused to employ her.
The EEOC took on her case.  The trial court ruled in favor of the EEOC-Elauf. Abercombie & Fitch appealed.  This decision was reversed by an appeals court who decided in favor of Abercrombie & Fitch.
By an 8-1 vote the U.S. Supreme Court have now reversed this decision.
What is even more important is the ruling by Justice Antonin Scalia who delivered the Opinion of The Court:
''Samantha Elauf is a practicing Muslim who, consistent with her understanding of her religion’s requirements,wears a headscarf.........
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 78 Stat. 253, as amended, prohibits two categories of employment practices. It is unlawful for an employer:
“(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin;
or
(2)to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.”
These two proscriptions, often referred to as the “disparate treatment” (or “intentional discrimination”) provision and the “disparate impact” provision, are the only causes of action under Title VII. The word “religion” is defined to “includ[e] all aspects of religious observance and practice, as well as belief, unless an employer demonstrates that he is unable to reasonably accommodate to” a“religious observance or practice without undue hardship in the conduct of the employer’s business.” §2000e(j).Abercrombie’s primary argument is that an applicant cannot show disparate treatment without first showing that an employer has “actual knowledge” of the applicant’s need for an accommodation. We disagree. Instead, an applicant need only show that his need for an accommodation was a motivating factor in the employer’s decision........''

2
''The disparate-treatment provision forbids employers to:
(1) “fail . . . to hire” an applicant (2) “because of ” (3) “such individual’s . . . religion” (which includes his religious practice). Here, of course, Abercrombie (1) failed to hire Elauf. The parties concede that (if Elauf sincerely believes that her religion so requires) Elauf ’s wearing of a head scarf is (3) a “religious practice.” All that remains is whether she was not hired (2) “because of ” her religious practice.''

Concurring with the Judgement Justice Samuel Alito Jr.,added:
''In sum, the EEOC was required in this case to prove that Abercrombie rejected Elauf because of a practice that Abercrombie knew was religious. It is undisputed that Abercrombie rejected Elauf because she wore a headscarf, and there is ample evidence in the summary judgment record to prove that Abercrombie knew that Elauf is a Muslim and that she wore the scarf for a religious reason. The Tenth Circuit therefore erred in ordering the entry of summary judgment for Abercrombie. On remand, the Tenth Circuit can consider whether there is sufficient evidence to support summary judgment in favor of the EEOC on the question of Abercrombie’s knowledge. The Tenth Circuit will also be required to address Abercrombie’s claim that it could not have accommodated Elauf ’s wearing the headscarf on the job without undue hardship.''

The Dissenting Voice (concurring in part and dissenting in other parts) In This Case Was That Of Justice Clarence Thomas:
''JUSTICE THOMAS, concurring in part and dissenting in part.''
''I agree with the Court that there are two—and only two—causes of action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as understood by our precedents: a disparate treatment (or intentional-discrimination) claim and a disparate-impact claim. Ante,at 3. Our agreement ends there. Unlike the majority, I adhere to what I had thought before today was an undisputed proposition: Mere application of a neutral policy cannot constitute “intentional discrimination.” Because the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) can prevail here only if Abercrombie engaged in intentional discrimination, and because Abercrombie’s application of its neutral Look Policy does not meet that description, I would affirm the judgment of the Tenth Circuit.''
I
''This case turns on whether Abercrombie’s conduct constituted “intentional discrimination” within the mean ing of 42 U. S. C. §1981a(a)(1). That provision allows a Title VII plaintiff to “recover compensatory and punitive damages” only against an employer “who engaged in unlawful intentional discrimination (not an employment practice that is unlawful because of its disparate impact).” The damages award EEOC obtained against Abercrombie is thus proper only if that company engaged in “intentional discrimination”—as opposed to “an employment practice that is unlawful because of its disparate impact”—within the meaning of §1981a(a)(1).
The terms “intentional discrimination” and “disparate impact” have settled meanings in federal employment discrimination law. “[I]ntentional discrimination . . .
occur[s] where an employer has treated a particular person less favorably than others because of a protected trait.” Ricci v.DeStefano, 557 U. S. 557, 577 (2009) (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted). “[D]isparate-impact claims,” by contrast, “involve employment practices that are facially neutral in their treatment of different groups but that in fact fall more harshly on one group than another and cannot be justified by business necessity.” Raytheon Co.v.Hernandez , 540 U. S. 44, 52 (2003) (internal quotation marks omitted). Conceived by this Court in Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U. S. 424 (1971), this “theory of discrimination” provides that “a facially neutral employment practice may bedeemed illegally discriminatory without evidence of the employer’s subjective intent to discriminate that is required in a disparate-treatment case,” Raytheon, supra,at 52–53 (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted).
I would hold that Abercrombie’s conduct did not constitute “intentional discriminatio
n.” Abercrombie refused to create an exception to its neutral Look Policy for Samantha Elauf ’s religious practice of wearing a headscarf. Ante,at 2. In doing so, it did not treat religious practices less favorably than similar secular practices, but instead remained neutral with regard to religious practices. To be sure, the effects of Abercrombie’s neutral Look Policy, absent an accommodation, fall more harshly on those who wear headscarves as an aspect of their faith. But that is a classic case of an alleged disparate impact. It is not what we have previously understood to be a case of disparate treatment because Elauf received the same treatment from Abercrombie as any other applicant who appeared unable to comply with the company’s Look Policy. See ibid. ; App. 134, 144. Because I cannot classify Abercrombie’s conduct as “intentional discrimination,” I would affirm. ''
II
A
''Resisting this straightforward application of §1981a, the majority expands the meaning of “intentional discrimination” to include a refusal to give a religious applicant“favored treatment.” Ante,at 6–7. But contrary to the majority’s assumption, this novel theory of discrimination is not commanded by the relevant statutory text. Title VII makes it illegal for an employer “to fail or refuse to hire . . . any individual . . . because of such individual’s . . . religion.” §2000e–2(a)(1). And as used in Title VII, “[t]he term ‘religion’ includes all aspects of religious observance and practice, as well as belief, unless an employer demonstrates that he is unable to reasonably accommodate to an employee’s or prospective employee’s religious observance or practice without undue hardship on the conduct of the employer’s business.” §2000e(j). With this gloss on the definition of “religion” in §2000e 2(a)(1), the majority concludes that an employer may violate Title VII if he “refuse[s] to hire . . . any individual . . . because of such individual’s . . . religious . . . practice” (unless he has an “undue hardship” defense). See ante,at 3–4. But inserting the statutory definition of religion into §2000e–2(a) does not answer the question whether Abercrombie’s refusal to hire Elauf was “because of her religious practice.” At first glance, the phrase “because of such individual’s religious practice” could mean one of two things. Under one reading, it could prohibit taking an action because of the religious nature of an employee’s particular practice. Under the alternative reading, it could prohibit taking an action because of an employee’s practice that happens to be religious.''
''The distinction is perhaps best understood by example. Suppose an employer with a neutral grooming policy forbidding facial hair refuses to hire a Muslim who wears a beard for religious reasons. Assuming the employer applied the neutral grooming policy to all applicants, the motivation behind the refusal to hire the Muslim applicant would not be the religious nature of his beard, but its existence. Under the first reading, then, the Muslim applicant would lack an intentional-discrimination claim, as he was not refused employment “because of ” the religious nature of his practice. But under the second reading, he would have such a claim, as he was refused employment “because of ” a practice that happens to be religious in nature. ''
''One problem with the second, more expansive reading is that it would punish employers who have no discriminatory motive. If the phrase “because of such individual’s religious practice” sweeps in any case in which an employer takes an adverse action because of a practice that happens to be religious in nature, an employer who had no idea that a particular practice was religious would be penalized. That strict-liability vi ew is plainly at odds with the concept of intentional discrimination. Cf.Raytheon, supra,at 54, n. 7 (“If [the employer] were truly unaware that such a disability existed, it would be impossible for her hiring decision to have been based, even in part, on[the applicant’s] disability. And, if no part of the hiring decision turned on [the applicant’s] status as disabled, he cannot, ipso facto, have been subject to disparate treatment”). Surprisingly, the majority leaves the door open to this strict-liability theory, reserving the question whether an employer who does not even “suspec[t] that the practice in question is a religious practice” can nonetheless be punished for intentional discrimination. ''
Ante,at 6, n. 3. ''For purposes of today’s decision, however, the majority opts for a compromise, albeit one that lacks a foothold in the text and fares no better under our precedents. The majority construes §2000e–2(a)(1) to punish employers
who refuse to accommodate applicants under neutral policies when they act “with the motive of avoiding accommodation.”
Ante, at 5. ''But an employer who is aware that strictly applying a neutral policy will have an adverse effect on a religious group, and applies the policy anyway,
is not engaged in intentional discrimination, at least as that term has traditionally been understood. As the Court explained many decades ago, “ ‘Discriminatory purpose’i.e., the purpose necessary for a claim of intentional discrimination—demands “more than . . . awareness of consequences. It implies that the decisionmaker . . . selected or reaffirmed a particular course of action at least in part ‘because of,’ not merely ‘in spite of,’ its adverse effects upon an identifiable group.” ''Personnel Administrator of Mass. v.Feeney , 442 U. S. 256, 279 (1979) (internal citation and footnote omitted). I do not dispute that a refusal to accommodate can, in some circumstances, constitute intentional discrimination. If an employer declines to accommodate a particular religious practice, yet accommodates a similar secular (or other denominational) practice, then that may be proof that he has “treated a particular person less favorably than others because of [a religious practice].” Ricci , 557 U. S., at 577 (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted); see also, e.g., Dixon v. Hallmark Cos., 627 F. 3d 849, 853 (CA11 2010) (addressing a policy forbidding display of “religious items” in management offices). But merely refusing to create an exception to a neutral policy for a religious practice canno t be described as treating a particular applicant “less favorably than others.” The majority itself appears to recognize that its construction requires something more than equal treatment. See ante, at 6–7 (“Title VII does not demand mere neutrality with regard to religious practices,” but instead “gives them favored treatment”). But equal treatment is not disparate treatment, and that basic principle should have disposed of this case. ''…......................''The Court today rightly puts to rest the notion that Title VII creates a freestanding religious-accommodation claim, ante,at 3, but creates in its stead an entirely new form of liability: the disparate-treat ment-based-on-equal-treatment claim. Because I do not think that Congress’ 1972 redefinition of “religion” also redefined “intentional discrimination,” I would affirm the judgment of the Tenth Circuit. I respectfully dissent from the portions of the majority’s decision that take the contrary view. ''


                                               [Judgement ends]
  
References:
                                                         

   
 The above picture/print is either in The Holy Land, Persia, Ottoman Syria, Yemen or other Persian Gulf area circa 1896-1902
                                          ©Patrick Emek, 2015


















Posted by at

Monday 1 June 2015

The Wooden Horse of  Merkel


The prospect of Greece exiting the Euro becomes ever closer as the country lurches from crisis to crisis. Greek politicians have accused the EU of imposing onerous burdens on the counrty for the release of much needed bail-out monies. The EU and monetary institutions have said that they have no choice and that Greece can, in effect, take it or leave it. Under such conditions we should not be too surprised if the Greek government finally gives in to popular public pressure and exits the monetary union.

If Greece can persuade Russia and China to step in and fill the gap by providing much needed credit it might not just survive outside the Euro but actually prosper as the Switzerland (or Monaco) of the Mediterranean.
The fascinating thing about China is that it is not tied to the 'old' colonial (mercantilist) or European or U.S. models of trade-aid, investment and business.
For example, the business model in parts of Africa is to offer to develop the entire infrastructure for a country rather than piecemeal development tied to foreign NGOs and aid.
This model is much more acceptable for a developing country than one single project.
The business model in the United States simply cannot adjust to this way of doing business since the U.S. government cannot instruct the private sector to operate according to it's vision for the United States in Africa over the next 100 years.  Such thinking is outside the Anglo-Saxon (European) world financial parameters for the conduct of international commerce by private and stock listed conglomerates.
This is of course in return for guaranteed exclusive strategic resources, raw materials and mining rights for periods of 50-100 years.
Then there is the issue of politics. China is always reluctant to get involved in the internal affairs of countries it is trading with.  This is for two immediate reasons.    It does not at present have the logistical capability to project it's considerable military power globally. Secondly, for so long as the country it is trading with is politically stable, it sees no reason to 'play internal politics' so issues such as human rights are not as important as political stability whether under a totalitarian regime or benevolent dictatorship.  There is no 'public pressure' to respond to within China for the conduct of it's foreign relations. Indeed , with the exception of Japan, the concept of public and media 'pressure' determining foreign policy is non-existent – unless organised and approved by the State itself.
Of course it would like to 'export' its own development model – and indeed Africa could be a very fertile continent for a 'new beginning' having been left a patchwork of artificially created boundary nations by the departing colonial powers. To give one example, until very recently African citizens of Francophone countries sharing common borders, beside one another, had to travel by air through Paris to get to the country next door (!)   Such absurdities are matched in the Caribbean - another area where China is making considerable in-roads for the simple reason that there are untapped or some might say underdeveloped economic potentials which the colonial powers have ignored in favor of a (now outdated) mercantilist system of bilateral trade-aid. This master-servant relationship is now being challenged by new players with very different development models.
Inter-trade between Caribbean islands has been stunted in favor of the bilateral relations with the former colonial powers.   Again China has understood that within this vacuum is a vast untapped potential for inter-development and inter-trade amongst the islands of the Caribbean to its own advantage whilst at the same time showing Caribbean islands what their true potential could be as a 'bloc'. Perhaps it takes an outside force of a non-military kind with the resources to show what new possibilities could exist under different parameters?
Not everyone of course is happy with Chinese investment but, as with any pioneers, you have to admire their spirit of adventure – being prepared to risk all in foreign lands in the hope of future success. It's a major trek from China to Africa or to The Caribbean.
No less a trek than it was for Christopher Columbus or the great Arab explorers Ibn Battuta and Ibn Majid or Marco Polo or indeed the great Chinese Treasure Fleet under Admiral Cheng Ho or Scylax of Caryanda.
In terms of the mission, for China, it is an even bigger trek today to Africa than the one to Greece. At least in Greece systems of civic society are highly developed over thousands of years. In Africa there are major challenges.   In the Caribbean, because of it's proximity to the major superpower -The United States - and it's inheritance of Anglo-Saxon systems of governance (in much the same way as Europe inherited Greco-Roman civilization as it's foundation) systems are in place in civic society which only require 'kick-starting' or 'rebooting' to realise their fuller potentials as clusters of autonomous economic entities or units in their own right whilst also trading with the rest of the world. China has seen an underdeveloped potential and is rapidly exploiting it in a way Western economies either have no desire to do or are not configured to invest within.

So when I hear or read media comments about the imminent 'collapse' of Greece into bankruptcy, anarchy and chaos, I often wonder whether any of the individuals writing such nonsense ever actually studied the history of Greece from four thousand year ago or indeed have ever cared to remember where their own European civilization developed out of?
Because if they had, they would not be so dismissive of the Greeks when their backs are up against the wall and 'enemies' are at the gates or on the beaches or raining fire and brimstone.
There is a saying ''when the going gets tough, the tough get going.''

The Wooden Horse of Merkel may well be in for a 'surprise' reception as the troops disembark!


©Patrick Emek, 2015









Posted by at

Saturday 30 May 2015

Keynes vs Von Hayek

(and much more)


the blog below is written as  continuous prose


Ben Bernake:

''I spent my life studying the Great Depression........it was not the failure of the stock market but the lack of credit which caused the Great Depression. Credit has the ability to build an economy but lack of it most certainly has the ability to destroy it.... and very rapidly....''

There were no two more influential economists in the world I grew up in than both Keynes and Von Hayek. J.M. Keynes I studied at school. Friedrich Hayek I encountered later on in life.
Perhaps it was first impressions or maybe my family circumstances (a very poor middle class background, where money was almost non-existent as most which Mom earned was spent paying bills – including school fees.)
Thankfully I grew up in a political environment where the priorities of health, education and basic social services-as extreme nets for those really impoverished (but most, alas, not for ourselves!) were provided by the State.  A great emphasis was placed on investment in a national public library system and, by any standards, libraries were in relative abundance and well stocked with materials.
Some of the health services, I can recall, were provided (or subsidized) by American charities such as The Rockerfeller and Getty Foundations, WHO and UNICEF.
As I recall these would include things such as basic polio inoculations for children (in a country where polio and tuberculosis were scourges.)

It's important to put my background into a perspective when discussing Von Hayek and Keynes because I probably grew up in the almost ideal economic model of society which Von Hayek would applaud (as being on the right road) and Keynes would despair as not providing sufficient government intervention (in terms of work programs and benefits for those less fortunate.)

Enough about me.

When I first read the works of J.M. Keynes it was almost like a spiritual revelation.
His model aptly described both why the Great Depression of 1929 had occurred and how it was resolved.
Keynes was a believer in the intervention of the State, not just as provider of basic services, but as a core defender and strategic planner of public services.   A public service would include Water, Electricity. Gas, Oil, telecommunications, Health, Education, Steel, Coal and any other critical strategic industry vital for providing for the needs of the individual or as a strategic asset.
Education was also a key service but Keynes was never opposed to 'competition' in this field but was of the view that State education services should eventually break the monopoly of elitist educational providers.
Von Hayek, on the other hand, identified a ridiculous over-abundance of credit (with nothing to back up paper money) as the chief villain.
Von Hayek saw the actions of the Federal Reserve (buying up debt to stimulate growth) as just exacerbating and accelerating the financial meltdown.
Thankfully Von Hayek was ignored and the great FDR (I always refer to him as 'the great' FDR because he put America back to work – public works programs, roads, railways, telecommunications, even dams (The Hoover Dam) were all testaments to public spending at a time when private capital had either retreated or was culling industry - as private entrepreneurs (industrialists) attempted to recoup their stock market and other financial losses by shedding their workforces - pushing even more ordinary people onto the breadlines and into the soup kitchens.
As far as Von Hayek was concerned, this was a normal 'corrective' process best left to market forces.
It did not matter that millions of children and their parents were starving, their parents pushed into
impoverishment by the loss of income from work, that families en masse packed all their possessionsonto trucks to head across the Dust Bowls to eke out an existence wherever they could find it – the promised El Dorado of the golden West Coast – if they and their family made it there alive (which many did not.)
Apart from suffering, this time gave rise to some of the greatest works of literature which capture many of the tribulations of ordinary folk.    I will just refer to two here:
John Steinbeck's  'The Grapes Of Wrath' written by someone observing, May Angelou, someone born just one year before the Great Depression and who grew up as a Black child experiencing the worst of the worst effects of the Depression, racism and no opportunities.
That despair and hopelessness which was was blind to color is apt in the choice of both Steinbeck and Angelou.    White folk likewise did what they had to in order to survive – and, if you were poor or unemployed, it was survival of the fittest which determined whether you would live or die. Hence my choice of Steinbeck and Angelou.    Von Hayek (were he alive today) would argue that Angelou's survival of economic and social adversity was exactly what he would have expected – and ignore the tens of thousands who perished because they were 'not fit enough' to survive.
I might be being a little unkind to Von Hayek but the essence of his argument was that the Great Depression was a 'corrective' process and, when the private sector was again confident that investment would yield the rewards it expected, it would again invest in profitable sectors – putting people back into employment – this time in a more robust, more efficient, slimmer and better adapted industrial working environment than had existed before the 'correction took place.
I would like to again turn this argument on it's head by saying that Von Hayek, seeing Stephen Hawking as a child quadriplegic (which he was not, but I am taking this suggestion to illustrate a point) (with nothing else as a guideline as to his intellectual potential) would dismiss as nonsensical the idea that keeping him alive would be of any benefit to society.    The idea of providing him with advanced technology to, say, progress in 3rd Grade or beyond would have been dismissed as lunacy by Von Hayek.   Von Hayek would add, no doubt that if Hawkings' parents were financially well-to-do, then how they choose to spend their money was entirely up to them but would emphatically dismiss the State as any source of provider for the value-added care required across many disciplines to keep both the child alive and provide him with opportunity to progress.
I am bringing Hawking into the debate because at a time of austerity and financial crises the first cuts always take place to services being provided to those most vulnerable who cannot protest - the elderly, the disabled and the very young.   With an ageing population in the developed world cutbacks on services for those in the upper (aged) and disability categories are the most attractive.
Relaxations on euthanasia and 'exit strategies' for the terminally ill and infirm are presented as
'fashionable' or 'worthy' options for the 'good' of society.   Indeed the processes could be made as easy as walking into a Candy Store (except, of course, that you won't be walking out!)
Some are even receiving Christian Church endorsements.
So Americans were saved from mass starvation and utter despair (and possible revolution) by FDR adopting Keynes' monetary theory of government intervention to save the economy from going down the toilet.   Huge public works programs were undertaken across America as the government both initiated projects and took stake holding shares in private enterprises to boost employment and inject purchasing power back into the hands of ordinary people.
It was FDR who saved the American economy from total collapse and started the process of America's ascendency as a world economic super giant.
The key strategies which both President Obama and FDR have both followed were that, in the event of a major economic crises, the taxpayer bails out the private sector where such is necessary to prevent dominoes effects which would otherwise collapse and shatter the entire economic system.
I believe that history will be kinder to Obama than the present pundits.
President Obama, history will conclude, not only saved the American but the world economic order from either total collapse or a transfer of global economic dominance to one (or both) of two other superpowers – in-waiting.
In my opinion there are two reasons why he has not been able to deliver the FDR syndrome for kick-starting the economy.
The first is ignorance and dogma.    Republicans lack both education in the real sense and are too dogmatic to allow a Democratic President to provide deliverance to the American people at this time of crisis.
The second is the misguided belief that in Ayn Rand, Von Hayaek and Friedman economics (and their acolytes) lie the only road to economic salvation for the free market economic world.      Other paths therein lies 'The Road To Serfdom'.
You may well ask why even bring in Rand when the title of the article is Keynes v Von Hayek.
Ayn Rand is 'the dark horse' in the room.   Neither economist nor mathematician but a writer and philosopher with strong views about existence, the state, capitalism, communism and individuality.
There are many influential (and of course rich and privileged) Republicans who susbcribe to her ideals and philosophies.
It is these misguided beliefs which, in my opinion, are ensuring the economic system in America stays stagnant.
Don't think that such ideas are confined to the U.S.   The above are giants in the sphere of philosophical, existential and economic thought, have huge followings amongst Conservatives (and even Liberals and Libertarians) in Western Europe and in the United Kingdom.
Western Europe is, however, a little more educated, mature and more circumspect to be too over-engrossed with Ayn Rand.   It has already gone through it's own more recent 'love affair' era of neo-Nazism and is wary of bourgeois existential philosophies such as Rand's which usually (ultimately) lead to the gas chambers or servitude for peoples (the helpless masses who through circumstance of birth cannot help themselves) in their millions. Nonetheless her continued appeal is similar to that of Adolf Hitler to this very day.    I am not comparing Rand with Hitler but her 'acolyte' following and adoration by an elite of very rich, well-educated influential and well-placed individuals in the United States cannot be easily dismissed.   Undoubtedly far more people read Rand as her philosophy for life appears to be, what I would call the 'Valhalla' or final destination of the gods of the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, national socialism and unbridled capitalism all combined - but without saying (spelling out in the crudest of terms) exactly what is required to arrive at this 'laissez faire' 'paradise' of governance by the chosen elite in a 'free' 'open' 'democratic' society.
It's almost as if the privileged pine for a 'golden age' where the serfs (sic. everyone else) live in blissful servitude totally ignorant of the forces which control and rule their lives and with no desire for freedom nor progress but continued toil from birth to the grave.   That's Ayn Rand in a nutshell.
I mention Rand's books in the reference section just in case you want to experience this journey for yourself.
Those captivated by her philosophies are usually very rich or privileged individuals and some who are very out of touch with, what I call, the reality of 'ordinary' man and woman in the street.    Don't misunderstand me here.    Rand understands ordinary day-to-day people struggling to get by from week to week but only from a sense of how to control and manipulate their thoughts and feelings to the betterment of her own elite and privileged class.    It is in this regard that I compare her 'vision' with that of Nazism.    (Indeed, in my opinion, Stalinism is also very much related to this same thinking.)
In a nutshell, Ayn Rand represents the 'holy sanctum' of unbridled capitalism – if only it could break free of it's 'chains'.   Her work is a 'cry' or lament of the privileged who have seen some (they would argue by saying many) of their 'rights' eroded through successive 'communistic' (mainly Democratic) administrations and legislation over decades and is an exhortation to return to the 'source' of freedom and individual liberty.
Social welfare nets,as a part of Federal State services, provide for a more balanced social framework than otherwise exists without them.   Such concepts, with the State as provider, are abhorrent to Ayn Rand's core beliefs.    Such 'communistic' frameworks undermine free enterprise.   [Those most affected by the absence or lack of such welfare programs are poor White, Black and other minorities already existing at the bottom of the wage or poverty scale as the most available vulnerable individuals for exploitation.]
At it's essence (the core of Rands' beliefs) is a 'Herrenvolk' destined to rule the 'ignorant' masses of the world.
If you appreciate ''Der Ring des Nibelungen'' then Rand becomes easier to digest.   Big government always stands in the way of the quest for 'The Golden Fleece'.   It has 'stolen' individual liberty and personal freedom which must be reclaimed by the bold and fearless.
Such philosophies, as ever, more often than not, ultimately, end up not with the promised salvation and freedom, but conflict on a global scale, enslavement to fossilized ideologies condemning conscientious objectors to places such as with Belsen, Theresienstadt and Sobibór concentration and death camps in Europe or, more recently, be they in Rwanda, in Bosnia, in Cambodia and, in today's world, in ISIL-style Caliphate concentration death States – where the only tolerable (and tolerated) viewpoint is that of their Waffen SS-style mind-control twisted interpretation of Islam to their prisoners - the ''untermenschen'' who must first be 'cleansed' of the Devil then, if allowed to live beyond this ritual, be 're-educated' into the true version of the Koran according to ISIL.
My analysis is no more aptly illustrated than in ISIL's most recent issue of it's magazine where one of it's female members praises the use of mass (even group) rape of non-believers to 'cleanse' them (their victims) of the 'evil'  within.   It is only after 'cleansing' and their disposal (murder of the mothers after giving birth - after a child with less of the 'stain' of 'sin' than it's 'demonic' mother) that a new generation (or new world) giving praise to Allah according to the real version of the Koran (sic. ISIL's version)  can be brought into existence*.
What followers or acolytes of Rand fail to appreciate is that within the global desire of the elite objectivist subscribers to exercise total control over the exploited masses, as with ISIL,  therein itself lies the seeds of its own ultimate destruction as, for example, in  its exhortation to undermine or weaken the social net of the State towards withdrawal of care for the weak and vulnerable in favor of private sector philosophy (provision) ultimately results in world-wide rebellion  and the development of totalitarian and extremist secular and religious ideologies 360 degrees  juxtaposed to Rands' values and ideals.
When you appreciate that the true essence of Ayan Rand's economic model is eternal slavery of the masses to the bourgeois or privileged, then it becomes unviable as a working model for the world – since it creates exactly those conditions which are the genesis of and breeding ground for the chaos, anarchy and revolution by the dispossessed and disenfranchised against their 'masters' which we see magnified in the strife played out through religion, tribe, race, ethnicity and class wars worldwide this very day.
Unlike a member of the British Royal family, none of Rands' elite supporters have ever spent a night homeless in the freezing cold to experience what those millions of impoverished Americans without proper heating have no opportunity but to accept nor how those without adequate money from their low pay minimum-wage jobs live on the fringes of existence, nor what those people too poor to buy food and (new) clothes for their families require to live in dignity, nor what the 60000* Americans living on the streets every night have to do to survive without food nor money.              It is these individuals who live in insular microcosmic social 'bubbles' shared with people like themselves, who churn out clichés by the dozen such as 'these bums [or hobos] should get themselves jobs' 'they just don't have what it takes'; 'they are all social outcasts criminals and drug addicts'; 'I've succeeded without help from anyone' ...who subscribe to Rands' economic models for human existence and even view Von Hayek as 'too liberal'.
[I was very fortunate to have worked, as an unpaid volunteer, with someone who was from a much more privileged background than Rand but her total antithesis.
She too had traveled in Eastern Europe both before World War II and in its aftermath.
She was instrumental in the creation of a body dedicated to the trans-Atlantic alliance (U.S.-Europe) but she never lost sight of the needs of ordinary people – despite her privileged background.
So when I discuss Rand, I talk about someone I can understand as I personally knew contemporaries of similar background but ones who never 'lost touch' with 'reality' – even into their nineties.
I am deliberately omitting Rand's 'appeal' to libertarians as it is too complicated an issue for discussion in this short blog.   Suffice to say, I believe that they are misguided and their concept of 'laissez faire' and 'the free market' are uniquely American in this regard. ]

To conclude this introductory blog, the world is facing very stark roads to follow for economic deliverance.   Three competing philosophies are being resurrected in the hope of salvation.
The three are as different as day, night and twilight. Whichever succeeds could well determine as to whether the world stays in global recession for decades or whether there is daylight at the end of the recession tunnel.  Clearly I do not believe that Rand or Von Hayek have the answer to a U.S. or world economic crash.   But many influential Republican decision makers in the United States most certainly do.    If they get their way after the next general election, expect communism, fascism and national socialism (or their equivalent inheritors) to be making spectacular comebacks as individual countries worldwide seek to assert their own nationalistic (or theocratic or neo-nationalist) agendas - as perceived opposition to imperial hubris.


©Patrick Emek, 2015

*The West has created this monster, ISIL, so when it looks into the mirror, ISIL is simply a reflection of failed political and ideological policies over decades and a failure of its own desire for control over affairs and destiny of peoples in the Islamic world.
This it will never recognise because to so do would raise too many troubling existential questions.
Some will say that ISIL is a deliberate creation of the West but I see it more as a byproduct or unintended consequential entity which now, unplanned, has an entire momentum all of it's very own.

*very conservative estimate – numbers have been given by other organisations of between 300000 to half a million homeless individuals for any one year in the United States

You may well be asking yourself:  'surely Rand cannot be take more seriously that Krugman or Friedman?'   In today's U.S. political world, dogma (or faith) supersedes all else.
Ecomomic models and policies are calibrated to fit the dogma and not the other way around.
(remind you of somewhere else?)



























[similar programs are being today undertaken by newer and more recent foundations such as




Posted by at
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

Blog Archive