the saudi project

theeconomist |  STAGE one of Saudi Arabia’s plan—or perhaps hope—to restructure the oil market is taking longer than expected. By refusing to rein in production while prices fell, the Saudis permitted a big surplus to grow and served notice on higher-cost rivals (Russia, Venezuela, American shale-oil producers) that they would not prop up other people’s profit margins at the expense of their own market share.

That signal has been weakened by the growing amount of oil in storage, which is absorbing most of the glut. World oil stocks rose by about 265m barrels last year and Société Générale, a French bank, reckons they will increase by a further 1.6m-1.8m barrels a day (b/d) in the first six months of this year, adding roughly 300m barrels to the total. Oil is being stored in the hope that demand and prices will pick up later. Such restocking, plus renewed political worries (flows from Libya’s largest oilfield were disrupted again this week by apparent sabotage), have pushed the price of oil back up. After having fallen by more than 60% since June, the price of a barrel of Brent crude closed at $59.96 on February 18th.

The restocking cannot continue for long. Storage facilities in Europe and Asia are already 80-85% full. Much more and they will overflow. As it is, companies are renting tankers to keep oil in. If storage space runs out, prices could tumble again.

Whether that happens depends on how quickly phase two of the Saudi plan gets under way. This is to force high-cost producers out to increase the influence of Gulf countries. At the moment, this is happening only slowly. Oil types have recently become obsessed with the so-called “rig count”—the number of drilling rigs operating in America and elsewhere. Analysts think that as the rig count declines, shale-oil output will fall, hurting profits and investment. That seems dubious.

Figures from Baker Hughes, an oil-services company, showed that the rig count in America in mid-February fell to its lowest since 2011, and was 35% below its peak in October 2014. That is a big fall. But most of the idled rigs are in marginal areas; the fall has been only 9% in the main shale-oil basins, in North Dakota and Texas, which accounted for four-fifths of the increase in American oil output in the past two years. Moreover, productivity is rising in the remaining wells. Citibank reckons that even a 50% fall in the rig count would allow output to rise this year and turn the average shale firm’s cashflow positive, encouraging investment.

the battle for libya's oil

aljazeera |  Oil is the lifeblood of the Libyan economy. Prior to the 2011 revolution that toppled Muammar Gaddafi, Libya produced some 1.6 million barrels a day, exported mostly to Italy, Germany, Spain, and France. Natural gas and oil revenues made up nearly 96% of government revenue, propping up a vast public sector and providing millions of Libyans with their main source of income.

When a revolution backed by NATO air strikes brought Gaddafi’s regime to a bloody end in the summer of 2011, output plummeted to zero. To the surprise of many analysts, it quickly recovered, reaching 1.4 million barrels per day, almost hitting pre-revolution levels. But that figure belied growing political divides that would soon bring the oil industry - and Libya’s economy - to its knees.

As the coalition that brought down Gaddafi started to fragment, local grievances over the distribution of oil revenues led to protests, closing down oil fields, pipelines and loading ports. In the east, a rebel leader charged with protecting the oil infrastructure seized control of several ports, demanding greater autonomy and a bigger share of oil revenues for his region.

His attempts to sell oil internationally without the government’s consent were only thwarted when US navy commandos stormed a tanker trying to take oil out of the country. Meanwhile, a militia in the west shut down two of the country’s most important oil fields, and insecurity grew. International oil companies fled as security deteriorated.

pay very close attention to the man behind the curtain...,

democracynow |  NBC is facing questions over its decision to pull veteran news correspondent Ayman Mohyeldin out of Gaza just after he personally witnessed the Israeli military’s killing of four Palestinian boys on a Gaza beach. Mohyeldin was kicking a soccer ball around with the boys just minutes before they died. He is a longtime reporter in the region. In his coverage, he reports on the Gaza conflict in the context of the Israeli occupation, sparking criticism from some supporters of the Israeli offensive. Back in 2008 and 2009, when he worked for Al Jazeera, Mohyeldin and his colleague Sherine Tadros were the only foreign journalists on the ground in Gaza as Israel killed 1,400 people in what it called "Operation Cast Lead." We speak to Glenn Greenwald of The Intercept, who has revealed that the decision to pull Mohyeldin from Gaza and remove him from reporting on the situation came from NBC executive David Verdi. Greenwald also comments on the broader picture of the coverage of the Israel/Palestine conflict in the U.S. media.

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: NBC is facing questions over its decision to pull its veteran news correspondent out of Gaza. Ayman Mohyeldin personally witnessed the Israeli military’s killing of four Palestinian boys on a Gaza beach Wednesday. Mohyeldin was kicking a soccer ball around with the boys just minutes before they died. He’s a veteran reporter who has placed the Gaza conflict in the context of the Israeli occupation, sparking criticism from some supporters of the Israeli offensive. Glenn Greenwald of The Intercept has revealed the decision to pull Mohyeldin from Gaza and remove him from reporting on the situation, it came from NBC executive David Verdi.

AMY GOODMAN: NBC executives have reportedly claimed the decision was motivated by "security concerns" ahead of Israel’s ground invasion, but late Wednesday NBC sent correspondent Richard Engel to Gaza. During the 2008-2009 war on Gaza, Ayman Mohyeldin, who then worked for Al Jazeera, was one of the only foreign journalists reporting from Gaza.

NBC News did not respond to Democracy Now!’s repeated requests for comment on its decision.

For more, we’re joined by Glenn Greenwald, the Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist. His piece for The Intercept at First Look Media is "NBC News Pulls Veteran Reporter from Gaza After Witnessing Israeli Attack on Children."

hon.bro.preznit bullseyes bibi's bullshit

guardian |  Binyamin Netanyahu’s dramatic declaration to world leaders in 2012 that Iran was about a year away from making a nuclear bomb was contradicted by his own secret service, according to a top-secret Mossad document.

It is part of a cache of hundreds of dossiers, files and cables from the world’s major intelligence services – one of the biggest spy leaks in recent times.

Brandishing a cartoon of a bomb with a red line to illustrate his point, the Israeli prime minister warned the UN in New York that Iran would be able to build nuclear weapons the following year and called for action to halt the process.

But in a secret report shared with South Africa a few weeks later, Israel’s intelligence agency concluded that Iran was “not performing the activity necessary to produce weapons”. The report highlights the gulf between the public claims and rhetoric of top Israeli politicians and the assessments of Israel’s military and intelligence establishment.

 • Read the leaked document here

dershowitz says preznit has no rights that the right-wing is bound to acknowledge...,

WSJ |  As a liberal Democrat who twice campaigned for President Barack Obama , I am appalled that some Democratic members of Congress are planning to boycott the speech of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on March 3 to a joint session of Congress. At bottom, this controversy is not mainly about protocol and politics—it is about the constitutional system of checks and balances and the separation of powers. 

Under the Constitution, the executive and legislative branches share responsibility for making and implementing important foreign-policy decisions. Congress has a critical role to play in scrutinizing the decisions of the president when these decisions involve national security, relationships with allies and the threat of nuclear proliferation. 

Congress has every right to invite, even over the president’s strong objection, any world leader or international expert who can assist its members in formulating appropriate responses to the current deal being considered with Iran regarding its nuclear-weapons program. Indeed, it is the responsibility of every member of Congress to listen to Prime Minister Netanyahu, who probably knows more about this issue than any world leader, because it threatens the very existence of the nation state of the Jewish people. 

Congress has the right to disagree with the prime minister, but the idea that some members of Congress will not give him the courtesy of listening violates protocol and basic decency to a far greater extent than anything Mr. Netanyahu is accused of doing for having accepted an invitation from Congress.

the hon.bro.preznit's rhetoric precise cause he don't love you..,

theatlantic |  Why does this matter? Because the U.S. government has finite resources. If you assume, as conservatives tend to, that the only significant terrorist threat America faces comes from people with names like Mohammed and Ibrahim, then that’s where you’ll devote your time and money. If, on the other hand, you recognize that environmental lunatics and right-wing militia types kill Americans for political reasons too, you’ll spread the money around.

 

We’ve already seen the consequences of a disproportionate focus on jihadist terrorism. After 9/11, the Bush administration so dramatically shifted homeland-security resources toward stopping al-Qaeda that it left FEMA hideously unprepared to deal with an attack from Mother Nature, in the form of Hurricane Katrina. The Obama administration is wise to avoid that kind of overly narrow focus today. Of course it’s important to stop the next Nidal Malik Hasan or Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. But it’s also important to stop the next Timothy McVeigh or Wade Michael Page. And by calling the threat “violent extremism” rather than “radical Islam,” Obama tells the bureaucracy to work on that too. 

Obama, after all, faces two overlapping but distinct challenges. One is an ideology: the totalitarian, even genocidal, vision espoused by ISIS. The second is a tactic: terrorism, which is available to people of all ideological stripes and which grows more dangerous as technology empowers individuals or groups to kill far more people far more quickly than they could have in ages past. 

Instead of assuming that these threats are the same, we should be debating the relative danger of each. By using “violent extremism” rather than “radical Islam,” Obama is staking out a position in that argument. It’s a position with which reasonable people can disagree. But cowardice has nothing to do with it.

so-called existential fears really just the apex of psychological projection

theatlantic |  After the jump I have a reader's note marveling at the way we've agreed to discuss Iran as a bottomless evil, rather than as a state with whom we should look for diplomatic ways to manage conflicts, as we have with China and the old Soviet Union—and as Begin did with Sadat.

---

A reader writes:

This whole thing has become so utterly surreal it's hard to talk about anymore. The entire kerfuffle is premised on an Iranian nuclear weapons program - a program we KNOW with certainty they do not have in operation. NO fissile materials have been diverted, IAEA inspectors routinely tell us that. Meanwhile, Netanyahu and his Likudnik colleagues have been telling us since the 1980s that Iran is SIX MONTHS away from having a nuclear weapon.

I understand that Netanyahu is using fear of a nuclear-armed Iran for domestic political purposes - primarily to frighten his citizens into keeping him in office. The use of a ginned-up external existential threat is a time-honored method for cowing and manipulating a domestic constituency, and clearly at some point the fear of the Palestinians had lost its punch.

But why do the US, UK, France, China and other nations go along with this charade? Why do the media always write the stories in such a manner as to indicate that Iran has an active weapons R&D program? Why did we pile sanctions on and make daily threats of offensive war against a signatory of the NPT is good standing, particularly in support of an illegal proliferator? How can we continue this ridiculous sham?

Over the last couple years, you wrote repeatedly about how the press covered Republican filibusters - and you were right. This is the same thing - we're going through all these massive machinations to address a problem WE KNOW DOES NOT EXIST. If I wrote this in a novel it would be rejected as "utterly implausible"...

situation report on WW-III

World War III (which we are currently in) is being fought with very different tactics than World War I and II. However, in my opinion the mass-motivational strategy is the same: different breeding population males trying to extend the territories on which they are able to impose their respective socio-political systems.  The tactics in WW III involve small groups of (mostly) highly trained and skilled (mostly) men killing primarily civilians in lands yet to be conquered. Because the group of (mostly) men is not concentrated in one country, large nation states with large and powerful traditional armies are rendered rather helpless in trying to defeat them.

None of the prospective combatants are interested in making peace because each of the combatant bands of killer-apes believe themselves in possession of the winning set of tactics to eventually win the war. It is a war that will last for decades or until the socio-economic and political conditions in the enemy combatant nations of the world change.  Only those who are losing wars want to end wars, as cynical as that might sound.

What if all Western nation states with large and powerful traditional armies joined together to send military forces (ground troops) into Syria and Iraq to defeat and capture and/or kill ISIS?  A misguided start as it won't work and will probably make things worse. Western military intervention is merely a guarantee of inflaming and widening the scope of violence and death. Western military intervention would be as effective as stepping on ants in one's house as a way of eliminating the ant problem.

Neither Judeo-Christian extremists or Muslim extremists are interested in making peace.  Each extremist pole is deeply embedded in majority moderate/secular populations and each believes itself in possession of an effective set of tactics to eventually win the war.

If "we" in the West send soldiers to kill ISIS won't that be something of a winning set of tactics?  What is called "ISIS" today is just a drop in the bucket in terms of the number of potential and actual Muslim extremists in the world. If every Muslim extremist who is a part of ISIS is killed in 2015, by 2020 there will be twice as many Muslim extremists in the world, as those watching the unfolding spectacle will be motivated to get even with the western capitalist republics that killed their Muslim brothers in ISIS.

Can the West (and the rest of the world) afford to wait until its own extremist male sub-populations quiet down, are assimilated by the secular moderate majorities in which they're embedded, or until Muslim extremist sub-populations calm down?  No. A better strategy for the west would be to increase the factors that lead to secularization in the Muslim countries: better education, access to information, democratic forms of government, civil rights for women, homosexuals, etc. The western industrial democracies have been secularizing since the Protestant Reformation in the early 16th to mid 17th century. It takes time. Islam is as much a political system as it is a religion.

The United States had a winning strategy to win the Cold War, which was a war between capitalism and communism. We need a similar political strategy to wage war between capitalism and Sharia, the political arm of Islam.  The U.S. has been at war in the middle east since 1991 and things are worse, not better, then when we first went there. A better strategy does not involve sending soldiers to kill individual Muslim extremists or their leaders. One has to be patient. Under the best of circumstances the needed change would take decades. In the global economic contraction we're currently all experiencing, there's no guarantee that the sources of extremism will abate or can be assimilated.

The Arab Spring unfortunately didn't lead to what the protesters wanted and led to violence in many cases. The Arab Spring demonstrated that the Arab masses were tired of the post-colonial dictatorships installed by the west in their respective societies. Most of the Muslim countries of the world were not democracies and are not now democracies. They were, however, national socialist autocracies with Islam as the state religion and Sharia Law influencing national law. The primary dictatorial strategies in Iraq, Libya and Syria were to facilitate secularization. Destruction of the dictatorships brought the western processes - progressively in effect in these countries for decades - to a screeching and catastrophic halt. There has never been a greater policy blunder in the modern era than overthrowing the dictatorships in Iraq and Libya. Continuing this failed policy in Syria has only served to make the already intolerable situation still worse.

Tribalism and extremism under the rubric of cultural Islam have become the prevailing order of the day in the western-created and western destroyed former states of the Middle-East and Northeast Africa.  In order to successfully progress away from this situation, the west must turn to the centralized, hierarchical theocracy of Iran and consolidate power in the hands of the Revolutionary Guard (who are probably quite tired of Mullahs, Mullah nonsense, and Mullah theft and graft). As a good friend of mine is fond of noting, the Shah and his cronies were awful thieves and despots, but you can't steal and pack as much into a uniform or a suit as you can in the bottomless pockets of a Mullah-robe.

Because of neocon stupidity, eggregious cultural miscalculation, and abject military misapplication and failure, we are now faced with the inevitable fact of having to assist with the restoration of Persian empire, actually working with and assisting Iran to become the preeminent power in the entire middle east.

bet not ever put jewish and extremist in the same sentence...,

WaPo |  Like every world leader and, for that matter, nearly everybody else, Netanyahu is fully aware that the fault lines in U.S. politics between Republicans and Democrats have widened to a chasm. Unlike every other world leader, the bumptious Bibi has decided to take a side in America’s internal conflict by addressing a joint meeting of the Republican-controlled Congress (responding to an invitation from House Speaker John Boehner) without even informing President Obama that he was Washington-bound. One of Netanyahu’s goals is to undercut the administration’s efforts to negotiate a pact with Iran that will impede that nation’s nuclear program. His other goal is clearly to stick it to Obama and thus appear to the Israeli electorate — which will go to the polls on March 17 — as one tough dude. If Netanyahu’s talk, the idea for which was at least partly cooked up by Ron Dermer, a former GOP operative who moved to Israel and is now its ambassador to the United States, also has the effect of boosting the Republican Party at the expense of Obama and the Democrats, so much the better. During the 2012 election, Netanyahu did everything he could to make apparent that he preferred Mitt Romney to Obama, with no perceptible effect on the outcome or even on the voting preferences of American Jews, who backed Obama, 69 percent to 30 percent.

Of all the reasons that American Jews remain firmly Democratic, and liberal as well, the most fundamental is their commitment, both particular and universal, to minority rights. For Jews in a majority-Christian country, the enshrinement of minority rights and its institutional guarantees — nondiscrimination in hiring and voting, say, or a judiciary independent of the elected branches of government — has always been paramount. It’s why American Jews have embraced not only the battles for their own liberties but those of every other minority group.

the limits of the islamic label

NYTimes |  President Obama stands accused of political correctness for his unwillingness to accuse groups such as the Islamic State of “Islamic extremism,” choosing a more generic term, “violent extremism.” His critics say that you cannot fight an enemy you will not name. Even his supporters feel that his approach is too “professorial.” 

But far from being a scholar concerned with describing the phenomenon accurately, the president is deliberately choosing not to emphasize the Islamic State’s religious dimension for political and strategic reasons. After all, what would be the practical consequence of describing the group, also known as ISIS, as Islamic? Would the West drop more bombs on it? Send in more soldiers to fight it? No, but it would make many Muslims feel that their religion had been unfairly maligned. And it would dishearten Muslim leaders who have continually denounced the Islamic State as a group that does not represent Islam.

But “the Islamic State is Islamic. Very Islamic,” Graeme Wood writes in a much-discussed cover essay for the Atlantic this month.Wood is much taken by the Princeton academic Bernard Haykel, who says that people want to turn a blind eye to the Islamic State’s ideology for political reasons. “People want to absolve Islam,” he quotes Haykel as saying. “It’s this ‘Islam is a religion of peace’ mantra. As if there is such a thing as ‘Islam’! It’s what Muslims do.” Right. There are 1.6 billion Muslims in the world and perhaps 30,000 members of the Islamic State. And yet Haykel feels that it is what the 0.0019 percent of Muslims do that defines the religion. Who is being political, I wonder?

cousin-humping, draft-dodging, serial wife-abusing son of a mafia hitman doesn't love me...,

NYTimes |  Mr. Giuliani has plainly not mellowed in his prosperity. Representative Peter T. King, a Long Island Republican who has known him for decades, said the former mayor was “very personally angry” in his remarks, on and off the stage at the fund-raising event on Wednesday evening.

“This is as emotional as I’ve seen him. He was in some ways more emotional than he was after 9/11,” said Mr. King, who spoke alongside Mr. Giuliani at a private “super PAC” fund-raising event at the Women’s National Republican Club in Manhattan.

John A. Catsimatidis, the billionaire grocery store magnate, attended the same fund-raiser and, on a whim, invited Mr. Giuliani to join him at a meet-and-greet for Mr. Walker with members of the New York financial elite. Mr. Catsimatidis, a frequent Republican donor, lamented that Mr. Giuliani’s unplanned speech became an enveloping spectacle.

“The focus of the event should not have been that,” Mr. Catsimatidis said, adding: “Look, Rudy is Rudy. He’s not going to run for anything himself. Maybe he wanted to get it off his chest.”

To some in Republican politics, Mr. Giuliani’s public eruption looks like the product of slack political instincts, the shoot-from-the-lip behavior of a former champion who has lost self-awareness with each year removed from office. The former mayor’s political career has sloped precipitously downward since his ill-fated 2008 campaign; while he remains an occasional fund-raising attraction, his time as a national Republican leader is past.

For all the criticism Mr. Giuliani’s comments attracted from Democrats and members of the Republican establishment, there are quarters of the right where his remarks struck a chord. The talk-radio host Rush Limbaugh crowed about “getting texts praising Rudy to the rooftops.”

Joe M. Allbaugh, a former Giuliani adviser who led the Federal Emergency Management Agency during the World Trade Center attacks, said he applauded Mr. Giuliani’s candor.

“He represents a lot of Americans who are scratching their heads wondering why our president — the president of the United States — doesn’t defend our culture the way he defends everybody else’s culture,” Mr. Allbaugh said.

no idea giuliani was such low-life trifling trash...,

nydailynews |  Rudy Giuliani knows a lot about love.

Ask Regina Peruggi, the second cousin he grew up with and married, who was "offended" when Rudy later engineered an annulment from the priest who was his best man on the grounds, strangely enough, that she was his cousin. Or ask Donna Hanover, the mother of his two children, who found out he wanted a separation when he left Gracie Mansion one morning and announced it at a televised press conference.

Or ask Judi Nathan, his third wife, whom he started dating while still married to Hanover and New York mayor. In two SUVs, he and an entourage of six or seven cops traveled 11 times to Judi's Hamptons getaway at a taxpayer cost of $3,000 a trip. That's love.

Rudy knows so much about love that he declared the other day that President Obama "doesn't love you" and "doesn't love me" at a private party of GOP fat cats.

The onetime presidential candidate also revealed at the party that Obama "doesn't love America," an echo of a speech he'd delivered to delirious cheers in Arizona a week earlier when he declared: "I would go anywhere, any place, anytime, and I wouldn't give a damn what the President of the United States said, to defend my country. That's a patriot. That's a man who loves his people. That's a man who fights for his people. Unlike our President."

Rudy may have forgotten the half-dozen deferments he won ducking the Vietnam War, even getting the federal judge he was clerking for to write a letter creating a special exemption for him. And remember Bernie Kerik? He's the Giulaini police commissioner, business partner and sidekick whose nomination as homeland security secretary narrowly preceded indictments. He then did his national service in prison.

Giuliani went so far as to rebuke the President for not being "brought up the way you were and the way I was brought up through love of this country," a bow no doubt to the parenting prowess of Harold Giuliani, who did time in Sing Sing for holding up a Harlem milkman and was the bat-wielding enforcer for the loan-sharking operation run out of a Brooklyn bar owned by Rudy's uncle.

Though Rudy cited Harold throughout his public life as his model (without revealing any of his history), he and five Rudy uncles found ways to avoid service in World War II. Harold, whose robbery conviction was in the name of an alias, made sure the draft board knew he was a felon. On the other hand, Obama's grandfather and uncle served. His uncle helped liberate Buchenwald, which apparently affected him so deeply he stayed in the family attic for six months when he returned home.

biology is technology, time is precious, and stupid only gets in the way...,

H+ |  DARPA, the Defense Research Projects Agency, is perhaps best known for its role as progenitors of the computer networking and the Internet. Formed in the wake of the Soviet Union’s surprise launch of Sputnik, DARPA’s objective was to ensure that the United States would avoid technological surprises in the future. This role was later expanded to causing technological surprises as well.

And although DARPA is and has been the leading source of funding for artificial intelligence and a number of other transhumanist projects, they’ve been missing in action for a while. Nothing DARPA has worked on since seems to have had the societal impact of the invention of the Internet. But that is about to change.

The current director of DARPA is Dr. Arati Prabhakar. She is the second female director of the organization, following the previous and controversial director Regina Dugan who left the government to work at Google. The return to big visions and big adventures was apparent and in stark contrast to Dugan’s leadership of the organization.

Quoted in WIRED, Dugan had, for example, stated that “There is a time and a place for daydreaming. But it is not at DARPA,” and she told a congressional panel in March 2011, “Darpa is not the place of dreamlike musings or fantasies, not a place for self-indulging in wishes and hopes. DARPA is a place of doing.”

Those days are gone. DARPA’s new vision is simply to revolutionize the human situation and it is fully transhumanist in its approach.

The Biological Technologies Office or BTO was announced with little fanfare in the spring of 2014. This announcement didn’t get that much attention, perhaps because the press release announcing the BTO was published on April Fool’s Day.

But DARPA is determined to turn that around, and to help make that happen, they held a two day event in the SIlicon Valley area to facilitate and communicate about radical changes ahead in the area of biotechnologies. Invitees included some of the top biotechnology scientists in the world. And the audience was a mixed group of scientists, engineers, inventors, investors, futurists, along with a handful of government contractors and military personnel.

when the unintelligent are in charge...,

WaPo |  There’s a scene in Stanley Kubrick’s comic masterpiece “Dr. Strangelove” in which Jack D. Ripper, an American general who’s gone rogue and ordered a nuclear attack on the Soviet Union, unspools his paranoid worldview — and the explanation for why he drinks “only distilled water, or rainwater, and only pure grain alcohol” — to Lionel Mandrake, a dizzy-with-anxiety group captain in the Royal Air Force.

Ripper: “Have you ever heard of a thing called fluoridation? Fluoridation of water?”

Mandrake: “Ah, yes, I have heard of that, Jack. Yes, yes.”

Ripper: “Well, do you know what it is?”

Mandrake: “No. No, I don’t know what it is, no.”

Ripper: “Do you realize that fluoridation is the most monstrously conceived and dangerous communist plot we have ever had to face?” 

The movie came out in 1964, by which time the health benefits of fluoridation had been thoroughly established and anti-fluoridation conspiracy theories could be the stuff of comedy. Yet half a century later, fluoridation continues to incite fear and paranoia. In 2013, citizens in Portland, Ore., one of only a few major American cities that don’t fluoridate, blocked a plan by local officials to do so. Opponents didn’t like the idea of the government adding “chemicals” to their water. They claimed that fluoride could be harmful to human health.

Actually fluoride is a natural mineral that, in the weak concentrations used in public drinking-water systems, hardens tooth enamel and prevents tooth decay — a cheap and safe way to improve dental health for everyone, rich or poor, conscientious brushers or not. That’s the scientific and medical consensus.

To which some people in Portland, echoing anti-fluoridation activists around the world, reply: We don’t believe you.

We live in an age when all manner of scientific knowledge — from the safety of fluoride and vaccines to the reality of climate change — faces organized and often furious opposition. Empowered by their own sources of information and their own interpretations of research, doubters have declared war on the consensus of experts. There are so many of these controversies these days, you’d think a diabolical agency had put something in the water to make people argumentative.

sock-puppets don't need no edumackation...,

WaPo |  Walker had decided to challenge Gwen Moore (D), an African American woman who represented a partly white and deeply Democratic state assembly district that surrounded Marquette, Hiller said.

Republican leaders welcomed Walker’s bid. He wouldn’t win, but he would still force Moore to spend money and time defending the seat. (Walker later moved to suburban Wauwatosa, and it was there that he won his seat in 1993.)

In 1990, the 22-year-old Walker spent days knocking on doors in the district, preaching a get-tough message. He wanted 200 more cops on the street and stronger mandatory sentences for drug dealers.

“The number one fear is crime,” he wrote in a letter to Marquette students, asking them, again, to vote for him. “For too long, we have ignored this issue and now it is time to do something about it.”

Moore, who is now a member of Congress, said: “His campaign was one big dog whistle.” She believed that Walker’s anti-crime message was a way to speak to white voters’ fears of blacks without saying them aloud. “He had sort of insinuated sort of the worst stereotypes about black people [and] innate criminality.”

Hiller, Walker’s campaign treasurer, said that Moore was entirely wrong about Walker’s message. “There was no racial angle,” he said. “It never crossed our minds.”

On election night, Walker’s chances looked so terrible that Walker and Hiller left the district and the city of Milwaukee behind. They started driving to Madison, the state capital, to attend parties for other Republicans who had a chance.

Then, for a minute, something strange happened.

“We’re listening to election returns on the radio, and the guy comes on: ‘In a surprise in the [7th District], Scott Walker is ahead of Gwen Moore,’ ” Hiller said. “Literally, I pulled off the road.”

The two young men sat there on the shoulder, blindsided by the idea that Walker — a politician who hadn’t won anything he really wanted — might be about to win.  Fist tap Vic.

why don't we profile, stop, and frisk right-wing extremists?

mintpressnews |  “We’re currently in one of the hottest periods of extremist activity in the United States that I’ve seen in my 20-year career. This blows what we saw pre-Oklahoma City out of the water and makes it look like a kindergarten picnic,” Daryl Johnson, a domestic terrorism expert and founder of DT Analytics, a private consulting firm for law enforcement and Homeland Security professionals, says during an interview for the recent Vice News documentary. Johnson was also the main author of the intelligence assessment issued by DHS in 2009.

Yet, rather than acting on the information gathered in the assessment, the government cancelled all of its domestic terrorism reporting and law enforcement training after the report was leaked and politicized by conservative media outlets and politicians.

One such publication described “the piece of crap report” as “a sweeping indictment of conservatives.”  It continues, “In Obama land, there are no coincidences. It is no coincidence that this report echoes Tea Party-bashing left-wing blogs … and demonizes the very Americans who will be protesting in the thousands on Wednesday for the nationwide Tax Day Tea Party.”

Conservative news organizations interpreted the publication of the report as a political power play by Obama to demonize the right, rather than an impartial analysis of domestic terrorism that could help law enforcement.

In 2011, two years after the report was released, Johnson said he was deeply disheartened by how the report was characterized. Johnson told Joe Hamilton at the Muskegon Chronicle that he was “a former intelligence analyst and counterterrorism expert for the U.S. Army, an Eagle Scout, Mormon, one-time church missionary, an anti-abortion gun owner, and third-generation lifetime registered Republican.” In short, he said he is a conservative. Johnson added that the report could not have been a political move on the part of Obama, since he was hired in 2004 by the George W. Bush administration.

Following Hamilton’s opinion piece, Johnson penned his own article for Salon, “Daryl Johnson: I tried to warn them.” In it, he makes a damning indictment of the DHS decision not to follow through on recommendations made in his report.

splcenter |  At 9:02 a.m. on April 19, 1995, a 7,000-pound truck bomb, constructed of ammonium nitrate fertilizer and nitromethane racing fuel and packed into 13 plastic barrels, ripped through the heart of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. The explosion wrecked much of downtown Oklahoma City and killed 168 people, including 19 children in a day-care center. Another 500 were injured. Although many Americans initially suspected an attack by Middle Eastern radicals, it quickly became clear that the mass murder had actually been carried out by domestic, right-wing terrorists.

The slaughter engineered by Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols, men steeped in the conspiracy theories and white-hot fury of the American radical right, marked the opening shot in a new kind of domestic political extremism — a revolutionary ideology whose practitioners do not hesitate to carry out attacks directed at entirely innocent victims, people selected essentially at random to make a political point. After Oklahoma, it was no longer sufficient for many American right-wing terrorists to strike at a target of political significance — instead, they reached for higher and higher body counts, reasoning that they had to eclipse McVeigh's attack to win attention.

What follows is a detailed listing of major terrorist plots and racist rampages that have emerged from the American radical right in the years since Oklahoma City. These have included plans to bomb government buildings, banks, refineries, utilities, clinics, synagogues, mosques, memorials and bridges; to assassinate police officers, judges, politicians, civil rights figures and others; to rob banks, armored cars and other criminals; and to amass illegal machine guns, missiles, explosives and biological and chemical weapons. [Each of these plots aimed to make changes in America through the use of political violence.] Most contemplated the deaths of large numbers of people — in one case, as many as 30,000, or 10 times the number murdered on Sept. 11, 2001.

Here are the stories of plots, conspiracies and racist rampages since 1995 — plots and violence waged against a democratic America.

giuliani crying the hon.bro.preznit don't love right-wing extremists..,

politico |  Rudy Giuliani went straight for the jugular Wednesday night during a private group dinner here featuring Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker by openly questioning whether President Barack Obama “loves America.”

The former New York mayor, speaking in front of the 2016 Republican presidential contender and about 60 right-leaning business executives and conservative media types, directly challenged Obama’s patriotism, discussing what he called weak foreign policy decisions and questionable public remarks when confronting terrorists.

“I do not believe, and I know this is a horrible thing to say, but I do not believe that the president loves America,” Giuliani said during the dinner at the 21 Club, a former Prohibition-era speakeasy in midtown Manhattan. “He doesn’t love you. And he doesn’t love me. He wasn’t brought up the way you were brought up and I was brought up through love of this country.”

With Walker sitting just a few seats away, Giuliani continued by saying that “with all our flaws we’re the most exceptional country in the world. I’m looking for a presidential candidate who can express that, do that and carry it out.”

goo-gol crying about the FBI's push for more intelligent law enforcement...,

nationaljournal |   Google is warning that the government's quiet plan to expand the FBI's authority to remotely access computer files amounts to a "monumental" constitutional concern. The search giant submitted public comments earlier this week opposing a Justice Department proposal that would grant judges more leeway in how they can approve search warrants for electronic data.

The push to change an arcane federal rule "raises a number of monumental and highly complex constitutional, legal, and geopolitical concerns that should be left to Congress to decide," wrote Richard Salgado, Google's director for law enforcement and information security.

The provision, known as Rule 41 of the federal rules of criminal procedure, generally permits judges to grant search warrants only within the bounds of their judicial district. Last year, the Justice Department petitioned a judicial advisory committee to amend the rule to allow judges to approve warrants outside their jurisdictions in cases where authorities are unsure where a computer is located.

Google, in its comments, blasted the desired rule change as overly vague, saying the proposal could authorize remote searches on the data of millions of Americans simultaneously—particularly those who share a network or router—and cautioned it rested on shaky legal footing.

 

"The serious and complex constitutional concerns implicated by the proposed amendment are numerous and, because of the nature of Fourth Amendment case law development, are unlikely to be addressed by courts in a timely fashion," Salgado wrote.

The Justice Department has countered that the rule change amounts to a small-scale tweak of protocol, one that is necessary to align search-warrant procedures with the realities of modern technology. In its own comments, the Justice Department accused some opponents of the rule change of "misreading the text of the proposal or misunderstanding current law."

"The proposal would not authorize the government to undertake any search or seizure or use any remote search technique not already permitted under current law," Deputy Assistant Attorney General David Bitkower said in a memorandum written late last year and made public Tuesday. He added that investigators are "careful to avoid collateral damage when executing remote searches, just as [they are] careful to avoid injury to persons or damage to property in the far more common scenario of executing physical warrants."

the epitome of incompetent governance and illegitimate social control...,

telegraph |  Hong Kong’s unpopular chief executive has infuriated pro-democracy campaigners by using a Chinese New Year message to urge the former colony's citizens to act more "like sheep". 

In a brief video address commemorating the start of Year of the Sheep, CY Leung said sheep-like behavior was required in the wake of the turbulence caused by last year’s street protests.

“Last year was no easy ride for Hong Kong. Our society was rife with differences and conflicts,” the chief executive of the former British colony said.

“In the coming year, I hope that all people in Hong Kong will take inspiration from the sheep's character and pull together in an accommodating manner to work for Hong Kong's future.”

In case his message had been missed, Mr Leung noted that the 12 animals in the Chinese zodiac had 12 individual "character types". "Sheep are widely seen to be mild and gentle animals living peacefully in groups," he said.

procedural fairness the cornerstone of legitimate social control

proceduralfairness |  The theory behind procedural fairness, or procedural justice as it is sometimes called, has developed over a period of more than 25 years. Tom Tyler, one of the key figures in the field of procedural fairness, provides a concise overview for members of the court community in his article "Procedural Justice and the Courts."

In a recent lecture, Professor Tyler further explores and highlights the implications of procedural fairness on several aspects of the justice system.

Judges Kevin Burke and Steve Leben authored an extensive white paper on procedural fairness entitled, "Procedural Fairness: A Key Ingredient in Public Satisfaction." The paper examines core research in the area and recommends various changes to "improve" the daily work of the courts and their judges. Click here to access the spanish version of the paper. 

In a December 2011 presentation to the Conference of State Court Administrators, Judge Kevin Burke presented an overview of procedural fairness and its practical applications. A copy of the powerpoint from his presentation can be found here.

Other scholars have explored the connection between procedural fairness and other areas of research. The article Fair Procedures, Yes. But We Dare Not Lose Sight of Fair Outcomes by Brian Bornstein and Hannah Dietrich discusses procedural justice and its interrelation with distributive justice. Similarly, Jonathan Jackson discusses procedural justice as an important aspect of criminology's definition of legitimate authority in his chapter, On the Dual Motivational Force of Legitimate Authority.

An Argument for Procedural Fairness

 Professor Tom Tyler's presentation to a 2007 Harvard Law School Conference focuses on how legitimacy, which is rooted in procedural justice, is important in decisions to adhere to social rules. The presentation is broken into three parts below: