Excited Delirium

Without a National Portrait Gallery, individuals have taken the process virtual and have created ‘Framing Harper ‘.

What do you think of this?  Is it a good application of 2.0, or are we wasting our time?

Post your comments below.

Sometimes, I’m a little surprised that the UK teeters further into fascism than any other country, given that they gave us the Magna Carta and all that other fun stuff, but here they go again .

As always, the central claim is that it’s the only way to capture terrorists and to ensure that the media doesn’t get ahead of government actions, but we all know it’s more than that.

Now, in Canada with the Harpies in charge, we’re already subject to a running media blackout because they’ve simply decided that most of their actions don’t need to be reported, but maybe one day that will change.

Original story here .

I suppose this goes in the ‘if it ain’t oil, we ain’t going to watch it’ file.

Ironically, water will one day be more valuable than oil, but we’ll leave that problem to our kids, I suppose.

All to save a shitty little $1.5 million.  How embarassing.

DETAILS:
Tories to flush Canada-led water-monitoring program
Written by Sue Bailey, THE CANADIAN PRESS
Thursday, 13 November 2008

OTTAWA – The Harper government wants out of a Canada-led UN program that monitors freshwater around the world – a move being slammed as the latest Tory abdication of global causes once championed by Ottawa.

Experts say they’re shocked Canada would abandon a database it designed and has managed for 30 years, just as dwindling water supplies emerge as a critical issue. Environment Canada spokesman John Carey says the Global Environment Monitoring System is no longer a priority.

"We would like someone else to take it over," he said of the database that tracks trends from 2,700 water-quality monitoring stations in more than 70 countries.

Twenty-four United Nations agencies rely on those details to assess how increasingly precious freshwater sources are being managed.

Canada has most recently co-ordinated the system from labs at the University of Saskatchewan and in Burlington, Ont.

The previous Liberal government set up a five-year trust fund worth $1.5 million that was allowed to expire last year, Carey said in an interview.

"We considered within the department at our management board last spring whether there was any opportunity to replenish the trust fund. And we could not find one. We began considering looking for a partner then.

"We like the program. It’s just not a priority for Environment Canada."

Funding for three related salaries and "a relatively small amount of operating dollars" for the database will continue "until we find someone else to take it over," Carey said.

Errol Mendes, a University of Ottawa law professor and former adviser to the United Nations, says the timing is baffling.

"What will be the most important commodity in the second half of this century? It will not be gold. It will not be oil. It will be water. Water is not a question of whether or not you have more money in the bank. It’s a question of whether you live or die.

"And the fact is some of the most critical countries in the world are literally running out of potable, drinkable water – which this institution was supposed to monitor."

Mendes said the move away from the water system mirrors Canada’s about-face on the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Canada under the Conservatives was one of a handful of countries that refused to support the landmark document, citing concerns it would conflict with existing laws.

The rebuff was in stark contrast to support for the process under the Liberals.

Canadian Maude Barlow learned of the impending water-program pullout less than a month into her appointment as the UN’s first adviser on water issues.

"That Canada would remove this support from this program is just outrageous and an embarrassment," she said.

"It’s yet another example … that the Harper government is parochial, that it sees its environment commitments really in terms of optics.

"I have people say to me around the world: whatever happened to your country? We used to be able to count on Canada to take stands. And now Canada is in some cases worse than the United States – just absolutely refusing to partake and participate in international programs."

Germany is among countries reportedly interested in picking up Canada’s slack, Barlow said.

"But why should it move from Canada when it was built on Canadian expertise and technology? When it’s been here for 30 years?"

Monique Dube, an associate professor at the University of Saskatchewan’s School of Environment and Sustainability, is a former research scientist at Environment Canada.

"As a scientist, I’ve used the database myself and I understand the significance of (it) in terms of understanding global water trends, water quality – and how absolutely critical it is.

"If this goes after 30 years of investment, I can tell you … it will take a lot longer than 30 years to rebuild."

Dube says federal apathy for the program is especially wrong-headed because it costs so little to give Canada major international profile on a vital issue.

"What this gives us in terms of a contribution to global water sustainability is unmatched. So a million dollars is a drop in the bucket for something that has such impact."

Original story here.

During the last Canadian election, a lot of stink was made about the fact that a number of intelligent and potential candidates were on record as questioning all of the answers that we’ve received concerning 9/11.

I have no problems with questioning the official story, if only because there are SO MANY inconsistencies.

Another note:  I couldn’t help but post the details from one of the comments:

140+ Senior Military, Intelligence Service, Law Enforcement, and Government Officials question 911.

610+ Architects and Engineers question 911

140+ Pilots and Aviation Professionals question 911

310+ Professors question 911

210+ survivors and family member question 911

170+ Artists, Entertainers, and Media Professional question 911

Read statements on patriotsquestion911.com

Like vapour, this cash is being printed (well, not really) and it’s disappearing faster than anyone thought we could collectively imagine.

Huffington Post story here .

The level of corruption has become absolute and there’s no reason – NONE – to believe that the leaders of the US, the leaders of various financial organizations or other neo-con institutions are ethically capable of doing the right thing because they’re looking at this whole ‘disaster’ like it’s a giant game of Risk.

As indicated by the Huff Post, this story has blown out to be a bigger story.  Apparently, the folks at Bloomberg have acquired some cajones and are seeking legal action to force the Fed to reveal who they’re giving money to.

Good luck.

What do you think?  A short-term media stunt to make us feel marginally better for a half a day until the next pile of propoganda hits the air?

For those interested in the history and roots of today’s financial crisis, this article offers some insights you may appreciate.

I found the conclusion, following some discussion of the real reason why Eliot Spitzer was hung out to dry, particularly important:

Like the Panic of 1907 that justified a “bankers’ bank” to prevent future runs, the collapse of Bear Stearns has been used to justify a proposal giving vast new powers to the Federal Reserve to promote “financial market stability.” The plan was unveiled by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, former head of Goldman Sachs, two weeks after Bear Stearns fell. It would “consolidate” the state regulators (who work for the fifty states) and the SEC (which works for the U.S. government) under the Federal Reserve (which works for the banks). Paulson conceded that the result would not be to increase regulation but to actually take away authority from state regulators and the SEC. All regulation would be subsumed under the Federal Reserve, the bank-owned entity set up by J. Pierpont Morgan in 1913 specifically to preserve the banks’ own interests.

Jim Puplava maintains that naked short selling has now become so pervasive that if the hedge funds were pressed to come in and cover their naked short positions, “they would actually trigger another financial crisis.” The Fed and the SEC may be looking the other way on this widespread stock counterfeiting scheme because “if they did unravel it, everything really would unravel.” Evidently “promoting market stability” means that whistle-blowers and the SEC must be silenced so that a grossly illegal situation can continue, since the crime is so pervasive that to expose it and prosecute the criminals would unravel the whole financial system. As Nathan Rothschild observed in 1838, when the issuance and control of a nation’s money are in private hands, the laws and the people who make them become irrelevant.

Welcome people.

Welcome to your new lives as financial slaves to a small handful of bankers.

This story was a little chilly in that it offered a glimpse of what may come in the US and possibly Canada as well.

Now, the reality is that during the 30s and 40s, very few people were paying the top tax rate, but if it’s happened before, can the basics happen again?

You tell me …

Please note that any opinions related to this or other articles on this blog do not constitute financial advice. Any action that you take should be done so only with the advice and support of a financial planner or registered advisor.

The US is about to lose its AAA financial rating .

The thought ‘no shit’ is the first to come to mind.  These people are printing money faster than Bolt might run the 100 metre dash, and they don’t seem to show any concern what-so-ever that the meltdown in the markets is structural and that the cause is the Federal Reserve.  It is not the solution.

I’m sure we can examine the cause for some time.  The root for me is greed, but maybe some of you have other opinions?

For the effect?  The end result of this?

Most analysts will immediately say that the US will have to increase interest rates in order to attract more buyers of their own toxic debt.  As credibility goes down, rates have to go up to reward capital suppliers for greater risk.

Another important impact is that the value of the US dollar (say, compared to a basket of other currencies) will plummet.  It’s had a brief run upwards, largely because of the need for derivatives traders to cover positions over the last 2-6 weeks.

If you’re wondering why the dollar will fall despite the fact that it’s jumped a little in the last few weeks, just think in terms of supply and demand.  The Federal Reserve and the US government have made commitments to possibly double or triple the volume of ‘cash’ in the marketplace.

The simple laws of economics cannot be ignored:  with excessive supply comes a drop in value.  The vast supply that has been created will trickle into the system over the next 2-6 months and the result will be to ‘lubricate’ the US economy.  I don’t think we’ll see a hike in inflation within the US for some time, given that there are so many other structural issues now (no housing market, no auto demand, etc).

As the US dollar drops, remember my term for what will come next:  ‘interflation’.  This is the exporting of inflation to the rest of the world at the benefit of the US as a result of most commodities being priced in US dollars.  Because we’re still stupid enough to tie all of the international prices of commodities to a single currency (ie. the US dollar), the prices of all of these will take the exact opposite turn.  They will increase as the dollar falls.

So … enjoy the cheap gas and low-cost rice and corn while you can because they’ll return to the price levels that they were back in early 2008.

Media control comes into question often, particularly during any election.

This video is a fairly standard review of media control in the US. In fact, it actually left me wanting a little more content and research showing who owns what.

Which opens up the question to you: do you have suggestions for research related to media control in Canada?  I’m interested in the number of companies, the number of subsidiaries and the ultimate ‘politicization’ of the media in Canada.  In the past election, a number of publishers said that they either supported the Liberals or the Conservatives with little to no justification for that position.  Objectivity disappeared overnight and it was a massive disappointment, as far as I was concerned.