io9 | Over the past several decades, biologists have refined their
transgenic techniques, including the introduction of DNA microinjection,
embryonic stem cell-mediated gene transfer, and retrovirus-mediated
gene transfer.
More recently, scientists have figured out how to modify the DNA of
plants and animals to much greater degrees of precision. While
techniques using bacterial and viral DNA enabled scientists to transport
genes into the chromosomes of various organisms, the precise target for
where the transgene was to eventually land could not be controlled. The
CRISPR/Cas9 system,
which normally allows the bacterial immune system to store DNA
'fingerprints' of viruses, now enables scientists to choose a specific
region of the genome for either gene disruption (a gene knockout) or
insertion (creating a more-precise transgenic organism).
This
technology is extremely powerful because the original genes of an
organism (its endogenous genes) provide a direct entryway for scientists
to control, or edit, an organism's biology. For instance, if someone
has a mutation that causes a disease in a particular type of cell, using
CRISPR/Cas9 to replace the mutant gene with a normal gene could
theoretically cure that disease. Likewise, it could be used to introduce
a foreign transgene.
Today, transgenic organisms are used for a number of purposes, from
toxicology and the improvement of plants and livestock to the creation
of animals that simulate human diseases. They can be divided into three
major functions:
To obtain information on gene function and regulation as well as on human diseases
To
obtain high value products (recombinant pharmaceutical proteins and
xeno-organs and xeno-tissues for humans) to be used for human therapy
To improve animal products for human consumption.
As noted by Emily Anthes , author of Frankenstein's Cat, genetically engineered animals could do real good for the world. As she notes in The New York Times,
scientists have created transgenic salmon that can reach their adult
size in a year and a half, rather than three years. There's also the
famous "spider goats" — hybrid goats that secrete exceptionally strong strands of spider's silk, and transgenic glow-in-the-dark pigs and rabbits that use jellyfish DNA (the point of which kind of eludes me).
thesaker | While the word was focused in rapt attention on the outcome of the US Presidential election, Vladimir Putin did something quite amazing – he arrested Alexei Uliukaev, Minister of the Economy of the Medvedev government, on charges of extortion and corruption. Uliukaev, whose telephone had been tapped by the Russian Security Services since this summer, was arrested in the middle of the night in possession of 2 million US dollars. Putin officially fired him the next morning.
Russian official sources say that Uliukaev extorted a $2 million bribe for an assessment that led to the acquisition by Rosneft (a state run Russian oil giant) of a 50% stake in Bashneft (another oil giant). Apparently, Uliukaev tried to threaten Igor Sechin, the President of Rosneft and a person considered close to Vladimir Putin and the Russian security and intelligence services.
Yes, you read that right: according to the official version, a state-owned company gave a bribe to a member of the government. Does that make sense to you? How about a senior member of the government who had his telephone tapped and who has been under close surveillance by the Federal Security Service for over a year – does that make sense to you?
This makes no sense at all and the Russian authorities fully realize that. But that is the official version. So what is going on here? Do you think that there is a message from Putin here?
unz | Events following Trump’s victory should remove all doubt that
American elections—and perhaps American life more generally—are
increasingly being feminized. Hissy fits, snarky gossip and claims of
dog-whistle hate are now major political weapons and millions in the
Democratic coalition—women, blacks, gays, the campus-based cupcake
nation—are desperately seeking sanctuaries. It would be hard to
exaggerate this transformation. Try to imagine old-fashioned pols,
typically males, hugging and crying as their candidate went down to
defeat. Would Chicago Mayor Richard J. Daily “get the vapors”
and tearfully whine about a Republican in the White House and with his
ward-heeler cronies retreat to a safe space with cuddly puppies, playdough,
and coloring books to begin the process of healing? Clearly, if such a
response occurred post Nixon’s 1968 victory, the Mayor’s career would be
over. Not even the dutiful Democratic Blessed Sisters of the Poor in
his own parish could respect such a girly man and would demand that “Hiz
Honor” take it like a man, down a few stiff ones with “the boys,” stop
complaining and get busy stealing the next election.
As the onward march of feminization transforms losing an election
into a psychological trauma requiring therapy, what’s next”? Perhaps an
officially organized post-election “healing” with a pseudo scientific
name—Post-Election Defeat Traumatic Stress Disorder—so therapists can
try to bill insurance companies for its treatment.
WaPo | In an interview with the Hollywood Reporter, incoming White House chief
strategist Stephen K. Bannon advances another view. “The media bubble is
the ultimate symbol of what’s wrong with this country,” Bannon told Michael Wolff.
“It’s just a circle of people talking to themselves who have no f—ing
idea what’s going on. If The New York Times didn’t exist, CNN and MSNBC
would be a test pattern. The Huffington Post and everything else is
predicated on The New York Times. It’s a closed circle of information
from which Hillary Clinton got all her information — and her confidence.
That was our opening.”
unz | Newly elected presidents are frequently afforded what is described as
a “honeymoon period” in which the criticism of their campaign positions
diminishes sharply as the public and media stand by to see what
actually will develop as an administration takes shape. The honeymoon
can sometimes extend well into the post-inauguration time frame, as it
did with President Barack Obama, and it provides for a breathing space
during which the new arrivals in the White House can set an agenda and
learn how the government actually works.
Unfortunately, President-elect Donald Trump will apparently not enjoy
such a courtesy, at least as far as the media is concerned. The
mainstream media was unrelentingly hostile to Trump both during the
Republican primaries and the presidential campaign itself. The
assertions emanating from media apologists contending that Trump
actually benefitted from the massive press coverage that he did receive
ignores the fact that the reporting was almost always negative. If Trump
benefited at all it was only because the public, seeing the outpouring
of sheer hatred from a media that it already distrusted, came to believe
that someone so vilified by a source so questionable must actually
represent something worth supporting.
The rage of the media towards Trump continues unabated. The Washington Post,
a scurrilous rag emanating out of the District of Columbia that claims
to be a national “newspaper of record,” has a neocon editorial page that
has never seen a war that it dislikes coupled with domestic and local
reporting that is multicultural, inclusive and diverse to a fault. Its
globalist agenda driven hacks seamlessly churn out news stories that are
more editorials for a certain world view than they are reporting of
actual events. It is “invade the world-invite the world” at its finest
and reminds one of Hillary Clinton at her most effusive.
Vox | The film’s premise hinges on the idea, shared by many
linguists and philosophers of language, that we do not all experience
the same reality. The pieces of it are the same — we live on the same
planet, breathe the same air — but our perceptions of those pieces shift
and change based on the words and grammar we use to describe them to
ourselves and each other.
For instance, there is substantial evidence
that a person doesn’t really see (or perhaps "perceive") a color until
their vocabulary contains a word, attached to meaning, that
distinguishes it from other colors. All yellows are not alike, but
without the need to distinguish between yellows and the linguistic tools
to do so, people just see yellow. A color specialist at a paint
manufacturer, however, can distinguish between virtually hundreds of
colors of white. (Go check out the paint chip aisle at Home Depot if
you’re skeptical.)
Or consider the phenomenon of words in other languages that describe universal feelings,
but can only be articulated precisely in some culture. We might
intuitively "feel" the emotion, but without the word to describe it
we’re inclined to lump the emotion in with another under the same
heading. Once we develop the linguistic term for it, though, we can
describe it and feel it as distinct from other shades of adjacent
emotions.
HBR | Michèle Lamont, in The Dignity of Working Men,
also found resentment of professionals — but not of the rich. “[I]
can’t knock anyone for succeeding,” a laborer told her. “There’s a lot
of people out there who are wealthy and I’m sure they worked darned hard
for every cent they have,” chimed in a receiving clerk. Why the
difference? For one thing, most blue-collar workers have little direct
contact with the rich outside of Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous.
But professionals order them around every day. The dream is not to
become upper-middle-class, with its different food, family, and
friendship patterns; the dream is to live in your own class milieu,
where you feel comfortable — just with more money. “The main thing is to
be independent and give your own orders and not have to take them from
anybody else,” a machine operator told Lamont. Owning one’s own business
— that’s the goal. That’s another part of Trump’s appeal.
Hillary Clinton, by contrast, epitomizes the dorky arrogance and
smugness of the professional elite. The dorkiness: the pantsuits. The
arrogance: the email server. The smugness: the basket of deplorables.
Worse, her mere presence rubs it in that even women from her
class can treat working-class men with disrespect. Look at how she
condescends to Trump as unfit to hold the office of the presidency and
dismisses his supporters as racist, sexist, homophobic, or xenophobic.
Trump’s blunt talk taps into another blue-collar value: straight
talk. “Directness is a working-class norm,” notes Lubrano. As one
blue-collar guy told him, “If you have a problem with me, come talk to
me. If you have a way you want something done, come talk to me. I don’t
like people who play these two-faced games.” Straight talk is seen as
requiring manly courage, not being “a total wuss and a wimp,” an
electronics technician told Lamont. Of course Trump appeals. Clinton’s
clunky admission that she talks one way in public and another in private? Further proof she’s a two-faced phony.
WaPo | A doctoral dissertation at the University of California at Santa Barbara uses “feminist methodologies” to understand how Girl Scout cookie sales “reproduce hegemonic gender roles.” The journal GeoHumanities explores how pumpkins reveal “racial and class coding of rural versus urban places.” Another journal’s article analyzes “the relationships among gender, science, and glaciers.” A Vassar College lecture
“theorizes oscillating relations between disciplinary, pre-emptive and
increasingly prehensive forms of power that shape human and non-human
materialities in Palestine.”
Even professors’ books from serious publishers are clotted with
pretentious jargon. To pick just one from innumerable examples, a recent
history of the Spanish Civil War, published by the Oxford University
Press, says that Franco’s Spain was as “hierarchizing” as Hitler’s
Germany, that Catholicism “problematized” relations between Spain and
the Third Reich, and that liberalism and democracy are concepts that
must be “interrogated.” Only the highly educated write so badly. Indeed,
the point of such ludicrous prose is to signal membership in a closed
clerisy that possesses a private language.
Institutions of supposedly higher education are awash with hysteria,
authoritarianism, obscurantism, philistinism and charlatanry. Which must
have something to do with the tone and substance of the presidential
election, which took the nation’s temperature.
counterpunch | Already we have seen how the Fed’s determination to enrich its constituents has resulted in one titanic asset-price bubble after the other. Imagine if that power was entrusted to just one individual who could be tempted to use that authority to shape economic events in a way that enhanced and perpetuated his own political power. Even so, after seven years of a policy-induced Depression that has increased inequality to levels not seen since the Gilded Age, we think it is high-time that the president use his power to choose the members who will bring the bank back under government control. Here’s more background from the LA Times:
“Donald Trump leveled unprecedented criticism at the Federal Reserve during the campaign. As president, he could get to quickly reshape it … Trump will have the opportunity to appoint as many as five new members to the seven-person Fed Board of Governors during his first year and a half in office. That includes a new chairperson to replace Janet L. Yellen, whose term expires in early 2018…
Trump hammered Yellen in the final months of the (presidential) campaign, accusing her of keeping the benchmark rate “artificially low” to help fellow Democrats President Obama and Hillary Clinton.
“I think she is very political and to a certain extent, I think she should be ashamed of herself.” Trump told CNBC in mid-September. At the first presidential debate two weeks later, he declared that “the Fed is being more political than Hillary Clinton.”
And Trump’s final campaign video included images of the Fed and Yellen, casting her has part of the “political establishment” that has “bled our country dry.”…
“Never before have we had an incoming president not just criticize how Fed policy has been executed … but accuse the Fed chair of undermining the institution by being in political cahoots with his opponent and the White House,” (James) Pethokoukis said. “We’re off the grid into uncharted territory.”… (Trump hammered the Federal Reserve as a candidate. As president, he could quickly reshape it, LA Times)
We can safely assume that the Supreme Court is going to reflect Trump’s corporate-friendly laissez-faire attitude towards big business, the question is: What can we expect from the Central Bank once it becomes the White House’s flunky?
ourfiniteworld | The energy problem behind Trump’s election is not the one people have
been looking for. Instead, it is an energy problem that leads to low
wages for many workers in the US, and high unemployment rates in the
European Union. (The different outcomes reflect different minimum wage
laws. Higher minimum wages tend to lead to higher unemployment rates;
lower minimum wages tend to lead to higher employment, but
unsatisfactory wages levels for many.) The energy problem is also
reflected as low prices of oil and other commodities.
To try to solve the energy problem, we use approaches that involve
increasing complexity, including new technology and globalization. As we
add more and more complexity, these approaches tend to work less and
less well. In fact, they can become a problem in themselves, because
they tend to redistribute wealth toward the top of the employment
hierarchy, and they increase “overhead” for the economy as a whole.
In this material, I explain how inadequate energy supplies can appear as either low wages or as high prices.
Basically, if energy supplies are inadequate, workers tend to be less
productive because they have fewer or less advanced tools to work with.
Their lower wages reflect lower productivity (Slide 20). Slide 6 offers
some additional insights.
Trump’s election seems to reflect the cooling effect that our energy
problems are having on the economy as a whole. Citizens are increasingly
unhappy with their wage situation, and want a major change. Trump’s
election may at least temporarily have a beneficial effect, since it may
work in the direction of reducing complexity.
Long term, however, it is hard to see that the policies of any
elected official will be able to fix our underlying energy problems.
medialens | The idea that journalism should offer a neutral 'spectrum' of views
was unceremoniously dumped during the US presidential election. Hillary
Clinton was endorsed
by the 500 largest US newspapers and magazines; Trump by 20 of the
smallest, with the most significant of these – something called the Las
Vegas Review-Journal - reaching some 100,000 readers.
As with Jeremy Corbyn, from the moment Trump became a genuine
contender, he was drenched in vitriol by virtually the entire US-UK
corporate press. The smear campaign was epitomised by the baseless, Ian Fleming-like suggestion that Trump was in cahoots with the establishment's other great bête noire, Putin – a propaganda-perfect marriage of Evil and Pure Evil.
Ironically, Trump may well turn out to be the final nail in the
coffin of the manifestly stalled human attempt to become civilised. As
leading climate scientist Michael Mann has noted, Trump's stance on climate stability may mean 'game over' for it and us.
But elite media did not oppose Trump because of his climate
views – no question was raised on the issue during the presidential
debates and, as Noam Chomsky observes (below), the issue was of no
interest to journalists. On the other hand, Edward Herman comments,
a declared lack of enthusiasm for foreign conflict, notably with
Russia, 'may help explain the intensity of media hostility to Trump'.
Inevitably, our drawing attention to the awesome level of media bias
drew accusations that Media Lens was an unlikely 'apologist' for Trump's
far-right declarations promoting racism, misogyny and climate denial.
When we asked Guardian commentator Hadley Freeman why, in comparing
Trump and Clinton, she mentioned Clinton's email server scandal but not
her war crimes, she interpreted this as an endorsement of Trump:
The roots of the Clinton-Trump fiasco lie in decades of 'liberal' media refusal to challenge the increasing venality, violence and suicidal climate indifference at the supposedly rational end of the political spectrum. Virtually the entire 'liberal' journalistic community saw great hope in Bill Clinton, Tony Blair, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, while treating genuinely honest and compassionate political commentators like Chomsky, Edward Herman, John Pilger, Howard Zinn, Harold Pinter, Chris Hedges, Jonathan Cook and many others as quixotic freaks who may be mentioned in passing, published once in a supermoon, but otherwise ignored.
As Slavoj Zizek observed: 'The real catastrophe is the status quo.' When liberal journalism slams the door on reasoned arguments and authentic compassion, other doors swing wide for the likes of Trump.
The default corporate media excuse for ignoring 'our' crimes is that elected politicians have been chosen to serve by the people, and it is the task of journalism to support, not subvert, democracy. But of course democracy is profoundly subverted by a lack of honest media scrutiny. Structural media distortion is so extreme that, despite bombing seven countries, Barack Obama continues to be depicted and perceived as an almost saintly figure.
Hillary Clinton was indisputably the preferred establishment candidate, backed by virtually the entire US-UK corporate press.
'Mainstream' media did not merely support Clinton, they declared propaganda war on Trump. As we have seen in this brief sample, even BBC journalists thought nothing of ridiculing Trump's 'narcissistic personality disorder' – unthinkable language from a BBC reporter describing an Obama, a Cameron, or indeed a Clinton.
The intensity of establishment support for Clinton meant that journalistic performance was filtered by host media and self-censorship. As the former Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger told us in an interview:
'[T]he whole thing works by a kind of osmosis. If you ask anybody who works in newspapers, they will quite rightly say, "Rupert Murdoch," or whoever, "never tells me what to write", which is beside the point: they don't have to be told what to write. It's understood.'
The moment the vote was cast, pressures filtering out criticisms of Clinton and less hysterical coverage of Trump were lifted. The result is a semblance of balance that allows stunningly extreme 'mainstream' media to enhance their ill-deserved reputation for 'fairness' and 'impartiality'.
thedailybell |This Bloomberg article is focused not on the top people in this conspiracy but on the “little people” who do the bidding of higher ups and have learned how to survive in an internationalist environment and profit from it.
But in our view, these are probably NOT the people that Trump’s voters really voted against. Many of Trump’s voters, like Trump himself, understand that the problems go far beyond academics, bureaucrats and corrupt tycoons.
In fact, this Bloomberg article is a perfect example of a kind of elite propaganda. It is trying to convince us that we need to “listen” to the anger of Trump voters and then, we are instructed, the intelligentsia needs to react.
American intellectuals may violently disagree with the average Trump voter on most things. They may have access to facts that prove that voters wrong. But there’s no way they — we — can go on dismissing and ridiculing these people without dooming themselves to irrelevance and provoking further backlash.
This is in fact the fondest hope, no doubt, of those tasked with defending the REAL culprits from exposure and attack. Such individuals are the ones running the world’s largest corporations and leading the most powerful nation states.
And these individuals may be found in higher places still, plotting the propaganda that the rest of us imbibe. Also managing central bank strategies and even plotting our gradual progress toward a new world war.
The Bloomberg article ends by suggesting that a lot of the irritation of Trump voters is aimed at political correctness and that the US needs “an open conversation about what ails it, not … one that tiptoes around speech taboos about racism, misogyny and sexual discrimination.”
Once more – hooey. Our guess is that like Donald Trump himself, many of his voters – perhaps tens of millions are quite aware that the world’s problems extend far beyond political correctness and “intellectuals.”
vox | So how do we have a better conversation around these
issues, one that can actually reduce people’s racial prejudices and
anxieties?
The first thing to understand is how white Americans,
especially in rural areas, hear accusations of racism. While terms like
“racist,” “white privilege,” and “implicit bias” intend to point out
systemic biases in America, for white Americans they’re often seen as
coded slurs. These terms don’t signal to them that they’re doing
something wrong, but that their supposedly racist attitudes (which they
would deny having at all) are a justification for lawmakers and other
elites to ignore their problems.
Imagine, for example, a white man who lost a factory job
due to globalization and saw his sister die from a drug overdose due to the opioid painkiller and heroin epidemic
— situations that aren’t uncommon today. He tries to complain about his
circumstances. But his concerns are downplayed by a politician or
racial justice activist, who instead points out that at least he’s doing
better than black and brown folks if you look at broad socioeconomic
measures.
Maybe he does have some level of white privilege. But
that doesn’t take away from the serious problems he sees in his world
today.
This is how many white Americans, particularly in
working-class and rural areas, view the world today. So when they hear
politicians and journalists call them racist or remind them about their
privilege, they feel like elites are trying to distract from the serious
problems in their lives and grant advantages to other groups of people.
When Hillary Clinton called half of Trump voters “deplorable,” she made this message explicit.
“Telling
people they’re racist, sexist, and xenophobic is going to get you
exactly nowhere,” said Alana Conner, executive director of Stanford
University’s Social Psychological Answers to Real-World Questions
Center. “It’s such a threatening message. One of the things we know from
social psychology is when people feel threatened, they can’t change,
they can’t listen.”
WaPo | I will never again use the term “political correctness.” Whatever rhetorical value the term may have once had is far more than offset by what has been unleashed in the name of resistance to it since the presidential election.
I have made no secret over the years ofmy convictionthat the sensitivities of individuals or members of various group should not be permitted to chill free speech on college campuses. I have the scars to show for speaking out againstoverdoing the idea of microaggression, the regulation of Halloween costumes and the prosecution of students for taking part in sombrero parties – all of which have struck me as “political correctness” run amok.
But the events of the last week are giving me pause about that term and its usage and the complex issues underlying it. It’s not that I now think speech codes are wise or that we should stamp out microaggressions wherever they are perceived. Rather,my reactionis to the way President-elect Donald Trump has been heard during the campaign and the terrifying events his election has set off.
The fight for academic freedom and for ideological diversity on college campuses should and will go on. But given what opposition to “political correctness” has licensed, it time to retire the term.
freep | Speaking at President Gerald Ford's alma mater, The Rev. Jesse
Jackson called for President Obama to issue a blanket pardon to Hillary
Clinton before he leaves office, just like Ford did for Richard Nixon.
Stopping
short of saying Clinton did anything wrong, Jackson told a large crowd
of University of Michigan students, faculty and administrators gathered
at daylong celebration of his career that Obama should
short-circuit President-elect Donald Trump's promised attempt to
prosecute Hillary Clinton for use of a private e-mail server.
"It
would be a monumental moral mistake to pursue the indictment of Hillary
Clinton," Jackson said. He said issuing the pardon could help heal the
nation, like Ford's pardon of Nixon did.
"President Ford said we don't need him for trophy. We need to move
on. President Nixon wasn't convicted of a crime. He didn't apply for a
pardon. (Ford) did it because he thought it would be best for the
country.
"Hillary Clinton has not been tried, but there are those
who want to drag her for the next three years. It will not stop until
they find a reason to put her in jail. That would be a travesty."
In
1974, Ford, a University of Michigan alumnus, issued a full and
complete pardon of Nixon for any crimes he may have committed. He said
the pardon was in the best interests of the nation.
Jackson's
comments came at the end of a long day in Ann Arbor, which included him
dropping in on an anti-Trump rally held by students on campus.
unz | In her Wednesday morning post mortem speech, Hillary made a bizarre
request for young people (especially young women) to become politically
active as Democrats after her own model. What made this so strange is
that the Democratic National Committee has done everything it can to
discourage millennials from running. There are few young candidates –
except for corporate and Wall Street Republicans running as Blue Dog
Democrats. The left has not been welcome in the party for a decade –
unless it confines itself only to rhetoric and demagogy, not actual
content. For Hillary’s DNC coterie the problem with millennials is that
they are not shills for Wall Street. The treatment of Bernie Sanders is
exemplary. The DNC threw down the gauntlet.
Instead of a love fest within the Democratic Party’s ranks, the blame
game is burning. The Democrats raised a reported $182 million dollars
running up to the election. But when Russ Feingold in Wisconsin and
other candidates in Michigan, Minnesota and Pennsylvania asked for help.
Hillary monopolized it all for TV ads, leaving these candidates in the
lurch. The election seemed to be all about her, about personality and
identity politics, not about the economic issues paramount in most
voters’ minds.
Six months ago the polls showed her the $1 billion spent on data
polling, TV ads and immense staff of sycophants to have been a vast
exercise in GIGO. From May to June the Democratic National Committee
(DNC) saw polls showing Bernie Sanders beating Trump, but Hillary
losing. Did the Democratic leadership really prefer to lose with Hillary
than win behind him and his social democratic reformers.
Hillary doesn’t learn. Over the weekend she claimed that her analysis
showed that FBI director Comey’s reports “rais[ing] doubts that were
groundless, baseless,” stopped her momentum. This was on a par with the New York Times
analysis that had showed her with an 84 percent probability of winning
last Tuesday. She still hasn’t admitted that here analysis was
inaccurate.
What is the Democratic Party’s former constituency of labor and
progressive reformers to do? Are they to stand by and let the party be
captured in Hillary’s wake by Robert Rubin’s Goldman Sachs-Citigroup
gang that backed her and Obama?
If the party is to be recaptured, now is the moment to move. The 2016
election sounded the death knell for identity politics. Its aim was to
persuade voters not to think of their identity in economic terms,
but to think of themselves as women or as racial and ethnic groups
first and foremost, not as having common economic interests. This
strategy to distract voters from economic policies has obviously failed.
lewrockwell |“Mary’s Mosaic” is several things at once: an insightful and sensitive biography of both Mary Meyer and her one-time husband, CIA propaganda specialist Cord Meyer; a murder mystery; a trial drama; an expose of secret knowledge and cover-ups inside the Washington D.C. Beltway during the 1950s and 1960s; and of course, a love story about the late-developing relationship between President John F. Kennedy and Mary Pinchot Meyer, whom he had first met at an Ivy League prep school dance when she was only 15 years old. Their paths had crossed briefly once again in the Spring of 1945, at the founding conference of the United Nations in San Francisco. (Mary, her new husband Cord Meyer, and John F. Kennedy all attended the conference as journalists reporting on the events there, at the birth of the United Nations.)
Peter Janney’s own father, a World War II Naval aviator and a recipient of the Navy Cross, was also a CIA man, and Peter grew up amidst the CIA culture in Washington. Mary Meyer’s son Michael was his best childhood friend. He knew Mary Meyer as his best friend’s mother. He was therefore perfectly placed to write this book, for his own family had frequent social contacts with Cord and Mary Meyer, James Angleton, Richard Helms, Tracy Barnes, Desmond FitzGerald, and William Colby. Janney’s knowledge of the CIA Cold War culture in our nation’s capital in the 1950s and 1960s is very well-informed, on a personal level.
Janney compellingly relates how the D.C. metropolitan police and the U.S. Justice Department attempted to railroad an innocent black man, Ray Crump, for the mysterious murder of Mary Meyer in October of 1964, just three weeks after the Warren Report was issued. Due to the heroic efforts of African American female attorney Dovey Roundtree, Janney explains how against all odds, Crump was acquitted. Peter Janney reveals the likely motive for her murder—she was about to publicly oppose the sham conclusions of the Warren Report as a fraud. Furthermore, she had kept a private diary which presumably recorded details of her relationship with President Kennedy (and perhaps even of affairs of state). In October of 1964, she was literally “the woman who knew too much.” This book reveals the numerous lies and falsehoods told about her diary (and its disposition) by Ben Bradlee,James JesusAngleton, and others, in a way not adequately covered byprevious articles and books. The media in this country, misled by the CIA and by former acquaintances of Meyer’s who had much to hide, has consistently distorted the true story of what likely happened to her diary, and Peter Janney lays all of this out in a way that anyone can understand.
nakedcapitalism | Even though this assessment of the Trump win and the implications for
American politics going forward is long, it’s also meaty and very much
worth your attention. Mark Blyth was virtually the only person to call a
Trump victory from the get-go (a colleague who spends a lot of time
outside the Acela corridor is another member of that club) but also
correctly gamed out how the stock market would react.
Everything Blyth says is incisive, colorful, and on the mark. By
contrast, it’s frustrating listening to Schiller because she is invested
heavily in Dem orthodoxy, and not even in the plausible parts: the
Hillary scandals were manufactured by Republicans, Sanders would have
lost if he were the Democratic candidate, Clinton was a victim of being
a woman with a long political career (hello?). Similarly, towards the
end, Blyth says, “There is no left left. It’s already had its lunch
eaten,” and explains why, and then Schiller begs to differ by trying to
depict the Democrats as still a real force and capable of being
“renovated”. Help me. But she does have some random insightful remarks.
In other words, you can run the video and tune your attention in and
out, although you may then want to go back and listen to just the Mark
Blyth remarks a second time. There’s a lot of solid material here.
bloomberg | If they were anywhere else in Beijing, the five young women in cowboy
hats and matching red, white, and blue costumes would look wildly out
of place.
But here at the city’s biggest international property
fair -- a frenetic gathering of brokers, developers and other real
estate professionals all jockeying for the attention of Chinese buyers
-- the quintet of wannabe Texans fits right in. As they promote Houston
townhouses (“Yours for as little as $350,000!”), a Portugal contingent
touts its Golden Visa program and the Australian delegation lures
passersby with stuffed kangaroos.
Welcome to ground zero for the
world’s largest cross-border residential property boom. Motivated by a
weakening yuan, surging domestic housing costs and the desire to secure
offshore footholds, Chinese citizens are snapping up overseas homes at
an accelerating pace. They’re also venturing further afield than ever
before, spreading beyond the likes of Sydney and Vancouver to
lower-priced markets including Houston, Thailand’s Pattaya Beach and
Malaysia’s Johor Bahru.
The
buying spree has defied Chinese government efforts to restrict capital
outflows and shows little sign of slowing after an estimated $15 billion
of overseas real estate purchases in the first half. For cities in the
cross-hairs, the challenge is to balance the economic benefits of
Chinese demand against the risk that rising home prices spur a public
backlash.
“The Chinese have managed to accumulate very large
amounts of wealth, and the opportunities to deploy that capital in their
own market are somewhat restricted,” said Richard Barkham, the
London-based chief global economist at CBRE Group Inc., the world’s
largest commercial property brokerage. “China has more than a billion
people. Personally, I think we have just seen a trickle.”
bnarchives |Most explanations of stock market booms and
busts are based on contrasting the underlying ‘fundamental’ logic of the
economy with the exogenous, non-economic factors that presumably distort it.
Our paper offers a radically different model, examining the stock market not
from the mechanical viewpoint of a distorted economy, but from the dialectical
perspective of capitalized power. The model demonstrates that (1) the valuation
of equities represents capitalized power; (2) capitalized power is
dialectically intertwined with systemic fear; and (3) systemic fear and
capitalized power are mediated through strategic sabotage. This triangular
model, we posit, can offer a basis for examining the asymptotes, or limits, of
capitalized power and the ways in which these asymptotes relate to the
historical and ongoing transformation of the capitalist mode of power.
A Foundation of Joy
-
Two years and I've lost count of how many times my eye has been operated
on, either beating the fuck out of the tumor, or reattaching that slippery
eel ...
April Three
-
4/3
43
When 1 = A and 26 = Z
March = 43
What day?
4 to the power of 3 is 64
64th day is March 5
My birthday
March also has 5 letters.
4 x 3 = 12
...
Return of the Magi
-
Lately, the Holy Spirit is in the air. Emotional energy is swirling out of
the earth.I can feel it bubbling up, effervescing and evaporating around
us, s...
New Travels
-
Haven’t published on the Blog in quite a while. I at least part have been
immersed in the area of writing books. My focus is on Science Fiction an
Historic...
Covid-19 Preys Upon The Elderly And The Obese
-
sciencemag | This spring, after days of flulike symptoms and fever, a man
arrived at the emergency room at the University of Vermont Medical Center.
He ...