Models

For a long time, people thought our solar system revolved around the Earth. Copernicus (or Galileo to some) came around and proved the planets revolved around our Sun.

Models are important - they are the perspective of an individual's perception of any given event. Models are always biased, but the objective should be to choose a model with the least bias possible.

How is this achieved?

Scrutinize opposing aspects, think critically, and have an open mind.

"All Truth passes through three stages: First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as self-evident."

- Arthur Schopenhauer

Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't.

- Mark Twain


These opinions below may be my own or may belong to the authors whom I reference. They are posted for the benefit of mankind, so that we may collectively achieve a common ground and transition into a new golden era as seamlessly as possible.


Sunday, June 24, 2012

European Banking Crisis Explained


From American Kabuki

Giant nuclear cover-up? Explosions, military helicopters filmed near elevated radiation zone at border of Indiana and Michigan




Wednesday, June 13, 2012 by: Ethan A. Huff, staff writer

(NaturalNews) June 6, 2012, was a very strange day for northern Indiana and southern Michigan, where a series of strange explosions and a subsequent nuclear radiation spike left local residents combing for answers. And though there are still many missing pieces to the puzzle, it has become clear that some type of nuclear cover-up is taking place in the region, which is further evidenced by numerous eyewitness accounts of intense shaking and loud booms, audio recordings of inexplicable explosions, and pictures of unmarked aircraft flying during and after the incident.

It all began when separate radiation monitoring stations -- a privately-owned Radiation Network station near South Bend, Ind., and a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) RadNet station near Fort Wayne, Ind. -- detected extremely high levels of nuclear radiation around the same time between June 6 and June 7. Both stations reportedly began to give radiation readings ranging as high as 7,139 counts per minute (CPM), when a normal reading is typically between five and 60 CPM.

You can view a screenshot of the Radiation Network reading, which was later pulled, here: http://www.naturalnews.com/images/Map-US-Radiation-Meters.jpg

As you can see, the South Bend reading shows a shockingly high 7,034 CPM radiation level, which the group later said was incorrect and the result of an "equipment malfunction" (http://www.radiationnetwork.com/Message.htm). But the EPA's RadNet station, which is located about 90 miles away from Radiation Network's South Bend station, also showed elevated radiation levels around the exact same time and on the same day, which leads to more questions about what is really going on here.

RadNet's data has also since been pulled, which is highly suspicious. But if you visit the RadNet Query page (https://cdxnode64.epa.gov/radnet-public/query.do), you can pull up the data yourself from the archive. Simply input "Beta Gross Count Rate (CPM)" in the Selected Parameters box, select Fort Wayne as the Fixed Monitor Location, and select June 6 as the Time Range Criteria.

What you will see are radiation readings that peak as high as 182 CPM around noon on June 6, and suddenly drop to 18 CPM a little more than an hour later. According to the EPA, any CPM level above 100 is high enough to trigger an alert, and yet no official alert was ever issued. In fact, neither the EPA nor anyone else in the government or mainstream media even mentioned the incident, which is now being disregarded as coincidental equipment errors.

Similar high readings were also output by Black Cat Systems, another radiation level tracking site (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwsVLmfZsxk). According to Radiation Network, some of its own stations feed information to Black Cat, which could explain similar incorrect radiation readings being displayed. However, Radiation Network has not confirmed whether or not its South Bend station is one of the readings shared by Black Cat.

Eyewitness accounts indicate strange activity taking place during nuclear anomaly

But the real question here, regardless of the potential Black Cat link, is how could two separate radiation stations nearly 100 miles apart both have equipment errors on the same day around the same time? And what about all the other strange activity that reportedly took place the day of the "faulty" readings, including the deployment of U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) "hazmat" fleets that had allegedly not been moved in years, but that suddenly disappeared?

According to a Reddit reader whose eyewitness account was confirmed by various other readers, a large fleet of DHS emergency response trucks disappeared on June 6 from a parking lot where they had remained unmoved for years. The missing trucks were allegedly emblazoned with a U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) National Incident Management System (NIMS) logo, which suggests that a major emergency had occurred that required immediate attention (http://www.infowars.com).

A series of loud explosions that began more than a week prior to the high radiation readings were also reported throughout the region, which adds another element of mystery to this whole situation. WWMT Newschannel 3 ran a report in late May about the occurrence of a "loud explosion like thunder" that resulted in intense shaking felt throughout several Michigan counties. The rumbling was so loud and intense that one local man thought something had exploded inside his house (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3oKj_ptBOUE).

In the days that followed, other area residents also reported hearing strange "boom" sounds, and some even reported seeing unmarked helicopters, A-10 Thunderbolts, which are sometimes referred to as the "world's deadliest aircraft," and various other military aircraft and personnel moving in and out of the area (http://naturalsociety.com).

One man who tried to investigate the source of another unidentified explosion further north in Michigan was actually arrested after trying to question the Executive Secretary at the Alpena Combat Readiness Training Center, a year-round National Guard training and exercise facility (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAphZIusdTo).

Some have suggested that either earthquakes or mining operations are potentially to blame for all the strange events. But according to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) data, there have been no registered earthquakes detected in the southern Michigan or northern Indiana areas during the time frame in which the numerous large blasts, the intense ground shaking, and the nuclear incident occurred. And many area residents say the explosions and shaking they experienced are unlike anything they have ever experienced before.

So the situation in Michigan continues to remain a mystery that nobody in the mainstream media or government is willing to address, let alone try to solve. Should any further details emerge, NaturalNews will present them for our readers to consider and investigate.


Sources for this article include:




Thursday, June 21, 2012

ABC4 News UFOS over Highland, Utah 2012



http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=GIxBuYVR-Ik

Romania ex-prime minister in intensive care after suicide attempt




By Radu Marinas
BUCHAREST | Thu Jun 21, 2012 10:08am EDT
(Reuters) - Former Romanian Prime Minister Adrian Nastase was sedated in intensive care on Thursday following surgery on wounds inflicted when he shot himself in the neck after police tried to take him to prison to start a two-year jail term for corruption.

Nastase, 61, is the most senior politician to be convicted of corruption in Romania since the end of communist rule in 1989 and his case is often touted as proof the poor European Union member is getting tough on graft.

Surgeon Ioan Lascar from Bucharest's main emergency hospital said the bullet had travelled through Nastase's neck and out the other side, narrowly missing a major artery and hitting his larynx without affecting his vocal chords.

"He is now sedated, in intensive care," said Serban Bradisteanu, another of the hospital's doctors, adding Nastase also suffered from heart disease, hypertension and diabetes.

"It is a miracle he didn't suffer a heart attack."

The former prime minister was expected to remain in hospital for two weeks, doctors said. One of his lawyers told private television station Realitatea TV a request to postpone his detention for up to three months would be filed later on Thursday.

Nastase appeared to have attempted suicide on Wednesday when police arrived at his house in an upmarket part of the capital to take him to prison, the general prosecutor's office said.

Local media said he had shot himself with a pistol and was wounded in the neck.

A keen hunter and fisherman, Nastase was prime minister in a leftist government from 2000-2004.

Prosecutors said $2 million had gone missing from the state budget in 2004 when profits from an event organized by a state construction watchdog were used to finance his presidential campaign.

Nastase, who lost the election to Traian Basescu, who is still president, denied any wrongdoing in the case which he said was political.

He has retained a senior role in the Social Liberal Union (USL) alliance, which took power last month and looks likely to win a parliamentary election due in November.

The failure to tackle endemic corruption in Romania and neighboring Bulgaria, the EU's two newest members, has led to both being blocked from joining the passport-free Schengen zone.




Are mass arrests near? Another article on bankers' fears

Wednesday, June 20, 2012

Iceland Dismantles Corrupt Gov’t Then Arrests All Rothschild Bankers




June 20, 2012 - Since the 1900′s the vast majority of the American population has dreamed about saying “NO” to the Unconstitutional, corrupt, Rothschild/Rockefeller banking criminals, but no one has dared to do so. Why? If just half of our Nation, and the “1%”, who pay the majority of the taxes, just said NO MORE! Our Gov’t would literally change over night. Why is it so hard, for some people to understand, that by simply NOT giving your money, to large Corporations, who then send jobs, Intellectual Property, etc. offshore and promote anti-Constitutional rights… You will accomplish more, than if you used violence. In other words… RESEARCH WHERE YOU ARE SENDING EVERY SINGLE PENNY!!! Is that so hard? The truth of the matter is… No one, except the Icelanders, have to been the only culture on the planet to carry out this successfully. Not only have they been successful, at overthrowing the corrupt Gov’t, they’ve drafted a Constitution, that will stop this from happening ever again. That’s not the best part… The best part, is that they have arrested ALL Rothschild/Rockefeller banking puppets, responsible for the Country’s economic Chaos and meltdown.

Last week 9 people were arrested in London and Reykjavik for their possible responsibility for Iceland’s financial collapse in 2008, a deep crisis which developed into an unprecedented public reaction that is changing the country’s direction.

It has been a revolution without weapons in Iceland, the country that hosts the world’s oldest democracy (since 930), and whose citizens have managed to effect change by going on demonstrations and banging pots and pans. Why have the rest of the Western countries not even heard about it?

Pressure from Icelandic citizens’ has managed not only to bring down a government, but also begin the drafting of a new constitution (in process) and is seeking to put in jail those bankers responsible for the financial crisis in the country. As the saying goes, if you ask for things politely it is much easier to get them.

This quiet revolutionary process has its origins in 2008 when the Icelandic government decided to nationalise the three largest banks, Landsbanki, Kaupthing and Glitnir, whose clients were mainly British, and North and South American.

After the State took over, the official currency (krona) plummeted and the stock market suspended its activity after a 76% collapse. Iceland was becoming bankrupt and to save the situation, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) injected U.S. $ 2,100 million and the Nordic countries helped with another 2,500 million.

Great little victories of ordinary people

While banks and local and foreign authorities were desperately seeking economic solutions, the Icelandic people took to the streets and their persistent daily demonstrations outside parliament in Reykjavik prompted the resignation of the conservative Prime Minister Geir H. Haarde and his entire government.

Citizens demanded, in addition, to convene early elections, and they succeeded. In April a coalition government was elected, formed by the Social Democratic Alliance and the Left Green Movement, headed by a new Prime Minister, Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir.

Throughout 2009 the Icelandic economy continued to be in a precarious situation (at the end of the year the GDP had dropped by 7%) but, despite this, the Parliament proposed to repay the debt to Britain and the Netherlands with a payment of 3,500 million Euros, a sum to be paid every month by Icelandic families for 15 years at 5.5% interest.

The move sparked anger again in the Icelanders, who returned to the streets demanding that, at least, that decision was put to a referendum. Another big small victory for the street protests: in March 2010 that vote was held and an overwhelming 93% of the population refused to repay the debt, at least with those conditions.

This forced the creditors to rethink the deal and improve it, offering 3% interest and payment over 37 years. Not even that was enough. The current president, on seeing that Parliament approved the agreement by a narrow margin, decided last month not to approve it and to call on the Icelandic people to vote in a referendum so that they would have the last word.

The bankers are fleeing in fear

Returning to the tense situation in 2010, while the Icelanders were refusing to pay a debt incurred by financial sharks without consultation, the coalition government had launched an investigation to determine legal responsibilities for the fatal economic crisis and had already arrested several bankers and top executives closely linked to high risk operations.

Interpol, meanwhile, had issued an international arrest warrant against Sigurdur Einarsson, former president of one of the banks. This situation led scared bankers and executives to leave the country en masse.

In this context of crisis, an assembly was elected to draft a new constitution that would reflect the lessons learned and replace the current one, inspired by the Danish constitution.

To do this, instead of calling experts and politicians, Iceland decided to appeal directly to the people, after all they have sovereign power over the law. More than 500 Icelanders presented themselves as candidates to participate in this exercise in direct democracy and write a new constitution. 25 of them, without party affiliations, including lawyers, students, journalists, farmers and trade union representatives were elected.

Among other developments, this constitution will call for the protection, like no other, of freedom of information and expression in the so-called Icelandic Modern Media Initiative, in a bill that aims to make the country a safe haven for investigative journalism and freedom of information, where sources, journalists and Internet providers that host news reporting are protected.

The people, for once, will decide the future of the country while bankers and politicians witness the transformation of a nation from the sidelines.


Sources and more information:
Author: The Meister Since the 1900 s the vast majority of the American population has dreamed about saying "NO" to the Unconstitutional, corrupt, Rothschild Rockefeller banking criminals, but no one has dared to do so. Why? If just half of our Nation, and the "1 ", who pay the majority of the taxes, just said NO MORE! Our Gov't would literally...


Monday, June 18, 2012

What Happens When Public Universities like UVA Are Run By Robber Barons



Teresa Sullivan was ousted as president of the University of Virginia last weekend in a surprise to the school community
Lin Jones/University of Michigan.



Strategic Mumblespeak
Er, UVA’s Teresa Sullivan was fired for what?
By Siva Vaidhyanathan|Posted Friday, June 15, 2012, at 7:30 PM ET




In the 19th century, robber barons started their own private universities when they were not satisfied with those already available. But Leland Stanford never assumed his university should be run like his railroad empire. Andrew Carnegie did not design his institute in Pittsburgh to resemble his steel company. The University of Chicago, John D. Rockefeller’s dream come true, assumed neither his stern Baptist values nor his monopolistic strategies. That’s because for all their faults, Stanford, Carnegie, and Rockefeller knew what they didn’t know.


In the 21st century, robber barons try to usurp control of established public universities to impose their will via comical management jargon and massive application of ego and hubris. At least that’s what’s been happening at one of the oldest public universities in the United States—Thomas Jefferson’s dream come true, the University of Virginia.


On Thursday night, a hedge fund billionaire, self-styled intellectual, “radical moderate,” philanthropist, former Goldman Sachs partner, and general bon vivant named Peter Kiernan resigned abruptly from the foundation board of the Darden School of Business at the University of Virginia. He had embarrassed himself by writing an email claiming to have engineered the dismissal of the university president, Teresa Sullivan, ousted by a surprise vote a few days earlier.


The events at UVA raise important questions about the future of higher education, the soul of the academic project, and the way we fund important public services.


Kiernan, who earned his MBA at Darden and sent his children to the university, has been a longtime and generous supporter of both the business school and the College of Arts and Sciences, where I work as a professor. Earlier this year he published a book called—I am not making this up—Becoming China’s Bitch. It purports to guide America through its thorniest problems, from incarceration to education to foreign policy. The spectacle of a rich man telling us how to fix our country was irresistible to the New York Times, which ran a glowing profile of Kiernan and his book on Feb. 29.


At some point in recent American history, we started assuming that if people are rich enough, they must be experts in all things. That’s why we trust Mark Zuckerberg to save Newark schools and Bill Gates to rid the world of malaria. Expertise is so 20th century.


Kiernan played a strange and as-yet-unclear role in the ousting of Sullivan over last weekend. Here is the story of how it unfolded and how we came to know of Kiernan’s role in the matter.
Sunday morning my phones started ringing and my email box started swelling. The rector (what we in Virginia call the chairperson) of the University of Virginia Board of Visitors (what most states call a Board of Regents) had written an email to the entire university community announcing that Sullivan had resigned.


I can’t begin to describe the level of shock this generated among alumni, students, and faculty. Suffice it to say that everyone—every dean, every professor, every student, and every staff member at the university—was surprised. Even Sullivan did not have a clue that this was coming down until the Friday before the Sunday announcement. I can describe two things: the affection and respect that the university community had for president Sullivan in her two short years in office; and the bizarre turn of events that led to her forced resignation.


Sullivan is an esteemed sociologist who specialized in class dynamics and the role of debt in society. The author or co-author of six books, she spent most of her career rising through the ranks at the University of Texas, where she served as dean of the graduate school while I was working toward my Ph.D. in the late 1990s. She was known around Texas as a straightforward, competent, and gregarious leader. She carried that reputation from Texas to the University of Michigan, the premier public research university in the world, where she served as the chief academic officer, or provost, for four years.


When the University of Virginia sought a president to lift it from the ranks of an outstanding undergraduate school to a research powerhouse, while retaining its commitment to students and the enlightenment Jeffersonian traditions on which it was founded, the board selected Sullivan in 2010. She became the first woman to serve as president of UVA, a place she could not have attended as an undergraduate in the 1960s because it was all-male at the time.


The first year of Sullivan’s tenure involved hiring her own staff, provost, and administrative vice president. In her second year she had her team and set about reforming and streamlining the budget system, a process that promised to save money and clarify how money flows from one part of the university to another. This was her top priority. It was also the Board of Visitor’s top priority—at least at the time she was hired. Sullivan was rare among university presidents in that she managed to get every segment of the diverse community and varied stakeholders to buy in to her vision and plan. Everyone bought in, that is, except for a handful of very, very rich people, some of whom happen to be political appointees to the Board of Visitors.


We know from the email Kiernan inadvertently (stupid “reply all” button!) sent to a large group of Darden School supporters that he had plotted to convince many members of the board that Sullivan should go. The Sunday we all found out Sullivan had been forced out, Kiernan wrote in the email, “Several weeks ago I was contacted by two important Virginia alums about working with [Board rector] Helen Dragas on this project, particularly from the standpoint of the search process and the strategic dynamism effort.” Kiernan assured his readers that Sullivan was a very nice person whom he respected. And he reassured them that sharp, trustworthy people were handling the transition process: “And you should be comforted by the fact that both the Rector and Vice Rector, Helen Dragas and Mark Kington are Darden alums,” Kiernan wrote. “Trust me, Helen has things well in hand.”


In her initial letter to the university community and again in a statement later that Sunday, Dragas declined to offer any reason for dismissing Sullivan. One thing we have learned from watching universities in the past year is this: When a university president fails to report a pedophile football coach, it’s a good reason to fire him. But no one, including Dragas has ever even suggested that Sullivan had failed the university financially, ethically, or morally.


“The Board believes that in the rapidly changing and highly pressurized external environment in both health care and in academia, the University needs to remain at the forefront of change,” Dragas wrote in her initial email announcement. I have no idea what that means or why it pertains to Sullivan’s dismissal. I guess it means that stuff is changing. So the university must change. Firing a president is change.


On Monday Dragas, sensing that the university community might want some explanation for such a radical act, sent out a second message: “The Board believes this environment calls for a much faster pace of change in administrative structure, in governance, in financial resource development and in resource prioritization and allocation. We do not believe we can even maintain our current standard under a model of incremental, marginal change. The world is simply moving too fast.” 


OK, then. It’s all about pace. I suppose this means the board will appoint a new president every two years. Or maybe more frequently, because that’s the only way to keep up with the pace of change.


Earlier in the statement Dragas wrote that “the board feels strongly and overwhelmingly that we need bold and proactive leadership on tackling the difficult issues that we face.” So we can derive from Dragas’ statements that Sullivan was not bold enough, fast enough, or “proactive” enough to guide a bucolic 193-year-old institution founded by a stocking-wearing guy who studied Greek and Latin for fun.


We were all baffled. So Sullivan did nothing wrong? The board would not even hint at the reason she was fired. Conspiracy theories quickly circulated to fill the vacuum. And they got worse after Kiernan’s letter unleashed an unfounded fear that an MBA “cabal” was in cahoots with Goldman Sachs to loot the university.


In a live appearance at the Rotunda, the central icon of the university, Dragas did say, “We had a philosophical difference about the vision of the future of the university.” So what were those differences? She won’t say.


Fortunately, Kiernan’s email, leaked to newspapers on the following Tuesday, contained some clues. “The decision of the Board Of Visitors to move in another direction stems from their concern that the governance of the University was not sufficiently tuned to the dramatic changes we all face: funding, Internet, technology advances, the new economic model. These are matters for strategic dynamism rather than strategic planning.” Wait. What? “Strategic dynamism?” That struck many around the university as “strategic neologism.” Kiernan used the phrase two more times in his short email to supporters.


Laughter ensued. It’s the catch-phrase of the year at the University of Virginia.
I have spent the past five years immersed in corporate new-age management talk. For my recent book, The Googlization of Everything—and Why We Should Worry, I immersed myself in the rhetoric of Silicon Valley and the finance culture that supports it. I subjected myself to reading such buzzword-dependent publications as Fast Company. So I had heard about “strategic dynamism” before. I can’t say that I understand it fully. But if my university is going to be governed by a mysterious buzzphrase, I had better try.


Strategic dynamism, or, as it is more commonly called, “strategic dynamics,” seems to be a method of continually altering one's short-term targets and resource allocation depending on relative changes in environment, the costs of inputs, and the price you can charge for outputs. In management it means using dynamic graphs to track goals and outcomes over time, and having the ways and the will to shift resources to satisfy general goals via many consecutive short-term targets. Most management textbooks offer equations one may use to dynamically chart and execute strategy. And for all I know it makes a lot of sense.


Consider sailing, which one might do if one is a hedge fund billionaire from Connecticut. In sailing one sets a general course to a distant target but tacks and shifts depending on the particular environmental changes. I understand why “dynamic” is better than “static.” Who wants a static sailboat? But is a university, teeming with research, young people, ideas, arguments, poems, preachers, and way too much Adderall ever in danger of being static?


The inappropriateness of applying concepts designed for firms and sailboats to a massive and contemplative institution as a university should be clear to anyone who does not run a hedge fund or make too much money. To execute anything like strategic dynamism, one must be able to order people to do things, make quick decisions from the top down, and have a constant view of a wide array of variables. It helps if you understand what counts as an input and an output. Universities have multiple inputs and uncountable and unpredictable outputs. And that’s how we like them.


Still, this cultish diction seems to have swayed at least a few people on the Board of Visitors. It helped convinced them that Sullivan was either not strategic enough or dynamic enough or both. Almost a week after the event and in the face of harsh and universal condemnation, the board itself remains silent about its specific disagreements with Sullivan. The Kiernan letter is the only text that guides us.


We on the faculty, joined by thousands of students and alumni, have been asking the board for two simple things. Would it please tell us the specific issues on which it disagreed with Sullivan? And would it please tell us what sort of person it thinks should be president of the university … and for how long?


Both the Kiernan letter and Dragas’ shallow statements discuss the climate facing the university and all public universities in the United States. The problem is, everyone seems to discuss the fact that universities have too little money as if it actually were a matter of climate.


It’s not. It’s a matter of politics. States have been making policy decisions for 20 years, accelerating remarkably since the 2007 recession, to cut funding severely, shifting the costs to students and the federal government. Adjusted for inflation, state support for each full-time public-college student declined by 26.1 percent from 1990 to 2010. Meanwhile, faculty and staff salaries have been plummeting and security evaporating. This is especially true at the University of Virginia, where state support per student is far lower than at comparable state universities such as North Carolina.


So as tuition peaks and federal support dries up, the only stream still flowing is philanthropy. Our addiction to philanthropy carries great costs as well as benefits to public higher education in America. We are hooked on it because we have no choice. Either we beg people for favors or our research grinds to a halt and we charge students even more. I am complicit in this. I enthusiastically help raise money for the university. And my salary is subsidized by a generous endowment from board member Tim Robertson, son of the Rev. Pat Robertson.


The reason folks such as Dragas and Kiernan get to call the shots at major universities is that they write huge, tax-deductable checks to them. They buy influence and we subsidize their purchases. So too often an institution that is supposed to set its priorities based on the needs of a state or the needs of the planet instead alters its profile and curriculum to reflect the whims of the wealthy. Fortunately this does not happen often, and the vast majority of donors simply want to give back to the institutions that gave them so much. They ask nothing in return and admire the work we do. But it happens often enough to significantly undermine any sense of democratic accountability for public institutions.


The biggest challenge facing higher education is market-based myopia. Wealthy board members, echoing the politicians who appointed them (after massive campaign donations) too often believe that universities should be run like businesses, despite the poor record of most actual businesses in human history.


Universities do not have “business models.” They have complementary missions of teaching, research, and public service. Yet such leaders think of universities as a collection of market transactions, instead of a dynamic (I said it) tapestry of creativity, experimentation, rigorous thought, preservation, recreation, vision, critical debate, contemplative spaces, powerful information sources, invention, and immeasurable human capital.


http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/hey_wait_a_minute/2012/06/teresa_sullivan_fired_from_uva_what_happens_when_universities_are_run_by_robber_barons_.single.html

Google reports 'alarming' rise in censorship by governments




Over six months Google complied with 47% of requests for content removal and 65% of court orders. Photograph: Jonathan Hordle/Rex Features

Search engine company has said there has been a troubling increase in requests to remove political content from the internet

Dominic Rushe in New York
The Guardian, Sunday 17 June 2012



There has been an alarming rise in the number of times governments attempted to censor the internet in last six months, according to a report from Google.

Since the search engine last published its bi-annual transparency report, it said it had seen a troubling increase in requests to remove political content. Many of these requests came from western democracies not typically associated with censorship.

It said Spanish regulators asked Google to remove 270 links to blogs and newspaper articles critical of public figures. It did not comply. In Poland, it was asked to remove an article critical of the Polish agency for enterprise development and eight other results that linked to the article. Again, the company did not comply.

Google was asked by Canadian officials to remove a YouTube video of a citizen urinating on his passport and flushing it down the toilet. It refused.

Thai authorities asked Google to remove 149 YouTube videos for allegedly insulting the monarchy, a violation of Thailand's lèse-majesté law. The company complied with 70% of the requests.

Pakistan asked Google to remove six YouTube videos that satirised its army and senior politicians. Google refused.

UK police asked the company to remove five YouTube accounts for allegedly promoting terrorism. Google agreed. In the US most requests related to alleged harassment of people on YouTube. The authorities asked for 187 pieces to be removed. Google complied with 42% of them.

In a blog post, Dorothy Chou, Google's senior policy analyst, wrote: "Unfortunately, what we've seen over the past couple years has been troubling, and today is no different. When we started releasing this data, in 2010, we noticed that government agencies from different countries would sometimes ask us to remove political content that our users had posted on our services. We hoped this was an aberration. But now we know it's not.

"This is the fifth data set that we've released. Just like every other time, we've been asked to take down political speech. It's alarming not only because free expression is at risk, but because some of these requests come from countries you might not suspect – western democracies not typically associated with censorship."

Over the six months covered by the latest report, Google complied with an average of 65% of court orders, as opposed to 47% of more informal requests.

Last month Google announced it was receiving more than one million requests a month from copyright owners seeking to pull their content from the company's search results.

Fred von Lohmann, Google's senior copyright counsel, said copyright infringement was the main reason Google had removed links from search terms.

He said the company had received a total of 3.3m requests for removals on copyright grounds last year, and was on course to quadruple that number this year. The company complied with 97% of requests.




http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/jun/18/google-reports-alarming-rise-censorship?CMP=twt_fd



Another source: 



US government takedown requests more than triple in 12 months, says Google Report


http://www.theverge.com/2012/6/18/3094201/google-transparency-report-dec-2011-takedown-requests

Thursday, June 14, 2012

Starchild DNA Showing "Wright" Stuff



Introduction to three important discoveries in the Starchild Skull's DNA. Each is historic in its own way.

Wednesday, June 13, 2012

Cheers to Good Health


Conventional wisdom of today's post-industrial revolution era says to eat low-fat, high-protein, or low-carb carb meals. Diet fad after fad come and go, as hype mounts on every "cutting-edge" mainstream propaganda bologna. 

There were humans on this planet before sprawling complexes of sophisticated machinery and industrial processes. The ones that ate well and lived long healthy lives had a fairly simple diet.

They ate organic (be careful when companies say 'Natural', since that word is not regulated by the FDA) food with no preservatives, additives, chemical dyes, or artificial flavorings. They were in tune with the planet they lived on. 

These people had impeccably straight teeth, robust bone structures, and built physiques. Let's learn something from them.

Listed below are a few sites I found particularly intriguing, and I thought they made a lot of sense to me. 

Also, I am not receiving any compensation for marketing these sites. 



Green Pasture (cod oil/butter oil): http://www.greenpasture.org/public/Home/index.cfm


honey from healthyhomeeconomist's retail shop that she recommends: http://www.radiantlifecatalog.com/product/MANUKA-HONEY-HEALING/54



plant-based fitness supplements: http://vegasport.com/recover/recovery-accelerator

soap (all vegan, organic): http://www.drbronner.com/



 I've just started using these products and I will post an update as to how they're affecting my life. So far, so good!

Tuesday, June 5, 2012

Military gives NASA two space telescopes more powerful than Hubble


This one is ABSOLUTELY ABSURD/RIDICULOUS/LUDICROUS.


Repost from Kerry Cassidy's blog

Quote from the article: "For an agency credited with some of the most incredible technological innovations in human history, the revelation that two more powerful Hubbles even existed must have been a complete shock, especially considering that the Bush administration less than a decade ago almost cut NASA’s funds for a crucial Hubble repair mission.

Then they really dropped the bomb: Since the Pentagon never got around to using the telescopes, they figured NASA might be just the place to offload the old hardware."


Wow, I had no idea NASA with her fleet of world class scientists and engineers not only couldn't afford a decent telescope (nor could they build one). But instead they have to rely on THE PENTAGON hand-me-downs, several years old in order to 'scan the sky'. 

Incredible.

Not to mention, that this ludicrous article PLANTED as it is appears to be a build up toward a disclousre whereupon no doubt NASA will "suddenly" now be able to SEE PLANTE X / THE DARK STAR / SOMETHING WICKED THIS WAY COMES in the sky whereas in the past they certainly couldn't do so because they didn't have the several years old telescrope from the PENTAGON (their wealthy cousins)...

Thank God or I mean "the Pentagon".  Now we can all sleep at night.  What with Hubble supposedly no longer operational.  Right.

WTF?!?

Gimme a break.




 Although America’s space agency has perpetually seen its funding threatened and reduced in recent years, few would argue that the nation’s defense agency, the Pentagon, suffers from the same problem.

That disparity is so great that Pentagon official dialed up NASA last year and revealed that the National Reconnaissance Office had secretly developed not one, but two space telescopes more powerful than Hubble, adding that the military just didn’t bother to deploy them.

For an agency credited with some of the most incredible technological innovations in human history, the revelation that two more powerful Hubbles even existed must have been a complete shock, especially considering that the Bush administration less than a decade ago almost cut NASA’s funds for a crucial Hubble repair mission.


Then they really dropped the bomb: Since the Pentagon never got around to using the telescopes, they figured NASA might be just the place to offload the old hardware.

Pentagon officials didn’t say what they’d planned to use the telescopes for, and NASA officials told The New York Times that they were in “bits and pieces,” lacking key parts. They’re also designed to be shorter and wider than Hubble, giving them a much wider field of view.

NASA said it is preparing to re-purpose the telescopes to boost their studies of dark matter, which currently sits atop the National Academy of Sciences’ priorities list.

The National Reconnaissance Office refused to offer any comment on the story.


The Stone Statues in Easter Island Have Bodies! - Thanks to J!!



This is absolutely incredible.  Here we’ve been thinking for all these years that they were just heads.  They are going to be absolutely huge when they are completely excavated.  It all just adds to the mystery of these amazing sculptures.  Maybe now they can get more information about them seeing as they have writings on them.





5 Million Brazilian Farmers Sue Monsanto

Machines lined up before harvesting soybeans at a farm in Tangara da Serra in Cuiaba, Brazil (Reuters / Paulo Whitaker)


Five million Brazilian farmers are locked in a lawsuit with US-based biotech giant Monsanto, suing for as much as 6.2 billion euros. They say that the genetic-engineering company has been collecting royalties on crops it unfairly claims as its own.

The farmers claim that Monsanto unfairly collects exorbitant profits every year worldwide on royalties from “renewal” seed harvests. “Renewal” crops are those that have been planted using seed from the previous year’s harvest. While the practice of renewal farming is an ancient one, Monsanto disagrees, demanding royalties from any crop generation produced from its genetically-engineered seed. Because the engineered seed is patented, Monsanto not only charges an initial royalty on the sale of the crop produced, but a continuing 2 per cent royalty on every subsequent crop, even if the farmer is using a later generation of seed.

"Monsanto gets paid when it sell the seeds. The law gives producers the right to multiply the seeds they buy and nowhere in the world is there a requirement to pay (again). Producers are in effect paying a private tax on production," Jane Berwanger, lawyer for the farmers told the Associated Press reports.

In the latest installment of the legal battle erupting in South America, the Brazilian court has ruled in favor of the Brazilian farmers, saying Monsanto owes them at least US$2 billion paid since 2004. Monsanto, however, has appealed the decision and the case is ongoing.

In essence, Monsanto argues that once a farmer buys their seed, they have to pay the global bio-tech giant a yearly fee in perpetuity – with no way out.

At stake is Brazil’s highly profitable and ever growing soybean production. Last year, Brazil was the world's second producer and exporter of soybean behind the United States, according to the AFP report. The crops can be used for anything from animal feed to bio fuel, and worldwide demand is growing.

Genetically engineered soy first appeared illegally in Brazil in the 1990’s, smuggled in from neighboring Argentina. The Brazilian farmers found the seed attractive despite the ban in place from the Brazilian authorities because Monsanto had specifically designed the seed to be resistant to its own immensely powerful and popular herbicide Roundup.

When used in tandem, the strong herbicide will kill the weeds while allowing the soy crops to grow unimpeded. After the ban was lifted, genetically modified seed flooded the Brazilian market, and now 85 per cent of the Brazilian soy crop is genetically-engineered. Soy has been extremely successful in Brazil, currently making up 26 per cent of the country’s farm exports last year and netting Brazil a total of $24.1 billion, according to AP. However, Brazil’s farmers were apparently unaware there would be a heavy price to pay.

To make a deal with Monsanto is to make a deal with a company that is one the most powerful and pervasive food giants in the world. It is the world’s number one seed developer, and its patented genes have been inserted into 95 per cent of all American soy, and 80 per cent of all American corn crops. Monsanto has repeatedly levied large damage suits against independent farmers that have unknowingly or unwittingly used their seed.

And Monsanto’s reach goes far beyond agriculture.

Monsanto is also the world’s largest manufacturer of synthetic bovine growth hormone, injected into cows in order to stimulate greater milk production. The widespread pressure by the company to use the chemical and the subsequent measures taken by Monsanto to suppress information regarding the potential health risks sparked uproar among American farmers.

When dairy producers that did not use Monsanto’s products began labeling their products as “Hormone Free” or “Organic”, Monsanto slapped them with a lawsuit as recently as 2008, claiming the labels amounted to negative advertising against hormone-produced milk.

Director of corporate communications for Monsanto, Phil Angell, summed up Monsanto’s take on the issue in a report by food author Michael Pollan for New York Times Magazine in 1998: "Monsanto should not have to vouch for the safety of biotech food. Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is FDA's job."



http://www.rt.com/news/monsanto-brazil-seed-soy-908/

Ron Paul Delegate Arrested, Exposes Corruption at LAGOP


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJzV171zkdg&feature=player_embedded