WATCH:Is It Time to Ban Catcalling? (Nanny of the Month, Nov. 2014)

“Is It Time to Ban Catcalling? (Nanny of the Month
11-’14)” is the latest video from ReasonTV. Watch above or
click on the link below for video, full text, supporting links,
downloadable versions, and more ReasonTV clips.

View this article.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/12eWgQY
via IFTTT

The Working Poor: Welcome to Walmart!

 

Jeff Neilson for Sprott Money

 

 

It was recently reported in the news that Walmart is engaged in a(nother) “food drive” to help feed the needy. Isn’t that nice? Well, it would be, if it weren’t for the fact that the “needy” in these food-drives are its own employees. “Let’s succeed by donating to associates in need,” says the sign in an Oklahoma Walmart.

 

The dictionary defines “associate” (in this context) in two ways:

–   A partner or colleague in business or at work.

–   A person with limited or subordinate membership in an organization.

 

 

There is no doubt which definition applies to Walmart’s “associates”. It’s hard to get more “subordinate” than to work all day, and still need hand-outs to make it to the end of each month. The word that really describes (most of) the workers at Walmart (and most of all the workers in our societies) isn’t “associate” or even “employee”, but rather serf.

 

Merriam-Webster defines “serf” for us:

 –   A person in the past who belonged to a low social class and who lived and worked on land owned by another person

 

 

The only thing faulty about that definition is the need to erase the phrase “in the past”. The fact that the serfs of Walmart “belong to a low social class” (through no fault of their own) is indisputable. North American societies are now unequivocally divided into the “have’s” and “have-not’s”, with a microscopic demographic in between – the nearly-extinct “Middle Class”.

 

 

Road_to_Serfdom

 

 

For the Privileged (especially those near the very top); life is a never-ending gravy-train. Their incomes soar higher and higher and higher – at a rate never before seen in our society. Their wealth soars higher and higher and higher – at a rate never before seen in our society.

 

 

Should they lose their pampered positions through sloth, or incompetence (or anything short of direct, criminal conduct); they are rewarded with a Golden Parachute. These rewards given to the Privileged for their failure often exceed the entire, lifetime income for the Serfs. And then after failing; the Privileged are (almost always) handed another Silver Spoon position – where once again it is immaterial whether they are either competent or productive.

 

 

Conversely; life for the “low social class”, the Serfs, is entirely opposite in every respect. Their standard of living falls lower and lower and lower – having collapsed by more than 50% since 1970 (when the Nixon regime assassinated the gold standard). Their wealth/possessions fall lower and lower and lower. Only their debts keep going up and up and up.

 

 

poverty_is_the_worst_form_of_violence_gandhi

 

The median (nominal) income in the United States is approximately $27,600, or roughly $12/hr. The term “median” means that half of all American incomes are higher, and half are lower. That nominal income level is virtually unchanged over the past decade. Meanwhile the cost-of-living has soared higher (particularly food and housing costs), the same “inflation” which the lying politicians, lying central bankers, and lying media tell us does not exist – hundreds of times each day.

 

 

And that is how life is for the lucky Serfs. For the unlucky Serfs (over 50 million in the U.S. alone), they are not even given the opportunity to “work on land owned by another person” – for their slave wages. Those 50+ million are all unemployed; with millions of them having descended to a socio-economic class even below the Serfs: the Homeless.

 

 

The lying politicians, lying bankers, and lying media tell all of the Serfs and the Homeless that this is “the New Normal”: their lives are supposed to get worse and worse and worse every year (while the lives of the Privileged get better and better and better). There’s “no money” to pay the Serfs a fair, livable wage claim the corporate Robber Barons.

 

 

Another lie. While Serf incomes remain permanently frozen (and their standard of living spirals relentlessly lower); corporate profits for U.S. corporations have more than doubled since 2000. This isn’t “normal”; it’s simple, economic rape: the Rich stealing from the (Working) Poor day after day, every day or their lives. How successful have they been with this stealing? The “Poor” used to be the Middle Class.

 

 

How is the situation in Canada? Even worse, thanks to Stephen Harper. The median wage in Canada is virtually identical to the median wage in the U.S. However, when Harper (and his hand-picked Loonie Assassin, Mark Carney) came to power; the first thing he did (right after breaking his promise on “income trusts”) was to begin to destroy the value of the Canadian dollar.

 

 

His gross economic mismanagement, and Carney’s deliberate sabotage of the Canadian dollar caused our currency to quickly lose nearly 30% of its value versus the U.S. dollar. It went from being worth more than 15% more than the USD to being worth more than 12% less. In other words; the standard of living for Canada’s Working Poor majority has gone from being 15% higher than the Working Poor of the U.S. to being 12% lower than them.

 

 

Understand that the standard of living for Canadian Serfs during Stephen Harper’s eight years of abuse-of-power hasn’t merely fallen by 25%. It has fallen by 25% more than the plummeting standard of living for American Serfs. When Harper assumed power in 2006; Canada’s economy was the envy of the entire Western world. Now it lies in ruin.

 

 

North American politicians, our representatives, don’t simply endorse this economic rape of our previously prosperous societies. They go out of their way to deceive us, in order to defend this corrupt status quo for the oligarchs they serve.

 

 

They produce fraudulent/falsified economic “statistics” (which are bereft of even the tiniest degree of legitimacy) in order to attempt to hide this economic rape from their own populations. With respect to all the signs of this economic oppression which these Traitors can’t hide with their lies; they pat the Serfs on the heads, tell them this is all “normal” – and then order them to shut-up, and get back to serving the Privileged.

 

 

More specifically; we all serve the rapacious financial parasites whom readers now know as “the One Bank”. It is this cabal which has planted traitors like Stephen Harper and Barack Obama (and George Bush Jr., before him) on the thrones of these now-feudal societies. It is this cabal which pulls the strings of these political puppets, commanding them to lie, cheat, and steal from the very people they are (supposedly) sworn to serve.

 

 

There is much more wealth in our societies today than in the “prosperous” 1960’s, the zenith of the Middle Class in North America. Where is all that wealth? Stolen, and hidden, in the vaults of the One Bank.

 

 

All that those parasites have, we earned. Sadly, after decades of relentless brainwashing by the Corporate media (merely one of the One Bank’s economic tentacles); the Serfs of North America – who only one generation earlier were Middle Class citizens – now believe that they deserve to be serfs.

 

 

Our salvation, ironically, will only come once the One Bank has completed its economic rape of our societies. When our Serf-majorities are not merely poor and oppressed, but begin to starve (like the Homeless); then and only then will enlightenment begin to spread.

 

 

The endless lies/brainwashing by the thieving bankers, traitor politicians, and corrupt media will not be able to feed the hungry stomachs of the Serfs. Then and only then; the Serfs will open their eyes – and begin to look for where all their wealth (and food) has disappeared. Then and only then; the Serfs will discover the wealth-hoards of these oligarchs: mountains of money far, far greater than any hoards ever accumulated by any other tyrants of humanity.

 

 

All of these hoards of wealth are stolen, via the illegal manipulation of markets, or blatant, criminal, frauds. All of it belongs to the Serfs. Hundreds of years of history tell us that at that point “justice” will be meted-out via the guillotine, or similar instrument of socio-economic retribution. It’s time for the Serfs to start sharpening some blades…





via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1wcedfz Sprott Money

Gold Surges Over $50 Off Overnight Lows; Commodities Bouncing As Dollar Weakens

After last night’s big flush across commodities, they have rallied notably. Gold is now up over $50 from those lows, with Silver, copper, and even crude bouncing hard (after testing below $64 overnight). The USD is notably weaker, stocks lower, and bond yields testing mid-October flash-crash Bullard lows…

 

Gold dumped and pumped

 

and the rest of the commodity complex bouncing hard this morning

 




via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1vJuaqW Tyler Durden

What Happened To The Gold Correlation?

Submitted by Jim Quinn via The Burning Platform blog,

The correlation between gold and the national debt was clear for 13 years. It made perfect sense in a free market. You can’t print more gold. It is a relatively scarce metal that has represented wealth for centuries. Fiat currency can be printed at will by corrupt bankers and politicians. Every paper currency ever created eventually reached its intrinsic value of ZERO, as human beings always take the easy way in attempting to create wealth.

 

 

So what happened in 2013? The national debt has gone from $16.5 trillion to $18 trillion, but the price of gold has dropped from $1,750 to $1,200. Is gold no longer a store of value? Is creating $2.5 billion per day in new debt now the path to long term prosperity and wealth accumulation? If gold is no longer insurance against the corrupt machinations of bankers and politicians, then why are China and Russia accumulating as much physical gold as they can get their hands on?

There seems to be only one logical explanation for the abrupt break in the correlation between gold and the national debt. The free market has been manipulated to artificially suppress the price of gold. A rising gold price reveals the inflationary monetary policies of the Fed and the outrageous spending of politicians. The Fed and their owners on Wall Street, with the approval of their captured political hacks in D.C., are using the paper markets, derivatives, and lack of market transparency to keep the price of gold from rising.

The bankers are winning for now. Can they suppress the price of gold forever? Can they prop up the stock market forever? Does history provide even one example of a fiat currency that did not ultimately reach its true intrinsic value?

Are you going to bet on Grandma Yellen or gold?




via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1pGVG8W Tyler Durden

Obama Reverses Policy As US-Turkey Set To Agree On Syrian No-Fly-Zone

With the apparent goal of ‘protecting civilians’ from ISIS and Syria’s al-Assad, the US and Turkey appear to be close to agreeing on the creation of a no-fly-zone along a portion of the Syrian border. As WSJ reports, U.S. and Turkish officials have narrowed their differences over a joint military mission in Syria that would give the U.S. and its coalition partners permission to use Turkish air bases to launch strike operations against Islamic State targets across northern Syria. The no-fly-zone would provide sanctuary to Western-backed opposition forces and refugees. As Bloomberg notes, this is a significant reversal of Obama’s earlier policy (fearing it would be a significant strain on the U.S. Air Force and put fliers in mortal danger) pushing US closer to outright proxy war with Russia via direct confrontation with al-Assad’s airforce. 

 

As WSJ reports,

U.S. and Turkish officials have narrowed their differences over a joint military mission in Syria that would give the U.S. and its coalition partners permission to use Turkish air bases to launch strike operations against Islamic State targets across northern Syria, according to officials in both countries.

 

As part of the deal, U.S. and Turkish officials are discussing the creation of a protected zone along a portion of the Syrian border that would be off-limits to Assad regime aircraft and would provide sanctuary to Western-backed opposition forces and refugees.

 

U.S. and coalition aircraft would use Incirlik and other Turkish air bases to patrol the zone, ensuring that rebels crossing the border from Turkey don’t come under attack there, officials said.

 

Turkey had proposed a far more extensive no-fly zone across one-third of northern Syria, according to officials. That idea was, however, a nonstarter for the Obama administration, which told Ankara that something so invasive would constitute an act of war against the Assad regime.

Which the US could never admit to – putting the US in direct conflict with al-Assad’s airforce and thus engaging the proxy war with Russia.

As Bloomberg adds,

Ever since the Syrian civil war broke out in early 2011, U.S. President Barack Obama has resisted calls from Congress to establish a no-fly zone in the country. Now we have learned that one of Obama’s top envoys is negotiating just such a plan with Syria’s neighbor Turkey.

 

The new proposal would be called an “air-exclusion zone,” a buffer area inside Syria along the Turkish border that would be manned by Turkish troops and protected by U.S. air power, according to three senior U.S. officials who have been briefed on the discussions. The goal would be to give some Syria rebels and civilians protection from both Islamic State and the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and increase the flow of humanitarian aid to Syria through the zone. The idea was last floated in 2012 by the French government, and then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was reported to support it at that time.

 

John Allen, the retired Marine general who is the Obama administration’s lead coordinator for the international coalition against IS, discussed the air exclusion zone with high ranking Turkish officials during his trip there earlier this month, according to these three officials.

 

If Obama approves the plan being negotiated by Allen, it would mark a reversal from his earlier policy. Since 2012, the White House has resisted calls from both parties in Congress to establish such protected areas in Syria, in part because it would be a significant strain on the U.S. Air Force and put fliers in mortal danger. But the White House has also been wary that a no-fly zone could drag the U.S. into a shooting war with the Syrian regime at the very moment it is trying to wage a war against the Islamic State and al-Qaeda, two groups that have also fought the regime.

 

“You can’t have an exclusionary zone and not be in conflict with the regime,” said a former Obama administration Pentagon official who worked on the Middle East. “You can’t have your cake and eat it too.”

 

 

“Ultimately, I’m not sure this division of labor between sectarian rebels against ISIS but not against the regime is sustainable,” he said. “Ultimately if we are going to arm a moderate rebel force, we are going to have to protect them. That means if the regime goes after them, we are going to have to take the necessary steps to protect them.”

*  *  *

We can only imagine the quid pro quo Kerry had to offer to get Erdogan in on the deal given his recent strong anti-American rhetoric. However, the crucial point is Obama’s reversal and more explicitly aggressive stance against al-Assad that will likely warrant a Russian response (in words or deeds).




via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1rMlCRC Tyler Durden

Read the Full Reason December 2014 Issue Online

Reason‘s
December 2014 issue is all about the future of money! Editor in
chief Matt Welch advises you to kiss your financial privacy
goodbye, while Veronique de Rugy wonders why Americans don’t save
money, and Jeffrey Rogers Hummel tells us how the Federal Reserve
Bank got so huge. Robert Draper of The New York Times asks
if the libertarian moment has finally arrived. Jacob Sullum
criticizes Obama’s dumb, rash, and unilateral war against ISIS.
Plus, see the usual favorites, including Citings, Brickbats, and
the always-curious Artifact.

Read the full
December 2014 issue here.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1rMl2n7
via IFTTT

The Oil-Drenched Black Swan, Part 1

Submitted by Charles Hugh-Smith via OfTwoMinds blog,

Given the presumed 17% expansion of the global economy since 2009, the tiny increases in production could not possibly flood the world in oil unless demand has cratered.

The term Black Swan shows up in all sorts of discussions, but what does it actually mean? Though the term has roots stretching back to the 16th century, today it refers to author Nassim Taleb's meaning as defined in his books, Fooled by Randomness: The Hidden Role of Chance in Life and in the Markets and The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable:

"First, it is an outlier, as it lies outside the realm of regular expectations, because nothing in the past can convincingly point to its possibility.

 

Second, it carries an extreme 'impact'.

 

Third, in spite of its outlier status, human nature makes us concoct explanations for its occurrence after the fact, making it explainable and predictable."

Simply put, black swans are undirected and unpredicted. The Wikipedia entry lists three criteria based on Taleb's work:

1. The event is a surprise (to the observer).

2. The event has a major effect.
3. After the first recorded instance of the event, it is rationalized by hindsight, as if it could have been expected; that is, the relevant data were available but unaccounted for in risk mitigation programs.
It is my contention that the recent free-fall in the price of oil qualifies as a financial Black Swan. Let's go through the criteria:
 
1. How many analysts/pundits predicted the 37% decline in the price of oil, from $105/barrel in July to $66/barrel at the end of November?Perhaps somebody predicted a 37% drop in oil in the span of five months, but if so, I haven't run across their prediction.
 
For context, here is a chart of crude oil from 2010 to the present. Note that price has crashed through the support that held through the many crises of the past four years. The conclusion that this reflects a global decline in demand that characterizes recessions is undeniable.
 
I think we can fairly conclude that this free-fall in the price of oil qualifies as an outlier outside the realm of regular expectations, unpredicted and unpredictable.
 
Why was it unpredictable? In the past, oil spikes tipped the global economy into recession. This is visible in this chart of oil since 2002; the 100+% spike in oil from $70+/barrel to $140+/barrel in a matter of months helped push the global economy into recession.
 
The mechanism is common-sense: every additional dollar that must be spent on energy is taken away from spending on other goods and services. As consumption tanks, over-extended borrowers and lenders implode, "risk-on" borrowing and speculation dry up and the economy slides into recession.
 
But the current global recession did not result from an oil spike. Indeed, oil prices have been trading in a narrow band for several years, as we can see in this chart from the Energy Information Agency (EIA) of the U.S. government.
 
Given the official denial that the global economy is recessionary, it is not surprising that the free-fall in oil surprised the official class of analysts and pundits. Since declaring the global economy is in recession is sacrilege, it was impossible for conventional analysts/pundits to foresee a 37% drop in oil in a few months.
 
As for the drop in oil having a major impact: we have barely begun to feel the full consequences. But even the initial impact–the domino-like collapse of the commodity complex–qualifies.
 
I will address the financial impacts tomorrow, but rest assured these may well dwarf the collapse of the commodity complex.
 
As for concocting explanations and rationalizations after the fact, consider the shaky factual foundations of the current raft of rationalizations. The primary explanation for the free-fall in oil is rising production has created a temporary oversupply of oil: the world is awash in crude oil because producers have jacked up production so much.
 
Even the most cursory review of the data finds little support for this rationalization. According to the EIA, the average global crude oil production (including OPEC and all non-OPEC) per year is as follows:
 
2008: 74.0 million barrels per day (MBD)
2009: 72.7 MBD
2010: 74.4 MBD
2011: 74.5 MBD
2012: 75.9 MBD
2013: 76.0 MBD
2014: 76.9 MBD
 
The EIA estimates the global economy expanded by an average of 2.7% every year in this time frame. Thus we can estimate in a back-of-the-envelope fashion that oil consumption and production might rise in parallel with the global economy.
 
In the six years from 2009 to 2014, oil production rose 3.9%, from 74 MBD to 76.9 MBD. Meanwhile, cumulative global growth at 2.7% annually added 17.3% to the global economy in the same six-year period. What is remarkable is not the extremely modest expansion of oil production but how this modest growth apparently enabled a much larger expansion of the global economy. ( Other sources set the growth of global GDP in excess of 20% over this time frame.)
 
Global petroleum and other liquids reflects a similar modest expansion: from 89.1 MBD in 2012 to 91.4 MBD in 2014.
 
Given the presumed 17% to 20+% expansion of the global economy since 2009, the small increases in production could not possibly flood the world in oil unless demand has cratered. The "we're pumping so much oil" rationalizations for the 37% free-fall in oil don't hold up.
 
That leaves a sharp drop in demand and the rats fleeing the sinking ship exit from "risk-on" trades as the only explanations left. We will discuss these later in the week.
 
Those who doubt the eventual impact of this free-fall drop in oil prices might want to review The Smith Uncertainty Principle (yes, it's my work):
Every sustained action has more than one consequence. Some consequences will appear positive for a time before revealing their destructive nature. Some will be foreseeable, some will not. Some will be controllable, some will not. Those that are unforeseen and uncontrollable will trigger waves of other unforeseen and uncontrollable consequences."
I call your attention to the last line, which I see as being most relevant to the full impact of oil's free-fall.




via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1rMaUuF Tyler Durden

Is the UVA Rape Story a Gigantic Hoax?

UVAJournalists who contemplate such matters are now
wondering whether the
incredible 
Rolling
Stone story
about the gang rape of a University of
Virginia student is just that: not credible.

Last week,
I wrote
that the breathtaking story was an indictment of the
university’s feeble attempts to address the so-called campus sexual
assault crisis. For me, the lesson is clear: Rape is a serious
crime, not an academic infraction. The police—and only the
police—are equipped to deal with it. “The best way to confront
campus rape is to treat the issue with the seriousness it deserves
and make violent crime the business of the normal criminal justice
system,” I wrote.

I didn’t question the incident itself, because my point stands
regardless. Making universities investigate and adjudicate
rape—something that both federal and state governments are
pushing—is the wrong approach, and what happened at UVA is just one
example of why that’s the case.

Unless, of course, it didn’t happen. Then it would be an example
of something else, entirely.

A recent
Washington Post profile
of Sabrina Rubin Erdely, the
author of the Rolling Stone story, raised some
eyebrows:

Erdely spent weeks corroborating details of Jackie’s account,
including such minutiae as her work as a lifeguard. She concluded:
“I find her completely credible. It’s impossible to know for
certain what happened in that room, because I wasn’t in it. But I
certainly believe that she described an experience that was
in­cred­ibly traumatic to her.”

Some elements of the story, however, are apparently too delicate
for Erdely to talk about now. She won’t say, for example, whether
she knows the names of Jackie’s alleged attackers or whether in her
reporting she approached “Drew,” the alleged ringleader, for
comment. She is bound to silence about those details, she said, by
an agreement with Jackie, who “is very fearful of these men, in
particular Drew. . . . She now considers herself an empty shell. So
when it comes down to identifying them, she has a very hard time
with that.”

The story does take one journalistic shortcut. The alleged
assault, described in graphic detail, is presented largely without
traditional qualifiers, such as “according to Jackie” or
“allegedly.” The absence of such attribution or qualification
leaves the impression that the events in question are undisputed
facts, rather than accusations. Erdely said, however, that her
writing style makes it clear that the events are being told from
Jackie’s point of view.

I have no reason to disbelieve Erdely, and I understand why she
would choose not to disclose anyone’s identity. But she
should be able to confirm that she knows who the
attackers are, shouldn’t she? Again, we don’t have to know
who they are, but we should know that she knows—or else
the story is just one long uncorroborated accusation. And
regardless of whether or not the story is told “from Jackie’s point
of view,” it was written by Erdely, who treats its contents as
fact.

Journalist Richard Bradley read the story with a respectful but
skeptical eye and came away with
several important questions.
After fretting about whether
Erdely had done her due diligence and contacted the alleged
attackers, he turns to the rape itself and finds the circumstances
almost unbelievable:

The allegation here is that, at U.Va., gang rape is a rite of
passage for young men to become fraternity “brothers.” It’s
possible. One would think that we’d have heard of this before—gang
rape as a fraternity initiation is hard to keep secret—but it’s
possible.

So then we have a scene that boggles the mind. (Again, doesn’t
mean it’s untrue; does mean we have to be critical.)

A young woman is led young woman into a “pitch-black” room. She
is shoved by a man, who falls on her; they crash through a glass
table and she lands in shards of glass. She bites his hand; he
punches her; the men laugh. (Really? A man punches a woman and
people laugh?) With the smell of marijuana (not usually known as a
violence-inducing drug) hovering over the room, he and six more men
rape her. …

Having been raped for three hours while lying in shards of glass
“digging into her back”—three hours of which Jackie remembers every
detail, despite the fact of the room’s pitch-blackness—she passes
out and wakes up at 3 AM in an empty room.

Jackie makes her way downstairs, her red dress apparently
sufficiently intact to wear; the party is still raging. Though she
is blood-stained—three hours with shards of glass “digging into her
back,” and gang-raped, including with a beer bottle— and must
surely look deeply traumatized, no one notices her. She makes her
way out a side entrance she hadn’t seen before. She calls her
friends, who tell her that she doesn’t want to be known as the girl
who cried rape and worry that if they take her to the hospital they
won’t get invited to subsequent frat parties.

Nothing in this story is impossible; it’s important to note
that. It could have happened. But to believe it
beyond a doubt, without a question mark—as virtually all the people
who’ve read the article seem to—requires a lot of leaps of faith.
It requires you to indulge your pre-existing biases. …

“Grab its motherfucking leg,” says the first rapist to one of
his “brothers.” It reminds me of Silence
of the Lambs
: “It rubs the lotion on its skin…” But Silence of
the Lambs was fiction.

Bradley notes that his experience editing the works of infamous
fabulist Stephen Glass taught him to be extra critical of stories
that confirm his pre-existing biases. And he notes that the UVA
rape story seems to confirm biases that many in the media have
about colleges, fraternities, and rape.

I would like to think that I am relatively free of these biases.
I have no particular axe to grind with fraternities, although I do
think they play a regrettable and occasionally dangerous role as
alcohol distributors to the under-21 crowd, courtesy of the federal
drinking age. And I don’t believe sexual assault is as grave a
problem at college campuses as many activists have made it out to
be—if the 1-in-4 statistic were anywhere close to accurate, it
would be a baffling outlier in a sea of falling rape rates.

So when I say that I was initially inclined to believe the
story, it’s not because I wanted or needed it to be true to fit my
worldview. Rather, I assumed honesty on the part of the author and
her source—not because I’m naive, but because I didn’t think
someone would lie about such an unbelievable story. This isn’t a
case of he-said / she-said; this is an extraordinary crime that
indicts a dozen people and an entire university administration.
Assuming a proper investigation—which the police are now
conducting—confirming many of the specific details should be
relatively easy. If “Jackie” is lying, there is a good chance
she will be caught (and Erdely’s career ruined). So I believed
it.

However, some of the details do strike me as perplexing on
subsequent re-reads. One issue now being raised by skeptics is the
nature of her injuries, which sound as if they would have required
immediate medical attention. (According to the story, everybody
involved was basically rolling around in broken glass for hours.)
If the frat brothers were absolute sociopaths to do this to Jackie,
her friends were almost cartoonishly evil—casually dismissing her
battered and bloodied state and urging her not to go to the
hospital.

Universities should be divorced from the rape adjudication
process, regardless of what actually happened at UVA that night.
That said, I’ll be following any and all developments in this case,
and am eager to see this particular story either confirmed as true
or exposed as a hoax.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1rNr8Oi
via IFTTT

“U.S. Drones Kill 28 ‘Unknowns’ for Every Intended Target”

Via the British
group Reprieve
comes a report
asserting that U.S. drones in Yemen and Pakistan
kill 28 “unknowns” for every intended target. What’s more,
41 names of men who seemed to have achieved the impossible:
tohave ‘died,’ in public reporting, not just once, not just twice,
but again and again. Reports indicate that each assassination
target ‘died’ on average more than three times beforetheir actual
death.”

So much for the precision of drone strikes, which promise
a future of war in which civilians and other forms of collateral
damage are spared ruin and destruction. As President Obama said in
2013, by “
narrowly targeting our action against those
who want to kill us, and not the people they hide among, we are
choosing the course of action least likely to result in the loss of
innocent life.”

Well, sort of. From the Reprieve report:

As many as 1,147 people may have been killed during
attempts to kill 41 men, accounting for a quarter of all possible
drone strike casualties in Pakistan andYemen. In Yemen, strikes
against just 17 targets accounted for almost half of all
confirmedcivilian casualties. Yet evidence suggests that at least
four of these 17 men are still alive. Similarly, in Pakistan, 221
people, including 103 children, have been killed in attemptsto kill
four men, three of whom are still alive and a fourth of whom died
from naturalcauses. One individual, Fahd al Quso, was reported
killed in both Yemen and Pakistan. In four attempts to kill al
Quso, 48 people potentially lost their lives.


Whole report, including interesting explanation of methodology in
compiling list, here.

Hat tip:
The Liberty Crier
 and Break the Matrix‘s Twitter
feed.

Earlier this year, Newsweek reported
that “Obama’s drone war shows no signs of ending.”
A snippet
:

Despite some spectacular drone hits that took out militant
leaders in places such as Yemen and Pakistan, there are growing
concerns in Washington that the net effect of the targeted-killing
program may be counterproductive. “Collateral damage” is seen as an
al Qaeda recruiting tool that undercuts the main rationale for the
drone campaign – to make Americans safer.

“It’s never a good idea to make more enemies than you get rid
of,” a former U.S. national security official said.

Back in 2012, Reason TV offered “3 Reasons U.S. Drone Policy is
Really Freaking Scary.” Watch below:

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1y3PMfW
via IFTTT