another site
Ira Stoll gazes into his crystal ball and offers
multiple-choice predictions about the next Senate, the fate of
several dictators, President Obama’s next push, and more.
from Hit & Run http://reason.com/blog/2013/12/16/ira-stolls-office-pool-2014
via IFTTT
While stocks clung to overnight ramp gains, tensions were clear under the surface. Managers sought protection as spot VIX trended higher (closing over 16%); JPY crosses were not buying into (or supporting) the equity bounce (off the S&P's 50DMA), credit markets remained unimpressed, Treasuries closed practically unchanged (30Y was worst +2bps), gold and silver were bid, and another Hindenburg was spotted. The previous two "clusters" of Hindenburg Omens produced meaningful corrections in the US equity market (albeit dips that were rapidly bought). While ominous in its wording, the features that cause an Omen are all about market confusion with highs, lows, advancers, decliners, and momentum all signaling opposing (and mixed) views. With this week's FOMC meeting likely to resolve in significant volatility one way or the other, it is perhaps not surprising that the 3rd H.O. has just been spotted.
S&P futures tested perfectly to their 50DMA overnight (making the biggest 4-day high to low drop in 5 months) before bouncing back handsomely…
The omens are clustering…
JPY carry was not buying it…
And VIX was bid – suggesting hedges were in demand…
Gold and silver were well bid after POMO ended…
Charts: Bloomberg
     |
via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/270JRXP3B0I/story01.htm Tyler Durden
While stocks clung to overnight ramp gains, tensions were clear under the surface. Managers sought protection as spot VIX trended higher (closing over 16%); JPY crosses were not buying into (or supporting) the equity bounce (off the S&P's 50DMA), credit markets remained unimpressed, Treasuries closed practically unchanged (30Y was worst +2bps), gold and silver were bid, and another Hindenburg was spotted. The previous two "clusters" of Hindenburg Omens produced meaningful corrections in the US equity market (albeit dips that were rapidly bought). While ominous in its wording, the features that cause an Omen are all about market confusion with highs, lows, advancers, decliners, and momentum all signaling opposing (and mixed) views. With this week's FOMC meeting likely to resolve in significant volatility one way or the other, it is perhaps not surprising that the 3rd H.O. has just been spotted.
S&P futures tested perfectly to their 50DMA overnight (making the biggest 4-day high to low drop in 5 months) before bouncing back handsomely…
The omens are clustering…
JPY carry was not buying it…
And VIX was bid – suggesting hedges were in demand…
Gold and silver were well bid after POMO ended…
Charts: Bloomberg
| |
via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/270JRXP3B0I/story01.htm Tyler Durden
Several years ago I was talking
to an epidemiologist who is skeptical of the idea that smokers pose
a mortal threat to people in their vicinity. Although he supported
workplace smoking bans, he was frustrated by the willingness of so
many anti-tobacco activists and public health officials to overlook
or minimize the weakness of the scientific case that secondhand
smoke causes fatal illnesses such as lung cancer and heart disease.
He wondered when it would be possible to have a calm, rational
discussion of the issue, one in which skeptics would not be
automatically dismissed as tools of the tobacco industry. I
suggested that such a conversation might take place once smoking
bans became ubiquitous, at which point the political stakes would
be lower. Judging from a
recent article in the Journal of the National Cancer
Institute, headlined “No Clear Link Between Passive Smoking
and Lung Cancer,” that conversation may have begun.
The article describes a large prospective study that “confirmed
a strong association between cigarette smoking and lung cancer but
found no link between the disease and secondhand smoke.” The study
tracked more than 76,000 women, 901 of whom eventually developed
lung cancer. Although “the incidence of lung cancer was 13 times
higher in current smokers and four times higher in former smokers
than in never-smokers,” says the JNCI article, there
was no statistically significant association between reported
exposure to secondhand smoke and subsequent development of lung
cancer. “We don’t want people to conclude that passive smoking has
no effect on lung cancer,” says one of the researchers, Stanford
oncologist Heather Wakelee. “We think the message is, this analysis
doesn’t tell us what the risk is, or even if there is a risk.”
While hardly the last word on the subject, the study has
advantages over most of the research commonly cited as evidence
that secondhand smoke causes lung cancer. “To our knowledge,” the
authors say, “this is the first study to examine both active and
passive smoking in relation to lung cancer incidence in a complete
prospective cohort of US women.” The prospective design avoids a
weaknes of studies that start with lung cancer cases and “match”
them to controls. “Many studies that showed the strongest links
between secondhand smoke and lung cancer were case–control studies,
which can suffer from recall bias,” notes the JNCI
article, since “people who develop a disease that might be related
to passive smoking are more likely to recall being exposed to
passive smoking.”
Even more revealing than the study’s findings are the comments
from experts quoted in the article (emphasis added):
Jyoti Patel, MD, of Northwestern University School of Medicine
said the findings were not new….“Passive smoking has many downstream health effects—asthma,
upper respiratory infections, other pulmonary diseases,
cardiovascular disease—but only borderline increased risk of lung
cancer,” said Patel. “The strongest reason to avoid passive
cigarette smoke is to change societal behavior: to not live in a
society where smoking is a norm.“
In other words, although the U.S. Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention will
tell you that “secondhand smoke causes an estimated 3,400 lung
cancer deaths among U.S. nonsmokers each year,” scientists have
long understood that the actual number might be closer to zero. The
basic problem is that the doses of carcinogens absorbed by
nonsmokers are much lower than the doses absorbed by smokers, so
any lung cancer risk would be correspondingly small and therefore
hard to detect using the blunt tools of epidemiology. The
associations found in studies of secondhand smoke and lung cancer
(which generally involve wives of smokers) are weak, meaning it may
be impossible to rule out alternative explanations. But none of
that really matters, Patel says, because the main goal of smoking
bans was “to change societal behavior” by stigmatizing smoking,
making it less convenient and less socially acceptable. Indeed,
even if you accept every allegation about the hazards of secondhand
smoke, it’s clear that the real “public health” payoff from smoking
bans, in terms of reducing tobacco-related morbidity and mortality,
comes from shrinking the number of smokers.
That is not what advocates of smoking bans said, however. Their
main rationale was always protecting bystanders, and they never had
any patience for the distinction between public and private
property, or the notion that people who choose to enter a bar or
restaurant where smoking is allowed thereby consent to any risk
posed by exposure to secondhand smoke. The warning that “secondhand
smoke kills,” with lung cancer as the paradigmatic
example, played an important role in the debate over
government-imposed smoking bans. By raising the stakes, it helped
transform a complaint into a right, so that people annoyed by
tobacco smoke now felt justified in demanding that it be eliminated
everywhere they might want to go, including other people’s
property. As another expert quoted
in JNCI article puts it, “We’ve gotten
smoking out of bars and restaurants on the basis of the fact that
you and I and other nonsmokers don’t want to die. The reality is,
we probably won’t.” Now they tell us.
from Hit & Run http://reason.com/blog/2013/12/16/is-it-safe-yet-to-have-an-honest-convers
via IFTTT
Less than a week before the
October launch of the Affordable Care Act’s health insurance
exchanges, President Obama delivered a speech in Largo, Maryland
explaining how the new health care would work, and what Americans
in different circumstances could expect.
“Even before the Affordable Care Act fully takes effect, about
85 percent of Americans already have health insurance—either
through their job, or through Medicare, or through the individual
market,”
said the president. “So if you’re one of these folks, it’s
reasonable that you might worry whether health care reform is going
to create changes that are a problem for you—especially when you’re
bombarded with all sorts of fear-mongering. So the first thing
you need to know is this: If you already have health care,
you don’t have to do anything.”
For the millions of Americans who already had health coverage in
the individual market and have since been informed that their
existing plan was being canceled in the wake of Obamacare, that is
plainly not true. Despite Obama’s assurances, their coverage was
not secure from changes brought on by the law.
Obama said these people were wrong to worry that the law would
negatively affect them. It turns out those worries were not
misplaced.
That’s worth keeping in mind when looking at polls showing that
people who lost their individual market coverage are not the only
ones worried about the effects the law will have on their current
insurance.
Survey data shows a “a striking level of unease about the law
among people who have health insurance and aren’t looking for
government help,” according to
an AP report from yesterday. The report draws from information
in a newly released Associated Press-GfK poll which finds that
almost half of individuals with private coverage say their coverage
will be changing next year, and generally those changes will not be
for the better: rising costs, high deductibles, and the like. For
most people, the culprit is clear: Some 77 percent say Obamacare is
to blame.
The reality is more complicated. In some cases, Obamacare may be
partially responsible for the insurance changes these Americans are
seeing. In many instances, however, there’s no obvious, direct link
between the health law and shifts in coverage. Even in cases where
it’s possible to establish some connection, it’s often not the
entire story.
But for these Americans, that doesn’t really matter. What
matters is that President Obama and his fellow Democrats promised a
sweeping overhaul that would improve the nation’s health care
system for everyone.
It’s worth taking a few minutes to go back and read President
Obama’s big health care
speech from September of 2009. He argued that reform was
necessary not only to help the uninsured, but to help middle class
Americans facing rising costs and coverage insecurities. The law,
he said, would “provide more security and stability to those who
have health insurance” and would slow the growth of health costs
for families and businesses as well as for the government.
Obamacare, in other words, was supposed to fix what most Americans
felt was wrong with the health care system—not simply expand
coverage to the uninsured.
That speech, and others like it, contributed to a sense that
Obama, along with the rest of the Democratic party, was not merely
attempting to reform a small segment of the health insurance
market, but was instead taking responsibility for fixing the entire
health care system. When Obamacare passed the next year, that’s
essentially what the president and his party did.
So in an important political sense, President Obama, and by
extension Democrats in Congress, own the American health care
system now. And they own all of it. So when any part of it breaks
or goes wrong, Obama, the Democratic party, and the health law they
passed will be blamed, regardless of whether or not the law is
directly responsible.
The instinct for the White House and its defenders will be to
protest that most of these changes in employer coverage are a
longstanding part of the existing market, that they happened before
Obamacare, and that the law isn’t the cause of every health
insurance woe in the nation. Obamacare, they’ll say, is responsible
for the part of the system that’s getting better, not the part
that’s staying bad.
But Democrats will have a hard time selling this argument to a
skeptical public. Partly because it sounds awfully self-serving,
taking all the credit and none of the blame. Partly because the
impression has already sunk in that
Congress doesn’t understand the real-world effects the health
care law is having. But mostly, however, because President Obama
has already lied about who the health law will affect, and how. For
lots of Americans, it won’t be easy to trust the president or his
party on the subject again.
from Hit & Run http://reason.com/blog/2013/12/16/the-legacy-of-obamas-health-care-lies
via IFTTT
With no clear news driver, Bitcoin prices have dropped over 20% from their overnight highs – trading at around $715 now. Perhaps most notable is the relationship between Bitcoin and the precious metals today with the early Bitcoin weakness corresponding almost perfectly to gold and silver strength (and again mid-morning in the US).
| |
via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/8cXyDVx7OpQ/story01.htm Tyler Durden
UPDATE: Herbalife is halted for the following news:
Which opens the doors for the substantial buyback they have planned. We suspect one can hear a pin drop in Pershing Square's headquarters.
Via Reuters,
Today, the Company filed an amended 10-K/A for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012, following the completed re-audit of the Company's 2010, 2011 and 2012 financial statements. Additionally, the Company today filed amended 10-Q/As for each of these quarters of 2013 following the completion of SAS 100 reviews of those periods by PwC. With these amended filings, the Company is now up to date with its SEC periodic filings.
There were no material changes to the Company's audited 2010, 2011 or 2012 financial statements included in the amended 10-K/A or to the Company's first, second or third quarter 2013 financial statements included in the amended 10-Q/As as compared with the Company's previously filed financial statements for and as of each of such periods(1).
As previously announced, the change in the Company's independent auditors to PwC, and the corresponding need to perform re-audits, was the result of the resignation of Herbalife's former independent auditor, KPMG LLP ("KPMG") due to the impairment of KPMG's independence resulting from its now former partner's unlawful activities. As previously publicly stated by KPMG, their resignation was not related to Herbalife's financial statements, its accounting practices, the integrity of Herbalife's management, or any other reason.
Herbalife has re-opened up 9% over $75 on very heavy volume – It seems Ackman's "end of the earth" bet may take a little longer…
This week marks the one-year anniversary of Bill Ackman’s 342-page slide presentation at the Ira Sohn Conference in NYC. At that time he publicly disclosed his $1 billion short bet against Herbalife (HLF), accusing the company of being a pyramid scheme and claiming its stock was destined to fall to zero once regulators stepped in. As everyone knows, HLF shares plummeted, losing nearly half their value in the three days after the presentation. The market’s initial response did not last, and HLF is up about 160% since its 12/21/12 low of $26.06 (vs S&P 500 +24%). Pershing Square’s public campaign has taken many forms, as Barclays outlines below…
Via Barclays,
…including additional 300+ page conference presentations, the sending of a long letter to HLF’s new auditor PWC, and repeated lobbying efforts directed towards U.S. regulators, elected officials and community activists. Subsequent presentations by Ackman have had little impact on the stock price, and no formal regulatory action (or indication of such) has taken place.
More recently, press reports suggest that HLF decided to get more aggressive in late Sept. after shares topped $70, hiring a well-connected strategic advisor (which specializes in shareholder activism) to approach Pershing Square investors and highlight the risks associated with the fund’s outsized exposure to the HFL short, a position which has trended quite negatively since inflecting in April.
Numerous major investors, such as Carl Icahn, Dan Loeb, George Soros, Kyle Bass and Stan Druckenmiller, have publically disagreed with Ackman and invested heavily in HLF. Bill Stiritz, a well-regarded private investor in consumer businesses, has also announced a substantial investment. We summarize their stakes below.
We also note that we have not identified further venues for Mr. Ackman to speak and that the next Ira Sohn Conference in NYC will not be held until May 2014.
| |
via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/8FWXPJj8JVs/story01.htm Tyler Durden
UPDATE: Herbalife is halted for the following news:
Which opens the doors for the substantial buyback they have planned. We suspect one can hear a pin drop in Pershing Square's headquarters.
Via Reuters,
Today, the Company filed an amended 10-K/A for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012, following the completed re-audit of the Company's 2010, 2011 and 2012 financial statements. Additionally, the Company today filed amended 10-Q/As for each of these quarters of 2013 following the completion of SAS 100 reviews of those periods by PwC. With these amended filings, the Company is now up to date with its SEC periodic filings.
There were no material changes to the Company's audited 2010, 2011 or 2012 financial statements included in the amended 10-K/A or to the Company's first, second or third quarter 2013 financial statements included in the amended 10-Q/As as compared with the Company's previously filed financial statements for and as of each of such periods(1).
As previously announced, the change in the Company's independent auditors to PwC, and the corresponding need to perform re-audits, was the result of the resignation of Herbalife's former independent auditor, KPMG LLP ("KPMG") due to the impairment of KPMG's independence resulting from its now former partner's unlawful activities. As previously publicly stated by KPMG, their resignation was not related to Herbalife's financial statements, its accounting practices, the integrity of Herbalife's management, or any other reason.
Herbalife has re-opened up 9% over $75 on very heavy volume – It seems Ackman's "end of the earth" bet may take a little longer…
This week marks the one-year anniversary of Bill Ackman’s 342-page slide presentation at the Ira Sohn Conference in NYC. At that time he publicly disclosed his $1 billion short bet against Herbalife (HLF), accusing the company of being a pyramid scheme and claiming its stock was destined to fall to zero once regulators stepped in. As everyone knows, HLF shares plummeted, losing nearly half their value in the three days after the presentation. The market’s initial response did not last, and HLF is up about 160% since its 12/21/12 low of $26.06 (vs S&P 500 +24%). Pershing Square’s public campaign has taken many forms, as Barclays outlines below…
Via Barclays,
…including additional 300+ page conference presentations, the sending of a long letter to HLF’s new auditor PWC, and repeated lobbying efforts directed towards U.S. regulators, elected officials and community activists. Subsequent presentations by Ackman have had little impact on the stock price, and no formal regulatory action (or indication of such) has taken place.
More recently, press reports suggest that HLF decided to get more aggressive in late Sept. after shares topped $70, hiring a well-connected strategic advisor (which specializes in shareholder activism) to approach Pershing Square investors and highlight the risks associated with the fund’s outsized exposure to the HFL short, a position which has trended quite negatively since inflecting in April.
Numerous major investors, such as Carl Icahn, Dan Loeb, George Soros, Kyle Bass and Stan Druckenmiller, have publically disagreed with Ackman and invested heavily in HLF. Bill Stiritz, a well-regarded private investor in consumer businesses, has also announced a substantial investment. We summarize their stakes below.
We also note that we have not identified further venues for Mr. Ackman to speak and that the next Ira Sohn Conference in NYC will not be held until May 2014.
| |
via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/8FWXPJj8JVs/story01.htm Tyler Durden
Submitted by James E. Miller of the Ludwig von Mises Institute of Canada,
The perennial question of modern economics is simple: how are market downturns best combated? It’s a good question, if you are trying to deduce truth in matters. It also makes for good fodder to appease career-granting benefactors, i.e. the government. It was not always this way however. Economists, if true to their craft, do not make for barrels of optimism. They are supposed to be a splash of cold water on wishful thinkers.
The unholy alliance between the state and the economic profession would never last if dismal science practitioners were gadflies who swatted down every harebrained scheme that festered in the dreams of central planners. This was one of the problems encountered by classical economists. Being market-friendly, it was tough appealing to monarchs or government leaders who wanted a quick fix to economic doldrums. No head of the public wants to tell his citizens, “Sorry, I cannot help you today. You must help yourself.”
Eventually John Maynard Keynes would come along and give the economic vocation the crony justification it needed to become respectable in the eyes of the state. His The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money was a how-to guide for pols looking to spend other people’s money. At last they had an excuse: to boost unemployment by paying laid-off workers to dig holes aimlessly.
Our friend Paul Krugman is Keynes’s most vocal disciple, and never tires of reinvoking his intellectual master’s teachings of mo’ money, mo’ debt, and no mo’ problems. In a recent interview with the forever exhausted-looking Joe Weisenthal of Business Insider, Kruggy is perplexed by the Federal Reserve’s inability to inflate out of the ongoing economic slowdown. He snakes out a position between naysayer Larry Summers, who thinks the economy can only grow with artificial bubbles, and someone who is more optimistic about the future. On necessary bubbles, Krugman tells us:
“If we look at the evidence…and it kind of looks like…we need bubbles to grow. We’ve had one bubble after another. Long-term rise in debt, with no inflation…the economy is looking like it’s just barely managing to keep its above water with all those bubbles so…that’s the observation.”
Krugman blames the news status quo on slowing technological innovation and lower population growth. As for the United States, the Nobel Laureate is convinced the trade deficit is largely at fault. Lastly, he concedes that no one really knows why the economy must be goosed by a shot of exuberance.
That’s all true, if you forget the fact that some folks do actually understand why Krugman and his like-minded colleagues are scratching their heads over bubbles.
That the past few decades have witnessed financial bubble after financial bubble is not proof positive of a great need for them. Krugman’s assumption is that had the Fed not interfered in the marketplace to boost particular assets, the whole economy would have imploded. It’s a false assumption, but totally in line with Keynesian theory.
From the stagflation in the late 1970s to the stock market crash of 1987, forward to the failure of Long Term Capital Management in 1998, the popping of the dot-com bubble years later, and finally culminating in the housing crisis of 2007-2008, Krugman and Summers appear to have a point. All of these cases of faux prosperity were caused by the Fed’s meddling with the money supply, pushing interest rates down below their natural level. The headache after each instance was cured with the hair of the dog – meaning more inflation, more stimulus, and more central bank liquidity. The roller coaster ride of money printing has left the economy distorted and unable to find true balance again.
For the life of him, Krugman can’t seem to find any evidence of market stability without the animal spirits being thrown a liquidity bone. And yet, his go-to example of angelic prosperity – the 1950s – has all the markings of a relatively calm period of prosperity absent of central bank interference. As former Office of Management and Budget Director David Stockman points out, the heads of the Federal Reserve following World War II were less-than-enthusiastic about ginning up growth via the printing press. This was when William McChesney Martin was at the helm and President Eisenhower was reluctant to keep up the hog wild spending of his predecessor. In an interview with the American Mises Institute, Stockman comments:
Although central banking does cause moral hazards and lends itself to abuses, there have been periods in which monetary and fiscal discipline have been employed. Fed Chairman William McChesney Martin, for example, really did take the punch bowl away when the party got started because he took monetary discipline seriously. Fiscal discipline under Eisenhower and the gold standard behind Bretton Woods helped put off the day of reckoning for quite a long time.
After wartime price controls were relaxed in the late 1940s, capitalists and private investors were freed of government burden and began investing in the country yet again. Washington’s budget was cut significantly, including hundreds of billions removed from the Pentagon’s death machine expenditures. Stockman brings attention to the data: “Between 1954 and 1963, real GDP growth averaged 3.4 percent while annual CPI inflation remained subdued at 1.4 percent.”
So yes, this was the non-bubble prosperity Krugman is looking for. As Justin Raimondo writes, “[E]ight years of relative fiscal sanity under the Eisenhower presidency ushered in the greatest economic expansion in modern times.” What’s funny is that Krugman is one of the biggest cheerleaders of post-war prosperity and continually advocates going back to the Ike-era. But he wrongly attributes the golden times to pro-union labor policies and high rates of taxation.
Regardless, the takeaway from the decade of General Motors, Elvis, decent manners, and the Red threat is bubbles are not necessary for economic growth. By trying to stimulate demand, the Fed only mucks up economic calculation and capital accumulation.
Krugman’s solutions for the bubble-addicted economy are no better than his own understanding of economic theory. Widespread unemployment can be cured, in his opinion, by weaker purchasing power, a stronger welfare state, and continual government spending. In other words, by top-down central planning that attempts to tweak society “just so.” All these efforts are nothing but a shell game that take money from some and give it to another. Basically, Krugman is King
Solomon with a sword, cutting everyone into parts he sees most fit.
Saying we need continuous financial bubbles to keep full employment is such a flawed conception of economics, it belongs on an island of misfit philosophies. Krugman’s incessant promotion of statism is doing more harm to the economy than good. As an opinion-molder, he is perpetuating the economic malaise of the last few years. More bubbles won’t help the recovery, just harm it more. In the middle of a grease fire, Krugman calls for more pig fat. And the rest of us are the ones left burnt.
| |
via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/TLi56PTVgyE/story01.htm Tyler Durden
Painting by Anthony Freda: www.AnthonyFreda.com
It is well-documented that the claim that nuclear power is a low-carbon source of energy is mere propaganda.
The archaic nuclear reactor design used at Fukushima and in most reactors in the United States and throughout the world was chosen solely because it helps to make nuclear bombs.
Our health has been sacrificed – and the dangers of radiation covered up – for 68 years … for the sake of nuclear weapons.
The mainstream media – and gatekeeper “alternative” media – are pro-war. They may occasionally criticize one tiny aspect of the war-fighting machinery, but never the overall war effort.
As such, it should not be entirely surprising that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission lists CNN and Huffington Post as “external stakeholders” in the NRC.
As EneNews reports:
Independent Evaluation of NRC’s Use and Security of Social Media, Office of the Inspector General, Jan. 2013:
Social Media Evaluation Interview List [Appendix VI, pg. 82]
- Internal Stakeholders (NRC staff) […]
- External Stakeholders (Press) Energy Editor, AOL, Huffington Post — Nuclear Writer, Huffington Post — Producer, CNN News
- External Stakeholders (Digital Influencers) Blogger, Atomic Power Review — Blogger, Idaho Samizdat: Nuke Notes — Blogger, Yes Vermont Yankee
- External Stakeholders (Nuclear Industry) […] Senior Manager for Social — Media, Nuclear Energy Institute […]
- External Stakeholders (US Government and US Senate Staff) US-CERT Representative, United States Computer Emergency Readiness Team — Policy Director, US Senate ….
Excerpts from the evaluation:
- As part of the press, I have to be able to quickly communicate a lot of technical information into something our readers will grasp. But it helps if NRC had strong info graphics or a section that provided a breakdown of technical info so I can understand the translation from its source. — Huffington Post
- NRC‘s materials are very basic and not very viral. Other agencies do a better job of including information graphics, photos, even clickable links. There‘s no extra. It‘s not influential. — Managing Editor, Huffington Post
- One producer from Cable News Network (CNN) suggested that what was currently offered on Flickr does not compel him to return and urged NRC to provide more content that did not involve people in a conference room or of the chairperson speaking from a podium.
See also: Paper: CNN’s nuclear propaganda film “is dishonest to its core” — It’s “actually an infomercial”
Remember, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is a pro-industry group which is largely funded by the nuclear companies. (This is true of all nuclear agencies).
The nuclear industry in Japan – and elsewhere – spends more on pr than on safety measures. Indeed, nuclear power is a form of crony capitalism, where taxpayers fund a market which would not even exist in a free market.
The presstitute media once again shills for the powers-that-be.
Bonus:
| |
via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/Uh8m4RMjo6g/story01.htm George Washington