Eh. Maybe they think they can put the genie (the internet) back in the bottle. US business interests sure seem determined to help the Chinese government with that.

On the reko diq thing part the mine there is being dug by a company that's partly owned by Barrick Gold. George Bush senior sits (or sat) on their board. This video has some rather interesting info on Barrick.

http://vodpod.com/watch/1227199-greg-palast-on-barrick-gold-mines-on-vimeo

Possibly the Water Boarding was an example of how we are not gonna give a fuck about how evolution is processed on Earth? Perhaps the American people produce a much more aesthetically pleasing version of Soylent Green. America progressed further with humane treatment discerning the permeability of damaged people. Obama hopefully will empower healthy future generations who can heal his own unavoidable failings. Obama sounds suspiciously anti-war. ?

———–

google = minerals mining afghanistan

google = "reko diq"

On the police state, corporate alliance,

google = sergey aleynikov

This link re Sergey/Goldman

http://seekingalpha.com/article/147260-goldman-sachs-thoughts-on-the-developing-stolen-trade-secrets-scandal

The man rocked the wrong boat. A heavy foot came down quickly. 3/4 million bail. And the prosecutor said bad Jedi knights might misuse the force.

He was also heavily involved in the whole former Yugoslavia thing, too. And, say, don't all those Turkish traffickers run most of their product through the Balkans?

And now Holbrooke's in Afghanistan . . . Well, I guess they needed someone with LOTS of experience.

Could you at least restrain your emotional outrage long enough to form coherent sentences so the rest of us can understand what the f**k your saying?" – Anonymous

I am not offering emotions. This is the "Beauty and the Beast" argument from the Cold War. A substance that can reduce a person's self appraisal motivates the individual negatively. You remember this argument from the 80's. If you do not remember this argument you have work to do.

What this allowed was the biannual orgy of political advertising known as campaign spending. As billions of dollars flowed into media companies' coffers, it allowed the media companies to buy up smaller competition and made them attractive takeover plums to the increasing vertical integration of companies like Disney, Turner, Fox and others. This also made the cost of actually running for office prohibitive to any but those either independantly wealthy or beholden to big campaign donors.

So how many of these companies are truly going to act as independant, questioning voices and truly bite the hands that feed them? How many stories are killed or simply not covered because the concommitant loss of those political ad dollars is something they don't want to face?

The one bright spot in all this has truly been the rise of the Internet and independant media voices in the blogosphere. This is another reason the blanket telecomm surveillance program was instituted and why telecomms and media companies are fighting so hard against Net Neutrality. We are a threat to their "tailoring" of the message and why developments in Iran, China and here are so important. If the blogosphere was having no impact, why would media companies and their voices in the Politerati be trying so hard to discredit them?

Of course, these are just my opinions and take on the situation.

Could you at least restrain your emotional outrage long enough to form coherent sentences so the rest of us can understand what the f**k your saying?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets/sap_111/saphr2701r_20090708.pdf

Everyone need to understand what happened in Germany, on March 23, 1933, the day that Germany handed over their democracy by passing the enabling Act.

There are no longer EFFECTIVE Checks and Balances among the branchs of US government. The MSM is out to lunch.

The Mar 23, 1933 Enabling Act, passed with help of Catholic Center Party, effectively hands the legislative powers of the Reichstag over to the Chancellor. Act permits Chancellor and cabinet to issue laws without a vote of Parliament and to deviate from the Constitution.

REREAD THE POST ABOVE THIS ONE!!

wikipedia has the history:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act_of_1933

AGAIN, reread Mete's post directly above this one.

Put on your seat bills. We really need to spread the word.

"Increased Presidentially Appointed and Senate Confirmed (PAS) positions . . . H.R. 2701 creates five new PAS positions. Consistent with the 9/11 Commission’s recommendations, . . . [We believe] that if these provisions were to become law, critical national security positions would remain unfilled for significant periods of time . . ."

In other words having to get the congress to approve people (checks and balances between branches) would take away some of my power as president and I don't like that.

"Inspector General for the Intelligence Community (Section 406). The Administration supports the
important work undertaken by Inspectors General . . . as watchdogs for . . . accountability . . . and would like to work with the Congress on the optimal approach . . . for carrying out the important functions of [IGs] . . . Although the Administration supports . . . expansion of the protections and limitations of the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act, [We are] concerned that the bill . . . could be understood to constrain the President’s constitutional authority to review and . . . control disclosure of certain classified information. [We] are working closely with Senate and House staff to craft appropriate whistleblower enhancement protections . . . through separate legislative vehicles . . . "

Again "President's authority".

"GAO Review of Intelligence Community Matters (Section 335). Section 335 would fundamentally
shift the long-standing relationship and information flow between the IC and intelligence
committee members and staff. The Administration has committed to be forthcoming with the
committees and to provide access to the information [WE THINK] they need to conduct their oversight. The Administration would welcome the opportunity to more fully address this matter before
fundamental changes to the oversight process are legislated." i.e. we really want to water down this part of the bill till basically toothless.

"Reporting Requirements (various sections). [We object] to a number of reporting requirements . . . in the bill, such as sections 332, 345, 354, and 366, as well as purportedly in the classified annex. Section 356 would incorporate by reference all reporting requirements in the classified annex into the act, thereby making them a requirement in law. The Administration objects to the passage of such substantive secret provisions of law."

Not only is this section asking for less oversight but why do we need secret annexes to laws? Even if it has to do with reporting what does it say that they can't tell us. "Cifa has to report its surveillance of civilian protests and/or political groups in a timely manner"? Surely they can tell us who they want to report and what kinds of programs must be reported on without revealing sources and methods. But why do they even need to specify? Shouldn't all of it be reported to someone?