After six years as a
lightning rod for many of the most charged legal storms of the Obama
administration, US attorney general Eric Holder announced his
retirement on Thursday in an emotional White House address that divided
political opinion as much as his tenure had done.
The first African
American to run the Department of Justice was feted by the president as
the “people’s lawyer”: a champion of voter rights, same-sex marriage,
sentencing reform and civil liberties.
Quoting Robert F Kennedy,
Obama said Holder had “borne the burden” of “proving to the world that
we really mean it when we say all men are created free and equal before
I say: "the “people’s lawyer”"?! And "all
men are created free and equal before the law"?!?! That is just purebullshit -
as indeed brought
out by the ACLU, that also is quoted:
tenure, DoJ approved the drone killing of an American far away from any
battlefield, approved the NSA’s mass surveillance programs, failed to
prosecute any of the Bush administration torturers, and presided over
more leak prosecutions than all previous Justice Departments combined,”
American Civil Liberties Union in a statement.
That is: The US attorney
general did nothing against the perpetrators of the biggest
fraud in history; he did nothing against the torturers; and he approved
spying on everyone by the NSA, all of which are grossly
This was not a "people's lawyer": He was the lawyer of the 1%.
more on Holder:
General Eric Holder Resigns
item is an article by Lambert Strether on Naked Capitalism:
All the explainers on
Holder should include, and better
lead, with a phrase like this: “Eric Holder, who prosecuted zero (0)
executives for accounting
control fraud in the aftermath of the Great Financial Crash, has
resigned, although, disgracefully, not in disgrace.”
NPR broke the story;
their reporting reads like it was
extracted from a bullet list of winger culture war talking points [NPR].
The majors are following
NPR’s lead. [WaPo] maintains radio silence on
Holder and criminal finance, too; they don’t even try positive spin;
there’s just nothing. The Times, in their front page teaser, calls
Holder a “top liberal” (how right they are) but maintains careful
silence, too [New York Times], and their spandy
new First Draft section is already off to the races speculating about
Holder’s successor (!) [New York Times].
At the same time, the
above quotation shows how totalitarian the American leading media have
become: They simply don't mention what they don't like
- and yes that is both odd (from the point of view of what a real press
should do) and not odd at all (from the point of view of what the
press does do, these days, albeit - still - with a few
There is also this, that shows very well what manner of man Holder is, and
also what manner of man his (former) second in command Lanny Breuer is
(Breuer has left the government meanwhile:
Bonus parody classic:
Lanny Breuer gives an insider’s view
of Holder’s Justice Department. I mean, Holder gave him a job there,
That’s what it’s like at
Justice. That’s exactly what it’s
Here you have what Lanny Breuer said in the clip, with only the journalist's
questions deleted, and the link to Bill Black added, for I do want to
preserve his words in writing:
"Look, if I
contact people who have first-hand knowledge of fraud, I am going to have to follow up on it. We have
found that with enough security we can keep whistleblowers from getting
in the front door."
"Martin, look at my suit. I
am an attorney. I have to think about my future. If I prosecute the
most powerful people in the world, what will be left of my career?
Nothing. Nada. So think before you ask these questions."
"I think about a lot of
things, including justice. Justice is one of the many things I have to
consider. Another thing I have to consider is my career. I am a well-respected attorney and I have a
stellar career ahead of me if I play my cards right and I use the
revolving door in Washington properly. If I go after bankers, I am going to end up like Bill Black,
marginalized, an assistant professor of some small university
somewhere. That is just not satisfactory given how many asses I have
kissed and how many Americans I have screwed out of justice."
That is the
manner of man that got the nearly highest government job there is: He
sacrifices everything, including his honor and the doing of justice,
for his career, also full well knowing that his career is in
fact based on ass licking and screwing others out of justice, rather
than being honorable and trying to do justice.
Anyway, this gross and dishonest incompetence also shows why I like Bill Black and have quoted him repeatedly.
Bug Could Undermine Millions of Websites
item is an article by Alexander Reed Kelly on Truthdig:
discovered a security flaw “bigger than Heartbleed,” the bug that
affected nearly every computer user earlier this year, in one of the
most fundamental points of contact between users on the Internet.
The Independent reports:
The ‘Bash bug’, also
known as Shellshock, is located in the command-line shell used in many
Linux and Unix operating systems, leaving websites and devices
power[ed] by these operating systems open to attack.
Shellshock is a pervasive flaw that security researchers say will take
years to fix properly. The responsibility to do so however rests with
webmasters and systems administrators – rather than average users.
Security firm Rapid7
has rated the bug as 10 out of 10 for its severity, but “low” for
complexity - with hackers able to exploit it using just three lines of
Heartbleed, Shellshock will not require users to rush from site to site
changing their passwords but it does give hackers another method of
attack that they could potentially use to take over computers or mobile
The bug is estimated to have
been around for at least a decade.
Note this does not just effect
Linux users, of which I am one: Parts of Bash are used on the internet
by other operating systems. (Also, I can tell you that I have this
morning installed the repair that Ubuntu offered on my computer.)
4.Who Are The Real Owners? The
item is an article by Don Quijones on Raging Bull Shit:
This starts as
follows (and is quite interesting):
This is a question I’ve
been asking myself for many a moon. After all, it’s ownership — and
ownership alone — that grants control over vital resources.
We already know that the
real owners of the world are the banks. They have the biggest
buildings, control key strategic markets, can create money out of
nothing and have our political representatives by the balls. But who
owns the banks? Just as importantly, where are they?
Don’t expect to ever find
the answers to those questions in the Western mainstream media, for the
questions are quite simply never asked. Which is why I looked
elsewhere. Eventually what I found was an article that
offered some rather intriguing (though perhaps at times slightly
That article appeared in
the Russian newspaper and one-time propaganda arm of the Soviet
Union, Pravda (in other words, read at your own discretion).
Actually, it is not
ownership alone that grants control: Being a bank manager who does not
own the bank is sufficient for committing control fraud
(<- Wikipedia), and indeed with control frauds, that may give many
millions to those who commit them, it helps not to own the
But this is a minor
point, as are the remarks that (1) the Pravda is not communist anymore
(though I agree it is probably partial to Putin) and (2) in any case,
if the Western media are silent on important questions, as most of them
presently are, one has to try to find one's answers elsewhere.
Well, here is what
people have heard of the Bilderberg Group, Illuminati or the Trilateral
Commission. But what are the names of the families who run the world
and have control of states and international organizations like the UN,
NATO or the IMF?
try to answer this question, we can start with the easiest: inventory,
the world’s largest banks, and see who the shareholders are and who
make the decisions.
world’s largest companies are now: Bank of America, JP Morgan,
Citigroup, Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley.
us now review who their shareholders are.
State Street Corporation, Vanguard Group, BlackRock, FMR (Fidelity),
Paulson, JP Morgan, T. Rowe, Capital World Investors, AXA, Bank of NY,
Street Corp., Vanguard Group, FMR, BlackRock, T. Rowe, AXA, Capital
World Investor, Capital Research Global Investor, Northern Trust Corp.
and Bank of Mellon.
State Street Corporation, Vanguard Group, BlackRock, Paulson, FMR,
Capital World Investor, JP Morgan, Northern Trust Corporation, Fairhome
Capital Mgmt and Bank of NY Mellon.
Berkshire Hathaway, FMR, State Street, Vanguard Group, Capital World
Investors, BlackRock, Wellington Mgmt, AXA, T. Rowe and Davis Selected
can see that now there appears to be a nucleus present in all the
banks: State Street Corporation, Vanguard Group, BlackRock and FMR
(Fidelity). To avoid repeating them, we will now call them the “big
big four,” Wellington, Capital World Investors, AXA, Massachusetts
Financial Service and T. Rowe.
“The big four,” Mitsubishi UFJ, Franklin Resources, AXA, T. Rowe, Bank
of NY Mellon e Jennison Associates. Rowe, Bank of NY Mellon and
can just about always verify the names of major shareholders. To go
further, we can now try to find out the shareholders of these companies
and shareholders of major banks worldwide.
of NY Mellon:
Davis Selected, Massachusetts Financial Services, Capital Research
Global Investor, Dodge, Cox, Southeatern Asset Mgmt. and … “The big
Street Corporation (one of the “big four”):
Massachusetts Financial Services, Capital Research Global Investor,
Barrow Hanley, GE, Putnam Investment and … The “big four” (shareholders
(another of the “big four”):
PNC Bank, Barclays and CIC.
is behind the PNC? FMR (Fidelity), BlackRock, State Street, etc.
And behind Barclays? BlackRock
we could go on for hours, passing by tax havens in the Cayman Islands,
Monaco or the legal domicile of Shell companies in Liechtenstein. A
network where companies are always the same, but never a name of a
short: the eight largest U.S. financial companies (JP Morgan, Wells
Fargo, Bank of America, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, U.S. Bancorp, Bank of
New York Mellon and Morgan Stanley) are 100% controlled by ten
shareholders and we have four companies always present in all
decisions: BlackRock, State Street, Vanguard and Fidelity…
I say. There also is
a link to Pravda: here - and from that link I quote this (which is the
The same "big four" control the vast majority of European
companies counted on the stock exchange.
In addition, all these people run the large financial
institutions, such as the IMF, the European Central Bank or the World
Bank, and were "trained" and remain "employees" of the "big four" that
The names of the families that control the "big four", never
Again: I say. Is it
true? I don't know, but it looks plausible. And I like it, among other
things because the first job I had was as a documentalist (that's what
they called it) in a bank, where my main function was to read the
yearly reports that banks must provide, and namely to find out who owned
them, which in my time were mainly firms in Liechtenstein or Luxemburg,
and which quite often was not obvious, and somewhere more or
less hidden and in small print in those yearly reports (that are
5.Cameron’s remark about ‘effing Tories’ hints at what he
next item is an article by David Hare on The Guardian:
That same question has been
both raised and resoundingly answered by David Cameron’s reference, in
the heat of the Scottish campaign, to his own unhappy membership of the
“effing Tories”. It is a coining which looks like having as
long and as devastating a currency as “There is no such thing as
society” or “Crisis? What crisis?”
Here is one part of
his answer (no, he doesn't really believe what he is saying, for what
he really believes is this):
The progress of the
Scottish referendum dramatised what most of us already knew. The
political class of SW1, its nose still stuck in the un-British
ramblings of Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman, has lost all touch with the needs and
interests of the people it affects to serve.
And here is another
part (he is the public relations leader of his rich class, who bullshits the
public, with the aim of making the massive gains of the few rich not
In opinion polls, even a
conservative English public regularly opposes the backdoor
privatisation of the health service and approves the renationalisation
of the energy companies and of the railways. Yet where, even in the
Labour party, do we find a politician with the nerve to stand up and
advance views which, among the electorate, are accepted parts of common
wisdom? Cameron is a PR man to his marrow. His professional gift
has always been for distraction. Less than two weeks ago, on cue, he
was abject and self-pitying at the imminence of a referendum defeat.
Now in victory, he has switched to sneering and devious.
The reason Labour does not
raise the points most English do want is that Labour has been
turned into a Tory lite party by Blair, like the U.S. Democrats have
been turned into a Republican lite party by Clinton.
6. Maldives will censor all books to protect
next and last item is an article by Alison Flood on The Guardian:
Poetry and literature
will have to be approved by the Maldivian government before they are
published in the country, according to new regulations which have been
described as a “disaster for freedom of expression” by free speech
Published earlier this
month, the regulations are intended to “standardise all literature …
publicised and published in the Maldives in accordance with laws and
regulations of the Maldives and its societal etiquette”, and to “reduce
adverse effects on society that could be caused by published
literature”, according to an unofficial translation by lawyer Mushfique
Mohamed shown to the Guardian.
The rules insist that
those wishing to publish books in the Maldives must submit a finished
copy of their work, along with a form and a MVR50 revenue stamp, to the
national bureau of classification for approval, or face fines. This
includes poetry, which is defined by the regulations as “words and
phrases structured into verses that fit a particular form, expressing
thoughts and ideas that are heartfelt”. One strand of publication is
exempted from the requirements: “…any writing published to circulate
information among its members/employees by a political party, civil
society group, company, or specific governmental body”.
I checked Maldives on the
Wikipedia, and found that this is indeed the country, consisting of
islands, that may be the first to disappear as the sea rises (highest
point: 2.4 meters above current sea level), and that it has a size of 298 km² and a population of 393,500 persons.
So the threat is not
a major threat, except if you live in the Maldives. But it is reported
here because it is censorship, and I am much against censorship.
It is more
that law should govern than any one of the
citizens: upon the same principle, if it is advantageous to place the
supreme power in some particular persons, they should be appointed to
be only guardians, and the servants of the laws.
(And I note the whole file
from is quite pertinent.)
(that I prefer
to call M.E.: The "/CFS" is added to facilitate search machines) which
is a disease I have since 1.1.1979: